Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 with funding from Duke University Libraries https ://arch i ve . o rg/detai Is/te m pte rofeveOI car r / ^GLs7'y''0-££- THE TEMPTEE OF EYE — OR — The Criminality of Man’s Social, Political, and Religious Equality with the Negro, and the Amalgamation to which these Crimes Inevitably Lead. Discussed in the Light of the Scriptures, the Sciences, Profane History, Tradition, and the Testimony of the Monuments. BY CHARLES CARROLL, ST. LOUIS. ADAMIC LIBRARY. ST. LOUIS: PUBLISHED BY THE ADAMIC PUBLISHING CO. 1902. COPYRIGHT 1902 BY CHARLES CARROLL. Entered at Stationers’ Hall, London, England, 1902. 3 ^( 2 . ? C 3 /? T IN GRATEFUL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HIS FRIENDSHIP, KINDNESS AND LOYAL SUPPORT OF THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED IN THESE PAGES, THIS BOOK IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED TO DR. A. W. BOYD, OF CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE. THE AUTHOR. 49515-1 CONTENTS. C3/97 Chapter I. Unique Position of the Bible and its Peculiarities — Did God Reveal to Adam the Great Events of Creation? — Did Adam’s Descendants Lose This Knowledge, and Why? — Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden Under a Dual System of Laws — Adam the Author of Arts and Letters — Adam’s “Book of Precepts,” a Divine Revelation — Monotheism the Oldest Religious Belief — Noah and His Family Monotheists — Noah’s Descendants Ultimately Abandoned Monotheism, and Descended to Atheism and Idolatry — The Mosaic Record a Second Divine Revelation to Man — Moses Wrote the Pentateuch Thirty-five Centuries Before the Birth of Modern Science — The Old Cosmogonies — The Cosmogony of the Bible, Free From Error. The Beginning — Creation and Formation — Three Creations — Matter the First Creation — Matter not Eternal — Matter the Material Out of Which all Bodies are Formed — The Beginning a Period Distinct From the First Day of the Creative Week — The Book of Genesis Teaches that the World Had a Beginning — The Book of Revelation Teaches that the World Will Have an Ending — John’s Visions — Our Earth the Only Habitable Globe — There Were Other Worlds Than Ours — There will be Other Worlds Than Ours — The Production of Light on the “ First Day ” Marked the Beginning of Time — The Angel on the Last Day will De- clare the End of Time — The New Jerusalem — A World, Like a Plant or an Animal, Has its Germ— The New Heaven and the New Earth — The Creative Days Long Periods of Time of Equal Length — The Seventh Day of Equal Length with Each of the Creative Days — No Means of Ascertaining the Length of a Creative Day. Chapter II. .11 IV CONTENTS. Chapter III. The Firmament — When the Formation of the Heaven was Com- pleted, the Formation of the Earth was Completed — The Heaven En- velops the Earth — The Heaven Impervious to Water and Air, Though Not Impervious to Heat and Light — The “ Dry Land ” and the “ Seas ” — All the Waters of the Universe Not on the Earth — Water on Mars and Other Planets — 200 or 300 Miles to the Limits of the Earth’s Atmosphere — The Celestial Waters Were Employed to Deluge the Earth in Noah’s Time — The “ Great Deep ” — The Deluge Universal — The Temperature of the Sun — Explanation Why the Nearer we Approach the Sun, the Colder it Gets— The Firmament Confines the Earth’s Atmosphere and Water to the Earth — The Firmament Intensely Cold — The Earth Not Formerly a Molten Mass— The World Misled by the Speculations of Atheists — The Heavens and the Luminaries are Different Formations, Were Made at Different Times, and for Different Purposes — The Heavens are Made of Ether — The Stars Not Situated in Empty Space— The Luminaries Produce the Light, While the Heavens is the Vehicle of their Light — The Harmony Between the Bible and Science. Chapter IV. There are only Two Schools of Learning, Creation and Natural De- velopment — The School of Creation the Most Ancient — The Ancients Possessed a Knowledge of Astronomy — They had the Telescope — Jose- phus Attributes the Invention of the Constellations to the Family of Seth — The Nebular Hypothesis — La Place’s Theory Based Upon an Error as to the Relative Density of the Planets — The Nebular Theory Mere Speculation— Criticisms on the Nebular Theory — The Pecularity of the Atheist is That His Cosmogonies are Always Based, on Mere As- sumption — The Nebular Theory Cannot Explain More Than a Small Fractional Part of the Phenomena of the Universe — It Cannot Explain the Existence of the Ether — La Place an Infidel — The Ether the Largest Body in the Universe — The Bible Alone Explains the Origin of the Ether of Which the Havens are Composed. Chapter V. The Inspired Writer Silent as to When the Earth was Made — The Earth Already Formed at the Opening of the Third Day, but Enveloped in Water — The Separation of the “Dry Land” and the “Waters” — The Aqueous Theory and the Ignuous Theory — Our Ignorance of the Interior of the Earth — Geology the Science of the Earth — Plant Life Preceded Animal Life on the Earth — The Characteristics of Plant and Animal Life — Plants Divided into Three Classes: Sproutage, Herb- CONTENTS. V bearing and Fruit Trees — Science Shows That These Three Classes of Plants Made Their Appearance in the Order Stated in Genesis — Plant Life Attained its Greatest Luxuriance in the Carboniferous Age — The Climate of the Globe Identical From Pole to Pole. Chapter VI. The Sun, Moon and Stars Designed for Light, and Other Purposes — No Such Thing as a Solar Day Prior to the Fourth Creative Day — The Source from whence Heat and Light were Derived Prior to the Comple- tion of the Luminaries — The Introduction of Plant Life the Last Event of the Third Creative Day — The Season Rings Make Their Appearance on the Forest Growths — The Advent of the Seasons — The Vegetation of the Permian Period — The Sun— The Size of the Sun Compared with the Earth — The Sun as an Object of Worship — The Sun the Source from which the Earth Derives its Light and Heat — The Clouds — The Im- mense Amount of Heat Radiated to Earth by the Sun — The Moon — The Moon's Influence on the Tides — The Moon’s Distance from the Earth — The Size of the Moon Compared with that of the Earth — The Benefits of the Moon as a Light Giver — La Place’s Moon — The Value of the Moon to the Inhabitants of the Earth — The Special Value of the Moon to Sailors — Foolish to Attempt to Deprive God of the Credit Due Him for His Works. Chapter VII. The Animals Followed the Plants — The Terms Reptiles and Insects Discussed — What is Included in the Biblical Term Fowl — Paul’s Teach- ings as to the Four Kinds of Flesh — The Mind Creation Introduced on the 11 Fifth Day ” — The Vegetable and the Animal Kingdoms Mutually De- pendent Sides or Parts of One System of Life — The Elements of Life a Part of the Original Creation, Matter — Mind Common to Man and the An- imals — Instinct — Proof That Animals Possess the Faculty of Reason; Actions of Dogs, Monkeys, etc., Cited — Monkeys Use Tools. Chapter VIII. Classification of the Land Animals — Cattle, Creeping Things, and Beasts — The Distinction Between the Cattle and the Beasts not Based upon the Nature of Their Food — Cattle are Quadrupeds; Beasts are Bipeds (Apes) — During the Dark Ages the Knowledge that the Ape is a Biped was Lost — No Quadrumana or Four-handed Animal— The Ape Proved by Comparative Anatomy to be a Biped — A Great Gulf Separ- ates the Quadrupeds from the Bipeds — The Gulf Lies Between the Quadrupeds and the Apes, and not Between the Quadrupeds and Man- No Intermediate Class of Creatures Span this Gulf — The Mosaic Record and the Geological Record in Harmony. VI CONTENTS. Chapter IX. What is the Beast of the Earth? — The Beast of the Earth Not a General Term— The Beast of the Earth a Man-eater — The Beast of the Earth and the Beast of the Field Identical — God’s Judgment Against the Egyptians — The Beast of the Field Has the Erect Posture, etc. ; Speech, a Hand, a Foot, and When Associated with Man is Habitually Clothed — The Beast of the Field will Bear Man Prolific Offspring — In the Creation Man was not Assigned to Physical Labor — The Beast of the Field Designed as a Servant — The Distinction Between Cattle and Beasts is Shown by the Plagues Sent on the Egyptians — The Relative Value of Cattle and Beasts — The Jew has Lost a Knowledge of the Language of His Ancestors — The Hebrew a Dead Language in Palestine More than 500 B. C.— The Aramaic the Popular Language of Palestine in the Days of Ezra — The Scriptures Translated into the Aramaic — The Term “ Beast of the Field ” Translated Ape in the Targum and the Chaldee — The Jews Lost the Knowledge that the Ape is a Biped. Chapter X. The White the Highest and the Negro the Lowest of the So-called Races of Men; the Striking Contrast in Their Physical and Mental Characters, etc.— The White Pre-eminently the Man of Civilization — The Savages are Negroes or Mongolians — The Gulf Between the White and the Negro — The Resemblance to a Negro in Miniature of Pethecia Satanas — The Negro and the Orang Approach Each Other in the To- tality of Their Organizations — The Inferiority of the Negro is Funda- mentally Structural — The Negro not the Descendant of Adam — The Negro Does not Belong to the Flesh of Man — The White and the Negro are the Originals Whom God Made — The Complexion of the Negro not the Result of Climatic Influence — Neither Altitude or Latitude Perma- nently Affects the Complexion — The Complexion Derived from the Pigment— Albinism a Disease — The Physical and Mental Organisms of the Negro Compared with the Apes on the One Side and the White on the Other — Prof. Huxley Proved the Negro a Monkey and Pronounced Him a Man; Proved Him a Beast and Accepted Him as a Brother — In His Physical and Mental Organisms He Differs from the V r hite; and at Every Essential Point Approximates the Organisms Below — The So- called Anthropoids Unfit for Domestic Purposes — No One of the So- called Anthropoids Walk Like Man — The Knowledge that the Negro is an Ape was Lost Ages Ago — The Lower Apes Enable us to Identify the Negro as an Ape— The Negro Fitted for a Servant, but on Account of the Low Order of His Mentality is Disqualified for a Higher Sphere — The Characteristics of the Negro Clearly Identifies Him as the “ Beast of the Field.” CONTENTS. VI 1 Chapter XI. The Broad Distinction Made Between Man and the Animals— Man Designed to Develop the Earth and Have Dominion Over the Animals — Man’s Brilliant Achievements— The Narrative of the Creation Ex- tends Through the First Two Chapters of Genesis — Man’s Physical Or- ganism Formed Out of the Dust of the Ground— Man Derives His Phy- sical Life from Matter — When Man's Physical and Mental Organisms were Completed Man Might Have Lived and Multiplied without a Soul, Like an Animal — It was not God’s Desire That Man Should Thus Exist on the Level of the Brute — God Desired That Between Himself and Man there Should Exist the Close Relationship of Parent and Child — God Gave to Man a Soul — The Soul a Part of God's Substance — Man Thus Became Immortal — Adam the Son of God — The Male Man Created Long Before the Female Man — Adam’s Great Intellectuality Displayed in Naming the Animals — The Creation of Woman — The Lofty Position of Woman Among the Ancients — Man and Woman of One Flesh — Sakoontala — Plants a Combination of the Elements Composed of Matter — The Ani- mals a Combination of Two Creations, Matter and Mind — Man a Com- bination of Three Creations, Matter, Mind and Soul — Reproduction of the Matter Creation as it Exists in Plants — Reproduction of the Matter and Mind Creations as They Exist in Animals — Reproduction of the Matter, Mind and Soul Creations as They Exist in Man — The Repro- duction of an Immortal Soul as Natural and Simple a Process as the Reproduction of a Plant or an Animal — The Evidence That Adam Knew That He was Immortal — Jesus Christ the Begotten Son of God — The Knowledge of the Three Creations Lost in the Dark Ages — Modern Theologians Make no Distinction Between Mind and Soul — The Broad Distinction Made by the Inspired Writers Between Mind and Soul — Only Eight Souls in the Ark — Adam and Eve in the Creation. Chapter XII. The Nebular Theory and the Theory of Descent Combine to Form the General Theory of Natural Development, or the Theory of Evolu- tion — Spontaneous Generation — The Monera the Most Ancient Ancestor of Man — Contradictions of Haeckel, Darwin, and Huxley — The Form of the Monera and its Food, Habits, etc. — The Monera Propagates by Self- Division; it has no Offspring, Consequently the Law of Inheritance Does not Apply to it — The Monera Beyond the Reach of Mr. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, or Survival of the Fittest — The Monera of To-Day is the Duplicate of the Monera of Ages Ago — The Theory of Spontaneous Generation Based Upon a False Assumption — The Great Gulf Between Inorganic Matter and Organic Life — The Protamnion — Vlll CONTENTS. The Development of the Most Ape-like Man Out of the Most Man-like Apes — The Origin of Articulate Language — No Remains Found of Speechless Man — The Different Races of Men — The Development of the Races of Men — The Zoological System — Contrast Between Scripture and Atheism— Offspring of Different Species Fertile. Chapter XIII. Domestic Plants Require Cultivation — Domestic Plants not Devel- oped from Wild Originals; God’s Special Gifts to Man — Com Never Found in a Wild State — The Forest Growths Never Developed from Lower Forms — The Garden of Eden not a Myth — The Magnitude of the Garden of Eden — The Garden of Eden the Most Superb Estate — Irrigation First Introduced in the Garden of Eden — Adam Commanded to Dress and Keep the Garden of Eden Before His Fall — The Negro Did the Man- ual Labor in the Garden of Eden — The Chase the Only Vocation of the Negro Prior to the Creation of Man — Man’s Vocations Almost Infinite in Number — Cain a Farmer — Cain’s Mixed-Blooded Descendants In- herited from Him Domestic Plants and Animals — Adam a Metallurgist — Cain Obtained a Knowledge of Metals from Adam — Cain’s Mixed- Blooded Descendants Inherited from Him a Knowledge of Metals, etc. — The Old Civilizations Built by Metallurgists — The White Equipped Physically and Mentally to Develop the Earth — No Negro Civilization has Ever Appeared — Hebrew not the Language of Eden — Adam and Eve Learned, Cultured and Refined — Their Descendants Highly En- lightened ; They Possessed the Harp and Organ. Chapter XIV. Adam Clark’s Comment on the Tempter of Eve — The Tempter of Eve an Ape — Only Three Individuals Participated in Fall of Man — The Tempter of Eve Possessed Articulate Speech, the Erect Posture, and Sufficient Mental Ability to Deceive Man — The Tempter of Eve a Beast of the Field — Eighteen Centuries Ago the World Lost its Knowledge of the Fact That the Negro is an Ape — Catholics — Protestants — The. Tempter of Eve a Negress — Social Equality with the Negro Man’s First Sin. Chapter XV. Cain — Abel — Their Offering to the Lord — Abel’s Offering Accepted — Cain’s Offering Rejected — Cain’s Accomplice in Crime — God Married Cain to His Paramour — Cain’s Paramour not of Adamic Flesh — Differ- ence Between Fornication and Adultery — Cain Took His Wife to the Land of Nod — Cain’s Wife a Beast — Cain’s Descendants Compared with Our Mulattoes — No Daughters Born to the Adamic Family Until After CONTENTS. IX the Birth of Seth — The Negro has no Soul — The Mixed-blood has no Soul — Proof of Amalgamation Amongst the Antediluvians — The Sons of God, and the Daughters of Men — God's Abhorrence of Amalgama- tion — Almalgamation Led to the Deluge. Chapter XVI. The Antediluvian Civilization — Noah Transmitted to His Descend- ants a Knowledge of the Arts and Appliances of Civilization — Noah and His Family, with Their Negroes and Other Domestic Animals, etc., Developed a Civilization — The Hamitic Origin of the Negro — The Per- iod of Great Peace Referred to in the Popul Vuh — The Evidence of Whites and Negroes in America in Ancient Times — Atheism Can Throw no Light on These Old Civilizations — The So-called Malay, Indian, and Mongolian the Offspring of Whites and Negroes — Americans Turning to Indians — The Result of Our Amalgamation with the Negro — How Savages are Produced — Moral Faculty — Table of Brain Weights — Off- spring of Whites and Negroes Cannot Revert to the White or to the Negro. Chapter XVII. The Course of Amalgamation in Ancient and Modern Times Com- pared— The Literature of the Ancients — Solon’s Visit to Egypt — Plato’s History of Atlantis — Antiquity of the Theory of Descent — Amalgama- tion the Parent of Atheism and Idolatry — Atheism and Idolatry De- stroyed Monotheism — God Raised up the Nation of Israel — God’s Law Against Amalgamation and Idolatry — Jerusalem the Religious Center of the World — The Israelites Descended to Amalgamation — Solomon’s Black Concubine — The Ethiopians — Jeremiah Forbidden to Marry — Negroes and Mixed-bloods not Included in the Plan of Salvation — The Saviour's Command to Preach the Gospel to Every Creature — Paul Says the Gospel was Preached to Every Creature Under Heaven — The Gospel not Preached to Negroes and Mixed-bloods. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. PAGE. Frontispiece. I. Ideal Scene of the Lias with Ichthyosannis and Plesiosaurus, 160 II. Ideal Scene, Landscape of the Liassic Period, . . .164 III. Geological Record, 212 IV. Female Hottentot, 259 V. Female Gorilla, 259 VI. Profile View of the Brain of the Orang Outang, . . . 270 VII. Profile View of the Brain of the Bushman Venus, . . 270 VHI. Profile View of the Brain of Gauss, the Mathematician, . 270 IX. Eve and Her Tempter, 403 INTRODUCTION. Many of my correspondents in different sections of the country, have assured me that, among those familiar with my writings, there is a wide-spread de- sire to know how I first became impressed with my views of the negro, as expressed in my writings. To such of my readers as entertain this desire, the following facts may prove interesting: When I was a boy, I stopped one day on my way home from school to observe the tricks of a monkey that was being exhibited by an Italian organ-grinder. When I reached home, my father informed me that he had just bought a little or- phan negro; hastening to the kitchen, I at once observed the striking facial resemblance between the little negro and the Italian’s monkey. His skull was as degraded and animal-like as that of the Neander- thal; while the expression of his face, his movements and gestures must have been as fantastical and ape- like as those of the Hottentot -Venus. After dinner I took the little negro and hunted up the Italian with the view of further observing the resemblances be- tween his monkey and the negro. The little negro had never before seen a monkey, and it would have been difficult to determine whether his antics of xi Xll INTRODUCTION. those of the monkey were the most ludicrous; he at least fully shared with the monkey the attention of the bystanders. My observations of the two con- vinced me that the negro and the monkey belonged to the same family; and upon reaching home, I told my father of my observations and expressed the opinion that the negro is an ape. My mother was highly amused, but my father was horrified, and turning to my mother, he asked her if she had been talkingto me on that subject; she replied that she had not. My father then lectured me at length on what he termed my “ outrageous views,” and forbade my further discussion of the subject, assuring me that if I ever repeated the offense he would punish me severely. Sometime afterwards, when my mother and I were alone, I asked her if she did not believe the negro to be an ape, but she replied by reminding me of my father’s injunction, and de- clined to discuss the question. But remembering my father’s question to her, and her manner on both occasions when the subject was mentioned, I feel as- sured that I must have voiced her sentiments, when I declared the negro to be an ape. However, she died a few years afterwards, and I never questioned my father as to her sentiments. Hoping that I would forget the matter, and to further his desire that I should do so, my father sold the little negro, and I never saw him afterward. But, though I was silenced, I was still free to observe and reason; and the more I saw of negroes, the more I was convinced that 1113" estimate of them was correct. INTBODUCTION. Xlll About twenty years ago I decided to investigate the origin and history of the negro. And just here the teachings of my Bible-believing parents proved of inestimable value to me. I had been taught from childhood that the Bible was the Word of God. Though it must be confessed that I had grown some- what skeptical, not because I was inclined to be so, but because of the absurd interpretation placed upon the Bible by those who professed to understand it; and I regret to say that my father was among the number. For example: I would ask, What was the tempter of Eve? I would be told in all serious- ness that “it was a snake.” This was absurd; I could never believe that articulate speech was pos- sessed by an animal so low in the scale of being as a snake. And again I would ask, Who was Cain’s wife? I was told that this was a “mooted question,” but that “ he must have taken his sister to wife.” Yet I could see that the Bible plainly taught that there was no female child born to the Adamic fam- ily until after the birth of Seth ; while it also taught that Cain had a wife before Seth was born. Again, I would ask, What did the antediluvians do which so offended God as to lead Him to destroy them with the deluge? I was told that “they were very wicked, but that no specific offense was charged against them.” But it seemed to me that, in addition to punishing them with death, God would desire to make an example of them; and in order to do this it was necessary to specifically state their offense. Again, I would ask, What offense did the Canaan- XIV INTEODUCTION. ites commit which led God to command the Israel- ites to destroy them, male and female, and even the babes at their mother’s breasts, and “leave nothing alive that breatheth?” I was told that, “they were a very degraded people who worshiped idols.” But it occurred to me that the little children who had not thus offended, might have been spared, and taught to believe in God. Such replies to these vital ques- tions, and others of like nature, were not only un- satisfactory in the extreme, but were well calculated to engender skepticism in the mind of a student; and I often think with horror of how nearly they came to making an infidel of me, as they have of tens of thousands of earnest seekers after truth. But even under these discouraging conditions, the training of my youth exerted a restraining influence upon me. My father was an old Methodist class leader, and I am the child of a Methodist mother. I was loath to renounce the Old Book which had af- forded them so much comfort and hope. This in- duced me in my investigation of the negro to first take up the Bible. I reasoned thus: If the Bible is the Word of God; and if the negro is an ape, surely God would not turn loose upon the earth such a creature with no record of him by which he might be identified in all ages of his history. The result proved the correctness of my reasoning, as the pages of this work will show. I had partly written up my Bible work on this subject when I was called home to assist in nursing my step-mother who was dangerously ill. When INTRODUCTION. XV she had so far recovered as to be able to sit up, I requested permission to read my partly finished manuscript. I had not confided to them nor to any one the fact that I was investigating and writing upon any subject, so that my request was a com- plete surprise. However, the surprise was agree- able in the extreme to them, and my request was promptly granted. The astonishment of those old people was only equaled by their joy, when they realized that their former skeptical boy was an enthusiastic believer in, and an ardent student of, the Bible. Only the three of us were present, and the scene was one which is as impossible to describe as to forget. After thoroughly discussing my views and criti- cally investigating them in the light of the scriptures, my father and step-mother gave them their unquali- fied endorsement. When I had completed my inves- tigations of the Bible and was able to establish the fact that the negro figures throughout the scriptures as an ape — the “ beast of the field ” — I turned my attention to the sciences with the desire of giving my views a scientific backing. But I soon discov- ered that many of the leading scientific writers utterly repudiated the Bible, and that few, if any, professed Christians accepted it as a whole, and ad- hered to it where it conflicted with modern theories. Inasmuch as my views of the negro were based upon the Bible, I realized that it was necessary to show that the scriptures were in absolute harmony with the sciences at every point. This imposed upon XVI INTRODUCTION. me a further labor of years. The result of which will be found in the pages of this book, and the suc- ceeding volumes of the series. In the year of 1899, I published my views in a very condensed form in a pamphlet entitled, “ The Negro not the Son of Ham.” In 1901 I wrote up my views a little more ex- tensively and placed the manuscript in the hands of a publisher whose disregard of my rights as an author led him to change the title I had given the book — “ Man and the Negro ” — to a course, vulgar one of his own selection. This, with his bombastic title page which has subjected me to the severest criti- cisms, and the general “ Cheap John ” appearance of the book, practically stripped it of all dignity, and rendered it a thing of which I am heartily ashamed. Though laboring under all these disadvantages, the book had an extensive sale. This, and the many letters I have received from all sections of the coun- try endorsing my views, encourages me to write them up more elaborately and publish them in a series of which The Tempter of Eve is the first volume. The Author. / CHAPTER I. The Antediluvian Bible. “Eternal Spirit! God of truth ! to whom All things seem as they are ; thou who of old The prophet’s eye unsealed, that nightly saw, While heavy sleep fell down on other men, In holy visions tranced, the future pass Before him, and to Judah’s harp attuned Burdens which made the pagan mountains shake And Zion’s cedars bow — inspire my song; My eye unscale; me what is substance teach, And shadow what, while I of things to come, As past rehearsing sing the Course of Time. ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ The muse, that soft and sickly wooes the ear Of love, or chanting loud in windy rhyme Of fabled hero, raves through gaudy tale, Not over fraught with sense, I ask not; such A strain befits not argument so high. Me thought, and phrase, severely sifting out The whole idea, grant; uttering as ’t is The eternal truth. — Pollock. The Bible occupies to-day, as it has in all ages of its history, a unique position in the literature of the world. Among the many peculiarities which dis- tinguish it, the following are perhaps the most peculiar : 17 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. \ 1. It purports to be of supernatural origin, in that, it was written by men whom God selected, and to whom He communicated the knowledge which He desired them to impart to their fellow-men. Thus, it claims to be literally and truly the word of God, conveying to us from the fountain of all wis- dom and truth, a knowledge which is essential to our welfare both in time and in eternity, and which was not obtainable from another source. Hence, it de- mands of all men that careful consideration and respect, which the creature should accord to the utterances of his Creator, or the child to the teach- ings of its parent. A perusal of the first and second chapters of Genesis reveals to us a clearly defined plan of crea- ation, in which the principal events are stated in the order of their occurrence. These various events oc- curred in stated periods of time described as the “first day,” the “second day,” the “third day,” and so on ; the whole terminating in the creation of man on the “ sixth day.” It is claimed that God selected and inspired Moses to write this narrative of the creation. Hence, it is termed by some, “ The Mosaic account of Creation;” by others, “The Mosaic Rec- ord.” 2. The Mosaic Record teaches that the material — universe with all its phenomena was created by God for a definite purpose. Hence, it is artificial — the product of Divine art; and the laws which govern it are God’s laws. 3. It draws a broad distinction between man THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 19 and the animal, and this distinction is maintained throughout the scriptures. It teaches (1) that, in obedience to God’s command, the waters and the earth brought forth the animals after their kind; while God created man in His own image. (2) No specific design is given as to why God made the animals ; neither were they assigned to any spe- cific task beyond increasing and multiplying, and were simply placed under man’s dominion after his creation. Hence, the animal is responsible to man. (3) The design of God in creating man, is specifi- cally stated ; and after his creation, man was assigned to this specific work. Hence, man must respect the design of God in creating him, and must answer to God for the manner in which he discharges the du- ties to which he was assigned in the Creation. (4) That the animals were made in great numbers, and in great variety ; while man was created a single pair. (5) That there are three distinct classes of animals, which made their appearance in the order stated: fish, fowl, and beast; that these classes of animals are each separate and distinct from the others, and were assigned to different spheres, — the fish to inhabit the waters ; the fowl to fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven ; and the beast to occupy the dry land. On the other hand, man’s dominion ex- tends over the entire globe, though for reasons stated, his immediate place of abode would be the dry land. (6) That the male and female animal of the different families or species, — whether of fish, or fowl, or beast, — originated in the same manner, and 20 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. were brought forth simultaneously. Hence, they were at once capable of reproducing their kind. But that God first created in His own image the male man, and at a later period completed his creation, by making the female man out of the male man. Thus, for a considerable period, prior to the advent of woman, the male side or part of the Adamic Cre- ation lived upon the earth without the companion- ship of the female by whom he might beget offspring “in the image of God.” (7) That the animals were brought forth and allowed to roam promiscuously in their different spheres, — the fish in the water, the fowl in the air, and the beasts on the dry land ; their actions were not restrained by law ; hence, they were held to no legal responsibility for their conduct, but were governed solely by those attributes of the mind which are commonly termed, instincts ; that no part of the substance of God enters into their composition to form a link of kinship between Himself and them; that they are merely the creatures , not the kinsman , of God. Hence, no vestige of immortality distin- guishes them from the plant, or the planet ; mere creatures of time, they cannot survive the end of time; born of the earth, they must perish where they ^ had their birth. But that, in the Creation, God in- corporated a part of His substance with man’s physi- cal and mental organisms, thus forming a link of kinship between Himself and man, which he can transmit through pure Adamic channels to his off- spring. This part of the substance of God which the Creator bestowed upon man is described in scripture THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 21 as the “ Soul it is the soul that is the immortal part of man. Hence, his possession of a soul, itself a part of the substance of God, distinguishes man from the animal, as the possession of mind distin- guishes the animal from the plant ; and when man’s physical and mental organisms are dissolved, his soul will take its flight from the scenes of time to an endless existence in the realms of eternity. And in the Creation, man, unlike the animals, was assigned to a fixed place of abode, in the Garden of Eden, which God prepared for him, and which He com- manded him to keep and cultivate. The narrative of Creation is followed by a narrative of many of the principal events in man’s history from the Creation down to a few decades after the birth of Jesus Christ. 4. When we compare the age of the narrative of Creation, as we find it in the Bible, with the age of man, according to this narration we find that man existed upon the earth thousands of years before the birth of Moses, who is accredited with its authorship. This fact suggests to our mind the following inquiries: If a full and correct knowl- edge of the great events described by Moses in the order of their occurrence, together with a knowledge of man’s kinship with God; the de- sign of God in creating him, and the laws which God enacted for his government are essential to man, why was it not revealed to him in the Crea- tion ? And if it was revealed to him, when did he lose it? Was it suddenly lost? Did the whole 22 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. Adamic family simultaneously agree to renounce monotheism and adopt other beliefs? The thought is inadmissable! History and our personal expe- rience and observation combine to teach us that men cling tenaciously to their ancestral beliefs ; and the fact that this is especially true of their religious be- liefs, goes far to prove that the loss of this knowledge was accomplished by a very gradual process, extend- ing through a long period of time. Whatever differences of opinion upon this subject may exist in the minds of men, we feel assured that all will agree (1) that, if God revealed this knowledge to Adam, his decendants lost it at some period in their history prior to the time of Moses; or, that at the time of Moses they retained only fragments of it, so corrupted by errors and superstitions as to render it practically valueless. (2) That the loss of this knowledge was simply an effect, which, like all effects is traceable to a cause. But what was this cause ? What demoralizing course of conduct, persistently pursued for ages in every portion of the earth, finally resulted in stripping man of this essential knowl- edge; or, that so corrupted it as to strip it of all practical value, thus reducing him to such ignorance of these most important subjects as to render it ne- cessary for God, in His mercy, to make a second revelation to man of this essential knowledge as we have it to-day in the Mosaic Record ? The solution of this question necessarily requires a careful investi- gation of the history and associations of man from the creation down to our day ; for the very nature of the THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 23 subject, its far-reaching consequences, its over- whelming importance, coupled with our earnest de- sire to do justice to it, forbids the closing of our in- vestigations upon reaching the time of Moses. The result of our investigations will be found in the following chapters of this work. For the present we shall confine our inquiries to the question as to whether God revealed to Adam a knowledge of the great events of the Creation, which his descendents lost, thus necessitating a second revelation of this knowledge, together with the history of man and his associations and their ruinous results as we have it in the Pentateuch. We feel assured that all fair-minded men will agree with us in the following conclusions : (1) If it could be shown that God created man and turned him loose upon the earth, like an animal, without revealing to him a knowledge of the existence of God, the Creator of the universe; nor of his kin- ship with God; nor of his immortality; nor of the design of God in creating him ; nor of the relations which God desired him to maintain toward the ani- mals ; and had assigned him to no specific task ; and had enacted no laws for his special government, and left him groping in ignorance of these important subjects until the time of Moses, and yet held him to rigid responsibility for his acts, it would destroy our belief in the wisdom, and justice, and mercy, and love of God. (2) # That, had God created man and not revealed to him this essential knowledge, he could never have acquired it from another source ; 24 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. and any effort upon his part to solve these questions for himself, would merely have resulted in the pro- duction of innumerable hypotheses, all more or less at variance with truth, and consequently incapable of proof. The strength of our position upon this subject is easily demonstrated by investigating the theories of the men of modern time, who deny the existence of a Creator, repudiate the Bible, and at- tribute the existence of the universe to natural causes; and who attempt to explain the origin of man, his relation to the animals, and his final des- tiny. But we have an abundance of authentic proof that God revealed this knowledge to Adam in the Creation, as shown by the following : The Mosaic Record emphatically states that God held personal intercourse with Adam in the Garden of Eden, and revealed this knowledge to him; and that in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were placed under a dual system of laws ; the one defining their relations to God, and their relation to the earth and the animals; the other defining their mode of religious worship. Bible history teaches that Adam transmitted this knowledge to his decendants, more or less of whom retained it in its purity down to the time of the Deluge ; and that after the Deluge it was transmitted by Noah to his decendants. This may come as a surprise to those who have been misled by the theories* of atheism to believe that man is a highly developed species of ape — the “human species” and that this “human species” of THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 25 ape is divisible into five or more “ races of men ” of which the White is the highest and the Negro the lowest race, with the Browns, Reds, and Yellows as intermediate races, in different stages of develop- ment; and that, at the time of man’s “differentiation” from the ape, he was simply an ignorant, brutal sav- age, and so remained for tens of thousands of years, with only such meager ability as enabled him to fashion out of flint, a rudely chipped implement of the chase with which to slaughter the animals — his kinsmen — upon which he fed, and from which he was little removed in point of intelligence; and that man traces his line of decent back through a long series of “ animal ancestors ” to the Monera — the low- est form of animal — itself the result of “ spontaneous generation.” But when we renounce this baseless, absurd theory, which attributes to man an animal ancestry, thus degrading him to the level of the brute, and accept in their entirety the elevating teachings of the Mosaic Record, we are enabled to realize that man was created “the son of God;” that he was de- signed for a definite purpose, and assigned to a spe- cific task in a fixed place of abode ; and that in the Garden of Eden our first parents, Adam and Eve, held personal intercourse with the great Architect of the universe, who revealed to them the great events of the Creation, together with a full knowledge of all that was necessary for them to know in order to ac- complish the great task for which they were design- ed and to which God assigned them in the Creation. 26 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Men inherit from their ancestors a greater or less amount of valuable knowledge which they add more or less to, and teach the whole to their child- ren, who, in their turn, transmit it, with such know- ledge as they may have otherwise acquired, to their decendants. Thus, each generation inherits from their predecessors a vast amount of invaluable know- ledge. But who taught Adam? He was the first man. No long line of progenitors transmitted to him the knowledge they had acquired from observation and experience. He was created absolutely ignorant of his origin, and of his relations to God, and the re- lations which God designed him to maintain toward the earth, and the rest of created things. We in- struct our children in such knowledge as we possess that would prove beneficial to them, and thus do all in our power to equip them for the duties of life. Would our heavenly father be less mindful of the interest of his earthly children ? Let us bear in mind that Adam was “the son of God;” and that conse- quently his pure-blooded decendants are God’s child- ren. To believe that God would not instruct his children in all that concerns their welfare, would compel us to repudiate the teachings of scripture. God revealed to Moses the truths written in the Pen- tateuch for man’s instruction. Jesus Christ instructed His desciples in the duties He desired them to per- form. The Bible as a whole is composed of instruc- tion which God has given man, from time to time, for his enlightenment and guidance. The author of each book of the Bible was a man whom God THE TEMPTEK OE EVE. 27 instructed upon the subjects of which he wrote. Hence, the various books of the Bible mark so many periods in man’s history in which he had forgotten his Creator and his obligations to Him, and had wandered so far in forbidden paths, and had become so ignorant and benighted, as to make it impossible for him, unaided, to regain his lost position. They also present so many instances in which God’s pa- rental love for man followed him out into the dark- ness and hopelessness of atheism and idolatry, into which his follies and crimes had led him, and en- lightened him, extended to him a helping hand, and guided him back to the path of right and duty. When we find that God dealt thus with the re- bellious descendants of Adam in their wickedness and depravity, we should see in it the most positive evidence that He would instruct Adam in all that was essential for his welfare, when his ignorance was only equaled by his innocence. To our mind, nothing could be more absurd than to suppose that God did more to enlighten the demoralized, degraded de- scendants of Adam, whose long career of folly and crime had reduced them to the most pitiable ignor- ance, than He did for Adam in the innocence and ignorance in which He created him. Hence, if the Bible and all profane history, and all tradition had been destroyed ages ago, and we were creditably in- formed of the existence of God, the Creator of the universe ; that He was a being of infinite wisdom, justice, mercy, and love ; that He created man in His own image, and incorporated with man’s physical and 28 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. mental organisms a part of His own substance, thus rendering him immortal and establishing between Himself and man the close relationship of father and son ; that He created man for a definite purpose, and immediately assigned him to a gigantic work which required the highest intelligence to accomplish, rea- son would assure us that this wise, just, merci- ful loving God revealed to man a knowledge of all these things ; and acquainted him with the existence of all the factors which he should employ in the ac- complishment of his great task, and the manner of utilizing them. But upon this important subject we shall not be content to rest our case upon mere as- sumption ; and in the following chapters we shall show by Bible history that God did reveal to Adam a vast amount of invaluable knowledge relative to the successful accomplishment of his great task, of which the narrative of Creation makes no mention. Let us bear in mind that this invaluable knowl- edge which God revealed to Adam as shown by the Mosaic Record and the earty history of the Adamic family, was not designed for Adam alone, but was intended for the benefit of his descendants through- out the ages that were to come. No good reason could be advanced why God should desire that this great mass of invaluable knowledge should be trans- mitted orally from generation to generation, thus risking its being corrupted to a greater or less ex- tent, and its value correspondingly impaired. On the contrary, we can see every reason why God should prefer that this knowledge which He had THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 29 revealed to Adam for his benefit and that of his des- cendants should be made a matter of permanent record, thus assuring its transmission from genera- tion to generation in its purity. And a moment’s consideration should convince us that this could only be accomplished by a knowledge of letters ; that its certain transmission in its purity necessitated its being made in writing. This being true, it follows that at no period of his history has man stood in greater need of the knowledge of letters and the art of writing than did Adam in the Creation; and we feel assured that among his other accomplishments, Adam possessed the art of writing, and that he em- ployed it in transmitting to his descendants the knowledge which God revealed to him for his benefit and theirs. But though no fragment of this written record has escaped the ravages of time, and descended to us, we are not without evidence of its former exist- ence. The Hebrew commentators on the Book of Genesis say : “ Our rabbins assert that Adam, our father of blessed memory, composed a book of pre- cepts which were delivered to him by God in Para- dise.” (Smith's Sacred Annals ) . The value of the Mosaic Record is not due to the fact that Moses wrote it, but to the fact that God revealed to him the knowledge which it contains ; so it was with Adam’s book ; its value did not consist in the fact that Adam wrote it, but that God “ delivered to him” the “ pre- cepts” of which it was composed; though Adam wrote the one, and Moses wrote the other, God in- 30 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. spired their utterances. Hence, they were each in- spired volumes. This being true, it follows that the most devout believer in the Bible of to-day does not hold it in greater reverence than the antedi- luvians and the descendants of Noah for centuries after the Deluge held Adam’s book of precepts. The knowledge which Adam’s book contained was our birthright ; but unfortunately for us and them, there came a time in the remote past when our ancestors began to esteem it lightly, and little by little it was lost, until to-day only a few fragments are to be found upon the different continents ; but even these fragments that have survived the destruction of the written record, and have been handed down tradi- tionally, have become so corrupted in their transit through the ages as to be of no practical value, beyond the evidence their presence presents of the former existence of a written volume which God in- spired Adam to write. The idea that our most ancient progenitor had a knowledge of letters, and the art of writing, may seem surprising to many who have been misled by the theories of atheists to believe that man descended from the ape ; and that the earliest men were speech- less and so remained for ages before developing artic- ulate speech; and that after this event they slowly developed through the different stages of savagism, barbarism, and semi-barbarism, until the } 7 finally reached such a degree of civilization as enabled them to realize their need of letters and the art of writing; and that they reached this period of their history in THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 31 the time of the Phoenicians, a once great commer- cial and maratime people, who invented the alpha- bet. This absurd theory of the Phoenician origin of the alphabet has long since been exploded ; but with that tenacity with which men cling to error, it is taught to-day in quarters where we should least ex- pect it. As has been shown, reason and the accep- tance of the teachings of scripture leads to the belief that the art of writing is very nearly as old as man ; and the most ancient traditions sustain it. Soudas, the Greek lexicographer, merely voiced a tradition of the ancients when he said, “Adam was the author of arts and letters.” Pliny says, “Letters were always in use.” Josephus expresses Jewish tradition when he says, “ The births and deaths of illustrious men, between Adam and Noah, were noted down at the time with great accuracy.” The Egyp- tians said that their God, Anubis, was an antedilu- vian who “ wrote annals before the flood.” The Chinese have traditions that their ancestors, prior to history, “taught all the arts of life and wrote books.” William Mitford, the historian, in discussing the origin of the alphabet, says : “ Nothing appears to us so probable as that it was derived from the antedilu- vian world.” When we examine the ancient literature of the oldest civilized nations, such as the Scandinavians, Greeks, Egyptians, Hindoos, Chinese, Americans, etc., we find that back of all their atheism, and idol- atry, lays the sublime doctrine of monotheism. This proves that those peerless old architects who lived 32 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. nearest to the time of Noah, and who developed those splendid civilizations, the remains of which adorn every continent of the earth, were monothe- ists ; it also proves that their descendants yielded to the demoralizing, degrading influence of some seductive crime, and forgot God and his “precepts,” renounced monotheism and wandered off into the darkness of atheism and idolatry. One would nat- urally suppose that there could be no identity of origin, no kinship, not even the remotest relationship between atheism, which denies the existence of God, and idolatry with its worship of many gods; but in- vestigation of their origin reveals the fact that they are twin sisters — the offspring of one crime. Thus it is shown that Monotheism is not only traceable to those most ancient and highly civilized postdiluvians who lived nearest to the time of Noah, but it is traceable to Adam, the first man — “the son of God.” The Bible teaches that Adam was a monotheist; that in His intercourse with Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden, God taught them the doctrine of monotheism, together with many other “ things which he desired should be known to their descendants throughout all time ; that Adam trans- mitted it to his descendants, among whom was Noah. We have shown that the very fact that the knowledge which God revealed to Adam was designed for his descendants throughout the ages that were to come, required that it be transmitted in writing; and the most ancient and reliable traditions assert that this was done. Why should not Adam have THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 33 been the inventor of letters and the art of writ- ing ? Why should not the antediluvians have need- ed and employed the art of writing as well as the postdiluvians ? The Bible also teaches that mo- notheism was the belief of Noah and his family, and that they taught it to their children ; and if they received this doctrine from their ancestors in writing, they transmitted it in writing to their descendants. All known facts concerning the antediluvians indi- cate that they were a highly cultivated people. This being true, the inference is fair that Noah preserved in the ark, among other things, a greater or less amount of valuable literature, some sacred, some profane; at the head of which stood the inspired book written by Adam; that he transmitted this literature to his descendants, who added to it, as we add to our literature, until they entered upon their downward career of crime, in which their literature, sacred and profane, was finally lost ; and their descendants plunged into the greatest ignorance and superstition. The above are our impressions of the learning and culture of Adam and his descendants down to the time of Moses, when viewed in the lights of scripture and tradition. When we stand at our day and look backward up the stream of time, we are enabled with the aids of scripture, profane history and tradition to see that beyond the ages of atheism and idolatry, the various continents of the earth were populated by a highly cultivated and enlightened people who were mon- otheists. Thus it is shown that, whether we trace 34 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. the history of man from the Creation to a period subsequent to the Deluge, or whether we trace his history back from our day to those great civilized nations who lived nearest to the time of the Deluge, the result is the same ; we find that monotheism is the most ancient belief of mankind. But strange to say, the existence of monotheism among these ancient civilized nations has been seized upon by the oppo- nents of the Bible as a weapon with which to assail it at its most vital point ; they attempt to use this fact as evidence that God never inspired Moses to write the Pentateuch ; but that it is simply a compilation of old legends and traditions which he or others had access to ; and stranger still is the fact that we find many professed Christians who accept this demoral- izing theory. But a moment’s reflection should con- vince us that if Christianity as founded by Jesus Christ has any basis in fact, its ultimate basis is the Mosaic Record, and if the Mosaic Record and the early history of man as we find it in the Pentateuch, is merely a compilation of old legends and traditions that may be true or false, or may be part true and part false, then Christianity rests upon a foundation so frail and unreliable that, so far from commanding our respect, merely provokes contempt. By comparing the Mosaic Record with the cosmo- gonies of the ancients in the corrupted condition in which they have descended to us, it is easy to see that monotheism is the principal characteristic which they have in common. Hence, no process of reasoning could be so illogical than that which leads THE TEMPTER OE EYE. 35 the skeptic to decide that the Mosaic Record was de- rived from the ancients. But neither the advocates of the Bible or its opponents should be content to rest their case here ; neither should be satisfied to confine their investigations to ascertaining the ori- gin of the Bible ; but each should seek a solution of the question. From what source did these most highly civilized and enlightened peoples of antiquity of whom profane history and tradition gives us any knowledge obtain their belief in monotheism ? The atheist admits that monotheism is the most exalted religious belief ; and that the earliest men in their ignorance and inexperience could never have con- ceived it ; but that it was only possible to attain to it by a process of development from other beliefs, ex- tending through long periods of time. But no ves- tige of such development exists. Monotheism, the belief in one God only — the Creator of the universe — He who rewards the good and punishes the wicked — looms up in the remote past, in all its grandeur and sublimity, as the earliest and universal belief of the globe. This being true it follows that atheism can throw no light on the origin of monotheism; on the contrary, the antiquity and universality of this sublime conception, utterly disproves the theories of atheists as to the origin of religious beliefs. Hence, we must seek elsewhere for a solution of the question as to where the great nations of antiquity obtained their belief in monotheism ; and the Bible, profane history, and the most ancient traditions furnish the only explanation. 36 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. As has been shown, the Bible teaches that man was created “ in the image of God that he was de- signed for a special purpose, and assigned to a speci- fic task ; that Adam and Eve were given a fixed place of abode in the Garden of Eden ; that in the Garden of Eden God held personal intercourse with Adam and Eve, our first parents, and implanted in their minds the doctrine of monotheism ; that He revealed to them the great events of the Creation, together with a vast amount of invaluable knowledge for their enlighten- ment and guidance, and that of their descendants throughout the ages that were to come. The most ancient and reliable traditions teach us that Adam was the author of arts and letters ; and that he trans- mitted in writing to his descendants the “ precepts ” which God delivered to him in Eden. Profane his- tory has preserved and handed these traditions down to us. The Bible also teaches that at an earty period in their history the descendants of Adam disregarded the “ precepts ” of God ; violated His laws ; and many descended to the perpetration of crimes so beastly as -to result in corrupting the flesh of the earth, thus as- ’ sailing God’s Plan of Creation at its most vital point. The rapid increase of this crime for many centuries threatened the utter destruction of God’s Plan of Creation, and made it necessary for Him, in order to preserve it, to send upon the earth a universal del- uge, and destroy this corrupted flesh and those who were instrumental in corrupting it, together with the animals that were not saved with Noah and his fami- ly in the ark. THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 37 The Bible teaches that Noah and his family were monotheists ; and tradition indicates that they re- ceived the doctrine of monotheism from their ances- tors in writing, and that they transmitted it in writ- ing to their descendants. After the Deluge God made a covenant with Noah and his family in which He promised that He would not again destroy every thing living as He had done. God also gave Noah and his family the commands given to Adam in the Cre- ation : “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth ; ” at the same time He delivered into their hands the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, and the land animals. All the facts indicate that for a long period after the Deluge the descendants of Noah lived in obedience to the laws of God, and developed upon the various continents, those superb civiliza- tions, the remains of which, even in their ruins, at- test the skill, culture, and refinement of their architects. But in the course of time the descen- dants of Noah, like the antediluvians, disregarded the “precepts” of God; violated His laws, and aban- doned themselves to the same loathsome crime that brought destruction upon the antediluvian world; God then showered His curses upon them in the form of war, famine, and pestilence. Thus whole nations were destroyed from off the earth ; their civi- lizations laid in ruins, and their once prosperous homes were transformed into the abodes of barbari- ans and savages their crimes had produced. After entering upon their career of crime, the decendants of Noah gradually renounced monothe- 38 THE TEMPTEK OF EVE. ism, and decended to atheism and idolatry; in their long, destructive wars, and the many discouraging vicissitudes through which they passed for centuries, their literature, sacred and profane was lost, and monotheism and the history of their remote ances- tors survived only in tradition ; and in the course of time, even these traditions became so confused with errors and superstitions as to render them of no practical value. Persisting in their wicked, demor- alizing course, they finally reached such depths of ignorance and depravity as to render it impossible for them unaided to regain their lost knowledge and position. Then God in His wisdom, His justice, His mercy, and in His wondrous love for man, decided to make a second revelation to man, of the great events of the Creation in the order of their occur- rence; and also to reveal to man a knowledge of his kinship with God; his immortality; the design of God in creating him, and the duties to which he was assigned in the Creation; and the relations which God desired him to maintain toward the animals, to- gether with the early history of man down to the Israelitish occupancy of Canaan ;*and He selected Moses, and acquainted him with a knowledge of these great events, and instructed him to write them as we have them in the Pentateuch. This explains why our Bible, in some of its features, bears more or less resemblance to many of the cosmogonies of the ancients. In order to form a correct estimate of the value of the Bible, we should first seek to ascertain whether THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 39 it is, as it purports to be, of Divine origin, or whether it is merely a human production. And the very na- ture of the case demands that we first investigate the origin of the Pentateuch, of which the narrative of Creation is an important part. In this investiga- tion let us keep in view the following important truths: (1) That Moses wrote the Pentateuch more than thirty-five centuries before the birth of modern science. (2) That at the time it was written, the world was under the sway of the old cosmogonies of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, India, China, America, etc., all of which were so loaded with errors and super- stitions as to provoke the contempt and ridicule of the modern scientists. (3) That Moses, though an Israelite, was reared by a princess of Egypt, and was educated as an Egyptian. The Egyptians taught that the heavens and the earth originated out of a kind of pulp, and that man was generated from the slime of the river Nile. There were other Egyptian philosophers who taught that the world was hatched from a winged egg. The Bible tells us that “ Moses was learned in all the wis- dom of the Egyptians;” yet his cosmogony bears no resemblance to theirs. What power enabled Moses to divest his mind of the atheism and idolatry which characterized the age in which he lived, repudiate the’old cosmogonies with which he was so familiar, and write a cosmogony of the universe that is fault- less in the light of modern science? If Moses and the other authors of the Bible were not enlightened and guided by some higher power, how is it that 40 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. their writings are absolutely free from the errors and superstitions which characterize the old philosophers who preceded, and those who followed them or were contemporary with them? It should be unnecessary to remind our readers that the ancient theories which thrust God aside, and attributed the origin of the universe to other sources, were the expression of the purest atheism. But modern science with its telescopes, microscopes, spectroscopes, and other im- plements and appliances, has exposed their fallacies, and the intelligence of the world has thrown them aside as worthless. The Bible, with its explanation of the origin of the universe is more ancient than many of these old cosmogonies, and contemporane- ous with all of them; it was subjected to the same severe tests which modern science applied to them, and to which they succumbed. But after the most prolonged, rigid investigation, often conducted with evident unfairness, where does the Bible stand to- day? Peerless in the realm of literature — peculiar, in that it is the only book without a flaw — the Bible bears upon its every page the evidences of its divine origin, as shown by the fact that it is the only book that will stand at every point, the crucial test of modern science. CHAPTER II. The Beginning and the First Day. “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” {Gen. i, 1-2.) The sublimity of the opening declaration of the Mosaic Record that, “ in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” is unparalleled in the world’s literature. Its description of infinite intel- ligence combined with infinite power in a single per- sonage is such as only the mind of Deity could have conceived, and thus, at once, goes far to prove the existence of God and the divine origin of the Bible. The first verse of Genesis teaches that there is a God ; a personal God ; a Creator separate knd dis- tinct from His creation. “ The central idea is crea- tion.” But in order to fully understand the mean- ing of this scriptural teaching we must first ascertain what constitutes a creation as described in the Mosaic Record. This evidently describes the bringing into existence of some new element, and its introduction into the material universe. In discussing this question, Professor Guyot says : “ The Hebrew word is bard , translated by 41 42 THE TEMPTEB OF EVE. create. It has been doubted whether the word meant a creation, in the sense that the world was not de- rived from any pre-existing material, nor from the substance of God Himself ; but the manner in which it is here used does not seem to justify such a doubt. For whatever be the use of the word bard in other parts of the Bible, it is employed in this chapter in a discriminating way, which is very re- markable, and cannot but be intentional. It occurs only on three occasions, the first creation of matter in the first verse, the first introduction of life on the fifth day, and the creation of man on the sixth day. Elsewhere, when only transformations are meant, as on the second and fourth days, or a continuation of the same kind of creation, as in the land animals of the fifth day, the word asdh (make) is used. Again, it is a significant fact that in the whole Bible where the simple form of bard is used it is always with reference to a work made by God, but never by man.” ( Creation , pp. 29, 30, 31.) This enables us to realize the broad distinction which the inspired author draws between creation and formation. A creation is the bringing into ex- istence and introduction into the material universe of some new element. A formation is something made out of some pre-existing material — the result of a mere change wrought in the form of the orig- inal element. The Mosaic Record teaches that there are three — and only three — creations. The first creation is described in connection with the heaven and the earth, “in the beginning.” The second creation is THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 43 described in connection with the introduction of animal life on the “ fifth day.” The third creation is described in connection with the introduction of man on the “ sixth day.” “In the beginning” the first step in creation was the bringing into existence, and the introduc- tion into what was then empty space, the material out of which all bodies are formed. This creation is described as that of “the heaven and the earth.” Science applies the term matter to the lowest element of which it has any knowledge; and teaches that matter is the material out of which all bodies are formed. Science teaches that matter exists in the material universe in just three forms, the solid, liquid and gaseous ; and inasmuch as all bodies, celestial and terrestrial, are resolvable into matter in its gaseous state, science very properly decides that matter in its gaseous state was the primitive condition of all bodies. In discussing this question, Professor Guyot says : “ Minerals, plants, animals — all bodies of nature — are compound results of processes which speak of a previous condition. By decomposing them, and undoing what has been done before, we finally arrive at the simple chemical elements which are the substratum of all bodies. The same may be said of the three forms of matter — solid, liquid and gaseous. The least defined— the one in which the atoms are the most free — is the gaseous. All bodies in nature can be reduced to this, the simplest form of matter.” (Ibid, pp. 39, 40.) Dr. Patterson says : “ Homogenous, gaseous 44 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. matter has been separated, investigated and found to have the Creator’s mark. Science has penetrated even into the constitution of matter, and from the constitution of its smallest parts, the molecules of which each element is composed, it has demon- strated the necessity for, and the proof of, the exist- ence of a maker. The ultimate molecules of matter are made, manufactured, and bear the manufactur- er’s brand indelibly stamped upon each one of them. Allow me to cite the words of one whose name will insure respect from all scientists — Prof. James Clerk Maxwell, in his lecture before the British Associa- tion as given in the Scientific American, and cited in the Interior Sept. 4, 1873 : “ 1 Professor Clerk Maxwell lately delivered an interesting lecture before the British Association, upon molecules, by which is meant the subdivision of matter into the greatest possible number of por- tions, similar to each other. Thus, if a number of molecules of water are combined, they form a mass of water. Molecules of some compound substances may be subdivided into their component substances. Thus the molecule of water separates into two mole- cules of hydrogen and one of oxygen. “ ‘ Professor Maxwell has calculated the size and weight of hydrogen molecules, and finds that about two millions of them, placed side by side in a row would occupy a length of about one twenty-fifth of an inch, and that a package of them containing a million million million million of them would weigh sixty-two grains, or not quite one-eighth of an ounce. THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 45 “ ‘ Each molecule throughout the universe, bears impressed upon it the stamp of a metric system as distinctly as does the meter of the archives at Paris, or the double royal cubit of the Temple of Karnac. “ 1 No theory of evolution can be formed to ac- count for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the mole- cule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction. None of the processes of nature, since the time when nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any mole- cule. We are, therefore, unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to the operation of any of the causes which we call natural. On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self- existent. “ ‘ Thus we have been led, by a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which science must stop. Not that science is debarred from studying the internal mechanism of a molecule which she can- not take to pieces, any more than from investigating an organism which she cannot put together, but in tracing back the history of matter, science is arrested when she assures herself, on the one hand, that the molecule has been made, and on the other, that it has not been made by any of the processes we call natural. “ ‘Science is incompetent to reason upon the crea- 46 THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. tion of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and seft-existent, it must have been cre- ated. It is only when we contemplate, not matter in itself, but the form in which it actually exists, that our mind finds something on which it can lay hold. That matter, as such, should have certain funda- mental properties, that it should exist in space and be capable of motion, that its motion should be persistent, and so on, are truths which may, for anything we know, be of the kind which metaphy- sicians call necessary. We may use our knowledge of such truths for purposes of deduction, but we have no data for speculating as to their origin. But that there should be exactly so much matter and no more in every molecule of hydrogen, is a fact of a very different order. We have here a particular distribution of matter, a collocation, to use the ex- pression of Dr. Chalmers, of things which we have no difficulty in imagining to have been arranged otherwise. The form and dimensions of the orbits of the planets, for instance, are not determined by any law of nature, but depend upon a particular collocation of matter. The same is the case with respect to the size of the earth, from which the standard of what is called the metrical system has been derived. But these astronomical and terrestrial magnitudes are far inferior in scientific importance to that most fundamental of all standards which forms the base of the molecular system. Natural causes, as we know, are at work, which tend to THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 47 modify, if they do not at length destroy, all the arrangements and dimensions of the earth and the whole solar system. »But though in the course of ages catastrophies have occurred, and may yet occur in the heavens, though ancient systems may be dis- solved and new systems evolved out of their ruins, the molecules out of which these systems are built — the foundation stones of the material universe — remain unbroken and unworn. They continue this day as they were created, perfect in number, and measure, and weight, and from the ineffaceable char- acters impressed on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours be- cause they are essentially constituents of the image of Him who in the beginning created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which heaven and earth consist.’ ” ( Errors of Evolution , pp. 73, 74, 75, 76.) Thus science teaches that matter, the material of which all bodies are formed, is not eternal and self-existent. But that its “ ultimate molecules are made,” and “ not by any process that we call nat- ural ; ” that they present “ the character of a manu- factured article ; ” and “ bear the manufacturer’s brand indelibly stamped upon each one of them.” The teaching of science that the molecules of matter of which “ the heaven and the earth ” are composed are not eternal and self-existent, proves that they had a beginning ; that they were created, and thus goes far to sustain the teachings of scripture that its 48 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. creator is God. We are thus enabled to realize that the creation of matter , the basis of all formation in the material universe, consisted in God’s bringing into existence the molecules of matter. Additional proof that the creation which God created “in the beginning,” and which is described as that of “ the heaven and the earth,” was the bringing into existence of matter, is shown by the following : 1. The formation of the heaven and the earth, as they now exist began on the “first day” of the cosmogonic week, a period distinct from and long subsequent to “ the beginning.” 2. The language of the second verse of Genesis gives an exact description of matter in its primordial, or gaseous state. In discussing this subject Professor Guyot says : “ The matter just created was gaseous ; it was without form, for the property of gas is to expand indefinitely. It was void, or empty, because appar- ently homogenous and invisible. It was dark, be- cause as yet inactive, light being the result of the action of physical and chemical forces not yet awak- ened. It was a deep, for its expansion in space, though indefinite, was not infinite, and it had dimen- sions. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face (outside and not inside, as the pantheist would have it) of that vast, inert, gaseous mass, read} 7 to impart to it motion, and to direct all its subsequent activity, according to a plan gradually revealed by the works of the great cosmic days.” (Ibid, p. 38.) Thus science clearly proves that the Creation which God created “ in the beginning,” which is de- THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 49 scribed as that of “the heaven and the earth,” was matter, the material out of which “the heaven and the earth ” were afterwards formed. In absolute conflict with the teachings of sci- ence, atheism teaches that “ matter is eternal and imperishable.” (See HaeckeVs History of Creation , Vol. I, p. 8.) 3. The first verse of Genesis, in harmony with science, teaches that matter, the material out of which “the heaven and the earth” was formed, is not eternal, but that it had a beginning. But when was the “beginning”? Evidently the “beginning,” as described in the first verse of Gene- sis, marks a period distinct from the “ first day,” as the “first day” marks a period distinct from the “second day.” If the “beginning” and the “first day” were one period, the two terms would not have been employed to describe it ; but such is not the case ; the “beginning” and the “first day” mark different epochs in the history of matter. Hence, the two terms, the “beginning” and the “first day,” are em- ployed to describe them. Further evidence that the “beginning,” in which matter was created, is a period distinct from the “first day,” is found in the fact that the second verse of Genesis gives a description of gaseous matter that is “dark, because inactive,” and absolutely still; while the “first day,” as we shall hereafter show, begins with the movement of matter, the initial step in the formation of “ the heaven and the earth.” Though we were long ago impressed with the fact that the “beginning” and the “first day,” described in Genesis, marked differ- 50 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. ent epochs in the history of the universe, we are pleased to find that our views are entertained by so high an authority as Chancellor Dawson, who says : “The material universe was brought into existence in the ‘beginning’ — a term evidently indefinite as regards any known epoch, and implying merely pri- ority to all other recorded events. It cannot be the first day, for there is no' expressed connection, and the work of the first day is distinct from that of the beginning. It cannot be a general term for the whole six days, since these are separated from it by that chaotic or formless state to which we are next intro- duced. The beginning, therefore, is the threshold of creation — the line that separates the old ten- antless condition of space from the world-crowded galaxies of the existing universe. The only other in- formation respecting it that we have in scripture is in that fine descriptive poem in Proverbs viii, in which the wisdom of God personified — who may be held to represent the Almighty Word, or Logos, introduced in the formula ‘ God said,’ and afterward referred to in scripture as the manifested or conditioned Deity, the mediator between man and the otherwise inac- cessible Divinity, the agent in the work of creation, as well as in that of redemption — narrates the origin of all created things : “ ‘ Jehovah possessed* me, the beginning of his way, Before his work of old. I was set up from everlasting, From the beginning, before the earth was; When there were no deeps I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding in water.’” “ * Not created, as some read. The verb is Kana, not bari.’" THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 51 “The beginning here precedes the creation of the earth, as well as the deep which encompassed its surface in its earliest condition. The beginning in this point of view, stretches back frojmjthe origin of the world into the depths of eternity. It is to us emphatically the beginning, because it witnessed the birth of our material system ; but to the eternal Jehovah it was but the beginning of a great series of His operations, and we have no information of its absolute duration.” ( The Origin of the World, pp. 95 , 96 ). We feel assured that careful investigation will reveal the strength of our position that, between the “ beginning,” and the “ first day ” of the cosmogonic week, “ there is no expressed connection ; ” and that the work of the “ first day,” is distinct from that of the “ beginning.” The “ beginning,” therefore, must be regarded as the period when God brought to an end “ the old tenantless condition of space ” by bringing into existence, and introducing into it, the molecules of matter. Hence, the “beginning” precedes the birth of time, which occurred on the “first day” of the cosmogonic week. Between the “ beginning ” and the “ first day,” there was an in- terval ; but in our attempt to ascertain the length of this interval, science, which deals alone with second causes, is powerless to aid us, and Divine revelation alone can throw any light ; reason fails to grasp this starting point in creation, and even the imagination sees the “ beginning ” recede from view as it fades away into the unfathomable depths of eternity. Thus, the book of Genesis teaches that matter 52 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. is not eternal and self-existent, but that it had a be- ginning. This being true, we should not be sur- prised to find that the book of Revelation plainly teaches that the heaven and the earth which God formed out of matter will not be eternal, but will have an ending. In the book of Revelation, John gives an ac- count of a series of events which were revealed to him ; but which were evidently not revealed to him in the order of their occurrence. In his first vision he proceeds to describe an event which he says “ must shortly come to pass.” (Rev. i, 1). This was evidently the final destruc- tion of the heaven and the earth, as shown by the following : “ And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake ; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled to- gether ; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains ; and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; For the great day of His wrath is come ; and who shall be able to stand ? ” THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 53 {Rev. vi, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17). “And I saw an- other mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud ; and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire : And he had in his hand a little book open : And he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth. * * * And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by Him that liveth forever 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, that there should be time no longer.” {Rev. x, 1, 2, 5, 6). In a subsequent vision, John says : “ And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away ; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” {Rev. xx, 11, 12) . “And He said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.” {Rev. xxi, 6). “And He that sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.” {Rev. xxi, 5) . In confirmation of this, John tells us: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth : for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away ; and there was no more sea. And I, John, saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming- down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride 54 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. adorned for her husband.” (Rev. xxi, 1, 2) . This “new heaven” which John saw, was not the final abode of the blest, for this is described as the holy city , New Jerusalem; it was a material heaven, with all the phenomena of sun, moon, and stars, which characterizes our material heaven. The “ new earth ” which John saw was a material earth, with all the phenomena of plant, animal, and immortal life, which characterizes our earth. The intense, inconceivable heat, resulting from the falling of the luminaries upon “the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty mind,” would resolve the solid and liquid matter of the universe into its original gase- ous state. When this immense gaseous mass, has lost its activity, and become stilled , it will be in just the condition described in Gen. i, 2; and out of this immense mass of gaseous matter, God will form the “new heaven and the new earth,” which John saw; and his promise to “ make all things new,” will be redeemed. Natural science teaches that matter is imperish- able. (Haeckel) . And that of all the immense vol- ume of matter in the universe, not one atom is ever lost. Mr. Haeckel in discussing this question saj T s: “Where a natural body seems to disappear, as for example by burning, decaying, evaporation, etc., it merely changes its form, its physical composition or chemical combination. In like manner the coming into existence of a natural body, for example, of a crystal, a fungus, an infusorium, depends merely upon the different particles, which had before existed THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 55 in a certain form or combination, assuming a new form or combination in consequence of changed con- ditions of existence. But never yet has an instance been observed of even the smallest particle of matter having vanished, or even of an atom being added to the already existing mass.” ( History of Creation , Vol. i, p. 8) . Who, but the great Architect of the universe, could have brought into existence this wonderful combination of elements, which is not self -existent, neither is it destructible through any physical agency; and out of which all bodies are formed? In the absence of a better name, we may regard the term universe, as descriptive of a vast receptacle, in which matter was created, in which it is held, and from which not an atom ever escapes. And just as the existence of matter, even in its primitive state, the gaseous, clearly demonstrates the existence of a Creator, so does this preservation of matter clearly demonstrate the existence of a preserver. And just as the pres- ence of matter in all its varied forms, celestial and terrestrial, in which we find it to-day, bespeaks design, so does this careful preservation of even the minut- est atom of matter, bespeak the most far-reaching design; and this design, we find revealed in John’s vision of “a new heaven and a new earth.” This indicates that the command be “not sloth- ful in business,” never emanated from a being who is himself an idler ; and that prior to the formation of our present world, God has not occupied His throne in the heaven of heavens in utter idleness. 