"^ 1 
 
Cornell University Library 
 
 arV14641 
 
 Scripture and science not at variance, 
 
 3 1924 031 430 980 
 
 olin,anx 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031430980 
 
SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE 
 NOT AT VARIANCE. 
 
SCmPTDEE AM) SCIENCE 
 NOT AT VARIANCE L. 
 
 WITH BBMAEKS ON THE 
 
 HISTORICAL CHAEACTER, PLENARY INSPIRATION, 
 
 AND SURPASSING IMPORTANCE, 
 
 OP THE EARLIER CHAPTERS OP GENESIS. 
 
 BY THE LATE 
 
 JOHN H: PEATT, M.A. F.RS. 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF CALCtTTTA, 
 AUTHOR OF 'the MATHEMATICAL rKIKCIPLES OF MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY/ ETC. 
 
 lEiai&tfj lEiitian. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 HATCHAEDS, PICCADILLY. 
 
 1878. 
 
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. 
 
 It is now fifteen years since the first edition of this treatise 
 was published. The last edition has been out of print 
 more than a year ; and I feel encouraged to send forth a 
 sixth, especially as I have had various testimonies to 
 the book having answered the end I had in view in 
 writing it. 
 
 It was written in the first instance to meet the assertion 
 made by the late Professor Baden Powell, that ' all geology 
 is contrary to Scripture,' which I found was troubling 
 many minds. I endeavoured to shape my argument in 
 such a way as, not merely to be a reply to this mischief- 
 working declaration, but to be a perpetual antidote to 
 any other assertions of the kind, which might emanate 
 from the pen or lips of scientific or would-be-scientific 
 men. 
 
 Since the first edition appeared, Professor Powell's Order 
 of Nature, his ' Essay on Miracles ' and Mr. Goodwin's on 
 ' The Mosaic Cosmogony,' both in Essays and Reviews, Dr. 
 Colenso's Pentateuch, Mr. Darwin's Origin of Species, and 
 Sir Charles Lyell's Antiquity of Man, have been given to 
 the world; and, with other minor productions, have been 
 replied to in my successive editions, so far as they concern 
 my argument. 
 
VI PBEFACB TO THE SIXTH EDITION. 
 
 And now, in tlie present edition, the following more 
 recently published works are added : Professor Huxley's 
 Place of Man in Nature, his Lay Sermons, Lectures, and 
 Addresses, his and Professor Tyndall's Address and Lecture 
 before the British Association at Liverpool, Sir John 
 Lubbock's Prehistoric Times and his Origin of Civilization 
 and Primitive Condition of Man, and Mr. Darwin's Descent 
 of Man. The consequence is, that numerous additions 
 have been inserted throughout, both in the text and in the 
 notes. Several books not enumerated above are passed in 
 review, or their suggestions made use of with acknowledg- 
 ment. I regret that three excellent books — Dr. Beale's 
 Protoplasm, his Mystery of Life, and Mr. St.- George Mivart's 
 Genesis of Species — did not come under my notice till these 
 sheets were passing through the press, too late for me to 
 make use of them. The part in which I treat on the Unity 
 of the Human Pace, or All Men of One Blood, has been much 
 expanded. Three new illustrations of my leading principle 
 have been added, and largely treated ; viz. the Origin of 
 Man, the Origin of Life, and Design as indicating creation. 
 In short, no pains have been spared to bring the treatise 
 down to the present state of Science and the controversies 
 of the present time, so far as they appertain to the subject I 
 have taken in hand. 
 
 The book has been thus increased by about half the 
 amount of matter which the last edition contained ; but the 
 price remains as before. 
 
 JOHN H. PEATT. 
 
 Calcntta, 1871. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION.— Object and Plan oj? this Treatise . ^'^''l 
 
 PAET I. 
 
 THE HARMONY BETWEEN SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE 
 VINDICATED BY AN APPEAL TO THE HISTORY 
 OF THE PAST. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 I. — Examples, from the eablier History of Scientific 
 Discovert, in which Scripture has been relieved 
 OP False Interpretations, and the Harmony 
 BETWEEN Scripture and Science thereby re- 
 established . . . ■ 11 
 
 1. The Firmament. 2. Antipodes. 3. The Earth a 
 Globe. 4. The Motion of the Earth. 
 
 II. — Examples, prom the later History of Science, in 
 which Scripture has not only been relieved op 
 False Interpretations, but has had New Light 
 reflected upon it by the Discoveries op Science 35 
 
 1. The Antiquity of the Earth. 2. Creatures in Exist- 
 ence before the Six Days. 3. Existence of Light 
 before the Six Days. 4. Death in the World 
 before Adam's Fall. 5. Specific Centres of Crea- 
 tion. 6. No Known Traces of the Deluge. 7. 
 The Deluge probably not over the whole Earth. 
 
 Ill — Examples, in which Science has been delivered 
 PROM the False Conclusions of some op its 
 Votaries, and thereby shown not to be at vari- 
 ance WITH Scripture, as they have alleged 89 
 
 1. All Men of one Blood. 2. Differences of Nations 
 since the Flood. 3. Mankind originally of One 
 Language. 4. Age of the Human Race according 
 to Hindoo and Chinese Astronomy : 5. to Egyjitian 
 Antiquities : 6. to Nile Deposits : 7. to Flint 
 Remains. 8. The Species of the Six Days' Crea- 
 tion distinct from pre-Adamite Species. 9. Origin 
 of Species. 10. Origin of Man. 11. Origin of 
 Life. 12. Uniformity of Nature. 13. Design. 
 14. Arithmetical Objections to the Pentateuch. 
 
Vm CONTENTS. 
 
 PAET II. 
 
 THE HISTORICAL CHAEACTBE, PLENARY INSPIRA- 
 TION, AND SURPASSING IMPORTANCE, OP THE 
 FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OP GENESIS. 
 
 CHAP. PACE 
 
 I. —The Historical Character and Plenary Ikspikation 
 
 OF THE FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF GeNESIS 286 
 
 I. Our Lord and His Apostles regarded them as His- 
 torical documents. 2. This being the case, their 
 Inspiration follows from the nature of their con- 
 tents. 3. As they are original and not borrowed 
 — Their freedom from Error. 
 
 II. — The Sithpassing Importance of these Chapters 305 
 
 1. They are of unrivalled Antiquity. 2. They tell us 
 of the Origin of the World. 3. Of the Entrance 
 of Evil into the AVorld. 4. They explain the con- 
 tradictions we see in Man. 5. They show the 
 true basis of Physical Science, and the credibility 
 of a Divine Incarnation. 6. They detect the 
 essence of all successful Temptation. 7. They 
 convey remarkable facts in History, the Institution 
 of Marriage and of the Sabbath, the Deluge, the 
 Confusion of Tongues, the apportioning of the 
 Earth to the Nations, the Institution of Sacrifices. 
 8. They contain the germ of all Prophecy, the 
 promise of the Seed of the Woman, and the pre- 
 diction of the destinies of the descendants of 
 Shem, Ham, and Japhet. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 No New Discoveries, however startling, need disturb our 
 Belief in the Plenary Inspiration of Scripture, 
 or damp our Zeal in the pursuit of Science 316 
 
 INDEX 323 
 
SCRIFrURE AND SCIENCE NOT AT 
 VARIANCE. 
 
 INTEODTJCTION. 
 
 OBJECT AND PLAN OP THE PRESENT TREATISE. 
 
 The assertion, not unfrequently made, that the discoveries 
 of Science are opposed to the declarations of Holy Scripture, 
 is as mischievous as it is false, because it tends both to call in 
 question the Inspiration of the Sacred Volume and to throw 
 discredit upon scientific pursuits. 
 
 Many who are predisposed to reject such a conclusion, 
 from a general conviction that Scripture is the Word of God, 
 are nevertheless at a loss for arguments to repel the charge. 
 It is the object of the following pages to furnish such persons 
 with a reply, in a concise and portable form. The treatise, 
 therefore, is intentionally only a summary of arguments. To 
 expand it, except by the addition of new illustrations, would 
 defeat my design. A larger work would not find access 
 wliere I hope this will. There are others also whose case 
 it is here designed to meet — those who receive the Christian 
 Revelation, but, under the influence of supposed difficulties 
 brought to light by scientific discovery, are tempted to 
 regard the Earlier Portion of the Sacred Volume as not 
 inspired. It is possible that the unbeliever may find some- 
 thing in these pages to soften his prejudices : but his case is 
 not here specially contemplated. 
 
 My treatise is, therefore, of the defensive kind. It is 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 intended to show the inquiring how difficulties are to be met 
 and objections removed. Some hesitate as to the expediency 
 of putting such books into the hands of the young, thinking 
 them calculated to engender doubts where they never existed, 
 and to create the very scepticism which they were intended 
 to rebut. There is some weight in this ; and, no doubt, 
 were the mind never likely in after-life to encounter the 
 false views of sceptics, it might be far better to leave it un- 
 tainted. If the young could always be fenced around by 
 truth, till its principles became so thoroughly infused into 
 their minds and hearts as to make error innocuous when 
 they go out into the wide world, to leave them ignorant of 
 the different forms of dou.bt and unbelief till circumstances 
 force them upon their notice, might be the better course. 
 But it is next to impossible to protect them, even when under 
 the wisest guidance, from becoming acquainted with, if not 
 imbibing, some of the mischief, which a refined scepticism — • 
 especially regarding the historical character and full inspira- 
 tion of the Holy Scriptures — is spreading far and wide 
 through the press and other channels. If the hesitation re- 
 garding the propriety of teaching these things to the young 
 arise from a dislike to see old and primd facie interpretations 
 upset, such a course is most dangerous. By maintaining 
 false and exploded interpretations as true, we are sowing in 
 the minds of the young seeds of a future revulsion which is 
 likely to injure them far more than the introduction of the 
 new views at an earlier stage could possibly do. There can 
 be no question that the safest course is conscientiously to 
 teach the young the whole truth without reserve, not 
 shrinking from stating in a plain and open manner the 
 various objections and difficulties they will hear broached, 
 explaining to them at the same time in what spirit and by 
 what kind of argument they should be met. 
 
 The fact is, that sceptics and semi-sceptics are, un- 
 wittingly or not, undermining the faith of many in Scripture 
 
OBJECT AND PLAN OF THIS TREATISE. 3 
 
 hy subtle arguments drawn from the apparent contradictions 
 between Scripture and Science. Against this it is necessary 
 to provide an antidote : and the better fortified our youth 
 are in their earlier days, the better prepared will they be to 
 contend for the truth in after-life. It is not the Christian, 
 but the worldly philosopher, who has raised these questions. 
 But, having raised them, he forces the advocates of Scrip- 
 tural truth to enter upon the contest, and to meet him on 
 his own ground, that they may put a weapon of defence in 
 the hands of those whose faith is in danger of being assailed. 
 I write for the protection and consolation of the faithful, 
 under the attacks which Science, falsely so called, has 
 brought against the Sacred Volume which is dear to them, 
 and in which all their hopes of happiness are centred. 
 There are excellent works which have the same end in view ; 
 but they take a different course. I will explain what I 
 mean by an example. Some advocates of Development, as 
 the principle which has led to the present order of things, 
 maintain, that creatures have their present habits, not 
 because they were so created, and Divine Design is illus- 
 trated in the adaptation of their organs to those habits ; but 
 because no other habits could consist with such organs, that 
 the organism has grown up in the natural course of things, 
 in fact by natural law, and in cases where the habits were 
 suitable to the organism, the organisms survived ; in other 
 cases they perished and disappeared. JSTow there are excel- 
 lent treatises* which take up subjects of this kind on their 
 own independent ground, not starting from the Scriptural 
 side of the question ; and the writers endeavour to show that 
 an examination of the facts leads to an opposite conclusion ; 
 one which in the result coincides with Scripture statement. 
 This requires a more lengthened treatment, and is very often 
 
 * I allude to such works as the Duke of Argyll's Beignof Law, Dr. 
 George Moore's (M.D.) The First Man and his Place in Creation, 
 Mr. Gilbert Sutton's Faith and Science. 
 
i INTEODHCTION. 
 
 successful. But there are instances in which this result 
 cannot be thus absolutely attained ; though nothing can be 
 proved to the contrary. I take a different line in this 
 treatise. I begin at the other end ; and my aim is not to 
 establish the truth of this or that theory which may be ad- 
 vanced, but to show that wherever any theory comes in 
 conflict with Scripture rightly interpreted, it is the theory 
 which is at fault, and not Scripture ; if the theory does not 
 touch upon Scripture, whatever it may be, I have in this 
 treatise nothing to do with it. In adopting this line, I feel 
 it right to take the highest ground, and to maintain it, till 
 dislodged from it by argument and real facts. The Sacred 
 Volume comes to us encompassed with evidence, external 
 and internal, that it is the Written Word of God. This 
 being the case, the most reasonable conclusion is, that it is 
 free from error of every kind ; for even where expressions 
 are used which touch upon merely ordinary and natural 
 things, it would be as easy for the inspiring Spirit to suggest 
 to the minds of the writers words, not scientific words, but 
 ordinary words, which would never be found at variance with 
 fact, as words which, though they might at the time accord 
 with current conceptions, would afterwards be found to be 
 incorrect. Here, then, I take my stand : and I challenge 
 Science — no, I wiU not so desecrate that honourable name 
 by allowing even suspicion to attach to it, but I challenge 
 Science falsely so called — to produce one instance in which 
 the statements of Holy Scripture are proved to be wronn-, 
 except in as far as minor errors have crept in through the 
 mistakes of the most careful copyists. I do not aim at re- 
 conciling Scripture and Science, though this is often the 
 result of the investigation ; but at demonstrating the fact 
 which is involved in the title of my book, namely, that Scrip- 
 ture and Science are never at variance. This I do in the 
 first part of my treatise, bringing together and examining all 
 the examples I can think of, in which it has been alleged 
 
OBJECT AND PLAN OP THIS TREATISE. 5 
 
 from time to time, that Scripture and Science are in irreconcil- 
 able conflict ; and 1 show that further light or impartial ex- 
 amination has cleared up the difficulty. From this I argue, 
 that it is in the highest degree unphilosophical, wherever new 
 difficulties arise in these days of discovery, to doubt that 
 these also will be cleared up as light and knowledge advance. 
 The experience of the past should encourage us fearlessly to 
 carry our investigations into the phenomena of nature, fully 
 persuaded no real discrepancy can ever be in the end estab- 
 lished. The above may be regarded as a negative argument. 
 
 In the Second Part I enter upon an examination of the 
 character and contents of the earlier portion of the Book of 
 Genesis ; as it is in this portion of the Sacred Volume that 
 the seeds of strife between Scripture and Science are sup- 
 posed chiefly to lie. By what I cannot but regard as an un- 
 answerable proof of the historical character and plenary 
 inspiration of these Early Chapters, and by a reference to 
 their important bearing in various eminent particulars, I 
 establish a positive argument for their inspiration, and show 
 that under these circumstances it is impossible that Scripture 
 can, when rightly interpreted, be at variance with the Works 
 of the Divine Hand ; and that therefore, if difficulties remain 
 at any time not cleared up, they must arise from our igno- 
 rance, or from hasty interpretation either of the phenomena 
 before us or of the language of the Sacred Eeeord. 
 
 The results of this investigation are then summed up, 
 and the conclusion drawn, — that no new discoveries, however 
 startling they may appear at first, need disturb our belief in 
 the Plenary Inspiration of the Sacred Volume, or damp our 
 ardour in the pursuit of Science. 
 
 It will be seen from the above sketch, that it is not 
 necessary for the validity of my argument that every 
 instance of apparent discrepancy between Scripture and 
 Science shall have met with an explanation. It requires only, 
 that so many instances of the successful removal of diffioul- 
 
b INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ties, which at one time appeared to be insurmountable, 
 should be adduced, as to assure the mind under new per- 
 plexities, that there is every reason to believe that in time 
 these also will vanish. The primary object of the treatise is, 
 not to solve present difficulties, but to create confidence in 
 the mind, while in perplexity regarding them, that all will in 
 the end be right, and that the harmony of Scripture and 
 Science cannot really be broken, though it may for a time 
 seem to be disturbed. In point of fact, however, I know of 
 no alleged or apparent discrepancy between Scripture and 
 Science which cannot be met by a decisive or at least satis- 
 factory answer. The chief examples 1 have brought together 
 in the following pages, and have made them the groundwork 
 of my argument. Had I known of any existing unanswered 
 difficulty, I should now have brought it forward as an illus- 
 tration of the use of my principle. If, for example, the 
 sweeping announcement of M. Bunsen and Mr. Leonard 
 Horner, that the age of the human race is many thousands 
 of years older than the Scripture narrative makes it, or the 
 same from the pen of Sir Charles Lyell, in his work On the 
 Antiquity of Man, or the hypothesis that the descent of the 
 human race is not to be reckoned from Adam, but, as Mr. 
 Darwin and Professor Huxley conjecture, from some primitive 
 monad, the progenitor of all plants and animals, could not 
 yet be met, I should have produced it, — not, as in the 
 present edition, doing homage to my argument, but as an 
 example of the principle I ha\e set forth, that we should wait, 
 fortified by the experience of the past, and by an immovable 
 belief in the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and feel assured 
 that time would turn objections into proofs, and discrepancy 
 into harmony. 
 
 The result, therefore, of my treatise, beyond its direct 
 object to inspire confidence for the future, brings out this, — 
 that notwithstanding the assertions of certain writers, 
 nothing has been produced and established which is really 
 
OBJECT AND PLAN OF THIS TEBATISB. 7 
 
 contradictory to the statements of Holy Scripture. Guesses 
 and crude speculations have been substituted for facts, and 
 what has been in these instances called Science is not worthy 
 of the name. Deeply conscious of the goodness and truth of 
 our cause, we can afford to smile at, and forgive, such rough 
 and unpolished shafts as the followiog, aimed at us, who 
 maintain and defend the integrity and inspiration of God's 
 Holy Word : — ' Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle 
 of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of 
 Hercules. . . . Orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the world of 
 thought. It learns not, neither can it forget. . . . Philoso- 
 phers may, now and then, be stirred to momentary wrath by 
 the unnecessary obstacles with which the ignorant, or the 
 malicious, encumber, if they cannot bar, the difficult path 
 [of the progress of discovery].' 
 
 "We are convinced indeed, that, in the annals of Science, 
 there is no class which stands more prominently forward in 
 supplying leaders of scientific thought and of scientific 
 discovery, than the defenders of the Sacred Volume, against 
 whom these bitter words are uttered. We cannot, however, 
 with the same composure, overlook and forget the ignorance 
 and irreverence which shock our ears by representing any 
 part of the Holy Scriptures as merely ' the imaginations 
 current among the rude inhabitants of Palestine.' 
 
 We pity from our hearts the men who regard what they 
 call ' the cosmogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew,' as ' the 
 incubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium of the 
 orthodox ; '* for they deeply injure their own minds by 
 holding such views ; help to bewilder and mislead the young 
 and the inquiring by throwing among them these sentiments 
 broad-cast iu their writings ; and cut themselves oif from 
 enjoyments, intellectual and spiritual, of which we would 
 see them participate as well as ourselves. 
 
 * Tliese quotations are from a book published in 1870. 
 
PAET I. 
 
 THE HARMONY BETWEEN SCBIPTURB AND SCIENCE VINDICATED 
 BY AN APPEAL TO THE HISTORY OF THE PAST. 
 
 The Book of Nature and the Word of God emanate from the 
 same infallible Author, and therefore cannot be at variance. 
 But man is a fallible interpreter ; and by mistaking one 
 or both of these Divine Eecords, he forces them too often 
 into unnatural conflict. 
 
 Keason, when combined with a humble mind and a 
 patient spirit, is man's highest endowment. By it he can 
 scale the heavens, and unravel the mysterious ties which 
 unite matter to matter in all its combinations ; and can 
 trace the secret and silent operation of its laws. Thus fur- 
 nished, he can weigh and appreciate the claims of truth, as 
 revealed from heaven or produced from the evolutions of the 
 human mind : and can reject the evil and choose the good. 
 But, deprived of these valuable accessories, this noble gift is 
 converted into a snare, and too often hurries him to con- 
 clusions from which he is afterwards compelled to retrace his 
 steps. 
 
 It is my intention to bring together in this First Part of 
 my treatise a number of Examples, gathered from the 
 history of Science, which show how needless are the fears 
 entertained at the present day by many excellent persons in 
 their holy jealousy for the Sacred Volume, in which their 
 highest hopes are centred; as it has already, in so many 
 instances, triumphantly emerged from conflicts, as severe as 
 any in which it may now or hereafter be engaged. 
 
SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE, ETC. 9 
 
 In some instances, positive errors in the interpretation of 
 the phenomena of nature, and in others ignorance of the 
 facts of nature, have led to the imposing upon Scripture a 
 meaning, which the correction of these errors on the one 
 hand, and the discovery of new facts on the other, have 
 proved to be false. As true Science has advanced, Scripture, 
 so far as it touches upon natural phenomena, has received 
 new illustrations. False interpretations have been detected 
 and corrected. The language of Scripture has been found to 
 be in no case opposed to truth. It in no case stoops to the 
 errors and prejudices of men, even in things natural, although 
 it adopts the language of men and its usages. It speaks on 
 such matters as man would speak to man in every-day life, 
 in the times of greatest scientific light. It selects no parti- 
 cular epoch of discovery for the choice of its phraseology; but 
 it speaks, as the most scientific amongst us speak, in the 
 ordinary intercourse of life, in conformity with the usages of 
 language — namely, according to appearances. 
 
 The Examples, above referred to, I shall class under 
 three heads. The first class arose from the progress of dis- 
 covery sweeping away long-standing notions regarding the 
 nature of the canopy above us, the existence of antipodes, 
 and the form and stability of the earth. As Science put 
 these things in their true light, Scripture, which had all 
 along been interpreted in conformity with the current pre- 
 possessions, appeared to be in fault : till a closer examina- 
 tion into the real meaning of its language relieved it of the 
 false interpretation which had been imposed upon it, and 
 the harmony between Scripture and Science, although for a 
 time they had appeared to be irreconcilable, was fully re- 
 established. 
 
 The second class of examples in its character very much 
 resembles the first, but belongs to a more recent period of 
 discovery. Long-standing notions regarding some of the cir- 
 cumstances of the creation having been cleared away by the 
 
10 
 
 SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE, ETC. 
 
 discoveries of Science, and Scripture being still fettered with 
 the old interpretations imposed upon it in the days of ignor- 
 ance, the cry of antagonism between Scripture and Science 
 was again raised, and perhaps louder than ever. But in 
 these instances, also, the difficulty has been removed : and 
 not o]ily has Scripture been relieved of false interpretations, 
 as in the first class of Examples, but much light has been 
 thrown upon its language and allusions, which would never 
 have appeared but for these scientific discoveries. 
 
 Under the third class, I bring forward Examples in 
 which Science, for a time, has in the hands of the self- 
 confident made a retrograde movement. Conclusions have 
 been put forth regarding the descent of all men from one 
 blood, the differences of races since the Flood, the original 
 unity of language, the age of the human race, the superficial 
 extent of the six days' creation, the origin of species, the origin 
 of man, the origin of life, the uniformity of nature, design as 
 indicative of creation, and certain numerical statements in the 
 Pentateuch, which are contradictory to Scripture ; and thus 
 Scripture and Science were again declared to be at variance, 
 till Science, under the guidance of wiser men, has corrected 
 itself, and no want of harmony has been established. 
 
11 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 EXAMPLES FROM THE EARLIER HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC DIS- 
 COVERT, IN WHICH SCRIPTURE HAS BEEN RELIEVED OF 
 FALSE INTERPRETATIONS, AND THE HARMONY OF SCRIPTURE 
 AND SCIENCE THEREBY RE-ESTABLISHED. 
 
 1 . The earliest instance of this kind, which I shall pro- 
 duce aflfords a remarkable example of false notions of the 
 celestial mechanism being incorporated in mis- .j^^ Firma- 
 translations of Scripture, in such a way as to ™®°*- 
 consecrate error, and to sow the seeds of future perplexity 
 by bringing God's two books into seeming collision. 
 
 It is well known that the ancients conceived the heavens 
 to be an enormous vault of transparent solid matter, whirl- 
 ing around the earth in diurnal revolution, and carry- 
 ing with it the stars, supposed to be fixed in its substance. 
 
 In accordance with this view, the Scripture was made by 
 the LXX. to call the heavens (TTepiutfia (stereoma), — that is, 
 something solid ; and the Vulgate calls them firmamentum, 
 which signifies the same. Josephus in his ' Antiquities ' 
 (professedly gathering his ideas from Scripture) in describing 
 the creation calls the heavens icpvaTaXKov (krustallon), i.e. 
 a sort of crystalline case.* Thus all seems to be in 
 
 * The following is from Josephus : ' After this, on the second day, 
 he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the 
 other parts ; and he determined it should stand by itself. He also 
 placed a crystalline [firmament] round it {xpiarawiv re wepnrri^as 
 ouT^), and put it together in a manner suited to the earth.' — Joseph. 
 Antiq. lib. I. cap. i. § 1. 
 
12 CORRECTION OF ERRORa 
 
 accordance, and Scripture and Science appear to agree 
 and illustrate each other ; till the light of later times 
 pours in its beams, and, showing that space is not a solid 
 mass, detects a seeming contradiction between the Word and 
 "Works of God. How is this to be met? Which is to yield? 
 The popular solution, current to the present day, is this, — 
 that Moses wrote, in matters of this description, not merely 
 according to the appearance of things (which is true, and is 
 the style which the most enlightened Science now uses in 
 such a case), but in accommodation to the notions and pre- 
 possessions of the times. But is this the fact ? Could not 
 the Omniscient have put a correct word into the mind of His 
 servant, as readily as one contradictory to fact ? Let us turn 
 to the word which the Holy Ghost has used by the pen of 
 the inspired writer, and what do we find ? that the original 
 by no means implies, of necessity, a solid mass, but an 
 EXPANSE : * — ' And God said. Let there be an expanse in the 
 
 * The following are Pool's comment, and Gesenius' meaning of the 
 Hebrew word : — 
 
 ' 6. FiatfirmarMntum.'] — Alii non firmamentum vertunt, sed ex- 
 pansionem, rem expansam seu extensam, eo mode quo aulsea expan- 
 duntur, ut tentorium quod funibus sustinetur ne decidat, vel sicut 
 argentum malleo diducitur et attenuatur. Inde Deus dicitur extendere 
 ccelos, Isa. xl. 22 et xlii. 5, et Ps. civ. 2. Grotius reddit rao-is (quse 
 vox Platonis est). vpT est expandere. Laminje expansse appellantur 
 □ins iKip. Num. xvi. 38. Expansum firmamentum vertit A [ins- 
 worthus]. Bxparisio hsec est diffusum corpus aeris. Nam quid, nisi 
 aer, dividit aquas inferiores, i.e. mare, a superioribus ? Nee aliud 
 aeri nomen est Hebrseis quam yipT et u\aa. Hoc nomen aeri tribui 
 testantur Chald. par. in Ps. xix. et K(imclii) in Ps. Ixxvii. Quid 
 mirabilius aquis in coelo stantibus? ait Plinius, 1. 31. Aves cxli vocan- 
 tur, Jer. iv., Os. ii.. Matt, viii et xiii. Alii ex-pommt firmamentum, 
 et accipiunt de orbibus ccelestibus. Complectitur tamen hsec vox 
 etiam aerem vioinum, Ji ccelo in terram expansum, et suo loco quasi 
 firmatum. 6 vertunt aT(p4iM>fia, vel quia viTi est ffTcpetS, i.e. firmo, 
 stabilio ; ita vertunt 6 Ps. cxxxvi. 6, Isa. xlii. 5, et xUv. 24 ; vel quia 
 ccelum saepe tentorio confertur, quod dicitur niiyna-eai (i.e. funibus ad 
 
REGARDING THE FIRMAMENT. 13 
 
 midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the 
 waters. And God made the expanse. . . . And God called 
 the expanse Heaven.' (Gen. i. 6 — 8.) So that, in fact, the 
 inspired writer used the best possible word to express the 
 actual appearance and state of things; but man, in his un- 
 discriminating ignorance of nature, has, by his successive 
 
 paxillos in terrain depactos firmari) quatenus expanditur Esa. xhi. 5 ; 
 vel potius a Syriaco usu VPI quod signiflcat itU^eiv, comprimere, 
 Luc. vi. 38. Et forte ypT Heb. primo significat comprimere, indeque 
 extendere, nam preraendo res extenduntur, ut lamlnse seris.' — Vide 
 Poli Synopsis, Gen. i. 6. 
 
 The extract below from Leo's translation of Gesenius' Hebrew 
 Lexicon will give his idea of the meaning of the word. In his com- 
 ment, in the latter part of this extract, Gesenius appears to side with 
 the popular notion I have alluded to in the text ; but with this we 
 have nothing to do, but only with the meaning of the word, which he 
 shows will well convey the idea of expanse, in the sense of open space 
 or expanded atmosphere. Luther's translation, it will be seen, is 
 the only one which does not convey a false idea, except our authorised 
 version in the margin. 
 
 'yipT m., more fully oiDBiri yip-i Gen. i. 14, 15, 17, that which 
 is distended, expanded (from vpn) the expanse of heaven; i.e. the 
 arch or viaiM of heaven, which, as to mere sense, appears to rest on the 
 earth as a hollow hemisphere. The Hebrews seem to have considered 
 it as transparent, like a crystal or sapphire (Ezek. i. 22 ; Dan. xii. 3 ; 
 Exod. xxiv 10 ; Rev. iv. 6) ; hence, different from the brazen and 
 iron heaven of the Homeric mythology. Over this arch they sup- 
 posed were the waters of heaven (Gen. i. 7, vii. 11 ; Ps. civ. 3, 
 cxlviii. 4). LXX. arepftuiia. Vulg. firmamentum. Luther, Veste.' — 
 See Leo's translation of Gesenius' Lexicon. 
 
 In Aids to Faith (pp. 220—230) Dr. iVE'Caul has brought his 
 Hebrew learning to bear with effect upon this subject. 
 
 ' Mr. Goodwin [in Essays and Reviews'] wishes to fasten on the 
 Hebrew word the sense of a "solid vault," as that sense which was 
 always received until astronomy and modern geology taught men 
 science ; and he alleges that to translate it by the word " expanse" is 
 a mere afterthought of the theologians [although it has been in the 
 margin of our Bibles before modern astronomy and geology were 
 thought of] ! He says (p. 220), "It has been pretended that the word 
 rakia may be translated expanse, so as merely to mean 'empty space.' 
 
14 CORRECTION OF EHROHS 
 
 versions of the Word of God, thrown a cloak of sacredness 
 around his own error, in a -way calculated to bring discredit 
 upon the Holy Scriptures, as the discoveries of Science clear 
 away the mists. Here, then, Scripture was right from the 
 beginning, and all the confusion has arisen solely from 
 human ignorance and misconception.* 
 
 2. Another instance of the Scriptures having been drawn 
 
 into this unworthy collision with the facts of 
 
 ipo es. ■j^g^|.jjj,g^ jg gggjj j^ij |.]^g ijeuial of the existence of 
 
 Antipodes on the opposite side of the earth. I am not aware 
 
 The context sufficiently rebuts this." (!) Now what is the fact ? The 
 first translation of the Hebrew Bible made in modern days was that of 
 Pagninus, who lived 400 years ago, and was one of the profoundest 
 Hebraists of his own or any age. He translates this word expansionem 
 in every instance. In the next century that extraordinary Oriental 
 scholar (as ignorant of geology as geologists can possibly be of 
 Hebrew), Arias Benedict Montanus, who had been appointed to revise 
 the work of Pagnin for the King of Spain, again insisted on expuTisio- 
 nem as the true meaning of this word rakia.' — Literary Churchman, 
 April 1, 1861, p. 129. 
 
 * It is interesting to observe that the New Testament writers, who 
 often quoted the Septuagint version verbatim et literatim have been 
 preserved from using this erroneous term tnepiaiia to describe the 
 celestial firmament ; although it occurs in several places in that 
 version of the Old Testament, and the New Testament writers had not 
 scientific knowledge to avoid the error of themselves. The word is 
 once used by St. Paul, but in an entirely different sense (Col. ii. 5), 
 ri (TT(pia>na T^s €11 XpiffTbc irlateas vfLdv,—' The stedfastness (or, as 
 Alford renders it, the solid basis) of your faith in Christ.' 
 
 It has been suggested, that the fact that Moses (Gen. i. 21) par- 
 ticularly specifies ' whales' among the creatures of the deep, indicates, 
 also, that he wrote by inspiration, and was overruled to use language 
 the minute correctness of which Science could alone illustrate ; as this 
 terra might be taken as the generic representative of that remarkable 
 class of sea-animals which are warm-blooded and suckle their young. 
 This suggestion, however cannot be sustained ; for the Hebrew word 
 pjB is used in the Old Testament in other senses ; e. g. ser-pents 
 (Exod. vii. 9, 10, 12) ; and, very frequently, dragom, described as 
 living in ruined cities and desolate places, and, no doubt, meaning 
 
REGARDING ANTIPODES. 15 
 
 of any particular texts, unless one soon to be mentioned is 
 excepted, which have been quoted to support this view ; but 
 no less a writer than tlie great Augustine, who in so many 
 places* shows the greatness of his mind in not suifering 
 Scripture and Nature to come into conflict, unfortunately 
 brings the dlence of Scripture to bear upon this question. 
 He says that ' the story of there being antipodes, or men on 
 the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it 
 sets to us, planting their footsteps opposite to our feet, is on 
 no account to be believed : ' and that ' even if the earth be a 
 
 serpents in those places also, but by no means whales or sea- 
 mammaha. It is a remarkable fact, however, that, while the word 
 may be translated ' whales,' creatures of the cetaceous genus are at 
 present found only in the upper strata of the earth. See this noticed 
 in Christian Observer, May, 1867, p. 333, and take it in connexion 
 with the view which 1 advocate further on, that the creation of the six 
 days was the creation and preparation of the present order of things 
 only. 
 
 * The following are specimens : — 
 
 ' Si manifestissimse certseqiie ration! velut Scripturarum Sanotarum 
 objicitur autoritas, non intelligit qui hoc facit ; et non Scripturarum 
 illarum sensum (ad quem penetrare non potuit) sed suum potius 
 objicit veritati ; nee id quod in eis, sed quod in seipso velut pro eis 
 invenit, opponit.' — Aug. Epist. 143, alias 7, ad Marcellinum. 
 
 ' Respondendum est hominibus qui libris nostras salutis calumni- 
 ari affectant, ut quicquid ipsi de natura rerum veracibus documentis 
 demonstrare potuerint, ostendamus nostris Uteris non esse contrarium ; 
 quicquid autem de quibuslibet suis voluminibus his nostris Uteris id 
 est catholicse fidei contrarium protalerint, aut aliqua etiam facultate 
 ostendamus aut nulla dubitatione credamus esse falsissimum : atque 
 ita teneamus Mediatorem nostrum in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae 
 atque scientise absconditi, ut neque falsse philosophise loquacitate 
 seducamur, neque falsse religionis superstitione terreamur.' — Aug. de 
 Genesi ad literam, lib. I. cap. xxi. § 41. 
 
 'Nunc autem servata semper moderatione pise gravitatis, nihil 
 credere de re obscura temere debemus, ne forte quod postea Veritas 
 patefecerit, quamvis libris Sanctis sive testamenti veteris sive novi 
 nullo modo esse possit adversum, tamen propter amorem nostri 
 erroris oderimus.' — Aug. de Gen. ad lit. lib. II. in fine. 
 
16 CORRECTION OF ERRORS 
 
 globe' (a thing in his mind very doubtful), 'it does not follow 
 that the opposite side is not an ocean ; and, even should it 
 be bare of water, it is not necessary that it has inhabitants ; 
 since the Scripture is in no way false, but secures belief in 
 its narrative of the past, inasmuch as its predictions of the 
 future are accomplished. And it is utterly absurd,' he adds, ' to 
 suppose that any men should have crossed the vast ocean from 
 this side to that, to establish the human race there as well as 
 here.'* He appears to conceive, that as Scripture does not 
 tell us of any people on the opposite side of the globe, and he 
 did not imagine that any could have traversed the boundless 
 ocean, it must be concluded tliat there are no people there. 
 But geographical research has divested this argument of all 
 its force. In Behring's Strait a narrow sea exists, across 
 which many an adventurous bark may have found its way 
 even in the days of only primitive seamanship, and carried 
 across to the furthest regions descendants of the sons of 
 Noah, who spread forth on all sides to people the earth. 
 Meanwhile Scripture, although it speaks of no nations but 
 such as took their rise and dwelt on this side of the globe, 
 
 *' An inferiorem partem terrce, quce nostrce habitationi contraria 
 est, antipodas habere credendum sit. 
 
 ' Quod vero et antipodas esse fabulantur, id est homines k contraria 
 parte terrse, ubi sol oritur, quando occidit nobis, adversa pedibus 
 nostris calcare vestigia, nulla ratione credendum est. Neque hoc ulla 
 historica cognitione didicisse se affirmant, sed quasi ratiocinando con- 
 jectant, eo quod intra convexa cceh terra suspensa sit, eundemque 
 locum mundus habeat et infimum et medium ; et ex hoc opinantur 
 alteram terrse partem, quae infra est, habitatione hominum carere 
 non posse. Nee attendant, etiamsi iigura conglobata et rotunda 
 mundus esse credatur sive aliqua ratione monstretur, non tamen esse 
 consequens, ut etiam ex ilia parte ab aquarum congerie nuda sit terra. 
 Deinde etiamsi nuda sit, neque hoc statim necesse est, ut homines 
 habeat : quoniam nuUo modo Scriptura ista mentitm, quse narratis 
 prseteritis faoit fidera, eo quod ejus prasdicta complentur. Nimisque 
 absurdum est ut dicatur, aliquos homines ex hac in illam partem 
 Oceani immensitate trajecta navigare ac pervenire potuisse, ut etiam 
 
REGARDING THE FORM OP THE EARTH. 17 
 
 presents no contradiction to the fact which actual observation 
 teaches ; for it nowhere says, that none ever had reached or 
 ever would reach those furthest and then unknown regions. 
 
 A little more than a century later, Cosmas, monk of 
 Alexandria, and a celebrated traveller, reasoned against there 
 being antipodes from Gen. ii. 5 : ' These are the generations 
 of the heavens and the earth.' He said that this language 
 is intended to comprise everything that is contained in the 
 heavens and the earth ; and that if there be antipodes, the 
 heavens must contain the earth, and the sacred writer would 
 have said simply, These are the generations of the heavens : 
 with such slender arguments were men satisfied before the 
 dawn of the days of exact science.* 
 
 3. Closely allied to this is the question already alluded 
 to, which also exercised the ingenuity of the ancients, 
 Whether the Earth is a Globe, or a vast extended porm of the 
 Plane ? or, which amounts to the same, Whether Earth, 
 the heavens are a sphere surrounding the earth, or a wide- 
 spread canopy overshadowing its extended surface 1 And 
 there were not wanting advocates who appealed to Scripture 
 to decide the question. There could be no doubt, for 
 
 illic ex uno illo prime homine genus institueretur humanum. Qua- 
 propter inter illos tunc horainum populos, qui per septuaginta-duas 
 gentes et totidem linguas eolliguntur fuisse dlvisi, quseramus, si 
 possumus invenire Ulam in terris peregrinantem civitatem Dei, quse 
 usque ad diluvium arcamque perducta est, atque in filiis Noe per 
 eorum benedictiones perseverasse monstratur, maxime in maximo, 
 qui est appellatus Sem : quandoquidem laphet ita benedictus est, ut la 
 ejusdem fratris sui domibus habitaret.' — Aug. de Civiiate Dei, lib. 
 XVI. cap. ix. 
 
 * The words of Cosmas in the Latin translation of his work are, — 
 ' Ait, " Hie est liber generationis eoeli et terras," quasi omnia iis con- 
 tineantur, et universa quse in eis sunt eum illis signifieentur. Nam 
 si secundum fucatos illos Christianos coelum tantummodo universa 
 contineat, terram cum coelo non nominasset, sed dtxisset, " Hie est 
 liber generationis coeli." ' — See Lecky's History of the Rise of Bation- 
 alism. Third edition. Vol. I. p. 296. 
 
 c 
 
IS COEHECTION OF BEB0B8 
 
 instance, when the Psalmist thus spoke of the Creator : ' who 
 stretohest out the heavens like a ouetain ' (Ps. civ. 2). To 
 these Augustine alludes, although he himself repudiates the 
 appeal. ' It is commonly asked,' he says, ' of what form and 
 figure we may believe heaven to be according to the Scrip- 
 ture. For many contend much about these matters, which 
 with greater prudence our authors [meaning the sacred 
 penmen] have forborne to speak of.' ' What is it to me,' he 
 adds, ' whether heaven, as a sphere, on all sides environs the 
 earth, balanced in the middle of the world, or whether, like 
 a dish, it only covers and overshadows the same t ' And he 
 then throws out a salutary caution against appealing to 
 Scripture in such cases, lest, misunderstanding the divine ex- 
 pressions, we should give interpretations, in physical subjects, 
 which may prove to be contrary to fact, and so tempt others 
 to suspect the truth of the sacred writers in more profitable 
 matters.* 
 
 * ' Quseri etiam solet, quae forma et figura ooell esse credenda 
 sit secundum soripturas nostras. Multi enim multura disputant de 
 lis rebus, quas majore prudentia nostri auctores omiserunt, ad beatam 
 vitam non profuturas discentibus. et occupantes (quod pejus est mul- 
 tuni) preciosa et rebus salubribus impendenda teraporum spatia. 
 Quid enim ad me pertinet, utrum ccelum sicut sphsera midique con- 
 cludat terram in media mundi mole libratam, an eam ex una parte 
 desuper velut discus operiat ? Sed quia de fide agitur soripturarum, 
 propter illara causam quara non semel commemoravi — ne quisquam 
 eloquia divina non intelligens, cum de his rebus tale aliquid vel 
 invenerit in libris nostris vel ex illis audierit, quod perceptis k se 
 rationibus adversari videatur, nullo raodo eis csetera utilia monentibus, 
 vel narrantibus, vel pronunciantibus, oredat — breviter dicendum est, 
 de figura cceli lioc scisse auctores nostros quod Veritas habet, sed 
 Spiritum Dei qui per ipsos lociuebatur noluisse ista docere homines 
 nuUi saluti profutura.' — Aug. de Genesi ad Lit. lib. II. cap. ix. § 20. 
 
 The following remarks of Lactantius, a Christian writer at the end 
 of the third and the beginning of the fourth century (or some writer 
 using his name), against the rotundity of the earth and the existence 
 of antipodes, afford a curious specimen of the arguments which 
 sway the mind when devoid of what Dr. Whewell so aptly desig- 
 
EEGAEDINa THE MOTION OF THE EAETH. 19 
 
 4. The great controversy in which Galileo bore so con- 
 spicuous a part, regarding the motion of the earth, furnishes 
 a further and very striking illustration, from the jiotion of the 
 history of the past, of the mischief of bringing Earth. 
 Scripture to bear upon scientific questions. We may be in- 
 clined, perhaps, to smile at the doubts and difficulties which 
 beset men in those days on points which appear so simple to 
 us, and which every child knows. But we must remember 
 that they were good and learned men who debated on these 
 matters. In the struggles of that period, between reason and 
 observation on the one hand, and Scripture, or rather 
 Scripture falsely interpreted, on the other, and in the old 
 prepossessions which the men of those days had to abandon, 
 we see the very same causes at work, which still, under new 
 circumstances, agitate and confuse religious but uninstructed 
 minds. Nothing could be more clear, they then thought, 
 than the testimony of Scripture — 'the world also is established. 
 
 nates, in his ' History of the Inductive Sciences,' ' the appropriate 
 idea : ' — 
 
 ' Quid illi, qui esse contraries vestigiis nostris Antipodas putant, 
 num aliquid loquuntur ? aut est quisquam tam ineptus qui credat 
 esse homines, quorum vestigia sint superiora quam capita 1 aut ibi 
 quae apud nos jacent, inversa pendere ? fruges et arbores deorsum 
 versus cresoere ? pluvias et nives, et grandinem sursum versus cadere 
 in terram ? Et miratur aliquis hortos pensiles inter septem mira 
 narrari, quum philosophi et agros, et maria, et urbes, et montes pen- 
 siles faciant ? Hujus quoque erroris aperienda nobis origo est. Nam 
 semper eodem modo falluntur. Quum enim falsum aliquid in principio 
 sumserint, verisimilitudine inducti, necesse est eos in ea, quae oon- 
 sequuntm-, inourrere. Sic incidunt in multa ridicula : quia necesse 
 est falsa esse, quae rebus falsis congruunt. Quum autem prirais 
 habuerint fidem, qualia sunt ea, quae sequuntur, non circumspiciunt, 
 sed defendunt omni modo ; quum debeant prima ilia utrumne vera sint 
 an falsa ex consequentibus judicare. Quae igitur illos ad Antipodas 
 ratio perduxit? Videbant siderum cursus in occasum meantium, 
 solem atque lunam in eandem partem semper oocidere, et oriri semper 
 ab eadem. Quum autem non perspicerent, quae machiuatio cursus 
 
20 CORRECTION OF ERRORS 
 
 that it CANNOT BE moved' (Ps. xciii. 1). Even so late an 
 author as Calvin, the erudite and sagacious commentator, 
 drew from this passage the inference that the earth is motion- 
 less.* The old Ptolemaic system, which had so blinded men 
 for ages, chiefly under the authority of Aristotle, was only 
 beginning about that time to meet its death-blow : and the 
 new ideas had not yet reached the study of the learned 
 reformer. Eleven centuries before him, when Pythagorean 
 
 eorum temperaret, nee quomodo ab occasu ad orientem reniearent, 
 coeluni autem ipsum in omnes partes putarent esse devexum, quod sic 
 videri propter immensam )atitudinera necesse est ; existimaverimt 
 rotundum esse mundum sicut pilam, et ex motu siderum opinati sunt 
 coelum volvi ; sic astra solemque, quum occiderint, volubilitate ipsa 
 mundi ad ortum referri. Itaque et Eereos orbes fabricati sunt quasi ad 
 iiguram mundi, eosque cselarunt portentosis quibusdam simulacris, 
 quae astra esse dicerent . Hanc igitur coeli rotunditatem illud seque- 
 batur, ut terra in medio sinu ejus esset inclusa. Qnod si ita esset, 
 etiara ipsam terram globe slmilem ; neque enim fieri posset, ut non 
 esset rotundum quod rotundo conclusum teneretur. Si autem rotunda 
 etiam terra esset, necesse esse, ut in omnes cceli partes eandem 
 faciem gerat, id est, montes erigat, compos tendat, maria consternat. 
 Quod si esset, etiam sequebatur illud extremum, ut nulla sit pars 
 terrse, quae non ab hominibus ceterisque animalibus incolatur. Sic 
 pendulos istos Antipodas coeli rotunditas adinvenit. Quod si quseras 
 ab iis, qui hsec portenta defendunt, quomodo non cadunt omnia in 
 inferiorem illam coeli partem? respondent hanc rerum esse naturam, ut 
 pondera in medium ferantur, et ad medium connexa sint onjnia, sicut 
 radios videmus in rota ; quae autem levia sunt, ut nebula, fumus, ignis, 
 a medio deferantur, ut coelum petant. Quid dicam de iis nescio, qui, 
 quum sernel aberraverint, constanter in stultitia perseverant, et vania 
 vana defendunt, nisi quod eos interdura puto aut jooi causa philosophari, 
 aut prudentes et scios mendacia defendenda suscipere, quasi utingenia 
 sua in mails rebus exerceant vel ostentent. At ego multis argumentLs 
 probare possem nullo modo fieri posse, ut coelum terra sit inferius, 
 nisi et liber jam concludendus esset, et adhuc aliqua restarent, qu£e 
 magis sunt prsesenti operi necessaria. Et quoniam singulorum errores 
 pereurrere non est unius libri opus, satis sit pauca enumerasse, ex 
 quibus possit, qualia sint cetera, inteWigi.'—Lactantii Omnia Opera, 
 Oxon. )6S4. Institut. lib. III. cap. xxiv. 
 * Ps. xciii. 1.—' The Psalmist proves that God wOl not neglect or 
 
REGARDING THE MOTION OF THE EARTH. 21 
 
 notions had not been so entirely eclipsed, Augustine refers to 
 tlie controversy thus : ' Some ask the question, Is the heaven 
 at rest, or does it move ? If it moves, they say, how is it a 
 firmament ? If it is at rest, how do the stars, which are 
 supposed to he fixed in it, move from the east to the west 1 ' * 
 Augustine avoids coming to a decision, on the plea of want 
 of leisure to discuss it, and absence of profit to his hearers. 
 Mixed up, however, as the question is in the above statement 
 of the case with the error regarding the firmament, it is 
 doubtful whether they eould have come to a correct result ; 
 and we see the mischief which is likely to ensue from our 
 taking our ideas of natural phenomena from Scripture lan- 
 guage in the first instance, and shutting our eyes to the just 
 conclusions of reason. 
 
 Other Scripture texts were forced into this unholy war- 
 fare. ' O God, . . . who laid the foundations of the earth, 
 that it should not be removed for ever' (Ps. civ. 5). 'One 
 generation passeth away, and another generation cometh ; 
 but the earth abideth for ever' (Eccles. i. 4). Then the 
 
 abandon the world, from the fact that he created it. A simple survey 
 of the worid should of itself suffice to attest a Divine Providence. 
 The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and 
 inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no con- 
 cussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, 
 though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to 
 the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their 
 respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air 
 were it not upheld by God's hand ? By what means oould it maintain 
 itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, 
 did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it ? Accordingly the particle 
 IN, denoting emphasis, is introdiieed — "Yea, he hath established it." ' — 
 Commentary on the Psalms, Calvin Translation Society's Edition. 
 
 • ' De motu etiam coeli nonnulli fratres qusestionem movent, 
 utrum stet an moveatur : quia si movetur, inquiunt, quomodo 
 firmamentum est ? Si autem stat, quomodo sidera, quae in illo fixa 
 creduntur, ab oriente usque ad ooeidentem circumeunt ? ' — Aug. de 
 Gen. lib. II. cap. x. 
 
'li CORRECTION OF ERRORS 
 
 following were adduced to establish the correlative truth, as 
 they supposed, that the sun is not at rest : — ' In them hath 
 he set a tabernacle for the sun, -which is as a bridegroom 
 COMING OUT of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man 
 to RUN a race. His going forth is from the end of the 
 heaven, and his circuit unto the end of it ' (Ps. xix. 4 — 6). 
 ' The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and 
 HASTETH to his placc where he arose' (Eccles. i. 5).* 
 
 The mischief which this appeal to Scripture did is incal- 
 culable. It sanctified error. It confirmed the mind in 
 blunders regarding a fact in nature on which some of the 
 ancients had clear and correct conceptions, tOl chiefly 
 Aristotle and then Ptolemy also, even after a more complete 
 theory had been suggested to him by Aristarchus of Samos 
 than had been to Aristotle, drew the veil of obscurity over 
 the subject.t So that even Tycho, a name of eminence 
 
 * They resorted to such arguments as the following curious piece of 
 reasoning : — Hell, it had long been supposed, was in the centre of the 
 world. Now, if the sun were at rest, with the earth revolving about 
 it, then the centre of the world would be in the sun. So that hell 
 would be in the sun, and therefore, in fact, be up in heaven — which 
 ■was too absurd, they thought, to be believed. In laughing at such folly, 
 let us beware lest we be guilty of the same in our way, notwithstanding 
 all the light that knowledge gives us, and all the experience that the 
 history of error and of well-intentioned but ill-directed zeal teaches us. 
 
 Another argument was, that heaven and earth are repeatedly 
 mentioned in Scripture as correlative, like the centre and circumfer- 
 ence of a circle. Thus 'the heaven and the earth' (Gen. i. 1), and in 
 a multitude of other texts. N ow, said they, the heavens, spread out 
 as they are, must be the circumference ; hence the earth must be the 
 centre, and therefore at rest. 
 
 t Pythagoras, as stated by his follower, Philolaus, held that the 
 earth is not motionless in the centre of the universe. His planetary 
 theory was not, however, identical with the Copernican. He conceived 
 that the sun, as well as the planets and the earth, revolved round a 
 mass of fire in the centre of the system, invisible to us, because on 
 the opposite side of the earth from the then inhabited part. 
 
 Aristarchus of Samos, in the third century b.c, proposed a theory 
 
REGARDING THE MOTION OF THE EARTH. 23 
 
 among philosophers in the days of Kepler and Galileo, was 
 kept back from holding the true view, chiefly by his false 
 estimate of Scripture language.* 
 
 All this conflict of ideas and opinions has now passed away ; 
 and Scripture stands unscathed in all its truth, simplicity, 
 and beauty. All are agreed that its words re- wisdom seen 
 quire no apology, and call for no compromise. s^criptSe"^ 
 They speak intelligibly and correctly to learned v^^^°^°By- 
 and unlearned. Indeed, we may well pause to admire the 
 wisdom with which Scripture phraseology has been chosen. 
 Human systems of religion have usually blended a false theo- 
 logy with some preposterous system of natural philosophy ; 
 and the application of true science is sufflcient to explode the 
 whole, t 
 
 Now, not only has Scripture abstained from thus blending 
 scientific teaching with divine, but, wherever it has incidentally 
 
 of the world exactly similar to the Copemioan. This was subsequent 
 to the time of Aristotle ; but both Archimedes and Hipparchus rejected 
 the theory of Aristarchus, as did also Ptolemy in the second century 
 after Chiist. — See Sir G. C. Lewis's Historical Survey of the Ancients, 
 pp. 123, 124, 189, 252. 
 
 * See Sir David Brewster's Martyrs of Science. The freedom of 
 Kepler's mind is nobly shown in the following words, quoted by 
 Dr. Whewell : — ' In Theology we balance authorities, in Philosophy 
 we weigh reasons. A holy man was Laotantius, who denied that the 
 earth was round ; a holy man was Augustine, who granted the 
 rotundity, but denied the Antipodes ; a holy thing to me is the 
 Inquisition, which allows the sniallness of the earth, but denies its 
 motion ; but more holy to me is Truth, and hence I prove, from 
 philosophy, that the earth is round, and inhabited on every side, of 
 small size, and in motion among the stars, and this I do with no 
 disrespect to the Doctors.' 
 
 + ' Examine all the false theologies of the ancients and moderns ; 
 read in Homer or in Hesiod the religious codes of the Greeks ; study 
 those of the Buddhists, those of the Brahmins, those of the 
 Mahommedans ; you will not only find in these repulsive systems on 
 the subject of the Godhead, but you will meet with the grossest errors 
 on the material world. You will be revolted with their theology, no 
 
24 COREECTION OP ERRORS 
 
 touched upon the phenomena of the natural world, it haa 
 avoided the use of scientific terms, and has adopted a 
 phraseology intelligihle to all men in all ages. It speaks 
 intelligibly, simply because it speaks in such matters according 
 to appearances. 
 
 When I say ' appearances,' I should explain this term, as 
 it admits of two meanings, viz. (1) what is seen, (2) what 
 seems to be. Thus I can conceive a person speaking as 
 follows : — ' When darkness came on, a comet appeared ; and 
 it appeared to be on fire.' The appearance in the first 
 instance was a fact, something actually seen : the appearance 
 in the second part of this description was only something 
 which seemed to be, and was in reality in this case an illusion. 
 It is obviously in the first of these senses that we use the 
 word 'appearances,' when we say that it is according to 
 
 doubt ; but their natural philosophy, and their astronomy also, ever 
 allied to their religion, will be found to rest on the most absurd 
 notions. — Theopneiistia, by M. Gaussen, chap. iv. sec. 6. 
 
 In the Christian Observer (May, 1870), the same thing is shewn by 
 pointing out that an uninspired writer in 2 Esdras, vi. 38 — 59, though 
 taking his account of creation from Genesis, has not been able to 
 restrain himself from making sundry additions of his own, which can 
 all be proved to be false. He says in v. 40 that God commanded 
 ' light to come forth from His treasures,' almost implying that light is 
 a material substance, and not merely an effect ; this is very different 
 to the simple declaration, 'Let there be light, and there was light.' 
 In V. 41 he says that God commanded the 'firmament to part asunder,' 
 as if it were soHd ; whereas in Genesis it is said that God ' made the 
 firmament ' (expanse or atmosphere), and ' divided the waters ' above 
 and below it : He did not divide the firmament. In v. 42 he commits 
 himself to saying that ' the sea is a seventh part of the land ; ' 
 whereas nothing of the kind is said in Genesis : and we know that the 
 sea is about half as extensive again as the land. Indeed, the statement 
 in Genesis, ' Let the dry land appear,' seems almost to imply that the 
 land was less extensive than the water out of which it emerged. The 
 writer in the Observer in the same way compares Milton's description 
 with Scripture, and shows how it departs from it, or adds to it, with 
 scientific disadvantage. 
 
EBGARDING THE MOTION OP THE BAHTH. 25 
 
 appeatances that Scripture speaks when it aUudes to natural 
 phenomena.* 
 
 The method of describing a phenomenon by appearances 
 is as correct as any other method. There are two ways in 
 which a phenomenon in nature may be described ; either, 
 first, with reference to the principles and laws of nature 
 involved in the phenomenon : or, secondly, with reference to 
 the facts or the results which an observer beholds. The first 
 is called the scientific description ; the second, the descrip- 
 tion according to appearances, or what is seen. These are 
 equally real and equally true. The first is intelligible only 
 to the scientific : the other can be understood by all in every 
 age. This latter method, then, is the one which Scripture 
 adopts. It neither forestalls the knowledge, which it is left 
 to man's reason and power of observation to acquire by long 
 and patient investigation, and which, if used, would not 
 become intelligible till the progress of science had made it 
 so ; nor does it adopt the language of current error and of 
 false theory, in order to accommodate itself to the apprehen- 
 sions of men. In matters of ordinary observation, Scripture 
 speaks the language of sense, not of theory : it uses the words 
 of every-day life : it describes natural objects as they appear. 
 It adopts the terms which the most scientific use in the 
 ordinary intercourse of life, and not only so, but often even 
 in their scientific writings, which would otherwise be encum- 
 bered and obscured with the most tiresome circumlocutions, f 
 
 * In consequence of not seeing this distinction, Mr. Goodwin, in 
 his Mosaic Cosmogony (p. 249), wrongly attributes to me the beUef 
 that 'appearances only, not facts, are described, in the Mosaic 
 narrative.' There are several passages in the edition of this treatise 
 which he used, which might have saved him from falling into this 
 mistake. 
 
 fThus, I take down at random a volume of the Astronomical 
 Transactions, and find a Paper by the Astronomer Royal, in which 
 the following passage occurs : — ' The meaning of the third term [in an 
 astronomical formula under consideration] is, that the sun moves 
 
26 COEEBCTION OF EBEORS 
 
 Here is no concession to vulgar prejudice, but an adbption 
 of the usages of human language. What would be 
 thought of even a scientific man, if he were to relate to 
 his companions, that, on his looking towards a rain-cloud, 
 he had beheld a beautiful phenomenon ; that a succession 
 of concentric circular arcs had sent forth to his eye, with 
 inconceivable rapidity, an innumerable series of waves of 
 various lengths, but so miuute, that many thousands of 
 them occupied only an inch, and that millions of them im- 
 pinged upon his eye in every second of time ? Whereas he 
 might, in far easier language, and in language always intelligible 
 all over the world, have simply adopted the popular, but no 
 less true style, and said that he had seen a bow in the heavens, 
 of colours varying from red to violet. The former would be a 
 scientific way of describing the phenomenon, the causes and 
 laws which were in operation to produce the result being in- 
 troduced j and this would make it utterly unintelligible, till the 
 undulatory theory of light was known, and even then it would 
 remain so to millions, who would, nevertheless, have no 
 difficulty in comprehending the other mode of description, 
 which is quite as correct, though stating only what was 
 actually seen. Although this illustration from the rainbow is 
 somewhat far-fetched, it is not the less true and apt. It 
 serves well to explain the difference between a scientific and a 
 popular description of a phenomenon. The Copernican 
 explanation of the solar system is now so entirely received, 
 that no one for a moment doubts that the planets and the 
 earth revolve about the sun. But this was not the case at 
 one time, and such a statement of the phenomena of sun-rise 
 and sun-set, as would require a knowledge of the physical 
 law which causes the sun to be the centre, would then have 
 appeared inexplicable, as a scieutific description of the 
 phenomenon of the rainbow would be to most people now. 
 
 (independently of perturbations) in a small circle.' — Boy. Ast. 
 Society's Trans, vol. x. p. 237, 1838. 
 
EEGARDING THE MOTION OP THE EAETH. 27 
 
 I take this opportunity of making some remarks about 
 the terms sun-ride and sun-set, which I think are generally 
 misunderstood. I believe that the sun does sun-riseand 
 actually rise and set, go forth out of his chamber sun-set correct 
 (viz. from below the horizon)^and go down again. *®™'^- 
 These terms have been so mixed up in past time, with the 
 old and now exploded notion that the earth is immoveable, 
 that most persons imagine that they do really imply that the 
 sun moves and not the earth, and that they are now used 
 only by accommodation and for convenience, and in fact are 
 not true. This I do not believe. The terms are, I conceive, 
 equally true, whether the Ptolemaic or the Copernican sys- 
 tem be adopted. They are the description of the phenomena 
 strictly according to appearances, that is, according to what 
 is seen, and involve, as I hope now to show, no assumption 
 whatever regarding the sun or the earth being the centre of 
 the system. It is no doubt very difficult to divest the mind 
 of a long-established persuasion, and to get it out of an old 
 into a new train of thinking. 
 
 It is clear that the words, rise, set, fall, ascend, descend, 
 and suchlike, are relative terms, and do not by any means 
 indicate of necessity absolute motion in the body spoken of. 
 In sun-rise the thing seen is the increase of distance between 
 the top of the sun and the horizon ; in sun-set the decrease 
 of the distance, and the phenomena are described in terms of 
 that object which most attracts attention, viz., the sun ; and 
 are called «Mre-rise and sun-set. This reference of them to the 
 observer's horizon, a line fixed with regard to himself, in- 
 volves no theory regarding the physical causes which produce 
 the separation or approach ; but is an obvious way of regard- 
 ing the phenomena. The notion that the earth is immoveable 
 has been so ingrained in former times in men's minds, and 
 indeed to the present day so utterly imperceptible is the 
 earth's motion in itself, that, as I have already said, these 
 terms — rise, set, fall, ascend, descend, — when applied to the 
 sun, are generally supposed to imply that it does actually 
 
28 CORRECTION OF ERRORS 
 
 move in space, and that the terms are still used only for 
 convenience and by accommodation. But, if our phraseology 
 were to be reconstructed, or rather, if our present knowledge 
 had been possessed when these terms were first introduced, 
 I cannot think that others would have been used in pre- 
 ference. I cannot think that the position of the sun and 
 other bodies would have been described by words, which 
 would state that the standard of reference moved. for 
 example, people would not have said, instead of ' See, the sun 
 rises ! ' ' See, the horizon sinks ! ' — and simply for the 
 reason mentioned, that the sun, and not the horizon, is 
 the object which attracts attention. Indeed, we may feel 
 sure of this, from the way in which similar language is per- 
 petually used in cases, where no doubt ever existed as to 
 which of the two bodies under consideration was fixed. In 
 travelling towards a mountainous region, is it not the com- 
 monest of exclamations, ' Look, how the mountains rise ! ' 
 they do not say ' seem to rise,' but ' how they rise ! ' If one 
 ship is pursuing another at sea, and the forward one is mov- 
 ing onward at a great pace, but the pursuer somewhat 
 quicker, cannot we hear the captain of the hinder vessel 
 saying, in sea language, ' How she rises ! ' although the ship 
 pursued is going as fast as it can in the direction opposite to 
 the rise, as the captain well knows ? Suppose yourself sitting 
 at the stern of a boat moving smoothly down a stream, and 
 you call a friend at the other end to come to you, and he 
 walks at the same rate at which the vessel moves down the 
 stream, he is absolutely at rest relatively to the shore ; and 
 you are really moving down to him. When you call to him 
 to come, you speak in relation to things around you, and it 
 would be ridiculous for you to use other language, and to 
 tell him to stop and to say that you were coming down to 
 him, meaning thereby that he was to walk along the deck and 
 you to sit still. So when we are sitting on the earth, and 
 have our horizon, and are speaking of phenomena as affecting 
 ourselves, there is nothing contrary to fact in saying that the 
 
REGARDING THE MOTION OF THE EARTH. 29 
 
 sun rises from the horizon, omitting the additional and com- 
 plementary fact, that the horizon is (like the vessel) smoothly- 
 sinking down at precisely the same rate, so as to leave the 
 sun in space precisely where it was. The fact is, as I have 
 said, all such terms as sun-rise, sun-set, sun-standing-still, ex- 
 press relative position, position relative to some standard, 
 without any allusion whatever to physical causes and to 
 motion caused by them. It would he a hazardous thing to 
 trust, even in ordinary popular language, much more in 
 Scripture phraseology, to scientific descriptions when refer- 
 ence is made to natural phenomena ; for the theory may in 
 the end prove to be false, or not sufficiently general to ex- 
 plain new phenomena, and will therefore require re-modelling 
 and re-stating ; whereas the description, recording appear- 
 ances, or what is seen, will always stand, so long as men's 
 senses remain the same. It so happens, that the theory, 
 that the sun is the centre of the solar system, now admits of 
 indubitable proof. But it would, nevertheless, not be wise to 
 surrender the general principle, that descriptions of natural 
 phenomena, to be intelligible to all readers, should be 
 couched in terms which involve no theory, however well es- 
 tablished, but only in language which comes home to every 
 ordinary observer. Such, as I have always received them, 
 are the terms 'sunrise' and 'sun-set,' in which there is no 
 necessary reference to the absolute fixity of the sun or the 
 earth ; but only to the position of the sun relatively to the 
 horizon, which is fixed with regard to the observer.* 
 
 * In a former edition, the following note appeared, which I should 
 have omitted in the present one, as its object has been misconceived 
 by Bishop Colenso, but that I wish to point out where his misconcep- 
 tion Hes : — 
 
 ' Among many examples the language of the Sacred Historian in 
 recording the miracle of Joshua is an excellent illustration of this 
 [viz. of describing phenomena by their appearances]. So the sim stood 
 still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole 
 day. The accomplishment of this is supposed by some to have been 
 
30 OORRBOTION OF ERRORS 
 
 There is another view of the wisdom shown in describing 
 phenomena by their appearances only. Since the language 
 of Science,, even in its highest walks, admits of improvement, 
 and has ofttimes called for correction as the field of discovery 
 has widened, what epoch of knowledge should the Divine 
 Author of Scripture have fixed upon as the best adapted for 
 furnishing terms, if scientific phraseology were to be used ? 
 The more advanced the epoch, the longer would be the period 
 through which Scripture would be unintelligible even to 
 the learned, because it would anticipate human discovery. 
 Moreover, were this the principle upon which Scripture was 
 written, we should be in danger of finding our interest in 
 the Sacred Volume divided between the truths which concern 
 our moral state and eternal happiness, and the scientific 
 mysteries hidden beneath these unintelligible terms. If, too, 
 scientific phraseology were introduced into Scripture, reason 
 would have no scope, or would be crushed at every turn. It 
 
 by the arresting of the earth in its rotation. In what other words, then, 
 could the miracle have been expressed ? Should it have been said, " So 
 the earth ceased to revolve, and made the sun appear to stand still in the 
 midst of heaven ? " This is not the language which we should use, even 
 in these days of scientific light. Were so great a wonder again to ap- 
 pear, would even an astronomer, as he looked into the heavens, exclaim, 
 " The earth stands still I " Would he not be laughed at as a pedant ? 
 Whereas, to use the language of appearances, and thus to imitate the 
 style of the Holy Scriptures themselves, would be most natural and 
 intelli'^ible. Conceive a vessel moving smoothly down a stream, and a 
 man walking in a contrary direction on its deck at the same rate. 
 What should we think of his asserting that he had never changed his 
 situation at all ? though this would be strictly and scientifically true. 
 So a statement strictly scientific, in the case of Joshua's miracle, would 
 have been unintelligible to common persons, and almost ridiculous in 
 the ears of even the learned.' 
 
 My object in this note was, solely to adduce an illustration of lan- 
 guage, but by no means to adopt any explanation of the mode in 
 which the phenomenon was brought about. 1 admit that it looks as 
 if I intended to adopt this explanation. Dr. Colenso thinks that I 
 
REGARDING THE MOTION OF THE EARTH. 31 
 
 was once the universal creed that the sun moved through the 
 heavens. That it is absolutely fixed in space took its place. 
 At the present day there is every reason to believe, from ac- 
 curate astronomical observations, that the sun, with all its 
 system of planets, is, after all, in motion. These are not 
 conjectures, but the results of inquiry and reason. Whether 
 the sun is absolutely fixed or not in space is, nevertheless, to 
 this day unknown. We wait for Science to give the answer. 
 But if Scripture language is so chosen as to settle these 
 questions at once, all such inquiries are hushed ; the mind is 
 cramped ; reason justly feels her province invaded ; and 
 confusion follows. What admirable wisdom, then, is dis- 
 played by Him who knows the end from the beginning, who 
 knows all laws, and foresees all their operations, since from 
 Him they take their rise ; in that He speaks to us of these 
 things in terms always true and always intelligible ! 
 
 have given countenance to a ' view which every natural philosopher 
 will know to be wholly untenable.' Though it is not my intention to 
 advocate the explanation which supposes that the earth stood still, yet, 
 that that event was impossible with Him who created the world I 
 deny ; nor would the ' profusion of miraculous interferences ' which 
 would have been necessary to counteract the natural effects of such an 
 event (of which many will suggest themselves to a philosophical mind, 
 not to say the melting of the whole mass with fervent heat, according 
 to the mechanical theory of heat) be impossible or laborious to Him. 
 But I hold no theory of explanation whatever of this miracle. Where 
 a miracle is wrought the event is taken out of the pale of natural 
 causes, and we are no more capable of reasoning upon it than we 
 should have been able to foresee with what laws the world would be 
 created, had we existed before its creation. Dr. Colenso considers 
 Joshua's miracle to be one of the most prominent examples of Scrip- 
 ture and Science being at variance, and wonders why I do not enter 
 upon it at large, but dismiss it so summarily. The answer is, that it 
 was a miracle. I can no more ascertain how it was wrought than I 
 can how our Lord walked upon the sea, or how His body ascended into 
 the heavens. 
 
 Since the above was written (in 1864), I have been told that some, 
 
32 COHRECTION OF ERRORS 
 
 I have dwelt at some length on this illustration from the 
 Motion of the Earth. It is, however, highly instructive to 
 „,. ^. ,, fix our thoughts upon examples which the expe- 
 
 This a highly or ir i_ <;. 
 
 instructiTe ex- rienoe of the past furnishes ; that we may benent 
 by the mistakes of those who are gone before, 
 learn wisdom in our own day, and see how we should behave 
 in similar controversies which the march of discovery is per- 
 petually stirring up amongst us. And no controversy is so 
 well adapted for this purpose, as that regarding the motion 
 of the earth. For no truth is at the present day more en- 
 tirely and universally j'eceived ; although no statement ap- 
 pears to be more contradictory to the letter of Scripture, and 
 no physical fact is less palpable to the senses. There is, 
 moreover, a difficulty involved in the belief of the earth's 
 motion which only the mind habituated to scientific thought 
 can thoroughly meet. If the earth revolves upon its axis in 
 twenty-four hours, since its radius is 4000 miles, the equa- 
 torial parts of its surface must be moving at the amazing 
 speed of 1000 miles an hour from west to east, and places in 
 English latitudes at about 600 miles an hour.* How is it, 
 then, that the atmosphere rests quietly upon its surface, being 
 subject only to local and occasional movements in winds and 
 tempests, and those having no peculiar relation to the direc- 
 tion of east and west ? How is it that our continents and 
 oceans are not the scene of one incessant terrific tempest from 
 the east, compared to which the most tremendous hurricane is 
 but as the sighing of a summer breeze ? The answer is, that 
 the whole atmosphere itself in one mass is endowed, as well 
 
 who are quite ready to admit that a rairasle was wrought, stagger at 
 the language used, viz. that the sun stood still ; for, they say, the sun 
 always stands still ; what marvel, then, is there in this '( My remarks 
 in the text (about sun-rise, sun-set, sun-standing-still) sufficiently 
 answer this. 
 
 • The velocity round the sun is still greater ; more than sixty 
 times that of the equator round the axis. 
 
RBGABDING THE MOTION OF THE EARTH. 33 
 
 as the solid earth, with this prodigious velocity ; and the 
 ■winds and aerial currents, which we perceive, are but minor 
 deviations from this average speed, occasioned hy local and 
 temporary causes. To the scientific, there is no difficulty in 
 admitting this as one among many illustrations in nature of 
 the primary laws of motion. To the unscientific, however, it 
 is next to incomprehensible. How readily would the ob- 
 jectors in the days of Galileo have seized upon such an argu- 
 ment, as conclusive against the new-fangled errors, had they 
 thought of it. But, notwithstanding this demand upon our 
 belief that the atmosphere revolves at this prodigious speed, 
 there is not one amongst us in these days who doubts for a 
 moment that the earth revolves, and not the heavens. This 
 is perhaps admitted by most persons under the pressure of 
 the far greater demand which the other alternative would 
 make upon them. For if the heavens revolve, and not the 
 earth, we must believe that the stars move through millions 
 of millions of miles within the twenty-four hours, even 
 quicker than light itself : and also that their velocities, 
 countless as these bodies are, are so adjusted to their dis- 
 tances, that they may preserve their several relative places, 
 as seen from the earth, invariable from age to age. This 
 shuts us up to the first alternative, that it must be the earth 
 which revolves, and not the heavens. This is now the uni- 
 versal belief. It is received as the true view without hesita- 
 tion, notwithstanding the difficulty of the atmosphere's re- 
 volving with such amazing velocity. Nor is the question 
 regarded as an open one ; as one involving an unexplained 
 difficulty, and therefore waiting for a better solution. The 
 mind has been long habituated to the idea, and receives it. 
 So marvellous is the efiect of habit, even in thinking. 
 ' Scientific views, when fumiUar, do not disturb the authority 
 of Scripture,' however much they did upon their first an- 
 nouncement. ' Though the new opinion is resisted as some- 
 thing destructive of the credit of Scripture, and the reverence 
 
 D 
 
34 COBBECTION OF ERRORS, ETC. 
 
 which is its due, yet, in fact, when the new interpretation 
 has heen generally established and incorporated with men's 
 current thoughts, it ceases to disturb their views of the 
 
 authority of Scripture, or of the truth of its teaching 
 
 And .... all cultivated persons look back with surprise at 
 the mistake of those who thought that the essence of the reve- 
 lation was involved in their own arbitrary version of some 
 collateral circumstance in the revealed narrative.'* The les- 
 son we learn from this example is this : How possible it is 
 that, even while we are contending for truth, our minds may 
 be enslaved to error by long cherished prepossessions. ISTo 
 man should act or believe contrary to his conscientious con- 
 victions. But it may sometimes be a great help to him to 
 know, that it is possible he may be entirely in the wrong : 
 and an example like this, regarding the Motion of the Earth, 
 in which such strong views had been pertinaciously held on 
 the side of error, but are now universally abandoned, is not 
 without its use for this end. 
 
 • Dr. Whewell's Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. Chapter 
 on the ' Relation of Tradition to Palaetiology.' 
 
35 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 EXAMPLES, FROM THE LATER HISTORY OP SCIENCE, IN WHICH 
 SCRIPTURE HAS NOT ONLY BEEN RELIEVED OP FALSE INTER- 
 PRETATIONS, BUT HAS HAD NEW LIGHT REFLECTED UPON IT 
 BY THE DISCOVERIES OP SCIENCE. 
 
 A COMPARISON of the discoveries of Geology with the 
 statements of the first chapter of Genesis, has furnished 
 within the present century several examples of apparent 
 discrepancy between Scripture and Science, which further 
 investigation has shown not to be real, while new light has 
 been thrown by these discoveries upon the sacred text. Upon 
 this subject I shaU enter somewhat more at large than I 
 have done in the early editions of this work, as the discussion 
 has been revived by the publication of Mr. Goodwin's article 
 on ' Mosaic Cosmogony,' in Essays and Reviews. Two 
 questions have been mixed up together in this discussion : 
 viz. Whether the teachings of the first chapter of Genesis 
 are contradictory or not to the teachings of Science ; and. 
 What is the undoubted meaning of the account in Genesis, 
 interpreted scientifically ] It is with the former of these 
 questions alone that the present treatise, according to its 
 avowed object, is concerned. Although I do in the following 
 pages express a strong preference for one of the two generally 
 received modes of interpretation, it is sufiicient for my 
 purpose if I show that there is no real contradiction between 
 Scripture and Science in the matter, whatever obscurity may 
 
36 DISCOVERIES REGARDING THE EARTH'S AGE, 
 
 still remain as to the precise meaning of the Scripture state- 
 ment in a scientific point of view. 
 
 There are three leading particulars, in which the dis- 
 coveries of modern Science are opposed to what were till 
 lately the currently received views regarding creation, as 
 gathered from this opening portion of the sacred volume. 
 
 1 . The vast and unknown Antiquity of the Earth, which 
 geology has undoubtedly brought to light, compared with 
 
 , , which the 6000 years of its hitherto-supposed 
 
 Antiquity of the •' i • i i c 
 
 Earth. existence are but as yesterday, is the first ot 
 those startling facts, which only a few years ago shocked 
 many, who considered that such a conclusion was plainly 
 repugnant to Holy Scripture. 
 
 2. The existence of Animals and Plants for many ages 
 previously to the appearance of man on the earth, when first 
 _ . , ., . announced as a fact, was regarded as the fabri- 
 
 Pre-Aoamite am- ' ° 
 
 mais and plants, cation of enemies of the sacred volume. The 
 press teemed with attacks upon such reckless theorists ; and 
 crude hypotheses, hasty guesses, and ignorant assertions were 
 thrust forward to take the place of facts. Every effort was 
 made to crowd the countless tribes of creatures, which the 
 rocks poured forth from their opened treasure-houses, within 
 the six thousand years of man's existence ; and to attribute 
 their entombment to the Deluge. But Science revolted at 
 such summary work. Eushing waters were not the scene 
 for deposits, in which all the bones and spines of the most 
 delicate structures and the forms of leaves and plants in 
 endless variety could be laid and kept unhurt. A deluge, 
 and that, too, of only one hundred and fifty days' duration, 
 was not the workshop in which strata ten miles thick could 
 be formed and packed with their teeming population ; it had 
 neither time to do the work, nor room to hold the materials. 
 Physiology, too. lent its aid. It was discovered that the 
 buried species, at any rate below the higher (the tertiary) 
 beds, differed essentially in their organization from the 
 
PEE-ADA.MITE CREATURES, AND THE SUN's AQE. 37 
 
 existing races. An order of things had then prevailed to 
 which the present families could claim no relationship. 
 Distinct acts of creative power must have called into life the 
 existing beings, and those whose remains Science had brought 
 to light. But Scripture records only one such epoch. 
 
 3. The existence of Light long prior, not only to the 
 fourth day, on which we are told in Genesis the sun was made, 
 but to the first also, on which light was called Existence of 
 forth, was another discovery Avhich perplexed even tS'six Days- 
 philosophers, and which the multitude indig- creation, 
 nantly denied as repugnant to the simplest and plainest 
 declarations of Holy Writ. Geologists found that the 
 exhumed remains of animals, belonging to ages long gone 
 by before man's appearance, had eyes: and it was argued 
 that eyes were for use ; that light was necessary, and that 
 light must have existed. But all this seemed directly con- 
 trary to Scripture, which spoke thus of the first day, 'And 
 God said. Let there be light, and there was light' (Gen. i. 3); 
 and of the fourth day, 'And God made two great lights ; 
 the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule 
 the night : (He made) the stars also. And God set them in 
 the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth, 
 and to rule over the day, and over the night, and to divide 
 the light from the darkness ' (Gen. i. 16-18). 
 
 These are the chief difficulties which modern Science has 
 advanced against the long-standing interpretation of the 
 beginning of Genesis. There are two classes of rjwo theories of 
 interpreters who have endeavoured to remove e^ia^^'tion. 
 the perplexity thus arising, and to show that Scripture 
 and Science are not really at variance, when rightly inter- 
 preted. As Science reveals new phenomena, opens up new 
 ideas, and makes new demands, not only do these require a 
 searching scrutiny, but also the hitherto-received interpre- 
 tation of Scripture calls for re-examination. In this way, 
 while it not unfrequently turns out that Scientific men have 
 
38 NATUEAL-DAY THEORY 
 
 been premature in their generalizations, it also sometimes 
 happens that Scripture is seen to have been subjected to 
 incorrect glosses, from which it is liberated by the discoveries 
 of Science. The torches of nature and reason shed their 
 light, in such instances, upon the letter of the Sacred Volume 
 itself; and God's two books of Nature and Eevelation, which 
 appeared for a while to contradict each other, are found to 
 be in harmony. 
 
 The first class of interpreters conceive that no violence 
 is done to either the letter or the spirit of Scripture, 
 and that all emergent difficulties are met, by imagining 
 that an interval of time of untold duration occurred be- 
 tween the first creation of all things ' in the beginning,' 
 rirstorNaturai-8'S announced in the first verse of Genesis, 
 day theory, g^j^^ ^j^g g^^(.g q£ disorder into which the earth 
 
 had fallen, as described in the second verse : and this view 
 is much strengthened by the feeling, that the Almighty 
 can hardly have created the earth in a state of confusion 
 and chaos.* From this condition the Almighty raised 
 the earth into one of beauty and order by the six days' work 
 described in the subsequent verses, and so prepared it for 
 the reception of His rational creature Man, whom He brought 
 into existence and placed in the garden of Eden on the sixth 
 day. This view was propounded by Dr. Chalmers half-a- 
 century ago ;t and was adopted by Dr. Buckland, Professor 
 Sedgwick, and other eminent men, as an easy and sufficient 
 
 * Tohu va bohu, that is, without form and void ; or, hterally, 
 ' desolation and emptiness.' Heb. For illustration of the meaning of 
 this expression, see the description of the land of Israel as deso- 
 lated and depopulated by Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. iv. 23-26. It is 
 worthy of remark, that when the Almighty says, ' He created it (the 
 earth) not in vain— He formed it to be inhabited,' (Isa. xlv. 18) ; the 
 words are literally. He created it not tohu, but he formed it for 
 habitation. 
 
 t Chalmers' Works, vol. xii. p. 369 ; vol. i. p. 22S ; Buckland's 
 Bridgewater Treatise, chap. ii. ; Sedgwick's Discourse on the Studies of 
 
OF INTERPRETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 39 
 
 solution of the difficulty. According to this hypothesis, it is 
 supposed that the generations of animals and plants which 
 are stored up in the earth's strata lived and perished in that 
 interval of time of unknown duration which preceded the six 
 days' creation, and that Scripture is altogether silent re- 
 garding them. The difficulties, therefore, which the first and 
 second of the discoveries of geology, regarding the Age of the 
 Earth, and the pre-existence of animals and plants long 
 hefore Adam, gave rise to, are altogether removed. With 
 reference to the third difficulty, arising from the discovery 
 that Light also existed ages hefore Adam, and not only six 
 days previously, it may be observed, in the first place, that it 
 is not said that light was created or made at all, it is called 
 forth, it is commanded to shine out of the darkness which 
 was upon the face of the deep. ' Let there be light, and 
 there was light ; ' or. Let light appear, and it appeared. 
 Light is not a substance, but an effect. To suppose that the 
 luminiferous ether, the vibrations of which cause light, was 
 at this moment created, is not necessary ; but simply, that 
 the ether, which had been in a state of quiescence on the 
 surface of the earth during the darkness, was caused to vi- 
 brate, so as to send forth light, as air vibrates, when properly 
 acted on, and sends forth sound. Nor, with reference to the 
 fourth day, is it said that the sun and moon and stars were 
 created on that day : the word is- ' 7nade ' — ' God made two 
 great lights' (Gen. ii. 16) — the Hebrew word elsewhere sig- 
 
 the University of Cambridge. It has been pointed out to me that 
 Dathe also gives this view in his translation of the Pentateuch (1791). 
 His translation is, ' Principio creavit Deus ccelum atque terram. Post 
 hoc vero terra facta erat vasta et deserta.' In a note he adds this 
 comment, ' Non describitur prima telluris nostrse productio, sed altera, 
 sive ejus restauratic' I may add that the hypothesis, that there was 
 a wide interval of time between the first and second verses, is not a 
 modern one merely to meet the requirements of Science, but was 
 suggested by some of the early Christian Fathers, as pointed out by 
 Dr. Pusey in a note in Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise. 
 
