{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_12852/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_12852","id":"gutenberg_12852","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12852","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Creation","Religion and science"],"text":"_CREATION AND ITS RECORDS_.\n\n\n[Greek: Pistei nooumen kataertisthai tous aionas rh\u00eamati theou eis to\nmi ek fainomenon to Blepomenon gegonenai.]--HEB. xi. 3.\n\n\nCREATION AND ITS RECORDS.\n\nA brief statement of Christian Belief with reference to Modern facts and\nAncient Scripture.\n\nBY\n\nB.H. BADEN-POWELL, C.I.E., F.R.S.E.\n\nCONTENTS\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_PART I._\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE ELEMENT OF _FAITH_ IN CREATION\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nCREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION\nOF ORGANIC FORMS\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE DESCENT OF MAN\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nFURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF\nMAN\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nCONCLUDING REMARKS\n\n_PART II._\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE GENESIS NARRATIVE--ITS IMPORTANCE\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nSCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nMETHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE--ASSUMPTIONS\nOF MEANING TO CERTAIN TERMS\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nTHE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY\n  (i.) THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE\n  (ii.) THE SECOND PART\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nTHE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nAND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nTHE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE\n\n_APPENDIX._\n\nPROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n\n_INTRODUCTORY_\n\nAmong the recollections that are lifelong, I have one as vivid as ever\nafter more than twenty-five years have elapsed; it is of an evening\nlecture--the first of a series--given at South Kensington to working\nmen. The lecturer was Professor Huxley; his subject, the Common Lobster.\nAll the apparatus used was a good-sized specimen of the creature itself,\na penknife, and a black-board and chalk. With such materials the\nprofessor gave us not only an exposition, matchless in its lucidity, of\nthe structure of the crustacea, but such an insight into the purposes\nand methods of biological study as few could in those days have\nanticipated. For there were as yet no Science Primers, no International\nSeries; and the \"new biology\" came upon us like the revelation of\nanother world. I think that lecture gave me, what I might otherwise\nnever have got (and what some people never get), a profound conviction\nof the reality and meaning of facts in nature. That impression I have\nbrought to the attempt which this little book embodies. The facts of\nnature are God's revelation, of the same weight, though not the same in\nkind, as His written Word.\n\nAt the same time, the further conviction is strong in my mind, not\nmerely of the obvious truth that the Facts and the Writing (if both\ngenuine) cannot really differ, but further, that there must be, after\nall, a true way of explaining the Writing, if only it is looked for\ncarefully--a way that will surmount not only the difficulty of the\nsubject, but also the impatience with which some will regard the\nattempt. Like so many other questions connected with religion, the\nquestion of reconciliation produces its double effect. People will\nridicule attempts to solve it, but all the same they will return again\nand again to the task of its actual solution.\n\nThat the latter part of the proposition is true, has recently received\nillustration in the fact that a review like the _Nineteenth Century_,\nwhich has so little space to spare, has found room in four successive\nnumbers[1] for articles by Gladstone, Huxley, and H. Drummond, on the\nsubject of \"Creation and its Records.\" May I make one remark on this\ninteresting science tournament? I can understand the scientific\nconclusions Professor Huxley has given us. I can also understand Mr.\nGladstone, because he values the Writing as the professor values the\nFacts. But one thing I can _not_ understand. Why is Professor Huxley so\nangry or so contemptuous with people who value the Bible, whole and as\nit stands, and want to see its accuracy vindicated? Why are they\nfanatics, Sisyphus-labourers, and what not? That they are a very large\ngroup numerically, and hardly contemptible intellectually, is, I think,\nobvious; that a further large group (who would not identify themselves\nwholly with the out-and-out Bible defenders) feel a certain amount of\nsympathy, is proved by the interest taken in the controversy. Yet all\n\"reconcilers\" are ridiculed or denounced--at any rate are contemptuously\ndismissed. Can it be that the professor has for the moment overlooked\none very simple fact?\n\n\n[Footnote 1: November, December, 1885; and January, February, 1886.]\n\nThe great bulk of those interested in the question place their whole\nhope for their higher moral and spiritual life in this world and the\nnext on one central Person--the LORD JESUS CHRIST. If He is wrong, then\nno one can be right--there is no such thing as right: that is what they\nfeel. It will be conceded that it is hardly \"fanatical\" to feel this.\nBut if so, surely it is not fanatical, but agreeable to the soberest\nreason, further to hold that this (to them sacred) PERSON did (and His\napostles with Him) treat the Book of Genesis as a whole (and not merely\nparts of it) as a genuine revelation--or, to use the popular expression,\nas the _Word of_ GOD. That being so, can it be matter for surprise or\ncontemptuous pity, that they should be anxious to vindicate the Book,\nto be satisfied that the MASTER was not wrong? That is the ultimate and\nvery real issue involved in the question of Genesis.\n\nAs long as people feel _that_, they must seek the reconciliation of the\ntwo opposing ideas. If the attempt is made in a foolish or bitter\nspirit, or without a candid appreciation of the facts, then the attempt\nwill no doubt excite just displeasure. But need it always be so made?\n\nAs to the first part of my proposition that attempts to reconcile\nreligion and science are received with a certain dislike, it is due\npartly to the unwisdom with which they are sometimes made. Prof. H.\nDrummond speaks of the dislike as general.[1]\n\nIf this is so, I, as a \"reconciler,\" can only ask for indulgence, hoping\nthat grace may be extended to me on the ground of having something to\nsay on the subject that has not yet been considered.\n\nNor, as regards the impatience of the public, can I admit that there is\nonly fault on one side. In the first place, it will not be denied that\nsome writers, delighted with the vast, and apparently boundless, vision\nthat the discovery (in its modern form) of Evolution opened out to them,\ndid incautiously proceed, while surveying their new kingdom, to assert\nfor it bounds that stretch beyond its legitimate scope.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: In the Introduction to his well-known book, \"Natural Law in\nthe Spiritual World.\"]\n\nReligionists, on the other hand, imagining, however wrongly, that the\nerroneous extension was part of the true scientific doctrine, attacked\nthe whole without discrimination.\n\nWhile such a misapprehension existed, it was inevitable that writers\nanxious alike for the dignity of science and the maintenance of\nreligion, should step in to point out the error, and effect a\nreconciliation of claims which really were never in conflict.\n\nIt is hardly the fault of \"religionists\" that it was at first supposed\nthat one _could_ not hold the doctrine of evolution without denying a\n\"special\" creation and a designing Providence. It was on this very\nnatural supposition that the first leading attack--attributed to the\nBishop of Oxford--proceeded. And the writer fell into the equally\nnatural mistake of taking advantage of the uncompleted and unproved\nstate of the theory at the time, to attack the theory itself, instead of\nkeeping to the safer ground, namely, that whatever might ultimately be\nthe conclusion of evolutionists, it was quite certain that no theory of\nevolution that at all coincided with the known facts, offered any ground\nfor argument against the existence of an Intelligent Lawgiver and First\nCause of all; nor did it tend in the slightest to show that no such\nthing as creative design and providence existed in the course of nature.\n\nWhat the discovery of evolution really did, was to necessitate a\nrevision of the hitherto popularly accepted and generally assumed and\nunquestioned notion of what _creation_ was. And it has long appeared to\nme, that while now the most thoroughgoing advocates of evolution\ngenerally admit that their justly cherished doctrine has nothing to say\nto the existence of a Creator, or to the possibility of design--which\nmay be accepted or denied on other grounds--the writers on the side of\nChristianity have not sufficiently recognized the change which their\nviews ought to undergo.\n\nAs long as this is the case, there will continue to be a certain\n\"conflict,\" not indeed between science and religion, but of the kind\nwhich has been vividly depicted by the late Dr. Draper.\n\nIt can scarcely have escaped the notice of the most ordinary reader\nthat, in the course of that interesting work, the author has very little\nto say about religion--at any rate about religion in any proper sense of\nthe term. The conflict was between a Church which had a zeal for God\nwithout knowledge, and the progress of scientific thought; it was also a\nconflict between discovered facts, and facts which existed, not in the\nBible, but in a particular interpretation, however generally received,\nof it.\n\nThe present work is therefore addressed primarily to Christian believers\nwho still remain perplexed as to what they ought to believe; and its aim\nis to prevent, if may be, an unreasonable alarm at, and a useless\nopposition to, the conclusions of modern science; while, at the same\ntime, it tells them in simple language how far those conclusions really\ngo, and how very groundless is the fear that they will ever subvert a\ntrue faith that, antecedent to the most wonderful chain of causation and\nmethodical working which science can establish, there is still a Divine\nDesigner--One who upholds all things \"by the word of His power.\"\n\nThe doctrine of evolution is still the _ignotum_ to a great many, and it\nis therefore, according to the time-honoured proverb, taken _pro\nmagnifico_, as something terribly adverse to the faith. Nor can it be\nfairly denied, as I before remarked, that some of the students of the\ntheory have become so enamoured of it, so carried away by the\nintoxication of the gigantic speculation it opens out to the\nimagination, that they have succumbed to the temptation to carry\nspeculation beyond what the proof warrants, and thus lend some aid to\nthe deplorable confusion, which would blend in one, what is legitimate\ninference and what is unproved hypothesis or mere supposition.\n\nIt only remains to say that the basis of this little book is a short\ncourse of lectures in which I endeavoured to disarm the prejudices of an\neducated but not scientifically critical audience, by simply stating how\nfar the theory of cosmical evolution had been really proved--proved,\nthat is, to the extent of that reasonable certainty which satisfies the\nordinary \"prudent man\" in affairs of weight and importance. I have tried\nto show that evolution, apart from fanciful and speculative extensions\nof it, allows, if it does not directly establish, that the operation of\nnature is not a chance or uncontrolled procedure, but one that suggests\na distinct set of lines, and an orderly obedience to pre-conceived law,\nintelligently and beneficently (in the end) designed.\n\nThere are obviously two main points which the Christian reader requires\nto have made clear. The first is that, the modern theory of evolution\nbeing admitted, the constitution of matter in the universe and the\nprinciples of development in organic life, which that theory\nestablishes, not only do not exclude, but positively demand, the\nconception of a Divine artificer and director. The second point, which\nis perhaps of still greater weight with the believer, is that where\nrevelation (which is his ultimate standard of appeal) has touched upon\nthe subject of creation, its statements are not merely a literary fancy,\nan imaginary cosmogony, false in its facts though enshrining Divine\ntruth, but are as a whole perfectly true.\n\nWhatever novelty there may be, is to be found in the treatment of the\nsecond subject. The first portion of the work is only a brief and\npopular statement of facts, quite unnecessary to the scientific reader\nbut probably very necessary to the large body of Churchmen, who have not\nstudied science, but are quite able to appreciate scientific fact and\nits bearings when placed before them in an untechnical form, and\ndivested of needless details and subordinate questions.\n\nBut it is around the supposed declarations of Scripture on the subject\nof creation that the real \"conflict\" has centred. Let us look the matter\nquite fairly in the face. We accept the conclusion that (let us say) the\nhorse was developed and gradually perfected or advanced to his present\nform and characteristics, by a number of stages, and that it took a very\nlong time to effect this result. Now, if there is anywhere a statement\nin Holy Writ that (_a_) a horse was _per saltum_ called into existence\nin a distinctive and complete form, by a special creative _fiat_, and\nthat (_b_) this happened not gradually, but in a limited and specified\nmoment of time, then I will at once admit that the record (assuming that\nits meaning is not to be mistaken) is not provably right, if it is not\nclearly wrong; and accept the consequences, momentous as they would be.\nIf, in the same way, the Record asserts that man, or at least man the\ndirect progenitor of the Semitic race,[1] was a distinct and special\ncreation, his bodily frame having some not completely explained\ndevelopmental connection with the animal creation, but his higher nature\nbeing imparted as a special and unique creative endowment out of the\nline of physical development altogether, then I shall accept the Record,\nbecause the proved facts of science have nothing to say against it,\nwhatever Drs. Buchner, Vogt, H\u00e4ckel, and others may assert to the\ncontrary.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: With whose history, as leading up to the advent of the\nSaviour in the line of David, the Bible is mainly concerned.]\n\nIn the first of my two instances, the popular idea has long been that\nthe sacred record _does_ say something about a direct and separate\ncreative act; and this idea has been the origin and ground of all the\nsupposed conflict between science and \"religion.\" As long as this idea\ncontinues, it can hardly be said that a book addressed to the clearing\nup of the subject is unnecessary or to be rejected _per se_.\n\nAs to the method in which this subject will be dealt with, I shall\nmaintain that the Scripture does _not_ say anything about the horse, or\nthe whale, or the ox, or any other animal, being separately or directly\ncreated. And the view thus taken of the Record I have not met with\nbefore. This it is necessary to state, not because the fact would lend\nany value to the interpretation--rather the contrary; but because it\njustifies me in submitting what, if new, may be intrinsically important,\nto the judgment of the Church; and it also protects me from the offence\nof plagiarism, however unwitting. If others have thought out the same\nrendering of the Genesis history, so much the better for my case; but\nwhat is here set down occurred to me quite independently.\n\nA study of the real meaning of the Record, in the light of what may be\nfairly regarded as proved facts, cannot be without its use to the\nChristian. If it be true that a certain amount of information on the\nsubject of creation is contained in revelation, it must have been so\ncontained for a specific purpose--a purpose to be attained at some stage\nor other of the history of mankind. It is possible also that the study\nwill bring to light a probable, or at any rate a possible, explanation\nof some of those apparent (if they are not real) \"dead-locks\" which\noccur in pursuing the course of life history on the earth.\n\nSuch considerations will naturally have more weight with the Christian\nbeliever than with those who reject the faith. But at least the\nadvantage of them remains with the believer, till the contrary is shown.\nThe extreme evolutionist may cling to the belief that at some future\ntime he will be able to account for the entrance of LIFE into the\nworld's history, that he will be able to explain the connection of MIND\nwith MATTER; or he may hope that the sterility of certain hybrid forms\nwill one day be explained away, and so on. But till these things _are_\ngot over, the believer cannot be reproached as holding an unreasonable\nbelief when his creed maintains that Life is a gift and prerogative of a\ngreat Author of Life; that Mind is the result of a spiritual environment\nwhich is a true, though physically intangible, part of nature; and that\nthe absence of any proof that variation and development cross\ncertain--perhaps not very clearly ascertained, but indubitably\nexisting--lines, points to the designed fixing of certain types, and the\nrestriction of developmental creation to running in certain lines of\ncausation up to those types, and not otherwise.\n\nIt can never be unreasonable to believe anything that is in exact\naccordance with facts as ascertained at any given moment of\ntime--unless, indeed, the fact is indicated by other considerations as\nbeing one likely to disappear from the category of fact altogether.[1]\n\nEnough has thus, I hope, appeared, to make the appearance of this little\nwork, at least excusable; what more may be necessary to establish its\nclaim to be read must depend on what it contains.\n\nI have only to add that I can make no pretension to be a teacher of\nscience. I trust that there is no material error of statement; if there\nis, I shall be the first to retract and correct it. I am quite confident\nthat no correction that may be needed in detail will seriously affect\nthe general argument.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: At present it is an ascertained fact that certain chemical\nsubstances are elements incapable of further resolution. But there are\nnot wanting indications which would make it a matter of no surprise at\nall, if we were to learn to-morrow that the so-called element had been\nresolved. Such a fact is an example of what is stated in the text; and a\nbelief based on the absolute and unchangeable stability of such a fact\nwould not be unassailable. But none of the above stated instances of\n\"dead-lock\" in evolution are within \"measurable distance\" of being\nresolved.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n\n_THE ELEMENT OF FAITH IN CREATION._\n\nIn the extract placed on the title-page, the author of the Epistle\nclearly places our conclusion that God \"established the order of\ncreation\"--the lines, plans, developmental-sequences, aims, and objects,\nthat the course of creation has hitherto pursued and is still\nceaselessly pursuing,[1] in the category of _faith_.\n\nOf course, from one point of view--very probably that of the writer of\nthe Epistle--this conclusion is argued by the consideration that the\nhuman mind forms no distinct conception of the formation of solid--or\nany other form of--matter _in vacuo_, where nothing previously existed.\nAnd what the mind does not find within its own power, but what yet _is\ntrue_ in the larger spiritual kingdom beyond itself, is apprehended by\nthe spiritual faculty of _faith_.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: [Greek: Kataertisthai tous aionas]. This implies more than\nthe mere originating or supplying of a number of material, organic, or\ninorganic (or even spiritual) forms and existences. Whatever may be the\nprecise translation of [Greek: aion], it implies a chain of events, the\ncause and effect, the type and the plan, and its evolution all\nincluded.]\n\nBut from another point of view, the immediate action of faith is not so\nevident. If, it might be said, the law of evolution, or the law of\ncreation, or whatever is the true law, is, in all its bearings, a matter\nto be observed and discovered by human science, then it is not easy to\nsee how there is any exercise of faith. We should be more properly said\nto _know_, by intellectual processes of observation, inference, and\nconclusion, that there was a Law Giver, an Artificer, and a First Cause,\nso unlimited in power and capacity by the conditions of the case, that\nwe must call Him \"Divine.\"\n\nAnd many will probably feel that their just reasoning on the subject\nleads them to knowledge--knowledge, i.e., as approximately certain as\nanything in this world can be.\n\nBut the text, by the use of the term [Greek: aion], implies (as I\nsuggested) more than mere production of objects; it implies a designed\nguidance and preconceived planning. If it were merely asserted that\nthere is a first cause of material existence, and even that such a cause\nhad enough known (or to be inferred) about it, to warrant our writing\n\"First Cause\" with capitals, then the proposition would pass on all\nhands without serious question. But directly we are brought face to\nface, not merely with the isolated idea of creation of tangible forms\nout of nothing (as the phrase is), but rather with the whole history\nand development of the world and its inhabitants, we see so many\nconflicting elements, such a power of natural forces and human passions\nwarring against the progress of good, and seeming to end only too often\nin disaster, that it becomes a matter of _faith_ to perceive a Divine\nprovidence underlying and overruling all to its own ends.\n\nThe fact is, that directly we make mention of the \"aeons\"--the world's\nage histories--we are met with that Protean problem that always seems to\nlurk at the bottom of every religious question: Why was _evil_\npermitted? Mr. J.S. Mill, many readers will recollect, concluded that if\nthere was a God, that God was not perfectly good, or else was not\nomnipotent. Now of course our limited faculties do not enable us to\napprehend a really absolute and unlimited omnipotence. We _can_ only\nconceive of God as limited by the terms of His own Nature and Being. We\nsay it is \"impossible for God to lie,\" or for the Almighty to do wrong\nin any shape; in other words, we are, in this as in other matters where\nthe finite and the Infinite are brought into contact, led up to two\nnecessary conclusions which cannot be reconciled. We can reason out\nlogically and to a full conclusion, that given a God, that God must be\nperfect, unlimited and unconditioned. We can also reason out, _provided\nwe take purely human and finite premises_, another line of thought which\nforbids us to suppose that a Perfect God would have allowed evil,\nsuffering, or pain; and this leads us exactly or nearly to Mr. Mill's\nconclusion.\n\nWhenever we are thus brought up to a dead-lock, as it were, there is the\nneed of _faith_, which is the faculty whereby the finite is linked on to\nthe Infinite. For this faith has two great features: one is represented\nby the capacity for assimilating fact which is spiritual or\ntranscendental, and therefore not within the reach of finite intellect;\nthe other is represented by the capacity for reliance on, and trust in,\nthe God whose infinite perfections we cannot as finite creatures grasp\nor follow.\n\nIn the difficult scheme of the world's governance, in the storms,\nearthquakes, pestilences, sufferings of all kinds--signs of failure,\nsickness, and decay, and death, signs of the victory of evil and the\nfailure of good--we can only _believe_ in God, and that all will issue\nin righteous ends. And our belief proceeds, as just stated, on two\nlines: one being our spiritual capacity for knowing that GOD IS, and\nthat we, His creatures, are the objects of His love; the other being the\nfact that we only see a very little end of the thread, or perhaps only a\nlittle of one thread out of a vast mass of complicated threads, in the\ngreat web of design and governance, and that therefore there is wide\nground for confidence that the end will be success. We rely confidently\non God. If it is asked, Why is it a part of faith to have a childlike\nconfidence in an unseen God?--we reply, that the main origin of such\nconfidence is to be found in the wonderful condescension of God\nexhibited in the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection.\n\nThis is not the place to enter on a detailed examination of the\nessential importance of these great central facts of Christian belief in\nestablishing faith in the unseen, and distinguishing its grasp from the\nblind clutches of credulity; but a single consideration will suffice at\nleast to awaken a feeling of a wide _vista_ of possibility when we put\nit thus: Do we wonder at the spectacle of a righteous man, passing his\nlife in suffering and poverty, seemingly stricken by the Divine\nhand?--But is not the case altered when we reflect _that the Hand that\nthus smites is a hand itself pierced_ with the Cross-nails of a terrible\nhuman suffering, undergone solely on man's account?\n\nIt can be proved easily, by exhaustive examples, to be the case, that\nwherever the finite is brought into contact with the Infinite, that\nthere must be a dead-lock, a leading up successively to two conclusions,\none of which is almost, if not quite, contrary to the other. A very\nstriking instance of this is the question of Predestination and\nFree-will. From the finite side, I am conscious that I am a free agent:\nI can will to rise up and to lie down. It is true that my will may be\ninfluenced, strongly or feebly, by various means--by the effect of\nhabit, by the inherited tendency of my constitution, by some present\nmotive of temptation, and so forth: but the _will_ is there--the\nmotive-influence or inclining-power is not the will, but that which\naffects or works on will. A _motive_ pulls me this way, another pulls me\nthat; but in the end, my _will_ follows one or the other. I can, then,\ndo as I please. On the other hand, Infinite Knowledge must know, and\nhave known from all eternity, what I shall do now, and at every moment\nof my future being: and for Omnipotence to know from all eternity what\nwill be, is, in our human sense, practically undistinguishable from the\nthought that the Power has predestined the same; and man cannot of\ncourse alter that. Here, then, by separate lines of thought, we are\nbrought to two opposite and irreconcilable conclusions. It is so always.\nWe cannot ourselves imagine how a fixed set of laws and rules can be\nfollowed, and yet the best interests of each and every one of God's\ncreatures be served as truly as if God directly wielded the machinery of\nnature only for the special benefit of the individual. The thing is\nunthinkable to us: yet directly we reason on the necessarily _unlimited_\ncapability of a Divine Providence, we are led to the conclusion that it\nmust be possible. Here then is the province of _Faith_.[1]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The Scripture clearly recognizes the two opposing lines. In\none place we read, \"Thou hast given them a law which _shall not be\nbroken_;\" in another, \"All things work together for good to them that\nlove God.\"]\n\nIt is by Faith, then--combined with only a limited degree of knowledge,\nfounded on observation and reasoning--that we understand that \"the aeons\nwere constituted by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen\nwere not made of things which do appear\" (the phenomenal has its origin\nin the non-phenomenal).\n\nWhile allowing, then, the element of Faith in our recognition of a\nCreator and Moral Governor of the world, our care is in this, as in all\nexercises of faith, that our faith be reasonable. We are not called on\nto believe so as to be \"put to confusion,\" intellectually, as Tait and\nBalfour have it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n\n_THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION STATED_.\n\nIt will strike some readers with a sense of hopelessness, this demand\nfor a reason in our faith. A special and very extensive knowledge is\nrequired, it seems, to test the very positive assertion that some have\nchosen to make regarding the \"explosion\" of the Christian faith in the\nmatter of Creation.\n\nWe are told in effect that every thing goes by itself--that given some\nfirst cause, about which we know, and can know, nothing, directly\nprimordial matter appears on the scene, and the laws of sequence and\naction which observed experience has formulated and is progressively\nformulating are given, then nothing else is required; no governance, no\ncontrol, and no special design. So that in principle a Creator and\nProvidence are baseless fancies; and this is further borne out by the\nfact, that when the Christian faith ventures on details as to the mode\nof Creation it is certainly and demonstrably wrong. If these\npropositions are to be controverted, it must be in the light of a\nknowledge which a large body of candid and earnest believers do not\npossess.\n\nFortunately, however, the labours of many competent to judge have placed\nwithin the reach of the unscientific but careful student, the means of\nknowing what the conclusions of Science really are, as far as they\naffect the questions we have to consider. At least, any inquirer can,\nwith a little care and patient study, put himself in a position to know\nwhere the difficulty or difficulties lie, and what means there are of\ngetting over them. His want of technical knowledge will not be in his\nway, so far as his just appreciation of the position is concerned.\nWithout pretending to take up ground which has already been occupied by\ncapable writers whose books can easily be consulted, I may usefully\nrecapitulate in a simple form, and grouped in a suitable order, some of\nthe points best worth noting.\n\nThe theory of cosmical evolution is not, in its general idea, a new\nthing. The sort of evolution, however, that was obscurely shadowed forth\nby the early sages of India (much as it is the fashion now to allude to\nit) really stands in no practical relation to the modern and natural\ntheory which is associated with the name of CHARLES DARWIN, and which\nhas been further taken up by Mr. HERBERT SPENCER and others as the\nfoundation for a complete scheme of cosmic philosophy. The theory is\nnow, in its main features, admitted by every one. But there are a few\nwho would push it beyond its real ascertained limits, and would\nsubstitute fancies for facts; they are not content to leave the\n_lacunae_, which undoubtedly do exist, but fill them up by\nhypothesis,[1] passing by easy steps of forgetfulness from the \"it was\npossibly,\" \"it was likely to have been,\" to the \"it must have been,\" and\n\"it was\"!\n\nTo all such extensions we must of course object; there are gaps in the\nscheme which can be filled in with really great probability, and in such\ncases there will be no harm done in admitting the probability, while\nstill acknowledging it as such. An overcautious lawyer-like captiousness\nof spirit in such matters will help no cause and serve no good purpose.\nNor is it at all difficult in practice to draw the line and say what is\nfairly admissible conjecture and what is not. There are other gaps,\nhowever, that at present, no real analogy, no fair inferential process,\ncan bridge over; and to all speculations on such subjects, if advanced\nas more than bare and undisguised guesses, objection must be taken.\n\nIf this one line had been fairly and firmly adhered to from the first,\nit can hardly be doubted that much of the acrimony of controversy would\nhave been avoided. It is just as essential at the present moment to\ninsist on the point as ever. But to proceed. Stated in the extreme\nform, the theory is, that given matter as a beginning, that matter is\nthenceforth capable, by the aid of fixed and self-working laws, to\nproduce and result in, all the phenomena of life--whether plant, animal,\nor human--which we see around us. Matter developes from simple to\ncomplex forms, growing by its own properties, in directions determined\nby the circumstances and surroundings of its existence.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: It is enough to instance the theories of Dr. Buchner and,\nin earlier days, of Oken. The H\u00e4ckel and Virchow incident in this\nconnection, and the noble protest of the latter against positive\nteaching of unproved speculation, are in the recollection of all.]\n\nIf I may put this a little less in the abstract, but more at length, I\nshould describe it thus[1]:--\n\nAstronomers, while watching the course of the stars, have frequently\nobserved in the heavens what they call _nebulae_. With the best\ntelescopes these look like patches of gold-dust or luminous haze in the\nsky. Some nebulae, it is supposed, really consist of whole systems of\nstars and suns, but at so enormous a distance that with our best glasses\nwe cannot make more out of them than groups of apparent \"star-dust\" But\nother nebulae do not appear to be at this extreme distance, and therefore\ncannot consist of large bodies. And when their light is examined with\nthe aid of a spectroscope, it gives indications that such nebulae are\nonly masses of vapour, incandescent, or giving out light on account of\ntheir being in a burning or highly heated condition.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The biological evolutionist will, I am aware, object to\nthis, saying that the origin of the cosmos and nebular theories are\nmatters of speculation with which he is not concerned--they are no part\nof evolution proper. But I submit that the general philosophical\nevolution does include the whole. At any rate, the materialist view of\nnature does take in the whole, in such a way as the text indicates.]\n\nNow, it is supposed that, in the beginning of the world, there was, in\nspace, such a nebula or mass of incandescent vapour, which, as it was\ndestined to cool down and form a world, philosophers have called \"cosmic\ngas.\"\n\nThis cosmic gas, in the course of time, began to lose its heat, and\nconsequently to liquefy and solidify, according to the different nature\nof its components; and thus a globe with a solid crust was formed, the\nsurface of which was partly dry and partly occupied by water, and\ndiversified by the abundant production of the various earths, gases,\nmetals, and other substances with which we are familiar. These\nsubstances, in time, and by the slow action of their own laws and\nproperties, combined or separated and produced further forms. But to\ncome at once to the important part of the theory, we must at once direct\nour attention to four substances; these would certainly, it is said (and\nthat no doubt is quite true) be present; they are oxygen, hydrogen,\nnitrogen, and carbon. The first three would be, when the earth assumed\nanything like its present conditions of temperature and air-pressure,\ninvisible gases, as they are at present; the fourth is a substance which\nforms the basis of charcoal, and which we see in a nearly pure form\ncrystallized in the diamond.\n\nNow, if these substances are brought together under certain appropriate\nconditions, the oxygen and hydrogen can combine to form _water_; the\ncarbon and the oxygen will form _carbonic acid_; while nitrogen will\njoin with hydrogen to form that pungent smelling substance with which we\nare familiar as _ammonia_. Again, let us suppose that three compound\nsubstances--water, carbonic acid, and ammonia--are present together with\nappropriate conditions; it is said that they will combine to form a\ngummy transparent matter, which is called _protoplasm_. This protoplasm\nmay be found in small shapeless lumps, or it may be found enclosed in\ncells, and in various beautifully shaped coverings, and it is also found\nin the blood, and in all growing parts or organs of all animals and\nplants of every kind whatsoever.\n\nProtoplasm, then, is the physical basis of life. Simple, uniform,\nshapeless protoplasm, combined out of the substances just named, first\ncame into existence; and as, however simple or shapeless, it always\nexhibits the property of life, it can henceforth grow and develop from\nsimpler to ever increasingly complex forms, without any help but that of\nsurrounding circumstances--the secondary causes which we see in\noperation around us.\n\nIf some readers should say they have never seen _protoplasm_, I may\nremind them where every one has, at some time or another, met with it.\nIf you cut a stick of new wood from a hedge, and peel off the young\nbark, you know that the bark comes off easily and entire, leaving a\nclean white wand of wood in your hand; but the wand feels sticky all\nover. This sticky stuff is nothing more than transparent growing\nprotoplasm, which lies close under the inner bark.\n\nAt first, the materialist holds, protoplasm appeared in very simple\nforms, just such as can still be found within the sea, and in ponds. But\nthe lower organized forms of life are extremely unstable, and a\ndifferent _environment_ will always tend to evoke continuous small\nchanges, so that there may be advance in forms of all kinds. For if by\nchance[1] some creature exhibits a variation which is favourable to it\nin the circumstances in which it is placed, that creature will be fitter\nthan the others which have not that variation. And so the former will\nsurvive, and as they multiply, their descendants will inherit the\npeculiarity. Thus, in the course of countless generations, change will\nsucceed change, till creatures of quite a complex structure and\nspecialized form have arisen. As the circumstances of life are always\ninfinitely various, the developments take place in many different\ndirections; some fit the creature for life in deep seas, some for flying\nin the air, some for living in holes and crevices, some for catching\nprey by swift pursuit, others for catching it by artful contrivance, and\nso forth. Many changes will also arise from protective necessity: if an\ninsect happens to be like a dead leaf, it will escape the notice of\nbirds which would snap up a conspicuously coloured one; and so the\ndull-coloured will survive and perpetuate his kind, while the others are\ndestroyed. On the other hand, beauty in colour and form may have its\nuse. This is chiefly exhibited in the preference which the females of a\nspecies show for the adorned and showy males.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Not really of course \"by chance,\" but simply owing to such\ncircumstances as cannot be accounted for by any direct antecedents.]\n\nSupposing an organism developed so far as to be a bird, but only with\ndull or ugly feathers. By accident one male bird, say, gets a few\nbright-coloured feathers on his head. Here his appearance will attract\nbirds of the other sex; and then by the law of heredity, his offspring\nare sure to repeat the coloured feathers, till at last a regularly\nbright-crested species-arises. In this way _natural variability_, acted\non by the necessities of _environment_ (which cause the _survival of the\nfittest_ specimens) and the principle of _heredity_, viz., that the\noffspring repeat the features of the parents, aided by the principle of\n_sexual selection_, have been the origin and cause of all the species we\nsee in the world.\n\nThus we have an unbroken series--certain substances condensing out of\ncosmic vapour, some of them combining to form the variety of rocks,\nsoils, metals, &c., and others giving rise to protoplasm which grows'\nand develops into a thousand shapes and hues, of insect, fish, reptile,\nbird, and beast.\n\nAnd then it is, that charmed with the completeness and symmetry of such\na theory, and overlooking the difficulties that crop up here and\nhere--demanding some Power from without to bridge them over--certain\nextreme theorists have rushed to the conclusion that in all this there\nis no need of any external Creator or Providence--nothing but what we\ncall secondary causes, ordinary causes which we see at work around us\nall day and every day.\n\nHow inconceivable, they add, is the truth of the Book of Genesis, which\nasserts the successive creation of fully-formed animals by sudden acts\nof command; and all accomplished in a few days at the beginning of the\nworld's human history!\n\nThis I believe to be a fair outline, though of course a very rough and\ngeneral one, of the Theory of Evolution as regards the forms of matter\nand living organisms. Now it will at once strike the candid reader, that\neven granted the whole of the scheme as stated, there is _nothing_ in it\nthat has any answer to the objection,--But may I not believe that a wise\nCreator conceived and established the whole plan--first creating MATTER\nand FORCE, then superadding LIFE at a certain stage, and then drawing\nout the type and design according to which everything was to grow and\ndevelop? Is not such a production and such a design the true essence of\nCreation? Can all these things happen _without_ such aid? Let us then\nlook more closely at some of the steps in the evolution just described.\nAnd let us stop at the very beginning--the first term of the series.\n\nWe may agree (in the absence of anything leading to a contrary\nconclusion) that matter may first have appeared as a cosmic gas, or\nincandescent vapour in space. It is probable, if not certain, that our\nearth is a mass that has only cooled down on the surface, the centre\nbeing still hot and to some extent, at any rate, molten; and in the sun\nwe have the case of an enormous globe surrounded with a _photosphere_,\nas it is called--a blaze of incandescent substances, which our\nspectroscopes tell us are substances such as we have on earth now in\ncooled or condensed condition--iron, oxygen, hydrogen, and other such\nforms of matter.\n\nFirst of all, how did any _substance_, however vapoury and tenuous, come\nto exist, when previously there was nothing?\n\nIf we admit, that there was a time when even cosmic gas did not exist,\nthen there must have been _an Agent_, whose _fiat_ caused the change.\nAnd as that Agent does not obviously belong to the material order, it\nmust belong to the spiritual or non-material; for the two orders\ntogether exhaust the possibilities of existence. If, however, it is\nurged that \"primal matter\"--cosmic vapour--containing the \"potentiality\"\nof all existence, is eternal and alway existed of itself, then we are\nbrought face to face with innumerable difficulties. In the first place,\nthe existence of matter is not the only difficulty to be got over; not\nthe only dead-lock along the line. We pass it over and go on for a\ntime, and then we come to another--the introduction of LIFE. I will not\npause to consider that here; we shall see presently that it is\nimpossible to regard life as merely a quality or property of matter.\nWhen we have passed that, we have a third stoppage, the introduction of\n_Reason_ or _Intelligence_; and then a fourth, the introduction of the\n_Spiritual faculties_, which cannot be placed on the same footing as\nmere reason. So that to get over the first point, and dispense with a\nCause or a Creator of matter, is of no avail: it is incredible that\nthere should be no Creator of matter, but that there should be a Creator\nof life--an Imparter of reason, an Endower of soul.\n\nBut let us revert to the first stage and look at the nature of MATTER.