56 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. But that just as it is man’s disposition to combine , so is it God’s disposition to create. We are not of those who think with Bruno that there are other worlds than ours, and that perhaps many of them are inhabited. On the contrary, we ac- cept the plain teaching of the Bible that the earth is the only habitable globe; and that the sun, moon, and stars, were made for the purposes described in the Mosaic Record. But we feel assured that there were other ‘‘worlds ” than ours; and that each of them pos- sessed an inhabited earth, and that there will be other worlds than ours, and that they also will each have an inhabited earth. It was one of these — the one which will supercede our world — that John saw in his vision. The evidence that other “worlds” similar to ours preceeded it, is found in the statements of Paul as follows : “ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointeth heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds.” ( Heb . i, 1, 2). “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. {Heb. xi, 3) . If our world was not preceded by others similar to it, why does Paul refer to worlds , thus using the plu- ral and in the past tense t Evidently, Paul desired us to understand that there were other worlds than ours, just as John desired us to understand that there will be other worlds than ours. This being true it follows that the beginning, as de- scribed in the first verse of the first chapter of Gen- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 57 esis, must be sought for in the remotest depths of eter- nity ; and that, intervening between the beginning in which matter was created , and the production of light as described in the third verse of the first chapter of Genesis, there is an interval of such inconceivable magnitude as can only be measured by a succession of perhaps myriads of worlds like ours. Both scripture and science teach that this world had a beginning; and while science clearly indicates, the Bible plainly states that this world will have an ending. The initial step in the formation of the world, — the movement of matter , resulting in the production of light , on the “first day,” as described in the third verse of the first chapter of Genesis, — marked the be- ginning of time; while the declaration of the angel whom John saw “ stand upon the sea and upon the earth,” and “sware” that “there should be time no longer” — marked the end of time. This indicates that time begins with the formation of a world , and ends with its dissolution. Hence, time is but a period of eternity just as a day, or a week, or a year , is a period of time. This enables us to realize that, just as a plant, or an animal, has its germ, its form- ative period, its youth, its maturity, its decline, and its final dissolution, so has a world its germ — matter — its formative period, as described in the Mosaic Record; its youth, its maturity, its decline, and its final dissolution, described in Revelation. Further evidence is found in the fact that God generously imparted to John the knowledge, which he transmits to us that, “ the first heaven and the first earth had 58 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. passed away,” and that the sea had also passed away. Then the kindly hand which led Joseph as a flock, gently thrust aside the veil, which intervenes between time and eternity, and enabled John, in the light of inspired revelation to behold the amazing spectacle, of a “ a new heaven and a new earth.” This exalted view of God, and His creative power, as clearly revealed in the scriptures, and as clearly sustained by the scriptures, should enable us to more fully realize, and to more highly appreciate the truth, and sublimity of that inspiring declaration of the Psalmist: “ Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” The First Cosmogonic Day. THE PRODUCTION OF LIGHT. “ And God said, Let there be light : and there was light. “ And God saw the light, that it was good : and God divided the light from the darkness. “ And God called the light Day, and the darkness, He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen. i, 3, 4, 5). The opinion is generally entertained by those who profess to believe in the Bible that there was a creation, that is, that something was created , on each one of the six days of the cosmogonic week ; but this is a mistake, as shown by the language of the narra- tive. As shown in a previous chapter, there are THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 59 three — and only three creations described in the Mo- saic Record ; the first of these — the matter creation — occurred in the “ beginning,” a period distinct from the cosmogonic week, which opened on the “ first day.” The second creation is described in connection with the introduction of animal life on the “ fifth day;” and the third creation is ‘described in connec- tion with the introduction of man on the “ sixth day.” Hence, there were but two creations which occurred within the cosmogonic week. And it is significant that no creation is described in connection with the “first day.” In discussing God’s command, “Let there be light,” Professor Guyot says: “We have now a starting point, but yet no activ- ity, no progress. All beginnings are in darkness and silence. The era of progress opens with the first day’s work. At God’s command, movement begins and the first result is the production of light. This was no creation, but a simple manifestation of the activ- ity of matter; for, according to modern physics, heat and light are but different intensities of the vibratory motions of matter.” ( Creation , pp. 43, 44). This being true, it follows that God’s com- mand, “ Let there be light,” was equivalent to His commanding, Let there be movement in matter! To those who have never investigated the subject, it may seem a matter of surprise that the chaotic con- dition of the universe as described in the second verse of Genesis, should be followed by the produc- tion of light which was evidently not derived from the luminaries, since thev were not in existence; but 60 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. Mr. Guyot’s explanation enables us to understand that this was not solar light, but cosmic light, result- ing from the movement of matter. Many theories have been advanced to explain how God divided the light from the darkness ; but upon investigating them, we have been compelled to reject them all as being in conflict with the general teachings of the Mosaic Record. We have no data upon which to base an opinion as to how God divided the light from the darkness, and in the absence of data, we decline to speculate, since mere speculation is apt to mislead ; besides, we should profit by the silence of the inspired writer upon the subject, and be silent. The length of time embraced in the term “ day,” which the inspired writer employs in his division of the cosmogonic week, has been the subject of no little controversy among students of the Bible ; many believe them to have been solar days of twenty-four hours; but the falsity of this belief is shown by the record ; the solar day of twenty-four hours is meas- ured by the sun, while three of the creative days passed before the sun was made. Further evidence that the days described in the Mosaic Record were not days of twenty-four hours, but were indefinite periods of time, is found in Genesis ii, 4, where the whole creative week is described as the “day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Upon the question as to whether the days of the creative week were solar days or days of twenty-four hours each, or whether they were periods of indefinite length, the science of geology furnishes the most ab- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 61 solute proof. The Mosaic Record teaches that the fish, and fowl, and beast, and man, were all brought into existence on the fifth and sixth days of the creative! week. The remains of the first animals to make their appearance on the globe are found in the lower stratas of the earth ; while those of more recent origin, as well as those of man, are found nearest the surface of the earth. Between the remains of the earliest animals which are found deepest in the earth, and the remains of man, which are found nearest the surface, there are immense deposits, thousands of feet in thickness, which furnish the most con- clusive proof that they were not made in the brief space of two days of twenty-four hours each. Thus science and the scriptures combine to teach us that the days of the cosmogonic week were long periods of time that are not to be measured by hours, but by ages. The six cosmogonic days closes with the creation of man on the sixth day; this is followed by the seventh day : “ 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. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanc- tified it : because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.” (Gen. ii, 2 , 3 ). The following command was given in the Deca- logue to commemorate the six cosmogonic days in which God created the material universe, and the seventh day in which He rested from His works : “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work ; but the 62 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maid- servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.” {Ex. xx, 8, 9, 10). Thus a weekly Sabbath was prescribed as a memorial of the seventh day in which God rested from his work of Creation. It will be observed that the seventh day de- scribed in Genesis ii, 4, unlike the preceding six days, is not divided into an evening and morning ; but more significant still is the fact that no mention is made of an eighth day following the seventh day. This indicates that the seventh day has not yet ended. Both the scriptures and the sciences teach that there has been no creation since the creation of man ; from this it follows that God has not resumed His work, and that the seventh day is still in exist- ence ; that it will continue to exist throughout time, and that the destruction of the heavens and the earth will mark its close. The language of the Mosaic Record clearly indicates that the seventh day upon which God rested from His work began immediately after the creation of man and his assignment to the duties upon the earth for which he was designed, and that man has always labored, and will continue to labor on God’s day of rest, which will close with the end of time. The fact that the seventh day — God’s day of rest — has continued from the Creation to the present time with no evidence of the near ap- proach of its end, show that God’s days, unlike man’s days, are indefinitely long periods of time; it also THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 63 goes far to prove that each of the six creative days which preceded it were correspondingly long periods of time. We have no means of ascertaining the length of the six creative days, or that of the seventh day; but we feel assured that the strict order and harmony which characterizes all of God’s works, is expressed in the length of the six creative days and in the seventh day which followed them ; and that they are all of equal duration, else why was the creative work divided into periods at all ? Hence, if we could ascertain the length of any one of the creative days, we would have the length of every other one of the creative days and that of the seventh day which followed them. Then if we could ascertain just how r long it has been since man was created, we could calculate to a nicety just how long it will be before the angel will stand with one foot upon the sea, and one upon the land, and raising his hand to heaven will declare the end of time. CHAPTER III. Formation of the Heavens. “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters. “And God made the firmament, and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so. “And God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.” {Gen. i, 6, 7, 8) . From a mere casual glance at the texts describ- ing the work of the first and second creative days, we would be led to suppose that the work of those days was confined solely to the subjects mentioned — the production of light, the formation of the heavens, etc. But when we examine the texts de- scribing the work of the first and second creative days in connection with verse 9, of the Record, which describes the first work of the third creative day, it becomes plain that while the heavens were being formed, the earth also was being formed; and that when the formation of the heavens were completed, the formation of the earth was completed ; and it is highly probable that the formation of the earth really began with the movement of matter on the first day. 64 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 65 Be this as it may, the language of the text describing the opening work of the third creative day leaves no room for doubt that at the close of the second creat- ive day, the formation of the earth, as well as that of the heavens, were completed, as shown by the fol- lowing : “ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear. And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he seas: and God saw that it was good.” (Gen. i, 9 , 10 ). Thus, the first command given on the third creative day clearly shows that at the opening of that day, the earth was already formed, and that its formation was completed on the second creative day when the heavens were formed. Hence, the first command given on the third creative day resulted in the waters enveloping the earth, perhaps in the form of vapor, being condensed into water, and these waters gathered together into the indentations in the earth’s surface, which God had prepared for their reception, and which he called “seas.” This shows the close relationship which exists between the heaven and the earth: (1) from the fact that the formation of each was completed on the second cos- mogonic day ; (2) from the fact that the heaven was formed around the earth. The egg of a fowl with its yolk surrounded by the white albuminous part, and the shell enveloping the whole, would very properly represent the relations which the earth, the atmosphere, and the heaven sustain to each 66 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. other ; the yolk would represent the earth ; the white of the egg would represent the surrounding atmos- phere ; and the shell, enveloping the whole, would represent the heaven. The correctness of our illus- tration is demonstrated by the fact that, at whatever point we stand and look out from the earth, we face the heaven. This could not be so if the heaven did not envelope the earth and its atmosphere, just as the shell envelopes the white and the yolk of the egg. Further evidence of this is found in the lan- guage of the text: “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.” What was so? Simply that the firmament or heaven was made, and subserved the purpose for which it was designed; it separated the waters above it from the waters be- neath it. It is easy to see that, to act as a separator between the waters above it and the waters beneath it, the firmament must be impervious to water, though not necessarily impervious to heat and light; glass, for example, though impervious to water, is penetrated by the rays of heat and light. Our views as to the existence of a firmament or heaven impervious to water enveloping the earth and its atmosphere, brings us in conflict with the modern “World-builders” who attempt to thrust God aside and substitute their own atheistic theories as to the origin of the universe for His word; our views will also be in conflict with those of the many THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 67 theologians who attempt to twist the word of God and the sciences into harmony with the theories of atheists, but this will give us little concern so long as we are in perfect harmony with the scripture and the sciences. We shall let the Bible tell its own story, and shall appeal to the sciences to demonstrate its truth whenever it is possible for them to do so. We recognize God — the Creator of the heaven and the earth — as the author of all language and all speech. Hence we unhesitatingly accord Him the most unerring knowledge of the value of words ; and when He tells us that He made a firmament or heaven in the midst of the waters to separate the waters above it from the waters beneath it, we at once recognize the firmament or heaven as im- pervious to water, atheists, infidels, and so-called theologians to the contrary notwithstanding. It will be observed that in the second verse of the Mosaic Record, the inspired writer terms the gaseous matter of the universe “ waters.” “ And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The language of the text describing the work of the second and third creative days as above quoted, shows that the earth was the first of the great bodies formed ; that it was formed in the midst of the im- mense gaseous mass of the universe, described as “ waters ; ” and that on the second creative day God made a firmament in the midst of the waters, and enveloped the earth, which, if not already formed, was in process of formation, and thus separated the waters above, or on the outside of the firmament, from the waters beneath, or within the firmament. 68 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Hence, the first work of the third creative day was to condense into water the vapors enveloping the earth, and the gathering of these “ waters ” into “ seas,” to “ let the dry land appear.” This teaching of the Mosaic Record that God made a firmament or heaven in the midst of the waters to separate the waters above from the waters beneath it, shows that all the waters of the universe are not confined to the earth, but that an immense amount, perhaps the great bulk of the waters of the universe which enveloped the earth prior to the formation of the heaven, are now situated above the heaven. This teaching of the Bible as to the existence of water above the heaven is fully sustained by the sciences. The planet Mars is one of the heavenly bodies upon which water is known to exist. Sir Robert S. Ball, the eminent professor of astronomy at Dublin, in discussing Mars says : “ It seems hard to decline the suggestion that the marks on the planet may really correspond to the divi- sions of land and water on that globe. There are cir- cumstances which strongly suggest that water may also be present. At the poles of Mars are large white re- gions, * * which undergo periodic changes, and it has been surmised that they are due to an accumulation of ice and snow on the polar regions of the planet. On some occasions, indeed, an “ice-cap” on Mars, with its brilliancy and its sharply defined margin, is a striking feature in the telescopic view of the pla- net.” ( The Story of the Heaven, pp. 186, 187). The existence of water on Mars has misled many into supposing that its conditions were more THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 69 or less similar to those of the earth, and that like the earth, Mars was inhabited; these absurdities are entertained in flagrant disregard of the plain teachings of the Bible that, the earth is the only hab- itable globe, and that the luminaries were designed for other purposes. A few years ago fanaticism on the Mars question ran so high that many were on the lookout for signals from the inhabitants of that planet ; and there are not a few who still seriously entertain the belief that we shall soon be in com- munication with the inhabitants of Mars. These absurd hopes were born of the grossest infidelity and are doomed to disappointment. A few decades ago many who were ignorant of, or indifferent to, the teachings of the Bible that the earth is the only hab- itable globe, and that the luminaries were designed for other purposes, were loud in the expression of their belief that the moon is inhabited. In their fanaticism they even went so far as to map out and name mountains, seas, etc., on the moon; but later and more careful investigation, aided by improved mechanical appliances, has exploded these theories; it is now known that the moon is practically desti- tute of both air and water, and is consequently in- capable of sustaining either plant or animal life. In contrasting the moon and the other heavenly bodies, Sir Robert S. Ball says: “But when we look at the moon with our tele- scopes we see no direct evidence of water. Close inspection shows that the so-called lunar seas are deserts, often marked with small craters and rocks. The telescope reveals no seas and no oceans, no 70 THE TEMPTEE OF EVE. lakes and no rivers. Nor is the grandeur of the moon’s scenery ever impaired by clouds over her surface. Whenever the moon is above our horizon, and terrestrial clouds are out of the way, we can see the features of our satellite’s surface with distinct- ness. There are no clouds in the moon; there are not even the mists or the vapors which invariably arise wherever water is present, and therefore astron- omers have been led to the conclusion that the sur- face of the globe which attends the earth is a sterile and a waterless desert. “ Another essential element of organic life is also absent from the moon. Our globe is surrounded with a deep clothing of air resting on the surface, and extending above our heads to the height of about 200 or 300 miles. * * * For all purposes of respiration, as we understand the term, we may say that there is no air on the moon, and an inhabit- ant of our earth transferred thereto would be as cer- tainly suffocated as he would be in the middle of space. * * * Man is a creature adapted for life under circumstances which are very narrowly limited. A few degrees of temperature more or less, a slight variation in the composition of air, the precise suit- ability of food, make all the difference between health and sickness, between life and death. Looking be- yond the moon, into the length and breadth of the universe, we find countless celestial globes with every conceivabl variety of temperature and of constitu- tion. Amid this vast number of worlds with which space is tenanted, are there any inhabited by living beings? To this great question science can make no THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 71 response: we can not tell. * * * ‘It is not at all probable that among the million spheres of the uni- verse there is a single one exactly like our earth — like it in the possession of air and of water, like it in size and in composition. It does not seem probable that a man could live for one hour on any body in the universe except the earth, or that an oak tree could live in any other sphere for a single season.’ ” {The Story of the Heavens, pp. 76, 77, 78, 79). Thus the sciences sustain the teachings of scripture that our earth is the only one of the great bodies which possess all the conditions nec- essary to the existence of planet and animal life. Hence, the presence of water on Mars does not dis- prove the teachings of the Bible that our earth is the only habitable globe, and that the sun, moon and stars were designed for other purposes. On the other hand, the presence of water on Mars clearly sustains the Bible account of the firmament, or heaven which God made in the midst of the waters, “and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament;” and shows that the waters of Mars are a part of the waters above the firmament. Other parts of these celestial waters are perhaps situated in the clouds and vapors which science teaches us envelop Jupiter. (Ibid, p. 217). And doubt- less “the waters above the firmament,” are dis- tributed among numbers of other planets of the existence of which we have no knowledge; for, with all our boasted astronomical learning our knowledge 72 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. of the heavens and of the celestial bodies is ex- tremely limited. It will be observed that the original chaotic con- dition of the universe is described in the second verse of the Mosaic Record, as the deep. “And darkness was upon the face of the deep.” But long after the Creation — in the narrative of the Deluge — we find that God said: “And behold I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die.” (Gen. vi, 17). Thus, Ave are plainly taught that the waters which deluged the earth were not terrestrial waters; they did not belong upon the earth, or within it. God said: “I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth.” The place from Avhich the waters of the Deluge Avere brought is plainly stated as follows: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seA^enteenth day of the month, the same day AA r ere all the foun- tains of the great deep broken up, and the Avindows of heaven Avere opened. And the rain AA r as upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” (Gen. \ T ii, 11, 12). Thus, Ave are told that the AA r aters AA’hich del- uged the earth were celestial AA r aters, which God brought upon the earth in the form of rain for forty days and forty nights. It will be observed that in Genesis A T ii, Averse 11, as aboA^e quoted, the inspired writer refers to the great deep — “The same day AA T ere all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven AA r ere opened.” This term, “ the great THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 73 deep,” is a comparative term, and clearly indi- cates the existence of a lesser deep. This enables us to understand (1) that the original “deep” described in the second verse of the Mosaic Record, was divided into a greater and a lesser deep by the firmament which God made “in the midst of the waters,” and separated the water above it from the waters beneath it; hence, the “great deep” ex- tends from the firmament which envelops the earth to the utmost limits of the universe; while the lesser deep is that immense space intervening between the firmament and the surface of the earth and its waters. (2) That the “great deep” is the reservoir from which the waters of the Deluge were drawn; and “the fountains of the great deep” are the various planets upon which these waters exist; for it is evi- dent that “the waters above the firmament” are not scattered promiscuously throughout the “great deep,” but are confined to certain points described as “ fountains,” and that Mars is evidently one of those “ fountains.” Hence, when man’s shameless crime had corrupted the flesh of the earth, and God de- cided to “ bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from under heaven,” He made openings in the firma- ment or heaven, which are described as “the win- dows of heaven,” and precipitated upon the earth “the waters which were above the firmament,” and the whole earth was deluged. “And the waters in- creased exceedingly upon the earth ; and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen 74 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the moun- tains were covered.” {Gen. vii, 19, 20). Thus, the Bible plainly teaches that the waters which God employed in the Deluge were drawn from “ the fountains of the deep,” which are situated above the heaven; and that during the Deluge these celestial waters held the same relation to the earth and the terrestrial waters that they sustained prior to the time when God made the “firmament in the midst of the waters to divide the waters from the waters.” Hence, man’s loathesome crime in cor- rupting the flesh of the earth, not only corrupted the earth in the eyes of God, but the heaven itself was disastrously affected by it, and the office of separator between the celestial and the terrestrial waters which God designed the firmament to perform was neutral- ized for the time being; and the waters above it were reunited with the waters beneath it, to the utter de- struction of all terrestrial life, save “ Noah and they that were with him in the ark.” Further evidence of the reality of the firmament and of the waters above it, and also the fact that the earth was deluged by celestial waters, is shown by the disposition which God made of the waters of the Deluge after the accomplishment of their destruc- tive task, as shown by the following: “And God re- . membered Noah, and every living thing — that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; and the waters returned from off the earth continu- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 75 ally.” (Gen. viii, 1, 2, 3). It must be admitted that, for the waters to have returned from off the earth at all, they must have returned to the place from whence they came; and this, as has been shown, is above the heaven. Not only does the inspired writer of the narra- tive of Creation recognize the reality of the firma- ment or heaven; the existence of the waters above the heaven ; and that the waters of the Deluge were drawn from the celestial regions, and that the Deluge was universal, but David recognized these facts in sev- eral of his songs of praise to God, as follows: “ Praise Him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.” “ Bless the Lord, Oh my soul, * * * who laid the foundations of the earth, that they should not be removed forever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder, they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they come not again to cover the earth.” ( Ps . cxlviii and civ) . Thus the Psalmist not only adds his testimony to that of Moses as to the reality of the firmament or heaven, and the waters above it, but also testifies to the fact that the waters which deluged the earth were celestial waters; and that when they had accom- plished the destructive mission for which their pres- ence on the earth was designed, and they had returned from off the earth , God re-established the firmament 76 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. or heaven as a “ bound, that they may not pass over, that they come not again to cover the earth.” Thus the Bible clearly describes the firmament or heaven, which God made “ in the midst of the waters,” to separate the waters above it from the waters beneath it; and the sciences sustain the Bible at every point where it is possible for them to throw any light upon the subject; and we are even enabled to ascertain, appropriately at least, its tem- perature, and to determine that it is intensely cold. Sir Robert Ball, in discussing the temperature of the sun says: "The sun has a temperature far surpassing any that we artificially produce, either in our chemical laboratories or our metallurgical estab- lishments. We can send a galvanic current through a piece of platinum wire. The wire first becomes red hot, then white hot; then it glows with a brilliance almost dazzling until it fuses and breaks. The tem- perature of the melting platinum wire could hardly be surpassed in the most elaborate furnaces, but it does not attain the temperature of the sun. “ It must, however, be admitted that there is an apparent discrepancy between a well-known physi- cal fact and the extremely high temperature that we find it necessary to attribute to the sun. ‘ If the sun were hot,’ it has been said, then the nearer we ap- proach to him, the hotter we should feel; yet this does not seem to be the case. On the top of a high mountain we are nearer to the sun, and yet everybody knows that it is much colder up there than in the val- ley beneath. If the mountain be as high as Mt. Blanc, then we are certainly two or three miles nearer; yet, THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 77 instead of additional warmth, we find eternal snow. A simple illustration will lessen the difficulty. Go into a greenhouse on a sunshiny day, and we find the temperature much hotter there than outside. The glass will permit the hot sunbeams to enter, but it refuses to allow them out again with equal freedom, and consequently the temperature rises. The earth may, from this point of view, be likened to a green- house, only instead of the panes of glass, our globe is enveloped by an enormous coating of air. Thus on the earth surface, we are as it were, inside the greenhouse, and we benefit by the interposition of the atmos- phere; but when we climb very high mountains, we gradually pass through some of the protecting me- dium, and then we suffer from the cold. If we could imagine the earth to be deprived of its coat of air, then eternal frost would reign over whole con- tinents as well as on the tops of the mountains.” {Ibid, pp. 27, 28) . With all due respect for Professor Ball, we must insist that his illustration fails to illustrate. Surely, the greater or less amount of warmth which prevails immediately about the earth’s surface, is not pro- duced by its “ enormous coating of air.” The limit to which the atmosphere extends from the earth, is variously estimated at from 40 to 300 miles; Profes- sor Ball, as quoted above, places it at “ 200 or 300 miles;” and he shows that the great bulk of the earth’s atmosphere is intensely cold. Only a small fraction of it possesses any warmth at all; and this small part is immediately about the earth’s surface. This is due to the fact that the rays of heat from the 78 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. sun are checked at the surface of the earth, and the heat accumulates there and warms the stratas of air immediately enveloping the earth; this heating pro- cess is going on continually. Aeronauts have made balloon ascensions to an altitude of more than seven miles, but such was the rarity of the atmosphere at that elevation that it was necessary to pump air to them from the earth’s surface; at the same time the cold was so intense, that they narrowly escaped being frozen to death. This shows that the atmospheric conditions presented by the earth bear no resemb- lance to those of a greenhouse. In a tightly closed greenhouse the roof is comparatively low, and the temperature is much the same in every part of it; “the glass will permit the hot sunbeams to enter, but refuses to allow them out again with equal free- dom;” the continuous stream of “hot sunbeams” poured into the greenhouse and retained there heats all of the air within it, “and consequently the tem- perature rises.” But the very reverse is true of the earth. The firmament or heavens sustains much the same rela- tion to the earth that the glass roof of the greenhouse sustains to the greenhouse, in that it confines the atmosphere of the earth to a given space, just as the glass roof and walls of the greenhouse confines its air to a given space. But instead of a comparatively small greenhouse with its low walls and roof enclos- ing a small amount of air immediately above the earth’s surface, which the “ hot sunbeams ” are cap- able of heating, the firmament or heavens is situated at a distance of many miles from the earth’s surface, THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 79 and encloses the whole atmosphere of this globe, and such is the immensity of this “ enormous coating of air ” that the “ hot sunbeams ” are powerless to heat it as they do the small amount of air in a greenhouse. The result is that the “ hot sunbeams ” are poured continuously upon the earth’s surface where their further passage is checked, and such amount of this heat as the earth does not absorb is radiated into the lower stratas of air which immediately envelop the earth, and the temperature of these stratas is raised, while the upper stratas, extending for miles and miles to the outer limits of the atmosphere, are not affected, and maintain an extremely low temperature, which is derived from this intensely cold firmament. The firmament or heaven which envelops the earth and its atmosphere marks the outer limits of the atmosphere and confines the earth’s atmosphere to the earth. If our earth was situated in empty space, with no structure impervious to air envelop- ing it and confining its atmosphere to certain limits, the atmosphere would long since have been diffused into space, and the earth stripped of this essential element would be incapable of sustaining either plant or animal life. But this is not all; if the earth was situated in empty space, with no structure impervi- ous to water enveloping the earth, the intense heat of the sun’s rays poured upon the earth continuously since the sun was formed, would long since have evaporated the last drop of water from the earth, and thus rendered our globe incapable of supporting either plant or animal life. Thus, in addition to separating the waters above it from the waters 80 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. beneath it, the firmament or heaven confines the atmosphere and waters to the earth, and thus con- tributes to the preservation of its plant and animal life. Hence, but for the existence of the firmament the earth, like the moon, would be a barren waste, without water, without atmosphere and without plant and animal life. It is well known that cold air is heavier than hot air. Hence, if it were discovered that the temper- ature of a greenhouse was not the same throughout, it would be found that the colder, heavier air was below, at the floor; and that the hotter lighter air was above, and immediately under the glass. But these conditions are reversed in the earth’s “ enormous coating of air.” The warm stratas of air found be- low, at the earth’s surface, while the colder stratas of air are found above. As has been shewn, the comparatively high temperature found immediately about the earth’s surface in the temperate and torrid zones of the globe is not due to the earth’s “ enor- mous coating of air.” On the contrary, the air de- rives its temperature from the objects with which it is brought in contact; for example: Place a hot stove in one end of a large hall, the air immediately about the stove will partake of the temparature of the stove; and the surrounding air will be warmed and its tem- perature raised as far as the heat from the stove is radiated. Then place a 200 pound block of ice in the opposite end of the hall, and the air immediately about the ice will partake of the temperature of the ice; and the surrounding air will be cooled, and its temperature lowered as far as the cold from the ice THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 81 is radiated. This disposition of the air to partake of the temperature of the objects with which it is brought in contact, explains the singular fact that the comparatively warm stratas of the earth’s atmosphere are found below, at and near the earth’s surface, while the cold stratas are found above. This, as has been shown is due to the fact that the lower stratas of air derive their compara- tively high temperature from the “ hot sunbeams ” which are concentrated about the earth’s surface. This being true it follows that the upper stratas of the atmosphere derive their extremely low tempera- ture from some object at its limits which is intensely cold; and the Bible teaches us that this is the firma- ment which envelops the earth and its atmosphere. Hence, the higher we ascend into the upper regions of the atmosphere, the nearer we approach the firm- ament, and the colder it gets. The presence of this intensely cold firmament, intervening between the earth and the sun explains the otherwise unex- plainable fact cited by Prof. Ball, that, instead of it getting hotter as we approach the sun, it actually gets colder. On ascending from the earth in our approach to the far-distant sun with its intense heat, we first approach the comparative near firmament with its intense cold. Hence, the nearer we ap- proach the sun the colder it gets. The disposition of the atmosphere to partake of the temperature of any object with which it comes in contact, taken in connection with the presence of this intensely cold firmament at the outer limits of our atmosphere, and the concentration of the “hot 82 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. sunbeams” at the earth’s surface, explains the ap- parent reversal in this case, of the rule that the colder air is found below, and the hotter air above. If the firmament was not intensely cold, and if it was not incapable of being heated — if it had no special temperature of its own, but, like the atmos- phere, it would partake of the temperature of any object with which it came in contact — the hot sun- beams poured upon it in their passage to the earth throughout the ages since the sun was formed, would have heated it to a high temperature; this heat from the firmament would have been radiated into the upper regions of the atmosphere, with nothing to modify it; this excessive heat radiated from the hot firmament above, and combined with the heat radiated from the hot sunbeams concentrated at the earth’s surface, would have raised the tempera- ture of the atmosphere, and the surface of the earth, and its waters, to such a height as to render it impos- sible for either plant or animal life to exist on this globe. But, as has been shown, the firmament has a peculiarly low temperature of its own; it is perhaps the coldest object in the universe. The Mount Whitney observations estimate the temperature of space, which is the heaven, at 450° below zero, and it is incapable of being heated. Its intense cold lowers to below the freezing point, the immense vol- ume of the earth’s atmosphere down to within about two miles of the earth’s surface, where its cold is modified by the heat which is radiated from the hot sunbeams concentrated at the surface of the earth. The presence of this immense volume of cold air THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 83 above, contributes largely to render wholesome the air we breathe; a greater or less amount of the cold air from above is continually being borne down into the warm stratas of air below, which it displaces; this cold air is in its turn warmed by the hot sun- beams, while the warm air which it displaces is forced out into the upper regions of frost where it is cooled and purified, and in the course of time will return to the earth, cool and pure. This process by which the lower stratas of the earth’s atmosphere are purified, and its proper temperature maintained throughout the different seasons, contributes largely to the health and comfort of both man and the animals. Though we are opposed to the theory that the earth was formerly a molten mass, it seems reason- able to suppose, and there is much to indicate, that in the movement of the enormous masses of matter which were concentrated in the earth, and its atmos- phere, and the firmament, there was an immense amount of heat generated; and that the entire volume of the earth’s atmosphere reached a higher tempera- ture at that early period than it has since attained, under the influence of the sun’s heat. This being- true, it follows that in the early history of our globe, the firmament performed a most important work in cooling and purifying the atmosphere, and thus hast- ened the preparation of the earth for the introduc- tion of plant and animal life. This cooling process began, of course, at the outer limits of the atmos- phere, at a distance of perhaps several hundred miles from the earth’s surface, and was necessarily very 84 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. gradual. Let us bear in mind that we are now dis- cussing a period in the world’s history prior to the formation of the sun, moon, and stars; and that in the movement of these great masses of matter which were concentrated in the celestial bodies, an im- mense amount of heat was generated, and that doubtless a greater or less amount of this heat was radiated to the earth, thus counteracting to some ex- tent the influence which the firmament was exerting upon the atmosphere to lower its temperature. The cooling of this immense mass of heated, imprisoned air would necessarily be a very slow pro- cess, and even under the most favorable conditions would require ages for its accomplishment; the cool- ing of the entire mass was never completed; it is evident that it was not God’s intention that it should be, as shown by the fact that while this cooling process was going on, vegetation was introduced upon the earth. Had nothing interposed to counteract the in- fluence of the firmament, the temperature of the entire volume of the earth’s atmosphere would have been lowered below the freezing point, as the great bulk of it is to-day, and the surface of the earth and its waters would have been covered with a sheet of ice; and the vegetation of the earth would have been ut- terly destroyed. This we know never occurred; on the contrary, as we shall hereafter show, the high temperature and general atmospheric conditions so essential to the growth of plants, prevailed over the entire globe. We shall show that during this period, known as the Carboniferous Age , which existed long prior to the formation of the sun, the earth pro- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 85 duced and maintained a considerable amount of vegetation. We shall also show that it was not until the lat- ter part of the Carboniferous Age in what is known as the “ Permian Period ” of that age, that the sun, moon, and stars were formed, and the seasons estab- lished; and the beneficent influences which God de- signed that the celestial bodies should exert upon the earth and its phenomena began to be expressed. After these events the chilling influence of the firm- ament upon the lower stratas of the atmosphere was counteracted by the concentration of the hot sun- beams upon the earth’s surface, and the perpetua- tion of the plant and animal life of our globe was assured. Thus, it is shown that, in addition to its original office of the separator between the celestial and the terrestrial waters, the firmament or heaven discharges other important offices in God’s plan of creation, from which man is largely the beneficiary. For many centuries the modern world has been deceived and misled by the speculations of atheists and infidels who have vainly attempted to devise a theory that will cover all the phenomena of the uni- verse and explain its existence as the result of “natural causes” working automatically and with- out design to accomplish their formation; nothing is so absurd to these theorists as the admission that the universe is but the expression of Divine intelli- gence; nothing to them is so repulsive as the belief in a personal God — the Creator of the heaven and the earth. Hence, we should not be surprised that the firmament occupies no place in their theories, 86 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. since its origin is alone traceable to the highest in- telligence and the most far-reaching design. Strange as it may seem, it is nevertheless a deplorable fact that the great bulk of those who profess belief in a personal God, most readily accept without question these antiscriptural theories which deny the exist- ence of God. Under the demoralizing influences of the unblushing atheism and infidelity which charac- terize the age in which we live, the firmament has so long been ignored that its very existence and the beneficent purposes for which it was designed is lost sight of. But this was not the case in the earlier ages; the ancients recognized the reality of the firmament and appreciated its grandeur, its beauty, and its utility; and those of the inspired authors, Moses, David, and Daniel, make special mention of it in their writings. This superb, transparent struct- ure which allows heat and light to penetrate it while declining to extend this privilege to air and water, is an ever active factor in the universe which must be considered; and we feel assured that when this is done our present astronomical views will be ver} T materially modified, to say the least of it. While the sciences are powerless to aid us in determining the time and the manner in which the firmament was formed, they furnish, as has been shown, the most positive proof of its reality ; and nothing is more clearly taught by the sciences than that the earth, and the sun, moon, and stars, are not situated in empty space. The sciences not only ac- quaint us with the fact that the firmament has a temperature that is extremely low, but, as we shall THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 87 hereafter show, they enable us to determine the ma- terial of which the firmament or heaven is composed. Several of the most prominent of the inspired authors in referring to the Creation, speak of God’s having “stretched out the heavens;” and they refer to God as he who “stretchiest out the heavens;” for example, Isaiah says: “Thus saith God the Lord, He that created the heavens, and stretched them out.” (Is. xl, 5). “Thus saith the Lord, the Holy one of Israel * * * I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands have stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts have I commanded.” (Is. xlv, 11, 12). Jeremiah says of God: “He hath made the earth by His power, He hath established the world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.” (Jer. x, 12; see also Jer. li, 15). Isaiah sa} r s of God: “It is He that sit- teth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” (Is. xl, 22). David says: “Bless the Lord, O my soul. * * Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.” (Ps. civ, 1, 2). The references of the inspired authors to the heavens in the Creation, as something that was stretched out like a “ curtain,” conveys much the same idea of the heavens as that of John, in his description of the destruction of the universe, in which he says: “And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together.” (Rev. vi, 14) . These utterances of the inspired authors show 88 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. that, when God had completed the firmament or heaven, which He made in the midst of the waters to separate the celestial waters from the terrestrial waters, He “stretched out” or extended the firma- ment or heaven to the utmost limits of the material universe. This teaching is sustained by that of the Mosaic Record in describing the work of the fourth creative day, as shown by the following: “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night.” * * * “And let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth. * * * 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 heaven to give light upon the earth.” (Gen. i, 14, 15, 16, 17). Further evidence that God “stretched out,” or extended the original firmament to the limits of the universe, is found in the references made to the “open firmament of heaven.” In describing the work of the fifth creative day, a part of the animals formed on that day are described as “ fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” (Gen. i, 20). Hence, they are described throughout the Bible as “the fowls of heaven.” It is plain that “the open firmament of heaven” in which “the fowl may fly,” is that immense space in- tervening between the firmament or heaven and the earth, and in which the atmosphere is situated. This term, “the open firmament of heaven,” is a compar- ative term, and indicates that inasmuch as there is THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 89 an “open firmament or heaven” beneath, or within the original firmament, that above, or beyond it, there is no “open firmament of heaven” — no empty space — but a closed firmament or heaven, in which the sun, moon, and stars are placed. Hence, they are described as “lights in the firmament of heaven.” {Gen. i, 14, 15, etc.). And also “the hosts of heaven.” ( Deut . iv, 19; Deut. xvii, 3, etc.). We are thus plainly taught that the heavens and the luminaries — the sun, moon, and stars, — are different formations; that they were made at different periods of time, and were designed for different pur- poses; and the sciences teach us that they are not even composed of the same materials. The heavens are formations as distinct from the luminaries, as the luminaries are from the earth. Hence, we but con- fuse ourselves when we confuse the sun, moon, and stars with the heavens in which God placed them. Let us now compare the teachings of the Bible with those of the sciences as to the situation of the heavens, and that of the luminaries, and the rela- tions which the luminaries and the heavens sustain to each other, and to the earth. After reviewing sev- eral theories those distinguished English writers, Mr. H. W. Bristow and Mr. Robert Brown, in their re- vised edition of Figuier’s World Before the Deluge, says: “The school of philosophy considered to be the most advanced in modern science, has yet an- other view of cosmogony, of which we venture to give a brief outline. Space is infinite, says the ex- ponent of this system,* for wherever in imagination * “Professor Tyndall, in Fortnightly Review." 90 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. we erect a boundary, we are compelled to think of space as existing beyond it. The starry heavens proclaim that it is not entirely void; but the ques- tion remains, are the vast regions which surround the stars, and across which light is propagated, abso- lutely empty? No! Modern science, while it rejects the notion of the luminiferous particles of the old philosophy, has cogent proofs of the existence of a luminiferous ether with definite mechanical prop- erties. It is infinitely more attenuated, but more solid than gas. It resembles jelly rather than air, and if not co-extensive with space, it extends as far as the most distant star the telescope reveals to us; it is the vehicle of their light in fact; it takes up their molecular tremors and conveys them with in- conceivable rapidity to our organs of vision. The splendor of the firmament at night is due to this vibration. If this ether has a boundary, masses of ponderable matter may exist beyond it, but they could emit no light. Dark suns ma3 T burn there, metals may be heated to fusion in invisible furnaces, planets may be molten amid intense darkness; for the loss of heat being simply the abstraction of molecular motion by the ether, where this medium is absent no cooling could take place. “This, however does not concern us; as far as our knowledge of space extends, we are to conceive of it as the holder of this luminiferous ether, through which the fixed stars are interspersed at enormous distances apart.” ( The World, Before the Deluge , pp. 24 , 25 ). We have now before us the teachings of the THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 91 Bible and those of the most advanced school of modern science expressed in their own language; we are thus enabled to determine whether there is that sharp conflict between the teachings of scripture and those of the sciences of which we hear so much. And it should be unnecessary for us to state that in presenting the results of Professor Tyndall’s investi- gations, we are not employing the aid of one who was in the least partial to the Bible; on the contrary, as is well known, Professor Tyndall was one of the ablest, as well as one of the most open, pronounced opponents of the Bible. As has been shown, the Bible teaches that the luminaries are not situated in empty space. As shown by the utterances of Professor Tyndall, mod- ern science teaches that the luminaries are not situ- ated in empty space. The Bible teaches that God made the luminaries and placed them in the firmament of heaven, a formation which He had prepared for their recep- tion. Modern science teaches that a “ luminiferous ether,” “ infinitely more attenuated, but more solid than gas,” a substance which “ resembles jelly, rather than air,” surrounds the remotest “ star the telescope reveals to us.” The Bible teaches that God made the luminaries and placed ‘‘them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth.” Thus we are plainly taught that it is not to the luminaries alone, but to this combination of the luminaries , and the firma- ment of heaven in which God placed them, that the 92 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. earth is indebted for its light. This being true, it follows that if either the luminaries or the firma- ment of heaven, was absent, the earth would be en- veloped in darkness. The plan of Creation requires the combination of the luminaries, and the firma- ment of heaven, in which God placed them, to give light upon the earth. Modern science teaches that while the lumina- ries produce the light, this ether, through its vibra- tions, is the vehicle by which their light is transmit- ted, “ with inconceivable rapidity to our organs of vision.” Thus we are taught that it is not to the lumi- naries alone, but to this combination of the lumi- naries, and the ether which surrounds them, that the earth is indebted for its light. This being true, it follows that if either the luminaries or the ether which surrounds them was absent, the earth would be enveloped in darkness. Modern science requires the combination of the luminaries and the ether which surrounds them to give light upon the earth. Thus, instead of a conflict between the scrip- tures and the sciences upon these great subjects, we find that they are in absolute harmony; the sciences not only prove the reality of the “ firmament of heaven,” but they acquaint us with the fact that it is composed of ether; and inasmuch as this jelly-like substance extends throughout space and surrounds every star, it necessarily surrounds the earth which is in the midst of the stars. The masses of this ether which mark the boundaries of our atmosphere, per- mit the rays of heat and light to penetrate it without affecting its extremely low temperature; but being THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 93 impervious to air and water, it holds the earth’s water and its atmosphere to the earth; it evidently discharges the same office for every other planet in the universe; it is this great firmament of ether which surrounds every star, that holds the waters of Mars to Mars; and the clouds and vapors of Jupiter to Jupiter, and so on. Had Professor Tyndall and his followers obeyed the Saviour’s command, “ Search the scriptures,” they might have discovered the perfect harmony which really exists between the scriptures and the sciences; and their unfair criticisms and their unjust assaults upon the Bible would not have been made. No theory which proposes to attribute the existence of the phenomena of the universe to “ natural causes,” can explain the origin of this great firma- ment of ether; in its silent grandeur it presents the most crushing proofs of the falsity of all such theo- ries. The Bible' alone explains the origin of this wonderful formation. Hence, apparently infinite in its length and breadth, and in its height and depth; unsurpassed in all inanimate nature, in point of utility; and peerless in its grandeur and its beauty: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork.” CHAPTER IV. Nebular Theory. There are only two schools of learning which propose to explain the existence of the heavens and the earth with all their phenomena. These are (1) the Bible school of Divine Creation ; (2) the Atheis- tic school of Evolution, or Natural Development. This is admitted by Professor Haeckel, the great German naturalist, upon whom the mantle of author- ity in the evolution world descended at the death of Darwin. In discussing the origin of plant and ani- mal life, Professor Haeckel says : “As is now very generally acknowledged, both by the adherents of and the opponents to the theory of descent, the choice in the matter of the origin of the human race lies between two radically different assumptions: We must either accustom ourselves to the idea that the various species of animals and plants, man included, originated independently of each other, by the supernatural process of a Divine ‘ creation,’ which as such is entirely removed from the sphere of scientific observation; or, we are com- pelled to accept the theory of descent in its entirety, and trace the human race, equally with the various plant and animal species, from an entirely simple primeval parent form. Between these two assump- 94 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 95 tions there is no third course.” ( The Evolution of Man, Vol. II., pp. 36, 37). The School of Creation as presented by the Bible, teaches that the heaven and the earth, with all their phenomena, is the product of Divine creation. Hence, they are artificial — the product of Divine art — and the laws which govern them are God’s laws. In direct opposition to this scriptural school, the School of Atheism teaches that the heaven and the earth, with all their phenomena, is the result of natural causes, working automatically, and of course without design, to accomplish their formation ; and that the laws which govern them are natural laws. As shown in the first chapter of this volume, the School of Creation is by far the most ancient of these ancient schools of learning ; and its great truths were taught by the Creator to our first parents in the Garden of Eden, and were transmitted by Adam to his descendants in the “book of precepts” which God delivered to him. In the following pages we shall combat the theory of development at every point; we shall show that in addition to its being antiscriptural, it is irrational and unscientific ; we shall show that so far from having progressed, man has not even held his own. As a matter of fact we of modern times are just emerging from the “ Dark Ages,” into which God in His wrath and disgust plunged the whole world of mankind after the cruci- fixion of the Saviour, and in which all knowledge of the arts and sciences was practically lost, and in which ignorance and superstition ruled supreme. Our egotism leads us into the error of supposing 96 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. that we are the most intellectual, learned, and accom- plished people that ever lived upon the earth ; and we ignore the evidence which explorers among ancient ruins are continually discovering of the high intellectuality, learning, and culture of the ancients; we disregard the facts established by this mass of evidence that nation after nation in the past, and upon every continent of the earth, has ascended to the loftiest positions of knowledge and refinement, and then descended by some demoralizing course which led to individual and national degeneracy, and finally consigned their descendants to barbarism and savagery; laid their superb civilizations in ruins; and the greater part, if not all, of their knowledge acquired through ages of investigation was lost to the world. We also disregard the fact that our great achievements in the realms of art and science have all been accomplished in the last few centuries; for example: The great law of gravitation, a knowledge of which is so essential to the astronomer, was not understood by the moderns until explained and given to the world by Newton in A. D. 1687. The modern world was in ignorance of the existence of the planet Uranus until Herschel discovered it in 1781. The great planet Neptune was discovered simultaneously in 1846 by the mathematicians, Le Verrier of France and Adams of England. The satellites of the planets, and many of the laws gov- erning the celestial bodies, are recent discoveries by modern astronomers, though doubtless known to the ancients. The ancients were aware that the earth is a globe; but this knowledge was lost to the world, THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 97 and at the time of Bruno, A. D. 1600, the Catholic church, which claimed about all the learning and authority in Europe at that time, taught that the earth was a plane. The ancients possessed and lost the telescope, one of the most essential instruments in studying the heavens; the modern telescope was first made in Holland in A. D. 1608; it was improved upon by Galileo in 1610, and successive improve- ments have brought it to its present state of perfec- tion. The same is true of all, or nearly all, our modern inventions and discoveries; they are merely reproductions. A knowledge of these things was as essential to the ancients as to the moderns; and the same lofty grade of intellect which produced them in modern times produced them in ancient times. All the facts indicate that the ancients acquired and lost a knowledge of astronomy as well as of other sub- jects, that we, who are just emerging from the “ Dark Ages,” have not yet attained to. In discussing the antiquity of the science of astronomy, Professor Ball says: “The history of astronomy is, in one respect, only like many other histories. The earliest part of it is completely and hopelessly lost. The stars had been studied, and some great astronomical discov- eries had been made, untold ages before those to which our earliest historical records extend. For example, the observation of the apparent movement of the sun, and the discrimination between the planets and the fixed stars, are both to be classed among the discoveries of pre-historic ages. Nor is it to be said that these achievements related to mat- 98 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. ters of an obvious character. * * The patient ob- servations of the early astronomers enabled the sun’s track through the heavens to be ascertained, and it was found that in its circuit amid the stars and con- stellations our luminary invariably followed the same path. This is called the ecliptic , and the constella- tions through which it passes form a belt around the heavens known as the zodiac. It was anciently di- vided into twelve equal portions or ‘signs,’ so that the stages on the sun’s great journey could be con- veniently indicated. The duration of the year, or the period required by the sun to run its course through the heavens, seems to have been first as- certained by astronomers whose names are unknown. The skill of the early Oriental geometers was further evidenced by their determination of the position of the ecliptic with regard to the equator, and by their success in the measurement of the angle between these two important circles on the heavens. * ::: But we are far from having exhausted the list of great discoveries which have come down from an unknown antiquity. Correct explanations had been given of the striking phenomenon of a lunar eclipse, in which the brilliant surface is plunged temporarily into darkness, and also of the still more imposing spectacle of a solar eclipse, in which the sun himself undergoes a partial or even a total obscuration. Then, too, the acuteness of the early astronomers had detected the five wandering stars or planets; they had traced the movements of Mercury, and Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. They had ob- served with awe the various configurations of these THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 99 planets. * * * At length a certain order was perceived to govern the apparently capricious move- ments of the planets. It was found that they obeyed certain laws.” {Ibid, pp. 2, 5, 6) . In discussing the ancient Egyptians, Mr. Good- rich says: “The signs of the zodiac were certainly in use among the Egyptians 1722 years before Christ. One of the learned men of our day, who for fifty years labored to decipher the hieroglyphics of the ancients, found upon a mummy-case in the British Museum a delineation of the signs of the zodiac, and the position of the planets; the date to which they pointed was the autumnal equinox of the year 1722 B. C. Professor Mitchell, to whom the fact was communicated, employed his assistants to ascertain the exact position of the heavenly bodies belonging to our solar system on the equinox of that year. This was done, and a diagram furnished by parties ignorant of his object, which showed that on the 7th of October, 1722 B. C., the moon and planets occu- pied the exact point in the heavens marked upon the coffin in the British Museum.” {Columbus, p. 22) . Mr. Donnelly says: “The knowledge of the ancients as to astronomy was great and accurate. Callisthenes, who accompanied Alexander the Great to Babylon, sent to Aristotle a series of Chaldean astronomical observations which he found preserved there, recorded on tablets of baked clay, and extend- ing back as far as 2234 B. C. Humbolt says: ‘The Chaldeans knew the mean motions of the moon with an exactness which induced the Greek astronomers to use their calculations for the foundation of a 100 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. lunar theory.’ The Chaldeans knew the true nature of comets, and could foretell their reappearance. ‘ A lens of considerable power was found in the ruins of Babylon; it was an inch and a half in diameter and nine-tenths of an inch thick.’ ( Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon , pp. 16, 17). Nero used optical glasses when he watched the fights of the gladiators; they are supposed to have come from Egypt and the east. Plutarch speaks of optical instruments used by Archimedes ‘to manifest to the eye the largeness of the sun.’ ‘There are actual astronomical calcula- tions in existence, with calendars formed upon them, which eminent astronomers of England and France admit to be genuine and true, and which cany back the antiquity of the science of astronomy, together with the constellations, to within a few years of the Deluge, even on the longer chronology of the Septua- gint.’ ( The Miracle in Stone, p. 142). Josephus attributes the invention of the constellations to the family of the antediluvian Seth, the son of Adam, while Origin affirms that it was asserted in the Book of Enoch that in the time of that Patriarch the con- stellations were already divided and named. (. At- lantis , pp. 453, 454) . Thus it is shown that so far from astronomy being a modern, it is one of the most ancient of the sciences; it was not only familiar to the ancients of postdiluvian times, but the ante- diluvians were familiar with it. Not only were the constellations divided and named in the time of Enoch, the seventh from Adam, but the 11 invention of the constellations ” is accredited to the family of THE TEMPTER OF EVE, 101 Seth, the third son of Adam. These incidents fur- nish additional proof that God revealed to Adam a knowledge of the great events of Creation, just as He afterwards revealed them to Moses; they also go far to prove that just as God inspired Moses to write a narrative of the Creation for the benefit of the moderns, so did He inspire Adam to write a narra- tive of the Creation for the benefit of the ancients. The knowledge of the heavens, the waters above the heavens, and the celestial bodies which David dis- played, was derived from the narrative of Creation which God inspired Moses to write; while the knowl- edge of astronomy which the immediate descendants of Adam displayed was derived from the account of the Creation which God inspired Adam to write. That intimate knowledge of the phenomena of the heav- ens, which enabled Seth to divide and name the con- stellations, could only have been acquired at that early period from Adam’s inspired book; and the distinction which Seth derived from his acceptance of it, has survived the ravages of time, and has handed his name down to us from a remote antiquity as the earliest, and perhaps the most accomplished astronomer the world has ever known. The modern world should have profited by Seth’s example, and should have accepted the word of God as David did; but instead of this, we find professed Christians either ignoring the Mosaic Record, or engaged in vain attempts to twist its utterances into some semblance of harmony with the speculations of in- fidels and atheists. Prominent among the antiscriptural theories of 102 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. modern time, is that invented by the French infidel, La Place, and commonly known as the “ Nebular Hypothesis.” This theory professes to explain the origin of the earth and the celestial bodies. The Nebular Theory combined with the Theory of De- scent, which attributes the origin of plant and ani- mal life to spontaneous generation, form what is termed the theory of Evolution or the theory of De- velopment , which thrusts |God aside, denies the existence of an intelligent Creator, repudiates the Bible, and accredits the phenomena of the universe to natural causes. The Nebular Theory is sustained by the great majority of scientists. Strange as it may seem this antiscriptural theory is advocated, with but few exceptions, by those who profess to believe the Bible. In discussing this theory, which he warmly ad- vocates, Professor Guyot says: “ In the genesis of our solar system, as explained by the genius of La Place and submitted by Stephen Alexander to exhaustive calculations, the result of which amounts almost to a demonstration of its truth, we see how a family of planets has been de- tached from a vast central body which holds them in bondage by the power of its mass. “ This last history, which immediately concerns the earth as one of the daughters of our sun, is so important in helping us to understand the phases of development undergone by our globe, that it may be well to give a short outline of the foundation upon which it rests. “ 1. It is found that the distances of the orbits THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 103 of the planets from the sun follow a nearly regular law, which is, that, starting from the orbit of Mer- cury, and counting the place of the asteroids as one planet, each succeeding orbit is about double the distance of the preceding one. “ 2. On the whole, the planets nearer the sun are smaller than the more distant ones. “ 3. Their density is increasing with their nearness to the sun. “4. All the planets and their satellites revolve around the sun in the same direction and nearly in the same plane as the equator of the sun itself. “5. The velocity of their revolution is dimin- ishing with their distance from the sun. “ 6. The rapidity of their rotation on their axis, on the contrary is increasing. “ All these coincidences point to a common law which seems to indicate a community of origin. * * * He assumed as his starting-point, the sun as a nebulous star with a powerful nucleus, revolving on its axis, and when hot, gaseous atmosphere extended beyond the limit of the orbit of Neptune. Plunged in the cold abysses of heaven, in which it loses in- cessantly, by radiation, a part of its heat, it cools and contracts; its centrifugal force increasing rapidly at the same time. Under its action, the cool and heav- ier particles rush toward the equatorial parts, where, owing to the continual contraction of the main body, they are soon left behind in the shape of a ring sim- ilar to those which we observe around Saturn. “According to the laws of motion, the ring con- tinues to move with the same velocity as the main 104 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. body from which it was detached. But as the ring itself shrinks in cooling, its inner surface, receding from the sun, begins to move less rapidly, while the outside, approaching nearer the sun, moves with greater rapidity. The equilibrium being thus dis- turbed, the ring tends to break up, and the outside, gaining upon the inside, the whole is rolled up into a globular mass with a rotary motion in the same direction as that of the ring itself. The result is a planet revolving around the sun and in the plane of its equator. By further contraction of the sun, the same process is repeated and new planets are formed. They decrease in size because the detached rings grow less at every step. They increase in density, because the later planets are detached when the density of the sun is increased. “ The larger planets have a more rapid rotation because they have been contracting during a longer period of time.” ( Creation , pp. 67, 68, 69, 70; see also Ennis, The Origin of the Stars ; Dawson, The Origin of the World, etc) . Dr. Patterson, in discussing the Nebular Theory, says: “ The theory is contradicted by the densities of the 'planets. At the time La Place constructed his theory, the densities of the planets were either un- known or erroneously valued. He constructed his theory to suit these errors. Astronomers are now agreed as to the error of Newton, and La Place, and Kepler, in supposing that the densest bodies were those nearest the sun. Kepler declares ‘ the sun to be the densest of all cosmical bodies; because it moves all others which belong to his system.’ THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 105 Newton argues: ‘The bodies of Venus and Mercury are more ripened and condensed, on account of the greater heat of the sun. The more remote planets, by want of heat, are deficient in these metallic substances and mighty minerals with which the earth abounds. Bodies are denser in proportion to their nearness to the sun.’ “ La Place calculated his system accordingly, and made his outside planets, which were first cast off, light in proportion to their distance from the sun, while those nearest, which had condensed most, were made heavy accordingly. For instance, he calculated the density of Mercury, to make it square with his theory, at 2.585; which indeed was a little less than what was then generally supposed; while it is in reality now found to be only one-half of that, or 1.234 — a very little heavier than the earth. The sun, which ought to be the densest body of the system by the theory, is actually much lighter than the earth, and stands fifth in the order of densities. There is no correspondence whatever between the distances and the densities of the planets. The actual order of the solar system as to density, is given by Humbolt as follows: Saturn, 0.140 of the earth’s density; Uranus, 0.178; Nep- tune, 0.232; Jupiter, 0.243; Sun, 0.252; Venus, 0.940; Mars, 0.958; Earth, 1; Mercury, 1.234.