Genes-isi *\ »\ ^ *\ \ ©RN Science \ it. * * * TV. ^ President White Library, Cornell University. Cornell University Library BS650 .W29 Genesis I and modern science /by Ch^^^ olln 3 1924 029 284 241 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029284241 GENESIS 1. AND MODERN SCIENCE We will," if you please, test this view in the light of facts. — Prof. Huxley^ New York Lectures Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? Unto Caesar thou shalt go. — Acts By CHARLES B. WARRING, Ph.D. AUTHOR OF The Miracle o/ To-Day : Genesis and its Critics ; Miracle^ Law^ and Mvof lution: Geological Climate: etc., etc. Member New York Academy of Science, Associate Member Pkilosophical Society of Great Britain, Mem.ber Vassar Brothers' Institute NEW YORK: HUNT 6- EATON CINCINNATI: CRANSTON 6- STOWE 1892 t A. ^OCG^ f, JoIneilN .UNIVERSITY ^' UDRARY / Copyright, 1892, by HUNT & EATON, Nbw York, TO ASTRONOMERS AND GEOLOGISTS, TO WHOM THE WORLD IS INDEBTED FOR ALL THAT IS KNOWN OF THE PRE-HUMAN HISTORY OF OUR GLOBE, AND FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF TESTING THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE STORY OF CREATION, THIS BOOK IS ia^^jjiitfullj MtisitKtzi. IT ASKS ONLY FAIR DEALING, AND THAT ITS OWN MISTAKES SHALL NOT BE CHARGED TO THE ACCOUNT OF WHICH IT TREATS. C. B. WARRING. POUGHKEEPSIE, N. Y,, ( January lO, i&)2. \ CONTENTS. PREFATORY. PAGE The question stated 9 The kind of jury entitled to decide it 9 Professor Huxley's New York lectures 11 The flexibility of science 12 The lack of a brief story of creation by scientists 14 Dr. Draper's Conflict, etc 15 The " defense by the Professor weak " 17 As to a change of inclination of the earth's azia 18 This story resembles annals, and not memoirs 19 Christians sick of harmonies and reconciliations 20 An objection by a Christian scientist 23 Is literality possible ? 24 A fact to be remembered, namely, that Genesis was not given to teach science 25 A chart of the world's history 27 THE PROFESSOR. Description of the Professor 30 The extent and source of the Professor's knowledge of Genesis. 32 Our agreement 34 The rules we agreed upon 35 Dr. Draper's view of what a revelation should do. 37 OUR FIRST EVENINO. Gen. i, 1-3. Some of the books we used 39 Study of the first verse. " In the beginning " 40 Three errors 42 " Without form and void" 43 A denial which would be fatal to nebular hypothesis 44 4 CONTENTS. PAGE Fourth error 44 Fifth error 46 *' And darkness was upon the face of the deep " 47 Sixth error. " Darkness a substance " 48 Same origin of force as of motion 49 Seventh objection. No such early waters 49 Eighth objection. " This is too much hke the Talmudiats " 55 If inth objection. " Yerbal agreements with science are mere ac- cidents " 56 Tenth objection. " Light pronounced good too soon " 57 The order here a matter of great importance 59 The progress from universal light to present days and nights. . . 59 Eleventh error. " All was done in one short day " 64 Twelfth error 66 Thirteenth error (now obsolete). Light placed independent of the sun 67 OUR SECOND EVENING. Gen. i, 6-8. Titally important to science that verses 1 to 5 should be true. . . 68 Objection 14. " Moses does not mean exactly as he says " 71 Objection 15. " Matter and force are eternal " 71 The story from geology of the azoic part of the earth*s progress . 7 2 What phenomenon marked the end of this stage ? 74 Objection 16. " A literal Genesis leads to an absurdity, namely, sun, moon, and stars were somewhere in the air '' 76 Objection 17. "A solid firmament" 78 Article from Bibliotheca Sacra, the firmament, a full discus- sion 79 Eighteenth error. *' The expanse made in twenty-four hours ". . 94 Objection 19. Such literalism leads to absurdity 95 The firmament not pronounced ** good," and why? 96 OUR THIRD EVENING. Gen. i, 9-13. The ninth verse. The land and water 98 What geologists say 99 Twentieth error. "Moses says the dry land appeared in only a few hours " 100 CONTENTS. 5 PAGE Note on the completion of the land 1 02 " Good." Its appropriateness here 103 Twenty-first error. "The order is wrong." Moses puts the continents before any' plants, and all plants before any ani- mals, and all water animals and birds before cattle " 106 Twenty-second error. " Moses puts fruit-trees, as well as grass, before the sun." lOt \ OUR FOURTH EVENING. Gen. i, 14-19. THE FOURTH PERIOD. Twenty-third error. " The place of the sun is wrong " 110 The diflSculty of this topic. Solutions proposed Ill My course. "I first sought to know just what it was that Moses said " 114 A discussion of, " Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven " 114 A peculiar Hebrew idiom in the use of lahmed before infinite. . 116 Note. Rosenmiiller on this phrase 117 What was done ? Change of inclination of axis ] ] 9 Two scientific objections : (1) All forces affecting the inclination of the axis are compensative ; (2) with axis perpendicular polar regions would receive less heat rays than they do now. 123 Present inclination unaccountable by science 124 Proof from paleontology of such change near the close of ter- tiary 125 The occurrence of seasons in very early times proved by existence of early growth rings 128 Answer from article in American Journal of Science proving *' rings " independent of seasons 128 OUR FIFTH EVENING. THE FOURTH PERIOD CONTINUED. The command to the " lights in the firmament of heaven". . . , 131 "Todivide." For signs. Seasons 131 Objection 24. " Seasons " here does not mean the astronomical seasons 133 6 CONTENTS. FAQS Objection 24*. " God did not make the sun so late " 138 Objection 25. "Too much meaning attaclied to the words, *And it was so ' " 140 Objection 26. "If the sun was not made after fruit-trees, etc., then tlie order of the storj is not the order of nature, for the story speaks of sun, moon, and stars only after it has spoken of those plants " 141 Objection 27. "Then God has misled people, contrary to his truthfulness " 143 Objection 28. " Then if God does not tell of the creation of these in tlie fourth period he has left that out altogether ". . . 145 OUR SIXTH EVENINQ. / THE earth's rank IN THE UNIVERSE. Error 29. " Moses regards the earth as the center of the uni- verse" 148 Error 30. Moses says, "Sun and moon were made merely to give light to our earth " 149 The inhabitabihty of other worlds 151 Objection 31. "It seems absurd that the sun was made for the little earth" 155 Christ's coming here is a greater marvel than that 156 OUR SEVENTH EVENING. Gen. i, 20-2S. ANIMALS. Objection 32. " The world thinks this story means that before fishes and birds there was no life at all " 158 " All that Moses says as to animals, water, air, or land " 159 De la Saporta's evidence 1 59 Dana's and others 1 60 " Moses says nothing of the first introduction of iifo " 160 Objection 33. Organic life a new thing on our globe 161 Objection 34. " Moses represents animals as made directly and abruptly from earth, air, and water ". .' 162 CONTENTS. 7 PAGE Abruptness, an eminent characteristic of the p^eological record.. . 164 Objection 35. " Scientists are unwilling to admit divine interpo- sition " 166 " Ordinary law and special law " 167 Error 36. " In error placing Adam only six thousand years back" 168 Error 37. " The Bible teaches that the earth is flat and immov- able, and that there are no antipodes " 170 Objection 38. " This is not the Grenesis in which the world has believed " 171 What this account is 374 OUR EIGHTH EVENING. THE VERDICT — " GOOD," " Good" does not here refer to moral character, but to use or fit- ness. A study of all cases where it occurs 178 A table of all its applications and omissions 184 OUR NINTH EVENING. SUNDRY mPORTANT MATTERS, The " days." Theories of 186 The fourth commandment. - 189 An historical illustration of the meaning of the days 190 Six natural stages of development 191 "What this chapter really is 1 94 Dr. Draper's statement as to what a revelation should do 196 My method of studying this-account 1 98 God's purpose in giving it \ 200 (1) To set forth his Creatorship 200 (2) To impress on man the duty of observing the Sabbath 200 (3) To set forth God as a person, and not mere force 201 (4) To authenticate the divine origin of the Bible 202 " A Hymn of Creation " ^, . . 204 Its remarkable character 205 8 CONTENTS. FAOB How it was giveu to Moses 207 A resume of this story « 210 List of errors often charged to this account „ ■ . . 212 Gladstone's and Professor Huxley's articles la Mneteentk Oenlmry. 212 SUNDRY PAPERS. Dr, Draper's test, or the foreshadowings in this story 214 The traditional Genesis 211 The Babylonian legend of creation not the source of the Bible account 221 This account not the work of some ancient scientist 240 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE; PREFATORY. With most scientists it is no longer good form to regard the first chapter of Genesis as any thing more than a poem, the work of a wise bnt uninspired man. High authority advises the " students of science no longer to trouble themselves with these theologies, for their statements are false and their order is wrong." On this I join issue, and propose, as Professor Huxley says, "to test this view in the ajutv of ex- light of facts." t As the questions p®^ desired, which arise are questions in astron omy, geology, and other departments of natural science, nothing better can be desired than that they should be de- cided by a jury of experts in these studies. In * This paper originally appeared in The Living Church. It has been rewritten in part, but not essentially changed. \ " Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled : who among them can . . . show us former things ? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth." — Isa. xliii, 9. 10 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. trials involving commercial law it is desirable to get a jury familiar with its principles. In questions of maritime law experts in that department are sought. In questions of mechanics or engineering men who are to decide tliem ought to have a knowledge of their piinciples. Witli equal justice it is claimed that men acquainted with science are best qualified — I should say ought to be best qualified — to judge of the character of a document purporting to state facts in the antehuman history of our world. The desirableness of such a jury needs, however, a twofold qualifica- tion. First, that the " science" which they hold is itself true. The world has seen an amazing amount of " sci- ence" which, it is now told, is rubbish; and it very strongly inclines to the belief that much which is held in biology, atomics, and other metaphysico-physics will eventually prove to belong to the same class. And, secondly, they must be so clear-sighted as not to mis- take their own ignorance for negative evidence, since there are many matters of which science as yet knows nothing. They must also be so honest as to be willing to give a verdict in accordance with the evidence, even though it overturn some favorite theory or tend to establish the reality of that "impossible" thing, a revelation. One, for example, who advocates the nebular hypothesis and scouts theologians for not ac- cepting it, but declares Moses contradictsscience when he says that the earth was once without fonii and void ; PREFATORY. 11 or one who, admitting it to be true elsewhere, that darkness preceded motion and that motion preceded light, denies it in the story of creation, is too much nnder the influence of prejudice to serve on such a jury. I would set him aside. It would only he following the example of every court of justice to require the jury to answer simply guilty, or not guilty, or the Scotch verdict of not proven, to each count. Did the judge permit each juror to make a speech instead of uttering a simple yes or no, the matter in dispute would become so in- volved in a cloud of words that no conclusion would be reached. A very serious embarrassment meets us at the start. There is no authoritative statement in Professor Hux- which are gathered the facts which will ley's New York be needed. This is greatly to be regretted. !E^eeling this keenly, I availed myself, a few years ago, of the announcement in the papers that so high an au- thority, and one so free from suspicion of theological bias as Professor Huxley, was about to deliver a course of lectures in New York on matters pertaining to the early earth-history, and wrote a letter to the JVew York Tribune, from which the following is an extract : " I am sure that all will join in the wish that Pro- fessor Huxley would give an outline of what is known of the antehuman history of the globe. In the nature of the case it should set forth only the most salient 12 G£JN£JSIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. points, and should treat solely of those matters as to which there is no longer any doubt. In other words, it should avoid theorif^s and state facts. It would not be too much to ask the distinguished Professor to clothe his account in simple language, that those not versed in science may understand." The motive for this request was stated to be a de- sire to compare the account of creation given by so eminent a scientist with that which Moses has left on record, and which, right or wrong, so many believe to be true. It is greatly to be regretted that Professor Huxley did not comply with this request. Instead, he repeated the story of creation which is found in Paradise Lost^ adding, with ill-concealed irony, " I do not for one mo- ment venture to say tliat this could properly be called the biblical doctrine." And then, referring to conflicts of opinion and changes of exposition among writers on Genesis, he adds a sneering fling at the " marvelous flexibility of the Hebrew" — a fling which comes with peculiarly ill grace from a scientist, for the theories of scientists are ever changing. The reader will find no difficulty in recalling in- The"flexibiii- Stances of the ^'flexibility" of science. ty" of science, r^^ ^^^ nothing of old examples, one of recent date will suffice. A few years ago it was the fashionable "sci- ence" — for "science" has its fashions — to say that PREFATORY. 13 the different races of men could not have descended from one pair. It is easy to recall the arguments so glibly used. " The hair of the Caucasian is specif- ically different from the wool of the Negro." Then there was " the broad shin-bone, the long heel, and the thick skull." If one ventured to regard these as insufficient he was sneeringly told that no one of any standing as a scientist believed in the unity of the race. It was clear to these gentlemen that the "anonymous author of Genesis" had no "sci- ence," and consequently that he blundered grossly when he represented mankind as sprung from one pair. Theologians, as usual, showed their inability to rise above their traditions, and take broader and more reasonable views, and accept the true " scientific " doc- trine that the human family was descended from an unknown number of independent pairs. So at least we were told again and again, and all the opponents of revelation said, "Out upon such bigotry and folly ! " But to-day scientists tell the world that "After all, men have originated from a common center," and then a vice-president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science adds the ffing, " And now the Church is no better satisfied."* The learned vice-president well knows that the Churcli is not dis- * Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science^ 18V6, p. 145. 14 GENESIS T.AND MODERN SCIENCE. satisfied with the conclusion of which he spoke, but with another and widely different one, namely, that men, and brutes, and plants, too, are descended without supernatural help from some one or more original cells which somehow got into existence — a matter of spontaneous development, as if the refuse of a lime- kiln should turn into a Venus de' Medici ! It may be tliat I am blind, but it seems to me far easier, and far more in accord with the experience of mankind, to believe that such changes are the result of intelligent will rather than of law without intelligence or will to enforce it. This, however, is not the time to discuss evolution. I am a believer in it — for example, a ship from a canoe ; farms from prairies ; the telescope from the play with spectacles of the Dutch optician's children; and in thousands of other instances. But I have wandered from Professor Huxley and his lectures, I return merely to say that he ostensibly left Moses and attacked Milton, but with the assumption constantly prominent that he was demolishing the former. I now renew the request made in the New York Tribune — I have made it many times — and ask any scientist of the school of Professor Huxley to give, in his own way and in plain English, the early history of the world. I ask him to place the facts, so far as known, in their true order, and beg him not to wander PREFATORY. 15 away to matters of which Genesis says nothing ; since, however important they may be, they would distract the reader's attention and draw him from the question. If such a history should be written all intelligent persons could see in what consist the " gross errors " of Moses. This surely is not too much to ask of those who are constantly lauding " science " at the ex- pense of the Bible. But I fear it will never be done. Is it not time that those who scout this account should do something more than talk about its falsehoods and come to particulars, and show in its own words just what it is that is contradicted by science ? It will not do to quote, as did Professor Huxley, what Milton or Father Suarez says Moses said, or intended to say: No court of justice would for one moment accept such evidence when the original documents were at hand. I have looked in vain through Dr. Draper's Ifis- tory of the Conflict between Religion and ^^ ^^^ , /Science, thinking that so able a writer, conjuct he- ^ tween Relig- who had become, as he himself assures us, ion and Scu " accustomed to the comparison of con- flicting statements, the adjustment of conflicting claims," would tell his readers plainly what it is in the Mosaic cosmogony which conflicts with science. The indictment which he has drawn does not meet the expectations excited by the title of his book. To be sure, he mentions several matters about which 16 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE, there have been fierce disputes, as, for example, the length of time since the creation of the earth ; the shape of the world, whether flat or spherical ; the existence of antipodes ; whether animals died before the fall, etc. ; but as the Mosaic cosmogony does not say one word about any of them their relevancy is far from apparent. Although Professor Huxley did not give that out- line of the world's history asked for, yet he placed upon record three statements of great importance in this discussion, which the reader will do well to bear carefully in mind. He told his hearers, as the teach- ings of the most advanced science, that " The world had a beginning ; " and that " The physical form of the earth can be traced back to a condition in which its parts were separated as little more tlian a neb- ulous cloud, making part of a whole in which we find the sun and the planetary bodies also resolved ;" and that " All that is now dry land was once at the bottom of the sea." The interest in these statements does not arise from their novelty, but from their clear enunciation of facts essential to a comprehension of the Mosaic story. The remainder of Professor Huxley's lectures may or may not have been in harmony with the actual history of our planet; its discussion would be' out of place here, since it has little to do with the story in the first chapter of Genesis, the fossils of which he PREFATORY. 17 spoke long antedating the "living" creatures of that account. In this essay I have been able to speak of only a part of the many interesting subjects nnore or less directly referred to in the first two chapters of Gen- esis. A few . years ago I put out a volume entitled The Mosaic Account of Creation^ the Miracle of To-day^ in which I discussed many matters not spoken of here. The present is a more extended study of a particular portion of the subjects consid- ered in that book. I have put it in the form of a conversation, because I was thus enabled more easily to bring in the objections which have been made by others, or which have occurred to myself. If the reader thinks the "Professor" offers IT • 1 -^^^^ Profes- a weak defense of his side, I agree with sor's weak de- him. But I submit that the weakness is inlierent in the nature of the case. It must be remembered that, by the rules which we adopted, he was not permitted to indulge in a priori disquisi- tions on the reality of miracles ; or on the possibility of a revelation ; or as to whether we can know any thing of God ; or whether the second chapter of Genesis contradicts the first ; or whether Moses wrote the account, or Ezra; or whether there were two writers, an Elohistic and a Jehovistic, or any other matter outside of these two questions: Are the phys- ical statements in the first twenty-seven verses true ? 