40 NATURAL-DAY THEORY 
 
 nifying appointed, constituted, set for a particular pitrjjose or 
 use ; and never once, in the one hundred and fifty places 
 ^vhere it occurs in the book of Genesis, is it used in the sense 
 of created* 
 
 This being premised, the account of the six days' work 
 
 * ' There are three words employed in the Old Testament in 
 reference to the production of the world — Bard, he created ; Yatzdr. 
 he formed ; Asdh, he made— between which there is this difference 
 that the two last may be, and are, used of men. The first word. Bard 
 is never predicated of any created being, angel, or man, but ex- 
 clusively appropriated to God, and God alone is called SorS unii. 
 Creator. Creation is, therefore, according to the Hebrew, a Divine 
 act — something that can be performed by God alone. In the next 
 place, though, according to its etymology, it does not necessarily 
 imply a creation out of nothing, it does signify the Divine production 
 of something ne^o, something that did not exist before. See Num. 
 xvi. 30 ; Jer. xxxi. 22.'— Dr. McOawl, Aids to Fai^^, p. 203; also p. 212. 
 This remark that bard does not necessarily imply creation out of 
 nothing is made also by M. Max Miiller in his Chips from a German 
 Workshop, vol. i. chap. vi. ; from which it appears that the opinion 
 of scholars has on this subject changed, and that though it was once 
 thought that bard meant created out of nothing, this exclusive meaning 
 is no longer received. I may add, however, that the connexion in 
 which the word stands in Genesis shows that in that place it means 
 ' created out of nothing,' because ' in the beginning ' means before any- 
 thing existed but the Divine being. 
 
 The word occurs eight times in Genesis, and is in these places always 
 rendered by our translators created. It occurs forty times more in the 
 Old Testament ; and in thirty-two of these it is rendered created; in 
 three, made; and in the other five it has various meanings. The 
 second word occurs three times in Genesis (ch. ii. 7, 8, 19), and 
 is translated formed. The third word, which occurs 154 times in 
 Genesis, is not once rendered created; it is eighty-eight times did or 
 done; forty-five times made; and twenty-one times hasother meanings, 
 regulated by the context. This word occurs about 2700 times in the 
 Old Testament, and I believe is not once translated created. In short, 
 the first word (bard) appears to he used only when something new is 
 made, which did not exist before ; the third word (asdh) appears to 
 have a more general application, meaning made, without specifying 
 whether absolutely new or not : it seems never to be translated created, 
 
OF INTERPRETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 41 
 
 may be paraphrased as follows. The language of this passage 
 of Scripture consists of statements, and not of explanations ; 
 and, therefore, how far it pleased the Almighty to work by 
 ordinary means, as in the daily government of the physical 
 
 so as to confine it to that idea ; but it is, nevertheless, occasionally, 
 used of things created, as in Gen. i. 26, compared with v. 27. 
 
 It is the third of the three words which is used in the Fourth 
 Commandment, and not the first. For in six days the Lord made 
 heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. The work of tlie 
 six days is here described, in which Sod did not now bring the wcirld 
 into existence, having done that ' in the beginning,' but re-moulded 
 previously existing matter, and prepared the earth, and the sea, and 
 the clouds, and the atmosphere (or heaven), for man's reception. 
 
 Dr. Colenso, at p. 92 of his Part IV., represents me as basing my 
 statement, that Gen. i, 1 refers to the original creation of matter ' in 
 the beginning,' and the Fourth Commandment to a subsequent 
 re-arrangement of that matter in the six days, on the English Trans- 
 lation. What I say is this, that in the passages, ' In the beginning 
 God created {bard) the heaven and the earth,' and Exod. xx. U 'In 
 six days the Lord made [asdh) heaven and earth,' not only are two 
 different words — ' created ' and ' made ' — used in our translation, but 
 two different words are also used in the Hebrew ; and that, by a 
 collation of all the passages where these two words occur, it may be 
 seen that the second {asdh) has a wide range of meanings, while the 
 other {bard) has not. In this difference of words I find, I think, u. 
 confirmation of the thought, derived from other and independent 
 premises, that in Gen. i. 1 the original creation of matter may be 
 referred to, while in Exod xx. 11 only a re-arrangement of the same 
 matter may be spoken of. It might be inferred from Dr. Colenso's 
 remarks on what he quotes from my Fourth Edition, that the fact of 
 the sacred writer using these two distinct words is the ground of my 
 argument. This is not the case. This philological basis is too slight 
 to erect upon it such an inference : but it may be regarded, as far as 
 it goes, as confirming the thought arrived at in another way. With 
 reference to his remark in p. 94, 1 would say, that though this view 
 does not satisfy him, it does me till a better is propounded. I do not 
 feel it to be a ' broken reed .... piercing .... the hands that 
 leant upon it.' Exod. xx. 11 might well be translated, ' For in six 
 days the Lord fashioned heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in 
 them is, and rested the seventh day.' 
 
4:2 NATUEAL-DAY THEORY 
 
 world at present, and how far by miracle, it is impossible to 
 say. All I propose to do is to show how it is possible to 
 translate the language into that of physical occurrences, on 
 the supposition that the days are natural days. 
 
 On the first day, while the earth was ' without form and 
 void,' the result of a previous revolution on its surface, ' and 
 darkness was upon the face of the deep,' God commanded 
 light to shine upon the earth. This may have been effected * 
 by such a clearing of the thick and loaded atmosphere as 
 would allow the light of the sun to penetrate its mass with 
 a sufiused illumination, sufficient to dispel the total dark- 
 ness which prevailed, but proceeding from a source not yet 
 apparent on the earth. On the second daj^ a separation took 
 place in the thick vapoury mass which lay upon the earth, 
 dense clouds were gathered up aloft, and separated from the 
 waters and vapours below by an ' expanse,' the word rightly 
 substituted in the margin of our Bibles for ' firmament.' On 
 the third day, the lower vapours, or fogs and mists, which 
 still concealed the earth, were condensed, and gathered, with 
 the other waters on the earth, into seas — we may suppose 
 by the upheaval of the ocean-bed in some places — and the 
 dry land appeared. Then grass and herbs began to grow. 
 On the fourth day, the clouds and vapours were so rolled 
 into separate masses, or even altogether absorbed into the air, 
 that the sun shone forth in all its brilliancy, the visible source 
 of light and heat to the renovated earth, while the moon 
 and the stars gave light by night; and God appointed 
 them henceforth for signs and for seasons, for days and for 
 years, to the rational beings whom He was about to call into 
 existence ; as He afterwards set or appointed the rainbow, 
 which had appeared ages before, to be a sign to Noah and his 
 
 * This view of the light of the sun, temporarily obscured, strug- 
 gling through the earth's vapoury atmosphere, and not shining fully 
 on the earth till the fourth day, is not peculiar to the natural-day 
 interpreters. 
 
OP INTERPRETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 43 
 
 descendants. On the fifth and sixth days the waters and the 
 earth brought forth living creatures, and man was created. 
 
 ' We hold the week of the first chapter of Genesis,' writes 
 Dr. Chalmers, ' to have been literally a week of miracles, the 
 period of a great creative interposition, during which by so 
 many successive evolutions the present economy was raised 
 out of the wreck and materials of the one which had gone 
 before.' That the Creation of Man was a signal act of Divine 
 power, not brought about by secondary causes, we must, at 
 any rate, admit. Why, then, should there be any hesitation 
 in supposing that the great changes which preceded this act 
 were due to an equally direct exercise of Creative Agency 1 
 It has been said, that if we have to accept the theory that 
 the week of creation was a week of miracles, the whole 
 question is placed beyond our criticisms ; and we may just 
 as readily at once admit, that all the tribes of creatures 
 which geology reveals were created during those six natural 
 days. But an examination of the fossils themselves must 
 soon dispel such a notion. They exhibit the varied effects 
 and accidents of ordinary vegetable and animal life to such a 
 degree, as to make it far more difficult for us to suppose 
 that these circumstances have been imitated in a miraculous 
 existence and destruction of these creatures in a few days, 
 than that the physical changes, as above described, may 
 have taken place in the same time. That the fossils should 
 have been created as they are found, with scattered bones 
 and broken shells, is a notion, of course, too foolish to be 
 entertained for a moment. 
 
 The particulars of the above paraphrase may be capable 
 of improvement. Hereafter, some better one may be 
 advanced upon this natural-day hypothesis. I had given 
 this, as I have already said, only in order to indicate, that on 
 the hypothesis of the days being natural days, a consistent 
 interpretation can be given to the passage, as an account of 
 actual occurrences, and that the account so interpreted 
 
44 
 
 PERIOD-DAT THEORY 
 
 advances nothing really contradictory to Science. I do not 
 consider that Scripture receives any confirmation from 
 Science by this interpretation ; but I contend that it meets 
 with no contradiction from it. According to this view, the 
 first chapter of Genesis does not pretend (as has generally 
 been assumed) to be a cosmogony, or an account of the 
 original creation of the material universe. The only cos- 
 mogony which it contains, in that sense, is confined to the 
 sublime declaration of the first verse : ' In the beginning God 
 created the heaven and the earth.' Then stepping over an 
 interval of indefinite ages, with which the human race has 
 no direct concern, the inspired record proceeds at once to 
 narrate the events preparatory to the introduction of man on 
 the scene, employing phraseology strictly faithful to the 
 appearances which would have met the eye of man, could he 
 have been a spectator on the earth of what passed during 
 those six days.* 
 
 The other method of interpretation has been adopted by 
 various writers. According to this view, the six days are 
 Second or period- i™3giie<i ^0 be, not days of the ordinary kind, 
 
 day theory. -\^-^^ periods of enormous duration, and not 
 necessarily of equal length. In this way the first of the three 
 difficulties I have mentioned is at once met ; since, on this 
 
 * It has been suggested that even v. 1 may refer to the six days' 
 creation, and that there is no interval between that and the second 
 verse. In this case geological time would be prior to v. 1. This 
 interpretation would have the advantage of making the language of 
 the fourth commandment coincide more simply with that of the first 
 chapter of Genesis, than when we have to exclude the first verse, and 
 point out that the word ' made ' is used, and not ' created.' But it is 
 obvious, I should say, that St. John, in using the phrase ' In the 
 beginning' at the commencement of his Gospel, made a distinct refer- 
 ence to the same phrase at the commencement of Genesis. In 
 St. John's Gospel, there can be no question that it means in the 
 beginning of all created things, and not the present order of things, 
 as the declaration of the eternity of the Son of God is the apostle's 
 object. This, then, must be the meaning in Genesis. 
 
OF INTERPRETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 45 
 
 view, no limit -whatever is assigned to the age of the earth. 
 In support of this it is argued that the word ' day ' is not 
 always used in Scripture to mean a period of twenty- four 
 hours, and that even within the space of the first thirty-five 
 verses of Genesis the word has three separate meanings, viz. 
 a day of daylight ; a day of an evening and morning (Gen. i. 
 5) ; and a day which seemingly includes the whole six days 
 of creation (Gen. ii. 4). The six days' narrative is taken to 
 he an account of the creation, during these enormous periods 
 of time, of the innumerable animals and plants which are 
 found fossil in the strata ; which are, therefore, not passed 
 over in silence in this account, as they are supposed to be 
 according to the other hypothesis. The second of the three 
 discoveries of geology is thus accounted for. Mr. Miller, one 
 of the advocates of this theory, considers that he can identify 
 the work of the third, fifth, and sixth days respectively — 
 when plants (i. 11 — 13), sea-monsters and creeping things 
 (i. 20—23), and cattle with beasts of the earth (i. 24, 25) were 
 made — with what geologists called the palaeozoic, the meso- 
 zoic, and the kainozoic periods,* in which the copious flora 
 producing the coal-measures, the huge saurian animals, and 
 mammalia, are the distinguishing fossils. ' By evening and 
 morning ' he understands a diminution and increase in the 
 existences, vegetable or animal, by which the periods are 
 most prominently characterised. No meaning is assigned to 
 these terms for the other three days — the first, second, and 
 fourth. The third difficulty, regarding the non-appearance 
 of the sun, moon, and stars till the fourth period, although 
 light must have existed previously, is met very much as 
 under the former method of interpretation, though without 
 so simple an explanation of the cause of their obscuration 
 
 * That is, three geological ages, in which the fossil creatures are 
 supposed to be of ancient, middle, and recent types ; corresponding 
 with the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary divisions of rocks and 
 formations. 
 
46 THEORIES OF INTERPRETING GENESIS OHAP. I. 
 
 throughout the long interval of the first, second, and third 
 periods.* 
 
 Both these theories of interpretation, it -will be seen, 
 furnish a solution of the three difficulties I have enumerated, 
 as advanced by modern Science against the old method of 
 understanding this chapter. The charge against Scripture 
 and Science that they are here at variance, falls therefore to 
 the ground, as no contradiction is established. It is clear, 
 liowever, that both these theories of explanation cannot be 
 true, though neither may advance anything positively at 
 variance with this brief statement of Scripture. Mr. Goodwin 
 makes this difference of interpretation a matter of triumph, 
 in his Essay on ' Mosaic Cosmogony,' and founds on it the 
 illogical conclusion that both are wrong; and more than 
 this, that the Mosaic account itself is untrue ! He entirely 
 passes by the several points in which the interpreters 
 concur : viz. that the account in Genesis is true ; that it 
 was communicated to the writer by inspiration ; that it 
 teaches that matter is not eternal ; that God created matter 
 in the beginning ; that the beginning may have been, and 
 probably was, countless ages ago ; that the document 
 describes a creation which was distributed over six portions 
 of time ; that man was created out of the dust in the sixth 
 period ; that the Sabbath was instituted, for the benefit of 
 man, in commemoration of this work. The points on which 
 they differ are these : (1) whether the six days are ordinary 
 days or not : (2) whether the brief account of what occurred 
 in these six periods is sufficiently full to justify us in expecting 
 to find in the records of terrestrial changes such corresponding 
 traces of phenomena as may enable us to test the truth of 
 the narrative. It is upon these points alone that the 
 theories are 'mutually destructive.' But these are points 
 which affect the explicitness of the narrative, not its truth. 
 Both accounts agree in considering that the general idea of 
 * Testimony of the Rocks, p. 152. 
 
THEORIES OP INTERPEETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 47 
 
 orderly succession was mainly wliat the narrative was 
 intended to convey. 
 
 Though, however, I write in this general way when 
 arguing against a common opponent, without any hesitation 
 I adopt the first of the two methods of interpretation. I 
 proceed now to, give at length my reasons for this. 
 
 Before entering upon a comparison of these two methods 
 of exposition,* I would observe, that it is difficult to see 
 any good ground for supposing, as some have Qg^^gi^ j „„t ^ 
 done, that the revelation of these truths was vision, 
 made to Moses by vision. That they were supernaturally 
 communicated is evident, as they refer to transactions which 
 occurred before the creation of man ; but one method of 
 communication is as easy to the Almighty as another ; and 
 no special reason is apparent why that of vision should have 
 been chosen. In other cases where information was given in 
 vision, this is expressly stated by the prophet to whom the 
 vision was vouchsafed. Eut here there is not the slightest 
 intimation to that effect. The verses in question bear all the 
 marks of being a plain narrative, precisely such as an ob- 
 server, had he been present, would have given. This mode 
 of description is the one we often adopt in describing scenes 
 to others who have not witnessed them : we treat them as 
 actual spectators, at the time, of what we are describing. This 
 method gives the liveliest and most durable impression of 
 what we are describing. In the fourth commandment, 
 these verses are, unquestionably, referred to as history. 
 
 Dr. Rorisont has suggested that they are a Psalm of 
 Creation ; and, after others who have preceded him in this, 
 he points out that the verses follow the rules of parallelism, 
 such as Bishop Lowth discovered in the Psalms and the 
 Prophets. There can be no objection to this, if the psalm 
 
 * Should my readers not be interested in this discussion, they 
 may pass over 27 pages to page 73, where it ends, 
 t Replies to Essays and Reviews, pp. 281 — 286. 
 
48 REASONS FOR REJECTING THE PERIOD-DAY 
 
 be taken to be an historical psalm. If I mistake not, how- 
 ever, Dr. Eorison does not take this view, and in so far I 
 decidedly differ from him. He seems to consider that there 
 are no chronological marks whatever in the narrative ; that 
 the expression, ' The evening was, and the morning was,' is 
 merely a poetical refrain, to mark the change of chorus 
 where the subjects of the poem change ; and that the 
 number seven is mystic* 
 
 I wiU now enter upon mj' reasons for rejecting the period-day 
 theory of explanation, and for accepting the natural-day theory. 
 
 The fact of the alternations of light and darkness being 
 distinctly defined as Day and Night in Gen. i. 5, is, in mj' 
 Objections to the ^ind, a strong argument in favour of natural 
 period-day theory, ^^f^yg^ ^^^^^ against periods. For what is the 
 primary meaning of Day and Night? — and surely the primary 
 and currently-used meaning must be designed here, where 
 they are given as definitions. Any other meaning (such as 
 in John ix. 4: 'I must work .... whUe it is day, the night 
 Cometh wherein no man can work') is secondary and figura- 
 tive, and derived from the primary one. 
 
 The use assigned to the sun and moon and stars, which 
 are made to shine upon the earth on the fourth day, viz., to 
 be ' for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years ' 
 (i. 14) — seems clearly intended for the advantage of God's in- 
 tellectual creature, man. But upon the period system of 
 interpretation, he was not created to enjoy this benefit for 
 myriads of years after it was prepared for him — all the 
 animal existences on the earth, the work of the fifth and 
 sixth days, intervening before man's appearance. There is 
 something incongruous in this. 
 
 The visible appearance of the sun on the fourth day, in 
 
 the midst of the week, furnishes a conclusive argument for 
 
 natural days, if the term, ' and evening was, and mornino- 
 
 was' — which occurs six times— is to be interpreted consist- 
 
 * Replies to Essays mid Reviews, pp. 333 — 336. 
 
iiiiiUttl UJt llNTIiKJt-KKTIiNU UJilNESlS CHAr. I. 49 
 
 ently throughout. For it may be fairly assumed that the 
 heavenly hodies began at once to fulfil the functions assigned 
 to them, -viz. 'the greater light to rule the day, and the 
 lesser light to rule the night' (i. 16) ; and therefore the fifth 
 and sixth days, at least, must have been ordinary days of 
 twenty-four hours each ; and as they -vvere of sufiicient length 
 for the works belonging to them, the first, second, third, and 
 fourth may well have been sufiicient for iheir respective 
 works. The description ' evening was, and morning was,' 
 being the same, the day must be homogeneous. 
 
 Mr. Birks well remarks, that ordinal numbers never occur 
 either in the Bible or elsewhere, when words of time are 
 used as indefinite periods. And he adds, that the reason is 
 plain : two, three, four indefinite periods make only one in- 
 definite period. The simple fact that the days are numbered 
 from the first to the sixth, is thus a clear proof that definite 
 periods or days are meant. 
 
 The dominion given to Adam over the creatures, the 
 creation of which have been described, and the use assigned 
 to the fruit-trees, viz. that they should be for food to Adam 
 (i. 28, 29), caii, by no contrivance, be made to refer to the- 
 flora of the coal-measures, and the saurians and mammals 
 which, according to the period-theory, had been for ages buried 
 in the earth as fossil deposits ! 
 
 The wording of the fourth commandment appears to me 
 opposed to the view of periods. The spirit of the command- 
 ment, I admit, is the same whatever the duration of the days 
 be. But the wording appears to forbid the period interpre- 
 tation. Exod. XX. 8 : ' Eemember the Sabbath-day to keep 
 it holj^ 9. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work. 
 10. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God r 
 in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy 
 daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy 
 cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates : 11. For in 
 six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all 
 
50 REASONS FOR REJECTING THE PERIOD-DAY 
 
 that in them is, and rested the seventh-day : wherefore the 
 Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it.' Is it not a 
 harsh and forced interpretation to suppose that the ' six days ' 
 in V. 9 do not mean the same as the.' six days ' in v. 11, but 
 that in this last place they mean periods? In reading 
 through the eleventh verse, it is extremely difficult to believe 
 that the ' seventh day' is a long period and the 'Sabbath-day' 
 an ordinary day ; that is, that the same word ' day ' should 
 be used in two such totally different senses in the same short 
 sentence, and without explanation. 
 
 There is one argument advanced for the period-theory 
 which appears to me hardly worthy of being mentioned. It 
 is said, that God's work of creation is not going on now, and 
 that the formula ' and evening was, and morning was,' is not 
 recorded for the seventh day, because His Sabbath rest is 
 still going on. Hence the seventh day of the creation-week 
 being a long period of time, the six working days must have 
 been so too. But there are two replies to this. It proves 
 too much. God's rest from the six days' work will last 
 through eternity; and therefore each of the sis periods 
 should have been of eternal duration to keep up the analogy. 
 Again ; it is the fact of a cessation after six days' work which 
 is taught by the analogy of the creation-week, and not the 
 length of the rest. Six days did God work, and then ceased. 
 Six days we are commanded to do our ordinary work, and 
 then to rest. The Almighty's work during the creation-week 
 is once done and not repeated. Man has again to enter upon 
 his ordinary occupations, and to spend his life in a cycle : 
 and therefore the length of his rest is fixed, and it is ap- 
 pointed to be one day after six (Gen. ii. 3 ; Exod. xx. 10), 
 when he begins his routine again. Too much is made, 
 moreover, as it appears to me, of God's now resting from 
 work, and human ideas are mixed up with divine in an un- 
 warrantable manner. Surely the upholding of all things, the 
 ordering of all things in heaven and earth, and the work of 
 
THEORY OP INTEEPRETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 51 
 
 redeeming a ruined world, are undertakings as arduous — I 
 speak \^ath reverence, and am forced into this strain by the 
 language of the opposite side — as the creation of the world, 
 to Him who ' spake and it was done, who commanded and it 
 stood fast ' (Ps. xxxiLi. 9). Mr. Miller, indeed, justly feeling 
 the greatness of the scheme of redemption, is unable either 
 to leave it out of the estimate of the Divine doings or to 
 abstain from calling it a ' work.' His theory, therefore, of 
 periods, which compels him to consider that God is now 
 resting from His work of creation, compels him also to adopt 
 the inconsistent course of assigning other work in the new 
 creation now going on. ' The work of Eedemption may be 
 the work of God's Sabbath-day.' * 
 
 These six arguments which I have given against the 
 period-theory are quite independent of any geological facts or 
 speculations. The advocates of that theory draw their chief 
 arguments from this source. Arguments can be drawn on 
 the opposite side also from geological research. The follow- 
 ing is an example. 
 
 The late M. D'Orbigny, in his Prodrome de Palceonfolorjie,-^- 
 by an elaborate examination of vast multitudes of fossils, 
 gives reason to believe that there have been at least twenty- 
 nine periods of animal and vegetable existence, that is, 
 twenty-nine creations, separated one from another by cata- 
 strophes which have swept away the species existing at the 
 
 * Testimony of the Bocks, p. 153. See Christian Observer, July, 
 1858, and The Bible and Modern Thought. Second edition. 
 
 Bishop Wordsworth, in his comment on Gen. i. 5, after observing 
 that there must have been death in the geological periods, says, ' But 
 the Days of Creation, as represented in the Book of Genesis, are not 
 Days of Death, there is no place for death in them ; they are days of 
 creation only : and God saw everything that He had made in them, 
 and behold it was wy-y good, v. 31 . But death is not good ; it is evil : 
 therefore, God saw no death in them ; it was not there.' 
 
 t See Lardner's Museum of Science and Art, Vol. xii., Pre- 
 Adamite Earth, pp. 5, 37, 38, 120, 155. 
 
52 REASONS FOR REJECTING THE PERIOD-DAY 
 
 time, -ffitli a verj few solitary exceptions, never exceeding 
 one and a half per cent of the whole number discovered, 
 which have either survived the catastrophe, or have heen 
 erroneously designated. M. D'Orbigny states that both 
 animals and plants appeared in every one of these twenty- 
 nine periods. This is quite irreconcilable with the period 
 theory. The parallel is destroyed both in the number of the 
 periods — thirty, including the azoic, instead of six — and also 
 in the character of the things created. To say that only the 
 more important ones were announced in Genesis, is to resign 
 the office of interpreter altogether. But I consider geology 
 to be a science so young, still growing and so frequently 
 shifting its ground, that arguments drawn from the specula- 
 tions it gives rise to are not to be trusted in this grave 
 inquir}^, in which Scripture and Nature are brought into 
 comparison. 
 
 Besides these objections to the period theory, it appears 
 to me that the several methods of applying that theory all 
 Fach method of ^^^^ "^ some important particular. Thus, to 
 apijiyingthe begin with Mr. Miller's method. How ill do 
 
 period taeory ° 
 
 fails somewiiere hig three illustrations from the fossils of the 
 pala30zoic, secondary, and tertiary deposits, with their dawn 
 and decline, suit the description of the work of the third, 
 fifth, and sixth days, with their ' evening and morning.' 
 On the third day grass and ' the fruit tree yielding fruit ' 
 (v. 11), meant 'for meat' for man (v. 29), were created. 
 Though edible fruit might have been found in the palmaceaj, 
 cycadacere, and coniferas, which abound in the coal measures, 
 yet, what is to be made of ' evening and morning ? ' If 
 ' evening and morning ' of these periods mean the decline and 
 dawn of species (it is aieoessary to invert the terms from 
 their natural order), what can this expression mean when 
 iised for the other periods, when no plants or animals were 
 created? Assuredly, the Hebrews could derive no other 
 idea from the words than that the literal evening and 
 
THEORY OF INTEEPItETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 53 
 
 morning of the day were meant. There is another point, 
 too, in which IMr. Miller's illustrations fail. They are by no 
 means characteristic of the loliole of the respective periods to 
 which they belong, hut only of some part, and that, perhaps, 
 only a small part, and are obviously selected because they 
 best suit the description in Genesis. And more than this ; 
 this interpretation would make it appear that the strata 
 testify to the fact, that the earth was first covered with a 
 flora, and that afterwards living creatures appeared (as 
 described in Genesis) : whereas geologists inform us, that 
 animal and vegetable life first appeared on the earth at one 
 and the same time. 
 
 Let us next take Dr. M'Gaul's interpretation.* I cannot 
 but think that his accommodation of the nebular hypothesis 
 of Laplace — which, though a highly ingenious hypothesis, 
 is, after all, a mere hypothesis, with various scientific diffi- 
 culties besetting it, — to the elucidation of the account of 
 creation, is very hazardous. Is it wise to mix up Scripture 
 interpretation with a theory of planetary evolution so utterly 
 uncertain as this is ? Our first-rate works on astronomy do 
 not even allude to it.t Ifor is the aid which the theory, 
 were it true, would bring to his interpretation, of any use. 
 The theory is briefly this : that myriads of ages ago, the 
 planetary space was filled with an enormous gaseous globe 
 of great heat revolving on an axis ; that as the heat radiated 
 
 * Aids to Faith, p. 212. 
 
 + Sir John Herschel, in Ms Astronomy, and Mr. Grant, in his 
 History of Physical Astronomy, both standard works, make no men- 
 tion of it. Humboldt, in Ms Cosmos, in the passages referred to by 
 Dr. M'CauI (i. 85, 90, and iv. 163), cannot properly be said ' to take it 
 for granted.' His language in the first and second passages is : ' // 
 the planets have been' so formed ; and, in the tMrd passage, he speaks 
 of the primitive internal heat of our planet, ' generated ^osstJ^y by the 
 condensation of a rotating nebulous ring.' The latest difficulty which 
 has appeared, viz. that the sateUites of Uranus revolve the wrong 
 way, appears fatal to the theory. 
 
54 EEASONS FOR EEJECTING THE PEEIOD-DAY 
 
 into space the mass contracted, and the velocity of rotation 
 therefore increased; that during the process of contraction 
 the globe threw ofif a ring of matter at its equator, when the 
 centrifugal force became greater than the attraction of the 
 globe ; that in this way successive rings of irregular thickness 
 have been thrown off, which each contracted into a planet 
 itself revolving on an axis ; and the satellites were formed 
 in the same way from the planets. Geometry shows that 
 this theory remarkably accounts for the facts in the solar 
 system as it was known in the time of Laplace.* Dr. M'Caul 
 considers that it accounts for the earth being spoken of in 
 Genesis as in existence before the sun. He allows that the 
 whole nebulous mass ' must have been created at one and the 
 same time in the beginning ; ' but he appears to consider 
 that the vapoury ring, out of which the earth was formed, 
 according to the hypothesis, became a globe sooner than the 
 central mass did. There is no reason whatever for this. 
 Indeed, the central mass would have been a globe, a globe of 
 continually diminishing dimensions, from the beginning, and 
 through all the changes ; whereas the nebuloiis ring could 
 not have become a globe for long after the central mass had 
 contracted within the limit of the earth's orbit. The heat 
 which the central mass would radiate away (the loss of which 
 is supposed to have produced the contraction of its dimen- 
 sions) would keep up the heat of the nebulous ring, and thus 
 retard its contraction into its present dimensions. Again, 
 the theory suggests nothing whatever regarding the lumin- 
 osity of the nebulous matter. The hypothesis is merely a 
 mechanical contrivance for suggesting how the peculiar 
 motions and positions of the bodies of the solar system may 
 possibly have been acquired from a primitive cause. The 
 Sun's being furnished therefore with a luminous atmosphere 
 
 * Professor Huxley says, that Kant first propounded this hypo- 
 thesis in 1755. See Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, p. 263. 
 Laplace was bom in 1749. 
 
THEORY OF INTERPRETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 55 
 
 on the fourth day, as supposed, by Dr. M'Caul, is not taken 
 from this theory, hut is borrowed from Genesis, which it is 
 his object to explain. Again, he explains God's making the 
 greater light to rule the day, to mean His giving to the 
 opaque mass of the sun a luminous atmosphere. But the 
 moon is spoken of in Genesis in precisely the same language 
 as the sun, except that it is only of less intensity. But the 
 moon has no luminous atmosphere, but shines only by 
 borrowed light. Again, he uses the same nebular hypothesis 
 to explain the fact which geologists have announced, that 
 none of the fossil plants or animals indicate the existence of 
 climatic distinctions during any age previous to the present 
 or human period. He assumes that the whole of the palaeo- 
 zoic, secondary, and tertiary fossils were created, flourished, 
 and perished during the first and second days of the creative 
 week, that is, before the sun had become the centre of light 
 and heat to the earth, and therefore before the present 
 seasons and varieties of climate had begun ; that the works 
 of the third and following days were a preparation of the 
 earth for the reception of man ; and that the plants and 
 animals then created are the progenitors of the present flora 
 and fauna.* But, in reply to this, I would say, that tUl the 
 third day there was no visible dry land, and yet in the ter- 
 tiary deposits, at least, there are multitudes of fossils of 
 terrestrial animals and trees. Then, lastly, what were 
 ' evening and morning ' on the fourth and following days on 
 this hypothesis, if they were not the ordinary diurnal 
 evening and morning 1 And if they were so, is there not a 
 want of homogeneity in the interpretation of this formula, 
 which occurs six times in the narrative, as Dr. M'Caul 
 
 * Aids to Faith, pp. 217—219. At p. 217, 1, 6, he says that the 
 first two days 'may' include the primary, secondary, and tertiary 
 formations. But, in the last line, he assumes the truth of this when 
 he says that, the dry land appearing on the third day, the tertiary 
 world was buried by the rise of the ocean. 
 
56 REASONS FOB REJECTING THE PERIOD-DAY 
 
 expressly asserts that 'the first three days were not measured 
 by the interval between sun-set and sun-set, yb)', as yet, the 
 sun [according to his hypothesis] was not perfect, and had 
 no light r 
 
 Professor ChaUis adopts the idea that the days were 
 periods, and supposes that the sun was created in the begin- 
 ning, but was prevented from, illuminating the earth during 
 the first three periods by a vast stratum of vapour, which 
 vapour he imagines to have been luminous on the first, second, 
 and third days, but to have been in such a state of dis- 
 quietude during the darkness which separated them, when 
 preparation was taldng place for the work of the following 
 day, as to have lost its luminosity, and so to have produced 
 the nights between the periods.* On the fourth the vapor- 
 ous clouds break up and the sun shines forth in its bright- 
 ness, and henceforth becomes the regulator of night and day 
 as at present. Hitherto the ' evening and morning ' have 
 been the alternations of darkness and light, as the thick 
 nimbus thrice lost and twice regained its brightness. But 
 although the sun rules throughout the remainder of the 
 creative week, the ' evening and the morning,' for consist- 
 enoj' sake, is not considered that ' evening and morning ' 
 
 * Creation in Plan and Progress, pp. 19 — 40. The theory of this 
 book is, that in the portion of Scripture "we are considering, God gives 
 a Plan of Creation, and that in the subsequent portion and in nature 
 we have a representation of Creation in Progress ; and that it does not 
 necessarily follow that the progress has followed the plan precisely in 
 all particulars. Professor ChaUis makes much of Genesis ii. 4, 5, as 
 rendered in the English version and in the LXX, which seems to teach 
 that God made plants, &c., in one sense (in plan) before He made 
 them in another (that is, actually in the earth). But these verses may 
 be better translated. The word rendered in our version ' before,' means 
 also 'not yet,' as in 1 Sam. iii. 7. These verses ivill then read as 
 follows : — ' These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth 
 when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the 
 earth and the heavens, then no plant of the field was yet in the earth, 
 and no herb of the field had yet grown ; for the Lord God had 
 
THEOBY OF INTERPEETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 57 
 
 which the settmg and rising of the sun once in twenty-four 
 hours actually produced, but something else,* which, how- 
 ever, the theory does not explain, for no notice is taken of 
 the formula ' evening was, and morning was,' on the fourth, 
 fifth, and sixth days. Here is again the same want of homo- 
 geneity, in the explanation of this formula as before, and 
 which of itself seems to me fatal to these theories of inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 Dr. Dawson, another advocate of the period scheme, has 
 a theory regarding the creation of man and the dominion 
 given to him over the creatures, wliich he thinks greatly 
 strengthens the hypothesis of periods. He asserts that 
 carnivorous animals are not mentioned, but behemahs, or 
 herbivorous animals, among the creatures over whom Adam 
 was given dominion. He supposes that Adam was created 
 at the end of the sixth period, along with a group of 
 creatures adapted to contribute to his happiness and having 
 no tendency to injure or annoy, and that they are alluded 
 to in Gen. ii. 19, 20, and that Eden was the region which 
 they inhabited. But that in the regions around, and all over 
 the earth, were the descendants of animals created in the 
 earlier times of that period, and not all endowed with the 
 harmless dispositions of the latest groups. The cursing of 
 
 not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till 
 the ground.' This entirely cuts away the ground from under this 
 interpretation. 
 
 If, indeed, we retain the present English translation of the passage, 
 which has the support of the Septuaglnt, it by no means implies that 
 God designed one thing and in the act of Creation produced some- 
 thing different to it. But it rather implies that God created the 
 vegetable kingdom in the stage of plants, herbs, trees — all containing 
 in themselves the power of reproduction when the proper influences 
 of moisture and heat came to act ; — and that He did not create it 
 only as seed in the first instance. And similarly He created man and 
 woman in their adult condition, and not in some earlier and more 
 helpless stage of existence, through which their offspring would pass. 
 
 * Creation in Plan and Progress, p. 41. 
 
58 REASONS FOR REJECTING THE PERIOD-DAY 
 
 the ground for man's sake, on his fall from innocence, con- 
 sisted in the permission given to the predaceous animals and 
 the thorns and the briers, of other centres of creation, to 
 invade man's Eden ; or, in his own expulsion, to contend 
 with the animals and plants which were intended to have 
 given way and become extinct before him. He assumes that 
 many animals, contemporaneous with man, extend far back 
 into the tertiary period : and that these creatures, not 
 belonging to the Edonic centre of creation, but introduced 
 in an earlier part of the sixth day, are now permitted to exist 
 along with man in his fallen state. He considers that this 
 view strengthens the probability that the creative days were 
 long periods, and opposes an almost insurmountable obstacle 
 to every other hypothesis of reconciliation with geological 
 science.* But Dr. Dawson's assertion, upon which his theory 
 stands, that the word hehemah (used in Gen. i. 26) means 
 herbivorous creatures exclusively, is not true. Indeed, in v. 
 30, where grass is assigned to the beasts of the earth, the 
 word hehemah is not used, but the other word, which Dr. 
 Dawson takes to mean carnivorous creatures. Moreover, 
 liehemuh- is the word used in Deut. xxviii. 26, which leaves no 
 doubt that it does not mean herbivorous creatures ex- 
 clusively : in Prov. xxx. 30 it is used in reference to a lion. 
 
 Dr. McCausland is another follower of the period theoiy. 
 In his book, Sermons in Stones, there is much in common 
 with others who take that view, and which therefore need 
 not be alluded to here. I will notice some things which are 
 peculiar to him, and which show the difficulties under which 
 his theory labours, in addition to those which are common to 
 the whole class. He finds tliat in the Silurian and Devonian 
 strata there are three classes of submarine animals: (1) zoo- 
 phytes and bivalve mollusks, without visual organs, and 
 which may have existed before light ; (2) the higher classes 
 
 • Archaia, or Studies of the Cosmogony and Natural History of 
 the Hebrew Scriptures, pp. 215-222. 
 
THEORY OP INTERPRETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 59 
 
 of mollusks and crustaceans, furnislied with organs of sight, 
 and which must have come into existence after the creation 
 of light ; and (3) the still higher class of vertebrate fish. 
 The first class, he asserts, (though nothing of the sort is 
 stated in Genesis), were created on the first day, before the 
 dawn of light ; the next on the second day, after the appear- 
 ance of light; and the third, contemporaneously with land 
 vegetation, on the third day. How can he venture to make 
 these assertions, when it was on the fifth day or period, and 
 not sooner, ' that the waters brought forth the moving 
 creature that hath life?'* He finds it all in the second 
 verse, ' And the Spirit of God brooded upon the face of the 
 waters,' and brought into existence these marine creatures. 
 He explains the fact of nothing being said of these creations 
 in Genesis, by adding that as this work was spread over, as 
 he assigns it, three days, and could not be appropriated to 
 one only, it was not more particularly mentioned, and, in 
 fact, ' ought not to have formed part of the Mosaic narrative ! '+ 
 Dr. McCausland follows Mr. Miller in regarding the whole as 
 being a vision, and observes that Moses could not see or hear 
 what was going on beneath the waters, and therefore this 
 intimation, of the brooding of the Spirit on the surface, was 
 given instead.:}: How, then, did Moses see the creatures 
 which ' the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind ' 
 (v. 21)? Dr. McCausland draws out more forcibly than any 
 of his co-theorists the correspondence between the work of 
 
 * Dr. McCausland makes much of the Hebrew word sheretz, trans- 
 lated ' moving creature ' (Gen . i. 20), and says it should be reptile, as 
 the verb means to creep. He thus excludes fish from the fifth day, 
 and admits only reptiles, and hence saurians. But the word also means 
 to swarm, and, being applied to Pharaoh's frogs (Bxod. viii. 3) which 
 did not creep, but hop, must have a more general meaning. Gesenius's 
 meanings are — 1. To multiply or propagate itself abundantly. 2. To 
 creep, crawl, swarm. 
 
 f Sermons in Stones, 1857, p-p. 154, 155, 170. 
 
 t Ibid. p. 156. 
 
60 REASONS FOR REJECTING THE PERIOD-DAY 
 
 the third day (when the earth, enveloped in a vapoury 
 atmosphere, and not fully shone upon by the sun, was clothed 
 in vegetation) and the existence of the coal-fields ; and the 
 unwary reader may, doubtless, be carried away into admira- 
 tion of the parallel so eloquently described. But what 
 are the contents of these fossil coal-fields, even on Dr. 
 McCausland's own showing? Half, at least, are of the fern 
 or bracken tribe, and the rest cryptogamic and flowerless 
 plants. ■•" Where, then, is the ' fruit-tree yielding fruit after 
 his kind,' described in Gen. i. 11 ? How can so minute a 
 depictor of striking coincidences have passed by this fatal 
 discrepancy? 'The evening and the morning,' too, meets 
 with only a passing notice, as it evidently must stand in the 
 way in the period theory under every form. In one place, 
 indeed, he seems almost to acknowledge, that the effect must 
 have been produced by the sun's alternate rising and 
 setting, when he speaks of the ' dim diurnal light and noc- 
 turnal darkness alternately pervading all.'t If this be the 
 case, it is difficult to reconcile it with his theory of periods. 
 
 Mr. "Warington, in his recent book The Week of Creation, 
 must be regarded as an upholder of the period theory. He 
 regards this portion of Scripture as history, and not a vision 
 or mere ideal representation ; he repeatedly speaks of it as 
 ' a history of creation :' he writes of it as ' a professed reve- 
 lation of otherwise unknown natural facts, whose narration 
 as facts is an essential part of the purpose in view' (p. 5). 
 He says, that it contains ' information of a scientific character, 
 not otherwise obtainable by those to whom it was given ;' but 
 ' to impart such information ' was not 'its proper end' (p. 23) ; 
 ' the aim of the narrative was not to enlarge men's views of 
 nature as such, but, through nature, to teach them concerning 
 nature's God' (p. 27). 'But we have a right to expect that 
 the truths taught shall be in harmony with the results of 
 science .... and that the facts alleged as embodiments 
 * Sermons in Stones, p. 166. f Ibid. p. 186. 
 
THEORY OP INTERPRETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 61 
 
 of these truths shall be really facts, described in language 
 phenomenally correct' (p. 28). He considers, that 'in the 
 six-days' work is to be included the entire history of 
 creation ' (p. 65) ; and that ' these days are without doubt 
 literal days and not long or indefinite periods' (p. 67) ; but 
 yet that we are not to conclude that it was the intention to 
 teach us ' that in six literal days of twenty-four hours each 
 the whole of creation was accomplished from beginning to 
 end ' (p. 67). In reference to this paradox he adds, 'It by no 
 means follows, that because the description speaks of literal 
 days, therefore the realities they described were also days ' 
 (p. 67). This contradiction he attempts to remove in the 
 following way. We read in Scripture of God's arm, God's eye, 
 God's mouth, the words iised mean literally arm, eye, mouth, 
 and nothing else. But the use here made of these words is 
 figurative. This is a distinction which we can clearly under- 
 stand. So he says that we read that ' God went down to 
 see,' that ' God smelled a sweet savour,' and that ' God 
 repented : ' and he adds that the words used mean literally, 
 went down, smelled, and repented. 'Tet we do not ascribe,' 
 he adds, 'any one of these actions literally to God, but we 
 assert that there were actions of God having the like relation 
 to His nature, which these actions, taken literally, have to 
 our nature' (p. 69). All this is intelligible. Causes, or 
 instruments, or actions are put for their effects. Man's arm, 
 eye, mouth represent his strength, knowledge, directing 
 power. So, though in a degree and sense superhuman, the 
 Divine strength, knowledge, and commands are represented 
 by the Divine arm, eye, mouth, as if the Deity were really 
 possessed of those parts. This idea he applies thus to the 
 case in hand. The six days are literal days; but as the 
 terms occur in a description of the Divine acts, they may 
 really represent something else. This I will admit is possible. 
 But loliat else? Analogy would say, something similar to 
 what would be an effect of six days in human life and 
 
62 REASONS FOE BEJECTING THE PEEIOD-DAY THEORY. 
 
 practice. But in Mr. Warington's explanation the thing 
 represented is Other Periods of time, only of unknown length, 
 periods long enough for the terrestrial work which geology 
 shows us has been done in a practical mundane way in ages 
 past. The six days represent not any attribute of the Deity, 
 as the arm, eye, and mouth do, or even Time in the abstract; 
 but periods of time, differing from the days merely in being 
 of unknown duration. The analogy, therefore, altogether 
 breaks down. That days might represent periods, I admit, 
 if no valid arguments from other sources exist opposed to the 
 idea — which, in fact, I have already shown there are. But 
 then the historical character of the whole passage, which Mr. 
 Warington attributes to it, must be abandoned. The descrip- 
 tion becomes a mere dramatic representation, and not a history 
 of facts. 
 
 I might quote the works of other upholders of the period 
 theory ; but the references already made will suffice, as they 
 will represent the views of this class of interpreters, and 
 show, I think, the danger of trusting to any such theories of 
 interpretation. It is surprising what analogies an ingenious 
 mind may trace in things which really have nothing in 
 common. By passing by everything which is contrary, and 
 pressing into service everything which is favourable, writers 
 may persuade themselves and the incautious into a belief of 
 almost any theory so constructed. The ready writer, whose 
 ■work Sermons in Stones I have been noticing, comes, appa- 
 rently, under this description. He brings forward several 
 remarkable analogies between the Mosaic account and the 
 record of the earth, and sets them forth in a very striking 
 manner ; but he passes by, unnoticed, with one exception * 
 (which is not, however, met), whatever is opposed to his con- 
 clusions. His analogies, moreover, do not prove an identity. 
 
 * This is, the trilobites with eyes have been subsectuently found 
 lower down than the sightless zoophytes : see pp. 149, 150, and com- 
 pare this with p. 148 of Dr. McCausIand's book. 
 
TUB NATURAL-DAY THEORY ACCEPTED. 63 
 
 There is notliing at all improbable in the idea that the 
 Almighty, in. calling into existence plants and animals at the 
 time when man was created, to be the progenitors of species 
 now existing, should follow in some respects the order of 
 previous creations.* 
 
 IN'o such difficulties as those which beset the period theory 
 stand in the way of our reception of the first method of 
 explanation, in which the days are taken to be xhe natumi-day 
 natural days. Mr. Miller, though he became theory accepted, 
 the advocate of the period theory towards the close of his life, 
 originally maintained the natural-day theory. The argument 
 which turned him from his former view appears to be this : 
 That an examination of the species of the tertiary strata and 
 of the present flora and fauna indicates, that there has been 
 no such break in organic life j)receding the present order of 
 things, as is represented according to this interpretation in 
 Gen. i. 2 — no such ' chaotic gulf of death and darkness.' + 
 M. D'Orbigny has, however, re-examined the fossils, and 
 asserts in his Prodrome de Palceontologie, that not a single 
 species, either vegetable or animal, is common to the tertiary 
 and the human periods : and therefore that, in his opinion, 
 a break did occur previously to the human period, since it is 
 through species, and species alone, that an hereditary stic- 
 cession is kept up.j. This conclusion has since been called 
 in question. AU, then, that can be said is, that when 
 
 * Since writing the above I have met the same sentiment in 
 Dr. M'Cosh's work, The Supernatural in relation to the Natural : 
 ' Who will venture to affirm that God, who has proceeded from the 
 beginning in our Cosmos according to the method of type, that is, 
 model or exemplar .... may not have proceeded by type hkewise in 
 that necessarily wonderful transaction which ushered man upon the 
 scene ? . . . . The account in Genesis may thus be a description of 
 six literal days, as representative of six epoclis.' Pp. 343, 344. 
 
 + Testimony of the Mocks, p. 122. 
 
 t See Lardner's Museum of Science and Art, vol. xii., Pre- Adamite 
 Earth. 
 
64 REASONS FOR ACCEPTING THE NATURAL-DAY 
 
 eminent men differ so materially on the subject, it shows 
 liO"w uncertain their conclusions must be, and how unworthy 
 of being brought into competition with the plain statements 
 of Scripture. The very fact that eminent men differ in 
 opinion, as to the identity of species of the living and fossil 
 creatures, of itself convinces the impartial bj'^stander, that 
 their rules cannot be so free from uncertainty as some would 
 have us take for granted. Certain canons are laid down in 
 natural history, sometimes arbitrary in their character, which 
 have been so long unhesitatingly received, because nothing 
 have arisen to shake confidence in them, that they are regarded 
 as true ; and if a doubt arises, suggested from the side of 
 Scripture, its evidence is regarded as utterly untrustworthy. 
 But there are many instances in which scientific men have 
 been compelled to abandon canons which they have once 
 firmly held. This subject of the exact identity of species of 
 living creatures, and of others seen only in the fossil, and 
 therefore in some degree imperfect, state, is one Avhich seems 
 to be open to serious doubt.* Moreover, as it is clear that 
 there are many new creatures which came into existence with 
 man and never appeared before, why cannot it be believed 
 that some species which existed in former ages were repro- 
 duced ? If apparent identity seems indisputable, I cannot see 
 why we should limit the Almighty in His choice of what He 
 should see right to produce when He refitted the world, 
 after its chaotic condition, for the reception of man. This 
 
 * For example : Professor Huxley writes, ' No one would hesitate 
 to describe the pouter and the tumbler as distinct species, if they were 
 found fossil, or if their skins and skeletons were imported, as those 
 of exotic wild birds commonly are— and, without doubt, if considered 
 alone, they are good and distinct morphological species. On the 
 other hand, they are not physiological species, for they are descended 
 from a common stock, the rock-pigeon .... the pouter and the 
 tumbler breed together with perfect freedom, and their mongrels, if 
 matched with other mongrels of the same kind are equally fertile.' — 
 Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, p. 29S, 299, 
 
THEORY OF INTEEPRETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 65 
 
 whole subject of species has undergone great changes of 
 opinion, and is still in an unsettled state. Even among 
 living creatures a division of species has often been made 
 which has been erroneous. It is now universally admitted 
 that the cases are extremely numerous in which diversities 
 of age have led to the establishment of species which have 
 no existence in nature ; the former, thus distinguished, being 
 those of the same species in different stages of growth.* The 
 cases I have here referred to are instances of species con- 
 sidered at first to be different, which have been afterwards 
 thought to be the same. I do not know of any illustrations 
 of the opposite kind, viz. where species once thought to be 
 the same are found now to be different. But my argument 
 is, that the question of species is an unsettled one, and, 
 therefore, the identification of fossil and living species open 
 to uncertainty. 
 
 In adopting the explanation that the days were literally 
 days of twenty-four hours, we have but to suppose that an 
 interval of untold duration occurred between the first creation 
 of the heaven and the earth (that is, of the planetary and 
 starry heavens and the heaven of heavens and all that they 
 contain, and of the earth, as a member of the solar system), 
 and the preparation of the earth for the reception of man ; 
 that in this interval the plants and animals, which we find 
 fossilized in myriads in the earth's crust, lived, died, and 
 
 * Cyclox>cedia of Ano.tomy find Physiology ,?at . ' Varieties of Man- 
 kind,' p. 302. The following is a recent example of what I have said 
 above : ' In a paper before the Zoological Society, Dr. Giinther, in 
 dealing with the clupsoids of the British Coasts, gave it as his opinion 
 that the whitebait is really a young herring. We are glad to learn the 
 belief of one of the most eminent of European ichthyologists, and the 
 more so as it confirms the opinion expressed ia an article in one of 
 our earlier volumes, in which the writer expressed his conviction that 
 the anatomical affinities of the herring and whitebait were so close as 
 to justify their being grouped into one species.' — The Popular Science 
 Beview, No. 29, October 1868, p. 456. 
 
 F 
 
66 REASONS FOR ACCEPTING THE NATURAL-DAY 
 
 were entombed, to tell, in after ages, tlieir own story ; and 
 that regarding thfese — with which man was not concerned 
 — the Scriptures are silent.* Thus, the three geological 
 discoveries regarding the Antiquity of the Earth, the Exist- 
 ence of Animals and Plants long prior to the appearance of 
 Man, and the Existence of the Sun also prior to the work of 
 the six days, may be true, and yet find no opposition in the 
 statements in the book of Genesis, interpreted according to 
 this theory, which takes the days to be natural days ; and 
 Scripture and Science are found to be not at variance. The 
 six days' creation exhibits a series of creative acts, which 
 terminated in the appearance of the Human Kace upon the 
 scene. The animals and plants then created were the pro- 
 genitors of those which now, possibly with others since 
 created, tenant the earth. 
 
 Mr. Goodwin has attempted to cast upon this interpreta- 
 tion the reproach that it teaches nothing. What ! have 
 these sublime verses taught nothing from age to age since 
 they were revealed? Are the lessons they convey dependent 
 
 * ' There is nothing to connect the time spoken of in Gen. i. 2, with 
 that of the first great declaration of the creation of all things in the 
 betjinning. " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." • 
 Rather, of the forms of speech which could have been chosen to 
 express past time, that has been chosen which least connects the state 
 when the earth was one vast waste, with the time when God created 
 it. Both were in past time ; but there is nothing to connect those 
 times together. First, we have, as far back as thought can reach, 
 creation, in theheginninrj, of all those heavensof heavens through those 
 all-but-boundless realms of space, and of our earth. Then detached 
 from this, a past condition of the earth, — but not a condition in which 
 God, who made all things very good, ever made anything. What 
 follows is connected with this state. First, we have a contemporary 
 condition (as it is expressed in Hebrew), "and darkness upon the face 
 of the deep ;" then a contemporaneous action, of more or less duration, 
 " and the Spirit of God hmoAinrj upon the face of the waters ;" then 
 successive action (as this, too, is expressed in Hebrew), "And God said ;" 
 which is continued on through the rest of the history of the Creation. 
 
THEORY OF INTEKPBETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 67 
 
 upon confirmations, supposed or real, -whicli we, in tliese later 
 times, may find in the opened book of nature ? Is this the 
 spirit in which we are to receive a message from on high, 
 in which the Almighty deigns to reveal to us that He is the 
 Great Creator of all things in heaven and earth ? I have, 
 however, already pointed out some certain truths which this 
 communication does teach. This opening portion of the book 
 of revelation appears to have been written to communicate a 
 right view of the origin of the universe, as an antidote to 
 those false notions which had already arisen in the time of 
 Moses, or would afterwards arise on that subject. The 
 leading principle, which the first verse teaches, is, that the 
 universe exists, not independently of God, by any necessity 
 or by any inherent power ; nor yet contemporaneously with 
 God, as being co-existent with Him ; nor yet in opposition to 
 God, as a hostile element ; but dependently upon Him, sub- 
 sequently to Him, and in subjection to Him. T]iis leading 
 principle of the subordination of matter to God in every 
 respect is expressed in broad terms in these opening words, 
 
 It seems, then, that God has told us, in the two first sentences, just 
 what concerned us to know ; first, that He created all which is ; then, 
 how lie brought into order this our habitation which He has given us. 
 What intervened between that creation " in the beginning" and that 
 re-modelhng for our habitation, does not concern us : and on this God 
 is silent. He tells us the first and the last, that He created all things, 
 and that He prepared this our beautiful earth for us, and created aU 
 things in it and ourselves. In the interval there is room for all the 
 ■workings of God which geology speaks of, if it speaks truly. This 
 history of Creation in Genesis falls in naturally with it, in that it does 
 say that this our mysterious habitation, which God has made the scene 
 of such wondrous love, was created "in the beginning," i. e. before the 
 time of which it proceeds to speak. Another period of undefined 
 duration is implied by the words, " And the Spirit of God was brood?')!;? 
 upon the face of the deep." For action, of course, implies time in 
 which the action takes place. And this action was previous to that 
 of the first "day" of the Creation, which begins, like the rest, with the! 
 words, " And God said." ' — Dr. Pusey on Daniel, Preface, p. xix. 
 
68 COMPARISON OF THE NATURAL-DAY AND PERIOD-DAY 
 
 ' In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' 
 The same great principle runs through the beautiful descrip- 
 tion which follows of' the orderly preparation of the earth to 
 become the residence of man, God's rational creature, whom 
 He was now about to call into existence. Matter owes its 
 form and modifications to the will of God. In itself duU and 
 inert, it receives its vivifying capacities from the influence 
 of the Spirit of God brooding over the deep : (i. 2). The 
 progressive improvements in its condition were the direct 
 effects of God's will. Iso interposition of secondary causes is 
 recognised. ' He spake, and it was done ' (Ps. xxxiii. 9). 
 And the pointed terseness and sharpness with which the 
 writer sums up the whole transaction in the three expressions, 
 ' God said ' — ' It was so ' — ' God saw that it was good,' the 
 first declaring the Divine volition, the second the immediate 
 result, the third the perfection of the work, harmonizes well 
 with the view he intended to express. Thus the earth 
 became in the eyes of the pious Hebrew, and is seen by ns 
 also to be, the scene on which the Divine perfections were 
 displayed : the heavens (Ps. xi.x;. 1), the earth (Ps. xxiv. 1 ; 
 civ. 24), the sea (Job xxvi. 10; Ps. Ixxxix. 9 ; Jer. v. 22), 
 ' mountains and all hills, fruitful trees and all cedars, beasts 
 and all cattle, creeping things and flying fowl ' (Ps. cxlviii. 9, 
 10), all displaying His goodness and ]30wer.* The lesson here 
 
 * Compare Dr. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, article ' Earth.' 
 The following observations are from Bishop Wordsworth's comment 
 on Gen. i. 1 : — ' God created. Here is a prophetic protest against the 
 false systems of Natural Philosophy which have prevailed in the 
 world. God created all things. The world is not God, as the Pan- 
 theists affirm. It did not exist from eternity, as the Peripatetics 
 taught. It was not made by fate and necessity, as the Stoics said. It 
 did not arise from a fortuitous concourse of atoms, as the Epicureans 
 asserted ; nor from the antagonism of two rival powers, as the Per- 
 sians and Manichseans aflSrmed ; nor was it made by Angels ; nor by 
 the emanations of .^ons, as some of the ancient Gnostics held ; nor 
 out of matter, co-eternal with God, as Hermogenes said ; nor by the 
 
THEOEIES OF INTEEPEETING GENESIS CHAP. I. 69 
 
 tauglit US is not a scientific lesson, but a moral one : and 
 therefore to attempt to deduce from it a scientific history of 
 the Earth, is altogether out of the question. The data for 
 this purpose are not given. If we are tempted to'regret that 
 we can gain no precise scientific information from Genesis 
 regarding the details of the original creation, we should resist 
 such a temptation, and call to mind the great object of the 
 Scriptures — to tell man of his origin and fall, and to draw 
 his mind to his Creator and Eedeemer. When the Almighty 
 speaks of the works of His hands, it is with a majesty and 
 dignity which become the Maker of the world. He speaks in 
 language which declares Him to be the originator of all things, 
 the Almighty Lord of heaven and earth. He condescends 
 not to describe the process or the laws by which He worked : 
 all this He leaves to reason to decipher from the phenomena 
 His world displays.* My design in attempting, under the 
 fi.rst method of interpretation, to give a physical representa- 
 tion of what the process of the six days' work might have 
 been, is not to impose this or any suchlike meaning upon the 
 words, but to show that the language is in no way contra- 
 dictory to scientific possibilities. It rather detracts from the 
 simple grandeur of the whole, and diverts attention from the 
 great lesson to be conveyed, to seek for a scientific moaning, 
 
 spontaneous agency and evolution of self-developing Powers, as some 
 have affirmed in later days. But it was created by One, Almighty, 
 Eternal, Wise, and Good Being — God." 
 
 *'.... The first chapter of Genesis stands alone among the 
 traditions of mankind in the wonderful simplicity and grandeur of 
 its words. Specially remarkable — miraculous it really seems to be — 
 is that character of reserve which leaves open to reason all that 
 reason may be able to attain. The meaning of those words seems 
 always to be a-head of science, — not because it anticipates the results 
 of science, but because it is independent of them, and runs, as it were, 
 round the outer margin of all possible discovery.' — Duke of Argyll, 
 Primeval Man, p. 367. 
 
70 DANGER OF ADOPTING IMPERFECT THEORIES. 
 
 especially, too, where it was not designed. I take this 
 meaning, not as necessarily taught by Scripture, but a,s 
 merely illustrating it in those scientific points. I receive it 
 full ready to change it for another, if scientific study require 
 it, and the language of Scripture have no unnatural interpre- 
 tation forced upon it. "We may well rise, indeed, from the 
 contemplation of the sacred volume with admiration at the 
 wisdom with which its phraseology has been chosen ; so that 
 while human systems have disappeared before the light of 
 advancing knowledge, Holy Scripture, in its original tongues, 
 remains pre-eminent, and no charge of error brought against 
 it has ever been substantiated. 
 
 I cannot Close my remarks on this part of my subject 
 without entering a protest against the practice of propound- 
 
 Dangerofaaopt.i°g' ™ s^^PP°^* ^^ ^°^^ Scripturc, imperfect 
 ing imperieot theories, derived from a very partial knowledge 
 
 theories. n , i ^ i i c 
 
 of the past history, or even the present laws, oi 
 the physical world. Mixed as these theories generally are 
 with conjectures and ill-determined facts, they become most 
 dangerous to the stability, not of Scripture, which is an im- 
 movable rock, but of the faith of those who are carried away 
 by them. In what I have written I have appeared perhaps 
 to lean upon the recent researches of M. D'Orbigny. My 
 object in doing so is to meet the upholders of the period 
 theory on their own ground. But I am aware that further 
 research may lead to a modification of his results, and that 
 the doubts regarding them may, in some measure, be con- 
 firmed. Surely, much as we may justly admire the pursuit 
 of Science, we have learnt caution ere this not to receive its 
 results too hastily, as the established expression of the laws 
 of nature. No principle seemed more sure than that which 
 Su- Charles Lyell announced some years ago in an early 
 edition of his Principles of Geology, that in many respects the 
 species of the tertiary beds are the same as in the present 
 flora and fauna. lie gave the name Eocene, Meiocene 
 
DANGER OF ADOPTING IMPERFECT THEORIES. 71 
 
 Pleiocene, and Pleistocene, * to express this idea, and to 
 present the gradual increase of recent species in the tertiary- 
 beds as they approach the human period. But this has been 
 controverted by M. D'Orbigny, in his more recent and ex- 
 tended researches, which seem to show that there is not one 
 species in common in the tertiary and present plants and 
 animals. Sir Charles Lyell has, in his last work, alluded to 
 M. D'Orbigny's conclusions ; but re-asserts his former views, 
 based originally upon the investigations of M. Deshayes.t 
 I can but repeat, that, if eminent men are so divided in their 
 opinion on these matters, it shows how imcertain their con- 
 clusions must be, and how unworthy of being brought for- 
 ward as arguments against Scripture. The science of Geology 
 — one of the most ennobling studies of the day — is in far 
 too young and unsettled a state to justify us in bringing its 
 results into competition with the brief and unscientific, 
 though literally true, description of God's work of creation in 
 the Book of Genesis. 
 
 I cannot do better than refer to an admirable article in 
 the Universal Review, (July, 1859) on 'lUogical Geology,' in 
 which the unavoidable inconveniences of a tendency to rash 
 generalization are well pointed out, while the necessity of 
 exercising the faculty, if Science is to advance, is made 
 equally clear. We must speculate in order to make progress ; 
 but it is only weU.-matu.red results, demonstrated beyond 
 dispute, which must be allowed to take the position of esta- 
 bKshed theories. The writer draws a striking lesson from 
 the history of astronomical science. There followed one 
 
 * These words mean, Dawn of recent. Minority of recent. Majority 
 of recent. Greatest number of recent (species). 
 
 t ' In the year 1830, 1 announced, on the authority of M. Deshayes, 
 that about one-fifth of the mollusca of the Falernian, or upper Meiocene 
 strata of Europe, belonged to living species. Although the soundness 
 of that conclusion was afterwards called in question by two or three 
 eminent conchologists (and by the late M. Alcide D'Orbigny among 
 others), it has since been confirmed by the majority of living natural- 
 
72 DANGER OF ADOPTING IMPERFECT THEORIES. 
 
 another, beginning from the earliest times, five provisional 
 theories of the Solar System, each in its turn held as final, 
 till the sixth and absolutely true one was reached. In these 
 five theories may be traced both the tendency men have to 
 leap from scanty data to wide generalizations, which are 
 either untrue or only partially true, and also the necessity 
 there seems to be for these premature generalizations as 
 steps to the final one. The same laws of thought have 
 prevailed and are prevailing in the younger science of 
 Geology. We have had crude, utterly untrue dogmas, for a 
 time, passing current as universal truths. We have evidence 
 collected in proof of these dogmas. By-and-bye a colligation 
 of facts is produced in antagonism with them. Eventually, a 
 consequent modification is suggested. In conformity with this 
 somewhat improved theory, we have a still better classification 
 of facts ; a greater power of arranging and interpreting the new 
 facts, now rapidly gathered together ; and further resulting 
 corrections of theory. We are at present in the midst of this 
 process, and therefore it is not possible to give an adequate 
 account of the development of geological science ; the earlier 
 stages are alone known to us. As one source of uncertainty 
 in some of the general results at which geologists are supposed 
 to have ai'rived, we may mention the difficulty of determining 
 the relative age of strata which are not contiguous. Neither 
 their mineral structure nor the fossils they contain by any 
 means lead always to conclusions which are beyond dispute. 
 This is a matter of great importance ; for much depends upon 
 it.* Another is the metamorphic effect of heat. Sir Charles 
 
 ists, and is well borne out by the copious evidence on the subject laid 
 before the public in the magnificent work edited by M. Homes, and 
 published under the auspices of the Austrian Government, On the 
 Fossil Shells of the Viemut Basin.' — See Lyell's Antiquity of Man, 
 p. 430. On this debated matter of species we may soon have as strong 
 opinions advanced on the other side. 
 
 * Let the reader consult the Anniversary Address before the 
 Geological Society in 1862, by Professor Huxley. 
 
DIFFICULTY REGARDING DEATH BEFORE ADAM. 73 
 
 Lyell says, that in some cases every vestige of vegetable and 
 animal remains in limestones and in clay formations has been 
 entirely obliterated by this process. It may, then, so happen 
 that the fossils now in existence are but the last chapter of 
 the earth's history, and that many primary chapters, stretch- 
 ing back to a time immeasurably more remote even than 
 existing fossils, have been bumf, and with them all the 
 records of life we may presume that they contained ! The 
 analogy which our period theorists draw between existing 
 fossils and the account in Genesis would be, in. this case, 
 altogether thrown out. The subject is too vast and too 
 unsettled, to allow us to base any trustworthy conclusions 
 upon such comparisons. I have no desire to disparage the 
 study of this noble science; I would rather promote it. 
 But when its results, which are, after all, only approxima- 
 tions, and often very uncertain approximations, to the true 
 history and condition of this wonderful globe on which we 
 live, are turned into arguments against the inspiration of the 
 Holy Scriptures. I stand amazed at the temerity of the men, 
 who, knowing anything of their relative claims, will doubt 
 for one instant, on which side the error must lie, if any real 
 discrepancy is found to exist. 
 
 4. Besides the three points of apparent difference between 
 Scripture and Science which I have been considering at such 
 length, geology gave rise to another formidable difficulty 
 regarding the existence of Death in the world before the fall 
 of Adam. The myriads of creatures which the Death before 
 strata have brought to light lived and died ere *^® ^^' 
 Adam came : and yet St. Paul has said, ' By one man sin 
 entered into the world, and death by sin' (Rom. v. 12). So 
 unanswerable has this objection appeared to some, that 
 blindfold they condemn the whole science of Geology, and 
 ignore the universal testimony of the greatest and best men. 
 And no doubt, while ignorant of the facts which the Book of 
 Nature reveals, we should conclude from the Apostle's words 
 
74 DIFFICULTY REGARDING DEATH BEFORE ADAM. 
 
 that it was the sin of Adam that had brought Death upon 
 the irrational as -well as the rational creation. But is this 
 the necessary meaning of the passage? By no means. 
 Science here comes to our aid to correct the impressions we 
 gather from Scripture; and the lesson we learn from the 
 Apostle is, not that Death had never appeared even in the 
 irrational world before the Fall of Man, but that in that 
 fearful event sin had degi-aded God's intellectual creature to 
 the level of the brutes in his animal nature, and in his 
 spiritual to that of a lost and fallen being. Death received 
 its horrors when its sentence fell upon man, who alone was 
 made in the image of God.* 
 
 5. Another difficulty, which the progress of scientific 
 
 * Two hundred years ago— long before the science of Geology 
 called for the belief tbat mortality had been stamped on creation 
 and had manifested its proofs in the animal races previously to 
 Adam's appearance — Jeremy Taylor could write as follows regarding 
 Adam himself before the Fall. He considers him to have been 
 created mortal —not merely liable to become mortal, but actually mortal. 
 
 ' For " flesh and blood," that is, whatsoever is born of Adam, 
 "cannot inherit the kingdom of God." And they are injurious to 
 Christ, who think, that from Adam we might have inherited immor- 
 tality. Christ was the giver and preacher of it; "He brought life and 
 immortality to light through the Gospel." Again : — ' For that Adam 
 was made mortal in his nature, is infinitely certain, and proved by his 
 very eating and drinking, his sleep and recreation,' &c. — Works of 
 Jeremy Taylor, by Bishop Heber, vol. ix. pp. 74, 76. 
 
 And in another passage quoted by Professor Hitchcock : — ' That 
 death which God threatened to Adam, and which passed upon his 
 posterity, is not the going out of this world, but tlie manner of going. 
 If he had stayed in innocence he should have gone placidly and fairly, 
 without vexatious and aflSictive circumstances; he should not have 
 died by sickness, defect, misfortune, or unwillingness.' These senti- 
 ments I quote, not as necessarily approving them, but to show that so 
 good and learned a man as Jeremy Taylor had a view regarding death 
 and mortality no less unusual than that which geology demands. 
 
 ' It is certainly a startling fact,' writes Bishop Ellioott, ' that ages 
 before the sin of man cast the shadow of vanity on the world, suffering, 
 in one of its forms, the corporeal, was certainly present. The very 
 
REGARDING SPECIFIC CENTRES OF CREATION. 75 
 
 discovery has originated, arises from the theory of Specific 
 Centres. According to this discovery, every 
 species, whether of plants or animals, is confined 
 to a certain region or habitat, beyond the boundaries of 
 ■which its individuals cannot live. Each species, therefore, 
 must have diverged from some centre within its region ; and 
 this is called a Specifi.c Centre : and these centres must have 
 been the foci of creation. No doubt the boundaries of these 
 regions may have varied since the six days' creation, under 
 the influence of climate. But it is contended that no 
 change of climate which is likely to have occurred, can 
 account for the transfer of the centres to such considerable 
 
 stones and rocks bear witness of it, the acknowledged presence in the 
 pre- Adamite world of the fierce and fell race of the carnivorous animals 
 renders its past existence a certainty. ... In every endeavour to view 
 suffering in its most comprehensive and general aspects, we must be 
 especially careful to draw a clear line of demarcation between the 
 corporeal sufferings of the individuals that belong to lower genera 
 unendued with foresight and reason, and the mixed mental and cor- 
 poreal sufferings of a personal and intelligent being, the immediate 
 child and offspring of God. . .•. The scattered hints and speculations 
 of earlier writers, afterwards more fully developed by some of the 
 deeper thinkers of the seventeenth century, that regard the early history 
 of the world and the fall of angels as in some sort of connexion, are 
 certainly not wholly unworthy of our consideration. . . . How far the 
 disturbance caused by that fearful lapse was propagated through the 
 other realms of creation, we know not. How far demoniacal malignity 
 might have been permitted to introduce or multiply sufferings into the 
 early animal world. Scripture does not, even incidentally, reveal. Still, 
 it does not seem utterly presumptuous to imagine that there might 
 have been the same powers of evil partially and permissively at work 
 in a pre- Adamite world, that at a later period, when man's sin had 
 wrought a still more frightful confusion, were permitted to drive the 
 swine down the steeps of Gennesaret.' — See Bishop Ellicott's Destiny 
 of the Creature, Serm. ii. 
 
 For thoughts upon this view of the subject, I would refer my 
 readers to a suggestive and original, though speculative, article in the 
 Christian Eemembrancer, vol. xli., first qiiarter of 1861, p. 402, which 
 is worth pondering over. 
 
76 DISCOVERIES OF SCIENCE 
 
 distances as maay of them are found to be from the limits of 
 Paradise. This appears to he at variance with the account 
 in Genesis, which seems to represent the creation, of animals 
 at least, to have been in regions within the reach of Adam. 
 But this difficulty need not stagger us, unexpected as it is. 
 For in the first place, it is not impossible that the regions, of 
 which the limits are far from the boundaries of man's first 
 residence, have become the scenes of creative power at 
 epochs subsequent to the six days' Avork. The statement 
 that ' the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the 
 host of them,' does not imply that the Almighty would 
 never exert His creative power again, but that the work of 
 the six days was then completed.* It has been said, that 
 at the antipodes there are animals apparently approaching 
 extinction, and others really extinct, and that this appears 
 to show that they were created earlier and not later. Were 
 this generally true of the species of those parts, it might be 
 
 * ' The difficulty as to the animals found, each in their several 
 habitats, in Australia, New Zealand, &c., is properly no scientific diffi- 
 culty. It lies on the surface ; but it presupposes that the " rest" of 
 God, spoken of m Genesis, implies that He cx-eated nothing afterwards, 
 which is contrary to our Lord's words, "My Father worketh hitherto, 
 and I work," and to the fact that He is daily and hourly creating those 
 myriads of human souls which He infuses into the bodies prepared by 
 His Providence.' — Dr. Pusey's Lectures on Daniel, p. xxii. 
 
 Dr. Colenso, in his criticism of a former edition of this work (Part 
 IV. p. 131), assigns no reason why the words, 'The heavens and the 
 earth were finished, and all the host of them,' should imply that the 
 Almighty could never exercise His creative power again. His precon- 
 ceived notions evidently trammel his mind in his supposing that the 
 first chapter of Genesis necessarily describes everything that the 
 Almighty ever created. With regard to his second interjected quota- 
 tion, with Italics, I would say, that Dr. Colenso appears often to throw 
 emphasis upon wrong words, so as to pervert the direct meaning of the 
 writer, and to draw attention to the wrong point. The correct idea, as 
 it appears to me, conveyed in the words he quotes in brackets, viz. 
 ' The man called names to all the cattle and to the fowl of the heaven, 
 and to every animal of the field,' is, that Adam gave names to creatures. 
 
EEGARDIKG SPECIFIC CENTRES OP CREATION. 77 
 
 of some importance, but otherwise it shows only that those 
 few species were of short continuance. And further, there 
 is nothing in the account of the six days' creation to mihtate 
 against the idea that creation may have heen going on over 
 the whole surface of the earth at the same time. It simply 
 requires us to suppose that the animals brought to Adam for 
 him to name them, must have been those only in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Paradise. Indeed, this seems to be the mosb 
 natural interpretation of the narrative in Genesis, as I wUl 
 show. 
 
 The first three chapters consist of two parts. The first 
 portion describes the week of creation ; and in the second, 
 beginning at ii. 4,* the sacred writer proceeds to the narra- 
 tive of man's moral probation and his fall, the key to his 
 subsequent history. In preparation for this, additional par- 
 ticulars are given to enable us to understand the place and 
 circumstances of the temptation, and the means which the 
 
 and that he did so to all kinds of creatures ; not necessarily that there 
 was not a creature or even a species in the whole world which was not 
 brought to Adam to receive its name. 
 
 * It has been a matter of discussion whether v. 4 belongs to v. 3 
 or is the beginning of a new paragraph. It appears to me that the 
 words, ' These are the generations,' are the beginning of a fresh para- 
 graph which terminates with chap. iii. , written by the writer who wrote 
 the account of the creative-week, and that the word 'these' refers back 
 to that description. ' These [which I have now describedl are the 
 generations of the heavens and of the earth.' To imagine that the 
 writer changes simply because the title of the Deity is changed from 
 ' God ' to ' Lord God,' is an arbitrary hypothesis. Moreover, the 
 hypothesis very soon breaks down altogether : for in the very midst of 
 this narrative the name ' God' is used three times in the third chapter. 
 Dr. Colenso has a theory to account for this — a theory to explain a 
 theory, viz. that the sacred writer would not put the name of ' Lord 
 God' into the devil's mouth. But, if he, a mere critic, can divine a 
 reason why the name should be changed in this instance, is it not 
 rather self-confident to assume that there is no reason, because he 
 cannot guess it, why the sacred writer should first have used ' God' in 
 
78 DISCOVERIES OF SCIENCE 
 
 tempter used to effect his purpose. Man's frail origin, out 
 of the dust, the earthly part of his nature, is therefore here 
 first mentioned; the garden is described in which he was 
 placed when created, with its tree of life, and the tree of 
 knowledge of good and evil ; the origin of woman in man's 
 want of a companion, as none of the creatures which passed 
 in review before him met that want, and man's relation to 
 her, are now told us, that we might the better understand 
 their double fall. This all occurs in Eden. It was, therefore, 
 only the animals in Eden that passed in review before Adam 
 to receive names. Animals beyond the limits of Eden are 
 not alluded to in the narrative. Indeed, it is observable that 
 beasts of the field only and birds are mentioned; reptiles, 
 and fish, and the 'great whales,' are not alluded to.* 
 
 his description of the creation, and then 'Lord God' in his description 
 of the temptation and fall ? And so in other places in this book of 
 Genesis, wherever a change takes place in the name of the Deity, this 
 critic fearlessly asserts, as others do whom he follows, that interpola- 
 tions from other writers have taken place. Save us from such plastic 
 ingenuity, which, on the flimsy pretext of a critic's theory, will tear 
 to bits the sacred text which has been handed down to us from age 
 to age. 
 
 * The same view Professors Keil and Delitzsob take in their com- 
 mentary on the Pentateuch. ' To call out this want [of a help-mate], 
 God brought the larger quadrupeds and birds to man, to see what he 
 would call them (lit. each one) ; and whatsoever the man might call 
 every living being shoxUcl be its name (Gen. ii. 10). The time when 
 this took place must have been the sixth day, on which, according to 
 chap. i. 27, the man and woman were created : and there is no difficulty 
 in this, since it would not have required much time to bring the 
 animals to Adam to see what he would call tliem, as the animals of 
 Paradise are all we have to think of ; and the deep sleep into which 
 God caused the man to fall till he had formed the woman from his rib, 
 need not have continued long. In chap. i. 27, the creation of the 
 woman is linked with that of the man ; but here the order of sequence 
 is given, because the creation of woman formed a chronological 
 incident in the history of the human race, which commences with the 
 creation of Adam.' Bee Clarke's Translation, p. S7. 
 
EEGABDING SPECIFIC CENTRES OF CEEATION. 79 
 
 The difficulty, therefore, wliich. the theory of Specific 
 Centres was supposed to introduce, altogether vanishes.* 
 
 There is a remarkable illustration of the truth of these 
 narratives in the first and second chapters of Genesis, which 
 is worth noticing here. It is known that the cerealia, which 
 produce bread-corn, on which the human race so depends 
 for subsistence, exist only as enltioated products of the soil. 
 They perish, as far as concerns usefulness to man, without 
 man's care. In correspondence with this necessity for cul- 
 tivation, we find, in both these accounts, almost incidentally, 
 and certainly with no direct statement of its necessity, that 
 Adam, even before the fall, is admonished to cultivate the 
 vegetable kingdom. 'And God blessed them; and God said 
 unto them. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth 
 
 * Dr. Colenso, misled by some of his German masters, has asserted 
 that the accounts in Gen. 1. and Gen. ii. are contradictory to ea<:h 
 other. I cannot do better than quote from the late Dr. M'Caul's 
 admirable reply, condensing from the last work he wrote ere the Church 
 was deprived of his invaluable services. 
 
 1. Gen. i. 9, 10. The land emerges from the waters, and was 
 therefore, Dr. Colenso says, saturated with moisture, which is contrary 
 to Gen. ii. 6. Answer. — In Gen. i. 9, 10, it is expressly said that the 
 land was (7ri/, not moist. 
 
 2. Gen. i. 20, 24, 26. Birds and beasts are created before man,' 
 Gen ii. 7, 19, the opposite occurs. Answer. — In this second narrative, 
 the historian alludes to events, not necessarily in chronological order 
 as in the first chapter, but as they bear upon the object which he has 
 now in view. From v. 8, 9, it might otherwise seem that the trees did 
 not grow in the garden till after man was placed in it ; whereas v. 15 
 proves that that was not the case. [I may here say that the Hebrew 
 has only one past tense ; it has no pluperfect. Hence v. 8 might just 
 as well be translated, 'And the Lord God had planted a garden . . . and 
 there He put the man whom he formed.' I would also observe that 
 the English reader must not be misled by the words, ' So,' ' Thus,' 
 'But,' 'Therefore,' 'Now,' 'For,' with which some of the verses in 
 these three chapters begin ; for they are all Van, in the Hebrew, the 
 word translated 'And' in all the other verses.] 
 
 3. Gen. i. 20, the fowls that fly are made out of the waters ; Gen. 
 
80 DISCOVERIES OF SCIENCE 
 
 and subdue it' (Gen. i. 28). 'And the Lord God .took the 
 man and put him in the garden of Eden to dress it and to 
 keep it' (ii. 15).* 
 
 6. Another instance in which Science has been looked 
 No known traces upon as inimical to Scripture, is the assertion 
 of the Beluga, j^q.^^ universally made by geologists, that no 
 known traces exist of the Noachian Deluge. 
 
 ii. 19, out of the ground. Answer. — This is a blunderwhich a Hebrew 
 scholar would not make. In Gen. i. 20, 'fowl' is not in the accusa- 
 tive but in the nominative, and the words should be, ' and let the fowl 
 fly above the earth ;' nothing is said there as to what the fowls were 
 made of. 
 
 4. Gen. i. 27, man is created in the image of God ; Gen. ii. 7, he 
 is made of the dust of the ground, and merely animated with the 
 hreath of life, and only after eating of the forbidden fruit is it said 
 (ill. 22) that he was become like God. Answer. — Here is no contradic- 
 tion. We are not told in chap. i. what man's body was made of. By 
 the breath of life cannot be meant simply animal life ; for in the 
 narrative before the eating, Adam is described as intelligent, free, 
 moral, lord over other creatures. Is not this to be more than a mere 
 living creature ? Is not this to be like God, to have the stamp of His 
 likeness ? 
 
 5. Geu. i. 25, man is made the lord of the whole earth ; Gen. ii. 8, 
 15, he is placed only in the garden of Eden to dress it. Ansitier. — In 
 the first God speaks of man as of the whole human race and its des- 
 tiny ; in the second chapter, the particular circumstances of the 
 individual, Adam, are related. 
 
 6. Gen. i. 27, man and woman are created together, and, as is 
 implied, in the same kind of way. Gen. ii. the beasts and birds are 
 created between the man and the woman. Answer. — Gen. i. 26 — 28 
 indicates that man and woman were not created together, i. e. simul- 
 taneously. ' And God said. Let us make man ' [Adam, without the 
 article]. Here the language is indefinite, and refers to the whole 
 human race. But then follows, 'And God created the man [Adam, 
 with the article] in His image ; in the image of God created He htm 
 [masculine] ; male and female created He them.' This is perfectly 
 consistent with the more extended narrative of the second chapter. 
 
 * In connection with this I quote the following striking remarks : 
 ' Not a stalk of corn remains where man is not. If corn cannot now 
 live without man's aid, it is an unavoidable inference that man was 
 
REGAEDING THE DBLDSB. 81 
 
 The disappointment which this has occasioned has been 
 felt aU the more severely, because the advocates of Revela- 
 tion had long been in the habit of pointing triumphantly to 
 the rocks in all parts of the earth as containing nhells even to 
 the highest peaks, and so being infallible witnesses to the fact 
 of the Deluge. Geologists used to support this view. One 
 of their number, eminent both for his eloquent expositions 
 and thorough acquaintance with the science, had even written 
 a work* upon the subject, describing a cave at Kirkdale, in 
 Yorkshire, where bones of numerous animals had been accu- 
 mulated, it was supposed, by the waters of the Deluge. Eut 
 it is now acknowledged by all geologists that these conclu- 
 sions were premature. In a subsequent work this author 
 publicly renounced his former views upon the subject, and 
 recalled his book. Further consideration has shown, that 
 the Deluge cannot have been the occasion of embedding 
 shells and other fossils in solid rocks, and to such a depth as 
 they are found. IS ox are the superficial deposits — those, for 
 instance, in the Yorkshire cavern — such as a temporary 
 deluge could have produced.t 
 
 The more the progress of scientific discovery has brought 
 
 instructed from the first to cultivate corn. So strong has been the 
 conviction of all ages, that the cereals are not spontaneously produced, 
 that the mythologies of India, Egypt, and Greece ascribe their cultiva- 
 tion to direct Divine interference. The Medes, who were the descend- 
 ants of Madai, a son of Japhet (Gen. x. 2), and among the earliest of 
 recorded nations certainly anterior to the Chaldaeans, connected their 
 notions of piety with the cultivation of the earth as a duty enjoined on 
 them by God. ... As Mr. Vicien stated at the meeting of the British 
 Association in Birmingham (1865), no trace of the existence of the 
 cereals can be discovered in geological formations that can be imagined 
 more than 6000 jeans o\i'— The First Man, and his Place in Creation, 
 by George Moore, Esq. M.D.p. 310. See also Rev. Hugh Maomillan's 
 Bible Teachings in Nature, chapter on Corn. 
 
