diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:40:51 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:40:51 -0700 |
| commit | fc8f3d36b1bbd568addd799c5f94b81463a74abb (patch) | |
| tree | 66de46a9d6602842d9f84d0309fdc8a4e28e4358 | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 12852-0.txt | 6209 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 12852-h/12852-h.htm | 6117 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 12852-h/images/00000172.gif | bin | 0 -> 12707 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12852-8.txt | 6598 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12852-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 137956 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12852-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 157836 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12852-h/12852-h.htm | 6543 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12852-h/images/00000172.gif | bin | 0 -> 12707 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12852.txt | 6598 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12852.zip | bin | 0 -> 137874 bytes |
13 files changed, 32081 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/12852-0.txt b/12852-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ffac832 --- /dev/null +++ b/12852-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,6209 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 12852 *** + +_CREATION AND ITS RECORDS_. + + +[Greek: Pistei nooumen kataertisthai tous aionas rhêmati theou eis to +mi ek fainomenon to Blepomenon gegonenai.]--HEB. xi. 3. + + +CREATION AND ITS RECORDS. + +A brief statement of Christian Belief with reference to Modern facts and +Ancient Scripture. + +BY + +B.H. BADEN-POWELL, C.I.E., F.R.S.E. + +CONTENTS + + * * * * * + +_PART I._ + +CHAPTER I. + +INTRODUCTORY + +CHAPTER II. + +THE ELEMENT OF _FAITH_ IN CREATION + +CHAPTER III. + +THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED + +CHAPTER IV. + +CREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER + +CHAPTER V. + +THE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER + +CHAPTER VI. + +THE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION +OF ORGANIC FORMS + +CHAPTER VII. + +THE DESCENT OF MAN + +CHAPTER VIII. + +FURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF +MAN + +CHAPTER IX. + +CONCLUDING REMARKS + +_PART II._ + +CHAPTER X. + +THE GENESIS NARRATIVE--ITS IMPORTANCE + +CHAPTER XI. + +SCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION + +CHAPTER XII. + +METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE--ASSUMPTIONS +OF MEANING TO CERTAIN TERMS + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +THE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY + (i.) THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE + (ii.) THE SECOND PART + +CHAPTER XIV. + +THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES + +CHAPTER XV. + +AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT + +CHAPTER XVI. + +THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE + +_APPENDIX._ + +PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN + + + + + + +CHAPTER I. + + +_INTRODUCTORY_ + +Among the recollections that are lifelong, I have one as vivid as ever +after more than twenty-five years have elapsed; it is of an evening +lecture--the first of a series--given at South Kensington to working +men. The lecturer was Professor Huxley; his subject, the Common Lobster. +All the apparatus used was a good-sized specimen of the creature itself, +a penknife, and a black-board and chalk. With such materials the +professor gave us not only an exposition, matchless in its lucidity, of +the structure of the crustacea, but such an insight into the purposes +and methods of biological study as few could in those days have +anticipated. For there were as yet no Science Primers, no International +Series; and the "new biology" came upon us like the revelation of +another world. I think that lecture gave me, what I might otherwise +never have got (and what some people never get), a profound conviction +of the reality and meaning of facts in nature. That impression I have +brought to the attempt which this little book embodies. The facts of +nature are God's revelation, of the same weight, though not the same in +kind, as His written Word. + +At the same time, the further conviction is strong in my mind, not +merely of the obvious truth that the Facts and the Writing (if both +genuine) cannot really differ, but further, that there must be, after +all, a true way of explaining the Writing, if only it is looked for +carefully--a way that will surmount not only the difficulty of the +subject, but also the impatience with which some will regard the +attempt. Like so many other questions connected with religion, the +question of reconciliation produces its double effect. People will +ridicule attempts to solve it, but all the same they will return again +and again to the task of its actual solution. + +That the latter part of the proposition is true, has recently received +illustration in the fact that a review like the _Nineteenth Century_, +which has so little space to spare, has found room in four successive +numbers[1] for articles by Gladstone, Huxley, and H. Drummond, on the +subject of "Creation and its Records." May I make one remark on this +interesting science tournament? I can understand the scientific +conclusions Professor Huxley has given us. I can also understand Mr. +Gladstone, because he values the Writing as the professor values the +Facts. But one thing I can _not_ understand. Why is Professor Huxley so +angry or so contemptuous with people who value the Bible, whole and as +it stands, and want to see its accuracy vindicated? Why are they +fanatics, Sisyphus-labourers, and what not? That they are a very large +group numerically, and hardly contemptible intellectually, is, I think, +obvious; that a further large group (who would not identify themselves +wholly with the out-and-out Bible defenders) feel a certain amount of +sympathy, is proved by the interest taken in the controversy. Yet all +"reconcilers" are ridiculed or denounced--at any rate are contemptuously +dismissed. Can it be that the professor has for the moment overlooked +one very simple fact? + + +[Footnote 1: November, December, 1885; and January, February, 1886.] + +The great bulk of those interested in the question place their whole +hope for their higher moral and spiritual life in this world and the +next on one central Person--the LORD JESUS CHRIST. If He is wrong, then +no one can be right--there is no such thing as right: that is what they +feel. It will be conceded that it is hardly "fanatical" to feel this. +But if so, surely it is not fanatical, but agreeable to the soberest +reason, further to hold that this (to them sacred) PERSON did (and His +apostles with Him) treat the Book of Genesis as a whole (and not merely +parts of it) as a genuine revelation--or, to use the popular expression, +as the _Word of_ GOD. That being so, can it be matter for surprise or +contemptuous pity, that they should be anxious to vindicate the Book, +to be satisfied that the MASTER was not wrong? That is the ultimate and +very real issue involved in the question of Genesis. + +As long as people feel _that_, they must seek the reconciliation of the +two opposing ideas. If the attempt is made in a foolish or bitter +spirit, or without a candid appreciation of the facts, then the attempt +will no doubt excite just displeasure. But need it always be so made? + +As to the first part of my proposition that attempts to reconcile +religion and science are received with a certain dislike, it is due +partly to the unwisdom with which they are sometimes made. Prof. H. +Drummond speaks of the dislike as general.[1] + +If this is so, I, as a "reconciler," can only ask for indulgence, hoping +that grace may be extended to me on the ground of having something to +say on the subject that has not yet been considered. + +Nor, as regards the impatience of the public, can I admit that there is +only fault on one side. In the first place, it will not be denied that +some writers, delighted with the vast, and apparently boundless, vision +that the discovery (in its modern form) of Evolution opened out to them, +did incautiously proceed, while surveying their new kingdom, to assert +for it bounds that stretch beyond its legitimate scope. + + +[Footnote 1: In the Introduction to his well-known book, "Natural Law in +the Spiritual World."] + +Religionists, on the other hand, imagining, however wrongly, that the +erroneous extension was part of the true scientific doctrine, attacked +the whole without discrimination. + +While such a misapprehension existed, it was inevitable that writers +anxious alike for the dignity of science and the maintenance of +religion, should step in to point out the error, and effect a +reconciliation of claims which really were never in conflict. + +It is hardly the fault of "religionists" that it was at first supposed +that one _could_ not hold the doctrine of evolution without denying a +"special" creation and a designing Providence. It was on this very +natural supposition that the first leading attack--attributed to the +Bishop of Oxford--proceeded. And the writer fell into the equally +natural mistake of taking advantage of the uncompleted and unproved +state of the theory at the time, to attack the theory itself, instead of +keeping to the safer ground, namely, that whatever might ultimately be +the conclusion of evolutionists, it was quite certain that no theory of +evolution that at all coincided with the known facts, offered any ground +for argument against the existence of an Intelligent Lawgiver and First +Cause of all; nor did it tend in the slightest to show that no such +thing as creative design and providence existed in the course of nature. + +What the discovery of evolution really did, was to necessitate a +revision of the hitherto popularly accepted and generally assumed and +unquestioned notion of what _creation_ was. And it has long appeared to +me, that while now the most thoroughgoing advocates of evolution +generally admit that their justly cherished doctrine has nothing to say +to the existence of a Creator, or to the possibility of design--which +may be accepted or denied on other grounds--the writers on the side of +Christianity have not sufficiently recognized the change which their +views ought to undergo. + +As long as this is the case, there will continue to be a certain +"conflict," not indeed between science and religion, but of the kind +which has been vividly depicted by the late Dr. Draper. + +It can scarcely have escaped the notice of the most ordinary reader +that, in the course of that interesting work, the author has very little +to say about religion--at any rate about religion in any proper sense of +the term. The conflict was between a Church which had a zeal for God +without knowledge, and the progress of scientific thought; it was also a +conflict between discovered facts, and facts which existed, not in the +Bible, but in a particular interpretation, however generally received, +of it. + +The present work is therefore addressed primarily to Christian believers +who still remain perplexed as to what they ought to believe; and its aim +is to prevent, if may be, an unreasonable alarm at, and a useless +opposition to, the conclusions of modern science; while, at the same +time, it tells them in simple language how far those conclusions really +go, and how very groundless is the fear that they will ever subvert a +true faith that, antecedent to the most wonderful chain of causation and +methodical working which science can establish, there is still a Divine +Designer--One who upholds all things "by the word of His power." + +The doctrine of evolution is still the _ignotum_ to a great many, and it +is therefore, according to the time-honoured proverb, taken _pro +magnifico_, as something terribly adverse to the faith. Nor can it be +fairly denied, as I before remarked, that some of the students of the +theory have become so enamoured of it, so carried away by the +intoxication of the gigantic speculation it opens out to the +imagination, that they have succumbed to the temptation to carry +speculation beyond what the proof warrants, and thus lend some aid to +the deplorable confusion, which would blend in one, what is legitimate +inference and what is unproved hypothesis or mere supposition. + +It only remains to say that the basis of this little book is a short +course of lectures in which I endeavoured to disarm the prejudices of an +educated but not scientifically critical audience, by simply stating how +far the theory of cosmical evolution had been really proved--proved, +that is, to the extent of that reasonable certainty which satisfies the +ordinary "prudent man" in affairs of weight and importance. I have tried +to show that evolution, apart from fanciful and speculative extensions +of it, allows, if it does not directly establish, that the operation of +nature is not a chance or uncontrolled procedure, but one that suggests +a distinct set of lines, and an orderly obedience to pre-conceived law, +intelligently and beneficently (in the end) designed. + +There are obviously two main points which the Christian reader requires +to have made clear. The first is that, the modern theory of evolution +being admitted, the constitution of matter in the universe and the +principles of development in organic life, which that theory +establishes, not only do not exclude, but positively demand, the +conception of a Divine artificer and director. The second point, which +is perhaps of still greater weight with the believer, is that where +revelation (which is his ultimate standard of appeal) has touched upon +the subject of creation, its statements are not merely a literary fancy, +an imaginary cosmogony, false in its facts though enshrining Divine +truth, but are as a whole perfectly true. + +Whatever novelty there may be, is to be found in the treatment of the +second subject. The first portion of the work is only a brief and +popular statement of facts, quite unnecessary to the scientific reader +but probably very necessary to the large body of Churchmen, who have not +studied science, but are quite able to appreciate scientific fact and +its bearings when placed before them in an untechnical form, and +divested of needless details and subordinate questions. + +But it is around the supposed declarations of Scripture on the subject +of creation that the real "conflict" has centred. Let us look the matter +quite fairly in the face. We accept the conclusion that (let us say) the +horse was developed and gradually perfected or advanced to his present +form and characteristics, by a number of stages, and that it took a very +long time to effect this result. Now, if there is anywhere a statement +in Holy Writ that (_a_) a horse was _per saltum_ called into existence +in a distinctive and complete form, by a special creative _fiat_, and +that (_b_) this happened not gradually, but in a limited and specified +moment of time, then I will at once admit that the record (assuming that +its meaning is not to be mistaken) is not provably right, if it is not +clearly wrong; and accept the consequences, momentous as they would be. +If, in the same way, the Record asserts that man, or at least man the +direct progenitor of the Semitic race,[1] was a distinct and special +creation, his bodily frame having some not completely explained +developmental connection with the animal creation, but his higher nature +being imparted as a special and unique creative endowment out of the +line of physical development altogether, then I shall accept the Record, +because the proved facts of science have nothing to say against it, +whatever Drs. Buchner, Vogt, Häckel, and others may assert to the +contrary. + + +[Footnote 1: With whose history, as leading up to the advent of the +Saviour in the line of David, the Bible is mainly concerned.] + +In the first of my two instances, the popular idea has long been that +the sacred record _does_ say something about a direct and separate +creative act; and this idea has been the origin and ground of all the +supposed conflict between science and "religion." As long as this idea +continues, it can hardly be said that a book addressed to the clearing +up of the subject is unnecessary or to be rejected _per se_. + +As to the method in which this subject will be dealt with, I shall +maintain that the Scripture does _not_ say anything about the horse, or +the whale, or the ox, or any other animal, being separately or directly +created. And the view thus taken of the Record I have not met with +before. This it is necessary to state, not because the fact would lend +any value to the interpretation--rather the contrary; but because it +justifies me in submitting what, if new, may be intrinsically important, +to the judgment of the Church; and it also protects me from the offence +of plagiarism, however unwitting. If others have thought out the same +rendering of the Genesis history, so much the better for my case; but +what is here set down occurred to me quite independently. + +A study of the real meaning of the Record, in the light of what may be +fairly regarded as proved facts, cannot be without its use to the +Christian. If it be true that a certain amount of information on the +subject of creation is contained in revelation, it must have been so +contained for a specific purpose--a purpose to be attained at some stage +or other of the history of mankind. It is possible also that the study +will bring to light a probable, or at any rate a possible, explanation +of some of those apparent (if they are not real) "dead-locks" which +occur in pursuing the course of life history on the earth. + +Such considerations will naturally have more weight with the Christian +believer than with those who reject the faith. But at least the +advantage of them remains with the believer, till the contrary is shown. +The extreme evolutionist may cling to the belief that at some future +time he will be able to account for the entrance of LIFE into the +world's history, that he will be able to explain the connection of MIND +with MATTER; or he may hope that the sterility of certain hybrid forms +will one day be explained away, and so on. But till these things _are_ +got over, the believer cannot be reproached as holding an unreasonable +belief when his creed maintains that Life is a gift and prerogative of a +great Author of Life; that Mind is the result of a spiritual environment +which is a true, though physically intangible, part of nature; and that +the absence of any proof that variation and development cross +certain--perhaps not very clearly ascertained, but indubitably +existing--lines, points to the designed fixing of certain types, and the +restriction of developmental creation to running in certain lines of +causation up to those types, and not otherwise. + +It can never be unreasonable to believe anything that is in exact +accordance with facts as ascertained at any given moment of +time--unless, indeed, the fact is indicated by other considerations as +being one likely to disappear from the category of fact altogether.[1] + +Enough has thus, I hope, appeared, to make the appearance of this little +work, at least excusable; what more may be necessary to establish its +claim to be read must depend on what it contains. + +I have only to add that I can make no pretension to be a teacher of +science. I trust that there is no material error of statement; if there +is, I shall be the first to retract and correct it. I am quite confident +that no correction that may be needed in detail will seriously affect +the general argument. + + +[Footnote 1: At present it is an ascertained fact that certain chemical +substances are elements incapable of further resolution. But there are +not wanting indications which would make it a matter of no surprise at +all, if we were to learn to-morrow that the so-called element had been +resolved. Such a fact is an example of what is stated in the text; and a +belief based on the absolute and unchangeable stability of such a fact +would not be unassailable. But none of the above stated instances of +"dead-lock" in evolution are within "measurable distance" of being +resolved.] + + + + +CHAPTER II. + + +_THE ELEMENT OF FAITH IN CREATION._ + +In the extract placed on the title-page, the author of the Epistle +clearly places our conclusion that God "established the order of +creation"--the lines, plans, developmental-sequences, aims, and objects, +that the course of creation has hitherto pursued and is still +ceaselessly pursuing,[1] in the category of _faith_. + +Of course, from one point of view--very probably that of the writer of +the Epistle--this conclusion is argued by the consideration that the +human mind forms no distinct conception of the formation of solid--or +any other form of--matter _in vacuo_, where nothing previously existed. +And what the mind does not find within its own power, but what yet _is +true_ in the larger spiritual kingdom beyond itself, is apprehended by +the spiritual faculty of _faith_. + + +[Footnote 1: [Greek: Kataertisthai tous aionas]. This implies more than +the mere originating or supplying of a number of material, organic, or +inorganic (or even spiritual) forms and existences. Whatever may be the +precise translation of [Greek: aion], it implies a chain of events, the +cause and effect, the type and the plan, and its evolution all +included.] + +But from another point of view, the immediate action of faith is not so +evident. If, it might be said, the law of evolution, or the law of +creation, or whatever is the true law, is, in all its bearings, a matter +to be observed and discovered by human science, then it is not easy to +see how there is any exercise of faith. We should be more properly said +to _know_, by intellectual processes of observation, inference, and +conclusion, that there was a Law Giver, an Artificer, and a First Cause, +so unlimited in power and capacity by the conditions of the case, that +we must call Him "Divine." + +And many will probably feel that their just reasoning on the subject +leads them to knowledge--knowledge, i.e., as approximately certain as +anything in this world can be. + +But the text, by the use of the term [Greek: aion], implies (as I +suggested) more than mere production of objects; it implies a designed +guidance and preconceived planning. If it were merely asserted that +there is a first cause of material existence, and even that such a cause +had enough known (or to be inferred) about it, to warrant our writing +"First Cause" with capitals, then the proposition would pass on all +hands without serious question. But directly we are brought face to +face, not merely with the isolated idea of creation of tangible forms +out of nothing (as the phrase is), but rather with the whole history +and development of the world and its inhabitants, we see so many +conflicting elements, such a power of natural forces and human passions +warring against the progress of good, and seeming to end only too often +in disaster, that it becomes a matter of _faith_ to perceive a Divine +providence underlying and overruling all to its own ends. + +The fact is, that directly we make mention of the "aeons"--the world's +age histories--we are met with that Protean problem that always seems to +lurk at the bottom of every religious question: Why was _evil_ +permitted? Mr. J.S. Mill, many readers will recollect, concluded that if +there was a God, that God was not perfectly good, or else was not +omnipotent. Now of course our limited faculties do not enable us to +apprehend a really absolute and unlimited omnipotence. We _can_ only +conceive of God as limited by the terms of His own Nature and Being. We +say it is "impossible for God to lie," or for the Almighty to do wrong +in any shape; in other words, we are, in this as in other matters where +the finite and the Infinite are brought into contact, led up to two +necessary conclusions which cannot be reconciled. We can reason out +logically and to a full conclusion, that given a God, that God must be +perfect, unlimited and unconditioned. We can also reason out, _provided +we take purely human and finite premises_, another line of thought which +forbids us to suppose that a Perfect God would have allowed evil, +suffering, or pain; and this leads us exactly or nearly to Mr. Mill's +conclusion. + +Whenever we are thus brought up to a dead-lock, as it were, there is the +need of _faith_, which is the faculty whereby the finite is linked on to +the Infinite. For this faith has two great features: one is represented +by the capacity for assimilating fact which is spiritual or +transcendental, and therefore not within the reach of finite intellect; +the other is represented by the capacity for reliance on, and trust in, +the God whose infinite perfections we cannot as finite creatures grasp +or follow. + +In the difficult scheme of the world's governance, in the storms, +earthquakes, pestilences, sufferings of all kinds--signs of failure, +sickness, and decay, and death, signs of the victory of evil and the +failure of good--we can only _believe_ in God, and that all will issue +in righteous ends. And our belief proceeds, as just stated, on two +lines: one being our spiritual capacity for knowing that GOD IS, and +that we, His creatures, are the objects of His love; the other being the +fact that we only see a very little end of the thread, or perhaps only a +little of one thread out of a vast mass of complicated threads, in the +great web of design and governance, and that therefore there is wide +ground for confidence that the end will be success. We rely confidently +on God. If it is asked, Why is it a part of faith to have a childlike +confidence in an unseen God?--we reply, that the main origin of such +confidence is to be found in the wonderful condescension of God +exhibited in the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection. + +This is not the place to enter on a detailed examination of the +essential importance of these great central facts of Christian belief in +establishing faith in the unseen, and distinguishing its grasp from the +blind clutches of credulity; but a single consideration will suffice at +least to awaken a feeling of a wide _vista_ of possibility when we put +it thus: Do we wonder at the spectacle of a righteous man, passing his +life in suffering and poverty, seemingly stricken by the Divine +hand?--But is not the case altered when we reflect _that the Hand that +thus smites is a hand itself pierced_ with the Cross-nails of a terrible +human suffering, undergone solely on man's account? + +It can be proved easily, by exhaustive examples, to be the case, that +wherever the finite is brought into contact with the Infinite, that +there must be a dead-lock, a leading up successively to two conclusions, +one of which is almost, if not quite, contrary to the other. A very +striking instance of this is the question of Predestination and +Free-will. From the finite side, I am conscious that I am a free agent: +I can will to rise up and to lie down. It is true that my will may be +influenced, strongly or feebly, by various means--by the effect of +habit, by the inherited tendency of my constitution, by some present +motive of temptation, and so forth: but the _will_ is there--the +motive-influence or inclining-power is not the will, but that which +affects or works on will. A _motive_ pulls me this way, another pulls me +that; but in the end, my _will_ follows one or the other. I can, then, +do as I please. On the other hand, Infinite Knowledge must know, and +have known from all eternity, what I shall do now, and at every moment +of my future being: and for Omnipotence to know from all eternity what +will be, is, in our human sense, practically undistinguishable from the +thought that the Power has predestined the same; and man cannot of +course alter that. Here, then, by separate lines of thought, we are +brought to two opposite and irreconcilable conclusions. It is so always. +We cannot ourselves imagine how a fixed set of laws and rules can be +followed, and yet the best interests of each and every one of God's +creatures be served as truly as if God directly wielded the machinery of +nature only for the special benefit of the individual. The thing is +unthinkable to us: yet directly we reason on the necessarily _unlimited_ +capability of a Divine Providence, we are led to the conclusion that it +must be possible. Here then is the province of _Faith_.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: The Scripture clearly recognizes the two opposing lines. In +one place we read, "Thou hast given them a law which _shall not be +broken_;" in another, "All things work together for good to them that +love God."] + +It is by Faith, then--combined with only a limited degree of knowledge, +founded on observation and reasoning--that we understand that "the aeons +were constituted by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen +were not made of things which do appear" (the phenomenal has its origin +in the non-phenomenal). + +While allowing, then, the element of Faith in our recognition of a +Creator and Moral Governor of the world, our care is in this, as in all +exercises of faith, that our faith be reasonable. We are not called on +to believe so as to be "put to confusion," intellectually, as Tait and +Balfour have it. + + + + +CHAPTER III. + + +_THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED_. + +It will strike some readers with a sense of hopelessness, this demand +for a reason in our faith. A special and very extensive knowledge is +required, it seems, to test the very positive assertion that some have +chosen to make regarding the "explosion" of the Christian faith in the +matter of Creation. + +We are told in effect that every thing goes by itself--that given some +first cause, about which we know, and can know, nothing, directly +primordial matter appears on the scene, and the laws of sequence and +action which observed experience has formulated and is progressively +formulating are given, then nothing else is required; no governance, no +control, and no special design. So that in principle a Creator and +Providence are baseless fancies; and this is further borne out by the +fact, that when the Christian faith ventures on details as to the mode +of Creation it is certainly and demonstrably wrong. If these +propositions are to be controverted, it must be in the light of a +knowledge which a large body of candid and earnest believers do not +possess. + +Fortunately, however, the labours of many competent to judge have placed +within the reach of the unscientific but careful student, the means of +knowing what the conclusions of Science really are, as far as they +affect the questions we have to consider. At least, any inquirer can, +with a little care and patient study, put himself in a position to know +where the difficulty or difficulties lie, and what means there are of +getting over them. His want of technical knowledge will not be in his +way, so far as his just appreciation of the position is concerned. +Without pretending to take up ground which has already been occupied by +capable writers whose books can easily be consulted, I may usefully +recapitulate in a simple form, and grouped in a suitable order, some of +the points best worth noting. + +The theory of cosmical evolution is not, in its general idea, a new +thing. The sort of evolution, however, that was obscurely shadowed forth +by the early sages of India (much as it is the fashion now to allude to +it) really stands in no practical relation to the modern and natural +theory which is associated with the name of CHARLES DARWIN, and which +has been further taken up by Mr. HERBERT SPENCER and others as the +foundation for a complete scheme of cosmic philosophy. The theory is +now, in its main features, admitted by every one. But there are a few +who would push it beyond its real ascertained limits, and would +substitute fancies for facts; they are not content to leave the +_lacunae_, which undoubtedly do exist, but fill them up by +hypothesis,[1] passing by easy steps of forgetfulness from the "it was +possibly," "it was likely to have been," to the "it must have been," and +"it was"! + +To all such extensions we must of course object; there are gaps in the +scheme which can be filled in with really great probability, and in such +cases there will be no harm done in admitting the probability, while +still acknowledging it as such. An overcautious lawyer-like captiousness +of spirit in such matters will help no cause and serve no good purpose. +Nor is it at all difficult in practice to draw the line and say what is +fairly admissible conjecture and what is not. There are other gaps, +however, that at present, no real analogy, no fair inferential process, +can bridge over; and to all speculations on such subjects, if advanced +as more than bare and undisguised guesses, objection must be taken. + +If this one line had been fairly and firmly adhered to from the first, +it can hardly be doubted that much of the acrimony of controversy would +have been avoided. It is just as essential at the present moment to +insist on the point as ever. But to proceed. Stated in the extreme +form, the theory is, that given matter as a beginning, that matter is +thenceforth capable, by the aid of fixed and self-working laws, to +produce and result in, all the phenomena of life--whether plant, animal, +or human--which we see around us. Matter developes from simple to +complex forms, growing by its own properties, in directions determined +by the circumstances and surroundings of its existence. + + +[Footnote 1: It is enough to instance the theories of Dr. Buchner and, +in earlier days, of Oken. The Häckel and Virchow incident in this +connection, and the noble protest of the latter against positive +teaching of unproved speculation, are in the recollection of all.] + +If I may put this a little less in the abstract, but more at length, I +should describe it thus[1]:-- + +Astronomers, while watching the course of the stars, have frequently +observed in the heavens what they call _nebulae_. With the best +telescopes these look like patches of gold-dust or luminous haze in the +sky. Some nebulae, it is supposed, really consist of whole systems of +stars and suns, but at so enormous a distance that with our best glasses +we cannot make more out of them than groups of apparent "star-dust" But +other nebulae do not appear to be at this extreme distance, and therefore +cannot consist of large bodies. And when their light is examined with +the aid of a spectroscope, it gives indications that such nebulae are +only masses of vapour, incandescent, or giving out light on account of +their being in a burning or highly heated condition. + + +[Footnote 1: The biological evolutionist will, I am aware, object to +this, saying that the origin of the cosmos and nebular theories are +matters of speculation with which he is not concerned--they are no part +of evolution proper. But I submit that the general philosophical +evolution does include the whole. At any rate, the materialist view of +nature does take in the whole, in such a way as the text indicates.] + +Now, it is supposed that, in the beginning of the world, there was, in +space, such a nebula or mass of incandescent vapour, which, as it was +destined to cool down and form a world, philosophers have called "cosmic +gas." + +This cosmic gas, in the course of time, began to lose its heat, and +consequently to liquefy and solidify, according to the different nature +of its components; and thus a globe with a solid crust was formed, the +surface of which was partly dry and partly occupied by water, and +diversified by the abundant production of the various earths, gases, +metals, and other substances with which we are familiar. These +substances, in time, and by the slow action of their own laws and +properties, combined or separated and produced further forms. But to +come at once to the important part of the theory, we must at once direct +our attention to four substances; these would certainly, it is said (and +that no doubt is quite true) be present; they are oxygen, hydrogen, +nitrogen, and carbon. The first three would be, when the earth assumed +anything like its present conditions of temperature and air-pressure, +invisible gases, as they are at present; the fourth is a substance which +forms the basis of charcoal, and which we see in a nearly pure form +crystallized in the diamond. + +Now, if these substances are brought together under certain appropriate +conditions, the oxygen and hydrogen can combine to form _water_; the +carbon and the oxygen will form _carbonic acid_; while nitrogen will +join with hydrogen to form that pungent smelling substance with which we +are familiar as _ammonia_. Again, let us suppose that three compound +substances--water, carbonic acid, and ammonia--are present together with +appropriate conditions; it is said that they will combine to form a +gummy transparent matter, which is called _protoplasm_. This protoplasm +may be found in small shapeless lumps, or it may be found enclosed in +cells, and in various beautifully shaped coverings, and it is also found +in the blood, and in all growing parts or organs of all animals and +plants of every kind whatsoever. + +Protoplasm, then, is the physical basis of life. Simple, uniform, +shapeless protoplasm, combined out of the substances just named, first +came into existence; and as, however simple or shapeless, it always +exhibits the property of life, it can henceforth grow and develop from +simpler to ever increasingly complex forms, without any help but that of +surrounding circumstances--the secondary causes which we see in +operation around us. + +If some readers should say they have never seen _protoplasm_, I may +remind them where every one has, at some time or another, met with it. +If you cut a stick of new wood from a hedge, and peel off the young +bark, you know that the bark comes off easily and entire, leaving a +clean white wand of wood in your hand; but the wand feels sticky all +over. This sticky stuff is nothing more than transparent growing +protoplasm, which lies close under the inner bark. + +At first, the materialist holds, protoplasm appeared in very simple +forms, just such as can still be found within the sea, and in ponds. But +the lower organized forms of life are extremely unstable, and a +different _environment_ will always tend to evoke continuous small +changes, so that there may be advance in forms of all kinds. For if by +chance[1] some creature exhibits a variation which is favourable to it +in the circumstances in which it is placed, that creature will be fitter +than the others which have not that variation. And so the former will +survive, and as they multiply, their descendants will inherit the +peculiarity. Thus, in the course of countless generations, change will +succeed change, till creatures of quite a complex structure and +specialized form have arisen. As the circumstances of life are always +infinitely various, the developments take place in many different +directions; some fit the creature for life in deep seas, some for flying +in the air, some for living in holes and crevices, some for catching +prey by swift pursuit, others for catching it by artful contrivance, and +so forth. Many changes will also arise from protective necessity: if an +insect happens to be like a dead leaf, it will escape the notice of +birds which would snap up a conspicuously coloured one; and so the +dull-coloured will survive and perpetuate his kind, while the others are +destroyed. On the other hand, beauty in colour and form may have its +use. This is chiefly exhibited in the preference which the females of a +species show for the adorned and showy males. + + +[Footnote 1: Not really of course "by chance," but simply owing to such +circumstances as cannot be accounted for by any direct antecedents.] + +Supposing an organism developed so far as to be a bird, but only with +dull or ugly feathers. By accident one male bird, say, gets a few +bright-coloured feathers on his head. Here his appearance will attract +birds of the other sex; and then by the law of heredity, his offspring +are sure to repeat the coloured feathers, till at last a regularly +bright-crested species-arises. In this way _natural variability_, acted +on by the necessities of _environment_ (which cause the _survival of the +fittest_ specimens) and the principle of _heredity_, viz., that the +offspring repeat the features of the parents, aided by the principle of +_sexual selection_, have been the origin and cause of all the species we +see in the world. + +Thus we have an unbroken series--certain substances condensing out of +cosmic vapour, some of them combining to form the variety of rocks, +soils, metals, &c., and others giving rise to protoplasm which grows' +and develops into a thousand shapes and hues, of insect, fish, reptile, +bird, and beast. + +And then it is, that charmed with the completeness and symmetry of such +a theory, and overlooking the difficulties that crop up here and +here--demanding some Power from without to bridge them over--certain +extreme theorists have rushed to the conclusion that in all this there +is no need of any external Creator or Providence--nothing but what we +call secondary causes, ordinary causes which we see at work around us +all day and every day. + +How inconceivable, they add, is the truth of the Book of Genesis, which +asserts the successive creation of fully-formed animals by sudden acts +of command; and all accomplished in a few days at the beginning of the +world's human history! + +This I believe to be a fair outline, though of course a very rough and +general one, of the Theory of Evolution as regards the forms of matter +and living organisms. Now it will at once strike the candid reader, that +even granted the whole of the scheme as stated, there is _nothing_ in it +that has any answer to the objection,--But may I not believe that a wise +Creator conceived and established the whole plan--first creating MATTER +and FORCE, then superadding LIFE at a certain stage, and then drawing +out the type and design according to which everything was to grow and +develop? Is not such a production and such a design the true essence of +Creation? Can all these things happen _without_ such aid? Let us then +look more closely at some of the steps in the evolution just described. +And let us stop at the very beginning--the first term of the series. + +We may agree (in the absence of anything leading to a contrary +conclusion) that matter may first have appeared as a cosmic gas, or +incandescent vapour in space. It is probable, if not certain, that our +earth is a mass that has only cooled down on the surface, the centre +being still hot and to some extent, at any rate, molten; and in the sun +we have the case of an enormous globe surrounded with a _photosphere_, +as it is called--a blaze of incandescent substances, which our +spectroscopes tell us are substances such as we have on earth now in +cooled or condensed condition--iron, oxygen, hydrogen, and other such +forms of matter. + +First of all, how did any _substance_, however vapoury and tenuous, come +to exist, when previously there was nothing? + +If we admit, that there was a time when even cosmic gas did not exist, +then there must have been _an Agent_, whose _fiat_ caused the change. +And as that Agent does not obviously belong to the material order, it +must belong to the spiritual or non-material; for the two orders +together exhaust the possibilities of existence. If, however, it is +urged that "primal matter"--cosmic vapour--containing the "potentiality" +of all existence, is eternal and alway existed of itself, then we are +brought face to face with innumerable difficulties. In the first place, +the existence of matter is not the only difficulty to be got over; not +the only dead-lock along the line. We pass it over and go on for a +time, and then we come to another--the introduction of LIFE. I will not +pause to consider that here; we shall see presently that it is +impossible to regard life as merely a quality or property of matter. +When we have passed that, we have a third stoppage, the introduction of +_Reason_ or _Intelligence_; and then a fourth, the introduction of the +_Spiritual faculties_, which cannot be placed on the same footing as +mere reason. So that to get over the first point, and dispense with a +Cause or a Creator of matter, is of no avail: it is incredible that +there should be no Creator of matter, but that there should be a Creator +of life--an Imparter of reason, an Endower of soul. + +But let us revert to the first stage and look at the nature of MATTER. + + + + +CHAPTER IV. + + +_CREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER._ + +I take as self-evident the enormous difficulty of self-caused, +self-existent matter. And when we see that matter _acting_, not +irregularly or by caprice, but _by law_ (as every class of philosopher +will admit), then it is still further difficult to realize that matter +not only existed as a dead, simple, inactive thing, but existed with a +folded-up history inside it, a long sequence of development--not the +same for all particles, but various for each group: so that one set +proceeded to form the _object_, and another the _environment_ of the +object; or rather that a multitude of sets formed a vast variety of +objects, and another multitude of sets formed a vast variety of +environments. When we see matter acting by law, then if there is no +Creator, we have the to us unthinkable proposition of law without a +lawgiver! + +On the other hand, if we shut out some of the difficulties, keep our eye +on one part of the case only--and that is what the human mind is very +apt to do--we can easily come round to think that, after all, +_elementary_ matter--cosmic gas--is a very _simple_ thing; and looks +really as if no great Power, or Intellect, were required to account for +its origin. After all, some will say, if we grant your great, wise, +beneficent, designing Creator, the finite human mind has as little idea +of a self-existing God, as it has of self-existing matter and +self-existing law. _You_ postulate one great mystery, _we_ postulate two +smaller ones; and the two together really present less "unthinkableness" +to the mind than your one. That is so far plausible, but it is no more. +To believe in a GOD is to believe in One Existence, who necessarily (by +the terms of our conception) has the power both of creating matter, +designing the forms it shall take, and originating the tendencies, +forces, activities--or whatever else we please to call them--which drive +matter in the right direction to get the desired result. To believe not +only that matter caused itself, but that the different forces and +tendencies, and the aims and ends of development, were self-caused, is +surely a much more difficult task. It is the existence of such a +_variety_, it is the existence of a uniform tendency to produce certain +though multitudinous results, that makes the insuperable difficulty of +supposing _matter always developing_ (towards certain ends) to be +self-caused. + +The advocates of "eternal matter" really overcome the difficulty, by +shutting their eyes to everything beyond a part of the problem--the +existence of simple matter apart from any laws, properties, or +affinities. + +But the simplest drop of water, in itself, and apart from its mechanical +relations to other matter, is really a very complex and a very wonderful +thing; not at all likely to be "self-caused." Water is made up, we know, +of oxygen and hydrogen--two elementary colourless, formless gases. Now +we can easily divide the one drop into two, and, without any great +difficulty, the two into four, and (perhaps with the aid of a magnifying +glass) the four into eight, and so on, _as long as_ the minute particle +_still retains the nature of water_. In short, we speak of the smallest +subdivision of which matter is capable without losing its own nature, as +the _molecule_. All matter may be regarded as consisting of a vast mass +of these small molecules. + +Now, we know that all known matter is capable of existing either in a +solid, liquid, or gaseous form, its nature not being changed. Water is +very easily so dealt with. Some substances, it is true, require very +great pressure or very great cold, or both, to alter their form; but +even carbonic acid, oxygen, and hydrogen, which under ordinary +conditions are gases, can with proper appliances be made both liquid and +solid. Pure alcohol, has, I believe, never been made solid, but that is +only because it is so difficult to get a sufficient degree of cold: +there is no doubt that it could be done. + +It might be supposed that the molecules of which dead matter (whether +solid, liquid, or vapourous) is composed, were equally motionless and +structureless. But it is not so: every molecule in its own kind is +endowed with marvellous properties. In the first place, every molecule +has a double capability of motion. In the solid form the molecules are +so packed together that, of course, the motion is excessively +restricted; in the liquid it is a little easier; in the gaseous state +the molecules are in a comparatively "open order." In most substances +that are solid under ordinary conditions, by applying heat continuously +we first liquefy and ultimately vapourize them. In those substances +which under ordinary conditions are _gas_ (like carbonic acid, for +instance), it is by applying cold, with perhaps great pressure as well, +that we induce them to become liquid and solid; in fact, the process is +just reversed. As we can most easily follow the process of heating, I +will describe that. First, the solid (in most cases) gets larger and +larger as it progresses to liquefaction, and when it gets to vapour, it +suddenly expands enormously. Take a rod of soft iron, and reduce it to +freezing temperature: let us suppose that in that condition it measures +just a thousand inches long. Then raise the temperature to 212 degrees +(boiling point), and it will be found to measure 1,012 inches. Why is +that? Obviously, because the molecules have got a little further apart. +If you heat it till the iron gets liquid, the liquid would also occupy +still more space than the original solid rod; and if we had temperature +high enough to make the melted iron go off into vapour, it would occupy +an enormously increased space. I cannot say what it would be for iron +vapour; but if a given volume of water is converted into vapour, it will +occupy about 1,700 times the space it did when liquid, though the weight +would not be altered. + +It may here be worth while to mention that it is not invariably true +that a substance gets contracted, and the molecules more and more +pressed together, as it assumes a solid form. There is at least one +exception. If we take 1,700 pints of steam, the water, as I said, on +becoming cool enough to lose the vapourous form, will shrink into a +measure holding a single pint; if we cooled lower still, it will get +smaller and smaller in bulk (though of course not at all at the same +rate) till it arrives at a point when it is just going to freeze; then +suddenly (7 degrees above the freezing point) it again begins to expand. +Ice occupies more space than cold water; its molecules get arranged in a +particular manner by their crystallization. + +On the admission of an _intelligent_ Creator providing, by beneficent +design, the laws of matter, it is easy to give a reason for this useful +property. It prevents the inhabitants of northern climates being +deprived of a supply of water. As it is, the solid water or ice +expands, and, becoming lighter, forms at the top of the water, and the +heavier warmer water remains below. But if ice always got denser and +sank, the warmer liquid would be perpetually displaced and so come up to +the surface, where it would freeze and sink in its turn. In a short +time, then, all our water supplies would (whenever the temperature went +down to freezing, which it constantly does in winter) be turned into +solid ice. This would be a source of the gravest inconvenience to the +population of a cold climate. If we deny a designing mind, the +alternative is that this property of water is a mere chance. + +But to return to molecules. Molecules are endowed with an inherent +faculty of motion; only under the conditions of what we call the solid, +they are so compressed, that there is no room for any motion appreciable +to the senses. Even if the solid is converted into vapour, the molecules +are still much restrained in their movements by the pressure of the air. +But of late years, great improvements (partly chemical, partly +mechanical) have been made in producing perfect _vacua_; that is to say, +in getting glass or other vessels to be so far empty of air, that the +almost inconceivably small residue in the receptacle has no perceptible +effect on the action of a small quantity of any substance already +reduced to the form of gas or vapour introduced into it. Dr. W. Crookes +has made many beautiful experiments on the behaviour of the molecules of +attenuated matter in _vacua_. The small quantity of vapour introduced +contains only a relatively small number of molecules, which thus freed +from all sensible restraint within the limits of the glass vessel used, +are free to move as they will; they are observed to rush about, to +strike against the sides of the vessel, and under proper conditions to +shine and become _radiant_, and to exhibit extraordinary phenomena when +subjected to currents of electricity. So peculiar is the molecular +action thus set up, that scientific men have been tempted to speak of a +fourth condition of matter (besides the three ordinary ones, solid, +liquid, and gaseous), which they call the ultra-gaseous or radiant state +of matter. + +This marvel of molecular structure seems already to have removed us +sufficiently far from the idea of a simple inert mass, which might be +primordial and self-caused. But we have not yet done. Even imagining the +extreme subdivision[1] of the particles in one of Dr. Crookes' vacuum +globes, the particles are still water. But we know that water is a +compound substance. The molecule has nine parts, of which eight are +hydrogen and one oxygen--because that is the experimentally known +proportion in which oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. As we can +(in the present state of our knowledge) divide no farther, we call these +ultimate fragments of simple or elementary substance _atoms_. + + +[Footnote 1: As to the possibility of _indefinite_ subdivision of +matter, see Sir W. Thomsons's lecture, _Nature_, June, 1883, _et seq._] + + +Every substance, however finely divided into molecules, if it is not a +simple substance, must therefore have, inside the _molecular_ structure, +a further _atomic_ structure. And in the case of unresolvable or +"elementary" substance, the molecule and the atom are not necessarily +the same. For though there is reason to believe that, the molecule of +these does consist, in some cases, of only one atom--in which case the +atom and the molecule are identical; in other cases, the molecule is +known to consist of more than one atom of the same element; and the +atoms are capable of being differently arranged, and when so arranged +have different _properties_ or behaviour, though their nature is not +changed. This property is spoken of by chemists as _allotropism_. No +chemist on earth can detect the slightest difference in _constitution_ +between a molecule of _ozone_ and one _oxygen_; but the two have widely +different properties, or behave very differently. There is thus a great +mystery about atoms and their possible differences under different +arrangement, which is as yet unsolved. Those who wish to get an insight +into the matter (which cannot be pursued farther here) will do well to +read Josiah Cooke's "The New Chemistry," in the International Scientific +Series. The mind is really lost in trying to realize the idea of a +fragment of matter too small for the most powerful microscope, but +existing in fact (because of faultless reasoning from absolutely +conclusive experiments), and yet so constituted that it is +_practically_ a different thing when placed in one position or order, +from what it is when placed in another. + +Turning from this mystery, as yet so obscure, to what is more easily +grasped, we shall hardly be surprised to learn, further, that every kind +of, atom obeys its own laws, and that while atoms of one kind always +have a _tendency to combine_ with atoms of other kinds, it is absolutely +impossible to get them to combine together except on certain conditions. + +The difference between combination and mixture is well known. Shake sand +and sugar in a bag for ever so long, but they will only _mix_, not +_combine_ or form any new substance even with the aid of electric +currents; but place oxygen and hydrogen gas under proper conditions, and +the gases will disappear, and water (in weight exactly equal to the +weight of the volume of gases) will appear in their place. + +It is only certain kinds of atoms that will combine at all with other +kinds; and when they do so combine, they will only unite in absolutely +fixed proportions, so that chemists have been able to assign to every +kind of element its own combining proportion. The substances that will +combine will do so in these proportions, or in proportions of any _even +multiple_ of the number, and in no other. Thus fourteen parts of +nitrogen will combine with sixteen of oxygen; and we have several +substances in nature, called nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitric +di-oxide, &c., which illustrate this, in which fourteen parts of +nitrogen combine with sixteen oxygen or fourteen nitrogen with a +multiple of sixteen oxygen, or a multiple of fourteen nitrogen combine +with sixteen oxygen, and so on. + +See now where we have got to. When we had spoken of a tiny fragment of +primal matter--a drop of water, for instance--it seemed as if there was +no more to be said; but no, we found ourselves able to give a whole +history of the molecules of which the substance consists; and when we +had considered the molecule, we found a further beautiful and intricate +order of _atoms_ inside the molecule, as it were. + +And there is no reason to suppose that science has yet revealed all that +is possible to be known about atoms and molecules; so that if further +wonders should be evoked, the argument will grow and grow in cumulative +force. + +Let me sum up the conclusion to be drawn from these facts in a quotation +from a discourse of Sir John F.W. Herschel. + +"When we see," says that eminent philosopher, "a great number of things +precisely alike, we do not believe this similarity to have originated +except from _a common principle independent of them_; and that we +recognize this likeness, chiefly by the _identity of their deportment +under similar circumstances_ strengthens rather than weakens the +conclusion. + +"A line of spinning jennies, or a regiment of soldiers dressed exactly +alike and going through precisely the same evolutions, gives us no idea +of independent existence: we must see them act out of concert before we +can believe them to have independent wills and properties not impressed +on them from without. + +"And this conclusion, which would be strong even if there were only two +individuals precisely alike in _all_ respects and _for ever_, acquires +irresistible force when their number is multiplied beyond the power of +imagination to conceive. + +"If we mistake not, then, the discoveries alluded to effectually destroy +the ideas of an _eternal_ self-existent matter by giving to each of its +atoms the essential characters at once of a _manufactured_ article and +of a _subordinate agent_." + +In other words, continuing the metaphor of the trained army, we see +millions upon millions of molecules all arranged in regiments, distinct +and separate, and the regiments again made up of companies or +individuals, each obeying his own orders in subordination to, and in +harmony with, the whole: are we not justified in concluding that this +army has not been only called into being by some cause external to +itself; but further, that its constitution has been impressed upon it, +and its equipments and organization directed, by an Infinite +Intelligence? + +There is, then, no such thing to be found in Nature as a simple, +structureless "primal matter" which exhibits nothing tending to make +self-causation or aboriginal existence difficult to conceive. To look at +matter in that light is not only to take into consideration a _part_ of +the case; it is really to take what does not exist, a part that exists +only in the imagination. The simplest form of matter we can deal with, +exhibits within itself all the wondrous plan, law, and sequence of the +molecular and atomic structure we have sketched out; and when we +consider that, having taken matter so far, we have even then only +introduced it to the verge of the universe, ushered it on to the +threshold of a great "aeon," when and where it is to be acted on by +"gravitation" and other forces, to act in relation to other matter, and +to be endowed perhaps with LIFE, we shall feel that the +self-existence--the uncaused existence of matter, and of the principles +on which matter proceeds or acts, is in reality not a less mystery than +the self-existence of a Designing and Intelligent Cause, but one so +great as to be itself "unthinkable." + + + + +CHAPTER V. + + +_THE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER_. + +We now come to _Living_ Matter; directing attention, first, to that +elementary form of life as exhibited in simple protoplasm and in the +lower forms of organism, and then to the perfect forms of bird and +beast. In each case, we shall find the same evidence of Design and +Intelligence, the same proof of "contrivance" and purpose, which we +cannot attribute to the mere action of secondary causes. + +The simplest form in which LIFE is manifested is in a viscid gelatinous +substance without colour or form, called _Protoplasm_. Wherever there is +life there is protoplasm. Protoplasm, as before remarked, lies just +under the bark in trees, and is the material from which the growth of +the wood and bark cells and fibres proceeds. Protoplasm, is also present +in the muscles and in the blood, and wherever growth is going on. + +But protoplasm also exists by itself; or, more properly speaking, there +exist living creatures, both plant and animal, which are so simple in +structure, so low in organization, that they consist of nothing but a +speck of protoplasm. Such a creature is the microscopic _amoeba_. +Sometimes these little specks of protoplasm are surrounded with +beautifully formed "silicious shells--a skeleton of radiating _spiculae_ +or crystal-clear concentric spheres of exquisite symmetry and +beauty.[1]" The simplest _amoeba_ however, has no definite form; but the +little mass moves about, expands and contracts, throws out projections +on one side and draws them in on the other. It exhibits irritability +when touched. It may be seen surrounding a tiny particle of food, +extracting nutriment from it and growing in size. Ultimately the little +body separates or splits up into two, each part thenceforth taking a +separate existence. + + +[Footnote 1: Professor Allman.] + +Now it is claimed that such a little organism contains the potentiality +of all life; that it grows and multiplies, and develops into higher and +higher organisms, into all (in short) that we see in the plant and +animal world around us. This, it is argued, is all done by natural +causes, not by any direction or guidance or intervention of a Divine +agency. + +Here we must stop to ask how this protoplasm, or simplest form of +organic life, came to exist? How did it get its _life_--its property of +taking nourishment, of growing and of giving birth to other creatures +like itself? + +The denier of creation replies, that just in the same way as, by the +laws of affinity, other inanimate substances came together to produce +the earth--salts and other compounds we see in the world around us--so +did certain elements combine to form protoplasm. This combination when +perfected has the property of being alive, just as water has the +property of assuming a solid form or has any other of the qualities +which we speak of as its properties. + +Now it is perfectly true that, treated as a substance, you can take the +gummy protoplasm, put it into a glass and subject it to analysis like +any other substance. But simple as the substance appears, composition is +really very complicated. Professor Allman tells us that so difficult and +wonderful is its chemistry, that in fact really very little is known +about it. The best evidence we have, I believe, makes it tolerably +certain that protoplasm consists of a combination of ammonia, carbonic +acid, and water, and that every molecule of it is made up of 76 atoms, +of which 36 are carbon, 26 hydrogen, 4 nitrogen, and 10 oxygen.[1] + +But no chemist has ever been able either to account theoretically for +such a composition, still less to produce it artificially. It is urged, +however, that it may be only due to our clumsy apparatus and still very +imperfect knowledge of chemistry, that we were unable artificially to +make up protoplasm. + + +[Footnote 1: Nicholson ("Zoology," p. 4) gives for Albumen, which is +nearly identical with protoplasm--Carbon, 144; Hydrogen, 110; Nitrogen, +18; Oxygen, 42; Sulphur, 2. These figures nearly equal those in the +text, being those figures multiplied each by 4 (approximately) and +without the trace of sulphur.] + +And of course there is no answer to a supposition of this sort. +Nevertheless there is no sort of reason to believe that protoplasm will +ever be made; nor, if we could succeed in uniting the elements into a +form resembling protoplasmic jelly, is there the least reason to suppose +that such a composition would exhibit the irritability, or the powers of +nutrition and reproduction, which are essentially the characteristics of +_living_ protoplasm. It is not too much to say that, after the close of +the controversy about spontaneous generation, it is now a universally +admitted principle of science that life can only proceed from life--the +old _omne vivum ex ovo_ in a modern form.[1] + +But here the same sort of argument that was brought forward regarding +the possibility of matter and its laws being self-caused, comes in as +regards life. + + +[Footnote 1: _See_ "Critiques and Addresses," T.H. Huxley, F.R.S., +p. 239. So much is this the case, that it is really superfluous, however +interesting, to recall the experiments of Dr. Tyndall and others, which +finally demonstrated that wherever primal animal forms, bacteria and +other, "microbes," were produced in infusions of hay, turnip, &c., +apparently boiled and sterilized and then hermetically sealed, there +were really germs in the air enclosed in the vessel, or germs that in +one form or another were not destroyed by the boiling or heating. Dr. +Bastian's argument for spontaneous generation is thus completely +overthrown. _(See_ Drummond, "Natural Law," pp. 62-63.)] + +The argument in the most direct form was made use of by Professor +Huxley, but it is difficult to believe that so powerful a thinker could +seriously hold to a view which will not bear examination, however neatly +and brilliantly it may go off when first launched into the air. The +argument is that life can only be regarded as a further property of +certain forms of matter. Oxygen and hydrogen, when they combine, result +in a new substance, quite unlike either of them in character, and +possessing _new_ and different properties. The way in which the +combination is effected is a mystery, yet we do not account for the new +and peculiar properties of water (so different from those of the +original gases) as arising from a principle of "aquosity," which we have +to invoke from another world. The answer is that the argument is from +analogy, and that there is not really the remotest analogy between the +two cases. It is true that, as far as we know, electricity is necessary +to force a combination of the requisite equivalents of oxygen and +hydrogen into water. But though we do not know why this is, or what +electricity is, we can repeat the process as often as we will. But mark +the difference; the water once existing is obviously only a new form of +matter, in the same category with the gases it came from: it neither +increases in bulk, nor takes in fresh elements to grow, and give birth +to new drops of water. But protoplasm has something quite different--for +there may be dead protoplasm and living protoplasm, both identical to +the eye and to every chemical test. In either condition, protoplasm, as +such, has _properties_ of the same nature (though not of the same kind) +as those of water, oxygen gas, or any other matter; it is colorless, +heavy, sticky, elastic, and so forth; but besides all that (without the +aid of electricity or any physical force we can apply) one has the power +of producing more protoplasm--gathering for itself, by virtue of its +inherent power, the materials for growth and reproduction. + +If directly water was called into existence it could take in +nourishment, and divide and go on producing more water--and if some +water could do this, while other water (which no available test could +distinguish from it in any other respect) could not, then we _should_ be +perfectly justified in giving a special name to this power, and calling +it "aquosity" or "vitality" or anything else, it being out of all +analogy to anything else which we call a "property" of matter. + +In the introduction of LIFE into the _aeon_ of organic developmental +history, we have a clear and distinct period, as we had when _matter_ +came into view, or when _the change_ was ushered in which set the cosmic +gas cooling and liquefying, and turning to solid in various form. + +The fact is that every organic form, whether plant or animal, derived +from the protoplasmic compounds of carbon-dixoide, ammonia and water, +is, as Mr. Drummond puts it,[1] "made of materials which have once been +inorganic. An organizing principle, not belonging to their kingdom, lays +hold of them and elaborates them." + + +[Footnote 1: "Natural Law," p. 233.] + +Thus by the introduction of LIFE we have a vastly enlarged horizon. +Before, in the organic world, we had only the "principle" of solidifying +or crystallizing, liquefying, and turning to gas or vapour, ever +stopping when the state was attained. Or if a combination was in +progress, still the result was only a rearrangement of the same bulk of +materials (however new the form) in solid, liquid, or gas, but no +increase, no nutrition, no reproduction. In the organic world we have +something so different, that whether we talk of "property" or +"principle," the things are entirely distinct. + +The essential difference, stated as regards the mere facts of +irritability or motion, nutrition and reproduction, is so grandly +sufficient in itself, that one almost regrets to have to add on the +other facts which further emphasize the distinction between _life_ and +any _property_ of matter. But these further facts are highly important +as regards another part of the argument. For while what has just been +said almost demonstrates the necessity of a Giver of Life from a kingdom +outside the organic, the further facts point irresistibly to the +conclusion that we must predicate more about the Giver of Life that we +can of an abstract and unknown Cause. + +The original protoplasm, when dead, is undistinguishable by the eye, by +chemical test, or by the microscope, from the same protoplasm when +living; and living protoplasm, again, may be either animal or vegetable. +Both are in every respect (externally) absolutely identical. Yet the one +will only develop into a _plant_, the other only into an _animal._ Nor +does it diminish the significance of the fact to say that the +differentiation is _now_ fixed by heredity. If we suppose protoplasm to +be only a fortuitous combination of elements, what secondary or common +natural cause will account for its acquisition of the fixed difference? +It is true that some forms of plants exhibit some functions that closely +approach the functions of what we call animal life; but, as we shall see +presently, there is no evidence whatever that there is any bridge +between the two--we have no proof that a plant ever develops into an +animal. Here is one of the gaps which the theory of Evolution, true as +it is to a certain extent, cannot bridge over; and we must not overlook +the fact. We shall revert to it hereafter. + +Can it be believed, then, that protoplasm, as the origin of life, is +self-caused, and self-developed? And this is not all. I must briefly +remind my readers that the way in which animal protoplasm deals with the +elements of nutrition is quite opposite to that which plant protoplasm +follows. I might, indeed, have mentioned this at an earlier stage, when +I mentioned Professor Huxley's comparison of the chemical action in the +formation of water with what he assumed to be the case in the formation +of protoplasm. When water is formed, the two gases disappear, and an +_exactly equal weight_ of water appears in their place; but if living +protoplasm is enabled to imbibe liquid or other nutriment containing +ammonia, water, and carbonic acid, there is no disappearance of the +three elements and an equivalent weight of living protoplasm appearing +in its place. Protoplasm consumes the oxygen and sets free the carbonic +acid. Both kinds of protoplasm do this, until exposed to the light; and +then a difference is observed; for under the influence of light, animal +protoplasm alone continues to act in this way, and vegetable protoplasm +begins at once to develop little green bodies or corpuscles in its +cells, and afterwards acts in a totally opposite way, taking the carbon +into its substance and giving off the oxygen.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: Certain _fungi_ seem to afford an exception to this. The +above is, I believe, true as a theoretical action of plants and animals +in protoplasmic form. But practically, in all higher developments of +either kind, other distinctions come into play; e.g., that plants can +make use of inorganic matter, gases, and water, and elaborate them into +organic matter. Animals cannot do this, they require more or less solid +food--always requiring "complex organic bodies which they ultimately +reduce to much simpler inorganic bodies. They are thus mediately or +immediately dependent on plants for their subsistence" (Nicholson, +"Zoology," 6th ed. p. 17). It is perhaps with reference to this that in +the Book of Genesis the Creator is represented as giving _plant_ life to +the service of man and animals--while nothing is said of the preying of +_Carnivora_ and _Insectivora_ on animal life.] + +Not only then has each kind of protoplasm its own mysterious character +impressed on it, and is compelled to act in a certain way; but still +further, each particle of animal and vegetable protoplasm, when directed +into its _general_ course of development as _plant or animal_, will +again only obey a certain course of development in its own line. + +But we must proceed a step further; for those who would believe in the +sufficiency of unaided Evolution, bid us bear in mind how very +elementary the dawn of instinct or the beginning of reason is in the +lowest forms which are classed as animal, and how very small is the +gap[1] between some highly organized plants and some animal forms, and +argue therefore that they may justly regard the distinction as of minor +importance, and hope that the "missing link" will be yet discovered and +proved. At any rate, they minimize the difference, and urge that it is +of no account if at least they can establish the sufficiency of a proved +development extending unbroken from the lowest to the highest animal +form. And having fixed attention on this side, no doubt there is a long +stretch of smooth water over which the passage is unchecked. + + +[Footnote 1: At the risk of repetition I will remind the reader that +nature contains _nothing like_ a progressive scale from plant to animal. +It is _never_ that the highest plant can be connected with the lowest +animal as in one series of links. The animal kingdom and the plant +kingdom are absolutely apart. Both start from similar elementary +proteinaceous structures; and both preserve their development +upwards--each exhibiting _some_ of the features of the other. It is at +the bottom of each scale that resemblance is to be found, _not_ between +the top of one and the lowest members of the other.] + +The Evolution theory is that all the different species of animals, +birds, and other forms of life have been caused by the accumulation and +perpetuation of numerous small changes which began in one or at most a +few elementary forms, and went on till all the thousands of species we +now know of were developed.[1] It _is_ a fact that all organic forms +have a certain tendency to vary. I need only allude to the many +varieties of pigeons, horses, cattle, and dogs which are produced by +varying the food, the circumstances of life and so forth, and by +selective breeding. + +The contention then is: given certain original simple forms of life, +probably marine or aquatic--for it is in the water that the most likely +occur--these will gradually change and vary, some in one direction, some +in another; that the changes go on increasing, each creature giving +birth to offspring which exhibits the stored-up results of change, till +the varied and finished forms--some reptile, some bird, some +animal--which we now see around us, have been produced. And at last man +himself was developed in the same way. All this, observe, is by the +action of just such ordinary and natural causes as we now see operating +around us--changes in food and in climate, changes in one part requiring +a corresponding change in others, and so on. + + +[Footnote 1: The reader may find this admirably put in Wallace, +"Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection," p. 302.] + +Nature contains no sharply drawn lines. Plants are different from +animals; but there are animals so low down in the scale of life that it +is difficult to distinguish them from plants. Pigeons are distinct from +pheasants, but the line at which the one species ends and the other +begins is difficult to draw. This fact seems to invite some theory of +one form changing into other. Accordingly the evolutionist explains the +working of the process which he asserts to be sufficient to produce all +the various forms of life in our globe. + +After stating this more in detail than we have previously done, we shall +be in a better position to judge if the process (which in the main we +have no desire to deny or even to question) can dispense with _guidance_ +and the fixing of certain lines and limits within which, and of certain +types towards which, the development proceeds. That is our point. + +It is hardly necessary to illustrate the enormous destruction of life +which goes on in the world. Even among the human race, the percentage of +infants that die in the first months of their life is very large. But in +the lower forms of life it is truly enormous. Only consider the myriads +of insects that perish from hunger or accident, and from the preying of +one species on another. If it were not so, the world would be overrun by +plagues of mice, of birds, of insects of all kinds, and indeed by +creatures of every grade. The term "struggle for existence" is, then, +not an inapt one. All forms of living creatures have to contend with +enemies which seek to prey upon or to destroy them, with the difficulty +of obtaining food, and with what I may call the chances of +nature--cold, storms, floods, disease, and so forth. + +Now, it is obvious that if some creatures of a given kind possess some +accidental peculiarity or modification in their formation which gives +them (in one way or another) an advantage over their fellows, these +improved specimens are likely to survive, and, surviving, to have +offspring. + +It is this perpetuation of advantageous changes, originally induced by +the circumstances of environment, that is indicated by the term "natural +selection." Nature chooses out the form best suited to the circumstances +which surround it, and this form lives while the others die out. And +this form goes on improving by slow successive changes, which make it +more and more fit for the continually changing circumstances of its +life. + +Subordinate also to this natural selection is the principle that bright +colour and other special qualities may be developed in the males of a +race, because individuals with such advantages are more attractive, and +therefore more easily find mates, than dull-coloured or otherwise less +attractive individuals. + +Of each of these principles I may give a simple example. Supposing a +species of bird with a soft slender beak to be placed on an island, +where the only food they could obtain was fruit enclosed in a hard or +tough shell or covering. Supposing some birds accidentally possessed of +a beak that was shorter and stouter than the others', these would be +able to break open the shell and get at the fruit, while the others +would starve. Some of the descendants of the birds with the stout beaks +would inherit the same peculiarity, and in the course of several +generations there would thus arise a species with short and strong, +perhaps curved, beaks just fitted to live on fruits of the kind +described. In a similar way the webbed feet of birds that swim were +developed by their aquatic habits. And so with the long slender toes of +the waders, which are so well fitted for walking over floating aquatic +plants. + +Of the other principle, sexual selection, a familiar example is the +bright and showy colouring of the male birds of many species: the +females of their species, as they need protection while helplessly +sitting on their eggs, are dull-coloured like the bark of trees or the +sand, among which their nests lie hid. + +Some of the Himalayan pheasants exhibit this peculiarity to a marked +degree. Originally, it is said, the male bird, which was more brightly +coloured than the rest, got mated more easily by the preference shown to +him for his bright colour. + +The question is, can we suppose all this to go on, by self-caused laws +and concurrence of circumstances, without a pre-existing design for the +forms to reach or an external guidance in the processes? + + + + +CHAPTER VI. + + +_THE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION OF ORGANIC FORMS_. + +The heading of this chapter does not mark a new departure, for we have +been tracing existing forms of matter from the first, and have already +seen the necessity of believing in Creative Intelligence and Guidance. +We have seen that inorganic matter, with what we call its molecular or +atomic structure, cannot be reasonably regarded as self-caused; and we +have concluded with Sir J.F.W. Herschell that the sight of such a +well-arranged army, performing its evolutions in a regular and uniform +manner, irresistibly suggests a great Commander and Designer. We have +further found that the advent of LIFE demands a Power _ab extra_. We +have called attention to the gap, between plant and animal, which is +ignored or made light of, chiefly on account of the close approach of +the two kingdoms. But there is one broad distinction, namely, that of +elementary reason and no reason, or of consciousness and +unconsciousness, which is, in itself, a sufficient difficulty to pull +us up shortly. We have not yet fully considered this matter, because it +will come more appropriately at a later stage, and in the _à fortiori_ +form. But we have justly noted it here. We cannot account for the most +elementary reason by any physical change; there is no analogy between +the two. The connection of mind and matter is unexplainable; and no +theory of development of physical form can say why, at any given stage, +physical development begins to be accompanied by brain-power and +_consciousness_. Admit candidly that the addition of intelligence at a +certain stage, however mysteriously interwoven with structural +accompaniments, is a gift _ab extra_, and we have at least a reasonable +and so far satisfactory explanation. + +But when we have got an animal form, however simple and elementary, with +at least a recognizable "potentiality" of intelligence, we enter, as I +said, a long stretch of apparently smooth water, over which, for an +important part of our passage, we seem able to glide without any +difficulty from the necessary intervention of the so-called +supernatural. I have, then, to show that even here there is really no +possibility of dispensing with a Creator who has a purpose, a designed +scheme, and a series of type-forms to be complied with. + +In order to fully exhaust the question how far natural selection is +capable of accounting for everything, it would be necessary to take a +very wide view of natural history and botany, which it is quite +impossible for us to attempt. But this is not necessary for our purpose. +We are perfectly justified in selecting certain topics which must arise +in the discussion. If, in studying these points, we find that _there_ at +least the intervention of a Controlling Power becomes necessary, and the +absence of it leaves things without any reasonable explanation, then we +shall have good and logical ground for holding to our faith in the +universal presence of such a Power. No chain is stronger than its +weakest link. If secondary causes cannot succeed at any one part of the +chain, it is obvious that they fail as a universal explanation. + +This part of the work has already been done far better than I could do +it. In the first eight chapters of Mivart's "Genesis of Species" [1] the +argument has been ably and clearly put, and whatever answer is possible +has been given by Darwin and others; so that the world may judge. All +that can here be usefully attempted, is, by way of reminder, to +reproduce some main topics on which no real answer has been given. These +are selected, partly because they are less abstruse and difficult to +follow than some which might be dealt with, partly because they are +calculated to awaken our interest, and partly because the conclusion in +favour of a continual Providence; working through organized law and +system, appears to follow most clearly from them. + + +[Footnote 1: Second Edition, 1871.] + +The points I would call attention to are the following:-- + +(I) That as natural selection will only maintain changes that have been +_beneficial_ to the creature, it is contrary to such a law, if acting +entirely by itself, that that there should be developments (not being +mere accidental deformities, &c.) disadvantageous to the creature. And +yet the world is full of such. + +(2) That there are forms which cannot be accounted for on the +evolutionist supposition, that they were gradually obtained by a series +of small changes slowly progressing towards a perfect structure. They +would be of no use at all unless produced _at once and complete_. + +(3) That natural selection, as apart from a Divine Designer, altogether +fails to account for _beauty_, as distinguished from mere brilliancy or +conspicuousness, in nature. Whereas, if we suppose the existence of a +beneficent Creator, who has moral objects in view, and cares for the +delight and the improvement of His creatures,[1] and looking to the +known effects on the mind of beauty in art and in nature, the existence +is at once and beyond all cavil explained. + + +[Footnote 1: "He hath made everything _beautiful_ in his time" (Eccles. +iii. II).] + +(4) That we have positive evidence against _uncontrolled_ evolution +(uncontrolled by set plan and design i.e.) and a strong presumption in +favour of the existence of created _types_; so that evolution proceeds +towards these types by aid of natural laws and forces working together +(in a way that our limited faculties necessarily fail to grasp +adequately);[1] and so that, the type once reached, a certain degree of +variation, but never _transgression_ of _the type_, is possible. +Further, that on this supposition we are able to account for some of the +unexplained facts in evolutionary history, such as _reversion_ and the +_sterility of hybrids_; and to see why there are gaps which cannot be +bridged over, and which by extreme theorists are only feebly accounted +for on the supposition that as discovery progresses they _will_ be +bridged over some day. + + +[Footnote 1: "Also He hath set the world in their heart, so that _no man +can find out the work that God maketh_ from the beginning to the end" +(Eccles. iii II).] + +(5) Lastly, that there is no possibility of giving _time_ enough on any +possible theory of the world's existence, for the evolution of all +species, unless _some_ reasonable theory of creative arrangement and +design be admitted. + +The great objection--the descent of man and the introduction of reason, +consciousness, and so forth, into the world, will then form two separate +chapters, concluding the first division of my subject. + +There is one point which the reader may be surprised to see omitted. It +is, that if these slow changes were always going on, why is not the +present world full of, and the fossil-bearing rocks also abounding in, +_intermediate forms_, creatures which _are on their way_ to being +something else? But there are reasons to be given on this ground which +make the subject a less definite one for treatment. It is said, for +example, that in the fossil rocks we have only such scanty and +fragmentary records, that it is not possible to draw a complete +inference, and that there is always the possibility of fresh discoveries +being made. Such discoveries have, it is asserted, already been made in +the miocene and again in later rocks; different species of an early form +of _horse_ which are (and this we may admit) the ancestral or +intermediate forms of our own horse, have been found. I therefore would +not press the difficulty, great as it is, because of the escape which +the hope of future discovery always affords. I will take this +opportunity to repeat that in this chapter I say nothing about the +difficulty which arises from the introduction of elementary reason or +instinct, and of consciousness, into the scale of organic being; that +will more appropriately fall in with the consideration of the +development of man, where naturally the difficulty occurs with its +greatest force. + +(1) I come at once to the great difficulty that, if all existing forms +are due to the occurrence of changes that helped the creature in the +struggle for existence, how is it possible now to account for forms +which are not advantageous? yet such forms are numerous. Of this +objection, the existence of imperfect or neuter bees and ants is an +instance. The modification in form which these creatures exhibit is of +no advantage to them. It _is_ a great advantage, no doubt, to the other +bees; but then this introduces a view of some power _making_ one thing +for the benefit of another, not a change in the form itself adapted of +course to its _own_ advantage--since natural laws, forces, and +conditions of environment could not conceivably _design_ the advantage +of another form, and cause one to change for the benefit of that other. + +Why is it, again, that crabs and crayfish can only grow by casting off +their shells, during which process they often die, as well as remain +exposed defenceless to the attacks of enemies? Why should stags shed +their horns also, leaving them defenceless for a time? Other animals do +not do so, and there is nothing in the nature of the horn which requires +it. + +This brief allusion is here sufficient. Mr. Mivart's work gives it at +large. + +(2) Passing next to the question of the advantage of _incomplete +stages_--portions of a mechanism only useful when complete, the most +striking examples may be found in the Vegetable kingdom. The +fertilization of flowering plants is effected by the pollen, a yellow +dust formed in the anthers, which is carried from flower to flower. In +the pines and oaks, this is done by the wind. But in other cases insects +visit a flower to get the honey, and in so doing get covered with +pollen, which they carry away and leave in the next flower visited. Now +one of our commonest and most useful plants, the red clover, is so +constructed that it can only be fertilized by humble bees. If this bee +became extinct, the plant would die out; how can such a development be +advantageous to it? + +But the contrivances by which this process of fertilization is secured +are so marvellous, that I confess I am completely staggered by the idea +that these contrivances have been caused by the self-growth and +adaptation of the plant without guidance. There is a plant called +_Salvia glutinosa_[1]--easily recognized by its sticky calyx and pale +yellow flowers. The anthers that bear the pollen are hidden far back in +the hood of the flower, so that the pollen can neither fall nor can the +wind carry it away; but the two anthers are supported on a sort of +spring, and directly a bee goes to the flower and pushes in his head to +get the honey, the spring is depressed and both anthers start forward, +of course depositing their pollen on the hairy back of the bee, which +carries it to the stigma of the next flower. This process can be tested +without waiting for a bee, by pushing a bit of stick into the flower, +when the curious action described will be observed. It is very easy to +say that this admirable mechanical contrivance is of great use to the +plant _in its complete_ form; but try and imagine what use an +intermediate form would have been! If development at once proceeded to +the complete form, surely this marks _design_; if not, no partial step +towards it would have been of any use, and therefore would not have been +inherited and perpetuated so as to prepare for further completion. But +many other plants have a structure so marvellous that this objection is +continually applicable. Let me only recall one other case, that of the +orchid, called _Coryanthes macrantha_. In this flower there are two +little horns, which secrete a pure water, or rather water mixed with +honey. The lower part of the flower consists of a long lip, the end of +which is bent into the form of a bucket hanging below the horns. This +bucket catches the nectar as it drops, and is furnished with a spout +over which the liquid trickles when it is too full. But the mouth of the +bucket is guarded by a curiously ridged cover with two openings, one on +each side. The most ingenious man, says Mr. Darwin, would never by +himself make out what this elaborate arrangement was intended for. It +was at last discovered. Large humble bees were seen visiting the flower; +by way of getting at the honey, they set to work to gnaw off the ridges +of the lid above alluded to; in doing this they pushed one another into +the bucket, and had to crawl out by the spout. As they passed out by +this narrow aperture, they had to rub against the anthers and so carried +off the pollen. When a bee so charged gets into another bucket, or into +the same bucket a second time, and has to crawl out, he brushes against +the stigma, and leaves the pollen on it. I might well have adduced this +plant as another instance of the first objection, since it may well be +asked, How could such a development, resulting in a structure which +presents the greatest difficulty in the way of fertilization, be +beneficial to the plant? But here the point is that, even if any one +could assert the utility of such an elaborate and complicated +development, and suppose it self-caused by accident or effect of +environment, it certainly goes against the idea that all forms are due +to an _accumulation of small changes_. For these curious contrivances in +the case of _Salvia, Coryanthes_, and other plants, would in any case +have been no use to the plant till the whole machinery _was complete_. +Now, on the theory of slow changes gradually accumulating till the +complete result was attained, there must have been generation after +generation of plants, in which the machinery was as yet imperfect and +only partly built up. But in such incomplete stages, fertilization would +have been impossible, and therefore the plant must have died out. Just +the same with the curious fly-trap in _Dionoea_. Whatever may be its +benefit to the plant, till the whole apparatus as it now is, was +_complete_, it would have been of no use. In the animal kingdom also, +instances might be given: the giraffe has a long neck which is an +advantage in getting food that other animals cannot reach; but what +would have been the use of a neck which was becoming--and had not yet +become--long? here intermediate stages would not have been useful, and +therefore could not have been preserved.[2] In flat fishes it is curious +that, though they are born with eyes on different sides of the head, the +lower eye gradually grows round to the upper-side. As remarked by Mr. +Mivart, natural selection could not have produced this change, since the +_first steps towards it_ could have been of no possible use, and could +not therefore have occurred, at least not without direction and guidance +from without. Mr. Darwin's explanation of the case does not touch this +difficulty. + + +[Footnote 1: This species was instanced because the lectures which form +the basis of the book were originally delivered at Simla, in the N.W. +Himalaya, where, at certain seasons, the plant is a common wayside weed. +Mr. Darwin notices a similar and, if possible, more curious structure in +a species of _Catasetum_.] + +[Footnote 2: See this fully explained by Mivart, "Genesis of Species," +pp. 29, 30 (2nd edition).] + +(3) The third point, the occurrence of so much _beauty_ in organic life, +is perhaps one of the most conclusive arguments for design in nature. + +Here, if possible, more clearly than elsewhere, I see a total failure of +"natural causes." We are told that the beauty of birds (for instance) is +easily accounted for by the fact, that the ornamented and beautiful +males are preferred by the other sex; and that this is an advantage, so +the beauty has been perpetuated; and the same with butterflies and +beetles. + +We are told also that bright-coloured fruits attract birds, who eat the +soft parts of the fruit and swallow the hard stone or seed which is thus +prepared for germination, and carried about and dispersed over the +earth's surface. Again, showy coloured flowers attract insects, which +carry away pollen and fertilize other flowers. + +All this is perfectly true; but it entirely fails to go far enough to +meet the difficulty. + +Now passing over such difficulties as the fact that bright colours in +flowers _do not_ attract insects in many cases, but much more +inconspicuous flowers if they have a scent (mignonette, for example) +_do_; passing over such a fact as that afforded by the violet, which (as +some may not be aware) has two kinds of flower, one scented and of a +beautiful colour, the other green and inconspicuous, and it is the +_latter, not the former_ which is usually fertile;--passing over all +detailed difficulties of this kind, I allude only to the one great one, +that in all these cases, besides mere bright colour, conspicuousness or +showiness, there is a great and wonderful beauty of pattern, design, or +colour arrangement, in nature. Now there is not a particle of evidence +to show that any animal has, to the smallest extent, a _sense of +beauty_. On the contrary it is most improbable. The sense of artistic +beauty is not only peculiar to man, but only exists in him when +civilized and cultivated. Uneducated people among ourselves have no +sense of landscape and other beauty. How then can it exist in animals? + +If there was nothing to explain but a uniform bright and showy colour, +natural selection might be sufficient to account for it. How is it, +then, that this is not the case? We have not only colour, but colour +diversified in the most elaborate and charming manner. Look at the +exquisite patterns on a butterfly's wing! look at the various delicate +arrangements of colour and pattern in flowers; or look again at the +arrangement of colour on a humming-bird--sometimes the tail, sometimes +the breast is ornamented, sometimes a splendid crest covers the head, +sometimes a jewelled gorget or ruff surrounds the throat; and these are +not uniformly coloured, but exhibit metallic and other changes of lustre +not to be imitated by the highest art. But to fully realize this, I had +best refer to a more familiar instance. Let any one examine--as an +object very easily procurable in these days--a peacock's feather. No +doubt the whole tail when expanded is very brilliant; but look closely +at the structure of a single feather; is all this arrangement needed +only to make the tail bright or conspicuous? Observe how wonderfully the +outer parts are varied; part has a metallic lustre of copper, part has +this also shot with green: then there is a delicate ring of violet with +a double yellowish border, all quite distinct from the inmost gorgeous +"eye" of green, blue, and black, and all arranged on the same feather! + +Take, again, the so-called diamond beetle of Brazil; here the wing case +is black studded all over with little pits or specks, which as a whole +only give it a powdery pale-green colour; but place it in the sunlight +and look at it with a magnifying glass--each little speck is seen to be +furnished with a set of minute metallic scales showing green and red +flashes like so many diamonds. How does such a delicate ornament answer +the demands of mere conspicuousness? + +But there is a stronger case than this. I before alluded to the +exquisite symmetry of the silicious and crystalline coverings of some of +the simplest forms of marine animalcules; and also I may here add the +beautiful colouring of _shells_ sometimes on the _inside_.[1] In what +possible way would this beauty serve for any purely _useful_ purpose? + + +[Footnote 1: See Mivart, p. 61.] + +Lastly, how are we to account for the beauty of autumnal tints in woods, +or coloured _leaves_ in plants such as the _Caladium_? The beauty is of +no conceivable use to the plant. + +"In Canada the colours of the autumn forest are notorious. Even on +cloudy days the hue of the foliage is of so intense a yellow that the +light thrown from the trees creates the impression of bright sunshine, +each leaf presents a point of sparkling gold. But the colours of the +leafy landscape change and intermingle from day to day, until pink, +lilac, vermilion, purple, deep indigo and brown, present a combination +of beauty that must be seen to be realized; for no artist has yet been +able to represent, nor can the imagination picture to itself, the +gorgeous spectacle.[1]" + +Have we not here an exhibition which cannot be accounted for on any +principle of natural utility? + + +[Footnote 1: "Quarterly Review," 1861, p. 20.] + +(4) The fourth point, as previously stated, will be best treated by +stating beforehand what is the conclusion come to, and then justifying +it. My suggestion is that if we suppose a continuous evolution without a +series of designs prescribed before life began to develop, and without +any external guidance, then we are lost in difficulties. We cannot +account for why variation should set in in the very different ways it +does, nor why such a vast variety of divergent results should be +produced. We cannot account for the tendency to reversion to a previous +type, when artificial or accidental variation is not continually +maintained,[1] nor for the sterility of hybrids; nor, above all, for +evolution performing such freaks (if I may so say) as the origination of +our small finches and the tropical humming-birds from earlier +vertebrates through the Mesozoic reptiles, the pterodactyles, +_Odontornithes_ and subsequent forms. Supposing that the Almighty +Designer created a complete _cosmos_ of (1) the starry heavens and the +planetary system, (2) then a scheme whereby earth and water were to be +duly distributed over our planet; (3) established the relations by +which the external heavenly bodies were to regulate our seasons, tides, +and times (as we know they do). (4) Suppose, further, that the Designer +did not make "out of nothing" the series of finally developed animals as +we now have them, but "made the animals make themselves"--that is to +say, created the type, the ideal form, and adapted the laws and forces +which constitute environment, so that development of form should go on +regularly towards the appointed end, but in separate and appropriate +channels, each terminating when its object had been attained. Suppose +these conditions (which, as we shall afterwards see, are what +Revelation, fairly interpreted, declares) to exist; all the known +_facts_, and also the fairly certain _inferences_ of Evolution, are then +accounted for. + + +[Footnote 1: Pigeon fanciers know that when they have once obtained, by +crossbreeding and selection, a particular form or feather, the utmost +care is needed to preserve it. If the parents are not selected the +progeny wilt gradually revert towards the original wild pigeon type.] + +We have neither by revelation nor physical discovery an exact _scheme_ +of all the types, nor which of the elementary forms were destined to +remain unchanged throughout. But some scheme of created types we surely +have. Whether what we call _species_[1] are all types or not, we cannot +say; probably not. All we can be sure of is that there are definite +lines somewhere. We see the sterility of some hybrids, for instance, +which would seem to indicate that while some forms can conjugate and +their offspring remain fertile, others (approaching, as it were, the +verge of separation) give rise to hybrids which are or not absolutely +sterile,[2] according as they approach, or are more remote from, the +designed barrier-line. And at that point the separation is insuperable. +Certain forms of _Carnivora_ and _Ungulata_ seem to be for ever +apart--not only the two great orders, but even subdivisions within them. +Reptiles and birds, on the other hand, unlike as they at first sight +seem, have no type line drawn to separate them; that, at least, is one +of the more recent conclusions of biological science. + + +[Footnote 1: It should be borne in mind that what we call a _species_ as +distinct from a mere variety, is a more or less arbitrary or provisional +thing dependent on the state of science for the time. Species are +constantly being lumped together by some and separated by others. It +follows most probably, that while some species are really types--i.e., +one can never pass into the other and lose its essentials, unless it is +destined to disappear (like the pterodactyle), not being wanted in the +whole scheme--other species are really only varieties, and maybe lost or +modified without limit.] + +[Footnote 2: We may well regard the mule as a peculiar form just such as +the evolutionist would rejoice to see: here is a modified species, which +has qualities different from those of either of the parent stock, and +well fitted "to struggle for existence." Yet this modified race would, +if left to itself, die out.] + +In other cases where variation has occurred, and especially when it is +artificially--i.e., by the aid of selective breeding--caused or +favoured, there is the constant tendency to _revert_, which is at once +intelligible if there is a type scheme to be maintained. + +If there were a series of created types, there may naturally have been +what I may call sub-types; which would be certain well-marked stages on +the way to the final form. Such sub-type forms would naturally occur at +different ages, and being marked would show their place in the scale, +and their connection with the ultimate perfect form. Such a possibility +would exactly account for the series of _Eohippus, Hipparion_, and +horse, which we have already instanced; and still more so for the rise +and disappearance of the great Mesozoic Saurians when their object was +fulfilled. Deny guidance and type, and everything becomes confused. Why +should variation take certain directions? how comes it that natural +forces and conditions of life so occur and co-operate as to produce the +variety of changes needed? + +And there is also one other general objection which I desire to state. + +Why should _development_ have gone in different directions _towards the +same object_? I grant that different circumstances would produce +different changes, but not for the same purpose. For example take +eye-sight. The world shows several types of eye. The _insect_ eye quite +unlike any other; the crustacean eye also distinct; and birds, fishes, +and animals having an eye which is generally similar and is somewhat +imitated by the eye of the _cuttle fish_ (which is not a _fish_, but a +_cephalopod_). + +Again, granted that _poison_ is a useful defence to creatures: how is it +given so differently?--to a serpent in the tooth; to a bee or a scorpion +in the tail; to a spider in a specially adapted _antenna_, and to the +centipede in a pair of modified legs on the _thorax_. + +One would have supposed that natural causes tending to produce poison +weapons would have all gone on the same lines. And, curiously, in some +few cases, we have a sameness of line. About twelve species--all +fish--have an electric apparatus, familiar to most of us in the flat +sea-fish called _Torpedo_ and in the fresh-water eel called _Gymnotus_. +The only answer the anti-creationist can give to this dissimilarity of +development is that there are many vacant places in the polity of +nature, and that development takes place in that direction which fits +the creature to occupy a vacant place, and is, therefore, diverse. + +It seems to me that this--the only answer that can he given--is +necessarily a modified form or mode _of creation._ How can _natural +causes_ know anything about a polity of nature and a vacant place, here +and there, so that the creature must develop in one way or another to +fill it? + +Another set of cases is the production of similar functional results by +most diverse means, as in the case of flying animals, birds, +pterodactyles, and bats; here there is a widely different modification +of the fore-arm and other bones, all for the same purpose. The reader +will do well to refer to Mr. Mivart's book on this subject. + +Again, the question of types seems to be pointed to in the curious fact +of what I may call the double development of birds from reptiles. Mr. +Mivart says, "If one set of birds sprang from one set of reptiles and +another set from another set of reptiles, the two sets could never by +'natural selection' only have grown into such perfect similarity." Yet +we can trace the _Struthious_ birds (those that, like ostriches, do not +fly) through the Dinosaurs and _Dinornis_, and the flying Carinate birds +though pterodactyles, _Archaeopteryx_, and _Icthyornis_, &c. + +It might well be added to this part of the subject, that granted that +developmental changes were often small, that progress was attained +little by little, this does not appear to have been always the case. + +The discoveries of the fossil species of horse,[1] _Eohippus, +Hipparion_, and so forth, clearly establish a developmental series, and +the ancient forms are claimed as the ancestor of the modern horse; but +these (Professor Owen tells us) differed more from one another than the +ass and the zebra (for instance) differ from the horse. Still, of course +it may be that there are still undiscovered intermediate forms; and in +any case there need be no desire to detract from the value of the +series, as really pointing towards a gradual perfection of the horse +from a ruder ancestor up to the latest type. But having reached the +type, and though that type exhibits such (considerable) variations as +occur between the Shetland pony, the Arab, and the dray-horse, we have +still no difficulty in recognizing the essential identity; nor is there +any evidence or any probability that the horse will ever change into +anything essentially different. All the fossil bats, again, were true +bats: and so with the rhinoceroses and the elephants. Granting the +fullest use that may be made of the imperfection of the geological +record, it is difficult to account for this, and still more for the +absence of intermediate forms (particularly suitable for preservation) +of the _Cetaceae_. The Zeuglodons from Eocene down to Pliocene, the +Dolphins in the Pliocene, and the _Ziphoids Catodontidae_, and +_Balaenidae_ in the Pliocene, are all fully developed forms, with no +intermediate species. + + +[Footnote 1: The series is thus (Nicholson, p. 702):--1. +_Eohippus_--Lower Eocene of America; fore-feet have four toes and a +rudimentary thumb or pollex. 2. _Orohippus_ (about the size of a +fox)--Eocene. 3. _Anchitherium_--Eocene and Lower Miocene; three toes, +but 2 and 4 are diminutive. 4. _Hipparion_--Upper Miocene and Pliocene; +still three toes, but 3 more like the modern horse and 2 and 4 still +further diminished. 5. _Pliohippus_--later Pliocene, very like Equus. 6. +_Equus_--Post-Pliocene.] + +Mr. Mivart remarks, "There are abundant instances to prove that +considerable modifications may suddenly develop themselves, either due +to external conditions or to obscure internal causes in the organisms +which exhibit them.[1]" If it is not so, granted to the full the +imperfection of the Geologic record, but remembering the cases where we +_do_ find intermediate forms; we ask why should they not be preserved in +other cases? If they ever existed we should surely see _more_ changing +forms; not only such as are more or less uncertainly divided species, +but whole orders running one into another. No evidence exists to show +that any bird has gradually passed into an animal, nor a carnivorous +beast become ruminant, or _vice versâ._ + + +[Footnote 1: P. 112] [Transcriber's note: Chapter VIII] + +The analogy of changes that are known will not bear extension enough to +prove, even probably, any such change. + +Surely if our conclusion in favour of a Divine Design to be attained, +and a Providential Intelligence directing the laws of development, is no +more than a belief, it is a probable and reasonable belief: it certainly +meets facts and allows place for difficulties in a way far more +satisfactory than the opposite belief which rejects _all_ but +"secondary" and purely "natural" causes. + +So clear does this seem to me, that I cannot help surmising that we +should never have heard of any objection to Divine creation and +providential direction, if it had not been for a prevalent fixed idea, +that by "creation" _must_ be meant a final, one-act production _(per +saltum)_ of a completely developed form, where previously there had been +nothing. Such a "creation" would of course militate against _any_ +evolution, however cautiously stated or clearly established. And no +doubt such an idea of "creation" was and still is prevalent, and would +naturally and almost inevitably arise, while nothing to the contrary in +the _modus operandi_ of Creative Power was known. What is more strange +is that the current objection should not now be, "Your _idea of +creation_ is all wrong," rather than the one which has been strongly +put forward (and against which I am contending), "There is no place for +a Creator." + +(5) This is the only other _general_ point that remains to be taken up +in connection with the theory that all living forms are due to the +gradual accumulation of small favourable changes without creative +intervention. The objection is that we cannot obtain the inconceivably +long time required for the process of uncontrolled and unaided +evolution. + +I am not here concerned to argue generally for the shortness or longness +of the periods of geological time; let us, for the purposes of argument, +admit a very wide margin of centuries and ages; but _some_ limit there +must be. The sun's light and heat, for one thing, are necessary, and +though the bulk of combustible material in the sun is enormous, there +must be some end to it. Sir William Thomson has calculated (and his +calculations have never been answered) that on purely physical grounds, +the existence of life on the earth must be limited to some such period +as 100 millions of years; and this is far too short for uncontrolled +evolution. + +We know from fossils, that species have remained entirely unaltered +since the glacial epochs began, and how many generations are included +even in that! If no change is visible in all that time, how many more +ages must have elapsed before a primitive _Amoeba_ could have developed +into a bird or a Mammal? + +In Florida Mr. Agassiz has shown that coral insects exist unchanged, +and must have been so for 30,000 years. + +When we remember also the enormous destruction of life that takes place, +supposing that in a given form a few creatures underwent accidental +changes which were beneficial and likely to aid them--still what chances +were there that the creatures which began to exhibit the right sort of +change should have died before they left offspring! the chances against +them are enormous: and the chances have to be repeated at every +successive change before the finally perfected or advanced creature took +its place in the polity of nature. Moreover, there is the chance of +small changes being lost by intercrossing: our own cattle-breeders have +most carefully to select the parents, or else the favourable variety +soon disappears. + +How then, seeing the power of stability which at least some forms are +found to exhibit--seeing too the enormous chances against the survival +of the particular specimens that begin to vary, and the further chances +of the loss of variety by intercrossing; how can we get the millions of +millions of years necessary to produce the present extreme divergence of +species? The fact is that the force of this objection is likely to be +undervalued, from the mere difficulty of bringing home to the mind the +immeasurable time really demanded by uncontrolled evolution. + +Nor is the question of time left absolutely to be matter of belief or +speculation. For here and there in the geological records of the rocks, +we _have_ certain intermediate forms--or forms which we may fairly argue +to be such. But looking at the very considerable differences between the +earlier and the later of these forms--differences greater than those +which now separate well-defined species, it seems questionable whether +any of the divisions of Tertiary time, taking all the circumstances into +consideration, could be lengthened out sufficiently to accomplish the +change. + +At any rate, if any particular example be disallowed, the general +objection must be admitted to be weighty. + +Now the intervention of any system of created designs of animal +form--however little its details be understood--and the production of +variations under _divine guidance_ which would lead more directly to the +accomplishment of such forms as the complicated flowers of orchids above +described, would unquestionably tend to shorten the requisite time. +There would, by a process of reasoning easily followed, be an immediate +reduction of the ages required, within practicable limits, though the +time must still remain long. More than that is not necessary. The +Ussherian chronology is not of Divine revelation, though some persons +speak of it as if it was. There is not the shadow of a reason to be +gleaned from the Bible, nor from any other source, that the commencement +of orderly development, the separation of land and water, earth and sky, +and the subsequent provision of designs for organic forms of life and +the first steps that followed the issue of the design, began six +thousand years ago, or anything like it. It can be shown, indeed, that +_historical_ man, or the specific origin of the man spoken of as Adam, +dates back but a limited time; and it is calculable with some degree of +probability how far; but that is all. We are therefore in no difficulty +when ample time is demanded; but we are in the greatest straits when the +illimitable demands of a slowly and minutely stepping development, +perpetually liable to be checked, turned back, and even obliterated, +have to be confronted with other weighty probabilities and calculations +regarding the sun's light and heat, and the duration of particular +geologic eras. + + + + +CHAPTER VII. + + +_THE DESCENT OF MAN_. + +We now approach a special objection which always, has been (and I shall +be pardoned, perhaps, for saying _always will be_) the _crux_ of the +theory of unaided, uncreated evolution--the advent of reasoning, and not +only reasoning, but self-conscious and God-conscious MAN. + +Here again the lines of argument are so numerous, and the details into +which we might go so varied, that a rigid and perhaps bald selection of +a few topics is all that can be attempted. + +But I may remark that naturalists are far from being agreed on this part +of the subject. Agassiz rejects the evolution of man altogether. Mr. St. +G. Mivart, while partly admitting, as every one else now does, the +doctrine of evolution, denies the descent of man. Mr. Wallace, the great +apostle of evolution, opposes Darwin, and will have none of his views on +the descent of man; and Professor Huxley himself says that, while the +resemblance of structure is such that if any "process of physical +causation can be discovered by which the genera and families of ordinary +animals have been produced, the process of causation is amply sufficient +to account for the origin of man," still he admits that the gulf is vast +between civilized man and brutes, and he is certain that "whether _from_ +them or not, man is assuredly not _of_ them." + +The first difficulty I shall mention is, however, a structural one. +Supposing that an ape-like ancestor developed into man, on the +principles of natural selection; then his development has taken place in +a manner directly contrary to the acknowledged law of natural selection. +He has developed backwards; his frame is in every way weaker; he is +wanting in agility; he has lost the prehensile feet; he has lost teeth +fitted for fighting or crushing or tearing; he has but little sense of +smell; he has lost the hairy covering, and is obliged to help himself by +clothes.[1] If this loss was ornamental it is quite unlike any other +development in this respect, since no other creature has the same; for +ornamental purposes the fur becomes coloured, spotted, and striped, but +not lost. It is easy to reply that man being _intelligent_, his brain +power enables him to invent clothes, arms, implements, and so forth, +which not only supply all deficiencies of structure, but give him a +great superiority over all creatures. But how did he get that +intelligence? By what natural process of causation (without intelligent +direction) is it conceivable that, given a species of monkey, all at +once and at a certain stage, structural development should have been +retarded and actually reversed, and a development of brain structure +alone set in? Nor, be it observed, has any trace of _man_ with a +rudimentary brain ever been discovered. Savages have brains far in +excess of their requirements, and can consequently be educated and +improved. The skull of a prehistoric man found in the Neanderthal near +Dusseldorf is of average brain capacity, showing that in those remote +ages man was very much in capacity what he is at present. + + +[Footnote 1: It is remarkable that the loss of the hairy covering is +most complete when it is most wanted: the back, the spine, and the +shoulders are in nearly all races unprotected; and yet the want of a +covering from the heat or cold is such that the rudest savages have +invented some kind of cloak for the back.] + +It must, however, be admitted that the special difficulties of the +origin of man are not purely structural. We do not know enough of the +Divine plan to be able to understand why it is that there is a certain +undeniable unity of form, in the two eyes, ears, mouth, limbs and organs +generally of the animal and man. Moreover, much is made of the fact, as +stated by a recent "Edinburgh Reviewer," that "the physical difference +between man and the lowest ape is trifling compared with that which +exists between the lowest ape and any brute animal that is not an +ape.[1]" This fact no doubt negatives the idea put forward by Bishop +Temple and others, that if there was an evolution of man, it must have +been in a special branch which was foreseen and commenced very far back +in the scale of organic being. For the structural difference might not +require such a separate origin; while the mental difference, affording +objections of a different class, will not allow of _any_ such evolution +at all. That there is _some_ connection between man and the animal +cannot be denied, and consequently, in the absence of fuller +information, very little would be gained by insisting on the purely +_physical_ development question. The Bible states positively that the +man Adam (as the progenitor of a particular race, at any rate) was a +separate and actual production, on a given part of the earth's surface. +All that we need conclude regarding that is that there is nothing known +which entitles us to say, "This is not a fact, and therefore is not +genuine revelation." + + +[Footnote 1: No. 331, July, 1885, p. 223.] + +Moreover, as to the question of the possibility of human development +generally, there are certain considerations which directly support our +belief. For example, directly we look to the characteristic point, the +gift of intellect, we can reasonably argue that the action of a Creator +is indispensable. The entrance of consciousness and of reason, however +elementary, marks something out of all analogy with the development of +physical structure, just as much as the entrance of Life marked a new +departure in no analogy with the "properties" of inorganic matter. + +From the first dawn of what looks like _will_ and _choice_ between two +things, and something like a _reason_ which directs the course of the +organism in a particular way for a particular object, we have an +altogether new departure. The difficulty commences at the outset, and +even in the animal creation; it is merely continued and rendered more +striking when we take into consideration the higher development of +intellect into power of abstract reasoning, self-consciousness and +God-consciousness. + +It is perfectly true that the difference between the "instinct" of +animals and the reason and mind of man, is one of degree rather than +kind. As Christians, we have no objection whatever to a development of +reason from the lowest reason solely concerned with earthly and bodily +affairs to the highest powers searching into deep and spiritual truths. +But such a development, though it is parallel to a physical +development--as spiritual law appears to be always parallel (as far as +the nature of things permits) to physical laws--still is a development +which cannot under any possible circumstances dispense with an external +spiritual order of existence, and one which cannot be physically caused. +Nor is it conceivable that man should develop a consciousness of God, +when no God really exists externally to the consciousness.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: For our consciousness of God is obviously very different +from a figment of the imagination, or the sort of reality experienced in +a dream. This is not the place to develop such an argument, but it seems +to me more than doubtful whether we can even _imagine_ something +_absolutely_ non-existent in nature. When the artist's imagination would +construct, e.g., a winged dragon, the concept is always made up of +_parts which are real_--eyes like an alligator, bat-wings, scales of a +fish or crocodile, and so forth. All the members or parts are real, put +together to form the unreal. I do not believe that any instance of a +human conception can be brought forward which on analysis will not +conform to this rule.] + +The main objection, then, that I would press is, that admitting any +possibility of the development of man from a purely physical and +structural point of view, admitting any inference that may be drawn +fairly from the undoubted connection (increasingly great as it is as we +go upwards from the lower animal to the ape) between animals and man, +that inference never can touch the descent of man as a whole; because no +similarity of bodily structure can get over the difficulty of the mental +power of man. We have to deal not with a part of man, but with the +whole. The difficulty cannot be got over by denying _mind_ as a thing +_per se_; for all attempts to represent mind as the _mere_ product of a +physical structure, the brain, utterly fail. + +Nobody wishes to deny what Dr. H. Maudsley and others have made so plain +to us, that mind has (in one aspect, at any rate) a physical basis--that +is, that no thought, imagination, or combination of thought, is known to +us _apart from_ change and expenditure of energy in the brain. Nor can +we, by any process of introspection or observation of other subjects, +separate the mind from the brain and ascertain the existence of "pure +mind," or soul, experimentally. But still, there is no possibility of +getting the operations of mind out of mere cell structure, unless an +external Power has added the mind power, as a faculty of His endowing; +then He may be allowed to have connected that faculty ever so +mysteriously with physical structure; we are content. And I must insist +on the total failure of all analogy between the development of bones or +muscles and the development of mind; and even if we grant a certain +stage of instinct to have arisen, we are still in the dark as to how +that could develop into intellect such as man possesses, including a +belief in God. On this subject let us hear Professor Allman. Between a +development of material structure and a development of intellectual and +moral features, the Professor says, "there is no conceivable analogy; +and the obvious and continuous path, which we have hitherto followed up, +in our reasonings from the phenomena of lifeless matter to those of +living form, here comes suddenly to an end. The chasm between +_unconscious_ life and _thought_ is deep and impassable, and no +transitional phenomena are to be found by which, as by a bridge, we can +span it over.[1]" + +There can be _life_ or _function_ without _consciousness_ or _thought;_ +therefore, even if we go so far as to admit that life is only a property +of protoplasm, there can be no ground for saying that _thought_ is only +a property of protoplasm. + + +[Footnote 1: British Association Address.] + +"If," says Professor Allman, "we were to admit that every living cell +were a conscious and thinking thing, are we therefore justified in +asserting that its consciousness with its irritability is a property of +the matter of which it is composed? The sole argument on which this view +is made to rest is analogy. It is argued that because the life +phenomena, which are invariably found in the cell, must be regarded as a +property of the cell, the phenomena of consciousness by which they are +accompanied must also be so regarded. The weak point in the argument is +the absence of all analogy between the things compared: and as the +conclusion rests solely on the argument from analogy, the two must fall +to the ground together." + +Try and assign to matter all the properties you can think of, its +impenetrability, extension, weight, inertia, elasticity, and so forth, +by no process of thought (as Mr. Justice Fry observes in an article in +"The Contemporary Review [1]") can you get out of them an adequate +account of the phenomena of mind or spirit. We just now observed that +consciousness, thought, and so forth, are never exhibited apart from the +action of the brain; some change in the brain accompanies them all. We +do not deny that. But it is obvious that thought being manifested in the +presence of cerebral matter or something like it, is a very different +thing from thought being a _property_ of such matter, in the sense in +which polarity is the property of a magnet, or irritability of living +protoplasm. + + +[Footnote 1: October, 1880, p. 587.] + +To all this I have seen no answer. The way in which the opponents of +Christian beliefs meet such considerations appears to be to ignore or +minimize them, so as to pass over to what seems to them a satisfactory +if not an easy series of transitions. If Life is after all only a +"property" of matter, then given life, a brain may be produced; and as +mind is always manifested in the presence of (and apparently +indissolubly united with) brain structure, it is not a much greater leap +to accept _life_ as a property of _matter_ than it is to take _thought_ +as a property of a certain _specialized physical structure_. It is true +that the distance is great between the instinct of an animal and the +abstract reasoning power of a Newton or a Herbert Spencer; but (as we +are so often told) the difference is of degree not of kind, and as the +brain structure develops, so does the power and degree of reason. As to +the difference in man, that he is the only "religious" animal--the one +creature that has the idea of God--that is a mere development of the +emotions in connection with abstract reasoning as to the cause of +things. No part of our mental nature is more common to the animal and +the man than the emotional; and if in the one it is mere love and +hatred, joy and grief, confidence and fear, in the other the emotions +are developed into the poetic sense of beauty, or the awe felt for what +is grand and noble; and this insensibly passes into _worship_, the root +of the whole being fear of the unknown and the mysterious. That is the +general line of argument taken up. + +Even accepting the solution (if such it maybe called) of the two first +difficulties--life added spontaneously or aboriginally to matter, and +thought and consciousness added to organism--still the rest of the path +is by no means so easy as might at the first glance appear. Development +in brain structure certainly does not always proceed _pari passu_ with a +higher and more complex reasoning. In actual fact we find high +"reasoning" power, quite unexpectedly here and there, up and down the +animal kingdom. Some _insects_, with very little that can be called a +brain at all, exhibit high intelligence; and some animals with smaller +brains are more docile and intelligent than others with a much larger +development. The ape, in spite of his close physical approach to the +structure of man, and his still greater relative distance from the other +animal creation, is not superior (if he is not decidedly inferior) in +reason or intelligence to several animals lower down in the scale. + +Savages, again, have a brain greatly in excess of their actual +requirements (so to speak). Hence the mere existence of brain, however +complex, does not indicate the possession of mental power. + +There is reason to believe that all thought and exercise of the mind--in +fact, every step in the process of "Education," whereby an ignorant +person is brought at last to apprehend the most abstract +propositions--is accompanied by some molecular (or other) change. So +that a person who has been carefully educated has the brain in a +different state from that of an exactly similarly constituted person +whose brain has been subjected to no such exercise. But even if this +action could be formulated and explained, it would not follow that +thought is the _product_ of the molecular change; or that, _vice versâ_, +if we could artificially produce certain changes, in the brain, certain +thoughts and perceptions would thereon coexist with the changes, and +arise in the mind of the subject forthwith. And if not, then no process +of physical development accounts for grades of intellect; we have only +mind developing as mind. But the theory of evolution will have nothing +to do with any development but physical; or at any rate with mental +development except as the result of physical: it knows nothing of pure +mind, or spiritual existence, or anything of the sort. + +In the nature of things we can have neither observation nor experiment +in this stage. We cannot by any process develop the lower mind of an +animal into the higher mind of man, and prove the steps of the +evolution.[1] It is important to remember that the power of _directing +the attention by a voluntary process of abstraction_, is one that +distinctively belongs to man. It is an effort of will, of a kind that no +animal has any capacity for. By it alone have we any power of abstract +reasoning, and it is intimately concerned with our self-consciousness +and memory, and with our language. I am quite aware that animals possess +something analogous to a language of their own; they can indicate +certain emotions and give warning, and so forth, to their fellows. But +that language could never develop into human language, or the animal +will (such as it is) ever rise to a human will, or animals become +endowed with self-consciousness, unless they could acquire the power of +voluntarily abstracting the mind from one subject or part of a subject +and fixing the attention on another. We cannot formulate any process of +change whereby the lower state could pass on to or attain to the higher +in this respect. + + +[Footnote 1: We can of course follow the sort of mental development +which is traceable when we consider the origin of our own sagacious and +faithful dogs in the wild prairie dog: but this development is always in +contact with the mind of man, and is, as it were, the result of man's +action, as man's development in mind and soul is the result of God's +action.] + +Therefore again we conclude that the higher reason is a gift _ab +externo_. + +If we take a step further to the "spiritual" or "moral" faculties of +man, we have the same difficulty intensified, if indeed it does take a +new departure. To examine the question adequately would require us to go +into the deep waters of psychology; and here we should encounter many +matters regarding which there may be legitimate doubt and difference of +opinion, which would obscure and lead us away from our main line of +thought. + +This I would willingly avoid. But it is quite intelligible, and touches +on no dangerous ground, when we assert that there is a distinct +ascent--an interval again raising developmental difficulties, directly +we pass from the intellectual to the moral. We may wonder at the high +degree of intelligence possessed by some animals; but we are unable to +conceive any animal possessing a power of abstract reasoning, having +ideas of beauty (as such), or of manifesting what we call the poetic +feeling. And still more is this so when we look at the further interval +that lies between any perception of physical phenomena, any reasoning in +the abstract, or investigation of mathematical truth, and the +overmastering sense of obligation to the "moral law," or the action of +the soul in its instinctive possession of the conception of a Divine +Existence external to itself. It is because of this felt difference that +we talk of the "spiritual" as something beyond and above the "mental." + +The distinction is real, though we must not allow ourselves to be led +too far in attempting to scan the close union that, from another point +of view, exists between the one and the other. + +In a recent number of "The Edinburgh Review,[1]" the author complains of +Bishop Temple thus: "He uses the word spiritual in such a way that he +might be taken to imply that we had some other faculty for the +perception of moral truths, in addition to, and distinct from, our +reason." And the writer goes on to make an "uncompromising assertion of +reason as the one supreme faculty of man. To depreciate reason (he says) +to the profit of some supposed 'moral' illative sense, would be to open +the door to the most desolating of all scepticisms, and to subordinate +the basis of our highest intellectual power to some mere figment of the +imagination." + + +[Footnote 1: July, 1885, p. 211, in the course of the article to which I +have already alluded.] + +On the other hand, some writers (claiming to derive their argument from +the Scriptures) have supposed they could assert three distinct natures +in man--a spiritual, a mental (or psychic), and a bodily. Now there is +no doubt that, rightly or wrongly (I am not now concerned with that), +the Bible does distinctly assert that a "breath of lives" [1] was +specially put into the bodily form of man, and adds that thereby "man +became a living soul." But it is also stated of the animal creation that +the breath of life was given to them,[2] and animals are said to have a +"soul" (nephesh).[3] So that neither in the one case nor the other have +we more than the two elements: a body, and a life put into it; though of +course the man's "life" (as the plural indicates, and other texts +explain) was higher in kind than that of the animal. + + +[Footnote 1: The plural of excellence appears to mark something superior +in the spirit of man over that of the animals. Also compare Job xxxiii. +4, "The breath of the Almighty hath given me life," with Isa. xlii. 5 +and Zech. xii. 1.] + +[Footnote 2: Though not in the plural of excellence. See Gen. vi 17, +vii. 22, &c.] + +[Footnote 3: Gen. i. 20, margin of A.V.] + +St. Paul, it is true, speaks of the "whole spirit, and soul, and +body.[1]" But our Lord Himself, in a very solemn passage (where it would +be most natural to expect the distinction, if it were absolute and +structural, to be noticed), speaks of the "soul and body" only.[2] + +The fact is that we are only able to argue conclusively that, besides +the physical form, we have a non-material soul, or a self. And our Lord, +whose teaching was always eminently practical, went no further. We are +conscious of a "self"--something that remains, while the body +continually grows and changes. + +There was in _Punch_, some time ago, a picture of an old grandfather, +with a little child looking at a marble bust representing a child. "Who +is that?" asks the little one; and the old man replies, "That is +grandfather when he was a little boy." "And who is it now?" rejoins the +child. One smiles at the picture, but in reality it conceals a very +important and a very pathetic truth. Nothing could well be greater than +the outward difference between the grey hairs and bowed figure and the +little cherub face; and yet there was a "self"--a soul, that remained +the same throughout. In Platonic language, while the [Greek: eidôlon] +perpetually changes, the [Greek: eidos] remains. We have, therefore, +evidence as positive as the nature of the subject admits that we are +right in speaking of the _body and the soul, or self_. And as we cannot +connect the higher reasoning, and, above all, conscience and the +religious belief, as a "property" of physical structure, we conclude +that the Scripture only asserts facts when it attributes both to the +soul, as a spiritual element or nature belonging to the body. Man is +essentially one;[3] but there is both a material and a non-material, a +physical and a spiritual element, in the one nature. But, being a +spiritual element, that part of our nature necessarily has two sides (so +to speak). It has its point of contact with self and the world of sense, +and its point of contact with the world of spirit and with the Great +Spirit of all, from whom it came. _Because_ of that higher "breath of +lives" given by the Most High, man possesses the faculty of +_consciousness of God_ (i.e., the higher spiritual faculties), besides +the consciousness of self, or merely intellectual power regarding self +and the external world. Therefore, when an Apostle desires to speak very +forcibly of something that is to affect a man through and through, in +every part and in every aspect of his nature, he speaks of the "whole +spirit, soul, and body." To sum up: all that we know from the Bible is +that God gave a "soul" (nephesh) to the animals, in consequence of which +(when united to the physical structure) the functions of life and the +phenomena of intelligence are manifested. So God gave a non-material, +and therefore "spiritual," element to human nature; and this being of a +higher grade and capacity to that of the animal world, not only in its +union with physical structure, makes the man a "living soul"--gives him +an intelligence and a certain reason such as the animals have, but also +gives him, as a special and unique endowment; the consciousness of self +(involving--which is very noteworthy--a consciousness of its own +limitations) and the consciousness of God. Hence man's power of +improvement. If the man cultivates only the self-consciousness and the +reason that is with it, the Scriptures speak of him as the "natural or +psychic man;" if he is enabled by Divine grace to develop the higher +moral and spiritual part of his nature, and to walk after the Spirit, +not after the flesh, he is a "spiritual man." + + +[Footnote 1: 1 Thess. v. 23.] + +[Footnote 2: Matt. x. 28.] + +[Footnote 3: The well-known argument of St. Paul regarding the +resurrection in 1 Cor. xv. (ver. 45, &c.) is well worthy of +consideration in this connection. He deals with man as _one whole_; +nothing is said about a man being (or having) a spirit separate from his +soul and his body, and that spirit being given a higher body than it had +upon earth; but of the whole man, soul _and_ body, being raised and +changed into a man, also one whole, with a more perfect body--a body +more highly developed in the ascending scale of perfection. I do not +forget the passage where the same Apostle (2 Cor. v. 6) speaks of being +in the body, and absent from the Lord; and of being "clothed upon;" but +this does not in any way detract from the importance of the treatment of +the subject in the First Epistle.] + +It is idle to speculate whether the "nephesh" of the animals, or the +"living self" of the man, is an entity separate from the body, and +capable of existing _per se_--of its own inherent nature--apart from +it. We do not know that animal forms are the clothing of a lower-graded +but separate spiritual form, or that such an animal soul or spirit can +exist separately from the body; and we do not _know_ (from the +Bible)--whatever may be the current language on the subject--that man's +spirit is in its nature capable of anything like permanent separate +existence.[1] Man is essentially one; and when the physical change +called death passes over him, it does not utterly obliterate the whole +being. The non-material element is not affected any more than it is by +the sleep of every night; and the man will be ultimately raised, not a +spiritual or immaterial form, but provided, as before, with a body, only +one of a higher capacity and better adapted to its higher +environments--the "spiritual body" of St. Paul, in a word. The original +union of mind and matter is, on any possible theory, mysterious; and the +separation of them for a time is neither less so, nor more. All this is +perfectly true, whether the non-material element in man's nature is +_necessarily_, inherently and _by nature_, immortal or not--a question +which I do not desire to enter on. + +Hence it is that a certain element of truth is recognized in the protest +of the Edinburgh Reviewer. On the other hand, as we have not only +intelligence, emotions (which are possessed in lower degree by animals), +self-consciousness, the power of abstract reasoning, and the higher +faculties of the imagination,[2] but also the consciousness of God and +the commanding sense of right and wrong; and seeing that the last-named +are different in kind from the former, we give them a separate name, and +speak of the moral or spiritual nature or capacity of man, as well as +the intellectual or mental. Some (by the way) choose "moral" to include +both, holding that ethical perceptions arise out of (or are intimately +connected with) our sense of God. Others would make a further +distinction, and confine "moral" to the (supposed) bare ethical +perception of duty or of right and wrong, and add "spiritual" to +distinguish the highest faculty of all, whereby man holds communion with +his Maker and recognizes his relation to Him. + + +[Footnote 1: This remark does not, of course, in any way touch the +question whether the spiritual part of a man is conscious in the +interval between death and resurrection, or whether it can be made +sensible in any way whatever to living persons.] + +[Footnote 2: The poetic sense, the perception of the beautiful, &c.] + +Whether this further distinction is justified or not, there is a +distinction between the moral and the purely intellectual; and we are +justified in using different terms for things that are _practically_ +different. This the Edinburgh Reviewer seems to have forgotten. + +It was necessary to my argument to enter on this somewhat lengthy +examination of the spiritual nature of man, because, while we +acknowledge the unity of man, we are compelled to recognize in his +religious sense and aspirations and capacities something quite +disparate--something that we could not get by a natural process of +growth from such beginnings of reason as are observed in the lower +animals. + +I am aware that Dr. Darwin conceived that the religious feeling of man +might have grown out of the natural emotions of fear,[1] love, +gratitude, &c., when once men began to question as to the explanation of +the phenomena of life, and to ascribe the forces of nature to the +possession of a spirit such as he himself was conscious of: and with +much more positive intent, Mr. H. Spencer has also, after most +painstaking inquiries, formulated what he conceives to be the origin of +religious belief in man. He refers us to the early belief in a "double" +of self, which double could be projected out of self, and remained in +some way after death, so as to become the object of fear, and ultimately +of worship. When this ancestor-worship resulted in the worship of a +multitude of "genii" (whose individuality, as regards their former +earthly connection, is more or less forgotten), then the idea of +attaching the numerous divinities or ancestor-souls to the ocean, the +sky, the sun, the mountains, and the powers of nature, arises; whence +the poetic systems of ancient polytheistic mythology. Gradually men +began to reason and to think, and they refined the polytheism into the +"higher" idea of one great, central, immaterial all-pervading power, +which they called God. + + +[Footnote: 1 See the "Descent of Man," vol. i. p. 68 (original edition). +But it is right to state that the subject is not treated in any way +whatever so as to argue that the religious belief is a fancy, or +development of fancy, with no God and no facts about God behind it.] + +Mr. Spencer, in effect, concludes that this "God" is only man's own +idea of filling up a blank, of explaining the fact that there must be an +ultimate first cause of whatever exists, and there is also a great +source of power of some kind external to ourselves.[1] + +I am not going here to enter on any special argument as to the validity +of these theories in their relation to the direct question of the nature +and existence of God. What we are here concerned with is, whether they +enable us to exclude the idea of a gift and a giver of spiritual or +mental (we will not quarrel about terms) nature to man, and whether, by +any fair reasoning from analogy, we can suppose man's reason and his +"_sensus numinis_" to arise by the mere stages of natural growth and +development. Dr. Darwin's supposition takes no notice of the moral law +and its influence; indeed he adopts[2] the view that conscience is no +sense of right and wrong, but only the stored up and inherited social +instinct, a sense of convenience and inconvenience to the tribe and to +the individual, which at last acts so spontaneously and rapidly in +giving its verdict on anything, that we regard it as a special sense. It +would of course be possible to expend much time and many words in +argument on this subject. There is not, and never will be, any direct +evidence as to the origin of conscience; and as that sense (like any +other power of our mental nature) is capable of being educated, evoked, +enlightened, and strengthened, and may also by neglect and contradiction +deteriorate and wither away, there is ample room for allowing a certain +part of the theory.[3] But many people who examine their own conscience +will feel that the description certainly does not suit them; there are +many things which conscience disapproves, of which no great evil +consequences to themselves or any one else are felt. Conscience is +constantly condemning "the way that seemeth good unto a man." +_Ultimately_ no doubt, there is real evil at the end of everything that +conscience warns a man against; but not such as "inherited experience" +is likely to recognize. Is it, for instance, the experience of the mass +of men, as men, that the "fleshly mind is death, but the spiritual mind +is life and peace"? Is not rather the world at large habitually putting +money-making, position-making, and the care of the things of the body, +of time, and of sense, in the first place; and is not the moral law +perpetually warning us that the fashion of the world passes away, and +that what seems gold is in reality tinsel? As far as the condemnation +that conscience passes on the broad evils which affect society--"thou +shalt not steal," "thou shalt not lie," or so forth--no doubt it is +supported by the transmitted sense of inconvenience; but who has told it +of the evil of things that do not affect our social state? and who has +changed the inconvenient, the painful, into the _wrong_? It is one thing +to instinctively avoid a theft or a falsehood, even if the first origin +of such instinct were the fear of consequences or the love of +approbation; it is quite another--the inward condemnation of something +which "the deceitfulness of sin" is able to excuse, and which the world +at large would regard as permissible or at least venial. Even if +inherited use has its full play, there is still a something wanted +before the one can be got into (or out of) the other. Why, again, are +savages prone to imagine natural phenomena to be caused or actuated by +"spirits"? Surely it is because there _is_ consciously a spirit in man, +and a Higher Power, even God, outside, who exists, though man in his +ignorance has many false ideas regarding Him. + + +[Footnote 1: It is not necessary to my immediate argument, and therefore +I do not press it into the text (though I should be sorry to seem to +forget it for a moment), to urge that St. Paul draws a clear distinction +between the intellectual faculties and the higher spiritual ones, when +he assures us that the clearest intellect alone cannot assimilate the +truths of religion. For the spiritual faculties have been in man +grievously deadened and distorted (to say the least of it), so that his +intellectual faculties, bright and highly developed as they may be, will +always prove insufficient for the highest life in the absence of the +"grace of God." It is exactly analogous to the case of a man whom we +might suppose to have his sense of sight, touch, &c., distorted, and he +himself unable to correct them by aid of the senses of others. However +acutely he might exercise his reason, he would be continually wrong in +his conclusions. See 1 Cor. ii., the whole, but specially vers. 14, 15.] + +[Footnote 2: "Descent of Man," vol. i. p, 70.] + +[Footnote 3: The attempt (already alluded to) to separate moral and +spiritual, to imagine something that is ethical, apart from the +religious idea, has lent some strength to these ideas of the moral +sense; but in fact, the moral sense is _inseparably_ connected with the +idea of God, and His approval and disapproval. The idea of God may be +obscured and lost, but conscience is the surviving trace of it; the +circumference that accounts for the broken arc.] + +It is an objection of the same order that applies to the other theory +(Mr. Spencer's). There can be little doubt that in many respects it is +true: as an account of all _human_ systems of religion it is adequate +and natural; but it breaks down hopelessly when we try to use it to +explain how the conception of God originated in the mind. Just as there +is a felt difference--not of degree or in form, but essential and +radical in its nature--between the _undesirable_ and the _wrong_, so +there is a difference between the idea of a mysterious thing towards +which apprehension or awe is felt, and the conception of God. Granted +that man believed in his own spirit or double, and attributed similar +immaterial motor powers as a cause for the wind and waves, and so forth; +granted that he at last "refined" this into the belief in one Spirit +whose power was necessarily great and varied--the origin is still +unexplained. How did man get the idea of a personal spirit or double--no +such thing, _ex hypothesi_ existing? How did he get to formulate the +idea of a _God_ when he had simplified his group of many spirits into +one? + +If man is created with a consciousness of his own inner-self, _as a +self_, he is able naturally to imagine a like self in other beings; if +he has an idea of God innate in him, he can assimilate the truth when it +is at last presented to his mind; and that is why he feels that it _is_ +a refinement; a rising from the lower to the higher (because from +falsehood to truth), to let the many gods give place to the One God. If +the idea of God has been obscured, and the power of its apprehension +deadened, the man can only grope about helplessly, fashioning this +explanation of nature and that--all more or less false, but all dimly +bearing witness to the two absolute facts, that there is an inner +non-material self, and an external non-material God. + +If then there are insuperable difficulties in connecting thought with +matter by any process of unaided development, there are also great +difficulties, even when thought in a rudimentary form is given, in +conceiving it developed into man's reason, or man's religious belief, by +any known process of "natural" causation. + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. + + +_FURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF MAN_. + +There are, however, some other matters connected with the history of man +on the globe, unconnected with psychological development, but which +demand notice, as making the argument against an undesigned, unaided +development of man a cumulative one. It is urged that whatever may be +thought of the connection of man with the animal creation, at any rate +the received Christian belief regarding the origin of man--especially +his late appearance on the scene--is contrary to known facts, and that +we have to mount up to a vast geologic antiquity to account for what is +known from exhumed remains in caves and lake dwellings, and the like. + +Now no one pretends that the history of man is free from doubt and +difficulty, but the doubt and difficulty are not confined to the +"orthodox." For the inferences to be drawn from the exhumed remains are +equally doubtful whatever views be adopted. + +I shall not go into great length on this subject, partly because some +recent popular tracts of Canon Rawlinson, Mr. R.S. Pattison, and others, +have already made the ordinary reader familiar with the main outlines of +the subject; and still more because, be the views of archaeologists what +they may, it is impossible for any rational person to contend either +that they can be reduced to anything like unity among themselves, or +that they lead to any conclusion favourable to the belief in the +self-caused and undesigned evolution of man. + +It may be regarded as known, that at the dawn of history, mankind was +passing through what may be called a Bronze age, in which weapons of +bronze were used before tools of iron were invented. But this age was +preceded by one in which even bronze was unknown. Stone implements, and +some of bone and horn, were alone used. It is also well ascertained that +there were two _widely divided_ stone ages. The latter, distinguished by +the polishing of the stones, is described as the _neolithic_; the +former, in which flint and other hard stone fragments were merely +chipped or flaked to an edge, is called the _palaeolithic_. + +It is hardly contended that the neolithic age could have been more than +four or five thousand years ago. There is always the greatest difficulty +in fixing any dates because from the nature of the case written records +are absent, and the stages of growth in the history of peoples overlap +so. + +We know that sharp flakes of stone were still used for knives in the +time of Moses and Joshua. We are not out of the stone age yet, as +regards some portions of the globe; and it is quite possible that parts +of the earth, not so very remote, may have been still in the midst of a +stone age when Assyria, Chaldaea, and Egypt were comparatively highly +civilized. + +It is also fairly certain that between the neolithic or smooth-stone +age, and the palaeolithic, certain important geological changes took +place, though those changes were not such as to have demanded any very +great length of time for their accomplishment. + +The palaeolithic stone implements are found in river gravels and clays, +along the higher levels of our own Thames Valley, that of the Somme in +France, and in other places. They are also found at the bottom of +various natural caverns. + +No human bones have been found as yet with the implements, but the bones +of large numbers of animals have. And it seems certain that the men who +made the implements were contemporaries of the animals, because in the +later part of the age, at any rate, they drew or scratched likenesses of +the animals on bone. Among these representations are figures of the +_mammoth_ an extinct form well known to the reader by description and +museum specimens of remains. + +The animals contemporary with these primeval men were the mammoth, +species of rhinoceros and hippopotamus, the "sabre-toothed" lion, the +cave-bear, the reindeer, besides oxen, horses, and other still surviving +forms. + +In his address to the British Association in 1881 Sir John Lubbock +called attention to the fact that these animals appear to indicate both +a hot and a cold climate, and he referred to the fact (known to +astronomers) that the earth passes through periods of slow change in the +eccentricity of its orbit, and in the obliquity of the ecliptic. The +result of the latter condition is, to produce periods of about 21,000 +years each, during one-half of which the Northern hemisphere will be +hotter, and in the other the Southern. At present we are in the former +phase. + +But the obliquity of the ecliptic does not act alone; the eccentricity +of the orbit produces another effect, namely, that when it is at a +minimum the difference between the temperatures of the two hemispheres +is small, and as the eccentricity increases, so does the difference. At +the present time the eccentricity is represented by the fraction .016. +But about 300,000 years ago the eccentricity would have been as great as +.26 to .57. The result, it is explained, would have been not a uniform +heat or cold, but extremes of both; there would probably have been short +but very hot summers, and long and intensely cold winters. + +This, Sir John Lubbock thought, might account for the co-existence of +both hot and arctic species, like the hippopotamus and rhinoceros on the +one hand, and the musk-ox and the reindeer on the other. + +But such considerations really help us little. In the first place, it is +only an assumption that the fossil hippopotamus _was_ an animal of a hot +climate--it does not in any way follow from the fact that the now +existing species is such; nor if we make the assumption, does it explain +how, if the hot summer sufficed for the tropical hippopotamus, it +managed to survive the long and cold winters which suited the arctic +species. + +Moreover, no such calculations can really be made with accuracy: we do +not know what other astronomical facts may have to be taken into +consideration, nor can we say when such "periods" as those which are so +graphically described, began or ended. + +In this very instance, we know that the mammoth only became extinct in +comparatively recent times, since specimens have been found in Siberia, +with the hair, skin, and even flesh, entirely preserved. Granted that +the intense cold of the Siberian ice effected this, it is impossible to +admit more than a limited time for the preservation--not hundreds of +thousands of years. Professor Boyd Dawkins is surely right in stating +that the calculations of astronomy afford us no certain aid at present +in this inquiry. + +As regards the geological indications of age, the best authority seems +to point to the first appearance of man in the post-glacial times: that +is to say, that the gravels in which the palaeolithic implements are +found were deposited by the action of fresh water after the great +glacial period, when, at any rate, Northern Europe, a great part of +Russia, all Scandinavia, and part of North America were covered with +icefields, the great glaciers of which left their mark in the numerous +scoopings out of ravines and lake beds and in the raising of banks and +mounds, the deposit of boulders, and the striation of rocks _in situ_, +which so many districts exhibit. + +The few instances in which attempts have been made, in Italy or +elsewhere, to argue for a pliocene man (i.e. in the uppermost group of +the tertiary) have ended in failure, at least in the minds of most +naturalists competent to judge. + +One of the most typical instances of the position of the implement age +has been discovered by Fraas at Shüssenried in Suabia; here the remains +of tools and the bones of animals (probably killed for food) were found +in holes made in the glacial _débris_. + +But here, again, it is impossible to say when this glacial age +terminated, and whether man might not have been living in other more +favoured parts while it was wholly or partially continuing. + +In Scandinavia no palaeolithic stone implements have been found, from +which it may be inferred that the glacial period continued there during +the ages when palaeolithic man hunted and dwelt in caves in the other +countries where his remains occur. + +The best authorities do not suppose that the men _originated_ in the +localities where the tools are found; and there is so little known about +the geology of Central Asia (for example) that it is impossible to say +whether tribes may not have wandered from some other places not affected +by the glaciation we have spoken of. + +Again, the gravels and brick earths containing the tools are just of the +kind which defy attempts to say how long it took to deposit and arrange +them. + +It may be taken as certain, that after the one age ceased and the first +men appeared, the beds in which their relics occur have been raised +violently, and again depressed and subjected to great flushes and floods +of water. The caves have been upheaved, and the gravels are found +chiefly along the valleys of our present rivers, but at a much higher +level, showing that there was both a higher level of the soil itself and +a much greater volume of water. + +The Straits of Dover were formed during this period. + +But none of these changes required a very long time; and if we can trace +back the later stone age, which shows remains of pottery and other +proofs of greater civilization, to the dawn of the historic period not +more than 4000 or 5000 years ago, there is nothing in the nature of the +changes which, as we have stated, intervened between the palaeolithic +and neolithic periods, that need have occupied more than a thousand or +two of years. Upheavals of strata and disruptions may be the work of +but a short time, or they may be more gradual. And as to the effect of +water, that depends on its volume and velocity; no certain rule can be +given. Our own direct experience shows that very great changes may take +place in a few hundred years. + +"The estuaries," remarks Mr. Pattison,[1] "around our south-eastern +coast, which have been filled up in historical times, some within the +last seven hundred years to a height of thirty feet from their +sea-level, by the gradual accumulation of soil, now look like solid +earth in no way differing from the far older land adjoining. The +harbours out of which our Plantagenet kings sailed are now firm, +well-timbered land. The sea-channel through which the Romans sailed on +their course to the Thames, at Thanet, is now a puny fresh-water ditch, +with banks apparently as old as the hills. In Bede's days, in the ninth +century, it was a sea-channel three furlongs wide." + + +[Footnote 1: "Age and Origin of Man"--Present-Day Tract Series.] + +Thus we are in complete uncertainty as to the date of the palaeolithic +man, or as to the time necessary to effect the changes in the surface of +the earth which intervened between it and the later stone ages. But +there is nothing which conflicts with the possibility that the whole may +have occurred within some 8,000 years. + +For the supposition of Mons. Gabriel Mortillet that man has existed for +230,000 years, there is neither evidence nor probability. His theory is +derived from an assumption that the geologic changes alluded to occupied +an immense time; and the further assumption (if possible still more +unwarranted) that the old race which used the chipped stone tools +remained stationary for a very long period, and very gradually improved +its tools and ultimately passed into the neolithic stage when the art of +pottery became known, however rudely. + +But, in point of fact, we are not required by our belief in Scripture to +find any date for the origin of man, at least not within any moderate +limits (not extending to scores of thousands of years). The Bible was +not intended to enable us to construct a complete science of geology or +anthropology, and the utmost that can be got out of the text is that a +date can be _suggested_ (not proved) for one particular family (that of +Adam) by counting up the generations alluded to in Holy Writ before the +time of Abraham. But these are manifestly recorded in a brief and +epitomized form; nor do all the versions agree. We may well believe that +a watchful Providence has taken care of the record of inspiration, but +we know it has been done by human and ordinary agency. The Bible is +God's gift to his Church, and the Church has been made in all ages the +keeper of it. Now in the matter of early dates and numbers, an unanimous +version has not been kept. According to the construction adopted in the +Septuagint, the creation of Adam would go back 7,517 years, while the +Vulgate gives 6,067 years. Dr. Hale's computation makes 7,294 years, +and the Ussherian 5,967;[1] the Samaritan version is, I believe, further +different from either. + +As it is, the facts show nothing inconsistent with an approximation to +these several periods. + +As to any absolute date for the appearance of man as a species, no +calculation is possible, because of a certain doubt, which no one can +pretend to resolve, as to whether the Scriptures do assert the creation +of _all_ mankind at any one period. If, owing to more positive +discoveries in the future compelling us to put further back the date of +man's first appearance upon earth, we have to suppose a beginning before +the time of Adam, we are reminded that there is an allusion in the sixth +chapter of the book called Genesis to "the sons of God" and the +"daughters of men." Now this passage cannot conceivably refer to angels; +nor can we ignore its existence, however doubtful we may feel as to its +meaning.[2] + + +[Footnote 1: I take these figures from Mr. R.S. Pattison.] + +[Footnote 2: The text which speaks of God making "of one blood all +nations for to dwell on the face of the earth," would naturally apply to +the races existing when the speaker uttered the words: it would be as +unreasonable to press such a text into the service of _any_ theory of +the creation of man, as it was absurd for the Inquisition to suppose +that the Psalmist, when asserting that God had made the "round world so +fast that it could not be moved," was contradicting the fact of the +earth's revolution round the sun.] + +It can hardly be denied that such a text opens out the _possibility_ of +an earlier race than that of Adam; in that case the creation of Adam +would be detailed as the creation of the direct progenitor of Noah, +whose three sons still give names (in ethnological language) to the main +great races of the earth, with whom exclusively the Bible history is +concerned, and especially as the direct progenitor of that race of whom +came the Israelites, and in due time the promised seed--the Messiah. I +do not say this _is_ so, nor even that I accept the view for my own +part; I only allude to the possibility, without ignoring any of the +difficulties--none of which, however, are insuperable--which gather +round it. + +It is certainly a very remarkable fact that all about this region in +which the Semitic race originated, traditions of Creation somewhat +resembling the account in Genesis, the institution of a week of seven +days, and a Sabbath or day of rest from labour, existed from very early +times; and with these traditions, a belief in distinct races, one of +which owned a special connection with, or relation to, the Creator. Here +I may appeal to the work of Mr. George Smith and his discoveries of +tablets from the ancient libraries of Assyria. Originally, the country +to which I have alluded consisted of Assyria in the centre and Babylonia +to the south; while to the east of Assyria was a country partly plain +and partly hill, which formed the "plain of Shinar" and the hills beyond +occupied by Accadian tribes, from whose chief city, Ur, Abraham, the +forefather of the Jews, emigrated. The Assyrian documents are copies of +Babylonian originals, but the Babylonian kingdom itself was a Semitic +one founded on the ruins of an earlier population, the inhabitants of +the plain of Shinar and the mountains beyond. Some time between 3000 and +2000 B.C. the Semitic conquerors of Babylonia took possession of the +plains, and some time later conquered also the Accadian mountaineers. +The Babylonians possessed and translated the old Accadian records: the +Assyrian tablets are mostly, but not all, copies, again, of the +Babylonian transcripts. The celebrated "Creation tablets," which contain +an account closely corresponding to Genesis, are among those which were +not copied from Accadian originals; and they do not date further back +than the reign of Assur-bani-pal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; who +reigned in the seventh century B.C. They may therefore be derived from +the Bible, not the Bible from them. It would seem from some earlier +(Accadian) tablets, that a different account of the Creation existed +among them. But though it is doubtful how far the Accadians had +preserved this account, or at least had others along with it, _they had +a seven days week_ and _a Sabbath_. All this points to _one_ original +tradition, which specified days of creation and a Sabbath, though it got +altered and distorted, so that the true account was preserved as one +among many local variations. This goes to prove the immense antiquity of +the story, which is not affected by the fact that the actual inscription +of it which we at present have, dates only about 670 B.C. The point +here, however, interesting in the legends, is that they contained the +idea of a special connection of one particular race with the Creator, +and of other races, or of one other race, besides. + +As far as the possibility of bringing forward the history of mankind as +any aid to the theory of Evolution is concerned, I might have very well +let the subject alone, or even noticed it more briefly than I have done. +For, in truth, there is no _evidence_ whatsoever, and all that the +denier of creation can resort to is a supposed analogy and a probability +that the peculiarities of man could be accounted for in this way or in +that. But the main purpose of my brief allusion is to introduce the fact +that, as far as any evidence to the contrary goes, we have an absolutely +sudden appearance of man on the scene, and no kind of transitional form. +Not only so, but there is no trace of any gradual development of man +when he did appear. There was the first palaeolithic man; then a +considerable geologic perturbation of the earth's surface, resulting in +the upheaval of the cliffs in which the caves of remains occur, and in +the alteration of the gravel beds in which the human remains are found; +and then the neolithic age, with its evidently greater civilization (as +evidenced by pottery, &c.) connected with early and traditional, but +still with recent, history; but no trace of any development of one race +into the other. + +The absence of all progressive change is forcibly indicated by the +measurements of ancient skulls, which, though not found along with the +flint tools, have been found elsewhere. It has been fully shown that +they differ in no respect from the skulls of men at the present day; +while the skulls of the apes most nearly anthropoid, or allied to the +human form, remain as widely separated in brain-capacity as ever.[1] + +Thus the fact remains, that no intermediate form between the ape and the +lowest man has been discovered, and that there is nothing like any +progressive development in the races of man. These facts, taken together +with what has been brought forward in the last chapter, show how +completely the theory of the descent of man breaks down; how utterly +unproved and untenable is the idea that he should have been evolved by +natural causes and by slow steps from any lower form of animal life. + + +[Footnote 1: The gorilla has a brain size of 30.51 cubic inches; the +chimpanzee and ourang-outang (in the males) from 25.45 to 27.34 inches. +According to Dr. J. Barnard Davis the average of the largest class of +European skulls is 111.99, that of the Australian 99.35 cubic inches.] + + + + +CHAPTER IX. + + +_CONCLUDING REMARKS_. + +It will naturally be asked, "If there is all this objection to some +parts of the theory of Evolution, or to that theory in an extreme or +absolute form, how is it that it has been so eagerly accepted in the +ranks of scientific men?" + +The answer is, in the first place, because the theory of Evolution is to +a great extent true. When men speak of controversy with the Evolutionist +and so forth, they of course mean such as insist on carrying the +doctrine to a total and even virulent denial of any Divine control at +all. And it must, I think, be admitted that much of the theological +opposition offered to the doctrine was aimed at _this_ aspect of it. At +first, men zealous for what they believed to be Divine truth, did not +discriminate; they saw that the then new idea of evolution was, in many +branches of its application, still very poorly proved, and they +conceived that it could not be accepted apart from a total denial of +religion. We have grown wiser in the course of time: misconceptions +have been swept away; and everybody may be content with the assurance +that there is no necessary connection even, far less any antagonism, +between evolution and the Christian faith at all. We may admit all that +is known of the one without denying the other. Where the controversy has +to be maintained is, that some will insist (like Professor Häckel) in +carrying evolution beyond what evidence will warrant; and not only so, +but will insist on polemically putting down all religion on the strength +of their improved theories. If "Evolutionists" complain of the treatment +they have received at the hands of "Theologians," they will at least, in +fairness, admit that there has been some misconception, some error on +both sides. What we maintain is, that evolution (i.e., here, as always, +unlimited, uncontrolled evolution) still fails to account for many facts +in nature; that we are still far from holding anything like a complete +scheme in our hands; there may be _limits_ to the wide circle of +progressive changes, to the results of development, of which we are +ignorant; and there is, above all, in that most important of all +questions--the descent of man--an absolute want of proof of animal +_descent_ (i.e., in any sense which includes the "soul" or spiritual +faculties of man). Hence that evolution in no way clashes with an +intelligent Christian belief. In saying this, I would carefully avoid +undervaluing the services which the evolution theory has rendered, and +is rendering, to science. Even in its first form as a mere hypothesis, +it was an eminently suggestive one; there was from the first quite truth +enough in it to make it fruitful, and many working hypotheses have been +immensely useful in science, which have in the end been very largely +modified. Before Darwin's wonderfully accurate mind and marvellous skill +in collecting and making use of facts, turned the current of natural +science into this new channel, men seemed to be without an aim for their +naturalist's work. The _savant_, for example, procured an animal +evidently of the cat tribe, and another species like a polecat. He knew +as a fact that the feline teeth had a certain structure, and that the +dental formula of the viverrine animals is different. Here, then, he +could distinguish and perhaps name the species; but what more was to be +done? All natural history as a study seemed to end in classifying and +giving long names to plants and animals. The Evolution theory at once +gave it a new object. Why is the dental formula of the _viverrinae_ +different? What purpose has the long spur in the flower of _Angraecum_, +or the marvellous bucket of _Coryanthes_, the flytrap of _Dionaea_, the +pitcher of _Nepenthes_? What is the cause, what is the purpose, what is +the plan in the scheme of nature, of these structures? Under the +stimulus of such questions naturalists woke up to new views of +classification, to new experiments, inquiries, and to research for facts +and the explanation of facts, in all quarters of the globe. No wonder +that science rose, under such an impulse, as a butterfly from its +chrysalis. But some will not be satisfied with any scheme the parts of +which are separated, or which admits of anything unknown or +unexplainable. They want to unite all into one grand and simple whole, +which glorifies their own intelligence, and does not force them to +humble patience and waiting for more light. And then the fatal enmity of +the human heart--which is a plain fact, an undeniable tendency--delights +to get rid of the idea of God's Sovereignty, the humbling sense that +everything is at His absolute disposal, and nothing could be but as He +wills it. It seems so satisfactory to eliminate all external mysterious +power, to make the whole "_totus teres atque rotundus_"--having started +the great machine of being _somehow_ to see it all expand and unroll +of itself and advance to the end. + +Imagination leaps the chasms, minimizes the difficulties, passes from +the possible to the certain, from the "may have been" to the "must have +been" and to "it was so," and, fascinated with the _completeness_ of its +scheme, commences to denounce and revile as ignorant and unscientific +all that would, calmly appeal to evidence, and confess ignorance, or at +least a suspended judgment, in any stage where the evidence is negative +or incomplete. + +It has been well observed that "men are so constituted that completeness +gives a special kind of satisfaction of its own, and a habit of +specially regarding the general uniformity of nature begets a desire to +assume its absolute and universal uniformity." + +There _is_ a great mystery underlying life and the plan in which the +animal form, the organs of sight, hearing, and the rest, run through the +whole creation: and, given a mystery, there is always ample room for +speculation. Taking firm hold of the facts of development and variation, +the extreme evolutionist is carried away with the idea of having the +same principle throughout: he is impatient of any line or any check; he +is therefore prepared to ignore all difficulties, to hope +against hope for the discovery of to him necessary--but, alas, +non-existent--intermediate forms, till at last he comes to deny, not +only his God, but his own soul, as a spiritual and supra-physical +entity.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: Those who want a specimen of the way in which extreme +evolutionists will _romance_ (it can be called nothing else) will do +well to read Dr. Häckel's "History of Creation," only they must be on +their guard at every step. The author constantly states as facts (or, +perhaps, with an impatient "must have been") the existence of purely +hypothetical forms, of which there is _no kind_ of evidence. To such +ends does the love of completeness lead!] + +Such extremes are no part of true science, and have neither helped the +progress of knowledge, nor advanced the condition of mankind. But, on +the other hand, let us hear no more of a sweeping condemnation of the +theory of Evolution as a whole; let us beware of any insistence +on, or assumption of, the supposed fact that God created +separately--ready-made and complete--all known animal forms, bringing +them up from the ground, like the armed men in the Greek legend, from +the dragon's teeth. + +We have no more right to dogmatize and assume a scheme of creation from +a popular and long-accepted interpretation of the Bible, than the +evolutionist has to ignore the palpable evidences of Divine guidance and +design, and construct a theory or organic being which ignores both. + + + + +PART II. + + +CHAPTER X. + +_THE GENESIS NARRATIVE--ITS IMPORTANCE_. + + +We have now completed the first portion of our inquiry: there remains +the second, which, to a large class, at any rate, will appear of not +less importance. For the Scriptures, which they have been taught to +trust, contain a brief but direct and positive statement regarding +Creation, as well as numerous other less direct allusions to the +subject, all (as far as I know) in unquestioned harmony with the first. + +Is the account in the Book of Genesis true? It is necessary to answer +this question, because, even if a general belief in an Almighty Author +and Designer of all things is shown to be reasonable, still the +Scripture ought surely to support the belief; and it would be strange +if, when we came to test it on this subject, we found its professed +explanations would not stand being confronted with the facts. + +No one will, I think, deny that the question is important. Writers of +the "anti-theological" school still continue to insist on the falsity of +the Mosaic narrative, as if the error was not yet sufficiently slain, +and was important enough to be attacked again and again. And +theological writers, down to the most modern, continue to explain the +text in one way or another;--besides, _they_ admit the importance, under +any circumstances. I do not forget that there is a school of thought, +which is distinctly Christian in its profession, but does not allow the +importance. It would regard the narrative as addressed to Jews only, and +therefore as one which does not concern us. If that was all, it would +not be needful for me to discuss the position. But it has been held, not +only that the narrative does not concern us, but _also_ that it is +certainly inaccurate. + +This view I cannot adopt: it seems not quite fair to ourselves, and not +quite fair to the Jews. Let me explain what I mean. If we have nothing +to do with the narrative, let us abstain _equally_ from defending it +_or_ pronouncing it wrong--that is for ourselves. As to the Jewish +Church, a little more must be said. Let us admit, at any rate for +argument's sake, that the separation between the Jewish formal and +ceremonial religion and Christianity is as wide as can be wished. Nor +would I undervalue the importance of insisting on pure Christianity, as +distinct from Judaism. And, further, let us (without any question as to +ultimate objects) regard the narrative as primarily addressed to Jews, +and let us admit that it may have been unimportant, for the purpose of +the first steps in Divine knowledge, that any account should be given of +Creation beyond the primary fact that all idolatrous cosmogonies were +false, and that the Unseen God of Israel alone made the heavens and the +earth "in the beginning." Why should the Jews have received that truth +through the medium of a story of which the whole framework was false, +and nothing but the moral true? The framework, moreover, is one so +plainly _professing to be fact_, that it was certain to be received as +such by a simple people. It seems to me that there is something very +suspicious, something repugnant to notions of truth and honest dealing, +in the possible communication of underlying Divine truth through the +medium of stories, which are not stories on the face of them, but +profess and pretend to be statements of fact and authoritatively made. + +But, further, it cannot be denied that, whatever allowance may have to +be made under the early Jewish dispensation for the ideas and weaknesses +of a semi-barbarous people, whatever "winking" there may have been "at +times of ignorance," the main object was, by a gradual revelation,[1] by +a system of typical ordinances and ceremonies, to lead up to the full +spiritual light of the Christian dispensation. Everything written, said, +or done, was a step--however small an one--always tending in the one +direction, according to the usual law of Evolution. The Christian +believer may then look back to the early stages as imperfect +foreshadowings and dim illustrations of the whole truth; but he would, I +should think, on any ordinary principles, be shocked to find truth +developed out of positive error. And should the error have been +discovered, as it now is[2] (in the view of these I am contending +against), this discovery might have arrested the further development of +Divine truth altogether. If Moses, or whoever wrote the Book of +Genesis--we will not cavil at that--was allowed to compose his own +fancies or beliefs on the subject of Creation, _and to state them as +Divine fact_ (no matter that the reader at the time was not able to find +out the error), would not grave suspicion attach to whatever else he put +forward? Who could tell that, on any other subject, the plainest and +most direct statement of fact was not equally a fancy, only embodying or +enshrining (under the guise of its errors) some real Divine facts? If +Genesis i. is unreliable, we have a case of a writer going out of his +way to add to certain truths, which might easily have been stated by +themselves, a number of positive declarations, _as of Divine authority_, +regarding facts, which are not facts. + + +[Footnote 1: I am not aware of any authority, living or dead, who has +gone so far as to deny that God's revelation to the Jewish Church was in +any way connected with Christianity; that it was not even a stage of +progress, or preparatory step towards the kingdom of Christ.] + +[Footnote 2: And was _sure to be_ sooner or later, when a science of +Biology and Palaeontology became possible.] + +The great truths that God is really the Maker and Author of all things, +and that man has a spiritual being, and so forth, surely _gain nothing_ +from being conveyed to the world in the folds of a fable. And when it +is not in a confessed fable, but a fable put forth as fact--"God said," +"God created," "it was so"--not only is there no gain, but our sense of +fitness and of truth receive a shock. A parable is always discernible as +a parable, a vision as a vision. When our Lord, for example, tells us of +the ten virgins, we do not suppose Him to be revealing the actual +existence of ten such maidens, wise and foolish. We know that He is +reading a lesson of watchfulness. But looking at the Genesis narrative, +who could suppose it to be a parable? If sober, unmistakable statement +of fact is possible, we surely have it here, in intention, at least. + +The plan of teaching truth in an envelope of error is _per se_ difficult +to conceive. But how much worse is it when we consider--what criterion +does mankind possess for disinterring and distinguishing the elements of +truth? If in religion we had only to do (as some would perhaps contend) +with obvious enforcements of common morality and kindness, there might +be a possibility of getting over the difficulty, because man would +possess some kind of criterion whereby to distinguish what was +fictitious, by the simple process of considering whether any given +statement bore on morals or not. Such a test would not indeed go very +far, because the human race is by no means agreed on all moral +questions; nor does it always find it easy to say what is, and what is +not, directly or indirectly connected with morals. But, in fact, the +scope of religion cannot be so confined: and then the difficulty +returns; for a revelation that tells us anything of the nature of God +and His method of government, of the nature of our own being and of a +future state, must necessarily go beyond our own ethical knowledge and +powers of judging, or it would not be a revelation. Supposing that the +revelation regarding such vital subjects is occasionally conveyed +through the medium of erroneous statements, where in any given case +would be the certainty as to what was Divine truth, and what not so? + +This argument applies equally to another school of thinkers, who do not +care to tell us what the narrative in itself means: who believe that God +did not do what He is said to have done in Genesis, and yet who hold +that the narrative is in a sense inspired, and that we may learn from it +the great facts that God (and none other) originated all things--that +man has a spiritual element in his nature, and that woman is equal in +nature, but subordinate in position, to man, and so forth. Not only is +enlightened judgment, even, inadequate to pronounce with certainty on +how much is true; but the strange feeling still remains, if God designed +to teach us these truths only, why was it not possible to enable the +writer[1] to state them without the (purely gratuitous) error? The +sufferance of such a strange and unnecessary mixture of error seems +rather like that "putting to confusion" of the human mind, which we feel +sure the Great Teacher would never willingly perpetrate. + + +[Footnote 1: For on the supposition stated, there _is_ a revelation in +the text. Nor could any class of believer deny this. It is entirely +unnecessary to define the kind and extent of insphation. But "all +Scripture is '_theopneustos_'"--I leave the word purposely untranslated +(2 Tim. iii. 16); that surely means that the Divine Spirit exercised +_some kind_ of continuous control over the writers.] + +Nor, again, can the narrative be got over by saying it is a poetic side +or aspect of the facts, and not to be taken literally. If any one knows +exactly what this means, and can tell us always how to translate the +matter into plain language, it is to be wished that he would enlighten +the world as to the process. But even if such process exists infallibly +and universally, still, one would suppose, the narrative must, to begin +with, be unmistakable poetry. And here, again, the narrative bears every +mark of an intention to state facts, not poetic aspects of facts. Nor +can we take the narrative as belonging to a familiar class in Scripture +where a dream is used as a vehicle of communication. In those cases +there is really no room for doubt; the visible facts themselves are +obviously designed only to typify or represent some other facts. + +The events stated in Genesis are not of this class. Those, therefore, +who would be content with getting over the narrative without caring for +its details, can, I must suspect, have hardly given adequate attention +to the form and to the contents of the narrative as it stands. Not only +are the statements positive, but, taking any interpretation whatever of +them, they are not nearly imaginative enough to suit the purpose. + +They have an obvious amount of relation to fact which has never been +denied.[1] + +If the narrative is purely human even (and that the school we are +considering do not aver), how did the writer come to be accurate even to +that extent? Take only the order of events. I admit it does not +correspond with the geologic record in the way commonly asserted; yet it +has a very remarkable relation to that sequence. + +Now, in any case, the writer could have had no knowledge of any kind _of +his own_ on the subject: how did he hit on this particular +arrangement?[2] It is a mere matter of calculation on the well-known +rules of permutation and combination to realize in how many different +ways the same set of events could have been arranged; the number is very +considerable. + +And he could derive no assistance from any similar existing narrative. +If we conclude from the Assyrian discoveries that a non-biblical but +similar narrative existed, still it is certain that the principal one we +as yet have is so late in date, that it is more likely to be derived +from the Bible than the Bible from it. And though, on referring to the +earlier tablets, we find traces of the same narrative, it is so obscured +by idolatrous and false details, that the Bible writer must have had to +make a virtually new departure to get his own simple narrative. A +re-revelation would be required. As to all other cosmogonies, Egyptian, +Indian, and Buddhistic, nothing can be more opposed in principle and in +detail than they are to the severe and stately simplicity and directness +of the Mosaic. + + +[Footnote 1: Not even, for example, by Professor Häckel.] + +[Footnote 2: How, for example, did the writer come to introduce the +adjustment of hours of daylight and seasons in the _middle_, after so +much work had been done? How did he come to place _birds_ along with +fish and water monsters, and not separately?] + +We cannot, then, account for the narrative on human grounds; nor can we +suppose that any inspiring control would have given the author so much +truth, and yet allowed so much error. + +All this points to only one of two possible conclusions: either the +narrative is not inspired at all, and is a mere misleading story, into +which the name of God is introduced by the author's piety--and so really +teaches us nothing, since it is not revelation; _or_ the narrative is, +as a whole, divinely dictated, and must be true _throughout_, if we can +only arrive by due study at its true meaning. That part of it is, or may +be, true, even on the most cursory study, is not denied; that it is +_all_ true will appear, I think, in the sequel. + +But there is a shorter and simpler reason why the rejection of the +narrative in Genesis would be a direct blow to Christian faith. The +plain truth is that it can hardly be denied, by any candid student of +the New Testament, that our Lord and His apostles certainly received the +early chapters of Genesis as of Divine authority. This has always been +perceived by the whole school of writers opposed to the Faith. They +therefore continue to attack these early revelations, and rejoice to +overturn them if they can, because they are aware that hardly any +chapters in the Bible are more constantly alluded to and made the +foundation of practical arguments by our Lord and His apostles. + +If these chapters can be shown to be mythical, then the Divine knowledge +of our Lord as the Son of God, and the inspiration of His apostles, are +called in question. In the New Testament, especially, there are repeated +and striking allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the +Serpent, and the entrance into the world of sin and death. Our Lord +Himself places the whole argument of His teaching on marriage and the +permissibility of divorce on Genesis ii. 24 (_cf_. St. Matt. xix. and +St. Mark x.). In St. John viii. 44 our Lord clearly alludes to the +Edenic narrative when He speaks of the tempter as a "manslayer ([Greek: +anthropoktonos]) from the beginning." Still more remarkable is the +argument of St. Paul in Romans v.; altogether based as it is on the +historical verity of the account of the Fall; and other allusions are to +be found in 1 Cor. xi. 8, in 2 Cor. xi. 3, in the Epistle to the +Ephesians, and elsewhere. In short, there are at least sixty-six +passages in the New Testament, in which the first eleven chapters of +Genesis are directly quoted or made the ground of argument. Of these, +six are by our Lord Himself, two being direct quotations;[1] six by St. +Peter, thirty-eight by St. Paul, seven by St. John, one by St. James, +two by St. Jude, two by the assembled apostles, three by St. Luke, and +one by St. Stephen. + + +[Footnote 1: St. Matt. xix. 4; St. Luke xvii. 27; and perhaps we might +add a third--St. Matt. xxiii. 35.] + +We cannot, in fact, possibly avoid the conclusion that our Lord and His +apostles admitted the Divine origin and historical truth of these +chapters. + +Therefore, we are bound as Christians to accept them, and that without +glossing or frittering away their meaning, when we have arrived, by just +processes, at what that meaning really is. + +The fact just stated further warns us against accepting an indefinite +interpretation which, while it acknowledges the truth of the general +conclusion, still virtually, if not in so many words, allows that the +details may be wholly inaccurate. + + + + +CHAPTER XI. + +_SCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION_. + + +Passing, then, to a consideration of the explanations of the narrative +that may be or have been given at various times, I would first call +attention to the fact, that it seems in many instances to have been the +distinct purpose of Divine inspiration to allow the meaning of some +passages to be obscure; perhaps among other reasons, that men might be +compelled to study closely, to reason and to compare, and thus to become +more minutely acquainted with the record. Especially in a case of this +sort, where the world's knowledge of the facts would necessarily be +gradual, was it desirable that the narrative should be confined in +scope, and capable of being worked out and explained by the light of +later discoveries; because, had the narrative really (as has long been +supposed) been revealed to tell us what was the actual course of +evolution of created forms on earth, it would not only have occupied a +disproportionate space in the sacred volume, but would have been +unintelligible to the world for many centuries, and would have given +rise to much doubting and false argument, to the great detriment of +men's spiritual enlightenment. It would have diverted men's minds from +the great moral and conclusion of the whole (and here it is that the +"moral" or conclusion is so important) to set them arguing on points of +natural science. + +The Bible was never intended (so far we may agree with all the schools +of thought) to be a text-book on biology or geology. We need rather to +be impressed with the great facts of God's Sovereignty and Providence, +and to know definitely that all the arrangements of our globe and all +forms of life are due to Divinely-created types. This is exactly secured +by the narrative as it stands; but such a purpose would not be served by +a narrative which, while it contained these great facts, had them +enwrapped in a tissue of unnecessary and false details. And therefore it +is, if I may so far anticipate my conclusion, that the narrative has no +direct concern with how, when, and where, the Creation slowly worked +itself out under the Divine guidance which is still elaborating the +great purpose of the "ages"; it confines our attention to what God, the +great Designer, did and said in heaven, as preliminary to all that was +to follow on earth. The former was not a proper subject for revelation, +because man would in time come to learn it by his studies on earth; but +the latter all ages could only learn--the first as well as the +latest--from a Divine Revelation. + +Again, let me address a few words to those who are tempted, half +unconsciously perhaps, to think that any lengthy prelude and "elaborate" +explanation of Genesis must condemn the narrative _à priori_, or be +derogatory to the dignity of Revelation. Why the narrative should be +brief and concise I have just suggested. That it needs explanation of +_some_ sort is inevitable, because it _must_ be put into human language; +and directly such language is employed, we come upon such terms as "let +there be," "he created," and "days," which do not always call forth the +same ideas in all minds. + +It will not have escaped the attention of any earnest student, that +Scripture has several different methods of describing things so as to +reveal them to men. This, a moment's reflection will enable us to +expect. However high and wonderful the things to be stated are, in order +to be brought within reach of human understanding _they must be +expressed in terms of human thought and experience_; and these are +imperfect and essentially inadequate. Hence it is, that many truths have +to be brought before us in special or peculiar ways. + +How, for instance, are we told of the temptation and fall of man? How +are we to understand what was meant by the Tree of Life or the Tree of +Knowledge of Good and Evil, or by the Serpent speaking and beguiling +Eve? We are at a great loss to give a precise explanation, though the +practical meaning is not difficult. + +The facts may be none the less true, though from their transcendental +character it may have been necessary to put them down in mysterious, +possibly even in merely allegorical, language. Another instance of this +might be given in the account of Satan in the presence of the Lord as +described in the Book of Job, or of the lying Spirit described by +Micaiah when prophesying before Ahab. It maybe that these narratives +describe to us transactions in a world beyond our own, which _could_ +only be conveyed to us in figures or in imperfect form. When St. Paul +was caught up into the third heaven, he "heard unspeakable things" which +it was not _possible_ for him to utter--the medium of expression was +wanting. Divine or mysterious things have, then, to be described in +peculiar language which is not always easy to understand. Nor, having +respect to the varying requirements of the different ages, or the +circumstances of the time and of the inspired writer, is it easy to +understand why any particular form of communication was selected, though +doubtless if we knew more we should see a good reason for it. This gives +us one class of Scripture passages--of methods of revelation. On the +other hand, there are in Scripture many facts of the highest import, and +in themselves of transcendent magnitude, which are yet capable of being +stated without any possibility of our interpreting or understanding the +narrative in more ways than one. When it is stated that Christ Jesus +rose from the dead, we know beyond all reasonable doubt what is meant. +The fact may be true or false, but the narrative of the fact needs no +explanation; there are no terms which need expansion--which could bear +more than one possible meaning, and which could be used accordingly in +one sense or another. This instances a second class. Again, we can bring +forward yet another class of Scripture revelations, namely, passages +which are necessarily understood with reference to certain other matters +which are unexpressed but are taken for granted, or in which the words +used may bear more than one meaning, or a meaning which is uncertain or +obscure. If the unexpressed matter can be supplied without doubt, then +all ages will agree in the interpretation; and if the terms can (by +reference to context or otherwise) be explained, the same result +follows: if not, then in interpreting the narrative, each age will _make +its own assumption_ regarding the terms used, on the basis of such +knowledge as it possesses. It follows, then, inevitably, that if the +state of knowledge varies, the interpretation will be different +according to the different standard of knowledge, according to which the +necessary assumptions are made. And yet all the while the authority of +the passage itself is not touched. As it is unquestionable that such +different classes of passage do occur in Scripture, it is merely a +question of criticism whether any given passage is of this class or +that, and whether its terms do admit of or require explanation. It is no +doubt possible to make mistakes and to err by refusing the direct +meaning, and giving to the terms an assumed meaning for which there is +no real necessity.[1] We have always to be on our guard against giving +special meanings to words where they are not required; but granted that +caution, there undoubtedly are passages in which either the terms +themselves are not plain, or in which they may really have a meaning +different from the ordinary one. + + +[Footnote 1: As, for example, where persons desirous to get over the +plain reference to Baptism in St. John iii. 5, try to explain away the +term "water" to mean something metaphorically but not actually water.] + +To descend from the general to the particular, it is obvious that the +account of Creation in Genesis i., ii. is in such a form that we must +assume our own ideas of the term "day" therein employed, and also those +to be attached to "created" and similar terms. + +In early times, no one would take "day" to mean anything else but an +earth day of the ordinary kind, and no one would question whether or not +the whole existing animals and plants, or their ancestors, appeared on +earth in six such days, or whether anything else was meant. Again, by +the time St. Augustine was writing, a little more knowledge of nature +and a little more habit of reasoning about the origin of things was in +the world, and that knowledge led people to suppose that creation meant +only the making of things "out of nothing," but that it would take +longer than six times twelve hours, so that "days" might mean "periods." + +And people imagined for a long time that--taking for an example the +work in the middle of the narrative--there was a time when the earth +emerged from the tumult of waters, that it then got covered with plants, +the waters remaining barren of life; but that when the plants had come +up all over the ground, then the waters all at once became full of all +sorts of sea-shells, fish, and monsters of the deep, and so on. + +They did all this, by naturally _assuming_ that the terms "creation," +"day," &c., meant what the _existing state of knowledge_ at the time +suggested. + +At the present day, one would have supposed that every one must feel +that while the term "day" might or might not admit of explanation, +certainly _creation_ (i.e., terms implying it) did require very great +care in interpreting, and very great consideration as to what they +really meant But however that may be, we have here a passage which +_must_ have an explanation; and which must have an explanation that +depends on the state of knowledge. + +The utility of Revelation is not negatived by this necessary result of +the employment of human language in describing the facts. It was _not_ +necessary before, that all should be understood; it may be now +increasingly necessary in the purposes of God that it should be. At any +rate the fact is so, that in former days people did not possess the data +for knowing fully what creation meant, and certainly they do now possess +it to a very much greater extent at least. Always men could learn from +the narrative what it always was important for them to learn, namely, +God's Sovereignty and Authorship. It is in this way that the value of +the _general_ teaching of the narrative comes out, and not by trying to +allow a mixture of truth and falsehood in Revelation. All is and always +was true; but _all_ the truth was not equally extractable at all times. + +Again: the dignity of the old written Revelation is not compromised +because God has virtually given a further revelation in His works, +i.e., by enabling man to know more about the rock-strata and the +succession of life on the earth. That is what it really comes to. It +should never be forgotten that the book of Nature _is_ a revelation. + +The _works_ of God, if interpreted truly, are evidence of the same +nature as the _word_ of God if interpreted truly. God has created man +and his reason. It is impossible to suppose that it can be unrighteous +reasoning in God's sight, to derive from the facts of nature any +legitimate conclusion to which those facts point. It is childish to +believe that God created ready-made--if I may so speak--rocks with +fossils in them, marks of rain-drops showing which way the wind blew at +the time, foot-prints of birds, animals with remains of the prey they +had been feeding on, in their stomachs, and so forth. It is perfectly +reasonable and right to conclude certainly, that those creatures were +once living beings; that the surface of the earth was once a soft +sediment which received the impression of the rain-drops as they fell; +and that stratified rocks were deposited out of lakes and seas, as we +see alluvial strata deposited at the present day. It is impossible, +therefore, that (if we are not misled by appearances) any +well-ascertained fact can be contrary to the truth of God as explained +by Revelation. If we are not sure of the facts of nature, we must wait +patiently till further knowledge enlightens us, and must not hastily +conclude that the Bible is wrong. The repeated corrections which +successive years have compelled us to make in conclusions which were +once firmly accepted and proclaimed as "truths of science," should teach +us caution in this respect. + +Nor, lastly, is it any reproach to the Church, as keeper of the Divine +Revelation, that its opinion of certain passages should vary with the +growth of knowledge. It would be hardly necessary to make this obvious +remark but for the fact that it has been reproached against Christian +belief, that science is contrary to the Bible, and that the Church has +ever had to confess itself wrong, after having persecuted people for not +following its peculiar views. It is, indeed, unfortunate that a blind +zeal for God has led, in the past, to persecution; the Church failing to +see that such men as Galileo and Bruno never denied God at all, nor did +their discoveries really contradict the Word. But persecution is not a +sin peculiar to the Church; it is a sin of human nature. + +It is also true that Christian views may be wrong, but the fault is in +the views, not in the Bible. + +Scientific men, of all people, should be the last to complain of +_change_ in views, seeing that what was science two hundred years ago is +now (much of it) exploded nonsense. + +There is no harm whatever in changing our views about the meaning of +difficult passages--provided we never let go our hold on the central +truth, and put the error to our own account, not saying that the Word +itself is wrong. + +It may, in this connection, be at once observed that any particular +explanation, or that one which I propose presently to suggest, of the +first chapters of Genesis, may not commend itself to the reader, and yet +the general argument I have adduced will hold good notwithstanding. + +All that I care to contend is, that science does not contradict a +syllable of the narrative on _one_ possible interpretation, and that +changes in view as to interpretation are no arguments against the truth +of the passage itself. + + + + +CHAPTER XII. + +_METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE--ASSUMPTIONS OF MEANING TO +CERTAIN TERMS._ + + +Returning, then, to the narrative in the Book of Genesis, I think we may +take it as clear that the passage stands in such a concise and condensed +form, that it is obviously open to _be interpreted_. Further, that we +should not be surprised if the interpretation at the present day, with +our vastly increased knowledge of Nature, is different from what it was +in earlier times. + +I make no apology for repeating this so often, because it is really +amazing to see the way in which "anti-theological" writers attack what +_they suppose_ to be the interpretation of the narrative, or what some +one else supposes to be such, and seem to be satisfied that in so doing +they have demolished the credibility of the narrative itself. + +If you choose to assume that Creation as spoken of by the sacred writer +means some particular thing, or even if the mass of uneducated or +unreflecting people assume it and you follow them, I grant at once that +the narrative can be readily made out to be wrong. + +Permit me, then, to repeat once more, that the narrative is in human +language, and uses the human terms "created," "made," and "formed," and +that these terms _do_ (as a matter of fact which there is no gainsaying) +bear a meaning which is not invariable. Hence, without any glossing or +"torturing" of the narrative, we are under the plain obligation to seek +to assign to these terms a true meaning _with all the light that modern +knowledge_ can afford. + +Now (having already considered the school of interpretation which +declines to attend to the exact terms) we can confine our attention to +two classes of interpreters. One explains the term "days" to mean long +periods of time; the other accepts the word in its ordinary and most +natural sense, and endeavours to eliminate the long course of +developmental work made known to us by palaeontological science, and +supposes all that to have been passed over in silence; and argues that a +final preparation for the advent of the man Adam was made in a special +work of six days. + +All the well-known attempts at explanation, such as those of Pye-Smith, +Chalmers, H. Miller, Pratt, and the ordinary commentaries, can be placed +in one or other of these categories. + +Now, as regards both, I recur to the curious fact (already noted) that +it seems never to enter into the conception of either school to inquire +for a moment what the sacred writer meant by "created"--God +"created"--God said "let there be." It _is_ curious, because no one can +reasonably say "these terms are obvious, they bear their own meaning on +the surface;" a moment's analysis will scatter such an idea to the +winds. Yet the terms _are_ passed by. The commentators set themselves +right earnestly to compare and to collate, to argue and to analogize, on +the meaning of the term "days;" the other term "created" they take for +granted without--as far as I am aware--single line of explanation, or so +much as a doubt whether they know what it really means! + +The interpretation that I would propose to the judgment of the Church is +just the very opposite. It seems to me that the word _day_ as used in +the narrative needs no explanation; it seems to me that the other does. +As regards the term "day," it is surely a rule of sound criticism never +to give an "extraordinary" meaning to a word, when the "ordinary" one +will give good and intelligible sense to a passage. And looking to the +fact that, after all, when the days of Genesis _are_ explained to mean +periods of very unequal but possibly enormous duration, that explanation +is not only quite useless, but raises greater difficulties than ever, I +should think it most likely that the "day" of the narrative should be +taken in the ordinary sense. But of this hereafter. + +On the other hand, with regard to the terms "creation,[1]" "created," +"Let there be," and so forth, I find ample room for the most careful +consideration and for detailed study before we can say what is meant. +Even then there remains a feeling of profound mystery. For at the very +beginning of every train of reflection and reasoning on the subject, we +are just brought up dead at this wonderful fact, the existence of +_matter_ where previously there had been _nothing_. The phrase "created +_out of_ nothing" is of course a purely conventional one, and, strictly +speaking, has no meaning; but we adopt it usefully enough to indicate +our ultimate fact--the appearance of matter where previously there had +been nothing. Nor is the difficulty really surmounted by alleging such a +mere _phrase_ as "matter is eternal," for we have just as little mental +conception of self-existent, always--and _without beginning_--existent +matter, as we have of "creation out of nothing." + + +[Footnote 1: The entire silence of commentators regarding the doubtful +meaning of "creation" is so surprising, that I have had the greatest +difficulty in persuading myself that the explanation I propose is new. +Yet certainly I have never come across it anywhere.] + +The human mind has always a difficulty when it is brought face to face +with something that is beyond the scope not only of its own practical, +but, even of its theoretical or potential ability. + +The "creation," therefore, of matter by a Divine Power is matter of +_faith_, as I endeavoured to set forth in the earlier pages of this +little work; but it is _reasonable_ faith, because it can be supported +by sound reasoning from analogy and strong probability. + +All our attention, then, I submit, should be directed to understanding +what is "creation" in the sacred narrative. + + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +_THE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY._ + +I.--THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE. + +§ 1. _Objections to the Received Interpretations_. + + +Taking the narrative as it stands, we find it to consist of two parts. +First, a general statement, of which no division of time is predicated, +and which is unaccompanied by any detail. Second, there is an account +seriatim of certain operations which are stated to have been severally +performed one on each of six days. + +As regards the first portion, we have no definite knowledge of +scientific truth with which to compare the narrative. It is obviously +necessary for some Divine teacher to tell us authoritatively that God +originated and caused the material earth, and the systems of suns and +stars which men on the earth's surface are able to discern in the +"heavens." + +We are consequently informed that in the beginning--there is no +practical need for defining further--"God created the heavens and the +earth." Here the question arises whether the Hebrew "bara," which is a +general term, alludes to the first production of material, or to the +moulding or fashioning of material already (in terms) assumed to exist. +I think that the conclusion must be that the best authority is in favour +of the idea of absolute origination of the whole;--the bringing the +entire system into existence where previously there was a perfect blank. +But even if the secondary meaning of "fashioned" or "forged" be allowed, +we have still an intelligible rendering. For in that case the first +origination of matter is tacitly assumed by the term itself, and the +statement would be, that the matter of the future cosmos so existing, +the Divine Artificer fashioned or moulded it into the orderly fabric it +has come to be. + +The narrative then at once refers to our earth, with which, and with its +inhabitants, the whole volume is to be in future directly concerned. +"The earth was (or became) without form and void (chaotic), and darkness +was on the face of the deep (or abyss)." + +We have no positive knowledge of what the first condition of terrestrial +matter was, apart from Revelation. The remarkable discoveries that the +spectroscope has enabled, and the facts learned from the physical +history of comets and meteorites, can do no more than make what is known +as the "nebular hypothesis" highly probable. But it is amply sufficient +for our purpose to point out, that if it is true that matter originated +in a nebulous haze to the particles of which a spiral rotatory motion +had been communicated, and if (confining our attention to one planet +only) that attenuated matter gradually aggregated in a ring or rings, +and then consolidated into a solid or partly solid globe, then the +results are briefly, but adequately and sublimely, provided for by the +form of the Mosaic statement. + +Matter thus aggregating would have developed an enormous amount of heat, +and there would have been a seething mass of molten mineral matters, +with gases and other materials in the form of vapours, which would have +gradually cooled and consolidated. Vast masses of water would in time be +formed on one hand, and solid mineral masses on the other; the latter +would contract as cooling progressed, causing great upheavals and +depressions and contortions of strata. And before the advent of +life-forms, it is not difficult to conceive that the first state of our +globe was one which is intelligibly and very graphically described as +being "without form and void." Nothing more than that, can, from actual +physical knowledge, be stated.