18 GEI^ESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. and is their order correct ? It is surprising how these limitations cause objections to disappear. Most persons seem to think, when they have devised a scheme by which to obtain the time-space needed by astronomy and geology, that little remains to be done to explain the whole account. This is a great mistake. There are in it many other questions which demand attention, some perhaps even more difficult, as will appear hereafter. At first it may appear easy enough to get along if we hold the Mosaic story to be an allegory ; but on a fair trial such an hypothesis will be found to in- volve more difficulties than it avoids. If it be objected that certain conclusions in this Conclusions as cssay pertaining to the inclination of the inclination of earth's axis have not been adopted by earth's axis. scientific men, I beg leave to say that I am well aware of it, but, nevertheless, I believe them to be true. They were in no case made to force a harmony or to eke out an argument, but rest upon facts and reasons which seem impossible to be ex- plained in any other way. The most important of these will be laid before the reader when we come to consider the fourth period. "Whether there has been an increase in the obliquity of the eartli's axis since the middle of the pliocene has a very important bearing upon the explanation here offered of the work of the fourth creative stage, PREFATORY. 19 while in no degree affecting otlier parts of the nar- rative. And if my proposed exposition should turn out to be erroneous it would merely leave the fourth period among questions which await solution. A writer in the Bihliotheoa Sacra^ who favors my Mosaic AGCotmtof Creation with a notice, This story an- repeats, with apparent approval, the re- ng-is, and not T « i» • T 1 1 1 . memoirs. mark oi a iriena who, lie assures his readers, is high authority, that I erred in comparing this narrative to the kind of history called annals. In his opinion it should have been memoii'S. Why ! he missed the most important point in the argument, the most wonderful thing in the story, its correct order ! " Memoirs " might do well enough for those who hold that this account will not bear too close examination. But it need shrink from no test, how- ever severe. The accuracy of its order will be found to be the crucial argument that compels belief in its divine origin. That I have rightly solved all the questions which I have attempted is not to be expected. The Mosaic story of creation has been the problem of the ages. I reverently offer this as a contribution to its solution. If the reader finds a tithe of the pleasure in its perusal which I have found in its preparation he will not- regret the time spent upon it. Yet he must not ex- pect to master the matter without study. While a hasty reading may not be without profit, the value of 20 GENESIS I AND MODERN SCIENCE. the return will be in proportian to the time and thought spent upon it, and, I may add, in proportion to the reader's knowledge of physical science. Of no document known to me can it be as truly said that its comprehension, even to the limited extent now possible, is in itself a libei'al education as of this much contemned and often unfairly treated first chapter of Genesis. I will also say that there is no other docu- ment of equal brevity known to me the successful denial of whose statements, were that possible, would result in consequences so disastrous to science itself. The reader may smile at. this as the words of an en- thusiast, but I appeal to the evidence which will be produced as we go on. But says some good Christian brother: "I am "I am sick of ^ick of hai^monies and reconciliations of recTncTiia- Genesis and science. They have brought tioQs." derision on the believers in the Revelation. By ignoring some parts of the account and by plac- ing great stress upon others — by a liberal interpreta- tion of what Moses said by what, in their opinion, Moses meant to say — an agreement with 'science' has again and again been laboriously forced. But scarcely were things ' fixed ' before it was discovered that the 'science' to" which Genesis had been- twisted was, after all, only a theory, and was never intended for any thing more than a convenience to string facts on. It was good enough to attack the Bible with, PREFATORY. 21 but of no value if taken in earnest; in fact, was dis- proved by some later discovery." He begins to think all science is to be taken in a Pickwickian sense. Shonld such a person read these lines I would re- mind him that if this story be really from God its harmony with the world's history must become more and more manifest as real science advances; and, hence, that a time will come when the two, so far as they treat of the same subjects, will coincide. It is equally true that if men form theories and offer ex- planations before they have the facts on w^hicli to found them their work must show the marks of their ignorance ; and it ought not to excite surprise that so many such efforts have proved to be of no value. Whatever may be thought of certain prominent theories of so-called science — mostly per- much known taining to biology — there is no doubt bJstoTy oT^"hi that vastly more of the world's actual ^^^^' history is known now than, for example, in the days of Milton ; and, consequently, we are to that extent in a better position for comprehending the story of creation. On the other hand, if the ac- count in Genesis were of human invention it would easily square with the science of the times in which it was written. But when men acquired larger and more accurate knowledge of the past it would di- verge more and more fro ni the current "science," until, at last, the contradiction would become so ap- 22 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. parent that no sane man could accept both as true. This has been the fate of all cosmoo:onies save the Mosaic. The qiiestionj then, is : Has the science of to-day made snch progress that we are warranted in accept- ing any of its conclusions in this direction as abso- lute verities ? Have we any facts ? A very brief survey of what has been accomplished will convince the reader that a vast number of facts have been as- certained about which there is no longer any room for dispute. Many of these have become, as it were, a part of the warp and woof of our every-day thought, so that it requires an effort to realize that sensible men ever believed otherwise ; as, for example, that tlie're are antipodes, that the earth turns on its axis and revolves about the sun, and that on this and the inclination of the -axis the seasons depend. The school-boy of to-day laughs at the wisdom of Herod- otus, wlio tells his readers that the sun goes south every autumn to escape the colds and s'torms of win- ter, and returns when they are over.* There are many other facts which have not yet reached all minds, but which are .as universally admitted by those who have given attention to such matters. Now, if * " During the winter the aim is driven out-of his usual course by the storms, and removes to the upper part of Libya, When the winter begins to soften, the sun goes back again to his old place in the middle of the heavens." — BawU-nson^s Herodotus. PREFATORY. 23 we take sueli accepted facts and compare with them the statements in the first chapter of Genesis it is evident that we may ascertain whether that account and the world's actual history agree so far, providing we neither mistake silence for contradiction nor al- low our Qwn notions to modify w^hat Moses says. This is all I propose to do in this book. I submit that results so obtained are worthy of serious consid- eration. While writing out the following conversations I endeavored to bring into them all the objections which would be appropriate in the mouth of the Pro- fessor ; but there is one which has been presented by a reader of my other book on this subject which does not belong to this class. This gentleman, a warm Christian, and of course a believer in revelation, writes me : " I think it is forcing the simplicity of Genesis to interpret it as describing with any sort of scientific accuracy such infinitely complex proc- esses as those involved in the evolution of the pres- ent state and relation of matter and force." My friend sets up what he supposes a serious difficulty in the way of accepting my exposition of Genesis, and will doubtless be surprised to know that I agree with him that such an interpretation would be forcing the simplicity of the account. I see in Genesis no attempt to describe the proc- esses of nature. I read that there was light ; that an 24 GENESIS I, AND MODERN SOIENGR expanse was made in the midst of the waters ; that the waters were gathered into one place, and that the dry land appeared, and that the earth brought forth certain kinds of vegetation ; that God made the lights; that the waters brought forth water ani- mals; that the land bore land animals; but not one word do I see as to " the infinitely complex processes involved." A letter before me asks : " In such a document is Is uteraiity literality possible ? Could the events have possible ? })een described by man, whoever the communicator, in language that adrnits of literal in- terpretation, considering man's imperfect knowledge and powers of apprehension ? " To this I answer: The possibility of a literal com- munication depends upon what it is which is to be communicated. The Hebrews could not have under- stood had Moses undertaken to tell how God created the heaven and the earth, and I very much suspect he would have no better success now, though he had Royal Societies and National Academies for his audience. But the single fact that God did create the heaven and the earth the Hebrews could, and, I may add, did, understand as well as the wisest moderns. The nebular hypothesis would have been incom- prehensible then, and is largely so now ; but that the earth was once formless and void, a fluid, and envel- PREFATORY. 25 oped in darkness, are statements not difficult to com- prehend. The how and the why are as difficult now as then ; but of them Moses says nothing. It may have been impossible for the Hebrews to understand, no matter who the communicator, how the first, or any, plants were "made — a matter as diffi^ cult to-day as then ; but it is easy enough to under- stand that grass, herbs, and fruit-trees came up at a certain time in obedience to the will of the Creator. So in regard to animals, literality is easily possible ^s to all that is here said. Literality presents no im- possibility so long as we do not leave the account ; and what other kind of literality is conceivable ? All this is equally true of what we call natural phenomena. iSTothing is easier to understand than a statement that after a certain number of days of in- cubation the young bird comes forth from the egg. "We may watch the process and note the successive changes ; and the more intense our literalism the easier will our description be understood, and the greater be its value as material for the science-mill of the biologist ; but the how and the why that underlie it all will be unintelligible, and perhaps will always remain so. It is important to remember that the Bible was not given to man to teach him science. Inci- a fact to be dentally, as it were, it contains a vast r®"^emfeered. amount of physical truth, but that is a very different 26 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. matter. Tlie heavens contain all the truths of astron- omy, and the rocks all of geology ; but it was very long before there was a science of astronomy, and geology is only of yesterday. The story in Genesis speaks only of those things which all men see, and teaches that God made them. This, it says, was the origin of the heavens above them and the earth and sea beneath, of the transparent expanse above and around them, of sun, moon, and stars, of the vegetation spread out on every side, of the cattle, of wild beasts, of birds, and of the monsters of the sea. As to all else the account is silent. It does not speak of the laws of gravitation, or of light, or of sound. Nor does it speak of intelli- gences of higher and more ancient order than man, those sons of G-od who shouted for joy when he laid the foundation of the earth, nor of the long succes- sion of geological horizons with plants and animals preceding and unlike these contemporaneous with man. This principle of contemporaneity with the human race seems almost too evident to need argument. It fits in with every part of the story and brings all into order. The neglect of it by Mr. Gladstone in Kis NvneteervSh Century debate with Professor Huxley enabled the latter to win an easy victory. I cannot help again expressing my regret that Hux- ley, or Tyndall, or Dr. Draper, or some other author- ity in physical science among those who have called this story a myth, has not aided us in forming a true PEEFAT0R7. 27 estimate of its character bj clearly and distinctly setting forth, in simple language, hia own version of the matter, placing each event in its proper order. Fortunately, we all have access to the results of the labors of those who are eminent in all that pertains to our earth's historj'^, and so can make out for our- selves what will serve our purpose until they shall give us something better. As an appropriate prelude to the discussion of the Mosaic account, a chart of the world's Achartofthe history has been prepared for the benefit '^^^'^'^^'''^'^^ of those who may not have time or opportunity to study up for themselves. It divides naturally into two parts. The first in- cludes the immeasurable period between the " begin- ning " and the time when our earth reached the non- luminous condition. In this long interval the solar sys- tem was formed. Toward the end of it the sun shone as brightly as now, and the earth and other planets re- volved around it and ou their axes essentially as at present. During that period the earth was intensely hot, like the sun, and consequently self-luminous. In this part of the chart the reader will find set down in chronological order certain great facts pertaining to what may be styled the embryonic period, when tlie earth was in progress from primordial, shapeless mat- ter, to the present rounded, non-luminous planet. The remainder of the chart includes the time from 28 GEK^SIS LAND MODERN SCIENCE. the end of the first period to the creation of man. It begins with the first day on our planet — not the first j-evolution on its axis, but the first alternation of light and darkness, or, as we say, day and night. In the earliest part of this immense stretch of time there was a long period of wluch geology knows but little. There were boiling waters and dense clouds exclud- ing the sun. There was no life, vegetable or animal. It was a true azoic age, and forms part of what geol- ogists have styled " archsean time." In the first column on the left of the chart are the Mosaic periods. In the second column are the names of geological divisions, themselves divided into four great groups called Archsean, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic times. In the third column is set forth the gradual emergence of the land from the universal ocean to present continents. In the fourth are shown the stages of production, or development, of the veg- etable kingdom. The fifth column sets forth the progress of animal life from the protozoa to man. In the sixth is given the climate of the geological periods. The figures in parentheses refer to pages in Dana's Manual of Geology^ edition of 1880, to which tlie reader will do well to refer. Indeed, I can hardly speak too strongly of the importance of his getting that work and turning to the references and reading up for himself. At the least, if he would get much SYNCHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF OUR WORLD'S HIST< PART I, OR THE EMBRYONIC STAGE. (Th Of the origin of matter science knows nothing. It can only say, with Genesis 1 : "In the be^ diffused, and, until In motion, wholly In darkness. The earth itself was then unformed and motion science Is wholly ignorant, and can only attribute it to the same source as matter. At t astronomy, aided by spectroscopy. After motion came heat and light; the latter being feeble, i trum, three narrow hands. With the impartation of motion the solar system began to form. Intense heat. The next step was the change from a vapor to a liquid, and then the hitherto p probable that the planets were all formed, and revolvlne about the sun. Further cooling causei light. Henceforth our globe was dependent on the sun for illumination, and then for the first t is to be reckoned the beginning of present conditions. For all that is known from this point on PART II, OR TRUE GEOLOG'L DIVIS'NS. LAND AND WATER. Azoic Time. (1) Water only as separate gases. (2) Water as steam or vapor. Nont Arch^an Time. The water deposited, and the land all covered by It. Later on, a few spots here and there began to appear. (160.) Vegetation here be) kinds, reaching nothh flowerlesB, seealess, a ureless sea-weeds. (1 Lower Silurian During this age the land continued to emerge, but Its ext ent was small. Upper Silurian Age. In the Upper Silurian the emergence continued, but was still qnite limited, More species of sea-i plants. (169.) Now were added th seedless and flowerles Devonian Age. Land still emerging, but not very exten- sive. At its close In the present United States, for example, the New England States, Middle, and Western, north of the Ohio, with a few spots In other places, were all that were above water. (292.) To the previous vege many new species. A Elants whose seeds vn ruit. All were eithej gymno-sperms. (288.) Carboniferous Age. The emerging continues ; and by the close of this age, in the United States, besides the above, about as much more south and west was left bare. (292.) To all the above we cycads, trees Interme nifers and the yet fii was the a^e of coal. ( '* At the close of the Carboniferous Age there was an ext Triasslc Period. Emergence continues, but was not ex- tensive in the United States, including east of longitude 30 degrees only a few thousand square miles for this period and the next combined. The develop- ment was much greater In Europe. Jurassic Period, Cretaceous Period. Plants as before, hi New kinds of tree-ft conifers, mainly cam No grasses nor mosses The development in this period, also, was much greater in Europe than in North Amenca. Large additions to the land in both hemispheres. Plants of same types all plants thus far wer that is, sxK>re-bearing- — that is, gymno-spern f i-uit-trees to the end o In addition to the ; naked-seeded plants at first time palms and ai bearing fruit whose s« 8g~ At the close of this period there was a destructlont 41 Eocene Period. Miocene Period. Pliocene Period. A considerable increase in extent of the dry land. A further enlargement. In this period the dry land was complet- ed, having before its close the samecoasts, mountains, and plains as at present. All anglosperms ant become dominant. An Increase in the t in the Eocene. Glacial Period. A time of high latitude movements of the earth's crust. A very large portion was covered with Ice. Anglosperms and'^^i^ the dominant veget'Siitli era were established. Champlaln Period. Land depressed, especially in high lat- itudes. Reindeer Period. Human Period. Present plants llvedi odofice (Saporta,!*) p. 380). Land, In part, elevated above the pres- ent. "Land about as In the Pliocene period. Plants continue unci Plants continue unci Plants continue unci Speaking of the period just after the glaciers, Professor Nicholson, in his Ancient lAfe Sis iK all are living species. At the close of each period there seems to have been a very conslderal seems to have been much mo" -> — ^"^^ '^*»** nnaltlon of man Is In dispute. Some place his nrstt X, B.