 * Eeliquice Diluvianoe. 
 
 t See this subject fully discussed in Testimony of the Bocks, Lect. 
 8— on the Noachian Deluge. 
 
 G 
 
82 DISCOVERIES CtF SCIENCE 
 
 to light the varied agencies which are perpetually at work in 
 changing the aspect of the earth's surface, the more is it seen, 
 that it was unreasonable to expect to find traces of the great 
 cataclysm at the present day, so many ages after its occur- 
 rence. Any marks it left must have been long since obliter- 
 ated, or so mixed up with the effects of subsequent gradual 
 changes as to be undecipherable, even if they ever possessed 
 any characteristic features peculiar to themselves. The 
 marvel of this great historic event was the presence of so vast 
 a body of waters — their rapid appearance and as rapid dis- 
 appearance — the windows of heaven being opened, and the 
 fountains of the deep being broken up. Whether this great 
 catastrophe was brought about by the intervention of second 
 causes or not, it was by the interposition of the Almighty 
 for the punishment of a guilty world. The record of this 
 Scripture conveys to us ; and Science, though robbed of its 
 supposed power of illustrating the Scripture truth, neverthe- 
 less places no obstacle in the way of its reception. 
 
 7. The history of the Deluge furnishes an illustration of 
 The Deiu e n t ^^ subject in another way. It has been con- 
 over tte whole ceived by most readers of Scripture, that it 
 describes the Deluge as having covered the 
 surface of the whole earth. To this view Science of late 
 years has presented various diiSculties. 
 
 Of course, a believer in the Divine Power can have no 
 difficulty in admitting any miracle, however astounding, so 
 long as it does not involve an impossibility, and is clearly 
 demanded by the sacred narrative. But he must not be 
 charged with scepticism, or with favouring it, if he seek so to 
 interpret the record as to avoid an impossibility ; or if lie 
 endeavour to confine the miracle within limits proportioned 
 to the occasion ; or if he search for an explanation, in part at 
 least, in the operation of second causes — by which the 
 Almighty, in many recorded instances, has worked His 
 wonders : for if we exaggerate the demands of Scripture on 
 
RBGABDING THE DELUGE. 83 
 
 men's faith, beyond what the text, fairly interpreted, abso- 
 lutely requires, we make ourselves, so far, responsible for 
 their scepticism. That secondary causes were made use of, 
 though no doubt in a subordinate manner, in the miracle of 
 the Deluge, is apparent from the language — ■' the fountains 
 of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven 
 were opened, and the rain was upon the earth forty days and 
 forty nights' (Gen. vii. 11, 12). "We cannot be wrong, 
 therefore, in seeking the most simple combination of second- 
 ary causes which the Almighty may have brought into play 
 to effect his purpose. 
 
 Now Mr. Hugh MiUer, in his work The Testimony of the 
 Socks, has shown how all the phenomena of the Deluge might 
 have been produced by the gradual submergence and rising 
 again of the country comprised within a radius of a few 
 hundred miles around the dwelling place of Noah, so as to 
 include the portion of the globe then inhabited. This phe- 
 nomenon of the change of level of large portions of the earth's 
 surface, by depression or elevation, is not unknown to geolo- 
 gists ; though the periods in which these vast oscillations 
 occur are of immeasurably longer duration than that of the 
 Deluge. He shows that the depression during the first forty 
 days might, nevertheless, have been so gradual as to have 
 been imperceptible, except from the effects — the pouring in 
 of the mighty waters from the neighbouring seas into the 
 growing hollow, and the disappearance of the mountain tops. 
 And when, after a hundred and fifty days had elapsed, the 
 depressed hollow began slowly to rise again, the boundless 
 sea around the ark would flow outwards again towards the 
 distant ocean, and Noah would see that ' the fountains of the 
 deep were stopped,' and ' the waters were returning from off 
 the earth continually.' (Gen. viii. 2, 3.) 
 
 This process, miraculous though it be in thus calling into 
 sudden action secondary agents, meets the difficulties of the 
 case in a way which no other known hypothesis will. It 
 
84 DISCOVERIES OF SCIENCE 
 
 supplies and disposes of the mighty mass of water required 
 for the catastrophe : it makes the miracle proportioned to 
 the occasion, viz. the destruction of the human species for 
 their wickedness ; and, above all, it limits the number of 
 animals which Noah would have to accommodate in the ark 
 within reasonable bounds. Mr. Miller mentions an interest- 
 ing calculation made by Sir Walter fialeigh, to show that 
 Noah's ark was capable of holding all the then-known 
 animals of the world, with provisions for all the time during 
 which the earth was submerged. The calculation of this 
 great voyager is justly considered to have been sober and 
 judicious. But our growing acquaintance with the animal 
 kingdom has converted his trustworthy result from being an 
 argument for a Universal, to that for a Partial Deluge. The 
 eighty-nine known animals of his time would now embrace 
 but a single region. There are between one and two 
 thousand different species of mammals at present known ! 
 To this extraordinary increase in our knowledge may be 
 added the six thousand two hundred and sixty-six birds of 
 Lesser, and the six hundred and fifty-seven reptiles of Charles 
 Bonaparte, or, subtracting the sea-snakes and turtles as fitted 
 to live outside the ark, his six hundred and forty-two reptiles.* 
 Now granting that all these thousands of species of mammals, 
 birds, and reptiles, could have been brought from all parts of 
 the earth, and actually assembled round Noah, and after- 
 wards replaced in their respective habitats all over the globe, 
 it seems impossible that they could have been all accommo- 
 dated within the prescribed limits of the ark during the 
 earth's submergence. 
 
 The question has been asked. Why were Mrds taken into 
 the ark, if the Deluge were only Partial? But this objection 
 is based upon an error in natural Science, into which even 
 naturalists of the last century, such as Buffon, not unfre- 
 quently fell : viz. that of assigning to species wide areas in 
 * Testimony of the Hacks, p, 242. 
 
EBGABDING THE DELUGE. 85 
 
 creation, which in reality they do not occupy. A better 
 acquaintance with the habits of many of the non-migratory 
 birds will convince such an objector, that even in a local 
 deluge, of the extent which we suppose the Deluge may have 
 attained, many species would have become extinct but for 
 their preservation in the ark, as the surrounding regions 
 could not have supplied them.* 
 
 But is not this notion of a Partial Deluge contrary to the 
 express language of Scripture ] The words of Scripture, 
 were there no facts like those I have mentioned to modify 
 our interpretation, would, by most persons, be understood as 
 describing a Universal flood of waters over the whole extent 
 of the globe : there would be no cause for questioning this, 
 and therefore no ground of doubt. But when the new facts 
 become known, as they are at present, then the question is 
 started. Does the Scripture language present any insuperable 
 obstacle to this more limited interpretation ? That it does 
 not, may be. inferred from the fact, that two of our celebrated 
 commentators on Scripture, Bishop StUlingfleet and Matthew 
 Pool, both in the seventeenth century, long before the dis- 
 coveries of natural Science required it, advocated this view. 
 The strongest expression in the whole account is this, 'All 
 the high hills that were undee the whole heaven were 
 covered' (Gen. vii. 19). But that, if other circumstances 
 require it, this phraseology may refer solely to the region 
 afiected and not to the whole globe, is apparent from the 
 use of the same expression by the same inspired writer in 
 another place, in which it is evident, that he cannot have 
 intended the whole globe, but only Palestine and the 
 countries in its immediate neighbourhood : ' This day will I 
 begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the 
 nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear 
 report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because 
 of thee ' (Deut. ii. 25). Compare this with xi. 25, where the 
 * Testimony of the Bocks, p. 292. 
 
86 DISCOVBEIBS OF SCIENCE 
 
 extent of the dread is limited to ' all the land that ye shall 
 tread upon ! ' 
 
 With some minds the argument of the Divine Omnipo- 
 tence is sufficient to meet all the difficulties of a Universal 
 Deluge : to others they have appeared so formidahle as to 
 recommend the theory of a Partial Deluge — partial not with 
 reference to the human race, but to the surface ef the earth — 
 ■which certainly furnishes a ready and complete answer to all 
 the objections.* 
 
 The difficulties which I have been considering in this 
 chapter refer to the earlier parts of the book of Genesis, from 
 which source indeed spring others which I discuss in the next 
 chapter. It is needless perhaps to say to those who have read 
 what has gone before, that I am no advocate for forced re- 
 conciliations between Scripture and Science. Scripture does 
 not speak in scientific language ; nor should we desire, as 
 it appears to me, to draw scientific conclusions from its 
 statements, where it does touch upon the phenomena of 
 nature. Obscurities and difficulties on this subject may always 
 be looked for, in consequence of the different points of view 
 from which the natural world is regarded in Scripture and 
 by the scientific investigator. What I contend for — and 
 this the very title of my book indicates — is, that, though 
 many charges of variance between Scripture and Science 
 have been made, not one has been substantiated. Where 
 simple explanations of apparent difficulties can be given, it 
 is satisfactory. But were none forthcoming, nothing is 
 necessarily proved against Scripture — as is too generally 
 supposed ; but our ignorance is brought to light. In such 
 cases forced reconciliations are very hazardous, and may in 
 the end do great harm. It is far better to let the obscurity 
 remain, till time and further facts throw light upon it. I 
 think, however, that we are too apt to lose sight of the fact, 
 
 * On the subject of the Deluge see an excellent paper, by the Rev. 
 M. Davison, in the Journal of the Victoria Institute, vol. v. No. 14. 
 
REGABDING THE DELUGE. 87 
 
 that obscurities and difficulties are exaggerated in number 
 and importance, and that when allusions are made in Holy 
 Scripture to natural phenomena they are often truly remark- 
 able. AU the outcry we hear, that the progress of Science is 
 at variance with the Scriptures, — what does it come to? We 
 might, from the things which are said, suppose that the 
 texture of Scripture Eevelation was studded with errors 
 regarding nature, which at once disprove its Divine origin. 
 But this is by no means the case. While the difficulties 
 which are produced refer merely to the earlier chapters of the 
 first book, the references to the phenomena of nature 
 throughout the main body of it are not only not charged 
 with error, but are universally admired for their true sub- 
 limity, and are as much in advance of the philosophy of 
 even later times, as truth is in advance of error. Hear how 
 truly we are told in the ancient book of Job, that the Almighty 
 ' hangeth the earth upon nothing ' (xxvi. 7). Hear how the 
 prophet Amos alludes correctly to the process of evaporation 
 from the sea, and the outpouring of the clouds so formed to 
 fructify the earth : ' He calleth for the waters from the sea, 
 ■and poureth them out on the face of the earth ' (ix. 6). 
 And Solomon too on the same subject : ' All the rivers run 
 into the sea, and yet the sea is not full ; unto the place from 
 whence the rivers come, thither they return again ' (Eccles. 
 i. 7) : that is, by evaporation and the wafting of the clouds 
 and vapour to the hills and high-lands. No such correct 
 natural philosophy is to be found in other ancient books. 
 And where the phenomena of nature are made use of in a 
 poetical way, with what sublimity do the inspired writers 
 refer to them and bear witness to the presence of God in His 
 own world — and that, though in poetical language, with no 
 violation of scientific truth : ' He maketh the clouds His 
 chariot. He walketh upon the wings of the wind' (Ps. civ. 3) : 
 and in another place ; ' He made darkness His secret place ; 
 His pavilion round about Him were dark waters, and thick 
 
8S REGARDING THE DELUGE. 
 
 clouds of the skies. The Lord also thundered in the heavens, 
 and the Highest gave His voice; hail-stones and coals of fire ' 
 (Ps. xviii. 11, 13) — and it is well known that hot thunder- 
 holts sometimes now fall from heaven and not unaccompanied 
 with hail, regarding which the science of the present day has 
 an interesting theory. 
 
 Take up a volume of only one hundred years old which 
 touches on any of these matters, and there is little doubt 
 that you will detect some gross error which the progress of 
 human knowledge has exploded. But in the Holy Scripture 
 we have a hook of very great antiquity, still fresh. Apparent 
 discrepancies invariably prove the germ of new agreements. 
 A book, so written as to touch upon many subjects of human 
 research, and without anticipating discoveries which man 
 can make for himself, not to contradict them when made, is 
 certainly a paragon of wisdom and knowledge of the highest 
 order. That the Scriptures should stand thus pre-eminent 
 through all ages, and that they should never be behind Science 
 however advanced, producing, that is, nothing contradictory 
 to Science from age to age, is sufficient to convince the most 
 sceptical of their Divine origin. 
 
REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 89 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 EXAMPLES, IN WHICH SCIENCE HAS BEEN DELIVERED FROM THE 
 FALSE CONCLUSIONS OF SOME OF ITS VOTARIES, AND THERE- 
 BY SHOWN NOT TO BE AT VARIANCE WITH SCRIPTURE, AS 
 THEY HAVE ALLEGED. 
 
 1. From the great diversities whicli exist among the 
 tribes of men which at present inhabit the earth it has been 
 boldly inferred by some writers, that it is im- ^jj ,jjen of one 
 possible that they can aU have descended from ''i°°*- 
 common parents. The statements of Scripture, that Eve 
 was the 'mother of all living' (Gen. iii. 20) ; that after the 
 Deluge the earth was peopled by the descendants of one 
 man, Noah (Gen. x. 32) ; and the declaration of St. Paul 
 (Acts, xvii. 26) that God 'hath made of one blood all 
 nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,' are 
 equally set aside as irreconcilable with the facts of nature. 
 Thus the Word and "Works of God have been driven once 
 more into conflict, and upon entirely new ground. 
 
 (1.) This apparent contradiction between Eevelation and 
 Nature has been examined by the late Dr. Prichard. His 
 facts and arguments have been collected in his invaluable 
 work on the Natural Hidory of Man. He takes no guide 
 but the phenomena which the various tribes present, and 
 which well-authenticated history furnishes. And he comes 
 to the conclusion, tliat there are no permanent lines of 
 demarcation separating the several tribes or nations ; that 
 all the diversities which exist are variable, and pass into 
 each other by insensible gradations ; that there is scarcely 
 
90 BEPUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 an instance in which the actual transition cannot be proved to 
 have taken place ; and that there is everything to lead us to 
 infer, quite irrespectively of Scripture testimony, that all 
 the families of the earth are descended from common parents, 
 and that at no very distant epoch. 
 
 His language is too important not to be quoted. ' The 
 sacred Scriptures,' he says, ' whose testimony is received by 
 all men of unclouded minds with implicit and reverential 
 assent, declare that it pleased the Almighty Creator to make 
 of one blood all the nations of the earth, and that all man- 
 kind are the offspring of common parents. But there are 
 writers in the present day, who maintain that this assertion 
 does not comprehend the uncivilised inhabitants of remote 
 regions ; and that Negroes, Hottentots, Esquimaux, and 
 Australians, are not, in fact, men in the full sense of that 
 term, or beings endowed with like mental faculties with our- 
 selves. Some of these writers contend, that the races above 
 mentioned, and other rude and barbarous tribes, are inferior 
 in their original endowments to the human family which 
 supplied Europe and Asia with inhabitants — that they are 
 organically different, and can never be raised to an equality, 
 in moral and intellectual powers, with the offspring of that 
 race which displays, in the highest degree, all the attributes 
 of humanity. They maintain that the ultimate lot of the 
 ruder tribes is a .state of perpetual servitude ; and that if, in 
 some instances, they should continue to repel the attempts of 
 the civilised nations to subdue them, they will at length be 
 rooted out and exterminated in every country on the shores 
 of which Europeans shall have set their feet.' 
 
 Although this question is one of which the decision is 
 not a matter of indifference either to religion or humanity, 
 yet he follows the strict rule of scientific scrutiny which 
 requires that we should close our eyes against all presump- 
 tive and extrinsic evidence, and abstract our minds from all 
 considerations not derived from the matters of fact which 
 
BEQAEDING THB ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN RACE. • 91 
 
 bear immediately on the question. ' The maxim we have 
 to follow,' he says, ' in such controversies is Fiat jiLstitia, ruat 
 caelum. What is actually true it is always most desirable 
 to know, whatever consequences may arise from its admis- 
 sion.' Taking this course, he sums up the results of his 
 able investigation thus ; — 
 
 'In the ethnographical outline which I have now con- 
 cluded, the facts have been very briefly stated, and it would 
 be difficult to recapitulate them in a shorter compass. I 
 shall merely point out some of the most obvious inferences. 
 The differences of men are not distinguished from each other 
 by strongly-marked, uniform, and permanent distinctions, as 
 are the several species belonging to any given tribe of 
 animals. All the diversities which exist are variable, and 
 pass into each other by insensible gradations ; and there is, 
 moreover, scarcely an instance in which the actual transition 
 eannot be proved to have taken place.' 
 
 And again, further on : — ' We contemplate among all the 
 diversified tribes who are endowed with reason and speech 
 the same internal feelings, appetences, aversions ; the same 
 inward convictions ; the same sentiments of subjection to 
 invisible powers, and, more or less fully developed, of ac- 
 countableness or responsibility to unseen avengers of wrong 
 and agents of retributive justice, from whose tribunal men 
 cannot even by death escape. We find everywhere the 
 same susceptibility, though not always in the same degree 
 of forwardness or ripeness of improvement, of admitting 
 the cultivation of these universal endowments, of opening the 
 eyes of the mind to the more clear and luminous views 
 which Christianity unfolds, of becoming moulded to the 
 institutions of religion and of civilised life : in a word, the 
 same inward and mental nature is to be recognised in all the 
 races of men. When we compare this fact with the observa- 
 tions which have been heretofore fully established as to the 
 specific instincts and separate psychical endowments of all 
 
92 REFUTATION OF FiLSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 the distinct tribes of sentient beings in the universe, we are 
 entitled to draw confidently the conclusion, that all human 
 races are of one species and one family.' * So triumphantly 
 is this Scripture account thus far verified by an impartial 
 and independent appeal to facts. 
 
 It is difficult to understand how men can presume to 
 contravene the distinct statements of Scripture on this 
 subject on the ground that there are differences, when we 
 compare one nation with another, which we cannot explain : 
 for they seem to forget that there are differences in individ- 
 uals, in colour and in form, who undoubtedly belong to the 
 same nation, and regarding whose descent from common 
 parents there is no dispute, as inexplicable as the differences 
 between one nation and another. In the one case the com- 
 mon parentage cannot be denied. How, then, can it be 
 denied in the other in the face of the Scripture statement 1 
 They reply, that in comparing nations the differences appear 
 to be permanent, whereas the anomalies in the same nation 
 are transitory. But this is no answer whatever to the argu- 
 ment ; it only shows that the cases are not identical. But 
 they are both inexplicable. Are they able to give a physio- 
 logical explanation of the appearance of unusual varieties in 
 the same nation ? They confess that they cannot. Why, 
 then, do they not deny their existence? Because they occur 
 as matters of fact before their own eyes : and, therefore, they 
 are compelled to resort to conjecture, and think they see an 
 explanation in peculiarities in embryonic nutrition. But the 
 difficulties are not really solved. They see the facts, and 
 know, therefore, that there must be some explanation. Why 
 not act so in the other case? What right have they gra- 
 tuitously to deny the historical fact handed down in the 
 Scriptures, that all men are of one blood, and that the 
 nations are all descended from Noah and his sons, on the 
 
 * Priohard's Natural History of Man, vol. 1. p. 5 ; vol. ii. pp. 644, 
 713, 714. 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OP THE HUMAN RACE. 93 
 
 ground that they cannot yet account for the difference of races? 
 If it pleased the Almighty, either by a direct act of His own 
 when the nations were dispersed, or by the influence of 
 climate or other physical causes, to impress more or less 
 permanent characteristics on different nations, is this less 
 intelligible and more perplexing than that a man should be 
 born with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, 
 when none of his ancestors were known to have so many, and 
 it is quite contrary to human organization ? This fact, we 
 know, occurs occasionally in these times, as well as other 
 anomalous varieties.* And, departures as they are from the 
 physical constitution of man, they serve as an unanswerable 
 rejoinder to those who object, on the ground of want of ex- 
 planation as to the causes, that the historical statement of 
 the Scriptures is not true, that all men are of one blood. We 
 do not appeal to physiology to prove the truth of the Scrip- 
 ture statement ; but we deny that physiology has given any 
 proof that the Scripture statement is not true. In some 
 paragraphs, indeed, which follow, it will be seen that the 
 history of races does go a great way towards actually 
 
 * Professor Huxley gives this remarkable case. 'A Maltese couple, 
 named Kelleia, whose hands and feet were constructed upon the or- 
 dinary human model, had born to them a son, Gratio, who possessed 
 six perfectly movable fingers on each hand, and six toes, not quite so 
 well formed, on each foot. No cause could be assigned for the appear- 
 ance of this unusual variety of the human species.' This Gratio 
 ' married a woman with the ordinary pentadactyle extremities, and had 
 by her four' children, — Salvator, George, Andrg, and Marie. Of these 
 children Salvator, the eldest boy, had six fingers and six toes, like his 
 father ; the second and third, also boys, had five fingers and five toes, 
 like their mother, though the hands and feet of George were slightly 
 deformed ; the last, a girl, had five fingers and five toes, but the thumbs 
 were slightly deformed. The variety thus reproduced itself purely in 
 the eldest, while the normal type reproduced itself purely in the third, 
 and almost purely in the second and last: so that it would seem, at first, 
 as if the normal type were more powerful than the variety. But all 
 these children grew up, and intermarried with normal wives and 
 
94 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONa 
 
 confirniing, and by no means contradicting, the Scripture 
 statement. 
 
 To the testimony of the late Dr. Prichard, I will now add 
 that of Dr. Carpenter, equally clear and important. He 
 concludes his examination of the subject thus : — ' From the 
 anatomical portion of our inquiry we are led to the general 
 conclusion, first, that no such diiforence exists in the external 
 conformation or internal structure of the different races of 
 men, as would justify the assertion of their distinct origin ; 
 and, secondly, that, although the comparison of the structural 
 characters of races does not furnish any positive evidence of 
 their descent from a common stock, it proves that even if 
 their common stocks were originally distinct, there could have 
 been no essential difference between them, the descendants of 
 any one such stock being able to assume the characters of 
 another.'* And further on: — 'The general conclusion which 
 we seem entitled to draw from the anatomical, physiological, 
 and psychological facts to which reference has been made is, 
 that all the human races may have had a common origin, 
 
 husbands ; and then, note what took place : Salvator had four children, 
 three of whom exhibited the hexadaot.yie members of their grandfather 
 and father ; while the youngest had the pentadactyle limbs of the 
 mother and grandmother ; so that here, notwithstanding a double 
 pentadactyle dihition of the blood, the hexadactyle variety had the best 
 of it. The same pre-potency of the variety was still more markedly 
 exemplified in the progeny of two of the other children, Marie and 
 George. Marie (whose thumbs only were deformed) gave birth to a 
 boy with six toes, and three other normally-formed children ; but George 
 who was not quite so pure a pentadactyle, begot, first, two girls, each 
 of whom had six fingers and six toes ; then a girl with six fingers on 
 each hand, and six toes on the right foot, but only five toes on the left; 
 and lastly, a boy with only five fingers and toes. In these instances, 
 therefore, the variety leaped over one generation to reproduce itself in 
 full force in the next. Finally, the pure pentadactyle, AndrS, was the 
 father of many children, not one of whom departed from the normal 
 parental type.' Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, pp. 291 — 293. 
 * Varieties of Mankind, an article by Dr. W. B. Carpenter, 
 
KJiUAKJJlJNU THIS OKiaiN OF THE HUMAN RACE. 95 
 
 since they all possess the same constant characters, and diflfer 
 only in those which can he shown to vary from generation to 
 generation.'* 
 
 The paper from which these words are quoted contains so 
 much which bears upon my subject, that I do not scruple to 
 make large use of it, and in doing so shall adopt almost en- 
 tirely the words of the author. 
 
 He remarks, that the different races of men have been 
 divided into the prognathous, indicating prominence of jaws, 
 as the Negro of Guinea Coast and the Negrito Types of cranial 
 of Australia; the pyramidal, the Mongolian, or lormation. 
 Tungiisian of Central Asia, or Esquimaux, or Greenlander; 
 and the oval or elliptic, the natives of Western or Southern 
 Europe. He says, that the prognatkous type, although most 
 remarkably developed among the Negroes of the Delta of the 
 Niger, is by no means confined to them, or to the African 
 races in general. It is met with in various parts of the globe ; 
 and is nearly always associated with squalor and destitution, 
 ignorance and brutality. People among whom it prevails are 
 
 Professor of Physiology in the University of London, in the 
 Cyclopoedia of Anatomy and Physiology, p. 1339. 
 
 * Ibid. p. 134.5. The following testimonies are also important : — 
 ' Professor Wagner, who from his position as a teacher of comparative 
 anatomy for many years had the fullest opportunity, as well as disposi- 
 tion and abihty, to investigate the question of the unity of mankind. . . 
 in a lecture on Anthropology delivered at the first meeting of the 
 thirty-first assembly of German naturalists and physicians at Gottingen 
 (Sept. 1854) says, "If you ask me, on my scientific conscience, how I 
 would formulate the final results of my investigations on this subject, 
 I should do so in the following manner : — All races of mankind can 
 (like the races of many domestic animals) be reduced to no actually 
 existing, but only to an ideal type, to which the Indo-European type 
 approaches nearest" [the ideal type being, in fact, that in which Adam 
 came forth from the hands of his Maker spotless and perfect]. To this 
 conclusion, Waitz, to whom we owe the most elaborate accumulation of 
 facts in Anthropology ever collected, has also arrived.' Dr. G. Moore's 
 The First Man, and his Place in Creation, p. 211. 
 
96 REFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 for the most part hunters or inhabitants of low marshy 
 forests. In the pyramidal the most striking feature is the 
 lateral or outward projection of the zygomatic arches. The 
 lines hounding the face converge towards a point upwards, so 
 as to give the skull generally a pyramidal form. The form 
 of the face is a lozenge shape rather than oval. The greater 
 part of the races representing the pyramidal type in a well- 
 marked degree may be represented as pastoral nomades. 
 But as before, they may be found in remote parts of the globe, 
 among tribes whose descent would appear to be quite differ- 
 ent. The oval or elliptical type at once approves itself to 
 the educated eye as distinguished by its symmetrical contour. 
 It is found that in the skull of largest capacity amongst the 
 races whose average is lowest, the cubical content is greater 
 than that of the smallest skull among the highest.* With 
 regard to capacity I may observe, that that of the Australian 
 savage is 82 cubic inches, and that of the Teutonic family 
 only 94, that of the gorilla being 30 ; showing clearly that 
 the savage has brain apparatus quite comparable with that 
 of more civilized men, if he did but use it. Mr. Wallace 
 
 * See Contributioiis to the Theory of Natural Selection, by Mr. A. 
 R. Wallace, 1870, pp. 336, 338. As an example of the unfair way in 
 which statements are sometimes made on these subjects, I give the fol- 
 lowing extract from a valuable Appendix on the Negro in Dr. Moore's 
 The First Man, and his Place in Creation, p. 327 : — Much stress 
 has been laid on the situation of the opening through which the 
 spinal cord is united with the brain. It is asserted to be further back 
 in the Negro, and thus rather more towards its position in the Ape. 
 It is not true if we measure the true base of the skull : it is only 
 apparently so from the greater projection of the upper jaw in the 
 Negro, which has no more to do with the real base of the skull than a 
 long nose has. But the test is in the pose or position of the cranium 
 on the vertebral column or backbone. The skull of the Negro is 
 balanced on that column as perfectly as the European's. The joint 
 surfaces are in both precisely in the centre of gravity : this is not the 
 case in any creature but man, because he alone is formed to walk erect, 
 and every part of his framework is constructed accordingly.' 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN RACE. 97 
 
 states that 10, 26, 32, represent the average proportion of 
 cranial capacity of apes most like man, savages, and civilized 
 man. 
 
 Dr. Carpenter shows by examples, that these races are 
 not alvfays distinguishable from each other, and are connected 
 together by a succession of gradations which renders it im- 
 possible to draw a distinct line of demarcation between them ; 
 and that they are not so invariably transmitted from generation 
 to generation, where the purity of the race has been preserved, 
 as to entitle them to be regarded as permanent and unalter- 
 able ; but are occasionally seen to vary in a succession of 
 generations, so that a race loses more or less completely its 
 original type and assumes some other. He affirms that the 
 extreme differences in the configui'ation of the skuLl, existing 
 among the several races of men, are not greater than those 
 which present themselves among races of domesticated 
 mammals, knoicn to have had a common origin (e. g. those of 
 the hog) ; and are not nearly so great as those existing among 
 other races of mammals (as the various breeds of dog) which 
 are generally believed to have had a common origin : and that, 
 as in the case of the domesticated races, the distinctive 
 characters are by no means clearly marked out ; but that 
 those of the typical forms are softened down in intermediate 
 gradations, so as to present a continuous series from one type 
 to another, in which no such hiatus is left as would justify 
 the assumption of the specific distinctness of those types. 
 This last fact of itself invalidates that supposition of the 
 uniform transmission of physical characters from parent to 
 offspring, on which the presumption of original distinctness 
 mainly rests. For, on the theory of specific distinctness, all 
 the descendants of the same parentage should repeat the 
 characters of their ancestors without essential modification ; 
 whereas we find, as a matter of fact, that the distinctive 
 characters are perpetuated in their full intensity in only a 
 small proportion of each race, and that in great masses they 
 
 H 
 
98 REPUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 are so shaded off as gradually to disappear. Ordinary obser- 
 vation teaches us, that not only between the parents and 
 their offspring, but also among the different children of the 
 same parentage, a considerable diversity of cranial formation 
 not unfrequently exists. And on looking at the various in- 
 dividuals composing the ramifications of a particular family 
 it is observable, that they agree among themselves in some 
 peculiarity of cranial conformation which seems, from the 
 evidence of portraits and busts, to have been transmitted 
 downwards for centuries ; and by this very character it may 
 be separated from other families, which are in like manner 
 distinguished for their respective peculiarities. Now there 
 can be no reasonable doubt that many such families had 
 originally a common ancestry. So there must have been a 
 time when each of these peculiarities first manifested itself in 
 its own branch of the common stock. For if this be not 
 admitted, we must suppose each of them to have descended 
 from a distant pair of protoplasts. It is obvious, then, that 
 the question of possible modification is only one of degree : 
 and we may expect to find that even the widest diversities 
 which have been described might have been occasioned by 
 the sufficiently prolonged influence of external causes acting 
 upon a succession of generations. That such has been the case 
 to a considerable extent would appear in some instances from 
 the direct evidence of history. In other instances it would 
 seem a necessary inference from the facts of philology. While 
 in others again the two classes of evidential facts, neither of 
 them sufficient in itself, tend to confirm each other. 
 
 Dr. Carpenter brings forward the following historical 
 
 illustrations. The Turks of Europe and Western Asia. 
 
 Historical These so clearly accord in physical character 
 
 examples of with the great bulk of European nations, and 
 
 cnanges. - ■ ^ ' 
 
 depart so widely from the Turks of Central Asia, 
 that many writers have referred the former to the (so called) 
 Caucasian rather than to the Mongolian stock. Yet historical 
 
KKUABUirtU THIS OmeiN OF THE HUMAN RACE. 99 
 
 and philological evidence sufficiently proves, that the Western 
 Turks originally belonged to the Central-Asia group of 
 nations, with which the eastern portion of their nation still 
 remains associated, not only in its geographical position, but 
 in its language, physical character, and habits of life ; and that 
 it is in the western, and not the eastern, that the change has 
 taken place. Any result arising from intermixture of the 
 Turkish race with the inhabitants of the countries they con- 
 quered. Dr. Carpenter shows to be altogether inadequate to 
 explain the phenomena. Another instance, he says, of the 
 same modification is to be found in the Magyar race, which 
 forms a large part of the population of Hungary, including 
 the entire nobility of that country. This race, which is not 
 inferior in mental or physical character to any in Europe, is 
 proved by historical and philological evidence to have been 
 a branch of the great northern Asiatic stock, which was 
 expelled about ten centuries ago from the country it then 
 inhabited, bordering on the Uralian mountains ; and, in its 
 turn, expelled the Sclavonian nations from the fertile parts 
 of Hungary, which it has occupied ever since. Having thus 
 exchanged their abode from the most rigorous climate of the 
 old contiaent — a wilderness in which Ostiaks and Samoiedes 
 pursue the chase during only the milder season — for one in 
 the south of Europe, in fertUe plains abounding in rich 
 harvests, the Magyars gradually laid aside the rude and 
 savage habits, which they are recorded to have brought with 
 them, and adopted a more settled mode of life. In the 
 course of a thousand years their type of cranial formation 
 has been changed from the pyramidal to the elliptical ; and 
 they are become a handsome people, with fine stature and 
 regular European features, with just enough of the Tartar 
 cast of countenance, in some instances, to call their origin to 
 mind.' Here, again, it may be said, that the intermixture of 
 the conquering with the conquered race has had a groat 
 share in bringing about this change ; but a similar replyi 
 
100 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 must be returned, for the existing Magyars pride themselves 
 greatly on the purity of their descent ; and the small in- 
 fusion of Sclavonic blood, which may have taken place from 
 time to time, is by no means sufficient to account for the 
 complete change of type which now manifests itself The 
 women of pure Magyar race are said by good judges to be 
 singularly beautiful, far surpassing either German or Scla- 
 vonian females. A similar modification, but in less degree, 
 appears to have taken place in the Finnish tribes of Scan- 
 dinavia. These may almost certainly be affirmed to have 
 the same origin with the Lapps ; but whilst the latter retain, 
 although inhabiting Europe, the nomadic habits of their 
 Mongolian ancestors, the former have adopted a much more 
 settled mode of life, and have made considerable advances in 
 civilization, especially in Esthonia, where they assimilate 
 with their Eussian neighbours. And thus we have in the 
 Einns, Lapps, and Magyars, three nations or tribes, of whose 
 descent from a common stock no reasonable doubt can be 
 entertained, and which exhibit the most marked differences 
 in cranial characters, and also in general conformation, the 
 Magyars being as tall and well made as the Lapps are short 
 and uncouth. Another instance of the same kind, which is 
 still more remarkable if it can be entirely substantiated, is 
 the conversion of the Georgian and Caucasian nations from 
 the pyramidal or Mongolian to the elliptical or Indo-European 
 type. These people are composed of an assemblage of tribes 
 inhabiting a mountainous country, speaking languages almost 
 unintelligible to each other, and remarkably isolated from 
 the neighbouring nations. The beauty of form and feature 
 and the delicacy of complexion, which characterise individuals 
 and families among these tribes, are well known. But these 
 attributes are for the most part confined to the families of 
 the chiefs ; and they are carefully cherished by exemption 
 from labour, and by exclusion from undue exposure. The 
 common people, who are engaged in the cultivation of the 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN RACE. 101 
 
 soil, are described by travellers as being for the most part 
 coarse and unshapely. From a careful comparison and 
 analysis of the languages of these races, Dr. Latham and 
 Mr. !N"orris have independently arrived on different grounds, 
 the one from the words, the other from the grammar, at the 
 same result, viz. that they are aptotic, or destitute of in- 
 flexions, like the Chinese ; and that the people must have 
 been of Mongolian origin, but separated from the common 
 stock at a very early period ; the perpetuation of the very 
 low development of their language being favoured by the 
 peculiar character of the country in which they settled, while 
 this tended to modify their physical conformation. For the 
 area they occupy is at once temperate, mountainous, and 
 wooded, the reverse of the true Mongol areas. And thus, 
 adds Dr. Carpenter, if this view should be confirmed, we 
 must regard the very people which has been selected as 
 furnishing the type of the most perfect conformation, as an 
 improved race of a decidedly inferior stock. 
 
 The Negro type is often cited as an example of the 
 permanence of the physical character of races, and especially 
 of types of cranial conformation. The existing Ethiopian 
 physiognomy is said to agree with the representations trans- 
 mitted to us from the remotest times in Egyptian pictures ; 
 and the physiognomy, it is further maintained, continues 
 to be transmitted from parent to child, even where the 
 transportation of a Negro population to a temperate climate 
 and civilized associations, as in the United States of America, 
 has entirely changed the external conditions of their exist- 
 ence. Now it is perfectly true that the Negro races which 
 continue to inhabit their original localities, and maintain 
 their barbarous habits of life, retain the prognathous type ; 
 and this is precisely what we should expect. But it is not 
 true that no modification has taken place in them, either from 
 the influence of civilization or from a change of the physical 
 conditions of their existence, for the most elevated form of 
 
102 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 skull occurring among the African nations is found in those 
 ■which have emerged in a greater or less degxee from their 
 barbarism ; their civilization having been due to external 
 influence brought to bear upon them. There is, Dr. Carpenter 
 observes, strong evidence to show, that even the Syro- Arabian 
 or Semitic nations may be referred to the African stock ; at 
 any rate, there are numerous tribes in the interior of Africa, 
 whose affinity with the true Negroes cannot be disputed, and 
 which yet present a far superior cranial organization. So 
 that we must either regard the one form to be the result 
 of improvement, or the other to have proceeded from degen- 
 eration. In regard to the transplanted Negroes, it is obvious 
 that the time which has elapsed since their removal, is as 
 yet too short to justify us in expecting any considerable 
 alteration in cranial configuration. Many of the Negroes 
 now living in the West Indian Islands are natives of 
 Africa ; and a large proportion of the Negro population, 
 both there and in the United States, is removed by no more 
 than one or two descents from their African progenitors. 
 The climate, too, of the southern states of North America, as 
 of the West Indies, is not very diff'erent from that of the 
 Guinea Coast, in regard to temperature; and the low, 
 undrained character of much of the soil which they are 
 employed in cultivating tends to keep up the correspondence. 
 Still, according to the concurrent testimony of disinterested 
 observers, both in the West Indies and in the United States, 
 an approximation in the Negro physiognomy to the European 
 model is progressively taking place. This is particularly the 
 case with Negroes employed as domestic servants. It is said 
 to be frequently not at all difficult to distinguish a Negro of 
 pure blood, belonging to the Dutch portion of the colony, 
 from another belonging to the English settlements, by the 
 correspondence between the features and expression of each 
 and those which are characteristic of their respective masters. 
 This alteration, too, is not confined to a change of form 
 
EBGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN EACE. 103 
 
 in the skull, or to a diminution in the projection of the 
 jaw ; hut it is also seen in the general figure, and in the 
 form of the soft parts, as the lips and nose. Dr. Carpenter 
 was informed hy Sir Charles Lyell, that, during a tour in 
 America, he was assured hy numerous medical men residing 
 in the Slave states, that a gradual approximation is taking 
 place in the configuration of the head and body of the 
 Negroes to the European model, each successive genera- 
 tion exhibiting an improvement in these respects. The 
 change is most apparent in such as are brought into 
 closest and most habitual relation with the whites, as 
 by domestic servitude, without any actual intermixture 
 of races, which would be at once betrayed by the change of 
 complexion. 
 
 Very strong evidence is furnished by philology to show 
 that the Hottentot races are a branch of the common African 
 stock, and the approximation of their skulls to the pyramidal 
 type cannot be attributed to intermixture of any Mongolian 
 race. On the other hand, among the inhabitants of Oceania, 
 there are many races which show, more or less, the progna- 
 thous type, and this is sometimes associated with woolly or 
 frizzled, sometimes with long and straight hair. Yet there is 
 strong philological evidence for regarding these as descendants 
 of colonists who spread themselves, probably by various lines 
 of migration, from southeast Asia, and who carried to the 
 various islands of the vast Malayo-Polynesian Archipelago 
 the pyramidal type more or less softened down. On no other 
 hypothesis can the extraordinary community in the funda- 
 mental elements of their languages be accounted for, the tribes 
 which use them being in a state of complete isolation from each 
 other. Where, as is frequently the case, the same island or 
 group is peopled hy two or more races, having different 
 physical characters, it is always found that the greatest 
 tendency to the prognathous type shows itself among those 
 who appear to have longest dwelt there in a state of barba- 
 
104 HEFDTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 rism ; and that it is most strongly marked when, to other 
 degrading agencies, that of a low and marshy soil has been 
 added. Even the elliptic type may occasionally present 
 indications of degradation towards one of the others. Want, 
 squalor, and ignorance have a special tendency to induce that 
 diminution of the cranial portion of the skull, and that 
 increase of the facial, which characterise the prognathous 
 type. This cannot but be observed by any one who takes an 
 accurate and candid survey of the condition of the most de- 
 graded part of the population of our great towns, especially 
 the lowest classes of Irish immigrants. A certain degree of 
 regression to the pyramidal type is also to be noticed among 
 the nomadic tribes which are to be found in every civilized 
 community. Among these, as has been remarked by an acute 
 observer, 'according as they partake more or less of the 
 purely vagabond nature, doing nothing whatsoever for their 
 living, but moving from place to place, preying on the earn- 
 ings of the more industrious portion of the community ; so 
 will all the attributes of the nomade races be found more or 
 less marked in them ; and they are all more or less distin- 
 guished for their high cheekbones and protruding jaws.' * 
 This shows that kind of mixture of the pyramidal with the 
 prognathous type, which is to be seen among the most de- 
 graded of the Jlalayo-Polynesian races. Dr. Carpenter 
 observes that the conformation of the cranium seems to have 
 undergone a certain amount of alteration even in the Anglo- 
 Saxon race in the United States, which assimilates it in some 
 degree to that of the original inhabitants. Certain it is, that 
 among New Englanders more particularly, a cast of countenance 
 prevails, which usually renders it easy for any one familiar 
 with it to point out. an individual of that country in the 
 midst of an assemblage of Englishmen; and, although this 
 may chiefly depend on the conformation of the soft parts, yet 
 there is a certain sharpness and an angularity of feature about 
 * London Labour and London Poor, by H. Majhew, p. 2. 
 
REGARDING SEVERAL ORIGINS OF MANKIND. 105 
 
 a genuine ' Yankee,' which would probably display itself in 
 the contour of the bones. Dr. Carpenter has observed an 
 excess of breadth between the rami of the lower jaw, giving 
 to the lower part of the face a peculiar squareness, which is 
 in striking contrast to the tendency to an oval, the form most 
 common among the inhabitants of the old country. And 
 adds thereto, it is not a little significant that the well-marked 
 change which has thus shown itself in the course of a very 
 few generations should tend to assimilate the Anglo-American 
 race to the aborigines of the country ; the peculiar physiology 
 here adverted to most assuredly presenting a transition, 
 however slight, towards that of the North American Indians.* 
 The evidence which J have thus gathered from Dr. Carpenter's 
 valuable paper, shows most convincingly from history and 
 physiology, that there is no difficulty whatever in receiving 
 the Scripture statement, that all the races of men are the 
 offspring of one pair created at the beginning. 
 
 (2.) The questioning of the descent of all the tribes of 
 men from one stock has been put by some in a form for 
 which, strange to say, the support of Scripture ^^ majikind 
 has been claimed. The distinguished iiatura-^«^«'^^°"giiis? 
 list Agassiz, following as it would appear, Dr. Nott of 
 America, has avowed it as his belief, that ' there was no 
 common central origin for man, but an indefinite number of 
 separate creations, from which the races of men have sprung ;'t 
 and he boldly asserts that Scripture supports this view. 
 
 * Cyclopcedia of Anatomy and Physiology, pp. 1302-1345. 
 
 t See this fully examined and refuted in Dr. Thomas Smyth's 
 Unity of the Human Races, published in America, where this new and 
 preposterous theory, while it has found some able opponents, is not 
 wanting in warm admirers ; as it appears to countenance the notion, 
 that the slaves are of a race to whom the blessings of Christianity are 
 not promised ; for according to this hypothesis, they are not descended 
 from Adam ! 
 
 Another writer gives this view also. ' " God hath made of one 
 blood," says the Apostle Paul, in addressing himself to the elite of 
 
106 HEFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 Scripture and Science, therefore, are not at variance accord- 
 ing to him ; and we so far agree in our results. But both 
 his premisses being false, he furnishes an instance of an 
 apparent agreement arising from a double error, in the inter- 
 pretation both of Revelation and Nature. His first premiss 
 is, that Science requires this view. But what is his argument 1 
 Solely one of analogy. He has started a general hypothesis, 
 that among plants and the lower animals identity of species 
 does not necessarily imply identity of origin. He assumes 
 that analogy should lead us to apply the same to the various 
 races of men now inhabiting the world. But analogy is not 
 demonstration. Moreover to make his analogy worth any- 
 thing even as an analogy, he must show that his theory is 
 true in the case of all the lower animals, and not that it is 
 probably the case with some. He must show that man, whom 
 we except, is the only exception, before his principle of ana- 
 logy can be of any service whatever. If indeed we admit this 
 kind of reasoning, analogy will rather turn against such a 
 
 Athens, " all nations for to dwell on the face of the earth." Such, on 
 this special head, is the testimony of Revelation, and such is the con- 
 clusion of our highest scientific authorities. The question has indeed 
 been raised in these latter times, whether each species of animals may 
 not have been originally created, not by single pairs, or in single 
 centres, but by several pairs, and in several centres, and, of course, the 
 human species among the rest. And the qicery — for in reality it 
 amounts to nothing more — has been favourably entertained on the 
 other side of the Atlantic, where there are uneasy consciences, that 
 would find comfort in the belief that Zamboo, the blackamoor who 
 was lynched for gettmg tired of slavery and hard blows, was an animal 
 in no way akin to his master. And on purely scientific grounds it is 
 of course difllcult to prove a negative in the ca'-e, just as it would be 
 difficult to prove a ne'gative were the question to be, whether the 
 planet Venus was not composed of quartz-rock, or the planet Mars of 
 old red sandstone. But the portion of the problem really solvable by 
 science, the identity of the human race under all its conditions and in 
 all its varieties, science has solved.'— Hugh Miller's Testimony of the 
 Rocks, 1857, p. 249. 
 
REGARDING 8EVEBAL 0RIGIN8 OP MANKIND. 107 
 
 conclusion. For there are varieties — individual, family, and 
 national — in any one race of men, fully as difficult of explan- 
 ation as the diversities of races one from another.* Analogy 
 would therefore lead us to infer, that as these varieties, singu- 
 lar as they are, are Unown to belong to the same race, so the 
 prohahility is that the several races — though differing, but 
 not with wider distinctions than the varieties in each — all 
 belong to one stock. 
 
 But the Professor's second premiss is, if possible, still 
 more unwarrantable. He asserts that the Scriptures coun- 
 tenance bhis view. The groundwork of his assertion is the 
 following passage : ' And Cain went out from the presence of 
 the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod .... And he builded 
 a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his 
 son, Enoch' (Gen. iv. 16, 17). His inference is, that there 
 must have been men to form the city ; whereas, now that 
 Abel was dead, Cain and his son, as far as Scripture acquaints 
 us, were the sole descendants of Adam. The Professor thus 
 peoples the land of Nod with descendants of another race 
 distinct from Adam, and upon this flimsy basis grounds his 
 assertion, even in the face of those plain and decisive state- 
 ments of Scripture which I have already quoted, in which 
 Eve is declared to be the mother of all living, and St. Paul 
 informs us, that God made of one blood all nations of men. 
 The above-mentioned argument, strange to say, has been 
 advanced by a writer avowing his belief in Scripture, and 
 speaking of its sacred pages with reverence, and who holds 
 also a high place among the scientiiic observers of the day. 
 Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, a substitute 
 for Abel, (Gen.iv. 25 ; v. 3). If, then, Abel, was slain in the 
 previous year, Cain cannot have been much less than 130 
 years old when he went forth into the land of Nod. During 
 this time his own descendants, according to the ordinary laws 
 
 * Unity of the Euman Races, pp. 364, 371. 
 
108 EEFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 of human increase, might have amounted to a considerable 
 population.* Cain's descendants may have been many 
 thousands, especially when we remember the lengthened lives 
 of those who lived before the Flood ; and to these are to be 
 added the descendants of Cain's brothers and sisters, not 
 named (Gen. v. 4) ; and men enough would be found among 
 them to build and inhabit a city. The very name, moreover, 
 of the land to which Cain wandered, implies that it received 
 its designation from him, and not from any people already 
 inhabiting it ; for Nod means ' wandering.' 
 
 These views, and kindred views regarding the Deluge, 
 the composition of the Pentateuch, and other such questions, 
 Mr. Lecky informs us (Rationalism in Europe, vol, i. p. 323 : 
 3rd ed.), were advanced so far back as the middle of the 
 seventeenth century by a French writer, M. La Peyrfere, a 
 Protestant who afterwards went over to the Church of Kome, 
 recanted his views, and did not complete his work, the first 
 part only having been then published. 
 
 There are two recent authors on this subject on whose 
 works I will make a few brief remarks. They both receive 
 the Holy Scriptures as inspired ; they both suppose that 
 there have been different races of men on the earth having 
 different origins. Both write in a style, more flowing than 
 solid and convincing. The first, in a book called Pre- 
 adamite Man, considers that the Adam of the first chapter of 
 Genesis was the progenitor of a race from which we are not 
 descended ; but that the Adam of the second chapter is our 
 forefather. This, however, will not stand examination. For 
 when our Lord said to the Pharisees, ' The Sabbath was 
 made for man, and not man for the Sabbath : Therefore the 
 Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath ' (Mark, ii. 27, 28) ; 
 
 * 'An island first occupied by a few shipwrecked English in 1589, 
 and discovered by a Dutch vessel in 1667, is said to have been found 
 peopled after eighty years by 12,000 souls, all the descendants of four 
 motliers.' —Quoted in Dr. Smyth's Work, p. 375. 
 
EEGAEDING SEVERAL OEIGINS OP MANKIND. 109 
 
 by ' man ' He must have meant the race of which the 
 Pharisees and certainly Himself were members, and not a 
 race from which they were not descended. But the narrative 
 in Genesis which our Lord quotes is that of the creation of 
 the Adam of the first chapter. Again, when our Lord is 
 arguing with the Pharisees against divorce, He says, ' Have 
 ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning 
 made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a 
 man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife ; 
 and they twain shall be one flesh ? ' (Matt, xix. 4, 5). In 
 these words our Lord quotes both the first and second 
 chapters, and thus stamps them as relating to the creation 
 of one and the same Adam, and not two distinct Adams. 
 
 Dr. M'Causland, in his Adam and the Adamite, supposes 
 that the race of Adam is the Caucasian race only ; and that 
 at the time of Adam's creation there were already existing 
 previously-created races of men, not made as Adam was in 
 the likeness of God, from ■whom, the Mongol and Negro are 
 descended. It is strange that the Almighty, who has told 
 us of the creation of ' cattle, and creeping thing, and beast 
 of the earth after his kind,' before he created Adam, has made 
 no mention of the creation of these human cousins. The 
 fluent author seems strangely to have lost the meaning of 
 St. Paul's words, that ' as in Adam all die, even so in Christ 
 shall all be made alive' (1 Cor. xv. 22), and forgets that this 
 all, dying in Adam and living in Christ, includes Greek and 
 Jew, Barbarian, Scythian, bond and free (Col. iii. 11). This 
 book is not wanting in fallacies in other places. The writer 
 says that 'the uninspired evidence of the date of man's 
 creation, and the conditions of his early existence upon the 
 earth, is derived from five different sources, — geology, 
 archaeology, history, language, and ethnology — whose con- 
 vergent rays have lighted up the darkness of the pre- 
 historical ages, and reveal the far-distant origin of the races 
 of men.' For the last passage I should substitute ' . . . . 
 
110 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 whose flickering tapers give light enough to show the gloom 
 of ignorance and uncertainty which envelopes the whole 
 subject ; and to convince us that the pure light of Scripture 
 [which he receives] is a ten thousand times better guide as to 
 the origin and age of man's existence on the earth.' 
 
 The same author, in an interesting lecture on Shinar 
 (published in 1867), propounds the same view, that there 
 were races in the world independent of Adam, and who 
 escaped the flood ! In p. 22 he puts the entrance of the 
 Aryans, descendants of Japhet, into India, very far too early ; 
 viz. 2000 years before Christ, in the time of Abraham. In 
 the next page, however, he makes the date 1500, that is, 500 
 years later. This allows eight hundred years after the flood 
 (even on Ussher's chronology) for the first dispersion of the 
 progenitors of all mankind, and the subsequent migration of 
 the Aryans into India. But even this date seems too early. 
 Tor the date of the first of the sacred books of the Hindoos 
 is B.C. 1181, or thereabouts. See a note further on, under 
 my fourth example in this chapter, drawn from Hindoo and 
 Chinese Astronomy. 
 
 (3.) This theory, that the human race is descended from 
 several origins, is broadly stated and defended in another 
 work, published in America a few years ago, The Types of 
 Mankind. The writers have entered upon a field of investi- 
 gation so vast in its extent, and so full of mysteries in the 
 physiology of organization, that no theory can possibly be 
 evolved in our present state of knowledge, worthy of the 
 least confidence, plausible as it may for a time appear. When 
 all the knowledge which all the physicians have acquired has 
 not yet led to the detection of the physiology of fever, 
 dysentery, consumption, or cholera — diseases which are per- 
 petually occurring under their observation, how presump- 
 tuous does it appear for any man, in the face of the 
 statements of Revelation, to assert, that the differences of 
 nations cannot have been brought about by natural causes. 
 
REGARDING SEVERAL ORIGINS OF MANKIND. Ill 
 
 All their knowledge of physiological causation, and even 
 action, important as it is, is hut a drop in the ocean. It is 
 too soon to frame ethnological theories. An examination of 
 the work I have alluded to above will, I think, satisfy an 
 impartial person that this judgment is true. The remarks I 
 liave already quoted so copiously from Dr. Carpenter are an 
 ample answer to this book. There are, however, two parts 
 which I will notice. 
 
 a. A large part of the volume is devoted to the accumu- 
 lation of a multitude of facts regarding the races of men 
 which have inhabited the earth during the historical period. 
 Great research is here displayed, and much information, both 
 valuable and interesting, is brought together ; but these are 
 so mixed up with conjectures, strong assertions, and an ill- 
 disguised leaning towards a foregone conclusion, as to shake 
 all confidence in the theory advanced, quite irrespectively of 
 arguments from without, which can be brought against it. 
 That even the alleged facts are not in every instancy to be 
 accepted, I may show by selecting an example on which a 
 resident in India, at all acquainted with its history, can 
 speak with some authority. ' India affords,' the writer 
 asserts, ' a striking illustration of the faUacy of arguments 
 drawn from climate. We there meet with people of all 
 shades, from fair to black, who have been living together 
 from time immemorial.' Then follow the alleged facts in 
 illustration. ' The EohOlas, who are blonds, and situated 
 south of the Ganges, are surrounded by the Nepauleans 
 with black skins, the Mahrattas with yellow skins, and the 
 Bengalees of a deep brown ; and yet the Eohillas inhabit 
 the plain, and the Nepauleans the mountains. Here we have, 
 either different races inhabiting the same climate for several 
 thousand years without change, or the same race assuming 
 every shade of colour. Of this dilemma, the advocates of 
 unity may choose either hoi'n.' But as an advocate of unity 
 I will take neither horn ; but will stab the bull by bringing 
 
112 BEPUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 forward better facts. It is well known to persons acquainted 
 with Indian History, that the KohUlas were a colony of 
 Afghans who emigrated from the province of Cabul about 
 the beginning of the eighteenth century. They are of a 
 fairer complexion than almost any other race in Hindostan, 
 which is quite in accordance with the elevation of the regions 
 from which they come. With regard to the ' Nepauleans 
 with black skins,' all that need be said is, that they are 
 Hindoos who fled before their Mahomedan conquerors from 
 the plains to the Nepaul hills, and settled there in the four- 
 teenth century. The writer of the extract I have given above 
 adds, that he might recite innumerable facts to the same 
 effect. But this theory cannot but have a very precarious 
 existence, when such important mistakes are worked into 
 its texture. 
 
 h. Another point I shall notice in this American work on 
 ethnology, is the treatment which the tenth chapter of 
 Genesis meets with at the hands of its authors. So clear 
 and precise a document they naturally feel stands greatly in 
 their way, as it traces the origin of many separate nations up 
 to Xoah as their progenitor. Their method of getting rid of 
 its evidence is very simple, but not so convincing. After a 
 lengthy and not uninteresting criticism upon the list of 
 names, in which they aim at showing that none after those 
 of Shem, Ham, and Japhet, are names of persons, but of 
 nations, they endeavour to encounter the difficulty which 
 meets them in these being all traced up to three in- 
 dividuals, and through them to Noah. Their own admis- 
 sion betrays their uneasiness. ' Our observations on these 
 names limit themselves to guessing, as nearly as we can, 
 what may have been meant by the writer of the tenth of 
 Genesis.' And their solution shows to what an extent of 
 license men can go when once they abandon themselves to 
 their own fancy, and are aiming at establishing their own 
 preconceived conclusions. Ham, Shem, and Japhet, they 
 
REGARDING SEVERAL ORIGINS OP MANKIND. 113 
 
 say, were not men, but are merely terms symbolical of the 
 three principal races known to the writer of thfi document, 
 viz. red, yellow, and white. And Noah signifies repose, or 
 cessation ; a word which, they conceive, ' symbolized to the 
 writer a point of time so remote from his own day, that he 
 ceased to inquire further, and reposed from his labours in 
 blissful ignorance, after having comprehended the vanity of 
 human efforts to pierce that primordial gloom.' * 
 
 Men are not to be trusted, whatever their talents, or 
 however great their knowledge, who can venture to indulge in 
 such visionary speculations as these, in order to set aside a 
 plain historical document. 1" 
 
 * Compare this statement with the remarks of Mr. Rawlinson on 
 this chapter in the note a few pages further on. 
 
 t In other parts of the volume the writers make the most they can, 
 and much more than the case will justify, of the various readings in 
 the Hebrew text, and pour most undeserved reproach upon the 
 English authorized version — a matter, however, which does not affect 
 my argument, since it is the original Scriptures alone to which I allow 
 an appeal. Wild fancies, and unproved conjectures, such as that Ezra 
 wrote the Pentateuch, are assumed to be true, contrary to what ia 
 obvious on the face of the narrative itself, and of thenumerous seeds 
 of internal evidence incidentally sown in the history ; such as that 
 afforded by comparing Judg. i. 21 with 2 Sam. v. 6—9, which conclu- 
 sively proves that the Book of Judges, and much more the Pentateuch, 
 was written before David's time ; such as also the not unfrequent 
 insertion of the words ' unto this day' (see, for example, Deut. iii. 14), 
 as if by the hand of some commentator, such as Ezra, the very inser- 
 tion of which, by its abruptness, proves that the document itself bears 
 an older date ; such, again, as Exod. xvii. 14, which shows that Moses 
 was actually commanded to commit to writing, not only the law, but 
 historical events ; such, again, as the fact that the genealogies are 
 given twice, both in Genesis and Ezra's own book, as I am ready to 
 assume the First Book of Chronicles to be. Why should he have 
 given them twice ? Whereas his copying the ancient record into his 
 own history will easily account for the repetition. The testimonies to 
 the antiquity of the Pentateuch are indeed many, and need not be all 
 enumerated here. 
 
 The writers endeavour to support their views by the supposed 
 
 I 
 
114 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 (4.) There ia one question which has occasioned much 
 
 perplexity in ethnology, viz. : Whether races of men are not 
 
 Ai'e races specially adapted to particular soils and climates 
 
 adapted to "^ ,i i-™. n ■ ■ 
 
 climates ? to such a degree as to mark a difference of origin. 
 Animal and vegetable tribes have their geographical and 
 climatic limits ; have not the races of men also t Europeans 
 cannot colonize a tropical country ; a tropical race is required 
 to cultivate the soil in a tropical climate. England cannot 
 colonize the plains of India, nor of tropical Africa. Spain 
 could not colonize South America, France cannot colonize 
 Algeria. It is said that it is only constant immigration of 
 the Anglo-Saxon race into North America, which, by keep- 
 ing up the supply from the original stock, preserves the race 
 from languishing in that country. As a general rule, certain 
 tribes seem to be specifically adapted to certain climates and 
 soils ; and this seems to imply, they say, that different races 
 were created for different countries. 
 
 Now, against all this it deserves to be considered, that 
 instances are not wanting of a race becoming acclimatized to 
 a new and even an unhealthy country, and apparently with- 
 out any supply from without. This we have seen in the 
 observations of Dr. Carpenter. Mr. Latham, quoting Mr. 
 Hodgson, formerly of Nepaul, gives an illustration : — ' We 
 are in India, and not in the best part of it. We are in a 
 belt of forest fatal to Europeans, fatal, in many cases, to even 
 the Hindoo of the healthier localities. Upon the extent to 
 which these unfavourable conditions affect the human frame, 
 the evidence is conflicting. The Saul forest, full of malaria 
 everywhere, but fullest to the east of the K6si, is endured 
 by no human being save and except the remarkable in- 
 dividuals that have for ages made it their dwelling-place. 
 Yet the Dhimal, the Bodo, and others thrive in it, love it, 
 
 discoveries of Egyptologers, and by the flint remains now causing so 
 much inquiry. These I pass over here, as they will be noticed further 
 on. 
 
KllUAlUJiftli KAUliS ADAfTBl) TO Ol/IMATES. 115 
 
 and leave it witU regret. When others show in their fever- 
 stricken aspects the inroads of the poison of the atmosphere, 
 these breathe it as common air. Nay, they prefer it to the 
 open and untainted air of the plains, where the heat gives 
 them fever.' 
 
 In this case the people are said to be related closely in 
 other particulars to those who surround them, and from whom 
 they seem so much to differ in tliis one respect of climate : 
 they appear not to be suspected, even by the opponents of 
 unity, to be of a different race, and yet they have become 
 acclimatized. And thus, while the fact remains indisputable, 
 that some men can live and cultivate the soil, while others 
 infallibly perish, it proves nothing as to diversity of origin. 
 What it does prove is this, that we know little of the 
 circumstances upon which the success or failure of acclimati- 
 zation depends.* We have a further and very striking 
 illustration of acclimatization in the admitted fact, that the 
 Brahmin, who thrives in every part of India, is of the same 
 stock with the Eussian-Slav, who travels over North Europe 
 in sledges, with the Scandinavian dweller on the North Cape, 
 and with the Anglo-Saxon, who braves the cold of Labrador. 
 
 (5.) Closely connected with this question is another : 
 How far the mixture of the different nations of the human 
 family is possible. Individuals are supposed to q^^ ^ ^aces 
 be of one species, and descended from the same ™^'' 
 original progenitors, when they can unite to propagate 
 offspring, so as to perpetuate the race. If this is the case 
 with the different nations of the earth, then all wiU ac- 
 knowledge that they are of one original race. On this point, 
 however, opposite opinions are expressed : and no doubt 
 further information is required to establish this principle on 
 ethnological grounds. Professor Huxley produces one re- 
 markable illustration, which is in favour of the intermixing 
 of races. ' The only trial,' he writes, ' which, by a strange 
 * See British Quarterly Review, vol. xxxi. p. 170. 
 
116 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 chance, was kept clear of all such [extraneous] influences — 
 the only instance in which two distinct stocks of mankind 
 were crossed, and their progeny intermarried without any 
 admixture from without — ^is the famous case of the Pitcairn 
 Islanders, who were the progeny of Bligh's English sailors by 
 Tahitian women. The results of this experiment, as every- 
 body knows, are dead against those who maintain the doctrine 
 of human hybridity, seeing that the Pitcairn Islanders, even 
 though they necessarily 'contracted consanguineous marriages, 
 throve and multiplied exceedingly.' * How this evidence 
 can be met by the opposite side it is impossible to see. 
 Indeed, it seems clear that not only in physical structure and 
 mental capacity there is evidence enough, as Dr. Prichard 
 and others have shown, to convince us that all men are of 
 one blood ; but also that the people of one part of the world 
 can, in some instances, become acclimatized in another, and 
 that races have been known to mix and produce a permanently 
 prolific offspring — and thus the whole question is settled on 
 merely natural principles. 
 
 But suppose that it should appear that in the present 
 state of the world one nation cannot become acclimatized in 
 the country of another, and that nations cannot intermix ; 
 this will furnish no ground for disputing the unity of the 
 race. So far from it, that I think a very important argument 
 may be drawn in favour of the truth of Scripture from this 
 apparent contradiction. For should this be the result of care- 
 ful investigation, we shall have this anomalous state of 
 things, that on the one hand the innumerable tribes of men 
 all the world over are so physically and mentally con- 
 stituted as to give good reason to believe that they belong to 
 the same human family descended from the same parents ; 
 and yet, on the otlier hand, there is some cause which 
 prevents their permanently intermixing, or even living 
 permanently in each other's countries. ISTow, as we shall have 
 * Fortnightly Review, June 15, 1865, p. 272 
 
REGARDING ALL RACES MIXING. 117 
 
 to show in our third example under this head, there is a 
 precisely similar anomaly when the varieties of human 
 speech are examined by philologists. They inform us that 
 the further the inquiry has been carried, the more numer- 
 ous are. the indications that all languages must have been 
 originally one ; but that also evident proofs exist, that the 
 separation into different tongues must have been by some 
 violent and sudden cause : a discovery which precisely accords 
 with and confirms the account in Scripture of the super- 
 natural confusion of tongues by the direct interposition of the 
 Almighty. Why, then, should we not believe, if in the end 
 the facts of the population of the world as at present con- 
 stituted demand it, that on that occasion of supernatural 
 intervention some change was produced in the human frame, 
 either by the introduction of a new element, or the suspension 
 of one already existing, to adapt in some general way par- 
 ticular nations to the particular countries to which the 
 Almighty dispersed them, when He ' determined the bounds 
 of their habitation 1 ' 
 
 2. Another attack has been made upon the truthfulness 
 of the Scripture history by calling in question, not, as before, 
 the physical possibility of all men being of one DifEerences of 
 
 ™. p. . ,. nations since 
 
 blood, but the sufuciency of the time, according the iiood. 
 to Scripture chronology, for bringing about the changes which 
 are known to have existed at an early period. The objectors, 
 under the force of evidence brought forward by Dr. Prichard 
 and others, admit that, notwithstanding the diversities ex- 
 isting among the several tribes of the earth, all races may 
 have sprung from one original stock, if we allow time enough 
 for the operation of the causes of change. But they con- 
 tend that, according to Scripture chronology, the time 
 reckoned from the Deluge, which they take to be a new 
 starting-point of the human famUy from a single pair, is 
 altogether inadequate to the necessities of the case. It is 
 asserted (as I have before stated) that Egyptian paintings. 
 
118 EEFUTATTON OF FALSE C0NCLU8TONS 
 
 ■which may he dated at 1000 or 1500 years hefore the 
 Christian era, display the forms and complexion of the 
 Negro, the Egyptian, and some Asiatic nations distinctly 
 marked.* The earliest of these dates coincides with the age 
 of Moses ; and is according to the Hebrew text, only 848 
 years, or (as will be seen under my 5th example), according 
 to the "Vatican copy of the Septuagint, 1728 years subse- 
 quent to the Deluge, when, as it is assumed, the population 
 of the world began a second time. This interval, it is 
 contended, even if we lengthen it by supposing the antiquity 
 of the Egyptian monuments to have been carried too far back 
 by some centuries, is too short for the production of such 
 national diversities as those portrayed in Egyptian tombs. 
 
 This in itself is a simple assumption, and would present 
 at first sight a formidable objection. But, it is one, after all, 
 which need not stagger us, nor shake our belief in the full 
 inspiration of Holy Scripture. The instances I have quoted 
 from Dr. Carpenter show us what great changes have been 
 Tcnoion to take place in periods of time of much the same 
 length as this from Noah to Moses, even taking the shortest 
 of the intervals mentioned above, and even in shorter periods 
 still. Moreover, in the first place, this apparent difficulty 
 proceeds upon the assumption, that the rate of change in 
 man's physical condition is the same now that it was in the 
 earlier ages of the renovated world. But it is quite conceiv- 
 able that in those primitive and half-civilized times, physio- 
 logical changes might take place much more rapidly than 
 they have done more recently, and among nations of settled 
 and civilized habits. Mr. Wallace, in his Contributions to the 
 Theory of Natural Selection,-]' conceives, that in the infancy 
 of mankind what is termed natural selection would operate 
 
 * See Prichard's Physical History of Man, vol. v. p. 552. 
 
 + See the chapter on ' The Development of Human Races under 
 the Law of Natural Selection.' I cannot quote Mr. Wallace in support 
 of the views in the text, as he considers man to be the descendant of 
 
RBGABDING RACES SINCE THE FLOOD. 119 
 
 chiefly on the hody, hut in later times chiefly on the mind : 
 and that, in consequence, the physical characteristics of 
 different races got fixed very early in a permanent form. In 
 the second place, it is assumed that the changes were always, 
 not only slow, but gradual. It is, however, quite possible 
 that in some cases a new type may have arisen, as it were, 
 per saltum. This even Sir Charles Lyell would admit — the 
 great advocate of the development theory, which he formerly 
 so vigorously opposed. In his Antiquity of Man (p. 504), he 
 advocates the idea of ' occasional strides ' in the process of 
 development ; ' leaps,' which ' may have cleared at one bound 
 the space which separated the highest stage of the unpro- 
 gressive intelligence of the inferior animals from the first and 
 lowest form of improvable reason manifested by man.' And 
 so also does Professor Huxley. In speaking of an extraordi- 
 nary birth among sheep, and another in a Maltese family 
 (both which I have quoted in notes on pp. 93, 191), he adds, 
 ' In each the variety appears to have arisen in full foi'ce, and, 
 as it were, per saltum ; a wide and definite difference appearing 
 at once.'* Again, ' Mr. Darwin's position might have been 
 stronger had he not embarrassed himself with the aphorism, 
 Natnra nun faeit saltum, which turns up so often in his pages. 
 We believe that nature does make jumps now and then ' — 
 a fact, he considers, of no small importance.t As far as 
 regards colour,|. there are remarkable examples in India of the 
 apparent want of all law. The children of the same parents 
 
 some inferior creature, and to have become man only when his powers 
 were heightened by the guidance of a Supreme power in such a way as 
 to check the influence of natural selection upon changes in his body. I 
 make use, however, of Mr. Wallace's principle, that changes in the 
 body would be more rapid when the arts of civilization were less known. 
 
 * Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, p. 291. 
 
 t Ibid. p. 326. 
 
 X On the subject of change of colour see some remarkable state- 
 ments in the Appendix of Dr. G. Moore's The First Man, and His 
 Place in Creation. 
 
120 REFUTATIOK OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 — one a European, the other a Hindoo, or even an Eurasian 
 — will be some white, and others black. Sometimes the 
 grandchildren are dark, although the children were white, 
 and were married to Europeans. So unaccountable are the 
 changes in colour. In the third place. Dr. Carpenter has 
 shown that the prognathous and other cranial forms are 
 interchangeable, and rather indicate moral and intellectual 
 condition than race. It is therefore gratuitous to assume 
 that the forms seen in the paintings belonged to the nations 
 named and now existing, and showing the same forms. The 
 individuals drawn may have belonged to tribes by this time 
 altogether altered. The paintings only show that there were 
 then, as now, prognathous and other such forms among men. 
 They teach nothing regarding the persistency of a type in a 
 particular tiibe. In the fourth place, it is a mistake to 
 assume that the population of the world began again from a 
 new single centre after the Deluge. Eight persons repeopled 
 the earth. There is no evidence that Shem, Ham, and Japhet 
 had not in them elements which made them differ widely 
 from each other. They may have married, too, into different 
 tribes, and their wives have been even more diversified than 
 themselves. It is, then, altogether gratuitous to assert, that 
 the races which now exist must be traced down from oue man, 
 Noah, as from a new starting-point. This at once carries our 
 range of time 1700 years further back, to the days of Adam, 
 or even 2309 years, according to the longer reckoning, for the 
 operation of the causes of change ; and great divergencies may 
 have taken place in that time, as we gather from the histor- 
 ical illustrations from Dr. Carpenter. 
 
 3. Again, there have not been wanting men who have 
 
 profanely ridiculed the account which Moses gives, not only 
 
 .of the origin of nations, but of the confusion 
 
 Mankind on- 
 
 ginaUyofone 01 tongues. Ihey have asserted that the va- 
 
 anjuage. ^^.^^.^ ^^ languages is so great, and their ditler- 
 
 ences of character so wide, and history is so far from furnishing 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE. 121 
 
 any example of the formation of even one new language, that 
 it is inconceivable that mankind should ever have been ' of 
 one language and of one speech' (Gen. xi. 1) ; and they deny 
 too that the ' fable ' of the Dispersion, as they call it, is 
 sufficient to explain the endless and wide variations which at 
 present prevail. But this subject has received the attention 
 of the most learned philologists. Alexander Von Humboldt, 
 the Academy of St. Petersburg, Merion, Klaproth, and 
 Frederic Schlegel, have all come to one conclusion by a com- 
 parison of languages, that the further philological inquiry has 
 been carried, the more numerous are the indications that all 
 languages must have been originally one. And in addition 
 to this, other philologists, viz. Herder, Sharon Turner, Abel- 
 Eemusat, Niebuhr, and Ealbi, have discovered evident internal 
 proofs, that the separation into different tongues must have 
 been by some violent and sudden cause. So singularly do 
 their labours confirm the literal truth of Scripture.* 
 
 This happy result is one of the triumphs of modern philo- 
 logy ; and it is the more valuable to our argument, because 
 the scholars to whose researches it is due were not all friendly 
 to the Mosaic account. M. Bunsen, indeed, has attempted 
 to show from the growth of languages that a far longer 
 interval than Scripture gives was necessary, from the Deluge 
 downwards, for the development of the languages of the world. 
 But he altogether leaves out of his reckoning the extraordinary 
 circumstances which immediately followed the Deluge, re- 
 corded in Scripture and attested (as we shall see) from other 
 sources, and also borne witness to, as to the palpable effects 
 
 * See this well worked out in Wiseman's Lectures on Revelation 
 and Science. 
 
 ' The results of maturer and very extensive investigation prove that 
 the 3064 languages of Adelung, and the 860 languages and 5000 
 dialects of Balbi, may be reduced to eleven families ; and that these, 
 again, are found to be not primitive and independent, but modifications 
 of some original language ; and that the separation between them 
 could not have been caused by any gradual departure, or individual 
 
122 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 found in the comparison of languages together, by the philo- 
 logists last mentioned. 
 
 The first attempts of the defenders of the Scripture 
 narrative during the last century failed from two causes. 
 When languages were found to have any resemblance, one 
 was conjectured to be the parent of the rest. But such a 
 relationship could in no case be established. Parallel descent 
 from a common origin seems not to have been thought of. 
 In addition to this, analogies and resemblances were sought 
 for in words, rather than in grammatical structure. But 
 words do not unfrequently pass, in the lapse of time, from 
 one phase of meaning to another in such a way, as to have 
 their original significance so overlaid and forgotten as to 
 destroy the clue which might otherwise have been traceable. 
 Whereas grammatical structure remains unchanged. ' The 
 declensional and conjugational forms— the bones and sinews 
 of a language — retain for ages both their shape and their 
 signification with marvellous persistency.'* 
 
 A vast variety of languages, both dead and still spoken, 
 have come under examination, and have been reduced, by 
 attending to their grammatical structure, to a few families, 
 the following being the chief : — (1.) the Semitic, including 
 Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Amharic, and Arabic — a family 
 which has long been known. (2.) The Indo-European, in- 
 cluding Sanscrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, 
 German, and Sclavonic. The discovery of this family is of 
 more recent date ; it embraces the numerous languages 
 spoken in ancient and modern times in the vast region 
 stretching from Britain to Bengal. The study of Sanscrit by 
 European scholars has led to this remarkable result.t 
 
 development, but by some violent, unusual, and active force, sufficient 
 at once to account for the resemblances and the differences.' — Unity 
 of the Human Races, p. 214. 
 
 * Rev. Dr. Caldwell's Comparative Grammar of Dravidian 
 Languages, p. 437. 
 
 t ' Who would have dreamed a century ago, that a language would 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE. 123 
 
 (3.) Another family is the Scythian, of which an interesting 
 
 be brought to us from the far East which should accompany ^crri passu, 
 nay, sometimes surpass, the Greek in all those perfections of form which 
 have hitherto been considered the exclusive property of the latter, and 
 be adapted throughout to adjust the perennial strife between the Greek 
 dialects by enabling us to determine where each of them has preserved 
 the purest and the oldest form. 
 
 ' The relations of the ancient Indian languages to their European 
 kindred are, in fact, so palpable, as to be obvious to every one who casts 
 a glance at them, even from a distance ; in part, however, so concealed, 
 so deeply implicated in the most secret passages of the organization of 
 the language, that we are compelled to consider every language sub- 
 jected to a comparison with it, as also the language itself, from new 
 stations of observation, and to employ the highest powers of grammatical 
 science and method in order to recognize and illustrate the original 
 unity of the diflFerent grammars.' — Preface to Professor Bopp's 
 Comparative Grammar. 
 
 It is a fact well worthy of the student's attention, that the tenth 
 chapter of Genesis contains the germs of this and other discoveries in 
 ethnic as well as linguistic relationships : — 
 
 ' The Toldoth Beni Noah [the genealogies of the descendants of 
 Noah, in the tenth chapter of Genesis] has extorted the admiration of 
 modern ethnologists, who continually find in it anticipations of their 
 greatest discoveries. For instance, in the very second verse, the great 
 discovery of Schlegel, which the word Indo-European embodies, — the 
 affinity of the principal nations of Europe with the Aryan, or Indo- 
 Persic stock, is sufficiently indicated by the conjunction of the Madai 
 or Medes (whose native name was Mada) with Gomer or the Cymry, 
 and Javan or the lonians. Again, one of the most recent and unex- 
 pected results of modern linguistic inquiry, is the proof which it has 
 furnished of an ethnic connexion between the Ethiopians or Cushites, 
 who adjoined on Egypt, and the primitive inhabitants of Babylonia — 
 a connexion which was positively denied by an eminent ethnologist 
 only a few years ago, but which has now been sufficiently established 
 from the cuneiform monuments. In the tenth of Genesis we find this 
 truth thus briefly but clearly stated : — And Gush begat Nimrod . . . 
 the beginning of whose kingdom was Babel. So we have recently had 
 it made evident from the same monuments, that out of that land went 
 forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh — or that the Semitic Assyrians 
 proceeded from Babylonia and founded Nineveh long after the Cushite 
 foundation of Babylon. Again, the Hamitic descent of the early 
 
124 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 branch has recently been discovered called the Diavidian,* 
 
 inhabitants of Canaan, which had often been called in question, has 
 recently come to be looked upon as almost certain, apart from the evi- 
 dence of Scripture ; and the double mention of Sheba, both among the 
 sons of Ham, and also among those of Shem, has been illustrated by 
 the discovery that there are two races of Arabs— one (the Joktanian) 
 Semitic, the other (the Himyario) Cushite or Ethiopic On the whole, 
 the scheme of ethnic affiliation given in the tenth chapter in Genesis 
 is pronounced "safer" to follow than any other; and the Toldoth Beni 
 Noah commends itself to the ethnic enquirer as " the most authentic 
 record that we possess for the affiliation of nations," and as a document 
 of the very highest antiquity.'— Eawlinson's Bampton Lectures, 1859, 
 Lecture 11. , p. 68. See alto Aids to Faith, pp. 268 — 271 . 
 
 • ' The term Dravida denotes the Tamil country, and means the 
 country of the DrSvidas ; and a Dr&vida is defined in the Sanscrit 
 lexicons to be ' a man of an outcast tribe, descended from a degraded 
 kshatriya.' This name was doubtless applied by the Brahminical 
 inhabitants of Northern India to the aborigines of the extreme South, 
 prior to the introduction among them of Brahminical civilization, and 
 is an evidence of the low estimation in which they were originally held.' 
 (See Caldwell's Comp. Grammar, p. 26.) 
 
 ' The Dravidian languages may be regarded as most nearly alhed 
 to the Finnish or Ugrian family, with special affinities to the Ostiak ; 
 and this supposition, which I had been led to entertain by the com- 
 parison of grammars and vocabularies alone, derives some confirmation 
 from the fact brought to light by the Behistan Tablets [on which the 
 political autobiography of Darius Hystaspes is recorded in old Persian, 
 in the Babylonian, and also in the language of the Scythians of the 
 iVIedo-Persian empire], that the ancient Scythic race, by which the 
 greater part of Central Asia was peopled prior to the eruption of the 
 Medo-Persians, belonged not to the Turkish, or to the Mongolian, but 
 to the Ugrian stock. Taking for granted, at present, the conclusive- 
 ness of the evidence on which this hypothesis rests, the result at which 
 we arrive is one of the most remarkable that the study of comparative 
 philology has yet realized. How remarkable that the closest and most 
 distinct affinities to the speesh of the Dravidians of intertropical India 
 should be those which are discovered in the languages of the Finns 
 and Lapps of Northern Europe, and of the Ostiaks and other Ugrians of 
 Siberia! and consequently that the pre-Aryau inhabitants of the 
 Dekhan should be proved by their language alone, in the silence of 
 history, in the absence of all ordinary probabilities, to be allied to the 
 
KBGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE. 125 
 
 embracing the languages of South India, of which the chief 
 are Tamil and Teloogoo. Another branch of this family is 
 the Uralian, including the Finnish, Hungarian, and other 
 languages. The discovery of the Dravidian branch, as 
 distinct from the Indo-European, strikingly agrees with the 
 ethnological difference which has long been known to exist 
 between the inhabitants of South and North India. The 
 migration into India in ages past of the Aryan race from the 
 west seems to have divided in two the original inhabitants, 
 giving the Aryan character to the mass of the population of 
 the north of India, and leaving those of the south of the 
 peninsula in their original Scythian, or rather Dravidian, state. 
 To these must be added some others, such as the Mongolian, 
 the Transgangetic, the Malay, besides the African and the 
 American families. While the numerous languages which 
 have been examined, and which were at one time thought to 
 have almost nothing in common, are found to be closely 
 allied to each other in grammatical construction, when 
 belonging to the same family ; at the same time philologists 
 have decided, that the families have such differences as no 
 principle of ordinary growth or expansion from a common 
 origin can account for. Nothing but a violent change, caused 
 by some force from without, can have created the distinct 
 differences which now exist, if these families are the broken 
 fragments of a once undivided whole. Thus all the results 
 of investigation which can be considered of scientific value 
 tend to support and illustrate the scriptural account of the 
 original unity and miraculous confusion of languages, which 
 led to the dispersion of the descendants of Noah upon the 
 face of the earth. What was once a formidable obstacle in 
 
 tribes that appear to have overspread Europe be''ore the arrival of 
 the Goths and the Pelasgi, and even before the arrival of the Celts ! 
 What a confirmation of the statement that God hath made of one 
 blood all nations of men to dwell upon the face of the whole 
 earth.'— Ihid. p. 46. 
 
126 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 our way is thus becoming more and more an unanswerable 
 argument in favour of the harmony of Scripture and Science. 
 The original unity of language has received a still further 
 illustration from the discoveries of philologists, who have 
 looked upon the science of language in the light of a physical 
 science. Mr. Max Miiller shows that an examination of the 
 languages of the world, ancient and modern, and of the 
 history of their changes, leads to this result, that language 
 grows, and goes through three successive stages, which he 
 calls the monosyllabic, the terminational, and the inflexional. 
 In the first, of which ancient Chinese is a representative, 
 roots are used as words, each root preserving its full indepen- 
 dence. In the second stage two or more roots have been 
 united and coalesce to form a word, one at least retaining its 
 radical independence, the last sinking down to a mere termina- 
 tion. This stage is best represented by the Turanian family 
 of speech, and the languages belonging to it have generally 
 been called agglutinative. In the third stage, the roots 
 coalesce so as not to retain their substantive independence. 
 This stage is best represented by the Aryan and Semitic 
 families, and the languages belonging to it have sometimes 
 been distinguished by the name of organic or amalgamating* 
 Language is therefore a thing which grows ; and it does so by 
 the involuntary effect of the gift of speech with which man 
 is endowed. This represents the subject in a light, which 
 enables us to conceive an original unity in all languages : 
 as all must have commenced with the monosyllabic, and 
 consisted merely of roots. The impassable barriers which 
 have hitherto separated some of the families into which 
 languages have been divided are thus, by looking at the 
 subject from another point of view, broken down. With 
 regard to the origin of roots — that is, in fact, the origin of 
 language — Mr. Max Miiller rejects both the onomatopoieian 
 
 * Mr. Max MuUer's Lectures on the Science of Languages. First 
 Edition, pp. 273, 274. First Series. 
 