[1] + +It is also stated that this confused elemental state of our earth was +accompanied at first by darkness. Material darkness that is--for the +potentiality of light and order was there; the SPIRIT OF GOD "moved" (or +brooded) upon the face of the abyss. This presents no difficulty of +interpretation, and may therefore be passed over for the present. + + +[Footnote 1: It would be hardly necessary (but for some remarks in the +course of the Gladstone-Huxley controversy) to observe that the term +"void" does not imply vacuity or emptiness, as of _substance,_ but +absence of defined form such as subsequently was evolved.] + +Practically, indeed, there has been no grave difficulty raised over this +first portion. And if it is argued (on the ground of what I have already +in general terms indicated) that the term "created" will, on my own +interpretation, get us into difficulties, I reply that here, in its +position and with the context, there is no room for doubt, for clearly +the word implies _both_ the great primary idea of the Divine design or +plan formulated in heaven, _and_ the subsequent result in time and +space.[1] This will become more clear when I have further explained the +subject. + + +[Footnote 1: And of course if the true sense be "fashioned" or +"moulded," the question does not arise.] + +II.--THE SECOND PART OF THE NARRATIVE. + + +But from this point the narrative commences to be more precise, and to +exhibit a very singular and altogether unprecedented division of +creative work into "days." + +Now I have already indicated my doubt whether we ought to import any +unusual meaning to explain this term. + +In the first place, the objection that till the movements and relations +of the sun to the earth were ordained there would be no _measure of a +day_ will not stand a moment's examination. Nor will the further +objection sometimes made, that even with the sun, a day is a very +uncertain thing: for example, a day and a night in the north polar +regions are periods of month-long duration, quite different from what +they are in England, or at Mount Sinai. Obviously, a "day" with +reference to the planet for which the term is used, means the period +occupied by one rotation of the planet on its own axis. The rotation of +the earth is antecedent to anything mentioned in the narrative we are +considering. In the nature of things, it would have been coeval with the +introduction of the _prima materies_--at least if any nebular hypothesis +can be relied on. The "day" would be there whether it were obscured by +vapours or not, and whether specially made countable and recognizable by +what we call the rising and setting of the sun, or not, and whether we +were standing in Nova Zembla or in Australia. + +Nor is it of much use to refer to the general use of "day" for +indefinite periods, which is just as common in the English of to-day as +it was in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the double use of the +term in different senses has become general, just because it was found +in practice that no confusion ordinarily resulted; and surely such a +practice would not have been common, or at any rate would have been +specially avoided in the sacred volume, wherever any mistake or +confusion was likely or even possible. + +No one can mistake what is meant when allusion is made to "the day in +which God made the heaven and the earth." No one falls into doubt when +the "days" of the prophets are spoken of--any more than they do now when +a man says, "Such a thing will not happen in my _day_." + +Whenever in Daniel, or in similar prophetic writings, the term "day" is +used in a peculiar sense as indicating a term of years, we have no +difficulty in recognizing the fact from the context and circumstances of +the narrative; nor am I aware that any controversy has ever arisen +regarding the use of the term "day" _in any passage of Scripture +excepting in this_. + +This fact alone is suspicious; the more so, because there is absolutely +nothing in the context to indicate that anything but an ordinary day is +intended. Not only so, but there _is_ in the context something that does +very clearly indicate (and I think Dr. Réville is perfectly justified in +insisting on this) that an ordinary terrestrial day is meant. One of the +primeval institutions of Divine Providence for men, my readers will not +need to be reminded, was that of a "Sabbath," which any one reading the +text would understand to mean a day, and which the Jews--the earliest +formal or legal recognizers of it--_did_ so understand, and that under +direct Divine sanction. + +If the _days_ of Genesis mean indefinite periods of aeonian duration, +how is the seventh _day_ of rest to be understood? + +But even if these difficulties are overcome, absolutely nothing is +gained by taking the day to be a period. + +I presume that the object of gaining long periods of time instead of +days in reading the Mosaic record, is to assume that the narrative means +to describe the actual production on the earth of all that was created; +in other words, to assume a particular meaning for the words "created," +"brought forth," &c and then to make out that if a whole age is +granted, Science will allow us a sequence of a "plant age" a "fish and +saurian age," a "bird age," and a "mammalian age";--that is, in general +terms and neglecting minor forms of life. But then _to make any sense at +all with the verses_ we are bound to show that each age preceded the +next--that one was more than partly, if not quite completely, +established _before_ any appearance of the next. + +It is to this interpretation that Professor Huxley alludes when he says, +in his first article,[1] "There must be some position from which the +reconcilers of Science and Genesis will not retreat--some central idea +the maintenance of which is vital, and its refutation fatal.... It is +that the animal species which compose the water population, the air +population, and the land population,[2] respectively, originated during +three successive periods of time, and only during those periods of +time." + + +[Footnote 1: "Nineteenth Century," December, 1885, pp. 856-7.] + +[Footnote 2: These (unfortunate) terms are Mr. Gladstone's.] + +For my own part, I hasten to say that, as one of the despised race of +"reconcilers," not only is this idea no central position from which I +will not retreat, but one which I should never think of occupying for +one moment. + +But on the view of the _periods_, some such position must be taken up. +And if so, I must maintain that Professor Huxley has shown--if indeed it +was not obvious already--that the idea of a series of periods, and in +each of which a certain kind of life began and culminated (if it was not +fully completed) _before_ another began, is untrue to nature. This, +therefore, cannot have been intended by the author of Genesis. + +I will here interrupt my argument for a moment to say that there is a +_certain degree_ of _coincidence_ between the succession of life on the +earth as far as it is explained by palaeontological research, and the +order of creation stated in Genesis; but that is not concerned with any +forced interpretation of the term "day." The coincidence is just near +enough to give rise to a desire to identify creative periods with the +series shown by the fossil-bearing rocks; while it is attended with just +enough of difference to furnish matter for controversy, and to expose +the interpreters to be cut up. + +But to return. Nothing, I submit, is gained by getting _day_ to mean +period. Let us put the matter quite squarely. Let us take day to mean +period, and let us take all the verses to mean the _process_ of +_producing_ on earth the various life-forms. + +In order to come at once to the point, let us begin with the time when +the dry land and the waters are separate. At that moment, there is +nothing said (or implied) about life already having begun in either +water or on dry land. God commanded plants to grow; consequently during +that _whole period_ nothing but plants, and that of all the kinds and +classes mentioned, should appear either in water or on land. That period +being done, then came the command for water animals, fish and great +monsters, and also birds. We ought, accordingly, to come next upon a +whole period in which no trace of anything but plants and these animals +can be found; and lastly, we ought to find the period of mammalia, +smaller reptiles, _amphibia_ and insects (creeping things). + +That is the fair and plain result of what comes of supposing the terms +"let there be," &c., to mean _production on earth of the thing's +themselves_, and that the days are long _periods_. + +All overlapping of the periods is inadmissible. All meaning is taken +away, if we allow of fish (e.g.) appearing in the middle of our first +period; for God did not command another day's work till after the first +was completed--"there was evening and there was morning, a first day" +(period), &c. + +No; to suit the text so interpreted, we must have a full _period_ of +plants with no fish; then a period of both but no insects, no creeping +things, no animals; and so on. Now it is quite idle to contend any +longer, that any such state of things ever existed. + +If we pass over the long series of the most ancient strata in which +doubtful forms of obscure elementary plant and animal life appear +_almost_ together, we shall come to shell-fish, and crustaceans fully +established in the water, and scorpions, and some insects even on land, +_before_ plants made any great show. For the Carboniferous--_the_ age of +acrogen plants, _par excellence_--does not occur till after swarms of +_Trilobite_ Crustaceans had filled the sea and passed away, and after +the Devonian fish-age had nearly passed away; and so on throughout. + +The groups in nature overlap each other so closely, that though +plant-life (in elementary forms) probably had the actual start; +virtually the two kingdoms--plant and animal--appeared almost +simultaneously. There is nothing like the appearance of a first period +in which one _alone_ predominated. And long before the plants are +established in all classes, the great reptiles, birds, and some mammals, +had appeared. The seed-bearing plants--true grasses and exogens with +seed capsules (angiosperms) did not appear till quite Tertiary times. +That is the essential difference between the facts and the theory. If we +make a diagram, and let the squares represent the main groups, the order +(according to the period interpretation) ought to be as in A, whereas +it really more resembles B. Thus. + +[Illustration: The dotted extensions of the squares indicate the fore +runners of the families, i.e., their first indications in the ages.] + +[Illustration: _A New Interpretation suggested_] + +But then it will be asked, if the day means only an ordinary day--not a +long period--what is there that actually could have happened, and did +happen, in _three days_ (for that is the real point, as we shall see), +such as the writer describes as the third, fifth, and sixth days? + +I answer that on those days, and on the previous ones, God did exactly +what He is recorded to have done. After the creation of light (first +day), and the ideal adjustment of the distribution of land and water +(second day), He (_a_) "_created_," on the third day, plants, from the +lowest cryptogam upwards; then (_b_) paused for a day (the fourth) in +the direct work of creating life-forms, to adjust certain matters +regarding times and seasons, and regulation of climate, which doubtless +would not be essential during the early stages of life evolution, but +would become so directly a certain point was reached; then (_c_) resumed +the direct creating work (fifth day), with fishes, great reptiles,[1] +and birds (grouped purposely so, as we shall see); and, lastly (_d_), +before the Day of Rest, created the group of mammals (_carnivora_ and +_herbivora_), the "creeping things" of the earth, and man (also grouped +together). + + +[Footnote 1: This term may be here accepted for the moment--not to +interrupt the argument. It will be more fully dealt with in a subsequent +chapter.] + +But some one will ask, You then accept the earlier theory, that the +whole life-series that is now revealed to us by the rocks, from the +Laurentian to the Recent, is excluded from the narrative; and that some +special acts of creation, regarding only modern and surviving +life-forms, were made immediately before man appeared? By no-means; for +such a theory is not only in itself improbable, but is contrary to all +the evidence we possess of life-history on the earth, and is so hopeless +that it is really not worth serious examination and refutation. + +We have no evidence of any such gap--such sudden change in the history +of life. Nor is it possible to find any place in the Mosaic story at +which we could reasonably interpolate a _long_ period, such as that +indicated by the entire series of rock strata. For a great part of such +a period, not only must there have been a regular succession of life +just the same in nature (though specifically different) as that now on +earth, but a regular distribution of land and water, and a settled +action of the sun and the seasons, would be required. No; we must give +up all the older methods which try to ignore the study of the word +"created," or to assume for it a meaning that it is not intended to +bear. + +All depends, then, on what is meant by such terms as "created," "let +there be," "let the earth bring forth," &c. Perhaps it has occurred to +but few of my readers seriously to examine into their own mental +conception of an "act of creation." Some will readily answer, "Of course +it means only that at the Divine _fiat_, any given species--say an +elephant--appeared perfect, trunk, tusks, and all the peculiar +development of skull and skeleton, where previously no such creature had +existed." But what possible reason have they for this conclusion? None +whatever. It has simply been carelessly assumed from age to age, because +people at first knew no better; and when they began to know better, they +did not stop to amend their ideas accordingly. + +Of course, as Professor Huxley puts it, millions of pious Jews and +Christians[1] supposed _creation_ to mean a "sudden act of the +Deity"--i.e., to mean just what the knowledge of the time enabled them +to imagine. They could do nothing else. The state of knowledge fifty +years ago would not have rendered it possible for an article like +Professor Huxley's (that to which allusion has several times been made) +to have been written at all. What wonder, then, that the multitude did +not understand what _creation_ meant, and that a reasonable +interpretation of the word has only become possible in quite recent +times? Surely all that is the fault of the reader, not of the text. I do +not even care that the writer himself did not fully apprehend the +subject. When a human prophet is entrusted with the divulgation of high +and wonderful things, it is quite possible that he may have been to +greater or less extent in the dark as to all or some of the +communication he was writing. + + +[Footnote 1: Article quoted, p. 857.] + +All that can be reasonably required is that the narrative, as it stands, +shall be consistent with actual truth, and shall at no time come to be +provably at variance with it. + +But let us look at the word "creation" more closely. We accept what we +are told, that in the beginning God called into existence force and +matter, the material or "physical basis," and all other necessaries of +life. Suppose, then (even dropping the question of Evolution, in order +to satisfy the "pious millions"), that this "matter" was all ready (if +I may so speak) to spring into organized form and being to take shape on +earth--what shape should it take? Why (e.g.) an elephant? Why not any +other animal, or a nondescript--a form which no zoologist could place, +recognize, or classify? The _form_, the ideal structure, the _formula_, +of the genus elephant must somehow have come into existence _before_ the +obedient materials and the suitable forces of nature could work +themselves together to the desired end. + +Mr. Mivart has defined "creation" at page 290 of his "Genesis of +Species." There is original creation, derivative or secondary creation +(where the present form has descended from an ancestor that was +originally "directly" created), and conventional creation (as when a man +"creates a fortune," meaning that he produces a complex state or +arrangement out of simpler materials). That is perfectly true, so far; +but it is only a verbal definition, and still does not go inside, into +the _idea_ involved. We must go farther. + +In every act of creation, two requisites can clearly be distinguished: +(1) the matter of life, and the forces, affinities, and local +surroundings necessary; and (2) the type, plan, ideal, or formula, to +realize or produce which, the forces and the matter are to act and +react. This second is all-essential; without it the first would only +produce a limbo of + +"Unaccomplisht works of Nature's hand, +Abortive, monstrous, or unkindly mixt.[1]" + + +[Footnote 1: "Paradise Lost," iii. 455.] + +No _creation_ in _any_ sense whatever could come out of it. + +In the same way, when we speak of the Divine Artificer "creating," or +saying "Let there be," there are two things implied: (i) the Divine plan +or type-form, and its utterance or delivery (so to speak) to the +builder-forces and materials; (2) the result or the translation into +tangible existence of the Divine plan. + +In every passage speaking of creation it _possible_ that both processes +may be implied; it may be clear from the text (as in Genesis i. 1) that +this is so. But it is equally possible that the first point only, which +in some aspects is really the essential matter, is alone spoken of. + +And I submit that, given the general fact that God originated everything +in heaven and earth (as first of all stated generally in Genesis i. +1-3), the essential part of the _detailed_ or _specific_ creation +subsequently spoken of, was the Divine origination of the types, the +ideal forms, into which matter endowed with life was to develop; +_without_ any _necessary_ reference to how, or in what time, the Divine +creation was actually realized or accomplished on earth. It may be that +the _form_ so conceived and drawn in Nature's book by the Divine +Designer is a final form, up to which development shall lead, and beyond +which (at least in a material sense) it shall not go; or it may be that +it is a type intended to be transitory;[1] but _both the intermediate +and final forms must take their origin first in the Divine Mind, and be +prescribed from the Heavenly Throne,_ before the obedient matter and +forces and the life-endowment could co-operate to result in the +realization of the forms and the population of the globe. + + +[Footnote 1: The idea which I am endeavouring to make clear is well +illustrated by another passage in one of the Mosaic books--the account +of the Tabernacle. Moses had no idea of his own of the structure, its +furniture, implements, or the forms of these. The narrative expressly +states that the Divine power originated the designs, and caused Moses to +understand them. In a human work the designer would have drawn the +objects with measures and specifications, and given the papers to the +workmen. With the Divine work, where the design is in the Divine +Thought, and the workmen and builders are forces and elementary matter, +the process is a mystery, but in its practical bearing is understood +from analogy. The Tabernacle was truly God's _creation_, because it was +all commanded in design and "pattern" by the Almighty before Moses put +together the materials that realized the pattern in the camp of Israel.] + +The reason why it is the _essential_ part, is, that when once the Divine +command issued, the result followed inevitably--that will "go without +saying." + +In human affairs, also, we speak of the architect having _created_ the +palace or cathedral, or the ironclad; meaning thereby not the slow +process of cutting and joining stone, or riveting steel plates, but the +higher antecedent act of mind in evoking the ideal form and providing +for all contingencies in the adaptation and subsequent working of the +finished structure. And if we limit this use of the term "creation" +somewhat in speaking of human works, it is because the concept of the +human mind so often fails of realization; that it is one thing to +design, and another to accomplish. The grandest design for a palace may +fail to stand because some peculiarity of the stone has been forgotten, +or some character of foundation and subsoil has been misunderstood. The +noblest form of turret-ship may prove useless because the strength of +some material will not correspond to the ideal, or some curve of +stability has been miscalculated. Not only this: man may create, as a +sculptor, the ideal form for his to-be statue, or the dramatist his +character; but the perfect realization, either in marble or in an actual +being, may be impossible; the ideal remains "in the air." The ideal, +therefore, is not the major part of "creation" in a human work. + +But with the Divine work it is otherwise. The Divine thought in Creation +and its result are separated by no possibility of failure. Given the +matter and the laws of force and of life, directly the Great Designer +has uttered His thought to those that are His builders, they _must_ +infallibly and without discord, work through the longest terms, it may +be, of an evolutionary series, till, every transitional condition +passed, the final form emerges perfect. + +Our very verbal definition, admitting as it does "derivative" creation, +implies this. We all speak of ourselves as "created." How so? We are not +produced ready made. Nor do we wholly solve the matter by saying that we +are "created" because we are born from parents who (if we go far enough +back) originated in a first production from the hand of Nature. We are +really "created" because the _design_--the _life-form of us_, which +matter and force were to work together to produce--was the direct +product of the Divine Mind.[1] + +My question, therefore, of the Genesis interpreters is: Why will you +insist on the text meaning only the second element in Creation--the +production on earth, and not the Design or its issue in heaven? + +The former we could find out some day for ourselves; we _have_ found out +some of it (though only some) already; the latter we could never know +unless we were told. Surely it is the "_dignus vindice nodus_" in this +case. To tell us the earth's history within a brief space would be +impossible, and would have been for ages unintelligible if it could have +been told; to tell us of God's creation is possible--for it has been +done; and the record, unless misread, is intelligible for all time. + +The narrative, if it is a revelation of Divine Creation in heaven, takes +up ground that none can trespass on. None can say "it is not so," unless +either he will show that the words will not bear the meaning, or that +the context and other Scripture contradict it. + + +[Footnote 1: "_In Thy book_ were all my members written, while _as yet +there were none_ of them" (Psa. cxxxix. 16). + +"How did this all first come to be you? +_God thought about me_ +and I grew."--_Macdonald_.] + +So soon as the matter of earth and heaven (and all that is implied +therewith) originated "in the beginning," the narrative introduces to +our reverent contemplation the solemn conclave in heaven, when, in a +serial order and on separate days, God declared, for the guidance of the +ever potentially active forces, and for materials ever (as we know) +seeking combination and resolution,[1] the _form_ which the earth +surface is (it may be ever so gradually) to take and the _life-forms_ +which are to be evolved. + +That this creative work was piecemeal, and on separate days, we know +from the narrative. _Why_ it was so arranged we do not know. Vast as was +the work to be done, almost infinite as was the complexity of the laws +required to be formulated, it _could_ have all been done at once, in a +moment of time; for time does not exist to the Divine Mind. But seeing +that the work was to be on earth, and for the benefit of creatures to +whom the divisions of time were all-important, we can dimly, at least, +discern a certain fitness and appropriateness in the gradual and divided +work. + + +[Footnote 1: The reader will recognize that there is not the least +exaggeration in this. It is plain matter of fact, as I have endeavoured +to show in the earlier chapters of this book. Everywhere we see _force_ +ready to be evoked by the proper method. Everywhere we see _molecular_ +motion, and a perpetual combination and resolution of elements and +compounds, whether chemical or mechanical.] + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. + +_THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES._ + + +In interpreting the narrative before us, we have an important aid which +has hardly received the attention it deserves. I allude to the other +passages of Scripture which were written by men undoubtedly familiar +with the Book of Genesis. + +Now, in more than one of them, I find the idea that the Creation spoken +of is the _Divine work in heaven_, and not the subsequent and long +process of its realization on the surface of our globe, fully confirmed. + +In the beautiful thirty-eighth chapter of the very ancient Book of Job, +we find a distinct allusion to a time when God "laid the foundations" of +the earth, prescribed "its measures," made a "decreed place" for the +sea, and framed the "ordinances of heaven," and this in presence of the +heavenly host assembled-- + +"When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted +for joy.[1]" + + +[Footnote 1: Job xxxviii. 7. The sons of God are clearly the angels +(_cf_. Job i, 6).] + +The same idea can be gathered from the text which I have placed on the +title-page of this book. "By faith we understand that the aeons (the +whole system of nature in its various branches, physical, moral, and +social) were ordained ([Greek: kataertisthai]) by the word of God." The +_process_ of actual development is here passed over, as not being the +main thing; what attracts attention is the Divine Design, the "framing" +of the wonderful ideal or ordinance without which the "aeons" could not +proceed to unfold themselves. I do not mean, of course, for a moment to +imply that, after God had formulated the laws and designed the forms, He +left the working out of the results to themselves. I should be sorry if, +in bringing into prominence what has generally been overlooked, I seemed +to throw the rest in the shade. God's providence and continued +supervision are as important in themselves as the original design:--but +this is not the central idea embodied in the passage. + +There is another Scriptural allusion which suggests the idea of a +Heavenly Conclave, and great act of Creation in heaven. It may be +considered somewhat remote, and even fanciful--but the fact is recorded +_both_ in the Old Testament and the New, and _something_ must be meant +by it. And, moreover, other and very meaningless interpretations have +been from the earliest times given, so that I can hardly omit the +subject if I would. I refer to the permanent presence in heaven, around +the Divine Throne, of the singular forms of being called _Cherubim_, +which seem to indicate some mysterious connection between the life-forms +of earth and the inhabitants of heaven, and some permanent +representation of typical created forms in heaven. In Ezekiel, chapter +i., and again in chapter x., this vision is presented to us. + +The prophet was to be prepared, by a very vivid exhibition of the power +and glory of God as the Author and Ruler of the universe, to appreciate +the depth of degradation to which the Jews had fallen in their rejection +of such a God as their Lord and King and of the justice of the terrible +overthrow which was the consequence of that rejection. + +The vision then displayed (as I understand it) GOD surrounded by the +typical forms of creation and the irresistible forces of nature. All +forms of life, all energies of nature, were thus shown to be His +creatures. There, around the throne, were four "cherubim" of remarkable +appearance. They were accompanied by the appearances of fiery orbs like +beryl stones, revolving in all directions with ceaseless energy. Any +account of this vision that I can give is, however, pitiable beside the +inexpressibly sublime picture drawn in Ezekiel, to which I must refer +the reader for his own study. And imagine what the feelings of the +prophet must have been when, fresh from the impression of this grandeur +of Creation--this glory and irresistible power of God as the Centre and +great Mover of all, he was taken to witness the pitiable sight of the +Jews turning away from His worship, and to see their elders burning +incense before walls covered with "every form of creeping things and +abominable beasts--all the idols of the house of Israel![1]" How must +the vision have prepared him to realize the depth of degradation with +which he had to contend, and have fired him with energy to denounce it! + +There is, then, I think, considerable probability in the contention that +the vision represents God in Creation, surrounded by the types of +creation and the forces of nature. + +There is, no doubt, the ancient tradition that the four Cherubim meant +the four Gospels; and this has now become deeply associated with +ecclesiastical symbolism. But I submit that this is only a fancy which +can best be left to church embroidery and stained windows; it is +unworthy of any serious notice. The beings are described, it will be +observed, with great minuteness: all have the same characteristic powers +of rapid motion, and all have _human hands_, a fact that so strikes the +prophet that he repeats it three times.[2] These four Cherubim, then, +seem to me clearly to indicate the archetypes of Creation, the great +design-forms of created life, showing themselves the progressive scale +from the Animal to the Man and the Angel. And these four great types +exactly answer to the resulting groups of created life. We have the +development of _Reptilia_ into _Birds_ as one final type; consequently +one face of each cherub has the Bird type--the Eagle head[3]. Two other +faces on each give us the _Animal_ type, one representing again the +great order Carnivora (the Lion), the other the Herbivorous Ungulates +(the Ox or Calf); while the fourth face indicates the last development, +_Man_. + + +[Footnote 1: Ezek. viii. 10.] + +[Footnote 2: See chapters i. 8, x. 8, and x. 21. Remark, in passing, +that the human hand has always been the subject of wonder as an evidence +of Divine skill in Creation. Sir Charles Bell's Bridgewater treatise, on +the human hand as illustrating the proof of Divine wisdom and +contrivance in Creation, is just as good an argument _for Design_ now as +ever it was. I cannot here resist the temptation to notice one of those +small points in which the accuracy of the Bible is so constantly brought +to light. The popular notion of angels gives them wings as well as +hands--a form quite impossible from the natural history point of view; +_all_ animals of the vertebrate orders never have _more_ than two pairs +of limbs. And in winged animals the fore-limbs become wings. The popular +notion about angels is, however, artistic, not Biblical. Just the +contrary in fact. Here _is_ a vision of a mysterious form with wings and +hands, but how?--the figures are fourfold; and being winged, each +division might have been winged like the eagle, so each cherub would +have had _eight_ wings. But as one of the divisions had a human face and +human hands, the prophet only saw _six_ wings to each, leaving one +division where, nature's _Divine type_ being obeyed, there were _hands_, +and consequently no wings.] + +[Footnote 3: Reptiles are unrepresented, perhaps as not being a final +type.] + +I would say here, as regards the animal creation being represented by a +double form, that it is most curious to notice that this double division +of animals is found throughout Scripture, and seems to have its +counterpart in the actual facts of creation on earth. + +Accompanying these created beings in this remarkable vision were +"wheels" which appeared to be spheres within spheres, revolving with +ceaseless activity and never turning, but always going forward. The +wheels were full of eyes. It appears to me probable that these +symbolize--and if so the symbol is at once full of meaning and +grandeur--the inevitable, ever wakeful energies and forces of nature, +the marvellous agency of electricity, chemical affinity, heat, +attraction, repulsion, and so forth. We are accustomed to speak of +"blind force;" but here observe the wheels are _full of eyes_, ever +vigilant to fulfil the purpose for which they are appointed. And this +representation of _forces_ appears necessary to complete a symbolic +representation of God in nature: since the world is made up of dead +matter, of living forms, and of forces or energies which are in +ceaseless motion and action, producing the changes which in fact +constitute the working of the whole system. + +I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the imagery of this vision lend +support to the belief that there was a great Creation enacted in heaven, +which was followed by the actual carrying out of the processes on earth, +_but which has retained its representative forms in the heaven itself_. +Had this vision stood alone, it might have been passed over, on the +ground that it deals with high and transcendental matters, and that it +would be hardly safe to let a practical argument rest too much on it. +But the fact is that again in the New Testament a very similar vision is +mentioned (in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation): here again +the four living creatures represent the typical forms of life, the +bird, the carnivorous and herbivorous animals, and man; and it will be +observed that in this case there is hardly room to doubt that we have an +exhibition of _Creation_, for there is express allusion to it in the +address of the elders--"Thou hast _created all things_, and for Thy +pleasure they are and were created." + + + + +CHAPTER XV. + +_AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT._ + + +But a step further is necessary: if the conclusion that I have come to, +by accepting "day" in its ordinary and natural sense, and by giving a +hitherto overlooked (and so far a new) meaning to "creation," is sound, +it must not only be rendered probable by reference to other parts of +Scripture written when Genesis was much nearer its original publication +than it is now; it is still (before all things) necessary, that the +interpretation adopted should be conformable to the context. + +And I have heard it objected that there are verses which imply not only +a Divine Act in heaven, with the Sons of God in conclave around the +throne--sublime and wonderful picture!--but also distinctly indicate a +corresponding action on earth, and so require us to include in our +rendering of "creation" _both_ the ideas which (page 169 ante) I have +admitted may, on occasion be required by the terms. For example: after +the creative command in verses 7, 9, 11, 15, and 24, is declared, it is +followed by the words of fulfilment--"and it was so;" and in verse 11, +when God has said "Let the earth bring forth grass, &c.", in the next +verse it is positively recorded that the earth _did_ bring forth grass, +&c. + +I of course admit all this, but it is in no way opposed to my +suggestion. + +The _commencement_ of the _result_ probably, if not necessarily, +followed immediately on the issue of the finished command, viz., the +promulgation of the forms to be obtained and the processes to be +followed. The _whole_ result did not become accomplished then and there, +in the time mentioned, or exactly in the order mentioned: we know that +for a fact. Take, for example, the case of _vegetation_. Here the +author, in terms at once precise and universally intelligible, speaks of +"vegetation[1]" (grass of the A.V.), "herb yielding seed," and "trees +yielding fruit," thereby exhaustively enumerating the members of the +vegetable kingdom. + + +[Footnote 1: Nothing more is meant by the Hebrew "_deshe_." The true +"grasses" (_graminea_),--cereals, bamboos, &c., are certainly not +intended, for these are all conspicuously flowering plants, "herbs +yielding seed," and therefore coming under the second plainly defined +group. But the general term "sproutage" or "vegetation" is just adapted +to signify the mass of cryptogamic plant-life, the mosses, lichens, +algae, and then ferns, &c., which evidently formed the first stage of +plant-life on the globe.] + +Now, as a matter of fact, there was no one long (or short) period +during which the whole of this command was realized, _before_ the next +creative act occurred. + +At first _algae_ and low forms of vegetable life appeared; and doubtless +we have lost myriads upon myriads of such lower forms of plant-life in +the early strata, because such forms were ill calculated for +fossil-preservation, owing to the absence of woody fibre, silicious +casing, or hard fruit or seed vessels. But when we first have a marked +accumulation of specialized plant-life in the coal measures (Upper +Carboniferous), it is still only of cryptogams--ferns and great club +mosses. A beginning of true seed-bearing plants (Gymnosperm exogens) had +been made with the _conifers_ of the Devonian strata; but true +_grasses_, and the other orders of phanerogamic plants and arboreous +vegetation, do not appear till the tertiary rocks were deposited, very +long after the age of fish and great reptiles had culminated, and the +inauguration of the bird age and the mammalian age had taken place. + +Looking only to the abundant, prominent, and characteristic life-forms +of the several strata, it could certainly be said that the period +when the _water_ actually brought forth a vast mass of its +life-forms--corals, sertularias, crustaceans, and fish of the lower +orders--must have _preceded_ (not followed) the time when the earth +produced vegetation of all kinds, and further that it must have come +after the appearance of scorpions and some land insects.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: A single wing found little more than a year ago is the sole +evidence of insects older than the Devonian; and scorpions +(highly-organized crustaceans) have been found in the Upper Silurian in +some abundance.] + +Moreover, as the regular succession in periods of light and darkness on +the earth, and the sequence of seasons was not organized (but only a +generally diffused light, and, probably, an uniform and moist state of +climate without seasons) till _after_ the commands for the formation of +the whole of the large classes of plants, both cryptogams and +phanerogams, it is obvious that as many of these would require the +fuller development of seasonal influences, the whole process could not +have been worked out before the fourth day's creative work was begun. + +This instance alone--and it would be easy to add others--shows that the +narrative cannot be meant to indicate what actually happened on earth, +i.e., to summarize the _entire realization_ of the Divine command. + +Such being the plain facts with regard to the _kind of accomplishment_ +meant by the terms "it was so," "the earth brought forth," &c., it is +quite plain that no violence is done to the text by explaining it as +intended to describe what God did in heaven, with the addition, that as +each command was formulated, the result on earth surely followed, the +thing "was so," and the earth and water respectively no doubt _began_ +to "bring forth." More than this cannot be made out on _any_ +interpretation that accords with facts. It seems so clear to me that +this is so, that I hardly need refer to the use of the terms the +"_waters brought forth"_ and the "_earth brought forth"_ and the phrase +in chapter ii. 5--the Lord made every plant _before it grew_. + +If, as we have been long allowed to suppose, God spake and the water and +earth were _at once_ fully and finally peopled with animals where before +nothing but plants had existed, and so on, I should hardly have expected +the use of words which imply a gradual process--a gestation and +subsequent birth (so to speak) of life-forms. + +How the _order_ in which the events are recorded stands in relation to +the subsequent history of life-development on earth, and what its +significance may be, I will consider later on. First I will conclude the +argument for the general interpretation of the narrative. + + +2. _The Second Genesis Narrative._ + +I have only one more direct argument to offer; but I think it is a very +important one. The first division of Genesis ends with the Divine +commands creating man and the day of rest which followed. The narrative +ending at chapter ii. verse 3 (the division of chapters here, as +elsewhere, is purely arbitrary), we have at verse 4 of chapter ii, what +has been loudly proclaimed as _another_ account of _the same_ Creation, +which, it is added (arbitrarily enough--but _any_ argument will do if +only it is against religion!) is contrary to the first.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: The contradiction is supposed to be in verse 19, as if then +the creation of animals was for the first time effected--after the man +and his helpmate. But it is quite clear that the text refers to the fact +that God had created animals; the command was, "Let the earth bring +forth," and the immediate act spoken of was not the formation of +animals, but the bringing of them to Adam to see what he would call +them.] + +Now, even if there is a _second_ account of Creation, it would surely be +a circumstance somewhat difficult to explain. _Contrary_ in any possible +sense, the narrative (from chapter ii. 4, onward) certainly is not. But +why should there be a second narrative at all? On the hitherto received +supposition that chapter i. intends to tells us the _process_ of +creation--what God caused to be done on earth, not merely what He did in +heaven--there is apparently no room for a second narrative. Nor have I +seen any completely satisfactory explanation. But if we accept the view +that the first chapter explains the Divine Design, and its being +published (so to speak) and commanded in heaven, then it would be very +natural that that narrative should be followed by a second, which should +detail not the _whole_ process of all life existence on earth, but (as +the Bible is to be henceforth concerned with Man, his fall and his +redemption) with an account of _just so much of the_ process as relates +to the actual birth on the earth's surface of the particular man Adam, +the most important (and possibly not the only) outcome of the _fiat_ +recorded in chapter i. vers. 27, 28. + +In this view, not only _a_ second narrative, but just the particular +kind of narrative we actually have, is not only natural, but even +necessary. _Before_, we had a general account of how God ordained the +scheme of material-form and life-form on the earth; _now_ we have a +detailed account of how He actually carried out one portion of it--that +one portion we are most concerned to hear about, namely the man Adam, +the progenitor of our own race, of whom came JESUS CHRIST, "the son of +Adam.[1]" + +The account is designed to introduce to us the scene of Adam's +birthplace--the Garden of Eden.[2] The mention of a garden, and the +subsequent important connection of the trees of that garden with the +conduct of the man, naturally turn the writer's attention to the general +subject of the vegetation on the earth's surface. He prefaces his new +account accordingly with a brief summary--which I may paraphrase thus +without, I trust, departing from the sense of the original: "Such was +the origin of the earth (and all in it) and of the heavenly host, at the +time when God made them. He had made every plant _before_ it was in the +earth--every herb of the field _before_ it grew" (mark the language as +confirming what I have said--God "created" everything before it actually +developed and grew into being on the earth). "Rain did not then fall (in +the same way as now) on the earth, but the mist that exhaled from the +soil re-condensed, and fell and moistened the ground; but there was as +yet no MAN to till and cultivate the soil." + + +[Footnote 1: St. Luke iii. 38.] + +[Footnote 2: Which had a real historic existence. _Vide_ Appendix A.] + +Then God actually formed or fashioned _a man_. It is not now that He +created the ideal form to be produced in due time, but that He actually +formed the individual Adam, and placed him in a garden which He had +prepared for the purpose. All the words used now imply actual +production. The Divine ideal was ready, and the earth-elements (of which +we know man's body to consist) were ready at the Divine word to assume +the human shape. And that done, God "breathed into his nostrils the +breath of life" (mark the direct _act_ on the man himself), and the man +became a "living soul." There is nothing here of the "earth bringing +forth" as in the former narrative. We have the direct act of God, not in +the design only, but in the production of the thing itself. + +If this is not a complete explanation and justification of the second +narrative, I do not know what, in common fairness, is entitled to be so +called. + +The language may be rigorously examined, and it will fully bear out the +position taken up. + +I conceive, then, that the cumulation of proof need go no further. The +true explanation of Genesis i. also supplies the place for Genesis ii. +4, _et seq._, and overcomes all the difficulty that has hitherto +existed on the subject. + +It will now, I trust, be clear that by such an interpretation of Genesis +we at once give (1) a full and natural meaning to all the terms; we +reconcile it with other Scripture, and we enhance all the sublime +attributes which we have been reverentially accustomed to connect with +this ancient passage. (2) We obviate the difficulty regarding the second +narrative in chapter ii. 4. And (3) we place the whole above any +possible conflict with science, and above any need for "reconciliation." +Here, too, is a purpose and meaning assigned to the _whole_ narrative, +without being driven into the difficult position of supposing the verses +to be the literary outcome of an ignorant imagination which gave +expression to its crude ideas only--though enshrining among utterly +false details a sublime truth, regarding which one can only wonder why +it could not have been stated without the encumbrance of the +surroundings. + +The naturalist and the biologist may continue, unquestioned, to work out +more and more of the wondrous story of Life on the globe. They can never +disprove, or on any of their own grounds deny, that God is the Author of +all things--matter, force, and mind alike; that He designed the form and +relations of the earth; that He organized its light, its seasons, and +its changes; that He has furnished the types and patterns of all +life-forms which matter and force are conformably thereto, developing +on the earth. In short, REVELATION tells us that God did all this "in +the beginning," how His form-designs were thought out and declared in +six days, and how He rested on the seventh day. + +SCIENCE will tell us how, when, and where the Creative fiats and the +designs of heaven were realized and worked out on earth. + +Here is the separate province of each, without fear of clashing, or room +for controversy. + + + + +CHAPTER XVI. + +_THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE._ + + +§1. _The Explanation of the Verses._ + +It remains only now to go over the narrative, the _general_ bearing of +which I have thus endeavoured to vindicate, so that minor matters of +detail, in which it is supposed (1) that some contradiction to known +physical fact may still lurk, and (2) something that negatives the +explanation suggested, may be cleared up. + +Let us take it seriatim:-- + +"In the beginning God created the heaven (plural in the original) and +the earth." + +As I have before remarked, we have no real need to discuss whether +"bara" means originated (created where nothing previously existed), or +whether we should render it "fashioned," i.e., moulded material (thus +assumed in terms to be) already in existence. + +Either will yield perfectly good and consistent sense; but, as a matter +of fact, there is a virtual consensus of the best scholars that the +word is here used to denote original production of the material. + +It is also clear that the text is intended to embrace the whole system +of planets, suns, stars, and whatever else is in space. So the Psalmist +understood it: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and _all_ +the host of them by the breath of his mouth.[1]" Nor is there any +reasonable doubt, exegetically, that the subsequent allusion to the sun, +moon, and stars, refers (as the sense of the text itself obviously +requires) to their _appointment_ or adjustment to certain relations with +the earth, and assumes their original material production in space, to +have been already stated or understood. + +"And the earth was (became) without form[2] and void, and darkness was +upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of +the waters." + +I have, in another connection, already remarked on this verse, and so +shall not repeat those remarks. + + +[Footnote 1: Psa. xxxiii. 6, and so Psa. cii. 25; _cf_. 2 Peter iii. 5.] + +[Footnote 2: Waste (R.V.).] + +I will only say that the elemental strife and rushing together of +chemical elements under the stress of various forces and the presence of +enormous heat, would naturally envelop the globe in dense vapours, a +large portion of which would be watery vapour, capable of condensation +or of dispersion, under proper conditions, afterwards to be prescribed +and realized. As it is beautifully expressed in Job xxxviii., "When I +made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling-band +for it" (verse 8). + +Then commences the serial order of Divine acts with reference to the +_Earth_:-- + + +(1) "AND GOD SAID; LET THERE BE LIGHT: AND THERE WAS LIGHT." + +This verse is commonly taken as indicating a creation of light for the +first time in the entire cosmos or universe. And if it be so, there is +no objection, on any scientific ground, to the assertion that there was +once a time when as yet the vibrations and waves which we connect with +the idea of Light, had not yet begun. It is true that nebular matter, as +now observed, is believed to be, partially at any rate, self-luminous. +But this fact, supposing it to be such, is not inconsistent with a still +earlier time when light had not yet begun. From the "wave-theory" of +light, which is one of those working hypotheses which are indispensable, +and which, in a sense, may be said to be demonstrated by their +indispensability, it can clearly be seen that if light is caused by +rapid vibrational movement, there must have been--or at any rate there +is nothing against an authoritative declaration that there was--a moment +of time when the first vibrational impulse was given, when, in fact, God +said "Let there be light, and there was light," _before_ which also +there was "darkness upon the face of the deep.[1]" + + +[Footnote 1: It also needs only to be remarked, in passing, that we are +really in complete ignorance as to the light-medium, the +"luminiferous-ether" outside the comparatively thin stratum of our own +terrestrial atmosphere. We do not know whether there might not have been +a condition of the medium in which, up to the moment of a creative +_fiat_, it was incapable of transmitting light-waves.] + +There is no necessary connection between the creation of light _per se_, +and the existence of any particular source (or sources) of light to our +planet or to other planets. + +No justification is now needed for such a remark, and the almost +forgotten cavils of one of the "Essays and Reviews" may still survive as +a "scientific" curiosity, to warn us against too hastily concluding that +(in subjects where so little is really _known_) the Bible must be wrong, +and the favourite hypothesis of the day right. + +But as a matter of fact, the text, especially when read in connection +with Job xxxviii., need not be taken to refer to any original creation +of light in the universe generally, but merely to the letting in of +light on the hitherto dark and "waste" earth. The command "Let there be +light" was followed on the next day by the formation of a firmament or +expanse. So that all the verse _necessarily_ implies is, that the thick +clouds and vapours which surrounded the earth were so dealt with, that +light could reach the earth: the light was thus divided from the +darkness, and the rotating globe would experience the alternation of day +and night. + +The "day" having thus been created formally (so to speak), the Divine +Author proceeds to mark, by His own Procedure, the use of the "days" +which He had provided for the earth. + +On this view, of course, the origin of light as a "force"--the first +beginning of its pulsations--is not detailed, any more than the origin +of electric force, or heat, or gravitation. + +Here, too, I may remark that the idea of _creation_, which it has been +one of my chief objects to develop, is illustrated. This remark holds +good, whether an original creation of light is intended, or only an +arrangement whereby light was for the first time introduced to the +earth's surface. The idea of creating light not only involves the Divine +Conception of the thing, and the marvellous method of its production,[1] +but doubtless, also, all those wonderful laws of reflection, refraction, +polarization, and a thousand others, which the science of Physical +Optics investigates. + + +[Footnote 1: And this is still a mystery to us. _What_ light is we do +not know--we can only speak of our own sensation of it. Nor do we know +_what_ vibrates to produce light. Hypothetical terms, such as "ether," +"luminiferous-medium," and so forth, only conceal our ignorance.] + +Naturally enough, in this case, the double idea involved in +creation--the Divine concept and its realization--will, in the nature of +things, fall into one. No process of evolution is required; none is +indicated by science. Directly the Divine hand gave the impulse +concurrently with the Divine thought--light would be. In the nature of +things there is no place for a line between the Divine fiat and its +realization, as there is in the production of life-forms on the earth. +Or, on the other view, directly the Divine command went forth, the +vapours would clear and allow the transmission of light. + + +(2) "AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE A FIRMAMENT (EXPANSE) IN THE MIDST OF +THE WATERS, AND LET IT DIVIDE THE WATERS FROM THE WATERS....AND GOD +CALLED THE FIRMAMENT HEAVEN." + +There has been gathered round this verse what I may call rather an +ill-natured controversy, because there is no real ground for it; and the +objections taken seem rather of a desire to find out something against +the narrative at any price, than to make the best of it. The verse, when +duly translated, implies that an "expanse"--the setting of a clear space +of atmosphere around the globe--formed one of the special +design-thoughts of the Creator, followed by its immediate (or gradual) +accomplishment. I think we should have hardly had so much cavilling over +this word "expanse" if it had not been for the term subsequently used by +the Seventy in their Greek version ([Greek: stereôma]). The ancients, it +is said, believed the space above the earth to be "solid." + +Now I would contend that even if the Hebrew writer had any mistaken or +confused notions in his own mind, that would not afford any just ground +against revelation itself. But I would point out that many of the +expressions which may be quoted to show the idea of solidity, are +clearly poetical. And if we go to the poetic or semi-poetic aspect of +things, may I not ask whether there is not a certain sense in which the +earth-envelope may be said to be solid? The air has a considerable +density, its uniform and inexorable pressure on every square inch of the +earth's surface is very great. Such a word as [Greek: stereôma] +(_firmamentum_) does not imply solidity in the sense in which gold is +solid--as if the heavens were a mass of metal, and the stars set in it +like jewels; it implies, rather, something fixed and offering +resistance. + +It is obvious that a creative act was necessary for this "expanse." We +know of spheres that have no atmosphere; and we are so ignorant of the +true nature of what is beyond the utmost reach of our air-stratum, that +there is room for almost any consistent conjecture regarding it. + +Moreover, observe that the atmosphere is not a _chemical_ combination of +gases, and one, therefore, that would take place like any other of the +metallic, saline, or gaseous combinations, of which no detailed account +is given--all being covered by the general phrase, "God created the +heaven and the earth." The air is a mechanical mixture, pointing to a +special design and a special act of origin. The necessary proportions of +each gas and its combined properties could not have originated without +guidance. + +But the main purpose of the expanse, as stated in the text, was to +regulate the water supply. That vast masses of watery vapour must at one +time have enveloped the globe, seems probable--apart from revelation; +and that part of this should condense into seas and fresh-water, and +part remain suspended to produce all the phenomena of invisible +air-moisture and visible cloud, while an "expanse" was set, so that the +earth surface should be free, and that light might freely penetrate, and +sound also, and that all the other regular functions of nature dependent +on the existing relation of earth and air should proceed--all this was +very necessary. And when we recollect what a balanced and complex scheme +it is--how very far from being a simple thing; we recognize in the +adjustment of earth's atmospheric envelope, a special result worthy of +the day's work. + +Whether the separation between the condensed but ever re-evaporating and +re-condensing water on the earth's surface, and the water vapour in the +atmosphere, is _all_ that is meant by the division of the "waters that +are above the firmament" from those below, it would not be wise to +assert. We know so little of the condition of space beyond our own air, +and so little of the great stores of hydrogen which have been suggested +to exist in space (and might combine to form vast quantities of liquid), +that we may well leave the phrase as it stands, content with a partial +explanation. + + +(3) "AND GOD SAID, LET THE WATERS UNDER THE HEAVEN BE GATHERED TOGETHER +UNTO ONE PLACE, AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR: AND IT WAS SO. AND GOD +SAID, LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS (VEGETATION), HERB YIELDING SEED, +AND FRUIT TREE BEARING FRUIT AFTER ITS KIND, WHEREIN IS THE SEED +THEREOF." + +The only remarks that the first part of this verse calls for, are, +_first_, that it explains how far from mere chance-work the emergence of +land from the water was; _second_ how well it illustrates the use of +terms relating to creation. + +The whole scheme of the distribution of the surface of earth into land +and water is one which demanded Divine foresight and a complete ideal[1] +which was to be attained by the action and reaction of natural forces, +just as much as the production of the most specialized form of plant-or +animal-life. + + +[Footnote 1: Compare Job xxxviii. 10, 11, and Psa. civ. 9.] + +This is not the place to go into detail as to how much of the world's +life-history and its climatic conditions depend on the distribution of +land and water. It is sufficient to recognize the immense importance of +that distribution. + +But, in the second place, it will be observed that while it is natural +to suppose (though not logically necessary) that the working out of the +Divine plan _commenced_ immediately on the issue of the Divine command +and the declared formulation of the Divine scheme, yet we know--few +things are better known--that the whole scheme was not completely +realized in one day, or one age--certainly not _before_ there was any +appearance of plant-life, aquatic, or dry land, or any appearance of +animal-life. + +I believe (though I have lost my reference) it is held by some +authorities that the position of the great _oceans_ as they are now (and +omitting, of course, all minor coast variations) has been fixed from +very early geologic times. But, apart from that, we have ample evidence +of whole continents arising and being again submerged; and of continual +changes between land and water of the most wide-reaching character again +and again happening during the progress of the world's history. So that +here we may see clearly an instance where the revelation of the creative +act must be held to refer to the great primal design--teaching us that +it is a fact that at first all _was_ laid down, foreseen, and designed +by the Creator; but not referring to anything like an account of the +_results_ upon earth, which, for aught we know to the contrary, may not +yet be complete. + +As to the second part of the text, we are here introduced to the +commencement of life-forms on earth. + +No separation is recorded. Directly the chemical elements of matter have +so combined that a solid earth and liquid water (salt and fresh) are +formed, and the cooling process has gone on sufficiently long to enable +the dense vapours partly to settle down and condense, partly to remain +as vapour (dividing the waters above from the waters below)--directly +this process is aided by the admission of diffused light and by the +adjustment of the atmosphere, and the superficial adjustment of the +distribution of water and land surface is provided for, then plant-life +is organized. + +It will be observed that even aquatic plants and algae though growing in +or under water, are nevertheless connected with the _earth_; so that the +phrase, "Let the _earth_ bring forth," is by no means inappropriate. + +The earliest rock deposits are able to tell us little about the first +beginning of plant-life. Moreover, as animal-life began only with the +interval of one day (the fourth), we should expect to find--on the +supposition that the heavenly _fiat_ at once received the _commencement_ +of its fulfilment on each day--that the first lowly specimens of +vegetable and animal life are almost coeval. And this is (apparently) +the fact. + +It is to be remarked that plant and animal always appear in nature as +two separate and _parallel_ kingdoms. It is not that the plant is lower +than the animal, so that the highest plant takes on it some of the first +characters which mark the lowest animal: but both start separately from +minute and little specialized forms so similar that it is extremely +difficult to say which is plant and which is animal.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: See this well summarized in Nicholson's "Manual of Zoology" +(sixth edition, 1880), p. 13, _et seq._] + +All the beginnings of life in _either_ kingdom would therefore be +ill-adapted (most of them, at any rate) for preservation in +rock-strata.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: I think this is quite sufficient, without relying on the +evidence of the great quantities of _carbon_ in the earliest +(Laurentian, Huronian, &c.) strata in the form of graphite. It is +possible, or even probable, that this may be due to carbon supplied by +masses of little specialized _Thallophyte_ and _Anophyte_ vegetation.] + +All we know for certain is that vegetable-life was closely coeval with +the lowest animal-life, and that it was very long before specialized +forms, even of _cryptogams_, made a great show in the world. + +Probability is entirely in favour of the actual priority being in +vegetable forms; and more than that is not required. For the Mosaic +narrative, while it places the origin of the vegetable kingdom actually +first, lets the _fiat_ for the animal kingdom follow almost immediately. + +As to the _order_ of appearance of the plants, I will reserve my remarks +for the moment. + + +(4) "AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE HEAVEN, +TO DIVIDE THE DAY FROM THE NIGHT; AND LET THEM BE FOR SIGNS, AND FOR +SEASONS, AND FOR DAYS, AND FOR YEARS: AND LET THEM BE FOR LIGHTS IN THE +FIRMAMENT TO GIVE LIGHT ON THE EARTH." + +The sun and the stars, and all the host of heaven, are clearly +understood to have been created "in the beginning," under the general +statement of fact which forms the first verse of the narrative. + +The 14th verse has always been understood to refer to the establishment +of the _relations_ between the earth and the sun, moon, and stars, +which have, as a matter of fact, been recognized by all ages and all +people ever since. The writer of the 104th Psalm certainly so understood +the passage-- + + "He appointed the moon for seasons; + The sun knoweth his going down.[1]" + +The writer was instructed to use popularly intelligible language, and so +the text speaks of the lights as they _appear_ in the sky or firmament. + +Even if we suppose that before this act, the sun was already +incandescent, and the moon capable of reflecting the light, the whole +arrangement of the earth's rotation may have been such that the +alternations of light and darkness may have been very different from +what they are now, and the seasons also. A moment's reflection regarding +the obliquity of the earth's axis, nutation, the precession of the +equinoxes, the eccentricity of the orbit and the changes in the position +of the orbit, will show us what ample room there was for a special +adjustment and adaptation between the earth and its satellite and +between both to the solar centre.[2] So that faith which accepts this as +a Divine arrangement made among the special and formal acts of Creation, +cannot be said to be unreasonable, or to be flying in the face of any +known facts. + + +[Footnote 1: Ver. 19, &c. The same word is also used of "making" priests +(l Kings xii. 31), and appointing (R.V.)("advancing" A.V.), ("making," +as we familiarly say) Moses and Aaron (1 Sam. xii. 6).] + +[Footnote 2: And the Psalmist justly speaks of God as _preparing_ the +light of the sun (Psa. lxxiv. 16).] + +It is very remarkable, as showing how little we can attribute this +narrative, on any basis of probability, to mere fancy or guess-work, +that this matter should have been assigned to the fourth day--_after_ +the fiat for plant-life had gone forth. + +But the fact is that the unregulated light, and the vaporous uniform +climate that must have continued if the fourth day's command had never +issued, though it might have served for a time for the lowest beginnings +of life, especially marine or aquatic, would ultimately have rendered +any advance in the series of design impossible. Such a fact would never +have occurred to an ignorant and uninspired writer. + +It is here impossible to say whether the whole arrangements indicated +were made at once in obedience to the Divine Design, or were produced +gradually. + +It has been suggested that uniformity of climate and temperature +continued up till the carboniferous ages, at any rate; and it is only in +the later ages that such differences of _fauna_ in different parts of +the world appear, as to show differences of climate more like what we +have at present. + +Whether this is so or not, I am not concerned to argue. The narrative +tells us that God did, at a certain point in his Creative work, design +and ordain the necessary arrangements; and physical science may find +out, when it is able, how and when the adjustments spoken of came about. + +(5) AND GOD SAID-- + (i.) Let the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life, + (ii.) Let fowl fly above the earth on the face of the expanse. + +As to (i.) the "creation" consisted of--great sea-monsters (or water +monsters), and every living thing that moveth. + +Then the animal life received a _blessing_. Animals, even the lowliest, +are capable of a new feature in life--happiness in their being, which +cannot be predicated of plants. + +(6) AND GOD SAID-- + (i.) Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind ... + the beast of the earth _after its kind (Carnivora)_, cattle + _after its kind_ (_Ungulata_), and everything that creepeth on + the ground _after its kind_.[1] + +And also-- + + (ii.) Let us make man.... So God created man in His + own image--in the image of God created He him; male + and female created He them. + +(7) Then followed the day of rest. + + +[Footnote 1: See page 178.] [Transcriber's Note: Chapter XIV.] + +§ 2. _The Order of Events considered._ + +It was convenient first to bring these later Creative Acts together +before beginning any remarks about any one of them. + +It will now be desirable to notice what occurred, because here the +question of _order_ is concerned. I could not avoid a partial statement +on this subject at an earlier page, nor would it be quite sufficient +simply to refer the reader back to those pages. At the risk of some +repetition, I will therefore consider the subject here. It will be +observed that on the older interpretation, which passed over the special +act of God in _designing_ and _publishing the design,_ and descended at +once to the earth to the process of producing the designed forms, this +order was matter of great importance. + +Granting the supporters of this view that the six days are unequal +periods often of vast duration, with or without important subdivisions, +they are bound to make out that each creation began, and was at any rate +well advanced, _before_ the next began. We ought, in fact, to see a +period more or less prolonged when the whole of what is indicated in the +_plant_ verse was well advanced, _before_ any marine or fresh-water life +appeared at all.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: There was "evening and morning" of the third day, i.e., +beginning and _completion_, and also the whole interval of the fourth +day, _before_ the command of the fifth.] + +All attempts to make out that this _was_ so, have proved failures. It is +assumed, for instance (and justly so), that life on the globe began with +low vegetable forms; these represented the "grass" of the text, and it +is suggested that the "fruit tree" is represented by the Devonian and +Carboniferous _conifers_. This in itself is a very strained view. It is +recollected that the terms used are not scientific, but for the world at +large; but without confining "fruit tree" to mean only trees having +_edible_ fruit, still the appearance of a few first species of +_conifers_ in the Devonian, can hardly be called an adequate fulfilment +of the requirements of the passage. But even so, myriads of fish and +other animals existed _before_ the Devonian and Carboniferous plant age. + +The animal forms that so existed, have therefore to be _ignored_, or are +assumed to have been created without special notice: and it is said that +the Mosaic period of "moving creatures of the deep," fishes and +monsters, only began when the rocks begin to show _great abundance_ of +shells, of fish, and subsequently of huge reptilians which prepared the +way for birds--which gradually make their appearance towards the Trias. + +But the Devonian "age of fishes" (Devonian including old red sandstone) +was far too important a period to be thus got rid of; and it is +difficult to understand _why_ the narrative should exclude all the +extensive and beautiful (though often little specialized) orders of +marine life--all the Corals, the Mollusca and Articulata, which had long +abounded--especially some of the Crustaceans, not an unimportant group +of which (_Trilobite_[1]) had also culminated and almost passed away +before the Devonian; to say nothing of the fact that _land_ "creeping +things" (scorpions among _crustacea_, and apparently winged insects) had +occurred. + + +[Footnote 1: It is remarkable that the Trilobites rapidly culminated, so +that we have the largest and most perfect forms, such as _Paradoxus_, +with the lowest (_Agnostus_) in the same beds in Wales (Etheridge's +"Phillips' Manual," Part II. p. 32).] + +It is a special difficulty also, that if _insects_ are included among +the "creeping things" of the _earth_ then various families of the +"land-creation" (sixth day) became represented _before_ the great +reptiles of the "water-creation" (fifth day). + +The fact is that a glance at the subjoined Tables (which are only +generally and approximately correct) will suffice to show how the main +features of the progress of life-forms differ from what is required by +the older methods of reading Genesis. To reduce the table within limits, +I have grouped together all the lower forms of life in the animal table, +viz., the sponges, corals, encrinites, and molluscs. It is sufficient to +say that these appear in all the rocks except the very oldest--the +Caelenterata beginning, and the Molluscoids exhibiting an early order in +_brachiopoda_, which seems to be dying out. Crustaceans and insects +appeared as early as Silurian times. + +The idea of successive "kingdoms" or "periods," each of which was +_complete_ in its actual fauna upon earth before the next was fully +ushered in, can no longer be defended. + +It is in the _completion_ of one class of life before the other, that +the fallacy of the period theory lies--for completion is essential to +that theory which supposes "the Mosaic author" to have intended to +describe the _process of production on earth_. + +But it is quite impossible to deny that there _is_ a certain observable +movement and gradual procession in the history of life which is exactly +consistent with what is most likely to have happened, supposing the +Divine designs of life-forms were first declared in successive order at +short intervals of time, and then that the processes of nature worked +out the designs in the fulness of time and gradually in order, each one +_beginning_ before the next, but only beginning. + +I do not deny that it is perfectly _conceivable_ that the Creator might +have designed the forms in one order, and that the actual production or +evolution of the corresponding living creatures might not have been (for +reasons not understood) exactly, or even at all, coincident with the +order. + +But it is impossible to deny the strong feeling of probability that the +commands would _begin_ to be worked out, in the order in which they were +uttered. + +And here it is that the correspondence which undoubtedly exists, gives +rise to controversy. + +From one point of view it is just enough to encourage the "period" +holders to try and arrange a scheme; but it is just hot enough to +prevent their opponents (justly) taxing them with straining or +"torturing" the text and failing fairly to make out their case after +all. From another point of view the correspondence is so far +established, and so undeniably unprecedented (in human cosmogonies) and +noteworthy, as to demand imperatively our careful consideration and +compel us to account for it. + +It will be observed, first of all, that the whole "creation" (omitting +all incidental and preparatory works) is stated in _groups_ each having +an order within itself. + +_Group_ 1. God created (both land and water) "vegetation"--plants +yielding seed, fruit-trees. + +_Group_ 2. +In water, not necessarily excluding _amphibia_:--Great aquatic monsters; +fish and all other creatures that move. In air:--Winged fowl. + +_Group_ 3. On land generally--for some forms are amphibious:--Beasts +(_Carnivora_), cattle (_Ungulata_, &c.), and other things that creep +on the ground (the smaller and lower forms of life collectively). + +The order _within_ the groups is evidently of no consequence, because +the writer does not adhere to it in two consecutive verses dealing with +the same subject; while the "versions" seem to point to some variations +in the text itself as to arrangement, though not as to substance. + +But as regards the order _of_ the groups themselves, it is, as I said, +very natural (but yet not logically inevitable) to expect that when the +results came to be existent on earth, those results should exhibit a +sequence corresponding to the order in which the groups were created. +And it is never denied (in _any_ of the most recent publications[1]) +that to this extent nature confirms the belief. + + +[Footnote 1: I have done my best to verify this from the well-known +latest Manuals of Etheridge, Seeley, and Alleyne-Nicholson.] + +I am aware that Professor Huxley's recent articles may at first sight +seem to go against this; but that is not so on any grounds of actual +fact, but of a particular _interpretation_--which I submit is wholly +unwarranted. + +For instance, it is insisted that the "sea-monsters" of the second group +included _sirenia_ and _cetacea_ (dugongs, manatees, and whales, +dolphins, &c.), which are mammals. In that case a portion of the command +would not have been obeyed--a number of the designed forms would have +been kept in abeyance--for a long time. And the same is still more true +if bats--a highly placed group of mammals--were included in "winged +fowl." + +But both these interpretations are distinctly arbitrary, incapable of +holding good, and also entirely ignore the conditions of a Revelation. + +The narrative is not discussed or defended as an ordinary secular +narrative, which is true according to the _writer's uninspired intention +or the state of his personal knowledge_. It is defended as a Revelation. +The distinction is as obvious as it is important, directly a moment's +consideration is accorded. + +If we assume, for a moment, that God _did_ (on any theory whatever of +Inspiration) instruct, direct, or enable the writer in making the +record, then it is obvious that the writer either put down what he saw +in a vision, or what was in some other manner borne on his mind. In any +case, he could have had no critical knowledge, and no historical +knowledge as an eye-witness, of the actual facts; and he may very well +therefore have used language the full meaning of which he did not +apprehend.[1] What alone is essential is, that the narrative as it +stands, on an ordinary critical, linguistic, and grammatical +interpretation, should not contain anything which is untrue. Suppose, +for example, the word "tannînîm" to be _incapable_ of bearing any other +meaning linguistically than "cetacean," then the narrative might be +objected to; but if it will bear a meaning which is consistent with +fact, then it is no matter that the writer at the time had an erroneous, +or (what is more likely) no defined, idea in his own mind of the +meaning. And so with "winged fowl"--the objection fails entirely, unless +it can be shown, not only that the writer might have thought "bats" to +be included, _but_ that linguistically the word _cannot have_ any other +meaning than one which would include bats.[2] + + +[Footnote 1: As is constantly the case in prophetic writings. Revelation +tells of the remote past sometimes as well as the future, and in neither +case could the inspired writer fully understand the meaning that was +wrapped up in his sentences.] + +[Footnote 2: As a matter of fact, in the one case, if the writer's +knowledge were of any importance, it is almost certain that he did _not_ +mean _cetacean_ or _sirenian_. In the other case it is impossible to say +whether he thought "bats" were included or not. It is not in the nature +of things that the writer could ever have seen or even heard of a +manatee or a dugong; nor is it likely that he had been a sea-farer, or +could have seen any Mediterranean cetacean. As far as his own knowledge +went, he probably had but a very confused idea. And if we refer to the +poetic description in Psalm civ. 25, 26, we find "leviathan," though +distinctly a sea creature, still one of which the writer had only a +vague traditional idea, certainly not a _known_ Mediterranean dolphin, +for in Job xli. the same term is applied to the crocodile.] + +We have every right, then, to say that the "tannînîm" of the text may be +taken to refer to that great and remarkable age of Saurians which is not +only of very great importance in itself, but becomes doubly so when we +see its connection backward with the fishes, and forward through the +Pterodactyles to Odontoformae (_Apatornis_ and _Icthyornis_) and modern +winged birds (_Hesperonis_ for the Penguins); and through the +Dinosaurs[1] with the Saurornithes, with the _Dinornis_ and the +struthious birds; and through the Theriodonts with the mammalian +_carnivora_. + + +[Footnote 1: And perhaps the pachydermatous mammals (Nicholson, +"Zoology," p. 566).] + +In that case the sequence of the two groups, plants and aquatic +animal-forms, is explained. They come almost together--plants being +probably actually the first, and mollusca, fishes, and saurians. + +There is, further, no real dispute that the Saurians led up to the Aves, +and that the third group (of mammals) follows all the members of the +second group. The earliest known mammal (_microlestes_) is an isolated +forerunner of not very certain location, the real bulk of the mammalian +orders beginning in the Eocene. Seeing, too, how very closely one +Creative command is recorded to have followed on the other, it is not in +any way against the narrative that some land forms of crustaceans and +insects (and possibly others) began to appear at an early stage, when +the vegetable and water-animal forms had only progressed as far as the +Silurian and Devonian ages. Nor should we wonder if mammalian forms had +occurred earlier. I mention this because of the evident gap in the +geologic record between the Cretaceous and the Eocene, and because in +the article of December, 1885 (and elsewhere), Professor Huxley has used +language which suggests that mammals may have existed of which the rocks +give no sign. E.g. (p. 855): "The organization of the bat, bird, or +pterodactyle, presupposes that of a terrestrial quadruped ... and is +intelligible only as an extreme modification of the organization of a +terrestrial _mammal or_ reptile." The italics are of course mine. And +again (p. 855), "I am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate +to admit that the organization of these animals (whales, dugongs, &c.) +shows the most obvious signs of their descent from terrestrial +quadrupeds." + +I do not quote these words of so great a master as presuming to question +them (even if, as a scientific verdict, I had any motive for so doing), +but merely to point out as a matter of plain and fair reasoning, that if +a Divine Creator had designed certain forms to be gradually attained by +the processes of Evolution, it would not be necessary that any actually +realized form or tangible creature should have existed as ancestors. +Logically, the necessity is _either_ that certain animals should have +actually existed whose descendants gradually lost or gained certain +features and functions till the forms we are speaking of resulted, _or_ +that certain patterns or designs should have been created according to +which development proceeded by regular laws till the forms in question +resulted. + +A few words as to the terms used in describing the contents of each +group, may be added. It is obvious that the terms are intended to be +exhaustive of certain main groups which are described sufficiently, +without being cast in a form which would have been incompatible with the +use (at the time) of a human agent as the medium of the recorded +Revelation. + +(1) "Vegetation" (of an indefinite character, but not bearing seed), +plants bearing seed, trees bearing fruit with the seed in it--certainly +exhaust the entire range of plant-life. + +(2) Moving creatures that live (and fish are afterwards expressly +mentioned) and great monsters (tann[i=]n[i=]m), cover the entire field +of life up to Reptilia as far as these are aquatic forms. + +(3) The terms used for the third group are also obviously +exhaustive--the separate mention of the _cattle_ and the _beast_ +(Carnivora and Ungulates) is a form which is invariably noticed +throughout the Old and New Testaments. The "creeping things" would +include all minor forms, all land reptiles not described above as the +"tann[i=]n[i=]m," and insects. + +And it is remarkable that the tortoises, the snakes, and, the more +modern forms of crocodile and lizard, and the amphibia and higher +insects, are all cainozoic--some of them were preceded by more or less +transitory representatives, e.g., the Carboniferous _Eosaurus_ and +Permian _Protosaurus_ the ancient Labyrinthodons and Urodelas, +Chelonians and the amphicaelian crocodiles. Snakes have no palaeozoic +representative. + +Land insects, as might naturally be expected, go back to the times when +land vegetation was sufficiently established, and appear gradually all +along the line from the Silurian onwards. The modern types, however, are +Tertiary. + +The succession, we observe, may be illustrated by the resemblance of a +number of arrows shot rapidly one after the other in so many parallel +courses: all would soon be moving nearly together. + +Plant-life, the subject of the first Divine designing, has, as far as we +can reasonably say, the start. According to known laws it appears in +elementary and undeveloped forms, and gradually progresses. One group +(Cryptogams) reaches a magnificent development and begins to die away in +point of grandeur, though still abundantly exemplified. Phanerogamic +plants in their lowest groups of gymnosperm exogens then begin to appear +in the Devonian conifers, gradually followed by _cycads_. And it is not +till Cainozoic times that we have the endogenous grasses and palms and +angiospermous exogens. + +But the command regarding animal life had followed the other after a +short interval, so that we soon see this developing _pari passu_ with +the other groups--first the lower marine forms and gradually advancing +to the Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, and then to Aves, as a special +division in the second great design group. Lastly the mammals appear and +man.[1] But throughout all, we see the rise, culmination, and decay of +many transitory and apparently preparatory groups--such as, for example, +the Labyrinthodons and Urodelas--preceding the modern types of Amphibia; +ancient fish-forms preceding modern ones, and either dying out or +leaving but a few and distant representatives; or again, the whole +tribes of ancient Saurians, of which something has already been said. +All these wonderful under-currents and cross-currents, rises and falls, +appearances and disappearances, nevertheless all work together till the +whole earth is peopled with the forms, designed in the beginning by the +Heavenly Creator. + + +[Footnote 1: Nor should we be surprised to find (should it be so +discovered) that some animals appeared after man. (_Cf_. "Nineteenth +Century" for Dec. 1885, p. 856.)] + +No account of Creation can be other than wonderful and mysterious; nor +can the mystery of the Divine act be explained in language other than +that of analogy. + +We can speak without mystery of a human architect conceiving a design in +his mind; and when he utters it, it is by putting the plans and details +upon paper, and handing them over to the builders, who set to work +(under the architect's supervision, and in obedience to all the rules +he has prescribed as to the methods of work and materials to be used). + +All this we can transfer by analogy only, to a Divine design. The +design is in the Divine mind, and He utters it in no material plans or +drawings: the forces of nature and the chemical elements, His obedient +builders, have no hands to receive the plans or eyes to scan them; but +we can perceive the analogy directly, and that is all that is necessary +for Faith. + +The origin of all we see in the world and in the entire Cosmos is, then, +in God; and as regards the adjustments of our globe and its relations, +and the actual life-forms in plant and animal, they came into existence +pursuant to groups of types or designs, made by the Divine Mind, and +declared by Him from His Throne in heaven, in six several days--periods +of the rotation of our earth. + +That is the message of Revelation. It requires no straining of the +sacred text: it takes everything as it stands, and the seemingly lengthy +explanation it requires is not to manipulate the text, but to clear away +the heap of mistaken conceptions that have gathered round it:--to +establish the idea, that the terms "God said, Let there be," and so +forth, mean Heaven work, in the design and type--not earth work in its +realization and building up. Establishing this by illustration and +argument, nothing more is required in the way of textual exegesis except +to argue for the rejection of perverse and unsustainable meanings long +given to "days," to "expanse" or "firmament," and to "great whales" in +the narrative. + +It will be admitted readily that if this account of Creation is the true +one, if the meaning assigned to the Genesis narrative is correct, it +affords no hindrance to _any_ conclusions that may progressively be +demanded by the investigation of life-history on earth. + +It requires us to believe that the forms which life assumes are not +chance forms, nor the _unpremeditated_ results of environment and +circumstance. But we are not told positively which forms are transitory, +which are final. + +It is only a matter of probable opinion, which it is quite open to any +one to dispute, that there is any indication of finality. I should +personally be inclined to think that we have indications that carnivora, +ungulates, and birds are final forms; that no evolution will ever modify +a bird further into anything that is not a bird; that no transition +between the ungulates and the carnivora is possible; that the +_proboscideae_ are not a final but a transitory type, dying out +gradually--our elephants and similar forms will disappear as the +mastodon did. + +But I admit this is all mere speculation, in which I ask no one to +follow me. + +On one important point only is there a difference; and if the text is +ever proved wrong on that, it must be given up. But it is here that all +scientific knowledge fails, in _any way whatever,_ to touch the sacred +text. There _is_ an unique and exceptional account of one "special +creation." A man "Adam" is described as having been actually created, +not born as an ultimately modified descendant of ancestors originally +far removed from himself. That is not to be denied; not only was his +bodily form specially created (conformably to the _type_ created in +Genesis i. 26), but a special spiritual and higher life was +imparted--for I believe that no one disputes this as the meaning of the +expression, "breathed into his nostrils the _breath of lives,_ and man +became a living soul." + +It must be noted again--although I have before alluded to this in some +detail--that it is not impossible that, pursuant to the general command +"Let us make man," there _may_ have been other human creations, perhaps +not endowed with the higher life of Adam. If it is found difficult to +realize this because the _image of God_ is connected (from the very +first) with the design of Man's life-form, still it is to be remembered +as an undeniable fact, that the form, though one assumed by God Himself +in the Incarnation, _is connected_ in structure and function with the +general animal (Mammalian) type, and that even the Adamic or spiritually +endowed man _may_, by neglecting the higher and giving way to the lower +nature, develop much of the purely bestial in himself. So that the bare +possibility of a pre-Adamite and imperfect man cannot be _à priori_ +denied. More than that it is not necessary to say. Nor is it necessary +that any origin of man should be limited to six or eight thousand years +back. If the state of the text is such that a perfect chronology is +possible,[1] then all that the Bible goes back to chronologically is the +particular man Adam. And it is quite impossible that any scientific or +historical contradiction can arise therefrom. + + +[Footnote 1: It should be borne in mind that just as Revelation is often +absolutely silent on many points that mere curiosity would like to see +explained, so also, the Divine Author may have allowed parts of the +original text of Revelation to be so far lost or obscured as to leave +further points that _might_ have been once recorded, now doubtful. All +that we may be quite sure of is that the text has been preserved for all +that is essential to "life and godliness."] + + + + +APPENDIX. + + +_PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN._ + +The information here put together is a compilation from papers in "The +Nineteenth Century," and other sources. It has no pretentions to +originality, but only to give a brief and connected account of the +subject, more condensed and freed from surrounding details than that +which the original sources afford. + +Before entering on the subject, I would again call attention to the +surpassing importance of these early chapters of Genesis. And, I add, +that unbelievers are especially glad to be able to allege anything they +can against them, because they are aware that hardly any chapters in the +Bible are more constantly alluded to, and made the foundation of +practical arguments by our Lord and His Apostles, than these early +chapters in the Divine volume. If these chapters can be shown to be +mythical, then the divine knowledge of our Lord, as the Son of God, and +the inspiration of His Apostles, are put in question. All through the +Old Testament, allusions to Adam and to the early history in Genesis +occur; and among other passages, I will only here invite attention to +the 31st chapter of Ezekiel, where there is, in a most beautiful +description of the cedar-tree, an allusion to "Eden, the Garden of God" +(see also chapter xxviii. ver. 13), which some have thought to indicate +that the site was still known, and existing in the time of the prophet. +This at least may be remarked, that in verse 9, where the prophet speaks +of the "trees that _were_ in the Garden of God," the word _were_ is not +in the original, and the sense of the context would rather denote the +present tense--"the trees that _are_ in the Garden of God." + +But it is in the New Testament that the most repeated and striking +allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the Serpent, and the +entrance of sin and death into the life-history of mankind, occur.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: See on this subject page 137 _ante_.] [Transcriber's +note: Chapter X.] + +As regards the narrative of Eden itself, there has been, from the very +earliest times, some disposition to regard it as mystical or +"allegorical," i.e., to regard it as representing spiritual facts of +temptation and disobedience, under the guise or story of an actual +audible address by a serpent, and the eating of an actual fruit. The +earliest translators seem to have glossed the "Gan-'Eden," everywhere in +the Old Testament (_except_ in Gen. ii. 8), by the phrase "the paradise +of pleasure," or some other similar term. And the Vulgate _always_ uses +some phrase, such as "place of delight," "voluptas," "deliciae," &c. It +must be admitted that there is some temptation to this course, because +of the inveterate tendency of the human mind to reduce things to its own +level--to suppose everything to have happened _in ways which are within +its present powers to comprehend._ We figure to ourselves the fear and +dislike _we_ should ourselves experience, of a large snake; we imagine +the amazement with which an intelligible voice would be heard to proceed +from such a creature; so far from being _tempted, we_ should at once be +moved to hostility or to flight; and thus we are inclined to throw doubt +on the narrative as it stands. + +But this is to do what we justly complain of modern materialists and +positivists for doing--reducing everything to terms of present +experience and knowledge. + +It has to be borne in mind, that _under the conditions of the case_, the +serpent was neither ugly, dangerous, nor loathsome, but beautiful and +attractive; that the residents of the Garden were familiar with the +"voice of God"--i.e., they had habitual intelligible communication with +heaven: probably, also, free intercourse with angelic messengers +(inconceivable as it may now seem to us) was matter of daily experience +to them. The woman would then recognize in the voice an Angel +communication; and unaware at first that it was an evil angel, it would +excite no surprise in her at all. Sensations of terror, surprise, +dislike, and so forth, were _ex hypothesi_ unknown. Why then should not +the narrative be exact, unless, indeed, we have some _à priori_ ground +for supposing that human nature _never could_ have been in a state where +the voice of God and angels sounded in its ears, and where innocence and +the absence of all evil emotion was the daily condition of life? The +unbeliever may sneer at such a state, but _reason_ why it should _not_ +have been, he can give none. So, again, with the idea of the "tree of +the knowledge of good and evil" and the "tree of life." We are no doubt +tempted to think that these terms may be symbolic; but a more careful +reflection, and a deliberate rejection of the _influence of present +experiences_, may lead us to accept the narrative more literally. Even +now, we are not unfamiliar with the ideas of medicinal virtues in plants +and fruits. I see nothing impossible in the idea that God may have been +pleased to impart such virtue to the fruit of a tree standing in the +midst of the Garden, that physical health, immunity from all decay, and +constant restoration, should have been the result of eating the fruit; +and the eating of this fruit, we know, was freely permitted. The late +Archbishop Whately suggested, and I think with great probability, that +the longevity of the earliest generations of the Adamic race may have +been due to the beneficial effects of the eating of this fruit, which +only gradually died out. Just as we know at the present time, that +peculiarities introduced into human families, often survive from father +to son, till they gradually die out after many generations. + +Again, as regards the "forbidden tree," it will not seem impossible, +that as a simple _test of obedience_ in a very primitive state, the rule +of abstinence from a particular fruit may have been literally enjoined, +and that the consequence of the moral act of _disobedience_ (rather +than the physical effect of the fruit eaten) should have been the +knowledge of evil, the first sensation of shame, terror, angry +dissension, and, worst of all, the alienation from God the source of all +good, which followed. + +All such considerations of the reality of the history must gain greatly +in strength, if we can demonstrate that the Garden of Eden, the scene of +the temptation, the place where the trees that were the vehicles of such +consequences to the occupants of the garden, stood, had a real existence +and geographical site. Now I need hardly remark that the Mosaic +narrative unquestionably _professes_ a geographical exactness and a +literal existence of the garden, as no fabled locality--no Utopia or +garden of the Hesperides. I need only refer to the _data_ afforded to us +by Gen. ii. 8-14. + +The Lord, it is said, planted a garden in Eden: it was "eastward;" but +that does not directly indicate its site. From Gen. iv. 16, we also +learn that the land of Nod where Cain dwelt (after the murder of Abel) +was on the east of Eden. + +A river went out and watered the garden. After passing the limits of +Eden, the river is said to have divided itself, or parted, into four +heads, i.e., arms or branches. The first branch was called Pison. This +branch "compasseth," i.e., forms the boundary along the whole length of, +"_the_ Havilah." This country is spoken of as being a tract wherein was +produced good gold, "b'dolach" (translated "bdellium") and "shoham" +(translated "onyx.") The second branch was Gihon, which is described as +similarly compassing the district of K[=u]sh. Here our A.V., by +substituting "Ethiopia" for the original "C[=u]sh," has made a gloss +rather than a translation; and this gloss has given rise to several +errors of commentators in identifying the site of Eden. The Revised +Version has corrected the error. + +The third branch was Hiddekel, the _Diklatu_ of the Arabs, the Tigra of +the old Persians, and the _Tigris_ of later writers. This is said to run +eastward towards Assyria.[1] The fourth river was the Frat or Euphrates. +Observe, in passing, that the author gives no detail about the great +river Euphrates, as being well known; while he adds particulars about +the Tigris, and describes the Gihon and the Pison in some detail. + + +[Footnote 1: So the margin of the A. and R. Versions more correctly.] + +Now it will at once strike the reader that two of these rivers are well +known to the present day. The others are not. + +It is in the identification of these two, and of the districts which +they "compassed," which form the difficulties of the problem. Up till +recent times, it is remarkable what a variety of speculations have been +attempted as to the situation of Eden. Dr. Aldis Wright, the learned +author of the article "Eden" in Smith's "Biblical Dictionary," remarks: +"It would be difficult, in the whole history of opinion, to find any +subject which has so invited, and at the same time completely baffled, +conjecture, as the Garden of Eden." And in another place he thinks that +"the site of Eden will ever rank with the quadrature of the circle, and +the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy among those unsolved, and +perhaps insoluble, problems which possess so strange a fascination." It +is, however, to be remarked, (1)that all that was written before +Professor Delitzsch's researches were made known; and (2)that really a +great mass of the conjecture and speculation has been purely in the +air--undertaken without any reference to the plain terms of the text to +be interpreted. It is the extravagance of commentators, and their +insisting on going beyond the narrative itself, that has raised such +difficulties, and made the problem look more hopeless than it really is. + +To what purpose are "the three continents of the old world" "subjected +to the most rigorous search," as Dr. Wright puts it--when it is quite +plain from the text itself, that the solution is to be sought in the +neighbourhood of the Euphrates, or not at all? The whole inquiry seems +to have been one in which a vast cloud of learned dust has been raised +by speculators, who began their inquiry without clearly determining, to +start with, what was the point at issue. Either the description in Gen. +ii. 3-14 is meant for allegory, or geographical fact: this question must +first be settled; and if the latter is agreed to, then it is quite +inconceivable that the words should imply any very extensive region, or +any fancied realm extending over a large proportion of one or other +quarter of the globe. The problem is then at once narrowed; and it is +simply unreasonable to look for Havila in India, or for Pison in the +province of Burma, as one learned author does! + +Yet commentators have forgotten this; and gone--the earlier ones into +interpretation of allegory--the later into impossible geographical +speculation; while only the most recent have confined themselves to the +obvious terms of the problem as laid down in the narrative itself--a +narrative which (whether true or false) is clearly meant to be definite +and exact, as we have seen. Our A.V. translators are to be held, to +some extent, responsible for the freedom which speculation has +exercised, by themselves taking the C[=u]sh of the narrative to +"Ethiopia," i.e., to the African continent--for which there is no +authority whatever. + +As regards the _allegorical_ interpretations, they are too extravagant +for serious notice. Souls, angels, human passions and motives, are +supposed to be represented by towns, rivers, and countries. To all this +it is enough to reply--What reason can we have for supposing an +allegory suddenly to be interpolated at Gen. ii. 8? There is no allegory +before it, there is none after. + +Then as to the early geographical expounders. Josephus and others +supposed the allusion was made to the great rivers known to ancient +geography, all of which ran into that greatest river of all, which +encircled the globe. In this view, the Gihon might be the Nile, and the +Pison the Ganges! Here, again, it may be remarked it is impossible to +read the narrative and believe that the author meant any such widespread +region. Even if the author had the ancient ideas about cosmography +generally, that would not prevent his being accurate about a limited +region lying to the east of a well-known river in a populous country. In +later times Luther avoided the difficult speculation by supposing that +the Deluge had swept away all traces of the site! But unfortunately for +this convenient theory, it is a plain fact that the Deluge did not sweep +any two out of the four rivers named. The reader who is curious on the +subject, will find in Dr. A. Wright's article a brief account of the +various identifications proposed by all these commentators. It would not +be interesting to go into any detail. I shall pass over all those +extravagant views which go to places remote from the Euphrates, and come +at once to the later attempts to solve the question in connection with +the two known rivers, Euphrates and Hiddekel (Tigris); as this is the +only kind of solution that any reasonable modern Biblical student will +admit. + +The different explanations adopted maybe grouped into two main attempts: +(1) to find the place among the group of rivers that surrounds Mount +Ararat in Northern Armenia, _vis._, in the extreme upper course of the +Euphrates near its two sources; (2) to find the place below the +_present_ junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris, along some part of +the united course, which is now more than two hundred miles long, and is +called "Shatt-el-'Aráb." + +But neither of these attempts has been successful: the first must, +indeed, be absolutely dismissed; because the Hebrew phrases used in +describing the four _branches_ of the river that "went out," and watered +the garden, and then parted, cannot be applied to four independent +sources or streams--_upstream_ of the Euphrates. It will not, then, +satisfy the problem, to find four rivers somewhere in the vicinity of +the Euphrates, and which, in a general way, enclose a district in which +Eden might be placed. It may, indeed, be doubted whether this first +attempt (which I may call the "North Armenian solution") would ever have +been seriously entertained, but from the fact that the name Gihon--or +something very like it--did attach itself to the Araxes or Phasis, a +considerable river of Armenia. Finding a Gihon ready, the commentators +next made the Pison, the Acampsis; and then as Pison was near the +"Havila land," this country was laid on the extreme north of Armenia; +all this without a particle of evidence of any kind.[1] I may here take +the opportunity of remarking that a chance _similarity of names_[2] has +been, throughout the controversy, a fruitful source of enlarged +speculative wandering. Thus this name Gihon (Gaihun, JÃkhún, G[=e][=o]n, +&c.) that appears in North Armenia, again appears in connection with the +_Nile_; while again the name "Nile" has wandered back to the confines of +Persia, and one of the _Euphrates_ branches is still called +"Shatt-en-nîl." The ancients, indeed, had very curious ideas about the +Nile. Its real sources being so long undiscovered--no Speke or Grant +having appeared--imagination ran wild on the subject. Not only so, but +it is remarkable that the name _Cush_ should have acquired both a +Persian Gulf and an Egyptian employment: and the writer of the able +article in "The Nineteenth Century" (October, 1882) points out several +other singular instances in which names are common both to the +African-Egyptian region, and to this. + + +[Footnote 1: And it is astonishing to find the error generally +perpetuated in maps attached to modern Bibles.] + +[Footnote 2: As distinct from a real philological connection of a modern +name with a more ancient one, and so forth.] + +Turning now to the second of the two theories, the identification of the +site on the lower part of the Euphrates after its now existing junction +with the Tigris (and which the supporters of the theory have justified +by making the Gihon and Pison two rivers coming from Eden) must also be +set aside. + +For the important fact has been overlooked that it is quite certain, +that anciently, the joint stream, (Shatt-el-'Aráb), as it now is, did +not exist. Though the Genesis narrative tells us of a junction +_immediately outside_ the southern boundary of the Garden, the Euphrates +channels and the Tigris branch (with part of the Euphrates water in it) +flowed separately to the Persian Gulf. It is quite certain that, in the +time of Alexander the Great, the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris were +a good day's journey apart. For this separate outflow there is the +incontestable evidence of Pliny and other authors quoted by Professor +Delitzsch. I may here also remark, that anciently the Persian Gulf +extended much farther inland than it does now. In the time of +Sennacherib, an inland arm of the sea extended so far, that a _naval_ +expedition against Elam was possible; more than one hundred miles inland +from the present sea-line. The extension was called N[=a]r Marratum. In +Alexander's time, the city of Charax (now Mohamra) was founded close to +the sea (that was in the fourth century B.C.). It is known from later +histories, that shortly before the birth of our Saviour, the city was +from fifty to one hundred and twenty Roman miles inland. The change is +due to the "Delta," or alluvial formation at the mouth of the rivers. + +Turning, then, to the recent inquiries (published in 1881[1]) by +Professor Fried. Delitzsch, it must be confessed that the results +obtained are such as to completely avoid all the difficulties that beset +the other explanations: yet we ought not to be too confident that it is +a final or absolute explanation. A certain caution and reserve will +still be wisely maintained on the subject. At any rate, they show that +_an_ explanation, one that answers _all_ the conditions of the problem, +_can_ be given; and that is a great thing. + + +[Footnote 1: "Wo lag das Paradies" (Leipzig, 1881) is the title of the +book.] + +[Footnote: Professor Friedrich Delitzsch is Professor of Assyriology in +the University of Leipzig.] + +In placing the site _on_ the Euphrates, and far from the mountain +sources, there is no violence done to the Hebrew language used to +describe the first river, as one that "went out," and watered the +Garden. The words do not require that the river should actually _take_ +its _rise_ within the Garden limits; but it is necessary that the river +should be so situated, that its waters could be distributed by means of +creeks or canals across the Garden, that it could be said the river +"went out and watered the Garden." Now it is a remarkable fact, that in +the district just above Babylon, the bed of the Euphrates is in level +much higher than the bed of the Tigris (Hiddekel) to the east, and that +hence there always have been a number of very variable channels leading +from the Euphrates eastward to the Tigris. These, it is well known, were +often enlarged by the ancients and converted into useful "inundation +canals" for irrigation and the passage of boats. Imagine, then, the high +level river bed of the Euphrates, and various streams flowing off it +down to the valley of the Tigris, and we have a most efficiently +irrigated "Garden," and one accurately described by the text--the great +river "went out" and watered it. The Euphrates, moreover, is liable to +great flushes of water from the melting of the snows in wide tracts of +mountain or highlands from which its waters are collected, and these +volumes of water found vent from the overcharged mother-channel by +escape, not only through the side channels, just spoken of, but also by +other important branches on the other side. Every one who has seen one +of the great rivers of Northern India will at once realize the changes +that take place where a river liable to floods has its bed at a high +level. It is almost a matter of certainty that, in the course of years, +the branches and channels of rivers so constituted will change, and old +ones be left dry and deserted. These essential topographical conditions +have always to be remembered in interpreting the narrative of Genesis +ii. + +In fact, they furnish us with points which help us in the problem at the +outset. (1) There is a part of the Euphrates, just above Babylon, where +the river naturally furnished abundant irrigation for a Garden planted +eastward of it, by means of natural irrigation channels flowing from the +high level down to the lower valley of the Tigris; and (2) there is also +a point from which the Euphrates did branch out, and several important +arms anciently existed. + +Nor is the locality, in point of verdure and fertility, unsuitable. Not +only do the ancient histories make frequent mention of the canals and +streams flowing from the Euphrates which I have alluded to, but they +speak of the palm groves, the vines and the verdure of the Babylonian or +Chaldean region. Herodotus, in his first book, has the most glowing +description of the scene; and the kings of Babylon had numerous enclosed +gardens or parks: these were imitated in Persia, and gave rise to the +Persian name "Firdaus," which Xenophon imported into Greek in the form +of [Greek: paradeisos] or "paradise"--the term which was adopted by the +Seventy translators. + +The actual locality which Professor Delitzsch proposes as the most +probable site of the Garden of Eden is between the present Euphrates and +Tigris, just to the north of Babylon. The boundaries would be--roughly +and generally speaking--the two rivers for East and West; while for the +North and South boundaries we should draw parallel lines through Accad +on the North and Babylon on the South. + +But granted that the general locality and the relations of the river +Euphrates and Tigris satisfy the requirements of the text by such a +location as this: how about the other two _and_ the countries which they +compass? The troubles of the earlier commentators will warn us, that we +need not be too ready to force names, and to identify one river, and +then, _because_ we have fixed that, make the country which the text +requires follow it! + +It is, however, in this matter that Professor Delitzsch's work is so +satisfactory. He has pointed out, that there is historical evidence (and +also that the local traces are not wanting in the present day) to prove +that, just below Babylon, we _can_ find two prominently important +channels or branches of the Euphrates, which will at least supply the +place of Pison and Gihon. As to the first, it is known that in historic +times a great channel called by the Greeks Pallakopas (navigable for +ships) used to carry off the surplus water of the Euphrates when swollen +in the summer season by the melting snows of the Armenian mountains. It +branched off from the main river at a point somewhat north of Babylon, +and flowed into the Persian gulf. There is, indeed, no _direct_ evidence +to show that this branch bore a name resembling Pison. _Palgu_ is the +Assyrian whence the Greek Pallakopas was derived. It is remarkable, +however, that the word Pison closely resembles the cuneiform term +"pisána," or "pisánú," which is used for a water-reservoir, a canal or a +channel; and as this "Pallakopas" was _the_ channel _par excellence_, it +may very possibly have been called "pisána" or Pison, the (great) +channel. The identification of the channel called "Pallakopas" will be +found mentioned in Colonel Chesney's work, "An Expedition to the +Tigris." The name, however, of this channel is not the only means we +have of identifying it. The Scripture says that the Pison compasses the +land of _Havilah_. Now let us remember, that the Scripture tells of two +Havilahs: (1) The second son of Cush[1] and brother of Nimrod, and (2) +one of the great great grandsons of Shem (Gen. x. 29). One we may call +the Cushite Havilah, the other the Joktanite Havilah. The dwelling-place +of the brother of Nimrod is not mentioned, but it is stated that the +Joktanite Havilah dwelt in "Mesha." The tenth of Genesis is an important +chapter, as showing how the descendants of Noah branched out and spread +over the countries all round the Euphrates; some going north to Assyria +(Nineveh), others to the east and west, and others south, to Arabia and +Egypt. Now it so happens that the whole country west of the great +Pallakopas channel, was called by the Assyrians "Mashu." Professor +Delitzsch identifies this Mashu of the cuneiform inscriptions, with the +"Mesha" mentioned in Scriptures, as the home of Havilah. We have also in +Gen. xxv. 8,[2] mention of a land of Havila that is "before"--i.e., +eastward of--"Egypt as thou goest toward Assyria," which would answer +very well to this locality, west of the Euphrates. It is also known +(from sources which it would take too long to detail) that this country +did yield gold-dust. Pliny also mentions "Bdellium," if that was the +substance known as "B'dolach." It is indeed uncertain what this was, but +Gesenius long ago rejected the idea that it was a stone, because there +is no prefix to it, as there is to "shoham," which follows, and +certainly is a precious stone. The manna in the wilderness is described +as being of the "colour of bdellium," and was also like hoar-frost;[3] +hence the idea that b'dolach was a crystal. But a fragrant and precious +gum-resin seems more likely. The Magi who came to worship the Infant +Saviour from near this locality, brought offerings of _gold_, and also +fragrant gums and myrrh. Was "bdellium" (as probably being a fragrant +gum) one of these offerings? + + +[Footnote 1: See Gen. x. 9.] + +[Footnote 2: See also 1 Sam. xv. 7.] + +[Footnote 3: Exod. xvi. 14; Numbers xi. 7: "The appearance (lit. "eye") +of it was as the appearance of bdellium" (R.V.).] + +The "Onyx," or "Shoham," was most probably a pure red cornelian, and +this also was found in the Babylonian provinces, and was specially worn +by the Babylonian kings. + +So the country west of the Euphrates answers very well to Havila without +any forcing, and without any placing it there _because_ of the river +rendering such a plan necessary. + +As to the fourth river (Gihon), Delitzsch identifies it, still more +clearly, with a channel known as the "Shatt-en-nÃl," which branches off +from the Euphrates at Babylon itself, and passing the Scriptural city of +Erech, rejoins the main river lower down. A clay tablet has actually +been discovered, having the Euphrates, Tigris, and this Shatt-en-nÃl +channel _together_: the name of the latter is given as "K[=a]hán de," or +"Gughánde," a name which closely resembles Gihon. The channel is, +however, identified independently of the name. For the Gihon is +particularized in the narrative, by the fact that it "compasses" the +land of Cush. This (as already pointed out) is not the Ethiopian Cush. + +Delitzsch states, that the whole country bounded by this branch was +anciently called Kash-shu, which he identifies with the Cush of Genesis +ii. The syllable "Kash" appears throughout this locality. In fact +Kash-du or Kal-du is the origin of the familiar name Chaldea. In the +Hebrew, Kush (Cush) is the name given to the father of Nimrod, who +"began" his kingdom about this very site--Erech, and Calneh, and Accad +(Gen. x. 8, 10). Hence it is not surprising that relics of the name +should be found all round this neighbourhood. Nor does the evidence end +here. The district immediately around Babylon was called "Kár-dunish-i," +i.e., the "Garden of the god Dunish." Now Kar is the Turanian form of +the Semitic G[=a]n, or Gin[=a] (garden); and what is more likely than +that, as the true story was lost in the heathen traditions and mythology +that grew up, the "garden" was attributed to the god Dunish--whereas the +real original had been not "Gà ndunish," but "Gan'Eden?" This, though +only a conjecture, is the more probable, as one of the inscription-names +of Babylon itself was "Tintira," which, though a little obscure, +certainly means _either_ the "_grove_," or the _"fountain," of life._ + +We thus find, not only that four great branches of the river that "went +out," and watered the Garden can be traced, but that the two really do +"compass" tracts, that can, with the highest degree of probability, be +identified as C[=u]sh or Kash, and Havilah. The importance of Professor +Delitzsch's work may now be briefly glanced at. It may be objected, that +such a process of reasoning as that put forward, is not convincing to a +general reader who has not the means of criticizing or testing Professor +Delitzsch's conclusions: he therefore cannot be sure that, in selecting +two channels to represent the Pison and the Gihon, and in identifying +"Mashu" with Mesha of Havilah, and one of the Babylonian districts with +Kush, the Professor has at last hit off a solution of the problem which +will not in its turn be disproved, as all earlier solutions have been. +There is, however, this important conclusion to be safely drawn, viz., +that a complete explanation in exact accord with the Hebrew text is +_possible_, and that hence nothing can be urged against the _narrative_, +on the ground (hitherto sneeringly taken) that the geography _was +impossible_ and so forth. + +Next let me very briefly sum up what it is that Dr. Delitzsch has +done--marshalling the evidence, beginning from the broad end and +narrowing down till we arrive at the point. + +(1) First, then, we are fixed by the narrative to some place between the +Euphrates and the Tigris. + +(2) We find in the ancient inscriptions of the chief city of this +locality, constant allusions to a Garden, a primitive pair and a +temptation: one of these almost exactly reproduces the Bible story; it +is not of the earliest date and is a copy. But discovery is far from +being exhausted; all that we know is _consistent_ with the idea of an +original story, gradually corrupted by the addition of legends, and +introduction of mythological persons and heathen divinities. The true +belief in one God, who made Himself known by voice or vision to His true +worshippers, seems early to have been confined to a few of the Shemitic +families, while the others "invented" gods of their own. + +(3) We find that the region about Babylon itself was called +Kár-dunishi--which easily recalls Kar or Gán-Eden. We also find the name +(Tintira) applied, indicating a "grove" or "fountain" of life; in the +locality where the direct legends most abound. + +(4) We find from ancient authors that the district was one of rich +verdure--a land of gardens and irrigation. + +(5) We find that some way above Babylon about Accad, the level of the +river bed Euphrates is so much higher than the valley of the Tigris +eastward, that numerous streams flow off from it, which would serve +admirably to irrigate a garden situated between the two, eastward of the +Euphrates. + +(6) We find that the Persian Gulf once extended more than one hundred +miles farther inland than it does now. That there was no joint outflow +of Tigris and Euphrates, but, though they did join their streams above, +they parted again and had still separate mouths--of the Tigris branch +one, of the Euphrates several. + +(7) Lastly, Professor Delitzsch finds two channels which answer to Pison +and Gihon. + +(8) He proves these two to be the right ones by considering the +countries which they "compass:" and actually finds the one that he +supposes to be the "Gaihûn," called, in the cuneiform clay tablets, +"Kahán or Gaghân-dé." + +It is really only in (7) and (8) that there is any room for doubt and +for further inquiry. + +At any rate, the credibility of the narrative, and a belief in its +purpose, as a topographically exact statement of fact, not an allegory +or legend, is established. + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's Creation and Its Records, by B.H. Baden-Powell + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 12852 *** diff --git a/12852-h/12852-h.htm b/12852-h/12852-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a353c0f --- /dev/null +++ b/12852-h/12852-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,6117 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> +<html> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content= + "text/html; charset=UTF-8"> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of Creation And Its Records, by B.H. Baden-Powell, C.I.E., F.R.S.E.. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + } + HR { width: 33%; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + .linenum {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */ + .note {margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em;} /* footnote */ + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + .sidenote {width: 20%; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 1em; font-size: smaller; float: right; clear: right;} + + .poem {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; text-align: left;} + .poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} + .poem p {margin: 0; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem p.i2 {margin-left: 2em;} + .poem p.i4 {margin-left: 4em;} + .poem .caesura {vertical-align: -200%;} + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> + </head> +<body> +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 12852 ***</div> + +<h1><i>CREATION AND ITS RECORDS</i>.</h1> +<br> + +<h2><FONT FACE="Symbol" > pistei nooumen kathrtisqai touV aiwnaV rhmati qeou eiV to mh ek fainomenwn ta blepomena gegonenai</FONT> + — HEB. xi. 3. </h2> +<br> + + + +<h3>A brief statement of Christian Belief with reference to Modern facts and +Ancient Scripture.</h3> + +<h3>BY</h3> + +<h3>B.H. BADEN-POWELL, C.I.E., F.R.S.E.</h3> + +<p><b><font size="+1">CONTENTS</font></b></p> + + + + + +<p><i>PART I.</i></p> + + <a href="#CHAPTER_I"><b>CHAPTER I.</b></a><br> +<p>INTRODUCTORY</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_II"><b>CHAPTER II.</b></a><br> +<p>THE ELEMENT OF <i>FAITH</i> IN CREATION</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_III"><b>CHAPTER III.</b></a><br> +<p>THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_IV"><b>CHAPTER IV.</b></a><br> +<p>CREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_V"><b>CHAPTER V.</b></a><br> +<p>THE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_VI"><b>CHAPTER VI.</b></a><br> +<p>THE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION OF ORGANIC FORMS</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_VII"><b>CHAPTER VII.</b></a><br> +<p>THE DESCENT OF MAN</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_VIII"><b>CHAPTER VIII.</b></a><br> +<p>FURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF MAN</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_IX"><b>CHAPTER IX.</b></a><br> +<p>CONCLUDING REMARKS</p> +<br> + +<p><a href="#PART_II"><i>PART II.</i></a></p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_X"><b>CHAPTER X.</b></a><br> +<p>THE GENESIS NARRATIVE—ITS IMPORTANCE</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XI"><b>CHAPTER XI.</b></a><br> +<p>SCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XII"><b>CHAPTER XII.</b></a><br> +<p>METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE—ASSUMPTIONS OF MEANING TO CERTAIN TERMS</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XIII"><b>CHAPTER XIII.</b></a><br> +<p>THE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY<br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">(i.) THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">(ii.) THE SECOND PART</span></p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XIV"><b>CHAPTER XIV.</b></a><br> +<p>THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XV"><b>CHAPTER XV.</b></a><br> +<p>AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XVI"><b>CHAPTER XVI.</b></a><br> +<p>THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE</p> + + <p><a href="#APPENDIX"><i>APPENDIX.</i></a></p> +<p>PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN</p> + + +<hr size="7" style="width: 65%;" /> +<a name="CHAPTER_I"></a><h2>CHAPTER I.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>INTRODUCTORY</i></p> + +<p>Among the recollections that are lifelong, I have one as vivid as ever +after more than twenty-five years have elapsed; it is of an evening +lecture—the first of a series—given at South Kensington to working +men. The lecturer was Professor Huxley; his subject, the Common Lobster. +All the apparatus used was a good-sized specimen of the creature itself, +a penknife, and a black-board and chalk. With such materials the +professor gave us not only an exposition, matchless in its lucidity, of +the structure of the crustacea, but such an insight into the purposes +and methods of biological study as few could in those days have +anticipated. For there were as yet no Science Primers, no International +Series; and the "new biology" came upon us like the revelation of +another world. I think that lecture gave me, what I might otherwise +never have got (and what some people never get), a profound conviction +of the reality and meaning of facts in nature. That impression I have +brought to the attempt which this little book embodies. The facts of +nature are God's revelation, of the same weight, though not the same in +kind, as His written Word.</p> + +<p>At the same time, the further conviction is strong in my mind, not +merely of the obvious truth that the Facts and the Writing (if both +genuine) cannot really differ, but further, that there must be, after +all, a true way of explaining the Writing, if only it is looked for +carefully—a way that will surmount not only the difficulty of the +subject, but also the impatience with which some will regard the +attempt. Like so many other questions connected with religion, the +question of reconciliation produces its double effect. People will +ridicule attempts to solve it, but all the same they will return again +and again to the task of its actual solution.</p> + +<p>That the latter part of the proposition is true, has recently received +illustration in the fact that a review like the <i>Nineteenth Century</i>, +which has so little space to spare, has found room in four successive +numbers<a name="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1"><sup>[1]</sup></a> for articles by Gladstone, Huxley, and H. Drummond, on the +subject of "Creation and its Records." May I make one remark on this +interesting science tournament? I can understand the scientific +conclusions Professor Huxley has given us. I can also understand Mr. +Gladstone, because he values the Writing as the professor values the +Facts. But one thing I can <i>not</i> understand. Why is Professor Huxley so +angry or so contemptuous with people who value the Bible, whole and as +it stands, and want to see its accuracy vindicated? Why are they +fanatics, Sisyphus-labourers, and what not? That they are a very large +group numerically, and hardly contemptible intellectually, is, I think, +obvious; that a further large group (who would not identify themselves +wholly with the out-and-out Bible defenders) feel a certain amount of +sympathy, is proved by the interest taken in the controversy. Yet all +"reconcilers" are ridiculed or denounced—at any rate are contemptuously +dismissed. Can it be that the professor has for the moment overlooked +one very simple fact?</p> + + +<p>The great bulk of those interested in the question place their whole +hope for their higher moral and spiritual life in this world and the +next on one central Person—the LORD JESUS CHRIST. If He is wrong, then +no one can be right—there is no such thing as right: that is what they +feel. It will be conceded that it is hardly "fanatical" to feel this. +But if so, surely it is not fanatical, but agreeable to the soberest +reason, further to hold that this (to them sacred) PERSON did (and His +apostles with Him) treat the Book of Genesis as a whole (and not merely +parts of it) as a genuine revelation—or, to use the popular expression, +as the <i>Word of</i> GOD. That being so, can it be matter for surprise or +contemptuous pity, that they should be anxious to vindicate the Book, +to be satisfied that the MASTER was not wrong? That is the ultimate and +very real issue involved in the question of Genesis.</p> + +<p>As long as people feel <i>that</i>, they must seek the reconciliation of the +two opposing ideas. If the attempt is made in a foolish or bitter +spirit, or without a candid appreciation of the facts, then the attempt +will no doubt excite just displeasure. But need it always be so made?</p> + +<p>As to the first part of my proposition that attempts to reconcile +religion and science are received with a certain dislike, it is due +partly to the unwisdom with which they are sometimes made. Prof. H. +Drummond speaks of the dislike as general.<a name="FNanchor_1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> +</p> + +<p>If this is so, I, as a "reconciler," can only ask for indulgence, hoping +that grace may be extended to me on the ground of having something to +say on the subject that has not yet been considered.</p> + +<p>Nor, as regards the impatience of the public, can I admit that there is +only fault on one side. In the first place, it will not be denied that +some writers, delighted with the vast, and apparently boundless, vision +that the discovery (in its modern form) of Evolution opened out to them, +did incautiously proceed, while surveying their new kingdom, to assert +for it bounds that stretch beyond its legitimate scope.</p> + + +<p>Religionists, on the other hand, imagining, however wrongly, that the +erroneous extension was part of the true scientific doctrine, attacked +the whole without discrimination.</p> + +<p>While such a misapprehension existed, it was inevitable that writers +anxious alike for the dignity of science and the maintenance of +religion, should step in to point out the error, and effect a +reconciliation of claims which really were never in conflict.</p> + +<p>It is hardly the fault of "religionists" that it was at first supposed +that one <i>could</i> not hold the doctrine of evolution without denying a +"special" creation and a designing Providence. It was on this very +natural supposition that the first leading attack—attributed to the +Bishop of Oxford—proceeded. And the writer fell into the equally +natural mistake of taking advantage of the uncompleted and unproved +state of the theory at the time, to attack the theory itself, instead of +keeping to the safer ground, namely, that whatever might ultimately be +the conclusion of evolutionists, it was quite certain that no theory of +evolution that at all coincided with the known facts, offered any ground +for argument against the existence of an Intelligent Lawgiver and First +Cause of all; nor did it tend in the slightest to show that no such +thing as creative design and providence existed in the course of nature.</p> + +<p>What the discovery of evolution really did, was to necessitate a +revision of the hitherto popularly accepted and generally assumed and +unquestioned notion of what <i>creation</i> was. And it has long appeared to +me, that while now the most thoroughgoing advocates of evolution +generally admit that their justly cherished doctrine has nothing to say +to the existence of a Creator, or to the possibility of design—which +may be accepted or denied on other grounds—the writers on the side of +Christianity have not sufficiently recognized the change which their +views ought to undergo.</p> + +<p>As long as this is the case, there will continue to be a certain +"conflict," not indeed between science and religion, but of the kind +which has been vividly depicted by the late Dr. Draper.</p> + +<p>It can scarcely have escaped the notice of the most ordinary reader +that, in the course of that interesting work, the author has very little +to say about religion—at any rate about religion in any proper sense of +the term. The conflict was between a Church which had a zeal for God +without knowledge, and the progress of scientific thought; it was also a +conflict between discovered facts, and facts which existed, not in the +Bible, but in a particular interpretation, however generally received, +of it.</p> + +<p>The present work is therefore addressed primarily to Christian believers +who still remain perplexed as to what they ought to believe; and its aim +is to prevent, if may be, an unreasonable alarm at, and a useless +opposition to, the conclusions of modern science; while, at the same +time, it tells them in simple language how far those conclusions really +go, and how very groundless is the fear that they will ever subvert a +true faith that, antecedent to the most wonderful chain of causation and +methodical working which science can establish, there is still a Divine +Designer—One who upholds all things "by the word of His power."</p> + +<p>The doctrine of evolution is still the <i>ignotum</i> to a great many, and it +is therefore, according to the time-honoured proverb, taken <i>pro +magnifico</i>, as something terribly adverse to the faith. Nor can it be +fairly denied, as I before remarked, that some of the students of the +theory have become so enamoured of it, so carried away by the +intoxication of the gigantic speculation it opens out to the +imagination, that they have succumbed to the temptation to carry +speculation beyond what the proof warrants, and thus lend some aid to +the deplorable confusion, which would blend in one, what is legitimate +inference and what is unproved hypothesis or mere supposition.</p> + +<p>It only remains to say that the basis of this little book is a short +course of lectures in which I endeavoured to disarm the prejudices of an +educated but not scientifically critical audience, by simply stating how +far the theory of cosmical evolution had been really proved—proved, +that is, to the extent of that reasonable certainty which satisfies the +ordinary "prudent man" in affairs of weight and importance. I have tried +to show that evolution, apart from fanciful and speculative extensions +of it, allows, if it does not directly establish, that the operation of +nature is not a chance or uncontrolled procedure, but one that suggests +a distinct set of lines, and an orderly obedience to pre-conceived law, +intelligently and beneficently (in the end) designed.</p> + +<p>There are obviously two main points which the Christian reader requires +to have made clear. The first is that, the modern theory of evolution +being admitted, the constitution of matter in the universe and the +principles of development in organic life, which that theory +establishes, not only do not exclude, but positively demand, the +conception of a Divine artificer and director. The second point, which +is perhaps of still greater weight with the believer, is that where +revelation (which is his ultimate standard of appeal) has touched upon +the subject of creation, its statements are not merely a literary fancy, +an imaginary cosmogony, false in its facts though enshrining Divine +truth, but are as a whole perfectly true.</p> + +<p>Whatever novelty there may be, is to be found in the treatment of the +second subject. The first portion of the work is only a brief and +popular statement of facts, quite unnecessary to the scientific reader +but probably very necessary to the large body of Churchmen, who have not +studied science, but are quite able to appreciate scientific fact and +its bearings when placed before them in an untechnical form, and +divested of needless details and subordinate questions.</p> + +<p>But it is around the supposed declarations of Scripture on the subject +of creation that the real "conflict" has centred. Let us look the matter +quite fairly in the face. We accept the conclusion that (let us say) the +horse was developed and gradually perfected or advanced to his present +form and characteristics, by a number of stages, and that it took a very +long time to effect this result. Now, if there is anywhere a statement +in Holy Writ that (<i>a</i>) a horse was <i>per saltum</i> called into existence +in a distinctive and complete form, by a special creative <i>fiat</i>, and +that (<i>b</i>) this happened not gradually, but in a limited and specified +moment of time, then I will at once admit that the record (assuming that +its meaning is not to be mistaken) is not provably right, if it is not +clearly wrong; and accept the consequences, momentous as they would be. +If, in the same way, the Record asserts that man, or at least man the +direct progenitor of the Semitic race,<a name="FNanchor_1_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> was a distinct and special +creation, his bodily frame having some not completely explained +developmental connection with the animal creation, but his higher nature +being imparted as a special and unique creative endowment out of the +line of physical development altogether, then I shall accept the Record, +because the proved facts of science have nothing to say against it, +whatever Drs. Buchner, Vogt, Häckel, and others may assert to the +contrary.</p> + + +<p>In the first of my two instances, the popular idea has long been that +the sacred record <i>does</i> say something about a direct and separate +creative act; and this idea has been the origin and ground of all the +supposed conflict between science and "religion." As long as this idea +continues, it can hardly be said that a book addressed to the clearing +up of the subject is unnecessary or to be rejected <i>per se</i>.</p> + +<p>As to the method in which this subject will be dealt with, I shall +maintain that the Scripture does <i>not</i> say anything about the horse, or +the whale, or the ox, or any other animal, being separately or directly +created. And the view thus taken of the Record I have not met with +before. This it is necessary to state, not because the fact would lend +any value to the interpretation—rather the contrary; but because it +justifies me in submitting what, if new, may be intrinsically important, +to the judgment of the Church; and it also protects me from the offence +of plagiarism, however unwitting. If others have thought out the same +rendering of the Genesis history, so much the better for my case; but +what is here set down occurred to me quite independently.</p> + +<p>A study of the real meaning of the Record, in the light of what may be +fairly regarded as proved facts, cannot be without its use to the +Christian. If it be true that a certain amount of information on the +subject of creation is contained in revelation, it must have been so +contained for a specific purpose—a purpose to be attained at some stage +or other of the history of mankind. It is possible also that the study +will bring to light a probable, or at any rate a possible, explanation +of some of those apparent (if they are not real) "dead-locks" which +occur in pursuing the course of life history on the earth.</p> + +<p>Such considerations will naturally have more weight with the Christian +believer than with those who reject the faith. But at least the +advantage of them remains with the believer, till the contrary is shown. +The extreme evolutionist may cling to the belief that at some future +time he will be able to account for the entrance of LIFE into the +world's history, that he will be able to explain the connection of MIND +with MATTER; or he may hope that the sterility of certain hybrid forms +will one day be explained away, and so on. But till these things <i>are</i> +got over, the believer cannot be reproached as holding an unreasonable +belief when his creed maintains that Life is a gift and prerogative of a +great Author of Life; that Mind is the result of a spiritual environment +which is a true, though physically intangible, part of nature; and that +the absence of any proof that variation and development cross +certain—perhaps not very clearly ascertained, but indubitably +existing—lines, points to the designed fixing of certain types, and the +restriction of developmental creation to running in certain lines of +causation up to those types, and not otherwise.</p> + +<p>It can never be unreasonable to believe anything that is in exact +accordance with facts as ascertained at any given moment of +time—unless, indeed, the fact is indicated by other considerations as +being one likely to disappear from the category of fact altogether.<a name="FNanchor_1_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_4"><sup>[4]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Enough has thus, I hope, appeared, to make the appearance of this little +work, at least excusable; what more may be necessary to establish its +claim to be read must depend on what it contains.</p> + +<p>I have only to add that I can make no pretension to be a teacher of +science. I trust that there is no material error of statement; if there +is, I shall be the first to retract and correct it. I am quite confident +that no correction that may be needed in detail will seriously affect +the general argument.</p> + + + + +<a name="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1">[1]</a><div class="note"> November, December, 1885; and January, February, 1886.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_2">[2]</a><div class="note"> In the Introduction to his well-known book, "Natural Law in +the Spiritual World."</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_3">[3]</a><div class="note"> With whose history, as leading up to the advent of the +Saviour in the line of David, the Bible is mainly concerned.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_4">[4]</a><div class="note"> At present it is an ascertained fact that certain chemical +substances are elements incapable of further resolution. But there are +not wanting indications which would make it a matter of no surprise at +all, if we were to learn to-morrow that the so-called element had been +resolved. Such a fact is an example of what is stated in the text; and a +belief based on the absolute and unchangeable stability of such a fact +would not be unassailable. But none of the above stated instances of +"dead-lock" in evolution are within "measurable distance" of being +resolved.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_II"></a><h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>THE ELEMENT OF FAITH IN CREATION.</i></p> + +<p>In the extract placed on the title-page, the author of the Epistle +clearly places our conclusion that God "established the order of +creation"—the lines, plans, developmental-sequences, aims, and objects, +that the course of creation has hitherto pursued and is still +ceaselessly pursuing,<a name="FNanchor_1_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_5"><sup>[5]</sup></a> in the category of <i>faith</i>.</p> + +<p>Of course, from one point of view—very probably that of the writer of +the Epistle—this conclusion is argued by the consideration that the +human mind forms no distinct conception of the formation of solid—or +any other form of—matter <i>in vacuo</i>, where nothing previously existed. +And what the mind does not find within its own power, but what yet <i>is +true</i> in the larger spiritual kingdom beyond itself, is apprehended by +the spiritual faculty of <i>faith</i>.</p> + + +<p>But from another point of view, the immediate action of faith is not so +evident. If, it might be said, the law of evolution, or the law of +creation, or whatever is the true law, is, in all its bearings, a matter +to be observed and discovered by human science, then it is not easy to +see how there is any exercise of faith. We should be more properly said +to <i>know</i>, by intellectual processes of observation, inference, and +conclusion, that there was a Law Giver, an Artificer, and a First Cause, +so unlimited in power and capacity by the conditions of the case, that +we must call Him "Divine."</p> + +<p>And many will probably feel that their just reasoning on the subject +leads them to knowledge—knowledge, i.e., as approximately certain as +anything in this world can be.</p> + +<p>But the text, by the use of the term <FONT FACE="Symbol" >aiwn</FONT>, implies (as I +suggested) more than mere production of objects; it implies a designed +guidance and preconceived planning. If it were merely asserted that +there is a first cause of material existence, and even that such a cause +had enough known (or to be inferred) about it, to warrant our writing +"First Cause" with capitals, then the proposition would pass on all +hands without serious question. But directly we are brought face to +face, not merely with the isolated idea of creation of tangible forms +out of nothing (as the phrase is), but rather with the whole history +and development of the world and its inhabitants, we see so many +conflicting elements, such a power of natural forces and human passions +warring against the progress of good, and seeming to end only too often +in disaster, that it becomes a matter of <i>faith</i> to perceive a Divine +providence underlying and overruling all to its own ends.</p> + +<p>The fact is, that directly we make mention of the "aeons"—the world's +age histories—we are met with that Protean problem that always seems to +lurk at the bottom of every religious question: Why was <i>evil</i> +permitted? Mr. J.S. Mill, many readers will recollect, concluded that if +there was a God, that God was not perfectly good, or else was not +omnipotent. Now of course our limited faculties do not enable us to +apprehend a really absolute and unlimited omnipotence. We <i>can</i> only +conceive of God as limited by the terms of His own Nature and Being. We +say it is "impossible for God to lie," or for the Almighty to do wrong +in any shape; in other words, we are, in this as in other matters where +the finite and the Infinite are brought into contact, led up to two +necessary conclusions which cannot be reconciled. We can reason out +logically and to a full conclusion, that given a God, that God must be +perfect, unlimited and unconditioned. We can also reason out, <i>provided +we take purely human and finite premises</i>, another line of thought which +forbids us to suppose that a Perfect God would have allowed evil, +suffering, or pain; and this leads us exactly or nearly to Mr. Mill's +conclusion.</p> + +<p>Whenever we are thus brought up to a dead-lock, as it were, there is the +need of <i>faith</i>, which is the faculty whereby the finite is linked on to +the Infinite. For this faith has two great features: one is represented +by the capacity for assimilating fact which is spiritual or +transcendental, and therefore not within the reach of finite intellect; +the other is represented by the capacity for reliance on, and trust in, +the God whose infinite perfections we cannot as finite creatures grasp +or follow.</p> + +<p>In the difficult scheme of the world's governance, in the storms, +earthquakes, pestilences, sufferings of all kinds—signs of failure, +sickness, and decay, and death, signs of the victory of evil and the +failure of good—we can only <i>believe</i> in God, and that all will issue +in righteous ends. And our belief proceeds, as just stated, on two +lines: one being our spiritual capacity for knowing that GOD IS, and +that we, His creatures, are the objects of His love; the other being the +fact that we only see a very little end of the thread, or perhaps only a +little of one thread out of a vast mass of complicated threads, in the +great web of design and governance, and that therefore there is wide +ground for confidence that the end will be success. We rely confidently +on God. If it is asked, Why is it a part of faith to have a childlike +confidence in an unseen God?—we reply, that the main origin of such +confidence is to be found in the wonderful condescension of God +exhibited in the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection.</p> + +<p>This is not the place to enter on a detailed examination of the +essential importance of these great central facts of Christian belief in +establishing faith in the unseen, and distinguishing its grasp from the +blind clutches of credulity; but a single consideration will suffice at +least to awaken a feeling of a wide <i>vista</i> of possibility when we put +it thus: Do we wonder at the spectacle of a righteous man, passing his +life in suffering and poverty, seemingly stricken by the Divine +hand?—But is not the case altered when we reflect <i>that the Hand that +thus smites is a hand itself pierced</i> with the Cross-nails of a terrible +human suffering, undergone solely on man's account?</p> + +<p>It can be proved easily, by exhaustive examples, to be the case, that +wherever the finite is brought into contact with the Infinite, that +there must be a dead-lock, a leading up successively to two conclusions, +one of which is almost, if not quite, contrary to the other. A very +striking instance of this is the question of Predestination and +Free-will. From the finite side, I am conscious that I am a free agent: +I can will to rise up and to lie down. It is true that my will may be +influenced, strongly or feebly, by various means—by the effect of +habit, by the inherited tendency of my constitution, by some present +motive of temptation, and so forth: but the <i>will</i> is there—the +motive-influence or inclining-power is not the will, but that which +affects or works on will. A <i>motive</i> pulls me this way, another pulls me +that; but in the end, my <i>will</i> follows one or the other. I can, then, +do as I please. On the other hand, Infinite Knowledge must know, and +have known from all eternity, what I shall do now, and at every moment +of my future being: and for Omnipotence to know from all eternity what +will be, is, in our human sense, practically undistinguishable from the +thought that the Power has predestined the same; and man cannot of +course alter that. Here, then, by separate lines of thought, we are +brought to two opposite and irreconcilable conclusions. It is so always. +We cannot ourselves imagine how a fixed set of laws and rules can be +followed, and yet the best interests of each and every one of God's +creatures be served as truly as if God directly wielded the machinery of +nature only for the special benefit of the individual. The thing is +unthinkable to us: yet directly we reason on the necessarily <i>unlimited</i> +capability of a Divine Providence, we are led to the conclusion that it +must be possible. Here then is the province of <i>Faith</i>.<a name="FNanchor_1_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_6"><sup>[6]</sup></a></p> + + +<p>It is by Faith, then—combined with only a limited degree of knowledge, +founded on observation and reasoning—that we understand that "the aeons +were constituted by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen +were not made of things which do appear" (the phenomenal has its origin +in the non-phenomenal).</p> + +<p>While allowing, then, the element of Faith in our recognition of a +Creator and Moral Governor of the world, our care is in this, as in all +exercises of faith, that our faith be reasonable. We are not called on +to believe so as to be "put to confusion," intellectually, as Tait and +Balfour have it.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_5">[5]</a><div class="note"> <FONT FACE="Symbol" >kathrtisqai touV aiwnaV</FONT>. This implies more than +the mere originating or supplying of a number of material, organic, or +inorganic (or even spiritual) forms and existences. Whatever may be the +precise translation of <FONT FACE="Symbol" >aiwn</FONT>, it implies a chain of events, the +cause and effect, the type and the plan, and its evolution all +included.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_6">[6]</a><div class="note"> The Scripture clearly recognizes the two opposing lines. In +one place we read, "Thou hast given them a law which <i>shall not be +broken</i>;" in another, "All things work together for good to them that +love God."</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_III"></a><h2>CHAPTER III.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED</i>.</p> + +<p>It will strike some readers with a sense of hopelessness, this demand +for a reason in our faith. A special and very extensive knowledge is +required, it seems, to test the very positive assertion that some have +chosen to make regarding the "explosion" of the Christian faith in the +matter of Creation.</p> + +<p>We are told in effect that every thing goes by itself—that given some +first cause, about which we know, and can know, nothing, directly +primordial matter appears on the scene, and the laws of sequence and +action which observed experience has formulated and is progressively +formulating are given, then nothing else is required; no governance, no +control, and no special design. So that in principle a Creator and +Providence are baseless fancies; and this is further borne out by the +fact, that when the Christian faith ventures on details as to the mode +of Creation it is certainly and demonstrably wrong. If these +propositions are to be controverted, it must be in the light of a +knowledge which a large body of candid and earnest believers do not +possess.</p> + +<p>Fortunately, however, the labours of many competent to judge have placed +within the reach of the unscientific but careful student, the means of +knowing what the conclusions of Science really are, as far as they +affect the questions we have to consider. At least, any inquirer can, +with a little care and patient study, put himself in a position to know +where the difficulty or difficulties lie, and what means there are of +getting over them. His want of technical knowledge will not be in his +way, so far as his just appreciation of the position is concerned. +Without pretending to take up ground which has already been occupied by +capable writers whose books can easily be consulted, I may usefully +recapitulate in a simple form, and grouped in a suitable order, some of +the points best worth noting.</p> + +<p>The theory of cosmical evolution is not, in its general idea, a new +thing. The sort of evolution, however, that was obscurely shadowed forth +by the early sages of India (much as it is the fashion now to allude to +it) really stands in no practical relation to the modern and natural +theory which is associated with the name of CHARLES DARWIN, and which +has been further taken up by Mr. HERBERT SPENCER and others as the +foundation for a complete scheme of cosmic philosophy. The theory is +now, in its main features, admitted by every one. But there are a few +who would push it beyond its real ascertained limits, and would +substitute fancies for facts; they are not content to leave the +<i>lacunae</i>, which undoubtedly do exist, but fill them up by +hypothesis,<a name="FNanchor_1_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_7"><sup>[7]</sup></a> passing by easy steps of forgetfulness from the "it was +possibly," "it was likely to have been," to the "it must have been," and +"it was"!</p> + +<p>To all such extensions we must of course object; there are gaps in the +scheme which can be filled in with really great probability, and in such +cases there will be no harm done in admitting the probability, while +still acknowledging it as such. An overcautious lawyer-like captiousness +of spirit in such matters will help no cause and serve no good purpose. +Nor is it at all difficult in practice to draw the line and say what is +fairly admissible conjecture and what is not. There are other gaps, +however, that at present, no real analogy, no fair inferential process, +can bridge over; and to all speculations on such subjects, if advanced +as more than bare and undisguised guesses, objection must be taken.</p> + +<p>If this one line had been fairly and firmly adhered to from the first, +it can hardly be doubted that much of the acrimony of controversy would +have been avoided. It is just as essential at the present moment to +insist on the point as ever. But to proceed. Stated in the extreme +form, the theory is, that given matter as a beginning, that matter is +thenceforth capable, by the aid of fixed and self-working laws, to +produce and result in, all the phenomena of life—whether plant, animal, +or human—which we see around us. Matter developes from simple to +complex forms, growing by its own properties, in directions determined +by the circumstances and surroundings of its existence.</p> + +<p>If I may put this a little less in the abstract, but more at length, I +should describe it thus<a name="FNanchor_1_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_8"><sup>[8]</sup></a>:—</p> + +<p>Astronomers, while watching the course of the stars, have frequently +observed in the heavens what they call <i>nebulae</i>. With the best +telescopes these look like patches of gold-dust or luminous haze in the +sky. Some nebulae, it is supposed, really consist of whole systems of +stars and suns, but at so enormous a distance that with our best glasses +we cannot make more out of them than groups of apparent "star-dust" But +other nebulae do not appear to be at this extreme distance, and therefore +cannot consist of large bodies. And when their light is examined with +the aid of a spectroscope, it gives indications that such nebulae are +only masses of vapour, incandescent, or giving out light on account of +their being in a burning or highly heated condition.</p> + + +<p>Now, it is supposed that, in the beginning of the world, there was, in +space, such a nebula or mass of incandescent vapour, which, as it was +destined to cool down and form a world, philosophers have called "cosmic +gas."</p> + +<p>This cosmic gas, in the course of time, began to lose its heat, and +consequently to liquefy and solidify, according to the different nature +of its components; and thus a globe with a solid crust was formed, the +surface of which was partly dry and partly occupied by water, and +diversified by the abundant production of the various earths, gases, +metals, and other substances with which we are familiar. These +substances, in time, and by the slow action of their own laws and +properties, combined or separated and produced further forms. But to +come at once to the important part of the theory, we must at once direct +our attention to four substances; these would certainly, it is said (and +that no doubt is quite true) be present; they are oxygen, hydrogen, +nitrogen, and carbon. The first three would be, when the earth assumed +anything like its present conditions of temperature and air-pressure, +invisible gases, as they are at present; the fourth is a substance which +forms the basis of charcoal, and which we see in a nearly pure form +crystallized in the diamond.</p> + +<p>Now, if these substances are brought together under certain appropriate +conditions, the oxygen and hydrogen can combine to form <i>water</i>; the +carbon and the oxygen will form <i>carbonic acid</i>; while nitrogen will +join with hydrogen to form that pungent smelling substance with which we +are familiar as <i>ammonia</i>. Again, let us suppose that three compound +substances—water, carbonic acid, and ammonia—are present together with +appropriate conditions; it is said that they will combine to form a +gummy transparent matter, which is called <i>protoplasm</i>. This protoplasm +may be found in small shapeless lumps, or it may be found enclosed in +cells, and in various beautifully shaped coverings, and it is also found +in the blood, and in all growing parts or organs of all animals and +plants of every kind whatsoever.</p> + +<p>Protoplasm, then, is the physical basis of life. Simple, uniform, +shapeless protoplasm, combined out of the substances just named, first +came into existence; and as, however simple or shapeless, it always +exhibits the property of life, it can henceforth grow and develop from +simpler to ever increasingly complex forms, without any help but that of +surrounding circumstances—the secondary causes which we see in +operation around us.</p> + +<p>If some readers should say they have never seen <i>protoplasm</i>, I may +remind them where every one has, at some time or another, met with it. +If you cut a stick of new wood from a hedge, and peel off the young +bark, you know that the bark comes off easily and entire, leaving a +clean white wand of wood in your hand; but the wand feels sticky all +over. This sticky stuff is nothing more than transparent growing +protoplasm, which lies close under the inner bark.</p> + +<p>At first, the materialist holds, protoplasm appeared in very simple +forms, just such as can still be found within the sea, and in ponds. But +the lower organized forms of life are extremely unstable, and a +different <i>environment</i> will always tend to evoke continuous small +changes, so that there may be advance in forms of all kinds. For if by +chance<a name="FNanchor_1_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_9"><sup>[9]</sup></a> some creature exhibits a variation which is favourable to it +in the circumstances in which it is placed, that creature will be fitter +than the others which have not that variation. And so the former will +survive, and as they multiply, their descendants will inherit the +peculiarity. Thus, in the course of countless generations, change will +succeed change, till creatures of quite a complex structure and +specialized form have arisen. As the circumstances of life are always +infinitely various, the developments take place in many different +directions; some fit the creature for life in deep seas, some for flying +in the air, some for living in holes and crevices, some for catching +prey by swift pursuit, others for catching it by artful contrivance, and +so forth. Many changes will also arise from protective necessity: if an +insect happens to be like a dead leaf, it will escape the notice of +birds which would snap up a conspicuously coloured one; and so the +dull-coloured will survive and perpetuate his kind, while the others are +destroyed. On the other hand, beauty in colour and form may have its +use. This is chiefly exhibited in the preference which the females of a +species show for the adorned and showy males.</p> + + +<p>Supposing an organism developed so far as to be a bird, but only with +dull or ugly feathers. By accident one male bird, say, gets a few +bright-coloured feathers on his head. Here his appearance will attract +birds of the other sex; and then by the law of heredity, his offspring +are sure to repeat the coloured feathers, till at last a regularly +bright-crested species-arises. In this way <i>natural variability</i>, acted +on by the necessities of <i>environment</i> (which cause the <i>survival of the +fittest</i> specimens) and the principle of <i>heredity</i>, viz., that the +offspring repeat the features of the parents, aided by the principle of +<i>sexual selection</i>, have been the origin and cause of all the species we +see in the world.</p> + +<p>Thus we have an unbroken series—certain substances condensing out of +cosmic vapour, some of them combining to form the variety of rocks, +soils, metals, &c., and others giving rise to protoplasm which grows' +and develops into a thousand shapes and hues, of insect, fish, reptile, +bird, and beast.</p> + +<p>And then it is, that charmed with the completeness and symmetry of such +a theory, and overlooking the difficulties that crop up here and +here—demanding some Power from without to bridge them over—certain +extreme theorists have rushed to the conclusion that in all this there +is no need of any external Creator or Providence—nothing but what we +call secondary causes, ordinary causes which we see at work around us +all day and every day.</p> + +<p>How inconceivable, they add, is the truth of the Book of Genesis, which +asserts the successive creation of fully-formed animals by sudden acts +of command; and all accomplished in a few days at the beginning of the +world's human history!</p> + +<p>This I believe to be a fair outline, though of course a very rough and +general one, of the Theory of Evolution as regards the forms of matter +and living organisms. Now it will at once strike the candid reader, that +even granted the whole of the scheme as stated, there is <i>nothing</i> in it +that has any answer to the objection,—But may I not believe that a wise +Creator conceived and established the whole plan—first creating MATTER +and FORCE, then superadding LIFE at a certain stage, and then drawing +out the type and design according to which everything was to grow and +develop? Is not such a production and such a design the true essence of +Creation? Can all these things happen <i>without</i> such aid? Let us then +look more closely at some of the steps in the evolution just described. +And let us stop at the very beginning—the first term of the series.</p> + +<p>We may agree (in the absence of anything leading to a contrary +conclusion) that matter may first have appeared as a cosmic gas, or +incandescent vapour in space. It is probable, if not certain, that our +earth is a mass that has only cooled down on the surface, the centre +being still hot and to some extent, at any rate, molten; and in the sun +we have the case of an enormous globe surrounded with a <i>photosphere</i>, +as it is called—a blaze of incandescent substances, which our +spectroscopes tell us are substances such as we have on earth now in +cooled or condensed condition—iron, oxygen, hydrogen, and other such +forms of matter.</p> + +<p>First of all, how did any <i>substance</i>, however vapoury and tenuous, come +to exist, when previously there was nothing?</p> + +<p>If we admit, that there was a time when even cosmic gas did not exist, +then there must have been <i>an Agent</i>, whose <i>fiat</i> caused the change. +And as that Agent does not obviously belong to the material order, it +must belong to the spiritual or non-material; for the two orders +together exhaust the possibilities of existence. If, however, it is +urged that "primal matter"—cosmic vapour—containing the "potentiality" +of all existence, is eternal and alway existed of itself, then we are +brought face to face with innumerable difficulties. In the first place, +the existence of matter is not the only difficulty to be got over; not +the only dead-lock along the line. We pass it over and go on for a +time, and then we come to another—the introduction of LIFE. I will not +pause to consider that here; we shall see presently that it is +impossible to regard life as merely a quality or property of matter. +When we have passed that, we have a third stoppage, the introduction of +<i>Reason</i> or <i>Intelligence</i>; and then a fourth, the introduction of the +<i>Spiritual faculties</i>, which cannot be placed on the same footing as +mere reason. So that to get over the first point, and dispense with a +Cause or a Creator of matter, is of no avail: it is incredible that +there should be no Creator of matter, but that there should be a Creator +of life—an Imparter of reason, an Endower of soul.</p> + +<p>But let us revert to the first stage and look at the nature of MATTER.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_7">[7]</a><div class="note"> It is enough to instance the theories of Dr. Buchner and, +in earlier days, of Oken. The Häckel and Virchow incident in this +connection, and the noble protest of the latter against positive +teaching of unproved speculation, are in the recollection of all.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_8">[8]</a><div class="note"> The biological evolutionist will, I am aware, object to +this, saying that the origin of the cosmos and nebular theories are +matters of speculation with which he is not concerned—they are no part +of evolution proper. But I submit that the general philosophical +evolution does include the whole. At any rate, the materialist view of +nature does take in the whole, in such a way as the text indicates.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_9">[9]</a><div class="note"> Not really of course "by chance," but simply owing to such +circumstances as cannot be accounted for by any direct antecedents.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_IV"></a><h2>CHAPTER IV.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>CREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER.</i></p> + +<p>I take as self-evident the enormous difficulty of self-caused, +self-existent matter. And when we see that matter <i>acting</i>, not +irregularly or by caprice, but <i>by law</i> (as every class of philosopher +will admit), then it is still further difficult to realize that matter +not only existed as a dead, simple, inactive thing, but existed with a +folded-up history inside it, a long sequence of development—not the +same for all particles, but various for each group: so that one set +proceeded to form the <i>object</i>, and another the <i>environment</i> of the +object; or rather that a multitude of sets formed a vast variety of +objects, and another multitude of sets formed a vast variety of +environments. When we see matter acting by law, then if there is no +Creator, we have the to us unthinkable proposition of law without a +lawgiver!</p> + +<p>On the other hand, if we shut out some of the difficulties, keep our eye +on one part of the case only—and that is what the human mind is very +apt to do—we can easily come round to think that, after all, +<i>elementary</i> matter—cosmic gas—is a very <i>simple</i> thing; and looks +really as if no great Power, or Intellect, were required to account for +its origin. After all, some will say, if we grant your great, wise, +beneficent, designing Creator, the finite human mind has as little idea +of a self-existing God, as it has of self-existing matter and +self-existing law. <i>You</i> postulate one great mystery, <i>we</i> postulate two +smaller ones; and the two together really present less "unthinkableness" +to the mind than your one. That is so far plausible, but it is no more. +To believe in a GOD is to believe in One Existence, who necessarily (by +the terms of our conception) has the power both of creating matter, +designing the forms it shall take, and originating the tendencies, +forces, activities—or whatever else we please to call them—which drive +matter in the right direction to get the desired result. To believe not +only that matter caused itself, but that the different forces and +tendencies, and the aims and ends of development, were self-caused, is +surely a much more difficult task. It is the existence of such a +<i>variety</i>, it is the existence of a uniform tendency to produce certain +though multitudinous results, that makes the insuperable difficulty of +supposing <i>matter always developing</i> (towards certain ends) to be +self-caused.</p> + +<p>The advocates of "eternal matter" really overcome the difficulty, by +shutting their eyes to everything beyond a part of the problem—the +existence of simple matter apart from any laws, properties, or +affinities.</p> + +<p>But the simplest drop of water, in itself, and apart from its mechanical +relations to other matter, is really a very complex and a very wonderful +thing; not at all likely to be "self-caused." Water is made up, we know, +of oxygen and hydrogen—two elementary colourless, formless gases. Now +we can easily divide the one drop into two, and, without any great +difficulty, the two into four, and (perhaps with the aid of a magnifying +glass) the four into eight, and so on, <i>as long as</i> the minute particle +<i>still retains the nature of water</i>. In short, we speak of the smallest +subdivision of which matter is capable without losing its own nature, as +the <i>molecule</i>. All matter may be regarded as consisting of a vast mass +of these small molecules.</p> + +<p>Now, we know that all known matter is capable of existing either in a +solid, liquid, or gaseous form, its nature not being changed. Water is +very easily so dealt with. Some substances, it is true, require very +great pressure or very great cold, or both, to alter their form; but +even carbonic acid, oxygen, and hydrogen, which under ordinary +conditions are gases, can with proper appliances be made both liquid and +solid. Pure alcohol, has, I believe, never been made solid, but that is +only because it is so difficult to get a sufficient degree of cold: +there is no doubt that it could be done.</p> + +<p>It might be supposed that the molecules of which dead matter (whether +solid, liquid, or vapourous) is composed, were equally motionless and +structureless. But it is not so: every molecule in its own kind is +endowed with marvellous properties. In the first place, every molecule +has a double capability of motion. In the solid form the molecules are +so packed together that, of course, the motion is excessively +restricted; in the liquid it is a little easier; in the gaseous state +the molecules are in a comparatively "open order." In most substances +that are solid under ordinary conditions, by applying heat continuously +we first liquefy and ultimately vapourize them. In those substances +which under ordinary conditions are <i>gas</i> (like carbonic acid, for +instance), it is by applying cold, with perhaps great pressure as well, +that we induce them to become liquid and solid; in fact, the process is +just reversed. As we can most easily follow the process of heating, I +will describe that. First, the solid (in most cases) gets larger and +larger as it progresses to liquefaction, and when it gets to vapour, it +suddenly expands enormously. Take a rod of soft iron, and reduce it to +freezing temperature: let us suppose that in that condition it measures +just a thousand inches long. Then raise the temperature to 212 degrees +(boiling point), and it will be found to measure 1,012 inches. Why is +that? Obviously, because the molecules have got a little further apart. +If you heat it till the iron gets liquid, the liquid would also occupy +still more space than the original solid rod; and if we had temperature +high enough to make the melted iron go off into vapour, it would occupy +an enormously increased space. I cannot say what it would be for iron +vapour; but if a given volume of water is converted into vapour, it will +occupy about 1,700 times the space it did when liquid, though the weight +would not be altered.</p> + +<p>It may here be worth while to mention that it is not invariably true +that a substance gets contracted, and the molecules more and more +pressed together, as it assumes a solid form. There is at least one +exception. If we take 1,700 pints of steam, the water, as I said, on +becoming cool enough to lose the vapourous form, will shrink into a +measure holding a single pint; if we cooled lower still, it will get +smaller and smaller in bulk (though of course not at all at the same +rate) till it arrives at a point when it is just going to freeze; then +suddenly (7 degrees above the freezing point) it again begins to expand. +Ice occupies more space than cold water; its molecules get arranged in a +particular manner by their crystallization.</p> + +<p>On the admission of an <i>intelligent</i> Creator providing, by beneficent +design, the laws of matter, it is easy to give a reason for this useful +property. It prevents the inhabitants of northern climates being +deprived of a supply of water. As it is, the solid water or ice +expands, and, becoming lighter, forms at the top of the water, and the +heavier warmer water remains below. But if ice always got denser and +sank, the warmer liquid would be perpetually displaced and so come up to +the surface, where it would freeze and sink in its turn. In a short +time, then, all our water supplies would (whenever the temperature went +down to freezing, which it constantly does in winter) be turned into +solid ice. This would be a source of the gravest inconvenience to the +population of a cold climate. If we deny a designing mind, the +alternative is that this property of water is a mere chance.</p> + +<p>But to return to molecules. Molecules are endowed with an inherent +faculty of motion; only under the conditions of what we call the solid, +they are so compressed, that there is no room for any motion appreciable +to the senses. Even if the solid is converted into vapour, the molecules +are still much restrained in their movements by the pressure of the air. +But of late years, great improvements (partly chemical, partly +mechanical) have been made in producing perfect <i>vacua</i>; that is to say, +in getting glass or other vessels to be so far empty of air, that the +almost inconceivably small residue in the receptacle has no perceptible +effect on the action of a small quantity of any substance already +reduced to the form of gas or vapour introduced into it. Dr. W. Crookes +has made many beautiful experiments on the behaviour of the molecules of +attenuated matter in <i>vacua</i>. The small quantity of vapour introduced +contains only a relatively small number of molecules, which thus freed +from all sensible restraint within the limits of the glass vessel used, +are free to move as they will; they are observed to rush about, to +strike against the sides of the vessel, and under proper conditions to +shine and become <i>radiant</i>, and to exhibit extraordinary phenomena when +subjected to currents of electricity. So peculiar is the molecular +action thus set up, that scientific men have been tempted to speak of a +fourth condition of matter (besides the three ordinary ones, solid, +liquid, and gaseous), which they call the ultra-gaseous or radiant state +of matter.</p> + +<p>This marvel of molecular structure seems already to have removed us +sufficiently far from the idea of a simple inert mass, which might be +primordial and self-caused. But we have not yet done. Even imagining the +extreme subdivision<a name="FNanchor_1_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_10"><sup>[10]</sup></a> of the particles in one of Dr. Crookes' vacuum +globes, the particles are still water. But we know that water is a +compound substance. The molecule has nine parts, of which eight are +hydrogen and one oxygen—because that is the experimentally known +proportion in which oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. As we can +(in the present state of our knowledge) divide no farther, we call these +ultimate fragments of simple or elementary substance <i>atoms</i>.</p> + +<p>Every substance, however finely divided into molecules, if it is not a +simple substance, must therefore have, inside the <i>molecular</i> structure, +a further <i>atomic</i> structure. And in the case of unresolvable or +"elementary" substance, the molecule and the atom are not necessarily +the same. For though there is reason to believe that, the molecule of +these does consist, in some cases, of only one atom—in which case the +atom and the molecule are identical; in other cases, the molecule is +known to consist of more than one atom of the same element; and the +atoms are capable of being differently arranged, and when so arranged +have different <i>properties</i> or behaviour, though their nature is not +changed. This property is spoken of by chemists as <i>allotropism</i>. No +chemist on earth can detect the slightest difference in <i>constitution</i> +between a molecule of <i>ozone</i> and one <i>oxygen</i>; but the two have widely +different properties, or behave very differently. There is thus a great +mystery about atoms and their possible differences under different +arrangement, which is as yet unsolved. Those who wish to get an insight +into the matter (which cannot be pursued farther here) will do well to +read Josiah Cooke's "The New Chemistry," in the International Scientific +Series. The mind is really lost in trying to realize the idea of a +fragment of matter too small for the most powerful microscope, but +existing in fact (because of faultless reasoning from absolutely +conclusive experiments), and yet so constituted that it is +<i>practically</i> a different thing when placed in one position or order, +from what it is when placed in another.</p> + +<p>Turning from this mystery, as yet so obscure, to what is more easily +grasped, we shall hardly be surprised to learn, further, that every kind +of, atom obeys its own laws, and that while atoms of one kind always +have a <i>tendency to combine</i> with atoms of other kinds, it is absolutely +impossible to get them to combine together except on certain conditions.</p> + +<p>The difference between combination and mixture is well known. Shake sand +and sugar in a bag for ever so long, but they will only <i>mix</i>, not +<i>combine</i> or form any new substance even with the aid of electric +currents; but place oxygen and hydrogen gas under proper conditions, and +the gases will disappear, and water (in weight exactly equal to the +weight of the volume of gases) will appear in their place.</p> + +<p>It is only certain kinds of atoms that will combine at all with other +kinds; and when they do so combine, they will only unite in absolutely +fixed proportions, so that chemists have been able to assign to every +kind of element its own combining proportion. The substances that will +combine will do so in these proportions, or in proportions of any <i>even +multiple</i> of the number, and in no other. Thus fourteen parts of +nitrogen will combine with sixteen of oxygen; and we have several +substances in nature, called nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitric +di-oxide, &c., which illustrate this, in which fourteen parts of +nitrogen combine with sixteen oxygen or fourteen nitrogen with a +multiple of sixteen oxygen, or a multiple of fourteen nitrogen combine +with sixteen oxygen, and so on.</p> + +<p>See now where we have got to. When we had spoken of a tiny fragment of +primal matter—a drop of water, for instance—it seemed as if there was +no more to be said; but no, we found ourselves able to give a whole +history of the molecules of which the substance consists; and when we +had considered the molecule, we found a further beautiful and intricate +order of <i>atoms</i> inside the molecule, as it were.</p> + +<p>And there is no reason to suppose that science has yet revealed all that +is possible to be known about atoms and molecules; so that if further +wonders should be evoked, the argument will grow and grow in cumulative +force.</p> + +<p>Let me sum up the conclusion to be drawn from these facts in a quotation +from a discourse of Sir John F.W. Herschel.</p> + +<p>"When we see," says that eminent philosopher, "a great number of things +precisely alike, we do not believe this similarity to have originated +except from <i>a common principle independent of them</i>; and that we +recognize this likeness, chiefly by the <i>identity of their deportment +under similar circumstances</i> strengthens rather than weakens the +conclusion.</p> + +<p>"A line of spinning jennies, or a regiment of soldiers dressed exactly +alike and going through precisely the same evolutions, gives us no idea +of independent existence: we must see them act out of concert before we +can believe them to have independent wills and properties not impressed +on them from without.</p> + +<p>"And this conclusion, which would be strong even if there were only two +individuals precisely alike in <i>all</i> respects and <i>for ever</i>, acquires +irresistible force when their number is multiplied beyond the power of +imagination to conceive.</p> + +<p>"If we mistake not, then, the discoveries alluded to effectually destroy +the ideas of an <i>eternal</i> self-existent matter by giving to each of its +atoms the essential characters at once of a <i>manufactured</i> article and +of a <i>subordinate agent</i>."</p> + +<p>In other words, continuing the metaphor of the trained army, we see +millions upon millions of molecules all arranged in regiments, distinct +and separate, and the regiments again made up of companies or +individuals, each obeying his own orders in subordination to, and in +harmony with, the whole: are we not justified in concluding that this +army has not been only called into being by some cause external to +itself; but further, that its constitution has been impressed upon it, +and its equipments and organization directed, by an Infinite +Intelligence?</p> + +<p>There is, then, no such thing to be found in Nature as a simple, +structureless "primal matter" which exhibits nothing tending to make +self-causation or aboriginal existence difficult to conceive. To look at +matter in that light is not only to take into consideration a <i>part</i> of +the case; it is really to take what does not exist, a part that exists +only in the imagination. The simplest form of matter we can deal with, +exhibits within itself all the wondrous plan, law, and sequence of the +molecular and atomic structure we have sketched out; and when we +consider that, having taken matter so far, we have even then only +introduced it to the verge of the universe, ushered it on to the +threshold of a great "aeon," when and where it is to be acted on by +"gravitation" and other forces, to act in relation to other matter, and +to be endowed perhaps with LIFE, we shall feel that the +self-existence—the uncaused existence of matter, and of the principles +on which matter proceeds or acts, is in reality not a less mystery than +the self-existence of a Designing and Intelligent Cause, but one so +great as to be itself "unthinkable."</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_10">[10]</a><div class="note"> As to the possibility of <i>indefinite</i> subdivision of +matter, see Sir W. Thomsons's lecture, <i>Nature</i>, June, 1883, <i>et seq.</i></div> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_V"></a><h2>CHAPTER V.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>THE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER</i>.</p> + +<p>We now come to <i>Living</i> Matter; directing attention, first, to that +elementary form of life as exhibited in simple protoplasm and in the +lower forms of organism, and then to the perfect forms of bird and +beast. In each case, we shall find the same evidence of Design and +Intelligence, the same proof of "contrivance" and purpose, which we +cannot attribute to the mere action of secondary causes.</p> + +<p>The simplest form in which LIFE is manifested is in a viscid gelatinous +substance without colour or form, called <i>Protoplasm</i>. Wherever there is +life there is protoplasm. Protoplasm, as before remarked, lies just +under the bark in trees, and is the material from which the growth of +the wood and bark cells and fibres proceeds. Protoplasm, is also present +in the muscles and in the blood, and wherever growth is going on.</p> + +<p>But protoplasm also exists by itself; or, more properly speaking, there +exist living creatures, both plant and animal, which are so simple in +structure, so low in organization, that they consist of nothing but a +speck of protoplasm. Such a creature is the microscopic <i>amoeba</i>. +Sometimes these little specks of protoplasm are surrounded with +beautifully formed "silicious shells—a skeleton of radiating <i>spiculae</i> +or crystal-clear concentric spheres of exquisite symmetry and +beauty.<a name="FNanchor_1_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_11"><sup>[11]</sup></a>" The simplest <i>amoeba</i> however, has no definite form; but the +little mass moves about, expands and contracts, throws out projections +on one side and draws them in on the other. It exhibits irritability +when touched. It may be seen surrounding a tiny particle of food, +extracting nutriment from it and growing in size. Ultimately the little +body separates or splits up into two, each part thenceforth taking a +separate existence.</p> + +<p>Now it is claimed that such a little organism contains the potentiality +of all life; that it grows and multiplies, and develops into higher and +higher organisms, into all (in short) that we see in the plant and +animal world around us. This, it is argued, is all done by natural +causes, not by any direction or guidance or intervention of a Divine +agency.</p> + +<p>Here we must stop to ask how this protoplasm, or simplest form of +organic life, came to exist? How did it get its <i>life</i>—its property of +taking nourishment, of growing and of giving birth to other creatures +like itself?</p> + +<p>The denier of creation replies, that just in the same way as, by the +laws of affinity, other inanimate substances came together to produce +the earth—salts and other compounds we see in the world around us—so +did certain elements combine to form protoplasm. This combination when +perfected has the property of being alive, just as water has the +property of assuming a solid form or has any other of the qualities +which we speak of as its properties.</p> + +<p>Now it is perfectly true that, treated as a substance, you can take the +gummy protoplasm, put it into a glass and subject it to analysis like +any other substance. But simple as the substance appears, composition is +really very complicated. Professor Allman tells us that so difficult and +wonderful is its chemistry, that in fact really very little is known +about it. The best evidence we have, I believe, makes it tolerably +certain that protoplasm consists of a combination of ammonia, carbonic +acid, and water, and that every molecule of it is made up of 76 atoms, +of which 36 are carbon, 26 hydrogen, 4 nitrogen, and 10 oxygen.<a name="FNanchor_1_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_12"><sup>[12]</sup></a></p> + +<p>But no chemist has ever been able either to account theoretically for +such a composition, still less to produce it artificially. It is urged, +however, that it may be only due to our clumsy apparatus and still very +imperfect knowledge of chemistry, that we were unable artificially to +make up protoplasm.</p> + +<p>And of course there is no answer to a supposition of this sort. +Nevertheless there is no sort of reason to believe that protoplasm will +ever be made; nor, if we could succeed in uniting the elements into a +form resembling protoplasmic jelly, is there the least reason to suppose +that such a composition would exhibit the irritability, or the powers of +nutrition and reproduction, which are essentially the characteristics of +<i>living</i> protoplasm. It is not too much to say that, after the close of +the controversy about spontaneous generation, it is now a universally +admitted principle of science that life can only proceed from life—the +old <i>omne vivum ex ovo</i> in a modern form.<a name="FNanchor_1_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_13"><sup>[13]</sup></a></p> + +<p>But here the same sort of argument that was brought forward regarding +the possibility of matter and its laws being self-caused, comes in as +regards life.</p> + +<p>The argument in the most direct form was made use of by Professor +Huxley, but it is difficult to believe that so powerful a thinker could +seriously hold to a view which will not bear examination, however neatly +and brilliantly it may go off when first launched into the air. The +argument is that life can only be regarded as a further property of +certain forms of matter. Oxygen and hydrogen, when they combine, result +in a new substance, quite unlike either of them in character, and +possessing <i>new</i> and different properties. The way in which the +combination is effected is a mystery, yet we do not account for the new +and peculiar properties of water (so different from those of the +original gases) as arising from a principle of "aquosity," which we have +to invoke from another world. The answer is that the argument is from +analogy, and that there is not really the remotest analogy between the +two cases. It is true that, as far as we know, electricity is necessary +to force a combination of the requisite equivalents of oxygen and +hydrogen into water. But though we do not know why this is, or what +electricity is, we can repeat the process as often as we will. But mark +the difference; the water once existing is obviously only a new form of +matter, in the same category with the gases it came from: it neither +increases in bulk, nor takes in fresh elements to grow, and give birth +to new drops of water. But protoplasm has something quite different—for +there may be dead protoplasm and living protoplasm, both identical to +the eye and to every chemical test. In either condition, protoplasm, as +such, has <i>properties</i> of the same nature (though not of the same kind) +as those of water, oxygen gas, or any other matter; it is colorless, +heavy, sticky, elastic, and so forth; but besides all that (without the +aid of electricity or any physical force we can apply) one has the power +of producing more protoplasm—gathering for itself, by virtue of its +inherent power, the materials for growth and reproduction.</p> + +<p>If directly water was called into existence it could take in +nourishment, and divide and go on producing more water—and if some +water could do this, while other water (which no available test could +distinguish from it in any other respect) could not, then we <i>should</i> be +perfectly justified in giving a special name to this power, and calling +it "aquosity" or "vitality" or anything else, it being out of all +analogy to anything else which we call a "property" of matter.</p> + +<p>In the introduction of LIFE into the <i>aeon</i> of organic developmental +history, we have a clear and distinct period, as we had when <i>matter</i> +came into view, or when <i>the change</i> was ushered in which set the cosmic +gas cooling and liquefying, and turning to solid in various form.</p> + +<p>The fact is that every organic form, whether plant or animal, derived +from the protoplasmic compounds of carbon-dixoide, ammonia and water, +is, as Mr. Drummond puts it,<a name="FNanchor_1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_14"><sup>[14]</sup></a> "made of materials which have once been +inorganic. An organizing principle, not belonging to their kingdom, lays +hold of them and elaborates them."</p> + +<p>Thus by the introduction of LIFE we have a vastly enlarged horizon. +Before, in the organic world, we had only the "principle" of solidifying +or crystallizing, liquefying, and turning to gas or vapour, ever +stopping when the state was attained. Or if a combination was in +progress, still the result was only a rearrangement of the same bulk of +materials (however new the form) in solid, liquid, or gas, but no +increase, no nutrition, no reproduction. In the organic world we have +something so different, that whether we talk of "property" or +"principle," the things are entirely distinct.</p> + +<p>The essential difference, stated as regards the mere facts of +irritability or motion, nutrition and reproduction, is so grandly +sufficient in itself, that one almost regrets to have to add on the +other facts which further emphasize the distinction between <i>life</i> and +any <i>property</i> of matter. But these further facts are highly important +as regards another part of the argument. For while what has just been +said almost demonstrates the necessity of a Giver of Life from a kingdom +outside the organic, the further facts point irresistibly to the +conclusion that we must predicate more about the Giver of Life that we +can of an abstract and unknown Cause.</p> + +<p>The original protoplasm, when dead, is undistinguishable by the eye, by +chemical test, or by the microscope, from the same protoplasm when +living; and living protoplasm, again, may be either animal or vegetable. +Both are in every respect (externally) absolutely identical. Yet the one +will only develop into a <i>plant</i>, the other only into an <i>animal.</i> Nor +does it diminish the significance of the fact to say that the +differentiation is <i>now</i> fixed by heredity. If we suppose protoplasm to +be only a fortuitous combination of elements, what secondary or common +natural cause will account for its acquisition of the fixed difference? +It is true that some forms of plants exhibit some functions that closely +approach the functions of what we call animal life; but, as we shall see +presently, there is no evidence whatever that there is any bridge +between the two—we have no proof that a plant ever develops into an +animal. Here is one of the gaps which the theory of Evolution, true as +it is to a certain extent, cannot bridge over; and we must not overlook +the fact. We shall revert to it hereafter.</p> + +<p>Can it be believed, then, that protoplasm, as the origin of life, is +self-caused, and self-developed? And this is not all. I must briefly +remind my readers that the way in which animal protoplasm deals with the +elements of nutrition is quite opposite to that which plant protoplasm +follows. I might, indeed, have mentioned this at an earlier stage, when +I mentioned Professor Huxley's comparison of the chemical action in the +formation of water with what he assumed to be the case in the formation +of protoplasm. When water is formed, the two gases disappear, and an +<i>exactly equal weight</i> of water appears in their place; but if living +protoplasm is enabled to imbibe liquid or other nutriment containing +ammonia, water, and carbonic acid, there is no disappearance of the +three elements and an equivalent weight of living protoplasm appearing +in its place. Protoplasm consumes the oxygen and sets free the carbonic +acid. Both kinds of protoplasm do this, until exposed to the light; and +then a difference is observed; for under the influence of light, animal +protoplasm alone continues to act in this way, and vegetable protoplasm +begins at once to develop little green bodies or corpuscles in its +cells, and afterwards acts in a totally opposite way, taking the carbon +into its substance and giving off the oxygen.<a name="FNanchor_1_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_15"><sup>[15]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Not only then has each kind of protoplasm its own mysterious character +impressed on it, and is compelled to act in a certain way; but still +further, each particle of animal and vegetable protoplasm, when directed +into its <i>general</i> course of development as <i>plant or animal</i>, will +again only obey a certain course of development in its own line.</p> + +<p>But we must proceed a step further; for those who would believe in the +sufficiency of unaided Evolution, bid us bear in mind how very +elementary the dawn of instinct or the beginning of reason is in the +lowest forms which are classed as animal, and how very small is the +gap<a name="FNanchor_1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_16"><sup>[16]</sup></a> between some highly organized plants and some animal forms, and +argue therefore that they may justly regard the distinction as of minor +importance, and hope that the "missing link" will be yet discovered and +proved. At any rate, they minimize the difference, and urge that it is +of no account if at least they can establish the sufficiency of a proved +development extending unbroken from the lowest to the highest animal +form. And having fixed attention on this side, no doubt there is a long +stretch of smooth water over which the passage is unchecked.</p> + +<p>The Evolution theory is that all the different species of animals, +birds, and other forms of life have been caused by the accumulation and +perpetuation of numerous small changes which began in one or at most a +few elementary forms, and went on till all the thousands of species we +now know of were developed.<a name="FNanchor_1_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_17"><sup>[17]</sup></a> It <i>is</i> a fact that all organic forms +have a certain tendency to vary. I need only allude to the many +varieties of pigeons, horses, cattle, and dogs which are produced by +varying the food, the circumstances of life and so forth, and by +selective breeding.</p> + +<p>The contention then is: given certain original simple forms of life, +probably marine or aquatic—for it is in the water that the most likely +occur—these will gradually change and vary, some in one direction, some +in another; that the changes go on increasing, each creature giving +birth to offspring which exhibits the stored-up results of change, till +the varied and finished forms—some reptile, some bird, some +animal—which we now see around us, have been produced. And at last man +himself was developed in the same way. All this, observe, is by the +action of just such ordinary and natural causes as we now see operating +around us—changes in food and in climate, changes in one part requiring +a corresponding change in others, and so on.</p> + +<p>Nature contains no sharply drawn lines. Plants are different from +animals; but there are animals so low down in the scale of life that it +is difficult to distinguish them from plants. Pigeons are distinct from +pheasants, but the line at which the one species ends and the other +begins is difficult to draw. This fact seems to invite some theory of +one form changing into other. Accordingly the evolutionist explains the +working of the process which he asserts to be sufficient to produce all +the various forms of life in our globe.</p> + +<p>After stating this more in detail than we have previously done, we shall +be in a better position to judge if the process (which in the main we +have no desire to deny or even to question) can dispense with <i>guidance</i> +and the fixing of certain lines and limits within which, and of certain +types towards which, the development proceeds. That is our point.</p> + +<p>It is hardly necessary to illustrate the enormous destruction of life +which goes on in the world. Even among the human race, the percentage of +infants that die in the first months of their life is very large. But in +the lower forms of life it is truly enormous. Only consider the myriads +of insects that perish from hunger or accident, and from the preying of +one species on another. If it were not so, the world would be overrun by +plagues of mice, of birds, of insects of all kinds, and indeed by +creatures of every grade. The term "struggle for existence" is, then, +not an inapt one. All forms of living creatures have to contend with +enemies which seek to prey upon or to destroy them, with the difficulty +of obtaining food, and with what I may call the chances of +nature—cold, storms, floods, disease, and so forth.</p> + +<p>Now, it is obvious that if some creatures of a given kind possess some +accidental peculiarity or modification in their formation which gives +them (in one way or another) an advantage over their fellows, these +improved specimens are likely to survive, and, surviving, to have +offspring.</p> + +<p>It is this perpetuation of advantageous changes, originally induced by +the circumstances of environment, that is indicated by the term "natural +selection." Nature chooses out the form best suited to the circumstances +which surround it, and this form lives while the others die out. And +this form goes on improving by slow successive changes, which make it +more and more fit for the continually changing circumstances of its +life.</p> + +<p>Subordinate also to this natural selection is the principle that bright +colour and other special qualities may be developed in the males of a +race, because individuals with such advantages are more attractive, and +therefore more easily find mates, than dull-coloured or otherwise less +attractive individuals.</p> + +<p>Of each of these principles I may give a simple example. Supposing a +species of bird with a soft slender beak to be placed on an island, +where the only food they could obtain was fruit enclosed in a hard or +tough shell or covering. Supposing some birds accidentally possessed of +a beak that was shorter and stouter than the others', these would be +able to break open the shell and get at the fruit, while the others +would starve. Some of the descendants of the birds with the stout beaks +would inherit the same peculiarity, and in the course of several +generations there would thus arise a species with short and strong, +perhaps curved, beaks just fitted to live on fruits of the kind +described. In a similar way the webbed feet of birds that swim were +developed by their aquatic habits. And so with the long slender toes of +the waders, which are so well fitted for walking over floating aquatic +plants.</p> + +<p>Of the other principle, sexual selection, a familiar example is the +bright and showy colouring of the male birds of many species: the +females of their species, as they need protection while helplessly +sitting on their eggs, are dull-coloured like the bark of trees or the +sand, among which their nests lie hid.</p> + +<p>Some of the Himalayan pheasants exhibit this peculiarity to a marked +degree. Originally, it is said, the male bird, which was more brightly +coloured than the rest, got mated more easily by the preference shown to +him for his bright colour.</p> + +<p>The question is, can we suppose all this to go on, by self-caused laws +and concurrence of circumstances, without a pre-existing design for the +forms to reach or an external guidance in the processes?</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_11">[11]</a><div class="note"> Professor Allman.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_12">[12]</a><div class="note"> Nicholson ("Zoology," p. 4) gives for Albumen, which is +nearly identical with protoplasm—Carbon, 144; Hydrogen, 110; Nitrogen, +18; Oxygen, 42; Sulphur, 2. These figures nearly equal those in the +text, being those figures multiplied each by 4 (approximately) and +without the trace of sulphur.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_13">[13]</a><div class="note"> <i>See</i> "Critiques and Addresses," T.H. Huxley, F.R.S., +p. 239. So much is this the case, that it is really superfluous, however +interesting, to recall the experiments of Dr. Tyndall and others, which +finally demonstrated that wherever primal animal forms, bacteria and +other, "microbes," were produced in infusions of hay, turnip, &c., +apparently boiled and sterilized and then hermetically sealed, there +were really germs in the air enclosed in the vessel, or germs that in +one form or another were not destroyed by the boiling or heating. Dr. +Bastian's argument for spontaneous generation is thus completely +overthrown. <i>(See</i> Drummond, "Natural Law," pp. 62-63.)</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_14">[14]</a><div class="note"> "Natural Law," p. 233.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_15">[15]</a><div class="note"> Certain <i>fungi</i> seem to afford an exception to this. The +above is, I believe, true as a theoretical action of plants and animals +in protoplasmic form. But practically, in all higher developments of +either kind, other distinctions come into play; e.g., that plants can +make use of inorganic matter, gases, and water, and elaborate them into +organic matter. Animals cannot do this, they require more or less solid +food—always requiring "complex organic bodies which they ultimately +reduce to much simpler inorganic bodies. They are thus mediately or +immediately dependent on plants for their subsistence" (Nicholson, +"Zoology," 6th ed. p. 17). It is perhaps with reference to this that in +the Book of Genesis the Creator is represented as giving <i>plant</i> life to +the service of man and animals—while nothing is said of the preying of +<i>Carnivora</i> and <i>Insectivora</i> on animal life.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_16">[16]</a><div class="note"> At the risk of repetition I will remind the reader that +nature contains <i>nothing like</i> a progressive scale from plant to animal. +It is <i>never</i> that the highest plant can be connected with the lowest +animal as in one series of links. The animal kingdom and the plant +kingdom are absolutely apart. Both start from similar elementary +proteinaceous structures; and both preserve their development +upwards—each exhibiting <i>some</i> of the features of the other. It is at +the bottom of each scale that resemblance is to be found, <i>not</i> between +the top of one and the lowest members of the other.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_17">[17]</a><div class="note"> The reader may find this admirably put in Wallace, +"Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection," p. 302.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_VI"></a><h2>CHAPTER VI.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>THE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION OF ORGANIC FORMS</i>.</p> + +<p>The heading of this chapter does not mark a new departure, for we have +been tracing existing forms of matter from the first, and have already +seen the necessity of believing in Creative Intelligence and Guidance. +We have seen that inorganic matter, with what we call its molecular or +atomic structure, cannot be reasonably regarded as self-caused; and we +have concluded with Sir J.F.W. Herschell that the sight of such a +well-arranged army, performing its evolutions in a regular and uniform +manner, irresistibly suggests a great Commander and Designer. We have +further found that the advent of LIFE demands a Power <i>ab extra</i>. We +have called attention to the gap, between plant and animal, which is +ignored or made light of, chiefly on account of the close approach of +the two kingdoms. But there is one broad distinction, namely, that of +elementary reason and no reason, or of consciousness and +unconsciousness, which is, in itself, a sufficient difficulty to pull +us up shortly. We have not yet fully considered this matter, because it +will come more appropriately at a later stage, and in the <i>à fortiori</i> +form. But we have justly noted it here. We cannot account for the most +elementary reason by any physical change; there is no analogy between +the two. The connection of mind and matter is unexplainable; and no +theory of development of physical form can say why, at any given stage, +physical development begins to be accompanied by brain-power and +<i>consciousness</i>. Admit candidly that the addition of intelligence at a +certain stage, however mysteriously interwoven with structural +accompaniments, is a gift <i>ab extra</i>, and we have at least a reasonable +and so far satisfactory explanation.</p> + +<p>But when we have got an animal form, however simple and elementary, with +at least a recognizable "potentiality" of intelligence, we enter, as I +said, a long stretch of apparently smooth water, over which, for an +important part of our passage, we seem able to glide without any +difficulty from the necessary intervention of the so-called +supernatural. I have, then, to show that even here there is really no +possibility of dispensing with a Creator who has a purpose, a designed +scheme, and a series of type-forms to be complied with.</p> + +<p>In order to fully exhaust the question how far natural selection is +capable of accounting for everything, it would be necessary to take a +very wide view of natural history and botany, which it is quite +impossible for us to attempt. But this is not necessary for our purpose. +We are perfectly justified in selecting certain topics which must arise +in the discussion. If, in studying these points, we find that <i>there</i> at +least the intervention of a Controlling Power becomes necessary, and the +absence of it leaves things without any reasonable explanation, then we +shall have good and logical ground for holding to our faith in the +universal presence of such a Power. No chain is stronger than its +weakest link. If secondary causes cannot succeed at any one part of the +chain, it is obvious that they fail as a universal explanation.</p> + +<p>This part of the work has already been done far better than I could do +it. In the first eight chapters of Mivart's "Genesis of Species" <a name="FNanchor_1_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_18"><sup>[18]</sup></a> the +argument has been ably and clearly put, and whatever answer is possible +has been given by Darwin and others; so that the world may judge. All +that can here be usefully attempted, is, by way of reminder, to +reproduce some main topics on which no real answer has been given. These +are selected, partly because they are less abstruse and difficult to +follow than some which might be dealt with, partly because they are +calculated to awaken our interest, and partly because the conclusion in +favour of a continual Providence; working through organized law and +system, appears to follow most clearly from them.</p> + +<p>The points I would call attention to are the following:—</p> + +<p>(I) That as natural selection will only maintain changes that have been +<i>beneficial</i> to the creature, it is contrary to such a law, if acting +entirely by itself, that that there should be developments (not being +mere accidental deformities, &c.) disadvantageous to the creature. And +yet the world is full of such.</p> + +<p>(2) That there are forms which cannot be accounted for on the +evolutionist supposition, that they were gradually obtained by a series +of small changes slowly progressing towards a perfect structure. They +would be of no use at all unless produced <i>at once and complete</i>.</p> + +<p>(3) That natural selection, as apart from a Divine Designer, altogether +fails to account for <i>beauty</i>, as distinguished from mere brilliancy or +conspicuousness, in nature. Whereas, if we suppose the existence of a +beneficent Creator, who has moral objects in view, and cares for the +delight and the improvement of His creatures,<a name="FNanchor_1_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_19"><sup>[19]</sup></a> and looking to the +known effects on the mind of beauty in art and in nature, the existence +is at once and beyond all cavil explained.</p> + +<p>(4) That we have positive evidence against <i>uncontrolled</i> evolution +(uncontrolled by set plan and design i.e.) and a strong presumption in +favour of the existence of created <i>types</i>; so that evolution proceeds +towards these types by aid of natural laws and forces working together +(in a way that our limited faculties necessarily fail to grasp +adequately);<a name="FNanchor_1_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_20"><sup>[20]</sup></a> and so that, the type once reached, a certain degree of +variation, but never <i>transgression</i> of <i>the type</i>, is possible. +Further, that on this supposition we are able to account for some of the +unexplained facts in evolutionary history, such as <i>reversion</i> and the +<i>sterility of hybrids</i>; and to see why there are gaps which cannot be +bridged over, and which by extreme theorists are only feebly accounted +for on the supposition that as discovery progresses they <i>will</i> be +bridged over some day.</p> + +<p>(5) Lastly, that there is no possibility of giving <i>time</i> enough on any +possible theory of the world's existence, for the evolution of all +species, unless <i>some</i> reasonable theory of creative arrangement and +design be admitted.</p> + +<p>The great objection—the descent of man and the introduction of reason, +consciousness, and so forth, into the world, will then form two separate +chapters, concluding the first division of my subject.</p> + +<p>There is one point which the reader may be surprised to see omitted. It +is, that if these slow changes were always going on, why is not the +present world full of, and the fossil-bearing rocks also abounding in, +<i>intermediate forms</i>, creatures which <i>are on their way</i> to being +something else? But there are reasons to be given on this ground which +make the subject a less definite one for treatment. It is said, for +example, that in the fossil rocks we have only such scanty and +fragmentary records, that it is not possible to draw a complete +inference, and that there is always the possibility of fresh discoveries +being made. Such discoveries have, it is asserted, already been made in +the miocene and again in later rocks; different species of an early form +of <i>horse</i> which are (and this we may admit) the ancestral or +intermediate forms of our own horse, have been found. I therefore would +not press the difficulty, great as it is, because of the escape which +the hope of future discovery always affords. I will take this +opportunity to repeat that in this chapter I say nothing about the +difficulty which arises from the introduction of elementary reason or +instinct, and of consciousness, into the scale of organic being; that +will more appropriately fall in with the consideration of the +development of man, where naturally the difficulty occurs with its +greatest force.</p> + +<p>(1) I come at once to the great difficulty that, if all existing forms +are due to the occurrence of changes that helped the creature in the +struggle for existence, how is it possible now to account for forms +which are not advantageous? yet such forms are numerous. Of this +objection, the existence of imperfect or neuter bees and ants is an +instance. The modification in form which these creatures exhibit is of +no advantage to them. It <i>is</i> a great advantage, no doubt, to the other +bees; but then this introduces a view of some power <i>making</i> one thing +for the benefit of another, not a change in the form itself adapted of +course to its <i>own</i> advantage—since natural laws, forces, and +conditions of environment could not conceivably <i>design</i> the advantage +of another form, and cause one to change for the benefit of that other.</p> + +<p>Why is it, again, that crabs and crayfish can only grow by casting off +their shells, during which process they often die, as well as remain +exposed defenceless to the attacks of enemies? Why should stags shed +their horns also, leaving them defenceless for a time? Other animals do +not do so, and there is nothing in the nature of the horn which requires +it.</p> + +<p>This brief allusion is here sufficient. Mr. Mivart's work gives it at +large.</p> + +<p>(2) Passing next to the question of the advantage of <i>incomplete +stages</i>—portions of a mechanism only useful when complete, the most +striking examples may be found in the Vegetable kingdom. The +fertilization of flowering plants is effected by the pollen, a yellow +dust formed in the anthers, which is carried from flower to flower. In +the pines and oaks, this is done by the wind. But in other cases insects +visit a flower to get the honey, and in so doing get covered with +pollen, which they carry away and leave in the next flower visited. Now +one of our commonest and most useful plants, the red clover, is so +constructed that it can only be fertilized by humble bees. If this bee +became extinct, the plant would die out; how can such a development be +advantageous to it?</p> + +<p>But the contrivances by which this process of fertilization is secured +are so marvellous, that I confess I am completely staggered by the idea +that these contrivances have been caused by the self-growth and +adaptation of the plant without guidance. There is a plant called +<i>Salvia glutinosa</i><a name="FNanchor_1_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_21"><sup>[21]</sup></a>—easily recognized by its sticky calyx and pale +yellow flowers. The anthers that bear the pollen are hidden far back in +the hood of the flower, so that the pollen can neither fall nor can the +wind carry it away; but the two anthers are supported on a sort of +spring, and directly a bee goes to the flower and pushes in his head to +get the honey, the spring is depressed and both anthers start forward, +of course depositing their pollen on the hairy back of the bee, which +carries it to the stigma of the next flower. This process can be tested +without waiting for a bee, by pushing a bit of stick into the flower, +when the curious action described will be observed. It is very easy to +say that this admirable mechanical contrivance is of great use to the +plant <i>in its complete</i> form; but try and imagine what use an +intermediate form would have been! If development at once proceeded to +the complete form, surely this marks <i>design</i>; if not, no partial step +towards it would have been of any use, and therefore would not have been +inherited and perpetuated so as to prepare for further completion. But +many other plants have a structure so marvellous that this objection is +continually applicable. Let me only recall one other case, that of the +orchid, called <i>Coryanthes macrantha</i>. In this flower there are two +little horns, which secrete a pure water, or rather water mixed with +honey. The lower part of the flower consists of a long lip, the end of +which is bent into the form of a bucket hanging below the horns. This +bucket catches the nectar as it drops, and is furnished with a spout +over which the liquid trickles when it is too full. But the mouth of the +bucket is guarded by a curiously ridged cover with two openings, one on +each side. The most ingenious man, says Mr. Darwin, would never by +himself make out what this elaborate arrangement was intended for. It +was at last discovered. Large humble bees were seen visiting the flower; +by way of getting at the honey, they set to work to gnaw off the ridges +of the lid above alluded to; in doing this they pushed one another into +the bucket, and had to crawl out by the spout. As they passed out by +this narrow aperture, they had to rub against the anthers and so carried +off the pollen. When a bee so charged gets into another bucket, or into +the same bucket a second time, and has to crawl out, he brushes against +the stigma, and leaves the pollen on it. I might well have adduced this +plant as another instance of the first objection, since it may well be +asked, How could such a development, resulting in a structure which +presents the greatest difficulty in the way of fertilization, be +beneficial to the plant? But here the point is that, even if any one +could assert the utility of such an elaborate and complicated +development, and suppose it self-caused by accident or effect of +environment, it certainly goes against the idea that all forms are due +to an <i>accumulation of small changes</i>. For these curious contrivances in +the case of <i>Salvia, Coryanthes</i>, and other plants, would in any case +have been no use to the plant till the whole machinery <i>was complete</i>. +Now, on the theory of slow changes gradually accumulating till the +complete result was attained, there must have been generation after +generation of plants, in which the machinery was as yet imperfect and +only partly built up. But in such incomplete stages, fertilization would +have been impossible, and therefore the plant must have died out. Just +the same with the curious fly-trap in <i>Dionoea</i>. Whatever may be its +benefit to the plant, till the whole apparatus as it now is, was +<i>complete</i>, it would have been of no use. In the animal kingdom also, +instances might be given: the giraffe has a long neck which is an +advantage in getting food that other animals cannot reach; but what +would have been the use of a neck which was becoming—and had not yet +become—long? here intermediate stages would not have been useful, and +therefore could not have been preserved.