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n\n_CREATIVE DESIGN IN INORGANIC MATTER._\n\nI take as self-evident the enormous difficulty of self-caused,\nself-existent matter. And when we see that matter _acting_, not\nirregularly or by caprice, but _by law_ (as every class of philosopher\nwill admit), then it is still further difficult to realize that matter\nnot only existed as a dead, simple, inactive thing, but existed with a\nfolded-up history inside it, a long sequence of development--not the\nsame for all particles, but various for each group: so that one set\nproceeded to form the _object_, and another the _environment_ of the\nobject; or rather that a multitude of sets formed a vast variety of\nobjects, and another multitude of sets formed a vast variety of\nenvironments. When we see matter acting by law, then if there is no\nCreator, we have the to us unthinkable proposition of law without a\nlawgiver!\n\nOn the other hand, if we shut out some of the difficulties, keep our eye\non one part of the case only--and that is what the human mind is very\napt to do--we can easily come round to think that, after all,\n_elementary_ matter--cosmic gas--is a very _simple_ thing; and looks\nreally as if no great Power, or Intellect, were required to account for\nits origin. After all, some will say, if we grant your great, wise,\nbeneficent, designing Creator, the finite human mind has as little idea\nof a self-existing God, as it has of self-existing matter and\nself-existing law. _You_ postulate one great mystery, _we_ postulate two\nsmaller ones; and the two together really present less \"unthinkableness\"\nto the mind than your one. That is so far plausible, but it is no more.\nTo believe in a GOD is to believe in One Existence, who necessarily (by\nthe terms of our conception) has the power both of creating matter,\ndesigning the forms it shall take, and originating the tendencies,\nforces, activities--or whatever else we please to call them--which drive\nmatter in the right direction to get the desired result. To believe not\nonly that matter caused itself, but that the different forces and\ntendencies, and the aims and ends of development, were self-caused, is\nsurely a much more difficult task. It is the existence of such a\n_variety_, it is the existence of a uniform tendency to produce certain\nthough multitudinous results, that makes the insuperable difficulty of\nsupposing _matter always developing_ (towards certain ends) to be\nself-caused.\n\nThe advocates of \"eternal matter\" really overcome the difficulty, by\nshutting their eyes to everything beyond a part of the problem--the\nexistence of simple matter apart from any laws, properties, or\naffinities.\n\nBut the simplest drop of water, in itself, and apart from its mechanical\nrelations to other matter, is really a very complex and a very wonderful\nthing; not at all likely to be \"self-caused.\" Water is made up, we know,\nof oxygen and hydrogen--two elementary colourless, formless gases. Now\nwe can easily divide the one drop into two, and, without any great\ndifficulty, the two into four, and (perhaps with the aid of a magnifying\nglass) the four into eight, and so on, _as long as_ the minute particle\n_still retains the nature of water_. In short, we speak of the smallest\nsubdivision of which matter is capable without losing its own nature, as\nthe _molecule_. All matter may be regarded as consisting of a vast mass\nof these small molecules.\n\nNow, we know that all known matter is capable of existing either in a\nsolid, liquid, or gaseous form, its nature not being changed. Water is\nvery easily so dealt with. Some substances, it is true, require very\ngreat pressure or very great cold, or both, to alter their form; but\neven carbonic acid, oxygen, and hydrogen, which under ordinary\nconditions are gases, can with proper appliances be made both liquid and\nsolid. Pure alcohol, has, I believe, never been made solid, but that is\nonly because it is so difficult to get a sufficient degree of cold:\nthere is no doubt that it could be done.\n\nIt might be supposed that the molecules of which dead matter (whether\nsolid, liquid, or vapourous) is composed, were equally motionless and\nstructureless. But it is not so: every molecule in its own kind is\nendowed with marvellous properties. In the first place, every molecule\nhas a double capability of motion. In the solid form the molecules are\nso packed together that, of course, the motion is excessively\nrestricted; in the liquid it is a little easier; in the gaseous state\nthe molecules are in a comparatively \"open order.\" In most substances\nthat are solid under ordinary conditions, by applying heat continuously\nwe first liquefy and ultimately vapourize them. In those substances\nwhich under ordinary conditions are _gas_ (like carbonic acid, for\ninstance), it is by applying cold, with perhaps great pressure as well,\nthat we induce them to become liquid and solid; in fact, the process is\njust reversed. As we can most easily follow the process of heating, I\nwill describe that. First, the solid (in most cases) gets larger and\nlarger as it progresses to liquefaction, and when it gets to vapour, it\nsuddenly expands enormously. Take a rod of soft iron, and reduce it to\nfreezing temperature: let us suppose that in that condition it measures\njust a thousand inches long. Then raise the temperature to 212 degrees\n(boiling point), and it will be found to measure 1,012 inches. Why is\nthat? Obviously, because the molecules have got a little further apart.\nIf you heat it till the iron gets liquid, the liquid would also occupy\nstill more space than the original solid rod; and if we had temperature\nhigh enough to make the melted iron go off into vapour, it would occupy\nan enormously increased space. I cannot say what it would be for iron\nvapour; but if a given volume of water is converted into vapour, it will\noccupy about 1,700 times the space it did when liquid, though the weight\nwould not be altered.\n\nIt may here be worth while to mention that it is not invariably true\nthat a substance gets contracted, and the molecules more and more\npressed together, as it assumes a solid form. There is at least one\nexception. If we take 1,700 pints of steam, the water, as I said, on\nbecoming cool enough to lose the vapourous form, will shrink into a\nmeasure holding a single pint; if we cooled lower still, it will get\nsmaller and smaller in bulk (though of course not at all at the same\nrate) till it arrives at a point when it is just going to freeze; then\nsuddenly (7 degrees above the freezing point) it again begins to expand.\nIce occupies more space than cold water; its molecules get arranged in a\nparticular manner by their crystallization.\n\nOn the admission of an _intelligent_ Creator providing, by beneficent\ndesign, the laws of matter, it is easy to give a reason for this useful\nproperty. It prevents the inhabitants of northern climates being\ndeprived of a supply of water. As it is, the solid water or ice\nexpands, and, becoming lighter, forms at the top of the water, and the\nheavier warmer water remains below. But if ice always got denser and\nsank, the warmer liquid would be perpetually displaced and so come up to\nthe surface, where it would freeze and sink in its turn. In a short\ntime, then, all our water supplies would (whenever the temperature went\ndown to freezing, which it constantly does in winter) be turned into\nsolid ice. This would be a source of the gravest inconvenience to the\npopulation of a cold climate. If we deny a designing mind, the\nalternative is that this property of water is a mere chance.\n\nBut to return to molecules. Molecules are endowed with an inherent\nfaculty of motion; only under the conditions of what we call the solid,\nthey are so compressed, that there is no room for any motion appreciable\nto the senses. Even if the solid is converted into vapour, the molecules\nare still much restrained in their movements by the pressure of the air.\nBut of late years, great improvements (partly chemical, partly\nmechanical) have been made in producing perfect _vacua_; that is to say,\nin getting glass or other vessels to be so far empty of air, that the\nalmost inconceivably small residue in the receptacle has no perceptible\neffect on the action of a small quantity of any substance already\nreduced to the form of gas or vapour introduced into it. Dr. W. Crookes\nhas made many beautiful experiments on the behaviour of the molecules of\nattenuated matter in _vacua_. The small quantity of vapour introduced\ncontains only a relatively small number of molecules, which thus freed\nfrom all sensible restraint within the limits of the glass vessel used,\nare free to move as they will; they are observed to rush about, to\nstrike against the sides of the vessel, and under proper conditions to\nshine and become _radiant_, and to exhibit extraordinary phenomena when\nsubjected to currents of electricity. So peculiar is the molecular\naction thus set up, that scientific men have been tempted to speak of a\nfourth condition of matter (besides the three ordinary ones, solid,\nliquid, and gaseous), which they call the ultra-gaseous or radiant state\nof matter.\n\nThis marvel of molecular structure seems already to have removed us\nsufficiently far from the idea of a simple inert mass, which might be\nprimordial and self-caused. But we have not yet done. Even imagining the\nextreme subdivision[1] of the particles in one of Dr. Crookes' vacuum\nglobes, the particles are still water. But we know that water is a\ncompound substance. The molecule has nine parts, of which eight are\nhydrogen and one oxygen--because that is the experimentally known\nproportion in which oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. As we can\n(in the present state of our knowledge) divide no farther, we call these\nultimate fragments of simple or elementary substance _atoms_.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: As to the possibility of _indefinite_ subdivision of\nmatter, see Sir W. Thomsons's lecture, _Nature_, June, 1883, _et seq._]\n\n\nEvery substance, however finely divided into molecules, if it is not a\nsimple substance, must therefore have, inside the _molecular_ structure,\na further _atomic_ structure. And in the case of unresolvable or\n\"elementary\" substance, the molecule and the atom are not necessarily\nthe same. For though there is reason to believe that, the molecule of\nthese does consist, in some cases, of only one atom--in which case the\natom and the molecule are identical; in other cases, the molecule is\nknown to consist of more than one atom of the same element; and the\natoms are capable of being differently arranged, and when so arranged\nhave different _properties_ or behaviour, though their nature is not\nchanged. This property is spoken of by chemists as _allotropism_. No\nchemist on earth can detect the slightest difference in _constitution_\nbetween a molecule of _ozone_ and one _oxygen_; but the two have widely\ndifferent properties, or behave very differently. There is thus a great\nmystery about atoms and their possible differences under different\narrangement, which is as yet unsolved. Those who wish to get an insight\ninto the matter (which cannot be pursued farther here) will do well to\nread Josiah Cooke's \"The New Chemistry,\" in the International Scientific\nSeries. The mind is really lost in trying to realize the idea of a\nfragment of matter too small for the most powerful microscope, but\nexisting in fact (because of faultless reasoning from absolutely\nconclusive experiments), and yet so constituted that it is\n_practically_ a different thing when placed in one position or order,\nfrom what it is when placed in another.\n\nTurning from this mystery, as yet so obscure, to what is more easily\ngrasped, we shall hardly be surprised to learn, further, that every kind\nof, atom obeys its own laws, and that while atoms of one kind always\nhave a _tendency to combine_ with atoms of other kinds, it is absolutely\nimpossible to get them to combine together except on certain conditions.\n\nThe difference between combination and mixture is well known. Shake sand\nand sugar in a bag for ever so long, but they will only _mix_, not\n_combine_ or form any new substance even with the aid of electric\ncurrents; but place oxygen and hydrogen gas under proper conditions, and\nthe gases will disappear, and water (in weight exactly equal to the\nweight of the volume of gases) will appear in their place.\n\nIt is only certain kinds of atoms that will combine at all with other\nkinds; and when they do so combine, they will only unite in absolutely\nfixed proportions, so that chemists have been able to assign to every\nkind of element its own combining proportion. The substances that will\ncombine will do so in these proportions, or in proportions of any _even\nmultiple_ of the number, and in no other. Thus fourteen parts of\nnitrogen will combine with sixteen of oxygen; and we have several\nsubstances in nature, called nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitric\ndi-oxide, &c., which illustrate this, in which fourteen parts of\nnitrogen combine with sixteen oxygen or fourteen nitrogen with a\nmultiple of sixteen oxygen, or a multiple of fourteen nitrogen combine\nwith sixteen oxygen, and so on.\n\nSee now where we have got to. When we had spoken of a tiny fragment of\nprimal matter--a drop of water, for instance--it seemed as if there was\nno more to be said; but no, we found ourselves able to give a whole\nhistory of the molecules of which the substance consists; and when we\nhad considered the molecule, we found a further beautiful and intricate\norder of _atoms_ inside the molecule, as it were.\n\nAnd there is no reason to suppose that science has yet revealed all that\nis possible to be known about atoms and molecules; so that if further\nwonders should be evoked, the argument will grow and grow in cumulative\nforce.\n\nLet me sum up the conclusion to be drawn from these facts in a quotation\nfrom a discourse of Sir John F.W. Herschel.\n\n\"When we see,\" says that eminent philosopher, \"a great number of things\nprecisely alike, we do not believe this similarity to have originated\nexcept from _a common principle independent of them_; and that we\nrecognize this likeness, chiefly by the _identity of their deportment\nunder similar circumstances_ strengthens rather than weakens the\nconclusion.\n\n\"A line of spinning jennies, or a regiment of soldiers dressed exactly\nalike and going through precisely the same evolutions, gives us no idea\nof independent existence: we must see them act out of concert before we\ncan believe them to have independent wills and properties not impressed\non them from without.\n\n\"And this conclusion, which would be strong even if there were only two\nindividuals precisely alike in _all_ respects and _for ever_, acquires\nirresistible force when their number is multiplied beyond the power of\nimagination to conceive.\n\n\"If we mistake not, then, the discoveries alluded to effectually destroy\nthe ideas of an _eternal_ self-existent matter by giving to each of its\natoms the essential characters at once of a _manufactured_ article and\nof a _subordinate agent_.\"\n\nIn other words, continuing the metaphor of the trained army, we see\nmillions upon millions of molecules all arranged in regiments, distinct\nand separate, and the regiments again made up of companies or\nindividuals, each obeying his own orders in subordination to, and in\nharmony with, the whole: are we not justified in concluding that this\narmy has not been only called into being by some cause external to\nitself; but further, that its constitution has been impressed upon it,\nand its equipments and organization directed, by an Infinite\nIntelligence?\n\nThere is, then, no such thing to be found in Nature as a simple,\nstructureless \"primal matter\" which exhibits nothing tending to make\nself-causation or aboriginal existence difficult to conceive. To look at\nmatter in that light is not only to take into consideration a _part_ of\nthe case; it is really to take what does not exist, a part that exists\nonly in the imagination. The simplest form of matter we can deal with,\nexhibits within itself all the wondrous plan, law, and sequence of the\nmolecular and atomic structure we have sketched out; and when we\nconsider that, having taken matter so far, we have even then only\nintroduced it to the verge of the universe, ushered it on to the\nthreshold of a great \"aeon,\" when and where it is to be acted on by\n\"gravitation\" and other forces, to act in relation to other matter, and\nto be endowed perhaps with LIFE, we shall feel that the\nself-existence--the uncaused existence of matter, and of the principles\non which matter proceeds or acts, is in reality not a less mystery than\nthe self-existence of a Designing and Intelligent Cause, but one so\ngreat as to be itself \"unthinkable.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\n_THE CREATION OF LIVING MATTER_.\n\nWe now come to _Living_ Matter; directing attention, first, to that\nelementary form of life as exhibited in simple protoplasm and in the\nlower forms of organism, and then to the perfect forms of bird and\nbeast. In each case, we shall find the same evidence of Design and\nIntelligence, the same proof of \"contrivance\" and purpose, which we\ncannot attribute to the mere action of secondary causes.\n\nThe simplest form in which LIFE is manifested is in a viscid gelatinous\nsubstance without colour or form, called _Protoplasm_. Wherever there is\nlife there is protoplasm. Protoplasm, as before remarked, lies just\nunder the bark in trees, and is the material from which the growth of\nthe wood and bark cells and fibres proceeds. Protoplasm, is also present\nin the muscles and in the blood, and wherever growth is going on.\n\nBut protoplasm also exists by itself; or, more properly speaking, there\nexist living creatures, both plant and animal, which are so simple in\nstructure, so low in organization, that they consist of nothing but a\nspeck of protoplasm. Such a creature is the microscopic _amoeba_.\nSometimes these little specks of protoplasm are surrounded with\nbeautifully formed \"silicious shells--a skeleton of radiating _spiculae_\nor crystal-clear concentric spheres of exquisite symmetry and\nbeauty.[1]\" The simplest _amoeba_ however, has no definite form; but the\nlittle mass moves about, expands and contracts, throws out projections\non one side and draws them in on the other. It exhibits irritability\nwhen touched. It may be seen surrounding a tiny particle of food,\nextracting nutriment from it and growing in size. Ultimately the little\nbody separates or splits up into two, each part thenceforth taking a\nseparate existence.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Professor Allman.]\n\nNow it is claimed that such a little organism contains the potentiality\nof all life; that it grows and multiplies, and develops into higher and\nhigher organisms, into all (in short) that we see in the plant and\nanimal world around us. This, it is argued, is all done by natural\ncauses, not by any direction or guidance or intervention of a Divine\nagency.\n\nHere we must stop to ask how this protoplasm, or simplest form of\norganic life, came to exist? How did it get its _life_--its property of\ntaking nourishment, of growing and of giving birth to other creatures\nlike itself?\n\nThe denier of creation replies, that just in the same way as, by the\nlaws of affinity, other inanimate substances came together to produce\nthe earth--salts and other compounds we see in the world around us--so\ndid certain elements combine to form protoplasm. This combination when\nperfected has the property of being alive, just as water has the\nproperty of assuming a solid form or has any other of the qualities\nwhich we speak of as its properties.\n\nNow it is perfectly true that, treated as a substance, you can take the\ngummy protoplasm, put it into a glass and subject it to analysis like\nany other substance. But simple as the substance appears, composition is\nreally very complicated. Professor Allman tells us that so difficult and\nwonderful is its chemistry, that in fact really very little is known\nabout it. The best evidence we have, I believe, makes it tolerably\ncertain that protoplasm consists of a combination of ammonia, carbonic\nacid, and water, and that every molecule of it is made up of 76 atoms,\nof which 36 are carbon, 26 hydrogen, 4 nitrogen, and 10 oxygen.[1]\n\nBut no chemist has ever been able either to account theoretically for\nsuch a composition, still less to produce it artificially. It is urged,\nhowever, that it may be only due to our clumsy apparatus and still very\nimperfect knowledge of chemistry, that we were unable artificially to\nmake up protoplasm.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Nicholson (\"Zoology,\" p. 4) gives for Albumen, which is\nnearly identical with protoplasm--Carbon, 144; Hydrogen, 110; Nitrogen,\n18; Oxygen, 42; Sulphur, 2. These figures nearly equal those in the\ntext, being those figures multiplied each by 4 (approximately) and\nwithout the trace of sulphur.]\n\nAnd of course there is no answer to a supposition of this sort.\nNevertheless there is no sort of reason to believe that protoplasm will\never be made; nor, if we could succeed in uniting the elements into a\nform resembling protoplasmic jelly, is there the least reason to suppose\nthat such a composition would exhibit the irritability, or the powers of\nnutrition and reproduction, which are essentially the characteristics of\n_living_ protoplasm. It is not too much to say that, after the close of\nthe controversy about spontaneous generation, it is now a universally\nadmitted principle of science that life can only proceed from life--the\nold _omne vivum ex ovo_ in a modern form.[1]\n\nBut here the same sort of argument that was brought forward regarding\nthe possibility of matter and its laws being self-caused, comes in as\nregards life.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _See_ \"Critiques and Addresses,\" T.H. Huxley, F.R.S.,\np. 239. So much is this the case, that it is really superfluous, however\ninteresting, to recall the experiments of Dr. Tyndall and others, which\nfinally demonstrated that wherever primal animal forms, bacteria and\nother, \"microbes,\" were produced in infusions of hay, turnip, &c.,\napparently boiled and sterilized and then hermetically sealed, there\nwere really germs in the air enclosed in the vessel, or germs that in\none form or another were not destroyed by the boiling or heating. Dr.\nBastian's argument for spontaneous generation is thus completely\noverthrown. _(See_ Drummond, \"Natural Law,\" pp. 62-63.)]\n\nThe argument in the most direct form was made use of by Professor\nHuxley, but it is difficult to believe that so powerful a thinker could\nseriously hold to a view which will not bear examination, however neatly\nand brilliantly it may go off when first launched into the air. The\nargument is that life can only be regarded as a further property of\ncertain forms of matter. Oxygen and hydrogen, when they combine, result\nin a new substance, quite unlike either of them in character, and\npossessing _new_ and different properties. The way in which the\ncombination is effected is a mystery, yet we do not account for the new\nand peculiar properties of water (so different from those of the\noriginal gases) as arising from a principle of \"aquosity,\" which we have\nto invoke from another world. The answer is that the argument is from\nanalogy, and that there is not really the remotest analogy between the\ntwo cases. It is true that, as far as we know, electricity is necessary\nto force a combination of the requisite equivalents of oxygen and\nhydrogen into water. But though we do not know why this is, or what\nelectricity is, we can repeat the process as often as we will. But mark\nthe difference; the water once existing is obviously only a new form of\nmatter, in the same category with the gases it came from: it neither\nincreases in bulk, nor takes in fresh elements to grow, and give birth\nto new drops of water. But protoplasm has something quite different--for\nthere may be dead protoplasm and living protoplasm, both identical to\nthe eye and to every chemical test. In either condition, protoplasm, as\nsuch, has _properties_ of the same nature (though not of the same kind)\nas those of water, oxygen gas, or any other matter; it is colorless,\nheavy, sticky, elastic, and so forth; but besides all that (without the\naid of electricity or any physical force we can apply) one has the power\nof producing more protoplasm--gathering for itself, by virtue of its\ninherent power, the materials for growth and reproduction.\n\nIf directly water was called into existence it could take in\nnourishment, and divide and go on producing more water--and if some\nwater could do this, while other water (which no available test could\ndistinguish from it in any other respect) could not, then we _should_ be\nperfectly justified in giving a special name to this power, and calling\nit \"aquosity\" or \"vitality\" or anything else, it being out of all\nanalogy to anything else which we call a \"property\" of matter.\n\nIn the introduction of LIFE into the _aeon_ of organic developmental\nhistory, we have a clear and distinct period, as we had when _matter_\ncame into view, or when _the change_ was ushered in which set the cosmic\ngas cooling and liquefying, and turning to solid in various form.\n\nThe fact is that every organic form, whether plant or animal, derived\nfrom the protoplasmic compounds of carbon-dixoide, ammonia and water,\nis, as Mr. Drummond puts it,[1] \"made of materials which have once been\ninorganic. An organizing principle, not belonging to their kingdom, lays\nhold of them and elaborates them.\"\n\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Natural Law,\" p. 233.]\n\nThus by the introduction of LIFE we have a vastly enlarged horizon.\nBefore, in the organic world, we had only the \"principle\" of solidifying\nor crystallizing, liquefying, and turning to gas or vapour, ever\nstopping when the state was attained. Or if a combination was in\nprogress, still the result was only a rearrangement of the same bulk of\nmaterials (however new the form) in solid, liquid, or gas, but no\nincrease, no nutrition, no reproduction. In the organic world we have\nsomething so different, that whether we talk of \"property\" or\n\"principle,\" the things are entirely distinct.\n\nThe essential difference, stated as regards the mere facts of\nirritability or motion, nutrition and reproduction, is so grandly\nsufficient in itself, that one almost regrets to have to add on the\nother facts which further emphasize the distinction between _life_ and\nany _property_ of matter. But these further facts are highly important\nas regards another part of the argument. For while what has just been\nsaid almost demonstrates the necessity of a Giver of Life from a kingdom\noutside the organic, the further facts point irresistibly to the\nconclusion that we must predicate more about the Giver of Life that we\ncan of an abstract and unknown Cause.\n\nThe original protoplasm, when dead, is undistinguishable by the eye, by\nchemical test, or by the microscope, from the same protoplasm when\nliving; and living protoplasm, again, may be either animal or vegetable.\nBoth are in every respect (externally) absolutely identical. Yet the one\nwill only develop into a _plant_, the other only into an _animal._ Nor\ndoes it diminish the significance of the fact to say that the\ndifferentiation is _now_ fixed by heredity. If we suppose protoplasm to\nbe only a fortuitous combination of elements, what secondary or common\nnatural cause will account for its acquisition of the fixed difference?\nIt is true that some forms of plants exhibit some functions that closely\napproach the functions of what we call animal life; but, as we shall see\npresently, there is no evidence whatever that there is any bridge\nbetween the two--we have no proof that a plant ever develops into an\nanimal. Here is one of the gaps which the theory of Evolution, true as\nit is to a certain extent, cannot bridge over; and we must not overlook\nthe fact. We shall revert to it hereafter.\n\nCan it be believed, then, that protoplasm, as the origin of life, is\nself-caused, and self-developed? And this is not all. I must briefly\nremind my readers that the way in which animal protoplasm deals with the\nelements of nutrition is quite opposite to that which plant protoplasm\nfollows. I might, indeed, have mentioned this at an earlier stage, when\nI mentioned Professor Huxley's comparison of the chemical action in the\nformation of water with what he assumed to be the case in the formation\nof protoplasm. When water is formed, the two gases disappear, and an\n_exactly equal weight_ of water appears in their place; but if living\nprotoplasm is enabled to imbibe liquid or other nutriment containing\nammonia, water, and carbonic acid, there is no disappearance of the\nthree elements and an equivalent weight of living protoplasm appearing\nin its place. Protoplasm consumes the oxygen and sets free the carbonic\nacid. Both kinds of protoplasm do this, until exposed to the light; and\nthen a difference is observed; for under the influence of light, animal\nprotoplasm alone continues to act in this way, and vegetable protoplasm\nbegins at once to develop little green bodies or corpuscles in its\ncells, and afterwards acts in a totally opposite way, taking the carbon\ninto its substance and giving off the oxygen.[1]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Certain _fungi_ seem to afford an exception to this. The\nabove is, I believe, true as a theoretical action of plants and animals\nin protoplasmic form. But practically, in all higher developments of\neither kind, other distinctions come into play; e.g., that plants can\nmake use of inorganic matter, gases, and water, and elaborate them into\norganic matter. Animals cannot do this, they require more or less solid\nfood--always requiring \"complex organic bodies which they ultimately\nreduce to much simpler inorganic bodies. They are thus mediately or\nimmediately dependent on plants for their subsistence\" (Nicholson,\n\"Zoology,\" 6th ed. p. 17). It is perhaps with reference to this that in\nthe Book of Genesis the Creator is represented as giving _plant_ life to\nthe service of man and animals--while nothing is said of the preying of\n_Carnivora_ and _Insectivora_ on animal life.]\n\nNot only then has each kind of protoplasm its own mysterious character\nimpressed on it, and is compelled to act in a certain way; but still\nfurther, each particle of animal and vegetable protoplasm, when directed\ninto its _general_ course of development as _plant or animal_, will\nagain only obey a certain course of development in its own line.\n\nBut we must proceed a step further; for those who would believe in the\nsufficiency of unaided Evolution, bid us bear in mind how very\nelementary the dawn of instinct or the beginning of reason is in the\nlowest forms which are classed as animal, and how very small is the\ngap[1] between some highly organized plants and some animal forms, and\nargue therefore that they may justly regard the distinction as of minor\nimportance, and hope that the \"missing link\" will be yet discovered and\nproved. At any rate, they minimize the difference, and urge that it is\nof no account if at least they can establish the sufficiency of a proved\ndevelopment extending unbroken from the lowest to the highest animal\nform. And having fixed attention on this side, no doubt there is a long\nstretch of smooth water over which the passage is unchecked.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: At the risk of repetition I will remind the reader that\nnature contains _nothing like_ a progressive scale from plant to animal.\nIt is _never_ that the highest plant can be connected with the lowest\nanimal as in one series of links. The animal kingdom and the plant\nkingdom are absolutely apart. Both start from similar elementary\nproteinaceous structures; and both preserve their development\nupwards--each exhibiting _some_ of the features of the other. It is at\nthe bottom of each scale that resemblance is to be found, _not_ between\nthe top of one and the lowest members of the other.]\n\nThe Evolution theory is that all the different species of animals,\nbirds, and other forms of life have been caused by the accumulation and\nperpetuation of numerous small changes which began in one or at most a\nfew elementary forms, and went on till all the thousands of species we\nnow know of were developed.[1] It _is_ a fact that all organic forms\nhave a certain tendency to vary. I need only allude to the many\nvarieties of pigeons, horses, cattle, and dogs which are produced by\nvarying the food, the circumstances of life and so forth, and by\nselective breeding.\n\nThe contention then is: given certain original simple forms of life,\nprobably marine or aquatic--for it is in the water that the most likely\noccur--these will gradually change and vary, some in one direction, some\nin another; that the changes go on increasing, each creature giving\nbirth to offspring which exhibits the stored-up results of change, till\nthe varied and finished forms--some reptile, some bird, some\nanimal--which we now see around us, have been produced. And at last man\nhimself was developed in the same way. All this, observe, is by the\naction of just such ordinary and natural causes as we now see operating\naround us--changes in food and in climate, changes in one part requiring\na corresponding change in others, and so on.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The reader may find this admirably put in Wallace,\n\"Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection,\" p. 302.]\n\nNature contains no sharply drawn lines. Plants are different from\nanimals; but there are animals so low down in the scale of life that it\nis difficult to distinguish them from plants. Pigeons are distinct from\npheasants, but the line at which the one species ends and the other\nbegins is difficult to draw. This fact seems to invite some theory of\none form changing into other. Accordingly the evolutionist explains the\nworking of the process which he asserts to be sufficient to produce all\nthe various forms of life in our globe.\n\nAfter stating this more in detail than we have previously done, we shall\nbe in a better position to judge if the process (which in the main we\nhave no desire to deny or even to question) can dispense with _guidance_\nand the fixing of certain lines and limits within which, and of certain\ntypes towards which, the development proceeds. That is our point.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to illustrate the enormous destruction of life\nwhich goes on in the world. Even among the human race, the percentage of\ninfants that die in the first months of their life is very large. But in\nthe lower forms of life it is truly enormous. Only consider the myriads\nof insects that perish from hunger or accident, and from the preying of\none species on another. If it were not so, the world would be overrun by\nplagues of mice, of birds, of insects of all kinds, and indeed by\ncreatures of every grade. The term \"struggle for existence\" is, then,\nnot an inapt one. All forms of living creatures have to contend with\nenemies which seek to prey upon or to destroy them, with the difficulty\nof obtaining food, and with what I may call the chances of\nnature--cold, storms, floods, disease, and so forth.\n\nNow, it is obvious that if some creatures of a given kind possess some\naccidental peculiarity or modification in their formation which gives\nthem (in one way or another) an advantage over their fellows, these\nimproved specimens are likely to survive, and, surviving, to have\noffspring.\n\nIt is this perpetuation of advantageous changes, originally induced by\nthe circumstances of environment, that is indicated by the term \"natural\nselection.\" Nature chooses out the form best suited to the circumstances\nwhich surround it, and this form lives while the others die out. And\nthis form goes on improving by slow successive changes, which make it\nmore and more fit for the continually changing circumstances of its\nlife.\n\nSubordinate also to this natural selection is the principle that bright\ncolour and other special qualities may be developed in the males of a\nrace, because individuals with such advantages are more attractive, and\ntherefore more easily find mates, than dull-coloured or otherwise less\nattractive individuals.\n\nOf each of these principles I may give a simple example. Supposing a\nspecies of bird with a soft slender beak to be placed on an island,\nwhere the only food they could obtain was fruit enclosed in a hard or\ntough shell or covering. Supposing some birds accidentally possessed of\na beak that was shorter and stouter than the others', these would be\nable to break open the shell and get at the fruit, while the others\nwould starve. Some of the descendants of the birds with the stout beaks\nwould inherit the same peculiarity, and in the course of several\ngenerations there would thus arise a species with short and strong,\nperhaps curved, beaks just fitted to live on fruits of the kind\ndescribed. In a similar way the webbed feet of birds that swim were\ndeveloped by their aquatic habits. And so with the long slender toes of\nthe waders, which are so well fitted for walking over floating aquatic\nplants.\n\nOf the other principle, sexual selection, a familiar example is the\nbright and showy colouring of the male birds of many species: the\nfemales of their species, as they need protection while helplessly\nsitting on their eggs, are dull-coloured like the bark of trees or the\nsand, among which their nests lie hid.\n\nSome of the Himalayan pheasants exhibit this peculiarity to a marked\ndegree. Originally, it is said, the male bird, which was more brightly\ncoloured than the rest, got mated more easily by the preference shown to\nhim for his bright colour.\n\nThe question is, can we suppose all this to go on, by self-caused laws\nand concurrence of circumstances, without a pre-existing design for the\nforms to reach or an external guidance in the processes?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n\n_THE MARKS OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE IN THE EVOLUTION OF ORGANIC FORMS_.\n\nThe heading of this chapter does not mark a new departure, for we have\nbeen tracing existing forms of matter from the first, and have already\nseen the necessity of believing in Creative Intelligence and Guidance.\nWe have seen that inorganic matter, with what we call its molecular or\natomic structure, cannot be reasonably regarded as self-caused; and we\nhave concluded with Sir J.F.W. Herschell that the sight of such a\nwell-arranged army, performing its evolutions in a regular and uniform\nmanner, irresistibly suggests a great Commander and Designer. We have\nfurther found that the advent of LIFE demands a Power _ab extra_. We\nhave called attention to the gap, between plant and animal, which is\nignored or made light of, chiefly on account of the close approach of\nthe two kingdoms. But there is one broad distinction, namely, that of\nelementary reason and no reason, or of consciousness and\nunconsciousness, which is, in itself, a sufficient difficulty to pull\nus up shortly. We have not yet fully considered this matter, because it\nwill come more appropriately at a later stage, and in the _\u00e0 fortiori_\nform. But we have justly noted it here. We cannot account for the most\nelementary reason by any physical change; there is no analogy between\nthe two. The connection of mind and matter is unexplainable; and no\ntheory of development of physical form can say why, at any given stage,\nphysical development begins to be accompanied by brain-power and\n_consciousness_. Admit candidly that the addition of intelligence at a\ncertain stage, however mysteriously interwoven with structural\naccompaniments, is a gift _ab extra_, and we have at least a reasonable\nand so far satisfactory explanation.\n\nBut when we have got an animal form, however simple and elementary, with\nat least a recognizable \"potentiality\" of intelligence, we enter, as I\nsaid, a long stretch of apparently smooth water, over which, for an\nimportant part of our passage, we seem able to glide without any\ndifficulty from the necessary intervention of the so-called\nsupernatural. I have, then, to show that even here there is really no\npossibility of dispensing with a Creator who has a purpose, a designed\nscheme, and a series of type-forms to be complied with.\n\nIn order to fully exhaust the question how far natural selection is\ncapable of accounting for everything, it would be necessary to take a\nvery wide view of natural history and botany, which it is quite\nimpossible for us to attempt. But this is not necessary for our purpose.\nWe are perfectly justified in selecting certain topics which must arise\nin the discussion. If, in studying these points, we find that _there_ at\nleast the intervention of a Controlling Power becomes necessary, and the\nabsence of it leaves things without any reasonable explanation, then we\nshall have good and logical ground for holding to our faith in the\nuniversal presence of such a Power. No chain is stronger than its\nweakest link. If secondary causes cannot succeed at any one part of the\nchain, it is obvious that they fail as a universal explanation.\n\nThis part of the work has already been done far better than I could do\nit. In the first eight chapters of Mivart's \"Genesis of Species\" [1] the\nargument has been ably and clearly put, and whatever answer is possible\nhas been given by Darwin and others; so that the world may judge. All\nthat can here be usefully attempted, is, by way of reminder, to\nreproduce some main topics on which no real answer has been given. These\nare selected, partly because they are less abstruse and difficult to\nfollow than some which might be dealt with, partly because they are\ncalculated to awaken our interest, and partly because the conclusion in\nfavour of a continual Providence; working through organized law and\nsystem, appears to follow most clearly from them.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Second Edition, 1871.]\n\nThe points I would call attention to are the following:--\n\n(I) That as natural selection will only maintain changes that have been\n_beneficial_ to the creature, it is contrary to such a law, if acting\nentirely by itself, that that there should be developments (not being\nmere accidental deformities, &c.) disadvantageous to the creature. And\nyet the world is full of such.\n\n(2) That there are forms which cannot be accounted for on the\nevolutionist supposition, that they were gradually obtained by a series\nof small changes slowly progressing towards a perfect structure. They\nwould be of no use at all unless produced _at once and complete_.\n\n(3) That natural selection, as apart from a Divine Designer, altogether\nfails to account for _beauty_, as distinguished from mere brilliancy or\nconspicuousness, in nature. Whereas, if we suppose the existence of a\nbeneficent Creator, who has moral objects in view, and cares for the\ndelight and the improvement of His creatures,[1] and looking to the\nknown effects on the mind of beauty in art and in nature, the existence\nis at once and beyond all cavil explained.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: \"He hath made everything _beautiful_ in his time\" (Eccles.\niii. II).]\n\n(4) That we have positive evidence against _uncontrolled_ evolution\n(uncontrolled by set plan and design i.e.) and a strong presumption in\nfavour of the existence of created _types_; so that evolution proceeds\ntowards these types by aid of natural laws and forces working together\n(in a way that our limited faculties necessarily fail to grasp\nadequately);[1] and so that, the type once reached, a certain degree of\nvariation, but never _transgression_ of _the type_, is possible.\nFurther, that on this supposition we are able to account for some of the\nunexplained facts in evolutionary history, such as _reversion_ and the\n_sterility of hybrids_; and to see why there are gaps which cannot be\nbridged over, and which by extreme theorists are only feebly accounted\nfor on the supposition that as discovery progresses they _will_ be\nbridged over some day.