BEQARDING THE ORIGIN OP LANGUAGE. 127 
 
 and interjectional theories, and proposes the following. The 
 - 400 or 500 roots which are considered to remain as the con- 
 stituent elements in tlie different families of language he 
 regards as phonetic types, produced by a power which was 
 inherent in human nature, and was therefore the gift of God. 
 Man was created with the faculty of giving articulate 
 expression to the rational conceptions of his mind. That 
 faculty was not of his own making. It was an instinct — an 
 instinct of the mind as irresistible as any other instinct. 
 This creative faculty gave to each conception, as it thrilled 
 for the first time through the brain, a phonetic expression : 
 and this faculty would become fainter, as all other faculties 
 do, when men ceased to want it. The fact that every word 
 is originally a predicate, that names, though signs of individ- 
 ual conceptions, are all, without exception, derived from 
 general ideas, Mr. Max Mtiller considers to be one of the 
 most important discoveries in the science of language.* How 
 remarkably do these views agree with what we read in 
 Genesis: — 'And out of the ground the Lord God formed 
 every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air ; and 
 brought them to Adam to see what he would call them : and 
 whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the 
 name thereof (ii. 19). ' The science of language thus leads 
 us up,' as this interesting writer says in concluding his 
 volume, 'to that highest summit from whence we see into the 
 very dawn of man's life on earth ; and where the words 
 which we have heard so often from the days of our child- 
 hood — " And the ivhole earth loas of one language and nf 
 one speech" — assume a meaning more natural, more intelli- 
 gible, more convincing, than they ever did before.' t 
 
 In addition to the argument from the philological side, 
 there is not wanting evidence to the truth of the Scripture 
 account of the confusion of tongues from other quarters. 
 
 * Lectures on the Science of Language, First Edition, pp. 369-371. 
 t Ibid. p. 377. 
 
] 28 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 There are certain traditions which linger about the very- 
 place where the event occurred. Berosus, the Chaldsean 
 historian, a priest of Belus at Babylon, more than 2000 yeSCrs 
 ago, refers to it in a fragment which is come down to us. 
 ' The ancient race of men,' he says, ' were so puffed up with 
 their strength and tallness of stature, that they .... laboured 
 to erect that very lofty tower which is now called Babylon, 
 intending thereby to scale heaven .... the name of the 
 ruin is still called Babel ; because until this time all men had 
 used the same speech, but now there was sent upon them a 
 confusion of many and diverse tongues.' This is the testi- 
 mony of a profane historian. 
 
 But a still more interesting confirmation has been recently 
 discovered'by M. Oppert, a very high authority on Babylo- 
 nian antiquities. He has identified the ruins of the tower of 
 Babel with the basement of the great mound now called Birs 
 Nimroud, the ancient Borsippa ; and an inscription in the 
 name of Nebuchadnezzar has been there discovered, in which 
 the tower is alluded to in connexion with the confusion of 
 tongues. The tower is called the most ancient monument of 
 Borsippa : and these remarkable words occur in the inscrip- 
 tion ; ' A former king built it (they reckon 42 ages), but he 
 did not complete its head : since a remote time people had 
 abandoned it, without order exyvessmg their words'* — a most 
 distinct allusion to the confusion of tongues, which led to 
 the dispersion, and so to tho rise of many various languages. 
 
 4. At the close of the last century an attack was made t 
 
 upon the Scripture account of the creation and subsequent 
 
 history of man, by appealing to the astronom- 
 
 man race accord- ical works of the Hindoos, and especially to 
 
 ing to Hindoo , . _ , , , . 
 
 and CMneee the epoch from which the calculations are 
 
 ostensibly made, viz. 3102 B.C., reaching back 
 
 more tlian 700 years before the Deluge. This epoch was the 
 
 *Dr. Smith's Diet of the .Biiic— 'Confusion of Tongues,' p. 1554. 
 t By M. Baillie : Histoire de V Astronomie ancienne. 
 
DEDUCED PROM HINDOO AND CHINESE ASTRONOMY. 129 
 
 commencement of the last of the enormous periods of Hindoo 
 chronology, called Yugas. A conjunction of the sun, moon, 
 and planets, is spoken of in the Hindoo books as having then 
 occurred, and is mentioned in such a manner as to imply that 
 the alleged fact was a matter of observation. 
 
 We are indebted to the late Mr. Bentley, of Calcutta, a 
 member of the Asiatic Society, for a complete exposure of the 
 fallacy of this objection. Indeed, the adversary's weapons 
 are etfectually turned upon himself, and one more proof is 
 added of the harmony between Scripture and Science when 
 rightly interpreted. By using the accurate calculations of 
 modern astronomy it is shown, that the phenomenon of the 
 conjunction above alluded to is a mere fable, devoid of all 
 truth, as it could not have taken place at the date assigned, 
 nor at any other epoch near it. It could not therefore have 
 been, as pretended, an observed fact, but must have been 
 determined by the Hindoo astronomers by calculating back- 
 wards, and upon imperfect data ; and their vast yugas, or 
 periods of time, amounting to many millions of years since 
 the creation, are thus proved to be a pure fiction. He shows 
 in another place, by estimating the amount of the precession of 
 the equinoxes iuthe interval, that the earliest of all the obser- 
 vations handed down through any of the sacred books of the 
 Hindoos —viz. the division of the zodiac into 'lunar mansions ' 
 — was in the fifteenth century before Christ.* The earliest of 
 
 * See translation of Surya Siddhanta, in the Bibliotheca Indica, 
 published in Calcutta by the Asiatic Society, chap. i. Also, Asiatic 
 Researches, vol. vi. pp. 564-572 ; also vol. viii. p. 208 ; and Bentley's 
 Hindu Astronomy, pp. 1-3. Without a division of the heavens of 
 some sort, or some fixed points to refer to, no observations of the 
 heavenly bodies could be recorded with any approach to accuracy. This 
 want appears to have led to the division of the zodiac into twenty-seven 
 parts, of 13° 20' each, called Lunar Mansions, in very early times. 
 The following are the data found in the Hindoo books, from which 
 we can easily find the position of the equinoxes, and therefore the 
 epoch when these mansions were formed. The longitude of star 
 
 K 
 
130 RF.rUTATIOS OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 the Hindoo astroiiomioal treatises extant, the (Siarya Siddhanta, 
 bears internal marks of a much more recent origin even than 
 this. The position of the Hindoo sphere as therein used 
 belongs to the year a.d. 570, which is four centuries subse- 
 quent to the days of the Greek astronomer Ptolemy. There 
 are many striking points of resemblance between the Greek 
 system of astronomy and the Hindoo, as set forth in that 
 treatise — especially the ingenious contrivance of representing 
 the planetary motions by epicycles, though in a somewhat 
 different way — which indicate very strongly a comrnon origin, 
 as far as these points of resemblance go. The arguments 
 tend to show that the Hindoos borrowed from the Greeks. 
 In the Surya Siddhanta (xii. 39) is mentioned a city Eomaka, 
 ninety degrees to the west — a name pointing, without doubt, 
 to the great city, which was mistress of the Western world 
 during the period of active commercial intercourse between 
 India and the Mediterranean after the foundation of Alexan- 
 dria, and indicating a channel through which such knowledge 
 might be imported into India. It may be added, that there 
 are no indications in this treatise of anything earlier than 
 the division of the zodiac into lunar mansions, already men- 
 tioned. And therefore it may be safely said, that the notion 
 
 Regulus, or Cor Leonis, was 9° in Magha, the tenth mansion ; and 
 the autumnal equinox bisected the sixteenth mansion (and therefore 
 the vernal equinox was at the beginning of the second mansion). 
 Hence the distance of Regulus from the vernal equinox was seven 
 mansions and 9°, i. e. 102° 20'. On the 1st of January, 1850, it was 
 147° 4.y. The difference 45° 2.5' shows a lapse of 3270 years, at the 
 rate of 1° in seventy-two years, which is the precessional motion of the 
 equinoxes. This carries us back to b.o. 1421, the fifteenth century 
 before the Christian era. 
 
 In a similar manner the Age of the Vedas, or most ancient of the 
 Hindoo books, is found to be a little more than 3000 years. In the 
 Jyotish, or Vedic Calendar, it is stated, that when the Vedas were 
 written the Winter Solstice was at the beginning of the twenty-third 
 mansion, and the Summer Solstice in the middle of the ninth. The 
 vernal equinox had made, therefore, one quarter of a mansion (or 3° 
 
DEDUCED FROM HINDOO AND CHINESE ASTRONOMY. 131 
 
 of a greater antiquity than the Scriptures assign for the 
 human race receives no support whatever from Hindoo as- 
 tronomy.* 
 
 The so-called chronology of the Chinese has also been 
 brought forward as an argument against the correctness of 
 Scripture. But the early history of China is buried in 
 obscurity. The reign of the first three sovereigns is said to 
 have been recorded in a book, of which the Chinese of the 
 present time a,vow that nothing is known. An account of 
 the five following sovereigns is said to have been written in 
 another book, of which a fragment relating to the joint reign 
 of Yao and Chun, the last of the five, is placed at the head 
 of the Shoo-king, a compilation by Confucius (or Kung-fu-tse), 
 giving a condensed history of China from the joint reign of 
 those two sovereigns down to his own time, in the sixth 
 century before Christ. A subsequent emperor, Che-whang- 
 tse, conceived the mad scheme of destroying all the writings 
 of the empire, under the idea of commencing a new set of 
 annals with his own reign, that posterity might consider him 
 as the founder of the empire. His successor, sixty years after 
 this decree, desirous of repairing the injury, held out great 
 rewards for the recovery of any part of the annals. The 
 
 2(y, which is equivalent to 240 years) more regression upon the ecliptic 
 than at the epoch above found. This will make the date of the Vedas 
 B.C. 1181, or the twelfth century before Christ. 
 
 * In 1860 the Surya Siddhanta was translated from the Sanscrit 
 into English, and pubhshed. Facilities, therefore, now exist for the 
 study of this subject, which have been hitherto wanted. Two inde- 
 pendent versions appeared about the same time : one procured by the 
 writer of this from a pundit at Benares, well versed in English and 
 Sanscrit, as well as astronomy, and pubhshed by the Asiatic Society of 
 Calcutta ; the other put forth by the American Oriental Society, and 
 accompanied by valuable notes by Professor Whitney. That society 
 appears to intend to pubUsh other Indian astronomical works. If they 
 are accompanied by notes as well executed as those which have now 
 appeared, a most valuable addition will be made to Oriental scientific 
 literature. 
 
132 REFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLU310NS 
 
 Shoo-king is said to have been thus recovered from an old 
 man who had committed it to memory. On such an uncer- 
 tain basis do early Chinese traditions rest.* 
 
 The late M. Biot attempted to fix the date of the Emperor 
 Yao by astronomical means. He endeavoured to reconstruct 
 the celestial sphere as he imagined it to have been at that 
 time, and reasoned from the change in position of the vernal 
 equinox. In this way, he fixed b.o. 2357 for the date of Yao. 
 This is about the date of the Deluge, according to the Hebrew 
 text. But perfect as the modern astronomical methods are 
 for conducting such an investigation, they are altogether 
 powerless unless the data to which they are applied are 
 trustworthy. This is by no means the case in this instance, 
 as I have shown elsewhere.t 
 
 5. The correctness of Scripture has been assailed from 
 another point. Egyptian antiquities have been enlisted 
 —deduced fr m ^g^i^st Scripture history and Scripture chro- 
 Egyptian imti- nologv ; chieflv the latter. M. Bunsen, in his 
 
 quities. 1 , 
 
 ■work on Eyypts Place in Ancient History, pro- 
 fesses to have established the four following theses : — 
 
 First : That the immigration of the Asiatic stock from 
 Western Asia (Chaldsea) is antediluvian. 
 
 ' Secondly : That the historical deluge, which took place 
 in a considerable part of Central Asia, cannot have occurred 
 at a more recent period than the Tenth Millennium B.C. 
 
 ' Thirdly : That there are strong grounds for supposing 
 that that catastrophe did not take place at a much earlier 
 period. 
 
 ' Fourthly : — That man existed on this earth about 20,000 
 
 * See an account of this in Encyclopcedia Britannica, word 
 ' China.' 
 
 + In the Philosophical Magazine for January (p. 1), and June, 1862 
 (p. 496), I have examined M. Biot's papers in the Journal des Savans 
 of 1840 and 1859, and come to the conclusion that the results can by 
 no means be depended upon. For the arguments I must refer my 
 readers to the Magazine. 
 
DEDUCED PROM EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES. 133 
 
 years b.c, and that there is no valid reason for assuming a 
 more remote beginning of our race.'* 
 
 These startling announcements are accompanied by the 
 statement that they do not, in the opinion of the author, 
 ' contravene in the slightest degree the statements of Scrip- 
 ture, though they demolish ancient and modern rabbinical 
 assumptions. 't He adds, indeed, that, ' on the contrary, they 
 extend the antiquity of the biblical accounts, and explain for 
 the first time their historical truth.' 
 
 The first of these alleged discoveries is directly opposed 
 to Scripture history, which teaches us, beyond question, that 
 the Deluge was universal, as far as regards the human race 
 (Gen. vi. 5-8). Whereas M. Bunsen would have us believe 
 that the Egyptian monarchy existed before and after the 
 Flood in an unbroken line ; and therefore that this Egyptian 
 portion of the descendants of Adam were exempted from the 
 destruction announced in this language : ' And God saw that 
 the wickedness of man was great in the earth .... and it 
 repented God that he had made man on the earth .... and 
 the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from 
 the face of the earth .... But Noah found grace in the eyes 
 of the Lord' (Gen. vi. 5-8). 
 
 The other three theses are altogether at variance with 
 the chronology, and indirectly also with the history, of 
 the Sacred Volume. 
 
 It is true, that there is no single text in Scripture which 
 
 * Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. freface, p. xxvii. 
 
 f I need not quote from M. Bunsen's work expressions which show 
 the contempt with which he looks upon all who prefer adhering to 
 Scripture chronology to adopting his vague and baseless coDclusions. 
 But his language does not tend to assure the reader of the soundness 
 of his cause. Indeed, the numerous admissions of difficulty which 
 incidentally drop from his pen, would have prepared us to look for 
 some measure of diffidence in ijropounding his new theory, rather than 
 the contrary. For example, see vol. ii. pp. 124, 125, 128, 181, 184, 
 257, 415, 416, 428 ; vol. iii. pp. 13. 14, et cetera. 
 
134 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 fixes the date either of the Deluge or of the Creation of 
 Man. Were this the case, it would be decisive. It is by a 
 collation of passages that we gather from Scripture the 
 periods which separate these events from each other and 
 from the Christian era ; and in this comparison there are 
 some points of uncertainty as to the exact number of years, 
 arising either from the various readings of the MSS., or from 
 the manner in which some event is recorded. For example : 
 we read of Canaan, the grandson of Noah, that he ' begat 
 Sidon, his first-born, and Heth ' (Gen. x. 15). We seem here 
 to have the names of individual men. But, when it is 
 immediately added that he also ' begat the Jebusite, and the 
 Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, 
 and the Sinite, &o.,' the writer is evidently dealing, not with 
 single generations, but with a condensed abstract of the 
 origin and growth of tribes. The use here made of the term 
 ' begat ' shows us that it does not necessarily imply that the 
 two individuals connected by this term were father and 
 son, but may have been separated by two or more genera- 
 tions, the intermediate names being omitted, as probably of no 
 sufficient notoriety. It must, however, be acknowledged 
 that this explanation will hardly apply to the line of descent 
 from Noah through Shem to Abram, given in Gen. xi. 10-36. 
 The precision of the language seems to forbid our thrusting 
 in names between those given. The ages, however, of the 
 several patriarchs at the time of the birth of their eldest 
 sons, are very different in the several versions of Genesis at 
 the present day. 
 
 According to the Hebrew text, 1656 years intervened be- 
 tween the Creation of Adam and the Deluge ; and about 1337 
 between the Deluge and the building of the Temple by 
 Solomon, who, all are agreed, lived about 1000 years before 
 the Christian era.* The Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septu- 
 
 * The chronology noted in the margin of our English Bibles is 
 gathered from the text as follows : — 
 
DEDUCED FROM EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES. 
 
 135 
 
 agiut Version, and Josephus' History, lead to results wliicli 
 differ from these and from one another. The Septuagint 
 version adds 100 years to each of the Patriarchs, Adam, Seth, 
 Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Enoch, before the hirth of 
 their sons ; while it takes twenty from the age of Methuselah, 
 and adds six to that of Lameoh. The space from the Creation 
 to the Deluge is 2242 years according to the Vatican copy, 2262 
 the Alexandrine, 2265 Josephus, 1307 the Samaritan, while 
 
 From 
 
 Gen. V. 3-28 ; viii. 13. 
 
 
 
 
 YEARS A.M. 
 
 Seth after Adam 
 
 
 130 
 
 Enos ,, 
 
 Setli 
 
 
 105 
 
 Oainan ,, 
 
 Enos 
 
 
 90 
 
 Mahalaleel ,, 
 
 Cainan 
 
 
 70 
 
 Jared 
 
 Mahalaleel . 
 
 
 65 
 
 Enoch ,, 
 
 Jared 
 
 
 162 
 
 Methuselah ,, 
 
 Enoch 
 
 
 65 
 
 Lamech , , 
 
 Methuselah 
 
 
 187 
 
 Noah 
 
 Lamech 
 
 
 182 
 
 Deluge , , 
 
 Noah 
 
 
 600 = 1656 
 
 From 
 
 Gen. xi. 10-24 ; xii. 4. 
 
 
 Arphaxad after Deluge 
 
 
 2 
 
 Salah ,, 
 
 Arphaxad . 
 
 
 35 
 
 Eber 
 
 Salah 
 
 
 30 
 
 Peleg 
 
 Eher 
 
 
 34 
 
 Eeu 
 
 Peleg 
 
 
 30 
 
 Serug ,, 
 
 Reu 
 
 
 32 
 
 Kahor „ 
 
 Serug 
 
 
 30 
 
 Terah 
 
 Nahor 
 
 
 29 
 
 Callof Abram,, 
 
 Terah 
 
 
 205 = 2083 
 
 Exodus ,, 
 
 Call of Abram 
 
 (Exod 
 
 
 xii. 40; Gal. 
 
 iii. 17 ; Gen. xv. 
 
 13, 16 
 
 
 Acts vii. 4, 6) 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 430 = 2513 
 
 Solomon's Temple after Exodus (1 Kings, 
 
 
 vi. 1) 
 
 
 
 480 = 2993 
 
 Heuce, from the Creation of Man to the Deluge is 
 
 1656 years, and 
 
 from the Deluge to the Temple 1337 years. 
 
 M. Bui 
 
 isen makes these 
 
 to be not less than 10,000 and 9000 years. 
 
 
 
 Some of the texts above quoted require a 
 
 few rem 
 
 arks. 
 
 Exod. xii. 40. ' Now the sojourning of th 
 
 e childr 
 
 en of Israel, who 
 
136 EBFHTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSION'S 
 
 the Hebrew, as already stated, gives 1656. The space from 
 the Deluge to the 70th year of Terah (Gen. xi. 26) is, accord- 
 ing to the Vatican copy of the Septuagint 1172 years, the 
 Alexandrine 1072, Josephus 1002, the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 942, the Hebrew 292. The corruptions which have crept 
 into these collateral authorities, and possibly into the Hebrew 
 text itself, apparently have occurred since the days of 
 Josephus. He, as well as Philo, bears strong testimony to 
 the faithfulness of the Septuagint Translation from the 
 
 dwelt in Egypt, was foiir hundred and thirty years.' In the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch, and in the Septuagint, the words 'who dwelt' are re- 
 jilaced by and of their fathers in the land of Canaan and. As the 
 text stands above, it seems to say that the Israelites were in Egypt 430 
 years. This, as I will show, does not agree with other passa.;es. It is 
 quit J possible, however, that those latter words may have slipt out 
 from the Hebrew text, or that they have been inserted in the Samaritan 
 text and in the LXX. to show that the expression 'sojourning' is 
 meant to take in their dwelling as strangers in the land of promise. 
 (See Ileb. xi. 9.) 
 
 Gal. iii. 17, ' . . . . the law, which was four hundred and thirty 
 years alter' |the covenant with Abraham]. This text supports the 
 above interpretation of Exod. xii. 40. To justify, however, the precise 
 use of it above, in order to make out the chronology of our English 
 Bibles, the covenant must be supposed to have been made at the time 
 when Abrara was called in Haran. No doubt the promise was made 
 there. But we know that it was repeated several times during the 
 subsequent twenty-four years, till it was more distinctly and finally 
 confirmed upon the promise of Isaac's birth. This doubt as to the 
 dating of the period of 430 years is just one of those points of obscurity 
 of no real moment, to which I allude in the text. It does not seem to 
 have been the design to reveal to us chronological dates with minute 
 precision. This, however, does not justify our indulging in our own 
 theories, irrespective of what is distinct in Scripture. Our uncertainty 
 is restricted within certain defined limits. 
 
 Gen. XV. 13, 16, ' , . . . thy seed shall be a stranger in a land 
 that is not theirs, and shall serve them : and tliey shall afflict them 
 four hundred years .... but in the fourth generation they shall come 
 hither again.' Stephen quotes this in his address, Acts vii. 4, 6. Li 
 addition to the reason assig[ied before for the period of 430 years includ- 
 ing the sojourning in Canaan as well as in Egypt, the last part of this 
 
DEDUCED FROM EGYPTIAN' ANTIQUITIES. 137 
 
 Hebrew ; and he states also that he translated his own 
 Antiquities from the Hebrew Scriptures, without adding to 
 or diminishing from the original. (See Hale's Chronology, 
 vol. i. 274.) In his time, therefore, we may suppose there 
 was no discrepancy. 
 
 But, be it observed, the discrepancies which do exist 
 between the Hebrew text and these other authorities do not 
 affect the historic narrative ; in the narrative they agree ; 
 the variations are simply in the numbers of years from the 
 
 passage furnishes another argument. It was to be in the fourth 
 generation that his seed were to return to Canaan. But 430, or even 
 400 years (the shorter period mentioned in this passage), is very much 
 longer than four generations, and therefore must include something 
 besides the bondage in Egypt, viz. the sojourning in Canaan. This 
 prediction regarding the 'fourth generation' was literally fulfilled. 
 Moses and Aaron were sons of Jochebed, who was the daughter of Levi, 
 see Num. xxvi. 59, a text which incidentally confirms the correctness 
 of our general outline. Eleazar, the priest, the son of Aaron, was 
 therefore of the fourth generation from Jacob. He returned to Canaan 
 and died there ; his father, Aaron, and that generation having died in 
 the wilderness (Josh. xxiv. 33). Could it, indeed, be made out that 
 the whole 400 or 430 years were spent in Egypt (against which, 
 however, the text in Numbers is conclusive), it will not support 
 the gratuitous assumption which M. Bunsen makes to support his 
 theory, that the Israelites must have been more than 1400 years in 
 Egypt ! 
 
 In the last text quoted, viz. 1 Kings vi. 1, some error seems to 
 have crept into the MSS. The period appears to have been 580 years 
 rather than 480, judging from two other independent sources of in- 
 formation. From the giving of the law to the fourth year of Solomon 
 (the year the Temple was begun, 1 Kings vi. 1) is exactly 580 years, as 
 determined from the following texts, Exod. xix. 1 ; and Num. x. 11 ; 
 Josh. xiv. 10 ; Acts xiii. 20, 21 ; 1 Kings ii. 11. And this agrees well 
 with the account in Judges (whereas the other will not), which makes 
 from the death of Joshua to Samson 392 years (see from Judg. iii. 8, 
 to xvi. 31). Prefix twenty-five years for Joshua's time in Canaan after 
 the division of the land (Josh. xiv. 10, Judg. ii. 8) ; and add thirty-three 
 years from Samson to Saul'.s accession (not an improbable period), and 
 the sum is 450 years, the period mentioned by St. Paul (Acts xiii. 20). 
 Adding the years before the division of the land, and the reigns of ?aul 
 
138 REFUTATION OF FALSE nONCLUSIONS 
 
 addition of -which the dates are found. In consequence of 
 these difficulties, it has always been considered that Scrip- 
 ture chronology is invested with some degree of uncertainty 
 as to the exact number of years. This does not, however, 
 authorise our throwing aside the teachings of Scripture 
 history. We are not at liberty to consider the Age of Man 
 and the date of the Deluge to be so far open questions, that 
 we may receive any theory that may be proposed. Suppose 
 that, from some obscurity in the Scripture narrative, we 
 could not determine the age of Isaac when Jacob was born, 
 and were therefore unable to state the exact number of years 
 between Abraham and Jacob ; are we, therefore, to reject 
 the history, or thrust in as many generations as we please 
 between these two patriarchs, grandfather and grandson, 
 because of an uncertainty regarding the interval between 
 them? It is upon this very principle that M. Bunsen pro- 
 ceeds. Although Moses and Aaron on their mother's side 
 were grandsons of Levi (Num. xxvi. 59), M. Bunsen stretches 
 the period of the sojourn in Egypt over fourteen centuries ! 
 By a process of this kind he makes the interval between 
 Adam and the Deluge equal to 10,000 years, and from the 
 Deluge to the Temple to 9000 ; and under the cover of 
 certain obscurities regarding the exact chronology of the 
 Scripture narrative sets aside the narrative itself, in which 
 there is no obscurity and no variation among the MSS. and 
 authorities ! 
 
 I have thus shown, I think, that M. Bunsen's theses are 
 
 and of David, and four years of Solomon's the whole equals as before, 
 .580 years, and not 480. 
 
 These remarks show that some errors in the figures have crept into 
 the MSS. But the truth of the history of the succession of persons 
 and of events is not at all invalidated by them. And, therefore, though 
 we cannot be certain about the exact chronology, we have limits within 
 which the errors lie, and which forbid our stretching the periods to the 
 undue length M. Bunsen's speculations demand of us. This is all 1 
 am contending for. 
 
DEDUCED FROM EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES. 139 
 
 altogether at variance with Scripture. A new example is, 
 therefore, aiforded of au apparent discrepancy between 
 Scripture and Science. I proceed to examine whether his 
 inferences from Egyptian antiquities rest upon a better 
 foundation ; and, therefore, whether any discrepancy really 
 does exist. 
 
 His two authorities are Manetho, an Egyptian priest, and 
 Eratosthenes, the celebrated Greet philosopher, who had the 
 care of the Alexandrian Library. Both of them lived in the 
 third century before the Christian era, and more than 3000 
 years after the beginning of the period which they are supposed 
 to authenticate. This precludes their being accepted as wit- 
 nesses of the events they record. Moreover, their works 
 have been lost; and fragments only, containing lists of kings, 
 have been preserved to us by Julius Africanus in the third 
 century, _ and by Eusebius in the fourth century, of the 
 Christian era. The work of Africanus has also perished ; 
 but his list of Manetho's dynasties has been preserved by 
 Syncellus, a Byzantine monk of the ninth century, who has 
 also transmitted to us Eratosthenes' table of Egyptian kings. 
 
 (1.) ISTow, in the first place, the lists of Manetho and 
 Eratosthenes do not agree. M. Bunsen is obliged to make 
 various arbitrary changes, of names even, in both of them 
 to bring them into something like accordance. But after all 
 his changes they differ by two centuries.* 
 
 * 'Egyptology has a historical method of its own. It recognises 
 none of the ordinary rules of evidence ; the extent of its demands 
 upon our credulity is almost unbounded. Even the writers on ancient 
 Italian ethnology are modest and tame in their hypotheses compared 
 with the Egyptologists. Under their potent logic all identity disap- 
 pears ; everything is subject to become anything but itself. Succes- 
 sive dynasties become contemporary dynasties ; one king becomes 
 another king, or several other kings, or a fraction of another king ; one 
 name becomes another name, one number becomes another number, 
 one place becomes another place.' — Sir G. C. Lewis' Historical 
 Survey of the Astronomy of ike Ancients, p. 368. 
 
140 REFUTATCON OF FALSE CONOLUSIOKS 
 
 (2.) These lists commence with the genealogy of Egyptian 
 gods, and terminate with mortal kings. M. Bunsen assumes 
 that the mythical age closes with the last king of the divine 
 dynasties, and that real history begins with their successor 
 Menes,* the iirst mortal king of Egypt. But this is altogether 
 gratuitous. We should rather expect from the analogy of 
 similar cases, that the immediate successors of the gods were 
 not historical, and that their names were inserted to supply 
 links between the divine rulers and the historical kings. 
 
 (3.) Then again, Eratosthenes, to whose researches 
 M. Bunsen attaches even more importance than to those of 
 Manetho, constructed a system of Greek, as well as of 
 Egyptian, chronology. But his Greek system is rejected by 
 sound scholars of the present day. t" Much more, then, is 
 our confidence shaken in his Egyptian system, reaching back 
 through so much longer a period. 
 
 (4.) Then, further, in constructing his system from the 
 lists of Manetho and Eratosthenes, M. Bunsen makes extensive 
 use of the monuments and their deciphered hieroglyphics, as 
 independent witnesses.;}: But there is every reason to sup- 
 pose that the information of Manetho and Eratosthenes was 
 derived largely from these very monuments. Moreover, as 
 
 * 'The similarity of the name of Menes to the names of other 
 mythical personages — such as the Indian Menii, the Lydian Manes, 
 the Cretan Minos, and the German Mannus— has been frequently 
 noticed, and is certainly entitled to some weight, though it is dismissed 
 by M. Bunsen with contempt.' — Quarterly Review, 1859, p. 387. 
 
 t Mr. Grote says, ' Both Eratosthenes and Phanias delivered 
 positive opinions upon a point on which no sufficient evidence was 
 accessible, and therefore neither the one nor the other was a guide to 
 be followed.' — History of Greece, vol. ii. p. 53. 
 
 t ' Taking into consideration all the evidence respecting the build- 
 ings and great works of Egypt, extant in the time of Herodotus, we 
 may come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for 
 placing any of them at a date anterior to the building of the Temple 
 of Solomon, 1012 B.o.' — Sir G. C. Lewis' Historical Survey of the 
 Astronomy of the Ancients, p. 440. 
 
DEDUCED FROM EGYPTCAN ANTIQUITIES. 141 
 
 Mr. Grote observes, ' The monuments in themselves are no 
 proof of the reality of the persons or the events vphich they 
 are placed to commemorate, any more than the Centauro- 
 machiie or Amazono-machise on the frieze of a Grecian 
 temple proves that there really existed Centaurs and 
 Amazons.' * 
 
 The case of Egypt, as here handled by M. Bunsen, is 
 very different from those of Nineveh and Bashan, and now 
 of Moab, in which also remains and monuments have been 
 discovered ; but in those instances they bear a most valuable " 
 testimony to the truth of Scripture history.t The Sacred 
 
 * See his History/, vol. iii. p. 4.14. Also in vol. ii. p. 56, he says : — 
 ' An inscription, being nothing but a piece of writing on marble, 
 carries evidentiary value under the same conditions as a published 
 writing on paper. If the inscriber reports a contemporary fact which 
 he had the means of knowing, and if there be no reason to suspect 
 misrepresentation, we believe his assertion : if, on the other hand, he 
 records facts belonging to a long period before his own time, his 
 authority counts for little, except in so far as we can verify and 
 appreciate his means of knowledge.' 
 
 ■(■ The case of Nineveh is sufficiently notorious. I must, however, 
 give the story about the name Belshazzar ; — Daniel makes the last 
 roler at Babylon, when that city was taken by Cyrus, to be Belshazzar, 
 who, he states, was slain in Babylon on that occasion. Now this 
 name nowhere occurs in profane history. Secular writers give other 
 names to the last King of Babylon, which can, by no artifice even, be 
 made to coincide with Belshazzar. Nor can they be different names 
 lield by the same person ; because Berosus, the Chaldean historian, 
 states that the last king of Babylon fled to Borsippa, a place a few 
 miles from Babylon,. and was therefore absent from the city when 
 taken by Cyrus. Here, then, appears to be a strong case against 
 Daniel. He has been charged indeed with introducing a pure in- 
 vention of his own. This apparent contradiction between sacred and 
 profane history has been a sore thorn in our side ; except with those 
 whose confidence in the tiuthfulness of the Bible was such as to 
 persuade them that some explanation must exist, though as yet not 
 known. In 18.54 a folution of this difficulty was found. In the 
 ancient Ur, Sir H. Rawlinson discovered an inscription which solves 
 the difficulty : for, from its words, it is gathered that Nabonadius, the 
 
1-1:2 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 Volume has handed down a continuous history, complete in 
 itself, and independent of the information which the relics 
 convey. Whereas the history of Egypt, which M. Bunsen 
 professes to have constructed — in itself so scanty as to be 
 
 last king of Babylon, associated with himself on the throne during 
 the latter years of his reign his son Bil-Shar-Uzur, and allowed him 
 the Royal title. So that it was this son. called Belshazzar by Daniel, 
 who was at Babylon during the time of the siege, and was there slain ; 
 while his father, who fled to Borsippa, was spared, as related by 
 Berosus. Can any solution of a difficulty be more complete ? The 
 very stones speak out to testify to the perfect historical truthfulness 
 of the Bible. 
 
 I cannot refrain from giving the following notes about Bashan, and 
 then Moab; — 'The results to which the researches of travellers have 
 led are, that in the country south-east of Damascus, called the Haur^n, 
 numerous cities of great size, and in high state of preservation, are 
 still standing, — cities which -every traveller who has seen them has 
 felt convinced to be of a very high antiquity ; they are not mere sites, 
 in many cases not even ruins, but are still standing almost uninjured. 
 The streets are perfect, the houses perfect, the walls perfect, and, what 
 seems most astonishing, even the stone doors are still hanging on 
 their hinges, so little impression has been made during these many 
 centiiries on the hard and durable stone of which they are built. We 
 have described elsewhere our amazement on first beholding these 
 massive structures, so unlike any other buildings we have ever seen or 
 even heard of And we could not help being impressed with the belief 
 that, had we never known anything of the early portion of Scripture 
 history before visiting this country, we should have been forced to 
 the conclusion, that its original inhabitants, the people who had con- 
 structed these great cities, were not only a powerful and a mighty 
 nation, but individualsof greater strength than ourselves. But when 
 we consider that this HaurSn is really the ancient land of Bashan, of 
 which we are told so much in the Pentateuch, of whose inhabitants we 
 read such marvellous things — when we recollect that when the 
 Israelites came out of Egypt and conquered Og, the king of Bashan, 
 it is said that he had threescore walled cities, and " all these cities were 
 fenced with high walls, gates, and bars, besides unwalled cities a great 
 many" (Deut. iii. 5), and that these were the cities which were built 
 by the Rephaim in times long before Og ; and, furthermore, when we 
 find from the account in Deuteronomy that such numbers of cities ai'c 
 
DEDUCED FROM EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES. 143 
 
 but little more than a list of names — has no such claim to 
 being independent of the monuments which are produced as 
 witnesses. 
 
 (5.) M. Bunsen attempts to confirm his Egyptian chro- 
 
 said to have existed within so small a space, that we quite marvel 
 how the country could have been so thickly populated, yet that this 
 same crowding together of the towns is one of the first peculiarities 
 which we remark on visiting the Haur&n at the present day ; and, 
 lastly, when we find existing among some of the towns of the Hauran 
 the very names by which some of these old cities of Bashan were called ; 
 we cannot help being convinced that in these old cities of stone we 
 have before us the cities of the giant Eephaim, the cities of Og, 
 which have stood now so many centuries, and will stand as lasting 
 monuments to all posterity of the conquest of Bashan, through the 
 assistance given to His chosen people by the God of Israel. . . . Does 
 it not seem as if these records of the past had been carefully preserved 
 with a special design ? How many cities in all parts of the world have 
 been founded, destroyed, and founded again, and then a second time 
 swept away, so that the very spot where they stood has long been 
 forgotten 1 And might not this as well have happened in Bashan as 
 elsewhere 1 Or may we not rather suppose that these cities have been 
 suffered to remain, though for centuries hidden from the gaze of man, 
 in anticipation of a day when men should begin to doubt the history of 
 past times as recorded in Scripture — when doubt, growing into utter 
 infidelity, should lead men, not only to distrust all revelation them- 
 selves, but to attempt to inoculate others with their scepticism ; and 
 then, when most required as witnesses to the truth, these old places 
 could be again called forth to give their silent but all-convincing testi- 
 mony to the accuracy of God's word ? '— Cambridge Essays, 1 858. The 
 Ancient Bashan and the Cities of Og. By Cyril C. Graham, "M.R.A.S. 
 F.R.G.S., Trinity College, pp. 160-164. Inscriptions are of the time 
 of Herod. 
 
 With regard to Moab, a most interesting discovery has been 
 recently made of a stone on the site of the ancient Dibon, in the land 
 of IVToab, bearing an inscription in, as it would appear, the Phoenician 
 character, and the language so closely related to Hebrew as to be 
 scarcely distinguishable from it. It is a record by Mesha, king of 
 Moab, with whose name the inscription begins, of his doings, and 
 especially his war with Israel, as related in 2 Kings iii. 4-27, and 
 2 Chron. xx. For the best account see Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 496. 
 
14:4 REPUTATION OP PAL8E CONCLUSIOXS 
 
 nology by the use of the Sothiac cycle of 1460 years — the 
 period between successive epochs, when the heliacal * rising 
 of the conspicuous starSothis, orSirius, occurs at the summer 
 solstice, or the season when tlie first indications appeared of 
 the rising of the Nile. But Professor Bockh of Berlin has 
 shown, that it is more than probable that any coincidences 
 which may be traced, arise from the priests having adapted 
 their records to the cycle, which therefore offers no inde- 
 pendent testimony. For example, the date of Menes is placed 
 B.C. 5702, which is exactly the fourth cycle before the 
 Christian era, astronomers having proved that Sirius did rise 
 heliacally in Central Egypt July 22nd, 139 a.d. Also the 
 commencement of the reign of the gods coincides exactly with 
 another of these cycles, the twenty-first before the Christian 
 era.t 
 
 M. Bunsen's scheme, then, of substituting his speculations 
 for the authentic statements of Scripture, furnishes us with 
 one more instance of the retrograde movement which scien- 
 tific research occasionally makes for a time, but which always 
 ends — as in this instance — by adding one more proof, that 
 no weapon formed against the sacred volume can possibly 
 prosper. J 
 
 * A star is said to rise heliacally when it rises at such an interval 
 before the sun as then to be just visible. 
 
 t See Grote's History of Greece, vol. iii. chap. xx. Appendix. 
 The date of Menes above given is that which Mr. Qrote states as 
 having been made out from Manetho's list. M. Bunsen, by a different 
 interpretation, makes Manetho's computation to give 3555 years as 
 the whole period from Menes down to Alexander ; and, following 
 Eratosthenes, he thinks this should be reduced still farther to 3284 
 years. This discrepancy is one of many which show how much un- 
 certainty hangs over the whole subject — (See Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. 
 p. 94.) 
 
 X Dr. Hincks has shown, in an article in the Dublin University 
 Magazine for July 1859, how utterly untrustworthy M. Bunsen is as 
 a guide in what may be considered within the historic period, and 
 therefore that he ' is not at all to be relied upon when he speculates.' 
 
DEDUCED FROM EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHICS. 145 
 
 Before passing on to my next illustration, I propose to 
 give some account of hieroglj'phical discoveries, and to bring 
 to view the character of the evidence which they furnish. 
 The consequences made to flow from these supposed discove- 
 ries are so serious, that it will be well worth our while to 
 dwell somewhat at length on the subject. 
 
 The Eosetta stone, transferred from Egypt to the British 
 Museum in 1799, has been the key by which the mysteries 
 of hieroglyphics upon the monuments and on on hjeroglypliic 
 the papyri are supposed to have been partially decipherment, 
 unlocked. It has upon it three inscriptions, one in hiero- 
 glyphics, a second in the enchorial or demotic character of 
 the country, and a third in Greek, which professes to give 
 the same meaning as the other two. The hieroglyphic 
 pictures are taken to be in some cases representations of the 
 things of which they are pictures, or to represent one or more 
 of the letters in the Coptic name of the thing represented. 
 These latter are called phonetic hieroglyphics, and the former 
 pictorial, and in some instances symbolic. Some of the 
 hieroglyphics are called determinative, as serving the purpose 
 of adjectives or inflections. Others are called mixed signs, 
 or hieroglyphic groups, and are accompanied by a phonetic 
 hieroglyphic before and one after ; the purpose seeming to be 
 this — the word signified is represented pictorially by the 
 group, but lest it should not be rightly apprehended, the first 
 and last letters of the word are also given in the phonetic 
 hieroglyphics before and after it. Some of the phonetic 
 powers of the hieroglyphics were determined from the Eosetta 
 stone, by tracing proper names which occur in the Greek 
 inscription in, as far as could be guessed, the corresponding 
 places in the hieroglyphic inscription. By the exercise of the 
 greatest ingenuity upon the monuments and papyri, the 
 several kinds of hieroglyphics mentioned above are supposed 
 to have been discovered. The uncertainty attending this 
 process must be very great. (See Bunsen's Egypt, vol. i. 
 
 L 
 
146 REFUTATION OP PAI,SB CONOLUSIONa 
 
 p. 342.) There is nothing decisive to point out, whether any 
 given hieroglyphic is pictorial, or phonetic, or mixed. If 
 pictorial, there must in many instances be great doubt as to 
 the correct idea having been caught. Thus M. Bunsen says 
 (i. 345), ' A human figure holding its finger to its mouth 
 represents to the Egyptian the sucking child.' Why does it 
 not represent silence, or mystery, or contemplation 1 ' A 
 female figure, forming with bent body, and head and hands 
 hanging down, a sort of arch, represents the vault of heaven!' 
 Then again, even should the idea of the picture be rightly 
 caught, the word which translates it, and therefore the 
 phonetic power of the hieroglyphic, is sought through the 
 Coptic or old Egyptian Christian language. This is all con- 
 jecture. Moreover, the language may have greatly changed 
 dui-ing the long period through which hieroglyphic writing 
 prevailed, according to these writers. The ingenuity and 
 learning which has been spent on this search into the meaning 
 of the hieroglyphics is remarkable. But learning and 
 ingenuity cannot compensate for the want of .solid facts. So 
 ingeniously plastic is this whole system, that no sooner does 
 one conjecture, which has served its purpose for a time, break 
 down, than a new and additional one is invented to meet the 
 new difficulty, and a framework of devices — such as the 
 pictorial, phonetic, mixed, and homophone hieroglyphics — is 
 built up, so complicated and conjectural as almost to carr}' its 
 own confutation with it. Seven hundred hieroglyphics have 
 thus been, it is said, deciphered; many of them, in some 
 cases as many as nineteen, representing the same sound. 
 Here is a wide field for conjecture and mistakes. The 
 admissions incidentally made (see, for instance, the preface to 
 M. Bunsen's vol. iii. p. 14, and elsewhere) speak reproachfully 
 against the value of the system, and are something like so 
 many seeds of destruction sown in the midst of it. 
 
 On such a slender basis and by such a fragile fabric of 
 reasoning is the system of ancient Egyptian history and 
 
DEDUCED FROM EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHICS. 147 
 
 chronology built up, in defiance of the plain and simple 
 statements of Holy Scripture. It ill becomes such theorists 
 to sneer at the adherents of the Scripture account, as the 
 dupes of rabbinical assumptions and Jewish prejudices. It is 
 difficult to understand how any thoughtful man can set up a 
 comparison between the slender skeleton of names, half 
 guessed at and half deciphered by a doubtful means of inter- 
 pretation, and which Egyptologers call 'Egyptian history,' 
 and the account handed down in the Pentateuch. Even 
 waiving the argument of inspiration, what comparison can 
 there be between a scanty so-called history, stretching over 
 some thousands of years, as it is asserted, built up too much 
 upon such a mixture of guesses and facts, and, on the other 
 hand, a history already recorded and so handed down in MS. 
 subject only to the vicissitudes incident to the transmission 
 from hand to hand 1 
 
 The several incidental notices of Egypt in Scripture form 
 a consistent series of points of contact between the Hebrews 
 and the Egyptians, which bear of themselves the stamp of 
 authentic history. Thus, the country takes its rise and name 
 from Mizraim (the ancient word for Egypt), grandson of 
 Noah, born soon after the flood. (Gen. x. 6.) Abram, 500 
 years after this, goes down into Egypt and finds a monarch, a 
 court, princes, and servants, and is treated in a princely 
 manner. (Gen. xii. 10 — 20.) The story of Joseph, 200 
 years later, brings Egypt before us again, as an apparently 
 mightier kingdom. (Gen. xxxix. 1.) After the lapse of 
 another 200 years and more, during which the Hebrews had 
 sojiiuined in Egypt, a king arose who knew not Joseph and 
 oppressed them grievously. Egypt was a kingdom of still 
 gieater power than before, with treasure-cities, chariots and 
 horses in abundance, soothsayers and magicians, and many 
 si,'.;ns of earthly greatness. Moses was brought up at the 
 court, and the Lord delivered His people out of Egypt by his 
 hand. (Ex. i. — xv.) Nearly 500 years later we find Egypt 
 
148 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 mentioned again as a great people ; and King Solomon 
 married Pharaoh's daughter. The wisdom or learning of 
 Egypt is set forth in order to illustrate the greatness of the 
 still greater wisdom of Solomon. (1 Kings iii. vii. ix. xi.) 
 Jerohoam, who lifted up his hand against Solomon, found an 
 asylum in Egypt ; and after Solomon's death, Shishak, the 
 king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem in the tenth 
 century before Christ and despoiled the Temple of its 
 treasures, but left Rehoboam king of Judah, and returned 
 with his acquisitions to Egypt. (2 Chron. xii.) 
 
 This event is the earliest point of contact between the 
 Hebrews and Egypt which can be traced in the deciphered 
 hieroglyphic records. Previously to this there were fifteen 
 centuries for the development of all the greatness which 
 made Egypt renowned, without stretching the period to 
 several times its length, and setting up a conjectural history 
 in the place of the distinct record in the Holy Scriptures. 
 Even this point of contact is recognized only upon the hypo- 
 thesis of the hieroglyphic decipherment being correct. In 
 the palace at Karnak there is a representation of a Jewish 
 figure forming part of a triumphal procession of Sheshouk 
 (supposed to be Shishak), with a tablet on his breast and a 
 hieroglyphic, which is read thus — ' Judah King ; ' and sup- 
 posed therefore to point to this event recorded in Scripture, 
 (Bunsen's Egypt, iii. 213.) But even here there is a slight 
 discrepancy ; for the figure is bound, and forms part of a 
 procession of triumph, apparently in Egypt. But this does 
 not tally with the Scripture account, and indicates that the 
 decipherment is not true and that the reference is not to this 
 event, or that the accuracy of the Egyptian records even when 
 made out is not to be trusted. The Scripture account need 
 not be suspected on the ground that the Hebrews would not 
 like to record the disaster of their king being carried away, 
 as they have not shrunk from recording against themselves 
 worse disasters than that. 
 
DEDUCED FROM EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHICS. 149 
 
 Of the points of contact between the Hebrews and Egypt 
 there are two, especially the first, which we might have ex- 
 pected would aiford some information of the superior antiquity 
 of the Egyptian kingdom, as far exceeding the limits of the 
 Pentateuch chronology, if the Egyptians at that time really 
 claimed it. Moses spent the first forty years of his life in 
 the court of Pharaoh, brought up as the king's grandson, and 
 therefore with every opportunity of becoming learned, as St. 
 Stephen tells us he was, in all the wisdom of the Egyptians 
 (Acts vii. 22). And Solomon, so renowned for his erudition, 
 was connected with the Egyptian court by marriage. Yet 
 neither Moses nor Solomon has left any record of the superior 
 antiquity claimed for Egypt. Moses, in particular, could not 
 have handed down to us, as he has done, the Scripture 
 account of man's creation and subsequent history, and the 
 peopling of the nations, as recorded in Genesis, if the archaeo- 
 logy claimed now for ancient Egypt were true. It is useless 
 to attribute Moses' silence on this head to Jewish vanity and 
 prejudice for his own nation. Surely the writers of the Old 
 Testament are suf&ciently candid in recording the weaknesses 
 and sins of the patriarchs, and of those after them, to screen 
 them from the charge that national vanity influenced them 
 in the records they made. 
 
 The fact is, that the whole hieroglyphic system, the 
 researches into which display so much perseverance, learning, 
 and ingenuity, on the part of the decipherers, is, after all, a 
 gigantic system of conjecture, with numerous facts worked 
 into its texture which give it the appearance of truth to 
 sanguine minds. Science has thus been made, in the hands 
 of able but unscrupulous men, to lift up its voice against the 
 plain teaching of Scripture, and to set that teaching aside 
 wherever it opposes their theory. M. Bunsen continually 
 uses the term 'facts' where he should have said 'inferences,' 
 and ' discovery ' where he should have said ' hypothesis : ' see, 
 for example, vol. i. p. 441, vol. iii. p. 66, and vol. iv. p. 13. 
 
150 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 The more perseveringly this interesting inquiry into antiqui- 
 ties is oarried on the better, if it be conducted with candour 
 and patience, as in the end it is sure to illustrate the truth 
 of the sacred volume.* 
 
 6. The extravagant views regarding the Age of the 
 Human Race, advanced by M. Bunsen, have met with an 
 —from apparent confirmation from an examination of 
 NUe-deposits. ^Yie Nile-deposits which have accumulated 
 around *some of the Egyptian monuments. Excavations have 
 been made, under the direction of Mr. Leonard Horner, in 
 the neighbourhood of Memphis and Heliopolis, with a view to 
 determine the thickness of the deposit made by the successive 
 inundations of the Nile, and thence to infer the age of the 
 country. He states as his result, that the thickness of deposit 
 down to the base of the colossal statue of Rameses II. in the 
 area of the ancient Memphis, the date of which M. Bunsen, 
 after Lepsius, fixes at B.C. 1631, is 9 feet 4 inches. From 
 this he infers, that the rate of deposit is about 3^ inches in a 
 century. He further states that it is found that the Nile- 
 deposit goes down 30 feet lower, and that from that depth 
 has been brought up a specimen of pottery. Assuming that 
 the deposits have been made uniformly through all these ages, 
 he infers that man must have lived in Egypt, and have been 
 possessed of a certain degree of civilization, at a distance of 
 
 * Sir G. C. Lewis, in his Historical Survey of the Astronomy of the 
 Ancients — a most interesting work, which has issued from the press 
 since the above was written — closes his examination of the hierogly- 
 phic system of the Egyptologists, on the correctness of which he 
 throws great doubt, with these words : ' It may be feared, that the 
 future discoveries of the Kgyptologers will be attended with results as 
 worthless and as uncertain as those which have hitherto attended their 
 ill-requited and barren labours. The publication of an inedited Greek 
 scholiast or grammarian nii^'ht be expected to yield more fruit to 
 literature than the vague phrases of Oriental adulation or mystical 
 devotion, which are propounded to us as versions of hieroglyphic 
 inscriptions.' — P. 396. 
 
DEDUCED FROM NILE-DEPOSITS. 151 
 
 time proportionate to this depth ; that is, 11,646 years before 
 the Christian era — an epoch which altogether overleaps the 
 boundaries of Scripture chronology. But this extraordinary 
 conclusion will not stand before examination. 
 
 (1.) The thickness of the Nile-mud is very different in the 
 several excavations even in the same neighbourhood, showing 
 how irregularly the deposits were made ; owing, no doubt, to 
 local causes, which would also change from age to age.* We 
 cannot, therefore, properly infer anything regarding the re- 
 lative times which the parts above and below any fixed point, 
 such as the base of a monument of known date, would afford ; 
 since causes may have operated, which we cannot possibly 
 trace, to change the rapidity of deposit very materially. 
 
 (2.) Layers of sand are found in some of the excavations ; 
 and sand is more or less mixed up with the Nile-mud itself. 
 How much at different epochs the winds from the desert may 
 have thus added to the thickness of the annual deposit, it is 
 impossible to conjecture. This cause, therefore, tends to 
 throw out the calculation. Moreover, the course of the Nile 
 has, without doubt, shifted gradually within certain limits 
 during ages past, and has transported materials from its new 
 channel to other parts, thus deranging all regularity in the 
 deposits made simply by the inundations. 
 
 (3.) It is hardly credible that the Nile-deposit which lies 
 around the monument of Eameses, situated in the midst of 
 ancient Memphis, can have been accumulating ever since the 
 monument was erected, as this involves the highly improb- 
 able hypothesis that both the city and the temple were 
 annually submerged many feet under water. The inunda- 
 tions must have been banked out. It is far more probable 
 that the accumulations have commenced from the time when 
 
 * The thickness of Nile-mud at spots 3100, 784, 1215 yards from 
 the Obelisk at Heliopolis, and haviiig different bearings from it, were 
 9-92, 13-25, 14-25 and 14-8, 6-67 feet. See Mr. Horner's paper in 
 Philosophical Transactions for 1865, pp. 13-2-136. 
 
152 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONOijUSIOKS 
 
 Memphis became a ruin, that is, in the fifth century of our 
 era. This would entirely alter the rate of deposit of mud 
 above the base of the monument, and upset the calculation 
 altogether. 
 
 (■4.) The deposits show no marks of stratification : so that 
 the position of the specimen of pottery discovered at a depth 
 of thirty-nine feet from the surface is not defined by anything 
 but this depth. A thousand accidents may have brought it 
 there, even supposing that the thirty-nine feet of earth have 
 been accumulating undisturbed at the slow rate of three and 
 a half inches a century — which is by no means proved. It 
 may have been at the bottom of one of the numerous wells com- 
 mon in Egypt ; or it may have fallen down one of the deep 
 cracks which divide the dry soil before the inundation comes. 
 
 (5.) Mr. Horner reports that the excavators brought up 
 from greater depths than this at which the pottery was found, 
 and in nearly all the ninety-five excavations made near 
 Memphis, as well as in those near Heliopolis, fragments of burnt 
 brick.* This circumstance furnishes a very strong argument 
 against the hypothesis of high antiquity which it is supposed 
 to support. For the brick used in Egypt in ancient times was 
 almost invariably sun-dried and not burnt.t The ancient 
 temples were built of stone. It was not till the period of the 
 Koman rule that burnt brick was commonly used. The 
 presence, therefore, of these burnt bricks, and in so many 
 places, militates very strongly against the theory which would 
 
 * See Mr. Horner's Papers in Philosophical Transactions for 1855, 
 ]858. 
 
 t ' The use of the crude-brick, baked in the sun, was universal in 
 Upper and Lower Egypt, both for public and private buildings.' — 
 Wilkinson's A ncieni Egyptians, vol. ii. p. 26. 'I have already treated 
 .... of the great use they made of crude brick .... those burnt in 
 a kiln being rarely employed, except in damp stations. The southern 
 extremity of the quay, near the temple of Luqsor at Thebes, is built of 
 burnt brick. . . . Stone was coufined principaby to the temples and 
 other monuments connected with religion.' — Vol. iii. p. 316. 
 
DEDUCED FROM NILE-DEPOSITS. 153 
 
 give such an extravagant age to the deposits in which they 
 are found. 
 
 (6.) A letter in the Literary Gazette, by W. Osburn, Esq., 
 author of the Monumental History of Egypt, calls attention 
 to another argument against Mr. Horner's calculation. He 
 states that Abd-al-Latif, an Arab traveller and historian, 
 visited Memphis six centuries ago ; and that he describes 
 this statue as standing upright at that time. This altogether 
 throws out Mr. Horner's speculations ; as the upper part of 
 the mud through which he has carried his excavations, viz. 
 the nine feet four inches, must have taken, not 3200 years, 
 but less than 600, to accumulate.* 
 
 Mr. Horner's conclusions, therefore, rest upon no better 
 basis than M. Bunsen's; and Scripture chronology and history 
 which their false Science has assailed, are left untouched by 
 their ill-founded speculations, which surely are calculated to 
 bring down contempt on all such proceedings, if not on Science 
 itself Other examples of miscalculations of time, arising 
 from mistaking the age of beds, might be adduced. I will 
 here refer to one noticed in the Geological Quarterly Journal, 
 vol. xviii, for 1862, pp. 218 and 450. At the former page will 
 be found a paper which determines the age of a stratum by 
 meaus of a piece of pottery to be that of the Eoman occupa- 
 tion of Great Britain ; and at the latter page a paper is given 
 which describes a vessel found in a much older stratum as 
 distinctly mediaeval in its character ! No doubt such 
 
 * I have found the following notice of a .statue in a translation of 
 Abd-alLatlfs travels. He is describing the ruins of iVlemphis: — 
 ' Nous en avons mesure una qui, sans son piedestal, avoit plus de 
 trente coudees : sa largeur, du c6te droit au cote gauche, portoit 
 environ dix coudees ; et du devant au derriere, elle 6toit epaisse en 
 proportion. Cette statue etoit d'une seule pierre de granit rouge ; 
 elle etoit recouvcrte d'un vernis rouge auquel son antiquite sembloit 
 ne faire qu'adjouter une nouvelle fraicheur.' — Vl. Silvestie de ti'acy's 
 Translation from the Arabic of the Account of Egypt by Abd-al- 
 Latif, o, Physician of Bagdad, p. 188. 
 
154 REFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 mistakes will be made : but the}' show that the results of a 
 Science still in its youth are not to be received with too 
 much confidence. 
 
 (7.) The age of the human race is again brought under 
 discussion by the disinterment of late years of the remains 
 —from flint and of man in deposits, the age of which is 
 
 of man. assumed to be far greater than Scripture 
 chronology will allow. 
 
 When the great step was taken in establishing the vast 
 antiquity of the earth, the fact of the non-appearance of any 
 remains of man among the countless fossils which were dis- 
 entombed and carefully studied, was hailed as bearing strong 
 testimony to the Scripture account of his comparatively-recent 
 appearance on the earth. Individual skeletons were occasion- 
 ally discovered. But their appearance could in every instance 
 be readily accounted for ; and though an outcry was in some 
 instances raised, that the Mosaic records were again in 
 jeopardy, the alarm was soon allayed. But this subject has 
 of late assumed a more serious aspect. Within the last four- 
 and-twenty years public attention has been called to the 
 discovery by M. Boucher de Perthes of Abbeville of a vast 
 number of flint implements, works of human art, buried down 
 in strata, which some assert must have been formed many 
 ages before the date which we have been in the habit of 
 giving to the origin of man. This discovery has been 
 followed up by similar ones in other places. The very unex- 
 pected discoveries within the last seventeen years, announced 
 by M. Troyon of Lausanne, of the remains of whole villages 
 built on piles now buried low in the Lakes of Switzerland, 
 which must have been the abode of men in a remote antiquity, 
 and have belonged to races of which we seem to have been 
 in entire ignorance, have, in the eyes of many, appeared to 
 add fresh evidence, and from an entirely new source, that 
 the supposition upon which we have been going, that no re- 
 cords of man are to be found in the earth, and that his recent 
 
DEDDCED FROM FLINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 155 
 
 introduction upon the theatre of the world is established by 
 geological research, is no longer to be trusted. These new 
 facts have awakened an amount of interest proportioned to 
 their importance. While sceptics have triumphed in prospect 
 of what they looked forward to as a crushing demonstration 
 of the untruthfulness of the Mosaic records, and believers 
 in Revelation have been unmoved in their persuasion that no 
 discrepancy would in the end be established between Scrip- 
 ture and Science, there has been a large intermediate class of 
 anxious and hesitating minds, not knowing what to think and 
 ■what to believe. Considerable discussion had taken place on 
 all hands : when the whole culminated in the appearance of 
 a volume which had been for some time previously announced, 
 and for which the scientific, and I may add the religious, 
 world anxiously waited, with the highest expectations that 
 something worthy -of the author's reputation would be 
 produced on this controverted subject. Sir Charles Lyell's 
 past works on geology have ever been remarkable for great 
 research and a large accumulation of facts : and this gave a 
 guarantee that in his new work on The Antiquity of Mun no 
 fact would be passed by which bore im the subject, and that 
 all would be said by him which could be said in support of 
 the view he would adopt. His verdict is in favour of the 
 theory, which would put back the origin of man on the 
 earth to a date more like one thousand centuries than sixty.* 
 If such a result could, by any possibility, be gathered 
 from the facts of nature, it was almost to be anticipated that 
 Sir Charles Lyell would adopt it ; for he has long been known 
 as an advocate of the uniformitarian school of geology in 
 opposition to the paroxysmal. Indeed his first and 
 greatest work, on The I'rinciples of Geology, was written with 
 the avowed object of attempting to show, that if time enough 
 is granted, all the changes, which have occurred in the earth's 
 strata iu all time past, may have been brought about by a 
 * See Antiquity of Man, p, 204. 
 
156 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONa 
 
 gradual operation of causes of no greater activity or abrupt- 
 ness of action than those which are now witnessed on the face 
 of the glebe. The evidence which has led so great an 
 authority to come to a conclusion regarding the antiquity of 
 man so opposed to the letter of Scripture, I will now examine, 
 first giving it in abstract. 
 
 (1.) Works of Art found in Danish peat. These works 
 have been arranged under three periods, supposed to be 
 distinct and successive, called the Stone Age, the Bronze 
 Age, and the Iron Age ; when stone, bronze, and iron were 
 the material of which implements were made. During these 
 periods the Scotch-fir, the oak, and the beech respectively, 
 are said to have flourished in Denmark in large forests. ' The 
 minimum time,' Sir Charles says, ' for the formation of so 
 much peat must have amounted to at least 4000 years, and 
 there is nothing in the observed rate of- the growth of peat 
 opposed to the conclusion, that the number of centuries may 
 not have been four times as great, even though the signs of 
 man's existence have not been traced down to the lowest 
 stratum.' — P. 16. 
 
 (2.) Danish Shell-mounds, or kitchen Eefuse-heaps con- 
 taining flint knives and other instruments of stone, horn, wood, 
 and bone, but none of bronze or iron. Oyster-shells are 
 found in great abundance, whereas the waters where these 
 heaps are found are now too brackish to allow oysters to live. 
 This, however, does not necessarily bespeak a very high an- 
 tiquity, as ' even in the course of the present century the salt 
 waters have made one eruption into the Baltic . . . It is also 
 affirmed that other channels were open in historical times, 
 which are now silted up.' These heaps are assigned to the 
 earliest j)art of the age of stone as known in Denmark. — P. 11. 
 
 (3.) Ancient Swiss Lake-dwellings built on piles. In the 
 shallow parts of many Swiss lakes, in from five to fifteen feet 
 of water, ancient wooden piles are found, with their heads 
 worn down to the surface of the mud or projecting slightly 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 157 
 
 above it. These appear to have supported villages, like those 
 in a lake in Thrace described by Herodotus, where the 
 Pseonians defended themselves and preserved their indepen- 
 dence during the Persian invasion. Similar habitations are 
 to this day found among the Papoos in New Guinea ; and I 
 have myself seen such in the straits of Malacca. Sir Charles 
 assigns the most ancient of these villages to the stone age, 
 as hundreds of implements resembling those of the Danish 
 shell-mounds and peat-mosses have been dredged up from the 
 mud. — P. 17. Some appear to be of later date, and are 
 assigned to the bronze age. All of the bronze impl ments 
 that have as yet been discovered are confined to Western and 
 Central Switzerland. In the eastern lakes only those of the 
 stone age have been found. In some of the aquatic stations, 
 as well as in tumuli and battle-fields in Switzerland, a mix- 
 ture of bronze and iron implements and works of art has 
 been observed ; and together with them coins and medals of 
 bronze and silver, struck at Marseilles, and of Greek manu- 
 facture, belonging to the first and pre-Roman division of the 
 age of iron. Fifty-four species of mammalia, birds, reptiles, 
 and fish, found in the mud, are, with one exception, still 
 living in Europe. The exception is the wild bull, which was 
 extant in the time of Julius Csesar. One human skull has 
 been dredged up, of the early stone age, and is of a type not 
 unlike that now prevailing in Switzerland. Mr. Morlot, a 
 Swiss geologist, assuming the Eoman period to represent an 
 antiquity of from sixteen to eighteen centuries, assigns to the 
 bronze age a date of between 3000 and 4000 years, and to 
 the oldest layer of the stone period an age of between 5000 
 and 7000 years. M. Troyon and another observer come to 
 conclusions not differing from these. The calculations are 
 based upon the thickness of mud deposits of regular structure 
 in the delta of the Tiniere, which falls into the lake of 
 Geneva ; and on the rate at which the land has encroached 
 on the lake of Bieime during the last 750 years. — P. 17. 
 
158 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 (4.) Irish Lake-dwellings or Crannoges. A great number 
 of antiquities have been discovered which are referred to the 
 stone, bronze, or iron ages. — P. 29. 
 
 (5.) Delta and Alluvial Plain of the Nile. Here Sir 
 Charles alludes to Mr. Horner's diggings and discovery of a 
 specimen of pottery, which he considered to be more than 
 13,000 years old; a result which has met such abundant 
 refutation, the last argument being that the pottery bears 
 marks of being of Mahommedan date ! Sir Charles gives up 
 this high antiquity, as well he might ! Mr. Horner's result 
 was obtained by calculating the rate at which the mud is 
 deposited by the Nile. — P. 33. 
 
 (6.) Ancient mounds of artificial construction in the 
 valley of the Ohio, used for temples and sepulture. The age 
 of these it is attempted to fix by the age of trees which have 
 grown on some of these earthen works. One was cut down 
 and found to be 800 years old. But it is thought that 
 several generations of trees must have lived and died, before 
 the mounds were overspread with that variety of species 
 which they supported when the white man first beheld them. 
 —P. 39. 
 
 (7.) Mound of Santos in Brazil. The River Santos has 
 undermined a large mound, fourteen feet in height and about 
 three acres in area, covered with trees, and has exposed to 
 view many skeletons. Sir Charles had seen in 184-2 frag- 
 ments of the calcai-eous stone from this spot, containing a 
 human skull with teeth, and in the same matrix oysters with 
 serpulse attached, and then concluded that the whole deposit 
 had been beneath the waters of the sea. But he now aban- 
 dons this ideii, and considers that the mass was bound 
 together by the infiltration of carbonate of lime, and that 
 the mound may be of no higher antiquity than some of those 
 on the Ohio.— P. 42. 
 
 (8.) Delta of the Mississippi. The lowest estimate of 
 time required by Sir Charles for the formation of this delta 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 159 
 
 is ' manj' tens of thousands of years, probably more thaa 
 190,000.' It is known in .some parts to be several hundred 
 feet deep. In an excavation at the depth of sixteen feet 
 from the surface, beneath four buried forests superimposed 
 one upon the other, charcoal and a human skeleton are said 
 to have been found, the cranium of which is said to belong 
 to the aboriginal type of the Red Indian race. Dr. Dowler 
 has assigned 50,000 years as the age of this skull ! but Sir 
 Charles says he can form no opinion of the value of this 
 result.— P. 43. 
 
 (9.) Coral Keefs of Florida. Professor Agassiz, assuming 
 the rate of advance of the land to be one foot in a century, 
 calculates that it has taken ] .35,000 years to form the 
 southern half of this peninsula. In a calcareous conglo- 
 merate forming part of this, and computed, on this scale, 
 to be about 10,000 years old, some human remains have been 
 found.— P. 44. 
 
 (10.) Recent Deposits of Seas and Lakes. Under this 
 head are given, as illustrations of change of level, the 
 upraising of strata near Naples, within the last 250 years, 
 containing remains of buildings : of a fresh-water deposit in 
 Cashmere, a country subject to earthquakes and alterations 
 in the change of level, containing remains of pottery and a 
 splendid Hindoo temple : of the coast of Chili and Peru, 
 where the land containing signs of man has been upheaved 
 as much as eighty-five feet by successive shocks since the 
 region was first peopled by the Peruvian race. — P. 45. 
 
 (11.) Works of Art disentombed in Scotland. Canoes have 
 been dug up from the banks of the Clyde at an average 
 depth of nineteen feet, and five of them lay buried in the silt 
 under the streets of Glasgow. Nearly all of them were 
 formed of a single oak stem, hollowed out by blunt tools, 
 probably (Sir Charles says) by stone axes, aided by the action 
 of fire ; a few were cut beautifully smooth, evidently with 
 metallic tools. In one of the canoes a beautifully polished 
 
160 EEFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLDSIONS 
 
 celt was found, in the bottom of another a plug of cork. Sir 
 Charles assigns different ages to these works. ' Those most 
 roughly hewn may be relics of the stone period ; those more 
 smoothly cut, of the bronze age ; and the regularly-built boat 
 of Bankton may perhaps come within the age of iron.' 
 Other instances are given of the discovery of remains which 
 show, that those parts of Scotland have been upheaved 
 twenty-five feet since the Eoman epoch. A rude ornament 
 made of cannel coal has been found near Dundonald, fifty 
 feet above the sea level, on the surface of the boulder-clay, 
 and covered with gravel, containing marine shells. ' If we 
 suppose,' writes Sir Charles, ' the upward movement to have 
 been uniform in Central Scotland before and after the Roman 
 era, .... we should carry back the date of the ornament to 
 fifteen centuries before our era, or to the days of Pharaoh.' 
 —P. 47. 
 
 (12.) Coast of Cornwall. Human skulls and works of 
 art have been found at Pertuan and Carnon, forty and fifty- 
 three feet below the surface, the overlying strata being 
 marine. No date is here conjectured. — P. 56. 
 
 (13.) Sweden and Norway. Assuming that a mean rate 
 of continuous upheaval has taken place of two feet and a 
 half in a century. Sir Charles considers that the sea coast of 
 Norway, where post-tertiary marine strata occur 600 feet 
 above the present sea-level, has required 24,000 years for 
 their upheaval. Works of art and some vessels built before 
 the introduction of iron are found sixty feet above the sea, 
 and not higher. — P. 56. 
 
 (14.) Caves in the South of France. At Bize human 
 bones and teeth, with fragments of pottery, were found thirty 
 years ago, mingled with the bones of mammalia, some of 
 extinct, others of recent species. The same was the case in 
 a cave at Pondres near Nismes. That man and these 
 extinct animals were contemporary was disputed, and at the 
 time Sir Charles Lyell himself did not agree with that view ; 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 161 
 
 but now, in consequence of evidence from other sources, he 
 considers that they were contemporary, and that the antiquity 
 of man is heightened by this argument. — P. 59. 
 
 (15.) The Caverns near Lidge. More than forty of these 
 were explored thirty years ago by Dr. Schmerling, and were 
 found to contain human bones and bones of the cave-bear, 
 hyaena, elephant and rhinoceros, and also fliut instruments. 
 Sir Charles agrees with Dr. Schmerling in thinking that 
 these remains have been swept into the caves through 
 fissures, probably by some great ilood. He assigns no date 
 to them ; but says that it must depend upon the time 
 required for certain animals to become first rare and then 
 extinct, and also for the change to be brought about in the 
 configuration of the Li^ge district, so many of these caves 
 through which streams flowed being now laid dry and choked 
 up.— P. 63. 
 
 (16.) Fossil Human Skeleton of the Neanderthal Cave 
 near Dusseldorf, and Fossil Skull of the Engis Cave near 
 Li^ge. The first was found in 1857, and the latter twenty- 
 five years earlier. ' On the whole,' says Sir Charles regarding 
 the first, ' I think it probable that this fossil may be of about 
 the same age as those found by Dr. Schmerling in the Liege 
 caverns : but as no other animal remains were found with it, 
 there is no proof that it may not be newer.' — P. 78. And 
 with regard to the two, he says, ' The two skulls .... have 
 given rise to a nearly equal amount of surprise, for opposite 
 reasons : that of Engis, because, being so unequivocally 
 ancient, it approached so near to the highest or Caucasian 
 type ; that of the ^Neanderthal, because, having no such 
 decided claims to antiquity, it departs so widely from the 
 normal standard of humanity.' — P. 89. 
 
 (17.) Flint Implements in the valley of the Somme, in 
 Brixham Cave, and other places. It is the discovery of these 
 works of art by M. Boucher de Perthes at Abbeville in 
 Picardy in 1841, and subsequently by Dr. EigoUot at St. 
 
162 EBPUTATION OF FALSE CONCtUSIONS 
 
 Aoheul near Amiens, which has given the impetus to this 
 new inquiry regarding the antiquity of the human race, and 
 has been the occasion of bringing together all the evidence 
 which in anyway bears upon the subject. There is no doubt 
 of these iiints being works of art, whatever temptation there 
 may have arisen, since the value of these articles has become 
 known, to impose counterfeits upon the public from avaricious 
 motives. The}' are found in sand or gravel about twenty or 
 thirty feet below the surface, and in company with fossil 
 bones of the mammoth and other extinct species of mammals. 
 The new attention which has been awakened to these 
 discoveries has brought into prominence several similar ones, 
 which were recorded at the time they were made, but had 
 heen forgotten. Thirty or forty years ago a like combination 
 of flint implements and fossils of extinct mammals was found 
 in a cave called Kent's Hole, at Brixham, near Torquay. 
 Three or four miles to the west, other similar caves have 
 more recently been found and carefully examined by Mr. 
 Prestwich and Dr. Falconer, who were deputed for this 
 purpose by the Koyal Society. So also in the valleys of the 
 Seine (p. 150), the Oise (p. 153), the Wey (p. 161), the 
 Thames (pp. 162, 3), the Ouse (p. 163), these implements 
 are found, in some instances in company with the remains of 
 extinct mammalia. In the first year of this century Mr. 
 Frere described similar discoveries of worked flints at Hoxne 
 near Diss, in Suffolk, so numerous that it seems to have 
 been a manufactory of these implements ; but no hones of 
 extinct mammalia have yet been found here (p. 166). 
 The same is the case at Icklingham in Suffolk (p. 169). In 
 caves near Wells in Somersetshire (p. 170), and at Gower in 
 Glamorganshire (p. 173), and near Cagliari in Sardinia (p. 
 177), the conjunction of human remains with those of extinct 
 species of animals is also found. The only conclusion at 
 which Sir Charles arrives from the various phenomena is, 
 that man must have co-existed with certain mammalia which 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT AND OTHEE KEMAISS. 163 
 
 are now extinct : and that as it may be presumed, he thinks, 
 that a very long period must be necessary for the dying out 
 of these species, man must have been a sojourner on the earth 
 far longer than has generally been supposed. 
 
 (18.) Burial Place at Aurignac in the South of France. 
 Here human skeletons and bones of extinct animals were 
 found associated ; but the human remains having been 
 removed and reburied in the parish cemetery, in a place 
 which could not be recognized, before they had undergone a 
 proper scrutiny, there is some doubt hanging over this 
 illustration. — P. 181. 
 
 (19.) The Fossil Man of Denise in Central France. 
 There is some doubt about its genuineness : nor, if genuine, 
 does it appear to add anything to the argument for the high 
 antiquity of man, for M. Pictet claims for it only the date of 
 the last volcanic eruption of Velay. — P. 195. 
 
 (20.) Human fossil at Natchez on the Mississippi. A 
 human bone and bones of the mastodon and megalonyx are 
 here found in company. But considerable doubt exists 
 whether the latter have not been washed out of a more 
 ancient alluvial deposit. — P. 200. 
 
 I have thus laid before my readers as fair a representation 
 as I can of the evidence Sir Charles Lyell produces, to show 
 that man may have been an inhabitant of the earth for a 
 period vastly longer than the Scriptures teach. Although 
 Sir Charles nowhere himself pronounces any precise opinion 
 regarding the age of man, he evidently approves of the de- 
 ductions of others who assign to the bronze age in Europe 
 an antiquity of between three and four thousand years, and 
 to the stone age before it one of between five and seven 
 thousand, the bronze age having been followed by the iron 
 age more than 2000 years ago ; and he is ready to admit, in 
 more places than one, that the first appearance of man may 
 be vastly earlier than this. In speaking of the JSTatchez 
 fossil, he does not call in question the possibility of its being 
 
164 BEFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLDSIONS 
 
 one hundred thousand years old, and of the flint implements 
 being still older. I have given the facts in detail, partly that 
 it may be seen how scanty the evidence is for the end in view. 
 No doubt these researches have brought to light interesting 
 information, of which we were before ignorant, regarding 
 those who have preceded us as inhabitants of this earth. 
 Yet the general impression which we get from a survey of 
 the evidence is its utter insufficiency to establish the conclu- 
 sion drawn from it in the face of the scriptural account of 
 man's history. The immovable conviction .jy:e. have that 
 Scripture and Science will never be proved to be at variance, 
 goes upon the supposition, that the lines of argument shall 
 have not a single flaw in them. No chain is stronger than 
 its weakest link. If, then, conjecture is once only substituted 
 for undoubted fact in the line of argument, the whole is 
 worthless in this very grave comparison between the results 
 of Science and the teachings of Scripture. Sir Charles 
 Ly ell's work is full of facts ; but it must he said that, in 
 reference to its subject as announced in its title, it is full of 
 conjectures, and altogether fails to establish his position. As 
 the human remains are found buried in peat or in deposits 
 now upheaved, or in association with the remains of extinct 
 species of mammalia, his argument is mixed up with four 
 assumptions regarding, (1.) The rate at which peat grows ; 
 (2.) The rate at which river or lake deposits are made ; (3.) 
 The rate of upheaval of continents — and all these during 
 thousands of years ; and (4.) The length of time necessary 
 for the extirpation of certain species of mammalia. 
 
 (1 .) With regard to the first ; the length of time he allows 
 for the growth of the peat in Denmark is extravagantly 
 great. Mr. Pattison, a Fellow of the Geological Society, 
 brings forward a fact which at once shows this : — 
 
 'In the Philosophical Transactions, No. 330, the Earl of 
 Cromarty records that in the west of Eossshire a considerable 
 extent of land was, between the years 1651 and 1699 [that 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 165 
 
 is, ia forty-eight years], changed from a forest into a peat 
 moss, from which turf was cut.'* He says also, that 'the 
 frequent discoveries of medi<eval objects low down in fen 
 deposits, and the experience of all those who have had to do 
 with the management of peat land, lead to the conclusion 
 that 2000 years constitute ample allowance for the growth of 
 all the peat on the present surface of the globe.' And he 
 quotes Sir Charles's own book. The Principles of Geology, 
 against him : — ' In treating, in that work, of the recent 
 origin of peat mosses, he quotes the case of Hatfield moss in 
 Yorkshire, "which appears clearly to have been a forest 1800 
 years ago ; " and after giving other instances, states that " a 
 considerable portion of the peat in European peat-bogs is 
 evidently not more ancient than the age of Julius Csesar ; " 
 and, what is most material to the present inquiry, quotes 
 from Gerard, the historian of the valley of the Somrae, a 
 statement, that, " in the lowest tier of that moss was found a 
 boat loaded with bricks." ' Moreover, Sir Charles in the 
 present work states, that the growth of peat varies with the 
 humidity of the climate, with the heat and cold, as well as 
 from diversity in the species of plants (p. 111). To pro- 
 nounce, therefore, that the Danish peat must have required 
 4000 years, and may have taken four times as long, and to 
 build such a momentous result upon this estimate, when cir- 
 cumstances may have so varied ia a much shorter interval of 
 time as most materially to alter the rate, is an assumption 
 which can by no means be regarded as trustworthy. On 
 this, in part, hangs the estimate of the dates of the Stone 
 and Bronze Ages. 
 
 The existence of fossil pines low down in the peat, and in 
 the layer above oak-trees, neither of which flourishes now in 
 Denmark, both are superseded by the beech. Sir Charles 
 considers to be a strong evidence of the great age of the peat, 
 
 * The Antiquity of Man ; an Examination of Sir Charles LyelVs 
 recent work. By S. R. Pattison, F.G.S. 
 
166 EEFDTATIOX OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 especially as lie gathers from Caesar's Commentaries tliat the 
 trees did not grow there in his time, but the beech, as at 
 prespnt. This, however, Mr. Pattison calls in question, by- 
 stating that Csesar has asserted that the fir did not grow in 
 ' Britain, whereas it is known that fir was actually used in 
 Britain by the Eomans. If this can be established it would 
 turn the argument the other way, and show that the whole 
 peat is the growth of only about 2000 years. On such 
 slender and uncertain grounds do some of these sweeping 
 conclusions rest ! Mr. Pattison adds, that 'the superposition 
 of oak timber in the bogs is easily accounted for without 
 calling in the aid of thousands of years. The process and 
 its progress are matters of ordinary observation. A clump 
 of pine-trees grows, with here and there an oak ; the firs are 
 the first to become old and feeble ; some of them fall and 
 begin to decay ; the tiny streamlet meandering through the 
 wood is dammed up ; mosses grow ; the firs all fall ; the bog 
 increases ; the more hardy oak yields next ; the bog still in- 
 creases ; the birch and alder survive on the driest spots ; but 
 these, too, are ultimately engulphed.' 
 
 The far-distant epoch which is assigned to the Stone Age, 
 the most ancient of the three ages, is brought down within 
 the probabilities of our current chronology by the fact, made 
 known to us by a writer in The Times, that this stone age 
 still continues in the neighbourhood of Cape Horn and other 
 parts of the world.* 
 
 * ' Tierra del Puego, with its innumerable islands and rocky islets, 
 like the mountain ranges half sunk in ocean, combines every variety 
 of aspect — storm-beaten rocky summits, several thousand feet above 
 the sea, glaciers so extensive that the eye cannot trace their limits, 
 densely wooded hill-sides, grand cascades and slieltered sandy coves — 
 altogether such a combniation of Swiss, Norwegian, and Greenland 
 scenery as can hardly be realized or believed to exi»t near Cape Horn. 
 Yet even there — by lake-like waters, though so near the wildest 
 of oceans — thousands of savages exist, and migrate in bark canoes ! 
 
 ' In 1830 four of those aborigines were brought to lingland. In 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT AND OTHER EEMAINS. 167 
 
 Even the archaeologist Worsaae, who has done more than 
 any other individual in opening this vast field of inquiry into 
 the stone, bronze, and iron ages, requires, according to Mr. 
 Pattison, a far less remote antiquity for them than Sir Charles 
 does. Worsaae's conclusion is — 
 
 ' That the three periods had not long intervals of time 
 betvi^een them, but that implements of stone continued to be 
 the tools of the poorer folk, whilst the more advanced families 
 indulged in weapons, first of bronze, and afterwards of iron. 
 Worsaae concludes his review of the chronology of these dim 
 and mysterious ages by saying : — " It will be at once seen 
 that the stone period must be of extraordinary antiquity ; if 
 the Celts possessed settled abodes in the west of Europe more 
 than 2000 years ago, how much more ancient must be the 
 
 1833 three of them were restored to their native places (one Iiaviiig 
 (lied). They had then acquired enough of our language to talk about 
 common things. From their information and our own sight are the 
 following facts : — The natives of Tierra del Fuego use stone tools, flint 
 knives, arrow and spear heads of flint or volcanic glass, for cutting bark 
 for canoes, flesh, blubber, sinews, and spears, knocking shell-tish oft' 
 rocks, breaking large shells, killing guanacoes in time of deep snow, 
 and for weapons. In every sheltered cove, where wigwams are placed, 
 heaps of refuse — shells and stones, ofl'al and bones — are invariably 
 found. Often they appear very old, being deeply covered with wind- 
 driven sand or water-washed soil, on which there is a growth of vege- 
 tation. These are like the " kitchen-middens " of the to-called " stone 
 age " in Scandinavia. 
 
 ' No human bones would be found in them (unless dogs had 
 dragged some there), because the dead bodies are sunk in deep water 
 with large stones, or burnt. These heaps are from six feet to ten feet 
 high, and from ten or twenty to more than tlfty yards in length. All 
 bavages in the present day use stone tools, not only in del Fuego, but 
 in Australia, Polynesia, Northernmost America, and Aictic Asia. In 
 any former ages of the world, wherever ravages spread, as radiating 
 from some centre, similar habits and means of existence must have 
 been prevalent ; therefore casual discovery of such traces of human 
 migration, buried in or under masses of water-moved detritus, may 
 seem scarcely sufficient to define a so-called "stone age.'"— April 
 28 L1863J. E. FiTZEOT. 
 