* Thus it appears that the sun is but little denser than Neptune, the outer planet of the system — exactly the reverse of La Place’s nebular hypothesis. “This objection, of the inconsistence of densi- * Cosmos, xv, p. 446. 106 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. ties, comes with even greater force from the comets of our system. They are by far the most numerous family we have. Kepler sa}^s that there are more comets in the heavens than fishes in the ocean. At any rate, astronomers calculate their numbers within our solar system at two or three millions. Now these, according to the theory, should not be within the solar system at all, nor within millions of miles of it, but away in the outer margins of space among the nebulse, since they are lighter than vanity. Every comet which shows its light head among solid worlds mocks at the Nebular Hypothesis. “ The other arrangements of the solar system were found to be equally at variance with the demands of the theory. The orbits of the comets, being inclined at all angles to the sun’s equator, are often out of the plane of his rotation, and fly right in the face of the theory. The moons of Uranus revolve in a direction contrary to all the other bodies, and so contrary to the theory. The palpable difference between the luminosity of the sun and of the other bodies, is in itself a sufficient refutation of the theory which would make them all out of the same matter and by the same process, and moreover refutes the notion of their common origin by any mere mechani- cal law, as Newton shows: ‘The same power, whether natural or supernatural, which placed the sun in the center of the. six primary planets, placed Saturn in the center of the orb of his five secondaiy planets, and the earth in the center of the moon’s orbit; and, therefore, had this cause been a blind one, without contrivance or design , the sun would have been a THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 107 body of the same kind with Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth; that is, without light and heat. Why there is one body in our system qualified to give light and heat to all the rest, I know no reason but because the author of the system thought it convenient.” {Errors of Evolution, pp. 34, 35, 36) . Sir Robert S. Ball, in discussing the Nebular Theory, says: “Such is, in fact, the doctrine of the origin of system which has been advanced in that celebrated speculation known as the nebular theory. Nor can it ever be more than a speculation; it can not be established by observation, nor can it be proved by calculation. It is merely a conjecture, more or less plausible, but perhaps in some degree necessarily true, if our present laws of heat, as we understand them, admit of the extreme application here required, and if also the present order of things has reigned for sufficient time without the interven- tion of any influence at present unknown to us.” ( The Story of the Heavens, p. 500) . Thus, this distinguished scientist frankly asserts that the Nebular Theory is simply a speculation; that it can never he more than a speculation ; that it cannot he established by observation, nor can it be proved by calculation ; that it is merely a conjecture more or less plausible. Yet we find professed Christians advo- cating this speculation, — this mere conjecture of an infidel — when to do so requires them to repudiate the word of God; nothing is more clearly taught in the Bible than that the earth was the first of the great bodies formed; while La Place “assumed,” that the sun was the first of the great bodies formed; and 108 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. that the earth was formerly a gaseous ring thrown off from the sun. Hence, Professor Guyot, in advo- cating this theory refers to the earth as “one of the daughters of our sun.” In discussing the Nebular Theory, and the mo- tions of the planets, the distinguished astronomer Richard A. Procter says: “Now, the French astronomer La Place showed how all these motions would have resulted if the solar system had once been a great mass of intensely hot vapor turning round and round as upon an axis. This whirling mass of vapor would contract as it parted with its heat, and, as it contracted, would whirl more swiftly. This increase of its rotating movement would cause the outer parts to be sepa- rated, and a ring would thus be thrown off. This ring would eventually break up and form a minor vapor mass, circling around the remainder of the con- tracting mass. Moreover, La Place showed that the mass thrown off would rotate in the the same direc- tion in which it revolved. Now, we have only- to conceive this process repeated several times as the vapor mass continued to contract to understand the formation of the primary planets. We have only to suppose further that the larger vapor masses thrown off, as supposed, themselves contracted in the same way, and thus formed subordinate systems, to under- stand the existence of satellite systems like those circling around Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Nep- tune. A ring such as the ring of Asteroids or the Saturnian rings would, under exceptional circum- stances, be formed instead of a planet or satellite. THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 109 And thus the main features of the solar system are accounted for. “But this ingenious theory does not account for some peculiarities which are scarcely less re- markable than those upon which it is based. In particular it does not account for the strange dispo- sition of the masses of the solar system. Why should the inner family consist of minor bodies, in the main unattended, while the outer consists of giant orbs with extensive families of satellites? Why should the innermost members of the outer family of planets be the largest, while just within there lies the family of asteroids, not only individually min- ute, but collectively less (as Leverrier has proved) than Mars, or even Mercury? Why should the two middle planets of the inner family be the largest members of that family? La Place’s theory gives no account of these peculiarities; nor perhaps could it be insisted that these peculiarities should be ex- plained; yet, if any other theory should give an ac- count of these features, explaining also the features which we have seen accounted for, then such theory would have a decided advantage over La Place’s. It is to be noticed also that La Place’s great nebulous contracting mass is a very unsatisfactory conception to begin with. No such mass could rotate as a whole. And lastly, La Place’s theory does not in any way correspond with processes still taking place within the solar system. It gives no account of the immense number of meteor flights and comets still existing within the solar domain.” ( The Expanse of Heaven , pp. 181, 182, 183). 110 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. It is one of the peculiarities of the atheist, that his cosmogonies are based upon mere assumption. Allow the atheists to “assume” that this or that was the case, and then permit him to support his as- sumption with a string of “ ifs,” of greater or less length, and it is possible that he will evolve a theory which, when viewed merely upon its surface, may seem more or less plausible; but a critical inves- tigation of it reveals the fact that it is founded upon mere supposition, and that from beginning to end it is simply an imaginary affair. It is another peculi- arity of the atheist that he embelishes his theory with a bewildering array of scientific terms, and then attempts to palm the whole off on us as science. But as a matter of fact the only scientific thing about his theory are the scientific terms which he employs in describing it, and the greater or less number of known facts which he attempts to prove it in harmony with. But his theory as such, from the mere assumption upon which it is based, to the er- roneous conclusions to which he argues, is the pur- est fiction. So it is with La Place’s theory. “ He assumed as his starting-point, the sun a nebulous star with a powerful nucleus revolving on its axis, etc.” (Guyot) . Hence, to accept La Place’s theory, we must first accord his assumption upon which it is based, all the value which we accord to a demon- strated fact; and, as has been shown, we must reject the teachings of the Bible, that the earth was the first of the great bodies formed; but this is not all: to accept the theory of La Place as to the manner in which the sun, moon and stars, and the earth were THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Ill formed, not only requires us to reject the Bible with reference to the heavens and the purposes for which they were designed, but also requires us to reject the teachings of the sciences as to the existence of the ether of which the heavens are composed, and the purposes which it subserves. We feel assured that the following conclusions are unavoidable: (1) Suppose we accept La Place’s assumption that the sun was a nebulous star with a powerful nucleus revolving on its axis; a moment’s reflection must convince us that this immense gas- eous mass could rotate only in obedience to certain laws governing the movement of matter; and the presence of these laws must be accepted as the most positive evidence of the existence of an intelligent law-maker; intelligence of the highest order is as essential in the enactment of laws governing the movement of matter as it is in the enactment of laws governing the actions of an individual or a na- tion. Hence, these laws under the influence of which La Place assumed that this immense gaseous mass rotated, would not do away with the necessity for an intelligent law-maker — a Creator; on the con- trary, the presence of these laws would but prove the existence of such a being. Neither is there any- thing in the scriptures, nor in the sciences, to indi- cate (as many professed Christians who advocate the theory of development would have us believe) , that God enacted certain laws to govern the move- ment of matter, and then left the formation of the heavens and the earth and their phenomena to the execution of these laws through some process of de- 112 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. velopment; on the contrary, the Mosaic Record says God made the heavens; God made the sun, moon, and stars; God made the plants and the animals; and God created man; and in summing up the re- sults of the creative week the inspired writer gives the finishing blow to the theory that the Plan of Creation was perfected and the universe completed by the execution of certain laws governing the movement of matter, as shown by the following: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” There was nothing left to development; all things were finished; when God “rested” on the seventh day “ from all His works which He had made,” the universe was perfect in all its details. (2) If we would further admit that it is pos- sible for the earth and the planets to have been formed by gaseous rings thrown off from the sun, as La Place assumed, we would still be at a loss to account for the existence of the ether of which the heavens are composed; this ether which occupies all the intervening space between the sun and the planets could not have been thrown off in the form of gas by the sun; it is plain that if this ether which more resembles “jelly than air,” and which sur- rounds the sun, and the earth, and every star, was in existence prior to the formation of the sun, its presence would have effectually restrained the sun from throwing off into space the gaseous rings of which La Place assumed the earth and the celestial bodies were formed; if, on the other hand, the ether made its appearance after the earth and the celestial THE TEMPTEK OF EVE. 113 bodies were formed, from what source did it emanate, and by what process was it formed? Neither La Place nor any one of his many followers would render themselves so ridiculous as to assert that the neb- ulas theory can explain the origin of this ether; on the contrary, the very presence of this ether, which is revealed by the scriptures and the sciences, fur- nishes the most positive proof of the falsity of his theory. To accept the nebular theory we must believe as La place evidently did, that the sun, moon and stars are situated in empty space, instead of being surrounded by an ether which is the vehicle of their light. The existence of this ether was estab- lished by the English astronomer, Thomas Young, who was born in A. D. 1773, and died in 1829; con- sequently the existence of this ether was established in the days of La Place; yet this ether occupies no place in his theory; and the most charitable view to take of the matter is, that La Place was not aware of its existence, for had he known of it he would have seen at a glance that his theory could not ex- plain its origin; and consequently his anti-scriptural and unscientific theory would not have been thrown upon the world to deceive and damn its millions, as it has done. As has been shown, this immense mass of ether of which the heavens are composed is the vehicle by which the light of the lumunaries is conveyed to our globe; and inasmuch as the nebular theory presupposes that the sun, moon and stars are situ- ated in empty space, and makes no provision for 114 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. this ether, it follows that if the universe had been constructed according to the theory of La Place, there would have been no medium by which the light of the luminaries could have been conveyed to our globe, and without this medium the earth would have been enveloped in darkness, and consequently would have been incapable of producing and main- taining either plant or animal life. Evidently it is well that God — a practical Creator, rather than La Place — an infidel speculator — was the designer of the universe. This almost limitless mass of ether of which the heavens are composed, and which surrounds the earth, the sun, and “even the remotest star the telescope reveals to us,” is the most extensive formation in all the material universe; the earth, and the celestial bodies are mere atoms compared to it; yet the theory of La Place, so far from explaining its origin, utterly ignores its existence; in addition to this we have shown by the testimony of that eminent scientist, Mr. Procter, (1) that no such mass of “hot, gaseous atmosphere” as La Place assumed as his “starting point” could rotate as a whole. This being true, the nebular theory falls still-born from the imagination of its author; for, if this immense gaseous mass could not, and did not rotate on its axis, the results which La Place claimed accrued from this process could not have been ac- complished. (2) “That it does not account for the strange disposition of the masses of the solar system,” as noted by Mr. Proctor. (3) That “ it gives no ac- count of the immense number of meteor flights and THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 115 comets still existing in the solar domain.” When we add to these discrepancies the fact that it is incompe- tent to explain the origin of the ether of which the heavens are composed, and which is the vehicle by which light is transmitted to all parts of the uni- verse, it becomes plain that if we accord the nebular theory all that its most ardent advocate claims for it, it could account for only a mere fractional part of the phenomena of the universe. And we feel assured that the time is not far distant when the intelligence of the world will repudiate this miserable theory which is in such direct conflict with the teachings of the scriptures and the sciences. The confident tone assumed by the modern advocates of the nebular theory, is in striking con- trast to the “distrust” with which its author regarded it as shown by his utterances quoted by Mr. Ennis La Place’s “System du Monde” as given in the translation of J. Pond, F.R.S. (London, 1829). In giving his theory of the planetary system to the world La Place says: “Whatever may have been the origin of this arrangement of the planetary system, which I offer with that distrust which every thing ought to inspire that is not the result of observation or calculation, it is certain that its elements are so arranged that it must possess the greatest stability, if foreign observations (influences?) do not disturb it.” (See The Origin of the Stars, p. 381). In view of its open conflict with well-established facts, it is plain that the nebular hypothesis richly merits the distrust with which its author regarded it; it is also plain that its utter worthlessness is revealed 116 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. by the following law laid down by Huxley, who says: “Every hypothesis is bound to explain, or at any rate not to be inconsistent with, the whole of the facts it pro- fesses to account for; and if there is a single one of these facts which can be shown to be inconsistent with (I do not mean to be inexplicable by, but con- trary to) the hypothesis, such hypothesis falls to the ground — it is worth nothing. One fact with which it is positively mconsistent is worth as much, and is as powerful in negativing the hypothesis as five hun- dred ( Lecture on the Origin of Species, p. 140) . CHAPTER V. The Dry Land and the Plants. “All flesh is grass.” (Is. xl, 5; 1 Ps. i, 24). “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. “And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He seas: and God saw that it was good. “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, and herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yieldeth fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth: and it was so. “And the earth brought forth grass, and herb bearing seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. “And the evening and the morning were the third day.” (Gen. i, 11, 12, 13). As shown in the preceding chapter, the inspired writer of the narrative of Creation is silent as to the time when the earth was formed; its formation may have began, and perhaps did begin, with the move- ment of matter on the first creative day; and it may have been completed on that day; or, it may not have been completed until after the formation of the firmament or heaven which envelops it was 117 118 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. completed on the second creative day. Be this as it may, the language of our text leaves no room for doubt that on the opening of the third creative day, the earth was already formed. Hence, the first com- mand given on that day was, “ Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.” We are thus taught (1), that though the earth was already formed at the beginning of the third creative day, it was enveloped in water. This places the Mosaic Record in harmony with the sciences which teach that in the early history of our globe “the ocean was universal” — the whole earth was enveloped in water. (See The World Before the De- luge, p. 95, Fiquier. Also Creation , p. 79, Grvyot. The Origin of the World , p. 174, Dawson. Moses and Geology , p. 93, Kinns) . (2) That the waters en- veloping the earth, perhaps a greater or less amount of which was in the form of vapor, which extended from the earth’s surface to the firmament, was condensed into water, and this water “gathered” into the indentations on the earth’s surface which God prepared for their reception, and which he called “ seas.” (3) That God’s commands, “ Let the waters under the heaven be gathered to- gether unto one place,” and “ Let the dry land ap- pear,” were executed, as shown by the fact that the inspired writer says, “ And it was so.” (4) That the inspired writer of the Narrative of Creation thus em- phatically commits the Bible to the teaching that the earth was the first of the great bodies formed. Inasmuch as the inspired author is silent as to THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 119 when the formation of the earth began, or when it was completed, we have no data upon which to base a decision upon this subject, for the sciences can throw no light upon these questions. There is a strong disposition on the part of men to theorize upon this subject, and to speculate as to how, and when, the earth was formed; but with no data, either scriptural or scientific, to guide them to cor- rect conclusions, their speculations must inevitably culminate in so many guesses; and the mere fact that in most cases the guesser is a man of scientific attain- ments does not raise his guess to the dignity of a sci- ence, since science is something known. Hence, all at- tempts to explain the time and the manner in which the earth was formed is not only the height of folly, but is actually criminal, because misleading. The necessity for caution in this matter is shown by the statement of Sir Charles Lyell, the great English geologist, who says: “In the } r ear 1806 the French Institute enumerated no less than eighty geological theories which were hostile to the scriptures; but not one of these theories is held to-day.” Is it not creditable to the Bible that these theories which were hostile to it, were abandoned because of their falsity? For a time the controversy waxed hot between the advocates of the igneous theory, and those of the aqueous theory of the origin of the earth; the former insisting that the earth was formed through the agency of fire, and the latter maintaining that the earth was formed through the agency of water. But as the theory of La Place, which assumes the 120 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. earth to have formerly been a molten mass, was generally accepted, the igneous theory gained the ascendancy over its rival. This theory teaches that the earth was formerly a molten mass, which, in the process of cooling gradually formed a crust around its molten interior, and that this crust is now many miles thick. The majority of these theo- rists estimates the thickness of the “ earth’s crust,” to be from twenty- five to thirty-five miles; but Dr. Hopkins, an equally “ high authority,” estimates “ the probable thickness of the earth’s solid crust at a minimum of 800 miles.” ( The World Before the Del- uge, p. 88) . The great discrepency between the es- timates of these “ savants” reveals the fact that they are utterly unreliable; estimates, to be of any value, must be based upon facts; but the estimates of these gentlemen are based upon mere conjecture. This is further shown by the fact that, the deepest excava- tions made in the earth, have not exceeded two miles. Hence, no man knows what exists in the earth at a depth of 800 miles, or even twenty-five miles. We have shown (1) that, for some good reason known only to Himself, God declined to acquaint Moses as to the time and manner in which the earth was formed. (2) That the sciences can throw no light upon these questions. (3) That man is ig- norant, and must forever remain in hopeless ignor- rance of even the materials and the forces which were employed in the construction of the earth. This being true, it follows that the modern theorists who, with no data to aid them in reaching correct THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 121 conclusions, attempt to explain the origin of the earth, might have profited by the crushing rebuke which God administered to Job out of the whirlwind: “Who is this that darkeneth counsel with words without knowledge? Gird up thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched a line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the cornerstone thereof; when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” As has been shown, we are absolutely ignorant of and have no means of ascertaining what the con- ditions are, or what exists in the interior of the earth at a depth of 4,000 miles, or 1,000 miles, or 100 miles, or even 10 miles from its surface. Hence, when the scientist proposes to enlighten us upon these subjects, he at once abandons the domain of science where he is guided by facts, and enters the boundless realm of speculation where his imagina- tion is his only guide. While this is true, the science of geology is invaluable because of the assistance it renders us in ascertaining the order in which the plants and animals made their appearance on the earth. We are thus enabled to compare the teach- ings of the geological record with those of the Mo- saic Record upon this subject. Thus, the declara- tion of Job holds good: “Speak to the earth and it shall teach thee.” Geology is the science of the earth. When 122 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. viewed in the light of this science, the various stratas of the earth may properly be regarded as so many pages in the geological history of our globe. Those stratas which were in process of formation when the first plants and animals made their ap- pearance on the earth, contain more or less of their remains. The remains of the first plants and ani- mals are found in the lowest stratas of the earth* while those of more recent origin are found in the upper stratas. Thus the geological record is formed; and when these stratas are undisturbed the remains of plants and animals which the}^ contain furnish us a record which throws an immense amount of light upon the history of plant and animal life on our globe. Recognizing the Mosaic Record as God’s Word, and the facts presented by the geological record as God’s works, we feel assured that the teachings of these great records will harmonize to a nicety when each is carefully investigated and properly under- stood. Hence, we feel no hesitancy in comparing the Narration of Creation with the geological history of plant and animal life on the earth as revealed by scientific research. And we have now reached a point in our investigations where the results of geo- logical research enables us to compare the two records. We should note the fact that the inspired writer commits the Bible to the teaching that plant life preceded animal life on the earth. We quote the following high authorities on the distinctive charac- teristics of plants and animals. Professor Dana, says: “ Plants find nutriment in carbolic acid, appro- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 123 priate the carbon and excrete oxygen, a gas essential to animal life; animals use oxygen in respiration, and excrete carbonic acid, a gas essential to vegetable life. “ Plants take inorganic material as food, and turn it into organic; animals take this organic & material thus prepared (plants) , or other organic materials made from it (animals) , finding no nutri- ment in inorganic matter. The vegetable kingdom is a provision for the storing away or magazining of force for the animal kingdom.” ( Manual of Geology , p. 115) . Dr. Kinns says: “The exact period when plants first appeared cannot be told, for their delicate struct- ure is such that their earliest forms may have been entirely destroyed. We may be certain, however, that they preceded animals, for as they can derive their nourishment and add to their tissues from inorganic matter, which animals cannot do, it would be necessary for them to have existed in some form first for animals to feed upon.” ( Moses and Geology , p. 145). Professor Guyot says: “The most important function of the plant in the economy of nature is to turn inorganic into organic matter, and thus prepare food for the animal. Nothing else in nature does this work. The animal cannot do it, and starves in the midst of an abundance of the materials needed for the building up of its body. The plant stores up force which it is not called upon to use; the animal takes it ready-made as food, and expends it in activ- ity. The plant, therefore, is the indispensable basis 124 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. of all animal life; for though animals partially feed upon each other, ultimate^ the organic matter thej T need must come from the plant.” ( Creation , pp. 88, 89 ). Having shown that vegetation, which is essen- tial to the existence of the animal, necessarily pre- ceded animal life on the earth, it is now in order for us to investigate that part of our text which describes the introduction of plant life. “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb bearing seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind: and it was so.” It will be observed that the inspired writer divides the plants into three classes: grass, herbs bearing seed, and fruit trees yielding fruit, all after their kind. Dr. Kinns in discussing this text says: “For the present, I will show that a better translation of the verses relating to the advent of vegetable life will prove the marvelous correctness of Moses’ state- ments. I would just say that in endeavoring to give a more suitable rendering of this and other passages, I have consulted high authorities, and have been aided by some of our most eminent scholars, whom I have mentioned in my preface. These gentlemen confirm Dr. Kitto’s explanation of this verse, that the word deshe, translated ‘grass,’ is applicable to every kind of verdure in the state of sprouting. “ Secondly, that esebh, rendered ‘ herb,’ denotes a higher order of plants propagated by seeds, for as Kitto says, the words ‘herb yielding seed’ are very THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 125 emphatic in the original; they are, litterly, herb seed- ing seed , exactly imitated in the Septuagint version. “Thirdly {'ets p’ri) fruit trees may refer to cer- tain trees of the Devonian and Carboniferous periods, some of which approached to true fruit trees. Here, then, we get much light upon the mat- ter; for such translations enable us to see that the Geological and Biblical statements are not at vari- ance.” ( Moses and Geology , p. 144) . In discussing our text, Professor Dawson says: “Deshe, translated ‘grass’ in our version, is derived from a verb signifying to spring up or bud forth; the same verb, indeed, used in this verse to denote ‘ bringing forth ’ literally causing to spring up. Its radical meaning is therefore, vegetation in the act of sprouting or springing forth. * * * ‘ With respect to the use of the word in this place, I may remark: (1) It is not correctly translated by the word ‘grass’; for grass bears seed, and is, con- sequently, a member of the second class of plants mentioned. Even if we set aside all ideas of inspira- tion, it is obviously impossible that any one living among a pastoral or agricultural people could have been ignorant of this fact. (2) It can scarcely be a general term, including all plants when in a young or tender state. The idea of their springing up is included in the verb, and this was but a very tem- porary condition. Besides, this word does not appear to be employed for the young state of shrubs or trees. (3) We thus appear to be shut up to the conclusion that deshe here means those plants, mostly small and herbaceous, which bear no proper seeds; 126 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. in other words, the cryptogamia — as fungi, mosses, lichens, ferns, etc. The remaining words are trans- lated with sufficient accuracy in our version. They denote seed-bearing or phcenogamous herbs and trees. * * * ‘ The arrangement of the plants in three great classes of cryptogams, seed-bearing herbs, and fruit bearing trees differs in one important point, — viz.: the separation of herbaceous plants from trees — from modern botanical classification. It is, how- ever, sufficiently natural for the purposes of a general description like this, and perhaps gives more precise ideas of the meaning intended than any other arrangement equally concise and popular. It is also probable that the object of the writer was not so much a natural history classification as an account of the order of creation, and that he wishes to affirm that the introduction of these three classes of plants on the earth corresponded with the order here stated. This view renders it unnecesary to vindicate the accuracy of the arrangement on botani- cal grounds, since the historical order was evidently better suited to the purpose in view, and in so far as the earlier appearance of crytogamous plants is con- cerned, it is in strict accordance with geological fact.” ( The Origin of the World , pp. 186, 187, 188). Thus it is shown (1) that the inspired writer divides the plants into three classes: “ Spr outage" (Cryptogamia — as fungi, mosses, lichens, ferns, etc., which are seedless, and reproduce from spores .) Herb bearing seed. (Herb is “ a plant, the atom of which is not woody; a plant producing shoots only of annual duration from the surface of the earth.” THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 127 Herbaceous plant is one “the stem of which per- ishes annually; one producing an annual stem from a perennial root.”) And Fruit Trees. (2) That the teachings of the Mosaic Record with reference to the order in which these three classes of plants made their appearance upon the earth corresponds with the Geological Record upon this subject. The vegeta- tion which was introduced upon the earth on the third cosmogonic day was confined to wild plants, which subsist without cultivation; in a subsequent chapter we shall show that domestic plants, which require cultivation, made their appearance on the earth simultaneously with man on the sixth day. The vegetation of the earth attained its greatest luxuriance in what is known as the “ Carboniferous Age;” and this age is divided into three periods: The Subcarboniferous, the Carboniferous, and the Permian. {Dana) . . The following description of the flora of the Carboniferous Age is taken from Figuire’s World Before the Deluge: “ In the history of our globe the Carboniferous period succeeds to the Divonian. It is in the forma- tion of this latter epoch that we find the fossil fuel which has done so much to enrich and civilize the world in our own age. * * * ‘ The monuments of this era of profuse vegetation reveal themselves in the precious coal-measures of England and Scot- land. These give us some idea of the rich verdure which covered the surface of the earth, newly risen from the bosom of its parent waves. It was the paradise of terrestrial vegetation. The grand Sig- 128 THE TEMPTEE OF EVE. gillaria, the Calamites, and other fern-like plants, were especially typical of this age, and formed the woods, which were left to grow undisturbed; for as yet no living Mammals seem to have appeared; everything indicates a uniformly warm, humid tem- perature, the only climate in which the gigantic ferns of the coal-measures could have attained their mag- nitude. * * * ‘ Conifers have been found of this period with concentric rings, but these rings are more slightly marked than in existing trees of the same family, from which it is reasonable to as- sume that the seasonal changes were less marked than they are with us. * * * ‘ The fundamental character of the period we are about to study is the immense development of a vegetation which flour- ished in remote ages of the world. Buried under an enormous thickness of rocks, it has been pre- served to our days, after being modified in its on- ward nature and external aspect. Having lost a portion of its elementary constituents, it has become transformed into a species of carbon, impregnated with those bituminous substances which are the or- dinary products of the slow decomposition of veg- etable matter. “Thus coal, which supplies our manufacturers and our furnaces, which is the fundamental agent of our productive and economic industry — the coal which warms our houses and furnishes the gas which lights our streets and dwellings — is the sub- stance of the plants which formed the forests, the vegetation, and the marshes of the ancient world at THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 129 a period too distant for human chronology to calcu- late with anything like precision. * * * “ Let us pause for a moment, and consider the general characters which belonged to our planet during the carboniferous period. Heat — though not necessarily excessive heat — and extreme hu- midity were then the attributes of its atmosphere. The modern allies of the species which formed its vegetation are now only found under the burning latitudes of the tropics; and the enormous dimen- sions in which we find them in the fossil state prove, on the other hand, that the atmosphere was saturated with moisture. Dr. Livingston tells us that continual rains, added to intense heat, are the climatic characteristics of Equatorial Africa, where the vigorous and tufted vegetation flourishes which is so delightful to the eye. “It is a remarkable circumstance that condi- tions equable and warm climate, combined with hu- midity, do not seem to have been limited to any part of the globe, but the temperature of the whole globe seems to have been nearly the same in very differ- ent latitudes. From the equatorial regions up to Melville Island, in the Arctic Ocean, where in our days eternal frost prevails — from Spitzbergin to the center of China, the carboniferous flora is identically the same. When Novaia Similia and New South Wales had a flora much alike, when the same spe- cies, now extinct, are met with of equal development at the equator as at the pole, we cannot but admit that at this epoch the temperature of the globe was nearly alike everywhere. What we call climate was 130 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. unknown in these geological times. There seems to have been then only one climate over the whole globe. It was at a subsequent period, that is in Tertiary times, that the cold began to make itself felt at the terrestrial poles. * * * “The ferns, which in our days and in our cli- mate, are most commonly only small perennial plants, in the carboniferous age sometimes pre- sented themselves under lofty and even magnificent forms. “ Every one knows those marsh plants with hollow, channelled, and articulated cylindrical stems; whose joints are furnished with a membranous, den- ticulated sheath, and which bear the vulgar name of ‘ mare’s tails,’ their fructification forming a sort of catkin composed of many rings of scales, carrying on their lower surface sacs full of spores or seeds. These humble Equiseta w T ere represented during the coal-period by herbaceous trees from twenty to thirty feet high and four to six inches in diameter. Their trunks, channelled longitudinally, and divided transverse^ by lines of articulation, have been pre- served to us: they bear the name of Calamites. They seem to have grown by means of an under- ground stem, while new buds issued from the ground at intervals. * * * “The Lycopods of our age are humble plants, scarcely a yard in height, and most commonly creepers; but the Lycopodiacese of the ancient world were trees of eighty or ninety feet in height. It was the Lepidodendrons which filled the forest. Their leaves were sometimes twenty inches long, THE TEMPTER OF EYE, 131 and their trunks a yard in diameter. Such are the dimensions of some specimens of Lepidodindron cari- natum which have been found. Another Lycopod of this period, the Lomatophloios crassicaule, attained dimensions still more colossal. The Sigillarias some- times exceeded 100 feet in height. Herbaceous Ferns were also exceedingly abundant, and grew be- neath the shade of these gigantic trees. It was the combination of these lofty trees with such shrubs (if we may so call them) , which formed the forests of the Carboniferous period. * * * “This flora, then, consists of great trees, and also of many smaller plants, forming a close, thick turf, or sod, when partially buried in marshes of al- most unlimited extent. There have been described as characterising the period, 1,700 species of plants belonging to families which we have already seen making their first appearance in the Devonian period, but which now attain a prodigious develop- ment. * * * Such is a general view of the features most characteristic of the coal-period, and of the pri- mary epoch in general. It differs altogether and absolutely, from that of the present day; the cli- matic conditions of these remote ages of the globe, however, enables us to comprehend the characteris- tics which distinguish its vegetation. A damp at- mosphere, of an equable rather than intense heat like that of the tropics, a soft light veiled by per- manent fogs, were favorable to the growth of this peculiar vegetation, of which we search in vain for anything strictly analogous in our own days. The nearest approach to the climate and vegetation pro- 132 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. per to the geological period which now occupies our attention, would probably be found in certain is- lands, or on the littoral of the Pacific Ocean — the island of Chiloe, for example, where it rains 300 days in the year, and where the light of the sun is shut out by perpetual fogs; where arborescent ferns form forests, beneath whose shade grow herbaceous ferns, which rise three feet and upwards above a marshy soil, which give shelter also to a mass of cryptogamic plants greatly resembling, in its main features, the flora of the coal-measures.” In closing his discussion of the three classes of plants described in our text, Dr. Kinns says ' “ Here I must clear up another difficulty. It will be noticed that though I give other meanings to the words translated ‘ grass ’ and ‘ herb,’ I still adhere to the word 1 fruit trees ’ (’ ets p’ri) ; but instead of there being an error in point of time, I can show that both in the Devonian and Carboniferous periods there existed numerous trees of the Coniferous order, the seed-vessels of which might be properly styled fruit. * * * ‘ Some of the seed-vessels were quite surrounded with fleshy coatings, which might, as in the Ginkgo of Japan, have constituted edible fruits. * * * ‘The interior integument is very thick and cellular, and was, no doubt, once fleshy. The second coat was thinner, but hard, and marked by three ridges. This coating, being all that commonly remains in a fossil state, has suggested the name of Trigonocarpon. Within this were the third and fourth coats, both of which are very delicate mem- branes, and may possibly have been two plates be- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 133 longing to one membrane. Lyell says its geological importance is great ; for so abundant is it in the Coal Measures that in certain localities the fruit of some species may be procured by the bushel. ‘ On the whole,’ Sir Joseph Hooker says, ‘these fruits are referable to a highly-developed type, exhibiting extensive modifications of elementary organs for the purpose of their adaptation to special functions ; and these modifications are as great, and the adapta- ion as special, as any to be found amongst analagous fruits in the existing vegetable world.” ’ (Ibid, pp. 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 ). Thus, the geological record sustains the Mosaic Record in its teaching that these three great classes of plants, “ Sproutage,” “ Herb-bearing seed,” and “Fruit-trees,” made their appearance in the order stated. CHAPTER VI. Luminaries. “ And God said, let there be lights in the firma- ment of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years. “ And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. “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 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: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.” (Gen. i, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). We should note that in addition to producing light, the celestial bodies were designed for other purposes — “to divide the light from the darkness,” and for “ signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;” that the “greater light” — the sun — should “ rule the day,” and the lesser light — the moon — should “ rule the night.” And that they discharge 134 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 135 the duties for which they were designed is attested by the inspired writer, who says, “ And it was so.” Here we have the most positive proof that one of the purposes for which the sun and moon were formed was for “ days,” and that prior to the fourth creative day there could be no such thing as a “ solar day,” or day of twenty-four hours, beginning with the rising, and ending with the setting of the sun; and that the six creative days, three of which passed before the sun existed were not solar days, since there was no sun to mark their beginning and ending. Hence, the Bible is silent as to length of the creative days, as well as that of the seventh day, in which God rested from his works; while the re- sults of all scientific research prove that they were immense periods of time; and this is further shown by the fact that the seventh day upon which God rested from His works, has continued for thousands of years with no evidence at present that it is near- ing its close. The separation of “ the light from the darkness,” thus producing day and night, and the division of time into months and years, are processes too well understood to require discussion here; while it is equally well known that the signs of the Zodiac are derived from the celestial bodies: “There stay until the twelve celestial signs Have brought about their annual recoming.” — Shakespeare. The atheists and infidels who, as a class, are ad- vocates of the Nebular Hypothesis, delight to ridi- cule the teaching of the Bible that plant life was in- 136 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. troduced on the earth prior to the formation of the sun, moon and stars; and many professed believers in the Bible combat this teaching of the Mosaic Record, which is so directly opposed to their theory. We should note the fact that the introduction of plant life was the last event of the third creative day; and immediately following this event the for- mation of the sun, moon and stars began on the fourth creative day. As has been shown, the three classes of plants — Sproutage, Herb-bearing Seed , and Fruit Trees, made their appearance on the earth in the order stated; but there is nothing in the Mosaic Record to indicate that these three classes of plants all made their appearance on the third creative day. Hence, the mere introduction of plant life on the third creative day would meet all the requirements of the Mosaic Record. On the other hand, the geo- logical record shows that fruit trees made their ap- pearance in the Devonian Age, long after the celestial bodies were formed. We have no means of ascertain- ing the precise period when vegetation made its ap- pearance on the earth, but the geological record in- dicates that it occurred in what is termed Archean Time. In discussing this period, Mr. Dana says: “No distinct remains of plants have been ob- served. The occurrence of graphite in the rocks, and its making 20 per cent, of some layers, is strong evidence that plants of some kind, if not also ani- mals, were abundant. For graphite is carbon, one of the constituents of wood and animal matters; and mineral coal, whose vegetable origin is beyond ques- tion, has been observed, in the carboniferous rocks THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 137 of Rhode Island, changed to graphite; and even coal plants, as ferns, occur at St. Johns, New Brunswick, in the state of graphite. Further, the amount of graphite in the Laurentian rocks is enormous. Daw- son observes (taking his facts from Logan) that it is scarcely an exaggeration to maintain that the quan- tity of carbon in the Laurentian is equal to that in similar areas of the Carboniferous system. * * * In Europe, graphite occurs in the Archaean rocks of Bavaria; anthracite has been observed in the iron- bearing rocks of this age at Arendal, Norway; and carbonacious (partly anthracite) and bituminous sub- stances are distributed through layers of Archaean gneiss and mica schist at Nullaburg, in Wermland, Sweden, constituting 5 to 10 per cent., facts point- ing clearly to the existence of life before this era. * * “The plants must have been the lowest of Cryp- togams or flowerless species, and mainly at least, ma- rine Algae or Sea- Weeds; for the Primordial beds next succeeding contain remains of nothing higher. This argument from the Primordial excludes all mosses and the ordinary terrestrial plants; but not necessarily lichens, since these grow in dry places, and could not have contributed to marine deposits if they had existed. It is hence possible that, be- sides sea-weeds in the water, there were lichens over the bare rocks. The easily destructible fungi may also have lived in damp places.” ( Manual of Geol- ogy, pp. 157, 158). According to the theory of La Place, the earth was formerly a molten mass which, in the process of cooling formed a crust around its molten interior; 138 THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. as the globe continued to cool, its crust thickened until the temperature of the waters and the surface of the earth were sufficiently reduced as to make it possible for vegetation to exist, when plant life made its appearance as the result of spontaneous generation; during this period the earth, but recently elevated above the waves of the “ primeval ocean,” was en- veloped in dense clouds and vapors which excluded the greater part of the sun’s light and heat until the clouds and vapors were dissipated in the latter part of the Carboniferous Age; but during the continu- ance of the clouds and vapors there was sufficient light for vegetation, while the excluded heat of the sun was compensated for by the internal heat of the earth, which stimulated the growth of the profuse vegetation of that early period, and produced that uniformity of temperature of the earth’s surface which existed from pole to pole. If we accept the Nebular Hypothesis which teaches that the sun is older than the earth, and that it is in fact the parent of the earth, we must reject the Bible which teaches that the earth is older than the sun, and that vegetation was introduced upon its surface before the celestial bodies existed; we must also accept the theory that the earth was formerly a molten mass; that the heat which stimu- lated the growth of vegetation down to the Permian period, and produced an even temperature through- out the earth’s surface at that remote period was de- rived from the molten interior of the earth; while the light in which the vegetation of Archsean time flourished was obscured sunlight. But as has been THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 139 shown, the Nebular Hypothesis is a mere speculation at best; and its falsity is demonstrated by its conflict with the scriptures, and with well established scien- tific facts; and also its failure to explain more than a fractional part of the phenomena of the universe. On the other hand, if we reject the Nebular Hypothesis with all its absurdities, and adhere to the Bible, we must explain the source from which the heat and light necessary for vegetation was de- rived prior to the existence of the sun, moon and stars; and happily, as might have been expected, modern science comes to the support of the Bible by furnishing a solution of this problem. In dis- cussing this question we should bear in mind (1) That, 11 Heat and light are hut different intensities of the vibratory motions of matter .” (2) That in the movement of these great masses of matter which were concentrated in the earth and its enveloping firmament, an immense amount of heat was gener- ated, which raised the temperature of the earth’s surface, its waters, and its atmosphere to a point far too high to make it possible for plant life to have then existed on the globe. (3) That when the firmament which surrounds the earth was com- pleted on the second creative day, it confined the heat of the earth’s surface and its waters, and its atmosphere, to the earth, just as it confines the earth’s waters and its atmosphere to the earth to- day. This immense amount of heat had no means of escape save by abstraction from its contact with the intensely cold firmament above; this cooling process was necessarily very slow, and doubtless ex- 140 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. tended through that long period of time described in the Mosaic Record as the third day. Thus, by the abstraction of its excessive heat the earth was prepared for the introduction of plant life. (4) That the first event of the third creative day was the separation of the “dry land” from the waters that enveloped it; this was necessarily a slow pro- cess, and doubtless required ages for its accomplish- ment. (5) That during the period when the earth was enveloped in water, and for a long time after, the dry land was separated from the waters, the atmos- phere being at a high temperature, was saturated with water, for the disposition of air is to take up vapor from water with which it is brought in contact in proportion to its temperature. (6) That the in- troduction of plant life on the earth was the last event of the third creative day; and immediately preceded the opening of the fourth creative day. (7) That on the fourth creative day, the formation of the sun, moon and stars began. (8) That in the movement of these immense masses of matter of which the sun, moon and stars were formed, there was an enormous amount of heat generated; and that a great amount of this heat was radiated to every part of the earth’s surface, and stimulated the growth of the vegetation of the earth until the forma- tion of the celestial bodies was completed, when the heat from this formative process ended, and was compensated for by the heat derived from the sun. In addition to stimulating the growth of vegetation, the heat which resulted from the movement of mat- ter in the formation of the celestial bodies, doubtless THE TEMPTEE OF EVE. 141 retarded the cooling of the earth’s atmosphere, and contributed largely to prolonging that evenness of temperature at the earth’s surface which character- ized those early periods. (9) That in the move- ment of these great masses of matter which were concentrated in the celestial bodies in the process of their formation, there was a considerable amount of light — cosmic light — generated; and that an amount of this light, sufficient for the needs of vegetation, penetrated the vapors which then enveloped the earth, just as the rays of light from the sun after- wards did. Thus, with the aid of modern science, which teaches that heat and light are but different intensities of the vibratory motions of matter, we find that in the movement of these enormous masses of matter which were concentrated in the celestial bodies on the fourth creative day, we have the true source from which the heat and light necessary for vegetation, was derived at that remote period when plant life was introduced on our globe. To suppose that in the movement of those enormous masses of matter which were concentrated in the sun, moon and stars, neither heat nor light was generated, would compel us to reject the teach- ing of modern science that heat and light are hut different intensities of the vibratory motions of matter. The Bible plainly teaches that each of the six crea- tive days were distinct periods of time; and in the very nature of things, the line of demarcation be- tween them was sharply drawn. Hence, the ending of one of the creative days was instantly followed by its succeeding day; and thus the last event of the 142 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. one day was immediately followed by the first event of the succeeding day; for example: the introduc- tion of plant life — the last event of the third creative day, was immediately followed by the movement of matter in the process of its formation into the sun, moon and stars, on the fourth day, and in the movement of these immense masses of matter all the heat and light necessary for vegetation was pro- duced, when the vapors which enveloped the earth were dissipated in the latter part of the Carbonifer- ous Age, the “ two great lights ” at once entered upon the duties for which they were designed — “ for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.” This event is marked in the Geological Record by the appearance of concentric , or season rings on the forest growths of the Permian period; these season rings mark the advent of the seasons. The following definition of the term seasons is sufficiently accurate for our purpose, since it shows that the seasons produce the variations in climate, and consequently exert the most direct influence upon vegetation. Hence, prior to the advent of the seasons, the climate of the globe was identical from pole to pole — in fact, properly speaking, there was no such thing as climate; the temperature was the same on every portion of the earth’s surface, as shown by the fact that vegetation at the equator was identical with that at the poles: “Season. * * * “I. Lit. and Astron.: The alternations in the relative lengths of day and night, heat and cold, etc., which take place each year. * * * The THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 143 essential astronomical fact on which the recur- rence of the successive seasons depends is that the axis of the earth always points in the same direction, whatever portion of the orbit the earth may at the time be traversing. The inclination of the equator to the ecliptic is 23° 27'. On June 21st, when the sun is at the highest point of the ecliptic, the north pole necessarily inclines toward the sun, and is as much irradiated as it ever can be by his beams, whilst the south pole, on the contrary, is as little. It is therefore midsummer in the northern, and midwinter in the southern hemi- sphere. Six months later, December 21st, the south- ern pole points towards the sun. It is, therefore, now midwinter in the northern, and midsummer in the southern hemisphere. At the intermediate periods (March 21st. and September 21st.) the axis of the earth is at right angles to the direction of the sun; hence, in both hemispheres it is the equinox — the vernal at the former date in the northern, and at the latter in the southern hemisphere.” ( Universal Dic- tionary, p. 4, 170). After discussing the profuse vegetation of the Carboniferous Age, Dr. Kinns says of the Permian period: “In the Permian system the profuse vegeta- tion of the Carboniferous no longer existed; but the fossil remains of plants show a great increase of ligneous or woody tissue, which could only have been produced by the presence of unclouded sun- light. Most of the trees I described in the last chapter were of a soft and pulpy nature, with no season-rings, for huge trunks several feet in diame- 144 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. ter were found in the coal compressed and flattened where they lie in a horizontal or inclining position; season-rings, however, are found in the flora of the Trias and Secondary strata.” {Ibid, p. 188). Sir Robert S. Ball in discussing the sun, says: “In commencing our examination of the orbs which surround us, we naturally begin with our peerless sun. His splendid brilliance gives him the pre- eminence over all other celestial bodies. The di- mensions of our luminary are commensurate with his importance. “Astronomers have succeeded in the difficult task of ascertaining the exact figures, but they are so gigantic that the results are hard to realize. The diameter of the orb of day, or the length of the axis, passing through the center from one side to the other, is 865,000 miles. Yet this bare statement of the dimensions of the great globe fails to convey an adequate idea of its vastness. If a railway were laid round the sun, and if we were to start in an express train moving sixty miles an hour, we should have to travel for five years without intermission night or day before we had accomplished the journey. “When the sun is compared with the earth the bulk of our luminary is still more striking. Suppose his globe were cut up into one million parts, each of these parts would appreciably exceed the bulk of the earth. Were the sun placed in one pan of a mighty weighing balance, and were 300,000 bodies as heavy as our earth placed in the other, the luminary would turn the scale. * “The actual distance of the sun from the earth THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 145 is about 92,700,000 miles; but by merely reciting the figures we do not receive a vivid impression of the real magnitude. * * * It would be necessary to count as quickly as possible for three days and three nights before one million was completed; yet this would have to be repeated nearly ninety-three times before we had counted all the miles between the earth and the sun.” {The Story of the Heavens , pp. 26, 27, 28). Mr. Richard A. Proctor says: “In long past ages there were nations that wor- shiped the sun. He was their God; he seemed to them as a being of might, ‘ rejoicing as a giant to run his course,’ and capable not only of influencing the fortunes of men and nations, but of hearkening and responding to their prayers. A vain thought truly, for the creature was worshiped and the Creator for- gotten. Yet of all the forms of religion in which created things were worshiped sun-worship was the least contemptible. Indeed, if there is any object which men can properly take as an emblem of the power and goodness of Almighty God, it is the sun. “The sun is an emblem of the Almighty in be- ing the source whence all that lives upon the earth derives support. Our very existence depends on the beneficient supply of light and heat poured out continually upon the earth by the great central orb of the planetary scheme. Let the sun forget to shine for a single day, and it would be with us even as though God had forgotten our existence, or had remem- bered us only to punish; myriads of creatures now living on the earth would perish, uncounted millions 146 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. would suffer fearfully. But let the sun’s rays cease to be poured out for four or five days, and every living creature on the earth would be destroyed. Or, on on the other hand, even a worse (or at least more sudden and terrible) fate would befall us if an angel of wrath ‘ poured out his vial upon the sun, and power were given unto it to scorch men with fire.’ “Yet again the sun is an emblem of the Al- mighty in the manner in which he bestows benefits upon us and is forgotten. Day after day we enjoy the sun’s light and heat; clouds may conceal him from our view, much as troubles may cause us to forget God; and the heat he pours out may seem sometimes insufficient or excessive, even as in our ignorance we are dissatisfied with the blessings be- stowed by the Almighty. Yet these very clouds are among the good works we owe to the sun — they bring the rain which ‘drops fatness upon the earth;’ and without the changes of the season there would be neither the time of harvest nor the time of vin- tage. The cold of winter and the heat of summer, at which we often repine as excessive, are as neces- sary for our wants as the cool breeze and the genial warmth of spring or autumn. “We commonly forget, also, that the sun, be- sides sustaining us by his light-giving and heat-sup- plying powers, keeps us always near to him by that mighty force of attraction which his vast bulk en- ables him to exert. When we look at the sun as he rises (even as ‘ the glory of God coming from the way of the east’), how seldom is the thought pres- ent in our minds that in that ruddy orb there exists THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 147 the most tremenduous power, swaying not only this vast globe on which we live, but orbs yet vaster than she is, and traveling on far wider courses; that the light and heat which seem to be gathering forces as he rises, are in reality poured forth with fullness, even while as yet, owing to our position, we receive but little of them — nay, that during the dark hours of the night they have been poured forth abundantly upon the earth, and that so rich is the sun in power and beneficence, through the might of his Creator and ours, that our earth is nourished and supported by the two thousand millionth part of the heat and light which he pours forth! * * * “ If we would rightly measure the sun’s activity as a dispenser of God’s gifts of light and heat, we must consider what our earth receives. * * * It has been calculated that the heat received by the earth during twenty-four hours would be sufficient to raise an ocean 250 yards deep, covering the whole surface of the earth from the temperature of freezing water to that of boiling water. And this, be it remem- bered, is less than 2,000 millionth part of the heat which the sun pours out into space during the same interval of time. Ceaselessly the wonderful stream of heat-waves is poured out on all sides. So ener- getic is it that the heat emitted in a single second would suffice to boil 195 millions of cubic miles of ice-cold water. Or, to take another illustration, which recent experience as to the value of our coal supplies will bring home to many of us with peculiar force — in order to produce by the burning of coals the sup- ply of heat which we receive from the sun, there 148 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. would have to be consumed on every square yard of the sun’s surface no less than six tons of coal per hour; while, if a globe as large as our earth had to maintain such a supply of heat, it would be neces- sary that on every square yard of its surface more than three tons of coal should be consumed in every second of time.” {The Expanse of Heaven , pp. 11, 12, 13, 16, 17). In discussing the moon, Sir Robert S. Ball says: “ If the moon were suddenly struck out of exis- tence, we should be immediately apprised of the fact by a wail from every sea-port in the kingdom. From London and from Liverpool we should hear the same story — the rise and fall of the tide had al- most ceased. The ships in dock could not get out; the ships outside could not get in; and the maritime commerce of the world would be thrown into dire confusion. “ The moon is the principal agent in causing the daily ebb and flow of the tide, and this is the most im- portant work which our satellite has to do. The fleets of fishing boats around the coasts time their daily movements by the tide, and are largely indebted to the moon for bringing them in and of the harbor. Experienced sailors assure us that the tides are of the utmost service to navigation. * * * “ The brilliancy of the moon arises solely from the light of the sun which falls on the not self-lumi- nous substance of the moon. Out of the vast flood of light Avhich the sun pours forth with such prodi- gality into space the dark body of the moon inter- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 149 cepts a little, and of that little it reflects a small frac- tion to illuminate the earth. The moon sheds so much light, and seems so bright, that it is often diffi- cult at night to remember that the moon has no light, except what falls on it from the sun. Neverthe- less, the actual surface of the brightest full moon is perhaps not much brighter than the streets of London on a clear sunshiny day. * * * “ The brilliancy and apparent vast proportions of the moon arise from the fact that it is only 240, 000 miles away, which is a distance almost immeasur- ably small when compared with the distances between the earth and the stars. * * * When we meas- ure the actual diameters of the two globes, we find that of the earth to be 7,918 miles, and of the moon, 2,160 miles, so that the diameter of the earth is nearly four times greater than the diameter of the moon. If the earth were cut into fifty pieces, all equally large, then one of these pieces rolled into a globe would equal the size of the moon. The super- ficial extent of the moon is equal to about one-thir- teenth part of the surface of the earth. The hemis- phere our neighbor turns towards us exhibits an area equal to about one twenty-seventh part of the area of the earth. This, to speak approximately, is about double the actual extent of the continent of Europe. The average materials of the earth are, however, much heavier than those contained in the moon. It would take more than eighty globes, each as ponderous as the moon, to weigh down the earth.” ( The Story of the Heavens , pp. 49, 50, 51, 52) . 150 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. In discussing the moon, Mr. Proctor says: “ Although the sun must undoubtedly have been the first celestial object whose movements or aspect attracted the attention of men, yet it can scarcely be questioned that the science of astronomy had its real origin in the study of the moon. Her compara- tively rapid motion in her circuit around the earth afforded in very early ages a convenient measure of time. The month was, of course, in the first place, a lunar time-measure. The week , the earliest division of time (except the day alone) of which we have any record, had also its origin in the lunar motions.” ( The Moon , p. 1 ) . In further discussing the moon, Mr. Proctor says: “I have spoken of the reverence with which men in long past ages contemplated the sun. * * * And many nations worshipped him as a god. But with this worship there was commonly associated a subordinate worship of the moon; and among some nations the moon was esteeined the greater deity. “Our month, although not according with the lunar month, nevertheless had its origin in the study of the lunar motions, as indeed the name of this in- terval of time sufficiently indicates. I need hardly remind the reader, again, of the part which the moon takes in fixing the dates of the Jewish movable fes- tivals, while our own movable festivals in like man- ner depend on the moon’s motions, the Paschal full moon determining Easter Day, and the other movable feasts following accordingly. THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 151 “ The benefits rendered by the moon as a light- giver at night need hardly be insisted upon. Whe- well has well remarked, in his Bridgewater Treatise, that ‘ a person of ordinary feelings, who on a fine moonlight night’ (moonlit is the more correct expres- sion) ‘ sees our satellite pouring her mild radiance on field and town, path and moor, will probably not only be disposed to ‘bless the useful light,’ but also to believe that it was ‘ ordained ’ for that purpose. The great mathematician La Place adopted an op- posite view. Setting himself boldly, one ma}^ say defiantly, against the wholesome belief that there is method and design in the works of the Creator, he sneers at the belief of ‘those partisans of final causes who have imagined that the moon was given to the earth to afford light during the night.’ This ‘cannot be so,’ he remarked, ‘for we are often de- prived at the same time of the light of the sun and the moon,’ and he proceeds to show how the moon might so have been placed as to be always ‘ full,’ in other words, opposite the sun. * * * “La Place’s device, however, involves the ne- cessity of a moon of different size and distance. He shows how a moon about four times as far off as our moon realty is, would revolve around the earth in the same time the sun apparently does, and would present always a full aspect — if originally placed op- posite the moon. It is a slight objection to this imagined state of things that, for La Place’s moon to appear as large as ours, it should have a diameter about four times as great, and be in fact as large as 152 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. our earth, while the motions assigned to it require that it should not be more massive than the present moon. Thus it would have to be made of material exceedingly light, about sixty times lighter than the present substance of the moon. This would be about seventeen times lighter than water, and more than four times lighter than cork. We know of no such substance, and therefore it seems idle to dis- cuss further La Place’s daring notion. But this also may be remarked: that although such a moon as he described might for a very long period continue al- ways exactly opposite the sun, yet in the course of time this moon would gradually fall away from that position; for the motions both of the earth and of this imagined moon could not possibly remain absolutely uniform. Thus at length a time would come when this moon, instead of being always ‘ full,’ would be always ‘ new,’ that is, always on the same side as the sun, and so give no light at all, even if she did not eclipse the sun. “ On the whole, we may be content to accept the moon as we find her, and to ‘ bless her useful light,’ without being particular to inquire whether another moon might not have given us more light, or under more convenient conditions. * * * “It is clear that the action of the moon in rais- ing a great tidal wave is of important service to the inhabitants of the earth. It is probable, indeed, that the tides are absolutely necessary to preserve the ocean waters in a healthy condition by continual movement. But the tidal wave discharges special THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 153 services exceedingly important to mankind. The building and launching of ships would be rendered a task of much greater difficulty if it were not for the alternate rise and fall of the sea. No one, again, who is familiar with life at the seaside, and particu- larly in cities placed near the mouths of great tidal rivers, can fail to recognize abundant evidence of the importance of the variations of the sea’s level in many nautical and commercial processes. “ But perhaps the greatest benefit conferred by the moon on mankind is one which few are aware of. It may truly be said that each year hundreds of lives that would otherwise be endangered are rendered safe by her means. It is known then when our sea- men pass far beyond the sight of land, their safety depends on their observations of the celestial bodies. By such observations they are enabled to learn where they are, or, in technical words, their latitude and longitude — that is, their distance north or south of the equator, and their distance east or west of some fixed station, such as Greenwich. Now, their latitude is easily determined by observations of the sun or stars, whose altitude when due south depends solely on the latitude. But it is different with the longitude, for when we travel due east or west we do not find the apparent paths of the sun and stars changing at all. The only change which takes place is in the time at which the celestial bodies rise and set. It is, of course, noon when the sun is due south, wherever the observer may be (at least in our northern hemisphere) . But it is not Greenwich 154 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. noon, unless the observer is due north or south of Greenwich. If he is east of Greenwich it is past Greenwich noon when it is noon for the observer’s station, and if he is west of Greenwich it is before Greenwich noon when the sun is due south. If he has a clock showing Greenwich time he can thus learn how far east or west he may be. Now, the moon, properly observed, serves for the seaman the part of a clock which can never go wrong. The stars serve as the marks on the great dial plate of the heavens, by which the position of the moon — the moving hand — can be determined with the utmost nicety. Calculations are then applied to show precisely where the moon would be seen among the stars if the observer were at the center of the earth instead of at his actual station. And then a reference to the Nautical Almanac shows pre- cisely what is the Greenwich time. Thence the ob- server learns how far east or west he is of Green- wich. And often, after many cloudy nights have passed, the observation of the moon has shown the sailor that owing to currents and misjudged rate of sailing he has been far out in his reckoning; and he has been saved by the moon from a great danger. So that we may find a new meaning in the words of the inspired Psalmist: ‘They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; these see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep.’” (The Expanse of Heaven, pp. 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29). These are a few of the many important offices THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 155 which the celestial bodies perform for the earth, its plant and animal life, and for man; but their men- tion should be sufficient to enable us to realize how foolish, to say nothing of how ungrateful, it is for us to make common cause with atheists and infidels in their attempts to deprive God of the credit due Him for His works, by assigning their origin and operations to mere chance. CHAPTER VII. The Formation of the Animals and The Creation of Mind. “ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open fir- mament of heaven. “ And God created great whales, and every liv- ing creature that moveth, which the waters brought fourth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind, and God saw that it was good. “ And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. “ And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” (Gen. i, 20, 21, 22, 23). In the preceding chapter it was shown (1) that plant life preceded animal life on the globe. (2) That the three classes of forest plants — Sprout- age, Herb-bearing seed, and Fruit trees, made their appearance on the earth in the order stated in the Mosaic Record, but that these three classes of plants did not all make their appearance on the third cre- ative day, but only the first, and lowest class of these plants; and that the last, and highest class of 156 THE TEMPTER OF E7E, 157 plants — fruit bearing trees — did not make their ap- pearance until the Permian period, which occurred during the sixth creative day, as shown by the re- mains of land animals found among the vegetable remains of that period. Hence, the greatest event of the third creative day was the introduction on the earth of life — - plant life — in its simplest form. While the Mosaic Record is silent upon the subject, the Geological Record clearly shows that during the fourth creative day, in which the celestial bodies were formed, the plant life of the globe was confined to the simplest forms — the lowest class — of vegeta- tion — sproutage; and a moment’s reflection should convince us that it would require an immense period of time for the decomposed remains of such del- icate plants as sea-weeds, ferns, lichens, etc., to form a strata of soil of any considerable thickness. The slowness with which these delicate plants form a strata of earth of any great thickness explains the fact that the remains of the earliest animals are found associated with the remains of early plant life. Hence, the mere fact that we find remains of animals associated in some of the oldest stratas of the earth, is no evidence that plant life and animal life made their appearance on the earth simultane- ously; in fact the earliest stratas show only the re- mains of plant life, while the Mosaic Record teaches that a long period of time — the fourth creative day — intervened between the introduction of plant and animal life. The Geological Record sustains the Mosaic Record in its teachings that animal life as presented 158 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. in the fish, followed the introduction of plant life. Professor Dana, in discussing the life of the Lower Silurian, says: “The Primordial rocks have afforded evidence only of marine life. “ 1. Plants. Algae, or seaweeds, of the kind called Fuciods, are the only forms observed. The slabs of sandstone are sometimes covered through- out with veriform casts of what appear to be stems of this leathery kind of seaweed. Some of the fos- sils formerly regarded as indications of plants, are now believed to be worm-tracks or borings. But others show by their branching forms that the} 7 are true Fuciods. “ 2. Animals. The species observed are all in- vertibrates; they pertain to the four sub-kingdoms, Protozoans, Radiates, Mollusks, and Articulates.” {Manual of Geology , p. 169). It will be observed that our text describes two dis- tinct kinds of animals which were introduced upon the globe on the fourth creative day; the one to inhabit the waters, the other to “ fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” In the English version of our text, the Hebrew word tannin, which signifies great stretched-out sea monsters, is translated whales. Professor Dawson says : “It is interesting to know that the philologists trace a connection between tannin and the Greek teino, Latin tendo, and similar words, signifying to stretch or extend, in the Sanscrit, Gothic, and other languages, leading to the inference that the Hebrew THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. 