— The numbers abo — , thir STORY AS MADE KNOWN BY ASTRONOMY AND GEOLOGY. [This includes the whole of the First Mosaic Period.) banning God created tlie heavens and the earth," At first matter was infinitely attennated, uniformly and void. The first step toward present conditions was the impartatlon of motion. Of the origin of Atthia epoch the nebular part of the world's history begins. Henceforth it comes within the domain of ble,as shown by present nebulae. It had in its spectrum, in place of the broad colors of the solar spec- m, Ring after ring and planet after planet were formed, each, at first, a mass of vapor, glowing with topoor light became like that of the sun, rich in color and good for its Present uses. By this time it is uiBM. a black opaque crust to form on the molten matter of the earth, ana thus prevented the em^lon of Irffltime was possible that alternation which we call day and night. This was the first day, and from It ilonward to man we are indebted to geology. lUB PLANETARY STAGE. ETATION. NOBB. eteglns in the lowest otliing higher than the sSiind almost struct- Here life began ; there was in this age nothing higher than the minute protozo- ans. {158.r sea-weeds, but no land Besides the above, radiates, moUusks, and articulates are now met with. (169.) i Ibe first land plants, das, (gia.) iTfjietation were added s, is yet there were no 4rere inclosed In the eiiter spore-bearing or iTsrere now added the tradiate between co- jfttature palms. This ffli (349.) ANIMALS. None. CLIMATE. Surface temperatxire below red heat. The climate was hot every- where, even to the poles, while the atmosphere was fjoisonous with carbonic acid and other njurious gases. To these are now added the first fishes. They all were cartilaginous. (263.) The kinds of animals were increased by many new species of fishes. These were so numerous that this is often called the Age of Fishes. (288.) First insects known. (273.) Temperature slowly falling, but stUl tropical. (25a.) Temperature still slowly falling, but climate very warm to the poles. No evi- dence of seasons. (288.) To the previous types were now added reptiles. (349.) Temperature tropical every-where. Temperature falling, but still warm and about the same In all latitudes. ,(352.) ijHtermination of life, one of the most universal in geological history. " (430.) m,tut of new species, ttwerns, cycads, and r imposed the forests. ^. (408.) (Ijtes as before. Note : nBTe either seedless— aiK— or naked-seeded )^ffm8. No gra^«s or iaiof this period, The same types of animals, but in new species, continue. To them were now added the first mammals. These were few in numbers and belonged to the Marsupalia, or Pouched animals. (415.) In this period the first bird s are found. To this period the first osseous, or bony, fishes appeared. (442.) The most re- markable creatures were great reptiles with wtngs, and birds with long bony tails. There now begin to be indications of a difference between temperatui-e of high and low latitudes, but still quite warm in the former. No evidence of long polar days and nights. Temperatm-e apparently about the same. (452.) No evidence as yet of present inequality between equatorial and polar days. 1 to spore-bearing and lutiire now seen for the i aiiingiosperms— trees iseed is Inside. (458.) Reptiles in greatest abundance and of enormous size. Birds with teeth. (46fl.) No marked advance. Climate warm to latitude 60 degrees and upward. (380.) No evidence yet of rih of species " remarkable for thoroughness and universality." (488.) ffliad palms began to All were of new species, although in many cases the genera were the same. Mammals were numerous, especially her- bivorous and carnivorous. Here seem to have been the first monkeys. (589.) tit same ^ection as Temperature warm enough for cy- pre^ies and magnolias in Spltzbergen. (514.) No evidence thus far of present polar nights and days. Many new species, but of same general character. Fall of temperature. (514.) Zones of cll- mate ; no evidence of long polar nights. uJialms at last became jtfilon. Present gen- Many new species, but no very great A comparatively rapid change of tem- change. All its mammals are now ex- perature, reaching, at last, great cold in tinct. (Nicholson, lAfe History, 326.) high latitudes. Si through this perl- Uli Mcmde des PUmtes. General destruction of higher animals. Some migrated toward equator. "Of fish, es, birds, reptiles, and mammals of the Pliocene not one is now extant." (618.) iiehanged. (Buhanged. The fishes, reptiles, and fowl wereof liv- ing species ; also the invertebrates. Page 345 of Nicholson. lAfe History, (543.) The fishes, reptiles, and fowl were of liv- ing species, also the invertebrates. Page 346 of Nicholson, lAfe History. (543.) Temperature cold. Virginia. Ice-cold down to Climate milder th^i now, and long arctic days and nights. Climate colder. Days and nights as now. iKchanged. Living mammals. Including many new Present climate. From the glaciers species and man. there is eviden^ie of seasons. "^^tffry p. 3*5j s^V^ '■ " ^o extinct species of fishes, amphibians, or reptiles are known to occur "—that i whle destruction of lif e ; but at the end of the Carboniferous, Cretaceous, and Pliocene the destruction f?"^Ti " ' '- ' ' "' ^ and a few even much farther back. I — — ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ o t- three were longer than the others. PREFATORY, 29 good from these pages, he must familiarize himself with the names of the geological divisions mentioned, and, above all, fix clearly in his mind the place of the cretaceous, the three divisions of the tertiary — the eocene, miocene, and pliocene — and the quaternary, including the glacial epoch, the Champlain, and the recent. 30 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. THE PROFESSOR. Before entering upon tlie diseussion recorded in tliese pages it will be in order to say a few words ^boxit the one who takes the role of opjDoser, and wlio is called the Professor. Before our acquaintance he spent a part of the summer at the house of an old classmate of mine, who described him as follows. Afterward I found the description sufficiently accurate. " The Professor," said my friend, " has little faith in any thing but physical phenomena and tlie laws deduced from them. He does not believe either in miracles or revelation. He considers them impossi- bilities, or, as he would sometimes say, ' things inca- pable of proof, and, therefore, a waste of power on the part of the Almighty, even if they did really occur.' His ability to conceive, he says, marks the limits of his belief ; consequently he denies the existence of a personal God. *' He is an admirer of Mr. Spencer, and of others of the same way of thinking. In his opinion they are the great lights that are to enlighten the world. He THE PROFESSOn, 31 gives to their philosophy the faith which he refuses to the Bible. With Buckle, he believes that, upon the whole, religion has been an obstacle in the way of human progress. He is fond of saying that there has always been a conflict between religion and science, and that religion has always been in the wrong. When doubt as to this is expressed, he at once cites the Mosaic account of creation, and declares as a matter not to be questioned by any one whose opinion is en- titled to respect that it is irreconcilable with, and, in- deed, flatly contradicted by, the superior knowledge of the present day." Some weeks after this letter was received the Pro- fessor came into our neighborhood, and it was not long before we met. As our studies and tastes were simi- lar we bad no lack of topics of mutual interest, and we spent many pleasant hours in discussing them. For some time I saw little to indicate the aggressive belief of which my friend had written me ; but one evening, as we were sitting in my library conversing about the wonderful progress which geology and astronomy, and, indeed, all departments of physical science, had made during the last half century, he be- gan to speak about the need of more completely throwing off the shackles of old superstitions, and of the debt which mankind owed to science for its assist- ance in this great work, and especially for having so clearly proved the falsity of the fable called the 32 GJSN£:SIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. Mosaic account of creation, adding, " False in one, false in all." There was in liis manner something of that offen- sive air of superior wisdom which Buckle, Spencer, Iluxlej, and others so often assume toward those who believe in the Bible. It touched me for a moment, until I reflected that it belonged not to the man but to his school, I had mj doubts, too, whether he knew so much. about that chapter as his positive way of speaking seemed to indicate. So I smothered a little natural feeling and asked if he had ever read it. He replied, "Every body knows what .Moses says ; but I do not depend upon my own reading in this matter as much as upon the account given of it by those who profess to be its special friends and ex- pounders. Their theories and explanations I have read, and to some extent, studied. They have given it so much thought and labor tliat I am sure they have made it as plausible and as consistent with nature as possible. But I find what they say so contrary to what I know to be true — their explanations so absurd, and the whole matter so false — that, as a scientific man, I cannot believe the story itself, nor the book which pretends to authenticate the story. Its claim to be from an all-wise and truth-loving God is simply absurd." To this I answered that I was as unable as himself to accept a falsehood as a revelation from God, but THE PROFESSOR. 33 that for my own part I did not look upon this chapter as a falsehood ; that this question of truthfulness was one of great importance ; that although at first it might appear fair and even generous to accept as its true meaning the theories and explanations of its friends, yet such a course might lead to erroneous re- sults, since they were not authorized to speak for Moses, and it was quite possible that they were so limited in their knowledge, or so filled with false science, that however good their intentions they could not comprehend the truth, no matter how clearly it was stated. If it should turn out that they have at- tributed to Moses any thing not belonging to him, common justice requires that he should not be held responsible. And, furthermore, since the Hebrew is the only authority, if there is apparent error the nar- rative is not to be condemned on that account unless, on a fair examination, it shall appear that the transla- tion correctly represents the original. I, for one, did not believe in any conflict between Genesis and truth, however it might be as to "science." Indeed, as " science " has always been very incomplete, and more or less mixed with error, it was to me no small pre- sumptive evidence of the divine origin of the Mosaic cosmogony that no one had been able to _ make it square with past "science." It is only within the life of the present generation, I added, that science has reached a position suffi- S4 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. cieiitly advanced to enable ns to see the agreement be- tween the story and the actual history of our world. In short, the science of to-day lias barely attained some of those heights of knowledge which, for thou- sands of years, have been held by this account. My words, I knew, sounded to him extravagant, but I spoke with a full sense of their meaning, and, if he was willing, I would gladly go with him through this chapter and compare its statements with facts as they have been made known by astronomers, geolo- gists, and others. The Professor shook his head incredulously, but after a little consented to make the experiment. I suggested that it would be well to lay down cer- tain rules for our guidance, that our conversation The limits of i^^ight not be led off into collateral mat- rdS:"f ters. He probably bad his opinion as to exegesis Which whether Moses wrote this account. I we agreed to adopt. saw no good reason for reversing the voice of antiquity ; but this was not the question we proposed to consider, as it had no bearing on the truth of the story itself. Therefore we would not discuss the authorship, but start with the self- evident fact that the account exists now, and has existed for several thousand years. For conven- ience, but not as adopting any theory, we might speak of it as the Mosaic account and of Moses as the author. THE PROFESSOR. 35 As rules to govern us in our investigation I thought the following no more than fair : Words are to be taken in their usual sense, and the story allowed to mean just what it says. It is not to be held responsible for what any one has inferred that Moses intended to teach. Last, but not least, silence is not denial. To all this the Professor readily agreed. I then added that for the present, at least, our dis- cussion should not include any other part of the Bible, for certainly the difficulties, or errors, as he might es- teem them, which Colenso and others think they have discovered elsewhere have no bearing upon the first chapter of Genesis. At first he demurred, saying that these things had weight with him if not with me, and he thought we were in no condition to pronounce an opinion upon the Bible if we left all the rest out. I reminded him that our object now was not to decide upon the truth of the Bible, but only of the first chapter. This was written long before the rest of the book, and was true or false independently of it. Our only business at present was to deter- mine whether it was veritable history or a myth. Afterward, if he chose, other matters could be con- sidered. Moreover, I proposed, if he were willing, to confine the discussion to the first twenty-seven verses of the chapter. I desired this limitation be- S6 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. cause it was impossible for tradition to give Moses any account of things which occurred before man appeared, and these verses were concerned wholly with such events. Some who have discussed this story, and arrived at conclusions unfavorable to its truthfulness, have based their results upon what seemed to them contradic- tions between the first and second chapters. Others claim that it was taken from the Chaldeans. Both these questions, however important in themselves, are of no consequence so far as the line of investigation which I proposed to follow is concerned. The first chapter of Genesis is true or false, without reference to tlie second; and if I. admit (which I do not) that somebody got tlie story from the Chaldeans and foisted it into the Bible, wliatever other effect such an admission may have it has none upon our ques- tion. The statements here are true or false, no mat- ter wliere they came from. The Professor had no objection to these limitations. Certainly the statements in the first chapter are true or false whether they are contradicted by those in the second or not, or whether they came from the Chal- deans. He was willing to go into the matter as thor- oughly as possible, altliough, to be frank, he thought it rather a waste of time. I then called his attention to Dr. Di-aper's views as to what a revelation should do, and read the following THE PROFESSOR. 37 from his Intellectual Development of Europe^ and asked what he thought of it : " Considering the asserted origin of this book,* in- directly from God himself, we might justly expect whatareveia- that- it would bear to be tried by any tion would do. standard that man can apply, and vindi- cate its truth and excellence in the ordeal of human criticism. ... As years pass on and human science becomes more exact, more comprehensive, its con- clusions must be found in unison therewith. When occasion arises it should furnish us at least the fore- shadowing of the great truths discovered by astron- omy and geology, not offering for them the wild iictions of earlier ages, the inventions of tlie infa'ncy of man." The Professor thought this a severe test, but he saw no reason why he should object. It seemed to him incredible that God, the Creator, the embodiment of all knowledge, should, if he spoke at all of the creation, do otherwise than state facts, nor could he conceive of any end to be gained by giving them in any other than tlieir trvie order. It would seem most natural to relate things one after another just as they occurred, and the true order would present no greater difficulty to the minds of the Hebrews than * Dr. Draper is speakiug of tlie Koran, but liis words are better than he knew, and I adopt tliera as a fair test of the Mosaic story of creation. 38 GENESIS I AND MODERN SCIENCE. any other. Such a series of statements would neces- sarily foreshadow discoveries which tlie future was to make, and which, it is highly probable, are not all made yet. The lack of such foreshadowing would, as Dr. Draper intimates, be indicative of another origin — one that was not divine. As this accorded with my own views I made no reply. "We then agreed to meet the next evening in my library, and so it was our discussion began. OUR FIRST EVENING. 39 OUR FIRST EVENING. TUB THEME. Genesis i, 1-5.* 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void ; And darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said. Let there he light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good : And God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Bay, and the darkness he called Night And the evening and th£ morning were the first day. The Professor was promptly on hand, I had pre- pared for the occasion by laying on my table certain books which I thought would be needed. Among them, and most important, were a Hebrew Bible, Lexicon, and Concordance ; a copy of the Septuagint and our English Bible ; Dana's Manual of Geology^ and Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy^ and quite a number of other books on geology, spectroscopy, etc. As he took his seat he glanced over the table and said, *' This looks like business ; but I do not see any commentaries on the Bible."f * The Common Version, except as to divisions into paragraphs. In the course of these discussions will be found such criticisms on the common rendering as I may have to offer. f I had examinedanumber of commentaries, but found little in them for our present purpose, and, therefore, did not lay them on my table. 40 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. I replied that perhaps they were more essential to his arguments than to mine ; that all that I was concerned with was the words of Moses himself, and -those I pro- posed to take in their simplest and most literal meaning. Others had told us what Moses meant to say ; my pur- pose was to let him tell liis own story in his own way. The Professor thought that seemed fair enough. I then took up the Bible and read : " In the begin- ning God created the heaven and the earth," and asked whether that were true. He replied, " Undoubtedly tliere was a beginning of the present order of tbinsjs,* and the A beginning. ^ . . universe must have originated in an Ulti- mate Cause — that is, in the will of God. Many per- sons, however, do not believe in a personal God, They would say, ' In the beginning the ultimate * "All modern science seems to point to the finite duration of our system in its present form." — Professor Xewcomb, Popular Astron- omy^ p. 489. Professor Tait, in his Recent Advances in Physical Science, p. 22, says : " It (tlie principle of the Dissipatioa of Energy) enables us dis- tinctly to say that the present order of things has not been evolved through infinite past time by the agency of laws now at wort, but must have had a distinctive beginning, a state beyond which we are totally unable to penetrate; a state, in fact, vi^hich must have been produced by other than the now visibly acting causes." And again, on page 26, "All portions of science, and especially that beautiful one, the Dissipation of Energy, point unanimously to ;i beginning." The pliiloaophy which, to avoid this conclusion, talks about a straight line returning upon itself, and of space which has four or more dimensions, is worthy of those agnostic scientists who talk of worlds wjiere two and two may make five. OUR FIRST EVENING. 41 cause produced the heavens and the earth.' They would object to this expression, * The will of God.' " * I replied that for my part I had no objection to Ids styling the Author of all things the Ultimate Cause, or the First Cause. I was a believer in a per- sonal God, but whether on good grounds or not was outside of our discussion, since that question had no bearing upon the truth or falsehood of the physical statements in these twenty-seven verses. They com- mence their account at the " beginning," and you admit that there was a beffinninff: our , , . The earth's next business, therefore, is to inquire what primordial con- was the condition of the earth at the ear- liest period at which philosophy takes cognizance of it. Laying his hand upon the astronomy lying before him, and turning over its leaves, lie answered, " La- place improved and gave anew to the world the theory which commonly goes by his name, and, as far as I can see, it gives a true description of our world's original condition.f "According to that great astronomer and mathe- matician the solar system existed at that time only as a mass of infinitely attenuated matter, something like gas or vapor. The earth then was an integral part of that immense nebulous body, and consequently had * Some say, an unconscious intelligence (I) produced all things. \ " Original," so far as philosophy cmu tell us. It is the point at which the mind stops when tracing back the chain of causes and leaps to the infinite. 42 GSITESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. no more form or shape than has, for example, a ton of wjiter in the clouds which darken the sky before a rain. The clouds have shape and form, however irregular, but any one ton among the thousands which they contain has none, " It is easy," he continued, " to see in tliis the supe- riority of science over Genesis, for, according to all the commentators who have not been shamed out of it by scientists, Moses says the world was called at once into being, a vast, solid globe, incomparably larger than the sun and stars. Here is one of tliose contradictious — an important one, too — which compel scientists to refuse to believe this story. " In fact, here are three errors. He says, or at least Tbree errors in implies, that the world was called suddenly Genesis. '^^^^ existence. This is an error, for the world was millions of years in making. He regards it as solid from the start. We know that it was once gaseous, then molten, and not solid till long after. His third error is as to size. The earth is not larger than the sun and the stars." Stop a moment, I replied. Where does Moses say " the world was called at once into existence a solid globe ? " Where, too, does he say that " it is larger than the sun and stars ? " I handed him the Bible ; he ran his eye up and down the page, and then said : " I do not see it in so many words, but certainly it must be implied, and Moses himself nmst have OUR FIRST EVENIKG. 