<a name="FNanchor_2_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_22"><sup>[22]</sup></a> In flat fishes it is curious +that, though they are born with eyes on different sides of the head, the +lower eye gradually grows round to the upper-side. As remarked by Mr. +Mivart, natural selection could not have produced this change, since the +<i>first steps towards it</i> could have been of no possible use, and could +not therefore have occurred, at least not without direction and guidance +from without. Mr. Darwin's explanation of the case does not touch this +difficulty.</p> + +<p>(3) The third point, the occurrence of so much <i>beauty</i> in organic life, +is perhaps one of the most conclusive arguments for design in nature.</p> + +<p>Here, if possible, more clearly than elsewhere, I see a total failure of +"natural causes." We are told that the beauty of birds (for instance) is +easily accounted for by the fact, that the ornamented and beautiful +males are preferred by the other sex; and that this is an advantage, so +the beauty has been perpetuated; and the same with butterflies and +beetles.</p> + +<p>We are told also that bright-coloured fruits attract birds, who eat the +soft parts of the fruit and swallow the hard stone or seed which is thus +prepared for germination, and carried about and dispersed over the +earth's surface. Again, showy coloured flowers attract insects, which +carry away pollen and fertilize other flowers.</p> + +<p>All this is perfectly true; but it entirely fails to go far enough to +meet the difficulty.</p> + +<p>Now passing over such difficulties as the fact that bright colours in +flowers <i>do not</i> attract insects in many cases, but much more +inconspicuous flowers if they have a scent (mignonette, for example) +<i>do</i>; passing over such a fact as that afforded by the violet, which (as +some may not be aware) has two kinds of flower, one scented and of a +beautiful colour, the other green and inconspicuous, and it is the +<i>latter, not the former</i> which is usually fertile;—passing over all +detailed difficulties of this kind, I allude only to the one great one, +that in all these cases, besides mere bright colour, conspicuousness or +showiness, there is a great and wonderful beauty of pattern, design, or +colour arrangement, in nature. Now there is not a particle of evidence +to show that any animal has, to the smallest extent, a <i>sense of +beauty</i>. On the contrary it is most improbable. The sense of artistic +beauty is not only peculiar to man, but only exists in him when +civilized and cultivated. Uneducated people among ourselves have no +sense of landscape and other beauty. How then can it exist in animals?</p> + +<p>If there was nothing to explain but a uniform bright and showy colour, +natural selection might be sufficient to account for it. How is it, +then, that this is not the case? We have not only colour, but colour +diversified in the most elaborate and charming manner. Look at the +exquisite patterns on a butterfly's wing! look at the various delicate +arrangements of colour and pattern in flowers; or look again at the +arrangement of colour on a humming-bird—sometimes the tail, sometimes +the breast is ornamented, sometimes a splendid crest covers the head, +sometimes a jewelled gorget or ruff surrounds the throat; and these are +not uniformly coloured, but exhibit metallic and other changes of lustre +not to be imitated by the highest art. But to fully realize this, I had +best refer to a more familiar instance. Let any one examine—as an +object very easily procurable in these days—a peacock's feather. No +doubt the whole tail when expanded is very brilliant; but look closely +at the structure of a single feather; is all this arrangement needed +only to make the tail bright or conspicuous? Observe how wonderfully the +outer parts are varied; part has a metallic lustre of copper, part has +this also shot with green: then there is a delicate ring of violet with +a double yellowish border, all quite distinct from the inmost gorgeous +"eye" of green, blue, and black, and all arranged on the same feather!</p> + +<p>Take, again, the so-called diamond beetle of Brazil; here the wing case +is black studded all over with little pits or specks, which as a whole +only give it a powdery pale-green colour; but place it in the sunlight +and look at it with a magnifying glass—each little speck is seen to be +furnished with a set of minute metallic scales showing green and red +flashes like so many diamonds. How does such a delicate ornament answer +the demands of mere conspicuousness?</p> + +<p>But there is a stronger case than this. I before alluded to the +exquisite symmetry of the silicious and crystalline coverings of some of +the simplest forms of marine animalcules; and also I may here add the +beautiful colouring of <i>shells</i> sometimes on the <i>inside</i>.<a name="FNanchor_1_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_23"><sup>[23]</sup></a> In what +possible way would this beauty serve for any purely <i>useful</i> purpose?</p> + +<p>Lastly, how are we to account for the beauty of autumnal tints in woods, +or coloured <i>leaves</i> in plants such as the <i>Caladium</i>? The beauty is of +no conceivable use to the plant.</p> + +<p>"In Canada the colours of the autumn forest are notorious. Even on +cloudy days the hue of the foliage is of so intense a yellow that the +light thrown from the trees creates the impression of bright sunshine, +each leaf presents a point of sparkling gold. But the colours of the +leafy landscape change and intermingle from day to day, until pink, +lilac, vermilion, purple, deep indigo and brown, present a combination +of beauty that must be seen to be realized; for no artist has yet been +able to represent, nor can the imagination picture to itself, the +gorgeous spectacle.<a name="FNanchor_1_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_24"><sup>[24]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>Have we not here an exhibition which cannot be accounted for on any +principle of natural utility?</p> + +<p>(4) The fourth point, as previously stated, will be best treated by +stating beforehand what is the conclusion come to, and then justifying +it. My suggestion is that if we suppose a continuous evolution without a +series of designs prescribed before life began to develop, and without +any external guidance, then we are lost in difficulties. We cannot +account for why variation should set in in the very different ways it +does, nor why such a vast variety of divergent results should be +produced. We cannot account for the tendency to reversion to a previous +type, when artificial or accidental variation is not continually +maintained,<a name="FNanchor_1_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_25"><sup>[25]</sup></a> nor for the sterility of hybrids; nor, above all, for +evolution performing such freaks (if I may so say) as the origination of +our small finches and the tropical humming-birds from earlier +vertebrates through the Mesozoic reptiles, the pterodactyles, +<i>Odontornithes</i> and subsequent forms. Supposing that the Almighty +Designer created a complete <i>cosmos</i> of (1) the starry heavens and the +planetary system, (2) then a scheme whereby earth and water were to be +duly distributed over our planet; (3) established the relations by +which the external heavenly bodies were to regulate our seasons, tides, +and times (as we know they do). (4) Suppose, further, that the Designer +did not make "out of nothing" the series of finally developed animals as +we now have them, but "made the animals make themselves"—that is to +say, created the type, the ideal form, and adapted the laws and forces +which constitute environment, so that development of form should go on +regularly towards the appointed end, but in separate and appropriate +channels, each terminating when its object had been attained. Suppose +these conditions (which, as we shall afterwards see, are what +Revelation, fairly interpreted, declares) to exist; all the known +<i>facts</i>, and also the fairly certain <i>inferences</i> of Evolution, are then +accounted for.</p> + +<p>We have neither by revelation nor physical discovery an exact <i>scheme</i> +of all the types, nor which of the elementary forms were destined to +remain unchanged throughout. But some scheme of created types we surely +have. Whether what we call <i>species</i><a name="FNanchor_1_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_26"><sup>[26]</sup></a> are all types or not, we cannot +say; probably not. All we can be sure of is that there are definite +lines somewhere. We see the sterility of some hybrids, for instance, +which would seem to indicate that while some forms can conjugate and +their offspring remain fertile, others (approaching, as it were, the +verge of separation) give rise to hybrids which are or not absolutely +sterile,<a name="FNanchor_2_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_27"><sup>[27]</sup></a> according as they approach, or are more remote from, the +designed barrier-line. And at that point the separation is insuperable. +Certain forms of <i>Carnivora</i> and <i>Ungulata</i> seem to be for ever +apart—not only the two great orders, but even subdivisions within them. +Reptiles and birds, on the other hand, unlike as they at first sight +seem, have no type line drawn to separate them; that, at least, is one +of the more recent conclusions of biological science.</p> + +<p>In other cases where variation has occurred, and especially when it is +artificially—i.e., by the aid of selective breeding—caused or +favoured, there is the constant tendency to <i>revert</i>, which is at once +intelligible if there is a type scheme to be maintained.</p> + +<p>If there were a series of created types, there may naturally have been +what I may call sub-types; which would be certain well-marked stages on +the way to the final form. Such sub-type forms would naturally occur at +different ages, and being marked would show their place in the scale, +and their connection with the ultimate perfect form. Such a possibility +would exactly account for the series of <i>Eohippus, Hipparion</i>, and +horse, which we have already instanced; and still more so for the rise +and disappearance of the great Mesozoic Saurians when their object was +fulfilled. Deny guidance and type, and everything becomes confused. Why +should variation take certain directions? how comes it that natural +forces and conditions of life so occur and co-operate as to produce the +variety of changes needed?</p> + +<p>And there is also one other general objection which I desire to state.</p> + +<p>Why should <i>development</i> have gone in different directions <i>towards the +same object</i>? I grant that different circumstances would produce +different changes, but not for the same purpose. For example take +eye-sight. The world shows several types of eye. The <i>insect</i> eye quite +unlike any other; the crustacean eye also distinct; and birds, fishes, +and animals having an eye which is generally similar and is somewhat +imitated by the eye of the <i>cuttle fish</i> (which is not a <i>fish</i>, but a +<i>cephalopod</i>).</p> + +<p>Again, granted that <i>poison</i> is a useful defence to creatures: how is it +given so differently?—to a serpent in the tooth; to a bee or a scorpion +in the tail; to a spider in a specially adapted <i>antenna</i>, and to the +centipede in a pair of modified legs on the <i>thorax</i>.</p> + +<p>One would have supposed that natural causes tending to produce poison +weapons would have all gone on the same lines. And, curiously, in some +few cases, we have a sameness of line. About twelve species—all +fish—have an electric apparatus, familiar to most of us in the flat +sea-fish called <i>Torpedo</i> and in the fresh-water eel called <i>Gymnotus</i>. +The only answer the anti-creationist can give to this dissimilarity of +development is that there are many vacant places in the polity of +nature, and that development takes place in that direction which fits +the creature to occupy a vacant place, and is, therefore, diverse.</p> + +<p>It seems to me that this—the only answer that can he given—is +necessarily a modified form or mode <i>of creation.</i> How can <i>natural +causes</i> know anything about a polity of nature and a vacant place, here +and there, so that the creature must develop in one way or another to +fill it?</p> + +<p>Another set of cases is the production of similar functional results by +most diverse means, as in the case of flying animals, birds, +pterodactyles, and bats; here there is a widely different modification +of the fore-arm and other bones, all for the same purpose. The reader +will do well to refer to Mr. Mivart's book on this subject.</p> + +<p>Again, the question of types seems to be pointed to in the curious fact +of what I may call the double development of birds from reptiles. Mr. +Mivart says, "If one set of birds sprang from one set of reptiles and +another set from another set of reptiles, the two sets could never by +'natural selection' only have grown into such perfect similarity." Yet +we can trace the <i>Struthious</i> birds (those that, like ostriches, do not +fly) through the Dinosaurs and <i>Dinornis</i>, and the flying Carinate birds +though pterodactyles, <i>Archaeopteryx</i>, and <i>Icthyornis</i>, &c.</p> + +<p>It might well be added to this part of the subject, that granted that +developmental changes were often small, that progress was attained +little by little, this does not appear to have been always the case.</p> + +<p>The discoveries of the fossil species of horse,<a name="FNanchor_1_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_28"><sup>[28]</sup></a> <i>Eohippus, +Hipparion</i>, and so forth, clearly establish a developmental series, and +the ancient forms are claimed as the ancestor of the modern horse; but +these (Professor Owen tells us) differed more from one another than the +ass and the zebra (for instance) differ from the horse. Still, of course +it may be that there are still undiscovered intermediate forms; and in +any case there need be no desire to detract from the value of the +series, as really pointing towards a gradual perfection of the horse +from a ruder ancestor up to the latest type. But having reached the +type, and though that type exhibits such (considerable) variations as +occur between the Shetland pony, the Arab, and the dray-horse, we have +still no difficulty in recognizing the essential identity; nor is there +any evidence or any probability that the horse will ever change into +anything essentially different. All the fossil bats, again, were true +bats: and so with the rhinoceroses and the elephants. Granting the +fullest use that may be made of the imperfection of the geological +record, it is difficult to account for this, and still more for the +absence of intermediate forms (particularly suitable for preservation) +of the <i>Cetaceae</i>. The Zeuglodons from Eocene down to Pliocene, the +Dolphins in the Pliocene, and the <i>Ziphoids Catodontidae</i>, and +<i>Balaenidae</i> in the Pliocene, are all fully developed forms, with no +intermediate species.</p> + +<p>Mr. Mivart remarks, "There are abundant instances to prove that +considerable modifications may suddenly develop themselves, either due +to external conditions or to obscure internal causes in the organisms +which exhibit them.<a name="FNanchor_1_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_29"><sup>[29]</sup></a>" If it is not so, granted to the full the +imperfection of the Geologic record, but remembering the cases where we +<i>do</i> find intermediate forms; we ask why should they not be preserved in +other cases? If they ever existed we should surely see <i>more</i> changing +forms; not only such as are more or less uncertainly divided species, +but whole orders running one into another. No evidence exists to show +that any bird has gradually passed into an animal, nor a carnivorous +beast become ruminant, or <i>vice versâ.</i></p> + +<p>The analogy of changes that are known will not bear extension enough to +prove, even probably, any such change.</p> + +<p>Surely if our conclusion in favour of a Divine Design to be attained, +and a Providential Intelligence directing the laws of development, is no +more than a belief, it is a probable and reasonable belief: it certainly +meets facts and allows place for difficulties in a way far more +satisfactory than the opposite belief which rejects <i>all</i> but +"secondary" and purely "natural" causes.</p> + +<p>So clear does this seem to me, that I cannot help surmising that we +should never have heard of any objection to Divine creation and +providential direction, if it had not been for a prevalent fixed idea, +that by "creation" <i>must</i> be meant a final, one-act production <i>(per +saltum)</i> of a completely developed form, where previously there had been +nothing. Such a "creation" would of course militate against <i>any</i> +evolution, however cautiously stated or clearly established. And no +doubt such an idea of "creation" was and still is prevalent, and would +naturally and almost inevitably arise, while nothing to the contrary in +the <i>modus operandi</i> of Creative Power was known. What is more strange +is that the current objection should not now be, "Your <i>idea of +creation</i> is all wrong," rather than the one which has been strongly +put forward (and against which I am contending), "There is no place for +a Creator."</p> + +<p>(5) This is the only other <i>general</i> point that remains to be taken up +in connection with the theory that all living forms are due to the +gradual accumulation of small favourable changes without creative +intervention. The objection is that we cannot obtain the inconceivably +long time required for the process of uncontrolled and unaided +evolution.</p> + +<p>I am not here concerned to argue generally for the shortness or longness +of the periods of geological time; let us, for the purposes of argument, +admit a very wide margin of centuries and ages; but <i>some</i> limit there +must be. The sun's light and heat, for one thing, are necessary, and +though the bulk of combustible material in the sun is enormous, there +must be some end to it. Sir William Thomson has calculated (and his +calculations have never been answered) that on purely physical grounds, +the existence of life on the earth must be limited to some such period +as 100 millions of years; and this is far too short for uncontrolled +evolution.</p> + +<p>We know from fossils, that species have remained entirely unaltered +since the glacial epochs began, and how many generations are included +even in that! If no change is visible in all that time, how many more +ages must have elapsed before a primitive <i>Amoeba</i> could have developed +into a bird or a Mammal?</p> + +<p>In Florida Mr. Agassiz has shown that coral insects exist unchanged, +and must have been so for 30,000 years.</p> + +<p>When we remember also the enormous destruction of life that takes place, +supposing that in a given form a few creatures underwent accidental +changes which were beneficial and likely to aid them—still what chances +were there that the creatures which began to exhibit the right sort of +change should have died before they left offspring! the chances against +them are enormous: and the chances have to be repeated at every +successive change before the finally perfected or advanced creature took +its place in the polity of nature. Moreover, there is the chance of +small changes being lost by intercrossing: our own cattle-breeders have +most carefully to select the parents, or else the favourable variety +soon disappears.</p> + +<p>How then, seeing the power of stability which at least some forms are +found to exhibit—seeing too the enormous chances against the survival +of the particular specimens that begin to vary, and the further chances +of the loss of variety by intercrossing; how can we get the millions of +millions of years necessary to produce the present extreme divergence of +species? The fact is that the force of this objection is likely to be +undervalued, from the mere difficulty of bringing home to the mind the +immeasurable time really demanded by uncontrolled evolution.</p> + +<p>Nor is the question of time left absolutely to be matter of belief or +speculation. For here and there in the geological records of the rocks, +we <i>have</i> certain intermediate forms—or forms which we may fairly argue +to be such. But looking at the very considerable differences between the +earlier and the later of these forms—differences greater than those +which now separate well-defined species, it seems questionable whether +any of the divisions of Tertiary time, taking all the circumstances into +consideration, could be lengthened out sufficiently to accomplish the +change.</p> + +<p>At any rate, if any particular example be disallowed, the general +objection must be admitted to be weighty.</p> + +<p>Now the intervention of any system of created designs of animal +form—however little its details be understood—and the production of +variations under <i>divine guidance</i> which would lead more directly to the +accomplishment of such forms as the complicated flowers of orchids above +described, would unquestionably tend to shorten the requisite time. +There would, by a process of reasoning easily followed, be an immediate +reduction of the ages required, within practicable limits, though the +time must still remain long. More than that is not necessary. The +Ussherian chronology is not of Divine revelation, though some persons +speak of it as if it was. There is not the shadow of a reason to be +gleaned from the Bible, nor from any other source, that the commencement +of orderly development, the separation of land and water, earth and sky, +and the subsequent provision of designs for organic forms of life and +the first steps that followed the issue of the design, began six +thousand years ago, or anything like it. It can be shown, indeed, that +<i>historical</i> man, or the specific origin of the man spoken of as Adam, +dates back but a limited time; and it is calculable with some degree of +probability how far; but that is all. We are therefore in no difficulty +when ample time is demanded; but we are in the greatest straits when the +illimitable demands of a slowly and minutely stepping development, +perpetually liable to be checked, turned back, and even obliterated, +have to be confronted with other weighty probabilities and calculations +regarding the sun's light and heat, and the duration of particular +geologic eras.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_18">[18]</a><div class="note"> Second Edition, 1871.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_19">[19]</a><div class="note"> "He hath made everything <i>beautiful</i> in his time" (Eccles. +iii. II).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_20">[20]</a><div class="note"> "Also He hath set the world in their heart, so that <i>no man +can find out the work that God maketh</i> from the beginning to the end" +(Eccles. iii II).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_21">[21]</a><div class="note"> This species was instanced because the lectures which form +the basis of the book were originally delivered at Simla, in the N.W. +Himalaya, where, at certain seasons, the plant is a common wayside weed. +Mr. Darwin notices a similar and, if possible, more curious structure in +a species of <i>Catasetum</i>.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_22">[22]</a><div class="note"> See this fully explained by Mivart, "Genesis of Species," +pp. 29, 30 (2nd edition).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_23">[23]</a><div class="note"> See Mivart, p. 61.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_24">[24]</a><div class="note"> "Quarterly Review," 1861, p. 20.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_25">[25]</a><div class="note"> Pigeon fanciers know that when they have once obtained, by +crossbreeding and selection, a particular form or feather, the utmost +care is needed to preserve it. If the parents are not selected the +progeny wilt gradually revert towards the original wild pigeon type.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_26">[26]</a><div class="note"> It should be borne in mind that what we call a <i>species</i> as +distinct from a mere variety, is a more or less arbitrary or provisional +thing dependent on the state of science for the time. Species are +constantly being lumped together by some and separated by others. It +follows most probably, that while some species are really types—i.e., +one can never pass into the other and lose its essentials, unless it is +destined to disappear (like the pterodactyle), not being wanted in the +whole scheme—other species are really only varieties, and maybe lost or +modified without limit.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_27">[27]</a><div class="note"> We may well regard the mule as a peculiar form just such as +the evolutionist would rejoice to see: here is a modified species, which +has qualities different from those of either of the parent stock, and +well fitted "to struggle for existence." Yet this modified race would, +if left to itself, die out.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_28">[28]</a><div class="note"> The series is thus (Nicholson, p. 702):—1. +<i>Eohippus</i>—Lower Eocene of America; fore-feet have four toes and a +rudimentary thumb or pollex. 2. <i>Orohippus</i> (about the size of a +fox)—Eocene. 3. <i>Anchitherium</i>—Eocene and Lower Miocene; three toes, +but 2 and 4 are diminutive. 4. <i>Hipparion</i>—Upper Miocene and Pliocene; +still three toes, but 3 more like the modern horse and 2 and 4 still +further diminished. 5. <i>Pliohippus</i>—later Pliocene, very like Equus. 6. +<i>Equus</i>—Post-Pliocene.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_29">[29]</a><div class="note"> <a href="#FAnchorP112">P. 112 </a> </div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_VII"></a><h2>CHAPTER VII.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>THE DESCENT OF MAN</i>.</p> + +<p>We now approach a special objection which always, has been (and I shall +be pardoned, perhaps, for saying <i>always will be</i>) the <i>crux</i> of the +theory of unaided, uncreated evolution—the advent of reasoning, and not +only reasoning, but self-conscious and God-conscious MAN.</p> + +<p>Here again the lines of argument are so numerous, and the details into +which we might go so varied, that a rigid and perhaps bald selection of +a few topics is all that can be attempted.</p> + +<p>But I may remark that naturalists are far from being agreed on this part +of the subject. Agassiz rejects the evolution of man altogether. Mr. St. +G. Mivart, while partly admitting, as every one else now does, the +doctrine of evolution, denies the descent of man. Mr. Wallace, the great +apostle of evolution, opposes Darwin, and will have none of his views on +the descent of man; and Professor Huxley himself says that, while the +resemblance of structure is such that if any "process of physical +causation can be discovered by which the genera and families of ordinary +animals have been produced, the process of causation is amply sufficient +to account for the origin of man," still he admits that the gulf is vast +between civilized man and brutes, and he is certain that "whether <i>from</i> +them or not, man is assuredly not <i>of</i> them."</p> + +<p>The first difficulty I shall mention is, however, a structural one. +Supposing that an ape-like ancestor developed into man, on the +principles of natural selection; then his development has taken place in +a manner directly contrary to the acknowledged law of natural selection. +He has developed backwards; his frame is in every way weaker; he is +wanting in agility; he has lost the prehensile feet; he has lost teeth +fitted for fighting or crushing or tearing; he has but little sense of +smell; he has lost the hairy covering, and is obliged to help himself by +clothes.<a name="FNanchor_1_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_30"><sup>[30]</sup></a> If this loss was ornamental it is quite unlike any other +development in this respect, since no other creature has the same; for +ornamental purposes the fur becomes coloured, spotted, and striped, but +not lost. It is easy to reply that man being <i>intelligent</i>, his brain +power enables him to invent clothes, arms, implements, and so forth, +which not only supply all deficiencies of structure, but give him a +great superiority over all creatures. But how did he get that +intelligence? By what natural process of causation (without intelligent +direction) is it conceivable that, given a species of monkey, all at +once and at a certain stage, structural development should have been +retarded and actually reversed, and a development of brain structure +alone set in? Nor, be it observed, has any trace of <i>man</i> with a +rudimentary brain ever been discovered. Savages have brains far in +excess of their requirements, and can consequently be educated and +improved. The skull of a prehistoric man found in the Neanderthal near +Dusseldorf is of average brain capacity, showing that in those remote +ages man was very much in capacity what he is at present.</p> + +<p>It must, however, be admitted that the special difficulties of the +origin of man are not purely structural. We do not know enough of the +Divine plan to be able to understand why it is that there is a certain +undeniable unity of form, in the two eyes, ears, mouth, limbs and organs +generally of the animal and man. Moreover, much is made of the fact, as +stated by a recent "Edinburgh Reviewer," that "the physical difference +between man and the lowest ape is trifling compared with that which +exists between the lowest ape and any brute animal that is not an +ape.<a name="FNanchor_1_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_31"><sup>[31]</sup></a>" This fact no doubt negatives the idea put forward by Bishop +Temple and others, that if there was an evolution of man, it must have +been in a special branch which was foreseen and commenced very far back +in the scale of organic being. For the structural difference might not +require such a separate origin; while the mental difference, affording +objections of a different class, will not allow of <i>any</i> such evolution +at all. That there is <i>some</i> connection between man and the animal +cannot be denied, and consequently, in the absence of fuller +information, very little would be gained by insisting on the purely +<i>physical</i> development question. The Bible states positively that the +man Adam (as the progenitor of a particular race, at any rate) was a +separate and actual production, on a given part of the earth's surface. +All that we need conclude regarding that is that there is nothing known +which entitles us to say, "This is not a fact, and therefore is not +genuine revelation."</p> + +<p>Moreover, as to the question of the possibility of human development +generally, there are certain considerations which directly support our +belief. For example, directly we look to the characteristic point, the +gift of intellect, we can reasonably argue that the action of a Creator +is indispensable. The entrance of consciousness and of reason, however +elementary, marks something out of all analogy with the development of +physical structure, just as much as the entrance of Life marked a new +departure in no analogy with the "properties" of inorganic matter.</p> + +<p>From the first dawn of what looks like <i>will</i> and <i>choice</i> between two +things, and something like a <i>reason</i> which directs the course of the +organism in a particular way for a particular object, we have an +altogether new departure. The difficulty commences at the outset, and +even in the animal creation; it is merely continued and rendered more +striking when we take into consideration the higher development of +intellect into power of abstract reasoning, self-consciousness and +God-consciousness.</p> + +<p>It is perfectly true that the difference between the "instinct" of +animals and the reason and mind of man, is one of degree rather than +kind. As Christians, we have no objection whatever to a development of +reason from the lowest reason solely concerned with earthly and bodily +affairs to the highest powers searching into deep and spiritual truths. +But such a development, though it is parallel to a physical +development—as spiritual law appears to be always parallel (as far as +the nature of things permits) to physical laws—still is a development +which cannot under any possible circumstances dispense with an external +spiritual order of existence, and one which cannot be physically caused. +Nor is it conceivable that man should develop a consciousness of God, +when no God really exists externally to the consciousness.<a name="FNanchor_1_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_32"><sup>[32]</sup></a></p> + +<p>The main objection, then, that I would press is, that admitting any +possibility of the development of man from a purely physical and +structural point of view, admitting any inference that may be drawn +fairly from the undoubted connection (increasingly great as it is as we +go upwards from the lower animal to the ape) between animals and man, +that inference never can touch the descent of man as a whole; because no +similarity of bodily structure can get over the difficulty of the mental +power of man. We have to deal not with a part of man, but with the +whole. The difficulty cannot be got over by denying <i>mind</i> as a thing +<i>per se</i>; for all attempts to represent mind as the <i>mere</i> product of a +physical structure, the brain, utterly fail.</p> + +<p>Nobody wishes to deny what Dr. H. Maudsley and others have made so plain +to us, that mind has (in one aspect, at any rate) a physical basis—that +is, that no thought, imagination, or combination of thought, is known to +us <i>apart from</i> change and expenditure of energy in the brain. Nor can +we, by any process of introspection or observation of other subjects, +separate the mind from the brain and ascertain the existence of "pure +mind," or soul, experimentally. But still, there is no possibility of +getting the operations of mind out of mere cell structure, unless an +external Power has added the mind power, as a faculty of His endowing; +then He may be allowed to have connected that faculty ever so +mysteriously with physical structure; we are content. And I must insist +on the total failure of all analogy between the development of bones or +muscles and the development of mind; and even if we grant a certain +stage of instinct to have arisen, we are still in the dark as to how +that could develop into intellect such as man possesses, including a +belief in God. On this subject let us hear Professor Allman. Between a +development of material structure and a development of intellectual and +moral features, the Professor says, "there is no conceivable analogy; +and the obvious and continuous path, which we have hitherto followed up, +in our reasonings from the phenomena of lifeless matter to those of +living form, here comes suddenly to an end. The chasm between +<i>unconscious</i> life and <i>thought</i> is deep and impassable, and no +transitional phenomena are to be found by which, as by a bridge, we can +span it over.<a name="FNanchor_1_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_33"><sup>[33]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>There can be <i>life</i> or <i>function</i> without <i>consciousness</i> or <i>thought;</i> +therefore, even if we go so far as to admit that life is only a property +of protoplasm, there can be no ground for saying that <i>thought</i> is only +a property of protoplasm.</p> + +<p>"If," says Professor Allman, "we were to admit that every living cell +were a conscious and thinking thing, are we therefore justified in +asserting that its consciousness with its irritability is a property of +the matter of which it is composed? The sole argument on which this view +is made to rest is analogy. It is argued that because the life +phenomena, which are invariably found in the cell, must be regarded as a +property of the cell, the phenomena of consciousness by which they are +accompanied must also be so regarded. The weak point in the argument is +the absence of all analogy between the things compared: and as the +conclusion rests solely on the argument from analogy, the two must fall +to the ground together."</p> + +<p>Try and assign to matter all the properties you can think of, its +impenetrability, extension, weight, inertia, elasticity, and so forth, +by no process of thought (as Mr. Justice Fry observes in an article in +"The Contemporary Review <a name="FNanchor_1_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_34"><sup>[34]</sup></a>") can you get out of them an adequate +account of the phenomena of mind or spirit. We just now observed that +consciousness, thought, and so forth, are never exhibited apart from the +action of the brain; some change in the brain accompanies them all. We +do not deny that. But it is obvious that thought being manifested in the +presence of cerebral matter or something like it, is a very different +thing from thought being a <i>property</i> of such matter, in the sense in +which polarity is the property of a magnet, or irritability of living +protoplasm.</p> + +<p>To all this I have seen no answer. The way in which the opponents of +Christian beliefs meet such considerations appears to be to ignore or +minimize them, so as to pass over to what seems to them a satisfactory +if not an easy series of transitions. If Life is after all only a +"property" of matter, then given life, a brain may be produced; and as +mind is always manifested in the presence of (and apparently +indissolubly united with) brain structure, it is not a much greater leap +to accept <i>life</i> as a property of <i>matter</i> than it is to take <i>thought</i> +as a property of a certain <i>specialized physical structure</i>. It is true +that the distance is great between the instinct of an animal and the +abstract reasoning power of a Newton or a Herbert Spencer; but (as we +are so often told) the difference is of degree not of kind, and as the +brain structure develops, so does the power and degree of reason. As to +the difference in man, that he is the only "religious" animal—the one +creature that has the idea of God—that is a mere development of the +emotions in connection with abstract reasoning as to the cause of +things. No part of our mental nature is more common to the animal and +the man than the emotional; and if in the one it is mere love and +hatred, joy and grief, confidence and fear, in the other the emotions +are developed into the poetic sense of beauty, or the awe felt for what +is grand and noble; and this insensibly passes into <i>worship</i>, the root +of the whole being fear of the unknown and the mysterious. That is the +general line of argument taken up.</p> + +<p>Even accepting the solution (if such it maybe called) of the two first +difficulties—life added spontaneously or aboriginally to matter, and +thought and consciousness added to organism—still the rest of the path +is by no means so easy as might at the first glance appear. Development +in brain structure certainly does not always proceed <i>pari passu</i> with a +higher and more complex reasoning. In actual fact we find high +"reasoning" power, quite unexpectedly here and there, up and down the +animal kingdom. Some <i>insects</i>, with very little that can be called a +brain at all, exhibit high intelligence; and some animals with smaller +brains are more docile and intelligent than others with a much larger +development. The ape, in spite of his close physical approach to the +structure of man, and his still greater relative distance from the other +animal creation, is not superior (if he is not decidedly inferior) in +reason or intelligence to several animals lower down in the scale.</p> + +<p>Savages, again, have a brain greatly in excess of their actual +requirements (so to speak). Hence the mere existence of brain, however +complex, does not indicate the possession of mental power.</p> + +<p>There is reason to believe that all thought and exercise of the mind—in +fact, every step in the process of "Education," whereby an ignorant +person is brought at last to apprehend the most abstract +propositions—is accompanied by some molecular (or other) change. So +that a person who has been carefully educated has the brain in a +different state from that of an exactly similarly constituted person +whose brain has been subjected to no such exercise. But even if this +action could be formulated and explained, it would not follow that +thought is the <i>product</i> of the molecular change; or that, <i>vice versâ</i>, +if we could artificially produce certain changes, in the brain, certain +thoughts and perceptions would thereon coexist with the changes, and +arise in the mind of the subject forthwith. And if not, then no process +of physical development accounts for grades of intellect; we have only +mind developing as mind. But the theory of evolution will have nothing +to do with any development but physical; or at any rate with mental +development except as the result of physical: it knows nothing of pure +mind, or spiritual existence, or anything of the sort.</p> + +<p>In the nature of things we can have neither observation nor experiment +in this stage. We cannot by any process develop the lower mind of an +animal into the higher mind of man, and prove the steps of the +evolution.<a name="FNanchor_1_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_35"><sup>[35]</sup></a> It is important to remember that the power of <i>directing +the attention by a voluntary process of abstraction</i>, is one that +distinctively belongs to man. It is an effort of will, of a kind that no +animal has any capacity for. By it alone have we any power of abstract +reasoning, and it is intimately concerned with our self-consciousness +and memory, and with our language. I am quite aware that animals possess +something analogous to a language of their own; they can indicate +certain emotions and give warning, and so forth, to their fellows. But +that language could never develop into human language, or the animal +will (such as it is) ever rise to a human will, or animals become +endowed with self-consciousness, unless they could acquire the power of +voluntarily abstracting the mind from one subject or part of a subject +and fixing the attention on another. We cannot formulate any process of +change whereby the lower state could pass on to or attain to the higher +in this respect.</p> + +<p>Therefore again we conclude that the higher reason is a gift <i>ab +externo</i>.</p> + +<p>If we take a step further to the "spiritual" or "moral" faculties of +man, we have the same difficulty intensified, if indeed it does take a +new departure. To examine the question adequately would require us to go +into the deep waters of psychology; and here we should encounter many +matters regarding which there may be legitimate doubt and difference of +opinion, which would obscure and lead us away from our main line of +thought.</p> + +<p>This I would willingly avoid. But it is quite intelligible, and touches +on no dangerous ground, when we assert that there is a distinct +ascent—an interval again raising developmental difficulties, directly +we pass from the intellectual to the moral. We may wonder at the high +degree of intelligence possessed by some animals; but we are unable to +conceive any animal possessing a power of abstract reasoning, having +ideas of beauty (as such), or of manifesting what we call the poetic +feeling. And still more is this so when we look at the further interval +that lies between any perception of physical phenomena, any reasoning in +the abstract, or investigation of mathematical truth, and the +overmastering sense of obligation to the "moral law," or the action of +the soul in its instinctive possession of the conception of a Divine +Existence external to itself. It is because of this felt difference that +we talk of the "spiritual" as something beyond and above the "mental."</p> + +<p>The distinction is real, though we must not allow ourselves to be led +too far in attempting to scan the close union that, from another point +of view, exists between the one and the other.</p> + +<p>In a recent number of "The Edinburgh Review,<a name="FNanchor_1_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_36"><sup>[36]</sup></a>" the author complains of +Bishop Temple thus: "He uses the word spiritual in such a way that he +might be taken to imply that we had some other faculty for the +perception of moral truths, in addition to, and distinct from, our +reason." And the writer goes on to make an "uncompromising assertion of +reason as the one supreme faculty of man. To depreciate reason (he says) +to the profit of some supposed 'moral' illative sense, would be to open +the door to the most desolating of all scepticisms, and to subordinate +the basis of our highest intellectual power to some mere figment of the +imagination."</p> + +<p>On the other hand, some writers (claiming to derive their argument from +the Scriptures) have supposed they could assert three distinct natures +in man—a spiritual, a mental (or psychic), and a bodily. Now there is +no doubt that, rightly or wrongly (I am not now concerned with that), +the Bible does distinctly assert that a "breath of lives" <a name="FNanchor_1_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_37"><sup>[37]</sup></a> was +specially put into the bodily form of man, and adds that thereby "man +became a living soul." But it is also stated of the animal creation that +the breath of life was given to them,<a name="FNanchor_2_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_38"><sup>[38]</sup></a> and animals are said to have a +"soul" (nephesh).<a name="FNanchor_3_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_39"><sup>[39]</sup></a> So that neither in the one case nor the other have +we more than the two elements: a body, and a life put into it; though of +course the man's "life" (as the plural indicates, and other texts +explain) was higher in kind than that of the animal.</p> + +<p>St. Paul, it is true, speaks of the "whole spirit, and soul, and +body.<a name="FNanchor_1_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_40"><sup>[40]</sup></a>" But our Lord Himself, in a very solemn passage (where it would +be most natural to expect the distinction, if it were absolute and +structural, to be noticed), speaks of the "soul and body" only.<a name="FNanchor_2_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_41"><sup>[41]</sup></a></p> + +<p>The fact is that we are only able to argue conclusively that, besides +the physical form, we have a non-material soul, or a self. And our Lord, +whose teaching was always eminently practical, went no further. We are +conscious of a "self"—something that remains, while the body +continually grows and changes.</p> + +<p>There was in <i>Punch</i>, some time ago, a picture of an old grandfather, +with a little child looking at a marble bust representing a child. "Who +is that?" asks the little one; and the old man replies, "That is +grandfather when he was a little boy." "And who is it now?" rejoins the +child. One smiles at the picture, but in reality it conceals a very +important and a very pathetic truth. Nothing could well be greater than +the outward difference between the grey hairs and bowed figure and the +little cherub face; and yet there was a "self"—a soul, that remained +the same throughout. In Platonic language, while the <font face="symbol">eidvlon</font> +perpetually changes, the <font face="symbol">eidoV</font> remains. We have, therefore, +evidence as positive as the nature of the subject admits that we are +right in speaking of the <i>body and the soul, or self</i>. And as we cannot +connect the higher reasoning, and, above all, conscience and the +religious belief, as a "property" of physical structure, we conclude +that the Scripture only asserts facts when it attributes both to the +soul, as a spiritual element or nature belonging to the body. Man is +essentially one;<a name="FNanchor_3_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_42"><sup>[42]</sup></a> but there is both a material and a non-material, a +physical and a spiritual element, in the one nature. But, being a +spiritual element, that part of our nature necessarily has two sides (so +to speak). It has its point of contact with self and the world of sense, +and its point of contact with the world of spirit and with the Great +Spirit of all, from whom it came. <i>Because</i> of that higher "breath of +lives" given by the Most High, man possesses the faculty of +<i>consciousness of God</i> (i.e., the higher spiritual faculties), besides +the consciousness of self, or merely intellectual power regarding self +and the external world. Therefore, when an Apostle desires to speak very +forcibly of something that is to affect a man through and through, in +every part and in every aspect of his nature, he speaks of the "whole +spirit, soul, and body." To sum up: all that we know from the Bible is +that God gave a "soul" (nephesh) to the animals, in consequence of which +(when united to the physical structure) the functions of life and the +phenomena of intelligence are manifested. So God gave a non-material, +and therefore "spiritual," element to human nature; and this being of a +higher grade and capacity to that of the animal world, not only in its +union with physical structure, makes the man a "living soul"—gives him +an intelligence and a certain reason such as the animals have, but also +gives him, as a special and unique endowment; the consciousness of self +(involving—which is very noteworthy—a consciousness of its own +limitations) and the consciousness of God. Hence man's power of +improvement. If the man cultivates only the self-consciousness and the +reason that is with it, the Scriptures speak of him as the "natural or +psychic man;" if he is enabled by Divine grace to develop the higher +moral and spiritual part of his nature, and to walk after the Spirit, +not after the flesh, he is a "spiritual man."</p> + +<p>It is idle to speculate whether the "nephesh" of the animals, or the +"living self" of the man, is an entity separate from the body, and +capable of existing <i>per se</i>—of its own inherent nature—apart from +it. We do not know that animal forms are the clothing of a lower-graded +but separate spiritual form, or that such an animal soul or spirit can +exist separately from the body; and we do not <i>know</i> (from the +Bible)—whatever may be the current language on the subject—that man's +spirit is in its nature capable of anything like permanent separate +existence.<a name="FNanchor_1_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_43"><sup>[43]</sup></a> Man is essentially one; and when the physical change +called death passes over him, it does not utterly obliterate the whole +being. The non-material element is not affected any more than it is by +the sleep of every night; and the man will be ultimately raised, not a +spiritual or immaterial form, but provided, as before, with a body, only +one of a higher capacity and better adapted to its higher +environments—the "spiritual body" of St. Paul, in a word. The original +union of mind and matter is, on any possible theory, mysterious; and the +separation of them for a time is neither less so, nor more. All this is +perfectly true, whether the non-material element in man's nature is +<i>necessarily</i>, inherently and <i>by nature</i>, immortal or not—a question +which I do not desire to enter on.</p> + +<p>Hence it is that a certain element of truth is recognized in the protest +of the Edinburgh Reviewer. On the other hand, as we have not only +intelligence, emotions (which are possessed in lower degree by animals), +self-consciousness, the power of abstract reasoning, and the higher +faculties of the imagination,<a name="FNanchor_2_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_44"><sup>[44]</sup></a> but also the consciousness of God and +the commanding sense of right and wrong; and seeing that the last-named +are different in kind from the former, we give them a separate name, and +speak of the moral or spiritual nature or capacity of man, as well as +the intellectual or mental. Some (by the way) choose "moral" to include +both, holding that ethical perceptions arise out of (or are intimately +connected with) our sense of God. Others would make a further +distinction, and confine "moral" to the (supposed) bare ethical +perception of duty or of right and wrong, and add "spiritual" to +distinguish the highest faculty of all, whereby man holds communion with +his Maker and recognizes his relation to Him.</p> + +<p>Whether this further distinction is justified or not, there is a +distinction between the moral and the purely intellectual; and we are +justified in using different terms for things that are <i>practically</i> +different. This the Edinburgh Reviewer seems to have forgotten.</p> + +<p>It was necessary to my argument to enter on this somewhat lengthy +examination of the spiritual nature of man, because, while we +acknowledge the unity of man, we are compelled to recognize in his +religious sense and aspirations and capacities something quite +disparate—something that we could not get by a natural process of +growth from such beginnings of reason as are observed in the lower +animals.</p> + +<p>I am aware that Dr. Darwin conceived that the religious feeling of man +might have grown out of the natural emotions of fear,<a name="FNanchor_1_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_45"><sup>[45]</sup></a> love, +gratitude, &c., when once men began to question as to the explanation of +the phenomena of life, and to ascribe the forces of nature to the +possession of a spirit such as he himself was conscious of: and with +much more positive intent, Mr. H. Spencer has also, after most +painstaking inquiries, formulated what he conceives to be the origin of +religious belief in man. He refers us to the early belief in a "double" +of self, which double could be projected out of self, and remained in +some way after death, so as to become the object of fear, and ultimately +of worship. When this ancestor-worship resulted in the worship of a +multitude of "genii" (whose individuality, as regards their former +earthly connection, is more or less forgotten), then the idea of +attaching the numerous divinities or ancestor-souls to the ocean, the +sky, the sun, the mountains, and the powers of nature, arises; whence +the poetic systems of ancient polytheistic mythology. Gradually men +began to reason and to think, and they refined the polytheism into the +"higher" idea of one great, central, immaterial all-pervading power, +which they called God.</p> +<br> + +<p>Mr. Spencer, in effect, concludes that this "God" is only man's own +idea of filling up a blank, of explaining the fact that there must be an +ultimate first cause of whatever exists, and there is also a great +source of power of some kind external to ourselves.<a name="FNanchor_1_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_46"><sup>[46]</sup></a></p> + +<p>I am not going here to enter on any special argument as to the validity +of these theories in their relation to the direct question of the nature +and existence of God. What we are here concerned with is, whether they +enable us to exclude the idea of a gift and a giver of spiritual or +mental (we will not quarrel about terms) nature to man, and whether, by +any fair reasoning from analogy, we can suppose man's reason and his +"<i>sensus numinis</i>" to arise by the mere stages of natural growth and +development. Dr. Darwin's supposition takes no notice of the moral law +and its influence; indeed he adopts<a name="FNanchor_2_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_47"><sup>[47]</sup></a> the view that conscience is no +sense of right and wrong, but only the stored up and inherited social +instinct, a sense of convenience and inconvenience to the tribe and to +the individual, which at last acts so spontaneously and rapidly in +giving its verdict on anything, that we regard it as a special sense. It +would of course be possible to expend much time and many words in +argument on this subject. There is not, and never will be, any direct +evidence as to the origin of conscience; and as that sense (like any +other power of our mental nature) is capable of being educated, evoked, +enlightened, and strengthened, and may also by neglect and contradiction +deteriorate and wither away, there is ample room for allowing a certain +part of the theory.<a name="FNanchor_3_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_48"><sup>[48]</sup></a> But many people who examine their own conscience +will feel that the description certainly does not suit them; there are +many things which conscience disapproves, of which no great evil +consequences to themselves or any one else are felt. Conscience is +constantly condemning "the way that seemeth good unto a man." +<i>Ultimately</i> no doubt, there is real evil at the end of everything that +conscience warns a man against; but not such as "inherited experience" +is likely to recognize. Is it, for instance, the experience of the mass +of men, as men, that the "fleshly mind is death, but the spiritual mind +is life and peace"? Is not rather the world at large habitually putting +money-making, position-making, and the care of the things of the body, +of time, and of sense, in the first place; and is not the moral law +perpetually warning us that the fashion of the world passes away, and +that what seems gold is in reality tinsel? As far as the condemnation +that conscience passes on the broad evils which affect society—"thou +shalt not steal," "thou shalt not lie," or so forth—no doubt it is +supported by the transmitted sense of inconvenience; but who has told it +of the evil of things that do not affect our social state? and who has +changed the inconvenient, the painful, into the <i>wrong</i>? It is one thing +to instinctively avoid a theft or a falsehood, even if the first origin +of such instinct were the fear of consequences or the love of +approbation; it is quite another—the inward condemnation of something +which "the deceitfulness of sin" is able to excuse, and which the world +at large would regard as permissible or at least venial. Even if +inherited use has its full play, there is still a something wanted +before the one can be got into (or out of) the other. Why, again, are +savages prone to imagine natural phenomena to be caused or actuated by +"spirits"? Surely it is because there <i>is</i> consciously a spirit in man, +and a Higher Power, even God, outside, who exists, though man in his +ignorance has many false ideas regarding Him.</p> + + +<p>It is an objection of the same order that applies to the other theory +(Mr. Spencer's). There can be little doubt that in many respects it is +true: as an account of all <i>human</i> systems of religion it is adequate +and natural; but it breaks down hopelessly when we try to use it to +explain how the conception of God originated in the mind. Just as there +is a felt difference—not of degree or in form, but essential and +radical in its nature—between the <i>undesirable</i> and the <i>wrong</i>, so +there is a difference between the idea of a mysterious thing towards +which apprehension or awe is felt, and the conception of God. Granted +that man believed in his own spirit or double, and attributed similar +immaterial motor powers as a cause for the wind and waves, and so forth; +granted that he at last "refined" this into the belief in one Spirit +whose power was necessarily great and varied—the origin is still +unexplained. How did man get the idea of a personal spirit or double—no +such thing, <i>ex hypothesi</i> existing? How did he get to formulate the +idea of a <i>God</i> when he had simplified his group of many spirits into +one?</p> + +<p>If man is created with a consciousness of his own inner-self, <i>as a +self</i>, he is able naturally to imagine a like self in other beings; if +he has an idea of God innate in him, he can assimilate the truth when it +is at last presented to his mind; and that is why he feels that it <i>is</i> +a refinement; a rising from the lower to the higher (because from +falsehood to truth), to let the many gods give place to the One God. If +the idea of God has been obscured, and the power of its apprehension +deadened, the man can only grope about helplessly, fashioning this +explanation of nature and that—all more or less false, but all dimly +bearing witness to the two absolute facts, that there is an inner +non-material self, and an external non-material God.</p> + +<p>If then there are insuperable difficulties in connecting thought with +matter by any process of unaided development, there are also great +difficulties, even when thought in a rudimentary form is given, in +conceiving it developed into man's reason, or man's religious belief, by +any known process of "natural" causation.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_30">[30]</a><div class="note"> It is remarkable that the loss of the hairy covering is +most complete when it is most wanted: the back, the spine, and the +shoulders are in nearly all races unprotected; and yet the want of a +covering from the heat or cold is such that the rudest savages have +invented some kind of cloak for the back.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_31">[31]</a><div class="note"> No. 331, July, 1885, p. 223.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_32">[32]</a><div class="note"> For our consciousness of God is obviously very different +from a figment of the imagination, or the sort of reality experienced in +a dream. This is not the place to develop such an argument, but it seems +to me more than doubtful whether we can even <i>imagine</i> something +<i>absolutely</i> non-existent in nature. When the artist's imagination would +construct, e.g., a winged dragon, the concept is always made up of +<i>parts which are real</i>—eyes like an alligator, bat-wings, scales of a +fish or crocodile, and so forth. All the members or parts are real, put +together to form the unreal. I do not believe that any instance of a +human conception can be brought forward which on analysis will not +conform to this rule.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_33">[33]</a><div class="note"> British Association Address.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_34">[34]</a><div class="note"> October, 1880, p. 587.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_35">[35]</a><div class="note"> We can of course follow the sort of mental development +which is traceable when we consider the origin of our own sagacious and +faithful dogs in the wild prairie dog: but this development is always in +contact with the mind of man, and is, as it were, the result of man's +action, as man's development in mind and soul is the result of God's +action.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_36">[36]</a><div class="note"> July, 1885, p. 211, in the course of the article to which I +have already alluded.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_37">[37]</a><div class="note"> The plural of excellence appears to mark something superior +in the spirit of man over that of the animals. Also compare Job xxxiii. +4, "The breath of the Almighty hath given me life," with Isa. xlii. 5 +and Zech. xii. 1.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_38">[38]</a><div class="note"> Though not in the plural of excellence. See Gen. vi 17, +vii. 22, &c.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_3_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_39">[39]</a><div class="note"> Gen. i. 20, margin of A.V.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_40">[40]</a><div class="note"> 1 Thess. v. 23.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_41">[41]</a><div class="note"> Matt. x. 28.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_3_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_42">[42]</a><div class="note"> The well-known argument of St. Paul regarding the +resurrection in 1 Cor. xv. (ver. 45, &c.) is well worthy of +consideration in this connection. He deals with man as <i>one whole</i>; +nothing is said about a man being (or having) a spirit separate from his +soul and his body, and that spirit being given a higher body than it had +upon earth; but of the whole man, soul <i>and</i> body, being raised and +changed into a man, also one whole, with a more perfect body—a body +more highly developed in the ascending scale of perfection. I do not +forget the passage where the same Apostle (2 Cor. v. 6) speaks of being +in the body, and absent from the Lord; and of being "clothed upon;" but +this does not in any way detract from the importance of the treatment of +the subject in the First Epistle.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_43">[43]</a><div class="note"> This remark does not, of course, in any way touch the +question whether the spiritual part of a man is conscious in the +interval between death and resurrection, or whether it can be made +sensible in any way whatever to living persons.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_44">[44]</a><div class="note"> The poetic sense, the perception of the beautiful, &c.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_45">[45]</a><div class="note"> See the "Descent of Man," vol. i. p. 68 (original edition). +But it is right to state that the subject is not treated in any way +whatever so as to argue that the religious belief is a fancy, or +development of fancy, with no God and no facts about God behind it.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_46">[46]</a><div class="note"> It is not necessary to my immediate argument, and therefore +I do not press it into the text (though I should be sorry to seem to +forget it for a moment), to urge that St. Paul draws a clear distinction +between the intellectual faculties and the higher spiritual ones, when +he assures us that the clearest intellect alone cannot assimilate the +truths of religion. For the spiritual faculties have been in man +grievously deadened and distorted (to say the least of it), so that his +intellectual faculties, bright and highly developed as they may be, will +always prove insufficient for the highest life in the absence of the +"grace of God." It is exactly analogous to the case of a man whom we +might suppose to have his sense of sight, touch, &c., distorted, and he +himself unable to correct them by aid of the senses of others. However +acutely he might exercise his reason, he would be continually wrong in +his conclusions. See 1 Cor. ii., the whole, but specially vers. 14, 15.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_47">[47]</a><div class="note"> "Descent of Man," vol. i. p, 70.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_3_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_48">[48]</a><div class="note"> The attempt (already alluded to) to separate moral and +spiritual, to imagine something that is ethical, apart from the +religious idea, has lent some strength to these ideas of the moral +sense; but in fact, the moral sense is <i>inseparably</i> connected with the +idea of God, and His approval and disapproval. The idea of God may be +obscured and lost, but conscience is the surviving trace of it; the +circumference that accounts for the broken arc.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_VIII"></a><h2>CHAPTER VIII.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>FURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF MAN</i>.</p> + +<p>There are, however, some other matters connected with the history of man +on the globe, unconnected with psychological development, but which +demand notice, as making the argument against an undesigned, unaided +development of man a cumulative one. It is urged that whatever may be +thought of the connection of man with the animal creation, at any rate +the received Christian belief regarding the origin of man—especially +his late appearance on the scene—is contrary to known facts, and that +we have to mount up to a vast geologic antiquity to account for what is +known from exhumed remains in caves and lake dwellings, and the like.</p> + +<p>Now no one pretends that the history of man is free from doubt and +difficulty, but the doubt and difficulty are not confined to the +"orthodox." For the inferences to be drawn from the exhumed remains are +equally doubtful whatever views be adopted.</p> + +<p>I shall not go into great length on this subject, partly because some +recent popular tracts of Canon Rawlinson, Mr. R.S. Pattison, and others, +have already made the ordinary reader familiar with the main outlines of +the subject; and still more because, be the views of archaeologists what +they may, it is impossible for any rational person to contend either +that they can be reduced to anything like unity among themselves, or +that they lead to any conclusion favourable to the belief in the +self-caused and undesigned evolution of man.</p> + +<p>It may be regarded as known, that at the dawn of history, mankind was +passing through what may be called a Bronze age, in which weapons of +bronze were used before tools of iron were invented. But this age was +preceded by one in which even bronze was unknown. Stone implements, and +some of bone and horn, were alone used. It is also well ascertained that +there were two <i>widely divided</i> stone ages. The latter, distinguished by +the polishing of the stones, is described as the <i>neolithic</i>; the +former, in which flint and other hard stone fragments were merely +chipped or flaked to an edge, is called the <i>palaeolithic</i>.</p> + +<p>It is hardly contended that the neolithic age could have been more than +four or five thousand years ago. There is always the greatest difficulty +in fixing any dates because from the nature of the case written records +are absent, and the stages of growth in the history of peoples overlap +so.</p> + +<p>We know that sharp flakes of stone were still used for knives in the +time of Moses and Joshua. We are not out of the stone age yet, as +regards some portions of the globe; and it is quite possible that parts +of the earth, not so very remote, may have been still in the midst of a +stone age when Assyria, Chaldaea, and Egypt were comparatively highly +civilized.</p> + +<p>It is also fairly certain that between the neolithic or smooth-stone +age, and the palaeolithic, certain important geological changes took +place, though those changes were not such as to have demanded any very +great length of time for their accomplishment.</p> + +<p>The palaeolithic stone implements are found in river gravels and clays, +along the higher levels of our own Thames Valley, that of the Somme in +France, and in other places. They are also found at the bottom of +various natural caverns.</p> + +<p>No human bones have been found as yet with the implements, but the bones +of large numbers of animals have. And it seems certain that the men who +made the implements were contemporaries of the animals, because in the +later part of the age, at any rate, they drew or scratched likenesses of +the animals on bone. Among these representations are figures of the +<i>mammoth</i> an extinct form well known to the reader by description and +museum specimens of remains.</p> + +<p>The animals contemporary with these primeval men were the mammoth, +species of rhinoceros and hippopotamus, the "sabre-toothed" lion, the +cave-bear, the reindeer, besides oxen, horses, and other still surviving +forms.</p> + +<p>In his address to the British Association in 1881 Sir John Lubbock +called attention to the fact that these animals appear to indicate both +a hot and a cold climate, and he referred to the fact (known to +astronomers) that the earth passes through periods of slow change in the +eccentricity of its orbit, and in the obliquity of the ecliptic. The +result of the latter condition is, to produce periods of about 21,000 +years each, during one-half of which the Northern hemisphere will be +hotter, and in the other the Southern. At present we are in the former +phase.</p> + +<p>But the obliquity of the ecliptic does not act alone; the eccentricity +of the orbit produces another effect, namely, that when it is at a +minimum the difference between the temperatures of the two hemispheres +is small, and as the eccentricity increases, so does the difference. At +the present time the eccentricity is represented by the fraction .016. +But about 300,000 years ago the eccentricity would have been as great as +.26 to .57. The result, it is explained, would have been not a uniform +heat or cold, but extremes of both; there would probably have been short +but very hot summers, and long and intensely cold winters.</p> + +<p>This, Sir John Lubbock thought, might account for the co-existence of +both hot and arctic species, like the hippopotamus and rhinoceros on the +one hand, and the musk-ox and the reindeer on the other.</p> + +<p>But such considerations really help us little. In the first place, it is +only an assumption that the fossil hippopotamus <i>was</i> an animal of a hot +climate—it does not in any way follow from the fact that the now +existing species is such; nor if we make the assumption, does it explain +how, if the hot summer sufficed for the tropical hippopotamus, it +managed to survive the long and cold winters which suited the arctic +species.</p> +<a name="FAnchorP112"></a> +<p>Moreover, no such calculations can really be made with accuracy: we do +not know what other astronomical facts may have to be taken into +consideration, nor can we say when such "periods" as those which are so +graphically described, began or ended.</p> + +<p>In this very instance, we know that the mammoth only became extinct in +comparatively recent times, since specimens have been found in Siberia, +with the hair, skin, and even flesh, entirely preserved. Granted that +the intense cold of the Siberian ice effected this, it is impossible to +admit more than a limited time for the preservation—not hundreds of +thousands of years. Professor Boyd Dawkins is surely right in stating +that the calculations of astronomy afford us no certain aid at present +in this inquiry.</p> + +<p>As regards the geological indications of age, the best authority seems +to point to the first appearance of man in the post-glacial times: that +is to say, that the gravels in which the palaeolithic implements are +found were deposited by the action of fresh water after the great +glacial period, when, at any rate, Northern Europe, a great part of +Russia, all Scandinavia, and part of North America were covered with +icefields, the great glaciers of which left their mark in the numerous +scoopings out of ravines and lake beds and in the raising of banks and +mounds, the deposit of boulders, and the striation of rocks <i>in situ</i>, +which so many districts exhibit.</p> + +<p>The few instances in which attempts have been made, in Italy or +elsewhere, to argue for a pliocene man (i.e. in the uppermost group of +the tertiary) have ended in failure, at least in the minds of most +naturalists competent to judge.</p> + +<p>One of the most typical instances of the position of the implement age +has been discovered by Fraas at Shüssenried in Suabia; here the remains +of tools and the bones of animals (probably killed for food) were found +in holes made in the glacial <i>débris</i>.</p> + +<p>But here, again, it is impossible to say when this glacial age +terminated, and whether man might not have been living in other more +favoured parts while it was wholly or partially continuing.</p> + +<p>In Scandinavia no palaeolithic stone implements have been found, from +which it may be inferred that the glacial period continued there during +the ages when palaeolithic man hunted and dwelt in caves in the other +countries where his remains occur.</p> + +<p>The best authorities do not suppose that the men <i>originated</i> in the +localities where the tools are found; and there is so little known about +the geology of Central Asia (for example) that it is impossible to say +whether tribes may not have wandered from some other places not affected +by the glaciation we have spoken of.</p> + +<p>Again, the gravels and brick earths containing the tools are just of the +kind which defy attempts to say how long it took to deposit and arrange +them.</p> + +<p>It may be taken as certain, that after the one age ceased and the first +men appeared, the beds in which their relics occur have been raised +violently, and again depressed and subjected to great flushes and floods +of water. The caves have been upheaved, and the gravels are found +chiefly along the valleys of our present rivers, but at a much higher +level, showing that there was both a higher level of the soil itself and +a much greater volume of water.</p> + +<p>The Straits of Dover were formed during this period.</p> + +<p>But none of these changes required a very long time; and if we can trace +back the later stone age, which shows remains of pottery and other +proofs of greater civilization, to the dawn of the historic period not +more than 4000 or 5000 years ago, there is nothing in the nature of the +changes which, as we have stated, intervened between the palaeolithic +and neolithic periods, that need have occupied more than a thousand or +two of years. Upheavals of strata and disruptions may be the work of +but a short time, or they may be more gradual. And as to the effect of +water, that depends on its volume and velocity; no certain rule can be +given. Our own direct experience shows that very great changes may take +place in a few hundred years.</p> + +<p>"The estuaries," remarks Mr. Pattison,<a name="FNanchor_1_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_49"><sup>[49]</sup></a> "around our south-eastern +coast, which have been filled up in historical times, some within the +last seven hundred years to a height of thirty feet from their +sea-level, by the gradual accumulation of soil, now look like solid +earth in no way differing from the far older land adjoining. The +harbours out of which our Plantagenet kings sailed are now firm, +well-timbered land. The sea-channel through which the Romans sailed on +their course to the Thames, at Thanet, is now a puny fresh-water ditch, +with banks apparently as old as the hills. In Bede's days, in the ninth +century, it was a sea-channel three furlongs wide."</p> + +<p>Thus we are in complete uncertainty as to the date of the palaeolithic +man, or as to the time necessary to effect the changes in the surface of +the earth which intervened between it and the later stone ages. But +there is nothing which conflicts with the possibility that the whole may +have occurred within some 8,000 years.</p> + +<p>For the supposition of Mons. Gabriel Mortillet that man has existed for +230,000 years, there is neither evidence nor probability. His theory is +derived from an assumption that the geologic changes alluded to occupied +an immense time; and the further assumption (if possible still more +unwarranted) that the old race which used the chipped stone tools +remained stationary for a very long period, and very gradually improved +its tools and ultimately passed into the neolithic stage when the art of +pottery became known, however rudely.</p> + +<p>But, in point of fact, we are not required by our belief in Scripture to +find any date for the origin of man, at least not within any moderate +limits (not extending to scores of thousands of years). The Bible was +not intended to enable us to construct a complete science of geology or +anthropology, and the utmost that can be got out of the text is that a +date can be <i>suggested</i> (not proved) for one particular family (that of +Adam) by counting up the generations alluded to in Holy Writ before the +time of Abraham. But these are manifestly recorded in a brief and +epitomized form; nor do all the versions agree. We may well believe that +a watchful Providence has taken care of the record of inspiration, but +we know it has been done by human and ordinary agency. The Bible is +God's gift to his Church, and the Church has been made in all ages the +keeper of it. Now in the matter of early dates and numbers, an unanimous +version has not been kept. According to the construction adopted in the +Septuagint, the creation of Adam would go back 7,517 years, while the +Vulgate gives 6,067 years. Dr. Hale's computation makes 7,294 years, +and the Ussherian 5,967;<a name="FNanchor_1_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_50"><sup>[50]</sup></a> the Samaritan version is, I believe, further +different from either.</p> + +<p>As it is, the facts show nothing inconsistent with an approximation to +these several periods.</p> + +<p>As to any absolute date for the appearance of man as a species, no +calculation is possible, because of a certain doubt, which no one can +pretend to resolve, as to whether the Scriptures do assert the creation +of <i>all</i> mankind at any one period. If, owing to more positive +discoveries in the future compelling us to put further back the date of +man's first appearance upon earth, we have to suppose a beginning before +the time of Adam, we are reminded that there is an allusion in the sixth +chapter of the book called Genesis to "the sons of God" and the +"daughters of men." Now this passage cannot conceivably refer to angels; +nor can we ignore its existence, however doubtful we may feel as to its +meaning.<a name="FNanchor_2_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_51"><sup>[51]</sup></a></p> + +<p>It can hardly be denied that such a text opens out the <i>possibility</i> of +an earlier race than that of Adam; in that case the creation of Adam +would be detailed as the creation of the direct progenitor of Noah, +whose three sons still give names (in ethnological language) to the main +great races of the earth, with whom exclusively the Bible history is +concerned, and especially as the direct progenitor of that race of whom +came the Israelites, and in due time the promised seed—the Messiah. I +do not say this <i>is</i> so, nor even that I accept the view for my own +part; I only allude to the possibility, without ignoring any of the +difficulties—none of which, however, are insuperable—which gather +round it.</p> + +<p>It is certainly a very remarkable fact that all about this region in +which the Semitic race originated, traditions of Creation somewhat +resembling the account in Genesis, the institution of a week of seven +days, and a Sabbath or day of rest from labour, existed from very early +times; and with these traditions, a belief in distinct races, one of +which owned a special connection with, or relation to, the Creator. Here +I may appeal to the work of Mr. George Smith and his discoveries of +tablets from the ancient libraries of Assyria. Originally, the country +to which I have alluded consisted of Assyria in the centre and Babylonia +to the south; while to the east of Assyria was a country partly plain +and partly hill, which formed the "plain of Shinar" and the hills beyond +occupied by Accadian tribes, from whose chief city, Ur, Abraham, the +forefather of the Jews, emigrated. The Assyrian documents are copies of +Babylonian originals, but the Babylonian kingdom itself was a Semitic +one founded on the ruins of an earlier population, the inhabitants of +the plain of Shinar and the mountains beyond. Some time between 3000 and +2000 B.C. the Semitic conquerors of Babylonia took possession of the +plains, and some time later conquered also the Accadian mountaineers. +The Babylonians possessed and translated the old Accadian records: the +Assyrian tablets are mostly, but not all, copies, again, of the +Babylonian transcripts. The celebrated "Creation tablets," which contain +an account closely corresponding to Genesis, are among those which were +not copied from Accadian originals; and they do not date further back +than the reign of Assur-bani-pal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; who +reigned in the seventh century B.C. They may therefore be derived from +the Bible, not the Bible from them. It would seem from some earlier +(Accadian) tablets, that a different account of the Creation existed +among them. But though it is doubtful how far the Accadians had +preserved this account, or at least had others along with it, <i>they had +a seven days week</i> and <i>a Sabbath</i>. All this points to <i>one</i> original +tradition, which specified days of creation and a Sabbath, though it got +altered and distorted, so that the true account was preserved as one +among many local variations. This goes to prove the immense antiquity of +the story, which is not affected by the fact that the actual inscription +of it which we at present have, dates only about 670 B.C. The point +here, however, interesting in the legends, is that they contained the +idea of a special connection of one particular race with the Creator, +and of other races, or of one other race, besides.</p> + +<p>As far as the possibility of bringing forward the history of mankind as +any aid to the theory of Evolution is concerned, I might have very well +let the subject alone, or even noticed it more briefly than I have done. +For, in truth, there is no <i>evidence</i> whatsoever, and all that the +denier of creation can resort to is a supposed analogy and a probability +that the peculiarities of man could be accounted for in this way or in +that. But the main purpose of my brief allusion is to introduce the fact +that, as far as any evidence to the contrary goes, we have an absolutely +sudden appearance of man on the scene, and no kind of transitional form. +Not only so, but there is no trace of any gradual development of man +when he did appear. There was the first palaeolithic man; then a +considerable geologic perturbation of the earth's surface, resulting in +the upheaval of the cliffs in which the caves of remains occur, and in +the alteration of the gravel beds in which the human remains are found; +and then the neolithic age, with its evidently greater civilization (as +evidenced by pottery, &c.) connected with early and traditional, but +still with recent, history; but no trace of any development of one race +into the other.</p> + +<p>The absence of all progressive change is forcibly indicated by the +measurements of ancient skulls, which, though not found along with the +flint tools, have been found elsewhere. It has been fully shown that +they differ in no respect from the skulls of men at the present day; +while the skulls of the apes most nearly anthropoid, or allied to the +human form, remain as widely separated in brain-capacity as ever.<a name="FNanchor_1_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_52"><sup>[52]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Thus the fact remains, that no intermediate form between the ape and the +lowest man has been discovered, and that there is nothing like any +progressive development in the races of man. These facts, taken together +with what has been brought forward in the last chapter, show how +completely the theory of the descent of man breaks down; how utterly +unproved and untenable is the idea that he should have been evolved by +natural causes and by slow steps from any lower form of animal life.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_49">[49]</a><div class="note"> "Age and Origin of Man"—Present-Day Tract Series.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_50">[50]</a><div class="note"> I take these figures from Mr. R.S. Pattison.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_51">[51]</a><div class="note"> The text which speaks of God making "of one blood all +nations for to dwell on the face of the earth," would naturally apply to +the races existing when the speaker uttered the words: it would be as +unreasonable to press such a text into the service of <i>any</i> theory of +the creation of man, as it was absurd for the Inquisition to suppose +that the Psalmist, when asserting that God had made the "round world so +fast that it could not be moved," was contradicting the fact of the +earth's revolution round the sun.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_52">[52]</a><div class="note"> The gorilla has a brain size of 30.51 cubic inches; the +chimpanzee and ourang-outang (in the males) from 25.45 to 27.34 inches. +According to Dr. J. Barnard Davis the average of the largest class of +European skulls is 111.99, that of the Australian 99.35 cubic inches.</div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_IX"></a><h2>CHAPTER IX.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>CONCLUDING REMARKS</i>.</p> + +<p>It will naturally be asked, "If there is all this objection to some +parts of the theory of Evolution, or to that theory in an extreme or +absolute form, how is it that it has been so eagerly accepted in the +ranks of scientific men?"</p> + +<p>The answer is, in the first place, because the theory of Evolution is to +a great extent true. When men speak of controversy with the Evolutionist +and so forth, they of course mean such as insist on carrying the +doctrine to a total and even virulent denial of any Divine control at +all. And it must, I think, be admitted that much of the theological +opposition offered to the doctrine was aimed at <i>this</i> aspect of it. At +first, men zealous for what they believed to be Divine truth, did not +discriminate; they saw that the then new idea of evolution was, in many +branches of its application, still very poorly proved, and they +conceived that it could not be accepted apart from a total denial of +religion. We have grown wiser in the course of time: misconceptions +have been swept away; and everybody may be content with the assurance +that there is no necessary connection even, far less any antagonism, +between evolution and the Christian faith at all. We may admit all that +is known of the one without denying the other. Where the controversy has +to be maintained is, that some will insist (like Professor Häckel) in +carrying evolution beyond what evidence will warrant; and not only so, +but will insist on polemically putting down all religion on the strength +of their improved theories. If "Evolutionists" complain of the treatment +they have received at the hands of "Theologians," they will at least, in +fairness, admit that there has been some misconception, some error on +both sides. What we maintain is, that evolution (i.e., here, as always, +unlimited, uncontrolled evolution) still fails to account for many facts +in nature; that we are still far from holding anything like a complete +scheme in our hands; there may be <i>limits</i> to the wide circle of +progressive changes, to the results of development, of which we are +ignorant; and there is, above all, in that most important of all +questions—the descent of man—an absolute want of proof of animal +<i>descent</i> (i.e., in any sense which includes the "soul" or spiritual +faculties of man). Hence that evolution in no way clashes with an +intelligent Christian belief. In saying this, I would carefully avoid +undervaluing the services which the evolution theory has rendered, and +is rendering, to science. Even in its first form as a mere hypothesis, +it was an eminently suggestive one; there was from the first quite truth +enough in it to make it fruitful, and many working hypotheses have been +immensely useful in science, which have in the end been very largely +modified. Before Darwin's wonderfully accurate mind and marvellous skill +in collecting and making use of facts, turned the current of natural +science into this new channel, men seemed to be without an aim for their +naturalist's work. The <i>savant</i>, for example, procured an animal +evidently of the cat tribe, and another species like a polecat. He knew +as a fact that the feline teeth had a certain structure, and that the +dental formula of the viverrine animals is different. Here, then, he +could distinguish and perhaps name the species; but what more was to be +done? All natural history as a study seemed to end in classifying and +giving long names to plants and animals. The Evolution theory at once +gave it a new object. Why is the dental formula of the <i>viverrinae</i> +different? What purpose has the long spur in the flower of <i>Angraecum</i>, +or the marvellous bucket of <i>Coryanthes</i>, the flytrap of <i>Dionaea</i>, the +pitcher of <i>Nepenthes</i>? What is the cause, what is the purpose, what is +the plan in the scheme of nature, of these structures? Under the +stimulus of such questions naturalists woke up to new views of +classification, to new experiments, inquiries, and to research for facts +and the explanation of facts, in all quarters of the globe. No wonder +that science rose, under such an impulse, as a butterfly from its +chrysalis. But some will not be satisfied with any scheme the parts of +which are separated, or which admits of anything unknown or +unexplainable. They want to unite all into one grand and simple whole, +which glorifies their own intelligence, and does not force them to +humble patience and waiting for more light. And then the fatal enmity of +the human heart—which is a plain fact, an undeniable tendency—delights +to get rid of the idea of God's Sovereignty, the humbling sense that +everything is at His absolute disposal, and nothing could be but as He +wills it. It seems so satisfactory to eliminate all external mysterious +power, to make the whole "<i>totus teres atque rotundus</i>"—having started +the great machine of being <i>somehow</i>, to see it all expand and unroll +of itself and advance to the end.</p> + +<p>Imagination leaps the chasms, minimizes the difficulties, passes from +the possible to the certain, from the "may have been" to the "must have +been" and to "it was so," and, fascinated with the <i>completeness</i> of its +scheme, commences to denounce and revile as ignorant and unscientific +all that would, calmly appeal to evidence, and confess ignorance, or at +least a suspended judgment, in any stage where the evidence is negative +or incomplete.</p> + +<p>It has been well observed that "men are so constituted that completeness +gives a special kind of satisfaction of its own, and a habit of +specially regarding the general uniformity of nature begets a desire to +assume its absolute and universal uniformity."</p> + +<p>There <i>is</i> a great mystery underlying life and the plan in which the +animal form, the organs of sight, hearing, and the rest, run through the +whole creation: and, given a mystery, there is always ample room for +speculation. Taking firm hold of the facts of development and variation, +the extreme evolutionist is carried away with the idea of having the +same principle throughout: he is impatient of any line or any check; he +is therefore prepared to ignore all difficulties, to hope against hope +for the discovery of to him necessary—but, alas, +non-existent—intermediate forms, till at last he comes to deny, not +only his God, but his own soul, as a spiritual and supra-physical +entity.<a name="FNanchor_1_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_53"><sup>[53]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Such extremes are no part of true science, and have neither helped the +progress of knowledge, nor advanced the condition of mankind. But, on +the other hand, let us hear no more of a sweeping condemnation of the +theory of Evolution as a whole; let us beware of any insistence on, or +assumption of, the supposed fact that God created +separately—ready-made and complete—all known animal forms, bringing +them up from the ground, like the armed men in the Greek legend, from +the dragon's teeth.</p> + +<p>We have no more right to dogmatize and assume a scheme of creation from +a popular and long-accepted interpretation of the Bible, than the +evolutionist has to ignore the palpable evidences of Divine guidance and +design, and construct a theory or organic being which ignores both.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_53">[53]</a><div class="note"> Those who want a specimen of the way in which extreme +evolutionists will <i>romance</i> (it can be called nothing else) will do +well to read Dr. Häckel's "History of Creation," only they must be on +their guard at every step. The author constantly states as facts (or, +perhaps, with an impatient "must have been") the existence of purely +hypothetical forms, of which there is <i>no kind</i> of evidence. To such +ends does the love of completeness lead!</div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="PART_II"></a><h2>PART II.</h2> +<br> + +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X.</a></h2> + +<p><i>THE GENESIS NARRATIVE—ITS IMPORTANCE</i>.</p> +<br> + +<p>We have now completed the first portion of our inquiry: there remains +the second, which, to a large class, at any rate, will appear of not +less importance. For the Scriptures, which they have been taught to +trust, contain a brief but direct and positive statement regarding +Creation, as well as numerous other less direct allusions to the +subject, all (as far as I know) in unquestioned harmony with the first.</p> + +<p>Is the account in the Book of Genesis true? It is necessary to answer +this question, because, even if a general belief in an Almighty Author +and Designer of all things is shown to be reasonable, still the +Scripture ought surely to support the belief; and it would be strange +if, when we came to test it on this subject, we found its professed +explanations would not stand being confronted with the facts.</p> + +<p>No one will, I think, deny that the question is important. Writers of +the "anti-theological" school still continue to insist on the falsity of +the Mosaic narrative, as if the error was not yet sufficiently slain, +and was important enough to be attacked again and again. And +theological writers, down to the most modern, continue to explain the +text in one way or another;—besides, <i>they</i> admit the importance, under +any circumstances. I do not forget that there is a school of thought, +which is distinctly Christian in its profession, but does not allow the +importance. It would regard the narrative as addressed to Jews only, and +therefore as one which does not concern us. If that was all, it would +not be needful for me to discuss the position. But it has been held, not +only that the narrative does not concern us, but <i>also</i> that it is +certainly inaccurate.</p> + +<p>This view I cannot adopt: it seems not quite fair to ourselves, and not +quite fair to the Jews. Let me explain what I mean. If we have nothing +to do with the narrative, let us abstain <i>equally</i> from defending it +<i>or</i> pronouncing it wrong—that is for ourselves. As to the Jewish +Church, a little more must be said. Let us admit, at any rate for +argument's sake, that the separation between the Jewish formal and +ceremonial religion and Christianity is as wide as can be wished. Nor +would I undervalue the importance of insisting on pure Christianity, as +distinct from Judaism. And, further, let us (without any question as to +ultimate objects) regard the narrative as primarily addressed to Jews, +and let us admit that it may have been unimportant, for the purpose of +the first steps in Divine knowledge, that any account should be given of +Creation beyond the primary fact that all idolatrous cosmogonies were +false, and that the Unseen God of Israel alone made the heavens and the +earth "in the beginning." Why should the Jews have received that truth +through the medium of a story of which the whole framework was false, +and nothing but the moral true? The framework, moreover, is one so +plainly <i>professing to be fact</i>, that it was certain to be received as +such by a simple people. It seems to me that there is something very +suspicious, something repugnant to notions of truth and honest dealing, +in the possible communication of underlying Divine truth through the +medium of stories, which are not stories on the face of them, but +profess and pretend to be statements of fact and authoritatively made.</p> + +<p>But, further, it cannot be denied that, whatever allowance may have to +be made under the early Jewish dispensation for the ideas and weaknesses +of a semi-barbarous people, whatever "winking" there may have been "at +times of ignorance," the main object was, by a gradual revelation,<a name="FNanchor_1_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_54"><sup>[54]</sup></a> by +a system of typical ordinances and ceremonies, to lead up to the full +spiritual light of the Christian dispensation. Everything written, said, +or done, was a step—however small an one—always tending in the one +direction, according to the usual law of Evolution. The Christian +believer may then look back to the early stages as imperfect +foreshadowings and dim illustrations of the whole truth; but he would, I +should think, on any ordinary principles, be shocked to find truth +developed out of positive error. And should the error have been +discovered, as it now is<a name="FNanchor_2_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_55"><sup>[55]</sup></a> (in the view of these I am contending +against), this discovery might have arrested the further development of +Divine truth altogether. If Moses, or whoever wrote the Book of +Genesis—we will not cavil at that—was allowed to compose his own +fancies or beliefs on the subject of Creation, <i>and to state them as +Divine fact</i> (no matter that the reader at the time was not able to find +out the error), would not grave suspicion attach to whatever else he put +forward? Who could tell that, on any other subject, the plainest and +most direct statement of fact was not equally a fancy, only embodying or +enshrining (under the guise of its errors) some real Divine facts? If +Genesis i. is unreliable, we have a case of a writer going out of his +way to add to certain truths, which might easily have been stated by +themselves, a number of positive declarations, <i>as of Divine authority</i>, +regarding facts, which are not facts.</p> + +<p>The great truths that God is really the Maker and Author of all things, +and that man has a spiritual being, and so forth, surely <i>gain nothing</i> +from being conveyed to the world in the folds of a fable. And when it +is not in a confessed fable, but a fable put forth as fact—"God said," +"God created," "it was so"—not only is there no gain, but our sense of +fitness and of truth receive a shock. A parable is always discernible as +a parable, a vision as a vision. When our Lord, for example, tells us of +the ten virgins, we do not suppose Him to be revealing the actual +existence of ten such maidens, wise and foolish. We know that He is +reading a lesson of watchfulness. But looking at the Genesis narrative, +who could suppose it to be a parable? If sober, unmistakable statement +of fact is possible, we surely have it here, in intention, at least.</p> + +<p>The plan of teaching truth in an envelope of error is <i>per se</i> difficult +to conceive. But how much worse is it when we consider—what criterion +does mankind possess for disinterring and distinguishing the elements of +truth? If in religion we had only to do (as some would perhaps contend) +with obvious enforcements of common morality and kindness, there might +be a possibility of getting over the difficulty, because man would +possess some kind of criterion whereby to distinguish what was +fictitious, by the simple process of considering whether any given +statement bore on morals or not. Such a test would not indeed go very +far, because the human race is by no means agreed on all moral +questions; nor does it always find it easy to say what is, and what is +not, directly or indirectly connected with morals. But, in fact, the +scope of religion cannot be so confined: and then the difficulty +returns; for a revelation that tells us anything of the nature of God +and His method of government, of the nature of our own being and of a +future state, must necessarily go beyond our own ethical knowledge and +powers of judging, or it would not be a revelation. Supposing that the +revelation regarding such vital subjects is occasionally conveyed +through the medium of erroneous statements, where in any given case +would be the certainty as to what was Divine truth, and what not so?</p> + +<p>This argument applies equally to another school of thinkers, who do not +care to tell us what the narrative in itself means: who believe that God +did not do what He is said to have done in Genesis, and yet who hold +that the narrative is in a sense inspired, and that we may learn from it +the great facts that God (and none other) originated all things—that +man has a spiritual element in his nature, and that woman is equal in +nature, but subordinate in position, to man, and so forth. Not only is +enlightened judgment, even, inadequate to pronounce with certainty on +how much is true; but the strange feeling still remains, if God designed +to teach us these truths only, why was it not possible to enable the +writer<a name="FNanchor_1_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_56"><sup>[56]</sup></a> to state them without the (purely gratuitous) error? The +sufferance of such a strange and unnecessary mixture of error seems +rather like that "putting to confusion" of the human mind, which we feel +sure the Great Teacher would never willingly perpetrate.</p> + +<p>Nor, again, can the narrative be got over by saying it is a poetic side +or aspect of the facts, and not to be taken literally. If any one knows +exactly what this means, and can tell us always how to translate the +matter into plain language, it is to be wished that he would enlighten +the world as to the process. But even if such process exists infallibly +and universally, still, one would suppose, the narrative must, to begin +with, be unmistakable poetry. And here, again, the narrative bears every +mark of an intention to state facts, not poetic aspects of facts. Nor +can we take the narrative as belonging to a familiar class in Scripture +where a dream is used as a vehicle of communication. In those cases +there is really no room for doubt; the visible facts themselves are +obviously designed only to typify or represent some other facts.</p> + +<p>The events stated in Genesis are not of this class. Those, therefore, +who would be content with getting over the narrative without caring for +its details, can, I must suspect, have hardly given adequate attention +to the form and to the contents of the narrative as it stands. Not only +are the statements positive, but, taking any interpretation whatever of +them, they are not nearly imaginative enough to suit the purpose.</p> + +<p>They have an obvious amount of relation to fact which has never been +denied.<a name="FNanchor_1_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_57"><sup>[57]</sup></a></p> + +<p>If the narrative is purely human even (and that the school we are +considering do not aver), how did the writer come to be accurate even to +that extent? Take only the order of events. I admit it does not +correspond with the geologic record in the way commonly asserted; yet it +has a very remarkable relation to that sequence.</p> + +<p>Now, in any case, the writer could have had no knowledge of any kind <i>of +his own</i> on the subject: how did he hit on this particular +arrangement?<a name="FNanchor_2_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_58"><sup>[58]</sup></a> It is a mere matter of calculation on the well-known +rules of permutation and combination to realize in how many different +ways the same set of events could have been arranged; the number is very +considerable.</p> + +<p>And he could derive no assistance from any similar existing narrative. +If we conclude from the Assyrian discoveries that a non-biblical but +similar narrative existed, still it is certain that the principal one we +as yet have is so late in date, that it is more likely to be derived +from the Bible than the Bible from it. And though, on referring to the +earlier tablets, we find traces of the same narrative, it is so obscured +by idolatrous and false details, that the Bible writer must have had to +make a virtually new departure to get his own simple narrative. A +re-revelation would be required. As to all other cosmogonies, Egyptian, +Indian, and Buddhistic, nothing can be more opposed in principle and in +detail than they are to the severe and stately simplicity and directness +of the Mosaic.</p> + +<p>We cannot, then, account for the narrative on human grounds; nor can we +suppose that any inspiring control would have given the author so much +truth, and yet allowed so much error.</p> + +<p>All this points to only one of two possible conclusions: either the +narrative is not inspired at all, and is a mere misleading story, into +which the name of God is introduced by the author's piety—and so really +teaches us nothing, since it is not revelation; <i>or</i> the narrative is, +as a whole, divinely dictated, and must be true <i>throughout</i>, if we can +only arrive by due study at its true meaning. That part of it is, or may +be, true, even on the most cursory study, is not denied; that it is +<i>all</i> true will appear, I think, in the sequel.</p> + +<p>But there is a shorter and simpler reason why the rejection of the +narrative in Genesis would be a direct blow to Christian faith. The +plain truth is that it can hardly be denied, by any candid student of +the New Testament, that our Lord and His apostles certainly received the +early chapters of Genesis as of Divine authority. This has always been +perceived by the whole school of writers opposed to the Faith. They +therefore continue to attack these early revelations, and rejoice to +overturn them if they can, because they are aware that hardly any +chapters in the Bible are more constantly alluded to and made the +foundation of practical arguments by our Lord and His apostles.</p> + +<a name="FRef99"></a><p>If these chapters can be shown to be mythical, then the Divine knowledge +of our Lord as the Son of God, and the inspiration of His apostles, are +called in question. In the New Testament, especially, there are repeated +and striking allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the +Serpent, and the entrance into the world of sin and death. Our Lord +Himself places the whole argument of His teaching on marriage and the +permissibility of divorce on Genesis ii. 24 (<i>cf</i>. St. Matt. xix. and +St. Mark x.). In St. John viii. 44 our Lord clearly alludes to the +Edenic narrative when He speaks of the tempter as a "manslayer (<font face="symbol">anqrwpoktonoV</font>) from the beginning." Still more remarkable is the +argument of St. Paul in Romans v.; altogether based as it is on the +historical verity of the account of the Fall; and other allusions are to +be found in 1 Cor. xi. 8, in 2 Cor. xi. 3, in the Epistle to the +Ephesians, and elsewhere. In short, there are at least sixty-six +passages in the New Testament, in which the first eleven chapters of +Genesis are directly quoted or made the ground of argument. Of these, +six are by our Lord Himself, two being direct quotations;<a name="FNanchor_1_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_59"><sup>[59]</sup></a> six by St. +Peter, thirty-eight by St. Paul, seven by St. John, one by St. James, +two by St. Jude, two by the assembled apostles, three by St. Luke, and +one by St. Stephen.</p> + +<p>We cannot, in fact, possibly avoid the conclusion that our Lord and His +apostles admitted the Divine origin and historical truth of these +chapters.</p> + +<p>Therefore, we are bound as Christians to accept them, and that without +glossing or frittering away their meaning, when we have arrived, by just +processes, at what that meaning really is.</p> + +<p>The fact just stated further warns us against accepting an indefinite +interpretation which, while it acknowledges the truth of the general +conclusion, still virtually, if not in so many words, allows that the +details may be wholly inaccurate.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_54">[54]</a><div class="note"> I am not aware of any authority, living or dead, who has +gone so far as to deny that God's revelation to the Jewish Church was in +any way connected with Christianity; that it was not even a stage of +progress, or preparatory step towards the kingdom of Christ.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_55">[55]</a><div class="note"> And was <i>sure to be</i> sooner or later, when a science of +Biology and Palaeontology became possible.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_56">[56]</a><div class="note"> For on the supposition stated, there <i>is</i> a revelation in +the text. Nor could any class of believer deny this. It is entirely +unnecessary to define the kind and extent of insphation. But "all +Scripture is '<i>theopneustos</i>'"—I leave the word purposely untranslated +(2 Tim. iii. 16); that surely means that the Divine Spirit exercised +<i>some kind</i> of continuous control over the writers.</div> + + +<a name="Footnote_1_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_57">[57]</a><div class="note"> Not even, for example, by Professor Häckel.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_58">[58]</a><div class="note"> How, for example, did the writer come to introduce the +adjustment of hours of daylight and seasons in the <i>middle</i>, after so +much work had been done? How did he come to place <i>birds</i> along with +fish and water monsters, and not separately?</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_59">[59]</a><div class="note"> St. Matt. xix. 4; St. Luke xvii. 27; and perhaps we might +add a third—St. Matt. xxiii. 35.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XI"></a><h2>CHAPTER XI.</h2> + +<p><i>SCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION</i>.</p> +<br> + +<p>Passing, then, to a consideration of the explanations of the narrative +that may be or have been given at various times, I would first call +attention to the fact, that it seems in many instances to have been the +distinct purpose of Divine inspiration to allow the meaning of some +passages to be obscure; perhaps among other reasons, that men might be +compelled to study closely, to reason and to compare, and thus to become +more minutely acquainted with the record. Especially in a case of this +sort, where the world's knowledge of the facts would necessarily be +gradual, was it desirable that the narrative should be confined in +scope, and capable of being worked out and explained by the light of +later discoveries; because, had the narrative really (as has long been +supposed) been revealed to tell us what was the actual course of +evolution of created forms on earth, it would not only have occupied a +disproportionate space in the sacred volume, but would have been +unintelligible to the world for many centuries, and would have given +rise to much doubting and false argument, to the great detriment of +men's spiritual enlightenment. It would have diverted men's minds from +the great moral and conclusion of the whole (and here it is that the +"moral" or conclusion is so important) to set them arguing on points of +natural science.</p> + +<p>The Bible was never intended (so far we may agree with all the schools +of thought) to be a text-book on biology or geology. We need rather to +be impressed with the great facts of God's Sovereignty and Providence, +and to know definitely that all the arrangements of our globe and all +forms of life are due to Divinely-created types. This is exactly secured +by the narrative as it stands; but such a purpose would not be served by +a narrative which, while it contained these great facts, had them +enwrapped in a tissue of unnecessary and false details. And therefore it +is, if I may so far anticipate my conclusion, that the narrative has no +direct concern with how, when, and where, the Creation slowly worked +itself out under the Divine guidance which is still elaborating the +great purpose of the "ages"; it confines our attention to what God, the +great Designer, did and said in heaven, as preliminary to all that was +to follow on earth. The former was not a proper subject for revelation, +because man would in time come to learn it by his studies on earth; but +the latter all ages could only learn—the first as well as the +latest—from a Divine Revelation.</p> + +<p>Again, let me address a few words to those who are tempted, half +unconsciously perhaps, to think that any lengthy prelude and "elaborate" +explanation of Genesis must condemn the narrative <i>à priori</i>, or be +derogatory to the dignity of Revelation. Why the narrative should be +brief and concise I have just suggested. That it needs explanation of +<i>some</i> sort is inevitable, because it <i>must</i> be put into human language; +and directly such language is employed, we come upon such terms as "let +there be," "he created," and "days," which do not always call forth the +same ideas in all minds.</p> + +<p>It will not have escaped the attention of any earnest student, that +Scripture has several different methods of describing things so as to +reveal them to men. This, a moment's reflection will enable us to +expect. However high and wonderful the things to be stated are, in order +to be brought within reach of human understanding <i>they must be +expressed in terms of human thought and experience</i>; and these are +imperfect and essentially inadequate. Hence it is, that many truths have +to be brought before us in special or peculiar ways.</p> + +<p>How, for instance, are we told of the temptation and fall of man? How +are we to understand what was meant by the Tree of Life or the Tree of +Knowledge of Good and Evil, or by the Serpent speaking and beguiling +Eve? We are at a great loss to give a precise explanation, though the +practical meaning is not difficult.</p> + +<p>The facts may be none the less true, though from their transcendental +character it may have been necessary to put them down in mysterious, +possibly even in merely allegorical, language. Another instance of this +might be given in the account of Satan in the presence of the Lord as +described in the Book of Job, or of the lying Spirit described by +Micaiah when prophesying before Ahab. It maybe that these narratives +describe to us transactions in a world beyond our own, which <i>could</i> +only be conveyed to us in figures or in imperfect form. When St. Paul +was caught up into the third heaven, he "heard unspeakable things" which +it was not <i>possible</i> for him to utter—the medium of expression was +wanting. Divine or mysterious things have, then, to be described in +peculiar language which is not always easy to understand. Nor, having +respect to the varying requirements of the different ages, or the +circumstances of the time and of the inspired writer, is it easy to +understand why any particular form of communication was selected, though +doubtless if we knew more we should see a good reason for it. This gives +us one class of Scripture passages—of methods of revelation. On the +other hand, there are in Scripture many facts of the highest import, and +in themselves of transcendent magnitude, which are yet capable of being +stated without any possibility of our interpreting or understanding the +narrative in more ways than one. When it is stated that Christ Jesus +rose from the dead, we know beyond all reasonable doubt what is meant. +The fact may be true or false, but the narrative of the fact needs no +explanation; there are no terms which need expansion—which could bear +more than one possible meaning, and which could be used accordingly in +one sense or another. This instances a second class. Again, we can bring +forward yet another class of Scripture revelations, namely, passages +which are necessarily understood with reference to certain other matters +which are unexpressed but are taken for granted, or in which the words +used may bear more than one meaning, or a meaning which is uncertain or +obscure. If the unexpressed matter can be supplied without doubt, then +all ages will agree in the interpretation; and if the terms can (by +reference to context or otherwise) be explained, the same result +follows: if not, then in interpreting the narrative, each age will <i>make +its own assumption</i> regarding the terms used, on the basis of such +knowledge as it possesses. It follows, then, inevitably, that if the +state of knowledge varies, the interpretation will be different +according to the different standard of knowledge, according to which the +necessary assumptions are made. And yet all the while the authority of +the passage itself is not touched. As it is unquestionable that such +different classes of passage do occur in Scripture, it is merely a +question of criticism whether any given passage is of this class or +that, and whether its terms do admit of or require explanation. It is no +doubt possible to make mistakes and to err by refusing the direct +meaning, and giving to the terms an assumed meaning for which there is +no real necessity.<a name="FNanchor_1_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_60"><sup>[60]</sup></a> We have always to be on our guard against giving +special meanings to words where they are not required; but granted that +caution, there undoubtedly are passages in which either the terms +themselves are not plain, or in which they may really have a meaning +different from the ordinary one.</p> + +<p>To descend from the general to the particular, it is obvious that the +account of Creation in Genesis i., ii. is in such a form that we must +assume our own ideas of the term "day" therein employed, and also those +to be attached to "created" and similar terms.</p> + +<p>In early times, no one would take "day" to mean anything else but an +earth day of the ordinary kind, and no one would question whether or not +the whole existing animals and plants, or their ancestors, appeared on +earth in six such days, or whether anything else was meant. Again, by +the time St. Augustine was writing, a little more knowledge of nature +and a little more habit of reasoning about the origin of things was in +the world, and that knowledge led people to suppose that creation meant +only the making of things "out of nothing," but that it would take +longer than six times twelve hours, so that "days" might mean "periods."</p> + +<p>And people imagined for a long time that—taking for an example the +work in the middle of the narrative—there was a time when the earth +emerged from the tumult of waters, that it then got covered with plants, +the waters remaining barren of life; but that when the plants had come +up all over the ground, then the waters all at once became full of all +sorts of sea-shells, fish, and monsters of the deep, and so on.</p> + +<p>They did all this, by naturally <i>assuming</i> that the terms "creation," +"day," &c., meant what the <i>existing state of knowledge</i> at the time +suggested.</p> + +<p>At the present day, one would have supposed that every one must feel +that while the term "day" might or might not admit of explanation, +certainly <i>creation</i> (i.e., terms implying it) did require very great +care in interpreting, and very great consideration as to what they +really meant But however that may be, we have here a passage which +<i>must</i> have an explanation; and which must have an explanation that +depends on the state of knowledge.</p> + +<p>The utility of Revelation is not negatived by this necessary result of +the employment of human language in describing the facts. It was <i>not</i> +necessary before, that all should be understood; it may be now +increasingly necessary in the purposes of God that it should be. At any +rate the fact is so, that in former days people did not possess the data +for knowing fully what creation meant, and certainly they do now possess +it to a very much greater extent at least. Always men could learn from +the narrative what it always was important for them to learn, namely, +God's Sovereignty and Authorship. It is in this way that the value of +the <i>general</i> teaching of the narrative comes out, and not by trying to +allow a mixture of truth and falsehood in Revelation. All is and always +was true; but <i>all</i> the truth was not equally extractable at all times.</p> + +<p>Again: the dignity of the old written Revelation is not compromised +because God has virtually given a further revelation in His works, +i.e., by enabling man to know more about the rock-strata and the +succession of life on the earth. That is what it really comes to. It +should never be forgotten that the book of Nature <i>is</i> a revelation.</p> + +<p>The <i>works</i> of God, if interpreted truly, are evidence of the same +nature as the <i>word</i> of God if interpreted truly. God has created man +and his reason. It is impossible to suppose that it can be unrighteous +reasoning in God's sight, to derive from the facts of nature any +legitimate conclusion to which those facts point. It is childish to +believe that God created ready-made—if I may so speak—rocks with +fossils in them, marks of rain-drops showing which way the wind blew at +the time, foot-prints of birds, animals with remains of the prey they +had been feeding on, in their stomachs, and so forth. It is perfectly +reasonable and right to conclude certainly, that those creatures were +once living beings; that the surface of the earth was once a soft +sediment which received the impression of the rain-drops as they fell; +and that stratified rocks were deposited out of lakes and seas, as we +see alluvial strata deposited at the present day. It is impossible, +therefore, that (if we are not misled by appearances) any +well-ascertained fact can be contrary to the truth of God as explained +by Revelation. If we are not sure of the facts of nature, we must wait +patiently till further knowledge enlightens us, and must not hastily +conclude that the Bible is wrong. The repeated corrections which +successive years have compelled us to make in conclusions which were +once firmly accepted and proclaimed as "truths of science," should teach +us caution in this respect.</p> + +<p>Nor, lastly, is it any reproach to the Church, as keeper of the Divine +Revelation, that its opinion of certain passages should vary with the +growth of knowledge. It would be hardly necessary to make this obvious +remark but for the fact that it has been reproached against Christian +belief, that science is contrary to the Bible, and that the Church has +ever had to confess itself wrong, after having persecuted people for not +following its peculiar views. It is, indeed, unfortunate that a blind +zeal for God has led, in the past, to persecution; the Church failing to +see that such men as Galileo and Bruno never denied God at all, nor did +their discoveries really contradict the Word. But persecution is not a +sin peculiar to the Church; it is a sin of human nature.</p> + +<p>It is also true that Christian views may be wrong, but the fault is in +the views, not in the Bible.</p> + +<p>Scientific men, of all people, should be the last to complain of +<i>change</i> in views, seeing that what was science two hundred years ago is +now (much of it) exploded nonsense.</p> + +<p>There is no harm whatever in changing our views about the meaning of +difficult passages—provided we never let go our hold on the central +truth, and put the error to our own account, not saying that the Word +itself is wrong.</p> + +<p>It may, in this connection, be at once observed that any particular +explanation, or that one which I propose presently to suggest, of the +first chapters of Genesis, may not commend itself to the reader, and yet +the general argument I have adduced will hold good notwithstanding.</p> + +<p>All that I care to contend is, that science does not contradict a +syllable of the narrative on <i>one</i> possible interpretation, and that +changes in view as to interpretation are no arguments against the truth +of the passage itself.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_60">[60]</a><div class="note"> As, for example, where persons desirous to get over the +plain reference to Baptism in St. John iii. 5, try to explain away the +term "water" to mean something metaphorically but not actually water.</div> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XII"></a><h2>CHAPTER XII.</h2> + +<p><i>METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE—ASSUMPTIONS OF MEANING TO CERTAIN TERMS.</i></p> + +<p>Returning, then, to the narrative in the Book of Genesis, I think we may +take it as clear that the passage stands in such a concise and condensed +form, that it is obviously open to <i>be interpreted</i>. Further, that we +should not be surprised if the interpretation at the present day, with +our vastly increased knowledge of Nature, is different from what it was +in earlier times.</p> + +<p>I make no apology for repeating this so often, because it is really +amazing to see the way in which "anti-theological" writers attack what +<i>they suppose</i> to be the interpretation of the narrative, or what some +one else supposes to be such, and seem to be satisfied that in so doing +they have demolished the credibility of the narrative itself.</p> + +<p>If you choose to assume that Creation as spoken of by the sacred writer +means some particular thing, or even if the mass of uneducated or +unreflecting people assume it and you follow them, I grant at once that +the narrative can be readily made out to be wrong.</p> + +<p>Permit me, then, to repeat once more, that the narrative is in human +language, and uses the human terms "created," "made," and "formed," and +that these terms <i>do</i> (as a matter of fact which there is no gainsaying) +bear a meaning which is not invariable. Hence, without any glossing or +"torturing" of the narrative, we are under the plain obligation to seek +to assign to these terms a true meaning <i>with all the light that modern +knowledge</i> can afford.</p> + +<p>Now (having already considered the school of interpretation which +declines to attend to the exact terms) we can confine our attention to +two classes of interpreters. One explains the term "days" to mean long +periods of time; the other accepts the word in its ordinary and most +natural sense, and endeavours to eliminate the long course of +developmental work made known to us by palaeontological science, and +supposes all that to have been passed over in silence; and argues that a +final preparation for the advent of the man Adam was made in a special +work of six days.</p> + +<p>All the well-known attempts at explanation, such as those of Pye-Smith, +Chalmers, H. Miller, Pratt, and the ordinary commentaries, can be placed +in one or other of these categories.</p> + +<p>Now, as regards both, I recur to the curious fact (already noted) that +it seems never to enter into the conception of either school to inquire +for a moment what the sacred writer meant by "created"—God +"created"—God said "let there be." It <i>is</i> curious, because no one can +reasonably say "these terms are obvious, they bear their own meaning on +the surface;" a moment's analysis will scatter such an idea to the +winds. Yet the terms <i>are</i> passed by. The commentators set themselves +right earnestly to compare and to collate, to argue and to analogize, on +the meaning of the term "days;" the other term "created" they take for +granted without—as far as I am aware—single line of explanation, or so +much as a doubt whether they know what it really means!</p> + +<p>The interpretation that I would propose to the judgment of the Church is +just the very opposite. It seems to me that the word <i>day</i> as used in +the narrative needs no explanation; it seems to me that the other does. +As regards the term "day," it is surely a rule of sound criticism never +to give an "extraordinary" meaning to a word, when the "ordinary" one +will give good and intelligible sense to a passage. And looking to the +fact that, after all, when the days of Genesis <i>are</i> explained to mean +periods of very unequal but possibly enormous duration, that explanation +is not only quite useless, but raises greater difficulties than ever, I +should think it most likely that the "day" of the narrative should be +taken in the ordinary sense. But of this hereafter.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, with regard to the terms "creation,<a name="FNanchor_1_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_61"><sup>[61]</sup></a>" "created," +"Let there be," and so forth, I find ample room for the most careful +consideration and for detailed study before we can say what is meant. +Even then there remains a feeling of profound mystery. For at the very +beginning of every train of reflection and reasoning on the subject, we +are just brought up dead at this wonderful fact, the existence of +<i>matter</i> where previously there had been <i>nothing</i>. The phrase "created +<i>out of</i> nothing" is of course a purely conventional one, and, strictly +speaking, has no meaning; but we adopt it usefully enough to indicate +our ultimate fact—the appearance of matter where previously there had +been nothing. Nor is the difficulty really surmounted by alleging such a +mere <i>phrase</i> as "matter is eternal," for we have just as little mental +conception of self-existent, always—and <i>without beginning</i>—existent +matter, as we have of "creation out of nothing."</p> + +<p>The human mind has always a difficulty when it is brought face to face +with something that is beyond the scope not only of its own practical, +but, even of its theoretical or potential ability.</p> + +<p>The "creation," therefore, of matter by a Divine Power is matter of +<i>faith</i>, as I endeavoured to set forth in the earlier pages of this +little work; but it is <i>reasonable</i> faith, because it can be supported +by sound reasoning from analogy and strong probability.</p> + +<p>All our attention, then, I submit, should be directed to understanding +what is "creation" in the sacred narrative.</p> +<br> + +<a name="Footnote_1_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_61">[61]</a><div class="note"> The entire silence of commentators regarding the doubtful +meaning of "creation" is so surprising, that I have had the greatest +difficulty in persuading myself that the explanation I propose is new. +Yet certainly I have never come across it anywhere.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XIII"></a><h2>CHAPTER XIII.</h2> + +<p><i>THE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY.</i></p> + +<p>I.—THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE.</p> + +<p>§ 1. <i>Objections to the Received Interpretations</i>.</p> + +<p>Taking the narrative as it stands, we find it to consist of two parts. +First, a general statement, of which no division of time is predicated, +and which is unaccompanied by any detail. Second, there is an account +seriatim of certain operations which are stated to have been severally +performed one on each of six days.</p> + +<p>As regards the first portion, we have no definite knowledge of +scientific truth with which to compare the narrative. It is obviously +necessary for some Divine teacher to tell us authoritatively that God +originated and caused the material earth, and the systems of suns and +stars which men on the earth's surface are able to discern in the +"heavens."</p> + +<p>We are consequently informed that in the beginning—there is no +practical need for defining further—"God created the heavens and the +earth." Here the question arises whether the Hebrew "bara," which is a +general term, alludes to the first production of material, or to the +moulding or fashioning of material already (in terms) assumed to exist. +I think that the conclusion must be that the best authority is in favour +of the idea of absolute origination of the whole;—the bringing the +entire system into existence where previously there was a perfect blank. +But even if the secondary meaning of "fashioned" or "forged" be allowed, +we have still an intelligible rendering. For in that case the first +origination of matter is tacitly assumed by the term itself, and the +statement would be, that the matter of the future cosmos so existing, +the Divine Artificer fashioned or moulded it into the orderly fabric it +has come to be.</p> + +<p>The narrative then at once refers to our earth, with which, and with its +inhabitants, the whole volume is to be in future directly concerned. +"The earth was (or became) without form and void (chaotic), and darkness +was on the face of the deep (or abyss)."</p> + +<p>We have no positive knowledge of what the first condition of terrestrial +matter was, apart from Revelation. The remarkable discoveries that the +spectroscope has enabled, and the facts learned from the physical +history of comets and meteorites, can do no more than make what is known +as the "nebular hypothesis" highly probable. But it is amply sufficient +for our purpose to point out, that if it is true that matter originated +in a nebulous haze to the particles of which a spiral rotatory motion +had been communicated, and if (confining our attention to one planet +only) that attenuated matter gradually aggregated in a ring or rings, +and then consolidated into a solid or partly solid globe, then the +results are briefly, but adequately and sublimely, provided for by the +form of the Mosaic statement.</p> + +<p>Matter thus aggregating would have developed an enormous amount of heat, +and there would have been a seething mass of molten mineral matters, +with gases and other materials in the form of vapours, which would have +gradually cooled and consolidated. Vast masses of water would in time be +formed on one hand, and solid mineral masses on the other; the latter +would contract as cooling progressed, causing great upheavals and +depressions and contortions of strata. And before the advent of +life-forms, it is not difficult to conceive that the first state of our +globe was one which is intelligibly and very graphically described as +being "without form and void." Nothing more than that, can, from actual +physical knowledge, be stated.<a name="FNanchor_1_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_62"><sup>[62]</sup></a></p> + +<p>It is also stated that this confused elemental state of our earth was +accompanied at first by darkness. Material darkness that is—for the +potentiality of light and order was there; the SPIRIT OF GOD "moved" (or +brooded) upon the face of the abyss. This presents no difficulty of +interpretation, and may therefore be passed over for the present.</p> + +<p>Practically, indeed, there has been no grave difficulty raised over this +first portion. And if it is argued (on the ground of what I have already +in general terms indicated) that the term "created" will, on my own +interpretation, get us into difficulties, I reply that here, in its +position and with the context, there is no room for doubt, for clearly +the word implies <i>both</i> the great primary idea of the Divine design or +plan formulated in heaven, <i>and</i> the subsequent result in time and +space.<a name="FNanchor_1_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_63"><sup>[63]</sup></a> This will become more clear when I have further explained the +subject.</p> + + +<p>II.—THE SECOND PART OF THE NARRATIVE.</p> +<br> + +<p>But from this point the narrative commences to be more precise, and to +exhibit a very singular and altogether unprecedented division of +creative work into "days."</p> + +<p>Now I have already indicated my doubt whether we ought to import any +unusual meaning to explain this term.</p> + +<p>In the first place, the objection that till the movements and relations +of the sun to the earth were ordained there would be no <i>measure of a +day</i>> will not stand a moment's examination. Nor will the further +objection sometimes made, that even with the sun, a day is a very +uncertain thing: for example, a day and a night in the north polar +regions are periods of month-long duration, quite different from what +they are in England, or at Mount Sinai. Obviously, a "day" with +reference to the planet for which the term is used, means the period +occupied by one rotation of the planet on its own axis. The rotation of +the earth is antecedent to anything mentioned in the narrative we are +considering. In the nature of things, it would have been coeval with the +introduction of the <i>prima materies</i>—at least if any nebular hypothesis +can be relied on. The "day" would be there whether it were obscured by +vapours or not, and whether specially made countable and recognizable by +what we call the rising and setting of the sun, or not, and whether we +were standing in Nova Zembla or in Australia.</p> + +<p>Nor is it of much use to refer to the general use of "day" for +indefinite periods, which is just as common in the English of to-day as +it was in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the double use of the +term in different senses has become general, just because it was found +in practice that no confusion ordinarily resulted; and surely such a +practice would not have been common, or at any rate would have been +specially avoided in the sacred volume, wherever any mistake or +confusion was likely or even possible.</p> + +<p>No one can mistake what is meant when allusion is made to "the day in +which God made the heaven and the earth." No one falls into doubt when +the "days" of the prophets are spoken of—any more than they do now when +a man says, "Such a thing will not happen in my <i>day</i>."</p> + +<p>Whenever in Daniel, or in similar prophetic writings, the term "day" is +used in a peculiar sense as indicating a term of years, we have no +difficulty in recognizing the fact from the context and circumstances of +the narrative; nor am I aware that any controversy has ever arisen +regarding the use of the term "day" <i>in any passage of Scripture +excepting in this</i>.</p> + +<p>This fact alone is suspicious; the more so, because there is absolutely +nothing in the context to indicate that anything but an ordinary day is +intended. Not only so, but there <i>is</i> in the context something that does +very clearly indicate (and I think Dr. Réville is perfectly justified in +insisting on this) that an ordinary terrestrial day is meant. One of the +primeval institutions of Divine Providence for men, my readers will not +need to be reminded, was that of a "Sabbath," which any one reading the +text would understand to mean a day, and which the Jews—the earliest +formal or legal recognizers of it—<i>did</i> so understand, and that under +direct Divine sanction.</p> + +<p>If the <i>days</i> of Genesis mean indefinite periods of aeonian duration, +how is the seventh <i>day</i> of rest to be understood?</p> + +<p>But even if these difficulties are overcome, absolutely nothing is +gained by taking the day to be a period.</p> + +<p>I presume that the object of gaining long periods of time instead of +days in reading the Mosaic record, is to assume that the narrative means +to describe the actual production on the earth of all that was created; +in other words, to assume a particular meaning for the words "created," +"brought forth," &c and then to make out that if a whole age is +granted, Science will allow us a sequence of a "plant age" a "fish and +saurian age," a "bird age," and a "mammalian age";—that is, in general +terms and neglecting minor forms of life. But then <i>to make any sense at +all with the verses</i> we are bound to show that each age preceded the +next—that one was more than partly, if not quite completely, +established <i>before</i> any appearance of the next.</p> + +<p>It is to this interpretation that Professor Huxley alludes when he says, +in his first article,<a name="FNanchor_1_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_64"><sup>[64]</sup></a> "There must be some position from which the +reconcilers of Science and Genesis will not retreat—some central idea +the maintenance of which is vital, and its refutation fatal.... It is +that the animal species which compose the water population, the air +population, and the land population,<a name="FNanchor_2_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_65"><sup>[65]</sup></a> respectively, originated during +three successive periods of time, and only during those periods of +time."</p> + +<p>For my own part, I hasten to say that, as one of the despised race of +"reconcilers," not only is this idea no central position from which I +will not retreat, but one which I should never think of occupying for +one moment.</p> + +<p>But on the view of the <i>periods</i>, some such position must be taken up. +And if so, I must maintain that Professor Huxley has shown—if indeed it +was not obvious already—that the idea of a series of periods, and in +each of which a certain kind of life began and culminated (if it was not +fully completed) <i>before</i> another began, is untrue to nature. This, +therefore, cannot have been intended by the author of Genesis.</p> + +<p>I will here interrupt my argument for a moment to say that there is a +<i>certain degree</i> of <i>coincidence</i> between the succession of life on the +earth as far as it is explained by palaeontological research, and the +order of creation stated in Genesis; but that is not concerned with any +forced interpretation of the term "day." The coincidence is just near +enough to give rise to a desire to identify creative periods with the +series shown by the fossil-bearing rocks; while it is attended with just +enough of difference to furnish matter for controversy, and to expose +the interpreters to be cut up.</p> + +<p>But to return. Nothing, I submit, is gained by getting <i>day</i> to mean +period. Let us put the matter quite squarely. Let us take day to mean +period, and let us take all the verses to mean the <i>process</i> of +<i>producing</i> on earth the various life-forms.</p> + +<p>In order to come at once to the point, let us begin with the time when +the dry land and the waters are separate. At that moment, there is +nothing said (or implied) about life already having begun in either +water or on dry land. God commanded plants to grow; consequently during +that <i>whole period</i> nothing but plants, and that of all the kinds and +classes mentioned, should appear either in water or on land. That period +being done, then came the command for water animals, fish and great +monsters, and also birds. We ought, accordingly, to come next upon a +whole period in which no trace of anything but plants and these animals +can be found; and lastly, we ought to find the period of mammalia, +smaller reptiles, <i>amphibia</i> and insects (creeping things).</p> + +<p>That is the fair and plain result of what comes of supposing the terms +"let there be," &c., to mean <i>production on earth of the thing's +themselves</i>, and that the days are long <i>periods</i>.</p> + +<p>All overlapping of the periods is inadmissible. All meaning is taken +away, if we allow of fish (e.g.) appearing in the middle of our first +period; for God did not command another day's work till after the first +was completed—"there was evening and there was morning, a first day" +(period), &c.</p> + +<p>No; to suit the text so interpreted, we must have a full <i>period</i> of +plants with no fish; then a period of both but no insects, no creeping +things, no animals; and so on. Now it is quite idle to contend any +longer, that any such state of things ever existed.</p> + +<p>If we pass over the long series of the most ancient strata in which +doubtful forms of obscure elementary plant and animal life appear +<i>almost</i> together, we shall come to shell-fish, and crustaceans fully +established in the water, and scorpions, and some insects even on land, +<i>before</i> plants made any great show. For the Carboniferous—<i>the</i> age of +acrogen plants, <i>par excellence</i>—does not occur till after swarms of +<i>Trilobite</i> Crustaceans had filled the sea and passed away, and after +the Devonian fish-age had nearly passed away; and so on throughout.</p> + +<p>The groups in nature overlap each other so closely, that though +plant-life (in elementary forms) probably had the actual start; +virtually the two kingdoms—plant and animal—appeared almost +simultaneously. There is nothing like the appearance of a first period +in which one <i>alone</i> predominated. And long before the plants are +established in all classes, the great reptiles, birds, and some mammals, +had appeared. The seed-bearing plants—true grasses and exogens with +seed capsules (angiosperms) did not appear till quite Tertiary times. +That is the essential difference between the facts and the theory. If we +make a diagram, and let the squares represent the main groups, the order +(according to the period interpretation) ought to be as in A, whereas +it really more resembles B. Thus.</p> + +<center> +<img src="images/00000172.gif" width="649" height="671" alt="[Illustration: A new Interpretation suggested]" title=""> +</center> + +<p>But then it will be asked, if the day means only an ordinary day—not a +long period—what is there that actually could have happened, and did +happen, in <i>three days</i> (for that is the real point, as we shall see), +such as the writer describes as the third, fifth, and sixth days?</p> + +<p>I answer that on those days, and on the previous ones, God did exactly +what He is recorded to have done. After the creation of light (first +day), and the ideal adjustment of the distribution of land and water +(second day), He (<i>a</i>) "<i>created</i>," on the third day, plants, from the +lowest cryptogam upwards; then (<i>b</i>) paused for a day (the fourth) in +the direct work of creating life-forms, to adjust certain matters +regarding times and seasons, and regulation of climate, which doubtless +would not be essential during the early stages of life evolution, but +would become so directly a certain point was reached; then (<i>c</i>) resumed +the direct creating work (fifth day), with fishes, great reptiles,<a name="FNanchor_1_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_66"><sup>[66]</sup></a> +and birds (grouped purposely so, as we shall see); and, lastly (<i>d</i>), +before the Day of Rest, created the group of mammals (<i>carnivora</i> and +<i>herbivora</i>), the "creeping things" of the earth, and man (also grouped +together).</p> + +<p>But some one will ask, You then accept the earlier theory, that the +whole life-series that is now revealed to us by the rocks, from the +Laurentian to the Recent, is excluded from the narrative; and that some +special acts of creation, regarding only modern and surviving +life-forms, were made immediately before man appeared? By no-means; for +such a theory is not only in itself improbable, but is contrary to all +the evidence we possess of life-history on the earth, and is so hopeless +that it is really not worth serious examination and refutation.</p> + +<p>We have no evidence of any such gap—such sudden change in the history +of life. Nor is it possible to find any place in the Mosaic story at +which we could reasonably interpolate a <i>long</i> period, such as that +indicated by the entire series of rock strata. For a great part of such +a period, not only must there have been a regular succession of life +just the same in nature (though specifically different) as that now on +earth, but a regular distribution of land and water, and a settled +action of the sun and the seasons, would be required. No; we must give +up all the older methods which try to ignore the study of the word +"created," or to assume for it a meaning that it is not intended to +bear.</p> + +<p>All depends, then, on what is meant by such terms as "created," "let +there be," "let the earth bring forth," &c. Perhaps it has occurred to +but few of my readers seriously to examine into their own mental +conception of an "act of creation." Some will readily answer, "Of course +it means only that at the Divine <i>fiat</i>, any given species—say an +elephant—appeared perfect, trunk, tusks, and all the peculiar +development of skull and skeleton, where previously no such creature had +existed." But what possible reason have they for this conclusion? None +whatever. It has simply been carelessly assumed from age to age, because +people at first knew no better; and when they began to know better, they +did not stop to amend their ideas accordingly.</p> + +<p>Of course, as Professor Huxley puts it, millions of pious Jews and +Christians<a name="FNanchor_1_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_67"><sup>[67]</sup></a> supposed <i>creation</i> to mean a "sudden act of the +Deity"—i.e., to mean just what the knowledge of the time enabled them +to imagine. They could do nothing else. The state of knowledge fifty +years ago would not have rendered it possible for an article like +Professor Huxley's (that to which allusion has several times been made) +to have been written at all. What wonder, then, that the multitude did +not understand what <i>creation</i> meant, and that a reasonable +interpretation of the word has only become possible in quite recent +times? Surely all that is the fault of the reader, not of the text. I do +not even care that the writer himself did not fully apprehend the +subject. When a human prophet is entrusted with the divulgation of high +and wonderful things, it is quite possible that he may have been to +greater or less extent in the dark as to all or some of the +communication he was writing.</p> + +<p>All that can be reasonably required is that the narrative, as it stands, +shall be consistent with actual truth, and shall at no time come to be +provably at variance with it.</p> + +<p>But let us look at the word "creation" more closely. We accept what we +are told, that in the beginning God called into existence force and +matter, the material or "physical basis," and all other necessaries of +life. Suppose, then (even dropping the question of Evolution, in order +to satisfy the "pious millions"), that this "matter" was all ready (if +I may so speak) to spring into organized form and being to take shape on +earth—what shape should it take? Why (e.g.) an elephant? Why not any +other animal, or a nondescript—a form which no zoologist could place, +recognize, or classify? The <i>form</i>, the ideal structure, the <i>formula</i>, +of the genus elephant must somehow have come into existence <i>before</i> the +obedient materials and the suitable forces of nature could work +themselves together to the desired end.</p> + +<p>Mr. Mivart has defined "creation" at page 290 of his "Genesis of +Species." There is original creation, derivative or secondary creation +(where the present form has descended from an ancestor that was +originally "directly" created), and conventional creation (as when a man +"creates a fortune," meaning that he produces a complex state or +arrangement out of simpler materials). That is perfectly true, so far; +but it is only a verbal definition, and still does not go inside, into +the <i>idea</i> involved. We must go farther.</p> + +<p>In every act of creation, two requisites can clearly be distinguished: +(1) the matter of life, and the forces, affinities, and local +surroundings necessary; and (2) the type, plan, ideal, or formula, to +realize or produce which, the forces and the matter are to act and +react. This second is all-essential; without it the first would only +produce a limbo of</p> + +<p>"Unaccomplisht works of Nature's hand, +Abortive, monstrous, or unkindly mixt.<a name="FNanchor_1_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_68"><sup>[68]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>No <i>creation</i> in <i>any</i> sense whatever could come out of it.</p> + +<p>In the same way, when we speak of the Divine Artificer "creating," or +saying "Let there be," there are two things implied: (i) the Divine plan +or type-form, and its utterance or delivery (so to speak) to the +builder-forces and materials; (2) the result or the translation into +tangible existence of the Divine plan.</p> + +<p>In every passage speaking of creation it <i>possible</i> that both processes +may be implied; it may be clear from the text (as in Genesis i. 1) that +this is so. But it is equally possible that the first point only, which +in some aspects is really the essential matter, is alone spoken of.</p> + +<p>And I submit that, given the general fact that God originated everything +in heaven and earth (as first of all stated generally in Genesis i. +1-3), the essential part of the <i>detailed</i> or <i>specific</i> creation +subsequently spoken of, was the Divine origination of the types, the +ideal forms, into which matter endowed with life was to develop; +<i>without</i> any <i>necessary</i> reference to how, or in what time, the Divine +creation was actually realized or accomplished on earth. It may be that +the <i>form</i> so conceived and drawn in Nature's book by the Divine +Designer is a final form, up to which development shall lead, and beyond +which (at least in a material sense) it shall not go; or it may be that +it is a type intended to be transitory;<a name="FNanchor_1_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_69"><sup>[69]</sup></a> but <i>both the intermediate +and final forms must take their origin first in the Divine Mind, and be +prescribed from the Heavenly Throne,</i> before the obedient matter and +forces and the life-endowment could co-operate to result in the +realization of the forms and the population of the globe.</p> + +<p>The reason why it is the <i>essential</i> part, is, that when once the Divine +command issued, the result followed inevitably—that will "go without +saying."</p> + +<p>In human affairs, also, we speak of the architect having <i>created</i> the +palace or cathedral, or the ironclad; meaning thereby not the slow +process of cutting and joining stone, or riveting steel plates, but the +higher antecedent act of mind in evoking the ideal form and providing +for all contingencies in the adaptation and subsequent working of the +finished structure. And if we limit this use of the term "creation" +somewhat in speaking of human works, it is because the concept of the +human mind so often fails of realization; that it is one thing to +design, and another to accomplish. The grandest design for a palace may +fail to stand because some peculiarity of the stone has been forgotten, +or some character of foundation and subsoil has been misunderstood. The +noblest form of turret-ship may prove useless because the strength of +some material will not correspond to the ideal, or some curve of +stability has been miscalculated. Not only this: man may create, as a +sculptor, the ideal form for his to-be statue, or the dramatist his +character; but the perfect realization, either in marble or in an actual +being, may be impossible; the ideal remains "in the air." The ideal, +therefore, is not the major part of "creation" in a human work.</p> + +<p>But with the Divine work it is otherwise. The Divine thought in Creation +and its result are separated by no possibility of failure. Given the +matter and the laws of force and of life, directly the Great Designer +has uttered His thought to those that are His builders, they <i>must</i> +infallibly and without discord, work through the longest terms, it may +be, of an evolutionary series, till, every transitional condition +passed, the final form emerges perfect.</p> + +<p>Our very verbal definition, admitting as it does "derivative" creation, +implies this. We all speak of ourselves as "created." How so? We are not +produced ready made. Nor do we wholly solve the matter by saying that we +are "created" because we are born from parents who (if we go far enough +back) originated in a first production from the hand of Nature. We are +really "created" because the <i>design</i>—the <i>life-form of us</i>, which +matter and force were to work together to produce—was the direct +product of the Divine Mind.<a name="FNanchor_1_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_70"><sup>[70]</sup></a></p> + +<p>My question, therefore, of the Genesis interpreters is: Why will you +insist on the text meaning only the second element in Creation—the +production on earth, and not the Design or its issue in heaven?</p> + +<p>The former we could find out some day for ourselves; we <i>have</i> found out +some of it (though only some) already; the latter we could never know +unless we were told. Surely it is the "<i>dignus vindice nodus</i>" in this +case. To tell us the earth's history within a brief space would be +impossible, and would have been for ages unintelligible if it could have +been told; to tell us of God's creation is possible—for it has been +done; and the record, unless misread, is intelligible for all time.</p> + +<p>The narrative, if it is a revelation of Divine Creation in heaven, takes +up ground that none can trespass on. None can say "it is not so," unless +either he will show that the words will not bear the meaning, or that +the context and other Scripture contradict it.</p> + +<p>So soon as the matter of earth and heaven (and all that is implied +therewith) originated "in the beginning," the narrative introduces to +our reverent contemplation the solemn conclave in heaven, when, in a +serial order and on separate days, God declared, for the guidance of the +ever potentially active forces, and for materials ever (as we know) +seeking combination and resolution,<a name="FNanchor_1_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_71"><sup>[71]</sup></a> the <i>form</i> which the earth +surface is (it may be ever so gradually) to take and the <i>life-forms</i> +which are to be evolved.</p> + +<p>That this creative work was piecemeal, and on separate days, we know +from the narrative. <i>Why</i> it was so arranged we do not know. Vast as was +the work to be done, almost infinite as was the complexity of the laws +required to be formulated, it <i>could</i> have all been done at once, in a +moment of time; for time does not exist to the Divine Mind. But seeing +that the work was to be on earth, and for the benefit of creatures to +whom the divisions of time were all-important, we can dimly, at least, +discern a certain fitness and appropriateness in the gradual and divided +work.</p> +<br> + +<a name="Footnote_1_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_62">[62]</a><div class="note"> It would be hardly necessary (but for some remarks in the +course of the Gladstone-Huxley controversy) to observe that the term "void" does not imply vacuity or emptiness, as of <i>substance,</i> but +absence of defined form such as subsequently was evolved.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_63">[63]</a><div class="note"> And of course if the true sense be "fashioned" or +"moulded," the question does not arise.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_64">[64]</a><div class="note"> "Nineteenth Century," December, 1885, pp. 856-7.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_65">[65]</a><div class="note"> These (unfortunate) terms are Mr. Gladstone's.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_66">[66]</a><div class="note"> This term may be here accepted for the moment—not to +interrupt the argument. It will be more fully dealt with in a subsequent chapter.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_67">[67]</a><div class="note"> Article quoted, p. 857.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_68">[68]</a><div class="note"> "Paradise Lost," iii. 455.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_69">[69]</a><div class="note"> The idea which I am endeavouring to make clear is well +illustrated by another passage in one of the Mosaic books—the account +of the Tabernacle. Moses had no idea of his own of the structure, its +furniture, implements, or the forms of these. The narrative expressly +states that the Divine power originated the designs, and caused Moses to +understand them. In a human work the designer would have drawn the +objects with measures and specifications, and given the papers to the +workmen. With the Divine work, where the design is in the Divine +Thought, and the workmen and builders are forces and elementary matter, +the process is a mystery, but in its practical bearing is understood +from analogy. The Tabernacle was truly God's <i>creation</i>, because it was +all commanded in design and "pattern" by the Almighty before Moses put +together the materials that realized the pattern in the camp of Israel.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_70">[70]</a><div class="note"> "<i>In Thy book</i> were all my members written, while <i>as yet +there were none</i> of them" (Psa. cxxxix. 16). +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">"How did this all first come to be you?<br> +<i>God thought about me</i> and I grew."—<i>Macdonald</i>.</div></div> +</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_71">[71]</a><div class="note"> The reader will recognize that there is not the least +exaggeration in this. It is plain matter of fact, as I have endeavoured +to show in the earlier chapters of this book. Everywhere we see <i>force</i> +ready to be evoked by the proper method. Everywhere we see <i>molecular</i> +motion, and a perpetual combination and resolution of elements and +compounds, whether chemical or mechanical.</div> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XIV"></a><h2>CHAPTER XIV.</h2> + +<p><i>THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES.</i></p> +<br> + +<p>In interpreting the narrative before us, we have an important aid which +has hardly received the attention it deserves. I allude to the other +passages of Scripture which were written by men undoubtedly familiar +with the Book of Genesis.</p> + +<p>Now, in more than one of them, I find the idea that the Creation spoken +of is the <i>Divine work in heaven</i>, and not the subsequent and long +process of its realization on the surface of our globe, fully confirmed.</p> + +<p>In the beautiful thirty-eighth chapter of the very ancient Book of Job, +we find a distinct allusion to a time when God "laid the foundations" of +the earth, prescribed "its measures," made a "decreed place" for the +sea, and framed the "ordinances of heaven," and this in presence of the +heavenly host assembled—</p> + +<p>"When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted +for joy.<a name="FNanchor_1_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_72"><sup>[72]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>The same idea can be gathered from the text which I have placed on the +title-page of this book. "By faith we understand that the aeons (the +whole system of nature in its various branches, physical, moral, and +social) were ordained (<font face="symbol">kathrtisqai</font>) by the word of God." The +<i>process</i> of actual development is here passed over, as not being the +main thing; what attracts attention is the Divine Design, the "framing" +of the wonderful ideal or ordinance without which the "aeons" could not +proceed to unfold themselves. I do not mean, of course, for a moment to +imply that, after God had formulated the laws and designed the forms, He +left the working out of the results to themselves. I should be sorry if, +in bringing into prominence what has generally been overlooked, I seemed +to throw the rest in the shade. God's providence and continued +supervision are as important in themselves as the original design:—but +this is not the central idea embodied in the passage.</p> + +<p>There is another Scriptural allusion which suggests the idea of a +Heavenly Conclave, and great act of Creation in heaven. It may be +considered somewhat remote, and even fanciful—but the fact is recorded +<i>both</i> in the Old Testament and the New, and <i>something</i> must be meant +by it. And, moreover, other and very meaningless interpretations have +been from the earliest times given, so that I can hardly omit the +subject if I would. I refer to the permanent presence in heaven, around +the Divine Throne, of the singular forms of being called <i>Cherubim</i>, +which seem to indicate some mysterious connection between the life-forms +of earth and the inhabitants of heaven, and some permanent +representation of typical created forms in heaven. In Ezekiel, chapter +i., and again in chapter x., this vision is presented to us.</p> + +<p>The prophet was to be prepared, by a very vivid exhibition of the power +and glory of God as the Author and Ruler of the universe, to appreciate +the depth of degradation to which the Jews had fallen in their rejection +of such a God as their Lord and King and of the justice of the terrible +overthrow which was the consequence of that rejection.</p> + +<p>The vision then displayed (as I understand it) GOD surrounded by the +typical forms of creation and the irresistible forces of nature. All +forms of life, all energies of nature, were thus shown to be His +creatures. There, around the throne, were four "cherubim" of remarkable +appearance. They were accompanied by the appearances of fiery orbs like +beryl stones, revolving in all directions with ceaseless energy. Any +account of this vision that I can give is, however, pitiable beside the +inexpressibly sublime picture drawn in Ezekiel, to which I must refer +the reader for his own study. And imagine what the feelings of the +prophet must have been when, fresh from the impression of this grandeur +of Creation—this glory and irresistible power of God as the Centre and +great Mover of all, he was taken to witness the pitiable sight of the +Jews turning away from His worship, and to see their elders burning +incense before walls covered with "every form of creeping things and +abominable beasts—all the idols of the house of Israel!<a name="FNanchor_1_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_73"><sup>[73]</sup></a>" How must +the vision have prepared him to realize the depth of degradation with +which he had to contend, and have fired him with energy to denounce it!</p> + +<p>There is, then, I think, considerable probability in the contention that +the vision represents God in Creation, surrounded by the types of +creation and the forces of nature.</p> + +<p>There is, no doubt, the ancient tradition that the four Cherubim meant +the four Gospels; and this has now become deeply associated with +ecclesiastical symbolism. But I submit that this is only a fancy which +can best be left to church embroidery and stained windows; it is +unworthy of any serious notice. The beings are described, it will be +observed, with great minuteness: all have the same characteristic powers +of rapid motion, and all have <i>human hands</i>, a fact that so strikes the +prophet that he repeats it three times.<a name="FNanchor_2_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_74"><sup>[74]</sup></a> These four Cherubim, then, +seem to me clearly to indicate the archetypes of Creation, the great +design-forms of created life, showing themselves the progressive scale +from the Animal to the Man and the Angel. And these four great types +exactly answer to the resulting groups of created life. We have the +development of <i>Reptilia</i> into <i>Birds</i> as one final type; consequently +one face of each cherub has the Bird type—the Eagle head<a name="FNanchor_3_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_75"><sup>[75]</sup></a>. Two other +faces on each give us the <i>Animal</i> type, one representing again the +great order Carnivora (the Lion), the other the Herbivorous Ungulates +(the Ox or Calf); while the fourth face indicates the last development, +<i>Man</i>.</p> + +<p>I would say here, as regards the animal creation being represented by a +double form, that it is most curious to notice that this double division +of animals is found throughout Scripture, and seems to have its +counterpart in the actual facts of creation on earth.</p> + +<p>Accompanying these created beings in this remarkable vision were +"wheels" which appeared to be spheres within spheres, revolving with +ceaseless activity and never turning, but always going forward. The +wheels were full of eyes. It appears to me probable that these +symbolize—and if so the symbol is at once full of meaning and +grandeur—the inevitable, ever wakeful energies and forces of nature, +the marvellous agency of electricity, chemical affinity, heat, +attraction, repulsion, and so forth. We are accustomed to speak of +"blind force;" but here observe the wheels are <i>full of eyes</i>, ever +vigilant to fulfil the purpose for which they are appointed. And this +representation of <i>forces</i> appears necessary to complete a symbolic +representation of God in nature: since the world is made up of dead +matter, of living forms, and of forces or energies which are in +ceaseless motion and action, producing the changes which in fact +constitute the working of the whole system.</p> + +<p>I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the imagery of this vision lend +support to the belief that there was a great Creation enacted in heaven, +which was followed by the actual carrying out of the processes on earth, +<i>but which has retained its representative forms in the heaven itself</i>. +Had this vision stood alone, it might have been passed over, on the +ground that it deals with high and transcendental matters, and that it +would be hardly safe to let a practical argument rest too much on it. +But the fact is that again in the New Testament a very similar vision is +mentioned (in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation): here again +the four living creatures represent the typical forms of life, the +bird, the carnivorous and herbivorous animals, and man; and it will be +observed that in this case there is hardly room to doubt that we have an +exhibition of <i>Creation</i>, for there is express allusion to it in the +address of the elders—"Thou hast <i>created all things</i>, and for Thy +pleasure they are and were created."</p> +<br> + +<a name="Footnote_1_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_72">[72]</a><div class="note"> Job xxxviii. 7. The sons of God are clearly the angels +(<i>cf</i>. Job i, 6).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_73">[73]</a><div class="note"> Ezek. viii. 10.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_74">[74]</a><div class="note"> See chapters i. 8, x. 8, and x. 21. Remark, in passing, +that the human hand has always been the subject of wonder as an evidence +of Divine skill in Creation. Sir Charles Bell's Bridgewater treatise, on +the human hand as illustrating the proof of Divine wisdom and +contrivance in Creation, is just as good an argument <i>for Design</i> now as +ever it was. I cannot here resist the temptation to notice one of those +small points in which the accuracy of the Bible is so constantly brought +to light. The popular notion of angels gives them wings as well as +hands—a form quite impossible from the natural history point of view; +<i>all</i> animals of the vertebrate orders never have <i>more</i> than two pairs +of limbs. And in winged animals the fore-limbs become wings. The popular +notion about angels is, however, artistic, not Biblical. Just the +contrary in fact. Here <i>is</i> a vision of a mysterious form with wings and +hands, but how?—the figures are fourfold; and being winged, each +division might have been winged like the eagle, so each cherub would +have had <i>eight</i> wings. But as one of the divisions had a human face and +human hands, the prophet only saw <i>six</i> wings to each, leaving one +division where, nature's <i>Divine type</i> being obeyed, there were <i>hands</i>, +and consequently no wings.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_3_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_75">[75]</a><div class="note"> Reptiles are unrepresented, perhaps as not being a final +type.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XV"></a><h2>CHAPTER XV.</h2> + +<p><i>AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT.</i></p> +<br> + +<p>But a step further is necessary: if the conclusion that I have come to, +by accepting "day" in its ordinary and natural sense, and by giving a +hitherto overlooked (and so far a new) meaning to "creation," is sound, +it must not only be rendered probable by reference to other parts of +Scripture written when Genesis was much nearer its original publication +than it is now; it is still (before all things) necessary, that the +interpretation adopted should be conformable to the context.</p> + +<p>And I have heard it objected that there are verses which imply not only +a Divine Act in heaven, with the Sons of God in conclave around the +throne—sublime and wonderful picture!—but also distinctly indicate a +corresponding action on earth, and so require us to include in our +rendering of "creation" <i>both</i> the ideas which (page 169 ante) I have +admitted may, on occasion be required by the terms. For example: after +the creative command in verses 7, 9, 11, 15, and 24, is declared, it is +followed by the words of fulfilment—"and it was so;" and in verse 11, +when God has said "Let the earth bring forth grass, &c.", in the next +verse it is positively recorded that the earth <i>did</i> bring forth grass, +&c.</p> + +<p>I of course admit all this, but it is in no way opposed to my +suggestion.</p> + +<p>The <i>commencement</i> of the <i>result</i> probably, if not necessarily, +followed immediately on the issue of the finished command, viz., the +promulgation of the forms to be obtained and the processes to be +followed. The <i>whole</i> result did not become accomplished then and there, +in the time mentioned, or exactly in the order mentioned: we know that +for a fact. Take, for example, the case of <i>vegetation</i>. Here the +author, in terms at once precise and universally intelligible, speaks of +"vegetation<a name="FNanchor_1_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_76"><sup>[76]</sup></a>" (grass of the A.V.), "herb yielding seed," and "trees +yielding fruit," thereby exhaustively enumerating the members of the +vegetable kingdom.</p> + +<p>Now, as a matter of fact, there was no one long (or short) period +during which the whole of this command was realized, <i>before</i> the next +creative act occurred.</p> + +<p>At first <i>algae</i> and low forms of vegetable life appeared; and doubtless +we have lost myriads upon myriads of such lower forms of plant-life in +the early strata, because such forms were ill calculated for +fossil-preservation, owing to the absence of woody fibre, silicious +casing, or hard fruit or seed vessels. But when we first have a marked +accumulation of specialized plant-life in the coal measures (Upper +Carboniferous), it is still only of cryptogams—ferns and great club +mosses. A beginning of true seed-bearing plants (Gymnosperm exogens) had +been made with the <i>conifers</i> of the Devonian strata; but true +<i>grasses</i>, and the other orders of phanerogamic plants and arboreous +vegetation, do not appear till the tertiary rocks were deposited, very +long after the age of fish and great reptiles had culminated, and the +inauguration of the bird age and the mammalian age had taken place.</p> + +<p>Looking only to the abundant, prominent, and characteristic life-forms +of the several strata, it could certainly be said that the period when +the <i>water</i> actually brought forth a vast mass of its +life-forms—corals, sertularias, crustaceans, and fish of the lower +orders—must have <i>preceded</i> (not followed) the time when the earth +produced vegetation of all kinds, and further that it must have come +after the appearance of scorpions and some land insects.<a name="FNanchor_1_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_77"><sup>[77]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Moreover, as the regular succession in periods of light and darkness on +the earth, and the sequence of seasons was not organized (but only a +generally diffused light, and, probably, an uniform and moist state of +climate without seasons) till <i>after</i> the commands for the formation of +the whole of the large classes of plants, both cryptogams and +phanerogams, it is obvious that as many of these would require the +fuller development of seasonal influences, the whole process could not +have been worked out before the fourth day's creative work was begun.</p> + +<p>This instance alone—and it would be easy to add others—shows that the +narrative cannot be meant to indicate what actually happened on earth, +i.e., to summarize the <i>entire realization</i> of the Divine command.</p> + +<p>Such being the plain facts with regard to the <i>kind of accomplishment</i> +meant by the terms "it was so," "the earth brought forth," &c., it is +quite plain that no violence is done to the text by explaining it as +intended to describe what God did in heaven, with the addition, that as +each command was formulated, the result on earth surely followed, the +thing "was so," and the earth and water respectively no doubt <i>began</i> +to "bring forth." More than this cannot be made out on <i>any</i> +interpretation that accords with facts. It seems so clear to me that +this is so, that I hardly need refer to the use of the terms the +"<i>waters brought forth"</i> and the "<i>earth brought forth"</i> and the phrase +in chapter ii. 5—the Lord made every plant <i>before it grew</i>.</p> + +<p>If, as we have been long allowed to suppose, God spake and the water and +earth were <i>at once</i> fully and finally peopled with animals where before +nothing but plants had existed, and so on, I should hardly have expected +the use of words which imply a gradual process—a gestation and +subsequent birth (so to speak) of life-forms.</p> + +<p>How the <i>order</i> in which the events are recorded stands in relation to +the subsequent history of life-development on earth, and what its +significance may be, I will consider later on. First I will conclude the +argument for the general interpretation of the narrative.</p> +<br> + +<p>2. <i>The Second Genesis Narrative.</i></p> + +<p>I have only one more direct argument to offer; but I think it is a very +important one. The first division of Genesis ends with the Divine +commands creating man and the day of rest which followed. The narrative +ending at chapter ii. verse 3 (the division of chapters here, as +elsewhere, is purely arbitrary), we have at verse 4 of chapter ii, what +has been loudly proclaimed as <i>another</i> account of <i>the same</i> Creation, +which, it is added (arbitrarily enough—but <i>any</i> argument will do if +only it is against religion!) is contrary to the first.<a name="FNanchor_1_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_78"><sup>[78]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Now, even if there is a <i>second</i> account of Creation, it would surely be +a circumstance somewhat difficult to explain. <i>Contrary</i> in any possible +sense, the narrative (from chapter ii. 4, onward) certainly is not. But +why should there be a second narrative at all? On the hitherto received +supposition that chapter i. intends to tells us the <i>process</i> of +creation—what God caused to be done on earth, not merely what He did in +heaven—there is apparently no room for a second narrative. Nor have I +seen any completely satisfactory explanation. But if we accept the view +that the first chapter explains the Divine Design, and its being +published (so to speak) and commanded in heaven, then it would be very +natural that that narrative should be followed by a second, which should +detail not the <i>whole</i> process of all life existence on earth, but (as +the Bible is to be henceforth concerned with Man, his fall and his +redemption) with an account of <i>just so much of the</i> process as relates +to the actual birth on the earth's surface of the particular man Adam, +the most important (and possibly not the only) outcome of the <i>fiat</i> +recorded in chapter i. vers. 27, 28.</p> + +<p>In this view, not only <i>a</i> second narrative, but just the particular +kind of narrative we actually have, is not only natural, but even +necessary. <i>Before</i>, we had a general account of how God ordained the +scheme of material-form and life-form on the earth; <i>now</i> we have a +detailed account of how He actually carried out one portion of it—that +one portion we are most concerned to hear about, namely the man Adam, +the progenitor of our own race, of whom came JESUS CHRIST, "the son of +Adam.<a name="FNanchor_1_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_79"><sup>[79]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>The account is designed to introduce to us the scene of Adam's +birthplace—the Garden of Eden.<a name="FNanchor_2_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_80"><sup>[80]</sup></a> The mention of a garden, and the +subsequent important connection of the trees of that garden with the +conduct of the man, naturally turn the writer's attention to the general +subject of the vegetation on the earth's surface. He prefaces his new +account accordingly with a brief summary—which I may paraphrase thus +without, I trust, departing from the sense of the original: "Such was +the origin of the earth (and all in it) and of the heavenly host, at the +time when God made them. He had made every plant <i>before</i> it was in the +earth—every herb of the field <i>before</i> it grew" (mark the language as +confirming what I have said—God "created" everything before it actually +developed and grew into being on the earth). "Rain did not then fall (in +the same way as now) on the earth, but the mist that exhaled from the +soil re-condensed, and fell and moistened the ground; but there was as +yet no MAN to till and cultivate the soil."</p> + +<p>Then God actually formed or fashioned <i>a man</i>. It is not now that He +created the ideal form to be produced in due time, but that He actually +formed the individual Adam, and placed him in a garden which He had +prepared for the purpose. All the words used now imply actual +production. The Divine ideal was ready, and the earth-elements (of which +we know man's body to consist) were ready at the Divine word to assume +the human shape. And that done, God "breathed into his nostrils the +breath of life" (mark the direct <i>act</i> on the man himself), and the man +became a "living soul." There is nothing here of the "earth bringing +forth" as in the former narrative. We have the direct act of God, not in +the design only, but in the production of the thing itself.</p> + +<p>If this is not a complete explanation and justification of the second +narrative, I do not know what, in common fairness, is entitled to be so +called.</p> + +<p>The language may be rigorously examined, and it will fully bear out the +position taken up.</p> + +<p>I conceive, then, that the cumulation of proof need go no further. The +true explanation of Genesis i. also supplies the place for Genesis ii. +4, <i>et seq.</i>, and overcomes all the difficulty that has hitherto +existed on the subject.</p> + +<p>It will now, I trust, be clear that by such an interpretation of Genesis +we at once give (1) a full and natural meaning to all the terms; we +reconcile it with other Scripture, and we enhance all the sublime +attributes which we have been reverentially accustomed to connect with +this ancient passage. (2) We obviate the difficulty regarding the second +narrative in chapter ii. 4. And (3) we place the whole above any +possible conflict with science, and above any need for "reconciliation." +Here, too, is a purpose and meaning assigned to the <i>whole</i> narrative, +without being driven into the difficult position of supposing the verses +to be the literary outcome of an ignorant imagination which gave +expression to its crude ideas only—though enshrining among utterly +false details a sublime truth, regarding which one can only wonder why +it could not have been stated without the encumbrance of the +surroundings.</p> + +<p>The naturalist and the biologist may continue, unquestioned, to work out +more and more of the wondrous story of Life on the globe. They can never +disprove, or on any of their own grounds deny, that God is the Author of +all things—matter, force, and mind alike; that He designed the form and +relations of the earth; that He organized its light, its seasons, and +its changes; that He has furnished the types and patterns of all +life-forms which matter and force are conformably thereto, developing +on the earth. In short, REVELATION tells us that God did all this "in +the beginning," how His form-designs were thought out and declared in +six days, and how He rested on the seventh day.</p> + +<p>SCIENCE will tell us how, when, and where the Creative fiats and the +designs of heaven were realized and worked out on earth.</p> + +<p>Here is the separate province of each, without fear of clashing, or room +for controversy.</p> +<br> + +<a name="Footnote_1_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_76">[76]</a><div class="note"> Nothing more is meant by the Hebrew "<i>deshe</i>." The true +"grasses" (<i>graminea</i>),—cereals, bamboos, &c., are certainly not +intended, for these are all conspicuously flowering plants, "herbs +yielding seed," and therefore coming under the second plainly defined +group. But the general term "sproutage" or "vegetation" is just adapted +to signify the mass of cryptogamic plant-life, the mosses, lichens, +algae, and then ferns, &c., which evidently formed the first stage of +plant-life on the globe.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_77">[77]</a><div class="note"> A single wing found little more than a year ago is the sole +evidence of insects older than the Devonian; and scorpions +(highly-organized crustaceans) have been found in the Upper Silurian in +some abundance.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_78">[78]</a><div class="note"> The contradiction is supposed to be in verse 19, as if then +the creation of animals was for the first time effected—after the man +and his helpmate. But it is quite clear that the text refers to the fact +that God had created animals; the command was, "Let the earth bring +forth," and the immediate act spoken of was not the formation of +animals, but the bringing of them to Adam to see what he would call +them.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_79">[79]</a><div class="note"> St. Luke iii. 38.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_80">[80]</a><div class="note"> Which had a real historic existence. <i>Vide</i> Appendix A.</div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XVI"></a><h2>CHAPTER XVI.</h2> + +<p><i>THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE.</i></p> +<br> + +<p>§1. <i>The Explanation of the Verses.</i></p> + +<p>It remains only now to go over the narrative, the <i>general</i> bearing of +which I have thus endeavoured to vindicate, so that minor matters of +detail, in which it is supposed (1) that some contradiction to known +physical fact may still lurk, and (2) something that negatives the +explanation suggested, may be cleared up.</p> + +<p>Let us take it seriatim:—</p> + +<p>"In the beginning God created the heaven (plural in the original) and +the earth."</p> + +<p>As I have before remarked, we have no real need to discuss whether +"bara" means originated (created where nothing previously existed), or +whether we should render it "fashioned," i.e., moulded material (thus +assumed in terms to be) already in existence.</p> + +<p>Either will yield perfectly good and consistent sense; but, as a matter +of fact, there is a virtual consensus of the best scholars that the +word is here used to denote original production of the material.</p> + +<p>It is also clear that the text is intended to embrace the whole system +of planets, suns, stars, and whatever else is in space. So the Psalmist +understood it: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and <i>all</i> +the host of them by the breath of his mouth.<a name="FNanchor_1_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_81"><sup>[81]</sup></a>" Nor is there any +reasonable doubt, exegetically, that the subsequent allusion to the sun, +moon, and stars, refers (as the sense of the text itself obviously +requires) to their <i>appointment</i> or adjustment to certain relations with +the earth, and assumes their original material production in space, to +have been already stated or understood.</p> + +<p>"And the earth was (became) without form<a name="FNanchor_2_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_82"><sup>[82]</sup></a> and void, and darkness was +upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of +the waters."</p> + +<p>I have, in another connection, already remarked on this verse, and so +shall not repeat those remarks.</p> + +<p>I will only say that the elemental strife and rushing together of +chemical elements under the stress of various forces and the presence of +enormous heat, would naturally envelop the globe in dense vapours, a +large portion of which would be watery vapour, capable of condensation +or of dispersion, under proper conditions, afterwards to be prescribed +and realized. As it is beautifully expressed in Job xxxviii., "When I +made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling-band +for it" (verse 8).</p> + +<p>Then commences the serial order of Divine acts with reference to the +<i>Earth</i>:—</p> +<br> + +<p>(1) "AND GOD SAID; LET THERE BE LIGHT: AND THERE WAS LIGHT."</p> + +<p>This verse is commonly taken as indicating a creation of light for the +first time in the entire cosmos or universe. And if it be so, there is +no objection, on any scientific ground, to the assertion that there was +once a time when as yet the vibrations and waves which we connect with +the idea of Light, had not yet begun. It is true that nebular matter, as +now observed, is believed to be, partially at any rate, self-luminous. +But this fact, supposing it to be such, is not inconsistent with a still +earlier time when light had not yet begun. From the "wave-theory" of +light, which is one of those working hypotheses which are indispensable, +and which, in a sense, may be said to be demonstrated by their +indispensability, it can clearly be seen that if light is caused by +rapid vibrational movement, there must have been—or at any rate there +is nothing against an authoritative declaration that there was—a moment +of time when the first vibrational impulse was given, when, in fact, God +said "Let there be light, and there was light," <i>before</i> which also +there was "darkness upon the face of the deep.<a name="FNanchor_1_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_83"><sup>[83]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>There is no necessary connection between the creation of light <i>per se</i>, +and the existence of any particular source (or sources) of light to our +planet or to other planets.</p> + +<p>No justification is now needed for such a remark, and the almost +forgotten cavils of one of the "Essays and Reviews" may still survive as +a "scientific" curiosity, to warn us against too hastily concluding that +(in subjects where so little is really <i>known</i>) the Bible must be wrong, +and the favourite hypothesis of the day right.</p> + +<p>But as a matter of fact, the text, especially when read in connection +with Job xxxviii., need not be taken to refer to any original creation +of light in the universe generally, but merely to the letting in of +light on the hitherto dark and "waste" earth. The command "Let there be +light" was followed on the next day by the formation of a firmament or +expanse. So that all the verse <i>necessarily</i> implies is, that the thick +clouds and vapours which surrounded the earth were so dealt with, that +light could reach the earth: the light was thus divided from the +darkness, and the rotating globe would experience the alternation of day +and night.</p> + +<p>The "day" having thus been created formally (so to speak), the Divine +Author proceeds to mark, by His own Procedure, the use of the "days" +which He had provided for the earth.</p> + +<p>On this view, of course, the origin of light as a "force"—the first +beginning of its pulsations—is not detailed, any more than the origin +of electric force, or heat, or gravitation.</p> + +<p>Here, too, I may remark that the idea of <i>creation</i>, which it has been +one of my chief objects to develop, is illustrated. This remark holds +good, whether an original creation of light is intended, or only an +arrangement whereby light was for the first time introduced to the +earth's surface. The idea of creating light not only involves the Divine +Conception of the thing, and the marvellous method of its production,<a name="FNanchor_1_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_84"><sup>[84]</sup></a> +but doubtless, also, all those wonderful laws of reflection, refraction, +polarization, and a thousand others, which the science of Physical +Optics investigates.</p> + +<p>Naturally enough, in this case, the double idea involved in +creation—the Divine concept and its realization—will, in the nature of +things, fall into one. No process of evolution is required; none is +indicated by science. Directly the Divine hand gave the impulse +concurrently with the Divine thought—light would be. In the nature of +things there is no place for a line between the Divine fiat and its +realization, as there is in the production of life-forms on the earth. +Or, on the other view, directly the Divine command went forth, the +vapours would clear and allow the transmission of light.</p> +<br> + +<p>(2) "AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE A FIRMAMENT (EXPANSE) IN THE MIDST OF +THE WATERS, AND LET IT DIVIDE THE WATERS FROM THE WATERS....AND GOD +CALLED THE FIRMAMENT HEAVEN."</p> + +<p>There has been gathered round this verse what I may call rather an +ill-natured controversy, because there is no real ground for it; and the +objections taken seem rather of a desire to find out something against +the narrative at any price, than to make the best of it. The verse, when +duly translated, implies that an "expanse"—the setting of a clear space +of atmosphere around the globe—formed one of the special +design-thoughts of the Creator, followed by its immediate (or gradual) +accomplishment. I think we should have hardly had so much cavilling over +this word "expanse" if it had not been for the term subsequently used by +the Seventy in their Greek version (<font face="symbol">sterevma</font>). The ancients, it +is said, believed the space above the earth to be "solid."</p> + +<p>Now I would contend that even if the Hebrew writer had any mistaken or +confused notions in his own mind, that would not afford any just ground +against revelation itself. But I would point out that many of the +expressions which may be quoted to show the idea of solidity, are +clearly poetical. And if we go to the poetic or semi-poetic aspect of +things, may I not ask whether there is not a certain sense in which the +earth-envelope may be said to be solid? The air has a considerable +density, its uniform and inexorable pressure on every square inch of the +earth's surface is very great. Such a word as <font face="symbol">sterevma</font> (<i>firmamentum</i>) does not imply solidity in the sense in which gold is +solid—as if the heavens were a mass of metal, and the stars set in it +like jewels; it implies, rather, something fixed and offering +resistance.</p> + +<p>It is obvious that a creative act was necessary for this "expanse." We +know of spheres that have no atmosphere; and we are so ignorant of the +true nature of what is beyond the utmost reach of our air-stratum, that +there is room for almost any consistent conjecture regarding it.</p> + +<p>Moreover, observe that the atmosphere is not a <i>chemical</i> combination of +gases, and one, therefore, that would take place like any other of the +metallic, saline, or gaseous combinations, of which no detailed account +is given—all being covered by the general phrase, "God created the +heaven and the earth." The air is a mechanical mixture, pointing to a +special design and a special act of origin. The necessary proportions of +each gas and its combined properties could not have originated without +guidance.</p> + +<p>But the main purpose of the expanse, as stated in the text, was to +regulate the water supply. That vast masses of watery vapour must at one +time have enveloped the globe, seems probable—apart from revelation; +and that part of this should condense into seas and fresh-water, and +part remain suspended to produce all the phenomena of invisible +air-moisture and visible cloud, while an "expanse" was set, so that the +earth surface should be free, and that light might freely penetrate, and +sound also, and that all the other regular functions of nature dependent +on the existing relation of earth and air should proceed—all this was +very necessary. And when we recollect what a balanced and complex scheme +it is—how very far from being a simple thing; we recognize in the +adjustment of earth's atmospheric envelope, a special result worthy of +the day's work.</p> + +<p>Whether the separation between the condensed but ever re-evaporating and +re-condensing water on the earth's surface, and the water vapour in the +atmosphere, is <i>all</i> that is meant by the division of the "waters that +are above the firmament" from those below, it would not be wise to +assert. We know so little of the condition of space beyond our own air, +and so little of the great stores of hydrogen which have been suggested +to exist in space (and might combine to form vast quantities of liquid), +that we may well leave the phrase as it stands, content with a partial +explanation.</p> +<br> + +<p>(3) "AND GOD SAID, LET THE WATERS UNDER THE HEAVEN BE GATHERED TOGETHER +UNTO ONE PLACE, AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR: AND IT WAS SO. AND GOD +SAID, LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS (VEGETATION), HERB YIELDING SEED, +AND FRUIT TREE BEARING FRUIT AFTER ITS KIND, WHEREIN IS THE SEED +THEREOF."</p> + +<p>The only remarks that the first part of this verse calls for, are, +<i>first</i>, that it explains how far from mere chance-work the emergence of +land from the water was; <i>second</i> how well it illustrates the use of +terms relating to creation.</p> + +<p>The whole scheme of the distribution of the surface of earth into land +and water is one which demanded Divine foresight and a complete ideal<a name="FNanchor_1_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_85"><sup>[85]</sup></a> +which was to be attained by the action and reaction of natural forces, +just as much as the production of the most specialized form of plant-or +animal-life.</p> + +<p>This is not the place to go into detail as to how much of the world's +life-history and its climatic conditions depend on the distribution of +land and water. It is sufficient to recognize the immense importance of +that distribution.</p> +<p>But, in the second place, it will be observed that while it is natural +to suppose (though not logically necessary) that the working out of the +Divine plan <i>commenced</i> immediately on the issue of the Divine command +and the declared formulation of the Divine scheme, yet we know—few +things are better known—that the whole scheme was not completely +realized in one day, or one age—certainly not <i>before</i> there was any +appearance of plant-life, aquatic, or dry land, or any appearance of +animal-life.</p> + +<p>I believe (though I have lost my reference) it is held by some +authorities that the position of the great <i>oceans</i> as they are now (and +omitting, of course, all minor coast variations) has been fixed from +very early geologic times. But, apart from that, we have ample evidence +of whole continents arising and being again submerged; and of continual +changes between land and water of the most wide-reaching character again +and again happening during the progress of the world's history. So that +here we may see clearly an instance where the revelation of the creative +act must be held to refer to the great primal design—teaching us that +it is a fact that at first all <i>was</i> laid down, foreseen, and designed +by the Creator; but not referring to anything like an account of the +<i>results</i> upon earth, which, for aught we know to the contrary, may not +yet be complete.</p> + +<p>As to the second part of the text, we are here introduced to the +commencement of life-forms on earth.</p> + +<p>No separation is recorded. Directly the chemical elements of matter have +so combined that a solid earth and liquid water (salt and fresh) are +formed, and the cooling process has gone on sufficiently long to enable +the dense vapours partly to settle down and condense, partly to remain +as vapour (dividing the waters above from the waters below)—directly +this process is aided by the admission of diffused light and by the +adjustment of the atmosphere, and the superficial adjustment of the +distribution of water and land surface is provided for, then plant-life +is organized.</p> + +<p>It will be observed that even aquatic plants and algae though growing in +or under water, are nevertheless connected with the <i>earth</i>; so that the +phrase, "Let the <i>earth</i> bring forth," is by no means inappropriate.</p> + +<p>The earliest rock deposits are able to tell us little about the first +beginning of plant-life. Moreover, as animal-life began only with the +interval of one day (the fourth), we should expect to find—on the +supposition that the heavenly <i>fiat</i> at once received the <i>commencement</i> +of its fulfilment on each day—that the first lowly specimens of +vegetable and animal life are almost coeval. And this is (apparently) +the fact.</p> + +<p>It is to be remarked that plant and animal always appear in nature as +two separate and <i>parallel</i> kingdoms. It is not that the plant is lower +than the animal, so that the highest plant takes on it some of the first +characters which mark the lowest animal: but both start separately from +minute and little specialized forms so similar that it is extremely +difficult to say which is plant and which is animal.<a name="FNanchor_1_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_86"><sup>[86]</sup></a></p> + +<p>All the beginnings of life in <i>either</i> kingdom would therefore be +ill-adapted (most of them, at any rate) for preservation in +rock-strata.<a name="FNanchor_1_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_87"><sup>[87]</sup></a></p> + +<p>All we know for certain is that vegetable-life was closely coeval with +the lowest animal-life, and that it was very long before specialized +forms, even of <i>cryptogams</i>, made a great show in the world.</p> + +<p>Probability is entirely in favour of the actual priority being in +vegetable forms; and more than that is not required. For the Mosaic +narrative, while it places the origin of the vegetable kingdom actually +first, lets the <i>fiat</i> for the animal kingdom follow almost immediately.</p> + +<p>As to the <i>order</i> of appearance of the plants, I will reserve my remarks +for the moment.</p> +<br> + +<p>(4) "AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE HEAVEN, +TO DIVIDE THE DAY FROM THE NIGHT; AND LET THEM BE FOR SIGNS, AND FOR +SEASONS, AND FOR DAYS, AND FOR YEARS: AND LET THEM BE FOR LIGHTS IN THE +FIRMAMENT TO GIVE LIGHT ON THE EARTH."</p> + +<p>The sun and the stars, and all the host of heaven, are clearly +understood to have been created "in the beginning," under the general +statement of fact which forms the first verse of the narrative.</p> + +<p>The 14th verse has always been understood to refer to the establishment +of the <i>relations</i> between the earth and the sun, moon, and stars, +which have, as a matter of fact, been recognized by all ages and all +people ever since. The writer of the 104th Psalm certainly so understood +the passage—</p> + +<p>"He appointed the moon for seasons; +The sun knoweth his going down.<a name="FNanchor_1_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_88"><sup>[88]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>The writer was instructed to use popularly intelligible language, and so +the text speaks of the lights as they <i>appear</i> in the sky or firmament.</p> + +<p>Even if we suppose that before this act, the sun was already +incandescent, and the moon capable of reflecting the light, the whole +arrangement of the earth's rotation may have been such that the +alternations of light and darkness may have been very different from +what they are now, and the seasons also. A moment's reflection regarding +the obliquity of the earth's axis, nutation, the precession of the +equinoxes, the eccentricity of the orbit and the changes in the position +of the orbit, will show us what ample room there was for a special +adjustment and adaptation between the earth and its satellite and +between both to the solar centre.<a name="FNanchor_2_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_89"><sup>[89]</sup></a> So that faith which accepts this as +a Divine arrangement made among the special and formal acts of Creation, +cannot be said to be unreasonable, or to be flying in the face of any +known facts.</p> + +<p>It is very remarkable, as showing how little we can attribute this +narrative, on any basis of probability, to mere fancy or guess-work, +that this matter should have been assigned to the fourth day—<i>after</i> +the fiat for plant-life had gone forth.</p> + +<p>But the fact is that the unregulated light, and the vaporous uniform +climate that must have continued if the fourth day's command had never +issued, though it might have served for a time for the lowest beginnings +of life, especially marine or aquatic, would ultimately have rendered +any advance in the series of design impossible. Such a fact would never +have occurred to an ignorant and uninspired writer.</p> + +<p>It is here impossible to say whether the whole arrangements indicated +were made at once in obedience to the Divine Design, or were produced +gradually.</p> + +<p>It has been suggested that uniformity of climate and temperature +continued up till the carboniferous ages, at any rate; and it is only in +the later ages that such differences of <i>fauna</i> in different parts of +the world appear, as to show differences of climate more like what we +have at present.</p> + +<p>Whether this is so or not, I am not concerned to argue. The narrative +tells us that God did, at a certain point in his Creative work, design +and ordain the necessary arrangements; and physical science may find +out, when it is able, how and when the adjustments spoken of came about.</p> + +(5) AND GOD SAID—<br> +<span style="margin-left: 2.5em;">(i.) Let the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life,</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 2.5em;">(ii.) Let fowl fly above the earth on the face of the expanse.</span><br> + +<p>As to (i.) the "creation" consisted of—great sea-monsters (or water +monsters), and every living thing that moveth.</p> + +<p>Then the animal life received a <i>blessing</i>. Animals, even the lowliest, +are capable of a new feature in life—happiness in their being, which +cannot be predicated of plants.</p> + +(6) AND GOD SAID—<br> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">(i.) Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind ...</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 5.5em;">the beast of the earth <i>after its kind (Carnivora)</i>, cattle</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 4em;"><i>after its kind</i> (<i>Ungulata</i>), and everything that creepeth on</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 5.5em;">the ground <i>after its kind</i>.<a name="FNanchor_1_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_90"><sup>[90]</sup></a></span><br> + +<p>And also—</p> + +<span style="margin-left: 2.5em;">(ii.) Let us make man.... So God created man in His</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 6.5em;">own image—in the image of God created He him; male</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 6.5em;">and female created He them.</span><br> + +<p>(7) Then followed the day of rest.</p> + +<p>§ 2. <i>The Order of Events considered.</i></p> + +<p>It was convenient first to bring these later Creative Acts together +before beginning any remarks about any one of them.</p> + +<p>It will now be desirable to notice what occurred, because here the +question of <i>order</i> is concerned. I could not avoid a partial statement +on this subject at an earlier page, nor would it be quite sufficient +simply to refer the reader back to those pages. At the risk of some +repetition, I will therefore consider the subject here. It will be +observed that on the older interpretation, which passed over the special +act of God in <i>designing</i> and <i>publishing the design,</i> and descended at +once to the earth to the process of producing the designed forms, this +order was matter of great importance.</p> + +<p>Granting the supporters of this view that the six days are unequal +periods often of vast duration, with or without important subdivisions, +they are bound to make out that each creation began, and was at any rate +well advanced, <i>before</i> the next began. We ought, in fact, to see a +period more or less prolonged when the whole of what is indicated in the +<i>plant</i> verse was well advanced, <i>before</i> any marine or fresh-water life +appeared at all.<a name="FNanchor_1_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_91"><sup>[91]</sup></a></p> + +<p>All attempts to make out that this <i>was</i> so, have proved failures. It is +assumed, for instance (and justly so), that life on the globe began with +low vegetable forms; these represented the "grass" of the text, and it +is suggested that the "fruit tree" is represented by the Devonian and +Carboniferous <i>conifers</i>. This in itself is a very strained view. It is +recollected that the terms used are not scientific, but for the world at +large; but without confining "fruit tree" to mean only trees having +<i>edible</i> fruit, still the appearance of a few first species of +<i>conifers</i> in the Devonian, can hardly be called an adequate fulfilment +of the requirements of the passage. But even so, myriads of fish and +other animals existed <i>before</i> the Devonian and Carboniferous plant age.</p> + +<p>The animal forms that so existed, have therefore to be <i>ignored</i>, or are +assumed to have been created without special notice: and it is said that +the Mosaic period of "moving creatures of the deep," fishes and +monsters, only began when the rocks begin to show <i>great abundance</i> of +shells, of fish, and subsequently of huge reptilians which prepared the +way for birds—which gradually make their appearance towards the Trias.</p> + +<p>But the Devonian "age of fishes" (Devonian including old red sandstone) +was far too important a period to be thus got rid of; and it is +difficult to understand <i>why</i> the narrative should exclude all the +extensive and beautiful (though often little specialized) orders of +marine life—all the Corals, the Mollusca and Articulata, which had long +abounded—especially some of the Crustaceans, not an unimportant group +of which (<i>Trilobite</i><a name="FNanchor_1_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_92"><sup>[92]</sup></a>) had also culminated and almost passed away +before the Devonian; to say nothing of the fact that <i>land</i> "creeping +things" (scorpions among <i>crustacea</i>, and apparently winged insects) had +occurred.</p> + +<p>It is a special difficulty also, that if <i>insects</i> are included among +the "creeping things" of the <i>earth</i> then various families of the +"land-creation" (sixth day) became represented <i>before</i> the great +reptiles of the "water-creation" (fifth day).</p> + +<p>The fact is that a glance at the subjoined Tables (which are only +generally and approximately correct) will suffice to show how the main +features of the progress of life-forms differ from what is required by +the older methods of reading Genesis. To reduce the table within limits, +I have grouped together all the lower forms of life in the animal table, +viz., the sponges, corals, encrinites, and molluscs. It is sufficient to +say that these appear in all the rocks except the very oldest—the +Caelenterata beginning, and the Molluscoids exhibiting an early order in +<i>brachiopoda</i>, which seems to be dying out. Crustaceans and insects +appeared as early as Silurian times.</p> + +<p>The idea of successive "kingdoms" or "periods," each of which was +<i>complete</i> in its actual fauna upon earth before the next was fully +ushered in, can no longer be defended.</p> + +<p>It is in the <i>completion</i> of one class of life before the other, that +the fallacy of the period theory lies—for completion is essential to +that theory which supposes "the Mosaic author" to have intended to +describe the <i>process of production on earth</i>.</p> + +<p>But it is quite impossible to deny that there <i>is</i> a certain observable +movement and gradual procession in the history of life which is exactly +consistent with what is most likely to have happened, supposing the +Divine designs of life-forms were first declared in successive order at +short intervals of time, and then that the processes of nature worked +out the designs in the fulness of time and gradually in order, each one +<i>beginning</i> before the next, but only beginning.</p> + +<p>I do not deny that it is perfectly <i>conceivable</i> that the Creator might +have designed the forms in one order, and that the actual production or +evolution of the corresponding living creatures might not have been (for +reasons not understood) exactly, or even at all, coincident with the +order.</p> + +<p>But it is impossible to deny the strong feeling of probability that the +commands would <i>begin</i> to be worked out, in the order in which they were +uttered.</p> + +<p>And here it is that the correspondence which undoubtedly exists, gives +rise to controversy.</p> + +<p>From one point of view it is just enough to encourage the "period" +holders to try and arrange a scheme; but it is just hot enough to +prevent their opponents (justly) taxing them with straining or +"torturing" the text and failing fairly to make out their case after +all. From another point of view the correspondence is so far +established, and so undeniably unprecedented (in human cosmogonies) and +noteworthy, as to demand imperatively our careful consideration and +compel us to account for it.</p> + +<p>It will be observed, first of all, that the whole "creation" (omitting +all incidental and preparatory works) is stated in <i>groups</i> each having +an order within itself.</p> + +<p><i>Group</i> 1. God created (both land and water) "vegetation"—plants +yielding seed, fruit-trees.</p> + +<p><i>Group</i> 2. +In water, not necessarily excluding <i>amphibia</i>:—Great aquatic monsters; +fish and all other creatures that move. In air:—Winged fowl.</p> + +<p><i>Group</i> 3. On land generally—for some forms are amphibious:—Beasts +(<i>Carnivora</i>), cattle (<i>Ungulata</i>, &c.), and other things that creep +on the ground (the smaller and lower forms of life collectively).</p> + +<p>The order <i>within</i> the groups is evidently of no consequence, because +the writer does not adhere to it in two consecutive verses dealing with +the same subject; while the "versions" seem to point to some variations +in the text itself as to arrangement, though not as to substance.</p> + +<p>But as regards the order <i>of</i> the groups themselves, it is, as I said, +very natural (but yet not logically inevitable) to expect that when the +results came to be existent on earth, those results should exhibit a +sequence corresponding to the order in which the groups were created. +And it is never denied (in <i>any</i> of the most recent publications<a name="FNanchor_1_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_93"><sup>[93]</sup></a>) +that to this extent nature confirms the belief.</p> + +<p>I am aware that Professor Huxley's recent articles may at first sight +seem to go against this; but that is not so on any grounds of actual +fact, but of a particular <i>interpretation</i>—which I submit is wholly +unwarranted.</p> + +<p>For instance, it is insisted that the "sea-monsters" of the second group +included <i>sirenia</i> and <i>cetacea</i> (dugongs, manatees, and whales, +dolphins, &c.), which are mammals. In that case a portion of the command +would not have been obeyed—a number of the designed forms would have +been kept in abeyance—for a long time. And the same is still more true +if bats—a highly placed group of mammals—were included in "winged +fowl."</p> + +<p>But both these interpretations are distinctly arbitrary, incapable of +holding good, and also entirely ignore the conditions of a Revelation.</p> + +<p>The narrative is not discussed or defended as an ordinary secular +narrative, which is true according to the <i>writer's uninspired intention +or the state of his personal knowledge</i>. It is defended as a Revelation. +The distinction is as obvious as it is important, directly a moment's +consideration is accorded.</p> + +<p>If we assume, for a moment, that God <i>did</i> (on any theory whatever of +Inspiration) instruct, direct, or enable the writer in making the +record, then it is obvious that the writer either put down what he saw +in a vision, or what was in some other manner borne on his mind. In any +case, he could have had no critical knowledge, and no historical +knowledge as an eye-witness, of the actual facts; and he may very well +therefore have used language the full meaning of which he did not +apprehend.<a name="FNanchor_1_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_94"><sup>[94]</sup></a> What alone is essential is, that the narrative as it +stands, on an ordinary critical, linguistic, and grammatical +interpretation, should not contain anything which is untrue. Suppose, +for example, the word "tannînîm" to be <i>incapable</i> of bearing any other +meaning linguistically than "cetacean," then the narrative might be +objected to; but if it will bear a meaning which is consistent with +fact, then it is no matter that the writer at the time had an erroneous, +or (what is more likely) no defined, idea in his own mind of the +meaning. And so with "winged fowl"—the objection fails entirely, unless +it can be shown, not only that the writer might have thought "bats" to +be included, <i>but</i> that linguistically the word <i>cannot have</i> any other +meaning than one which would include bats.<a name="FNanchor_2_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_95"><sup>[95]</sup></a></p> + +<p>We have every right, then, to say that the "tannînîm" of the text may be +taken to refer to that great and remarkable age of Saurians which is not +only of very great importance in itself, but becomes doubly so when we +see its connection backward with the fishes, and forward through the +Pterodactyles to Odontoformae (<i>Apatornis</i> and <i>Icthyornis</i>) and modern +winged birds (<i>Hesperonis</i> for the Penguins); and through the +Dinosaurs<a name="FNanchor_1_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_96"><sup>[96]</sup></a> with the Saurornithes, with the <i>Dinornis</i> and the +struthious birds; and through the Theriodonts with the mammalian +<i>carnivora</i>.</p> + +<p>In that case the sequence of the two groups, plants and aquatic +animal-forms, is explained. They come almost together—plants being +probably actually the first, and mollusca, fishes, and saurians.