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Also He hath set the world in their heart, so that _no man\ncan find out the work that God maketh_ from the beginning to the end\"\n(Eccles. iii II).]\n\n(5) Lastly, that there is no possibility of giving _time_ enough on any\npossible theory of the world's existence, for the evolution of all\nspecies, unless _some_ reasonable theory of creative arrangement and\ndesign be admitted.\n\nThe great objection--the descent of man and the introduction of reason,\nconsciousness, and so forth, into the world, will then form two separate\nchapters, concluding the first division of my subject.\n\nThere is one point which the reader may be surprised to see omitted. It\nis, that if these slow changes were always going on, why is not the\npresent world full of, and the fossil-bearing rocks also abounding in,\n_intermediate forms_, creatures which _are on their way_ to being\nsomething else? But there are reasons to be given on this ground which\nmake the subject a less definite one for treatment. It is said, for\nexample, that in the fossil rocks we have only such scanty and\nfragmentary records, that it is not possible to draw a complete\ninference, and that there is always the possibility of fresh discoveries\nbeing made. Such discoveries have, it is asserted, already been made in\nthe miocene and again in later rocks; different species of an early form\nof _horse_ which are (and this we may admit) the ancestral or\nintermediate forms of our own horse, have been found. I therefore would\nnot press the difficulty, great as it is, because of the escape which\nthe hope of future discovery always affords. I will take this\nopportunity to repeat that in this chapter I say nothing about the\ndifficulty which arises from the introduction of elementary reason or\ninstinct, and of consciousness, into the scale of organic being; that\nwill more appropriately fall in with the consideration of the\ndevelopment of man, where naturally the difficulty occurs with its\ngreatest force.\n\n(1) I come at once to the great difficulty that, if all existing forms\nare due to the occurrence of changes that helped the creature in the\nstruggle for existence, how is it possible now to account for forms\nwhich are not advantageous? yet such forms are numerous. Of this\nobjection, the existence of imperfect or neuter bees and ants is an\ninstance. The modification in form which these creatures exhibit is of\nno advantage to them. It _is_ a great advantage, no doubt, to the other\nbees; but then this introduces a view of some power _making_ one thing\nfor the benefit of another, not a change in the form itself adapted of\ncourse to its _own_ advantage--since natural laws, forces, and\nconditions of environment could not conceivably _design_ the advantage\nof another form, and cause one to change for the benefit of that other.\n\nWhy is it, again, that crabs and crayfish can only grow by casting off\ntheir shells, during which process they often die, as well as remain\nexposed defenceless to the attacks of enemies? Why should stags shed\ntheir horns also, leaving them defenceless for a time? Other animals do\nnot do so, and there is nothing in the nature of the horn which requires\nit.\n\nThis brief allusion is here sufficient. Mr. Mivart's work gives it at\nlarge.\n\n(2) Passing next to the question of the advantage of _incomplete\nstages_--portions of a mechanism only useful when complete, the most\nstriking examples may be found in the Vegetable kingdom. The\nfertilization of flowering plants is effected by the pollen, a yellow\ndust formed in the anthers, which is carried from flower to flower. In\nthe pines and oaks, this is done by the wind. But in other cases insects\nvisit a flower to get the honey, and in so doing get covered with\npollen, which they carry away and leave in the next flower visited. Now\none of our commonest and most useful plants, the red clover, is so\nconstructed that it can only be fertilized by humble bees. If this bee\nbecame extinct, the plant would die out; how can such a development be\nadvantageous to it?\n\nBut the contrivances by which this process of fertilization is secured\nare so marvellous, that I confess I am completely staggered by the idea\nthat these contrivances have been caused by the self-growth and\nadaptation of the plant without guidance. There is a plant called\n_Salvia glutinosa_[1]--easily recognized by its sticky calyx and pale\nyellow flowers. The anthers that bear the pollen are hidden far back in\nthe hood of the flower, so that the pollen can neither fall nor can the\nwind carry it away; but the two anthers are supported on a sort of\nspring, and directly a bee goes to the flower and pushes in his head to\nget the honey, the spring is depressed and both anthers start forward,\nof course depositing their pollen on the hairy back of the bee, which\ncarries it to the stigma of the next flower. This process can be tested\nwithout waiting for a bee, by pushing a bit of stick into the flower,\nwhen the curious action described will be observed. It is very easy to\nsay that this admirable mechanical contrivance is of great use to the\nplant _in its complete_ form; but try and imagine what use an\nintermediate form would have been! If development at once proceeded to\nthe complete form, surely this marks _design_; if not, no partial step\ntowards it would have been of any use, and therefore would not have been\ninherited and perpetuated so as to prepare for further completion. But\nmany other plants have a structure so marvellous that this objection is\ncontinually applicable. Let me only recall one other case, that of the\norchid, called _Coryanthes macrantha_. In this flower there are two\nlittle horns, which secrete a pure water, or rather water mixed with\nhoney. The lower part of the flower consists of a long lip, the end of\nwhich is bent into the form of a bucket hanging below the horns. This\nbucket catches the nectar as it drops, and is furnished with a spout\nover which the liquid trickles when it is too full. But the mouth of the\nbucket is guarded by a curiously ridged cover with two openings, one on\neach side. The most ingenious man, says Mr. Darwin, would never by\nhimself make out what this elaborate arrangement was intended for. It\nwas at last discovered. Large humble bees were seen visiting the flower;\nby way of getting at the honey, they set to work to gnaw off the ridges\nof the lid above alluded to; in doing this they pushed one another into\nthe bucket, and had to crawl out by the spout. As they passed out by\nthis narrow aperture, they had to rub against the anthers and so carried\noff the pollen. When a bee so charged gets into another bucket, or into\nthe same bucket a second time, and has to crawl out, he brushes against\nthe stigma, and leaves the pollen on it. I might well have adduced this\nplant as another instance of the first objection, since it may well be\nasked, How could such a development, resulting in a structure which\npresents the greatest difficulty in the way of fertilization, be\nbeneficial to the plant? But here the point is that, even if any one\ncould assert the utility of such an elaborate and complicated\ndevelopment, and suppose it self-caused by accident or effect of\nenvironment, it certainly goes against the idea that all forms are due\nto an _accumulation of small changes_. For these curious contrivances in\nthe case of _Salvia, Coryanthes_, and other plants, would in any case\nhave been no use to the plant till the whole machinery _was complete_.\nNow, on the theory of slow changes gradually accumulating till the\ncomplete result was attained, there must have been generation after\ngeneration of plants, in which the machinery was as yet imperfect and\nonly partly built up. But in such incomplete stages, fertilization would\nhave been impossible, and therefore the plant must have died out. Just\nthe same with the curious fly-trap in _Dionoea_. Whatever may be its\nbenefit to the plant, till the whole apparatus as it now is, was\n_complete_, it would have been of no use. In the animal kingdom also,\ninstances might be given: the giraffe has a long neck which is an\nadvantage in getting food that other animals cannot reach; but what\nwould have been the use of a neck which was becoming--and had not yet\nbecome--long? here intermediate stages would not have been useful, and\ntherefore could not have been preserved.[2] In flat fishes it is curious\nthat, though they are born with eyes on different sides of the head, the\nlower eye gradually grows round to the upper-side. As remarked by Mr.\nMivart, natural selection could not have produced this change, since the\n_first steps towards it_ could have been of no possible use, and could\nnot therefore have occurred, at least not without direction and guidance\nfrom without. Mr. Darwin's explanation of the case does not touch this\ndifficulty.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: This species was instanced because the lectures which form\nthe basis of the book were originally delivered at Simla, in the N.W.\nHimalaya, where, at certain seasons, the plant is a common wayside weed.\nMr. Darwin notices a similar and, if possible, more curious structure in\na species of _Catasetum_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See this fully explained by Mivart, \"Genesis of Species,\"\npp. 29, 30 (2nd edition).]\n\n(3) The third point, the occurrence of so much _beauty_ in organic life,\nis perhaps one of the most conclusive arguments for design in nature.\n\nHere, if possible, more clearly than elsewhere, I see a total failure of\n\"natural causes.\" We are told that the beauty of birds (for instance) is\neasily accounted for by the fact, that the ornamented and beautiful\nmales are preferred by the other sex; and that this is an advantage, so\nthe beauty has been perpetuated; and the same with butterflies and\nbeetles.\n\nWe are told also that bright-coloured fruits attract birds, who eat the\nsoft parts of the fruit and swallow the hard stone or seed which is thus\nprepared for germination, and carried about and dispersed over the\nearth's surface. Again, showy coloured flowers attract insects, which\ncarry away pollen and fertilize other flowers.\n\nAll this is perfectly true; but it entirely fails to go far enough to\nmeet the difficulty.\n\nNow passing over such difficulties as the fact that bright colours in\nflowers _do not_ attract insects in many cases, but much more\ninconspicuous flowers if they have a scent (mignonette, for example)\n_do_; passing over such a fact as that afforded by the violet, which (as\nsome may not be aware) has two kinds of flower, one scented and of a\nbeautiful colour, the other green and inconspicuous, and it is the\n_latter, not the former_ which is usually fertile;--passing over all\ndetailed difficulties of this kind, I allude only to the one great one,\nthat in all these cases, besides mere bright colour, conspicuousness or\nshowiness, there is a great and wonderful beauty of pattern, design, or\ncolour arrangement, in nature. Now there is not a particle of evidence\nto show that any animal has, to the smallest extent, a _sense of\nbeauty_. On the contrary it is most improbable. The sense of artistic\nbeauty is not only peculiar to man, but only exists in him when\ncivilized and cultivated. Uneducated people among ourselves have no\nsense of landscape and other beauty. How then can it exist in animals?\n\nIf there was nothing to explain but a uniform bright and showy colour,\nnatural selection might be sufficient to account for it. How is it,\nthen, that this is not the case? We have not only colour, but colour\ndiversified in the most elaborate and charming manner. Look at the\nexquisite patterns on a butterfly's wing! look at the various delicate\narrangements of colour and pattern in flowers; or look again at the\narrangement of colour on a humming-bird--sometimes the tail, sometimes\nthe breast is ornamented, sometimes a splendid crest covers the head,\nsometimes a jewelled gorget or ruff surrounds the throat; and these are\nnot uniformly coloured, but exhibit metallic and other changes of lustre\nnot to be imitated by the highest art. But to fully realize this, I had\nbest refer to a more familiar instance. Let any one examine--as an\nobject very easily procurable in these days--a peacock's feather. No\ndoubt the whole tail when expanded is very brilliant; but look closely\nat the structure of a single feather; is all this arrangement needed\nonly to make the tail bright or conspicuous? Observe how wonderfully the\nouter parts are varied; part has a metallic lustre of copper, part has\nthis also shot with green: then there is a delicate ring of violet with\na double yellowish border, all quite distinct from the inmost gorgeous\n\"eye\" of green, blue, and black, and all arranged on the same feather!\n\nTake, again, the so-called diamond beetle of Brazil; here the wing case\nis black studded all over with little pits or specks, which as a whole\nonly give it a powdery pale-green colour; but place it in the sunlight\nand look at it with a magnifying glass--each little speck is seen to be\nfurnished with a set of minute metallic scales showing green and red\nflashes like so many diamonds. How does such a delicate ornament answer\nthe demands of mere conspicuousness?\n\nBut there is a stronger case than this. I before alluded to the\nexquisite symmetry of the silicious and crystalline coverings of some of\nthe simplest forms of marine animalcules; and also I may here add the\nbeautiful colouring of _shells_ sometimes on the _inside_.[1] In what\npossible way would this beauty serve for any purely _useful_ purpose?\n\n\n[Footnote 1: See Mivart, p. 61.]\n\nLastly, how are we to account for the beauty of autumnal tints in woods,\nor coloured _leaves_ in plants such as the _Caladium_? The beauty is of\nno conceivable use to the plant.\n\n\"In Canada the colours of the autumn forest are notorious. Even on\ncloudy days the hue of the foliage is of so intense a yellow that the\nlight thrown from the trees creates the impression of bright sunshine,\neach leaf presents a point of sparkling gold. But the colours of the\nleafy landscape change and intermingle from day to day, until pink,\nlilac, vermilion, purple, deep indigo and brown, present a combination\nof beauty that must be seen to be realized; for no artist has yet been\nable to represent, nor can the imagination picture to itself, the\ngorgeous spectacle.[1]\"\n\nHave we not here an exhibition which cannot be accounted for on any\nprinciple of natural utility?\n\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Quarterly Review,\" 1861, p. 20.]\n\n(4) The fourth point, as previously stated, will be best treated by\nstating beforehand what is the conclusion come to, and then justifying\nit. My suggestion is that if we suppose a continuous evolution without a\nseries of designs prescribed before life began to develop, and without\nany external guidance, then we are lost in difficulties. We cannot\naccount for why variation should set in in the very different ways it\ndoes, nor why such a vast variety of divergent results should be\nproduced. We cannot account for the tendency to reversion to a previous\ntype, when artificial or accidental variation is not continually\nmaintained,[1] nor for the sterility of hybrids; nor, above all, for\nevolution performing such freaks (if I may so say) as the origination of\nour small finches and the tropical humming-birds from earlier\nvertebrates through the Mesozoic reptiles, the pterodactyles,\n_Odontornithes_ and subsequent forms. Supposing that the Almighty\nDesigner created a complete _cosmos_ of (1) the starry heavens and the\nplanetary system, (2) then a scheme whereby earth and water were to be\nduly distributed over our planet; (3) established the relations by\nwhich the external heavenly bodies were to regulate our seasons, tides,\nand times (as we know they do). (4) Suppose, further, that the Designer\ndid not make \"out of nothing\" the series of finally developed animals as\nwe now have them, but \"made the animals make themselves\"--that is to\nsay, created the type, the ideal form, and adapted the laws and forces\nwhich constitute environment, so that development of form should go on\nregularly towards the appointed end, but in separate and appropriate\nchannels, each terminating when its object had been attained. Suppose\nthese conditions (which, as we shall afterwards see, are what\nRevelation, fairly interpreted, declares) to exist; all the known\n_facts_, and also the fairly certain _inferences_ of Evolution, are then\naccounted for.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Pigeon fanciers know that when they have once obtained, by\ncrossbreeding and selection, a particular form or feather, the utmost\ncare is needed to preserve it. If the parents are not selected the\nprogeny wilt gradually revert towards the original wild pigeon type.]\n\nWe have neither by revelation nor physical discovery an exact _scheme_\nof all the types, nor which of the elementary forms were destined to\nremain unchanged throughout. But some scheme of created types we surely\nhave. Whether what we call _species_[1] are all types or not, we cannot\nsay; probably not. All we can be sure of is that there are definite\nlines somewhere. We see the sterility of some hybrids, for instance,\nwhich would seem to indicate that while some forms can conjugate and\ntheir offspring remain fertile, others (approaching, as it were, the\nverge of separation) give rise to hybrids which are or not absolutely\nsterile,[2] according as they approach, or are more remote from, the\ndesigned barrier-line. And at that point the separation is insuperable.\nCertain forms of _Carnivora_ and _Ungulata_ seem to be for ever\napart--not only the two great orders, but even subdivisions within them.\nReptiles and birds, on the other hand, unlike as they at first sight\nseem, have no type line drawn to separate them; that, at least, is one\nof the more recent conclusions of biological science.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: It should be borne in mind that what we call a _species_ as\ndistinct from a mere variety, is a more or less arbitrary or provisional\nthing dependent on the state of science for the time. Species are\nconstantly being lumped together by some and separated by others. It\nfollows most probably, that while some species are really types--i.e.,\none can never pass into the other and lose its essentials, unless it is\ndestined to disappear (like the pterodactyle), not being wanted in the\nwhole scheme--other species are really only varieties, and maybe lost or\nmodified without limit.]\n\n[Footnote 2: We may well regard the mule as a peculiar form just such as\nthe evolutionist would rejoice to see: here is a modified species, which\nhas qualities different from those of either of the parent stock, and\nwell fitted \"to struggle for existence.\" Yet this modified race would,\nif left to itself, die out.]\n\nIn other cases where variation has occurred, and especially when it is\nartificially--i.e., by the aid of selective breeding--caused or\nfavoured, there is the constant tendency to _revert_, which is at once\nintelligible if there is a type scheme to be maintained.\n\nIf there were a series of created types, there may naturally have been\nwhat I may call sub-types; which would be certain well-marked stages on\nthe way to the final form. Such sub-type forms would naturally occur at\ndifferent ages, and being marked would show their place in the scale,\nand their connection with the ultimate perfect form. Such a possibility\nwould exactly account for the series of _Eohippus, Hipparion_, and\nhorse, which we have already instanced; and still more so for the rise\nand disappearance of the great Mesozoic Saurians when their object was\nfulfilled. Deny guidance and type, and everything becomes confused. Why\nshould variation take certain directions? how comes it that natural\nforces and conditions of life so occur and co-operate as to produce the\nvariety of changes needed?\n\nAnd there is also one other general objection which I desire to state.\n\nWhy should _development_ have gone in different directions _towards the\nsame object_? I grant that different circumstances would produce\ndifferent changes, but not for the same purpose. For example take\neye-sight. The world shows several types of eye. The _insect_ eye quite\nunlike any other; the crustacean eye also distinct; and birds, fishes,\nand animals having an eye which is generally similar and is somewhat\nimitated by the eye of the _cuttle fish_ (which is not a _fish_, but a\n_cephalopod_).\n\nAgain, granted that _poison_ is a useful defence to creatures: how is it\ngiven so differently?--to a serpent in the tooth; to a bee or a scorpion\nin the tail; to a spider in a specially adapted _antenna_, and to the\ncentipede in a pair of modified legs on the _thorax_.\n\nOne would have supposed that natural causes tending to produce poison\nweapons would have all gone on the same lines. And, curiously, in some\nfew cases, we have a sameness of line. About twelve species--all\nfish--have an electric apparatus, familiar to most of us in the flat\nsea-fish called _Torpedo_ and in the fresh-water eel called _Gymnotus_.\nThe only answer the anti-creationist can give to this dissimilarity of\ndevelopment is that there are many vacant places in the polity of\nnature, and that development takes place in that direction which fits\nthe creature to occupy a vacant place, and is, therefore, diverse.\n\nIt seems to me that this--the only answer that can he given--is\nnecessarily a modified form or mode _of creation._ How can _natural\ncauses_ know anything about a polity of nature and a vacant place, here\nand there, so that the creature must develop in one way or another to\nfill it?\n\nAnother set of cases is the production of similar functional results by\nmost diverse means, as in the case of flying animals, birds,\npterodactyles, and bats; here there is a widely different modification\nof the fore-arm and other bones, all for the same purpose. The reader\nwill do well to refer to Mr. Mivart's book on this subject.\n\nAgain, the question of types seems to be pointed to in the curious fact\nof what I may call the double development of birds from reptiles. Mr.\nMivart says, \"If one set of birds sprang from one set of reptiles and\nanother set from another set of reptiles, the two sets could never by\n'natural selection' only have grown into such perfect similarity.\" Yet\nwe can trace the _Struthious_ birds (those that, like ostriches, do not\nfly) through the Dinosaurs and _Dinornis_, and the flying Carinate birds\nthough pterodactyles, _Archaeopteryx_, and _Icthyornis_, &c.\n\nIt might well be added to this part of the subject, that granted that\ndevelopmental changes were often small, that progress was attained\nlittle by little, this does not appear to have been always the case.\n\nThe discoveries of the fossil species of horse,[1] _Eohippus,\nHipparion_, and so forth, clearly establish a developmental series, and\nthe ancient forms are claimed as the ancestor of the modern horse; but\nthese (Professor Owen tells us) differed more from one another than the\nass and the zebra (for instance) differ from the horse. Still, of course\nit may be that there are still undiscovered intermediate forms; and in\nany case there need be no desire to detract from the value of the\nseries, as really pointing towards a gradual perfection of the horse\nfrom a ruder ancestor up to the latest type. But having reached the\ntype, and though that type exhibits such (considerable) variations as\noccur between the Shetland pony, the Arab, and the dray-horse, we have\nstill no difficulty in recognizing the essential identity; nor is there\nany evidence or any probability that the horse will ever change into\nanything essentially different. All the fossil bats, again, were true\nbats: and so with the rhinoceroses and the elephants. Granting the\nfullest use that may be made of the imperfection of the geological\nrecord, it is difficult to account for this, and still more for the\nabsence of intermediate forms (particularly suitable for preservation)\nof the _Cetaceae_. The Zeuglodons from Eocene down to Pliocene, the\nDolphins in the Pliocene, and the _Ziphoids Catodontidae_, and\n_Balaenidae_ in the Pliocene, are all fully developed forms, with no\nintermediate species.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The series is thus (Nicholson, p. 702):--1.\n_Eohippus_--Lower Eocene of America; fore-feet have four toes and a\nrudimentary thumb or pollex. 2. _Orohippus_ (about the size of a\nfox)--Eocene. 3. _Anchitherium_--Eocene and Lower Miocene; three toes,\nbut 2 and 4 are diminutive. 4. _Hipparion_--Upper Miocene and Pliocene;\nstill three toes, but 3 more like the modern horse and 2 and 4 still\nfurther diminished. 5. _Pliohippus_--later Pliocene, very like Equus. 6.\n_Equus_--Post-Pliocene.]\n\nMr. Mivart remarks, \"There are abundant instances to prove that\nconsiderable modifications may suddenly develop themselves, either due\nto external conditions or to obscure internal causes in the organisms\nwhich exhibit them.[1]\" If it is not so, granted to the full the\nimperfection of the Geologic record, but remembering the cases where we\n_do_ find intermediate forms; we ask why should they not be preserved in\nother cases? If they ever existed we should surely see _more_ changing\nforms; not only such as are more or less uncertainly divided species,\nbut whole orders running one into another. No evidence exists to show\nthat any bird has gradually passed into an animal, nor a carnivorous\nbeast become ruminant, or _vice vers\u00e2._\n\n\n[Footnote 1:  P. 112] [Transcriber's note: Chapter VIII]\n\nThe analogy of changes that are known will not bear extension enough to\nprove, even probably, any such change.\n\nSurely if our conclusion in favour of a Divine Design to be attained,\nand a Providential Intelligence directing the laws of development, is no\nmore than a belief, it is a probable and reasonable belief: it certainly\nmeets facts and allows place for difficulties in a way far more\nsatisfactory than the opposite belief which rejects _all_ but\n\"secondary\" and purely \"natural\" causes.\n\nSo clear does this seem to me, that I cannot help surmising that we\nshould never have heard of any objection to Divine creation and\nprovidential direction, if it had not been for a prevalent fixed idea,\nthat by \"creation\" _must_ be meant a final, one-act production _(per\nsaltum)_ of a completely developed form, where previously there had been\nnothing. Such a \"creation\" would of course militate against _any_\nevolution, however cautiously stated or clearly established. And no\ndoubt such an idea of \"creation\" was and still is prevalent, and would\nnaturally and almost inevitably arise, while nothing to the contrary in\nthe _modus operandi_ of Creative Power was known. What is more strange\nis that the current objection should not now be, \"Your _idea of\ncreation_ is all wrong,\" rather than the one which has been strongly\nput forward (and against which I am contending), \"There is no place for\na Creator.\"\n\n(5) This is the only other _general_ point that remains to be taken up\nin connection with the theory that all living forms are due to the\ngradual accumulation of small favourable changes without creative\nintervention. The objection is that we cannot obtain the inconceivably\nlong time required for the process of uncontrolled and unaided\nevolution.\n\nI am not here concerned to argue generally for the shortness or longness\nof the periods of geological time; let us, for the purposes of argument,\nadmit a very wide margin of centuries and ages; but _some_ limit there\nmust be. The sun's light and heat, for one thing, are necessary, and\nthough the bulk of combustible material in the sun is enormous, there\nmust be some end to it. Sir William Thomson has calculated (and his\ncalculations have never been answered) that on purely physical grounds,\nthe existence of life on the earth must be limited to some such period\nas 100 millions of years; and this is far too short for uncontrolled\nevolution.\n\nWe know from fossils, that species have remained entirely unaltered\nsince the glacial epochs began, and how many generations are included\neven in that! If no change is visible in all that time, how many more\nages must have elapsed before a primitive _Amoeba_ could have developed\ninto a bird or a Mammal?\n\nIn Florida Mr. Agassiz has shown that coral insects exist unchanged,\nand must have been so for 30,000 years.\n\nWhen we remember also the enormous destruction of life that takes place,\nsupposing that in a given form a few creatures underwent accidental\nchanges which were beneficial and likely to aid them--still what chances\nwere there that the creatures which began to exhibit the right sort of\nchange should have died before they left offspring! the chances against\nthem are enormous: and the chances have to be repeated at every\nsuccessive change before the finally perfected or advanced creature took\nits place in the polity of nature. Moreover, there is the chance of\nsmall changes being lost by intercrossing: our own cattle-breeders have\nmost carefully to select the parents, or else the favourable variety\nsoon disappears.\n\nHow then, seeing the power of stability which at least some forms are\nfound to exhibit--seeing too the enormous chances against the survival\nof the particular specimens that begin to vary, and the further chances\nof the loss of variety by intercrossing; how can we get the millions of\nmillions of years necessary to produce the present extreme divergence of\nspecies? The fact is that the force of this objection is likely to be\nundervalued, from the mere difficulty of bringing home to the mind the\nimmeasurable time really demanded by uncontrolled evolution.\n\nNor is the question of time left absolutely to be matter of belief or\nspeculation. For here and there in the geological records of the rocks,\nwe _have_ certain intermediate forms--or forms which we may fairly argue\nto be such. But looking at the very considerable differences between the\nearlier and the later of these forms--differences greater than those\nwhich now separate well-defined species, it seems questionable whether\nany of the divisions of Tertiary time, taking all the circumstances into\nconsideration, could be lengthened out sufficiently to accomplish the\nchange.\n\nAt any rate, if any particular example be disallowed, the general\nobjection must be admitted to be weighty.\n\nNow the intervention of any system of created designs of animal\nform--however little its details be understood--and the production of\nvariations under _divine guidance_ which would lead more directly to the\naccomplishment of such forms as the complicated flowers of orchids above\ndescribed, would unquestionably tend to shorten the requisite time.\nThere would, by a process of reasoning easily followed, be an immediate\nreduction of the ages required, within practicable limits, though the\ntime must still remain long. More than that is not necessary. The\nUssherian chronology is not of Divine revelation, though some persons\nspeak of it as if it was. There is not the shadow of a reason to be\ngleaned from the Bible, nor from any other source, that the commencement\nof orderly development, the separation of land and water, earth and sky,\nand the subsequent provision of designs for organic forms of life and\nthe first steps that followed the issue of the design, began six\nthousand years ago, or anything like it. It can be shown, indeed, that\n_historical_ man, or the specific origin of the man spoken of as Adam,\ndates back but a limited time; and it is calculable with some degree of\nprobability how far; but that is all. We are therefore in no difficulty\nwhen ample time is demanded; but we are in the greatest straits when the\nillimitable demands of a slowly and minutely stepping development,\nperpetually liable to be checked, turned back, and even obliterated,\nhave to be confronted with other weighty probabilities and calculations\nregarding the sun's light and heat, and the duration of particular\ngeologic eras.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n\n_THE DESCENT OF MAN_.\n\nWe now approach a special objection which always, has been (and I shall\nbe pardoned, perhaps, for saying _always will be_) the _crux_ of the\ntheory of unaided, uncreated evolution--the advent of reasoning, and not\nonly reasoning, but self-conscious and God-conscious MAN.\n\nHere again the lines of argument are so numerous, and the details into\nwhich we might go so varied, that a rigid and perhaps bald selection of\na few topics is all that can be attempted.\n\nBut I may remark that naturalists are far from being agreed on this part\nof the subject. Agassiz rejects the evolution of man altogether. Mr. St.\nG. Mivart, while partly admitting, as every one else now does, the\ndoctrine of evolution, denies the descent of man. Mr. Wallace, the great\napostle of evolution, opposes Darwin, and will have none of his views on\nthe descent of man; and Professor Huxley himself says that, while the\nresemblance of structure is such that if any \"process of physical\ncausation can be discovered by which the genera and families of ordinary\nanimals have been produced, the process of causation is amply sufficient\nto account for the origin of man,\" still he admits that the gulf is vast\nbetween civilized man and brutes, and he is certain that \"whether _from_\nthem or not, man is assuredly not _of_ them.\"\n\nThe first difficulty I shall mention is, however, a structural one.\nSupposing that an ape-like ancestor developed into man, on the\nprinciples of natural selection; then his development has taken place in\na manner directly contrary to the acknowledged law of natural selection.\nHe has developed backwards; his frame is in every way weaker; he is\nwanting in agility; he has lost the prehensile feet; he has lost teeth\nfitted for fighting or crushing or tearing; he has but little sense of\nsmell; he has lost the hairy covering, and is obliged to help himself by\nclothes.[1] If this loss was ornamental it is quite unlike any other\ndevelopment in this respect, since no other creature has the same; for\nornamental purposes the fur becomes coloured, spotted, and striped, but\nnot lost. It is easy to reply that man being _intelligent_, his brain\npower enables him to invent clothes, arms, implements, and so forth,\nwhich not only supply all deficiencies of structure, but give him a\ngreat superiority over all creatures. But how did he get that\nintelligence? By what natural process of causation (without intelligent\ndirection) is it conceivable that, given a species of monkey, all at\nonce and at a certain stage, structural development should have been\nretarded and actually reversed, and a development of brain structure\nalone set in? Nor, be it observed, has any trace of _man_ with a\nrudimentary brain ever been discovered. Savages have brains far in\nexcess of their requirements, and can consequently be educated and\nimproved. The skull of a prehistoric man found in the Neanderthal near\nDusseldorf is of average brain capacity, showing that in those remote\nages man was very much in capacity what he is at present.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: It is remarkable that the loss of the hairy covering is\nmost complete when it is most wanted: the back, the spine, and the\nshoulders are in nearly all races unprotected; and yet the want of a\ncovering from the heat or cold is such that the rudest savages have\ninvented some kind of cloak for the back.]\n\nIt must, however, be admitted that the special difficulties of the\norigin of man are not purely structural. We do not know enough of the\nDivine plan to be able to understand why it is that there is a certain\nundeniable unity of form, in the two eyes, ears, mouth, limbs and organs\ngenerally of the animal and man. Moreover, much is made of the fact, as\nstated by a recent \"Edinburgh Reviewer,\" that \"the physical difference\nbetween man and the lowest ape is trifling compared with that which\nexists between the lowest ape and any brute animal that is not an\nape.[1]\" This fact no doubt negatives the idea put forward by Bishop\nTemple and others, that if there was an evolution of man, it must have\nbeen in a special branch which was foreseen and commenced very far back\nin the scale of organic being. For the structural difference might not\nrequire such a separate origin; while the mental difference, affording\nobjections of a different class, will not allow of _any_ such evolution\nat all. That there is _some_ connection between man and the animal\ncannot be denied, and consequently, in the absence of fuller\ninformation, very little would be gained by insisting on the purely\n_physical_ development question. The Bible states positively that the\nman Adam (as the progenitor of a particular race, at any rate) was a\nseparate and actual production, on a given part of the earth's surface.\nAll that we need conclude regarding that is that there is nothing known\nwhich entitles us to say, \"This is not a fact, and therefore is not\ngenuine revelation.\"\n\n\n[Footnote 1: No. 331, July, 1885, p. 223.]\n\nMoreover, as to the question of the possibility of human development\ngenerally, there are certain considerations which directly support our\nbelief. For example, directly we look to the characteristic point, the\ngift of intellect, we can reasonably argue that the action of a Creator\nis indispensable. The entrance of consciousness and of reason, however\nelementary, marks something out of all analogy with the development of\nphysical structure, just as much as the entrance of Life marked a new\ndeparture in no analogy with the \"properties\" of inorganic matter.\n\nFrom the first dawn of what looks like _will_ and _choice_ between two\nthings, and something like a _reason_ which directs the course of the\norganism in a particular way for a particular object, we have an\naltogether new departure. The difficulty commences at the outset, and\neven in the animal creation; it is merely continued and rendered more\nstriking when we take into consideration the higher development of\nintellect into power of abstract reasoning, self-consciousness and\nGod-consciousness.\n\nIt is perfectly true that the difference between the \"instinct\" of\nanimals and the reason and mind of man, is one of degree rather than\nkind. As Christians, we have no objection whatever to a development of\nreason from the lowest reason solely concerned with earthly and bodily\naffairs to the highest powers searching into deep and spiritual truths.\nBut such a development, though it is parallel to a physical\ndevelopment--as spiritual law appears to be always parallel (as far as\nthe nature of things permits) to physical laws--still is a development\nwhich cannot under any possible circumstances dispense with an external\nspiritual order of existence, and one which cannot be physically caused.\nNor is it conceivable that man should develop a consciousness of God,\nwhen no God really exists externally to the consciousness.[1]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: For our consciousness of God is obviously very different\nfrom a figment of the imagination, or the sort of reality experienced in\na dream. This is not the place to develop such an argument, but it seems\nto me more than doubtful whether we can even _imagine_ something\n_absolutely_ non-existent in nature. When the artist's imagination would\nconstruct, e.g., a winged dragon, the concept is always made up of\n_parts which are real_--eyes like an alligator, bat-wings, scales of a\nfish or crocodile, and so forth. All the members or parts are real, put\ntogether to form the unreal. I do not believe that any instance of a\nhuman conception can be brought forward which on analysis will not\nconform to this rule.]\n\nThe main objection, then, that I would press is, that admitting any\npossibility of the development of man from a purely physical and\nstructural point of view, admitting any inference that may be drawn\nfairly from the undoubted connection (increasingly great as it is as we\ngo upwards from the lower animal to the ape) between animals and man,\nthat inference never can touch the descent of man as a whole; because no\nsimilarity of bodily structure can get over the difficulty of the mental\npower of man. We have to deal not with a part of man, but with the\nwhole. The difficulty cannot be got over by denying _mind_ as a thing\n_per se_; for all attempts to represent mind as the _mere_ product of a\nphysical structure, the brain, utterly fail.\n\nNobody wishes to deny what Dr. H. Maudsley and others have made so plain\nto us, that mind has (in one aspect, at any rate) a physical basis--that\nis, that no thought, imagination, or combination of thought, is known to\nus _apart from_ change and expenditure of energy in the brain. Nor can\nwe, by any process of introspection or observation of other subjects,\nseparate the mind from the brain and ascertain the existence of \"pure\nmind,\" or soul, experimentally. But still, there is no possibility of\ngetting the operations of mind out of mere cell structure, unless an\nexternal Power has added the mind power, as a faculty of His endowing;\nthen He may be allowed to have connected that faculty ever so\nmysteriously with physical structure; we are content. And I must insist\non the total failure of all analogy between the development of bones or\nmuscles and the development of mind; and even if we grant a certain\nstage of instinct to have arisen, we are still in the dark as to how\nthat could develop into intellect such as man possesses, including a\nbelief in God. On this subject let us hear Professor Allman. Between a\ndevelopment of material structure and a development of intellectual and\nmoral features, the Professor says, \"there is no conceivable analogy;\nand the obvious and continuous path, which we have hitherto followed up,\nin our reasonings from the phenomena of lifeless matter to those of\nliving form, here comes suddenly to an end. The chasm between\n_unconscious_ life and _thought_ is deep and impassable, and no\ntransitional phenomena are to be found by which, as by a bridge, we can\nspan it over.[1]\"\n\nThere can be _life_ or _function_ without _consciousness_ or _thought;_\ntherefore, even if we go so far as to admit that life is only a property\nof protoplasm, there can be no ground for saying that _thought_ is only\na property of protoplasm.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: British Association Address.]\n\n\"If,\" says Professor Allman, \"we were to admit that every living cell\nwere a conscious and thinking thing, are we therefore justified in\nasserting that its consciousness with its irritability is a property of\nthe matter of which it is composed? The sole argument on which this view\nis made to rest is analogy. It is argued that because the life\nphenomena, which are invariably found in the cell, must be regarded as a\nproperty of the cell, the phenomena of consciousness by which they are\naccompanied must also be so regarded. The weak point in the argument is\nthe absence of all analogy between the things compared: and as the\nconclusion rests solely on the argument from analogy, the two must fall\nto the ground together.\"\n\nTry and assign to matter all the properties you can think of, its\nimpenetrability, extension, weight, inertia, elasticity, and so forth,\nby no process of thought (as Mr. Justice Fry observes in an article in\n\"The Contemporary Review [1]\") can you get out of them an adequate\naccount of the phenomena of mind or spirit. We just now observed that\nconsciousness, thought, and so forth, are never exhibited apart from the\naction of the brain; some change in the brain accompanies them all. We\ndo not deny that. But it is obvious that thought being manifested in the\npresence of cerebral matter or something like it, is a very different\nthing from thought being a _property_ of such matter, in the sense in\nwhich polarity is the property of a magnet, or irritability of living\nprotoplasm.