43 thought so, or else so many commentators would not have given out that idea to the world." I reminded him that Moses was responsible only for his own words, and certainly his account should not be pronounced false for what is not in it. I added that I, too, believed that our earth was once a gas and then molten. It was worth noting that it would not be easy even now, with all our knowledge and with the help of a copious scientific terminology, to describe the earth's condition while yet an unsegregated part of a vast nebulous mass, in more fitting terms than those which Moses has used, and which are rendered in our version " without form and void." These words are tohu and Meaning of oohu. Tohu occurs twenty times in the "tohu "and Bible. It is rendered vanity in the phrase, " less than nothing and vanity j " and in "he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity; " and, " they that make a graven image are all of them va/nity ; " and, " they trust in vanity P " Ye go after vai/n things." '^ I have spent my strength for naught^'' etc. What more accurately descriptive word can be found for matter ten thousand times less dense than air \ Bohu occurs but three times, and is rendered in each place by void^ or its equivalent, emptiness. It is perhaps not easy to gather into one word the meaning that runs through and connects all the meanings of tohu ; in connection with hohu it is 44 GENESIS I AND MODERN SCIENCE, exquisitely applicable to the infinitely attenuated,* nebulous matter, impalpable, invisible, amorphous, void even of cosmic organization, the unshaped raw- material of future sun and planets. Whether we thus derive a version for ourselves, or whether we accept the less literal English, '^without form and void," matters little for my argument ; but where would Laplace's nebular hypothesis, and the cosmic The denial of theories of OUT agnostic friends based bobr^'cS thereon— where would these be if our tion fatal to the earth never was in the condition described nebular hy- ^^ pothesis. by these words ? "Would not the suc- cessful denial of that one clause annihilate them all? The Professor hesitated a moment, and then frankly said : *' Every believer in any form of the nebular hypothesis must admit that this clause, somehow, does describe a condition which once ex- isted. If Moses really meant what his words now seem to say, that sentence is true. But he meant no such thing, and liad no idea that such a meaning would be attached to them. He thought that some six thousand years ago or so * If the matter now in the solar system formed at that time a sphere extending only to Neptune it must have been four hundred million times rarer than air at the earth's surface now — about as near nothing as the human mind can conceive! It must be remembered that the essence of the nebular hypothesis is that the earth and all the solar system were in a gaseous condition. Aa to how they got into the present arrangement opinions difEer, It is ouly the once gaseous state that we are here concerned with. OUR FIRST EVENING. 45 the earth was in a condition fitly described by toAu and boku. We know it was not in such a condition six thousand years ago, nor ever, except millions of years ago, while it was part of a nebulous mass — something of which he had not the slightest knowl- 'edge, and therefore he could not have referred to it. Hence he really erred, although his words chance to describe a condition that did once exist." To this I replied : We need not argue about that. I am willing to admit that Moses, like many others of the prophets, did not fully comprehend the mean- ing of his utterances ; * very probably he had many erroneous notions. This is not at all the question whicli we are considering. Here, in this chapter, are certain physical statements, however tliey came ; and, whatever Moses or the Hebrews may have thought about them, I propose to inquire whether they hap- pen, if you prefer that word, to describe real condi- tions or transactions, and let other matters take care of themselves. The Professor admitted the justice of this, but said he had been so accustomed to the other view that he found it difficult to rid himself of it. I suggested that hereafter he should say of a state- ment that it was true or false, and not qualify his words with conjectures as to whether Moses meant what he said. *1 Pet. i, 10. 46 GEl^ESIS I. AND MODERN SGIENOE. To this he-assented.* After a moment's pause, he added: "Are you not assumina; that the Objections. It . ^ '^ ^ ^ says the world Condition spoken of as ^ without form and was made only . ^ . t . j six days before void "was almost infinitely remote, instead of being, as the account in my opinion clearly intimates, only six common days before Adam? and this, too, contrary to the voice of all antiquity ? Is not this tampering with the account ? " I replied that I assumed nothing as to the time, but had simply asked whether the words " wnthout form and void" did not correctly describe the nebulous condition; and whether, if the earth never was with- out form and void, it could ever have been part of a nebulous mass. If he closely examined the account he would see it was he that put into it an unauthorized statement when he said that Moses teaches that the formless and void condition preceded the creation of Adam only six days. It is true that Moses speaks of six days, but he does not say (1) that this condition im- mediately preceded tlie first day, nor (2) that the days followed each other in immediate succession, nor (3) that they were common days. Whether these * Although the Professor agreed not to make use of that objection- able expression, yet, as the reader will see as the conversation con- tinues, he was unable to keep his promise. In trutii, the assertion that Moses does not mean what he says lies at the bottom of so many explanations on the one side, and so many objections on the other, that taking it away destroys almost the whole of them. OUR FIRST EVENING. 47 propositions are true the account does not saj. They are open questions, to be determined from tbe study of all the facts involved. The Professor made no reply except that this was a new way to study Genesis, although he must admit it was common enough in every branch of science. In short, it was letting theories wait upon facts, and to that, as a scientific man, he had no objection. I continued : The account thus far being admitted to describe actual conditions, we will pass to the next sentence. Moses says, '^And darkness was upon the face of the deep," * and not till after that does lie spejik of the imparting of motion. Tell me if tliis order be not scientifically correct — darkness before motion. * Tlie deep : tehohm. This word carries with it a sense of profound depth and mystery. It is applied to tlie sea, but with reference to its depth rather thiin its nature as water. The sense of mystery is always an element' more or less prominent. Job xxviii, 14: "The deep (depth) saith, It is not in me ; and the sea saith, It is not in me." Here it is not the sea, but is contrasted with the sea. " Ye dragons, and all deeps " {deptJis), Psa. cxlviii, 7; and again in Deut. xxxiii, 13: "Blessed of the Lord be his land, for the precious tilings of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep tliat coucheth beneath." "Tlie Almighty shall bless with the blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under" (Gen. xlix, 25). It is a strange and mysterious depth, whetherof the earth or of the sea. The Septua or criticism, as a child accepts the tales of the nursery ? " Certainly not, 1 would have them bring to it all their knowledge, examine it most carefully, and ap- ply to it their best powers of criticism ; but they should be just to it, and try it, not by what others may have said it says, not by what they think it ought to say, but by its own words, "I see," said the Professor, "no objection to this ; but I am perplexed that so many writers — mostly of very recent date — ^liave said that this chapter was only a hymn of creation, a series of poetical images, having no counterpart in the world's actual history." I do not think it necessary to show how such ideas have arisen. It is enough for me now that this account agrees so wonderfully with the facts of our woi'ld's early history, and especially that its many statements happen (?) to be arranged exactly right. But another question of far-reaching importance arises, Whence did Moses get the knowledge needed for making such a cosmogony? To this the Professor made no reply, and for some 174 GEITESrS I AND MODERN SCIENCE. moments he sat silent. He had often spoken of the great ignorance of those early ages, and one of his favorite themes had been the progress of man from a brnte to a savage, and from a savage, through many intermediate grades, to his present position. At last . he said : " What do you think of this account? Do you sup- pose Moses knew all about the matters of which he wrote ! " T have repeatedly said that I very much doubt his understanding fully what he wrote, and I may add that I am far from believing that the wisest of us have yet drawn from it all its stores of meaning. Tliese statements of his are descriptions of events or phenomena in language brief but exact, and the value of such is not easily estimated. A child can draw from them instruction ; the wisest man cannot exhaust them. The value of exact descriptions can be seen in every department of science. The photographs taken of the last transit of Venus are purely phe- nomenal. Any child who sees them can readily grasp the fact that the little round black spot on the photo- graph of the sun's disk marks the position of the planet. This spot he can see as readily as the astronomer ; but here the equality ends. The full meaning of the pictures can be dug out only after months of study by men who have devoted their lives to such work. Nor can even they make much progressunless furnished with OUR SEVENTH EVENING. 175 every aid of modern science, the most refined analysis, and the most careful microscopic measurements. And when they have exhausted their ingenuity and ceased from their work, the negatives — the prints are not accurate enough for such purposes — will be preserved with the utmost care, because every physicist lias lurking in his bosom the conviction that some sugges- tion, or some discovery, may throw unexpected liglit upon them and reveal unthought-of trutlis. This account is a series of such pictures, not, of course, on glass, but in words, and it is only very lately that science has made sufficient advances to have any adequate idea of its importance. " Do you mean to say that God intended the Bible to teach science ? I thought that had been ruled out long ago." No, I said; nor did he make the stars to teach astronomy; nor light to teach optics ; but, for all that, in them, potentially at least, are those sciences. I do not believe that science can be learned from the Bible any more than history can be learned from the proph- ecies ; but as in the latter we learn their true meaning from the history which records their fulfillment, so the science which gives us so many facts about crea- tion enables us to know what is the true meaning of those brief descriptions which make up this nar- rative. That our greater knowledge has changed our views 12 176 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. in this matter was not only to be expected, but the contrary is inconceivable. It would be impossible for an ignorant person and a pliilosopher to regard natural phenomena alike, and equally impossible to read, in tlie same sense, a description of them. Moreover, the divergence in their views will be wider in proportion as the ignorant man is sure he understands it all. It is interesting to note that similar changes of opinion have occurred from the same cause — increased knowledge — in reference to other ancient books. To Herodotus, once contemptuously styled the father of lies, has now been restored his well-earned title of the father of history. "I must think these matters over. Opinions so long held — not so much as capable of proof, but as too nearly self-evident to require proof — are not to be given up, and their opposites substituted, without a mental wrench that leaves one sore and half dazed. If what you claim be true — that this so-called myth is the most literal and chronological document conceiv- able — it is a matter of great importance. It annihi- lates a whole literature, for what is the value of all the books — their name is legion — to prove miracles impossible if here is a miracle which every man can examine for himself ? " The strikins: of the clock reminded the Professor of the lateness of the hour ; so, stopping somewhat abruptly, he bade me good-night. OUR SEVENTH EVENING. 177 I said above, in the heat of conversation, " I do not believe science can be learned from the Bible." Further reflection induces me to question this. The Bible gives us facts in many departments of knowl- edge, and by the study of these, co-ordinating them with each other and with all that can be gathered from other sources, I have no doubt science may be advanced. All admit this in archaeology, ethnog- raphy, history, and geography; I think it will be found, when men shall study this book in the proper spirit, that it has unsuspected treasures in other de- partments of knowledge. For every one must agree with Dr. Draper when he says a revealed cosmogony must give foreshowings of discoveries that should be made long after — say, now, or at some future day. 178 GENESIS 1. AND MODERN SCIENCE. OUR EIGHTH EVENING. THJE VERDICT "GOOD. The Professor opened the discussions " You have spoken several times of the verdict ' good ' which is so often used in this chapter. Why is it sometimes omitted ? " As I liave said, good, applied to things without moral character, means only completeness, or fitness for intended use. Its omission, therefore, indicates incompletion. Were some things fully finished, and others left incomplete, when the story passes on to the next stage ? Discoveries in modern physics now en- able us to answer. Astronomy, spectroscopy, chem- istry, and paleontology has each contributed an impor- tant part to the solution of this question. The first and most important thing recorded is the creation of the heaven and the earth. They are not pronounced good, and modern astronomy has discov- ered that at first, and long afterward, they were not good; for, originally, the heavens and earth were in a gas-like condition, almost infinitely attenuated and diffused. The nebulous matter needed to be gathered into sun and planets, and wrought, through innumer- OUR EIGHTH EVENING. 179 able ages, into manifold forms and combinations, be- fore it was good for man or even for plants and animals. The mysterious moving of the Spirit of God, in- finite in importance, is also not pronounced good, prob- ably because it was not a completion, but rather an act whose effects were to be felt to the close of creation. Light, however long the time from its imperfect beginnings in the nebulous stage to such as we now enjoy, became perfected before the earth had an opaque body, and. thus divided between the light and darkness, causing day and night to begin. Accord- ingly, the verdict " good " precedes that division. The light was called day and the darl^ness night, but day and night are not called " good." Nor were they complete, for the earth's axis, not having then its present obliquity, the present charming variety from unequal days and nights and from changing seasons was yet lacking. Not till the fourth period are the days and seasons and other measures of time pro- nounced good. The expanse (the rahia) was not pronounced good, for in that early period, before the land appeared, it was foul with poisonous gases. It was not good. The land and sea are pronounced good because, as to all that affects the present population of plants and animals — extent and arrangement, quality of soil, and of ocean waters — they were finished. 180 G£;NESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. The vegetable world became fitted for its highest uses when grass, herbs, and fruit-trees whose seed is in the fruit appeared. The arrangement as to the two great lights, what- ever it was, was final and adapted to the present ani- mal population, and, therefore, is rightly pronounced " good." As to water creatures and fowl, and, later yet, cat- tle, beasts, and other living things, they crowned the brute creation ; nothing better fitted has been imag- ined. As, therefore, fitted for the final purpose, they, too, are styled ^'good." When man appeared,'the creation, as a material creation, was completed. As an instrument to be used for its intended purposes it was handed over to the father of our race. Formless matter had become reduced to form and solidity. Force, from a simple centerward impulse, had developed heat, light, chem- ical affinity," and electricity ; and these had been so tamed down that they were ready for the service of man. The gaseous nebula had become solid earth ; the black scorise of its first surface had become soil full of potentialities ; the foul mixture of gases that once surrounded the earth had stored its poison be- neath the rocks in beds of coal ; and there remained only the life-giving atmosphere. The monotonous sameness of the preglacial world had been succeeded by the pi-esent variety induced by changing seasons ; OUR EIGHTH EVENING. 181 the universal ocean had given place to the present arrangement of land and water, with continents and seas, naountains and valleys, lakes and rivers ; the waters had been puriiied from their excessive amount of silica and lime ; the almost structureless sea- weed, once the only vegetation, had been followed by an ever-increasing breadth of development and compli- cation of structure until plant life culminated in the highest and most useful orders, the angiosperms and palms. Brute forms, starting in the microscopic pro- tozoa, had reached their highest point in living ver- tebrates. Light, land, and sea, plants, climate, water animals and land animals, each received a separate verdict of " good ; " but as to man, separately, that was not said. So far as the earth and its purpose were concerned all was completed. As a whole it received the divine approval in higher terms than before ; parts separately had been "good," but, conjoined into one liarmonious whole, those which at first did not receive the meed of "good," being now finished and fitted to their place, and man, its crowning glory, added, " God saw all " — the tout ensemhle — •" that he had made, and, be- hold, it was very good." God, henceforth, ceased to create and make for our planet. It was finished and ready for its mission. But iiian was not pronounced " good." On that sixth day, which witnessed the highest reach of all else of God's creation, man merely 282 GENESIS L AND MODERN SCIENCE. began to be. His culmination, and only his, lay, and still lies, in the far future. The Professor's only reply was, " This is a most curious chapter." Nothing more was said that evening that I care to repeat. We were interrupted by visitors, and did not take up any new matter. A friend who read the above in manuscript wrote me in reference to it as follows. The reader will notice that he does not question my exegesis of the phrase, " God saw that it was good," but he is shocked at my saying that man, the sinless man of Eden, was not pronounced good. '^ Does not ' every thing' include man ? Is it not straining a point to say that man was not pronounced good ? In his first estate he was made in the image of God. How could he be better ? Pie might not remain 'good,' but he was good — perfect so far as creation could make him." My friend does not quite see my meaning. " Good," as used in this chapter, has no reference to moral quality, since that can be predicated of nothing which preceded Adam. It implies only completeness, or culmination, or fitness for tlie intended use. Tliat this epithet is not applied to man at all, and that the verdict " very good" is applied not to him separately, but in connection with all that God had made, is a matter to be decided, not by our tradi- OUR EIGHTH EVENING. 