</p> + +<p>There is, further, no real dispute that the Saurians led up to the Aves, +and that the third group (of mammals) follows all the members of the +second group. The earliest known mammal (<i>microlestes</i>) is an isolated +forerunner of not very certain location, the real bulk of the mammalian +orders beginning in the Eocene. Seeing, too, how very closely one +Creative command is recorded to have followed on the other, it is not in +any way against the narrative that some land forms of crustaceans and +insects (and possibly others) began to appear at an early stage, when +the vegetable and water-animal forms had only progressed as far as the +Silurian and Devonian ages. Nor should we wonder if mammalian forms had +occurred earlier. I mention this because of the evident gap in the +geologic record between the Cretaceous and the Eocene, and because in +the article of December, 1885 (and elsewhere), Professor Huxley has used +language which suggests that mammals may have existed of which the rocks +give no sign. E.g. (p. 855): "The organization of the bat, bird, or +pterodactyle, presupposes that of a terrestrial quadruped ... and is +intelligible only as an extreme modification of the organization of a +terrestrial <i>mammal or</i> reptile." The italics are of course mine. And +again (p. 855), "I am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate +to admit that the organization of these animals (whales, dugongs, &c.) +shows the most obvious signs of their descent from terrestrial +quadrupeds."</p> + +<p>I do not quote these words of so great a master as presuming to question +them (even if, as a scientific verdict, I had any motive for so doing), +but merely to point out as a matter of plain and fair reasoning, that if +a Divine Creator had designed certain forms to be gradually attained by +the processes of Evolution, it would not be necessary that any actually +realized form or tangible creature should have existed as ancestors. +Logically, the necessity is <i>either</i> that certain animals should have +actually existed whose descendants gradually lost or gained certain +features and functions till the forms we are speaking of resulted, <i>or</i> +that certain patterns or designs should have been created according to +which development proceeded by regular laws till the forms in question +resulted.</p> + +<p>A few words as to the terms used in describing the contents of each +group, may be added. It is obvious that the terms are intended to be +exhaustive of certain main groups which are described sufficiently, +without being cast in a form which would have been incompatible with the +use (at the time) of a human agent as the medium of the recorded +Revelation.</p> + +<p>(1) "Vegetation" (of an indefinite character, but not bearing seed), +plants bearing seed, trees bearing fruit with the seed in it—certainly +exhaust the entire range of plant-life.</p> + +<p>(2) Moving creatures that live (and fish are afterwards expressly +mentioned) and great monsters (tann[i=]n[i=]m), cover the entire field +of life up to Reptilia as far as these are aquatic forms.</p> + +<p>(3) The terms used for the third group are also obviously +exhaustive—the separate mention of the <i>cattle</i> and the <i>beast</i> +(Carnivora and Ungulates) is a form which is invariably noticed +throughout the Old and New Testaments. The "creeping things" would +include all minor forms, all land reptiles not described above as the +"tann[i=]n[i=]m," and insects.</p> + +<p>And it is remarkable that the tortoises, the snakes, and, the more +modern forms of crocodile and lizard, and the amphibia and higher +insects, are all cainozoic—some of them were preceded by more or less +transitory representatives, e.g., the Carboniferous <i>Eosaurus</i> and +Permian <i>Protosaurus</i> the ancient Labyrinthodons and Urodelas, +Chelonians and the amphicaelian crocodiles. Snakes have no palaeozoic +representative.</p> + +<p>Land insects, as might naturally be expected, go back to the times when +land vegetation was sufficiently established, and appear gradually all +along the line from the Silurian onwards. The modern types, however, are +Tertiary.</p> + +<p>The succession, we observe, may be illustrated by the resemblance of a +number of arrows shot rapidly one after the other in so many parallel +courses: all would soon be moving nearly together.</p> + +<p>Plant-life, the subject of the first Divine designing, has, as far as we +can reasonably say, the start. According to known laws it appears in +elementary and undeveloped forms, and gradually progresses. One group +(Cryptogams) reaches a magnificent development and begins to die away in +point of grandeur, though still abundantly exemplified. Phanerogamic +plants in their lowest groups of gymnosperm exogens then begin to appear +in the Devonian conifers, gradually followed by <i>cycads</i>. And it is not +till Cainozoic times that we have the endogenous grasses and palms and +angiospermous exogens.</p> + +<p>But the command regarding animal life had followed the other after a +short interval, so that we soon see this developing <i>pari passu</i> with +the other groups—first the lower marine forms and gradually advancing +to the Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, and then to Aves, as a special +division in the second great design group. Lastly the mammals appear and +man.<a name="FNanchor_1_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_97"><sup>[97]</sup></a> But throughout all, we see the rise, culmination, and decay of +many transitory and apparently preparatory groups—such as, for example, +the Labyrinthodons and Urodelas—preceding the modern types of Amphibia; +ancient fish-forms preceding modern ones, and either dying out or +leaving but a few and distant representatives; or again, the whole +tribes of ancient Saurians, of which something has already been said. +All these wonderful under-currents and cross-currents, rises and falls, +appearances and disappearances, nevertheless all work together till the +whole earth is peopled with the forms, designed in the beginning by the +Heavenly Creator.</p> + +<p>No account of Creation can be other than wonderful and mysterious; nor +can the mystery of the Divine act be explained in language other than +that of analogy.</p> + +<p>We can speak without mystery of a human architect conceiving a design in +his mind; and when he utters it, it is by putting the plans and details +upon paper, and handing them over to the builders, who set to work +(under the architect's supervision, and in obedience to all the rules +he has prescribed as to the methods of work and materials to be used).</p> + +<p>All this we can transfer by analogy only, to a Divine design. The +design is in the Divine mind, and He utters it in no material plans or +drawings: the forces of nature and the chemical elements, His obedient +builders, have no hands to receive the plans or eyes to scan them; but +we can perceive the analogy directly, and that is all that is necessary +for Faith.</p> + +<p>The origin of all we see in the world and in the entire Cosmos is, then, +in God; and as regards the adjustments of our globe and its relations, +and the actual life-forms in plant and animal, they came into existence +pursuant to groups of types or designs, made by the Divine Mind, and +declared by Him from His Throne in heaven, in six several days—periods +of the rotation of our earth.</p> + +<p>That is the message of Revelation. It requires no straining of the +sacred text: it takes everything as it stands, and the seemingly lengthy +explanation it requires is not to manipulate the text, but to clear away +the heap of mistaken conceptions that have gathered round it:—to +establish the idea, that the terms "God said, Let there be," and so +forth, mean Heaven work, in the design and type—not earth work in its +realization and building up. Establishing this by illustration and +argument, nothing more is required in the way of textual exegesis except +to argue for the rejection of perverse and unsustainable meanings long +given to "days," to "expanse" or "firmament," and to "great whales" in +the narrative.</p> + +<p>It will be admitted readily that if this account of Creation is the true +one, if the meaning assigned to the Genesis narrative is correct, it +affords no hindrance to <i>any</i> conclusions that may progressively be +demanded by the investigation of life-history on earth.</p> + +<p>It requires us to believe that the forms which life assumes are not +chance forms, nor the <i>unpremeditated</i> results of environment and +circumstance. But we are not told positively which forms are transitory, +which are final.</p> + +<p>It is only a matter of probable opinion, which it is quite open to any +one to dispute, that there is any indication of finality. I should +personally be inclined to think that we have indications that carnivora, +ungulates, and birds are final forms; that no evolution will ever modify +a bird further into anything that is not a bird; that no transition +between the ungulates and the carnivora is possible; that the +<i>proboscideae</i> are not a final but a transitory type, dying out +gradually—our elephants and similar forms will disappear as the +mastodon did.</p> + +<p>But I admit this is all mere speculation, in which I ask no one to +follow me.</p> + +<p>On one important point only is there a difference; and if the text is +ever proved wrong on that, it must be given up. But it is here that all +scientific knowledge fails, in <i>any way whatever,</i> to touch the sacred +text. There <i>is</i> an unique and exceptional account of one "special +creation." A man "Adam" is described as having been actually created, +not born as an ultimately modified descendant of ancestors originally +far removed from himself. That is not to be denied; not only was his +bodily form specially created (conformably to the <i>type</i> created in +Genesis i. 26), but a special spiritual and higher life was +imparted—for I believe that no one disputes this as the meaning of the +expression, "breathed into his nostrils the <i>breath of lives,</i> and man +became a living soul."</p> + +<p>It must be noted again—although I have before alluded to this in some +detail—that it is not impossible that, pursuant to the general command +"Let us make man," there <i>may</i> have been other human creations, perhaps +not endowed with the higher life of Adam. If it is found difficult to +realize this because the <i>image of God</i> is connected (from the very +first) with the design of Man's life-form, still it is to be remembered +as an undeniable fact, that the form, though one assumed by God Himself +in the Incarnation, <i>is connected</i> in structure and function with the +general animal (Mammalian) type, and that even the Adamic or spiritually +endowed man <i>may</i>, by neglecting the higher and giving way to the lower +nature, develop much of the purely bestial in himself. So that the bare +possibility of a pre-Adamite and imperfect man cannot be <i>à priori</i> +denied. More than that it is not necessary to say. Nor is it necessary +that any origin of man should be limited to six or eight thousand years +back. If the state of the text is such that a perfect chronology is +possible,<a name="FNanchor_1_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_98"><sup>[98]</sup></a> then all that the Bible goes back to chronologically is the +particular man Adam. And it is quite impossible that any scientific or +historical contradiction can arise therefrom.</p> + + +<a name="Footnote_1_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_81">[81]</a><div class="note"> Psa. xxxiii. 6, and so Psa. cii. 25; <i>cf</i>. 2 Peter iii. 5.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_82">[82]</a><div class="note"> Waste (R.V.).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_83">[83]</a><div class="note"> It also needs only to be remarked, in passing, that we are +really in complete ignorance as to the light-medium, the +"luminiferous-ether" outside the comparatively thin stratum of our own +terrestrial atmosphere. We do not know whether there might not have been +a condition of the medium in which, up to the moment of a creative +<i>fiat</i>, it was incapable of transmitting light-waves.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_84">[84]</a><div class="note"> And this is still a mystery to us. <i>What</i> light is we do +not know—we can only speak of our own sensation of it. Nor do we know +<i>what</i> vibrates to produce light. Hypothetical terms, such as "ether," +"luminiferous-medium," and so forth, only conceal our ignorance.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_85">[85]</a><div class="note"> Compare Job xxxviii. 10, 11, and Psa. civ. 9.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_86">[86]</a><div class="note"> See this well summarized in Nicholson's "Manual of Zoology" +(sixth edition, 1880), p. 13, <i>et seq.</i></div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_87">[87]</a><div class="note"> I think this is quite sufficient, without relying on the +evidence of the great quantities of <i>carbon</i> in the earliest +(Laurentian, Huronian, &c.) strata in the form of graphite. It is +possible, or even probable, that this may be due to carbon supplied by +masses of little specialized <i>Thallophyte</i> and <i>Anophyte</i> vegetation.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_88">[88]</a><div class="note"> Ver. 19, &c. The same word is also used of "making" priests +(l Kings xii. 31), and appointing (R.V.)("advancing" A.V.), ("making," +as we familiarly say) Moses and Aaron (1 Sam. xii. 6).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_89">[89]</a><div class="note"> And the Psalmist justly speaks of God as <i>preparing</i> the +light of the sun (Psa. lxxiv. 16).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_90">[90]</a><div class="note"> See <a href="#FNanchor_3_75">here</a>.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_91">[91]</a><div class="note"> There was "evening and morning" of the third day, i.e., +beginning and <i>completion</i>, and also the whole interval of the fourth +day, <i>before</i> the command of the fifth.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_92">[92]</a><div class="note"> It is remarkable that the Trilobites rapidly culminated, so +that we have the largest and most perfect forms, such as <i>Paradoxus</i>, +with the lowest (<i>Agnostus</i>) in the same beds in Wales (Etheridge's +"Phillips' Manual," Part II. p. 32).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_93">[93]</a><div class="note"> I have done my best to verify this from the well-known +latest Manuals of Etheridge, Seeley, and Alleyne-Nicholson.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_94">[94]</a><div class="note"> As is constantly the case in prophetic writings. Revelation +tells of the remote past sometimes as well as the future, and in neither +case could the inspired writer fully understand the meaning that was +wrapped up in his sentences.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_95">[95]</a><div class="note"> As a matter of fact, in the one case, if the writer's +knowledge were of any importance, it is almost certain that he did <i>not</i> +mean <i>cetacean</i> or <i>sirenian</i>. In the other case it is impossible to say +whether he thought "bats" were included or not. It is not in the nature +of things that the writer could ever have seen or even heard of a +manatee or a dugong; nor is it likely that he had been a sea-farer, or +could have seen any Mediterranean cetacean. As far as his own knowledge +went, he probably had but a very confused idea. And if we refer to the +poetic description in Psalm civ. 25, 26, we find "leviathan," though +distinctly a sea creature, still one of which the writer had only a +vague traditional idea, certainly not a <i>known</i> Mediterranean dolphin, +for in Job xli. the same term is applied to the crocodile.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_96">[96]</a><div class="note"> And perhaps the pachydermatous mammals (Nicholson, +"Zoology," p. 566).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_97">[97]</a><div class="note"> Nor should we be surprised to find (should it be so +discovered) that some animals appeared after man. (<i>Cf</i>. "Nineteenth Century" for Dec. 1885, p. 856.)</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_98">[98]</a><div class="note"> It should be borne in mind that just as Revelation is often +absolutely silent on many points that mere curiosity would like to see +explained, so also, the Divine Author may have allowed parts of the +original text of Revelation to be so far lost or obscured as to leave +further points that <i>might</i> have been once recorded, now doubtful. All +that we may be quite sure of is that the text has been preserved for all +that is essential to "life and godliness."</div> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="APPENDIX"></a><h2>APPENDIX.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN.</i></p> + +<p>The information here put together is a compilation from papers in "The +Nineteenth Century," and other sources. It has no pretentions to +originality, but only to give a brief and connected account of the +subject, more condensed and freed from surrounding details than that +which the original sources afford.</p> + +<p>Before entering on the subject, I would again call attention to the +surpassing importance of these early chapters of Genesis. And, I add, +that unbelievers are especially glad to be able to allege anything they +can against them, because they are aware that hardly any chapters in the +Bible are more constantly alluded to, and made the foundation of +practical arguments by our Lord and His Apostles, than these early +chapters in the Divine volume. If these chapters can be shown to be +mythical, then the divine knowledge of our Lord, as the Son of God, and +the inspiration of His Apostles, are put in question. All through the +Old Testament, allusions to Adam and to the early history in Genesis +occur; and among other passages, I will only here invite attention to +the 31st chapter of Ezekiel, where there is, in a most beautiful +description of the cedar-tree, an allusion to "Eden, the Garden of God" +(see also chapter xxviii. ver. 13), which some have thought to indicate +that the site was still known, and existing in the time of the prophet. +This at least may be remarked, that in verse 9, where the prophet speaks +of the "trees that <i>were</i> in the Garden of God," the word <i>were</i> is not +in the original, and the sense of the context would rather denote the +present tense—"the trees that <i>are</i> in the Garden of God."</p> + +<p>But it is in the New Testament that the most repeated and striking +allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the Serpent, and the +entrance of sin and death into the life-history of mankind, occur.<a name="FNanchor_1_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_99"><sup>[99]</sup></a></p> + +<p>As regards the narrative of Eden itself, there has been, from the very +earliest times, some disposition to regard it as mystical or +"allegorical," i.e., to regard it as representing spiritual facts of +temptation and disobedience, under the guise or story of an actual +audible address by a serpent, and the eating of an actual fruit. The +earliest translators seem to have glossed the "Gan-'Eden," everywhere in +the Old Testament (<i>except</i> in Gen. ii. 8), by the phrase "the paradise +of pleasure," or some other similar term. And the Vulgate <i>always</i> uses +some phrase, such as "place of delight," "voluptas," "deliciae," &c. It +must be admitted that there is some temptation to this course, because +of the inveterate tendency of the human mind to reduce things to its own +level—to suppose everything to have happened <i>in ways which are within +its present powers to comprehend.</i> We figure to ourselves the fear and +dislike <i>we</i> should ourselves experience, of a large snake; we imagine +the amazement with which an intelligible voice would be heard to proceed +from such a creature; so far from being <i>tempted, we</i> should at once be +moved to hostility or to flight; and thus we are inclined to throw doubt +on the narrative as it stands.</p> + +<p>But this is to do what we justly complain of modern materialists and +positivists for doing—reducing everything to terms of present +experience and knowledge.</p> + +<p>It has to be borne in mind, that <i>under the conditions of the case</i>, the +serpent was neither ugly, dangerous, nor loathsome, but beautiful and +attractive; that the residents of the Garden were familiar with the +"voice of God"—i.e., they had habitual intelligible communication with +heaven: probably, also, free intercourse with angelic messengers +(inconceivable as it may now seem to us) was matter of daily experience +to them. The woman would then recognize in the voice an Angel +communication; and unaware at first that it was an evil angel, it would +excite no surprise in her at all. Sensations of terror, surprise, +dislike, and so forth, were <i>ex hypothesi</i> unknown. Why then should not +the narrative be exact, unless, indeed, we have some <i>à priori</i> ground +for supposing that human nature <i>never could</i> have been in a state where +the voice of God and angels sounded in its ears, and where innocence and +the absence of all evil emotion was the daily condition of life? The +unbeliever may sneer at such a state, but <i>reason</i> why it should <i>not</i> +have been, he can give none. So, again, with the idea of the "tree of +the knowledge of good and evil" and the "tree of life." We are no doubt +tempted to think that these terms may be symbolic; but a more careful +reflection, and a deliberate rejection of the <i>influence of present +experiences</i>, may lead us to accept the narrative more literally. Even +now, we are not unfamiliar with the ideas of medicinal virtues in plants +and fruits. I see nothing impossible in the idea that God may have been +pleased to impart such virtue to the fruit of a tree standing in the +midst of the Garden, that physical health, immunity from all decay, and +constant restoration, should have been the result of eating the fruit; +and the eating of this fruit, we know, was freely permitted. The late +Archbishop Whately suggested, and I think with great probability, that +the longevity of the earliest generations of the Adamic race may have +been due to the beneficial effects of the eating of this fruit, which +only gradually died out. Just as we know at the present time, that +peculiarities introduced into human families, often survive from father +to son, till they gradually die out after many generations.</p> + +<p>Again, as regards the "forbidden tree," it will not seem impossible, +that as a simple <i>test of obedience</i> in a very primitive state, the rule +of abstinence from a particular fruit may have been literally enjoined, +and that the consequence of the moral act of <i>disobedience</I> (rather +than the physical effect of the fruit eaten) should have been the +knowledge of evil, the first sensation of shame, terror, angry +dissension, and, worst of all, the alienation from God the source of all +good, which followed.</p> + +<p>All such considerations of the reality of the history must gain greatly +in strength, if we can demonstrate that the Garden of Eden, the scene of +the temptation, the place where the trees that were the vehicles of such +consequences to the occupants of the garden, stood, had a real existence +and geographical site. Now I need hardly remark that the Mosaic +narrative unquestionably <i>professes</i> a geographical exactness and a +literal existence of the garden, as no fabled locality—no Utopia or +garden of the Hesperides. I need only refer to the <i>data</i> afforded to us +by Gen. ii. 8-14.</p> + +<p>The Lord, it is said, planted a garden in Eden: it was "eastward;" but +that does not directly indicate its site. From Gen. iv. 16, we also +learn that the land of Nod where Cain dwelt (after the murder of Abel) +was on the east of Eden.</p> + +<p>A river went out and watered the garden. After passing the limits of +Eden, the river is said to have divided itself, or parted, into four +heads, i.e., arms or branches. The first branch was called Pison. This +branch "compasseth," i.e., forms the boundary along the whole length of, +"<i>the</i> Havilah." This country is spoken of as being a tract wherein was +produced good gold, "b'dolach" (translated "bdellium") and "shoham" +(translated "onyx.") The second branch was Gihon, which is described as +similarly compassing the district of K[=u]sh. Here our A.V., by +substituting "Ethiopia" for the original "C[=u]sh," has made a gloss +rather than a translation; and this gloss has given rise to several +errors of commentators in identifying the site of Eden. The Revised +Version has corrected the error.</p> + +<p>The third branch was Hiddekel, the <i>Diklatu</i> of the Arabs, the Tigra of +the old Persians, and the <i>Tigris</i> of later writers. This is said to run +eastward towards Assyria.<a name="FNanchor_1_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_100"><sup>[100]</sup></a> The fourth river was the Frat or Euphrates. +Observe, in passing, that the author gives no detail about the great +river Euphrates, as being well known; while he adds particulars about +the Tigris, and describes the Gihon and the Pison in some detail.</p> + +<p>Now it will at once strike the reader that two of these rivers are well +known to the present day. The others are not.</p> + +<p>It is in the identification of these two, and of the districts which +they "compassed," which form the difficulties of the problem. Up till +recent times, it is remarkable what a variety of speculations have been +attempted as to the situation of Eden. Dr. Aldis Wright, the learned +author of the article "Eden" in Smith's "Biblical Dictionary," remarks: +"It would be difficult, in the whole history of opinion, to find any +subject which has so invited, and at the same time completely baffled, +conjecture, as the Garden of Eden." And in another place he thinks that +"the site of Eden will ever rank with the quadrature of the circle, and +the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy among those unsolved, and +perhaps insoluble, problems which possess so strange a fascination." It +is, however, to be remarked, (1)that all that was written before +Professor Delitzsch's researches were made known; and (2)that really a +great mass of the conjecture and speculation has been purely in the +air—undertaken without any reference to the plain terms of the text to +be interpreted. It is the extravagance of commentators, and their +insisting on going beyond the narrative itself, that has raised such +difficulties, and made the problem look more hopeless than it really is.</p> + +<p>To what purpose are "the three continents of the old world" "subjected +to the most rigorous search," as Dr. Wright puts it—when it is quite +plain from the text itself, that the solution is to be sought in the +neighbourhood of the Euphrates, or not at all? The whole inquiry seems +to have been one in which a vast cloud of learned dust has been raised +by speculators, who began their inquiry without clearly determining, to +start with, what was the point at issue. Either the description in Gen. +ii. 3-14 is meant for allegory, or geographical fact: this question must +first be settled; and if the latter is agreed to, then it is quite +inconceivable that the words should imply any very extensive region, or +any fancied realm extending over a large proportion of one or other +quarter of the globe. The problem is then at once narrowed; and it is +simply unreasonable to look for Havila in India, or for Pison in the +province of Burma, as one learned author does!</p> + +<p>Yet commentators have forgotten this; and gone—the earlier ones into +interpretation of allegory—the later into impossible geographical +speculation; while only the most recent have confined themselves to the +obvious terms of the problem as laid down in the narrative itself—a +narrative which (whether true or false) is clearly meant to be definite +and exact, as we have seen. Our A.V. translators are to be held, to +some extent, responsible for the freedom which speculation has +exercised, by themselves taking the C[=u]sh of the narrative to +"Ethiopia," i.e., to the African continent—for which there is no +authority whatever.</p> + +<p>As regards the <i>allegorical</i> interpretations, they are too extravagant +for serious notice. Souls, angels, human passions and motives, are +supposed to be represented by towns, rivers, and countries. To all this +it is enough to reply—What reason can we have for supposing an +allegory suddenly to be interpolated at Gen. ii. 8? There is no allegory +before it, there is none after.</p> + +<p>Then as to the early geographical expounders. Josephus and others +supposed the allusion was made to the great rivers known to ancient +geography, all of which ran into that greatest river of all, which +encircled the globe. In this view, the Gihon might be the Nile, and the +Pison the Ganges! Here, again, it may be remarked it is impossible to +read the narrative and believe that the author meant any such widespread +region. Even if the author had the ancient ideas about cosmography +generally, that would not prevent his being accurate about a limited +region lying to the east of a well-known river in a populous country. In +later times Luther avoided the difficult speculation by supposing that +the Deluge had swept away all traces of the site! But unfortunately for +this convenient theory, it is a plain fact that the Deluge did not sweep +any two out of the four rivers named. The reader who is curious on the +subject, will find in Dr. A. Wright's article a brief account of the +various identifications proposed by all these commentators. It would not +be interesting to go into any detail. I shall pass over all those +extravagant views which go to places remote from the Euphrates, and come +at once to the later attempts to solve the question in connection with +the two known rivers, Euphrates and Hiddekel (Tigris); as this is the +only kind of solution that any reasonable modern Biblical student will +admit.</p> + +<p>The different explanations adopted maybe grouped into two main attempts: +(1) to find the place among the group of rivers that surrounds Mount +Ararat in Northern Armenia, <i>vis.</i>, in the extreme upper course of the +Euphrates near its two sources; (2) to find the place below the +<i>present</i> junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris, along some part of +the united course, which is now more than two hundred miles long, and is +called "Shatt-el-'Aráb."</p> + +<p>But neither of these attempts has been successful: the first must, +indeed, be absolutely dismissed; because the Hebrew phrases used in +describing the four <i>branches</i> of the river that "went out," and watered +the garden, and then parted, cannot be applied to four independent +sources or streams—<i>upstream</i> of the Euphrates. It will not, then, +satisfy the problem, to find four rivers somewhere in the vicinity of +the Euphrates, and which, in a general way, enclose a district in which +Eden might be placed. It may, indeed, be doubted whether this first +attempt (which I may call the "North Armenian solution") would ever have +been seriously entertained, but from the fact that the name Gihon—or +something very like it—did attach itself to the Araxes or Phasis, a +considerable river of Armenia. Finding a Gihon ready, the commentators +next made the Pison, the Acampsis; and then as Pison was near the +"Havila land," this country was laid on the extreme north of Armenia; +all this without a particle of evidence of any kind.<a name="FNanchor_1_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_101"><sup>[101]</sup></a> I may here take +the opportunity of remarking that a chance <i>similarity of names</i><a name="FNanchor_2_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_102"><sup>[102]</sup></a> has +been, throughout the controversy, a fruitful source of enlarged +speculative wandering. Thus this name Gihon (Gaihun, Jíkhún, G[=e][=o]n, +&c.) that appears in North Armenia, again appears in connection with the +<i>Nile</i>; while again the name "Nile" has wandered back to the confines of +Persia, and one of the <i>Euphrates</i> branches is still called +"Shatt-en-nîl." The ancients, indeed, had very curious ideas about the +Nile. Its real sources being so long undiscovered—no Speke or Grant +having appeared—imagination ran wild on the subject. Not only so, but +it is remarkable that the name <i>Cush</i> should have acquired both a +Persian Gulf and an Egyptian employment: and the writer of the able +article in "The Nineteenth Century" (October, 1882) points out several +other singular instances in which names are common both to the +African-Egyptian region, and to this.</p> + +<p>Turning now to the second of the two theories, the identification of the +site on the lower part of the Euphrates after its now existing junction +with the Tigris (and which the supporters of the theory have justified +by making the Gihon and Pison two rivers coming from Eden) must also be +set aside.</p> + +<p>For the important fact has been overlooked that it is quite certain, +that anciently, the joint stream, (Shatt-el-'Aráb), as it now is, did +not exist. Though the Genesis narrative tells us of a junction +<i>immediately outside</i> the southern boundary of the Garden, the Euphrates +channels and the Tigris branch (with part of the Euphrates water in it) +flowed separately to the Persian Gulf. It is quite certain that, in the +time of Alexander the Great, the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris were +a good day's journey apart. For this separate outflow there is the +incontestable evidence of Pliny and other authors quoted by Professor +Delitzsch. I may here also remark, that anciently the Persian Gulf +extended much farther inland than it does now. In the time of +Sennacherib, an inland arm of the sea extended so far, that a <i>naval</i> +expedition against Elam was possible; more than one hundred miles inland +from the present sea-line. The extension was called N[=a]r Marratum. In +Alexander's time, the city of Charax (now Mohamra) was founded close to +the sea (that was in the fourth century B.C.). It is known from later +histories, that shortly before the birth of our Saviour, the city was +from fifty to one hundred and twenty Roman miles inland. The change is +due to the "Delta," or alluvial formation at the mouth of the rivers.</p> + +<p>Turning, then, to the recent inquiries (published in 1881<a name="FNanchor_1_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_103"><sup>[103]</sup></a>) by +Professor Fried. Delitzsch, it must be confessed that the results +obtained are such as to completely avoid all the difficulties that beset +the other explanations: yet we ought not to be too confident that it is +a final or absolute explanation. A certain caution and reserve will +still be wisely maintained on the subject. At any rate, they show that +<i>an</i> explanation, one that answers <i>all</i> the conditions of the problem, +<i>can</i> be given; and that is a great thing.</p> + +<p>In placing the site <i>on</i> the Euphrates, and far from the mountain +sources, there is no violence done to the Hebrew language used to +describe the first river, as one that "went out," and watered the +Garden. The words do not require that the river should actually <i>take</i> +its <i>rise</i> within the Garden limits; but it is necessary that the river +should be so situated, that its waters could be distributed by means of +creeks or canals across the Garden, that it could be said the river +"went out and watered the Garden." Now it is a remarkable fact, that in +the district just above Babylon, the bed of the Euphrates is in level +much higher than the bed of the Tigris (Hiddekel) to the east, and that +hence there always have been a number of very variable channels leading +from the Euphrates eastward to the Tigris. These, it is well known, were +often enlarged by the ancients and converted into useful "inundation +canals" for irrigation and the passage of boats. Imagine, then, the high +level river bed of the Euphrates, and various streams flowing off it +down to the valley of the Tigris, and we have a most efficiently +irrigated "Garden," and one accurately described by the text—the great +river "went out" and watered it. The Euphrates, moreover, is liable to +great flushes of water from the melting of the snows in wide tracts of +mountain or highlands from which its waters are collected, and these +volumes of water found vent from the overcharged mother-channel by +escape, not only through the side channels, just spoken of, but also by +other important branches on the other side. Every one who has seen one +of the great rivers of Northern India will at once realize the changes +that take place where a river liable to floods has its bed at a high +level. It is almost a matter of certainty that, in the course of years, +the branches and channels of rivers so constituted will change, and old +ones be left dry and deserted. These essential topographical conditions +have always to be remembered in interpreting the narrative of Genesis +ii.</p> + +<p>In fact, they furnish us with points which help us in the problem at the +outset. (1) There is a part of the Euphrates, just above Babylon, where +the river naturally furnished abundant irrigation for a Garden planted +eastward of it, by means of natural irrigation channels flowing from the +high level down to the lower valley of the Tigris; and (2) there is also +a point from which the Euphrates did branch out, and several important +arms anciently existed.</p> + +<p>Nor is the locality, in point of verdure and fertility, unsuitable. Not +only do the ancient histories make frequent mention of the canals and +streams flowing from the Euphrates which I have alluded to, but they +speak of the palm groves, the vines and the verdure of the Babylonian or +Chaldean region. Herodotus, in his first book, has the most glowing +description of the scene; and the kings of Babylon had numerous enclosed +gardens or parks: these were imitated in Persia, and gave rise to the +Persian name "Firdaus," which Xenophon imported into Greek in the form +of <font face="symbol">paradeisoV</font> or "paradise"—the term which was adopted by the +Seventy translators.</p> + +<p>The actual locality which Professor Delitzsch proposes as the most +probable site of the Garden of Eden is between the present Euphrates and +Tigris, just to the north of Babylon. The boundaries would be—roughly +and generally speaking—the two rivers for East and West; while for the +North and South boundaries we should draw parallel lines through Accad +on the North and Babylon on the South.</p> + +<p>But granted that the general locality and the relations of the river +Euphrates and Tigris satisfy the requirements of the text by such a +location as this: how about the other two <i>and</i> the countries which they +compass? The troubles of the earlier commentators will warn us, that we +need not be too ready to force names, and to identify one river, and +then, <i>because</i> we have fixed that, make the country which the text +requires follow it!</p> + +<p>It is, however, in this matter that Professor Delitzsch's work is so +satisfactory. He has pointed out, that there is historical evidence (and +also that the local traces are not wanting in the present day) to prove +that, just below Babylon, we <i>can</i> find two prominently important +channels or branches of the Euphrates, which will at least supply the +place of Pison and Gihon. As to the first, it is known that in historic +times a great channel called by the Greeks Pallakopas (navigable for +ships) used to carry off the surplus water of the Euphrates when swollen +in the summer season by the melting snows of the Armenian mountains. It +branched off from the main river at a point somewhat north of Babylon, +and flowed into the Persian gulf. There is, indeed, no <i>direct</i> evidence +to show that this branch bore a name resembling Pison. <i>Palgu</i> is the +Assyrian whence the Greek Pallakopas was derived. It is remarkable, +however, that the word Pison closely resembles the cuneiform term +"pisána," or "pisánú," which is used for a water-reservoir, a canal or a +channel; and as this "Pallakopas" was <i>the</i> channel <i>par excellence</i>, it +may very possibly have been called "pisána" or Pison, the (great) +channel. The identification of the channel called "Pallakopas" will be +found mentioned in Colonel Chesney's work, "An Expedition to the +Tigris." The name, however, of this channel is not the only means we +have of identifying it. The Scripture says that the Pison compasses the +land of <i>Havilah</i>. Now let us remember, that the Scripture tells of two +Havilahs: (1) The second son of Cush<a name="FNanchor_1_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_104"><sup>[104]</sup></a> and brother of Nimrod, and (2) +one of the great great grandsons of Shem (Gen. x. 29). One we may call +the Cushite Havilah, the other the Joktanite Havilah. The dwelling-place +of the brother of Nimrod is not mentioned, but it is stated that the +Joktanite Havilah dwelt in "Mesha." The tenth of Genesis is an important +chapter, as showing how the descendants of Noah branched out and spread +over the countries all round the Euphrates; some going north to Assyria +(Nineveh), others to the east and west, and others south, to Arabia and +Egypt. Now it so happens that the whole country west of the great +Pallakopas channel, was called by the Assyrians "Mashu." Professor +Delitzsch identifies this Mashu of the cuneiform inscriptions, with the +"Mesha" mentioned in Scriptures, as the home of Havilah. We have also in +Gen. xxv. 8,<a name="FNanchor_2_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_105"><sup>[105]</sup></a> mention of a land of Havila that is "before"—i.e., +eastward of—"Egypt as thou goest toward Assyria," which would answer +very well to this locality, west of the Euphrates. It is also known +(from sources which it would take too long to detail) that this country +did yield gold-dust. Pliny also mentions "Bdellium," if that was the +substance known as "B'dolach." It is indeed uncertain what this was, but +Gesenius long ago rejected the idea that it was a stone, because there +is no prefix to it, as there is to "shoham," which follows, and +certainly is a precious stone. The manna in the wilderness is described +as being of the "colour of bdellium," and was also like hoar-frost;<a name="FNanchor_3_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_106"><sup>[106]</sup></a> +hence the idea that b'dolach was a crystal. But a fragrant and precious +gum-resin seems more likely. The Magi who came to worship the Infant +Saviour from near this locality, brought offerings of <i>gold</i>, and also +fragrant gums and myrrh. Was "bdellium" (as probably being a fragrant +gum) one of these offerings?</p> + +<p>The "Onyx," or "Shoham," was most probably a pure red cornelian, and +this also was found in the Babylonian provinces, and was specially worn +by the Babylonian kings.</p> + +<p>So the country west of the Euphrates answers very well to Havila without +any forcing, and without any placing it there <i>because</i> of the river +rendering such a plan necessary.</p> + +<p>As to the fourth river (Gihon), Delitzsch identifies it, still more +clearly, with a channel known as the "Shatt-en-níl," which branches off +from the Euphrates at Babylon itself, and passing the Scriptural city of +Erech, rejoins the main river lower down. A clay tablet has actually +been discovered, having the Euphrates, Tigris, and this Shatt-en-níl +channel <i>together</i>: the name of the latter is given as "K[=a]hán de," or +"Gughánde," a name which closely resembles Gihon. The channel is, +however, identified independently of the name. For the Gihon is +particularized in the narrative, by the fact that it "compasses" the +land of Cush. This (as already pointed out) is not the Ethiopian Cush.</p> + +<p>Delitzsch states, that the whole country bounded by this branch was +anciently called Kash-shu, which he identifies with the Cush of Genesis +ii. The syllable "Kash" appears throughout this locality. In fact +Kash-du or Kal-du is the origin of the familiar name Chaldea. In the +Hebrew, Kush (Cush) is the name given to the father of Nimrod, who +"began" his kingdom about this very site—Erech, and Calneh, and Accad +(Gen. x. 8, 10). Hence it is not surprising that relics of the name +should be found all round this neighbourhood. Nor does the evidence end +here. The district immediately around Babylon was called "Kár-dunish-i," +i.e., the "Garden of the god Dunish." Now Kar is the Turanian form of +the Semitic G[=a]n, or Gin[=a] (garden); and what is more likely than +that, as the true story was lost in the heathen traditions and mythology +that grew up, the "garden" was attributed to the god Dunish—whereas the +real original had been not "Gàndunish," but "Gan'Eden?" This, though +only a conjecture, is the more probable, as one of the inscription-names +of Babylon itself was "Tintira," which, though a little obscure, +certainly means <i>either</i> the "<i>grove</i>," or the <i>"fountain," of life.</i></p> + +<p>We thus find, not only that four great branches of the river that "went +out," and watered the Garden can be traced, but that the two really do +"compass" tracts, that can, with the highest degree of probability, be +identified as C[=u]sh or Kash, and Havilah. The importance of Professor +Delitzsch's work may now be briefly glanced at. It may be objected, that +such a process of reasoning as that put forward, is not convincing to a +general reader who has not the means of criticizing or testing Professor +Delitzsch's conclusions: he therefore cannot be sure that, in selecting +two channels to represent the Pison and the Gihon, and in identifying +"Mashu" with Mesha of Havilah, and one of the Babylonian districts with +Kush, the Professor has at last hit off a solution of the problem which +will not in its turn be disproved, as all earlier solutions have been. +There is, however, this important conclusion to be safely drawn, viz., +that a complete explanation in exact accord with the Hebrew text is +<i>possible</i>, and that hence nothing can be urged against the <i>narrative</i>, +on the ground (hitherto sneeringly taken) that the geography <i>was +impossible</i> and so forth.</p> + +<p>Next let me very briefly sum up what it is that Dr. Delitzsch has +done—marshalling the evidence, beginning from the broad end and +narrowing down till we arrive at the point.</p> + +<p>(1) First, then, we are fixed by the narrative to some place between the +Euphrates and the Tigris.</p> + +<p>(2) We find in the ancient inscriptions of the chief city of this +locality, constant allusions to a Garden, a primitive pair and a +temptation: one of these almost exactly reproduces the Bible story; it +is not of the earliest date and is a copy. But discovery is far from +being exhausted; all that we know is <i>consistent</i> with the idea of an +original story, gradually corrupted by the addition of legends, and +introduction of mythological persons and heathen divinities. The true +belief in one God, who made Himself known by voice or vision to His true +worshippers, seems early to have been confined to a few of the Shemitic +families, while the others "invented" gods of their own.</p> + +<p>(3) We find that the region about Babylon itself was called +Kár-dunishi—which easily recalls Kar or Gán-Eden. We also find the name +(Tintira) applied, indicating a "grove" or "fountain" of life; in the +locality where the direct legends most abound.</p> + +<p>(4) We find from ancient authors that the district was one of rich +verdure—a land of gardens and irrigation.</p> + +<p>(5) We find that some way above Babylon about Accad, the level of the +river bed Euphrates is so much higher than the valley of the Tigris +eastward, that numerous streams flow off from it, which would serve +admirably to irrigate a garden situated between the two, eastward of the +Euphrates.</p> + +<p>(6) We find that the Persian Gulf once extended more than one hundred +miles farther inland than it does now. That there was no joint outflow +of Tigris and Euphrates, but, though they did join their streams above, +they parted again and had still separate mouths—of the Tigris branch +one, of the Euphrates several.</p> + +<p>(7) Lastly, Professor Delitzsch finds two channels which answer to Pison +and Gihon.</p> + +<p>(8) He proves these two to be the right ones by considering the +countries which they "compass:" and actually finds the one that he +supposes to be the "Gaihûn," called, in the cuneiform clay tablets, +"Kahán or Gaghân-dé."</p> + +<p>It is really only in (7) and (8) that there is any room for doubt and +for further inquiry.</p> + +<p>At any rate, the credibility of the narrative, and a belief in its +purpose, as a topographically exact statement of fact, not an allegory +or legend, is established.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_99">[99]</a><div class="note"> See <a href="#FRef99">here</a> <i>ante</i>.</div> + + +<a name="Footnote_1_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_100">[100]</a><div class="note"> So the margin of the A. and R. Versions more correctly.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_101">[101]</a><div class="note"> And it is astonishing to find the error generally +perpetuated in maps attached to modern Bibles.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_102">[102]</a><div class="note"> As distinct from a real philological connection of a modern +name with a more ancient one, and so forth.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_103">[103]</a><div class="note"><p> "Wo lag das Paradies" (Leipzig, 1881) is the title of the +book.<br> +Professor Friedrich Delitzsch is Professor of Assyriology in the University of Leipzig.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_104">[104]</a><div class="note"> See Gen. x. 9.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_105">[105]</a><div class="note"> See also 1 Sam. xv. 7.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_3_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_106">[106]</a><div class="note"> Exod. xvi. 14; Numbers xi. 7: "The appearance (lit. "eye") +of it was as the appearance of bdellium" (R.V.).</div> + +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 12852 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + + + diff --git a/12852-h/images/00000172.gif b/12852-h/images/00000172.gif Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..74a244d --- /dev/null +++ b/12852-h/images/00000172.gif diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..072c959 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #12852 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12852) diff --git a/old/12852-8.txt b/old/12852-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d1949f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12852-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,6598 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Creation and Its Records, by B.H. Baden-Powell + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Creation and Its Records + +Author: B.H. Baden-Powell + +Release Date: July 8, 2004 [EBook #12852] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CREATION AND ITS RECORDS *** + + + + +Produced by Dave Macfarlane and PG Distributed Proofreaders. Produced +from images provided by the Million Book Project. + + + + + + +_CREATION AND ITS RECORDS_. + + +[Greek: Pistei nooumen kataertisthai tous aionas rhêmati theou eis to +mi ek fainomenon to Blepomenon gegonenai.]--HEB. xi. 3. + + +CREATION AND ITS RECORDS. + +A brief statement of Christian Belief with reference to Modern facts and +Ancient Scripture. + +BY + +B.H. BADEN-POWELL, C.I.E., F.R.S.E. + +CONTENTS + + * * * * * + +_PART I._ + +CHAPTER I. + +INTRODUCTORY + +CHAPTER II. + +THE ELEMENT OF _FAITH_ IN CREATION + +CHAPTER III. + +THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED + +CHAPTER IV. + +CREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER + +CHAPTER V. + +THE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER + +CHAPTER VI. + +THE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION +OF ORGANIC FORMS + +CHAPTER VII. + +THE DESCENT OF MAN + +CHAPTER VIII. + +FURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF +MAN + +CHAPTER IX. + +CONCLUDING REMARKS + +_PART II._ + +CHAPTER X. + +THE GENESIS NARRATIVE--ITS IMPORTANCE + +CHAPTER XI. + +SCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION + +CHAPTER XII. + +METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE--ASSUMPTIONS +OF MEANING TO CERTAIN TERMS + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +THE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY + (i.) THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE + (ii.) THE SECOND PART + +CHAPTER XIV. + +THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES + +CHAPTER XV. + +AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT + +CHAPTER XVI. + +THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE + +_APPENDIX._ + +PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN + + + + + + +CHAPTER I. + + +_INTRODUCTORY_ + +Among the recollections that are lifelong, I have one as vivid as ever +after more than twenty-five years have elapsed; it is of an evening +lecture--the first of a series--given at South Kensington to working +men. The lecturer was Professor Huxley; his subject, the Common Lobster. +All the apparatus used was a good-sized specimen of the creature itself, +a penknife, and a black-board and chalk. With such materials the +professor gave us not only an exposition, matchless in its lucidity, of +the structure of the crustacea, but such an insight into the purposes +and methods of biological study as few could in those days have +anticipated. For there were as yet no Science Primers, no International +Series; and the "new biology" came upon us like the revelation of +another world. I think that lecture gave me, what I might otherwise +never have got (and what some people never get), a profound conviction +of the reality and meaning of facts in nature. That impression I have +brought to the attempt which this little book embodies. The facts of +nature are God's revelation, of the same weight, though not the same in +kind, as His written Word. + +At the same time, the further conviction is strong in my mind, not +merely of the obvious truth that the Facts and the Writing (if both +genuine) cannot really differ, but further, that there must be, after +all, a true way of explaining the Writing, if only it is looked for +carefully--a way that will surmount not only the difficulty of the +subject, but also the impatience with which some will regard the +attempt. Like so many other questions connected with religion, the +question of reconciliation produces its double effect. People will +ridicule attempts to solve it, but all the same they will return again +and again to the task of its actual solution. + +That the latter part of the proposition is true, has recently received +illustration in the fact that a review like the _Nineteenth Century_, +which has so little space to spare, has found room in four successive +numbers[1] for articles by Gladstone, Huxley, and H. Drummond, on the +subject of "Creation and its Records." May I make one remark on this +interesting science tournament? I can understand the scientific +conclusions Professor Huxley has given us. I can also understand Mr. +Gladstone, because he values the Writing as the professor values the +Facts. But one thing I can _not_ understand. Why is Professor Huxley so +angry or so contemptuous with people who value the Bible, whole and as +it stands, and want to see its accuracy vindicated? Why are they +fanatics, Sisyphus-labourers, and what not? That they are a very large +group numerically, and hardly contemptible intellectually, is, I think, +obvious; that a further large group (who would not identify themselves +wholly with the out-and-out Bible defenders) feel a certain amount of +sympathy, is proved by the interest taken in the controversy. Yet all +"reconcilers" are ridiculed or denounced--at any rate are contemptuously +dismissed. Can it be that the professor has for the moment overlooked +one very simple fact? + + +[Footnote 1: November, December, 1885; and January, February, 1886.] + +The great bulk of those interested in the question place their whole +hope for their higher moral and spiritual life in this world and the +next on one central Person--the LORD JESUS CHRIST. If He is wrong, then +no one can be right--there is no such thing as right: that is what they +feel. It will be conceded that it is hardly "fanatical" to feel this. +But if so, surely it is not fanatical, but agreeable to the soberest +reason, further to hold that this (to them sacred) PERSON did (and His +apostles with Him) treat the Book of Genesis as a whole (and not merely +parts of it) as a genuine revelation--or, to use the popular expression, +as the _Word of_ GOD. That being so, can it be matter for surprise or +contemptuous pity, that they should be anxious to vindicate the Book, +to be satisfied that the MASTER was not wrong? That is the ultimate and +very real issue involved in the question of Genesis. + +As long as people feel _that_, they must seek the reconciliation of the +two opposing ideas. If the attempt is made in a foolish or bitter +spirit, or without a candid appreciation of the facts, then the attempt +will no doubt excite just displeasure. But need it always be so made? + +As to the first part of my proposition that attempts to reconcile +religion and science are received with a certain dislike, it is due +partly to the unwisdom with which they are sometimes made. Prof. H. +Drummond speaks of the dislike as general.[1] + +If this is so, I, as a "reconciler," can only ask for indulgence, hoping +that grace may be extended to me on the ground of having something to +say on the subject that has not yet been considered. + +Nor, as regards the impatience of the public, can I admit that there is +only fault on one side. In the first place, it will not be denied that +some writers, delighted with the vast, and apparently boundless, vision +that the discovery (in its modern form) of Evolution opened out to them, +did incautiously proceed, while surveying their new kingdom, to assert +for it bounds that stretch beyond its legitimate scope. + + +[Footnote 1: In the Introduction to his well-known book, "Natural Law in +the Spiritual World."] + +Religionists, on the other hand, imagining, however wrongly, that the +erroneous extension was part of the true scientific doctrine, attacked +the whole without discrimination. + +While such a misapprehension existed, it was inevitable that writers +anxious alike for the dignity of science and the maintenance of +religion, should step in to point out the error, and effect a +reconciliation of claims which really were never in conflict. + +It is hardly the fault of "religionists" that it was at first supposed +that one _could_ not hold the doctrine of evolution without denying a +"special" creation and a designing Providence. It was on this very +natural supposition that the first leading attack--attributed to the +Bishop of Oxford--proceeded. And the writer fell into the equally +natural mistake of taking advantage of the uncompleted and unproved +state of the theory at the time, to attack the theory itself, instead of +keeping to the safer ground, namely, that whatever might ultimately be +the conclusion of evolutionists, it was quite certain that no theory of +evolution that at all coincided with the known facts, offered any ground +for argument against the existence of an Intelligent Lawgiver and First +Cause of all; nor did it tend in the slightest to show that no such +thing as creative design and providence existed in the course of nature. + +What the discovery of evolution really did, was to necessitate a +revision of the hitherto popularly accepted and generally assumed and +unquestioned notion of what _creation_ was. And it has long appeared to +me, that while now the most thoroughgoing advocates of evolution +generally admit that their justly cherished doctrine has nothing to say +to the existence of a Creator, or to the possibility of design--which +may be accepted or denied on other grounds--the writers on the side of +Christianity have not sufficiently recognized the change which their +views ought to undergo. + +As long as this is the case, there will continue to be a certain +"conflict," not indeed between science and religion, but of the kind +which has been vividly depicted by the late Dr. Draper. + +It can scarcely have escaped the notice of the most ordinary reader +that, in the course of that interesting work, the author has very little +to say about religion--at any rate about religion in any proper sense of +the term. The conflict was between a Church which had a zeal for God +without knowledge, and the progress of scientific thought; it was also a +conflict between discovered facts, and facts which existed, not in the +Bible, but in a particular interpretation, however generally received, +of it. + +The present work is therefore addressed primarily to Christian believers +who still remain perplexed as to what they ought to believe; and its aim +is to prevent, if may be, an unreasonable alarm at, and a useless +opposition to, the conclusions of modern science; while, at the same +time, it tells them in simple language how far those conclusions really +go, and how very groundless is the fear that they will ever subvert a +true faith that, antecedent to the most wonderful chain of causation and +methodical working which science can establish, there is still a Divine +Designer--One who upholds all things "by the word of His power." + +The doctrine of evolution is still the _ignotum_ to a great many, and it +is therefore, according to the time-honoured proverb, taken _pro +magnifico_, as something terribly adverse to the faith. Nor can it be +fairly denied, as I before remarked, that some of the students of the +theory have become so enamoured of it, so carried away by the +intoxication of the gigantic speculation it opens out to the +imagination, that they have succumbed to the temptation to carry +speculation beyond what the proof warrants, and thus lend some aid to +the deplorable confusion, which would blend in one, what is legitimate +inference and what is unproved hypothesis or mere supposition. + +It only remains to say that the basis of this little book is a short +course of lectures in which I endeavoured to disarm the prejudices of an +educated but not scientifically critical audience, by simply stating how +far the theory of cosmical evolution had been really proved--proved, +that is, to the extent of that reasonable certainty which satisfies the +ordinary "prudent man" in affairs of weight and importance. I have tried +to show that evolution, apart from fanciful and speculative extensions +of it, allows, if it does not directly establish, that the operation of +nature is not a chance or uncontrolled procedure, but one that suggests +a distinct set of lines, and an orderly obedience to pre-conceived law, +intelligently and beneficently (in the end) designed. + +There are obviously two main points which the Christian reader requires +to have made clear. The first is that, the modern theory of evolution +being admitted, the constitution of matter in the universe and the +principles of development in organic life, which that theory +establishes, not only do not exclude, but positively demand, the +conception of a Divine artificer and director. The second point, which +is perhaps of still greater weight with the believer, is that where +revelation (which is his ultimate standard of appeal) has touched upon +the subject of creation, its statements are not merely a literary fancy, +an imaginary cosmogony, false in its facts though enshrining Divine +truth, but are as a whole perfectly true. + +Whatever novelty there may be, is to be found in the treatment of the +second subject. The first portion of the work is only a brief and +popular statement of facts, quite unnecessary to the scientific reader +but probably very necessary to the large body of Churchmen, who have not +studied science, but are quite able to appreciate scientific fact and +its bearings when placed before them in an untechnical form, and +divested of needless details and subordinate questions. + +But it is around the supposed declarations of Scripture on the subject +of creation that the real "conflict" has centred. Let us look the matter +quite fairly in the face. We accept the conclusion that (let us say) the +horse was developed and gradually perfected or advanced to his present +form and characteristics, by a number of stages, and that it took a very +long time to effect this result. Now, if there is anywhere a statement +in Holy Writ that (_a_) a horse was _per saltum_ called into existence +in a distinctive and complete form, by a special creative _fiat_, and +that (_b_) this happened not gradually, but in a limited and specified +moment of time, then I will at once admit that the record (assuming that +its meaning is not to be mistaken) is not provably right, if it is not +clearly wrong; and accept the consequences, momentous as they would be. +If, in the same way, the Record asserts that man, or at least man the +direct progenitor of the Semitic race,[1] was a distinct and special +creation, his bodily frame having some not completely explained +developmental connection with the animal creation, but his higher nature +being imparted as a special and unique creative endowment out of the +line of physical development altogether, then I shall accept the Record, +because the proved facts of science have nothing to say against it, +whatever Drs. Buchner, Vogt, Häckel, and others may assert to the +contrary. + + +[Footnote 1: With whose history, as leading up to the advent of the +Saviour in the line of David, the Bible is mainly concerned.] + +In the first of my two instances, the popular idea has long been that +the sacred record _does_ say something about a direct and separate +creative act; and this idea has been the origin and ground of all the +supposed conflict between science and "religion." As long as this idea +continues, it can hardly be said that a book addressed to the clearing +up of the subject is unnecessary or to be rejected _per se_. + +As to the method in which this subject will be dealt with, I shall +maintain that the Scripture does _not_ say anything about the horse, or +the whale, or the ox, or any other animal, being separately or directly +created. And the view thus taken of the Record I have not met with +before. This it is necessary to state, not because the fact would lend +any value to the interpretation--rather the contrary; but because it +justifies me in submitting what, if new, may be intrinsically important, +to the judgment of the Church; and it also protects me from the offence +of plagiarism, however unwitting. If others have thought out the same +rendering of the Genesis history, so much the better for my case; but +what is here set down occurred to me quite independently. + +A study of the real meaning of the Record, in the light of what may be +fairly regarded as proved facts, cannot be without its use to the +Christian. If it be true that a certain amount of information on the +subject of creation is contained in revelation, it must have been so +contained for a specific purpose--a purpose to be attained at some stage +or other of the history of mankind. It is possible also that the study +will bring to light a probable, or at any rate a possible, explanation +of some of those apparent (if they are not real) "dead-locks" which +occur in pursuing the course of life history on the earth. + +Such considerations will naturally have more weight with the Christian +believer than with those who reject the faith. But at least the +advantage of them remains with the believer, till the contrary is shown. +The extreme evolutionist may cling to the belief that at some future +time he will be able to account for the entrance of LIFE into the +world's history, that he will be able to explain the connection of MIND +with MATTER; or he may hope that the sterility of certain hybrid forms +will one day be explained away, and so on. But till these things _are_ +got over, the believer cannot be reproached as holding an unreasonable +belief when his creed maintains that Life is a gift and prerogative of a +great Author of Life; that Mind is the result of a spiritual environment +which is a true, though physically intangible, part of nature; and that +the absence of any proof that variation and development cross +certain--perhaps not very clearly ascertained, but indubitably +existing--lines, points to the designed fixing of certain types, and the +restriction of developmental creation to running in certain lines of +causation up to those types, and not otherwise. + +It can never be unreasonable to believe anything that is in exact +accordance with facts as ascertained at any given moment of +time--unless, indeed, the fact is indicated by other considerations as +being one likely to disappear from the category of fact altogether.[1] + +Enough has thus, I hope, appeared, to make the appearance of this little +work, at least excusable; what more may be necessary to establish its +claim to be read must depend on what it contains. + +I have only to add that I can make no pretension to be a teacher of +science. I trust that there is no material error of statement; if there +is, I shall be the first to retract and correct it. I am quite confident +that no correction that may be needed in detail will seriously affect +the general argument. + + +[Footnote 1: At present it is an ascertained fact that certain chemical +substances are elements incapable of further resolution. But there are +not wanting indications which would make it a matter of no surprise at +all, if we were to learn to-morrow that the so-called element had been +resolved. Such a fact is an example of what is stated in the text; and a +belief based on the absolute and unchangeable stability of such a fact +would not be unassailable. But none of the above stated instances of +"dead-lock" in evolution are within "measurable distance" of being +resolved.] + + + + +CHAPTER II. + + +_THE ELEMENT OF FAITH IN CREATION._ + +In the extract placed on the title-page, the author of the Epistle +clearly places our conclusion that God "established the order of +creation"--the lines, plans, developmental-sequences, aims, and objects, +that the course of creation has hitherto pursued and is still +ceaselessly pursuing,[1] in the category of _faith_. + +Of course, from one point of view--very probably that of the writer of +the Epistle--this conclusion is argued by the consideration that the +human mind forms no distinct conception of the formation of solid--or +any other form of--matter _in vacuo_, where nothing previously existed. +And what the mind does not find within its own power, but what yet _is +true_ in the larger spiritual kingdom beyond itself, is apprehended by +the spiritual faculty of _faith_. + + +[Footnote 1: [Greek: Kataertisthai tous aionas]. This implies more than +the mere originating or supplying of a number of material, organic, or +inorganic (or even spiritual) forms and existences. Whatever may be the +precise translation of [Greek: aion], it implies a chain of events, the +cause and effect, the type and the plan, and its evolution all +included.] + +But from another point of view, the immediate action of faith is not so +evident. If, it might be said, the law of evolution, or the law of +creation, or whatever is the true law, is, in all its bearings, a matter +to be observed and discovered by human science, then it is not easy to +see how there is any exercise of faith. We should be more properly said +to _know_, by intellectual processes of observation, inference, and +conclusion, that there was a Law Giver, an Artificer, and a First Cause, +so unlimited in power and capacity by the conditions of the case, that +we must call Him "Divine." + +And many will probably feel that their just reasoning on the subject +leads them to knowledge--knowledge, i.e., as approximately certain as +anything in this world can be. + +But the text, by the use of the term [Greek: aion], implies (as I +suggested) more than mere production of objects; it implies a designed +guidance and preconceived planning. If it were merely asserted that +there is a first cause of material existence, and even that such a cause +had enough known (or to be inferred) about it, to warrant our writing +"First Cause" with capitals, then the proposition would pass on all +hands without serious question. But directly we are brought face to +face, not merely with the isolated idea of creation of tangible forms +out of nothing (as the phrase is), but rather with the whole history +and development of the world and its inhabitants, we see so many +conflicting elements, such a power of natural forces and human passions +warring against the progress of good, and seeming to end only too often +in disaster, that it becomes a matter of _faith_ to perceive a Divine +providence underlying and overruling all to its own ends. + +The fact is, that directly we make mention of the "aeons"--the world's +age histories--we are met with that Protean problem that always seems to +lurk at the bottom of every religious question: Why was _evil_ +permitted? Mr. J.S. Mill, many readers will recollect, concluded that if +there was a God, that God was not perfectly good, or else was not +omnipotent. Now of course our limited faculties do not enable us to +apprehend a really absolute and unlimited omnipotence. We _can_ only +conceive of God as limited by the terms of His own Nature and Being. We +say it is "impossible for God to lie," or for the Almighty to do wrong +in any shape; in other words, we are, in this as in other matters where +the finite and the Infinite are brought into contact, led up to two +necessary conclusions which cannot be reconciled. We can reason out +logically and to a full conclusion, that given a God, that God must be +perfect, unlimited and unconditioned. We can also reason out, _provided +we take purely human and finite premises_, another line of thought which +forbids us to suppose that a Perfect God would have allowed evil, +suffering, or pain; and this leads us exactly or nearly to Mr. Mill's +conclusion. + +Whenever we are thus brought up to a dead-lock, as it were, there is the +need of _faith_, which is the faculty whereby the finite is linked on to +the Infinite. For this faith has two great features: one is represented +by the capacity for assimilating fact which is spiritual or +transcendental, and therefore not within the reach of finite intellect; +the other is represented by the capacity for reliance on, and trust in, +the God whose infinite perfections we cannot as finite creatures grasp +or follow. + +In the difficult scheme of the world's governance, in the storms, +earthquakes, pestilences, sufferings of all kinds--signs of failure, +sickness, and decay, and death, signs of the victory of evil and the +failure of good--we can only _believe_ in God, and that all will issue +in righteous ends. And our belief proceeds, as just stated, on two +lines: one being our spiritual capacity for knowing that GOD IS, and +that we, His creatures, are the objects of His love; the other being the +fact that we only see a very little end of the thread, or perhaps only a +little of one thread out of a vast mass of complicated threads, in the +great web of design and governance, and that therefore there is wide +ground for confidence that the end will be success. We rely confidently +on God. If it is asked, Why is it a part of faith to have a childlike +confidence in an unseen God?--we reply, that the main origin of such +confidence is to be found in the wonderful condescension of God +exhibited in the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection. + +This is not the place to enter on a detailed examination of the +essential importance of these great central facts of Christian belief in +establishing faith in the unseen, and distinguishing its grasp from the +blind clutches of credulity; but a single consideration will suffice at +least to awaken a feeling of a wide _vista_ of possibility when we put +it thus: Do we wonder at the spectacle of a righteous man, passing his +life in suffering and poverty, seemingly stricken by the Divine +hand?--But is not the case altered when we reflect _that the Hand that +thus smites is a hand itself pierced_ with the Cross-nails of a terrible +human suffering, undergone solely on man's account? + +It can be proved easily, by exhaustive examples, to be the case, that +wherever the finite is brought into contact with the Infinite, that +there must be a dead-lock, a leading up successively to two conclusions, +one of which is almost, if not quite, contrary to the other. A very +striking instance of this is the question of Predestination and +Free-will. From the finite side, I am conscious that I am a free agent: +I can will to rise up and to lie down. It is true that my will may be +influenced, strongly or feebly, by various means--by the effect of +habit, by the inherited tendency of my constitution, by some present +motive of temptation, and so forth: but the _will_ is there--the +motive-influence or inclining-power is not the will, but that which +affects or works on will. A _motive_ pulls me this way, another pulls me +that; but in the end, my _will_ follows one or the other. I can, then, +do as I please. On the other hand, Infinite Knowledge must know, and +have known from all eternity, what I shall do now, and at every moment +of my future being: and for Omnipotence to know from all eternity what +will be, is, in our human sense, practically undistinguishable from the +thought that the Power has predestined the same; and man cannot of +course alter that. Here, then, by separate lines of thought, we are +brought to two opposite and irreconcilable conclusions. It is so always. +We cannot ourselves imagine how a fixed set of laws and rules can be +followed, and yet the best interests of each and every one of God's +creatures be served as truly as if God directly wielded the machinery of +nature only for the special benefit of the individual. The thing is +unthinkable to us: yet directly we reason on the necessarily _unlimited_ +capability of a Divine Providence, we are led to the conclusion that it +must be possible. Here then is the province of _Faith_.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: The Scripture clearly recognizes the two opposing lines. In +one place we read, "Thou hast given them a law which _shall not be +broken_;" in another, "All things work together for good to them that +love God."] + +It is by Faith, then--combined with only a limited degree of knowledge, +founded on observation and reasoning--that we understand that "the aeons +were constituted by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen +were not made of things which do appear" (the phenomenal has its origin +in the non-phenomenal). + +While allowing, then, the element of Faith in our recognition of a +Creator and Moral Governor of the world, our care is in this, as in all +exercises of faith, that our faith be reasonable. We are not called on +to believe so as to be "put to confusion," intellectually, as Tait and +Balfour have it. + + + + +CHAPTER III. + + +_THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED_. + +It will strike some readers with a sense of hopelessness, this demand +for a reason in our faith. A special and very extensive knowledge is +required, it seems, to test the very positive assertion that some have +chosen to make regarding the "explosion" of the Christian faith in the +matter of Creation. + +We are told in effect that every thing goes by itself--that given some +first cause, about which we know, and can know, nothing, directly +primordial matter appears on the scene, and the laws of sequence and +action which observed experience has formulated and is progressively +formulating are given, then nothing else is required; no governance, no +control, and no special design. So that in principle a Creator and +Providence are baseless fancies; and this is further borne out by the +fact, that when the Christian faith ventures on details as to the mode +of Creation it is certainly and demonstrably wrong. If these +propositions are to be controverted, it must be in the light of a +knowledge which a large body of candid and earnest believers do not +possess. + +Fortunately, however, the labours of many competent to judge have placed +within the reach of the unscientific but careful student, the means of +knowing what the conclusions of Science really are, as far as they +affect the questions we have to consider. At least, any inquirer can, +with a little care and patient study, put himself in a position to know +where the difficulty or difficulties lie, and what means there are of +getting over them. His want of technical knowledge will not be in his +way, so far as his just appreciation of the position is concerned. +Without pretending to take up ground which has already been occupied by +capable writers whose books can easily be consulted, I may usefully +recapitulate in a simple form, and grouped in a suitable order, some of +the points best worth noting. + +The theory of cosmical evolution is not, in its general idea, a new +thing. The sort of evolution, however, that was obscurely shadowed forth +by the early sages of India (much as it is the fashion now to allude to +it) really stands in no practical relation to the modern and natural +theory which is associated with the name of CHARLES DARWIN, and which +has been further taken up by Mr. HERBERT SPENCER and others as the +foundation for a complete scheme of cosmic philosophy. The theory is +now, in its main features, admitted by every one. But there are a few +who would push it beyond its real ascertained limits, and would +substitute fancies for facts; they are not content to leave the +_lacunae_, which undoubtedly do exist, but fill them up by +hypothesis,[1] passing by easy steps of forgetfulness from the "it was +possibly," "it was likely to have been," to the "it must have been," and +"it was"! + +To all such extensions we must of course object; there are gaps in the +scheme which can be filled in with really great probability, and in such +cases there will be no harm done in admitting the probability, while +still acknowledging it as such. An overcautious lawyer-like captiousness +of spirit in such matters will help no cause and serve no good purpose. +Nor is it at all difficult in practice to draw the line and say what is +fairly admissible conjecture and what is not. There are other gaps, +however, that at present, no real analogy, no fair inferential process, +can bridge over; and to all speculations on such subjects, if advanced +as more than bare and undisguised guesses, objection must be taken. + +If this one line had been fairly and firmly adhered to from the first, +it can hardly be doubted that much of the acrimony of controversy would +have been avoided. It is just as essential at the present moment to +insist on the point as ever. But to proceed. Stated in the extreme +form, the theory is, that given matter as a beginning, that matter is +thenceforth capable, by the aid of fixed and self-working laws, to +produce and result in, all the phenomena of life--whether plant, animal, +or human--which we see around us. Matter developes from simple to +complex forms, growing by its own properties, in directions determined +by the circumstances and surroundings of its existence. + + +[Footnote 1: It is enough to instance the theories of Dr. Buchner and, +in earlier days, of Oken. The Häckel and Virchow incident in this +connection, and the noble protest of the latter against positive +teaching of unproved speculation, are in the recollection of all.] + +If I may put this a little less in the abstract, but more at length, I +should describe it thus[1]:-- + +Astronomers, while watching the course of the stars, have frequently +observed in the heavens what they call _nebulae_. With the best +telescopes these look like patches of gold-dust or luminous haze in the +sky. Some nebulae, it is supposed, really consist of whole systems of +stars and suns, but at so enormous a distance that with our best glasses +we cannot make more out of them than groups of apparent "star-dust" But +other nebulae do not appear to be at this extreme distance, and therefore +cannot consist of large bodies. And when their light is examined with +the aid of a spectroscope, it gives indications that such nebulae are +only masses of vapour, incandescent, or giving out light on account of +their being in a burning or highly heated condition. + + +[Footnote 1: The biological evolutionist will, I am aware, object to +this, saying that the origin of the cosmos and nebular theories are +matters of speculation with which he is not concerned--they are no part +of evolution proper. But I submit that the general philosophical +evolution does include the whole. At any rate, the materialist view of +nature does take in the whole, in such a way as the text indicates.] + +Now, it is supposed that, in the beginning of the world, there was, in +space, such a nebula or mass of incandescent vapour, which, as it was +destined to cool down and form a world, philosophers have called "cosmic +gas." + +This cosmic gas, in the course of time, began to lose its heat, and +consequently to liquefy and solidify, according to the different nature +of its components; and thus a globe with a solid crust was formed, the +surface of which was partly dry and partly occupied by water, and +diversified by the abundant production of the various earths, gases, +metals, and other substances with which we are familiar. These +substances, in time, and by the slow action of their own laws and +properties, combined or separated and produced further forms. But to +come at once to the important part of the theory, we must at once direct +our attention to four substances; these would certainly, it is said (and +that no doubt is quite true) be present; they are oxygen, hydrogen, +nitrogen, and carbon. The first three would be, when the earth assumed +anything like its present conditions of temperature and air-pressure, +invisible gases, as they are at present; the fourth is a substance which +forms the basis of charcoal, and which we see in a nearly pure form +crystallized in the diamond. + +Now, if these substances are brought together under certain appropriate +conditions, the oxygen and hydrogen can combine to form _water_; the +carbon and the oxygen will form _carbonic acid_; while nitrogen will +join with hydrogen to form that pungent smelling substance with which we +are familiar as _ammonia_. Again, let us suppose that three compound +substances--water, carbonic acid, and ammonia--are present together with +appropriate conditions; it is said that they will combine to form a +gummy transparent matter, which is called _protoplasm_. This protoplasm +may be found in small shapeless lumps, or it may be found enclosed in +cells, and in various beautifully shaped coverings, and it is also found +in the blood, and in all growing parts or organs of all animals and +plants of every kind whatsoever. + +Protoplasm, then, is the physical basis of life. Simple, uniform, +shapeless protoplasm, combined out of the substances just named, first +came into existence; and as, however simple or shapeless, it always +exhibits the property of life, it can henceforth grow and develop from +simpler to ever increasingly complex forms, without any help but that of +surrounding circumstances--the secondary causes which we see in +operation around us. + +If some readers should say they have never seen _protoplasm_, I may +remind them where every one has, at some time or another, met with it. +If you cut a stick of new wood from a hedge, and peel off the young +bark, you know that the bark comes off easily and entire, leaving a +clean white wand of wood in your hand; but the wand feels sticky all +over. This sticky stuff is nothing more than transparent growing +protoplasm, which lies close under the inner bark. + +At first, the materialist holds, protoplasm appeared in very simple +forms, just such as can still be found within the sea, and in ponds. But +the lower organized forms of life are extremely unstable, and a +different _environment_ will always tend to evoke continuous small +changes, so that there may be advance in forms of all kinds. For if by +chance[1] some creature exhibits a variation which is favourable to it +in the circumstances in which it is placed, that creature will be fitter +than the others which have not that variation. And so the former will +survive, and as they multiply, their descendants will inherit the +peculiarity. Thus, in the course of countless generations, change will +succeed change, till creatures of quite a complex structure and +specialized form have arisen. As the circumstances of life are always +infinitely various, the developments take place in many different +directions; some fit the creature for life in deep seas, some for flying +in the air, some for living in holes and crevices, some for catching +prey by swift pursuit, others for catching it by artful contrivance, and +so forth. Many changes will also arise from protective necessity: if an +insect happens to be like a dead leaf, it will escape the notice of +birds which would snap up a conspicuously coloured one; and so the +dull-coloured will survive and perpetuate his kind, while the others are +destroyed. On the other hand, beauty in colour and form may have its +use. This is chiefly exhibited in the preference which the females of a +species show for the adorned and showy males. + + +[Footnote 1: Not really of course "by chance," but simply owing to such +circumstances as cannot be accounted for by any direct antecedents.] + +Supposing an organism developed so far as to be a bird, but only with +dull or ugly feathers. By accident one male bird, say, gets a few +bright-coloured feathers on his head. Here his appearance will attract +birds of the other sex; and then by the law of heredity, his offspring +are sure to repeat the coloured feathers, till at last a regularly +bright-crested species-arises. In this way _natural variability_, acted +on by the necessities of _environment_ (which cause the _survival of the +fittest_ specimens) and the principle of _heredity_, viz., that the +offspring repeat the features of the parents, aided by the principle of +_sexual selection_, have been the origin and cause of all the species we +see in the world. + +Thus we have an unbroken series--certain substances condensing out of +cosmic vapour, some of them combining to form the variety of rocks, +soils, metals, &c., and others giving rise to protoplasm which grows' +and develops into a thousand shapes and hues, of insect, fish, reptile, +bird, and beast. + +And then it is, that charmed with the completeness and symmetry of such +a theory, and overlooking the difficulties that crop up here and +here--demanding some Power from without to bridge them over--certain +extreme theorists have rushed to the conclusion that in all this there +is no need of any external Creator or Providence--nothing but what we +call secondary causes, ordinary causes which we see at work around us +all day and every day. + +How inconceivable, they add, is the truth of the Book of Genesis, which +asserts the successive creation of fully-formed animals by sudden acts +of command; and all accomplished in a few days at the beginning of the +world's human history! + +This I believe to be a fair outline, though of course a very rough and +general one, of the Theory of Evolution as regards the forms of matter +and living organisms. Now it will at once strike the candid reader, that +even granted the whole of the scheme as stated, there is _nothing_ in it +that has any answer to the objection,--But may I not believe that a wise +Creator conceived and established the whole plan--first creating MATTER +and FORCE, then superadding LIFE at a certain stage, and then drawing +out the type and design according to which everything was to grow and +develop? Is not such a production and such a design the true essence of +Creation? Can all these things happen _without_ such aid? Let us then +look more closely at some of the steps in the evolution just described. +And let us stop at the very beginning--the first term of the series. + +We may agree (in the absence of anything leading to a contrary +conclusion) that matter may first have appeared as a cosmic gas, or +incandescent vapour in space. It is probable, if not certain, that our +earth is a mass that has only cooled down on the surface, the centre +being still hot and to some extent, at any rate, molten; and in the sun +we have the case of an enormous globe surrounded with a _photosphere_, +as it is called--a blaze of incandescent substances, which our +spectroscopes tell us are substances such as we have on earth now in +cooled or condensed condition--iron, oxygen, hydrogen, and other such +forms of matter. + +First of all, how did any _substance_, however vapoury and tenuous, come +to exist, when previously there was nothing? + +If we admit, that there was a time when even cosmic gas did not exist, +then there must have been _an Agent_, whose _fiat_ caused the change. +And as that Agent does not obviously belong to the material order, it +must belong to the spiritual or non-material; for the two orders +together exhaust the possibilities of existence. If, however, it is +urged that "primal matter"--cosmic vapour--containing the "potentiality" +of all existence, is eternal and alway existed of itself, then we are +brought face to face with innumerable difficulties. In the first place, +the existence of matter is not the only difficulty to be got over; not +the only dead-lock along the line. We pass it over and go on for a +time, and then we come to another--the introduction of LIFE. I will not +pause to consider that here; we shall see presently that it is +impossible to regard life as merely a quality or property of matter. +When we have passed that, we have a third stoppage, the introduction of +_Reason_ or _Intelligence_; and then a fourth, the introduction of the +_Spiritual faculties_, which cannot be placed on the same footing as +mere reason. So that to get over the first point, and dispense with a +Cause or a Creator of matter, is of no avail: it is incredible that +there should be no Creator of matter, but that there should be a Creator +of life--an Imparter of reason, an Endower of soul. + +But let us revert to the first stage and look at the nature of MATTER. + + + + +CHAPTER IV. + + +_CREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER._ + +I take as self-evident the enormous difficulty of self-caused, +self-existent matter. And when we see that matter _acting_, not +irregularly or by caprice, but _by law_ (as every class of philosopher +will admit), then it is still further difficult to realize that matter +not only existed as a dead, simple, inactive thing, but existed with a +folded-up history inside it, a long sequence of development--not the +same for all particles, but various for each group: so that one set +proceeded to form the _object_, and another the _environment_ of the +object; or rather that a multitude of sets formed a vast variety of +objects, and another multitude of sets formed a vast variety of +environments. When we see matter acting by law, then if there is no +Creator, we have the to us unthinkable proposition of law without a +lawgiver! + +On the other hand, if we shut out some of the difficulties, keep our eye +on one part of the case only--and that is what the human mind is very +apt to do--we can easily come round to think that, after all, +_elementary_ matter--cosmic gas--is a very _simple_ thing; and looks +really as if no great Power, or Intellect, were required to account for +its origin. After all, some will say, if we grant your great, wise, +beneficent, designing Creator, the finite human mind has as little idea +of a self-existing God, as it has of self-existing matter and +self-existing law. _You_ postulate one great mystery, _we_ postulate two +smaller ones; and the two together really present less "unthinkableness" +to the mind than your one. That is so far plausible, but it is no more. +To believe in a GOD is to believe in One Existence, who necessarily (by +the terms of our conception) has the power both of creating matter, +designing the forms it shall take, and originating the tendencies, +forces, activities--or whatever else we please to call them--which drive +matter in the right direction to get the desired result. To believe not +only that matter caused itself, but that the different forces and +tendencies, and the aims and ends of development, were self-caused, is +surely a much more difficult task. It is the existence of such a +_variety_, it is the existence of a uniform tendency to produce certain +though multitudinous results, that makes the insuperable difficulty of +supposing _matter always developing_ (towards certain ends) to be +self-caused. + +The advocates of "eternal matter" really overcome the difficulty, by +shutting their eyes to everything beyond a part of the problem--the +existence of simple matter apart from any laws, properties, or +affinities. + +But the simplest drop of water, in itself, and apart from its mechanical +relations to other matter, is really a very complex and a very wonderful +thing; not at all likely to be "self-caused." Water is made up, we know, +of oxygen and hydrogen--two elementary colourless, formless gases. Now +we can easily divide the one drop into two, and, without any great +difficulty, the two into four, and (perhaps with the aid of a magnifying +glass) the four into eight, and so on, _as long as_ the minute particle +_still retains the nature of water_. In short, we speak of the smallest +subdivision of which matter is capable without losing its own nature, as +the _molecule_. All matter may be regarded as consisting of a vast mass +of these small molecules. + +Now, we know that all known matter is capable of existing either in a +solid, liquid, or gaseous form, its nature not being changed. Water is +very easily so dealt with. Some substances, it is true, require very +great pressure or very great cold, or both, to alter their form; but +even carbonic acid, oxygen, and hydrogen, which under ordinary +conditions are gases, can with proper appliances be made both liquid and +solid. Pure alcohol, has, I believe, never been made solid, but that is +only because it is so difficult to get a sufficient degree of cold: +there is no doubt that it could be done. + +It might be supposed that the molecules of which dead matter (whether +solid, liquid, or vapourous) is composed, were equally motionless and +structureless. But it is not so: every molecule in its own kind is +endowed with marvellous properties. In the first place, every molecule +has a double capability of motion. In the solid form the molecules are +so packed together that, of course, the motion is excessively +restricted; in the liquid it is a little easier; in the gaseous state +the molecules are in a comparatively "open order." In most substances +that are solid under ordinary conditions, by applying heat continuously +we first liquefy and ultimately vapourize them. In those substances +which under ordinary conditions are _gas_ (like carbonic acid, for +instance), it is by applying cold, with perhaps great pressure as well, +that we induce them to become liquid and solid; in fact, the process is +just reversed. As we can most easily follow the process of heating, I +will describe that. First, the solid (in most cases) gets larger and +larger as it progresses to liquefaction, and when it gets to vapour, it +suddenly expands enormously. Take a rod of soft iron, and reduce it to +freezing temperature: let us suppose that in that condition it measures +just a thousand inches long. Then raise the temperature to 212 degrees +(boiling point), and it will be found to measure 1,012 inches. Why is +that? Obviously, because the molecules have got a little further apart. +If you heat it till the iron gets liquid, the liquid would also occupy +still more space than the original solid rod; and if we had temperature +high enough to make the melted iron go off into vapour, it would occupy +an enormously increased space. I cannot say what it would be for iron +vapour; but if a given volume of water is converted into vapour, it will +occupy about 1,700 times the space it did when liquid, though the weight +would not be altered. + +It may here be worth while to mention that it is not invariably true +that a substance gets contracted, and the molecules more and more +pressed together, as it assumes a solid form. There is at least one +exception. If we take 1,700 pints of steam, the water, as I said, on +becoming cool enough to lose the vapourous form, will shrink into a +measure holding a single pint; if we cooled lower still, it will get +smaller and smaller in bulk (though of course not at all at the same +rate) till it arrives at a point when it is just going to freeze; then +suddenly (7 degrees above the freezing point) it again begins to expand. +Ice occupies more space than cold water; its molecules get arranged in a +particular manner by their crystallization. + +On the admission of an _intelligent_ Creator providing, by beneficent +design, the laws of matter, it is easy to give a reason for this useful +property. It prevents the inhabitants of northern climates being +deprived of a supply of water. As it is, the solid water or ice +expands, and, becoming lighter, forms at the top of the water, and the +heavier warmer water remains below. But if ice always got denser and +sank, the warmer liquid would be perpetually displaced and so come up to +the surface, where it would freeze and sink in its turn. In a short +time, then, all our water supplies would (whenever the temperature went +down to freezing, which it constantly does in winter) be turned into +solid ice. This would be a source of the gravest inconvenience to the +population of a cold climate. If we deny a designing mind, the +alternative is that this property of water is a mere chance. + +But to return to molecules. Molecules are endowed with an inherent +faculty of motion; only under the conditions of what we call the solid, +they are so compressed, that there is no room for any motion appreciable +to the senses. Even if the solid is converted into vapour, the molecules +are still much restrained in their movements by the pressure of the air. +But of late years, great improvements (partly chemical, partly +mechanical) have been made in producing perfect _vacua_; that is to say, +in getting glass or other vessels to be so far empty of air, that the +almost inconceivably small residue in the receptacle has no perceptible +effect on the action of a small quantity of any substance already +reduced to the form of gas or vapour introduced into it. Dr. W. Crookes +has made many beautiful experiments on the behaviour of the molecules of +attenuated matter in _vacua_. The small quantity of vapour introduced +contains only a relatively small number of molecules, which thus freed +from all sensible restraint within the limits of the glass vessel used, +are free to move as they will; they are observed to rush about, to +strike against the sides of the vessel, and under proper conditions to +shine and become _radiant_, and to exhibit extraordinary phenomena when +subjected to currents of electricity. So peculiar is the molecular +action thus set up, that scientific men have been tempted to speak of a +fourth condition of matter (besides the three ordinary ones, solid, +liquid, and gaseous), which they call the ultra-gaseous or radiant state +of matter. + +This marvel of molecular structure seems already to have removed us +sufficiently far from the idea of a simple inert mass, which might be +primordial and self-caused. But we have not yet done. Even imagining the +extreme subdivision[1] of the particles in one of Dr. Crookes' vacuum +globes, the particles are still water. But we know that water is a +compound substance. The molecule has nine parts, of which eight are +hydrogen and one oxygen--because that is the experimentally known +proportion in which oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. As we can +(in the present state of our knowledge) divide no farther, we call these +ultimate fragments of simple or elementary substance _atoms_. + + +[Footnote 1: As to the possibility of _indefinite_ subdivision of +matter, see Sir W. Thomsons's lecture, _Nature_, June, 1883, _et seq._] + + +Every substance, however finely divided into molecules, if it is not a +simple substance, must therefore have, inside the _molecular_ structure, +a further _atomic_ structure. And in the case of unresolvable or +"elementary" substance, the molecule and the atom are not necessarily +the same. For though there is reason to believe that, the molecule of +these does consist, in some cases, of only one atom--in which case the +atom and the molecule are identical; in other cases, the molecule is +known to consist of more than one atom of the same element; and the +atoms are capable of being differently arranged, and when so arranged +have different _properties_ or behaviour, though their nature is not +changed. This property is spoken of by chemists as _allotropism_. No +chemist on earth can detect the slightest difference in _constitution_ +between a molecule of _ozone_ and one _oxygen_; but the two have widely +different properties, or behave very differently. There is thus a great +mystery about atoms and their possible differences under different +arrangement, which is as yet unsolved. Those who wish to get an insight +into the matter (which cannot be pursued farther here) will do well to +read Josiah Cooke's "The New Chemistry," in the International Scientific +Series. The mind is really lost in trying to realize the idea of a +fragment of matter too small for the most powerful microscope, but +existing in fact (because of faultless reasoning from absolutely +conclusive experiments), and yet so constituted that it is +_practically_ a different thing when placed in one position or order, +from what it is when placed in another. + +Turning from this mystery, as yet so obscure, to what is more easily +grasped, we shall hardly be surprised to learn, further, that every kind +of, atom obeys its own laws, and that while atoms of one kind always +have a _tendency to combine_ with atoms of other kinds, it is absolutely +impossible to get them to combine together except on certain conditions. + +The difference between combination and mixture is well known. Shake sand +and sugar in a bag for ever so long, but they will only _mix_, not +_combine_ or form any new substance even with the aid of electric +currents; but place oxygen and hydrogen gas under proper conditions, and +the gases will disappear, and water (in weight exactly equal to the +weight of the volume of gases) will appear in their place. + +It is only certain kinds of atoms that will combine at all with other +kinds; and when they do so combine, they will only unite in absolutely +fixed proportions, so that chemists have been able to assign to every +kind of element its own combining proportion. The substances that will +combine will do so in these proportions, or in proportions of any _even +multiple_ of the number, and in no other. Thus fourteen parts of +nitrogen will combine with sixteen of oxygen; and we have several +substances in nature, called nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitric +di-oxide, &c., which illustrate this, in which fourteen parts of +nitrogen combine with sixteen oxygen or fourteen nitrogen with a +multiple of sixteen oxygen, or a multiple of fourteen nitrogen combine +with sixteen oxygen, and so on. + +See now where we have got to. When we had spoken of a tiny fragment of +primal matter--a drop of water, for instance--it seemed as if there was +no more to be said; but no, we found ourselves able to give a whole +history of the molecules of which the substance consists; and when we +had considered the molecule, we found a further beautiful and intricate +order of _atoms_ inside the molecule, as it were. + +And there is no reason to suppose that science has yet revealed all that +is possible to be known about atoms and molecules; so that if further +wonders should be evoked, the argument will grow and grow in cumulative +force. + +Let me sum up the conclusion to be drawn from these facts in a quotation +from a discourse of Sir John F.W. Herschel. + +"When we see," says that eminent philosopher, "a great number of things +precisely alike, we do not believe this similarity to have originated +except from _a common principle independent of them_; and that we +recognize this likeness, chiefly by the _identity of their deportment +under similar circumstances_ strengthens rather than weakens the +conclusion. + +"A line of spinning jennies, or a regiment of soldiers dressed exactly +alike and going through precisely the same evolutions, gives us no idea +of independent existence: we must see them act out of concert before we +can believe them to have independent wills and properties not impressed +on them from without. + +"And this conclusion, which would be strong even if there were only two +individuals precisely alike in _all_ respects and _for ever_, acquires +irresistible force when their number is multiplied beyond the power of +imagination to conceive. + +"If we mistake not, then, the discoveries alluded to effectually destroy +the ideas of an _eternal_ self-existent matter by giving to each of its +atoms the essential characters at once of a _manufactured_ article and +of a _subordinate agent_." + +In other words, continuing the metaphor of the trained army, we see +millions upon millions of molecules all arranged in regiments, distinct +and separate, and the regiments again made up of companies or +individuals, each obeying his own orders in subordination to, and in +harmony with, the whole: are we not justified in concluding that this +army has not been only called into being by some cause external to +itself; but further, that its constitution has been impressed upon it, +and its equipments and organization directed, by an Infinite +Intelligence? + +There is, then, no such thing to be found in Nature as a simple, +structureless "primal matter" which exhibits nothing tending to make +self-causation or aboriginal existence difficult to conceive. To look at +matter in that light is not only to take into consideration a _part_ of +the case; it is really to take what does not exist, a part that exists +only in the imagination. The simplest form of matter we can deal with, +exhibits within itself all the wondrous plan, law, and sequence of the +molecular and atomic structure we have sketched out; and when we +consider that, having taken matter so far, we have even then only +introduced it to the verge of the universe, ushered it on to the +threshold of a great "aeon," when and where it is to be acted on by +"gravitation" and other forces, to act in relation to other matter, and +to be endowed perhaps with LIFE, we shall feel that the +self-existence--the uncaused existence of matter, and of the principles +on which matter proceeds or acts, is in reality not a less mystery than +the self-existence of a Designing and Intelligent Cause, but one so +great as to be itself "unthinkable." + + + + +CHAPTER V. + + +_THE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER_. + +We now come to _Living_ Matter; directing attention, first, to that +elementary form of life as exhibited in simple protoplasm and in the +lower forms of organism, and then to the perfect forms of bird and +beast. In each case, we shall find the same evidence of Design and +Intelligence, the same proof of "contrivance" and purpose, which we +cannot attribute to the mere action of secondary causes. + +The simplest form in which LIFE is manifested is in a viscid gelatinous +substance without colour or form, called _Protoplasm_. Wherever there is +life there is protoplasm. Protoplasm, as before remarked, lies just +under the bark in trees, and is the material from which the growth of +the wood and bark cells and fibres proceeds. Protoplasm, is also present +in the muscles and in the blood, and wherever growth is going on. + +But protoplasm also exists by itself; or, more properly speaking, there +exist living creatures, both plant and animal, which are so simple in +structure, so low in organization, that they consist of nothing but a +speck of protoplasm. Such a creature is the microscopic _amoeba_. +Sometimes these little specks of protoplasm are surrounded with +beautifully formed "silicious shells--a skeleton of radiating _spiculae_ +or crystal-clear concentric spheres of exquisite symmetry and +beauty.[1]" The simplest _amoeba_ however, has no definite form; but the +little mass moves about, expands and contracts, throws out projections +on one side and draws them in on the other. It exhibits irritability +when touched. It may be seen surrounding a tiny particle of food, +extracting nutriment from it and growing in size. Ultimately the little +body separates or splits up into two, each part thenceforth taking a +separate existence. + + +[Footnote 1: Professor Allman.] + +Now it is claimed that such a little organism contains the potentiality +of all life; that it grows and multiplies, and develops into higher and +higher organisms, into all (in short) that we see in the plant and +animal world around us. This, it is argued, is all done by natural +causes, not by any direction or guidance or intervention of a Divine +agency. + +Here we must stop to ask how this protoplasm, or simplest form of +organic life, came to exist? How did it get its _life_--its property of +taking nourishment, of growing and of giving birth to other creatures +like itself? + +The denier of creation replies, that just in the same way as, by the +laws of affinity, other inanimate substances came together to produce +the earth--salts and other compounds we see in the world around us--so +did certain elements combine to form protoplasm. This combination when +perfected has the property of being alive, just as water has the +property of assuming a solid form or has any other of the qualities +which we speak of as its properties. + +Now it is perfectly true that, treated as a substance, you can take the +gummy protoplasm, put it into a glass and subject it to analysis like +any other substance. But simple as the substance appears, composition is +really very complicated. Professor Allman tells us that so difficult and +wonderful is its chemistry, that in fact really very little is known +about it. The best evidence we have, I believe, makes it tolerably +certain that protoplasm consists of a combination of ammonia, carbonic +acid, and water, and that every molecule of it is made up of 76 atoms, +of which 36 are carbon, 26 hydrogen, 4 nitrogen, and 10 oxygen.[1] + +But no chemist has ever been able either to account theoretically for +such a composition, still less to produce it artificially. It is urged, +however, that it may be only due to our clumsy apparatus and still very +imperfect knowledge of chemistry, that we were unable artificially to +make up protoplasm. + + +[Footnote 1: Nicholson ("Zoology," p. 4) gives for Albumen, which is +nearly identical with protoplasm--Carbon, 144; Hydrogen, 110; Nitrogen, +18; Oxygen, 42; Sulphur, 2. These figures nearly equal those in the +text, being those figures multiplied each by 4 (approximately) and +without the trace of sulphur.] + +And of course there is no answer to a supposition of this sort. +Nevertheless there is no sort of reason to believe that protoplasm will +ever be made; nor, if we could succeed in uniting the elements into a +form resembling protoplasmic jelly, is there the least reason to suppose +that such a composition would exhibit the irritability, or the powers of +nutrition and reproduction, which are essentially the characteristics of +_living_ protoplasm. It is not too much to say that, after the close of +the controversy about spontaneous generation, it is now a universally +admitted principle of science that life can only proceed from life--the +old _omne vivum ex ovo_ in a modern form.[1] + +But here the same sort of argument that was brought forward regarding +the possibility of matter and its laws being self-caused, comes in as +regards life. + + +[Footnote 1: _See_ "Critiques and Addresses," T.H. Huxley, F.R.S., +p. 239. So much is this the case, that it is really superfluous, however +interesting, to recall the experiments of Dr. Tyndall and others, which +finally demonstrated that wherever primal animal forms, bacteria and +other, "microbes," were produced in infusions of hay, turnip, &c., +apparently boiled and sterilized and then hermetically sealed, there +were really germs in the air enclosed in the vessel, or germs that in +one form or another were not destroyed by the boiling or heating. Dr. +Bastian's argument for spontaneous generation is thus completely +overthrown. _(See_ Drummond, "Natural Law," pp. 62-63.)] + +The argument in the most direct form was made use of by Professor +Huxley, but it is difficult to believe that so powerful a thinker could +seriously hold to a view which will not bear examination, however neatly +and brilliantly it may go off when first launched into the air. The +argument is that life can only be regarded as a further property of +certain forms of matter. Oxygen and hydrogen, when they combine, result +in a new substance, quite unlike either of them in character, and +possessing _new_ and different properties. The way in which the +combination is effected is a mystery, yet we do not account for the new +and peculiar properties of water (so different from those of the +original gases) as arising from a principle of "aquosity," which we have +to invoke from another world. The answer is that the argument is from +analogy, and that there is not really the remotest analogy between the +two cases. It is true that, as far as we know, electricity is necessary +to force a combination of the requisite equivalents of oxygen and +hydrogen into water. But though we do not know why this is, or what +electricity is, we can repeat the process as often as we will. But mark +the difference; the water once existing is obviously only a new form of +matter, in the same category with the gases it came from: it neither +increases in bulk, nor takes in fresh elements to grow, and give birth +to new drops of water. But protoplasm has something quite different--for +there may be dead protoplasm and living protoplasm, both identical to +the eye and to every chemical test. In either condition, protoplasm, as +such, has _properties_ of the same nature (though not of the same kind) +as those of water, oxygen gas, or any other matter; it is colorless, +heavy, sticky, elastic, and so forth; but besides all that (without the +aid of electricity or any physical force we can apply) one has the power +of producing more protoplasm--gathering for itself, by virtue of its +inherent power, the materials for growth and reproduction. + +If directly water was called into existence it could take in +nourishment, and divide and go on producing more water--and if some +water could do this, while other water (which no available test could +distinguish from it in any other respect) could not, then we _should_ be +perfectly justified in giving a special name to this power, and calling +it "aquosity" or "vitality" or anything else, it being out of all +analogy to anything else which we call a "property" of matter. + +In the introduction of LIFE into the _aeon_ of organic developmental +history, we have a clear and distinct period, as we had when _matter_ +came into view, or when _the change_ was ushered in which set the cosmic +gas cooling and liquefying, and turning to solid in various form. + +The fact is that every organic form, whether plant or animal, derived +from the protoplasmic compounds of carbon-dixoide, ammonia and water, +is, as Mr. Drummond puts it,[1] "made of materials which have once been +inorganic. An organizing principle, not belonging to their kingdom, lays +hold of them and elaborates them." + + +[Footnote 1: "Natural Law," p. 233.] + +Thus by the introduction of LIFE we have a vastly enlarged horizon. +Before, in the organic world, we had only the "principle" of solidifying +or crystallizing, liquefying, and turning to gas or vapour, ever +stopping when the state was attained. Or if a combination was in +progress, still the result was only a rearrangement of the same bulk of +materials (however new the form) in solid, liquid, or gas, but no +increase, no nutrition, no reproduction. In the organic world we have +something so different, that whether we talk of "property" or +"principle," the things are entirely distinct. + +The essential difference, stated as regards the mere facts of +irritability or motion, nutrition and reproduction, is so grandly +sufficient in itself, that one almost regrets to have to add on the +other facts which further emphasize the distinction between _life_ and +any _property_ of matter. But these further facts are highly important +as regards another part of the argument. For while what has just been +said almost demonstrates the necessity of a Giver of Life from a kingdom +outside the organic, the further facts point irresistibly to the +conclusion that we must predicate more about the Giver of Life that we +can of an abstract and unknown Cause. + +The original protoplasm, when dead, is undistinguishable by the eye, by +chemical test, or by the microscope, from the same protoplasm when +living; and living protoplasm, again, may be either animal or vegetable. +Both are in every respect (externally) absolutely identical. Yet the one +will only develop into a _plant_, the other only into an _animal._ Nor +does it diminish the significance of the fact to say that the +differentiation is _now_ fixed by heredity. If we suppose protoplasm to +be only a fortuitous combination of elements, what secondary or common +natural cause will account for its acquisition of the fixed difference? +It is true that some forms of plants exhibit some functions that closely +approach the functions of what we call animal life; but, as we shall see +presently, there is no evidence whatever that there is any bridge +between the two--we have no proof that a plant ever develops into an +animal. Here is one of the gaps which the theory of Evolution, true as +it is to a certain extent, cannot bridge over; and we must not overlook +the fact. We shall revert to it hereafter. + +Can it be believed, then, that protoplasm, as the origin of life, is +self-caused, and self-developed? And this is not all. I must briefly +remind my readers that the way in which animal protoplasm deals with the +elements of nutrition is quite opposite to that which plant protoplasm +follows. I might, indeed, have mentioned this at an earlier stage, when +I mentioned Professor Huxley's comparison of the chemical action in the +formation of water with what he assumed to be the case in the formation +of protoplasm. When water is formed, the two gases disappear, and an +_exactly equal weight_ of water appears in their place; but if living +protoplasm is enabled to imbibe liquid or other nutriment containing +ammonia, water, and carbonic acid, there is no disappearance of the +three elements and an equivalent weight of living protoplasm appearing +in its place. Protoplasm consumes the oxygen and sets free the carbonic +acid. Both kinds of protoplasm do this, until exposed to the light; and +then a difference is observed; for under the influence of light, animal +protoplasm alone continues to act in this way, and vegetable protoplasm +begins at once to develop little green bodies or corpuscles in its +cells, and afterwards acts in a totally opposite way, taking the carbon +into its substance and giving off the oxygen.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: Certain _fungi_ seem to afford an exception to this. The +above is, I believe, true as a theoretical action of plants and animals +in protoplasmic form. But practically, in all higher developments of +either kind, other distinctions come into play; e.g., that plants can +make use of inorganic matter, gases, and water, and elaborate them into +organic matter. Animals cannot do this, they require more or less solid +food--always requiring "complex organic bodies which they ultimately +reduce to much simpler inorganic bodies. They are thus mediately or +immediately dependent on plants for their subsistence" (Nicholson, +"Zoology," 6th ed. p. 17). It is perhaps with reference to this that in +the Book of Genesis the Creator is represented as giving _plant_ life to +the service of man and animals--while nothing is said of the preying of +_Carnivora_ and _Insectivora_ on animal life.] + +Not only then has each kind of protoplasm its own mysterious character +impressed on it, and is compelled to act in a certain way; but still +further, each particle of animal and vegetable protoplasm, when directed +into its _general_ course of development as _plant or animal_, will +again only obey a certain course of development in its own line. + +But we must proceed a step further; for those who would believe in the +sufficiency of unaided Evolution, bid us bear in mind how very +elementary the dawn of instinct or the beginning of reason is in the +lowest forms which are classed as animal, and how very small is the +gap[1] between some highly organized plants and some animal forms, and +argue therefore that they may justly regard the distinction as of minor +importance, and hope that the "missing link" will be yet discovered and +proved. At any rate, they minimize the difference, and urge that it is +of no account if at least they can establish the sufficiency of a proved +development extending unbroken from the lowest to the highest animal +form. And having fixed attention on this side, no doubt there is a long +stretch of smooth water over which the passage is unchecked. + + +[Footnote 1: At the risk of repetition I will remind the reader that +nature contains _nothing like_ a progressive scale from plant to animal. +It is _never_ that the highest plant can be connected with the lowest +animal as in one series of links. The animal kingdom and the plant +kingdom are absolutely apart. Both start from similar elementary +proteinaceous structures; and both preserve their development +upwards--each exhibiting _some_ of the features of the other. It is at +the bottom of each scale that resemblance is to be found, _not_ between +the top of one and the lowest members of the other.] + +The Evolution theory is that all the different species of animals, +birds, and other forms of life have been caused by the accumulation and +perpetuation of numerous small changes which began in one or at most a +few elementary forms, and went on till all the thousands of species we +now know of were developed.[1] It _is_ a fact that all organic forms +have a certain tendency to vary. I need only allude to the many +varieties of pigeons, horses, cattle, and dogs which are produced by +varying the food, the circumstances of life and so forth, and by +selective breeding. + +The contention then is: given certain original simple forms of life, +probably marine or aquatic--for it is in the water that the most likely +occur--these will gradually change and vary, some in one direction, some +in another; that the changes go on increasing, each creature giving +birth to offspring which exhibits the stored-up results of change, till +the varied and finished forms--some reptile, some bird, some +animal--which we now see around us, have been produced. And at last man +himself was developed in the same way. All this, observe, is by the +action of just such ordinary and natural causes as we now see operating +around us--changes in food and in climate, changes in one part requiring +a corresponding change in others, and so on. + + +[Footnote 1: The reader may find this admirably put in Wallace, +"Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection," p. 302.] + +Nature contains no sharply drawn lines. Plants are different from +animals; but there are animals so low down in the scale of life that it +is difficult to distinguish them from plants. Pigeons are distinct from +pheasants, but the line at which the one species ends and the other +begins is difficult to draw. This fact seems to invite some theory of +one form changing into other. Accordingly the evolutionist explains the +working of the process which he asserts to be sufficient to produce all +the various forms of life in our globe. + +After stating this more in detail than we have previously done, we shall +be in a better position to judge if the process (which in the main we +have no desire to deny or even to question) can dispense with _guidance_ +and the fixing of certain lines and limits within which, and of certain +types towards which, the development proceeds. That is our point. + +It is hardly necessary to illustrate the enormous destruction of life +which goes on in the world. Even among the human race, the percentage of +infants that die in the first months of their life is very large. But in +the lower forms of life it is truly enormous. Only consider the myriads +of insects that perish from hunger or accident, and from the preying of +one species on another. If it were not so, the world would be overrun by +plagues of mice, of birds, of insects of all kinds, and indeed by +creatures of every grade. The term "struggle for existence" is, then, +not an inapt one. All forms of living creatures have to contend with +enemies which seek to prey upon or to destroy them, with the difficulty +of obtaining food, and with what I may call the chances of +nature--cold, storms, floods, disease, and so forth. + +Now, it is obvious that if some creatures of a given kind possess some +accidental peculiarity or modification in their formation which gives +them (in one way or another) an advantage over their fellows, these +improved specimens are likely to survive, and, surviving, to have +offspring. + +It is this perpetuation of advantageous changes, originally induced by +the circumstances of environment, that is indicated by the term "natural +selection." Nature chooses out the form best suited to the circumstances +which surround it, and this form lives while the others die out. And +this form goes on improving by slow successive changes, which make it +more and more fit for the continually changing circumstances of its +life. + +Subordinate also to this natural selection is the principle that bright +colour and other special qualities may be developed in the males of a +race, because individuals with such advantages are more attractive, and +therefore more easily find mates, than dull-coloured or otherwise less +attractive individuals. + +Of each of these principles I may give a simple example. Supposing a +species of bird with a soft slender beak to be placed on an island, +where the only food they could obtain was fruit enclosed in a hard or +tough shell or covering. Supposing some birds accidentally possessed of +a beak that was shorter and stouter than the others', these would be +able to break open the shell and get at the fruit, while the others +would starve. Some of the descendants of the birds with the stout beaks +would inherit the same peculiarity, and in the course of several +generations there would thus arise a species with short and strong, +perhaps curved, beaks just fitted to live on fruits of the kind +described. In a similar way the webbed feet of birds that swim were +developed by their aquatic habits. And so with the long slender toes of +the waders, which are so well fitted for walking over floating aquatic +plants. + +Of the other principle, sexual selection, a familiar example is the +bright and showy colouring of the male birds of many species: the +females of their species, as they need protection while helplessly +sitting on their eggs, are dull-coloured like the bark of trees or the +sand, among which their nests lie hid. + +Some of the Himalayan pheasants exhibit this peculiarity to a marked +degree. Originally, it is said, the male bird, which was more brightly +coloured than the rest, got mated more easily by the preference shown to +him for his bright colour. + +The question is, can we suppose all this to go on, by self-caused laws +and concurrence of circumstances, without a pre-existing design for the +forms to reach or an external guidance in the processes? + + + + +CHAPTER VI. + + +_THE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION OF ORGANIC FORMS_. + +The heading of this chapter does not mark a new departure, for we have +been tracing existing forms of matter from the first, and have already +seen the necessity of believing in Creative Intelligence and Guidance. +We have seen that inorganic matter, with what we call its molecular or +atomic structure, cannot be reasonably regarded as self-caused; and we +have concluded with Sir J.F.W. Herschell that the sight of such a +well-arranged army, performing its evolutions in a regular and uniform +manner, irresistibly suggests a great Commander and Designer. We have +further found that the advent of LIFE demands a Power _ab extra_. We +have called attention to the gap, between plant and animal, which is +ignored or made light of, chiefly on account of the close approach of +the two kingdoms. But there is one broad distinction, namely, that of +elementary reason and no reason, or of consciousness and +unconsciousness, which is, in itself, a sufficient difficulty to pull +us up shortly. We have not yet fully considered this matter, because it +will come more appropriately at a later stage, and in the _à fortiori_ +form. But we have justly noted it here. We cannot account for the most +elementary reason by any physical change; there is no analogy between +the two. The connection of mind and matter is unexplainable; and no +theory of development of physical form can say why, at any given stage, +physical development begins to be accompanied by brain-power and +_consciousness_. Admit candidly that the addition of intelligence at a +certain stage, however mysteriously interwoven with structural +accompaniments, is a gift _ab extra_, and we have at least a reasonable +and so far satisfactory explanation. + +But when we have got an animal form, however simple and elementary, with +at least a recognizable "potentiality" of intelligence, we enter, as I +said, a long stretch of apparently smooth water, over which, for an +important part of our passage, we seem able to glide without any +difficulty from the necessary intervention of the so-called +supernatural. I have, then, to show that even here there is really no +possibility of dispensing with a Creator who has a purpose, a designed +scheme, and a series of type-forms to be complied with. + +In order to fully exhaust the question how far natural selection is +capable of accounting for everything, it would be necessary to take a +very wide view of natural history and botany, which it is quite +impossible for us to attempt. But this is not necessary for our purpose. +We are perfectly justified in selecting certain topics which must arise +in the discussion. If, in studying these points, we find that _there_ at +least the intervention of a Controlling Power becomes necessary, and the +absence of it leaves things without any reasonable explanation, then we +shall have good and logical ground for holding to our faith in the +universal presence of such a Power. No chain is stronger than its +weakest link. If secondary causes cannot succeed at any one part of the +chain, it is obvious that they fail as a universal explanation. + +This part of the work has already been done far better than I could do +it. In the first eight chapters of Mivart's "Genesis of Species" [1] the +argument has been ably and clearly put, and whatever answer is possible +has been given by Darwin and others; so that the world may judge. All +that can here be usefully attempted, is, by way of reminder, to +reproduce some main topics on which no real answer has been given. These +are selected, partly because they are less abstruse and difficult to +follow than some which might be dealt with, partly because they are +calculated to awaken our interest, and partly because the conclusion in +favour of a continual Providence; working through organized law and +system, appears to follow most clearly from them. + + +[Footnote 1: Second Edition, 1871.] + +The points I would call attention to are the following:-- + +(I) That as natural selection will only maintain changes that have been +_beneficial_ to the creature, it is contrary to such a law, if acting +entirely by itself, that that there should be developments (not being +mere accidental deformities, &c.) disadvantageous to the creature. And +yet the world is full of such. + +(2) That there are forms which cannot be accounted for on the +evolutionist supposition, that they were gradually obtained by a series +of small changes slowly progressing towards a perfect structure. They +would be of no use at all unless produced _at once and complete_. + +(3) That natural selection, as apart from a Divine Designer, altogether +fails to account for _beauty_, as distinguished from mere brilliancy or +conspicuousness, in nature. Whereas, if we suppose the existence of a +beneficent Creator, who has moral objects in view, and cares for the +delight and the improvement of His creatures,[1] and looking to the +known effects on the mind of beauty in art and in nature, the existence +is at once and beyond all cavil explained. + + +[Footnote 1: "He hath made everything _beautiful_ in his time" (Eccles. +iii. II).] + +(4) That we have positive evidence against _uncontrolled_ evolution +(uncontrolled by set plan and design i.e.) and a strong presumption in +favour of the existence of created _types_; so that evolution proceeds +towards these types by aid of natural laws and forces working together +(in a way that our limited faculties necessarily fail to grasp +adequately);[1] and so that, the type once reached, a certain degree of +variation, but never _transgression_ of _the type_, is possible. +Further, that on this supposition we are able to account for some of the +unexplained facts in evolutionary history, such as _reversion_ and the +_sterility of hybrids_; and to see why there are gaps which cannot be +bridged over, and which by extreme theorists are only feebly accounted +for on the supposition that as discovery progresses they _will_ be +bridged over some day. + + +[Footnote 1: "Also He hath set the world in their heart, so that _no man +can find out the work that God maketh_ from the beginning to the end" +(Eccles. iii II).] + +(5) Lastly, that there is no possibility of giving _time_ enough on any +possible theory of the world's existence, for the evolution of all +species, unless _some_ reasonable theory of creative arrangement and +design be admitted. + +The great objection--the descent of man and the introduction of reason, +consciousness, and so forth, into the world, will then form two separate +chapters, concluding the first division of my subject. + +There is one point which the reader may be surprised to see omitted. It +is, that if these slow changes were always going on, why is not the +present world full of, and the fossil-bearing rocks also abounding in, +_intermediate forms_, creatures which _are on their way_ to being +something else? But there are reasons to be given on this ground which +make the subject a less definite one for treatment. It is said, for +example, that in the fossil rocks we have only such scanty and +fragmentary records, that it is not possible to draw a complete +inference, and that there is always the possibility of fresh discoveries +being made. Such discoveries have, it is asserted, already been made in +the miocene and again in later rocks; different species of an early form +of _horse_ which are (and this we may admit) the ancestral or +intermediate forms of our own horse, have been found. I therefore would +not press the difficulty, great as it is, because of the escape which +the hope of future discovery always affords. I will take this +opportunity to repeat that in this chapter I say nothing about the +difficulty which arises from the introduction of elementary reason or +instinct, and of consciousness, into the scale of organic being; that +will more appropriately fall in with the consideration of the +development of man, where naturally the difficulty occurs with its +greatest force. + +(1) I come at once to the great difficulty that, if all existing forms +are due to the occurrence of changes that helped the creature in the +struggle for existence, how is it possible now to account for forms +which are not advantageous? yet such forms are numerous. Of this +objection, the existence of imperfect or neuter bees and ants is an +instance. The modification in form which these creatures exhibit is of +no advantage to them. It _is_ a great advantage, no doubt, to the other +bees; but then this introduces a view of some power _making_ one thing +for the benefit of another, not a change in the form itself adapted of +course to its _own_ advantage--since natural laws, forces, and +conditions of environment could not conceivably _design_ the advantage +of another form, and cause one to change for the benefit of that other. + +Why is it, again, that crabs and crayfish can only grow by casting off +their shells, during which process they often die, as well as remain +exposed defenceless to the attacks of enemies? Why should stags shed +their horns also, leaving them defenceless for a time? Other animals do +not do so, and there is nothing in the nature of the horn which requires +it. + +This brief allusion is here sufficient. Mr. Mivart's work gives it at +large. + +(2) Passing next to the question of the advantage of _incomplete +stages_--portions of a mechanism only useful when complete, the most +striking examples may be found in the Vegetable kingdom. The +fertilization of flowering plants is effected by the pollen, a yellow +dust formed in the anthers, which is carried from flower to flower. In +the pines and oaks, this is done by the wind. But in other cases insects +visit a flower to get the honey, and in so doing get covered with +pollen, which they carry away and leave in the next flower visited. Now +one of our commonest and most useful plants, the red clover, is so +constructed that it can only be fertilized by humble bees. If this bee +became extinct, the plant would die out; how can such a development be +advantageous to it? + +But the contrivances by which this process of fertilization is secured +are so marvellous, that I confess I am completely staggered by the idea +that these contrivances have been caused by the self-growth and +adaptation of the plant without guidance. There is a plant called +_Salvia glutinosa_[1]--easily recognized by its sticky calyx and pale +yellow flowers. The anthers that bear the pollen are hidden far back in +the hood of the flower, so that the pollen can neither fall nor can the +wind carry it away; but the two anthers are supported on a sort of +spring, and directly a bee goes to the flower and pushes in his head to +get the honey, the spring is depressed and both anthers start forward, +of course depositing their pollen on the hairy back of the bee, which +carries it to the stigma of the next flower. This process can be tested +without waiting for a bee, by pushing a bit of stick into the flower, +when the curious action described will be observed. It is very easy to +say that this admirable mechanical contrivance is of great use to the +plant _in its complete_ form; but try and imagine what use an +intermediate form would have been! If development at once proceeded to +the complete form, surely this marks _design_; if not, no partial step +towards it would have been of any use, and therefore would not have been +inherited and perpetuated so as to prepare for further completion. But +many other plants have a structure so marvellous that this objection is +continually applicable. Let me only recall one other case, that of the +orchid, called _Coryanthes macrantha_. In this flower there are two +little horns, which secrete a pure water, or rather water mixed with +honey. The lower part of the flower consists of a long lip, the end of +which is bent into the form of a bucket hanging below the horns. This +bucket catches the nectar as it drops, and is furnished with a spout +over which the liquid trickles when it is too full. But the mouth of the +bucket is guarded by a curiously ridged cover with two openings, one on +each side. The most ingenious man, says Mr. Darwin, would never by +himself make out what this elaborate arrangement was intended for. It +was at last discovered. Large humble bees were seen visiting the flower; +by way of getting at the honey, they set to work to gnaw off the ridges +of the lid above alluded to; in doing this they pushed one another into +the bucket, and had to crawl out by the spout. As they passed out by +this narrow aperture, they had to rub against the anthers and so carried +off the pollen. When a bee so charged gets into another bucket, or into +the same bucket a second time, and has to crawl out, he brushes against +the stigma, and leaves the pollen on it. I might well have adduced this +plant as another instance of the first objection, since it may well be +asked, How could such a development, resulting in a structure which +presents the greatest difficulty in the way of fertilization, be +beneficial to the plant? But here the point is that, even if any one +could assert the utility of such an elaborate and complicated +development, and suppose it self-caused by accident or effect of +environment, it certainly goes against the idea that all forms are due +to an _accumulation of small changes_. For these curious contrivances in +the case of _Salvia, Coryanthes_, and other plants, would in any case +have been no use to the plant till the whole machinery _was complete_. +Now, on the theory of slow changes gradually accumulating till the +complete result was attained, there must have been generation after +generation of plants, in which the machinery was as yet imperfect and +only partly built up. But in such incomplete stages, fertilization would +have been impossible, and therefore the plant must have died out. Just +the same with the curious fly-trap in _Dionoea_. Whatever may be its +benefit to the plant, till the whole apparatus as it now is, was +_complete_, it would have been of no use. In the animal kingdom also, +instances might be given: the giraffe has a long neck which is an +advantage in getting food that other animals cannot reach; but what +would have been the use of a neck which was becoming--and had not yet +become--long? here intermediate stages would not have been useful, and +therefore could not have been preserved.[2] In flat fishes it is curious +that, though they are born with eyes on different sides of the head, the +lower eye gradually grows round to the upper-side. As remarked by Mr. +Mivart, natural selection could not have produced this change, since the +_first steps towards it_ could have been of no possible use, and could +not therefore have occurred, at least not without direction and guidance +from without. Mr. Darwin's explanation of the case does not touch this +difficulty. + + +[Footnote 1: This species was instanced because the lectures which form +the basis of the book were originally delivered at Simla, in the N.W. +Himalaya, where, at certain seasons, the plant is a common wayside weed. +Mr. Darwin notices a similar and, if possible, more curious structure in +a species of _Catasetum_.] + +[Footnote 2: See this fully explained by Mivart, "Genesis of Species," +pp. 29, 30 (2nd edition).] + +(3) The third point, the occurrence of so much _beauty_ in organic life, +is perhaps one of the most conclusive arguments for design in nature. + +Here, if possible, more clearly than elsewhere, I see a total failure of +"natural causes." We are told that the beauty of birds (for instance) is +easily accounted for by the fact, that the ornamented and beautiful +males are preferred by the other sex; and that this is an advantage, so +the beauty has been perpetuated; and the same with butterflies and +beetles. + +We are told also that bright-coloured fruits attract birds, who eat the +soft parts of the fruit and swallow the hard stone or seed which is thus +prepared for germination, and carried about and dispersed over the +earth's surface. Again, showy coloured flowers attract insects, which +carry away pollen and fertilize other flowers. + +All this is perfectly true; but it entirely fails to go far enough to +meet the difficulty. + +Now passing over such difficulties as the fact that bright colours in +flowers _do not_ attract insects in many cases, but much more +inconspicuous flowers if they have a scent (mignonette, for example) +_do_; passing over such a fact as that afforded by the violet, which (as +some may not be aware) has two kinds of flower, one scented and of a +beautiful colour, the other green and inconspicuous, and it is the +_latter, not the former_ which is usually fertile;--passing over all +detailed difficulties of this kind, I allude only to the one great one, +that in all these cases, besides mere bright colour, conspicuousness or +showiness, there is a great and wonderful beauty of pattern, design, or +colour arrangement, in nature. Now there is not a particle of evidence +to show that any animal has, to the smallest extent, a _sense of +beauty_. On the contrary it is most improbable. The sense of artistic +beauty is not only peculiar to man, but only exists in him when +civilized and cultivated. Uneducated people among ourselves have no +sense of landscape and other beauty. How then can it exist in animals? + +If there was nothing to explain but a uniform bright and showy colour, +natural selection might be sufficient to account for it. How is it, +then, that this is not the case? We have not only colour, but colour +diversified in the most elaborate and charming manner. Look at the +exquisite patterns on a butterfly's wing! look at the various delicate +arrangements of colour and pattern in flowers; or look again at the +arrangement of colour on a humming-bird--sometimes the tail, sometimes +the breast is ornamented, sometimes a splendid crest covers the head, +sometimes a jewelled gorget or ruff surrounds the throat; and these are +not uniformly coloured, but exhibit metallic and other changes of lustre +not to be imitated by the highest art. But to fully realize this, I had +best refer to a more familiar instance. Let any one examine--as an +object very easily procurable in these days--a peacock's feather. No +doubt the whole tail when expanded is very brilliant; but look closely +at the structure of a single feather; is all this arrangement needed +only to make the tail bright or conspicuous? Observe how wonderfully the +outer parts are varied; part has a metallic lustre of copper, part has +this also shot with green: then there is a delicate ring of violet with +a double yellowish border, all quite distinct from the inmost gorgeous +"eye" of green, blue, and black, and all arranged on the same feather! + +Take, again, the so-called diamond beetle of Brazil; here the wing case +is black studded all over with little pits or specks, which as a whole +only give it a powdery pale-green colour; but place it in the sunlight +and look at it with a magnifying glass--each little speck is seen to be +furnished with a set of minute metallic scales showing green and red +flashes like so many diamonds. How does such a delicate ornament answer +the demands of mere conspicuousness? + +But there is a stronger case than this. I before alluded to the +exquisite symmetry of the silicious and crystalline coverings of some of +the simplest forms of marine animalcules; and also I may here add the +beautiful colouring of _shells_ sometimes on the _inside_.[1] In what +possible way would this beauty serve for any purely _useful_ purpose? + + +[Footnote 1: See Mivart, p. 61.] + +Lastly, how are we to account for the beauty of autumnal tints in woods, +or coloured _leaves_ in plants such as the _Caladium_? The beauty is of +no conceivable use to the plant. + +"In Canada the colours of the autumn forest are notorious. Even on +cloudy days the hue of the foliage is of so intense a yellow that the +light thrown from the trees creates the impression of bright sunshine, +each leaf presents a point of sparkling gold. But the colours of the +leafy landscape change and intermingle from day to day, until pink, +lilac, vermilion, purple, deep indigo and brown, present a combination +of beauty that must be seen to be realized; for no artist has yet been +able to represent, nor can the imagination picture to itself, the +gorgeous spectacle.[1]" + +Have we not here an exhibition which cannot be accounted for on any +principle of natural utility? + + +[Footnote 1: "Quarterly Review," 1861, p. 20.] + +(4) The fourth point, as previously stated, will be best treated by +stating beforehand what is the conclusion come to, and then justifying +it. My suggestion is that if we suppose a continuous evolution without a +series of designs prescribed before life began to develop, and without +any external guidance, then we are lost in difficulties. We cannot +account for why variation should set in in the very different ways it +does, nor why such a vast variety of divergent results should be +produced. We cannot account for the tendency to reversion to a previous +type, when artificial or accidental variation is not continually +maintained,[1] nor for the sterility of hybrids; nor, above all, for +evolution performing such freaks (if I may so say) as the origination of +our small finches and the tropical humming-birds from earlier +vertebrates through the Mesozoic reptiles, the pterodactyles, +_Odontornithes_ and subsequent forms. Supposing that the Almighty +Designer created a complete _cosmos_ of (1) the starry heavens and the +planetary system, (2) then a scheme whereby earth and water were to be +duly distributed over our planet; (3) established the relations by +which the external heavenly bodies were to regulate our seasons, tides, +and times (as we know they do). (4) Suppose, further, that the Designer +did not make "out of nothing" the series of finally developed animals as +we now have them, but "made the animals make themselves"--that is to +say, created the type, the ideal form, and adapted the laws and forces +which constitute environment, so that development of form should go on +regularly towards the appointed end, but in separate and appropriate +channels, each terminating when its object had been attained. Suppose +these conditions (which, as we shall afterwards see, are what +Revelation, fairly interpreted, declares) to exist; all the known +_facts_, and also the fairly certain _inferences_ of Evolution, are then +accounted for. + + +[Footnote 1: Pigeon fanciers know that when they have once obtained, by +crossbreeding and selection, a particular form or feather, the utmost +care is needed to preserve it. If the parents are not selected the +progeny wilt gradually revert towards the original wild pigeon type.] + +We have neither by revelation nor physical discovery an exact _scheme_ +of all the types, nor which of the elementary forms were destined to +remain unchanged throughout. But some scheme of created types we surely +have. Whether what we call _species_[1] are all types or not, we cannot +say; probably not. All we can be sure of is that there are definite +lines somewhere. We see the sterility of some hybrids, for instance, +which would seem to indicate that while some forms can conjugate and +their offspring remain fertile, others (approaching, as it were, the +verge of separation) give rise to hybrids which are or not absolutely +sterile,[2] according as they approach, or are more remote from, the +designed barrier-line. And at that point the separation is insuperable. +Certain forms of _Carnivora_ and _Ungulata_ seem to be for ever +apart--not only the two great orders, but even subdivisions within them. +Reptiles and birds, on the other hand, unlike as they at first sight +seem, have no type line drawn to separate them; that, at least, is one +of the more recent conclusions of biological science. + + +[Footnote 1: It should be borne in mind that what we call a _species_ as +distinct from a mere variety, is a more or less arbitrary or provisional +thing dependent on the state of science for the time. Species are +constantly being lumped together by some and separated by others. It +follows most probably, that while some species are really types--i.e., +one can never pass into the other and lose its essentials, unless it is +destined to disappear (like the pterodactyle), not being wanted in the +whole scheme--other species are really only varieties, and maybe lost or +modified without limit.] + +[Footnote 2: We may well regard the mule as a peculiar form just such as +the evolutionist would rejoice to see: here is a modified species, which +has qualities different from those of either of the parent stock, and +well fitted "to struggle for existence." Yet this modified race would, +if left to itself, die out.] + +In other cases where variation has occurred, and especially when it is +artificially--i.e., by the aid of selective breeding--caused or +favoured, there is the constant tendency to _revert_, which is at once +intelligible if there is a type scheme to be maintained. + +If there were a series of created types, there may naturally have been +what I may call sub-types; which would be certain well-marked stages on +the way to the final form. Such sub-type forms would naturally occur at +different ages, and being marked would show their place in the scale, +and their connection with the ultimate perfect form. Such a possibility +would exactly account for the series of _Eohippus, Hipparion_, and +horse, which we have already instanced; and still more so for the rise +and disappearance of the great Mesozoic Saurians when their object was +fulfilled. Deny guidance and type, and everything becomes confused. Why +should variation take certain directions? how comes it that natural +forces and conditions of life so occur and co-operate as to produce the +variety of changes needed? + +And there is also one other general objection which I desire to state. + +Why should _development_ have gone in different directions _towards the +same object_? I grant that different circumstances would produce +different changes, but not for the same purpose. For example take +eye-sight. The world shows several types of eye. The _insect_ eye quite +unlike any other; the crustacean eye also distinct; and birds, fishes, +and animals having an eye which is generally similar and is somewhat +imitated by the eye of the _cuttle fish_ (which is not a _fish_, but a +_cephalopod_). + +Again, granted that _poison_ is a useful defence to creatures: how is it +given so differently?--to a serpent in the tooth; to a bee or a scorpion +in the tail; to a spider in a specially adapted _antenna_, and to the +centipede in a pair of modified legs on the _thorax_. + +One would have supposed that natural causes tending to produce poison +weapons would have all gone on the same lines. And, curiously, in some +few cases, we have a sameness of line. About twelve species--all +fish--have an electric apparatus, familiar to most of us in the flat +sea-fish called _Torpedo_ and in the fresh-water eel called _Gymnotus_. +The only answer the anti-creationist can give to this dissimilarity of +development is that there are many vacant places in the polity of +nature, and that development takes place in that direction which fits +the creature to occupy a vacant place, and is, therefore, diverse. + +It seems to me that this--the only answer that can he given--is +necessarily a modified form or mode _of creation._ How can _natural +causes_ know anything about a polity of nature and a vacant place, here +and there, so that the creature must develop in one way or another to +fill it? + +Another set of cases is the production of similar functional results by +most diverse means, as in the case of flying animals, birds, +pterodactyles, and bats; here there is a widely different modification +of the fore-arm and other bones, all for the same purpose. The reader +will do well to refer to Mr. Mivart's book on this subject. + +Again, the question of types seems to be pointed to in the curious fact +of what I may call the double development of birds from reptiles. Mr. +Mivart says, "If one set of birds sprang from one set of reptiles and +another set from another set of reptiles, the two sets could never by +'natural selection' only have grown into such perfect similarity." Yet +we can trace the _Struthious_ birds (those that, like ostriches, do not +fly) through the Dinosaurs and _Dinornis_, and the flying Carinate birds +though pterodactyles, _Archaeopteryx_, and _Icthyornis_, &c. + +It might well be added to this part of the subject, that granted that +developmental changes were often small, that progress was attained +little by little, this does not appear to have been always the case. + +The discoveries of the fossil species of horse,[1] _Eohippus, +Hipparion_, and so forth, clearly establish a developmental series, and +the ancient forms are claimed as the ancestor of the modern horse; but +these (Professor Owen tells us) differed more from one another than the +ass and the zebra (for instance) differ from the horse. Still, of course +it may be that there are still undiscovered intermediate forms; and in +any case there need be no desire to detract from the value of the +series, as really pointing towards a gradual perfection of the horse +from a ruder ancestor up to the latest type. But having reached the +type, and though that type exhibits such (considerable) variations as +occur between the Shetland pony, the Arab, and the dray-horse, we have +still no difficulty in recognizing the essential identity; nor is there +any evidence or any probability that the horse will ever change into +anything essentially different. All the fossil bats, again, were true +bats: and so with the rhinoceroses and the elephants. Granting the +fullest use that may be made of the imperfection of the geological +record, it is difficult to account for this, and still more for the +absence of intermediate forms (particularly suitable for preservation) +of the _Cetaceae_. The Zeuglodons from Eocene down to Pliocene, the +Dolphins in the Pliocene, and the _Ziphoids Catodontidae_, and +_Balaenidae_ in the Pliocene, are all fully developed forms, with no +intermediate species. + + +[Footnote 1: The series is thus (Nicholson, p. 702):--1. +_Eohippus_--Lower Eocene of America; fore-feet have four toes and a +rudimentary thumb or pollex. 2. _Orohippus_ (about the size of a +fox)--Eocene. 3. _Anchitherium_--Eocene and Lower Miocene; three toes, +but 2 and 4 are diminutive. 4. _Hipparion_--Upper Miocene and Pliocene; +still three toes, but 3 more like the modern horse and 2 and 4 still +further diminished. 5. _Pliohippus_--later Pliocene, very like Equus. 6. +_Equus_--Post-Pliocene.] + +Mr. Mivart remarks, "There are abundant instances to prove that +considerable modifications may suddenly develop themselves, either due +to external conditions or to obscure internal causes in the organisms +which exhibit them.[1]" If it is not so, granted to the full the +imperfection of the Geologic record, but remembering the cases where we +_do_ find intermediate forms; we ask why should they not be preserved in +other cases? If they ever existed we should surely see _more_ changing +forms; not only such as are more or less uncertainly divided species, +but whole orders running one into another. No evidence exists to show +that any bird has gradually passed into an animal, nor a carnivorous +beast become ruminant, or _vice versâ._ + + +[Footnote 1: P. 112] [Transcriber's note: Chapter VIII] + +The analogy of changes that are known will not bear extension enough to +prove, even probably, any such change. + +Surely if our conclusion in favour of a Divine Design to be attained, +and a Providential Intelligence directing the laws of development, is no +more than a belief, it is a probable and reasonable belief: it certainly +meets facts and allows place for difficulties in a way far more +satisfactory than the opposite belief which rejects _all_ but +"secondary" and purely "natural" causes. + +So clear does this seem to me, that I cannot help surmising that we +should never have heard of any objection to Divine creation and +providential direction, if it had not been for a prevalent fixed idea, +that by "creation" _must_ be meant a final, one-act production _(per +saltum)_ of a completely developed form, where previously there had been +nothing. Such a "creation" would of course militate against _any_ +evolution, however cautiously stated or clearly established. And no +doubt such an idea of "creation" was and still is prevalent, and would +naturally and almost inevitably arise, while nothing to the contrary in +the _modus operandi_ of Creative Power was known. What is more strange +is that the current objection should not now be, "Your _idea of +creation_ is all wrong," rather than the one which has been strongly +put forward (and against which I am contending), "There is no place for +a Creator." + +(5) This is the only other _general_ point that remains to be taken up +in connection with the theory that all living forms are due to the +gradual accumulation of small favourable changes without creative +intervention. The objection is that we cannot obtain the inconceivably +long time required for the process of uncontrolled and unaided +evolution. + +I am not here concerned to argue generally for the shortness or longness +of the periods of geological time; let us, for the purposes of argument, +admit a very wide margin of centuries and ages; but _some_ limit there +must be. The sun's light and heat, for one thing, are necessary, and +though the bulk of combustible material in the sun is enormous, there +must be some end to it. Sir William Thomson has calculated (and his +calculations have never been answered) that on purely physical grounds, +the existence of life on the earth must be limited to some such period +as 100 millions of years; and this is far too short for uncontrolled +evolution. + +We know from fossils, that species have remained entirely unaltered +since the glacial epochs began, and how many generations are included +even in that! If no change is visible in all that time, how many more +ages must have elapsed before a primitive _Amoeba_ could have developed +into a bird or a Mammal? + +In Florida Mr. Agassiz has shown that coral insects exist unchanged, +and must have been so for 30,000 years. + +When we remember also the enormous destruction of life that takes place, +supposing that in a given form a few creatures underwent accidental +changes which were beneficial and likely to aid them--still what chances +were there that the creatures which began to exhibit the right sort of +change should have died before they left offspring! the chances against +them are enormous: and the chances have to be repeated at every +successive change before the finally perfected or advanced creature took +its place in the polity of nature. Moreover, there is the chance of +small changes being lost by intercrossing: our own cattle-breeders have +most carefully to select the parents, or else the favourable variety +soon disappears. + +How then, seeing the power of stability which at least some forms are +found to exhibit--seeing too the enormous chances against the survival +of the particular specimens that begin to vary, and the further chances +of the loss of variety by intercrossing; how can we get the millions of +millions of years necessary to produce the present extreme divergence of +species? The fact is that the force of this objection is likely to be +undervalued, from the mere difficulty of bringing home to the mind the +immeasurable time really demanded by uncontrolled evolution. + +Nor is the question of time left absolutely to be matter of belief or +speculation. For here and there in the geological records of the rocks, +we _have_ certain intermediate forms--or forms which we may fairly argue +to be such. But looking at the very considerable differences between the +earlier and the later of these forms--differences greater than those +which now separate well-defined species, it seems questionable whether +any of the divisions of Tertiary time, taking all the circumstances into +consideration, could be lengthened out sufficiently to accomplish the +change. + +At any rate, if any particular example be disallowed, the general +objection must be admitted to be weighty. + +Now the intervention of any system of created designs of animal +form--however little its details be understood--and the production of +variations under _divine guidance_ which would lead more directly to the +accomplishment of such forms as the complicated flowers of orchids above +described, would unquestionably tend to shorten the requisite time. +There would, by a process of reasoning easily followed, be an immediate +reduction of the ages required, within practicable limits, though the +time must still remain long. More than that is not necessary. The +Ussherian chronology is not of Divine revelation, though some persons +speak of it as if it was. There is not the shadow of a reason to be +gleaned from the Bible, nor from any other source, that the commencement +of orderly development, the separation of land and water, earth and sky, +and the subsequent provision of designs for organic forms of life and +the first steps that followed the issue of the design, began six +thousand years ago, or anything like it. It can be shown, indeed, that +_historical_ man, or the specific origin of the man spoken of as Adam, +dates back but a limited time; and it is calculable with some degree of +probability how far; but that is all. We are therefore in no difficulty +when ample time is demanded; but we are in the greatest straits when the +illimitable demands of a slowly and minutely stepping development, +perpetually liable to be checked, turned back, and even obliterated, +have to be confronted with other weighty probabilities and calculations +regarding the sun's light and heat, and the duration of particular +geologic eras. + + + + +CHAPTER VII. + + +_THE DESCENT OF MAN_. + +We now approach a special objection which always, has been (and I shall +be pardoned, perhaps, for saying _always will be_) the _crux_ of the +theory of unaided, uncreated evolution--the advent of reasoning, and not +only reasoning, but self-conscious and God-conscious MAN. + +Here again the lines of argument are so numerous, and the details into +which we might go so varied, that a rigid and perhaps bald selection of +a few topics is all that can be attempted. + +But I may remark that naturalists are far from being agreed on this part +of the subject. Agassiz rejects the evolution of man altogether. Mr. St. +G. Mivart, while partly admitting, as every one else now does, the +doctrine of evolution, denies the descent of man. Mr. Wallace, the great +apostle of evolution, opposes Darwin, and will have none of his views on +the descent of man; and Professor Huxley himself says that, while the +resemblance of structure is such that if any "process of physical +causation can be discovered by which the genera and families of ordinary +animals have been produced, the process of causation is amply sufficient +to account for the origin of man," still he admits that the gulf is vast +between civilized man and brutes, and he is certain that "whether _from_ +them or not, man is assuredly not _of_ them." + +The first difficulty I shall mention is, however, a structural one. +Supposing that an ape-like ancestor developed into man, on the +principles of natural selection; then his development has taken place in +a manner directly contrary to the acknowledged law of natural selection. +He has developed backwards; his frame is in every way weaker; he is +wanting in agility; he has lost the prehensile feet; he has lost teeth +fitted for fighting or crushing or tearing; he has but little sense of +smell; he has lost the hairy covering, and is obliged to help himself by +clothes.[1] If this loss was ornamental it is quite unlike any other +development in this respect, since no other creature has the same; for +ornamental purposes the fur becomes coloured, spotted, and striped, but +not lost. It is easy to reply that man being _intelligent_, his brain +power enables him to invent clothes, arms, implements, and so forth, +which not only supply all deficiencies of structure, but give him a +great superiority over all creatures. But how did he get that +intelligence? By what natural process of causation (without intelligent +direction) is it conceivable that, given a species of monkey, all at +once and at a certain stage, structural development should have been +retarded and actually reversed, and a development of brain structure +alone set in? Nor, be it observed, has any trace of _man_ with a +rudimentary brain ever been discovered. Savages have brains far in +excess of their requirements, and can consequently be educated and +improved. The skull of a prehistoric man found in the Neanderthal near +Dusseldorf is of average brain capacity, showing that in those remote +ages man was very much in capacity what he is at present. + + +[Footnote 1: It is remarkable that the loss of the hairy covering is +most complete when it is most wanted: the back, the spine, and the +shoulders are in nearly all races unprotected; and yet the want of a +covering from the heat or cold is such that the rudest savages have +invented some kind of cloak for the back.] + +It must, however, be admitted that the special difficulties of the +origin of man are not purely structural. We do not know enough of the +Divine plan to be able to understand why it is that there is a certain +undeniable unity of form, in the two eyes, ears, mouth, limbs and organs +generally of the animal and man. Moreover, much is made of the fact, as +stated by a recent "Edinburgh Reviewer," that "the physical difference +between man and the lowest ape is trifling compared with that which +exists between the lowest ape and any brute animal that is not an +ape.[1]" This fact no doubt negatives the idea put forward by Bishop +Temple and others, that if there was an evolution of man, it must have +been in a special branch which was foreseen and commenced very far back +in the scale of organic being. For the structural difference might not +require such a separate origin; while the mental difference, affording +objections of a different class, will not allow of _any_ such evolution +at all. That there is _some_ connection between man and the animal +cannot be denied, and consequently, in the absence of fuller +information, very little would be gained by insisting on the purely +_physical_ development question. The Bible states positively that the +man Adam (as the progenitor of a particular race, at any rate) was a +separate and actual production, on a given part of the earth's surface. +All that we need conclude regarding that is that there is nothing known +which entitles us to say, "This is not a fact, and therefore is not +genuine revelation." + + +[Footnote 1: No. 331, July, 1885, p. 223.] + +Moreover, as to the question of the possibility of human development +generally, there are certain considerations which directly support our +belief. For example, directly we look to the characteristic point, the +gift of intellect, we can reasonably argue that the action of a Creator +is indispensable. The entrance of consciousness and of reason, however +elementary, marks something out of all analogy with the development of +physical structure, just as much as the entrance of Life marked a new +departure in no analogy with the "properties" of inorganic matter. + +From the first dawn of what looks like _will_ and _choice_ between two +things, and something like a _reason_ which directs the course of the +organism in a particular way for a particular object, we have an +altogether new departure. The difficulty commences at the outset, and +even in the animal creation; it is merely continued and rendered more +striking when we take into consideration the higher development of +intellect into power of abstract reasoning, self-consciousness and +God-consciousness. + +It is perfectly true that the difference between the "instinct" of +animals and the reason and mind of man, is one of degree rather than +kind. As Christians, we have no objection whatever to a development of +reason from the lowest reason solely concerned with earthly and bodily +affairs to the highest powers searching into deep and spiritual truths. +But such a development, though it is parallel to a physical +development--as spiritual law appears to be always parallel (as far as +the nature of things permits) to physical laws--still is a development +which cannot under any possible circumstances dispense with an external +spiritual order of existence, and one which cannot be physically caused. +Nor is it conceivable that man should develop a consciousness of God, +when no God really exists externally to the consciousness.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: For our consciousness of God is obviously very different +from a figment of the imagination, or the sort of reality experienced in +a dream. This is not the place to develop such an argument, but it seems +to me more than doubtful whether we can even _imagine_ something +_absolutely_ non-existent in nature. When the artist's imagination would +construct, e.g., a winged dragon, the concept is always made up of +_parts which are real_--eyes like an alligator, bat-wings, scales of a +fish or crocodile, and so forth. All the members or parts are real, put +together to form the unreal. I do not believe that any instance of a +human conception can be brought forward which on analysis will not +conform to this rule.] + +The main objection, then, that I would press is, that admitting any +possibility of the development of man from a purely physical and +structural point of view, admitting any inference that may be drawn +fairly from the undoubted connection (increasingly great as it is as we +go upwards from the lower animal to the ape) between animals and man, +that inference never can touch the descent of man as a whole; because no +similarity of bodily structure can get over the difficulty of the mental +power of man. We have to deal not with a part of man, but with the +whole. The difficulty cannot be got over by denying _mind_ as a thing +_per se_; for all attempts to represent mind as the _mere_ product of a +physical structure, the brain, utterly fail. + +Nobody wishes to deny what Dr. H. Maudsley and others have made so plain +to us, that mind has (in one aspect, at any rate) a physical basis--that +is, that no thought, imagination, or combination of thought, is known to +us _apart from_ change and expenditure of energy in the brain. Nor can +we, by any process of introspection or observation of other subjects, +separate the mind from the brain and ascertain the existence of "pure +mind," or soul, experimentally. But still, there is no possibility of +getting the operations of mind out of mere cell structure, unless an +external Power has added the mind power, as a faculty of His endowing; +then He may be allowed to have connected that faculty ever so +mysteriously with physical structure; we are content. And I must insist +on the total failure of all analogy between the development of bones or +muscles and the development of mind; and even if we grant a certain +stage of instinct to have arisen, we are still in the dark as to how +that could develop into intellect such as man possesses, including a +belief in God. On this subject let us hear Professor Allman. Between a +development of material structure and a development of intellectual and +moral features, the Professor says, "there is no conceivable analogy; +and the obvious and continuous path, which we have hitherto followed up, +in our reasonings from the phenomena of lifeless matter to those of +living form, here comes suddenly to an end. The chasm between +_unconscious_ life and _thought_ is deep and impassable, and no +transitional phenomena are to be found by which, as by a bridge, we can +span it over.[1]" + +There can be _life_ or _function_ without _consciousness_ or _thought;_ +therefore, even if we go so far as to admit that life is only a property +of protoplasm, there can be no ground for saying that _thought_ is only +a property of protoplasm. + + +[Footnote 1: British Association Address.] + +"If," says Professor Allman, "we were to admit that every living cell +were a conscious and thinking thing, are we therefore justified in +asserting that its consciousness with its irritability is a property of +the matter of which it is composed? The sole argument on which this view +is made to rest is analogy. It is argued that because the life +phenomena, which are invariably found in the cell, must be regarded as a +property of the cell, the phenomena of consciousness by which they are +accompanied must also be so regarded. The weak point in the argument is +the absence of all analogy between the things compared: and as the +conclusion rests solely on the argument from analogy, the two must fall +to the ground together." + +Try and assign to matter all the properties you can think of, its +impenetrability, extension, weight, inertia, elasticity, and so forth, +by no process of thought (as Mr. Justice Fry observes in an article in +"The Contemporary Review [1]") can you get out of them an adequate +account of the phenomena of mind or spirit. We just now observed that +consciousness, thought, and so forth, are never exhibited apart from the +action of the brain; some change in the brain accompanies them all. We +do not deny that. But it is obvious that thought being manifested in the +presence of cerebral matter or something like it, is a very different +thing from thought being a _property_ of such matter, in the sense in +which polarity is the property of a magnet, or irritability of living +protoplasm. + + +[Footnote 1: October, 1880, p. 587.] + +To all this I have seen no answer. The way in which the opponents of +Christian beliefs meet such considerations appears to be to ignore or +minimize them, so as to pass over to what seems to them a satisfactory +if not an easy series of transitions. If Life is after all only a +"property" of matter, then given life, a brain may be produced; and as +mind is always manifested in the presence of (and apparently +indissolubly united with) brain structure, it is not a much greater leap +to accept _life_ as a property of _matter_ than it is to take _thought_ +as a property of a certain _specialized physical structure_. It is true +that the distance is great between the instinct of an animal and the +abstract reasoning power of a Newton or a Herbert Spencer; but (as we +are so often told) the difference is of degree not of kind, and as the +brain structure develops, so does the power and degree of reason. As to +the difference in man, that he is the only "religious" animal--the one +creature that has the idea of God--that is a mere development of the +emotions in connection with abstract reasoning as to the cause of +things. No part of our mental nature is more common to the animal and +the man than the emotional; and if in the one it is mere love and +hatred, joy and grief, confidence and fear, in the other the emotions +are developed into the poetic sense of beauty, or the awe felt for what +is grand and noble; and this insensibly passes into _worship_, the root +of the whole being fear of the unknown and the mysterious. That is the +general line of argument taken up. + +Even accepting the solution (if such it maybe called) of the two first +difficulties--life added spontaneously or aboriginally to matter, and +thought and consciousness added to organism--still the rest of the path +is by no means so easy as might at the first glance appear. Development +in brain structure certainly does not always proceed _pari passu_ with a +higher and more complex reasoning. In actual fact we find high +"reasoning" power, quite unexpectedly here and there, up and down the +animal kingdom. Some _insects_, with very little that can be called a +brain at all, exhibit high intelligence; and some animals with smaller +brains are more docile and intelligent than others with a much larger +development. The ape, in spite of his close physical approach to the +structure of man, and his still greater relative distance from the other +animal creation, is not superior (if he is not decidedly inferior) in +reason or intelligence to several animals lower down in the scale. + +Savages, again, have a brain greatly in excess of their actual +requirements (so to speak). Hence the mere existence of brain, however +complex, does not indicate the possession of mental power. + +There is reason to believe that all thought and exercise of the mind--in +fact, every step in the process of "Education," whereby an ignorant +person is brought at last to apprehend the most abstract +propositions--is accompanied by some molecular (or other) change. So +that a person who has been carefully educated has the brain in a +different state from that of an exactly similarly constituted person +whose brain has been subjected to no such exercise. But even if this +action could be formulated and explained, it would not follow that +thought is the _product_ of the molecular change; or that, _vice versâ_, +if we could artificially produce certain changes, in the brain, certain +thoughts and perceptions would thereon coexist with the changes, and +arise in the mind of the subject forthwith. And if not, then no process +of physical development accounts for grades of intellect; we have only +mind developing as mind. But the theory of evolution will have nothing +to do with any development but physical; or at any rate with mental +development except as the result of physical: it knows nothing of pure +mind, or spiritual existence, or anything of the sort. + +In the nature of things we can have neither observation nor experiment +in this stage. We cannot by any process develop the lower mind of an +animal into the higher mind of man, and prove the steps of the +evolution.[1] It is important to remember that the power of _directing +the attention by a voluntary process of abstraction_, is one that +distinctively belongs to man. It is an effort of will, of a kind that no +animal has any capacity for. By it alone have we any power of abstract +reasoning, and it is intimately concerned with our self-consciousness +and memory, and with our language. I am quite aware that animals possess +something analogous to a language of their own; they can indicate +certain emotions and give warning, and so forth, to their fellows. But +that language could never develop into human language, or the animal +will (such as it is) ever rise to a human will, or animals become +endowed with self-consciousness, unless they could acquire the power of +voluntarily abstracting the mind from one subject or part of a subject +and fixing the attention on another. We cannot formulate any process of +change whereby the lower state could pass on to or attain to the higher +in this respect. + + +[Footnote 1: We can of course follow the sort of mental development +which is traceable when we consider the origin of our own sagacious and +faithful dogs in the wild prairie dog: but this development is always in +contact with the mind of man, and is, as it were, the result of man's +action, as man's development in mind and soul is the result of God's +action.] + +Therefore again we conclude that the higher reason is a gift _ab +externo_. + +If we take a step further to the "spiritual" or "moral" faculties of +man, we have the same difficulty intensified, if indeed it does take a +new departure. To examine the question adequately would require us to go +into the deep waters of psychology; and here we should encounter many +matters regarding which there may be legitimate doubt and difference of +opinion, which would obscure and lead us away from our main line of +thought. + +This I would willingly avoid. But it is quite intelligible, and touches +on no dangerous ground, when we assert that there is a distinct +ascent--an interval again raising developmental difficulties, directly +we pass from the intellectual to the moral. We may wonder at the high +degree of intelligence possessed by some animals; but we are unable to +conceive any animal possessing a power of abstract reasoning, having +ideas of beauty (as such), or of manifesting what we call the poetic +feeling. And still more is this so when we look at the further interval +that lies between any perception of physical phenomena, any reasoning in +the abstract, or investigation of mathematical truth, and the +overmastering sense of obligation to the "moral law," or the action of +the soul in its instinctive possession of the conception of a Divine +Existence external to itself. It is because of this felt difference that +we talk of the "spiritual" as something beyond and above the "mental." + +The distinction is real, though we must not allow ourselves to be led +too far in attempting to scan the close union that, from another point +of view, exists between the one and the other. + +In a recent number of "The Edinburgh Review,[1]" the author complains of +Bishop Temple thus: "He uses the word spiritual in such a way that he +might be taken to imply that we had some other faculty for the +perception of moral truths, in addition to, and distinct from, our +reason." And the writer goes on to make an "uncompromising assertion of +reason as the one supreme faculty of man. To depreciate reason (he says) +to the profit of some supposed 'moral' illative sense, would be to open +the door to the most desolating of all scepticisms, and to subordinate +the basis of our highest intellectual power to some mere figment of the +imagination." + + +[Footnote 1: July, 1885, p. 211, in the course of the article to which I +have already alluded.] + +On the other hand, some writers (claiming to derive their argument from +the Scriptures) have supposed they could assert three distinct natures +in man--a spiritual, a mental (or psychic), and a bodily. Now there is +no doubt that, rightly or wrongly (I am not now concerned with that), +the Bible does distinctly assert that a "breath of lives" [1] was +specially put into the bodily form of man, and adds that thereby "man +became a living soul." But it is also stated of the animal creation that +the breath of life was given to them,[2] and animals are said to have a +"soul" (nephesh).[3] So that neither in the one case nor the other have +we more than the two elements: a body, and a life put into it; though of +course the man's "life" (as the plural indicates, and other texts +explain) was higher in kind than that of the animal. + + +[Footnote 1: The plural of excellence appears to mark something superior +in the spirit of man over that of the animals. Also compare Job xxxiii. +4, "The breath of the Almighty hath given me life," with Isa. xlii. 5 +and Zech. xii. 1.] + +[Footnote 2: Though not in the plural of excellence. See Gen. vi 17, +vii. 22, &c.] + +[Footnote 3: Gen. i. 20, margin of A.V.] + +St. Paul, it is true, speaks of the "whole spirit, and soul, and +body.[1]" But our Lord Himself, in a very solemn passage (where it would +be most natural to expect the distinction, if it were absolute and +structural, to be noticed), speaks of the "soul and body" only.[2] + +The fact is that we are only able to argue conclusively that, besides +the physical form, we have a non-material soul, or a self. And our Lord, +whose teaching was always eminently practical, went no further. We are +conscious of a "self"--something that remains, while the body +continually grows and changes. + +There was in _Punch_, some time ago, a picture of an old grandfather, +with a little child looking at a marble bust representing a child. "Who +is that?" asks the little one; and the old man replies, "That is +grandfather when he was a little boy." "And who is it now?" rejoins the +child. One smiles at the picture, but in reality it conceals a very +important and a very pathetic truth. Nothing could well be greater than +the outward difference between the grey hairs and bowed figure and the +little cherub face; and yet there was a "self"--a soul, that remained +the same throughout. In Platonic language, while the [Greek: eidôlon] +perpetually changes, the [Greek: eidos] remains. We have, therefore, +evidence as positive as the nature of the subject admits that we are +right in speaking of the _body and the soul, or self_. And as we cannot +connect the higher reasoning, and, above all, conscience and the +religious belief, as a "property" of physical structure, we conclude +that the Scripture only asserts facts when it attributes both to the +soul, as a spiritual element or nature belonging to the body. Man is +essentially one;[3] but there is both a material and a non-material, a +physical and a spiritual element, in the one nature. But, being a +spiritual element, that part of our nature necessarily has two sides (so +to speak). It has its point of contact with self and the world of sense, +and its point of contact with the world of spirit and with the Great +Spirit of all, from whom it came. _Because_ of that higher "breath of +lives" given by the Most High, man possesses the faculty of +_consciousness of God_ (i.e., the higher spiritual faculties), besides +the consciousness of self, or merely intellectual power regarding self +and the external world. Therefore, when an Apostle desires to speak very +forcibly of something that is to affect a man through and through, in +every part and in every aspect of his nature, he speaks of the "whole +spirit, soul, and body." To sum up: all that we know from the Bible is +that God gave a "soul" (nephesh) to the animals, in consequence of which +(when united to the physical structure) the functions of life and the +phenomena of intelligence are manifested. So God gave a non-material, +and therefore "spiritual," element to human nature; and this being of a +higher grade and capacity to that of the animal world, not only in its +union with physical structure, makes the man a "living soul"--gives him +an intelligence and a certain reason such as the animals have, but also +gives him, as a special and unique endowment; the consciousness of self +(involving--which is very noteworthy--a consciousness of its own +limitations) and the consciousness of God. Hence man's power of +improvement. If the man cultivates only the self-consciousness and the +reason that is with it, the Scriptures speak of him as the "natural or +psychic man;" if he is enabled by Divine grace to develop the higher +moral and spiritual part of his nature, and to walk after the Spirit, +not after the flesh, he is a "spiritual man." + + +[Footnote 1: 1 Thess. v. 23.] + +[Footnote 2: Matt. x. 28.] + +[Footnote 3: The well-known argument of St. Paul regarding the +resurrection in 1 Cor. xv. (ver. 45, &c.) is well worthy of +consideration in this connection. He deals with man as _one whole_; +nothing is said about a man being (or having) a spirit separate from his +soul and his body, and that spirit being given a higher body than it had +upon earth; but of the whole man, soul _and_ body, being raised and +changed into a man, also one whole, with a more perfect body--a body +more highly developed in the ascending scale of perfection. I do not +forget the passage where the same Apostle (2 Cor. v. 6) speaks of being +in the body, and absent from the Lord; and of being "clothed upon;" but +this does not in any way detract from the importance of the treatment of +the subject in the First Epistle.] + +It is idle to speculate whether the "nephesh" of the animals, or the +"living self" of the man, is an entity separate from the body, and +capable of existing _per se_--of its own inherent nature--apart from +it. We do not know that animal forms are the clothing of a lower-graded +but separate spiritual form, or that such an animal soul or spirit can +exist separately from the body; and we do not _know_ (from the +Bible)--whatever may be the current language on the subject--that man's +spirit is in its nature capable of anything like permanent separate +existence.[1] Man is essentially one; and when the physical change +called death passes over him, it does not utterly obliterate the whole +being. The non-material element is not affected any more than it is by +the sleep of every night; and the man will be ultimately raised, not a +spiritual or immaterial form, but provided, as before, with a body, only +one of a higher capacity and better adapted to its higher +environments--the "spiritual body" of St. Paul, in a word. The original +union of mind and matter is, on any possible theory, mysterious; and the +separation of them for a time is neither less so, nor more. All this is +perfectly true, whether the non-material element in man's nature is +_necessarily_, inherently and _by nature_, immortal or not--a question +which I do not desire to enter on. + +Hence it is that a certain element of truth is recognized in the protest +of the Edinburgh Reviewer. On the other hand, as we have not only +intelligence, emotions (which are possessed in lower degree by animals), +self-consciousness, the power of abstract reasoning, and the higher +faculties of the imagination,[2] but also the consciousness of God and +the commanding sense of right and wrong; and seeing that the last-named +are different in kind from the former, we give them a separate name, and +speak of the moral or spiritual nature or capacity of man, as well as +the intellectual or mental. Some (by the way) choose "moral" to include +both, holding that ethical perceptions arise out of (or are intimately +connected with) our sense of God. Others would make a further +distinction, and confine "moral" to the (supposed) bare ethical +perception of duty or of right and wrong, and add "spiritual" to +distinguish the highest faculty of all, whereby man holds communion with +his Maker and recognizes his relation to Him. + + +[Footnote 1: This remark does not, of course, in any way touch the +question whether the spiritual part of a man is conscious in the +interval between death and resurrection, or whether it can be made +sensible in any way whatever to living persons.] + +[Footnote 2: The poetic sense, the perception of the beautiful, &c.] + +Whether this further distinction is justified or not, there is a +distinction between the moral and the purely intellectual; and we are +justified in using different terms for things that are _practically_ +different. This the Edinburgh Reviewer seems to have forgotten. + +It was necessary to my argument to enter on this somewhat lengthy +examination of the spiritual nature of man, because, while we +acknowledge the unity of man, we are compelled to recognize in his +religious sense and aspirations and capacities something quite +disparate--something that we could not get by a natural process of +growth from such beginnings of reason as are observed in the lower +animals. + +I am aware that Dr. Darwin conceived that the religious feeling of man +might have grown out of the natural emotions of fear,[1] love, +gratitude, &c., when once men began to question as to the explanation of +the phenomena of life, and to ascribe the forces of nature to the +possession of a spirit such as he himself was conscious of: and with +much more positive intent, Mr. H. Spencer has also, after most +painstaking inquiries, formulated what he conceives to be the origin of +religious belief in man. He refers us to the early belief in a "double" +of self, which double could be projected out of self, and remained in +some way after death, so as to become the object of fear, and ultimately +of worship. When this ancestor-worship resulted in the worship of a +multitude of "genii" (whose individuality, as regards their former +earthly connection, is more or less forgotten), then the idea of +attaching the numerous divinities or ancestor-souls to the ocean, the +sky, the sun, the mountains, and the powers of nature, arises; whence +the poetic systems of ancient polytheistic mythology. Gradually men +began to reason and to think, and they refined the polytheism into the +"higher" idea of one great, central, immaterial all-pervading power, +which they called God. + + +[Footnote: 1 See the "Descent of Man," vol. i. p. 68 (original edition). +But it is right to state that the subject is not treated in any way +whatever so as to argue that the religious belief is a fancy, or +development of fancy, with no God and no facts about God behind it.] + +Mr. Spencer, in effect, concludes that this "God" is only man's own +idea of filling up a blank, of explaining the fact that there must be an +ultimate first cause of whatever exists, and there is also a great +source of power of some kind external to ourselves.[1] + +I am not going here to enter on any special argument as to the validity +of these theories in their relation to the direct question of the nature +and existence of God. What we are here concerned with is, whether they +enable us to exclude the idea of a gift and a giver of spiritual or +mental (we will not quarrel about terms) nature to man, and whether, by +any fair reasoning from analogy, we can suppose man's reason and his +"_sensus numinis_" to arise by the mere stages of natural growth and +development. Dr. Darwin's supposition takes no notice of the moral law +and its influence; indeed he adopts[2] the view that conscience is no +sense of right and wrong, but only the stored up and inherited social +instinct, a sense of convenience and inconvenience to the tribe and to +the individual, which at last acts so spontaneously and rapidly in +giving its verdict on anything, that we regard it as a special sense. It +would of course be possible to expend much time and many words in +argument on this subject. There is not, and never will be, any direct +evidence as to the origin of conscience; and as that sense (like any +other power of our mental nature) is capable of being educated, evoked, +enlightened, and strengthened, and may also by neglect and contradiction +deteriorate and wither away, there is ample room for allowing a certain +part of the theory.[3] But many people who examine their own conscience +will feel that the description certainly does not suit them; there are +many things which conscience disapproves, of which no great evil +consequences to themselves or any one else are felt. Conscience is +constantly condemning "the way that seemeth good unto a man." +_Ultimately_ no doubt, there is real evil at the end of everything that +conscience warns a man against; but not such as "inherited experience" +is likely to recognize. Is it, for instance, the experience of the mass +of men, as men, that the "fleshly mind is death, but the spiritual mind +is life and peace"? Is not rather the world at large habitually putting +money-making, position-making, and the care of the things of the body, +of time, and of sense, in the first place; and is not the moral law +perpetually warning us that the fashion of the world passes away, and +that what seems gold is in reality tinsel? As far as the condemnation +that conscience passes on the broad evils which affect society--"thou +shalt not steal," "thou shalt not lie," or so forth--no doubt it is +supported by the transmitted sense of inconvenience; but who has told it +of the evil of things that do not affect our social state? and who has +changed the inconvenient, the painful, into the _wrong_? It is one thing +to instinctively avoid a theft or a falsehood, even if the first origin +of such instinct were the fear of consequences or the love of +approbation; it is quite another--the inward condemnation of something +which "the deceitfulness of sin" is able to excuse, and which the world +at large would regard as permissible or at least venial. Even if +inherited use has its full play, there is still a something wanted +before the one can be got into (or out of) the other. Why, again, are +savages prone to imagine natural phenomena to be caused or actuated by +"spirits"? Surely it is because there _is_ consciously a spirit in man, +and a Higher Power, even God, outside, who exists, though man in his +ignorance has many false ideas regarding Him. + + +[Footnote 1: It is not necessary to my immediate argument, and therefore +I do not press it into the text (though I should be sorry to seem to +forget it for a moment), to urge that St. Paul draws a clear distinction +between the intellectual faculties and the higher spiritual ones, when +he assures us that the clearest intellect alone cannot assimilate the +truths of religion. For the spiritual faculties have been in man +grievously deadened and distorted (to say the least of it), so that his +intellectual faculties, bright and highly developed as they may be, will +always prove insufficient for the highest life in the absence of the +"grace of God." It is exactly analogous to the case of a man whom we +might suppose to have his sense of sight, touch, &c., distorted, and he +himself unable to correct them by aid of the senses of others. However +acutely he might exercise his reason, he would be continually wrong in +his conclusions. See 1 Cor. ii., the whole, but specially vers. 14, 15.] + +[Footnote 2: "Descent of Man," vol. i. p, 70.] + +[Footnote 3: The attempt (already alluded to) to separate moral and +spiritual, to imagine something that is ethical, apart from the +religious idea, has lent some strength to these ideas of the moral +sense; but in fact, the moral sense is _inseparably_ connected with the +idea of God, and His approval and disapproval. The idea of God may be +obscured and lost, but conscience is the surviving trace of it; the +circumference that accounts for the broken arc.] + +It is an objection of the same order that applies to the other theory +(Mr. Spencer's). There can be little doubt that in many respects it is +true: as an account of all _human_ systems of religion it is adequate +and natural; but it breaks down hopelessly when we try to use it to +explain how the conception of God originated in the mind. Just as there +is a felt difference--not of degree or in form, but essential and +radical in its nature--between the _undesirable_ and the _wrong_, so +there is a difference between the idea of a mysterious thing towards +which apprehension or awe is felt, and the conception of God. Granted +that man believed in his own spirit or double, and attributed similar +immaterial motor powers as a cause for the wind and waves, and so forth; +granted that he at last "refined" this into the belief in one Spirit +whose power was necessarily great and varied--the origin is still +unexplained. How did man get the idea of a personal spirit or double--no +such thing, _ex hypothesi_ existing? How did he get to formulate the +idea of a _God_ when he had simplified his group of many spirits into +one? + +If man is created with a consciousness of his own inner-self, _as a +self_, he is able naturally to imagine a like self in other beings; if +he has an idea of God innate in him, he can assimilate the truth when it +is at last presented to his mind; and that is why he feels that it _is_ +a refinement; a rising from the lower to the higher (because from +falsehood to truth), to let the many gods give place to the One God. If +the idea of God has been obscured, and the power of its apprehension +deadened, the man can only grope about helplessly, fashioning this +explanation of nature and that--all more or less false, but all dimly +bearing witness to the two absolute facts, that there is an inner +non-material self, and an external non-material God. + +If then there are insuperable difficulties in connecting thought with +matter by any process of unaided development, there are also great +difficulties, even when thought in a rudimentary form is given, in +conceiving it developed into man's reason, or man's religious belief, by +any known process of "natural" causation. + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. + + +_FURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF MAN_. + +There are, however, some other matters connected with the history of man +on the globe, unconnected with psychological development, but which +demand notice, as making the argument against an undesigned, unaided +development of man a cumulative one. It is urged that whatever may be +thought of the connection of man with the animal creation, at any rate +the received Christian belief regarding the origin of man--especially +his late appearance on the scene--is contrary to known facts, and that +we have to mount up to a vast geologic antiquity to account for what is +known from exhumed remains in caves and lake dwellings, and the like. + +Now no one pretends that the history of man is free from doubt and +difficulty, but the doubt and difficulty are not confined to the +"orthodox." For the inferences to be drawn from the exhumed remains are +equally doubtful whatever views be adopted. + +I shall not go into great length on this subject, partly because some +recent popular tracts of Canon Rawlinson, Mr. R.S. Pattison, and others, +have already made the ordinary reader familiar with the main outlines of +the subject; and still more because, be the views of archaeologists what +they may, it is impossible for any rational person to contend either +that they can be reduced to anything like unity among themselves, or +that they lead to any conclusion favourable to the belief in the +self-caused and undesigned evolution of man. + +It may be regarded as known, that at the dawn of history, mankind was +passing through what may be called a Bronze age, in which weapons of +bronze were used before tools of iron were invented. But this age was +preceded by one in which even bronze was unknown. Stone implements, and +some of bone and horn, were alone used. It is also well ascertained that +there were two _widely divided_ stone ages. The latter, distinguished by +the polishing of the stones, is described as the _neolithic_; the +former, in which flint and other hard stone fragments were merely +chipped or flaked to an edge, is called the _palaeolithic_. + +It is hardly contended that the neolithic age could have been more than +four or five thousand years ago. There is always the greatest difficulty +in fixing any dates because from the nature of the case written records +are absent, and the stages of growth in the history of peoples overlap +so. + +We know that sharp flakes of stone were still used for knives in the +time of Moses and Joshua. We are not out of the stone age yet, as +regards some portions of the globe; and it is quite possible that parts +of the earth, not so very remote, may have been still in the midst of a +stone age when Assyria, Chaldaea, and Egypt were comparatively highly +civilized. + +It is also fairly certain that between the neolithic or smooth-stone +age, and the palaeolithic, certain important geological changes took +place, though those changes were not such as to have demanded any very +great length of time for their accomplishment. + +The palaeolithic stone implements are found in river gravels and clays, +along the higher levels of our own Thames Valley, that of the Somme in +France, and in other places. They are also found at the bottom of +various natural caverns. + +No human bones have been found as yet with the implements, but the bones +of large numbers of animals have. And it seems certain that the men who +made the implements were contemporaries of the animals, because in the +later part of the age, at any rate, they drew or scratched likenesses of +the animals on bone. Among these representations are figures of the +_mammoth_ an extinct form well known to the reader by description and +museum specimens of remains. + +The animals contemporary with these primeval men were the mammoth, +species of rhinoceros and hippopotamus, the "sabre-toothed" lion, the +cave-bear, the reindeer, besides oxen, horses, and other still surviving +forms. + +In his address to the British Association in 1881 Sir John Lubbock +called attention to the fact that these animals appear to indicate both +a hot and a cold climate, and he referred to the fact (known to +astronomers) that the earth passes through periods of slow change in the +eccentricity of its orbit, and in the obliquity of the ecliptic. The +result of the latter condition is, to produce periods of about 21,000 +years each, during one-half of which the Northern hemisphere will be +hotter, and in the other the Southern. At present we are in the former +phase. + +But the obliquity of the ecliptic does not act alone; the eccentricity +of the orbit produces another effect, namely, that when it is at a +minimum the difference between the temperatures of the two hemispheres +is small, and as the eccentricity increases, so does the difference. At +the present time the eccentricity is represented by the fraction .016. +But about 300,000 years ago the eccentricity would have been as great as +.26 to .57. The result, it is explained, would have been not a uniform +heat or cold, but extremes of both; there would probably have been short +but very hot summers, and long and intensely cold winters. + +This, Sir John Lubbock thought, might account for the co-existence of +both hot and arctic species, like the hippopotamus and rhinoceros on the +one hand, and the musk-ox and the reindeer on the other. + +But such considerations really help us little. In the first place, it is +only an assumption that the fossil hippopotamus _was_ an animal of a hot +climate--it does not in any way follow from the fact that the now +existing species is such; nor if we make the assumption, does it explain +how, if the hot summer sufficed for the tropical hippopotamus, it +managed to survive the long and cold winters which suited the arctic +species. + +Moreover, no such calculations can really be made with accuracy: we do +not know what other astronomical facts may have to be taken into +consideration, nor can we say when such "periods" as those which are so +graphically described, began or ended. + +In this very instance, we know that the mammoth only became extinct in +comparatively recent times, since specimens have been found in Siberia, +with the hair, skin, and even flesh, entirely preserved. Granted that +the intense cold of the Siberian ice effected this, it is impossible to +admit more than a limited time for the preservation--not hundreds of +thousands of years. Professor Boyd Dawkins is surely right in stating +that the calculations of astronomy afford us no certain aid at present +in this inquiry. + +As regards the geological indications of age, the best authority seems +to point to the first appearance of man in the post-glacial times: that +is to say, that the gravels in which the palaeolithic implements are +found were deposited by the action of fresh water after the great +glacial period, when, at any rate, Northern Europe, a great part of +Russia, all Scandinavia, and part of North America were covered with +icefields, the great glaciers of which left their mark in the numerous +scoopings out of ravines and lake beds and in the raising of banks and +mounds, the deposit of boulders, and the striation of rocks _in situ_, +which so many districts exhibit. + +The few instances in which attempts have been made, in Italy or +elsewhere, to argue for a pliocene man (i.e. in the uppermost group of +the tertiary) have ended in failure, at least in the minds of most +naturalists competent to judge. + +One of the most typical instances of the position of the implement age +has been discovered by Fraas at Shüssenried in Suabia; here the remains +of tools and the bones of animals (probably killed for food) were found +in holes made in the glacial _débris_. + +But here, again, it is impossible to say when this glacial age +terminated, and whether man might not have been living in other more +favoured parts while it was wholly or partially continuing. + +In Scandinavia no palaeolithic stone implements have been found, from +which it may be inferred that the glacial period continued there during +the ages when palaeolithic man hunted and dwelt in caves in the other +countries where his remains occur. + +The best authorities do not suppose that the men _originated_ in the +localities where the tools are found; and there is so little known about +the geology of Central Asia (for example) that it is impossible to say +whether tribes may not have wandered from some other places not affected +by the glaciation we have spoken of. + +Again, the gravels and brick earths containing the tools are just of the +kind which defy attempts to say how long it took to deposit and arrange +them. + +It may be taken as certain, that after the one age ceased and the first +men appeared, the beds in which their relics occur have been raised +violently, and again depressed and subjected to great flushes and floods +of water. The caves have been upheaved, and the gravels are found +chiefly along the valleys of our present rivers, but at a much higher +level, showing that there was both a higher level of the soil itself and +a much greater volume of water. + +The Straits of Dover were formed during this period. + +But none of these changes required a very long time; and if we can trace +back the later stone age, which shows remains of pottery and other +proofs of greater civilization, to the dawn of the historic period not +more than 4000 or 5000 years ago, there is nothing in the nature of the +changes which, as we have stated, intervened between the palaeolithic +and neolithic periods, that need have occupied more than a thousand or +two of years. Upheavals of strata and disruptions may be the work of +but a short time, or they may be more gradual. And as to the effect of +water, that depends on its volume and velocity; no certain rule can be +given. Our own direct experience shows that very great changes may take +place in a few hundred years. + +"The estuaries," remarks Mr. Pattison,[1] "around our south-eastern +coast, which have been filled up in historical times, some within the +last seven hundred years to a height of thirty feet from their +sea-level, by the gradual accumulation of soil, now look like solid +earth in no way differing from the far older land adjoining. The +harbours out of which our Plantagenet kings sailed are now firm, +well-timbered land. The sea-channel through which the Romans sailed on +their course to the Thames, at Thanet, is now a puny fresh-water ditch, +with banks apparently as old as the hills. In Bede's days, in the ninth +century, it was a sea-channel three furlongs wide." + + +[Footnote 1: "Age and Origin of Man"--Present-Day Tract Series.] + +Thus we are in complete uncertainty as to the date of the palaeolithic +man, or as to the time necessary to effect the changes in the surface of +the earth which intervened between it and the later stone ages. But +there is nothing which conflicts with the possibility that the whole may +have occurred within some 8,000 years. + +For the supposition of Mons. Gabriel Mortillet that man has existed for +230,000 years, there is neither evidence nor probability. His theory is +derived from an assumption that the geologic changes alluded to occupied +an immense time; and the further assumption (if possible still more +unwarranted) that the old race which used the chipped stone tools +remained stationary for a very long period, and very gradually improved +its tools and ultimately passed into the neolithic stage when the art of +pottery became known, however rudely. + +But, in point of fact, we are not required by our belief in Scripture to +find any date for the origin of man, at least not within any moderate +limits (not extending to scores of thousands of years). The Bible was +not intended to enable us to construct a complete science of geology or +anthropology, and the utmost that can be got out of the text is that a +date can be _suggested_ (not proved) for one particular family (that of +Adam) by counting up the generations alluded to in Holy Writ before the +time of Abraham. But these are manifestly recorded in a brief and +epitomized form; nor do all the versions agree. We may well believe that +a watchful Providence has taken care of the record of inspiration, but +we know it has been done by human and ordinary agency. The Bible is +God's gift to his Church, and the Church has been made in all ages the +keeper of it. Now in the matter of early dates and numbers, an unanimous +version has not been kept. According to the construction adopted in the +Septuagint, the creation of Adam would go back 7,517 years, while the +Vulgate gives 6,067 years. Dr. Hale's computation makes 7,294 years, +and the Ussherian 5,967;[1] the Samaritan version is, I believe, further +different from either. + +As it is, the facts show nothing inconsistent with an approximation to +these several periods. + +As to any absolute date for the appearance of man as a species, no +calculation is possible, because of a certain doubt, which no one can +pretend to resolve, as to whether the Scriptures do assert the creation +of _all_ mankind at any one period. If, owing to more positive +discoveries in the future compelling us to put further back the date of +man's first appearance upon earth, we have to suppose a beginning before +the time of Adam, we are reminded that there is an allusion in the sixth +chapter of the book called Genesis to "the sons of God" and the +"daughters of men." Now this passage cannot conceivably refer to angels; +nor can we ignore its existence, however doubtful we may feel as to its +meaning.[2] + + +[Footnote 1: I take these figures from Mr. R.S. Pattison.] + +[Footnote 2: The text which speaks of God making "of one blood all +nations for to dwell on the face of the earth," would naturally apply to +the races existing when the speaker uttered the words: it would be as +unreasonable to press such a text into the service of _any_ theory of +the creation of man, as it was absurd for the Inquisition to suppose +that the Psalmist, when asserting that God had made the "round world so +fast that it could not be moved," was contradicting the fact of the +earth's revolution round the sun.] + +It can hardly be denied that such a text opens out the _possibility_ of +an earlier race than that of Adam; in that case the creation of Adam +would be detailed as the creation of the direct progenitor of Noah, +whose three sons still give names (in ethnological language) to the main +great races of the earth, with whom exclusively the Bible history is +concerned, and especially as the direct progenitor of that race of whom +came the Israelites, and in due time the promised seed--the Messiah. I +do not say this _is_ so, nor even that I accept the view for my own +part; I only allude to the possibility, without ignoring any of the +difficulties--none of which, however, are insuperable--which gather +round it. + +It is certainly a very remarkable fact that all about this region in +which the Semitic race originated, traditions of Creation somewhat +resembling the account in Genesis, the institution of a week of seven +days, and a Sabbath or day of rest from labour, existed from very early +times; and with these traditions, a belief in distinct races, one of +which owned a special connection with, or relation to, the Creator. Here +I may appeal to the work of Mr. George Smith and his discoveries of +tablets from the ancient libraries of Assyria. Originally, the country +to which I have alluded consisted of Assyria in the centre and Babylonia +to the south; while to the east of Assyria was a country partly plain +and partly hill, which formed the "plain of Shinar" and the hills beyond +occupied by Accadian tribes, from whose chief city, Ur, Abraham, the +forefather of the Jews, emigrated. The Assyrian documents are copies of +Babylonian originals, but the Babylonian kingdom itself was a Semitic +one founded on the ruins of an earlier population, the inhabitants of +the plain of Shinar and the mountains beyond. Some time between 3000 and +2000 B.C. the Semitic conquerors of Babylonia took possession of the +plains, and some time later conquered also the Accadian mountaineers. +The Babylonians possessed and translated the old Accadian records: the +Assyrian tablets are mostly, but not all, copies, again, of the +Babylonian transcripts. The celebrated "Creation tablets," which contain +an account closely corresponding to Genesis, are among those which were +not copied from Accadian originals; and they do not date further back +than the reign of Assur-bani-pal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; who +reigned in the seventh century B.C. They may therefore be derived from +the Bible, not the Bible from them. It would seem from some earlier +(Accadian) tablets, that a different account of the Creation existed +among them. But though it is doubtful how far the Accadians had +preserved this account, or at least had others along with it, _they had +a seven days week_ and _a Sabbath_. All this points to _one_ original +tradition, which specified days of creation and a Sabbath, though it got +altered and distorted, so that the true account was preserved as one +among many local variations. This goes to prove the immense antiquity of +the story, which is not affected by the fact that the actual inscription +of it which we at present have, dates only about 670 B.C. The point +here, however, interesting in the legends, is that they contained the +idea of a special connection of one particular race with the Creator, +and of other races, or of one other race, besides. + +As far as the possibility of bringing forward the history of mankind as +any aid to the theory of Evolution is concerned, I might have very well +let the subject alone, or even noticed it more briefly than I have done. +For, in truth, there is no _evidence_ whatsoever, and all that the +denier of creation can resort to is a supposed analogy and a probability +that the peculiarities of man could be accounted for in this way or in +that. But the main purpose of my brief allusion is to introduce the fact +that, as far as any evidence to the contrary goes, we have an absolutely +sudden appearance of man on the scene, and no kind of transitional form. +Not only so, but there is no trace of any gradual development of man +when he did appear. There was the first palaeolithic man; then a +considerable geologic perturbation of the earth's surface, resulting in +the upheaval of the cliffs in which the caves of remains occur, and in +the alteration of the gravel beds in which the human remains are found; +and then the neolithic age, with its evidently greater civilization (as +evidenced by pottery, &c.) connected with early and traditional, but +still with recent, history; but no trace of any development of one race +into the other. + +The absence of all progressive change is forcibly indicated by the +measurements of ancient skulls, which, though not found along with the +flint tools, have been found elsewhere. It has been fully shown that +they differ in no respect from the skulls of men at the present day; +while the skulls of the apes most nearly anthropoid, or allied to the +human form, remain as widely separated in brain-capacity as ever.