168 REFUTATION OF FALSE C0NCLUSI0N8 
 
 population which preceded the arrival of the Celts ! A great 
 number of years must pass away before a people like the Celts 
 could spread themselves over the west of Europe, and render 
 the land productive ; it is therefore no exaggeration, if we 
 attribute to the stone period au antiquity of at least 3000 
 years. There are also geological reasons for believing, that 
 the bronze period must have prevailed in Denmark five or six 
 hundred years before Christ." ' 
 
 Sir Charles Lyell thinks that ' the slowness of the progress 
 of the arts of savage life is manifested by the fact, that the 
 earlier instruments of bronze were modelled on the exact 
 plan of the stone tools of the preceding age, although such 
 shapes would never have been chosen, had metals been known 
 from the first ' (p. 377). Why should not this argument be 
 used to show that the stone and bronze periods were nearer 
 each other than Sir Charles supposes, and even contempo- 
 rary, the ' poorer folk ' using the commoner articles "i * In 
 order to push back the stone age as far as possible he says, 
 ' We see in our own times, that the rate of progress in the 
 
 * This Sir J. Lubbock allows in his Pre-hisioric Time, p. 62, first 
 edition ; p. 76, second edition. 
 
 The Quarterly Ueview draws an argument from the architecture of 
 India, which I can fully confirm, to show how unsafe it is to inler from 
 the co-existence in the same place of stone and bronze im]ilements, that 
 the people who used the stone implements must have preceded those 
 who used the bronze ones. The Hindoos never use the arch in their 
 temples or monumental buildings, though the Mahomedans in India 
 have made constant use of it for several centuries. The writer gives an 
 instance : ' There exists in Guzerat the city of Ahmedabad, built by the 
 Moslems between the years ji.n. 1411 and 1583 It contains numberless 
 mosques, palaces, and public buildings, not one of which is without arches. 
 In the same province there is the holy city of Palitana, containing num- 
 berless temples of the Jains and Hindus. Many of these were erected 
 during the last fifty years, most of them either built or re-built since 
 Ahmedabad ceased to tie a capital ; but, so far as is known, not one arch 
 exists within its walls.' The writer truly says, ' Any antiquary fresh 
 from Europe, if he saw two buildings standing side by side, one 
 of which was arched throughout, the other exhibiting the most 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 169 
 
 arts and sciences proceeds in a geometrical ratio as know- 
 ledge increases ; and so when we carry our retrospect into 
 the past, we must be prepared to find the signs of retardation 
 augmenting in a like geometrical ratio : so that the progress 
 of a thousand years, at a remote period, may correspond to 
 that of a century in modern times ; and in ages still more 
 remote man would more and more resemble the brutes in 
 that attribute, which causes one generation exactly to imitate 
 in all its ways the generation which preceded it ' (p. 377). 
 Is not this special pleading? Has the writer forgotten the 
 civilized state of ancient Egypt, the state of cultivation of 
 ancient Greece in the fine arts and philosophy ; and has he 
 compared them with those countries now ? Have arts once 
 practised never been lost, even in civilized countries ? Is it 
 impossible even to reverse the view, and to conceive that the 
 stone age might be even more modern than the bronze, as 
 the people using the bronze implements might have been 
 driven to the necessity, from various causes, and among them 
 the failure of metal, to be satisfied with stone ones 1 * 
 
 extraordinary "tours de force" to support its roof and cover its 
 openings by stone beams, would at once decide that the latter must 
 be the older, because it must have been erected before the invention 
 of the axch.'— Quarterly Review, April 1870, p. 438. 
 
 * In an article on this subject in Macmillari's Magazine, April 
 1863, the parallelism, or rather contiast, between these ages and the 
 golden, silver, brazen, and iron periods of Hesiod, is pointed out. 
 This contrast ' embodies the distinction between what we may call the 
 theological and the scientific view of man. The one sees him fall from 
 an original state of perfection ; the other as slowly and painfully work- 
 ing his way upward to that state. This contrast is the more inter- 
 esting irom the fact of the theologic point of view having been taken 
 by a pagan writer — showing how deep in the human heait is rooted 
 this conception of a primeval state of intelligent iimocence.' 
 
 The following extracts from the Saturday Review, August 12, 1865, 
 are worthy of note :— 
 
 ' The evidence which has been accumulated recently respecting the 
 antiquity of the human race and its earliest conditions is in the highest 
 degree interesting, but it is still in too obscure and unconnected a state 
 
170 EEFOTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 (2.) The date of the Stone and Bronze Ages is guessed at 
 also from the rate of deposit of mud in the delta of the 
 Tiniere, as already stated. But here, again, to base such a 
 conclusion upon an assumption that the deposit has proceeded 
 
 to support or indicate conclusions, which can be said to be in any way 
 satisfactory. . . When we attempt to employ them for the purposes 
 of a theory, we must be very sanguine or very hasty if we think that 
 they will yet bear very much being put upon them. . . . It is conve- 
 nient, and perhajis inevitable, to throw knowledge which occupies our 
 thoughts into the shape of a theory ; but it is important to remember 
 that we do not yet really know enough to generalize with anything like 
 good grounds about " ages" of stone and metals, and to conclude that 
 they must have actually succeeded one another in time, in an order of 
 dimini.^hing rudeness. . . . The utmost that these remains enable us 
 to do is to conclude something of certain races in a corner of the w orld, 
 probably, at any rate possibly, driven into it from earlier seats ; they 
 contribu'te but little light to the larger and more interesting questions 
 connected with the early condition and progress of mankind. And these 
 remains themselves are for the present hopelessly isolated. All existing 
 collections, numerous and abundant as they are, fail to supply a thread 
 which connects one group with another, either in the line of descent or 
 in collateral relationship. We cannot find the clue to pass from stone 
 to bronze, or from bronze to iron. Further, it is very precarious to make 
 rudeness in workmanship, or difference in material, a test of relative 
 antiquity. It appears to be beyond a doubt that certain communities 
 —those, for in,staiice, of the Danish shell-mounds, and of certain of the 
 Swiss lake-villages— u-ed only stone, and not metal. It is probab e in 
 a high degree that stone in general, as a material, preceded metal. 
 But beyond this all seems still open to question. It seems perfectly 
 conceivable that some tribes may have gone on using their rude chipped 
 flints long after others were using polished stone, long after others were 
 using bronze and iron. It is perfectly conceivable, because tribes are 
 found doing so at this moment. Much must have depended, especially 
 when intercourse was so restricted, on the presence of a certain mate- 
 rial, and on the scarcity or plenty of it, and also on the social condition 
 and habits of the race. Men often change with extraordinary rapidity 
 when once a great ini|irovement is opened to them ; but they also often 
 cling to what they are accustomed to. even in the presence of what is 
 in itself more convenient ; for mere custom by itself makes a great part 
 of convenience. We know that great varieties of civilization may long 
 subsist together — if divided by sufficient barriers of blood, of religion, 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 171 
 
 uniformly through so many ages, or that the rate at which 
 land has encroached on a lake has been uniform, so as to 
 form a fair scale for calculation, is altogether gratuitous. 
 Many circumstances in the past, of which we are now 
 
 of interests, of traditional habits — not only contemporaneously, but in 
 close neighbourhood ; and it is not more safe to conclude that villages 
 in the Swiss lakes which used bronze must have been more recent than 
 neighbouring ones which used stone, than it would be to conclude, from 
 traces of social life, that the English of the Pale and the Irish outside 
 it could not have been contemporaries in the sixteenth century. Again, 
 the relation, in point of time, of bronze to iron is far too uncertain to 
 warrant us in making an age of iron after an age of bronze. It may 
 be probable that in certain races bronze was used befoie iron, in prefer- 
 ence to it, or at any rate instead of it ; but, as a general rule, we can 
 but guess, and our grounds for guessing are not very good. We are in 
 absolute ignorance of everything connected with the first use of the 
 metals ; how and where they were applied to the purposes of daily 
 life ; under what circumstances of discovery, or foreign introduction and 
 teaching, they came to be employed in Europe. And whatever can be 
 said of the ditticulty of reducing and working iron may be balanced by 
 the difficulties, at least equal, on the other side, connected with the 
 materials and the invention of bronze. Bronze presupposes two remark- 
 able things ; the supply of a rare metal— tin , and the knowledge how 
 most effectively to use it in an alloy with copper. We at present only 
 know of 1 ne adequate source of tin in Europe — namely, Cornwall ; and 
 if that was the source before the days of the Homeric poems, a com- 
 merce among nations is implied, and with this commerce a civilization, 
 which take away all improbabilities connected with the full use of iron. 
 People who could ha\e invented bronze, and procured the materials for 
 it, could sui ely have procured and wrought iron ; and something else 
 besides rudeness and chronological priority must be supposed, to account 
 for the preference of one metal to the other In the earlier con- 
 ditions of the world, when there was apparently much migration under 
 very different conditions from those under which migration went on 
 later and goes on at present, it is conceivable that vanquished and 
 dispossessed races, driven into ruder and poorer seats, cut off from the 
 facilities of life which they once had and which commerce did not 
 supply, and reduced to coarser and scantier appliances, may have lost 
 artsinsteadof gained them in the progress of time. . . . It is clear that 
 in the undeveloped state of the world, when Ufe was hard, and commu- 
 nication and trade so difficult, the possibility must be fully taken into 
 
172 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 utterly ignorant, may have occurred to throw out such 
 calculation altogether. Sir Charles quotes a passage from 
 Mr. Geikie which abundantly illustrates this (see page 50). 
 It shows to what very great irregularities the deposit of silt 
 is subject, owing to change of currents, arising from various 
 circumstances. Surely the signal failure of the argument 
 from Nile-deposits, and the escape we have had from a gross 
 imposition in chronology, based apparently upon physical 
 phenomena, should teach us to beware of such specious 
 reasonings. These things bring down discredit upon geology, 
 or rather upon the speculations of some who indulge their 
 fancies too freely.* 
 
 account of men going back under unfavourable conditions, and giving 
 
 up metal from the sheer impossibiUty of getting it It seems a 
 
 matter of re^'ret that this subject should be mainly studied with refer- 
 ence to the mere question of the antiquity of the race. Our knowledge 
 is in much too crude and disjoined a state to help us much in this 
 particular point, which appears to derive an importance — an undue 
 imjiortance, as we think — from considerations indirectly connected 
 with it. Where, as in this case, so little explains itself, and so much 
 has to be learnt before we can be said to know anything, it would be 
 more fruitful to study these singular remains for themselves, and to 
 leave aside the question of age, or even of the relation, in point of time 
 anj succession, of one group to another, till we have better means of 
 determining it than we possess. There is more likelihood of their falling 
 at last into their proper place, if, in the first instance, they are investi- 
 gated simply for their own sake, as fresh evidences of unknown states 
 of human society, without any thought of proving either their antiquity 
 or their lateness. They would not be a bit less curious, so far as we 
 could find out anything about them, though we looked at them without 
 reference to the controversies with which they have been connected, 
 and though we doubted whether they came before civilisation in the 
 East, or long after it had spread westwards, or whether there were 
 grounds for assigning them a date at all' 
 
 * The following extract from an American periodical, forwarded to 
 the Record August 4 1865, throws damaging doubt upon some other 
 similar measures of time : — 
 
 ' These, however, are small matters compared with Lyell's enormous 
 blunders in the computation of our American processes of construction 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 173 
 
 We can fix only the relative order of changes in the 
 earth's strata with any certainty. Any approximation to 
 the actual number of years which any change has occupied, 
 is attained by assuming the rate of change, and fixing upon 
 some date within historical times to form the basis or 
 startiug-point of the calculation. In both these we are 
 liable to error. Some years ago, a geological lecturer of no 
 ordinary note asserted that the volcanoes of Auvergne, in 
 
 of continents. He goes to work ciphering out the age of the delta of 
 the Mississippi, and declares the Mississippi was at least one hundred 
 thousand years making the delta, and makes a wonderful display of 
 figures to prove it. The Dnited States' Government has set its 
 surveyors. Abbot and Humphrey, to work with chain and Jacob's staff ; 
 and they report that, by actual measurement, we are now annexing 
 the Gulf of Mexico at the rate of two hundred and sixty-two feet a 
 year, and were only four thousand five hundred years in filling up the 
 thirteen thousand five hundred square statute miles of the delta — an 
 area greater than that of Belgium or Holland. 
 
 ' Lyell's Niagara excavation is another piece of antiquated engineer- 
 ing of the same kind, With marvellous perseverance he has kept the 
 present little river digging and boring a channel for itself back from 
 Lewiston to the Falls, through the hard, solid rock, for thirty-five 
 thiiusand years, at the rate of a foot a-year, when he (Lyell) knew well 
 enough that before the rock hardened it was a mortar soft enough to 
 mould around the most fragile shells, and that there was a big old 
 Palaeozoic ocean on the doorsteps, and the snow-shovel and broom with 
 which he had cleared out a pathway for the Tennessee, and all the 
 other rivers of that era, and, as everybody acknowledges, had actually 
 cleared out the St. David's Channel. Was it to be supposed that, after 
 such a length of excavating, he would stop at Lewiston, and leave the 
 poor young river to shovel away the few remaining miles ? Professor 
 Christy shows he was no such churl. The process of excavating the 
 Niagara channel did not occupy the old ocean as many hours as Lyell 
 demands years for the job. 
 
 ' It is now generally acknowledged that America does not stand on 
 the same geological level with the Old World, so called — being a whole 
 geological era older than it. Europe and Asia are now in their quater- 
 nary period, while we are yet in our tertiary. The plants and animals 
 of the European tertiary are now alive in our woods and seas. The 
 grand significance of this discovery is the demonstration of the false- 
 
174 REFUTATION OF FALSE OONCHISIONS 
 
 Central France have not been in activity for many ages — 
 certainly not since the days of Julius Coesar, v\fho pitched 
 his camp there in perfect safety ; and he took the inter- 
 vening period of nearly 2000 years as the first step for 
 measuring the antiquity of the deposits in those parts. 
 Whereas, ten or twelve years subsequently, an old Gaulish 
 history was re-edited, from which it appears, that during 
 three years, long after Julius Caesar, viz. in a.d. 458-460, 
 the district was convulsed with violent and continued vol- 
 
 hood of the assumption— indispensable to geological chronology — that 
 similar fossils prove similar strata, and that similar strata are of the same 
 age. Fossils similar to those of the European tertiary are no w being 
 found here in our thermal springs and on our coast, while geological 
 cycles havepassed since thoseof Europewere buried manya fathom deep. 
 
 * But the entire reversal of the whole fabric is completed by the 
 dissolution of its foundation — the granite — which has just been dis- 
 covered to be an aqueous formation from the overlying sedimentary 
 rocks, instead of an igneous rock, from tlie abrasion and solution of 
 which all the upper rocks were formed. It is impossible to imagine 
 any discovery more fatal to the regular geological theory, or more 
 mortifying to its expounders. Only last night, in a lecture here 
 (Chicago) on ' Man's place in the Creation,' Agassiz began by stating 
 that ' it is probable our globe was once in a state of igneous fusion,' 
 &c., and tracing its progress towards a state habitable for man: in 
 which lecture, however, he crushed toatoms the Developiiient Theory, 
 and demonstrated the unity" of the Divine plan of creation from the 
 earliest ages, making Atheism and Pantheism fall before crabs and 
 worms. In fact, almost the only new truth demonstrated by geology 
 is the recurrence of miracles, the repeated exercise of creative power on 
 our globe. But those who grant this, as most first-class geologists do, 
 cannot object to the probability of the miracles of Scripture. For if 
 God was in the habit of working miracles here before man's advent, 
 no reason can be shown why He should stop on our account, but rather 
 additional reason why, by Divine works, He should demonstrate His 
 presence to His children. 
 
 ' We do not attach any great importance, however, to tliese geolo- 
 gical proofs of natural religion, having very little confidence in so-called 
 geological facts, most of which derive all their significance from the 
 igneous theory, which is now being extinguished by the experiments of 
 Daubree and Rose.' 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 175 
 
 canic eruptions, and streams of lava carried destruction before 
 them ! * Too much is built upon negative evidence. It is 
 from such ill-founded assumptions, and from partial or only- 
 average data, that all the attempts at chronological measure- 
 ments are made in geology. 
 
 Tlie date fixed by Sir Charles for the Clyde canoes, 
 already noticed, receives rather a rude shock from the 
 suspicious circumstances of a cork-Tp\ug being found, filling 
 up a round hole in one of them ," especially, as it appears 
 from Professor W. King's statement (which I quote from 
 the Christian Observer of May 1863), that this occurred, not 
 in one of the more finished boats, but in one considered the 
 most ancient, ' in a large rude one hollowed out of the trunk 
 of an oak, which, when found, was quite black, as hard as 
 marble, and very heavy.' He adds : ' Canoes formed of the 
 solid stem of an oak were in use in Ireland about 300 years 
 ago. It is difficult to arrive at any other conclusion than 
 that the Glasgow canoes, instead of being several thousand 
 years old, are comparatively modern, the one containing 
 the cork-plug having been in use in the first or second 
 century.' 
 
 As an illustration of the important influence which a 
 better knowledge of the history of past events and customs 
 might have upon some of our scientific conjectures, I refer 
 my readers to an article in Macmillan's Magazine (September 
 1862), entitled The Hand of Man in the Kirkdale Cavern, by 
 Mr. John Taylor. The practice of the Druid magicians of using 
 the bones of many animals, and especially of the hyaena, for 
 medicinal purposes, as related in Pliny's Natural Uistoiy, is 
 there applied to account for the collection of bones, particu- 
 larly of the hysena, in this cavern ; the entrance to which is 
 said to be too small for any living animal of the species to 
 have dragged in its supposed victims. Also, the remains 
 discovered in the greatest abundance are just those very 
 Quarterly Eeview, October 1844. 
 
176 REPUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 parts of the animal, which Pliny states were most used by 
 the Druids. The idea is tliat the cave was the abode of 
 these Druid magicians, and that the bones were imported from 
 countries where the animals lived, for magical, medicinal, and 
 other purposes. The article is very curious, and well worth 
 perusal. 
 
 (3.) Sir Charles's arguments, based upon the rate of 
 upheaval of continents, are no sounder than those depending 
 on the assumed rate of deposits. He bases some of his 
 calculations upon the assumption that two feet and a half 
 in a centui'y is the rate of upheaval, for immense periods of 
 time, in regions of which he is writing. After his own 
 admissions regarding the fluctuations of level in various 
 parts of the world — for example, the Bay of Baise, Cashmere, 
 Chili, and Peru (pp. 45, 46) — how can he possibly presume 
 that there were no sudden upheavals, which by successive 
 shocks might do the work in a few centuries, which, at his 
 assumed uniform rate, would occupy as many thousands or 
 tens of thousands of years ? 
 
 One instance on this subject will suffice. At Cagliari, on 
 the coast of Sardinia, have been found, about 300 feet above 
 the sea, some sea-shells mingled with remains of pottery. 
 It is supposed that the coast has been gradually upheaved, 
 and that at the time when those shells belonged to living 
 fish in the sea below, man must have been an inhabitant of 
 the coast, and that those specimens of his pottery fell into 
 the waters and mingled with the shells. But how are we to 
 ascertain how long the coast has taken to rise these 300 feet 1 
 No help can be obtained from the phenomena of that country. 
 So Sir Charles goes to Sweden, quite a different part of 
 Europe, where the local change of level has been ascertained 
 with some degree of exactness. The observations there 
 extend, however, over only about one century, and are there- 
 fore no proper measure even in that country for thousands 
 of years. Moreover, the movement in Sweden along the 
 
DEDUCED FBOM FEINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 177 
 
 coast of the Baltic is found to be unequal, and also irregular 
 at different times in the same place. The average rise is 
 about 2^ feet in a century. This, then, strange to say, 
 though only an average, and belonging also to a totally 
 different country, and the result of only a single century of 
 observation, he applies to Cagliari, and finds the age of the 
 pottery to be 12,000 years ! A process of reasoning this, so 
 loose, so gratuitous, that one is really ashamed, for the cause 
 of science, to say that a scientific man has produced it. No 
 doubt he has prefaced his calculation with an ' if,' ' if the 
 coast has risen 2^ feet in a century.' But vchen his 
 gratuitous hypothesis leads to a result so contradictory to 
 the Bible, what ground had he to adopt it at all ? Why did 
 he not quote his own book, where in another place he shows, 
 that in the west coast of South America permanent up- 
 heavals of the land of several feet at a time have been 
 experienced in recent periods ? Why did he not attribute 
 the 300 feet of Cagliari, in part at least, to such shocks, 
 which would have brought his period within the Bible 
 chronology ? These are specimens of the manner in which 
 objections are set up against the historical truth of the 
 Holy Scriptures. There is this benefit, indeed, arising from 
 such speculations, — they show how really unassailable the 
 Sacred Volume is, as no better arguments can be produced 
 against it. 
 
 (4.) Nor does his theory regarding the length of time 
 necessary for the disappearance of species appear to be more 
 than a simple assumption. Why should a species be sup- 
 posed always to die out gradually, when it disappears from 
 creation? Eo valid reason whatever is assigned for this. 
 Our readers will be surprised at hearing Sir Charles's reason. 
 
 ' We know how tedious a task -it is in our own times, 
 even with the aid of fire-arms, to exterminate a noxious quad- 
 ruped — a wolf, for example — in any region comprising 
 ■within it an extensive forest or a mountain chain ' (p. 374) — 
 
 N 
 
178 REFUTATION O? FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 a strange comparison, indeed, between man's puny powers 
 and the forces in the natural world ! The opinion formed 
 by Mr. Prestwich — an authority of which Sir Charles 
 himself speaks so highly (p. 103) — from a careful examina- 
 tion of the phenomena in France and England, is very 
 different. It is to be found in his Eeport to the Eoyal 
 Society, already alluded to. His impression is in favour of 
 the abrupt disappearance of species ; and he conceives that 
 the whole facts show, that the epoch of extinct animals 
 should be brought down nearer to our own time, rather 
 than that man's first appearance should be put further 
 back.* 
 
 The discussion regarding the age of these works of art 
 affords a curious instance of inversion in argument. The 
 diluvium of geologists had. been hitherto looked upon as 
 
 • ' Whilst abstaining from any general hypothe.'is in explanation 
 of the phenomena, there is, however, one point to which I must refer 
 before concluding, although I cannot at present venture beyond a few 
 generalities respecting it. It may be supposed, that in assigning to 
 man an appearance at such a period it would of necessity imply his 
 existence during long ages beyond all exact calculations ; for we have 
 been apt to place even the latest of our geological changes at a remote, 
 and, to us, unknown distance. The reasons on which such a view has 
 been held have been mainly, the great lapse of time considered re- 
 quisite for the dying out of so many species of great mammals, the 
 circumstance of the smaller valleys having been excavated since they 
 lived, the presumed non-existence of Man himself, and the great extent 
 of the later and more modern accumulations. But we have in this part 
 of Europe no succession of strata to record a gradual dying out of the 
 species, but much, on the contrary, which points to an abrupt end, and 
 evidence only of relative and not actual time ; while the recent valley- 
 deposit, although often indicating considerable age, shows rates of 
 growth, which, though variable, appear on the whole to have been com- 
 paratively rapid. The evidence, in fact, as it at present stands, does 
 not seem to me to necessitate the carrying back of man in past time, 
 so much as the bringing forward of the extinct animals towards our own 
 time ; my own previous opinion, founded upon an independent study 
 of the superficial drift on pleistocene deposits, having likewise been 
 
DEDUCED PROM FLINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 179 
 
 ancient, simply because no remains of man, but only of huge 
 land-mammals, had been discovered ; but now that traces of 
 man are found, it is most illogically inferred that man must 
 have existed for ages before the historical period, because 
 his remains are found in beds which have been pronounced 
 to be pre- Adamite according to the received chronology.* 
 
 I cannot hesitate to give a verdict against the conclusion 
 to which Sir CTiarTesTiiyeincomes ih"liis*"iiew work. The 
 facts which have been here brought together from various 
 sources are no doubt very interesting. But the hypothesis 
 built upon them is crude and hastily constructed, t It is 
 observable, that throughout the book there is no allusion 
 whatever to the contradiction between the result he arrives 
 at and the narrative of Holy Scripture ; no reference to there 
 being any difficulty, much less any attempt at clearing up 
 the wide discrepancy. "We cannot too strenuously adhere to 
 
 certainly in favour of the latter view. There are numerous phenomena, 
 which I can only consider evidence of a sudden change and of a rapid 
 and transitory action and modification of the surface at a comparatively 
 recent geological period— a period which, if the foregoing facts are 
 truly interpreted, would seem, nevertheless, to have been marked, 
 before its end, by the presence of man, on a land clothed with a vegeta- 
 tion apparently very similar to. that now flourishing in like latitudes, 
 and whose waters were inhabited by testacea of forms also now living ; 
 while on the surface of that land there lived mammalia, of which some 
 species are yet the associates of man. although accompanied by others, 
 many of them of gigantic size, and of forms now extinct.' — Joseph 
 Prestwich, Esq. F.R.S. F.G.S., On the Occurrence of Flint Imple- 
 inents associated with the remains of animals of extinct species in, 
 beds of a late geological period, in France, at Amiens and Abbeville, 
 and in England at Boxne. — Phil. Trans. 1860, p. 277- 
 
 * See this pointed out in an excellent article on the subject in 
 Blackwood's Magazine, October 1860. 
 
 t Mr. Pattison gives the following sketch, which in itself bears as 
 much d, priori probability on the face of it as Sir Charles Lyell's view ; 
 and it has the advantage of bringing all the events we have enumerated 
 within the range of Scripture Chronology : — 
 
 ' There is nothing in the ascertained facts of geology, nothing in 
 
 Y^ 
 
180 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONa 
 
 the principle, that Scripture and Science should be kept 
 well apart in our processes of reasoning; that is, that no 
 fact from one should be taken to fill up a break in the line 
 of argument which is suggested by the other. But to say 
 that results should not be compared at certain salient points, 
 where the lines of argument touch or cross each other, 
 surely betra3's an indifference, if not treachery, to the real 
 interests of truth. Such a view can proceed only from that 
 false notion, which some are known to hold, that the earlier 
 chapters of Genesis are a collection of merely human legen- 
 dary fragments, uiihistorical, and therefore of no real value 
 — an assumption utterly at variance, as I shall show in my 
 Second Part, with the character which our Lord and His 
 
 the exhaustive volume before us, to forbid the hypothesis, that at some 
 period after the final retreat of the glaciers [which the glacial theory 
 shows preceded the appearance of man], man found his way into these 
 regions as a wandering hunter, probably from a distant geographical 
 centre ; that he resorted to these parts at intervals during several 
 thousand .\ ears ; that its pebble-beds afforded him implements, and its 
 gra.ssy beds abundant game ; that in the intervals of his occupation 
 the earth was rent in connexion with volcanic action dying out in 
 the Eifel and Auvergne, floods occurred, the loose materials of the 
 surface were washed into crevices, or spread out in heaps ; that 
 many of the great mammals became extinct, some so lately as the 
 mammoth, whose flesh was found in ice at the mouth of the Neva. 
 For upwards of 4000 years all things were in course of becoming what 
 they now are ; and what they so became they have remained, save 
 surface accumulations and minor changes, for the last 2000 years and 
 upwards. For aught that geology or palaeontology has yet to show, 
 this is as valid an explanation of the phenomena as that which, under 
 the semblance of iadetiniteness, is carefully definite for a long time 
 before Adam. If it is physically and philosophically possible to inter- 
 calate all the epochs of man, shown in the monuments of the globe 
 itself, within the compass of the years assigned to the same occurrences 
 by the received interpretation of Scripture, my task is done. I claim the 
 verdict of'' Not proven" on the issue raised.' (Antiquitfi of Man,\i. 17.) 
 
 The following extracts from a more recent pamphlet by Mr. Pattison, 
 New Facts and Old Records (1867), will be read with interest : — 
 
 ' The comparative insignificant dimensions of the stratum containing 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT AND OTHER REMAINS. 
 
 181 
 
 Apostles have stamped upon this portion of Holy Scripture, 
 by the perpetual use they make of it to illustrate and 
 establish sacred truths. The mind imbued with such 
 loose and, in fact, untenable views regarding these chapters, 
 feels itself under no restraint, and, deluded into a false 
 liberty, is carried along through the regions of speculation 
 without check. Another marked and dangerous effect of 
 this state of mind is seen in the very slender premises from 
 which men are sometimes contented to draw a great result. 
 Were a due regard, indeed any regard, entertained for the 
 momentous importance of the result, when it appears to 
 contravene the Holy Scriptures, the candid reasoner would 
 
 human remains is shown by any geological table expressins: the 
 thickness of the several strata .... The thickness of British strata 
 containing traces of former life are as follows : — 
 
 
 Feet 
 
 
 Teet 
 
 Post-Tertiary : 
 
 
 New Red Sandstone - 
 
 1,200 
 
 With human remaiiLS - 
 
 50 
 
 Permian 
 
 1,000 
 
 Without 
 
 60 
 
 Coal Measures 
 
 - 17,000 
 
 Tertiary 
 
 1,800 
 
 Devonian 
 
 8,000 
 
 Chalk - 
 
 - 1,200 
 
 SUurian 
 
 - 12,500 
 
 OoUtes 
 
 4,200 
 
 Cambrian 
 
 - 26,000 
 
 .... Thus, after geology has led us upwards through inconceivably 
 long ages of God's working, over mountain-piles of strata, across 
 intervals of long repose, through cycles of extinct life, we come at 
 length up into the last display of its treasures, and encounter, as it 
 were, the fresh air of the upper world in the presence of the human 
 race .... So the Bible introduces Adam to us as the crowning work 
 of the creation, the beginner of human history. After this period 
 geology and Scripture run parallel for a short time. Geology tells us 
 of the flint-implement makers that they resorted to caves and dens of 
 the earth, and to lake and river banks. Archaeology takes up the 
 wondrous tale, and informs us that they had successors who used 
 similar tools, but somewhat improved, polished, and varied by foreign 
 material, until history dawns on the haunts and homes of our Celtic or 
 pre-Celtic ancestors. Geology hitherto has only found traces of man 
 in Western Europe, afar from the primeval seat of patriarchal revela- 
 tion .... The circumstance that the earliest traces of mankind in 
 Europe are traces of barbarian life, has been used by some modern 
 
182 EEFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 in such, a case abstain from drawing any inference at all 
 where the data are uncertain and scanty. But the tendency 
 to generalize is often too strong to endure such restraint. 
 It seems to be considered necessary, that some result mvst be 
 arrived at, and mtbst be announced ; and, though its an- 
 nouncement may be accompanied with the caution that the 
 facts upon which it is based are few, and not altogether 
 trustworthy, yet it goes forth as a result, the caution is too 
 often forgotten, and thus uncertainty is more mixed up with 
 the conclusions arrived at than most persons suspect.* 
 
 speculators as evidence that such was the original condition of man. 
 If we could be sure that we have exhumed the works of the first men, 
 and had no other testimony about them, this would be admissible. 
 But as we have no reason to believe these assumptions, but the 
 contrary, we may reject the conclusion .... Scripture declares that 
 men wandered away from the institutions and knowledge connected 
 with the true religion, and became wild and Pagan . . . The flint- 
 implement makers, the lake-dwellers, the cave inhabitants of the West, 
 were contemporaneous with partial civilization in the East .... 
 Geology requires no pre-Adamite men, nor does archseology or 
 ethnology demand that any other human race than the present should 
 have lived on the earth .... All the occurrences po.sterior in date to 
 the lirst appearance of the remains or works of man may find a place 
 in the interval of 4000 years between the Creation and the opening of 
 the history of Europe.'— (Pp. 10—19.) 
 
 * The following telling facts are extracted from the Medical Times 
 and Gazette, New Series, part cxcix., Feb. 1867, p. 120 : — 
 
 ' The Homans at London Wall. — Our readers have probably seen 
 from time to time notices in the daily papers of excavations that have 
 been lately carried on in the vicinity of London Wall. A detailed and 
 authentic account of the very remarkable human remains found has 
 been presented to the Anthropological Society of London by Lieut.-Col. 
 Lane Fox, and we hear that a description by Mr. C. Carter Blake of 
 the remains of animals occurring in the excavation is to appear in the 
 Geological Magazine Through the kindness of the latter gentleman 
 we have been allowed to inspect some portions of the treasure-trove, 
 and the scientific interest which attaches to them will be a sufficient 
 apology for their notice here. It appears, from Lieut.-Colonel Fox's 
 account, that a section of the soil excavated shows at a depth of from 
 
DEDUCED FROM FLINT ASD OTHER REMAINS. 183 
 
 The Work of Sir John Lubbock, Pre-Historio Times, is 
 another like this of Sir Charles Lyell's, most interesting in 
 the large amount of facts which it brings together. But the 
 same vague inferences are drawn with a sweeping hand re- 
 garding the vast antiquity of the human race. And he 
 conceives them confirmed by M. Eunsen's theory of language, 
 Egyptian monuments, the Negro race, the trees of Denmark, 
 the deposits of the river Tiniere, the Xile-deposits of Mr. 
 Horner, the Mississippi delta, the alluvium of the Somme, — 
 aU of which are shown in this treatise to be either untrue or 
 
 17 to 22 feet a bed of gravel similar to Thames ballast. On this rests 
 a bed of peat from 7 to 9 feet thick, and above all are the modern 
 remains of London earth, composed of the accumulated rubbish of the 
 city. In excavating the peat it was found to be interspersed with 
 numerous wooden piles, arranged in clusters, rows, and curves ; these 
 averaged from 4 inches to a foot square ; the lower ends, which are 
 pointed, were inserted one or two feet in the subjacent gravel, and the 
 tops, which had rotted off, projected about 2 feet into the peat. 
 These piles were roughly hewn, as if with an axe, and have been 
 identified as ot oak and elm. In the gravel no organic remains were 
 found ; but the peat was full of bones and of works of Roman art — 
 the former broken and black from having lain in the peat for centuries. 
 Several human skulls were found, together with the remains of horse, 
 ass, red deer, wild boar, wild goat (bouquetin), dog, roebuck, and 
 several species of Bos, — viz. Bos primigenius, B. longifrons, B. 
 frontosus, and B. trochoceros. The works of human art were various. 
 Besides the piles, there were planks found, one plank having several 
 Roman nails in it. There were also a quantity of red Samian pottery, 
 some of it bearing men and animals cast in relief ; bronze and copper 
 pins, iron knives, tweezers, iron shears, a piece of polished metal 
 mirror, so bright that the face may be seen in it, and a quantity of 
 leathern soles of shoes or sandals, some much worn, some thickly 
 studded with hobnails, the caliga of the Roman legions. Besides 
 these, there were articles of a ruder construction, which may reason- 
 ably be supposed to have been of British manufacture— spear-heads (?) 
 made of the metacarpals of the red deer and Bos longifrons, and 
 skates formed of the metacarpals of a pony or donkey. One of the 
 most remarkable points connected with this excavation is the great 
 thickness of the peat, the evidence given by its section of its upward 
 
184 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS REGARDINa 
 
 insufficient to support tlie conclusion drawn, in places which 
 may at once be found by referring to the Index. He concludes 
 his chapter on this subject by an account of the interesting 
 discussion, which has been going on of late years, regarding 
 the date of the Glacial Period — assuming that the human 
 
 growth, and the fact that from its lowest to its highest level it contains 
 Roman remains. Thus at a foot and a half above the gra\el was 
 found a kitchen-midden of oyster and mussel shells, «ith Roman 
 pottery and a Roman caLiga. Similar refuse-heaps occurred at higher 
 levels in the peat and at its very top, Roman remains of tlie same kind 
 were found. It is evident therefore, that the enormous growth of 
 from 7 to 9 feet of peat must have occurred during the 4(10 years of 
 Roman occupation. Sir Charles Lyell, following M. Boucher de 
 Perthes, would have estimated the probable growth of peat during 
 that period at about four inches. To quote Colonel Lane Fox, the 
 history of the growth may be read by the sections as follows : — 
 
 1. Oak piles driven into the gravel, the tops of which rotted off at 
 the surface before the peat had grown more than two to three ieet. 
 2. A kitchen-midden deposited on peat a foot and a half thick during 
 the Roman period. This may, or may not, have been contempora- 
 neous with the first piles. 3. A growth of peat of one or two feet 
 above this kitchen-midden, and other piles then driven in. 4. A 
 kitchen-midden with Bos longifrons and Roman pottery at three and 
 
 half feet. 5. Another growth of peat and another kitchen-midden 
 at six feet ; and, lastly, Roman remains at the \ery top. 
 
 With regard to the use of the jiiles found driven in the peat, there 
 can he no doubt, from the kitchen-middens in their immeoiate vicinity, 
 that they nuist have been the foundations ot human habitations. The 
 remains of no superincumbent architecture were found above them ; and 
 whether they were the work of Roman or British workmen remains a 
 question. Similar piles and remains have been observed in excavations 
 in other parts of the City, as near the Mansion Honse, in the line ol the 
 old Wall Brook, and north of the Bank. Colonel Lane Fox suggests that 
 they may be the remains of the Britibh capital of Cassibelaunus which 
 Csesar says he found situated amongst woods a.id marshes. Another 
 point of groat interest is, that there can be now no doubt that the 
 giant bull, Bos primi(jtniv,s, the congener of Klephas primigenius, 
 Ursiis spelceus, and Vervus meyaceros ,\fa,s not extinct at the time of the 
 Roman occupation of England. Reasons for accepting this conclusion 
 were stated in this journal some years ago (June 28, 1862), and it 
 
SPECIES OF THE ' SIX-DATS ' AND BEFORE ADAM. 185 
 
 race existed then. The rein which he gives to his imagina- 
 tion, inay be seen in this short sentence, — -^ It may be doubted 
 whether even geologists yet realise the great antiquity of our 
 race.' * 
 
 8. A difficulty has been started against the literal inter- 
 pretation of the first chapter of Genesis to which I have 
 
 must hereafter be an accepted fact. The tide of discovery seems, on 
 the whole, to be setting in favour of a shortening of the geological 
 periods, which the observations made a few years ago seemed to render 
 necessary, in the interpretation of human remains then first brought to 
 light. If it be so, modern scientific teaching may yet be brought into 
 accordance with the history and traditions of civilized man.' 
 
 As a specimen of the hazard scientific men sometimes run of being 
 grossly imposed upon, I give the following extract from the report of 
 a scientific meeting held in Leeds since the last edition of this treatise 
 was published : — 
 
 ' Professor Owen said, that some time ago he was sent for to the 
 north, to examine a fos.-i.ized tree which had been found in digging 
 the Jarrow Dock, which bore undoubtea evidence of having been cut 
 by human hands. It was supposed to be a most important discovery, 
 as showing the antiquity of the human race ; and at first everything 
 ajipeared satisfactory. On prosecuting his inquiries, however, he 
 learnt that one of the navvies not then on the works was sail to have 
 discovered a similar tree in another part of the dock, which he cut to 
 lay down a sleeper. The man was sent for, and on his arrival he 
 declared that the tree pointed out was the one he had cut. It was 
 endeavoured to be explained that that was impossible, as the place 
 had not been excavated before ; but, looking with supreme contempt 
 upon the assembly of geologists and engineers, the man persisted in 
 the identification of his own work, and exclaimed, ' The top of the 
 tree must be somewhere;' upon which he (Professor Owen) offered 
 half -a-crown to the first 'navvy' who would produce it. Away ran 
 half-a-dozen of them, and in a few minutes they returned with the 
 top. This explained the mystery. The man had cut off the top with 
 his spade to make way for a sleeper ; the stump afterwards got 
 covered up with silt, and on being again uncovered it was supposed to be 
 a great discovery. Never had he so narrow an escape from introduc- 
 ing a "new discovery" into Science, and never had he a more 
 fortunate escape.' 
 
 * Pre-Uistoric Times. Second Edition, p. 410. 
 
186 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS EEGARDING 
 
 already adverted, but on which I will now enlarge, because 
 Species of the I think it furnishes an illustration of my 
 ti^rt from pre. m^ia argument by showing, to say the least, 
 Adamite species, that the positive statements which are some- 
 times put forward in geological theories are often very 
 untrustworthy, and cannot be received as evidence against 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 It has hitherto been an established principle with phy- 
 siologists, that individuals propagate in the same species, 
 and never out of one species into another. Mr. Darwin's 
 new theory upon the subject cannot yet be said to have 
 displaced the old one. Sameness of species is, therefore, 
 considered necessary to physical continuity ; and physical 
 continuity, on the other hand, has generally been inferred, 
 where sameness of species has been found at two different 
 epochs. About forty years ago it was maintained by Sir 
 Charles Lyell that the researches of M. Deshayes, a concholo- 
 gist, of Paris, had proved that multitudes of pre-Adamite 
 fossils in the upper (or Tertiary) strata, are precisely the same 
 as species now in existence.* Shells, found fossil in the 
 rocks, were pronounced by the scientific conchologist in 
 many instances to be precisely the same as species now living 
 in the neighbouring seas. Here, then, we seemed to have a 
 chain of living links between the present times and the pre- 
 Adamite periods. It would follow, that creatures must have 
 been in existence, on some parts of the earth, during the six 
 days' work, which had lived before that time and partook not 
 of the creation of that period. Dr. Pye Smith attempted to 
 solve this difficulty, which seemed utterly opposed to the 
 letter of Scripture. His solution was simply, that the word 
 translated earth, in the Old Testament, is as often rendered 
 
 * Indeed, upon this hypothesis the designations of the several 
 divisions of the Tertiary Period were framed — the Eocene, or dawn of 
 recent (species) ; tlie Meiooene, or minority of recent (species) ; and 
 the Pleiocene, or the majority of recent (species). 
 
SPECIES OF THE 'SIX-DATS' AND THOSE BEFORE ADAM. ] 87 
 
 land; and. that, therefore, it might be so rendered in the account 
 of the creation of plants and animals during the six days. 
 The Mosaic account would then refer only to a local creation 
 of certain races of animals and plants at the epoch when 
 man was formed, and in the country which surrounded 
 Paradise, and not to a creation taking place over the whole 
 earth. This scheme of limiting the creation of the six days 
 to the precincts of Paradise satisfied many, under the circum- 
 stances. 
 
 But this identity of species was afterwards called in 
 question. Further investigation and a large multiplication 
 of facts seemed to show that this conclusion was premature. 
 The late M. d'Orbigny, another eminent conchologist, re- 
 examined the fossils and many others, and came to the con- 
 clusion that between the termination of the Tertiary Period 
 and the commencement of the Human or Recent Period, 
 there is a complete break. Although five in every seven 
 genera are the same in the recent as in the previous period, 
 he asserted that there is not a single species common to the 
 two periods.* The difficulty therefore vanished. No resort 
 to the forced expedient of Dr. Pye Smith seemed called for. 
 What was at one time a formidable objection, apparently, 
 became one of the most striking confirmations we could 
 possibly have, that Scripture and Science are never at 
 variance when interpreted aright. But Sir Charles Lyell, in 
 his recent work on The Antiqvity of Man, has re-asserted his 
 original views (see note on page 83 of this treatise), notwith- 
 standing the opposition it has met with from M. d'Orbigny 
 and other eminent conchologists. These are questions which 
 can be decided only by scientific observers who have devoted 
 their lives to these peculi ir studies. We must not be 
 surprised at these reverses. Science in her onward progress 
 
 *See an account of M, d'Orbigny's discoveries, in the articles on 
 the ' Pre- Adamite Earth,' Vol. xii. of Lardner's Museum of Science 
 and Art. 
 
188 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 has often had to encounter them. It has often happened, 
 too, that facts discovered and embodied in erroneous theory, 
 and even errors made, have had their importance in leading 
 to truth at last. But this is clear, that nothing has been 
 proved in this case against Scripture, and we should learn 
 never to allow a theory, however plausible, to stand forth as 
 an argument against the infallibility of the Word of God. If 
 eminent men differ so materially on the results they come to, 
 the conclusion is clear that those results should never be 
 produced in the controversy set up between Scripture and 
 Science. It is not at all impossible that even Sir Charles 
 Lyell may change his opinion on this subject, as he has 
 already done in more cases than one. He followed Hutton 
 most devotedly in his reasoning on the igneous origin of 
 granite ; but has of late come round to the new and opposite 
 view, or rather the old neptunian view revived in opposition 
 to the plutonic, that granite is of aqueous origin. The re- 
 markable results of the late deep-sea dredgings in the l^orth 
 Atlantic to nearly three miles, will most likely make a great 
 change in his views on the subject of climate as determined 
 by the distribution of fossils. For Dr. Carpenter informs us, 
 that at very great depths the sea is lower in temperature 
 than even 30° Fahr., far into the temperate zone ; that is, 
 as far as the dredging had been then carried ; that under- 
 currents of cold, and therefore heavy, water, flow down from 
 the polar regions ; and that it is most likely that an actual 
 continuity exists between the arctic and antarctic fauna, even 
 under the warm surface of the tropical ocean ! He says, 
 that these results materially affect the conclusion to which 
 geologists have hithei'to come, regarding the general preva- 
 lence formerly of a glacial climate. And he adds, that ' it 
 may be considered as having been now placed beyond a 
 reasonable doubt, that a glacial submarine climate may pre- 
 vail over any area, without having any relation whatever to 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OP SPECIES. 189 
 
 the terrestrial climate of tliat area.' * Moreover, on the sub- 
 ject of development, which 1 take up in my next example, 
 Sir Charles Lyell has entirely gone round from one opinion 
 to the opposite. In the earlier editions of his Principles of 
 Geology he strenuously opposed Lamark's theory, showing 
 that no doubt the facts brought forward illustrate ' the unity 
 of plan that runs through the organization of the whole series 
 of veitebrated animals ;' but that 'they lend no support vhai- 
 ever to the notion of a gradual transmutation of one species 
 to another.' ■(■ This is in direct opposition to the theory of 
 Mr. Darwin, which Sir Charles Lyell noio adopis, as may be 
 seen in his work on the Antiquity of Man. No doubt we are 
 all liable to make mistakes, and to assert at one time that ' no 
 support whatever ' is to be derived from certain phenomena 
 for a theory under consideration, which those phenomena 
 are, at a subsequent period, pronounced to establish. But 
 such a revolution in our opinions should, to say the least, 
 make us diffident in our assertions and deductions from 
 natural appearances for the future ; especially when they go 
 counter to clear statements in Holy Scripture. 
 
 9. Mr. Darwin's work, on the Origin of Species, suggests 
 another illustration of my argument. His view appears to 
 be this — If all creatures, plants, and animals, ^ . . . 
 were to bear fruit, since the increase whenever Speoiea. 
 it does take place is by multiplication, and not by the simple 
 substitution of one individual for another, the vegetable and 
 animal kingdoms would be soon so overstocked that there 
 would not be standing room on the earth's surface. There 
 is, therefore, constantly going on in the world a Struggle for 
 Existence ; and those individuals survive and propagate 
 
 * Proceedings of the Royal Society, No. 121, November 18, 1869. 
 ' Preliminary Report of the Scientific Exploration of the Deep Sea,' 
 pp. 475, 476. 
 
 f Principles of Geology. Third Edition, p. 102. 
 
190 REFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 which have certain natural advantages which enahle them to 
 maintain their position. This process he calls 'Natural 
 Selection.' When an individual pair produces other indi- 
 viduals, these, as is well known, often exhibit varieties even 
 within the limits of the same species. Naturalists have 
 hitherto considered that these varieties in the long-run 
 disappear ; and that species run on in lines absolutely 
 invariable in their main features. Just as with the planets 
 in their orbits, which are perpetually deviating from their 
 average ellipse : the variations neutralise each other in a 
 vast number of revolutions, the average ellipse is absolutely 
 invariable, and the configuration of the system remains 
 unaltered even after the lapse of many ages. Mr. Darwin, 
 however, considers that this is not the case with species, but 
 that the varieties accumulate their effects in the course of 
 immense periods, and give rise to other species. Of the 
 individuals which are the offspring of a single pair, he con- 
 ceives that those are most likely to survive which differ most 
 from each other, as they will interfere less with one another 
 in the struggle for existence than with the intermediate ones, 
 which are nearer to them in character. Hence Natural 
 Selection seems likely to promote gradual divergence. He 
 gives us no idea whatever how it has come to pass that this 
 process should happen to produce both a male and a female : 
 without which the new species would at once die out ; as it 
 is well known that hybrids, the offspring of parents belonging 
 to different species, have no offspring themselves. Even if 
 we could conceive that the individual specimen of a new 
 species, supposed to be produced by Natural Selection, so 
 closely resembled the species from which it came that it 
 might have fruitful offspring from another individual of that 
 species, the offspring would be different to both parents, as 
 they are of different species ; and unless the individual 
 members of the offspring of this abnormal pair intermixed, 
 without mixture with members of the original species, to 
 
EEGAEDING THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 191 
 
 whicli they are so closely allied — a thing moat improbable, — 
 no permanent species, such as we see now, could have been 
 produced by this process.* This hap-hazard mode of 
 peopling the world with creatures, appears to my mind to 
 lead to confusion, and not to the beautiful order we see 
 actually prevailing. 
 
 The term ' Natural Selection,' which some have admired 
 for its power of expressing the meaning to be conveyed, 
 seems to me objectionable. It appears to be chosen to exclude 
 all idea of creation — the creation of species. The 'act of 
 selection implies an agent. But who is the agent here ? Were 
 the term human-selection or divine-selection, we could easily 
 give a reply. The term Mr. Darwin has chosen implies that 
 Nature is the Selector. But who is Nature ? He might 
 much better have called it at once Chance-Selection ; because 
 the term would have been just as good, and, indeed, much 
 better, because it would bring out from its concealment the 
 palpable contradiction involved in the term he adopts. 
 Perhaps he would reply, ' No, there is no chance in this : in 
 the struggle for existence those who survive survive by the 
 laws of nature, and may be said to be selected by those laws.' 
 But this is arguing in a circle. Laws ! he has not shown 
 what the laws are ; they are but laws in the sense of an 
 order of classification. His whole reasoning is only a piece 
 of taxonomy, and nothing else. There is no tracing whatever 
 of the origin of species. He gives in no single instance any 
 
 * As near an approach to this as can well be conceived is related 
 by Colonel Humphreys in the Philosophical Transacticms, 1813, Part 
 I. (quoted by Professor Huxley in his Lay Sermoiu, Addresses, and 
 iJeOTeziii, pp. 290— 295). An extraordinary birth took place amon^ 
 sheep, which was taken advantage of by artificial breeding, and a 
 new race of sheep was raised, called the Ancons, which retained its 
 characteristics ; till, however, it was neglected, when, by breeding 
 again with ordinary sheep, the peculiarities disappeared. The power 
 of breeding, moreover, with other sheep showed that, notwithstanding 
 the peculiarities of the new breed, it was not a new species. 
 
192 EBFHTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 philosophical cause for a new species springing up in this 
 way ; he only dignifies the animals and plants which survive 
 in the struggle for existence as the oifspring of the personified 
 abstraction, Natural Selection. His theory only Shows how 
 they survive destruction ; but in no respect whatever explains 
 how, differing as they do from their parents, they came into 
 existence endowed with peculiarities. His language really 
 amounts to no more than saying, What is, is. 
 
 ]\Ir. Wallace, the contemporary propounder of this theory 
 with Mr. Darwin, and a strong advocate for it, considers that 
 Natural Selection is insufficient to account f ir the development 
 of man ; and that certain phenomena suggest that ' a superior 
 intelligence has guided that development in a definite 
 direction, and for a special purpose.' These phenomena are 
 as follows : — 
 
 ' The brain of the lowest savages, and, as far as we yet 
 know, of the pre-historic races, is little inferior in size to that 
 of the highest types of man, and immensely superior to that 
 of the highest animals ; while it is universally admitted that 
 quantity of brain is one of the most important elements 
 which determine mental power. Yet the mental requirements 
 of savages, and the faculties actually exercised, by them, are 
 very little above those of animals.' — ' They possess a mental 
 organ beyond their needs. Natural Selection could only 
 have endowed savage man with a brain a little superior to 
 that of an ape ; whereas, he actually possesses one very little 
 inferior to that of a philosopher.' Again, ' the soft, naked, 
 sensitive skin of man, entirely free from that hairy covering, 
 which is so universal among other mammalia, cannot be 
 explained on the theory of Natural Selection. The habits of 
 savages show that they feel the want of this covering, which 
 is most completely absent in man exactly where it is thickest 
 in other animals. We have no reason whatever to believe 
 that it would be hurtful, or even useless, to primitive man ; 
 and under these circumstances, its complete abolition, shown 
 
EEGARDING THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 193 
 
 by its never reverting in mixed breeds, is a demonstration of 
 the agency of some other power than a law of the survival of 
 the fittest in the development of man from the lower animals.' 
 He draws similar arguments from the structure of the hands 
 and feet ; also the human larynx, ' giving the power of speech 
 and of producing musical sounds, and especially its extreme 
 development in the female sex, as known to be beyond the 
 needs of savages, and from their known habits impossible to 
 have been acquired, either by sexual selection or by survival 
 of the fittest.'* These are most important admissions, and 
 from such a quarter. 
 
 Mr. Darwin's speculations appear to be divisible into two 
 parts : first, as to species being mutable or not ; and secondly, 
 if they be so, whether all creatures have descended, by natural 
 selection, from a primordial germ. It is for naturalists to 
 examine his arguments and to decide upon the theory of the 
 mutability of species. This may be true or not. It is not 
 with this result, true or false, that I have now to do,t but 
 
 • See the whole of the chapter on ' The limits of Natural Selection as 
 applied to IVIan' in Mr. Wallace's book, Contributions to the Theory &c. 
 
 + ' If it does not diminish, but only augments, the wonder of Organic 
 Life, that it has been so contrived as to be capable of propagating 
 itself, neither would it diminish that wonder, but rather enhance 
 it to an infinite degree, that Organisms should be gifted with the still 
 more wonderful power of developing Forms of Life other and higher 
 than their own. So far, therefore, as belief in a Personal Creator 
 is concerned, the difficulties in the way of accepting this hypothesis 
 [of the origin of species] are not theological. The difficulties are 
 scientific. The first fundamental difficulty is simply this, — that all 
 the theories of development ascribe to known causes unknown efi'ects 
 ^unknown as regards the times in which we now live, and unknown 
 so far as has hitherto been ascertained in all the past times of which 
 there has been any record. It is true that this record— the geolo- 
 gical record — is imperfect. But, as Sir Roderick Murchison has long 
 ago proved, there are parts of that record which are singularly complete, 
 and in those parts we have the proofs of Creation without any indica- 
 tions of development. The iSilurian rocks, as regards Oceanic Life, 
 are perfect, and abundant in the forms they have preserved, yet there 
 
]94 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 ■with his speculations arising from this new principle, and 
 which appear to me to be directly contradictory to Scripture. 
 These speculations are partly involved in the very title of 
 this book — On the Origin of Species. But they are fully 
 expressed in the following words : — ' I believe that animals 
 have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, 
 and plants from an equal or lesser number. ... I should infer 
 from analogy, that probably all the organic beings [plants 
 and animals] which have ever lived on this earth have 
 descended from some one primordial form, into which life 
 was first breathed ' (p. 484). Even God's rational creature is 
 included in this category : — ' Light,' he says, ' will be thrown 
 on the origin of man ' (p. 488). Man comes, too, in the 
 following passage, into this chaiu of being : — ' The framework 
 of bones being the same in the hand of man, wing of a bat, 
 fin of a porpoise, and leg of a horse — ^the same number of 
 vertebras forming the neck of the giraffe and of the elephant 
 — and innumerable other such facts, at once explain them- 
 selves on the theory of descent with slow and slight successive 
 modifications ' (p. 479). 
 
 But, ' What saith the Scripture ? ' The origin of some of 
 the plants and animals which have lived on the earth, and 
 that of man, is thus described : — 
 
 Gen. L 11. 'And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the 
 herb yielding .seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, 
 whose seed is in itself, upon the earth : and it was so. 12. And the 
 earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, 
 and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind : 
 
 are no Fish. The Devonian Age followed, tranquilly, and without 
 a break ; and in the Devonian Sea, suddenly, Fish appear — appear 
 in shoals, and in forms of the highest and most perfect type. There 
 is no trace of links or transitional forms between the great class of 
 MoUusca and the great class of Fishes. There is no reason whatever 
 to suppose that such forms, if they had existed, can have been de- 
 stroyed in deposits which have preserved in wonderful perfection the 
 minutest organisms.' — Duke of Argyll, Primeval Man, pp. 43—46. 
 
REGAEDINS THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 195 
 
 and God saw that it was good .... 20. And God said, Let the 
 waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life ; 
 and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 
 21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that 
 moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, 
 and every winged fowl after his kind : and God saw that it was 
 good .... 24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living 
 creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the 
 earth after his kind ; and it was so. 25. And God made the beast 
 of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything 
 that creepeth upon the earth after his kind ; And God saw that it was 
 good. 26. And God said. Let us make man in our image, after our 
 likeness .... 27. So God created man in his own image, in the 
 image of God created he him : male and female created he them.' 
 
 To Mr. Darwin's ' mind it accords better,' he says, ' with, 
 what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, 
 that the production and extinction of the past and present 
 inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary 
 causes, like those determining the birth and death of the 
 individual. When Iview all things,' he adds, 'not as special 
 creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings 
 which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system 
 was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled ' (pp. 
 488-9). But if God has spoken, is not this language in the 
 highest degree presumptuous 1 
 
 Scripture and Science, then, as the latter is .made to 
 speak in these speculations, are decidedly at variance. Bub 
 the fallacy of the naturalist's reasoning, I think, can easily 
 be pointed out. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that 
 the great principle advocated in Mr. Darwin's work is true, 
 and that those barriers do not exist which naturalists have 
 hitherto supposed to be set up to prevent species losing their 
 specific characteristics. The speculations which he adds, 
 regarding the descent of aU organized beings from a single 
 primordial form, are altogether gratuitous, and form no part 
 whatever of the theory itself. What brought the primordial 
 form into existence 1 The pushing back of the first appear- 
 
196 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 ance of this form further and further into past time, ages 
 before ages and ages before them, does not get rid of the 
 question, How came this form into existence, — a form, too, 
 possessing such marvellous properties, as to give birth to all 
 the varieties of organization which the vegetable and auimal 
 kingdoms exhibit 1 God must have created it. If, then, the 
 Almighty created one such form, why could He not have 
 created several 1 What necessity is there in the nature of 
 things for tracing up the genealogy of all organic beings to 
 one form only 1 All that the theory, if demonstrated, can 
 establish is, that when God brought organized creatures into 
 existence, He did not endow them, as naturalists have hitherto 
 supposed, with that principle of permanence which has been 
 designated the Immutability of Species.* 
 
 Another answer is this. Mr. Darwin appears to consider 
 analogies in organic structure to be indications of identity 
 of parentage, if we go back a sufficient number of genera- 
 tions. But this idea precludes the possible and highly 
 probable one, noticed further on, that the Almighty has 
 sometimes seen fit to work according to a plan. The 
 analogies he traces are, moreover, sometimes very distant 
 from the end in view.t I have already noticed the instance 
 
 * That Mr. Darwin's conclusions may be sometimes hastily 
 drawn, is very evident from the favourable light in which he views 
 Mr Horner's deductions from Nile-mud deposits, regarding the age of 
 the human race (p. 18). 
 
 t For example, see the following : — ' The illustration of the swim- 
 bladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly 
 important fact, that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, 
 namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different 
 purpose, namely respiration. The swim-bladder has also been worked 
 in as an accessory to the auditory organs of certain fish, or, for I do 
 not know which view is now generally held, a part of the auditory 
 apparatus has been worked in as a complement to the swim-bladder. 
 All physiologists admit that the swim-bladder is homologous, or 
 '' ideally similar," in position and structure, with the lungs of the 
 higher vertebrate animals : hence there seems to me to be no difficulty 
 
HEGARDING THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 197 
 
 he brings forward of the same numher of cervical vertebrae 
 being in the giraffe and the elephant. But if he considers 
 this analogy important for his theory of descent, where does 
 he get the more numerous vertebrae in the neck of the 
 plesiosaurus ? * 
 
 "Whatever be the fate of this new theory of the Muta- 
 bility of Species, I do not think that it can in any way affect 
 Scripture. It by no means leads of necessity to the specu- 
 lations with which Mr. Darwin has fettered it ; and, therefore, 
 another instance is furnished in which an apparent discre- 
 pancy between Scripture and Science is swept away by 
 pointing out the false conclusions which scientific men at 
 times come to. It is observable from what opposite points 
 the truthfulness of Scripture is attacked, and yet found 
 invulnerable. Here Mr. Darwin contends from the physio- 
 logical side for the unity of origin of aU creatures, and 
 therefore of all nations of the human family ; whereas, 
 strange to say, the authors of the Types of Mankind, to 
 whom I have already adverted, and others like them, argue 
 from the ethnological side for the very reverse of this, viz. 
 the separate origin of each nation. 
 
 There is no doubt that the investigation of these matters 
 
 in believing that natural selection has actually converted a swim-bladder 
 into a lung, or organ used exclusively for respiration., — Pp. 190, 191. 
 * ' The most anomalous of all the characters of Plesiosaurus 
 Dolichodeirus is the extraordinary extension of the neck, to a length 
 almost equalling that of the body and tail together, and surpassing in 
 the number of its vertebrae (about thirty-three) that of the most long- 
 necked bird, the swan ; it thus deviates in the greatest degree from the 
 almost universal law, which limits the cervical vertebrae of quadrupeds 
 to a very small number. Even in the camelopard, the camel, the 
 lama, their number is uniformly seven. In the short neck of the 
 Cetacea the type of this number is maintained. In birds it varies 
 from nine to twenty-three ; and in living reptiles from three to eight. 
 We shall presently find in the habits of the Plesiosaurus a probable 
 cause for this extraordinary deviation from the normal character of the 
 lizards.' — Buckland's Bridge-water Treatise. First Edition, p. 205. 
 
198 REFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 has added, and is still adding, vastly to our knowledge of 
 the facts of nature. The authors of these works are, in this 
 respect, doing service to the cause of truth. But it is not 
 merely the accumulation of facts which we require, but also 
 a sound induction from them. These two things are not 
 generally the work of the same mind. Too hastily is a 
 dagon-theory set up by the sanguine investigator, parts of 
 which may be of excellent workmanship, and much of the 
 materials be of the best description : but it is wanting in 
 that principle of cohesion, which can alone keep it standing 
 under the shocks which stern truth gives it. Nothing has 
 shaken my own confidence in the theories of our modern 
 leading investigators so much as the reckless spirit of 
 generalization, which distinguishes this theory on which I am 
 now writing. The spirit of sound philosophy appears to be 
 forsaking some of our leading men. Dazzled by the multi- 
 tude of facts which their investigations have brought and 
 are continually bringing to light, they seem to me to lose 
 that sober stability of reason which true philosophy needs. 
 The spirit of speculation having too soon possessed them, 
 they leap over many a chasm, which would bring to a stand- 
 still men of sound reasoning powers. Enchanted by the 
 simplicity of the idea their minds have conceived, they seem 
 to forget the multitude of little guesses and assumptions 
 which have paved their way over precipices, which would 
 have been fatal to the advance of sober-minded men. They 
 are lost in a vast cloud of connected and unconnected facts, 
 through which it is impossible for them to see ; and, to use 
 an expressive figure of the late Dr. Whewell, 'they suppose 
 they are upon a mountain because they are in a mist.' The 
 retrograde method of philosophizing which these speculators 
 are in some cases manifesting is most unpromising for the 
 cause of sound Science. The refutation, for instance, which 
 Sir Charles Lyell gave in the first edition of his Principles of 
 Geology of Lamark's hypothesis of development, appeared to 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 199 
 
 me at the time unanswerable, and does so still. But he has 
 abandoned that ground now ! and, in fact, under this new 
 phase of the hypothesis, has adopted what he then stigma- 
 tized and also nicknanied as the ' energizing ' theory. It • 
 presents, indeed, a perfect phenomenon of transformation to 
 put side by side passages from the earlier editions of his 
 Principles of Geology and his more recent work on the 
 Antiquity of Man, which directly contradict each other. The 
 natural result is inevitable ; that no careful student, however 
 much he may value the accumulation of facts which Sir 
 Charles Lyell has ever been remarkable for bringing together, 
 can put implicit confidence in him as a guide to sound con- 
 clusions. Men who invent or adopt theories full of loose 
 joints, or joints merely in contact, but really unconnected, 
 may happen to be very useftil inyestigators of the facts of 
 nature : but they are not philosophers. They forsake or 
 overlook the great pattern of sound philosophizing, who, 
 when the first thought of gravitation as the cause of the 
 lunar and planetary movements possessed his mind, rejected 
 it at once, because he found that the theoretical and calcu- 
 lated results in a particular case did not exactly agree ; and, 
 magnificent as the consequences of the theory have since 
 proved to be — of which his penetrating genius must have 
 had far more than a prescient glimpse — it was not till 
 twelve years later, when improved data were furnished to 
 him, that he took up the matter again, re-examined the 
 effects of his first hypothesis, and found it to be true. To 
 descend from such a type of trustworthy philosophizing 
 to the speculators of the present day is most distressing ; 
 and, in some respects, painfully ludicrous. ' We require,' 
 says an acute writer, ' a good amount of some sort of philosophy 
 not to laugh when told that a duck, for instance, was not 
 expressly intended to be a duck with a web-foot, that it 
 might pleasantly move on the water, but that its forefathers 
 and mothers a long way back began under pressing circum- 
 
200 REFUTATION OF ' FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 stances to get a duckish disposition, and by dint of endeavour 
 for ages to try their cliance of paddling themselves about on 
 the pools of a puddly world, their efforts were at length quite 
 . rewarded, and resulted in a complete success — so remark- 
 able, indeed, at last, that a generation sprang from them 
 thoroughly equipped for the waters with web-feet, oily backs, 
 boat-shaped bodies, spoony bills, and bowels to correspond 
 with mud-worms, and duckweed.' * These wild hypotheses 
 appear to me to be a disgrace to Science, and to indicate a 
 downward movement, viz. from creation to development and 
 evolution, which far outmeasures in extent the prodigious 
 step upwards which Science made in the seventeenth century 
 in the opposite direction, from the hypothesis of vortices to 
 the theory of gravitation, as soon as the Principia appeared 
 and made men ashamed of having ever believed in such 
 nonsense as the Cartesian system invented and taught : a 
 system so absurd, that Whiston compared an adherence to it 
 after Newton's was promulgated (and some did adhere to it), 
 to eating old acorns rather than wheat-flour. 
 
 10. The Origin of Man, God's intelligent creature on 
 
 earth, both as to the mode of his first introduction into the 
 
 world and his mental condition when introduced, 
 
 Origin of Man. . i ■ i . i , 
 
 IS another question on which views have been 
 broached contrary to Scripture, but which cannot stand the 
 scrutiny of an impartial examination. Man's introduction into 
 the world after the creation of other creatures is described 
 in these sublime words in Genesis : — ' And God said, 
 Let us make man in our image, after our likeness : and 
 let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over 
 the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the 
 earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the 
 earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image 
 of God created he him; male and female created he them' 
 
 * The First Man, and his Place in Creation, by George Moore, Esq. 
 M.I)., p. 36. 
 
KJSUAKUiriU THE ORIGIN OP MAN. 201 
 
 (Gen. i. 26, 27).. ' And the Lord God formed man of the 
 dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath 
 of life ; and man became a living soul ' (ii. 7). In the nar- 
 rative of the six days, the inspired penman exhibits the 
 Almighty in His true character : ' He spake and it was 
 done,^ He commanded and it stood fast' (Ps. xxxiii. 9). But 
 when He comes to the creation of man, the last and greatest 
 of His works, the style is changed. The creation of man is 
 described as if it had been the result of a special council, a 
 council of the Sacred Trinity in Unity, as if peculiar import- 
 ance attached to this work. ' And God said. Let us make 
 man.' Under the Great Supreme man was to be lord of the 
 lower world. On him would depend its future well-being. 
 Man was to be a new and distinguished link in the chain of 
 being, uniting the irrational with the spiritual world, the 
 frailty of the dust with the breath of the Almighty. How 
 men, in the presence of such a description, do not quail 
 before they venture to advocate such theories on man's origin 
 as disgrace modern science, it is difficult to understand. 
 According to these theories Man has descended by natural 
 generation, with all other organic creatures, vegetable and 
 animal, from some one primordial form into which life was 
 breathed. In the Struggle for Existence through ages 
 countless beyond number, and according to the laws of 
 Natural Selection, beings appeared at last in one chain of 
 succession, of links all but infinite in number, which are 
 described by one of the advocates of this monstrous hypo- 
 thesis as ' the first men, or the first beings worthy to be so 
 called.' * And in what character did these age-developed 
 representatives, and, indeed, progenitors of the race now 
 called Mankind, appear ? Let the same theorist speak : ' The 
 primitive condition of mankind was one of utter barbarism.' 
 And he considers Adam to have been ' a typical savage.' 
 
 * The Primitive Condition of Man, by Sir John Lubbock, 1870, 
 p. 325. 
 
202 EEFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 And he adds, 'These views follow, I think, from strictly- 
 scientific considerations.'* In the last edition of his Pre- 
 Histnric Times he gives this view of the human race : — ' The 
 lowest races of existing savages must, always assuming the 
 common origin of the human race, be at least as far advanced 
 as were our ancestors when they spread over the earth's 
 surface.' t And he then goes through various races of 
 savages, and points out something in which each was 
 deficient ; and comes to this deplorable conclusion, that 
 primitive man was a creature who combined in his character 
 all these negations ! If this be Science, then indeed Scripture 
 and Science are at variance. 
 
 But let us examine the facts. This these naturalists 
 seem to have done to a certain point ; but there to have 
 stopped. The organic structure of man's body appears to 
 resemble all other structures found throughout the animal 
 kingdom. It is said, that organs found even in an unde- 
 veloped state in other animals, as not serviceable to them, 
 are found perfected for use in the frame of man, and vice 
 versa. This is the ground upon which this gratuitous hypo- 
 thesis is built, of the community of the origin of man and 
 the lower creation. J 
 
 But cannot it have pleased Almighty God to have 
 worked upon a plan? Why, if there be this similarity, 
 must we necessarily assume that there is a relationship by 
 generation among all the living creatures which have 
 
 * Ibid. pp. 323, 361. 
 
 + Pre-Historic Times, 2Dd edit. p. 573. 
 
 X An account of various anatomical differences between man and 
 the brutes will be found in The First Man, and his Place in Creation, 
 by G. Moore, Esq. M.D , Chap. II. — a valuable and most interesting 
 work. The following extract from the seventh chapter shows what 
 troublesome differences exist, between man and even only the last 
 link but one before him, for these speculatists to account for : — 
 
 ' If it. [the ape] had a more perfect hand, more approximating to 
 our " instrument of reason ;" if it had a less bearlike skull ; if its 
 
HEQARDING THE ORIGIN OP MAN. 203 
 
 appeared upon the earth? Moreover, there may be the 
 resemblance spoken of, yet all the men, living or fossil, whose 
 organization has been examined, are unmistakeably men and 
 nothing else. No shades of difference gradually passing off 
 from men to other creatures, the nearest resemblance to 
 men, are to be found, living or in the earth. There is an 
 abrupt break. The form of the skull, the oldest of all skulls 
 which have been, discovered in the earth's strata, and which 
 ■was supposed by some to belong to an extremely ancient 
 celt-using race, more allied te apes than men, is found to 
 approach nearly to the Caucasian, the highest type of 
 development * — a most damaging fact for this theory. 
 Again, the difference in brain-power of a savage and a 
 cultivated European is only 82 cubic inches compared with 
 94, while that of a gorilla is only 30 inches. How does this 
 tally with theories of development, which make the savage 
 a being of a far inferior order to the Caucasian, and which 
 in no way can account for the storing up of power like this 
 for future use? The savage is inferior simply because he 
 does not use his brain to the extent of his capacity ; 
 not because he has not got it. His brain was given for 
 higher purposes than he uses it for, and affords a proof that 
 his first progenitors were of a higher stamp. Thus, even 
 within their own chosen arena of debate — viz. the physical 
 organization of man — their theory breaks down. They who 
 
 teeth became more Uke aids to utterance and beauty, instead of being, 
 as they are, mere instruments, hke those of the dog, for cutting, 
 tearing, and grinding hard food ; if its spinal column were less curved ; 
 if its head were balanced on that column, as in man, and not hung on 
 with the a'd of special ligaments ; if its hind paw were a real proper 
 foot fit to stand erect on like man's, and not a compound convenience, 
 neither quite hand nor foot ; if, in short, its whole anatomy of bone 
 and muscle were more like man's, the ape would be spoiled ; and yet 
 he would be not a whit more human in action or expression unless it 
 had also a human mind.' 
 
 * Lyell's Antiquity of Man, p. 89^ 
 
20i EEFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 would reason like philosophers on this subject, apart from 
 the teaching of Scripture, will begin by taking man as he is ; 
 and will proceed by reasoning from this sure ground by 
 legitimate steps, traced out by observation and experiment, 
 to further views, if they are attainable. It has been well 
 remarked, that ' it is only a low materializing philosophy 
 which can regard the human body as man. By thinking 
 and by loving man is man ; and all the matter in the 
 universe cannot produce a single thought, or perform a 
 single act of love. It is the soul and spirit which make man 
 what he is. If by digging in the earth we could find a 
 fossil vestige of man's soul and spirit, then we might find 
 man, as man is described in Scripture, but not till then,' * — 
 and, I may add, as man is now. Can an example be pro- 
 duced, from any source, of a being in every respect like man, 
 his higher nature alone being wanting? Wlien did the 
 immortal spirit which we now find in man first enter into 
 the race 1 How did it enter 1 These surely are questions 
 which we have a right to ask of those, who so gratuitously 
 set aside the distinct declaration of Revelation regarding the 
 origin of man. The immeasurable difference between the 
 lowest type of man and the highest of apes is, strange to say, 
 acknowledged by one of the masters of this false philosophy.t 
 And yet he argues thus : ' The structural differences between 
 man and even the highest apes . . . are great and significant 
 ... It would be no less wrong than absurd to deny the 
 existence of this chasm : . . . but do not forget that there is 
 a no less sharp line of demarcation, a no less complete 
 absence of any transitional form, between the gorilla and the 
 
 * Bishop Wordsworth's Commentary on Genesis. 
 
 t Professor Huxley. His words are these : He speaks of ' the 
 great gulf which intervenes between the lowest man and the highest 
 ape in intellectual yovier.'— Man's Place in Nature. Third edition, 
 p. 102. Even regarding their physical structure, he says that 'the 
 structural diSerences between man and even the highest apes ... are 
 
RBQABDING THE OKIGIN OP MAN. 205 
 
 orang, or the orang and the gihhon.'* And on this ground 
 does he accept that alternative which is the most contrary 
 to reason, the most degrading to man, and most offensive as 
 regards Divine revelation, viz. that all have had a common 
 origin ! whereas the legitimate inference would be, that, close 
 as the resemblance of man's organic structure may be to that 
 of the highest brutes, their distance in more important re- 
 spects is so ' immeasurable,' that they can have had no com- 
 mon origin ; and that consequently, the various species of 
 brutes themselves, which are, if anything, wider apart among 
 one another than man in his physical structure is from the 
 highest of them, must also have had their separate origins ; 
 that the declaration of Holy Scripture regarding creation is 
 thereby illustrated ; and that it is therefore manifest that it 
 has pleased the Almighty, in framing the world and all its 
 creatures, to work according to plans which indicate design. 
 
 But we may carry this further. Notwithstanding the 
 anatomical resemblance between man and the lower animals 
 — on which alone this false theory has been built — there is, 
 both in man and them, a marked relation between their 
 actual physical organization and their respective habits and 
 dispositions, which is quite fatal to the idea of community of 
 origin. Man, without those mental endowments which dis- 
 tinguish him from the brutes, would have stood a poor chance 
 against them in the struggle for existence. Defencelessness 
 in various ways is a characteristic of his organization, when 
 compared with that of the creatures with whom he would 
 have to contend. This defencelessness, however, which 
 would place man at such a disadvantage had he no mental 
 powers, is more than compensated for by the gifts of reason 
 
 great and significant,' p. 104. He speaks of the ' present enormous 
 gulf between the human and the ape races, p. 102, note ; and of the 
 ' immeasurable and practically infinite divergence of the Human from 
 the Simian Stirps,' p. 103, note. 
 * Ibid. p. 104. 
 
206 EEPUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 and invention ; and this may he said of the earliest examples 
 of men which have ever been found. The Duke of Argyll 
 observes : — ' In proportion as the difference between man 
 and the lower animals is properly appreciated in the light of 
 nature, in the same proportion will the difficulty increase of 
 conceiving how the chasm could be passed by any process of 
 transmutation or development. This difficulty is still further 
 increased, if we advert for a moment to the direction in 
 which the human frame diverges from the structure of 
 the brutes. It diverges in the direction of greater physical 
 helplessness and weakness. That is to say, it is a divergence 
 which, of all others, it is most impossible to ascribe to mere 
 Natural Selection. The unclothed and unprotected con- 
 dition of the human body, its comparative slowness of foot, 
 the absence of teeth adapted for prehension or for defence, 
 the same want of power for similar purposes in the hands 
 and fingers, the bluntness of the sense of smell, such as to 
 render it useless for the detection of prey which is concealed 
 — all these are features which stand in strict and harmonious 
 relation to the mental powers of Man. But apart from 
 these, they would place him at an immense disadvantage in 
 the struggle for existence. This, therefore, is not the direc- 
 tion in which the blind forces of Natural Selection could 
 ever work.'* If we imagine man to be descended from a 
 monkey, for example, the creature which by Natural 
 Selection made the first move towards the future man would 
 stand a poor chance with his former companions to maintain 
 his position, and even existence, in the struggle for life. 
 This seems to be fatal to the theory here combated ; for the 
 tendency would be for the intruder to be overcome, and the 
 old stock to bo thus preserved unimpaired. 
 
 Mr. Darwin's Descent of Man, published during the pre- 
 sent year, is a work overflowing with facts, put together in a 
 very interesting manner ; but with the untempered mortar 
 • Primeval Man, pp. 65 — 67. 
 
EEQAEDING THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 207 
 
 of free speculation, so as to make his conclusions utterly 
 untrustworthy in themselves, quite apart from their being 
 in direct contradiction to the statements of Divine Revela- 
 tion. All through the work is to be traced a tone of 
 arbitrary assumption and hypothesis ; but so buried in the 
 torrent of facts, that the sanguine reader is carried securely 
 along, though the logical mind is perpetually receiving a 
 shock. Did we know with certainty from some independent 
 source, that all living things have been really derived by 
 inheritance from an original monad, Mr. Darwin's book, 
 which shows such great research and ingenuity, would have 
 produced this result : — It would have furnished us with some 
 few scattered and fragmentary illustrations of the truth 
 already known. I saj', ' few,' undoubtedly numerous as his 
 facts are, in reference to the millions upon millions of lines of 
 genealogical descent which must have been lost, and millions 
 upon millions and millions beyond them of links which are 
 missing in those lines of which present species are supposed 
 to be the last. To reverse this process, however, and try to 
 ascend from existing facts to the original monad, which is 
 Mr. Darwin's aim, differs from the former, as much as 
 making a pyramid stand steadily upon its apex differs from 
 balancing it on its base. 
 
 Mr. Darwin attempts to build his ai^ument for the de- 
 scent of a man from some inferior ape-like animal upon a 
 threefold basis : (1) Similarity in the bodily structure of man 
 and other mammals ; (2) Identity of character in the 
 earliest stages of embryonic development ; and (3) The 
 existence of rudimentary organs in man, apparently of no 
 use to him, but of use in other animals. I will take up 
 each of these points. 
 
 ( 1 .) Bodily structure. Since the appearance of man in 
 the world it has ever been obvious, that there is a certain 
 resemblance between him and other mammals. They have 
 two eyes, two ears, one nose, one mouth, four extremities 
 
208 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 (whether two arms and two legs, or four legs) ; and the 
 points of resemblance have been greatly multiplied as 
 knowledge has advanced. Comparisons, too, have been 
 made between the habits of man and of the irrational 
 creation, and men are said to be lion-hearted, chicken- 
 hearted, cocky, hen-pecked, ravenous, eagle-eyed, ostrich- 
 like, sheepish, pig-headed, swinish ; a human being may 
 be a dove, a lamb, a goose, a duck, a donkey, a snake 
 in the grass, a bear, and a brute. These are terms and 
 phrases perfectly familiar to us. But now to be gravely told 
 that these creatures are our cousins, though it may be of the 
 millionth, billionth, or trillionth degree, is somewhat astound- 
 ing, and — requires proof. I am happy to say that no proof 
 whatever is given in Mr. Darwin's book. His theory is 
 simply based upon pure speculation, flowing from certain 
 points of resemblance ; and illustrates very forcibly the loose 
 and presumptuous nature of much of the philosophizing of 
 the present day. It appears to me to be a disgrace to the 
 spirit of the age, that such speculations, in which the very 
 point aimed at is assumed, should be seriously accepted as 
 representing scientific truth. Mr. Darwin is obliged to avow, 
 ' connecting links have not hitherto been discovered ' (vol. ] . 
 p. 185) : 'we have no record of the lines of descent, these 
 lines can be discovered ' — should he not have said guessed 
 at t — ' only by observing the degrees of resemblance between 
 the beings which are to be classed ' (p. 188) — all very good, 
 if it was known at starting that these lines exist ; but 
 altogether gratuitous and baseless, in the absence of that a 
 priori knowledge. He acknowledges that man's ' body is 
 constructed on the same homologous plan as that of other 
 mammals ' (p. 185). Then why not be satisfied with this 
 view 1 That it pleased the Almighty to make His creatures 
 after a common plan, some parts being more developed in 
 one class than in another, meets all the requirements ; and, 
 moreover, is not contradictory to the scripture record. All 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 209 
 
 that Mr. Darwin, asserts, even of there being 'no fundamental 
 difference between man and the higher mammals in their 
 mental faculties ' (p. 35) ! would prove nothing for com- 
 munity of origin, were his assertion true ; but could only 
 point out a certain similarity of character in those par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 Mr. Darwin replies, however, that 'it is no scientific 
 explanation to assert that they [the hand of a man or monkey, 
 the foot of a horse, the flipper of a seal, the wing of a bat] 
 have all been formed on the same ideal plan' (pp. 31, 32). 
 But perhaps here a ' scientific explanation ' is out of place. 
 Science is knowledge derived from an examination of the 
 laws which regulate the physical world, when once things 
 are come into existence. It has nothing to say to the reason 
 of the laws with which things were at first endowed. If 
 it pleased God to create animals according to a plan, we 
 have to accept this ; and it is out of place to seek for a 
 ' scientific explanation ' of what it pleased the Almighty to 
 do. Precisely the same objection might be urged to Mr. 
 Darwin's own conception of the beginning of things as un- 
 scientific, viz. of ' life with its several powers having been 
 originally breathed by the Creator into a few Forms or into 
 one.' * We must have a beginning. But Science is in- 
 capable of showing what it was ; it can only trace the 
 phenomena of things as they are and were, after coming into 
 existence. It is only He who made the world that can tell 
 us of the beginning. 
 
 His theory has taken such hold upon him, that he per- 
 severes as if persuaded that it is absolutely true. ' We are 
 quite ignorant,' he writes, ' at how rapid a rate organisms, 
 whether high or low in the scale, may under favourable 
 circumstances be modified' (p. 200) — in fact, he should have 
 added, we know not whether they can be permanently 
 modified at all. ' We know, however,' he goes on to say, 
 
 * Origin of Species, 1869, p. 579. 
 
 p 
 
210 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLnSIONS 
 
 ' that some have retained the same form during an enormous 
 lapse of time ' — and he should have said, that we have no 
 evidence whatever that at the beginning of that enormous 
 period any change occurred. ' The great break,' he con- 
 tinues, 'in the organic chain between man and his nearest 
 allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living 
 species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the 
 belief that man is descended from some lower form ; but this 
 objection will not appear of much weight' — to whom? — 'to 
 those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the 
 general principle of evolution' (p. 200) — that is, who take 
 for granted the thing to be proved ! ' With respect,' he 
 says, 'to the absence of fossil remains serving to connect 
 man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much 
 stress on this fact, who will read Sir Charles Lyell's dis- 
 cussion in which he shows, that in all the vertebrate classes 
 the discovery of fossil remains has been an extremely slow 
 and fortuitous process' (p. 201) — and, therefore, I would 
 reply, if we knew that the theory is true, we should be 
 sanguine that some day proof would be found in fossils ; but 
 as the whole is a gratuitous hypothesis, the entire absence 
 of fossil proof is a stern rebuke to the speculators. ' The 
 belief,' he goes on to say, ' that animals so distinct as a 
 monkey or elephant and a humming-bird, a snake, frog, and 
 fish, &c., could all have sprung from the same parents, will 
 appear monstrous to those who have not attended to the 
 recent progress of natural history. For this belief implies 
 the former existence of links closely binding together all 
 these forms, now so utterly unlike ' (p. 203). And he 
 attempts to quiet us by saying, that some auimals have 
 been found, living or fossil, which lie between these species 
 so as to help to bridge over the differences. But it is not 
 units, or tens, or even hundreds of links, but millions, which 
 we want to connect such different species ; and then after all 
 to be convinced that they are links. 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OP MAN. 211 
 
 His argument from the structure of man's body wants 
 reality ; whereas all his facts go forcibly to illustrate what 
 has for ages been observed, that a certain plan, the design 
 of an Almighty Intelligence, is to be traced throughout 
 creation. 
 