183 tioBal beliefs, but by the evidence of the naiTative itself. The following from Professor Dana is very appro- priate in this connection. It sets forth, from the stand-point of a man most eminent in science, the contrast between man and the rest of creation in ref- erence to further development : " Man was the first being that was not finished on reaching adult growth, but was provided witli powers for infinite expansion, a will for a life of work, and boundless aspirations to lead to endless improvement. He was the first being capable of an intelligent sur- vey of nature and comprehension of her laws ; the first capable of augmenting bis strength by bending nature to his service, rendering thereby a weak body stronger than all possible animal force ; the first capa- ble of deriving happiness from truth and goodness -; of apprehending eternal right ; of reaching toward a knowledge of self and God ; the first, therefore, capa- ble of conscious obedience or disobedience of a moral law, and the first subject to debasement through his appetites and a moral nature. "There is, then, in man a spiritual element in which the brute has no share. His power of infinite progress, his thoughts and desires that reach onward, even beyond time, his recognition of spiritual exist- ence and of a Divinity above, all evince a nature that partakes of tlie infinite and divine. . . . Unlike other 184 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. species, he, through his spiritual nature, is far more intimately connected with the opening future." The teachings of the New Testament are, that this/ life is not a iinality, but, on the contrary, only a be- ginning of eternal progress. In the sense of this chap- ter there is none good but God. He alone of spiritual existences is complete, has no further heights to at- tain, knows no possibility of progress. Paradoxical as it may appear, it is in this incompleteness that man difEers from all the brute creation, and in this is his highest glory. In the course of our conversation the Professor jotted down the following compact statement show- ing the use and the omission of "good" all through the account: Omitted after creation of heaven and earth. Omitted after the imparting of force or motion by the Spirit of God. Used after light was caused to be. Omitted after the division between light and dark- ness. Omitted after making the " firmament." Used after the dry land and seas were arranged. Used after grass, herbs, and fruit-trees appeared. Used after the lights were to be for seasons, etc. Used after water animals and birds. Used after land animals. Omitted after man. OUR EIGHTH EVENING. 285 Omitted after the five most important statements, and used after only six. The omissions are mostly in the first, or preliminary, part of the account ; the use of " good " is chiefly in the latter, or final, stages of the story. In the light of present knowledge of world-making this was to be expected. 186 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. OUR NINTH EVENING. THE DATS THE POURTH COMMANDMENT — SIX STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT WHAT THIS CHAPTER IS MY WAY OF STUDYING IT — WHY IT WAS GIVEN " A HYMN OF CRE- ATION " HOW IT WAS GIVEN — A REISUM:^. After welcoming the Professor we began at once npoii our theme. " What," said the Professor, " about the days ? Most persons think they present the most difficult problem in the whole matter." He would like to hear my ex- planation more fully than I liad yet given it. He had read several theories ; what did I think of them ? All the theories, I replied, maybe reduced to two; "the days were common, consecutive days;" "they were periods of unknown length." Until recently there was no question but that the first was the ex- plicit teaching of the story as well as of the fourth commandment. So long as it was a matter of power only the shortness of the time presented no difficulty. But when it was found that layers of rock many tliou- sand feet thick were filled with myriads of extinct plants and animals following one another in successive " populations " this theory was seen to involve a ques- tion of divine veracity. Either these forms, with all OUR NINTH EVENING. 287 their organs for digesting their food and for reproduc- ing their kind, were counterfeits, made for no purpose but to deceive, or the world liad been in existence an enormous time. To break the force of this there was devised a modification of tlie theory. Yes, it was said, it is true ; God made all things in six consecutive days, common days, and it is also true that the world has existed for perhaps millions of years, and they explained the apparent discrepancy thus : After God had created the heavens and the earth there was between that act and the conditions described in the next sentence a stretch of time of whose duration no hint is given, but whicli was long enough for all the demands of geology. In this in- terval lived the plants and animals whose remains are found in the rocks ; and here took place the degradation of mountains and the erosion of valleys which now excite our astonishment. At last, for some nnrevealed reason, the world was destroyed. All life went out, a pall of thick darkness covered the earth, and the seas overwhelmed the land. After a time, we know not how long, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, the clouds began to brealc away, and there was light, good indeed, but mingled with dark- ness ; then God separated between the light and the darkness ; called the light day and the darkness night. Then darkness came down again and there was even- ing. Twelve hours later, the night having passed. 188 GS2^ESIS J. AND MODERN SCIENCE, the light began to re-appear and there was morning. On the next day the expanse was formed. Again the day waned, and it was evening. The night came on. A few hours more' and there was morning, and that was the second day. With returning light be- gan the third day. It opened on a dead world buried in a shoreless ocean. The divine word went forth, and at once the fifty million square miles of land rose from beneath the waters. How such a mass of water could run ofE in a few hours without a yet greater miracle the advocates of this theory do not say. But it was done. Then, say at noon, all kinds of plants came up. That such plants might live re- quired a miraculous removal of the salt from what had been that morning an ocean bottom. But it was done, and that yqvj afternoon grasses, herbs, and fruit-trees, to which salt was a deadly poison, abounded. Again the light grew dim and evening came. Night followed and rest, for a few hours, and then came the morning, and this ended the third day. Three times again did the divine command go forth, and all was done. This theory requires so much destroying and re- creating — not one quarter of the dilBcultiefS have been mentioned — such a heaping of miracles upon miracles, that few now accept it. Dr. Pye Smith offered an amendment. He thinks that Genesis refers merely to a local creation in west- OUR NINTH EVENING. 189 ern Asia. This, if possible, is still more unsatisfac- tory. The theory which regards the " days " as periods finds most favor with those who have enough knowl- edge of geology to appreciate the difficulties of the six consecutive days. Some, however, find themselves perplexed because the fourth commandment seems to support tlie belief that the " days " were common days. A careful study of the decalogue will, I think, relieve their minds. In reading the commandments one is struck with a certain peculiarity running through them all. It consists in the frequent use of that figure of speech called synecdoche — that is, putting a part for the whole. Thus : " Thou shalt not kill " names but one crime, but forbids all offenses against the person. " Thou shalt not commit adultery " names only one act, but forbids all impurity. " Thou shalt not steal " for- bids not theft alone, but all dishonesty. And so I might go through the list; every-where a single act is mentioned while a whole series is meant. In the same way six days stand for six stretches of time. The word " days" evidently is figurative in the fourth commandment, and I see no insurmountable objec- tion to regarding it as figurative in the first chapter of Genesis. But such a meaning appears out of har- mony with the intense literalism that pervades the account. For^this reason, and because I thus follow 190 GENESIS I, AND MODERN SCIENCE. more closely the exact statements of the writer, I prefer to regard the days as common days which serve to mark the end of the creative periods. Perhaps a homely illustration may help make the matter clearer. Suppose I wished to make for my child a brief epitome of our country's history, and, furthermore, that I had no system of chronology, yet wished to impress upon hira the order. I might number the days on which certain important events occurred, or which served to mark the end of one stage and the beginning of the next, somewhat as follows : The Indians, imdisturbed and unheard of, held America till Columbus discovered it, on day the first. Only Spaniards and French sought to make settle- ment till Jamestown was founded, on day the second. There was strife between English and French until Quebec was taken, on day the third. Our people remained subject to England till Dec- laration of Independence, on day the fourth. There was a time of weakness and disorder till the present Constitution was adopted, on day the fiftli. There was struggle between liberty and slavery till Lee surrendered, on day the sixth. Here is a series of days separating important stages in the history of our country. There would be no impropriety in my afterward saying that in some OUR NINTH EVENING. 191 relation to this hexad of days ("six of days")* God, in his providence, built up this nation. And as these days differed in no respect from otliers, neither did those of Genesis. The former divide our history into periods of whose length my little epitome gives no intimation, and the latter do the same for the early history of the world. "You speak," said the Professor, " of six divisions, or stages, in the world's history. I have always un- derstood that such divisions could not be made with- out clashing with modern science. Can six sections be made that do not run into each other ? " I replied that as to the first three periods enough was known to show that the demarkation between them is sharp and distinct. As to the fourth, the line is sharp, although as to what then occurred scientists are as yet in doubt. Between the fifth and sixth periods the line, although not sharply drawn, is tolerably distinct. I would give the divisions as follows : 1. The first stage — astronomers would call it the Nebulous — begins at the " beginning." It includes the creation of matter, the imparting of motion, the pro- duction of light, and the reduction of the temperature of the earth's crust to a point at which it ceased to emit light. It ends at the first day and night on our * In the Hebrew it is " a six of days," that is, " a hexad of days." The preposition in Is not in the original. 13 292 GEN£:SIS I AND MODERN SCIENCE. planet. Here the line is well drawn, for since that first day and night there has been no creation of matter or of force, and no change in the quality of the light. 2. The next stage commenced after day and night had begun — that is, after the end of the first stage. Its work was the condensation and deposition of tlie vapors due to the yet hot earth, and the consequent clearing of the atmosphere. It ended when the air became so clear that the expanse could be called " heaven," and in it the heavenly bodies be seen. This stage does not lap either way, for its work could not have gone on before the " first day," because the earth was then too hot, and, once done, it has never needed to be repeated. Geology styles this the Azoic age, or, as to the lat- ter part of it, the Archaean. It might be called the Pluvial stage. 3. The work of the third stage was the elevation of the land above the seas, the purification of the wa- ters, the preparation of the soil, and' the production of grasses, herbs, and fruit-trees. This stage did not begin (could not begin) till after the previous one was ended ; and it was ended, so geologists say, before the close of the tertiary. In its time-limits it reaches from the earliest archsean to the time jnst before the glaciers. Since then nothing of importance has been done in either direction. There was no lapping on to the next. OUR NINTH EVENING, 193 4. The fourth stage witnessed the introduction of the modern type of climate, with seasons and unequal days and nights. No such type existed before the pliocene. Then came the glacial epoch. Since that time no change in reference to seasons and unequal days and nights has occurred. 5. The fifth stage witnessed the production of living species of water creatures (fish and other vertebrates) and fowl. "Whatever may have come down from the earlier days, there was addition of now living species after that climatic change. This, which, corresponds to the quaternary period, is a well-defined epoch of development of present marine vertebrate animals and of present birds. So far as science knows, none have been added since. 6. The sixth stage is equivalent to the recent pe- riod, and comes down to the time of Adam. It wit- nessed the production of present cattle, beasts, and other land creatures. According to Professor Dana, almost none of these go back into the Champlain period.* The Professor made no reply to this except to re- mark that the geological record since the pliocene was so unsatisfactory he had very great doubt whether we could at present draw a line between the last two periods. Science shows the existence of a pretty * "The mammals of the quaternary are nearly all extinct. "^ifan- ual of Geology^ p. 563. 194 GEN£:SIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. well-defined demarkation between the land fauna of the quaternary and that of to-day. This is as far, per- haps, as we can at present venture to speak with any positiveness. The Professor sat a few moments in silence, and then said : *' This is a very difEerent document from what I have always supposed. But old beliefs are not easily thrown off, and I can hardly say that I ac- cept it as true. TJie argument seems conclusive, but I am dazed by the greatness of the results if it be actually true. It is too great to be believed, 1 do not wish to argue to-night, but only to listen^ Tell me just how this story looks to you. What is it? How did you come to view it as you do ? I shall wish to ask other questions, bnt please answer these first." Whatever I can say is liable to imperfection and error, for my knowledge is very limited. If, upon more thorough examination, defects shall be found in my exposition, you must not, therefore, draw conclu- sions unfavorable to the truth of this narrative. Too many real correspondences have been pointed out be- tween it and what scientists have claimed as their dis- coveries to permit it to be lightly regarded. I know, too — no one can be more sensible of it than I — that its depths have not all been sounded, nor all its heights been scaled. Others, with greater knowledge of the Hebrew and with the help of a more advanced OUR NINTH EVENING. 195 science, will find treasures beyond mj reach. Of some, even now, I catch tantalizing glimpses. And then, too, the discussion of the three last periods lacks that full and satisfactory character which can come only when geologists have given us — if that shall ever be possible — a full and connected account of what took place between the end of the pliocene and the beginning of history. At present, amid abundant assertions, our knowledge is very meager, both as to the things done and their causes. You ask me how I look upon this chapter. To me it appears to be a series of statements, each setting forth an event, or condition, or transaction, in the world's early history. These I find placed one after the other in the true order, but with no intimation of the vast intervals of time by which they are sepa- rated. As, when we look at the stars, they all seem equally distant, and we learn better only from the teachings of astronomy, so to the ordinary reader all these transactions seem equally distant until a greater acquaintance with the past teaches him better. Of some things, as light, matter, and motion, the writer speaks of their beginnings, while as to others he records only their completion. Of plants he speaks only oi the latest and most useful kinds ; of animals he confines himself to living species. Not a few of his statements are of such a character that on their truth depends the very existence of whole de- 196 G£INWSIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. partments of modern science, l^or is their great value nor their order a matter of accident. For tlie number of these statements compels the belief that thej were designed. "With a slight verbal change, making diametrically opposite sense, I adopt the words of one to whom I owe so much,* " The Mosaic story is the work of a profound intellect versed in all the depths of science which the future was to reveal," if indeed it be not the perfection of irony to speak of the depths of human knowledge in His presence who seems to me to be the Author of the account. - " How did you arrive at your belief in this narra- tive? You certainly did not start with it. What course did you pursue?" No, I replied, I did not start with it, for when I began to study this chapter I had no clearly formed opinions about it, except that if it was from God it would bear comparison with the most advanced science, so far as the two treated of the same subjects ; or, as Dr. Draper so admirably puts it in his Intellect- ual Development of Europe — I repeat the quotation : " Considering the asserted origin of this book " — he is speaking of the Koran, but his words apply equally well to any book claiming to be a revelation — "indi- rectly from God himself- — we might justly expect that it would bear to be tried by any standard that * So rauch aa to the world's history, but nothing aa to the explana- tion of thia chapter. OUR NINTH EVENING. 197 man can apply, and vindicate its truth and ex- cellence in the ordeal of human criticism. ... As years pass on, „and human scien(;e becomes more ex- act and more comprehensivej its conclusions must be found in unison therewith. When occasion arises it should furnish us at least the foreshadowing of the great truths discovered by astronomy and geology, not offering for them the wild fictions of earlier ages, inventions of the infancy of man." It makes no difference that Dr. Draper thought he was setting so high a standard that it would render tlie claims of the Bible ridiculous. I thank him that he has done so, and trust that he and his co-believers will say no more about the absurdity of looking, in what claims to be a revelation, for the foreshadow- ing of great truths discovered by astronomy and geology. According to him, such looking for scien- tific truths is the proper mode of .testing such a claim. These high demands of the learned doctor absolutely require the Bible, if it really be a revela- tion, to disagree with the conclusions of science through all of what may be called its formative stages ; hence, to disagree with the science of the world almost to the present day, and where science is yet formative — and consequently, of necessity, largely erroneous — we must, on Dr. Draper's showing, still look for disagreement, I need' hardly say that the history of the past shows a refusal on the part of the 198 GENESIS L AND MODERN SCIENCE. Bible to agree with the current science, and this, to mj mind, is no small argument in favor of its super- human origin. But, to return to jour question. Heartily agreeing with Dr. Draper as to what a revealed cosmogouy would do, I concluded to see how far the one which we have been discussing would bear his test. I de- termined to drop all a priori notions as to what a revelation could or could not do. All theories, thus far, had proceeded upon the assumption that there was some great defect, or impassable limit, either in the knowledge of the writer or in his fear of going beyond the capacity of his countrymen. I thought to try another theory, to wit, that, God being the real author, I need have no fears that our science would overstep his, and, therefore, dropping all limits other than he had placed on the record, I determined to take his words in their fullest and freest amplitude of meaning. I first spread out before me, as on a great chart, the discoveries of astronomers, geologists, and others, pertaining to the early history of our earth. Then I took up the statements in this story of creation, and looked on my chart for something to which they exactly corresponded. I made no account of previous beliefs or theories, asked no questions as to time or order, or whether Moses meant it or not ; I just looked for counterparts of his brief descrip- OUR NINTH EVENING. 