[1] + +Thus the fact remains, that no intermediate form between the ape and the +lowest man has been discovered, and that there is nothing like any +progressive development in the races of man. These facts, taken together +with what has been brought forward in the last chapter, show how +completely the theory of the descent of man breaks down; how utterly +unproved and untenable is the idea that he should have been evolved by +natural causes and by slow steps from any lower form of animal life. + + +[Footnote 1: The gorilla has a brain size of 30.51 cubic inches; the +chimpanzee and ourang-outang (in the males) from 25.45 to 27.34 inches. +According to Dr. J. Barnard Davis the average of the largest class of +European skulls is 111.99, that of the Australian 99.35 cubic inches.] + + + + +CHAPTER IX. + + +_CONCLUDING REMARKS_. + +It will naturally be asked, "If there is all this objection to some +parts of the theory of Evolution, or to that theory in an extreme or +absolute form, how is it that it has been so eagerly accepted in the +ranks of scientific men?" + +The answer is, in the first place, because the theory of Evolution is to +a great extent true. When men speak of controversy with the Evolutionist +and so forth, they of course mean such as insist on carrying the +doctrine to a total and even virulent denial of any Divine control at +all. And it must, I think, be admitted that much of the theological +opposition offered to the doctrine was aimed at _this_ aspect of it. At +first, men zealous for what they believed to be Divine truth, did not +discriminate; they saw that the then new idea of evolution was, in many +branches of its application, still very poorly proved, and they +conceived that it could not be accepted apart from a total denial of +religion. We have grown wiser in the course of time: misconceptions +have been swept away; and everybody may be content with the assurance +that there is no necessary connection even, far less any antagonism, +between evolution and the Christian faith at all. We may admit all that +is known of the one without denying the other. Where the controversy has +to be maintained is, that some will insist (like Professor Häckel) in +carrying evolution beyond what evidence will warrant; and not only so, +but will insist on polemically putting down all religion on the strength +of their improved theories. If "Evolutionists" complain of the treatment +they have received at the hands of "Theologians," they will at least, in +fairness, admit that there has been some misconception, some error on +both sides. What we maintain is, that evolution (i.e., here, as always, +unlimited, uncontrolled evolution) still fails to account for many facts +in nature; that we are still far from holding anything like a complete +scheme in our hands; there may be _limits_ to the wide circle of +progressive changes, to the results of development, of which we are +ignorant; and there is, above all, in that most important of all +questions--the descent of man--an absolute want of proof of animal +_descent_ (i.e., in any sense which includes the "soul" or spiritual +faculties of man). Hence that evolution in no way clashes with an +intelligent Christian belief. In saying this, I would carefully avoid +undervaluing the services which the evolution theory has rendered, and +is rendering, to science. Even in its first form as a mere hypothesis, +it was an eminently suggestive one; there was from the first quite truth +enough in it to make it fruitful, and many working hypotheses have been +immensely useful in science, which have in the end been very largely +modified. Before Darwin's wonderfully accurate mind and marvellous skill +in collecting and making use of facts, turned the current of natural +science into this new channel, men seemed to be without an aim for their +naturalist's work. The _savant_, for example, procured an animal +evidently of the cat tribe, and another species like a polecat. He knew +as a fact that the feline teeth had a certain structure, and that the +dental formula of the viverrine animals is different. Here, then, he +could distinguish and perhaps name the species; but what more was to be +done? All natural history as a study seemed to end in classifying and +giving long names to plants and animals. The Evolution theory at once +gave it a new object. Why is the dental formula of the _viverrinae_ +different? What purpose has the long spur in the flower of _Angraecum_, +or the marvellous bucket of _Coryanthes_, the flytrap of _Dionaea_, the +pitcher of _Nepenthes_? What is the cause, what is the purpose, what is +the plan in the scheme of nature, of these structures? Under the +stimulus of such questions naturalists woke up to new views of +classification, to new experiments, inquiries, and to research for facts +and the explanation of facts, in all quarters of the globe. No wonder +that science rose, under such an impulse, as a butterfly from its +chrysalis. But some will not be satisfied with any scheme the parts of +which are separated, or which admits of anything unknown or +unexplainable. They want to unite all into one grand and simple whole, +which glorifies their own intelligence, and does not force them to +humble patience and waiting for more light. And then the fatal enmity of +the human heart--which is a plain fact, an undeniable tendency--delights +to get rid of the idea of God's Sovereignty, the humbling sense that +everything is at His absolute disposal, and nothing could be but as He +wills it. It seems so satisfactory to eliminate all external mysterious +power, to make the whole "_totus teres atque rotundus_"--having started +the great machine of being _somehow_ to see it all expand and unroll +of itself and advance to the end. + +Imagination leaps the chasms, minimizes the difficulties, passes from +the possible to the certain, from the "may have been" to the "must have +been" and to "it was so," and, fascinated with the _completeness_ of its +scheme, commences to denounce and revile as ignorant and unscientific +all that would, calmly appeal to evidence, and confess ignorance, or at +least a suspended judgment, in any stage where the evidence is negative +or incomplete. + +It has been well observed that "men are so constituted that completeness +gives a special kind of satisfaction of its own, and a habit of +specially regarding the general uniformity of nature begets a desire to +assume its absolute and universal uniformity." + +There _is_ a great mystery underlying life and the plan in which the +animal form, the organs of sight, hearing, and the rest, run through the +whole creation: and, given a mystery, there is always ample room for +speculation. Taking firm hold of the facts of development and variation, +the extreme evolutionist is carried away with the idea of having the +same principle throughout: he is impatient of any line or any check; he +is therefore prepared to ignore all difficulties, to hope +against hope for the discovery of to him necessary--but, alas, +non-existent--intermediate forms, till at last he comes to deny, not +only his God, but his own soul, as a spiritual and supra-physical +entity.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: Those who want a specimen of the way in which extreme +evolutionists will _romance_ (it can be called nothing else) will do +well to read Dr. Häckel's "History of Creation," only they must be on +their guard at every step. The author constantly states as facts (or, +perhaps, with an impatient "must have been") the existence of purely +hypothetical forms, of which there is _no kind_ of evidence. To such +ends does the love of completeness lead!] + +Such extremes are no part of true science, and have neither helped the +progress of knowledge, nor advanced the condition of mankind. But, on +the other hand, let us hear no more of a sweeping condemnation of the +theory of Evolution as a whole; let us beware of any insistence +on, or assumption of, the supposed fact that God created +separately--ready-made and complete--all known animal forms, bringing +them up from the ground, like the armed men in the Greek legend, from +the dragon's teeth. + +We have no more right to dogmatize and assume a scheme of creation from +a popular and long-accepted interpretation of the Bible, than the +evolutionist has to ignore the palpable evidences of Divine guidance and +design, and construct a theory or organic being which ignores both. + + + + +PART II. + + +CHAPTER X. + +_THE GENESIS NARRATIVE--ITS IMPORTANCE_. + + +We have now completed the first portion of our inquiry: there remains +the second, which, to a large class, at any rate, will appear of not +less importance. For the Scriptures, which they have been taught to +trust, contain a brief but direct and positive statement regarding +Creation, as well as numerous other less direct allusions to the +subject, all (as far as I know) in unquestioned harmony with the first. + +Is the account in the Book of Genesis true? It is necessary to answer +this question, because, even if a general belief in an Almighty Author +and Designer of all things is shown to be reasonable, still the +Scripture ought surely to support the belief; and it would be strange +if, when we came to test it on this subject, we found its professed +explanations would not stand being confronted with the facts. + +No one will, I think, deny that the question is important. Writers of +the "anti-theological" school still continue to insist on the falsity of +the Mosaic narrative, as if the error was not yet sufficiently slain, +and was important enough to be attacked again and again. And +theological writers, down to the most modern, continue to explain the +text in one way or another;--besides, _they_ admit the importance, under +any circumstances. I do not forget that there is a school of thought, +which is distinctly Christian in its profession, but does not allow the +importance. It would regard the narrative as addressed to Jews only, and +therefore as one which does not concern us. If that was all, it would +not be needful for me to discuss the position. But it has been held, not +only that the narrative does not concern us, but _also_ that it is +certainly inaccurate. + +This view I cannot adopt: it seems not quite fair to ourselves, and not +quite fair to the Jews. Let me explain what I mean. If we have nothing +to do with the narrative, let us abstain _equally_ from defending it +_or_ pronouncing it wrong--that is for ourselves. As to the Jewish +Church, a little more must be said. Let us admit, at any rate for +argument's sake, that the separation between the Jewish formal and +ceremonial religion and Christianity is as wide as can be wished. Nor +would I undervalue the importance of insisting on pure Christianity, as +distinct from Judaism. And, further, let us (without any question as to +ultimate objects) regard the narrative as primarily addressed to Jews, +and let us admit that it may have been unimportant, for the purpose of +the first steps in Divine knowledge, that any account should be given of +Creation beyond the primary fact that all idolatrous cosmogonies were +false, and that the Unseen God of Israel alone made the heavens and the +earth "in the beginning." Why should the Jews have received that truth +through the medium of a story of which the whole framework was false, +and nothing but the moral true? The framework, moreover, is one so +plainly _professing to be fact_, that it was certain to be received as +such by a simple people. It seems to me that there is something very +suspicious, something repugnant to notions of truth and honest dealing, +in the possible communication of underlying Divine truth through the +medium of stories, which are not stories on the face of them, but +profess and pretend to be statements of fact and authoritatively made. + +But, further, it cannot be denied that, whatever allowance may have to +be made under the early Jewish dispensation for the ideas and weaknesses +of a semi-barbarous people, whatever "winking" there may have been "at +times of ignorance," the main object was, by a gradual revelation,[1] by +a system of typical ordinances and ceremonies, to lead up to the full +spiritual light of the Christian dispensation. Everything written, said, +or done, was a step--however small an one--always tending in the one +direction, according to the usual law of Evolution. The Christian +believer may then look back to the early stages as imperfect +foreshadowings and dim illustrations of the whole truth; but he would, I +should think, on any ordinary principles, be shocked to find truth +developed out of positive error. And should the error have been +discovered, as it now is[2] (in the view of these I am contending +against), this discovery might have arrested the further development of +Divine truth altogether. If Moses, or whoever wrote the Book of +Genesis--we will not cavil at that--was allowed to compose his own +fancies or beliefs on the subject of Creation, _and to state them as +Divine fact_ (no matter that the reader at the time was not able to find +out the error), would not grave suspicion attach to whatever else he put +forward? Who could tell that, on any other subject, the plainest and +most direct statement of fact was not equally a fancy, only embodying or +enshrining (under the guise of its errors) some real Divine facts? If +Genesis i. is unreliable, we have a case of a writer going out of his +way to add to certain truths, which might easily have been stated by +themselves, a number of positive declarations, _as of Divine authority_, +regarding facts, which are not facts. + + +[Footnote 1: I am not aware of any authority, living or dead, who has +gone so far as to deny that God's revelation to the Jewish Church was in +any way connected with Christianity; that it was not even a stage of +progress, or preparatory step towards the kingdom of Christ.] + +[Footnote 2: And was _sure to be_ sooner or later, when a science of +Biology and Palaeontology became possible.] + +The great truths that God is really the Maker and Author of all things, +and that man has a spiritual being, and so forth, surely _gain nothing_ +from being conveyed to the world in the folds of a fable. And when it +is not in a confessed fable, but a fable put forth as fact--"God said," +"God created," "it was so"--not only is there no gain, but our sense of +fitness and of truth receive a shock. A parable is always discernible as +a parable, a vision as a vision. When our Lord, for example, tells us of +the ten virgins, we do not suppose Him to be revealing the actual +existence of ten such maidens, wise and foolish. We know that He is +reading a lesson of watchfulness. But looking at the Genesis narrative, +who could suppose it to be a parable? If sober, unmistakable statement +of fact is possible, we surely have it here, in intention, at least. + +The plan of teaching truth in an envelope of error is _per se_ difficult +to conceive. But how much worse is it when we consider--what criterion +does mankind possess for disinterring and distinguishing the elements of +truth? If in religion we had only to do (as some would perhaps contend) +with obvious enforcements of common morality and kindness, there might +be a possibility of getting over the difficulty, because man would +possess some kind of criterion whereby to distinguish what was +fictitious, by the simple process of considering whether any given +statement bore on morals or not. Such a test would not indeed go very +far, because the human race is by no means agreed on all moral +questions; nor does it always find it easy to say what is, and what is +not, directly or indirectly connected with morals. But, in fact, the +scope of religion cannot be so confined: and then the difficulty +returns; for a revelation that tells us anything of the nature of God +and His method of government, of the nature of our own being and of a +future state, must necessarily go beyond our own ethical knowledge and +powers of judging, or it would not be a revelation. Supposing that the +revelation regarding such vital subjects is occasionally conveyed +through the medium of erroneous statements, where in any given case +would be the certainty as to what was Divine truth, and what not so? + +This argument applies equally to another school of thinkers, who do not +care to tell us what the narrative in itself means: who believe that God +did not do what He is said to have done in Genesis, and yet who hold +that the narrative is in a sense inspired, and that we may learn from it +the great facts that God (and none other) originated all things--that +man has a spiritual element in his nature, and that woman is equal in +nature, but subordinate in position, to man, and so forth. Not only is +enlightened judgment, even, inadequate to pronounce with certainty on +how much is true; but the strange feeling still remains, if God designed +to teach us these truths only, why was it not possible to enable the +writer[1] to state them without the (purely gratuitous) error? The +sufferance of such a strange and unnecessary mixture of error seems +rather like that "putting to confusion" of the human mind, which we feel +sure the Great Teacher would never willingly perpetrate. + + +[Footnote 1: For on the supposition stated, there _is_ a revelation in +the text. Nor could any class of believer deny this. It is entirely +unnecessary to define the kind and extent of insphation. But "all +Scripture is '_theopneustos_'"--I leave the word purposely untranslated +(2 Tim. iii. 16); that surely means that the Divine Spirit exercised +_some kind_ of continuous control over the writers.] + +Nor, again, can the narrative be got over by saying it is a poetic side +or aspect of the facts, and not to be taken literally. If any one knows +exactly what this means, and can tell us always how to translate the +matter into plain language, it is to be wished that he would enlighten +the world as to the process. But even if such process exists infallibly +and universally, still, one would suppose, the narrative must, to begin +with, be unmistakable poetry. And here, again, the narrative bears every +mark of an intention to state facts, not poetic aspects of facts. Nor +can we take the narrative as belonging to a familiar class in Scripture +where a dream is used as a vehicle of communication. In those cases +there is really no room for doubt; the visible facts themselves are +obviously designed only to typify or represent some other facts. + +The events stated in Genesis are not of this class. Those, therefore, +who would be content with getting over the narrative without caring for +its details, can, I must suspect, have hardly given adequate attention +to the form and to the contents of the narrative as it stands. Not only +are the statements positive, but, taking any interpretation whatever of +them, they are not nearly imaginative enough to suit the purpose. + +They have an obvious amount of relation to fact which has never been +denied.[1] + +If the narrative is purely human even (and that the school we are +considering do not aver), how did the writer come to be accurate even to +that extent? Take only the order of events. I admit it does not +correspond with the geologic record in the way commonly asserted; yet it +has a very remarkable relation to that sequence. + +Now, in any case, the writer could have had no knowledge of any kind _of +his own_ on the subject: how did he hit on this particular +arrangement?[2] It is a mere matter of calculation on the well-known +rules of permutation and combination to realize in how many different +ways the same set of events could have been arranged; the number is very +considerable. + +And he could derive no assistance from any similar existing narrative. +If we conclude from the Assyrian discoveries that a non-biblical but +similar narrative existed, still it is certain that the principal one we +as yet have is so late in date, that it is more likely to be derived +from the Bible than the Bible from it. And though, on referring to the +earlier tablets, we find traces of the same narrative, it is so obscured +by idolatrous and false details, that the Bible writer must have had to +make a virtually new departure to get his own simple narrative. A +re-revelation would be required. As to all other cosmogonies, Egyptian, +Indian, and Buddhistic, nothing can be more opposed in principle and in +detail than they are to the severe and stately simplicity and directness +of the Mosaic. + + +[Footnote 1: Not even, for example, by Professor Häckel.] + +[Footnote 2: How, for example, did the writer come to introduce the +adjustment of hours of daylight and seasons in the _middle_, after so +much work had been done? How did he come to place _birds_ along with +fish and water monsters, and not separately?] + +We cannot, then, account for the narrative on human grounds; nor can we +suppose that any inspiring control would have given the author so much +truth, and yet allowed so much error. + +All this points to only one of two possible conclusions: either the +narrative is not inspired at all, and is a mere misleading story, into +which the name of God is introduced by the author's piety--and so really +teaches us nothing, since it is not revelation; _or_ the narrative is, +as a whole, divinely dictated, and must be true _throughout_, if we can +only arrive by due study at its true meaning. That part of it is, or may +be, true, even on the most cursory study, is not denied; that it is +_all_ true will appear, I think, in the sequel. + +But there is a shorter and simpler reason why the rejection of the +narrative in Genesis would be a direct blow to Christian faith. The +plain truth is that it can hardly be denied, by any candid student of +the New Testament, that our Lord and His apostles certainly received the +early chapters of Genesis as of Divine authority. This has always been +perceived by the whole school of writers opposed to the Faith. They +therefore continue to attack these early revelations, and rejoice to +overturn them if they can, because they are aware that hardly any +chapters in the Bible are more constantly alluded to and made the +foundation of practical arguments by our Lord and His apostles. + +If these chapters can be shown to be mythical, then the Divine knowledge +of our Lord as the Son of God, and the inspiration of His apostles, are +called in question. In the New Testament, especially, there are repeated +and striking allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the +Serpent, and the entrance into the world of sin and death. Our Lord +Himself places the whole argument of His teaching on marriage and the +permissibility of divorce on Genesis ii. 24 (_cf_. St. Matt. xix. and +St. Mark x.). In St. John viii. 44 our Lord clearly alludes to the +Edenic narrative when He speaks of the tempter as a "manslayer ([Greek: +anthropoktonos]) from the beginning." Still more remarkable is the +argument of St. Paul in Romans v.; altogether based as it is on the +historical verity of the account of the Fall; and other allusions are to +be found in 1 Cor. xi. 8, in 2 Cor. xi. 3, in the Epistle to the +Ephesians, and elsewhere. In short, there are at least sixty-six +passages in the New Testament, in which the first eleven chapters of +Genesis are directly quoted or made the ground of argument. Of these, +six are by our Lord Himself, two being direct quotations;[1] six by St. +Peter, thirty-eight by St. Paul, seven by St. John, one by St. James, +two by St. Jude, two by the assembled apostles, three by St. Luke, and +one by St. Stephen. + + +[Footnote 1: St. Matt. xix. 4; St. Luke xvii. 27; and perhaps we might +add a third--St. Matt. xxiii. 35.] + +We cannot, in fact, possibly avoid the conclusion that our Lord and His +apostles admitted the Divine origin and historical truth of these +chapters. + +Therefore, we are bound as Christians to accept them, and that without +glossing or frittering away their meaning, when we have arrived, by just +processes, at what that meaning really is. + +The fact just stated further warns us against accepting an indefinite +interpretation which, while it acknowledges the truth of the general +conclusion, still virtually, if not in so many words, allows that the +details may be wholly inaccurate. + + + + +CHAPTER XI. + +_SCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION_. + + +Passing, then, to a consideration of the explanations of the narrative +that may be or have been given at various times, I would first call +attention to the fact, that it seems in many instances to have been the +distinct purpose of Divine inspiration to allow the meaning of some +passages to be obscure; perhaps among other reasons, that men might be +compelled to study closely, to reason and to compare, and thus to become +more minutely acquainted with the record. Especially in a case of this +sort, where the world's knowledge of the facts would necessarily be +gradual, was it desirable that the narrative should be confined in +scope, and capable of being worked out and explained by the light of +later discoveries; because, had the narrative really (as has long been +supposed) been revealed to tell us what was the actual course of +evolution of created forms on earth, it would not only have occupied a +disproportionate space in the sacred volume, but would have been +unintelligible to the world for many centuries, and would have given +rise to much doubting and false argument, to the great detriment of +men's spiritual enlightenment. It would have diverted men's minds from +the great moral and conclusion of the whole (and here it is that the +"moral" or conclusion is so important) to set them arguing on points of +natural science. + +The Bible was never intended (so far we may agree with all the schools +of thought) to be a text-book on biology or geology. We need rather to +be impressed with the great facts of God's Sovereignty and Providence, +and to know definitely that all the arrangements of our globe and all +forms of life are due to Divinely-created types. This is exactly secured +by the narrative as it stands; but such a purpose would not be served by +a narrative which, while it contained these great facts, had them +enwrapped in a tissue of unnecessary and false details. And therefore it +is, if I may so far anticipate my conclusion, that the narrative has no +direct concern with how, when, and where, the Creation slowly worked +itself out under the Divine guidance which is still elaborating the +great purpose of the "ages"; it confines our attention to what God, the +great Designer, did and said in heaven, as preliminary to all that was +to follow on earth. The former was not a proper subject for revelation, +because man would in time come to learn it by his studies on earth; but +the latter all ages could only learn--the first as well as the +latest--from a Divine Revelation. + +Again, let me address a few words to those who are tempted, half +unconsciously perhaps, to think that any lengthy prelude and "elaborate" +explanation of Genesis must condemn the narrative _à priori_, or be +derogatory to the dignity of Revelation. Why the narrative should be +brief and concise I have just suggested. That it needs explanation of +_some_ sort is inevitable, because it _must_ be put into human language; +and directly such language is employed, we come upon such terms as "let +there be," "he created," and "days," which do not always call forth the +same ideas in all minds. + +It will not have escaped the attention of any earnest student, that +Scripture has several different methods of describing things so as to +reveal them to men. This, a moment's reflection will enable us to +expect. However high and wonderful the things to be stated are, in order +to be brought within reach of human understanding _they must be +expressed in terms of human thought and experience_; and these are +imperfect and essentially inadequate. Hence it is, that many truths have +to be brought before us in special or peculiar ways. + +How, for instance, are we told of the temptation and fall of man? How +are we to understand what was meant by the Tree of Life or the Tree of +Knowledge of Good and Evil, or by the Serpent speaking and beguiling +Eve? We are at a great loss to give a precise explanation, though the +practical meaning is not difficult. + +The facts may be none the less true, though from their transcendental +character it may have been necessary to put them down in mysterious, +possibly even in merely allegorical, language. Another instance of this +might be given in the account of Satan in the presence of the Lord as +described in the Book of Job, or of the lying Spirit described by +Micaiah when prophesying before Ahab. It maybe that these narratives +describe to us transactions in a world beyond our own, which _could_ +only be conveyed to us in figures or in imperfect form. When St. Paul +was caught up into the third heaven, he "heard unspeakable things" which +it was not _possible_ for him to utter--the medium of expression was +wanting. Divine or mysterious things have, then, to be described in +peculiar language which is not always easy to understand. Nor, having +respect to the varying requirements of the different ages, or the +circumstances of the time and of the inspired writer, is it easy to +understand why any particular form of communication was selected, though +doubtless if we knew more we should see a good reason for it. This gives +us one class of Scripture passages--of methods of revelation. On the +other hand, there are in Scripture many facts of the highest import, and +in themselves of transcendent magnitude, which are yet capable of being +stated without any possibility of our interpreting or understanding the +narrative in more ways than one. When it is stated that Christ Jesus +rose from the dead, we know beyond all reasonable doubt what is meant. +The fact may be true or false, but the narrative of the fact needs no +explanation; there are no terms which need expansion--which could bear +more than one possible meaning, and which could be used accordingly in +one sense or another. This instances a second class. Again, we can bring +forward yet another class of Scripture revelations, namely, passages +which are necessarily understood with reference to certain other matters +which are unexpressed but are taken for granted, or in which the words +used may bear more than one meaning, or a meaning which is uncertain or +obscure. If the unexpressed matter can be supplied without doubt, then +all ages will agree in the interpretation; and if the terms can (by +reference to context or otherwise) be explained, the same result +follows: if not, then in interpreting the narrative, each age will _make +its own assumption_ regarding the terms used, on the basis of such +knowledge as it possesses. It follows, then, inevitably, that if the +state of knowledge varies, the interpretation will be different +according to the different standard of knowledge, according to which the +necessary assumptions are made. And yet all the while the authority of +the passage itself is not touched. As it is unquestionable that such +different classes of passage do occur in Scripture, it is merely a +question of criticism whether any given passage is of this class or +that, and whether its terms do admit of or require explanation. It is no +doubt possible to make mistakes and to err by refusing the direct +meaning, and giving to the terms an assumed meaning for which there is +no real necessity.[1] We have always to be on our guard against giving +special meanings to words where they are not required; but granted that +caution, there undoubtedly are passages in which either the terms +themselves are not plain, or in which they may really have a meaning +different from the ordinary one. + + +[Footnote 1: As, for example, where persons desirous to get over the +plain reference to Baptism in St. John iii. 5, try to explain away the +term "water" to mean something metaphorically but not actually water.] + +To descend from the general to the particular, it is obvious that the +account of Creation in Genesis i., ii. is in such a form that we must +assume our own ideas of the term "day" therein employed, and also those +to be attached to "created" and similar terms. + +In early times, no one would take "day" to mean anything else but an +earth day of the ordinary kind, and no one would question whether or not +the whole existing animals and plants, or their ancestors, appeared on +earth in six such days, or whether anything else was meant. Again, by +the time St. Augustine was writing, a little more knowledge of nature +and a little more habit of reasoning about the origin of things was in +the world, and that knowledge led people to suppose that creation meant +only the making of things "out of nothing," but that it would take +longer than six times twelve hours, so that "days" might mean "periods." + +And people imagined for a long time that--taking for an example the +work in the middle of the narrative--there was a time when the earth +emerged from the tumult of waters, that it then got covered with plants, +the waters remaining barren of life; but that when the plants had come +up all over the ground, then the waters all at once became full of all +sorts of sea-shells, fish, and monsters of the deep, and so on. + +They did all this, by naturally _assuming_ that the terms "creation," +"day," &c., meant what the _existing state of knowledge_ at the time +suggested. + +At the present day, one would have supposed that every one must feel +that while the term "day" might or might not admit of explanation, +certainly _creation_ (i.e., terms implying it) did require very great +care in interpreting, and very great consideration as to what they +really meant But however that may be, we have here a passage which +_must_ have an explanation; and which must have an explanation that +depends on the state of knowledge. + +The utility of Revelation is not negatived by this necessary result of +the employment of human language in describing the facts. It was _not_ +necessary before, that all should be understood; it may be now +increasingly necessary in the purposes of God that it should be. At any +rate the fact is so, that in former days people did not possess the data +for knowing fully what creation meant, and certainly they do now possess +it to a very much greater extent at least. Always men could learn from +the narrative what it always was important for them to learn, namely, +God's Sovereignty and Authorship. It is in this way that the value of +the _general_ teaching of the narrative comes out, and not by trying to +allow a mixture of truth and falsehood in Revelation. All is and always +was true; but _all_ the truth was not equally extractable at all times. + +Again: the dignity of the old written Revelation is not compromised +because God has virtually given a further revelation in His works, +i.e., by enabling man to know more about the rock-strata and the +succession of life on the earth. That is what it really comes to. It +should never be forgotten that the book of Nature _is_ a revelation. + +The _works_ of God, if interpreted truly, are evidence of the same +nature as the _word_ of God if interpreted truly. God has created man +and his reason. It is impossible to suppose that it can be unrighteous +reasoning in God's sight, to derive from the facts of nature any +legitimate conclusion to which those facts point. It is childish to +believe that God created ready-made--if I may so speak--rocks with +fossils in them, marks of rain-drops showing which way the wind blew at +the time, foot-prints of birds, animals with remains of the prey they +had been feeding on, in their stomachs, and so forth. It is perfectly +reasonable and right to conclude certainly, that those creatures were +once living beings; that the surface of the earth was once a soft +sediment which received the impression of the rain-drops as they fell; +and that stratified rocks were deposited out of lakes and seas, as we +see alluvial strata deposited at the present day. It is impossible, +therefore, that (if we are not misled by appearances) any +well-ascertained fact can be contrary to the truth of God as explained +by Revelation. If we are not sure of the facts of nature, we must wait +patiently till further knowledge enlightens us, and must not hastily +conclude that the Bible is wrong. The repeated corrections which +successive years have compelled us to make in conclusions which were +once firmly accepted and proclaimed as "truths of science," should teach +us caution in this respect. + +Nor, lastly, is it any reproach to the Church, as keeper of the Divine +Revelation, that its opinion of certain passages should vary with the +growth of knowledge. It would be hardly necessary to make this obvious +remark but for the fact that it has been reproached against Christian +belief, that science is contrary to the Bible, and that the Church has +ever had to confess itself wrong, after having persecuted people for not +following its peculiar views. It is, indeed, unfortunate that a blind +zeal for God has led, in the past, to persecution; the Church failing to +see that such men as Galileo and Bruno never denied God at all, nor did +their discoveries really contradict the Word. But persecution is not a +sin peculiar to the Church; it is a sin of human nature. + +It is also true that Christian views may be wrong, but the fault is in +the views, not in the Bible. + +Scientific men, of all people, should be the last to complain of +_change_ in views, seeing that what was science two hundred years ago is +now (much of it) exploded nonsense. + +There is no harm whatever in changing our views about the meaning of +difficult passages--provided we never let go our hold on the central +truth, and put the error to our own account, not saying that the Word +itself is wrong. + +It may, in this connection, be at once observed that any particular +explanation, or that one which I propose presently to suggest, of the +first chapters of Genesis, may not commend itself to the reader, and yet +the general argument I have adduced will hold good notwithstanding. + +All that I care to contend is, that science does not contradict a +syllable of the narrative on _one_ possible interpretation, and that +changes in view as to interpretation are no arguments against the truth +of the passage itself. + + + + +CHAPTER XII. + +_METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE--ASSUMPTIONS OF MEANING TO +CERTAIN TERMS._ + + +Returning, then, to the narrative in the Book of Genesis, I think we may +take it as clear that the passage stands in such a concise and condensed +form, that it is obviously open to _be interpreted_. Further, that we +should not be surprised if the interpretation at the present day, with +our vastly increased knowledge of Nature, is different from what it was +in earlier times. + +I make no apology for repeating this so often, because it is really +amazing to see the way in which "anti-theological" writers attack what +_they suppose_ to be the interpretation of the narrative, or what some +one else supposes to be such, and seem to be satisfied that in so doing +they have demolished the credibility of the narrative itself. + +If you choose to assume that Creation as spoken of by the sacred writer +means some particular thing, or even if the mass of uneducated or +unreflecting people assume it and you follow them, I grant at once that +the narrative can be readily made out to be wrong. + +Permit me, then, to repeat once more, that the narrative is in human +language, and uses the human terms "created," "made," and "formed," and +that these terms _do_ (as a matter of fact which there is no gainsaying) +bear a meaning which is not invariable. Hence, without any glossing or +"torturing" of the narrative, we are under the plain obligation to seek +to assign to these terms a true meaning _with all the light that modern +knowledge_ can afford. + +Now (having already considered the school of interpretation which +declines to attend to the exact terms) we can confine our attention to +two classes of interpreters. One explains the term "days" to mean long +periods of time; the other accepts the word in its ordinary and most +natural sense, and endeavours to eliminate the long course of +developmental work made known to us by palaeontological science, and +supposes all that to have been passed over in silence; and argues that a +final preparation for the advent of the man Adam was made in a special +work of six days. + +All the well-known attempts at explanation, such as those of Pye-Smith, +Chalmers, H. Miller, Pratt, and the ordinary commentaries, can be placed +in one or other of these categories. + +Now, as regards both, I recur to the curious fact (already noted) that +it seems never to enter into the conception of either school to inquire +for a moment what the sacred writer meant by "created"--God +"created"--God said "let there be." It _is_ curious, because no one can +reasonably say "these terms are obvious, they bear their own meaning on +the surface;" a moment's analysis will scatter such an idea to the +winds. Yet the terms _are_ passed by. The commentators set themselves +right earnestly to compare and to collate, to argue and to analogize, on +the meaning of the term "days;" the other term "created" they take for +granted without--as far as I am aware--single line of explanation, or so +much as a doubt whether they know what it really means! + +The interpretation that I would propose to the judgment of the Church is +just the very opposite. It seems to me that the word _day_ as used in +the narrative needs no explanation; it seems to me that the other does. +As regards the term "day," it is surely a rule of sound criticism never +to give an "extraordinary" meaning to a word, when the "ordinary" one +will give good and intelligible sense to a passage. And looking to the +fact that, after all, when the days of Genesis _are_ explained to mean +periods of very unequal but possibly enormous duration, that explanation +is not only quite useless, but raises greater difficulties than ever, I +should think it most likely that the "day" of the narrative should be +taken in the ordinary sense. But of this hereafter. + +On the other hand, with regard to the terms "creation,[1]" "created," +"Let there be," and so forth, I find ample room for the most careful +consideration and for detailed study before we can say what is meant. +Even then there remains a feeling of profound mystery. For at the very +beginning of every train of reflection and reasoning on the subject, we +are just brought up dead at this wonderful fact, the existence of +_matter_ where previously there had been _nothing_. The phrase "created +_out of_ nothing" is of course a purely conventional one, and, strictly +speaking, has no meaning; but we adopt it usefully enough to indicate +our ultimate fact--the appearance of matter where previously there had +been nothing. Nor is the difficulty really surmounted by alleging such a +mere _phrase_ as "matter is eternal," for we have just as little mental +conception of self-existent, always--and _without beginning_--existent +matter, as we have of "creation out of nothing." + + +[Footnote 1: The entire silence of commentators regarding the doubtful +meaning of "creation" is so surprising, that I have had the greatest +difficulty in persuading myself that the explanation I propose is new. +Yet certainly I have never come across it anywhere.] + +The human mind has always a difficulty when it is brought face to face +with something that is beyond the scope not only of its own practical, +but, even of its theoretical or potential ability. + +The "creation," therefore, of matter by a Divine Power is matter of +_faith_, as I endeavoured to set forth in the earlier pages of this +little work; but it is _reasonable_ faith, because it can be supported +by sound reasoning from analogy and strong probability. + +All our attention, then, I submit, should be directed to understanding +what is "creation" in the sacred narrative. + + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +_THE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY._ + +I.--THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE. + +§ 1. _Objections to the Received Interpretations_. + + +Taking the narrative as it stands, we find it to consist of two parts. +First, a general statement, of which no division of time is predicated, +and which is unaccompanied by any detail. Second, there is an account +seriatim of certain operations which are stated to have been severally +performed one on each of six days. + +As regards the first portion, we have no definite knowledge of +scientific truth with which to compare the narrative. It is obviously +necessary for some Divine teacher to tell us authoritatively that God +originated and caused the material earth, and the systems of suns and +stars which men on the earth's surface are able to discern in the +"heavens." + +We are consequently informed that in the beginning--there is no +practical need for defining further--"God created the heavens and the +earth." Here the question arises whether the Hebrew "bara," which is a +general term, alludes to the first production of material, or to the +moulding or fashioning of material already (in terms) assumed to exist. +I think that the conclusion must be that the best authority is in favour +of the idea of absolute origination of the whole;--the bringing the +entire system into existence where previously there was a perfect blank. +But even if the secondary meaning of "fashioned" or "forged" be allowed, +we have still an intelligible rendering. For in that case the first +origination of matter is tacitly assumed by the term itself, and the +statement would be, that the matter of the future cosmos so existing, +the Divine Artificer fashioned or moulded it into the orderly fabric it +has come to be. + +The narrative then at once refers to our earth, with which, and with its +inhabitants, the whole volume is to be in future directly concerned. +"The earth was (or became) without form and void (chaotic), and darkness +was on the face of the deep (or abyss)." + +We have no positive knowledge of what the first condition of terrestrial +matter was, apart from Revelation. The remarkable discoveries that the +spectroscope has enabled, and the facts learned from the physical +history of comets and meteorites, can do no more than make what is known +as the "nebular hypothesis" highly probable. But it is amply sufficient +for our purpose to point out, that if it is true that matter originated +in a nebulous haze to the particles of which a spiral rotatory motion +had been communicated, and if (confining our attention to one planet +only) that attenuated matter gradually aggregated in a ring or rings, +and then consolidated into a solid or partly solid globe, then the +results are briefly, but adequately and sublimely, provided for by the +form of the Mosaic statement. + +Matter thus aggregating would have developed an enormous amount of heat, +and there would have been a seething mass of molten mineral matters, +with gases and other materials in the form of vapours, which would have +gradually cooled and consolidated. Vast masses of water would in time be +formed on one hand, and solid mineral masses on the other; the latter +would contract as cooling progressed, causing great upheavals and +depressions and contortions of strata. And before the advent of +life-forms, it is not difficult to conceive that the first state of our +globe was one which is intelligibly and very graphically described as +being "without form and void." Nothing more than that, can, from actual +physical knowledge, be stated.[1] + +It is also stated that this confused elemental state of our earth was +accompanied at first by darkness. Material darkness that is--for the +potentiality of light and order was there; the SPIRIT OF GOD "moved" (or +brooded) upon the face of the abyss. This presents no difficulty of +interpretation, and may therefore be passed over for the present. + + +[Footnote 1: It would be hardly necessary (but for some remarks in the +course of the Gladstone-Huxley controversy) to observe that the term +"void" does not imply vacuity or emptiness, as of _substance,_ but +absence of defined form such as subsequently was evolved.] + +Practically, indeed, there has been no grave difficulty raised over this +first portion. And if it is argued (on the ground of what I have already +in general terms indicated) that the term "created" will, on my own +interpretation, get us into difficulties, I reply that here, in its +position and with the context, there is no room for doubt, for clearly +the word implies _both_ the great primary idea of the Divine design or +plan formulated in heaven, _and_ the subsequent result in time and +space.[1] This will become more clear when I have further explained the +subject. + + +[Footnote 1: And of course if the true sense be "fashioned" or +"moulded," the question does not arise.] + +II.--THE SECOND PART OF THE NARRATIVE. + + +But from this point the narrative commences to be more precise, and to +exhibit a very singular and altogether unprecedented division of +creative work into "days." + +Now I have already indicated my doubt whether we ought to import any +unusual meaning to explain this term. + +In the first place, the objection that till the movements and relations +of the sun to the earth were ordained there would be no _measure of a +day_ will not stand a moment's examination. Nor will the further +objection sometimes made, that even with the sun, a day is a very +uncertain thing: for example, a day and a night in the north polar +regions are periods of month-long duration, quite different from what +they are in England, or at Mount Sinai. Obviously, a "day" with +reference to the planet for which the term is used, means the period +occupied by one rotation of the planet on its own axis. The rotation of +the earth is antecedent to anything mentioned in the narrative we are +considering. In the nature of things, it would have been coeval with the +introduction of the _prima materies_--at least if any nebular hypothesis +can be relied on. The "day" would be there whether it were obscured by +vapours or not, and whether specially made countable and recognizable by +what we call the rising and setting of the sun, or not, and whether we +were standing in Nova Zembla or in Australia. + +Nor is it of much use to refer to the general use of "day" for +indefinite periods, which is just as common in the English of to-day as +it was in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the double use of the +term in different senses has become general, just because it was found +in practice that no confusion ordinarily resulted; and surely such a +practice would not have been common, or at any rate would have been +specially avoided in the sacred volume, wherever any mistake or +confusion was likely or even possible. + +No one can mistake what is meant when allusion is made to "the day in +which God made the heaven and the earth." No one falls into doubt when +the "days" of the prophets are spoken of--any more than they do now when +a man says, "Such a thing will not happen in my _day_." + +Whenever in Daniel, or in similar prophetic writings, the term "day" is +used in a peculiar sense as indicating a term of years, we have no +difficulty in recognizing the fact from the context and circumstances of +the narrative; nor am I aware that any controversy has ever arisen +regarding the use of the term "day" _in any passage of Scripture +excepting in this_. + +This fact alone is suspicious; the more so, because there is absolutely +nothing in the context to indicate that anything but an ordinary day is +intended. Not only so, but there _is_ in the context something that does +very clearly indicate (and I think Dr. Réville is perfectly justified in +insisting on this) that an ordinary terrestrial day is meant. One of the +primeval institutions of Divine Providence for men, my readers will not +need to be reminded, was that of a "Sabbath," which any one reading the +text would understand to mean a day, and which the Jews--the earliest +formal or legal recognizers of it--_did_ so understand, and that under +direct Divine sanction. + +If the _days_ of Genesis mean indefinite periods of aeonian duration, +how is the seventh _day_ of rest to be understood? + +But even if these difficulties are overcome, absolutely nothing is +gained by taking the day to be a period. + +I presume that the object of gaining long periods of time instead of +days in reading the Mosaic record, is to assume that the narrative means +to describe the actual production on the earth of all that was created; +in other words, to assume a particular meaning for the words "created," +"brought forth," &c and then to make out that if a whole age is +granted, Science will allow us a sequence of a "plant age" a "fish and +saurian age," a "bird age," and a "mammalian age";--that is, in general +terms and neglecting minor forms of life. But then _to make any sense at +all with the verses_ we are bound to show that each age preceded the +next--that one was more than partly, if not quite completely, +established _before_ any appearance of the next. + +It is to this interpretation that Professor Huxley alludes when he says, +in his first article,[1] "There must be some position from which the +reconcilers of Science and Genesis will not retreat--some central idea +the maintenance of which is vital, and its refutation fatal.... It is +that the animal species which compose the water population, the air +population, and the land population,[2] respectively, originated during +three successive periods of time, and only during those periods of +time." + + +[Footnote 1: "Nineteenth Century," December, 1885, pp. 856-7.] + +[Footnote 2: These (unfortunate) terms are Mr. Gladstone's.] + +For my own part, I hasten to say that, as one of the despised race of +"reconcilers," not only is this idea no central position from which I +will not retreat, but one which I should never think of occupying for +one moment. + +But on the view of the _periods_, some such position must be taken up. +And if so, I must maintain that Professor Huxley has shown--if indeed it +was not obvious already--that the idea of a series of periods, and in +each of which a certain kind of life began and culminated (if it was not +fully completed) _before_ another began, is untrue to nature. This, +therefore, cannot have been intended by the author of Genesis. + +I will here interrupt my argument for a moment to say that there is a +_certain degree_ of _coincidence_ between the succession of life on the +earth as far as it is explained by palaeontological research, and the +order of creation stated in Genesis; but that is not concerned with any +forced interpretation of the term "day." The coincidence is just near +enough to give rise to a desire to identify creative periods with the +series shown by the fossil-bearing rocks; while it is attended with just +enough of difference to furnish matter for controversy, and to expose +the interpreters to be cut up. + +But to return. Nothing, I submit, is gained by getting _day_ to mean +period. Let us put the matter quite squarely. Let us take day to mean +period, and let us take all the verses to mean the _process_ of +_producing_ on earth the various life-forms. + +In order to come at once to the point, let us begin with the time when +the dry land and the waters are separate. At that moment, there is +nothing said (or implied) about life already having begun in either +water or on dry land. God commanded plants to grow; consequently during +that _whole period_ nothing but plants, and that of all the kinds and +classes mentioned, should appear either in water or on land. That period +being done, then came the command for water animals, fish and great +monsters, and also birds. We ought, accordingly, to come next upon a +whole period in which no trace of anything but plants and these animals +can be found; and lastly, we ought to find the period of mammalia, +smaller reptiles, _amphibia_ and insects (creeping things). + +That is the fair and plain result of what comes of supposing the terms +"let there be," &c., to mean _production on earth of the thing's +themselves_, and that the days are long _periods_. + +All overlapping of the periods is inadmissible. All meaning is taken +away, if we allow of fish (e.g.) appearing in the middle of our first +period; for God did not command another day's work till after the first +was completed--"there was evening and there was morning, a first day" +(period), &c. + +No; to suit the text so interpreted, we must have a full _period_ of +plants with no fish; then a period of both but no insects, no creeping +things, no animals; and so on. Now it is quite idle to contend any +longer, that any such state of things ever existed. + +If we pass over the long series of the most ancient strata in which +doubtful forms of obscure elementary plant and animal life appear +_almost_ together, we shall come to shell-fish, and crustaceans fully +established in the water, and scorpions, and some insects even on land, +_before_ plants made any great show. For the Carboniferous--_the_ age of +acrogen plants, _par excellence_--does not occur till after swarms of +_Trilobite_ Crustaceans had filled the sea and passed away, and after +the Devonian fish-age had nearly passed away; and so on throughout. + +The groups in nature overlap each other so closely, that though +plant-life (in elementary forms) probably had the actual start; +virtually the two kingdoms--plant and animal--appeared almost +simultaneously. There is nothing like the appearance of a first period +in which one _alone_ predominated. And long before the plants are +established in all classes, the great reptiles, birds, and some mammals, +had appeared. The seed-bearing plants--true grasses and exogens with +seed capsules (angiosperms) did not appear till quite Tertiary times. +That is the essential difference between the facts and the theory. If we +make a diagram, and let the squares represent the main groups, the order +(according to the period interpretation) ought to be as in A, whereas +it really more resembles B. Thus. + +[Illustration: The dotted extensions of the squares indicate the fore +runners of the families, i.e., their first indications in the ages.] + +[Illustration: _A New Interpretation suggested_] + +But then it will be asked, if the day means only an ordinary day--not a +long period--what is there that actually could have happened, and did +happen, in _three days_ (for that is the real point, as we shall see), +such as the writer describes as the third, fifth, and sixth days? + +I answer that on those days, and on the previous ones, God did exactly +what He is recorded to have done. After the creation of light (first +day), and the ideal adjustment of the distribution of land and water +(second day), He (_a_) "_created_," on the third day, plants, from the +lowest cryptogam upwards; then (_b_) paused for a day (the fourth) in +the direct work of creating life-forms, to adjust certain matters +regarding times and seasons, and regulation of climate, which doubtless +would not be essential during the early stages of life evolution, but +would become so directly a certain point was reached; then (_c_) resumed +the direct creating work (fifth day), with fishes, great reptiles,[1] +and birds (grouped purposely so, as we shall see); and, lastly (_d_), +before the Day of Rest, created the group of mammals (_carnivora_ and +_herbivora_), the "creeping things" of the earth, and man (also grouped +together). + + +[Footnote 1: This term may be here accepted for the moment--not to +interrupt the argument. It will be more fully dealt with in a subsequent +chapter.] + +But some one will ask, You then accept the earlier theory, that the +whole life-series that is now revealed to us by the rocks, from the +Laurentian to the Recent, is excluded from the narrative; and that some +special acts of creation, regarding only modern and surviving +life-forms, were made immediately before man appeared? By no-means; for +such a theory is not only in itself improbable, but is contrary to all +the evidence we possess of life-history on the earth, and is so hopeless +that it is really not worth serious examination and refutation. + +We have no evidence of any such gap--such sudden change in the history +of life. Nor is it possible to find any place in the Mosaic story at +which we could reasonably interpolate a _long_ period, such as that +indicated by the entire series of rock strata. For a great part of such +a period, not only must there have been a regular succession of life +just the same in nature (though specifically different) as that now on +earth, but a regular distribution of land and water, and a settled +action of the sun and the seasons, would be required. No; we must give +up all the older methods which try to ignore the study of the word +"created," or to assume for it a meaning that it is not intended to +bear. + +All depends, then, on what is meant by such terms as "created," "let +there be," "let the earth bring forth," &c. Perhaps it has occurred to +but few of my readers seriously to examine into their own mental +conception of an "act of creation." Some will readily answer, "Of course +it means only that at the Divine _fiat_, any given species--say an +elephant--appeared perfect, trunk, tusks, and all the peculiar +development of skull and skeleton, where previously no such creature had +existed." But what possible reason have they for this conclusion? None +whatever. It has simply been carelessly assumed from age to age, because +people at first knew no better; and when they began to know better, they +did not stop to amend their ideas accordingly. + +Of course, as Professor Huxley puts it, millions of pious Jews and +Christians[1] supposed _creation_ to mean a "sudden act of the +Deity"--i.e., to mean just what the knowledge of the time enabled them +to imagine. They could do nothing else. The state of knowledge fifty +years ago would not have rendered it possible for an article like +Professor Huxley's (that to which allusion has several times been made) +to have been written at all. What wonder, then, that the multitude did +not understand what _creation_ meant, and that a reasonable +interpretation of the word has only become possible in quite recent +times? Surely all that is the fault of the reader, not of the text. I do +not even care that the writer himself did not fully apprehend the +subject. When a human prophet is entrusted with the divulgation of high +and wonderful things, it is quite possible that he may have been to +greater or less extent in the dark as to all or some of the +communication he was writing. + + +[Footnote 1: Article quoted, p. 857.] + +All that can be reasonably required is that the narrative, as it stands, +shall be consistent with actual truth, and shall at no time come to be +provably at variance with it. + +But let us look at the word "creation" more closely. We accept what we +are told, that in the beginning God called into existence force and +matter, the material or "physical basis," and all other necessaries of +life. Suppose, then (even dropping the question of Evolution, in order +to satisfy the "pious millions"), that this "matter" was all ready (if +I may so speak) to spring into organized form and being to take shape on +earth--what shape should it take? Why (e.g.) an elephant? Why not any +other animal, or a nondescript--a form which no zoologist could place, +recognize, or classify? The _form_, the ideal structure, the _formula_, +of the genus elephant must somehow have come into existence _before_ the +obedient materials and the suitable forces of nature could work +themselves together to the desired end. + +Mr. Mivart has defined "creation" at page 290 of his "Genesis of +Species." There is original creation, derivative or secondary creation +(where the present form has descended from an ancestor that was +originally "directly" created), and conventional creation (as when a man +"creates a fortune," meaning that he produces a complex state or +arrangement out of simpler materials). That is perfectly true, so far; +but it is only a verbal definition, and still does not go inside, into +the _idea_ involved. We must go farther. + +In every act of creation, two requisites can clearly be distinguished: +(1) the matter of life, and the forces, affinities, and local +surroundings necessary; and (2) the type, plan, ideal, or formula, to +realize or produce which, the forces and the matter are to act and +react. This second is all-essential; without it the first would only +produce a limbo of + +"Unaccomplisht works of Nature's hand, +Abortive, monstrous, or unkindly mixt.[1]" + + +[Footnote 1: "Paradise Lost," iii. 455.] + +No _creation_ in _any_ sense whatever could come out of it. + +In the same way, when we speak of the Divine Artificer "creating," or +saying "Let there be," there are two things implied: (i) the Divine plan +or type-form, and its utterance or delivery (so to speak) to the +builder-forces and materials; (2) the result or the translation into +tangible existence of the Divine plan. + +In every passage speaking of creation it _possible_ that both processes +may be implied; it may be clear from the text (as in Genesis i. 1) that +this is so. But it is equally possible that the first point only, which +in some aspects is really the essential matter, is alone spoken of. + +And I submit that, given the general fact that God originated everything +in heaven and earth (as first of all stated generally in Genesis i. +1-3), the essential part of the _detailed_ or _specific_ creation +subsequently spoken of, was the Divine origination of the types, the +ideal forms, into which matter endowed with life was to develop; +_without_ any _necessary_ reference to how, or in what time, the Divine +creation was actually realized or accomplished on earth. It may be that +the _form_ so conceived and drawn in Nature's book by the Divine +Designer is a final form, up to which development shall lead, and beyond +which (at least in a material sense) it shall not go; or it may be that +it is a type intended to be transitory;[1] but _both the intermediate +and final forms must take their origin first in the Divine Mind, and be +prescribed from the Heavenly Throne,_ before the obedient matter and +forces and the life-endowment could co-operate to result in the +realization of the forms and the population of the globe. + + +[Footnote 1: The idea which I am endeavouring to make clear is well +illustrated by another passage in one of the Mosaic books--the account +of the Tabernacle. Moses had no idea of his own of the structure, its +furniture, implements, or the forms of these. The narrative expressly +states that the Divine power originated the designs, and caused Moses to +understand them. In a human work the designer would have drawn the +objects with measures and specifications, and given the papers to the +workmen. With the Divine work, where the design is in the Divine +Thought, and the workmen and builders are forces and elementary matter, +the process is a mystery, but in its practical bearing is understood +from analogy. The Tabernacle was truly God's _creation_, because it was +all commanded in design and "pattern" by the Almighty before Moses put +together the materials that realized the pattern in the camp of Israel.] + +The reason why it is the _essential_ part, is, that when once the Divine +command issued, the result followed inevitably--that will "go without +saying." + +In human affairs, also, we speak of the architect having _created_ the +palace or cathedral, or the ironclad; meaning thereby not the slow +process of cutting and joining stone, or riveting steel plates, but the +higher antecedent act of mind in evoking the ideal form and providing +for all contingencies in the adaptation and subsequent working of the +finished structure. And if we limit this use of the term "creation" +somewhat in speaking of human works, it is because the concept of the +human mind so often fails of realization; that it is one thing to +design, and another to accomplish. The grandest design for a palace may +fail to stand because some peculiarity of the stone has been forgotten, +or some character of foundation and subsoil has been misunderstood. The +noblest form of turret-ship may prove useless because the strength of +some material will not correspond to the ideal, or some curve of +stability has been miscalculated. Not only this: man may create, as a +sculptor, the ideal form for his to-be statue, or the dramatist his +character; but the perfect realization, either in marble or in an actual +being, may be impossible; the ideal remains "in the air." The ideal, +therefore, is not the major part of "creation" in a human work. + +But with the Divine work it is otherwise. The Divine thought in Creation +and its result are separated by no possibility of failure. Given the +matter and the laws of force and of life, directly the Great Designer +has uttered His thought to those that are His builders, they _must_ +infallibly and without discord, work through the longest terms, it may +be, of an evolutionary series, till, every transitional condition +passed, the final form emerges perfect. + +Our very verbal definition, admitting as it does "derivative" creation, +implies this. We all speak of ourselves as "created." How so? We are not +produced ready made. Nor do we wholly solve the matter by saying that we +are "created" because we are born from parents who (if we go far enough +back) originated in a first production from the hand of Nature. We are +really "created" because the _design_--the _life-form of us_, which +matter and force were to work together to produce--was the direct +product of the Divine Mind.[1] + +My question, therefore, of the Genesis interpreters is: Why will you +insist on the text meaning only the second element in Creation--the +production on earth, and not the Design or its issue in heaven? + +The former we could find out some day for ourselves; we _have_ found out +some of it (though only some) already; the latter we could never know +unless we were told. Surely it is the "_dignus vindice nodus_" in this +case. To tell us the earth's history within a brief space would be +impossible, and would have been for ages unintelligible if it could have +been told; to tell us of God's creation is possible--for it has been +done; and the record, unless misread, is intelligible for all time. + +The narrative, if it is a revelation of Divine Creation in heaven, takes +up ground that none can trespass on. None can say "it is not so," unless +either he will show that the words will not bear the meaning, or that +the context and other Scripture contradict it. + + +[Footnote 1: "_In Thy book_ were all my members written, while _as yet +there were none_ of them" (Psa. cxxxix. 16). + +"How did this all first come to be you? +_God thought about me_ +and I grew."--_Macdonald_.] + +So soon as the matter of earth and heaven (and all that is implied +therewith) originated "in the beginning," the narrative introduces to +our reverent contemplation the solemn conclave in heaven, when, in a +serial order and on separate days, God declared, for the guidance of the +ever potentially active forces, and for materials ever (as we know) +seeking combination and resolution,[1] the _form_ which the earth +surface is (it may be ever so gradually) to take and the _life-forms_ +which are to be evolved. + +That this creative work was piecemeal, and on separate days, we know +from the narrative. _Why_ it was so arranged we do not know. Vast as was +the work to be done, almost infinite as was the complexity of the laws +required to be formulated, it _could_ have all been done at once, in a +moment of time; for time does not exist to the Divine Mind. But seeing +that the work was to be on earth, and for the benefit of creatures to +whom the divisions of time were all-important, we can dimly, at least, +discern a certain fitness and appropriateness in the gradual and divided +work. + + +[Footnote 1: The reader will recognize that there is not the least +exaggeration in this. It is plain matter of fact, as I have endeavoured +to show in the earlier chapters of this book. Everywhere we see _force_ +ready to be evoked by the proper method. Everywhere we see _molecular_ +motion, and a perpetual combination and resolution of elements and +compounds, whether chemical or mechanical.] + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. + +_THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES._ + + +In interpreting the narrative before us, we have an important aid which +has hardly received the attention it deserves. I allude to the other +passages of Scripture which were written by men undoubtedly familiar +with the Book of Genesis. + +Now, in more than one of them, I find the idea that the Creation spoken +of is the _Divine work in heaven_, and not the subsequent and long +process of its realization on the surface of our globe, fully confirmed. + +In the beautiful thirty-eighth chapter of the very ancient Book of Job, +we find a distinct allusion to a time when God "laid the foundations" of +the earth, prescribed "its measures," made a "decreed place" for the +sea, and framed the "ordinances of heaven," and this in presence of the +heavenly host assembled-- + +"When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted +for joy.[1]" + + +[Footnote 1: Job xxxviii. 7. The sons of God are clearly the angels +(_cf_. Job i, 6).] + +The same idea can be gathered from the text which I have placed on the +title-page of this book. "By faith we understand that the aeons (the +whole system of nature in its various branches, physical, moral, and +social) were ordained ([Greek: kataertisthai]) by the word of God." The +_process_ of actual development is here passed over, as not being the +main thing; what attracts attention is the Divine Design, the "framing" +of the wonderful ideal or ordinance without which the "aeons" could not +proceed to unfold themselves. I do not mean, of course, for a moment to +imply that, after God had formulated the laws and designed the forms, He +left the working out of the results to themselves. I should be sorry if, +in bringing into prominence what has generally been overlooked, I seemed +to throw the rest in the shade. God's providence and continued +supervision are as important in themselves as the original design:--but +this is not the central idea embodied in the passage. + +There is another Scriptural allusion which suggests the idea of a +Heavenly Conclave, and great act of Creation in heaven. It may be +considered somewhat remote, and even fanciful--but the fact is recorded +_both_ in the Old Testament and the New, and _something_ must be meant +by it. And, moreover, other and very meaningless interpretations have +been from the earliest times given, so that I can hardly omit the +subject if I would. I refer to the permanent presence in heaven, around +the Divine Throne, of the singular forms of being called _Cherubim_, +which seem to indicate some mysterious connection between the life-forms +of earth and the inhabitants of heaven, and some permanent +representation of typical created forms in heaven. In Ezekiel, chapter +i., and again in chapter x., this vision is presented to us. + +The prophet was to be prepared, by a very vivid exhibition of the power +and glory of God as the Author and Ruler of the universe, to appreciate +the depth of degradation to which the Jews had fallen in their rejection +of such a God as their Lord and King and of the justice of the terrible +overthrow which was the consequence of that rejection. + +The vision then displayed (as I understand it) GOD surrounded by the +typical forms of creation and the irresistible forces of nature. All +forms of life, all energies of nature, were thus shown to be His +creatures. There, around the throne, were four "cherubim" of remarkable +appearance. They were accompanied by the appearances of fiery orbs like +beryl stones, revolving in all directions with ceaseless energy. Any +account of this vision that I can give is, however, pitiable beside the +inexpressibly sublime picture drawn in Ezekiel, to which I must refer +the reader for his own study. And imagine what the feelings of the +prophet must have been when, fresh from the impression of this grandeur +of Creation--this glory and irresistible power of God as the Centre and +great Mover of all, he was taken to witness the pitiable sight of the +Jews turning away from His worship, and to see their elders burning +incense before walls covered with "every form of creeping things and +abominable beasts--all the idols of the house of Israel![1]" How must +the vision have prepared him to realize the depth of degradation with +which he had to contend, and have fired him with energy to denounce it! + +There is, then, I think, considerable probability in the contention that +the vision represents God in Creation, surrounded by the types of +creation and the forces of nature. + +There is, no doubt, the ancient tradition that the four Cherubim meant +the four Gospels; and this has now become deeply associated with +ecclesiastical symbolism. But I submit that this is only a fancy which +can best be left to church embroidery and stained windows; it is +unworthy of any serious notice. The beings are described, it will be +observed, with great minuteness: all have the same characteristic powers +of rapid motion, and all have _human hands_, a fact that so strikes the +prophet that he repeats it three times.[2] These four Cherubim, then, +seem to me clearly to indicate the archetypes of Creation, the great +design-forms of created life, showing themselves the progressive scale +from the Animal to the Man and the Angel. And these four great types +exactly answer to the resulting groups of created life. We have the +development of _Reptilia_ into _Birds_ as one final type; consequently +one face of each cherub has the Bird type--the Eagle head[3]. Two other +faces on each give us the _Animal_ type, one representing again the +great order Carnivora (the Lion), the other the Herbivorous Ungulates +(the Ox or Calf); while the fourth face indicates the last development, +_Man_. + + +[Footnote 1: Ezek. viii. 10.] + +[Footnote 2: See chapters i. 8, x. 8, and x. 21. Remark, in passing, +that the human hand has always been the subject of wonder as an evidence +of Divine skill in Creation. Sir Charles Bell's Bridgewater treatise, on +the human hand as illustrating the proof of Divine wisdom and +contrivance in Creation, is just as good an argument _for Design_ now as +ever it was. I cannot here resist the temptation to notice one of those +small points in which the accuracy of the Bible is so constantly brought +to light. The popular notion of angels gives them wings as well as +hands--a form quite impossible from the natural history point of view; +_all_ animals of the vertebrate orders never have _more_ than two pairs +of limbs. And in winged animals the fore-limbs become wings. The popular +notion about angels is, however, artistic, not Biblical. Just the +contrary in fact. Here _is_ a vision of a mysterious form with wings and +hands, but how?--the figures are fourfold; and being winged, each +division might have been winged like the eagle, so each cherub would +have had _eight_ wings. But as one of the divisions had a human face and +human hands, the prophet only saw _six_ wings to each, leaving one +division where, nature's _Divine type_ being obeyed, there were _hands_, +and consequently no wings.] + +[Footnote 3: Reptiles are unrepresented, perhaps as not being a final +type.] + +I would say here, as regards the animal creation being represented by a +double form, that it is most curious to notice that this double division +of animals is found throughout Scripture, and seems to have its +counterpart in the actual facts of creation on earth. + +Accompanying these created beings in this remarkable vision were +"wheels" which appeared to be spheres within spheres, revolving with +ceaseless activity and never turning, but always going forward. The +wheels were full of eyes. It appears to me probable that these +symbolize--and if so the symbol is at once full of meaning and +grandeur--the inevitable, ever wakeful energies and forces of nature, +the marvellous agency of electricity, chemical affinity, heat, +attraction, repulsion, and so forth. We are accustomed to speak of +"blind force;" but here observe the wheels are _full of eyes_, ever +vigilant to fulfil the purpose for which they are appointed. And this +representation of _forces_ appears necessary to complete a symbolic +representation of God in nature: since the world is made up of dead +matter, of living forms, and of forces or energies which are in +ceaseless motion and action, producing the changes which in fact +constitute the working of the whole system. + +I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the imagery of this vision lend +support to the belief that there was a great Creation enacted in heaven, +which was followed by the actual carrying out of the processes on earth, +_but which has retained its representative forms in the heaven itself_. +Had this vision stood alone, it might have been passed over, on the +ground that it deals with high and transcendental matters, and that it +would be hardly safe to let a practical argument rest too much on it. +But the fact is that again in the New Testament a very similar vision is +mentioned (in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation): here again +the four living creatures represent the typical forms of life, the +bird, the carnivorous and herbivorous animals, and man; and it will be +observed that in this case there is hardly room to doubt that we have an +exhibition of _Creation_, for there is express allusion to it in the +address of the elders--"Thou hast _created all things_, and for Thy +pleasure they are and were created." + + + + +CHAPTER XV. + +_AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT._ + + +But a step further is necessary: if the conclusion that I have come to, +by accepting "day" in its ordinary and natural sense, and by giving a +hitherto overlooked (and so far a new) meaning to "creation," is sound, +it must not only be rendered probable by reference to other parts of +Scripture written when Genesis was much nearer its original publication +than it is now; it is still (before all things) necessary, that the +interpretation adopted should be conformable to the context. + +And I have heard it objected that there are verses which imply not only +a Divine Act in heaven, with the Sons of God in conclave around the +throne--sublime and wonderful picture!--but also distinctly indicate a +corresponding action on earth, and so require us to include in our +rendering of "creation" _both_ the ideas which (page 169 ante) I have +admitted may, on occasion be required by the terms. For example: after +the creative command in verses 7, 9, 11, 15, and 24, is declared, it is +followed by the words of fulfilment--"and it was so;" and in verse 11, +when God has said "Let the earth bring forth grass, &c.", in the next +verse it is positively recorded that the earth _did_ bring forth grass, +&c. + +I of course admit all this, but it is in no way opposed to my +suggestion. + +The _commencement_ of the _result_ probably, if not necessarily, +followed immediately on the issue of the finished command, viz., the +promulgation of the forms to be obtained and the processes to be +followed. The _whole_ result did not become accomplished then and there, +in the time mentioned, or exactly in the order mentioned: we know that +for a fact. Take, for example, the case of _vegetation_. Here the +author, in terms at once precise and universally intelligible, speaks of +"vegetation[1]" (grass of the A.V.), "herb yielding seed," and "trees +yielding fruit," thereby exhaustively enumerating the members of the +vegetable kingdom. + + +[Footnote 1: Nothing more is meant by the Hebrew "_deshe_." The true +"grasses" (_graminea_),--cereals, bamboos, &c., are certainly not +intended, for these are all conspicuously flowering plants, "herbs +yielding seed," and therefore coming under the second plainly defined +group. But the general term "sproutage" or "vegetation" is just adapted +to signify the mass of cryptogamic plant-life, the mosses, lichens, +algae, and then ferns, &c., which evidently formed the first stage of +plant-life on the globe.] + +Now, as a matter of fact, there was no one long (or short) period +during which the whole of this command was realized, _before_ the next +creative act occurred. + +At first _algae_ and low forms of vegetable life appeared; and doubtless +we have lost myriads upon myriads of such lower forms of plant-life in +the early strata, because such forms were ill calculated for +fossil-preservation, owing to the absence of woody fibre, silicious +casing, or hard fruit or seed vessels. But when we first have a marked +accumulation of specialized plant-life in the coal measures (Upper +Carboniferous), it is still only of cryptogams--ferns and great club +mosses. A beginning of true seed-bearing plants (Gymnosperm exogens) had +been made with the _conifers_ of the Devonian strata; but true +_grasses_, and the other orders of phanerogamic plants and arboreous +vegetation, do not appear till the tertiary rocks were deposited, very +long after the age of fish and great reptiles had culminated, and the +inauguration of the bird age and the mammalian age had taken place. + +Looking only to the abundant, prominent, and characteristic life-forms +of the several strata, it could certainly be said that the period +when the _water_ actually brought forth a vast mass of its +life-forms--corals, sertularias, crustaceans, and fish of the lower +orders--must have _preceded_ (not followed) the time when the earth +produced vegetation of all kinds, and further that it must have come +after the appearance of scorpions and some land insects.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: A single wing found little more than a year ago is the sole +evidence of insects older than the Devonian; and scorpions +(highly-organized crustaceans) have been found in the Upper Silurian in +some abundance.] + +Moreover, as the regular succession in periods of light and darkness on +the earth, and the sequence of seasons was not organized (but only a +generally diffused light, and, probably, an uniform and moist state of +climate without seasons) till _after_ the commands for the formation of +the whole of the large classes of plants, both cryptogams and +phanerogams, it is obvious that as many of these would require the +fuller development of seasonal influences, the whole process could not +have been worked out before the fourth day's creative work was begun. + +This instance alone--and it would be easy to add others--shows that the +narrative cannot be meant to indicate what actually happened on earth, +i.e., to summarize the _entire realization_ of the Divine command. + +Such being the plain facts with regard to the _kind of accomplishment_ +meant by the terms "it was so," "the earth brought forth," &c., it is +quite plain that no violence is done to the text by explaining it as +intended to describe what God did in heaven, with the addition, that as +each command was formulated, the result on earth surely followed, the +thing "was so," and the earth and water respectively no doubt _began_ +to "bring forth." More than this cannot be made out on _any_ +interpretation that accords with facts. It seems so clear to me that +this is so, that I hardly need refer to the use of the terms the +"_waters brought forth"_ and the "_earth brought forth"_ and the phrase +in chapter ii. 5--the Lord made every plant _before it grew_. + +If, as we have been long allowed to suppose, God spake and the water and +earth were _at once_ fully and finally peopled with animals where before +nothing but plants had existed, and so on, I should hardly have expected +the use of words which imply a gradual process--a gestation and +subsequent birth (so to speak) of life-forms. + +How the _order_ in which the events are recorded stands in relation to +the subsequent history of life-development on earth, and what its +significance may be, I will consider later on. First I will conclude the +argument for the general interpretation of the narrative. + + +2. _The Second Genesis Narrative._ + +I have only one more direct argument to offer; but I think it is a very +important one. The first division of Genesis ends with the Divine +commands creating man and the day of rest which followed. The narrative +ending at chapter ii. verse 3 (the division of chapters here, as +elsewhere, is purely arbitrary), we have at verse 4 of chapter ii, what +has been loudly proclaimed as _another_ account of _the same_ Creation, +which, it is added (arbitrarily enough--but _any_ argument will do if +only it is against religion!) is contrary to the first.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: The contradiction is supposed to be in verse 19, as if then +the creation of animals was for the first time effected--after the man +and his helpmate. But it is quite clear that the text refers to the fact +that God had created animals; the command was, "Let the earth bring +forth," and the immediate act spoken of was not the formation of +animals, but the bringing of them to Adam to see what he would call +them.] + +Now, even if there is a _second_ account of Creation, it would surely be +a circumstance somewhat difficult to explain. _Contrary_ in any possible +sense, the narrative (from chapter ii. 4, onward) certainly is not. But +why should there be a second narrative at all? On the hitherto received +supposition that chapter i. intends to tells us the _process_ of +creation--what God caused to be done on earth, not merely what He did in +heaven--there is apparently no room for a second narrative. Nor have I +seen any completely satisfactory explanation. But if we accept the view +that the first chapter explains the Divine Design, and its being +published (so to speak) and commanded in heaven, then it would be very +natural that that narrative should be followed by a second, which should +detail not the _whole_ process of all life existence on earth, but (as +the Bible is to be henceforth concerned with Man, his fall and his +redemption) with an account of _just so much of the_ process as relates +to the actual birth on the earth's surface of the particular man Adam, +the most important (and possibly not the only) outcome of the _fiat_ +recorded in chapter i. vers. 27, 28. + +In this view, not only _a_ second narrative, but just the particular +kind of narrative we actually have, is not only natural, but even +necessary. _Before_, we had a general account of how God ordained the +scheme of material-form and life-form on the earth; _now_ we have a +detailed account of how He actually carried out one portion of it--that +one portion we are most concerned to hear about, namely the man Adam, +the progenitor of our own race, of whom came JESUS CHRIST, "the son of +Adam.[1]" + +The account is designed to introduce to us the scene of Adam's +birthplace--the Garden of Eden.[2] The mention of a garden, and the +subsequent important connection of the trees of that garden with the +conduct of the man, naturally turn the writer's attention to the general +subject of the vegetation on the earth's surface. He prefaces his new +account accordingly with a brief summary--which I may paraphrase thus +without, I trust, departing from the sense of the original: "Such was +the origin of the earth (and all in it) and of the heavenly host, at the +time when God made them. He had made every plant _before_ it was in the +earth--every herb of the field _before_ it grew" (mark the language as +confirming what I have said--God "created" everything before it actually +developed and grew into being on the earth). "Rain did not then fall (in +the same way as now) on the earth, but the mist that exhaled from the +soil re-condensed, and fell and moistened the ground; but there was as +yet no MAN to till and cultivate the soil." + + +[Footnote 1: St. Luke iii. 38.] + +[Footnote 2: Which had a real historic existence. _Vide_ Appendix A.] + +Then God actually formed or fashioned _a man_. It is not now that He +created the ideal form to be produced in due time, but that He actually +formed the individual Adam, and placed him in a garden which He had +prepared for the purpose. All the words used now imply actual +production. The Divine ideal was ready, and the earth-elements (of which +we know man's body to consist) were ready at the Divine word to assume +the human shape. And that done, God "breathed into his nostrils the +breath of life" (mark the direct _act_ on the man himself), and the man +became a "living soul." There is nothing here of the "earth bringing +forth" as in the former narrative. We have the direct act of God, not in +the design only, but in the production of the thing itself. + +If this is not a complete explanation and justification of the second +narrative, I do not know what, in common fairness, is entitled to be so +called. + +The language may be rigorously examined, and it will fully bear out the +position taken up. + +I conceive, then, that the cumulation of proof need go no further. The +true explanation of Genesis i. also supplies the place for Genesis ii. +4, _et seq._, and overcomes all the difficulty that has hitherto +existed on the subject. + +It will now, I trust, be clear that by such an interpretation of Genesis +we at once give (1) a full and natural meaning to all the terms; we +reconcile it with other Scripture, and we enhance all the sublime +attributes which we have been reverentially accustomed to connect with +this ancient passage. (2) We obviate the difficulty regarding the second +narrative in chapter ii. 4. And (3) we place the whole above any +possible conflict with science, and above any need for "reconciliation." +Here, too, is a purpose and meaning assigned to the _whole_ narrative, +without being driven into the difficult position of supposing the verses +to be the literary outcome of an ignorant imagination which gave +expression to its crude ideas only--though enshrining among utterly +false details a sublime truth, regarding which one can only wonder why +it could not have been stated without the encumbrance of the +surroundings. + +The naturalist and the biologist may continue, unquestioned, to work out +more and more of the wondrous story of Life on the globe. They can never +disprove, or on any of their own grounds deny, that God is the Author of +all things--matter, force, and mind alike; that He designed the form and +relations of the earth; that He organized its light, its seasons, and +its changes; that He has furnished the types and patterns of all +life-forms which matter and force are conformably thereto, developing +on the earth. In short, REVELATION tells us that God did all this "in +the beginning," how His form-designs were thought out and declared in +six days, and how He rested on the seventh day. + +SCIENCE will tell us how, when, and where the Creative fiats and the +designs of heaven were realized and worked out on earth. + +Here is the separate province of each, without fear of clashing, or room +for controversy. + + + + +CHAPTER XVI. + +_THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE._ + + +§1. _The Explanation of the Verses._ + +It remains only now to go over the narrative, the _general_ bearing of +which I have thus endeavoured to vindicate, so that minor matters of +detail, in which it is supposed (1) that some contradiction to known +physical fact may still lurk, and (2) something that negatives the +explanation suggested, may be cleared up. + +Let us take it seriatim:-- + +"In the beginning God created the heaven (plural in the original) and +the earth." + +As I have before remarked, we have no real need to discuss whether +"bara" means originated (created where nothing previously existed), or +whether we should render it "fashioned," i.e., moulded material (thus +assumed in terms to be) already in existence. + +Either will yield perfectly good and consistent sense; but, as a matter +of fact, there is a virtual consensus of the best scholars that the +word is here used to denote original production of the material. + +It is also clear that the text is intended to embrace the whole system +of planets, suns, stars, and whatever else is in space. So the Psalmist +understood it: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and _all_ +the host of them by the breath of his mouth.[1]" Nor is there any +reasonable doubt, exegetically, that the subsequent allusion to the sun, +moon, and stars, refers (as the sense of the text itself obviously +requires) to their _appointment_ or adjustment to certain relations with +the earth, and assumes their original material production in space, to +have been already stated or understood. + +"And the earth was (became) without form[2] and void, and darkness was +upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of +the waters." + +I have, in another connection, already remarked on this verse, and so +shall not repeat those remarks. + + +[Footnote 1: Psa. xxxiii. 6, and so Psa. cii. 25; _cf_. 2 Peter iii. 5.] + +[Footnote 2: Waste (R.V.).] + +I will only say that the elemental strife and rushing together of +chemical elements under the stress of various forces and the presence of +enormous heat, would naturally envelop the globe in dense vapours, a +large portion of which would be watery vapour, capable of condensation +or of dispersion, under proper conditions, afterwards to be prescribed +and realized. As it is beautifully expressed in Job xxxviii., "When I +made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling-band +for it" (verse 8). + +Then commences the serial order of Divine acts with reference to the +_Earth_:-- + + +(1) "AND GOD SAID; LET THERE BE LIGHT: AND THERE WAS LIGHT." + +This verse is commonly taken as indicating a creation of light for the +first time in the entire cosmos or universe. And if it be so, there is +no objection, on any scientific ground, to the assertion that there was +once a time when as yet the vibrations and waves which we connect with +the idea of Light, had not yet begun. It is true that nebular matter, as +now observed, is believed to be, partially at any rate, self-luminous. +But this fact, supposing it to be such, is not inconsistent with a still +earlier time when light had not yet begun. From the "wave-theory" of +light, which is one of those working hypotheses which are indispensable, +and which, in a sense, may be said to be demonstrated by their +indispensability, it can clearly be seen that if light is caused by +rapid vibrational movement, there must have been--or at any rate there +is nothing against an authoritative declaration that there was--a moment +of time when the first vibrational impulse was given, when, in fact, God +said "Let there be light, and there was light," _before_ which also +there was "darkness upon the face of the deep.[1]" + + +[Footnote 1: It also needs only to be remarked, in passing, that we are +really in complete ignorance as to the light-medium, the +"luminiferous-ether" outside the comparatively thin stratum of our own +terrestrial atmosphere. We do not know whether there might not have been +a condition of the medium in which, up to the moment of a creative +_fiat_, it was incapable of transmitting light-waves.] + +There is no necessary connection between the creation of light _per se_, +and the existence of any particular source (or sources) of light to our +planet or to other planets. + +No justification is now needed for such a remark, and the almost +forgotten cavils of one of the "Essays and Reviews" may still survive as +a "scientific" curiosity, to warn us against too hastily concluding that +(in subjects where so little is really _known_) the Bible must be wrong, +and the favourite hypothesis of the day right. + +But as a matter of fact, the text, especially when read in connection +with Job xxxviii., need not be taken to refer to any original creation +of light in the universe generally, but merely to the letting in of +light on the hitherto dark and "waste" earth. The command "Let there be +light" was followed on the next day by the formation of a firmament or +expanse. So that all the verse _necessarily_ implies is, that the thick +clouds and vapours which surrounded the earth were so dealt with, that +light could reach the earth: the light was thus divided from the +darkness, and the rotating globe would experience the alternation of day +and night. + +The "day" having thus been created formally (so to speak), the Divine +Author proceeds to mark, by His own Procedure, the use of the "days" +which He had provided for the earth. + +On this view, of course, the origin of light as a "force"--the first +beginning of its pulsations--is not detailed, any more than the origin +of electric force, or heat, or gravitation. + +Here, too, I may remark that the idea of _creation_, which it has been +one of my chief objects to develop, is illustrated. This remark holds +good, whether an original creation of light is intended, or only an +arrangement whereby light was for the first time introduced to the +earth's surface. The idea of creating light not only involves the Divine +Conception of the thing, and the marvellous method of its production,[1] +but doubtless, also, all those wonderful laws of reflection, refraction, +polarization, and a thousand others, which the science of Physical +Optics investigates. + + +[Footnote 1: And this is still a mystery to us. _What_ light is we do +not know--we can only speak of our own sensation of it. Nor do we know +_what_ vibrates to produce light. Hypothetical terms, such as "ether," +"luminiferous-medium," and so forth, only conceal our ignorance.] + +Naturally enough, in this case, the double idea involved in +creation--the Divine concept and its realization--will, in the nature of +things, fall into one. No process of evolution is required; none is +indicated by science. Directly the Divine hand gave the impulse +concurrently with the Divine thought--light would be. In the nature of +things there is no place for a line between the Divine fiat and its +realization, as there is in the production of life-forms on the earth. +Or, on the other view, directly the Divine command went forth, the +vapours would clear and allow the transmission of light. + + +(2) "AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE A FIRMAMENT (EXPANSE) IN THE MIDST OF +THE WATERS, AND LET IT DIVIDE THE WATERS FROM THE WATERS....AND GOD +CALLED THE FIRMAMENT HEAVEN." + +There has been gathered round this verse what I may call rather an +ill-natured controversy, because there is no real ground for it; and the +objections taken seem rather of a desire to find out something against +the narrative at any price, than to make the best of it. The verse, when +duly translated, implies that an "expanse"--the setting of a clear space +of atmosphere around the globe--formed one of the special +design-thoughts of the Creator, followed by its immediate (or gradual) +accomplishment. I think we should have hardly had so much cavilling over +this word "expanse" if it had not been for the term subsequently used by +the Seventy in their Greek version ([Greek: stereôma]). The ancients, it +is said, believed the space above the earth to be "solid." + +Now I would contend that even if the Hebrew writer had any mistaken or +confused notions in his own mind, that would not afford any just ground +against revelation itself. But I would point out that many of the +expressions which may be quoted to show the idea of solidity, are +clearly poetical. And if we go to the poetic or semi-poetic aspect of +things, may I not ask whether there is not a certain sense in which the +earth-envelope may be said to be solid? The air has a considerable +density, its uniform and inexorable pressure on every square inch of the +earth's surface is very great. Such a word as [Greek: stereôma] +(_firmamentum_) does not imply solidity in the sense in which gold is +solid--as if the heavens were a mass of metal, and the stars set in it +like jewels; it implies, rather, something fixed and offering +resistance. + +It is obvious that a creative act was necessary for this "expanse." We +know of spheres that have no atmosphere; and we are so ignorant of the +true nature of what is beyond the utmost reach of our air-stratum, that +there is room for almost any consistent conjecture regarding it. + +Moreover, observe that the atmosphere is not a _chemical_ combination of +gases, and one, therefore, that would take place like any other of the +metallic, saline, or gaseous combinations, of which no detailed account +is given--all being covered by the general phrase, "God created the +heaven and the earth." The air is a mechanical mixture, pointing to a +special design and a special act of origin. The necessary proportions of +each gas and its combined properties could not have originated without +guidance. + +But the main purpose of the expanse, as stated in the text, was to +regulate the water supply. That vast masses of watery vapour must at one +time have enveloped the globe, seems probable--apart from revelation; +and that part of this should condense into seas and fresh-water, and +part remain suspended to produce all the phenomena of invisible +air-moisture and visible cloud, while an "expanse" was set, so that the +earth surface should be free, and that light might freely penetrate, and +sound also, and that all the other regular functions of nature dependent +on the existing relation of earth and air should proceed--all this was +very necessary. And when we recollect what a balanced and complex scheme +it is--how very far from being a simple thing; we recognize in the +adjustment of earth's atmospheric envelope, a special result worthy of +the day's work. + +Whether the separation between the condensed but ever re-evaporating and +re-condensing water on the earth's surface, and the water vapour in the +atmosphere, is _all_ that is meant by the division of the "waters that +are above the firmament" from those below, it would not be wise to +assert. We know so little of the condition of space beyond our own air, +and so little of the great stores of hydrogen which have been suggested +to exist in space (and might combine to form vast quantities of liquid), +that we may well leave the phrase as it stands, content with a partial +explanation. + + +(3) "AND GOD SAID, LET THE WATERS UNDER THE HEAVEN BE GATHERED TOGETHER +UNTO ONE PLACE, AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR: AND IT WAS SO. AND GOD +SAID, LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS (VEGETATION), HERB YIELDING SEED, +AND FRUIT TREE BEARING FRUIT AFTER ITS KIND, WHEREIN IS THE SEED +THEREOF." + +The only remarks that the first part of this verse calls for, are, +_first_, that it explains how far from mere chance-work the emergence of +land from the water was; _second_ how well it illustrates the use of +terms relating to creation. + +The whole scheme of the distribution of the surface of earth into land +and water is one which demanded Divine foresight and a complete ideal[1] +which was to be attained by the action and reaction of natural forces, +just as much as the production of the most specialized form of plant-or +animal-life. + + +[Footnote 1: Compare Job xxxviii. 10, 11, and Psa. civ. 9.] + +This is not the place to go into detail as to how much of the world's +life-history and its climatic conditions depend on the distribution of +land and water. It is sufficient to recognize the immense importance of +that distribution. + +But, in the second place, it will be observed that while it is natural +to suppose (though not logically necessary) that the working out of the +Divine plan _commenced_ immediately on the issue of the Divine command +and the declared formulation of the Divine scheme, yet we know--few +things are better known--that the whole scheme was not completely +realized in one day, or one age--certainly not _before_ there was any +appearance of plant-life, aquatic, or dry land, or any appearance of +animal-life. + +I believe (though I have lost my reference) it is held by some +authorities that the position of the great _oceans_ as they are now (and +omitting, of course, all minor coast variations) has been fixed from +very early geologic times. But, apart from that, we have ample evidence +of whole continents arising and being again submerged; and of continual +changes between land and water of the most wide-reaching character again +and again happening during the progress of the world's history. So that +here we may see clearly an instance where the revelation of the creative +act must be held to refer to the great primal design--teaching us that +it is a fact that at first all _was_ laid down, foreseen, and designed +by the Creator; but not referring to anything like an account of the +_results_ upon earth, which, for aught we know to the contrary, may not +yet be complete. + +As to the second part of the text, we are here introduced to the +commencement of life-forms on earth. + +No separation is recorded. Directly the chemical elements of matter have +so combined that a solid earth and liquid water (salt and fresh) are +formed, and the cooling process has gone on sufficiently long to enable +the dense vapours partly to settle down and condense, partly to remain +as vapour (dividing the waters above from the waters below)--directly +this process is aided by the admission of diffused light and by the +adjustment of the atmosphere, and the superficial adjustment of the +distribution of water and land surface is provided for, then plant-life +is organized. + +It will be observed that even aquatic plants and algae though growing in +or under water, are nevertheless connected with the _earth_; so that the +phrase, "Let the _earth_ bring forth," is by no means inappropriate. + +The earliest rock deposits are able to tell us little about the first +beginning of plant-life. Moreover, as animal-life began only with the +interval of one day (the fourth), we should expect to find--on the +supposition that the heavenly _fiat_ at once received the _commencement_ +of its fulfilment on each day--that the first lowly specimens of +vegetable and animal life are almost coeval. And this is (apparently) +the fact. + +It is to be remarked that plant and animal always appear in nature as +two separate and _parallel_ kingdoms. It is not that the plant is lower +than the animal, so that the highest plant takes on it some of the first +characters which mark the lowest animal: but both start separately from +minute and little specialized forms so similar that it is extremely +difficult to say which is plant and which is animal.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: See this well summarized in Nicholson's "Manual of Zoology" +(sixth edition, 1880), p. 13, _et seq._] + +All the beginnings of life in _either_ kingdom would therefore be +ill-adapted (most of them, at any rate) for preservation in +rock-strata.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: I think this is quite sufficient, without relying on the +evidence of the great quantities of _carbon_ in the earliest +(Laurentian, Huronian, &c.) strata in the form of graphite. It is +possible, or even probable, that this may be due to carbon supplied by +masses of little specialized _Thallophyte_ and _Anophyte_ vegetation.] + +All we know for certain is that vegetable-life was closely coeval with +the lowest animal-life, and that it was very long before specialized +forms, even of _cryptogams_, made a great show in the world. + +Probability is entirely in favour of the actual priority being in +vegetable forms; and more than that is not required. For the Mosaic +narrative, while it places the origin of the vegetable kingdom actually +first, lets the _fiat_ for the animal kingdom follow almost immediately. + +As to the _order_ of appearance of the plants, I will reserve my remarks +for the moment. + + +(4) "AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE HEAVEN, +TO DIVIDE THE DAY FROM THE NIGHT; AND LET THEM BE FOR SIGNS, AND FOR +SEASONS, AND FOR DAYS, AND FOR YEARS: AND LET THEM BE FOR LIGHTS IN THE +FIRMAMENT TO GIVE LIGHT ON THE EARTH." + +The sun and the stars, and all the host of heaven, are clearly +understood to have been created "in the beginning," under the general +statement of fact which forms the first verse of the narrative. + +The 14th verse has always been understood to refer to the establishment +of the _relations_ between the earth and the sun, moon, and stars, +which have, as a matter of fact, been recognized by all ages and all +people ever since. The writer of the 104th Psalm certainly so understood +the passage-- + + "He appointed the moon for seasons; + The sun knoweth his going down.[1]" + +The writer was instructed to use popularly intelligible language, and so +the text speaks of the lights as they _appear_ in the sky or firmament. + +Even if we suppose that before this act, the sun was already +incandescent, and the moon capable of reflecting the light, the whole +arrangement of the earth's rotation may have been such that the +alternations of light and darkness may have been very different from +what they are now, and the seasons also. A moment's reflection regarding +the obliquity of the earth's axis, nutation, the precession of the +equinoxes, the eccentricity of the orbit and the changes in the position +of the orbit, will show us what ample room there was for a special +adjustment and adaptation between the earth and its satellite and +between both to the solar centre.[2] So that faith which accepts this as +a Divine arrangement made among the special and formal acts of Creation, +cannot be said to be unreasonable, or to be flying in the face of any +known facts. + + +[Footnote 1: Ver. 19, &c. The same word is also used of "making" priests +(l Kings xii. 31), and appointing (R.V.)("advancing" A.V.), ("making," +as we familiarly say) Moses and Aaron (1 Sam. xii. 6).] + +[Footnote 2: And the Psalmist justly speaks of God as _preparing_ the +light of the sun (Psa. lxxiv. 16).] + +It is very remarkable, as showing how little we can attribute this +narrative, on any basis of probability, to mere fancy or guess-work, +that this matter should have been assigned to the fourth day--_after_ +the fiat for plant-life had gone forth. + +But the fact is that the unregulated light, and the vaporous uniform +climate that must have continued if the fourth day's command had never +issued, though it might have served for a time for the lowest beginnings +of life, especially marine or aquatic, would ultimately have rendered +any advance in the series of design impossible. Such a fact would never +have occurred to an ignorant and uninspired writer. + +It is here impossible to say whether the whole arrangements indicated +were made at once in obedience to the Divine Design, or were produced +gradually. + +It has been suggested that uniformity of climate and temperature +continued up till the carboniferous ages, at any rate; and it is only in +the later ages that such differences of _fauna_ in different parts of +the world appear, as to show differences of climate more like what we +have at present. + +Whether this is so or not, I am not concerned to argue. The narrative +tells us that God did, at a certain point in his Creative work, design +and ordain the necessary arrangements; and physical science may find +out, when it is able, how and when the adjustments spoken of came about. + +(5) AND GOD SAID-- + (i.) Let the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life, + (ii.) Let fowl fly above the earth on the face of the expanse. + +As to (i.) the "creation" consisted of--great sea-monsters (or water +monsters), and every living thing that moveth. + +Then the animal life received a _blessing_. Animals, even the lowliest, +are capable of a new feature in life--happiness in their being, which +cannot be predicated of plants. + +(6) AND GOD SAID-- + (i.) Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind ... + the beast of the earth _after its kind (Carnivora)_, cattle + _after its kind_ (_Ungulata_), and everything that creepeth on + the ground _after its kind_.[1] + +And also-- + + (ii.) Let us make man.... So God created man in His + own image--in the image of God created He him; male + and female created He them. + +(7) Then followed the day of rest. + + +[Footnote 1: See page 178.] [Transcriber's Note: Chapter XIV.] + +§ 2. _The Order of Events considered._ + +It was convenient first to bring these later Creative Acts together +before beginning any remarks about any one of them. + +It will now be desirable to notice what occurred, because here the +question of _order_ is concerned. I could not avoid a partial statement +on this subject at an earlier page, nor would it be quite sufficient +simply to refer the reader back to those pages. At the risk of some +repetition, I will therefore consider the subject here. It will be +observed that on the older interpretation, which passed over the special +act of God in _designing_ and _publishing the design,_ and descended at +once to the earth to the process of producing the designed forms, this +order was matter of great importance. + +Granting the supporters of this view that the six days are unequal +periods often of vast duration, with or without important subdivisions, +they are bound to make out that each creation began, and was at any rate +well advanced, _before_ the next began. We ought, in fact, to see a +period more or less prolonged when the whole of what is indicated in the +_plant_ verse was well advanced, _before_ any marine or fresh-water life +appeared at all.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: There was "evening and morning" of the third day, i.e., +beginning and _completion_, and also the whole interval of the fourth +day, _before_ the command of the fifth.] + +All attempts to make out that this _was_ so, have proved failures. It is +assumed, for instance (and justly so), that life on the globe began with +low vegetable forms; these represented the "grass" of the text, and it +is suggested that the "fruit tree" is represented by the Devonian and +Carboniferous _conifers_. This in itself is a very strained view. It is +recollected that the terms used are not scientific, but for the world at +large; but without confining "fruit tree" to mean only trees having +_edible_ fruit, still the appearance of a few first species of +_conifers_ in the Devonian, can hardly be called an adequate fulfilment +of the requirements of the passage. But even so, myriads of fish and +other animals existed _before_ the Devonian and Carboniferous plant age. + +The animal forms that so existed, have therefore to be _ignored_, or are +assumed to have been created without special notice: and it is said that +the Mosaic period of "moving creatures of the deep," fishes and +monsters, only began when the rocks begin to show _great abundance_ of +shells, of fish, and subsequently of huge reptilians which prepared the +way for birds--which gradually make their appearance towards the Trias. + +But the Devonian "age of fishes" (Devonian including old red sandstone) +was far too important a period to be thus got rid of; and it is +difficult to understand _why_ the narrative should exclude all the +extensive and beautiful (though often little specialized) orders of +marine life--all the Corals, the Mollusca and Articulata, which had long +abounded--especially some of the Crustaceans, not an unimportant group +of which (_Trilobite_[1]) had also culminated and almost passed away +before the Devonian; to say nothing of the fact that _land_ "creeping +things" (scorpions among _crustacea_, and apparently winged insects) had +occurred. + + +[Footnote 1: It is remarkable that the Trilobites rapidly culminated, so +that we have the largest and most perfect forms, such as _Paradoxus_, +with the lowest (_Agnostus_) in the same beds in Wales (Etheridge's +"Phillips' Manual," Part II. p. 32).] + +It is a special difficulty also, that if _insects_ are included among +the "creeping things" of the _earth_ then various families of the +"land-creation" (sixth day) became represented _before_ the great +reptiles of the "water-creation" (fifth day). + +The fact is that a glance at the subjoined Tables (which are only +generally and approximately correct) will suffice to show how the main +features of the progress of life-forms differ from what is required by +the older methods of reading Genesis. To reduce the table within limits, +I have grouped together all the lower forms of life in the animal table, +viz., the sponges, corals, encrinites, and molluscs. It is sufficient to +say that these appear in all the rocks except the very oldest--the +Caelenterata beginning, and the Molluscoids exhibiting an early order in +_brachiopoda_, which seems to be dying out. Crustaceans and insects +appeared as early as Silurian times. + +The idea of successive "kingdoms" or "periods," each of which was +_complete_ in its actual fauna upon earth before the next was fully +ushered in, can no longer be defended. + +It is in the _completion_ of one class of life before the other, that +the fallacy of the period theory lies--for completion is essential to +that theory which supposes "the Mosaic author" to have intended to +describe the _process of production on earth_. + +But it is quite impossible to deny that there _is_ a certain observable +movement and gradual procession in the history of life which is exactly +consistent with what is most likely to have happened, supposing the +Divine designs of life-forms were first declared in successive order at +short intervals of time, and then that the processes of nature worked +out the designs in the fulness of time and gradually in order, each one +_beginning_ before the next, but only beginning. + +I do not deny that it is perfectly _conceivable_ that the Creator might +have designed the forms in one order, and that the actual production or +evolution of the corresponding living creatures might not have been (for +reasons not understood) exactly, or even at all, coincident with the +order. + +But it is impossible to deny the strong feeling of probability that the +commands would _begin_ to be worked out, in the order in which they were +uttered. + +And here it is that the correspondence which undoubtedly exists, gives +rise to controversy. + +From one point of view it is just enough to encourage the "period" +holders to try and arrange a scheme; but it is just hot enough to +prevent their opponents (justly) taxing them with straining or +"torturing" the text and failing fairly to make out their case after +all. From another point of view the correspondence is so far +established, and so undeniably unprecedented (in human cosmogonies) and +noteworthy, as to demand imperatively our careful consideration and +compel us to account for it. + +It will be observed, first of all, that the whole "creation" (omitting +all incidental and preparatory works) is stated in _groups_ each having +an order within itself. + +_Group_ 1. God created (both land and water) "vegetation"--plants +yielding seed, fruit-trees. + +_Group_ 2. +In water, not necessarily excluding _amphibia_:--Great aquatic monsters; +fish and all other creatures that move. In air:--Winged fowl. + +_Group_ 3. On land generally--for some forms are amphibious:--Beasts +(_Carnivora_), cattle (_Ungulata_, &c.), and other things that creep +on the ground (the smaller and lower forms of life collectively). + +The order _within_ the groups is evidently of no consequence, because +the writer does not adhere to it in two consecutive verses dealing with +the same subject; while the "versions" seem to point to some variations +in the text itself as to arrangement, though not as to substance. + +But as regards the order _of_ the groups themselves, it is, as I said, +very natural (but yet not logically inevitable) to expect that when the +results came to be existent on earth, those results should exhibit a +sequence corresponding to the order in which the groups were created. +And it is never denied (in _any_ of the most recent publications[1]) +that to this extent nature confirms the belief. + + +[Footnote 1: I have done my best to verify this from the well-known +latest Manuals of Etheridge, Seeley, and Alleyne-Nicholson.] + +I am aware that Professor Huxley's recent articles may at first sight +seem to go against this; but that is not so on any grounds of actual +fact, but of a particular _interpretation_--which I submit is wholly +unwarranted. + +For instance, it is insisted that the "sea-monsters" of the second group +included _sirenia_ and _cetacea_ (dugongs, manatees, and whales, +dolphins, &c.), which are mammals. In that case a portion of the command +would not have been obeyed--a number of the designed forms would have +been kept in abeyance--for a long time. And the same is still more true +if bats--a highly placed group of mammals--were included in "winged +fowl." + +But both these interpretations are distinctly arbitrary, incapable of +holding good, and also entirely ignore the conditions of a Revelation. + +The narrative is not discussed or defended as an ordinary secular +narrative, which is true according to the _writer's uninspired intention +or the state of his personal knowledge_. It is defended as a Revelation. +The distinction is as obvious as it is important, directly a moment's +consideration is accorded. + +If we assume, for a moment, that God _did_ (on any theory whatever of +Inspiration) instruct, direct, or enable the writer in making the +record, then it is obvious that the writer either put down what he saw +in a vision, or what was in some other manner borne on his mind. In any +case, he could have had no critical knowledge, and no historical +knowledge as an eye-witness, of the actual facts; and he may very well +therefore have used language the full meaning of which he did not +apprehend.[1] What alone is essential is, that the narrative as it +stands, on an ordinary critical, linguistic, and grammatical +interpretation, should not contain anything which is untrue. Suppose, +for example, the word "tannînîm" to be _incapable_ of bearing any other +meaning linguistically than "cetacean," then the narrative might be +objected to; but if it will bear a meaning which is consistent with +fact, then it is no matter that the writer at the time had an erroneous, +or (what is more likely) no defined, idea in his own mind of the +meaning. And so with "winged fowl"--the objection fails entirely, unless +it can be shown, not only that the writer might have thought "bats" to +be included, _but_ that linguistically the word _cannot have_ any other +meaning than one which would include bats.[2] + + +[Footnote 1: As is constantly the case in prophetic writings. Revelation +tells of the remote past sometimes as well as the future, and in neither +case could the inspired writer fully understand the meaning that was +wrapped up in his sentences.] + +[Footnote 2: As a matter of fact, in the one case, if the writer's +knowledge were of any importance, it is almost certain that he did _not_ +mean _cetacean_ or _sirenian_. In the other case it is impossible to say +whether he thought "bats" were included or not. It is not in the nature +of things that the writer could ever have seen or even heard of a +manatee or a dugong; nor is it likely that he had been a sea-farer, or +could have seen any Mediterranean cetacean. As far as his own knowledge +went, he probably had but a very confused idea. And if we refer to the +poetic description in Psalm civ. 25, 26, we find "leviathan," though +distinctly a sea creature, still one of which the writer had only a +vague traditional idea, certainly not a _known_ Mediterranean dolphin, +for in Job xli. the same term is applied to the crocodile.] + +We have every right, then, to say that the "tannînîm" of the text may be +taken to refer to that great and remarkable age of Saurians which is not +only of very great importance in itself, but becomes doubly so when we +see its connection backward with the fishes, and forward through the +Pterodactyles to Odontoformae (_Apatornis_ and _Icthyornis_) and modern +winged birds (_Hesperonis_ for the Penguins); and through the +Dinosaurs[1] with the Saurornithes, with the _Dinornis_ and the +struthious birds; and through the Theriodonts with the mammalian +_carnivora_. + + +[Footnote 1: And perhaps the pachydermatous mammals (Nicholson, +"Zoology," p. 566).] + +In that case the sequence of the two groups, plants and aquatic +animal-forms, is explained. They come almost together--plants being +probably actually the first, and mollusca, fishes, and saurians. + +There is, further, no real dispute that the Saurians led up to the Aves, +and that the third group (of mammals) follows all the members of the +second group. The earliest known mammal (_microlestes_) is an isolated +forerunner of not very certain location, the real bulk of the mammalian +orders beginning in the Eocene. Seeing, too, how very closely one +Creative command is recorded to have followed on the other, it is not in +any way against the narrative that some land forms of crustaceans and +insects (and possibly others) began to appear at an early stage, when +the vegetable and water-animal forms had only progressed as far as the +Silurian and Devonian ages. Nor should we wonder if mammalian forms had +occurred earlier. I mention this because of the evident gap in the +geologic record between the Cretaceous and the Eocene, and because in +the article of December, 1885 (and elsewhere), Professor Huxley has used +language which suggests that mammals may have existed of which the rocks +give no sign. E.g. (p. 855): "The organization of the bat, bird, or +pterodactyle, presupposes that of a terrestrial quadruped ... and is +intelligible only as an extreme modification of the organization of a +terrestrial _mammal or_ reptile." The italics are of course mine. And +again (p. 855), "I am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate +to admit that the organization of these animals (whales, dugongs, &c.) +shows the most obvious signs of their descent from terrestrial +quadrupeds." + +I do not quote these words of so great a master as presuming to question +them (even if, as a scientific verdict, I had any motive for so doing), +but merely to point out as a matter of plain and fair reasoning, that if +a Divine Creator had designed certain forms to be gradually attained by +the processes of Evolution, it would not be necessary that any actually +realized form or tangible creature should have existed as ancestors. +Logically, the necessity is _either_ that certain animals should have +actually existed whose descendants gradually lost or gained certain +features and functions till the forms we are speaking of resulted, _or_ +that certain patterns or designs should have been created according to +which development proceeded by regular laws till the forms in question +resulted. + +A few words as to the terms used in describing the contents of each +group, may be added. It is obvious that the terms are intended to be +exhaustive of certain main groups which are described sufficiently, +without being cast in a form which would have been incompatible with the +use (at the time) of a human agent as the medium of the recorded +Revelation. + +(1) "Vegetation" (of an indefinite character, but not bearing seed), +plants bearing seed, trees bearing fruit with the seed in it--certainly +exhaust the entire range of plant-life. + +(2) Moving creatures that live (and fish are afterwards expressly +mentioned) and great monsters (tann[i=]n[i=]m), cover the entire field +of life up to Reptilia as far as these are aquatic forms. + +(3) The terms used for the third group are also obviously +exhaustive--the separate mention of the _cattle_ and the _beast_ +(Carnivora and Ungulates) is a form which is invariably noticed +throughout the Old and New Testaments. The "creeping things" would +include all minor forms, all land reptiles not described above as the +"tann[i=]n[i=]m," and insects. + +And it is remarkable that the tortoises, the snakes, and, the more +modern forms of crocodile and lizard, and the amphibia and higher +insects, are all cainozoic--some of them were preceded by more or less +transitory representatives, e.g., the Carboniferous _Eosaurus_ and +Permian _Protosaurus_ the ancient Labyrinthodons and Urodelas, +Chelonians and the amphicaelian crocodiles. Snakes have no palaeozoic +representative. + +Land insects, as might naturally be expected, go back to the times when +land vegetation was sufficiently established, and appear gradually all +along the line from the Silurian onwards. The modern types, however, are +Tertiary. + +The succession, we observe, may be illustrated by the resemblance of a +number of arrows shot rapidly one after the other in so many parallel +courses: all would soon be moving nearly together. + +Plant-life, the subject of the first Divine designing, has, as far as we +can reasonably say, the start. According to known laws it appears in +elementary and undeveloped forms, and gradually progresses. One group +(Cryptogams) reaches a magnificent development and begins to die away in +point of grandeur, though still abundantly exemplified. Phanerogamic +plants in their lowest groups of gymnosperm exogens then begin to appear +in the Devonian conifers, gradually followed by _cycads_. And it is not +till Cainozoic times that we have the endogenous grasses and palms and +angiospermous exogens. + +But the command regarding animal life had followed the other after a +short interval, so that we soon see this developing _pari passu_ with +the other groups--first the lower marine forms and gradually advancing +to the Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, and then to Aves, as a special +division in the second great design group. Lastly the mammals appear and +man.[1] But throughout all, we see the rise, culmination, and decay of +many transitory and apparently preparatory groups--such as, for example, +the Labyrinthodons and Urodelas--preceding the modern types of Amphibia; +ancient fish-forms preceding modern ones, and either dying out or +leaving but a few and distant representatives; or again, the whole +tribes of ancient Saurians, of which something has already been said. +All these wonderful under-currents and cross-currents, rises and falls, +appearances and disappearances, nevertheless all work together till the +whole earth is peopled with the forms, designed in the beginning by the +Heavenly Creator. + + +[Footnote 1: Nor should we be surprised to find (should it be so +discovered) that some animals appeared after man. (_Cf_. "Nineteenth +Century" for Dec. 1885, p. 856.)] + +No account of Creation can be other than wonderful and mysterious; nor +can the mystery of the Divine act be explained in language other than +that of analogy. + +We can speak without mystery of a human architect conceiving a design in +his mind; and when he utters it, it is by putting the plans and details +upon paper, and handing them over to the builders, who set to work +(under the architect's supervision, and in obedience to all the rules +he has prescribed as to the methods of work and materials to be used). + +All this we can transfer by analogy only, to a Divine design. The +design is in the Divine mind, and He utters it in no material plans or +drawings: the forces of nature and the chemical elements, His obedient +builders, have no hands to receive the plans or eyes to scan them; but +we can perceive the analogy directly, and that is all that is necessary +for Faith. + +The origin of all we see in the world and in the entire Cosmos is, then, +in God; and as regards the adjustments of our globe and its relations, +and the actual life-forms in plant and animal, they came into existence +pursuant to groups of types or designs, made by the Divine Mind, and +declared by Him from His Throne in heaven, in six several days--periods +of the rotation of our earth. + +That is the message of Revelation. It requires no straining of the +sacred text: it takes everything as it stands, and the seemingly lengthy +explanation it requires is not to manipulate the text, but to clear away +the heap of mistaken conceptions that have gathered round it:--to +establish the idea, that the terms "God said, Let there be," and so +forth, mean Heaven work, in the design and type--not earth work in its +realization and building up. Establishing this by illustration and +argument, nothing more is required in the way of textual exegesis except +to argue for the rejection of perverse and unsustainable meanings long +given to "days," to "expanse" or "firmament," and to "great whales" in +the narrative. + +It will be admitted readily that if this account of Creation is the true +one, if the meaning assigned to the Genesis narrative is correct, it +affords no hindrance to _any_ conclusions that may progressively be +demanded by the investigation of life-history on earth. + +It requires us to believe that the forms which life assumes are not +chance forms, nor the _unpremeditated_ results of environment and +circumstance. But we are not told positively which forms are transitory, +which are final. + +It is only a matter of probable opinion, which it is quite open to any +one to dispute, that there is any indication of finality. I should +personally be inclined to think that we have indications that carnivora, +ungulates, and birds are final forms; that no evolution will ever modify +a bird further into anything that is not a bird; that no transition +between the ungulates and the carnivora is possible; that the +_proboscideae_ are not a final but a transitory type, dying out +gradually--our elephants and similar forms will disappear as the +mastodon did. + +But I admit this is all mere speculation, in which I ask no one to +follow me. + +On one important point only is there a difference; and if the text is +ever proved wrong on that, it must be given up. But it is here that all +scientific knowledge fails, in _any way whatever,_ to touch the sacred +text. There _is_ an unique and exceptional account of one "special +creation." A man "Adam" is described as having been actually created, +not born as an ultimately modified descendant of ancestors originally +far removed from himself. That is not to be denied; not only was his +bodily form specially created (conformably to the _type_ created in +Genesis i. 26), but a special spiritual and higher life was +imparted--for I believe that no one disputes this as the meaning of the +expression, "breathed into his nostrils the _breath of lives,_ and man +became a living soul." + +It must be noted again--although I have before alluded to this in some +detail--that it is not impossible that, pursuant to the general command +"Let us make man," there _may_ have been other human creations, perhaps +not endowed with the higher life of Adam. If it is found difficult to +realize this because the _image of God_ is connected (from the very +first) with the design of Man's life-form, still it is to be remembered +as an undeniable fact, that the form, though one assumed by God Himself +in the Incarnation, _is connected_ in structure and function with the +general animal (Mammalian) type, and that even the Adamic or spiritually +endowed man _may_, by neglecting the higher and giving way to the lower +nature, develop much of the purely bestial in himself. So that the bare +possibility of a pre-Adamite and imperfect man cannot be _à priori_ +denied. More than that it is not necessary to say. Nor is it necessary +that any origin of man should be limited to six or eight thousand years +back. If the state of the text is such that a perfect chronology is +possible,[1] then all that the Bible goes back to chronologically is the +particular man Adam. And it is quite impossible that any scientific or +historical contradiction can arise therefrom. + + +[Footnote 1: It should be borne in mind that just as Revelation is often +absolutely silent on many points that mere curiosity would like to see +explained, so also, the Divine Author may have allowed parts of the +original text of Revelation to be so far lost or obscured as to leave +further points that _might_ have been once recorded, now doubtful. All +that we may be quite sure of is that the text has been preserved for all +that is essential to "life and godliness."] + + + + +APPENDIX. + + +_PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN._ + +The information here put together is a compilation from papers in "The +Nineteenth Century," and other sources. It has no pretentions to +originality, but only to give a brief and connected account of the +subject, more condensed and freed from surrounding details than that +which the original sources afford. + +Before entering on the subject, I would again call attention to the +surpassing importance of these early chapters of Genesis. And, I add, +that unbelievers are especially glad to be able to allege anything they +can against them, because they are aware that hardly any chapters in the +Bible are more constantly alluded to, and made the foundation of +practical arguments by our Lord and His Apostles, than these early +chapters in the Divine volume. If these chapters can be shown to be +mythical, then the divine knowledge of our Lord, as the Son of God, and +the inspiration of His Apostles, are put in question. All through the +Old Testament, allusions to Adam and to the early history in Genesis +occur; and among other passages, I will only here invite attention to +the 31st chapter of Ezekiel, where there is, in a most beautiful +description of the cedar-tree, an allusion to "Eden, the Garden of God" +(see also chapter xxviii. ver. 13), which some have thought to indicate +that the site was still known, and existing in the time of the prophet. +This at least may be remarked, that in verse 9, where the prophet speaks +of the "trees that _were_ in the Garden of God," the word _were_ is not +in the original, and the sense of the context would rather denote the +present tense--"the trees that _are_ in the Garden of God." + +But it is in the New Testament that the most repeated and striking +allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the Serpent, and the +entrance of sin and death into the life-history of mankind, occur.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: See on this subject page 137 _ante_.] [Transcriber's +note: Chapter X.] + +As regards the narrative of Eden itself, there has been, from the very +earliest times, some disposition to regard it as mystical or +"allegorical," i.e., to regard it as representing spiritual facts of +temptation and disobedience, under the guise or story of an actual +audible address by a serpent, and the eating of an actual fruit. The +earliest translators seem to have glossed the "Gan-'Eden," everywhere in +the Old Testament (_except_ in Gen. ii. 8), by the phrase "the paradise +of pleasure," or some other similar term. And the Vulgate _always_ uses +some phrase, such as "place of delight," "voluptas," "deliciae," &c. It +must be admitted that there is some temptation to this course, because +of the inveterate tendency of the human mind to reduce things to its own +level--to suppose everything to have happened _in ways which are within +its present powers to comprehend._ We figure to ourselves the fear and +dislike _we_ should ourselves experience, of a large snake; we imagine +the amazement with which an intelligible voice would be heard to proceed +from such a creature; so far from being _tempted, we_ should at once be +moved to hostility or to flight; and thus we are inclined to throw doubt +on the narrative as it stands. + +But this is to do what we justly complain of modern materialists and +positivists for doing--reducing everything to terms of present +experience and knowledge. + +It has to be borne in mind, that _under the conditions of the case_, the +serpent was neither ugly, dangerous, nor loathsome, but beautiful and +attractive; that the residents of the Garden were familiar with the +"voice of God"--i.e., they had habitual intelligible communication with +heaven: probably, also, free intercourse with angelic messengers +(inconceivable as it may now seem to us) was matter of daily experience +to them. The woman would then recognize in the voice an Angel +communication; and unaware at first that it was an evil angel, it would +excite no surprise in her at all. Sensations of terror, surprise, +dislike, and so forth, were _ex hypothesi_ unknown. Why then should not +the narrative be exact, unless, indeed, we have some _à priori_ ground +for supposing that human nature _never could_ have been in a state where +the voice of God and angels sounded in its ears, and where innocence and +the absence of all evil emotion was the daily condition of life? The +unbeliever may sneer at such a state, but _reason_ why it should _not_ +have been, he can give none. So, again, with the idea of the "tree of +the knowledge of good and evil" and the "tree of life." We are no doubt +tempted to think that these terms may be symbolic; but a more careful +reflection, and a deliberate rejection of the _influence of present +experiences_, may lead us to accept the narrative more literally. Even +now, we are not unfamiliar with the ideas of medicinal virtues in plants +and fruits. I see nothing impossible in the idea that God may have been +pleased to impart such virtue to the fruit of a tree standing in the +midst of the Garden, that physical health, immunity from all decay, and +constant restoration, should have been the result of eating the fruit; +and the eating of this fruit, we know, was freely permitted. The late +Archbishop Whately suggested, and I think with great probability, that +the longevity of the earliest generations of the Adamic race may have +been due to the beneficial effects of the eating of this fruit, which +only gradually died out. Just as we know at the present time, that +peculiarities introduced into human families, often survive from father +to son, till they gradually die out after many generations. + +Again, as regards the "forbidden tree," it will not seem impossible, +that as a simple _test of obedience_ in a very primitive state, the rule +of abstinence from a particular fruit may have been literally enjoined, +and that the consequence of the moral act of _disobedience_ (rather +than the physical effect of the fruit eaten) should have been the +knowledge of evil, the first sensation of shame, terror, angry +dissension, and, worst of all, the alienation from God the source of all +good, which followed. + +All such considerations of the reality of the history must gain greatly +in strength, if we can demonstrate that the Garden of Eden, the scene of +the temptation, the place where the trees that were the vehicles of such +consequences to the occupants of the garden, stood, had a real existence +and geographical site. Now I need hardly remark that the Mosaic +narrative unquestionably _professes_ a geographical exactness and a +literal existence of the garden, as no fabled locality--no Utopia or +garden of the Hesperides. I need only refer to the _data_ afforded to us +by Gen. ii. 8-14. + +The Lord, it is said, planted a garden in Eden: it was "eastward;" but +that does not directly indicate its site. From Gen. iv. 16, we also +learn that the land of Nod where Cain dwelt (after the murder of Abel) +was on the east of Eden. + +A river went out and watered the garden. After passing the limits of +Eden, the river is said to have divided itself, or parted, into four +heads, i.e., arms or branches. The first branch was called Pison. This +branch "compasseth," i.e., forms the boundary along the whole length of, +"_the_ Havilah." This country is spoken of as being a tract wherein was +produced good gold, "b'dolach" (translated "bdellium") and "shoham" +(translated "onyx.") The second branch was Gihon, which is described as +similarly compassing the district of K[=u]sh. Here our A.V., by +substituting "Ethiopia" for the original "C[=u]sh," has made a gloss +rather than a translation; and this gloss has given rise to several +errors of commentators in identifying the site of Eden. The Revised +Version has corrected the error. + +The third branch was Hiddekel, the _Diklatu_ of the Arabs, the Tigra of +the old Persians, and the _Tigris_ of later writers. This is said to run +eastward towards Assyria.[1] The fourth river was the Frat or Euphrates. +Observe, in passing, that the author gives no detail about the great +river Euphrates, as being well known; while he adds particulars about +the Tigris, and describes the Gihon and the Pison in some detail. + + +[Footnote 1: So the margin of the A. and R. Versions more correctly.] + +Now it will at once strike the reader that two of these rivers are well +known to the present day. The others are not. + +It is in the identification of these two, and of the districts which +they "compassed," which form the difficulties of the problem. Up till +recent times, it is remarkable what a variety of speculations have been +attempted as to the situation of Eden. Dr. Aldis Wright, the learned +author of the article "Eden" in Smith's "Biblical Dictionary," remarks: +"It would be difficult, in the whole history of opinion, to find any +subject which has so invited, and at the same time completely baffled, +conjecture, as the Garden of Eden." And in another place he thinks that +"the site of Eden will ever rank with the quadrature of the circle, and +the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy among those unsolved, and +perhaps insoluble, problems which possess so strange a fascination." It +is, however, to be remarked, (1)that all that was written before +Professor Delitzsch's researches were made known; and (2)that really a +great mass of the conjecture and speculation has been purely in the +air--undertaken without any reference to the plain terms of the text to +be interpreted. It is the extravagance of commentators, and their +insisting on going beyond the narrative itself, that has raised such +difficulties, and made the problem look more hopeless than it really is. + +To what purpose are "the three continents of the old world" "subjected +to the most rigorous search," as Dr. Wright puts it--when it is quite +plain from the text itself, that the solution is to be sought in the +neighbourhood of the Euphrates, or not at all? The whole inquiry seems +to have been one in which a vast cloud of learned dust has been raised +by speculators, who began their inquiry without clearly determining, to +start with, what was the point at issue. Either the description in Gen. +ii. 3-14 is meant for allegory, or geographical fact: this question must +first be settled; and if the latter is agreed to, then it is quite +inconceivable that the words should imply any very extensive region, or +any fancied realm extending over a large proportion of one or other +quarter of the globe. The problem is then at once narrowed; and it is +simply unreasonable to look for Havila in India, or for Pison in the +province of Burma, as one learned author does! + +Yet commentators have forgotten this; and gone--the earlier ones into +interpretation of allegory--the later into impossible geographical +speculation; while only the most recent have confined themselves to the +obvious terms of the problem as laid down in the narrative itself--a +narrative which (whether true or false) is clearly meant to be definite +and exact, as we have seen. Our A.V. translators are to be held, to +some extent, responsible for the freedom which speculation has +exercised, by themselves taking the C[=u]sh of the narrative to +"Ethiopia," i.e., to the African continent--for which there is no +authority whatever. + +As regards the _allegorical_ interpretations, they are too extravagant +for serious notice. Souls, angels, human passions and motives, are +supposed to be represented by towns, rivers, and countries. To all this +it is enough to reply--What reason can we have for supposing an +allegory suddenly to be interpolated at Gen. ii. 8? There is no allegory +before it, there is none after. + +Then as to the early geographical expounders. Josephus and others +supposed the allusion was made to the great rivers known to ancient +geography, all of which ran into that greatest river of all, which +encircled the globe. In this view, the Gihon might be the Nile, and the +Pison the Ganges! Here, again, it may be remarked it is impossible to +read the narrative and believe that the author meant any such widespread +region. Even if the author had the ancient ideas about cosmography +generally, that would not prevent his being accurate about a limited +region lying to the east of a well-known river in a populous country. In +later times Luther avoided the difficult speculation by supposing that +the Deluge had swept away all traces of the site! But unfortunately for +this convenient theory, it is a plain fact that the Deluge did not sweep +any two out of the four rivers named. The reader who is curious on the +subject, will find in Dr. A. Wright's article a brief account of the +various identifications proposed by all these commentators. It would not +be interesting to go into any detail. I shall pass over all those +extravagant views which go to places remote from the Euphrates, and come +at once to the later attempts to solve the question in connection with +the two known rivers, Euphrates and Hiddekel (Tigris); as this is the +only kind of solution that any reasonable modern Biblical student will +admit. + +The different explanations adopted maybe grouped into two main attempts: +(1) to find the place among the group of rivers that surrounds Mount +Ararat in Northern Armenia, _vis._, in the extreme upper course of the +Euphrates near its two sources; (2) to find the place below the +_present_ junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris, along some part of +the united course, which is now more than two hundred miles long, and is +called "Shatt-el-'Aráb." + +But neither of these attempts has been successful: the first must, +indeed, be absolutely dismissed; because the Hebrew phrases used in +describing the four _branches_ of the river that "went out," and watered +the garden, and then parted, cannot be applied to four independent +sources or streams--_upstream_ of the Euphrates. It will not, then, +satisfy the problem, to find four rivers somewhere in the vicinity of +the Euphrates, and which, in a general way, enclose a district in which +Eden might be placed. It may, indeed, be doubted whether this first +attempt (which I may call the "North Armenian solution") would ever have +been seriously entertained, but from the fact that the name Gihon--or +something very like it--did attach itself to the Araxes or Phasis, a +considerable river of Armenia. Finding a Gihon ready, the commentators +next made the Pison, the Acampsis; and then as Pison was near the +"Havila land," this country was laid on the extreme north of Armenia; +all this without a particle of evidence of any kind.[1] I may here take +the opportunity of remarking that a chance _similarity of names_[2] has +been, throughout the controversy, a fruitful source of enlarged +speculative wandering. Thus this name Gihon (Gaihun, Jíkhún, G[=e][=o]n, +&c.) that appears in North Armenia, again appears in connection with the +_Nile_; while again the name "Nile" has wandered back to the confines of +Persia, and one of the _Euphrates_ branches is still called +"Shatt-en-nîl." The ancients, indeed, had very curious ideas about the +Nile. Its real sources being so long undiscovered--no Speke or Grant +having appeared--imagination ran wild on the subject. Not only so, but +it is remarkable that the name _Cush_ should have acquired both a +Persian Gulf and an Egyptian employment: and the writer of the able +article in "The Nineteenth Century" (October, 1882) points out several +other singular instances in which names are common both to the +African-Egyptian region, and to this. + + +[Footnote 1: And it is astonishing to find the error generally +perpetuated in maps attached to modern Bibles.] + +[Footnote 2: As distinct from a real philological connection of a modern +name with a more ancient one, and so forth.] + +Turning now to the second of the two theories, the identification of the +site on the lower part of the Euphrates after its now existing junction +with the Tigris (and which the supporters of the theory have justified +by making the Gihon and Pison two rivers coming from Eden) must also be +set aside. + +For the important fact has been overlooked that it is quite certain, +that anciently, the joint stream, (Shatt-el-'Aráb), as it now is, did +not exist. Though the Genesis narrative tells us of a junction +_immediately outside_ the southern boundary of the Garden, the Euphrates +channels and the Tigris branch (with part of the Euphrates water in it) +flowed separately to the Persian Gulf. It is quite certain that, in the +time of Alexander the Great, the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris were +a good day's journey apart. For this separate outflow there is the +incontestable evidence of Pliny and other authors quoted by Professor +Delitzsch. I may here also remark, that anciently the Persian Gulf +extended much farther inland than it does now. In the time of +Sennacherib, an inland arm of the sea extended so far, that a _naval_ +expedition against Elam was possible; more than one hundred miles inland +from the present sea-line. The extension was called N[=a]r Marratum. In +Alexander's time, the city of Charax (now Mohamra) was founded close to +the sea (that was in the fourth century B.C.). It is known from later +histories, that shortly before the birth of our Saviour, the city was +from fifty to one hundred and twenty Roman miles inland. The change is +due to the "Delta," or alluvial formation at the mouth of the rivers. + +Turning, then, to the recent inquiries (published in 1881[1]) by +Professor Fried. Delitzsch, it must be confessed that the results +obtained are such as to completely avoid all the difficulties that beset +the other explanations: yet we ought not to be too confident that it is +a final or absolute explanation. A certain caution and reserve will +still be wisely maintained on the subject. At any rate, they show that +_an_ explanation, one that answers _all_ the conditions of the problem, +_can_ be given; and that is a great thing. + + +[Footnote 1: "Wo lag das Paradies" (Leipzig, 1881) is the title of the +book.] + +[Footnote: Professor Friedrich Delitzsch is Professor of Assyriology in +the University of Leipzig.] + +In placing the site _on_ the Euphrates, and far from the mountain +sources, there is no violence done to the Hebrew language used to +describe the first river, as one that "went out," and watered the +Garden. The words do not require that the river should actually _take_ +its _rise_ within the Garden limits; but it is necessary that the river +should be so situated, that its waters could be distributed by means of +creeks or canals across the Garden, that it could be said the river +"went out and watered the Garden." Now it is a remarkable fact, that in +the district just above Babylon, the bed of the Euphrates is in level +much higher than the bed of the Tigris (Hiddekel) to the east, and that +hence there always have been a number of very variable channels leading +from the Euphrates eastward to the Tigris. These, it is well known, were +often enlarged by the ancients and converted into useful "inundation +canals" for irrigation and the passage of boats. Imagine, then, the high +level river bed of the Euphrates, and various streams flowing off it +down to the valley of the Tigris, and we have a most efficiently +irrigated "Garden," and one accurately described by the text--the great +river "went out" and watered it. The Euphrates, moreover, is liable to +great flushes of water from the melting of the snows in wide tracts of +mountain or highlands from which its waters are collected, and these +volumes of water found vent from the overcharged mother-channel by +escape, not only through the side channels, just spoken of, but also by +other important branches on the other side. Every one who has seen one +of the great rivers of Northern India will at once realize the changes +that take place where a river liable to floods has its bed at a high +level. It is almost a matter of certainty that, in the course of years, +the branches and channels of rivers so constituted will change, and old +ones be left dry and deserted. These essential topographical conditions +have always to be remembered in interpreting the narrative of Genesis +ii. + +In fact, they furnish us with points which help us in the problem at the +outset. (1) There is a part of the Euphrates, just above Babylon, where +the river naturally furnished abundant irrigation for a Garden planted +eastward of it, by means of natural irrigation channels flowing from the +high level down to the lower valley of the Tigris; and (2) there is also +a point from which the Euphrates did branch out, and several important +arms anciently existed. + +Nor is the locality, in point of verdure and fertility, unsuitable. Not +only do the ancient histories make frequent mention of the canals and +streams flowing from the Euphrates which I have alluded to, but they +speak of the palm groves, the vines and the verdure of the Babylonian or +Chaldean region. Herodotus, in his first book, has the most glowing +description of the scene; and the kings of Babylon had numerous enclosed +gardens or parks: these were imitated in Persia, and gave rise to the +Persian name "Firdaus," which Xenophon imported into Greek in the form +of [Greek: paradeisos] or "paradise"--the term which was adopted by the +Seventy translators. + +The actual locality which Professor Delitzsch proposes as the most +probable site of the Garden of Eden is between the present Euphrates and +Tigris, just to the north of Babylon. The boundaries would be--roughly +and generally speaking--the two rivers for East and West; while for the +North and South boundaries we should draw parallel lines through Accad +on the North and Babylon on the South. + +But granted that the general locality and the relations of the river +Euphrates and Tigris satisfy the requirements of the text by such a +location as this: how about the other two _and_ the countries which they +compass? The troubles of the earlier commentators will warn us, that we +need not be too ready to force names, and to identify one river, and +then, _because_ we have fixed that, make the country which the text +requires follow it! + +It is, however, in this matter that Professor Delitzsch's work is so +satisfactory. He has pointed out, that there is historical evidence (and +also that the local traces are not wanting in the present day) to prove +that, just below Babylon, we _can_ find two prominently important +channels or branches of the Euphrates, which will at least supply the +place of Pison and Gihon. As to the first, it is known that in historic +times a great channel called by the Greeks Pallakopas (navigable for +ships) used to carry off the surplus water of the Euphrates when swollen +in the summer season by the melting snows of the Armenian mountains. It +branched off from the main river at a point somewhat north of Babylon, +and flowed into the Persian gulf. There is, indeed, no _direct_ evidence +to show that this branch bore a name resembling Pison. _Palgu_ is the +Assyrian whence the Greek Pallakopas was derived. It is remarkable, +however, that the word Pison closely resembles the cuneiform term +"pisána," or "pisánú," which is used for a water-reservoir, a canal or a +channel; and as this "Pallakopas" was _the_ channel _par excellence_, it +may very possibly have been called "pisána" or Pison, the (great) +channel. The identification of the channel called "Pallakopas" will be +found mentioned in Colonel Chesney's work, "An Expedition to the +Tigris." The name, however, of this channel is not the only means we +have of identifying it. The Scripture says that the Pison compasses the +land of _Havilah_. Now let us remember, that the Scripture tells of two +Havilahs: (1) The second son of Cush[1] and brother of Nimrod, and (2) +one of the great great grandsons of Shem (Gen. x. 29). One we may call +the Cushite Havilah, the other the Joktanite Havilah. The dwelling-place +of the brother of Nimrod is not mentioned, but it is stated that the +Joktanite Havilah dwelt in "Mesha." The tenth of Genesis is an important +chapter, as showing how the descendants of Noah branched out and spread +over the countries all round the Euphrates; some going north to Assyria +(Nineveh), others to the east and west, and others south, to Arabia and +Egypt. Now it so happens that the whole country west of the great +Pallakopas channel, was called by the Assyrians "Mashu." Professor +Delitzsch identifies this Mashu of the cuneiform inscriptions, with the +"Mesha" mentioned in Scriptures, as the home of Havilah. We have also in +Gen. xxv. 8,[2] mention of a land of Havila that is "before"--i.e., +eastward of--"Egypt as thou goest toward Assyria," which would answer +very well to this locality, west of the Euphrates. It is also known +(from sources which it would take too long to detail) that this country +did yield gold-dust. Pliny also mentions "Bdellium," if that was the +substance known as "B'dolach." It is indeed uncertain what this was, but +Gesenius long ago rejected the idea that it was a stone, because there +is no prefix to it, as there is to "shoham," which follows, and +certainly is a precious stone. The manna in the wilderness is described +as being of the "colour of bdellium," and was also like hoar-frost;[3] +hence the idea that b'dolach was a crystal. But a fragrant and precious +gum-resin seems more likely. The Magi who came to worship the Infant +Saviour from near this locality, brought offerings of _gold_, and also +fragrant gums and myrrh. Was "bdellium" (as probably being a fragrant +gum) one of these offerings? + + +[Footnote 1: See Gen. x. 9.] + +[Footnote 2: See also 1 Sam. xv. 7.] + +[Footnote 3: Exod. xvi. 14; Numbers xi. 7: "The appearance (lit. "eye") +of it was as the appearance of bdellium" (R.V.).] + +The "Onyx," or "Shoham," was most probably a pure red cornelian, and +this also was found in the Babylonian provinces, and was specially worn +by the Babylonian kings. + +So the country west of the Euphrates answers very well to Havila without +any forcing, and without any placing it there _because_ of the river +rendering such a plan necessary. + +As to the fourth river (Gihon), Delitzsch identifies it, still more +clearly, with a channel known as the "Shatt-en-níl," which branches off +from the Euphrates at Babylon itself, and passing the Scriptural city of +Erech, rejoins the main river lower down. A clay tablet has actually +been discovered, having the Euphrates, Tigris, and this Shatt-en-níl +channel _together_: the name of the latter is given as "K[=a]hán de," or +"Gughánde," a name which closely resembles Gihon. The channel is, +however, identified independently of the name. For the Gihon is +particularized in the narrative, by the fact that it "compasses" the +land of Cush. This (as already pointed out) is not the Ethiopian Cush. + +Delitzsch states, that the whole country bounded by this branch was +anciently called Kash-shu, which he identifies with the Cush of Genesis +ii. The syllable "Kash" appears throughout this locality. In fact +Kash-du or Kal-du is the origin of the familiar name Chaldea. In the +Hebrew, Kush (Cush) is the name given to the father of Nimrod, who +"began" his kingdom about this very site--Erech, and Calneh, and Accad +(Gen. x. 8, 10). Hence it is not surprising that relics of the name +should be found all round this neighbourhood. Nor does the evidence end +here. The district immediately around Babylon was called "Kár-dunish-i," +i.e., the "Garden of the god Dunish." Now Kar is the Turanian form of +the Semitic G[=a]n, or Gin[=a] (garden); and what is more likely than +that, as the true story was lost in the heathen traditions and mythology +that grew up, the "garden" was attributed to the god Dunish--whereas the +real original had been not "Gàndunish," but "Gan'Eden?" This, though +only a conjecture, is the more probable, as one of the inscription-names +of Babylon itself was "Tintira," which, though a little obscure, +certainly means _either_ the "_grove_," or the _"fountain," of life._ + +We thus find, not only that four great branches of the river that "went +out," and watered the Garden can be traced, but that the two really do +"compass" tracts, that can, with the highest degree of probability, be +identified as C[=u]sh or Kash, and Havilah. The importance of Professor +Delitzsch's work may now be briefly glanced at. It may be objected, that +such a process of reasoning as that put forward, is not convincing to a +general reader who has not the means of criticizing or testing Professor +Delitzsch's conclusions: he therefore cannot be sure that, in selecting +two channels to represent the Pison and the Gihon, and in identifying +"Mashu" with Mesha of Havilah, and one of the Babylonian districts with +Kush, the Professor has at last hit off a solution of the problem which +will not in its turn be disproved, as all earlier solutions have been. +There is, however, this important conclusion to be safely drawn, viz., +that a complete explanation in exact accord with the Hebrew text is +_possible_, and that hence nothing can be urged against the _narrative_, +on the ground (hitherto sneeringly taken) that the geography _was +impossible_ and so forth. + +Next let me very briefly sum up what it is that Dr. Delitzsch has +done--marshalling the evidence, beginning from the broad end and +narrowing down till we arrive at the point. + +(1) First, then, we are fixed by the narrative to some place between the +Euphrates and the Tigris. + +(2) We find in the ancient inscriptions of the chief city of this +locality, constant allusions to a Garden, a primitive pair and a +temptation: one of these almost exactly reproduces the Bible story; it +is not of the earliest date and is a copy. But discovery is far from +being exhausted; all that we know is _consistent_ with the idea of an +original story, gradually corrupted by the addition of legends, and +introduction of mythological persons and heathen divinities. The true +belief in one God, who made Himself known by voice or vision to His true +worshippers, seems early to have been confined to a few of the Shemitic +families, while the others "invented" gods of their own. + +(3) We find that the region about Babylon itself was called +Kár-dunishi--which easily recalls Kar or Gán-Eden. We also find the name +(Tintira) applied, indicating a "grove" or "fountain" of life; in the +locality where the direct legends most abound. + +(4) We find from ancient authors that the district was one of rich +verdure--a land of gardens and irrigation. + +(5) We find that some way above Babylon about Accad, the level of the +river bed Euphrates is so much higher than the valley of the Tigris +eastward, that numerous streams flow off from it, which would serve +admirably to irrigate a garden situated between the two, eastward of the +Euphrates. + +(6) We find that the Persian Gulf once extended more than one hundred +miles farther inland than it does now. That there was no joint outflow +of Tigris and Euphrates, but, though they did join their streams above, +they parted again and had still separate mouths--of the Tigris branch +one, of the Euphrates several. + +(7) Lastly, Professor Delitzsch finds two channels which answer to Pison +and Gihon. + +(8) He proves these two to be the right ones by considering the +countries which they "compass:" and actually finds the one that he +supposes to be the "Gaihûn," called, in the cuneiform clay tablets, +"Kahán or Gaghân-dé." + +It is really only in (7) and (8) that there is any room for doubt and +for further inquiry. + +At any rate, the credibility of the narrative, and a belief in its +purpose, as a topographically exact statement of fact, not an allegory +or legend, is established. + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's Creation and Its Records, by B.H. Baden-Powell + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CREATION AND ITS RECORDS *** + +***** This file should be named 12852-8.txt or 12852-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/2/8/5/12852/ + +Produced by Dave Macfarlane and PG Distributed Proofreaders. Produced +from images provided by the Million Book Project. + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/12852-8.zip b/old/12852-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3848bec --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12852-8.zip diff --git a/old/12852-h.zip b/old/12852-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..493ac9b --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12852-h.zip diff --git a/old/12852-h/12852-h.htm b/old/12852-h/12852-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b18ad97 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12852-h/12852-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,6543 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> +<html> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content= + "text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of Creation And Its Records, by B.H. Baden-Powell, C.I.E., F.R.S.E.. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + } + HR { width: 33%; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + .linenum {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */ + .note {margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em;} /* footnote */ + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + .sidenote {width: 20%; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 1em; font-size: smaller; float: right; clear: right;} + + .poem {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; text-align: left;} + .poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} + .poem p {margin: 0; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem p.i2 {margin-left: 2em;} + .poem p.i4 {margin-left: 4em;} + .poem .caesura {vertical-align: -200%;} + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Creation and Its Records, by B.H. Baden-Powell + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Creation and Its Records + +Author: B.H. Baden-Powell + +Release Date: July 8, 2004 [EBook #12852] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CREATION AND ITS RECORDS *** + + + + +Produced by Dave Macfarlane and PG Distributed Proofreaders. Produced +from images provided by the Million Book Project. + + + + + + +</pre> + + + + + +<h1><i>CREATION AND ITS RECORDS</i>.</h1> +<br> + +<h2><FONT FACE="Symbol" > pistei nooumen kathrtisqai touV aiwnaV rhmati qeou eiV to mh ek fainomenwn ta blepomena gegonenai</FONT> + — HEB. xi. 3. </h2> +<br> + + + +<h3>A brief statement of Christian Belief with reference to Modern facts and +Ancient Scripture.</h3> + +<h3>BY</h3> + +<h3>B.H. BADEN-POWELL, C.I.E., F.R.S.E.</h3> + +<p><b><font size="+1">CONTENTS</font></b></p> + + + + + +<p><i>PART I.</i></p> + + <a href="#CHAPTER_I"><b>CHAPTER I.</b></a><br> +<p>INTRODUCTORY</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_II"><b>CHAPTER II.</b></a><br> +<p>THE ELEMENT OF <i>FAITH</i> IN CREATION</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_III"><b>CHAPTER III.</b></a><br> +<p>THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_IV"><b>CHAPTER IV.</b></a><br> +<p>CREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_V"><b>CHAPTER V.</b></a><br> +<p>THE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_VI"><b>CHAPTER VI.</b></a><br> +<p>THE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION OF ORGANIC FORMS</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_VII"><b>CHAPTER VII.</b></a><br> +<p>THE DESCENT OF MAN</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_VIII"><b>CHAPTER VIII.</b></a><br> +<p>FURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF MAN</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_IX"><b>CHAPTER IX.</b></a><br> +<p>CONCLUDING REMARKS</p> +<br> + +<p><a href="#PART_II"><i>PART II.</i></a></p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_X"><b>CHAPTER X.</b></a><br> +<p>THE GENESIS NARRATIVE—ITS IMPORTANCE</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XI"><b>CHAPTER XI.</b></a><br> +<p>SCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XII"><b>CHAPTER XII.</b></a><br> +<p>METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE—ASSUMPTIONS OF MEANING TO CERTAIN TERMS</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XIII"><b>CHAPTER XIII.</b></a><br> +<p>THE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY<br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">(i.) THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">(ii.) THE SECOND PART</span></p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XIV"><b>CHAPTER XIV.</b></a><br> +<p>THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XV"><b>CHAPTER XV.</b></a><br> +<p>AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT</p> + <a href="#CHAPTER_XVI"><b>CHAPTER XVI.</b></a><br> +<p>THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE</p> + + <p><a href="#APPENDIX"><i>APPENDIX.</i></a></p> +<p>PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN</p> + + +<hr size="7" style="width: 65%;" /> +<a name="CHAPTER_I"></a><h2>CHAPTER I.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>INTRODUCTORY</i></p> + +<p>Among the recollections that are lifelong, I have one as vivid as ever +after more than twenty-five years have elapsed; it is of an evening +lecture—the first of a series—given at South Kensington to working +men. The lecturer was Professor Huxley; his subject, the Common Lobster. +All the apparatus used was a good-sized specimen of the creature itself, +a penknife, and a black-board and chalk. With such materials the +professor gave us not only an exposition, matchless in its lucidity, of +the structure of the crustacea, but such an insight into the purposes +and methods of biological study as few could in those days have +anticipated. For there were as yet no Science Primers, no International +Series; and the "new biology" came upon us like the revelation of +another world. I think that lecture gave me, what I might otherwise +never have got (and what some people never get), a profound conviction +of the reality and meaning of facts in nature. That impression I have +brought to the attempt which this little book embodies. The facts of +nature are God's revelation, of the same weight, though not the same in +kind, as His written Word.</p> + +<p>At the same time, the further conviction is strong in my mind, not +merely of the obvious truth that the Facts and the Writing (if both +genuine) cannot really differ, but further, that there must be, after +all, a true way of explaining the Writing, if only it is looked for +carefully—a way that will surmount not only the difficulty of the +subject, but also the impatience with which some will regard the +attempt. Like so many other questions connected with religion, the +question of reconciliation produces its double effect. People will +ridicule attempts to solve it, but all the same they will return again +and again to the task of its actual solution.</p> + +<p>That the latter part of the proposition is true, has recently received +illustration in the fact that a review like the <i>Nineteenth Century</i>, +which has so little space to spare, has found room in four successive +numbers<a name="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1"><sup>[1]</sup></a> for articles by Gladstone, Huxley, and H. Drummond, on the +subject of "Creation and its Records." May I make one remark on this +interesting science tournament? I can understand the scientific +conclusions Professor Huxley has given us. I can also understand Mr. +Gladstone, because he values the Writing as the professor values the +Facts. But one thing I can <i>not</i> understand. Why is Professor Huxley so +angry or so contemptuous with people who value the Bible, whole and as +it stands, and want to see its accuracy vindicated? Why are they +fanatics, Sisyphus-labourers, and what not? That they are a very large +group numerically, and hardly contemptible intellectually, is, I think, +obvious; that a further large group (who would not identify themselves +wholly with the out-and-out Bible defenders) feel a certain amount of +sympathy, is proved by the interest taken in the controversy. Yet all +"reconcilers" are ridiculed or denounced—at any rate are contemptuously +dismissed. Can it be that the professor has for the moment overlooked +one very simple fact?</p> + + +<p>The great bulk of those interested in the question place their whole +hope for their higher moral and spiritual life in this world and the +next on one central Person—the LORD JESUS CHRIST. If He is wrong, then +no one can be right—there is no such thing as right: that is what they +feel. It will be conceded that it is hardly "fanatical" to feel this. +But if so, surely it is not fanatical, but agreeable to the soberest +reason, further to hold that this (to them sacred) PERSON did (and His +apostles with Him) treat the Book of Genesis as a whole (and not merely +parts of it) as a genuine revelation—or, to use the popular expression, +as the <i>Word of</i> GOD. That being so, can it be matter for surprise or +contemptuous pity, that they should be anxious to vindicate the Book, +to be satisfied that the MASTER was not wrong? That is the ultimate and +very real issue involved in the question of Genesis.</p> + +<p>As long as people feel <i>that</i>, they must seek the reconciliation of the +two opposing ideas. If the attempt is made in a foolish or bitter +spirit, or without a candid appreciation of the facts, then the attempt +will no doubt excite just displeasure. But need it always be so made?</p> + +<p>As to the first part of my proposition that attempts to reconcile +religion and science are received with a certain dislike, it is due +partly to the unwisdom with which they are sometimes made. Prof. H. +Drummond speaks of the dislike as general.<a name="FNanchor_1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> +</p> + +<p>If this is so, I, as a "reconciler," can only ask for indulgence, hoping +that grace may be extended to me on the ground of having something to +say on the subject that has not yet been considered.</p> + +<p>Nor, as regards the impatience of the public, can I admit that there is +only fault on one side. In the first place, it will not be denied that +some writers, delighted with the vast, and apparently boundless, vision +that the discovery (in its modern form) of Evolution opened out to them, +did incautiously proceed, while surveying their new kingdom, to assert +for it bounds that stretch beyond its legitimate scope.</p> + + +<p>Religionists, on the other hand, imagining, however wrongly, that the +erroneous extension was part of the true scientific doctrine, attacked +the whole without discrimination.</p> + +<p>While such a misapprehension existed, it was inevitable that writers +anxious alike for the dignity of science and the maintenance of +religion, should step in to point out the error, and effect a +reconciliation of claims which really were never in conflict.</p> + +<p>It is hardly the fault of "religionists" that it was at first supposed +that one <i>could</i> not hold the doctrine of evolution without denying a +"special" creation and a designing Providence. It was on this very +natural supposition that the first leading attack—attributed to the +Bishop of Oxford—proceeded. And the writer fell into the equally +natural mistake of taking advantage of the uncompleted and unproved +state of the theory at the time, to attack the theory itself, instead of +keeping to the safer ground, namely, that whatever might ultimately be +the conclusion of evolutionists, it was quite certain that no theory of +evolution that at all coincided with the known facts, offered any ground +for argument against the existence of an Intelligent Lawgiver and First +Cause of all; nor did it tend in the slightest to show that no such +thing as creative design and providence existed in the course of nature.</p> + +<p>What the discovery of evolution really did, was to necessitate a +revision of the hitherto popularly accepted and generally assumed and +unquestioned notion of what <i>creation</i> was. And it has long appeared to +me, that while now the most thoroughgoing advocates of evolution +generally admit that their justly cherished doctrine has nothing to say +to the existence of a Creator, or to the possibility of design—which +may be accepted or denied on other grounds—the writers on the side of +Christianity have not sufficiently recognized the change which their +views ought to undergo.</p> + +<p>As long as this is the case, there will continue to be a certain +"conflict," not indeed between science and religion, but of the kind +which has been vividly depicted by the late Dr. Draper.</p> + +<p>It can scarcely have escaped the notice of the most ordinary reader +that, in the course of that interesting work, the author has very little +to say about religion—at any rate about religion in any proper sense of +the term. The conflict was between a Church which had a zeal for God +without knowledge, and the progress of scientific thought; it was also a +conflict between discovered facts, and facts which existed, not in the +Bible, but in a particular interpretation, however generally received, +of it.</p> + +<p>The present work is therefore addressed primarily to Christian believers +who still remain perplexed as to what they ought to believe; and its aim +is to prevent, if may be, an unreasonable alarm at, and a useless +opposition to, the conclusions of modern science; while, at the same +time, it tells them in simple language how far those conclusions really +go, and how very groundless is the fear that they will ever subvert a +true faith that, antecedent to the most wonderful chain of causation and +methodical working which science can establish, there is still a Divine +Designer—One who upholds all things "by the word of His power."</p> + +<p>The doctrine of evolution is still the <i>ignotum</i> to a great many, and it +is therefore, according to the time-honoured proverb, taken <i>pro +magnifico</i>, as something terribly adverse to the faith. Nor can it be +fairly denied, as I before remarked, that some of the students of the +theory have become so enamoured of it, so carried away by the +intoxication of the gigantic speculation it opens out to the +imagination, that they have succumbed to the temptation to carry +speculation beyond what the proof warrants, and thus lend some aid to +the deplorable confusion, which would blend in one, what is legitimate +inference and what is unproved hypothesis or mere supposition.</p> + +<p>It only remains to say that the basis of this little book is a short +course of lectures in which I endeavoured to disarm the prejudices of an +educated but not scientifically critical audience, by simply stating how +far the theory of cosmical evolution had been really proved—proved, +that is, to the extent of that reasonable certainty which satisfies the +ordinary "prudent man" in affairs of weight and importance. I have tried +to show that evolution, apart from fanciful and speculative extensions +of it, allows, if it does not directly establish, that the operation of +nature is not a chance or uncontrolled procedure, but one that suggests +a distinct set of lines, and an orderly obedience to pre-conceived law, +intelligently and beneficently (in the end) designed.</p> + +<p>There are obviously two main points which the Christian reader requires +to have made clear. The first is that, the modern theory of evolution +being admitted, the constitution of matter in the universe and the +principles of development in organic life, which that theory +establishes, not only do not exclude, but positively demand, the +conception of a Divine artificer and director. The second point, which +is perhaps of still greater weight with the believer, is that where +revelation (which is his ultimate standard of appeal) has touched upon +the subject of creation, its statements are not merely a literary fancy, +an imaginary cosmogony, false in its facts though enshrining Divine +truth, but are as a whole perfectly true.</p> + +<p>Whatever novelty there may be, is to be found in the treatment of the +second subject. The first portion of the work is only a brief and +popular statement of facts, quite unnecessary to the scientific reader +but probably very necessary to the large body of Churchmen, who have not +studied science, but are quite able to appreciate scientific fact and +its bearings when placed before them in an untechnical form, and +divested of needless details and subordinate questions.</p> + +<p>But it is around the supposed declarations of Scripture on the subject +of creation that the real "conflict" has centred. Let us look the matter +quite fairly in the face. We accept the conclusion that (let us say) the +horse was developed and gradually perfected or advanced to his present +form and characteristics, by a number of stages, and that it took a very +long time to effect this result. Now, if there is anywhere a statement +in Holy Writ that (<i>a</i>) a horse was <i>per saltum</i> called into existence +in a distinctive and complete form, by a special creative <i>fiat</i>, and +that (<i>b</i>) this happened not gradually, but in a limited and specified +moment of time, then I will at once admit that the record (assuming that +its meaning is not to be mistaken) is not provably right, if it is not +clearly wrong; and accept the consequences, momentous as they would be. +If, in the same way, the Record asserts that man, or at least man the +direct progenitor of the Semitic race,<a name="FNanchor_1_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> was a distinct and special +creation, his bodily frame having some not completely explained +developmental connection with the animal creation, but his higher nature +being imparted as a special and unique creative endowment out of the +line of physical development altogether, then I shall accept the Record, +because the proved facts of science have nothing to say against it, +whatever Drs. Buchner, Vogt, Häckel, and others may assert to the +contrary.</p> + + +<p>In the first of my two instances, the popular idea has long been that +the sacred record <i>does</i> say something about a direct and separate +creative act; and this idea has been the origin and ground of all the +supposed conflict between science and "religion." As long as this idea +continues, it can hardly be said that a book addressed to the clearing +up of the subject is unnecessary or to be rejected <i>per se</i>.</p> + +<p>As to the method in which this subject will be dealt with, I shall +maintain that the Scripture does <i>not</i> say anything about the horse, or +the whale, or the ox, or any other animal, being separately or directly +created. And the view thus taken of the Record I have not met with +before. This it is necessary to state, not because the fact would lend +any value to the interpretation—rather the contrary; but because it +justifies me in submitting what, if new, may be intrinsically important, +to the judgment of the Church; and it also protects me from the offence +of plagiarism, however unwitting. If others have thought out the same +rendering of the Genesis history, so much the better for my case; but +what is here set down occurred to me quite independently.</p> + +<p>A study of the real meaning of the Record, in the light of what may be +fairly regarded as proved facts, cannot be without its use to the +Christian. If it be true that a certain amount of information on the +subject of creation is contained in revelation, it must have been so +contained for a specific purpose—a purpose to be attained at some stage +or other of the history of mankind. It is possible also that the study +will bring to light a probable, or at any rate a possible, explanation +of some of those apparent (if they are not real) "dead-locks" which +occur in pursuing the course of life history on the earth.</p> + +<p>Such considerations will naturally have more weight with the Christian +believer than with those who reject the faith. But at least the +advantage of them remains with the believer, till the contrary is shown. +The extreme evolutionist may cling to the belief that at some future +time he will be able to account for the entrance of LIFE into the +world's history, that he will be able to explain the connection of MIND +with MATTER; or he may hope that the sterility of certain hybrid forms +will one day be explained away, and so on. But till these things <i>are</i> +got over, the believer cannot be reproached as holding an unreasonable +belief when his creed maintains that Life is a gift and prerogative of a +great Author of Life; that Mind is the result of a spiritual environment +which is a true, though physically intangible, part of nature; and that +the absence of any proof that variation and development cross +certain—perhaps not very clearly ascertained, but indubitably +existing—lines, points to the designed fixing of certain types, and the +restriction of developmental creation to running in certain lines of +causation up to those types, and not otherwise.</p> + +<p>It can never be unreasonable to believe anything that is in exact +accordance with facts as ascertained at any given moment of +time—unless, indeed, the fact is indicated by other considerations as +being one likely to disappear from the category of fact altogether.<a name="FNanchor_1_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_4"><sup>[4]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Enough has thus, I hope, appeared, to make the appearance of this little +work, at least excusable; what more may be necessary to establish its +claim to be read must depend on what it contains.</p> + +<p>I have only to add that I can make no pretension to be a teacher of +science. I trust that there is no material error of statement; if there +is, I shall be the first to retract and correct it. I am quite confident +that no correction that may be needed in detail will seriously affect +the general argument.</p> + + + + +<a name="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1">[1]</a><div class="note"> November, December, 1885; and January, February, 1886.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_2">[2]</a><div class="note"> In the Introduction to his well-known book, "Natural Law in +the Spiritual World."</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_3">[3]</a><div class="note"> With whose history, as leading up to the advent of the +Saviour in the line of David, the Bible is mainly concerned.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_4">[4]</a><div class="note"> At present it is an ascertained fact that certain chemical +substances are elements incapable of further resolution. But there are +not wanting indications which would make it a matter of no surprise at +all, if we were to learn to-morrow that the so-called element had been +resolved. Such a fact is an example of what is stated in the text; and a +belief based on the absolute and unchangeable stability of such a fact +would not be unassailable. But none of the above stated instances of +"dead-lock" in evolution are within "measurable distance" of being +resolved.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_II"></a><h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>THE ELEMENT OF FAITH IN CREATION.</i></p> + +<p>In the extract placed on the title-page, the author of the Epistle +clearly places our conclusion that God "established the order of +creation"—the lines, plans, developmental-sequences, aims, and objects, +that the course of creation has hitherto pursued and is still +ceaselessly pursuing,<a name="FNanchor_1_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_5"><sup>[5]</sup></a> in the category of <i>faith</i>.</p> + +<p>Of course, from one point of view—very probably that of the writer of +the Epistle—this conclusion is argued by the consideration that the +human mind forms no distinct conception of the formation of solid—or +any other form of—matter <i>in vacuo</i>, where nothing previously existed. +And what the mind does not find within its own power, but what yet <i>is +true</i> in the larger spiritual kingdom beyond itself, is apprehended by +the spiritual faculty of <i>faith</i>.</p> + + +<p>But from another point of view, the immediate action of faith is not so +evident. If, it might be said, the law of evolution, or the law of +creation, or whatever is the true law, is, in all its bearings, a matter +to be observed and discovered by human science, then it is not easy to +see how there is any exercise of faith. We should be more properly said +to <i>know</i>, by intellectual processes of observation, inference, and +conclusion, that there was a Law Giver, an Artificer, and a First Cause, +so unlimited in power and capacity by the conditions of the case, that +we must call Him "Divine."</p> + +<p>And many will probably feel that their just reasoning on the subject +leads them to knowledge—knowledge, i.e., as approximately certain as +anything in this world can be.</p> + +<p>But the text, by the use of the term <FONT FACE="Symbol" >aiwn</FONT>, implies (as I +suggested) more than mere production of objects; it implies a designed +guidance and preconceived planning. If it were merely asserted that +there is a first cause of material existence, and even that such a cause +had enough known (or to be inferred) about it, to warrant our writing +"First Cause" with capitals, then the proposition would pass on all +hands without serious question. But directly we are brought face to +face, not merely with the isolated idea of creation of tangible forms +out of nothing (as the phrase is), but rather with the whole history +and development of the world and its inhabitants, we see so many +conflicting elements, such a power of natural forces and human passions +warring against the progress of good, and seeming to end only too often +in disaster, that it becomes a matter of <i>faith</i> to perceive a Divine +providence underlying and overruling all to its own ends.</p> + +<p>The fact is, that directly we make mention of the "aeons"—the world's +age histories—we are met with that Protean problem that always seems to +lurk at the bottom of every religious question: Why was <i>evil</i> +permitted? Mr. J.S. Mill, many readers will recollect, concluded that if +there was a God, that God was not perfectly good, or else was not +omnipotent. Now of course our limited faculties do not enable us to +apprehend a really absolute and unlimited omnipotence. We <i>can</i> only +conceive of God as limited by the terms of His own Nature and Being. We +say it is "impossible for God to lie," or for the Almighty to do wrong +in any shape; in other words, we are, in this as in other matters where +the finite and the Infinite are brought into contact, led up to two +necessary conclusions which cannot be reconciled. We can reason out +logically and to a full conclusion, that given a God, that God must be +perfect, unlimited and unconditioned. We can also reason out, <i>provided +we take purely human and finite premises</i>, another line of thought which +forbids us to suppose that a Perfect God would have allowed evil, +suffering, or pain; and this leads us exactly or nearly to Mr. Mill's +conclusion.</p> + +<p>Whenever we are thus brought up to a dead-lock, as it were, there is the +need of <i>faith</i>, which is the faculty whereby the finite is linked on to +the Infinite. For this faith has two great features: one is represented +by the capacity for assimilating fact which is spiritual or +transcendental, and therefore not within the reach of finite intellect; +the other is represented by the capacity for reliance on, and trust in, +the God whose infinite perfections we cannot as finite creatures grasp +or follow.</p> + +<p>In the difficult scheme of the world's governance, in the storms, +earthquakes, pestilences, sufferings of all kinds—signs of failure, +sickness, and decay, and death, signs of the victory of evil and the +failure of good—we can only <i>believe</i> in God, and that all will issue +in righteous ends. And our belief proceeds, as just stated, on two +lines: one being our spiritual capacity for knowing that GOD IS, and +that we, His creatures, are the objects of His love; the other being the +fact that we only see a very little end of the thread, or perhaps only a +little of one thread out of a vast mass of complicated threads, in the +great web of design and governance, and that therefore there is wide +ground for confidence that the end will be success. We rely confidently +on God. If it is asked, Why is it a part of faith to have a childlike +confidence in an unseen God?—we reply, that the main origin of such +confidence is to be found in the wonderful condescension of God +exhibited in the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection.</p> + +<p>This is not the place to enter on a detailed examination of the +essential importance of these great central facts of Christian belief in +establishing faith in the unseen, and distinguishing its grasp from the +blind clutches of credulity; but a single consideration will suffice at +least to awaken a feeling of a wide <i>vista</i> of possibility when we put +it thus: Do we wonder at the spectacle of a righteous man, passing his +life in suffering and poverty, seemingly stricken by the Divine +hand?—But is not the case altered when we reflect <i>that the Hand that +thus smites is a hand itself pierced</i> with the Cross-nails of a terrible +human suffering, undergone solely on man's account?</p> + +<p>It can be proved easily, by exhaustive examples, to be the case, that +wherever the finite is brought into contact with the Infinite, that +there must be a dead-lock, a leading up successively to two conclusions, +one of which is almost, if not quite, contrary to the other. A very +striking instance of this is the question of Predestination and +Free-will. From the finite side, I am conscious that I am a free agent: +I can will to rise up and to lie down. It is true that my will may be +influenced, strongly or feebly, by various means—by the effect of +habit, by the inherited tendency of my constitution, by some present +motive of temptation, and so forth: but the <i>will</i> is there—the +motive-influence or inclining-power is not the will, but that which +affects or works on will. A <i>motive</i> pulls me this way, another pulls me +that; but in the end, my <i>will</i> follows one or the other. I can, then, +do as I please. On the other hand, Infinite Knowledge must know, and +have known from all eternity, what I shall do now, and at every moment +of my future being: and for Omnipotence to know from all eternity what +will be, is, in our human sense, practically undistinguishable from the +thought that the Power has predestined the same; and man cannot of +course alter that. Here, then, by separate lines of thought, we are +brought to two opposite and irreconcilable conclusions. It is so always. +We cannot ourselves imagine how a fixed set of laws and rules can be +followed, and yet the best interests of each and every one of God's +creatures be served as truly as if God directly wielded the machinery of +nature only for the special benefit of the individual. The thing is +unthinkable to us: yet directly we reason on the necessarily <i>unlimited</i> +capability of a Divine Providence, we are led to the conclusion that it +must be possible. Here then is the province of <i>Faith</i>.<a name="FNanchor_1_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_6"><sup>[6]</sup></a></p> + + +<p>It is by Faith, then—combined with only a limited degree of knowledge, +founded on observation and reasoning—that we understand that "the aeons +were constituted by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen +were not made of things which do appear" (the phenomenal has its origin +in the non-phenomenal).</p> + +<p>While allowing, then, the element of Faith in our recognition of a +Creator and Moral Governor of the world, our care is in this, as in all +exercises of faith, that our faith be reasonable. We are not called on +to believe so as to be "put to confusion," intellectually, as Tait and +Balfour have it.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_5">[5]</a><div class="note"> <FONT FACE="Symbol" >kathrtisqai touV aiwnaV</FONT>. This implies more than +the mere originating or supplying of a number of material, organic, or +inorganic (or even spiritual) forms and existences. Whatever may be the +precise translation of <FONT FACE="Symbol" >aiwn</FONT>, it implies a chain of events, the +cause and effect, the type and the plan, and its evolution all +included.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_6">[6]</a><div class="note"> The Scripture clearly recognizes the two opposing lines. In +one place we read, "Thou hast given them a law which <i>shall not be +broken</i>;" in another, "All things work together for good to them that +love God."</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_III"></a><h2>CHAPTER III.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED</i>.</p> + +<p>It will strike some readers with a sense of hopelessness, this demand +for a reason in our faith. A special and very extensive knowledge is +required, it seems, to test the very positive assertion that some have +chosen to make regarding the "explosion" of the Christian faith in the +matter of Creation.</p> + +<p>We are told in effect that every thing goes by itself—that given some +first cause, about which we know, and can know, nothing, directly +primordial matter appears on the scene, and the laws of sequence and +action which observed experience has formulated and is progressively +formulating are given, then nothing else is required; no governance, no +control, and no special design. So that in principle a Creator and +Providence are baseless fancies; and this is further borne out by the +fact, that when the Christian faith ventures on details as to the mode +of Creation it is certainly and demonstrably wrong. If these +propositions are to be controverted, it must be in the light of a +knowledge which a large body of candid and earnest believers do not +possess.</p> + +<p>Fortunately, however, the labours of many competent to judge have placed +within the reach of the unscientific but careful student, the means of +knowing what the conclusions of Science really are, as far as they +affect the questions we have to consider. At least, any inquirer can, +with a little care and patient study, put himself in a position to know +where the difficulty or difficulties lie, and what means there are of +getting over them. His want of technical knowledge will not be in his +way, so far as his just appreciation of the position is concerned. +Without pretending to take up ground which has already been occupied by +capable writers whose books can easily be consulted, I may usefully +recapitulate in a simple form, and grouped in a suitable order, some of +the points best worth noting.</p> + +<p>The theory of cosmical evolution is not, in its general idea, a new +thing. The sort of evolution, however, that was obscurely shadowed forth +by the early sages of India (much as it is the fashion now to allude to +it) really stands in no practical relation to the modern and natural +theory which is associated with the name of CHARLES DARWIN, and which +has been further taken up by Mr. HERBERT SPENCER and others as the +foundation for a complete scheme of cosmic philosophy. The theory is +now, in its main features, admitted by every one. But there are a few +who would push it beyond its real ascertained limits, and would +substitute fancies for facts; they are not content to leave the +<i>lacunae</i>, which undoubtedly do exist, but fill them up by +hypothesis,<a name="FNanchor_1_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_7"><sup>[7]</sup></a> passing by easy steps of forgetfulness from the "it was +possibly," "it was likely to have been," to the "it must have been," and +"it was"!</p> + +<p>To all such extensions we must of course object; there are gaps in the +scheme which can be filled in with really great probability, and in such +cases there will be no harm done in admitting the probability, while +still acknowledging it as such. An overcautious lawyer-like captiousness +of spirit in such matters will help no cause and serve no good purpose. +Nor is it at all difficult in practice to draw the line and say what is +fairly admissible conjecture and what is not. There are other gaps, +however, that at present, no real analogy, no fair inferential process, +can bridge over; and to all speculations on such subjects, if advanced +as more than bare and undisguised guesses, objection must be taken.</p> + +<p>If this one line had been fairly and firmly adhered to from the first, +it can hardly be doubted that much of the acrimony of controversy would +have been avoided. It is just as essential at the present moment to +insist on the point as ever. But to proceed. Stated in the extreme +form, the theory is, that given matter as a beginning, that matter is +thenceforth capable, by the aid of fixed and self-working laws, to +produce and result in, all the phenomena of life—whether plant, animal, +or human—which we see around us. Matter developes from simple to +complex forms, growing by its own properties, in directions determined +by the circumstances and surroundings of its existence.</p> + +<p>If I may put this a little less in the abstract, but more at length, I +should describe it thus<a name="FNanchor_1_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_8"><sup>[8]</sup></a>:—</p> + +<p>Astronomers, while watching the course of the stars, have frequently +observed in the heavens what they call <i>nebulae</i>. With the best +telescopes these look like patches of gold-dust or luminous haze in the +sky. Some nebulae, it is supposed, really consist of whole systems of +stars and suns, but at so enormous a distance that with our best glasses +we cannot make more out of them than groups of apparent "star-dust" But +other nebulae do not appear to be at this extreme distance, and therefore +cannot consist of large bodies. And when their light is examined with +the aid of a spectroscope, it gives indications that such nebulae are +only masses of vapour, incandescent, or giving out light on account of +their being in a burning or highly heated condition.</p> + + +<p>Now, it is supposed that, in the beginning of the world, there was, in +space, such a nebula or mass of incandescent vapour, which, as it was +destined to cool down and form a world, philosophers have called "cosmic +gas."</p> + +<p>This cosmic gas, in the course of time, began to lose its heat, and +consequently to liquefy and solidify, according to the different nature +of its components; and thus a globe with a solid crust was formed, the +surface of which was partly dry and partly occupied by water, and +diversified by the abundant production of the various earths, gases, +metals, and other substances with which we are familiar. These +substances, in time, and by the slow action of their own laws and +properties, combined or separated and produced further forms. But to +come at once to the important part of the theory, we must at once direct +our attention to four substances; these would certainly, it is said (and +that no doubt is quite true) be present; they are oxygen, hydrogen, +nitrogen, and carbon. The first three would be, when the earth assumed +anything like its present conditions of temperature and air-pressure, +invisible gases, as they are at present; the fourth is a substance which +forms the basis of charcoal, and which we see in a nearly pure form +crystallized in the diamond.</p> + +<p>Now, if these substances are brought together under certain appropriate +conditions, the oxygen and hydrogen can combine to form <i>water</i>; the +carbon and the oxygen will form <i>carbonic acid</i>; while nitrogen will +join with hydrogen to form that pungent smelling substance with which we +are familiar as <i>ammonia</i>. Again, let us suppose that three compound +substances—water, carbonic acid, and ammonia—are present together with +appropriate conditions; it is said that they will combine to form a +gummy transparent matter, which is called <i>protoplasm</i>. This protoplasm +may be found in small shapeless lumps, or it may be found enclosed in +cells, and in various beautifully shaped coverings, and it is also found +in the blood, and in all growing parts or organs of all animals and +plants of every kind whatsoever.</p> + +<p>Protoplasm, then, is the physical basis of life. Simple, uniform, +shapeless protoplasm, combined out of the substances just named, first +came into existence; and as, however simple or shapeless, it always +exhibits the property of life, it can henceforth grow and develop from +simpler to ever increasingly complex forms, without any help but that of +surrounding circumstances—the secondary causes which we see in +operation around us.</p> + +<p>If some readers should say they have never seen <i>protoplasm</i>, I may +remind them where every one has, at some time or another, met with it. +If you cut a stick of new wood from a hedge, and peel off the young +bark, you know that the bark comes off easily and entire, leaving a +clean white wand of wood in your hand; but the wand feels sticky all +over. This sticky stuff is nothing more than transparent growing +protoplasm, which lies close under the inner bark.</p> + +<p>At first, the materialist holds, protoplasm appeared in very simple +forms, just such as can still be found within the sea, and in ponds. But +the lower organized forms of life are extremely unstable, and a +different <i>environment</i> will always tend to evoke continuous small +changes, so that there may be advance in forms of all kinds. For if by +chance<a name="FNanchor_1_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_9"><sup>[9]</sup></a> some creature exhibits a variation which is favourable to it +in the circumstances in which it is placed, that creature will be fitter +than the others which have not that variation. And so the former will +survive, and as they multiply, their descendants will inherit the +peculiarity. Thus, in the course of countless generations, change will +succeed change, till creatures of quite a complex structure and +specialized form have arisen. As the circumstances of life are always +infinitely various, the developments take place in many different +directions; some fit the creature for life in deep seas, some for flying +in the air, some for living in holes and crevices, some for catching +prey by swift pursuit, others for catching it by artful contrivance, and +so forth. Many changes will also arise from protective necessity: if an +insect happens to be like a dead leaf, it will escape the notice of +birds which would snap up a conspicuously coloured one; and so the +dull-coloured will survive and perpetuate his kind, while the others are +destroyed. On the other hand, beauty in colour and form may have its +use. This is chiefly exhibited in the preference which the females of a +species show for the adorned and showy males.</p> + + +<p>Supposing an organism developed so far as to be a bird, but only with +dull or ugly feathers. By accident one male bird, say, gets a few +bright-coloured feathers on his head. Here his appearance will attract +birds of the other sex; and then by the law of heredity, his offspring +are sure to repeat the coloured feathers, till at last a regularly +bright-crested species-arises. In this way <i>natural variability</i>, acted +on by the necessities of <i>environment</i> (which cause the <i>survival of the +fittest</i> specimens) and the principle of <i>heredity</i>, viz., that the +offspring repeat the features of the parents, aided by the principle of +<i>sexual selection</i>, have been the origin and cause of all the species we +see in the world.</p> + +<p>Thus we have an unbroken series—certain substances condensing out of +cosmic vapour, some of them combining to form the variety of rocks, +soils, metals, &c., and others giving rise to protoplasm which grows' +and develops into a thousand shapes and hues, of insect, fish, reptile, +bird, and beast.</p> + +<p>And then it is, that charmed with the completeness and symmetry of such +a theory, and overlooking the difficulties that crop up here and +here—demanding some Power from without to bridge them over—certain +extreme theorists have rushed to the conclusion that in all this there +is no need of any external Creator or Providence—nothing but what we +call secondary causes, ordinary causes which we see at work around us +all day and every day.</p> + +<p>How inconceivable, they add, is the truth of the Book of Genesis, which +asserts the successive creation of fully-formed animals by sudden acts +of command; and all accomplished in a few days at the beginning of the +world's human history!</p> + +<p>This I believe to be a fair outline, though of course a very rough and +general one, of the Theory of Evolution as regards the forms of matter +and living organisms. Now it will at once strike the candid reader, that +even granted the whole of the scheme as stated, there is <i>nothing</i> in it +that has any answer to the objection,—But may I not believe that a wise +Creator conceived and established the whole plan—first creating MATTER +and FORCE, then superadding LIFE at a certain stage, and then drawing +out the type and design according to which everything was to grow and +develop? Is not such a production and such a design the true essence of +Creation? Can all these things happen <i>without</i> such aid? Let us then +look more closely at some of the steps in the evolution just described. +And let us stop at the very beginning—the first term of the series.</p> + +<p>We may agree (in the absence of anything leading to a contrary +conclusion) that matter may first have appeared as a cosmic gas, or +incandescent vapour in space. It is probable, if not certain, that our +earth is a mass that has only cooled down on the surface, the centre +being still hot and to some extent, at any rate, molten; and in the sun +we have the case of an enormous globe surrounded with a <i>photosphere</i>, +as it is called—a blaze of incandescent substances, which our +spectroscopes tell us are substances such as we have on earth now in +cooled or condensed condition—iron, oxygen, hydrogen, and other such +forms of matter.</p> + +<p>First of all, how did any <i>substance</i>, however vapoury and tenuous, come +to exist, when previously there was nothing?</p> + +<p>If we admit, that there was a time when even cosmic gas did not exist, +then there must have been <i>an Agent</i>, whose <i>fiat</i> caused the change. +And as that Agent does not obviously belong to the material order, it +must belong to the spiritual or non-material; for the two orders +together exhaust the possibilities of existence. If, however, it is +urged that "primal matter"—cosmic vapour—containing the "potentiality" +of all existence, is eternal and alway existed of itself, then we are +brought face to face with innumerable difficulties. In the first place, +the existence of matter is not the only difficulty to be got over; not +the only dead-lock along the line. We pass it over and go on for a +time, and then we come to another—the introduction of LIFE. I will not +pause to consider that here; we shall see presently that it is +impossible to regard life as merely a quality or property of matter. +When we have passed that, we have a third stoppage, the introduction of +<i>Reason</i> or <i>Intelligence</i>; and then a fourth, the introduction of the +<i>Spiritual faculties</i>, which cannot be placed on the same footing as +mere reason. So that to get over the first point, and dispense with a +Cause or a Creator of matter, is of no avail: it is incredible that +there should be no Creator of matter, but that there should be a Creator +of life—an Imparter of reason, an Endower of soul.</p> + +<p>But let us revert to the first stage and look at the nature of MATTER.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_7">[7]</a><div class="note"> It is enough to instance the theories of Dr. Buchner and, +in earlier days, of Oken. The Häckel and Virchow incident in this +connection, and the noble protest of the latter against positive +teaching of unproved speculation, are in the recollection of all.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_8">[8]</a><div class="note"> The biological evolutionist will, I am aware, object to +this, saying that the origin of the cosmos and nebular theories are +matters of speculation with which he is not concerned—they are no part +of evolution proper. But I submit that the general philosophical +evolution does include the whole. At any rate, the materialist view of +nature does take in the whole, in such a way as the text indicates.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_9">[9]</a><div class="note"> Not really of course "by chance," but simply owing to such +circumstances as cannot be accounted for by any direct antecedents.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_IV"></a><h2>CHAPTER IV.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>CREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER.</i></p> + +<p>I take as self-evident the enormous difficulty of self-caused, +self-existent matter. And when we see that matter <i>acting</i>, not +irregularly or by caprice, but <i>by law</i> (as every class of philosopher +will admit), then it is still further difficult to realize that matter +not only existed as a dead, simple, inactive thing, but existed with a +folded-up history inside it, a long sequence of development—not the +same for all particles, but various for each group: so that one set +proceeded to form the <i>object</i>, and another the <i>environment</i> of the +object; or rather that a multitude of sets formed a vast variety of +objects, and another multitude of sets formed a vast variety of +environments. When we see matter acting by law, then if there is no +Creator, we have the to us unthinkable proposition of law without a +lawgiver!</p> + +<p>On the other hand, if we shut out some of the difficulties, keep our eye +on one part of the case only—and that is what the human mind is very +apt to do—we can easily come round to think that, after all, +<i>elementary</i> matter—cosmic gas—is a very <i>simple</i> thing; and looks +really as if no great Power, or Intellect, were required to account for +its origin. After all, some will say, if we grant your great, wise, +beneficent, designing Creator, the finite human mind has as little idea +of a self-existing God, as it has of self-existing matter and +self-existing law. <i>You</i> postulate one great mystery, <i>we</i> postulate two +smaller ones; and the two together really present less "unthinkableness" +to the mind than your one. That is so far plausible, but it is no more. +To believe in a GOD is to believe in One Existence, who necessarily (by +the terms of our conception) has the power both of creating matter, +designing the forms it shall take, and originating the tendencies, +forces, activities—or whatever else we please to call them—which drive +matter in the right direction to get the desired result. To believe not +only that matter caused itself, but that the different forces and +tendencies, and the aims and ends of development, were self-caused, is +surely a much more difficult task. It is the existence of such a +<i>variety</i>, it is the existence of a uniform tendency to produce certain +though multitudinous results, that makes the insuperable difficulty of +supposing <i>matter always developing</i> (towards certain ends) to be +self-caused.