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: October, 1880, p. 587.]\n\nTo all this I have seen no answer. The way in which the opponents of\nChristian beliefs meet such considerations appears to be to ignore or\nminimize them, so as to pass over to what seems to them a satisfactory\nif not an easy series of transitions. If Life is after all only a\n\"property\" of matter, then given life, a brain may be produced; and as\nmind is always manifested in the presence of (and apparently\nindissolubly united with) brain structure, it is not a much greater leap\nto accept _life_ as a property of _matter_ than it is to take _thought_\nas a property of a certain _specialized physical structure_. It is true\nthat the distance is great between the instinct of an animal and the\nabstract reasoning power of a Newton or a Herbert Spencer; but (as we\nare so often told) the difference is of degree not of kind, and as the\nbrain structure develops, so does the power and degree of reason. As to\nthe difference in man, that he is the only \"religious\" animal--the one\ncreature that has the idea of God--that is a mere development of the\nemotions in connection with abstract reasoning as to the cause of\nthings. No part of our mental nature is more common to the animal and\nthe man than the emotional; and if in the one it is mere love and\nhatred, joy and grief, confidence and fear, in the other the emotions\nare developed into the poetic sense of beauty, or the awe felt for what\nis grand and noble; and this insensibly passes into _worship_, the root\nof the whole being fear of the unknown and the mysterious. That is the\ngeneral line of argument taken up.\n\nEven accepting the solution (if such it maybe called) of the two first\ndifficulties--life added spontaneously or aboriginally to matter, and\nthought and consciousness added to organism--still the rest of the path\nis by no means so easy as might at the first glance appear. Development\nin brain structure certainly does not always proceed _pari passu_ with a\nhigher and more complex reasoning. In actual fact we find high\n\"reasoning\" power, quite unexpectedly here and there, up and down the\nanimal kingdom. Some _insects_, with very little that can be called a\nbrain at all, exhibit high intelligence; and some animals with smaller\nbrains are more docile and intelligent than others with a much larger\ndevelopment. The ape, in spite of his close physical approach to the\nstructure of man, and his still greater relative distance from the other\nanimal creation, is not superior (if he is not decidedly inferior) in\nreason or intelligence to several animals lower down in the scale.\n\nSavages, again, have a brain greatly in excess of their actual\nrequirements (so to speak). Hence the mere existence of brain, however\ncomplex, does not indicate the possession of mental power.\n\nThere is reason to believe that all thought and exercise of the mind--in\nfact, every step in the process of \"Education,\" whereby an ignorant\nperson is brought at last to apprehend the most abstract\npropositions--is accompanied by some molecular (or other) change. So\nthat a person who has been carefully educated has the brain in a\ndifferent state from that of an exactly similarly constituted person\nwhose brain has been subjected to no such exercise. But even if this\naction could be formulated and explained, it would not follow that\nthought is the _product_ of the molecular change; or that, _vice vers\u00e2_,\nif we could artificially produce certain changes, in the brain, certain\nthoughts and perceptions would thereon coexist with the changes, and\narise in the mind of the subject forthwith. And if not, then no process\nof physical development accounts for grades of intellect; we have only\nmind developing as mind. But the theory of evolution will have nothing\nto do with any development but physical; or at any rate with mental\ndevelopment except as the result of physical: it knows nothing of pure\nmind, or spiritual existence, or anything of the sort.\n\nIn the nature of things we can have neither observation nor experiment\nin this stage. We cannot by any process develop the lower mind of an\nanimal into the higher mind of man, and prove the steps of the\nevolution.[1] It is important to remember that the power of _directing\nthe attention by a voluntary process of abstraction_, is one that\ndistinctively belongs to man. It is an effort of will, of a kind that no\nanimal has any capacity for. By it alone have we any power of abstract\nreasoning, and it is intimately concerned with our self-consciousness\nand memory, and with our language. I am quite aware that animals possess\nsomething analogous to a language of their own; they can indicate\ncertain emotions and give warning, and so forth, to their fellows. But\nthat language could never develop into human language, or the animal\nwill (such as it is) ever rise to a human will, or animals become\nendowed with self-consciousness, unless they could acquire the power of\nvoluntarily abstracting the mind from one subject or part of a subject\nand fixing the attention on another. We cannot formulate any process of\nchange whereby the lower state could pass on to or attain to the higher\nin this respect.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: We can of course follow the sort of mental development\nwhich is traceable when we consider the origin of our own sagacious and\nfaithful dogs in the wild prairie dog: but this development is always in\ncontact with the mind of man, and is, as it were, the result of man's\naction, as man's development in mind and soul is the result of God's\naction.]\n\nTherefore again we conclude that the higher reason is a gift _ab\nexterno_.\n\nIf we take a step further to the \"spiritual\" or \"moral\" faculties of\nman, we have the same difficulty intensified, if indeed it does take a\nnew departure. To examine the question adequately would require us to go\ninto the deep waters of psychology; and here we should encounter many\nmatters regarding which there may be legitimate doubt and difference of\nopinion, which would obscure and lead us away from our main line of\nthought.\n\nThis I would willingly avoid. But it is quite intelligible, and touches\non no dangerous ground, when we assert that there is a distinct\nascent--an interval again raising developmental difficulties, directly\nwe pass from the intellectual to the moral. We may wonder at the high\ndegree of intelligence possessed by some animals; but we are unable to\nconceive any animal possessing a power of abstract reasoning, having\nideas of beauty (as such), or of manifesting what we call the poetic\nfeeling. And still more is this so when we look at the further interval\nthat lies between any perception of physical phenomena, any reasoning in\nthe abstract, or investigation of mathematical truth, and the\novermastering sense of obligation to the \"moral law,\" or the action of\nthe soul in its instinctive possession of the conception of a Divine\nExistence external to itself. It is because of this felt difference that\nwe talk of the \"spiritual\" as something beyond and above the \"mental.\"\n\nThe distinction is real, though we must not allow ourselves to be led\ntoo far in attempting to scan the close union that, from another point\nof view, exists between the one and the other.\n\nIn a recent number of \"The Edinburgh Review,[1]\" the author complains of\nBishop Temple thus: \"He uses the word spiritual in such a way that he\nmight be taken to imply that we had some other faculty for the\nperception of moral truths, in addition to, and distinct from, our\nreason.\" And the writer goes on to make an \"uncompromising assertion of\nreason as the one supreme faculty of man. To depreciate reason (he says)\nto the profit of some supposed 'moral' illative sense, would be to open\nthe door to the most desolating of all scepticisms, and to subordinate\nthe basis of our highest intellectual power to some mere figment of the\nimagination.\"\n\n\n[Footnote 1: July, 1885, p. 211, in the course of the article to which I\nhave already alluded.]\n\nOn the other hand, some writers (claiming to derive their argument from\nthe Scriptures) have supposed they could assert three distinct natures\nin man--a spiritual, a mental (or psychic), and a bodily. Now there is\nno doubt that, rightly or wrongly (I am not now concerned with that),\nthe Bible does distinctly assert that a \"breath of lives\" [1] was\nspecially put into the bodily form of man, and adds that thereby \"man\nbecame a living soul.\" But it is also stated of the animal creation that\nthe breath of life was given to them,[2] and animals are said to have a\n\"soul\" (nephesh).[3] So that neither in the one case nor the other have\nwe more than the two elements: a body, and a life put into it; though of\ncourse the man's \"life\" (as the plural indicates, and other texts\nexplain) was higher in kind than that of the animal.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The plural of excellence appears to mark something superior\nin the spirit of man over that of the animals. Also compare Job xxxiii.\n4, \"The breath of the Almighty hath given me life,\" with Isa. xlii. 5\nand Zech. xii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Though not in the plural of excellence. See Gen. vi 17,\nvii. 22, &c.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Gen. i. 20, margin of A.V.]\n\nSt. Paul, it is true, speaks of the \"whole spirit, and soul, and\nbody.[1]\" But our Lord Himself, in a very solemn passage (where it would\nbe most natural to expect the distinction, if it were absolute and\nstructural, to be noticed), speaks of the \"soul and body\" only.[2]\n\nThe fact is that we are only able to argue conclusively that, besides\nthe physical form, we have a non-material soul, or a self. And our Lord,\nwhose teaching was always eminently practical, went no further. We are\nconscious of a \"self\"--something that remains, while the body\ncontinually grows and changes.\n\nThere was in _Punch_, some time ago, a picture of an old grandfather,\nwith a little child looking at a marble bust representing a child. \"Who\nis that?\" asks the little one; and the old man replies, \"That is\ngrandfather when he was a little boy.\" \"And who is it now?\" rejoins the\nchild. One smiles at the picture, but in reality it conceals a very\nimportant and a very pathetic truth. Nothing could well be greater than\nthe outward difference between the grey hairs and bowed figure and the\nlittle cherub face; and yet there was a \"self\"--a soul, that remained\nthe same throughout. In Platonic language, while the [Greek: eid\u00f4lon]\nperpetually changes, the [Greek: eidos] remains. We have, therefore,\nevidence as positive as the nature of the subject admits that we are\nright in speaking of the _body and the soul, or self_. And as we cannot\nconnect the higher reasoning, and, above all, conscience and the\nreligious belief, as a \"property\" of physical structure, we conclude\nthat the Scripture only asserts facts when it attributes both to the\nsoul, as a spiritual element or nature belonging to the body. Man is\nessentially one;[3] but there is both a material and a non-material, a\nphysical and a spiritual element, in the one nature. But, being a\nspiritual element, that part of our nature necessarily has two sides (so\nto speak). It has its point of contact with self and the world of sense,\nand its point of contact with the world of spirit and with the Great\nSpirit of all, from whom it came. _Because_ of that higher \"breath of\nlives\" given by the Most High, man possesses the faculty of\n_consciousness of God_ (i.e., the higher spiritual faculties), besides\nthe consciousness of self, or merely intellectual power regarding self\nand the external world. Therefore, when an Apostle desires to speak very\nforcibly of something that is to affect a man through and through, in\nevery part and in every aspect of his nature, he speaks of the \"whole\nspirit, soul, and body.\" To sum up: all that we know from the Bible is\nthat God gave a \"soul\" (nephesh) to the animals, in consequence of which\n(when united to the physical structure) the functions of life and the\nphenomena of intelligence are manifested. So God gave a non-material,\nand therefore \"spiritual,\" element to human nature; and this being of a\nhigher grade and capacity to that of the animal world, not only in its\nunion with physical structure, makes the man a \"living soul\"--gives him\nan intelligence and a certain reason such as the animals have, but also\ngives him, as a special and unique endowment; the consciousness of self\n(involving--which is very noteworthy--a consciousness of its own\nlimitations) and the consciousness of God. Hence man's power of\nimprovement. If the man cultivates only the self-consciousness and the\nreason that is with it, the Scriptures speak of him as the \"natural or\npsychic man;\" if he is enabled by Divine grace to develop the higher\nmoral and spiritual part of his nature, and to walk after the Spirit,\nnot after the flesh, he is a \"spiritual man.\"\n\n\n[Footnote 1: 1 Thess. v. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. x. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The well-known argument of St. Paul regarding the\nresurrection in 1 Cor. xv. (ver. 45, &c.) is well worthy of\nconsideration in this connection. He deals with man as _one whole_;\nnothing is said about a man being (or having) a spirit separate from his\nsoul and his body, and that spirit being given a higher body than it had\nupon earth; but of the whole man, soul _and_ body, being raised and\nchanged into a man, also one whole, with a more perfect body--a body\nmore highly developed in the ascending scale of perfection. I do not\nforget the passage where the same Apostle (2 Cor. v. 6) speaks of being\nin the body, and absent from the Lord; and of being \"clothed upon;\" but\nthis does not in any way detract from the importance of the treatment of\nthe subject in the First Epistle.]\n\nIt is idle to speculate whether the \"nephesh\" of the animals, or the\n\"living self\" of the man, is an entity separate from the body, and\ncapable of existing _per se_--of its own inherent nature--apart from\nit. We do not know that animal forms are the clothing of a lower-graded\nbut separate spiritual form, or that such an animal soul or spirit can\nexist separately from the body; and we do not _know_ (from the\nBible)--whatever may be the current language on the subject--that man's\nspirit is in its nature capable of anything like permanent separate\nexistence.[1] Man is essentially one; and when the physical change\ncalled death passes over him, it does not utterly obliterate the whole\nbeing. The non-material element is not affected any more than it is by\nthe sleep of every night; and the man will be ultimately raised, not a\nspiritual or immaterial form, but provided, as before, with a body, only\none of a higher capacity and better adapted to its higher\nenvironments--the \"spiritual body\" of St. Paul, in a word. The original\nunion of mind and matter is, on any possible theory, mysterious; and the\nseparation of them for a time is neither less so, nor more. All this is\nperfectly true, whether the non-material element in man's nature is\n_necessarily_, inherently and _by nature_, immortal or not--a question\nwhich I do not desire to enter on.\n\nHence it is that a certain element of truth is recognized in the protest\nof the Edinburgh Reviewer. On the other hand, as we have not only\nintelligence, emotions (which are possessed in lower degree by animals),\nself-consciousness, the power of abstract reasoning, and the higher\nfaculties of the imagination,[2] but also the consciousness of God and\nthe commanding sense of right and wrong; and seeing that the last-named\nare different in kind from the former, we give them a separate name, and\nspeak of the moral or spiritual nature or capacity of man, as well as\nthe intellectual or mental. Some (by the way) choose \"moral\" to include\nboth, holding that ethical perceptions arise out of (or are intimately\nconnected with) our sense of God. Others would make a further\ndistinction, and confine \"moral\" to the (supposed) bare ethical\nperception of duty or of right and wrong, and add \"spiritual\" to\ndistinguish the highest faculty of all, whereby man holds communion with\nhis Maker and recognizes his relation to Him.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: This remark does not, of course, in any way touch the\nquestion whether the spiritual part of a man is conscious in the\ninterval between death and resurrection, or whether it can be made\nsensible in any way whatever to living persons.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The poetic sense, the perception of the beautiful, &c.]\n\nWhether this further distinction is justified or not, there is a\ndistinction between the moral and the purely intellectual; and we are\njustified in using different terms for things that are _practically_\ndifferent. This the Edinburgh Reviewer seems to have forgotten.\n\nIt was necessary to my argument to enter on this somewhat lengthy\nexamination of the spiritual nature of man, because, while we\nacknowledge the unity of man, we are compelled to recognize in his\nreligious sense and aspirations and capacities something quite\ndisparate--something that we could not get by a natural process of\ngrowth from such beginnings of reason as are observed in the lower\nanimals.\n\nI am aware that Dr. Darwin conceived that the religious feeling of man\nmight have grown out of the natural emotions of fear,[1] love,\ngratitude, &c., when once men began to question as to the explanation of\nthe phenomena of life, and to ascribe the forces of nature to the\npossession of a spirit such as he himself was conscious of: and with\nmuch more positive intent, Mr. H. Spencer has also, after most\npainstaking inquiries, formulated what he conceives to be the origin of\nreligious belief in man. He refers us to the early belief in a \"double\"\nof self, which double could be projected out of self, and remained in\nsome way after death, so as to become the object of fear, and ultimately\nof worship. When this ancestor-worship resulted in the worship of a\nmultitude of \"genii\" (whose individuality, as regards their former\nearthly connection, is more or less forgotten), then the idea of\nattaching the numerous divinities or ancestor-souls to the ocean, the\nsky, the sun, the mountains, and the powers of nature, arises; whence\nthe poetic systems of ancient polytheistic mythology. Gradually men\nbegan to reason and to think, and they refined the polytheism into the\n\"higher\" idea of one great, central, immaterial all-pervading power,\nwhich they called God.\n\n\n[Footnote: 1 See the \"Descent of Man,\" vol. i. p. 68 (original edition).\nBut it is right to state that the subject is not treated in any way\nwhatever so as to argue that the religious belief is a fancy, or\ndevelopment of fancy, with no God and no facts about God behind it.]\n\nMr. Spencer, in effect, concludes that this \"God\" is only man's own\nidea of filling up a blank, of explaining the fact that there must be an\nultimate first cause of whatever exists, and there is also a great\nsource of power of some kind external to ourselves.[1]\n\nI am not going here to enter on any special argument as to the validity\nof these theories in their relation to the direct question of the nature\nand existence of God. What we are here concerned with is, whether they\nenable us to exclude the idea of a gift and a giver of spiritual or\nmental (we will not quarrel about terms) nature to man, and whether, by\nany fair reasoning from analogy, we can suppose man's reason and his\n\"_sensus numinis_\" to arise by the mere stages of natural growth and\ndevelopment. Dr. Darwin's supposition takes no notice of the moral law\nand its influence; indeed he adopts[2] the view that conscience is no\nsense of right and wrong, but only the stored up and inherited social\ninstinct, a sense of convenience and inconvenience to the tribe and to\nthe individual, which at last acts so spontaneously and rapidly in\ngiving its verdict on anything, that we regard it as a special sense. It\nwould of course be possible to expend much time and many words in\nargument on this subject. There is not, and never will be, any direct\nevidence as to the origin of conscience; and as that sense (like any\nother power of our mental nature) is capable of being educated, evoked,\nenlightened, and strengthened, and may also by neglect and contradiction\ndeteriorate and wither away, there is ample room for allowing a certain\npart of the theory.[3] But many people who examine their own conscience\nwill feel that the description certainly does not suit them; there are\nmany things which conscience disapproves, of which no great evil\nconsequences to themselves or any one else are felt. Conscience is\nconstantly condemning \"the way that seemeth good unto a man.\"\n_Ultimately_ no doubt, there is real evil at the end of everything that\nconscience warns a man against; but not such as \"inherited experience\"\nis likely to recognize. Is it, for instance, the experience of the mass\nof men, as men, that the \"fleshly mind is death, but the spiritual mind\nis life and peace\"? Is not rather the world at large habitually putting\nmoney-making, position-making, and the care of the things of the body,\nof time, and of sense, in the first place; and is not the moral law\nperpetually warning us that the fashion of the world passes away, and\nthat what seems gold is in reality tinsel? As far as the condemnation\nthat conscience passes on the broad evils which affect society--\"thou\nshalt not steal,\" \"thou shalt not lie,\" or so forth--no doubt it is\nsupported by the transmitted sense of inconvenience; but who has told it\nof the evil of things that do not affect our social state? and who has\nchanged the inconvenient, the painful, into the _wrong_? It is one thing\nto instinctively avoid a theft or a falsehood, even if the first origin\nof such instinct were the fear of consequences or the love of\napprobation; it is quite another--the inward condemnation of something\nwhich \"the deceitfulness of sin\" is able to excuse, and which the world\nat large would regard as permissible or at least venial. Even if\ninherited use has its full play, there is still a something wanted\nbefore the one can be got into (or out of) the other. Why, again, are\nsavages prone to imagine natural phenomena to be caused or actuated by\n\"spirits\"? Surely it is because there _is_ consciously a spirit in man,\nand a Higher Power, even God, outside, who exists, though man in his\nignorance has many false ideas regarding Him.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: It is not necessary to my immediate argument, and therefore\nI do not press it into the text (though I should be sorry to seem to\nforget it for a moment), to urge that St. Paul draws a clear distinction\nbetween the intellectual faculties and the higher spiritual ones, when\nhe assures us that the clearest intellect alone cannot assimilate the\ntruths of religion. For the spiritual faculties have been in man\ngrievously deadened and distorted (to say the least of it), so that his\nintellectual faculties, bright and highly developed as they may be, will\nalways prove insufficient for the highest life in the absence of the\n\"grace of God.\" It is exactly analogous to the case of a man whom we\nmight suppose to have his sense of sight, touch, &c., distorted, and he\nhimself unable to correct them by aid of the senses of others. However\nacutely he might exercise his reason, he would be continually wrong in\nhis conclusions. See 1 Cor. ii., the whole, but specially vers. 14, 15.]\n\n[Footnote 2: \"Descent of Man,\" vol. i. p, 70.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The attempt (already alluded to) to separate moral and\nspiritual, to imagine something that is ethical, apart from the\nreligious idea, has lent some strength to these ideas of the moral\nsense; but in fact, the moral sense is _inseparably_ connected with the\nidea of God, and His approval and disapproval. The idea of God may be\nobscured and lost, but conscience is the surviving trace of it; the\ncircumference that accounts for the broken arc.]\n\nIt is an objection of the same order that applies to the other theory\n(Mr. Spencer's). There can be little doubt that in many respects it is\ntrue: as an account of all _human_ systems of religion it is adequate\nand natural; but it breaks down hopelessly when we try to use it to\nexplain how the conception of God originated in the mind. Just as there\nis a felt difference--not of degree or in form, but essential and\nradical in its nature--between the _undesirable_ and the _wrong_, so\nthere is a difference between the idea of a mysterious thing towards\nwhich apprehension or awe is felt, and the conception of God. Granted\nthat man believed in his own spirit or double, and attributed similar\nimmaterial motor powers as a cause for the wind and waves, and so forth;\ngranted that he at last \"refined\" this into the belief in one Spirit\nwhose power was necessarily great and varied--the origin is still\nunexplained. How did man get the idea of a personal spirit or double--no\nsuch thing, _ex hypothesi_ existing? How did he get to formulate the\nidea of a _God_ when he had simplified his group of many spirits into\none?\n\nIf man is created with a consciousness of his own inner-self, _as a\nself_, he is able naturally to imagine a like self in other beings; if\nhe has an idea of God innate in him, he can assimilate the truth when it\nis at last presented to his mind; and that is why he feels that it _is_\na refinement; a rising from the lower to the higher (because from\nfalsehood to truth), to let the many gods give place to the One God. If\nthe idea of God has been obscured, and the power of its apprehension\ndeadened, the man can only grope about helplessly, fashioning this\nexplanation of nature and that--all more or less false, but all dimly\nbearing witness to the two absolute facts, that there is an inner\nnon-material self, and an external non-material God.\n\nIf then there are insuperable difficulties in connecting thought with\nmatter by any process of unaided development, there are also great\ndifficulties, even when thought in a rudimentary form is given, in\nconceiving it developed into man's reason, or man's religious belief, by\nany known process of \"natural\" causation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n\n_FURTHER DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE HISTORY OF MAN_.\n\nThere are, however, some other matters connected with the history of man\non the globe, unconnected with psychological development, but which\ndemand notice, as making the argument against an undesigned, unaided\ndevelopment of man a cumulative one. It is urged that whatever may be\nthought of the connection of man with the animal creation, at any rate\nthe received Christian belief regarding the origin of man--especially\nhis late appearance on the scene--is contrary to known facts, and that\nwe have to mount up to a vast geologic antiquity to account for what is\nknown from exhumed remains in caves and lake dwellings, and the like.\n\nNow no one pretends that the history of man is free from doubt and\ndifficulty, but the doubt and difficulty are not confined to the\n\"orthodox.\" For the inferences to be drawn from the exhumed remains are\nequally doubtful whatever views be adopted.\n\nI shall not go into great length on this subject, partly because some\nrecent popular tracts of Canon Rawlinson, Mr. R.S. Pattison, and others,\nhave already made the ordinary reader familiar with the main outlines of\nthe subject; and still more because, be the views of archaeologists what\nthey may, it is impossible for any rational person to contend either\nthat they can be reduced to anything like unity among themselves, or\nthat they lead to any conclusion favourable to the belief in the\nself-caused and undesigned evolution of man.\n\nIt may be regarded as known, that at the dawn of history, mankind was\npassing through what may be called a Bronze age, in which weapons of\nbronze were used before tools of iron were invented. But this age was\npreceded by one in which even bronze was unknown. Stone implements, and\nsome of bone and horn, were alone used. It is also well ascertained that\nthere were two _widely divided_ stone ages. The latter, distinguished by\nthe polishing of the stones, is described as the _neolithic_; the\nformer, in which flint and other hard stone fragments were merely\nchipped or flaked to an edge, is called the _palaeolithic_.\n\nIt is hardly contended that the neolithic age could have been more than\nfour or five thousand years ago. There is always the greatest difficulty\nin fixing any dates because from the nature of the case written records\nare absent, and the stages of growth in the history of peoples overlap\nso.\n\nWe know that sharp flakes of stone were still used for knives in the\ntime of Moses and Joshua. We are not out of the stone age yet, as\nregards some portions of the globe; and it is quite possible that parts\nof the earth, not so very remote, may have been still in the midst of a\nstone age when Assyria, Chaldaea, and Egypt were comparatively highly\ncivilized.\n\nIt is also fairly certain that between the neolithic or smooth-stone\nage, and the palaeolithic, certain important geological changes took\nplace, though those changes were not such as to have demanded any very\ngreat length of time for their accomplishment.\n\nThe palaeolithic stone implements are found in river gravels and clays,\nalong the higher levels of our own Thames Valley, that of the Somme in\nFrance, and in other places. They are also found at the bottom of\nvarious natural caverns.\n\nNo human bones have been found as yet with the implements, but the bones\nof large numbers of animals have. And it seems certain that the men who\nmade the implements were contemporaries of the animals, because in the\nlater part of the age, at any rate, they drew or scratched likenesses of\nthe animals on bone. Among these representations are figures of the\n_mammoth_ an extinct form well known to the reader by description and\nmuseum specimens of remains.\n\nThe animals contemporary with these primeval men were the mammoth,\nspecies of rhinoceros and hippopotamus, the \"sabre-toothed\" lion, the\ncave-bear, the reindeer, besides oxen, horses, and other still surviving\nforms.\n\nIn his address to the British Association in 1881 Sir John Lubbock\ncalled attention to the fact that these animals appear to indicate both\na hot and a cold climate, and he referred to the fact (known to\nastronomers) that the earth passes through periods of slow change in the\neccentricity of its orbit, and in the obliquity of the ecliptic. The\nresult of the latter condition is, to produce periods of about 21,000\nyears each, during one-half of which the Northern hemisphere will be\nhotter, and in the other the Southern. At present we are in the former\nphase.\n\nBut the obliquity of the ecliptic does not act alone; the eccentricity\nof the orbit produces another effect, namely, that when it is at a\nminimum the difference between the temperatures of the two hemispheres\nis small, and as the eccentricity increases, so does the difference. At\nthe present time the eccentricity is represented by the fraction .016.\nBut about 300,000 years ago the eccentricity would have been as great as\n.26 to .57. The result, it is explained, would have been not a uniform\nheat or cold, but extremes of both; there would probably have been short\nbut very hot summers, and long and intensely cold winters.\n\nThis, Sir John Lubbock thought, might account for the co-existence of\nboth hot and arctic species, like the hippopotamus and rhinoceros on the\none hand, and the musk-ox and the reindeer on the other.\n\nBut such considerations really help us little. In the first place, it is\nonly an assumption that the fossil hippopotamus _was_ an animal of a hot\nclimate--it does not in any way follow from the fact that the now\nexisting species is such; nor if we make the assumption, does it explain\nhow, if the hot summer sufficed for the tropical hippopotamus, it\nmanaged to survive the long and cold winters which suited the arctic\nspecies.\n\nMoreover, no such calculations can really be made with accuracy: we do\nnot know what other astronomical facts may have to be taken into\nconsideration, nor can we say when such \"periods\" as those which are so\ngraphically described, began or ended.\n\nIn this very instance, we know that the mammoth only became extinct in\ncomparatively recent times, since specimens have been found in Siberia,\nwith the hair, skin, and even flesh, entirely preserved. Granted that\nthe intense cold of the Siberian ice effected this, it is impossible to\nadmit more than a limited time for the preservation--not hundreds of\nthousands of years. Professor Boyd Dawkins is surely right in stating\nthat the calculations of astronomy afford us no certain aid at present\nin this inquiry.\n\nAs regards the geological indications of age, the best authority seems\nto point to the first appearance of man in the post-glacial times: that\nis to say, that the gravels in which the palaeolithic implements are\nfound were deposited by the action of fresh water after the great\nglacial period, when, at any rate, Northern Europe, a great part of\nRussia, all Scandinavia, and part of North America were covered with\nicefields, the great glaciers of which left their mark in the numerous\nscoopings out of ravines and lake beds and in the raising of banks and\nmounds, the deposit of boulders, and the striation of rocks _in situ_,\nwhich so many districts exhibit.\n\nThe few instances in which attempts have been made, in Italy or\nelsewhere, to argue for a pliocene man (i.e. in the uppermost group of\nthe tertiary) have ended in failure, at least in the minds of most\nnaturalists competent to judge.\n\nOne of the most typical instances of the position of the implement age\nhas been discovered by Fraas at Sh\u00fcssenried in Suabia; here the remains\nof tools and the bones of animals (probably killed for food) were found\nin holes made in the glacial _d\u00e9bris_.\n\nBut here, again, it is impossible to say when this glacial age\nterminated, and whether man might not have been living in other more\nfavoured parts while it was wholly or partially continuing.\n\nIn Scandinavia no palaeolithic stone implements have been found, from\nwhich it may be inferred that the glacial period continued there during\nthe ages when palaeolithic man hunted and dwelt in caves in the other\ncountries where his remains occur.\n\nThe best authorities do not suppose that the men _originated_ in the\nlocalities where the tools are found; and there is so little known about\nthe geology of Central Asia (for example) that it is impossible to say\nwhether tribes may not have wandered from some other places not affected\nby the glaciation we have spoken of.\n\nAgain, the gravels and brick earths containing the tools are just of the\nkind which defy attempts to say how long it took to deposit and arrange\nthem.\n\nIt may be taken as certain, that after the one age ceased and the first\nmen appeared, the beds in which their relics occur have been raised\nviolently, and again depressed and subjected to great flushes and floods\nof water. The caves have been upheaved, and the gravels are found\nchiefly along the valleys of our present rivers, but at a much higher\nlevel, showing that there was both a higher level of the soil itself and\na much greater volume of water.\n\nThe Straits of Dover were formed during this period.\n\nBut none of these changes required a very long time; and if we can trace\nback the later stone age, which shows remains of pottery and other\nproofs of greater civilization, to the dawn of the historic period not\nmore than 4000 or 5000 years ago, there is nothing in the nature of the\nchanges which, as we have stated, intervened between the palaeolithic\nand neolithic periods, that need have occupied more than a thousand or\ntwo of years. Upheavals of strata and disruptions may be the work of\nbut a short time, or they may be more gradual. And as to the effect of\nwater, that depends on its volume and velocity; no certain rule can be\ngiven. Our own direct experience shows that very great changes may take\nplace in a few hundred years.\n\n\"The estuaries,\" remarks Mr. Pattison,[1] \"around our south-eastern\ncoast, which have been filled up in historical times, some within the\nlast seven hundred years to a height of thirty feet from their\nsea-level, by the gradual accumulation of soil, now look like solid\nearth in no way differing from the far older land adjoining. The\nharbours out of which our Plantagenet kings sailed are now firm,\nwell-timbered land. The sea-channel through which the Romans sailed on\ntheir course to the Thames, at Thanet, is now a puny fresh-water ditch,\nwith banks apparently as old as the hills. In Bede's days, in the ninth\ncentury, it was a sea-channel three furlongs wide.\"\n\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Age and Origin of Man\"--Present-Day Tract Series.]\n\nThus we are in complete uncertainty as to the date of the palaeolithic\nman, or as to the time necessary to effect the changes in the surface of\nthe earth which intervened between it and the later stone ages. But\nthere is nothing which conflicts with the possibility that the whole may\nhave occurred within some 8,000 years.\n\nFor the supposition of Mons. Gabriel Mortillet that man has existed for\n230,000 years, there is neither evidence nor probability. His theory is\nderived from an assumption that the geologic changes alluded to occupied\nan immense time; and the further assumption (if possible still more\nunwarranted) that the old race which used the chipped stone tools\nremained stationary for a very long period, and very gradually improved\nits tools and ultimately passed into the neolithic stage when the art of\npottery became known, however rudely.\n\nBut, in point of fact, we are not required by our belief in Scripture to\nfind any date for the origin of man, at least not within any moderate\nlimits (not extending to scores of thousands of years). The Bible was\nnot intended to enable us to construct a complete science of geology or\nanthropology, and the utmost that can be got out of the text is that a\ndate can be _suggested_ (not proved) for one particular family (that of\nAdam) by counting up the generations alluded to in Holy Writ before the\ntime of Abraham. But these are manifestly recorded in a brief and\nepitomized form; nor do all the versions agree. We may well believe that\na watchful Providence has taken care of the record of inspiration, but\nwe know it has been done by human and ordinary agency. The Bible is\nGod's gift to his Church, and the Church has been made in all ages the\nkeeper of it. Now in the matter of early dates and numbers, an unanimous\nversion has not been kept. According to the construction adopted in the\nSeptuagint, the creation of Adam would go back 7,517 years, while the\nVulgate gives 6,067 years. Dr. Hale's computation makes 7,294 years,\nand the Ussherian 5,967;[1] the Samaritan version is, I believe, further\ndifferent from either.\n\nAs it is, the facts show nothing inconsistent with an approximation to\nthese several periods.\n\nAs to any absolute date for the appearance of man as a species, no\ncalculation is possible, because of a certain doubt, which no one can\npretend to resolve, as to whether the Scriptures do assert the creation\nof _all_ mankind at any one period. If, owing to more positive\ndiscoveries in the future compelling us to put further back the date of\nman's first appearance upon earth, we have to suppose a beginning before\nthe time of Adam, we are reminded that there is an allusion in the sixth\nchapter of the book called Genesis to \"the sons of God\" and the\n\"daughters of men.\" Now this passage cannot conceivably refer to angels;\nnor can we ignore its existence, however doubtful we may feel as to its\nmeaning.[2]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: I take these figures from Mr. R.S. Pattison.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The text which speaks of God making \"of one blood all\nnations for to dwell on the face of the earth,\" would naturally apply to\nthe races existing when the speaker uttered the words: it would be as\nunreasonable to press such a text into the service of _any_ theory of\nthe creation of man, as it was absurd for the Inquisition to suppose\nthat the Psalmist, when asserting that God had made the \"round world so\nfast that it could not be moved,\" was contradicting the fact of the\nearth's revolution round the sun.]\n\nIt can hardly be denied that such a text opens out the _possibility_ of\nan earlier race than that of Adam; in that case the creation of Adam\nwould be detailed as the creation of the direct progenitor of Noah,\nwhose three sons still give names (in ethnological language) to the main\ngreat races of the earth, with whom exclusively the Bible history is\nconcerned, and especially as the direct progenitor of that race of whom\ncame the Israelites, and in due time the promised seed--the Messiah. I\ndo not say this _is_ so, nor even that I accept the view for my own\npart; I only allude to the possibility, without ignoring any of the\ndifficulties--none of which, however, are insuperable--which gather\nround it.\n\nIt is certainly a very remarkable fact that all about this region in\nwhich the Semitic race originated, traditions of Creation somewhat\nresembling the account in Genesis, the institution of a week of seven\ndays, and a Sabbath or day of rest from labour, existed from very early\ntimes; and with these traditions, a belief in distinct races, one of\nwhich owned a special connection with, or relation to, the Creator. Here\nI may appeal to the work of Mr. George Smith and his discoveries of\ntablets from the ancient libraries of Assyria. Originally, the country\nto which I have alluded consisted of Assyria in the centre and Babylonia\nto the south; while to the east of Assyria was a country partly plain\nand partly hill, which formed the \"plain of Shinar\" and the hills beyond\noccupied by Accadian tribes, from whose chief city, Ur, Abraham, the\nforefather of the Jews, emigrated. The Assyrian documents are copies of\nBabylonian originals, but the Babylonian kingdom itself was a Semitic\none founded on the ruins of an earlier population, the inhabitants of\nthe plain of Shinar and the mountains beyond. Some time between 3000 and\n2000 B.C. the Semitic conquerors of Babylonia took possession of the\nplains, and some time later conquered also the Accadian mountaineers.\nThe Babylonians possessed and translated the old Accadian records: the\nAssyrian tablets are mostly, but not all, copies, again, of the\nBabylonian transcripts. The celebrated \"Creation tablets,\" which contain\nan account closely corresponding to Genesis, are among those which were\nnot copied from Accadian originals; and they do not date further back\nthan the reign of Assur-bani-pal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; who\nreigned in the seventh century B.C. They may therefore be derived from\nthe Bible, not the Bible from them. It would seem from some earlier\n(Accadian) tablets, that a different account of the Creation existed\namong them. But though it is doubtful how far the Accadians had\npreserved this account, or at least had others along with it, _they had\na seven days week_ and _a Sabbath_. All this points to _one_ original\ntradition, which specified days of creation and a Sabbath, though it got\naltered and distorted, so that the true account was preserved as one\namong many local variations. This goes to prove the immense antiquity of\nthe story, which is not affected by the fact that the actual inscription\nof it which we at present have, dates only about 670 B.C. The point\nhere, however, interesting in the legends, is that they contained the\nidea of a special connection of one particular race with the Creator,\nand of other races, or of one other race, besides.