299 tions. When I found one I placed by it the words of Moses, and then passed on. I will not .trouble you with an account of my easy success in some cases, nor of my long and, for a time, unsuccessful but never wearisome search in others, and my finding diamonds in what seemed valueless pebbles, the glorious flashes of liglit by which my path was often illumined, nor of failures sometimes to make any progress — failures due, as it turned out, to my igno- rance of some physical fact, or else to my following a version which led me away from the Hebrew original. At last I had each statement placed, and then, look- ing over the whole, to my delight I found that their order on the chart was exactly that in which Moses had left them. That the story was true was as cer- tain as the truth of the sciences which verified it ; that its order was correct was equally beyond ques- tion ; that it was not an allegory was evident, for there by its side was a physical fact for each sentence. "I have of ten wondered," said the Professor, "how you came to be so decided in your belief. But with the experience you have been through I do not see how it could be otherwise. I have read various statements as to what was God's purpose in giving this account to man. I must confess I never felt much interest in the matter, because it seemed to me the writers were" trying to devise something which should enable them to escape, from some of their many assailants ; but 200 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SGIENOE. now I feel very differently. Tell me what, so far as you can judge, was the purpose of its author in giv- ing this account to man ? " I think I can see several purposes. One — the chief ■ — to set forth God's creatorship, and to impress upon mankind the Sabbath as a perpetual reminder of that fact ; another, to make manifest God's intense per- sonality, as distinguished fl^om blind force; and last, but possibly not least, to authenticate to future ages, when knowledge should have been increased, the high origin of that book of which it is the opening chapter. I have already pointed out the broadness of the claim to universal creatorship here put forth. It shows itself all through the chapter, but perhaps more noticeably in reference to animal life. The fiat com- mands certain kinds of creatures to appear. The record says that it was done, and then adds that God created not these alone, but " every living " creature, not merely those that came into existence then, but all , living kinds ; thus foreshadowing the fact lately discovered that many living creatures at these epochs had come down from earlier times. The narrative impresses on man the Sabbath as a day of rest by dividing the history into six periods of work and then placing at the close a day of rest. If the Sabbath had thenceforward been observed for the reason assigned in the fourth commandment the wor- ship of false gods would have been impossible. OUR NINTH EVENING. 201 God's personality shows itself in such phrases as " God said," or " God saw," or " God made." So thoroughly is this thought wrought into the story that it refuses to be read in any other sense. Let any one attempt to substitute for God some other word, for example, force. He will get through but few lines before he will be compelled to feel that it is no abstrac- tion, but a living person, of whom he is reading. I hope you will make the experiment at your leisure and go through the chapter. I will repeat a few verses which suffice for my present purpose. " In the beginning force created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void ; and darkness was tipon the face of the deep. And the spirit of force moved upon the face of the waters. And force said. Let there be light : and there was light. And force saw the light, that it was good : and force divided between the light and the darkness. And force called the light " Day, and the darkness he called Night." We have gone through but a few lines. Plainly " force " is a person that thinks, wills, approves, and names. We feel that in writing " force " we have been guilty of disrespect, and that at the least it should be Force. This does not satisfy us, and we hasten back to that word which expresses infinite force with per- fect personality, God, I said this story authenticates the Bible. It does 202 GENESIS J. AND MODERN SGIENGK it by the exhibition of so much knowledge which, until the present time, was unattainable by man. It reaches from the "beginning" to Adam, Of necessity it passes in silence over vast stretches of time in which occurred many events of great impor- tance, or what is now a chapter would have been swelled to a vast number of volumes, and thus the utility of the book as the companion and comforter of man would have been destroyed. It seems incred- ible, but it is a fact, that these omissions have been urged as a strong if not conclusive reason for reject- ing the claim of this chapter to be inspired. The folly of such reasoning is surpassed only by its pre- sumption. To this the Professor made no reply, but remarked : " The world has always supposed Moses referred to events which occurred six thousand years ago. I admit that he does not say so, nor does he say any thing to the contrary. He is merely silent. ]N"ow, what right have you to say that he refers to matters a thousand-fold more distant ? Then, too, the story moves on apparently without break from day to day from the first to the last ; what right have you to separate statements so joined, and to place between them intervals of thousands, if not millions, of years ? I do not ask to argue, but I really wish to know?" The world's opinion has always been a very unsafe OUR mNTH EVENING. 203 guide in any matters pertaining to our earth or its history, whether in the Bible or out of it. Moses leaves the tinie of tlie beginning of crea- tion an open question. He merely states certain things, with no intimation as to how much or how little time separates them. Tliis is a fact of great im- portance, but one exceed ingly difficult to realize, because it requires us to rid ourselves of beliefs which have been held from childhood. His narrative, when collated with astronomy and geology, agrees, each statement with a fact throughout, and what, if possible, is more marvelous, the order is the same. These agreements are many in number and of the most profound importance. Such and so many agree- ments could not be mere chance coincidences. Hence I conclude that this narrative was intended to de- scribe the very transactions to which it so exactly applies. The laws of my mental being allow me no other conclusion. JErgo^ it was intended to extend over all the time which the transactions occupied. Astronomy and geology assure us that these were separated by intervals of unequal length aggregating untold millions of years. The account itself says nothing for or against there being such intervals. Agreeing, as it does, in all else with the broadest science, we would stultify ourselves to say that silence is contradiction. The case is very similar to that of the little skeleton outline of American history which .204 GENESIS I, AND MODERN SCIENCE. I employed in illustration of the "days." The child who read it without other instruction might, perhaps, believe it the story of a week ; but when, in after years, he learned from other sources that it in reality spre:id over several centuries, he would need to be an uncom- monly stupid child to insist that its author taught that the events which it mentions followed each other with no greater interval than a night. " But," said the Professor, " is not this often styled a Hymn of Creation ? " Yes ; and I see no great objection to it. A liymn may be true as much as if it were prose. We may imagine that at some remote time — perhaps before the flood — there lived one who .believed with all his heart in one God, Creator of all things. We can think of him as meditating on the heavens, and the earth with its teeming population, till his thoughts took form in words. His theme would be God, Creator of heaven and earth, and in loving detail we can imagine him go- ing through the<3atalogue of God's works in some such outline as this, but amplified in working out the poem : Tu the beginning God created heaven and earth. G-od made the light, and separated it from the darkness, and called the one Day and the other Night. " God made the expanse over all. God made the dry land appear, and the waters to fill the seas. God made the grass, the herbs, and the fruit-beariog trees. God caused the lights in the expanse of heaven to be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years. God made them also, and caused them to shine for man ; he made the stars likewise. OUR NINTH EVENING. 205 God made great whales and other creatures of tlie sea. And fowl to fly in the expanse of heaven. God made the cattle, beasts, and other liviug heings that move upon Uie land. God made man. In the Image of God made he him. At first it would not appear impossible that some uninspired man might have written such a poem. It would excite oar surprise that while all other cosmog- onies abound in monstrous polytlieistic fables tliis is wholly free. Had we lived before the present century, we might have wondered that the writer, if inspired by the All- Wise, should have been so igno- rant of true science as to represent the earth as once tohu va hohuj " infinitely attenuated, nothingness, and void ; " and that he should say light existed before the sun, and was called good, before it was divided from the darkness. "We might have insisted, as did the philosophers of early days, that whatever rahia might mean in itself it must here have been in- tended to describe a solid support for the waters above the earth ; for surely the writer, if inspired, must have known about the crystalline spheres which every tyro in "science" knew supported the vast upper stores of water. And, as of all things perhaps the most important was the firmament which kept the waters from descending and drowning out all life, we would have thought, as did the scientists among the trans- lators of the Septuagint, that it was by an oversiglit that the firmament was not called good. Of course 206 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. \t was good, and the author of the account must have intouded to so call it, and therefore we should have approved of their interpolating the words, " And God saw tliat it was good." Then, in regard to the fourth period, we should have had several faults to find, but chiefly that the poet ignored weeks and months ; and when we came to the next period it would seem strange and very unscientific that birds should have appeared simul- taneously with water creatures rather than with land animals. In fact, orthodox scientists had a hard time of it till they began to know something of the world's real history. It was not the order that troubled them, for, so far as they could see, one order was as good as another. Naturally grass came before cattle, but why it came before whales they could not see, and did not imagine it was a matter of any consequence. Calling light good while it was, as they thought, mingled with darkness was a little singular, but it did not make any difference. Pej-haps the reason the firmament was not pronounced good was that the devils were made on that day.* To-day we have a very different science, and no longer is it necessary to do violence to the dictionary to eke out a harmony between it and the story in Genesis. The physical statements in the latter readily find their counterpart in the world's history. And if * See commentary in Luther's Bible on this oraisaion. OUR NINTH EVENING. 207 these are chance agreements there remains the greater miracle, the correct order. There are here a large number of important points in which this story touches modern science, yet every-where the order is the true one. It is this above all else that proves this story is from some higher source than an unaided man. "How," said the Professor, "do you think this story was made known to Moses, or whoever wrote it ? Was it put bodily into his mind, or did he see the transactions as in a vision ? " Since nothing has been revealed as to the mode of Moses's obtaining this account, all that I can say is en- titled to little weight. Yery much which he has re- corded could in the nature of the case have been made known to him only by actual words, either spoken or in some manner put into his mind. For example, the first two verses — no vision could depict what they record. Even now, with the aid of our greatly increased knowledge, we can conjure up nothing better to represent God the Creator, or God the Spirit, the darkness, and the moving upon the waters, than certain conventional symbols which would have had no mean- ing to Moses and his contemporaries. Then there is all that God is represented as say- ing. This, too, could be conveyed to Moses only through the medium of words, and it forms a large part of the narrative. Besides all this, I continued, there is internal ev- n 208 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SGIENGK idence that the author of this account had the skill and knowledge of a trained observer — a kind of per- son unknown in those days and not very common now. Every one who has had experience in obtaining de- scriptions of natural phenomena from ordinary persons knows how exceedingly diflScult it is to get them to exclude useless and extraneous matters. Knowing little of the relative value of the facts which they have witnessed, they are likely to record those of no conse- quence and to omit others of the highest vahie. But here, in this series of phenomenal descriptions, every word is appropriate, every fact of transcendent im- portance. There is, too, an evident freedom and vi- vacity, a lack of doubt or hesitation, as if error was impossible, which can be justified only by the truth of every statement. I cannot conceive of any man viewing the past and selecting such facts and describ- ing them in language so exact. The only conclusion that appears to meet all the conditions of the problem is that this narrative was received from a supernatural source. There may, or there may not, have been an audible sound. Perhaps words were unconsciously put into the mind of Moses. But in some way he knew just what words to use. I then spoke of Professor Huxley's remark, " The student of nature will trouble himself no longer with these theologies," and asked what he thought of it, in view of what we had seen as we went over the account. OUR NINTH EVENING. 209 He replied: "Unless Professor Huxley shall ex- plain away the facts — and I do not see how he can — he is bound as a fair-minded man to recall his words. I have no doubt that, with his usual acuteness and that freedom from all theological bias whicli he claims for himself, he will examine the matter thoroughly, and either make the amende honorable as frankly as he has made his charges, or else he will point out just what it is in this story that is contradicted by science.* If he will not do this I shall think that his opposition to this part of the Bible arises, not from a love of the truth, but from some other motive. In such a case I shall look to that eminent scientist, Dr. Draper. He certainly should be able to point out the contradictions of science, if there are any, because he has made a study of what he calls the conflict of religion and sci- ence. Until that is done I shall venture to believe that no such conflict exists.f "Either of these gentlemen could greatly aid in settling this question if he would write out h.is own version of our world's history in language as brief and simple as that of Moses, omitting every thing about *In the Nineteenth Century/ Professor Huxley sho-wa that what he calls the central idea of this account is an error; but as that "idea" is uot taught in G-enesis, it is still in order' to ask the Pro- fessor to point out something in this story which is contradicted by science. f Since the above was written Dr. Draper has died. I let the pas- sage stand, hoping that he on whom his mantle shall fall will in this matter take his place. 210 GENESIS J. AND MODERN SCIENCE. which scientists are still disputing. An account made up of admitted facts, placed in their true order by such men, would be most welcome. But I fear it will never be written." "With this we ended our discussion, in a very differ- ent spirit on his part from that in which it had begun. A few days later my friend removed to a distant part of the country. I liave met him several times since, and we have discussed a number of questions about the Bible ; but, whatever doubts he may ex- press as to other matters, he no longer denies that at least one chapter is true, and is inexplicable on any theory that assumes its human origin. At his request I prepared and sent him the following epitome of the teachings of Genesis : The universe is not eternal, for God created it. The earth was once formless — that is, part of a neb- ulous mass, and had neither land nor seas, plants nor animals — " void." At first it was non-solid, mobile, easily flowing, mahyim. And darkness covered it. After motion was imparted by the Spirit of God there was light. The light became good light before there were days and nights. After days and nights had begun there was an ex- panse, or thinning, made in the midst of the dense at- mosphere of steam and clouds which at first envel- oped the earth. The expanse was not yet fitted for higher forms of life — not " good." OUR NINTH EVENING. 211 After the waters were deposited under the expanse, the earth was covered with water, beneath which hiy the future continents. TJie seas and oceans are one great basin — " one place." Of the vast geological periods from the beginning ■of the emergence of the land till both land and sea. could be pronounced ready, or "good " for their in- tended purpose, all is passed over without notice. In the rest of the account the writer speaks of things the liebrews knew of and were interested in, the contemporary plants and animals, and the sun and moon and stars, the various measures of time, and of Adam, theirgreat progenitor. Moses says God made all these, and to the Hebrews tliat was the only mat- ter of moment about it. But from a scientific stand- point the most interesting thing is the order in which Moses says God made them. Genesis puts the modern flora first, not of all organ- isms, but of the three " horizons " of which he speaks. !N^ext come the arrangements by which the great' lights were to divide between the day and the niglit, and were to be for times and for seasons, and for days and years. Still later come great whales and other living kinds of water animals and- fowl. Then .come cattle, beasts, and other living land creatures, and lastly Adam. I added a list of " errors " often charged to this 212 GENESIS I AND MODERN SGIENGE. story unjustly, being for the most part somebody's inferences or false science interpolated, perhaps un- consciously, into the account : " The universe was made six thousand years ago." " Light and darkness are substances." " There is a solid dome or arch above the earth." "The sun and moon are supported by that arch." ^' The earth is the largest bt)dy in the universe.". " The continents and seas were made in a few hours." " These were all completed before any plants or animals existed." "There were no plants or animals before grasses, herbs, and fruit-trees." " The sun was created after these plants." " The earth is larger than the sun or the stars." " There was no animal life on land, or in the water, before whales and birds." " There were no land animals before cattle, beasts, and other living creatures." " There were no men before Adam." iN'ot one of these statements is found in this ac- count. Each is merely an inference by somebody from what he thinks Moses meant. Mostly they are bare interpolations. As to the last, it is more than doubt- ful whether men existed before Adam, but, in any case, nothing is said about it. The other statements have been refuted again and again, and yet each time the opponents of revelation had congratulated them- selves that it had received a fatal blow. The last success in this direction is Professor Huxley's in the Nineteenth Century^ where he tells Mr. Gladstone that there OUR NINTH EVENING. 218 were water creatures before whales, flying creatures before birds, and, he might have added, vegetation before grasses, herbs, and fruit-trees. But as Genesis says nothing to the contrary it is difficult to see what bearing the Professor's article has on this chapter. 214 GENM:SIS I AND MODERN SCIENCE. DR. DRAPER^S TEST. WHAT OP MODERN DISCOVERIES ARE FORESHADOWED IK THE HEBREW STORY OF CREATION. 1. It states distinctly that tlie universe Lad a be- ginning, thus anticipating the result of Professor Tait's law of " Degradation of Energy." 2. Tliat the heaven and earth were not created all finished. It states distinctly three most important characteristics of the earth's primordial condition. The earth was, it says^ tohu * va hohu^ rendered in our ver- sion, "without form and void;" it was a non-solid or fluid substance; it was a profound abyss. These fore- shadow the nebular hypothesis. 3. It says that light was not eternal, nor self-exist- ent, and that darkness preceded motion. It thus fore- shadows the modern discovery that light is a mode of motion, and that late generalization, the correlation of forces. 4. It states explicitly that matter and motion are each due to the will of the First Cause. It thus fore- shadows the results of the highest modern philosophy. * No word in our language can do justice to the exquisite exactness of tohu as applied to the infinitely attenuated matter out of which the earth was formed. See page 43, this book. DR, DRAPEW8 TEST. 21S 5. It foreshadows what modern physicists look upon as their discovery. That light is older than the sun. 6. It foreshadows the fact discovered by the' spec- troscope, that nebulous light became the same as solar light (that is, good) before day and night began their alternations. 