</p> + +<p>The advocates of "eternal matter" really overcome the difficulty, by +shutting their eyes to everything beyond a part of the problem—the +existence of simple matter apart from any laws, properties, or +affinities.</p> + +<p>But the simplest drop of water, in itself, and apart from its mechanical +relations to other matter, is really a very complex and a very wonderful +thing; not at all likely to be "self-caused." Water is made up, we know, +of oxygen and hydrogen—two elementary colourless, formless gases. Now +we can easily divide the one drop into two, and, without any great +difficulty, the two into four, and (perhaps with the aid of a magnifying +glass) the four into eight, and so on, <i>as long as</i> the minute particle +<i>still retains the nature of water</i>. In short, we speak of the smallest +subdivision of which matter is capable without losing its own nature, as +the <i>molecule</i>. All matter may be regarded as consisting of a vast mass +of these small molecules.</p> + +<p>Now, we know that all known matter is capable of existing either in a +solid, liquid, or gaseous form, its nature not being changed. Water is +very easily so dealt with. Some substances, it is true, require very +great pressure or very great cold, or both, to alter their form; but +even carbonic acid, oxygen, and hydrogen, which under ordinary +conditions are gases, can with proper appliances be made both liquid and +solid. Pure alcohol, has, I believe, never been made solid, but that is +only because it is so difficult to get a sufficient degree of cold: +there is no doubt that it could be done.</p> + +<p>It might be supposed that the molecules of which dead matter (whether +solid, liquid, or vapourous) is composed, were equally motionless and +structureless. But it is not so: every molecule in its own kind is +endowed with marvellous properties. In the first place, every molecule +has a double capability of motion. In the solid form the molecules are +so packed together that, of course, the motion is excessively +restricted; in the liquid it is a little easier; in the gaseous state +the molecules are in a comparatively "open order." In most substances +that are solid under ordinary conditions, by applying heat continuously +we first liquefy and ultimately vapourize them. In those substances +which under ordinary conditions are <i>gas</i> (like carbonic acid, for +instance), it is by applying cold, with perhaps great pressure as well, +that we induce them to become liquid and solid; in fact, the process is +just reversed. As we can most easily follow the process of heating, I +will describe that. First, the solid (in most cases) gets larger and +larger as it progresses to liquefaction, and when it gets to vapour, it +suddenly expands enormously. Take a rod of soft iron, and reduce it to +freezing temperature: let us suppose that in that condition it measures +just a thousand inches long. Then raise the temperature to 212 degrees +(boiling point), and it will be found to measure 1,012 inches. Why is +that? Obviously, because the molecules have got a little further apart. +If you heat it till the iron gets liquid, the liquid would also occupy +still more space than the original solid rod; and if we had temperature +high enough to make the melted iron go off into vapour, it would occupy +an enormously increased space. I cannot say what it would be for iron +vapour; but if a given volume of water is converted into vapour, it will +occupy about 1,700 times the space it did when liquid, though the weight +would not be altered.</p> + +<p>It may here be worth while to mention that it is not invariably true +that a substance gets contracted, and the molecules more and more +pressed together, as it assumes a solid form. There is at least one +exception. If we take 1,700 pints of steam, the water, as I said, on +becoming cool enough to lose the vapourous form, will shrink into a +measure holding a single pint; if we cooled lower still, it will get +smaller and smaller in bulk (though of course not at all at the same +rate) till it arrives at a point when it is just going to freeze; then +suddenly (7 degrees above the freezing point) it again begins to expand. +Ice occupies more space than cold water; its molecules get arranged in a +particular manner by their crystallization.</p> + +<p>On the admission of an <i>intelligent</i> Creator providing, by beneficent +design, the laws of matter, it is easy to give a reason for this useful +property. It prevents the inhabitants of northern climates being +deprived of a supply of water. As it is, the solid water or ice +expands, and, becoming lighter, forms at the top of the water, and the +heavier warmer water remains below. But if ice always got denser and +sank, the warmer liquid would be perpetually displaced and so come up to +the surface, where it would freeze and sink in its turn. In a short +time, then, all our water supplies would (whenever the temperature went +down to freezing, which it constantly does in winter) be turned into +solid ice. This would be a source of the gravest inconvenience to the +population of a cold climate. If we deny a designing mind, the +alternative is that this property of water is a mere chance.</p> + +<p>But to return to molecules. Molecules are endowed with an inherent +faculty of motion; only under the conditions of what we call the solid, +they are so compressed, that there is no room for any motion appreciable +to the senses. Even if the solid is converted into vapour, the molecules +are still much restrained in their movements by the pressure of the air. +But of late years, great improvements (partly chemical, partly +mechanical) have been made in producing perfect <i>vacua</i>; that is to say, +in getting glass or other vessels to be so far empty of air, that the +almost inconceivably small residue in the receptacle has no perceptible +effect on the action of a small quantity of any substance already +reduced to the form of gas or vapour introduced into it. Dr. W. Crookes +has made many beautiful experiments on the behaviour of the molecules of +attenuated matter in <i>vacua</i>. The small quantity of vapour introduced +contains only a relatively small number of molecules, which thus freed +from all sensible restraint within the limits of the glass vessel used, +are free to move as they will; they are observed to rush about, to +strike against the sides of the vessel, and under proper conditions to +shine and become <i>radiant</i>, and to exhibit extraordinary phenomena when +subjected to currents of electricity. So peculiar is the molecular +action thus set up, that scientific men have been tempted to speak of a +fourth condition of matter (besides the three ordinary ones, solid, +liquid, and gaseous), which they call the ultra-gaseous or radiant state +of matter.</p> + +<p>This marvel of molecular structure seems already to have removed us +sufficiently far from the idea of a simple inert mass, which might be +primordial and self-caused. But we have not yet done. Even imagining the +extreme subdivision<a name="FNanchor_1_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_10"><sup>[10]</sup></a> of the particles in one of Dr. Crookes' vacuum +globes, the particles are still water. But we know that water is a +compound substance. The molecule has nine parts, of which eight are +hydrogen and one oxygen—because that is the experimentally known +proportion in which oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. As we can +(in the present state of our knowledge) divide no farther, we call these +ultimate fragments of simple or elementary substance <i>atoms</i>.</p> + +<p>Every substance, however finely divided into molecules, if it is not a +simple substance, must therefore have, inside the <i>molecular</i> structure, +a further <i>atomic</i> structure. And in the case of unresolvable or +"elementary" substance, the molecule and the atom are not necessarily +the same. For though there is reason to believe that, the molecule of +these does consist, in some cases, of only one atom—in which case the +atom and the molecule are identical; in other cases, the molecule is +known to consist of more than one atom of the same element; and the +atoms are capable of being differently arranged, and when so arranged +have different <i>properties</i> or behaviour, though their nature is not +changed. This property is spoken of by chemists as <i>allotropism</i>. No +chemist on earth can detect the slightest difference in <i>constitution</i> +between a molecule of <i>ozone</i> and one <i>oxygen</i>; but the two have widely +different properties, or behave very differently. There is thus a great +mystery about atoms and their possible differences under different +arrangement, which is as yet unsolved. Those who wish to get an insight +into the matter (which cannot be pursued farther here) will do well to +read Josiah Cooke's "The New Chemistry," in the International Scientific +Series. The mind is really lost in trying to realize the idea of a +fragment of matter too small for the most powerful microscope, but +existing in fact (because of faultless reasoning from absolutely +conclusive experiments), and yet so constituted that it is +<i>practically</i> a different thing when placed in one position or order, +from what it is when placed in another.</p> + +<p>Turning from this mystery, as yet so obscure, to what is more easily +grasped, we shall hardly be surprised to learn, further, that every kind +of, atom obeys its own laws, and that while atoms of one kind always +have a <i>tendency to combine</i> with atoms of other kinds, it is absolutely +impossible to get them to combine together except on certain conditions.</p> + +<p>The difference between combination and mixture is well known. Shake sand +and sugar in a bag for ever so long, but they will only <i>mix</i>, not +<i>combine</i> or form any new substance even with the aid of electric +currents; but place oxygen and hydrogen gas under proper conditions, and +the gases will disappear, and water (in weight exactly equal to the +weight of the volume of gases) will appear in their place.</p> + +<p>It is only certain kinds of atoms that will combine at all with other +kinds; and when they do so combine, they will only unite in absolutely +fixed proportions, so that chemists have been able to assign to every +kind of element its own combining proportion. The substances that will +combine will do so in these proportions, or in proportions of any <i>even +multiple</i> of the number, and in no other. Thus fourteen parts of +nitrogen will combine with sixteen of oxygen; and we have several +substances in nature, called nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitric +di-oxide, &c., which illustrate this, in which fourteen parts of +nitrogen combine with sixteen oxygen or fourteen nitrogen with a +multiple of sixteen oxygen, or a multiple of fourteen nitrogen combine +with sixteen oxygen, and so on.</p> + +<p>See now where we have got to. When we had spoken of a tiny fragment of +primal matter—a drop of water, for instance—it seemed as if there was +no more to be said; but no, we found ourselves able to give a whole +history of the molecules of which the substance consists; and when we +had considered the molecule, we found a further beautiful and intricate +order of <i>atoms</i> inside the molecule, as it were.</p> + +<p>And there is no reason to suppose that science has yet revealed all that +is possible to be known about atoms and molecules; so that if further +wonders should be evoked, the argument will grow and grow in cumulative +force.</p> + +<p>Let me sum up the conclusion to be drawn from these facts in a quotation +from a discourse of Sir John F.W. Herschel.</p> + +<p>"When we see," says that eminent philosopher, "a great number of things +precisely alike, we do not believe this similarity to have originated +except from <i>a common principle independent of them</i>; and that we +recognize this likeness, chiefly by the <i>identity of their deportment +under similar circumstances</i> strengthens rather than weakens the +conclusion.</p> + +<p>"A line of spinning jennies, or a regiment of soldiers dressed exactly +alike and going through precisely the same evolutions, gives us no idea +of independent existence: we must see them act out of concert before we +can believe them to have independent wills and properties not impressed +on them from without.</p> + +<p>"And this conclusion, which would be strong even if there were only two +individuals precisely alike in <i>all</i> respects and <i>for ever</i>, acquires +irresistible force when their number is multiplied beyond the power of +imagination to conceive.</p> + +<p>"If we mistake not, then, the discoveries alluded to effectually destroy +the ideas of an <i>eternal</i> self-existent matter by giving to each of its +atoms the essential characters at once of a <i>manufactured</i> article and +of a <i>subordinate agent</i>."</p> + +<p>In other words, continuing the metaphor of the trained army, we see +millions upon millions of molecules all arranged in regiments, distinct +and separate, and the regiments again made up of companies or +individuals, each obeying his own orders in subordination to, and in +harmony with, the whole: are we not justified in concluding that this +army has not been only called into being by some cause external to +itself; but further, that its constitution has been impressed upon it, +and its equipments and organization directed, by an Infinite +Intelligence?</p> + +<p>There is, then, no such thing to be found in Nature as a simple, +structureless "primal matter" which exhibits nothing tending to make +self-causation or aboriginal existence difficult to conceive. To look at +matter in that light is not only to take into consideration a <i>part</i> of +the case; it is really to take what does not exist, a part that exists +only in the imagination. The simplest form of matter we can deal with, +exhibits within itself all the wondrous plan, law, and sequence of the +molecular and atomic structure we have sketched out; and when we +consider that, having taken matter so far, we have even then only +introduced it to the verge of the universe, ushered it on to the +threshold of a great "aeon," when and where it is to be acted on by +"gravitation" and other forces, to act in relation to other matter, and +to be endowed perhaps with LIFE, we shall feel that the +self-existence—the uncaused existence of matter, and of the principles +on which matter proceeds or acts, is in reality not a less mystery than +the self-existence of a Designing and Intelligent Cause, but one so +great as to be itself "unthinkable."</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_10">[10]</a><div class="note"> As to the possibility of <i>indefinite</i> subdivision of +matter, see Sir W. Thomsons's lecture, <i>Nature</i>, June, 1883, <i>et seq.</i></div> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_V"></a><h2>CHAPTER V.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>THE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER</i>.</p> + +<p>We now come to <i>Living</i> Matter; directing attention, first, to that +elementary form of life as exhibited in simple protoplasm and in the +lower forms of organism, and then to the perfect forms of bird and +beast. In each case, we shall find the same evidence of Design and +Intelligence, the same proof of "contrivance" and purpose, which we +cannot attribute to the mere action of secondary causes.</p> + +<p>The simplest form in which LIFE is manifested is in a viscid gelatinous +substance without colour or form, called <i>Protoplasm</i>. Wherever there is +life there is protoplasm. Protoplasm, as before remarked, lies just +under the bark in trees, and is the material from which the growth of +the wood and bark cells and fibres proceeds. Protoplasm, is also present +in the muscles and in the blood, and wherever growth is going on.</p> + +<p>But protoplasm also exists by itself; or, more properly speaking, there +exist living creatures, both plant and animal, which are so simple in +structure, so low in organization, that they consist of nothing but a +speck of protoplasm. Such a creature is the microscopic <i>amoeba</i>. +Sometimes these little specks of protoplasm are surrounded with +beautifully formed "silicious shells—a skeleton of radiating <i>spiculae</i> +or crystal-clear concentric spheres of exquisite symmetry and +beauty.<a name="FNanchor_1_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_11"><sup>[11]</sup></a>" The simplest <i>amoeba</i> however, has no definite form; but the +little mass moves about, expands and contracts, throws out projections +on one side and draws them in on the other. It exhibits irritability +when touched. It may be seen surrounding a tiny particle of food, +extracting nutriment from it and growing in size. Ultimately the little +body separates or splits up into two, each part thenceforth taking a +separate existence.</p> + +<p>Now it is claimed that such a little organism contains the potentiality +of all life; that it grows and multiplies, and develops into higher and +higher organisms, into all (in short) that we see in the plant and +animal world around us. This, it is argued, is all done by natural +causes, not by any direction or guidance or intervention of a Divine +agency.</p> + +<p>Here we must stop to ask how this protoplasm, or simplest form of +organic life, came to exist? How did it get its <i>life</i>—its property of +taking nourishment, of growing and of giving birth to other creatures +like itself?</p> + +<p>The denier of creation replies, that just in the same way as, by the +laws of affinity, other inanimate substances came together to produce +the earth—salts and other compounds we see in the world around us—so +did certain elements combine to form protoplasm. This combination when +perfected has the property of being alive, just as water has the +property of assuming a solid form or has any other of the qualities +which we speak of as its properties.</p> + +<p>Now it is perfectly true that, treated as a substance, you can take the +gummy protoplasm, put it into a glass and subject it to analysis like +any other substance. But simple as the substance appears, composition is +really very complicated. Professor Allman tells us that so difficult and +wonderful is its chemistry, that in fact really very little is known +about it. The best evidence we have, I believe, makes it tolerably +certain that protoplasm consists of a combination of ammonia, carbonic +acid, and water, and that every molecule of it is made up of 76 atoms, +of which 36 are carbon, 26 hydrogen, 4 nitrogen, and 10 oxygen.<a name="FNanchor_1_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_12"><sup>[12]</sup></a></p> + +<p>But no chemist has ever been able either to account theoretically for +such a composition, still less to produce it artificially. It is urged, +however, that it may be only due to our clumsy apparatus and still very +imperfect knowledge of chemistry, that we were unable artificially to +make up protoplasm.</p> + +<p>And of course there is no answer to a supposition of this sort. +Nevertheless there is no sort of reason to believe that protoplasm will +ever be made; nor, if we could succeed in uniting the elements into a +form resembling protoplasmic jelly, is there the least reason to suppose +that such a composition would exhibit the irritability, or the powers of +nutrition and reproduction, which are essentially the characteristics of +<i>living</i> protoplasm. It is not too much to say that, after the close of +the controversy about spontaneous generation, it is now a universally +admitted principle of science that life can only proceed from life—the +old <i>omne vivum ex ovo</i> in a modern form.<a name="FNanchor_1_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_13"><sup>[13]</sup></a></p> + +<p>But here the same sort of argument that was brought forward regarding +the possibility of matter and its laws being self-caused, comes in as +regards life.</p> + +<p>The argument in the most direct form was made use of by Professor +Huxley, but it is difficult to believe that so powerful a thinker could +seriously hold to a view which will not bear examination, however neatly +and brilliantly it may go off when first launched into the air. The +argument is that life can only be regarded as a further property of +certain forms of matter. Oxygen and hydrogen, when they combine, result +in a new substance, quite unlike either of them in character, and +possessing <i>new</i> and different properties. The way in which the +combination is effected is a mystery, yet we do not account for the new +and peculiar properties of water (so different from those of the +original gases) as arising from a principle of "aquosity," which we have +to invoke from another world. The answer is that the argument is from +analogy, and that there is not really the remotest analogy between the +two cases. It is true that, as far as we know, electricity is necessary +to force a combination of the requisite equivalents of oxygen and +hydrogen into water. But though we do not know why this is, or what +electricity is, we can repeat the process as often as we will. But mark +the difference; the water once existing is obviously only a new form of +matter, in the same category with the gases it came from: it neither +increases in bulk, nor takes in fresh elements to grow, and give birth +to new drops of water. But protoplasm has something quite different—for +there may be dead protoplasm and living protoplasm, both identical to +the eye and to every chemical test. In either condition, protoplasm, as +such, has <i>properties</i> of the same nature (though not of the same kind) +as those of water, oxygen gas, or any other matter; it is colorless, +heavy, sticky, elastic, and so forth; but besides all that (without the +aid of electricity or any physical force we can apply) one has the power +of producing more protoplasm—gathering for itself, by virtue of its +inherent power, the materials for growth and reproduction.</p> + +<p>If directly water was called into existence it could take in +nourishment, and divide and go on producing more water—and if some +water could do this, while other water (which no available test could +distinguish from it in any other respect) could not, then we <i>should</i> be +perfectly justified in giving a special name to this power, and calling +it "aquosity" or "vitality" or anything else, it being out of all +analogy to anything else which we call a "property" of matter.</p> + +<p>In the introduction of LIFE into the <i>aeon</i> of organic developmental +history, we have a clear and distinct period, as we had when <i>matter</i> +came into view, or when <i>the change</i> was ushered in which set the cosmic +gas cooling and liquefying, and turning to solid in various form.</p> + +<p>The fact is that every organic form, whether plant or animal, derived +from the protoplasmic compounds of carbon-dixoide, ammonia and water, +is, as Mr. Drummond puts it,<a name="FNanchor_1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_14"><sup>[14]</sup></a> "made of materials which have once been +inorganic. An organizing principle, not belonging to their kingdom, lays +hold of them and elaborates them."</p> + +<p>Thus by the introduction of LIFE we have a vastly enlarged horizon. +Before, in the organic world, we had only the "principle" of solidifying +or crystallizing, liquefying, and turning to gas or vapour, ever +stopping when the state was attained. Or if a combination was in +progress, still the result was only a rearrangement of the same bulk of +materials (however new the form) in solid, liquid, or gas, but no +increase, no nutrition, no reproduction. In the organic world we have +something so different, that whether we talk of "property" or +"principle," the things are entirely distinct.</p> + +<p>The essential difference, stated as regards the mere facts of +irritability or motion, nutrition and reproduction, is so grandly +sufficient in itself, that one almost regrets to have to add on the +other facts which further emphasize the distinction between <i>life</i> and +any <i>property</i> of matter. But these further facts are highly important +as regards another part of the argument. For while what has just been +said almost demonstrates the necessity of a Giver of Life from a kingdom +outside the organic, the further facts point irresistibly to the +conclusion that we must predicate more about the Giver of Life that we +can of an abstract and unknown Cause.</p> + +<p>The original protoplasm, when dead, is undistinguishable by the eye, by +chemical test, or by the microscope, from the same protoplasm when +living; and living protoplasm, again, may be either animal or vegetable. +Both are in every respect (externally) absolutely identical. Yet the one +will only develop into a <i>plant</i>, the other only into an <i>animal.</i> Nor +does it diminish the significance of the fact to say that the +differentiation is <i>now</i> fixed by heredity. If we suppose protoplasm to +be only a fortuitous combination of elements, what secondary or common +natural cause will account for its acquisition of the fixed difference? +It is true that some forms of plants exhibit some functions that closely +approach the functions of what we call animal life; but, as we shall see +presently, there is no evidence whatever that there is any bridge +between the two—we have no proof that a plant ever develops into an +animal. Here is one of the gaps which the theory of Evolution, true as +it is to a certain extent, cannot bridge over; and we must not overlook +the fact. We shall revert to it hereafter.</p> + +<p>Can it be believed, then, that protoplasm, as the origin of life, is +self-caused, and self-developed? And this is not all. I must briefly +remind my readers that the way in which animal protoplasm deals with the +elements of nutrition is quite opposite to that which plant protoplasm +follows. I might, indeed, have mentioned this at an earlier stage, when +I mentioned Professor Huxley's comparison of the chemical action in the +formation of water with what he assumed to be the case in the formation +of protoplasm. When water is formed, the two gases disappear, and an +<i>exactly equal weight</i> of water appears in their place; but if living +protoplasm is enabled to imbibe liquid or other nutriment containing +ammonia, water, and carbonic acid, there is no disappearance of the +three elements and an equivalent weight of living protoplasm appearing +in its place. Protoplasm consumes the oxygen and sets free the carbonic +acid. Both kinds of protoplasm do this, until exposed to the light; and +then a difference is observed; for under the influence of light, animal +protoplasm alone continues to act in this way, and vegetable protoplasm +begins at once to develop little green bodies or corpuscles in its +cells, and afterwards acts in a totally opposite way, taking the carbon +into its substance and giving off the oxygen.<a name="FNanchor_1_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_15"><sup>[15]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Not only then has each kind of protoplasm its own mysterious character +impressed on it, and is compelled to act in a certain way; but still +further, each particle of animal and vegetable protoplasm, when directed +into its <i>general</i> course of development as <i>plant or animal</i>, will +again only obey a certain course of development in its own line.</p> + +<p>But we must proceed a step further; for those who would believe in the +sufficiency of unaided Evolution, bid us bear in mind how very +elementary the dawn of instinct or the beginning of reason is in the +lowest forms which are classed as animal, and how very small is the +gap<a name="FNanchor_1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_16"><sup>[16]</sup></a> between some highly organized plants and some animal forms, and +argue therefore that they may justly regard the distinction as of minor +importance, and hope that the "missing link" will be yet discovered and +proved. At any rate, they minimize the difference, and urge that it is +of no account if at least they can establish the sufficiency of a proved +development extending unbroken from the lowest to the highest animal +form. And having fixed attention on this side, no doubt there is a long +stretch of smooth water over which the passage is unchecked.</p> + +<p>The Evolution theory is that all the different species of animals, +birds, and other forms of life have been caused by the accumulation and +perpetuation of numerous small changes which began in one or at most a +few elementary forms, and went on till all the thousands of species we +now know of were developed.<a name="FNanchor_1_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_17"><sup>[17]</sup></a> It <i>is</i> a fact that all organic forms +have a certain tendency to vary. I need only allude to the many +varieties of pigeons, horses, cattle, and dogs which are produced by +varying the food, the circumstances of life and so forth, and by +selective breeding.</p> + +<p>The contention then is: given certain original simple forms of life, +probably marine or aquatic—for it is in the water that the most likely +occur—these will gradually change and vary, some in one direction, some +in another; that the changes go on increasing, each creature giving +birth to offspring which exhibits the stored-up results of change, till +the varied and finished forms—some reptile, some bird, some +animal—which we now see around us, have been produced. And at last man +himself was developed in the same way. All this, observe, is by the +action of just such ordinary and natural causes as we now see operating +around us—changes in food and in climate, changes in one part requiring +a corresponding change in others, and so on.</p> + +<p>Nature contains no sharply drawn lines. Plants are different from +animals; but there are animals so low down in the scale of life that it +is difficult to distinguish them from plants. Pigeons are distinct from +pheasants, but the line at which the one species ends and the other +begins is difficult to draw. This fact seems to invite some theory of +one form changing into other. Accordingly the evolutionist explains the +working of the process which he asserts to be sufficient to produce all +the various forms of life in our globe.</p> + +<p>After stating this more in detail than we have previously done, we shall +be in a better position to judge if the process (which in the main we +have no desire to deny or even to question) can dispense with <i>guidance</i> +and the fixing of certain lines and limits within which, and of certain +types towards which, the development proceeds. That is our point.</p> + +<p>It is hardly necessary to illustrate the enormous destruction of life +which goes on in the world. Even among the human race, the percentage of +infants that die in the first months of their life is very large. But in +the lower forms of life it is truly enormous. Only consider the myriads +of insects that perish from hunger or accident, and from the preying of +one species on another. If it were not so, the world would be overrun by +plagues of mice, of birds, of insects of all kinds, and indeed by +creatures of every grade. The term "struggle for existence" is, then, +not an inapt one. All forms of living creatures have to contend with +enemies which seek to prey upon or to destroy them, with the difficulty +of obtaining food, and with what I may call the chances of +nature—cold, storms, floods, disease, and so forth.</p> + +<p>Now, it is obvious that if some creatures of a given kind possess some +accidental peculiarity or modification in their formation which gives +them (in one way or another) an advantage over their fellows, these +improved specimens are likely to survive, and, surviving, to have +offspring.</p> + +<p>It is this perpetuation of advantageous changes, originally induced by +the circumstances of environment, that is indicated by the term "natural +selection." Nature chooses out the form best suited to the circumstances +which surround it, and this form lives while the others die out. And +this form goes on improving by slow successive changes, which make it +more and more fit for the continually changing circumstances of its +life.</p> + +<p>Subordinate also to this natural selection is the principle that bright +colour and other special qualities may be developed in the males of a +race, because individuals with such advantages are more attractive, and +therefore more easily find mates, than dull-coloured or otherwise less +attractive individuals.</p> + +<p>Of each of these principles I may give a simple example. Supposing a +species of bird with a soft slender beak to be placed on an island, +where the only food they could obtain was fruit enclosed in a hard or +tough shell or covering. Supposing some birds accidentally possessed of +a beak that was shorter and stouter than the others', these would be +able to break open the shell and get at the fruit, while the others +would starve. Some of the descendants of the birds with the stout beaks +would inherit the same peculiarity, and in the course of several +generations there would thus arise a species with short and strong, +perhaps curved, beaks just fitted to live on fruits of the kind +described. In a similar way the webbed feet of birds that swim were +developed by their aquatic habits. And so with the long slender toes of +the waders, which are so well fitted for walking over floating aquatic +plants.</p> + +<p>Of the other principle, sexual selection, a familiar example is the +bright and showy colouring of the male birds of many species: the +females of their species, as they need protection while helplessly +sitting on their eggs, are dull-coloured like the bark of trees or the +sand, among which their nests lie hid.</p> + +<p>Some of the Himalayan pheasants exhibit this peculiarity to a marked +degree. Originally, it is said, the male bird, which was more brightly +coloured than the rest, got mated more easily by the preference shown to +him for his bright colour.</p> + +<p>The question is, can we suppose all this to go on, by self-caused laws +and concurrence of circumstances, without a pre-existing design for the +forms to reach or an external guidance in the processes?</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_11">[11]</a><div class="note"> Professor Allman.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_12">[12]</a><div class="note"> Nicholson ("Zoology," p. 4) gives for Albumen, which is +nearly identical with protoplasm—Carbon, 144; Hydrogen, 110; Nitrogen, +18; Oxygen, 42; Sulphur, 2. These figures nearly equal those in the +text, being those figures multiplied each by 4 (approximately) and +without the trace of sulphur.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_13">[13]</a><div class="note"> <i>See</i> "Critiques and Addresses," T.H. Huxley, F.R.S., +p. 239. So much is this the case, that it is really superfluous, however +interesting, to recall the experiments of Dr. Tyndall and others, which +finally demonstrated that wherever primal animal forms, bacteria and +other, "microbes," were produced in infusions of hay, turnip, &c., +apparently boiled and sterilized and then hermetically sealed, there +were really germs in the air enclosed in the vessel, or germs that in +one form or another were not destroyed by the boiling or heating. Dr. +Bastian's argument for spontaneous generation is thus completely +overthrown. <i>(See</i> Drummond, "Natural Law," pp. 62-63.)</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_14">[14]</a><div class="note"> "Natural Law," p. 233.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_15">[15]</a><div class="note"> Certain <i>fungi</i> seem to afford an exception to this. The +above is, I believe, true as a theoretical action of plants and animals +in protoplasmic form. But practically, in all higher developments of +either kind, other distinctions come into play; e.g., that plants can +make use of inorganic matter, gases, and water, and elaborate them into +organic matter. Animals cannot do this, they require more or less solid +food—always requiring "complex organic bodies which they ultimately +reduce to much simpler inorganic bodies. They are thus mediately or +immediately dependent on plants for their subsistence" (Nicholson, +"Zoology," 6th ed. p. 17). It is perhaps with reference to this that in +the Book of Genesis the Creator is represented as giving <i>plant</i> life to +the service of man and animals—while nothing is said of the preying of +<i>Carnivora</i> and <i>Insectivora</i> on animal life.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_16">[16]</a><div class="note"> At the risk of repetition I will remind the reader that +nature contains <i>nothing like</i> a progressive scale from plant to animal. +It is <i>never</i> that the highest plant can be connected with the lowest +animal as in one series of links. The animal kingdom and the plant +kingdom are absolutely apart. Both start from similar elementary +proteinaceous structures; and both preserve their development +upwards—each exhibiting <i>some</i> of the features of the other. It is at +the bottom of each scale that resemblance is to be found, <i>not</i> between +the top of one and the lowest members of the other.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_17">[17]</a><div class="note"> The reader may find this admirably put in Wallace, +"Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection," p. 302.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_VI"></a><h2>CHAPTER VI.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>THE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION OF ORGANIC FORMS</i>.</p> + +<p>The heading of this chapter does not mark a new departure, for we have +been tracing existing forms of matter from the first, and have already +seen the necessity of believing in Creative Intelligence and Guidance. +We have seen that inorganic matter, with what we call its molecular or +atomic structure, cannot be reasonably regarded as self-caused; and we +have concluded with Sir J.F.W. Herschell that the sight of such a +well-arranged army, performing its evolutions in a regular and uniform +manner, irresistibly suggests a great Commander and Designer. We have +further found that the advent of LIFE demands a Power <i>ab extra</i>. We +have called attention to the gap, between plant and animal, which is +ignored or made light of, chiefly on account of the close approach of +the two kingdoms. But there is one broad distinction, namely, that of +elementary reason and no reason, or of consciousness and +unconsciousness, which is, in itself, a sufficient difficulty to pull +us up shortly. We have not yet fully considered this matter, because it +will come more appropriately at a later stage, and in the <i>à fortiori</i> +form. But we have justly noted it here. We cannot account for the most +elementary reason by any physical change; there is no analogy between +the two. The connection of mind and matter is unexplainable; and no +theory of development of physical form can say why, at any given stage, +physical development begins to be accompanied by brain-power and +<i>consciousness</i>. Admit candidly that the addition of intelligence at a +certain stage, however mysteriously interwoven with structural +accompaniments, is a gift <i>ab extra</i>, and we have at least a reasonable +and so far satisfactory explanation.</p> + +<p>But when we have got an animal form, however simple and elementary, with +at least a recognizable "potentiality" of intelligence, we enter, as I +said, a long stretch of apparently smooth water, over which, for an +important part of our passage, we seem able to glide without any +difficulty from the necessary intervention of the so-called +supernatural. I have, then, to show that even here there is really no +possibility of dispensing with a Creator who has a purpose, a designed +scheme, and a series of type-forms to be complied with.</p> + +<p>In order to fully exhaust the question how far natural selection is +capable of accounting for everything, it would be necessary to take a +very wide view of natural history and botany, which it is quite +impossible for us to attempt. But this is not necessary for our purpose. +We are perfectly justified in selecting certain topics which must arise +in the discussion. If, in studying these points, we find that <i>there</i> at +least the intervention of a Controlling Power becomes necessary, and the +absence of it leaves things without any reasonable explanation, then we +shall have good and logical ground for holding to our faith in the +universal presence of such a Power. No chain is stronger than its +weakest link. If secondary causes cannot succeed at any one part of the +chain, it is obvious that they fail as a universal explanation.</p> + +<p>This part of the work has already been done far better than I could do +it. In the first eight chapters of Mivart's "Genesis of Species" <a name="FNanchor_1_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_18"><sup>[18]</sup></a> the +argument has been ably and clearly put, and whatever answer is possible +has been given by Darwin and others; so that the world may judge. All +that can here be usefully attempted, is, by way of reminder, to +reproduce some main topics on which no real answer has been given. These +are selected, partly because they are less abstruse and difficult to +follow than some which might be dealt with, partly because they are +calculated to awaken our interest, and partly because the conclusion in +favour of a continual Providence; working through organized law and +system, appears to follow most clearly from them.</p> + +<p>The points I would call attention to are the following:—</p> + +<p>(I) That as natural selection will only maintain changes that have been +<i>beneficial</i> to the creature, it is contrary to such a law, if acting +entirely by itself, that that there should be developments (not being +mere accidental deformities, &c.) disadvantageous to the creature. And +yet the world is full of such.</p> + +<p>(2) That there are forms which cannot be accounted for on the +evolutionist supposition, that they were gradually obtained by a series +of small changes slowly progressing towards a perfect structure. They +would be of no use at all unless produced <i>at once and complete</i>.</p> + +<p>(3) That natural selection, as apart from a Divine Designer, altogether +fails to account for <i>beauty</i>, as distinguished from mere brilliancy or +conspicuousness, in nature. Whereas, if we suppose the existence of a +beneficent Creator, who has moral objects in view, and cares for the +delight and the improvement of His creatures,<a name="FNanchor_1_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_19"><sup>[19]</sup></a> and looking to the +known effects on the mind of beauty in art and in nature, the existence +is at once and beyond all cavil explained.</p> + +<p>(4) That we have positive evidence against <i>uncontrolled</i> evolution +(uncontrolled by set plan and design i.e.) and a strong presumption in +favour of the existence of created <i>types</i>; so that evolution proceeds +towards these types by aid of natural laws and forces working together +(in a way that our limited faculties necessarily fail to grasp +adequately);<a name="FNanchor_1_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_20"><sup>[20]</sup></a> and so that, the type once reached, a certain degree of +variation, but never <i>transgression</i> of <i>the type</i>, is possible. +Further, that on this supposition we are able to account for some of the +unexplained facts in evolutionary history, such as <i>reversion</i> and the +<i>sterility of hybrids</i>; and to see why there are gaps which cannot be +bridged over, and which by extreme theorists are only feebly accounted +for on the supposition that as discovery progresses they <i>will</i> be +bridged over some day.</p> + +<p>(5) Lastly, that there is no possibility of giving <i>time</i> enough on any +possible theory of the world's existence, for the evolution of all +species, unless <i>some</i> reasonable theory of creative arrangement and +design be admitted.</p> + +<p>The great objection—the descent of man and the introduction of reason, +consciousness, and so forth, into the world, will then form two separate +chapters, concluding the first division of my subject.</p> + +<p>There is one point which the reader may be surprised to see omitted. It +is, that if these slow changes were always going on, why is not the +present world full of, and the fossil-bearing rocks also abounding in, +<i>intermediate forms</i>, creatures which <i>are on their way</i> to being +something else? But there are reasons to be given on this ground which +make the subject a less definite one for treatment. It is said, for +example, that in the fossil rocks we have only such scanty and +fragmentary records, that it is not possible to draw a complete +inference, and that there is always the possibility of fresh discoveries +being made. Such discoveries have, it is asserted, already been made in +the miocene and again in later rocks; different species of an early form +of <i>horse</i> which are (and this we may admit) the ancestral or +intermediate forms of our own horse, have been found. I therefore would +not press the difficulty, great as it is, because of the escape which +the hope of future discovery always affords. I will take this +opportunity to repeat that in this chapter I say nothing about the +difficulty which arises from the introduction of elementary reason or +instinct, and of consciousness, into the scale of organic being; that +will more appropriately fall in with the consideration of the +development of man, where naturally the difficulty occurs with its +greatest force.</p> + +<p>(1) I come at once to the great difficulty that, if all existing forms +are due to the occurrence of changes that helped the creature in the +struggle for existence, how is it possible now to account for forms +which are not advantageous? yet such forms are numerous. Of this +objection, the existence of imperfect or neuter bees and ants is an +instance. The modification in form which these creatures exhibit is of +no advantage to them. It <i>is</i> a great advantage, no doubt, to the other +bees; but then this introduces a view of some power <i>making</i> one thing +for the benefit of another, not a change in the form itself adapted of +course to its <i>own</i> advantage—since natural laws, forces, and +conditions of environment could not conceivably <i>design</i> the advantage +of another form, and cause one to change for the benefit of that other.</p> + +<p>Why is it, again, that crabs and crayfish can only grow by casting off +their shells, during which process they often die, as well as remain +exposed defenceless to the attacks of enemies? Why should stags shed +their horns also, leaving them defenceless for a time? Other animals do +not do so, and there is nothing in the nature of the horn which requires +it.</p> + +<p>This brief allusion is here sufficient. Mr. Mivart's work gives it at +large.</p> + +<p>(2) Passing next to the question of the advantage of <i>incomplete +stages</i>—portions of a mechanism only useful when complete, the most +striking examples may be found in the Vegetable kingdom. The +fertilization of flowering plants is effected by the pollen, a yellow +dust formed in the anthers, which is carried from flower to flower. In +the pines and oaks, this is done by the wind. But in other cases insects +visit a flower to get the honey, and in so doing get covered with +pollen, which they carry away and leave in the next flower visited. Now +one of our commonest and most useful plants, the red clover, is so +constructed that it can only be fertilized by humble bees. If this bee +became extinct, the plant would die out; how can such a development be +advantageous to it?</p> + +<p>But the contrivances by which this process of fertilization is secured +are so marvellous, that I confess I am completely staggered by the idea +that these contrivances have been caused by the self-growth and +adaptation of the plant without guidance. There is a plant called +<i>Salvia glutinosa</i><a name="FNanchor_1_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_21"><sup>[21]</sup></a>—easily recognized by its sticky calyx and pale +yellow flowers. The anthers that bear the pollen are hidden far back in +the hood of the flower, so that the pollen can neither fall nor can the +wind carry it away; but the two anthers are supported on a sort of +spring, and directly a bee goes to the flower and pushes in his head to +get the honey, the spring is depressed and both anthers start forward, +of course depositing their pollen on the hairy back of the bee, which +carries it to the stigma of the next flower. This process can be tested +without waiting for a bee, by pushing a bit of stick into the flower, +when the curious action described will be observed. It is very easy to +say that this admirable mechanical contrivance is of great use to the +plant <i>in its complete</i> form; but try and imagine what use an +intermediate form would have been! If development at once proceeded to +the complete form, surely this marks <i>design</i>; if not, no partial step +towards it would have been of any use, and therefore would not have been +inherited and perpetuated so as to prepare for further completion. But +many other plants have a structure so marvellous that this objection is +continually applicable. Let me only recall one other case, that of the +orchid, called <i>Coryanthes macrantha</i>. In this flower there are two +little horns, which secrete a pure water, or rather water mixed with +honey. The lower part of the flower consists of a long lip, the end of +which is bent into the form of a bucket hanging below the horns. This +bucket catches the nectar as it drops, and is furnished with a spout +over which the liquid trickles when it is too full. But the mouth of the +bucket is guarded by a curiously ridged cover with two openings, one on +each side. The most ingenious man, says Mr. Darwin, would never by +himself make out what this elaborate arrangement was intended for. It +was at last discovered. Large humble bees were seen visiting the flower; +by way of getting at the honey, they set to work to gnaw off the ridges +of the lid above alluded to; in doing this they pushed one another into +the bucket, and had to crawl out by the spout. As they passed out by +this narrow aperture, they had to rub against the anthers and so carried +off the pollen. When a bee so charged gets into another bucket, or into +the same bucket a second time, and has to crawl out, he brushes against +the stigma, and leaves the pollen on it. I might well have adduced this +plant as another instance of the first objection, since it may well be +asked, How could such a development, resulting in a structure which +presents the greatest difficulty in the way of fertilization, be +beneficial to the plant? But here the point is that, even if any one +could assert the utility of such an elaborate and complicated +development, and suppose it self-caused by accident or effect of +environment, it certainly goes against the idea that all forms are due +to an <i>accumulation of small changes</i>. For these curious contrivances in +the case of <i>Salvia, Coryanthes</i>, and other plants, would in any case +have been no use to the plant till the whole machinery <i>was complete</i>. +Now, on the theory of slow changes gradually accumulating till the +complete result was attained, there must have been generation after +generation of plants, in which the machinery was as yet imperfect and +only partly built up. But in such incomplete stages, fertilization would +have been impossible, and therefore the plant must have died out. Just +the same with the curious fly-trap in <i>Dionoea</i>. Whatever may be its +benefit to the plant, till the whole apparatus as it now is, was +<i>complete</i>, it would have been of no use. In the animal kingdom also, +instances might be given: the giraffe has a long neck which is an +advantage in getting food that other animals cannot reach; but what +would have been the use of a neck which was becoming—and had not yet +become—long? here intermediate stages would not have been useful, and +therefore could not have been preserved.<a name="FNanchor_2_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_22"><sup>[22]</sup></a> In flat fishes it is curious +that, though they are born with eyes on different sides of the head, the +lower eye gradually grows round to the upper-side. As remarked by Mr. +Mivart, natural selection could not have produced this change, since the +<i>first steps towards it</i> could have been of no possible use, and could +not therefore have occurred, at least not without direction and guidance +from without. Mr. Darwin's explanation of the case does not touch this +difficulty.</p> + +<p>(3) The third point, the occurrence of so much <i>beauty</i> in organic life, +is perhaps one of the most conclusive arguments for design in nature.</p> + +<p>Here, if possible, more clearly than elsewhere, I see a total failure of +"natural causes." We are told that the beauty of birds (for instance) is +easily accounted for by the fact, that the ornamented and beautiful +males are preferred by the other sex; and that this is an advantage, so +the beauty has been perpetuated; and the same with butterflies and +beetles.</p> + +<p>We are told also that bright-coloured fruits attract birds, who eat the +soft parts of the fruit and swallow the hard stone or seed which is thus +prepared for germination, and carried about and dispersed over the +earth's surface. Again, showy coloured flowers attract insects, which +carry away pollen and fertilize other flowers.</p> + +<p>All this is perfectly true; but it entirely fails to go far enough to +meet the difficulty.</p> + +<p>Now passing over such difficulties as the fact that bright colours in +flowers <i>do not</i> attract insects in many cases, but much more +inconspicuous flowers if they have a scent (mignonette, for example) +<i>do</i>; passing over such a fact as that afforded by the violet, which (as +some may not be aware) has two kinds of flower, one scented and of a +beautiful colour, the other green and inconspicuous, and it is the +<i>latter, not the former</i> which is usually fertile;—passing over all +detailed difficulties of this kind, I allude only to the one great one, +that in all these cases, besides mere bright colour, conspicuousness or +showiness, there is a great and wonderful beauty of pattern, design, or +colour arrangement, in nature. Now there is not a particle of evidence +to show that any animal has, to the smallest extent, a <i>sense of +beauty</i>. On the contrary it is most improbable. The sense of artistic +beauty is not only peculiar to man, but only exists in him when +civilized and cultivated. Uneducated people among ourselves have no +sense of landscape and other beauty. How then can it exist in animals?</p> + +<p>If there was nothing to explain but a uniform bright and showy colour, +natural selection might be sufficient to account for it. How is it, +then, that this is not the case? We have not only colour, but colour +diversified in the most elaborate and charming manner. Look at the +exquisite patterns on a butterfly's wing! look at the various delicate +arrangements of colour and pattern in flowers; or look again at the +arrangement of colour on a humming-bird—sometimes the tail, sometimes +the breast is ornamented, sometimes a splendid crest covers the head, +sometimes a jewelled gorget or ruff surrounds the throat; and these are +not uniformly coloured, but exhibit metallic and other changes of lustre +not to be imitated by the highest art. But to fully realize this, I had +best refer to a more familiar instance. Let any one examine—as an +object very easily procurable in these days—a peacock's feather. No +doubt the whole tail when expanded is very brilliant; but look closely +at the structure of a single feather; is all this arrangement needed +only to make the tail bright or conspicuous? Observe how wonderfully the +outer parts are varied; part has a metallic lustre of copper, part has +this also shot with green: then there is a delicate ring of violet with +a double yellowish border, all quite distinct from the inmost gorgeous +"eye" of green, blue, and black, and all arranged on the same feather!</p> + +<p>Take, again, the so-called diamond beetle of Brazil; here the wing case +is black studded all over with little pits or specks, which as a whole +only give it a powdery pale-green colour; but place it in the sunlight +and look at it with a magnifying glass—each little speck is seen to be +furnished with a set of minute metallic scales showing green and red +flashes like so many diamonds. How does such a delicate ornament answer +the demands of mere conspicuousness?</p> + +<p>But there is a stronger case than this. I before alluded to the +exquisite symmetry of the silicious and crystalline coverings of some of +the simplest forms of marine animalcules; and also I may here add the +beautiful colouring of <i>shells</i> sometimes on the <i>inside</i>.<a name="FNanchor_1_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_23"><sup>[23]</sup></a> In what +possible way would this beauty serve for any purely <i>useful</i> purpose?</p> + +<p>Lastly, how are we to account for the beauty of autumnal tints in woods, +or coloured <i>leaves</i> in plants such as the <i>Caladium</i>? The beauty is of +no conceivable use to the plant.</p> + +<p>"In Canada the colours of the autumn forest are notorious. Even on +cloudy days the hue of the foliage is of so intense a yellow that the +light thrown from the trees creates the impression of bright sunshine, +each leaf presents a point of sparkling gold. But the colours of the +leafy landscape change and intermingle from day to day, until pink, +lilac, vermilion, purple, deep indigo and brown, present a combination +of beauty that must be seen to be realized; for no artist has yet been +able to represent, nor can the imagination picture to itself, the +gorgeous spectacle.<a name="FNanchor_1_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_24"><sup>[24]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>Have we not here an exhibition which cannot be accounted for on any +principle of natural utility?</p> + +<p>(4) The fourth point, as previously stated, will be best treated by +stating beforehand what is the conclusion come to, and then justifying +it. My suggestion is that if we suppose a continuous evolution without a +series of designs prescribed before life began to develop, and without +any external guidance, then we are lost in difficulties. We cannot +account for why variation should set in in the very different ways it +does, nor why such a vast variety of divergent results should be +produced. We cannot account for the tendency to reversion to a previous +type, when artificial or accidental variation is not continually +maintained,<a name="FNanchor_1_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_25"><sup>[25]</sup></a> nor for the sterility of hybrids; nor, above all, for +evolution performing such freaks (if I may so say) as the origination of +our small finches and the tropical humming-birds from earlier +vertebrates through the Mesozoic reptiles, the pterodactyles, +<i>Odontornithes</i> and subsequent forms. Supposing that the Almighty +Designer created a complete <i>cosmos</i> of (1) the starry heavens and the +planetary system, (2) then a scheme whereby earth and water were to be +duly distributed over our planet; (3) established the relations by +which the external heavenly bodies were to regulate our seasons, tides, +and times (as we know they do). (4) Suppose, further, that the Designer +did not make "out of nothing" the series of finally developed animals as +we now have them, but "made the animals make themselves"—that is to +say, created the type, the ideal form, and adapted the laws and forces +which constitute environment, so that development of form should go on +regularly towards the appointed end, but in separate and appropriate +channels, each terminating when its object had been attained. Suppose +these conditions (which, as we shall afterwards see, are what +Revelation, fairly interpreted, declares) to exist; all the known +<i>facts</i>, and also the fairly certain <i>inferences</i> of Evolution, are then +accounted for.</p> + +<p>We have neither by revelation nor physical discovery an exact <i>scheme</i> +of all the types, nor which of the elementary forms were destined to +remain unchanged throughout. But some scheme of created types we surely +have. Whether what we call <i>species</i><a name="FNanchor_1_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_26"><sup>[26]</sup></a> are all types or not, we cannot +say; probably not. All we can be sure of is that there are definite +lines somewhere. We see the sterility of some hybrids, for instance, +which would seem to indicate that while some forms can conjugate and +their offspring remain fertile, others (approaching, as it were, the +verge of separation) give rise to hybrids which are or not absolutely +sterile,<a name="FNanchor_2_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_27"><sup>[27]</sup></a> according as they approach, or are more remote from, the +designed barrier-line. And at that point the separation is insuperable. +Certain forms of <i>Carnivora</i> and <i>Ungulata</i> seem to be for ever +apart—not only the two great orders, but even subdivisions within them. +Reptiles and birds, on the other hand, unlike as they at first sight +seem, have no type line drawn to separate them; that, at least, is one +of the more recent conclusions of biological science.</p> + +<p>In other cases where variation has occurred, and especially when it is +artificially—i.e., by the aid of selective breeding—caused or +favoured, there is the constant tendency to <i>revert</i>, which is at once +intelligible if there is a type scheme to be maintained.</p> + +<p>If there were a series of created types, there may naturally have been +what I may call sub-types; which would be certain well-marked stages on +the way to the final form. Such sub-type forms would naturally occur at +different ages, and being marked would show their place in the scale, +and their connection with the ultimate perfect form. Such a possibility +would exactly account for the series of <i>Eohippus, Hipparion</i>, and +horse, which we have already instanced; and still more so for the rise +and disappearance of the great Mesozoic Saurians when their object was +fulfilled. Deny guidance and type, and everything becomes confused. Why +should variation take certain directions? how comes it that natural +forces and conditions of life so occur and co-operate as to produce the +variety of changes needed?</p> + +<p>And there is also one other general objection which I desire to state.</p> + +<p>Why should <i>development</i> have gone in different directions <i>towards the +same object</i>? I grant that different circumstances would produce +different changes, but not for the same purpose. For example take +eye-sight. The world shows several types of eye. The <i>insect</i> eye quite +unlike any other; the crustacean eye also distinct; and birds, fishes, +and animals having an eye which is generally similar and is somewhat +imitated by the eye of the <i>cuttle fish</i> (which is not a <i>fish</i>, but a +<i>cephalopod</i>).</p> + +<p>Again, granted that <i>poison</i> is a useful defence to creatures: how is it +given so differently?—to a serpent in the tooth; to a bee or a scorpion +in the tail; to a spider in a specially adapted <i>antenna</i>, and to the +centipede in a pair of modified legs on the <i>thorax</i>.</p> + +<p>One would have supposed that natural causes tending to produce poison +weapons would have all gone on the same lines. And, curiously, in some +few cases, we have a sameness of line. About twelve species—all +fish—have an electric apparatus, familiar to most of us in the flat +sea-fish called <i>Torpedo</i> and in the fresh-water eel called <i>Gymnotus</i>. +The only answer the anti-creationist can give to this dissimilarity of +development is that there are many vacant places in the polity of +nature, and that development takes place in that direction which fits +the creature to occupy a vacant place, and is, therefore, diverse.</p> + +<p>It seems to me that this—the only answer that can he given—is +necessarily a modified form or mode <i>of creation.</i> How can <i>natural +causes</i> know anything about a polity of nature and a vacant place, here +and there, so that the creature must develop in one way or another to +fill it?</p> + +<p>Another set of cases is the production of similar functional results by +most diverse means, as in the case of flying animals, birds, +pterodactyles, and bats; here there is a widely different modification +of the fore-arm and other bones, all for the same purpose. The reader +will do well to refer to Mr. Mivart's book on this subject.</p> + +<p>Again, the question of types seems to be pointed to in the curious fact +of what I may call the double development of birds from reptiles. Mr. +Mivart says, "If one set of birds sprang from one set of reptiles and +another set from another set of reptiles, the two sets could never by +'natural selection' only have grown into such perfect similarity." Yet +we can trace the <i>Struthious</i> birds (those that, like ostriches, do not +fly) through the Dinosaurs and <i>Dinornis</i>, and the flying Carinate birds +though pterodactyles, <i>Archaeopteryx</i>, and <i>Icthyornis</i>, &c.</p> + +<p>It might well be added to this part of the subject, that granted that +developmental changes were often small, that progress was attained +little by little, this does not appear to have been always the case.</p> + +<p>The discoveries of the fossil species of horse,<a name="FNanchor_1_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_28"><sup>[28]</sup></a> <i>Eohippus, +Hipparion</i>, and so forth, clearly establish a developmental series, and +the ancient forms are claimed as the ancestor of the modern horse; but +these (Professor Owen tells us) differed more from one another than the +ass and the zebra (for instance) differ from the horse. Still, of course +it may be that there are still undiscovered intermediate forms; and in +any case there need be no desire to detract from the value of the +series, as really pointing towards a gradual perfection of the horse +from a ruder ancestor up to the latest type. But having reached the +type, and though that type exhibits such (considerable) variations as +occur between the Shetland pony, the Arab, and the dray-horse, we have +still no difficulty in recognizing the essential identity; nor is there +any evidence or any probability that the horse will ever change into +anything essentially different. All the fossil bats, again, were true +bats: and so with the rhinoceroses and the elephants. Granting the +fullest use that may be made of the imperfection of the geological +record, it is difficult to account for this, and still more for the +absence of intermediate forms (particularly suitable for preservation) +of the <i>Cetaceae</i>. The Zeuglodons from Eocene down to Pliocene, the +Dolphins in the Pliocene, and the <i>Ziphoids Catodontidae</i>, and +<i>Balaenidae</i> in the Pliocene, are all fully developed forms, with no +intermediate species.</p> + +<p>Mr. Mivart remarks, "There are abundant instances to prove that +considerable modifications may suddenly develop themselves, either due +to external conditions or to obscure internal causes in the organisms +which exhibit them.<a name="FNanchor_1_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_29"><sup>[29]</sup></a>" If it is not so, granted to the full the +imperfection of the Geologic record, but remembering the cases where we +<i>do</i> find intermediate forms; we ask why should they not be preserved in +other cases? If they ever existed we should surely see <i>more</i> changing +forms; not only such as are more or less uncertainly divided species, +but whole orders running one into another. No evidence exists to show +that any bird has gradually passed into an animal, nor a carnivorous +beast become ruminant, or <i>vice versâ.</i></p> + +<p>The analogy of changes that are known will not bear extension enough to +prove, even probably, any such change.</p> + +<p>Surely if our conclusion in favour of a Divine Design to be attained, +and a Providential Intelligence directing the laws of development, is no +more than a belief, it is a probable and reasonable belief: it certainly +meets facts and allows place for difficulties in a way far more +satisfactory than the opposite belief which rejects <i>all</i> but +"secondary" and purely "natural" causes.</p> + +<p>So clear does this seem to me, that I cannot help surmising that we +should never have heard of any objection to Divine creation and +providential direction, if it had not been for a prevalent fixed idea, +that by "creation" <i>must</i> be meant a final, one-act production <i>(per +saltum)</i> of a completely developed form, where previously there had been +nothing. Such a "creation" would of course militate against <i>any</i> +evolution, however cautiously stated or clearly established. And no +doubt such an idea of "creation" was and still is prevalent, and would +naturally and almost inevitably arise, while nothing to the contrary in +the <i>modus operandi</i> of Creative Power was known. What is more strange +is that the current objection should not now be, "Your <i>idea of +creation</i> is all wrong," rather than the one which has been strongly +put forward (and against which I am contending), "There is no place for +a Creator."</p> + +<p>(5) This is the only other <i>general</i> point that remains to be taken up +in connection with the theory that all living forms are due to the +gradual accumulation of small favourable changes without creative +intervention. The objection is that we cannot obtain the inconceivably +long time required for the process of uncontrolled and unaided +evolution.</p> + +<p>I am not here concerned to argue generally for the shortness or longness +of the periods of geological time; let us, for the purposes of argument, +admit a very wide margin of centuries and ages; but <i>some</i> limit there +must be. The sun's light and heat, for one thing, are necessary, and +though the bulk of combustible material in the sun is enormous, there +must be some end to it. Sir William Thomson has calculated (and his +calculations have never been answered) that on purely physical grounds, +the existence of life on the earth must be limited to some such period +as 100 millions of years; and this is far too short for uncontrolled +evolution.</p> + +<p>We know from fossils, that species have remained entirely unaltered +since the glacial epochs began, and how many generations are included +even in that! If no change is visible in all that time, how many more +ages must have elapsed before a primitive <i>Amoeba</i> could have developed +into a bird or a Mammal?</p> + +<p>In Florida Mr. Agassiz has shown that coral insects exist unchanged, +and must have been so for 30,000 years.</p> + +<p>When we remember also the enormous destruction of life that takes place, +supposing that in a given form a few creatures underwent accidental +changes which were beneficial and likely to aid them—still what chances +were there that the creatures which began to exhibit the right sort of +change should have died before they left offspring! the chances against +them are enormous: and the chances have to be repeated at every +successive change before the finally perfected or advanced creature took +its place in the polity of nature. Moreover, there is the chance of +small changes being lost by intercrossing: our own cattle-breeders have +most carefully to select the parents, or else the favourable variety +soon disappears.</p> + +<p>How then, seeing the power of stability which at least some forms are +found to exhibit—seeing too the enormous chances against the survival +of the particular specimens that begin to vary, and the further chances +of the loss of variety by intercrossing; how can we get the millions of +millions of years necessary to produce the present extreme divergence of +species? The fact is that the force of this objection is likely to be +undervalued, from the mere difficulty of bringing home to the mind the +immeasurable time really demanded by uncontrolled evolution.</p> + +<p>Nor is the question of time left absolutely to be matter of belief or +speculation. For here and there in the geological records of the rocks, +we <i>have</i> certain intermediate forms—or forms which we may fairly argue +to be such. But looking at the very considerable differences between the +earlier and the later of these forms—differences greater than those +which now separate well-defined species, it seems questionable whether +any of the divisions of Tertiary time, taking all the circumstances into +consideration, could be lengthened out sufficiently to accomplish the +change.</p> + +<p>At any rate, if any particular example be disallowed, the general +objection must be admitted to be weighty.</p> + +<p>Now the intervention of any system of created designs of animal +form—however little its details be understood—and the production of +variations under <i>divine guidance</i> which would lead more directly to the +accomplishment of such forms as the complicated flowers of orchids above +described, would unquestionably tend to shorten the requisite time. +There would, by a process of reasoning easily followed, be an immediate +reduction of the ages required, within practicable limits, though the +time must still remain long. More than that is not necessary. The +Ussherian chronology is not of Divine revelation, though some persons +speak of it as if it was. There is not the shadow of a reason to be +gleaned from the Bible, nor from any other source, that the commencement +of orderly development, the separation of land and water, earth and sky, +and the subsequent provision of designs for organic forms of life and +the first steps that followed the issue of the design, began six +thousand years ago, or anything like it. It can be shown, indeed, that +<i>historical</i> man, or the specific origin of the man spoken of as Adam, +dates back but a limited time; and it is calculable with some degree of +probability how far; but that is all. We are therefore in no difficulty +when ample time is demanded; but we are in the greatest straits when the +illimitable demands of a slowly and minutely stepping development, +perpetually liable to be checked, turned back, and even obliterated, +have to be confronted with other weighty probabilities and calculations +regarding the sun's light and heat, and the duration of particular +geologic eras.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_18">[18]</a><div class="note"> Second Edition, 1871.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_19">[19]</a><div class="note"> "He hath made everything <i>beautiful</i> in his time" (Eccles. +iii. II).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_20">[20]</a><div class="note"> "Also He hath set the world in their heart, so that <i>no man +can find out the work that God maketh</i> from the beginning to the end" +(Eccles. iii II).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_21">[21]</a><div class="note"> This species was instanced because the lectures which form +the basis of the book were originally delivered at Simla, in the N.W. +Himalaya, where, at certain seasons, the plant is a common wayside weed. +Mr. Darwin notices a similar and, if possible, more curious structure in +a species of <i>Catasetum</i>.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_22">[22]</a><div class="note"> See this fully explained by Mivart, "Genesis of Species," +pp. 29, 30 (2nd edition).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_23">[23]</a><div class="note"> See Mivart, p. 61.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_24">[24]</a><div class="note"> "Quarterly Review," 1861, p. 20.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_25">[25]</a><div class="note"> Pigeon fanciers know that when they have once obtained, by +crossbreeding and selection, a particular form or feather, the utmost +care is needed to preserve it. If the parents are not selected the +progeny wilt gradually revert towards the original wild pigeon type.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_26">[26]</a><div class="note"> It should be borne in mind that what we call a <i>species</i> as +distinct from a mere variety, is a more or less arbitrary or provisional +thing dependent on the state of science for the time. Species are +constantly being lumped together by some and separated by others. It +follows most probably, that while some species are really types—i.e., +one can never pass into the other and lose its essentials, unless it is +destined to disappear (like the pterodactyle), not being wanted in the +whole scheme—other species are really only varieties, and maybe lost or +modified without limit.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_27">[27]</a><div class="note"> We may well regard the mule as a peculiar form just such as +the evolutionist would rejoice to see: here is a modified species, which +has qualities different from those of either of the parent stock, and +well fitted "to struggle for existence." Yet this modified race would, +if left to itself, die out.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_28">[28]</a><div class="note"> The series is thus (Nicholson, p. 702):—1. +<i>Eohippus</i>—Lower Eocene of America; fore-feet have four toes and a +rudimentary thumb or pollex. 2. <i>Orohippus</i> (about the size of a +fox)—Eocene. 3. <i>Anchitherium</i>—Eocene and Lower Miocene; three toes, +but 2 and 4 are diminutive. 4. <i>Hipparion</i>—Upper Miocene and Pliocene; +still three toes, but 3 more like the modern horse and 2 and 4 still +further diminished. 5. <i>Pliohippus</i>—later Pliocene, very like Equus. 6. +<i>Equus</i>—Post-Pliocene.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_29">[29]</a><div class="note"> <a href="#FAnchorP112">P. 112 </a> </div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_VII"></a><h2>CHAPTER VII.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>THE DESCENT OF MAN</i>.</p> + +<p>We now approach a special objection which always, has been (and I shall +be pardoned, perhaps, for saying <i>always will be</i>) the <i>crux</i> of the +theory of unaided, uncreated evolution—the advent of reasoning, and not +only reasoning, but self-conscious and God-conscious MAN.</p> + +<p>Here again the lines of argument are so numerous, and the details into +which we might go so varied, that a rigid and perhaps bald selection of +a few topics is all that can be attempted.</p> + +<p>But I may remark that naturalists are far from being agreed on this part +of the subject. Agassiz rejects the evolution of man altogether. Mr. St. +G. Mivart, while partly admitting, as every one else now does, the +doctrine of evolution, denies the descent of man. Mr. Wallace, the great +apostle of evolution, opposes Darwin, and will have none of his views on +the descent of man; and Professor Huxley himself says that, while the +resemblance of structure is such that if any "process of physical +causation can be discovered by which the genera and families of ordinary +animals have been produced, the process of causation is amply sufficient +to account for the origin of man," still he admits that the gulf is vast +between civilized man and brutes, and he is certain that "whether <i>from</i> +them or not, man is assuredly not <i>of</i> them."</p> + +<p>The first difficulty I shall mention is, however, a structural one. +Supposing that an ape-like ancestor developed into man, on the +principles of natural selection; then his development has taken place in +a manner directly contrary to the acknowledged law of natural selection. +He has developed backwards; his frame is in every way weaker; he is +wanting in agility; he has lost the prehensile feet; he has lost teeth +fitted for fighting or crushing or tearing; he has but little sense of +smell; he has lost the hairy covering, and is obliged to help himself by +clothes.<a name="FNanchor_1_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_30"><sup>[30]</sup></a> If this loss was ornamental it is quite unlike any other +development in this respect, since no other creature has the same; for +ornamental purposes the fur becomes coloured, spotted, and striped, but +not lost. It is easy to reply that man being <i>intelligent</i>, his brain +power enables him to invent clothes, arms, implements, and so forth, +which not only supply all deficiencies of structure, but give him a +great superiority over all creatures. But how did he get that +intelligence? By what natural process of causation (without intelligent +direction) is it conceivable that, given a species of monkey, all at +once and at a certain stage, structural development should have been +retarded and actually reversed, and a development of brain structure +alone set in? Nor, be it observed, has any trace of <i>man</i> with a +rudimentary brain ever been discovered. Savages have brains far in +excess of their requirements, and can consequently be educated and +improved. The skull of a prehistoric man found in the Neanderthal near +Dusseldorf is of average brain capacity, showing that in those remote +ages man was very much in capacity what he is at present.</p> + +<p>It must, however, be admitted that the special difficulties of the +origin of man are not purely structural. We do not know enough of the +Divine plan to be able to understand why it is that there is a certain +undeniable unity of form, in the two eyes, ears, mouth, limbs and organs +generally of the animal and man. Moreover, much is made of the fact, as +stated by a recent "Edinburgh Reviewer," that "the physical difference +between man and the lowest ape is trifling compared with that which +exists between the lowest ape and any brute animal that is not an +ape.<a name="FNanchor_1_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_31"><sup>[31]</sup></a>" This fact no doubt negatives the idea put forward by Bishop +Temple and others, that if there was an evolution of man, it must have +been in a special branch which was foreseen and commenced very far back +in the scale of organic being. For the structural difference might not +require such a separate origin; while the mental difference, affording +objections of a different class, will not allow of <i>any</i> such evolution +at all. That there is <i>some</i> connection between man and the animal +cannot be denied, and consequently, in the absence of fuller +information, very little would be gained by insisting on the purely +<i>physical</i> development question. The Bible states positively that the +man Adam (as the progenitor of a particular race, at any rate) was a +separate and actual production, on a given part of the earth's surface. +All that we need conclude regarding that is that there is nothing known +which entitles us to say, "This is not a fact, and therefore is not +genuine revelation."</p> + +<p>Moreover, as to the question of the possibility of human development +generally, there are certain considerations which directly support our +belief. For example, directly we look to the characteristic point, the +gift of intellect, we can reasonably argue that the action of a Creator +is indispensable. The entrance of consciousness and of reason, however +elementary, marks something out of all analogy with the development of +physical structure, just as much as the entrance of Life marked a new +departure in no analogy with the "properties" of inorganic matter.</p> + +<p>From the first dawn of what looks like <i>will</i> and <i>choice</i> between two +things, and something like a <i>reason</i> which directs the course of the +organism in a particular way for a particular object, we have an +altogether new departure. The difficulty commences at the outset, and +even in the animal creation; it is merely continued and rendered more +striking when we take into consideration the higher development of +intellect into power of abstract reasoning, self-consciousness and +God-consciousness.</p> + +<p>It is perfectly true that the difference between the "instinct" of +animals and the reason and mind of man, is one of degree rather than +kind. As Christians, we have no objection whatever to a development of +reason from the lowest reason solely concerned with earthly and bodily +affairs to the highest powers searching into deep and spiritual truths. +But such a development, though it is parallel to a physical +development—as spiritual law appears to be always parallel (as far as +the nature of things permits) to physical laws—still is a development +which cannot under any possible circumstances dispense with an external +spiritual order of existence, and one which cannot be physically caused. +Nor is it conceivable that man should develop a consciousness of God, +when no God really exists externally to the consciousness.<a name="FNanchor_1_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_32"><sup>[32]</sup></a></p> + +<p>The main objection, then, that I would press is, that admitting any +possibility of the development of man from a purely physical and +structural point of view, admitting any inference that may be drawn +fairly from the undoubted connection (increasingly great as it is as we +go upwards from the lower animal to the ape) between animals and man, +that inference never can touch the descent of man as a whole; because no +similarity of bodily structure can get over the difficulty of the mental +power of man. We have to deal not with a part of man, but with the +whole. The difficulty cannot be got over by denying <i>mind</i> as a thing +<i>per se</i>; for all attempts to represent mind as the <i>mere</i> product of a +physical structure, the brain, utterly fail.</p> + +<p>Nobody wishes to deny what Dr. H. Maudsley and others have made so plain +to us, that mind has (in one aspect, at any rate) a physical basis—that +is, that no thought, imagination, or combination of thought, is known to +us <i>apart from</i> change and expenditure of energy in the brain. Nor can +we, by any process of introspection or observation of other subjects, +separate the mind from the brain and ascertain the existence of "pure +mind," or soul, experimentally. But still, there is no possibility of +getting the operations of mind out of mere cell structure, unless an +external Power has added the mind power, as a faculty of His endowing; +then He may be allowed to have connected that faculty ever so +mysteriously with physical structure; we are content. And I must insist +on the total failure of all analogy between the development of bones or +muscles and the development of mind; and even if we grant a certain +stage of instinct to have arisen, we are still in the dark as to how +that could develop into intellect such as man possesses, including a +belief in God. On this subject let us hear Professor Allman. Between a +development of material structure and a development of intellectual and +moral features, the Professor says, "there is no conceivable analogy; +and the obvious and continuous path, which we have hitherto followed up, +in our reasonings from the phenomena of lifeless matter to those of +living form, here comes suddenly to an end. The chasm between +<i>unconscious</i> life and <i>thought</i> is deep and impassable, and no +transitional phenomena are to be found by which, as by a bridge, we can +span it over.<a name="FNanchor_1_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_33"><sup>[33]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>There can be <i>life</i> or <i>function</i> without <i>consciousness</i> or <i>thought;</i> +therefore, even if we go so far as to admit that life is only a property +of protoplasm, there can be no ground for saying that <i>thought</i> is only +a property of protoplasm.</p> + +<p>"If," says Professor Allman, "we were to admit that every living cell +were a conscious and thinking thing, are we therefore justified in +asserting that its consciousness with its irritability is a property of +the matter of which it is composed? The sole argument on which this view +is made to rest is analogy. It is argued that because the life +phenomena, which are invariably found in the cell, must be regarded as a +property of the cell, the phenomena of consciousness by which they are +accompanied must also be so regarded. The weak point in the argument is +the absence of all analogy between the things compared: and as the +conclusion rests solely on the argument from analogy, the two must fall +to the ground together."</p> + +<p>Try and assign to matter all the properties you can think of, its +impenetrability, extension, weight, inertia, elasticity, and so forth, +by no process of thought (as Mr. Justice Fry observes in an article in +"The Contemporary Review <a name="FNanchor_1_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_34"><sup>[34]</sup></a>") can you get out of them an adequate +account of the phenomena of mind or spirit. We just now observed that +consciousness, thought, and so forth, are never exhibited apart from the +action of the brain; some change in the brain accompanies them all. We +do not deny that. But it is obvious that thought being manifested in the +presence of cerebral matter or something like it, is a very different +thing from thought being a <i>property</i> of such matter, in the sense in +which polarity is the property of a magnet, or irritability of living +protoplasm.</p> + +<p>To all this I have seen no answer. The way in which the opponents of +Christian beliefs meet such considerations appears to be to ignore or +minimize them, so as to pass over to what seems to them a satisfactory +if not an easy series of transitions. If Life is after all only a +"property" of matter, then given life, a brain may be produced; and as +mind is always manifested in the presence of (and apparently +indissolubly united with) brain structure, it is not a much greater leap +to accept <i>life</i> as a property of <i>matter</i> than it is to take <i>thought</i> +as a property of a certain <i>specialized physical structure</i>. It is true +that the distance is great between the instinct of an animal and the +abstract reasoning power of a Newton or a Herbert Spencer; but (as we +are so often told) the difference is of degree not of kind, and as the +brain structure develops, so does the power and degree of reason. As to +the difference in man, that he is the only "religious" animal—the one +creature that has the idea of God—that is a mere development of the +emotions in connection with abstract reasoning as to the cause of +things. No part of our mental nature is more common to the animal and +the man than the emotional; and if in the one it is mere love and +hatred, joy and grief, confidence and fear, in the other the emotions +are developed into the poetic sense of beauty, or the awe felt for what +is grand and noble; and this insensibly passes into <i>worship</i>, the root +of the whole being fear of the unknown and the mysterious. That is the +general line of argument taken up.</p> + +<p>Even accepting the solution (if such it maybe called) of the two first +difficulties—life added spontaneously or aboriginally to matter, and +thought and consciousness added to organism—still the rest of the path +is by no means so easy as might at the first glance appear. Development +in brain structure certainly does not always proceed <i>pari passu</i> with a +higher and more complex reasoning. In actual fact we find high +"reasoning" power, quite unexpectedly here and there, up and down the +animal kingdom. Some <i>insects</i>, with very little that can be called a +brain at all, exhibit high intelligence; and some animals with smaller +brains are more docile and intelligent than others with a much larger +development. The ape, in spite of his close physical approach to the +structure of man, and his still greater relative distance from the other +animal creation, is not superior (if he is not decidedly inferior) in +reason or intelligence to several animals lower down in the scale.</p> + +<p>Savages, again, have a brain greatly in excess of their actual +requirements (so to speak). Hence the mere existence of brain, however +complex, does not indicate the possession of mental power.</p> + +<p>There is reason to believe that all thought and exercise of the mind—in +fact, every step in the process of "Education," whereby an ignorant +person is brought at last to apprehend the most abstract +propositions—is accompanied by some molecular (or other) change. So +that a person who has been carefully educated has the brain in a +different state from that of an exactly similarly constituted person +whose brain has been subjected to no such exercise. But even if this +action could be formulated and explained, it would not follow that +thought is the <i>product</i> of the molecular change; or that, <i>vice versâ</i>, +if we could artificially produce certain changes, in the brain, certain +thoughts and perceptions would thereon coexist with the changes, and +arise in the mind of the subject forthwith. And if not, then no process +of physical development accounts for grades of intellect; we have only +mind developing as mind. But the theory of evolution will have nothing +to do with any development but physical; or at any rate with mental +development except as the result of physical: it knows nothing of pure +mind, or spiritual existence, or anything of the sort.</p> + +<p>In the nature of things we can have neither observation nor experiment +in this stage. We cannot by any process develop the lower mind of an +animal into the higher mind of man, and prove the steps of the +evolution.<a name="FNanchor_1_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_35"><sup>[35]</sup></a> It is important to remember that the power of <i>directing +the attention by a voluntary process of abstraction</i>, is one that +distinctively belongs to man. It is an effort of will, of a kind that no +animal has any capacity for. By it alone have we any power of abstract +reasoning, and it is intimately concerned with our self-consciousness +and memory, and with our language. I am quite aware that animals possess +something analogous to a language of their own; they can indicate +certain emotions and give warning, and so forth, to their fellows. But +that language could never develop into human language, or the animal +will (such as it is) ever rise to a human will, or animals become +endowed with self-consciousness, unless they could acquire the power of +voluntarily abstracting the mind from one subject or part of a subject +and fixing the attention on another. We cannot formulate any process of +change whereby the lower state could pass on to or attain to the higher +in this respect.</p> + +<p>Therefore again we conclude that the higher reason is a gift <i>ab +externo</i>.</p> + +<p>If we take a step further to the "spiritual" or "moral" faculties of +man, we have the same difficulty intensified, if indeed it does take a +new departure. To examine the question adequately would require us to go +into the deep waters of psychology; and here we should encounter many +matters regarding which there may be legitimate doubt and difference of +opinion, which would obscure and lead us away from our main line of +thought.</p> + +<p>This I would willingly avoid. But it is quite intelligible, and touches +on no dangerous ground, when we assert that there is a distinct +ascent—an interval again raising developmental difficulties, directly +we pass from the intellectual to the moral. We may wonder at the high +degree of intelligence possessed by some animals; but we are unable to +conceive any animal possessing a power of abstract reasoning, having +ideas of beauty (as such), or of manifesting what we call the poetic +feeling. And still more is this so when we look at the further interval +that lies between any perception of physical phenomena, any reasoning in +the abstract, or investigation of mathematical truth, and the +overmastering sense of obligation to the "moral law," or the action of +the soul in its instinctive possession of the conception of a Divine +Existence external to itself. It is because of this felt difference that +we talk of the "spiritual" as something beyond and above the "mental."</p> + +<p>The distinction is real, though we must not allow ourselves to be led +too far in attempting to scan the close union that, from another point +of view, exists between the one and the other.</p> + +<p>In a recent number of "The Edinburgh Review,<a name="FNanchor_1_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_36"><sup>[36]</sup></a>" the author complains of +Bishop Temple thus: "He uses the word spiritual in such a way that he +might be taken to imply that we had some other faculty for the +perception of moral truths, in addition to, and distinct from, our +reason." And the writer goes on to make an "uncompromising assertion of +reason as the one supreme faculty of man. To depreciate reason (he says) +to the profit of some supposed 'moral' illative sense, would be to open +the door to the most desolating of all scepticisms, and to subordinate +the basis of our highest intellectual power to some mere figment of the +imagination."</p> + +<p>On the other hand, some writers (claiming to derive their argument from +the Scriptures) have supposed they could assert three distinct natures +in man—a spiritual, a mental (or psychic), and a bodily. Now there is +no doubt that, rightly or wrongly (I am not now concerned with that), +the Bible does distinctly assert that a "breath of lives" <a name="FNanchor_1_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_37"><sup>[37]</sup></a> was +specially put into the bodily form of man, and adds that thereby "man +became a living soul." But it is also stated of the animal creation that +the breath of life was given to them,<a name="FNanchor_2_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_38"><sup>[38]</sup></a> and animals are said to have a +"soul" (nephesh).<a name="FNanchor_3_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_39"><sup>[39]</sup></a> So that neither in the one case nor the other have +we more than the two elements: a body, and a life put into it; though of +course the man's "life" (as the plural indicates, and other texts +explain) was higher in kind than that of the animal.</p> + +<p>St. Paul, it is true, speaks of the "whole spirit, and soul, and +body.<a name="FNanchor_1_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_40"><sup>[40]</sup></a>" But our Lord Himself, in a very solemn passage (where it would +be most natural to expect the distinction, if it were absolute and +structural, to be noticed), speaks of the "soul and body" only.<a name="FNanchor_2_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_41"><sup>[41]</sup></a></p> + +<p>The fact is that we are only able to argue conclusively that, besides +the physical form, we have a non-material soul, or a self. And our Lord, +whose teaching was always eminently practical, went no further. We are +conscious of a "self"—something that remains, while the body +continually grows and changes.</p> + +<p>There was in <i>Punch</i>, some time ago, a picture of an old grandfather, +with a little child looking at a marble bust representing a child. "Who +is that?" asks the little one; and the old man replies, "That is +grandfather when he was a little boy." "And who is it now?" rejoins the +child. One smiles at the picture, but in reality it conceals a very +important and a very pathetic truth. Nothing could well be greater than +the outward difference between the grey hairs and bowed figure and the +little cherub face; and yet there was a "self"—a soul, that remained +the same throughout. In Platonic language, while the <font face="symbol">eidvlon</font> +perpetually changes, the <font face="symbol">eidoV</font> remains. We have, therefore, +evidence as positive as the nature of the subject admits that we are +right in speaking of the <i>body and the soul, or self</i>. And as we cannot +connect the higher reasoning, and, above all, conscience and the +religious belief, as a "property" of physical structure, we conclude +that the Scripture only asserts facts when it attributes both to the +soul, as a spiritual element or nature belonging to the body. Man is +essentially one;<a name="FNanchor_3_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_42"><sup>[42]</sup></a> but there is both a material and a non-material, a +physical and a spiritual element, in the one nature. But, being a +spiritual element, that part of our nature necessarily has two sides (so +to speak). It has its point of contact with self and the world of sense, +and its point of contact with the world of spirit and with the Great +Spirit of all, from whom it came. <i>Because</i> of that higher "breath of +lives" given by the Most High, man possesses the faculty of +<i>consciousness of God</i> (i.e., the higher spiritual faculties), besides +the consciousness of self, or merely intellectual power regarding self +and the external world. Therefore, when an Apostle desires to speak very +forcibly of something that is to affect a man through and through, in +every part and in every aspect of his nature, he speaks of the "whole +spirit, soul, and body." To sum up: all that we know from the Bible is +that God gave a "soul" (nephesh) to the animals, in consequence of which +(when united to the physical structure) the functions of life and the +phenomena of intelligence are manifested. So God gave a non-material, +and therefore "spiritual," element to human nature; and this being of a +higher grade and capacity to that of the animal world, not only in its +union with physical structure, makes the man a "living soul"—gives him +an intelligence and a certain reason such as the animals have, but also +gives him, as a special and unique endowment; the consciousness of self +(involving—which is very noteworthy—a consciousness of its own +limitations) and the consciousness of God. Hence man's power of +improvement. If the man cultivates only the self-consciousness and the +reason that is with it, the Scriptures speak of him as the "natural or +psychic man;" if he is enabled by Divine grace to develop the higher +moral and spiritual part of his nature, and to walk after the Spirit, +not after the flesh, he is a "spiritual man."</p> + +<p>It is idle to speculate whether the "nephesh" of the animals, or the +"living self" of the man, is an entity separate from the body, and +capable of existing <i>per se</i>—of its own inherent nature—apart from +it. We do not know that animal forms are the clothing of a lower-graded +but separate spiritual form, or that such an animal soul or spirit can +exist separately from the body; and we do not <i>know</i> (from the +Bible)—whatever may be the current language on the subject—that man's +spirit is in its nature capable of anything like permanent separate +existence.<a name="FNanchor_1_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_43"><sup>[43]</sup></a> Man is essentially one; and when the physical change +called death passes over him, it does not utterly obliterate the whole +being. The non-material element is not affected any more than it is by +the sleep of every night; and the man will be ultimately raised, not a +spiritual or immaterial form, but provided, as before, with a body, only +one of a higher capacity and better adapted to its higher +environments—the "spiritual body" of St. Paul, in a word. The original +union of mind and matter is, on any possible theory, mysterious; and the +separation of them for a time is neither less so, nor more. All this is +perfectly true, whether the non-material element in man's nature is +<i>necessarily</i>, inherently and <i>by nature</i>, immortal or not—a question +which I do not desire to enter on.</p> + +<p>Hence it is that a certain element of truth is recognized in the protest +of the Edinburgh Reviewer. On the other hand, as we have not only +intelligence, emotions (which are possessed in lower degree by animals), +self-consciousness, the power of abstract reasoning, and the higher +faculties of the imagination,<a name="FNanchor_2_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_44"><sup>[44]</sup></a> but also the consciousness of God and +the commanding sense of right and wrong; and seeing that the last-named +are different in kind from the former, we give them a separate name, and +speak of the moral or spiritual nature or capacity of man, as well as +the intellectual or mental. Some (by the way) choose "moral" to include +both, holding that ethical perceptions arise out of (or are intimately +connected with) our sense of God. Others would make a further +distinction, and confine "moral" to the (supposed) bare ethical +perception of duty or of right and wrong, and add "spiritual" to +distinguish the highest faculty of all, whereby man holds communion with +his Maker and recognizes his relation to Him.</p> + +<p>Whether this further distinction is justified or not, there is a +distinction between the moral and the purely intellectual; and we are +justified in using different terms for things that are <i>practically</i> +different. This the Edinburgh Reviewer seems to have forgotten.</p> + +<p>It was necessary to my argument to enter on this somewhat lengthy +examination of the spiritual nature of man, because, while we +acknowledge the unity of man, we are compelled to recognize in his +religious sense and aspirations and capacities something quite +disparate—something that we could not get by a natural process of +growth from such beginnings of reason as are observed in the lower +animals.</p> + +<p>I am aware that Dr. Darwin conceived that the religious feeling of man +might have grown out of the natural emotions of fear,<a name="FNanchor_1_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_45"><sup>[45]</sup></a> love, +gratitude, &c., when once men began to question as to the explanation of +the phenomena of life, and to ascribe the forces of nature to the +possession of a spirit such as he himself was conscious of: and with +much more positive intent, Mr. H. Spencer has also, after most +painstaking inquiries, formulated what he conceives to be the origin of +religious belief in man. He refers us to the early belief in a "double" +of self, which double could be projected out of self, and remained in +some way after death, so as to become the object of fear, and ultimately +of worship. When this ancestor-worship resulted in the worship of a +multitude of "genii" (whose individuality, as regards their former +earthly connection, is more or less forgotten), then the idea of +attaching the numerous divinities or ancestor-souls to the ocean, the +sky, the sun, the mountains, and the powers of nature, arises; whence +the poetic systems of ancient polytheistic mythology. Gradually men +began to reason and to think, and they refined the polytheism into the +"higher" idea of one great, central, immaterial all-pervading power, +which they called God.</p> +<br> + +<p>Mr. Spencer, in effect, concludes that this "God" is only man's own +idea of filling up a blank, of explaining the fact that there must be an +ultimate first cause of whatever exists, and there is also a great +source of power of some kind external to ourselves.<a name="FNanchor_1_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_46"><sup>[46]</sup></a></p> + +<p>I am not going here to enter on any special argument as to the validity +of these theories in their relation to the direct question of the nature +and existence of God. What we are here concerned with is, whether they +enable us to exclude the idea of a gift and a giver of spiritual or +mental (we will not quarrel about terms) nature to man, and whether, by +any fair reasoning from analogy, we can suppose man's reason and his +"<i>sensus numinis</i>" to arise by the mere stages of natural growth and +development. Dr. Darwin's supposition takes no notice of the moral law +and its influence; indeed he adopts<a name="FNanchor_2_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_47"><sup>[47]</sup></a> the view that conscience is no +sense of right and wrong, but only the stored up and inherited social +instinct, a sense of convenience and inconvenience to the tribe and to +the individual, which at last acts so spontaneously and rapidly in +giving its verdict on anything, that we regard it as a special sense. It +would of course be possible to expend much time and many words in +argument on this subject. There is not, and never will be, any direct +evidence as to the origin of conscience; and as that sense (like any +other power of our mental nature) is capable of being educated, evoked, +enlightened, and strengthened, and may also by neglect and contradiction +deteriorate and wither away, there is ample room for allowing a certain +part of the theory.<a name="FNanchor_3_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_48"><sup>[48]</sup></a> But many people who examine their own conscience +will feel that the description certainly does not suit them; there are +many things which conscience disapproves, of which no great evil +consequences to themselves or any one else are felt. Conscience is +constantly condemning "the way that seemeth good unto a man." +<i>Ultimately</i> no doubt, there is real evil at the end of everything that +conscience warns a man against; but not such as "inherited experience" +is likely to recognize. Is it, for instance, the experience of the mass +of men, as men, that the "fleshly mind is death, but the spiritual mind +is life and peace"? Is not rather the world at large habitually putting +money-making, position-making, and the care of the things of the body, +of time, and of sense, in the first place; and is not the moral law +perpetually warning us that the fashion of the world passes away, and +that what seems gold is in reality tinsel? As far as the condemnation +that conscience passes on the broad evils which affect society—"thou +shalt not steal," "thou shalt not lie," or so forth—no doubt it is +supported by the transmitted sense of inconvenience; but who has told it +of the evil of things that do not affect our social state? and who has +changed the inconvenient, the painful, into the <i>wrong</i>? It is one thing +to instinctively avoid a theft or a falsehood, even if the first origin +of such instinct were the fear of consequences or the love of +approbation; it is quite another—the inward condemnation of something +which "the deceitfulness of sin" is able to excuse, and which the world +at large would regard as permissible or at least venial. Even if +inherited use has its full play, there is still a something wanted +before the one can be got into (or out of) the other. Why, again, are +savages prone to imagine natural phenomena to be caused or actuated by +"spirits"? Surely it is because there <i>is</i> consciously a spirit in man, +and a Higher Power, even God, outside, who exists, though man in his +ignorance has many false ideas regarding Him.</p> + + +<p>It is an objection of the same order that applies to the other theory +(Mr. Spencer's). There can be little doubt that in many respects it is +true: as an account of all <i>human</i> systems of religion it is adequate +and natural; but it breaks down hopelessly when we try to use it to +explain how the conception of God originated in the mind. Just as there +is a felt difference—not of degree or in form, but essential and +radical in its nature—between the <i>undesirable</i> and the <i>wrong</i>, so +there is a difference between the idea of a mysterious thing towards +which apprehension or awe is felt, and the conception of God. Granted +that man believed in his own spirit or double, and attributed similar +immaterial motor powers as a cause for the wind and waves, and so forth; +granted that he at last "refined" this into the belief in one Spirit +whose power was necessarily great and varied—the origin is still +unexplained. How did man get the idea of a personal spirit or double—no +such thing, <i>ex hypothesi</i> existing? How did he get to formulate the +idea of a <i>God</i> when he had simplified his group of many spirits into +one?</p> + +<p>If man is created with a consciousness of his own inner-self, <i>as a +self</i>, he is able naturally to imagine a like self in other beings; if +he has an idea of God innate in him, he can assimilate the truth when it +is at last presented to his mind; and that is why he feels that it <i>is</i> +a refinement; a rising from the lower to the higher (because from +falsehood to truth), to let the many gods give place to the One God. If +the idea of God has been obscured, and the power of its apprehension +deadened, the man can only grope about helplessly, fashioning this +explanation of nature and that—all more or less false, but all dimly +bearing witness to the two absolute facts, that there is an inner +non-material self, and an external non-material God.</p> + +<p>If then there are insuperable difficulties in connecting thought with +matter by any process of unaided development, there are also great +difficulties, even when thought in a rudimentary form is given, in +conceiving it developed into man's reason, or man's religious belief, by +any known process of "natural" causation.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_30">[30]</a><div class="note"> It is remarkable that the loss of the hairy covering is +most complete when it is most wanted: the back, the spine, and the +shoulders are in nearly all races unprotected; and yet the want of a +covering from the heat or cold is such that the rudest savages have +invented some kind of cloak for the back.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_31">[31]</a><div class="note"> No. 331, July, 1885, p. 223.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_32">[32]</a><div class="note"> For our consciousness of God is obviously very different +from a figment of the imagination, or the sort of reality experienced in +a dream. This is not the place to develop such an argument, but it seems +to me more than doubtful whether we can even <i>imagine</i> something +<i>absolutely</i> non-existent in nature. When the artist's imagination would +construct, e.g., a winged dragon, the concept is always made up of +<i>parts which are real</i>—eyes like an alligator, bat-wings, scales of a +fish or crocodile, and so forth. All the members or parts are real, put +together to form the unreal. I do not believe that any instance of a +human conception can be brought forward which on analysis will not +conform to this rule.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_33">[33]</a><div class="note"> British Association Address.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_34">[34]</a><div class="note"> October, 1880, p. 587.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_35">[35]</a><div class="note"> We can of course follow the sort of mental development +which is traceable when we consider the origin of our own sagacious and +faithful dogs in the wild prairie dog: but this development is always in +contact with the mind of man, and is, as it were, the result of man's +action, as man's development in mind and soul is the result of God's +action.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_36">[36]</a><div class="note"> July, 1885, p. 211, in the course of the article to which I +have already alluded.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_37">[37]</a><div class="note"> The plural of excellence appears to mark something superior +in the spirit of man over that of the animals. Also compare Job xxxiii. +4, "The breath of the Almighty hath given me life," with Isa. xlii. 5 +and Zech. xii. 1.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_38">[38]</a><div class="note"> Though not in the plural of excellence. See Gen. vi 17, +vii. 22, &c.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_3_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_39">[39]</a><div class="note"> Gen. i. 20, margin of A.V.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_40">[40]</a><div class="note"> 1 Thess. v. 23.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_41">[41]</a><div class="note"> Matt. x. 28.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_3_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_42">[42]</a><div class="note"> The well-known argument of St. Paul regarding the +resurrection in 1 Cor. xv. (ver. 45, &c.) is well worthy of +consideration in this connection. He deals with man as <i>one whole</i>; +nothing is said about a man being (or having) a spirit separate from his +soul and his body, and that spirit being given a higher body than it had +upon earth; but of the whole man, soul <i>and</i> body, being raised and +changed into a man, also one whole, with a more perfect body—a body +more highly developed in the ascending scale of perfection. I do not +forget the passage where the same Apostle (2 Cor. v. 6) speaks of being +in the body, and absent from the Lord; and of being "clothed upon;" but +this does not in any way detract from the importance of the treatment of +the subject in the First Epistle.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_43">[43]</a><div class="note"> This remark does not, of course, in any way touch the +question whether the spiritual part of a man is conscious in the +interval between death and resurrection, or whether it can be made +sensible in any way whatever to living persons.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_44">[44]</a><div class="note"> The poetic sense, the perception of the beautiful, &c.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_45">[45]</a><div class="note"> See the "Descent of Man," vol. i. p. 68 (original edition). +But it is right to state that the subject is not treated in any way +whatever so as to argue that the religious belief is a fancy, or +development of fancy, with no God and no facts about God behind it.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_46">[46]</a><div class="note"> It is not necessary to my immediate argument, and therefore +I do not press it into the text (though I should be sorry to seem to +forget it for a moment), to urge that St. Paul draws a clear distinction +between the intellectual faculties and the higher spiritual ones, when +he assures us that the clearest intellect alone cannot assimilate the +truths of religion. For the spiritual faculties have been in man +grievously deadened and distorted (to say the least of it), so that his +intellectual faculties, bright and highly developed as they may be, will +always prove insufficient for the highest life in the absence of the +"grace of God." It is exactly analogous to the case of a man whom we +might suppose to have his sense of sight, touch, &c., distorted, and he +himself unable to correct them by aid of the senses of others. However +acutely he might exercise his reason, he would be continually wrong in +his conclusions. See 1 Cor. ii., the whole, but specially vers. 14, 15.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_47">[47]</a><div class="note"> "Descent of Man," vol. i. p, 70.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_3_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_48">[48]</a><div class="note"> The attempt (already alluded to) to separate moral and +spiritual, to imagine something that is ethical, apart from the +religious idea, has lent some strength to these ideas of the moral +sense; but in fact, the moral sense is <i>inseparably</i> connected with the +idea of God, and His approval and disapproval. The idea of God may be +obscured and lost, but conscience is the surviving trace of it; the +circumference that accounts for the broken arc.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_VIII"></a><h2>CHAPTER VIII.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>FURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF MAN</i>.</p> + +<p>There are, however, some other matters connected with the history of man +on the globe, unconnected with psychological development, but which +demand notice, as making the argument against an undesigned, unaided +development of man a cumulative one. It is urged that whatever may be +thought of the connection of man with the animal creation, at any rate +the received Christian belief regarding the origin of man—especially +his late appearance on the scene—is contrary to known facts, and that +we have to mount up to a vast geologic antiquity to account for what is +known from exhumed remains in caves and lake dwellings, and the like.</p> + +<p>Now no one pretends that the history of man is free from doubt and +difficulty, but the doubt and difficulty are not confined to the +"orthodox." For the inferences to be drawn from the exhumed remains are +equally doubtful whatever views be adopted.</p> + +<p>I shall not go into great length on this subject, partly because some +recent popular tracts of Canon Rawlinson, Mr. R.S. Pattison, and others, +have already made the ordinary reader familiar with the main outlines of +the subject; and still more because, be the views of archaeologists what +they may, it is impossible for any rational person to contend either +that they can be reduced to anything like unity among themselves, or +that they lead to any conclusion favourable to the belief in the +self-caused and undesigned evolution of man.</p> + +<p>It may be regarded as known, that at the dawn of history, mankind was +passing through what may be called a Bronze age, in which weapons of +bronze were used before tools of iron were invented. But this age was +preceded by one in which even bronze was unknown. Stone implements, and +some of bone and horn, were alone used. It is also well ascertained that +there were two <i>widely divided</i> stone ages. The latter, distinguished by +the polishing of the stones, is described as the <i>neolithic</i>; the +former, in which flint and other hard stone fragments were merely +chipped or flaked to an edge, is called the <i>palaeolithic</i>.</p> + +<p>It is hardly contended that the neolithic age could have been more than +four or five thousand years ago. There is always the greatest difficulty +in fixing any dates because from the nature of the case written records +are absent, and the stages of growth in the history of peoples overlap +so.</p> + +<p>We know that sharp flakes of stone were still used for knives in the +time of Moses and Joshua. We are not out of the stone age yet, as +regards some portions of the globe; and it is quite possible that parts +of the earth, not so very remote, may have been still in the midst of a +stone age when Assyria, Chaldaea, and Egypt were comparatively highly +civilized.</p> + +<p>It is also fairly certain that between the neolithic or smooth-stone +age, and the palaeolithic, certain important geological changes took +place, though those changes were not such as to have demanded any very +great length of time for their accomplishment.</p> + +<p>The palaeolithic stone implements are found in river gravels and clays, +along the higher levels of our own Thames Valley, that of the Somme in +France, and in other places. They are also found at the bottom of +various natural caverns.</p> + +<p>No human bones have been found as yet with the implements, but the bones +of large numbers of animals have. And it seems certain that the men who +made the implements were contemporaries of the animals, because in the +later part of the age, at any rate, they drew or scratched likenesses of +the animals on bone. Among these representations are figures of the +<i>mammoth</i> an extinct form well known to the reader by description and +museum specimens of remains.</p> + +<p>The animals contemporary with these primeval men were the mammoth, +species of rhinoceros and hippopotamus, the "sabre-toothed" lion, the +cave-bear, the reindeer, besides oxen, horses, and other still surviving +forms.</p> + +<p>In his address to the British Association in 1881 Sir John Lubbock +called attention to the fact that these animals appear to indicate both +a hot and a cold climate, and he referred to the fact (known to +astronomers) that the earth passes through periods of slow change in the +eccentricity of its orbit, and in the obliquity of the ecliptic. The +result of the latter condition is, to produce periods of about 21,000 +years each, during one-half of which the Northern hemisphere will be +hotter, and in the other the Southern. At present we are in the former +phase.</p> + +<p>But the obliquity of the ecliptic does not act alone; the eccentricity +of the orbit produces another effect, namely, that when it is at a +minimum the difference between the temperatures of the two hemispheres +is small, and as the eccentricity increases, so does the difference. At +the present time the eccentricity is represented by the fraction .016. +But about 300,000 years ago the eccentricity would have been as great as +.26 to .57. The result, it is explained, would have been not a uniform +heat or cold, but extremes of both; there would probably have been short +but very hot summers, and long and intensely cold winters.</p> + +<p>This, Sir John Lubbock thought, might account for the co-existence of +both hot and arctic species, like the hippopotamus and rhinoceros on the +one hand, and the musk-ox and the reindeer on the other.</p> + +<p>But such considerations really help us little. In the first place, it is +only an assumption that the fossil hippopotamus <i>was</i> an animal of a hot +climate—it does not in any way follow from the fact that the now +existing species is such; nor if we make the assumption, does it explain +how, if the hot summer sufficed for the tropical hippopotamus, it +managed to survive the long and cold winters which suited the arctic +species.</p> +<a name="FAnchorP112"></a> +<p>Moreover, no such calculations can really be made with accuracy: we do +not know what other astronomical facts may have to be taken into +consideration, nor can we say when such "periods" as those which are so +graphically described, began or ended.</p> + +<p>In this very instance, we know that the mammoth only became extinct in +comparatively recent times, since specimens have been found in Siberia, +with the hair, skin, and even flesh, entirely preserved. Granted that +the intense cold of the Siberian ice effected this, it is impossible to +admit more than a limited time for the preservation—not hundreds of +thousands of years. Professor Boyd Dawkins is surely right in stating +that the calculations of astronomy afford us no certain aid at present +in this inquiry.</p> + +<p>As regards the geological indications of age, the best authority seems +to point to the first appearance of man in the post-glacial times: that +is to say, that the gravels in which the palaeolithic implements are +found were deposited by the action of fresh water after the great +glacial period, when, at any rate, Northern Europe, a great part of +Russia, all Scandinavia, and part of North America were covered with +icefields, the great glaciers of which left their mark in the numerous +scoopings out of ravines and lake beds and in the raising of banks and +mounds, the deposit of boulders, and the striation of rocks <i>in situ</i>, +which so many districts exhibit.</p> + +<p>The few instances in which attempts have been made, in Italy or +elsewhere, to argue for a pliocene man (i.e. in the uppermost group of +the tertiary) have ended in failure, at least in the minds of most +naturalists competent to judge.</p> + +<p>One of the most typical instances of the position of the implement age +has been discovered by Fraas at Shüssenried in Suabia; here the remains +of tools and the bones of animals (probably killed for food) were found +in holes made in the glacial <i>débris</i>.</p> + +<p>But here, again, it is impossible to say when this glacial age +terminated, and whether man might not have been living in other more +favoured parts while it was wholly or partially continuing.</p> + +<p>In Scandinavia no palaeolithic stone implements have been found, from +which it may be inferred that the glacial period continued there during +the ages when palaeolithic man hunted and dwelt in caves in the other +countries where his remains occur.</p> + +<p>The best authorities do not suppose that the men <i>originated</i> in the +localities where the tools are found; and there is so little known about +the geology of Central Asia (for example) that it is impossible to say +whether tribes may not have wandered from some other places not affected +by the glaciation we have spoken of.</p> + +<p>Again, the gravels and brick earths containing the tools are just of the +kind which defy attempts to say how long it took to deposit and arrange +them.</p> + +<p>It may be taken as certain, that after the one age ceased and the first +men appeared, the beds in which their relics occur have been raised +violently, and again depressed and subjected to great flushes and floods +of water. The caves have been upheaved, and the gravels are found +chiefly along the valleys of our present rivers, but at a much higher +level, showing that there was both a higher level of the soil itself and +a much greater volume of water.</p> + +<p>The Straits of Dover were formed during this period.</p> + +<p>But none of these changes required a very long time; and if we can trace +back the later stone age, which shows remains of pottery and other +proofs of greater civilization, to the dawn of the historic period not +more than 4000 or 5000 years ago, there is nothing in the nature of the +changes which, as we have stated, intervened between the palaeolithic +and neolithic periods, that need have occupied more than a thousand or +two of years. Upheavals of strata and disruptions may be the work of +but a short time, or they may be more gradual. And as to the effect of +water, that depends on its volume and velocity; no certain rule can be +given. Our own direct experience shows that very great changes may take +place in a few hundred years.</p> + +<p>"The estuaries," remarks Mr. Pattison,<a name="FNanchor_1_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_49"><sup>[49]</sup></a> "around our south-eastern +coast, which have been filled up in historical times, some within the +last seven hundred years to a height of thirty feet from their +sea-level, by the gradual accumulation of soil, now look like solid +earth in no way differing from the far older land adjoining. The +harbours out of which our Plantagenet kings sailed are now firm, +well-timbered land. The sea-channel through which the Romans sailed on +their course to the Thames, at Thanet, is now a puny fresh-water ditch, +with banks apparently as old as the hills. In Bede's days, in the ninth +century, it was a sea-channel three furlongs wide."</p> + +<p>Thus we are in complete uncertainty as to the date of the palaeolithic +man, or as to the time necessary to effect the changes in the surface of +the earth which intervened between it and the later stone ages. But +there is nothing which conflicts with the possibility that the whole may +have occurred within some 8,000 years.</p> + +<p>For the supposition of Mons. Gabriel Mortillet that man has existed for +230,000 years, there is neither evidence nor probability. His theory is +derived from an assumption that the geologic changes alluded to occupied +an immense time; and the further assumption (if possible still more +unwarranted) that the old race which used the chipped stone tools +remained stationary for a very long period, and very gradually improved +its tools and ultimately passed into the neolithic stage when the art of +pottery became known, however rudely.</p> + +<p>But, in point of fact, we are not required by our belief in Scripture to +find any date for the origin of man, at least not within any moderate +limits (not extending to scores of thousands of years). The Bible was +not intended to enable us to construct a complete science of geology or +anthropology, and the utmost that can be got out of the text is that a +date can be <i>suggested</i> (not proved) for one particular family (that of +Adam) by counting up the generations alluded to in Holy Writ before the +time of Abraham. But these are manifestly recorded in a brief and +epitomized form; nor do all the versions agree. We may well believe that +a watchful Providence has taken care of the record of inspiration, but +we know it has been done by human and ordinary agency. The Bible is +God's gift to his Church, and the Church has been made in all ages the +keeper of it. Now in the matter of early dates and numbers, an unanimous +version has not been kept. According to the construction adopted in the +Septuagint, the creation of Adam would go back 7,517 years, while the +Vulgate gives 6,067 years. Dr. Hale's computation makes 7,294 years, +and the Ussherian 5,967;<a name="FNanchor_1_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_50"><sup>[50]</sup></a> the Samaritan version is, I believe, further +different from either.</p> + +<p>As it is, the facts show nothing inconsistent with an approximation to +these several periods.</p> + +<p>As to any absolute date for the appearance of man as a species, no +calculation is possible, because of a certain doubt, which no one can +pretend to resolve, as to whether the Scriptures do assert the creation +of <i>all</i> mankind at any one period. If, owing to more positive +discoveries in the future compelling us to put further back the date of +man's first appearance upon earth, we have to suppose a beginning before +the time of Adam, we are reminded that there is an allusion in the sixth +chapter of the book called Genesis to "the sons of God" and the +"daughters of men." Now this passage cannot conceivably refer to angels; +nor can we ignore its existence, however doubtful we may feel as to its +meaning.<a name="FNanchor_2_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_51"><sup>[51]</sup></a></p> + +<p>It can hardly be denied that such a text opens out the <i>possibility</i> of +an earlier race than that of Adam; in that case the creation of Adam +would be detailed as the creation of the direct progenitor of Noah, +whose three sons still give names (in ethnological language) to the main +great races of the earth, with whom exclusively the Bible history is +concerned, and especially as the direct progenitor of that race of whom +came the Israelites, and in due time the promised seed—the Messiah. I +do not say this <i>is</i> so, nor even that I accept the view for my own +part; I only allude to the possibility, without ignoring any of the +difficulties—none of which, however, are insuperable—which gather +round it.</p> + +<p>It is certainly a very remarkable fact that all about this region in +which the Semitic race originated, traditions of Creation somewhat +resembling the account in Genesis, the institution of a week of seven +days, and a Sabbath or day of rest from labour, existed from very early +times; and with these traditions, a belief in distinct races, one of +which owned a special connection with, or relation to, the Creator. Here +I may appeal to the work of Mr. George Smith and his discoveries of +tablets from the ancient libraries of Assyria. Originally, the country +to which I have alluded consisted of Assyria in the centre and Babylonia +to the south; while to the east of Assyria was a country partly plain +and partly hill, which formed the "plain of Shinar" and the hills beyond +occupied by Accadian tribes, from whose chief city, Ur, Abraham, the +forefather of the Jews, emigrated. The Assyrian documents are copies of +Babylonian originals, but the Babylonian kingdom itself was a Semitic +one founded on the ruins of an earlier population, the inhabitants of +the plain of Shinar and the mountains beyond. Some time between 3000 and +2000 B.C. the Semitic conquerors of Babylonia took possession of the +plains, and some time later conquered also the Accadian mountaineers. +The Babylonians possessed and translated the old Accadian records: the +Assyrian tablets are mostly, but not all, copies, again, of the +Babylonian transcripts. The celebrated "Creation tablets," which contain +an account closely corresponding to Genesis, are among those which were +not copied from Accadian originals; and they do not date further back +than the reign of Assur-bani-pal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; who +reigned in the seventh century B.C. They may therefore be derived from +the Bible, not the Bible from them. It would seem from some earlier +(Accadian) tablets, that a different account of the Creation existed +among them. But though it is doubtful how far the Accadians had +preserved this account, or at least had others along with it, <i>they had +a seven days week</i> and <i>a Sabbath</i>. All this points to <i>one</i> original +tradition, which specified days of creation and a Sabbath, though it got +altered and distorted, so that the true account was preserved as one +among many local variations. This goes to prove the immense antiquity of +the story, which is not affected by the fact that the actual inscription +of it which we at present have, dates only about 670 B.C. The point +here, however, interesting in the legends, is that they contained the +idea of a special connection of one particular race with the Creator, +and of other races, or of one other race, besides.</p> + +<p>As far as the possibility of bringing forward the history of mankind as +any aid to the theory of Evolution is concerned, I might have very well +let the subject alone, or even noticed it more briefly than I have done. +For, in truth, there is no <i>evidence</i> whatsoever, and all that the +denier of creation can resort to is a supposed analogy and a probability +that the peculiarities of man could be accounted for in this way or in +that. But the main purpose of my brief allusion is to introduce the fact +that, as far as any evidence to the contrary goes, we have an absolutely +sudden appearance of man on the scene, and no kind of transitional form. +Not only so, but there is no trace of any gradual development of man +when he did appear. There was the first palaeolithic man; then a +considerable geologic perturbation of the earth's surface, resulting in +the upheaval of the cliffs in which the caves of remains occur, and in +the alteration of the gravel beds in which the human remains are found; +and then the neolithic age, with its evidently greater civilization (as +evidenced by pottery, &c.) connected with early and traditional, but +still with recent, history; but no trace of any development of one race +into the other.</p> + +<p>The absence of all progressive change is forcibly indicated by the +measurements of ancient skulls, which, though not found along with the +flint tools, have been found elsewhere. It has been fully shown that +they differ in no respect from the skulls of men at the present day; +while the skulls of the apes most nearly anthropoid, or allied to the +human form, remain as widely separated in brain-capacity as ever.<a name="FNanchor_1_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_52"><sup>[52]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Thus the fact remains, that no intermediate form between the ape and the +lowest man has been discovered, and that there is nothing like any +progressive development in the races of man. These facts, taken together +with what has been brought forward in the last chapter, show how +completely the theory of the descent of man breaks down; how utterly +unproved and untenable is the idea that he should have been evolved by +natural causes and by slow steps from any lower form of animal life.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_49">[49]</a><div class="note"> "Age and Origin of Man"—Present-Day Tract Series.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_50">[50]</a><div class="note"> I take these figures from Mr. R.S. Pattison.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_51">[51]</a><div class="note"> The text which speaks of God making "of one blood all +nations for to dwell on the face of the earth," would naturally apply to +the races existing when the speaker uttered the words: it would be as +unreasonable to press such a text into the service of <i>any</i> theory of +the creation of man, as it was absurd for the Inquisition to suppose +that the Psalmist, when asserting that God had made the "round world so +fast that it could not be moved," was contradicting the fact of the +earth's revolution round the sun.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_52">[52]</a><div class="note"> The gorilla has a brain size of 30.51 cubic inches; the +chimpanzee and ourang-outang (in the males) from 25.45 to 27.34 inches. +According to Dr. J. Barnard Davis the average of the largest class of +European skulls is 111.99, that of the Australian 99.35 cubic inches.</div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_IX"></a><h2>CHAPTER IX.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>CONCLUDING REMARKS</i>.</p> + +<p>It will naturally be asked, "If there is all this objection to some +parts of the theory of Evolution, or to that theory in an extreme or +absolute form, how is it that it has been so eagerly accepted in the +ranks of scientific men?"</p> + +<p>The answer is, in the first place, because the theory of Evolution is to +a great extent true. When men speak of controversy with the Evolutionist +and so forth, they of course mean such as insist on carrying the +doctrine to a total and even virulent denial of any Divine control at +all. And it must, I think, be admitted that much of the theological +opposition offered to the doctrine was aimed at <i>this</i> aspect of it. At +first, men zealous for what they believed to be Divine truth, did not +discriminate; they saw that the then new idea of evolution was, in many +branches of its application, still very poorly proved, and they +conceived that it could not be accepted apart from a total denial of +religion. We have grown wiser in the course of time: misconceptions +have been swept away; and everybody may be content with the assurance +that there is no necessary connection even, far less any antagonism, +between evolution and the Christian faith at all. We may admit all that +is known of the one without denying the other. Where the controversy has +to be maintained is, that some will insist (like Professor Häckel) in +carrying evolution beyond what evidence will warrant; and not only so, +but will insist on polemically putting down all religion on the strength +of their improved theories. If "Evolutionists" complain of the treatment +they have received at the hands of "Theologians," they will at least, in +fairness, admit that there has been some misconception, some error on +both sides. What we maintain is, that evolution (i.e., here, as always, +unlimited, uncontrolled evolution) still fails to account for many facts +in nature; that we are still far from holding anything like a complete +scheme in our hands; there may be <i>limits</i> to the wide circle of +progressive changes, to the results of development, of which we are +ignorant; and there is, above all, in that most important of all +questions—the descent of man—an absolute want of proof of animal +<i>descent</i> (i.e., in any sense which includes the "soul" or spiritual +faculties of man). Hence that evolution in no way clashes with an +intelligent Christian belief. In saying this, I would carefully avoid +undervaluing the services which the evolution theory has rendered, and +is rendering, to science. Even in its first form as a mere hypothesis, +it was an eminently suggestive one; there was from the first quite truth +enough in it to make it fruitful, and many working hypotheses have been +immensely useful in science, which have in the end been very largely +modified. Before Darwin's wonderfully accurate mind and marvellous skill +in collecting and making use of facts, turned the current of natural +science into this new channel, men seemed to be without an aim for their +naturalist's work. The <i>savant</i>, for example, procured an animal +evidently of the cat tribe, and another species like a polecat. He knew +as a fact that the feline teeth had a certain structure, and that the +dental formula of the viverrine animals is different. Here, then, he +could distinguish and perhaps name the species; but what more was to be +done? All natural history as a study seemed to end in classifying and +giving long names to plants and animals. The Evolution theory at once +gave it a new object. Why is the dental formula of the <i>viverrinae</i> +different? What purpose has the long spur in the flower of <i>Angraecum</i>, +or the marvellous bucket of <i>Coryanthes</i>, the flytrap of <i>Dionaea</i>, the +pitcher of <i>Nepenthes</i>? What is the cause, what is the purpose, what is +the plan in the scheme of nature, of these structures? Under the +stimulus of such questions naturalists woke up to new views of +classification, to new experiments, inquiries, and to research for facts +and the explanation of facts, in all quarters of the globe. No wonder +that science rose, under such an impulse, as a butterfly from its +chrysalis. But some will not be satisfied with any scheme the parts of +which are separated, or which admits of anything unknown or +unexplainable. They want to unite all into one grand and simple whole, +which glorifies their own intelligence, and does not force them to +humble patience and waiting for more light. And then the fatal enmity of +the human heart—which is a plain fact, an undeniable tendency—delights +to get rid of the idea of God's Sovereignty, the humbling sense that +everything is at His absolute disposal, and nothing could be but as He +wills it. It seems so satisfactory to eliminate all external mysterious +power, to make the whole "<i>totus teres atque rotundus</i>"—having started +the great machine of being <i>somehow</i>, to see it all expand and unroll +of itself and advance to the end.</p> + +<p>Imagination leaps the chasms, minimizes the difficulties, passes from +the possible to the certain, from the "may have been" to the "must have +been" and to "it was so," and, fascinated with the <i>completeness</i> of its +scheme, commences to denounce and revile as ignorant and unscientific +all that would, calmly appeal to evidence, and confess ignorance, or at +least a suspended judgment, in any stage where the evidence is negative +or incomplete.</p> + +<p>It has been well observed that "men are so constituted that completeness +gives a special kind of satisfaction of its own, and a habit of +specially regarding the general uniformity of nature begets a desire to +assume its absolute and universal uniformity."</p> + +<p>There <i>is</i> a great mystery underlying life and the plan in which the +animal form, the organs of sight, hearing, and the rest, run through the +whole creation: and, given a mystery, there is always ample room for +speculation. Taking firm hold of the facts of development and variation, +the extreme evolutionist is carried away with the idea of having the +same principle throughout: he is impatient of any line or any check; he +is therefore prepared to ignore all difficulties, to hope against hope +for the discovery of to him necessary—but, alas, +non-existent—intermediate forms, till at last he comes to deny, not +only his God, but his own soul, as a spiritual and supra-physical +entity.<a name="FNanchor_1_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_53"><sup>[53]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Such extremes are no part of true science, and have neither helped the +progress of knowledge, nor advanced the condition of mankind. But, on +the other hand, let us hear no more of a sweeping condemnation of the +theory of Evolution as a whole; let us beware of any insistence on, or +assumption of, the supposed fact that God created +separately—ready-made and complete—all known animal forms, bringing +them up from the ground, like the armed men in the Greek legend, from +the dragon's teeth.</p> + +<p>We have no more right to dogmatize and assume a scheme of creation from +a popular and long-accepted interpretation of the Bible, than the +evolutionist has to ignore the palpable evidences of Divine guidance and +design, and construct a theory or organic being which ignores both.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_53">[53]</a><div class="note"> Those who want a specimen of the way in which extreme +evolutionists will <i>romance</i> (it can be called nothing else) will do +well to read Dr. Häckel's "History of Creation," only they must be on +their guard at every step. The author constantly states as facts (or, +perhaps, with an impatient "must have been") the existence of purely +hypothetical forms, of which there is <i>no kind</i> of evidence. To such +ends does the love of completeness lead!</div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="PART_II"></a><h2>PART II.</h2> +<br> + +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X.</a></h2> + +<p><i>THE GENESIS NARRATIVE—ITS IMPORTANCE</i>.</p> +<br> + +<p>We have now completed the first portion of our inquiry: there remains +the second, which, to a large class, at any rate, will appear of not +less importance. For the Scriptures, which they have been taught to +trust, contain a brief but direct and positive statement regarding +Creation, as well as numerous other less direct allusions to the +subject, all (as far as I know) in unquestioned harmony with the first.</p> + +<p>Is the account in the Book of Genesis true? It is necessary to answer +this question, because, even if a general belief in an Almighty Author +and Designer of all things is shown to be reasonable, still the +Scripture ought surely to support the belief; and it would be strange +if, when we came to test it on this subject, we found its professed +explanations would not stand being confronted with the facts.</p> + +<p>No one will, I think, deny that the question is important. Writers of +the "anti-theological" school still continue to insist on the falsity of +the Mosaic narrative, as if the error was not yet sufficiently slain, +and was important enough to be attacked again and again. And +theological writers, down to the most modern, continue to explain the +text in one way or another;—besides, <i>they</i> admit the importance, under +any circumstances. I do not forget that there is a school of thought, +which is distinctly Christian in its profession, but does not allow the +importance. It would regard the narrative as addressed to Jews only, and +therefore as one which does not concern us. If that was all, it would +not be needful for me to discuss the position. But it has been held, not +only that the narrative does not concern us, but <i>also</i> that it is +certainly inaccurate.</p> + +<p>This view I cannot adopt: it seems not quite fair to ourselves, and not +quite fair to the Jews. Let me explain what I mean. If we have nothing +to do with the narrative, let us abstain <i>equally</i> from defending it +<i>or</i> pronouncing it wrong—that is for ourselves. As to the Jewish +Church, a little more must be said. Let us admit, at any rate for +argument's sake, that the separation between the Jewish formal and +ceremonial religion and Christianity is as wide as can be wished. Nor +would I undervalue the importance of insisting on pure Christianity, as +distinct from Judaism. And, further, let us (without any question as to +ultimate objects) regard the narrative as primarily addressed to Jews, +and let us admit that it may have been unimportant, for the purpose of +the first steps in Divine knowledge, that any account should be given of +Creation beyond the primary fact that all idolatrous cosmogonies were +false, and that the Unseen God of Israel alone made the heavens and the +earth "in the beginning." Why should the Jews have received that truth +through the medium of a story of which the whole framework was false, +and nothing but the moral true? The framework, moreover, is one so +plainly <i>professing to be fact</i>, that it was certain to be received as +such by a simple people. It seems to me that there is something very +suspicious, something repugnant to notions of truth and honest dealing, +in the possible communication of underlying Divine truth through the +medium of stories, which are not stories on the face of them, but +profess and pretend to be statements of fact and authoritatively made.</p> + +<p>But, further, it cannot be denied that, whatever allowance may have to +be made under the early Jewish dispensation for the ideas and weaknesses +of a semi-barbarous people, whatever "winking" there may have been "at +times of ignorance," the main object was, by a gradual revelation,<a name="FNanchor_1_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_54"><sup>[54]</sup></a> by +a system of typical ordinances and ceremonies, to lead up to the full +spiritual light of the Christian dispensation. Everything written, said, +or done, was a step—however small an one—always tending in the one +direction, according to the usual law of Evolution. The Christian +believer may then look back to the early stages as imperfect +foreshadowings and dim illustrations of the whole truth; but he would, I +should think, on any ordinary principles, be shocked to find truth +developed out of positive error. And should the error have been +discovered, as it now is<a name="FNanchor_2_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_55"><sup>[55]</sup></a> (in the view of these I am contending +against), this discovery might have arrested the further development of +Divine truth altogether. If Moses, or whoever wrote the Book of +Genesis—we will not cavil at that—was allowed to compose his own +fancies or beliefs on the subject of Creation, <i>and to state them as +Divine fact</i> (no matter that the reader at the time was not able to find +out the error), would not grave suspicion attach to whatever else he put +forward? Who could tell that, on any other subject, the plainest and +most direct statement of fact was not equally a fancy, only embodying or +enshrining (under the guise of its errors) some real Divine facts? If +Genesis i. is unreliable, we have a case of a writer going out of his +way to add to certain truths, which might easily have been stated by +themselves, a number of positive declarations, <i>as of Divine authority</i>, +regarding facts, which are not facts.</p> + +<p>The great truths that God is really the Maker and Author of all things, +and that man has a spiritual being, and so forth, surely <i>gain nothing</i> +from being conveyed to the world in the folds of a fable. And when it +is not in a confessed fable, but a fable put forth as fact—"God said," +"God created," "it was so"—not only is there no gain, but our sense of +fitness and of truth receive a shock. A parable is always discernible as +a parable, a vision as a vision. When our Lord, for example, tells us of +the ten virgins, we do not suppose Him to be revealing the actual +existence of ten such maidens, wise and foolish. We know that He is +reading a lesson of watchfulness. But looking at the Genesis narrative, +who could suppose it to be a parable? If sober, unmistakable statement +of fact is possible, we surely have it here, in intention, at least.</p> + +<p>The plan of teaching truth in an envelope of error is <i>per se</i> difficult +to conceive. But how much worse is it when we consider—what criterion +does mankind possess for disinterring and distinguishing the elements of +truth? If in religion we had only to do (as some would perhaps contend) +with obvious enforcements of common morality and kindness, there might +be a possibility of getting over the difficulty, because man would +possess some kind of criterion whereby to distinguish what was +fictitious, by the simple process of considering whether any given +statement bore on morals or not. Such a test would not indeed go very +far, because the human race is by no means agreed on all moral +questions; nor does it always find it easy to say what is, and what is +not, directly or indirectly connected with morals. But, in fact, the +scope of religion cannot be so confined: and then the difficulty +returns; for a revelation that tells us anything of the nature of God +and His method of government, of the nature of our own being and of a +future state, must necessarily go beyond our own ethical knowledge and +powers of judging, or it would not be a revelation. Supposing that the +revelation regarding such vital subjects is occasionally conveyed +through the medium of erroneous statements, where in any given case +would be the certainty as to what was Divine truth, and what not so?</p> + +<p>This argument applies equally to another school of thinkers, who do not +care to tell us what the narrative in itself means: who believe that God +did not do what He is said to have done in Genesis, and yet who hold +that the narrative is in a sense inspired, and that we may learn from it +the great facts that God (and none other) originated all things—that +man has a spiritual element in his nature, and that woman is equal in +nature, but subordinate in position, to man, and so forth. Not only is +enlightened judgment, even, inadequate to pronounce with certainty on +how much is true; but the strange feeling still remains, if God designed +to teach us these truths only, why was it not possible to enable the +writer<a name="FNanchor_1_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_56"><sup>[56]</sup></a> to state them without the (purely gratuitous) error? The +sufferance of such a strange and unnecessary mixture of error seems +rather like that "putting to confusion" of the human mind, which we feel +sure the Great Teacher would never willingly perpetrate.</p> + +<p>Nor, again, can the narrative be got over by saying it is a poetic side +or aspect of the facts, and not to be taken literally. If any one knows +exactly what this means, and can tell us always how to translate the +matter into plain language, it is to be wished that he would enlighten +the world as to the process. But even if such process exists infallibly +and universally, still, one would suppose, the narrative must, to begin +with, be unmistakable poetry. And here, again, the narrative bears every +mark of an intention to state facts, not poetic aspects of facts. Nor +can we take the narrative as belonging to a familiar class in Scripture +where a dream is used as a vehicle of communication. In those cases +there is really no room for doubt; the visible facts themselves are +obviously designed only to typify or represent some other facts.</p> + +<p>The events stated in Genesis are not of this class. Those, therefore, +who would be content with getting over the narrative without caring for +its details, can, I must suspect, have hardly given adequate attention +to the form and to the contents of the narrative as it stands. Not only +are the statements positive, but, taking any interpretation whatever of +them, they are not nearly imaginative enough to suit the purpose.</p> + +<p>They have an obvious amount of relation to fact which has never been +denied.<a name="FNanchor_1_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_57"><sup>[57]</sup></a></p> + +<p>If the narrative is purely human even (and that the school we are +considering do not aver), how did the writer come to be accurate even to +that extent? Take only the order of events. I admit it does not +correspond with the geologic record in the way commonly asserted; yet it +has a very remarkable relation to that sequence.</p> + +<p>Now, in any case, the writer could have had no knowledge of any kind <i>of +his own</i> on the subject: how did he hit on this particular +arrangement?<a name="FNanchor_2_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_58"><sup>[58]</sup></a> It is a mere matter of calculation on the well-known +rules of permutation and combination to realize in how many different +ways the same set of events could have been arranged; the number is very +considerable.</p> + +<p>And he could derive no assistance from any similar existing narrative. +If we conclude from the Assyrian discoveries that a non-biblical but +similar narrative existed, still it is certain that the principal one we +as yet have is so late in date, that it is more likely to be derived +from the Bible than the Bible from it. And though, on referring to the +earlier tablets, we find traces of the same narrative, it is so obscured +by idolatrous and false details, that the Bible writer must have had to +make a virtually new departure to get his own simple narrative. A +re-revelation would be required. As to all other cosmogonies, Egyptian, +Indian, and Buddhistic, nothing can be more opposed in principle and in +detail than they are to the severe and stately simplicity and directness +of the Mosaic.</p> + +<p>We cannot, then, account for the narrative on human grounds; nor can we +suppose that any inspiring control would have given the author so much +truth, and yet allowed so much error.</p> + +<p>All this points to only one of two possible conclusions: either the +narrative is not inspired at all, and is a mere misleading story, into +which the name of God is introduced by the author's piety—and so really +teaches us nothing, since it is not revelation; <i>or</i> the narrative is, +as a whole, divinely dictated, and must be true <i>throughout</i>, if we can +only arrive by due study at its true meaning. That part of it is, or may +be, true, even on the most cursory study, is not denied; that it is +<i>all</i> true will appear, I think, in the sequel.</p> + +<p>But there is a shorter and simpler reason why the rejection of the +narrative in Genesis would be a direct blow to Christian faith. The +plain truth is that it can hardly be denied, by any candid student of +the New Testament, that our Lord and His apostles certainly received the +early chapters of Genesis as of Divine authority. This has always been +perceived by the whole school of writers opposed to the Faith. They +therefore continue to attack these early revelations, and rejoice to +overturn them if they can, because they are aware that hardly any +chapters in the Bible are more constantly alluded to and made the +foundation of practical arguments by our Lord and His apostles.</p> + +<a name="FRef99"></a><p>If these chapters can be shown to be mythical, then the Divine knowledge +of our Lord as the Son of God, and the inspiration of His apostles, are +called in question. In the New Testament, especially, there are repeated +and striking allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the +Serpent, and the entrance into the world of sin and death. Our Lord +Himself places the whole argument of His teaching on marriage and the +permissibility of divorce on Genesis ii. 24 (<i>cf</i>. St. Matt. xix. and +St. Mark x.). In St. John viii. 44 our Lord clearly alludes to the +Edenic narrative when He speaks of the tempter as a "manslayer (<font face="symbol">anqrwpoktonoV</font>) from the beginning." Still more remarkable is the +argument of St. Paul in Romans v.; altogether based as it is on the +historical verity of the account of the Fall; and other allusions are to +be found in 1 Cor. xi. 8, in 2 Cor. xi. 3, in the Epistle to the +Ephesians, and elsewhere. In short, there are at least sixty-six +passages in the New Testament, in which the first eleven chapters of +Genesis are directly quoted or made the ground of argument. Of these, +six are by our Lord Himself, two being direct quotations;<a name="FNanchor_1_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_59"><sup>[59]</sup></a> six by St. +Peter, thirty-eight by St. Paul, seven by St. John, one by St. James, +two by St. Jude, two by the assembled apostles, three by St. Luke, and +one by St. Stephen.</p> + +<p>We cannot, in fact, possibly avoid the conclusion that our Lord and His +apostles admitted the Divine origin and historical truth of these +chapters.</p> + +<p>Therefore, we are bound as Christians to accept them, and that without +glossing or frittering away their meaning, when we have arrived, by just +processes, at what that meaning really is.</p> + +<p>The fact just stated further warns us against accepting an indefinite +interpretation which, while it acknowledges the truth of the general +conclusion, still virtually, if not in so many words, allows that the +details may be wholly inaccurate.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_54">[54]</a><div class="note"> I am not aware of any authority, living or dead, who has +gone so far as to deny that God's revelation to the Jewish Church was in +any way connected with Christianity; that it was not even a stage of +progress, or preparatory step towards the kingdom of Christ.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_55">[55]</a><div class="note"> And was <i>sure to be</i> sooner or later, when a science of +Biology and Palaeontology became possible.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_56">[56]</a><div class="note"> For on the supposition stated, there <i>is</i> a revelation in +the text. Nor could any class of believer deny this. It is entirely +unnecessary to define the kind and extent of insphation. But "all +Scripture is '<i>theopneustos</i>'"—I leave the word purposely untranslated +(2 Tim. iii. 16); that surely means that the Divine Spirit exercised +<i>some kind</i> of continuous control over the writers.</div> + + +<a name="Footnote_1_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_57">[57]</a><div class="note"> Not even, for example, by Professor Häckel.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_58">[58]</a><div class="note"> How, for example, did the writer come to introduce the +adjustment of hours of daylight and seasons in the <i>middle</i>, after so +much work had been done? How did he come to place <i>birds</i> along with +fish and water monsters, and not separately?</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_59">[59]</a><div class="note"> St. Matt. xix. 4; St. Luke xvii. 27; and perhaps we might +add a third—St. Matt. xxiii. 35.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XI"></a><h2>CHAPTER XI.</h2> + +<p><i>SCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION</i>.</p> +<br> + +<p>Passing, then, to a consideration of the explanations of the narrative +that may be or have been given at various times, I would first call +attention to the fact, that it seems in many instances to have been the +distinct purpose of Divine inspiration to allow the meaning of some +passages to be obscure; perhaps among other reasons, that men might be +compelled to study closely, to reason and to compare, and thus to become +more minutely acquainted with the record. Especially in a case of this +sort, where the world's knowledge of the facts would necessarily be +gradual, was it desirable that the narrative should be confined in +scope, and capable of being worked out and explained by the light of +later discoveries; because, had the narrative really (as has long been +supposed) been revealed to tell us what was the actual course of +evolution of created forms on earth, it would not only have occupied a +disproportionate space in the sacred volume, but would have been +unintelligible to the world for many centuries, and would have given +rise to much doubting and false argument, to the great detriment of +men's spiritual enlightenment. It would have diverted men's minds from +the great moral and conclusion of the whole (and here it is that the +"moral" or conclusion is so important) to set them arguing on points of +natural science.</p> + +<p>The Bible was never intended (so far we may agree with all the schools +of thought) to be a text-book on biology or geology. We need rather to +be impressed with the great facts of God's Sovereignty and Providence, +and to know definitely that all the arrangements of our globe and all +forms of life are due to Divinely-created types. This is exactly secured +by the narrative as it stands; but such a purpose would not be served by +a narrative which, while it contained these great facts, had them +enwrapped in a tissue of unnecessary and false details. And therefore it +is, if I may so far anticipate my conclusion, that the narrative has no +direct concern with how, when, and where, the Creation slowly worked +itself out under the Divine guidance which is still elaborating the +great purpose of the "ages"; it confines our attention to what God, the +great Designer, did and said in heaven, as preliminary to all that was +to follow on earth. The former was not a proper subject for revelation, +because man would in time come to learn it by his studies on earth; but +the latter all ages could only learn—the first as well as the +latest—from a Divine Revelation.</p> + +<p>Again, let me address a few words to those who are tempted, half +unconsciously perhaps, to think that any lengthy prelude and "elaborate" +explanation of Genesis must condemn the narrative <i>à priori</i>, or be +derogatory to the dignity of Revelation. Why the narrative should be +brief and concise I have just suggested. That it needs explanation of +<i>some</i> sort is inevitable, because it <i>must</i> be put into human language; +and directly such language is employed, we come upon such terms as "let +there be," "he created," and "days," which do not always call forth the +same ideas in all minds.</p> + +<p>It will not have escaped the attention of any earnest student, that +Scripture has several different methods of describing things so as to +reveal them to men. This, a moment's reflection will enable us to +expect. However high and wonderful the things to be stated are, in order +to be brought within reach of human understanding <i>they must be +expressed in terms of human thought and experience</i>; and these are +imperfect and essentially inadequate. Hence it is, that many truths have +to be brought before us in special or peculiar ways.</p> + +<p>How, for instance, are we told of the temptation and fall of man? How +are we to understand what was meant by the Tree of Life or the Tree of +Knowledge of Good and Evil, or by the Serpent speaking and beguiling +Eve? We are at a great loss to give a precise explanation, though the +practical meaning is not difficult.</p> + +<p>The facts may be none the less true, though from their transcendental +character it may have been necessary to put them down in mysterious, +possibly even in merely allegorical, language. Another instance of this +might be given in the account of Satan in the presence of the Lord as +described in the Book of Job, or of the lying Spirit described by +Micaiah when prophesying before Ahab. It maybe that these narratives +describe to us transactions in a world beyond our own, which <i>could</i> +only be conveyed to us in figures or in imperfect form. When St. Paul +was caught up into the third heaven, he "heard unspeakable things" which +it was not <i>possible</i> for him to utter—the medium of expression was +wanting. Divine or mysterious things have, then, to be described in +peculiar language which is not always easy to understand. Nor, having +respect to the varying requirements of the different ages, or the +circumstances of the time and of the inspired writer, is it easy to +understand why any particular form of communication was selected, though +doubtless if we knew more we should see a good reason for it. This gives +us one class of Scripture passages—of methods of revelation. On the +other hand, there are in Scripture many facts of the highest import, and +in themselves of transcendent magnitude, which are yet capable of being +stated without any possibility of our interpreting or understanding the +narrative in more ways than one. When it is stated that Christ Jesus +rose from the dead, we know beyond all reasonable doubt what is meant. +The fact may be true or false, but the narrative of the fact needs no +explanation; there are no terms which need expansion—which could bear +more than one possible meaning, and which could be used accordingly in +one sense or another. This instances a second class. Again, we can bring +forward yet another class of Scripture revelations, namely, passages +which are necessarily understood with reference to certain other matters +which are unexpressed but are taken for granted, or in which the words +used may bear more than one meaning, or a meaning which is uncertain or +obscure. If the unexpressed matter can be supplied without doubt, then +all ages will agree in the interpretation; and if the terms can (by +reference to context or otherwise) be explained, the same result +follows: if not, then in interpreting the narrative, each age will <i>make +its own assumption</i> regarding the terms used, on the basis of such +knowledge as it possesses. It follows, then, inevitably, that if the +state of knowledge varies, the interpretation will be different +according to the different standard of knowledge, according to which the +necessary assumptions are made. And yet all the while the authority of +the passage itself is not touched. As it is unquestionable that such +different classes of passage do occur in Scripture, it is merely a +question of criticism whether any given passage is of this class or +that, and whether its terms do admit of or require explanation. It is no +doubt possible to make mistakes and to err by refusing the direct +meaning, and giving to the terms an assumed meaning for which there is +no real necessity.<a name="FNanchor_1_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_60"><sup>[60]</sup></a> We have always to be on our guard against giving +special meanings to words where they are not required; but granted that +caution, there undoubtedly are passages in which either the terms +themselves are not plain, or in which they may really have a meaning +different from the ordinary one.</p> + +<p>To descend from the general to the particular, it is obvious that the +account of Creation in Genesis i., ii. is in such a form that we must +assume our own ideas of the term "day" therein employed, and also those +to be attached to "created" and similar terms.</p> + +<p>In early times, no one would take "day" to mean anything else but an +earth day of the ordinary kind, and no one would question whether or not +the whole existing animals and plants, or their ancestors, appeared on +earth in six such days, or whether anything else was meant. Again, by +the time St. Augustine was writing, a little more knowledge of nature +and a little more habit of reasoning about the origin of things was in +the world, and that knowledge led people to suppose that creation meant +only the making of things "out of nothing," but that it would take +longer than six times twelve hours, so that "days" might mean "periods."</p> + +<p>And people imagined for a long time that—taking for an example the +work in the middle of the narrative—there was a time when the earth +emerged from the tumult of waters, that it then got covered with plants, +the waters remaining barren of life; but that when the plants had come +up all over the ground, then the waters all at once became full of all +sorts of sea-shells, fish, and monsters of the deep, and so on.</p> + +<p>They did all this, by naturally <i>assuming</i> that the terms "creation," +"day," &c., meant what the <i>existing state of knowledge</i> at the time +suggested.</p> + +<p>At the present day, one would have supposed that every one must feel +that while the term "day" might or might not admit of explanation, +certainly <i>creation</i> (i.e., terms implying it) did require very great +care in interpreting, and very great consideration as to what they +really meant But however that may be, we have here a passage which +<i>must</i> have an explanation; and which must have an explanation that +depends on the state of knowledge.</p> + +<p>The utility of Revelation is not negatived by this necessary result of +the employment of human language in describing the facts. It was <i>not</i> +necessary before, that all should be understood; it may be now +increasingly necessary in the purposes of God that it should be. At any +rate the fact is so, that in former days people did not possess the data +for knowing fully what creation meant, and certainly they do now possess +it to a very much greater extent at least. Always men could learn from +the narrative what it always was important for them to learn, namely, +God's Sovereignty and Authorship. It is in this way that the value of +the <i>general</i> teaching of the narrative comes out, and not by trying to +allow a mixture of truth and falsehood in Revelation. All is and always +was true; but <i>all</i> the truth was not equally extractable at all times.</p> + +<p>Again: the dignity of the old written Revelation is not compromised +because God has virtually given a further revelation in His works, +i.e., by enabling man to know more about the rock-strata and the +succession of life on the earth. That is what it really comes to. It +should never be forgotten that the book of Nature <i>is</i> a revelation.</p> + +<p>The <i>works</i> of God, if interpreted truly, are evidence of the same +nature as the <i>word</i> of God if interpreted truly. God has created man +and his reason. It is impossible to suppose that it can be unrighteous +reasoning in God's sight, to derive from the facts of nature any +legitimate conclusion to which those facts point. It is childish to +believe that God created ready-made—if I may so speak—rocks with +fossils in them, marks of rain-drops showing which way the wind blew at +the time, foot-prints of birds, animals with remains of the prey they +had been feeding on, in their stomachs, and so forth. It is perfectly +reasonable and right to conclude certainly, that those creatures were +once living beings; that the surface of the earth was once a soft +sediment which received the impression of the rain-drops as they fell; +and that stratified rocks were deposited out of lakes and seas, as we +see alluvial strata deposited at the present day. It is impossible, +therefore, that (if we are not misled by appearances) any +well-ascertained fact can be contrary to the truth of God as explained +by Revelation. If we are not sure of the facts of nature, we must wait +patiently till further knowledge enlightens us, and must not hastily +conclude that the Bible is wrong. The repeated corrections which +successive years have compelled us to make in conclusions which were +once firmly accepted and proclaimed as "truths of science," should teach +us caution in this respect.</p> + +<p>Nor, lastly, is it any reproach to the Church, as keeper of the Divine +Revelation, that its opinion of certain passages should vary with the +growth of knowledge. It would be hardly necessary to make this obvious +remark but for the fact that it has been reproached against Christian +belief, that science is contrary to the Bible, and that the Church has +ever had to confess itself wrong, after having persecuted people for not +following its peculiar views. It is, indeed, unfortunate that a blind +zeal for God has led, in the past, to persecution; the Church failing to +see that such men as Galileo and Bruno never denied God at all, nor did +their discoveries really contradict the Word. But persecution is not a +sin peculiar to the Church; it is a sin of human nature.</p> + +<p>It is also true that Christian views may be wrong, but the fault is in +the views, not in the Bible.</p> + +<p>Scientific men, of all people, should be the last to complain of +<i>change</i> in views, seeing that what was science two hundred years ago is +now (much of it) exploded nonsense.</p> + +<p>There is no harm whatever in changing our views about the meaning of +difficult passages—provided we never let go our hold on the central +truth, and put the error to our own account, not saying that the Word +itself is wrong.</p> + +<p>It may, in this connection, be at once observed that any particular +explanation, or that one which I propose presently to suggest, of the +first chapters of Genesis, may not commend itself to the reader, and yet +the general argument I have adduced will hold good notwithstanding.</p> + +<p>All that I care to contend is, that science does not contradict a +syllable of the narrative on <i>one</i> possible interpretation, and that +changes in view as to interpretation are no arguments against the truth +of the passage itself.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_60">[60]</a><div class="note"> As, for example, where persons desirous to get over the +plain reference to Baptism in St. John iii. 5, try to explain away the +term "water" to mean something metaphorically but not actually water.</div> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XII"></a><h2>CHAPTER XII.</h2> + +<p><i>METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE—ASSUMPTIONS OF MEANING TO CERTAIN TERMS.</i></p> + +<p>Returning, then, to the narrative in the Book of Genesis, I think we may +take it as clear that the passage stands in such a concise and condensed +form, that it is obviously open to <i>be interpreted</i>. Further, that we +should not be surprised if the interpretation at the present day, with +our vastly increased knowledge of Nature, is different from what it was +in earlier times.</p> + +<p>I make no apology for repeating this so often, because it is really +amazing to see the way in which "anti-theological" writers attack what +<i>they suppose</i> to be the interpretation of the narrative, or what some +one else supposes to be such, and seem to be satisfied that in so doing +they have demolished the credibility of the narrative itself.</p> + +<p>If you choose to assume that Creation as spoken of by the sacred writer +means some particular thing, or even if the mass of uneducated or +unreflecting people assume it and you follow them, I grant at once that +the narrative can be readily made out to be wrong.</p> + +<p>Permit me, then, to repeat once more, that the narrative is in human +language, and uses the human terms "created," "made," and "formed," and +that these terms <i>do</i> (as a matter of fact which there is no gainsaying) +bear a meaning which is not invariable. Hence, without any glossing or +"torturing" of the narrative, we are under the plain obligation to seek +to assign to these terms a true meaning <i>with all the light that modern +knowledge</i> can afford.</p> + +<p>Now (having already considered the school of interpretation which +declines to attend to the exact terms) we can confine our attention to +two classes of interpreters. One explains the term "days" to mean long +periods of time; the other accepts the word in its ordinary and most +natural sense, and endeavours to eliminate the long course of +developmental work made known to us by palaeontological science, and +supposes all that to have been passed over in silence; and argues that a +final preparation for the advent of the man Adam was made in a special +work of six days.</p> + +<p>All the well-known attempts at explanation, such as those of Pye-Smith, +Chalmers, H. Miller, Pratt, and the ordinary commentaries, can be placed +in one or other of these categories.</p> + +<p>Now, as regards both, I recur to the curious fact (already noted) that +it seems never to enter into the conception of either school to inquire +for a moment what the sacred writer meant by "created"—God +"created"—God said "let there be." It <i>is</i> curious, because no one can +reasonably say "these terms are obvious, they bear their own meaning on +the surface;" a moment's analysis will scatter such an idea to the +winds. Yet the terms <i>are</i> passed by. The commentators set themselves +right earnestly to compare and to collate, to argue and to analogize, on +the meaning of the term "days;" the other term "created" they take for +granted without—as far as I am aware—single line of explanation, or so +much as a doubt whether they know what it really means!</p> + +<p>The interpretation that I would propose to the judgment of the Church is +just the very opposite. It seems to me that the word <i>day</i> as used in +the narrative needs no explanation; it seems to me that the other does. +As regards the term "day," it is surely a rule of sound criticism never +to give an "extraordinary" meaning to a word, when the "ordinary" one +will give good and intelligible sense to a passage. And looking to the +fact that, after all, when the days of Genesis <i>are</i> explained to mean +periods of very unequal but possibly enormous duration, that explanation +is not only quite useless, but raises greater difficulties than ever, I +should think it most likely that the "day" of the narrative should be +taken in the ordinary sense. But of this hereafter.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, with regard to the terms "creation,<a name="FNanchor_1_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_61"><sup>[61]</sup></a>" "created," +"Let there be," and so forth, I find ample room for the most careful +consideration and for detailed study before we can say what is meant. +Even then there remains a feeling of profound mystery. For at the very +beginning of every train of reflection and reasoning on the subject, we +are just brought up dead at this wonderful fact, the existence of +<i>matter</i> where previously there had been <i>nothing</i>. The phrase "created +<i>out of</i> nothing" is of course a purely conventional one, and, strictly +speaking, has no meaning; but we adopt it usefully enough to indicate +our ultimate fact—the appearance of matter where previously there had +been nothing. Nor is the difficulty really surmounted by alleging such a +mere <i>phrase</i> as "matter is eternal," for we have just as little mental +conception of self-existent, always—and <i>without beginning</i>—existent +matter, as we have of "creation out of nothing."</p> + +<p>The human mind has always a difficulty when it is brought face to face +with something that is beyond the scope not only of its own practical, +but, even of its theoretical or potential ability.</p> + +<p>The "creation," therefore, of matter by a Divine Power is matter of +<i>faith</i>, as I endeavoured to set forth in the earlier pages of this +little work; but it is <i>reasonable</i> faith, because it can be supported +by sound reasoning from analogy and strong probability.</p> + +<p>All our attention, then, I submit, should be directed to understanding +what is "creation" in the sacred narrative.</p> +<br> + +<a name="Footnote_1_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_61">[61]</a><div class="note"> The entire silence of commentators regarding the doubtful +meaning of "creation" is so surprising, that I have had the greatest +difficulty in persuading myself that the explanation I propose is new. +Yet certainly I have never come across it anywhere.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XIII"></a><h2>CHAPTER XIII.</h2> + +<p><i>THE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY.</i></p> + +<p>I.—THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE.</p> + +<p>§ 1. <i>Objections to the Received Interpretations</i>.</p> + +<p>Taking the narrative as it stands, we find it to consist of two parts. +First, a general statement, of which no division of time is predicated, +and which is unaccompanied by any detail. Second, there is an account +seriatim of certain operations which are stated to have been severally +performed one on each of six days.</p> + +<p>As regards the first portion, we have no definite knowledge of +scientific truth with which to compare the narrative. It is obviously +necessary for some Divine teacher to tell us authoritatively that God +originated and caused the material earth, and the systems of suns and +stars which men on the earth's surface are able to discern in the +"heavens."</p> + +<p>We are consequently informed that in the beginning—there is no +practical need for defining further—"God created the heavens and the +earth." Here the question arises whether the Hebrew "bara," which is a +general term, alludes to the first production of material, or to the +moulding or fashioning of material already (in terms) assumed to exist. +I think that the conclusion must be that the best authority is in favour +of the idea of absolute origination of the whole;—the bringing the +entire system into existence where previously there was a perfect blank. +But even if the secondary meaning of "fashioned" or "forged" be allowed, +we have still an intelligible rendering. For in that case the first +origination of matter is tacitly assumed by the term itself, and the +statement would be, that the matter of the future cosmos so existing, +the Divine Artificer fashioned or moulded it into the orderly fabric it +has come to be.</p> + +<p>The narrative then at once refers to our earth, with which, and with its +inhabitants, the whole volume is to be in future directly concerned. +"The earth was (or became) without form and void (chaotic), and darkness +was on the face of the deep (or abyss)."</p> + +<p>We have no positive knowledge of what the first condition of terrestrial +matter was, apart from Revelation. The remarkable discoveries that the +spectroscope has enabled, and the facts learned from the physical +history of comets and meteorites, can do no more than make what is known +as the "nebular hypothesis" highly probable. But it is amply sufficient +for our purpose to point out, that if it is true that matter originated +in a nebulous haze to the particles of which a spiral rotatory motion +had been communicated, and if (confining our attention to one planet +only) that attenuated matter gradually aggregated in a ring or rings, +and then consolidated into a solid or partly solid globe, then the +results are briefly, but adequately and sublimely, provided for by the +form of the Mosaic statement.</p> + +<p>Matter thus aggregating would have developed an enormous amount of heat, +and there would have been a seething mass of molten mineral matters, +with gases and other materials in the form of vapours, which would have +gradually cooled and consolidated. Vast masses of water would in time be +formed on one hand, and solid mineral masses on the other; the latter +would contract as cooling progressed, causing great upheavals and +depressions and contortions of strata. And before the advent of +life-forms, it is not difficult to conceive that the first state of our +globe was one which is intelligibly and very graphically described as +being "without form and void." Nothing more than that, can, from actual +physical knowledge, be stated.<a name="FNanchor_1_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_62"><sup>[62]</sup></a></p> + +<p>It is also stated that this confused elemental state of our earth was +accompanied at first by darkness. Material darkness that is—for the +potentiality of light and order was there; the SPIRIT OF GOD "moved" (or +brooded) upon the face of the abyss. This presents no difficulty of +interpretation, and may therefore be passed over for the present.</p> + +<p>Practically, indeed, there has been no grave difficulty raised over this +first portion. And if it is argued (on the ground of what I have already +in general terms indicated) that the term "created" will, on my own +interpretation, get us into difficulties, I reply that here, in its +position and with the context, there is no room for doubt, for clearly +the word implies <i>both</i> the great primary idea of the Divine design or +plan formulated in heaven, <i>and</i> the subsequent result in time and +space.<a name="FNanchor_1_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_63"><sup>[63]</sup></a> This will become more clear when I have further explained the +subject.</p> + + +<p>II.—THE SECOND PART OF THE NARRATIVE.</p> +<br> + +<p>But from this point the narrative commences to be more precise, and to +exhibit a very singular and altogether unprecedented division of +creative work into "days."</p> + +<p>Now I have already indicated my doubt whether we ought to import any +unusual meaning to explain this term.</p> + +<p>In the first place, the objection that till the movements and relations +of the sun to the earth were ordained there would be no <i>measure of a +day</i>> will not stand a moment's examination. Nor will the further +objection sometimes made, that even with the sun, a day is a very +uncertain thing: for example, a day and a night in the north polar +regions are periods of month-long duration, quite different from what +they are in England, or at Mount Sinai. Obviously, a "day" with +reference to the planet for which the term is used, means the period +occupied by one rotation of the planet on its own axis. The rotation of +the earth is antecedent to anything mentioned in the narrative we are +considering. In the nature of things, it would have been coeval with the +introduction of the <i>prima materies</i>—at least if any nebular hypothesis +can be relied on. The "day" would be there whether it were obscured by +vapours or not, and whether specially made countable and recognizable by +what we call the rising and setting of the sun, or not, and whether we +were standing in Nova Zembla or in Australia.</p> + +<p>Nor is it of much use to refer to the general use of "day" for +indefinite periods, which is just as common in the English of to-day as +it was in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the double use of the +term in different senses has become general, just because it was found +in practice that no confusion ordinarily resulted; and surely such a +practice would not have been common, or at any rate would have been +specially avoided in the sacred volume, wherever any mistake or +confusion was likely or even possible.</p> + +<p>No one can mistake what is meant when allusion is made to "the day in +which God made the heaven and the earth." No one falls into doubt when +the "days" of the prophets are spoken of—any more than they do now when +a man says, "Such a thing will not happen in my <i>day</i>."</p> + +<p>Whenever in Daniel, or in similar prophetic writings, the term "day" is +used in a peculiar sense as indicating a term of years, we have no +difficulty in recognizing the fact from the context and circumstances of +the narrative; nor am I aware that any controversy has ever arisen +regarding the use of the term "day" <i>in any passage of Scripture +excepting in this</i>.</p> + +<p>This fact alone is suspicious; the more so, because there is absolutely +nothing in the context to indicate that anything but an ordinary day is +intended. Not only so, but there <i>is</i> in the context something that does +very clearly indicate (and I think Dr. Réville is perfectly justified in +insisting on this) that an ordinary terrestrial day is meant. One of the +primeval institutions of Divine Providence for men, my readers will not +need to be reminded, was that of a "Sabbath," which any one reading the +text would understand to mean a day, and which the Jews—the earliest +formal or legal recognizers of it—<i>did</i> so understand, and that under +direct Divine sanction.</p> + +<p>If the <i>days</i> of Genesis mean indefinite periods of aeonian duration, +how is the seventh <i>day</i> of rest to be understood?</p> + +<p>But even if these difficulties are overcome, absolutely nothing is +gained by taking the day to be a period.</p> + +<p>I presume that the object of gaining long periods of time instead of +days in reading the Mosaic record, is to assume that the narrative means +to describe the actual production on the earth of all that was created; +in other words, to assume a particular meaning for the words "created," +"brought forth," &c and then to make out that if a whole age is +granted, Science will allow us a sequence of a "plant age" a "fish and +saurian age," a "bird age," and a "mammalian age";—that is, in general +terms and neglecting minor forms of life. But then <i>to make any sense at +all with the verses</i> we are bound to show that each age preceded the +next—that one was more than partly, if not quite completely, +established <i>before</i> any appearance of the next.</p> + +<p>It is to this interpretation that Professor Huxley alludes when he says, +in his first article,<a name="FNanchor_1_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_64"><sup>[64]</sup></a> "There must be some position from which the +reconcilers of Science and Genesis will not retreat—some central idea +the maintenance of which is vital, and its refutation fatal.... It is +that the animal species which compose the water population, the air +population, and the land population,<a name="FNanchor_2_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_65"><sup>[65]</sup></a> respectively, originated during +three successive periods of time, and only during those periods of +time."</p> + +<p>For my own part, I hasten to say that, as one of the despised race of +"reconcilers," not only is this idea no central position from which I +will not retreat, but one which I should never think of occupying for +one moment.</p> + +<p>But on the view of the <i>periods</i>, some such position must be taken up. +And if so, I must maintain that Professor Huxley has shown—if indeed it +was not obvious already—that the idea of a series of periods, and in +each of which a certain kind of life began and culminated (if it was not +fully completed) <i>before</i> another began, is untrue to nature. This, +therefore, cannot have been intended by the author of Genesis.</p> + +<p>I will here interrupt my argument for a moment to say that there is a +<i>certain degree</i> of <i>coincidence</i> between the succession of life on the +earth as far as it is explained by palaeontological research, and the +order of creation stated in Genesis; but that is not concerned with any +forced interpretation of the term "day." The coincidence is just near +enough to give rise to a desire to identify creative periods with the +series shown by the fossil-bearing rocks; while it is attended with just +enough of difference to furnish matter for controversy, and to expose +the interpreters to be cut up.</p> + +<p>But to return. Nothing, I submit, is gained by getting <i>day</i> to mean +period. Let us put the matter quite squarely. Let us take day to mean +period, and let us take all the verses to mean the <i>process</i> of +<i>producing</i> on earth the various life-forms.</p> + +<p>In order to come at once to the point, let us begin with the time when +the dry land and the waters are separate. At that moment, there is +nothing said (or implied) about life already having begun in either +water or on dry land. God commanded plants to grow; consequently during +that <i>whole period</i> nothing but plants, and that of all the kinds and +classes mentioned, should appear either in water or on land. That period +being done, then came the command for water animals, fish and great +monsters, and also birds. We ought, accordingly, to come next upon a +whole period in which no trace of anything but plants and these animals +can be found; and lastly, we ought to find the period of mammalia, +smaller reptiles, <i>amphibia</i> and insects (creeping things).</p> + +<p>That is the fair and plain result of what comes of supposing the terms +"let there be," &c., to mean <i>production on earth of the thing's +themselves</i>, and that the days are long <i>periods</i>.</p> + +<p>All overlapping of the periods is inadmissible. All meaning is taken +away, if we allow of fish (e.g.) appearing in the middle of our first +period; for God did not command another day's work till after the first +was completed—"there was evening and there was morning, a first day" +(period), &c.</p> + +<p>No; to suit the text so interpreted, we must have a full <i>period</i> of +plants with no fish; then a period of both but no insects, no creeping +things, no animals; and so on. Now it is quite idle to contend any +longer, that any such state of things ever existed.</p> + +<p>If we pass over the long series of the most ancient strata in which +doubtful forms of obscure elementary plant and animal life appear +<i>almost</i> together, we shall come to shell-fish, and crustaceans fully +established in the water, and scorpions, and some insects even on land, +<i>before</i> plants made any great show. For the Carboniferous—<i>the</i> age of +acrogen plants, <i>par excellence</i>—does not occur till after swarms of +<i>Trilobite</i> Crustaceans had filled the sea and passed away, and after +the Devonian fish-age had nearly passed away; and so on throughout.</p> + +<p>The groups in nature overlap each other so closely, that though +plant-life (in elementary forms) probably had the actual start; +virtually the two kingdoms—plant and animal—appeared almost +simultaneously. There is nothing like the appearance of a first period +in which one <i>alone</i> predominated. And long before the plants are +established in all classes, the great reptiles, birds, and some mammals, +had appeared. The seed-bearing plants—true grasses and exogens with +seed capsules (angiosperms) did not appear till quite Tertiary times. +That is the essential difference between the facts and the theory. If we +make a diagram, and let the squares represent the main groups, the order +(according to the period interpretation) ought to be as in A, whereas +it really more resembles B. Thus.</p> + +<center> +<img src="images/00000172.gif" width="649" height="671" alt="[Illustration: A new Interpretation suggested]" title=""> +</center> + +<p>But then it will be asked, if the day means only an ordinary day—not a +long period—what is there that actually could have happened, and did +happen, in <i>three days</i> (for that is the real point, as we shall see), +such as the writer describes as the third, fifth, and sixth days?</p> + +<p>I answer that on those days, and on the previous ones, God did exactly +what He is recorded to have done. After the creation of light (first +day), and the ideal adjustment of the distribution of land and water +(second day), He (<i>a</i>) "<i>created</i>," on the third day, plants, from the +lowest cryptogam upwards; then (<i>b</i>) paused for a day (the fourth) in +the direct work of creating life-forms, to adjust certain matters +regarding times and seasons, and regulation of climate, which doubtless +would not be essential during the early stages of life evolution, but +would become so directly a certain point was reached; then (<i>c</i>) resumed +the direct creating work (fifth day), with fishes, great reptiles,<a name="FNanchor_1_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_66"><sup>[66]</sup></a> +and birds (grouped purposely so, as we shall see); and, lastly (<i>d</i>), +before the Day of Rest, created the group of mammals (<i>carnivora</i> and +<i>herbivora</i>), the "creeping things" of the earth, and man (also grouped +together).</p> + +<p>But some one will ask, You then accept the earlier theory, that the +whole life-series that is now revealed to us by the rocks, from the +Laurentian to the Recent, is excluded from the narrative; and that some +special acts of creation, regarding only modern and surviving +life-forms, were made immediately before man appeared? By no-means; for +such a theory is not only in itself improbable, but is contrary to all +the evidence we possess of life-history on the earth, and is so hopeless +that it is really not worth serious examination and refutation.</p> + +<p>We have no evidence of any such gap—such sudden change in the history +of life. Nor is it possible to find any place in the Mosaic story at +which we could reasonably interpolate a <i>long</i> period, such as that +indicated by the entire series of rock strata. For a great part of such +a period, not only must there have been a regular succession of life +just the same in nature (though specifically different) as that now on +earth, but a regular distribution of land and water, and a settled +action of the sun and the seasons, would be required. No; we must give +up all the older methods which try to ignore the study of the word +"created," or to assume for it a meaning that it is not intended to +bear.</p> + +<p>All depends, then, on what is meant by such terms as "created," "let +there be," "let the earth bring forth," &c. Perhaps it has occurred to +but few of my readers seriously to examine into their own mental +conception of an "act of creation." Some will readily answer, "Of course +it means only that at the Divine <i>fiat</i>, any given species—say an +elephant—appeared perfect, trunk, tusks, and all the peculiar +development of skull and skeleton, where previously no such creature had +existed." But what possible reason have they for this conclusion? None +whatever. It has simply been carelessly assumed from age to age, because +people at first knew no better; and when they began to know better, they +did not stop to amend their ideas accordingly.</p> + +<p>Of course, as Professor Huxley puts it, millions of pious Jews and +Christians<a name="FNanchor_1_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_67"><sup>[67]</sup></a> supposed <i>creation</i> to mean a "sudden act of the +Deity"—i.e., to mean just what the knowledge of the time enabled them +to imagine. They could do nothing else. The state of knowledge fifty +years ago would not have rendered it possible for an article like +Professor Huxley's (that to which allusion has several times been made) +to have been written at all. What wonder, then, that the multitude did +not understand what <i>creation</i> meant, and that a reasonable +interpretation of the word has only become possible in quite recent +times? Surely all that is the fault of the reader, not of the text. I do +not even care that the writer himself did not fully apprehend the +subject. When a human prophet is entrusted with the divulgation of high +and wonderful things, it is quite possible that he may have been to +greater or less extent in the dark as to all or some of the +communication he was writing.</p> + +<p>All that can be reasonably required is that the narrative, as it stands, +shall be consistent with actual truth, and shall at no time come to be +provably at variance with it.</p> + +<p>But let us look at the word "creation" more closely. We accept what we +are told, that in the beginning God called into existence force and +matter, the material or "physical basis," and all other necessaries of +life. Suppose, then (even dropping the question of Evolution, in order +to satisfy the "pious millions"), that this "matter" was all ready (if +I may so speak) to spring into organized form and being to take shape on +earth—what shape should it take? Why (e.g.) an elephant? Why not any +other animal, or a nondescript—a form which no zoologist could place, +recognize, or classify? The <i>form</i>, the ideal structure, the <i>formula</i>, +of the genus elephant must somehow have come into existence <i>before</i> the +obedient materials and the suitable forces of nature could work +themselves together to the desired end.</p> + +<p>Mr. Mivart has defined "creation" at page 290 of his "Genesis of +Species." There is original creation, derivative or secondary creation +(where the present form has descended from an ancestor that was +originally "directly" created), and conventional creation (as when a man +"creates a fortune," meaning that he produces a complex state or +arrangement out of simpler materials). That is perfectly true, so far; +but it is only a verbal definition, and still does not go inside, into +the <i>idea</i> involved. We must go farther.</p> + +<p>In every act of creation, two requisites can clearly be distinguished: +(1) the matter of life, and the forces, affinities, and local +surroundings necessary; and (2) the type, plan, ideal, or formula, to +realize or produce which, the forces and the matter are to act and +react. This second is all-essential; without it the first would only +produce a limbo of</p> + +<p>"Unaccomplisht works of Nature's hand, +Abortive, monstrous, or unkindly mixt.<a name="FNanchor_1_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_68"><sup>[68]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>No <i>creation</i> in <i>any</i> sense whatever could come out of it.</p> + +<p>In the same way, when we speak of the Divine Artificer "creating," or +saying "Let there be," there are two things implied: (i) the Divine plan +or type-form, and its utterance or delivery (so to speak) to the +builder-forces and materials; (2) the result or the translation into +tangible existence of the Divine plan.</p> + +<p>In every passage speaking of creation it <i>possible</i> that both processes +may be implied; it may be clear from the text (as in Genesis i. 1) that +this is so. But it is equally possible that the first point only, which +in some aspects is really the essential matter, is alone spoken of.</p> + +<p>And I submit that, given the general fact that God originated everything +in heaven and earth (as first of all stated generally in Genesis i. +1-3), the essential part of the <i>detailed</i> or <i>specific</i> creation +subsequently spoken of, was the Divine origination of the types, the +ideal forms, into which matter endowed with life was to develop; +<i>without</i> any <i>necessary</i> reference to how, or in what time, the Divine +creation was actually realized or accomplished on earth. It may be that +the <i>form</i> so conceived and drawn in Nature's book by the Divine +Designer is a final form, up to which development shall lead, and beyond +which (at least in a material sense) it shall not go; or it may be that +it is a type intended to be transitory;<a name="FNanchor_1_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_69"><sup>[69]</sup></a> but <i>both the intermediate +and final forms must take their origin first in the Divine Mind, and be +prescribed from the Heavenly Throne,</i> before the obedient matter and +forces and the life-endowment could co-operate to result in the +realization of the forms and the population of the globe.</p> + +<p>The reason why it is the <i>essential</i> part, is, that when once the Divine +command issued, the result followed inevitably—that will "go without +saying."</p> + +<p>In human affairs, also, we speak of the architect having <i>created</i> the +palace or cathedral, or the ironclad; meaning thereby not the slow +process of cutting and joining stone, or riveting steel plates, but the +higher antecedent act of mind in evoking the ideal form and providing +for all contingencies in the adaptation and subsequent working of the +finished structure. And if we limit this use of the term "creation" +somewhat in speaking of human works, it is because the concept of the +human mind so often fails of realization; that it is one thing to +design, and another to accomplish. The grandest design for a palace may +fail to stand because some peculiarity of the stone has been forgotten, +or some character of foundation and subsoil has been misunderstood. The +noblest form of turret-ship may prove useless because the strength of +some material will not correspond to the ideal, or some curve of +stability has been miscalculated. Not only this: man may create, as a +sculptor, the ideal form for his to-be statue, or the dramatist his +character; but the perfect realization, either in marble or in an actual +being, may be impossible; the ideal remains "in the air." The ideal, +therefore, is not the major part of "creation" in a human work.</p> + +<p>But with the Divine work it is otherwise. The Divine thought in Creation +and its result are separated by no possibility of failure. Given the +matter and the laws of force and of life, directly the Great Designer +has uttered His thought to those that are His builders, they <i>must</i> +infallibly and without discord, work through the longest terms, it may +be, of an evolutionary series, till, every transitional condition +passed, the final form emerges perfect.</p> + +<p>Our very verbal definition, admitting as it does "derivative" creation, +implies this. We all speak of ourselves as "created." How so? We are not +produced ready made. Nor do we wholly solve the matter by saying that we +are "created" because we are born from parents who (if we go far enough +back) originated in a first production from the hand of Nature. We are +really "created" because the <i>design</i>—the <i>life-form of us</i>, which +matter and force were to work together to produce—was the direct +product of the Divine Mind.<a name="FNanchor_1_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_70"><sup>[70]</sup></a></p> + +<p>My question, therefore, of the Genesis interpreters is: Why will you +insist on the text meaning only the second element in Creation—the +production on earth, and not the Design or its issue in heaven?</p> + +<p>The former we could find out some day for ourselves; we <i>have</i> found out +some of it (though only some) already; the latter we could never know +unless we were told. Surely it is the "<i>dignus vindice nodus</i>" in this +case. To tell us the earth's history within a brief space would be +impossible, and would have been for ages unintelligible if it could have +been told; to tell us of God's creation is possible—for it has been +done; and the record, unless misread, is intelligible for all time.</p> + +<p>The narrative, if it is a revelation of Divine Creation in heaven, takes +up ground that none can trespass on. None can say "it is not so," unless +either he will show that the words will not bear the meaning, or that +the context and other Scripture contradict it.</p> + +<p>So soon as the matter of earth and heaven (and all that is implied +therewith) originated "in the beginning," the narrative introduces to +our reverent contemplation the solemn conclave in heaven, when, in a +serial order and on separate days, God declared, for the guidance of the +ever potentially active forces, and for materials ever (as we know) +seeking combination and resolution,<a name="FNanchor_1_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_71"><sup>[71]</sup></a> the <i>form</i> which the earth +surface is (it may be ever so gradually) to take and the <i>life-forms</i> +which are to be evolved.</p> + +<p>That this creative work was piecemeal, and on separate days, we know +from the narrative. <i>Why</i> it was so arranged we do not know. Vast as was +the work to be done, almost infinite as was the complexity of the laws +required to be formulated, it <i>could</i> have all been done at once, in a +moment of time; for time does not exist to the Divine Mind. But seeing +that the work was to be on earth, and for the benefit of creatures to +whom the divisions of time were all-important, we can dimly, at least, +discern a certain fitness and appropriateness in the gradual and divided +work.</p> +<br> + +<a name="Footnote_1_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_62">[62]</a><div class="note"> It would be hardly necessary (but for some remarks in the +course of the Gladstone-Huxley controversy) to observe that the term "void" does not imply vacuity or emptiness, as of <i>substance,</i> but +absence of defined form such as subsequently was evolved.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_63">[63]</a><div class="note"> And of course if the true sense be "fashioned" or +"moulded," the question does not arise.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_64">[64]</a><div class="note"> "Nineteenth Century," December, 1885, pp. 856-7.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_65">[65]</a><div class="note"> These (unfortunate) terms are Mr. Gladstone's.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_66">[66]</a><div class="note"> This term may be here accepted for the moment—not to +interrupt the argument. It will be more fully dealt with in a subsequent chapter.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_67">[67]</a><div class="note"> Article quoted, p. 857.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_68">[68]</a><div class="note"> "Paradise Lost," iii. 455.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_69">[69]</a><div class="note"> The idea which I am endeavouring to make clear is well +illustrated by another passage in one of the Mosaic books—the account +of the Tabernacle. Moses had no idea of his own of the structure, its +furniture, implements, or the forms of these. The narrative expressly +states that the Divine power originated the designs, and caused Moses to +understand them. In a human work the designer would have drawn the +objects with measures and specifications, and given the papers to the +workmen. With the Divine work, where the design is in the Divine +Thought, and the workmen and builders are forces and elementary matter, +the process is a mystery, but in its practical bearing is understood +from analogy. The Tabernacle was truly God's <i>creation</i>, because it was +all commanded in design and "pattern" by the Almighty before Moses put +together the materials that realized the pattern in the camp of Israel.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_70">[70]</a><div class="note"> "<i>In Thy book</i> were all my members written, while <i>as yet +there were none</i> of them" (Psa. cxxxix. 16). +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">"How did this all first come to be you?<br> +<i>God thought about me</i> and I grew."—<i>Macdonald</i>.</div></div> +</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_71">[71]</a><div class="note"> The reader will recognize that there is not the least +exaggeration in this. It is plain matter of fact, as I have endeavoured +to show in the earlier chapters of this book. Everywhere we see <i>force</i> +ready to be evoked by the proper method. Everywhere we see <i>molecular</i> +motion, and a perpetual combination and resolution of elements and +compounds, whether chemical or mechanical.</div> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XIV"></a><h2>CHAPTER XIV.</h2> + +<p><i>THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES.</i></p> +<br> + +<p>In interpreting the narrative before us, we have an important aid which +has hardly received the attention it deserves. I allude to the other +passages of Scripture which were written by men undoubtedly familiar +with the Book of Genesis.</p> + +<p>Now, in more than one of them, I find the idea that the Creation spoken +of is the <i>Divine work in heaven</i>, and not the subsequent and long +process of its realization on the surface of our globe, fully confirmed.</p> + +<p>In the beautiful thirty-eighth chapter of the very ancient Book of Job, +we find a distinct allusion to a time when God "laid the foundations" of +the earth, prescribed "its measures," made a "decreed place" for the +sea, and framed the "ordinances of heaven," and this in presence of the +heavenly host assembled—</p> + +<p>"When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted +for joy.<a name="FNanchor_1_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_72"><sup>[72]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>The same idea can be gathered from the text which I have placed on the +title-page of this book. "By faith we understand that the aeons (the +whole system of nature in its various branches, physical, moral, and +social) were ordained (<font face="symbol">kathrtisqai</font>) by the word of God." The +<i>process</i> of actual development is here passed over, as not being the +main thing; what attracts attention is the Divine Design, the "framing" +of the wonderful ideal or ordinance without which the "aeons" could not +proceed to unfold themselves. I do not mean, of course, for a moment to +imply that, after God had formulated the laws and designed the forms, He +left the working out of the results to themselves. I should be sorry if, +in bringing into prominence what has generally been overlooked, I seemed +to throw the rest in the shade. God's providence and continued +supervision are as important in themselves as the original design:—but +this is not the central idea embodied in the passage.</p> + +<p>There is another Scriptural allusion which suggests the idea of a +Heavenly Conclave, and great act of Creation in heaven. It may be +considered somewhat remote, and even fanciful—but the fact is recorded +<i>both</i> in the Old Testament and the New, and <i>something</i> must be meant +by it. And, moreover, other and very meaningless interpretations have +been from the earliest times given, so that I can hardly omit the +subject if I would. I refer to the permanent presence in heaven, around +the Divine Throne, of the singular forms of being called <i>Cherubim</i>, +which seem to indicate some mysterious connection between the life-forms +of earth and the inhabitants of heaven, and some permanent +representation of typical created forms in heaven. In Ezekiel, chapter +i., and again in chapter x., this vision is presented to us.</p> + +<p>The prophet was to be prepared, by a very vivid exhibition of the power +and glory of God as the Author and Ruler of the universe, to appreciate +the depth of degradation to which the Jews had fallen in their rejection +of such a God as their Lord and King and of the justice of the terrible +overthrow which was the consequence of that rejection.</p> + +<p>The vision then displayed (as I understand it) GOD surrounded by the +typical forms of creation and the irresistible forces of nature. All +forms of life, all energies of nature, were thus shown to be His +creatures. There, around the throne, were four "cherubim" of remarkable +appearance. They were accompanied by the appearances of fiery orbs like +beryl stones, revolving in all directions with ceaseless energy. Any +account of this vision that I can give is, however, pitiable beside the +inexpressibly sublime picture drawn in Ezekiel, to which I must refer +the reader for his own study. And imagine what the feelings of the +prophet must have been when, fresh from the impression of this grandeur +of Creation—this glory and irresistible power of God as the Centre and +great Mover of all, he was taken to witness the pitiable sight of the +Jews turning away from His worship, and to see their elders burning +incense before walls covered with "every form of creeping things and +abominable beasts—all the idols of the house of Israel!<a name="FNanchor_1_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_73"><sup>[73]</sup></a>" How must +the vision have prepared him to realize the depth of degradation with +which he had to contend, and have fired him with energy to denounce it!</p> + +<p>There is, then, I think, considerable probability in the contention that +the vision represents God in Creation, surrounded by the types of +creation and the forces of nature.</p> + +<p>There is, no doubt, the ancient tradition that the four Cherubim meant +the four Gospels; and this has now become deeply associated with +ecclesiastical symbolism. But I submit that this is only a fancy which +can best be left to church embroidery and stained windows; it is +unworthy of any serious notice. The beings are described, it will be +observed, with great minuteness: all have the same characteristic powers +of rapid motion, and all have <i>human hands</i>, a fact that so strikes the +prophet that he repeats it three times.<a name="FNanchor_2_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_74"><sup>[74]</sup></a> These four Cherubim, then, +seem to me clearly to indicate the archetypes of Creation, the great +design-forms of created life, showing themselves the progressive scale +from the Animal to the Man and the Angel. And these four great types +exactly answer to the resulting groups of created life. We have the +development of <i>Reptilia</i> into <i>Birds</i> as one final type; consequently +one face of each cherub has the Bird type—the Eagle head<a name="FNanchor_3_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_75"><sup>[75]</sup></a>. Two other +faces on each give us the <i>Animal</i> type, one representing again the +great order Carnivora (the Lion), the other the Herbivorous Ungulates +(the Ox or Calf); while the fourth face indicates the last development, +<i>Man</i>.</p> + +<p>I would say here, as regards the animal creation being represented by a +double form, that it is most curious to notice that this double division +of animals is found throughout Scripture, and seems to have its +counterpart in the actual facts of creation on earth.</p> + +<p>Accompanying these created beings in this remarkable vision were +"wheels" which appeared to be spheres within spheres, revolving with +ceaseless activity and never turning, but always going forward. The +wheels were full of eyes. It appears to me probable that these +symbolize—and if so the symbol is at once full of meaning and +grandeur—the inevitable, ever wakeful energies and forces of nature, +the marvellous agency of electricity, chemical affinity, heat, +attraction, repulsion, and so forth. We are accustomed to speak of +"blind force;" but here observe the wheels are <i>full of eyes</i>, ever +vigilant to fulfil the purpose for which they are appointed. And this +representation of <i>forces</i> appears necessary to complete a symbolic +representation of God in nature: since the world is made up of dead +matter, of living forms, and of forces or energies which are in +ceaseless motion and action, producing the changes which in fact +constitute the working of the whole system.