 (2.) The second ground on which Mr. Darwin attempts 
 to base his theory is Embryonic Development. ' I^o other 
 explanation,' he says, 'has ever been given of the marvellous 
 fact that the embryo of a man, dog, seal, bat, reptile, &c., 
 can at first hardly be distinguished from each other ' (p. 32). 
 But I deny that Mr. Darwin's theory has given any explana- 
 tion of this remarkable phenomenon ; and further, I affirm, 
 on the other hand, that it very remarkably establishes the 
 opposite view, of creation having been according to a plan. 
 For be it remembered, that the embryo of a man is the off- 
 spring of a man and becomes a man and nothing else ; the 
 embryo of a dog is the offspring of a dog and becomes a dog 
 and nothing else ; and so of each example he produces. This 
 has always been going on, and no departure from it has ever 
 occurred, except in the imagination of Mr. Darwin and his 
 followers. They have invented the change from one kind of 
 creature to another to support the theory ; but not one 
 instance can they produce. This is their argument. These 
 embryos are undistinguishable from each other at an early 
 stage ; and therefore have an identity of character. The 
 creatures, then, to which they belong, must have a common 
 origin, though it must be placed myriads of ages ago, as not 
 the slightest change in this direction has been detected during 
 all the years over which observation has ranged. But here 
 a vast amount of fogginess exists and obscures the subject. 
 Here is one of those leaps in the dark, a spring upwards, 
 which obscurity so well conceals and assists. Why a common 
 origin ? Why carry up the imagination along these lines of 
 life through myriads of ages back, hopelessly dreaming of an 
 ultimate convergence of the lines ? I say hopelessly, because 
 
212 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 (1) observation has never given the faintest indication of 
 such convergence, that is of divergence downwards, and (2) 
 because in every individual now born you see the needless- 
 ness of such a search. You have not to go back myriads of 
 years, but merely through a fraction of one year, to see, ac- 
 cording to this theory, that each animal at its birth has 
 recently come from an embryo identical in character with all 
 the embryos of other animals in their earliest stage. So that, 
 although these embryos are so precisely alike, they rapidly — 
 not by slow gradations, taking ages for their work — pass into 
 all the variety of animals we see around us. These lines are 
 absolutely independent of each other, and what similarity there 
 is in the creatures, has arisen from causes which belong to 
 them severally, and springs not in any way from community 
 of being ; for the causes have existed and operated within an 
 interval of time, over the whole of which observation has 
 watched their action and proved them to be absolutely distinct. 
 
 This supposed or apparent identity, however, affords a 
 strong argument for the opposite view ; that God has re- 
 markably made the world after a plan ; for here you have a 
 perpetual recurrence of apparent identity, which cannot 
 possibly be actual. 
 
 (3.) Mr. Darwin's third argument for his theory of the 
 descent of man is laid in his assertion, that in the human 
 frame there are useless parts in the rudimentary state, which 
 exist in full use and development in other animals. ' In 
 order to understand,' he says, ' the existence of rudimentary 
 organs we have only to suppose, that a former progenitor 
 possessed the parts in question in a perfect state, and that 
 under changed habits of life they became greatly reduced ' 
 (p. 32). Thus man's immediate predecessor is said to be of 
 the monkey kind ; but we have to pass to another line, 
 descending from some common progenitor, that in the horse, 
 with its peculiar muscle, the ' panniculus carnosus ' (p. 19), 
 by which he can twitch his whole skin to perfection, we may 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OK MAN. 213 ■ 
 
 see the hereditary principle on which we can raise the eye- 
 brows, shift the ear, and move the scalp, which some men 
 can do to a wonderful degree— a most luminous and con- 
 vincing proof of our common descent ! But why should we 
 cloak our ignorance by asserting, that the so-called rudimen- 
 tal organs in man are of no use ? Would not modesty rather 
 say, that their use, occupying as they seem to do in man an 
 inferior position, is not yet ascertained ] 
 
 The whole meets with a solution, as before, in the idea, 
 that the Creator has worked upon a plan, and parts of that 
 plan have been unfolded in one way in one set of creatures, 
 and in another way in another ; and that all parts, no doubt, 
 have their several uses, though we have not discovered them 
 in every instance. But Mr. Darwin takes a very different 
 "view. Not to admit this community of descent is, he asserts, 
 to ' admit that our own structure and that of all animals 
 around us is a mere snare laid to entrap our judgment' (p. 
 32) ! I reply. No ; but it strongly illustrates, that Divine 
 wisdom was pleased to follow a type in creating His creatures. 
 Mr. Darwin considers it to be 'only our natural prejudice . . . 
 and arrogance . . . which leads us to demur to this conclu- 
 sion,' that we are of common origin with the creatures around 
 us. I reply. No : it is our thankful recognition of the Word 
 of God, which has here spoken to us on a point, viz. the 
 origin of things, which is above and beyond the province of 
 Science to decide or even to indicate Mr. Darwin considers 
 that the facts his diligence has accumulated ' speak falsely,' 
 if they speak not in confirmation of his humiliating and de- 
 basing theory. But, ' savage ' as I may be in so doing (vol. 
 II. p. 386), I still look upon all creatures as disconnected in 
 their species by descent ; but as uniting in their marvellous 
 resemblances to testify to the wisdom of the Creator, who 
 has bound them together in one harmonious whole, and 
 watches every part with a Father's care, so that not a spar- 
 row even is ' forgotten before God ' (Luke xii. 6). 
 
214 KEFDTATION OP FAISB CONCLUSIONS 
 
 The other part of this theory, so opposed to the Holy 
 Scriptures, viz. that man, upon his first appearance upon the 
 EirstmannotaStage as man, was in a state of 'utter barharism,' 
 
 barbarian, .^^jjj gtand scrutiny no better. Their argument 
 is based upon this, that the habits of the earliest races of 
 man upon the earth were such as to betray an ignorance of 
 mechanical arts ; that traces of barbarous habits are found 
 in civilized nations ; that savage tribes are capable of im- 
 provement ; and that no evidences of degradation are dis- 
 cernible. As to the first, why should a knowledge of the 
 mechanical arts be arbitrarily chosen as a standard of 
 primitive civilization, and the absence of that knowledge be 
 taken as an evidence of barbarism ? Do the angels under- 
 stand the mechanical arts 1 — those lofty intelligences who 
 excel in strength, who do God's commandments, hearkening 
 unto the voice of His word? (Psa. ciii. 20.) Good order, 
 mutual good-will and helpfulness, a sense of duty and 
 corresponding obedience, are far higher indications of civil- 
 ization than a knowledge and practice of all the arts in the 
 world. ' No proof, if proof there be, that Primeval Man was 
 ignorant of the industrious arts, can afford the smallest pre- 
 sumption that he was also ignorant of duty or ignorant of 
 God. This is a fundamental objection to the whole of Sir J. 
 Lubbock's argument.'* The same luminous writer, whom I 
 have here and before quoted, rebuts the arguments of this 
 theory at every point. Sir John Lubbock has replied to the 
 Duke in the Volume I have before referred to, but in my 
 opinion without success. He must be quite unaware of the 
 gross ignorance and utter absence of religious feeling into 
 which masses of people, even in close contact with the highest 
 civilization, in London and some other great cities, can sink, 
 when he denies that a tribe can lose a religion which their 
 forefathers held. With regard to traces of barbarous habits 
 found in civilized nations, the Duke says, ' Traces or remains 
 * Primeval Man, p. 132. 
 
REGAEDING THE FIRST MAN BEING A BARBARIAN. 215 
 
 of barbarism, properly so called, that is, traces of customs 
 savage and immoral, in the usages of civilized nations . . . 
 afford no presumption whatever that barbarism was the Pri- 
 meval Condition of Man, any more than the traces of 
 Feudalism in the laws of modern Europe prove that feudal 
 principles were bom with the human race. All such customs 
 may have been, and as many think probably have been, not 
 Primeval but Medieval, that is to say, the result of time and 
 development, and that development a development of cor- 
 ruption.'* He then takes cannibalism, as an evident result 
 of corruption — a loathsome practice which cannot, on Sir J. 
 Lubbock's own admission, have been primeval. And why, 
 then, may not other barbarous customs, found in more or less 
 civilized nations, have sprung up in the same way, from the 
 corruption of man's nature? Their existence in Primeval 
 Man is no more to be believed than cannibalism itself. That 
 there are indications of progress even among savages, in some 
 respects, there may be no difficulty in allowing ; but this in 
 no way establishes the theory that there was not a previous 
 degradation ; it in no way makes it probable that the savage 
 state was the primeval state. Mr. Tylor, in his work on the 
 Early History of Mankind, considers that the facts he has 
 collected together favour the view, that the wide differences 
 in the civilization and mental state of the various races of 
 mankind are rather differences of development than of origin, 
 rather of degree than of kind : and that in such practical 
 matters as relate to the useful arts the history of mankind 
 on the whole has been a history of progress. This seems to 
 be clear. ' So far as may be judged,' he writes, ' from the 
 scanty and defective evidence which has as yet been brought 
 forward, I venture to think the most reasonable opinion to 
 be, that the course of development of the lower civilization 
 has been on the whole in a forward direction, though inter- 
 fered with occasionally and locally by the results of degiading 
 • Primeval Man, p. 133. 
 
216 REFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 and destroj-ing influences.' He acknowledges that there have 
 been 'degrading and destroying influences,' and says there 
 are no sufficient materials for the formation of a definite 
 theory of the rise and progress of human civilization in 
 primitive times.* Here he appears to speak more especially 
 of civilization as displayed by a knowledge of the arts of life. 
 For, as the Duke of Argyll says most truly ,+ ' nothing in the 
 Natural History of Man can be more certain than that 
 morally, and intellectually, and physically, he can, and often 
 does, sink from a higher to a lower level. This is true of 
 Man both collectively and individually — of men and of 
 societies of men.' History and monuments of bygone people 
 demonstrate this beyond dispute. 
 
 But there is a further point in this discussion. History 
 and observation seem very clearly to teach us, that the most 
 ancient remains of man hitherto discovered did not belong to 
 the primeval members of the human family ; but to outcasts 
 and wanderers seeking a precaiious existence far far from the 
 primitive home of man. The Duke of Argyll points out, that 
 the most degraded and wretched tribes of man are now to be 
 found at the extremities of continents and in the most in- 
 hospitable regions of the earth; as the Esquimaux in the 
 North (to whom, however. Sir John Lubbock objects as proper 
 illustrations) and the Patagonians in the South of the great 
 continent of America ; the Bushmen in South Africa ; and 
 the native inhabitants of Van Dieman's Land, 'the most 
 utterly degraded of all the Polynesian races.' The natural 
 increase of population, and the internal feuds and wars which 
 ensued, would drive the weaker tribes to the less favourable 
 regions, and the races driven furthest would become the 
 rudest, and most engrossed in the pursuits of mere animal 
 existence. ' And now we can better estimate,' our author 
 
 * Tyler's Researches into the Early History of Mankind. Second 
 Edition, pp. 370, 372, 374. 
 t Primeval Man, p. 156. 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN, OR FIRST FORMS, OF LIFE. 217 
 
 proceeds, ' the value to be set on the arguments which have 
 been founded on the rude implements found in the river-drifts 
 and in the caves of modern Europe [and in other parts of the 
 
 world] It must be as safe to argue from those 
 
 implements as to the condition of man at that time in the 
 countries of his primeval home, as it would be in our own 
 day to argue from the habits and arts of the Esquimaux as 
 to the state of civilization in London or in Paris. * 
 
 1 1. The case which I have been just considering is the 
 origin of man, in answer to those theorists who throw out 
 the wild and groundless suggestion that he is Qngin of Lif e ■ 
 descended from some inferior animal, and that '*^ ^'^^* forms. 
 in this line of descent ' the first beings worthy to be called 
 men' were in a state of 'utter barbarism.' I will now pro- 
 duce another instance of their going counter to the teachings 
 of Holy Scripture ; and will show that here also nothing has 
 been proved against the Sacred Volume. The Origin of Life 
 — by which I mean the primitive conditions under which 
 life appeared as regards the organism which it first possessed, 
 and also the source from which life sprang to possess that 
 organism — is a subject which has been engaging their atten- 
 tion now for some time. The microscope and incessant re- 
 search, and a spirit of unrestrained speculation, have led to 
 the results they announce. Both Mr. Darwin and Professor 
 Huxley consider, that life first appeared in the animal and 
 vegetable world in some extremely simple primordial organ- 
 ism, of which all living things which exist now, and ever have 
 been, are the lineal descendants. With regard to the source 
 from which life came in this organism, these two naturalists 
 differ. Mr. Darwin, borrowing his idea, it would appear, 
 from Scripture, believest that the Almighty breathed life in 
 the first instance into this supposed progenitor of the whole 
 animal and vegetable kingdoms ; whereas Professor Huxley 
 
 * Primeval Man, pp. 179, 180. 
 
 + Origin of Species. Second Edition, p. 484. 
 
218 REPUTATION OF FALSE COKCLUSIONS 
 
 traces life to the molecular forces, which are essential pro- 
 perties of the matter itself of which the monad consists. 
 These views are utterly irreconcilable with what I have 
 quoted at p. 194 from the book of Genesis. There the 
 present vegetable kingdom first appears from the hand of the 
 Creator as grass, herbs, and fruit-trees, all created with the 
 seeds within themselves for future generations (Gen. i. 11, 
 12).* Moving creatures that have life in the waters, fowl 
 flying in the air, cattle and creeping things and beasts of the 
 earth, make their appearance, all after their kind, and finally 
 man himself) all in the condition in which we see them now 
 (v. 20-28). It may have suited Mr. Grove's purpose, when 
 President of the British Association, and he may have caught 
 the attention of a popular assembly to his views, by asking 
 how they could conceive a full-grown elephant suddenly 
 appearing upon the earth, and inquiring whence it could have 
 come ; could it have dropped down from heaven ? But 
 thinking men might have seen, that there was no valid argu- 
 ment involved in this. What has greater and smaller to do 
 with the question? The sudden appearance on the earth of 
 the supposed monad, containing in itself such marvellous 
 powers that it would become the parent of all living things 
 through all time, would have been a wonder, — however far 
 back these theorists place its appearance, — as great as the 
 appearance of a full-grown elephant. Such modes of reason- 
 ing are utterly vain. This is a kind of clap-trap argument 
 quite unworthy of a philosopher. 
 
 If we investigate the order of nature as it exists, we see 
 that the seed is necessary to the production of the tree, the 
 embryonic germ to that of the animal ; and also, on the other 
 hand, the tree is necessary for the production of the seed, and 
 the animal of the germ. The succession of life occurs in a 
 perpetually recurring series, each point in the series wherever 
 we select it, being necessary for the existence of what follows it, 
 * See Note at pp. 56, 57, last paragraph. 
 
EEGAEDING THE ORIGIN, OR FIRST FORMS, OF LIFE. 219 
 
 according to the observed course of nature. We see the egg, 
 the caterpillar, the chrysalis, the butterfly ; the egg, the cater- 
 pillar, and so on. We may begin with any link, the chain is 
 the same. 
 
 Even in their theories of development and evolution, in 
 ■which permanent changes are supposed to have taken place 
 after periods of enormous duration, each point in the 
 succession is essential to all that follows it, wherever we 
 select it. And there is no reason why their hypothetical 
 monad, or even protoplasm, the simplest state of matter in 
 which life has yet been traced, should not be deemed in 
 reality as complicated in its structure as an elephant or any 
 other existing creature. It seems, indeed, as if the advance 
 of knowledge has the tendency of filling some of us with self- 
 confidence rather than humility. They seem to think that 
 they have penetrated backwards to a natural beginning of 
 things. The microscope has added so greatly to man's 
 natural powers of observation, and they have got so far 
 back, that they think they have got to the origin and 
 fountain-head. Here they think that they have reached a 
 simple being, than which nothing can be simpler. But was 
 not each creature, till physiology had become a science, re- 
 garded much in the same light f Physiologists have now in- 
 vestigated the wonderful works of God in creation, and learnt, 
 that ~(to our apprehension) the simplest creature is a mere 
 cell with life, and that aU vegetable and animal beings are 
 built up of these cells. And Professor Huxley would go 
 further back and assert that we can trace the origin even 
 beyond the cell, to protoplasm, which he regards as the first 
 existent matter of life. But why should we stop here 1 Be- 
 cause our microscopes fail to guide us : their powers are 
 exhausted. But are the secrets of nature exhausted ? Why 
 may there not be in the minutest speck which our microscopes 
 can detect worlds within worlds of organisms ] The minutest 
 speck is infinitely greater than nothing. It has its two halves, 
 
220 REFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 and each half has its two halves, and so on without limit, 
 and the matter can never thus be exhausted. We can never 
 get to a point where we can say, Beyond this all complexity 
 of organization absolutely ceases : Here we reach the absolute 
 element to which lile clings. Such reasoners forget the 
 beautiful thought of Chalmers, that no sooner was the prin- 
 ciple of the telescope discovered which unfolds to our view 
 worlds beyond worlds in the immensity of space, than the 
 same principle gave us the microscope, to show us the un- 
 limited extent of God's works in the opposite direction ; and 
 that while our finite powers may set a limit to our observa- 
 tion, no limit can be fixed by us either to immeasurable 
 magnitude in the one case, or infinitesimal minuteness in the 
 other. The phenomena of light give us indisputable proof, 
 that even our own eyes are susceptible of impression from 
 minute portions of matter incalculably smaller than the 
 smallest speck they can actually see with the most powerful 
 aids, and are thus cognizant of their existence. For they can 
 at once without that aid discern the difference, for instance, 
 between the colours of violet and blue in the spectrum : and 
 yet that difference depends upon a minute quantity which 
 equals only the millionth part of an inch ; that is, the differ- 
 ence between the length of a wave of violet and one of 
 blue light, a quantity too small to be seen by microscopes of 
 the highest power ; and further still, even those waves, and 
 therefore their difference, are made up of innumerable parts, 
 under all degrees of condensation and rarefaction, all having 
 their effect upon the eye in producing the impression of the 
 respective colours. If, then, our limited faculties can be 
 cognizant of the existence of such unspeakably minute objects 
 which the eye cannot see even by the help of microscopes, 
 and which the imagination alone can realize, though really 
 existent, what a vast unknown field there is beyond that in 
 which the phenomena of protoplasm are detected by the 
 keenest aided- vision, in which operations as wonderful, and 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN, OR FIRST FORMS, OF LIFE. 221 
 
 perhaps still more so, are going on ! As regards organization, 
 then, we have no ground for supposing that in protoplasm we 
 have arrived at absolute simplicity, and have discovered 
 matter in such a statp, that life is its natural property. "We 
 cannot pronounce that the structure in any one stage is really 
 less complicated than in another. The first link in the chain 
 of being, in the theories of development and evolution, may 
 be, as far as it is a living organism, as complex as any link 
 which follows ; and one might say, even more so, as it con- 
 tains within itself all creatures which flow from it by natural 
 descent. 
 
 In the chain of succession, then, of species now existing, 
 or in the imaginary chain in the fossil world, there is nothing 
 in Science to indicate at what point of the sequence creation 
 took place. With regard to species n' 'W existing, the state- 
 ment of Scripture is clear, that they were brought into the 
 world by the fiat of the Almighty as grass and herbs and 
 trees, with the seed within themselves, and as fish and fowl, 
 cattle and beasts, also possessing powers of reproduction. Here, 
 then, Science proves nothing contradictory to the declaration 
 of Scripture regarding the organism which life first possessed, 
 and they are not at variance in this matter ; although it may 
 appear to some, who prefer their own speculations to the 
 word of God, that this development theory gives a nobler 
 view of the work of God than God has given Himself ! 
 
 But I have more to say on this theory. Let us consider 
 the lines of descent from their hypothetical monad and 
 beginning of life. On their own showing* these naturalists 
 can produce no instance of permanent change in any species 
 now existing, all through the generations after generations 
 which have been born and have died in each of these species. 
 When we ascend these lines and come to their supposed con- 
 tinuations backwards among the fossil records of the earth, 
 
 * See Professor Huxley's Address as President of the Geological 
 Society, 1870, reported in Nature, Feb. 24, 1870. 
 
222 REPUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 what do we find 1 A continuous series of links ? Nothing 
 of the kind. Only isolated and widely separated links, like 
 dots, wide apart in space, grouped into lines solely from some 
 resemblance, and altogether wanting (on their own acknow- 
 ledgment), it is not known how many, it may be millions, of 
 intervening links, which can nowhere be found, to fill up the 
 succession of countless hiatuses which yawn along the lines. 
 I can hardly see any more reality in the supposed relationship 
 of these scattered species of organism in the fossil world, 
 than I can in the existence of Orion, the great and mighty 
 hunter, in the heavens, because the Greeks arbitrarily 
 grouped together a number of isolated stars and traced the 
 giant's imaginary form. These naturalists go solely by resem- 
 blance. They cannot give one proof of actual descent of one 
 species from another species in the fossil world ; and when 
 they come to the existing world of living creatures, and ob- 
 serve their laws and watch their birth, no change of species 
 whatever can be detected. With regard to the fossil world 
 they reply, that the record is imperfect. But strange and, 
 indeed, incredible is it, that only siogle isolated links should 
 have been left ; and that when hundreds of intervening links 
 have disappeared, sometimes two links in contact, to say the 
 very least, should not have been left remaining to tell their 
 tale ! Attempts and guesses have been made to discover some 
 true linear types. Professor Huxley says, in his Address to 
 the Geological Society in 1870, ' It is no easy matter to find 
 clear and unmistakeable evidence of filiation among fossil 
 animals. For, in order that such evidence should be quite 
 satisfactory, it is necessary that we should be acquainted 
 with all the most important features of the organization of 
 the animals which are supposed to be thus related ; and not 
 merely with the fragments upon which the genera and species 
 of the palaeontologist are so often based.' And after noticing 
 some supposed examples of linear types produced by M. 
 Gaudry and Professor EUtimeyer, he adds : — ' But, as no one 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN, OR FIRST FORMS, OF LIFE. 223 
 
 is better aware than these two learned, acute, and philoso- 
 phical biologists, all such arrangements must be regarded aa 
 provisional, except in those cases in which, by a fortunate 
 accident, large series of remains are obtainable from a thick 
 and wide-spread series of deposits. It is easy to accumulate 
 probabilities — hard to make out some particular case in such 
 a way that it will stand rigorous criticism.' He then adduces 
 a case which he thinks can be thus made out in favour of 
 the pedigree of the horse. But it is clear to me that his 
 leading idea, in itself an assumption, influences his judgment 
 and induces him too easily to turn resemblances into proofs. 
 The genus Anchitherium appears in the upper eocene and 
 the lowest miocene. In the middle miocene appear the two 
 genera, Hipparion and Anchitherium. In the upper miocene 
 appears the genus Equus, which from certain resemblances 
 is assumed to have grown out of the other two in succession. 
 But how natural selection can have changed a large part of 
 a gsnus it is not easy to see. Natural selection would affect 
 individuals, and not even whole species, since birth or origin 
 runs in lines of individuals. The only creatures which have 
 any influence upon the nature of an animal are its two 
 parents ; other members of the species, much less of the 
 genus, have no effect whatever upon it. Hence, if divergence 
 does take place by natural selection, the shades of resem- 
 blance would have been countless, and of gradations almost 
 imperceptible. The differences pointed out by Professor 
 Huxley, which distinguish the genera Anchitherium, Hippa- 
 rion, and Equus, are too great for his purpose, in the absence 
 of many links. If he knew that his theory of evolution was 
 true, then these three genera might be Hnks of one chain, 
 even though we miss the connecting Hnks. But, since the 
 conjecture regarding evolution is the thing which has to be 
 proved true, the absence of these links, even in such a case 
 as the present, where certain resemblances exist, is a fatal 
 stumbling-block to any but to sanguine minds which seem 
 
224 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 ardently to desire their theory to be the law of nature. This 
 theory of development presents this extraordinary pheno- 
 menon, fatal to any theory in the eyes of men of sound philo- 
 sophical perception, viz., the assumption of the very thing 
 which has to be proved, 
 
 I would add, that the method which these naturalists 
 pursue is the deductive method. They assume a principle, 
 and compare its consequences with facts, as far as they can. 
 It may be said, indeed, that the theory of gravitation is really 
 established by this deductive process. That theory, however, 
 was first attained by induction from facts ; viz. those chiefly 
 which Kepler had by incredible diligence gathered from an 
 examination of the heavens, and comprised in his three cele- 
 brated laws. Newton by the first of those results proved 
 that the force acting on all the planets, whatever it was, 
 must pass through the sun ; by the second, that the force on 
 each, whatever its intensity, must vary as the inverse square 
 of the distance of the planet from the sun ; by the third, that 
 the actual amount or intensity of force (estimated at a given 
 distance) must be absolutely the same for all the planets. 
 That is, that one and the same force resides in the sun (vary- 
 ing in its effect as the inverse square of the distance), and 
 regulates the motion of the system. This law was thus 
 arrived at by pure induction from facts. Its final confirma- 
 tion, however, has been obtained by the deductive process ; 
 by assuming its truth, and comparing its effects with the 
 facts of nature in innumerable observations and exp. riments 
 spread over two centuries. 
 
 But suppose even, for the sake of argument, that the law 
 of gravitation was in the first instance assumed to be true, 
 as this law of development is, and proved to be true by its 
 accurately explaining complicated phenomena; there is this 
 very marked difference between them. In the application of 
 the law of gravitation each phenomenon is brought into 
 direct connexion with the law itself : no connexion of the 
 
imurjirviiiJMU iiin UMiuift, OB J<1K8T FORMS, OF LIFE, 225 
 
 phenomena one with another is necessary, but each is shown to 
 be a direct deduction from the law. Not so in this theory of 
 development. The very soul of this theory is the possibility 
 of showing a relationship between the phenomena them- 
 selves. Here is their great difficulty ; and I think we 
 cannot but see, in reading Professor Huxley's address to the 
 Geological Society, just referred to, where he dwelt upon 
 this subject, and attempted (in the case of the horse) to 
 connect phenomena with each other, how the controlling 
 idea of his assumed law influences his decisions where facts 
 alone ought to have satisfied him. There are many facts in 
 his interesting address, but many bridges created by his 
 magic wand, like castles in the air, to connect the facts 
 together, which vanish upon a touch, and leave the hard 
 facts as isolated as before. The untiring research upon 
 these topics which able arid industrious men are engaged in, 
 is adding vastly to our knowledge. This knowledge, which 
 we owe to their diligence, is not lost, although their specula- 
 tions may be groundless.* The late Mr. Hopkins has well 
 remarked, that we sometimes meet with ' the union of great 
 acuteness of observation and large views in the grouping 
 and classification of natural objects and phenomena, with 
 the want of that judicial power by which a man is enabled 
 to estimate the true weight of the evidence laid before him 
 and the degree of confidence with which it ought to inspire 
 him.'t 
 
 But now, regarding the source from which life comes. 
 
 * ' If they [the theoretical view.s of the ' Origin of Species '1 were 
 disproved to morrow, the book would still be the best of its kind — 
 the most compendious statement of well-sifted facts bearing on the 
 doctrine of species that has ever appeared.' — Huxley's Lay Sermons, 
 c6c.,p. 327. 
 
 t See two admirable papers in Eraser's Magazine, June and July 
 1860, by Mr. W. Hopkins, on ' Physical Theories of the Phenomena 
 of Life' — a careful perusal of which I earnestly commend to all inexact 
 speculatLsts. 
 
 Q 
 
226 EEFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 Mr. Darwin traces life itself, in his first monad, up to the 
 Origin of Life : Almighty as the direct bestower of it. Not so 
 its Source. Professor Huxley. He has no doubt distinctly 
 avowed, in his recent Address as President of the British 
 Association at Liverpool, that observation and experiment 
 fail to detect any other source of life in things now brought 
 into existence than previously existing living things. Omne 
 vivum ex vivo, — a principle which he traces to the Italian 
 naturalist, Francesco Kedi, of the seventeenth century, — he 
 maintains is a principle which facts teach us now on the 
 origin of life. But he nevertheless, in the same address, 
 declares his philosophic ' expectation,' * that had he seen 
 the earth when passing through its earliest physical and 
 chemical conditions, previous to all geological time, he would 
 have witnessed 'the evolution of living protoplasm from not 
 living matter.' Nor does he appear to give up all hope of 
 this evolution being witnessed at some future time. He 
 retracts nothing, in fact, from the statement he has made on 
 this theory of evolution in his previously-published works. 
 The speculations therein unfolded have led him to these 
 conclusions : that a certain substance, which he calls pro- 
 toplasm, lies at the basis of all vegetable and animal life ; 
 he calls it the ' matter of life : ' that plants and animals 
 present this difference ; plants can manufacture fresh proto- 
 plasm out of mineral compounds ; whereas animals are 
 obliged to procure it ready made, and hence, in the long 
 run, depend upon plants : that protoplasm contains the four 
 elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, in very 
 
 * He calls it also 'an act of philosophic faith,' confounding ex- 
 pectation with faith, which is belief on testimony, the very thing which 
 is here altogether wanting. Bishop Pearson has long ago told us that 
 belief rests upon three distinct grounds, and has accordingly three dis- 
 tinct names. I may believe, because I know ; that is science : or 
 because of the balance of probabilities ; that is opinion : or because I 
 am told ; that is faith. 
 
KBUAKUIJNU THB ORIGIN, OB HOURCB, OF LIFE. 227 
 
 complex union, viz., as carbonic acid, water, and ammonia : 
 that as hydrogen and oxygen, after an electric spark passes 
 through them when mixed in certain proportions, become 
 water, an apparently new substance with certain properties ; 
 so the four elements mentioned above, when brought 
 together in certain proportions and under certain circum- 
 stances (what these circumstances are is the question), 
 produce protoplasm, which, as the case may be, exhibits all 
 the phenomena of vegetable or animal life : and that as we 
 do not attribute the properties which water manifests to a 
 principle, which, for the sake of a name, might be called 
 ' aquosity,' no more are we at liberty to attribute the pro- 
 perties whicli protoplasm manifests to a principle which we 
 call ' vitality : ' and he comes to this conclusion, that all vital 
 action may be said to be the result of the molecular forces 
 of the protoplasm- which displays it.' And in addressing his 
 audience, he adds, ' If so, it must be true, in the same sense, 
 and to the same extent, that the thoughts to which I am 
 now giving utterance, and your thoughts regarding them, 
 are the expression of molecular changes in that matter of 
 life which is the source of other vital phenomena.'* How 
 this differs from materialism I find it' impossible to see. 
 And yet the author adds, ' I am no materialist, bat, on the 
 contrary, believe materialism to involve grave philosophical 
 error.'t At any rate, whatever name he may choose to 
 give to his protoplasmic idea, there is a very obvious 
 difference between the results of his ingenious principle 
 ' aquosity,' and of our old-fashioned principle ' vitality.' In 
 the first place, the parallel does not hold. Had the ugly 
 word ' protoplasmity ' been used, and not ' vitality,' the case 
 would have been different. The new word ' aquosity ' is a 
 mere synonym, derived from Latin, of what belongs to 
 
 * Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, by Professor Huxley, VII. 
 ' On the Physical Basis of Life,' pp. 132, 138, 143, 149, 150, 152. 
 t Ibid. p. 152. 
 
228 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 water : it means the properties* of water, and is therefore 
 necessarily associated with water. But 'vitality' is not 
 necessarily associated with protoplasm, as Professor Huxley 
 admits that there is dead protoplasm as well as living. The 
 very fact that protoplasm can exist in the two states, alive 
 and dead, is a sufficient proof that there is some such 
 principle as ' vitality,' or life, which is separable from proto- 
 plasm, and is not an essential property of it. Again : though 
 water and protoplasm have this in common, that, the 
 elements which go to form them must be acted upon by an 
 external agent, and will not unite when merely placed 
 together ; though they have no inherent power of forming 
 either water or protoplasm of themselves ; yet how widely 
 different are the agents and the results they bring about. 
 When hydrogen and oxygen are united by the electric spark, 
 the product water remains water for ever ; till a change 
 takes place in its temperature, when it may become steam or 
 ice in any of its forms ; and will return to water when the 
 temperature is again altered. But how different is the effect 
 of ' vitality ' in forming protoplasm out of the ' lifeless ' 
 elements.t It builds up from it plants and animals, which 
 are not stationary, like water, but are ever growing and 
 enlarging, and throwing out varied forms. Once more. In 
 none of the states which water assumes does its ' aquosity ' 
 give it the power of reproduction. But the products of living 
 protoplasm, endowed with this mysterious principle of 
 ' vitality,' do possess that remarkable power, a power which 
 ""t once indicates the presence of some principle totally 
 distinct from anything like mere aquosity, and which can 
 bear no analogy to it. It far transcends it, and, indeed, is 
 a principle of a totally different order, inasmuch as it is 
 
 * On the limited applicability of this term 'properties' to inanimate 
 matter, see a valuable article on ' TJie Physical Basis of Life' in the 
 Contemporary Review for June 1869, by Professor John Young, 
 t Lay aermons, (Ec, p. My. 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN, OR SOURCE, OF LIFE. 229 
 
 self-acting and leads to an endless line of beings of the same 
 kind, and increasing in numbers as successive generations 
 are produced. 
 
 What, then, do we learn from the remarkable revelations 
 which the microscope unfolds to our view ? No more than 
 this — what minute and (apparently) simple organisms it 
 has pleased Almighty God to bring under the influence of 
 life ! But, as to the source of this mysterious principle, 
 Science teaches us absolutely nothing, though it demonstrates 
 its existence. 
 
 Interesting as these investigations upon protoplasm are, 
 it must be remembered that it has long been known that all 
 material things, animate and inanimate, are composed of one 
 or more of certain definite elementary substances. The point 
 brought to light by these more recent discoveries is, which 
 of these elements are used ; and it is shown that the same 
 compound of these elements is at the basis of both the 
 animal and vegetable kingdoms. But, indebted as we are 
 to the naturalists who have demonstrated this to us, both 
 for their unwearied diligence and the skill applied in a 
 thousand ways for bringing these facts to light, I think that 
 there is great danger of our over-estimating the greatness, or 
 the extent, of the discoveries. This I say in no spirit of 
 disparagement whatever of what they have done. By this, 
 so to say, hacking and hewing and mangling of the delicate 
 textures of animal and vegetable beings it is discovered, 
 that, on reaching a certain way down, we come to the 
 same living material, protoplasm, out of which all organic 
 creatures, animal and vegetable, are built. Living plants 
 have the property of appropriating to themselves certain 
 lifeless chemical compounds and thus making protoplasm 
 and growing thereby ; which animals have not the power of 
 doing. They must eat vegetables, or other animals which 
 have been thus reared, or both, to maintain their existence. 
 This is a beautiful theory. But when we say animals and plants 
 
230 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 are thus built up of protoplasm, what does this building-up 
 mean 1 Certainly not the mere accumulation of heaps of 
 this living material. What can Science yet show regarding 
 the countless modes of action of the vital force upon pro- 
 toplasm, so as, in the vegetable kingdom, to produce all the 
 exquisite variety of forms and hues of flowers and trees, all 
 the countless specimens of delicious fruits ; and, in the 
 animal kingdom, the varied forms and descriptions of fish, 
 the beautiful plumage and song of birds, the elegance of the 
 antelope and the horse, the nobleness of the lion, the 
 grandeur and docility of the elephant, the face divine of 
 man, and all the marvels of his frame, 'fearfully and wonder- 
 fully made ? ' Absolutely nothing. If this discovery be 
 true, that protoplasm is a common basis of all living beings, 
 it nevertheless sinks into insignificance in presence of what 
 remains as yet uninterpreted and unintelligible, the inter- 
 minable and varied modes in which vitality acts in producing 
 all the beauty and variety of living objects out of the same 
 material. Of this, Science can teach us nothing whatever, 
 but can only collect and classify the results. 
 
 As to the origin and source of life, these investigations 
 throw no light upon the mysterious subject. It is unsatis- 
 factory to see an attempt made to carry the subject into the 
 dreamy region of metaphysics, and to confound matter and 
 mind. Professor Huxley, in his paper on the Physical Busts 
 of Life, says, 'Matter may be regarded as a form of thought, 
 thought may be regarded as a property of matter,' and so 
 hopes to justify in some way his hypothesis of the original 
 evolution of life, and even thought, out of lifeless materials ! 
 And Professor Tyndall, in a lecture at Liverpool, indulges 
 the hope, that not only the sun with its system, but that all 
 life, all intellect even, and genius, may at length be traced 
 to a primitive fiery cloud, from which all things animate and 
 inanimate, material and spiritual, have been developed by 
 evolution ! Surely these men have lost their guide, the 
 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN, OR SOURCE, OF LIFE. 231 
 
 reason God has endowed ttem with ; and, intoxicated with 
 the very partial knowledge their investigations have brought 
 to them out of the inexhaustible stores of which God's 
 creation is full, appear to dream that they could have 
 pointed out how the world should be created, and could 
 have laid out its laws, if they had had but the opportunity. 
 Eather than bewilder themselves in speculations utterly 
 beyond their grasp, they had better rest contented with the 
 truth contained in the well known witticism, and learn the 
 lesson it teaches of the uselessness, because hopelessness, of 
 getting beyond it : — •' What is matter ? Nevermind. What 
 is mind? No matter.' In every line of investigation into 
 natural things, our only sure method is to seize upon and 
 demonstrate some intermediate fact, and from that as a 
 starting-point proceed both ways, if we can, along the line. 
 But we never can get to the beginning or the end of the 
 line. Thus, that every particle of matter attracts every 
 other particle of matter with a force varying as the mass of 
 the attracting particle and the inverse square of the distance 
 of the particles, is a fact in nature demonstrated now beyond 
 question. And, by starting from this fact, Newton explained 
 the complicated phenomena of the solar system. In the other 
 direction nothing whatever has yet been discovered. No 
 success whatever has been achieved in attempting to find 
 the cause of this law of gravitation. So in the investigation 
 of the phenomena of light, this is ascertained by innumerable 
 experiments to be a fact of nature beyond all dispute ; that 
 when a ray of light falls slanting upon the surface of a trans- 
 parent medium it is bent on entering it according to a fixed 
 and known law (called the law of the constant ratio of the 
 sines). From this fact we proceed by the help of geometry 
 (and other facts) to explain a large variety of phenomena, 
 and to calculate the necessary forms of optical instruments. 
 In this example, unlike the case of gravity, s'ome progress 
 has been made in the opposite direction. The phenomenon 
 
232 REFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 of light has been proved to be produced by the vibration of 
 a highly-elastic medium called ether. And (as is of course 
 necessary to the proof of the validity of this hypothesis) the 
 constant law of the sines referred to above is shovirn to be a 
 necessary consequence of the existence of this ether. Here, 
 then, we have been able to move some way in both directions 
 from our central fact. But the central fact is still an im- 
 movable rock. With regard, then, to this question as to 
 ' What is matter'?' we have a central fact from which we start, 
 and all the conclusions in one direction are indubitable 
 truths ; however cloudy, and even dark, the path may be, 
 and proves to be, in the other or opposite direction. When 
 I speak and reason about matter, I speak and reason upon 
 what I feel, smell, taste, hear, and see. And whatever 
 metaphysicians may say and dream, regarding these acts as 
 acts of consciousness — which is unfathoinably beyond their 
 research — the conclusions drawn in the opposite direction 
 regarding the phenomena of the physical world are altogether 
 unaffected. For the naturalist, therefore, to carry back his 
 statements and thoughts on natural things one step into the 
 dreamy regions of metaphysics, dreamy because utterly beyond 
 his depth, and where only his blind fancy and uninstructed 
 imagination are the guides he can follow, is the height of 
 imprudence. 
 
 If we give the reins to our fancy, we may be led into 
 every kind of absurdity. From the things Professor Huxley 
 has told us of protoplasm, we might, for instance, be tempted 
 to suppose, had we not facts before us to contradict such a 
 conclusion, that, as protoplasm is the material with which 
 our frames are built up, and as this protoplasm is produced 
 by vegetables OJily, and not by man or any other animal; 
 man is the oifspring of the vegetable kingdom, and there 
 would be a literal illustration of tho Scripture statement, 
 'All flesh is grass.' But happily, facts are on our side. We 
 all know, that it is only when protoplasm has been built up 
 
EEGARDING THE ORIGIN, OR SOURCE, OF LIFE. 233 
 
 in the form of men and women, that other men and women 
 can be produced, whatever speculative theory might say ; it 
 is only when protoplasm takes the form of tigers, that tigers 
 are produced ; or of sheep, that sheep are brought forth. If 
 all organic creatures are composed of this protoplasm in the 
 way which these researches are supposed to indicate, then 
 this is the inference we should draw : — How marvellously 
 has the Almighty framed the various parts of His beautiful 
 creation alter a plan, and according to design ; so that all 
 creatures which have the gift of propagating their kind 
 and perpetuating their race, however they may differ in 
 their mature state, are built up, as far as we can see, 
 from similar elements under the controlling action of a 
 mysterious principle which He has implanted — the principle 
 of 'life,' in both its kinds, animal and vegetable. As to the 
 origin of life nothing whatever is discovered. Hoio it was 
 communicated, when it was communicated : — regarding these 
 Science is equally ignorant. In the course of nature the 
 adult is necessary to the germ, and the germ to the adult ; 
 the tree to the seed, and the seed to the tree. In which of 
 these conditions life first took possession. Science is utterly 
 unable to inform us : and therefore it teaches nothing on 
 this subject contradictory to Scripture, which reveals to us 
 that God created grass, herbs, and trees ; fish, fowl, cattle, 
 creeping things, and Man, all after their kinds. That was the 
 commencement of life ; and Science can produce nothing 
 opposed to this. God endowed them with the gilt of repro- 
 duction, which perpetuates their species down to our own 
 time. The marvellous works of God are unfolded to our 
 view by Science. Scripture and Science are in no instance 
 proved to be at variance by any of the theories I have been 
 considering ; but the mischievous ease with which some men 
 can build up their hypotheses is painfully illustrated. What 
 indeed are hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and carbon, 
 but some of the materials of which the ground we tread upon 
 
23i REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 is made ? Science, then, in this instance bears its unequivocal 
 testimony to the truth of that ancient inspired declaration, 
 ' The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground ; and 
 breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man became 
 a living soul ' (Gen. ii. 7) : and the divine decree is perpetu- 
 ally receiving its fulfilment, ' In the sweat of thy face shalt 
 thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground : for out of 
 it wast thou taken : for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt 
 thou return' (Gen. iii. 19). All creation bears witness to 
 this ; tliat when the Almighty withdraws this principle of 
 Life even in things irrational and inanimate, they are resolved 
 into the dust of the ground ; and when He gives life, these 
 base materials assume the most beautiful forms. 'AH flesh 
 is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of 
 the field : the grass withereth, the flower fadeth : because 
 the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it : surely the people is 
 grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth : but the 
 Word of our God shall stand for ever.' (Isaiah xl. 6 — 8.) 
 ' Thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to 
 their dust. Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit, they are created, 
 and Thou renewest the face of the earth.' (Psalm civ. 
 29, 30).* 
 
 12. Another" illustration of Science, under the guidance 
 of unsound reasoners, appearing for a time, to some at least. 
 The Uniformity *■" ^® ^^ variance with Scripture, is seen in the 
 
 of Nature, controversy regarding the Uniformity of Nature. 
 It is the work of Science to gather together the phenomena 
 of the material world, and to deduce from them the laws by 
 which it is governed. The result has been the discovery, 
 that matter preserves its properties and laws with remark- 
 able uniformity. Not a single case of departure from this 
 uniformity has been detected during the whole period of 
 modern science. The consequence is, that some have formed 
 
 * I return to Professor Huxley's investigations in my 13th 
 example on Design. 
 
REGARDING THE UNIFORMITY OP NATURE. 235 
 
 the belief, that the course of nature is absolutely immutable ; 
 and that no amount of evidence can establish the fact of a 
 departure from this constancy. Any new extraordinary 
 phenomenon hitherto unexplained they would, under any 
 circumstances, attribute to the operation of some law not yet 
 known : so persuaded are they that the course of nature is 
 absolutely immutable. 
 
 ' In an age,' one writer says, ' of physical research like 
 the present, all highly-cultivated minds and duly-advanced 
 intellects have imbibed, more or less, the lessons of the 
 inductive philosophy, and have at least in some measure 
 learned to appreciate the grand foundation conception of 
 Universal Law — to recognise the impossibility even of any 
 tico mnterial atoms subsisting together without a determinate 
 relation — of any action of the one on the other, whether of 
 equilibrium or motion, without reference to a physical cause 
 ^of any modification whatsoever in the existing conditions 
 of material agents, unless through the invariable operation 
 of a series of eternally-impressed consequences, following in 
 some necessary chain of orderly connexion — however imper- 
 fectly known to us.' * ' The fact is,' another writes, ' that one 
 idea is now emerging into supremacy in science, a supremacy 
 •which it never possessed before, and for which it still has to 
 fight a battle ; and that is, the idea of law. . . . The steady 
 march of Science- has now reached the point when men are 
 ternpted, or rather compelled, to jump at once to a universal 
 conclusion ; all analogy points one way, and none another. 
 And the student of science is learning to look upon fixed laws 
 as universal.' But then follow these startling announce- 
 ments : — ' Many of the old arguments which science once 
 supplied to religion are in consequence rapidly disappearing. 
 How strikingly our view is altered from that of a few centu- 
 ries ago is shown by the fact, that the miracles recorded in 
 the Bible, which once were looked on as the bulwarks of the 
 * Essays and Reviews, p. 133. 
 
236 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 faith, are now felt by very many to be difficulties in their 
 way ; and commentators endeavour to represent them, not as 
 mere interferences with the laws of nature, but as the natural 
 action of still higher laws, belonging to a world whose 
 phenomena are only half revealed to us.' * 
 
 The late Mr. Buckle, too, in his History of Civilization, 
 advances the same views ; so much so as to state his belief 
 that moral actions even come under some inevitable law, over 
 which the actor has no control ! — a result he comes to solely 
 on statistical grounds, and those very imperfect, and utterly 
 inadequate to support such a monstrous conclusion, f 
 
 This school even goes so far as to ' reject the idea of 
 creation.' % If these be the teachings of Science, we have. 
 
 * Dr. Temple's Sermon at Oxford, before the British Association 
 for the Advancement of Science. 
 
 t ' Suicide,' he gathers from his supposed laws of necessity, ' is 
 merely the product of the general condition of society, and the indivi- 
 dual felon only carries into effect what is a necessary consequence of 
 preceding circumstances. In a given state of society, a certain number 
 of persons must put an end to their own life.' — (Vol. i. p. 26.) Again, 
 ' Such is some, and only some, of the evidence we now possess respecting 
 the regularity with which, in the same states of society, the same crimes 
 are necessarily reproduced.' — (p. 27.) ' Nor is it merely the crimes of 
 men which are marked by this uniformity of sequence. Even the 
 number of marriages annually contracted is determined, not by the 
 temper and wishes of individuals, but by large general facts, over which 
 individuals can exercise no general authority. It is now known that 
 marriages bear a fixed and definite relation to the price of corn ; and in 
 England the experience of a century has proved that, instead of having 
 any connexion with personal feelings, they are simply regulated by the 
 average earnings of a great mass of the people.' — (p. 29.) This last 
 illustration I have quoted, because I think it puts into our hands the 
 means of disproving this dangerous theory. If the number of lawful 
 marriages is pi oportional to the means of support — as the statistics are 
 said to show — does not this demonstrate rather that a moral principle 
 is at work, that jieople who live as they should and do not indulge in 
 unlawful coimexions,are driven by no law of necessity, but are influenced 
 by right motives ? To such extremes are the advocates of this theory 
 of the Supremacy of Law driven by their speculations. 
 
 t Essays and Reviews, p. 129. 
 
BEQARDING THE DNIFORMITT OF NATURE. 237 
 
 indeed a most signal instance of Science being at variance 
 with Scripture ; as Scripture declares that God created the 
 ■world and all things in it, and in the miracles of the Old and 
 New Testaments records many examples of departure from 
 the ordinary course of nature carried out by human agency, 
 though the events were superhuman and could proceed only 
 from divine power. But an examination of this apparent 
 discrepancy leads to the same result as before, that the teach- 
 ings of Scripture and Science, when properly considered, are 
 by no means at variance. 
 
 (1.) In the first place, Scripture testifies to the general 
 uniformity of nature as strongly as Science does. To mention 
 only one instance : the Almighty appeals to that uniformity 
 when assuring His people of his unfailing mercy. 'Thus 
 saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and. 
 the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by 
 night ; which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar ; 
 the Lord of Hosts is His name : If those ordinances depart 
 from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall 
 cease from being a nation before me for ever. ... If ye can 
 break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, 
 and that there should not be day and night in their season, 
 then may also my covenant be broken with David.' (Jer. 
 xxxi. 35, 36 ; xxxiii. 20, 21.) To this other examples might 
 be added.* 
 
 (2.) Ifext, Scripture and Observation equally teach us 
 that the physical world is not abandoned to the sole govern- 
 ment of physical laws ; but that moral and spiritual agency 
 has a considerable influence upon their operation. If the 
 world might be regarded as a complicated machine of merely 
 material agents, there might be some reason in the expecta- 
 tion that its movements should be fixed in an inflexible 
 succession. But such an idea the most zealous upholders of 
 
 * See also Gen. viii. 22 ; Ps. Ixxxix. 37, civ. 19-23, cxix. 89-91, 
 cxlviii. 1-6 ; Isa. liv. 9, 10. 
 
238 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 physical-law theories cannot maintain. Even human agency- 
 alone, as daily observation teaches, is continually breaking 
 ofi' the action of one law, and that abruptly, and calling into 
 operation another, which has hitherto remained unused, 
 though ready for action. Two men equally bent upon self- 
 destruction spring from a precipice. One, descending by the 
 law of gravity, is dashed to pieces on the rocks below ; the 
 other in his downward course — seized with terror, or arrested 
 by the voice of an imploring friend — grasps suddenly a sus- 
 pended rope which the other passed by unheeded. His fall 
 is checked ; and hand over hand he mounts, regains his 
 footing and is saved ! What has led to so marvellous a 
 difference in the issue, when in the commencement the 
 circumstances were so precisely alike? To a spectator the 
 process in either case, is seen to be the result of well-known 
 physical laws : gravitation causing the descent ; collision on 
 the rook, death ; the mechanism of the hand, the grasp ; 
 friction, the steady hold ; the tension of the rope, the sus- 
 taining force ; the muscular action of the arms, the re-ascent. 
 The answer is this : — in the latter case a new element is 
 introduced. Mino is suddenly brought into operation ; and 
 laws, ready for use, but not yet in action, are brought into 
 play at a moment's call. We see this in all the events of 
 life. Two men lie sick of the same deadly malady. The one 
 abandons himself to the uninterrupted action of its physical 
 laws, and dies ; the other, prevailed upon by entreaty, calls 
 in the physician, who brings other laws to bear, and the 
 patient lives. It is strange that the writer I have quoted 
 higher up from Essays and Reviews, seems to have made no 
 allowance whatever for this obvious and ever-acting source of 
 interruption to the unvarying operation of physical laws. In 
 quoting from Archbishop Trench the following passage : ' We 
 continually behold lower laws held in restraint by higher, 
 mechanic by dynamic, chemical by vital, physical by moral ' 
 — he objects that ' the meaning of moral laws controlling 
 
BEGARDING THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE. 239 
 
 physical is not very clear.'* But here, as my readers will 
 see, lies the gist of my argument and illustrations. 
 
 In the same way Scripture teaches us that the Almighty 
 in His providence is perpetually breaking off the action of 
 one law and bringing another into play, and often in answer 
 to prayer. When the Son of God Himself listened to the cry 
 of His disciples, ' Lord, save us, we perish ! ' and ' rebuked 
 the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm' (Matt, 
 viii. 25, 26), though this was no miracle, or event contrary 
 to the established course of nature, like the raising the dead 
 to life, or feeding the multitudes and sending them away 
 filled, with food sufficient only for a few men's repast — it was 
 an abrupt change in the order of nature which would not 
 have occurred but for His interposition : it was the audible 
 exhibition of what the Almighty is perpetually doing, in 
 ordering all things as it pleases Him, and often in answer to 
 the supplications of His people. In this way the following 
 fallacious style of reasoning may be met. 'A miracle is 
 strictly defined,' Professor Tyndall says, 'as an invasion of 
 the law of the conservation of energy. To create or annihi- 
 late matter would be deemed on aU hands a miracle. The 
 creation or annihilation of energy would be equally a miracle 
 to those who understand the principle of conservation. Hence 
 arises the scepticism of scientific men when called upon to 
 join in national prayer for changes in the economy of nature. 
 Those who devise such prayers admit that the age of miracles 
 is past, and in the same breath they petition for the perform- 
 ance of miracles. They ask for fair weather and for rain ; 
 but they do not ask that water may flow up hill ; while the 
 man of science clearly sees that the granting of the one 
 petition would be just as much an infringement of the law of 
 conservation as the granting of the other. Holding bis law 
 to be permanent he prays for neither. But this does not 
 close his eyes to the fact, that while prayer is thus impotent 
 Essays and Reviews, p. 133. 
 
240 REFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 in external nature, it may react with beneficent power upon 
 the liuman mind. That prayer produces its effect, benign 
 or otherwise, upon him who prays is not only as indubitable 
 as the law of conservation itself, but will probably be found 
 to illustrate that law in its ultimate expansions. And if our 
 spiritual authorities eould only devise a form in which the 
 heart might express itself without putting the intellect to 
 shame, they might utilize a power which they now waste, 
 and make prayer, instead of a butt to the scorner, the potent 
 inner supplement of noble outward life.' * To this I would 
 reply, that, whether or not mechanical energy is now created 
 or annihilated, it is most certainly perpetually being diverted 
 into new channels by the mind and skill of man, so as to 
 produce results which would not otherwise have occurred. 
 The whole of this argument, and all arguments like it, are 
 baaed upon the tacit assumption, that the physical world is 
 abandoned to the sole operation of physical laws ; which is 
 absolutely false, as I show above. Such reasoning amounts 
 to banishing the Almighty from His own world ; for if the 
 mind of man has its influence upon the course of nature, how 
 much more may the Divine Mind have its influence, and that 
 in answer to prayer. If the Almighty ever since the creation 
 has seen good, for the benefit of His creatures, to govern the 
 world by constant laws, has He therefore left the world? 
 Cannot He call these laws into action or break off their action, 
 if man can do so in his way 1 And more than this, cannot 
 He even reverse their action if He sees right to do so, as in 
 raising the dead ? 
 
 In tliis connexion I may allude to the agency of angels, 
 as administrators of the Divine will in the present natural 
 world, as repeatedly taught us in Scripture. ' He maketh 
 his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.' (Ps. civ. 
 4.) Kingdoms are committed to the superintendence of 
 angels, as ' Michael the great prince,' and the angelic princes 
 * Fortnightly Review, December 1, 1865. 
 
EBGARDING THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE. 241 
 
 of Persia and Greece (Dan. x. 13, 20, 21 ; xii. 1) :* the natural 
 elements (Rev. viii. 7 — 12, &c. &c.), and individuals too (Matt, 
 xviii. 10), are committed to angels. The visitations of the 
 Almighty, whether in wrath or mercy, are often carried out 
 through the ministration of angels. We need but mention 
 the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. xix. 1 — 25) ; 
 the rebuke of Balaam (Num. xxii. 22) ; the destroying pesti- 
 lence in the days of David (1 Chron. xxi. 12 — 15) ; the de- 
 struction of Herod (Acts, xii. 23) ; the vials of God's wrath 
 (Rev. xvi. 1). Then, also, the relief of Hagar (Gen. xvi. 7) ; 
 the encouragement of Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 1, 2) ; the safety of 
 Daniel (Dan. vi. 22) ; the rescue of Peter (Acts, v. 19) ; 
 strength communicated from heaven to our suffering Re- 
 deemer (Luke, xxii. 43) — are all administered by these 
 messengers from the courts above. In most, if not all, of 
 these cases, the angelic agency manifests itself by the use of 
 the constituted laws of nature. When we maintain that the 
 Almighty for His own purposes can change the ordinary 
 course of nature, and has done it, when He has seen fit, in 
 miracles, we are not bound to assume that He actually 
 violates any of the law.s He has impressed upon the world, 
 material and spiritual ; but that He works by them in a 
 superhuman, but not necessarily supernatural, way. He can 
 create, and He can annihilate. He can do all things. But 
 He appears to rule by law. ' The language of Scripture,' 
 says the Duke of Argyll, ' nowhere draws, or seems even 
 conscious of, the distinction, which modern philosophy draws 
 so sharply between the natural and the supernatural. All 
 the operations of Ifature are spoken of as the operations of 
 the Divine Mind.'t His ways are oft past finding out, not 
 because He does not act by law, but because His use of law 
 is then superhuman. And thus it is in the ministry of angels. 
 
 * See also Deut. xxxii. 8 ; in the LXX. version of which the word 
 ' angels ' is found in the place of ' children of Israel.' 
 + Beign of Law, p. 31. 
 
 B 
 
242 EBPUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 ' Are tliey not all ministering spirits, seat forth to minister to 
 the heirs of salvation T (Heb. i, 14.) What a cold and 
 dreary world would this be to the servant of God, if it were 
 subject solely to the blind action of physical laws ! a marvel- 
 lous exhibition of mechanism ; but a world without life or 
 generous impulses, without invention, mind, or genius. How 
 does the heart expand to the Scripture view of the spiritual 
 agencies at work, pervading the universe, using all the laws 
 with which it is endowed to carry out the Divine commands ! 
 ' The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands 
 of angels' (Ps. Ixviii. 17). ' His angels excel in strength, 
 they do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his 
 word ' (Ps. ciii. 20). ' They encamp round about them that 
 fear him ' (Ps. xxxiv. 7). ' He giveth his angels charge over 
 them, to keep them in all their way.s ' (Ps. xoi. 11).* 
 
 (3.) Lastly : as Scripture never speaks of the order of 
 nature as self-maintaining or absolutely immutable, but as 
 subsisting and upheld by the Divine power (Col. i. 17 ; Heb. 
 i. 3), and also as subject to change from its ordinary course 
 in miracles when it seems good to the Divine will ; t so 
 
 * Mr. Lecky, in the first volume of his History of BationoMsm in 
 Europe, in exposing certain extravagantviews on tins subject held in the 
 middle ages, seems to me, pendulum-like, to go to the opposite extreme, 
 and not to give proper weight to Scripture evidence. So also, in justly 
 calling in question modern miracles, he uses the language of scepticism, 
 though probably not expressive of his own mind, and seems to overlook 
 the evidence for the miracles recorded in the Holy Scriptures. He gives, 
 or at any rate alludes to, the loose reasoning of infidels on the subject, 
 and does not, as he might have done in few words, give the antidote. 
 
 t How beautiful is the language of that great Christian philosopher, 
 Dr. Chalmers, as he expatiates upon the constancy of nature's laws. 
 The constancy of Nature demonstrates the Faithfulness of God, and 
 not that the world is independent of Him : — 
 
 ' In every human understanding He hath planted a universal instinct, 
 by which all are led to believe that Nature will persevere in her wonted 
 courses, and that each succession of cause and effect, which has been 
 observed by us in the time that is past, will, while the world exists, be 
 
KJSUAKIJINO THE UNIFORMITY OF NATUEE. 243 
 
 Science, on the other hand, demonstrates nothing contrary to 
 this, although this school of theorists assumes that it does. 
 The presumption that Nature is uniform in its course is hased, 
 not upon any abstract ideas regarding natural laws, but solely 
 on experience ; and that experience is grounded upon the 
 combined testimony of observers and experimenters. All, 
 therefore, that Science teaches us is, that within the wide 
 range of modern investigation no departure from uniformity 
 has been detected. No doubt a correspondingly strong argu- 
 ment flows from this against the probability of any departure 
 ever taking place ; unless it appear that other facts, equally 
 supported by testimony, can be produced which show the 
 contrary. These facts do exist ; and the Scriptures, and the 
 great body of the Christian evidences which encompass the 
 sacred volume, testify to them. The theory of evidence is as 
 much a branch of science as the theories of physics ; and it 
 is a matter of demonstration, that the kind of testimony on 
 which the Scripture statements rest is as sure a ground of 
 belief, as that on which the discovery of the uniformity of 
 nature rests. Nothing, therefore, which physical science has 
 
 kept up invariably, and recur in the very same order through the time 
 that is to come. This constancy, then, is as good as a promise that 
 He has made unto all men ; and aU that is around us, on earth or in 
 heaven, proves how inflexibly the promise is adhered to. The chemist 
 in his laboratory, as he questions Nature, may be almost said to put 
 her to the torture ; when tried in his hottest furnace, or probed by his 
 searching analysis to her innermost arcana, she, by a spark or an explo- 
 sion, or an eflFervescence, or an evolving substance, makes her distinct 
 replies to his investigations. And he repeats her answer to all hia 
 fellows in philosophy, and they meet in academic state and judgment 
 to reiterate the question, and in every quarter of the globe her answer 
 is the same : so that, let the experiment, though a thousand times 
 repeated, only be alike in all its circumstances, the result which oometh 
 forth is as rigidly alike, without deficiency, and without deviation. We 
 know how possible it is for these worshippers at the footstool of science 
 to make a divinity of matter ; and that every new discovery of her 
 secrets should only rivet them more devotedly to her throne. But 
 
2ii MIRACLES NOT INCREniBLE. 
 
 taught us, regarding the action of the laws of nature within 
 the range of its observation, can disprove what Scripture 
 testifies regarding a period which did not come within that 
 range. 
 
 Thus Scripture and Science lead us to the same conclusion 
 in these points : they both testify to the general uniformity 
 of nature ; they both teach us that the world is not abandoned 
 to the unbroken effect of natural laws, but that the inter- 
 position of moral agency repeatedly causes the effect of one 
 law to cease, and that of another to commence abruptly ; and 
 they agree also in this, that whereas Scrip)ture represents the 
 course of nature to be perpetually dependent upon the 
 Divine power, and as 'subject to change in miracles, whenever 
 it seems good to the Divine will, physical Science demon- 
 strates nothing contrary to these : in short, the science of 
 evidence establishes the latter. 
 
 Difficult as som.e sceptically-inclined minds find it to 
 
 believe in any change in the uniform course of nature, there 
 
 is nothing in itself incredible in the thought, 
 
 Miracles ° " 
 
 not which Scripture presents to us, that the Al- 
 mighty should show His power, and thus accredit 
 His messengers, by occasionally, as He sees needful, using in 
 a superhuman way one or more of the laws which He has 
 impressed on the material world. The possibility of this can 
 
 there is a God who liveth and sitteth there, and these unvarying 
 responses of nature are all prompted by Himself, and are but the 
 utterances of His immutability. They are the replies of a God who 
 never changes, and who hath adapted the whole materialism of creation 
 to the constitution of every mind that He hath sent forth upon it. 
 And to meet the expectation which He Himself hath given of nature's 
 constancy, is He at each successive instant of time vigilant and ready, 
 in every part of His vast dominions, to hold out to the eye of all 
 observers the perpetual and unfailing demonstration of it. The certain - 
 ties of nature and of science are, in fact, the vocables by which God 
 announces His truth to the world ; and when told how impossible 
 it is that nature can fluctuate, we are only told how impossible it is that 
 the God of nature can deceive us.'— Chalmers's Works, vol. vii. p. 212. 
 
MIRACLES NOT INCREDIBLE. 245 
 
 be denied only by denying the Divine Omnipotence. It is 
 the assumed absence of this Almighty interposition, and the 
 immutability of the course of nature thence inferred, which 
 leads some men virtually to shut out God from free action 
 in His own world. This is undoubtedly the tendency of the 
 remarks of both the authors I have quoted at pages 235, 236. 
 One of them, in speaking of the ' grand foundation conception 
 of universal law,' asserts ' the impossibility ... of any modi- 
 fication whatsoever in the existing conditions of material 
 agents, unless through the invariable operation of a series of 
 eternally impressed consequences, following in some necessary 
 chain of orderly connexion, however imperfectly known to us j ' 
 shutting out the interposition of the Almighty altogether. 
 And the other states, that ' the student of science is learning 
 to look upon fixed laws as universal,' and that, as a conse- 
 quence of this, ' miracles are felt by very many to be difficul- 
 ties in their way.' 
 
 I would, moreover, observe, that both of these writers 
 carry our thoughts outwards to a region beyond the limits of 
 human observation. One speaks of 'eternally impressed 
 consequences ; ' leading us back into eternity past, as a 
 source from which present phenomena take their rise. The 
 other refers to 'higher laws,' beyond the region of human 
 observation ; and so carries us into the mysterious laby- 
 rinths of the unknown. Now when we speak of a miracle, 
 we do not mean an event which has not been pre-ordained in 
 the scheme of the Divine government of the world, but an 
 event which is clearly contrary to the -ordinary course of 
 nature as observed by us. If we could take within the 
 compass of our thoughts the whole order of things, material 
 and spiritual, in heaven and in earth, and all their successive 
 changes in past and future time, including what we call 
 miraculous as well as ordinary events, and were to look upon 
 this as the ordained law of the universe, no doubt no 
 departure from law in this sense could ever take place. For 
 
246 MIRACLES NOT INCREDIBLE. 
 
 this is the complete expi-ession of the will of Him. who rules 
 all things after His own pleasure, and to whom past, present, 
 and future, are all one. But this is an idea of law which 
 no finite being can ever grasp ; it is altogether an un- 
 practical idea, which can never serve as a guide to the student 
 of science, or to any other mortal. Law, in this compre- 
 hensive view of it, is altogether heyond our knowledge and 
 observation. It is only those few and partial laws, parts 
 only of the universal order of things, which we are prac- 
 tically concerned with. ' These are but parts of his ways,' 
 only ' a little portion of him : ' ' but the thunder of his power 
 who can understand?' (Job, xxvi. 14.) It is in these partial 
 laws that that uniformity is discerned, which is borne testi- 
 mony to by both Scripture and Science. And it is the know- 
 ledge of this general uniformity which puts it in our power 
 to pronounce, whether any event is miraculous or not ; for a 
 miracle is such, only because it is a departure from this 
 ascertained constancy of the course of nature. It is, there- 
 fore, a wrong conclusion to draw from this general uni- 
 formity, that under no circumstances can an extraordinary 
 departure from it occur. This would be simply reasoning 
 in a circle. The occurrence of suoh a departure is a matter 
 of testimony, and not of speculation. It is, then, a begging 
 of the whole question, to say that miracles are impossible, 
 and, in the face of evidence the other way, to base the assertion 
 on the uniformity observed in that part of nature which we 
 have examined. A well-attested miracle can be no real 
 ' difficulty in the way ' of the student of science, unless he 
 banishes from his mind all idea of the presence and power 
 of the Almighty in the world. The miracle is, in fact, a 
 special manifestation of God's power and presence ; and to 
 attribute it to the 'natural action of still higher laws,' is 
 only an unsuccessful attempt at escaping from that con- 
 clusion. For, in the whole range of scientific investigation, 
 no law has ever been discovered, nor anything analogaus. to 
 
PROSPECTS OF SCIENCE SOMETIMES OVER-ESTIMATED. 247 
 
 it, which would of itself abruptly interfere with the action of 
 another law, in the way that miracles interrupt for a time 
 the ordinary course of nature. All analogy teaches us, that 
 such could take place only by the intervention of moral or 
 spiritual agency — the very thing I am here contending for. 
 The diificulty of miracles, as opposed to the belief in the 
 uniformity of nature, lies only in the contracted view which 
 those take who would fain exclude the Almighty from His 
 own world, and deify the laws by which He has been pleased 
 ordinarily to act. 
 
 I cannot close these remarks without observing, that, with 
 all our progress in scientific investigation and discovery, the 
 real advance which we have made is but a single prospects of 
 step compared with the boundless expanse which ^tiSeTovM-^' 
 lies before us. The time will never come for us estimated, 
 to speak thus proudly of our position. ' It may be indeed,' 
 says Dr. Temple, 'that the scientific student is every day 
 less and less driven to confession of the narrowness of his 
 knowledge ; he has less occasion for the humility which once 
 allowed vast realms of nature to lie out of the domain of 
 science, and was wont to say, when bafiled, " Here human 
 powers can go no further, this knowledge God has reserved 
 for Himself" On the contrary, he is now inclined to think 
 that, if only time enough be given, there seems to be no 
 kind of phenomenon under the sun which patient study will 
 not bring within the range of science.' * In reply to this, I 
 would say, that it is notoriously the experience of the pro- 
 foundest philosophers, that the further their investigations 
 are carried the more do unsolved phenomena rise up before 
 them : the deeper their research into the mysteries of nature 
 and the wider the extent of their discoveries, the more do 
 they realize the utter hopelessness of their ever finding any 
 limit to the field of their investigations. The more la 
 philosopher knows, the more is he satisfied that the field is 
 * Sermon before the British Association. 
 
248 PEOSPECTS OF SCIENCE SOMETIMES OVER-ESTIMATED. 
 
 infinite in extent ; and not only do new facts rise up 
 in every direction, but new wonders. His investigations, 
 limited as they are, and ever must be, bring this advantage ; 
 in what he has explored he traces the footsteps of the 
 Supreme Intelligence. He sees them in the order, harmony, 
 adaptation, and beauty, which characterize what he does 
 know of His works ; but he is no nearer to the First Great 
 Cause Himself. He learns a lesson, as he advances, of 
 increasing humility — he knows more of the majesty and 
 infinity of the Creator the further he penetrates ; but is 
 convinced that, whatever wonders may be unfolded to his 
 admiring gaze, regions illimitable lie beyond. It is not that 
 he feels his impotency in having no power to ' alter one law,' 
 ' to create or to annihilate ' one atom of matter ; he is 
 far from having reached such an eminence as to have no 
 other calls to humility but these. He is still surrounded by 
 phenomena innumerable, whatever progress he has made, 
 which indicate laws within laws, and laws beyond them in 
 endless succession. And to conceive that he will ever 
 attain to such a knowledge of law as to comprehend all the 
 courses of nature ; that he will, as it were, be able to predict 
 the ways of God by having unravelled the mysteries of those 
 inexorable laws by which He is, as this theory of law seems 
 to assert, inevitably bound — is a thought, the possession of 
 which would deprive him of every claim to the title of 
 philosopher. 
 
 There are but few laws in the physical world which have 
 been discovered and demonstrated. Phenomena innumer- 
 able have been observed and recorded and arranged in 
 classes ; many, at first thought independent, have been 
 grouped together as evidently flowing from the same causes ; 
 but those causes are rarely known or understood. Laws, or 
 rather properties of matter under various circumstances, 
 have been partially and empirically made out; but few 
 laws, properly so called, have been demonstrated. Of these 
 
PROGRESS OF SCIENCE OONPIBMS MIRACLES. 249 
 
 the most comprehensive and conclusively established is the 
 Law of Universal Gravitation. But as to the physical cause 
 of this law, we are utterly at a loss to suggest even a 
 conjecture ! What can be the connexion between an atom 
 in the sun and an atom of this earth 1 and yet, according to 
 the Law of Universal Gravitation, they attract each other 
 even through all intervening matter, and that with precisely 
 the same force as if that matter did not intervene. Innu- 
 merable phenomena in light, and of great variety and 
 beauty, can be explained upon the hypothesis that light is 
 caused by the vibratory impulse upon the retina of an elastic 
 medium pervading space. The Undulatory Theory of Light 
 may, therefore, be considered to be one of those few laws 
 which have been proved to be laws of nature. But there 
 are many questions unsolved regarding the constitution and 
 properties of this medium. And so is it in every department 
 of science. The few laws we have determined are compre- 
 hensive facts, discovered empirically and considered to be 
 true, only because of the multitude of cases they wiU group 
 without any material opposing circumstance. They are our 
 fixed points, upon which we can stand in security, while, 
 however, we are surrounded by a restless ocean of unsettled 
 questions and undetermined phenomena to which there is no 
 limit, and never will be. 
 
 Dean Mansel has advanced an argument against these 
 theories which is so effective, that I cannot abstain from 
 transferring it to my pages. In reply to the progress of 
 boast that 'the inevitable progress of research „o^j^atory 
 must, within a longer or shorter period, unravel oi Miracles. 
 all that seems most marvellous,' he remarks in reference to 
 miracles, 'that the fact of a work being done by human 
 agency places it, as regards the future progress of science, in 
 a totally different class from mere physical phenomena. 
 The appearance of a comet, or the fall of an aerolite, may be 
 reduced by the advance of science from a supposed supernatural 
 
250 PROGRESS OF SCIENCE CONFIRMS MIRACLES. 
 
 to a natural occurrence ; and this reduction furnishes a 
 reasonable presumption that other phenomena of a like 
 cimracter will in time meet with a like explanation. But the 
 reverse is the case with respect to those phenomena which 
 are narrated as having heen produced by personal agency. 
 In proportion as the science of to-day surpasses that of 
 former generations, so is the improbability that any man 
 could have done in past times, by natural means, works 
 which no skill of the present age is able to imitate.' * The 
 progress of science, therefore, so far from encouraging any 
 hopes of our being hereafter able to account for miracles upon 
 physical principles, only enhances their miraculous character. 
 No more effectual blow could be given to their whole argument. 
 There is an air of assumed superiority in the manner in 
 which these views, of the supremacy of law, at the expense of 
 miracles, have been put forth. But we may feel support in 
 the fact, that not one of our first-class philosophers has ever 
 advocated these views ; and that the prince of philosophers — 
 who, from the vastness of his intellect and the power of 
 penetration into the secrets of nature which he possessed, 
 would be under a stronger temptation than any other man 
 to set up this hope in prospect, if there were any real 
 foundation for it — has given his decisive verdict the other 
 way, and has described the Deity as ' secundum leges 
 accuratas constanter co-operans, nisi uhi aliter agere bonum 
 est;' that is, as acting according to exact laws, except when 
 it is good to act othenoise. 
 
 13. Another illustration of my argument may be drawn 
 
 from the objections which have of late years been brought 
 
 against the manifestations of Design in the works of 
 
 creation, on which the Doctrine of Final Causes is 
 
 based. Scripture teaches us plainly that God has had a 
 
 * Aids to Faith, p. U. See also the Duke of Argyll's Eeigii 
 of Law, chap, i., on the difference between the ' supernatural' and 
 ' superhuman.' 
 
DESIGN VISIBLE IN THE WORKS OF GOD. 251 
 
 purpose in all His works. This is one of the lessons tanght 
 Tis in the brief space of the First Chapter of Genesis. We 
 see it in the very framework of the chapter. Every day's 
 work is pronounced to be ' good,' and that of the sixth to be 
 ' very good ' (i. 31) j which evidently means good for the 
 purpose for which each day's work was performed. And 
 more than this, it is said, 'God made the beast of the 
 earth after his land, and cattle after their Jcind, and every 
 thing that creepeth upon the earth. afteT Ms 7ci7id' (Gen. i. 
 25) ; and so of the grass, and the herb, and the tree. 
 Design is stamped upon the whole transaction. In one or 
 two instances also it is distinctly stated what the end in 
 view was. The two great lights, or light-holders, were made 
 in order ' to divide the day from the night ; ' 'for signs, and 
 for seasons, and for days, and years ; ' ' to give light upon 
 the earth ; ' ' the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser 
 light to rule the night' (i. 14 — 16). He made also herbs 
 and trees for the use of man, and other living creatures 
 (i. 29, 30). And in the next chapter we are told why woman 
 was created; viz. to be a 'help-meet' and companion of man 
 (i. 18 — 24). So that from the very beginning Design is 
 prominent, when God described His own works. ' He 
 created not the earth in vain ] He formed it to be inhabited ' 
 (Isa. xlv. 18). 
 
 The whole of Mr. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, 
 which I have already considered, is opposed to this view. 
 He regards all plants and animals as having been pro- 
 gressively developed by accidental changes from previous 
 forms, and all originally from one form ; and this theory lie 
 holds without one example, either in the existing or the 
 fossil world, of a plant or an animal having descended from 
 any but progenitors of its own species.* Whereas all sound 
 
 * Even Professor Huxley, Mr. Darwin's strenuous advocate, is 
 obliged to confess this. ' After much eonsideration,' he writes, ' and 
 with assuredly no bias against Mr, Darwin's views, it is our clear 
 
252 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 naturalists have held, that 'the power and wisdom of the 
 Creator designed and made organic beings for certain 
 objects ; and in the inimitable wisdom, skill, and beauty of 
 the contrivances by which this has been effected, we see 
 indisputable proofs of the high source of the general design.' 
 And in the immutability of species ' we see so clearly an 
 additional proof of the origin of the design, that we are 
 disposed to look on this law as the very sceptre of the 
 Creator — as visible evidence that the Supreme Intelligence 
 which invented all the varieties of life has resolved that the 
 original plan should be maintained in all its purity, and 
 that the boundary lines of separation should be perpetually 
 respected.' * 
 
 The views set forth by Mr. Darwin are the same as those 
 advocated by M. Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire in opposition to 
 Cuvier, though illustrated by a far larger amount of facts 
 than had then been accumulated ; put together, however, 
 with so many conjectures and assumptions as to make the 
 theory no more trustworthy than it was in Cuvier's time. 
 Cuvier enunciated his leading principle in the following 
 terms : — ' Zoology has a principle of reasoning which is 
 peculiar to it, and which it employs with advantage on 
 many occasions : this is the principle of the conditions of 
 existence, vulgarly called the principle oi final causes. As 
 nothing can exist if it do not combine all the conditions 
 which render its existence possible, the different parts of 
 each being must be co-ordinated in such a manner as to 
 
 conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven 
 that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species 
 in nature, has ev«r been originated by selection, whether artificial or 
 natural.' — Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, 1870, p. 323. 
 
 * See The Darwinian Theory of the Transmutation of Species 
 Examined, by a Graduate of the University of Cambridge, p. 37. 
 An excellent work, the writer of whdch is evidently well qualified for 
 the task. With a masterly common sense he detects the contradictions, 
 inconsistencies, and folly of the sytera. 
 
UJiSluIN VlBlBJji; IN THE WORKS OF GOD. 253 
 
 render the total being possible, not only in itself, but in its 
 relations to those which surround it ; and the analysis ol' 
 these conditions often leads to general laws, as clearly 
 demonstrated as those which result from calculation or from 
 experience.'* Dr. "Whewell shows that this principle, self- 
 evident as it appears to some, has been in the hands of 
 Cuvier an instrument of important discoveries. In the 
 Introduction to his great work on Fossil Remains he says, 
 ' Every organized being forms an entire system of its own, 
 all the parts of which mutually correspond, and concur to 
 produce a certain definite purpose by reciprocal reaction, or 
 by combining to the same end. Hence none of these 
 separate parts can change their forms, without a cor- 
 responding change in the other parts of the same animal ; 
 and consequently each of these parts, taken separately, 
 indicates aU the other parts to which it has belonged. 
 Thus, if the viscera of an animal are so organized as only to 
 be fitted for the digestion of recent flesh, it is also requisite 
 that the jaws should be so constructed as to fit them for 
 devouring prey ; the claws must be constructed for seizing 
 and tearing it in pieces ; the teeth for cutting and dividing 
 its flesh ; the entire system of the limbs or organs of motion 
 for pursuing and overtaking it ; and the organs of sense for 
 discovering it at a distance. Nature mu«t also have endowed 
 the brain of the animal with instincts sufficient for concealing 
 itself and for laying plans for catching its necessary victims.' 
 By such considerations Cuvier was able to reconstruct the 
 whole of many animals of which parts only were given ; ' a 
 positive result,' Dr. Whewell adds, ' which shows both the 
 reality and the value of the truth on which he wrought.' 
 This principle enabled him to classify animals in a way never 
 before effected ; and his immense knowledge and powers 
 of thought led him under its master-guidance to results, 
 
 * Quoted by Dr. Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences, vol. 
 iiL p. 472. 
 
254 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 the value of which, every naturalist knows. The opposite 
 hypothesis, that living things have attained their present 
 state by a hlind natural-selection without forethought or 
 design marking the hand of a Supreme Intelligence, is a 
 dream of the imagination, and will not stand scrutiny. The 
 school which advocates it, does indeed admit that Order and 
 Beauty prevail in what ive call created things, although they 
 attribute this to chance. 
 
 There is, however, another school which seems even to 
 deny this order and beauty ; and to say that there is nothing 
 whatever in the world and the arrangement of its parts to 
 indicate design. Comte and his followers, the school of 
 Positivists, assert this. They presumptuously repudiate 
 faith and revelation ; and profess to build only on absolute 
 knowledge, or science, and nothing else. According, then, 
 to the Positivists, as well as the followers of Mr. Darwin, 
 Scripture and Science are at variance in this idea of Design. 
 
 But it is not difficult to see where the fallacy in Comte's 
 reasoning lies. He cannot but acknowledge that there are 
 innumerable instances of fitness in the physical world of part 
 to part, and that also even within our own frames. The 
 uses of these adaptations are beyond question. But there 
 are countless instances in which we cannot discern the final 
 cause or object. There are those who lean to their own 
 conceits, and think they could have framed the world in 
 some respects better than God has made it. My readers 
 will remember that Bufibn ridiculed the idea of the sloth 
 being the work of a Supreme Intelligence, and called it a 
 mistake of nature. But comparative anatomy has since 
 shown how wonderfully adapted its structure is to its habits. 
 Laplace laughed at the idea of the moon having been made 
 to give light upon the earth by night, observing that if that 
 had been the purpose it would have been placed at such a 
 distance as always to be opposite the sun, and therefore 
 appear full all night and every night. But he omitted to 
 
V Li^l^OUCi Ix^ 
 
 1.I1C. WUKKS OF GOD. 255 
 
 state, that tliat distance would be so much greater than at 
 present as very considerably to diminish the amount of Kght 
 "we receive from the moon, even to l-30th of its present 
 quantity ; nor can we tell the benefits the earth derives from 
 a periodical cessation from light of both sun and moon-. An 
 article appeared not long ago entitled ' The Waste of Space,' 
 with an attempt to build up an argument against design ; 
 substituting ignorance for knowledge ; and really inferring 
 that because we do not know the use of space in all its 
 expanse, therefore it is useless and is wasted. So the 
 mistake of Comte was this most illogical step, viz., placing 
 in his argument the known and the unknown on the same 
 footing. If ten thousand cases of adaptation had been 
 discerned, and ten thousand other cases in which no adapta- 
 tion has yet been discovered, these would, in his mode of 
 reasoning, cancel the former and leave a perfect blank ! 'No 
 doubt we are often baffled in attempting to discern the uses 
 of some things in creation. In consequence of this want of 
 sagacity to trace the final cause in every instance, it has 
 been proposed to base the illustration of the workmanship of 
 the Divine Hand in the unity and beauty of plan, the 
 symmetry and order which we see prevailing in the works of 
 creation. Both indeed may be used, as far as each will carry 
 us ; and the positive knowledge they give is a certainty 
 which no amount of ignorance can cancel. And judging of 
 these works as we should judge of any human works, we 
 cannot, unless we wilfully blind our eyes, fail to see the 
 indications of supreme skill and intelligence. Thus all God's 
 works praise Him. Illustrations of this from Galen down to 
 Paley and many modern investigators are countless.* The 
 manifest proofs of design which the world exhibits show that 
 the God of the Scriptures is the Creator of the world and of 
 
 * See some striking examples in Mr. Darwin's book on the Fertili- 
 zation of Orchids, where design is seen in endless ways, though he 
 attributes it all to development. See also some equally striking 
 
256 REFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 all that is in it. Wherever we trace the manifestations of 
 design, there we have the indications of His workmanship. 
 This is positive knowledge. But if we fail to trace His hand 
 in other works and infer that He is not there, we betray our 
 forgetfulness that we are but finite creatures, and are not to 
 measure the divine works by our ignorance ; however much, 
 through His goodness, we may be able to unravel by success- 
 ful use of the powers He has given us. 
 