159 word primarily denotes a lengthened or extended creature, which corresponds well with its application to the crocodile. Taking all the above facts in con- nection, we are quite safe in concluding that the creatures referred to by the word under considera- tion are literally reptilian animals; and from the special mention made of them, we may infer that, in their day, they were the lords of creation.” ( The Origin of the World , pp. 214, 215). Those huge monsters of the Triassic period, the Ichthyosaurus, and the Plesiosaurus, and others of their kind were doubtless the creatures referred to by the inspired writer. Fossil remains of the Ichthy- osaurus show it to have attained a length of thirty feet; the fossil remains of the largest Plesiosaurus known is in the museum of the Royal Society of Dublin, and measures twenty-three feet. Mr. Kinns says: “ Professor Owen says that he is justified in recording sixteen different species of the Plesi- osaurus; and it is to him, in his ‘Report on British Reptiles,’ I owe the information that the Ichthy- osaurus and Plesiosaurus were most probably cold- blooded animals and breathed atmospheric air.” ( Moses and Geology, p. 287). Before entering upon a discussion of the fowl, we desire to correct an error into which the atheists have led us by classing the Ichthyosaurus, Plesi- osaurus, and other amphibians with the Pterodactyl and other winged creatures under the general term, reptiles; thus placing representatives of two different kinds of flesh — that of the fish and fowl in one class. This is not only unscientific, but is antiscriptural in 160 THE TEMPTER OF EYE From Figuire, The World Before the Deluge. THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 161 that it conflicts with the Mosaic Record, which teaches that the fish, of which the amphibians are a part, were made to inhabit the waters; while the fowl, of which the Pterodactyl and other winged creatures of the kind are a part, were made to “fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven;” this classification of the atheist is also in direct con- flict with Paul’s teaching that, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and an- other of birds.” (I Cor. xv, 39). Thus, the in- spired Apostle teaches that there are four different kinds of flesh on the globe, and that the flesh of the fowl is as distinct from that of the water animals as if they inhabited different planets. This being true, it is a plain infringement upon God’s Plan of Cre- ation to place representatives of these two kinds of flesh in one class as reptiles. We also desire to call attention to another error into which the atheists have led us by placing cer- tain small animals — “ creeping things ” — belonging to the flesh of the fish, and that of the fowl, and that of the beast, in one class under the general term, in- sects. This classification is (1) unscientific, because it is false and misleading. (2) It is antiscriptural, because it is in conflict with the Mosaic Record which teaches that these creatures were designed for different spheres, a part of them having been made to inhabit the waters, another part to fly in the air, while the remainder were made to occupy the dry land; it is also in conflict with Paul’s teaching as to the four kinds of flesh, since it places representa- 162 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. tives of three different kinds of flesh in one class. (3) It restricts the term fowl to the birds or feath- ered tribe, thus destroying the harmony which exists between the Mosaic Record and the Geological Record, and brings them in conflict. The Mosaic Record teaches that the fowl preceded the land animals on the globe, while the Geological Record shows that the land animals preceded the feathered tribe on the globe. The first land animals and the first members of the feathered tribe made their ap- pearance in what is terned Mesozoic Time. Mesozoic Time is divided into three periods. “ Beginning with the earliest they are: 1. The Triassic Period; 2. The Jurassic Period; 3. The Critaceous or Chalk Period.” (Dana). The first land animals — repre- sentatives of the flesh of beasts — were marsupials , and made their appearance on the earth in the Tri- assic Period; while the first members of the feath- ered tribe appeared in the Jurassic Period. In de- scribing the life of the Jurassic Period as shown by its fossil remains, Mr. Dana says: “Birds occur fossil at Solenhofen, both their bones and impres- sions of their feathers.” ( Manual of Geology , p. 446). Thus, it is plain that, if we restrict the Bib- lical term fowl , to the feathered tribe, we at once bring the Mosaic Record in conflict with the Geolog- ical Record. But the Biblical term fowl has a wider significance and should not be restricted to the feathered tribe, as shown by the law given Israel, in which is named certain animals belonging to the three kinds of flesh which they might eat, and those which they should not eat. After naming certain THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 163 animals belonging to the flesh of beasts, and those of the fishes which it was lawful for the Israelites to eat, and others which it was unlawful for them to eat, the inspired writer names certain animals be- longing to the flesh of the fowl which it was lawful to eat, and others which it was unlawful to eat; among these we find the beetle, the grasshopper, the bat, etc. (See Levit. ii, 19, 22) . Thus we find that the beetle, the grasshopper, and the locust which, in common parlance are termed insects, are really fowl; while the bat, which scientists now class with amphibians as a reptile, is also a fowl. Thus, the Mosaic law throws a flood of light upon the Mosaic Record as to what animals are embraced under the term fowl, and indicates that all winged creatures which “ fly above the earth ” are fowl. This includes the neuroptera, coleoptera, or- thoptera, etc., which scientists class as insects. The neuropters and other small winged animals made their appearance in Paleozoic time, as did the bat family; the earliest representatives of the bat family were “ huge reptilian bats, veritable flying dragons with a spread of wings from ten to twenty feet.” {Alien) . Thus we are enabled (1) to appreciate the value of Paul’s teaching that, “ There is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds;” and to realize that at the close of the sixth creative day, every creature on the globe belonged to one or the other of these four kinds of flesh. (2) That with the aid of the Mosaic law we are enabled to determine that the small 164 THE TEMPTER OF EYE ■From Figuire, The World Before the Deluge. THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 165 winged animals which are commonly termed insects , as well as the large winged animals which are termed flying reptiles, are included in the biblical term fowl. (3) That the Geological Record sustains the Mosaic Record in its teaching that animal life made its first appearance on the globe in the fish; and that the introduction of the fowl followed that of the fish, thus preceding the land animals. During those immense periods of time described in the Mosaic Record as the first, second, third, and fourth days, the efforts of the Creator were confined to the handling of matter, in the production of light, the formation of the heavens and the earth, the in- troduction of plant life, and the formation of the celestial bodies. But the fifth day , unlike its prede- cessors, is distinguish by the introduction on that day, of a new element — a creation — which appeared for the first time in the material universe simultane- ously and in combination with matter as presented in the physical organism of the fish. The advent of this creation is described as follows: “And God cre- ated great whales, and every living creature which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind.” ( Gen. i, 21) . Theologians, and such scientists as accept the Bible, have agreed that this new element — this cre- ation — was animal life; this view of animal life finds no support in either the scriptures or the sciences. Life — physical life — is not a creation — neither plant life nor animal life, and the Mosaic Record does not describe it as such. But aside from the teachings of the scriptures and the sciences, it is easy to see 166 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. that there is not that difference between plant life and animal life, as would justify us in deciding that plant life was simply a combination of the elements inherent in matter, and that animal life was a creation distinct from matter. Both plant life and animal life have their germs, “ containing the same elements in the same proportions.” {Dana) . Each has its cir- culating fluid; its formative period; its youth; its maturity; its decline, and its final dissolution. Prof. Dana says: “The vegetable and animal kingdoms are the opposite, but mutually dependent sides or parts of one system of life. {Manual of Ge- ology, p. 115). This being true, it follows that, if life was a new element in the material universe, it would have been described as a creation, when plant life, which is simply “one side or part,” of the “ sys- tem ” first appeared on the earth; and since plant life, the first “side or part” of the life system to appear on the earth, is not described by the inspired writer as a creation, it would be absurd to suppose that ani- mal life, the other “side or part” of the “ system,” which afterwards appeared was a creation. In other words, if the elements of life was a creation distinct from matter, the inspired writer would have described them as such when they first appeared in the plant. That the elements of life are not creations distinct from matter, but are merely elements inherent in matter, is shown by the more detailed description of the origin of plants, given in the fourth and fifth verses of the second chapter of Genesis, as follows: “ These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 167 the Lord God made the earth and the heavens; and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew.” Thus, we are plainly taught that the elements of plant life, which are identical with those of ani- mal life, are merely parts of the original creation — matter; and that they were created in matter “in the beginning;” and consequently existed in matter prior to its formation into the earth. Thus, by cre- ating in the molecules of matter the elements of life, “the Lord God” made “every plant of the field be- fore it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew.” Hence, the combination of these original elements into plants and animals, and the first appearance of these on the earth were not crea- tions, and are not so described by the inspired writer. Further evidence that the elements of life — both plant and animal life — were not creations, but mere formations out of the original creation — matter — is shown by the identity of language used by the Lord in commanding the earth and the waters to bring forth plants and animals, as follows: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth sprout- age, 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. “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life; * * * and it was so. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind; * * * and it was so.” (Gen. i, 11, 20, 24). 168 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. What “was so”? Simply that, in obedience to Divine command the earth and the waters combined the elements of life and brought forth plants and animals. Inasmuch as the “ system of life ” is not a crea- tion, we must seek elsewhere for the new element — the creation — which made its appearance on the fifth creative day in combination with matter as presented in the physical organism of the fish. To accomplish this, we must first ascertain what charac- ter pre-eminently distinguished not only the highest, but the lowest order of animal from the plant. In discussing this question, Prof. Dana says: “Plants have no consciousness of self, or of other existences; animals are conscious of an outer world, and even the lowest show it by avoiding obstacles. {Ibid, p. 116 ). The physical organism of the fish is merely a combination of the elements of matter; but conscious- ness is a something distinct from matter, as shown by the fact that it does not exist in light, nor in the heavens, nor in the luminaries; it was a new ele- ment which God introduced into the material uni- verse on the fifth creative day. Hence, the inspired writer describes it as a creation. But what is con- sciousness? Mr. Webster defines it as, “The know- ledge of sensations, or what passes in one’s own mind.” ( Unabridged Dictionary ) . Consciousness is, “ The power, faculty, or mental state of being aware of one’s own existence, condition at the moment, thoughts, feelings, and actions.” {Uni- versal Dictionary ) . THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 169 Inasmuch as consciousness is always associated with mind, and is never found in separation from it, we are forced to recognize it as one of the many attributes of mind; and inasmuch as the animal’s possession of mind is the character which pre-emi- nently distinguishes the animal from all that pre- ceded it in the universe, we must decide that this new element — this creation — which God introduced into the material universe on the fifth creative day, in combination with matter as presented in the physical organisms of the first animals, was mind in its simplest form. Hence all animals possess mind in greater or less degree. Thus, while observation may acquaint us with many of the attributes of mind and its possibilities, the Bible alone gives us a knowledge of the origin of mind; that it is one of the three creations of which the universe is composed. This invaluable knowledge must have been one of man’s earliest possessions, and was doubtless revealed by God to Adam, who transmitted it in his “book of precepts” to his descendants. But when Adam’s “book” and its teachings were disregarded and lost, this knowl- edge was also lost; and for ages man remained in ig- norance upon this subject, until it was restored to him by the inspired writer of Genesis. It was doubtless retained by those who adhered to the Bible, until the dispersion of the Israelites from Judea, and the descent of the whole world of mankind into the atheism, ignorance, and superstition of the Dark Ages, which followed the crucifixion of the Saviour, when it was again lost, or rather forgotten, for it re- 170 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. mained a matter of scriptural record; but for centu- ries its existence was overlooked, until, in the year 1898, we called attention to it in our first publi- cation.* During the many centuries in which the teachings of the Bible that there are three crea- tions — Matter, Mind, and Soul — were forgotten by men, the mind creation and the soul creation were confused, and the terms mind and soul were employed indiscriminately to describe the mind; at the same time there were many who rejected the atheistic theory of man’s descent from the ape, and insisted upon the scriptural teaching that there is no kinship between man and the animals ; that man possesses immortality, while the animal is merely mortal; that man is an heir to eternity, while the animal is simply a creature of time. These people desired to distinguish between man and the animal, but they had been misled into believing that mind and soul were identical; and that the “mind or soul” was the immortal part of man. Their accept- ance of this error naturally led them into the further error of supposing that mind was peculiar to man; that he alone possessed the faculty of reason; and that the animals possess mere instinct. But, as a matter of fact, instinct is merely one of the attributes of the mind, and is common to man and the animals. This antiscriptural theory that Mind and Soul are identical; that the mind is the immortal part of man, leading as it inevitably does, to the conclusion that mind is peculiar to man, and that the animal * “ The Negro not the son of Ham, or, Man not a species divisible into Races.” THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 171 possesses mere instinct , has proved most pernicious, since it did much toward destroying the distinctions which God made between man and the animals, and led us to accept into the Adamic family as a “ man and a brother” a creature whom God made an ape; this assault upon God’s plan of creation led to amal- gamation with this animal; and amalgamation — that crime of crimes — has not only depopulated nations, but continents of their Adamic stock, and has damned millions upon millions of souls. The fallacy of this theory that mind is peculiar to man, and that animals possess mere instinct, has long since been exposed; the most competent obser- vers are now agreed that mind is common to man and the animals. Hence, both man and the animals possess the faculty of reason , the difference between them in this respect being merely one of degree. In discussing this subject, Mr. Darwin says: “ Of all the faculties of the human mind, it will, I presume, be admitted that Reason stands at the summit. Only a few persons now dispute that ani- mals possess some power of reasoning. Animals may constantly be seen to pause, deliberate and re- solve. It is a significant fact, that the more the habits of any particular animal are studied by a nat- uralist, the more he attributes to reason and the less to unlearned instincts. * * * No doubt it is often difficult to distinguish between the power of reason and that of instinct. For instance, Dr. Hays, in his work on ‘ The Open Polar Sea,’ repeatedly re- marks that his dogs, instead of continuing to draw sledges in / compact body, diverged and separated 172 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. when they came to thin ice, so that their weight might be more evenly distributed. This was often the first warning which the travelers received that the ice was becoming thin and dangerous. Now, did the dog act thus from the experience of each indi- dual, or from the example of the older and "wiser dogs, or from an inherited habit, that is from in- stinct? ::: ::: ::: We can only judge by the cir- cumstances under which actions are performed, whether they are due to instincts, or to reason, or to the mere association of ideas; this latter principle, however, is intimately connected with reason. A curious case is given by Professor Mobius, of a pike, separated by a plate of glass from an adjoining aqua- rium stocked with fish, and who often dashed him- self with such violence against the glass in trying to catch the other fishes, that he was sometimes com- pletely stunned. The pike went on thus for three month, but at last learned caution, and ceased to do so. The plate of glass was then removed, but the pike would not attack these particular fishes, though he would devour others which were afterwards intro- duced; so strongly was the idea of a violent shock associated in his feeble mind with the attempt on his former neighbors. If a savage, who had never seen a large plate-glass window, were to dash him- self even once against it he would for a long time afterwards associate a shock with a window frame; but very differently from the pike; he would prob- ably reflect on the nature of the impediment, and be cautious under analogous circumstances. Now, with monkeys, as we shall presently see, a painful or dis- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 173 agreeable impression, from an action once per- formed, is sometimes sufficient to prevent the ani- mal from repeating it. If we attribute this differ- ence between the monkey and the pike solely to the association of ideas being so much stronger and more persistent in one than the other, though the pike often received much the more serious injury, can we maintain in the case of man that a similar difference implies the possession of a fundamently different mind? “Houzeau relates* that, while crossing a wide and arid plain in Texas, his two dogs suffered greatly from thirst, and that between thirty and forty times they rushed down the hollows to search for water. These hollows were not valleys, and there were no trees in them, or any other difference in vegetation; and, as they were absolutely dry, there could have been no smell of damp earth. The dogs behaved as if they knew that a dip in the ground offered them the best chance of finding water, and Houzeau has often witnessed the same behavior in other animals. “ I have seen, as I dare say have others, that when a small object is thrown on the ground beyond the reach of one of the elephants in the zoological gar- dens, he blows through his trunk on the ground beyond the object so that the current reflected on all sides may drive the object within his reach. Again, a well-known ethnologist, Mr. Westropp, in- forms me that he observed in Vienna a bear deliber- ately making with his paw a current in some water, which was close to the bars of his cage, so as to * “ Faculites Mentales, 1S72. tom. ii, p. 265.’" 174 THE TEMPTEK OF EVE. draw a piece of floating bread within his reach. These actions of the elephant and bear can hardly be attributed to instinct, as they would be of little use to an animal in a state of nature. Now, what is the difference between such actions, when performed by an uncultivated man, and by one of the higher animals? “The savage ana the dog have often found water at a low level, and the coincidence under such circumstances has become associated in their minds. A cultivated man would perhaps make some general proposition on the subject; but from all we know of savages, it is extremely doubtful whether they would do so, and a dog certainly would not. But a savage, as well as a dog, would search in the same w'ay, though frequently disappointed, and in both it seems to be equally an act of reason, whether or not any general proposition on the subject is consciously placed before the mind. The same would apply to the elephant, and the bear making currents in the water. The savage certainly would neither know nor care by what law the desired movements were affected; yet his act would be guided by a rude pro- cess of reasoning, as surely as would be a philoso- pher in his longest chain of deductions. There would no doubt be this difference between him and one of the higher animals; that he would take no- tice of much slighter circumstances and conditions, and would observe any connection between them after much less experience, and this would be of paramount importance. I kept a daily record of the actions of one of my infants, and when it was about THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 175 eleven months old, and before he could speak a sin- gle word, I was continually struck with the greater quickness with which all sorts of objects and sounds were associated together in his mind, compared with that of the most intelligent dogs I ever knew. But the higher animals differ in exactly the same way in this power of association from those low in the scale, such as the pike, as well as in that of drawing inferences and of observation. “ The promptings of reason, after very short ex- perience, are well shown by the following actions of American monkeys, which stand low in their order. Rengger, a most careful observer, states that when he first gave eggs to his monkeys in Paraguay they smashed them and thus lost much of their con- tents; afterward they gently hit one end against some hard body, and picked off the bits of shell with their fingers. After cutting themselves only once with any sharp tool, they would not touch it again, or they would handle it with the greatest cau- tion. Lumps of sugar were often given them wrapped up in paper; and Rengger sometimes put a live wasp in the paper, so that in hastily unfolding it they got stung; after this had once happened they always first held the packet to their ears to detect any movement within. * * * Mr. Belt, in his most interesting- work {The Naturalist in Nicaragua, 1874, p. 119), likewise describes various actions of a tamed Cebus, which, I think, clearly show that this animal pos- sessed some reasoning power. “The following cases relate to dogs: Mr. Col- quhoun winged two wild ducks, which fell on the 176 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. farther side of a stream; his retriever tried to bring over both at once, but could not succeed; she then, though never before known to ruffle a feather, de- liberately killed one, brought over the other, and re- turned for the dead bird. Col. Hutchinson relates that two partridges were shot at once, one being killed, the other wounded; the latter ran awaj’ and was caught by the retriever, who on her return came across the dead bird; ‘she stopped, evidently greatly puzzled, and after one or two trials, finding she could not take it up without permitting the es- cape of the winged bird, she considered a moment, then deliberately murdered it by giving it a severe crunch, and afterward brought away both together. This was the only known instance of her ever having willfully injured any game.’ ( Dog Breaking, 1850, p. 46) . Here we have reason, though not quite per- fect, for the retriever might have brought the wounded bird first and then returned for the dead one, as in the case of the two wild ducks. I give the above cases as resting on the evidence of two inde- pendent witnesses, and because in both cases the re- trievers, after deliberation, broke through a habit which is inherited by them (that of not killing the game retrieved) , and because they show how strong their reasoning faculty must have been to overcome a fixed habit, “ I will conclude by quoting a remark by the il- lustrious Humboldt: ‘The muleteers in South America say, I will not give you the mule whose step is easiest, but la mas racional — the one that rea- sons best;’ and, as he adds, ‘this popular expression, THE TEMPTER OE EYE. 177 dictated by long experience, combats the system of animated machines better perhaps than all the argu- ments of speculative philosophy.’ Nevertheless some writers even yet deny that the higher animals possess a trace of reason; and they endeavor to ex- plain away by what appears to be mere verbage, all such facts as those above given. “ It has, I think, now been shown that man and the higher animals, especially the primates, have some instincts in common. All have the same senses, intuitions and sensations — similar passions, affections, and emotions; even the more complex ones, such as jealousy, suspicion, emulation, grati- tude, and magnanimity; they practice deceit and are revengeful; they are sometimes susceptible to ridicule, and even have a sense of humor; they feel wonder and curiosity; they possess the same facul- ties of imitation, attention, deliberation, choice, mem- ory, imagination, the association of ideas and reason, though in very different degrees. The individuals of the same species graduate in intellect from abso- lute imbecility to high excellence. They are also liable to insanity, though far less often than in the case of man. * * * “ It has often been said that no animal uses any tool; but the chimpanzee in a state of nature cracks a native fruit, somewhat like a walnut, with a stone. Rengger easily taught an American monkey thus to break open hard palm nuts; and afterwards of its own accord it used stones to open other kinds of nuts, as well as boxes. It thus also removed the soft rind of fruit that had a disagreeable flavor. 178 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Another monkey was taught to open the lid of a large box with a stick, and afterwards it used the stick as a lever to move heavy bodies; and I have myself seen a young orang put a stick into a cre- vice, slip his hand to the other end, and use it in a proper manner as a lever. The tamed elephants in India are well known to break off branches of trees and use them to drive away the flies; and this same act has been observed in an elephant in a state of nature. I have seen a young orang, when she thought she was going to be whipped, cover and protect herself with a blanket of straw. In these several cases stones and sticks were employed as implements; but they are likewise used as weapons. Brehm (‘ Thierleben,’ B. i, s. 79, 82) states, on the authority of the well-known traveler Schimper, that in Abyssinia, when the baboons belonging to one species ( C . gelada ) descend in troops from the mountains to plunder the fields, they sometimes en- counter troops of another species ( C . hamadryas), and then a fight ensues. The geladas roll down great stones, which the Hamadryas try to avoid, and then both species, making a great uproar, rush furiously against each other. Brehm, when accompanying the Duke of Coburg-Gotha, aided in an attack with fire-arms on a troop of baboons in the pass of Mensa in Abyssinia. The baboons in return rolled so many stones down the mountain, some as large as a man’s head, that the attackers had to beat a hasty retreat, and the pass was actually closed for a time against the caravan. It deserves notice that these baboons thus acted in concert. Mr. Wallace (‘The Malay THE T EMP TER OF EYE. 179 Archipelago,’ Vol. i, 1869, p. 87), on three occasions saw female orangs, accompanied by their young, breaking off branches and the great spiney fruit of the Durian tree, with every appearance of rage; causing such a shower of missies as effectually kept us from approaching too near the tree. As I have repeatedly seen, a chimpanzee will throw any object at hand at a person who offends him. * * * “ In the Zoological Gardens, a monkey, which had weak teeth, used to break open nuts with a stone; and I was assured by the keepers that after using the stone he hid it in the straw, and would not let any other monkey touch it. Here, then, we have the idea of property; but this idea is common to every dog with a bone, and to most or all birds with their nests.” {The Descent of Man , pp. 84, 85, 86, 87, etc). After referring to the resemblances between the anatomy of man and the superior order of apes, Prof. Quatrefags says: “Passions, sentiments and characters establish between ourselves and animals equally close relations. The animal loves and hates; we recognize in it irritability and jealousy; unweary- ing patience, and immutable confidence. In our domestic species, these differences are more appar- ent, or perhaps we only notice them more closely. Who has not known dogs which have been playful or snappish, affectionate or savage, cowardly or courageous, friendly with everybody, or exclusive in their affections. “Again, man has true instincts, were it only that of sociability. Faculties, however, of this order, 180 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. which are so fully developed in certain animals, in man are evidently very much reduced in comparison with the intelligence. “The relative development of the latter cer- tainly establishes an enormous difference between man and animal. It is not, however, the intensity of a phenomenon which gives value to it from our point of view, but simply its nature. The question is whether human intelligence and animal intelli- gence can be considered as of the same order. “As a rule, philosophers, psychologists, and theologians have replied in the negative, and natur- alists in the affirmative. This opposition can be easily understood. The former make the human mind, considered as an indivisible whole, their prin- cipal study, and attribute to it all our faculties. Unable to deny the similarity, external at least, be- tween certain animal and human acts, and yet being anxious to clearly distinguish man from the brute, they have given to the acts different interpretations as they have been performed by one or the other. Naturalists have regarded the phenomena more closely without thinking of anything else, and when they have seen the animals behave in the same manner as they themselves would have done under the given circumstances, they have concluded that the motives must be fundamentally the same. I must ask permission to remain a naturalist, and to recall some facts, and regard them from this point of view. “ The theologians themselves allow that the ani- mal possesses sensation, formation, and association of THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 181 images, imagination, and passion. (R. P. de Bonniot) . They allow that the animal feels the relation of fitness or of unfitness between sensible objects and his own senses; that it experiences sensible attractions and repulsions, and acts perfectly in consequence, and that in this sense the animal reasons and judges. (l’Adde A. Lecompte) . Therefore, they add, we cannot doubt but that the animal possesses a principle superior to that of mere matter, and we may even give it the name of mind. (R. P. Bonniot) . But in spite of all, theologians and philosophers maintain that the animal cannot be intelligent, because it has neither innate sense , consciousness , nor reason. “Let us leave for a moment the last term, with which the idea of phenomena which we shall pres- ently discuss, is connected in the mind of our op- ponents. Is it true that animals are wanting in innate sense, and are not conscious of their actions? Upon what facts of observation does this opinion rest? We each one of us feel that we possess this sense, that we enjoy this faculty. By means of speech we can convey to another the results of our personal experience. But this source of informa- tion is wanting when we come to deal with animals. Neither in them nor in ourselves are innate sense and consciousness revealed to the outer world by any special characteristic movement. It is, there- fore, only by interpreting these movements, and by judging from ourselves, that we can form an idea of the motives from which the animal acts. “Proceeding in this manner, it seems to me im- possible to refuse to allow animals a certain amount 182 THE TEMPTEB OF EVE. of consciousness of their actions. Doubtless they do not form such an exact estimate of them, as even an illiterate man can do. ■ But we may be very cer- tain that when a cat is trying to catch sparrows on the level ground, and creeps along the hollows, avail- ing herself of every tuft of grass, however small, she knows what she is about, just as well as the hunter who glides in a crouching attitude from one bush to another. We may be equally sure that kittens and puppies, when they fight, growl and bite without hurting each other, know very well that they are playing, and not in earnest. “ I must beg permission to relate the remem- brance of my struggles with a mastiff of pure breed, and which had attained full size, remaining, however, very young in character. We were very good friends, and often played together. As soon as ever I as- sumed an attitude of defense before him, he would leap upon me with every appearance of fury, seizing in his mouth the arm which I had used as a shield. He might have marked my arm deeply at the first 11 onset, but he never pressed it in a manner that could inflict the slightest pain. I often seized him by his lower jaw with my hand, but he never used his teeth so as to bite me. And yet the next moment the same teeth would indent a piece of wood I tried to tear away from them. “ This animal evidently knew what it was doing when it feigned the passion precisely opposite to that which it really felt; when, even in the excitement of play, it retained sufficient mastery over its move- ments to avoid hurting me. In reality it played a THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 183 part in a comedy, and we cannot act without- being- conscious of it.” ( The Human Species, pp. 18, 19, 20 , 21 ). Mr. Darwin relates the following incident to which Sir Andrew Smith, a zoologist “ of scrupulous accuracy,” was an eye witness: “ At the Cape of Good Hope an officer had often plagued a certain baboon, and the animal, seeing him approaching one Sunday for parade, poured water into a hole and hastily made some thick mud, which he skillfully dashed over the officer as he passed by, to the amusement of many bystanders. For long afterward the baboon rejoiced and triumphed whenever he saw his vic- tim.” {Ibid, p. 78) . Had this officer “plagued” some ten year-old boy, who retaliated upon him as the baboon did, would we have attributed the boy’s actions to in- stinct f When man and the animal perform the same actions under the same circumstances, how unreasonable it is in us to decide that the former was actuated by reason, while the latter was guided by mere instinct. In discussing the acts of the gibbon ape, Prof. Huxley says: “Duvancel affirms that he has seen the females carry their young to the water side and there wash their faces. They are gentle and affec- tionate in captivity — full of tricks and pettishness, like spoiled children, and yet not devoid of a certain conscience, as an anecdote told by Mr. Bennett ( Wanderings in New South Wales, p. 156), will show. It would appear that his gibbon had a pecu- liar inclination for disarranging things in the cabin. 184 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Among these articles a piece of soap would especi- ally attract his notice, and for the removal of this he had been once or twice scolded. 1 One morning/ says Mr. Bennett, ‘ I was writing, the ape being present in the cabin, when casting my eyes towards him, I saw the little fellow taking the soap. I watched him without his perceiving that I did so; and he occasionally would cast a furtive glance to- wards the place where I sat. I pretended to write; he, seeing me busily occupied, took the soap, and moved away with it in his paw. When he had walked half the length of the cabin, I spoke quietljq without frightening him. The instant he found I saw him he walked back again, and deposited the soap nearly in the same place from whence he had taken it. There was certainly more than instinct in that action; he evidently betrayed a consciousness of having done wrong both by his first and last ac- tion — and what is reason if that is not an exercise of it?” ( Man's Place in Nature, pp. 43, 44, 45) . The facts above cited fully sustain our conten- tion that reason , one of the loftiest faculties of the mind, is possessed by the animals in greater or less degree; that mind is a creation distinct from matter; that mind made its appearance in combination with matter in the physical organization of the fish on the “ fifth day ” of the cosmogonic week. The advo- cates of the modern theory, that reason is peculiar to man, also insist that conscience, that ever alert moni- tor that rebukes us for our misdeeds, is also peculiar to man; but conscience, like reason, is simply one of the attributes of mind, and the animals possess it THE TEMPTEK OE EYE. 185 in a greater or less degree, as shown by the follow- ing incident, quoted in Anthropology for the People . The author says: “A late report of something like the conscience of the human being in an animal is the following, for which the New York Commercial Advertiser , June, 1889 is responsible: “ Spring brings the turnpike musicians and monkeys in great numbers. While one pair of these were giving a concert on Main Street in Carbondale, Pa., to a crowd of youngters and two inebriate coun- trymen, one of the men gave the monkey a cent, for which it doffed its cap jauntily. Then the coun- tryman teased the little animal until at last it bur- ied its teeth in the man’s finger to the bone. When the blood gushed from the wound the monkey looked regretfully at the finger, then into the man’s face, and handed back his money. No amount of per- suasion would induce the penitent animal to again accept the coin, though it was repeatedly offered, and though he accepted money from others all around him.” Commenting on the actions of this little monkey in returning his victim’s money, the author of An- thropology for the People , says: “ We venture the as- sertion that a more satisfactory proof of the exist- ence of conscience cannot be found among African savages.” In this opinion we heartily concur. The conscience-smitten little animal not only manifested regret for the injury he had inflicted on his perse- cutor, but did all in his power to make compensa- tion. CHAPTER VIII. Cattle, Creeping Things, and Beasts — the Ape a Biped. “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things and beast of the earth after his kind, and it was so. “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Gen. i, 24, 25). It will be observed that God treats the land animals, with many of which man is to be closely as- sociated in his daily life, very differently from the manner in which He treats the “fowls of the air” or the “fish of the sea,” in that He divides them into three classes: cattle , creeping things , and beasts. This classification is observed throughout the scriptures. It will also be observed that God commanded the earth to “bring forth” the land animals in the order stated: (1) cattle, (2) creeping things, (3) beasts. Modern theologians, both Jew and Gentile, who have noticed this peculiar classification, and have attempted to explain it, consider that the broad dis- tinction which God makes between the cattle and the beasts, is due to the difference in the food upon which these animals subsist; that the cattle are herbivorous animals, and the beasts are carnivorous animals. 186 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 187 Prof. Guyot says: “In the tertiary the herbivo- rous animals, domesticated by man, are named cat- tle; while the others, including the carnivorous, are called wild beasts, and the smaller ones, the creep- ing things.” ( Creation , p. 119). Chancellor Dawson says: “1. The first tribe of animals noticed here is named b’hemcih, “cattle” in our version, and in the Septuagint “ quadrupeds,” in one of the verses, and “cattle” in the other. Both of these senses are of common occurrence in the scriptures, cattle or domesticated animals being us- ually designated by this word; while in other pas- sages, as in I Kings iv, 33, where Solomon is said to have written a treatise on “ beasts, fowls, creeping things and fishes,” it appears to include all the mammalia. Notwithstanding this wide range of meaning, however, there are passages, and these of the greatest authority in reference to our present subject, in which it strictly means the herbivorous mammals, and which show that when it was neces- sary to distinguish these from the predaceous or car- nivorous tribes, this term was specially employed. In Leviticus xi, 22-27, we have a specification of all the Behemoth that might and might not be used for food. It includes all the true ruminants, with the coney, the hare, and the hog, animals of the rodent and pachydermatous orders. The carnivorous quad- rupeds are designated by a different generic term. In this chapter of Leviticus, therefore, which con- tains the only approach to a system in natural his- tory to be found in the Bible, b’hemah is strictly a synonym for herbivora, including especially ungu- 188 THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. latis and rodents. That this is its proper meaning here is confirmed by the considerations that in this place it can denote but a part of the land quadru- peds, and that the idea of cattle or domesticated ani- mals would be an anachronism. At the same time there need be no objection to the view that the special capacity of ruminants and other herbivora for domestication is connected with the use of the the word in this place. “2. The word remes, ‘creeping things’ in our version, as we have already shown, is a very general term, refering to the power of motion possessed by animals, especially on the surface of the ground. It here in all probabilit}^ refers to the additional types of terrestrial reptiles, and other creatures lower than the mammals introduced in this period. “The compound term {hay’th-eretz) which I have ventured to render ‘ carnivora,’ is literally ani- mal of the land; but though thus general in its mean- ing, it is here evidently intended to denote a partic- ular tribe of animals inhabiting the land, and not in- cluded in the scope of the two words already noticed. In other parts of scripture this term is used in the sense of a ‘ wild beast.’ In a few places, like the other terms already noticed, it is used of all kinds of animals, but that above stated is its general mean- ing; and perfectly accords with the requirements of the passage. “The creation of the sixth day therefore in- cludes — first, the herbivorous mammalia; second, a variety of terrestrial reptilia, and the other lower forms not included in the work of the previous day; THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 189 third, the carnivorous mammalia.” ( The Origin of the World , pp. 231, 232). We agree with Chancellor Dawson upon certain points in his argument, and disagree with him upon other points, as follows: 1. We agree with him that the land animals are divided into three classes, translated in the English version of the Bible, “cattle,” “creeping things,” and “ beasts.” 2. That remes, translated “ creeping things ” in our version, describes a variety of animal forms which made their appearance on the earth, inter- mediate between the cattle and the beasts. 3. We agree with him that the term “beast of the earth,” in our version, is not in this case “gen- eral in its meaning;” that is, it is not a general term intended to include all the land animals. 4. We disagree with him in his opinion that the term “beast of the earth” in our version, is “ intended to denote a particular tribe of animals in- habiting the land.” On the contrary, we hold, and shall hereafter show, that the term “ beast of the earth,” denotes a particular member of a tribe of ani- mals after whose kind — the beast kind — it was made; and that this class of animals — the beast kind are as distinct from the “ cattle,” as they are from the “ creeping things.” We shall also show that these three classes of animals — “ cattle,” “ creeping things,” and “beasts,” made their appearance on the earth in the order stated. 5. We disagree with him in his opinion that the “ cattle ” are herbivorous animals, and that the 190 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. “ beasts ” are carnivorous animals, for the following reasons: (1) Because there are numerous animals — some among our domesticated animals — which are both herbivorous and carnivorous , that is, omnivorous; consequently they cannot be classed with either the herbivores or the carinvores, and all attempts to do so would beget endless disorder and confusion, which is the opposite of that perfect order and harmony which characterizes all of God’s works. (2) Because it brings the Mosaic Record with its teaching that the “ cattle ” were the first land animals to appear, in direct conflict with the Geological Record and its teaching, that the first land animals to appear on the earth were insect eating marsupials ( Droma - therium sylvestre) — carnivores. (3) The error in which Mr. Dawson and his fellow theologians, both Jew and Gentile, have fallen on this subject is clear- ly shown by the presence of these animals which are both herbivorous and carnivorous , that is, omniv- orous , and consequently cannot be fairly classed as herbivores or carnivores. 6. We insist that the distinction which God makes between the “ cattle ” and the “ beasts ” is not based upon the nature of the food upon which these animals subsist; but the distinction between “cattle” and “ beasts” is based solely on the differ- ences in their physical structures that the “ cattle ” are quadrupeds , and the “beasts” are bipeds. We feel assured that every unprejudiced mind will agree with us that there is a broader, more permanent dis- tinction between the quadruped animal and the biped animal than could possibly exist between the herbiv- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 191 orous animal and the carnivorous animal; and the preference which should be given our view upon this subject over those o i the modern theologians is greatly enhanced by tne presence of that numerous class of animals, which are both herbivorous and car- nivorous; and which cannot be fairly classed with either the herbivores, or the carnivores. Hence, the presence of these omnivorous animals practically destroys the accepted distinction between “cattle” and “ beasts ” — that the former are herbivorous, and the latter are -carnivorous animals — and necessitates the creation of a third class for the omnivorous. This we have no authority to do. The Mosaic Rec- ord divides the higher animals into two classes, “ cattle” and “beasts;” and every one of these ani- mals belongs in one or the other of these two classes. Our contention that the distinction which the inspired writer makes between the “ cattle ” and the “ beasts ” is due to the fact that the former are quad- rupeds, and the latter bipeds, has the following advan- tage: (1) It recognizes the broad, impassible gulf which Goci created between the quadruped and the biped. (2) Since there is no animal which is at once a quadruped and a biped, it enables us to place all the higher animals in two classes, without reference to whether they are herbivorous, carnivorous, or om- nivorous. (3) It harmonizes the teachings of the Mosaic Record with those of the Geological Record as to tne order in which the three classes of land animals made their appearance on the earth. (1) “ Cattle ” ( quadrupeds ) . (2) “ Creeping things,” a 192 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. variety of animal form. (3) “ Beasts ” (bipeds — apes) . The quadrupeds and the bipeds present the strongest contrast to each other in their general physical and mental organisms; but more especially in their extremities or limbs and in the termina- tions of their limbs, and in their posture. The quadrupeds (“cattle”) are that class of animals whose fore extremities or limbs are legs , which terminate in hoofs, or paws, as the case may be; their posture when standing or walking is on “ all fours.” The bipeds (“ beasts”) are that class of animals, each of whose fore or upper extremities is an arm, which terminates in a hand; and each of whose hinder or lower extremities is a leg which termi- nates in a foot; they also have the erect posture, or the ability to assume it at will. Prof. Huxley, in discussing the habits of the so-called “anthropoid or man-like ape,” says: “ There is good testimony that various species of gibbon readily take to the erect posture. Mr. George Bennett ( Wanderings in New South Wales, Yol. II, chap, viii) , a very excellent observer, in describing the habits of a male Hylohates syndac- tylus which remained for some time in his pos- session, says: ‘He invariably walks in the erect posture when on a level surface. * * * ' He walks rather quick in the erect posture, but with a waddling gait, and is soon run down if, whilst pur- sued, he has no opportunity of escaping by climb- ing. * * * ‘ When he walks in the erect posture, THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 193 he turns the leg and foot outwards, which occasions him to have a waddling gait and to seem bow- legged.’ “Dr. Burroughs states of another gibbon, the Horlack or Hooluk: “ ‘They walk erect; and when placed on the floor, or in an open field, balance themselves very prettily by raising their hands over their head and slightly bending the arm at the wrist and at the elbow, and then run tolerably fast, rocking from side to side.’ ” ( Man's Place in Nature , pp. 39, 40) . The evident fact that the “cattle” are quadru- peds; and that the “beasts” or apes are bipeds must have been known to the ancients in the ages which immediately followed the Deluge; but when the great bulk of mankind renounced monotheism, in their descent to atheism, amalgamation, and poly- theism, this fact, together with other invaluable knowledge, was lost. But in the course of time, God in His mercy took pity on their ignorance, and restored this long lost truth to the world through Moses; it was doubtless retained by the Jews and many Gentiles, until after the crucifixion, the dis- persion of the- Jews, and the decent of both Jew and Gentile, under the curses of God, into that frightful period in the world’s history, known as the “ Dark Ages,” in which ignorance, superstition, and crime reigned supreme, when it was again lost. It is evi- dent that during the “ Dark Ages,” the term “ cattle” (b’hemah ) , was restricted to a few of our domestic animals, and so remains; but it is significant that these are all quadrupeds. When the knowledge 194 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. that the apes are bipeds was lost, these creatures finally came to be regarded as quadrumana, or four- handed animals. This error prevailed until a few decades ago, when its falsity was revealed by com- parative anatomy; it was then discovered that there is no quadrumana or “ four-handed ” animal, and that all apes, from the lowest to the highest, are bi- peds, or two-legged animals. The distinguished honor of this great discovery belongs to that most accom- plished naturalist, the late Prof. Thos. H. Huxley, who published it to the world in the year 1860. Though it must be admitted that Prof. Huxley lived and died in utter ignorance of the important bear- ing his discovery has on the biblical subject now under discussion; and even the advocates of the Bible failed to recognize its value and importance, until the author of this w r ork called attention to it in his lectures* which appeared in the year 1899. But the discovery that the ape is a biped, is so far- reaching in its consequences; so direct is its assault upon universally accepted theories; so irresistible is its tendencies to demolish long cherished religions and other beliefs, that it is denied that cordial wel- come which should always be extended to the truth. In his great work on comparative anatomjq in which he demonstrates that the fore or upper ex- tremities of every ape are arms terminating in hands, and that their hinder, or lower extremities, are legs terminating in feet, Mr. Huxley says: “ Man has been defined as the only animal pos- * “ The Negro not the son of Ham, or Man not a species divisible into Races.” THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 195 sessecl of two hands terminating his fore limbs, and two feet ending his hind limbs, while it has been said that all the apes possess four hands. * * * ‘ That the * * * proposition should have gained general acceptance is not surprising — indeed, at first sight, appearances are much in its favor. * * * Before we can discuss the * * * point with ad- vantage we must consider with some attention, and compare together the structure of the human hand and that of the human foot, so that we may have distinct and clear ideas of what constitutes a hand and what a foot. “The external form of the human hand is familiar enough to every one. It consists of a stout wrist, followed by a broad palm, formed of flesh, and tendons, and skin, binding to- gether four bones, and dividing into four long and flexible digits, or fingers, each of which bears on the back of its last joint a broad and flattened nail. The longest cleft between any two digits is rather less than half as long as the hand. From the outer side of the base of the palm a stout digit goes off, having only two joints instead of three; so short, that it only reaches to a little beyond the middle of the first joint of the finger next it; and further remarkable by its great mobility, in conse- quence of which it can be directed outwards, almost at a right angle to the rest. This digit is called the ‘pollex,’ or thumb; and, like the others, it bears a flat nail upon the back of its terminal joint. In con- sequence of the proportions and mobility of the thumb, it is what is termed ‘ opposable;’ in other 196 THE TEMPTER OF EVE, words, its extremity can, with the greatest ease, be brought into contact with the extremities of any of the fingers; a property upon which the possibility of our carrying into effect the conceptions of the mind so largely depends. “ The external form of the foot differs widely from that of the hand; and yet, when closely com- pared, the two present some singular resemblances. Thus the ankle corresponds in a manner with the wrist; the sole with the palm; the toes with the fin- gers; the great toe with the thumb. But the toes, or digits of the foot, are far shorter in proportion than the digits of the hand, and are less movable, the want of mobility being most striking in the great toe — which, again, is very much larger in proportion to the other toes than the thumb to the fingers. In eonsidering this point, however, it must not be for- gotten that the civilized great toe, confined and cramped from childhood upwards, is seen to a great disadvantage, and that in uncivilized and bare-footed people it retains a great amount of mobility, and even some sort of opposability. The Chinese boat- men are said to be able to pull an oar; the artisans of Bengal to weave; and the Carajas to steal fish hooks by its help; though, after all, it must be recol- lected that the structure of its joints and the arrange- ment of its bones necessarily render its prehensile action far less perfect than that of the thumb. “ But to gain a precise conception of the resem- blances and differences of the hand and foot, and the distinctive characters of each, we must look below THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 197 the skin, and compare the bony framework and its motor apparatus in each. “ The skeleton of the hand exhibits, in the re- gion which we term the wrist, and which is techni- cally called the carpus — two rows of closely-fitted polygonal bones, four in each row, which are toler- ably equal in size. The bones of the first row with the bones of the fore-arm, form the wrist or joint, and are arranged side by side, no one greatly exceed- ing or overlaping the rest. “The four bones of the second row of the car- pus bear the four long bones which support the palm of the hand. The fifth bone of the same character is articulated in a much more free and movable man- ner than the others, with its carpal bone, and forms the base of the thumb. These are called metacarpal bones, and they carry the phalanges , or bones of the digits, of which there are two in the thumb and three in each of the fingers. “ The skeleton of the foot is very like that of the hand in some respects. Thus there are three phalanges in each of the lesser toes, and only two in the great toe, which answers to the thumb. There is a long bone termed metatarsel, answering to the me- tacarpel, for each digit; and the tarsus, which corres- ponds with the carpus, presents four short polygonal bones in a row, which correspond very clearly with the four carpal bones of the second row of the hand. In other respects the foot differs very widely from the hand. Thus the great toe is the longest digit but one; and its metatarsel is far less movably arti- culated with the tarsus, than the metacarpel of the 198 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. thumb with the carpus. But a far more important distinction lies in the fact that, instead of four more tarsal bones there are only three; and that these three are not arranged side by side, or in one row. One of them, the os calcis or heel bone (ca ) , lies externally, and sends back the large projecting heel; another, the astragalus (as), rests on this by one face, and by another, forms, with the bones of the leg, the ankle joint; while a third face, directed forwards, is sepa- rated from the three inner tarsel bones of the row next the metatarsus by a bone called the scaphoid (sc). “ Thus there is a fundamental difference in the structure of the foot and the hand, observable when the carpus and the tarsus are contrasted; and there are differences of degree noticeable when the pro- portions and the mobility of the metacarpals and metatarsals, with their respective digits, are com- pared together. “ The same two classes of differences become obvious when the muscles of the hand are compared with those of the foot. “ Three principal sets of muscles, called ‘ flexors,’ bind the fingers and thumb, as in clinching the fist, and three sets — the extensors — extend them, as in straightening the fingers. These muscles are all ‘long muscles;’ that is to say, the fleshy part of each, lying in and being fixed to the bones of the arm, is, at the other end, continued into tendons, or rounded cords, which pass into the hand, and are ultimately fixed to the bones which are to be moved. Thus, when the fingers are bent, the fleshy parts of THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 199 the flexors of the fingers, placed in the arm, con- tract, in virtue of their peculiar endowment as mus- cles; and pulling the tendinous cords, connected with their ends, cause them to pull down the bones of the fingers towards the palm. “Not only are the principal flexors of the fin- gers and of the thumb long muscles, but they re- main quite distinct from one another throughout their whole length. “ In the foot, there are also three principal flexor muscles of the digits or toes, and three principal extensors; but one extensor and one flexor are short muscles; that is to say, their fleshy parts are not situated in the leg (which corresponds with the arm) , but in the back and in the sole of the foot — regions which correspond with the back and the palm of the hand. “Again, the tendons of the long flexor of the toes, and of the long flexor of the great toe, when they reach the sole of the foot, do not remain dis- tinct from one another, as the flexors in the palm of the hand do, but they become united and com- mingled in a very curious manner, while their united tendons receive an accessory muscle con- nected with the heel bone. “ But perhaps the most absolutely distinctive character about the muscles of the foot is the exist- ence of what is termed the peronceus longus , a long muscle fixed to the outer bone of the leg, and send- ing its tendon to the outer ankle, behind and below which it passes, and then crosses the foot obliquely to be attached to the base of the great toe. No 200 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. muscle in the hand exactly corresponds with this, which is eminently a foot muscle. “To resume, the foot of man is distinguished from his hand by the following absolute anatomical differences: “ 1. By the arrangement of the tarsal bones. “ 2. By having a short flexor and a short ex- tensor muscle of the digits. “ 3. By possessing the muscle termed peronosus longus. “And if we desire to ascertain whether the ter- minal division of a limb, in other Primates, is to be called a foot or hand, it is by the presence or ab- sence of these characters we must be guided, and not by the mere proportions and greater or lesser mobility of the great toe, which may vary indefi- nitely without any fundamental alteration in the structure of the foot. “Keeping these considerations in mind, let us now turn to the limbs of the gorilla. The terminal division of the fore limb presents no difficulty — bone for bone and muscle for muscle are found to be arranged essentially as in man, or with such minor differences as are found as varieties in man. The gorilla’s hand is clumsier, heavier, and has a thumb somewhat shorter in proportion than that of man ; but no one has ever doubted its being a true hand. “At first sight, the termination of the hind limb of the gorilla looks very hand like, and as it is still more so in many of the lower apes, it is not wonder- ful that the appellation ‘ Quadrumana,’ or four- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 201 handed creatures, adopted from the older anatomists by Blumenbach, and unfortunately rendered current by Curvier, should have gained such wide accept- ance as a name for the Simian group. But the most cursory anatomical investigation at once proves that the resemblance of the so-called ‘hind hand’ to a true hand is only skin deep, and that in all essential respects the hind limb of the gorilla is as truly ter- minated by a foot as that of man. The tarsal bones, in all important circumstances of number, disposi- tion, and form, resemble those of man. The meta- tarsals and digits on the other hand, are proportion- ately longer and more slender, while the great toe is not only proportionally shorter and weaker, but its metatarsal bone is united by a more movable joint with the tarsus. At the same time, the foot is set more obliquely upon the leg than in man. “As to the muscles, there is a short flexor, a short extensor, and a peronceus longus, while the ten- dons of the long flexors of the great toe and of the other toes are united together and with an accessory fleshy bundle. “The hind limb of the gorilla, therefore, ends in a true foot, with a very movable great toe. It is a prehensile foot, indeed, but in no sense a hand; it is a foot which differs from that of man not in any fundamental character, but in mere proportions, in the degree of mobility, and in the secondary arrange- ment of its parts. “It must not be supposed, however, because I speak of these differences as not fundamental, that I wish to underrate their value. They are important 202 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. enough in their way, the structure of the foot being in strict correlation with that of the rest of the or- ganism in each case. Nor can it be doubted that the greater division of physiological labor in man, so that the function of support is thrown wholly on the leg and foot, is an advance in the organization of very great moment to him; but, after all, regarded anatomically, the resemblances between the foot of man and the foot of the gorilla are far more striking and important than the differences. “I have dwelt upon this point at length, because it is one regarding which much delusion prevails; but I might have passed it over without detriment to my argument, which only requires me to show that, be the differences between the hand and foot of man and those of the gorilla what they may — the dif- ferences between those of the gorilla and those of the lower apes are much greater. “It is not necessary to descend lower in the scale than the orang for conclusive evidence on this head. “ The thumb of the orang differs more from that of the gorilla than the thumb of the gorilla differs from that of man, not only by its shortness, but by the absence of any special long flexor muscle. The carpus of the orang, like that of most lower apes, contains nine bones, while in the gorilla, as in man and the chimpanzee, there are only eight. “The orang’ s foot is still more aberrant; its very long toes and short tarsus, short great toe, short and raised heel, great obliquity of articulation in the leg, and absence of a long flexor tendon to THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 203 the great toe, separating it far more widely from the foot of the gorilla than the latter is separated from that of man. “ But, in some of the lower apes, the hand and foot diverge still more from those of the gorilla than they do in the orang. The thumb ceases to be op- posable in the American monkeys — is reduced to a mere rudiment covered by the skin in the spider monkeys — and is directed forwards and armed with a curved claw like the other digits, in the marmosets — so that, in all these cases, there can be no doubt but that the hand is more different from that of the gorilla than the gorilla’s hand is from man’s. “ And as to the foot, the great toe of the mar- moset is still more insignificant in proportion than that of the orang — while in the lemurs it is very large, and as completely thumb-like and opposable as in the gorilla — but in these animals the second toe is often irregularly modified, and in some species the two principal bones of the tarsus, the astragalus and the os calcis, are so immensely elongated as to render the foot, so far, totally unlike that of any other mammal. “So with regard to the muscles. The short flexor of the toes of the gorilla differs from that of man by the circumstance that one slip of the muscle is attached, not to the heel bone, but to the tendons of the long flexors. The lower apes depart from the gorilla by an exaggeration of the same character, two, three, or more slips becoming fixed to the long flexor tendons — or by a multiplication of the slips. Again, the gorilla differs slightly from man in the mode 204 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. of interlacing of the long flexor tendons; and the the lower apes differ from the gorilla in exhibiting yet other, sometimes very complex, arrangements of the same parts, and occasionally in the absence of the accessory fleshy bundle. “ Throughout all these modifications it must be recollected that the foot loses not one of its essential characters. Every monkey and lemur exhibits the characteristic arrangement of tarsal bones, possesses a short flexor and short extensor muscle, and aperon- osus longus. Varied as the proportions and appear- ance of the organ may be, the terminal division of the hind limb remains, in plan and principle of con- struction, a foot, and never, in those respects, can be confounded with the hand.” {Man's Place in Nature , pp. 102, 112 inc) . This mass of evidence from the highest autho- rity on the subject establishes the fact there is a vast difference between the physical structure of the “ beasts ” and the “ cattle.” And clearly indicates that these differences are the proper basis upon which to place the distinction which God made be- tween them. It is evident that in God’s plan of creation, the apes occupy a position intermediate between that of the quadrupeds and man. But, though the lines of distinction are broad and clearly drawn between the quadrupeds and the lemur — the lowest ape — they are small and insignificant, compared to the great gulf which intervenes between the highest ape and man. With each ascending step in the ape series, THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 205 their contrast to the quadrupeds, and their resem- blance to man becomes more marked. Mr. Huxley says, (Ibid, p. 101). “ Whatever part of the animal fabric — whatever series of muscles, whatever viscera might be selected for comparison, the result would be the same — the lower apes and the gorilla differ more than the gorilla and the man.” The distinctions between the “ cattle” and the “beasts” as shown in their extremities and in the termination of these, may be summed up as follows: The four extremites in the “ cattle ” are all legs, hence they are quadrupeds. And their four extrem- ities all terminate in hoofs or paws, as the case may be. The fore or upper extremities of the beasts, like those of man, are arms, each of which termi- nates in a hand. The hind or lower extremities of the beasts are legs, hence, like man, they are bipeds. Between the “cattle” or “quadrupeds,” with their four legs ter- minating in hoofs or paws, as the case may be, and the “ beasts ” or “ bipeds” with each of their arms terminating in a hand, and each of their legs terminating in a foot, there is a gulf which is far greater than that between the anthropoid and the negro, or any of the so-called “lower races of men.” It is universally admitted that the biped is a higher grade of creation than the quadruped. If man w r as the only biped, and had the ape family never existed, it would never have occurred to a naturalist, however sceptical he might be, that man 206 THE TEMPTEK OF EYE had descended from the quadruped, and through these from the lowest form of animal life. The gulf between them would have been too wide for man to have closed with a leap. Hence, man would have been recognized, as the Bible teaches, a Creation as separate and distinct from the fish and fowl and beast as he is from the plant or the planet. But the apes, like man and the quadrupeds, have an exist- tence. And though man, in his criminal folly, has seized upon them as the weapon with which to assail the Word of God, they will yet prove the inestima- ble blessing to man which God, in His wisdom and love, designed they should be. The vast width and importance of the great gulf which separates between quadrupeds and bipeds has always been recognized and appreciated. When man was recognized as the only biped, and the anatomy of the apes was not clearly under- stood, these creatures were seized upon by the scepti- cal scientists, and urged forward as the transitional forms through which man descended from the quadrupeds, and through these, from the lowest form of animal life, thus spanning this otherwise im- passable gulf. But the critical investigations of Mr. Huxley reveal the startling truth that the location of this gulf has been wholly misunderstood. This great naturalist proves by comparative anatomy that the gulf which separates between the quadrupeds and the bipeds is situated, not between the quadru- peds and man, but between the quadrupeds and apes. Heretofore we have been led to suppose that the THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. 207 quadrupeds on the one side, and man on the other side, constituted the shores of the great gulf which intervenes between quadrupeds and bipeds, while the ape series, as a bridge, spans this gulf and thus forms a natural connection between its opposite and distant shores. But comparative anatomy demon- strates that no such connection exists ; and that the quadrupeds on the one side, and the apes on the other, and not man and the quadrupeds, constitutes the opposite shores of this gulf. At a glance we might be led to suppose that this discovery would lessen the width, and corre- spondingly lessen the value of this dividing gulf. But careful investigation must convince us that no such result can ensue. Formerly it was supposed that apes were four- handed animals. Hence, the term “ quadru-mana” was applied to them. Since they were supposed to have four hands, they were supposed, of course, to have four arms; for it would be as absurd to sup- pose that a leg could terminate in a hand, as to sup- pose that an arm could terminate in a foot. But Mr. Huxley has demonstrated by comparative anatomy that the ape, like man, is a biped. Hence, he occu- pies the same side of the great gulf which separates between quadrupeds and bipeds that man occupies. We thus discover that the absurd theory that the apes span this gulf, and form the connecting link — the link of kinship — between man and the quadru- peds, and through these, with the lowest order of animal life has its origin and existence solely in the 208 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. fertile imagination of the evolutionists, and is not founded upon facts. If, upon going on a journey, we were led to sup- pose that a stream was bridged at a certain point, until upon reaching it we find that the stream had never been bridged, this circumstance would not lessen the width of the stream. So it is in this case. The world has been led to believe that man is the only biped, and that the apes spanned the great gulf which separates between the quadrupeds and man, thus forming the link of kinship between them. But now when we find that no such connec- tion exists, this circumstance does not lessen the width, nor reduce the value of the gulf itself in the least. It remains the same wide impassable gulf. Now, that comparative anatomy establishes the fact that man is not the only biped, and that the great gulf between the quadrupeds and bipeds lies, not between the quadrupeds and man, but between the quadrupeds and apes, no naturalist will assert that this gulf is spanned by any intermediate class of creatures whose fore legs, terminating in hoofs or paws, gradually develop through the series, into arms terminating in hands, and the termina- tions of whose hind legs in hoofs or paws gradually develop into feet. And unless the evolutionists can demonstrate the existence of such an intermediate class of creatures connecting the “cattle” or quad- rupeds with the “beasts” or apes, through a grad- ually developing and unbroken series, “ The Theory of Descent,” with its “missing links,” its inconsist- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 209 encies, and its demoralizing, degrading infidelity- must be abandoned. The non-existence of such a series forming a connecting link — the link of kinship — between the “cattle” or quadrupeds, and the “beasts” or apes, at once establishes the truth of the scriptural teach- ings of Divine Creation, and demonstrates the falsity of “ The Theory of Descent.” Mr. Huxley, to whom the world is indebted for this evidence that the ape is a biped, which is so es- sential to a proper understanding of the scriptures, was an open, pronounced foe to Christianity, and was one of the ablest, most persistent assailants of the Bible the world has ever known. Utterly igno- rant of the true teachings of the Bible, he lived and died unconscious that his most brilliant achieve- ment in the realm of science — his proof that the ape is a biped — developed the most positive, absolute proof of the inspiration of the scriptures. This fact, taken in connection with his open, aggressive hostility to Cod’s word reminds us that David said, in addressing God: “Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee.” Having shown by comparative anatomy that the higher land animals are naturally divided into two distinct classes — quadrupeds and bipeds — we feel assured that the broad distinction which the in- spired writer makes between “cattle” and “beast” is based upon the fact that the “ cattle ” are quadru- peds , and that the “ beasts ” are bipeds — apes. We shall now submit our interpretation of the terms “ cattle ” and “ beasts ” to the decisive test of the 210 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. science of geology; ii our interpretation of the Mo- saic Record is correct the Geological Record, in har- mony with the Mosaic Record, will show that these two classes of animals made their appearance on the earth in the order stated: First, “cattle” ( quadru- peds ) ; second, “ beasts ” (bipeds — apes ) ; -with the “ creeping things ” (a variety of animal forms) inter- vening between them. But, before entering upon this subject, we desire to correct another error into which the scientists have led us by placing the whale family, the higher land animals and man, in one class, as Mammals. Thus disregarding Paul’s teaching that the fish, land ani- mals, and man, each represent different kinds of flesh. Nothing is gained by placing these creatures in one class, even though they are all mammals, as shown by the following definition of the term: “ Mammals (from Lat. mama’lis, pertaining to or having breasts; deriv. of mam’ma, breast, pap, teat) : the highest class of the vertebrate branch of the ani- mal kingdom, and therefore the most specialized or highest group of living creatures. The class in- cludes all vertebrates with warm blood, a heart of four chambers, the lower jaw composed of two branches articulated with the skull, and the body partly or wholly covered with hair. It thus in- cludes man, all the higher quadrupeds, and the vari- ous whale and porpoise-like animals which possess hair only in the embyonic state and often then only on the upper lip. The habit of bringing forth the young alive is not exclusively a character of the mammals, being shared by various reptiles and THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 211 fishes. On the other hand the lowest of the mam- mals, the menotremes lay eggs similar to those of snakes, and the mannos or milk glands of the fe- male are scarcely differentiated.” ( Universal Ency- clopedia ) . Thus, we find that the term mammal — which includes man who brings forth his young alive, and the menotremes, which lay eggs — is a very lati- tudinous term, to say the least of it. The fact that we have permitted scientists with atheistical tenden- cies to place man and certain animals in one class, is largely responsible for our ignorance of the broad distinction which God made between man and the animals, and the confusion which has resulted from our unpardonable ignorance upon this most import- ant subject. In our chapter on the introduction of the fish and the fowl, we have shown that the earliest of these animals to make their appearance on the globe, were the lowest orders. Hence, we should not be sur- prised that representatives of the “ cattle ” or quad- rupeds, the first of the land animals to make their appearance on the globe, should be of the lowest or- ders. In discussing these, Mr. Dana divides them into two classes, as follows: “ Mammals — The highest group of vertebrates are of two grand divisions: “ 1. The ordinary or True Viviparous Mammals , such as the monkey, lion, elephant, ox, bat, mouse, whale, etc. Siuibj.-.m Aoe, or Acs o? Invert hb rates. 