</p> + +<p>I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the imagery of this vision lend +support to the belief that there was a great Creation enacted in heaven, +which was followed by the actual carrying out of the processes on earth, +<i>but which has retained its representative forms in the heaven itself</i>. +Had this vision stood alone, it might have been passed over, on the +ground that it deals with high and transcendental matters, and that it +would be hardly safe to let a practical argument rest too much on it. +But the fact is that again in the New Testament a very similar vision is +mentioned (in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation): here again +the four living creatures represent the typical forms of life, the +bird, the carnivorous and herbivorous animals, and man; and it will be +observed that in this case there is hardly room to doubt that we have an +exhibition of <i>Creation</i>, for there is express allusion to it in the +address of the elders—"Thou hast <i>created all things</i>, and for Thy +pleasure they are and were created."</p> +<br> + +<a name="Footnote_1_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_72">[72]</a><div class="note"> Job xxxviii. 7. The sons of God are clearly the angels +(<i>cf</i>. Job i, 6).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_73">[73]</a><div class="note"> Ezek. viii. 10.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_74">[74]</a><div class="note"> See chapters i. 8, x. 8, and x. 21. Remark, in passing, +that the human hand has always been the subject of wonder as an evidence +of Divine skill in Creation. Sir Charles Bell's Bridgewater treatise, on +the human hand as illustrating the proof of Divine wisdom and +contrivance in Creation, is just as good an argument <i>for Design</i> now as +ever it was. I cannot here resist the temptation to notice one of those +small points in which the accuracy of the Bible is so constantly brought +to light. The popular notion of angels gives them wings as well as +hands—a form quite impossible from the natural history point of view; +<i>all</i> animals of the vertebrate orders never have <i>more</i> than two pairs +of limbs. And in winged animals the fore-limbs become wings. The popular +notion about angels is, however, artistic, not Biblical. Just the +contrary in fact. Here <i>is</i> a vision of a mysterious form with wings and +hands, but how?—the figures are fourfold; and being winged, each +division might have been winged like the eagle, so each cherub would +have had <i>eight</i> wings. But as one of the divisions had a human face and +human hands, the prophet only saw <i>six</i> wings to each, leaving one +division where, nature's <i>Divine type</i> being obeyed, there were <i>hands</i>, +and consequently no wings.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_3_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_75">[75]</a><div class="note"> Reptiles are unrepresented, perhaps as not being a final +type.</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XV"></a><h2>CHAPTER XV.</h2> + +<p><i>AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT.</i></p> +<br> + +<p>But a step further is necessary: if the conclusion that I have come to, +by accepting "day" in its ordinary and natural sense, and by giving a +hitherto overlooked (and so far a new) meaning to "creation," is sound, +it must not only be rendered probable by reference to other parts of +Scripture written when Genesis was much nearer its original publication +than it is now; it is still (before all things) necessary, that the +interpretation adopted should be conformable to the context.</p> + +<p>And I have heard it objected that there are verses which imply not only +a Divine Act in heaven, with the Sons of God in conclave around the +throne—sublime and wonderful picture!—but also distinctly indicate a +corresponding action on earth, and so require us to include in our +rendering of "creation" <i>both</i> the ideas which (page 169 ante) I have +admitted may, on occasion be required by the terms. For example: after +the creative command in verses 7, 9, 11, 15, and 24, is declared, it is +followed by the words of fulfilment—"and it was so;" and in verse 11, +when God has said "Let the earth bring forth grass, &c.", in the next +verse it is positively recorded that the earth <i>did</i> bring forth grass, +&c.</p> + +<p>I of course admit all this, but it is in no way opposed to my +suggestion.</p> + +<p>The <i>commencement</i> of the <i>result</i> probably, if not necessarily, +followed immediately on the issue of the finished command, viz., the +promulgation of the forms to be obtained and the processes to be +followed. The <i>whole</i> result did not become accomplished then and there, +in the time mentioned, or exactly in the order mentioned: we know that +for a fact. Take, for example, the case of <i>vegetation</i>. Here the +author, in terms at once precise and universally intelligible, speaks of +"vegetation<a name="FNanchor_1_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_76"><sup>[76]</sup></a>" (grass of the A.V.), "herb yielding seed," and "trees +yielding fruit," thereby exhaustively enumerating the members of the +vegetable kingdom.</p> + +<p>Now, as a matter of fact, there was no one long (or short) period +during which the whole of this command was realized, <i>before</i> the next +creative act occurred.</p> + +<p>At first <i>algae</i> and low forms of vegetable life appeared; and doubtless +we have lost myriads upon myriads of such lower forms of plant-life in +the early strata, because such forms were ill calculated for +fossil-preservation, owing to the absence of woody fibre, silicious +casing, or hard fruit or seed vessels. But when we first have a marked +accumulation of specialized plant-life in the coal measures (Upper +Carboniferous), it is still only of cryptogams—ferns and great club +mosses. A beginning of true seed-bearing plants (Gymnosperm exogens) had +been made with the <i>conifers</i> of the Devonian strata; but true +<i>grasses</i>, and the other orders of phanerogamic plants and arboreous +vegetation, do not appear till the tertiary rocks were deposited, very +long after the age of fish and great reptiles had culminated, and the +inauguration of the bird age and the mammalian age had taken place.</p> + +<p>Looking only to the abundant, prominent, and characteristic life-forms +of the several strata, it could certainly be said that the period when +the <i>water</i> actually brought forth a vast mass of its +life-forms—corals, sertularias, crustaceans, and fish of the lower +orders—must have <i>preceded</i> (not followed) the time when the earth +produced vegetation of all kinds, and further that it must have come +after the appearance of scorpions and some land insects.<a name="FNanchor_1_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_77"><sup>[77]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Moreover, as the regular succession in periods of light and darkness on +the earth, and the sequence of seasons was not organized (but only a +generally diffused light, and, probably, an uniform and moist state of +climate without seasons) till <i>after</i> the commands for the formation of +the whole of the large classes of plants, both cryptogams and +phanerogams, it is obvious that as many of these would require the +fuller development of seasonal influences, the whole process could not +have been worked out before the fourth day's creative work was begun.</p> + +<p>This instance alone—and it would be easy to add others—shows that the +narrative cannot be meant to indicate what actually happened on earth, +i.e., to summarize the <i>entire realization</i> of the Divine command.</p> + +<p>Such being the plain facts with regard to the <i>kind of accomplishment</i> +meant by the terms "it was so," "the earth brought forth," &c., it is +quite plain that no violence is done to the text by explaining it as +intended to describe what God did in heaven, with the addition, that as +each command was formulated, the result on earth surely followed, the +thing "was so," and the earth and water respectively no doubt <i>began</i> +to "bring forth." More than this cannot be made out on <i>any</i> +interpretation that accords with facts. It seems so clear to me that +this is so, that I hardly need refer to the use of the terms the +"<i>waters brought forth"</i> and the "<i>earth brought forth"</i> and the phrase +in chapter ii. 5—the Lord made every plant <i>before it grew</i>.</p> + +<p>If, as we have been long allowed to suppose, God spake and the water and +earth were <i>at once</i> fully and finally peopled with animals where before +nothing but plants had existed, and so on, I should hardly have expected +the use of words which imply a gradual process—a gestation and +subsequent birth (so to speak) of life-forms.</p> + +<p>How the <i>order</i> in which the events are recorded stands in relation to +the subsequent history of life-development on earth, and what its +significance may be, I will consider later on. First I will conclude the +argument for the general interpretation of the narrative.</p> +<br> + +<p>2. <i>The Second Genesis Narrative.</i></p> + +<p>I have only one more direct argument to offer; but I think it is a very +important one. The first division of Genesis ends with the Divine +commands creating man and the day of rest which followed. The narrative +ending at chapter ii. verse 3 (the division of chapters here, as +elsewhere, is purely arbitrary), we have at verse 4 of chapter ii, what +has been loudly proclaimed as <i>another</i> account of <i>the same</i> Creation, +which, it is added (arbitrarily enough—but <i>any</i> argument will do if +only it is against religion!) is contrary to the first.<a name="FNanchor_1_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_78"><sup>[78]</sup></a></p> + +<p>Now, even if there is a <i>second</i> account of Creation, it would surely be +a circumstance somewhat difficult to explain. <i>Contrary</i> in any possible +sense, the narrative (from chapter ii. 4, onward) certainly is not. But +why should there be a second narrative at all? On the hitherto received +supposition that chapter i. intends to tells us the <i>process</i> of +creation—what God caused to be done on earth, not merely what He did in +heaven—there is apparently no room for a second narrative. Nor have I +seen any completely satisfactory explanation. But if we accept the view +that the first chapter explains the Divine Design, and its being +published (so to speak) and commanded in heaven, then it would be very +natural that that narrative should be followed by a second, which should +detail not the <i>whole</i> process of all life existence on earth, but (as +the Bible is to be henceforth concerned with Man, his fall and his +redemption) with an account of <i>just so much of the</i> process as relates +to the actual birth on the earth's surface of the particular man Adam, +the most important (and possibly not the only) outcome of the <i>fiat</i> +recorded in chapter i. vers. 27, 28.</p> + +<p>In this view, not only <i>a</i> second narrative, but just the particular +kind of narrative we actually have, is not only natural, but even +necessary. <i>Before</i>, we had a general account of how God ordained the +scheme of material-form and life-form on the earth; <i>now</i> we have a +detailed account of how He actually carried out one portion of it—that +one portion we are most concerned to hear about, namely the man Adam, +the progenitor of our own race, of whom came JESUS CHRIST, "the son of +Adam.<a name="FNanchor_1_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_79"><sup>[79]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>The account is designed to introduce to us the scene of Adam's +birthplace—the Garden of Eden.<a name="FNanchor_2_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_80"><sup>[80]</sup></a> The mention of a garden, and the +subsequent important connection of the trees of that garden with the +conduct of the man, naturally turn the writer's attention to the general +subject of the vegetation on the earth's surface. He prefaces his new +account accordingly with a brief summary—which I may paraphrase thus +without, I trust, departing from the sense of the original: "Such was +the origin of the earth (and all in it) and of the heavenly host, at the +time when God made them. He had made every plant <i>before</i> it was in the +earth—every herb of the field <i>before</i> it grew" (mark the language as +confirming what I have said—God "created" everything before it actually +developed and grew into being on the earth). "Rain did not then fall (in +the same way as now) on the earth, but the mist that exhaled from the +soil re-condensed, and fell and moistened the ground; but there was as +yet no MAN to till and cultivate the soil."</p> + +<p>Then God actually formed or fashioned <i>a man</i>. It is not now that He +created the ideal form to be produced in due time, but that He actually +formed the individual Adam, and placed him in a garden which He had +prepared for the purpose. All the words used now imply actual +production. The Divine ideal was ready, and the earth-elements (of which +we know man's body to consist) were ready at the Divine word to assume +the human shape. And that done, God "breathed into his nostrils the +breath of life" (mark the direct <i>act</i> on the man himself), and the man +became a "living soul." There is nothing here of the "earth bringing +forth" as in the former narrative. We have the direct act of God, not in +the design only, but in the production of the thing itself.</p> + +<p>If this is not a complete explanation and justification of the second +narrative, I do not know what, in common fairness, is entitled to be so +called.</p> + +<p>The language may be rigorously examined, and it will fully bear out the +position taken up.</p> + +<p>I conceive, then, that the cumulation of proof need go no further. The +true explanation of Genesis i. also supplies the place for Genesis ii. +4, <i>et seq.</i>, and overcomes all the difficulty that has hitherto +existed on the subject.</p> + +<p>It will now, I trust, be clear that by such an interpretation of Genesis +we at once give (1) a full and natural meaning to all the terms; we +reconcile it with other Scripture, and we enhance all the sublime +attributes which we have been reverentially accustomed to connect with +this ancient passage. (2) We obviate the difficulty regarding the second +narrative in chapter ii. 4. And (3) we place the whole above any +possible conflict with science, and above any need for "reconciliation." +Here, too, is a purpose and meaning assigned to the <i>whole</i> narrative, +without being driven into the difficult position of supposing the verses +to be the literary outcome of an ignorant imagination which gave +expression to its crude ideas only—though enshrining among utterly +false details a sublime truth, regarding which one can only wonder why +it could not have been stated without the encumbrance of the +surroundings.</p> + +<p>The naturalist and the biologist may continue, unquestioned, to work out +more and more of the wondrous story of Life on the globe. They can never +disprove, or on any of their own grounds deny, that God is the Author of +all things—matter, force, and mind alike; that He designed the form and +relations of the earth; that He organized its light, its seasons, and +its changes; that He has furnished the types and patterns of all +life-forms which matter and force are conformably thereto, developing +on the earth. In short, REVELATION tells us that God did all this "in +the beginning," how His form-designs were thought out and declared in +six days, and how He rested on the seventh day.</p> + +<p>SCIENCE will tell us how, when, and where the Creative fiats and the +designs of heaven were realized and worked out on earth.</p> + +<p>Here is the separate province of each, without fear of clashing, or room +for controversy.</p> +<br> + +<a name="Footnote_1_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_76">[76]</a><div class="note"> Nothing more is meant by the Hebrew "<i>deshe</i>." The true +"grasses" (<i>graminea</i>),—cereals, bamboos, &c., are certainly not +intended, for these are all conspicuously flowering plants, "herbs +yielding seed," and therefore coming under the second plainly defined +group. But the general term "sproutage" or "vegetation" is just adapted +to signify the mass of cryptogamic plant-life, the mosses, lichens, +algae, and then ferns, &c., which evidently formed the first stage of +plant-life on the globe.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_77">[77]</a><div class="note"> A single wing found little more than a year ago is the sole +evidence of insects older than the Devonian; and scorpions +(highly-organized crustaceans) have been found in the Upper Silurian in +some abundance.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_78">[78]</a><div class="note"> The contradiction is supposed to be in verse 19, as if then +the creation of animals was for the first time effected—after the man +and his helpmate. But it is quite clear that the text refers to the fact +that God had created animals; the command was, "Let the earth bring +forth," and the immediate act spoken of was not the formation of +animals, but the bringing of them to Adam to see what he would call +them.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_79">[79]</a><div class="note"> St. Luke iii. 38.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_80">[80]</a><div class="note"> Which had a real historic existence. <i>Vide</i> Appendix A.</div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="CHAPTER_XVI"></a><h2>CHAPTER XVI.</h2> + +<p><i>THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE.</i></p> +<br> + +<p>§1. <i>The Explanation of the Verses.</i></p> + +<p>It remains only now to go over the narrative, the <i>general</i> bearing of +which I have thus endeavoured to vindicate, so that minor matters of +detail, in which it is supposed (1) that some contradiction to known +physical fact may still lurk, and (2) something that negatives the +explanation suggested, may be cleared up.</p> + +<p>Let us take it seriatim:—</p> + +<p>"In the beginning God created the heaven (plural in the original) and +the earth."</p> + +<p>As I have before remarked, we have no real need to discuss whether +"bara" means originated (created where nothing previously existed), or +whether we should render it "fashioned," i.e., moulded material (thus +assumed in terms to be) already in existence.</p> + +<p>Either will yield perfectly good and consistent sense; but, as a matter +of fact, there is a virtual consensus of the best scholars that the +word is here used to denote original production of the material.</p> + +<p>It is also clear that the text is intended to embrace the whole system +of planets, suns, stars, and whatever else is in space. So the Psalmist +understood it: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and <i>all</i> +the host of them by the breath of his mouth.<a name="FNanchor_1_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_81"><sup>[81]</sup></a>" Nor is there any +reasonable doubt, exegetically, that the subsequent allusion to the sun, +moon, and stars, refers (as the sense of the text itself obviously +requires) to their <i>appointment</i> or adjustment to certain relations with +the earth, and assumes their original material production in space, to +have been already stated or understood.</p> + +<p>"And the earth was (became) without form<a name="FNanchor_2_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_82"><sup>[82]</sup></a> and void, and darkness was +upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of +the waters."</p> + +<p>I have, in another connection, already remarked on this verse, and so +shall not repeat those remarks.</p> + +<p>I will only say that the elemental strife and rushing together of +chemical elements under the stress of various forces and the presence of +enormous heat, would naturally envelop the globe in dense vapours, a +large portion of which would be watery vapour, capable of condensation +or of dispersion, under proper conditions, afterwards to be prescribed +and realized. As it is beautifully expressed in Job xxxviii., "When I +made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling-band +for it" (verse 8).</p> + +<p>Then commences the serial order of Divine acts with reference to the +<i>Earth</i>:—</p> +<br> + +<p>(1) "AND GOD SAID; LET THERE BE LIGHT: AND THERE WAS LIGHT."</p> + +<p>This verse is commonly taken as indicating a creation of light for the +first time in the entire cosmos or universe. And if it be so, there is +no objection, on any scientific ground, to the assertion that there was +once a time when as yet the vibrations and waves which we connect with +the idea of Light, had not yet begun. It is true that nebular matter, as +now observed, is believed to be, partially at any rate, self-luminous. +But this fact, supposing it to be such, is not inconsistent with a still +earlier time when light had not yet begun. From the "wave-theory" of +light, which is one of those working hypotheses which are indispensable, +and which, in a sense, may be said to be demonstrated by their +indispensability, it can clearly be seen that if light is caused by +rapid vibrational movement, there must have been—or at any rate there +is nothing against an authoritative declaration that there was—a moment +of time when the first vibrational impulse was given, when, in fact, God +said "Let there be light, and there was light," <i>before</i> which also +there was "darkness upon the face of the deep.<a name="FNanchor_1_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_83"><sup>[83]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>There is no necessary connection between the creation of light <i>per se</i>, +and the existence of any particular source (or sources) of light to our +planet or to other planets.</p> + +<p>No justification is now needed for such a remark, and the almost +forgotten cavils of one of the "Essays and Reviews" may still survive as +a "scientific" curiosity, to warn us against too hastily concluding that +(in subjects where so little is really <i>known</i>) the Bible must be wrong, +and the favourite hypothesis of the day right.</p> + +<p>But as a matter of fact, the text, especially when read in connection +with Job xxxviii., need not be taken to refer to any original creation +of light in the universe generally, but merely to the letting in of +light on the hitherto dark and "waste" earth. The command "Let there be +light" was followed on the next day by the formation of a firmament or +expanse. So that all the verse <i>necessarily</i> implies is, that the thick +clouds and vapours which surrounded the earth were so dealt with, that +light could reach the earth: the light was thus divided from the +darkness, and the rotating globe would experience the alternation of day +and night.</p> + +<p>The "day" having thus been created formally (so to speak), the Divine +Author proceeds to mark, by His own Procedure, the use of the "days" +which He had provided for the earth.</p> + +<p>On this view, of course, the origin of light as a "force"—the first +beginning of its pulsations—is not detailed, any more than the origin +of electric force, or heat, or gravitation.</p> + +<p>Here, too, I may remark that the idea of <i>creation</i>, which it has been +one of my chief objects to develop, is illustrated. This remark holds +good, whether an original creation of light is intended, or only an +arrangement whereby light was for the first time introduced to the +earth's surface. The idea of creating light not only involves the Divine +Conception of the thing, and the marvellous method of its production,<a name="FNanchor_1_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_84"><sup>[84]</sup></a> +but doubtless, also, all those wonderful laws of reflection, refraction, +polarization, and a thousand others, which the science of Physical +Optics investigates.</p> + +<p>Naturally enough, in this case, the double idea involved in +creation—the Divine concept and its realization—will, in the nature of +things, fall into one. No process of evolution is required; none is +indicated by science. Directly the Divine hand gave the impulse +concurrently with the Divine thought—light would be. In the nature of +things there is no place for a line between the Divine fiat and its +realization, as there is in the production of life-forms on the earth. +Or, on the other view, directly the Divine command went forth, the +vapours would clear and allow the transmission of light.</p> +<br> + +<p>(2) "AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE A FIRMAMENT (EXPANSE) IN THE MIDST OF +THE WATERS, AND LET IT DIVIDE THE WATERS FROM THE WATERS....AND GOD +CALLED THE FIRMAMENT HEAVEN."</p> + +<p>There has been gathered round this verse what I may call rather an +ill-natured controversy, because there is no real ground for it; and the +objections taken seem rather of a desire to find out something against +the narrative at any price, than to make the best of it. The verse, when +duly translated, implies that an "expanse"—the setting of a clear space +of atmosphere around the globe—formed one of the special +design-thoughts of the Creator, followed by its immediate (or gradual) +accomplishment. I think we should have hardly had so much cavilling over +this word "expanse" if it had not been for the term subsequently used by +the Seventy in their Greek version (<font face="symbol">sterevma</font>). The ancients, it +is said, believed the space above the earth to be "solid."</p> + +<p>Now I would contend that even if the Hebrew writer had any mistaken or +confused notions in his own mind, that would not afford any just ground +against revelation itself. But I would point out that many of the +expressions which may be quoted to show the idea of solidity, are +clearly poetical. And if we go to the poetic or semi-poetic aspect of +things, may I not ask whether there is not a certain sense in which the +earth-envelope may be said to be solid? The air has a considerable +density, its uniform and inexorable pressure on every square inch of the +earth's surface is very great. Such a word as <font face="symbol">sterevma</font> (<i>firmamentum</i>) does not imply solidity in the sense in which gold is +solid—as if the heavens were a mass of metal, and the stars set in it +like jewels; it implies, rather, something fixed and offering +resistance.</p> + +<p>It is obvious that a creative act was necessary for this "expanse." We +know of spheres that have no atmosphere; and we are so ignorant of the +true nature of what is beyond the utmost reach of our air-stratum, that +there is room for almost any consistent conjecture regarding it.</p> + +<p>Moreover, observe that the atmosphere is not a <i>chemical</i> combination of +gases, and one, therefore, that would take place like any other of the +metallic, saline, or gaseous combinations, of which no detailed account +is given—all being covered by the general phrase, "God created the +heaven and the earth." The air is a mechanical mixture, pointing to a +special design and a special act of origin. The necessary proportions of +each gas and its combined properties could not have originated without +guidance.</p> + +<p>But the main purpose of the expanse, as stated in the text, was to +regulate the water supply. That vast masses of watery vapour must at one +time have enveloped the globe, seems probable—apart from revelation; +and that part of this should condense into seas and fresh-water, and +part remain suspended to produce all the phenomena of invisible +air-moisture and visible cloud, while an "expanse" was set, so that the +earth surface should be free, and that light might freely penetrate, and +sound also, and that all the other regular functions of nature dependent +on the existing relation of earth and air should proceed—all this was +very necessary. And when we recollect what a balanced and complex scheme +it is—how very far from being a simple thing; we recognize in the +adjustment of earth's atmospheric envelope, a special result worthy of +the day's work.</p> + +<p>Whether the separation between the condensed but ever re-evaporating and +re-condensing water on the earth's surface, and the water vapour in the +atmosphere, is <i>all</i> that is meant by the division of the "waters that +are above the firmament" from those below, it would not be wise to +assert. We know so little of the condition of space beyond our own air, +and so little of the great stores of hydrogen which have been suggested +to exist in space (and might combine to form vast quantities of liquid), +that we may well leave the phrase as it stands, content with a partial +explanation.</p> +<br> + +<p>(3) "AND GOD SAID, LET THE WATERS UNDER THE HEAVEN BE GATHERED TOGETHER +UNTO ONE PLACE, AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR: AND IT WAS SO. AND GOD +SAID, LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS (VEGETATION), HERB YIELDING SEED, +AND FRUIT TREE BEARING FRUIT AFTER ITS KIND, WHEREIN IS THE SEED +THEREOF."</p> + +<p>The only remarks that the first part of this verse calls for, are, +<i>first</i>, that it explains how far from mere chance-work the emergence of +land from the water was; <i>second</i> how well it illustrates the use of +terms relating to creation.</p> + +<p>The whole scheme of the distribution of the surface of earth into land +and water is one which demanded Divine foresight and a complete ideal<a name="FNanchor_1_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_85"><sup>[85]</sup></a> +which was to be attained by the action and reaction of natural forces, +just as much as the production of the most specialized form of plant-or +animal-life.</p> + +<p>This is not the place to go into detail as to how much of the world's +life-history and its climatic conditions depend on the distribution of +land and water. It is sufficient to recognize the immense importance of +that distribution.</p> +<p>But, in the second place, it will be observed that while it is natural +to suppose (though not logically necessary) that the working out of the +Divine plan <i>commenced</i> immediately on the issue of the Divine command +and the declared formulation of the Divine scheme, yet we know—few +things are better known—that the whole scheme was not completely +realized in one day, or one age—certainly not <i>before</i> there was any +appearance of plant-life, aquatic, or dry land, or any appearance of +animal-life.</p> + +<p>I believe (though I have lost my reference) it is held by some +authorities that the position of the great <i>oceans</i> as they are now (and +omitting, of course, all minor coast variations) has been fixed from +very early geologic times. But, apart from that, we have ample evidence +of whole continents arising and being again submerged; and of continual +changes between land and water of the most wide-reaching character again +and again happening during the progress of the world's history. So that +here we may see clearly an instance where the revelation of the creative +act must be held to refer to the great primal design—teaching us that +it is a fact that at first all <i>was</i> laid down, foreseen, and designed +by the Creator; but not referring to anything like an account of the +<i>results</i> upon earth, which, for aught we know to the contrary, may not +yet be complete.</p> + +<p>As to the second part of the text, we are here introduced to the +commencement of life-forms on earth.</p> + +<p>No separation is recorded. Directly the chemical elements of matter have +so combined that a solid earth and liquid water (salt and fresh) are +formed, and the cooling process has gone on sufficiently long to enable +the dense vapours partly to settle down and condense, partly to remain +as vapour (dividing the waters above from the waters below)—directly +this process is aided by the admission of diffused light and by the +adjustment of the atmosphere, and the superficial adjustment of the +distribution of water and land surface is provided for, then plant-life +is organized.</p> + +<p>It will be observed that even aquatic plants and algae though growing in +or under water, are nevertheless connected with the <i>earth</i>; so that the +phrase, "Let the <i>earth</i> bring forth," is by no means inappropriate.</p> + +<p>The earliest rock deposits are able to tell us little about the first +beginning of plant-life. Moreover, as animal-life began only with the +interval of one day (the fourth), we should expect to find—on the +supposition that the heavenly <i>fiat</i> at once received the <i>commencement</i> +of its fulfilment on each day—that the first lowly specimens of +vegetable and animal life are almost coeval. And this is (apparently) +the fact.</p> + +<p>It is to be remarked that plant and animal always appear in nature as +two separate and <i>parallel</i> kingdoms. It is not that the plant is lower +than the animal, so that the highest plant takes on it some of the first +characters which mark the lowest animal: but both start separately from +minute and little specialized forms so similar that it is extremely +difficult to say which is plant and which is animal.<a name="FNanchor_1_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_86"><sup>[86]</sup></a></p> + +<p>All the beginnings of life in <i>either</i> kingdom would therefore be +ill-adapted (most of them, at any rate) for preservation in +rock-strata.<a name="FNanchor_1_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_87"><sup>[87]</sup></a></p> + +<p>All we know for certain is that vegetable-life was closely coeval with +the lowest animal-life, and that it was very long before specialized +forms, even of <i>cryptogams</i>, made a great show in the world.</p> + +<p>Probability is entirely in favour of the actual priority being in +vegetable forms; and more than that is not required. For the Mosaic +narrative, while it places the origin of the vegetable kingdom actually +first, lets the <i>fiat</i> for the animal kingdom follow almost immediately.</p> + +<p>As to the <i>order</i> of appearance of the plants, I will reserve my remarks +for the moment.</p> +<br> + +<p>(4) "AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE HEAVEN, +TO DIVIDE THE DAY FROM THE NIGHT; AND LET THEM BE FOR SIGNS, AND FOR +SEASONS, AND FOR DAYS, AND FOR YEARS: AND LET THEM BE FOR LIGHTS IN THE +FIRMAMENT TO GIVE LIGHT ON THE EARTH."</p> + +<p>The sun and the stars, and all the host of heaven, are clearly +understood to have been created "in the beginning," under the general +statement of fact which forms the first verse of the narrative.</p> + +<p>The 14th verse has always been understood to refer to the establishment +of the <i>relations</i> between the earth and the sun, moon, and stars, +which have, as a matter of fact, been recognized by all ages and all +people ever since. The writer of the 104th Psalm certainly so understood +the passage—</p> + +<p>"He appointed the moon for seasons; +The sun knoweth his going down.<a name="FNanchor_1_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_88"><sup>[88]</sup></a>"</p> + +<p>The writer was instructed to use popularly intelligible language, and so +the text speaks of the lights as they <i>appear</i> in the sky or firmament.</p> + +<p>Even if we suppose that before this act, the sun was already +incandescent, and the moon capable of reflecting the light, the whole +arrangement of the earth's rotation may have been such that the +alternations of light and darkness may have been very different from +what they are now, and the seasons also. A moment's reflection regarding +the obliquity of the earth's axis, nutation, the precession of the +equinoxes, the eccentricity of the orbit and the changes in the position +of the orbit, will show us what ample room there was for a special +adjustment and adaptation between the earth and its satellite and +between both to the solar centre.<a name="FNanchor_2_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_89"><sup>[89]</sup></a> So that faith which accepts this as +a Divine arrangement made among the special and formal acts of Creation, +cannot be said to be unreasonable, or to be flying in the face of any +known facts.</p> + +<p>It is very remarkable, as showing how little we can attribute this +narrative, on any basis of probability, to mere fancy or guess-work, +that this matter should have been assigned to the fourth day—<i>after</i> +the fiat for plant-life had gone forth.</p> + +<p>But the fact is that the unregulated light, and the vaporous uniform +climate that must have continued if the fourth day's command had never +issued, though it might have served for a time for the lowest beginnings +of life, especially marine or aquatic, would ultimately have rendered +any advance in the series of design impossible. Such a fact would never +have occurred to an ignorant and uninspired writer.</p> + +<p>It is here impossible to say whether the whole arrangements indicated +were made at once in obedience to the Divine Design, or were produced +gradually.</p> + +<p>It has been suggested that uniformity of climate and temperature +continued up till the carboniferous ages, at any rate; and it is only in +the later ages that such differences of <i>fauna</i> in different parts of +the world appear, as to show differences of climate more like what we +have at present.</p> + +<p>Whether this is so or not, I am not concerned to argue. The narrative +tells us that God did, at a certain point in his Creative work, design +and ordain the necessary arrangements; and physical science may find +out, when it is able, how and when the adjustments spoken of came about.</p> + +(5) AND GOD SAID—<br> +<span style="margin-left: 2.5em;">(i.) Let the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life,</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 2.5em;">(ii.) Let fowl fly above the earth on the face of the expanse.</span><br> + +<p>As to (i.) the "creation" consisted of—great sea-monsters (or water +monsters), and every living thing that moveth.</p> + +<p>Then the animal life received a <i>blessing</i>. Animals, even the lowliest, +are capable of a new feature in life—happiness in their being, which +cannot be predicated of plants.</p> + +(6) AND GOD SAID—<br> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">(i.) Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind ...</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 5.5em;">the beast of the earth <i>after its kind (Carnivora)</i>, cattle</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 4em;"><i>after its kind</i> (<i>Ungulata</i>), and everything that creepeth on</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 5.5em;">the ground <i>after its kind</i>.<a name="FNanchor_1_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_90"><sup>[90]</sup></a></span><br> + +<p>And also—</p> + +<span style="margin-left: 2.5em;">(ii.) Let us make man.... So God created man in His</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 6.5em;">own image—in the image of God created He him; male</span><br> +<span style="margin-left: 6.5em;">and female created He them.</span><br> + +<p>(7) Then followed the day of rest.</p> + +<p>§ 2. <i>The Order of Events considered.</i></p> + +<p>It was convenient first to bring these later Creative Acts together +before beginning any remarks about any one of them.</p> + +<p>It will now be desirable to notice what occurred, because here the +question of <i>order</i> is concerned. I could not avoid a partial statement +on this subject at an earlier page, nor would it be quite sufficient +simply to refer the reader back to those pages. At the risk of some +repetition, I will therefore consider the subject here. It will be +observed that on the older interpretation, which passed over the special +act of God in <i>designing</i> and <i>publishing the design,</i> and descended at +once to the earth to the process of producing the designed forms, this +order was matter of great importance.</p> + +<p>Granting the supporters of this view that the six days are unequal +periods often of vast duration, with or without important subdivisions, +they are bound to make out that each creation began, and was at any rate +well advanced, <i>before</i> the next began. We ought, in fact, to see a +period more or less prolonged when the whole of what is indicated in the +<i>plant</i> verse was well advanced, <i>before</i> any marine or fresh-water life +appeared at all.<a name="FNanchor_1_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_91"><sup>[91]</sup></a></p> + +<p>All attempts to make out that this <i>was</i> so, have proved failures. It is +assumed, for instance (and justly so), that life on the globe began with +low vegetable forms; these represented the "grass" of the text, and it +is suggested that the "fruit tree" is represented by the Devonian and +Carboniferous <i>conifers</i>. This in itself is a very strained view. It is +recollected that the terms used are not scientific, but for the world at +large; but without confining "fruit tree" to mean only trees having +<i>edible</i> fruit, still the appearance of a few first species of +<i>conifers</i> in the Devonian, can hardly be called an adequate fulfilment +of the requirements of the passage. But even so, myriads of fish and +other animals existed <i>before</i> the Devonian and Carboniferous plant age.</p> + +<p>The animal forms that so existed, have therefore to be <i>ignored</i>, or are +assumed to have been created without special notice: and it is said that +the Mosaic period of "moving creatures of the deep," fishes and +monsters, only began when the rocks begin to show <i>great abundance</i> of +shells, of fish, and subsequently of huge reptilians which prepared the +way for birds—which gradually make their appearance towards the Trias.</p> + +<p>But the Devonian "age of fishes" (Devonian including old red sandstone) +was far too important a period to be thus got rid of; and it is +difficult to understand <i>why</i> the narrative should exclude all the +extensive and beautiful (though often little specialized) orders of +marine life—all the Corals, the Mollusca and Articulata, which had long +abounded—especially some of the Crustaceans, not an unimportant group +of which (<i>Trilobite</i><a name="FNanchor_1_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_92"><sup>[92]</sup></a>) had also culminated and almost passed away +before the Devonian; to say nothing of the fact that <i>land</i> "creeping +things" (scorpions among <i>crustacea</i>, and apparently winged insects) had +occurred.</p> + +<p>It is a special difficulty also, that if <i>insects</i> are included among +the "creeping things" of the <i>earth</i> then various families of the +"land-creation" (sixth day) became represented <i>before</i> the great +reptiles of the "water-creation" (fifth day).</p> + +<p>The fact is that a glance at the subjoined Tables (which are only +generally and approximately correct) will suffice to show how the main +features of the progress of life-forms differ from what is required by +the older methods of reading Genesis. To reduce the table within limits, +I have grouped together all the lower forms of life in the animal table, +viz., the sponges, corals, encrinites, and molluscs. It is sufficient to +say that these appear in all the rocks except the very oldest—the +Caelenterata beginning, and the Molluscoids exhibiting an early order in +<i>brachiopoda</i>, which seems to be dying out. Crustaceans and insects +appeared as early as Silurian times.</p> + +<p>The idea of successive "kingdoms" or "periods," each of which was +<i>complete</i> in its actual fauna upon earth before the next was fully +ushered in, can no longer be defended.</p> + +<p>It is in the <i>completion</i> of one class of life before the other, that +the fallacy of the period theory lies—for completion is essential to +that theory which supposes "the Mosaic author" to have intended to +describe the <i>process of production on earth</i>.</p> + +<p>But it is quite impossible to deny that there <i>is</i> a certain observable +movement and gradual procession in the history of life which is exactly +consistent with what is most likely to have happened, supposing the +Divine designs of life-forms were first declared in successive order at +short intervals of time, and then that the processes of nature worked +out the designs in the fulness of time and gradually in order, each one +<i>beginning</i> before the next, but only beginning.</p> + +<p>I do not deny that it is perfectly <i>conceivable</i> that the Creator might +have designed the forms in one order, and that the actual production or +evolution of the corresponding living creatures might not have been (for +reasons not understood) exactly, or even at all, coincident with the +order.</p> + +<p>But it is impossible to deny the strong feeling of probability that the +commands would <i>begin</i> to be worked out, in the order in which they were +uttered.</p> + +<p>And here it is that the correspondence which undoubtedly exists, gives +rise to controversy.</p> + +<p>From one point of view it is just enough to encourage the "period" +holders to try and arrange a scheme; but it is just hot enough to +prevent their opponents (justly) taxing them with straining or +"torturing" the text and failing fairly to make out their case after +all. From another point of view the correspondence is so far +established, and so undeniably unprecedented (in human cosmogonies) and +noteworthy, as to demand imperatively our careful consideration and +compel us to account for it.</p> + +<p>It will be observed, first of all, that the whole "creation" (omitting +all incidental and preparatory works) is stated in <i>groups</i> each having +an order within itself.</p> + +<p><i>Group</i> 1. God created (both land and water) "vegetation"—plants +yielding seed, fruit-trees.</p> + +<p><i>Group</i> 2. +In water, not necessarily excluding <i>amphibia</i>:—Great aquatic monsters; +fish and all other creatures that move. In air:—Winged fowl.</p> + +<p><i>Group</i> 3. On land generally—for some forms are amphibious:—Beasts +(<i>Carnivora</i>), cattle (<i>Ungulata</i>, &c.), and other things that creep +on the ground (the smaller and lower forms of life collectively).</p> + +<p>The order <i>within</i> the groups is evidently of no consequence, because +the writer does not adhere to it in two consecutive verses dealing with +the same subject; while the "versions" seem to point to some variations +in the text itself as to arrangement, though not as to substance.</p> + +<p>But as regards the order <i>of</i> the groups themselves, it is, as I said, +very natural (but yet not logically inevitable) to expect that when the +results came to be existent on earth, those results should exhibit a +sequence corresponding to the order in which the groups were created. +And it is never denied (in <i>any</i> of the most recent publications<a name="FNanchor_1_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_93"><sup>[93]</sup></a>) +that to this extent nature confirms the belief.</p> + +<p>I am aware that Professor Huxley's recent articles may at first sight +seem to go against this; but that is not so on any grounds of actual +fact, but of a particular <i>interpretation</i>—which I submit is wholly +unwarranted.</p> + +<p>For instance, it is insisted that the "sea-monsters" of the second group +included <i>sirenia</i> and <i>cetacea</i> (dugongs, manatees, and whales, +dolphins, &c.), which are mammals. In that case a portion of the command +would not have been obeyed—a number of the designed forms would have +been kept in abeyance—for a long time. And the same is still more true +if bats—a highly placed group of mammals—were included in "winged +fowl."</p> + +<p>But both these interpretations are distinctly arbitrary, incapable of +holding good, and also entirely ignore the conditions of a Revelation.</p> + +<p>The narrative is not discussed or defended as an ordinary secular +narrative, which is true according to the <i>writer's uninspired intention +or the state of his personal knowledge</i>. It is defended as a Revelation. +The distinction is as obvious as it is important, directly a moment's +consideration is accorded.</p> + +<p>If we assume, for a moment, that God <i>did</i> (on any theory whatever of +Inspiration) instruct, direct, or enable the writer in making the +record, then it is obvious that the writer either put down what he saw +in a vision, or what was in some other manner borne on his mind. In any +case, he could have had no critical knowledge, and no historical +knowledge as an eye-witness, of the actual facts; and he may very well +therefore have used language the full meaning of which he did not +apprehend.<a name="FNanchor_1_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_94"><sup>[94]</sup></a> What alone is essential is, that the narrative as it +stands, on an ordinary critical, linguistic, and grammatical +interpretation, should not contain anything which is untrue. Suppose, +for example, the word "tannînîm" to be <i>incapable</i> of bearing any other +meaning linguistically than "cetacean," then the narrative might be +objected to; but if it will bear a meaning which is consistent with +fact, then it is no matter that the writer at the time had an erroneous, +or (what is more likely) no defined, idea in his own mind of the +meaning. And so with "winged fowl"—the objection fails entirely, unless +it can be shown, not only that the writer might have thought "bats" to +be included, <i>but</i> that linguistically the word <i>cannot have</i> any other +meaning than one which would include bats.<a name="FNanchor_2_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_95"><sup>[95]</sup></a></p> + +<p>We have every right, then, to say that the "tannînîm" of the text may be +taken to refer to that great and remarkable age of Saurians which is not +only of very great importance in itself, but becomes doubly so when we +see its connection backward with the fishes, and forward through the +Pterodactyles to Odontoformae (<i>Apatornis</i> and <i>Icthyornis</i>) and modern +winged birds (<i>Hesperonis</i> for the Penguins); and through the +Dinosaurs<a name="FNanchor_1_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_96"><sup>[96]</sup></a> with the Saurornithes, with the <i>Dinornis</i> and the +struthious birds; and through the Theriodonts with the mammalian +<i>carnivora</i>.</p> + +<p>In that case the sequence of the two groups, plants and aquatic +animal-forms, is explained. They come almost together—plants being +probably actually the first, and mollusca, fishes, and saurians.</p> + +<p>There is, further, no real dispute that the Saurians led up to the Aves, +and that the third group (of mammals) follows all the members of the +second group. The earliest known mammal (<i>microlestes</i>) is an isolated +forerunner of not very certain location, the real bulk of the mammalian +orders beginning in the Eocene. Seeing, too, how very closely one +Creative command is recorded to have followed on the other, it is not in +any way against the narrative that some land forms of crustaceans and +insects (and possibly others) began to appear at an early stage, when +the vegetable and water-animal forms had only progressed as far as the +Silurian and Devonian ages. Nor should we wonder if mammalian forms had +occurred earlier. I mention this because of the evident gap in the +geologic record between the Cretaceous and the Eocene, and because in +the article of December, 1885 (and elsewhere), Professor Huxley has used +language which suggests that mammals may have existed of which the rocks +give no sign. E.g. (p. 855): "The organization of the bat, bird, or +pterodactyle, presupposes that of a terrestrial quadruped ... and is +intelligible only as an extreme modification of the organization of a +terrestrial <i>mammal or</i> reptile." The italics are of course mine. And +again (p. 855), "I am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate +to admit that the organization of these animals (whales, dugongs, &c.) +shows the most obvious signs of their descent from terrestrial +quadrupeds."</p> + +<p>I do not quote these words of so great a master as presuming to question +them (even if, as a scientific verdict, I had any motive for so doing), +but merely to point out as a matter of plain and fair reasoning, that if +a Divine Creator had designed certain forms to be gradually attained by +the processes of Evolution, it would not be necessary that any actually +realized form or tangible creature should have existed as ancestors. +Logically, the necessity is <i>either</i> that certain animals should have +actually existed whose descendants gradually lost or gained certain +features and functions till the forms we are speaking of resulted, <i>or</i> +that certain patterns or designs should have been created according to +which development proceeded by regular laws till the forms in question +resulted.</p> + +<p>A few words as to the terms used in describing the contents of each +group, may be added. It is obvious that the terms are intended to be +exhaustive of certain main groups which are described sufficiently, +without being cast in a form which would have been incompatible with the +use (at the time) of a human agent as the medium of the recorded +Revelation.</p> + +<p>(1) "Vegetation" (of an indefinite character, but not bearing seed), +plants bearing seed, trees bearing fruit with the seed in it—certainly +exhaust the entire range of plant-life.</p> + +<p>(2) Moving creatures that live (and fish are afterwards expressly +mentioned) and great monsters (tann[i=]n[i=]m), cover the entire field +of life up to Reptilia as far as these are aquatic forms.</p> + +<p>(3) The terms used for the third group are also obviously +exhaustive—the separate mention of the <i>cattle</i> and the <i>beast</i> +(Carnivora and Ungulates) is a form which is invariably noticed +throughout the Old and New Testaments. The "creeping things" would +include all minor forms, all land reptiles not described above as the +"tann[i=]n[i=]m," and insects.</p> + +<p>And it is remarkable that the tortoises, the snakes, and, the more +modern forms of crocodile and lizard, and the amphibia and higher +insects, are all cainozoic—some of them were preceded by more or less +transitory representatives, e.g., the Carboniferous <i>Eosaurus</i> and +Permian <i>Protosaurus</i> the ancient Labyrinthodons and Urodelas, +Chelonians and the amphicaelian crocodiles. Snakes have no palaeozoic +representative.</p> + +<p>Land insects, as might naturally be expected, go back to the times when +land vegetation was sufficiently established, and appear gradually all +along the line from the Silurian onwards. The modern types, however, are +Tertiary.</p> + +<p>The succession, we observe, may be illustrated by the resemblance of a +number of arrows shot rapidly one after the other in so many parallel +courses: all would soon be moving nearly together.</p> + +<p>Plant-life, the subject of the first Divine designing, has, as far as we +can reasonably say, the start. According to known laws it appears in +elementary and undeveloped forms, and gradually progresses. One group +(Cryptogams) reaches a magnificent development and begins to die away in +point of grandeur, though still abundantly exemplified. Phanerogamic +plants in their lowest groups of gymnosperm exogens then begin to appear +in the Devonian conifers, gradually followed by <i>cycads</i>. And it is not +till Cainozoic times that we have the endogenous grasses and palms and +angiospermous exogens.</p> + +<p>But the command regarding animal life had followed the other after a +short interval, so that we soon see this developing <i>pari passu</i> with +the other groups—first the lower marine forms and gradually advancing +to the Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, and then to Aves, as a special +division in the second great design group. Lastly the mammals appear and +man.<a name="FNanchor_1_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_97"><sup>[97]</sup></a> But throughout all, we see the rise, culmination, and decay of +many transitory and apparently preparatory groups—such as, for example, +the Labyrinthodons and Urodelas—preceding the modern types of Amphibia; +ancient fish-forms preceding modern ones, and either dying out or +leaving but a few and distant representatives; or again, the whole +tribes of ancient Saurians, of which something has already been said. +All these wonderful under-currents and cross-currents, rises and falls, +appearances and disappearances, nevertheless all work together till the +whole earth is peopled with the forms, designed in the beginning by the +Heavenly Creator.</p> + +<p>No account of Creation can be other than wonderful and mysterious; nor +can the mystery of the Divine act be explained in language other than +that of analogy.</p> + +<p>We can speak without mystery of a human architect conceiving a design in +his mind; and when he utters it, it is by putting the plans and details +upon paper, and handing them over to the builders, who set to work +(under the architect's supervision, and in obedience to all the rules +he has prescribed as to the methods of work and materials to be used).</p> + +<p>All this we can transfer by analogy only, to a Divine design. The +design is in the Divine mind, and He utters it in no material plans or +drawings: the forces of nature and the chemical elements, His obedient +builders, have no hands to receive the plans or eyes to scan them; but +we can perceive the analogy directly, and that is all that is necessary +for Faith.</p> + +<p>The origin of all we see in the world and in the entire Cosmos is, then, +in God; and as regards the adjustments of our globe and its relations, +and the actual life-forms in plant and animal, they came into existence +pursuant to groups of types or designs, made by the Divine Mind, and +declared by Him from His Throne in heaven, in six several days—periods +of the rotation of our earth.</p> + +<p>That is the message of Revelation. It requires no straining of the +sacred text: it takes everything as it stands, and the seemingly lengthy +explanation it requires is not to manipulate the text, but to clear away +the heap of mistaken conceptions that have gathered round it:—to +establish the idea, that the terms "God said, Let there be," and so +forth, mean Heaven work, in the design and type—not earth work in its +realization and building up. Establishing this by illustration and +argument, nothing more is required in the way of textual exegesis except +to argue for the rejection of perverse and unsustainable meanings long +given to "days," to "expanse" or "firmament," and to "great whales" in +the narrative.</p> + +<p>It will be admitted readily that if this account of Creation is the true +one, if the meaning assigned to the Genesis narrative is correct, it +affords no hindrance to <i>any</i> conclusions that may progressively be +demanded by the investigation of life-history on earth.</p> + +<p>It requires us to believe that the forms which life assumes are not +chance forms, nor the <i>unpremeditated</i> results of environment and +circumstance. But we are not told positively which forms are transitory, +which are final.</p> + +<p>It is only a matter of probable opinion, which it is quite open to any +one to dispute, that there is any indication of finality. I should +personally be inclined to think that we have indications that carnivora, +ungulates, and birds are final forms; that no evolution will ever modify +a bird further into anything that is not a bird; that no transition +between the ungulates and the carnivora is possible; that the +<i>proboscideae</i> are not a final but a transitory type, dying out +gradually—our elephants and similar forms will disappear as the +mastodon did.</p> + +<p>But I admit this is all mere speculation, in which I ask no one to +follow me.</p> + +<p>On one important point only is there a difference; and if the text is +ever proved wrong on that, it must be given up. But it is here that all +scientific knowledge fails, in <i>any way whatever,</i> to touch the sacred +text. There <i>is</i> an unique and exceptional account of one "special +creation." A man "Adam" is described as having been actually created, +not born as an ultimately modified descendant of ancestors originally +far removed from himself. That is not to be denied; not only was his +bodily form specially created (conformably to the <i>type</i> created in +Genesis i. 26), but a special spiritual and higher life was +imparted—for I believe that no one disputes this as the meaning of the +expression, "breathed into his nostrils the <i>breath of lives,</i> and man +became a living soul."</p> + +<p>It must be noted again—although I have before alluded to this in some +detail—that it is not impossible that, pursuant to the general command +"Let us make man," there <i>may</i> have been other human creations, perhaps +not endowed with the higher life of Adam. If it is found difficult to +realize this because the <i>image of God</i> is connected (from the very +first) with the design of Man's life-form, still it is to be remembered +as an undeniable fact, that the form, though one assumed by God Himself +in the Incarnation, <i>is connected</i> in structure and function with the +general animal (Mammalian) type, and that even the Adamic or spiritually +endowed man <i>may</i>, by neglecting the higher and giving way to the lower +nature, develop much of the purely bestial in himself. So that the bare +possibility of a pre-Adamite and imperfect man cannot be <i>à priori</i> +denied. More than that it is not necessary to say. Nor is it necessary +that any origin of man should be limited to six or eight thousand years +back. If the state of the text is such that a perfect chronology is +possible,<a name="FNanchor_1_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_98"><sup>[98]</sup></a> then all that the Bible goes back to chronologically is the +particular man Adam. And it is quite impossible that any scientific or +historical contradiction can arise therefrom.</p> + + +<a name="Footnote_1_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_81">[81]</a><div class="note"> Psa. xxxiii. 6, and so Psa. cii. 25; <i>cf</i>. 2 Peter iii. 5.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_82">[82]</a><div class="note"> Waste (R.V.).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_83">[83]</a><div class="note"> It also needs only to be remarked, in passing, that we are +really in complete ignorance as to the light-medium, the +"luminiferous-ether" outside the comparatively thin stratum of our own +terrestrial atmosphere. We do not know whether there might not have been +a condition of the medium in which, up to the moment of a creative +<i>fiat</i>, it was incapable of transmitting light-waves.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_84">[84]</a><div class="note"> And this is still a mystery to us. <i>What</i> light is we do +not know—we can only speak of our own sensation of it. Nor do we know +<i>what</i> vibrates to produce light. Hypothetical terms, such as "ether," +"luminiferous-medium," and so forth, only conceal our ignorance.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_85">[85]</a><div class="note"> Compare Job xxxviii. 10, 11, and Psa. civ. 9.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_86">[86]</a><div class="note"> See this well summarized in Nicholson's "Manual of Zoology" +(sixth edition, 1880), p. 13, <i>et seq.</i></div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_87">[87]</a><div class="note"> I think this is quite sufficient, without relying on the +evidence of the great quantities of <i>carbon</i> in the earliest +(Laurentian, Huronian, &c.) strata in the form of graphite. It is +possible, or even probable, that this may be due to carbon supplied by +masses of little specialized <i>Thallophyte</i> and <i>Anophyte</i> vegetation.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_88">[88]</a><div class="note"> Ver. 19, &c. The same word is also used of "making" priests +(l Kings xii. 31), and appointing (R.V.)("advancing" A.V.), ("making," +as we familiarly say) Moses and Aaron (1 Sam. xii. 6).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_89">[89]</a><div class="note"> And the Psalmist justly speaks of God as <i>preparing</i> the +light of the sun (Psa. lxxiv. 16).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_90">[90]</a><div class="note"> See <a href="#FNanchor_3_75">here</a>.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_91">[91]</a><div class="note"> There was "evening and morning" of the third day, i.e., +beginning and <i>completion</i>, and also the whole interval of the fourth +day, <i>before</i> the command of the fifth.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_92">[92]</a><div class="note"> It is remarkable that the Trilobites rapidly culminated, so +that we have the largest and most perfect forms, such as <i>Paradoxus</i>, +with the lowest (<i>Agnostus</i>) in the same beds in Wales (Etheridge's +"Phillips' Manual," Part II. p. 32).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_93">[93]</a><div class="note"> I have done my best to verify this from the well-known +latest Manuals of Etheridge, Seeley, and Alleyne-Nicholson.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_94">[94]</a><div class="note"> As is constantly the case in prophetic writings. Revelation +tells of the remote past sometimes as well as the future, and in neither +case could the inspired writer fully understand the meaning that was +wrapped up in his sentences.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_95">[95]</a><div class="note"> As a matter of fact, in the one case, if the writer's +knowledge were of any importance, it is almost certain that he did <i>not</i> +mean <i>cetacean</i> or <i>sirenian</i>. In the other case it is impossible to say +whether he thought "bats" were included or not. It is not in the nature +of things that the writer could ever have seen or even heard of a +manatee or a dugong; nor is it likely that he had been a sea-farer, or +could have seen any Mediterranean cetacean. As far as his own knowledge +went, he probably had but a very confused idea. And if we refer to the +poetic description in Psalm civ. 25, 26, we find "leviathan," though +distinctly a sea creature, still one of which the writer had only a +vague traditional idea, certainly not a <i>known</i> Mediterranean dolphin, +for in Job xli. the same term is applied to the crocodile.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_96">[96]</a><div class="note"> And perhaps the pachydermatous mammals (Nicholson, +"Zoology," p. 566).</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_97">[97]</a><div class="note"> Nor should we be surprised to find (should it be so +discovered) that some animals appeared after man. (<i>Cf</i>. "Nineteenth Century" for Dec. 1885, p. 856.)</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_98">[98]</a><div class="note"> It should be borne in mind that just as Revelation is often +absolutely silent on many points that mere curiosity would like to see +explained, so also, the Divine Author may have allowed parts of the +original text of Revelation to be so far lost or obscured as to leave +further points that <i>might</i> have been once recorded, now doubtful. All +that we may be quite sure of is that the text has been preserved for all +that is essential to "life and godliness."</div> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;"> +<a name="APPENDIX"></a><h2>APPENDIX.</h2> +<br> + +<p><i>PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN.</i></p> + +<p>The information here put together is a compilation from papers in "The +Nineteenth Century," and other sources. It has no pretentions to +originality, but only to give a brief and connected account of the +subject, more condensed and freed from surrounding details than that +which the original sources afford.</p> + +<p>Before entering on the subject, I would again call attention to the +surpassing importance of these early chapters of Genesis. And, I add, +that unbelievers are especially glad to be able to allege anything they +can against them, because they are aware that hardly any chapters in the +Bible are more constantly alluded to, and made the foundation of +practical arguments by our Lord and His Apostles, than these early +chapters in the Divine volume. If these chapters can be shown to be +mythical, then the divine knowledge of our Lord, as the Son of God, and +the inspiration of His Apostles, are put in question. All through the +Old Testament, allusions to Adam and to the early history in Genesis +occur; and among other passages, I will only here invite attention to +the 31st chapter of Ezekiel, where there is, in a most beautiful +description of the cedar-tree, an allusion to "Eden, the Garden of God" +(see also chapter xxviii. ver. 13), which some have thought to indicate +that the site was still known, and existing in the time of the prophet. +This at least may be remarked, that in verse 9, where the prophet speaks +of the "trees that <i>were</i> in the Garden of God," the word <i>were</i> is not +in the original, and the sense of the context would rather denote the +present tense—"the trees that <i>are</i> in the Garden of God."</p> + +<p>But it is in the New Testament that the most repeated and striking +allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the Serpent, and the +entrance of sin and death into the life-history of mankind, occur.<a name="FNanchor_1_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_99"><sup>[99]</sup></a></p> + +<p>As regards the narrative of Eden itself, there has been, from the very +earliest times, some disposition to regard it as mystical or +"allegorical," i.e., to regard it as representing spiritual facts of +temptation and disobedience, under the guise or story of an actual +audible address by a serpent, and the eating of an actual fruit. The +earliest translators seem to have glossed the "Gan-'Eden," everywhere in +the Old Testament (<i>except</i> in Gen. ii. 8), by the phrase "the paradise +of pleasure," or some other similar term. And the Vulgate <i>always</i> uses +some phrase, such as "place of delight," "voluptas," "deliciae," &c. It +must be admitted that there is some temptation to this course, because +of the inveterate tendency of the human mind to reduce things to its own +level—to suppose everything to have happened <i>in ways which are within +its present powers to comprehend.</i> We figure to ourselves the fear and +dislike <i>we</i> should ourselves experience, of a large snake; we imagine +the amazement with which an intelligible voice would be heard to proceed +from such a creature; so far from being <i>tempted, we</i> should at once be +moved to hostility or to flight; and thus we are inclined to throw doubt +on the narrative as it stands.</p> + +<p>But this is to do what we justly complain of modern materialists and +positivists for doing—reducing everything to terms of present +experience and knowledge.</p> + +<p>It has to be borne in mind, that <i>under the conditions of the case</i>, the +serpent was neither ugly, dangerous, nor loathsome, but beautiful and +attractive; that the residents of the Garden were familiar with the +"voice of God"—i.e., they had habitual intelligible communication with +heaven: probably, also, free intercourse with angelic messengers +(inconceivable as it may now seem to us) was matter of daily experience +to them. The woman would then recognize in the voice an Angel +communication; and unaware at first that it was an evil angel, it would +excite no surprise in her at all. Sensations of terror, surprise, +dislike, and so forth, were <i>ex hypothesi</i> unknown. Why then should not +the narrative be exact, unless, indeed, we have some <i>à priori</i> ground +for supposing that human nature <i>never could</i> have been in a state where +the voice of God and angels sounded in its ears, and where innocence and +the absence of all evil emotion was the daily condition of life? The +unbeliever may sneer at such a state, but <i>reason</i> why it should <i>not</i> +have been, he can give none. So, again, with the idea of the "tree of +the knowledge of good and evil" and the "tree of life." We are no doubt +tempted to think that these terms may be symbolic; but a more careful +reflection, and a deliberate rejection of the <i>influence of present +experiences</i>, may lead us to accept the narrative more literally. Even +now, we are not unfamiliar with the ideas of medicinal virtues in plants +and fruits. I see nothing impossible in the idea that God may have been +pleased to impart such virtue to the fruit of a tree standing in the +midst of the Garden, that physical health, immunity from all decay, and +constant restoration, should have been the result of eating the fruit; +and the eating of this fruit, we know, was freely permitted. The late +Archbishop Whately suggested, and I think with great probability, that +the longevity of the earliest generations of the Adamic race may have +been due to the beneficial effects of the eating of this fruit, which +only gradually died out. Just as we know at the present time, that +peculiarities introduced into human families, often survive from father +to son, till they gradually die out after many generations.</p> + +<p>Again, as regards the "forbidden tree," it will not seem impossible, +that as a simple <i>test of obedience</i> in a very primitive state, the rule +of abstinence from a particular fruit may have been literally enjoined, +and that the consequence of the moral act of <i>disobedience</I> (rather +than the physical effect of the fruit eaten) should have been the +knowledge of evil, the first sensation of shame, terror, angry +dissension, and, worst of all, the alienation from God the source of all +good, which followed.</p> + +<p>All such considerations of the reality of the history must gain greatly +in strength, if we can demonstrate that the Garden of Eden, the scene of +the temptation, the place where the trees that were the vehicles of such +consequences to the occupants of the garden, stood, had a real existence +and geographical site. Now I need hardly remark that the Mosaic +narrative unquestionably <i>professes</i> a geographical exactness and a +literal existence of the garden, as no fabled locality—no Utopia or +garden of the Hesperides. I need only refer to the <i>data</i> afforded to us +by Gen. ii. 8-14.</p> + +<p>The Lord, it is said, planted a garden in Eden: it was "eastward;" but +that does not directly indicate its site. From Gen. iv. 16, we also +learn that the land of Nod where Cain dwelt (after the murder of Abel) +was on the east of Eden.</p> + +<p>A river went out and watered the garden. After passing the limits of +Eden, the river is said to have divided itself, or parted, into four +heads, i.e., arms or branches. The first branch was called Pison. This +branch "compasseth," i.e., forms the boundary along the whole length of, +"<i>the</i> Havilah." This country is spoken of as being a tract wherein was +produced good gold, "b'dolach" (translated "bdellium") and "shoham" +(translated "onyx.") The second branch was Gihon, which is described as +similarly compassing the district of K[=u]sh. Here our A.V., by +substituting "Ethiopia" for the original "C[=u]sh," has made a gloss +rather than a translation; and this gloss has given rise to several +errors of commentators in identifying the site of Eden. The Revised +Version has corrected the error.</p> + +<p>The third branch was Hiddekel, the <i>Diklatu</i> of the Arabs, the Tigra of +the old Persians, and the <i>Tigris</i> of later writers. This is said to run +eastward towards Assyria.<a name="FNanchor_1_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_100"><sup>[100]</sup></a> The fourth river was the Frat or Euphrates. +Observe, in passing, that the author gives no detail about the great +river Euphrates, as being well known; while he adds particulars about +the Tigris, and describes the Gihon and the Pison in some detail.</p> + +<p>Now it will at once strike the reader that two of these rivers are well +known to the present day. The others are not.</p> + +<p>It is in the identification of these two, and of the districts which +they "compassed," which form the difficulties of the problem. Up till +recent times, it is remarkable what a variety of speculations have been +attempted as to the situation of Eden. Dr. Aldis Wright, the learned +author of the article "Eden" in Smith's "Biblical Dictionary," remarks: +"It would be difficult, in the whole history of opinion, to find any +subject which has so invited, and at the same time completely baffled, +conjecture, as the Garden of Eden." And in another place he thinks that +"the site of Eden will ever rank with the quadrature of the circle, and +the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy among those unsolved, and +perhaps insoluble, problems which possess so strange a fascination." It +is, however, to be remarked, (1)that all that was written before +Professor Delitzsch's researches were made known; and (2)that really a +great mass of the conjecture and speculation has been purely in the +air—undertaken without any reference to the plain terms of the text to +be interpreted. It is the extravagance of commentators, and their +insisting on going beyond the narrative itself, that has raised such +difficulties, and made the problem look more hopeless than it really is.</p> + +<p>To what purpose are "the three continents of the old world" "subjected +to the most rigorous search," as Dr. Wright puts it—when it is quite +plain from the text itself, that the solution is to be sought in the +neighbourhood of the Euphrates, or not at all? The whole inquiry seems +to have been one in which a vast cloud of learned dust has been raised +by speculators, who began their inquiry without clearly determining, to +start with, what was the point at issue. Either the description in Gen. +ii. 3-14 is meant for allegory, or geographical fact: this question must +first be settled; and if the latter is agreed to, then it is quite +inconceivable that the words should imply any very extensive region, or +any fancied realm extending over a large proportion of one or other +quarter of the globe. The problem is then at once narrowed; and it is +simply unreasonable to look for Havila in India, or for Pison in the +province of Burma, as one learned author does!</p> + +<p>Yet commentators have forgotten this; and gone—the earlier ones into +interpretation of allegory—the later into impossible geographical +speculation; while only the most recent have confined themselves to the +obvious terms of the problem as laid down in the narrative itself—a +narrative which (whether true or false) is clearly meant to be definite +and exact, as we have seen. Our A.V. translators are to be held, to +some extent, responsible for the freedom which speculation has +exercised, by themselves taking the C[=u]sh of the narrative to +"Ethiopia," i.e., to the African continent—for which there is no +authority whatever.</p> + +<p>As regards the <i>allegorical</i> interpretations, they are too extravagant +for serious notice. Souls, angels, human passions and motives, are +supposed to be represented by towns, rivers, and countries. To all this +it is enough to reply—What reason can we have for supposing an +allegory suddenly to be interpolated at Gen. ii. 8? There is no allegory +before it, there is none after.</p> + +<p>Then as to the early geographical expounders. Josephus and others +supposed the allusion was made to the great rivers known to ancient +geography, all of which ran into that greatest river of all, which +encircled the globe. In this view, the Gihon might be the Nile, and the +Pison the Ganges! Here, again, it may be remarked it is impossible to +read the narrative and believe that the author meant any such widespread +region. Even if the author had the ancient ideas about cosmography +generally, that would not prevent his being accurate about a limited +region lying to the east of a well-known river in a populous country. In +later times Luther avoided the difficult speculation by supposing that +the Deluge had swept away all traces of the site! But unfortunately for +this convenient theory, it is a plain fact that the Deluge did not sweep +any two out of the four rivers named. The reader who is curious on the +subject, will find in Dr. A. Wright's article a brief account of the +various identifications proposed by all these commentators. It would not +be interesting to go into any detail. I shall pass over all those +extravagant views which go to places remote from the Euphrates, and come +at once to the later attempts to solve the question in connection with +the two known rivers, Euphrates and Hiddekel (Tigris); as this is the +only kind of solution that any reasonable modern Biblical student will +admit.</p> + +<p>The different explanations adopted maybe grouped into two main attempts: +(1) to find the place among the group of rivers that surrounds Mount +Ararat in Northern Armenia, <i>vis.</i>, in the extreme upper course of the +Euphrates near its two sources; (2) to find the place below the +<i>present</i> junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris, along some part of +the united course, which is now more than two hundred miles long, and is +called "Shatt-el-'Aráb."</p> + +<p>But neither of these attempts has been successful: the first must, +indeed, be absolutely dismissed; because the Hebrew phrases used in +describing the four <i>branches</i> of the river that "went out," and watered +the garden, and then parted, cannot be applied to four independent +sources or streams—<i>upstream</i> of the Euphrates. It will not, then, +satisfy the problem, to find four rivers somewhere in the vicinity of +the Euphrates, and which, in a general way, enclose a district in which +Eden might be placed. It may, indeed, be doubted whether this first +attempt (which I may call the "North Armenian solution") would ever have +been seriously entertained, but from the fact that the name Gihon—or +something very like it—did attach itself to the Araxes or Phasis, a +considerable river of Armenia. Finding a Gihon ready, the commentators +next made the Pison, the Acampsis; and then as Pison was near the +"Havila land," this country was laid on the extreme north of Armenia; +all this without a particle of evidence of any kind.<a name="FNanchor_1_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_101"><sup>[101]</sup></a> I may here take +the opportunity of remarking that a chance <i>similarity of names</i><a name="FNanchor_2_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_102"><sup>[102]</sup></a> has +been, throughout the controversy, a fruitful source of enlarged +speculative wandering. Thus this name Gihon (Gaihun, Jíkhún, G[=e][=o]n, +&c.) that appears in North Armenia, again appears in connection with the +<i>Nile</i>; while again the name "Nile" has wandered back to the confines of +Persia, and one of the <i>Euphrates</i> branches is still called +"Shatt-en-nîl." The ancients, indeed, had very curious ideas about the +Nile. Its real sources being so long undiscovered—no Speke or Grant +having appeared—imagination ran wild on the subject. Not only so, but +it is remarkable that the name <i>Cush</i> should have acquired both a +Persian Gulf and an Egyptian employment: and the writer of the able +article in "The Nineteenth Century" (October, 1882) points out several +other singular instances in which names are common both to the +African-Egyptian region, and to this.</p> + +<p>Turning now to the second of the two theories, the identification of the +site on the lower part of the Euphrates after its now existing junction +with the Tigris (and which the supporters of the theory have justified +by making the Gihon and Pison two rivers coming from Eden) must also be +set aside.</p> + +<p>For the important fact has been overlooked that it is quite certain, +that anciently, the joint stream, (Shatt-el-'Aráb), as it now is, did +not exist. Though the Genesis narrative tells us of a junction +<i>immediately outside</i> the southern boundary of the Garden, the Euphrates +channels and the Tigris branch (with part of the Euphrates water in it) +flowed separately to the Persian Gulf. It is quite certain that, in the +time of Alexander the Great, the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris were +a good day's journey apart. For this separate outflow there is the +incontestable evidence of Pliny and other authors quoted by Professor +Delitzsch. I may here also remark, that anciently the Persian Gulf +extended much farther inland than it does now. In the time of +Sennacherib, an inland arm of the sea extended so far, that a <i>naval</i> +expedition against Elam was possible; more than one hundred miles inland +from the present sea-line. The extension was called N[=a]r Marratum. In +Alexander's time, the city of Charax (now Mohamra) was founded close to +the sea (that was in the fourth century B.C.). It is known from later +histories, that shortly before the birth of our Saviour, the city was +from fifty to one hundred and twenty Roman miles inland. The change is +due to the "Delta," or alluvial formation at the mouth of the rivers.</p> + +<p>Turning, then, to the recent inquiries (published in 1881<a name="FNanchor_1_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_103"><sup>[103]</sup></a>) by +Professor Fried. Delitzsch, it must be confessed that the results +obtained are such as to completely avoid all the difficulties that beset +the other explanations: yet we ought not to be too confident that it is +a final or absolute explanation. A certain caution and reserve will +still be wisely maintained on the subject. At any rate, they show that +<i>an</i> explanation, one that answers <i>all</i> the conditions of the problem, +<i>can</i> be given; and that is a great thing.</p> + +<p>In placing the site <i>on</i> the Euphrates, and far from the mountain +sources, there is no violence done to the Hebrew language used to +describe the first river, as one that "went out," and watered the +Garden. The words do not require that the river should actually <i>take</i> +its <i>rise</i> within the Garden limits; but it is necessary that the river +should be so situated, that its waters could be distributed by means of +creeks or canals across the Garden, that it could be said the river +"went out and watered the Garden." Now it is a remarkable fact, that in +the district just above Babylon, the bed of the Euphrates is in level +much higher than the bed of the Tigris (Hiddekel) to the east, and that +hence there always have been a number of very variable channels leading +from the Euphrates eastward to the Tigris. These, it is well known, were +often enlarged by the ancients and converted into useful "inundation +canals" for irrigation and the passage of boats. Imagine, then, the high +level river bed of the Euphrates, and various streams flowing off it +down to the valley of the Tigris, and we have a most efficiently +irrigated "Garden," and one accurately described by the text—the great +river "went out" and watered it. The Euphrates, moreover, is liable to +great flushes of water from the melting of the snows in wide tracts of +mountain or highlands from which its waters are collected, and these +volumes of water found vent from the overcharged mother-channel by +escape, not only through the side channels, just spoken of, but also by +other important branches on the other side. Every one who has seen one +of the great rivers of Northern India will at once realize the changes +that take place where a river liable to floods has its bed at a high +level. It is almost a matter of certainty that, in the course of years, +the branches and channels of rivers so constituted will change, and old +ones be left dry and deserted. These essential topographical conditions +have always to be remembered in interpreting the narrative of Genesis +ii.</p> + +<p>In fact, they furnish us with points which help us in the problem at the +outset. (1) There is a part of the Euphrates, just above Babylon, where +the river naturally furnished abundant irrigation for a Garden planted +eastward of it, by means of natural irrigation channels flowing from the +high level down to the lower valley of the Tigris; and (2) there is also +a point from which the Euphrates did branch out, and several important +arms anciently existed.</p> + +<p>Nor is the locality, in point of verdure and fertility, unsuitable. Not +only do the ancient histories make frequent mention of the canals and +streams flowing from the Euphrates which I have alluded to, but they +speak of the palm groves, the vines and the verdure of the Babylonian or +Chaldean region. Herodotus, in his first book, has the most glowing +description of the scene; and the kings of Babylon had numerous enclosed +gardens or parks: these were imitated in Persia, and gave rise to the +Persian name "Firdaus," which Xenophon imported into Greek in the form +of <font face="symbol">paradeisoV</font> or "paradise"—the term which was adopted by the +Seventy translators.</p> + +<p>The actual locality which Professor Delitzsch proposes as the most +probable site of the Garden of Eden is between the present Euphrates and +Tigris, just to the north of Babylon. The boundaries would be—roughly +and generally speaking—the two rivers for East and West; while for the +North and South boundaries we should draw parallel lines through Accad +on the North and Babylon on the South.</p> + +<p>But granted that the general locality and the relations of the river +Euphrates and Tigris satisfy the requirements of the text by such a +location as this: how about the other two <i>and</i> the countries which they +compass? The troubles of the earlier commentators will warn us, that we +need not be too ready to force names, and to identify one river, and +then, <i>because</i> we have fixed that, make the country which the text +requires follow it!</p> + +<p>It is, however, in this matter that Professor Delitzsch's work is so +satisfactory. He has pointed out, that there is historical evidence (and +also that the local traces are not wanting in the present day) to prove +that, just below Babylon, we <i>can</i> find two prominently important +channels or branches of the Euphrates, which will at least supply the +place of Pison and Gihon. As to the first, it is known that in historic +times a great channel called by the Greeks Pallakopas (navigable for +ships) used to carry off the surplus water of the Euphrates when swollen +in the summer season by the melting snows of the Armenian mountains. It +branched off from the main river at a point somewhat north of Babylon, +and flowed into the Persian gulf. There is, indeed, no <i>direct</i> evidence +to show that this branch bore a name resembling Pison. <i>Palgu</i> is the +Assyrian whence the Greek Pallakopas was derived. It is remarkable, +however, that the word Pison closely resembles the cuneiform term +"pisána," or "pisánú," which is used for a water-reservoir, a canal or a +channel; and as this "Pallakopas" was <i>the</i> channel <i>par excellence</i>, it +may very possibly have been called "pisána" or Pison, the (great) +channel. The identification of the channel called "Pallakopas" will be +found mentioned in Colonel Chesney's work, "An Expedition to the +Tigris." The name, however, of this channel is not the only means we +have of identifying it. The Scripture says that the Pison compasses the +land of <i>Havilah</i>. Now let us remember, that the Scripture tells of two +Havilahs: (1) The second son of Cush<a name="FNanchor_1_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_104"><sup>[104]</sup></a> and brother of Nimrod, and (2) +one of the great great grandsons of Shem (Gen. x. 29). One we may call +the Cushite Havilah, the other the Joktanite Havilah. The dwelling-place +of the brother of Nimrod is not mentioned, but it is stated that the +Joktanite Havilah dwelt in "Mesha." The tenth of Genesis is an important +chapter, as showing how the descendants of Noah branched out and spread +over the countries all round the Euphrates; some going north to Assyria +(Nineveh), others to the east and west, and others south, to Arabia and +Egypt. Now it so happens that the whole country west of the great +Pallakopas channel, was called by the Assyrians "Mashu." Professor +Delitzsch identifies this Mashu of the cuneiform inscriptions, with the +"Mesha" mentioned in Scriptures, as the home of Havilah. We have also in +Gen. xxv. 8,<a name="FNanchor_2_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_105"><sup>[105]</sup></a> mention of a land of Havila that is "before"—i.e., +eastward of—"Egypt as thou goest toward Assyria," which would answer +very well to this locality, west of the Euphrates. It is also known +(from sources which it would take too long to detail) that this country +did yield gold-dust. Pliny also mentions "Bdellium," if that was the +substance known as "B'dolach." It is indeed uncertain what this was, but +Gesenius long ago rejected the idea that it was a stone, because there +is no prefix to it, as there is to "shoham," which follows, and +certainly is a precious stone. The manna in the wilderness is described +as being of the "colour of bdellium," and was also like hoar-frost;<a name="FNanchor_3_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_106"><sup>[106]</sup></a> +hence the idea that b'dolach was a crystal. But a fragrant and precious +gum-resin seems more likely. The Magi who came to worship the Infant +Saviour from near this locality, brought offerings of <i>gold</i>, and also +fragrant gums and myrrh. Was "bdellium" (as probably being a fragrant +gum) one of these offerings?</p> + +<p>The "Onyx," or "Shoham," was most probably a pure red cornelian, and +this also was found in the Babylonian provinces, and was specially worn +by the Babylonian kings.</p> + +<p>So the country west of the Euphrates answers very well to Havila without +any forcing, and without any placing it there <i>because</i> of the river +rendering such a plan necessary.</p> + +<p>As to the fourth river (Gihon), Delitzsch identifies it, still more +clearly, with a channel known as the "Shatt-en-níl," which branches off +from the Euphrates at Babylon itself, and passing the Scriptural city of +Erech, rejoins the main river lower down. A clay tablet has actually +been discovered, having the Euphrates, Tigris, and this Shatt-en-níl +channel <i>together</i>: the name of the latter is given as "K[=a]hán de," or +"Gughánde," a name which closely resembles Gihon. The channel is, +however, identified independently of the name. For the Gihon is +particularized in the narrative, by the fact that it "compasses" the +land of Cush. This (as already pointed out) is not the Ethiopian Cush.</p> + +<p>Delitzsch states, that the whole country bounded by this branch was +anciently called Kash-shu, which he identifies with the Cush of Genesis +ii. The syllable "Kash" appears throughout this locality. In fact +Kash-du or Kal-du is the origin of the familiar name Chaldea. In the +Hebrew, Kush (Cush) is the name given to the father of Nimrod, who +"began" his kingdom about this very site—Erech, and Calneh, and Accad +(Gen. x. 8, 10). Hence it is not surprising that relics of the name +should be found all round this neighbourhood. Nor does the evidence end +here. The district immediately around Babylon was called "Kár-dunish-i," +i.e., the "Garden of the god Dunish." Now Kar is the Turanian form of +the Semitic G[=a]n, or Gin[=a] (garden); and what is more likely than +that, as the true story was lost in the heathen traditions and mythology +that grew up, the "garden" was attributed to the god Dunish—whereas the +real original had been not "Gàndunish," but "Gan'Eden?" This, though +only a conjecture, is the more probable, as one of the inscription-names +of Babylon itself was "Tintira," which, though a little obscure, +certainly means <i>either</i> the "<i>grove</i>," or the <i>"fountain," of life.</i></p> + +<p>We thus find, not only that four great branches of the river that "went +out," and watered the Garden can be traced, but that the two really do +"compass" tracts, that can, with the highest degree of probability, be +identified as C[=u]sh or Kash, and Havilah. The importance of Professor +Delitzsch's work may now be briefly glanced at. It may be objected, that +such a process of reasoning as that put forward, is not convincing to a +general reader who has not the means of criticizing or testing Professor +Delitzsch's conclusions: he therefore cannot be sure that, in selecting +two channels to represent the Pison and the Gihon, and in identifying +"Mashu" with Mesha of Havilah, and one of the Babylonian districts with +Kush, the Professor has at last hit off a solution of the problem which +will not in its turn be disproved, as all earlier solutions have been. +There is, however, this important conclusion to be safely drawn, viz., +that a complete explanation in exact accord with the Hebrew text is +<i>possible</i>, and that hence nothing can be urged against the <i>narrative</i>, +on the ground (hitherto sneeringly taken) that the geography <i>was +impossible</i> and so forth.</p> + +<p>Next let me very briefly sum up what it is that Dr. Delitzsch has +done—marshalling the evidence, beginning from the broad end and +narrowing down till we arrive at the point.</p> + +<p>(1) First, then, we are fixed by the narrative to some place between the +Euphrates and the Tigris.</p> + +<p>(2) We find in the ancient inscriptions of the chief city of this +locality, constant allusions to a Garden, a primitive pair and a +temptation: one of these almost exactly reproduces the Bible story; it +is not of the earliest date and is a copy. But discovery is far from +being exhausted; all that we know is <i>consistent</i> with the idea of an +original story, gradually corrupted by the addition of legends, and +introduction of mythological persons and heathen divinities. The true +belief in one God, who made Himself known by voice or vision to His true +worshippers, seems early to have been confined to a few of the Shemitic +families, while the others "invented" gods of their own.</p> + +<p>(3) We find that the region about Babylon itself was called +Kár-dunishi—which easily recalls Kar or Gán-Eden. We also find the name +(Tintira) applied, indicating a "grove" or "fountain" of life; in the +locality where the direct legends most abound.</p> + +<p>(4) We find from ancient authors that the district was one of rich +verdure—a land of gardens and irrigation.</p> + +<p>(5) We find that some way above Babylon about Accad, the level of the +river bed Euphrates is so much higher than the valley of the Tigris +eastward, that numerous streams flow off from it, which would serve +admirably to irrigate a garden situated between the two, eastward of the +Euphrates.</p> + +<p>(6) We find that the Persian Gulf once extended more than one hundred +miles farther inland than it does now. That there was no joint outflow +of Tigris and Euphrates, but, though they did join their streams above, +they parted again and had still separate mouths—of the Tigris branch +one, of the Euphrates several.</p> + +<p>(7) Lastly, Professor Delitzsch finds two channels which answer to Pison +and Gihon.</p> + +<p>(8) He proves these two to be the right ones by considering the +countries which they "compass:" and actually finds the one that he +supposes to be the "Gaihûn," called, in the cuneiform clay tablets, +"Kahán or Gaghân-dé."</p> + +<p>It is really only in (7) and (8) that there is any room for doubt and +for further inquiry.</p> + +<p>At any rate, the credibility of the narrative, and a belief in its +purpose, as a topographically exact statement of fact, not an allegory +or legend, is established.</p> + +<a name="Footnote_1_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_99">[99]</a><div class="note"> See <a href="#FRef99">here</a> <i>ante</i>.</div> + + +<a name="Footnote_1_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_100">[100]</a><div class="note"> So the margin of the A. and R. Versions more correctly.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_101">[101]</a><div class="note"> And it is astonishing to find the error generally +perpetuated in maps attached to modern Bibles.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_102">[102]</a><div class="note"> As distinct from a real philological connection of a modern +name with a more ancient one, and so forth.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_103">[103]</a><div class="note"><p> "Wo lag das Paradies" (Leipzig, 1881) is the title of the +book.<br> +Professor Friedrich Delitzsch is Professor of Assyriology in the University of Leipzig.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_1_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_104">[104]</a><div class="note"> See Gen. x. 9.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_2_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_105">[105]</a><div class="note"> See also 1 Sam. xv. 7.</div> + +<a name="Footnote_3_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_106">[106]</a><div class="note"> Exod. xvi. 14; Numbers xi. 7: "The appearance (lit. "eye") +of it was as the appearance of bdellium" (R.V.).</div> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's Creation and Its Records, by B.H. Baden-Powell + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CREATION AND ITS RECORDS *** + +***** This file should be named 12852-h.htm or 12852-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/2/8/5/12852/ + +Produced by Dave Macfarlane and PG Distributed Proofreaders. Produced +from images provided by the Million Book Project. + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> + + + diff --git a/old/12852-h/images/00000172.gif b/old/12852-h/images/00000172.gif Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..74a244d --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12852-h/images/00000172.gif diff --git a/old/12852.txt b/old/12852.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..55078e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12852.txt @@ -0,0 +1,6598 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Creation and Its Records, by B.H. Baden-Powell + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Creation and Its Records + +Author: B.H. Baden-Powell + +Release Date: July 8, 2004 [EBook #12852] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CREATION AND ITS RECORDS *** + + + + +Produced by Dave Macfarlane and PG Distributed Proofreaders. Produced +from images provided by the Million Book Project. + + + + + + +_CREATION AND ITS RECORDS_. + + +[Greek: Pistei nooumen kataertisthai tous aionas rhemati theou eis to +mi ek fainomenon to Blepomenon gegonenai.]--HEB. xi. 3. + + +CREATION AND ITS RECORDS. + +A brief statement of Christian Belief with reference to Modern facts and +Ancient Scripture. + +BY + +B.H. BADEN-POWELL, C.I.E., F.R.S.E. + +CONTENTS + + * * * * * + +_PART I._ + +CHAPTER I. + +INTRODUCTORY + +CHAPTER II. + +THE ELEMENT OF _FAITH_ IN CREATION + +CHAPTER III. + +THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED + +CHAPTER IV. + +CREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER + +CHAPTER V. + +THE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER + +CHAPTER VI. + +THE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION +OF ORGANIC FORMS + +CHAPTER VII. + +THE DESCENT OF MAN + +CHAPTER VIII. + +FURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF +MAN + +CHAPTER IX. + +CONCLUDING REMARKS + +_PART II._ + +CHAPTER X. + +THE GENESIS NARRATIVE--ITS IMPORTANCE + +CHAPTER XI. + +SCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION + +CHAPTER XII. + +METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE--ASSUMPTIONS +OF MEANING TO CERTAIN TERMS + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +THE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY + (i.) THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE + (ii.) THE SECOND PART + +CHAPTER XIV. + +THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES + +CHAPTER XV. + +AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT + +CHAPTER XVI. + +THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE + +_APPENDIX._ + +PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN + + + + + + +CHAPTER I. + + +_INTRODUCTORY_ + +Among the recollections that are lifelong, I have one as vivid as ever +after more than twenty-five years have elapsed; it is of an evening +lecture--the first of a series--given at South Kensington to working +men. The lecturer was Professor Huxley; his subject, the Common Lobster. +All the apparatus used was a good-sized specimen of the creature itself, +a penknife, and a black-board and chalk. With such materials the +professor gave us not only an exposition, matchless in its lucidity, of +the structure of the crustacea, but such an insight into the purposes +and methods of biological study as few could in those days have +anticipated. For there were as yet no Science Primers, no International +Series; and the "new biology" came upon us like the revelation of +another world. I think that lecture gave me, what I might otherwise +never have got (and what some people never get), a profound conviction +of the reality and meaning of facts in nature. That impression I have +brought to the attempt which this little book embodies. The facts of +nature are God's revelation, of the same weight, though not the same in +kind, as His written Word. + +At the same time, the further conviction is strong in my mind, not +merely of the obvious truth that the Facts and the Writing (if both +genuine) cannot really differ, but further, that there must be, after +all, a true way of explaining the Writing, if only it is looked for +carefully--a way that will surmount not only the difficulty of the +subject, but also the impatience with which some will regard the +attempt. Like so many other questions connected with religion, the +question of reconciliation produces its double effect. People will +ridicule attempts to solve it, but all the same they will return again +and again to the task of its actual solution. + +That the latter part of the proposition is true, has recently received +illustration in the fact that a review like the _Nineteenth Century_, +which has so little space to spare, has found room in four successive +numbers[1] for articles by Gladstone, Huxley, and H. Drummond, on the +subject of "Creation and its Records." May I make one remark on this +interesting science tournament? I can understand the scientific +conclusions Professor Huxley has given us. I can also understand Mr. +Gladstone, because he values the Writing as the professor values the +Facts. But one thing I can _not_ understand. Why is Professor Huxley so +angry or so contemptuous with people who value the Bible, whole and as +it stands, and want to see its accuracy vindicated? Why are they +fanatics, Sisyphus-labourers, and what not? That they are a very large +group numerically, and hardly contemptible intellectually, is, I think, +obvious; that a further large group (who would not identify themselves +wholly with the out-and-out Bible defenders) feel a certain amount of +sympathy, is proved by the interest taken in the controversy. Yet all +"reconcilers" are ridiculed or denounced--at any rate are contemptuously +dismissed. Can it be that the professor has for the moment overlooked +one very simple fact? + + +[Footnote 1: November, December, 1885; and January, February, 1886.] + +The great bulk of those interested in the question place their whole +hope for their higher moral and spiritual life in this world and the +next on one central Person--the LORD JESUS CHRIST. If He is wrong, then +no one can be right--there is no such thing as right: that is what they +feel. It will be conceded that it is hardly "fanatical" to feel this. +But if so, surely it is not fanatical, but agreeable to the soberest +reason, further to hold that this (to them sacred) PERSON did (and His +apostles with Him) treat the Book of Genesis as a whole (and not merely +parts of it) as a genuine revelation--or, to use the popular expression, +as the _Word of_ GOD. That being so, can it be matter for surprise or +contemptuous pity, that they should be anxious to vindicate the Book, +to be satisfied that the MASTER was not wrong? That is the ultimate and +very real issue involved in the question of Genesis. + +As long as people feel _that_, they must seek the reconciliation of the +two opposing ideas. If the attempt is made in a foolish or bitter +spirit, or without a candid appreciation of the facts, then the attempt +will no doubt excite just displeasure. But need it always be so made? + +As to the first part of my proposition that attempts to reconcile +religion and science are received with a certain dislike, it is due +partly to the unwisdom with which they are sometimes made. Prof. H. +Drummond speaks of the dislike as general.[1] + +If this is so, I, as a "reconciler," can only ask for indulgence, hoping +that grace may be extended to me on the ground of having something to +say on the subject that has not yet been considered. + +Nor, as regards the impatience of the public, can I admit that there is +only fault on one side. In the first place, it will not be denied that +some writers, delighted with the vast, and apparently boundless, vision +that the discovery (in its modern form) of Evolution opened out to them, +did incautiously proceed, while surveying their new kingdom, to assert +for it bounds that stretch beyond its legitimate scope. + + +[Footnote 1: In the Introduction to his well-known book, "Natural Law in +the Spiritual World."] + +Religionists, on the other hand, imagining, however wrongly, that the +erroneous extension was part of the true scientific doctrine, attacked +the whole without discrimination. + +While such a misapprehension existed, it was inevitable that writers +anxious alike for the dignity of science and the maintenance of +religion, should step in to point out the error, and effect a +reconciliation of claims which really were never in conflict. + +It is hardly the fault of "religionists" that it was at first supposed +that one _could_ not hold the doctrine of evolution without denying a +"special" creation and a designing Providence. It was on this very +natural supposition that the first leading attack--attributed to the +Bishop of Oxford--proceeded. And the writer fell into the equally +natural mistake of taking advantage of the uncompleted and unproved +state of the theory at the time, to attack the theory itself, instead of +keeping to the safer ground, namely, that whatever might ultimately be +the conclusion of evolutionists, it was quite certain that no theory of +evolution that at all coincided with the known facts, offered any ground +for argument against the existence of an Intelligent Lawgiver and First +Cause of all; nor did it tend in the slightest to show that no such +thing as creative design and providence existed in the course of nature. + +What the discovery of evolution really did, was to necessitate a +revision of the hitherto popularly accepted and generally assumed and +unquestioned notion of what _creation_ was. And it has long appeared to +me, that while now the most thoroughgoing advocates of evolution +generally admit that their justly cherished doctrine has nothing to say +to the existence of a Creator, or to the possibility of design--which +may be accepted or denied on other grounds--the writers on the side of +Christianity have not sufficiently recognized the change which their +views ought to undergo. + +As long as this is the case, there will continue to be a certain +"conflict," not indeed between science and religion, but of the kind +which has been vividly depicted by the late Dr. Draper. + +It can scarcely have escaped the notice of the most ordinary reader +that, in the course of that interesting work, the author has very little +to say about religion--at any rate about religion in any proper sense of +the term. The conflict was between a Church which had a zeal for God +without knowledge, and the progress of scientific thought; it was also a +conflict between discovered facts, and facts which existed, not in the +Bible, but in a particular interpretation, however generally received, +of it. + +The present work is therefore addressed primarily to Christian believers +who still remain perplexed as to what they ought to believe; and its aim +is to prevent, if may be, an unreasonable alarm at, and a useless +opposition to, the conclusions of modern science; while, at the same +time, it tells them in simple language how far those conclusions really +go, and how very groundless is the fear that they will ever subvert a +true faith that, antecedent to the most wonderful chain of causation and +methodical working which science can establish, there is still a Divine +Designer--One who upholds all things "by the word of His power." + +The doctrine of evolution is still the _ignotum_ to a great many, and it +is therefore, according to the time-honoured proverb, taken _pro +magnifico_, as something terribly adverse to the faith. Nor can it be +fairly denied, as I before remarked, that some of the students of the +theory have become so enamoured of it, so carried away by the +intoxication of the gigantic speculation it opens out to the +imagination, that they have succumbed to the temptation to carry +speculation beyond what the proof warrants, and thus lend some aid to +the deplorable confusion, which would blend in one, what is legitimate +inference and what is unproved hypothesis or mere supposition. + +It only remains to say that the basis of this little book is a short +course of lectures in which I endeavoured to disarm the prejudices of an +educated but not scientifically critical audience, by simply stating how +far the theory of cosmical evolution had been really proved--proved, +that is, to the extent of that reasonable certainty which satisfies the +ordinary "prudent man" in affairs of weight and importance. I have tried +to show that evolution, apart from fanciful and speculative extensions +of it, allows, if it does not directly establish, that the operation of +nature is not a chance or uncontrolled procedure, but one that suggests +a distinct set of lines, and an orderly obedience to pre-conceived law, +intelligently and beneficently (in the end) designed. + +There are obviously two main points which the Christian reader requires +to have made clear. The first is that, the modern theory of evolution +being admitted, the constitution of matter in the universe and the +principles of development in organic life, which that theory +establishes, not only do not exclude, but positively demand, the +conception of a Divine artificer and director. The second point, which +is perhaps of still greater weight with the believer, is that where +revelation (which is his ultimate standard of appeal) has touched upon +the subject of creation, its statements are not merely a literary fancy, +an imaginary cosmogony, false in its facts though enshrining Divine +truth, but are as a whole perfectly true. + +Whatever novelty there may be, is to be found in the treatment of the +second subject. The first portion of the work is only a brief and +popular statement of facts, quite unnecessary to the scientific reader +but probably very necessary to the large body of Churchmen, who have not +studied science, but are quite able to appreciate scientific fact and +its bearings when placed before them in an untechnical form, and +divested of needless details and subordinate questions. + +But it is around the supposed declarations of Scripture on the subject +of creation that the real "conflict" has centred. Let us look the matter +quite fairly in the face. We accept the conclusion that (let us say) the +horse was developed and gradually perfected or advanced to his present +form and characteristics, by a number of stages, and that it took a very +long time to effect this result. Now, if there is anywhere a statement +in Holy Writ that (_a_) a horse was _per saltum_ called into existence +in a distinctive and complete form, by a special creative _fiat_, and +that (_b_) this happened not gradually, but in a limited and specified +moment of time, then I will at once admit that the record (assuming that +its meaning is not to be mistaken) is not provably right, if it is not +clearly wrong; and accept the consequences, momentous as they would be. +If, in the same way, the Record asserts that man, or at least man the +direct progenitor of the Semitic race,[1] was a distinct and special +creation, his bodily frame having some not completely explained +developmental connection with the animal creation, but his higher nature +being imparted as a special and unique creative endowment out of the +line of physical development altogether, then I shall accept the Record, +because the proved facts of science have nothing to say against it, +whatever Drs. Buchner, Vogt, Haeckel, and others may assert to the +contrary. + + +[Footnote 1: With whose history, as leading up to the advent of the +Saviour in the line of David, the Bible is mainly concerned.] + +In the first of my two instances, the popular idea has long been that +the sacred record _does_ say something about a direct and separate +creative act; and this idea has been the origin and ground of all the +supposed conflict between science and "religion." As long as this idea +continues, it can hardly be said that a book addressed to the clearing +up of the subject is unnecessary or to be rejected _per se_. + +As to the method in which this subject will be dealt with, I shall +maintain that the Scripture does _not_ say anything about the horse, or +the whale, or the ox, or any other animal, being separately or directly +created. And the view thus taken of the Record I have not met with +before. This it is necessary to state, not because the fact would lend +any value to the interpretation--rather the contrary; but because it +justifies me in submitting what, if new, may be intrinsically important, +to the judgment of the Church; and it also protects me from the offence +of plagiarism, however unwitting. If others have thought out the same +rendering of the Genesis history, so much the better for my case; but +what is here set down occurred to me quite independently. + +A study of the real meaning of the Record, in the light of what may be +fairly regarded as proved facts, cannot be without its use to the +Christian. If it be true that a certain amount of information on the +subject of creation is contained in revelation, it must have been so +contained for a specific purpose--a purpose to be attained at some stage +or other of the history of mankind. It is possible also that the study +will bring to light a probable, or at any rate a possible, explanation +of some of those apparent (if they are not real) "dead-locks" which +occur in pursuing the course of life history on the earth. + +Such considerations will naturally have more weight with the Christian +believer than with those who reject the faith. But at least the +advantage of them remains with the believer, till the contrary is shown. +The extreme evolutionist may cling to the belief that at some future +time he will be able to account for the entrance of LIFE into the +world's history, that he will be able to explain the connection of MIND +with MATTER; or he may hope that the sterility of certain hybrid forms +will one day be explained away, and so on. But till these things _are_ +got over, the believer cannot be reproached as holding an unreasonable +belief when his creed maintains that Life is a gift and prerogative of a +great Author of Life; that Mind is the result of a spiritual environment +which is a true, though physically intangible, part of nature; and that +the absence of any proof that variation and development cross +certain--perhaps not very clearly ascertained, but indubitably +existing--lines, points to the designed fixing of certain types, and the +restriction of developmental creation to running in certain lines of +causation up to those types, and not otherwise. + +It can never be unreasonable to believe anything that is in exact +accordance with facts as ascertained at any given moment of +time--unless, indeed, the fact is indicated by other considerations as +being one likely to disappear from the category of fact altogether.[1] + +Enough has thus, I hope, appeared, to make the appearance of this little +work, at least excusable; what more may be necessary to establish its +claim to be read must depend on what it contains. + +I have only to add that I can make no pretension to be a teacher of +science. I trust that there is no material error of statement; if there +is, I shall be the first to retract and correct it. I am quite confident +that no correction that may be needed in detail will seriously affect +the general argument. + + +[Footnote 1: At present it is an ascertained fact that certain chemical +substances are elements incapable of further resolution. But there are +not wanting indications which would make it a matter of no surprise at +all, if we were to learn to-morrow that the so-called element had been +resolved. Such a fact is an example of what is stated in the text; and a +belief based on the absolute and unchangeable stability of such a fact +would not be unassailable. But none of the above stated instances of +"dead-lock" in evolution are within "measurable distance" of being +resolved.] + + + + +CHAPTER II. + + +_THE ELEMENT OF FAITH IN CREATION._ + +In the extract placed on the title-page, the author of the Epistle +clearly places our conclusion that God "established the order of +creation"--the lines, plans, developmental-sequences, aims, and objects, +that the course of creation has hitherto pursued and is still +ceaselessly pursuing,[1] in the category of _faith_. + +Of course, from one point of view--very probably that of the writer of +the Epistle--this conclusion is argued by the consideration that the +human mind forms no distinct conception of the formation of solid--or +any other form of--matter _in vacuo_, where nothing previously existed. +And what the mind does not find within its own power, but what yet _is +true_ in the larger spiritual kingdom beyond itself, is apprehended by +the spiritual faculty of _faith_. + + +[Footnote 1: [Greek: Kataertisthai tous aionas]. This implies more than +the mere originating or supplying of a number of material, organic, or +inorganic (or even spiritual) forms and existences. Whatever may be the +precise translation of [Greek: aion], it implies a chain of events, the +cause and effect, the type and the plan, and its evolution all +included.] + +But from another point of view, the immediate action of faith is not so +evident. If, it might be said, the law of evolution, or the law of +creation, or whatever is the true law, is, in all its bearings, a matter +to be observed and discovered by human science, then it is not easy to +see how there is any exercise of faith. We should be more properly said +to _know_, by intellectual processes of observation, inference, and +conclusion, that there was a Law Giver, an Artificer, and a First Cause, +so unlimited in power and capacity by the conditions of the case, that +we must call Him "Divine." + +And many will probably feel that their just reasoning on the subject +leads them to knowledge--knowledge, i.e., as approximately certain as +anything in this world can be. + +But the text, by the use of the term [Greek: aion], implies (as I +suggested) more than mere production of objects; it implies a designed +guidance and preconceived planning. If it were merely asserted that +there is a first cause of material existence, and even that such a cause +had enough known (or to be inferred) about it, to warrant our writing +"First Cause" with capitals, then the proposition would pass on all +hands without serious question. But directly we are brought face to +face, not merely with the isolated idea of creation of tangible forms +out of nothing (as the phrase is), but rather with the whole history +and development of the world and its inhabitants, we see so many +conflicting elements, such a power of natural forces and human passions +warring against the progress of good, and seeming to end only too often +in disaster, that it becomes a matter of _faith_ to perceive a Divine +providence underlying and overruling all to its own ends. + +The fact is, that directly we make mention of the "aeons"--the world's +age histories--we are met with that Protean problem that always seems to +lurk at the bottom of every religious question: Why was _evil_ +permitted? Mr. J.S. Mill, many readers will recollect, concluded that if +there was a God, that God was not perfectly good, or else was not +omnipotent. Now of course our limited faculties do not enable us to +apprehend a really absolute and unlimited omnipotence. We _can_ only +conceive of God as limited by the terms of His own Nature and Being. We +say it is "impossible for God to lie," or for the Almighty to do wrong +in any shape; in other words, we are, in this as in other matters where +the finite and the Infinite are brought into contact, led up to two +necessary conclusions which cannot be reconciled. We can reason out +logically and to a full conclusion, that given a God, that God must be +perfect, unlimited and unconditioned. We can also reason out, _provided +we take purely human and finite premises_, another line of thought which +forbids us to suppose that a Perfect God would have allowed evil, +suffering, or pain; and this leads us exactly or nearly to Mr. Mill's +conclusion. + +Whenever we are thus brought up to a dead-lock, as it were, there is the +need of _faith_, which is the faculty whereby the finite is linked on to +the Infinite. For this faith has two great features: one is represented +by the capacity for assimilating fact which is spiritual or +transcendental, and therefore not within the reach of finite intellect; +the other is represented by the capacity for reliance on, and trust in, +the God whose infinite perfections we cannot as finite creatures grasp +or follow. + +In the difficult scheme of the world's governance, in the storms, +earthquakes, pestilences, sufferings of all kinds--signs of failure, +sickness, and decay, and death, signs of the victory of evil and the +failure of good--we can only _believe_ in God, and that all will issue +in righteous ends. And our belief proceeds, as just stated, on two +lines: one being our spiritual capacity for knowing that GOD IS, and +that we, His creatures, are the objects of His love; the other being the +fact that we only see a very little end of the thread, or perhaps only a +little of one thread out of a vast mass of complicated threads, in the +great web of design and governance, and that therefore there is wide +ground for confidence that the end will be success. We rely confidently +on God. If it is asked, Why is it a part of faith to have a childlike +confidence in an unseen God?--we reply, that the main origin of such +confidence is to be found in the wonderful condescension of God +exhibited in the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection. + +This is not the place to enter on a detailed examination of the +essential importance of these great central facts of Christian belief in +establishing faith in the unseen, and distinguishing its grasp from the +blind clutches of credulity; but a single consideration will suffice at +least to awaken a feeling of a wide _vista_ of possibility when we put +it thus: Do we wonder at the spectacle of a righteous man, passing his +life in suffering and poverty, seemingly stricken by the Divine +hand?--But is not the case altered when we reflect _that the Hand that +thus smites is a hand itself pierced_ with the Cross-nails of a terrible +human suffering, undergone solely on man's account? + +It can be proved easily, by exhaustive examples, to be the case, that +wherever the finite is brought into contact with the Infinite, that +there must be a dead-lock, a leading up successively to two conclusions, +one of which is almost, if not quite, contrary to the other. A very +striking instance of this is the question of Predestination and +Free-will. From the finite side, I am conscious that I am a free agent: +I can will to rise up and to lie down. It is true that my will may be +influenced, strongly or feebly, by various means--by the effect of +habit, by the inherited tendency of my constitution, by some present +motive of temptation, and so forth: but the _will_ is there--the +motive-influence or inclining-power is not the will, but that which +affects or works on will. A _motive_ pulls me this way, another pulls me +that; but in the end, my _will_ follows one or the other. I can, then, +do as I please. On the other hand, Infinite Knowledge must know, and +have known from all eternity, what I shall do now, and at every moment +of my future being: and for Omnipotence to know from all eternity what +will be, is, in our human sense, practically undistinguishable from the +thought that the Power has predestined the same; and man cannot of +course alter that. Here, then, by separate lines of thought, we are +brought to two opposite and irreconcilable conclusions. It is so always. +We cannot ourselves imagine how a fixed set of laws and rules can be +followed, and yet the best interests of each and every one of God's +creatures be served as truly as if God directly wielded the machinery of +nature only for the special benefit of the individual. The thing is +unthinkable to us: yet directly we reason on the necessarily _unlimited_ +capability of a Divine Providence, we are led to the conclusion that it +must be possible. Here then is the province of _Faith_.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: The Scripture clearly recognizes the two opposing lines. In +one place we read, "Thou hast given them a law which _shall not be +broken_;" in another, "All things work together for good to them that +love God."] + +It is by Faith, then--combined with only a limited degree of knowledge, +founded on observation and reasoning--that we understand that "the aeons +were constituted by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen +were not made of things which do appear" (the phenomenal has its origin +in the non-phenomenal). + +While allowing, then, the element of Faith in our recognition of a +Creator and Moral Governor of the world, our care is in this, as in all +exercises of faith, that our faith be reasonable. We are not called on +to believe so as to be "put to confusion," intellectually, as Tait and +Balfour have it. + + + + +CHAPTER III. + + +_THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED_. + +It will strike some readers with a sense of hopelessness, this demand +for a reason in our faith. A special and very extensive knowledge is +required, it seems, to test the very positive assertion that some have +chosen to make regarding the "explosion" of the Christian faith in the +matter of Creation. + +We are told in effect that every thing goes by itself--that given some +first cause, about which we know, and can know, nothing, directly +primordial matter appears on the scene, and the laws of sequence and +action which observed experience has formulated and is progressively +formulating are given, then nothing else is required; no governance, no +control, and no special design. So that in principle a Creator and +Providence are baseless fancies; and this is further borne out by the +fact, that when the Christian faith ventures on details as to the mode +of Creation it is certainly and demonstrably wrong. If these +propositions are to be controverted, it must be in the light of a +knowledge which a large body of candid and earnest believers do not +possess. + +Fortunately, however, the labours of many competent to judge have placed +within the reach of the unscientific but careful student, the means of +knowing what the conclusions of Science really are, as far as they +affect the questions we have to consider. At least, any inquirer can, +with a little care and patient study, put himself in a position to know +where the difficulty or difficulties lie, and what means there are of +getting over them. His want of technical knowledge will not be in his +way, so far as his just appreciation of the position is concerned. +Without pretending to take up ground which has already been occupied by +capable writers whose books can easily be consulted, I may usefully +recapitulate in a simple form, and grouped in a suitable order, some of +the points best worth noting. + +The theory of cosmical evolution is not, in its general idea, a new +thing. The sort of evolution, however, that was obscurely shadowed forth +by the early sages of India (much as it is the fashion now to allude to +it) really stands in no practical relation to the modern and natural +theory which is associated with the name of CHARLES DARWIN, and which +has been further taken up by Mr. HERBERT SPENCER and others as the +foundation for a complete scheme of cosmic philosophy. The theory is +now, in its main features, admitted by every one. But there are a few +who would push it beyond its real ascertained limits, and would +substitute fancies for facts; they are not content to leave the +_lacunae_, which undoubtedly do exist, but fill them up by +hypothesis,[1] passing by easy steps of forgetfulness from the "it was +possibly," "it was likely to have been," to the "it must have been," and +"it was"! + +To all such extensions we must of course object; there are gaps in the +scheme which can be filled in with really great probability, and in such +cases there will be no harm done in admitting the probability, while +still acknowledging it as such. An overcautious lawyer-like captiousness +of spirit in such matters will help no cause and serve no good purpose. +Nor is it at all difficult in practice to draw the line and say what is +fairly admissible conjecture and what is not. There are other gaps, +however, that at present, no real analogy, no fair inferential process, +can bridge over; and to all speculations on such subjects, if advanced +as more than bare and undisguised guesses, objection must be taken. + +If this one line had been fairly and firmly adhered to from the first, +it can hardly be doubted that much of the acrimony of controversy would +have been avoided. It is just as essential at the present moment to +insist on the point as ever. But to proceed. Stated in the extreme +form, the theory is, that given matter as a beginning, that matter is +thenceforth capable, by the aid of fixed and self-working laws, to +produce and result in, all the phenomena of life--whether plant, animal, +or human--which we see around us. Matter developes from simple to +complex forms, growing by its own properties, in directions determined +by the circumstances and surroundings of its existence. + + +[Footnote 1: It is enough to instance the theories of Dr. Buchner and, +in earlier days, of Oken. The Haeckel and Virchow incident in this +connection, and the noble protest of the latter against positive +teaching of unproved speculation, are in the recollection of all.] + +If I may put this a little less in the abstract, but more at length, I +should describe it thus[1]:-- + +Astronomers, while watching the course of the stars, have frequently +observed in the heavens what they call _nebulae_. With the best +telescopes these look like patches of gold-dust or luminous haze in the +sky. Some nebulae, it is supposed, really consist of whole systems of +stars and suns, but at so enormous a distance that with our best glasses +we cannot make more out of them than groups of apparent "star-dust" But +other nebulae do not appear to be at this extreme distance, and therefore +cannot consist of large bodies. And when their light is examined with +the aid of a spectroscope, it gives indications that such nebulae are +only masses of vapour, incandescent, or giving out light on account of +their being in a burning or highly heated condition. + + +[Footnote 1: The biological evolutionist will, I am aware, object to +this, saying that the origin of the cosmos and nebular theories are +matters of speculation with which he is not concerned--they are no part +of evolution proper. But I submit that the general philosophical +evolution does include the whole. At any rate, the materialist view of +nature does take in the whole, in such a way as the text indicates.] + +Now, it is supposed that, in the beginning of the world, there was, in +space, such a nebula or mass of incandescent vapour, which, as it was +destined to cool down and form a world, philosophers have called "cosmic +gas." + +This cosmic gas, in the course of time, began to lose its heat, and +consequently to liquefy and solidify, according to the different nature +of its components; and thus a globe with a solid crust was formed, the +surface of which was partly dry and partly occupied by water, and +diversified by the abundant production of the various earths, gases, +metals, and other substances with which we are familiar. These +substances, in time, and by the slow action of their own laws and +properties, combined or separated and produced further forms. But to +come at once to the important part of the theory, we must at once direct +our attention to four substances; these would certainly, it is said (and +that no doubt is quite true) be present; they are oxygen, hydrogen, +nitrogen, and carbon. The first three would be, when the earth assumed +anything like its present conditions of temperature and air-pressure, +invisible gases, as they are at present; the fourth is a substance which +forms the basis of charcoal, and which we see in a nearly pure form +crystallized in the diamond. + +Now, if these substances are brought together under certain appropriate +conditions, the oxygen and hydrogen can combine to form _water_; the +carbon and the oxygen will form _carbonic acid_; while nitrogen will +join with hydrogen to form that pungent smelling substance with which we +are familiar as _ammonia_. Again, let us suppose that three compound +substances--water, carbonic acid, and ammonia--are present together with +appropriate conditions; it is said that they will combine to form a +gummy transparent matter, which is called _protoplasm_. This protoplasm +may be found in small shapeless lumps, or it may be found enclosed in +cells, and in various beautifully shaped coverings, and it is also found +in the blood, and in all growing parts or organs of all animals and +plants of every kind whatsoever. + +Protoplasm, then, is the physical basis of life. Simple, uniform, +shapeless protoplasm, combined out of the substances just named, first +came into existence; and as, however simple or shapeless, it always +exhibits the property of life, it can henceforth grow and develop from +simpler to ever increasingly complex forms, without any help but that of +surrounding circumstances--the secondary causes which we see in +operation around us. + +If some readers should say they have never seen _protoplasm_, I may +remind them where every one has, at some time or another, met with it. +If you cut a stick of new wood from a hedge, and peel off the young +bark, you know that the bark comes off easily and entire, leaving a +clean white wand of wood in your hand; but the wand feels sticky all +over. This sticky stuff is nothing more than transparent growing +protoplasm, which lies close under the inner bark. + +At first, the materialist holds, protoplasm appeared in very simple +forms, just such as can still be found within the sea, and in ponds. But +the lower organized forms of life are extremely unstable, and a +different _environment_ will always tend to evoke continuous small +changes, so that there may be advance in forms of all kinds. For if by +chance[1] some creature exhibits a variation which is favourable to it +in the circumstances in which it is placed, that creature will be fitter +than the others which have not that variation. And so the former will +survive, and as they multiply, their descendants will inherit the +peculiarity. Thus, in the course of countless generations, change will +succeed change, till creatures of quite a complex structure and +specialized form have arisen. As the circumstances of life are always +infinitely various, the developments take place in many different +directions; some fit the creature for life in deep seas, some for flying +in the air, some for living in holes and crevices, some for catching +prey by swift pursuit, others for catching it by artful contrivance, and +so forth. Many changes will also arise from protective necessity: if an +insect happens to be like a dead leaf, it will escape the notice of +birds which would snap up a conspicuously coloured one; and so the +dull-coloured will survive and perpetuate his kind, while the others are +destroyed. On the other hand, beauty in colour and form may have its +use. This is chiefly exhibited in the preference which the females of a +species show for the adorned and showy males. + + +[Footnote 1: Not really of course "by chance," but simply owing to such +circumstances as cannot be accounted for by any direct antecedents.] + +Supposing an organism developed so far as to be a bird, but only with +dull or ugly feathers. By accident one male bird, say, gets a few +bright-coloured feathers on his head. Here his appearance will attract +birds of the other sex; and then by the law of heredity, his offspring +are sure to repeat the coloured feathers, till at last a regularly +bright-crested species-arises. In this way _natural variability_, acted +on by the necessities of _environment_ (which cause the _survival of the +fittest_ specimens) and the principle of _heredity_, viz., that the +offspring repeat the features of the parents, aided by the principle of +_sexual selection_, have been the origin and cause of all the species we +see in the world. + +Thus we have an unbroken series--certain substances condensing out of +cosmic vapour, some of them combining to form the variety of rocks, +soils, metals, &c., and others giving rise to protoplasm which grows' +and develops into a thousand shapes and hues, of insect, fish, reptile, +bird, and beast. + +And then it is, that charmed with the completeness and symmetry of such +a theory, and overlooking the difficulties that crop up here and +here--demanding some Power from without to bridge them over--certain +extreme theorists have rushed to the conclusion that in all this there +is no need of any external Creator or Providence--nothing but what we +call secondary causes, ordinary causes which we see at work around us +all day and every day. + +How inconceivable, they add, is the truth of the Book of Genesis, which +asserts the successive creation of fully-formed animals by sudden acts +of command; and all accomplished in a few days at the beginning of the +world's human history! + +This I believe to be a fair outline, though of course a very rough and +general one, of the Theory of Evolution as regards the forms of matter +and living organisms. Now it will at once strike the candid reader, that +even granted the whole of the scheme as stated, there is _nothing_ in it +that has any answer to the objection,--But may I not believe that a wise +Creator conceived and established the whole plan--first creating MATTER +and FORCE, then superadding LIFE at a certain stage, and then drawing +out the type and design according to which everything was to grow and +develop? Is not such a production and such a design the true essence of +Creation? Can all these things happen _without_ such aid? Let us then +look more closely at some of the steps in the evolution just described. +And let us stop at the very beginning--the first term of the series. + +We may agree (in the absence of anything leading to a contrary +conclusion) that matter may first have appeared as a cosmic gas, or +incandescent vapour in space. It is probable, if not certain, that our +earth is a mass that has only cooled down on the surface, the centre +being still hot and to some extent, at any rate, molten; and in the sun +we have the case of an enormous globe surrounded with a _photosphere_, +as it is called--a blaze of incandescent substances, which our +spectroscopes tell us are substances such as we have on earth now in +cooled or condensed condition--iron, oxygen, hydrogen, and other such +forms of matter. + +First of all, how did any _substance_, however vapoury and tenuous, come +to exist, when previously there was nothing? + +If we admit, that there was a time when even cosmic gas did not exist, +then there must have been _an Agent_, whose _fiat_ caused the change. +And as that Agent does not obviously belong to the material order, it +must belong to the spiritual or non-material; for the two orders +together exhaust the possibilities of existence. If, however, it is +urged that "primal matter"--cosmic vapour--containing the "potentiality" +of all existence, is eternal and alway existed of itself, then we are +brought face to face with innumerable difficulties. In the first place, +the existence of matter is not the only difficulty to be got over; not +the only dead-lock along the line. We pass it over and go on for a +time, and then we come to another--the introduction of LIFE. I will not +pause to consider that here; we shall see presently that it is +impossible to regard life as merely a quality or property of matter. +When we have passed that, we have a third stoppage, the introduction of +_Reason_ or _Intelligence_; and then a fourth, the introduction of the +_Spiritual faculties_, which cannot be placed on the same footing as +mere reason. So that to get over the first point, and dispense with a +Cause or a Creator of matter, is of no avail: it is incredible that +there should be no Creator of matter, but that there should be a Creator +of life--an Imparter of reason, an Endower of soul. + +But let us revert to the first stage and look at the nature of MATTER. + + + + +CHAPTER IV. + + +_CREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER._ + +I take as self-evident the enormous difficulty of self-caused, +self-existent matter. And when we see that matter _acting_, not +irregularly or by caprice, but _by law_ (as every class of philosopher +will admit), then it is still further difficult to realize that matter +not only existed as a dead, simple, inactive thing, but existed with a +folded-up history inside it, a long sequence of development--not the +same for all particles, but various for each group: so that one set +proceeded to form the _object_, and another the _environment_ of the +object; or rather that a multitude of sets formed a vast variety of +objects, and another multitude of sets formed a vast variety of +environments. When we see matter acting by law, then if there is no +Creator, we have the to us unthinkable proposition of law without a +lawgiver! + +On the other hand, if we shut out some of the difficulties, keep our eye +on one part of the case only--and that is what the human mind is very +apt to do--we can easily come round to think that, after all, +_elementary_ matter--cosmic gas--is a very _simple_ thing; and looks +really as if no great Power, or Intellect, were required to account for +its origin. After all, some will say, if we grant your great, wise, +beneficent, designing Creator, the finite human mind has as little idea +of a self-existing God, as it has of self-existing matter and +self-existing law. _You_ postulate one great mystery, _we_ postulate two +smaller ones; and the two together really present less "unthinkableness" +to the mind than your one. That is so far plausible, but it is no more. +To believe in a GOD is to believe in One Existence, who necessarily (by +the terms of our conception) has the power both of creating matter, +designing the forms it shall take, and originating the tendencies, +forces, activities--or whatever else we please to call them--which drive +matter in the right direction to get the desired result. To believe not +only that matter caused itself, but that the different forces and +tendencies, and the aims and ends of development, were self-caused, is +surely a much more difficult task. It is the existence of such a +_variety_, it is the existence of a uniform tendency to produce certain +though multitudinous results, that makes the insuperable difficulty of +supposing _matter always developing_ (towards certain ends) to be +self-caused. + +The advocates of "eternal matter" really overcome the difficulty, by +shutting their eyes to everything beyond a part of the problem--the +existence of simple matter apart from any laws, properties, or +affinities. + +But the simplest drop of water, in itself, and apart from its mechanical +relations to other matter, is really a very complex and a very wonderful +thing; not at all likely to be "self-caused." Water is made up, we know, +of oxygen and hydrogen--two elementary colourless, formless gases. Now +we can easily divide the one drop into two, and, without any great +difficulty, the two into four, and (perhaps with the aid of a magnifying +glass) the four into eight, and so on, _as long as_ the minute particle +_still retains the nature of water_. In short, we speak of the smallest +subdivision of which matter is capable without losing its own nature, as +the _molecule_. All matter may be regarded as consisting of a vast mass +of these small molecules. + +Now, we know that all known matter is capable of existing either in a +solid, liquid, or gaseous form, its nature not being changed. Water is +very easily so dealt with. Some substances, it is true, require very +great pressure or very great cold, or both, to alter their form; but +even carbonic acid, oxygen, and hydrogen, which under ordinary +conditions are gases, can with proper appliances be made both liquid and +solid. Pure alcohol, has, I believe, never been made solid, but that is +only because it is so difficult to get a sufficient degree of cold: +there is no doubt that it could be done. + +It might be supposed that the molecules of which dead matter (whether +solid, liquid, or vapourous) is composed, were equally motionless and +structureless. But it is not so: every molecule in its own kind is +endowed with marvellous properties. In the first place, every molecule +has a double capability of motion. In the solid form the molecules are +so packed together that, of course, the motion is excessively +restricted; in the liquid it is a little easier; in the gaseous state +the molecules are in a comparatively "open order." In most substances +that are solid under ordinary conditions, by applying heat continuously +we first liquefy and ultimately vapourize them. In those substances +which under ordinary conditions are _gas_ (like carbonic acid, for +instance), it is by applying cold, with perhaps great pressure as well, +that we induce them to become liquid and solid; in fact, the process is +just reversed. As we can most easily follow the process of heating, I +will describe that. First, the solid (in most cases) gets larger and +larger as it progresses to liquefaction, and when it gets to vapour, it +suddenly expands enormously. Take a rod of soft iron, and reduce it to +freezing temperature: let us suppose that in that condition it measures +just a thousand inches long. Then raise the temperature to 212 degrees +(boiling point), and it will be found to measure 1,012 inches. Why is +that? Obviously, because the molecules have got a little further apart. +If you heat it till the iron gets liquid, the liquid would also occupy +still more space than the original solid rod; and if we had temperature +high enough to make the melted iron go off into vapour, it would occupy +an enormously increased space. I cannot say what it would be for iron +vapour; but if a given volume of water is converted into vapour, it will +occupy about 1,700 times the space it did when liquid, though the weight +would not be altered. + +It may here be worth while to mention that it is not invariably true +that a substance gets contracted, and the molecules more and more +pressed together, as it assumes a solid form. There is at least one +exception. If we take 1,700 pints of steam, the water, as I said, on +becoming cool enough to lose the vapourous form, will shrink into a +measure holding a single pint; if we cooled lower still, it will get +smaller and smaller in bulk (though of course not at all at the same +rate) till it arrives at a point when it is just going to freeze; then +suddenly (7 degrees above the freezing point) it again begins to expand. +Ice occupies more space than cold water; its molecules get arranged in a +particular manner by their crystallization. + +On the admission of an _intelligent_ Creator providing, by beneficent +design, the laws of matter, it is easy to give a reason for this useful +property. It prevents the inhabitants of northern climates being +deprived of a supply of water. As it is, the solid water or ice +expands, and, becoming lighter, forms at the top of the water, and the +heavier warmer water remains below. But if ice always got denser and +sank, the warmer liquid would be perpetually displaced and so come up to +the surface, where it would freeze and sink in its turn. In a short +time, then, all our water supplies would (whenever the temperature went +down to freezing, which it constantly does in winter) be turned into +solid ice. This would be a source of the gravest inconvenience to the +population of a cold climate. If we deny a designing mind, the +alternative is that this property of water is a mere chance. + +But to return to molecules. Molecules are endowed with an inherent +faculty of motion; only under the conditions of what we call the solid, +they are so compressed, that there is no room for any motion appreciable +to the senses. Even if the solid is converted into vapour, the molecules +are still much restrained in their movements by the pressure of the air. +But of late years, great improvements (partly chemical, partly +mechanical) have been made in producing perfect _vacua_; that is to say, +in getting glass or other vessels to be so far empty of air, that the +almost inconceivably small residue in the receptacle has no perceptible +effect on the action of a small quantity of any substance already +reduced to the form of gas or vapour introduced into it. Dr. W. Crookes +has made many beautiful experiments on the behaviour of the molecules of +attenuated matter in _vacua_. The small quantity of vapour introduced +contains only a relatively small number of molecules, which thus freed +from all sensible restraint within the limits of the glass vessel used, +are free to move as they will; they are observed to rush about, to +strike against the sides of the vessel, and under proper conditions to +shine and become _radiant_, and to exhibit extraordinary phenomena when +subjected to currents of electricity. So peculiar is the molecular +action thus set up, that scientific men have been tempted to speak of a +fourth condition of matter (besides the three ordinary ones, solid, +liquid, and gaseous), which they call the ultra-gaseous or radiant state +of matter. + +This marvel of molecular structure seems already to have removed us +sufficiently far from the idea of a simple inert mass, which might be +primordial and self-caused. But we have not yet done. Even imagining the +extreme subdivision[1] of the particles in one of Dr. Crookes' vacuum +globes, the particles are still water. But we know that water is a +compound substance. The molecule has nine parts, of which eight are +hydrogen and one oxygen--because that is the experimentally known +proportion in which oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. As we can +(in the present state of our knowledge) divide no farther, we call these +ultimate fragments of simple or elementary substance _atoms_. + + +[Footnote 1: As to the possibility of _indefinite_ subdivision of +matter, see Sir W. Thomsons's lecture, _Nature_, June, 1883, _et seq._] + + +Every substance, however finely divided into molecules, if it is not a +simple substance, must therefore have, inside the _molecular_ structure, +a further _atomic_ structure. And in the case of unresolvable or +"elementary" substance, the molecule and the atom are not necessarily +the same. For though there is reason to believe that, the molecule of +these does consist, in some cases, of only one atom--in which case the +atom and the molecule are identical; in other cases, the molecule is +known to consist of more than one atom of the same element; and the +atoms are capable of being differently arranged, and when so arranged +have different _properties_ or behaviour, though their nature is not +changed. This property is spoken of by chemists as _allotropism_. No +chemist on earth can detect the slightest difference in _constitution_ +between a molecule of _ozone_ and one _oxygen_; but the two have widely +different properties, or behave very differently. There is thus a great +mystery about atoms and their possible differences under different +arrangement, which is as yet unsolved. Those who wish to get an insight +into the matter (which cannot be pursued farther here) will do well to +read Josiah Cooke's "The New Chemistry," in the International Scientific +Series. The mind is really lost in trying to realize the idea of a +fragment of matter too small for the most powerful microscope, but +existing in fact (because of faultless reasoning from absolutely +conclusive experiments), and yet so constituted that it is +_practically_ a different thing when placed in one position or order, +from what it is when placed in another. + +Turning from this mystery, as yet so obscure, to what is more easily +grasped, we shall hardly be surprised to learn, further, that every kind +of, atom obeys its own laws, and that while atoms of one kind always +have a _tendency to combine_ with atoms of other kinds, it is absolutely +impossible to get them to combine together except on certain conditions. + +The difference between combination and mixture is well known. Shake sand +and sugar in a bag for ever so long, but they will only _mix_, not +_combine_ or form any new substance even with the aid of electric +currents; but place oxygen and hydrogen gas under proper conditions, and +the gases will disappear, and water (in weight exactly equal to the +weight of the volume of gases) will appear in their place. + +It is only certain kinds of atoms that will combine at all with other +kinds; and when they do so combine, they will only unite in absolutely +fixed proportions, so that chemists have been able to assign to every +kind of element its own combining proportion. The substances that will +combine will do so in these proportions, or in proportions of any _even +multiple_ of the number, and in no other. Thus fourteen parts of +nitrogen will combine with sixteen of oxygen; and we have several +substances in nature, called nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitric +di-oxide, &c., which illustrate this, in which fourteen parts of +nitrogen combine with sixteen oxygen or fourteen nitrogen with a +multiple of sixteen oxygen, or a multiple of fourteen nitrogen combine +with sixteen oxygen, and so on. + +See now where we have got to. When we had spoken of a tiny fragment of +primal matter--a drop of water, for instance--it seemed as if there was +no more to be said; but no, we found ourselves able to give a whole +history of the molecules of which the substance consists; and when we +had considered the molecule, we found a further beautiful and intricate +order of _atoms_ inside the molecule, as it were. + +And there is no reason to suppose that science has yet revealed all that +is possible to be known about atoms and molecules; so that if further +wonders should be evoked, the argument will grow and grow in cumulative +force. + +Let me sum up the conclusion to be drawn from these facts in a quotation +from a discourse of Sir John F.W. Herschel. + +"When we see," says that eminent philosopher, "a great number of things +precisely alike, we do not believe this similarity to have originated +except from _a common principle independent of them_; and that we +recognize this likeness, chiefly by the _identity of their deportment +under similar circumstances_ strengthens rather than weakens the +conclusion. + +"A line of spinning jennies, or a regiment of soldiers dressed exactly +alike and going through precisely the same evolutions, gives us no idea +of independent existence: we must see them act out of concert before we +can believe them to have independent wills and properties not impressed +on them from without. + +"And this conclusion, which would be strong even if there were only two +individuals precisely alike in _all_ respects and _for ever_, acquires +irresistible force when their number is multiplied beyond the power of +imagination to conceive. + +"If we mistake not, then, the discoveries alluded to effectually destroy +the ideas of an _eternal_ self-existent matter by giving to each of its +atoms the essential characters at once of a _manufactured_ article and +of a _subordinate agent_." + +In other words, continuing the metaphor of the trained army, we see +millions upon millions of molecules all arranged in regiments, distinct +and separate, and the regiments again made up of companies or +individuals, each obeying his own orders in subordination to, and in +harmony with, the whole: are we not justified in concluding that this +army has not been only called into being by some cause external to +itself; but further, that its constitution has been impressed upon it, +and its equipments and organization directed, by an Infinite +Intelligence? + +There is, then, no such thing to be found in Nature as a simple, +structureless "primal matter" which exhibits nothing tending to make +self-causation or aboriginal existence difficult to conceive. To look at +matter in that light is not only to take into consideration a _part_ of +the case; it is really to take what does not exist, a part that exists +only in the imagination. The simplest form of matter we can deal with, +exhibits within itself all the wondrous plan, law, and sequence of the +molecular and atomic structure we have sketched out; and when we +consider that, having taken matter so far, we have even then only +introduced it to the verge of the universe, ushered it on to the +threshold of a great "aeon," when and where it is to be acted on by +"gravitation" and other forces, to act in relation to other matter, and +to be endowed perhaps with LIFE, we shall feel that the +self-existence--the uncaused existence of matter, and of the principles +on which matter proceeds or acts, is in reality not a less mystery than +the self-existence of a Designing and Intelligent Cause, but one so +great as to be itself "unthinkable." + + + + +CHAPTER V. + + +_THE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER_. + +We now come to _Living_ Matter; directing attention, first, to that +elementary form of life as exhibited in simple protoplasm and in the +lower forms of organism, and then to the perfect forms of bird and +beast. In each case, we shall find the same evidence of Design and +Intelligence, the same proof of "contrivance" and purpose, which we +cannot attribute to the mere action of secondary causes. + +The simplest form in which LIFE is manifested is in a viscid gelatinous +substance without colour or form, called _Protoplasm_. Wherever there is +life there is protoplasm. Protoplasm, as before remarked, lies just +under the bark in trees, and is the material from which the growth of +the wood and bark cells and fibres proceeds. Protoplasm, is also present +in the muscles and in the blood, and wherever growth is going on. + +But protoplasm also exists by itself; or, more properly speaking, there +exist living creatures, both plant and animal, which are so simple in +structure, so low in organization, that they consist of nothing but a +speck of protoplasm. Such a creature is the microscopic _amoeba_. +Sometimes these little specks of protoplasm are surrounded with +beautifully formed "silicious shells--a skeleton of radiating _spiculae_ +or crystal-clear concentric spheres of exquisite symmetry and +beauty.[1]" The simplest _amoeba_ however, has no definite form; but the +little mass moves about, expands and contracts, throws out projections +on one side and draws them in on the other. It exhibits irritability +when touched. It may be seen surrounding a tiny particle of food, +extracting nutriment from it and growing in size. Ultimately the little +body separates or splits up into two, each part thenceforth taking a +separate existence. + + +[Footnote 1: Professor Allman.] + +Now it is claimed that such a little organism contains the potentiality +of all life; that it grows and multiplies, and develops into higher and +higher organisms, into all (in short) that we see in the plant and +animal world around us. This, it is argued, is all done by natural +causes, not by any direction or guidance or intervention of a Divine +agency. + +Here we must stop to ask how this protoplasm, or simplest form of +organic life, came to exist? How did it get its _life_--its property of +taking nourishment, of growing and of giving birth to other creatures +like itself? + +The denier of creation replies, that just in the same way as, by the +laws of affinity, other inanimate substances came together to produce +the earth--salts and other compounds we see in the world around us--so +did certain elements combine to form protoplasm. This combination when +perfected has the property of being alive, just as water has the +property of assuming a solid form or has any other of the qualities +which we speak of as its properties. + +Now it is perfectly true that, treated as a substance, you can take the +gummy protoplasm, put it into a glass and subject it to analysis like +any other substance. But simple as the substance appears, composition is +really very complicated. Professor Allman tells us that so difficult and +wonderful is its chemistry, that in fact really very little is known +about it. The best evidence we have, I believe, makes it tolerably +certain that protoplasm consists of a combination of ammonia, carbonic +acid, and water, and that every molecule of it is made up of 76 atoms, +of which 36 are carbon, 26 hydrogen, 4 nitrogen, and 10 oxygen.[1] + +But no chemist has ever been able either to account theoretically for +such a composition, still less to produce it artificially. It is urged, +however, that it may be only due to our clumsy apparatus and still very +imperfect knowledge of chemistry, that we were unable artificially to +make up protoplasm. + + +[Footnote 1: Nicholson ("Zoology," p. 4) gives for Albumen, which is +nearly identical with protoplasm--Carbon, 144; Hydrogen, 110; Nitrogen, +18; Oxygen, 42; Sulphur, 2. These figures nearly equal those in the +text, being those figures multiplied each by 4 (approximately) and +without the trace of sulphur.] + +And of course there is no answer to a supposition of this sort. +Nevertheless there is no sort of reason to believe that protoplasm will +ever be made; nor, if we could succeed in uniting the elements into a +form resembling protoplasmic jelly, is there the least reason to suppose +that such a composition would exhibit the irritability, or the powers of +nutrition and reproduction, which are essentially the characteristics of +_living_ protoplasm. It is not too much to say that, after the close of +the controversy about spontaneous generation, it is now a universally +admitted principle of science that life can only proceed from life--the +old _omne vivum ex ovo_ in a modern form.[1] + +But here the same sort of argument that was brought forward regarding +the possibility of matter and its laws being self-caused, comes in as +regards life. + + +[Footnote 1: _See_ "Critiques and Addresses," T.H. Huxley, F.R.S., +p. 239. So much is this the case, that it is really superfluous, however +interesting, to recall the experiments of Dr. Tyndall and others, which +finally demonstrated that wherever primal animal forms, bacteria and +other, "microbes," were produced in infusions of hay, turnip, &c., +apparently boiled and sterilized and then hermetically sealed, there +were really germs in the air enclosed in the vessel, or germs that in +one form or another were not destroyed by the boiling or heating. Dr. +Bastian's argument for spontaneous generation is thus completely +overthrown. _(See_ Drummond, "Natural Law," pp. 62-63.)] + +The argument in the most direct form was made use of by Professor +Huxley, but it is difficult to believe that so powerful a thinker could +seriously hold to a view which will not bear examination, however neatly +and brilliantly it may go off when first launched into the air. The +argument is that life can only be regarded as a further property of +certain forms of matter. Oxygen and hydrogen, when they combine, result +in a new substance, quite unlike either of them in character, and +possessing _new_ and different properties. The way in which the +combination is effected is a mystery, yet we do not account for the new +and peculiar properties of water (so different from those of the +original gases) as arising from a principle of "aquosity," which we have +to invoke from another world. The answer is that the argument is from +analogy, and that there is not really the remotest analogy between the +two cases. It is true that, as far as we know, electricity is necessary +to force a combination of the requisite equivalents of oxygen and +hydrogen into water. But though we do not know why this is, or what +electricity is, we can repeat the process as often as we will. But mark +the difference; the water once existing is obviously only a new form of +matter, in the same category with the gases it came from: it neither +increases in bulk, nor takes in fresh elements to grow, and give birth +to new drops of water. But protoplasm has something quite different--for +there may be dead protoplasm and living protoplasm, both identical to +the eye and to every chemical test. In either condition, protoplasm, as +such, has _properties_ of the same nature (though not of the same kind) +as those of water, oxygen gas, or any other matter; it is colorless, +heavy, sticky, elastic, and so forth; but besides all that (without the +aid of electricity or any physical force we can apply) one has the power +of producing more protoplasm--gathering for itself, by virtue of its +inherent power, the materials for growth and reproduction. + +If directly water was called into existence it could take in +nourishment, and divide and go on producing more water--and if some +water could do this, while other water (which no available test could +distinguish from it in any other respect) could not, then we _should_ be +perfectly justified in giving a special name to this power, and calling +it "aquosity" or "vitality" or anything else, it being out of all +analogy to anything else which we call a "property" of matter. + +In the introduction of LIFE into the _aeon_ of organic developmental +history, we have a clear and distinct period, as we had when _matter_ +came into view, or when _the change_ was ushered in which set the cosmic +gas cooling and liquefying, and turning to solid in various form. + +The fact is that every organic form, whether plant or animal, derived +from the protoplasmic compounds of carbon-dixoide, ammonia and water, +is, as Mr. Drummond puts it,[1] "made of materials which have once been +inorganic. An organizing principle, not belonging to their kingdom, lays +hold of them and elaborates them." + + +[Footnote 1: "Natural Law," p. 233.] + +Thus by the introduction of LIFE we have a vastly enlarged horizon. +Before, in the organic world, we had only the "principle" of solidifying +or crystallizing, liquefying, and turning to gas or vapour, ever +stopping when the state was attained. Or if a combination was in +progress, still the result was only a rearrangement of the same bulk of +materials (however new the form) in solid, liquid, or gas, but no +increase, no nutrition, no reproduction. In the organic world we have +something so different, that whether we talk of "property" or +"principle," the things are entirely distinct. + +The essential difference, stated as regards the mere facts of +irritability or motion, nutrition and reproduction, is so grandly +sufficient in itself, that one almost regrets to have to add on the +other facts which further emphasize the distinction between _life_ and +any _property_ of matter. But these further facts are highly important +as regards another part of the argument. For while what has just been +said almost demonstrates the necessity of a Giver of Life from a kingdom +outside the organic, the further facts point irresistibly to the +conclusion that we must predicate more about the Giver of Life that we +can of an abstract and unknown Cause. + +The original protoplasm, when dead, is undistinguishable by the eye, by +chemical test, or by the microscope, from the same protoplasm when +living; and living protoplasm, again, may be either animal or vegetable. +Both are in every respect (externally) absolutely identical. Yet the one +will only develop into a _plant_, the other only into an _animal._ Nor +does it diminish the significance of the fact to say that the +differentiation is _now_ fixed by heredity. If we suppose protoplasm to +be only a fortuitous combination of elements, what secondary or common +natural cause will account for its acquisition of the fixed difference? +It is true that some forms of plants exhibit some functions that closely +approach the functions of what we call animal life; but, as we shall see +presently, there is no evidence whatever that there is any bridge +between the two--we have no proof that a plant ever develops into an +animal. Here is one of the gaps which the theory of Evolution, true as +it is to a certain extent, cannot bridge over; and we must not overlook +the fact. We shall revert to it hereafter. + +Can it be believed, then, that protoplasm, as the origin of life, is +self-caused, and self-developed? And this is not all. I must briefly +remind my readers that the way in which animal protoplasm deals with the +elements of nutrition is quite opposite to that which plant protoplasm +follows. I might, indeed, have mentioned this at an earlier stage, when +I mentioned Professor Huxley's comparison of the chemical action in the +formation of water with what he assumed to be the case in the formation +of protoplasm. When water is formed, the two gases disappear, and an +_exactly equal weight_ of water appears in their place; but if living +protoplasm is enabled to imbibe liquid or other nutriment containing +ammonia, water, and carbonic acid, there is no disappearance of the +three elements and an equivalent weight of living protoplasm appearing +in its place. Protoplasm consumes the oxygen and sets free the carbonic +acid. Both kinds of protoplasm do this, until exposed to the light; and +then a difference is observed; for under the influence of light, animal +protoplasm alone continues to act in this way, and vegetable protoplasm +begins at once to develop little green bodies or corpuscles in its +cells, and afterwards acts in a totally opposite way, taking the carbon +into its substance and giving off the oxygen.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: Certain _fungi_ seem to afford an exception to this. The +above is, I believe, true as a theoretical action of plants and animals +in protoplasmic form. But practically, in all higher developments of +either kind, other distinctions come into play; e.g., that plants can +make use of inorganic matter, gases, and water, and elaborate them into +organic matter. Animals cannot do this, they require more or less solid +food--always requiring "complex organic bodies which they ultimately +reduce to much simpler inorganic bodies. They are thus mediately or +immediately dependent on plants for their subsistence" (Nicholson, +"Zoology," 6th ed. p. 17). It is perhaps with reference to this that in +the Book of Genesis the Creator is represented as giving _plant_ life to +the service of man and animals--while nothing is said of the preying of +_Carnivora_ and _Insectivora_ on animal life.] + +Not only then has each kind of protoplasm its own mysterious character +impressed on it, and is compelled to act in a certain way; but still +further, each particle of animal and vegetable protoplasm, when directed +into its _general_ course of development as _plant or animal_, will +again only obey a certain course of development in its own line. + +But we must proceed a step further; for those who would believe in the +sufficiency of unaided Evolution, bid us bear in mind how very +elementary the dawn of instinct or the beginning of reason is in the +lowest forms which are classed as animal, and how very small is the +gap[1] between some highly organized plants and some animal forms, and +argue therefore that they may justly regard the distinction as of minor +importance, and hope that the "missing link" will be yet discovered and +proved. At any rate, they minimize the difference, and urge that it is +of no account if at least they can establish the sufficiency of a proved +development extending unbroken from the lowest to the highest animal +form. And having fixed attention on this side, no doubt there is a long +stretch of smooth water over which the passage is unchecked. + + +[Footnote 1: At the risk of repetition I will remind the reader that +nature contains _nothing like_ a progressive scale from plant to animal. +It is _never_ that the highest plant can be connected with the lowest +animal as in one series of links. The animal kingdom and the plant +kingdom are absolutely apart. Both start from similar elementary +proteinaceous structures; and both preserve their development +upwards--each exhibiting _some_ of the features of the other. It is at +the bottom of each scale that resemblance is to be found, _not_ between +the top of one and the lowest members of the other.] + +The Evolution theory is that all the different species of animals, +birds, and other forms of life have been caused by the accumulation and +perpetuation of numerous small changes which began in one or at most a +few elementary forms, and went on till all the thousands of species we +now know of were developed.[1] It _is_ a fact that all organic forms +have a certain tendency to vary. I need only allude to the many +varieties of pigeons, horses, cattle, and dogs which are produced by +varying the food, the circumstances of life and so forth, and by +selective breeding. + +The contention then is: given certain original simple forms of life, +probably marine or aquatic--for it is in the water that the most likely +occur--these will gradually change and vary, some in one direction, some +in another; that the changes go on increasing, each creature giving +birth to offspring which exhibits the stored-up results of change, till +the varied and finished forms--some reptile, some bird, some +animal--which we now see around us, have been produced. And at last man +himself was developed in the same way. All this, observe, is by the +action of just such ordinary and natural causes as we now see operating +around us--changes in food and in climate, changes in one part requiring +a corresponding change in others, and so on. + + +[Footnote 1: The reader may find this admirably put in Wallace, +"Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection," p. 302.] + +Nature contains no sharply drawn lines. Plants are different from +animals; but there are animals so low down in the scale of life that it +is difficult to distinguish them from plants. Pigeons are distinct from +pheasants, but the line at which the one species ends and the other +begins is difficult to draw. This fact seems to invite some theory of +one form changing into other. Accordingly the evolutionist explains the +working of the process which he asserts to be sufficient to produce all +the various forms of life in our globe. + +After stating this more in detail than we have previously done, we shall +be in a better position to judge if the process (which in the main we +have no desire to deny or even to question) can dispense with _guidance_ +and the fixing of certain lines and limits within which, and of certain +types towards which, the development proceeds. That is our point. + +It is hardly necessary to illustrate the enormous destruction of life +which goes on in the world. Even among the human race, the percentage of +infants that die in the first months of their life is very large. But in +the lower forms of life it is truly enormous. Only consider the myriads +of insects that perish from hunger or accident, and from the preying of +one species on another. If it were not so, the world would be overrun by +plagues of mice, of birds, of insects of all kinds, and indeed by +creatures of every grade. The term "struggle for existence" is, then, +not an inapt one. All forms of living creatures have to contend with +enemies which seek to prey upon or to destroy them, with the difficulty +of obtaining food, and with what I may call the chances of +nature--cold, storms, floods, disease, and so forth. + +Now, it is obvious that if some creatures of a given kind possess some +accidental peculiarity or modification in their formation which gives +them (in one way or another) an advantage over their fellows, these +improved specimens are likely to survive, and, surviving, to have +offspring. + +It is this perpetuation of advantageous changes, originally induced by +the circumstances of environment, that is indicated by the term "natural +selection." Nature chooses out the form best suited to the circumstances +which surround it, and this form lives while the others die out. And +this form goes on improving by slow successive changes, which make it +more and more fit for the continually changing circumstances of its +life. + +Subordinate also to this natural selection is the principle that bright +colour and other special qualities may be developed in the males of a +race, because individuals with such advantages are more attractive, and +therefore more easily find mates, than dull-coloured or otherwise less +attractive individuals. + +Of each of these principles I may give a simple example. Supposing a +species of bird with a soft slender beak to be placed on an island, +where the only food they could obtain was fruit enclosed in a hard or +tough shell or covering. Supposing some birds accidentally possessed of +a beak that was shorter and stouter than the others', these would be +able to break open the shell and get at the fruit, while the others +would starve. Some of the descendants of the birds with the stout beaks +would inherit the same peculiarity, and in the course of several +generations there would thus arise a species with short and strong, +perhaps curved, beaks just fitted to live on fruits of the kind +described. In a similar way the webbed feet of birds that swim were +developed by their aquatic habits. And so with the long slender toes of +the waders, which are so well fitted for walking over floating aquatic +plants. + +Of the other principle, sexual selection, a familiar example is the +bright and showy colouring of the male birds of many species: the +females of their species, as they need protection while helplessly +sitting on their eggs, are dull-coloured like the bark of trees or the +sand, among which their nests lie hid. + +Some of the Himalayan pheasants exhibit this peculiarity to a marked +degree. Originally, it is said, the male bird, which was more brightly +coloured than the rest, got mated more easily by the preference shown to +him for his bright colour. + +The question is, can we suppose all this to go on, by self-caused laws +and concurrence of circumstances, without a pre-existing design for the +forms to reach or an external guidance in the processes? + + + + +CHAPTER VI. + + +_THE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION OF ORGANIC FORMS_. + +The heading of this chapter does not mark a new departure, for we have +been tracing existing forms of matter from the first, and have already +seen the necessity of believing in Creative Intelligence and Guidance. +We have seen that inorganic matter, with what we call its molecular or +atomic structure, cannot be reasonably regarded as self-caused; and we +have concluded with Sir J.F.W. Herschell that the sight of such a +well-arranged army, performing its evolutions in a regular and uniform +manner, irresistibly suggests a great Commander and Designer. We have +further found that the advent of LIFE demands a Power _ab extra_. We +have called attention to the gap, between plant and animal, which is +ignored or made light of, chiefly on account of the close approach of +the two kingdoms. But there is one broad distinction, namely, that of +elementary reason and no reason, or of consciousness and +unconsciousness, which is, in itself, a sufficient difficulty to pull +us up shortly. We have not yet fully considered this matter, because it +will come more appropriately at a later stage, and in the _a fortiori_ +form. But we have justly noted it here. We cannot account for the most +elementary reason by any physical change; there is no analogy between +the two. The connection of mind and matter is unexplainable; and no +theory of development of physical form can say why, at any given stage, +physical development begins to be accompanied by brain-power and +_consciousness_. Admit candidly that the addition of intelligence at a +certain stage, however mysteriously interwoven with structural +accompaniments, is a gift _ab extra_, and we have at least a reasonable +and so far satisfactory explanation. + +But when we have got an animal form, however simple and elementary, with +at least a recognizable "potentiality" of intelligence, we enter, as I +said, a long stretch of apparently smooth water, over which, for an +important part of our passage, we seem able to glide without any +difficulty from the necessary intervention of the so-called +supernatural. I have, then, to show that even here there is really no +possibility of dispensing with a Creator who has a purpose, a designed +scheme, and a series of type-forms to be complied with. + +In order to fully exhaust the question how far natural selection is +capable of accounting for everything, it would be necessary to take a +very wide view of natural history and botany, which it is quite +impossible for us to attempt. But this is not necessary for our purpose. +We are perfectly justified in selecting certain topics which must arise +in the discussion. If, in studying these points, we find that _there_ at +least the intervention of a Controlling Power becomes necessary, and the +absence of it leaves things without any reasonable explanation, then we +shall have good and logical ground for holding to our faith in the +universal presence of such a Power. No chain is stronger than its +weakest link. If secondary causes cannot succeed at any one part of the +chain, it is obvious that they fail as a universal explanation. + +This part of the work has already been done far better than I could do +it. In the first eight chapters of Mivart's "Genesis of Species" [1] the +argument has been ably and clearly put, and whatever answer is possible +has been given by Darwin and others; so that the world may judge. All +that can here be usefully attempted, is, by way of reminder, to +reproduce some main topics on which no real answer has been given. These +are selected, partly because they are less abstruse and difficult to +follow than some which might be dealt with, partly because they are +calculated to awaken our interest, and partly because the conclusion in +favour of a continual Providence; working through organized law and +system, appears to follow most clearly from them. + + +[Footnote 1: Second Edition, 1871.] + +The points I would call attention to are the following:-- + +(I) That as natural selection will only maintain changes that have been +_beneficial_ to the creature, it is contrary to such a law, if acting +entirely by itself, that that there should be developments (not being +mere accidental deformities, &c.) disadvantageous to the creature. And +yet the world is full of such. + +(2) That there are forms which cannot be accounted for on the +evolutionist supposition, that they were gradually obtained by a series +of small changes slowly progressing towards a perfect structure. They +would be of no use at all unless produced _at once and complete_. + +(3) That natural selection, as apart from a Divine Designer, altogether +fails to account for _beauty_, as distinguished from mere brilliancy or +conspicuousness, in nature. Whereas, if we suppose the existence of a +beneficent Creator, who has moral objects in view, and cares for the +delight and the improvement of His creatures,[1] and looking to the +known effects on the mind of beauty in art and in nature, the existence +is at once and beyond all cavil explained. + + +[Footnote 1: "He hath made everything _beautiful_ in his time" (Eccles. +iii. II).] + +(4) That we have positive evidence against _uncontrolled_ evolution +(uncontrolled by set plan and design i.e.) and a strong presumption in +favour of the existence of created _types_; so that evolution proceeds +towards these types by aid of natural laws and forces working together +(in a way that our limited faculties necessarily fail to grasp +adequately);[1] and so that, the type once reached, a certain degree of +variation, but never _transgression_ of _the type_, is possible. +Further, that on this supposition we are able to account for some of the +unexplained facts in evolutionary history, such as _reversion_ and the +_sterility of hybrids_; and to see why there are gaps which cannot be +bridged over, and which by extreme theorists are only feebly accounted +for on the supposition that as discovery progresses they _will_ be +bridged over some day. + + +[Footnote 1: "Also He hath set the world in their heart, so that _no man +can find out the work that God maketh_ from the beginning to the end" +(Eccles. iii II).] + +(5) Lastly, that there is no possibility of giving _time_ enough on any +possible theory of the world's existence, for the evolution of all +species, unless _some_ reasonable theory of creative arrangement and +design be admitted. + +The great objection--the descent of man and the introduction of reason, +consciousness, and so forth, into the world, will then form two separate +chapters, concluding the first division of my subject. + +There is one point which the reader may be surprised to see omitted. It +is, that if these slow changes were always going on, why is not the +present world full of, and the fossil-bearing rocks also abounding in, +_intermediate forms_, creatures which _are on their way_ to being +something else? But there are reasons to be given on this ground which +make the subject a less definite one for treatment. It is said, for +example, that in the fossil rocks we have only such scanty and +fragmentary records, that it is not possible to draw a complete +inference, and that there is always the possibility of fresh discoveries +being made. Such discoveries have, it is asserted, already been made in +the miocene and again in later rocks; different species of an early form +of _horse_ which are (and this we may admit) the ancestral or +intermediate forms of our own horse, have been found. I therefore would +not press the difficulty, great as it is, because of the escape which +the hope of future discovery always affords. I will take this +opportunity to repeat that in this chapter I say nothing about the +difficulty which arises from the introduction of elementary reason or +instinct, and of consciousness, into the scale of organic being; that +will more appropriately fall in with the consideration of the +development of man, where naturally the difficulty occurs with its +greatest force. + +(1) I come at once to the great difficulty that, if all existing forms +are due to the occurrence of changes that helped the creature in the +struggle for existence, how is it possible now to account for forms +which are not advantageous? yet such forms are numerous. Of this +objection, the existence of imperfect or neuter bees and ants is an +instance. The modification in form which these creatures exhibit is of +no advantage to them. It _is_ a great advantage, no doubt, to the other +bees; but then this introduces a view of some power _making_ one thing +for the benefit of another, not a change in the form itself adapted of +course to its _own_ advantage--since natural laws, forces, and +conditions of environment could not conceivably _design_ the advantage +of another form, and cause one to change for the benefit of that other. + +Why is it, again, that crabs and crayfish can only grow by casting off +their shells, during which process they often die, as well as remain +exposed defenceless to the attacks of enemies? Why should stags shed +their horns also, leaving them defenceless for a time? Other animals do +not do so, and there is nothing in the nature of the horn which requires +it. + +This brief allusion is here sufficient. Mr. Mivart's work gives it at +large. + +(2) Passing next to the question of the advantage of _incomplete +stages_--portions of a mechanism only useful when complete, the most +striking examples may be found in the Vegetable kingdom. The +fertilization of flowering plants is effected by the pollen, a yellow +dust formed in the anthers, which is carried from flower to flower. In +the pines and oaks, this is done by the wind. But in other cases insects +visit a flower to get the honey, and in so doing get covered with +pollen, which they carry away and leave in the next flower visited. Now +one of our commonest and most useful plants, the red clover, is so +constructed that it can only be fertilized by humble bees. If this bee +became extinct, the plant would die out; how can such a development be +advantageous to it? + +But the contrivances by which this process of fertilization is secured +are so marvellous, that I confess I am completely staggered by the idea +that these contrivances have been caused by the self-growth and +adaptation of the plant without guidance. There is a plant called +_Salvia glutinosa_[1]--easily recognized by its sticky calyx and pale +yellow flowers. The anthers that bear the pollen are hidden far back in +the hood of the flower, so that the pollen can neither fall nor can the +wind carry it away; but the two anthers are supported on a sort of +spring, and directly a bee goes to the flower and pushes in his head to +get the honey, the spring is depressed and both anthers start forward, +of course depositing their pollen on the hairy back of the bee, which +carries it to the stigma of the next flower. This process can be tested +without waiting for a bee, by pushing a bit of stick into the flower, +when the curious action described will be observed. It is very easy to +say that this admirable mechanical contrivance is of great use to the +plant _in its complete_ form; but try and imagine what use an +intermediate form would have been! If development at once proceeded to +the complete form, surely this marks _design_; if not, no partial step +towards it would have been of any use, and therefore would not have been +inherited and perpetuated so as to prepare for further completion. But +many other plants have a structure so marvellous that this objection is +continually applicable. Let me only recall one other case, that of the +orchid, called _Coryanthes macrantha_. In this flower there are two +little horns, which secrete a pure water, or rather water mixed with +honey. The lower part of the flower consists of a long lip, the end of +which is bent into the form of a bucket hanging below the horns. This +bucket catches the nectar as it drops, and is furnished with a spout +over which the liquid trickles when it is too full. But the mouth of the +bucket is guarded by a curiously ridged cover with two openings, one on +each side. The most ingenious man, says Mr. Darwin, would never by +himself make out what this elaborate arrangement was intended for. It +was at last discovered. Large humble bees were seen visiting the flower; +by way of getting at the honey, they set to work to gnaw off the ridges +of the lid above alluded to; in doing this they pushed one another into +the bucket, and had to crawl out by the spout. As they passed out by +this narrow aperture, they had to rub against the anthers and so carried +off the pollen. When a bee so charged gets into another bucket, or into +the same bucket a second time, and has to crawl out, he brushes against +the stigma, and leaves the pollen on it. I might well have adduced this +plant as another instance of the first objection, since it may well be +asked, How could such a development, resulting in a structure which +presents the greatest difficulty in the way of fertilization, be +beneficial to the plant? But here the point is that, even if any one +could assert the utility of such an elaborate and complicated +development, and suppose it self-caused by accident or effect of +environment, it certainly goes against the idea that all forms are due +to an _accumulation of small changes_. For these curious contrivances in +the case of _Salvia, Coryanthes_, and other plants, would in any case +have been no use to the plant till the whole machinery _was complete_. +Now, on the theory of slow changes gradually accumulating till the +complete result was attained, there must have been generation after +generation of plants, in which the machinery was as yet imperfect and +only partly built up. But in such incomplete stages, fertilization would +have been impossible, and therefore the plant must have died out. Just +the same with the curious fly-trap in _Dionoea_. Whatever may be its +benefit to the plant, till the whole apparatus as it now is, was +_complete_, it would have been of no use. In the animal kingdom also, +instances might be given: the giraffe has a long neck which is an +advantage in getting food that other animals cannot reach; but what +would have been the use of a neck which was becoming--and had not yet +become--long? here intermediate stages would not have been useful, and +therefore could not have been preserved.[2] In flat fishes it is curious +that, though they are born with eyes on different sides of the head, the +lower eye gradually grows round to the upper-side. As remarked by Mr. +Mivart, natural selection could not have produced this change, since the +_first steps towards it_ could have been of no possible use, and could +not therefore have occurred, at least not without direction and guidance +from without. Mr. Darwin's explanation of the case does not touch this +difficulty. + + +[Footnote 1: This species was instanced because the lectures which form +the basis of the book were originally delivered at Simla, in the N.W. +Himalaya, where, at certain seasons, the plant is a common wayside weed. +Mr. Darwin notices a similar and, if possible, more curious structure in +a species of _Catasetum_.] + +[Footnote 2: See this fully explained by Mivart, "Genesis of Species," +pp. 29, 30 (2nd edition).] + +(3) The third point, the occurrence of so much _beauty_ in organic life, +is perhaps one of the most conclusive arguments for design in nature. + +Here, if possible, more clearly than elsewhere, I see a total failure of +"natural causes." We are told that the beauty of birds (for instance) is +easily accounted for by the fact, that the ornamented and beautiful +males are preferred by the other sex; and that this is an advantage, so +the beauty has been perpetuated; and the same with butterflies and +beetles. + +We are told also that bright-coloured fruits attract birds, who eat the +soft parts of the fruit and swallow the hard stone or seed which is thus +prepared for germination, and carried about and dispersed over the +earth's surface. Again, showy coloured flowers attract insects, which +carry away pollen and fertilize other flowers. + +All this is perfectly true; but it entirely fails to go far enough to +meet the difficulty. + +Now passing over such difficulties as the fact that bright colours in +flowers _do not_ attract insects in many cases, but much more +inconspicuous flowers if they have a scent (mignonette, for example) +_do_; passing over such a fact as that afforded by the violet, which (as +some may not be aware) has two kinds of flower, one scented and of a +beautiful colour, the other green and inconspicuous, and it is the +_latter, not the former_ which is usually fertile;--passing over all +detailed difficulties of this kind, I allude only to the one great one, +that in all these cases, besides mere bright colour, conspicuousness or +showiness, there is a great and wonderful beauty of pattern, design, or +colour arrangement, in nature. Now there is not a particle of evidence +to show that any animal has, to the smallest extent, a _sense of +beauty_. On the contrary it is most improbable. The sense of artistic +beauty is not only peculiar to man, but only exists in him when +civilized and cultivated. Uneducated people among ourselves have no +sense of landscape and other beauty. How then can it exist in animals? + +If there was nothing to explain but a uniform bright and showy colour, +natural selection might be sufficient to account for it. How is it, +then, that this is not the case? We have not only colour, but colour +diversified in the most elaborate and charming manner. Look at the +exquisite patterns on a butterfly's wing! look at the various delicate +arrangements of colour and pattern in flowers; or look again at the +arrangement of colour on a humming-bird--sometimes the tail, sometimes +the breast is ornamented, sometimes a splendid crest covers the head, +sometimes a jewelled gorget or ruff surrounds the throat; and these are +not uniformly coloured, but exhibit metallic and other changes of lustre +not to be imitated by the highest art. But to fully realize this, I had +best refer to a more familiar instance. Let any one examine--as an +object very easily procurable in these days--a peacock's feather. No +doubt the whole tail when expanded is very brilliant; but look closely +at the structure of a single feather; is all this arrangement needed +only to make the tail bright or conspicuous? Observe how wonderfully the +outer parts are varied; part has a metallic lustre of copper, part has +this also shot with green: then there is a delicate ring of violet with +a double yellowish border, all quite distinct from the inmost gorgeous +"eye" of green, blue, and black, and all arranged on the same feather! + +Take, again, the so-called diamond beetle of Brazil; here the wing case +is black studded all over with little pits or specks, which as a whole +only give it a powdery pale-green colour; but place it in the sunlight +and look at it with a magnifying glass--each little speck is seen to be +furnished with a set of minute metallic scales showing green and red +flashes like so many diamonds. How does such a delicate ornament answer +the demands of mere conspicuousness? + +But there is a stronger case than this. I before alluded to the +exquisite symmetry of the silicious and crystalline coverings of some of +the simplest forms of marine animalcules; and also I may here add the +beautiful colouring of _shells_ sometimes on the _inside_.[1] In what +possible way would this beauty serve for any purely _useful_ purpose? + + +[Footnote 1: See Mivart, p. 61.] + +Lastly, how are we to account for the beauty of autumnal tints in woods, +or coloured _leaves_ in plants such as the _Caladium_? The beauty is of +no conceivable use to the plant. + +"In Canada the colours of the autumn forest are notorious. Even on +cloudy days the hue of the foliage is of so intense a yellow that the +light thrown from the trees creates the impression of bright sunshine, +each leaf presents a point of sparkling gold. But the colours of the +leafy landscape change and intermingle from day to day, until pink, +lilac, vermilion, purple, deep indigo and brown, present a combination +of beauty that must be seen to be realized; for no artist has yet been +able to represent, nor can the imagination picture to itself, the +gorgeous spectacle.[1]" + +Have we not here an exhibition which cannot be accounted for on any +principle of natural utility? + + +[Footnote 1: "Quarterly Review," 1861, p. 20.] + +(4) The fourth point, as previously stated, will be best treated by +stating beforehand what is the conclusion come to, and then justifying +it. My suggestion is that if we suppose a continuous evolution without a +series of designs prescribed before life began to develop, and without +any external guidance, then we are lost in difficulties. We cannot +account for why variation should set in in the very different ways it +does, nor why such a vast variety of divergent results should be +produced. We cannot account for the tendency to reversion to a previous +type, when artificial or accidental variation is not continually +maintained,[1] nor for the sterility of hybrids; nor, above all, for +evolution performing such freaks (if I may so say) as the origination of +our small finches and the tropical humming-birds from earlier +vertebrates through the Mesozoic reptiles, the pterodactyles, +_Odontornithes_ and subsequent forms. Supposing that the Almighty +Designer created a complete _cosmos_ of (1) the starry heavens and the +planetary system, (2) then a scheme whereby earth and water were to be +duly distributed over our planet; (3) established the relations by +which the external heavenly bodies were to regulate our seasons, tides, +and times (as we know they do). (4) Suppose, further, that the Designer +did not make "out of nothing" the series of finally developed animals as +we now have them, but "made the animals make themselves"--that is to +say, created the type, the ideal form, and adapted the laws and forces +which constitute environment, so that development of form should go on +regularly towards the appointed end, but in separate and appropriate +channels, each terminating when its object had been attained. Suppose +these conditions (which, as we shall afterwards see, are what +Revelation, fairly interpreted, declares) to exist; all the known +_facts_, and also the fairly certain _inferences_ of Evolution, are then +accounted for. + + +[Footnote 1: Pigeon fanciers know that when they have once obtained, by +crossbreeding and selection, a particular form or feather, the utmost +care is needed to preserve it. If the parents are not selected the +progeny wilt gradually revert towards the original wild pigeon type.] + +We have neither by revelation nor physical discovery an exact _scheme_ +of all the types, nor which of the elementary forms were destined to +remain unchanged throughout. But some scheme of created types we surely +have. Whether what we call _species_[1] are all types or not, we cannot +say; probably not. All we can be sure of is that there are definite +lines somewhere. We see the sterility of some hybrids, for instance, +which would seem to indicate that while some forms can conjugate and +their offspring remain fertile, others (approaching, as it were, the +verge of separation) give rise to hybrids which are or not absolutely +sterile,[2] according as they approach, or are more remote from, the +designed barrier-line. And at that point the separation is insuperable. +Certain forms of _Carnivora_ and _Ungulata_ seem to be for ever +apart--not only the two great orders, but even subdivisions within them. +Reptiles and birds, on the other hand, unlike as they at first sight +seem, have no type line drawn to separate them; that, at least, is one +of the more recent conclusions of biological science. + + +[Footnote 1: It should be borne in mind that what we call a _species_ as +distinct from a mere variety, is a more or less arbitrary or provisional +thing dependent on the state of science for the time. Species are +constantly being lumped together by some and separated by others. It +follows most probably, that while some species are really types--i.e., +one can never pass into the other and lose its essentials, unless it is +destined to disappear (like the pterodactyle), not being wanted in the +whole scheme--other species are really only varieties, and maybe lost or +modified without limit.] + +[Footnote 2: We may well regard the mule as a peculiar form just such as +the evolutionist would rejoice to see: here is a modified species, which +has qualities different from those of either of the parent stock, and +well fitted "to struggle for existence." Yet this modified race would, +if left to itself, die out.] + +In other cases where variation has occurred, and especially when it is +artificially--i.e., by the aid of selective breeding--caused or +favoured, there is the constant tendency to _revert_, which is at once +intelligible if there is a type scheme to be maintained. + +If there were a series of created types, there may naturally have been +what I may call sub-types; which would be certain well-marked stages on +the way to the final form. Such sub-type forms would naturally occur at +different ages, and being marked would show their place in the scale, +and their connection with the ultimate perfect form. Such a possibility +would exactly account for the series of _Eohippus, Hipparion_, and +horse, which we have already instanced; and still more so for the rise +and disappearance of the great Mesozoic Saurians when their object was +fulfilled. Deny guidance and type, and everything becomes confused. Why +should variation take certain directions? how comes it that natural +forces and conditions of life so occur and co-operate as to produce the +variety of changes needed? + +And there is also one other general objection which I desire to state. + +Why should _development_ have gone in different directions _towards the +same object_? I grant that different circumstances would produce +different changes, but not for the same purpose. For example take +eye-sight. The world shows several types of eye. The _insect_ eye quite +unlike any other; the crustacean eye also distinct; and birds, fishes, +and animals having an eye which is generally similar and is somewhat +imitated by the eye of the _cuttle fish_ (which is not a _fish_, but a +_cephalopod_). + +Again, granted that _poison_ is a useful defence to creatures: how is it +given so differently?--to a serpent in the tooth; to a bee or a scorpion +in the tail; to a spider in a specially adapted _antenna_, and to the +centipede in a pair of modified legs on the _thorax_. + +One would have supposed that natural causes tending to produce poison +weapons would have all gone on the same lines. And, curiously, in some +few cases, we have a sameness of line. About twelve species--all +fish--have an electric apparatus, familiar to most of us in the flat +sea-fish called _Torpedo_ and in the fresh-water eel called _Gymnotus_. +The only answer the anti-creationist can give to this dissimilarity of +development is that there are many vacant places in the polity of +nature, and that development takes place in that direction which fits +the creature to occupy a vacant place, and is, therefore, diverse. + +It seems to me that this--the only answer that can he given--is +necessarily a modified form or mode _of creation._ How can _natural +causes_ know anything about a polity of nature and a vacant place, here +and there, so that the creature must develop in one way or another to +fill it? + +Another set of cases is the production of similar functional results by +most diverse means, as in the case of flying animals, birds, +pterodactyles, and bats; here there is a widely different modification +of the fore-arm and other bones, all for the same purpose. The reader +will do well to refer to Mr. Mivart's book on this subject. + +Again, the question of types seems to be pointed to in the curious fact +of what I may call the double development of birds from reptiles. Mr. +Mivart says, "If one set of birds sprang from one set of reptiles and +another set from another set of reptiles, the two sets could never by +'natural selection' only have grown into such perfect similarity." Yet +we can trace the _Struthious_ birds (those that, like ostriches, do not +fly) through the Dinosaurs and _Dinornis_, and the flying Carinate birds +though pterodactyles, _Archaeopteryx_, and _Icthyornis_, &c. + +It might well be added to this part of the subject, that granted that +developmental changes were often small, that progress was attained +little by little, this does not appear to have been always the case. + +The discoveries of the fossil species of horse,[1] _Eohippus, +Hipparion_, and so forth, clearly establish a developmental series, and +the ancient forms are claimed as the ancestor of the modern horse; but +these (Professor Owen tells us) differed more from one another than the +ass and the zebra (for instance) differ from the horse. Still, of course +it may be that there are still undiscovered intermediate forms; and in +any case there need be no desire to detract from the value of the +series, as really pointing towards a gradual perfection of the horse +from a ruder ancestor up to the latest type. But having reached the +type, and though that type exhibits such (considerable) variations as +occur between the Shetland pony, the Arab, and the dray-horse, we have +still no difficulty in recognizing the essential identity; nor is there +any evidence or any probability that the horse will ever change into +anything essentially different. All the fossil bats, again, were true +bats: and so with the rhinoceroses and the elephants. Granting the +fullest use that may be made of the imperfection of the geological +record, it is difficult to account for this, and still more for the +absence of intermediate forms (particularly suitable for preservation) +of the _Cetaceae_. The Zeuglodons from Eocene down to Pliocene, the +Dolphins in the Pliocene, and the _Ziphoids Catodontidae_, and +_Balaenidae_ in the Pliocene, are all fully developed forms, with no +intermediate species. + + +[Footnote 1: The series is thus (Nicholson, p. 702):--1. +_Eohippus_--Lower Eocene of America; fore-feet have four toes and a +rudimentary thumb or pollex. 2. _Orohippus_ (about the size of a +fox)--Eocene. 3. _Anchitherium_--Eocene and Lower Miocene; three toes, +but 2 and 4 are diminutive. 4. _Hipparion_--Upper Miocene and Pliocene; +still three toes, but 3 more like the modern horse and 2 and 4 still +further diminished. 5. _Pliohippus_--later Pliocene, very like Equus. 6. +_Equus_--Post-Pliocene.] + +Mr. Mivart remarks, "There are abundant instances to prove that +considerable modifications may suddenly develop themselves, either due +to external conditions or to obscure internal causes in the organisms +which exhibit them.[1]" If it is not so, granted to the full the +imperfection of the Geologic record, but remembering the cases where we +_do_ find intermediate forms; we ask why should they not be preserved in +other cases? If they ever existed we should surely see _more_ changing +forms; not only such as are more or less uncertainly divided species, +but whole orders running one into another. No evidence exists to show +that any bird has gradually passed into an animal, nor a carnivorous +beast become ruminant, or _vice versa._ + + +[Footnote 1: P. 112] [Transcriber's note: Chapter VIII] + +The analogy of changes that are known will not bear extension enough to +prove, even probably, any such change. + +Surely if our conclusion in favour of a Divine Design to be attained, +and a Providential Intelligence directing the laws of development, is no +more than a belief, it is a probable and reasonable belief: it certainly +meets facts and allows place for difficulties in a way far more +satisfactory than the opposite belief which rejects _all_ but +"secondary" and purely "natural" causes. + +So clear does this seem to me, that I cannot help surmising that we +should never have heard of any objection to Divine creation and +providential direction, if it had not been for a prevalent fixed idea, +that by "creation" _must_ be meant a final, one-act production _(per +saltum)_ of a completely developed form, where previously there had been +nothing. Such a "creation" would of course militate against _any_ +evolution, however cautiously stated or clearly established. And no +doubt such an idea of "creation" was and still is prevalent, and would +naturally and almost inevitably arise, while nothing to the contrary in +the _modus operandi_ of Creative Power was known. What is more strange +is that the current objection should not now be, "Your _idea of +creation_ is all wrong," rather than the one which has been strongly +put forward (and against which I am contending), "There is no place for +a Creator." + +(5) This is the only other _general_ point that remains to be taken up +in connection with the theory that all living forms are due to the +gradual accumulation of small favourable changes without creative +intervention. The objection is that we cannot obtain the inconceivably +long time required for the process of uncontrolled and unaided +evolution. + +I am not here concerned to argue generally for the shortness or longness +of the periods of geological time; let us, for the purposes of argument, +admit a very wide margin of centuries and ages; but _some_ limit there +must be. The sun's light and heat, for one thing, are necessary, and +though the bulk of combustible material in the sun is enormous, there +must be some end to it. Sir William Thomson has calculated (and his +calculations have never been answered) that on purely physical grounds, +the existence of life on the earth must be limited to some such period +as 100 millions of years; and this is far too short for uncontrolled +evolution. + +We know from fossils, that species have remained entirely unaltered +since the glacial epochs began, and how many generations are included +even in that! If no change is visible in all that time, how many more +ages must have elapsed before a primitive _Amoeba_ could have developed +into a bird or a Mammal? + +In Florida Mr. Agassiz has shown that coral insects exist unchanged, +and must have been so for 30,000 years. + +When we remember also the enormous destruction of life that takes place, +supposing that in a given form a few creatures underwent accidental +changes which were beneficial and likely to aid them--still what chances +were there that the creatures which began to exhibit the right sort of +change should have died before they left offspring! the chances against +them are enormous: and the chances have to be repeated at every +successive change before the finally perfected or advanced creature took +its place in the polity of nature. Moreover, there is the chance of +small changes being lost by intercrossing: our own cattle-breeders have +most carefully to select the parents, or else the favourable variety +soon disappears. + +How then, seeing the power of stability which at least some forms are +found to exhibit--seeing too the enormous chances against the survival +of the particular specimens that begin to vary, and the further chances +of the loss of variety by intercrossing; how can we get the millions of +millions of years necessary to produce the present extreme divergence of +species? The fact is that the force of this objection is likely to be +undervalued, from the mere difficulty of bringing home to the mind the +immeasurable time really demanded by uncontrolled evolution. + +Nor is the question of time left absolutely to be matter of belief or +speculation. For here and there in the geological records of the rocks, +we _have_ certain intermediate forms--or forms which we may fairly argue +to be such. But looking at the very considerable differences between the +earlier and the later of these forms--differences greater than those +which now separate well-defined species, it seems questionable whether +any of the divisions of Tertiary time, taking all the circumstances into +consideration, could be lengthened out sufficiently to accomplish the +change. + +At any rate, if any particular example be disallowed, the general +objection must be admitted to be weighty. + +Now the intervention of any system of created designs of animal +form--however little its details be understood--and the production of +variations under _divine guidance_ which would lead more directly to the +accomplishment of such forms as the complicated flowers of orchids above +described, would unquestionably tend to shorten the requisite time. +There would, by a process of reasoning easily followed, be an immediate +reduction of the ages required, within practicable limits, though the +time must still remain long. More than that is not necessary. The +Ussherian chronology is not of Divine revelation, though some persons +speak of it as if it was. There is not the shadow of a reason to be +gleaned from the Bible, nor from any other source, that the commencement +of orderly development, the separation of land and water, earth and sky, +and the subsequent provision of designs for organic forms of life and +the first steps that followed the issue of the design, began six +thousand years ago, or anything like it. It can be shown, indeed, that +_historical_ man, or the specific origin of the man spoken of as Adam, +dates back but a limited time; and it is calculable with some degree of +probability how far; but that is all. We are therefore in no difficulty +when ample time is demanded; but we are in the greatest straits when the +illimitable demands of a slowly and minutely stepping development, +perpetually liable to be checked, turned back, and even obliterated, +have to be confronted with other weighty probabilities and calculations +regarding the sun's light and heat, and the duration of particular +geologic eras. + + + + +CHAPTER VII. + + +_THE DESCENT OF MAN_. + +We now approach a special objection which always, has been (and I shall +be pardoned, perhaps, for saying _always will be_) the _crux_ of the +theory of unaided, uncreated evolution--the advent of reasoning, and not +only reasoning, but self-conscious and God-conscious MAN. + +Here again the lines of argument are so numerous, and the details into +which we might go so varied, that a rigid and perhaps bald selection of +a few topics is all that can be attempted. + +But I may remark that naturalists are far from being agreed on this part +of the subject. Agassiz rejects the evolution of man altogether. Mr. St. +G. Mivart, while partly admitting, as every one else now does, the +doctrine of evolution, denies the descent of man. Mr. Wallace, the great +apostle of evolution, opposes Darwin, and will have none of his views on +the descent of man; and Professor Huxley himself says that, while the +resemblance of structure is such that if any "process of physical +causation can be discovered by which the genera and families of ordinary +animals have been produced, the process of causation is amply sufficient +to account for the origin of man," still he admits that the gulf is vast +between civilized man and brutes, and he is certain that "whether _from_ +them or not, man is assuredly not _of_ them." + +The first difficulty I shall mention is, however, a structural one. +Supposing that an ape-like ancestor developed into man, on the +principles of natural selection; then his development has taken place in +a manner directly contrary to the acknowledged law of natural selection. +He has developed backwards; his frame is in every way weaker; he is +wanting in agility; he has lost the prehensile feet; he has lost teeth +fitted for fighting or crushing or tearing; he has but little sense of +smell; he has lost the hairy covering, and is obliged to help himself by +clothes.[1] If this loss was ornamental it is quite unlike any other +development in this respect, since no other creature has the same; for +ornamental purposes the fur becomes coloured, spotted, and striped, but +not lost. It is easy to reply that man being _intelligent_, his brain +power enables him to invent clothes, arms, implements, and so forth, +which not only supply all deficiencies of structure, but give him a +great superiority over all creatures. But how did he get that +intelligence? By what natural process of causation (without intelligent +direction) is it conceivable that, given a species of monkey, all at +once and at a certain stage, structural development should have been +retarded and actually reversed, and a development of brain structure +alone set in? Nor, be it observed, has any trace of _man_ with a +rudimentary brain ever been discovered. Savages have brains far in +excess of their requirements, and can consequently be educated and +improved. The skull of a prehistoric man found in the Neanderthal near +Dusseldorf is of average brain capacity, showing that in those remote +ages man was very much in capacity what he is at present. + + +[Footnote 1: It is remarkable that the loss of the hairy covering is +most complete when it is most wanted: the back, the spine, and the +shoulders are in nearly all races unprotected; and yet the want of a +covering from the heat or cold is such that the rudest savages have +invented some kind of cloak for the back.] + +It must, however, be admitted that the special difficulties of the +origin of man are not purely structural. We do not know enough of the +Divine plan to be able to understand why it is that there is a certain +undeniable unity of form, in the two eyes, ears, mouth, limbs and organs +generally of the animal and man. Moreover, much is made of the fact, as +stated by a recent "Edinburgh Reviewer," that "the physical difference +between man and the lowest ape is trifling compared with that which +exists between the lowest ape and any brute animal that is not an +ape.