 But beyond this palpable fallacy in the reasoning of 
 Comte— a fallacy of which he would have been ashamed in 
 the ordinary affairs of life — an equal fallacy lies in the 
 theory of the universe which he adopted. He knew too 
 much of the wonderful structure of the world and all it 
 contains to believe that this beautiful system is the product 
 of chance. He knew too much of its real adaptations to 
 adopt the Epicurean doctrine. He attributes all that we see 
 to the action of law — of properties inherent in matter. And 
 so do we. But there he stops. We advance further. With 
 marked inconsistency he ventures thus far beyond his pre- 
 scribed limit of what he considers to be absolute knowledge, 
 and ventures upon an hypothesis, but will not advance. We 
 go a step further, and ask. Whence these properties ? And 
 reason is gratified with the thought, that here are the foot- 
 steps of a Supreme Intelligence. Here is much that is 
 inexplicable, though not necessarily contradictory. But 
 there is a vast field of positive knowledge, which at every 
 step confirms oar conviction that an Almighty Hand has 
 framed and fitted the universe, and seals the harmony 
 between Scripture and Science. 
 
 The assumption that these properties have not been 
 given to matter, but are really inherent — and, in fact, are 
 eternal — is simply gratuitous. These so-called philosophers 
 
 examples in the Duke of Argyll's Beign of Law. There is a remark- 
 able illustration of design in the structure of the kangaroo and its 
 young, given by Professor Owen in Phil. Tram. 1834. 
 
DESIGN VISIBLE IN THE WORKS OF GOD. 257 
 
 are like grown-up children still in the elements of knowledge, 
 and seem, through their wilful blindness, unable to take the 
 next and higher step in learning, which the facts around 
 them teach, as well as the Word of God. 
 
 It might be shown that their dependence on physical 
 fact alone is very hollow ; for mental and spiritual know- 
 ledge, supported by suitable evidence, is as true and sub- 
 stantial as any physical knowledge of the external world. 
 If this is ignored, and the evidences of revelation are de- 
 spised, of course men will lose themselves in the labyrinths of 
 their own folly and presumption ; they ' darken counsel by 
 words without knowledge,' and can be awakened from their 
 insensibility only by a visitation from on high, as ' the Lord 
 answered,' confounded, and humbled Job and his companions 
 'out of the whirlwind.' (Job, xxxviii. 1, 2.) 
 
 Professor Huxley's volume on Man's Place in Nature is a 
 treasury of facts which strikingly illustrate this part of my 
 subject, as I have already shown regarding his protoplasm- - 
 viz., that Design is to be traced throughout creation, though 
 this is not the use he makes of his own investigations. In a 
 most lucid manner he explains the results of recent phy- 
 siological research ; and tells us that most animals, and it 
 may in the end be shown that all animals : have their 
 beginning in an ovum, or egg : * That this egg, except the 
 bird's, is a minute object ; in the cases of dogs and men (the 
 examples he specifies), from il^^^ to j-j^th of an inch in 
 diameter : In its development it is long, he tells us,+ before 
 there is any perceptible distinction between the embryo of 
 the dog and of the human being ; and at the stage at which 
 a difference is discernible between them, there is none 
 between those of the ape and man. ' Exactly in those 
 respects in which the developing man differs from the dog, 
 he resembles the ape. ... It is only quite in the later 
 stages of development that the young human being presents 
 * Man's Place, 3rd ed. p. 60. t Ibid. p. 66. 
 
258 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 marked diflFerences from the young ape, while the latter 
 departs as much from the dog in its development, as man 
 does.' He then carries us through an interesting comparison 
 between man and some different kinds of apes in their adult 
 state, compearing them in their spinal column, their hack-hone, 
 ribs, pelvis, skull, teeth, extremities, hand and foot, brain. 
 The result is, ' that the structural dififerences which separate 
 Man from the Gorilla and the Chimpanzee are not so great 
 as those which separate the Gorilla from the lower apes.' * 
 Now, there are two conclusions to one of which this in- 
 vestigation, carried thus far, might lead us, had we no 
 other guide : viz., either that animals may all have had a 
 common origin, or that the Creator has been pleased to 
 follow a plan or type in bringing creatures into existence. 
 Wliioh does Professor Huxley take ? He tells us of ' the 
 great gulf which intervenes between the lowest man and the 
 highest ape in intellectual power :'t of 'the immeasurable 
 and practically infinite divergence of the Human from the 
 Simian Stirps.'J Again he says, 'No one is more strongly 
 convinced than T am of the vastness of the gulf between 
 civilized man and the brutes ; or is more certain that 
 whether from them or not, he is assuredly not o/them. No 
 one is less disposed to think lightly of the present dignity, 
 or despairingly of the future hopes, of the only consciously- 
 intelligent denizen of the world.' § Which side, then, of 
 the alternative does he choose 1 That which is really the 
 most illogical, and which also is in direct contradiction to 
 Scripture. Why the most illogical ? His conclusion, after 
 speaking of the ooum, is this : ' Startling as the last assertion 
 may be,' (that which I have quoted regarding the affinity of 
 man to the lower animals) ' it is demonstrably true ; ' and 
 he then adds, ' and it alone appears to me sufficient to place 
 beyond all doubt the structural unity of man witli the rest 
 
 * Man's Place, 3rd ed. p. 10-2. f Ibid. p. 103. 
 
 J Already quoted at p. 205, Note. § Man's Place, p. 110. 
 
DESIGN VISIBLE IN THE WORKS OP GOD. 259 
 
 of the animal ■world, and more particularly and closely with 
 the apes.'* And that we may not mistake his meaning, I 
 will quote further : ' If man he separated by no greater 
 structural barrier from the brutes than they are from one 
 another, then it seems to follow, that if aay process of 
 physical causation can be discovered by which the genera 
 and families of ordinary animals have been produced 
 (alluding to Mr. Darwin's theory), that process of causation 
 is amply sufficient to account for the Origin of Man.'t And 
 what does this rest upon ? The failure of his powers, and 
 of any man's powers, to discern any difference in the 
 earliest stages of development of the dog, the ape, and man, 
 especially of the last two. But does not the issue show him 
 that there is a difference, although its existence at first is 
 not discernible to our feeble faculties ? The ovum of the dog 
 becomes a dog ; that of an ape, an ape ; and of man, a man. 
 The ovum of a dog never becomes a man ; nor that of a man 
 an ape or a dog. This, his own chosen illustration of 
 development, should surely have convinced him of the 
 fallacy of any such theories. Apparently alike as in- 
 dividuals of different races are in their beginnings, so as 
 not to be distinguishable to man's perception, yet even those 
 individuals dev elope into things perfectly distinct, each after 
 his kind. Though the beginnings seem to be the same, the 
 individuals in their development never change from one to 
 the other ; and each preserves its own line, always unbroken. 
 It is marvellous how logic seems to fail men, often of great 
 research ! In the presence of this alternative — Design or 
 Common Origin — blinded by the obscurity • which hangs 
 over the earliest stages of life and growth, the speculator 
 forsakes his guide, the reason with which he is endowed, 
 takes a prodigious leap in the dark, and finds himself 
 landed in the theory he so desires to believe "true ; whereas 
 the more sober and steady philosopher views the whole from 
 * Man's Place, p. 67. t Ibid. p. 105. 
 
260 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 beginning to end ; uses the facts so industriously brought 
 together ; recognizes the similarity which runs through the 
 earliest growth and final structure of the animal world ; 
 sees, however, on the one hand, the ' immeasurable and 
 practically infinite ' distance between man and the nearest 
 to him of other creatures ; but, on the other, marks that in 
 mere structure he is nearer to the nearest than they are to 
 other animals ; and draws this conclusion, that Design is 
 eminently stamped upon creation ; and also that as man and 
 the animals nearest to him cannot possibly have had a com- 
 mon origin, because of the ' immeasurable and practically 
 infinite ' distance between them, so, as to other races of 
 animals, no satisfactory evidence can be drawn from similarity 
 of structure that they must have had a common origin, as it 
 has been proved that this cannot have been the case with 
 creatures nearer even than they are in this respect, namely, 
 man and the animals which most resemble him, but that 
 they are made upon a common plan, which circumstance is 
 one of the surest indications of Design. He rejoices in this 
 conclusion, for it agrees with Scripture, and one more 
 evidence is supplied, that impartial investigation will always 
 show that Scripture and Science are not at variance. 
 
 Before concluding this section I would observe, that 
 there is one effect of these views, which exclude or enfeeble 
 Use of the the perception of Design in God's works and 
 ■ Nature.' virtually deny that God is the Author of Creation, 
 against which all need to guard themselves ; as it has grown 
 very much into a habit, even among those who would shrink 
 from avowing such views as their own. I mean the habit of 
 personifying Nature, of in fact deifying Nature, of attributing 
 to Nature, and to nothing beyond Nature, the marvellous 
 phenomena which Science brings to light. A pantheistic 
 halo of glory is thrown around the works of God, and God 
 is forgotten or never mentioned. This reminds us of those 
 who ' became vain in their imaginations, and worshipped 
 
USB OP THE TERM 'NATURE.' 261 
 
 and served the creature rather than the Creator' (Rom. i. 
 21, 26). It may be attributed in some cases to an ill-placed 
 notion of reverence, shrinking from a too familiar mention of 
 the name of the Most High. M'ever should we take that 
 iN'ame upon our lips in vain. But this is no excuse for that 
 almost habitual exclusion, which you see in some writers 
 and speakers, of God Himself from the world He made and 
 perpetually upholds. How different is the temper of mind 
 which delights to acknowledge God in all His works, and to 
 remember, that He it is ' who maketh Arcturus, Orion, and 
 Pleiades, and the chambers of the south ; who doeth great 
 things past finding out ; yea, and wonders without number. 
 . . . He maketh small the drops of water ; and they pour 
 down rain, . . which the clouds do drop and distil upon man 
 abundantly. . . . The Lord hath His way in the whirlwind 
 and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet. 
 Thou makest the outgoing of the morning and evening to 
 rejoice. . . Thou visitest the earth and waterest it. . . Thou 
 preparest them corn. . . Thou crownest the year with thy 
 goodness, and thy paths drop fatness. . . Lord, how 
 manifold are thy works ! in wisdom hast Thou made them 
 all: the earth is full of thy riches.' (Job ix. 9, 10; xxxvi. 
 27, 28; Nah. i. 3; Ps. Ixv. 8—11; civ. 24.) 
 
 14 The last example which I shall adduce is in some 
 respects more remarkable than any of those which have 
 preceded : not, however, from the formidable Arithmetical 
 
 ■^ fvi 1 IT objections to the 
 
 nature of the diraculties advanced, it may Pentateuch. 
 be said that Dr. Golenso's arguments against the truth of 
 the Pentateuch are more philological than scientific, and 
 therefore hardly come within the scope of this treatise. 
 But as the argument of the first part turns almost entirely 
 upon arithmetical comparisons, and as his objections have 
 been widely made known, I willingly add the illustration 
 which they so abundantly afford of my leading principle. 
 (1.) In the enumeration -of the seventy persons of 
 
262 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 Jacob's family who went down into Egypt when Joseph was 
 governor, two grandsons of Judah are mentioned, who, Dr. 
 Colenso maintains, could not have been born at that time. 
 Various hypotheses have been framed to remove the 
 difficulty : but none of them satisfy him, and he accordingly 
 pronounces the Pentateuch to be a work devoid of historical 
 credit ! 
 
 In reply I would say, that the Pentateuch is not received 
 by us as true upon evidence of this kind. It is too ancient 
 a document to stand or fall by such tests. There is a wide 
 difference between obscurities and contradictions. Experience 
 teaches us how in some instances the discovery of an 
 apparently trivial fact will altogether change the complexion 
 of a narrative. The alteration, too, through copyists or 
 otherwise, of a single word, may, in places affected by it, 
 irremediably confuse the chronology without invalidating the 
 history in which it occurs. By the application, then, of such 
 tests, we may, perhaps, detect where obscurities lie, or where 
 error has crept in; but if we judge the document itself, 
 ancient as it is, by this arithmetical process, we may be led 
 to an utterly false conclusion, and shall be rejecting as 
 untrustworthy what is in reality truth. If it were asked. 
 What is the difference between this admission, that the effect 
 of iniscopying and of present ignorance may, in some few 
 instances, affect the reliability of a statement in Scripture, 
 and the notion that the writers were not so entirely inspired 
 as to preserve them from error of every kind? — I should 
 reply, that the difference is wide indeed. No doubt, in the 
 chain of communication between the Infinite God and 
 ourselves, the human element must come in somewhere ; but 
 it cannot require much thought to perceive, that error in 
 the mind of the original writers would lead to a far more 
 serious degree of uncertainty in their writings, than the 
 natural fallibility of careful copyists could introduce. 
 Error in the one case might be worked everywhere into 
 
ABITHMBTICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PENTATEUCH. 263 
 
 the texture of the writing, and lie unperceived ; whilst 
 mistakes in the other case, by their very abruptness, awaken 
 suspicion and lead to their detection in the few places where 
 they occur. 
 
 Dr. Colenso's first objection illustrates these remarks. It 
 presents, no doubt, a real difficulty, one which has long been 
 observed. In examining a document in which events and 
 dates incidentally mentioned hang together, and by various 
 undesigned coincidences bear testimony to its general truth- 
 fulness, but in which there is somewhere an omission of some 
 fact, or a miscopying of some word, a mathematician might 
 well employ himself in determining where, according to the 
 theory of probabilities, the source of difficulty most likely 
 lies. But whether he fail or succeed, to argue from the 
 existence of such a difficulty, that the original narrative is 
 not historically true, is a summary way of disposing of the 
 matter, which will not satisfy a philosophical mind.* For 
 testing the truthfulness of the original document and the 
 whole Pentateuch, I should not be at all anxious to clear up 
 such a difficulty ; though to free the received text of the 
 smallest errors and to elucidate obscure passages by a 
 reference to ancient history, manners, and customs, must 
 always be desirable. 
 
 One solution to the difficulty Dr. Colenso first propounds 
 is this : that though Hezron and Hamul, Judah's grandsons, 
 may have been born in Egypt, the fact of the death of Er 
 
 * Mr. Isaac Taylor says, ' A narrowness of view — a sideway of 
 blindness — right and left, has often been the misfortune of those who 
 have signalized their ability on single lines of mathematical science. 
 Very eminent minds have shown this want of breadth and grasp. 
 Such men may be mathematicians, but philosophers they are not ; 
 and so it is that the same quality which constitutes their eminence, 
 while they are on the single path which they tread, shows itself only 
 as pedantry whenever they step off that path. Men of this order are 
 peculiarly unfitted for conducting inquiries . of a mixed historic 
 kind.' — Considerations on the Pentateuch, p. 22. 
 
264 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 and Onan, his eldest sons, being recorded in close connexion 
 in the same verse with the introduction of these names 
 (Gen. xlvi. 12), is a clear intimation that Hezron and Hamul 
 "were taken as the representatives of their deceased and 
 childless uncles ; and the reason why they were singled out, 
 although other children were no doubt born in Egypt, is 
 that they were heads of families (see Num. xxvi. 21). Dr. 
 Colenso, in transcribing the verse in which Hezron and 
 Hamul are mentioned, has been guUty of a mistake which 
 he of all others should have avoided. He omits the small 
 but important ' were,' which is distinctly expressed in the 
 Hebrew as well as in our English translation; its intro- 
 duction, and the consequent change in the mode of bringing 
 these names into the genealogy, obviously confirms the 
 interpretation above adopted. 
 
 There is no difficulty in understanding why children, 
 though born in Egypt, should, when they were selected to 
 fill up a broken genealogy, be enumerated with those who 
 belonged to Canaan and came down into Egypt, if they were 
 the children of marriages contracted before leaving Canaan, 
 and were born while the exiled colony kept together in its 
 unity during the lifetime of its head. Jacob was seventeen 
 years in Egypt (Gen. xlvii. 28), which would allow sufficient 
 time for the birth of Hezron and Hamul. It is no valid 
 objection to this view, that the sacred writer expressly 
 states, that Joseph's sons were bom in Egypt ; for that 
 statement seems rather to point to the fact, that Joseph 
 their father did not belong, as the other sons of Jacob did, 
 to the colony which migrated into Egypt. Indeed, the 
 writer seems directly to recognuie the principle I have 
 advanced ; for although he explains that Joseph's children 
 were born in Egypt (xlvi. 20), he yet enumerates them (27) 
 among those who came into Egypt, no doubt because their 
 father came into Egypt, though at an earlier time. The 
 contradiction, if there really is one in the narrative, would 
 
ARITHMETICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PENTATEUCH. 265 
 
 be SO obvious, that there can be no doubt the language is 
 perfectly accordant -with the usage of the Jews in making up 
 tbeir genealogies, though we may not know precisely what 
 their usage was. 
 
 (2.) Dr. Colenso's next objection, that it was impossible 
 that ' all the congregation ' could be gathered at the ' door 
 of the tabernacle ' (Lev. viii. 3, 4) because it was too 
 numerous, may be summarUy dismissed, notwithstanding 
 his arithmetical calculations, with a reference to the text, 
 ' Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the 
 region round about Jordan' (Matt. iii. 5), as well as the 
 ordinary language of modern times. Nobody conceives that 
 every individual in those countries flocked to the Baptist, but 
 persons out of all parts of them. So persons representing all 
 the congregation, no doubt appeared before the tabernacle. 
 
 (3.) The third objection, that Moses and Joshua addressed 
 all Israel (Deut. i. 1 ; v. 1 ; Josh. viii. 34, 35), whereas, it is 
 impossible that so vast a number could have heard, is as 
 easily disposed of. Could not Moses and Joshua speak to 
 the people through the officers of their tribes 1 Does the 
 commander of a great army never address his troops, who 
 are too numerous to hear ? Is not his address read to them 
 at the head of their companies 1 
 
 (4.) The next objection is, that the dimensions of the 
 camp were so vast, that the priests could not possibly 
 perform the work assigned them of carrying out the refuse 
 of the sacrifices beyond the camp (Lev. iv. 11, 12), nor the 
 people perform their daily necessities as commanded (Deut. 
 xxiii. 12-14). The reply is, that the Hebrew word 'carry' 
 is in the causative form, and that the priests were to cause 
 to be carried out, that is, to send out, the refuse of the 
 sacrifices. Moreover, there is no reason for supposing that 
 the twelve encampments were not separated by wide spaces 
 or streets, which would be reckoned ' without the camp.' 
 This would at once diminish the distance to between one- 
 
266 KEFDTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 third and one-fourtli part of the estimate when the whole is 
 supposed to consist of one large square. 
 
 (5.) His next difficulty is, that the sum total of the males 
 of the whole congregation was identically the same at two 
 periods six months apart (Ex. xxxviii. 26 ; Num. i. 46) ; and 
 that as no census is mentioned the first time, but one is on 
 the second occasion, it looks as if the first is borrowed from 
 the second, and that this destroys the historical verity of 
 the whole. In reply it may be said, that though no census 
 is mentioned on the jfirst occasion, it does not follow that 
 none was made. Nor is it wonderful that the numbers 
 should be the same, especially as it is evident that they were 
 counted by fifties, the portions of the last fifty being 
 omitted or made up to fifty. Moreover, if the number 
 on the first occasion is altered by some copyist to conform 
 it to the second, it does not prove the unhistorical character 
 of the original Pentateuch. Again, why cannot we conceive 
 that the roll made on the first occasion was used on the 
 second to call the tribes over at their great gathering 1 
 
 (6.) Dr. Colenso's next difficulty about the number of 
 tents the Israelites would require and the beasts to carry 
 them, betrays an ignorance of Oriental habits. Ten or more 
 persons will sleep under a tent made of a single cloth, sup- 
 ported by a horizontal and two pairs of cross sticks, which 
 one of their number could carry on their march. 
 
 (7.) He next asks, how so great a multitude could pro- 
 cure their arms? (Ex. xiii. 18.) Why not from the 
 Egyptians, by whom they were favoured in their escape 1 
 (xii. 36.) Nor does the text imply that every man was 
 armed, but only a sufficient number to give protection. 
 Moreover, the word is of doubtful meaning, and does not 
 necessarily mean ' armed.' In our version, it is ' harnessed,' 
 and in the margin ' five in a rank,' and may imply merely 
 that they went out in some orderly manner. 
 
 (8.) How, he asks, could such a multitude keep the 
 
ARITHMETICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PENTATEUCH. 267 
 
 Passover and make all their preparations for departure in a 
 ' single day t ' How borrow as they did on the spur of the 
 moment 1 How gather in one single spot, Rameses (Ex. xii. 
 37), and march out at such short notice? Whence procure 
 lambs sufficient for the Passover 1 There is no proof that 
 they did march out at a day's notice. Pour days' warning 
 had they at least, and perhaps several more. Moses may 
 have received the command regarding the keeping of the 
 Passover nine days before the tenth day of the month (see 
 Ex. xii. 3, 6) ; so that, though their haste was great, such 
 that they had not 'prepared for themselves any victual' 
 (xii. 39), it was not so hasty as Dr. Colenso states. And if 
 it had been, the pressure and help the Egyptians gave, 
 combined with the extraordinary circumstances, are sufficient 
 to account for the event. Moreover, they did not necessarily 
 all assemble at one spot ; Rameses, in Exod. xii. 37, means 
 the country, not the city, Eameses.* 
 
 Dr. Colenso bases his assertion that the Passover was 
 kept the very night after the Almighty instructed Moses 
 regarding its celebration, upon these words, ' I will pass 
 through the land of Egypt this night' (Exod. xii. 12). But 
 an unprejudiced reader of the whole passage from verse 2 to 
 verse 12 inclusive, wiU not fail to observe, that by 'this 
 night ' is meant the night which was then being described, 
 that is, the night after the 1 4th day of the month, and not 
 the night after the words were uttered, which was before the 
 10th day ; it is the same, in fact, as ' that night ' in verse 8, 
 the change of language from ' that night ' to ' this night ' 
 
 * The word Kameses is used to denote both a city and a country. 
 In the Hebrew Bible the distinction is clearly marked by a difference 
 in the points. In Gen. xlviL 11, where the 'land of Rameses' is 
 expressly mentioned, and here in Ex. xii. 37, it is pointed in one way ; 
 and in Ex. i. 11, where the city is spoken of, it is pointed otherwise, 
 and is, indeed, translated differently in our English version, viz. 
 Raamses, not Rameses.— See Bishop OUivant's (First) Letter on Dr. 
 Colenso's Part 1. p. 49. 
 
268 REFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 being a not-unusual mode of marking emphasis. Nor does 
 the 'midnight' in which Jehovah declared that the first- 
 born should die in the land of Egypt (xi. 4) necessarily mean 
 the midnight immediately after the words were uttered. 
 
 (9.) His next difficulty is, how the Israelites could 
 support their sheep and cattle in the desert. He assumes 
 that as no miraculous means are mentioned, like the manna 
 for the people, none were used. This is altogether gratui- 
 tous. Moses does not mention every incident or transaction 
 which occurred. Indeed, all through Dr. Colanso's book a 
 reluctance to admit of the supernatural character of the 
 Exodus and its attendant circumstances betrays itself, and 
 that great event is treated as merely an ordinary transaction 
 w^ith no extraordinary helps. Were we, however, driven to 
 natural causes alone for an explanation, I do not conceive 
 that any charge of impossibility would be established against 
 the narrative. Dean Stanley states that at this day the 
 valleys in this ' vast and terrible wilderness ' are still verdant 
 in some spots, and that ' there is no doubt that the vegeta- 
 tion of the valleys has considerably decreased.' Moreover, 
 why could not the bulk of the cattle be pastured in the 
 fertile lands bordering on the desert 1 
 
 (10.) He next wonders how so vast a, multitude could 
 leave room for any part of the land to become desolate, and 
 for the wild beasts of the field to multiply (Exod. xxiii. 29). 
 But Dr. Colenso's mensuration refers to Palestine only. The 
 limits, however, of the promised land were ' from the desert 
 to the river' (verse 31), where by 'the river' is meant the 
 Euphrates, as we learn from Gen. xv. 18 ; also from Deut. i. 
 7 ; xi. 24. And this extent of territory was embraced in the 
 kingdom of David (2 Sam. viii.) and of Solomon (2 Chron. 
 ix. 26, margin). 
 
 (11.) Another objection is based upon a comparison of 
 the first-born males with the number of males above twenty 
 years old, which he asserts gives an average of forty-two sons 
 
ARITHMETICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PENTATEUCH. 269 
 
 to each mother. After the deliverance from Egypt the first- 
 born were to be dedicated to the Lord (Exod. xiii. 1, 2). 
 Subsequently to this the tribe of Levi was separated for the 
 service of the tabernacle, and was taken as a substitute for 
 the first-born (ifum. iii. 5 — 13). On this occasion the first- 
 born and the Levites were numbered, and found to be 22,273 
 and 22,000 ; the first-bom exceeded the Levites by 273, and 
 these were redeemed with money, at the rate of five shekels 
 a head (verses 39, 43, 46, 47). The males of twenty years 
 old and upwards being taken at 600,000, there may have 
 been 900,000 males in all : of these 22,273 being first- 
 born, if we divide the first by the second, we have 40 (the 
 Bishop says 43) for the average number of sons in each 
 family, or, as he says, to each mother — a result so extrava- 
 gant that Dr. Colenso assumes that the Pentateuch is not 
 true. But what first-born were numbered? Kot all that 
 were then living among the 900,000 males, but only those 
 who had been born since the deliverance from Egypt, and 
 were therefore young children, as from that date the dedica- 
 tion of the fii'st-born began. This at once removes the 
 difficulty. An incidental confirmation of this is seen in the 
 price put upon the first-born who were to be redeemed with 
 money, viz. five shekels apiece : for that was the price put 
 upon young children of five years and under, when they were 
 vowed, or sanctified, and set apart, as the first-born were 
 (Exod. xiii. 2, 12), see Lev. xxvii. 6.* The minute internal 
 consistency, and not the untruthfulness, of the various books 
 of the Pentateuch, is most strikingly brought out by this 
 attack upon its veracity.t 
 
 (12.) He next objects that the vast multitude of 600,000 
 males above twenty years of age, at the time of the Exodus, 
 
 * See Eev. F. W. Fowler's Aiiswer to Dr. Coleiuo, p. 40. 
 
 f Should it be thought that the sacred text will hardly admit of 
 the interpretation, 'that only those who had been born since the 
 deliverance from Egypt ' were counted, I may refer to the Rev. T. R. 
 
270 EEFUTATION OF FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 covtU not possibly have sprung from Jacob in four genera- 
 tions — the fourth generation from Jacob being that in which 
 they were to come out of Egypt (Gen. xv. 16). During 
 Jacob's lifetime his twelve sons had fifty-three male children, 
 making an average of four and a half each (Gen. xlvi.). This 
 he assumes to be the average number of sons during the 
 generations which followed from that time to the Exodus. 
 But Jacob's sons may have had more children after Jacob's 
 death. His daughters, too, may have had sons, who are here 
 altogether overlooked. Again, although the prophecy was 
 literally fulfilled in the line of Moses and Aaron, that the 
 return to Canaan should be in the fourth generation (JSTum. 
 xxvi. 59), it by no means follows that in every line of Jacob's 
 descendants the generations were only four. Thus in 
 Joshua's line there were ten: see 1 Chron. vii. 22 — 27. Eoth 
 these suggestions, regarding the number of children and the 
 number of generations, throw out Dr. Golenso's calculations. 
 Again, he has made no account of the effect of polygamy and 
 concubinage in increasing the population. The same kind 
 of answers may be given to his objections to the number of 
 descendants of Dan and Levi at the time of the Exodus ; with 
 the additional one, that generally the sons recorded in the 
 genealogies are such as became the heads of families, other 
 sons not being mentioned. 
 
 Birks' Exodus of Israel for another solution of Dr. Golenso's difficulty. 
 He considers, as I do, that all the first-born males in Israel were not 
 counted. As the angel of death in the tenth plague of Egypt is 
 supposed to have smitten only the first-born son in each family, and not 
 the father of the family, even though he may have been the first-born 
 of his mother, so the same principle is taken to limit the first-born now 
 counted. Also another limitation arises from the fact that they were 
 not only to be first-born sons, but the eldest children of their faniilies, 
 having no elder sister (Exod. xiii. 2). A third limitation he derives 
 from the proportion of those who would die in early infancy, and not be 
 counted. In the end he reduces the average number of sons to each 
 mother to between four and five. 
 
ARITHMETICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PENTATEUCH. 271 
 
 (13.) The iiumlieT of priests at the celebration of the 
 Passover Dr. Colenso considers to have been quite insufficient 
 for their duties. But we have no means of knowing how 
 many there were. The sons of Aaron are not all necessarily- 
 recorded — nor are his daughters ; he may have had many 
 grandsons, for at the Exodus he was eighty-three years of 
 age (Exod. vii. 7). Unnecessary difficulties about the 
 number of birds needed for the offerings are started. He 
 wonders how the multitude of animals whose blood was 
 sprinkled on the altar could have been crowded into the 
 court of the tabernacle ; whereas they may have been 
 slaughtered outside the court and brought to the priest in 
 turn before the altar. All these matters are reduced to 
 numbers by Dr. Colenso's arithmetical processes, and from 
 his results he pronounces that without doubt things impossi- 
 ble are told us in the Pentateuch, and that the Pentateuch 
 is therefore unhistorical, untrue.* 
 
 But enough of this 'hunting of shadows,' as it has been 
 called. 'By this time' — to use in part Dr. Colenso's own 
 words — ' surely great doubt must have arisen in the minds 
 of most readers,' not, as he proceeds to say, ' as to the his- 
 torical accuracy of sundry portions of the Pentateuch' (p. 90), 
 but as to Dr. Colenso's capacity for examining its historical 
 credibility. If these are the only results he can arrive at, 
 with all the last refinements of German rationalism in his 
 hands, and with a mind strongly biased towards the scepticism 
 of the day. Scripture and Science may rise in triumph under 
 this last attack upon their perfect harmony, and still continue 
 to defy all attempts to set them at variance. 
 
 * The reader may consult, ivith great profit, Mr. Isaac Taylor's 
 Considerations on the Pentateuch, especially pp. 31-59, and the Notes, 
 third edition, in which he strikingly points out the gift of management, 
 and instinct of order, which have always been the distinction of the 
 Jewish people, and have made it easy to them, and to their official 
 persons, to give effect to religious observances, which to us, at this 
 time, may seem exceedingly difficult. 
 
272 REFUTATION OP FALSE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 Although I have endeavoured to give, as so many others 
 have well done, categorical replies to Dr. Colenso's objections 
 to the Pentateuch, bo mischievous to the unlearned and 
 sceptically-inclined, I must in candour say, that I feel that 
 the objections, as arguments against the truthfulness of the 
 Pentateuch seem to me in many cases so frivolous, and in all 
 so unworthy of a Christian scholar, that they do not deserve 
 refutation. The truthfulness of the Pentateuch stands upon 
 far higher grounds than any arithmetical tests can furnish. 
 Upon this side of the argument I am precluded from 
 entering, from the nature of my treatise. One thing is 
 evident, that this attack, which receives all its importance 
 from the position in the Church which the assailant occupies, 
 is being made the occasion, and will be made more so, of 
 enlarging and deepening, and not of weakening, the founda- 
 tions upon which the arguments for the truth and inspiration 
 of Holy Scripture rest.* 
 
 * I have been told that there are persons who scoff at the idea of 
 the future resurrection, on the ground that there would not be 
 standing-room on the earth for all the persons who have been born 
 since the creation of Adam. I have nowhere seen this in print, and 
 therefore confine my remarks on the subject to a note. Were we 
 unable to meet this objection by calculation, we might well assume, 
 that on so unprecedented an occasion, in which the ordinary circum- 
 stances of the present order of things can be no guide to us, the 
 Almighty will provide for the carrying out of His own purposes. But 
 calculation shows the utter groundlessness of such an objection. I 
 here give an outline which the algebraist can fill up. I will approxi- 
 mate to the total number of souls which have been born since the days 
 of Noah, when the population of the world started afresh from eight 
 persons : it may now be estimated at one thousand millions. There have 
 been 126 generations in this time, reckoning three to a century. The 
 generations from Adam to Noah were far fewer, and therefore the 
 number of souls which my calculation will bring out will be very far 
 more than half the whole number of souls which have been born since 
 Adam. 
 
 Let b be the ratio of the average number of births during one 
 generation to the population at the beginning of that generation : i the 
 
ARQUMBNT FROM PAST EXPERIENCE. 273 
 
 I have now closed my Examples. Four of them appev- 
 tain to a time prior to the development of modern science ; 
 and the remaining twenty-one fall within that period. Our 
 experience, then, of the real harmony between Argument 
 Scripture and Science, even in cases where H?™??:!.* 
 
 r ' expenence 
 
 that harmony has for a time been supposed by summed up. 
 some not to exist, ranges over many centuries, and reaches 
 down to our own days. 
 
 With so many examples before us, I think we may boldly 
 say, that even to suspect that Scripture and Science can 
 
 ratio of the average increase of population during a generation to 
 the population at the beginning of the generation. 
 
 In order to meet extraordinary casualties, arising from war, pesti- 
 lence, famine, and floods, I will suppose that, at the end of each 
 generation, the population is reduced in the ratio of 1 : n. 
 
 The algebraist wiU easily see that the population at the end of the 
 126th generation, that is, at the present time, equals 
 
 8 (1 -f i)^^ ■n}^, and this = lo" by hypothesis. 
 
 By reduction this becomes 
 
 (1 + i) w = l'16n™ nearly = 1'16 nearly ; 
 
 for if we take the extravagant case of even half the population being 
 swept away by extraordinary events, at the end of every generation, 
 the result would be 1' 154, which differs very sUghtly from 1-16. 
 
 Again, the algebraist will easily see that the total number of souls 
 since the days of Noah equals 
 
 ,, , .,126 126 , 
 
 °" (l + i)ll— 1 
 By substituting the values I have found above, this 
 
 "^"016 very nearly. 
 
 The radius of the earth is about 3956 miles. Suppose that only one- 
 third of the surface is land, and that s square yards is the average 
 
 T 
 
274 
 
 ARGUMENT FROM PAST EXPERIENCE. 
 
 ever be opposed to each, other is unphilosophical. With 
 such experience as the past has heaped up for our instruction 
 aud -warning, is it not in the highest degree contrary to the 
 spirit of true philosophy to sound the alarm at every 
 appearance of antagonism between the Word and the Works 
 of God? Have not the scientific, in the steady advance of 
 truth, been forced times without number to abandon theories 
 which once appeared plausible and comprehensive, but which 
 could not satisfy the stern requirements of fact? Have 
 anomalies and contrarieties staggered them, and not rather 
 quickened their search for clearer light and a nearer 
 acquaintance with hidden connexions? And why should 
 not the same waiting and trustful spirit guide us when the 
 Holy Scriptures are involved ; especially when we remember 
 the trophies of victory they bring with them from so many 
 previous conflicts? With the history of past conflicts and 
 past triumphs before us, whatever startling difiiculties may 
 
 space which each individual, of all who have been born from Noah 
 downwards, would have for standing upon. It can easily be deduced, 
 that the number of persons who could be accommodated 
 
 20459 , nio 
 
 = xlO 
 
 s 
 
 Put this equal to the number of births ; then 
 
 «=^^ which is larger than ?^, 
 
 because n is necessarily smaller than unity. The value of s depends 
 upon b, or the ratio of the number of births in one generation to the 
 population at the beginning of the generation. It is hardly an over- 
 estimate to say, that under ordinary circumstances the population will 
 double in one generation of 33 years, that is, i = 1 ; and that the 
 number of births will not more than double the number of deaths 
 during a generation, that is, that I will not be greater than 2. 
 Hence s will not be less than 16367 square yards, or a square space 
 128 yards each side ! ample room ; this is about 1900 persons to a 
 square mile. 
 
ARGUMENT FROM PAST EXPERIENCE. 275 
 
 yet arise, we shall do well to pause and wait for further light 
 ere we venture to assert, or even to suspect, that they are 
 enemies whom we have found to be friends under so many 
 trying circumstances. Let our inductions he sober and well 
 weighed, and we need have no fear that the Scriptures, as 
 the inspired Word of God, and Science, as the means of 
 setting forth the glory of His Works, will ever be found not 
 to speak the same thing in matters which they touch upon 
 in common. 
 
 The last example of my first set, that referring to the 
 motion of the earth, appertains to the sixteenth century. 
 At that epoch the human mind in civilized Europe underwent 
 a marked change, and great philological and scientific light 
 dawned upon it. The long-standing dogma of the immobility 
 of the earth was swept away by the unanswerable arguments 
 which scientific reasoning produced ; and the new principles 
 of exegesis, which, the revival of literature brought in have 
 removed also the difiiculties which Scripture appeared to 
 present to the reception of the new views. The human 
 mind, however, appears to some to be, at the present day, 
 going through another crisis : and it has been suggested, 
 that as a change took place in the principles of interpreta- 
 tion on that former occasion, so another may be expected 
 now ; and, therefore, that the analogy which I have drawn 
 between the past, in which many apparent discrepancies 
 between Scripture and Science have been removed, and the 
 future, which may produce more, may not hold.* 
 
 (1.) On this I remark, in the first place, that twenty-one of 
 my twenty-five examples, in which the charge that Scripture 
 and Science are at variance has been disproved, are taken 
 from modern discoveries, and from questions which are even 
 now, or till very recently have been, debated : so that they 
 belong to this era — an era which is well characterized as 
 being one of great scientific activity and mental restlessness. 
 * See Guardian, June, 1861, p. 637. 
 
276 ARGUMENT FROM PAST EXPERIENCE. 
 
 The foundation, therefore, of my argument, for confidence in 
 a never-ceasing harmony existing between Scripture and 
 Science, whatever new discoveries may arise, lies, as much in 
 the experience of the present movement as in that of any 
 earlier era of scientific progress ; indeed I may say that my 
 illustrations are far more drawn from the present period than 
 from the earlier ; and therefore there is no reason for doubt- 
 ing, that the analogy will hold during the further development 
 of modern discoveries. 
 
 (2.) I would next observe, that there is a very striking 
 resemblance between the character of the present movement 
 and that of the sixteenth century; and, therefore, whatever 
 general experience we may deduce from the earlier, might d 
 priori fairly be expected to hold good during the later period. 
 Freedom of inquiry, independence of mere authority as such, 
 an appeal to the facts of nature, the careful study of 
 Scripture now laid open, a getting out of the old grooves in 
 which men's minds had been moving for ages, and the 
 searching after truth for truth's sake — these are some of 
 the characteristics of the earlier era, and they are equally so 
 of the later or present era. If, from this point of view, 
 these eras differ in any respect, I should say that it is to the 
 decided disparagement of the present in one important par- 
 ticular, though, as regards activity, the means of observation, 
 and the methodical accumulation of facts, it greatly surpasses 
 every period which has preceded it. But in the indulgence 
 of a spirit of hasty generalization, and in the habit of 
 building up theories upon insufficient data, the present age 
 is, in too many instances, a most unworthy successor of that 
 of which I would take Newton, the pattern of all sound 
 philosophers, to be the type. As far as the present age 
 departs from the principles of inductive philosophy, which 
 inculcates the most patient inquiry, and a total abstinence 
 from the use of hypothesis, except with the utmost caution, 
 and upon a vera causa being shown, so far will its activity 
 
ARGUMENT FHOM PAST EXPEEIBNCE. 277 
 
 carry it away into the uncertain regions of speculation ; and 
 truth, the way to which is only along the roadway of facts, 
 win never be reached, or, if reached, not known to be 
 truth. 
 
 (3.) There is, however, one point in which the present 
 era differs considerably from the former one. A new school 
 of historical criticism has sprung up in the interval between 
 them; and it is possible that some may think that the 
 gordian knot of difficulty and discrepancy may be cut at 
 once, by applying the same principles to the earlier portions 
 of Scripture, which have been applied to the earlier chapters 
 of Eoman history before the invasion of Pyrrhus. Mebuhr 
 tells us, in the Preface to his History of Rome, that ' Eoman 
 history was treated, during the first two centuries after the 
 revival of letters, with the same prostration of the under- 
 standing and judgment to the written letter that had been 
 handed down, and with the same fearfulness of going beyond 
 it, which prevailed in all the other branches of knowledge. 
 Prom a multitude of insulated details writers drew up, what 
 the remains of ancient literature did not give united in any 
 single work, a systematic account of Eoman antiquities. In 
 the way of history, strictly so called, little was produced. In 
 the latter half of the seventeenth century. Philology entered 
 upon a new state, for which she was to be indebted to the 
 development of other sciences. Men were taught by great 
 examples to look things in the face, and to pursue their 
 researches with freedom ; to regard the books, which till 
 then had made the scholar's whole world, as merely pictures 
 of a part of the living universe, which could not be directly 
 approached; to exercise their own understanding, their 
 own reason, their own judgment in everything. The end of 
 the last century was the opening of a still more advanced 
 era for Germany.' ' We had now,' he continues, ' a literature 
 worthy of our nation and language. . . . For this advantage 
 Germany is indebted to V-oss. . . with whom a new age for 
 
278 ARGUMENT FROM PAST EXPERIENCE. 
 
 the knowledge of antiquity begins. Previous ages had been 
 content to look at the ancient historians in the way many 
 look at maps or landscapes, as if they were all in all; 
 without ever attempting to employ them as the only 
 remaining means for producing an image of the objects 
 they represent. But now a work on such subjects could not 
 be esteemed satisfactory, unless its clearness and distinctness 
 enabled it to take its stand beside the history of the present 
 age. ... In this manner the critical treatment of Eoman 
 history, the discovery of the forms of the constitution which 
 had tin then been misunderstood, was a fruit that time had 
 been maturing.' * Niebuhr accordingly writes his history 
 from this point of view ; very reasonably disallowing the 
 ' marvellous,' t as inconsistent with the history he was 
 endeavouring to trace ; not suffering Livy's apparent credu- 
 lity, when he would not absolutely reject ' those primitive 
 ages when the gods walked about among mankind ; ' and 
 treating 'the heroes and patriots of Rome. . . . not like 
 Milton's angels, but as beings of our own flesh and blood.' J. 
 This free handling and rational method is, of course, the 
 only one likely to extract anything like truth from mere 
 'fables and disfigured legends,' which carry with them no 
 pretence to history, much less to inspiration. 
 
 The same method of proceeding, however, is not alto- 
 gether applicable to the Sacred Scriptures. As far as the 
 rules of ordinary criticism go, they should be apphed, no 
 doubt, to the language of the Sacred Volume as to any other 
 book ; but not to its contents. I write for those who believe 
 in the possibility of miracles, and not for those who deny it. 
 The Book, and many of the events and statements recorded 
 in it, are avowedly of superhuman origin. Miracles are not 
 matters of reasoning, but of testimony. The point which we 
 
 * Preface to Niehuhr's History of Rome, translated by Hare and 
 Thirl wall. 
 
 t History, p. 219. X Ibid. p. 3, 4. 
 
ARGUMENT PBOM PAST EXPEEIENCB. 279 
 
 have to ascertain on taking up this Book is, whether it is 
 genuine and authentic. This being determined, the super- 
 human character of many of its statements and events must 
 be received and implicitly believed in : for they do not come 
 within the category of ordinary events. To go over the vast 
 field of evidence of the credibOity and authenticity of the 
 Sacred Volume would be out of place in this treatise. But 
 I may here bring together the numerous indications which I 
 have adduced in the foregoing pages, that the tendency of 
 modern scientific investigations — philological, ethnological, 
 and antiquarian — is all in favour of the truthfulness of the 
 Scripture records, even the most ancient. Not only have 
 the exhumed remains of Nineveh and Babylon testified — 
 for example, the remarkable discovery of the name Belshazzar 
 in the inscriptions (see p. 141) — to the truth of Scripture 
 history, at a date as early as any well-authenticated profane 
 history ; but in mounting up the stream of time beyond that 
 date, whenever any glimpse can be caught from contempor- 
 ary evidence of any kind, it bears testimony to the truth of 
 the Scripture narrative. Thus, for example, the only point 
 of contact which Egyptologists profess to have discerned in 
 the hieroglyphic inscriptions between Egypt and Palestine 
 bears witness, as far as it goes, to the fact related in 2 Chron. 
 xii., that Shishak, king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem 
 and took it (see p. 148). The discovery of the remains of 
 cities in the Hauran, according precisely as they do both in 
 character and position with those described in Deuteronomy 
 as the cities of Bashan, testifies in like manner to the 
 accuracy of the Scripture narrative at a still earlier epoch 
 (see p. 142). The account of wars between Israel and Moab 
 related in 2 Kings, iii. 4 — 27, and 2 Chron. xx. is confirmed 
 by the recently discovered Moabitic inscription (see p. 143). 
 The original unity of language, and its violent separation 
 into distinct languages related in the eleventh chapter of 
 Genesis, and the testimony borne to both these facts by the 
 
280 ARGUMENT PROM PAST EXPERIENCE. 
 
 discoveries of philologists (see p. 121)— the remarkable coin- 
 cidences which are traceable between the statements of the 
 tenth chapter of Genesis, and the discoveries of ethnologists, 
 and also the known geographical distribution of nations (see p. 
 123) — the concurrent testimony borne by many and widely- 
 scattered nations, to the fact of a deluge, universal as 
 regards the human race, having occurred in ancient times, 
 and the correspondence between this tradition and the 
 narrative of the Flood, related as part of a continuous history 
 in the sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of Genesis — the 
 testimony of the best physiologists that all human races are 
 of one species, and the agreement of this with the account of 
 the creation of Adam and Eve, in the first and second 
 chapters of Genesis, and the descent of all men from them 
 (see p. 89), — aU these comparisons point in the same direction, 
 and have a cumulative effect in confirming our belief that 
 even the most ancient portion of Scripture is an historical 
 document. In corroboration of this I may add, that no 
 arguments on the opposite side stand their ground, whether 
 drawn from Egyptian antiquities, Nile deposits, or Hindoo 
 or Chinese astronomical observations, or from any other 
 source. 
 
 I may also observe, that the composition of the earlier 
 chapters of Genesis seems to bear no such analogy to that of 
 the earlier chapters of Eoman history, as to call for the 
 handling which these latter have received, and so to be 
 deprived of their character as simple history. ' Although 
 there is a continuity of narrative,' says Sir G. C. Lewis, 
 ' running through the story of Eomulus ; though the 
 successive events stand to each other in an intelligible 
 relation of cause and efi'ect, yet we can trace the deliberate 
 invention of the setiologist. The story is formed by an 
 aggregation of parts : there is no uninterrupted poetical flow, 
 or epic unity. Instead of resembling a statue cast in one 
 piece in a foundry, it is like a tessellated pavement, formed 
 
ARGUMENT FROM PAST EXPERIENCE. 281 
 
 into a pattern by stones of different colours.'* Nothing of 
 artifice of this kind can be traced in the earlier chapters of 
 Genesis. After the narrative of the Creation and Fall of 
 Man in the first three chapters, there are only two — the 
 fourth and fifth — -before the narrative of the Flood begins. 
 This brings us down to the tenth, which describes the 
 nations as ' divided in the earth after the Flood,' and then the 
 eleventh, relating to the confusion of tongues, and ending 
 with a genealogy from N"oah to Abram. From that point 
 the history of the chosen race begins, and runs through the 
 whole of Scripture to the end of the Old Testament, with the 
 single exception of the Book of Job. The fourth and fifth 
 chapters, which I have passed over, give a variety of 
 isolated facts regarding certain individuals, from Cain and 
 Abel down to Lamech, and the birth of his son Noah and 
 his grandsons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, together with the 
 intervening genealogy. Now, aU this, no doubt, may be 
 compared, in one sense, to a tessellated pavement. But 
 there is no attempt at moulding the parts into one another. 
 The whole appears to be a series of matter-of fact statements, 
 without any decoration. No ulterior end appears to have 
 been in view, such as in the Eoman story, to give a plausible 
 account of the origin of institutions and customs which had 
 subsequently grown up in the national history. The formal 
 incorporation of the Sabbath in the moral law, delivered on 
 Mount Sinai, is the only apparent instance of this, as the 
 argument for it is based upon the six days of creation and 
 the seventh of cessation from work. But the Sabbath had 
 existed before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, as is 
 evident from the regulations regarding the gathering of the 
 manna (Exod. xvi. 22, 23), and from other reasons. None of 
 the Jewish institutions, in fact, are to be traced to the events 
 narrated in these first eleven chapters of Genesis. Indeed, 
 
 * An Inquiry into the Credibility of the Early Eoman History, 
 vol. 1, p. 437. 
 
282 AEGUMBNT FROM PAST EXPERIENCE. 
 
 more allusions to these events occur in the New Testament 
 than in the Old. There appears, then, to be no valid reason 
 for the application of the new principle of historical criticism 
 to the early history of the Book of Genesis. 
 
 The inference, that because it is found in various 
 instances that the dawn of genuine history in civilized 
 nations is preceded by a series of myths and legends, 
 therefore the same must be the case with the Hebrew nation 
 and the documents they have handed down to us, is a 
 gratuitous assumption and an unphilosophical begging of the 
 whole question. It would be as fair to infer that if ten 
 counterfeit coins were thrown into circulation together with 
 the genuine coin of the realm, and by our sagacity the 
 counterfeit coins were detected by us, one by one, the pure 
 coin must be declared to be counterfeit also. Each case 
 must stand upon its own merits. Indeed, the earliest 
 records of other nations, as is acknowledged by those 
 critics, are uniformly devoted to the suspicious task of 
 tracing their own origin and exalting their own early glories. 
 But the earliest of the documents the Hebrews have handed 
 down to us in the sacred Scriptures betray nothing of this 
 kind : they make no peculiar reference to the Jewish nation, 
 but appertain solely to the human race at large. Nor in 
 those subsequent parts of these documents, which relate the 
 rise of their own nation in the call and history of Abram, is 
 there any undue glorification of their great progenitor ; but 
 the blemishes of his character are unsparingly recorded in a 
 manner in which no feigned historian would ever venture to 
 indulge. 
 
 In these remarks I have, of course, been regarding 
 Scripture as I would any other book, the historical credibility 
 of which was under trial. The testimony of contemporary 
 history utterly fails in this case, as no history and no monu- 
 ments can pretend to compete with the Book of Genesis in 
 point of antiquity. Such arguments of a secular character 
 
ARGUMENT FBOM PAST BXPEEIENCB. 283 
 
 as were available, in the absence of this testimony, I have 
 endeavoured to bring to bear upon the subject. But while 
 I altogether concur in the propriety of keeping the scientific 
 and the religious sides of the question entirely apart during 
 the discussion, I think that for any one, in the pursuit of 
 truth, altogether to ignore in such a case the religious argu- 
 ment, is as preposterous as if he were to agree to argue 
 regarding the doctrines of Christianity upon the hypothesis 
 that Christ was a mere man and not the Son of God. The 
 witness which Christ gives to the historical character of 
 Genesis, I reserve to the next Part. His witness is true ; 
 and, in the absence of collateral testimony, is invaluable. 
 
 I have been arguing on these questions as if they were 
 quite isolated, and were to be tested by the bare probabilities 
 of abstract reasoning, without regard to the later revelation, 
 under which Science has grown to be what it is. But it is 
 clearly unreasonable to isolate the argument thus. The 
 Gospel throws rays of glory backward as well as forward. 
 The Book of Genesis partakes of the radiance. The first 
 eleven chapters of the book, even as a fragment, are of the 
 deepest value, as I shall presently show ; but their full 
 grandeur is apparent only when viewed as a part of the 
 unique volume at the head of which they stand. 
 
PART II. 
 
 THE HISTORICAL CHARAOTBE, PLENARY INSPIRATION, AND 
 SURPASSING IMPORTANCE OP THE PIEST ELEVEN CHAPTERS 
 OF GENESIS. 
 
 In the First Part the argument has been rather of the 
 negative description. The high improbabilify of Scripture 
 being at variance with Science has been established; and 
 that, not SO much from a consideration of the character of 
 Scripture itself, as from the experience of the past ; which 
 shows SO many instances of imaginary discrepancies becoming 
 in the end witnesses on the other side, and illustrating with 
 such force the harmony between the Word and the Works of 
 God, that any man who ventures to set aside this experience 
 justly forfeits the title of Philosopher. 
 
 In the present part of my treatise I propose to make 
 some remarks on the character and contents of the earlier 
 portion of the sacred volume, selecting for this purpose the 
 First Eleven Chapters of Genesis, as it is here that Scripture 
 and Science have been supposed more particularly to come 
 into collision. On the historical character of Scripture some 
 remarks have already been made in the last few pages. I 
 hope now to establish the historical character and plenary 
 inspiration of this portion of the Sacred Volume by a refer- 
 ence to the language of our Lord and His Apostles, and to 
 point out in various eminent particulars its surpassing 
 importance. An argument of a positive nature, and con- 
 firmatory of that which I have already given, will thus flow 
 
INSPIRATION. 285 
 
 from the character of Scripture itself, to show how impossible 
 it is that such a record can in any way contravene the 
 teachings of the phenomena and laws of the material world 
 which proceeds from the same almighty Author. This part 
 of my treatise is expressly addressed to Christians, who regard 
 the testimony of our Lord and His Apostles as infallible ; not 
 to men who, because our Lord ' increased in wisdom ' as well 
 as ' stature,' consider it to be ' perfectly consistent with the 
 most entire and sincere belief in our Lord's Divinity,' to hold 
 that our Lord may have asserted that which was not true, if 
 it accorded with the views of the most learned of His nation ! 
 In this way such men endeavour to get rid of the testimony 
 of these texts ; John v. 46, 47 ; Luke xvi. 29, 31 j xx. 37.* 
 
 * Colenso's Pentateuch, Part I. pp. 30, 31. 
 
286 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 THE HISTOEICAL CHARACTEB AND PLENARY INSPIRATION OF 
 THE FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. 
 
 By the inspiration of Holy Scripture I understand, that 
 
 the Scriptures were written under the guidance of the Holy 
 
 Deftnition of Spirit, who communicated to the writers facts 
 
 Inspiration. ijgfQjg unknown, directed them in the selection 
 
 of other facts already known, and preserved them from error 
 
 of every kind in the records they made. 
 
 This definition I have given in every edition of my book. 
 Dr. Colenso quotes it in his attack upon the historical char- 
 acter of the Pentateuch, printing the last clause in italics, 
 as the text from which ho proceeds in his investigation. It 
 is the inspiration of the original documents, which have long 
 ago disappeared, that I contend for. That errors have crept 
 into the long succession of copies no one denies. Had Dr. 
 Colenso, by his arithmetical test, detected any internal con- 
 tradictions, all it would have amounted to would be, that 
 our present copies have become, in those respects, more 
 corrupted by transmission from hand to hand than was 
 before known. But that the documents are unhistorical, or 
 comparatively modern productions not to be depended upon 
 as history, would by no means be proved by such a process. 
 Dr. Colenso's criticisms, as objections to the historical char- 
 acter of the Pentateuch, have been shown in a former page 
 to be without any value (See p. 262). 
 
INSPIRATION. 287 
 
 A friendly reviewer* of my fifth edition also thinks, that 
 by claiming freedom from error of every kind for the 
 originals of Holy Scripture, I have made ' an assumption 
 ■which is absolutely gratuitous, and -which imposes a formid- 
 able and needless task upon the defenders of inspiration.' 
 But to this I reply, that if all scripture is given by inspiration 
 of God (2 Tim. iii. 16), and if this, as the context proves,t 
 applies, not only to parts of scripture, but to aU scripture, 
 the matter is settled ; for it is not to be allowed for one 
 moment that the Holy Spirit would either dictate or suffer 
 error of any kind in what was written under His suggestion 
 or superintendence. If, on the other hand, we suppose that 
 some parts are inspired and other parts not, where is the line 
 to be drawn ? We must take our stand-point somewhere. 
 It has always appeared to me most reasonable, and most 
 consonant with our ideas of the Divine Being, to take up the 
 position that Holy Scripture, coming as it does from God, is 
 perfect, till the contrary has been proved; and to consider 
 that the discrepancies among MSS. are to be attributed to 
 the numerous host of transcribers, through whose hands our 
 present copies are come down to us — discrepancies which 
 may be counted by thousands, but which,, by the acknow- 
 ledgment of those who have hunted for contradictions, are 
 of no importance and are what can readily be accounted for 
 by the natural fallibility of the most careful copyist. 
 
 The argument of the sceptic, against those who admit of 
 only a partial inspiration of the Holy Volume, is to me un- 
 answerable, and represents the views I have always held on 
 the subject. He says, ' A book cannot be said to be in- 
 spired, or to carry with it the authority of being God's Word, 
 if only portions come from Him, and there exists no plain 
 and infallible sign to indicate which those portions are. And 
 if tha same writer may give us in one verse of the Bible a 
 
 * Guardian, August 30, 1865. 
 t See Note on page 297- 
 
288 INSPIRATION. 
 
 revelation from the Most High, and in the next verse a hlunder 
 of his own ; how can we be certain, that the very texts, 
 upon which we rest our doctrines and our hopes, are not the 
 uninspired portion 1 What can be the meaning or nature of 
 an Inspiration to teach Truth, which does not guarantee its 
 recipient from teaching error ? ' * 
 
 I would make every concession which a fair criticism of 
 the text will allow : but to go further than this I think is 
 dangerous. To place ourselves on the same low level with 
 those who treat portions of Holy Scripture as fable, or, at 
 any rate, as simply human, and to contend with them with 
 their own weapons, as many attempt to do, is forsaking that 
 high vantage ground which a believer in Eevelation can 
 claim, and is trusting too much to our own prowess. To 
 stand on the defensive, and challenge proof of the works of 
 God in any single instance being at variance with His word, 
 is the safest and the right attitude for us to assume. If we 
 descend, we can do so only by making compromises : we 
 must waive the miraculous and the divine, we must use 
 arguments drawn in every case only from the ordinary 
 course of things. Thus Dr. Colenso wonders (p. 36) that I 
 pass over the great event in Joshua's history so lightly, as 
 he regards it as the most striking of instances of Scripture 
 and Science being at variance : whereas I regard it as a 
 Divine interposition, a miracle, and therefore as an event not 
 coming within the range of scientific investigation. So, in 
 his remarks upon the deliverance of the Israelites from 
 Egyptian bondage, he appears to ignore altogether the 
 Divine help in the whole transaction. A certain Greek pro- 
 fessor once said, that the Bible should be treated critically 
 like any other book — to which principle I would agree when 
 applied properly. But I altogether dissent, when he applies 
 
 • Quoted from Bishop Wordsworth's Lectures on the Inspiration of 
 the Bible, in which the above words are transcribed from a volume 
 recently pubhshed by a sceptical writer.' Seventh Edit. pp. 11, 12. 
 
FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OP GENESIS. 289 
 
 his principle thus ; that, as Isaiah mentions the name of 
 Cyrus, he must have lived after Cyrus. And why do I 
 dissent? Because the book of Isaiah is avowedly pro- 
 phetical : and should therefore be tested by other means, 
 unless it can be proved that prophecy is impossible, 
 ■which is out of the question. My object has not been 
 to reconcile Scripture and Science (though I think this 
 is generally the result of my treatise), but to show that 
 Science cannot prove anything to be at variance with 
 Scripture : and in doing this I have taken the highest 
 ground, and assumed that Scripture, in its originals, is free 
 from error of every kind : and I think I have thus far 
 maintained it. 
 
 I now proceed to show further, that the first eleven 
 chapters of Genesis, the portion of Scripture now specially 
 under consideration, are a genuine historical document and 
 must come under my definition of Inspiration. This I do 
 by an appeal (1) to the use made of them by our Lord and 
 His Apostles, (2) to the matters which they contain, and (3) 
 to the early place thej'' occupy in the Sacred Volume. 
 
 1. The following series of verses chosen from these 
 chapters, with corresponding texts from the New Testament 
 placed after them, shows how repeatedly this portion of 
 Scripture is either quoted or referred to by our Lord and 
 His Apostles : — 
 
 Gen. I. 1. In the beginning 3. And God said. Let there be 
 
 God created the heaven and the light : and there was light. 
 
 8*"'^' 2 Cor. Iv. 6.— Grod, who oommanded 
 
 _,.,., ,. _ ... __ the light to shine out of darkness. 
 
 Heb. 1. 10 (quoting Ps. cu.)- — Thou, *= 
 
 Lord, in the heginning hast laid the 
 
 foundation of the earth, and the hea- 
 
 vens are the works of thine hands. 
 
 ^■^'lv?'-Ar'^'""°'i'f ^ *^'*\'^'' "^'^'^f " 9. And God said, Let the waters 
 
 stand that the worlds were framed hy "■ """ -^'"^ »» , v^ 
 
 the word of God, so that things which under the heaven be gathered to- 
 
 are seen were not made of things which ^j^ ^^ . ^^^ jg^ ^j^g 
 
 do appear. o r i 
 
 dry land appear : and it was so. 
 
 u 
 
290 
 
 INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 2 Pet. iii. 5.— By the word of God the 
 heavens were of old, and the earth, 
 standing- out of the water and in the 
 water. 
 
 11. And God said, Let the earth 
 bring forth grass, the herb yield- 
 ing seed, and the fruit tree yield- 
 ing fruit after his kind, -whose 
 seed is in itself, upon the earth : 
 and it was so. 
 
 Heb, vi. 7. — The earth which . .- . . 
 hringeth forth herbs meet for them by 
 whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing- 
 from God. 
 
 26. And God said, Let us make 
 man in our image, after our 
 likeness : and let them have do- 
 minion over the fish of the sea, 
 and over the fowl of the air, and 
 over the cattle, and over all the 
 earth, and over every creeping 
 thing that creepeth upon the 
 earth. 
 
 Heh. ii. 7, 8 (quoting Ps. viii. 6).— 
 Thou madest him a little lower than 
 the angels ; thoii crownedst him with 
 gloiy and hooioui*, and didst set him 
 over the works of thy hands : thou hast 
 imt all things in subjection under his 
 feet. 
 
 II. 1. Thus the heavens and 
 
 the earth were finished, and all 
 the host of them. 
 
 Acts iv. 24.— Lord, thou art God, 
 which hast made heaven, and earth, 
 and the sea, and all that in them is. 
 
 Acts xiv. 16. — .... the living God, 
 which made heaven, and earth, and the 
 sea, and all things that are therein, 
 
 -4cfs xvii. 24- — God that made the 
 world and all things therein. 
 
 Eph. iii. 9. — .... God, who created 
 all things by Jesus Christ. 
 
 Col. i. 16. — For by him were all things 
 created, that are in heaven, and that are 
 in earth, visible and invisible, whether 
 tTiey he thrones, or dominions, or prin- 
 cipalities, or powers : all things were 
 created by him, and for him. 
 
 Heb. i, 2. — . . .by whom also he 
 made the worlds. 
 
 Heb. iii. 4. — He that built all things 
 is God. 
 
 Rev. iv. 11.— .... for thou hast 
 created all things, and for thy pleasure 
 they are and were created. 
 
 Rev. X. 6.— And sware by hiTn that 
 liveth for ever and ever, who created 
 heaven, and the things that therein 
 are, and the earth, and the things that 
 therein are, and the sea, and the things 
 which are therein. 
 
 Rev, xiv. 7.— Worship him that made 
 heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the 
 fountains of waters. 
 
 27. So God created man in his 
 ow)i image, in the image of God 
 created he him : male and female 
 created he them. 
 
 1 Coy. xi. 7. — For a man indeed ought 
 not to cover his head, forasmuch as he 
 is the image and glory of Grcd, 
 
 James iii. 9. — .... men, which are 
 made after the similitude of Gt>d. 
 
 Matt. xix. 4. — Have ye not read, that 
 he which made them at the begimiing 
 made them male and female ? 
 
 2. And on the seventh day God 
 ended his work which he had 
 made ; and he rested on the 
 seventh day from all his work 
 which he had made. 
 
 Heb. iv. 4. — For he spake in a certain 
 place of the seventh day on this wise, 
 And God did rest iihe seventh day from 
 all his works. 
 
 3. And God blessed the seventh 
 day, and sanctified it : because 
 that in it he had rested from all 
 his work, which God created and 
 made. 
 
 Mark ii. 27.— The Sabbath was made 
 for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 
 
FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF CJENESIS. 
 
 391 
 
 7. And the Lord God formed 
 man of the dust of the ground, 
 and breathed into his nostrils the 
 breath of life ; and man became a 
 living soul. 
 
 J/uki, iii. 38. — ^Adam, which, was fTie 
 son of God. 
 
 1 Gm-. XV, 45. — And so it is written. 
 The first man Adam was made a living 
 soul. 
 
 1 Gm\ XV. 47. — The first man is of the 
 earth, earthy. 
 
 9. And out of the ground made 
 the Lord God to grow every tree 
 that is pleasant to the sight, and 
 good for food ; the tree of life also 
 in the midst of the garden, and 
 the tree of knowledge of good and 
 evil. 
 
 Keu. ii. 7. — To him that overcometh 
 will I give to eat of the tree of life, 
 which is in the midst of the Paradise 
 of God. 
 
 18. And the Lord God said, It is 
 not good that the man should be 
 alone ; I will make an help meet 
 for him. 
 
 1 Cor, xi. 9, — Neither was the man 
 created for the woman ; but the woman 
 for the man. 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 13. — For Adam was first 
 formed, then Eve. 
 
 23. — And Adam said, This is now 
 bone of my bones, and flesh of 
 my flesh : she shall be called 
 Woman, because she was taken 
 out of Man. 
 
 1 Cor. xi, 8. — For the man is not of 
 the woman J but the woman of the 
 man. 
 
 24. Therefore shall a man leave 
 his father and his mother, and 
 
 shall cleave unto his wife : and 
 they shall he one flesh. 
 
 Matt. xix. 4, 5. — ^And he answered 
 and said unto them, Have ye not read, 
 that he which made them at the be- 
 giiming made them male and female, 
 and said, For this cause shall a man 
 leave father and mother, and shall 
 cleave to Ms wife : and they twain 
 shall be one flesh? — See also Marie, x. 
 6—8. 
 
 JSom. vii. 2.— The woman which hath 
 an husband is bound by the law to /ler 
 husband so long as he liveth. 
 
 1 Cor. vi. 16. — .... for two, saith 
 he, shall be one fiesh. 
 
 EpTi. V. 30, 31. — For we are mem.bers 
 of his body, of his flesh, and of his 
 bones. For this cause shall a man 
 leave his father and mother, and shall 
 be Joined ujito his wife, and they two 
 shall be one flesh. 
 
 III. 4. And the serpent said 
 unto the woman, Ye shall not 
 surely die : 
 
 5. For God doth know, that in 
 the day ye eat thereof, then your 
 eyes shall be opened, and ye shall 
 be as gods, knowing good and 
 evil. 
 
 John viii, 44. — Te are of your father 
 
 the devil He was a murderer 
 
 from the beginning, and abode not in 
 the truth, because there is no truth in 
 
 2 Cor. xi. 3. — But I fear, lest by any 
 means, as the serpent beguiled Eve 
 through his subtlety, so your minds 
 should be corrupted from the simplicity 
 that is in Christ. 
 
 1 John iii. 8. — He that committeth 
 sin is of the devU ; for the devil siuneth 
 from the beginning. 
 
 Bev. xii. 9, — And the great dragon 
 was cast out, that old serpent, called 
 the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth 
 the whole world. — See also xx. 2. 
 
 6. And when the woman saw that 
 the tree was good for food, and 
 that it was pleasant to the eyes, 
 and a tree to be desired to make. 
 
292 
 
 INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 one wise, she took of the fruit 
 thereof, and did eat, and gave also 
 unto her husband with her ; and 
 he did eat. 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 14. — And Adam was not 
 deceived, but the woman being de- 
 ceived was in tbe transgression. 
 
 15. And I will put enmity be- 
 tween thee and the woman, and 
 between thy seed and her seed ; 
 it shall bruise thy head, and thou 
 shalt bruise his heel. 
 
 Kom. xvi. 20. — And the Grod of peace 
 shall bruise Satan under your feet 
 shortly. 
 
 16. Unto the woman he said, I 
 will greatly multiply thy sorrow 
 and thy conception ; in sorrow 
 thou shalt bring forth children ; 
 and thy desire shall be to thy 
 husband, and he shall rule over 
 thee. 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 3 — .... the head of the 
 woman is the man. 
 
 1 Cor. xiv, 34. — .... tJiey are com- 
 TTianded to be under obedience, as also 
 saith the law. 
 
 17. And unto Adam he said. Be- 
 cause thou hast hearkened unto 
 the voice of thy wif e , and hast eaten 
 of the tree, of which I commanded 
 thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat 
 of it : cursed is the ground for thy 
 sake ; in sorrow shalt thou eat of 
 it all the days of thy life . 
 
 18. Thorns also and thistles shall 
 it bring forth to thee ; and thou 
 shalt eat the herb of the field : 
 
 19. In the sweat of thy face shalt 
 thou eat bread, till thou return 
 unto the ground: for out of it 
 
 wast thou taken : for dust thou 
 art, and unto dust shalt thou 
 return. 
 
 Bom. V. 12.— .... by one man sin 
 entered into the world, and death by 
 sin. 
 
 fiom. vi. 23. — The wages of sin is 
 death. 
 
 Bom. viii. 20, 22. — .... The crea- 
 ture was made subject to vanity. . . . 
 the whole creation groaneth. 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 21, 22.— By man came death. 
 .... in Adam all die. 
 
 Heb. ix, 27. — It is appointed unto men 
 once to die. 
 
 20. And Adam called his wife's 
 name Eve ; because she was the 
 mother of aU living. 
 
 Acts xvii. 26. — And hath made of one 
 blood all nations of men. 
 
 IV. 4. And Abel, he also 
 brought of the firstlings of his 
 flock and of the fat thereof. And 
 the Lord had respect unto Abel 
 and to his offering : 
 5. But unto Cain and to his 
 offering he had not respect. 
 
 Heh. xi. 4. — By faith Abel ofEered unto 
 God a more excellent sacrifice than 
 Cain, by which he obtained witness 
 that he was righteous, God testifying 
 of his gifts. 
 
 8. And Cain talked with Abel his 
 brother : and it came to pass, when 
 they were in the field, that Cain 
 rose up against Abel his brother, 
 and slew him. 
 
 Matt, xxiii. 35. — .... all the right- 
 eous blood shed upon the earth, from 
 
 the blood of righteous Abel — 
 
 See also Imke, xi. 51. 
 
 1 John iji. 12. — Not as Gain, wTio was 
 of that wicted one, and slew his 
 brother. , 
 
 Jude 11. — They have gone in the way 
 of Cain. 
 
FIE8T ELEVEN CHAPTERS OP GENESIS. 
 
 293 
 
 10. And he said, What hast thou 
 done ? the voice of thy brother's 
 blood crieth unto me from the 
 ground. 
 
 Heb. xii. 24.— .... the Ijlood of 
 sprinkling, that speaketh better things 
 than that of Abel. 
 
 V. 3. And Adam .... begat a 
 son .... and called his son Seth. 
 6. And Seth .... begat Enos. 
 9. And Enos .... begat Oainan, 
 
 &c 32. And Noah begat 
 
 Shem. 
 
 Luke iii. 36 — 38.— .... which was 
 the son of Sem, which was the son of 
 !Noe which was tTie .son of Adam. 
 
 Jude 14. — Enoch, , , . the seventh 
 from Adam. 
 
 24. And Enoch walked with 
 
 God : and he was not ; for God 
 
 took him. 
 
 Eeb. xi. 5. — By faith Enoch was trans- 
 lated that he should not see death ; 
 and was not found, because God had 
 translated him. 
 
 VI. 3. And the Lord said, My 
 Spirit shall not always strive with 
 man, for that he also is flesh : yet 
 his days shall be an hundred and 
 
 twenty years li. Make thee 
 
 an ark of gopher wood .... 17. 
 And behold, I, even I, do bring a 
 flood of waters upon the earth, to 
 destroy all flesh .... 18. But 
 .... thou shalt come into the 
 ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy 
 wife, and thy sons' wives with 
 thee. 22. Thus did Noah. 
 
 Heh. xi. 7. — By faith Noah, being 
 warned of God of things not seen as 
 yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark 
 to the saving of his house. 
 
 1 Pet. iii. 20. — The long-suffering of 
 
 God waited in the days of Noah, while 
 the ark was a preparing. 
 
 VII. 7. And Noah went in ... . 
 into the ark .... 17. And the 
 waters increased, and bare up the 
 ark .... 21. And all flesh died 
 that moved upon the earth .... 
 
 23 and Noah only remained 
 
 alive, and they that were with him 
 in the ark. 
 
 Luke xvii. 27. — Noe entered into the 
 ark, and the flood came and destroyed 
 them all. — See also Matt. sxiv. 38, 39. 
 
 1 Pet. iii. 20.— .... the ark ... . 
 wherein few, that is, eight souls, were 
 saved by water. 
 
 2 Pet. ii. 5. — And spared not the old 
 world, but saved Noah the eighth per- 
 son, a preacher of righteousness, bring- 
 ing in the flood upon the world of the 
 ungodly. 
 
 2 Pet. m. 6.— Whereby the world that 
 then was, being overflowed with water, 
 perished. 
 
 IX. 3. Every moving thing that 
 liveth shall be meat for you ; even 
 as the green herb have I given you 
 all things. 
 
 1 Tim. iv. 3. — .... meats, which 
 God hath created to be received with 
 thanksgiving of them which believe 
 and know the truth. 
 
 4. But flesh with the life thereof, 
 which is the blood thereof, shall 
 ye not eat. 
 
 Acts XV. 29. — That ye abstain .... 
 from blood. 
 
 11. . . . neither shall all flesh be 
 cut off any more by the waters of 
 a flood ; neither shall there any 
 more be a flood to destroy the 
 earth. See also VIII. 22. 
 
294 INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 2 Pet. iii. 7.— But the heavens and XI. 10. Shem .... begat Ar- 
 
 the earth, wMcli are now, by tlie same i i lo a^,i Ai.v^v^o-iro/1 
 
 word are kept in store, rklrved unto phaxad .... 12. And Arphaxad 
 
 Are against the day o£ judgment. begat Salab, &0 26. And 
 
 Terah .... begat Abram. 
 
 •V oci mu iu jr •!• lulte iii. 34^36.— Ahraham, which was 
 
 X. 32. These are the families j^^ 5„ of Thara .... which was tu 
 of the sons of Noah, after their son of Sem. 
 generations, in their nations : and 
 
 by these were the nations divided 31- And Terah took Abram his 
 in the earth after the flood. son ... . and they went forth 
 
 .... from Ur of the Cnaldees 
 
 Acts xvii. 26,— And hath made of one j it „„„„ „„+„ TTaran 
 
 blood all nations of men for to dweu on • • • • ana iMy came unTO naran, 
 
 all the face of the earth, and hath de- and dwelt there, 
 termined the times before appointed, 
 
 and the bounds of their habitation. ^cts vii. 2.— Abraham, when he was 
 
 in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt m 
 Charran. 
 
 1. Here are sixty-six passages of tlie New Testament in 
 ■whicli these eleven chapters of Genesis are either directly 
 quoted, or are made a ground of argument. Of these, six 
 are by our Lord Himself, two of them being direct quota- 
 tions ; thirty-eight by St. Paul, three being direct quota- 
 tions ; six by St. Peter ; seven in St. John's writings ; one 
 by St. James ; two by St. Jude ; two by the assembled 
 Apostles ; three by St. Luke, two of them direct quotations ; 
 and one by St. Stephen. 
 
 The inference which I would draw from this circum- 
 Onr Lord and stance is, that our Lord and His Apostles 
 
 regiSded'^^ regarded these eleven chapters as historical 
 
 ''S^historicS^ documents -worthy of credit, and that they made 
 
 documents, ^^q pf iT^Q^ to estabhsh truths — a thing they 
 
 never would have done, had they not known them to be 
 
 authoritative. 
 
 The texts quoted or referred to lie, moreover, scattered 
 through the chapters in such a way, that no claim of au- 
 thority can be set up for one part which cannot be equally 
 demanded for every other. The creation of matter, the 
 formation of the worlds and all things in them, the com- 
 mand that light should shine, the separation of the waters 
 
FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. 295 
 
 and tke appearance of dry land ; the creation of man out of 
 tlie dust j dominion given him over the irrational world ; 
 his being made in the image of God, and having a living 
 soul ; God resting the seventh day from all His works, and 
 the institution of the Sabbath ; Adam being first made and 
 then Eve, the woman from and for the man, and their being 
 made male and female ; the law of marriage, and the man 
 cleaving unto his wife so that two should be one flesh ; the 
 Fall, and the entrance of sin and death into the world, its 
 origin in Satan's guile tempting and deceiving Eve in the 
 form of a serpent with lying words, Adam not deceived but 
 tempted through Eve, the curse upon the serpent that the 
 seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head ; the 
 origin of all nations in one blood ; the existence of the tree 
 of life in Paradise ; the history of Cain and Abel ; the 
 genealogy from Adam to Ifoah, and also from JSToah to 
 Abraham ; the exalted character of Enoch ; circumstances 
 connected with the Deluge ; and the subsequent division of 
 the earth among the descendants of Noah ; — all these topics 
 are severally drawn from the chapters under consideration 
 by our Lord and His Apostles, in a manner which precludes 
 every hypothesis, but that they regarded the opening por- 
 tion of the Sacred Volume to be of historic credibility and 
 plenary authority. The notion that these chapters are 
 myths or merely parabolic, as some have hastily conjectured ; 
 or that the account of the Creation and Eall was acted over 
 in a vision to Moses, as others have suggested, are only 
 devices for getting rid of their historical character. But the 
 fact that they are quoted and used as circumstantial narra- 
 tives by infallible authority, can never be thus set aside. 
 
 2. The historical credibility of these chapters having 
 been thus established, the proof of their inspiration imme- 
 diately follows from an examination of their con- Their 
 tents. Nothing short of a Divine communication iJSowsfoom 
 could have furnished the information which they *ii^^' <=oiiteiits. 
 
296 INSPIRATION OP THE 
 
 contain regarding the origin of matter, and the formation of 
 the worlds ; the origin of man, his original purity and 
 uprightness, his soul made in the image of God ; the history 
 of the entrance of sin and death into the world ; and the 
 two Paradisiacal institutions of the Sahbath and Marriage. 
 "While, then, the seal set to the document by our Lord and 
 His Apostles stamps these communications as unerring 
 verities, the nature of the truths themselves leaves no alter- 
 native but to conclude, that they were written under the 
 inspiration of God. 
 
 3. These same transcendental truths appear in other 
 parts of Scripture ; and it is possible that, in treating of 
 rjjigsg them there, an objector to Inspiration might 
 Chapters are (jgjjy 1}^^ inference which I have drawn. But 
 quotations, jjere there is no room for such denial ; here they 
 appear for the first time. And, consequently, though it 
 might be suggested by some regarding other parts of Scrip- 
 ture containing them, that there the statements were bor- 
 rowed, and that therefore those portions could not carry 
 with them their own evidence of inspiration, any more than 
 any ordinary human compositions quoting the same, here 
 there can be no doubt. Here is the original source and 
 fountain, from which all subsequent information regarding 
 them is drawn. These are the very documents to which the 
 prophets, from Moses downwards, and our Lord Himself and 
 His Apostles at the end of that long period, pointed as a 
 true source and fountain of information. 
 
 It is difficult to suggest what stronger evidence could 
 liave been given than this, short of a voice from heaven 
 which every ear could hear in every age. But even then, 
 no doubt, the hesitations of unbelief would darken the testi- 
 mony ; and it would still in a way be true, that ' if they 
 hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be 
 persuaded though one rose from the dead' (Luke xvi. 31). 
 A celebrated infidel once declared, that if Christianity were 
 
FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. 297 
 
 true, it would have been recorded in unmistakable cbaracters 
 upon the heavens, that none might have room to doubt in 
 so important a matter. But he was met by the query, 
 whether this was the case in natural religion — whether it is 
 not by patient inquiry and diligent examination of evidence, 
 which the works of God and our consciences supply, that the 
 first principles of natural religion are discovered and be- 
 lieved inl So of Christianity : so of Inspiration. We must 
 weigh the evidence : for it is upon evidence alone that we 
 can determine.* 
 
 * Iq the First Edition (1856) I gave a sketch of the general argu- 
 ment for the inspiration of the whole Old Testament taken as one 
 volume. I now remove those portions of the text to a note, and add 
 some remarks on the inspiration of the New Testament also. 
 
 OTTTLINE OF THE ARGTOMENT FOR THE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 OLD AND HEW TESTAMENTS. 
 
 The Old Testament consists of those writings which were known 
 in the time of our Lord as oi •ypa(pal, or The Scriptures, and were 
 admitted on all hands, by friends and enemies, to be of infallible 
 authority, from which there was no appeal. 
 
 It is of these that St. Paul declares (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17), ' Ail 
 Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
 doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ; 
 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all 
 good works.' And regarding the sacred penmen, St. Peter thus speaks 
 (2 Pet. i. 21) : ' Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost.' And also the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 (i. 1), ' God ... at sundry times and in divers manners spake in 
 time past unto the fathers by the prophets.' 
 
 Some have attempted to deprive us of the testimony of the first 
 of these texts to the doctrine that the whole of Scripture is inspired, 
 by suggesting that it might be differently translated in connexion 
 with the context, and be made to say, not that every part of Scripture 
 is inspired and profitable, but that all those parts which are inspired are 
 ' profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
 righteousness,' — a mere truism, compared with the lesson which our 
 translation and, I feel persuaded, the original gives. They cannot 
 deny that our own translation is a perfectly legitimate one ; but they 
 
298 CONSEQUENT FREEDOM FROM BRROB OF THE 
 
 It follows as a natural corollary from what has gone 
 before, that in these chapters there is no admixture of error 
 
 consider that theirs also is admissible. Apart, however, from philo- 
 logical and critical reasons, does this suit the context well ? St. Paul 
 is commending the ' Holy Scriptures ' to Timothy, meaning the Old 
 Testament in which he had been taught by his Jewish mother and 
 grandmother ; and he sums up his commendation with this text and 
 what follows. If he meant to imply that only parts of these Holy 
 Scriptures, which were received by the Jews and referred to by our 
 Lord as a whole, were inspired, and that those were profitable, was 
 it not a great omission, that he gave Timothy no canon by which he 
 should know which were inspired, and which were not ? But no such 
 canon appears, nor is one alluded to. In fact, this limiting hypothesis 
 has no good argument to stand upon, and must be abandoned. The 
 truth, however, of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture as a whole does 
 not rest solely on this text. If the text did not exist, the same result 
 is to be gathered from other passages. 
 
 In entire accordance with these universal statements by St. Paul 
 and St. Peter are the terms in which the Scriptures are incidentally 
 referred to throughout the New Testament. See for example Matt. i. 
 22 ; ii. 15 ; Mark xii. 36 ; Luke i. 70 ; Acts i. 16 ; iii. 18 ; iv. 25 ; 
 xxviii. 25 ; Rom. i. 2 ; Heb. iii. 7. 
 
 Take also the following, in which the Scriptures are spoken of in 
 a way which belongs only to an Inspired Volume : Mark vii. 13 ; 
 John X. 35 ; Acts vii. 38 ; Rom. iii. 2 ; Eph. vi. 17 ; Heb. v. 12 ; 
 1 Pet. iv. 11. 
 
 The same Scriptures are continually referred to in the following 
 terms : — ' That the scripture might be fulfilled ; ' ' Have ye not read 
 this scripture ? ' 'As the scripture saith ;' ' What saith the scripture?' 
 and similar forms of appeal occur in endless variety, all pointing to 
 the sacred records as an infallible source of light and knowledge. 
 
 In strict keeping with this view are the declarations of the inspired 
 penmen themselves : as the following, 2 Sam. xxiu. 1, 2 ; Isaiah i. 10 ; 
 Jer. i. 1, 2. and many such passages. 
 
 ' Thus saith the Lord ;' ' The mouth of the Lord hath spoken ;' 
 and many similar formulae perpetually occur, all pointing to the same 
 result, — that the writers were conscious that they were speaking by 
 the Spirit, and under His guidance. 
 
 But under the designation of ' Scripture' come, not only the Old 
 Testament, but also those writings which have been handed down to 
 us as the undoubted records of the Evangelists and Apostles, who 
 
PIBST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. 299 
 
 of any kind, no inaccuracies arising from human ignorance 
 and infirmity. For all is from God ; and there- .j^^^^ 
 fore hears His stamp. When the Maker of the ^^J'e^co„toto^' 
 world deigns to hecome an Author, it is to be no' error, 
 expected that His Word would he as perfect as His works. 
 