212 THE TEMPTER OF EYE Periods. Epochs . / V * v v v v v v > V V VVVVVVVVV^ y v y v v v y v v v v Fig. 3. Permian. Upper Coal Measures Lower Coal Measures. Millstone Grit. Upper. Lower. Catskfll. Chemung. Portage. Genesee. Hamilton. Marcellos. Comiferons. Schoharie. Cauda-GallL Oriskauy Lower Helderberr. Saline. Niagara. Clinton. Medina. Cincinnati. Utica. Trenton. Chazy. Quebec. Cslciterous. Potsdam. Acadian. Arebceao. THE TEMPTER OF EVE, 213 Epoch*. ! Upper or IVhita Chalk. Lower or Gray. Middle Cretaceous (Upper Green-sand). Lower Cretaceous (Lower Green-sand). Upper Middle OBlyte. j Oxftnllfliy. Lower Oolyte. j Icferior 0 olyte. Upper Lias. Marls tone. Lower Lias. Muschelkalk. Buuter-sandstein. Fig. 3 (Continued). GEOLOGICAL RECORD. — From Dana, Manual of Geology . “ 2. The Semi-oviparous mammals , which are, with one exception, Marsupials. Birth takes place before the ordinary degree of maturity in the embryo is at- tained, and they thus approximate to oviparous ver- tebrates. The immature young in these marsupials are passed into a pouch (viarsupiuvi ) , situated over the venter of the mother, in which they are nour- ished from her teats, until the degree of maturity 214 THE TEMPTEH OF EVE. required for independent existence is attained. They are the lowest, and geologically the earliest, of mam- mals.” ( Manual of Geology, p. 416). Let us bear in mind that, while all the so-called mammals are not “cattle” or quadrupeds, all the “cattle” or quadrupeds are included in what is termed mammals. In discussing the animal forms of one of the early geological ages — the Triassic period of Meso- zoic Time — Mr. Dana says: “The only mammal thus far discovered in the American rocks was made known by Professor Emmons. The specimens are two jaw-bones found in North Carolina. According to Professor Owen, they belonged to an insectivorous (insect-eating) marsupial near the modern genus myomecobius of Australia. The species has been named, by its discoverer, dromatherium sylvestre. Mammals of similar kinds probably spread over the continent, and may have been of many species.” (Ibid, pp. 415, 416). In discussing the animal life of the Triassic period in Europe, Mr. Dana figures a tooth of a marsupial — Microlestes anticus Plien., which he says “was closely related to that of North Carolina.” (Ibid, p. 427). Throughout Mesozoic Time, few, if any, of these so-called mammals higher than the marsupial existed. But following this period, in what is termed “The Tertiary, or Mam- mallian Age,” all the higher land animals, such as the camel, horse, elephant, etc., appeared. Follow- ing the marsupials came a variety of animal forms, bugs, worms, snakes, and other small animals, which THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 215 are properly described in scripture as the “ creeping things.” (See Manual of Geology ) . Following these in what is termed the Eucine period of the Tertiary came the apes. In discussing the life of the Eocene, Mr. Dana says: “Besides the species akin to the Ungulates, there were also * * * Monkeys re- lated to the Lemurs. (Ibid, p. 504) . Thus the Lemurs, the lowest form of the apes, were the first apes or “beasts” to make their appearance on the earth. The higher forms of apes came at a later period. Thus, the Geological Record sustains the teach- ings of the Mosaic Record as to the order in which the three classes of land animals made their appear- ance on the globe: 1st. Quadrupeds (cattle). 2nd. A variety of animal forms (creeping things.) 3rd. Apes — bipeds (beasts). CHAPTER IX. The Beast of the Field. The “beast of the earth” and the “beast of the field.” “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and eveiy creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Gen. i, 25) . What is the beast of the earth, and after what “kind” is he? In this connection we may also ask, what is the “ beast of the field,” and after what “kind” is he? It is plain that the “beast of the earth” and the “beast of the field” were made “ after ” the “ beast,” or ape “ kind; ” that these terms describe an ape. In the previous chapter we have seen that Mr. Dawson renders the “compound term hay’th-eretz ” “carnivora,” and says “it is here intended to denote a particular tribe of animals inhabiting the land.” We have taken issue with him on this subject, and have shown that the Hebrew term translated “ beast of the earth ” in our version of the Bible, denotes the highest race of the ape species, and has no refer- ence to the carnivora. The fact that the “ beast of the earth ” is not a general term intended to include all the land ani- mals, is shown by the Mosaic Record; in our text 216 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 217 this creature is shown to have been made “after” the “kind” of that class of animals termed “beast” in contradistinction to the “ cattle ” and the “ creeping things.” Further evidence that the term “ beast of the earth” is not a general term intended to in- clude all the land animals, is shown by the nar- rative of the Deluge: “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.” (Gen. iv, 1, 2) . God thus placed into the hands of Noah and his sons (1) the “beast of the earth;” (2) the “fowl of the air;” (3) “all that moveth upon the earth;” (4) the “ fishes of the sea.” It is significant that in this text God treats the land animals very differently from the manner in which He treats the “ fowl of the air” and the “fishes,” in that He divides them into two parts; the one part is represented by the “beast of the earth;” the other part by “all that moveth upon the earth,” which, of course, embraces the rest of the land animals; and as if to emphasize the dis- tinction which He makes between them, God sep- arates the “ beast of the earth ” from the rest of the land animals by placing the fowl of the air between them. This cannot be accidental; God never does anything by accident; what God does, He does with the most positive, absolute design; and in this case He evidently designed to impress upon our minds 218 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. the fact that the term “ beast of the earth ” is not a general term intended to include all the land ani- mals, nor even the carnivora, but that it describes a particular race of the beast or ape species. The following language of David to Goliath throws a flood of light on the “beast of the earth:” “This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philis- tines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth.” (/ Sam. xvii, 46) . This reveals the startling fact that the “ beast of the earth ” is a man-eater, and not one of the recog- nized apes of to-day is a man-eater; many of the apes, and especially the so-called anthropoids, rna} 7 attack a man, and even kill him, but they will not eat his flesh. But David realized that there existed in his day a great man-eating ape. The disposition of this ape to feed upon the flesh of man, reveals the fact that the “beast of the earth” and the “beast of the field” are identical, as shown by the language of Goliath to David: “And the Philistine said unto David: come to me, and I will give thy flesh to the fowls of the air and to the beasts of the field.” (I Sam. xvii, 44) . Thus Goliath testifies to the ex- istence of a great man-eating ape, known in his day as the “ beast of the field.” All the circumstances indicate that this creature is identical with the “wild beasts of the earth,” referred to by David in his con- troversy with Goliath as above quoted. In Psalm L, verse 11, David refers to the “wild beasts of the field.” One would naturally suppose that the term THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 219 “beast of the field” would be applied solely to do- mesticated animals of draught and burthen which men employ in cultivating their fields; but such is not the case; anciently, as above shown, the term “beast of the field” was applied to a certain race of the ape species, without reference to whether they were in a “wild,” or in a domesticated state. In all ages of his history, man has shown a strong disposition to cultivate the most criminal re- lations with this beast; their indulgence in these shameless crimes not only led God to destroy na- tion after nation from the face of the earth, but has even led Him to obliterate continents; it frequently occurs that God in His wrath and disgust, decrees that peoples who abandon themselves to these de- grading crimes, shall die violent deaths; and that their flesh shall furnish food for this man-eating ape. In these just, but terrible judgments, we find addi- tional proof that the “beast of the earth,” and the “beast of the field” are identical; and that this great ape is a man-eater. In support of our position we quote from the scriptural record as follows: The following is God’s threat against the Israel- ites should they violate His laws; and we should bear in mind that one of His laws to Israel was, Thou shall not lie with any beast. “And thy carcasses shall be for meat unto the fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them a^way.” ( Deut . xxviii, 26) . Israel violated God’s law and the following judgment was issued against them: “And the carcasses of this people shall be meat 220 THE TEMPTEK OE EYE. for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away.” {Jer. vii, 33; see also Jer. xvi, 4, Jer. xix, 7, Jer. xxxiv, 20). Israel was led into the indulgence of these crimes by her priesthood, as shown by God’s judg- ment against them, as follows: “Son of man prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds: Woe be to the shep- herds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. * * * And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat for the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. * * * Therefore, ye shep- herds, hear the word of the Lord; As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but my shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock; Therefore, O, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.” ( EzeJc . xxxiv, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) . In God’s threat against Israel in case they vio- lated His laws, He said their flesh should be meat for the “beasts of the earth;” when they allowed THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 221 the clergy (“shepherds”) to lead them into viola- ting the laws of God, He gave their flesh as meat to the “beasts of the field.” This furnishes the most positive proof that the “ beast of the earth ” and the “beast of the field” are identical; and that these two terms were applied to a man-eating ape. The following is one of God’s judgments against the Egyptians: “ Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh King of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt: Speak and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh King of Egypt. * * Thou shalt fall upon the open fields; thou shalt not be brought together, nor gathered: I have given thee for meat to the beasts of the field and to the fowls of heaven.” ( EzeJc . xx ix, 2, 3, 5) . The following is God’s judgment against Gog: “ Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy bands, and the people that is with thee: I will give thee unto ravenous birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the field to be devoured.” ( Ezek . xxxix, 4) . This mass of scriptural evidence from the in- spired writers clearly establishes the existence of a great man-eating ape, known to the ancients as the “beast of the earth” or the “beast of the field.” The loss of all knowledge of the existence of such an animal explains our failure to properly understand and appreciate the Bible; and our ignorance upon this subject is largely due to the absurd interpreta- tion of the biblical terms “ cattle” and “ beast” made by modern theolgians, both Jew and Gentile. 222 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. In discussing the above texts, we should bear in mind that we are not discussing tribes of savages in some wild jungle overrun with carnivorous quad- rupeds such as the lion, tiger, leopard and the like. The Israelites, Egyptians, etc., were among the cul- tivated and enlightened people of ancient times; and their countries where the distressing scenes above narrated were enacted were densely populated, and in the highest state of cultivation : no large carnivor- ous quadrupeds roamed at large through these coun- tries in those days. A moment’s reflection should convince us that it would require thousands of car- nivorous animals, whether quadrupeds or bipeds, to devour the flesh of the immense number of peo- ple who were slain in the wars with which God af- flicted these nations for their crimes. The “beast of the field” is not a carnivorous quadruped, as the modern theologian would have us believe; on the contrary, like man, the “beast of the field ” is omnivorous, as shown by the following law which God gave Israel: “And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: But the seventh year thou shalt let it lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat; and what they leave the beasts of the field may eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy 1 ' vineyard, and with thy olive- yard.” {Ex. xxiii, 10, 11). What use would the products of the fields, or the grapes and the olives be to carnivorous quadru- peds such as the lion, tiger, wolf etc.? These car- nivores would starve to death in the midst of the greatest abundance of such food. And it would be THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 223 absurd to suppose that God would command the Is- raelites to turn their domestic quadrupeds of draught and burthen loose in their vineyards and orchards to browse, trample down, and destroy them every seven years; besides these animals will not eat grapes and olives. These “ beasts of the field ” were servants of the Israelites; they owned tens of thousands of them. It was their criminal relations with these apes which led to the destruction of the Israelites as a nation, and their dispersion among the nations of the earth. We shall hereafter prove that the “ beasts of the field” were servants to the Egyptians, Babylonians, and all nations of antiquity, as well as to many na- tions of modern times. The Bible makes special mention of the beast of the field as a servant. As shown in the Mosaic Record, this man-eat- ing ape made its appearance as the “beast of the earth;” this creature stands at the head of the ape family, just as the lion stands at the head of the cat family. The physical and mental organisms of the ape are in nearer approach to those of man than are those of the “ cattle ” or quadrupeds. This fact, taken in connection with their possession of the erect posture, or the ability to assume it at will, prove them to be the highest grade of animal. This being true it follows that the “beast of the earth,” standing at the head of this remarkable family of animals, would possess a finer physical and mental organism than any of the so-called anthropoids, and would in this respect be in nearer approach to man than any other ape. Hence, the “ beast of the 224 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. earth ” is the only anthropoid or man-like ape. It was evidently his possession of much finer physical and mental organisms than any other animal, and which pre-eminently fits him for the position of ser- vant, that prompted Adam to name him the “ beast of the field.” “ And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.” (Gen. ii, 20). This is the first mention made of this animal under the name of “ beast of the field” but after this he is frequently referred to un- der this name, and under the name of “ beast of the earth,” and often, merely as the “ beast.” The quadrupeds are often mentioned as “ cattle ” “herds,” or “flocks;” and individual species of quadrupeds are often referred to as the horse, ox, swine, etc. But the apes are never referred to as cattle, herds or flocks. By observing this rule we will be greatly aided in our investigations of the Bible. But, we should remember that the cattle, and even the creeping things, like the apes, are all beast, in the sense that they belong to the flesh of beasts. The term “ beast,” is frequently employed by the inspired writers; sometimes it is intended to include all the land animals; occasional^ it refers to a quadruped; but generally it is used to describe the ape. However, by observing the connection in which it is used, we will find no difficulty in deter- mining the matter. For many centuries the world has been envel- oped in a night of atheism; the atheists’ views con- cerning man and his relations to the animals are ex- pressed in the theory of evolution, which degrades THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 225 man to the level of the brute by attempting to estab- lish between man and the animals a “blood rela- tionship.” Under these demoralizing conditions man’s true relations to the animals as defined by the inspired writers have been forgotten. The boundary — the line of separation — which God established be- tween man and the animals has also been obliterated; the gibbon, orang, chimpanze, and gorilla, errone- ously termed “anthopoid,” or “man-like” apes, though unfit for domestic purposes, are recognized as the highest grade of animal, and are now sup- posed to mark the line of separation between man and the apes. All knowledge of the “beast of the field,” whose possession of more perfect physical and mental organisms pre-eminently distinguishes him from the lower apes, and correspondingly ap- proximates him to man, is lost, save as we find his existence, and the physical and mental character which distinguish him, a matter of scriptural record. Under the influence of atheism, and the conse- quent loss of all knowledge of the teachings of the Bible upon these important subjects, the world has been led to believe that the following characteristics are peculiar to man: (1) Mind (the animals being accredited with mere instinct ) . (2) Articulate speech. (3) A well-formed hand and foot. (4) The erect posture. (5) The ability to fashion im- plements for a definite purpose. The Duke of Ar- gyll, quoted by Sir John Lubbuck ( Origin of Civiliza- tion) , while admitting that monkeys use stones to break nuts, says: “Between these rudiments of in- tellectual perception and the next step (that of adapt- 226 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. ing and fashioning an implement for a particular purpose) , there is a gulf in which lies the whole im- measurable distance between man and the brutes. (6) It is also universally taught that woman (the Adamic female) , is the only creature with which man (the Adamic male) , may associate himself car- nail}’ and produce offspring that will be indefinitely fertile; and that man, (the Adamic male) , is the only creature with which woman (the Adamic female) , may associate herself carnally and produce offspring that will be indefinitely fertile. It is easy to show that these characteristics are all combined in the beast of the field. When the minds of men are freed from the grasp of atheism, and the great intellects of the world are turned upon the Bible, (as they will be) , it will be discovered that man possesses just two characteristics that are peculiar to him: (1) His flesh is a different kind of flesh from that of the fish, and fowl, and beast. (2) Man possesses an immortal soul, itself a part of the substance of God. The importance of the beast of the field in God’s plan of creation is shown by the fact that he shares with man the distinction of having been specifically mentioned in the narrative of creation; the rest of the animals, are merely included under the heads of fish, fowl, and beast. The tempter of Eve was a beast of the field, as shown by the language of the text: “Now, the ser- pent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” This animal pos- sessed articular speech, as shown by its conversation THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 227 with Eve, which is a matter of scriptural record; it also possessed the erect posture, as shown by the curse which God directed against its posture, and which resulted in depriving it of the erect posture and degrading it to that of the lowest of the creep- ing things. The beast of the field has a hand, as shown by God’s command to the Israelites with ref- erence to Mount Sinai: “ There shall not a hand touch it * * * whether it be a beast or man.” (Ex., xix, 13) . We also find that in the book of Jonah reference is made to a beast with a hand: “ But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from the evil of his way, and from the violence that is in their hands.” (Jon. iii, 8) . It is significant that the Rig Veda of the ancient Aryans, also describes in two places a beast with a hand. The fact that this beast was commanded, like the men of Nineveh, to “ cry mightily unto God,” indicates that, like the men of Nineveh, he possessed articular speech. The language of the text also indicates that this beast, when domesticated, and associated with civilized people, is habitually clothed. The beast has a foot: “No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it.” * * * (Ezek. xxix, 11) . The genital organs of this beast are so nearly similar to those of man, and his seminal fluid is in such close affinity to that of man, that sexual union between opposite sexes of man and this beast may result in the production of offspring that will be in- definitely fertile; this is demonstrated in the case of 228 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Cain, whose wile, though not of his hind of flesh, bore him offspring that was indefinitely fertile. The Bible abounds with instances of this kind; in fact, the Bible is largely a history of the long, destructive conflict which has raged between God and man, be- cause of man’s social, political, and religious equality with this beast, and the amalgamation to which these crimes inevitably lead. The Bible teajhes that man was not created and turned loose upon the earth like an animal with nothing to do beyond the gratification of his natural desires; but that he was created for, and assigned to a great task — the development of all the resources of the earth; in the accomplishment of this task he was commanded to exercise control over the ani- mals; to develop all the resources of this globe would require a long period of time, and an incal- culable amount of labor, and the initial step in this great task is soil tillage; and when Adam was cre- ated he was placed in the Garden of Eden, “to dress it and to keep it.” This implies his possession of domestic plants and they require cultivation. Yet it is a significant fact that Adam was not compelled to personally till the ground, and thus eat bread in the sweat of his face until after he had violated the laws of God; and then only as a punishment for his crime: “ And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast heark- ened unto the voice of thy wife, 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. * * * In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 229 bread, until thou return unto the ground. * * * Therefore the Lord sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” (Gen. iii, 17, 19, 23). Observe the language of the text: Because * * * thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it, * * * In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” etc. Thus clearly stating that this was a sentence which God imposed upon Adam for his violation of His law. But this sentence, that he should personally till the ground, and thus eat bread in the sweat of his face, was confined to Adam who had offended; there is nothing in the text to indicate that it de- scends to his unborn offspring who had not offended; we shall hereafter prove that it did not so descend. Inasmuch as this was a sentence imposed upon Adam for his violation of God’s law, it follows that if he had not violated God’s law, he would not have been compelled to personally “ till the ground,” and thus eat bread in the sweat of his face; at the same time it must be admitted that the obligation to dress and to keep the Garden of Eden, which required soil tillage, was binding upon Adam from the moment of his assignment to this task. But how was Adam to dress and keep the Garden of Eden, which required soil tillage, and not personally till the ground? If we adhere to the universally accepted theory that man is the only creature capable of making and handling tools, this question brings us face to face with an issue which involves the validity of the Bible, since it reveals an apparent contradiction in 230 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. the teachings of scripture. The Bible plainly teaches: (1) That God created Adam and placed him in the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it, which re- quired him to cultivate it, and this of course neces- sitates manual labor. (2) That Adam lived for a very considerable time in the Garden of Eden in perfect harmony with his Maker, and obeyed the laws of God, which required him to dress and to keep the Garden, that is to cultivate it; but that he finally violated Divine law; then, as a punishment for his offense, God compelled him to personally “till the ground,” and thus eat bread in the sweat of his face. In order to reconcile this apparent descrepancj 7 , we must repudiate the modern theory that man is the only creature who possesses the ability to make and handle tools; we must accept the teachings of the scriptures and the sciences that there is an ani- mal upon which God bestowed physical form and mental capacity sufficient to enable it to discharge the duties of servant; this creature must of course be a tool-making , tool-handling animal. Such an animal must have hands; this necessi- tates his being a biped, for no quadruped could meet these requirements; it would be as absurd to suppose that a leg could terminate in a hand as to suppose that an arm could terminate in a foot. Hence, we must seek this animal among the apes. And not one of the recognized apes of to-day could discharge the multifarious duties of a servant; we must seek for a higher grade of ape than any of these; and inasmuch as the so-called anthropoids can walk erect, it would require but a slight im- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 231 provement on their organism to produce an ape whose habitual posture would be the erect. Besides, as it was a part of God’s plan of creation to provide man with a servant in the person of a tool-making, tool-handling ape, no good reason could be advanced why this creature should be mute; a mute servant would be at a great disadvantage, and his value cor- respondingly lessened. On the other hand, the value of a servant is immeasurably increased by the possession of articulated speech; articulate speech is as essential in the servant as in the master. With the aid of a lot of tool-making, tool-hand- ling animals possessing the erect posture and articu- late speech, and thus fitted for discharging the du- ties of servant, it would have been easy for Adam “ to dress and to keep ” the Garden of Eden, with all the cultivation that this would require, with only such physical labor as is inseparable from mental labor. With the assistance of such creatures it would also have been possible for the descendants of Adam to have developed all the resources of this globe with only such physical labor as is inseparable from mental labor. In discussing the possible achievements of a tool-making, tool-handling animal, Mr. Darwin says: “One can hardly doubt that a man-like ani- mal who possessed a hand and arm sufficiently per- fect to throw a stone with precision, or to form a flint into a rude tool, could with sufficient practice, as far as mechanical skill alone is concerned, make almost anything which a civilized man can make.” ( Descent of Man, p. 56). 232 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. God made just such an animal, and designed that he should be a servant to man, and we shall hereafter prove that the evidences of his art which antedate the creation of man, are found upon every continent of the earth, and he exists upon one of the continents of the earth to-day. These animals did all the manual labor in the Garden of Eden that was necessary “to dress it and keep it,” while Adam did the mental labor. But when Adam violated Divine law God deprived him of these animals — his ser- vants — and compelled him to personally “till the ground,” and thus eat bread in the sweat of his face as a punishment for his crime. This animal was designed in the creation to do the manual labor necessary to “ subdue ” the earth, under man’s intel- ligent control. The presence of this animal clearly indicates that it was not the design of the Heavenly Father that His earthly son should be the subject of manual labor beyond that which is inseparable from mental labor. The theory of the modern theologian, both Jew and Gentile, that it was the original design of God that man should eat bread in the sweat of his face, finds no support in scripture. On the contrary, it is opposed by the plain teachings of the Bible. When the fish, and fowl, and beasts, were all made after their kind, God then 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.” (Gen. i, 26). In this proposition to make THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 233 man, the central idea is “ dominion ” — control. In this text the design of God in creating man is clearly revealed; man’s duties were to be mental rather than physical ; he was to be the dominant, controlling power of the earth. The idea of man being the subject of manual toil is wholly disassociated with the expressed design of God in creating man. When man was created, “male and female,” “ God blessed them and said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Gen. i, 28) . In this assign- ment of man to the duties upon the earth for which he was designed, the central idea is “ dominion ” — control. No hint is here conveyed that it was God’s intention to consign man to a life of physical toil; on the contrary, the plain language of the text shows that man was made ruler of the earth. Man’s exalted position is clearly defined by David when, in speak- ing of God’s creation of man, he said: “ Thou madst him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the sea.” ( Ps . viii, 8) . Further evidence that it is not God’s desire that man should lead a life of physical toil, is shown by his generous treatment of the Israelites in giving them the land of Canaan: “And it shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, 234 THE TEMPTER OF EYE, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give the goodly cities, which thou buildest not, and houses filled full of all good things, which thou fillest not, and wells digged, which thou diggest not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantest not,” etc. ( Deut . vi, 10, 11). The highly developed condition of this country is shown by the fact that it supported “ seven na- tions ” greater than Israel. This “goodly land” with its great wealth, the accumulation of ages, was di- vided among the tribes of Israel, and was subdivided among the families composing those tribes. This, with their immense wealth in “jewels of silver, and jewels of gold,” of which they had “ spoiled the Egyptians,” was sufficient to make every Israelitish family rich; and thus place them beyond the neces- sity of physical toil. Besides, the Canaanites owned immense numbers of beasts of the field, and these with the rest of their possessions were transferred to the Israelites; we have already shown that the Is- raelites were given special commands with reference to allowing the beasts of the field a part of the pro- ducts of their fields, vineyards, etc., every seven years; and in this we have the most positive proof that these animals were numbered among their pos- sessions. God’s treatment of the Israelites in giving them the land of Canaan, with all that was necessary for their comfort and happiness, and His treatment of Adam in giving him the Garden of Eden and all that was necessary for his comfort and happiness was identical. God gave the Israelites, who were descendants of Adam, the land of Canaan which they THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 235 had not developed; and provided them with im- mense numbers of beasts of the fields as servants to serve them; and it would be unreasonable to sup- pose that God did more for the Israelites in their depraved, fallen condition, than he did for “ Adam the son of God” in his original state of purity. Hence, we should not be surprised to find that God gave Adam the Garden of Eden, the most magnifi- cent estate the world has ever known, and one which Adam had not developed; and that He had also pro- vided him with numbers of the beasts of the field as servants to serve him. The cases of Adam in Eden and the Israelites in Canaan clearly prove that it was not the original design of God to consign man to a life of physical toil, but that this distressing condi- tion is a punishment which God visits upon man for violating Divine law. That God desired that man should do only such physical labor as is inseparable from mental labor, is shown by his providing him with a high-grade ape in the person of the beast of the field which, as a servant, should serve him. In the following narrative of the plagues sent upon the Egyptians to compel them to release the Israelites, a flood of light is thrown upon the distinc- tions between “cattle” and “ beasts,” and the rela- tive value of each. After afflicting the Egyptians with lice, fleas, etc., God said to Moses, “Go unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For if thou refuse to let them go, and will hold them still, behold the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon 236 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep; there shall be a very grievous murrian. And the Lord shall sever between the cattle of Is- rael and the cattle of Egypt: and there shall nothing die of all that is the children’s of Israel. And the Lord appointed a set time, saying, Tomorrow the Lord shall do this thing in the land. And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Is- rael died not one. And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go. And the Lord said unto Moses and to Aaron, Take to you handfuls of ashes of the furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it toward the heavens in the sight of Pharaoh. And it shall be- come small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt. And they took ashes of the furnace, and stood before Pharaoh; and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven; and it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast.” ( Ex . ix, 1, 2, 3, etc.). The broad distinction which God makes be- tween the cattle and the beasts, is shown (1) by the fact that the cattle were afflicted on one day; while the beast were afflicted on the following day. (2) That the cattle were afflicted with a “very grievous murrian,” while the beast were afflicted with “boils, breaking forth with blains,” just as the Egyptians were. The fact that the beasts were afflicted with the same disease as were the Egyptians, while the THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 237 cattle were afflicted at a different time, and with a different disease, clearly proves that the physical organism, of the beast was altogether different from that of the cattle, and correspondingly approximated that of man. The significance of this is further in- creased when we consider that each succeeding plague visited upon the Egyptians was more injuri- ous to them than its predecessor. This indicates the relative value of the cattle and the beasts; and shows that the beasts were far more valuable than the cat- tle. This is easily comprehended when we under- stand that the cattle were quadrupeds, horses, oxen, camels, sheep, etc.; while the beasts were servants (bipeds — apes) . Prior to the late sectional war in the United States, the people of the Southern States, like the Egyptians, owned their own servants, as well as domestic quadrupeds, such as horses, oxen, sheep, etc. Their servants were far more valuable than their quadrupeds; a negro servant w r as worth from $1,000.00 to $1,500.00; while a horse was worth, say $100.00; a cow or ox, $25.00; a sheep, $2.00, and so on. The relative value of the cattle or quadrupeds and the beasts or servants, was perhaps much the same in Egypt at the time of which we are writing. Further evidence of the broad distinction be- tween the “cattle” and the “beasts” and their rela- tive value, is shown by the fact that the Egyptians are accredited with owning both cattle (quadrupeds) '; and beasts (servants) , while the Israelites are ac- credited with owning cattle (quadrupeds) , but no beasts (servants) see {Ex. x, 9, 24, 25; Ex. x, 11, 38). This is explained by the fact that the Egyptians were 238 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. the masters of the country and were rich and able to own servants; while the Israelites were themselves in bondage to the Egyptians, and were poor and un- able to own servants. The following are lists of personal property owned by Abraham and Esau, his grandson: “And he said, I am Abraham’s servant. And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly; and he has become great; and He hath given him flocks and herds, and silver, and gold, and men servants, and maid servants, and camels and asses.” (Gen. xxiv, 34, 35). “And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and all the persons of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his substance, which he had got in the land of Canaan, and went into the country from the face of his brother Jacob. For their riches were more than that they might dwell together; and the land wherein they were strangers could not bear them because of their cattle.” (Gen. xxxvi, 6, 7). Abraham and Esau were kinsman; they lived in Canaan, though at different times; they were engaged in the same pursuits; they were each rich; they each owned immense herds of cattle of various kinds; yet we find that Abraham is accredited with owning herds and flocks (cattle) , and servants, but no beasts; while Esau is accredited with owning cattle and beasts, but no servants. We can readily understand that Abraham’s servants attended to his cattle; but who attended to Esau’s cattle? Did his “beasts” do this? If they did not, what did they do, and what use did he have for them? The distinction between THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 239 Esau’s “cattle” and his “beasts” is as marked as that between Abraham’s “herds and flocks” and his “servants.” The Babylonians, Israelites, Egyptians, Romans, etc., owned both white and black servants; perhaps Abraham did; he certainly owned white ser- vants, for, in obedience to Divine command, he cir- cumcised them, and it is highly probable that at least a part of his servants were blacks. However, we are not so much interested in Abraham’s servants as we are in Esau’s beasts. From the characteristics possessed by the beast of the field, it is evident that Esau’s “beasts” were “beasts of the field,” and that they discharged the duty of servants in attending to Esau’s “cattle;” and it is highly probable, that a part, at least, of Abraham’s servants were “beasts of the field.” All the circumstances indicate that, (with the exception of Abraham’s white servants) , the beasts of Esau, and the “ servants” of Abraham were “beasts of the field;” and that in ancient times, the terms “beast,” “beasts of the field,” and servant, were all applied to the “ beasts of the field.” The most positive evidence that God designed the “beasts of the field” as servants to man, and that the ancients owned and employed them in the capacity of servants, is shown by the following: “ And now have I given all these lands to Nebuch- adnezzar, the King of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.” ( Jer. xxvii, 6) . Thus God took from certain nations their servants, the “beasts of the field,” and gave them to Nebuchadnezzar “ to serve him.” We have frequently approached clergymen of 240 THE TEMPTEK OF EVE. the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant faith, with the inquiry, what are the beasts of the field, so often re- ferred to in the Bible? The substance of their reply has invariably been that, “the beasts of the field are our domestic quadrupeds of draught and burthen, with which we cultivate our fields, and use for other domestic purposes.” The absurdity of this explana- tion is shown by the fact that our domestic quadru- peds with which we cultivate the fields, and use for other purposes of draught and burthen, are all herbivorous animals; they subsist on grass, hay, and the cereals; not one of them is carnivorous; they are not even omnivorous; and certainly our horses, oxen, camels, etc., would not feed upon the flesh of man; besides, according to the Bible classification of the land animals, our horses, oxen, camels, etc., would be placed under the head of cattle. On the other hand the Biblical “ beast of the field,” is omnivorous ; and even prefers the flesh of man as food. Besides, under the Biblical classification of the land animals, the “beast of the field” must be placed under the head of beasts, (bipeds — apes) . In addition to this, the “beast of the field” possesses all the character- ristics of a servant, which pre-eminently distinguish him from the “cattle” or quadrupeds. One who had never investigated the subject, would naturally suppose the Jewish rabbi of to-day is perfectly familiar with the language of his ances- tors of thirty or more centuries ago; and that he could promptly give us the proper definition of any Avord in the Hebrew language. But, unfortunately, this is not the case; the JeAV possesses a mere frag- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 241 ment of the language of his ancestors; the definition of many Hebrew terms is lost, and their true mean- ing is as much a matter of doubt and speculation with the Jew of to-day as with the Gentile. We as- sert without fear of intelligent contradiction, that, if a copy of the Mosaic Record, written as it originally was, in the ancient Hebrew, could be found to-day, neither Jew nor Gentile could properly read and in- terpret it. Having lost the meaning of many terms which the ancient Hebrews applied to certain ani- mals, the Jew of to-day, like the Gentile, is unable to identify many animals by their ancient Hebrew names. From the many cases of this kind which we might quote, we present the following: In discussing the Hebrew term sheretz, Mr. Dawson says: “ One peculiar group of sheretz is especially dis- tinguished by name — the tanninim, or ‘great whales’ of our version. It would be amusing, had we time, to notice the variety of conjecturers to which this word has given rise, and the perplexities of com- mentators in reference to it. In our version and the Septuagint it is usually rendered dragon; but in this place the seventy have thought proper to put Jcetos (whale) , and our translators have followed them. Subsequent translators and commentators have laid under contribution all sorts of marine monsters, including the sea-serpent, in their en- deavors to attach a precise meaning to the word; while others have been content to admit that it may signify any kind or all kinds of large aquatic animals.” ( The Origin of the World, p. 213). 242 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Discussing the term tan, Mr. Dawson says: “Tan occurs in twelve places, and from these we can gather that it inhabits ruined cities, deserts, and places to which ostriches resort, that it suckles its young, is of predaceous and shy habits, utters a wailing cry, and is not of large size, nor formidable to man. The most probable conjectures as to the animal intended is that of Gesenius, who supposes it to be the jackal.” {Ibid, p. 213, 214) . “Behemoth — This word has long been consid- ered one of the dubia vexata of critics and commen- tators, but modern commentators generally believe the hippopotamus to be denoted by the original word. Behemah and behemoth are general terms for all large mammalia, in which it is constantly used in the Hebrew; and also the specific designa- tion of the hippopotamus; to this animal, and to this alone, it can apply in the book of Job; and in this case only the translators of A. V. being without ac- curate knowledge, wisely abstained from any attempt to render the original. * * * It has been said that some parts of the description in Job cannot ap- ply to the hippopotamus; the 20th verse, for in- stance, where it is said: The mountains bring him forth food.” {Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, Yol. I, p. 383) . The hippopotamus is an amphibian, and it would be absurd to suppose that “The mountains bring him forth food;” water animals do not seek their food on the mountains. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, written by Sir William Smith, is a standard authority with both the THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 243 Jew and Gentile clergy of the day; yet it can give us no information that will enable us to identify the behemoth. The same is true of other animals, among them the “beast of the field;” and if Jewish theolo- gians possessed any knowledge of these matters the Gentiles could obtain it of them; but the Jew has lost this knowledge. As a matter of fact, in the days of Ezra, “the Hebrew language was already a dead language. The popular dialect was the Aramaic, and the Hebrew of Moses, David, and the prophets had become a sort of classical and sacred language, known only to the oldest and the learned. It was an object of academ- ical acquisition. It was therefore necessary to ex- plain and translate or expound the writings.” (Philip Schaff, Art. The Bible, Appleton’s Universal Encyclopaedia, Yol. II) . Aramaic was the language of a Semetic people who lived north of Palestine. “ The Aramaic lan- guage, a branch of the Semitic, was divided into two forms or dialects — the Syriac, or West Aramaic, and the Chaldee, or East Aramaic. The former was the language commonly spoken by the Jews in Palestine at the Christian era.” (C. H. Toy, Art. Aramaic, Ibid, Vol. I) . Mr. Schaff, in discussing the desire of the Jews for a knowledge of the original Hebrew, after their return from the Babylonian captivity, says: “One result of the zeal of the Jews for the original Hebrew was the publication of paraphrases in the Aramaic or popular dialect, which were called Targumim (From a root signifying to ‘interpret’). They pre- 244 THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. sent the rabbinical and traditional interpretation of the scriptures.” {Ibid, Yo\. II). “Targurn: A name given by the Jews to the Aramaean translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament which became necessary when Hebrew was superseded by Aramaean as the spoken language of Palestine. The word occurs for the first time in Ezra iv, 7; but it is impossible to say when these translations were first made — unofficial ones prob- ably at an ealy date.” {Ibid, Art. Targurn, Vol. XI). Thus it is shown (1) that the Hebrew was a dead language at least twenty- five centuries ago; (2) that the Aramaic language superseded the Hebrew, and became the popular language of the Jews in Pal- estine centuries before the birth of Christ. (3) That when the Aramaic superseded the Hebrew as the popular language of Palestine, it was necessary to translate and to paraphrase certain parts of the Old Testament into the Aramaic; (4) that such translations and paraphrases were called Targurn. In contemplating the Targurn, and the probable motives which led to its production, it becomes plain that, the learned paraphrasers who translated it into the Aramaic, fully realized that it contained the true meaning of certain passages and terms in the old Hebrew scriptures, which it was absolutely neces- sary for the masses of the people to understand. No other motive could have led those learned He- brews to paraphrase certain passages and terms of the old Hebrew scriptures, and not the whole. These paraphrases were known to be of vital im- portance; and it is significant that the Hebrew term THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 245 translated “ beast of the field/’ in our English ver- sion, is found in the Targum. The Targum removes all doubt as to whether the “ beast of the field ” is a quadruped, or a biped, and contributes much toward identifying this animal. Hence, these ancient para- phrases are of vital importance. It frequently happens that even fairly well edu- cated people find it difficult to remember the defini- tion of a term such as paraphrase, which is not in every day use; this lapse of memory may occur when there is no dictionary at hand; for the benefit of those who may be thus embarrassed while reading this part of our work, we give the definition of the term paraphrase. “ Paraphrase: 1. A free transla- tion or rendering of a passage; a re-statement of a passage, sentence, or work, in which the sense of the original is retained, but expressed in other words and generally more fully, for the purpose of clearer and fuller explanation; a setting forth in ample terms of the signification of a text, passage, or word. * * * “ 2. To express, explain, or interpret in fuller and clearer words the significance of a passage, state- ment or work; to translate or re-state freely and fully but without losing or changing the original mean- ing.” ( Universal Dictionary, Vol. III). Thus the Targum was merely an Aramsean trans- lation of the Hebrew in which certain passages, terms, etc., were re-stated, ‘ but expressed in differ- ent words/ 1 without losing or changing ’ the sense of the original Hebrew. Sir William Smith gives the following definition of the term ‘ beast ’ : 246 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. “Beast. 1. B’hemah, ( jumentum , hestia, ani- mantia, pecos; ‘beast/ ‘cattle’), which is the gen- eral name for ‘ domestic cattle ’ of any kind, is used to denote ‘ any large quadruped,’ as opposed to fowls and creeping things; or, the word may denote a wild beast. “2. Bg’ir (jumentum, ‘beast,’ ‘cattle’) is used used either collectively of ‘ all kinds of cattle ’ like the Latin pecos; or, especially of ‘beasts of burden.’ This word, which is much rarer than the preceding, though common in the Aramaic, is derived from a root ‘ to pasture.’ “3. Chayyah ( fer a, animantia, animal', ‘beast, wild beast’). This word, which is the feminine of the adjective ‘ living,’ is used to denote any animal. It is, however, very frequently used specially of ‘ wild beast,’ when the meaning is often more fully expressed by the addition of the word ( hassddeh ) (wild beast) of the field. * * * Similar is the use of the Chaldee (chayyah). “ 1. The rendering of four Hebrew words in the A. V., and of three in the R. V. (chayyah, fera, ani- mal, animantium; Arab, hayah) signifies simply ‘ a living thing ’ but is generally applied to wild ani- mals. * * * ‘In most passages, however, whether with or without the words ‘ of the field,’ it is used for wild animals generally, frequently contrasted with birds. “ 2. (Ziz, * * fera, ferus) occurs twice — viz. Ps. i, 11; Levt. xxx, 13 — and is rendered by the A. V. ‘ wild beast.’ The word is from the unused root zooz, ‘ to move oneself,’ and is a common noun sig- THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 247 nifying ‘ that which moves,’ having no reference to any special animal; the word sadeh, ‘of the field’ being in each instance coupled with it. “3. ( Tziyyim , * * bestia, dsemonia, dracones ) , i. e. ‘ inhabitant of the desert ’ * * * tziyyah, ‘ a desert’ or a ‘drought; ’ and frequently of man (as in Ps. lxx, 14), but in three passages — Is. xiii, 21; xxxiv, 14; Jer. i, 39 — applies to some wild animal, and translated in the A. V. and R. V. ‘ wild beast of the desert.’ As in each of the three passages it is coupled with iyyim, also distinguishes some specific creature. But as to the meaning, ancient versions and critics are alike in uncertainty, scarcely any two agreeing. Bachaot ( Hieroz ii, 206) argues strenu- ously in favor of the wild cat, referring to the Arabic not very dissimilar name tzaiwa; and also suggest- ing that there is reference to the cry of the wild cat, along with the howling of the jackal. But the meaning is not very cogent. * * * Others have suggested the hyena, but this seems to be indi- cated by another word — tzebua (Jer. xii, 9) . The Chaldee has apes (cercopithecus) ,* the Targum semise, and others bubo, ‘the great owl,’ but most have left it general; and Gesenius ( sub voce ) adopts this view, and here we may be content to leave it.” (. Dictionary of the Bible , Yol. I, p. 383) . [*Note. Sir William Smith’s selection of Cercopithecus as the “ beast of the field ” was wholly gratuitous. He might with just the same propriety have selected any other ape from the Lemur to the Go- rilla. Cercopithecus is a tailed ape of Africa; it is one which we would never associate in our mind with the field; it is unfit for domestic purposes, while as has been shown, the Biblical beast of the field was designed for a servant; again, the beast of the field is a man-eater , hut no such charge can he brought against Cercopithecus.'] 248 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. From the above quotations, it must be plain to our readers that we have sustained by proof our contention that the Jew has long since practically lost the language of his ancestors of thirty or more centuries ago; that the modern world possesses a mere fragment of the old Hebrew language which died and was superseded in Palestine by the Ara- maic, ages ago. This is clearly shown by the fact that modern theologians, both Jew and Gentile, are utter- ly unable to indentify many animals by their He- brew name; prominent among these is that great man-eating animal which figure so prominently as the beast of the field. In the preceding pages we have shown that the beast of the field possesses certain peculiar characteristics which pre-eminently distinguish him from all other animals; and that God in His wisdom, His mercy, His love, has made these characteristics of this beast, a matter of scriptural record; we have also shown that these characteristics pre-emiently fit this animal for the position of servant which God designed him to occupy; and that the ancients owned and used him as a servant; and that God took from certain nations their “beasts of the field,” and gave them to Nebuchadnezzar to serve him. When viewed in the light of the scriptural record of this beast and his characteristics, the guesses of the would-be Hebrew scholars and theologians of modern times as to the identity of this animal, are absolutely ridiculous; some guess that the wild cat was the animal referred to; others that it was the hy- ena, others, the owl, etc.; while some guess that the THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 249 “ beast of the field ” is a general term. With the latter view Sir William Smith appears to coincide, and he says, “ here we may be content to leave it.” If these distinguished gentlemen had noted God’s gift of the “ beast of the field ” to Nebuchad- nezzar, they must have seen that God designed to punish the people from whom He took these ani- mals, and that in bestowing them upon Nebuchad- nezzar, God proposed to correspondingly benefit him. It is evident that it was not the intention of the great Babylonian monarch to engage in the me- nagerie business, or to start out on the road with a traveling circus, or something of that kind. Hence, he would not desire to be burthened with all the hyenas, wild cats, owls, and such like to be found in the various countries which he invaded and con- quered. How could these animals possibly “ serve him? ” Their whole idea of the “ beasts of the field ” is perfectly absurd, and could only have originated in the grossest ignorance of the plain teaching of the Bible. The embarassment under which these gentle- men labored in vain, to identify the “ beast of the field,” is due solely to their failure to realize that the distinction between the “ cattle ” and the “ beasts ” is based upon the fact that the “ cattle ” are quadrupeds, and that the “ beasts ” are biped-apes. Had they known this, they would have seen that the “ beast of the field” is an ape, and that in the creation, he was made after his “kind,” the “ beast,” — ape or biped “ kind.” For nearly twenty centuries, the Jews as a peo- 250 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. pie, occupied a peculiar position among the nations of the earth, by their adherence to monotheism and the School of Divine Creation, as taught in the Bi- ble. But their history shows that they would occa- sionally yield to the demoralizing influences by which they were surrounded, and renounce mono- theism, and the doctrine of Divine Creation, and descend to atheism as expressed in the theory of evolution, and would even embrace idolatry. Evo- lution naturally tends to greatly modify and lessen, if it does not wholly obliterate the distinction be- tween the quadruped and the biped, by declaring the latter to be merely a development of the former. Hence, under the influence of evolution it would be easy for a people to lose sight of the distinction which the Bible makes between the “ cattle ” or quadrupeds, and the apes or bipeds. When the Israelites would renounce monothe- ism and accept the theory of evolution, God would visit upon them the most terrible punishments; the Babylonian captivity was one of these; under the pressure of these punishments, they would finally renounce atheism and idolatory, and return to mo- notheism, as they did in the days of Ezra, and they would be restored to Divine favor. It is evident that at some period intervening between the days of Ezra and the birth of Christ, they again renounced mono- theism and accepted the theory of evolution; and during this period, under the demoralizing influence of evolution, they finally lost all knowledge of the fact that the ape is a biped. Ezra was called “a second Moses and the restorer of the law. He was the THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 251 first ‘ scribe ’ and raised the scribe above the priest. He collected and arranged the ancient writings, and so laid the foundation of the canon.” (Schaff.) It was Ezra who compelled the Jews to put away their “ strange wives,” and the “ children ” they had be- gotten by them. As the “ restorer of the law ” he taught Israel the true distinction between the “ cat- tle ” and the “ beast,” as well as the distinction be- tween man and the animals; with this knowledge regained they were enabled to identify the “ beast of the field.” Their acceptance of the teachings of Ezra, restored them to Divine favor. Hence, in these respects their condition was much the same as it was in the days of Moses. This ena- bles us to understand that it was after the days of Ezra, and before the birth of Christ, that the Jew lost his knowledge of the fact that the ape is a biped. In the meantime the Septuagint, or Greek trans- lation of the scriptures, was written; the Septuagint was completed about the year 285 B. C. Before the birth of the Saviour they again re- turned to monotheism; they accepted the Sepmagint, and adhered to it until after the crucifixion of the Saviour, when they abandoned it and turned to the Hebrew scriptures as they have them to-day. When the Jews returned to monotheism, and accepted the Septuagint, they observed that it made a distinction between the “cattle” and the “beasts;” but like our English version it did not state in just so many words that the “ cattle ” were quadrupeds and that the “beasts” were bipeds — apes; and having lost all 252 THE TEMPTER OE EYE. knowledge that the ape is a biped, and of the true distinction between the “ cattle ” and the “ beasts,” the Jews were misled into believing that the “ cattle ” were herbivorous quadrupeds, and that the “ beasts ” were carnivorous quadrupeds; and this false perni- cious theory has survived to our day, and is now universally taught by the Jewish, Protestant and Catholic clergy. The Saviour and His disciples en- deavored to eradicate from the minds of men all false theories as to the animals, and man’s relation to them, and restore the teachings of the Mosaic Record; but their efforts were only partially success- ful, especially among the Jews, and the good results which they anticipated, were short lived. From that remote period in which the Jew lost his knowledge of the fact that the ape is a biped, the world was in ignorance upon this important subject, with the exception of a century or two after the birth of Christ, until a few decades ago, Professor Huxley discovered through his researches in comparative anatomy that the ape is a biped; but even when this fact was published, the modern clergy failed to rec- ognize its significance; and Huxley’s great discovery, which is worth more to the world than the discovery of America, or a thousand planets like Uranus, re- ceived no notice at the hands of modern theologians. When the characteristics of the “ beast of the field,” as above shown, are viewed in the light of Prof. Huxley’s discovery, it is easy to see that this creature is an ape; and from our quotation from Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, it is plain that in the old Hebrew scriptures the Hebrew term, trans- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 253 lated “beast of the field” in our English version of the Bible, meant ape; and that the ancient Hebrews recognized the “beast of the field” as an ape. All doubt upon this most important subject is removed by the fact that, when in very ancient times the translating and paraphrasing of the old Hebrew scriptures into the Targum occurred, the term “beast of the field” was translated simiac, which means ape; while in the Chaldee translation of the old Hebrew scriptures, our term “beast of the field” was translated ape. Let us bear in mind that the translating and paraphrasing of the old Hebrew scriptures into the Aramaic was not done by strangers for strangers; nor by the Jews for strangers; but was done by the most competent Jews for the Jews. When this translation was made the Aramaic language had superseded the Hebrew in Palestine, and was the popular language of the masses; but at the same time there were perhaps thousands of old and learned Jews besides the priesthood, who were fa- miliar with the Hebrew language, and being vitally interested in the translating and paraphrasing of the scriptures, they would readily detect any errors in the work, and see to it that they were corrected; the same is true of the Chaldee translation of the script- ures. But such was not the case with the Septua- gint or Greek version of the Bible. When the Sep- tuagint was translated, the Hebrew had been a dead language for centuries. We have now shown (1), by comparative anat- omy that the whole ape family are bipeds. (2) That 254 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. the distinction between the “cattle ” and the “ beasts” is based upon the differences in their physical and mental organisms; that the “cattle” are quadrupeds , and the “beasts” are bipeds — apes. (3) That the Hebrew term, translated “beast of the field” in the English version of the Bible, meant ape in the old Hebrew scriptures, as shown by the fact that in the most ancient translation of the Hebrew this term is translated ape. In the following chapter we shall appeal to the science of comparative anatomy to aid us in identifying this great animal which figures so prominently throughout the scriptures. CHAPTER X. The “ Beast of the Field ” Identified With the Aid of Comparative Anatomy. The white is the highest, and the negro the lowest, of the so-called “five races of men;” and they present the most striking contrast to each other in their physical and mental characters, their modes of life, habits, customs, manners, language, gestures, etc. No cross between the negro and any of the so- called brown, red, and yellow races, will produce the pure white. No cross between the white and any of the so-called brown, red, and yellow races, will pro- duce the genuine negro. This indicates that the white and the negro are the originals whom God made. This being true, it is necessary for us to as- certain the relations which God established between them. In discussing the characteristics of the white (the so-called “Caucasian race”), Theodore Parker says: “The Caucasian differs from all other races; he is humane, he is civilized, and progresses. He conquers with his head as well as with his hand. It is intellect, after all, that conquers, not the strength of man’s arm. The Caucasian has been often the master of the other races — never their slave. He has car- ried his religion to the other races, but never taken theirs. All the great limited forms of monarchy are Caucasian. Republics are Caucasian. All the great 255 256 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. sciences are of Caucasian origin; all inventions are Caucasian; literature and romance come from the same stock; all the great poets are of Caucasian origin. No other race can bring up to memory such celebrated names as the Caucasian race.” Mr. Morris says: “ It may be remarked that all the savage tribes of the earth belong to the negro or the Mongolian races. * * * On the other hand, the Caucasian is pre-eminently the man of civiliza- tion. No traveler or historian records a savage tribe of Caucasian stock.” (The Aryan Race.) This indicates that between the white and the negro, there is a deep, wide, impassable gulf, which is not the re- sult of any development on the part of the white, nor of retrogression on the part of the negro; its significance is immeasurably increased by the fact that its existence is traceable through the scriptures, the sciences, profane history, tradition, and monu- mental evidence to the remotest antiquity. On one side of this great gulf stands the cul- tured, progressive white, whose flashing intellect, restless energy, and indomitable courage discovers, conquors, and develops continents. On the oppo- site, and far distant shore of this great gulf, stands the ignorant, savage negro, whose mental indolence and incapacity accomplish nothing. History re- cords no achievements of his. His thousands of years lived out upon the earth, are as barren of re- sults as those of the gorilla. Throughout his whole existence he figures only as a savage or a servant. No “ woolly-haired nation has ever had an important history.” (Haeclcel.) THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 257 These incontrovertible facts constitute the great- est problem with which man was ever confronted. This great problem — the “negro problem” — has challenged the attention, and baffled the best efforts of the brightest intellects of the earth. Atheism has grappled with this problem only to be vanquished by it. And in the hands of modern religionists, the mystery which has so long enveloped it, grows deeper and more appalling. Yet it must be admitted that the facts we have cited, and which combine to form this vexed problem, are simply effects , which, like all effects, are traceable to a cause. In our efforts to discover this cause, we feel assured that our only hope of success lies in the scriptures and sciences. Recognizing the Bible as the highest tribunal — the court of last resort — we shall appeal to it in this grave emergency, confident that, with the aid of the sciences, we shall accomplish the desired end. The Bible teaches that man was created a single pair, “in the image of God.” And that the animal like the plant was made “after his kind.” And we feel assured that after carefully considering this most important subject, even the most skeptical must admit that the white, with his exalted physical and mental characters, and the negro with his degraded physical and mental characters, are not the descend- ants of one primitive pair. This conclusion has long since been reached by the closest observers and the most profound thinkers of the age. In discussing this question, Professor Haeckel says: “ The excellent paleontologist, Quenstedt, was right in maintaining that, ‘if Negroes and Caucas- 258 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. sians were snails, zoologists would universally agree that they represented two very distinct species which could never have originated from one pair by gradual divergence.” ( History of Creation ). Thus, when viewed from a scriptural standpoint, it is evident that, if the white is the being created “ in the image of God,” the negro is merely an ani- mal and was made “ after his kind.” And a glance at the negro indicates the kind ; his very appearance suggests the ape. Mr. Darwin says, “ The resem- blance to a negro in miniature of Pethecia satanus, with his jet black skin, his white rolling eyeballs and his hair parted on the top of the head, is almost ludicrous.” Prof. Wyman says: “It cannot be denied, how- ever wide the separation, that the negro and orang do afford the points where man and brute, when the totality of their organization is considered, most nearly approach each other.” Prof. Haeckel quotes a great English traveler who lived a considerable time on the west coast of Africa, who says: “I con- sider the negro as a lower species of man, and can H - not make up my mind to look upon him as a man and a brother, for the gorilla would then also have to be admitted into the family.” Prof. Winchel says: “The inferiority of the negro is fundamentally structural. I have enum- erated the points in his anatomy in which he di- verges from the white race, and have indicated that, in all these particulars, he approximates the or- ganisms below. * * * It follows that what the negro is structurally, at the present time, is the THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 259 ■ best he has ever been. It fol lows that he has not descend ed fro m Adam.” (Pre-adamites) . It also follows that if the negro “has not descended from Adam,” he does not belong to the flesh of man, and Fig. 4. FEMALE HOTTENTOT. Fig. 5. FEMALE GORILLA. — From Winch ell, Preadimites. being a land animal, he necessarily belongs to the flesh of beast s. Mr. Morris says: “The negro is normally peace- ful and submissive. His lack of enterprise must keep him so. Education with him soon reaches its limit. It is capable of increasing the perceptive, but not of strongly awakening the reflective, faculties. The negro will remain the worker. * * * Of the two great modern divisions of civilized mankind, the workers and the thinkers, the negro -belongs by nature to the former class.” ( The Aryan Race, pp. 312 , 313 ). The observations of the high authorities above quoted are fully sustained by comparative anatomy. 260 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. As above shown, the white and the negro are the originals whom God made ; when compared with the other so-called “ races of men,” or with each other, one of the most peculiar physical characteristics of each is presented by their complexions; the one being white and the other black. It is admitted that white is not a color, and that black is not a color; yet it is significant that the white, colorless complex- ion of the white is in absolute contrast to the black, colorless complexion of the negro. The theory was formally entertained, and is still adhered to by many, that the dark complexion of the negro, and that of the other so-called “lower races,” is the result of climatic influence. But scien- tific investigation has long since disproven this absurd theory. In his discussion of this subject, Prof. Winchell says: “ The yellow-tawny Hottentots live side by side with the black Kaffirs. The ancient Indians of California, in the latitude of forty-two degrees, were as black as the negroes of Guinea, while in Mexico were tribes of an olive or reddish complexion, rela- tively light. So in Africa, the darkest negroes are at 12 or 15 degrees north latitude; while their color becomes lighter the nearer they approach the equa- tor. ‘ The Yoloffs,’ says Goldbury, ‘ are a proof that the black color does not depend entirely on solar heat, nor on the fact that they are more exposed to a vertical sun, but arises from other causes; for the further we go from the influence of its rays, the more the black color is increased in intensity.’ So THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 261 we may contrast the dark-skinned Eskimo with the fair Kelts of temperate Europe. If it be thought that extreme cold exerts upon color an influence similar to that of extreme heat, we may compare the dark Eskimos with the fair Finns of similar lati- tudes. Among the black races of tropical regions we find, generally, some light-colored tribes inter- spersed. These sometimes have light hair and blue eyes. This is the case with the Tuareg of the Sa- hara, the Affghans of India, and the aborigines of the Orinoco and the Amazons. The Abyssinians of the plains are lighter colored than those of the heights; and upon the low plains of Peru, the Anti- sians are of fairer complexion than the Aymaras and Qeuichuas of the high table-lands. Humboldt says: ‘ The Indians of the torrid zone, who inhabit the most elevated of the Cordillera of the Andes, and those who are engaged in fishing at the 45th degree of south latitude, in the islands of the Chonos Archipelago, have the same copper color as those who, under a scorching climate, cultivate the banana in the deepest and narrowest valleys of the equinoc- tial region.’” {Ibid, pp. 185, 186). Thus it is shown that neither altitude nor latitude produces any marked change in the complexion. In explaining the true cause of the differences in complexion, observable among the so-called “races of men,” Topinard says: “The color of the skin, hair, and eyes, is the re- sult of a general phenomenon in the organism, namely, the production and distribution of the color- ing matter. The skin of the Scandinavian is white, 262 THE TEMPTEK OF EVE. almost without color, or rather rosy and florid, owing to the transparency of the epidermis allowing the red coloring matter of the blood to be seen circulating through the capillaries. * * * The skin of the negro of Guinea, and especially of Yoloff, the dark- est of all, is, on the contrary, jet black, which is caused by the presence in the minute cellules on the deep surface of the epidermis of black granules, known as pigment. The black layer thus formed by these cellules, which used to be called rete mucosum of Malpighi, remains adherent sometimes to the dermis and sometimes to the epidermis on removing the latter, after previously submitting the skin to maceration. This pigment is found in all races, whether black, yellow, or white, but in very differ- ent quantity; hence, their various tones of color, from the lightest to the darkest whites, who readily become brown on exposure to light, are undoubtedly provided with it. It is always more abundant in the scrotum and round the nipple. It is very visible on the mucous membrane of negroes, which are fre- quently surrounded by masses of it, notably on the vault of the palate, the gums, and the conjunctiva, which we have also met with in young orangs.” (Anthropology , pp. 342, 343). Quatrefages, in discussing this question, says: “ With all anthropologists, I recognize the high value of the color of the skin as a character. * * * ‘ We know that it does not result from the existence or disappearance of special layers. Black or white, the skin always comprises a white dermis, penetrated by many capillaries, and epidermis, more or less trans- THE TEMPTEE OF EVE. 263 parent and colorless. Between the two is placed the mucous layer, of which the pigment alone in reality varies in quantity and in color according to the race. All the colors presented by the human skin have two common elements, the white of the dermis and the red of the blood. Moreover, each has its own proper element, resulting from the colorings of the pigment. The rays reflected from these different tissues combine into a resultant which produces the different tints and traverses the epidermis. The lat- ter plays the part of roughened glass. The more delicate and the finer it is, the more perceptible is the color of the subjacent parts. * * * From the preceding, we can also understand why the white alone can be said to turn pale or to blush. The reason is, that in him the pigment allows the slight- est differences in the afflux of the blood to the der- mis to be perceived. With the negro, as with us, the blood has its share in the coloring, the tint of which it deepens or modifies. When the blood is wanting, the negro turns grey from the blending of the white of the dermis with the black of the pig- ment.” ( The Human Species, pp. 356, 357). It is thus shown by the highest scientific authori- ties, that the black, colorless complexion of the negro, is not due to climatic influences; but results solely from the black pigment intervening between the dermis and the epidermis. Like every other part of the organism, this pigment is liable to disease. One of the diseases to which the pigment is subject, is known as albinism. The victims of this disease are called albinos. Dr. Topenard, in discussing albinism 264 THE TEMPTER OF EVE, and albinos, says: “ Albinos are individuals in whom the pigmentary matter is so far deficient that the skin and hair are colorless, the iris is transparent, and the choroid coat destitute of the dark pigment for the absorption of redundant rays of light. In consequence of this, they are unable to bear sun- light, and see better at night than during the day. Their eyeballs are affected with a perpetual oscillating movement, their skin and hair are colorless, or of a dull white, the eyes reddish, the transparency of the tissues showing the blood circulating through the capillaries. They are often indolent, and without muscular vigor. There are partial albinos, in whom the above symptoms are observed, but in a less degree.” (. Anthropology , p. 161). The white epidermis of the white is relatively thin, and emits a slight odor which is not offensive. In strong contrast to this, the negro has a “thick epidermis, cool, soft and velvety to the touch, mostly hairless, and emitting a peculiar rancid odor, com- pared by Pruner Bey to that of the buck goat.” (Prof. Keane quoted in Anthropology for the People , p. 20). Topenard, referring to the repulsive order of the negro, says: “The characteristic effluvium from the hold of a slave-ship can never be got rid of.” (Ibid). “There seems to be a difference between the blood of the white man and that of the negro, too subtle to be detected by microscopic observation, but proved by experimental test. The skin of the white man inserted in the flesh of the negro becomes black, and the skin of the negro grafted on the white THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. 