\n\nAs far as the possibility of bringing forward the history of mankind as\nany aid to the theory of Evolution is concerned, I might have very well\nlet the subject alone, or even noticed it more briefly than I have done.\nFor, in truth, there is no _evidence_ whatsoever, and all that the\ndenier of creation can resort to is a supposed analogy and a probability\nthat the peculiarities of man could be accounted for in this way or in\nthat. But the main purpose of my brief allusion is to introduce the fact\nthat, as far as any evidence to the contrary goes, we have an absolutely\nsudden appearance of man on the scene, and no kind of transitional form.\nNot only so, but there is no trace of any gradual development of man\nwhen he did appear. There was the first palaeolithic man; then a\nconsiderable geologic perturbation of the earth's surface, resulting in\nthe upheaval of the cliffs in which the caves of remains occur, and in\nthe alteration of the gravel beds in which the human remains are found;\nand then the neolithic age, with its evidently greater civilization (as\nevidenced by pottery, &c.) connected with early and traditional, but\nstill with recent, history; but no trace of any development of one race\ninto the other.\n\nThe absence of all progressive change is forcibly indicated by the\nmeasurements of ancient skulls, which, though not found along with the\nflint tools, have been found elsewhere. It has been fully shown that\nthey differ in no respect from the skulls of men at the present day;\nwhile the skulls of the apes most nearly anthropoid, or allied to the\nhuman form, remain as widely separated in brain-capacity as ever.[1]\n\nThus the fact remains, that no intermediate form between the ape and the\nlowest man has been discovered, and that there is nothing like any\nprogressive development in the races of man. These facts, taken together\nwith what has been brought forward in the last chapter, show how\ncompletely the theory of the descent of man breaks down; how utterly\nunproved and untenable is the idea that he should have been evolved by\nnatural causes and by slow steps from any lower form of animal life.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The gorilla has a brain size of 30.51 cubic inches; the\nchimpanzee and ourang-outang (in the males) from 25.45 to 27.34 inches.\nAccording to Dr. J. Barnard Davis the average of the largest class of\nEuropean skulls is 111.99, that of the Australian 99.35 cubic inches.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n\n_CONCLUDING REMARKS_.\n\nIt will naturally be asked, \"If there is all this objection to some\nparts of the theory of Evolution, or to that theory in an extreme or\nabsolute form, how is it that it has been so eagerly accepted in the\nranks of scientific men?\"\n\nThe answer is, in the first place, because the theory of Evolution is to\na great extent true. When men speak of controversy with the Evolutionist\nand so forth, they of course mean such as insist on carrying the\ndoctrine to a total and even virulent denial of any Divine control at\nall. And it must, I think, be admitted that much of the theological\nopposition offered to the doctrine was aimed at _this_ aspect of it. At\nfirst, men zealous for what they believed to be Divine truth, did not\ndiscriminate; they saw that the then new idea of evolution was, in many\nbranches of its application, still very poorly proved, and they\nconceived that it could not be accepted apart from a total denial of\nreligion. We have grown wiser in the course of time: misconceptions\nhave been swept away; and everybody may be content with the assurance\nthat there is no necessary connection even, far less any antagonism,\nbetween evolution and the Christian faith at all. We may admit all that\nis known of the one without denying the other. Where the controversy has\nto be maintained is, that some will insist (like Professor H\u00e4ckel) in\ncarrying evolution beyond what evidence will warrant; and not only so,\nbut will insist on polemically putting down all religion on the strength\nof their improved theories. If \"Evolutionists\" complain of the treatment\nthey have received at the hands of \"Theologians,\" they will at least, in\nfairness, admit that there has been some misconception, some error on\nboth sides. What we maintain is, that evolution (i.e., here, as always,\nunlimited, uncontrolled evolution) still fails to account for many facts\nin nature; that we are still far from holding anything like a complete\nscheme in our hands; there may be _limits_ to the wide circle of\nprogressive changes, to the results of development, of which we are\nignorant; and there is, above all, in that most important of all\nquestions--the descent of man--an absolute want of proof of animal\n_descent_ (i.e., in any sense which includes the \"soul\" or spiritual\nfaculties of man). Hence that evolution in no way clashes with an\nintelligent Christian belief. In saying this, I would carefully avoid\nundervaluing the services which the evolution theory has rendered, and\nis rendering, to science. Even in its first form as a mere hypothesis,\nit was an eminently suggestive one; there was from the first quite truth\nenough in it to make it fruitful, and many working hypotheses have been\nimmensely useful in science, which have in the end been very largely\nmodified. Before Darwin's wonderfully accurate mind and marvellous skill\nin collecting and making use of facts, turned the current of natural\nscience into this new channel, men seemed to be without an aim for their\nnaturalist's work. The _savant_, for example, procured an animal\nevidently of the cat tribe, and another species like a polecat. He knew\nas a fact that the feline teeth had a certain structure, and that the\ndental formula of the viverrine animals is different. Here, then, he\ncould distinguish and perhaps name the species; but what more was to be\ndone? All natural history as a study seemed to end in classifying and\ngiving long names to plants and animals. The Evolution theory at once\ngave it a new object. Why is the dental formula of the _viverrinae_\ndifferent? What purpose has the long spur in the flower of _Angraecum_,\nor the marvellous bucket of _Coryanthes_, the flytrap of _Dionaea_, the\npitcher of _Nepenthes_? What is the cause, what is the purpose, what is\nthe plan in the scheme of nature, of these structures? Under the\nstimulus of such questions naturalists woke up to new views of\nclassification, to new experiments, inquiries, and to research for facts\nand the explanation of facts, in all quarters of the globe. No wonder\nthat science rose, under such an impulse, as a butterfly from its\nchrysalis. But some will not be satisfied with any scheme the parts of\nwhich are separated, or which admits of anything unknown or\nunexplainable. They want to unite all into one grand and simple whole,\nwhich glorifies their own intelligence, and does not force them to\nhumble patience and waiting for more light. And then the fatal enmity of\nthe human heart--which is a plain fact, an undeniable tendency--delights\nto get rid of the idea of God's Sovereignty, the humbling sense that\neverything is at His absolute disposal, and nothing could be but as He\nwills it. It seems so satisfactory to eliminate all external mysterious\npower, to make the whole \"_totus teres atque rotundus_\"--having started\nthe great machine of being _somehow_ to see it all expand and unroll\nof itself and advance to the end.\n\nImagination leaps the chasms, minimizes the difficulties, passes from\nthe possible to the certain, from the \"may have been\" to the \"must have\nbeen\" and to \"it was so,\" and, fascinated with the _completeness_ of its\nscheme, commences to denounce and revile as ignorant and unscientific\nall that would, calmly appeal to evidence, and confess ignorance, or at\nleast a suspended judgment, in any stage where the evidence is negative\nor incomplete.\n\nIt has been well observed that \"men are so constituted that completeness\ngives a special kind of satisfaction of its own, and a habit of\nspecially regarding the general uniformity of nature begets a desire to\nassume its absolute and universal uniformity.\"\n\nThere _is_ a great mystery underlying life and the plan in which the\nanimal form, the organs of sight, hearing, and the rest, run through the\nwhole creation: and, given a mystery, there is always ample room for\nspeculation. Taking firm hold of the facts of development and variation,\nthe extreme evolutionist is carried away with the idea of having the\nsame principle throughout: he is impatient of any line or any check; he\nis therefore prepared to ignore all difficulties, to hope\nagainst hope for the discovery of to him necessary--but, alas,\nnon-existent--intermediate forms, till at last he comes to deny, not\nonly his God, but his own soul, as a spiritual and supra-physical\nentity.[1]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Those who want a specimen of the way in which extreme\nevolutionists will _romance_ (it can be called nothing else) will do\nwell to read Dr. H\u00e4ckel's \"History of Creation,\" only they must be on\ntheir guard at every step. The author constantly states as facts (or,\nperhaps, with an impatient \"must have been\") the existence of purely\nhypothetical forms, of which there is _no kind_ of evidence. To such\nends does the love of completeness lead!]\n\nSuch extremes are no part of true science, and have neither helped the\nprogress of knowledge, nor advanced the condition of mankind. But, on\nthe other hand, let us hear no more of a sweeping condemnation of the\ntheory of Evolution as a whole; let us beware of any insistence\non, or assumption of, the supposed fact that God created\nseparately--ready-made and complete--all known animal forms, bringing\nthem up from the ground, like the armed men in the Greek legend, from\nthe dragon's teeth.\n\nWe have no more right to dogmatize and assume a scheme of creation from\na popular and long-accepted interpretation of the Bible, than the\nevolutionist has to ignore the palpable evidences of Divine guidance and\ndesign, and construct a theory or organic being which ignores both.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n_THE GENESIS NARRATIVE--ITS IMPORTANCE_.\n\n\nWe have now completed the first portion of our inquiry: there remains\nthe second, which, to a large class, at any rate, will appear of not\nless importance. For the Scriptures, which they have been taught to\ntrust, contain a brief but direct and positive statement regarding\nCreation, as well as numerous other less direct allusions to the\nsubject, all (as far as I know) in unquestioned harmony with the first.\n\nIs the account in the Book of Genesis true? It is necessary to answer\nthis question, because, even if a general belief in an Almighty Author\nand Designer of all things is shown to be reasonable, still the\nScripture ought surely to support the belief; and it would be strange\nif, when we came to test it on this subject, we found its professed\nexplanations would not stand being confronted with the facts.\n\nNo one will, I think, deny that the question is important. Writers of\nthe \"anti-theological\" school still continue to insist on the falsity of\nthe Mosaic narrative, as if the error was not yet sufficiently slain,\nand was important enough to be attacked again and again. And\ntheological writers, down to the most modern, continue to explain the\ntext in one way or another;--besides, _they_ admit the importance, under\nany circumstances. I do not forget that there is a school of thought,\nwhich is distinctly Christian in its profession, but does not allow the\nimportance. It would regard the narrative as addressed to Jews only, and\ntherefore as one which does not concern us. If that was all, it would\nnot be needful for me to discuss the position. But it has been held, not\nonly that the narrative does not concern us, but _also_ that it is\ncertainly inaccurate.\n\nThis view I cannot adopt: it seems not quite fair to ourselves, and not\nquite fair to the Jews. Let me explain what I mean. If we have nothing\nto do with the narrative, let us abstain _equally_ from defending it\n_or_ pronouncing it wrong--that is for ourselves. As to the Jewish\nChurch, a little more must be said. Let us admit, at any rate for\nargument's sake, that the separation between the Jewish formal and\nceremonial religion and Christianity is as wide as can be wished. Nor\nwould I undervalue the importance of insisting on pure Christianity, as\ndistinct from Judaism. And, further, let us (without any question as to\nultimate objects) regard the narrative as primarily addressed to Jews,\nand let us admit that it may have been unimportant, for the purpose of\nthe first steps in Divine knowledge, that any account should be given of\nCreation beyond the primary fact that all idolatrous cosmogonies were\nfalse, and that the Unseen God of Israel alone made the heavens and the\nearth \"in the beginning.\" Why should the Jews have received that truth\nthrough the medium of a story of which the whole framework was false,\nand nothing but the moral true? The framework, moreover, is one so\nplainly _professing to be fact_, that it was certain to be received as\nsuch by a simple people. It seems to me that there is something very\nsuspicious, something repugnant to notions of truth and honest dealing,\nin the possible communication of underlying Divine truth through the\nmedium of stories, which are not stories on the face of them, but\nprofess and pretend to be statements of fact and authoritatively made.\n\nBut, further, it cannot be denied that, whatever allowance may have to\nbe made under the early Jewish dispensation for the ideas and weaknesses\nof a semi-barbarous people, whatever \"winking\" there may have been \"at\ntimes of ignorance,\" the main object was, by a gradual revelation,[1] by\na system of typical ordinances and ceremonies, to lead up to the full\nspiritual light of the Christian dispensation. Everything written, said,\nor done, was a step--however small an one--always tending in the one\ndirection, according to the usual law of Evolution. The Christian\nbeliever may then look back to the early stages as imperfect\nforeshadowings and dim illustrations of the whole truth; but he would, I\nshould think, on any ordinary principles, be shocked to find truth\ndeveloped out of positive error. And should the error have been\ndiscovered, as it now is[2] (in the view of these I am contending\nagainst), this discovery might have arrested the further development of\nDivine truth altogether. If Moses, or whoever wrote the Book of\nGenesis--we will not cavil at that--was allowed to compose his own\nfancies or beliefs on the subject of Creation, _and to state them as\nDivine fact_ (no matter that the reader at the time was not able to find\nout the error), would not grave suspicion attach to whatever else he put\nforward? Who could tell that, on any other subject, the plainest and\nmost direct statement of fact was not equally a fancy, only embodying or\nenshrining (under the guise of its errors) some real Divine facts? If\nGenesis i. is unreliable, we have a case of a writer going out of his\nway to add to certain truths, which might easily have been stated by\nthemselves, a number of positive declarations, _as of Divine authority_,\nregarding facts, which are not facts.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: I am not aware of any authority, living or dead, who has\ngone so far as to deny that God's revelation to the Jewish Church was in\nany way connected with Christianity; that it was not even a stage of\nprogress, or preparatory step towards the kingdom of Christ.]\n\n[Footnote 2: And was _sure to be_ sooner or later, when a science of\nBiology and Palaeontology became possible.]\n\nThe great truths that God is really the Maker and Author of all things,\nand that man has a spiritual being, and so forth, surely _gain nothing_\nfrom being conveyed to the world in the folds of a fable. And when it\nis not in a confessed fable, but a fable put forth as fact--\"God said,\"\n\"God created,\" \"it was so\"--not only is there no gain, but our sense of\nfitness and of truth receive a shock. A parable is always discernible as\na parable, a vision as a vision. When our Lord, for example, tells us of\nthe ten virgins, we do not suppose Him to be revealing the actual\nexistence of ten such maidens, wise and foolish. We know that He is\nreading a lesson of watchfulness. But looking at the Genesis narrative,\nwho could suppose it to be a parable? If sober, unmistakable statement\nof fact is possible, we surely have it here, in intention, at least.\n\nThe plan of teaching truth in an envelope of error is _per se_ difficult\nto conceive. But how much worse is it when we consider--what criterion\ndoes mankind possess for disinterring and distinguishing the elements of\ntruth? If in religion we had only to do (as some would perhaps contend)\nwith obvious enforcements of common morality and kindness, there might\nbe a possibility of getting over the difficulty, because man would\npossess some kind of criterion whereby to distinguish what was\nfictitious, by the simple process of considering whether any given\nstatement bore on morals or not. Such a test would not indeed go very\nfar, because the human race is by no means agreed on all moral\nquestions; nor does it always find it easy to say what is, and what is\nnot, directly or indirectly connected with morals. But, in fact, the\nscope of religion cannot be so confined: and then the difficulty\nreturns; for a revelation that tells us anything of the nature of God\nand His method of government, of the nature of our own being and of a\nfuture state, must necessarily go beyond our own ethical knowledge and\npowers of judging, or it would not be a revelation. Supposing that the\nrevelation regarding such vital subjects is occasionally conveyed\nthrough the medium of erroneous statements, where in any given case\nwould be the certainty as to what was Divine truth, and what not so?\n\nThis argument applies equally to another school of thinkers, who do not\ncare to tell us what the narrative in itself means: who believe that God\ndid not do what He is said to have done in Genesis, and yet who hold\nthat the narrative is in a sense inspired, and that we may learn from it\nthe great facts that God (and none other) originated all things--that\nman has a spiritual element in his nature, and that woman is equal in\nnature, but subordinate in position, to man, and so forth. Not only is\nenlightened judgment, even, inadequate to pronounce with certainty on\nhow much is true; but the strange feeling still remains, if God designed\nto teach us these truths only, why was it not possible to enable the\nwriter[1] to state them without the (purely gratuitous) error? The\nsufferance of such a strange and unnecessary mixture of error seems\nrather like that \"putting to confusion\" of the human mind, which we feel\nsure the Great Teacher would never willingly perpetrate.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: For on the supposition stated, there _is_ a revelation in\nthe text. Nor could any class of believer deny this. It is entirely\nunnecessary to define the kind and extent of insphation. But \"all\nScripture is '_theopneustos_'\"--I leave the word purposely untranslated\n(2 Tim. iii. 16); that surely means that the Divine Spirit exercised\n_some kind_ of continuous control over the writers.]\n\nNor, again, can the narrative be got over by saying it is a poetic side\nor aspect of the facts, and not to be taken literally. If any one knows\nexactly what this means, and can tell us always how to translate the\nmatter into plain language, it is to be wished that he would enlighten\nthe world as to the process. But even if such process exists infallibly\nand universally, still, one would suppose, the narrative must, to begin\nwith, be unmistakable poetry. And here, again, the narrative bears every\nmark of an intention to state facts, not poetic aspects of facts. Nor\ncan we take the narrative as belonging to a familiar class in Scripture\nwhere a dream is used as a vehicle of communication. In those cases\nthere is really no room for doubt; the visible facts themselves are\nobviously designed only to typify or represent some other facts.\n\nThe events stated in Genesis are not of this class. Those, therefore,\nwho would be content with getting over the narrative without caring for\nits details, can, I must suspect, have hardly given adequate attention\nto the form and to the contents of the narrative as it stands. Not only\nare the statements positive, but, taking any interpretation whatever of\nthem, they are not nearly imaginative enough to suit the purpose.\n\nThey have an obvious amount of relation to fact which has never been\ndenied.[1]\n\nIf the narrative is purely human even (and that the school we are\nconsidering do not aver), how did the writer come to be accurate even to\nthat extent? Take only the order of events. I admit it does not\ncorrespond with the geologic record in the way commonly asserted; yet it\nhas a very remarkable relation to that sequence.\n\nNow, in any case, the writer could have had no knowledge of any kind _of\nhis own_ on the subject: how did he hit on this particular\narrangement?[2] It is a mere matter of calculation on the well-known\nrules of permutation and combination to realize in how many different\nways the same set of events could have been arranged; the number is very\nconsiderable.\n\nAnd he could derive no assistance from any similar existing narrative.\nIf we conclude from the Assyrian discoveries that a non-biblical but\nsimilar narrative existed, still it is certain that the principal one we\nas yet have is so late in date, that it is more likely to be derived\nfrom the Bible than the Bible from it. And though, on referring to the\nearlier tablets, we find traces of the same narrative, it is so obscured\nby idolatrous and false details, that the Bible writer must have had to\nmake a virtually new departure to get his own simple narrative. A\nre-revelation would be required. As to all other cosmogonies, Egyptian,\nIndian, and Buddhistic, nothing can be more opposed in principle and in\ndetail than they are to the severe and stately simplicity and directness\nof the Mosaic.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Not even, for example, by Professor H\u00e4ckel.]\n\n[Footnote 2: How, for example, did the writer come to introduce the\nadjustment of hours of daylight and seasons in the _middle_, after so\nmuch work had been done? How did he come to place _birds_ along with\nfish and water monsters, and not separately?]\n\nWe cannot, then, account for the narrative on human grounds; nor can we\nsuppose that any inspiring control would have given the author so much\ntruth, and yet allowed so much error.\n\nAll this points to only one of two possible conclusions: either the\nnarrative is not inspired at all, and is a mere misleading story, into\nwhich the name of God is introduced by the author's piety--and so really\nteaches us nothing, since it is not revelation; _or_ the narrative is,\nas a whole, divinely dictated, and must be true _throughout_, if we can\nonly arrive by due study at its true meaning. That part of it is, or may\nbe, true, even on the most cursory study, is not denied; that it is\n_all_ true will appear, I think, in the sequel.\n\nBut there is a shorter and simpler reason why the rejection of the\nnarrative in Genesis would be a direct blow to Christian faith. The\nplain truth is that it can hardly be denied, by any candid student of\nthe New Testament, that our Lord and His apostles certainly received the\nearly chapters of Genesis as of Divine authority. This has always been\nperceived by the whole school of writers opposed to the Faith. They\ntherefore continue to attack these early revelations, and rejoice to\noverturn them if they can, because they are aware that hardly any\nchapters in the Bible are more constantly alluded to and made the\nfoundation of practical arguments by our Lord and His apostles.\n\nIf these chapters can be shown to be mythical, then the Divine knowledge\nof our Lord as the Son of God, and the inspiration of His apostles, are\ncalled in question. In the New Testament, especially, there are repeated\nand striking allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the\nSerpent, and the entrance into the world of sin and death. Our Lord\nHimself places the whole argument of His teaching on marriage and the\npermissibility of divorce on Genesis ii. 24 (_cf_. St. Matt. xix. and\nSt. Mark x.). In St. John viii. 44 our Lord clearly alludes to the\nEdenic narrative when He speaks of the tempter as a \"manslayer ([Greek:\nanthropoktonos]) from the beginning.\" Still more remarkable is the\nargument of St. Paul in Romans v.; altogether based as it is on the\nhistorical verity of the account of the Fall; and other allusions are to\nbe found in 1 Cor. xi. 8, in 2 Cor. xi. 3, in the Epistle to the\nEphesians, and elsewhere. In short, there are at least sixty-six\npassages in the New Testament, in which the first eleven chapters of\nGenesis are directly quoted or made the ground of argument. Of these,\nsix are by our Lord Himself, two being direct quotations;[1] six by St.\nPeter, thirty-eight by St. Paul, seven by St. John, one by St. James,\ntwo by St. Jude, two by the assembled apostles, three by St. Luke, and\none by St. Stephen.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: St. Matt. xix. 4; St. Luke xvii. 27; and perhaps we might\nadd a third--St. Matt. xxiii. 35.]\n\nWe cannot, in fact, possibly avoid the conclusion that our Lord and His\napostles admitted the Divine origin and historical truth of these\nchapters.\n\nTherefore, we are bound as Christians to accept them, and that without\nglossing or frittering away their meaning, when we have arrived, by just\nprocesses, at what that meaning really is.\n\nThe fact just stated further warns us against accepting an indefinite\ninterpretation which, while it acknowledges the truth of the general\nconclusion, still virtually, if not in so many words, allows that the\ndetails may be wholly inaccurate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n_SCRIPTURE METHODS OF REVELATION_.\n\n\nPassing, then, to a consideration of the explanations of the narrative\nthat may be or have been given at various times, I would first call\nattention to the fact, that it seems in many instances to have been the\ndistinct purpose of Divine inspiration to allow the meaning of some\npassages to be obscure; perhaps among other reasons, that men might be\ncompelled to study closely, to reason and to compare, and thus to become\nmore minutely acquainted with the record. Especially in a case of this\nsort, where the world's knowledge of the facts would necessarily be\ngradual, was it desirable that the narrative should be confined in\nscope, and capable of being worked out and explained by the light of\nlater discoveries; because, had the narrative really (as has long been\nsupposed) been revealed to tell us what was the actual course of\nevolution of created forms on earth, it would not only have occupied a\ndisproportionate space in the sacred volume, but would have been\nunintelligible to the world for many centuries, and would have given\nrise to much doubting and false argument, to the great detriment of\nmen's spiritual enlightenment. It would have diverted men's minds from\nthe great moral and conclusion of the whole (and here it is that the\n\"moral\" or conclusion is so important) to set them arguing on points of\nnatural science.\n\nThe Bible was never intended (so far we may agree with all the schools\nof thought) to be a text-book on biology or geology. We need rather to\nbe impressed with the great facts of God's Sovereignty and Providence,\nand to know definitely that all the arrangements of our globe and all\nforms of life are due to Divinely-created types. This is exactly secured\nby the narrative as it stands; but such a purpose would not be served by\na narrative which, while it contained these great facts, had them\nenwrapped in a tissue of unnecessary and false details. And therefore it\nis, if I may so far anticipate my conclusion, that the narrative has no\ndirect concern with how, when, and where, the Creation slowly worked\nitself out under the Divine guidance which is still elaborating the\ngreat purpose of the \"ages\"; it confines our attention to what God, the\ngreat Designer, did and said in heaven, as preliminary to all that was\nto follow on earth. The former was not a proper subject for revelation,\nbecause man would in time come to learn it by his studies on earth; but\nthe latter all ages could only learn--the first as well as the\nlatest--from a Divine Revelation.\n\nAgain, let me address a few words to those who are tempted, half\nunconsciously perhaps, to think that any lengthy prelude and \"elaborate\"\nexplanation of Genesis must condemn the narrative _\u00e0 priori_, or be\nderogatory to the dignity of Revelation. Why the narrative should be\nbrief and concise I have just suggested. That it needs explanation of\n_some_ sort is inevitable, because it _must_ be put into human language;\nand directly such language is employed, we come upon such terms as \"let\nthere be,\" \"he created,\" and \"days,\" which do not always call forth the\nsame ideas in all minds.\n\nIt will not have escaped the attention of any earnest student, that\nScripture has several different methods of describing things so as to\nreveal them to men. This, a moment's reflection will enable us to\nexpect. However high and wonderful the things to be stated are, in order\nto be brought within reach of human understanding _they must be\nexpressed in terms of human thought and experience_; and these are\nimperfect and essentially inadequate. Hence it is, that many truths have\nto be brought before us in special or peculiar ways.\n\nHow, for instance, are we told of the temptation and fall of man? How\nare we to understand what was meant by the Tree of Life or the Tree of\nKnowledge of Good and Evil, or by the Serpent speaking and beguiling\nEve? We are at a great loss to give a precise explanation, though the\npractical meaning is not difficult.\n\nThe facts may be none the less true, though from their transcendental\ncharacter it may have been necessary to put them down in mysterious,\npossibly even in merely allegorical, language. Another instance of this\nmight be given in the account of Satan in the presence of the Lord as\ndescribed in the Book of Job, or of the lying Spirit described by\nMicaiah when prophesying before Ahab. It maybe that these narratives\ndescribe to us transactions in a world beyond our own, which _could_\nonly be conveyed to us in figures or in imperfect form. When St. Paul\nwas caught up into the third heaven, he \"heard unspeakable things\" which\nit was not _possible_ for him to utter--the medium of expression was\nwanting. Divine or mysterious things have, then, to be described in\npeculiar language which is not always easy to understand. Nor, having\nrespect to the varying requirements of the different ages, or the\ncircumstances of the time and of the inspired writer, is it easy to\nunderstand why any particular form of communication was selected, though\ndoubtless if we knew more we should see a good reason for it. This gives\nus one class of Scripture passages--of methods of revelation. On the\nother hand, there are in Scripture many facts of the highest import, and\nin themselves of transcendent magnitude, which are yet capable of being\nstated without any possibility of our interpreting or understanding the\nnarrative in more ways than one. When it is stated that Christ Jesus\nrose from the dead, we know beyond all reasonable doubt what is meant.\nThe fact may be true or false, but the narrative of the fact needs no\nexplanation; there are no terms which need expansion--which could bear\nmore than one possible meaning, and which could be used accordingly in\none sense or another. This instances a second class. Again, we can bring\nforward yet another class of Scripture revelations, namely, passages\nwhich are necessarily understood with reference to certain other matters\nwhich are unexpressed but are taken for granted, or in which the words\nused may bear more than one meaning, or a meaning which is uncertain or\nobscure. If the unexpressed matter can be supplied without doubt, then\nall ages will agree in the interpretation; and if the terms can (by\nreference to context or otherwise) be explained, the same result\nfollows: if not, then in interpreting the narrative, each age will _make\nits own assumption_ regarding the terms used, on the basis of such\nknowledge as it possesses. It follows, then, inevitably, that if the\nstate of knowledge varies, the interpretation will be different\naccording to the different standard of knowledge, according to which the\nnecessary assumptions are made. And yet all the while the authority of\nthe passage itself is not touched. As it is unquestionable that such\ndifferent classes of passage do occur in Scripture, it is merely a\nquestion of criticism whether any given passage is of this class or\nthat, and whether its terms do admit of or require explanation. It is no\ndoubt possible to make mistakes and to err by refusing the direct\nmeaning, and giving to the terms an assumed meaning for which there is\nno real necessity.[1] We have always to be on our guard against giving\nspecial meanings to words where they are not required; but granted that\ncaution, there undoubtedly are passages in which either the terms\nthemselves are not plain, or in which they may really have a meaning\ndifferent from the ordinary one.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: As, for example, where persons desirous to get over the\nplain reference to Baptism in St. John iii. 5, try to explain away the\nterm \"water\" to mean something metaphorically but not actually water.]\n\nTo descend from the general to the particular, it is obvious that the\naccount of Creation in Genesis i., ii. is in such a form that we must\nassume our own ideas of the term \"day\" therein employed, and also those\nto be attached to \"created\" and similar terms.\n\nIn early times, no one would take \"day\" to mean anything else but an\nearth day of the ordinary kind, and no one would question whether or not\nthe whole existing animals and plants, or their ancestors, appeared on\nearth in six such days, or whether anything else was meant. Again, by\nthe time St. Augustine was writing, a little more knowledge of nature\nand a little more habit of reasoning about the origin of things was in\nthe world, and that knowledge led people to suppose that creation meant\nonly the making of things \"out of nothing,\" but that it would take\nlonger than six times twelve hours, so that \"days\" might mean \"periods.\"\n\nAnd people imagined for a long time that--taking for an example the\nwork in the middle of the narrative--there was a time when the earth\nemerged from the tumult of waters, that it then got covered with plants,\nthe waters remaining barren of life; but that when the plants had come\nup all over the ground, then the waters all at once became full of all\nsorts of sea-shells, fish, and monsters of the deep, and so on.\n\nThey did all this, by naturally _assuming_ that the terms \"creation,\"\n\"day,\" &c., meant what the _existing state of knowledge_ at the time\nsuggested.\n\nAt the present day, one would have supposed that every one must feel\nthat while the term \"day\" might or might not admit of explanation,\ncertainly _creation_ (i.e., terms implying it) did require very great\ncare in interpreting, and very great consideration as to what they\nreally meant But however that may be, we have here a passage which\n_must_ have an explanation; and which must have an explanation that\ndepends on the state of knowledge.\n\nThe utility of Revelation is not negatived by this necessary result of\nthe employment of human language in describing the facts. It was _not_\nnecessary before, that all should be understood; it may be now\nincreasingly necessary in the purposes of God that it should be. At any\nrate the fact is so, that in former days people did not possess the data\nfor knowing fully what creation meant, and certainly they do now possess\nit to a very much greater extent at least. Always men could learn from\nthe narrative what it always was important for them to learn, namely,\nGod's Sovereignty and Authorship. It is in this way that the value of\nthe _general_ teaching of the narrative comes out, and not by trying to\nallow a mixture of truth and falsehood in Revelation. All is and always\nwas true; but _all_ the truth was not equally extractable at all times.\n\nAgain: the dignity of the old written Revelation is not compromised\nbecause God has virtually given a further revelation in His works,\ni.e., by enabling man to know more about the rock-strata and the\nsuccession of life on the earth. That is what it really comes to. It\nshould never be forgotten that the book of Nature _is_ a revelation.\n\nThe _works_ of God, if interpreted truly, are evidence of the same\nnature as the _word_ of God if interpreted truly. God has created man\nand his reason. It is impossible to suppose that it can be unrighteous\nreasoning in God's sight, to derive from the facts of nature any\nlegitimate conclusion to which those facts point. It is childish to\nbelieve that God created ready-made--if I may so speak--rocks with\nfossils in them, marks of rain-drops showing which way the wind blew at\nthe time, foot-prints of birds, animals with remains of the prey they\nhad been feeding on, in their stomachs, and so forth. It is perfectly\nreasonable and right to conclude certainly, that those creatures were\nonce living beings; that the surface of the earth was once a soft\nsediment which received the impression of the rain-drops as they fell;\nand that stratified rocks were deposited out of lakes and seas, as we\nsee alluvial strata deposited at the present day. It is impossible,\ntherefore, that (if we are not misled by appearances) any\nwell-ascertained fact can be contrary to the truth of God as explained\nby Revelation. If we are not sure of the facts of nature, we must wait\npatiently till further knowledge enlightens us, and must not hastily\nconclude that the Bible is wrong. The repeated corrections which\nsuccessive years have compelled us to make in conclusions which were\nonce firmly accepted and proclaimed as \"truths of science,\" should teach\nus caution in this respect.\n\nNor, lastly, is it any reproach to the Church, as keeper of the Divine\nRevelation, that its opinion of certain passages should vary with the\ngrowth of knowledge. It would be hardly necessary to make this obvious\nremark but for the fact that it has been reproached against Christian\nbelief, that science is contrary to the Bible, and that the Church has\never had to confess itself wrong, after having persecuted people for not\nfollowing its peculiar views. It is, indeed, unfortunate that a blind\nzeal for God has led, in the past, to persecution; the Church failing to\nsee that such men as Galileo and Bruno never denied God at all, nor did\ntheir discoveries really contradict the Word. But persecution is not a\nsin peculiar to the Church; it is a sin of human nature.\n\nIt is also true that Christian views may be wrong, but the fault is in\nthe views, not in the Bible.\n\nScientific men, of all people, should be the last to complain of\n_change_ in views, seeing that what was science two hundred years ago is\nnow (much of it) exploded nonsense.\n\nThere is no harm whatever in changing our views about the meaning of\ndifficult passages--provided we never let go our hold on the central\ntruth, and put the error to our own account, not saying that the Word\nitself is wrong.\n\nIt may, in this connection, be at once observed that any particular\nexplanation, or that one which I propose presently to suggest, of the\nfirst chapters of Genesis, may not commend itself to the reader, and yet\nthe general argument I have adduced will hold good notwithstanding.\n\nAll that I care to contend is, that science does not contradict a\nsyllable of the narrative on _one_ possible interpretation, and that\nchanges in view as to interpretation are no arguments against the truth\nof the passage itself.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n_METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE--ASSUMPTIONS OF MEANING TO\nCERTAIN TERMS._\n\n\nReturning, then, to the narrative in the Book of Genesis, I think we may\ntake it as clear that the passage stands in such a concise and condensed\nform, that it is obviously open to _be interpreted_. Further, that we\nshould not be surprised if the interpretation at the present day, with\nour vastly increased knowledge of Nature, is different from what it was\nin earlier times.\n\nI make no apology for repeating this so often, because it is really\namazing to see the way in which \"anti-theological\" writers attack what\n_they suppose_ to be the interpretation of the narrative, or what some\none else supposes to be such, and seem to be satisfied that in so doing\nthey have demolished the credibility of the narrative itself.\n\nIf you choose to assume that Creation as spoken of by the sacred writer\nmeans some particular thing, or even if the mass of uneducated or\nunreflecting people assume it and you follow them, I grant at once that\nthe narrative can be readily made out to be wrong.\n\nPermit me, then, to repeat once more, that the narrative is in human\nlanguage, and uses the human terms \"created,\" \"made,\" and \"formed,\" and\nthat these terms _do_ (as a matter of fact which there is no gainsaying)\nbear a meaning which is not invariable. Hence, without any glossing or\n\"torturing\" of the narrative, we are under the plain obligation to seek\nto assign to these terms a true meaning _with all the light that modern\nknowledge_ can afford.\n\nNow (having already considered the school of interpretation which\ndeclines to attend to the exact terms) we can confine our attention to\ntwo classes of interpreters. One explains the term \"days\" to mean long\nperiods of time; the other accepts the word in its ordinary and most\nnatural sense, and endeavours to eliminate the long course of\ndevelopmental work made known to us by palaeontological science, and\nsupposes all that to have been passed over in silence; and argues that a\nfinal preparation for the advent of the man Adam was made in a special\nwork of six days.\n\nAll the well-known attempts at explanation, such as those of Pye-Smith,\nChalmers, H. Miller, Pratt, and the ordinary commentaries, can be placed\nin one or other of these categories.\n\nNow, as regards both, I recur to the curious fact (already noted) that\nit seems never to enter into the conception of either school to inquire\nfor a moment what the sacred writer meant by \"created\"--God\n\"created\"--God said \"let there be.\" It _is_ curious, because no one can\nreasonably say \"these terms are obvious, they bear their own meaning on\nthe surface;\" a moment's analysis will scatter such an idea to the\nwinds. Yet the terms _are_ passed by. The commentators set themselves\nright earnestly to compare and to collate, to argue and to analogize, on\nthe meaning of the term \"days;\" the other term \"created\" they take for\ngranted without--as far as I am aware--single line of explanation, or so\nmuch as a doubt whether they know what it really means!\n\nThe interpretation that I would propose to the judgment of the Church is\njust the very opposite. It seems to me that the word _day_ as used in\nthe narrative needs no explanation; it seems to me that the other does.\nAs regards the term \"day,\" it is surely a rule of sound criticism never\nto give an \"extraordinary\" meaning to a word, when the \"ordinary\" one\nwill give good and intelligible sense to a passage. And looking to the\nfact that, after all, when the days of Genesis _are_ explained to mean\nperiods of very unequal but possibly enormous duration, that explanation\nis not only quite useless, but raises greater difficulties than ever, I\nshould think it most likely that the \"day\" of the narrative should be\ntaken in the ordinary sense. But of this hereafter.