 •were endowed by the Holy Ghost with all truth, as our Lord specially 
 told them they should be, to teach and preach the Gospel, and to 
 plant the Christian Church (See Matt. x. 19, 20 ; Mark xiii. 11 ; 
 Luke xii. 11, 12 ; John xiv. 16, 17, 25, 26 ; xvi. 12—15). Can we for 
 one moment suppose that they were thus inspired in their teaching, 
 but not so in their writing 1 
 
 That the term ' Scripture ' is to he extended to the New Testament 
 writings, is evident also from some incidental notices which lie in 
 these writings, as seeds of evidence of the greatest value, now that 
 the spirit of scepticism would call their Inspiration in question. St. 
 Peter speaks thus of St. Paul's writings. In alluding to some of the 
 profound truths he delivered, he says, — ' In which there are some 
 things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned [i.e. 
 unlearned in the truth] wrest as they do also the othee Soriptckbs.' 
 Hence St. Paul's writings came under the designation of ' Scripture,' 
 in the times of the Apostles, as much as the Old Testament, here 
 called ' the other Sceiptubes.' Again, St. Paul writes to Timothy, 
 ' For the Soeiptuee saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth 
 out the corn.' And, ' The labourer is worthy of his reward.' (1 Tim. 
 v. 18.) The first of these quotations is from Deuteronomy ; but the 
 second is found only in St. Luke (See x. 7 ; also, Matt. x. 10). 
 Hence St. Paul calls this Gospel, which was then in circulation, the 
 ' Scripture,' or part of the Scriptures. 
 
 Thus the New Testament, as well as the Old, comes under the 
 designation of ' Scripture ; ' and the whole volume must therefore, 
 in every part of it, participate in this characteristic announced by 
 St. Paul, — ' All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.' 
 
 There are in this volume many things which reason could never 
 have discovered ; though there are other things, such as the acts 
 of history, which needed no revelation. But if all Scripture is given 
 by inspiration of God, we conclude that not only were those transcend- 
 ental truths, for which the Bible is unique, revealed ; but also, in all 
 matters of an ordinary kind, the writers were directed by that same 
 Spirit what to select, to form a part of the sacred deposit ; and in 
 their records were preserved from all error. Otherwise, I repeat, 
 
300 CONSEQUENT PEEEDOM FROM ERROR OF THE 
 
 He is the God of truth, and is incapable of deceiving His 
 creatures ; it is impossible, therefore, that He should have 
 introduced anything but truth into His revelation. 
 
 what can this meau ? ' All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
 God. 
 
 Inspiration is a more general term than Revelation. Revelation 
 applies solely to those things which could not be discovered by reason. 
 Inspiration includes this, and more. It implies a Divine guidance in 
 other things, when necessary. Aholiab and Bezaleel, who were raised 
 up by God to construct the tabernacle in the wilderness, and all the 
 curious carving for its decoration, were said to be 'filled with the 
 Spirit' of God for this work (Exod. xxxv. 31). 'The inspiration 
 of the Almighty,' we are told, ' giveth understanding ' (Job xxxii. 8). 
 We pray for ourselves that God would ' cleanse the thoughts of our 
 hearts by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.' 
 
 We speak of genius sometimes as a kind of inspiration. We talk 
 of the inspiration of the poet or of the musical composer. And some 
 have attempted to account for the Inspiration which they cannot but 
 acknowledge in some parts of the Scriptures, by referring it to a 
 high-wrought description of genius. Genius is no doubt the gift of 
 God ; and is far more rarely bestowed than reason, another of His 
 gifts. But it can never account for the presence of those lofty truths 
 and those heaven-born revelations, which He only who is Infinite, to 
 whom the past, present, and future, are all alike, could have commu- 
 nicated ; nor can it account for those miraculous, as well as prophetic 
 powers, with which many of the holy men of God were endowed, as a 
 testimony to the truth of what they said and wrote. 
 
 The Inspiration, then, for which I am contending, cannot but be 
 acknowledged in those parts of Scripture which have been obviously 
 given by revelation. But Scripture, as a whole, is often appealed 
 to as of final authority. How, then, can we admit that there is any 
 admixture of human infirmity in any part ? If there be error in any 
 part, and this is not distinctly revealed to us, who is to draw the line, 
 and say, ' This is true, and that doubtful 1 ' 
 
 On the term ' Verbal Inspiration.' 
 
 The precise mode in which this power operated on the inspired 
 writers is not told us ; and, probably, were it revealed to us, it would 
 be beyond our comprehension. Fanciful and overstrained notions 
 have sometimes been charged upon the advocates of Inspiration, in 
 
FIRST ELEVBJf CHAPTEES OF GENESIS. 301 
 
 At the same time, we must not shut our eyes to the 
 obvious scope and purpose of the communications made to 
 
 consequence of their use of the term ' verbal,' as applied to this pro- 
 perty of Scripture — a term which controversy has almost forced upon 
 us in discussions on the subject. The origin of the phrase appears to 
 be this : — Some have suggested, that while the writers may have had 
 ideas divinely infused into their minds, they were left altogether to 
 their own unaided faculties and gifts to clothe them in appropriate 
 language ; and that, therefore, though the sublimest truths and reve- 
 lations are to be expected in Holy Writ, yet human error and infirmity 
 cannot be altogether absent. But, as if to meet such statements by 
 anticipation, St. Paul expressly asserts that ' all Scripture (he speaks 
 not here of the writers, but Scripture — that which is written) is given 
 by inspiration of God ;' and many of the passages already quoted speak 
 in the same strain. To express the opposite of the above-mentioned 
 erroneous view, the term ' Verbal Inspiration ' has been brought into 
 use ; and, if retained, its origin should always be remembered. I 
 understand it to imply simply that the language is inspired, as well as 
 the truths, without at all entering into the question of the mode of 
 this Inspiration. I conceive that, at least, the writers were so under 
 the guidance and control of the Holy Spirit, as to preserve them from 
 using language which would convey error. 
 
 Differences of style no objection. 
 
 It has been objected, that the existence of wide differences of style, 
 so conspicuous in the writers of Scripture, militates strongly against 
 the notion of the controlling influence implied in Inspiration. This 
 controlling power, it is said, would produce an uniformity of style 
 which is not found in Scripture. Those, however, who entertain such 
 thoughts seem not to be aware, that they are degrading the Divine 
 Spirit to the level of one who possesses only the limited powers of a 
 finite mortal. We beg, in reply, to ask such persons. What would you 
 expect to be the style of the Holy Ghost ? Are not all styles His ? 
 As He employs the free-will of men in all its tortuous varieties to 
 work out His purposes in the moral government of the world, cannot 
 He overrule their natural powers and diversities of disposition and 
 gifts, all in their freest action, for the holier and higher purpose of 
 communicating His will ? In this wondrous diversity we possess one 
 of the most striking illustrations of the truth of that Inspiration for 
 which we contend. The keys and stops may be as various as the 
 
302 CONSEQUENT FREEDOM FROM ERROR OP THE 
 
 ITS in Holy Scripture, lest we should be looking for in- 
 formation which it was never intended we should find ; for 
 
 minds of men ; but when tuned by the Great Musician, and breathed 
 upon by the Spirit from on high, each gives utterance to its own 
 melodious strain, while all combine their richness to produce one 
 harmonious whole. Accordingly, all the peculiarities of genius, 
 character, thought, and feeling, belonging to the writers as human 
 beings, and resulting from the several social positions they occupied, 
 were employed by the Holy Spirit for communicating the Divine will 
 in these records, written at various epochs through a long period of at 
 least fifteen centuries from the days of Moses to the time of Christ, 
 and yet breathing the same spirit, and manifesting a marvellous 
 consistency under all their variety, in a way which a Divine original 
 can alone account for. 
 
 Copyists not inspired. 
 
 It need scarcely be observed, that it is the Original Scriptures for 
 which this claim of Inspiration is set up. We do not contend that 
 copyists were inspired, nor that they were necessarily free from those 
 inaccuracies, in the process of transmitting the ancient manuscripts, 
 to which the most careful are liable. We rejoice in the labours of the 
 learned critic and philologist, who wUl, by comparison of J\ISS. and 
 by researches into the meaning and use of words, improve the text, 
 and bring it back as near to the original as possible. The result of 
 their unwearied toil is a triumphant testimony to the almost-perfect 
 integrity of the text as we have it. Time, talent, and learning have 
 been lavishly spent upon this laborious investigation ; and the 
 learned rationalist Eichhorn has admitted, that the different readings 
 of the Hebrew MSS. collated by the indefatigable Kennicott (near 
 600 in number) offer no sufficient interest to compensate for the 
 labour they cost. 
 
 Dr. Moses Stewart observes : ' In the Hehrew MSS. that have 
 been examined, some 800,000 various readings actually occm- as to the 
 Hebrew consonants. How many as to the vowel-points and accents, 
 no man knows. But at the same time it is equally true, that all these 
 taken together do not change or materially affect any important point 
 of doctrine, precept, or even history. A great proportion, indeed the 
 mass of variations in Hebrew MSS. when minutely scanned, amount to 
 nothing more than the difference in spelling a multitude of English 
 words [e.gr. Sp for ^ip ; as honour, for honor'] .... Indeed, one may 
 travel through the immense desert (so I can hardly help naming it) of 
 
FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OP GENESIS. 303 
 
 it has been well said,* that the Scriptures are a ' record of 
 the moral destinies of man, and therefor^e altogether uncon- 
 nected "with any exposition of the phenomena of the natural 
 ■world, and the laws by which material things are held together.' 
 Some have conceived that in darker ages, ere the mind 
 of man had unfolded itself to the varied wonders of the 
 world around and within him which modern science has dis- 
 closed, a necessity existed for veiling truth in terms, not 
 solely ambiguous and obscure, but imperfect, and even in 
 some instances of doubtful verity, to meet the ignorance 
 and prejudice of the times. But the necessity hinted at is 
 purely one of their own invention. He who has all ideas, 
 all language, all creation at His commaod — from whom all 
 laws take their rule — to whom the past, the present, and 
 the future, are all one, with all their occurrences — needs 
 not to stoop to human imperfections in conveying His 
 
 Kennicott and De Rossi, and (if I may venture to speak in homely 
 phrase) not find game enough to be worth the hunting. So com- 
 pletely is this chase given up by recent critics on the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, that a reference to either of these famous collators of MSS., who 
 once created a great sensation among philologers, is rarely to be 
 found.' — Quoted in Leis Inspiration, p. 410 (the most able, conclusive, 
 and instructive work in the English language on the general subject 
 of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture). 
 
 Translators not Inspired. 
 
 Nor do we claim inspiration for the Translators. All sound re- 
 searches, therefore, into the structure of language, and all discoveries 
 in natural science, which help to throw light on the meaning of the 
 original and to correct and improve our versions, are welcomed hy the 
 serious student. 
 
 It is for the Inspiration of the Original Scriptures, and for that 
 alone, that we contend ; and the arguments we have adduced — which 
 may be found drawn out at greater length, and with fuller illustrations, 
 in works expressly on the subject — while they establish the fact for the 
 Sacred Volume in general, at the same time involve the Inspiration of 
 every portion of it. 
 
 * ^td.%-^\a's!%I)iscourseontheStudiesoft'he University of Gamhridge. 
 
304 FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF GENESIS FREE FROM ERROR. 
 
 thoughts or the knowledge of His acts and works even to 
 the most ignorant, and illiterate. To the Infinite, the 
 Omniscient, the Almighty, it is as easy to select terms 
 which are in themselves correct, as words of inferior force — 
 terms which will need no reforming hand to suit them to 
 the endless changes which time unfolds, and which keener 
 search and increasing light unceasingly add to the sum of 
 human knowledge. 
 
 Those, moreover, who feel inclined to regard this early 
 portion of Scripture as parabolic, or given in vision, I 
 would ask. What end is answered by such an hypothesis 1 
 That the Omniscient should afford us glimpses of futurity 
 through the disguise of symbolic imagery and figurative 
 language, is what we might expect ; for prophecies must be 
 more or less obscure, otherwise they might be made a pre- 
 text for the most atrocious crimes. But the case is different 
 with positive statements, assuming to be narratives of the 
 past : if any statement at all were to be made respecting 
 the past, there is no conceivable reason why it should not be 
 the simple truth. The only effect of clothing facts in a 
 fabulous disguise would be, to mystify what might just as 
 well have been made perfectly intelligible. 
 
 What I contend for is, that the first eleven chapters of 
 Genesis, being inspired by God, must be free from all error. 
 Where terms are used and facts are affirmed, which belong 
 even to the natural world alone, they can in no instance be 
 wrong, nor involve any error ; though they may commu- 
 nicate no philosophic truth and teach no physical law. We 
 may have to modify our interpretations, to cast aside long- 
 cherished prepossessions by which in our ignorance we and 
 our forefathers had long enveloped and perverted the lan- 
 guage of Scripture ; but in the midst of all this (as I have 
 attempted to show in the First Part by many examples). 
 Holy Scripture still stands forth as the infallible Word of 
 God, without blemish and without defect. 
 
305 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 ON THE SURPASSING IMPORTANCE OP THE FIRST ELEVEN 
 CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. 
 
 It is possible tliat some wlio feel unable to gainsay the pre- 
 ceding argument for the Historical Character and Plenary 
 Inspiration of this portion of the Word of God, and who are 
 willing to admit that the discrepancies alleged against it are 
 satisfactorily explained, may, nevertheless, have a lurking 
 feeling that, after all, these earlier chapters are of compa- 
 ratively small importance, and that Christianity would stUl 
 stand intact were they even blotted out ; and that, there- 
 fore, there is but little use in attending to them, or in 
 taking such pains to vindicate them from the charge of 
 being at variance in some of their statements with the facts 
 of Science. 
 
 That this is a very mistaken view, I propose now to 
 show. I have, in a previous page, pointed out in how many 
 particulars our Lord and His Apostles have referred to these 
 chapters, and drawn from them facts, arguments, and illus- 
 trations of the greatest importance. There are other mat- 
 ters to which I will now draw attention. 
 
 At the twelfth chapter of Genesis commences the history 
 of Abraham and his descendants, which runs through the 
 whole volume of the Old Testament to the end, relating the 
 wonderful things God did in the preparation for the coming 
 of the Saviour of the world. The first eleven chapters may 
 be regarded, therefore, as the introduction to the rest of 
 Scripture, the brief history of the world before the days of 
 
306 IMPOETANCE OP THE 
 
 Abraham, and are a most precious relic of antiquity and 
 treasure of divine revelation. 
 
 1. In the first place, as an historical document this 
 portion of Scripture stands unrivalled, as no other history in 
 
 any nation under heaven can come near it in 
 
 These chapters . . ^„ 
 
 areofunrivaUedpomt of antiquity. The duration of the human 
 race may be divided into three nearly-equal 
 portions of 2000 years each : — from Adam's creation to the 
 time of Abraham is about 2000 years ; from Abraham to the 
 birth of Christ 2000 years ; from Christ to the present day 
 nearly the same. As we ascend the scale backwards from 
 the present day, we possess the history of some branches of 
 the human race through the last of these periods up to 
 Christ, and of Greece and Kome through one quarter only 
 of the second or middle period ; but it is Scripture alone 
 which supplies any authentic or intelligible account of the 
 long vista of years up to the beginning of this middle 
 period ; while in reference to the whole of the first period of 
 2000 years antiquity is profoundly silent, and no vestige of 
 history is to be found, except this Sacred Eecord to which I 
 am now directing attention. "We see, then, its great value 
 in a merely historical point of view. 
 
 2. But these chapters give us information concerning 
 various most important matters : for example, the origin" 
 
 OF THE WORLD. How mauv coniectures and 
 
 TheyteUnsof , . , . , „ , -, 
 
 the origin of guesses On this subject do we find among the 
 ancient philosophers of Greece and Rome, and 
 also in the East ! And yet how important it is to have 
 some certain information regarding the relation of the 
 Creator to the universe, that we may know our own position 
 and our own duty ! 
 
 One class of Greek philosophers conjectured that matter 
 is eternal ; that all the order and harmony we see in nature 
 is the result of chance ; and that the gods take no concern 
 in the affairs of the world. 
 
FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTBHS OF GENESIS. 307 
 
 The ancient Persians, before the change in their tenets 
 brought in by Zoroaster, conceived that there were two in- 
 dependent first causes, the one light, or the good god, who 
 was the author of all good, and the other darkness, or the 
 evil god, who was the author of all evil, and that from the 
 action of these two, in continual struggle with each other, 
 all things were made.* 
 
 The Hindoos look upon the world as an emanation from 
 the Deity himself, and, therefore, as part of the Deity. 
 When Brahm, the Supreme Being, designed, they say, to 
 produce the world, he threw oif his abstraction, and became 
 Brahma, the Creator. From his mouth, arm, thigh, and 
 foot, came the four castes, the priest, the warrior, the 
 trader, and the labourer. As the fruit, they say, is in the 
 seed, awaiting development and expansion, so all material 
 forms exist in Brahma : a notion which degrades the Creator 
 to the level of the creature. 
 
 These are the opinions of men, feeling in their darkness 
 
 * ' According to the " Vendidad " [the sacred book of the Parsees] 
 Hormazd [the good, deity] was opposed by Ahriman [the evil deity] 
 in all his works. When Hormazd created Erinem v^jo, similar to 
 behisbt, or paradise, Ahriman produced in the river the great adder, 
 or winter ; when he created Soghdo, abundant in flocks and men, 
 Ahriman created flies, which spread mortality among the flocks : when 
 he created Bakhdi, pure and brilliant in its colours, Ahriman created 
 a multitude of ants, which destroyed its pavilions ; when he created 
 anything good, Ahriman was sure to create something evil. The 
 power thus ascribed to Ahriman, that of creation, is greater than can 
 be possessed by any created being, and the doctrine which teaches its 
 exercise substantially promulgates the monstrous dogma of two 
 eternal principles, which, though not unknown to the ancient Persians, 
 is altogether unreasonable, as inconsistent with the predominance of 
 order, regularity, and goodness in the system of the universe ; and 
 altogether impious, as it leaves no being of infinite perfection, whom 
 the mind of man may reverence, love, adore, and serve. The cha- 
 racter ascribed to the works referred to, moreover, is totally incon- 
 sistent with their essentialnature,'&c. — Doctrineof Jehovah,addressed 
 to the Parsees, by the Rev. Dr. WOson, Free Church of Scotland, 1839. 
 
308 IMPORTANCE OP THE 
 
 after the truth, but lost in the dimness of unaided reason. 
 But all these reasonings and guesses are set at rest by the 
 revelation of God Himself in the opening of the Sacred 
 Volume, and the empty speculations of philosophers may 
 cease : ' Iisr the beginning God created the heaven and 
 THE earth ' (Gen. i. 1). There was, therefore, a beginning, 
 •when nothing existed ; and God created out of nothing all 
 things that exist. 
 
 How sublime the idea ! ' He commanded, and they were 
 created' (Ps. cxlviii. 5.) 'By the word of the Lord were 
 the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of 
 His mouth' (Ps. xxxiii. 6). It is thus by faith in God's 
 declaration that we learn these things. ' By faith,' through 
 the teaching of these chapters of Genesis, ' we understand 
 that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that 
 things WHICH ARE SEEN Were not made of things which do 
 APPEAR ' (Heb. xi. 2), i. e. they were created, not out of 
 previously existing matter, but out of nothing.* This is an 
 idea which no philosophy has ever conceived, and which 
 Divine Eevelation alone could teach us. 
 
 3. Take another question on which man's reason has 
 puzzled itself in vain. How came evil into the world t 
 
 What Greek, or Hindoo, or other human system, ever 
 
 gave an intelligible account of this 1 But what say tliese 
 
 Q( tj^g chapters 1 Here we have the narrative and the 
 
 entrance of gauge of this fatal event. How valuable, then 
 
 evil into ' 
 
 the world, the Eecord in which all is explained ! God 
 created Adam and Eve perfect : they were innocent and 
 
 * I have seen the latter clause of this text quoted by itself, by an 
 excellent scientific writer, in illustration of the idea, ' that invisible 
 forces are behind and above all visible phenomena ; ' which is perfectly 
 true, but hardly the meaning of this text. Is not its antithesis rather 
 as follows, derived from the first clause '/ — ' so that things which are 
 seen were not made of things which do appear,' but out of nothing by 
 the spoken Word of God; ' He commanded, and they were created.' 
 
FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTEES OF GENESIS. 309 
 
 tappy. But He made them not mere machines, to be His 
 tools or instruments : while He created them with a holy 
 hias on their minds, He gave them free wiUs. They were 
 free to choose what was good and to reject what was evil, 
 or to do the opposite. As a test, there was one restraint 
 laid upon them. They were not to eat of a particular tree ; 
 and God told them, that in the day they ate of it, they 
 should die : it was ' the tree of knowledge of good and evU ' 
 (Gen. ii. 9) ; hy eating of it they would disohey God, ' and 
 would to their cost then know the good of obedience, and 
 the evil of disobedience.'* This one act of disobedience 
 tainted their whole moral being. They fell, and evil 
 entered the world. 
 
 We can understand this. If we are tempted to do some 
 wrong action, and we resist the temptation and triumph over 
 it, how we feel strengthened and encouraged ! But suppose 
 we yield, and commit the sin, is there not a sting within 
 which afterwards goads us 1 Does not conscious guilt tor- 
 ment us ? Has it not weakened our moral power 1 Conceive, 
 then, the first sin, the sin of disobedience to an easy com- 
 mand of a good and gracious God. How, when once per- 
 petrated, must it have stung the conscience of our first 
 parents, and poisoned their moral nature ! How forcibly 
 and truly is this all set forth in the simple narrative of these 
 earlier chapters of Geaesis ! How valuable, then, is this 
 Eecord, in showing us, as no other can, how it came to pass 
 that evil entered into the world ! 
 
 4. There is another question. Although evil is come 
 into the world, and has infected the whole human race, yet 
 
 WHAT A WONDERFUL CREATURE IS MAN ! 
 
 * ' Arbor itaque ilia non erat mala, sed appellata est Scientiae dig- 
 noscendi bonum et malum, quia si post prohibitionem ex ilia homo 
 ederet, in ilia erat praecepti futura transgresslo, in qua homo per ex- 
 perimentum poense disceret, quid interesset inter obedientise bonum et 
 inobedientise malum.' — Augustirie de Genesi ad literam, lib. VIII. 
 cap. vi. § 12. 
 
310 IMPORTANCE OF THE 
 
 In his moral nature, how marvellous is the power of 
 conscience, that inward monitor, accuser, and judge ! Then, 
 in his intellect, how great his genius, how varied his gifts, 
 
 how wonderful his powers of expression ! Ob- 
 trarieties in serve the creations of his genius in music, in 
 
 poetry, in painting, in sculpture ; the triumphs 
 of the reasoning faculty, by which, though tied to the earth, 
 he can scale the heavens, and penetrate into the hidden laws 
 which govern the universe ; the marvellous gift of language, 
 ' that miracle of human nature, at once its chief distinction 
 and its highest glory,' as seen so remarkably in those re- 
 nowned orators of ancient and modern times, who have 
 moved the wills and passions of thousands by the power of 
 eloquence ; the instances of heroic self-devotedness which 
 the history of the world furnishes ; the many noble and 
 lofty sentiments which philosophers have in all ages given 
 utterance to — and yet, with all this, the moral degradation 
 which marks man in every age ; so that the mind shudders 
 at the moral deformities which stain even the most polished 
 times of antiquity, and at the opposition of principles which 
 strive even in the Christian's breast, of whom it is justly 
 said, that tohen he would do good, evil is present with him 
 (Eom. vii. 21). Man is indeed a mystery of inconsistencies, 
 a riddle of greatness and littleness, of good and evil. What 
 account of this strange confusion of things has any philo- 
 sophic system ever given ? None. Pliny, in his perplexity, 
 pronounced man to be an enigma not to be solved. Pascal 
 notices these opposite principles thus : ' The greatness and 
 misery of roan being alike conspicuous, religion, in order to 
 be true, must necessarily teach us that he has in himself 
 some noble principles of greatness, and at the same time 
 some profound source of misery.' 
 
 Turn, then, to the Holy Scriptures, and what do they 
 tell us 1 Here we have the inspired history of facts which 
 unlock the mystery, and show that man is not in the state 
 
FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. 311 
 
 in whicli he was made, that he is a ruin — a monument of a 
 once noble creature, bearing at once the marks of his origin 
 and of the vast change which has come over him. What do 
 we read ? Pirst, that * God created man in his own image, 
 IN THE IMAGE OP GoD Created he him.' (Gen. i. 27.) He 
 created him in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, 
 after the divine resemblance ; not iniinite, but pure, perfect, 
 with high endowments, the glory of all His creatures. But, 
 secondly, that man by disobedience fell from this image, 
 and became a ruin. The history of man's Origin, com- 
 bined with the history of his Fall, is essential to explain the 
 condition and character of man as we find him now ; and 
 these are to be found only in this Sacred Eecord.* 
 
 * 'A fall of some sort or other — the creation, as it were, of the 
 non-absolute — is the fundamental postulate of the moral history of 
 man. Without this hypothesis man is unintelligible— with it, every 
 phenomenon is explicable. The mystery itself is too powerful for 
 human insight. Such, in this matter, was the ultimate judgment of a 
 man who in youth had entertained very opposite views — the poet 
 Coleridge.' — Hugh Miller's Testimony of the Bocks, p. 265. 
 
 ' It is astonishing that the mystery which is farthest removed from 
 our knowledge (I mean the transmission of original sin) should be 
 that, without which we can have no knowledge of ourselves. It is in 
 this abyss that the clue to our condition takes its turns and windings, 
 insomuch that man is more incomprehensible without this mystery, 
 than this mystery is incomprehensible to man.' — Pascal quoted in Dr. 
 McCosh's Method of the Divine Government. 
 
 ' A paradise, a condition of primeval innocence, a state of proba- 
 tion, and a. fall, are absolutely requisite before we can explain anything 
 connected with man. Without these, philosophy would lead us only 
 to a hopeless mystery ; we should know absolutely nothing, and never 
 should be able to attain to knowledge ; for all the science that has ever 
 been evolved does not advance a man a single step in the explanation 
 of his moral nature and moral condition. No man who has rejected 
 these four particulars has ever been able to advance an explanation 
 possessing even the most remote claims to acceptance. They, and they 
 only, solve the perplexing question of human existence — of man en- 
 dowed with the conception of the virtues, yet constantly practising the 
 opposite evils.' — Dove's Logic of the Christian Faith, p. 352. 
 
312 IMPORTANCE OF THE 
 
 5. But let US cast back our thoughts once more upon 
 inshowiag man as he came from his Maker's hands, 'the 
 
 tTey cieiTp image and glory of God,' the crown of God's 
 other points. ^op]jg^ fo). -s^hom Creation through former ages 
 had heen preparing, placed infinitely above the world by 
 being thus made in the divine likeness. 
 
 No philosophy has ever so well explained the proper 
 basis of physical Science, as the Scriptures here do ; which 
 is, that as God has made the world by his Word or Wis- 
 dom, so man, being made in the image of God, is created 
 with faculties which put it in his power to explore and to 
 systematize those works. Here we have an answer at once 
 to all sceptical questions about the reality of sensation and 
 of science. 
 
 See, too, the vastness of man's moral capacities as thus 
 created, and the love bestowed upon him at his creation, 
 which is the basis of the whole doctrine of Redemption. 
 This does away with the supposed incredibility of an In- 
 carnation ; for the end was none other than that which had 
 been the ultimate design of aU previous dispensations — a 
 restoration of the Image of God in human nature. 
 
 6. Next see in this simple narrative of Scripture how 
 with a master-touch the very essence of successful tempta- 
 
 They detect tion to sin is exposed to view, and the source of 
 of succefssM all that disobedience to God which so mars the 
 
 Temptation. ^^^.^^^ ^^^^^^ ^f ^.j^^ ^^^^.j^j^ 
 
 What was the snare which Satan so successfully laid to 
 entrap our first parents 1 What is the bait which so easily 
 draws us from our allegiance to God who made us, and who 
 preserves and blesses us ? Is it not summed up in these 
 words — ' Ye shall be as Gods 1 ' ' When the woman saw that 
 the tree was ... to be desired to make one wise, she took 
 of the fruit thereof and did eat ; ' although God's command 
 was express, ' Ye shall not eat of it.' (Gen. iii. 3, 6.) Here 
 was the assailable point, the fancied glory of independence. 
 
FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. 313 
 
 the heart's revolt against restraint, an uncreature-like 
 rebellion of the will against dependence even upon God, 
 whose service is perfect freedom. 
 
 How much is this at the root of all our rebellion now ! 
 It was the deification of man's reason, the atheistic pride 
 of vice and intellect combined, the blasphemous assumption 
 of an independence of all that was holy, divine, and true, 
 that distinguished the Infidels of the French Eevolution of 
 1798, as well as of Yoltaire and his accomplices, who came 
 to such a wretched end. It was the pride of independence 
 which hurled the devil and his angels down to hell. And 
 how wonderfully does this record of Holy Scripture put it 
 prominently forward as the master-stroke, with which the 
 arch-deceiver plied his art with such awful success against 
 our first parents — innocent, but not invulnerable ! 
 
 7. These chapters contain some remarkable points in 
 History. Here we find the first institution of Marriage, and 
 of the Sabbath. They give the only rational They contain 
 account of that great event, the Deluge, the '^^^j^g^'g^ 
 reflex of which is seen in the innumerable tra- History, 
 ditions among nations the widest apart and the most dis- 
 similar in habits and character. They explain, by a simple 
 history of the divine interposition in the dispersion of man- 
 kind, because of their pride and wickedness, the singular 
 results at which philologists have of late arrived regarding 
 the 6000 languages and dialects at present spoken — that 
 such is the internal relationship of their radical words and 
 inflections and constructions, that there is every reason 
 for supposing that they must have proceeded from one 
 primitive tongue, and that the separation into branches 
 must have arisen from some violent and sudden cause — a 
 theory which is a remarkable comment upon the history 
 of the Tower of Babel. 
 
 This Sacred Eecord gives the only history of the 
 
314 IMPORTANCE OF THE 
 
 apportioning the earth, to the several nations, as we now 
 find them. After an enumeration, 'These,' says the in- 
 spired writer, 'are the families of the sons of Noah, after 
 their generations, in their nations ; and by these were the 
 nations divided in the earth after the flood.' (Gen. x. 32.) 
 To which, St. Paul, 2000 years afterwards, alludes, ' God 
 hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all 
 the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before 
 appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.' (Acts 
 xvii. 26.) 
 
 Here, too, we have a certain clue to the first institution 
 of SACRIFICES — that remarkable method for attempting to 
 appease the Divine wrath, which we find prevailing all the 
 world over, wherever Christianity has not shed its light and 
 superseded the type by substituting the sacrifice of the Ee- 
 deemer Himself 
 
 8. Lastly, in these wonderful chapters we have the germ, 
 They con- ^^^ ^^'^^ ^^^ fruitful germ, of all Prophecy, in 
 tain the (jyyg Qf ^,ije j]j„gt remarkable and comprehensive 
 
 germ oi qU ^ 
 
 Prophecy, predictions which the whole Scripture contains : — 
 One, the promise of the Seed of the Woman, who should 
 bruise the serpent's head while he should bruise his heel — 
 a prophecy which has been so largely fulfilled in the mira- 
 culous birth of Christ of a pure virgin, who by His death 
 upon the cross. His triumphant resurrection and ascension 
 to the Father's throne, has overcome sin and death, and 
 opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers — a prophecy 
 which is fraught with blessings to all nations, and which 
 will be completed in its fulfilment when He comes the 
 second time to judge the world, and to reign for ever and 
 ever. King of kings and Lord of lords : — 
 
 The other Prophecy — the curse upon Canaan, and the 
 blessing upon Shem and Japhet, spoken in few words, but 
 carrying with them, as years after years still roll on, their own 
 
FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. 315 
 
 evidence of divine inspiration by the wonderful accomplish- 
 ment they are perpetually receiving.* 
 
 Who can deny, then, that this portion of Holy Scripture 
 is a treasury of unspeakable value, and worthy of its high 
 origin 1 The simplicity of the narratives, combined with the 
 surpassing importance of the truths conveyed in them, is a 
 confirmation of their authority. Who but one writing 
 under the guidance of inspiration could, not merely have 
 avoided all the inanities of human cosmogonies, but have 
 delivered at that early period, and in the most unassuming 
 way, accounts of the most momentous transactions, which 
 are found to harmonize with the most recent investigations 
 of science, and which supply the most profound information 
 on theological and moral subjects? 
 
 « For an able and very instructive article on the accomplishment 
 of this prophecy, see Journal of Sacred Literature, No. XXVI., 
 July 1861. 
 
316 
 
 CONCLUSIOK 
 
 What, then, are the results arrived at in the foregoing 
 pages? They may be summed up under the following 
 heads : — 
 
 1. That, through ignorance and hasty zeal. Holy Scrip- 
 ture has undergone many severe tests during the progress of 
 Science, and has come through the trial in every case with 
 triumph. The experience of the past has worked out this 
 result, that through the whole course of philosophical dis- 
 covery. Scripture and Science have never been found at 
 variance, though they have often been charged with being so. 
 
 2. That Scripture speaks in human language, and ac- 
 cording to its usages ; but in no case adopts the errors and 
 prejudices of men, even in things natural. It speaks to us 
 on such matters according to the appearances of things, 
 that is, as things are seen, which is a way intelligible in all 
 ages of the world. It speaks as man would speak to man in 
 every-day life, even on such topics, and in times of the 
 greatest scientific light. It speaks not scientifically, and 
 therefore does not adopt scientific terms, or give scientific 
 views of things : but there is, nevertheless, no sacrifice even 
 of scientific truth to human ignorance and prejudice. 
 
 3. That this harmony between Scripture and Science 
 appears, not only from the abundant illustration it receives 
 from the history of past conflicts through which this Sacred 
 Volume has passed intact, but pre-eminently from the 
 
CONCLUSION. 317 
 
 character of Scripture itself as the Inspired Word of God, 
 and therefore infallible in every respect. 
 
 4. That the Earlier Chapters of the Sacred Volume, in 
 which the seeds of variance have been supposed chiefly to 
 lie, are of inestimable value to us : and the fact of their 
 Inspiration must not be set aside on the pretence that 
 Christianity would remain the same if they were blotted out ; 
 for they form a most important portion of the Divine 
 Revelation, and convey inspired truths of the highest moment. 
 
 The Conclusion, then, which I would draw in these days 
 of advancing knowledge is this, That no new discoveries, 
 
 HOWEVER STARTLING, NEED DISTURB OUR BELIEF IN THE 
 
 PLENARY Inspiration op Scripture, or damp our zeal in the 
 PURSUIT OF Science. That difficulties should have existed, 
 and should still occasionally appear, is not to be wondered 
 at when we consider the things which are brought into 
 comparison. On the other hand, here is an ancient Eecord 
 handed down to us, first by the careful guardianship of the 
 Jewish nation, and now in addition by that of the Christian 
 Church, referring to events which occurred 6000 years ago 
 — intended for the instruction of every successive age, from 
 the period when it was written down to the end of time. 
 The authority of this Eecord is attested by our Lord and His 
 Apostles, inasmuch as in nearly seventy passages they quote 
 or refer to it as authoritative. The great truths taught in 
 it, are such as the acutest philosophers of Greece and Eome 
 and the East failed to discover — such as the origin of the 
 world ; the origin of man ; how evil came into the world ; 
 the promise of a Saviour ; — and with these revealed truths 
 are mixed up statements regarding the aspect and condition 
 of the earth and of the heavenly bodies around. The 
 language of this Eecord was fixed thousands of years ago, 
 and is brief and terse, and not designed to communicate to 
 us scientific information, but only those great realities which 
 reason could never have found out. On the other hand. 
 
318 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Science has been opening the book of Nature, and turning 
 over its countless leaves with unwonted rapidity. Theories 
 have been built up, imperfect in their parts, and too often 
 Avith hasty generalizations. And a harsh and crude com- 
 parison is made with this venerable Document, which speaks 
 not the language of a varying and growing Science, but is 
 couched in terms to be intelligible in all ages. Is it to be 
 wondered at, that as new and ill-digested physical facts rise 
 upon our view with such rapidity, frequently combined by 
 gratuitous hypotheses, contradictions between Scripture 
 and Science should be perjietually appearing? It is clear 
 to what cause this is to be attributed — not to Scripture, 
 but to a restless and imperfect Science. The experience 
 of the past teaches us this. The hasty and immature 
 deductions of Science may sometimes stand in opposition to 
 Scripture : but those settled results in which the body of 
 philosophers agree, often confirm and illustrate the state- 
 ments of the Inspired Volume. 
 
 Let us, then, hold firm our grasp upon this truth, that 
 the Scriptures are the infallible Word of God, true in every 
 statement they contain, although the interpretation some- 
 times demands more knowledge than we at present possess ; 
 but let us at the same time remember, that there is no 
 ground whatever for ceasing to pursue Science, in aU its 
 branches, with an ardent and fearless mind. God's Word 
 and Works never have contradicted each other, and never 
 can do so. Some would decry the pursuit of Science as 
 endangering Kevelation ; they tremble for the result, as new 
 discoveries are announced and reason publishes its triumphs. 
 But these are short-sighted and ill-placed apprehensions : 
 nor would such a course remedy the evils feared. The 
 progress of Science is inevitable. As well might we desire 
 to hold back the wheels of time, or attempt to enchain 
 the thoughts of men, as to arrest its course. The progress 
 of Science is indeed the glory of man's intellectual 
 
CONCLUSION. 319 
 
 endowments ; and to live in ignorance of the history and 
 material laws of the universe, of which he forms a part, is a 
 libel on that commanding gift with which God had endowed 
 him, rendering him pre-eminent above the rest of His 
 creatures. The progress of Science is the setting forth of 
 the greatness and wisdom of the Creator in His "Works : and 
 to desire to check it, or to fear its results, is to betray our 
 narrow prejudices, and to refuse to recognise the hand of 
 GOD in His own world. Let us, therefore, push our in- 
 vestigations to the utmost with untiring energy. 
 
 Let us not shrink, moreover, from stating our difficulties 
 in their broadest features, and laying open without hesita- 
 tion all that appears contradictory. We have nothing to 
 fear. The greatest perplexities may at any time surround 
 us ; but both reason and experience have armed us with 
 arguments, which assure us that all will be right. What- 
 ever happens, let our persuasion always be avowed, that 
 Scripture cannot err. Let us be content rather to remain 
 puzzled, than to abandon, or even question, a truth which 
 stands upon so immovable a basis. 
 
 It is the doubts and surmises of those who are looked to 
 as authorities in these matters, which shake men's minds. 
 It is the hazardous assertions* of some who occupy the seat 
 
 * Take, for example, such statements as the following : ' In a former 
 Essay I have adverted to the question of discrepancies between Science 
 and the language of Scripture generally, and have referred more espe- 
 cially to that notable instance of it— the irreconcilable contradiction 
 between the whole view opened to us by Geology and the narrative of 
 the Creation in the Hebrew Scriptures, whether as briefly delivered 
 from Sinai, or as expanded in Genesis. In the minds of all compe- 
 tently informed persons at the present day, after a long struggle for 
 existence, the literal belief in the Judaical cosmogony, it may now be 
 said, has died a natural death.' [!] — And after some remarks on a 
 theory of evolution or progressive development of animal life, he adds : 
 — ' Those who accept geological truths at all, and admit their palpable 
 contradiction to the Old Testament, without prejudice to their faith, 
 cannot with consistency make it a ground of objection to any hypothesis 
 
320 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 of the philosoplier — who ought to be models* of philoso- 
 phical prudence, holding even the scales of truth amidst the 
 headstrong and uninformed — which create the confusion. 
 
 of the nature of the changes indicated, that they are contrary to Scrip- 
 ture. They are in no way more so than all geology is.' [!] — Essay on 
 the Philosophy of Creation, by the Rev. Baden Powell, Savilian Pro- 
 fessor of Geometry in the University of Oxford. 
 
 My answer to all this is : — There is, in the sense intended, no ' nar- 
 rative of the Creation in the Hebrew Scriptures,' no ' Judaical Cosmo- 
 gony,' no ' contradiction of geological truths to the Old Testament,' 
 according to the principles of the foregoing Treatise. 
 
 In a subsequent publication, The Order of Nature, Professor Powell 
 made some remarks upon the present Treatise (second edition) ; re- 
 garding which I will here state that, through some unaccountable mis- 
 conception, he has made me say the reverse of what I do say. His 
 words are : — ' The whole view of the subject presented in the work 
 referred to is this : — As the Scripture in former times seemed opposed 
 
 to the motion of the earth and the existence of antipodes so, 
 
 again, it seems to teach a common origin of the human race'— a common 
 primeval language — and other similar tenets. But these, we are told, 
 are only "false conclusions deduced by its votaries ; " false interpreta- 
 tions, which are yet identical with the very words; fallacious conclusions, 
 which, notwithstanding, are directly asserted in the very terms ; and 
 nevertheless, the historical authority of the passages, and their sur- 
 passing importance, are to be strictly maintained' (pp. 223, 224). 
 
 What I do say may be seen under the Third Class of Examples in 
 Part I., at p. 89 and the following pages of this edition, which differ 
 in no respect from the second edition but in the addition of new mat- 
 ter. It will there be seen that I state that Scripture does teach, not 
 that it seems to teach, the common origin of the human race, and other 
 similar tenets. And ray readers ' are told ' that Science {not Scrip- 
 ture), through the false teachings of some of its votaries, has been 
 made to say the opposite to this, and therefore has been forced into 
 apparent collision with Scripture ; but that wiser men have delivered 
 Science from this reproach, by showing that these conclusions of its 
 votaries are false ; and that, in fact, Science does not, in these or any 
 other cases, lead to results opposed to Holy Scripture. This is the 
 reverse of what Professor Powell has made me say. This ' outra- 
 geous ' treatment of my words was noticed at the time in the Quarterly 
 Review, October 1859, p. 431, note. 
 
 * See some excellent remarks, written in this spirit, in the chapter 
 
CONCLUSION. 321 
 
 Such a course is unphilosophical in the highest degree ; 
 and not only so, it is mischievous in every way. It unset- 
 tles the minds of the young ; it plays into the unbelieving 
 prepossessions of the infidel ; it confirms the sceptic in his 
 disregard of religion. On the other hand, it repels the timid 
 from the pursuit of Science ; it disunites, instead of harmo- 
 nising ; it checks the progress of truth ; it sets at variance 
 things which in reality agree. 
 
 on the relation of Tradition to Palsetiology, in Dr. Whewell's Philoso- 
 phy of the Inductive Sciences. Also the following sensible remarks 
 from the lips of another philosopher, Professor Stokes, when President 
 of the British Association in 1869 : — 
 
 ' Truth, we know, must be self-consistent, nor can one truth con- 
 tradict another, even though the two may have been arrived at by to- 
 tally different processes, in the one case, suppose, obtained by sound 
 scientific investigation, in the other ease taken on trust from duly au- 
 thenticated witnesses. Misinterpretations of course there may be on 
 the one side or on the other, causing apparent contradictions. Every 
 mathematician knows that in his private work he will occasionally by 
 two different trains of reasoning arrive at discordant conclusions. He 
 is at once aware that there must be a slip somewhere, and sets himself 
 to detect and correct it. When conclusions rest on probable evidence, 
 the reconciling of apparent contradictions is not so simple and certain. 
 It requires the exercise of a calm, unbiassed judgment, capable of 
 looking at both sides of the question ; and oftentimes we have long to 
 suspend our decision, and seek for further evidence. None need fear 
 the effect of scientific inquiry carried on in an honest, truth-loving, 
 humble spirit, which makes us no less ready frankly to avow our igno- 
 rance of what we cannot explain, than to accept conclusions based on 
 sound evidence. The slow but sure path of induction is open to us. 
 Let us frame hypotheses if we will : most useful are they when kept 
 in their proper place, as stimulating inquiry. Let us seek to confront 
 them with observation and experiment, thereby confirming them or 
 upsetting them, as the result may prove ; but let us beware of placing 
 them prematurely in the rank of ascertained truths, and building fur- 
 ther conclusions on them as if they were.' 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abbeville, 161 
 
 Abd-al-Latlf, 153 
 
 Aoheul, St. 162 
 
 Agassiz, Professor, 105, 159, 174 
 
 Age of human race, 128,132, 150, 
 
 154, 163 
 Age of Vedas, 130 
 Ages of stone, bronze, and iron, 
 
 156-170 
 Airy, Mr. 25 
 Amiens, 162 
 
 Ancous, a breed of sheep, 191 
 Angels, agency of, 240 
 Anglo-Americans, 104 
 Animals and plants long before 
 
 Adam, 36 
 Antipodes, 14-19 
 Antiquity of the earth, 36 
 Appearances, meaning of, 24, 27, 
 
 316 
 Aquosity and vitality, 227 
 Archimedes, 23 
 Architecture of India, 168 
 Argyll, Duke of, 3, 69, 193, 206, 
 
 214-217, 241, 250, 256 
 Aristarchus of Samos, 22, 23 
 Aristotle, 22, 23 
 Arithmetical objections, 261 
 Astronomy, Chinese, 131, 280 
 Greek, 130 
 Hindu, 128, 280 
 Augustine, 15-18, 21, 309 
 Aurignao, 163 
 Auvergne, 173, 180 
 
 Babylon, 141-143, 279 
 BaiUie, M. 128 
 Bara and Asah, 40 
 Bashan, 141, 142, 279 
 Belshazzar, 141, 279 
 
 Bentley, Mr. 129 
 
 Berosus, 128, 141 
 
 Biot, M. 132 
 
 Birks Eev. T. E. 49, 269, 270 
 
 Birs Nimroud, 128 
 
 Bize, 160 
 
 Bockh, Professor, 144 
 
 Bopp, Professor, 123 
 
 Borsippa, 128, 141 
 
 Boucher de Perthes, M. 154, 161, 
 184 
 
 Brain capacity, 192, 203 
 
 Brewster, Sir D. 23 
 
 British Association for the Ad- 
 vancement of Science, 81, 218, 
 226, 236 
 
 Brixham, 161 
 
 Bronze age, 156-170 
 
 Buckland, Eev. Dr. 38, 39, 81, 197 
 
 Buckle, Mr. 236 
 
 Buffon, M. 254 
 
 Bunsen, M. 132-153 
 
 Bushmen, 216 
 
 Cagliari, 162, 176 
 
 Caldwell, Eev. Dr. 122-125 
 
 Calvin, 20, 21 
 
 Canoes in Scotland, 159, 175 
 
 Carpenter, Dr. 94-105, 111, 114, 
 
 120, 188 
 Cashmere, 159 
 Caucasian type, 100 
 Challis, Eev. Professor, 56 
 Chalmers, Eev. Dr. 38, 43, 220, 
 
 242 
 Changes in type, 98 
 „ per saltum, 119 
 in colour, 119, 120 
 Chili, 159 
 Chimpanzee, 258 
 
324 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Chinese Astronomy, 131, 280 
 
 „ Chronology, 131 
 Climate, sub-marine, 188 
 Colenso, Dr. 29, 41, V6-79, 261- 
 
 272, 285, 286, 288 
 Comte, M. 254-256 
 Confusion of Tongues, 120, 128 
 Confucius, 131 
 Contrarieties in man, 310 
 Copernicus, 26 
 
 Corn needs cultivation, 79, 80 
 Cornwall, 160 
 Cosmas, monk, 17 
 Cromarty, Earl of, 164 
 Cuvier, M. 252, 258 
 
 Danish peat and shell mounds, 
 156, 164 
 
 Darwin, Mr. 186, 189, 193, 206- 
 213, 217, 251, 252, 255 
 
 Dathe, 39 
 
 Davison, Eev. M. 86 
 
 Dawson, Dr. 57, 58 
 
 Days of creation, two ways of ex- 
 plaining, 37-70 
 
 Death before Adam, 73 
 
 Deep-sea dredgings, 188 
 
 Delitzch, Professor, 78 
 
 Deluge, 80-86 
 
 Denise fossil man, 163 
 
 De Eossi, 303 
 
 Deshayes, M. 71, 186 
 
 Design, 250-260 
 
 Differences between man and apes, 
 202-206 
 
 Difficulties and obscurities exag- 
 gerated, 87 
 
 Dispersion, proofs of the, 126- 
 128 
 
 D'Orbigny, 51, 52, 63, 70, 71, 
 187 
 
 Dove, Dr, 311 
 
 Dowler, Dr. 159 
 
 Dravidian languages, 124 
 
 Druids, 175, 176 
 
 Earth, antiquity of, 36 
 „ form of, 17 
 „ motion of, 19 
 
 Egyptian antiquities, 132, 280 
 
 „ paintings, 101, 117 
 Egyptology, 132, 139, 145, 150, 
 
 279 
 Eichhorn, 302 
 BUioott, Bishop, 74, 75 
 Elliptic type of cranium, 95, 96 
 Embryonic development, 211 
 Engis fossil skull, 161 
 Eras past and present compared, 
 
 275-278 
 Eratosthenes, 139, 140, 144 
 Esquimaux, 216 
 Evidence, science of, 243 
 Evil, entrance of, 308 
 Evolution, 189, 200, 210, 219, 221, 
 
 223, 230 
 
 Falconer, Dr. 162 
 
 Einal causes, 250 
 
 Finns, 100 
 
 Eirmament, 11-14 
 
 Eitzroy, E. 166 
 
 Elint and other remains of man, 
 
 154-185, 217 
 Elorida reefs, 159 
 Eorm of the earth, 17 
 Powler, Rev. E. W. 269 
 Erere, Mr. 162 
 
 Galen, 255 
 Galileo, 19, 23 
 Gaudry, M. 222 
 Gaussen, M. 24 
 
 Genesis, chap. i. not a vision, 47 
 „ Chap. A. 112, 123 
 „ Earlier chapters of, one 
 continuous narrative, 
 281 
 „ Eirst chapter, 215 
 „ Eirst and second agree, 
 
 79 
 „ Eirst three, 77 
 
 Eirst eleven, 284, 286; 
 historical character and 
 inspiration of, 286-303 ; 
 not quotations, 295 ; 
 surpassing importance 
 of, 305 
 
INDEX, 
 
 325 
 
 Genius and inspiration, 297, 298 
 Geological record imperfect, 193, 
 
 222, 223 
 Geology, 35, VI 
 
 Goodwin, Mr. 13, 25, 35, 46, 66 
 Gorilla, 203, 258 
 Gower, 162 
 
 Graham, Mr. Cyril, 143 
 Granite, 174, 188 
 Gravitation, law of, 224, 231, 249 
 „ and development com- 
 pared, 224 
 Greek astronomy, 130 
 Grote, Mr. G. 140, 141, 144 
 Grove, Mr. 218 
 Giinther, Dr. 65 
 
 Hatfield Moss, 165 
 Hauran, 142, 279 
 Hebrew chronology, 135 
 
 „ manuscripts, 302, 303 
 Hesiod's ages, 169 
 Hieroglyphics, 145-147 
 Hinoks, I)r. 144 
 Hindu Astronomy, 128, 280 
 
 Chronology, 110, 128-130 
 
 „ notion of Deity, 307 
 Hipparchus, 23 
 Hitchcock, Professor, 74 
 Hodgson, Mr. 114 
 Hopkins, Mr. W. 225 
 Horn, Cape, 166 
 Horner, Mr. L. 150-153, 158, 
 
 196 
 Homes, Mr. 72 
 Hottentot race, 103 
 Hoxne, 162 
 Humholdt, 121 
 Humphreys, Colonel, 191 
 Hungarians, 99 
 Huxley, Professor, 54, 64, 72, 93, 
 
 94, 115, 119, 191, 204, 217, 219, 
 
 221-223, 225, 227, 230, 234, 
 
 251, 257, 258 
 
 loklingham, 162 
 Illogical geology, 71 
 Imperfect theories, danger of, 70 
 Indo-European languages, 122 
 
 Inspiration defined, 286 
 
 of Old and New Tes- 
 taments, 297 
 „ on the term 'verbal,' 
 
 300 
 Irish Lake-dwellings, 158 
 Iron age, 156-170 
 
 Josephus' chronology, 135, 136 
 Joshua's miracle, 29, 288 
 
 Kainozoic Period, 45 
 
 Kant, 54 
 
 Keil, Professor, 78 
 
 Kennioott, Dr. 303 
 
 Kepler, 23, 224, 
 
 King, JProfessor W. 175 
 
 Kirkdale cavern, 175 
 
 Lactantius, 18, 19 
 Lamark, M. 189, 198 
 Languages, families of, 121, 122 
 „ original unity of, 120- 
 
 128, 279 
 „ number of, 121 
 
 La Peyrere, M. 108 
 Laplace, 53, 54, 254 
 Lapps, 100 
 
 Lardner, Dr. 51, 63, 187 
 Latham, Dr. 101, 114 
 Law, on supremacy of, 235 
 Lecky, Mr. 17, 108, 242 
 Lee, Archdeacon, 303 
 Lewis, Sir G. C. 23,139,140,150, 
 
 280 
 Liege, 161 
 Light before the Six Days, 37 
 
 „ undulatory theory of, 231, 
 249 
 Livy, 278 
 
 London-wall excavations, 182-185 
 Lubbock, Sir J. 168, 183, 201, 214, 
 
 216 
 Lunar mansions, 129, 130 
 Lyell, Sir C. 70-73, 155, 163, 172, 
 
 176, 177, 186, 187, 189, 199 
 
 McCaul, Eev. Dr. 13, 40, 53, 55, 79 
 McCausland, Dr. 58,59,62, 109, 110 
 
326 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 McCosh, Dr. 63, 311 
 
 Macmillan, Rev. Hugh, 81 
 
 Magyar race, 99, 100 
 
 Malacca, Straits of, 157 
 
 Malayo-Polynesian races, 103 
 
 Maltese family, 93, 119 
 
 Man, Indo-European type of, 95 
 „ antiquity of, 128, 132, 150, 
 
 154, 178-180, 199, 203 
 „ and apes compared, 203 
 „ first, not a barbarian, 214 
 „ has he several origins P 105, 
 
 280 
 „ origin of, 89, 200 
 „ contrarieties in, 310 
 
 Mankind all of one blood, 89-105 
 
 Manetho, 132, 140, 144 
 
 Mansel, Dean, 249 
 
 Matter and mind, 231, 232 
 
 Mayhew, Mr. H. 104 
 
 Memphis, 150, 152 
 
 Mesozoic Period, 45 
 
 Miller, Mr. Hugh, 45, 51, 53, 59, 
 63, 83-85, 106, 311 
 
 Milton, 24, 278 
 
 Miracles of Joshua, 29, 288 
 
 Miracles not incredible, 243-250 
 
 Mississippi delta, 158, 173 
 
 Moabite stone, 143, 279 
 
 Moore, Dr. G. 3, 81, 95, 96, 119, 
 199, 202 
 
 Morlot, M. 157 
 
 Miiller, Mr. Max, 40, 126 
 
 Murchison, Sir E. 193 
 
 Naples, 159 
 
 Natchez, 163 
 
 Natural-day theory, 38-44, 63-70 
 
 Natural Selection, 190, 191, 192, 
 
 251 
 Nature, uniformity of, 234 ; but 
 with exceptions, 242 
 „ use of the term, 260 
 Neanderthal human fossil, 161 
 Nebular hypothesis, 54 
 Negro, 96, 101 
 Nepauleae, 112 
 Neva, the, 180 
 New-Englanders, 104 
 
 New school of historical criticism, 
 
 277 
 Newton, Sir Isaac, 200, 224, 231, 
 
 250, 276 
 Niagara, 173 
 Niebuhr, 121, 277, 278 
 Nile deposits, 150-154, 158, 196, 
 
 280 
 Nineveh, 141, 279 
 Nomadic tribes, 104 
 Norris, Mr. 101 
 North Atlantic deep-sea dredg- 
 
 ings, 188 
 Norway, 160 
 Nott, Dr. 105, 108 
 
 Oceania, 103 
 
 Ohio, valley of, 158 
 
 Oise, 162 
 
 OUivant, Bishop, 267 
 
 Oppert, M. 128 
 
 Origin of lite, 217-234 
 
 „ man, 89, 200-213 
 „ species, 189, 194 
 „ the world, 306 
 
 Osburn, Mr. 153 
 
 Ouse, 162 
 
 Owen, Professor, 185, 256 
 
 Paley, Archdeacon, 255 
 
 Palaeozoic Period, 45 
 
 Pascal, 310 
 
 Patagonians, 216 
 
 Pattison, Mr. S. E. 164, 166, 179- 
 182 
 
 Pearson, Bishop, 226 
 
 Peat in Denmark, 156 
 „ growth of, 164 
 
 Pentateuch, 261-272 
 
 Period-day theory, 44 
 
 „ objections to, 4'8-62 
 
 Persians, ancient, notion of Deity, 
 310 
 
 Peru, 159 
 
 Phenomena, method of describ- 
 ing, 25 
 
 Philolaus, 22 
 
 Physical world not abandoned to 
 physical laws, 237 
 
INDEX. 
 
 327 
 
 Piotet, M. 162 
 
 Pitcairn Islanders^ 116 
 
 PUny, 175 
 
 Polynesian races, 103 
 
 Pondrea, 160 
 
 Pool, Matthew, 12, 85 
 
 Positivists, 254 
 
 Powell, Eev. Prof: B. 319, 320 
 
 Prayer and order of nature, 239, 
 
 240 
 Pre-Adamite species, 36 
 Prestwich, Mr. 162, 178 
 Prichard, Dr. 89, 92, 116, 117 
 Prognathous type of cranium, 95 
 Protoplasm, 219, 226-229 
 Ptolemaic system, 27 
 Ptolemy, 22 
 
 Pusey, Eev. Dr. 89, 66, 67, 76 
 Pye Smith, Eev. Dr. 186 
 Pyramidal type of cranium, 95, 96 
 Pythagoras, 22 
 
 Eaamses, 267 
 
 Eaces, adapted to climates P 118 
 „ can all mix ? 115 
 „ divergence since the Plood 
 117 
 
 Ealeigh, Sir W. 84 
 
 Eameses, 150, 267 
 
 Bawlinson, Professor, 124 
 Sir H. 141 
 
 Eeconciliatioiis,'f oroe,d, not advis- 
 able, 16 
 
 Bedi, Pranoesoo, 226 
 
 Reproduction indicates vitality, 
 229 
 
 Eesurreotion, objection to, 272 
 
 EigoUot, Dr. 161 
 
 Eohillas, 111, 112 
 
 Eoman History, Early 277, 280 
 „ „ remains in Lon- 
 
 don VaJl, 186 
 
 Eorison, Dr. 47, 48 
 
 Eosetta Stone, 145 
 
 Eiitimeyer, Professor, 222 
 
 Saint-Hilaire, M. Geoffrey, 252 
 Samaritan Pentateuch chrono^ 
 logy, 134 
 
 Santos in Brazil, 158 
 
 Saul Forest, 114 
 
 Schlegel, Frederic, 121 
 
 Schmerling, Dr. 161 
 
 Science confirms miracles, 242 
 
 „ prospects of,overrated,247 
 Scripture allusions to natural phe- 
 nomena, 87, 88 
 „ chronology, 133 
 „ phraseology, wisdom of, 
 23, 30, 31 
 Sedgwick, Eev. Professor, 38, 303 
 Seine, 162 
 
 Semitic languages, 122 
 Septuagint chronology, 135 
 Sheep, strange birth among, 119, 
 
 191 
 Shishak, king of Egypt, 148, 279 
 Silvestre de Saoy, 153 
 Smith, Dr. 68, 128 
 Smith, Dr. Pye, 186, 187 
 Smyth, Dr. T. 105, 108 
 Somme, 161 
 Sothiao cycle, 144, 
 Species, extinction of, 178 
 mutability of, 192 
 „ of human period, 186 
 origin of, 189-200 
 Specific centres, 75 
 Stanley, Dean, 268 
 Stewart, Dr. Moses, 302 
 Stillingfleet, Bishop, 85 
 Stokes, Professor, 321 
 Stone age, 156-170 
 Strata, comparative thickness of, 
 
 181 
 Sun-rise and Sun-set, 27, 32 
 Sutton, Mr. G. 3 
 Supernatural and Superhuman 
 
 distinguished, 250 
 Sweden, 160, 176 
 Swiss Lake-dwellings, 154, 156 
 Syncellus, 139 
 
 Tamil, 125 
 
 Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, 74 
 „ Mr. Isaac, 263, 271 
 Mr. John, 175 
 Teloogoo, 125 
 
328 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Temple, Bishop, 235, 236, 247 
 
 Temptation, essence of, 312 
 
 Thames, 162 
 
 Theories, danger of adopting im- 
 perfect, 70 
 
 Thracian lake-dwellings, 156 
 
 Tierra del Fuego, 166 
 
 Tiuiere Delta, 156, 170 
 
 Tohu va bohu, 38 
 
 Toldoth Beni Noah, 123, 315 
 
 Tree of Knowledge, 309 
 
 Trench, Archbishop, 238 
 
 Troyon, M. 154, 157 
 
 Turks, 98, 99 
 
 Tycho, 22 
 
 Tylor, Mr. 215 
 
 Tyndall, Professor, 230, 239 
 
 Types of crania, 95, 96 
 „ change in, 98 
 
 Uniformity of nature, 234, 242 
 Unity of language, 121 
 
 „ mankind, 89 
 Universal law, 234 
 
 Tan Dieman's Land, 216 
 Tedas, age of the, 130, 131 
 
 Vitality and aquosity, 227 
 
 Wagner, Professor, 95 
 
 Waitz, Professor, 95 
 
 Wallace, Mr. 96, 118, 192 
 
 Warington, Mr. 60-62 
 
 Waste of Space, 255 
 
 Wells, Somersetshire, 162 
 
 Wey, 162 
 
 Whewell, Bev. Dr. 18, 23, 34, 198, 
 
 253, 321 
 Whitney, Professor, 131 
 Wilkinson, Sir J. G. 152 
 Wisdom of Scripture phraseology, 
 
 23, 30, 31 
 Wiseman, Cardinal, 121 
 Wilson, Bev. Dr. 307 
 Wordsworth, Bishop, 51, 68, 204, 
 
 288 
 Worsaae, 167 
 
 Tao, 131 
 
 Young, Professor J. 228 
 
 Tugas, 129 
 
 Zoroaster, 307 
 
 INDEX OF WOEKS QUOTED OE EEFEEEED 
 TO IN THIS TEEATISE. 
 
 Adam and the Adamite, 109 
 Aids to Paith, 13, 40, 53, 55, 250 
 Ancient Egyptians, 152 
 Answer to Dr. Colenso, 269 
 Antiquity of Man, 72, 119, 155, 
 
 163, 187, 199, 203 
 „ Examination of, 165, 
 
 180 
 Archaia, 58 
 
 Asiatic Researches, 129 
 Astronomical Transactions, 25 
 Astronomy of the Ancients, 23, 
 139, 140, 150 
 
 Bampton Lectures, Rawlinson, 
 
 124 
 Bible and Modern Thought, 51 
 
 „ Teachings in Nature, 81 
 Bibliotheca Indica, 129 
 Blackwood's Magazine, 179 
 Bridgewater Treatises, 38, 39, 
 
 197 
 British Quarterly Eeview, 
 
 115 
 
 Calvin's Commentary on the 
 Psalms, 20, 21 
 
INDEX OF WOEKS QUOTED OB REFERRED TO. 
 
 329 
 
 Cambridge Essays, 143 
 Csesar's Commentaries, 166 
 Chalmers' Works, 38, 242 
 Chips from a German Work- 
 
 shiop, 40 
 Christian Observer, 15, 24, 51, 
 1V5 
 „ Eemembrancer, 75 
 Colenso on Pentateuch, 261- 
 
 2V2, 286, 288 
 Comparative Grammar of Dra- 
 vidian Languages, 
 
 122, 124 
 Indo - European 
 Languages, 123 
 Considerations on the Penta- 
 teuch, 263, 271 
 Contemporary Review, 228 
 Creation in Plan and Progress, 
 
 56,57 
 Credibility of Early Eoman 
 
 History, 280, 281 
 Cyclopedia of Anatomy and 
 Physiology, 65, 95-105 
 
 Darwinian Theory Examined, 
 
 252 
 Descent of Man, 206, 207 
 Destiny of the Creature, 75 
 Dictionary of the Bible, 68, 128 
 Doctrine of Jehovah, 307 
 Dublin University Magazine, 
 
 144 
 
 Early History of Mankind, 215, 
 
 216 
 Egypt's Place in History, 132, 
 
 133, 144, 145, 146, 148 
 Encyclopedia Britannica, 132 
 Essays and Reviews, 13, 25, 35, 
 
 46, 47, 235, 236, 238, 239 
 Exodus of Israel, 270 
 
 Paith and Science, 3 
 
 Pertilization of Orchids, 255 
 
 Pirst Man and his place in Crea- 
 tion, 3, 81, 95, 96, 119, 200, 
 202 
 
 Portnightly Eeview, 116, 240 
 
 Possil Remains, 253 
 Fossil Shells, 72 
 Eraser's Magazine, 225 
 
 Gaussen's Theopneustia, 24 
 Geological Quarterly Journal, 
 
 153 
 Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, 13, 
 
 59 
 Goodwin's Mosaic Cosmogony, 
 
 25, 35, 46 
 Grant's Astronomy, 53 
 Grote's History of Greece, 140, 
 
 141, 144 
 Guardian, 275, 287 
 
 Hales' Chronology, 137 
 Herschel's Astronomy, 53 
 Hindu Astronomy, 129 
 Histoire de I'Astrouomie An- 
 
 cienne, 128 
 History of Civilization, 234 
 History of Inductive Sciences, 
 
 19, 34, 253 
 History of Eome, Niebuhr, 277, 
 
 278 
 Humboldt's Cosmos, 53 
 
 Inspiration of the Bible, 288 
 
 Josephus' Antiquities, 11 
 Journal of Sacred Literature, 
 
 315 
 Journal des Savans, 132 
 Journal of Yiotoria Institute, 
 
 86 
 
 Lay Sermons, Addresses, and 
 Reviews, 54, 64, 93, 94, 119, 
 191, 225, 227, 229, 252 
 
 Lectures on Revelation and 
 Science, 121 
 
 Lee's Inspiration, 303 
 
 Letter on Dr. Colenso's Part I. 
 267 
 
 Literary Churchman, 14 
 
 Literary Gazette, 153 
 
 Logic of the Christian Paith, 
 311 
 
330 INDEX OP WORKS QUOTED OE EBFBREBD TO. 
 
 London 
 
 London Labour and 
 Poor, 104 
 
 Maomillan's Magazine, 169, 175 
 
 Man's Place in Nature, 204, 
 257, 258 
 
 Martyrs of Science, 23 
 
 Medical Times and Gazette, 
 182 
 
 Method of the Divine Govern- 
 ment, 311 
 
 Museum of Science and Art, 51, 
 63, 187 
 
 Natural History of Man, 89, 91, 
 
 92 
 Nature, 221 
 New Pacts and Old Eecords, 180 
 
 Order of Nature, 320 
 Origin of Species, 189, 194, 195, 
 197, 209-213, 217, 225 
 
 Philosophical Magazine, 132 
 Philosophical Transactions, 151, 
 
 164, 179, 191, 256 
 Philosophy of Creation, 320 
 Philosophy of Inductive 
 
 Sciences, 34, 321 
 Physical Basis of Life, 230 
 Physical History of Man, 118 
 Pliny's Natural History, 175 
 Pool's Synopsis, 12, 13 
 Popular Science Review, 65 
 Pre-Adamite Man, 108 
 Pre-historic Times, 168, 182, 185, 
 
 202 
 Primeval Man, 69, 194, 206, 214- 
 
 217 
 Primitive Condition of Man, 
 
 201, 202 
 Principia, 200 
 Principles of Geology, 70, 155, 
 
 165, 189, 198 
 
 Proceedings of Boyal Society, 
 
 189 
 Prodrome do Palaeontologie, 51, 
 
 63 
 Pusey's Daniel, 67, 76 
 
 Quarterly Eeview, 140, 168, 175, 
 320 
 
 Eationalism in Europe, 17, 108, 
 
 242 
 Record, 172 
 
 Recovery of Jerusalem, 143 
 Reign of Law, 3, 241, 250, 256 
 Reliquise Diluvianse, 81 
 Replies to Essays and Reviews, 
 
 47, 48 
 
 Saturday Review, 169 
 
 Science of Languages, 126, 127 
 
 Sermons iu Stones, 58-60, 62 
 
 Shinar, 110 
 
 Supernatural in relation to 
 
 Natural, 63 
 Surya Siddhanta, 129-131 
 
 Testimony of the Rooks, 46, 51, 
 
 63, 81, 83-85, 106, 311 
 Theopneustia, 24 
 Times, The, 166 
 Types of Mankind, 110, 197 
 
 Unity of the Human Races, 105, 
 
 107, 108, 122 
 Universal Review, 71 
 
 Varieties of Mankind, 94-105 
 
 Wallace on Natural Selection, 
 
 96, 118, 193 
 Week of Creation, 60-62 
 Wordsworth's Genesis, 68, 204 
 „ Inspiration, 288 
 
331 
 
 INDEX OF TEXTS QUOTED OE ILLUSTRATED 
 m THIS TEEATISE. 
 
 Genesis, 
 
 i. 1. 22, 41, 44, 
 
 68, 
 
 Genesis, i. 16. 39 
 
 
 289, 308 
 
 
 ii. 18. 291 
 
 
 2. 63, 66, 68, 289 
 
 
 19,20. 57,79 
 
 
 3. 37, 289. 
 
 
 23, 24. 291 
 
 
 5. 45,48,51 
 
 
 „ iii. 4-6. 291,312 
 
 
 6-8. 13 
 
 
 15-20. 292 
 
 
 7. 13 
 
 
 19. 234 
 
 
 9, 10. 73, 289 
 
 
 20. 89 
 
 
 11. 52, 60, 290 
 
 
 ; „ iv. 4, 5, 8. 292 
 
 
 11, 12. 218 
 
 
 1 „ 10. 293 
 
 
 11-13. 45 
 
 
 16,17. 107 
 
 
 11-27. 194,195 
 
 
 25. 107 
 
 
 14. 48 
 
 
 : „ V. 3. 107,293 
 
 
 14, 15, 17. 13, 251 
 
 3-28. 135 
 
 
 16. 49 
 
 
 ! „ 4. 108 
 
 
 16-18. 37 
 
 
 20-28. 218 
 
 
 18-24. 251 
 
 
 „ vi. 3, 14, 17, 18, 
 
 22. 
 
 20. 59, 79, 80 
 
 
 280, 293 
 
 
 20-28. 45 
 
 
 5-8. 133 
 
 
 20-28. 79,218 
 
 
 „ Yii. 7, 17, 21, 23. 
 
 280, 
 
 21. 14, 59 
 
 
 293 
 
 
 24, 25. 45 
 
 
 11,12. 13,83 
 
 
 25. 80,251 
 
 
 19. 85 
 
 
 26. 58, 290 
 
 
 „ viii. 2, 3. 83, 280 
 
 
 26, 27. 41, 201 
 
 
 13. 135 
 
 
 26-28. 80 
 
 
 22. 237 
 
 
 27. 78, 80, 290, 311 
 
 „ ix. 3, 4. 293 
 
 
 28. 80 
 
 
 11. 293 
 
 
 28,29. 49 
 
 
 i. 124, 280 
 
 
 29. 52 
 
 
 2. 81 
 
 
 29, 30. 251 
 
 
 6. 147 
 
 
 30. 58 
 
 
 12. 314 
 
 
 31. 51, 251 
 
 
 15. 134 
 
 
 ii. 1-3. 290 
 
 
 32. 89, 294 
 
 
 3. 50 
 
 
 „ xi. 1. 121 
 
 
 4. 45,77 
 
 
 10-31. 134,135, 
 
 136, 
 
 4, 5. 56 
 
 
 294 
 
 
 5. 17 
 
 
 „ xii. 4. 135 
 
 
 6. 79 
 
 
 10-20. 147 
 
 
 7, 8, 10. 41, 79, 
 
 80, 
 
 „ XV. 13, 16. 135, 
 
 136, 
 
 201, 234, 
 
 291 
 
 270 
 
 
 9. 291, 309 
 
 
 18. 268 
 
 
 10. 78 
 
 
 „ xvi. 7. 241 
 
 
 15. 80 
 
 
 „ xix.1-25. 241 
 
 
332 
 
 INDEX OP TEXTS QUOTED OR ILLUSTRATED. 
 
 Genesis 
 
 xxxii. 1, 2. 241 
 
 Deuteronomy, xi. 24. 268 
 
 J) 
 
 xxxix. 1. 147 
 
 25. 85 
 
 
 xlvi. 270. 
 
 xxiii. 11-14. 265 
 
 3J 
 
 12. 264 
 
 xxviii. 26. 58 
 
 
 20, 27. 264 
 
 „ xxxiv. 8, 241 
 
 jj 
 
 xlvii. 11. 267 
 
 Joshua, viii. 34, 35. 265 
 
 jj 
 
 28. 264 
 
 xiv. 10. 137 
 
 Exodus 
 
 i. 11. 267 
 
 xxiv. 33. 137 
 
 „ 
 
 i.-XT. 147 
 
 Judges, i. 21. 113 
 
 j^ 
 
 vii. 7. 271 
 
 ii. 8. 137 
 
 ,, 
 
 9, 10, 12. 14 
 
 iii. 8-xvi. 31. 137 
 
 J, 
 
 viii. 3. 69 
 
 1 Samuel, iii. 7. 56 
 
 j^ 
 
 xi. 4. 268 
 
 2 Samuel, v. 6 9. 113 
 
 ^j 
 
 xii. 3, 6, 39. 267 
 
 ,, viii. 268 
 
 J3 
 
 12. 267 
 
 xxiii. 1, 2. 298 
 
 
 36. 266 
 
 1 Kings, ii. 11. 137 
 
 JJ 
 
 37. 267 
 
 „ iii. vii. ix. xi. 148 
 
 ,) 
 
 40. 135, 136 
 
 vi. 1. 135, 137 
 
 
 xiii. 1, 2. 269, 270 
 
 2 Kings, iii. 4-27. 143, 279 
 
 jj 
 
 2, 12. 269 
 
 1 Chronicles, vii. 22-27. 270 
 
 jj 
 
 18. 266 
 
 xxi. 12-15. 241 
 
 3J 
 
 xvi. 22, 23. 281 
 
 2 Chronicles, ix. 26. 268 
 
 33 
 
 xvii. 14. 113 
 
 xii. 148, 279 
 
 33 
 
 xix. 1. 137 
 
 XX. 143, 279 
 
 33 
 
 XX. 8-11. 50 
 
 Job, ix. 6. 87 
 
 33 
 
 10. 50 
 
 93 10. 261 
 
 
 11. 41 
 
 „ xxvi. 7. 87 
 
 j^ 
 
 xxiii. 29, 31. 268 
 
 10. 68 
 
 „ 
 
 xxiv. 10. 13 
 
 14. 246 
 
 ^, 
 
 XXXV. 31. 300 
 
 „ xxxii. 8. 300 
 
 jj 
 
 xxxviii. 26. 266 
 
 „ xxxvi. 26-28. 261 
 
 Numbe 
 
 PS, i. 46. 266 
 
 „ xxxviii. 1, 2. 257 
 
 J, 
 
 iii. 5-13, 39, 48, 46, 
 
 Psalm viii. 6. 290 
 
 
 47. 269 
 
 „ xviii. 11, 13. 88 
 
 ^3 
 
 A. 11. 137 
 
 „ xix. 12 
 
 33 
 
 xvi. 30. 40 
 
 1. 68 
 
 
 xvi. 38. 12 
 
 4-6. 22 
 
 jj 
 
 xxii. 22. 241 
 
 xxiv. 1. 68 
 
 
 xxvi. 21. 264 
 
 •xxxiii. 6. 808 
 
 33 
 
 59. 187,138,270 
 
 9. 51, 68, 201 
 
 Leviticus, iv. 11, 12. 265 
 
 xxxiv. 7. 242 
 
 ^, 
 
 viii. 3, 4. 265 
 
 „ Ixv. 8-11. 261 
 
 „ 
 
 xxvii. 6. 269 
 
 „ Ixviii. 17. 242 
 
 Deuteronomy, i. 1. 265 
 
 „ Ixxvii. 12 
 
 „ 
 
 7. 268 
 
 „ Ixxxix. 9. 68 
 
 33 
 
 ii. 25. 85 
 
 87. 237 
 
 33 
 
 iii. 5. 142 
 
 „ xci. 11. 242 
 
 
 14. 118 
 
 „ xciii. 1. 20 
 
 J, 
 
 V. 1. 265 
 
 „ cii. 289 
 
INDEX OP TEXTS QUOTED OB ILLUSTJBATBD. 
 
 333 
 
 Psalm ciii. 20. 214, 242 
 „ civ. 2. 12, 18 
 
 3. 13, 87 
 
 4. 240 
 
 5. 21 
 19-23. 237 
 24. 68, 261 
 29, 30. 234 
 
 cxix. 89-91. 237 
 „ oxxxvi. 6. 12 
 „ cxlviii. 1-6. 237, 308 
 4. 13 
 9, 10. 68 
 Proverbs, xxx. 30. 58 
 Eoolesiastes, i. 4, 5. 21, 22 
 
 7. 87 
 Isaiah, i. 10. 298 
 
 xl. 6, 8. 234 
 „ 22. 12 
 
 xlii. 5. 12, 13 
 „ xliv. 24. 12 
 
 xlv. 18. 88, 251 
 „ liv. 9, 10. 237 
 Jeremiah, i. 1, 2. 298 
 „ iv. 12 
 
 23-26. 38 
 V. 22. 68 
 vii. 12 
 „ xxxi. 22. 40 
 
 35, 36. 237 
 xxxiii. 20, 21. 237 
 EzeMel, i. 22. 13 
 Daniel, vi. 22. 241 
 
 X. 13, 20, 21. 241 
 xii. 1. 241 
 „ 3. 13 
 
 Hosea, ii. 12 
 Amos, ix. 6. 87 
 Nahum, i. 3. 261 
 Matthew, i. 22. 298 
 ii. 15. 298 
 iii. 5. 265 
 viii. 12 
 
 25, 26. 239 
 X. 10. 299 
 
 19, 20. 299 
 xiii. 12 
 xviii. 10. 241 
 
 Matthew, xix. 4, 5. 109, 290, 291 
 
 „ xxiii. 35. 292 
 
 Mark, ii. 27, 28. 108, 290 
 „ vii. 13. 298 
 „ X. 6-8. 291 
 „ xii. 36. 298 
 „ xiii. 11. 299 
 liuke, i. 70. 298 - 
 „ iii. 34-36. 294 
 36-38. 293 
 38. 291 
 „ vi. 38. 13 
 „ X. 7. 299 
 „ xii. 6. 213 
 
 11, 12. 299 
 „ xvi. 29, 31. 285 
 „ xvil. 27. 293 
 „ XX. 37. 285 
 „ xxii. 43. 241 
 John, i. 1. 44 
 
 „ V. 47, 48. 285 
 „ viii. 44. 291 
 „ ix. 4. 48 
 „ X. 35. 298 
 „ xiv. 16, 17, 25, 26. 299 
 „ xvi. 12-15. 299 
 Acts, i. 16. 298 
 „ iii. 18. 298 
 „ iv. 24. 290 
 „ V. 19. 241 
 „ vi. 25. 298 
 „ vii. 2. 294 
 
 4, 6. 135, 136 
 "„ 22. 149 
 
 38. 298 
 „ xii. 23. 241 
 „ xiii. 20, 21. 137 
 „ xiv. 15. 290 
 „ XV. 29. 293 
 „ xvii. 24. 290 
 
 26. 89, 292, 294, 314 
 „ xxviii. 25. 298 
 Eomans, i. 2. 298 
 
 21, 25. 261 
 iii. 2. 298 
 ," V. 12. 73, 292 
 
 vi. 20. 292 
 " 23. 292 
 
334 
 
 INDEX OP TEXTS QUOTED OR ILLUSTRATED. 
 
 Romang, vii. 2. 291 
 
 Hebrews, iv. 4. 290 
 
 „ viii. 21. 310 
 
 3> 
 
 V. 12. 298 
 
 20, 22. 292 
 
 „ 
 
 vi. 7. 290 
 
 „ xvi. 20. 292 
 
 ,, 
 
 ix. 27. 292 
 
 1 Corinthians, vi. 16. 291 
 
 
 xi. 2. 308 
 
 xi. 3. 292 
 
 „ 
 
 3. 289 
 
 7. 290 
 
 jj 
 
 4. 292 
 
 8,9. 291 
 
 j^ 
 
 5. 293 
 
 „ xiv. 84. 292 
 
 „ 
 
 7. 293 
 
 XV. 21, 22. 292 
 
 )) 
 
 9. 136 
 
 22. 109 
 
 J, 
 
 Xii. 24. 293 
 
 45, 47. 291 
 
 James, iii. 9. 290 
 
 2 Corinthians, iv. 6. 289 
 
 „ ^ 
 
 . 30, 31. 291 
 
 xi. 3. 291 
 
 1 Peter, 
 
 iii. 20. 293 
 
 Galatians, iii. 17. 135, 136 
 
 ^j 
 
 iv. 11. 298 
 
 Ephesians, iii. 9. 290 
 
 2 Peter, 
 
 i. 21. 297 
 
 V. 30, 31. 291 
 
 3) 
 
 ii. 5. 293 
 
 vi. 17. 298 
 
 J> 
 
 iii. 5. 290 
 
 Colossians, i. 16. 290 
 
 JJ 
 
 6. 293 
 
 17. 242 
 
 
 7. 294 
 
 ii. 5. 14 
 
 1 Johiij 
 
 iii. 8. 291 
 
 iii. 11. 109 
 
 3J 
 
 12. 292 
 
 1 Timothy, ii. 13, 14. 291, 292 
 
 Jude, 11 
 
 292 
 
 iv. 3. 293 
 
 „ 14 
 
 293 
 
 V. 18. 299 
 
 Revelation, ii. 7. 291 
 
 2 Timothy, iii. 16, 17. 287, 297 
 
 
 iv. 6. 13 
 
 Hebrews, i. 1. 297 
 
 jj 
 
 7. 291 
 
 2. 290 
 
 ^, 
 
 11. 290 
 
 3. 242 
 
 „ 
 
 viii. 7-12. 241 
 
 10. 289 
 
 
 X. 6. 290 
 
 14. 242 
 
 
 xii. 9. . 291 
 
 ii. 7, 8. 290 
 
 „ 
 
 xiv. 7. 290 
 
 iii. 4. 290 
 
 „ 
 
 xvi. 1. 241 
 
 7. 298 
 
 2 Esdras 
 
 vi. 38-59. 24 
 
 FLETCHER AND SON, PRINTERS, NORWICH. 
 
BT THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 ECLECTIC NOTES; 
 
 Or, Discussions on Religious Topics by the Members of the Eclectic 
 Society of London, from a.d. 1798 to 1813. 
 
 Second Edition. Price 10s. 6d. 
 
 Some of tlie Members at tMs time were tlie Eevs. Eichard Cecil, John Venn, 
 Thomas Scott, John Newton, Josiah Pratt. 
 
 Published bt Niseet & Co. 
 
 A TREATISE ON ATTRACTIONS, LA PLACE'S 
 
 EUNCTIONS, AND THE EIGURE OE THE EARTH. 
 
 Eourth Edition. Price 6s. 6d. 
 
 The Second Edition of the Author's work on * Mechanical Philosophy ' has 
 been some years out of print, and has been succeeded by different treatises, by 
 various authors, on its several subjects. The treatise here advertised is an 
 expansion of that part of the ' Mechanical Philosophy ' which treated of 
 Attractions and the Fignire of the Earth. The author has endeavoured to 
 supply the want of a work on a subject of great importance and hig-h interest- 
 La Place's Co-efficients and Functions, and the calculation of the Pigure of 
 the Earth by means of his remarkable analysis. No student of the higher 
 branches of Physical Astionomy should be ignorant of La Place's analysis and 
 its results — 'a calculus/ says Airy, *the most singular in its natiire, and the 
 * most powerful in its application, that has ever appeared.* He has also entered 
 fidly into the geodesic method of finding the Earth's figure, and intioduced 
 many propositions bearing upon that subject. 
 
 Published bt Macmillan & Co.