265 man turns white. Nothing but the blood could pro- duce this change.” ( Anthropology for the People , P- 21). The long, fine, silken hair of the white is in absolute contrast to the short, coarse, woolly hair of the negro. Each individual hair of the white is cylindrical. Hence, its section is circular. In con- trast to this, each individual hair of the negro “ is flattened like a tape.” Hence, “ its section is oval.” (Haeckel, History of Creation, Vol. ii., pp. 414, 415). The hair of the white is inserted obliquely into the scalp; in contrast to this, the hair of the negro “is inserted vertically into the scalp.” (Winchell). Prof. Winchell says: “The condition of the hair is found to sustain relations to climate no more exact than the complexion. The Tasmanians, in latitude forty-five degrees, had hair as woody as that of the negros under the equator. On the contrary, smooth hair is found extensively in tropical latitudes, as among the Australians, the Blacks of the Deccan (India) , and the Himyarites of the Yeman, in Ara- bia. Similar absence of correlation between stature and environment has been ascertained.” ( Preadi - mites, pp. 186, 187). Dr. Topenard says: “No explanation can be given as to the varieties of the hair in its fundamen- tal types. For example, the straight and the round, the woody and the flat hair, as seen under the microscope. In this lies the most serious objection to the theory of the derivation of characters from one another. In the present state of science we 266 THE TEMPTER OE EVE. have no explanation to give on the subject.” ( An- thropology ) . The statements of this distinguished anthropolo- gist deserves* our most earnest consideration. He frankly admits that science can give no explanation of why the hair of the white is long, fine, and round, and is inserted obliquely into the scalp; while the hair of the negro is short, coarse, and flat, and is in- serted vertically into the scalp. He also admits that in these striking contrasts “lies the’most serious ob- jection to the theory of the derivation of characters from one another;” or, in other words, in these op- posing characters “lies the most serious objection to the theory ” that either the white or the negro de- veloped the one from the other. It is also plain that in these opposing characters presented by the hair of whites and negroes “lies the most serious objec- tion” to the modern church theory that the whites and the negroes are the progny of one primitive pair. “Dr. Brown of Philadelphia, the distinguished microscopist, has thoroughly investigated the hair of '' the human races, and has shown conclusively that the pile of the negro is really wool. He is the best authority on this point, and is, on that account, quoted in the Encyclopaedia Britanica. The following is a summary of his conclusions: * * ‘ The hair of the white man has, besides its cortex and intermedi- ate fibres, a central canal, which contains the color- ing matter when present. The pile of the negro has no central canal, and the coloring matter is diffused, when present, either throughout the cortex or the ; intermediate fibres. Hair, according to these obser- THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 267 vations, is more complex in its structure than wool. In hair, the enveloping scales are comparatively few, w r ith smooth surfaces, rounded at their points, and closely embracing the shaft. In wool, they are nu- merous, rough, sharp-pointed, and project from the shaft. Hence , the hair of the white man will not feltr, that of the negro will. In this respect, therefore, it comes nearer to true wool.” ( Anthropology for the People , pp. 104, 105). Commenting on the wool of the negro, the author of Anthropology for the People , says: “It is impos- sible to conceive any natural cause that could have changed the hair of the white man into the wool of the negro. If the negro has sunk from the Adamic race to what he now is, what caused the central canal in his pile to disappear, and by what natural cause could it be restored? Can the evolutionist explain it on his theory? Can the monogist explain it on his?” In the white, the pilous system is highly devel- oped; this is in striking contrast to that of the negro, which is notably deficient. Of the negro, Topenard says: “ The beard is scant, and developed late. The body is destitute of hair, except on the pubis and armpits.” (Ibid, p. 488). Winchell says: “As to the pilous system it is deficient in the negro. The hairs of the head are black and crispy, with a trans- verse section, and are inserted vertically in the scalp. The skin is black, velvety, and comparatively cool.” (Ibid, p. 174) . The comparatively short, broad skull of the white is in striking contrast to the long, narrow skull of 268 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. the negro. The length ancl narrowness of the negro skull is a character of the ape. Prof. Winchell says: “ A certain relative width of skull appears to be con- nected with energy, force and executive ability.” This explains the negro’s lack of executive ability — God made him so. The significance of this is easily seen when we pause to reflect that the task to which man was assigned in the creation required the highest executive ability. Winchell, quoting from Broca, says: “(1) The face of the negro occupies the greater portion of the total length of the head. (2) His anterior cranium is less developed than his pos- terior, relatively to that of the white. (3) His occip- ital foramen is situated more backward in relation to the total projection of the head, but more forward in relation to the cranium only. In other words, the negro has the cerebral cranium less developed than the anterior.” ( Preadimites , pp. 169, 170). “ In the negro skull the sphenoid does not, gen- erally, reach the parietals, the coronal suture joining the margin of the temporals. The skull is very thick and solid, and is often used for butting, as is the custom of rams. It is flattened on the top, and well adapted for carrying burdens.” (Ibid, p. 171). “The cephalic index — among Noachites (whites), ranges from 75 to 83 degrees; among negroes, from 71 to 76 degrees. (Ibid, p. 246). Dr. Winchell, in discussing cranial capacity, says: “Capacity of cranium is universally recog- nized as a criterion of psychic power. No fact is better established than the general relation of intel- lect to weight of brain. Welker has shown that the THE TEMPTER OE EYE. 269 brains of twenty-six men of high intellectual rank surpassed the average weight by fourteen per cent. Of course quality of brain is an equally important factor; and hence not a few men with brains even below the average have distinguished themselves for scholarship and executive ability. The Noachites possess a mean capacity of 1,500 cubic centimeters. Among negroes, 1,360 cubic centimeters.” (Ibid, p. 246) . “ The average weight of the European brain, males and females, is 1,340 grammes; that of the negro is 1,178; of the Hottentot, 974, and of the Aus- tralian, 907. The significance of these comparisons appears when we learn that Broca, the most eminent of French anthropologists, states that, when the Eu- ropean brain falls below 978 grammes (mean of males and females) , the result is idiocy. In this opinion Thurman coincides. The color of the negro brain is darker than that of the white, and its dens- ity and the texture are inferior. The convolutions are fewer and more simple, and, as Agassiz and others long ago pointed out, approximate those of the quadruma.” (Ibid, pp. 249, 251). The theory of evolution has long misled the world into believing that all bipeds with the erect posture, articulate speech, a well formed hand and foot, and the abiltity to make and handle tools, are men. As a result of this false teaching, we have no estimates of the average brain weight of the adult Adamic male nor of the Adamic female. But there can be no doubt that the average brain weight of the adult Adamic male may safely be placed at 270 THE TEMPTER OF EYE, Fig. 6. PROFILE VIEW OF THE BRAIN OF THE ORANG OUTANG. Fig. 7. PROFILE VIEW OF THE BRAIN OF THE BUSHMAN VENUS. Fig. 8. PROFILE VIEW OF BRAIN OF GAUSS, THE MATHEMATICIAN. — From Winchell, Preadimites. THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 271 not less than 1,500 grammes. This average is far below that of many individual whites, for example: Weight of brain, grammes. ounces. Cavier — 63 years old — naturalist, . 1829.96 64.54 Byron — 36 years old — poet, . . . 1807.00 63.73 Lejisens Dirichlet — 50 years old — mathematician, .... 1520.00 53.61 — ( Quatrefages , The Human Species, p. 411). The table from which these brain weights were taken contains the brain weights of several distin- guished individuals which fall below the average. This indicates that, in determining the relative intel- ligence of individuals, there are other factors to be considered besides the weight and volume of the brain. While admitting that “ there is a certain re- lation between the development of the intelligence and the weight and volume of the brain,” Quatre- fages says: “But at the same time we must allow that the material element, that which is appreciable to our senses, is not the only one which we must take into account, for behind it lies hidden an un- known quantity, an X, at present undetermined and only recognizable by its effects.” (Ibid, p. 413) . To demonstrate this truth, it is only necessary to compare the achievements of the whites with those of the negro and the mixed-bloods. The relatively short, narrow jaw of the whites is in striking contrast to the long, broad jaw of the ne- gro. The length and breadth of the negro’s jaw is a character of the ape. The jaws of the negro, like those of the other apes, “ extend forward at the ex- pense of the symmetry of the face, and backward at 272 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. the expense of the brain cavity.” Quatrefages says: “It is well known that in the negro the entire face, and especially the lower portion, projects forward. In the living subject it is exaggerated by the thick- ness of the lips. But it is also apparent in the skull, and constitutes one of its most striking char- acters.” {Ibid, pp. 390, 391) . Dr. Winchell says: “The amount of progna- thism is another marked criterion of organic rank. One method of expressing this is by means of ‘ auri- cular radii,’ or distances from the opening of the ear to the roots of the teeth, and to other parts of the head. Among Europeans, the distance to the base of the upper incisors is 99, but among negroes it averages 114. On the contrary, the average dis- tance to the top of the head is, among Europeans, 112, but among negroes, 110. The distance to the upper edge of the occipital bone is, among Europe- ans, 104, among negroes, 104. These measurements prove that the negro possesses more face, and parti- cularly of jaws and less brain above. Other mea- surements furnish a similar result, and show also that the development of the posterior brain, in rela- tion to the anterior, is greater in the negro. Prog- nathism is likewise expressed by means of the ‘ facial angle,’ or general slope of the face from the forehead to the jaws, when compared with a horizontal plane. Among the Noachites, the facial line is nearest per- pendicular, giving an angle of 77 degrees to 81 de- grees. Among the negroes it averages only 67 de- grees.” {Preadimites, p. 247). In contrasting the negro skull and face with THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 273 those of the white, Topinard says: “The norma ver- ticals is of an elliptical shape. The supra-iniac por- tion of the occipital is frequently projecting, its lat- eral portions are flat and vertical, the curved temporal lines describe an arc corresponding with the mass of temporal muscles, which are inserted beneath them; the temporal shelf itself is larger than that of the white. The frontal is articulated frequently with the temporal; the greater wings of the sphenoid are consequently not articulated with the parietal. The cranial sutures are more simple than in the white type, and are obliterated sooner. (Gratiolet ) . The squamo-temporal, and the spheno-parietal frequently form a horizontal straight line. The forehead is nar- row at the base, sometimes receding and rather low; sometimes straight and bulging (bombe) at the sum- mit. The frontal bosses are often confluent, or re- placed by a single and median protuberance. * * * The orbit moreover are microsemis, that is to say, short from above downwards. * * * The eye- balls are close to the head, and the palpebral aper- tures are nevertheless small and are on the same horizontal line. * * * The nose is developed in width at the expense of its projection; its base is large and crushed in, owing to the softness of the cartilages, and spreads out into two diverging alse, with elliptical nostrils more or less exposed. This extremity is also trilobed. The skeleton of the nose platyrrhinian (54.78) ; the two bones proper are oc- casionally united as in apes. The inferior border of the aperture is obliterated, or replaced by a sort of platform, the boundary between the nasal fossae and 274 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. the sub-nasal region being undefined in proportion to the very slight development of the median spine. * :!: * The prognathism, of the negro extends within certain limits to the entire face. All the parts of the superior maxilla contribute to it, and even the pterygoid processes, which are drawn for- ward by the development of the jaw; but it is only really characteristic and considerable in the sub- nasal region and in the teeth. It frequently exists also in the lower jaw, that is to say, the chin recedes, and the teeth project obliquely forwards. The teeth themselves are wider apart than in the white races, beautifully white, very firm and sound. Lastty, the ears are small, round, their border not well curled, the lobule short and scarcely detached, and the audi- tory opening wide. The neck is short.” ( Anthro- pology , pp. 488, 489, 490) . “The space between the eyes of the negro is larger and flatter than in the white.” (Topenard) . “ The eye of the negro affords a peculiarity of struc- ture strikingly different from the white man. It has been long known, and was described by Dr. Samuel A. Cartright, of Natchez, Mississippi, nearly fifty years ago, in simple, non-technical language. He says: ‘If you look into the inner angle of the eye, next to the nose, and slightly elevate the eyelids, you will discover nothing in the white man’s eye but a small prominence, or glandular-like substance, and a very small semi-lunar membrane. The promi- nence is composed of seven distinct crypts, or sacs, filled with an unctious fluid, and has seven distinct THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 275 openings, or orifices. The semi-lunar membrane is for the purpose of directing the tears into a sac, which lies behind and below the prominence. But if you look into the eye of the negro, in the same manner, you will discover that his eye has an addi- tional expansion of the above-mentioned membrane, or, in other words, an additional contrivance, con- sisting of a membranous wing expanded underneath a portion of the upper eyelid, and that when the eye is exposed to a bright light, the membranous wing covers a considerable portion of the globe of the eye. You will find the same membranous wing still more fully developed in birds, forming a kind of curtain, or third eyelid, called by naturalists the nictating membrane, evidently to guard their eyes against the dazzling influence of the sun’s rays. The master may neglect to provide his slaves with a covering for the head to shield the eyes from the brilliancy of the sun while laboring in the fields, and such neg- lect would greatly increase the irksomeness of labor under a tropical sun, if God, in His good provi- dence, had not provided them with the above-men- tioned contrivance to protect the eyes against the brightness of the solar rays. You have, no doubt, frequently seen slaves throw off their hats as an incumbrance and voluntarily expose themselves bare-headed to the sun, without suffering any incon- venience from the intensity of his light.’” {An- thropology for the People, pp. 21, 22). The prominent nose of the white is in striking contrast to the flat nose of the negro, which has the 276 THE TEMPTEE OF EVE. appearance of having been crushed in. The fiat nose of the negro is another characteristic of the ape. “ The cartilage at the end of the nose of the white man is divided, or split, as any one can test by placing a finger on the tip of that organ; but in the negro nose this split does not exist, nor does it exist in mulattoes. The prostate gland in the negro. is bilobular, or, to put it in popular terms, it may be said to be divided into two parts, like the quadruma- nous organization. The absence of the ‘ nasal spine ’ in the negro is another singular difference.” ( An- thropology for the People, pp. 20, 21). The comparatively thin lips of the white are in striking contrast to the thick, fluffy lips of the negro. This thickness of the lips is another character of the ape. Quatrefages says: “The thousand differences of form and dimensions which exhibit, from the negro of Guinea with his enormous, and, as it were, turned-up lips, to certain Aryan or Semitic whites, can neither be measured nor described. * * * It may, however, be remarked that the thickness of the lips is very marked in all negroes, in consequence of their pro- jection in front of the maxillary bones and the teeth. The mouth of the negro presents another character which seems to me to have been generally neglected, and which has always struck me. It is a kind of clamminess at the outer border of the commissures, and seems to prevent the small movements of the corner of the mouth which pla} r such an important part in the physiognomy. The dissections of Mr. THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 277 Harny have explained these facts. They have shown that in the negroes the muscles of this region are both more developed and less distinct than in the whites.” ( The Human Species , p. 367). The prominent chin of the white is in striking contrast to the retreating chin of the negro. This retreating chin is another character of the ape. Winchell says: “The retreating contour of the chin, as compared with the European, approximates the negro to the chimpanzee and lower mammals.” (Ibid, p. 251) . The front teeth of the white, set perpendicularly in the jaw, are in striking contrast to the front teeth of the negro, which set slanting in the jaw. The slanting teeth is another character of the ape. Haeckel describes as “Prognathi” those whose jaws, like those of the animal snout, strongly pro- ject, and whose front teeth, therefore, slope in front; and men with straight teeth “ orthognathi, whose jaws project but little and whose front teeth stand perpendicularly.” Dr. Middleton Michel, Professor in the South Carolina Medical College, quoted in Anthropology for the People, says: “The larynx is formed of true and false cartilages. The textural peculiarity of these false cartilages is that they are delicate, pliable, elastic, and never undergo ossification. To this class belong the epiglottis and the cartilages of Santorini and Wrisburg. The so-called cartilages of Wrisburg, cuneiform or cruciform cartilages, as they are also designated, are developed within the 278 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. aryteno epiglottidian folds, one on each side of the rima glottidis, or chink of the glottis. Of all these in- trinsic pieces forming or supporting the wind pipe, none are so inconstant, and, when present, even variable as to size, as the Wrisburg cartilages; scarcely any larger than the Santorini cartilages, they, at best, are concealed within the mucous folds of the aryteno epiglottic larynx, and are very diffi- cult to find. In the white subject I have never met them, and when to the touch and sight they w'ere discernable, it has always been in the negro. I have made a special investigation of this point, and I would caution those who seek to discover these deli- cate nodules of fibro-cartilage that, when the scalpel would fail to discover them, their presence is often satisfactorily revealed by simply rolling the aryteno epiglottic folds between the thumb and fore-finger, as then the touch at once detects the firmer resist- ance of an extremely delicate body unfolded within these mucous layers and embedded among the min- ute granules of sparcely-scattered laryngeal glands.” The relatively long, slender neck of the white, is in striking contrast to the short, thick neck of the negro. The short, thick neck is another character of the ape. Burmeister, quoted by Hartman, says: “ The negro’s thick neck is the more striking, since it is generally allied with a short throat. In measu- ing negroes from the crown of the head to the shoulder, I have found the interval to be from nine and a quarter to nine and three quarter inches. In Europeans of normal height this interval is sel- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 279 dom less than ten inches, and is more commonly eleven inches in women, and twelve in men. The shortness of the neck, as well as the relatively small size of the brain pan, and the large size of the face, may be more readily taken as an approximation to the Simian type, since all apes are short-necked. * * * This shortness of the neck of the negro ex- plains his greater carrying power, and his prefer- ence for carrying burdens on his head, which is much more fatiguing to the European on account of his longer and weaker neck.” {Anthropoid Apes, pp. 100 , 101 ). In the negro, “ the clavicle is longer in proportion to the humerus than in the white. His radius is per- ceptibly longer in proportion to the humerus — thus approximating to that of the ape. The scapular is shorter and broader.” {Preadimites, p. 171). “ Among negroes, the forearm is longer, in propor- tion to the arm, than is the case with whites. The same is true of anthropoid apes. {Ibid) . Topinard says: “The arm is shortest in whites, longest in negroes. Frequently in the latter, the extremity of the middle finger touched the patella; once it was twelve millimeters below its upper border, as in the gorilla.” {Ibid, p. 335). Quatrefages says: “I have already observed that the upper limb is a little longer in the negro than in the white. The essential cause of this difference is the relative elongation of the fore-arm. M. Broca, after comparing the radius and humerus of the two races, gives 79.43 for the 280 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. negro, and 73.82 for the European.” ( The Human Species, p. 399) . Prof. Winchell says: “Among negroes the ca- pacity of the lungs is less than among the whites, and the circumference of the chest is less.” {Ibid, p. 173) . Quatrefages says: “ The thoracic cage pre- sents some facts sufficiently well proved. In conse- quence of the form of the sternum, the greater or less curvature of the ribs, it is generally broad and flattened in the white, narrow and prominent in the negro.” {Ibid, p. 397) . Topinard says: “ M. Pruner-Bey speaks of two important characters which remind one of the ape. The three curvatures of the spine are less pro- nounced in the negro than in the white; his thorax is relatively flat from side to side, and slightl}” cyl- indrical. The shoulders, he adds, are less powerful than in the European. The umbilicus is nearer the pubis; the iliac bones in the male are thicker and more vertical, The neck of the femur is less ob- lique.” {Anthropology, p. 490) . Topinard says: “ Camper and Soemmering ob- served that the pelvis of the negro in its ensemble is narrower than that of the white. * * * In 1826 Vrolik came to the conclusion that the pelvis of the male negro — from its strength and thickness — from the want of transparency in its iliac fossa? — from the higher projection of its superior extremity, and from the spinous processes of the iliac bones being- less projecting and less separated from the cotyloid cavities, approximates to that of animals, while the THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 281 pelvis of the negress maintains a certain slender- ness.” {Anthropology , pp. 305, 306) . “ Weber found that in each of the races he had studied, the pelvis presented a predominant form, which, on that ac- count alone, became characteristic. He regarded the inlet as being generally oval and of large trans- verse diameter in the white * * * cuneiform and of large antero-posterior diameter in negroes. * * * M. Verneau confirms the assertions of the greater number of his predecessors, as to the reality of the characters of race to be found in the pelvis. Amongst these characters, there are some which have been pointed out in the negro as indications of animalism. * * * In fact, the vertically of the ilia, and the increase of the antero-posterior dia- meter of the pelvis in the negro, have been chiefly insisted upon as recalling characters which may be observed in mammilla generally, and particularly in apes.” {The Human Species, pp. 397, 398). Win- chell says: “The negro pelvis averages but 26-| inches in circumference; that of the white race is 33 inches. In the negro it is more inclined, which is another quadmanous character.” {Preadamites, p. 249) . Topinard places the relative length of the femur to the tibia at 67.22 in the negro, and 69.73 in the white. {Ibid) . In contrasting the following charac- ters of the negro with those of the white, Topinard says: “The femur is less oblique, the tibia more curved, the calf of the leg high and but little devel- oped, the heel broad and projecting, the foot long, 282 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. but slightly arched, flat, and the great toe rather shorter than in the white. Negresses age rapidly, their breasts elongate after the first pregnancy, and become flabby and pendulous.” {Ibid, p. 490.) The thin calves set high on the leg, the projecting heel, etc., are all characters of the ape. Topinard also points out differences between whites and negroes in their muscular systems, vessels, viscera, and all the internal organs, and says: “No doubt special peculiarities in the internal generative organs will be discovered. The nervous system has been the subject of closer study. Soemmering, and after him Jacquart, demonstrated that the nerves of the negro, particularly those at the base of the brain, are larger than those of the European. It has been ascertained that his cerebral substance is not so white.” {Ibid, pp. 307, 308, 309) . Quatrefages says: “ Relatively to the white, the negro presents a marked predominance of peripheral nervous expansions. The trunks are thicker, and the fibres more numerous, or perhaps merely easier to isolate and to preserve on account of their volume alone. On the other hand, the cerebral centers, or at least the brain, appear to be inferior in develop- ment.” {Ibid, p. 401). There are also some slight variations between the respiration, circulation, ani- mal temperature, secretions, etc., of the white man and the negro. {Ibid, 409) . Dr. Mosley, quoted by Winchell, says: “Ne- groes are void of sensibility to a surprising degree. They are not subject^ to nervous diseases. They THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 283 sleep soundly in every dise as e , nor does any mental "disturbance keep them awake. They bear chirurgi- cal operations much better than white people; and what would be the cause of insupportable pain to a white man, a negro would almost disregard.” (Preadamites, p. 178). Dr. Winchell says: “The mental indolence of negroes is further shown in the comparative records of insanity and idiocy. While among whites, mania occurs in the proportion of 0.76 per thousand, among negroes it is only 0.10 per thousand. While idiocy among the former is 0.73 per thousand, among the latter it is 0.37 per thou- sand.” (Ibid, p. 182) . “ In the negro, the develop- ment of the body is generally in advance of the the white. His wisdom teeth are cut sooner; and in estimating the age of his skull, we must reckon it as at least five years in advance of the white.” (Ibid, p. 175). The exemption of the negro from malarial diseases, and sundry other pathological affections of the white race, is another significant diagnostic.” (Ibid, p. 180). Quatrefages says: “Of all human races the white is the most sensitive to marsh fevers, and the black the least so. On the other hand, the negro race suffers more than any other from phthisis.” (Ibid, p. 426) . Dr. J. Hendree, of Aniston, Alabama, in writing to Professor Winchell, says: “Let me mention one fact especially, drawn from my own experience of forty years. The coarse- ness of their (the negroes) organization makes them 284 THE TEMPTER OE EVE. require about double the dose of ordinary medicine used for whites.” Dr. M. L. Barrow, of Drayton, Georgia, writing to Dr. Winchell, says: “I have practiced among the negroes for over forty years. * * * Your information in respect to the doses of medicine for the colored people, cor- responds with my experience — except as regards opiates; and perhaps they will bear large quantities of these, as I have known some to take very large doses with impunity.” ( Preadamites , p. 177) . Desirous of comparing the anatomy of one of the so-called “ lower races of men,” with that of the white and the apes, Prof. Huxley selected as his specimen, a “ Bosjesman Negro,” from one of the so- called “ black races ” which he, Winched and others, class as negroes. After comparing the physical and mental organisms of the “ Bosjesman Negro,” with those of the white, on the one side, and with those of the gorilla, chimpanzee, and other apes on the other side, Prof. Huxley states the result of his ob- servations as follows: “The difference between the highest and lowest men is far greater, both relatively and absolutely, than that between the lowest man and the highest ape. The latter, as has been seen, is represented by, say, twelve ounces cerebral sub- stance absolutely; or by 32:20 relatively; but as the largest recorded human brain weighed between 65 and 66 ounces, the former difference is represented by more than 33 ounces absolutely, or by 65:32 rel- atively. Regarded systematically, the cerebral dif- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 285 ferences of man and apes are not of more than ge- neric value — his family distinction resting chiefly on his dentition, his pelvis and his lower limbs. “ Thus, whatever system of organs be studied, the comparison of their modifications in the ape series leads to one and the same result — that the structural differences which separate man from the gorilla and the chimpanzee are not so great as those which separate the gorilla from the lower apes.” {Man's Place in Nature , pp. 122, 123) . Thus, Prof. Huxley found by comparative ana- tomy that the difference between the physical and mental organism of the white and “ Bosjesman Ne- gro” are immeasurable; he also found that the dif- ferences between the physical and mental organism of the “ Bosjesman Negro ” and the gorilla and chim- panzee, are not so great as those which separate the gorilla from the tailed apes; that they are not of more than generic value. In view of the fact that compa- rative anatomy furnished Prof. Huxley the most abundant, absolute proof that the negro is an ape, it would be interesting to learn upon what authority he declared him a “man.” He proved him a mon- key, and pronounced him a man — proved him a beast and accepted him as a brother. The above comparisons clearly show that in his physical and mental organisms, the negro differs from the white; and that at every essential point he approximates the organisms below. We have also shown that in their ability to make and handle tools, the lower apes closely approach the negro. Yet none 286 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. of the lower apes, not even the so-called anthropoids, can discharge the many duties which devolve upon servants. They could never handle and care for do- mestic animals, work metals, fashion implements, break the ground, plant, cultivate, and harvest crops; and build houses, fences, etc. In addition to this, it is significant that no one of the so-called an- thropoids can be said to be “ most absolutely like man.” The gorilla approaches nearest to man in the structure of the hand and foot, the chimpanzee in important structural details in the skull, the orang in the development of the brain, and the gibbon in that of the thorax.” ( The Evolution of Man , Vol. II, p. 181). When we pause to reflect that all knowledge of the fact that the negro is an ape, was lost to the world ages ago, it is easy to see that, but for the ex- istence of the lower apes, it would be impossible for us, at this late day, to prove that he is not a man; and this, too, in the face of the fact that, in his physi- cal and mental characters, his habits, mode of life, manners, gestures, language, and his achievements, he is in striking contrast to the white. But with this interesting family of animals, shading up from lemur to the negro, we are able with the assistance of the scriptures and the sciences to determine that the negro is one of the ape family; that he simply stands at the head of the ape family, as the lion stands at the head of the cat family. Hence, the lower apes, though unfit for general domestic pur- poses, are invaluable, in that they enable us to de- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 287 termine beyond question the negro’s true position in the universe — that he is merely an ape. The negro possesses articulate speech, the erect posture, a well-formed hand and foot, and is withal a tool-making, tool-handling animal. These charac- teristics pre-eminently fit him for the position of servant, while the low order of his mentality dis- qualifies him for a higher sphere; as is well known, the negro is an animal with which man may asso- ciate^ himself carnally, and produce offspring, that will be indefinitely fertile, and capable of utilizing the arts of civilization, and of acquiring a knowledge of God and His dealings with man; besides, it should be borne in mind that, though the negro is omni- vorous, he manifests a strong preference for the flesh of man as an article of food. These charac- teristics clearly identify the negro as the creature described in scripture as the beast of the field. CHAPTER XI. The Creation of Man. “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 cre- ated he them: “And God blessed them, and God said unto tnem, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth ” (Gen. i, 26, 27, 28). The broad distinction which the inspired writer makes between man and the animals, and plants which preceded him is shown as follows: 1. In the proposition to make man: “Let us make man,” etc. 2. That neither the earth nor the waters would be allowed to bring forth man; God Himself would create man. 3. That, unlike the animals and plants, man was not made after any kind, but was created “ in the image of God ” — “ after His likeness.” 288 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 289 4. That, unlike the plants and animals, which were made in great numbers and varieties, man was created a single pair. 5. That, unlike his treatment of the animals, the inspired writer tells us that God designed man for a specific work; that man was to have dominion over the earth and the animals. 6. That when created, man was commanded to “ subdue ” the earth, and “ have domain over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” It is plain that to “ subdue ” the earth means to develop its resources; for, just in proportion as man subdues a piece of wild uncultivated land, he neces- sarily reduces it into a cultivated state, and devel- opes its resources. Hence, the Biblical term “ sub- due,” in this text, and our term “ develop,” are synonyomous. To “ have dominion ” means to dominate — to have control. Hence the term “ domin- ion” in this text, and our term “control” are synonymous. Thus, man was designed to develop all the resources of this globe, and when created he was at once assigned to this great task. He was also designed to “ have dominion ” — to exercise control over the animals and utilize them in his efforts to accomplish the development of the earth. This was a task of such magnitude as only the mind of Diety could have conceived; and man’s successful accom- plishments of it required that man be endowed with mind of the highest order — mind at once legislative, executive, and judicial; and man’s brilliant achieve- 290 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. ments when viewed in the light of history, traditions, monumental evidence, and our daily observation, shows that he was thus endowed. All the indica- tions point to the fact that if man had respected the design of God in creating him, and had applied himself to the accomplishment of the great task for which he was designed, and to which he was assigned in the creation, this earth would long since have been in the highest state of cultivation; its resources would all have been discovered, appreci- ated, and developed. The besetting sin which de- graded man from his first and high estate, as the dominant power of the earth, will be fully revealed in the following pages of this work. It will be observed that in our English version of the Bible, the Mosaic account of the creation is divided into two chapters. As above quoted, the first chap- ter acquaints us with the leading events of the creation in the order of their occurrence, beginning with the creation of matter, and ending with the creation of man; the design of God in creating man, and the duties to which he and his descendants were assigned in the creation. If the narrative of creation ended with the first chapter of Genesis, we could readily see that no kinship exists between man and the ani- mals; that they were made at different periods; and were designed for different purposes; that man was designed to rule, and the animals to be controlled. But we would be hopelessly ignorant upon the fol- lowing important subjects: (1) What character in man pre-eminently distinguishes him from the ani- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 291 mals, and establishes between God and man the close relationship of father and son; thus making man an immortal being — an heir to eternity — while the animals are mere creatures of time. (2) How man was brought into existence, and what elements en- tered into his composition. (3) What new element was introduced into the material universe on the sixth creative day in combination with matter and with mind as presented in the physical and mental organisms of Adam, and which elevated man to the lofty dignity of a creation. (4) Was man and woman created simultaneously, or did one precede the other, and if so, which one? These and other important questions would have been left to mere speculation. But, happily the narrative of creation extends through the second chapter of Genesis; and in this chapter we are given a more detailed account of the origin and location of the elements of plant and ani- mal life — that they are inherent in matter ; the material of which man’s physical organism is formed; the man- ner of his formation; the elements which enter into his composition, and which pre-eminently distinguish man from the animals; establishes between God and man the close relationship of father and son; and thus endows man with immortality; and also en- lightens us as to this new element which made its first appearance in the material universe in combi- nation with matter and with mind in Adam ; the fact that the male side or part of the Adamic creation preceded the female; that man, unlike the animals, 292 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. was assigned to a definite place of abode, and to a specific task in the Garden of Eden, etc. In verse 7 of the second chapter of Genesis the inspired writer says: “ 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.” The information contained in this text is inval- uable for the following reasons: 1. The “dust of the ground” of which “God formed man is a part of the original creation — mat- ter. This being true, it follows that man’s physical organism is composed of matter; and that man’s physical life, like that of the plant or the animal, is derived from the elements of life, which are inher- ent in matter. 2. It enables us to realize that the broad dis- tinction which exists between man and the animals is not due to man’s possession of more perfect phys- ical and mental organisms; for, in these respects the difference between them is merely one of degree , not of kind. Hence, when, in the Creation, man’s physical and mental organisms were completed, he, like the animals, was simply a combination of matter and mind. At this period in his history there ex- isted between God and man, as existed between God and the animals, only such relationship as naturally exists between the Creator and His creature — the relationship of the artist to the product of his art. In this condition, man, possessed of physical and mental organisms of the highest order — and life — THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 293 physical life — derived from the combination of the elements of life, which were inherent in the matter of which his physical organism was composed, might have lived out a mere animal existence on the earth, without further endowments from the hand of God. If mated with a female whose exalted physical and mental organisms corresponded with his own, he might even have begotten offspring which would have been indefinitely fertile, and to whom he would transmit his elevated physical and mental characters ; in this case, however, Adam and his progeny would have been mere animals, distinguished from the fish, and fowl, and beasts only as these are distinguished from each other; and, like their fellow animals, they would have had no knowledge of, nor interest in, an eternity beyond. But such was not God’s will; it was not a part of His plan of creation that man should thus be placed on the base level of the brute; with no laws govern- ing his conduct save those which govern the animals in their relations to each other; with no hope of pres- ent or future reward as an incentive to the perform- ance of good acts; and no fear of present or future punishment as a restraint upon the commission of bad acts; it was not God’s intention that man should live out a mere animal existence on the earth — a mere creature of time; He had no desire that between Himself and man there should exist only such rela- tionship as naturally exists between the Creator and His creature — the relationship of the artist to the product of his art. 294 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. God entertained nobler, grander, more sublime conception with regard to man, that peerless creature whom He proposed to honor by the bestowal of His likeness, and His image, and to whom He would con- fide dominion over the works of His hands. He desired that between Himself and man there should exist a close relationship of father and son; that the intercourse between the Heavenly Father and His earthly son should not be confined to time, but would continue throughout eternity; this required that, in addition to his physical life, derived from matter, man should be endowed with immortal life; this required that God would incorporate with man’s physical and mental organisms, a part of His own substance; in the accomplishment of this ennob- bling, far-reaching design, “ God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Thus the three creations, Matter, Mind, and Soul, which are necessary to perfect man, were combined in “Adam, the son of God.” “The breath of life” — immortal life — itself a part of His own substance, which God breathed into man’s nostrils, was a new element — a Creation — which was thus introduced into the material uni- verse; and when God incorporated it with the phy- sical and mental organisms of Adam, He at once established between Himself and man the close rela- tionship of father and son, transformed him from a mere combination of matter and mind, to the lofty dignity of a Creation. “ Thou mad’st him a little THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 295 lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor.” If further evidence was necessary to show that Adam was the son of God, our Saviour furnishes it by His recognition of the pure-blooded descendants of Adam as His brethren and sisters. {Matt, xii, 49; also Mark iii, 35) . We might also point to the fact that the ancestry of the Saviour is traced to “Adam, the son of God.” {Lulce iii, 38) . Well might David exclaim in contemplating God’s creation of man: “I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect, and in Thy book all my num- bers were written, which in continuance were fash- ioned, when as yet there was none of them.” (Ps. cxxxix) . Man and woman were not created simultane- ously; the male side or part of the Adamic creation was first created, and afterwards the female; but what length of time intervened between these great events, we have no means of ascertaining; but that it was a considerable period, is indicated by the fact that it was in this interval that “ Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.” To successfully accomplish this great task would have been creditable to a Linnaeus or Cuvier; it was a mental work requiring the ut- 296 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. most observation and the finest discrimination. Hence, Adam’s successful accomplishment of it, goes far to prove the splendor of his intellectuality. When the great task of naming the animals was finished, the earth was not graced by the presence of woman; “for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for him.” So long as only the male side or part of the Adamic creation was in existence, it was incomplete, and utterly incapable of obeying the first command given in the creation, “ be fruitful and multiply.” Realizing this, the great Artist of the universe looked out upon His yet unfinished creation, and said: “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him. “ And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept; and He took one of ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” Forgetful that like produces like, and that by virtue of this principle the native characteristics of man must have been more or less active in all ages of his history, we, of modern time are accustomed to boast our greater enlightenment as compared to that of the ancients; and in proof of this, we proudly point to the sacredness of marriage, woman’s honor- able position in society, and her higher education. But scraps of very ancient history, bits of monu- mental evidence, and fragments of old traditions that have survived the ravages of time, and de- scended to us, all point to the fact that this is merely THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 297 a reformatory movement, which indicates a disposi- tion on our part to return to primitive conditions. Among the Egyptians, that ancient people who filled the valley of the Nile with magnificent cities, adorned with sumptuous palaces, splendid temples, and all the evidences of the highest culture, the po- sition of woman was honorable and marriage was sacred; not even the king was allowed a plurality of wives; woman’s mental faculties were highly culti- vated, and her rights respected and carefully guarded; the wife could hold property in her own right and manage her financial affairs; and if divorced, her dow- er was returned to her with a high rate of interest. Among the Toltics, that great people who developed one of the splendid civilizations of America in ancient times, the position of woman was honorable; her men- tal faculties were highly cultivated, and marriage was sacred. Among the Aryans, who, thousands of years ago, developed the magnificent civilization of ancient India, marriage was sacred, the position of woman was honorable, and the culture bestowed upon her mental faculties is attested by the Vedas, which abound in beautiful hymns and poems, which were composed and written by the ladies and queens of the Aryans. When we ascend the stream of time in our efforts to discover the fountain source of this exalted characteristic in man — his respectful devotion to woman, it leads us to the Creation. We find that the earliest manifestation of this ennobling charac- teristic was displayed in the first recorded utterance 298 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. of Adam, on his reception of that lovely “ help- meet” which God made for him: “This is now born of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be of one flesh.” We would search the annals of the world in vain for a sentiment at once more chaste, more chivalrous, and more devotional to our mother’s lovely sex; no one of the intrepid knights who weilded a lance in the Age of Chivalry, ever gave utterance to a sentiment more chivalrous, toward the lady of his choice, whose feelings, whose inter- est, and whose honor he stood pledged to defend with his life. But in view of the fact that man’s chivalrous devotion to his mother’s sex, is a charac- ter peculiar to man; that it is traceable to the Crea- tion, and had its origin in Adam, we should naturally expect to find traces of it in the literature and tradi- tions of those ancient peoples, the remains of whose splendid civilization, even in their ruins, at once excites the wonder, and challenges the admiration of the modern world. Hence, to our minds there was no occasion for the surprise which greeted the announcement made some fifty years ago that, in addition to their religious, scientific, historical, and poetic literature, the ancient Hindoos possessed many beautiful dramas. One of these fine dramas, “ Sakoontala,” was composed by Kalidasa, an ancient Hindoo bard, who THE TEMPTEE OF EVE„ 299 is styled “ the Shakespeare of India.” Sakoontala was translated into English by Professor Monier Williams, who says of it: “Indeed the popularity of this play with the natives of India exceeds that of any other dramatic, and probably of any other poet- ical composition. But it is not in India alone that the Sakoontala is known and admired. Its excellence is now recognized in every literary circle throughout the continent of Europe; and its beauties, if not uni- versally known and appreciated, are at least acknowl- edged by many learned men in every country of the world. The four-well known lines of Goethe, so often quoted in relation to the Indian drama, may be here repeated: ‘ Would’st thou the young year’s blossoms and the fruits of its decline, And all by which the soul is charmed, enraptured, feasted, fed? Would thou the earth and heaven itself in one sole name combine? I name thee, 0 Sakoontala! and all at once is said.’ * * * ‘ Alexander Von Humbolt, in treating of Indian poetry, observes: ‘Kalidasa, the cele- brated author of the Sakoontala, is a masterly de- scriber of the influence which nature exercises upon the minds of lovers. * * * Tenderness in the expression of feeling, and richness of fancy, have assigned to him his lofty place among the poets of all nations.’ ” (See introduction to Sakoontala , pp. 6, 7 , 8 ). The lofty, chivalrous sentiments toward woman, 300 THE TEMPTER OF EVE, which characterized the utterances of Adam on his reception of Eve, breathes in every line of the fol- lowing beautiful tribute which Kalidasa pays to wo- man: “ Man’s all-wise maker, wishing to create A faultless form, whose matchless symmetry Should far transcend Creation’s choicest works, Did call together by His mighty will, And garner up in His eternal mind, A bright assemblage of all lovely things: And then, as in a picture, fashion them Into one perfect and ideal form.” ( Salcoontala , p. 43) . Prior to the advent of man, there was no con- necting link — no bond of kinship between God and the material universe; the relationship between them was merely that of the architect to the structure He had devised and builded. All things in the ma- terial universe were mortal, there was nothing im- mortal. But the proposition to make man, as above quoted, announced the end of these conditions; it heralded the advent of a being who would form the link of kinship between the Creator and His crea- tion. In the execution of this Divine proposition man was created as above described. And our ac- ceptance of the Mosaic account of creation, leaves us no alternative than to decide that man is a crea- tion , just as matter and mind are creations. This being true, it follows that man is no more akin to the animals than he is to the plant or the planet. Paul furnishes further evidence of this in his declara- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 301 tion: “All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” Thus we are emphatically taught that these four kinds of flesh are as distinct from each other as if the one made its appearance upon and inhabited the earth, the other Saturn, the other Mars, and the other Jupiter. This being true, it follows that we might with just the same propriety consider man a mem- ber of the siderial kingdom as to consider him merely a member of the animal kingdom. Hence, to recognize any kinship between man and the animals, we must repudiate the teachings of Moses and St. Paul. Prior to the advent of woman, the inspired writer says: * * * “For Adam was not found an helpmeet for him.” (Gen. ii, 20). This was due to the fact that Adam was the sole representative of the flesh of man. Then, in order that there should be no doubt as to whether Adam and Eve were of “ one kind of flesh,” God made the female man out out of the male man. Thus completed and prefected by the presence of woman, the Adamic family could beget offspring, and increase its numbers on the earth, and ultimately discharge the duties for which they were designed, and to which God assigned them in the Creation. Let us bear in mind that man the male, and woman the female, are the mutually de- pendent sides or parts of the immortal life system of the earth. Hence, the presence of each is necessary to the existence and perpetuation of the system. 302 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. The combination of the three creations — matter, mind and soul, as they exist in man, are transmit- able through pure Adamic channels; that is, by sexual intercourse between man and woman. Hence, when the male and female sides or parts of the Adamic creation were perfected in Adam and Eve, God commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” The reasons for this are evident: (1) Immense numbers of men and women were necessary in order to develop the resources of earth, and exercise control over the animals. (2) That, by a life of obedience to God’s laws, Adam and Eve, and their descendants, would fit their souls for the realms of the blest, so that when their physical dissolution occurred, they would be gathered to their reward in eternity, and thus increase the population of heaven. In discussing this question, let us bear in mind that matter is the basis of all formations in the ma- terial universe, whether it exists alone as in the plant; or in combination with mind, as in the ani- mal; or in combination with mind and soul, as in man. It should be unnecessary to say that the re- production of these three creations, as they exist in plants, in animals, and in man, are governed by laws which God enacted in the creation; and which are positive and unerring in their operations and results. By way of ascertaining the operations and re- sults of these laws, we shall first investigate the re- production of plants, in which only the matter cre- ation is represented; and, inasmuch as the manner THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 303 in which they are reproduced is generally under- stood, we shall take as our illustration the flowering plants, in which the sexes are represented in the male and in the female bloom. It is well known that the reproduction of these plants results from the union of the pollen, or fecundating dust of the stamen of the male bloom with the pollen or fecundat- ing dust of the pistil of the female bloom. This indi- cates that one side or part of the matter creation, with all the elements of life — physical life — exists in the male bloom; and that its corresponding side or part exists in the female bloom; these opposite, but mut- ually dependent sides or parts, each act as a magnet which attracts its corresponding side or part in the op- posite sex; and, when the two are united in the female bloom, the matter creation is perfected and repro- duced in the young plant. But if, as frequently oc- curs, the matter creation as it exists in its imperfect state in the respective germs of the male and female blooms, are not united in the female bloom, these vital elements are wasted, and the reproduction of the matter creation in the young plant is not accom- plished. The same law governs the reproduction of the animal, in which the two creations — matter and mind — exist in the respective germs of the male and the female. One side or part of the matter creation, with all the elements of life — physical life — and one side or part of the mind creation, exists in an imper- fect state in the male animal; the corresponding sides or parts of these imperfect creations exist in the 304 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. female animal. Observation teaches that by uniting the imperfect sides or parts of these creations in the female, results in their being perfected and repro- duced in the young animal. This indicates that each of these creations maintains its individuality in their respective germs of the male and the female animal, and that each side or part of these imperfect crea- tions acts as a magnet, which attracts its correspond- ing side or part in the opposite sex. Hence, when sexual union occurs, each side or part of these two creations — matter and mind — are united and per- fected in the female, conception and birth results, and the combination of matter and mind as they ex- isted in the parents is reproduced in the offspring. But if, as frequently occurs, from various causes, these imperfect matter and mind creations, as they exist in the respective germs of the male and female animal, are not united and perfected in the female, these vital elements are wasted, conception does not result, and the reproduction of these two creations in a young animal is not accomplished. The strength of our argument is demonstrated by the actions of our domestic fowls; it frequently occurs that the fe- male fowl, when not associated with the male fowl, will lay eggs; but such eggs will not “hatch.” This is due to the fact that but one side or part — the fe- male side or part of the two creations, matter and mind, as they existed in the germ of the female — was represented in the egg; their corresponding side or part in the male, which was necessary to perfect the two creations in the female, were not present; and THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 305 as a result the effort of the female to reproduce these two creations in a young animal, independ- ently of the male, was abortive. The same law which governs the reproduction of the matter creation in the plant, and the repro- duction of the matter and the mind creations in the animal, must also govern the reproduction of the three creations — matter, mind, and soul — as they ex- ist in the respective germs of the male and female man. One side or part of the matter creation with all the elements of physical life; and one side or part of the mind creation; and one side or part of the soul creation with its peculiar characteristic — immortal life — exists in an imperfect state in the germ of the male man; the corresponding sides or parts of these imperfect creations exist in the germ of the female man. By the union of these imperfect creations in the female man, they are perfected and reproduced in the offspring. This indicates that each of these imperfect creations maintains its individuality in the respective germs of the male and the female man; and that each of these imperfect creations acts as a magnet, which attracts its corresponding side or part in the opposite sex. When sexual union occurs, each side or part of these imperfect creations unites with its corresponding side or part in the female, and is thus perfected; conception results, and the three creations — matter, mind, and soul — are reproduced in the off- spring. Thus, it is shown that the reproduction of the immortal soul, in combination with matter and with mind as it exists in man, is as natural and as 306 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. simple a process as the reproduction of the animal or the plant; and that it is governed by the same laws. The most positive evidence that Adam was con- scious of the fact that he was not a mere combina- tion of matter and mind; that he was not an animal; that he was not akin to the animals; but that he was a distinct creation; that he possessed an immortal soul, itself a part of the substance of God; that his soul formed the bond of kinship between himself and God; that when the hour of his physical dis- solution arrived his soul would take its flight from the scenes of earth to an endless existence in eter- nity; his knowledge of all these facts is shown by his explanation of why he called the name of his wife Eve: “Because she is the mother of all liv- ing.” (Gen. iii, 20) . All the facts indicate that this explanation was made before Eve had conceived by Adam, and con- sequently before she became a mother. But para- doxical as it may appear, his explanation is sustained by the scriptures, which teach us that the animal possesses mere physical or mortal life; while in addition to his physical life, man possesses immortal life. This being true, it follows that, from the moment of its conception, the offspring of the female animal begins to die, in the sense that each moment of its existence brings it nearer to the time of its final dissolution. Hence, in this sense, the female animals may with propriety be regarded as the mothers of a 1 ! dying. But this does not apply THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. 307 to women. Adam was fully aware that in the ova- ries of Eve there was one side or part of the three creations, — matter, mind, and soul; that the corres- ponding sides or parts of these creations existed in himself; and that when these imperfect sides or parts were united and perfected in Eve, she would give birth to an immortal being. Thus it is shown: (1) That by incorporating “a living soul” — itself a part of the substance of God — with Adam’s physical and mental organisms, God established between Himself and Adam the close relationship of father and son. (2) That this rela- tionship is transmitable through pure Adamic chan- nals to the remotest descendants of Adam. Hence, every pure-blooded descendant of Adam and Eve are sons or daughters of God, as the case may be. Fur- ther evidence of this is furnished by the Virgin Mary and her conception of the Saviour. Immediately before the occurrence of this great event, one side or part — the female side or part — of the matter, mind, and soul creations reposed in the womb of Mary; or- dinarily, these imperfect sides or parts of these three creations would have been perfected by being united through sexual contact with their corresponding male sides or parts. But God willed it otherwise; He de- sired a “ begotten son,” who, as His heir and repre- sentative, would act as mediator between God and man, and re-establish between them the cordial rela- tions which had so long been interrupted. In the execution of this design, God, not by the sexual act, but simply by the exercise of His creative power, sup- 308 THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. plied and united the imperfect female sides or parts of the three creations in the womb of Mary, with their corresponding male sides or parts; Mary con- ceived, and in due process of time, Jesus Christ, the Founder of Christianity and the Redeemer of the World, was born. As above shown, the Bible teaches that there are three Creations — matter, mind, and soul; and that the soul creation is as distinct from mind, as mind is distinct from matter. We have also shown that Adam fully realized this, and that his possession of a Soul, which is peculiar to man, pre-eminently dis- tinguishes man from the animal. This essential knowledge which God bestowed upon Adam for the benefit of the Adamic family in all ages, doubtless occupied as conspicuous a place in Adam’s book as it does in our Bible. But, when Adam’s book was lost in the ages following the Deluge, the knowledge of these three elements was handed down by tradi- tion and thus became more or less garbled and con- fused. However, we find traces of them in the lit- erature of the civilized nations of antiquity of whose cosmogonies we have any knowledge. But, finally, God made a second revelation of the existence of these creations to Moses, who transmitted them to the Jews in his account of the creation. The Jews, and doubtless many Gentiles, knew of these three creations and the distinctions between them until long after the crucifixion; besides, our Saviour rec- ognized the distinctions between these three crea- tions in His command: “Thou shalt love the Lord THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 309 thy God with all thy heart; (physical organ, com- posed of matter) , and with all thy soul (the immortal organ), and with all thy mind,” (the mental organ) . But during the “ Dark Ages ” the existence of these three creations and the distinctions between them, like the distinctions between the “ cattle ” or quadrupeds, and the “ beasts” or bipeds (apes), were lost. When this sad event occured the mind crea- tion and the soul creation came to be regarded as identical, and the terms “mind or soul,” were employed to describe the mental organism. At the same time there were many persons who adhered to the belief of their ancestors that man is immortal; and they insisted upon making a distinction between man and the animals; but with the Bible distinc- tions upon this subject lost, and with mind and soul blended and confused, as the “ mind or soul,” they, in their ignorance, were led to believe that mind is peculiar to man; and that the animals possessed mere instinct. This great error which had its origin in the “Dark Ages” of ignorance, superstition, and crime, has survived to our day, and is now universally entertained by the Jew and the Gentile, the Catholic and the Protestant alike; and thus prac- tically eliminates the soul creation from modern theology. The leading authorities of the age make no distinction between mind and soul. As evidence of this, we quote Professor Robert Young in his “ Analytical Concordance of the Bible,” in which he proposes to give “every word in alphabetical order, arranged under its Hebrew or Greek original, with 310 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. the literal meaning of each, and its pronunciation.” Professor Young defines the term “ Mind ” as follows : “ Mind— 1. Imagination, frame, formation, yetur. 2. Heart, leb. 4. Soul, breath, nephesh. 5. Mouth, peh. 6. Spirit, ruach” — ( Analytical Concordance, pp. 661, 662). Sir William Smith, another leading authority, makes no distinction between mind and soul. (See Dictionary of the Bible) . The misconception as to the identity of mind and soul which universally pre- vails among both Jew and Gentile theologians, is clearly shown by the utterances of Dr. Robert T. Young, a prominent educator of Nashville, Tenn., who, in his work, “ The Negro, a Reply to ‘ Ariel pp. 28, 29, says: “ The whole world is made up of mind or soul and matter. The term matter is a name which we apply to a certain combination or properties, or to certain substances which are solid, extended and divisible, and which are known to us only by these properties. The term mind, in the same manner, is a name which we apply to a certain combina- tion of functions, or to a certain power which we feel within us, and is known to us onty by these functions. Matter we know only by our senses. Mind or soul by our consciousness. (Dr. Aber- combie) THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 311 This blending and confusing of the mind and soul creations has the following disastrous results: 1. It is at once an open, gratuitous insult to God, and the most positive, direct assault upon His plan of creation, since it proposes to throw open the portals of eternity alike to man and the animals. 2. It proposes to eliminate the soul creation from the material universe; and thus destroy the bond of kinship between God and man; deprives man of any special claim to immortality, and de- thrones him from his lofty position as a distinct creation. 3. It degrades man to the base level of the brute; for, as has been shown, mind is common to man and the animals, the difference between them in this respect being merely one of degree , not of kind. Hence, if the mind and soul are identical, why should not the “mind or soul” of the animal be as immortal as the “mind and soul” of man? Thus it is plain that man’s claim to immortality is abso- lutely ridiculous when based on nothing more than the superiority of his mind over that of the animal. The teachings of the modern clergy, both Jew and Gentile, that mind and soul are identical, and the employment of the terms “mind or soul” to de- scribe the mental organ, though in conflict with the scriptures, is in absolute harmony with the teach- ings of modern materialism, as shown by the utter- ances of Professor Haeckel, the leading materialist of the age, who says: “ With regard to the human ‘ soul organ,’ the 312 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. brain, the application of the fundamental law of bi- ogeny has been firmly established by the careful empiric observations. The same may be said of its functions, the 'activity of the soul.’ For the devel- opment of a function goes hand in hand with the gradual development of every organ. The morpho- logical differentiation of the various parts of the brain corresponds with its physiological separation or ‘ division of labor.’ Hence, what is commonly termed the 'soul’ or ' mind’ of man, (consciousness included) is merely the sum total of the activities of a large number of nerve cells, of which the brain is composed. Where the normal arrangement and function of these latter does not exist, it is impossi- ble to conceive of a healthy ' soul.’ This idea which is one of the most important principles of our mod- ern exact physiology, is certainly not compatible with the wide-spread belief in the ‘ personal immor- tality of man.’ However, this dualistic dogma, v T hich is met with among the lower races of men in the greatest variety of forms, is no longer tenable. The wonderful advances made in experimental physiol- ogy and psychiatry, as well as in comparative pys- chology and ontogeny, have, during the last half- century, removed stone after stone from the mighty sub-structure upon which this dogma stood so ap- parently unassailable. However, it lost its hold by the grand biological discoveries of the last two dec- ades, above all by the complete uplifting of the veil which had hitherto concealed the mystery of fertili- zation. We now know for certain, and can demon- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 313 strate the fact at any moment under the microscope, that the wonderful process of fertilization is nothing more than the commingling of two different cells, the copulation of their kernals. In this process the ker- nal of the male sperm-cell transmits the individual peculiarities of the father, the female egg-cell trans- mits those of the mother; the inheritance from both parents is determined by the commingling of both kernals, and with it likewise begins the existence of the new individual, the child. It is against all rea- son to suppose that this new individual should have an ‘ eternal life ’ without end, when we can minutely determine the finite beginning of its existence by direct observation.” ( History of Creation , pp. 493, 494, 495) . Thus, as above shown, the modern clergy, both Jew and Gentile, Catholic and Protestant, are in open conflict with the Bible in their efforts to blend and confuse mind and soul, they are in absolute harmony with the teachings of atheism. If further evidence was required to show the broad distinction which exists between mind and soul, we might, among other scriptural writers, quote Peter, who says of the antediluvians: “Which some time were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a pre- paring, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” ( 1 Peter , iii, 20) . There were as many minds “saved” in the ark as there were men, women, and animals, but there 314 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. were only eight souls “ saved; ” these were Noah and his wife, and his three sons and their wives. All the facts relative to the creation of man justifies us in asserting that Adam, fresh from the hands of his Creator, bearing the “image of God,” presented in his physical, mental, and soul organ- isms, the grandest specimen of manhood the world has ever known; and that Eve, fresh from the hands of her Creator, with the “image of God” stamped upon her fair brow, presented in her physical, men- tal, and soul organisms, the loveliest specimen of womanhood, that ever graced the earth. CHAPTER XII. The Theory of Descent. Having reviewed the teachings of the scriptural school of Divine Creation, as revealed in the lan- guage of the inspired authors, it is only fair to our readers to present the teachings of the atheistic school of Natural Development, as set forth in the language of its leading advocates. As shown in a previous chapter of this work, the general theory of development is, as it were, divided into two parts: the first part treats of the origin of the earth and the celestial bodies ; and materialists generally accept the Nebular Theory as the correct solution of this prob- lem. The other part of the theory of development treats of the introduction of plant and animal life; and the origin of plants, animals and man. This part of the theory is known as “The Theory of Descent.” The advocates of this theory assume that plant and animal life is the result of “ spontaneous generation.” Thus, the “Nebular Hypothesis” and “The Theory of Descent,” combine to form what is known as “ The Theory of Natural Development,” or “The Theory of Evolution.” In discussing the origin of animal life, Prof. Haeckel says: “ The most ancient ancestors of man, as of all other organisms, were living creatures of 315 316 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. the simplest kind imaginable; organisms without organs, like the still living monera. They consisted of simple homogeneous, structureless, and formless little lumps of mucous or albuminous matter (plas- son) , like the still living protamceba jprimitava. The form value of these most ancient ancestors of man was not even equal to that of a cell, but merely that of a cytod; for, as in the case of all monera, the little lump of protoplasm did not as yet possess a cell-kernel. The first of these monera originated in the beginning of the Laurentian period by spontan- eous generation, or archigony, out of so-called “in- organic combinations;” namely, out of simple com- binations of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitro- gen.” ( History of Creation, p. 380) . Mr. Haeckel’s theory of the origin of life bj r spontaneous generation is in striking contrast to that of Mr. Darwin, who believed that God created a few simple “ forms,” and that these evolved through higher forms to culminate in man. Mr. Darwin says: “ There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one. * * * * The similar framework of bones in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of a porpoise, and leg of a horse * * * and innumerable other such facts, at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and successive modifications. * * * In regard to the members of each great kingdom, such as vertebrata, articulata, etc., we have distinct THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 317 evidence * * * that within each kingdom all the members are descended from a single 'progenitor. * * * All the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch.” {Origin of Species , pp. 420, 425, 428) . In opposition to this, Mr. Haeckel says: “But a truly natural and consistent view of organisms can assume no supernatural act of creation for even these simplest original forms, but only a coming into exist- ence by spontaneous generation. From Darwin’s view of the nature of species we arrive, therefore, at the natural theory of development. * * * The fundamental idea which must necessarily lie at the bottom of all natural theories of development is that of a gradual development of all (even the most per- fect) organisms out of a single or out of a very few quite simple and quite imperfect original beings which came into existence not by supernatural creation but by spontaneous generation, or archigony, out of in- organic matter .” {Ibid, Vol. I, pp. 48, 75). In a more detailed description of the monera, Mr. Heackel says: “Formerly, when the doctrine of spontaneons generation was advocated, it failed at once to obtain adherents on account of the com- posite structure of the simplest organisms then known. It is only since we have discovered the exceedingly important monera, only since we have become acquainted in them with organisms not in any way built up of distinct organs, but which consist solely of a single chemical combination, and 318 THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. yet grow, nourish and propagate themselves, that this great difficulty has been removed, and the hypo- theses of spontaneous generation has gained a degree of probability which entitles it to fill up the gap existing between Kaut’s cosmogony and La Mark’s Theory of Descent. “ Only such homogeneous organisms as are yet not differentiated, and are similar to inorganic crys- tals in being homogeneously composed of one single substance, could arise by spontaneous generation, and could become the primaeval parent of all other organisms.” (Ibid, pp. 418, 419) . In contradiction of Mr. Haeckel, Mr. Darwin says: “We cannot fathom the marvellous complexity of an organic being; but on the hypothesis here advanced this complexity is much increased. Each living creature (Mr. Haeckel recognizes the monera, as the living creature) must be looked upon as a microcosm — a little universe — formed of a host of self-propagating organisms, inconceivabty minute, and as numerous as the stars of heaven .” ( Animals and Plants, Vol. II, p. 483). This shows that the monera is not a “ structure- less,” “homogeneous,” “lump of albumen,” “com- posed of one single substance,” and “ not in any way built up of distinct organs, but which consists solely of a single chemical combination.” Mr. Darwin, a most competent judge, says it is nothing of the kind; but that “ each living creature must be looked at as a microcosm — a little universe — formed of a host of THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 319 self-propagating organisms, inconceivably minute, and as numerous as the stars of heaven .” Professor Huxley adds his testimony to that of Mr. Darwin as follows: “No living being (the monera is a ‘living being’) is throughout of homogeneous substance; the most of them are highly complex, from the union of many dissimilar parts. The state- ment of this structure constitutes anatomy, and if it is carried down to the minutest microscopic elements of the organism it is called histology.” ( Elementary Physiology, p. 15). Thus, according to these great naturalists, the monera is not a “formless,” “homogeneous,” “sim- ple lump of albumen,” composed of “ a single chem- ical combination.” Mr. Darwin says: “ Each living creature must be looked at as a microcosm — a little universe — formed of a host of self-propagating organ- isms, inconceivably minute, and as numerous as the stars of heaven .” Huxley says: “No living being is throughout of homogeneous substance; the most of them are highly complex, from the union of many dis- similar parts.” Add to the statements of these naturalists Mr. Haeckel’s own admission, and not a vestige of his theory of spontaneous generation is left. He says: “ Only such homogenous organisms as are yet not dif- ferentiated and are similar to the organic crystals, in being homogeneously composed of one single substance, could arise by spontaneous generation.” This being- true, it follows that, since “no living being is throughout of homogeneous substance;” but that 320 THE TEMPTEK OE EYE. 11 each living creature is a microcosm — a little universe ” in itself — formed of a host of self -propagating organ- isms , Mr. Haeckel’s theory of spontaneous genera- tion, based upon the monera, falls still-born from the imagination of its author. Mr. Haeckel further says: “When the monera moves itself, there are formed on the upper surface of the little mucous globule, shapeless, finger-like processes, or very fine radiated threads; these are the so-called false feet, or pseudopodia. The false feet are simple, direct continuations of the shape- less albuminous mass, of which the whole body con- sists. We are unable to perceive different parts in it, and we can give a direct proof of the absolute simplicity of the semi-fluid mass of albumen, for, with the aid of the microscope, we can follow the moneron as it takes in its nourishment. When small particles suited for its nourishment — for in- stance, small particles of decayed organic bodies or microscopic plants and infusoria — accidently come in contact with the moneron, they remain hanging to the sticky semi-fluid globule of mucus, and here create an irritation, which is followed by a strong afflux of the mucus substance; and, in consequence, they become finally completely enclosed by it, or are drawn into the body of the moneron by displace- ment of the several albuminous particles, and are there digested, being absorbed by simple diffusion ( endosmosis ) . Thus, in describing the habits of the monera, Mr. Haeckel tells us that it moves from place to THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 321 place with the aid of “finger-like processes’’ — “so- called false feet” — that it takes into its body “ small particles of decayed organic bodies,” which “are there digested.” These things could only be accom- plished with the aid of organs which were designed for the purposes which they serve. The “ finger-like processes ” — the so-called “ false feet,” the digestive apparatus, etc., are all so many organs. Yet, at the outset, Mr. Haeckel describes the monera as “ organ- isms without organs .” In describing the propagation of monera, Mr. Haeckel says: “All monera propagate themselves only in a non-sexual manner by monogony. * * * When such a little globule, for example, a prota- mceba or a protogenes, has attained a certain size by the assimilation of foreign albuminous matter, it falls into two pieces; a pinching-in takes place, contract- ing the middle of the globule on all sides, and finally leads to the separation of the two halves. Each half thus becomes rounded off, and now appears as an independent individual, which commences anew the simple course of vital phenomena of nutrition and propagation.” (Ibid, p. 191). Thus the monera propagates itself by self-divi- sion. Each half is the same individual duplicated; by this process there can be no such thing as inheritance; for inheritance implies parent and offspring. This being true, there can be no “ inherited ” variations to transmit to descendants. Hence, the most remote descendants of the first monera would simply be an exact duplicate of the original. There could be no 322 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. variations. This places the monera “ beyond the in- fluence of ‘natural selection.’” Mr. Darwin says: “ Unless favorable variations be inherited by some at least of the offspring, nothing can he affected by nat- ural selection .” “ Natural selection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications.” Any variation which is not inherited is unim- portant for us.” ( Origin of Species, pp. 9, 75, 80). Thus it is shown that Mr. Darwin’s theory of “ natural selection, or survival of the fittest,” of which Mr. Haeckel is so ardent an advocate, does