\n\nOn the other hand, with regard to the terms \"creation,[1]\" \"created,\"\n\"Let there be,\" and so forth, I find ample room for the most careful\nconsideration and for detailed study before we can say what is meant.\nEven then there remains a feeling of profound mystery. For at the very\nbeginning of every train of reflection and reasoning on the subject, we\nare just brought up dead at this wonderful fact, the existence of\n_matter_ where previously there had been _nothing_. The phrase \"created\n_out of_ nothing\" is of course a purely conventional one, and, strictly\nspeaking, has no meaning; but we adopt it usefully enough to indicate\nour ultimate fact--the appearance of matter where previously there had\nbeen nothing. Nor is the difficulty really surmounted by alleging such a\nmere _phrase_ as \"matter is eternal,\" for we have just as little mental\nconception of self-existent, always--and _without beginning_--existent\nmatter, as we have of \"creation out of nothing.\"\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The entire silence of commentators regarding the doubtful\nmeaning of \"creation\" is so surprising, that I have had the greatest\ndifficulty in persuading myself that the explanation I propose is new.\nYet certainly I have never come across it anywhere.]\n\nThe human mind has always a difficulty when it is brought face to face\nwith something that is beyond the scope not only of its own practical,\nbut, even of its theoretical or potential ability.\n\nThe \"creation,\" therefore, of matter by a Divine Power is matter of\n_faith_, as I endeavoured to set forth in the earlier pages of this\nlittle work; but it is _reasonable_ faith, because it can be supported\nby sound reasoning from analogy and strong probability.\n\nAll our attention, then, I submit, should be directed to understanding\nwhat is \"creation\" in the sacred narrative.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n_THE GENESIS NARRATIVE CONSIDERED GENERALLY._\n\nI.--THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE.\n\n\u00a7 1. _Objections to the Received Interpretations_.\n\n\nTaking the narrative as it stands, we find it to consist of two parts.\nFirst, a general statement, of which no division of time is predicated,\nand which is unaccompanied by any detail. Second, there is an account\nseriatim of certain operations which are stated to have been severally\nperformed one on each of six days.\n\nAs regards the first portion, we have no definite knowledge of\nscientific truth with which to compare the narrative. It is obviously\nnecessary for some Divine teacher to tell us authoritatively that God\noriginated and caused the material earth, and the systems of suns and\nstars which men on the earth's surface are able to discern in the\n\"heavens.\"\n\nWe are consequently informed that in the beginning--there is no\npractical need for defining further--\"God created the heavens and the\nearth.\" Here the question arises whether the Hebrew \"bara,\" which is a\ngeneral term, alludes to the first production of material, or to the\nmoulding or fashioning of material already (in terms) assumed to exist.\nI think that the conclusion must be that the best authority is in favour\nof the idea of absolute origination of the whole;--the bringing the\nentire system into existence where previously there was a perfect blank.\nBut even if the secondary meaning of \"fashioned\" or \"forged\" be allowed,\nwe have still an intelligible rendering. For in that case the first\norigination of matter is tacitly assumed by the term itself, and the\nstatement would be, that the matter of the future cosmos so existing,\nthe Divine Artificer fashioned or moulded it into the orderly fabric it\nhas come to be.\n\nThe narrative then at once refers to our earth, with which, and with its\ninhabitants, the whole volume is to be in future directly concerned.\n\"The earth was (or became) without form and void (chaotic), and darkness\nwas on the face of the deep (or abyss).\"\n\nWe have no positive knowledge of what the first condition of terrestrial\nmatter was, apart from Revelation. The remarkable discoveries that the\nspectroscope has enabled, and the facts learned from the physical\nhistory of comets and meteorites, can do no more than make what is known\nas the \"nebular hypothesis\" highly probable. But it is amply sufficient\nfor our purpose to point out, that if it is true that matter originated\nin a nebulous haze to the particles of which a spiral rotatory motion\nhad been communicated, and if (confining our attention to one planet\nonly) that attenuated matter gradually aggregated in a ring or rings,\nand then consolidated into a solid or partly solid globe, then the\nresults are briefly, but adequately and sublimely, provided for by the\nform of the Mosaic statement.\n\nMatter thus aggregating would have developed an enormous amount of heat,\nand there would have been a seething mass of molten mineral matters,\nwith gases and other materials in the form of vapours, which would have\ngradually cooled and consolidated. Vast masses of water would in time be\nformed on one hand, and solid mineral masses on the other; the latter\nwould contract as cooling progressed, causing great upheavals and\ndepressions and contortions of strata. And before the advent of\nlife-forms, it is not difficult to conceive that the first state of our\nglobe was one which is intelligibly and very graphically described as\nbeing \"without form and void.\" Nothing more than that, can, from actual\nphysical knowledge, be stated.[1]\n\nIt is also stated that this confused elemental state of our earth was\naccompanied at first by darkness. Material darkness that is--for the\npotentiality of light and order was there; the SPIRIT OF GOD \"moved\" (or\nbrooded) upon the face of the abyss. This presents no difficulty of\ninterpretation, and may therefore be passed over for the present.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: It would be hardly necessary (but for some remarks in the\ncourse of the Gladstone-Huxley controversy) to observe that the term\n\"void\" does not imply vacuity or emptiness, as of _substance,_ but\nabsence of defined form such as subsequently was evolved.]\n\nPractically, indeed, there has been no grave difficulty raised over this\nfirst portion. And if it is argued (on the ground of what I have already\nin general terms indicated) that the term \"created\" will, on my own\ninterpretation, get us into difficulties, I reply that here, in its\nposition and with the context, there is no room for doubt, for clearly\nthe word implies _both_ the great primary idea of the Divine design or\nplan formulated in heaven, _and_ the subsequent result in time and\nspace.[1] This will become more clear when I have further explained the\nsubject.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: And of course if the true sense be \"fashioned\" or\n\"moulded,\" the question does not arise.]\n\nII.--THE SECOND PART OF THE NARRATIVE.\n\n\nBut from this point the narrative commences to be more precise, and to\nexhibit a very singular and altogether unprecedented division of\ncreative work into \"days.\"\n\nNow I have already indicated my doubt whether we ought to import any\nunusual meaning to explain this term.\n\nIn the first place, the objection that till the movements and relations\nof the sun to the earth were ordained there would be no _measure of a\nday_ will not stand a moment's examination. Nor will the further\nobjection sometimes made, that even with the sun, a day is a very\nuncertain thing: for example, a day and a night in the north polar\nregions are periods of month-long duration, quite different from what\nthey are in England, or at Mount Sinai. Obviously, a \"day\" with\nreference to the planet for which the term is used, means the period\noccupied by one rotation of the planet on its own axis. The rotation of\nthe earth is antecedent to anything mentioned in the narrative we are\nconsidering. In the nature of things, it would have been coeval with the\nintroduction of the _prima materies_--at least if any nebular hypothesis\ncan be relied on. The \"day\" would be there whether it were obscured by\nvapours or not, and whether specially made countable and recognizable by\nwhat we call the rising and setting of the sun, or not, and whether we\nwere standing in Nova Zembla or in Australia.\n\nNor is it of much use to refer to the general use of \"day\" for\nindefinite periods, which is just as common in the English of to-day as\nit was in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the double use of the\nterm in different senses has become general, just because it was found\nin practice that no confusion ordinarily resulted; and surely such a\npractice would not have been common, or at any rate would have been\nspecially avoided in the sacred volume, wherever any mistake or\nconfusion was likely or even possible.\n\nNo one can mistake what is meant when allusion is made to \"the day in\nwhich God made the heaven and the earth.\" No one falls into doubt when\nthe \"days\" of the prophets are spoken of--any more than they do now when\na man says, \"Such a thing will not happen in my _day_.\"\n\nWhenever in Daniel, or in similar prophetic writings, the term \"day\" is\nused in a peculiar sense as indicating a term of years, we have no\ndifficulty in recognizing the fact from the context and circumstances of\nthe narrative; nor am I aware that any controversy has ever arisen\nregarding the use of the term \"day\" _in any passage of Scripture\nexcepting in this_.\n\nThis fact alone is suspicious; the more so, because there is absolutely\nnothing in the context to indicate that anything but an ordinary day is\nintended. Not only so, but there _is_ in the context something that does\nvery clearly indicate (and I think Dr. R\u00e9ville is perfectly justified in\ninsisting on this) that an ordinary terrestrial day is meant. One of the\nprimeval institutions of Divine Providence for men, my readers will not\nneed to be reminded, was that of a \"Sabbath,\" which any one reading the\ntext would understand to mean a day, and which the Jews--the earliest\nformal or legal recognizers of it--_did_ so understand, and that under\ndirect Divine sanction.\n\nIf the _days_ of Genesis mean indefinite periods of aeonian duration,\nhow is the seventh _day_ of rest to be understood?\n\nBut even if these difficulties are overcome, absolutely nothing is\ngained by taking the day to be a period.\n\nI presume that the object of gaining long periods of time instead of\ndays in reading the Mosaic record, is to assume that the narrative means\nto describe the actual production on the earth of all that was created;\nin other words, to assume a particular meaning for the words \"created,\"\n\"brought forth,\" &c and then to make out that if a whole age is\ngranted, Science will allow us a sequence of a \"plant age\" a \"fish and\nsaurian age,\" a \"bird age,\" and a \"mammalian age\";--that is, in general\nterms and neglecting minor forms of life. But then _to make any sense at\nall with the verses_ we are bound to show that each age preceded the\nnext--that one was more than partly, if not quite completely,\nestablished _before_ any appearance of the next.\n\nIt is to this interpretation that Professor Huxley alludes when he says,\nin his first article,[1] \"There must be some position from which the\nreconcilers of Science and Genesis will not retreat--some central idea\nthe maintenance of which is vital, and its refutation fatal.... It is\nthat the animal species which compose the water population, the air\npopulation, and the land population,[2] respectively, originated during\nthree successive periods of time, and only during those periods of\ntime.\"\n\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Nineteenth Century,\" December, 1885, pp. 856-7.]\n\n[Footnote 2: These (unfortunate) terms are Mr. Gladstone's.]\n\nFor my own part, I hasten to say that, as one of the despised race of\n\"reconcilers,\" not only is this idea no central position from which I\nwill not retreat, but one which I should never think of occupying for\none moment.\n\nBut on the view of the _periods_, some such position must be taken up.\nAnd if so, I must maintain that Professor Huxley has shown--if indeed it\nwas not obvious already--that the idea of a series of periods, and in\neach of which a certain kind of life began and culminated (if it was not\nfully completed) _before_ another began, is untrue to nature. This,\ntherefore, cannot have been intended by the author of Genesis.\n\nI will here interrupt my argument for a moment to say that there is a\n_certain degree_ of _coincidence_ between the succession of life on the\nearth as far as it is explained by palaeontological research, and the\norder of creation stated in Genesis; but that is not concerned with any\nforced interpretation of the term \"day.\" The coincidence is just near\nenough to give rise to a desire to identify creative periods with the\nseries shown by the fossil-bearing rocks; while it is attended with just\nenough of difference to furnish matter for controversy, and to expose\nthe interpreters to be cut up.\n\nBut to return. Nothing, I submit, is gained by getting _day_ to mean\nperiod. Let us put the matter quite squarely. Let us take day to mean\nperiod, and let us take all the verses to mean the _process_ of\n_producing_ on earth the various life-forms.\n\nIn order to come at once to the point, let us begin with the time when\nthe dry land and the waters are separate. At that moment, there is\nnothing said (or implied) about life already having begun in either\nwater or on dry land. God commanded plants to grow; consequently during\nthat _whole period_ nothing but plants, and that of all the kinds and\nclasses mentioned, should appear either in water or on land. That period\nbeing done, then came the command for water animals, fish and great\nmonsters, and also birds. We ought, accordingly, to come next upon a\nwhole period in which no trace of anything but plants and these animals\ncan be found; and lastly, we ought to find the period of mammalia,\nsmaller reptiles, _amphibia_ and insects (creeping things).\n\nThat is the fair and plain result of what comes of supposing the terms\n\"let there be,\" &c., to mean _production on earth of the thing's\nthemselves_, and that the days are long _periods_.\n\nAll overlapping of the periods is inadmissible. All meaning is taken\naway, if we allow of fish (e.g.) appearing in the middle of our first\nperiod; for God did not command another day's work till after the first\nwas completed--\"there was evening and there was morning, a first day\"\n(period), &c.\n\nNo; to suit the text so interpreted, we must have a full _period_ of\nplants with no fish; then a period of both but no insects, no creeping\nthings, no animals; and so on. Now it is quite idle to contend any\nlonger, that any such state of things ever existed.\n\nIf we pass over the long series of the most ancient strata in which\ndoubtful forms of obscure elementary plant and animal life appear\n_almost_ together, we shall come to shell-fish, and crustaceans fully\nestablished in the water, and scorpions, and some insects even on land,\n_before_ plants made any great show. For the Carboniferous--_the_ age of\nacrogen plants, _par excellence_--does not occur till after swarms of\n_Trilobite_ Crustaceans had filled the sea and passed away, and after\nthe Devonian fish-age had nearly passed away; and so on throughout.\n\nThe groups in nature overlap each other so closely, that though\nplant-life (in elementary forms) probably had the actual start;\nvirtually the two kingdoms--plant and animal--appeared almost\nsimultaneously. There is nothing like the appearance of a first period\nin which one _alone_ predominated. And long before the plants are\nestablished in all classes, the great reptiles, birds, and some mammals,\nhad appeared. The seed-bearing plants--true grasses and exogens with\nseed capsules (angiosperms) did not appear till quite Tertiary times.\nThat is the essential difference between the facts and the theory. If we\nmake a diagram, and let the squares represent the main groups, the order\n(according to the period interpretation) ought to be as in A, whereas\nit really more resembles B. Thus.\n\n[Illustration: The dotted extensions of the squares indicate the fore\nrunners of the families, i.e., their first indications in the ages.]\n\n[Illustration: _A New Interpretation suggested_]\n\nBut then it will be asked, if the day means only an ordinary day--not a\nlong period--what is there that actually could have happened, and did\nhappen, in _three days_ (for that is the real point, as we shall see),\nsuch as the writer describes as the third, fifth, and sixth days?\n\nI answer that on those days, and on the previous ones, God did exactly\nwhat He is recorded to have done. After the creation of light (first\nday), and the ideal adjustment of the distribution of land and water\n(second day), He (_a_) \"_created_,\" on the third day, plants, from the\nlowest cryptogam upwards; then (_b_) paused for a day (the fourth) in\nthe direct work of creating life-forms, to adjust certain matters\nregarding times and seasons, and regulation of climate, which doubtless\nwould not be essential during the early stages of life evolution, but\nwould become so directly a certain point was reached; then (_c_) resumed\nthe direct creating work (fifth day), with fishes, great reptiles,[1]\nand birds (grouped purposely so, as we shall see); and, lastly (_d_),\nbefore the Day of Rest, created the group of mammals (_carnivora_ and\n_herbivora_), the \"creeping things\" of the earth, and man (also grouped\ntogether).\n\n\n[Footnote 1: This term may be here accepted for the moment--not to\ninterrupt the argument. It will be more fully dealt with in a subsequent\nchapter.]\n\nBut some one will ask, You then accept the earlier theory, that the\nwhole life-series that is now revealed to us by the rocks, from the\nLaurentian to the Recent, is excluded from the narrative; and that some\nspecial acts of creation, regarding only modern and surviving\nlife-forms, were made immediately before man appeared? By no-means; for\nsuch a theory is not only in itself improbable, but is contrary to all\nthe evidence we possess of life-history on the earth, and is so hopeless\nthat it is really not worth serious examination and refutation.\n\nWe have no evidence of any such gap--such sudden change in the history\nof life. Nor is it possible to find any place in the Mosaic story at\nwhich we could reasonably interpolate a _long_ period, such as that\nindicated by the entire series of rock strata. For a great part of such\na period, not only must there have been a regular succession of life\njust the same in nature (though specifically different) as that now on\nearth, but a regular distribution of land and water, and a settled\naction of the sun and the seasons, would be required. No; we must give\nup all the older methods which try to ignore the study of the word\n\"created,\" or to assume for it a meaning that it is not intended to\nbear.\n\nAll depends, then, on what is meant by such terms as \"created,\" \"let\nthere be,\" \"let the earth bring forth,\" &c. Perhaps it has occurred to\nbut few of my readers seriously to examine into their own mental\nconception of an \"act of creation.\" Some will readily answer, \"Of course\nit means only that at the Divine _fiat_, any given species--say an\nelephant--appeared perfect, trunk, tusks, and all the peculiar\ndevelopment of skull and skeleton, where previously no such creature had\nexisted.\" But what possible reason have they for this conclusion? None\nwhatever. It has simply been carelessly assumed from age to age, because\npeople at first knew no better; and when they began to know better, they\ndid not stop to amend their ideas accordingly.\n\nOf course, as Professor Huxley puts it, millions of pious Jews and\nChristians[1] supposed _creation_ to mean a \"sudden act of the\nDeity\"--i.e., to mean just what the knowledge of the time enabled them\nto imagine. They could do nothing else. The state of knowledge fifty\nyears ago would not have rendered it possible for an article like\nProfessor Huxley's (that to which allusion has several times been made)\nto have been written at all. What wonder, then, that the multitude did\nnot understand what _creation_ meant, and that a reasonable\ninterpretation of the word has only become possible in quite recent\ntimes? Surely all that is the fault of the reader, not of the text. I do\nnot even care that the writer himself did not fully apprehend the\nsubject. When a human prophet is entrusted with the divulgation of high\nand wonderful things, it is quite possible that he may have been to\ngreater or less extent in the dark as to all or some of the\ncommunication he was writing.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Article quoted, p. 857.]\n\nAll that can be reasonably required is that the narrative, as it stands,\nshall be consistent with actual truth, and shall at no time come to be\nprovably at variance with it.\n\nBut let us look at the word \"creation\" more closely. We accept what we\nare told, that in the beginning God called into existence force and\nmatter, the material or \"physical basis,\" and all other necessaries of\nlife. Suppose, then (even dropping the question of Evolution, in order\nto satisfy the \"pious millions\"), that this \"matter\" was all ready (if\nI may so speak) to spring into organized form and being to take shape on\nearth--what shape should it take? Why (e.g.) an elephant? Why not any\nother animal, or a nondescript--a form which no zoologist could place,\nrecognize, or classify? The _form_, the ideal structure, the _formula_,\nof the genus elephant must somehow have come into existence _before_ the\nobedient materials and the suitable forces of nature could work\nthemselves together to the desired end.\n\nMr. Mivart has defined \"creation\" at page 290 of his \"Genesis of\nSpecies.\" There is original creation, derivative or secondary creation\n(where the present form has descended from an ancestor that was\noriginally \"directly\" created), and conventional creation (as when a man\n\"creates a fortune,\" meaning that he produces a complex state or\narrangement out of simpler materials). That is perfectly true, so far;\nbut it is only a verbal definition, and still does not go inside, into\nthe _idea_ involved. We must go farther.\n\nIn every act of creation, two requisites can clearly be distinguished:\n(1) the matter of life, and the forces, affinities, and local\nsurroundings necessary; and (2) the type, plan, ideal, or formula, to\nrealize or produce which, the forces and the matter are to act and\nreact. This second is all-essential; without it the first would only\nproduce a limbo of\n\n\"Unaccomplisht works of Nature's hand,\nAbortive, monstrous, or unkindly mixt.[1]\"\n\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Paradise Lost,\" iii. 455.]\n\nNo _creation_ in _any_ sense whatever could come out of it.\n\nIn the same way, when we speak of the Divine Artificer \"creating,\" or\nsaying \"Let there be,\" there are two things implied: (i) the Divine plan\nor type-form, and its utterance or delivery (so to speak) to the\nbuilder-forces and materials; (2) the result or the translation into\ntangible existence of the Divine plan.\n\nIn every passage speaking of creation it _possible_ that both processes\nmay be implied; it may be clear from the text (as in Genesis i. 1) that\nthis is so. But it is equally possible that the first point only, which\nin some aspects is really the essential matter, is alone spoken of.\n\nAnd I submit that, given the general fact that God originated everything\nin heaven and earth (as first of all stated generally in Genesis i.\n1-3), the essential part of the _detailed_ or _specific_ creation\nsubsequently spoken of, was the Divine origination of the types, the\nideal forms, into which matter endowed with life was to develop;\n_without_ any _necessary_ reference to how, or in what time, the Divine\ncreation was actually realized or accomplished on earth. It may be that\nthe _form_ so conceived and drawn in Nature's book by the Divine\nDesigner is a final form, up to which development shall lead, and beyond\nwhich (at least in a material sense) it shall not go; or it may be that\nit is a type intended to be transitory;[1] but _both the intermediate\nand final forms must take their origin first in the Divine Mind, and be\nprescribed from the Heavenly Throne,_ before the obedient matter and\nforces and the life-endowment could co-operate to result in the\nrealization of the forms and the population of the globe.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The idea which I am endeavouring to make clear is well\nillustrated by another passage in one of the Mosaic books--the account\nof the Tabernacle. Moses had no idea of his own of the structure, its\nfurniture, implements, or the forms of these. The narrative expressly\nstates that the Divine power originated the designs, and caused Moses to\nunderstand them. In a human work the designer would have drawn the\nobjects with measures and specifications, and given the papers to the\nworkmen. With the Divine work, where the design is in the Divine\nThought, and the workmen and builders are forces and elementary matter,\nthe process is a mystery, but in its practical bearing is understood\nfrom analogy. The Tabernacle was truly God's _creation_, because it was\nall commanded in design and \"pattern\" by the Almighty before Moses put\ntogether the materials that realized the pattern in the camp of Israel.]\n\nThe reason why it is the _essential_ part, is, that when once the Divine\ncommand issued, the result followed inevitably--that will \"go without\nsaying.\"\n\nIn human affairs, also, we speak of the architect having _created_ the\npalace or cathedral, or the ironclad; meaning thereby not the slow\nprocess of cutting and joining stone, or riveting steel plates, but the\nhigher antecedent act of mind in evoking the ideal form and providing\nfor all contingencies in the adaptation and subsequent working of the\nfinished structure. And if we limit this use of the term \"creation\"\nsomewhat in speaking of human works, it is because the concept of the\nhuman mind so often fails of realization; that it is one thing to\ndesign, and another to accomplish. The grandest design for a palace may\nfail to stand because some peculiarity of the stone has been forgotten,\nor some character of foundation and subsoil has been misunderstood. The\nnoblest form of turret-ship may prove useless because the strength of\nsome material will not correspond to the ideal, or some curve of\nstability has been miscalculated. Not only this: man may create, as a\nsculptor, the ideal form for his to-be statue, or the dramatist his\ncharacter; but the perfect realization, either in marble or in an actual\nbeing, may be impossible; the ideal remains \"in the air.\" The ideal,\ntherefore, is not the major part of \"creation\" in a human work.\n\nBut with the Divine work it is otherwise. The Divine thought in Creation\nand its result are separated by no possibility of failure. Given the\nmatter and the laws of force and of life, directly the Great Designer\nhas uttered His thought to those that are His builders, they _must_\ninfallibly and without discord, work through the longest terms, it may\nbe, of an evolutionary series, till, every transitional condition\npassed, the final form emerges perfect.\n\nOur very verbal definition, admitting as it does \"derivative\" creation,\nimplies this. We all speak of ourselves as \"created.\" How so? We are not\nproduced ready made. Nor do we wholly solve the matter by saying that we\nare \"created\" because we are born from parents who (if we go far enough\nback) originated in a first production from the hand of Nature. We are\nreally \"created\" because the _design_--the _life-form of us_, which\nmatter and force were to work together to produce--was the direct\nproduct of the Divine Mind.[1]\n\nMy question, therefore, of the Genesis interpreters is: Why will you\ninsist on the text meaning only the second element in Creation--the\nproduction on earth, and not the Design or its issue in heaven?\n\nThe former we could find out some day for ourselves; we _have_ found out\nsome of it (though only some) already; the latter we could never know\nunless we were told. Surely it is the \"_dignus vindice nodus_\" in this\ncase. To tell us the earth's history within a brief space would be\nimpossible, and would have been for ages unintelligible if it could have\nbeen told; to tell us of God's creation is possible--for it has been\ndone; and the record, unless misread, is intelligible for all time.\n\nThe narrative, if it is a revelation of Divine Creation in heaven, takes\nup ground that none can trespass on. None can say \"it is not so,\" unless\neither he will show that the words will not bear the meaning, or that\nthe context and other Scripture contradict it.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: \"_In Thy book_ were all my members written, while _as yet\nthere were none_ of them\" (Psa. cxxxix. 16).\n\n\"How did this all first come to be you?\n_God thought about me_\nand I grew.\"--_Macdonald_.]\n\nSo soon as the matter of earth and heaven (and all that is implied\ntherewith) originated \"in the beginning,\" the narrative introduces to\nour reverent contemplation the solemn conclave in heaven, when, in a\nserial order and on separate days, God declared, for the guidance of the\never potentially active forces, and for materials ever (as we know)\nseeking combination and resolution,[1] the _form_ which the earth\nsurface is (it may be ever so gradually) to take and the _life-forms_\nwhich are to be evolved.\n\nThat this creative work was piecemeal, and on separate days, we know\nfrom the narrative. _Why_ it was so arranged we do not know. Vast as was\nthe work to be done, almost infinite as was the complexity of the laws\nrequired to be formulated, it _could_ have all been done at once, in a\nmoment of time; for time does not exist to the Divine Mind. But seeing\nthat the work was to be on earth, and for the benefit of creatures to\nwhom the divisions of time were all-important, we can dimly, at least,\ndiscern a certain fitness and appropriateness in the gradual and divided\nwork.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The reader will recognize that there is not the least\nexaggeration in this. It is plain matter of fact, as I have endeavoured\nto show in the earlier chapters of this book. Everywhere we see _force_\nready to be evoked by the proper method. Everywhere we see _molecular_\nmotion, and a perpetual combination and resolution of elements and\ncompounds, whether chemical or mechanical.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n_THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES._\n\n\nIn interpreting the narrative before us, we have an important aid which\nhas hardly received the attention it deserves. I allude to the other\npassages of Scripture which were written by men undoubtedly familiar\nwith the Book of Genesis.\n\nNow, in more than one of them, I find the idea that the Creation spoken\nof is the _Divine work in heaven_, and not the subsequent and long\nprocess of its realization on the surface of our globe, fully confirmed.\n\nIn the beautiful thirty-eighth chapter of the very ancient Book of Job,\nwe find a distinct allusion to a time when God \"laid the foundations\" of\nthe earth, prescribed \"its measures,\" made a \"decreed place\" for the\nsea, and framed the \"ordinances of heaven,\" and this in presence of the\nheavenly host assembled--\n\n\"When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted\nfor joy.[1]\"\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Job xxxviii. 7. The sons of God are clearly the angels\n(_cf_. Job i, 6).]\n\nThe same idea can be gathered from the text which I have placed on the\ntitle-page of this book. \"By faith we understand that the aeons (the\nwhole system of nature in its various branches, physical, moral, and\nsocial) were ordained ([Greek: kataertisthai]) by the word of God.\" The\n_process_ of actual development is here passed over, as not being the\nmain thing; what attracts attention is the Divine Design, the \"framing\"\nof the wonderful ideal or ordinance without which the \"aeons\" could not\nproceed to unfold themselves. I do not mean, of course, for a moment to\nimply that, after God had formulated the laws and designed the forms, He\nleft the working out of the results to themselves. I should be sorry if,\nin bringing into prominence what has generally been overlooked, I seemed\nto throw the rest in the shade. God's providence and continued\nsupervision are as important in themselves as the original design:--but\nthis is not the central idea embodied in the passage.\n\nThere is another Scriptural allusion which suggests the idea of a\nHeavenly Conclave, and great act of Creation in heaven. It may be\nconsidered somewhat remote, and even fanciful--but the fact is recorded\n_both_ in the Old Testament and the New, and _something_ must be meant\nby it. And, moreover, other and very meaningless interpretations have\nbeen from the earliest times given, so that I can hardly omit the\nsubject if I would. I refer to the permanent presence in heaven, around\nthe Divine Throne, of the singular forms of being called _Cherubim_,\nwhich seem to indicate some mysterious connection between the life-forms\nof earth and the inhabitants of heaven, and some permanent\nrepresentation of typical created forms in heaven. In Ezekiel, chapter\ni., and again in chapter x., this vision is presented to us.\n\nThe prophet was to be prepared, by a very vivid exhibition of the power\nand glory of God as the Author and Ruler of the universe, to appreciate\nthe depth of degradation to which the Jews had fallen in their rejection\nof such a God as their Lord and King and of the justice of the terrible\noverthrow which was the consequence of that rejection.\n\nThe vision then displayed (as I understand it) GOD surrounded by the\ntypical forms of creation and the irresistible forces of nature. All\nforms of life, all energies of nature, were thus shown to be His\ncreatures. There, around the throne, were four \"cherubim\" of remarkable\nappearance. They were accompanied by the appearances of fiery orbs like\nberyl stones, revolving in all directions with ceaseless energy. Any\naccount of this vision that I can give is, however, pitiable beside the\ninexpressibly sublime picture drawn in Ezekiel, to which I must refer\nthe reader for his own study. And imagine what the feelings of the\nprophet must have been when, fresh from the impression of this grandeur\nof Creation--this glory and irresistible power of God as the Centre and\ngreat Mover of all, he was taken to witness the pitiable sight of the\nJews turning away from His worship, and to see their elders burning\nincense before walls covered with \"every form of creeping things and\nabominable beasts--all the idols of the house of Israel![1]\" How must\nthe vision have prepared him to realize the depth of degradation with\nwhich he had to contend, and have fired him with energy to denounce it!\n\nThere is, then, I think, considerable probability in the contention that\nthe vision represents God in Creation, surrounded by the types of\ncreation and the forces of nature.\n\nThere is, no doubt, the ancient tradition that the four Cherubim meant\nthe four Gospels; and this has now become deeply associated with\necclesiastical symbolism. But I submit that this is only a fancy which\ncan best be left to church embroidery and stained windows; it is\nunworthy of any serious notice. The beings are described, it will be\nobserved, with great minuteness: all have the same characteristic powers\nof rapid motion, and all have _human hands_, a fact that so strikes the\nprophet that he repeats it three times.[2] These four Cherubim, then,\nseem to me clearly to indicate the archetypes of Creation, the great\ndesign-forms of created life, showing themselves the progressive scale\nfrom the Animal to the Man and the Angel. And these four great types\nexactly answer to the resulting groups of created life. We have the\ndevelopment of _Reptilia_ into _Birds_ as one final type; consequently\none face of each cherub has the Bird type--the Eagle head[3]. Two other\nfaces on each give us the _Animal_ type, one representing again the\ngreat order Carnivora (the Lion), the other the Herbivorous Ungulates\n(the Ox or Calf); while the fourth face indicates the last development,\n_Man_.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Ezek. viii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See chapters i. 8, x. 8, and x. 21. Remark, in passing,\nthat the human hand has always been the subject of wonder as an evidence\nof Divine skill in Creation. Sir Charles Bell's Bridgewater treatise, on\nthe human hand as illustrating the proof of Divine wisdom and\ncontrivance in Creation, is just as good an argument _for Design_ now as\never it was. I cannot here resist the temptation to notice one of those\nsmall points in which the accuracy of the Bible is so constantly brought\nto light. The popular notion of angels gives them wings as well as\nhands--a form quite impossible from the natural history point of view;\n_all_ animals of the vertebrate orders never have _more_ than two pairs\nof limbs. And in winged animals the fore-limbs become wings. The popular\nnotion about angels is, however, artistic, not Biblical. Just the\ncontrary in fact. Here _is_ a vision of a mysterious form with wings and\nhands, but how?--the figures are fourfold; and being winged, each\ndivision might have been winged like the eagle, so each cherub would\nhave had _eight_ wings. But as one of the divisions had a human face and\nhuman hands, the prophet only saw _six_ wings to each, leaving one\ndivision where, nature's _Divine type_ being obeyed, there were _hands_,\nand consequently no wings.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Reptiles are unrepresented, perhaps as not being a final\ntype.]\n\nI would say here, as regards the animal creation being represented by a\ndouble form, that it is most curious to notice that this double division\nof animals is found throughout Scripture, and seems to have its\ncounterpart in the actual facts of creation on earth.\n\nAccompanying these created beings in this remarkable vision were\n\"wheels\" which appeared to be spheres within spheres, revolving with\nceaseless activity and never turning, but always going forward. The\nwheels were full of eyes. It appears to me probable that these\nsymbolize--and if so the symbol is at once full of meaning and\ngrandeur--the inevitable, ever wakeful energies and forces of nature,\nthe marvellous agency of electricity, chemical affinity, heat,\nattraction, repulsion, and so forth. We are accustomed to speak of\n\"blind force;\" but here observe the wheels are _full of eyes_, ever\nvigilant to fulfil the purpose for which they are appointed. And this\nrepresentation of _forces_ appears necessary to complete a symbolic\nrepresentation of God in nature: since the world is made up of dead\nmatter, of living forms, and of forces or energies which are in\nceaseless motion and action, producing the changes which in fact\nconstitute the working of the whole system.\n\nI cannot help thinking, therefore, that the imagery of this vision lend\nsupport to the belief that there was a great Creation enacted in heaven,\nwhich was followed by the actual carrying out of the processes on earth,\n_but which has retained its representative forms in the heaven itself_.\nHad this vision stood alone, it might have been passed over, on the\nground that it deals with high and transcendental matters, and that it\nwould be hardly safe to let a practical argument rest too much on it.\nBut the fact is that again in the New Testament a very similar vision is\nmentioned (in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation): here again\nthe four living creatures represent the typical forms of life, the\nbird, the carnivorous and herbivorous animals, and man; and it will be\nobserved that in this case there is hardly room to doubt that we have an\nexhibition of _Creation_, for there is express allusion to it in the\naddress of the elders--\"Thou hast _created all things_, and for Thy\npleasure they are and were created.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n_AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT._\n\n\nBut a step further is necessary: if the conclusion that I have come to,\nby accepting \"day\" in its ordinary and natural sense, and by giving a\nhitherto overlooked (and so far a new) meaning to \"creation,\" is sound,\nit must not only be rendered probable by reference to other parts of\nScripture written when Genesis was much nearer its original publication\nthan it is now; it is still (before all things) necessary, that the\ninterpretation adopted should be conformable to the context.\n\nAnd I have heard it objected that there are verses which imply not only\na Divine Act in heaven, with the Sons of God in conclave around the\nthrone--sublime and wonderful picture!--but also distinctly indicate a\ncorresponding action on earth, and so require us to include in our\nrendering of \"creation\" _both_ the ideas which (page 169 ante) I have\nadmitted may, on occasion be required by the terms. For example: after\nthe creative command in verses 7, 9, 11, 15, and 24, is declared, it is\nfollowed by the words of fulfilment--\"and it was so;\" and in verse 11,\nwhen God has said \"Let the earth bring forth grass, &c.\", in the next\nverse it is positively recorded that the earth _did_ bring forth grass,\n&c.\n\nI of course admit all this, but it is in no way opposed to my\nsuggestion.\n\nThe _commencement_ of the _result_ probably, if not necessarily,\nfollowed immediately on the issue of the finished command, viz., the\npromulgation of the forms to be obtained and the processes to be\nfollowed. The _whole_ result did not become accomplished then and there,\nin the time mentioned, or exactly in the order mentioned: we know that\nfor a fact. Take, for example, the case of _vegetation_. Here the\nauthor, in terms at once precise and universally intelligible, speaks of\n\"vegetation[1]\" (grass of the A.V.), \"herb yielding seed,\" and \"trees\nyielding fruit,\" thereby exhaustively enumerating the members of the\nvegetable kingdom.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Nothing more is meant by the Hebrew \"_deshe_.\" The true\n\"grasses\" (_graminea_),--cereals, bamboos, &c., are certainly not\nintended, for these are all conspicuously flowering plants, \"herbs\nyielding seed,\" and therefore coming under the second plainly defined\ngroup. But the general term \"sproutage\" or \"vegetation\" is just adapted\nto signify the mass of cryptogamic plant-life, the mosses, lichens,\nalgae, and then ferns, &c., which evidently formed the first stage of\nplant-life on the globe.]\n\nNow, as a matter of fact, there was no one long (or short) period\nduring which the whole of this command was realized, _before_ the next\ncreative act occurred.\n\nAt first _algae_ and low forms of vegetable life appeared; and doubtless\nwe have lost myriads upon myriads of such lower forms of plant-life in\nthe early strata, because such forms were ill calculated for\nfossil-preservation, owing to the absence of woody fibre, silicious\ncasing, or hard fruit or seed vessels. But when we first have a marked\naccumulation of specialized plant-life in the coal measures (Upper\nCarboniferous), it is still only of cryptogams--ferns and great club\nmosses. A beginning of true seed-bearing plants (Gymnosperm exogens) had\nbeen made with the _conifers_ of the Devonian strata; but true\n_grasses_, and the other orders of phanerogamic plants and arboreous\nvegetation, do not appear till the tertiary rocks were deposited, very\nlong after the age of fish and great reptiles had culminated, and the\ninauguration of the bird age and the mammalian age had taken place.