7. It intimates very plainly that after tlie earth had so cooled as to have days and nights, it was ■wrapped in dense aqueous vapor. 8. It more than foreshadows the recent discovery by paleo-cheraists, that at first the atmosphere was poisonous with foul gases — was not good. 9. It teaches what is a very recent discovery, that originally the water covered what is now dry land. 10. It more than foreshadows the great geograph- ical discovery of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, that the oceans and seas form one great basin. 11. It more than foreshadows the true order of development of the organic forms which are con- temporaneous with man. 12. It foreshadows an important and recent geo- logical discovery when it places the present flora after the completion of the oceans and continents, .13. And before the present vertebrate fauna of the ocean, 14. And before the fowls of the air. 15. It foreshadows something yet to be made known — probably, as it seems to me, the introduction 216 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SGIENGE. of seasons and unequal days and nights. Three geo- logical facts in harmony with this are known : (1) The earlier and by far the larger part of the world's history shows no evidence of seasons. (2) An immense and all-impoi'tant climatic change after the production of present genera of plants. (3) The glacial epoch having passed, there is thence- forth abundant evidence of seasons with all that that implies. 16. It foreshadows the geological fact that the higher kinds of water creatures and fowl — those now living — are of one " horizon," * and that they preceded the "horizon" of cattle, beasts, and other creatures of to-day. lY. It foreshadows the failure, at least thus far, of scientists to discover any classes, orders, families, or genera of plants or vertebrate animals whose origin is more recent than, the six thousand or ten thousand years, or whatever it may be, since present cattle and beasts appeared. The birds and beasts carved or painted on the Egyptian monuments are fac-similes of the birds and beasts there to-day. If any document by any scientist, ancient or mod- ern, can be found "foreshadowing" equal to this, I would like to see it. * " Of the same horizon is said of fossils which appear to have lived at the same time." THE TRADITIONAL STORY OF CREATION. 217 THE TRADITIONAL STQRY OF CREATION. SURPOSEB TO BE FOUND IN GENESIS, CHAPTEK I. In the following paraphrase I have endeavored to set forth, briefly and clearly, what is usually regarded as the explicit teachings of the first chapter of Gene- sis, and accepted as such by friends and foes. Re- cently, however, its friends have abandoned the six tlionsand year date of creation, and most of them have adopted the belief that the days here spoken of were great periods, and that "firmament" is a mistranslation. One change in the order I have adopted, because " the science" of the best-informed of say fifty years ago ap- proved of it, not formally, indeed, but logically. I refer to the light's being good after it wag divided from the darkness. It will be seen that I have con- densed and omitted in order to save space and avoid repetitions ; but in no case have I done so where it would affect, pro or con^ the account. The traditional Genesis has been the object of the attacks based upon the " mistakes " of Moses, and it is here that the opponents of revelation have won their victories. In direct violation of the "scientific method," they assume that these second-hand state- ments are the teacliings of this account, and when 228 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. they have demolished what somebody says Moses in- tended to say, they shout in triumph that the student of nature will no longer trouble himself with these theologies. InthebeginniDg, about 6,000^ years ago, G-od created the heavens and the earth, out of nothing.^ ^ And the earth was a chaotic mass, without law or order.'* And God made the substance ^ darkness, an(^ it covered the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the shoreless water.* And God made the light-substance,^ And the light and the darkness were mixed one with tlie other,^ until God divided the light from the darkness. And after this division God saw the light, that it was good.'' And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And all this was done in one day — the first day.^ And God made a solid, transparent dome over the earth, to support the upper waters and to separate them from the waters beneath.^ And this, too, was good.^*' And the firmament was made in one day — the second day.^* And God said. Let the waters be gathered unto one place and let the dry land appear. And, at once, it was done.^** ^ Genesis says nothing of 6.000 years. 2 Not so stated in Genesis. ^ Ganesis does not say darkness was a substance. * Genesis says, " on the face of " mahyim, something not solid, the exact equivalent of our word " fluid." It does not say " shoreless." 5 Genesis nowhere says or implies that light is a substance. ^ Genesis does not say that the light and darkness were mixed. They were, indeed, divided, as they are now, by the opaque earth. '' Genesis puts "good" before the division. So does science. ^ Genesis merely announces after the work a day — the first — but does not say any thing was done in it. ^ Genesis says nothing of any solid support. It speaks only of an " expanse." ^° Not so pronounced in Genesis. ^^ See note 8. *^ Genesis does not say it was done in a moment, nor in what time.^ THE TRADITIONAL STORY OF CREATION. 219 The sea and the land, in a few hours, were completed in all their present extent. * And God saw that it was good. ' But as yet God had made no plants nor animals of any kind.' And God said, Let the earth send forth its first vegetation,^ namely, grasses, herbs, and fruit-trees bearing fruit whose seed is in it. And it was so. And first of all plants* appeared grasses, herbs, and fruit-trees, and clothed the hitherto naked earth. And God saw that it was good. And all this was done on one day ^ — the third day. But as yet the sun, moon, and stars were not in existence,^ and there were no water ''' creatures, nor fowl,^ nor land animals.^ And God said. Let there now be made great lights in the firma- ment of heaven,^*' and let them divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for months" and years. And God made the sun and moon and the stars all at this time.^* And all this was done on one day^^ — the fourth. And as yet God had not made any living creatures^ — either in the water, or in the air, or on the land,^"* But now animals — the first kinds on our globe — appeared, to wit, great whales and other water creatures and fowl,^^ but as yet no land animals.'^ 1 Genesis does not say so. ^ Genesis does not say so. ^ Genesis does not say this was the first vegetation, * Genesis does not say so. * Genesis does not say so. ^ Genesis does not say so. "^ Genesis does not say so. ^ Genesis does not say so. ® Genesis does not say so. ^^ Genesis does not say so. ^^ Genesis does not speak of months, *^ Genesis does not say so. >3 See note 8. ^^ Genesis says nothing as to whether God had previously made any animal. ^s Genesis says nothing as to these being the first animals on the earth. ^^ Genesis does not say so. 220 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. And all these were created in one day — the fifth.^ And God said, Let now the first land animals appear, and let land life now begin in cattle, beasts, and creeping things.^ Thus far in the storj almost every thing has been falsified by traditional beliefs. The rest of the ac- count has not been affected in this way. ^ See note 8. ^ Genesis says nothing of these being the first. THE BABYLONIAN LEGEND OF CREATION. 221 THE BABYLONIAN LEGEND OF CREATION.* IS IT THE OEIGINAL OF THE STOKY IN THE FIRST CHAP- TER OF GENESIS? Among the interesting "finds" on the banks of the Tigris are tablets which are said to contain the origi- nal of the Hebrew account of the creation, the fall, and the deluge. As to the last, there can be no doubt that the tablets give a distorted version of that great cataclysm. This is not surprising. The comparative nearness of the event accounts for the accuracy of some of the details. As to the fall, Professor Sayce, in his revised edition of Mr. George Smith's Chal- dean Genesis, says: "No Chaldean legend of the fall has been found." "Whether Professor Sayce is right Assyriologists must decide. The sole question I propose to consider is this : Whatever may or may not be true as to other matters, did the Hebrews de- rive their cosmogony from Chaldeans? Is the story on the tablets the original from which the Bible story of creation was taken ? It will, I think, conduce to clearness of thought if we state what is necessary to constitute one document *A3 given in the versiona of Mr. George Smith and Professors Sayce and Lenormant. 222 GSNESJS I. AND MODERN SGIENGE. tlie original of another. 1. It must be older. 2. It must treat of tlje same subject. 3. There must be great similarity, amounting almost to identity, in thought, language, order of statement, and mode of treatment. The first and second are of no importance without the third. It is said that the great antiquity of the Chaldean account establishes its priority over that in our Bible, and that the long sojourn of the Hebrews in Babylon gave them an opportunity to obtain it from the records in that city. It happens, however, that what- ever may be the age of the other myths, the Babylonian " creation " is of comparatively recent date, for, accord- - ing to Professor Sayce's revised edition of George Smith's translation, "It is evident that in its present form it was probably composed in the reign of Assnr- banipal, B. C. 6Y0. It breathes throughout the spirit of a later age ; its language and style show no trace of an Assyrian original ; and the colophon at the end implies by its silence that it was not a copy of an older document." — Page 56. But, admitting that the Chaldean account is suf- ficiently ancient, the opposing fact remains that the Hebrews, instead of being drawn to the religious belief of their conquerors, became bitterly opposed to it and to every form of polytheism. And besides, they were a proud and exclusive race. Tliey looked down with contempt on all the rest of mankind. It seems THE BABYLONIAN LEGEND OF CREATION. 223 impossible that tliey not only adopted the story of crea- tion from those whose persons, religious beliefs, and ceremonies they hated, and incorporated it into their own sacred books, but even gave it the place of honor. It seems equally incredible that Assyrian priests, the most exclusive of men, were willing to impart their sacred writings to those who scouted them and their gods. The improbability of their bestowing such a gift is exceeded only by the improbability of its being accepted. To this, however, it may be replied tliat if the Hebrews got the account the improbability is of no consequence. We are left, therefore, to an examina- tion of the cosmogonies. In them we sJiall find the means of answering the question. If there prove to be agreements between them, the probability that one was derived from the other, or both from some older docu- ment, will be proportioned to the number and char- acter of tlie particulars in which they agree. If these are but few, and if they are such as would of necessity be found in every cosmogony — if, for example, both accounts speak of the heavens, the earth, and sea ; of cat- tle and beasts ; of sun, moon, stars, and the like — -this should have no weight in determining whether the one was derived from the other, because, in ^order to be a cosmogony at all, some or all of these things must be mentioned. Much more is necessary. It must be shown that the teachings of the two are essentially 224 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. alike. There may be additions and variations, . but down under it all there must be substantial agreement. It goes without saying that, if there be flat contradiction in the fundamental ideas, not in one or two particu- lars only but in many, the Hebrew account cannot have been derived from the Clialdean. Three Chaldean cosmogonies are known. The most famous is that styled by Mr. George Smith " The Babylonian Legend of Creation ; " the second was found in what is called " The Tablet of Cutha ; " and the third is tlie story told by Berosus. The lirst is the only one referred to in connection with the story in Genesis, probably because it is comparatively free from absurdities and monstrosities. Mr, Smith pub- lished his translation in 1875. In 1880 Professor Sayce published a new edition of Mr. Smith's book, " thoroughly revised and corrected." The changes introduced by Professor Sayce are very considerable. Later yet, Lenorraant, iu his Beginnings of History^ has given a more readable version, but one which dif- fers little from that of Professor Sayce. Since the claim that the first chapter of Genesis was derived from the Chaldeans is based upon Mr. Smith's version I shall give that in full, adding, how- ever, in notes or otherwise, the other versions where the difference is important enough to warrant it. In fact, it is of little consequence which translation is used. THE BABYLONIAN LEGEND OF CREATION. 225 1. When above the heavens were not raised,* 2. And below on the earth not a plant had grown, f 3. The abyss, also, had not broken open their (sic) boundaries, % 4. The chaos (or water) Tiamat (the sea) was the mother of them all. 5. At the beginning those waters were ordained ; § 6. But not a tree had grown, not a flower had unfolded. || 7. "When the gods had not sprung up, any one of them ; *|f ^. Kot a plant had grown, and order did not exist.** 9. Then were made also the great gods. 10. The gods Lakhamu and 11. Lakhamu they caused to come . . and they grew, 12. The gods Sar and Kisar were made 13. A course of days and a long time passed . . . 14. The gods Sar aud . . . Taking Mr. Smitli's version, or one of those in the notes, and putting it into plain English, it says that at the opening of the account the heavens, earth, and sea were in existence ; but that order did not exist and there were no gods. The sea was the naother of all. The great gods, a pair, were produced first and grew to maturity. Another pair, Sar and Kisar, were made next. Then a long time passed, after which the gods Ann, Bel, and Hea were born of Sar and Kisar. This is absolutely all. But Mr. Smith says, * Sayce : Were not named. f Sayce : Below, the earth by name was not recorded, I Sayce : The boundless deep was their generator (father). § Sayce omits at the heginning^ and changes the rest to " their waters were gathered together in one place," II Sayce says; The flowering reed was not gathered; the marsh plant was not grown. Lenormant renders the same line by, No flock of animals was as yet collected. ^ Sayce : Had not been produced. ** Sayce : By name they had not been called. 226 GEITESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. and so does Professor Sayce, " This corresponds with the first two verses of Genesis ! " Corresponds how ? In Genesis we read : " In the beginning God created tlie heaven and the earth." The tablet says nothing like that. We read in Genesis that the earth was witliout form and void. In the myth we are told that before the gods were made order did not exist. At first this may seem to be tlie same as the " without form* and void " of Genesis ; but modern science has taught us that these words describe a condition which actually existed while our earth was an unsegregated part of the great nebulous mass, and that there never was a time when order did not exist. Matter has always been obedient to law, wliether in nebula, sun, or planet. Genesis knows nothing of a chaos. Genesis says, after tlie heaven and earth were created dark- ness covered the face of the deep, and that the Spirit of God nfioved upon the face of the waters. The myth says the great gods were not yet made. The water was the mother of them all. In Genesis we read : " And God said, Let there be light : and there was light." In the myth we read nothing like this ; so far as the tablets are concerned light always existed. In these few verses of our Genesis there are five distinct propositions, and not one of them parallel to any thing in the myth ; and only one has the slight- * Any of the various meaniags of tohu will answer here. TEE BABYLONIAN LEGEND OF CREATION 227 est resemblance. Instead of similarity there is pro- foundest difference. According to the Hebrew ac- count, God preceded all things, and he created heaven, earth, and sea. The tablet says, the heaven, earth, and sea were first ; and at that time " the great gods had not been produced, any one of them." The Hebrew account knows but one God ; the Chaldean has many gods. The one declares that God made the universe ; the other, that the universe made the gods. In the one, the beginning is that point in the existence of God when the universe began to be ; in the other, it is the point in the existence of the universe when the gods began to be. It is impossi- ble to conceive of two accounts more flatly contradic- tory. Unfortunately, the second, third, and fourth tablets have not been found. There is, however, a fragment which, it is thought, may belong here. I give Mr. Smith's version : 1. Whea (thou didst make) the foundation of the ground (or cav- erns, according to Sayce) of rock. 2. The foundation of the ground (caverns, Sayce) thou didst call 3. Thou didst beautify the heavens (the heavens were named, 4. To the face of the heaven 5. Thou didst give . . . This tablet is so incomplete that it scarcely calls for remark. It contains but little, and that little illus- trates the character of all the tablets. So far as what they say is true it is nothing more than every Intel- 228 G£JNESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. ligent man of tliat day already knew. The foundations of the caverns are indeed of rock, and the heavens are ' beautiful ; but this adds no new idea. Every Chal- dean knew that as well as the writer of the inscription. But in Genesis, in the third period, to which it is said this tablet corresponds, there is set forth in no Delphian utterance the important fact, only of late discovered by geologists, that the waters once covered the present dry land. The next tablet is the best presei'ved of all. There are many variations in the translations. These are important as showing the tentative character of the rendering, but are of no special interest so far as the question of the origin of the Mosaic account is con- cerned. Mr. Smith's Tersion. Professor Satce's Yersion. It "was delightful all that was es- 1 (Auu) made suitable tlie man- tablished by the great gods. sions of the (seven) great gods. He * arranged the stars and caused 2 The stars he placed in them, their appearance in (figures) of the lumasif he fixed, animals, to establish the year 3 He arranged the year accord- through observing their constella- ing to the bounds that he tions. defined. He arranged twelve months of 4 Foreachof thetwelvemonths, stars in three rows, three stars he fixed, from the day when the year com- 5 from the day when the year mences to its close. issues forth to its close. He marked the position of the 6 He estabUshed the mansion planets to shiue in their courses, of the god Kibiru, that they ' might know their laws (or bounds), * Probably Anu. f A constellation. THE BABYLONIAN LEGEND OF CREATION. 229 that they may not injure nor trouble any ono. He fixed the position of the goda Bel and Hea with him. And he opened the great gates which were shrouded in darkness, whose fastenings were strong on the right hand and on the left. In the mass he made a boiling. He made the god TJru (the moon) to rise out of it. The night he overshadowed, to fix it also for the light of the night until the shining of the day ; tiiat the month might not be broken, and that it might be reg- ular in its^raount. At the beginning of the month, at the rising of the night, its horns break through to shine in the heavens. On the seventh day it begins to swell to a circle, and stretches farther toward the dawn. When the god Shamas (the snn) in the horizon of heaven in the east . . . . , . formed beautifully. 7 that they might not err or de- flect at all. 8 The mansion of Bel and Hea he estabUshed alone with him- self. 9 He opened also perfectly the- great gates in the sides of the world ; 10 the bolts he strengthened on the left hand and on the right. 1 1 In its center also, he made a staircase. 12 The moon-god he caused to beautify the thick night, and he fixed for it the seasons of its nocturnal phases which determine the days. 13 He appointed him also to hin- der (or balance) the night that the day may be known. 14 (Saying:) Every month with- out break, observe thy circle. 15 At the beginning of the month also, when the night is at its heiglit, 16 (with)thehornsthouannounc- est that the heaven may be known. 17 On the seventh day (thy) cir- cle (begins to) fill, 18 but the half on the right will remain open in darkness. 19 At that time the snn (will be) on the horizon of heaven at thy rising. 20 (Thy form) determine, and make a (circle ?) 