not apply to the monera; for, where there is no inherited qualities — no variations — there can be no “ natural selection no “ survival of the fittest;” and conse- quently no evolution from this simple creature to higher organisms. And again, according to Mr. Darwin’s theory of “ natural selection or survival of the fittest,” if the descendants of the most ancient monera had been modified or improved, the improved varieties would have supplanted the parent forms, and the latter would have become extinct. Mr. Darwin says: “New varieties continually take the place of and supplant the parent forms.” “New and improved varieties will inevitably sup- plant and exterminate the older” “ In all cases the new and unimproved forms of life tend to supplant the old and unimproved forms.” ( Origin of Species , pp. 266, 292, 413). The very fact that the monera of to-day is the THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 323 exact duplicate of the monera of ages ago, is proof positive that no new and improved varieties have been developed in all the ages that have passed; for, had there been, the improved varieties, ac- cording to Mr. Darwin’s theory, would long since have supplanted and exterminated the parent forms ; but such was not the case; the monera is perhaps to-day the most numerous of all living beings, covering almost the entire bottom of the ocean. From remote ages this “simplest of all organisms” has gone on propagating itself by self-division, each half duplicating the original, and utterly incapable of the least variation; as shown by the fact that, not a single specimen of a modified or improved variety, either alive or in a fossil state, has ever been dis- covered. Thus Mr. Haeckle’s theory of spontaneous generation based on the monera, when viewed even in the light of “natural selection or survival of the fittest,” falls to the ground on the very threshhold of its existence. The theory of spontaneous generation is based upon a false assumption; the assumption that the distinction between inorganic matter, and organic life , is found in the greater or less simplicity of the organ- isms of the latter. This is a great mistake; there is a vast difference between the simple structure of the monera and the complex structure of the man; but there is no difference between the life — physical life — which animates and perfects the simple organism of the monera, and the physical life which animates and perfects the complex organism of the man. 324 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Life — physical life — is identical, whether it exists in the most simple or the most complex organ- ism. Hence, it is their possession of life — phys- ical life — which alike distinguishes the monera and man from inorganic matter, and not the greater or less simplicity of the organisms of the latter. Their failure to note these facts has led the advocates of spontaneous generation to suppose that between in- organic matter and the simple organism of the mon- era, there is a gap so small that, in the remote past, under favorable conditions, spontaneous generation might have spanned it. From this false premise they argue that, from the complex organism of man, down through the animal kingdom, there is an ever- increasing simplicity of organism — a gradually shad- ing down, as it were, to reach the monera, which, in the extreme simplicity of its organism, is but little removed from inorganic matter. But, as a matter of fact, there stands between inorganic matter and organic life, a deep, wide, and impassable gulf, which spontaneous generation could never span. On one side of this great gulf stands inorganic matter; on its opposite, and far distant shore, stands organic life, in all the simplicity and complexity of its organisms. Hence, the simple organism of the monera is as far removed from inorganic matter as is the complex organism of man. Then add to this the fact that even the simplest animal organism possesses m ind — a creation distinct from inorganic matter, and the great gulf which separates THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 325 inorganic matter from organic life, is immeasurably increased. Mr. Haeckel’s opinion of the simple organism of the monera is in striking contrast to that of Mr. Darwin, who says: “The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet; and no one with an unbiased mind can study any living creature, however humble, without be- ing struck with enthusiasm at its marvelous structure and properties.” ( Descent of Man, p. 165). How any rational man can entertain the idea that inorganic matter, which is destitute of intelli- gence, or any ability to plan and construct, could possibly devise and form the “marvelous structure” of an animal organism, is beyond our comprehen- sion; and then, as if to make the absurdity more ab- surd, to suppose that inorganic matter, which is never associated with mind, transferred mind to the animal organism it had so miraculously brought into existence! Mr. Darwin, the great high priest of evolution, admits that evolution is incompetent to explain the origin of either mind or life. He says: “In what manner the mental powers were first developed in the lowest organisms is as hopeless an inquiry as how life itself first originated. These are problems for the distant future, if they are ever to be solved by man.” (Descent of M> an, p. 66) . Mr. Haeckel admits that not a single case of spontaneous generation has ever been observed. He says: “The origin of the first monera by spoil- 326 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. taneous generation appears to us as a simple and necessary event in the process of the development of the earth. We admit that this process, as long as it is not directly observed or repeated by experi- ment, remains a pure hypothesis. But I must again say that this hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation, that it has absolutely nothing forced or miraculous about it, and that certainly it can never be disproved.” ( History of Creation, Vol. I, p. 422). In the face of the facts above set forth, Mr. Haeckel’s sweeping claim that the monera is “the most ancient ancestor of man, as of all other organ- isms,” is shown to be absolutely ridiculous. It should be unnecessary to state that this atheistic theory, which denies the existence of a personal Creator, and proposes to establish a “blood relation- ship ” extending throughout the animal kingdom from the monera to man, is opposed to every teach- ing of the Bible. While we hold with the Bible that the elements of life — physical life — are inherent in matter, we insist that spontaneous generation is powerless to combine them in plants and animals. This marvelous result can only be accomplished by a Thus saith the Lord. Thus, according to Mr. Haeckel, the monera marks the first “Ancestral Stage” in man’s progeni- tors; from this humble beginning he tells us that our “animal ancestors,” evolved through the fish, and fowl, and beast, to reach what he terms the THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 327 “ Twenty-third Ancestral Stage,” in the so-called anthropoids or man-like apes, the gorilla, chim- panzee, orang, and gibbon. According to Prof. Haeckel, the “ seventeenth stage” of our animal ancestors consisted of a family of animals to which he has given the name Protam- nion. This family of animals are expected to fur- nish the transitional forms through which the fish developed into land animals on the one side, and fowls on the other. As might have been expected, zoology knows nothing of such a family of animals; and geological research has never discovered the least vestige of such creatures. They never existed. However, the necessities of his theory demand them, and to meet the demand the evolutionist was forced to draw on his imagination. The necessities of evolution also required that this purely hypothet- ical family should be amphibians; a branch of which developed wings, and thus became progenitors of all the fowls. “A wing of a bird has a score or more of distinct, ingenious, but co-ordinated parts and de- vices, each of which is essential to make it useful, the whole showing unmistakably the work of the highest order of intellectual skill and designing cap- ability.” — (Hall) . The evolutionist expects us to be- lieve that this wonderful mechanical structure was developed by a branch of his wingless amphibians; the development of wings was, of course, accom- plished under Mr. Darwin’s law of natural selection, or survival of the fittest; but the initial step in the pro- duction of a wing must be made by the animal in- 328 THE TEMPTER OE EYE. dependent of natural selection; natural selection can not produce an organ of any kind, nor ever cause the least variation. Mr. Darwin says: “Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term natural selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces variability, whereas it merely implies only the preservation of such varia- tions as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life — unless favorable variations be inherited by some at least of the offspring, nothing can be affected by natural selection .” ( Origin of Spe- cies, pp. 63, 80). The next question which suggests itself is: Was it possible for wingless amphibians to suddenly de- velop wings? According to Mr. Darwin’s law of natural selection, which Prof. Haeckel is an ar- dent advocate of, evolution can not operate by sud- den leaps, but by short and slow steps. “Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight suc- cessive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” Natural selection is a slow pro- cess, and the same favorable conditions must long endure in order that any marked effect should thus be produced.” ( Origin of Species, pp. 97, 156). Thus these wing less amphibians never hastily de- veloped wings, since this would be a great and sud- den leap. This leaves us no alternative than to sup- pose that they developed their wings by a slow process extending through many successive genera- tions during a long period of time. But here we are THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 329 again met by Mr. Darwin, who says: “Natural selec- tion acts exclusively by the preservation and accumu- lation of variations which are beneficial .” ( Origin of Species, p. 413) . Thus it is plain that under Mr. Darwin’s law of natural selection, or survival of the fittest, no family of wingless animals could ever develop a wing; a wing in its incipient stages would be of no use to the animal; it would require nourishment to sustain and develop it; it would require strength to transport it; in many cases it would be in the animal’s way, and would at all times prove a useless and burdensome appendage; a mere stub of a wing could not under any circumstances meet the requirements of the law of natural selection by being beneficial to the animal “under its conditions of life.” Hence, under the operations of the law of the survival of the fittest , it would be destroyed. Mr. Darwin frequently states that natural selection “acts exclusively,” “acts only,” “acts solely,” in preserving variations which are beneficial. He repeatedly says: “This preservation of favorable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called natural selection, or survival of the fit- test .” ( Origin of Species, p. 63). Thus it is shown that Prof. Haeckel’s wingless Protamnion could' not have suddenly developed wings, for natural selection can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by slow steps; neither could the Protamnion develop wings by a gradual process, extending through many generations, for 330 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. the wing > in its incipient stages — a mere stub — would have been destroyed under the law of the survival of the fittest, as a harmful and useless ap- pendage. Hence, which ever horn of the dilemma we lay hold of, the result is the same — the wingless animal can never develop a wing. Thus, this boast- ful theory of evolution is shattered by the wing of a bird. The general theory of evolution existed thous- ands of years before Darwin was born ; yet, in his theory of “ natural selection, or survival of the fittest,” he gave to evolution all the strength which it enjoys, but, as above shown, his theory gave evo- lution its death blow, by making it impossible for this theory to explain the origin of the fowls. At the same time, he exposes the utter worthlessness of his own theory of “ natural selection, or survival of the fittest;” he says: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break downy ( Origin of Species, p. 146). The wing of a bird is certainly a “complex organ,” which, as has been shown, could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifi- cations. Strange as it may seem, Mr. Darwin calls attention to this fact, and thus demonstrates the falsity of his theory. Referring to the wings of the ostrich which are useless for purposes of flight, and merely aid the animal in running, Mr. Darwin says: “As organs in this condition would formerly, when THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 331 still less developed, have been of even less use than at present, they cannot formerly have been produced through variations and natural selection , which acts solely for the preservation of useful modifications .” ( Origin of Species , p. 398). Thus, by its author’s own admission, the theory of natural selection absolutely breaks down. Since the school of evolution, with its so-called law of natural selection , or survival of the fittest, can not produce a bird’s wing, or even the wings of the tiniest animal that flies, we have, according to Mr. Haeckel, no alternative than to accept the teaching of the scriptural school that God made the fowl. In the face of the above facts, the skeptic should lay aside his skepticism, and admit the existence of an intelligent Creator who designed that wonderful organ, the bird’s wing, which enables the animal possessing it to overcome the law of gravitation, and soar amid the clouds. But it is not only the inability to develop wings on wingless animals that the theory of evolution breaks down through the influence of natural selec- tion , or survival of the fittest; it breaks down at an in- finite number of points. The evolutionist will ad- mit that the earliest animals to appear on the globe were the invertebrates; these could never have devel- oped into the vertebrates; the invertebrates could not have suddenly developed a vertebral column, or even a single vertebra, for this would be a sudden leap, and natural selection advances by slow steps; neither could the invertebrates develop a vertebral 332 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. column by a slow process, for the incipient vertebra would not be beneficial to the animal; hence, under the operations of the survival of the fittest , it would be destroyed as a useless and harmful growth — a mere monstrosity. The same is true of the skulless animals which were the first to make their appear- ance on the globe; these could not have suddenly developed skulls, for this would have been a sudden leap which is utterly opposed to natural selection , which advances by slow steps; neither could those ancient skulless animals have developed skulls by a gradual process, for the incipient skull would not be beneficial to the animal, and under the operations of the survival of the fittest would be destroyed as harm- ful and useless. The same is true of the finless ani- mals which were the earliest forms to appear on the globe; these could not have suddenly developed fins, for natural selection only advances by slow steps, saj’s Mr. Darwin ; neither could the finless animal develop fins by a gradual process, for only the perfect fin could be beneficial to the animal; hence, the incipi- ent fin, being useless and unfit to survive, would have been destroyed under the operations of the survival of the fittest. The same argument applies to the legless animals which preceded the animals with legs; take, for example, the great amphibians of the early geological periods; according to the evolution- ists these immense animals with their powerful legs descended from animals which had no legs; accord- ing to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, or survival of the fittest, the legless ancestors of these gigantic THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 333 amphibians could never have developed legs, either suddenly or by a gradual process, for the reasons above given. So it would have been with Prof. Haeckel’s imaginary protamnion, which he would have us believe were the ancestors of our land quad- rupeds; had this hypothetical family of amphibians had a real existence, their ancestors would have been animals with no legs; they could not have suddenly developed legs, for this would have been a sudden and long leap; and natural selection makes no sudden leaps , but advances by slow steps; neither could they have developed legs by a gradual process extending through many generations, for the incipient legs would not have been beneficial to the animal; on the contrary, it would have been a harmful and useless appendage, which, under the operations of the sur- vival of the fittest, would have been destroyed in its incipiency. As has been shown, the immense amphibians were followed by the comparatively small marsupials; the former inhabited the water, and the latter in- habited the land; in their physical organisms, their habits, the manner of their reproduction, etc., they presented the strongest contrast to each other; the deep, wide gulf which separated them was spanned by no intermediate forms. This should occasion no surprise, for, according to St. Paul, the amphibians belonged to the flesh of “ fishes,” while the marsu- pials belonged to the “ flesh of beasts.” Prior to the appearance of the whale family there were no mammals; and it is plain that natural 334 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. development, acting under Darwin’s theory of 'natural selection or survival of the fittest, could never have produced a mammal. Only the perfected mammae, with its intricate system of glands, etc., for the secretion of milk, could be beneficial to the animal in enabling it to nourish its young; this could not have been developed suddenly, for natural selection only advances by slow steps; neither could the mammae have developed gradually through many generations, for in its incipient stages it would not have been beneficial to the animal by assisting it to nourish its young; lienee, under the operations of the survival of the fittest , it would have been destroyed as useless and harmful.* Mr. Darwin, like all evolutionists, insists that the most complex organisms have developed from the most simple, through the “transmutation of species,” under the operations of “ natural selection or survival of the fittest.” If this were true, the stratas of the earth would abound with the fossil re- mains of transitional forms in every stage of devel- opment from lower to higher species; but scientific research discovers no fossil remains of such transi- tional forms; on the contrary, the geological record shows that new species made their appearance sud- *[Note — After investigating the bearing of “ natural selection or survival of the fittest ” on the general theory of Development, as above set forth, we were surprised to find that another had anticipated us along this line, and had long since reached the same conclusions. The views of this brilliant writer are found in “The Problem of Human Life, Here and Hereafter,” published by Hall & Co., of New York. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject our readers are referred to the above work. — The Author], THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 335 denly. Commenting on the absence of any evidence in support of the theory of “the transmutation of species,” Prof. Winchell says: “The great stubborn fact which every form of the theory encounters at the very outset is that, notwithstanding variations, we are ignorant of a single instance of the deriva- tion of one good species from another. The world has been ransacked for an example, and occasionally it has seemed for a time as if an instance had been found of the origination of a genuine species by so- called natural agencies; but we only give utterance to the admissions of all the recent advocates of de- rivative theories when we announce that the long- sought experimentum crucis has not been discov- ered.” ( Doctrine of Evolution , p. 54) . Mr. Darwin says: “Scarcely any palaeontological discovery is more striking than the fact that the forms of life change almost simultaneously throughout the world.” ( Origin of Species , p. 297). The above facts cited by Winchell and Darwin are fatal to the theory of evolution, and clearly point to creation as the only explanation of the origin of species. If further proof of the utter absurdity of the theory of evolution were required, it is furnished by that remarkable family of animals — the apes. This is especially unfortunate for the evolutionist, since he claims a blood relationship with these animals, and for whom he entertains the most affectionate regard, recognizing them as the immediate progenitors of man. However, every scientist will admit, and no intelligent evolutionist will deny that, at a certain 336 THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. period in the remote past, the four extremities of the higher land animals were legs terminating in hoofs or paws; and that suddenly there appeared upon the earth a distinct and higher class of animals — the apes — whose hinder or lower extremities were legs terminating in feet, and whose fore or upper extrem- ities were arms terminating in hands. Between these two distinct classes, the one quadrupeds, and the other bipeds, there could be no transitional forms. Surely even the fertile imagination of an evolution- ist should revolt at the suggestion that the hoofs or paws which terminated the hinder legs of a certain class of quadrupeds, suddenly differentiated into feet; and that their fore legs which terminated in hoofs or paws, suddenly differentiated into arms terminating in hands. The idea [that a quadruped could ever develop into a biped is too absurd for serious consideration. Hence, every ape that ever lived upon the earth, or that will ever live, at once furnishes the most positive proof of the falsity of the theory of evolution, and the truth of creation. While we have little hope that any array of facts, however powerful, could influence the materialistic evolutionist, the facts above cited should afford food for reflection to that rapidly-increasing class of theo- logians who style themselves theistic evolutionists (whatever that may mean) . After referring to the close blood relationship between man and the so-called anthropoids, Mr. Haeckel says: “The most general conclusions ar- rived at from these most careful comparisons is that THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 337 each one of the four man-like apes stand nearer to man in one or several respects than the rest, but that no one of them can in every respect be called absolutely the most like man. The orang stands nearest to man in regard to the formation of the brain, the chimpanzee in important characteristics in the formation of the skull, the gorilla in the devel- opment of the feet and hands, and, lastly, the gib- bon in the formation of the thorax.” ( Ibid , p. 377). Describing what he terms the “ Twenty-fourth Ancestral Stage,” Mr. Haeckel says: “ Although the preceding stage is already so nearly akin to genuine man that we scarcely require to assume an inter- mediate connecting stage, still we can look upon the speechless primeval man ( alali ) as this intermedi- ate link. This ape-like man, or pithecanthropi, very probably existed toward the end of the tertiary pe- riod. They originated out of the man-like apes, or anthropoids, by becoming completely habituated to an upright walk, and by the corresponding stronger differentiation of both pairs of legs. The fore-hand of the anthropoids became the human hand, their hinder hand became a foot for walking. Although these ape-like men must, not merely by the external formation of their bodies, but also by their internal mental development, have been much more akin to real man than the man-like apes could have been, yet they did not possess the real and chief character- istic of man, namely, the articulate human language of words, the corresponding development of a higher conciousness, and the formation of ideas. * * * 338 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. “ Genuine men developed out of the ape-like men of the preceding stage by the gradual development of the animal language of sounds into a connected or articulate language of words. The development of this function, of course, went hand in hand with the development of its organs, namely, the higher differ- entiation of the larynx and the brain. The transi- tion from speechless ape-like men to genuine talking men probably took place at the beginning of the Quatenary period, namely, the Diluvial period, but possibly even at an earlier date, in the more recent Tertiary.” (Ibid, p. 398, 399). Continuing, Mr. Haeckel says: “Those pro- cesses of development which led to the origin of the most ape-like men out of the most man-like apes, must be looked for in the two adaptive changes which, above all others, contributed to the mak- ing of man, namely, upright wallc and articulate speech. These two physiological functions necessari- ly originated together with two corresponding mor- phological transmutations, with which they stand in the closest corelation, namely, the differentiation of the two pairs of limbs and the differentiation of the larynx. The important perfecting of these organs and their functions must have necessarily and pow- erfully reacted upon the differentiation of the brain and the mental activities dependent upon it, and thus paved the way for the endless career in which man has since progressively developed, and in which he lias far outstripped his animal ancestors. “ The first and earliest of these three great pro- THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 339 cesses in the development of the human organism probably was the higher differentiation and the per- fecting of the extremities which was effected by the habit of an upright walk. By the fore feet more and more exclusively adopting and retaining the function of grasping and handling, and the hinder feet more and more exclusively the function of standing and walk- ing, there was developed that contrast between the hand and foot which is indeed not exclusively char- acteristic of man, but which is much more strongly developed in him than in any of the apes most like men. This differentiation of the fore and hinder extremities was not merely most advantageous for their own development and perfecting, but it was followed at the same time by a whole series of very important changes in other parts of the body. The whole vertebral column, and more especially the chest, the girdle of the pelvis and shoulders, as also the muscles belonging to them, thereby experienced those changes which distinguish the human body from that of the most man-like apes. There trans- mutations were probably accomplished long before the origin of articulate speech; and the human race thus existed for long, with an upright walk and the characteristic human form of the body connected with it, before the actual development of human language, which would have completed the second and more im- portant part of human development. We may, there- fore, distinguish a special (24th) stage in the series of our human ancestors, namely, speechless man (Alcilus ) , or ape-man (Pithecathropus) , whose body 340 THE TEMPTER OF EVE, was indeed formed exactly like that of man in all es- sential characteristics, but did not as yet possess ar- ticulate speech. “ The origin of articulate language, and the higher differentiation and perfecting of the larynx con- nected with it, must be looked upon as a later, and the most important stage in the process of the de- velopment of man. It was, doubtless, this process which above all others helped to create the deep chasm between man and animals, and which also first caused the most important progress in the men- tal activity and the perfecting of the brain connected with it.” (Ibid, pp. 405, 406, 407). Mr. Haeckel admits that geological research, which has discovered some remains of about all that ever existed on the earth, has never found the least trace of such a creature as his “ Speechless Man.” Yet with that unparalleled audacity which is char- acteristic of him, he proceeds to describe it as though he had a specimen before him. He says: “ We as yet know of no fossil remains of the hypothetical primeval man (protanthropus alavis — Homo primigenius) . But considering the extraordinary resemblance between the lowest woolly-haired men and the highest man-like apes, which still exist at the present day, it requires but a slight stretch of the imagination to conceive an intermediate form connecting the two, and to see in it an approximate likeness to the supposed primeval man, or ape-like man. The form of their skull was probably very long, with slanting teeth; their hair THE TEMPTEE OF EVE. 341 wooley; the color of their skin dark, of a brownish tint. The hair covering the whole body was proba- bly thicker than in any of the still living human species ; their arms comparatively longer and stronger; their legs, on the other hand, knock-kneed, shorter and thinner, with entirely undeveloped calves; their walk but half erect.” (Ibid, p. 438) . Continuing, Mr. Haeckel says: “The difficulties met with in classifying the dif- ferent races and species of men are quite the same as those which we discover in classifying animal and vegetable species. In both cases forms apparently quite different, are connected with one another by a chain of intermediate forms of transition. In both cases the dispute as to what is a kind or a species, what a race or a variety, can never be determined. Since Blumenbach’s time, as is well known, it has been thought that mankind may be divided into five races or varieties, namely: (1) the Ethiopian, or black race (African negro) ; (2) the Malayan, or brown race (Malays, Polynesians and Australians) ; (3) the Mongolian, or yellow race (the principal inhabitant of Asia and the Esquimaux of North America) ; (4) the American, or red race (the aborigines of Amer- ica) ; and (5) the Caucasian, or white race (Euro- peans, North Africans and south western Asiatics). All these five races of men, according to the Jewish legend of creation, are said to have descended from “a single pair” — Adam and Eve — and in accordance with this are said to be varieties of one kind or species. If, however, we compare them without 342 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. prejudice, there can be no doubt that the differences of these five races are as great and even greater than the ‘ specific differences ’ by which zoologists and botanists distinguish recognized good animal and vegetable species (bonse species).” (Ibid, p. 412). The opinion most generally entertained by the leading advocates of evolution is, that this purely hypothetical creature, “Speechless Man,” differ- entiated into the negro with articulate speech; the great majority of the negroes developing no higher, thus presenting a case of “arrested development;” but that in the course of time a branch of the ne- groes differentiated into Malays; the great majority of the Malays developing no higher; and thus pre- senting another case of “arrested development;” but that in the course of events a branch of the Malays developed into Indians; the great majority of the Indians developing no higher, and thus pre- senting another case of “arrested development;” but that in the course of events a branch of the In- dians developed into Mongolians; the great majority of the Mongolians developing no higher, and thus presenting another case of “arrested development;” but that at some remote period a branch of the Mongolians differentiated into Caucasians (whites) . Mr. Haeckel differs somewhat from the older evolu- tionists, as shown by the following: “A great many reasons might be advanced in favor of the opinion that the primeval men of the Lissotrichous species (the primary forms of straight-haired men) were derived from the South Asiatic anthropoids, whereas THE TEMPTEE OP EVE. 343 the primeval men of the Ulotrichous species (as the primary forms of the four wooly-haired tribes) were derived from Central African man-like apes.” (Ibid, Yol. II, p. 439) . The evolutionist takes the fish, and fowl, and beasts, and man, and masses them into what he terms “the zoological system;” he then divides “the zoological system” into classes, orders, genera, species, races, sub-races, and varieties. Having de- cided that man is simply an animal, the evolutionist places him in “the zoological system” with the rest of the animals; he then decides, (1) that man be- longs to the class — mammalia; which embraces all creatures that suckle their young; this includes man, the apes and quadrupeds among the land ani- mals, and the whale family among the fish; (2) that he belongs to the order — bimana; this “order” embraces not only man, but every member of the ape species from the lemur on up to and including the negro; (3) that man belongs to the genus — homo; this not only includes the so-called “Cau- casian race ” (Homo Mediterraneuse) ; the so-called “Mongol race” (Homo Mongol) ; the so-called “In- dian race ” (Homo Americanus) ; the so-called “ Ma- lay race” (Homo Malayus) ; the so-called “Negro race ” (Homo Niger) ; but necessarily embraces “ Speechless Man” ( Protanthropos atavis-Homo prim- egenius ) , the first man; (4) that the “Species Man,” the so-called “Human Species,” is divisible into five races of men; and that these may be divided into sub-races, and varieties. 344 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Thus, according to the theory of natural devel- opment or evolution, man is simply a highly devel- oped species of ape — the human species — and this human species is divisible into five or more races of men. It should be unnecessary for us to state that this cold, uncompromising materialism; this demor- alizing atheism, which degrades us to the level of the brute, by declaring the existence of a “ blood rela- tionship ” between man and the animals, denies to man immortality. In the preceding pages of this work we have pre- sented the teachings of the two great schools of learn- ing, Divine Creation and Natural Development or Evolution; we have presented the leading features of the school of Creation, in the language of the in- spired authors; we have also presented the leading features of the school of Evolution, as far as our lim- ited space would permit, in the language of its leading advocates; and we feel assured that even the most skeptical will see that these two schools are opposites ; that the most open, direct conflict exists between them; and that no amount of reasoning can possibly reconcile the differences between them. How can we hope to harmonize the Word of God with this theory which denies the existence of God? A mo- ment’s reflection should convince us of the hopeless- ness of such a task. Hence, our acceptance of the teachings of one of these schools, necessarily carries with it our rejection of the other. The teachings of these opposing schools are in conflict at every point; THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 345 and it is not only foolish but criminal to attempt to blend and confuse them by accepting the teachings of the one on certain points, and rejecting the teach- ings of the other on those points; when we indulge in this folly we have as a result a blended, distorted mixture of the two which bears little or no resem- blance to either of the originals; no leading advocate of evolution would accept this unnatural mixture, and every believer in the Bible should reject it. For example: the Bible teaches that man was created “in the image of God.” Evolution teaches that man is simply a highly developed species of ape, who traces his descent back through a long line of “ animal an- cestors” to the lowest form of animal, itself the result of “ spontaneous generation.” How can we ever reconcile these conflicting teachings? The Bible teaches that “all flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of man, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” Hence, there is no kinship between creatures belong- ing to two different kinds of flesh; that there is no kinship between man and the animals; but that God and man are akin. Evolution teaches that there is a link of kinship extending from the monera on up through the fish, and fowl, and beast, to form a “blood relationship” with man; that all flesh is the same flesh, since man and the animals are all akin. Hence, from the monera to man there is just one flesh in different stages of development. How can we hope to harmonize the teachings of evolution that man and the animals are of the same flesh, with the 346 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Bible teaching that there are four different kinds of flesh with no more kinship between them than if they each made their appearance upon and inhabited different planets? If we accept the teachings of Moses, that God made the animals, like the plants, after their kind, the theory of the evolutionist falls still-born from the imagination that conceived it; if we accept the teaching of Paul that the fish and fowl and beast, each represent a different “ kind of flesh,” the theory that the fish developed into the fowl on the one hand, and the land animals on the other, and through these into the man, receives its death blow. If we accept the teachings of Moses that God created man in his own “image;” and if we accept the teachings of Luke that Adam was the son of God; and if we accept the teaching of Paul that even the flesh of man is a different “ kind of flesh ” from that of the animals, the theory of the evolutionist that man is a highly developed species of apes — the human species — and that this human species is divisible in- to five races of man, falls to the ground. If, on the other hand, the teachings of evolution are true, the teachings of Moses and Paul are false, and should be repudiated; and inasmuch as all the inspired writers of the Bible were in harmony with Moses and Paul, their teachings must also be false, and consistency demands that their writings should be repudiated; this accomplished, the Bible, with all its elevating, ennobling, soul-inspiring teachings, would be prac- tically obliterated from the earth; and the dream of THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 347 the atheist would be realized in the universally ac- cepted belief in the existence of a universe without a God, a creation without a creator, man without religion, and the world without a Sabbath or a Bible. However much professed Christians may differ with us on these questions, no well informed atheist will do so ; we have seen that Haeckel emphatically states that the Schools of Creation and Evolution are opposites. The terms “ tribes,” “ nations,” and “ empires,” are political terms, and it is significant that the in- spired writers invariably employ these political terms — tribes, nations, and empires — in describing the relations of men. On the other hand, the terms “human species,” and “races of men,” are an insep- arable part of the theory of evolution. Hence, it should occasion us no surprise when we find that, not one of the inspired writers makes the slightest allu- sion to such a thing as a human species or a race of men. Throughout the Bible we find no mention of such a thing as a “ zoological system ” in which man is thrust with the animals; no such thing as a “class mammalia,” in which man is placed with the higher land animals and the whale family; no such thing as an “order bimana,” in which man is placed with the apes as a two-handed animal; no such thing as a “genus homo,” embracing “speechless man (Homo Primigenius) ; ” the Negro man “ (Homo Niger) ; ” the “Malay man (Homo Malayus);” the “Indian man (Homos Americanus) ; ” the “Mongolian man 348 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. (Homos Mongol) ; ” the “ Mediterranean (white) man (Homo Mediterranese) ; ” no such thing as a “ species, man,” embracing five or more “ races of men.” As might have been expected, these misleading terms which were born of the purest atheism, are conspic- uous in scripture by their absence. These facts should afford professed Christians food for grave re- flection. The terms “species” and “races” are scientific terms; they belong to natural science, and are used to describe natural relations; and there is in natural science the same broad distinction between species and races , as exists in mathematics between units and fractions. A. De Quatrefages, Professor of An- thropology in the Museum of Natural History, in Paris, France, a standard authority upon such ques- tions, says: 11 Species is the unit and the races are the fractions of this unit.” The terms species and races are applicable to both plants and animals, since these were made in great numbers and varieties; while there are such differences between certain plants and between certain animals as justifies the naturalist in deciding that they are different families or species, there are such resemblances between certain members of these families or species, as jus- tifies the naturalist in deciding that they are branches or races of these species. Thus, species is the unit of which races are the fractions. To illustrate: the ape is a species of animal, but this species is formed of a number of races; the lemur is one race of the ape species; the gorilla is another race; the negro THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 349 is another race of the ape species, and so on through- out the series. Hence, a species is composed of a greater or less number of races; while a race is a fractional part of a species. This enables us to realize that God never in- tended that man, like the plants and animals, should be a species, or a race. Man was created a single pair, and a single pair is not species, since races which are essential to the formation of a species is wanting in man; neither was this single pair a race, since it was not a fractional part of a species. Thus, the theory now universally taught, that man is a species which is composed of five or more races of men, is at once opposed to the scriptures and the sciences. From the above facts it is plain (1) that the theory now universally taught, that man is a species which is divisible into five or more races of men, of which the white is the highest and the negro the lowest race, with the browns, reds and yellows as in- termediate races in different stages of development, is an inseparable part of the atheistic theory of evo- lution. (2) That it was atheism that took the negro out of the ape family, where God made him, and thrust him into the family of man; and that only the purest, most unadulterated atheism keeps him there. This being true, it follows that, when athe- ism is repudiated, and the teachings of scripture are universally accepted, the negro will at once retire from his present unnatural position in the family of man, and resume his proper place among the apes. 350 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. The fact that the offspring resulting from unions between whites and negroes are fertile, is accepted as proof positive that they are merely different races of the same species; for, the opinion is generally en- tertained, that the offspring resulting from unions be- tween different species are always barren. This theory advanced by the older naturalist, is now exploded. Dr. Topinard says: “Between species the crosses are common and fertile * * * as the progeny of the hare and the rabbit, the dog and the wolf, the jackal and the fox, the camel and the dromedary, the alpaca and the llama or vecuna, the horse and the zebra or wild mule, the bison and the European ox, etc. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that we have been deceived as to the reality of certain species; and that such were only varieties. * * * It is now certain that the limit of species is not an absolute obstacle to fertility, and conse- quently that its circumscription has nothing decided about it.” ( Anthropology , p. 368). Prof. Quatrefages says: “Sexual unions in plants, as in animals, can take place between indi- viduals of the same species and the same race; further between different races of the same species, and finally, between different species. In the two latter cases we have what is called a cross. This crossing, itself, is differently named according to whether it takes place between different races or dif- ferent species. In the first case it produces a mon- grel, in the second a hybrid. When the cross unions are fertile the product of the union of mongrels is THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 351 called a mongrel, the product of the union of hybrids, a hybrid.” {The Human Species, p. 63). In the atheist’s division of the so-called “ Zo- ological system,” the animals of different genera, are not so nearly related to each other as those of different species; and again, the animals of different orders are not so closely related to each other as those of dif- ferent genera. Dr. Topenard says: “ It is stated that individuals of different Orders have given birth to offspring, as between the bull and the mare, whose progeny or jumarts inhabitated the Atlas mountains and the mountains of Piedmont. It is a better authenticated fact that the phenomenon takes place between different genera. M. de Bouills, in 1873, described the offspring of the cross between the Ibex of the Pyrenees and the domestic goat. The Pehuelhas in the Chilian Alps crossed this latter with the sheep and obtained a very vigorous breed called chabins (buck sheep) , whose decendants, fer- tile through an indefinite number of generations, are of considerable commercial value on account of their skins and fleeces, known by the name of ‘pellons.’ ” {Ibid, p. 367). Thus, it is shown that not only a cross between different species, but even a cross between different genera will produce offspring that is indefinitely fertile; and, “it is stated that individuals of different Orders have given birth to offspring” that is fertile. Hence, the mere fact that the offspring of Whites and Negroes are fertile, is no evidence that they are of the same species, or the same genera, or even of the 352 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. same order. On the other hand, as we shall here- after show, the Bible teaches that unions between individuals of different hinds of flesh — those of man and beast — will be indefinitely fertile. The want of space forbids our further discus- sion of the theory of development. However, in view of the facts above set forth, it should be an affront to our intelligence to ask us to believe that, not only the earth and the celestial bodies; not only plant and animal life, but that even man, with his flashing intellect and his immortal soul, “ were once latent in a fiery cloud.” CHAPTER XIII. The Garden of Eden. “And God planted a garden eastward in Eden; And there he put the man whom he had formed. 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. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; And from thence it was parted, and became four heads. The name of the first is Pison. * * * And the name of the second river is Gihon. * * * And the name of the third river is Hiddekel. * * * And the name of the fourth river is Euphrates. And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen. ii, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc.). “ Man He made of angel form erect, To hold communion with the heavens above, And on his soul impressed His image fair His own similitude of holiness, Of virtue, truth, and love; with reason high To balance right and wrong, and conscience quick To choose or to reject; with knowledge great, 353 354 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Prudence and wisdom, vigilance and strength, To guard all force or guile; and, last of all, The highest gift of God’s abundant grace, With perfect, free, unbiased will. Thus man Was made, upright, immortal made, and crowned The king of all; to eat, to drink, to do Truly and sovereignly his will entire; By one command alone restrained, to prove, As was most just, his fillial love sincere, His loyalty, obedience due, and faith. And thus the prohibition ran, expressed, As God is wont, in terms of plainest truth: ‘ Of every tree that in the garden grows Thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree That hath of good and ill, eat not, Nor touch; for in the day thou eatest, thou Shalt die. Go, and this one command obey; Adam, live and be happy, and with thy Eve, Fit consort, multiply and fill the earth.’ Thus they, the representatives of men, Were placed in Eden — choicest spot on earth; With royal honor and with glory crowned, Adam, the lord of all, majestic walked, With God-like countenance sublime, and form Of lofty towering strength; and by his side Eve, fair as morning star, with modesty Arrayed, with virtue, grace, and perfect love: In holy marriage wed, and eloquent Of thought and comely words, to worship God And sing His praise — the Giver of all good. Glad, in each other glad, and glad in hope.” — Pollok. THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 355 Man could no more develop a civilization, and depend upon the wild plants of the forest for his sup- ply of vegetable food, than he could, and depend upon the chase for his supply of animal food. Hence, domestic plants and domestic animals are essential to civilization. With domestic plants, man can in- crease his supply of both vegetable and animal food to meet the demands of an increasing population. Domestic plants are dependent upon cultivation for their existence. Without culture, they either rapidly degenerate, or soon die out and disappear altogether. This is especially true of the cereals from which man derives his supply of bread. Domestic plants have not, as the atheist would have us believe, been devel- oped from “wild originals;” they were God's special gift to man. Without them man could never develop the resources of the earth. The obligation to do this devolved upon Adam from the moment of his assign- ment to this task. Hence, he had no time to develop wild originals into domestic plants. Many of these so- called “ wild originals,” are merely degenerate domes- tic plants, which have survived some old civilization, in which they were cultivated. This absurd idea that the domestic plants were all developed from “wild originals,” is a part of The Theory of Development-, which denies the existence of a Creator, and attrib- utes everything to natural causes. According to this theory, man developed from the ape; then, by ages of cultivation, man developed the domestic plants from those which originally were wild. The whole proposition is atheism, pure and simple. Yet we see it accepted and advocated by Drofessed Christians. 356 THE TEMPTER OE EVE. Dr. Macmillan says of corn: “ God gave it to Adam, we have every reason to believe, in the same perfect state of preparation for food in which we find it at the present day. It was made expressly for man, and given directly into his hands. ‘Behold,’ says the Creator, ‘ I have given you every herb- bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth ’ — that is, all the cereal plants, such as corn, wheat, barley, rice, maize, etc., whose peculiar distinction and characteristic it is to produce seed. * * * The word of God plainly tells us this, and nature af- fords a remarkable corroboration of it. We cannot regard it as an accidental, but, on the contrary, as a striking, providential circumstance, that the corn plants were utterly unknown throughout the geolog- ical periods. Not the slightest trace or vestige of them occurs in any strata of the earth, until we come to the most recent formations, contemporaneous with man. They are exclusively and characteristically plants of the human epoch; their remains are found in deposits near the surface, which belong to the ex- isting order of physical conditions. * * * There is another proof that corn was created expressly for man’s use in the fact that it has never been found in a wild state. * * * Where are the wild grasses which, according to some authors, cumulative pro- cesses of agriculture, carried on through successive ages, have developed into corn, wheat, and barley? Much has been written, and many experiments have been tried to determine the natural origin of these cereals, but every effort has hitherto proved in vain. THE TEMPTEE OF EVE. 357 Reports have again and again been circulated that corn and wheat have been found growing wild in some parts of Persia and the steppes of Tartary, ap- parently far from the influence of cultivation; but, when tested by botanical data, these reports have turned out in every instance to be unfounded. Corn has never been known as anything else than a cul- tivated plant. The oldest records speak of it exclu- sively as such. * * * History and observation prove that it cannot grow spontaneously. * * * Neglected of men, it speedily disappears and be- comes extinct. * * * All this proves that it must have been produced miraculously, or, in other words, given by God to man directly in the same abnormal condition in which it now appears; for na- ture never could have developed or preserved it. In the mythology of all the ancient nations it was con- fidently affirmed to have had a supernatural origin. * * * Let me bring forward one more proof of special design, enabling us to recognize the hand of God in this mercy. Corn is universally diffused. It is almost the only species of plant which is capable of growing everywhere, in almost every soil, in al- most any situation. In some form or other, adapted to the various modifications of climate and physical conditions which occur in different countries, it is spread over an area of the earth’s surface as exten- sive as the occupancy of the human race. * * * Corn, as the German botanist, Yon Meyer, says, pre- cedes all civilization ; with it is connected rest, peace, and domestic happiness, of which the wandering 358 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. savage knows nothing. In order to rear it, nations must take possession of certain lands.” ( Bible Teach- ings in Nature, Chap, v) . While we appreciate the force of Mr. Macmillan’s argument that cultivation is essential to the existence of corn, we feel assured that he was unfortunate in his selection of a text to support his position. The production of seed is not a character peculiar to the cereals or any domestic plant. Seed-bearing plants existed upon the earth long ages previous to the creation of man. Many of the land animals and fowls from which man was designed to derive his supply of animal food, subsisted on these seeds ; and do so still; while many other animals from which man was designed to derive his supply of animal food subsisted on foliage, and do yet. In this sense we may understand the text: “Behold I have given you every herb-bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat.” We are thus taught: (1) That God made the wild forest growths and gave them to man. They never developed from lower forms. The pine has always been a pine; the oak has always been an oak; the beech has always been a beech ; and so on through- out the list. (2) That it was not, as many suppose, the design of God that man should subsist solely on THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 359 a vegetable diet; but that, in addition to this, he should have a supply of animal food. (3) That in the wild forest growths, provision had been made for the subsistence of the land animals and fowls, which preceded man ; and over which man was commanded to “have dominion,” and from which he was to derive his supply of animal food. Hence, “They shall be to you for meat.” Thus, long pre- vious to the creation of man there was provision made for his supply of animal food. This view of the text is further sustained by the fact that after the creation of man, there was a special provision made for his supply of vegetable food, as shown by the following: “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food.” We are thus clearly taught that, just as the Israelites were given homes in a highly developed country which they had not developed, so was Adam given a home in a highly developed section of country which he had not developed. The land of Canaan which was given to Israel, was developed by the Canaanites. The Garden of Eden, which was given to Adam, was developed by God Himself. A moment’s reflection should convince us that the efforts of the Canaanites in developing the land of Canaan is not to be compared to the effort of God in developing the Garden of Eden; and that no home 360 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. which man has ever prepared for himself in any land, could compare with that peerless home which the Great Architect of the universe prepared in Eden for His earthly son. So far as our reading and our observation ex- tends, little or no attention is paid to the biblical description of the Garden of Eden; while many pro- fessed Christians regard it as a myth, and the inci- dents associated with it, as mere allegories. We are not of those who regard Eden as a myth. The Garden of Eden had an existence as real as that of Jerusalem or Rome. Neither are we of those who regard the incidents connected with it as allegories. These were real occurrences which have led to the most important events in man’s history, and are even now leading to others as momentous. The biblical description of the Garden of Eden, and the incidents associated with it, are an insepar- able part of the inspired writings; and as such, are entitled to the same consideration and respect as any other part of the scriptures. The theologians, who assume the authority to decide that the Garden of Eden is a myth and that the events associated with it are mere allegories , should feel it a duty incum- bent upon them to tell us when myths and allegories end in Genesis, and where a plain statement of facts begin. If Genesis is false, upon what principal would we decide that any other book in the Bible is true? If the books of the New Testament have any basis in fact, their ultimate basis is the book of THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 361 Genesis. If Genesis is false, the super-structure — Christianity — is a fraud, and religion a farce. By carefully analyzing the biblical description of the Garden of Eden, we are enabled to decide in- telligently as to whether or not it was the design of God that man should be the subject of manual toil. Let us bear in mind that we are now discussing a period in the world’s history prior to the advent of woman. When Adam was created and placed in the Garden of Eden, “ there was not found a help-meet for him.” He was the sole representative of his kind of flesh. A proper understanding of this most import- ant subject of flesh enables us to realize and appre- ciate the full import of Adam’s declaration upon his reception of Eve: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” The biblical term “trees” includes all plant- life that was represented in the Garden of Eden ; and is not confined to the larger growths which we term “trees.” It includes all the domestic fruit and nut- bearing trees, and the vines, cereals, vegetables, etc., which are “good for food.” And also every plant “that is pleasant to the sight,” which man cultivates for their beauty and fragrance. The domestic food and ornamental plants are God's special gift to man, and made their first appearance upon the earth in the Garden of Eden. The most positive evidence of this is furnished by geological research, which proves that the earliest evidence of the existence of domestic plants is found in the Neolethic or Age of Polished Stone. It is a significant fact that no evidence of the 362 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. existence of domestic plants is found in the Palaeo- lithic or Age of Rough Stone. In that age agriculture was unknown, and nearly all the domestic plants are dependent upon culture for their existence. With- out cultivation they soon disappear. This is especially true of the cereals. From the biblical description of the Garden of Eden, we are taught as follows: 1. That God planted it. This in itself should be a sufficient guarantee that it was absolutely perfect in all of its details. What an exhibition of parental love was there displayed by the Heavenly Father for His earthly son, in thus providing for his daily wants, and in beautifying and adorning the garden that was designed to be his earthly place of abode! What an exhibition of utility its crops must have presented, in which was represented every plant that was “good for food! ” What a spectacle of beauty and fragrance must have been presented by this garden, in which was displayed the matchless taste of the Great Arti- san of the heavens and the earth! 2. That every domestic plant that is “ pleasant to the sight” was represented there. Not single specimens, but doubtless in greater or less profusion. Think of the territory it would require to accommo- date even a few specimens of every domestic plant which man cultivates for their beauty and fragrance. Besides many of the wild plants are beautiful and fragrant; and these doubtless contributed their beauty and fragrance to heighten the charms of the Garden of Eden. THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 363 3. That every plant that is “good for food,” was represented there. The cereals, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and vines — all the food plants. Think of the territory these would require. This was not a mere experiment station, planned and planted by the Creator of the universe, it was par excel- lence, the model farm, in which the food plants were not represented merely by a few specimens of each. They were “ planted ” in such quantities as was necessary to supply the needs of man, and the animals, which were required to dress and keep the garden. There were fields of maize, wheat, rye, oats, barley, rice — all the cereals; gardens in which every domestic vegetable was grown; orchards, and vineyards of luscious fruits and grapes; parks with trees laden with edible nuts; and meadows and pas- ture lands for the cattle. Utility, beauty, and frag- rance struggled for the mastery in this peerless estate. No accomplishment of man, the creature, can compare with this masterpiece of God, the Creator. Doubtless it was the design of its Divine artist that this matchless combination of heavenly art and earthly beauty and fragrance should stand through- out the ages as a model from which man might de- rive valuable suggestions in his efforts to beautify and adorn his home. 4. Further evidence of the magnitude of the Garden of Eden is found in the fact that it required a river to water it. “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden.” We are thus told in plain language that the Garden of Eden was not depend- 364 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. ent upon the seasons for its supply of water, but upon the river that went out of Eden; just as the valley of the Nile is not dependent upon the sea- sons for its supply of water, but upon the river Nile. And a moment’s reflection should convince us that just as it requires an extensive system of irrigation to transfer the waters of the Nile to every portion of the Nile valley, for agricultural purposes, so would it require an extensive system of irrigation to trans- fer the waters of “the river that went out of Eden,” to every part of the Garden of Eden for agricultural purposes. Additional evidence of the great extent of that beautiful garden in which “the Lord God planted” all the food and ornamental plants, which depend upon cultivation for their existence, is found in the narrative of the fall, as follows: And the serpent “said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as Gods, know- ing good and evil. 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 one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 365 gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Gen. iii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). But when the woman saw that the tree was * * * pleasant to the eyes: Thus clearly indicating that this tree , which was sit- uated in the midst of the Garden of Eden, was so far removed from the immediate place of abode of the Adamic pair in the garden, that the woman had never seen it. “But 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 one wise, she took thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” The magnitude of the Garden of Eden is thus shown by the fact that it accommodated, in greater or less profusion, specimens of all the ornamental plants which man prizes and cultivates for their beauty and fragrance; and was also sufficiently ex- tensive to accommodate in greater or less quantities the domestic plants upon which man relies for his supply of vegetable food. Its great extent is further shown by the fact that it required a river to water it. To “ water the garden ” with the waters of the river would require a system of irrigation. Thus, the disposition of the Atlanteans, Egyptians, Ancient Americans, etc., to rely upon the certainty of irri- gation, , rather than upon the uncertainty of the sea- sons , for water for agricultural purposes, is trace- able to the Garden of Eden. Let us bear in mind, that we are now discussing a period in the world’s history long prior to the time when God delegated to man the power to perform 366 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. miracles; and that Adam is not accredited with per- forming any miracles. God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden “ to dress it and to keep it.” This simply meant that Adam was to cultivate and harvest the various crops, plan, construct, and operate a sys- tem of irrigation to transport the w r ater of the “ river” to every part of the garden for agricultural pur- poses; and to “keep” this immense estate in the highest state of cultivation. It was simply a plain business transaction, such as we observe in every day life. A man owns a fine estate, but for some reason prefers not to take upon himself the manage- ment of it; in this case, he employs an agent, and assigns him to this duty; but he does not expect his agent to perform the manual labor; this is per- formed by servants which the master provides. There was nothing supernatural in the discharge of the duties to which Adam was assigned in the Gar- den of Eden. Let us also bear in mind that Adam’s assign- ment to this duty occurred long prior to his fall; and that it was not until after this event, and as a punishment for his violation of Divine law, that God sentenced him to personally “ till the ground,” and thus compelled him to “eat bread” in the sweat of his face. Hence, while it is evident that, “ to dress,” “and to keep” the Garden of Eden was a duty which devolved upon Adam from the moment of his as- signment to this task, it would be a reflection upon the wisdom, and justice, and love, and mercy of God to decide that Adam would have been com- THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. 367 pelled to personally “ till the ground/’ and thus “ eat bread” “in the sweat” of his “ face,” even if he had never violated Divine law. Yet it would be absurd to suppose that this lone man could, from year to year, plant, cultivate and harvest the crops of every plant “that is good for food;” cultivate the vine- yards of domestic grapes; and the orchards of domes- tic fruits, propagate and cultivate the myriads of or- namental plants which contributed their beauty and fragrance to embellish this magnificent estate; and also construct and operate a system of irrigation to transport the waters of the “ river ” to every portion of the garden for agricultural purposes, with only such assistance as the quadrupeds could render him. But when we lay aside our absurd theories, and accept the teachings of scripture and of science, that the negro is an ape, and that man was designed to have, and commanded to exercise “ dominion ” over him in common with the rest of the animals; and that in common with the domestic animals of draught, burden and food, Adam possessed such numbers of negroes, in the Garden of Eden, as enabled him “to dress it and to keep it,” the whole proposition is simplified, and its accomplishment made easy. The negro, as he existed previous to the creation of man, relied chiefly upon the proceeds of the chase for subsistence; and his descendants pursued this one vocation from generation to generation, as does the undomesticated negro of to-day. But it must be borne in mind that Noah and his sons owned the negroes which survived the Deluge. Hence, the 368 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. undomesticated negro of modern times is the descend- ant of the domesticated negro of ancient times. Man, whom God designed to subdue the earth and have dominion over fish, and fowl, and beast, pursues an almost infinite number of vocations, ' many of which tend to the development of the re- sources of the earth. This course has characterized him from the earliest ages of his history. As shown by the Bible, Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden, “to dress it and to keep it.” In this we find the most positive proof that domestic plants, which require cultivation, were first introduced upon the earth in the Garden of Eden, in which God planted them immediately after the creation of man. This indicates that Adam at once proceeded to engage in agriculture — the basis of all civilization. His im- mediate offspring also engaged in the pursuits of civilized life. His first son was a farmer and, like all farmers, cultivated domestic plants. The wild forest growths thrive without cultivation. Adam’s second son engaged in rearing domestic animals. “Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.” Thus, the first and second sons of Adam were each engaged in the essential pursuits of civilized life; and it is a significant fact that Cain, the first child born to the Adamic creation, was a tiller of the ground. We are thus taught that man was not created an ignorant, degraded savage and turned loose in the forest with no special aim in life; and left to subsist as best he could upon the wild fruits and the pro- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 369 ceeds of the chase, until, in the course of ages, he would learn to domesticate animals, work metals and acquire such knowledge of plants as would enable him to realize that, by cultivation, he could develop “ wild originals ” into domestic plants. Man was placed in a garden , and he and his descendants were assigned to a specific work. A garden which the great artist of the universe planted for His earthly son ; a garden, “ out of the ground ” of which “made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food;” a garden which contained in abundance not only every plant that is “good for food,” but one in which myriads of flowering plants contributed their wealth of beauty and fragrance to make the primitive home of the Adamic family, the most superb estate the world has ever known. Not only the most valuable of the food plants require cultivation, but many of the flowering plants which man prizes for their beauty and fra- grance, and with which he adorns his home, perish if neglected. It would have been folly on the part of God to bring into existence a class of plants which require cultivation , when “ there was not a man to till the ground.” Hence, the domestic plants, which require cultivation, were brought into existence after the creation of man. We accept the Bible as God’s word; we also ac- cept the truths which scientific research has discov- ered as God’s works. But we insist that there must be no discrepancy between the teachings of the scriptures and those of the sciences; and we feel as- 370 THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. sured that if each is properly interpreted they will harmonize. As has been shown, the Bible teaches that do- mestic plants, and agriculture were introduced upon the earth immediately after the creation of man. On the other hand, science teaches that art preceded domestic plants, and consequently agriculture, on the earth, by perhaps thousands of years. If we adopt the universally accepted theory that the ability to fashion implements for a particular purpose is a character peculiar to man, how are we to reconcile the teachings of scripture with those of science on these essential points? Geological research demon- strates that the earliest evidences of art were found in the Palaeolithic Age, or Age of Rough Stone, in which agriculture was unknown. The chipped flints of that remote age were merely the rudely fashioned weapons of war and of the chase. Neither in the material out of which they were fashioned, nor in the purposes for which they were designed were they such as man could have used in the cultivation of plants, which was necessarily the initial step in his efforts to subdue the earth. What manner of creature was this who fashioned the chipped flints of the earlier Stone Age? To which one of the four kinds of flesh did this ancient artisan belong? Cer- tainly not to the flesh of men, for domestic plants and agriculture were unknown to him; and we are plainly taught by the Bible that man , domestic plants and agriculture were introduced upon the earth al- most simultaneously; Adam was placed in that beau- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 371 tiful garden which God 'planted eastward in Eden, to dress it and to keep it. To dress and keep a garden requires soil tillage. The only way to reconcile these essential truths is to lay aside our absurd theories, and the prejudices which have grown out of them, and accept the teach- ings of scripture and of science that there is a tool- making, tool-handling animal. The existence of such a creature is clearly implied in the Bible, in that (1) While man was designed to subdue the earth, that is, to develop its resources, and was assigned to this task when created, it was not until after he had vio- lated Divine law that he was compelled to personally till the ground ; and thus eat bread in the sweat of his face. (2) From this the inference is fair that, if Adam and his descendants had never violated God’s law, they would not have been sentenced to manual toil; yet the obligation to develop the resources of the earth, was binding upon them from the moment of their assignment to this task. (3) This indicate the necessity for and demonstrates the existence of a tool-making, tool-handling animal, which, in the capacity of servant could perform the manual labor necessary to develop the resources of the earth un- der man’s control. (4) Man’s appointment in the creation to dominion over all the earth, demonstrates his great mental superiority; while his subsequent history and achievements fully confirm it. (5) The ancient artisan who fashioned the chipped flints of the earlier stone period, like the rest of the animals, was introduced upon the earth previous to the crea- 372 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. tion of man and the introduction of domestic plants and agriculture. (6) Not belonging to the flesh of men, he necessarily belonged to one of the other three kinds of flesh; and being a land animal, he be- longed to the flesh of beasts. (7) If there were no tool-making, tool-handling animal, art, like domestic plants, and agriculture, would have followed the crea- tion of man. In this event the earliest evidences of art found on the globe would have been metallic im- plements, such as man devises for the cultivation of plants, the erection of mechanical structures, etc. But this would imply that man was designed to per- form the manual toil as well as the mental labor nec- essary to subdue the earth, and such was not the case. God in his wisdom and love provided man with a high grade ape in the person of the negro, who is fully competent to discharge all the duties of servant. The negro, like man was ushered into the world unprovided with weapons, offensive or defen- sive; but soon realizing the necessity for these, his mechanical skill, an essential part of the equipment of a servant, enabled him to fashion for himself rude weapons of stone. So crude were these chipped flints that, for years after their discovery by Euro- peans, scientists denied that they were artificial; the very suggestion was ridiculed and denounced. “A purely geological question was made the subject of religious controversy.” “The honor of having dispersed all doubts and inspired conviction” is due to the French savant, M. Boucher de Perthes. (Man Before Metals — Joly ) . THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 373 Once the chipped flints were recognized as arti- ficial , they were universally regarded as the work of man. They were promptly seized upon by the advo- cates of the Theory of Development as the most posi- tive evidence that man developed from the ape into an ignorant, degraded savage, with no ability to domesticate animals; and with no knowledge of domestic plants, agriculture or metals; a mere hunter who subsisted on the wild products of the forest and on the proceeds of the chase, with only such meager intelligence as would enable him to fashion rude weapons of stone. With the theory universally taught and accepted, that man is the only tool-making, tool- handling animal, and with the chipped flints recog- nized as artificial , the conclusion was irresistible that they were the works of man; and that all subsequent art and civilization traced its origin to these humble beginnings. Nothing could be more anti-scriptural. Hence, nothing more absurd. Man was created to subdue the earth and have dominion over the animals; domestic plants were God’s special gift to man; and metallic implements are essential to the cultivation up- on which they depend for existence. Hence, man never developed through an Age of Stone. Thus, the chipped flints of the earlier Stone Age, which furnish the most absolute proof of the truth of the Bible, have been seized upon and used as the most positive evidence of its falsity. In the meantime the modern clergy , ignorant of God’s plan of creation, have either accepted this atheism or ignored the whole subject with all its vital importance. If we accept the 374 THE TEMPTER OP EVE. chipped flints of the diluvium, as the works of man , it follows that we must also accept the Theory of Development. In this event, the Bible , with its teach- ings of Divine Creation , must go. A certain amount of plausibility was given the Theory of Development from the fact that, in Europe, the “Palaeolithic,” or “Age of Rough Stone” imple- ments, was immediately followed by what is termed the “ Neolithic,” or “ Age of Polished Stone ” imple- ments; and this, in its turn, by an “Age of Bronze.” In the Age of Polished Stone, a greater variety of material was employed, such as bone, horn, wood, etc., while their stone implements were often finely wrought and sometimes polished. But, from the fos- sil remains of the artisans of the polished flints of the later Stone Age, we find that they were neither whites nor negroes, but mixed bloods, in whom, as a class, a predominance of Adamic blood, carrying with it a corresponding increase of intelligence, en- abling them to produce a better class of implements. A moment’s reflection should convince us that, to successfully conduct an estate of such magnitude as the Garden of Eden, an immense number of do- mestic animals of draught, burden, and food would be required. We are taught that “ Abel was a keeper of sheep,” and, though he may have devoted most of his attention to sheep raising, it is reasonable to sup- pose that he also possessed other domestic animals, such as the horse, ox, swine, etc. Cain, like Adam, “was a tiller of the ground;” and his farming opera- tions, conducted with the assistance of a greater or THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 375 less number of negroes, required domestic animals of draught, burthen, and food; and we have the most positive evidence that Cain possessed domestic ani- mals, and carried them with him to the “land of Nod,” for his mixed-blooded descendants were cattle raisers. “Jabal * * * was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.” (Gen. iv, 20). It would be unreasonable to suppose that these mixed-bloods possessed domestic animals, which their Adamic ancestor did not have; on the contrary, it would be in keeping with the results of our observation to decide that their white ancestor possessed domestic animals which his mixed-blooded descendants inherited. It would also be impossible to successfully cul- tivate an immense estate like the Garden of Eden without metallic implements; inasmuch as Adam’s duties in the Garden of Eden began as soon