\n\nLooking only to the abundant, prominent, and characteristic life-forms\nof the several strata, it could certainly be said that the period\nwhen the _water_ actually brought forth a vast mass of its\nlife-forms--corals, sertularias, crustaceans, and fish of the lower\norders--must have _preceded_ (not followed) the time when the earth\nproduced vegetation of all kinds, and further that it must have come\nafter the appearance of scorpions and some land insects.[1]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: A single wing found little more than a year ago is the sole\nevidence of insects older than the Devonian; and scorpions\n(highly-organized crustaceans) have been found in the Upper Silurian in\nsome abundance.]\n\nMoreover, as the regular succession in periods of light and darkness on\nthe earth, and the sequence of seasons was not organized (but only a\ngenerally diffused light, and, probably, an uniform and moist state of\nclimate without seasons) till _after_ the commands for the formation of\nthe whole of the large classes of plants, both cryptogams and\nphanerogams, it is obvious that as many of these would require the\nfuller development of seasonal influences, the whole process could not\nhave been worked out before the fourth day's creative work was begun.\n\nThis instance alone--and it would be easy to add others--shows that the\nnarrative cannot be meant to indicate what actually happened on earth,\ni.e., to summarize the _entire realization_ of the Divine command.\n\nSuch being the plain facts with regard to the _kind of accomplishment_\nmeant by the terms \"it was so,\" \"the earth brought forth,\" &c., it is\nquite plain that no violence is done to the text by explaining it as\nintended to describe what God did in heaven, with the addition, that as\neach command was formulated, the result on earth surely followed, the\nthing \"was so,\" and the earth and water respectively no doubt _began_\nto \"bring forth.\" More than this cannot be made out on _any_\ninterpretation that accords with facts. It seems so clear to me that\nthis is so, that I hardly need refer to the use of the terms the\n\"_waters brought forth\"_ and the \"_earth brought forth\"_ and the phrase\nin chapter ii. 5--the Lord made every plant _before it grew_.\n\nIf, as we have been long allowed to suppose, God spake and the water and\nearth were _at once_ fully and finally peopled with animals where before\nnothing but plants had existed, and so on, I should hardly have expected\nthe use of words which imply a gradual process--a gestation and\nsubsequent birth (so to speak) of life-forms.\n\nHow the _order_ in which the events are recorded stands in relation to\nthe subsequent history of life-development on earth, and what its\nsignificance may be, I will consider later on. First I will conclude the\nargument for the general interpretation of the narrative.\n\n\n2. _The Second Genesis Narrative._\n\nI have only one more direct argument to offer; but I think it is a very\nimportant one. The first division of Genesis ends with the Divine\ncommands creating man and the day of rest which followed. The narrative\nending at chapter ii. verse 3 (the division of chapters here, as\nelsewhere, is purely arbitrary), we have at verse 4 of chapter ii, what\nhas been loudly proclaimed as _another_ account of _the same_ Creation,\nwhich, it is added (arbitrarily enough--but _any_ argument will do if\nonly it is against religion!) is contrary to the first.[1]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The contradiction is supposed to be in verse 19, as if then\nthe creation of animals was for the first time effected--after the man\nand his helpmate. But it is quite clear that the text refers to the fact\nthat God had created animals; the command was, \"Let the earth bring\nforth,\" and the immediate act spoken of was not the formation of\nanimals, but the bringing of them to Adam to see what he would call\nthem.]\n\nNow, even if there is a _second_ account of Creation, it would surely be\na circumstance somewhat difficult to explain. _Contrary_ in any possible\nsense, the narrative (from chapter ii. 4, onward) certainly is not. But\nwhy should there be a second narrative at all? On the hitherto received\nsupposition that chapter i. intends to tells us the _process_ of\ncreation--what God caused to be done on earth, not merely what He did in\nheaven--there is apparently no room for a second narrative. Nor have I\nseen any completely satisfactory explanation. But if we accept the view\nthat the first chapter explains the Divine Design, and its being\npublished (so to speak) and commanded in heaven, then it would be very\nnatural that that narrative should be followed by a second, which should\ndetail not the _whole_ process of all life existence on earth, but (as\nthe Bible is to be henceforth concerned with Man, his fall and his\nredemption) with an account of _just so much of the_ process as relates\nto the actual birth on the earth's surface of the particular man Adam,\nthe most important (and possibly not the only) outcome of the _fiat_\nrecorded in chapter i. vers. 27, 28.\n\nIn this view, not only _a_ second narrative, but just the particular\nkind of narrative we actually have, is not only natural, but even\nnecessary. _Before_, we had a general account of how God ordained the\nscheme of material-form and life-form on the earth; _now_ we have a\ndetailed account of how He actually carried out one portion of it--that\none portion we are most concerned to hear about, namely the man Adam,\nthe progenitor of our own race, of whom came JESUS CHRIST, \"the son of\nAdam.[1]\"\n\nThe account is designed to introduce to us the scene of Adam's\nbirthplace--the Garden of Eden.[2] The mention of a garden, and the\nsubsequent important connection of the trees of that garden with the\nconduct of the man, naturally turn the writer's attention to the general\nsubject of the vegetation on the earth's surface. He prefaces his new\naccount accordingly with a brief summary--which I may paraphrase thus\nwithout, I trust, departing from the sense of the original: \"Such was\nthe origin of the earth (and all in it) and of the heavenly host, at the\ntime when God made them. He had made every plant _before_ it was in the\nearth--every herb of the field _before_ it grew\" (mark the language as\nconfirming what I have said--God \"created\" everything before it actually\ndeveloped and grew into being on the earth). \"Rain did not then fall (in\nthe same way as now) on the earth, but the mist that exhaled from the\nsoil re-condensed, and fell and moistened the ground; but there was as\nyet no MAN to till and cultivate the soil.\"\n\n\n[Footnote 1: St. Luke iii. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Which had a real historic existence. _Vide_ Appendix A.]\n\nThen God actually formed or fashioned _a man_. It is not now that He\ncreated the ideal form to be produced in due time, but that He actually\nformed the individual Adam, and placed him in a garden which He had\nprepared for the purpose. All the words used now imply actual\nproduction. The Divine ideal was ready, and the earth-elements (of which\nwe know man's body to consist) were ready at the Divine word to assume\nthe human shape. And that done, God \"breathed into his nostrils the\nbreath of life\" (mark the direct _act_ on the man himself), and the man\nbecame a \"living soul.\" There is nothing here of the \"earth bringing\nforth\" as in the former narrative. We have the direct act of God, not in\nthe design only, but in the production of the thing itself.\n\nIf this is not a complete explanation and justification of the second\nnarrative, I do not know what, in common fairness, is entitled to be so\ncalled.\n\nThe language may be rigorously examined, and it will fully bear out the\nposition taken up.\n\nI conceive, then, that the cumulation of proof need go no further. The\ntrue explanation of Genesis i. also supplies the place for Genesis ii.\n4, _et seq._, and overcomes all the difficulty that has hitherto\nexisted on the subject.\n\nIt will now, I trust, be clear that by such an interpretation of Genesis\nwe at once give (1) a full and natural meaning to all the terms; we\nreconcile it with other Scripture, and we enhance all the sublime\nattributes which we have been reverentially accustomed to connect with\nthis ancient passage. (2) We obviate the difficulty regarding the second\nnarrative in chapter ii. 4. And (3) we place the whole above any\npossible conflict with science, and above any need for \"reconciliation.\"\nHere, too, is a purpose and meaning assigned to the _whole_ narrative,\nwithout being driven into the difficult position of supposing the verses\nto be the literary outcome of an ignorant imagination which gave\nexpression to its crude ideas only--though enshrining among utterly\nfalse details a sublime truth, regarding which one can only wonder why\nit could not have been stated without the encumbrance of the\nsurroundings.\n\nThe naturalist and the biologist may continue, unquestioned, to work out\nmore and more of the wondrous story of Life on the globe. They can never\ndisprove, or on any of their own grounds deny, that God is the Author of\nall things--matter, force, and mind alike; that He designed the form and\nrelations of the earth; that He organized its light, its seasons, and\nits changes; that He has furnished the types and patterns of all\nlife-forms which matter and force are conformably thereto, developing\non the earth. In short, REVELATION tells us that God did all this \"in\nthe beginning,\" how His form-designs were thought out and declared in\nsix days, and how He rested on the seventh day.\n\nSCIENCE will tell us how, when, and where the Creative fiats and the\ndesigns of heaven were realized and worked out on earth.\n\nHere is the separate province of each, without fear of clashing, or room\nfor controversy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n_THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE._\n\n\n\u00a71. _The Explanation of the Verses._\n\nIt remains only now to go over the narrative, the _general_ bearing of\nwhich I have thus endeavoured to vindicate, so that minor matters of\ndetail, in which it is supposed (1) that some contradiction to known\nphysical fact may still lurk, and (2) something that negatives the\nexplanation suggested, may be cleared up.\n\nLet us take it seriatim:--\n\n\"In the beginning God created the heaven (plural in the original) and\nthe earth.\"\n\nAs I have before remarked, we have no real need to discuss whether\n\"bara\" means originated (created where nothing previously existed), or\nwhether we should render it \"fashioned,\" i.e., moulded material (thus\nassumed in terms to be) already in existence.\n\nEither will yield perfectly good and consistent sense; but, as a matter\nof fact, there is a virtual consensus of the best scholars that the\nword is here used to denote original production of the material.\n\nIt is also clear that the text is intended to embrace the whole system\nof planets, suns, stars, and whatever else is in space. So the Psalmist\nunderstood it: \"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and _all_\nthe host of them by the breath of his mouth.[1]\" Nor is there any\nreasonable doubt, exegetically, that the subsequent allusion to the sun,\nmoon, and stars, refers (as the sense of the text itself obviously\nrequires) to their _appointment_ or adjustment to certain relations with\nthe earth, and assumes their original material production in space, to\nhave been already stated or understood.\n\n\"And the earth was (became) without form[2] and void, and darkness was\nupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of\nthe waters.\"\n\nI have, in another connection, already remarked on this verse, and so\nshall not repeat those remarks.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Psa. xxxiii. 6, and so Psa. cii. 25; _cf_. 2 Peter iii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Waste (R.V.).]\n\nI will only say that the elemental strife and rushing together of\nchemical elements under the stress of various forces and the presence of\nenormous heat, would naturally envelop the globe in dense vapours, a\nlarge portion of which would be watery vapour, capable of condensation\nor of dispersion, under proper conditions, afterwards to be prescribed\nand realized. As it is beautifully expressed in Job xxxviii., \"When I\nmade the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling-band\nfor it\" (verse 8).\n\nThen commences the serial order of Divine acts with reference to the\n_Earth_:--\n\n\n(1) \"AND GOD SAID; LET THERE BE LIGHT: AND THERE WAS LIGHT.\"\n\nThis verse is commonly taken as indicating a creation of light for the\nfirst time in the entire cosmos or universe. And if it be so, there is\nno objection, on any scientific ground, to the assertion that there was\nonce a time when as yet the vibrations and waves which we connect with\nthe idea of Light, had not yet begun. It is true that nebular matter, as\nnow observed, is believed to be, partially at any rate, self-luminous.\nBut this fact, supposing it to be such, is not inconsistent with a still\nearlier time when light had not yet begun. From the \"wave-theory\" of\nlight, which is one of those working hypotheses which are indispensable,\nand which, in a sense, may be said to be demonstrated by their\nindispensability, it can clearly be seen that if light is caused by\nrapid vibrational movement, there must have been--or at any rate there\nis nothing against an authoritative declaration that there was--a moment\nof time when the first vibrational impulse was given, when, in fact, God\nsaid \"Let there be light, and there was light,\" _before_ which also\nthere was \"darkness upon the face of the deep.[1]\"\n\n\n[Footnote 1: It also needs only to be remarked, in passing, that we are\nreally in complete ignorance as to the light-medium, the\n\"luminiferous-ether\" outside the comparatively thin stratum of our own\nterrestrial atmosphere. We do not know whether there might not have been\na condition of the medium in which, up to the moment of a creative\n_fiat_, it was incapable of transmitting light-waves.]\n\nThere is no necessary connection between the creation of light _per se_,\nand the existence of any particular source (or sources) of light to our\nplanet or to other planets.\n\nNo justification is now needed for such a remark, and the almost\nforgotten cavils of one of the \"Essays and Reviews\" may still survive as\na \"scientific\" curiosity, to warn us against too hastily concluding that\n(in subjects where so little is really _known_) the Bible must be wrong,\nand the favourite hypothesis of the day right.\n\nBut as a matter of fact, the text, especially when read in connection\nwith Job xxxviii., need not be taken to refer to any original creation\nof light in the universe generally, but merely to the letting in of\nlight on the hitherto dark and \"waste\" earth. The command \"Let there be\nlight\" was followed on the next day by the formation of a firmament or\nexpanse. So that all the verse _necessarily_ implies is, that the thick\nclouds and vapours which surrounded the earth were so dealt with, that\nlight could reach the earth: the light was thus divided from the\ndarkness, and the rotating globe would experience the alternation of day\nand night.\n\nThe \"day\" having thus been created formally (so to speak), the Divine\nAuthor proceeds to mark, by His own Procedure, the use of the \"days\"\nwhich He had provided for the earth.\n\nOn this view, of course, the origin of light as a \"force\"--the first\nbeginning of its pulsations--is not detailed, any more than the origin\nof electric force, or heat, or gravitation.\n\nHere, too, I may remark that the idea of _creation_, which it has been\none of my chief objects to develop, is illustrated. This remark holds\ngood, whether an original creation of light is intended, or only an\narrangement whereby light was for the first time introduced to the\nearth's surface. The idea of creating light not only involves the Divine\nConception of the thing, and the marvellous method of its production,[1]\nbut doubtless, also, all those wonderful laws of reflection, refraction,\npolarization, and a thousand others, which the science of Physical\nOptics investigates.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: And this is still a mystery to us. _What_ light is we do\nnot know--we can only speak of our own sensation of it. Nor do we know\n_what_ vibrates to produce light. Hypothetical terms, such as \"ether,\"\n\"luminiferous-medium,\" and so forth, only conceal our ignorance.]\n\nNaturally enough, in this case, the double idea involved in\ncreation--the Divine concept and its realization--will, in the nature of\nthings, fall into one. No process of evolution is required; none is\nindicated by science. Directly the Divine hand gave the impulse\nconcurrently with the Divine thought--light would be. In the nature of\nthings there is no place for a line between the Divine fiat and its\nrealization, as there is in the production of life-forms on the earth.\nOr, on the other view, directly the Divine command went forth, the\nvapours would clear and allow the transmission of light.\n\n\n(2) \"AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE A FIRMAMENT (EXPANSE) IN THE MIDST OF\nTHE WATERS, AND LET IT DIVIDE THE WATERS FROM THE WATERS....AND GOD\nCALLED THE FIRMAMENT HEAVEN.\"\n\nThere has been gathered round this verse what I may call rather an\nill-natured controversy, because there is no real ground for it; and the\nobjections taken seem rather of a desire to find out something against\nthe narrative at any price, than to make the best of it. The verse, when\nduly translated, implies that an \"expanse\"--the setting of a clear space\nof atmosphere around the globe--formed one of the special\ndesign-thoughts of the Creator, followed by its immediate (or gradual)\naccomplishment. I think we should have hardly had so much cavilling over\nthis word \"expanse\" if it had not been for the term subsequently used by\nthe Seventy in their Greek version ([Greek: stere\u00f4ma]). The ancients, it\nis said, believed the space above the earth to be \"solid.\"\n\nNow I would contend that even if the Hebrew writer had any mistaken or\nconfused notions in his own mind, that would not afford any just ground\nagainst revelation itself. But I would point out that many of the\nexpressions which may be quoted to show the idea of solidity, are\nclearly poetical. And if we go to the poetic or semi-poetic aspect of\nthings, may I not ask whether there is not a certain sense in which the\nearth-envelope may be said to be solid? The air has a considerable\ndensity, its uniform and inexorable pressure on every square inch of the\nearth's surface is very great. Such a word as [Greek: stere\u00f4ma]\n(_firmamentum_) does not imply solidity in the sense in which gold is\nsolid--as if the heavens were a mass of metal, and the stars set in it\nlike jewels; it implies, rather, something fixed and offering\nresistance.\n\nIt is obvious that a creative act was necessary for this \"expanse.\" We\nknow of spheres that have no atmosphere; and we are so ignorant of the\ntrue nature of what is beyond the utmost reach of our air-stratum, that\nthere is room for almost any consistent conjecture regarding it.\n\nMoreover, observe that the atmosphere is not a _chemical_ combination of\ngases, and one, therefore, that would take place like any other of the\nmetallic, saline, or gaseous combinations, of which no detailed account\nis given--all being covered by the general phrase, \"God created the\nheaven and the earth.\" The air is a mechanical mixture, pointing to a\nspecial design and a special act of origin. The necessary proportions of\neach gas and its combined properties could not have originated without\nguidance.\n\nBut the main purpose of the expanse, as stated in the text, was to\nregulate the water supply. That vast masses of watery vapour must at one\ntime have enveloped the globe, seems probable--apart from revelation;\nand that part of this should condense into seas and fresh-water, and\npart remain suspended to produce all the phenomena of invisible\nair-moisture and visible cloud, while an \"expanse\" was set, so that the\nearth surface should be free, and that light might freely penetrate, and\nsound also, and that all the other regular functions of nature dependent\non the existing relation of earth and air should proceed--all this was\nvery necessary. And when we recollect what a balanced and complex scheme\nit is--how very far from being a simple thing; we recognize in the\nadjustment of earth's atmospheric envelope, a special result worthy of\nthe day's work.\n\nWhether the separation between the condensed but ever re-evaporating and\nre-condensing water on the earth's surface, and the water vapour in the\natmosphere, is _all_ that is meant by the division of the \"waters that\nare above the firmament\" from those below, it would not be wise to\nassert. We know so little of the condition of space beyond our own air,\nand so little of the great stores of hydrogen which have been suggested\nto exist in space (and might combine to form vast quantities of liquid),\nthat we may well leave the phrase as it stands, content with a partial\nexplanation.\n\n\n(3) \"AND GOD SAID, LET THE WATERS UNDER THE HEAVEN BE GATHERED TOGETHER\nUNTO ONE PLACE, AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR: AND IT WAS SO. AND GOD\nSAID, LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS (VEGETATION), HERB YIELDING SEED,\nAND FRUIT TREE BEARING FRUIT AFTER ITS KIND, WHEREIN IS THE SEED\nTHEREOF.\"\n\nThe only remarks that the first part of this verse calls for, are,\n_first_, that it explains how far from mere chance-work the emergence of\nland from the water was; _second_ how well it illustrates the use of\nterms relating to creation.\n\nThe whole scheme of the distribution of the surface of earth into land\nand water is one which demanded Divine foresight and a complete ideal[1]\nwhich was to be attained by the action and reaction of natural forces,\njust as much as the production of the most specialized form of plant-or\nanimal-life.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Compare Job xxxviii. 10, 11, and Psa. civ. 9.]\n\nThis is not the place to go into detail as to how much of the world's\nlife-history and its climatic conditions depend on the distribution of\nland and water. It is sufficient to recognize the immense importance of\nthat distribution.\n\nBut, in the second place, it will be observed that while it is natural\nto suppose (though not logically necessary) that the working out of the\nDivine plan _commenced_ immediately on the issue of the Divine command\nand the declared formulation of the Divine scheme, yet we know--few\nthings are better known--that the whole scheme was not completely\nrealized in one day, or one age--certainly not _before_ there was any\nappearance of plant-life, aquatic, or dry land, or any appearance of\nanimal-life.\n\nI believe (though I have lost my reference) it is held by some\nauthorities that the position of the great _oceans_ as they are now (and\nomitting, of course, all minor coast variations) has been fixed from\nvery early geologic times. But, apart from that, we have ample evidence\nof whole continents arising and being again submerged; and of continual\nchanges between land and water of the most wide-reaching character again\nand again happening during the progress of the world's history. So that\nhere we may see clearly an instance where the revelation of the creative\nact must be held to refer to the great primal design--teaching us that\nit is a fact that at first all _was_ laid down, foreseen, and designed\nby the Creator; but not referring to anything like an account of the\n_results_ upon earth, which, for aught we know to the contrary, may not\nyet be complete.\n\nAs to the second part of the text, we are here introduced to the\ncommencement of life-forms on earth.\n\nNo separation is recorded. Directly the chemical elements of matter have\nso combined that a solid earth and liquid water (salt and fresh) are\nformed, and the cooling process has gone on sufficiently long to enable\nthe dense vapours partly to settle down and condense, partly to remain\nas vapour (dividing the waters above from the waters below)--directly\nthis process is aided by the admission of diffused light and by the\nadjustment of the atmosphere, and the superficial adjustment of the\ndistribution of water and land surface is provided for, then plant-life\nis organized.\n\nIt will be observed that even aquatic plants and algae though growing in\nor under water, are nevertheless connected with the _earth_; so that the\nphrase, \"Let the _earth_ bring forth,\" is by no means inappropriate.\n\nThe earliest rock deposits are able to tell us little about the first\nbeginning of plant-life. Moreover, as animal-life began only with the\ninterval of one day (the fourth), we should expect to find--on the\nsupposition that the heavenly _fiat_ at once received the _commencement_\nof its fulfilment on each day--that the first lowly specimens of\nvegetable and animal life are almost coeval. And this is (apparently)\nthe fact.\n\nIt is to be remarked that plant and animal always appear in nature as\ntwo separate and _parallel_ kingdoms. It is not that the plant is lower\nthan the animal, so that the highest plant takes on it some of the first\ncharacters which mark the lowest animal: but both start separately from\nminute and little specialized forms so similar that it is extremely\ndifficult to say which is plant and which is animal.[1]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: See this well summarized in Nicholson's \"Manual of Zoology\"\n(sixth edition, 1880), p. 13, _et seq._]\n\nAll the beginnings of life in _either_ kingdom would therefore be\nill-adapted (most of them, at any rate) for preservation in\nrock-strata.[1]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: I think this is quite sufficient, without relying on the\nevidence of the great quantities of _carbon_ in the earliest\n(Laurentian, Huronian, &c.) strata in the form of graphite. It is\npossible, or even probable, that this may be due to carbon supplied by\nmasses of little specialized _Thallophyte_ and _Anophyte_ vegetation.]\n\nAll we know for certain is that vegetable-life was closely coeval with\nthe lowest animal-life, and that it was very long before specialized\nforms, even of _cryptogams_, made a great show in the world.\n\nProbability is entirely in favour of the actual priority being in\nvegetable forms; and more than that is not required. For the Mosaic\nnarrative, while it places the origin of the vegetable kingdom actually\nfirst, lets the _fiat_ for the animal kingdom follow almost immediately.\n\nAs to the _order_ of appearance of the plants, I will reserve my remarks\nfor the moment.\n\n\n(4) \"AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE HEAVEN,\nTO DIVIDE THE DAY FROM THE NIGHT; AND LET THEM BE FOR SIGNS, AND FOR\nSEASONS, AND FOR DAYS, AND FOR YEARS: AND LET THEM BE FOR LIGHTS IN THE\nFIRMAMENT TO GIVE LIGHT ON THE EARTH.\"\n\nThe sun and the stars, and all the host of heaven, are clearly\nunderstood to have been created \"in the beginning,\" under the general\nstatement of fact which forms the first verse of the narrative.\n\nThe 14th verse has always been understood to refer to the establishment\nof the _relations_ between the earth and the sun, moon, and stars,\nwhich have, as a matter of fact, been recognized by all ages and all\npeople ever since. The writer of the 104th Psalm certainly so understood\nthe passage--\n\n  \"He appointed the moon for seasons;\n  The sun knoweth his going down.[1]\"\n\nThe writer was instructed to use popularly intelligible language, and so\nthe text speaks of the lights as they _appear_ in the sky or firmament.\n\nEven if we suppose that before this act, the sun was already\nincandescent, and the moon capable of reflecting the light, the whole\narrangement of the earth's rotation may have been such that the\nalternations of light and darkness may have been very different from\nwhat they are now, and the seasons also. A moment's reflection regarding\nthe obliquity of the earth's axis, nutation, the precession of the\nequinoxes, the eccentricity of the orbit and the changes in the position\nof the orbit, will show us what ample room there was for a special\nadjustment and adaptation between the earth and its satellite and\nbetween both to the solar centre.[2] So that faith which accepts this as\na Divine arrangement made among the special and formal acts of Creation,\ncannot be said to be unreasonable, or to be flying in the face of any\nknown facts.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Ver. 19, &c. The same word is also used of \"making\" priests\n(l Kings xii. 31), and appointing (R.V.)(\"advancing\" A.V.), (\"making,\"\nas we familiarly say) Moses and Aaron (1 Sam. xii. 6).]\n\n[Footnote 2: And the Psalmist justly speaks of God as _preparing_ the\nlight of the sun (Psa. lxxiv. 16).]\n\nIt is very remarkable, as showing how little we can attribute this\nnarrative, on any basis of probability, to mere fancy or guess-work,\nthat this matter should have been assigned to the fourth day--_after_\nthe fiat for plant-life had gone forth.\n\nBut the fact is that the unregulated light, and the vaporous uniform\nclimate that must have continued if the fourth day's command had never\nissued, though it might have served for a time for the lowest beginnings\nof life, especially marine or aquatic, would ultimately have rendered\nany advance in the series of design impossible. Such a fact would never\nhave occurred to an ignorant and uninspired writer.\n\nIt is here impossible to say whether the whole arrangements indicated\nwere made at once in obedience to the Divine Design, or were produced\ngradually.\n\nIt has been suggested that uniformity of climate and temperature\ncontinued up till the carboniferous ages, at any rate; and it is only in\nthe later ages that such differences of _fauna_ in different parts of\nthe world appear, as to show differences of climate more like what we\nhave at present.\n\nWhether this is so or not, I am not concerned to argue. The narrative\ntells us that God did, at a certain point in his Creative work, design\nand ordain the necessary arrangements; and physical science may find\nout, when it is able, how and when the adjustments spoken of came about.\n\n(5) AND GOD SAID--\n     (i.) Let the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life,\n     (ii.) Let fowl fly above the earth on the face of the expanse.\n\nAs to (i.) the \"creation\" consisted of--great sea-monsters (or water\nmonsters), and every living thing that moveth.\n\nThen the animal life received a _blessing_. Animals, even the lowliest,\nare capable of a new feature in life--happiness in their being, which\ncannot be predicated of plants.\n\n(6) AND GOD SAID--\n    (i.) Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind ...\n           the beast of the earth _after its kind (Carnivora)_, cattle\n        _after its kind_ (_Ungulata_), and everything that creepeth on\n           the ground _after its kind_.[1]\n\nAnd also--\n\n     (ii.) Let us make man.... So God created man in His\n             own image--in the image of God created He him; male\n             and female created He them.\n\n(7) Then followed the day of rest.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: See page 178.] [Transcriber's Note: Chapter XIV.]\n\n\u00a7 2. _The Order of Events considered._\n\nIt was convenient first to bring these later Creative Acts together\nbefore beginning any remarks about any one of them.\n\nIt will now be desirable to notice what occurred, because here the\nquestion of _order_ is concerned. I could not avoid a partial statement\non this subject at an earlier page, nor would it be quite sufficient\nsimply to refer the reader back to those pages. At the risk of some\nrepetition, I will therefore consider the subject here. It will be\nobserved that on the older interpretation, which passed over the special\nact of God in _designing_ and _publishing the design,_ and descended at\nonce to the earth to the process of producing the designed forms, this\norder was matter of great importance.\n\nGranting the supporters of this view that the six days are unequal\nperiods often of vast duration, with or without important subdivisions,\nthey are bound to make out that each creation began, and was at any rate\nwell advanced, _before_ the next began. We ought, in fact, to see a\nperiod more or less prolonged when the whole of what is indicated in the\n_plant_ verse was well advanced, _before_ any marine or fresh-water life\nappeared at all.[1]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: There was \"evening and morning\" of the third day, i.e.,\nbeginning and _completion_, and also the whole interval of the fourth\nday, _before_ the command of the fifth.]\n\nAll attempts to make out that this _was_ so, have proved failures. It is\nassumed, for instance (and justly so), that life on the globe began with\nlow vegetable forms; these represented the \"grass\" of the text, and it\nis suggested that the \"fruit tree\" is represented by the Devonian and\nCarboniferous _conifers_. This in itself is a very strained view. It is\nrecollected that the terms used are not scientific, but for the world at\nlarge; but without confining \"fruit tree\" to mean only trees having\n_edible_ fruit, still the appearance of a few first species of\n_conifers_ in the Devonian, can hardly be called an adequate fulfilment\nof the requirements of the passage. But even so, myriads of fish and\nother animals existed _before_ the Devonian and Carboniferous plant age.\n\nThe animal forms that so existed, have therefore to be _ignored_, or are\nassumed to have been created without special notice: and it is said that\nthe Mosaic period of \"moving creatures of the deep,\" fishes and\nmonsters, only began when the rocks begin to show _great abundance_ of\nshells, of fish, and subsequently of huge reptilians which prepared the\nway for birds--which gradually make their appearance towards the Trias.\n\nBut the Devonian \"age of fishes\" (Devonian including old red sandstone)\nwas far too important a period to be thus got rid of; and it is\ndifficult to understand _why_ the narrative should exclude all the\nextensive and beautiful (though often little specialized) orders of\nmarine life--all the Corals, the Mollusca and Articulata, which had long\nabounded--especially some of the Crustaceans, not an unimportant group\nof which (_Trilobite_[1]) had also culminated and almost passed away\nbefore the Devonian; to say nothing of the fact that _land_ \"creeping\nthings\" (scorpions among _crustacea_, and apparently winged insects) had\noccurred.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: It is remarkable that the Trilobites rapidly culminated, so\nthat we have the largest and most perfect forms, such as _Paradoxus_,\nwith the lowest (_Agnostus_) in the same beds in Wales (Etheridge's\n\"Phillips' Manual,\" Part II. p. 32).]\n\nIt is a special difficulty also, that if _insects_ are included among\nthe \"creeping things\" of the _earth_ then various families of the\n\"land-creation\" (sixth day) became represented _before_ the great\nreptiles of the \"water-creation\" (fifth day).\n\nThe fact is that a glance at the subjoined Tables (which are only\ngenerally and approximately correct) will suffice to show how the main\nfeatures of the progress of life-forms differ from what is required by\nthe older methods of reading Genesis. To reduce the table within limits,\nI have grouped together all the lower forms of life in the animal table,\nviz., the sponges, corals, encrinites, and molluscs. It is sufficient to\nsay that these appear in all the rocks except the very oldest--the\nCaelenterata beginning, and the Molluscoids exhibiting an early order in\n_brachiopoda_, which seems to be dying out. Crustaceans and insects\nappeared as early as Silurian times.\n\nThe idea of successive \"kingdoms\" or \"periods,\" each of which was\n_complete_ in its actual fauna upon earth before the next was fully\nushered in, can no longer be defended.\n\nIt is in the _completion_ of one class of life before the other, that\nthe fallacy of the period theory lies--for completion is essential to\nthat theory which supposes \"the Mosaic author\" to have intended to\ndescribe the _process of production on earth_.\n\nBut it is quite impossible to deny that there _is_ a certain observable\nmovement and gradual procession in the history of life which is exactly\nconsistent with what is most likely to have happened, supposing the\nDivine designs of life-forms were first declared in successive order at\nshort intervals of time, and then that the processes of nature worked\nout the designs in the fulness of time and gradually in order, each one\n_beginning_ before the next, but only beginning.\n\nI do not deny that it is perfectly _conceivable_ that the Creator might\nhave designed the forms in one order, and that the actual production or\nevolution of the corresponding living creatures might not have been (for\nreasons not understood) exactly, or even at all, coincident with the\norder.\n\nBut it is impossible to deny the strong feeling of probability that the\ncommands would _begin_ to be worked out, in the order in which they were\nuttered.\n\nAnd here it is that the correspondence which undoubtedly exists, gives\nrise to controversy.\n\nFrom one point of view it is just enough to encourage the \"period\"\nholders to try and arrange a scheme; but it is just hot enough to\nprevent their opponents (justly) taxing them with straining or\n\"torturing\" the text and failing fairly to make out their case after\nall. From another point of view the correspondence is so far\nestablished, and so undeniably unprecedented (in human cosmogonies) and\nnoteworthy, as to demand imperatively our careful consideration and\ncompel us to account for it.\n\nIt will be observed, first of all, that the whole \"creation\" (omitting\nall incidental and preparatory works) is stated in _groups_ each having\nan order within itself.\n\n_Group_ 1. God created (both land and water) \"vegetation\"--plants\nyielding seed, fruit-trees.\n\n_Group_ 2.\nIn water, not necessarily excluding _amphibia_:--Great aquatic monsters;\nfish and all other creatures that move. In air:--Winged fowl.\n\n_Group_ 3. On land generally--for some forms are amphibious:--Beasts\n(_Carnivora_), cattle (_Ungulata_, &c.), and other things that creep\non the ground (the smaller and lower forms of life collectively).\n\nThe order _within_ the groups is evidently of no consequence, because\nthe writer does not adhere to it in two consecutive verses dealing with\nthe same subject; while the \"versions\" seem to point to some variations\nin the text itself as to arrangement, though not as to substance.\n\nBut as regards the order _of_ the groups themselves, it is, as I said,\nvery natural (but yet not logically inevitable) to expect that when the\nresults came to be existent on earth, those results should exhibit a\nsequence corresponding to the order in which the groups were created.\nAnd it is never denied (in _any_ of the most recent publications[1])\nthat to this extent nature confirms the belief.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: I have done my best to verify this from the well-known\nlatest Manuals of Etheridge, Seeley, and Alleyne-Nicholson.]\n\nI am aware that Professor Huxley's recent articles may at first sight\nseem to go against this; but that is not so on any grounds of actual\nfact, but of a particular _interpretation_--which I submit is wholly\nunwarranted.\n\nFor instance, it is insisted that the \"sea-monsters\" of the second group\nincluded _sirenia_ and _cetacea_ (dugongs, manatees, and whales,\ndolphins, &c.), which are mammals. In that case a portion of the command\nwould not have been obeyed--a number of the designed forms would have\nbeen kept in abeyance--for a long time. And the same is still more true\nif bats--a highly placed group of mammals--were included in \"winged\nfowl.\"\n\nBut both these interpretations are distinctly arbitrary, incapable of\nholding good, and also entirely ignore the conditions of a Revelation.\n\nThe narrative is not discussed or defended as an ordinary secular\nnarrative, which is true according to the _writer's uninspired intention\nor the state of his personal knowledge_. It is defended as a Revelation.\nThe distinction is as obvious as it is important, directly a moment's\nconsideration is accorded.\n\nIf we assume, for a moment, that God _did_ (on any theory whatever of\nInspiration) instruct, direct, or enable the writer in making the\nrecord, then it is obvious that the writer either put down what he saw\nin a vision, or what was in some other manner borne on his mind. In any\ncase, he could have had no critical knowledge, and no historical\nknowledge as an eye-witness, of the actual facts; and he may very well\ntherefore have used language the full meaning of which he did not\napprehend.[1] What alone is essential is, that the narrative as it\nstands, on an ordinary critical, linguistic, and grammatical\ninterpretation, should not contain anything which is untrue. Suppose,\nfor example, the word \"tann\u00een\u00eem\" to be _incapable_ of bearing any other\nmeaning linguistically than \"cetacean,\" then the narrative might be\nobjected to; but if it will bear a meaning which is consistent with\nfact, then it is no matter that the writer at the time had an erroneous,\nor (what is more likely) no defined, idea in his own mind of the\nmeaning. And so with \"winged fowl\"--the objection fails entirely, unless\nit can be shown, not only that the writer might have thought \"bats\" to\nbe included, _but_ that linguistically the word _cannot have_ any other\nmeaning than one which would include bats.[2]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: As is constantly the case in prophetic writings. Revelation\ntells of the remote past sometimes as well as the future, and in neither\ncase could the inspired writer fully understand the meaning that was\nwrapped up in his sentences.]\n\n[Footnote 2: As a matter of fact, in the one case, if the writer's\nknowledge were of any importance, it is almost certain that he did _not_\nmean _cetacean_ or _sirenian_. In the other case it is impossible to say\nwhether he thought \"bats\" were included or not. It is not in the nature\nof things that the writer could ever have seen or even heard of a\nmanatee or a dugong; nor is it likely that he had been a sea-farer, or\ncould have seen any Mediterranean cetacean. As far as his own knowledge\nwent, he probably had but a very confused idea. And if we refer to the\npoetic description in Psalm civ. 25, 26, we find \"leviathan,\" though\ndistinctly a sea creature, still one of which the writer had only a\nvague traditional idea, certainly not a _known_ Mediterranean dolphin,\nfor in Job xli. the same term is applied to the crocodile.]\n\nWe have every right, then, to say that the \"tann\u00een\u00eem\" of the text may be\ntaken to refer to that great and remarkable age of Saurians which is not\nonly of very great importance in itself, but becomes doubly so when we\nsee its connection backward with the fishes, and forward through the\nPterodactyles to Odontoformae (_Apatornis_ and _Icthyornis_) and modern\nwinged birds (_Hesperonis_ for the Penguins); and through the\nDinosaurs[1] with the Saurornithes, with the _Dinornis_ and the\nstruthious birds; and through the Theriodonts with the mammalian\n_carnivora_.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: And perhaps the pachydermatous mammals (Nicholson,\n\"Zoology,\" p. 566).]\n\nIn that case the sequence of the two groups, plants and aquatic\nanimal-forms, is explained. They come almost together--plants being\nprobably actually the first, and mollusca, fishes, and saurians.