[1]" This fact no doubt negatives the idea put forward by Bishop +Temple and others, that if there was an evolution of man, it must have +been in a special branch which was foreseen and commenced very far back +in the scale of organic being. For the structural difference might not +require such a separate origin; while the mental difference, affording +objections of a different class, will not allow of _any_ such evolution +at all. That there is _some_ connection between man and the animal +cannot be denied, and consequently, in the absence of fuller +information, very little would be gained by insisting on the purely +_physical_ development question. The Bible states positively that the +man Adam (as the progenitor of a particular race, at any rate) was a +separate and actual production, on a given part of the earth's surface. +All that we need conclude regarding that is that there is nothing known +which entitles us to say, "This is not a fact, and therefore is not +genuine revelation." + + +[Footnote 1: No. 331, July, 1885, p. 223.] + +Moreover, as to the question of the possibility of human development +generally, there are certain considerations which directly support our +belief. For example, directly we look to the characteristic point, the +gift of intellect, we can reasonably argue that the action of a Creator +is indispensable. The entrance of consciousness and of reason, however +elementary, marks something out of all analogy with the development of +physical structure, just as much as the entrance of Life marked a new +departure in no analogy with the "properties" of inorganic matter. + +From the first dawn of what looks like _will_ and _choice_ between two +things, and something like a _reason_ which directs the course of the +organism in a particular way for a particular object, we have an +altogether new departure. The difficulty commences at the outset, and +even in the animal creation; it is merely continued and rendered more +striking when we take into consideration the higher development of +intellect into power of abstract reasoning, self-consciousness and +God-consciousness. + +It is perfectly true that the difference between the "instinct" of +animals and the reason and mind of man, is one of degree rather than +kind. As Christians, we have no objection whatever to a development of +reason from the lowest reason solely concerned with earthly and bodily +affairs to the highest powers searching into deep and spiritual truths. +But such a development, though it is parallel to a physical +development--as spiritual law appears to be always parallel (as far as +the nature of things permits) to physical laws--still is a development +which cannot under any possible circumstances dispense with an external +spiritual order of existence, and one which cannot be physically caused. +Nor is it conceivable that man should develop a consciousness of God, +when no God really exists externally to the consciousness.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: For our consciousness of God is obviously very different +from a figment of the imagination, or the sort of reality experienced in +a dream. This is not the place to develop such an argument, but it seems +to me more than doubtful whether we can even _imagine_ something +_absolutely_ non-existent in nature. When the artist's imagination would +construct, e.g., a winged dragon, the concept is always made up of +_parts which are real_--eyes like an alligator, bat-wings, scales of a +fish or crocodile, and so forth. All the members or parts are real, put +together to form the unreal. I do not believe that any instance of a +human conception can be brought forward which on analysis will not +conform to this rule.] + +The main objection, then, that I would press is, that admitting any +possibility of the development of man from a purely physical and +structural point of view, admitting any inference that may be drawn +fairly from the undoubted connection (increasingly great as it is as we +go upwards from the lower animal to the ape) between animals and man, +that inference never can touch the descent of man as a whole; because no +similarity of bodily structure can get over the difficulty of the mental +power of man. We have to deal not with a part of man, but with the +whole. The difficulty cannot be got over by denying _mind_ as a thing +_per se_; for all attempts to represent mind as the _mere_ product of a +physical structure, the brain, utterly fail. + +Nobody wishes to deny what Dr. H. Maudsley and others have made so plain +to us, that mind has (in one aspect, at any rate) a physical basis--that +is, that no thought, imagination, or combination of thought, is known to +us _apart from_ change and expenditure of energy in the brain. Nor can +we, by any process of introspection or observation of other subjects, +separate the mind from the brain and ascertain the existence of "pure +mind," or soul, experimentally. But still, there is no possibility of +getting the operations of mind out of mere cell structure, unless an +external Power has added the mind power, as a faculty of His endowing; +then He may be allowed to have connected that faculty ever so +mysteriously with physical structure; we are content. And I must insist +on the total failure of all analogy between the development of bones or +muscles and the development of mind; and even if we grant a certain +stage of instinct to have arisen, we are still in the dark as to how +that could develop into intellect such as man possesses, including a +belief in God. On this subject let us hear Professor Allman. Between a +development of material structure and a development of intellectual and +moral features, the Professor says, "there is no conceivable analogy; +and the obvious and continuous path, which we have hitherto followed up, +in our reasonings from the phenomena of lifeless matter to those of +living form, here comes suddenly to an end. The chasm between +_unconscious_ life and _thought_ is deep and impassable, and no +transitional phenomena are to be found by which, as by a bridge, we can +span it over.[1]" + +There can be _life_ or _function_ without _consciousness_ or _thought;_ +therefore, even if we go so far as to admit that life is only a property +of protoplasm, there can be no ground for saying that _thought_ is only +a property of protoplasm. + + +[Footnote 1: British Association Address.] + +"If," says Professor Allman, "we were to admit that every living cell +were a conscious and thinking thing, are we therefore justified in +asserting that its consciousness with its irritability is a property of +the matter of which it is composed? The sole argument on which this view +is made to rest is analogy. It is argued that because the life +phenomena, which are invariably found in the cell, must be regarded as a +property of the cell, the phenomena of consciousness by which they are +accompanied must also be so regarded. The weak point in the argument is +the absence of all analogy between the things compared: and as the +conclusion rests solely on the argument from analogy, the two must fall +to the ground together." + +Try and assign to matter all the properties you can think of, its +impenetrability, extension, weight, inertia, elasticity, and so forth, +by no process of thought (as Mr. Justice Fry observes in an article in +"The Contemporary Review [1]") can you get out of them an adequate +account of the phenomena of mind or spirit. We just now observed that +consciousness, thought, and so forth, are never exhibited apart from the +action of the brain; some change in the brain accompanies them all. We +do not deny that. But it is obvious that thought being manifested in the +presence of cerebral matter or something like it, is a very different +thing from thought being a _property_ of such matter, in the sense in +which polarity is the property of a magnet, or irritability of living +protoplasm. + + +[Footnote 1: October, 1880, p. 587.] + +To all this I have seen no answer. The way in which the opponents of +Christian beliefs meet such considerations appears to be to ignore or +minimize them, so as to pass over to what seems to them a satisfactory +if not an easy series of transitions. If Life is after all only a +"property" of matter, then given life, a brain may be produced; and as +mind is always manifested in the presence of (and apparently +indissolubly united with) brain structure, it is not a much greater leap +to accept _life_ as a property of _matter_ than it is to take _thought_ +as a property of a certain _specialized physical structure_. It is true +that the distance is great between the instinct of an animal and the +abstract reasoning power of a Newton or a Herbert Spencer; but (as we +are so often told) the difference is of degree not of kind, and as the +brain structure develops, so does the power and degree of reason. As to +the difference in man, that he is the only "religious" animal--the one +creature that has the idea of God--that is a mere development of the +emotions in connection with abstract reasoning as to the cause of +things. No part of our mental nature is more common to the animal and +the man than the emotional; and if in the one it is mere love and +hatred, joy and grief, confidence and fear, in the other the emotions +are developed into the poetic sense of beauty, or the awe felt for what +is grand and noble; and this insensibly passes into _worship_, the root +of the whole being fear of the unknown and the mysterious. That is the +general line of argument taken up. + +Even accepting the solution (if such it maybe called) of the two first +difficulties--life added spontaneously or aboriginally to matter, and +thought and consciousness added to organism--still the rest of the path +is by no means so easy as might at the first glance appear. Development +in brain structure certainly does not always proceed _pari passu_ with a +higher and more complex reasoning. In actual fact we find high +"reasoning" power, quite unexpectedly here and there, up and down the +animal kingdom. Some _insects_, with very little that can be called a +brain at all, exhibit high intelligence; and some animals with smaller +brains are more docile and intelligent than others with a much larger +development. The ape, in spite of his close physical approach to the +structure of man, and his still greater relative distance from the other +animal creation, is not superior (if he is not decidedly inferior) in +reason or intelligence to several animals lower down in the scale. + +Savages, again, have a brain greatly in excess of their actual +requirements (so to speak). Hence the mere existence of brain, however +complex, does not indicate the possession of mental power. + +There is reason to believe that all thought and exercise of the mind--in +fact, every step in the process of "Education," whereby an ignorant +person is brought at last to apprehend the most abstract +propositions--is accompanied by some molecular (or other) change. So +that a person who has been carefully educated has the brain in a +different state from that of an exactly similarly constituted person +whose brain has been subjected to no such exercise. But even if this +action could be formulated and explained, it would not follow that +thought is the _product_ of the molecular change; or that, _vice versa_, +if we could artificially produce certain changes, in the brain, certain +thoughts and perceptions would thereon coexist with the changes, and +arise in the mind of the subject forthwith. And if not, then no process +of physical development accounts for grades of intellect; we have only +mind developing as mind. But the theory of evolution will have nothing +to do with any development but physical; or at any rate with mental +development except as the result of physical: it knows nothing of pure +mind, or spiritual existence, or anything of the sort. + +In the nature of things we can have neither observation nor experiment +in this stage. We cannot by any process develop the lower mind of an +animal into the higher mind of man, and prove the steps of the +evolution.[1] It is important to remember that the power of _directing +the attention by a voluntary process of abstraction_, is one that +distinctively belongs to man. It is an effort of will, of a kind that no +animal has any capacity for. By it alone have we any power of abstract +reasoning, and it is intimately concerned with our self-consciousness +and memory, and with our language. I am quite aware that animals possess +something analogous to a language of their own; they can indicate +certain emotions and give warning, and so forth, to their fellows. But +that language could never develop into human language, or the animal +will (such as it is) ever rise to a human will, or animals become +endowed with self-consciousness, unless they could acquire the power of +voluntarily abstracting the mind from one subject or part of a subject +and fixing the attention on another. We cannot formulate any process of +change whereby the lower state could pass on to or attain to the higher +in this respect. + + +[Footnote 1: We can of course follow the sort of mental development +which is traceable when we consider the origin of our own sagacious and +faithful dogs in the wild prairie dog: but this development is always in +contact with the mind of man, and is, as it were, the result of man's +action, as man's development in mind and soul is the result of God's +action.] + +Therefore again we conclude that the higher reason is a gift _ab +externo_. + +If we take a step further to the "spiritual" or "moral" faculties of +man, we have the same difficulty intensified, if indeed it does take a +new departure. To examine the question adequately would require us to go +into the deep waters of psychology; and here we should encounter many +matters regarding which there may be legitimate doubt and difference of +opinion, which would obscure and lead us away from our main line of +thought. + +This I would willingly avoid. But it is quite intelligible, and touches +on no dangerous ground, when we assert that there is a distinct +ascent--an interval again raising developmental difficulties, directly +we pass from the intellectual to the moral. We may wonder at the high +degree of intelligence possessed by some animals; but we are unable to +conceive any animal possessing a power of abstract reasoning, having +ideas of beauty (as such), or of manifesting what we call the poetic +feeling. And still more is this so when we look at the further interval +that lies between any perception of physical phenomena, any reasoning in +the abstract, or investigation of mathematical truth, and the +overmastering sense of obligation to the "moral law," or the action of +the soul in its instinctive possession of the conception of a Divine +Existence external to itself. It is because of this felt difference that +we talk of the "spiritual" as something beyond and above the "mental." + +The distinction is real, though we must not allow ourselves to be led +too far in attempting to scan the close union that, from another point +of view, exists between the one and the other. + +In a recent number of "The Edinburgh Review,[1]" the author complains of +Bishop Temple thus: "He uses the word spiritual in such a way that he +might be taken to imply that we had some other faculty for the +perception of moral truths, in addition to, and distinct from, our +reason." And the writer goes on to make an "uncompromising assertion of +reason as the one supreme faculty of man. To depreciate reason (he says) +to the profit of some supposed 'moral' illative sense, would be to open +the door to the most desolating of all scepticisms, and to subordinate +the basis of our highest intellectual power to some mere figment of the +imagination." + + +[Footnote 1: July, 1885, p. 211, in the course of the article to which I +have already alluded.] + +On the other hand, some writers (claiming to derive their argument from +the Scriptures) have supposed they could assert three distinct natures +in man--a spiritual, a mental (or psychic), and a bodily. Now there is +no doubt that, rightly or wrongly (I am not now concerned with that), +the Bible does distinctly assert that a "breath of lives" [1] was +specially put into the bodily form of man, and adds that thereby "man +became a living soul." But it is also stated of the animal creation that +the breath of life was given to them,[2] and animals are said to have a +"soul" (nephesh).[3] So that neither in the one case nor the other have +we more than the two elements: a body, and a life put into it; though of +course the man's "life" (as the plural indicates, and other texts +explain) was higher in kind than that of the animal. + + +[Footnote 1: The plural of excellence appears to mark something superior +in the spirit of man over that of the animals. Also compare Job xxxiii. +4, "The breath of the Almighty hath given me life," with Isa. xlii. 5 +and Zech. xii. 1.] + +[Footnote 2: Though not in the plural of excellence. See Gen. vi 17, +vii. 22, &c.] + +[Footnote 3: Gen. i. 20, margin of A.V.] + +St. Paul, it is true, speaks of the "whole spirit, and soul, and +body.[1]" But our Lord Himself, in a very solemn passage (where it would +be most natural to expect the distinction, if it were absolute and +structural, to be noticed), speaks of the "soul and body" only.[2] + +The fact is that we are only able to argue conclusively that, besides +the physical form, we have a non-material soul, or a self. And our Lord, +whose teaching was always eminently practical, went no further. We are +conscious of a "self"--something that remains, while the body +continually grows and changes. + +There was in _Punch_, some time ago, a picture of an old grandfather, +with a little child looking at a marble bust representing a child. "Who +is that?" asks the little one; and the old man replies, "That is +grandfather when he was a little boy." "And who is it now?" rejoins the +child. One smiles at the picture, but in reality it conceals a very +important and a very pathetic truth. Nothing could well be greater than +the outward difference between the grey hairs and bowed figure and the +little cherub face; and yet there was a "self"--a soul, that remained +the same throughout. In Platonic language, while the [Greek: eidolon] +perpetually changes, the [Greek: eidos] remains. We have, therefore, +evidence as positive as the nature of the subject admits that we are +right in speaking of the _body and the soul, or self_. And as we cannot +connect the higher reasoning, and, above all, conscience and the +religious belief, as a "property" of physical structure, we conclude +that the Scripture only asserts facts when it attributes both to the +soul, as a spiritual element or nature belonging to the body. Man is +essentially one;[3] but there is both a material and a non-material, a +physical and a spiritual element, in the one nature. But, being a +spiritual element, that part of our nature necessarily has two sides (so +to speak). It has its point of contact with self and the world of sense, +and its point of contact with the world of spirit and with the Great +Spirit of all, from whom it came. _Because_ of that higher "breath of +lives" given by the Most High, man possesses the faculty of +_consciousness of God_ (i.e., the higher spiritual faculties), besides +the consciousness of self, or merely intellectual power regarding self +and the external world. Therefore, when an Apostle desires to speak very +forcibly of something that is to affect a man through and through, in +every part and in every aspect of his nature, he speaks of the "whole +spirit, soul, and body." To sum up: all that we know from the Bible is +that God gave a "soul" (nephesh) to the animals, in consequence of which +(when united to the physical structure) the functions of life and the +phenomena of intelligence are manifested. So God gave a non-material, +and therefore "spiritual," element to human nature; and this being of a +higher grade and capacity to that of the animal world, not only in its +union with physical structure, makes the man a "living soul"--gives him +an intelligence and a certain reason such as the animals have, but also +gives him, as a special and unique endowment; the consciousness of self +(involving--which is very noteworthy--a consciousness of its own +limitations) and the consciousness of God. Hence man's power of +improvement. If the man cultivates only the self-consciousness and the +reason that is with it, the Scriptures speak of him as the "natural or +psychic man;" if he is enabled by Divine grace to develop the higher +moral and spiritual part of his nature, and to walk after the Spirit, +not after the flesh, he is a "spiritual man." + + +[Footnote 1: 1 Thess. v. 23.] + +[Footnote 2: Matt. x. 28.] + +[Footnote 3: The well-known argument of St. Paul regarding the +resurrection in 1 Cor. xv. (ver. 45, &c.) is well worthy of +consideration in this connection. He deals with man as _one whole_; +nothing is said about a man being (or having) a spirit separate from his +soul and his body, and that spirit being given a higher body than it had +upon earth; but of the whole man, soul _and_ body, being raised and +changed into a man, also one whole, with a more perfect body--a body +more highly developed in the ascending scale of perfection. I do not +forget the passage where the same Apostle (2 Cor. v. 6) speaks of being +in the body, and absent from the Lord; and of being "clothed upon;" but +this does not in any way detract from the importance of the treatment of +the subject in the First Epistle.] + +It is idle to speculate whether the "nephesh" of the animals, or the +"living self" of the man, is an entity separate from the body, and +capable of existing _per se_--of its own inherent nature--apart from +it. We do not know that animal forms are the clothing of a lower-graded +but separate spiritual form, or that such an animal soul or spirit can +exist separately from the body; and we do not _know_ (from the +Bible)--whatever may be the current language on the subject--that man's +spirit is in its nature capable of anything like permanent separate +existence.[1] Man is essentially one; and when the physical change +called death passes over him, it does not utterly obliterate the whole +being. The non-material element is not affected any more than it is by +the sleep of every night; and the man will be ultimately raised, not a +spiritual or immaterial form, but provided, as before, with a body, only +one of a higher capacity and better adapted to its higher +environments--the "spiritual body" of St. Paul, in a word. The original +union of mind and matter is, on any possible theory, mysterious; and the +separation of them for a time is neither less so, nor more. All this is +perfectly true, whether the non-material element in man's nature is +_necessarily_, inherently and _by nature_, immortal or not--a question +which I do not desire to enter on. + +Hence it is that a certain element of truth is recognized in the protest +of the Edinburgh Reviewer. On the other hand, as we have not only +intelligence, emotions (which are possessed in lower degree by animals), +self-consciousness, the power of abstract reasoning, and the higher +faculties of the imagination,[2] but also the consciousness of God and +the commanding sense of right and wrong; and seeing that the last-named +are different in kind from the former, we give them a separate name, and +speak of the moral or spiritual nature or capacity of man, as well as +the intellectual or mental. Some (by the way) choose "moral" to include +both, holding that ethical perceptions arise out of (or are intimately +connected with) our sense of God. Others would make a further +distinction, and confine "moral" to the (supposed) bare ethical +perception of duty or of right and wrong, and add "spiritual" to +distinguish the highest faculty of all, whereby man holds communion with +his Maker and recognizes his relation to Him. + + +[Footnote 1: This remark does not, of course, in any way touch the +question whether the spiritual part of a man is conscious in the +interval between death and resurrection, or whether it can be made +sensible in any way whatever to living persons.] + +[Footnote 2: The poetic sense, the perception of the beautiful, &c.] + +Whether this further distinction is justified or not, there is a +distinction between the moral and the purely intellectual; and we are +justified in using different terms for things that are _practically_ +different. This the Edinburgh Reviewer seems to have forgotten. + +It was necessary to my argument to enter on this somewhat lengthy +examination of the spiritual nature of man, because, while we +acknowledge the unity of man, we are compelled to recognize in his +religious sense and aspirations and capacities something quite +disparate--something that we could not get by a natural process of +growth from such beginnings of reason as are observed in the lower +animals. + +I am aware that Dr. Darwin conceived that the religious feeling of man +might have grown out of the natural emotions of fear,[1] love, +gratitude, &c., when once men began to question as to the explanation of +the phenomena of life, and to ascribe the forces of nature to the +possession of a spirit such as he himself was conscious of: and with +much more positive intent, Mr. H. Spencer has also, after most +painstaking inquiries, formulated what he conceives to be the origin of +religious belief in man. He refers us to the early belief in a "double" +of self, which double could be projected out of self, and remained in +some way after death, so as to become the object of fear, and ultimately +of worship. When this ancestor-worship resulted in the worship of a +multitude of "genii" (whose individuality, as regards their former +earthly connection, is more or less forgotten), then the idea of +attaching the numerous divinities or ancestor-souls to the ocean, the +sky, the sun, the mountains, and the powers of nature, arises; whence +the poetic systems of ancient polytheistic mythology. Gradually men +began to reason and to think, and they refined the polytheism into the +"higher" idea of one great, central, immaterial all-pervading power, +which they called God. + + +[Footnote: 1 See the "Descent of Man," vol. i. p. 68 (original edition). +But it is right to state that the subject is not treated in any way +whatever so as to argue that the religious belief is a fancy, or +development of fancy, with no God and no facts about God behind it.] + +Mr. Spencer, in effect, concludes that this "God" is only man's own +idea of filling up a blank, of explaining the fact that there must be an +ultimate first cause of whatever exists, and there is also a great +source of power of some kind external to ourselves.[1] + +I am not going here to enter on any special argument as to the validity +of these theories in their relation to the direct question of the nature +and existence of God. What we are here concerned with is, whether they +enable us to exclude the idea of a gift and a giver of spiritual or +mental (we will not quarrel about terms) nature to man, and whether, by +any fair reasoning from analogy, we can suppose man's reason and his +"_sensus numinis_" to arise by the mere stages of natural growth and +development. Dr. Darwin's supposition takes no notice of the moral law +and its influence; indeed he adopts[2] the view that conscience is no +sense of right and wrong, but only the stored up and inherited social +instinct, a sense of convenience and inconvenience to the tribe and to +the individual, which at last acts so spontaneously and rapidly in +giving its verdict on anything, that we regard it as a special sense. It +would of course be possible to expend much time and many words in +argument on this subject. There is not, and never will be, any direct +evidence as to the origin of conscience; and as that sense (like any +other power of our mental nature) is capable of being educated, evoked, +enlightened, and strengthened, and may also by neglect and contradiction +deteriorate and wither away, there is ample room for allowing a certain +part of the theory.[3] But many people who examine their own conscience +will feel that the description certainly does not suit them; there are +many things which conscience disapproves, of which no great evil +consequences to themselves or any one else are felt. Conscience is +constantly condemning "the way that seemeth good unto a man." +_Ultimately_ no doubt, there is real evil at the end of everything that +conscience warns a man against; but not such as "inherited experience" +is likely to recognize. Is it, for instance, the experience of the mass +of men, as men, that the "fleshly mind is death, but the spiritual mind +is life and peace"? Is not rather the world at large habitually putting +money-making, position-making, and the care of the things of the body, +of time, and of sense, in the first place; and is not the moral law +perpetually warning us that the fashion of the world passes away, and +that what seems gold is in reality tinsel? As far as the condemnation +that conscience passes on the broad evils which affect society--"thou +shalt not steal," "thou shalt not lie," or so forth--no doubt it is +supported by the transmitted sense of inconvenience; but who has told it +of the evil of things that do not affect our social state? and who has +changed the inconvenient, the painful, into the _wrong_? It is one thing +to instinctively avoid a theft or a falsehood, even if the first origin +of such instinct were the fear of consequences or the love of +approbation; it is quite another--the inward condemnation of something +which "the deceitfulness of sin" is able to excuse, and which the world +at large would regard as permissible or at least venial. Even if +inherited use has its full play, there is still a something wanted +before the one can be got into (or out of) the other. Why, again, are +savages prone to imagine natural phenomena to be caused or actuated by +"spirits"? Surely it is because there _is_ consciously a spirit in man, +and a Higher Power, even God, outside, who exists, though man in his +ignorance has many false ideas regarding Him. + + +[Footnote 1: It is not necessary to my immediate argument, and therefore +I do not press it into the text (though I should be sorry to seem to +forget it for a moment), to urge that St. Paul draws a clear distinction +between the intellectual faculties and the higher spiritual ones, when +he assures us that the clearest intellect alone cannot assimilate the +truths of religion. For the spiritual faculties have been in man +grievously deadened and distorted (to say the least of it), so that his +intellectual faculties, bright and highly developed as they may be, will +always prove insufficient for the highest life in the absence of the +"grace of God." It is exactly analogous to the case of a man whom we +might suppose to have his sense of sight, touch, &c., distorted, and he +himself unable to correct them by aid of the senses of others. However +acutely he might exercise his reason, he would be continually wrong in +his conclusions. See 1 Cor. ii., the whole, but specially vers. 14, 15.] + +[Footnote 2: "Descent of Man," vol. i. p, 70.] + +[Footnote 3: The attempt (already alluded to) to separate moral and +spiritual, to imagine something that is ethical, apart from the +religious idea, has lent some strength to these ideas of the moral +sense; but in fact, the moral sense is _inseparably_ connected with the +idea of God, and His approval and disapproval. The idea of God may be +obscured and lost, but conscience is the surviving trace of it; the +circumference that accounts for the broken arc.] + +It is an objection of the same order that applies to the other theory +(Mr. Spencer's). There can be little doubt that in many respects it is +true: as an account of all _human_ systems of religion it is adequate +and natural; but it breaks down hopelessly when we try to use it to +explain how the conception of God originated in the mind. Just as there +is a felt difference--not of degree or in form, but essential and +radical in its nature--between the _undesirable_ and the _wrong_, so +there is a difference between the idea of a mysterious thing towards +which apprehension or awe is felt, and the conception of God. Granted +that man believed in his own spirit or double, and attributed similar +immaterial motor powers as a cause for the wind and waves, and so forth; +granted that he at last "refined" this into the belief in one Spirit +whose power was necessarily great and varied--the origin is still +unexplained. How did man get the idea of a personal spirit or double--no +such thing, _ex hypothesi_ existing? How did he get to formulate the +idea of a _God_ when he had simplified his group of many spirits into +one? + +If man is created with a consciousness of his own inner-self, _as a +self_, he is able naturally to imagine a like self in other beings; if +he has an idea of God innate in him, he can assimilate the truth when it +is at last presented to his mind; and that is why he feels that it _is_ +a refinement; a rising from the lower to the higher (because from +falsehood to truth), to let the many gods give place to the One God. If +the idea of God has been obscured, and the power of its apprehension +deadened, the man can only grope about helplessly, fashioning this +explanation of nature and that--all more or less false, but all dimly +bearing witness to the two absolute facts, that there is an inner +non-material self, and an external non-material God. + +If then there are insuperable difficulties in connecting thought with +matter by any process of unaided development, there are also great +difficulties, even when thought in a rudimentary form is given, in +conceiving it developed into man's reason, or man's religious belief, by +any known process of "natural" causation. + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. + + +_FURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF MAN_. + +There are, however, some other matters connected with the history of man +on the globe, unconnected with psychological development, but which +demand notice, as making the argument against an undesigned, unaided +development of man a cumulative one. It is urged that whatever may be +thought of the connection of man with the animal creation, at any rate +the received Christian belief regarding the origin of man--especially +his late appearance on the scene--is contrary to known facts, and that +we have to mount up to a vast geologic antiquity to account for what is +known from exhumed remains in caves and lake dwellings, and the like. + +Now no one pretends that the history of man is free from doubt and +difficulty, but the doubt and difficulty are not confined to the +"orthodox." For the inferences to be drawn from the exhumed remains are +equally doubtful whatever views be adopted. + +I shall not go into great length on this subject, partly because some +recent popular tracts of Canon Rawlinson, Mr. R.S. Pattison, and others, +have already made the ordinary reader familiar with the main outlines of +the subject; and still more because, be the views of archaeologists what +they may, it is impossible for any rational person to contend either +that they can be reduced to anything like unity among themselves, or +that they lead to any conclusion favourable to the belief in the +self-caused and undesigned evolution of man. + +It may be regarded as known, that at the dawn of history, mankind was +passing through what may be called a Bronze age, in which weapons of +bronze were used before tools of iron were invented. But this age was +preceded by one in which even bronze was unknown. Stone implements, and +some of bone and horn, were alone used. It is also well ascertained that +there were two _widely divided_ stone ages. The latter, distinguished by +the polishing of the stones, is described as the _neolithic_; the +former, in which flint and other hard stone fragments were merely +chipped or flaked to an edge, is called the _palaeolithic_. + +It is hardly contended that the neolithic age could have been more than +four or five thousand years ago. There is always the greatest difficulty +in fixing any dates because from the nature of the case written records +are absent, and the stages of growth in the history of peoples overlap +so. + +We know that sharp flakes of stone were still used for knives in the +time of Moses and Joshua. We are not out of the stone age yet, as +regards some portions of the globe; and it is quite possible that parts +of the earth, not so very remote, may have been still in the midst of a +stone age when Assyria, Chaldaea, and Egypt were comparatively highly +civilized. + +It is also fairly certain that between the neolithic or smooth-stone +age, and the palaeolithic, certain important geological changes took +place, though those changes were not such as to have demanded any very +great length of time for their accomplishment. + +The palaeolithic stone implements are found in river gravels and clays, +along the higher levels of our own Thames Valley, that of the Somme in +France, and in other places. They are also found at the bottom of +various natural caverns. + +No human bones have been found as yet with the implements, but the bones +of large numbers of animals have. And it seems certain that the men who +made the implements were contemporaries of the animals, because in the +later part of the age, at any rate, they drew or scratched likenesses of +the animals on bone. Among these representations are figures of the +_mammoth_ an extinct form well known to the reader by description and +museum specimens of remains. + +The animals contemporary with these primeval men were the mammoth, +species of rhinoceros and hippopotamus, the "sabre-toothed" lion, the +cave-bear, the reindeer, besides oxen, horses, and other still surviving +forms. + +In his address to the British Association in 1881 Sir John Lubbock +called attention to the fact that these animals appear to indicate both +a hot and a cold climate, and he referred to the fact (known to +astronomers) that the earth passes through periods of slow change in the +eccentricity of its orbit, and in the obliquity of the ecliptic. The +result of the latter condition is, to produce periods of about 21,000 +years each, during one-half of which the Northern hemisphere will be +hotter, and in the other the Southern. At present we are in the former +phase. + +But the obliquity of the ecliptic does not act alone; the eccentricity +of the orbit produces another effect, namely, that when it is at a +minimum the difference between the temperatures of the two hemispheres +is small, and as the eccentricity increases, so does the difference. At +the present time the eccentricity is represented by the fraction .016. +But about 300,000 years ago the eccentricity would have been as great as +.26 to .57. The result, it is explained, would have been not a uniform +heat or cold, but extremes of both; there would probably have been short +but very hot summers, and long and intensely cold winters. + +This, Sir John Lubbock thought, might account for the co-existence of +both hot and arctic species, like the hippopotamus and rhinoceros on the +one hand, and the musk-ox and the reindeer on the other. + +But such considerations really help us little. In the first place, it is +only an assumption that the fossil hippopotamus _was_ an animal of a hot +climate--it does not in any way follow from the fact that the now +existing species is such; nor if we make the assumption, does it explain +how, if the hot summer sufficed for the tropical hippopotamus, it +managed to survive the long and cold winters which suited the arctic +species. + +Moreover, no such calculations can really be made with accuracy: we do +not know what other astronomical facts may have to be taken into +consideration, nor can we say when such "periods" as those which are so +graphically described, began or ended. + +In this very instance, we know that the mammoth only became extinct in +comparatively recent times, since specimens have been found in Siberia, +with the hair, skin, and even flesh, entirely preserved. Granted that +the intense cold of the Siberian ice effected this, it is impossible to +admit more than a limited time for the preservation--not hundreds of +thousands of years. Professor Boyd Dawkins is surely right in stating +that the calculations of astronomy afford us no certain aid at present +in this inquiry. + +As regards the geological indications of age, the best authority seems +to point to the first appearance of man in the post-glacial times: that +is to say, that the gravels in which the palaeolithic implements are +found were deposited by the action of fresh water after the great +glacial period, when, at any rate, Northern Europe, a great part of +Russia, all Scandinavia, and part of North America were covered with +icefields, the great glaciers of which left their mark in the numerous +scoopings out of ravines and lake beds and in the raising of banks and +mounds, the deposit of boulders, and the striation of rocks _in situ_, +which so many districts exhibit. + +The few instances in which attempts have been made, in Italy or +elsewhere, to argue for a pliocene man (i.e. in the uppermost group of +the tertiary) have ended in failure, at least in the minds of most +naturalists competent to judge. + +One of the most typical instances of the position of the implement age +has been discovered by Fraas at Shuessenried in Suabia; here the remains +of tools and the bones of animals (probably killed for food) were found +in holes made in the glacial _debris_. + +But here, again, it is impossible to say when this glacial age +terminated, and whether man might not have been living in other more +favoured parts while it was wholly or partially continuing. + +In Scandinavia no palaeolithic stone implements have been found, from +which it may be inferred that the glacial period continued there during +the ages when palaeolithic man hunted and dwelt in caves in the other +countries where his remains occur. + +The best authorities do not suppose that the men _originated_ in the +localities where the tools are found; and there is so little known about +the geology of Central Asia (for example) that it is impossible to say +whether tribes may not have wandered from some other places not affected +by the glaciation we have spoken of. + +Again, the gravels and brick earths containing the tools are just of the +kind which defy attempts to say how long it took to deposit and arrange +them. + +It may be taken as certain, that after the one age ceased and the first +men appeared, the beds in which their relics occur have been raised +violently, and again depressed and subjected to great flushes and floods +of water. The caves have been upheaved, and the gravels are found +chiefly along the valleys of our present rivers, but at a much higher +level, showing that there was both a higher level of the soil itself and +a much greater volume of water. + +The Straits of Dover were formed during this period. + +But none of these changes required a very long time; and if we can trace +back the later stone age, which shows remains of pottery and other +proofs of greater civilization, to the dawn of the historic period not +more than 4000 or 5000 years ago, there is nothing in the nature of the +changes which, as we have stated, intervened between the palaeolithic +and neolithic periods, that need have occupied more than a thousand or +two of years. Upheavals of strata and disruptions may be the work of +but a short time, or they may be more gradual. And as to the effect of +water, that depends on its volume and velocity; no certain rule can be +given. Our own direct experience shows that very great changes may take +place in a few hundred years. + +"The estuaries," remarks Mr. Pattison,[1] "around our south-eastern +coast, which have been filled up in historical times, some within the +last seven hundred years to a height of thirty feet from their +sea-level, by the gradual accumulation of soil, now look like solid +earth in no way differing from the far older land adjoining. The +harbours out of which our Plantagenet kings sailed are now firm, +well-timbered land. The sea-channel through which the Romans sailed on +their course to the Thames, at Thanet, is now a puny fresh-water ditch, +with banks apparently as old as the hills. In Bede's days, in the ninth +century, it was a sea-channel three furlongs wide." + + +[Footnote 1: "Age and Origin of Man"--Present-Day Tract Series.] + +Thus we are in complete uncertainty as to the date of the palaeolithic +man, or as to the time necessary to effect the changes in the surface of +the earth which intervened between it and the later stone ages. But +there is nothing which conflicts with the possibility that the whole may +have occurred within some 8,000 years. + +For the supposition of Mons. Gabriel Mortillet that man has existed for +230,000 years, there is neither evidence nor probability. His theory is +derived from an assumption that the geologic changes alluded to occupied +an immense time; and the further assumption (if possible still more +unwarranted) that the old race which used the chipped stone tools +remained stationary for a very long period, and very gradually improved +its tools and ultimately passed into the neolithic stage when the art of +pottery became known, however rudely. + +But, in point of fact, we are not required by our belief in Scripture to +find any date for the origin of man, at least not within any moderate +limits (not extending to scores of thousands of years). The Bible was +not intended to enable us to construct a complete science of geology or +anthropology, and the utmost that can be got out of the text is that a +date can be _suggested_ (not proved) for one particular family (that of +Adam) by counting up the generations alluded to in Holy Writ before the +time of Abraham. But these are manifestly recorded in a brief and +epitomized form; nor do all the versions agree. We may well believe that +a watchful Providence has taken care of the record of inspiration, but +we know it has been done by human and ordinary agency. The Bible is +God's gift to his Church, and the Church has been made in all ages the +keeper of it. Now in the matter of early dates and numbers, an unanimous +version has not been kept. According to the construction adopted in the +Septuagint, the creation of Adam would go back 7,517 years, while the +Vulgate gives 6,067 years. Dr. Hale's computation makes 7,294 years, +and the Ussherian 5,967;[1] the Samaritan version is, I believe, further +different from either. + +As it is, the facts show nothing inconsistent with an approximation to +these several periods. + +As to any absolute date for the appearance of man as a species, no +calculation is possible, because of a certain doubt, which no one can +pretend to resolve, as to whether the Scriptures do assert the creation +of _all_ mankind at any one period. If, owing to more positive +discoveries in the future compelling us to put further back the date of +man's first appearance upon earth, we have to suppose a beginning before +the time of Adam, we are reminded that there is an allusion in the sixth +chapter of the book called Genesis to "the sons of God" and the +"daughters of men." Now this passage cannot conceivably refer to angels; +nor can we ignore its existence, however doubtful we may feel as to its +meaning.[2] + + +[Footnote 1: I take these figures from Mr. R.S. Pattison.] + +[Footnote 2: The text which speaks of God making "of one blood all +nations for to dwell on the face of the earth," would naturally apply to +the races existing when the speaker uttered the words: it would be as +unreasonable to press such a text into the service of _any_ theory of +the creation of man, as it was absurd for the Inquisition to suppose +that the Psalmist, when asserting that God had made the "round world so +fast that it could not be moved," was contradicting the fact of the +earth's revolution round the sun.] + +It can hardly be denied that such a text opens out the _possibility_ of +an earlier race than that of Adam; in that case the creation of Adam +would be detailed as the creation of the direct progenitor of Noah, +whose three sons still give names (in ethnological language) to the main +great races of the earth, with whom exclusively the Bible history is +concerned, and especially as the direct progenitor of that race of whom +came the Israelites, and in due time the promised seed--the Messiah. I +do not say this _is_ so, nor even that I accept the view for my own +part; I only allude to the possibility, without ignoring any of the +difficulties--none of which, however, are insuperable--which gather +round it. + +It is certainly a very remarkable fact that all about this region in +which the Semitic race originated, traditions of Creation somewhat +resembling the account in Genesis, the institution of a week of seven +days, and a Sabbath or day of rest from labour, existed from very early +times; and with these traditions, a belief in distinct races, one of +which owned a special connection with, or relation to, the Creator. Here +I may appeal to the work of Mr. George Smith and his discoveries of +tablets from the ancient libraries of Assyria. Originally, the country +to which I have alluded consisted of Assyria in the centre and Babylonia +to the south; while to the east of Assyria was a country partly plain +and partly hill, which formed the "plain of Shinar" and the hills beyond +occupied by Accadian tribes, from whose chief city, Ur, Abraham, the +forefather of the Jews, emigrated. The Assyrian documents are copies of +Babylonian originals, but the Babylonian kingdom itself was a Semitic +one founded on the ruins of an earlier population, the inhabitants of +the plain of Shinar and the mountains beyond. Some time between 3000 and +2000 B.C. the Semitic conquerors of Babylonia took possession of the +plains, and some time later conquered also the Accadian mountaineers. +The Babylonians possessed and translated the old Accadian records: the +Assyrian tablets are mostly, but not all, copies, again, of the +Babylonian transcripts. The celebrated "Creation tablets," which contain +an account closely corresponding to Genesis, are among those which were +not copied from Accadian originals; and they do not date further back +than the reign of Assur-bani-pal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; who +reigned in the seventh century B.C. They may therefore be derived from +the Bible, not the Bible from them. It would seem from some earlier +(Accadian) tablets, that a different account of the Creation existed +among them. But though it is doubtful how far the Accadians had +preserved this account, or at least had others along with it, _they had +a seven days week_ and _a Sabbath_. All this points to _one_ original +tradition, which specified days of creation and a Sabbath, though it got +altered and distorted, so that the true account was preserved as one +among many local variations. This goes to prove the immense antiquity of +the story, which is not affected by the fact that the actual inscription +of it which we at present have, dates only about 670 B.C. The point +here, however, interesting in the legends, is that they contained the +idea of a special connection of one particular race with the Creator, +and of other races, or of one other race, besides. + +As far as the possibility of bringing forward the history of mankind as +any aid to the theory of Evolution is concerned, I might have very well +let the subject alone, or even noticed it more briefly than I have done. +For, in truth, there is no _evidence_ whatsoever, and all that the +denier of creation can resort to is a supposed analogy and a probability +that the peculiarities of man could be accounted for in this way or in +that. But the main purpose of my brief allusion is to introduce the fact +that, as far as any evidence to the contrary goes, we have an absolutely +sudden appearance of man on the scene, and no kind of transitional form. +Not only so, but there is no trace of any gradual development of man +when he did appear. There was the first palaeolithic man; then a +considerable geologic perturbation of the earth's surface, resulting in +the upheaval of the cliffs in which the caves of remains occur, and in +the alteration of the gravel beds in which the human remains are found; +and then the neolithic age, with its evidently greater civilization (as +evidenced by pottery, &c.) connected with early and traditional, but +still with recent, history; but no trace of any development of one race +into the other. + +The absence of all progressive change is forcibly indicated by the +measurements of ancient skulls, which, though not found along with the +flint tools, have been found elsewhere. It has been fully shown that +they differ in no respect from the skulls of men at the present day; +while the skulls of the apes most nearly anthropoid, or allied to the +human form, remain as widely separated in brain-capacity as ever.[1] + +Thus the fact remains, that no intermediate form between the ape and the +lowest man has been discovered, and that there is nothing like any +progressive development in the races of man. These facts, taken together +with what has been brought forward in the last chapter, show how +completely the theory of the descent of man breaks down; how utterly +unproved and untenable is the idea that he should have been evolved by +natural causes and by slow steps from any lower form of animal life. + + +[Footnote 1: The gorilla has a brain size of 30.51 cubic inches; the +chimpanzee and ourang-outang (in the males) from 25.45 to 27.34 inches. +According to Dr. J. Barnard Davis the average of the largest class of +European skulls is 111.99, that of the Australian 99.35 cubic inches.] + + + + +CHAPTER IX. + + +_CONCLUDING REMARKS_. + +It will naturally be asked, "If there is all this objection to some +parts of the theory of Evolution, or to that theory in an extreme or +absolute form, how is it that it has been so eagerly accepted in the +ranks of scientific men?" + +The answer is, in the first place, because the theory of Evolution is to +a great extent true. When men speak of controversy with the Evolutionist +and so forth, they of course mean such as insist on carrying the +doctrine to a total and even virulent denial of any Divine control at +all. And it must, I think, be admitted that much of the theological +opposition offered to the doctrine was aimed at _this_ aspect of it. At +first, men zealous for what they believed to be Divine truth, did not +discriminate; they saw that the then new idea of evolution was, in many +branches of its application, still very poorly proved, and they +conceived that it could not be accepted apart from a total denial of +religion. We have grown wiser in the course of time: misconceptions +have been swept away; and everybody may be content with the assurance +that there is no necessary connection even, far less any antagonism, +between evolution and the Christian faith at all. We may admit all that +is known of the one without denying the other. Where the controversy has +to be maintained is, that some will insist (like Professor Haeckel) in +carrying evolution beyond what evidence will warrant; and not only so, +but will insist on polemically putting down all religion on the strength +of their improved theories. If "Evolutionists" complain of the treatment +they have received at the hands of "Theologians," they will at least, in +fairness, admit that there has been some misconception, some error on +both sides. What we maintain is, that evolution (i.e., here, as always, +unlimited, uncontrolled evolution) still fails to account for many facts +in nature; that we are still far from holding anything like a complete +scheme in our hands; there may be _limits_ to the wide circle of +progressive changes, to the results of development, of which we are +ignorant; and there is, above all, in that most important of all +questions--the descent of man--an absolute want of proof of animal +_descent_ (i.e., in any sense which includes the "soul" or spiritual +faculties of man). Hence that evolution in no way clashes with an +intelligent Christian belief. In saying this, I would carefully avoid +undervaluing the services which the evolution theory has rendered, and +is rendering, to science. Even in its first form as a mere hypothesis, +it was an eminently suggestive one; there was from the first quite truth +enough in it to make it fruitful, and many working hypotheses have been +immensely useful in science, which have in the end been very largely +modified. Before Darwin's wonderfully accurate mind and marvellous skill +in collecting and making use of facts, turned the current of natural +science into this new channel, men seemed to be without an aim for their +naturalist's work. The _savant_, for example, procured an animal +evidently of the cat tribe, and another species like a polecat. He knew +as a fact that the feline teeth had a certain structure, and that the +dental formula of the viverrine animals is different. Here, then, he +could distinguish and perhaps name the species; but what more was to be +done? All natural history as a study seemed to end in classifying and +giving long names to plants and animals. The Evolution theory at once +gave it a new object. Why is the dental formula of the _viverrinae_ +different? What purpose has the long spur in the flower of _Angraecum_, +or the marvellous bucket of _Coryanthes_, the flytrap of _Dionaea_, the +pitcher of _Nepenthes_? What is the cause, what is the purpose, what is +the plan in the scheme of nature, of these structures? Under the +stimulus of such questions naturalists woke up to new views of +classification, to new experiments, inquiries, and to research for facts +and the explanation of facts, in all quarters of the globe. No wonder +that science rose, under such an impulse, as a butterfly from its +chrysalis. But some will not be satisfied with any scheme the parts of +which are separated, or which admits of anything unknown or +unexplainable. They want to unite all into one grand and simple whole, +which glorifies their own intelligence, and does not force them to +humble patience and waiting for more light. And then the fatal enmity of +the human heart--which is a plain fact, an undeniable tendency--delights +to get rid of the idea of God's Sovereignty, the humbling sense that +everything is at His absolute disposal, and nothing could be but as He +wills it. It seems so satisfactory to eliminate all external mysterious +power, to make the whole "_totus teres atque rotundus_"--having started +the great machine of being _somehow_ to see it all expand and unroll +of itself and advance to the end. + +Imagination leaps the chasms, minimizes the difficulties, passes from +the possible to the certain, from the "may have been" to the "must have +been" and to "it was so," and, fascinated with the _completeness_ of its +scheme, commences to denounce and revile as ignorant and unscientific +all that would, calmly appeal to evidence, and confess ignorance, or at +least a suspended judgment, in any stage where the evidence is negative +or incomplete. + +It has been well observed that "men are so constituted that completeness +gives a special kind of satisfaction of its own, and a habit of +specially regarding the general uniformity of nature begets a desire to +assume its absolute and universal uniformity." + +There _is_ a great mystery underlying life and the plan in which the +animal form, the organs of sight, hearing, and the rest, run through the +whole creation: and, given a mystery, there is always ample room for +speculation. Taking firm hold of the facts of development and variation, +the extreme evolutionist is carried away with the idea of having the +same principle throughout: he is impatient of any line or any check; he +is therefore prepared to ignore all difficulties, to hope +against hope for the discovery of to him necessary--but, alas, +non-existent--intermediate forms, till at last he comes to deny, not +only his God, but his own soul, as a spiritual and supra-physical +entity.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: Those who want a specimen of the way in which extreme +evolutionists will _romance_ (it can be called nothing else) will do +well to read Dr. Haeckel's "History of Creation," only they must be on +their guard at every step. The author constantly states as facts (or, +perhaps, with an impatient "must have been") the existence of purely +hypothetical forms, of which there is _no kind_ of evidence. To such +ends does the love of completeness lead!] + +Such extremes are no part of true science, and have neither helped the +progress of knowledge, nor advanced the condition of mankind. But, on +the other hand, let us hear no more of a sweeping condemnation of the +theory of Evolution as a whole; let us beware of any insistence +on, or assumption of, the supposed fact that God created +separately--ready-made and complete--all known animal forms, bringing +them up from the ground, like the armed men in the Greek legend, from +the dragon's teeth. + +We have no more right to dogmatize and assume a scheme of creation from +a popular and long-accepted interpretation of the Bible, than the +evolutionist has to ignore the palpable evidences of Divine guidance and +design, and construct a theory or organic being which ignores both. + + + + +PART II. + + +CHAPTER X. + +_THE GENESIS NARRATIVE--ITS IMPORTANCE_. + + +We have now completed the first portion of our inquiry: there remains +the second, which, to a large class, at any rate, will appear of not +less importance. For the Scriptures, which they have been taught to +trust, contain a brief but direct and positive statement regarding +Creation, as well as numerous other less direct allusions to the +subject, all (as far as I know) in unquestioned harmony with the first. + +Is the account in the Book of Genesis true? It is necessary to answer +this question, because, even if a general belief in an Almighty Author +and Designer of all things is shown to be reasonable, still the +Scripture ought surely to support the belief; and it would be strange +if, when we came to test it on this subject, we found its professed +explanations would not stand being confronted with the facts. + +No one will, I think, deny that the question is important. Writers of +the "anti-theological" school still continue to insist on the falsity of +the Mosaic narrative, as if the error was not yet sufficiently slain, +and was important enough to be attacked again and again. And +theological writers, down to the most modern, continue to explain the +text in one way or another;--besides, _they_ admit the importance, under +any circumstances. I do not forget that there is a school of thought, +which is distinctly Christian in its profession, but does not allow the +importance. It would regard the narrative as addressed to Jews only, and +therefore as one which does not concern us. If that was all, it would +not be needful for me to discuss the position. But it has been held, not +only that the narrative does not concern us, but _also_ that it is +certainly inaccurate. + +This view I cannot adopt: it seems not quite fair to ourselves, and not +quite fair to the Jews. Let me explain what I mean. If we have nothing +to do with the narrative, let us abstain _equally_ from defending it +_or_ pronouncing it wrong--that is for ourselves. As to the Jewish +Church, a little more must be said. Let us admit, at any rate for +argument's sake, that the separation between the Jewish formal and +ceremonial religion and Christianity is as wide as can be wished. Nor +would I undervalue the importance of insisting on pure Christianity, as +distinct from Judaism. And, further, let us (without any question as to +ultimate objects) regard the narrative as primarily addressed to Jews, +and let us admit that it may have been unimportant, for the purpose of +the first steps in Divine knowledge, that any account should be given of +Creation beyond the primary fact that all idolatrous cosmogonies were +false, and that the Unseen God of Israel alone made the heavens and the +earth "in the beginning." Why should the Jews have received that truth +through the medium of a story of which the whole framework was false, +and nothing but the moral true? The framework, moreover, is one so +plainly _professing to be fact_, that it was certain to be received as +such by a simple people. It seems to me that there is something very +suspicious, something repugnant to notions of truth and honest dealing, +in the possible communication of underlying Divine truth through the +medium of stories, which are not stories on the face of them, but +profess and pretend to be statements of fact and authoritatively made. + +But, further, it cannot be denied that, whatever allowance may have to +be made under the early Jewish dispensation for the ideas and weaknesses +of a semi-barbarous people, whatever "winking" there may have been "at +times of ignorance," the main object was, by a gradual revelation,[1] by +a system of typical ordinances and ceremonies, to lead up to the full +spiritual light of the Christian dispensation. Everything written, said, +or done, was a step--however small an one--always tending in the one +direction, according to the usual law of Evolution. The Christian +believer may then look back to the early stages as imperfect +foreshadowings and dim illustrations of the whole truth; but he would, I +should think, on any ordinary principles, be shocked to find truth +developed out of positive error. And should the error have been +discovered, as it now is[2] (in the view of these I am contending +against), this discovery might have arrested the further development of +Divine truth altogether. If Moses, or whoever wrote the Book of +Genesis--we will not cavil at that--was allowed to compose his own +fancies or beliefs on the subject of Creation, _and to state them as +Divine fact_ (no matter that the reader at the time was not able to find +out the error), would not grave suspicion attach to whatever else he put +forward? Who could tell that, on any other subject, the plainest and +most direct statement of fact was not equally a fancy, only embodying or +enshrining (under the guise of its errors) some real Divine facts? If +Genesis i. is unreliable, we have a case of a writer going out of his +way to add to certain truths, which might easily have been stated by +themselves, a number of positive declarations, _as of Divine authority_, +regarding facts, which are not facts. + + +[Footnote 1: I am not aware of any authority, living or dead, who has +gone so far as to deny that God's revelation to the Jewish Church was in +any way connected with Christianity; that it was not even a stage of +progress, or preparatory step towards the kingdom of Christ.] + +[Footnote 2: And was _sure to be_ sooner or later, when a science of +Biology and Palaeontology became possible.] + +The great truths that God is really the Maker and Author of all things, +and that man has a spiritual being, and so forth, surely _gain nothing_ +from being conveyed to the world in the folds of a fable. And when it +is not in a confessed fable, but a fable put forth as fact--"God said," +"God created," "it was so"--not only is there no gain, but our sense of +fitness and of truth receive a shock. A parable is always discernible as +a parable, a vision as a vision. When our Lord, for example, tells us of +the ten virgins, we do not suppose Him to be revealing the actual +existence of ten such maidens, wise and foolish. We know that He is +reading a lesson of watchfulness. But looking at the Genesis narrative, +who could suppose it to be a parable? If sober, unmistakable statement +of fact is possible, we surely have it here, in intention, at least. + +The plan of teaching truth in an envelope of error is _per se_ difficult +to conceive. But how much worse is it when we consider--what criterion +does mankind possess for disinterring and distinguishing the elements of +truth? If in religion we had only to do (as some would perhaps contend) +with obvious enforcements of common morality and kindness, there might +be a possibility of getting over the difficulty, because man would +possess some kind of criterion whereby to distinguish what was +fictitious, by the simple process of considering whether any given +statement bore on morals or not. Such a test would not indeed go very +far, because the human race is by no means agreed on all moral +questions; nor does it always find it easy to say what is, and what is +not, directly or indirectly connected with morals. But, in fact, the +scope of religion cannot be so confined: and then the difficulty +returns; for a revelation that tells us anything of the nature of God +and His method of government, of the nature of our own being and of a +future state, must necessarily go beyond our own ethical knowledge and +powers of judging, or it would not be a revelation. Supposing that the +revelation regarding such vital subjects is occasionally conveyed +through the medium of erroneous statements, where in any given case +would be the certainty as to what was Divine truth, and what not so? + +This argument applies equally to another school of thinkers, who do not +care to tell us what the narrative in itself means: who believe that God +did not do what He is said to have done in Genesis, and yet who hold +that the narrative is in a sense inspired, and that we may learn from it +the great facts that God (and none other) originated all things--that +man has a spiritual element in his nature, and that woman is equal in +nature, but subordinate in position, to man, and so forth. Not only is +enlightened judgment, even, inadequate to pronounce with certainty on +how much is true; but the strange feeling still remains, if God designed +to teach us these truths only, why was it not possible to enable the +writer[1] to state them without the (purely gratuitous) error? The +sufferance of such a strange and unnecessary mixture of error seems +rather like that "putting to confusion" of the human mind, which we feel +sure the Great Teacher would never willingly perpetrate. + + +[Footnote 1: For on the supposition stated, there _is_ a revelation in +the text. Nor could any class of believer deny this. It is entirely +unnecessary to define the kind and extent of insphation. But "all +Scripture is '_theopneustos_'"--I leave the word purposely untranslated +(2 Tim. iii. 16); that surely means that the Divine Spirit exercised +_some kind_ of continuous control over the writers.] + +Nor, again, can the narrative be got over by saying it is a poetic side +or aspect of the facts, and not to be taken literally. If any one knows +exactly what this means, and can tell us always how to translate the +matter into plain language, it is to be wished that he would enlighten +the world as to the process. But even if such process exists infallibly +and universally, still, one would suppose, the narrative must, to begin +with, be unmistakable poetry. And here, again, the narrative bears every +mark of an intention to state facts, not poetic aspects of facts. Nor +can we take the narrative as belonging to a familiar class in Scripture +where a dream is used as a vehicle of communication. In those cases +there is really no room for doubt; the visible facts themselves are +obviously designed only to typify or represent some other facts. + +The events stated in Genesis are not of this class. Those, therefore, +who would be content with getting over the narrative without caring for +its details, can, I must suspect, have hardly given adequate attention +to the form and to the contents of the narrative as it stands. Not only +are the statements positive, but, taking any interpretation whatever of +them, they are not nearly imaginative enough to suit the purpose. + +They have an obvious amount of relation to fact which has never been +denied.[1] + +If the narrative is purely human even (and that the school we are +considering do not aver), how did the writer come to be accurate even to +that extent? Take only the order of events. I admit it does not +correspond with the geologic record in the way commonly asserted; yet it +has a very remarkable relation to that sequence. + +Now, in any case, the writer could have had no knowledge of any kind _of +his own_ on the subject: how did he hit on this particular +arrangement?[2] It is a mere matter of calculation on the well-known +rules of permutation and combination to realize in how many different +ways the same set of events could have been arranged; the number is very +considerable. + +And he could derive no assistance from any similar existing narrative. +If we conclude from the Assyrian discoveries that a non-biblical but +similar narrative existed, still it is certain that the principal one we +as yet have is so late in date, that it is more likely to be derived +from the Bible than the Bible from it. And though, on referring to the +earlier tablets, we find traces of the same narrative, it is so obscured +by idolatrous and false details, that the Bible writer must have had to +make a virtually new departure to get his own simple narrative. A +re-revelation would be required. As to all other cosmogonies, Egyptian, +Indian, and Buddhistic, nothing can be more opposed in principle and in +detail than they are to the severe and stately simplicity and directness +of the Mosaic. + + +[Footnote 1: Not even, for example, by Professor Haeckel.] + +[Footnote 2: How, for example, did the writer come to introduce the +adjustment of hours of daylight and seasons in the _middle_, after so +much work had been done? How did he come to place _birds_ along with +fish and water monsters, and not separately?] + +We cannot, then, account for the narrative on human grounds; nor can we +suppose that any inspiring control would have given the author so much +truth, and yet allowed so much error. + +All this points to only one of two possible conclusions: either the +narrative is not inspired at all, and is a mere misleading story, into +which the name of God is introduced by the author's piety--and so really +teaches us nothing, since it is not revelation; _or_ the narrative is, +as a whole, divinely dictated, and must be true _throughout_, if we can +only arrive by due study at its true meaning. That part of it is, or may +be, true, even on the most cursory study, is not denied; that it is +_all_ true will appear, I think, in the sequel. + +But there is a shorter and simpler reason why the rejection of the +narrative in Genesis would be a direct blow to Christian faith. The +plain truth is that it can hardly be denied, by any candid student of +the New Testament, that our Lord and His apostles certainly received the +early chapters of Genesis as of Divine authority. This has always been +perceived by the whole school of writers opposed to the Faith. They +therefore continue to attack these early revelations, and rejoice to +overturn them if they can, because they are aware that hardly any +chapters in the Bible are more constantly alluded to and made the +foundation of practical arguments by our Lord and His apostles. + +If these chapters can be shown to be mythical, then the Divine knowledge +of our Lord as the Son of God, and the inspiration of His apostles, are +called in question. In the New Testament, especially, there are repeated +and striking allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the +Serpent, and the entrance into the world of sin and death. Our Lord +Himself places the whole argument of His teaching on marriage and the +permissibility of divorce on Genesis ii. 24 (_cf_. St. Matt. xix. and +St. Mark x.). In St. John viii. 44 our Lord clearly alludes to the +Edenic narrative when He speaks of the tempter as a "manslayer ([Greek: +anthropoktonos]) from the beginning." Still more remarkable is the +argument of St. Paul in Romans v.; altogether based as it is on the +historical verity of the account of the Fall; and other allusions are to +be found in 1 Cor. xi. 8, in 2 Cor. xi. 3, in the Epistle to the +Ephesians, and elsewhere. In short, there are at least sixty-six +passages in the New Testament, in which the first eleven chapters of +Genesis are directly quoted or made the ground of argument. Of these, +six are by our Lord Himself, two being direct quotations;[1] six by St. +Peter, thirty-eight by St. Paul, seven by St. John, one by St. James, +two by St. Jude, two by the assembled apostles, three by St. Luke, and +one by St. Stephen. + + +[Footnote 1: St. Matt. xix. 4; St. Luke xvii. 27; and perhaps we might +add a third--St. Matt. xxiii. 35.] + +We cannot, in fact, possibly avoid the conclusion that our Lord and His +apostles admitted the Divine origin and historical truth of these +chapters. + +Therefore, we are bound as Christians to accept them, and that without +glossing or frittering away their meaning, when we have arrived, by just +processes, at what that meaning really is. + +The fact just stated further warns us against accepting an indefinite +interpretation which, while it acknowledges the truth of the general +conclusion, still virtually, if not in so many words, allows that the +details may be wholly inaccurate. + + + + +CHAPTER XI. + +_SCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION_. + + +Passing, then, to a consideration of the explanations of the narrative +that may be or have been given at various times, I would first call +attention to the fact, that it seems in many instances to have been the +distinct purpose of Divine inspiration to allow the meaning of some +passages to be obscure; perhaps among other reasons, that men might be +compelled to study closely, to reason and to compare, and thus to become +more minutely acquainted with the record. Especially in a case of this +sort, where the world's knowledge of the facts would necessarily be +gradual, was it desirable that the narrative should be confined in +scope, and capable of being worked out and explained by the light of +later discoveries; because, had the narrative really (as has long been +supposed) been revealed to tell us what was the actual course of +evolution of created forms on earth, it would not only have occupied a +disproportionate space in the sacred volume, but would have been +unintelligible to the world for many centuries, and would have given +rise to much doubting and false argument, to the great detriment of +men's spiritual enlightenment. It would have diverted men's minds from +the great moral and conclusion of the whole (and here it is that the +"moral" or conclusion is so important) to set them arguing on points of +natural science. + +The Bible was never intended (so far we may agree with all the schools +of thought) to be a text-book on biology or geology. We need rather to +be impressed with the great facts of God's Sovereignty and Providence, +and to know definitely that all the arrangements of our globe and all +forms of life are due to Divinely-created types. This is exactly secured +by the narrative as it stands; but such a purpose would not be served by +a narrative which, while it contained these great facts, had them +enwrapped in a tissue of unnecessary and false details. And therefore it +is, if I may so far anticipate my conclusion, that the narrative has no +direct concern with how, when, and where, the Creation slowly worked +itself out under the Divine guidance which is still elaborating the +great purpose of the "ages"; it confines our attention to what God, the +great Designer, did and said in heaven, as preliminary to all that was +to follow on earth. The former was not a proper subject for revelation, +because man would in time come to learn it by his studies on earth; but +the latter all ages could only learn--the first as well as the +latest--from a Divine Revelation. + +Again, let me address a few words to those who are tempted, half +unconsciously perhaps, to think that any lengthy prelude and "elaborate" +explanation of Genesis must condemn the narrative _a priori_, or be +derogatory to the dignity of Revelation. Why the narrative should be +brief and concise I have just suggested. That it needs explanation of +_some_ sort is inevitable, because it _must_ be put into human language; +and directly such language is employed, we come upon such terms as "let +there be," "he created," and "days," which do not always call forth the +same ideas in all minds. + +It will not have escaped the attention of any earnest student, that +Scripture has several different methods of describing things so as to +reveal them to men. This, a moment's reflection will enable us to +expect. However high and wonderful the things to be stated are, in order +to be brought within reach of human understanding _they must be +expressed in terms of human thought and experience_; and these are +imperfect and essentially inadequate. Hence it is, that many truths have +to be brought before us in special or peculiar ways. + +How, for instance, are we told of the temptation and fall of man? How +are we to understand what was meant by the Tree of Life or the Tree of +Knowledge of Good and Evil, or by the Serpent speaking and beguiling +Eve? We are at a great loss to give a precise explanation, though the +practical meaning is not difficult. + +The facts may be none the less true, though from their transcendental +character it may have been necessary to put them down in mysterious, +possibly even in merely allegorical, language. Another instance of this +might be given in the account of Satan in the presence of the Lord as +described in the Book of Job, or of the lying Spirit described by +Micaiah when prophesying before Ahab. It maybe that these narratives +describe to us transactions in a world beyond our own, which _could_ +only be conveyed to us in figures or in imperfect form. When St. Paul +was caught up into the third heaven, he "heard unspeakable things" which +it was not _possible_ for him to utter--the medium of expression was +wanting. Divine or mysterious things have, then, to be described in +peculiar language which is not always easy to understand. Nor, having +respect to the varying requirements of the different ages, or the +circumstances of the time and of the inspired writer, is it easy to +understand why any particular form of communication was selected, though +doubtless if we knew more we should see a good reason for it. This gives +us one class of Scripture passages--of methods of revelation. On the +other hand, there are in Scripture many facts of the highest import, and +in themselves of transcendent magnitude, which are yet capable of being +stated without any possibility of our interpreting or understanding the +narrative in more ways than one. When it is stated that Christ Jesus +rose from the dead, we know beyond all reasonable doubt what is meant. +The fact may be true or false, but the narrative of the fact needs no +explanation; there are no terms which need expansion--which could bear +more than one possible meaning, and which could be used accordingly in +one sense or another. This instances a second class. Again, we can bring +forward yet another class of Scripture revelations, namely, passages +which are necessarily understood with reference to certain other matters +which are unexpressed but are taken for granted, or in which the words +used may bear more than one meaning, or a meaning which is uncertain or +obscure. If the unexpressed matter can be supplied without doubt, then +all ages will agree in the interpretation; and if the terms can (by +reference to context or otherwise) be explained, the same result +follows: if not, then in interpreting the narrative, each age will _make +its own assumption_ regarding the terms used, on the basis of such +knowledge as it possesses. It follows, then, inevitably, that if the +state of knowledge varies, the interpretation will be different +according to the different standard of knowledge, according to which the +necessary assumptions are made. And yet all the while the authority of +the passage itself is not touched. As it is unquestionable that such +different classes of passage do occur in Scripture, it is merely a +question of criticism whether any given passage is of this class or +that, and whether its terms do admit of or require explanation. It is no +doubt possible to make mistakes and to err by refusing the direct +meaning, and giving to the terms an assumed meaning for which there is +no real necessity.[1] We have always to be on our guard against giving +special meanings to words where they are not required; but granted that +caution, there undoubtedly are passages in which either the terms +themselves are not plain, or in which they may really have a meaning +different from the ordinary one. + + +[Footnote 1: As, for example, where persons desirous to get over the +plain reference to Baptism in St. John iii. 5, try to explain away the +term "water" to mean something metaphorically but not actually water.] + +To descend from the general to the particular, it is obvious that the +account of Creation in Genesis i., ii. is in such a form that we must +assume our own ideas of the term "day" therein employed, and also those +to be attached to "created" and similar terms. + +In early times, no one would take "day" to mean anything else but an +earth day of the ordinary kind, and no one would question whether or not +the whole existing animals and plants, or their ancestors, appeared on +earth in six such days, or whether anything else was meant. Again, by +the time St. Augustine was writing, a little more knowledge of nature +and a little more habit of reasoning about the origin of things was in +the world, and that knowledge led people to suppose that creation meant +only the making of things "out of nothing," but that it would take +longer than six times twelve hours, so that "days" might mean "periods." + +And people imagined for a long time that--taking for an example the +work in the middle of the narrative--there was a time when the earth +emerged from the tumult of waters, that it then got covered with plants, +the waters remaining barren of life; but that when the plants had come +up all over the ground, then the waters all at once became full of all +sorts of sea-shells, fish, and monsters of the deep, and so on. + +They did all this, by naturally _assuming_ that the terms "creation," +"day," &c., meant what the _existing state of knowledge_ at the time +suggested. + +At the present day, one would have supposed that every one must feel +that while the term "day" might or might not admit of explanation, +certainly _creation_ (i.e., terms implying it) did require very great +care in interpreting, and very great consideration as to what they +really meant But however that may be, we have here a passage which +_must_ have an explanation; and which must have an explanation that +depends on the state of knowledge. + +The utility of Revelation is not negatived by this necessary result of +the employment of human language in describing the facts. It was _not_ +necessary before, that all should be understood; it may be now +increasingly necessary in the purposes of God that it should be. At any +rate the fact is so, that in former days people did not possess the data +for knowing fully what creation meant, and certainly they do now possess +it to a very much greater extent at least. Always men could learn from +the narrative what it always was important for them to learn, namely, +God's Sovereignty and Authorship. It is in this way that the value of +the _general_ teaching of the narrative comes out, and not by trying to +allow a mixture of truth and falsehood in Revelation. All is and always +was true; but _all_ the truth was not equally extractable at all times. + +Again: the dignity of the old written Revelation is not compromised +because God has virtually given a further revelation in His works, +i.e., by enabling man to know more about the rock-strata and the +succession of life on the earth. That is what it really comes to. It +should never be forgotten that the book of Nature _is_ a revelation. + +The _works_ of God, if interpreted truly, are evidence of the same +nature as the _word_ of God if interpreted truly. God has created man +and his reason. It is impossible to suppose that it can be unrighteous +reasoning in God's sight, to derive from the facts of nature any +legitimate conclusion to which those facts point. It is childish to +believe that God created ready-made--if I may so speak--rocks with +fossils in them, marks of rain-drops showing which way the wind blew at +the time, foot-prints of birds, animals with remains of the prey they +had been feeding on, in their stomachs, and so forth. It is perfectly +reasonable and right to conclude certainly, that those creatures were +once living beings; that the surface of the earth was once a soft +sediment which received the impression of the rain-drops as they fell; +and that stratified rocks were deposited out of lakes and seas, as we +see alluvial strata deposited at the present day. It is impossible, +therefore, that (if we are not misled by appearances) any +well-ascertained fact can be contrary to the truth of God as explained +by Revelation. If we are not sure of the facts of nature, we must wait +patiently till further knowledge enlightens us, and must not hastily +conclude that the Bible is wrong. The repeated corrections which +successive years have compelled us to make in conclusions which were +once firmly accepted and proclaimed as "truths of science," should teach +us caution in this respect. + +Nor, lastly, is it any reproach to the Church, as keeper of the Divine +Revelation, that its opinion of certain passages should vary with the +growth of knowledge. It would be hardly necessary to make this obvious +remark but for the fact that it has been reproached against Christian +belief, that science is contrary to the Bible, and that the Church has +ever had to confess itself wrong, after having persecuted people for not +following its peculiar views. It is, indeed, unfortunate that a blind +zeal for God has led, in the past, to persecution; the Church failing to +see that such men as Galileo and Bruno never denied God at all, nor did +their discoveries really contradict the Word. But persecution is not a +sin peculiar to the Church; it is a sin of human nature. + +It is also true that Christian views may be wrong, but the fault is in +the views, not in the Bible. + +Scientific men, of all people, should be the last to complain of +_change_ in views, seeing that what was science two hundred years ago is +now (much of it) exploded nonsense. + +There is no harm whatever in changing our views about the meaning of +difficult passages--provided we never let go our hold on the central +truth, and put the error to our own account, not saying that the Word +itself is wrong. + +It may, in this connection, be at once observed that any particular +explanation, or that one which I propose presently to suggest, of the +first chapters of Genesis, may not commend itself to the reader, and yet +the general argument I have adduced will hold good notwithstanding. + +All that I care to contend is, that science does not contradict a +syllable of the narrative on _one_ possible interpretation, and that +changes in view as to interpretation are no arguments against the truth +of the passage itself. + + + + +CHAPTER XII. + +_METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE--ASSUMPTIONS OF MEANING TO +CERTAIN TERMS._ + + +Returning, then, to the narrative in the Book of Genesis, I think we may +take it as clear that the passage stands in such a concise and condensed +form, that it is obviously open to _be interpreted_. Further, that we +should not be surprised if the interpretation at the present day, with +our vastly increased knowledge of Nature, is different from what it was +in earlier times. + +I make no apology for repeating this so often, because it is really +amazing to see the way in which "anti-theological" writers attack what +_they suppose_ to be the interpretation of the narrative, or what some +one else supposes to be such, and seem to be satisfied that in so doing +they have demolished the credibility of the narrative itself. + +If you choose to assume that Creation as spoken of by the sacred writer +means some particular thing, or even if the mass of uneducated or +unreflecting people assume it and you follow them, I grant at once that +the narrative can be readily made out to be wrong. + +Permit me, then, to repeat once more, that the narrative is in human +language, and uses the human terms "created," "made," and "formed," and +that these terms _do_ (as a matter of fact which there is no gainsaying) +bear a meaning which is not invariable. Hence, without any glossing or +"torturing" of the narrative, we are under the plain obligation to seek +to assign to these terms a true meaning _with all the light that modern +knowledge_ can afford. + +Now (having already considered the school of interpretation which +declines to attend to the exact terms) we can confine our attention to +two classes of interpreters. One explains the term "days" to mean long +periods of time; the other accepts the word in its ordinary and most +natural sense, and endeavours to eliminate the long course of +developmental work made known to us by palaeontological science, and +supposes all that to have been passed over in silence; and argues that a +final preparation for the advent of the man Adam was made in a special +work of six days. + +All the well-known attempts at explanation, such as those of Pye-Smith, +Chalmers, H. Miller, Pratt, and the ordinary commentaries, can be placed +in one or other of these categories. + +Now, as regards both, I recur to the curious fact (already noted) that +it seems never to enter into the conception of either school to inquire +for a moment what the sacred writer meant by "created"--God +"created"--God said "let there be." It _is_ curious, because no one can +reasonably say "these terms are obvious, they bear their own meaning on +the surface;" a moment's analysis will scatter such an idea to the +winds. Yet the terms _are_ passed by. The commentators set themselves +right earnestly to compare and to collate, to argue and to analogize, on +the meaning of the term "days;" the other term "created" they take for +granted without--as far as I am aware--single line of explanation, or so +much as a doubt whether they know what it really means! + +The interpretation that I would propose to the judgment of the Church is +just the very opposite. It seems to me that the word _day_ as used in +the narrative needs no explanation; it seems to me that the other does. +As regards the term "day," it is surely a rule of sound criticism never +to give an "extraordinary" meaning to a word, when the "ordinary" one +will give good and intelligible sense to a passage. And looking to the +fact that, after all, when the days of Genesis _are_ explained to mean +periods of very unequal but possibly enormous duration, that explanation +is not only quite useless, but raises greater difficulties than ever, I +should think it most likely that the "day" of the narrative should be +taken in the ordinary sense. But of this hereafter. + +On the other hand, with regard to the terms "creation,[1]" "created," +"Let there be," and so forth, I find ample room for the most careful +consideration and for detailed study before we can say what is meant. +Even then there remains a feeling of profound mystery. For at the very +beginning of every train of reflection and reasoning on the subject, we +are just brought up dead at this wonderful fact, the existence of +_matter_ where previously there had been _nothing_. The phrase "created +_out of_ nothing" is of course a purely conventional one, and, strictly +speaking, has no meaning; but we adopt it usefully enough to indicate +our ultimate fact--the appearance of matter where previously there had +been nothing. Nor is the difficulty really surmounted by alleging such a +mere _phrase_ as "matter is eternal," for we have just as little mental +conception of self-existent, always--and _without beginning_--existent +matter, as we have of "creation out of nothing." + + +[Footnote 1: The entire silence of commentators regarding the doubtful +meaning of "creation" is so surprising, that I have had the greatest +difficulty in persuading myself that the explanation I propose is new. +Yet certainly I have never come across it anywhere.] + +The human mind has always a difficulty when it is brought face to face +with something that is beyond the scope not only of its own practical, +but, even of its theoretical or potential ability. + +The "creation," therefore, of matter by a Divine Power is matter of +_faith_, as I endeavoured to set forth in the earlier pages of this +little work; but it is _reasonable_ faith, because it can be supported +by sound reasoning from analogy and strong probability. + +All our attention, then, I submit, should be directed to understanding +what is "creation" in the sacred narrative. + + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +_THE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY._ + +I.--THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE. + +Sec. 1. _Objections to the Received Interpretations_. + + +Taking the narrative as it stands, we find it to consist of two parts. +First, a general statement, of which no division of time is predicated, +and which is unaccompanied by any detail. Second, there is an account +seriatim of certain operations which are stated to have been severally +performed one on each of six days. + +As regards the first portion, we have no definite knowledge of +scientific truth with which to compare the narrative. It is obviously +necessary for some Divine teacher to tell us authoritatively that God +originated and caused the material earth, and the systems of suns and +stars which men on the earth's surface are able to discern in the +"heavens." + +We are consequently informed that in the beginning--there is no +practical need for defining further--"God created the heavens and the +earth." Here the question arises whether the Hebrew "bara," which is a +general term, alludes to the first production of material, or to the +moulding or fashioning of material already (in terms) assumed to exist. +I think that the conclusion must be that the best authority is in favour +of the idea of absolute origination of the whole;--the bringing the +entire system into existence where previously there was a perfect blank. +But even if the secondary meaning of "fashioned" or "forged" be allowed, +we have still an intelligible rendering. For in that case the first +origination of matter is tacitly assumed by the term itself, and the +statement would be, that the matter of the future cosmos so existing, +the Divine Artificer fashioned or moulded it into the orderly fabric it +has come to be. + +The narrative then at once refers to our earth, with which, and with its +inhabitants, the whole volume is to be in future directly concerned. +"The earth was (or became) without form and void (chaotic), and darkness +was on the face of the deep (or abyss)." + +We have no positive knowledge of what the first condition of terrestrial +matter was, apart from Revelation. The remarkable discoveries that the +spectroscope has enabled, and the facts learned from the physical +history of comets and meteorites, can do no more than make what is known +as the "nebular hypothesis" highly probable. But it is amply sufficient +for our purpose to point out, that if it is true that matter originated +in a nebulous haze to the particles of which a spiral rotatory motion +had been communicated, and if (confining our attention to one planet +only) that attenuated matter gradually aggregated in a ring or rings, +and then consolidated into a solid or partly solid globe, then the +results are briefly, but adequately and sublimely, provided for by the +form of the Mosaic statement. + +Matter thus aggregating would have developed an enormous amount of heat, +and there would have been a seething mass of molten mineral matters, +with gases and other materials in the form of vapours, which would have +gradually cooled and consolidated. Vast masses of water would in time be +formed on one hand, and solid mineral masses on the other; the latter +would contract as cooling progressed, causing great upheavals and +depressions and contortions of strata. And before the advent of +life-forms, it is not difficult to conceive that the first state of our +globe was one which is intelligibly and very graphically described as +being "without form and void." Nothing more than that, can, from actual +physical knowledge, be stated.[1] + +It is also stated that this confused elemental state of our earth was +accompanied at first by darkness. Material darkness that is--for the +potentiality of light and order was there; the SPIRIT OF GOD "moved" (or +brooded) upon the face of the abyss. This presents no difficulty of +interpretation, and may therefore be passed over for the present. + + +[Footnote 1: It would be hardly necessary (but for some remarks in the +course of the Gladstone-Huxley controversy) to observe that the term +"void" does not imply vacuity or emptiness, as of _substance,_ but +absence of defined form such as subsequently was evolved.] + +Practically, indeed, there has been no grave difficulty raised over this +first portion. And if it is argued (on the ground of what I have already +in general terms indicated) that the term "created" will, on my own +interpretation, get us into difficulties, I reply that here, in its +position and with the context, there is no room for doubt, for clearly +the word implies _both_ the great primary idea of the Divine design or +plan formulated in heaven, _and_ the subsequent result in time and +space.[1] This will become more clear when I have further explained the +subject. + + +[Footnote 1: And of course if the true sense be "fashioned" or +"moulded," the question does not arise.] + +II.--THE SECOND PART OF THE NARRATIVE. + + +But from this point the narrative commences to be more precise, and to +exhibit a very singular and altogether unprecedented division of +creative work into "days." + +Now I have already indicated my doubt whether we ought to import any +unusual meaning to explain this term. + +In the first place, the objection that till the movements and relations +of the sun to the earth were ordained there would be no _measure of a +day_ will not stand a moment's examination. Nor will the further +objection sometimes made, that even with the sun, a day is a very +uncertain thing: for example, a day and a night in the north polar +regions are periods of month-long duration, quite different from what +they are in England, or at Mount Sinai. Obviously, a "day" with +reference to the planet for which the term is used, means the period +occupied by one rotation of the planet on its own axis. The rotation of +the earth is antecedent to anything mentioned in the narrative we are +considering. In the nature of things, it would have been coeval with the +introduction of the _prima materies_--at least if any nebular hypothesis +can be relied on. The "day" would be there whether it were obscured by +vapours or not, and whether specially made countable and recognizable by +what we call the rising and setting of the sun, or not, and whether we +were standing in Nova Zembla or in Australia. + +Nor is it of much use to refer to the general use of "day" for +indefinite periods, which is just as common in the English of to-day as +it was in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the double use of the +term in different senses has become general, just because it was found +in practice that no confusion ordinarily resulted; and surely such a +practice would not have been common, or at any rate would have been +specially avoided in the sacred volume, wherever any mistake or +confusion was likely or even possible. + +No one can mistake what is meant when allusion is made to "the day in +which God made the heaven and the earth." No one falls into doubt when +the "days" of the prophets are spoken of--any more than they do now when +a man says, "Such a thing will not happen in my _day_." + +Whenever in Daniel, or in similar prophetic writings, the term "day" is +used in a peculiar sense as indicating a term of years, we have no +difficulty in recognizing the fact from the context and circumstances of +the narrative; nor am I aware that any controversy has ever arisen +regarding the use of the term "day" _in any passage of Scripture +excepting in this_. + +This fact alone is suspicious; the more so, because there is absolutely +nothing in the context to indicate that anything but an ordinary day is +intended. Not only so, but there _is_ in the context something that does +very clearly indicate (and I think Dr. Reville is perfectly justified in +insisting on this) that an ordinary terrestrial day is meant. One of the +primeval institutions of Divine Providence for men, my readers will not +need to be reminded, was that of a "Sabbath," which any one reading the +text would understand to mean a day, and which the Jews--the earliest +formal or legal recognizers of it--_did_ so understand, and that under +direct Divine sanction. + +If the _days_ of Genesis mean indefinite periods of aeonian duration, +how is the seventh _day_ of rest to be understood? + +But even if these difficulties are overcome, absolutely nothing is +gained by taking the day to be a period. + +I presume that the object of gaining long periods of time instead of +days in reading the Mosaic record, is to assume that the narrative means +to describe the actual production on the earth of all that was created; +in other words, to assume a particular meaning for the words "created," +"brought forth," &c and then to make out that if a whole age is +granted, Science will allow us a sequence of a "plant age" a "fish and +saurian age," a "bird age," and a "mammalian age";--that is, in general +terms and neglecting minor forms of life. But then _to make any sense at +all with the verses_ we are bound to show that each age preceded the +next--that one was more than partly, if not quite completely, +established _before_ any appearance of the next. + +It is to this interpretation that Professor Huxley alludes when he says, +in his first article,[1] "There must be some position from which the +reconcilers of Science and Genesis will not retreat--some central idea +the maintenance of which is vital, and its refutation fatal.... It is +that the animal species which compose the water population, the air +population, and the land population,[2] respectively, originated during +three successive periods of time, and only during those periods of +time." + + +[Footnote 1: "Nineteenth Century," December, 1885, pp. 856-7.] + +[Footnote 2: These (unfortunate) terms are Mr. Gladstone's.] + +For my own part, I hasten to say that, as one of the despised race of +"reconcilers," not only is this idea no central position from which I +will not retreat, but one which I should never think of occupying for +one moment. + +But on the view of the _periods_, some such position must be taken up. +And if so, I must maintain that Professor Huxley has shown--if indeed it +was not obvious already--that the idea of a series of periods, and in +each of which a certain kind of life began and culminated (if it was not +fully completed) _before_ another began, is untrue to nature. This, +therefore, cannot have been intended by the author of Genesis. + +I will here interrupt my argument for a moment to say that there is a +_certain degree_ of _coincidence_ between the succession of life on the +earth as far as it is explained by palaeontological research, and the +order of creation stated in Genesis; but that is not concerned with any +forced interpretation of the term "day." The coincidence is just near +enough to give rise to a desire to identify creative periods with the +series shown by the fossil-bearing rocks; while it is attended with just +enough of difference to furnish matter for controversy, and to expose +the interpreters to be cut up. + +But to return. Nothing, I submit, is gained by getting _day_ to mean +period. Let us put the matter quite squarely. Let us take day to mean +period, and let us take all the verses to mean the _process_ of +_producing_ on earth the various life-forms. + +In order to come at once to the point, let us begin with the time when +the dry land and the waters are separate. At that moment, there is +nothing said (or implied) about life already having begun in either +water or on dry land. God commanded plants to grow; consequently during +that _whole period_ nothing but plants, and that of all the kinds and +classes mentioned, should appear either in water or on land. That period +being done, then came the command for water animals, fish and great +monsters, and also birds. We ought, accordingly, to come next upon a +whole period in which no trace of anything but plants and these animals +can be found; and lastly, we ought to find the period of mammalia, +smaller reptiles, _amphibia_ and insects (creeping things). + +That is the fair and plain result of what comes of supposing the terms +"let there be," &c., to mean _production on earth of the thing's +themselves_, and that the days are long _periods_. + +All overlapping of the periods is inadmissible. All meaning is taken +away, if we allow of fish (e.g.) appearing in the middle of our first +period; for God did not command another day's work till after the first +was completed--"there was evening and there was morning, a first day" +(period), &c. + +No; to suit the text so interpreted, we must have a full _period_ of +plants with no fish; then a period of both but no insects, no creeping +things, no animals; and so on. Now it is quite idle to contend any +longer, that any such state of things ever existed. + +If we pass over the long series of the most ancient strata in which +doubtful forms of obscure elementary plant and animal life appear +_almost_ together, we shall come to shell-fish, and crustaceans fully +established in the water, and scorpions, and some insects even on land, +_before_ plants made any great show. For the Carboniferous--_the_ age of +acrogen plants, _par excellence_--does not occur till after swarms of +_Trilobite_ Crustaceans had filled the sea and passed away, and after +the Devonian fish-age had nearly passed away; and so on throughout. + +The groups in nature overlap each other so closely, that though +plant-life (in elementary forms) probably had the actual start; +virtually the two kingdoms--plant and animal--appeared almost +simultaneously. There is nothing like the appearance of a first period +in which one _alone_ predominated. And long before the plants are +established in all classes, the great reptiles, birds, and some mammals, +had appeared. The seed-bearing plants--true grasses and exogens with +seed capsules (angiosperms) did not appear till quite Tertiary times. +That is the essential difference between the facts and the theory. If we +make a diagram, and let the squares represent the main groups, the order +(according to the period interpretation) ought to be as in A, whereas +it really more resembles B. Thus. + +[Illustration: The dotted extensions of the squares indicate the fore +runners of the families, i.e., their first indications in the ages.] + +[Illustration: _A New Interpretation suggested_] + +But then it will be asked, if the day means only an ordinary day--not a +long period--what is there that actually could have happened, and did +happen, in _three days_ (for that is the real point, as we shall see), +such as the writer describes as the third, fifth, and sixth days? + +I answer that on those days, and on the previous ones, God did exactly +what He is recorded to have done. After the creation of light (first +day), and the ideal adjustment of the distribution of land and water +(second day), He (_a_) "_created_," on the third day, plants, from the +lowest cryptogam upwards; then (_b_) paused for a day (the fourth) in +the direct work of creating life-forms, to adjust certain matters +regarding times and seasons, and regulation of climate, which doubtless +would not be essential during the early stages of life evolution, but +would become so directly a certain point was reached; then (_c_) resumed +the direct creating work (fifth day), with fishes, great reptiles,[1] +and birds (grouped purposely so, as we shall see); and, lastly (_d_), +before the Day of Rest, created the group of mammals (_carnivora_ and +_herbivora_), the "creeping things" of the earth, and man (also grouped +together). + + +[Footnote 1: This term may be here accepted for the moment--not to +interrupt the argument. It will be more fully dealt with in a subsequent +chapter.] + +But some one will ask, You then accept the earlier theory, that the +whole life-series that is now revealed to us by the rocks, from the +Laurentian to the Recent, is excluded from the narrative; and that some +special acts of creation, regarding only modern and surviving +life-forms, were made immediately before man appeared? By no-means; for +such a theory is not only in itself improbable, but is contrary to all +the evidence we possess of life-history on the earth, and is so hopeless +that it is really not worth serious examination and refutation. + +We have no evidence of any such gap--such sudden change in the history +of life. Nor is it possible to find any place in the Mosaic story at +which we could reasonably interpolate a _long_ period, such as that +indicated by the entire series of rock strata. For a great part of such +a period, not only must there have been a regular succession of life +just the same in nature (though specifically different) as that now on +earth, but a regular distribution of land and water, and a settled +action of the sun and the seasons, would be required. No; we must give +up all the older methods which try to ignore the study of the word +"created," or to assume for it a meaning that it is not intended to +bear. + +All depends, then, on what is meant by such terms as "created," "let +there be," "let the earth bring forth," &c. Perhaps it has occurred to +but few of my readers seriously to examine into their own mental +conception of an "act of creation." Some will readily answer, "Of course +it means only that at the Divine _fiat_, any given species--say an +elephant--appeared perfect, trunk, tusks, and all the peculiar +development of skull and skeleton, where previously no such creature had +existed." But what possible reason have they for this conclusion? None +whatever. It has simply been carelessly assumed from age to age, because +people at first knew no better; and when they began to know better, they +did not stop to amend their ideas accordingly. + +Of course, as Professor Huxley puts it, millions of pious Jews and +Christians[1] supposed _creation_ to mean a "sudden act of the +Deity"--i.e., to mean just what the knowledge of the time enabled them +to imagine. They could do nothing else. The state of knowledge fifty +years ago would not have rendered it possible for an article like +Professor Huxley's (that to which allusion has several times been made) +to have been written at all. What wonder, then, that the multitude did +not understand what _creation_ meant, and that a reasonable +interpretation of the word has only become possible in quite recent +times? Surely all that is the fault of the reader, not of the text. I do +not even care that the writer himself did not fully apprehend the +subject. When a human prophet is entrusted with the divulgation of high +and wonderful things, it is quite possible that he may have been to +greater or less extent in the dark as to all or some of the +communication he was writing. + + +[Footnote 1: Article quoted, p. 857.] + +All that can be reasonably required is that the narrative, as it stands, +shall be consistent with actual truth, and shall at no time come to be +provably at variance with it. + +But let us look at the word "creation" more closely. We accept what we +are told, that in the beginning God called into existence force and +matter, the material or "physical basis," and all other necessaries of +life. Suppose, then (even dropping the question of Evolution, in order +to satisfy the "pious millions"), that this "matter" was all ready (if +I may so speak) to spring into organized form and being to take shape on +earth--what shape should it take? Why (e.g.) an elephant? Why not any +other animal, or a nondescript--a form which no zoologist could place, +recognize, or classify? The _form_, the ideal structure, the _formula_, +of the genus elephant must somehow have come into existence _before_ the +obedient materials and the suitable forces of nature could work +themselves together to the desired end. + +Mr. Mivart has defined "creation" at page 290 of his "Genesis of +Species." There is original creation, derivative or secondary creation +(where the present form has descended from an ancestor that was +originally "directly" created), and conventional creation (as when a man +"creates a fortune," meaning that he produces a complex state or +arrangement out of simpler materials). That is perfectly true, so far; +but it is only a verbal definition, and still does not go inside, into +the _idea_ involved. We must go farther. + +In every act of creation, two requisites can clearly be distinguished: +(1) the matter of life, and the forces, affinities, and local +surroundings necessary; and (2) the type, plan, ideal, or formula, to +realize or produce which, the forces and the matter are to act and +react. This second is all-essential; without it the first would only +produce a limbo of + +"Unaccomplisht works of Nature's hand, +Abortive, monstrous, or unkindly mixt.[1]" + + +[Footnote 1: "Paradise Lost," iii. 455.] + +No _creation_ in _any_ sense whatever could come out of it. + +In the same way, when we speak of the Divine Artificer "creating," or +saying "Let there be," there are two things implied: (i) the Divine plan +or type-form, and its utterance or delivery (so to speak) to the +builder-forces and materials; (2) the result or the translation into +tangible existence of the Divine plan. + +In every passage speaking of creation it _possible_ that both processes +may be implied; it may be clear from the text (as in Genesis i. 1) that +this is so. But it is equally possible that the first point only, which +in some aspects is really the essential matter, is alone spoken of. + +And I submit that, given the general fact that God originated everything +in heaven and earth (as first of all stated generally in Genesis i. +1-3), the essential part of the _detailed_ or _specific_ creation +subsequently spoken of, was the Divine origination of the types, the +ideal forms, into which matter endowed with life was to develop; +_without_ any _necessary_ reference to how, or in what time, the Divine +creation was actually realized or accomplished on earth. It may be that +the _form_ so conceived and drawn in Nature's book by the Divine +Designer is a final form, up to which development shall lead, and beyond +which (at least in a material sense) it shall not go; or it may be that +it is a type intended to be transitory;[1] but _both the intermediate +and final forms must take their origin first in the Divine Mind, and be +prescribed from the Heavenly Throne,_ before the obedient matter and +forces and the life-endowment could co-operate to result in the +realization of the forms and the population of the globe. + + +[Footnote 1: The idea which I am endeavouring to make clear is well +illustrated by another passage in one of the Mosaic books--the account +of the Tabernacle. Moses had no idea of his own of the structure, its +furniture, implements, or the forms of these. The narrative expressly +states that the Divine power originated the designs, and caused Moses to +understand them. In a human work the designer would have drawn the +objects with measures and specifications, and given the papers to the +workmen. With the Divine work, where the design is in the Divine +Thought, and the workmen and builders are forces and elementary matter, +the process is a mystery, but in its practical bearing is understood +from analogy. The Tabernacle was truly God's _creation_, because it was +all commanded in design and "pattern" by the Almighty before Moses put +together the materials that realized the pattern in the camp of Israel.] + +The reason why it is the _essential_ part, is, that when once the Divine +command issued, the result followed inevitably--that will "go without +saying." + +In human affairs, also, we speak of the architect having _created_ the +palace or cathedral, or the ironclad; meaning thereby not the slow +process of cutting and joining stone, or riveting steel plates, but the +higher antecedent act of mind in evoking the ideal form and providing +for all contingencies in the adaptation and subsequent working of the +finished structure. And if we limit this use of the term "creation" +somewhat in speaking of human works, it is because the concept of the +human mind so often fails of realization; that it is one thing to +design, and another to accomplish. The grandest design for a palace may +fail to stand because some peculiarity of the stone has been forgotten, +or some character of foundation and subsoil has been misunderstood. The +noblest form of turret-ship may prove useless because the strength of +some material will not correspond to the ideal, or some curve of +stability has been miscalculated. Not only this: man may create, as a +sculptor, the ideal form for his to-be statue, or the dramatist his +character; but the perfect realization, either in marble or in an actual +being, may be impossible; the ideal remains "in the air." The ideal, +therefore, is not the major part of "creation" in a human work. + +But with the Divine work it is otherwise. The Divine thought in Creation +and its result are separated by no possibility of failure. Given the +matter and the laws of force and of life, directly the Great Designer +has uttered His thought to those that are His builders, they _must_ +infallibly and without discord, work through the longest terms, it may +be, of an evolutionary series, till, every transitional condition +passed, the final form emerges perfect. + +Our very verbal definition, admitting as it does "derivative" creation, +implies this. We all speak of ourselves as "created." How so? We are not +produced ready made. Nor do we wholly solve the matter by saying that we +are "created" because we are born from parents who (if we go far enough +back) originated in a first production from the hand of Nature. We are +really "created" because the _design_--the _life-form of us_, which +matter and force were to work together to produce--was the direct +product of the Divine Mind.[1] + +My question, therefore, of the Genesis interpreters is: Why will you +insist on the text meaning only the second element in Creation--the +production on earth, and not the Design or its issue in heaven? + +The former we could find out some day for ourselves; we _have_ found out +some of it (though only some) already; the latter we could never know +unless we were told. Surely it is the "_dignus vindice nodus_" in this +case. To tell us the earth's history within a brief space would be +impossible, and would have been for ages unintelligible if it could have +been told; to tell us of God's creation is possible--for it has been +done; and the record, unless misread, is intelligible for all time. + +The narrative, if it is a revelation of Divine Creation in heaven, takes +up ground that none can trespass on. None can say "it is not so," unless +either he will show that the words will not bear the meaning, or that +the context and other Scripture contradict it. + + +[Footnote 1: "_In Thy book_ were all my members written, while _as yet +there were none_ of them" (Psa. cxxxix. 16). + +"How did this all first come to be you? +_God thought about me_ +and I grew."--_Macdonald_.] + +So soon as the matter of earth and heaven (and all that is implied +therewith) originated "in the beginning," the narrative introduces to +our reverent contemplation the solemn conclave in heaven, when, in a +serial order and on separate days, God declared, for the guidance of the +ever potentially active forces, and for materials ever (as we know) +seeking combination and resolution,[1] the _form_ which the earth +surface is (it may be ever so gradually) to take and the _life-forms_ +which are to be evolved. + +That this creative work was piecemeal, and on separate days, we know +from the narrative. _Why_ it was so arranged we do not know. Vast as was +the work to be done, almost infinite as was the complexity of the laws +required to be formulated, it _could_ have all been done at once, in a +moment of time; for time does not exist to the Divine Mind. But seeing +that the work was to be on earth, and for the benefit of creatures to +whom the divisions of time were all-important, we can dimly, at least, +discern a certain fitness and appropriateness in the gradual and divided +work. + + +[Footnote 1: The reader will recognize that there is not the least +exaggeration in this. It is plain matter of fact, as I have endeavoured +to show in the earlier chapters of this book. Everywhere we see _force_ +ready to be evoked by the proper method. Everywhere we see _molecular_ +motion, and a perpetual combination and resolution of elements and +compounds, whether chemical or mechanical.] + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. + +_THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES._ + + +In interpreting the narrative before us, we have an important aid which +has hardly received the attention it deserves. I allude to the other +passages of Scripture which were written by men undoubtedly familiar +with the Book of Genesis. + +Now, in more than one of them, I find the idea that the Creation spoken +of is the _Divine work in heaven_, and not the subsequent and long +process of its realization on the surface of our globe, fully confirmed. + +In the beautiful thirty-eighth chapter of the very ancient Book of Job, +we find a distinct allusion to a time when God "laid the foundations" of +the earth, prescribed "its measures," made a "decreed place" for the +sea, and framed the "ordinances of heaven," and this in presence of the +heavenly host assembled-- + +"When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted +for joy.[1]" + + +[Footnote 1: Job xxxviii. 7. The sons of God are clearly the angels +(_cf_. Job i, 6).] + +The same idea can be gathered from the text which I have placed on the +title-page of this book. "By faith we understand that the aeons (the +whole system of nature in its various branches, physical, moral, and +social) were ordained ([Greek: kataertisthai]) by the word of God." The +_process_ of actual development is here passed over, as not being the +main thing; what attracts attention is the Divine Design, the "framing" +of the wonderful ideal or ordinance without which the "aeons" could not +proceed to unfold themselves. I do not mean, of course, for a moment to +imply that, after God had formulated the laws and designed the forms, He +left the working out of the results to themselves. I should be sorry if, +in bringing into prominence what has generally been overlooked, I seemed +to throw the rest in the shade. God's providence and continued +supervision are as important in themselves as the original design:--but +this is not the central idea embodied in the passage. + +There is another Scriptural allusion which suggests the idea of a +Heavenly Conclave, and great act of Creation in heaven. It may be +considered somewhat remote, and even fanciful--but the fact is recorded +_both_ in the Old Testament and the New, and _something_ must be meant +by it. And, moreover, other and very meaningless interpretations have +been from the earliest times given, so that I can hardly omit the +subject if I would. I refer to the permanent presence in heaven, around +the Divine Throne, of the singular forms of being called _Cherubim_, +which seem to indicate some mysterious connection between the life-forms +of earth and the inhabitants of heaven, and some permanent +representation of typical created forms in heaven. In Ezekiel, chapter +i., and again in chapter x., this vision is presented to us. + +The prophet was to be prepared, by a very vivid exhibition of the power +and glory of God as the Author and Ruler of the universe, to appreciate +the depth of degradation to which the Jews had fallen in their rejection +of such a God as their Lord and King and of the justice of the terrible +overthrow which was the consequence of that rejection. + +The vision then displayed (as I understand it) GOD surrounded by the +typical forms of creation and the irresistible forces of nature. All +forms of life, all energies of nature, were thus shown to be His +creatures. There, around the throne, were four "cherubim" of remarkable +appearance. They were accompanied by the appearances of fiery orbs like +beryl stones, revolving in all directions with ceaseless energy. Any +account of this vision that I can give is, however, pitiable beside the +inexpressibly sublime picture drawn in Ezekiel, to which I must refer +the reader for his own study. And imagine what the feelings of the +prophet must have been when, fresh from the impression of this grandeur +of Creation--this glory and irresistible power of God as the Centre and +great Mover of all, he was taken to witness the pitiable sight of the +Jews turning away from His worship, and to see their elders burning +incense before walls covered with "every form of creeping things and +abominable beasts--all the idols of the house of Israel![1]" How must +the vision have prepared him to realize the depth of degradation with +which he had to contend, and have fired him with energy to denounce it! + +There is, then, I think, considerable probability in the contention that +the vision represents God in Creation, surrounded by the types of +creation and the forces of nature. + +There is, no doubt, the ancient tradition that the four Cherubim meant +the four Gospels; and this has now become deeply associated with +ecclesiastical symbolism. But I submit that this is only a fancy which +can best be left to church embroidery and stained windows; it is +unworthy of any serious notice. The beings are described, it will be +observed, with great minuteness: all have the same characteristic powers +of rapid motion, and all have _human hands_, a fact that so strikes the +prophet that he repeats it three times.[2] These four Cherubim, then, +seem to me clearly to indicate the archetypes of Creation, the great +design-forms of created life, showing themselves the progressive scale +from the Animal to the Man and the Angel. And these four great types +exactly answer to the resulting groups of created life. We have the +development of _Reptilia_ into _Birds_ as one final type; consequently +one face of each cherub has the Bird type--the Eagle head[3]. Two other +faces on each give us the _Animal_ type, one representing again the +great order Carnivora (the Lion), the other the Herbivorous Ungulates +(the Ox or Calf); while the fourth face indicates the last development, +_Man_. + + +[Footnote 1: Ezek. viii. 10.] + +[Footnote 2: See chapters i. 8, x. 8, and x. 21. Remark, in passing, +that the human hand has always been the subject of wonder as an evidence +of Divine skill in Creation. Sir Charles Bell's Bridgewater treatise, on +the human hand as illustrating the proof of Divine wisdom and +contrivance in Creation, is just as good an argument _for Design_ now as +ever it was. I cannot here resist the temptation to notice one of those +small points in which the accuracy of the Bible is so constantly brought +to light. The popular notion of angels gives them wings as well as +hands--a form quite impossible from the natural history point of view; +_all_ animals of the vertebrate orders never have _more_ than two pairs +of limbs. And in winged animals the fore-limbs become wings. The popular +notion about angels is, however, artistic, not Biblical. Just the +contrary in fact. Here _is_ a vision of a mysterious form with wings and +hands, but how?--the figures are fourfold; and being winged, each +division might have been winged like the eagle, so each cherub would +have had _eight_ wings. But as one of the divisions had a human face and +human hands, the prophet only saw _six_ wings to each, leaving one +division where, nature's _Divine type_ being obeyed, there were _hands_, +and consequently no wings.] + +[Footnote 3: Reptiles are unrepresented, perhaps as not being a final +type.] + +I would say here, as regards the animal creation being represented by a +double form, that it is most curious to notice that this double division +of animals is found throughout Scripture, and seems to have its +counterpart in the actual facts of creation on earth. + +Accompanying these created beings in this remarkable vision were +"wheels" which appeared to be spheres within spheres, revolving with +ceaseless activity and never turning, but always going forward. The +wheels were full of eyes. It appears to me probable that these +symbolize--and if so the symbol is at once full of meaning and +grandeur--the inevitable, ever wakeful energies and forces of nature, +the marvellous agency of electricity, chemical affinity, heat, +attraction, repulsion, and so forth. We are accustomed to speak of +"blind force;" but here observe the wheels are _full of eyes_, ever +vigilant to fulfil the purpose for which they are appointed. And this +representation of _forces_ appears necessary to complete a symbolic +representation of God in nature: since the world is made up of dead +matter, of living forms, and of forces or energies which are in +ceaseless motion and action, producing the changes which in fact +constitute the working of the whole system. + +I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the imagery of this vision lend +support to the belief that there was a great Creation enacted in heaven, +which was followed by the actual carrying out of the processes on earth, +_but which has retained its representative forms in the heaven itself_. +Had this vision stood alone, it might have been passed over, on the +ground that it deals with high and transcendental matters, and that it +would be hardly safe to let a practical argument rest too much on it. +But the fact is that again in the New Testament a very similar vision is +mentioned (in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation): here again +the four living creatures represent the typical forms of life, the +bird, the carnivorous and herbivorous animals, and man; and it will be +observed that in this case there is hardly room to doubt that we have an +exhibition of _Creation_, for there is express allusion to it in the +address of the elders--"Thou hast _created all things_, and for Thy +pleasure they are and were created." + + + + +CHAPTER XV. + +_AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT._ + + +But a step further is necessary: if the conclusion that I have come to, +by accepting "day" in its ordinary and natural sense, and by giving a +hitherto overlooked (and so far a new) meaning to "creation," is sound, +it must not only be rendered probable by reference to other parts of +Scripture written when Genesis was much nearer its original publication +than it is now; it is still (before all things) necessary, that the +interpretation adopted should be conformable to the context. + +And I have heard it objected that there are verses which imply not only +a Divine Act in heaven, with the Sons of God in conclave around the +throne--sublime and wonderful picture!--but also distinctly indicate a +corresponding action on earth, and so require us to include in our +rendering of "creation" _both_ the ideas which (page 169 ante) I have +admitted may, on occasion be required by the terms. For example: after +the creative command in verses 7, 9, 11, 15, and 24, is declared, it is +followed by the words of fulfilment--"and it was so;" and in verse 11, +when God has said "Let the earth bring forth grass, &c.", in the next +verse it is positively recorded that the earth _did_ bring forth grass, +&c. + +I of course admit all this, but it is in no way opposed to my +suggestion. + +The _commencement_ of the _result_ probably, if not necessarily, +followed immediately on the issue of the finished command, viz., the +promulgation of the forms to be obtained and the processes to be +followed. The _whole_ result did not become accomplished then and there, +in the time mentioned, or exactly in the order mentioned: we know that +for a fact. Take, for example, the case of _vegetation_. Here the +author, in terms at once precise and universally intelligible, speaks of +"vegetation[1]" (grass of the A.V.), "herb yielding seed," and "trees +yielding fruit," thereby exhaustively enumerating the members of the +vegetable kingdom. + + +[Footnote 1: Nothing more is meant by the Hebrew "_deshe_." The true +"grasses" (_graminea_),--cereals, bamboos, &c., are certainly not +intended, for these are all conspicuously flowering plants, "herbs +yielding seed," and therefore coming under the second plainly defined +group. But the general term "sproutage" or "vegetation" is just adapted +to signify the mass of cryptogamic plant-life, the mosses, lichens, +algae, and then ferns, &c., which evidently formed the first stage of +plant-life on the globe.] + +Now, as a matter of fact, there was no one long (or short) period +during which the whole of this command was realized, _before_ the next +creative act occurred. + +At first _algae_ and low forms of vegetable life appeared; and doubtless +we have lost myriads upon myriads of such lower forms of plant-life in +the early strata, because such forms were ill calculated for +fossil-preservation, owing to the absence of woody fibre, silicious +casing, or hard fruit or seed vessels. But when we first have a marked +accumulation of specialized plant-life in the coal measures (Upper +Carboniferous), it is still only of cryptogams--ferns and great club +mosses. A beginning of true seed-bearing plants (Gymnosperm exogens) had +been made with the _conifers_ of the Devonian strata; but true +_grasses_, and the other orders of phanerogamic plants and arboreous +vegetation, do not appear till the tertiary rocks were deposited, very +long after the age of fish and great reptiles had culminated, and the +inauguration of the bird age and the mammalian age had taken place. + +Looking only to the abundant, prominent, and characteristic life-forms +of the several strata, it could certainly be said that the period +when the _water_ actually brought forth a vast mass of its +life-forms--corals, sertularias, crustaceans, and fish of the lower +orders--must have _preceded_ (not followed) the time when the earth +produced vegetation of all kinds, and further that it must have come +after the appearance of scorpions and some land insects.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: A single wing found little more than a year ago is the sole +evidence of insects older than the Devonian; and scorpions +(highly-organized crustaceans) have been found in the Upper Silurian in +some abundance.] + +Moreover, as the regular succession in periods of light and darkness on +the earth, and the sequence of seasons was not organized (but only a +generally diffused light, and, probably, an uniform and moist state of +climate without seasons) till _after_ the commands for the formation of +the whole of the large classes of plants, both cryptogams and +phanerogams, it is obvious that as many of these would require the +fuller development of seasonal influences, the whole process could not +have been worked out before the fourth day's creative work was begun. + +This instance alone--and it would be easy to add others--shows that the +narrative cannot be meant to indicate what actually happened on earth, +i.e., to summarize the _entire realization_ of the Divine command. + +Such being the plain facts with regard to the _kind of accomplishment_ +meant by the terms "it was so," "the earth brought forth," &c., it is +quite plain that no violence is done to the text by explaining it as +intended to describe what God did in heaven, with the addition, that as +each command was formulated, the result on earth surely followed, the +thing "was so," and the earth and water respectively no doubt _began_ +to "bring forth." More than this cannot be made out on _any_ +interpretation that accords with facts. It seems so clear to me that +this is so, that I hardly need refer to the use of the terms the +"_waters brought forth"_ and the "_earth brought forth"_ and the phrase +in chapter ii. 5--the Lord made every plant _before it grew_. + +If, as we have been long allowed to suppose, God spake and the water and +earth were _at once_ fully and finally peopled with animals where before +nothing but plants had existed, and so on, I should hardly have expected +the use of words which imply a gradual process--a gestation and +subsequent birth (so to speak) of life-forms. + +How the _order_ in which the events are recorded stands in relation to +the subsequent history of life-development on earth, and what its +significance may be, I will consider later on. First I will conclude the +argument for the general interpretation of the narrative. + + +2. _The Second Genesis Narrative._ + +I have only one more direct argument to offer; but I think it is a very +important one. The first division of Genesis ends with the Divine +commands creating man and the day of rest which followed. The narrative +ending at chapter ii. verse 3 (the division of chapters here, as +elsewhere, is purely arbitrary), we have at verse 4 of chapter ii, what +has been loudly proclaimed as _another_ account of _the same_ Creation, +which, it is added (arbitrarily enough--but _any_ argument will do if +only it is against religion!) is contrary to the first.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: The contradiction is supposed to be in verse 19, as if then +the creation of animals was for the first time effected--after the man +and his helpmate. But it is quite clear that the text refers to the fact +that God had created animals; the command was, "Let the earth bring +forth," and the immediate act spoken of was not the formation of +animals, but the bringing of them to Adam to see what he would call +them.] + +Now, even if there is a _second_ account of Creation, it would surely be +a circumstance somewhat difficult to explain. _Contrary_ in any possible +sense, the narrative (from chapter ii. 4, onward) certainly is not. But +why should there be a second narrative at all? On the hitherto received +supposition that chapter i. intends to tells us the _process_ of +creation--what God caused to be done on earth, not merely what He did in +heaven--there is apparently no room for a second narrative. Nor have I +seen any completely satisfactory explanation. But if we accept the view +that the first chapter explains the Divine Design, and its being +published (so to speak) and commanded in heaven, then it would be very +natural that that narrative should be followed by a second, which should +detail not the _whole_ process of all life existence on earth, but (as +the Bible is to be henceforth concerned with Man, his fall and his +redemption) with an account of _just so much of the_ process as relates +to the actual birth on the earth's surface of the particular man Adam, +the most important (and possibly not the only) outcome of the _fiat_ +recorded in chapter i. vers. 27, 28. + +In this view, not only _a_ second narrative, but just the particular +kind of narrative we actually have, is not only natural, but even +necessary. _Before_, we had a general account of how God ordained the +scheme of material-form and life-form on the earth; _now_ we have a +detailed account of how He actually carried out one portion of it--that +one portion we are most concerned to hear about, namely the man Adam, +the progenitor of our own race, of whom came JESUS CHRIST, "the son of +Adam.[1]" + +The account is designed to introduce to us the scene of Adam's +birthplace--the Garden of Eden.[2] The mention of a garden, and the +subsequent important connection of the trees of that garden with the +conduct of the man, naturally turn the writer's attention to the general +subject of the vegetation on the earth's surface. He prefaces his new +account accordingly with a brief summary--which I may paraphrase thus +without, I trust, departing from the sense of the original: "Such was +the origin of the earth (and all in it) and of the heavenly host, at the +time when God made them. He had made every plant _before_ it was in the +earth--every herb of the field _before_ it grew" (mark the language as +confirming what I have said--God "created" everything before it actually +developed and grew into being on the earth). "Rain did not then fall (in +the same way as now) on the earth, but the mist that exhaled from the +soil re-condensed, and fell and moistened the ground; but there was as +yet no MAN to till and cultivate the soil." + + +[Footnote 1: St. Luke iii. 38.] + +[Footnote 2: Which had a real historic existence. _Vide_ Appendix A.] + +Then God actually formed or fashioned _a man_. It is not now that He +created the ideal form to be produced in due time, but that He actually +formed the individual Adam, and placed him in a garden which He had +prepared for the purpose. All the words used now imply actual +production. The Divine ideal was ready, and the earth-elements (of which +we know man's body to consist) were ready at the Divine word to assume +the human shape. And that done, God "breathed into his nostrils the +breath of life" (mark the direct _act_ on the man himself), and the man +became a "living soul." There is nothing here of the "earth bringing +forth" as in the former narrative. We have the direct act of God, not in +the design only, but in the production of the thing itself. + +If this is not a complete explanation and justification of the second +narrative, I do not know what, in common fairness, is entitled to be so +called. + +The language may be rigorously examined, and it will fully bear out the +position taken up. + +I conceive, then, that the cumulation of proof need go no further. The +true explanation of Genesis i. also supplies the place for Genesis ii. +4, _et seq._, and overcomes all the difficulty that has hitherto +existed on the subject. + +It will now, I trust, be clear that by such an interpretation of Genesis +we at once give (1) a full and natural meaning to all the terms; we +reconcile it with other Scripture, and we enhance all the sublime +attributes which we have been reverentially accustomed to connect with +this ancient passage. (2) We obviate the difficulty regarding the second +narrative in chapter ii. 4. And (3) we place the whole above any +possible conflict with science, and above any need for "reconciliation." +Here, too, is a purpose and meaning assigned to the _whole_ narrative, +without being driven into the difficult position of supposing the verses +to be the literary outcome of an ignorant imagination which gave +expression to its crude ideas only--though enshrining among utterly +false details a sublime truth, regarding which one can only wonder why +it could not have been stated without the encumbrance of the +surroundings. + +The naturalist and the biologist may continue, unquestioned, to work out +more and more of the wondrous story of Life on the globe. They can never +disprove, or on any of their own grounds deny, that God is the Author of +all things--matter, force, and mind alike; that He designed the form and +relations of the earth; that He organized its light, its seasons, and +its changes; that He has furnished the types and patterns of all +life-forms which matter and force are conformably thereto, developing +on the earth. In short, REVELATION tells us that God did all this "in +the beginning," how His form-designs were thought out and declared in +six days, and how He rested on the seventh day. + +SCIENCE will tell us how, when, and where the Creative fiats and the +designs of heaven were realized and worked out on earth. + +Here is the separate province of each, without fear of clashing, or room +for controversy. + + + + +CHAPTER XVI. + +_THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE._ + + +Sec.1. _The Explanation of the Verses._ + +It remains only now to go over the narrative, the _general_ bearing of +which I have thus endeavoured to vindicate, so that minor matters of +detail, in which it is supposed (1) that some contradiction to known +physical fact may still lurk, and (2) something that negatives the +explanation suggested, may be cleared up. + +Let us take it seriatim:-- + +"In the beginning God created the heaven (plural in the original) and +the earth." + +As I have before remarked, we have no real need to discuss whether +"bara" means originated (created where nothing previously existed), or +whether we should render it "fashioned," i.e., moulded material (thus +assumed in terms to be) already in existence. + +Either will yield perfectly good and consistent sense; but, as a matter +of fact, there is a virtual consensus of the best scholars that the +word is here used to denote original production of the material. + +It is also clear that the text is intended to embrace the whole system +of planets, suns, stars, and whatever else is in space. So the Psalmist +understood it: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and _all_ +the host of them by the breath of his mouth.[1]" Nor is there any +reasonable doubt, exegetically, that the subsequent allusion to the sun, +moon, and stars, refers (as the sense of the text itself obviously +requires) to their _appointment_ or adjustment to certain relations with +the earth, and assumes their original material production in space, to +have been already stated or understood. + +"And the earth was (became) without form[2] and void, and darkness was +upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of +the waters." + +I have, in another connection, already remarked on this verse, and so +shall not repeat those remarks. + + +[Footnote 1: Psa. xxxiii. 6, and so Psa. cii. 25; _cf_. 2 Peter iii. 5.] + +[Footnote 2: Waste (R.V.).] + +I will only say that the elemental strife and rushing together of +chemical elements under the stress of various forces and the presence of +enormous heat, would naturally envelop the globe in dense vapours, a +large portion of which would be watery vapour, capable of condensation +or of dispersion, under proper conditions, afterwards to be prescribed +and realized. As it is beautifully expressed in Job xxxviii., "When I +made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling-band +for it" (verse 8). + +Then commences the serial order of Divine acts with reference to the +_Earth_:-- + + +(1) "AND GOD SAID; LET THERE BE LIGHT: AND THERE WAS LIGHT." + +This verse is commonly taken as indicating a creation of light for the +first time in the entire cosmos or universe. And if it be so, there is +no objection, on any scientific ground, to the assertion that there was +once a time when as yet the vibrations and waves which we connect with +the idea of Light, had not yet begun. It is true that nebular matter, as +now observed, is believed to be, partially at any rate, self-luminous. +But this fact, supposing it to be such, is not inconsistent with a still +earlier time when light had not yet begun. From the "wave-theory" of +light, which is one of those working hypotheses which are indispensable, +and which, in a sense, may be said to be demonstrated by their +indispensability, it can clearly be seen that if light is caused by +rapid vibrational movement, there must have been--or at any rate there +is nothing against an authoritative declaration that there was--a moment +of time when the first vibrational impulse was given, when, in fact, God +said "Let there be light, and there was light," _before_ which also +there was "darkness upon the face of the deep.[1]" + + +[Footnote 1: It also needs only to be remarked, in passing, that we are +really in complete ignorance as to the light-medium, the +"luminiferous-ether" outside the comparatively thin stratum of our own +terrestrial atmosphere. We do not know whether there might not have been +a condition of the medium in which, up to the moment of a creative +_fiat_, it was incapable of transmitting light-waves.] + +There is no necessary connection between the creation of light _per se_, +and the existence of any particular source (or sources) of light to our +planet or to other planets. + +No justification is now needed for such a remark, and the almost +forgotten cavils of one of the "Essays and Reviews" may still survive as +a "scientific" curiosity, to warn us against too hastily concluding that +(in subjects where so little is really _known_) the Bible must be wrong, +and the favourite hypothesis of the day right. + +But as a matter of fact, the text, especially when read in connection +with Job xxxviii., need not be taken to refer to any original creation +of light in the universe generally, but merely to the letting in of +light on the hitherto dark and "waste" earth. The command "Let there be +light" was followed on the next day by the formation of a firmament or +expanse. So that all the verse _necessarily_ implies is, that the thick +clouds and vapours which surrounded the earth were so dealt with, that +light could reach the earth: the light was thus divided from the +darkness, and the rotating globe would experience the alternation of day +and night. + +The "day" having thus been created formally (so to speak), the Divine +Author proceeds to mark, by His own Procedure, the use of the "days" +which He had provided for the earth. + +On this view, of course, the origin of light as a "force"--the first +beginning of its pulsations--is not detailed, any more than the origin +of electric force, or heat, or gravitation. + +Here, too, I may remark that the idea of _creation_, which it has been +one of my chief objects to develop, is illustrated. This remark holds +good, whether an original creation of light is intended, or only an +arrangement whereby light was for the first time introduced to the +earth's surface. The idea of creating light not only involves the Divine +Conception of the thing, and the marvellous method of its production,[1] +but doubtless, also, all those wonderful laws of reflection, refraction, +polarization, and a thousand others, which the science of Physical +Optics investigates. + + +[Footnote 1: And this is still a mystery to us. _What_ light is we do +not know--we can only speak of our own sensation of it. Nor do we know +_what_ vibrates to produce light. Hypothetical terms, such as "ether," +"luminiferous-medium," and so forth, only conceal our ignorance.] + +Naturally enough, in this case, the double idea involved in +creation--the Divine concept and its realization--will, in the nature of +things, fall into one. No process of evolution is required; none is +indicated by science. Directly the Divine hand gave the impulse +concurrently with the Divine thought--light would be. In the nature of +things there is no place for a line between the Divine fiat and its +realization, as there is in the production of life-forms on the earth. +Or, on the other view, directly the Divine command went forth, the +vapours would clear and allow the transmission of light. + + +(2) "AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE A FIRMAMENT (EXPANSE) IN THE MIDST OF +THE WATERS, AND LET IT DIVIDE THE WATERS FROM THE WATERS....AND GOD +CALLED THE FIRMAMENT HEAVEN." + +There has been gathered round this verse what I may call rather an +ill-natured controversy, because there is no real ground for it; and the +objections taken seem rather of a desire to find out something against +the narrative at any price, than to make the best of it. The verse, when +duly translated, implies that an "expanse"--the setting of a clear space +of atmosphere around the globe--formed one of the special +design-thoughts of the Creator, followed by its immediate (or gradual) +accomplishment. I think we should have hardly had so much cavilling over +this word "expanse" if it had not been for the term subsequently used by +the Seventy in their Greek version ([Greek: stereoma]). The ancients, it +is said, believed the space above the earth to be "solid." + +Now I would contend that even if the Hebrew writer had any mistaken or +confused notions in his own mind, that would not afford any just ground +against revelation itself. But I would point out that many of the +expressions which may be quoted to show the idea of solidity, are +clearly poetical. And if we go to the poetic or semi-poetic aspect of +things, may I not ask whether there is not a certain sense in which the +earth-envelope may be said to be solid? The air has a considerable +density, its uniform and inexorable pressure on every square inch of the +earth's surface is very great. Such a word as [Greek: stereoma] +(_firmamentum_) does not imply solidity in the sense in which gold is +solid--as if the heavens were a mass of metal, and the stars set in it +like jewels; it implies, rather, something fixed and offering +resistance. + +It is obvious that a creative act was necessary for this "expanse." We +know of spheres that have no atmosphere; and we are so ignorant of the +true nature of what is beyond the utmost reach of our air-stratum, that +there is room for almost any consistent conjecture regarding it. + +Moreover, observe that the atmosphere is not a _chemical_ combination of +gases, and one, therefore, that would take place like any other of the +metallic, saline, or gaseous combinations, of which no detailed account +is given--all being covered by the general phrase, "God created the +heaven and the earth." The air is a mechanical mixture, pointing to a +special design and a special act of origin. The necessary proportions of +each gas and its combined properties could not have originated without +guidance. + +But the main purpose of the expanse, as stated in the text, was to +regulate the water supply. That vast masses of watery vapour must at one +time have enveloped the globe, seems probable--apart from revelation; +and that part of this should condense into seas and fresh-water, and +part remain suspended to produce all the phenomena of invisible +air-moisture and visible cloud, while an "expanse" was set, so that the +earth surface should be free, and that light might freely penetrate, and +sound also, and that all the other regular functions of nature dependent +on the existing relation of earth and air should proceed--all this was +very necessary. And when we recollect what a balanced and complex scheme +it is--how very far from being a simple thing; we recognize in the +adjustment of earth's atmospheric envelope, a special result worthy of +the day's work. + +Whether the separation between the condensed but ever re-evaporating and +re-condensing water on the earth's surface, and the water vapour in the +atmosphere, is _all_ that is meant by the division of the "waters that +are above the firmament" from those below, it would not be wise to +assert. We know so little of the condition of space beyond our own air, +and so little of the great stores of hydrogen which have been suggested +to exist in space (and might combine to form vast quantities of liquid), +that we may well leave the phrase as it stands, content with a partial +explanation. + + +(3) "AND GOD SAID, LET THE WATERS UNDER THE HEAVEN BE GATHERED TOGETHER +UNTO ONE PLACE, AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR: AND IT WAS SO. AND GOD +SAID, LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS (VEGETATION), HERB YIELDING SEED, +AND FRUIT TREE BEARING FRUIT AFTER ITS KIND, WHEREIN IS THE SEED +THEREOF." + +The only remarks that the first part of this verse calls for, are, +_first_, that it explains how far from mere chance-work the emergence of +land from the water was; _second_ how well it illustrates the use of +terms relating to creation. + +The whole scheme of the distribution of the surface of earth into land +and water is one which demanded Divine foresight and a complete ideal[1] +which was to be attained by the action and reaction of natural forces, +just as much as the production of the most specialized form of plant-or +animal-life. + + +[Footnote 1: Compare Job xxxviii. 10, 11, and Psa. civ. 9.] + +This is not the place to go into detail as to how much of the world's +life-history and its climatic conditions depend on the distribution of +land and water. It is sufficient to recognize the immense importance of +that distribution. + +But, in the second place, it will be observed that while it is natural +to suppose (though not logically necessary) that the working out of the +Divine plan _commenced_ immediately on the issue of the Divine command +and the declared formulation of the Divine scheme, yet we know--few +things are better known--that the whole scheme was not completely +realized in one day, or one age--certainly not _before_ there was any +appearance of plant-life, aquatic, or dry land, or any appearance of +animal-life. + +I believe (though I have lost my reference) it is held by some +authorities that the position of the great _oceans_ as they are now (and +omitting, of course, all minor coast variations) has been fixed from +very early geologic times. But, apart from that, we have ample evidence +of whole continents arising and being again submerged; and of continual +changes between land and water of the most wide-reaching character again +and again happening during the progress of the world's history. So that +here we may see clearly an instance where the revelation of the creative +act must be held to refer to the great primal design--teaching us that +it is a fact that at first all _was_ laid down, foreseen, and designed +by the Creator; but not referring to anything like an account of the +_results_ upon earth, which, for aught we know to the contrary, may not +yet be complete. + +As to the second part of the text, we are here introduced to the +commencement of life-forms on earth. + +No separation is recorded. Directly the chemical elements of matter have +so combined that a solid earth and liquid water (salt and fresh) are +formed, and the cooling process has gone on sufficiently long to enable +the dense vapours partly to settle down and condense, partly to remain +as vapour (dividing the waters above from the waters below)--directly +this process is aided by the admission of diffused light and by the +adjustment of the atmosphere, and the superficial adjustment of the +distribution of water and land surface is provided for, then plant-life +is organized. + +It will be observed that even aquatic plants and algae though growing in +or under water, are nevertheless connected with the _earth_; so that the +phrase, "Let the _earth_ bring forth," is by no means inappropriate. + +The earliest rock deposits are able to tell us little about the first +beginning of plant-life. Moreover, as animal-life began only with the +interval of one day (the fourth), we should expect to find--on the +supposition that the heavenly _fiat_ at once received the _commencement_ +of its fulfilment on each day--that the first lowly specimens of +vegetable and animal life are almost coeval. And this is (apparently) +the fact. + +It is to be remarked that plant and animal always appear in nature as +two separate and _parallel_ kingdoms. It is not that the plant is lower +than the animal, so that the highest plant takes on it some of the first +characters which mark the lowest animal: but both start separately from +minute and little specialized forms so similar that it is extremely +difficult to say which is plant and which is animal.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: See this well summarized in Nicholson's "Manual of Zoology" +(sixth edition, 1880), p. 13, _et seq._] + +All the beginnings of life in _either_ kingdom would therefore be +ill-adapted (most of them, at any rate) for preservation in +rock-strata.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: I think this is quite sufficient, without relying on the +evidence of the great quantities of _carbon_ in the earliest +(Laurentian, Huronian, &c.) strata in the form of graphite. It is +possible, or even probable, that this may be due to carbon supplied by +masses of little specialized _Thallophyte_ and _Anophyte_ vegetation.] + +All we know for certain is that vegetable-life was closely coeval with +the lowest animal-life, and that it was very long before specialized +forms, even of _cryptogams_, made a great show in the world. + +Probability is entirely in favour of the actual priority being in +vegetable forms; and more than that is not required. For the Mosaic +narrative, while it places the origin of the vegetable kingdom actually +first, lets the _fiat_ for the animal kingdom follow almost immediately. + +As to the _order_ of appearance of the plants, I will reserve my remarks +for the moment. + + +(4) "AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE HEAVEN, +TO DIVIDE THE DAY FROM THE NIGHT; AND LET THEM BE FOR SIGNS, AND FOR +SEASONS, AND FOR DAYS, AND FOR YEARS: AND LET THEM BE FOR LIGHTS IN THE +FIRMAMENT TO GIVE LIGHT ON THE EARTH." + +The sun and the stars, and all the host of heaven, are clearly +understood to have been created "in the beginning," under the general +statement of fact which forms the first verse of the narrative. + +The 14th verse has always been understood to refer to the establishment +of the _relations_ between the earth and the sun, moon, and stars, +which have, as a matter of fact, been recognized by all ages and all +people ever since. The writer of the 104th Psalm certainly so understood +the passage-- + + "He appointed the moon for seasons; + The sun knoweth his going down.[1]" + +The writer was instructed to use popularly intelligible language, and so +the text speaks of the lights as they _appear_ in the sky or firmament. + +Even if we suppose that before this act, the sun was already +incandescent, and the moon capable of reflecting the light, the whole +arrangement of the earth's rotation may have been such that the +alternations of light and darkness may have been very different from +what they are now, and the seasons also. A moment's reflection regarding +the obliquity of the earth's axis, nutation, the precession of the +equinoxes, the eccentricity of the orbit and the changes in the position +of the orbit, will show us what ample room there was for a special +adjustment and adaptation between the earth and its satellite and +between both to the solar centre.[2] So that faith which accepts this as +a Divine arrangement made among the special and formal acts of Creation, +cannot be said to be unreasonable, or to be flying in the face of any +known facts. + + +[Footnote 1: Ver. 19, &c. The same word is also used of "making" priests +(l Kings xii. 31), and appointing (R.V.)("advancing" A.V.), ("making," +as we familiarly say) Moses and Aaron (1 Sam. xii. 6).] + +[Footnote 2: And the Psalmist justly speaks of God as _preparing_ the +light of the sun (Psa. lxxiv. 16).] + +It is very remarkable, as showing how little we can attribute this +narrative, on any basis of probability, to mere fancy or guess-work, +that this matter should have been assigned to the fourth day--_after_ +the fiat for plant-life had gone forth. + +But the fact is that the unregulated light, and the vaporous uniform +climate that must have continued if the fourth day's command had never +issued, though it might have served for a time for the lowest beginnings +of life, especially marine or aquatic, would ultimately have rendered +any advance in the series of design impossible. Such a fact would never +have occurred to an ignorant and uninspired writer. + +It is here impossible to say whether the whole arrangements indicated +were made at once in obedience to the Divine Design, or were produced +gradually. + +It has been suggested that uniformity of climate and temperature +continued up till the carboniferous ages, at any rate; and it is only in +the later ages that such differences of _fauna_ in different parts of +the world appear, as to show differences of climate more like what we +have at present. + +Whether this is so or not, I am not concerned to argue. The narrative +tells us that God did, at a certain point in his Creative work, design +and ordain the necessary arrangements; and physical science may find +out, when it is able, how and when the adjustments spoken of came about. + +(5) AND GOD SAID-- + (i.) Let the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life, + (ii.) Let fowl fly above the earth on the face of the expanse. + +As to (i.) the "creation" consisted of--great sea-monsters (or water +monsters), and every living thing that moveth. + +Then the animal life received a _blessing_. Animals, even the lowliest, +are capable of a new feature in life--happiness in their being, which +cannot be predicated of plants. + +(6) AND GOD SAID-- + (i.) Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind ... + the beast of the earth _after its kind (Carnivora)_, cattle + _after its kind_ (_Ungulata_), and everything that creepeth on + the ground _after its kind_.[1] + +And also-- + + (ii.) Let us make man.... So God created man in His + own image--in the image of God created He him; male + and female created He them. + +(7) Then followed the day of rest. + + +[Footnote 1: See page 178.] [Transcriber's Note: Chapter XIV.] + +Sec. 2. _The Order of Events considered._ + +It was convenient first to bring these later Creative Acts together +before beginning any remarks about any one of them. + +It will now be desirable to notice what occurred, because here the +question of _order_ is concerned. I could not avoid a partial statement +on this subject at an earlier page, nor would it be quite sufficient +simply to refer the reader back to those pages. At the risk of some +repetition, I will therefore consider the subject here. It will be +observed that on the older interpretation, which passed over the special +act of God in _designing_ and _publishing the design,_ and descended at +once to the earth to the process of producing the designed forms, this +order was matter of great importance. + +Granting the supporters of this view that the six days are unequal +periods often of vast duration, with or without important subdivisions, +they are bound to make out that each creation began, and was at any rate +well advanced, _before_ the next began. We ought, in fact, to see a +period more or less prolonged when the whole of what is indicated in the +_plant_ verse was well advanced, _before_ any marine or fresh-water life +appeared at all.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: There was "evening and morning" of the third day, i.e., +beginning and _completion_, and also the whole interval of the fourth +day, _before_ the command of the fifth.] + +All attempts to make out that this _was_ so, have proved failures. It is +assumed, for instance (and justly so), that life on the globe began with +low vegetable forms; these represented the "grass" of the text, and it +is suggested that the "fruit tree" is represented by the Devonian and +Carboniferous _conifers_. This in itself is a very strained view. It is +recollected that the terms used are not scientific, but for the world at +large; but without confining "fruit tree" to mean only trees having +_edible_ fruit, still the appearance of a few first species of +_conifers_ in the Devonian, can hardly be called an adequate fulfilment +of the requirements of the passage. But even so, myriads of fish and +other animals existed _before_ the Devonian and Carboniferous plant age. + +The animal forms that so existed, have therefore to be _ignored_, or are +assumed to have been created without special notice: and it is said that +the Mosaic period of "moving creatures of the deep," fishes and +monsters, only began when the rocks begin to show _great abundance_ of +shells, of fish, and subsequently of huge reptilians which prepared the +way for birds--which gradually make their appearance towards the Trias. + +But the Devonian "age of fishes" (Devonian including old red sandstone) +was far too important a period to be thus got rid of; and it is +difficult to understand _why_ the narrative should exclude all the +extensive and beautiful (though often little specialized) orders of +marine life--all the Corals, the Mollusca and Articulata, which had long +abounded--especially some of the Crustaceans, not an unimportant group +of which (_Trilobite_[1]) had also culminated and almost passed away +before the Devonian; to say nothing of the fact that _land_ "creeping +things" (scorpions among _crustacea_, and apparently winged insects) had +occurred. + + +[Footnote 1: It is remarkable that the Trilobites rapidly culminated, so +that we have the largest and most perfect forms, such as _Paradoxus_, +with the lowest (_Agnostus_) in the same beds in Wales (Etheridge's +"Phillips' Manual," Part II. p. 32).] + +It is a special difficulty also, that if _insects_ are included among +the "creeping things" of the _earth_ then various families of the +"land-creation" (sixth day) became represented _before_ the great +reptiles of the "water-creation" (fifth day). + +The fact is that a glance at the subjoined Tables (which are only +generally and approximately correct) will suffice to show how the main +features of the progress of life-forms differ from what is required by +the older methods of reading Genesis. To reduce the table within limits, +I have grouped together all the lower forms of life in the animal table, +viz., the sponges, corals, encrinites, and molluscs. It is sufficient to +say that these appear in all the rocks except the very oldest--the +Caelenterata beginning, and the Molluscoids exhibiting an early order in +_brachiopoda_, which seems to be dying out. Crustaceans and insects +appeared as early as Silurian times. + +The idea of successive "kingdoms" or "periods," each of which was +_complete_ in its actual fauna upon earth before the next was fully +ushered in, can no longer be defended. + +It is in the _completion_ of one class of life before the other, that +the fallacy of the period theory lies--for completion is essential to +that theory which supposes "the Mosaic author" to have intended to +describe the _process of production on earth_. + +But it is quite impossible to deny that there _is_ a certain observable +movement and gradual procession in the history of life which is exactly +consistent with what is most likely to have happened, supposing the +Divine designs of life-forms were first declared in successive order at +short intervals of time, and then that the processes of nature worked +out the designs in the fulness of time and gradually in order, each one +_beginning_ before the next, but only beginning. + +I do not deny that it is perfectly _conceivable_ that the Creator might +have designed the forms in one order, and that the actual production or +evolution of the corresponding living creatures might not have been (for +reasons not understood) exactly, or even at all, coincident with the +order. + +But it is impossible to deny the strong feeling of probability that the +commands would _begin_ to be worked out, in the order in which they were +uttered. + +And here it is that the correspondence which undoubtedly exists, gives +rise to controversy. + +From one point of view it is just enough to encourage the "period" +holders to try and arrange a scheme; but it is just hot enough to +prevent their opponents (justly) taxing them with straining or +"torturing" the text and failing fairly to make out their case after +all. From another point of view the correspondence is so far +established, and so undeniably unprecedented (in human cosmogonies) and +noteworthy, as to demand imperatively our careful consideration and +compel us to account for it. + +It will be observed, first of all, that the whole "creation" (omitting +all incidental and preparatory works) is stated in _groups_ each having +an order within itself. + +_Group_ 1. God created (both land and water) "vegetation"--plants +yielding seed, fruit-trees. + +_Group_ 2. +In water, not necessarily excluding _amphibia_:--Great aquatic monsters; +fish and all other creatures that move. In air:--Winged fowl. + +_Group_ 3. On land generally--for some forms are amphibious:--Beasts +(_Carnivora_), cattle (_Ungulata_, &c.), and other things that creep +on the ground (the smaller and lower forms of life collectively). + +The order _within_ the groups is evidently of no consequence, because +the writer does not adhere to it in two consecutive verses dealing with +the same subject; while the "versions" seem to point to some variations +in the text itself as to arrangement, though not as to substance. + +But as regards the order _of_ the groups themselves, it is, as I said, +very natural (but yet not logically inevitable) to expect that when the +results came to be existent on earth, those results should exhibit a +sequence corresponding to the order in which the groups were created. +And it is never denied (in _any_ of the most recent publications[1]) +that to this extent nature confirms the belief. + + +[Footnote 1: I have done my best to verify this from the well-known +latest Manuals of Etheridge, Seeley, and Alleyne-Nicholson.] + +I am aware that Professor Huxley's recent articles may at first sight +seem to go against this; but that is not so on any grounds of actual +fact, but of a particular _interpretation_--which I submit is wholly +unwarranted. + +For instance, it is insisted that the "sea-monsters" of the second group +included _sirenia_ and _cetacea_ (dugongs, manatees, and whales, +dolphins, &c.), which are mammals. In that case a portion of the command +would not have been obeyed--a number of the designed forms would have +been kept in abeyance--for a long time. And the same is still more true +if bats--a highly placed group of mammals--were included in "winged +fowl." + +But both these interpretations are distinctly arbitrary, incapable of +holding good, and also entirely ignore the conditions of a Revelation. + +The narrative is not discussed or defended as an ordinary secular +narrative, which is true according to the _writer's uninspired intention +or the state of his personal knowledge_. It is defended as a Revelation. +The distinction is as obvious as it is important, directly a moment's +consideration is accorded. + +If we assume, for a moment, that God _did_ (on any theory whatever of +Inspiration) instruct, direct, or enable the writer in making the +record, then it is obvious that the writer either put down what he saw +in a vision, or what was in some other manner borne on his mind. In any +case, he could have had no critical knowledge, and no historical +knowledge as an eye-witness, of the actual facts; and he may very well +therefore have used language the full meaning of which he did not +apprehend.[1] What alone is essential is, that the narrative as it +stands, on an ordinary critical, linguistic, and grammatical +interpretation, should not contain anything which is untrue. Suppose, +for example, the word "tanninim" to be _incapable_ of bearing any other +meaning linguistically than "cetacean," then the narrative might be +objected to; but if it will bear a meaning which is consistent with +fact, then it is no matter that the writer at the time had an erroneous, +or (what is more likely) no defined, idea in his own mind of the +meaning. And so with "winged fowl"--the objection fails entirely, unless +it can be shown, not only that the writer might have thought "bats" to +be included, _but_ that linguistically the word _cannot have_ any other +meaning than one which would include bats.[2] + + +[Footnote 1: As is constantly the case in prophetic writings. Revelation +tells of the remote past sometimes as well as the future, and in neither +case could the inspired writer fully understand the meaning that was +wrapped up in his sentences.] + +[Footnote 2: As a matter of fact, in the one case, if the writer's +knowledge were of any importance, it is almost certain that he did _not_ +mean _cetacean_ or _sirenian_. In the other case it is impossible to say +whether he thought "bats" were included or not. It is not in the nature +of things that the writer could ever have seen or even heard of a +manatee or a dugong; nor is it likely that he had been a sea-farer, or +could have seen any Mediterranean cetacean. As far as his own knowledge +went, he probably had but a very confused idea. And if we refer to the +poetic description in Psalm civ. 25, 26, we find "leviathan," though +distinctly a sea creature, still one of which the writer had only a +vague traditional idea, certainly not a _known_ Mediterranean dolphin, +for in Job xli. the same term is applied to the crocodile.] + +We have every right, then, to say that the "tanninim" of the text may be +taken to refer to that great and remarkable age of Saurians which is not +only of very great importance in itself, but becomes doubly so when we +see its connection backward with the fishes, and forward through the +Pterodactyles to Odontoformae (_Apatornis_ and _Icthyornis_) and modern +winged birds (_Hesperonis_ for the Penguins); and through the +Dinosaurs[1] with the Saurornithes, with the _Dinornis_ and the +struthious birds; and through the Theriodonts with the mammalian +_carnivora_. + + +[Footnote 1: And perhaps the pachydermatous mammals (Nicholson, +"Zoology," p. 566).] + +In that case the sequence of the two groups, plants and aquatic +animal-forms, is explained. They come almost together--plants being +probably actually the first, and mollusca, fishes, and saurians. + +There is, further, no real dispute that the Saurians led up to the Aves, +and that the third group (of mammals) follows all the members of the +second group. The earliest known mammal (_microlestes_) is an isolated +forerunner of not very certain location, the real bulk of the mammalian +orders beginning in the Eocene. Seeing, too, how very closely one +Creative command is recorded to have followed on the other, it is not in +any way against the narrative that some land forms of crustaceans and +insects (and possibly others) began to appear at an early stage, when +the vegetable and water-animal forms had only progressed as far as the +Silurian and Devonian ages. Nor should we wonder if mammalian forms had +occurred earlier. I mention this because of the evident gap in the +geologic record between the Cretaceous and the Eocene, and because in +the article of December, 1885 (and elsewhere), Professor Huxley has used +language which suggests that mammals may have existed of which the rocks +give no sign. E.g. (p. 855): "The organization of the bat, bird, or +pterodactyle, presupposes that of a terrestrial quadruped ... and is +intelligible only as an extreme modification of the organization of a +terrestrial _mammal or_ reptile." The italics are of course mine. And +again (p. 855), "I am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate +to admit that the organization of these animals (whales, dugongs, &c.) +shows the most obvious signs of their descent from terrestrial +quadrupeds." + +I do not quote these words of so great a master as presuming to question +them (even if, as a scientific verdict, I had any motive for so doing), +but merely to point out as a matter of plain and fair reasoning, that if +a Divine Creator had designed certain forms to be gradually attained by +the processes of Evolution, it would not be necessary that any actually +realized form or tangible creature should have existed as ancestors. +Logically, the necessity is _either_ that certain animals should have +actually existed whose descendants gradually lost or gained certain +features and functions till the forms we are speaking of resulted, _or_ +that certain patterns or designs should have been created according to +which development proceeded by regular laws till the forms in question +resulted. + +A few words as to the terms used in describing the contents of each +group, may be added. It is obvious that the terms are intended to be +exhaustive of certain main groups which are described sufficiently, +without being cast in a form which would have been incompatible with the +use (at the time) of a human agent as the medium of the recorded +Revelation. + +(1) "Vegetation" (of an indefinite character, but not bearing seed), +plants bearing seed, trees bearing fruit with the seed in it--certainly +exhaust the entire range of plant-life. + +(2) Moving creatures that live (and fish are afterwards expressly +mentioned) and great monsters (tann[i=]n[i=]m), cover the entire field +of life up to Reptilia as far as these are aquatic forms. + +(3) The terms used for the third group are also obviously +exhaustive--the separate mention of the _cattle_ and the _beast_ +(Carnivora and Ungulates) is a form which is invariably noticed +throughout the Old and New Testaments. The "creeping things" would +include all minor forms, all land reptiles not described above as the +"tann[i=]n[i=]m," and insects. + +And it is remarkable that the tortoises, the snakes, and, the more +modern forms of crocodile and lizard, and the amphibia and higher +insects, are all cainozoic--some of them were preceded by more or less +transitory representatives, e.g., the Carboniferous _Eosaurus_ and +Permian _Protosaurus_ the ancient Labyrinthodons and Urodelas, +Chelonians and the amphicaelian crocodiles. Snakes have no palaeozoic +representative. + +Land insects, as might naturally be expected, go back to the times when +land vegetation was sufficiently established, and appear gradually all +along the line from the Silurian onwards. The modern types, however, are +Tertiary. + +The succession, we observe, may be illustrated by the resemblance of a +number of arrows shot rapidly one after the other in so many parallel +courses: all would soon be moving nearly together. + +Plant-life, the subject of the first Divine designing, has, as far as we +can reasonably say, the start. According to known laws it appears in +elementary and undeveloped forms, and gradually progresses. One group +(Cryptogams) reaches a magnificent development and begins to die away in +point of grandeur, though still abundantly exemplified. Phanerogamic +plants in their lowest groups of gymnosperm exogens then begin to appear +in the Devonian conifers, gradually followed by _cycads_. And it is not +till Cainozoic times that we have the endogenous grasses and palms and +angiospermous exogens. + +But the command regarding animal life had followed the other after a +short interval, so that we soon see this developing _pari passu_ with +the other groups--first the lower marine forms and gradually advancing +to the Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, and then to Aves, as a special +division in the second great design group. Lastly the mammals appear and +man.[1] But throughout all, we see the rise, culmination, and decay of +many transitory and apparently preparatory groups--such as, for example, +the Labyrinthodons and Urodelas--preceding the modern types of Amphibia; +ancient fish-forms preceding modern ones, and either dying out or +leaving but a few and distant representatives; or again, the whole +tribes of ancient Saurians, of which something has already been said. +All these wonderful under-currents and cross-currents, rises and falls, +appearances and disappearances, nevertheless all work together till the +whole earth is peopled with the forms, designed in the beginning by the +Heavenly Creator. + + +[Footnote 1: Nor should we be surprised to find (should it be so +discovered) that some animals appeared after man. (_Cf_. "Nineteenth +Century" for Dec. 1885, p. 856.)] + +No account of Creation can be other than wonderful and mysterious; nor +can the mystery of the Divine act be explained in language other than +that of analogy. + +We can speak without mystery of a human architect conceiving a design in +his mind; and when he utters it, it is by putting the plans and details +upon paper, and handing them over to the builders, who set to work +(under the architect's supervision, and in obedience to all the rules +he has prescribed as to the methods of work and materials to be used). + +All this we can transfer by analogy only, to a Divine design. The +design is in the Divine mind, and He utters it in no material plans or +drawings: the forces of nature and the chemical elements, His obedient +builders, have no hands to receive the plans or eyes to scan them; but +we can perceive the analogy directly, and that is all that is necessary +for Faith. + +The origin of all we see in the world and in the entire Cosmos is, then, +in God; and as regards the adjustments of our globe and its relations, +and the actual life-forms in plant and animal, they came into existence +pursuant to groups of types or designs, made by the Divine Mind, and +declared by Him from His Throne in heaven, in six several days--periods +of the rotation of our earth. + +That is the message of Revelation. It requires no straining of the +sacred text: it takes everything as it stands, and the seemingly lengthy +explanation it requires is not to manipulate the text, but to clear away +the heap of mistaken conceptions that have gathered round it:--to +establish the idea, that the terms "God said, Let there be," and so +forth, mean Heaven work, in the design and type--not earth work in its +realization and building up. Establishing this by illustration and +argument, nothing more is required in the way of textual exegesis except +to argue for the rejection of perverse and unsustainable meanings long +given to "days," to "expanse" or "firmament," and to "great whales" in +the narrative. + +It will be admitted readily that if this account of Creation is the true +one, if the meaning assigned to the Genesis narrative is correct, it +affords no hindrance to _any_ conclusions that may progressively be +demanded by the investigation of life-history on earth. + +It requires us to believe that the forms which life assumes are not +chance forms, nor the _unpremeditated_ results of environment and +circumstance. But we are not told positively which forms are transitory, +which are final. + +It is only a matter of probable opinion, which it is quite open to any +one to dispute, that there is any indication of finality. I should +personally be inclined to think that we have indications that carnivora, +ungulates, and birds are final forms; that no evolution will ever modify +a bird further into anything that is not a bird; that no transition +between the ungulates and the carnivora is possible; that the +_proboscideae_ are not a final but a transitory type, dying out +gradually--our elephants and similar forms will disappear as the +mastodon did. + +But I admit this is all mere speculation, in which I ask no one to +follow me. + +On one important point only is there a difference; and if the text is +ever proved wrong on that, it must be given up. But it is here that all +scientific knowledge fails, in _any way whatever,_ to touch the sacred +text. There _is_ an unique and exceptional account of one "special +creation." A man "Adam" is described as having been actually created, +not born as an ultimately modified descendant of ancestors originally +far removed from himself. That is not to be denied; not only was his +bodily form specially created (conformably to the _type_ created in +Genesis i. 26), but a special spiritual and higher life was +imparted--for I believe that no one disputes this as the meaning of the +expression, "breathed into his nostrils the _breath of lives,_ and man +became a living soul." + +It must be noted again--although I have before alluded to this in some +detail--that it is not impossible that, pursuant to the general command +"Let us make man," there _may_ have been other human creations, perhaps +not endowed with the higher life of Adam. If it is found difficult to +realize this because the _image of God_ is connected (from the very +first) with the design of Man's life-form, still it is to be remembered +as an undeniable fact, that the form, though one assumed by God Himself +in the Incarnation, _is connected_ in structure and function with the +general animal (Mammalian) type, and that even the Adamic or spiritually +endowed man _may_, by neglecting the higher and giving way to the lower +nature, develop much of the purely bestial in himself. So that the bare +possibility of a pre-Adamite and imperfect man cannot be _a priori_ +denied. More than that it is not necessary to say. Nor is it necessary +that any origin of man should be limited to six or eight thousand years +back. If the state of the text is such that a perfect chronology is +possible,[1] then all that the Bible goes back to chronologically is the +particular man Adam. And it is quite impossible that any scientific or +historical contradiction can arise therefrom. + + +[Footnote 1: It should be borne in mind that just as Revelation is often +absolutely silent on many points that mere curiosity would like to see +explained, so also, the Divine Author may have allowed parts of the +original text of Revelation to be so far lost or obscured as to leave +further points that _might_ have been once recorded, now doubtful. All +that we may be quite sure of is that the text has been preserved for all +that is essential to "life and godliness."] + + + + +APPENDIX. + + +_PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN._ + +The information here put together is a compilation from papers in "The +Nineteenth Century," and other sources. It has no pretentions to +originality, but only to give a brief and connected account of the +subject, more condensed and freed from surrounding details than that +which the original sources afford. + +Before entering on the subject, I would again call attention to the +surpassing importance of these early chapters of Genesis. And, I add, +that unbelievers are especially glad to be able to allege anything they +can against them, because they are aware that hardly any chapters in the +Bible are more constantly alluded to, and made the foundation of +practical arguments by our Lord and His Apostles, than these early +chapters in the Divine volume. If these chapters can be shown to be +mythical, then the divine knowledge of our Lord, as the Son of God, and +the inspiration of His Apostles, are put in question. All through the +Old Testament, allusions to Adam and to the early history in Genesis +occur; and among other passages, I will only here invite attention to +the 31st chapter of Ezekiel, where there is, in a most beautiful +description of the cedar-tree, an allusion to "Eden, the Garden of God" +(see also chapter xxviii. ver. 13), which some have thought to indicate +that the site was still known, and existing in the time of the prophet. +This at least may be remarked, that in verse 9, where the prophet speaks +of the "trees that _were_ in the Garden of God," the word _were_ is not +in the original, and the sense of the context would rather denote the +present tense--"the trees that _are_ in the Garden of God." + +But it is in the New Testament that the most repeated and striking +allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the Serpent, and the +entrance of sin and death into the life-history of mankind, occur.[1] + + +[Footnote 1: See on this subject page 137 _ante_.] [Transcriber's +note: Chapter X.] + +As regards the narrative of Eden itself, there has been, from the very +earliest times, some disposition to regard it as mystical or +"allegorical," i.e., to regard it as representing spiritual facts of +temptation and disobedience, under the guise or story of an actual +audible address by a serpent, and the eating of an actual fruit. The +earliest translators seem to have glossed the "Gan-'Eden," everywhere in +the Old Testament (_except_ in Gen. ii. 8), by the phrase "the paradise +of pleasure," or some other similar term. And the Vulgate _always_ uses +some phrase, such as "place of delight," "voluptas," "deliciae," &c. It +must be admitted that there is some temptation to this course, because +of the inveterate tendency of the human mind to reduce things to its own +level--to suppose everything to have happened _in ways which are within +its present powers to comprehend._ We figure to ourselves the fear and +dislike _we_ should ourselves experience, of a large snake; we imagine +the amazement with which an intelligible voice would be heard to proceed +from such a creature; so far from being _tempted, we_ should at once be +moved to hostility or to flight; and thus we are inclined to throw doubt +on the narrative as it stands. + +But this is to do what we justly complain of modern materialists and +positivists for doing--reducing everything to terms of present +experience and knowledge. + +It has to be borne in mind, that _under the conditions of the case_, the +serpent was neither ugly, dangerous, nor loathsome, but beautiful and +attractive; that the residents of the Garden were familiar with the +"voice of God"--i.e., they had habitual intelligible communication with +heaven: probably, also, free intercourse with angelic messengers +(inconceivable as it may now seem to us) was matter of daily experience +to them. The woman would then recognize in the voice an Angel +communication; and unaware at first that it was an evil angel, it would +excite no surprise in her at all. Sensations of terror, surprise, +dislike, and so forth, were _ex hypothesi_ unknown. Why then should not +the narrative be exact, unless, indeed, we have some _a priori_ ground +for supposing that human nature _never could_ have been in a state where +the voice of God and angels sounded in its ears, and where innocence and +the absence of all evil emotion was the daily condition of life? The +unbeliever may sneer at such a state, but _reason_ why it should _not_ +have been, he can give none. So, again, with the idea of the "tree of +the knowledge of good and evil" and the "tree of life." We are no doubt +tempted to think that these terms may be symbolic; but a more careful +reflection, and a deliberate rejection of the _influence of present +experiences_, may lead us to accept the narrative more literally. Even +now, we are not unfamiliar with the ideas of medicinal virtues in plants +and fruits. I see nothing impossible in the idea that God may have been +pleased to impart such virtue to the fruit of a tree standing in the +midst of the Garden, that physical health, immunity from all decay, and +constant restoration, should have been the result of eating the fruit; +and the eating of this fruit, we know, was freely permitted. The late +Archbishop Whately suggested, and I think with great probability, that +the longevity of the earliest generations of the Adamic race may have +been due to the beneficial effects of the eating of this fruit, which +only gradually died out. Just as we know at the present time, that +peculiarities introduced into human families, often survive from father +to son, till they gradually die out after many generations. + +Again, as regards the "forbidden tree," it will not seem impossible, +that as a simple _test of obedience_ in a very primitive state, the rule +of abstinence from a particular fruit may have been literally enjoined, +and that the consequence of the moral act of _disobedience_ (rather +than the physical effect of the fruit eaten) should have been the +knowledge of evil, the first sensation of shame, terror, angry +dissension, and, worst of all, the alienation from God the source of all +good, which followed. + +All such considerations of the reality of the history must gain greatly +in strength, if we can demonstrate that the Garden of Eden, the scene of +the temptation, the place where the trees that were the vehicles of such +consequences to the occupants of the garden, stood, had a real existence +and geographical site. Now I need hardly remark that the Mosaic +narrative unquestionably _professes_ a geographical exactness and a +literal existence of the garden, as no fabled locality--no Utopia or +garden of the Hesperides. I need only refer to the _data_ afforded to us +by Gen. ii. 8-14. + +The Lord, it is said, planted a garden in Eden: it was "eastward;" but +that does not directly indicate its site. From Gen. iv. 16, we also +learn that the land of Nod where Cain dwelt (after the murder of Abel) +was on the east of Eden. + +A river went out and watered the garden. After passing the limits of +Eden, the river is said to have divided itself, or parted, into four +heads, i.e., arms or branches. The first branch was called Pison. This +branch "compasseth," i.e., forms the boundary along the whole length of, +"_the_ Havilah." This country is spoken of as being a tract wherein was +produced good gold, "b'dolach" (translated "bdellium") and "shoham" +(translated "onyx.") The second branch was Gihon, which is described as +similarly compassing the district of K[=u]sh. Here our A.V., by +substituting "Ethiopia" for the original "C[=u]sh," has made a gloss +rather than a translation; and this gloss has given rise to several +errors of commentators in identifying the site of Eden. The Revised +Version has corrected the error. + +The third branch was Hiddekel, the _Diklatu_ of the Arabs, the Tigra of +the old Persians, and the _Tigris_ of later writers. This is said to run +eastward towards Assyria.[1] The fourth river was the Frat or Euphrates. +Observe, in passing, that the author gives no detail about the great +river Euphrates, as being well known; while he adds particulars about +the Tigris, and describes the Gihon and the Pison in some detail. + + +[Footnote 1: So the margin of the A. and R. Versions more correctly.] + +Now it will at once strike the reader that two of these rivers are well +known to the present day. The others are not. + +It is in the identification of these two, and of the districts which +they "compassed," which form the difficulties of the problem. Up till +recent times, it is remarkable what a variety of speculations have been +attempted as to the situation of Eden. Dr. Aldis Wright, the learned +author of the article "Eden" in Smith's "Biblical Dictionary," remarks: +"It would be difficult, in the whole history of opinion, to find any +subject which has so invited, and at the same time completely baffled, +conjecture, as the Garden of Eden." And in another place he thinks that +"the site of Eden will ever rank with the quadrature of the circle, and +the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy among those unsolved, and +perhaps insoluble, problems which possess so strange a fascination." It +is, however, to be remarked, (1)that all that was written before +Professor Delitzsch's researches were made known; and (2)that really a +great mass of the conjecture and speculation has been purely in the +air--undertaken without any reference to the plain terms of the text to +be interpreted. It is the extravagance of commentators, and their +insisting on going beyond the narrative itself, that has raised such +difficulties, and made the problem look more hopeless than it really is. + +To what purpose are "the three continents of the old world" "subjected +to the most rigorous search," as Dr. Wright puts it--when it is quite +plain from the text itself, that the solution is to be sought in the +neighbourhood of the Euphrates, or not at all? The whole inquiry seems +to have been one in which a vast cloud of learned dust has been raised +by speculators, who began their inquiry without clearly determining, to +start with, what was the point at issue. Either the description in Gen. +ii. 3-14 is meant for allegory, or geographical fact: this question must +first be settled; and if the latter is agreed to, then it is quite +inconceivable that the words should imply any very extensive region, or +any fancied realm extending over a large proportion of one or other +quarter of the globe. The problem is then at once narrowed; and it is +simply unreasonable to look for Havila in India, or for Pison in the +province of Burma, as one learned author does! + +Yet commentators have forgotten this; and gone--the earlier ones into +interpretation of allegory--the later into impossible geographical +speculation; while only the most recent have confined themselves to the +obvious terms of the problem as laid down in the narrative itself--a +narrative which (whether true or false) is clearly meant to be definite +and exact, as we have seen. Our A.V. translators are to be held, to +some extent, responsible for the freedom which speculation has +exercised, by themselves taking the C[=u]sh of the narrative to +"Ethiopia," i.e., to the African continent--for which there is no +authority whatever. + +As regards the _allegorical_ interpretations, they are too extravagant +for serious notice. Souls, angels, human passions and motives, are +supposed to be represented by towns, rivers, and countries. To all this +it is enough to reply--What reason can we have for supposing an +allegory suddenly to be interpolated at Gen. ii. 8? There is no allegory +before it, there is none after. + +Then as to the early geographical expounders. Josephus and others +supposed the allusion was made to the great rivers known to ancient +geography, all of which ran into that greatest river of all, which +encircled the globe. In this view, the Gihon might be the Nile, and the +Pison the Ganges! Here, again, it may be remarked it is impossible to +read the narrative and believe that the author meant any such widespread +region. Even if the author had the ancient ideas about cosmography +generally, that would not prevent his being accurate about a limited +region lying to the east of a well-known river in a populous country. In +later times Luther avoided the difficult speculation by supposing that +the Deluge had swept away all traces of the site! But unfortunately for +this convenient theory, it is a plain fact that the Deluge did not sweep +any two out of the four rivers named. The reader who is curious on the +subject, will find in Dr. A. Wright's article a brief account of the +various identifications proposed by all these commentators. It would not +be interesting to go into any detail. I shall pass over all those +extravagant views which go to places remote from the Euphrates, and come +at once to the later attempts to solve the question in connection with +the two known rivers, Euphrates and Hiddekel (Tigris); as this is the +only kind of solution that any reasonable modern Biblical student will +admit. + +The different explanations adopted maybe grouped into two main attempts: +(1) to find the place among the group of rivers that surrounds Mount +Ararat in Northern Armenia, _vis._, in the extreme upper course of the +Euphrates near its two sources; (2) to find the place below the +_present_ junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris, along some part of +the united course, which is now more than two hundred miles long, and is +called "Shatt-el-'Arab." + +But neither of these attempts has been successful: the first must, +indeed, be absolutely dismissed; because the Hebrew phrases used in +describing the four _branches_ of the river that "went out," and watered +the garden, and then parted, cannot be applied to four independent +sources or streams--_upstream_ of the Euphrates. It will not, then, +satisfy the problem, to find four rivers somewhere in the vicinity of +the Euphrates, and which, in a general way, enclose a district in which +Eden might be placed. It may, indeed, be doubted whether this first +attempt (which I may call the "North Armenian solution") would ever have +been seriously entertained, but from the fact that the name Gihon--or +something very like it--did attach itself to the Araxes or Phasis, a +considerable river of Armenia. Finding a Gihon ready, the commentators +next made the Pison, the Acampsis; and then as Pison was near the +"Havila land," this country was laid on the extreme north of Armenia; +all this without a particle of evidence of any kind.[1] I may here take +the opportunity of remarking that a chance _similarity of names_[2] has +been, throughout the controversy, a fruitful source of enlarged +speculative wandering. Thus this name Gihon (Gaihun, Jikhun, G[=e][=o]n, +&c.) that appears in North Armenia, again appears in connection with the +_Nile_; while again the name "Nile" has wandered back to the confines of +Persia, and one of the _Euphrates_ branches is still called +"Shatt-en-nil." The ancients, indeed, had very curious ideas about the +Nile. Its real sources being so long undiscovered--no Speke or Grant +having appeared--imagination ran wild on the subject. Not only so, but +it is remarkable that the name _Cush_ should have acquired both a +Persian Gulf and an Egyptian employment: and the writer of the able +article in "The Nineteenth Century" (October, 1882) points out several +other singular instances in which names are common both to the +African-Egyptian region, and to this. + + +[Footnote 1: And it is astonishing to find the error generally +perpetuated in maps attached to modern Bibles.] + +[Footnote 2: As distinct from a real philological connection of a modern +name with a more ancient one, and so forth.] + +Turning now to the second of the two theories, the identification of the +site on the lower part of the Euphrates after its now existing junction +with the Tigris (and which the supporters of the theory have justified +by making the Gihon and Pison two rivers coming from Eden) must also be +set aside. + +For the important fact has been overlooked that it is quite certain, +that anciently, the joint stream, (Shatt-el-'Arab), as it now is, did +not exist. Though the Genesis narrative tells us of a junction +_immediately outside_ the southern boundary of the Garden, the Euphrates +channels and the Tigris branch (with part of the Euphrates water in it) +flowed separately to the Persian Gulf. It is quite certain that, in the +time of Alexander the Great, the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris were +a good day's journey apart. For this separate outflow there is the +incontestable evidence of Pliny and other authors quoted by Professor +Delitzsch. I may here also remark, that anciently the Persian Gulf +extended much farther inland than it does now. In the time of +Sennacherib, an inland arm of the sea extended so far, that a _naval_ +expedition against Elam was possible; more than one hundred miles inland +from the present sea-line. The extension was called N[=a]r Marratum. In +Alexander's time, the city of Charax (now Mohamra) was founded close to +the sea (that was in the fourth century B.C.). It is known from later +histories, that shortly before the birth of our Saviour, the city was +from fifty to one hundred and twenty Roman miles inland. The change is +due to the "Delta," or alluvial formation at the mouth of the rivers. + +Turning, then, to the recent inquiries (published in 1881[1]) by +Professor Fried. Delitzsch, it must be confessed that the results +obtained are such as to completely avoid all the difficulties that beset +the other explanations: yet we ought not to be too confident that it is +a final or absolute explanation. A certain caution and reserve will +still be wisely maintained on the subject. At any rate, they show that +_an_ explanation, one that answers _all_ the conditions of the problem, +_can_ be given; and that is a great thing. + + +[Footnote 1: "Wo lag das Paradies" (Leipzig, 1881) is the title of the +book.] + +[Footnote: Professor Friedrich Delitzsch is Professor of Assyriology in +the University of Leipzig.] + +In placing the site _on_ the Euphrates, and far from the mountain +sources, there is no violence done to the Hebrew language used to +describe the first river, as one that "went out," and watered the +Garden. The words do not require that the river should actually _take_ +its _rise_ within the Garden limits; but it is necessary that the river +should be so situated, that its waters could be distributed by means of +creeks or canals across the Garden, that it could be said the river +"went out and watered the Garden." Now it is a remarkable fact, that in +the district just above Babylon, the bed of the Euphrates is in level +much higher than the bed of the Tigris (Hiddekel) to the east, and that +hence there always have been a number of very variable channels leading +from the Euphrates eastward to the Tigris. These, it is well known, were +often enlarged by the ancients and converted into useful "inundation +canals" for irrigation and the passage of boats. Imagine, then, the high +level river bed of the Euphrates, and various streams flowing off it +down to the valley of the Tigris, and we have a most efficiently +irrigated "Garden," and one accurately described by the text--the great +river "went out" and watered it. The Euphrates, moreover, is liable to +great flushes of water from the melting of the snows in wide tracts of +mountain or highlands from which its waters are collected, and these +volumes of water found vent from the overcharged mother-channel by +escape, not only through the side channels, just spoken of, but also by +other important branches on the other side. Every one who has seen one +of the great rivers of Northern India will at once realize the changes +that take place where a river liable to floods has its bed at a high +level. It is almost a matter of certainty that, in the course of years, +the branches and channels of rivers so constituted will change, and old +ones be left dry and deserted. These essential topographical conditions +have always to be remembered in interpreting the narrative of Genesis +ii. + +In fact, they furnish us with points which help us in the problem at the +outset. (1) There is a part of the Euphrates, just above Babylon, where +the river naturally furnished abundant irrigation for a Garden planted +eastward of it, by means of natural irrigation channels flowing from the +high level down to the lower valley of the Tigris; and (2) there is also +a point from which the Euphrates did branch out, and several important +arms anciently existed. + +Nor is the locality, in point of verdure and fertility, unsuitable. Not +only do the ancient histories make frequent mention of the canals and +streams flowing from the Euphrates which I have alluded to, but they +speak of the palm groves, the vines and the verdure of the Babylonian or +Chaldean region. Herodotus, in his first book, has the most glowing +description of the scene; and the kings of Babylon had numerous enclosed +gardens or parks: these were imitated in Persia, and gave rise to the +Persian name "Firdaus," which Xenophon imported into Greek in the form +of [Greek: paradeisos] or "paradise"--the term which was adopted by the +Seventy translators. + +The actual locality which Professor Delitzsch proposes as the most +probable site of the Garden of Eden is between the present Euphrates and +Tigris, just to the north of Babylon. The boundaries would be--roughly +and generally speaking--the two rivers for East and West; while for the +North and South boundaries we should draw parallel lines through Accad +on the North and Babylon on the South. + +But granted that the general locality and the relations of the river +Euphrates and Tigris satisfy the requirements of the text by such a +location as this: how about the other two _and_ the countries which they +compass? The troubles of the earlier commentators will warn us, that we +need not be too ready to force names, and to identify one river, and +then, _because_ we have fixed that, make the country which the text +requires follow it! + +It is, however, in this matter that Professor Delitzsch's work is so +satisfactory. He has pointed out, that there is historical evidence (and +also that the local traces are not wanting in the present day) to prove +that, just below Babylon, we _can_ find two prominently important +channels or branches of the Euphrates, which will at least supply the +place of Pison and Gihon. As to the first, it is known that in historic +times a great channel called by the Greeks Pallakopas (navigable for +ships) used to carry off the surplus water of the Euphrates when swollen +in the summer season by the melting snows of the Armenian mountains. It +branched off from the main river at a point somewhat north of Babylon, +and flowed into the Persian gulf. There is, indeed, no _direct_ evidence +to show that this branch bore a name resembling Pison. _Palgu_ is the +Assyrian whence the Greek Pallakopas was derived. It is remarkable, +however, that the word Pison closely resembles the cuneiform term +"pisana," or "pisanu," which is used for a water-reservoir, a canal or a +channel; and as this "Pallakopas" was _the_ channel _par excellence_, it +may very possibly have been called "pisana" or Pison, the (great) +channel. The identification of the channel called "Pallakopas" will be +found mentioned in Colonel Chesney's work, "An Expedition to the +Tigris." The name, however, of this channel is not the only means we +have of identifying it. The Scripture says that the Pison compasses the +land of _Havilah_. Now let us remember, that the Scripture tells of two +Havilahs: (1) The second son of Cush[1] and brother of Nimrod, and (2) +one of the great great grandsons of Shem (Gen. x. 29). One we may call +the Cushite Havilah, the other the Joktanite Havilah. The dwelling-place +of the brother of Nimrod is not mentioned, but it is stated that the +Joktanite Havilah dwelt in "Mesha." The tenth of Genesis is an important +chapter, as showing how the descendants of Noah branched out and spread +over the countries all round the Euphrates; some going north to Assyria +(Nineveh), others to the east and west, and others south, to Arabia and +Egypt. Now it so happens that the whole country west of the great +Pallakopas channel, was called by the Assyrians "Mashu." Professor +Delitzsch identifies this Mashu of the cuneiform inscriptions, with the +"Mesha" mentioned in Scriptures, as the home of Havilah. We have also in +Gen. xxv. 8,[2] mention of a land of Havila that is "before"--i.e., +eastward of--"Egypt as thou goest toward Assyria," which would answer +very well to this locality, west of the Euphrates. It is also known +(from sources which it would take too long to detail) that this country +did yield gold-dust. Pliny also mentions "Bdellium," if that was the +substance known as "B'dolach." It is indeed uncertain what this was, but +Gesenius long ago rejected the idea that it was a stone, because there +is no prefix to it, as there is to "shoham," which follows, and +certainly is a precious stone. The manna in the wilderness is described +as being of the "colour of bdellium," and was also like hoar-frost;[3] +hence the idea that b'dolach was a crystal. But a fragrant and precious +gum-resin seems more likely. The Magi who came to worship the Infant +Saviour from near this locality, brought offerings of _gold_, and also +fragrant gums and myrrh. Was "bdellium" (as probably being a fragrant +gum) one of these offerings? + + +[Footnote 1: See Gen. x. 9.] + +[Footnote 2: See also 1 Sam. xv. 7.] + +[Footnote 3: Exod. xvi. 14; Numbers xi. 7: "The appearance (lit. "eye") +of it was as the appearance of bdellium" (R.V.).] + +The "Onyx," or "Shoham," was most probably a pure red cornelian, and +this also was found in the Babylonian provinces, and was specially worn +by the Babylonian kings. + +So the country west of the Euphrates answers very well to Havila without +any forcing, and without any placing it there _because_ of the river +rendering such a plan necessary. + +As to the fourth river (Gihon), Delitzsch identifies it, still more +clearly, with a channel known as the "Shatt-en-nil," which branches off +from the Euphrates at Babylon itself, and passing the Scriptural city of +Erech, rejoins the main river lower down. A clay tablet has actually +been discovered, having the Euphrates, Tigris, and this Shatt-en-nil +channel _together_: the name of the latter is given as "K[=a]han de," or +"Gughande," a name which closely resembles Gihon. The channel is, +however, identified independently of the name. For the Gihon is +particularized in the narrative, by the fact that it "compasses" the +land of Cush. This (as already pointed out) is not the Ethiopian Cush. + +Delitzsch states, that the whole country bounded by this branch was +anciently called Kash-shu, which he identifies with the Cush of Genesis +ii. The syllable "Kash" appears throughout this locality. In fact +Kash-du or Kal-du is the origin of the familiar name Chaldea. In the +Hebrew, Kush (Cush) is the name given to the father of Nimrod, who +"began" his kingdom about this very site--Erech, and Calneh, and Accad +(Gen. x. 8, 10). Hence it is not surprising that relics of the name +should be found all round this neighbourhood. Nor does the evidence end +here. The district immediately around Babylon was called "Kar-dunish-i," +i.e., the "Garden of the god Dunish." Now Kar is the Turanian form of +the Semitic G[=a]n, or Gin[=a] (garden); and what is more likely than +that, as the true story was lost in the heathen traditions and mythology +that grew up, the "garden" was attributed to the god Dunish--whereas the +real original had been not "Gandunish," but "Gan'Eden?" This, though +only a conjecture, is the more probable, as one of the inscription-names +of Babylon itself was "Tintira," which, though a little obscure, +certainly means _either_ the "_grove_," or the _"fountain," of life._ + +We thus find, not only that four great branches of the river that "went +out," and watered the Garden can be traced, but that the two really do +"compass" tracts, that can, with the highest degree of probability, be +identified as C[=u]sh or Kash, and Havilah. The importance of Professor +Delitzsch's work may now be briefly glanced at. It may be objected, that +such a process of reasoning as that put forward, is not convincing to a +general reader who has not the means of criticizing or testing Professor +Delitzsch's conclusions: he therefore cannot be sure that, in selecting +two channels to represent the Pison and the Gihon, and in identifying +"Mashu" with Mesha of Havilah, and one of the Babylonian districts with +Kush, the Professor has at last hit off a solution of the problem which +will not in its turn be disproved, as all earlier solutions have been. +There is, however, this important conclusion to be safely drawn, viz., +that a complete explanation in exact accord with the Hebrew text is +_possible_, and that hence nothing can be urged against the _narrative_, +on the ground (hitherto sneeringly taken) that the geography _was +impossible_ and so forth. + +Next let me very briefly sum up what it is that Dr. Delitzsch has +done--marshalling the evidence, beginning from the broad end and +narrowing down till we arrive at the point. + +(1) First, then, we are fixed by the narrative to some place between the +Euphrates and the Tigris. + +(2) We find in the ancient inscriptions of the chief city of this +locality, constant allusions to a Garden, a primitive pair and a +temptation: one of these almost exactly reproduces the Bible story; it +is not of the earliest date and is a copy. But discovery is far from +being exhausted; all that we know is _consistent_ with the idea of an +original story, gradually corrupted by the addition of legends, and +introduction of mythological persons and heathen divinities. The true +belief in one God, who made Himself known by voice or vision to His true +worshippers, seems early to have been confined to a few of the Shemitic +families, while the others "invented" gods of their own. + +(3) We find that the region about Babylon itself was called +Kar-dunishi--which easily recalls Kar or Gan-Eden. We also find the name +(Tintira) applied, indicating a "grove" or "fountain" of life; in the +locality where the direct legends most abound. + +(4) We find from ancient authors that the district was one of rich +verdure--a land of gardens and irrigation. + +(5) We find that some way above Babylon about Accad, the level of the +river bed Euphrates is so much higher than the valley of the Tigris +eastward, that numerous streams flow off from it, which would serve +admirably to irrigate a garden situated between the two, eastward of the +Euphrates. + +(6) We find that the Persian Gulf once extended more than one hundred +miles farther inland than it does now. That there was no joint outflow +of Tigris and Euphrates, but, though they did join their streams above, +they parted again and had still separate mouths--of the Tigris branch +one, of the Euphrates several. + +(7) Lastly, Professor Delitzsch finds two channels which answer to Pison +and Gihon. + +(8) He proves these two to be the right ones by considering the +countries which they "compass:" and actually finds the one that he +supposes to be the "Gaihun," called, in the cuneiform clay tablets, +"Kahan or Gaghan-de." + +It is really only in (7) and (8) that there is any room for doubt and +for further inquiry. + +At any rate, the credibility of the narrative, and a belief in its +purpose, as a topographically exact statement of fact, not an allegory +or legend, is established. + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's Creation and Its Records, by B.H. Baden-Powell + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CREATION AND ITS RECORDS *** + +***** This file should be named 12852.txt or 12852.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/2/8/5/12852/ + +Produced by Dave Macfarlane and PG Distributed Proofreaders. Produced +from images provided by the Million Book Project. + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/12852.zip b/old/12852.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..cafd6b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12852.zip |