21 (From hence) return (and) ap- proach the path of the sun. 230 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. 22 (Then) will the darkness re- turn; the sun will chauge. 23 . . .seek its road. . . 24 (Rise and) set, and Judge judgment. . . .the gods on his hearing. This tablet, according to Mr. Smith, Lenormant, and Assyriologists generally, parallels the fourth of the creative periods of Genesis. But on comparison it will be seen that the resemblance is confined to the one fact that both speak of the snii, moon, and stars. As to all else the difference is radical. The tablet in Mr. Smith's version opens with the statement that all that the gods had established was delightful. This epithet — it is used also in the seventh tablet — corre- sponds, in Mr. Smith's opinion, to "good" in the story of Genesis. " Good," when applied to things without moral qualities, has but one signification, namel}^, fitness for their proper use or completeness. But delightful has no such meaning. It is only a synonym for " pleasing ; " and when applied, as in the seventh tablet, to monsters, is simply burlesque. Professor Sayce substitutes "suitable," and Lenor- mant sayg "excellent." Both of these improve the sense ; but either takes from the tablet what has been claimed as a proof that the Hebrews took their ac- count from this source. But the difference here be- tween Genesis and the tablet is more profound than a matter of words. In the former the Creator is repre- THE BABYLONIAN LEGEND OF CREATION. 231 sented as surveying his work and pronouncing it good. In the tablets there is no creator, but only an arranger, or arrangers, of what already existed. And it is not they who pronounce the mansions of the gods and the nk)nsters " pleasing," or " suitable," or " excellent," whatever the correct rendering may be, but it is the writer of the story. Even in the order of its statements the tablet is antipodal to Genesis. The one speaks of the stars first, then of the moon, and last of the sun. The other reverses this, and tells of the sun and moon, and then of the stars. In Genesis we read that God made them all." In the myth thej are eternal. The creation of the universe — a beginning to the " everlasting hills " — was, an idea to which the writer of the tablets had not risen. In his belief, Ann merely arranged the stars and caused the already Ex- istent moon to come from its place in the center of the earth, while the sun was in no way affected by him or any of the other gods. The myth says that Ann established the year through, observing constel- lations of the stars. In Genesis the stars have no part to perform for our earth. It is tbe "great lights " that are to be for signs and for seasons, for days and years. In the tablet we read : " He marked the position of the planets in their courses, that they may not injure or trouble any one." How thoroughly this is saturated with the astrological notion then and 232 GENESIS I. AN^D MODERN SGIENGE. for centuries later so prevalent, that the stars exert an influence over men for good or for evil ! There is nothing like this in Genesis. N'eariy all the rest of the tablet refers to the moon and its duties. It is to beautify the night and to make the montli. To the moon the greatest promi- nence is given by the writer of the tablet, for to the Chaldeans the month was not only tlie most natural division of time, next to days, but, from its connec- tion with religious ceremonies, tlie most important. Nothing, therefore, was more natural, and every way fitting, than that, in a cosmogony manufactured to meet the needs of their religion and their science, the month should occupy the most prominent place ; and so it does in the Chaldean story ; but in the Genesis account it is not even named. It is incomprehensible that a Hebrew, to whom the month was of as great religious importance as to the Chaldeans, should have copied their account and omitted all about that meas- ure of time. "What has been said about the character of the physical statements in the previous tablets ap- plies with equal force to this. So far as they concern what all can see they are commonplace platitudes. As to all else, they are absurd fables. In the first few lines there is the setting forth of the beginning of an astronomy, or rather an astrology, which had noted the year, divided the stars into con- stellations, and traced the paths of the planets. This TEE BABYLONIAN LEGEND OF CREATION. - 23S is of value as evidence that men had begun to study the heavens and to record the results of their observa- tions, but has nothing to do with any thing in the first chapter of Genesis. The tablet also tells us of the moon, that " at the beginning of the month, at the rising of the night, its horns break through to shine in the heavens. On the seventh day it begins to swell to a circle, and stretches farther toward the dawn." This is Mr, Smith's version. Professor Sayce's is almost unin- telligible. I need not say this, too, has no counter- part in Genesis. Unfortunately, the rest of the tablet is so defaced that little can be made of it. Enough can be read in Mr. Smith's version to show tliat it tells something about the sun-god. But according to Professor Sayce it is doubtful whether any thing was intended to be said about the sun, except as to its position rela- tive to the moon. Indeed, the Babylonians honored the moon more than the sun, even making the sun- god the child of the moon-god. It was natural, there- fore, to say less about it. The sixth tablet has not been found. The seventh tablet. " This," Professor Sayce says, "is probably represented by a fragment found by Mr. Smith in one of the trenches at Kouyun jik." He trans- lates it as follows. The differences between this and Mr. Smith's and Lenormant's versions are unimportant. 234 GEI^^SIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. At that time the gods in their assembly created . . . They made suitable (or pleasing or excellent) the stroug mon- sters . . . They caused to come living creatures. . . Cattle of the field, beasts of the field, and creeping things of the field... They fixed for the living creatures . . , . . .cattle and creeping things of the city they fixed. , . . . .the assembly of the creeping things, the whole which vs^ere cre- ated. . . . . . which in the assembly of my family. . . . . .and the god Nin-si-ku (the lord of the noble face) joined the two together. . . . . .to the assembly of the creeping things I gave life. . . , . .the seed of Lakhamu T destroyed. . . In this fragment is to be seen a slight verbal re- semblance to one of the statements in Genesis. The gods, the myth says, made " cattle, beasts, and creep- ing things;" and Genesis says, God made "beasts, cattle, and creeping things." But if the authors of these two accounts were to speak of land animals at all it is difficult to see how they could avoid that much of agreement. The latter part of the tablet is so badly mutilated, and, in its present condition, so nearly meaningless, that it calls for no remark. There is an important difference which runs through the two accounts to which I have already alluded. It shows how widely their respective autliors differed in the manner of thinking and speaking, the one of his God, the other of his gods. In Genesis the Deity is represented as announcing in advance his work in successive fiats — "God said, let there be" precedes THE BABYLONIAN LEGEND OF CREATION. 285 eacli creative act; and when the fiat has been obeyed God surveys his work and pronounces it "good." But all through these mytlis the gods are dumb. As blind forces they do certain things ; but they utter no fiat, announce no purpose, speak no approval. These are all the tablets that, with any great prob- abihty, can be said to belong to this series. There is, however, a more doubtful fragment which Mr. Smith thinks belongs here. He gives it, however, under reserve. Professor Sayce says: "It is more than doubtful whether it has any thing to do with the cre- ation tablets. It seems rather to be a local legend relating to Assur, the old capital of Assyria, and pos- sibly recording the legend of its foundation. Bit-sarra (the place spoken of in the inscription) or E-sarra, ' the temple of the legions,' was dedicated to ISTinip." * I copy the fragment here that nothing of possible value may be omitted. I give Professor Sayce's ver- sion. Lenormant says he knows nothing of it, and merely quotes Mr. Smith's rendering: ThegodK:iiir...Si... At that time to the god. . . So be it, I concealed thee . . . From the day that thou . . . Angry tliou didst speak. . . The god Assur opened bis raoutli and spake to the god. . . Above the deep, the seat of . . , In front of Bit-sarra, which I have made . . . * Chaldean Genesis, revised edition, p. 63, 236 GEll^ESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. Below the place I strengthen. . , Let there be made also Bit-Lusu, the seat. . . Within it his stronghold may he build and. . . At that time from the deep he raised. . . The place. . .lifted up I made. . .- Above. . .heaven. . . The place. . .lifted up thou didst make. . . .the city of Assur the temples of the great gods . . . bia father Anu, . . The god. . .thee and over all that thy hand has made . . .thee, having over the earth which thy band has made . . .having Assur which thou hast called its name. Whatever this may be, it has no connection with the first chapter of Genesis. Mr, Smith styles this account " The Story of Crea- tion in Days," and others liave adopted the name. It is difficult to see the propriety of so doing. There is no alhision in it to days in connection with creative periods. Tliere is nothing like the Hebrew order, first day, second day, third day, and so on. Indeed, tlie word does not occur in any sense, except once in the first tablet, where it says, wlien giving the origin of the gods, " Sar and Kisar were made next. The days were long, a long (time passed), and then the gods Anu, Bel, and Ilea were born of Sar and Kisar." Rev. Mr. Cheyne says, in his article in the Encydopmdia Britannica^ that the day clauses in Genesis ai-e inter- polations, but of this he offers no proof. It seems only a random assertion to get rid of a difficulty in the way of a favorite theory. To sum up the wliole matter. The story in Gene- THE BABYLOmAN LEGEND OF CREATIOIT. 237 sis and that on the tablets have the following points in common: 1. The subjects treated of, namely, sun, moon, stars, earth, and animals of the land. 2. Cattle and beasts came into being by the act of a god. These points of agreement are so few and of such a character that it would be impossible to write a cos- mogony without them. Hence they prove nothing. The differences between the two accounts are many and vital. The Chaldean is almost wholly occupied with the genealogy and mythical deeds of the gods ; indeed, it seems intended for a theogony rather than a cosmogony. In the Hebrew this is all absent. It opens with God in existence, and the heavens and earth not in existence. The Chaldean is just the op- posite. It opens with heavens and earth in existen'tee, and the gods are not yet made. The Hebrew repre- sents God as the Creator of the -universe. The Chal- dean represents the sea, a part of the universe, as producing the gods, and the gods not as creators, but merely as givers of order and law to a universe in which "" order did not exist." The Hebrew represents God as announcing his purposes in a series of fiats. The Chaldean gods announce nothing. The Hebrew represents God as himself seeing the things done and .pronouncing them " good." In the Chaldean the gods utter no verdict of approval ; where it does occur it is the writer, and not the deities, wlio pronounces the mansions ^'suitable." Tiie Chaldean tells of a 238 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. time when order did not exist,; the Hebrew tells of no such time, but everj-where represents matter, like a disciplined cohort, moving to the word of its com- mander. The Hebrew tells us of a -first day and night. The Chaldean regards tlie series of day and night as eternal. The Hebrew is divided into stages of prog- ress separated by numbered days. The Chaldean knows notliing of numbered days. Genesis makes tlie year to depend on the two great lights. The Chal- dean makes it depend wholly upon the stars. In Grenesis the stars are barely mentioned. In the Clialdean account they occupy the most prominent position. In Genesis, chapters one and two, the month is not so much as named. In the myth the month is the chief measure of time. These differences, I submit, are not only profoundly important, but are of such a character as to forbid the belief that they are the result of the editing, by some skillful monotheistic redacteur^ of the story of the tablets. There is, in the story which we have, nothing from the first tablet. The second fragment, which tells the reader that the foundation of the caverns is made of rock, has left no trace of itself in tlie Hebrew account. The third recovered tablet tells of a god who made stairs and bolted gates, or made a boiling from which the moon arose. The Q^wzieut Tedaoteur has not incor- porated any of this, nor, indeed, any part of what is on the tablet, into the story which we have in our Bible. THE BABYLOmA^l LEGEND OF CREATION. 239 In the next recovered fragment there seems to be a statement that the gods made cattle, beasts, and creep- ing things. A similar statement is found in our Genesis. And this is all. Of the three requirements to prove the Chaldean inscription the som'ce of the Hebrew story of crea- tion, the first, priority, is very doubtful ; the second, identity of subject, although questionable— for the account on the tablets seems to be intended for a the- ogony instead of a cosmogony — may be admitted nnder protest; while the third, identity of statement, order, and thought, is wholly lacking. IG 240 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. THIS ACCOUNT NOT THE WORK OF SOME ANCIENT SCIENTIST. There lias lately fallen under my observation a little book intended to show the absurdity of the Mosaic account of creation when viewed from a scientific stand-point. It says : " Present it to us as the specu- lation of some early philosopher who strives with his limited knowledge to conceive how the universe came into its present condition, and we can, of course, accept it as such and treat it accordingly. Taking the views that were held by the people generally at the time this story was written, we can see how the writer came to make it as we find it. The earth was then regarded as the most important body in the universe ; the stars were shining points, and the sun and moon about as large as they look to be ; and the whole account re- flects this view.'' The reader will please note this " view." Without doubt it did really prevail among the most advanced minds in the time of Moses, and all men, however they may regard the account in Genesis, believe that it did. But when it is seen that this narrative is in accordance with the most advanced science of the present day there will be a change of front on the part of those NOT TUE WOIiK OF SOME ANCIENT SCIENTIST. 241 wlio can believe any thing but a revelation. We shall then be told that the Mosaic account of creation is only the embodiment of a more ancient science. Tlie difficulties which arise from a total lack of histor- ical evidence in favor of such an hypothesis, as well as from the abundant evidence to the contrary, will be avoided by claiming that this knowledge was the re- mains of a culture which had become so lost at the time when Moses wrote tliat lie himself did not compre- hend it, but took the account bodily from some manu- script handed down from an inconceivably more remote period. It is true that such an answer involves the objectors in the difficult task of harmonizing with it all that is said to have been proved about man's prog- ress from the paleolithic age and the cave life ; but this is an obstacle which a resolute disbeliever in a revelation can easily get over by saying that very little is known of the early man, and that ])erhaps after all he has been underrated. It will be amusing to see how certaiTi writers will eat their own words. For they must admit that ability to relate so many actual occur- rences in the world's historj^, to place them in their proper order, and to divide the story into six parts, each corresponding to a natural and philosophical stage of progress in the liistory of the world, implies on tlie part of the author of the account — we dare not say liow much knowledge of astronomy and geology, the rela- tion of light to motion, and the revelations of the 242 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. spectroscope. To maintain that some ancient people, of whom not the slightest trace remains, attained such height of knowledge, we must assume that in the hitherto unheard-of past there was I'eached a progress in science such as has only lately been gained by moderns. Such progress was impossible without modern metli- ods and appliances. There was needed a system of nota- tion and numeration equivalent to that which we enjoy, together with a calculus which anticipated Newton's, and logarithms thousands of years before Napier's, as well as telescopes and spectroscopes and instru- ments of precision. There are indications, also, of a knowledge of geography, botany, and geology. All this could be gained only by the co-operation of many individuals, not in one or two localities, but over/'the world. Hence this ancient and most remarkable peo- ple must have had the means of communication with otlier peoples. The necessary observations could not have been made in a single life-time, and therefore they needed to be preserved and in some way made accessible to all who desired to labor upon them and' deduce their proper teachings ; for in no other way could any great amount of information be got out of them. Hence the art of printing, or some equivalent, was essential. In short, the power to write this chap- ter required on the part of its author our present science and all that that implies. NOT THE WORK OF SOME ANCIENT SCIENTIST 243 But all tbis may be claimed for tbat ancient civili- zation, since, according to our objector, no one knows Iiow long man has existed, and therefore no one can say how many civilizations have culminated and per- ished. Such arguments, being unhampered by facts, may assume a thousand forms. Nor will it be deemed an answer to remind the objector that his present position is in flat contradiction to his former teach- ings. The inconsistency will neither silence nor abash him. His arguments can be effectually met only by the internal evidence of the account itself. A careful analysis will show that it could not have been written by one who obtained his knowledge as scientists obtain theirs. They must ascend by gener- alization, rising from particulars to universals, reach- ing step by step from the known to the unknown. Plence, by the very nature and requirement of niakiii^ progress at all, they acquire the habit of looking only to physical causes, and through phenomena to some general law that binds them into forms and groups which a finite mind can remember and handle. Therefore one of their greatest needs is the mnerao- teclmy of an exact and copious terminology, the lack of which would render progress, beyond moderate limits, impossible, for the mind would break down under the burden of an infinite number of unclassified facts. In this account there are none of those peculiarities- 244 GENESIS I. AND MODERN SCIENCE. ■which mark the scientific mind ; no generalizations ; no laws; no underlying causes; no deductions; no special terminology. The writer passes ^t a step beyond and through all laws to the Intelligent Cause whose personality so permeates every verse as to ren- der its elimination impossible. His language is as op- posite to technical as can be conceived ; but while it is plienomenal it is more than the phenomenal descrip- tion of a- mere eye-witness. It bears in itself evidence of being the work of One who exhaustively under- stood the import and the order of all plienomena, and from an infinite abundance selected those suited to his purpose. These he has recorded in accurate lan- guage, leaving tbe reader to derive from them all that his capabilities permit. He says nothing of the nebular hypothesis, but he says that once the earth was without form and void ; nothing of the correla- tion of forces, and nothing of their relation to light, but he places the beginning of motion between the primordial darkness and the first light ; nothing of the earth's long progress through self-luminous periods to its present condition, a solid opaqae planet, but he names the fact that marks the close of the one condi- tion and the beginning of the other, a fact that fits in nowhere else. Ii? short, every word and every phrase indicates a knowledge not cramped within the narrow limits of scientific formulas, but as free and suggestive as Nature herself. NOT THE WORK OF SOME ANCIENT SCIENTIST. 245 To believe that such a statement as this is the frag- ment of some ancient work evolved, as are now astronomy, geology, and other sciences, by the slow collection and study of facts, does violence to the laws of our mental being. THE END, \ \ \ ^ v»V«ii ^•K ^\ ^ \ N't. \