\n\nThere is, further, no real dispute that the Saurians led up to the Aves,\nand that the third group (of mammals) follows all the members of the\nsecond group. The earliest known mammal (_microlestes_) is an isolated\nforerunner of not very certain location, the real bulk of the mammalian\norders beginning in the Eocene. Seeing, too, how very closely one\nCreative command is recorded to have followed on the other, it is not in\nany way against the narrative that some land forms of crustaceans and\ninsects (and possibly others) began to appear at an early stage, when\nthe vegetable and water-animal forms had only progressed as far as the\nSilurian and Devonian ages. Nor should we wonder if mammalian forms had\noccurred earlier. I mention this because of the evident gap in the\ngeologic record between the Cretaceous and the Eocene, and because in\nthe article of December, 1885 (and elsewhere), Professor Huxley has used\nlanguage which suggests that mammals may have existed of which the rocks\ngive no sign. E.g. (p. 855): \"The organization of the bat, bird, or\npterodactyle, presupposes that of a terrestrial quadruped ... and is\nintelligible only as an extreme modification of the organization of a\nterrestrial _mammal or_ reptile.\" The italics are of course mine. And\nagain (p. 855), \"I am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate\nto admit that the organization of these animals (whales, dugongs, &c.)\nshows the most obvious signs of their descent from terrestrial\nquadrupeds.\"\n\nI do not quote these words of so great a master as presuming to question\nthem (even if, as a scientific verdict, I had any motive for so doing),\nbut merely to point out as a matter of plain and fair reasoning, that if\na Divine Creator had designed certain forms to be gradually attained by\nthe processes of Evolution, it would not be necessary that any actually\nrealized form or tangible creature should have existed as ancestors.\nLogically, the necessity is _either_ that certain animals should have\nactually existed whose descendants gradually lost or gained certain\nfeatures and functions till the forms we are speaking of resulted, _or_\nthat certain patterns or designs should have been created according to\nwhich development proceeded by regular laws till the forms in question\nresulted.\n\nA few words as to the terms used in describing the contents of each\ngroup, may be added. It is obvious that the terms are intended to be\nexhaustive of certain main groups which are described sufficiently,\nwithout being cast in a form which would have been incompatible with the\nuse (at the time) of a human agent as the medium of the recorded\nRevelation.\n\n(1) \"Vegetation\" (of an indefinite character, but not bearing seed),\nplants bearing seed, trees bearing fruit with the seed in it--certainly\nexhaust the entire range of plant-life.\n\n(2) Moving creatures that live (and fish are afterwards expressly\nmentioned) and great monsters (tann[i=]n[i=]m), cover the entire field\nof life up to Reptilia as far as these are aquatic forms.\n\n(3) The terms used for the third group are also obviously\nexhaustive--the separate mention of the _cattle_ and the _beast_\n(Carnivora and Ungulates) is a form which is invariably noticed\nthroughout the Old and New Testaments. The \"creeping things\" would\ninclude all minor forms, all land reptiles not described above as the\n\"tann[i=]n[i=]m,\" and insects.\n\nAnd it is remarkable that the tortoises, the snakes, and, the more\nmodern forms of crocodile and lizard, and the amphibia and higher\ninsects, are all cainozoic--some of them were preceded by more or less\ntransitory representatives, e.g., the Carboniferous _Eosaurus_ and\nPermian _Protosaurus_ the ancient Labyrinthodons and Urodelas,\nChelonians and the amphicaelian crocodiles. Snakes have no palaeozoic\nrepresentative.\n\nLand insects, as might naturally be expected, go back to the times when\nland vegetation was sufficiently established, and appear gradually all\nalong the line from the Silurian onwards. The modern types, however, are\nTertiary.\n\nThe succession, we observe, may be illustrated by the resemblance of a\nnumber of arrows shot rapidly one after the other in so many parallel\ncourses: all would soon be moving nearly together.\n\nPlant-life, the subject of the first Divine designing, has, as far as we\ncan reasonably say, the start. According to known laws it appears in\nelementary and undeveloped forms, and gradually progresses. One group\n(Cryptogams) reaches a magnificent development and begins to die away in\npoint of grandeur, though still abundantly exemplified. Phanerogamic\nplants in their lowest groups of gymnosperm exogens then begin to appear\nin the Devonian conifers, gradually followed by _cycads_. And it is not\ntill Cainozoic times that we have the endogenous grasses and palms and\nangiospermous exogens.\n\nBut the command regarding animal life had followed the other after a\nshort interval, so that we soon see this developing _pari passu_ with\nthe other groups--first the lower marine forms and gradually advancing\nto the Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, and then to Aves, as a special\ndivision in the second great design group. Lastly the mammals appear and\nman.[1] But throughout all, we see the rise, culmination, and decay of\nmany transitory and apparently preparatory groups--such as, for example,\nthe Labyrinthodons and Urodelas--preceding the modern types of Amphibia;\nancient fish-forms preceding modern ones, and either dying out or\nleaving but a few and distant representatives; or again, the whole\ntribes of ancient Saurians, of which something has already been said.\nAll these wonderful under-currents and cross-currents, rises and falls,\nappearances and disappearances, nevertheless all work together till the\nwhole earth is peopled with the forms, designed in the beginning by the\nHeavenly Creator.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Nor should we be surprised to find (should it be so\ndiscovered) that some animals appeared after man. (_Cf_. \"Nineteenth\nCentury\" for Dec. 1885, p. 856.)]\n\nNo account of Creation can be other than wonderful and mysterious; nor\ncan the mystery of the Divine act be explained in language other than\nthat of analogy.\n\nWe can speak without mystery of a human architect conceiving a design in\nhis mind; and when he utters it, it is by putting the plans and details\nupon paper, and handing them over to the builders, who set to work\n(under the architect's supervision, and in obedience to all the rules\nhe has prescribed as to the methods of work and materials to be used).\n\nAll this we can transfer by analogy only, to a Divine design. The\ndesign is in the Divine mind, and He utters it in no material plans or\ndrawings: the forces of nature and the chemical elements, His obedient\nbuilders, have no hands to receive the plans or eyes to scan them; but\nwe can perceive the analogy directly, and that is all that is necessary\nfor Faith.\n\nThe origin of all we see in the world and in the entire Cosmos is, then,\nin God; and as regards the adjustments of our globe and its relations,\nand the actual life-forms in plant and animal, they came into existence\npursuant to groups of types or designs, made by the Divine Mind, and\ndeclared by Him from His Throne in heaven, in six several days--periods\nof the rotation of our earth.\n\nThat is the message of Revelation. It requires no straining of the\nsacred text: it takes everything as it stands, and the seemingly lengthy\nexplanation it requires is not to manipulate the text, but to clear away\nthe heap of mistaken conceptions that have gathered round it:--to\nestablish the idea, that the terms \"God said, Let there be,\" and so\nforth, mean Heaven work, in the design and type--not earth work in its\nrealization and building up. Establishing this by illustration and\nargument, nothing more is required in the way of textual exegesis except\nto argue for the rejection of perverse and unsustainable meanings long\ngiven to \"days,\" to \"expanse\" or \"firmament,\" and to \"great whales\" in\nthe narrative.\n\nIt will be admitted readily that if this account of Creation is the true\none, if the meaning assigned to the Genesis narrative is correct, it\naffords no hindrance to _any_ conclusions that may progressively be\ndemanded by the investigation of life-history on earth.\n\nIt requires us to believe that the forms which life assumes are not\nchance forms, nor the _unpremeditated_ results of environment and\ncircumstance. But we are not told positively which forms are transitory,\nwhich are final.\n\nIt is only a matter of probable opinion, which it is quite open to any\none to dispute, that there is any indication of finality. I should\npersonally be inclined to think that we have indications that carnivora,\nungulates, and birds are final forms; that no evolution will ever modify\na bird further into anything that is not a bird; that no transition\nbetween the ungulates and the carnivora is possible; that the\n_proboscideae_ are not a final but a transitory type, dying out\ngradually--our elephants and similar forms will disappear as the\nmastodon did.\n\nBut I admit this is all mere speculation, in which I ask no one to\nfollow me.\n\nOn one important point only is there a difference; and if the text is\never proved wrong on that, it must be given up. But it is here that all\nscientific knowledge fails, in _any way whatever,_ to touch the sacred\ntext. There _is_ an unique and exceptional account of one \"special\ncreation.\" A man \"Adam\" is described as having been actually created,\nnot born as an ultimately modified descendant of ancestors originally\nfar removed from himself. That is not to be denied; not only was his\nbodily form specially created (conformably to the _type_ created in\nGenesis i. 26), but a special spiritual and higher life was\nimparted--for I believe that no one disputes this as the meaning of the\nexpression, \"breathed into his nostrils the _breath of lives,_ and man\nbecame a living soul.\"\n\nIt must be noted again--although I have before alluded to this in some\ndetail--that it is not impossible that, pursuant to the general command\n\"Let us make man,\" there _may_ have been other human creations, perhaps\nnot endowed with the higher life of Adam. If it is found difficult to\nrealize this because the _image of God_ is connected (from the very\nfirst) with the design of Man's life-form, still it is to be remembered\nas an undeniable fact, that the form, though one assumed by God Himself\nin the Incarnation, _is connected_ in structure and function with the\ngeneral animal (Mammalian) type, and that even the Adamic or spiritually\nendowed man _may_, by neglecting the higher and giving way to the lower\nnature, develop much of the purely bestial in himself. So that the bare\npossibility of a pre-Adamite and imperfect man cannot be _\u00e0 priori_\ndenied. More than that it is not necessary to say. Nor is it necessary\nthat any origin of man should be limited to six or eight thousand years\nback. If the state of the text is such that a perfect chronology is\npossible,[1] then all that the Bible goes back to chronologically is the\nparticular man Adam. And it is quite impossible that any scientific or\nhistorical contradiction can arise therefrom.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: It should be borne in mind that just as Revelation is often\nabsolutely silent on many points that mere curiosity would like to see\nexplained, so also, the Divine Author may have allowed parts of the\noriginal text of Revelation to be so far lost or obscured as to leave\nfurther points that _might_ have been once recorded, now doubtful. All\nthat we may be quite sure of is that the text has been preserved for all\nthat is essential to \"life and godliness.\"]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\n_PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN._\n\nThe information here put together is a compilation from papers in \"The\nNineteenth Century,\" and other sources. It has no pretentions to\noriginality, but only to give a brief and connected account of the\nsubject, more condensed and freed from surrounding details than that\nwhich the original sources afford.\n\nBefore entering on the subject, I would again call attention to the\nsurpassing importance of these early chapters of Genesis. And, I add,\nthat unbelievers are especially glad to be able to allege anything they\ncan against them, because they are aware that hardly any chapters in the\nBible are more constantly alluded to, and made the foundation of\npractical arguments by our Lord and His Apostles, than these early\nchapters in the Divine volume. If these chapters can be shown to be\nmythical, then the divine knowledge of our Lord, as the Son of God, and\nthe inspiration of His Apostles, are put in question. All through the\nOld Testament, allusions to Adam and to the early history in Genesis\noccur; and among other passages, I will only here invite attention to\nthe 31st chapter of Ezekiel, where there is, in a most beautiful\ndescription of the cedar-tree, an allusion to \"Eden, the Garden of God\"\n(see also chapter xxviii. ver. 13), which some have thought to indicate\nthat the site was still known, and existing in the time of the prophet.\nThis at least may be remarked, that in verse 9, where the prophet speaks\nof the \"trees that _were_ in the Garden of God,\" the word _were_ is not\nin the original, and the sense of the context would rather denote the\npresent tense--\"the trees that _are_ in the Garden of God.\"\n\nBut it is in the New Testament that the most repeated and striking\nallusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the Serpent, and the\nentrance of sin and death into the life-history of mankind, occur.[1]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: See on this subject page 137 _ante_.] [Transcriber's\nnote: Chapter X.]\n\nAs regards the narrative of Eden itself, there has been, from the very\nearliest times, some disposition to regard it as mystical or\n\"allegorical,\" i.e., to regard it as representing spiritual facts of\ntemptation and disobedience, under the guise or story of an actual\naudible address by a serpent, and the eating of an actual fruit. The\nearliest translators seem to have glossed the \"Gan-'Eden,\" everywhere in\nthe Old Testament (_except_ in Gen. ii. 8), by the phrase \"the paradise\nof pleasure,\" or some other similar term. And the Vulgate _always_ uses\nsome phrase, such as \"place of delight,\" \"voluptas,\" \"deliciae,\" &c. It\nmust be admitted that there is some temptation to this course, because\nof the inveterate tendency of the human mind to reduce things to its own\nlevel--to suppose everything to have happened _in ways which are within\nits present powers to comprehend._ We figure to ourselves the fear and\ndislike _we_ should ourselves experience, of a large snake; we imagine\nthe amazement with which an intelligible voice would be heard to proceed\nfrom such a creature; so far from being _tempted, we_ should at once be\nmoved to hostility or to flight; and thus we are inclined to throw doubt\non the narrative as it stands.\n\nBut this is to do what we justly complain of modern materialists and\npositivists for doing--reducing everything to terms of present\nexperience and knowledge.\n\nIt has to be borne in mind, that _under the conditions of the case_, the\nserpent was neither ugly, dangerous, nor loathsome, but beautiful and\nattractive; that the residents of the Garden were familiar with the\n\"voice of God\"--i.e., they had habitual intelligible communication with\nheaven: probably, also, free intercourse with angelic messengers\n(inconceivable as it may now seem to us) was matter of daily experience\nto them. The woman would then recognize in the voice an Angel\ncommunication; and unaware at first that it was an evil angel, it would\nexcite no surprise in her at all. Sensations of terror, surprise,\ndislike, and so forth, were _ex hypothesi_ unknown. Why then should not\nthe narrative be exact, unless, indeed, we have some _\u00e0 priori_ ground\nfor supposing that human nature _never could_ have been in a state where\nthe voice of God and angels sounded in its ears, and where innocence and\nthe absence of all evil emotion was the daily condition of life? The\nunbeliever may sneer at such a state, but _reason_ why it should _not_\nhave been, he can give none. So, again, with the idea of the \"tree of\nthe knowledge of good and evil\" and the \"tree of life.\" We are no doubt\ntempted to think that these terms may be symbolic; but a more careful\nreflection, and a deliberate rejection of the _influence of present\nexperiences_, may lead us to accept the narrative more literally. Even\nnow, we are not unfamiliar with the ideas of medicinal virtues in plants\nand fruits. I see nothing impossible in the idea that God may have been\npleased to impart such virtue to the fruit of a tree standing in the\nmidst of the Garden, that physical health, immunity from all decay, and\nconstant restoration, should have been the result of eating the fruit;\nand the eating of this fruit, we know, was freely permitted. The late\nArchbishop Whately suggested, and I think with great probability, that\nthe longevity of the earliest generations of the Adamic race may have\nbeen due to the beneficial effects of the eating of this fruit, which\nonly gradually died out. Just as we know at the present time, that\npeculiarities introduced into human families, often survive from father\nto son, till they gradually die out after many generations.\n\nAgain, as regards the \"forbidden tree,\" it will not seem impossible,\nthat as a simple _test of obedience_ in a very primitive state, the rule\nof abstinence from a particular fruit may have been literally enjoined,\nand that the consequence of the moral act of _disobedience_ (rather\nthan the physical effect of the fruit eaten) should have been the\nknowledge of evil, the first sensation of shame, terror, angry\ndissension, and, worst of all, the alienation from God the source of all\ngood, which followed.\n\nAll such considerations of the reality of the history must gain greatly\nin strength, if we can demonstrate that the Garden of Eden, the scene of\nthe temptation, the place where the trees that were the vehicles of such\nconsequences to the occupants of the garden, stood, had a real existence\nand geographical site. Now I need hardly remark that the Mosaic\nnarrative unquestionably _professes_ a geographical exactness and a\nliteral existence of the garden, as no fabled locality--no Utopia or\ngarden of the Hesperides. I need only refer to the _data_ afforded to us\nby Gen. ii. 8-14.\n\nThe Lord, it is said, planted a garden in Eden: it was \"eastward;\" but\nthat does not directly indicate its site. From Gen. iv. 16, we also\nlearn that the land of Nod where Cain dwelt (after the murder of Abel)\nwas on the east of Eden.\n\nA river went out and watered the garden. After passing the limits of\nEden, the river is said to have divided itself, or parted, into four\nheads, i.e., arms or branches. The first branch was called Pison. This\nbranch \"compasseth,\" i.e., forms the boundary along the whole length of,\n\"_the_ Havilah.\" This country is spoken of as being a tract wherein was\nproduced good gold, \"b'dolach\" (translated \"bdellium\") and \"shoham\"\n(translated \"onyx.\") The second branch was Gihon, which is described as\nsimilarly compassing the district of K[=u]sh. Here our A.V., by\nsubstituting \"Ethiopia\" for the original \"C[=u]sh,\" has made a gloss\nrather than a translation; and this gloss has given rise to several\nerrors of commentators in identifying the site of Eden. The Revised\nVersion has corrected the error.\n\nThe third branch was Hiddekel, the _Diklatu_ of the Arabs, the Tigra of\nthe old Persians, and the _Tigris_ of later writers. This is said to run\neastward towards Assyria.[1] The fourth river was the Frat or Euphrates.\nObserve, in passing, that the author gives no detail about the great\nriver Euphrates, as being well known; while he adds particulars about\nthe Tigris, and describes the Gihon and the Pison in some detail.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: So the margin of the A. and R. Versions more correctly.]\n\nNow it will at once strike the reader that two of these rivers are well\nknown to the present day. The others are not.\n\nIt is in the identification of these two, and of the districts which\nthey \"compassed,\" which form the difficulties of the problem. Up till\nrecent times, it is remarkable what a variety of speculations have been\nattempted as to the situation of Eden. Dr. Aldis Wright, the learned\nauthor of the article \"Eden\" in Smith's \"Biblical Dictionary,\" remarks:\n\"It would be difficult, in the whole history of opinion, to find any\nsubject which has so invited, and at the same time completely baffled,\nconjecture, as the Garden of Eden.\" And in another place he thinks that\n\"the site of Eden will ever rank with the quadrature of the circle, and\nthe interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy among those unsolved, and\nperhaps insoluble, problems which possess so strange a fascination.\" It\nis, however, to be remarked, (1)that all that was written before\nProfessor Delitzsch's researches were made known; and (2)that really a\ngreat mass of the conjecture and speculation has been purely in the\nair--undertaken without any reference to the plain terms of the text to\nbe interpreted. It is the extravagance of commentators, and their\ninsisting on going beyond the narrative itself, that has raised such\ndifficulties, and made the problem look more hopeless than it really is.\n\nTo what purpose are \"the three continents of the old world\" \"subjected\nto the most rigorous search,\" as Dr. Wright puts it--when it is quite\nplain from the text itself, that the solution is to be sought in the\nneighbourhood of the Euphrates, or not at all? The whole inquiry seems\nto have been one in which a vast cloud of learned dust has been raised\nby speculators, who began their inquiry without clearly determining, to\nstart with, what was the point at issue. Either the description in Gen.\nii. 3-14 is meant for allegory, or geographical fact: this question must\nfirst be settled; and if the latter is agreed to, then it is quite\ninconceivable that the words should imply any very extensive region, or\nany fancied realm extending over a large proportion of one or other\nquarter of the globe. The problem is then at once narrowed; and it is\nsimply unreasonable to look for Havila in India, or for Pison in the\nprovince of Burma, as one learned author does!\n\nYet commentators have forgotten this; and gone--the earlier ones into\ninterpretation of allegory--the later into impossible geographical\nspeculation; while only the most recent have confined themselves to the\nobvious terms of the problem as laid down in the narrative itself--a\nnarrative which (whether true or false) is clearly meant to be definite\nand exact, as we have seen. Our A.V. translators are to be held, to\nsome extent, responsible for the freedom which speculation has\nexercised, by themselves taking the C[=u]sh of the narrative to\n\"Ethiopia,\" i.e., to the African continent--for which there is no\nauthority whatever.\n\nAs regards the _allegorical_ interpretations, they are too extravagant\nfor serious notice. Souls, angels, human passions and motives, are\nsupposed to be represented by towns, rivers, and countries. To all this\nit is enough to reply--What reason can we have for supposing an\nallegory suddenly to be interpolated at Gen. ii. 8? There is no allegory\nbefore it, there is none after.\n\nThen as to the early geographical expounders. Josephus and others\nsupposed the allusion was made to the great rivers known to ancient\ngeography, all of which ran into that greatest river of all, which\nencircled the globe. In this view, the Gihon might be the Nile, and the\nPison the Ganges! Here, again, it may be remarked it is impossible to\nread the narrative and believe that the author meant any such widespread\nregion. Even if the author had the ancient ideas about cosmography\ngenerally, that would not prevent his being accurate about a limited\nregion lying to the east of a well-known river in a populous country. In\nlater times Luther avoided the difficult speculation by supposing that\nthe Deluge had swept away all traces of the site! But unfortunately for\nthis convenient theory, it is a plain fact that the Deluge did not sweep\nany two out of the four rivers named. The reader who is curious on the\nsubject, will find in Dr. A. Wright's article a brief account of the\nvarious identifications proposed by all these commentators. It would not\nbe interesting to go into any detail. I shall pass over all those\nextravagant views which go to places remote from the Euphrates, and come\nat once to the later attempts to solve the question in connection with\nthe two known rivers, Euphrates and Hiddekel (Tigris); as this is the\nonly kind of solution that any reasonable modern Biblical student will\nadmit.\n\nThe different explanations adopted maybe grouped into two main attempts:\n(1) to find the place among the group of rivers that surrounds Mount\nArarat in Northern Armenia, _vis._, in the extreme upper course of the\nEuphrates near its two sources; (2) to find the place below the\n_present_ junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris, along some part of\nthe united course, which is now more than two hundred miles long, and is\ncalled \"Shatt-el-'Ar\u00e1b.\"\n\nBut neither of these attempts has been successful: the first must,\nindeed, be absolutely dismissed; because the Hebrew phrases used in\ndescribing the four _branches_ of the river that \"went out,\" and watered\nthe garden, and then parted, cannot be applied to four independent\nsources or streams--_upstream_ of the Euphrates. It will not, then,\nsatisfy the problem, to find four rivers somewhere in the vicinity of\nthe Euphrates, and which, in a general way, enclose a district in which\nEden might be placed. It may, indeed, be doubted whether this first\nattempt (which I may call the \"North Armenian solution\") would ever have\nbeen seriously entertained, but from the fact that the name Gihon--or\nsomething very like it--did attach itself to the Araxes or Phasis, a\nconsiderable river of Armenia. Finding a Gihon ready, the commentators\nnext made the Pison, the Acampsis; and then as Pison was near the\n\"Havila land,\" this country was laid on the extreme north of Armenia;\nall this without a particle of evidence of any kind.[1] I may here take\nthe opportunity of remarking that a chance _similarity of names_[2] has\nbeen, throughout the controversy, a fruitful source of enlarged\nspeculative wandering. Thus this name Gihon (Gaihun, J\u00edkh\u00fan, G[=e][=o]n,\n&c.) that appears in North Armenia, again appears in connection with the\n_Nile_; while again the name \"Nile\" has wandered back to the confines of\nPersia, and one of the _Euphrates_ branches is still called\n\"Shatt-en-n\u00eel.\" The ancients, indeed, had very curious ideas about the\nNile. Its real sources being so long undiscovered--no Speke or Grant\nhaving appeared--imagination ran wild on the subject. Not only so, but\nit is remarkable that the name _Cush_ should have acquired both a\nPersian Gulf and an Egyptian employment: and the writer of the able\narticle in \"The Nineteenth Century\" (October, 1882) points out several\nother singular instances in which names are common both to the\nAfrican-Egyptian region, and to this.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: And it is astonishing to find the error generally\nperpetuated in maps attached to modern Bibles.]\n\n[Footnote 2: As distinct from a real philological connection of a modern\nname with a more ancient one, and so forth.]\n\nTurning now to the second of the two theories, the identification of the\nsite on the lower part of the Euphrates after its now existing junction\nwith the Tigris (and which the supporters of the theory have justified\nby making the Gihon and Pison two rivers coming from Eden) must also be\nset aside.\n\nFor the important fact has been overlooked that it is quite certain,\nthat anciently, the joint stream, (Shatt-el-'Ar\u00e1b), as it now is, did\nnot exist. Though the Genesis narrative tells us of a junction\n_immediately outside_ the southern boundary of the Garden, the Euphrates\nchannels and the Tigris branch (with part of the Euphrates water in it)\nflowed separately to the Persian Gulf. It is quite certain that, in the\ntime of Alexander the Great, the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris were\na good day's journey apart. For this separate outflow there is the\nincontestable evidence of Pliny and other authors quoted by Professor\nDelitzsch. I may here also remark, that anciently the Persian Gulf\nextended much farther inland than it does now. In the time of\nSennacherib, an inland arm of the sea extended so far, that a _naval_\nexpedition against Elam was possible; more than one hundred miles inland\nfrom the present sea-line. The extension was called N[=a]r Marratum. In\nAlexander's time, the city of Charax (now Mohamra) was founded close to\nthe sea (that was in the fourth century B.C.). It is known from later\nhistories, that shortly before the birth of our Saviour, the city was\nfrom fifty to one hundred and twenty Roman miles inland. The change is\ndue to the \"Delta,\" or alluvial formation at the mouth of the rivers.\n\nTurning, then, to the recent inquiries (published in 1881[1]) by\nProfessor Fried. Delitzsch, it must be confessed that the results\nobtained are such as to completely avoid all the difficulties that beset\nthe other explanations: yet we ought not to be too confident that it is\na final or absolute explanation. A certain caution and reserve will\nstill be wisely maintained on the subject. At any rate, they show that\n_an_ explanation, one that answers _all_ the conditions of the problem,\n_can_ be given; and that is a great thing.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Wo lag das Paradies\" (Leipzig, 1881) is the title of the\nbook.]\n\n[Footnote: Professor Friedrich Delitzsch is Professor of Assyriology in\nthe University of Leipzig.]\n\nIn placing the site _on_ the Euphrates, and far from the mountain\nsources, there is no violence done to the Hebrew language used to\ndescribe the first river, as one that \"went out,\" and watered the\nGarden. The words do not require that the river should actually _take_\nits _rise_ within the Garden limits; but it is necessary that the river\nshould be so situated, that its waters could be distributed by means of\ncreeks or canals across the Garden, that it could be said the river\n\"went out and watered the Garden.\" Now it is a remarkable fact, that in\nthe district just above Babylon, the bed of the Euphrates is in level\nmuch higher than the bed of the Tigris (Hiddekel) to the east, and that\nhence there always have been a number of very variable channels leading\nfrom the Euphrates eastward to the Tigris. These, it is well known, were\noften enlarged by the ancients and converted into useful \"inundation\ncanals\" for irrigation and the passage of boats. Imagine, then, the high\nlevel river bed of the Euphrates, and various streams flowing off it\ndown to the valley of the Tigris, and we have a most efficiently\nirrigated \"Garden,\" and one accurately described by the text--the great\nriver \"went out\" and watered it. The Euphrates, moreover, is liable to\ngreat flushes of water from the melting of the snows in wide tracts of\nmountain or highlands from which its waters are collected, and these\nvolumes of water found vent from the overcharged mother-channel by\nescape, not only through the side channels, just spoken of, but also by\nother important branches on the other side. Every one who has seen one\nof the great rivers of Northern India will at once realize the changes\nthat take place where a river liable to floods has its bed at a high\nlevel. It is almost a matter of certainty that, in the course of years,\nthe branches and channels of rivers so constituted will change, and old\nones be left dry and deserted. These essential topographical conditions\nhave always to be remembered in interpreting the narrative of Genesis\nii.\n\nIn fact, they furnish us with points which help us in the problem at the\noutset. (1) There is a part of the Euphrates, just above Babylon, where\nthe river naturally furnished abundant irrigation for a Garden planted\neastward of it, by means of natural irrigation channels flowing from the\nhigh level down to the lower valley of the Tigris; and (2) there is also\na point from which the Euphrates did branch out, and several important\narms anciently existed.\n\nNor is the locality, in point of verdure and fertility, unsuitable. Not\nonly do the ancient histories make frequent mention of the canals and\nstreams flowing from the Euphrates which I have alluded to, but they\nspeak of the palm groves, the vines and the verdure of the Babylonian or\nChaldean region. Herodotus, in his first book, has the most glowing\ndescription of the scene; and the kings of Babylon had numerous enclosed\ngardens or parks: these were imitated in Persia, and gave rise to the\nPersian name \"Firdaus,\" which Xenophon imported into Greek in the form\nof [Greek: paradeisos] or \"paradise\"--the term which was adopted by the\nSeventy translators.\n\nThe actual locality which Professor Delitzsch proposes as the most\nprobable site of the Garden of Eden is between the present Euphrates and\nTigris, just to the north of Babylon. The boundaries would be--roughly\nand generally speaking--the two rivers for East and West; while for the\nNorth and South boundaries we should draw parallel lines through Accad\non the North and Babylon on the South.\n\nBut granted that the general locality and the relations of the river\nEuphrates and Tigris satisfy the requirements of the text by such a\nlocation as this: how about the other two _and_ the countries which they\ncompass? The troubles of the earlier commentators will warn us, that we\nneed not be too ready to force names, and to identify one river, and\nthen, _because_ we have fixed that, make the country which the text\nrequires follow it!\n\nIt is, however, in this matter that Professor Delitzsch's work is so\nsatisfactory. He has pointed out, that there is historical evidence (and\nalso that the local traces are not wanting in the present day) to prove\nthat, just below Babylon, we _can_ find two prominently important\nchannels or branches of the Euphrates, which will at least supply the\nplace of Pison and Gihon. As to the first, it is known that in historic\ntimes a great channel called by the Greeks Pallakopas (navigable for\nships) used to carry off the surplus water of the Euphrates when swollen\nin the summer season by the melting snows of the Armenian mountains. It\nbranched off from the main river at a point somewhat north of Babylon,\nand flowed into the Persian gulf. There is, indeed, no _direct_ evidence\nto show that this branch bore a name resembling Pison. _Palgu_ is the\nAssyrian whence the Greek Pallakopas was derived. It is remarkable,\nhowever, that the word Pison closely resembles the cuneiform term\n\"pis\u00e1na,\" or \"pis\u00e1n\u00fa,\" which is used for a water-reservoir, a canal or a\nchannel; and as this \"Pallakopas\" was _the_ channel _par excellence_, it\nmay very possibly have been called \"pis\u00e1na\" or Pison, the (great)\nchannel. The identification of the channel called \"Pallakopas\" will be\nfound mentioned in Colonel Chesney's work, \"An Expedition to the\nTigris.\" The name, however, of this channel is not the only means we\nhave of identifying it. The Scripture says that the Pison compasses the\nland of _Havilah_. Now let us remember, that the Scripture tells of two\nHavilahs: (1) The second son of Cush[1] and brother of Nimrod, and (2)\none of the great great grandsons of Shem (Gen. x. 29). One we may call\nthe Cushite Havilah, the other the Joktanite Havilah. The dwelling-place\nof the brother of Nimrod is not mentioned, but it is stated that the\nJoktanite Havilah dwelt in \"Mesha.\" The tenth of Genesis is an important\nchapter, as showing how the descendants of Noah branched out and spread\nover the countries all round the Euphrates; some going north to Assyria\n(Nineveh), others to the east and west, and others south, to Arabia and\nEgypt. Now it so happens that the whole country west of the great\nPallakopas channel, was called by the Assyrians \"Mashu.\" Professor\nDelitzsch identifies this Mashu of the cuneiform inscriptions, with the\n\"Mesha\" mentioned in Scriptures, as the home of Havilah. We have also in\nGen. xxv. 8,[2] mention of a land of Havila that is \"before\"--i.e.,\neastward of--\"Egypt as thou goest toward Assyria,\" which would answer\nvery well to this locality, west of the Euphrates. It is also known\n(from sources which it would take too long to detail) that this country\ndid yield gold-dust. Pliny also mentions \"Bdellium,\" if that was the\nsubstance known as \"B'dolach.\" It is indeed uncertain what this was, but\nGesenius long ago rejected the idea that it was a stone, because there\nis no prefix to it, as there is to \"shoham,\" which follows, and\ncertainly is a precious stone. The manna in the wilderness is described\nas being of the \"colour of bdellium,\" and was also like hoar-frost;[3]\nhence the idea that b'dolach was a crystal. But a fragrant and precious\ngum-resin seems more likely. The Magi who came to worship the Infant\nSaviour from near this locality, brought offerings of _gold_, and also\nfragrant gums and myrrh. Was \"bdellium\" (as probably being a fragrant\ngum) one of these offerings?\n\n\n[Footnote 1: See Gen. x. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See also 1 Sam. xv. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Exod. xvi. 14; Numbers xi. 7: \"The appearance (lit. \"eye\")\nof it was as the appearance of bdellium\" (R.V.).]\n\nThe \"Onyx,\" or \"Shoham,\" was most probably a pure red cornelian, and\nthis also was found in the Babylonian provinces, and was specially worn\nby the Babylonian kings.\n\nSo the country west of the Euphrates answers very well to Havila without\nany forcing, and without any placing it there _because_ of the river\nrendering such a plan necessary.\n\nAs to the fourth river (Gihon), Delitzsch identifies it, still more\nclearly, with a channel known as the \"Shatt-en-n\u00edl,\" which branches off\nfrom the Euphrates at Babylon itself, and passing the Scriptural city of\nErech, rejoins the main river lower down. A clay tablet has actually\nbeen discovered, having the Euphrates, Tigris, and this Shatt-en-n\u00edl\nchannel _together_: the name of the latter is given as \"K[=a]h\u00e1n de,\" or\n\"Gugh\u00e1nde,\" a name which closely resembles Gihon. The channel is,\nhowever, identified independently of the name. For the Gihon is\nparticularized in the narrative, by the fact that it \"compasses\" the\nland of Cush. This (as already pointed out) is not the Ethiopian Cush.\n\nDelitzsch states, that the whole country bounded by this branch was\nanciently called Kash-shu, which he identifies with the Cush of Genesis\nii. The syllable \"Kash\" appears throughout this locality. In fact\nKash-du or Kal-du is the origin of the familiar name Chaldea. In the\nHebrew, Kush (Cush) is the name given to the father of Nimrod, who\n\"began\" his kingdom about this very site--Erech, and Calneh, and Accad\n(Gen. x. 8, 10). Hence it is not surprising that relics of the name\nshould be found all round this neighbourhood. Nor does the evidence end\nhere. The district immediately around Babylon was called \"K\u00e1r-dunish-i,\"\ni.e., the \"Garden of the god Dunish.\" Now Kar is the Turanian form of\nthe Semitic G[=a]n, or Gin[=a] (garden); and what is more likely than\nthat, as the true story was lost in the heathen traditions and mythology\nthat grew up, the \"garden\" was attributed to the god Dunish--whereas the\nreal original had been not \"G\u00e0ndunish,\" but \"Gan'Eden?\" This, though\nonly a conjecture, is the more probable, as one of the inscription-names\nof Babylon itself was \"Tintira,\" which, though a little obscure,\ncertainly means _either_ the \"_grove_,\" or the _\"fountain,\" of life._\n\nWe thus find, not only that four great branches of the river that \"went\nout,\" and watered the Garden can be traced, but that the two really do\n\"compass\" tracts, that can, with the highest degree of probability, be\nidentified as C[=u]sh or Kash, and Havilah. The importance of Professor\nDelitzsch's work may now be briefly glanced at. It may be objected, that\nsuch a process of reasoning as that put forward, is not convincing to a\ngeneral reader who has not the means of criticizing or testing Professor\nDelitzsch's conclusions: he therefore cannot be sure that, in selecting\ntwo channels to represent the Pison and the Gihon, and in identifying\n\"Mashu\" with Mesha of Havilah, and one of the Babylonian districts with\nKush, the Professor has at last hit off a solution of the problem which\nwill not in its turn be disproved, as all earlier solutions have been.\nThere is, however, this important conclusion to be safely drawn, viz.,\nthat a complete explanation in exact accord with the Hebrew text is\n_possible_, and that hence nothing can be urged against the _narrative_,\non the ground (hitherto sneeringly taken) that the geography _was\nimpossible_ and so forth.\n\nNext let me very briefly sum up what it is that Dr. Delitzsch has\ndone--marshalling the evidence, beginning from the broad end and\nnarrowing down till we arrive at the point.\n\n(1) First, then, we are fixed by the narrative to some place between the\nEuphrates and the Tigris.\n\n(2) We find in the ancient inscriptions of the chief city of this\nlocality, constant allusions to a Garden, a primitive pair and a\ntemptation: one of these almost exactly reproduces the Bible story; it\nis not of the earliest date and is a copy. But discovery is far from\nbeing exhausted; all that we know is _consistent_ with the idea of an\noriginal story, gradually corrupted by the addition of legends, and\nintroduction of mythological persons and heathen divinities. The true\nbelief in one God, who made Himself known by voice or vision to His true\nworshippers, seems early to have been confined to a few of the Shemitic\nfamilies, while the others \"invented\" gods of their own.\n\n(3) We find that the region about Babylon itself was called\nK\u00e1r-dunishi--which easily recalls Kar or G\u00e1n-Eden. We also find the name\n(Tintira) applied, indicating a \"grove\" or \"fountain\" of life; in the\nlocality where the direct legends most abound.\n\n(4) We find from ancient authors that the district was one of rich\nverdure--a land of gardens and irrigation.\n\n(5) We find that some way above Babylon about Accad, the level of the\nriver bed Euphrates is so much higher than the valley of the Tigris\neastward, that numerous streams flow off from it, which would serve\nadmirably to irrigate a garden situated between the two, eastward of the\nEuphrates.\n\n(6) We find that the Persian Gulf once extended more than one hundred\nmiles farther inland than it does now. That there was no joint outflow\nof Tigris and Euphrates, but, though they did join their streams above,\nthey parted again and had still separate mouths--of the Tigris branch\none, of the Euphrates several.\n\n(7) Lastly, Professor Delitzsch finds two channels which answer to Pison\nand Gihon.\n\n(8) He proves these two to be the right ones by considering the\ncountries which they \"compass:\" and actually finds the one that he\nsupposes to be the \"Gaih\u00fbn,\" called, in the cuneiform clay tablets,\n\"Kah\u00e1n or Gagh\u00e2n-d\u00e9.\"\n\nIt is really only in (7) and (8) that there is any room for doubt and\nfor further inquiry.\n\nAt any rate, the credibility of the narrative, and a belief in its\npurpose, as a topographically exact statement of fact, not an allegory\nor legend, is established.","title":"Creation and Its Records: A Brief Statement of Christian Belief with Reference to Modern Facts and Ancient Scripture","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":59039}