as he was assigned to the task of cultivating it, he had no time to acquire a knowledge of metals in the ordinary way; for this would require years of investigation. Hence, it is evident that, among other things, God must have imparted to Adam a knowledge of metals, and the process of mining, working, and fashioning them into implements; and Cain must have acquired this knowledge from Adam, for he was also a farmer and would need metallic implements. We find that Cain’s mixed-blooded descendants possessed a knowl- edge of metals. Tubal-Cain was “ an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron.” (Gen. iv, 22). The mixed-bloods never acquire a knowledge of 376 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. metals and the manner of mining, working, and fashioning them into implements through their own exertions; they inherit them from their white an- cestors. Tubal-Cain evidently inherited his knowl- edge and skill from Cain, and inasmuch as God never made any special bestowals on Cain, it is evi- dent that he inherited it from Adam, to whom God gave it. In all ages of his history we find man (the white) in possession of a knowledge of metals, and the manner of mining, working, and fashioning them into implements; on every continent of the earth we find the remains of ancient civilizations which are crumbling into ruin from age alone; in the beauty and finish of their designs these old ruins present evidences of the most accomplished art; the decorations, inscriptions, and every hewn stone in these old cities testify to the fact that their architects were metallurgists; it would be absurd to suppose that the artisans, who built and decorated those ancient structures of hewn stone, accomplished their task without metallic implements. Not only this, but we find that the knowledge of brass, which is a combination of 70 parts copper to 30 of zinc, is traceable through Tubal-Cain and Cain to Adam. To acquire a knowledge of metals and the man- ner of mining, working, and fashioning them into implements; or combining different metals to forma desired metallic substance, are accomplishments far beyond the intellectual ability and inventive skill of the negro, or the mixed-bloods; and are such as only the white is capable of. THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 377 In discussing this question, De Gobineau says: “ The white race has great physical vigor, capacity and endurance. It has an intensity of will and de- sire which is controlled by intellectuality. Great things are undertaken readily, but not blindly. It manifests a strong utilitarianism, united with a pow- erful imagination, which elevates, ennobles and ideal- izes its practical ideas. The negro can only imi- tate, the Chinese only utilize, the work of the white; but the latter is abundantly capable of producing new works. He has as keen a sense of order as the yellow man, not from a love of repose, however, but from the desire to protect and preserve his acquisi- tions. He has a love of liberty far more intense than exists in the black and yellow races, and clings to life more earnestly. His high sense of honor is a faculty unknown to the other races, and springs from an exalted sentiment of which they show no indications. His sensations are less intense than in either black or yellow, but his mentality is far more developed and energetic.” ( Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races ) . Here we have the most positive proof that the white is the creature whom God designed and equip- ped, mentally and physically, to develop the re- sources of the earth, and have dominion over the animals; and the past history of civilization fully confirms it; the white is to-day, what he has been in all ages of his history — the great building, develop- ing, power of the earth. Hence, when in some path- less jungle, or on some deserted plain, or in some 378 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. isolated valley, or perhaps on some island of the sea, we discover the remains of some ancient civilization which presents even in its ruins the evidences of fine architectural skill and taste on the part of its build- ers, we may confidently say: This is the work of the white. Mr. Morris says: “It may be remarked that all the savage tribes of the earth belong to the Negro or Mongolian races. No negro civilization has ever appeared. No Mongolian one has ever greatly de- veloped. On the other hand, the Caucasian is pre- eminently the man of civilization. No traveler or historian records a savage tribe of Caucasian stock.” ( The Aryan Race ) . We often hear modern theologians assert that “Adam was a red man.” In explanation of this we are told that in the Hebrew, “Adam signifies red.” This modern idea could only have been conceived in the grossest ignorance, strongly tinged with the most unblushing infidelity. The Hebrew was not the language of Eden. The Bible plainly teaches that the language of Adam was transmitted to his post- diluvian descendants through Noah; and that for a considerable period after the Deluge it was the one universal language of the globe. “ The whole earth was of one language and one speech.” (Gen. ii, 1). But the Bible also teaches that at the Tower of Babel their original language was broken up into a number of languages, of which the Hebrew is one. Hence, the mere fact that in the Hebrew the term “Adam” signifies red, is no evidence, whatever, that it had any such significance in the original language of THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 379 man. On the contrary, if, in the original language of man, the term Adam had any significance as to complexion, all the facts indicate that it signified white; for white was, unquestionably, the complexion of Adam. In the first chapter of this work we have shown that the most ancient and reliable traditions of men assert that Adam was the father of arts and letters ; that he wrote a book of precepts which God gave him in the Garden of Eden. Hence, Adam was the first author; and the Bible plainly teaches that he was the first agriculturist; the first horticulturist; the first keeper and breeder of domestic animals; the first me- chanic; for it required the highest mechanical talent and the finest engineering skill to construct the irri- gating system of the Garden of Eden. Adam’s pos- session of these great intellectual gifts should occasion us no surprise, when we pause to reflect that every intellectual faculty displayed by the men of this and other ages, were inherited from Adam, upon whom they were Divine bestowals. With God as his in- structor, Adam had opportunities for acquiring knowledge which none of his descendants have en- joyed. During his stay in Eden, it was Adam’s high privilege to imbibe wisdom direct from the Fountain of all Wisdom; and the record of his achievements, as above set forth, indicates that he profited by it. Hence, all the facts indicate that, in addition to being the most intellectual, Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden, were the most learned, cultured, and re- fined people that ever graced the earth. In this professedly Christian age we hear much 380 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. of the “ great intellectual development and progress made by the human race in modern times.” In ad- dition to the atheism openly expressed in the term “human race,” this statement carries with it the implication that we have developed higher and have progressed further, intellectually, from our “animal ancestors” than the ancients had. But even disre- garding this atheism, expressed and implied, and confining the question to man (the white) , we find nothing in the scriptures, the sciences, profane his- tory, tradition or the evidence of the old civilization to sustain it. On the contrary, these are all against it. The ancients were familiar with the sciences, especially the science of astronomy; we have shown that tradition asserts that in the days of Enoch, the seventh from Adam, the constellations were already divided and named. On every continent of the earth we find the remains of superb civilizations, which testify to the fact that the ancients were the most accomplished artisans. The architectural re- mains of the ancients, even in their ruins, and such fragments of their literature as have descended to us, at least equal the best products of modern minds. What have we in architecture which, in point of solidity, purity of design, and in the elegance and beauty of its finish, will equal that of ancient Greece, Egypt, India, the Island of Java, or Central America? What have we in literature that equals the Bible? In addition to all this we are reminded that if the stream of humanity that flowed out from Adam and Eve has risen above its source, it’s the first stream that ever did. THE TEMPTER OP EYE. 381 Further evidence of the culture and refinement of Adam and Eve, and their immediate descendants, is found in the fact that Cain’s mixed-blooded de- scendants possessed the harp and the organ. “ Jubal * * * was the father of all such as handle the harp and the organ.” (Gen. iv, 21). Their posses- sion of the harp and the organ, two instruments that have never been improved upon, leads us to infer that they possessed other musical instruments. Their possession of these fine musical instruments clearly indicates the culture and refinement which existed in the sixth generation of the mixed-blooded descendants of Cain. And no one would suppose that the pure-blooded descendants of Adam, in the time of Seth, were less cultured and accomplished than the mulatto descendants of Cain. This indi- cates that the culture and refinement of the whites and mixed-bloods of that remote period was much the same as that enjoyed by the most cultivated classes of whites and mulattoes in our day; yet if we were to enter the home of some rich, educated mulatto in our community and found that he pos- sessed the harp or the organ, or other fine musical instruments, and that he and his family handled those instruments with consumate skill, it would never occur to us that they had invented them; we would know that the whites invented them; neither would we suppose that they had inherited their fine musical talent from the negro, since he never had it to transmit; we would know that their musical tal- ent was inherited from their white ancestors. Where did the mixed-blooded descendants of 382 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. Cain obtain their knowledge of the art of music, and the art of fashioning and handling such instruments as the harp and the organ? Was this knowledge the result of development in the course of a few genera- tions? The thought is inadmissible; and would be so pronounced by the most ardent advocate of the theory of development. No mixed-blood ever de- veloped the art of music, nor invented such in- struments as the harp and organ; though they can be taught to construct and handle almost any instru- ment. Inasmuch as the knowledge of the art of music, and the art of fashioning and handling musical in- struments, which the mulatto descendants of Cain possessed, was not the result of development, we have no alternative than to decide that they inher- ited them from their white ancestor, Cain; and inas- much as there were no special Divine bestowals upon Cain, we must decide that he inherited from Adam the fine musical talent, and perhaps the knowledge of musical instruments, which he trans- mitted to his mulatto offspring. Thus we find that musical talent, in its highest state of perfection, like every other exalted characteristic which man pos- sesses, is traceable to Adam, upon whom God be- stowed it. Hence, it requires no stretch of the im- agination to suppose that the charms of beauty and fragrance, which characterized the primitive home of our first parents in Eden, was heightened by their innocent songs of joy and praise blending with the soft, sweet strains of instrumental music. CHAPTER XIV. The Fall of Man. ‘‘Oh lovely, happy, blessed, immortal pair! Pleased with the present, full of glorious hope! But short! the song that sings their bliss! Henceforth, the history of man grows dark: Shade after shade of deepening gloom descends, And innocence laments her robes defiled. Who farther sings, must change the pleasant lyre To heavy notes of woe. Why? — dost thou ask, Surprised? The answer will surprise thee more. Man sinned; tempted, he ate the guarded tree; Tempted of whom thou afterward shall hear. Audacious, unbelieving, proud, ungrateful, He ate the interdicted fruit and fell.” — Pollok. “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes 383 384 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. shall be opened, and ye shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. 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 one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord called unto Adam and said, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And He said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee thou shouldst not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. “ And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Be- cause thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 385 “ Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multi- ply 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. “ And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree whereof 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; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee: and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 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. “ And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them. “ And the Lord said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: therefore the Lord sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” (Gen. iii, 1, 2, 3, etc.) . In commenting on the first verse of Genesis, in his attempt to identify the Tempter of Eve, Dr. Adam Clark, says: “Verse 1. (Now the serpent was more subtle.) We have here one of the most difficult as well as the most important narratives in the whole book of God. The last chapter ended with a short, but striking account of the perfection and felicity of the first human beings, and this opens with an ac- 386 THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. count of their transgression, degradation, and ruin. That man is in a fallen state, the history of the world, with that of the life and miseries of every human being, establishes beyond successful contradiction. But how, and by what agency, was this brought about? Here is a great mystery; and I may appeal to all persons who have read the various comments that have been written on the Mosaic account, whether they have ever yet been satisfied on this part of the subject, though convinced of the fact it- self. Who was the serpent? Of what kind? In what way did he seduce the first happy pair? These are questions which remain yet to he answered. The whole account is either a simple narration of facts, or it is an allegory. If it be a historical relation, its lit- eral meaning should be sought out; if it be an alle- gory, no attempt should be made to explain it, as it would require a distinct revelation to ascertain the sense in which it should be understood, for fanciful illustrations are endless. Believing it to be a simple relation of facts capable of satisfactory explanation, I shall take it up on this ground, and by a careful examination of the original text, endeavor to fix the meaning and show the propriety and consistency of the Mosaic account of the fall of man. The chief diffi- culty in the account is found in the question: Who was the agent employed in the seduction of our first parents. “ The word in the text which we, following the Septuagint, translate serpent, is * * * nachash; and, according to Bextorf and others, has three mean ings in scripture. THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. 387 “1. It signifies to view or observe attentively, etc. “ 2. It signifies brass, brazen, and fetters of brass, and in several places, steel. * * * “ 3. It signifies a serpent, but of what kind is not determined. * * * In Eccles. x, 11, the crea- ture called nachash, of whatever sort, is compared to the babbler. * * * ■ “ We have already seen that * * * nachash signifies to view attentively , to acquire knowledge or experience by attentive observation; * * * I have learned by experience; and this seems to be the most general meaning in the Bible. The original word is by the Septuagint translated * * * a serpent, not because this was its fixed, determinate meaning in the sacred writings, but because it was the best that occurred to the translators, and they do not seem to have given themselves much trouble to under- stand the meaning of the original, for they have ren- dered the word as variously as our translators have done, or rather our translators have followed them, as they give nearly the same significations found in the Septuagint. * * * From the Septuagint, therefore, we can expect no light, nor indeed from any other of the ancient versions, which are all sub- sequent to the Septuagint, and some of them actually made from it. In all this uncertainty, it is natural for a serious inquirer after truth to look everywhere for information. And in such an inquiry the Arabic may be expected to afford some help, from its great similarity to the Hebrew. A root in this language, very nearly similar to that in the text, seems to throw considerable light on the subject. * * * 388 THE TEMPTEE OF EVE. chanas or khanasa signifies he departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away; from this root come akhnas, * * * khanasa and khanars, which all signifies an ape, or satyrus, or any creature of the simia or ape genus. It is very remarkable also that from the same root comes khanas, the devil, which appelative he bears to that meaning of khanasa, he drew off, se- duced, etc., because he draws men off from righteous- ness, seduces them from their obedience to God, etc., etc. * * * Is it not strange that the devil and the ape should have the same name, derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the word in the text? But let us return and consider what is said of the creature in question. Now the nachash was more subtle arum, more wise, cunning, or prudent, than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. In this account we find: (1) That whatever nachash was, he stood at the head of all in- ferior animals for wisdom and understanding. (2) That he walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment — on thy belly (i. e., on all fours) , shalt thou go. (3) That he was endowed with the gift of speech, for a conversation is here related between him and the woman. (4) That he was also endowed with the gift of reason, for we find him reasoning and disputing with Eve. (5) That these things were common to this creature, the woman no doubt having often seen him walk erect, talk and reason, and there- fore she testifies no kind of surprise when he accosts her in the language related in the text: and, indeed, from the manner in which this is introduced, it ap- pears to be only a part of a conversation that had THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 389 passed between them on the occasion: Yea, hath God said, etc. “ Had this creature never been known to speak before his addressing the woman at this time and on this subject, it could not have failed to excite her surprise, and to have filled her with caution, though from the purity and innocence of her nature, she might have been incapable of being affected with fear. Now, I apprehend that none of these things can be spoken of a serpent of any species. (1) None of these ever did or ever can walk erect. The tales we have heard of two-footed and four-footed serpents are justly exploded by every judicious naturalist, and are utterly unworthy of credit. The very name serpent comes from serpo, to creep, and therefore to such, it could be neither curse nor punishment to go on their bellies, i. e., to creep on, as they had done from their creation, and must do while their race endures. (2) They have no organs for speech or any kind of articulate sound; they can only hiss. It is true that an ass, by miraculous influence, may speak; but it is not to be supposed that there was any mir- aculous interference here. God did not qualify this creature with speech for the occasion, and it is not intimated that there was any other agent that did it; on the contrary, the text intimates that speech and reason were natural to the nachash; and is it not in reference to this the inspired penman says: The nachash was more subtle or intelligent than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made f Nor can I find that the serpentine genus are remarkable for in- telligence. It is true the wisdom of the serpent has 390 THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. passed into a proverb, but I cannot see on what it is founded, except in reference to the passage in ques- tion, when the nachash, which we translate serpent, following the Septuagint, shows so much intelligence and cunning; and it is very probable, that our Lord al- ludes to this very place when He exhorts His disciples to be wise — prudent or intelligent as serpents, and it is worthy of remark that He used the same term employed by the Septuagint in the text in question: The serpent was more prudent or intelligent than all the beasts, etc. All these things considered, we are obliged to seek for some other word to designate the nachash in the text, than the word serpent, which, on every view of the subject, appears to me inefficient and inapplicable. We have seen above that Jchanas , alchnas, and Jchanros, signify a creature of the ape or satyrus kind. We have seen that the meaning of the root is, he lay hid, seduced, slunk away, etc., and that khanas means the devil, as the inspirer of evil, and seducer from God and truth. See Gollins and Wilmet. It therefore appears to me that a creature of the ape or orang outang kind is here intended. “Should any person who may read this note object against my conclusions, because apparently derived from an Arabic word which is not exactly similar to the Hebrew, though to those who under- stand both languages the similarity will be striking, yet, as I do not insist on the identity of the terms, though important consequences have been derived from less likely etymologies, he is welcome to throw the whole of this out of the account. He may then take up the Hebrew root only, which signifies to THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 391 gaze , to view attentively , pry into, inquire narrowly, etc., and consider the passage that appears to com- pare the nachash to the babbler, ( Eccles . x, 2) , and he will soon find, if he have any acquaintance with creatures of this genus, that for earnest, attentive watching, looking, etc., and for chattering or babbling, they have no fellows in the animal world. Indeed, the ability and propensity to chatter is all they have left, according to the above hypothesis, of their orig- inal gift of speech, of which I suppose them to have been deprived at the fall as a part of their punish- ment.” {Clark, Commentary, Vol. I, pp. 45, 46, etc.). We have quoted at length from the above named work (1) because its author, Dr. Clark, was a mod- ern clergyman — a minister in the Methodist Church. (2) Because this distinguished commentator utterly repudiated and clearly disproves the modern theory that the tempter of Eve was a snake. (3) Because he proves that the tempter of Eve was an ape, which habitually walked erect, talked and reasoned , as shown by the fact that the woman was not in the least alarmed, or even surprised, when he engaged her in the conversation recorded in the text; on the con- trary, she was evidently accustomed to seeing this animal walk erect, talk and reason; consequently she felt no surprise when he addressed a question to her, and manifested no hesitancy in replying to him. The whole transaction shows that their con- versations were common occurrences. Dr. Clark manifested a commendable independ- ence of thought and action when he abandoned the absurd theory of the modern clergy that the tempter 392 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. of Eve was a snake; he made a creditable advance upon the snake theory when he proved the tempter of Eve an ape; yet it is at once a matter of surprise and regret that after thus advancing so far in the right direction, he should have stopped at one of the so-called anthropoids — the orang — when a step further would have taken him to the negro, the identical ape he was seeking. The negro meets all the requirements of the case, and he is the only ani- mal that does; he possesses the erect posture, artic- ulate speech, and more reasoning capacity than any other animal; and these characteristics place him at the head of the apes, and consequently “at the head of all inferior animals for wisdom and understand- ing.” Besides, the negro is an inveterate talker — “babbler” — and is withal one of the noisest ani- mals in the world. The negro is the only animal that could have understood the relation between God and man, and the relations between man and the plants and ani- mals in the Garden of Eden; and the knowledge of these relations was one of the characteristics of the tempter of Eve; in addition to understanding these relations which God established, the negro is the only animal with mental capacity sufficient to devise a scheme to deceive man into disregard- ing these relations, and thus violate the laws of God; and all these things the negro did. The orang, like the snake, would be incapable of understanding the relations which God estab- lished between Himself and man, and those between man and the plants and animals; and being ignorant THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 393 of the existence of these relations, it would never oc- cur to either the snake or the orang, to devise a scheme to deceive man into disturbing these rela- tions, and thus violate the laws of God. Neither could these animals, or any animal, except the ne- gro, execute such a scheme for the want of articu- late speech. Hence, we fail to see that the embar- rassment under which Dr. Clark labored on account of the fact that the Bible accredits the tempter of Eve with articulate speech, was in the least modified by his exchange of the snake for the orang. In his efforts to relieve himself of this embarrassment, Dr. Clark advances the theory that all the orangs orig- inally possessed the “ gift of speech,” but “ at the fall” God “deprived” them of this gift, “as a part of their punishment.” But this theory finds no sup- port in scripture; on the contrary the text is clearly against it. The Bible plainly states that just three individuals participated in the fall of man; and names Adam, Eve, and nachash or serpent , as the guilty parties. The acts which each of these individuals committed are clearly stated, as are the punishments which God meted out to each of them. There is absolutely noth- ing in the text to justify Dr. Clark in entertaining the remotest suspicion that God “deprived” the tempter of Eve of the “gift of speech;” the individual ape, nachash or serpent , which tempted Eve, was one of many of its kind; and all of these “walked erect, talked and reasoned,” but they were not parties to the serpent’s offense, and certainly there is nothing in the text to indicate that these unoffending ani- 394 THE TEMPTER OE EYE. mals were punished in any way. As a matter of fact, nachash was one of many negroes in the Garden of Eden; nachash offended God and was terribly punished, by being compelled to go on its belly; but it was not deprived of speech, and its unoffending kindred were not deprived of their erect posture, ar- ticulate speech, etc., for the negro of to-day, and of all past ages, has possessed these characteristics. For example: Before the late sectional war in the United States, many men in the Southern States owned negroes; if one of his negroes offended, his master punished him, but the rest of his negroes who had not offended were not punished; it would have been a grave injustice to have punished them; is God less just than man? Dr. Clark observed that a part of the punish- ment which God inflicted on the tempter of Eve, was directed at this animal’s 'posture, for he says: “ that he walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment — on thy belly ( i . e., on all fours) shalt thou go.” Man and the negro possess the erect posture, and “go” upon their two legs; the apes be- low the negro may walk erect at will, but they habit- ually support their bodies with both their arms and legs in walking, and this somev T hat resembles the “cattle;” the “cattle” or quadrupeds “go” on all four of their legs; there are many of the small ani- mals among the “creeping things” which have a greater or less number of legs upon which they “go;” but among the “creeping things,” there are a number of animals, such as worms, snakes, etc., which have no legs, and these “go” on their bellies; THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 395 the latter are the lowest, and in point of posture the most degraded of the creeping things. We have shown that the “ beast of the field ” and the negro are identical. Hence, God’s curse upon the tempter of Eve, “ cursed art thou above every beast of the field,” deprived this creature of the erect posture. “Cursed art thou above all cattle” prevented this creature from going on all fours. “ On thy belly shalt thou go” degraded this creature in point of posture to the lowest of the “creeping things.” This curse wrought the most radical change in the posture of this negro, and was a terrible punishment. But this would not have been the case if the tempter of Eve had been a snake. The only way a snake can “go” is on its belly. Hence, God’s curse, “on thy belly shalt thou go,” would not have wrought any change in its posture, nor occasioned it the least in- convenience or suffering. The opening verse of the narrative of the fall plainly shows that the tempter of Eve was a beast of the field: “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” Observe (1) that here there is a comparison drawn. (2) That this comparison is drawn between the tempter of Eve and the other beasts of the field. (3) That the comparison drawn in this text is not between the tempter of Eve and the animals in gen- eral, but is confined strictly to the tempter of Eve and the other beasts of the field: “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” It must be admitted that, the fact that the tempter of Eve was a beast of the 396 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. field, would not have been more clearly indicated had the text read: Now the serpent was more subtle than any other beast of the field which the Lord God had made. In a previous chapter we have shown that the term “ beast of the field ” is not a general term, but that it is a term applied to a particular race of the ape species; and with the aid of comparative anato- my, we have identified the negro as the biblical “beast of the field.” Hence, if our text with its terms had been translated into English, it would read: Now nachash, or serpent, was more subtle than any negro which the Lord God had made. Na- chash, translated serpent , in our English version of the Bible, was merely the name given this negro by Adam, to distinguish it from the other negroes in the Garden of Eden. “Adam gave names to all cat- tle, and to every beast of the field .” It is evident that all the embarrasment under which the world has so long labored in its efforts to identify the tempter of Eve, is due to the following causes: (1) That about eighteen centuries ago all knowledge of the fact that the ape is a biped was lost to the world. (2) That at about the same time the world lost all knowledge of the fact that the negro is an ape; that God designed him as a ser- vant to man, and that he was owned and used by the ancients as a servant; that he is referred to in scrip- ture as the beast of the field; and that his leading characteristics are a matter of scriptural record; prior to these events, monotheism and a belief in the in- spiration of the scriptures was practically confined THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 397 to the Jews; the rest of the world, with perhaps the exception of an individual or a family here and there, were abandoned to atheism and polytheism; and among the Jews atheism and polytheism pre- vailed to some extent. When Christianity superseded Judaism the knowledge of the fact that the ape is a biped, and the negro an ape, was restored to the world; and the Saviour and His deciples employed every argument at their command to eradicate from the minds of men the false theories of atheism, and convince them of the truth of the scripture; but their teachings sur- vived only for a season ; soon after the death of the last of the apostles the followers of the Saviour split up into a number of warring factions, which gradually lost all true knowledge of the teachings of the Bible; in this condition they fell an easy prey to the atheism of the age; the theory of evolution which teaches that the negro is a “ lower race of the human species,” was blended with the teachings of scripture, and was universally taught and accepted; under these de- moralizing conditions, continued for generations, all knowledge of the fact that the negro is an ape, was lost, and, under the influence of atheism, he came to be universally regarded as a man. Then God, in His wrath and disgust, plunged the whole world of mankind into that distressing period of ignorance, superstition, and crime which is fitly termed the Dark Ages. In the meantime, the various Christian sects were consolidated into the Catholic church. The mercenary priesthood of this church were at once ignorant of the teachings of scripture and indifferent 398 THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. to the welfare of the people; their highest ambition was to acquire for their sect universal political su- premacy and power, as well as universal religious supremacy and power. The scriptures were sup- planted by the traditions of the church; the laws of God were set aside by the “Bull” of the Pope; de- bauchery, crime, and bloodshed characterized the reign of the priesthood, who claimed to be the rep- resentatives of the Prince of Peace; and death, in- flicted with the most fiendish tortures, was promptly meted out to the “ heretic ” whose nature revolted at such atrocities, and whose voice was raised in protest against crimes that were daily committed in the name of religion. Under these distressing con- ditions, the masses sank to the lowest depths of ignorance and superstition, and so remained for centuries. The first rays of light and hope, which penetrated this benighted age, were ushered in by the reformation. A very considerable portion of the pure-blooded whites of Europe, following the leader- ship of Martin Luther, repudiated Catholicism and inaugurated a movement which resulted in the es- tablishment of Protestantism; the beneficial results of this movement were further increased by the in- vention of the printing press and the consequent dissemination of learning among the people of all classes. When the Protestant clergy and laity began to investigate the scriptures, they at once found them- selves confronted with the fact that the Bible teaches the existence of a beast which habitually “ walks erect, talks, and reasons; ” and that this animal was THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 399 the tempter of Eve; but all knowledge of the fact that the negro is an ape, and that he is the beast which had figured so prominently in the fall of man, had long been lost; centuries had passed since athe- ism had taken the negro out of the ape family, and thrust him into the family of man, as a “lower race of the human species;” for centuries the negro had been received into the Church as a “man and a brother.” During the Dark Ages the negro had been accepted into the Adamic family without question; and it never occurred to the early Protestants to make any inquiry as to his antecedents. The pro- fane literature of the ancients which would doubt- less have enlightened them upon the subject, had all been destroyed; and modern science was unborn. Failing to find among the recognized animals of the. day, any creature which could possibly meet the scriptural requirements, the most skeptical of the early Protestants were led to believe that the Bible narrative of the fall of man is merely an allegory; and this pernicious belief has survived to our day, and is now entertained in quarters where we should least expect to find it. Others among the early Protestants who were desirous of adhering to the Bible, conceived the idea that the tempter of Eve was “an invisible, spiritual being, and this absurd idea has also survived to our day; but it is plainly disproven by the language of the curse which God put upon the tempter of Eve: “ I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” This leaves 400 THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. no room for doubt that the tempter of Eve was a material creature; a creature of flesh and blood — an offspring-bearing animal. Numerous theories have been advanced as to the identity of the tempter of Eve; but they are all more or less absurd, and so far from being sustained by the scriptures, they are all purely imaginary. The most general opinion among the early Protest- ants was that the tempter of Eve was a snake; and this opinion is generally held by the Jewish and Gentile clergy and laity of to-day; many of the ad- vocates of the snake theory hold that God endowed the snake with speech in order that he might tempt man to his ruin; it is easy to see that this theory makes God the principal, and the most guilty par- ticipant in the fall of man. This theory is at once too absurd and blasphemous for serious considera- tion. There are others who hold that the snake was merely the agent employed by an invisible arch fiend to tempt man to his ruin; these people hold that the snake was deprived of the gift of speech as a punishment for his offense, and that he was also compelled to “go” on his belly ever after. As above shown, Dr. Clark came nearer the truth when he repudiated the snake theory and fixed upon the ape as the tempter of Eve; but he fell far short of the truth when he selected the orang; and he was compelled to advance the absurd theory that the whole race of orangs once possessed the erect posture and articulate speech; and that God deprived the whole race of orangs of the erect posture and the “gift of speech,” as a punishment for the acts of THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 401 one of their number. It is surprising that men will persist in palming off on the world a lot of home-made scripture when they have already more genuine scripture than they can understand. As shown above, the punishment inflicted on the tempter of Eve was confined to the individual animal which offended; and there is not one particle of evidence to indicate that it was deprived of articulate speech. Dr. Clark, in common with all modern theologians who accept the Bible, insists that the animal which tempted Eve was merely the “ agent” of an invisible arch fiend, commonly called the devil; this theory teaches that there were four active participants in the fall of man — Adam, Eve, the serpent and the devil, which controlled the serpent; and this too, in the very face of the plain teaching of the Bible, that there were but three parties implicated — Adam, Eve, and the serpent. The modern theory that the animal which tempted Eve was merely the “agent” or tool of a supreme, invisible arch fiend which desired the ruin of man, is opposed to the evident meaning conveyed by the text: “ Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” Thus the inspired writer emphatically states that the tempter of Eve was more“ subtle,” that is, more “sly in design,” more “ artful,” more “ cunning,” more “crafty,” “than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made;” and was consequently more capable of devising and executing a scheme to de- ceive man into violating the laws of God. On the other hand, there is not the slightest hint conveyed 402 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. by the text that the animal which deceived Eve was in the least influenced or controlled by any super- natural agency. In our forthcoming work on the book of Rev- elation we shall prove that the modern theory that there is a supreme, invisible arch fiend, called the “ devil,” or “ satan,” who stands for all that is wicked and corrupt, as God stands for all that is good and pure, had its origin, and exists solely in the grossest ignorance and superstition. The modern believers in “His Satanic Majesty” will have the opportunity of doing for this much talked-of gentleman, what they have never done — the opportunity of proving his reality. In pursuing their investigation along this line these gentlemen might profit bj^ the hint dropped by Dr. Clark, who, in discussing certain terms in the Arabic language which is closely re- lated to the Hebrew, says: “Is it not strange that the devil and ape should have the same name, de- rived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the word in the text?” We have a multi- tude of “ devils,” but no one of them is supreme; and none of them are invisible. All the circumstances indicate that the beast of the field which tempted Eve was a negress, who served Eve in the capacity of maid servant; that Eve became too confidential and familiar with this ne- gress and was imposed upon by her. The language of the text clearly indicates that this negress was aware of the fact that Adam and Eve were prohib- ited from eating the fruit of a certain tree in the garden, and subsequent events confirm it; yet in THE TEMPTER OF EYE 403 / 404 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. pretended ignorance, she approaches her mi stress with the question: ‘‘Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden ?” It is evident that this was the initial step in the execution of a cunningly devised scheme to deceive the woman into violating the laws of God. At this critical junc- ture Eve made that fatal mistake which involved the world in sin, and the disastrous train of evils that have grown out of it ; instead of sending this pre- sumptuous negress away with a reprimand, the un- suspecting woman in the simplicity of her nature re- plied: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. ” Note the adroitness with which this negress approached Eve upon this subject ! And, emboldened by her suc- cess in gaining the confidence of her mistress, she flatly contradicted the Word of God by saying, “ Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day thou eatest thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. ” Thus, by one bold, skillful move this impu- dent negress instilled into the woman’s mind distrust of God; engendered in her heart discontent with her position; and aroused in her nature the unholy am- bition that she and her husband “be as gods.” The iniquitous designs of the negress were success- ful. Eve, accompanied by Adam, and doubtless by the negress proceeded to the forbidden tree, “ and took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. ” THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. 405 Thus, it is clearly shown that the scriptural narrative of the fall of man, accredits no character- istic to the tempter of Eve that is not found in the genuine negro. This, taken in connection with the fact that the Bible teaches that Adam. Eve, and the serpent were the only parties implicated, leaves modern theologians no basis for their theory that there was a fourth party implicated; and that this fourth party was an invisible arch fiend, called the “ devil ” or “ satan.” We are taught by the modern theologians that Adam and Eve committed their first sin by eating the forbidden fruit; but to accept this theory we must disregard the narrative of creation, which teaches that the design of God in creating man, was that he should have dominion over the animals; and that when man was created he was assigned to this task. Inasmuch as the tempter of Eve was an animal, it follows that it was the duty of Adam and Eve to control it in common with the rest of the animals. But instead of controlling this negress, Eve accepted the negress as her counselor, and allowed the negress to control her, and induced Adam to do likewise; and she counseled them to their ruin. Thus, it is plain that when Adam and Eve accepted this creature as their counselor, they not only violated the laws given man in the creation to “ have dominion ” over the animals, but they out- raged the very design of God in creating man. Their acting upon the advice of the negress by eat- ing the forbidden fruit, was their second offense; when they accepted the negress as their counselor, 406 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. they necessarily descended to social equality with her. This reveals the startling fact that it was man’s social equality with the negro that brought sin into the world. This being true, it follows that man’s social equality with the negro will keep sin into the world, and will bring upon man the just condemna- tion of God. Besides, man’s social equality with the negro tends to political and religious equality; and these three, or any one of them, inevitably leads to amalgamation — itself the most infamous and destruc- tive crime known to the law of God. CHAPTER XV. The History of Cain. “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she con- ceived and bear Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bear his brother Abel, and Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. 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; but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.” We are thus taught that these brothers were en- gaged in different persuits; the one “was a keeper of sheep;” the other “was a tiller of the ground.” Hence, they were not rivals in business; and had each of them lived in obedience to the laws of God, their offerings would have been alike acceptable to God. But such was not the case. Abel was a good man, and loved God and had faith in Him; (see Heb. xi, 4) , this led him to respect and obey the laws of God. Hence, God had respect for Abel as a man; and this led Him to respect Abel’s offering. But Cain was a bad man; he cherished no love for God, and no respect for His laws; and this led him to 407 408 THE TEMPTER OF EVE, violate the laws of God. Hence, God had no respect for Cain as a man; and this led Him to reject Cain’s offering. The nature of their respective offerings had nothing to do with God’s acceptance of the one and His rejection of the other. The whole question hinged upon the position which each of these broth- ers held in the esteem of God. God had respect for Abel; but for Cain He had no respect. “ And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth, and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door; and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” (Gen. iv, 6, 7) . This clearly shows that Cain was not only a vio- lator of the laws of God, but that he had an accom- plice in his crime. There was something which had desire for Cain, and no inamimate object can enter- tain desire. To have desire, requires both life and intelligence; and inasmuch as individuals of the same sex have no desire for each other, we would naturally decide that this creature which had desire for Cain, was a female; the mere fact that the in- spired writer refers to it in the masculine is no evi- dence that it was not a female. In describing the animals, the inspired writers frequently refer to both sexes in the masculine. For example: “God made every winged fowl after his kind.” “ Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,” etc. (Gen. i, 22, 24). Now we know that both sexes were included in these commands; and again, the sun, which is without sex, is referred to in the masculine: THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 409 “ His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit from the end of it.” (Ps. xix, 6) . The evident fact that Cain’s associate in. the crime which cost him the respect of God, was a female which had desire for him, indicates that the sin which lay at his “door,” was the result of his desire for her; and that she was his paramour. “ Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him,” was a sentence which God imposed upon Cain and his paramour. Further evidence of this is found in the striking similarity of God’s language in imposing this sentence to that which He used in imposing His sentence upon Eve. To the woman who sinned, God said : “ Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Gen. iii, 16). To the man Cain, who had sinned, God said: “Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” Thus it is plain that the sentence which God imposed upon Eve was identical with that which He imposed upon Cain’s associate in crime. This identity of sentence furnishes the most positive proof that Cain’s accomplice was a female. In each case God decreed that the female should have desire for a particular male, and that this particular male should “rule over” the female which had desire for him. When we compare the sentence which God im- posed upon Eve, and to which Adam was made a party, with the sentence which He imposed upon Cain’s paramour, and to which Cain was made a party, we find that in each case the result to the parties interested was identical. The relation of 410 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. husband and wife which existed between Adam and Eve in the days of their innocence, was sanctioned by the law given man in the Creation, “be fruitful and multiply; ” but under the changed condition wrought by their fall, God saw fit, by special decree to bind and confine them in their sexual relations to each other, changing their former relations only so far as to place the offending woman in subjection to her husband whom she had misled. The sentence which God imposed upon Cain and his paramour, being identical with that imposed upon Adam and Eve, necessarily had the same result. It bound them together in the relation of husband and wife, and confined them in their sexual relations to each other; and at the same time placed Cain’s wife in subjection to him. The inspired apostle Jude, not only furnishes the most positive evidence that Cain’s associate in crime was a female, but that she was not of the Adamic flesh. Jude at once arraigns the men of his day on the charge of amalgamation — “ giving them- selves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh;” and urges the followers of Christ to “keep” themselves “in the love of God.” Jude says: “ Beloved, when I gave all deligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. For there are cer- tain men, crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation; ungodly men, turn- ing the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 411 denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, hav- ing saved the people out of the land of Egypt, after- ward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels, which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of digni- taries. Woe unto them for they have gone in the way of Cain.” ( Jude i, 3, 4, etc.) . We are thus taught: (1) that the crime of forni- cation, with which the Jews and other ancient people are charged by the inspired writers, and which led to the destruction of “ Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them,” is traceable to Cain, who was the first to lead off in this wicked course. Hence, Jude describes it as “the way of Cain.” (2) That forni- cation , according to scripture, is “going after strange flesh.” The Bible describes two offences which result from illicit intercourse between the sexes; the one is “adultery,” the other is “fornication.” We, of modern times, are taught that adultery is the “ un- faithfulness of any married person to the marriage bed.” (Webster's Dictionary ) . And that fornication is “the incontinence or lewdness of unmarried per- 412 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. sons, male or female.” {Ibid). But this definition of fornication was not held by the founder of Chris- tianity. On the contrary, our Saviour said: “Who- soever shall put away his wife, except it be for for- nication, and shall marry another, committeth adul- tery; and whoso marrieth her, which is put away, committeth adultery.” {Mat. xix, 9) . Thus, the Saviour not only draws a broad distinction between fornication and adultery, but He teaches that a mar- ried person may commit fornication; and if a man and wife are divorced and either, or both of them, marry another, they commit adultery , but not forni- cation. Our Saviour also shows fornication to be a more heinous offense than adultery, by making it the only ground for divorce. It is also taught that na- tions may become involved in fornication. (See Ezelc. xvi, 26, 29). That God’s sentence upon Cain and his partner in sin established between them the relation of hus- band and wife, is shown by the fact that after their sentence, Cain is accredited with a wife, while prior to this event he is merely credited with a paramour of “ strange flesh,” with whom he committed forni- cation, as shown by the following: “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bear Enoch.” {Gen. iv, 16, 17). There is absolutely nothing in the scriptural record that justifies us in supposing that Cain ob- tained his wife in the land of Nod; on the contrary, the record clearly shows that she was his paramour THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 413 when he and his brother Abel brought their offer- ings to the Lord; and that it was his criminal rela- tions with her that cost Cain the respect of God and led to the rejection of his offering. And as a pun- ishment upon Cain for his criminal relations with her, God by special decree established between them the relation of husband and wife. Upon their ar- rival in the land of Nod, “ Cain knew his wife,” in the sense that she conceived and bare Enoch; just as, after being driven from the Garden of Eden, “Adam knew Eve, his wife,” in the sense that she conceived and bare Cain. Upon Cain’s history, as upon many other parts of Bible history, Paul’s declaration that, “there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds, proves invaluable, since it enables us to solve many of the so-called mysteries of the Bible. Jude tells us that Cain committed fornication by “ going after strange flesh.” When we turn upon Jude’s state- ment, the light of Paul’s declaration as to the four different kinds of flesh, it becomes plain that Cain’s paramour was not of Cain’s “kind of flesh” — she was not of the “ flesh of men ” — she was not a woman; but was a creature of “strange flesh;” and being a land animal, she belonged to the flesh of beasts. Hence, Cain’s wife was a beast; yet his wife of strange flesh bare Cain offspring that was indefi- nitely fertile. His son Enoch had numerous de- scendants — children, grand-children, great grand- children, etc. In a previous chapter we have shown that Cain’s 414 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. mixed-blooded progeny compare favorably, in point of intelligence and culture, with the most intelligent and cultured of the mixed-bloods of our day. They were great cattle raisers; they mined, and worked metals and fashioned them into implements; they were skillful mechanics and accomplished musicians; they evidently cultivated domestic plants, especially the food plants, and they possessed a knowledge of God and His dealings with Cain, as shown by the utterances of one of them who had slain a man: “ Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamach, hearken to my speech; for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged seven fold, truly Lamach seventy and seven fold.” (Gen. iv, 23, 24). In view of the characteristics of the beast of the field, as we find them recorded in scripture, it is plain that Cain’s wife was a beast of the field — a negress; and it is highly probable that she was the immediate offspring of the negress who tempted Eve; and that God’s curse upon the tempter — “ I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and be- tween thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel ” — was fulfilled in the disasters which befell Cain as the result of his crimi- nal relations with her. Thus, the testimony of the inspired writers, Moses, Jude and St. Paul, sweeps away the veil of mystery which for so many centuries has enveloped the marital relations of Cain, and throws a flood of light upon the most important events in his his- tory. THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. 415 When we appeal to science to identify this crea- ture of “ strange flesh ” with which Cain committed fornication , and which bore him offspring as above described, she promptly invades the so-called “human species,” and points to the negro as the highest race of ape, and the only creature of the lower kinds of flesh with which man may associate himself carnally and produce offspring which will at once be indefinitely fertile, and capable of acquiring a knowledge of God and the arts of civilization. Throughout his whole history, man has manifested a strong disposition to abandon himself to this loathesome, destructive crime, and this is rendered even more conspicuous by the fact that Cain, the first child born to the Adamic Creation, fell, the vic- tim of amalgamation. Inasmuch, as all knowledge of the fact that the negro is an ape was lost centuries ago, the modern theologian was led to decide that Cain took his sister to wife; but had this been true, she would not have been of “ strange flesh; ” Cain and his wife would have been of one flesh — the “flesh of men;” besides, sin would not have lain at Cain’s “door” as the result of his act. He would simply have obeyed the law given man in the Creation, “ be fruitful and multiply.” The only way in which the immediate sons of Adam could have preserved and increased the Adamic flesh was by taking their sisters to wife. Seth and his younger brothers did this, and they were never censured for it. On the contrary, Seth, the third son of Adam, was highly honored by tak- ing his sister to wife, since it placed him in the line 416 THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. of descent from Adam to Jesus Christ. Hence, he occupies an exalted position in the genealogical tables of the Bible, as one of the ancestors of the Messiah. Further evidence that Cain’s wife was not of the “ flesh of men ” — that she was not a woman — is found in the fact that Seth was the third child born to Adam, and took the place of Abel whom Cain slew, as shown by the record: “And Adam knew his wife again ; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth: For God, saith she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.” (Gen. iv, 25) . And there were no daughters born to Adam until after the birth of Seth, as shown by the record: “And the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years, and he begat sons and daughters.” (Gen. v, 4). The profane history of this early period has long since been lost. But the history of Adam’s immediate descendants is of such vital importance to the men of subsequent ages, that God inspired Moses to write it; and if there had been any daughters born to Adam and Eve prior to the birth of Seth, Moses would have made some mention of them; the inspired writer mentions the sons born to Adam before the birth of Seth, as well as those born after that event; and if there had been daughters born to Adam before the birth of Seth, why should he decline to mention them as well as those born after that event ? If we accept the Bible account of the immediate offspring of Adam as an inspired narrative, we have no alter- native than to regard it as full and authentic. THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 417 Hence, we must stand by the record, and decide that there was no daughter born to Adam until after the birth of Seth. Thus the history of Cain’s mari- tal relations fully sustains the teachings of Jude that Cain’s paramour was not of his kind of flesh — she was not of the “ flesh of men ” — hence, she was not a woman — but was a creature of strange flesh with which he committed fornication; for nothing is more clearly taught in the Bible than that Cain had a wife before Seth was born. Cain being the eldest son of Adam, it is plain that, in the ordinary course of events the first fe- male child born to the Adamic family would, upon reaching maturity, be given in marriage to Cain ; but Cain’s loathsome crime in cultivating sexual relations with a beast had rendered him unfit for the com- panionship of a pure woman. Besides, God’s sen- tence upon Cain and his paramour bound Cain to this beast in the relation of husband all his life, and forever restrained him from holding sexual relations with woman. And as a result, the beautiful Adamic woman who, in all her virgin loveliness, would have been the wife of Cain, would now become the wife of his brother, Abel. In Jiis~ jealousy and rage upon realizing this, we might find an explanation of why, “ Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him. ” When viewed from the atheist’s standpoint, that man is a species composed of a greater or less num- ber of races, the history of Cain and his descendants presents little to interest, and is of no practical value; on the contrary, it is altogether unsatisfac- 418 THE TEMPTER OP EYE. tory and misleading. But when viewed in the light of the scriptures and the sciences, it at once becomes a subject of the most absorbing interest and impor- tance. God’s utter abhorrence of amalgamation is shown in the disasters which He visited upon Cain; while God’s wondrous love for man is displayed in His formation and preservation of the genealogical table of Cain’s descendants, in which it is made a matter of scriptural record that there is a beast with which man may associate himself carnally and pro- duce offspring that will be at once indefinitely fer- tile, and capable of acquiring a knowledge of God and the arts of civilization. Inasmuch as Cain’ s w ife was a negress, her offspring were necessarily mixed-blood s. This ex- plains why Cain and his descendants were thrust out of the line of descent from Adam to Jesus Christ; and the line of descent as shown in the gen- ealogical tables is made to pass through Seth, the third son of Adam, and through his descendants of pure Adamic stock. Cain and his wife disappear from the records, and all trace of them is lost after the birth of Enoch, and the building of the city which Cain named after his son, Enoch. Thus itis shown: (1) That the rejection of Cain’s offering was solely due to the fact that God had no respect for Cain as a man, because he was a violator of the law of God. (2) That Cain had an accom- plice in his crime. (3) That his accomplice was a fe- male of “ stange flesh ” with whom he committed “ for- nication.” (4) That his paramour was a “ beast of the field ” — an ape. (5) That, as a punishment for THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 419 his loathsome crime, God bound him to this beast in the relation of husband, and forever debased him from holding marital relations with woman. (6) That his wife bore him offspring that was indefinitely fertile, and capable of acquiring a knowledge of God and the arts of civilization. (7) That the gen- ealogical table of Cain’s descendants serves no other purpose, and was merely designed as a scriptural rec- ord of the fact that there is a beast with which man may associate himself carnally and produce offspring that will be indefinitely fertile, and capable of ac- quiring a knowledge of God and the arts of civiliza- tion. What other good purpose does this genealog- ical table of Cain’s descendants perform? Why does the inspired writer give us a list of the principal characters among Cain’s offspring by his wife of “strange flesh,” with their occupations, etc., for five generations, and then stop, when he gives us a list of pure-blooded whites extending from Adam to Jesus Christ? This genealogical table of Cain’s descend- ants serves a purpose; it is simply a scriptual record of the fact that there is a beast with which man may associate himself carnally and produce offspring pos- sessing the characteristics of mixed-bloods. (8) That no lower grade of ape than the negro meets the scriptural requirements. Cain’s wife being a negress — an ape — she, like every other animal, was simply a combination of two creations — matter and mind; and was consequently a mere creature of time. On the other hand, Cain, being a man, was a combination of three creations — matter, mind, and soul; and was consequentlylm imr '420 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. mortal being. This unnatural condition of affairs suggests the inquiry, was it possible for Cain to transmit the soul creation to his mulatto son Enoch and his progeny, and thus establish between God and these mixed-bloods, the relation of father and son? To answer this question, we must investigate the laws which govern the reproduction of the crea- tions , as they exist in man and the animals. The negro, like every other animal, being merely a com bina tion of two creations — matter and mind — it follows that one side or part of the matter crea- tion, and one side or part of the mind creation, ex- ists in an imperfect state in the male negro; the cor- responding sides or parts of these imperfect crea- tions exists in the female negro. In the sexual act each side or part of these creations maintains its in- dividuality, and acts as a magnet which attracts its corresponding side or part in the opposite sex; and when united and perfected in the female, con- ception and birth ensues, and the two creations — matter and mind — are reproduced in the young negro. Thus, two creations — matter and mind — combine to perfect the negro. But it requires the combina- tion of the three creations — matter, mind, and soul — to perfec t m an. Hence, while but two creations — matter and mind — exist in an imperfect state in the germs of the male and the female negro, as mutually dependent sides or parts of the life system of the animal, the three creations — matter, mind, and soul exist in an imperfect state in the germs of the male and female man, as mutually dependent sides or THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 421 parts of the life system of man; and so great is the attraction between the matter and mind creations as they exist in the imperfect state in the germs of man and the negro, that sexual intercourse between the two may unite and perfect these two creations. But the imperfect side or part of the soul creation as it exists in the germ of the man, finds no correspond- ing side or part in the negro; as a result the soul creation having no attraction, remains passive. Hence, if conception ensues from the union of the germs and the consequent perfecting of the matter and mind creations of man and the negro, this pas- sive creation forms no part of the offspring of this unnatural union. Thus, neither the male nor the female side or part of man can transmit the three creations — matter, mind, and soul — to their offspring by the negro, in whom the matter and the mind creations alone exist. In other words, the male and the female can only transmit to their offspring such of these creations as are common to both parents. Thus, it is plain that only the sides or parts of matter and the mind creations, as they existed in the respective germs of Cain and his negro wife, were united and perfected in their offspring; while the side or part of the soul creation, as it existed in an imperfect state in Cain, found no corresponding side or part in his negro wife, remained passive in the sex- ual act, and consequently formed no part of the off- spring of this unnatural union. Hence, Cain’s mulatto son was wholly animal — a mere combination of matter and mind — and being utterly destitute of a soul, there existed no kinship between God and 422 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. Cain’s son, Enoch. Hence, when a man becomes so degraded as to associate himself carnally with the negro, his act brings into operation the law which governs the reproduction of the creations, which makes it impossible for man to transmit to his off- spring by the beast the slightest kinship with God. This law becomes active and operates with the same result when man associates himself carnally with the mixed-bloods without reference to what their proportions of white and black blood may be. The immediate offspring of man and the n egro — the half breed — like the negro, is merely a combi- nation of matter and mind; consequently, in associ- ating himself carnally with the mixed-bloods, man would continually oppose three creations — matter, mind, and soul — as they exist in their imperfect state in his germ, to only two creations — matter and mind — as they exist in their imperfect state in the germ of the mixed-bloods. Hence, it could only be possible to unite and perfect the matter and the mind creations as they exist in their imperfect state in the respective germs of man and the mixed-bloods, and thus reproduce them in the offspring. But the side or part of the soul creation, as it exists in its im- perfect state in the germ of the man, finding no cor- responding side or part in the mixed-bloods with which it might be united and perfected, is not affected in the sexual act, and remains passive; hence, it forms no part in the offspring. This unvarying law would hold good through millions of generations. Man cannot transmit to his offspring by the negro, the THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 423 least vestige of the soul creation. Hence, no mixedr blood has a soul. In addition to this, a moment’s reflection should convince us that, inasmuch as God declined in the creation, to establish any kinship between Himself and the animals, it follows that he would not make it possible for man to do so by an act, which, of itself, is a violation of that Divine law: “ Thou shall not lie with any beast . ” The social equality with the negro to which Adam and Eve descended in the Garden of Eden, culminated in Cain’s abandoning himself to amalga- mation with the negro; in the absence of a female of his kind of flesh , he selected a paramour of strange flesh — a negress. In this age of atheism, in which the negro is universally recognized as “a lower race of the human species,” and man’s marriage with him universally sanctioned by the church, and almost universally sanctioned by the state, it is difficult for us to comprehend the depth of depravity to which Cain descended by cohabiting with a negress; neither is it easy for us to understand the crushing degrada- tion to which God subjected Cain by binding him in marriage to the base-born object of his lust. Like the antediluvians, and the people of Sodom and Go- morrah, and like the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Israelites, etc., we, of modern times, have “gone into the way of Cain;” but when we accept the teachings of the scriptures and the sciences, that the negro is an ape, we should be able to look upward from the depths of depravity to which we have descended, at least so far as to realize that, in binding Cain in mar- 424 THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. riage to a beast, God inflicted upon him the most degrading punishment. The Bible abounds with in- stances in which individuals and nations cultivated marriage relations with the negro and with the mixed- bloods, but in every case these marriage relations were the voluntary acts of these individuals and nations. But Cain’s case is the only one on record where God, by special decree, bound a man in mar- riage to the beast with which he had committed for- nication. Hence, the degrading punishment which God visited upon Cain — the first amalgamationist — is unparalleled in His dealings with men. It was evidently God’s intention to make an example of Cain, by inflicting upon him a punish- ment so degrading as to restrain others from “ going after strange flesh.” But the infamy which God heaped upon Cain failed to restrain others from going “in the way of Cain,” as shown by Jude’s reference to “ the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, * * * giving them- selves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh. * * * These filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignita- ries. * * * Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain.” {Jude ) . The “ angels ” above referred to, were not celes- tial , but material beings. They were the early de- scendants of Adam who “ left their own habitation ” — the Adamic flesh, as presented in woman — “going after strange flesh” — the flesh of beasts, as presented in the negro. Those “filthy dreamers” “despised dominion ” over the negro in common with the rest THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 425 of the animals, and p refer red social equality with him and the amalgamation to which it inevitably leads. Additional proof of the prevalence of amalgama- tion among the antediluvians is shown by the follow- ing: “And it came to pass, when men began to mul- tiply upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair: and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: Yet his days shall be an hun- dred and twenty years. There were giants in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men, and they bear chil- dren to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” (Gen. vi, 1, 2, 3, 4). We observe that these texts plainly show: (1) That there is a broad distinction made between the “ sons of God,” and the “daughters of men.” (2) That their inter-marriages were criminal. (3) That God had striven with man to induce him to refrain from such marriages. (4) That God was growing weary of striving with man — “ My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh;” thus clearly stating that, like man, these creatures, with which man was contracting these unlawful marriages, were creatures of flesh. (5) That God gave man 120 years in which to abandon his wicked course, and return to his duties and to a life of obed- ience. (6) That, in some cases, the offspring re- sulting from the unions between the “ sons of God” 426 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. and “the daughters of men,” were of such extra- ordinary size as to be termed “giants;” and it is significant that the mixed-bloods of postdiluvian times were physical giants; such, for example, was Goliath, the Philistine whom David slew; such also ' were the Anakims. ( Deut . ii, 10, 11) . The skeletons of ancient Indians have been found which were of such extraordinary size as to lead to their being termed “ giants.” And we occasionally find “ giants ” among the mixed-bloods of to-day; on the other hand, we find among the mixed-bloods, tribes com- posed of individuals so diminutive as to be termed “pigmies” or “dwarfs.” But whether giants or pigmies , these monstrosities are always mixed-bloods; the tribes of pigmies to be found to-day are neither white nor black, but some shade of brown, red, or yellow; and the fossil remains of either pigmies or giants will show the evide nce of crossing . The pure whites vary in size; but these variations never ex- tend from pigmies to giants. In no case do they develop into physical giants; neither do the pure whites produce pigmies or dwarfs; except in isolated individual cases, and then only as the result of ac- cident or disease. The same is true of the pure- blooded negroes; they produce no giants and no pigmies. In commenting on the “ sons of God,” and the “daughters of men,” and their unlawful unions and progeny of giants, Lenormant pronounces it “the crux intrepretum of the first part of Genesis.” Vari- ous efforts have been made to solve the question as to who were the “ sons of God ” and who were, the THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 427 “ daughters of men.” Hence, this question has been the subject of endless speculation and controversy. Many of the early Catholic writers even went so far as to suppose that the “ sons of God ” were celestial beings, who became infatuated with the beauty of the women of the earth — the “ daughters of men” — and formed marriage alliances with them which led to the production of an unnatural progeny in the form of giants. ( Beginning of History, pp. 299, 300). Let us bear in mind that these early Catholic writers lived and wrote at a time when all knowledge of the fact that the white is thy onl y m an, and that the negro is an ape, were lost; that they lived at a time when atheism had misled the world into accept- ing the degrading theory that man is a species of which the white is the highest and the negr o is the lowest race, with the browns, reds, and yellows as intermediate races in different stages of development. Under the demoralizing influence of this destructive theory, they recognized the negro as “ a man and a brother;” and also recognized his mixed-blooded progeny — the so-called brown, red, and yellow races — as “ men and brethren.” Blinded by this false teaching of atheism, they could see nothing criminal in the marriage of whites with these so-called “ lower races of men.” Hence, when they observed the broad distinction made between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men,” the criminality of their marriages, and the unnatural offspring resulting therefrom, together with the terrible punishment which God visited upon them because of these crimes, the early “ fathers of the church ” conceived the ab- 428 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. surd idea that the “sons of God” were angels who fell from their high estate through their guilty loves for the women of the earth — the “ daughters of men.” But when we lay aside our atheism and accept the teachings of the scriptures and the sciences that the white is the only man, and that the negro is an ape, and view this whole subject in the light of Cain’s history, as above set forth, it becomes plain that the “sons of God” were the pure-blooded male descend- ants of “Adam, the son of God;” and that the “daughters of men” were mixed-blooded females; they were the offspring of amalgamation between the Adamic males and the negro females. Thus it will be seen that the inspired writer describes them to a nicety; their fathers were men; hence, they were the “daughters of men;” but their mothers were not women , they were negresses — “ beasts of the field ” — apes. Continuing his narrative of the criminal mar- riage of the “sons of God” with the “daughters of men,” the disposition which God made of them and their unnatural progeny, the inspired writer says: “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repentetli Me that I have made them.” (Gen. vi, 5 , 6 , 7 ). THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 429 Thus God’s abhorrence of amalgamation is shown by the fact that, after striving for ages to in- duce man to abandon his wicked course, He was dis- posed, in His wrath and disgust, to destroy from the earth both man and the animals. But just at this critical period — the most critical in man’s history — “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” (Gen. vi, 8) . “ These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.” (Gen. vi, 9). There are three characteristics here recorded of Noah, and they are evidently given as so many reasons why Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord: (1) “ Noah was a just man.” (2) He was “ perfect in his generations.” (3) “ Noah walked with God; ” that is, he was obedient to the laws of God. There was nothing uncommon in Noah’s possession of the first and third of these characteristics ; many men preceded Noah, and many came after him who possessed these characteristics; on the other hand, the second charac- teristic, that he was “ perfect in his generations,” is shared by every pure-blooded descendant of Adam; but the record of it, unlike the characteristic itself, is peculiar to Noah. No such record is found of the great antediluvian patriarch, Enoch (the seventh from Adam), who, like Elijah, was translated; nor of Abraham; nor of Moses; nor of David; nor even of Jesus Christ. Is it not peculiar that in all Bible history, there is just this one individual of whom it is recorded, that he was “perfect in his genera- tions?” The fact that Noah was “perfect in his V 430 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. generations” was not the result of any act of his; and all credit for its existence in him is wholly due to his ancestors who transmitted to him from Adam, in uncorrupted line of descent the pure Adamic stock. The fact that he was “ perfect in his genera- tions” was one of the reasons why “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord,” when viewed in the light of all its attendant circumstances, necessarily carries with it the implication that there were others in Noah’s time, who were not perfect in their genera- tions. Now, if Noah was “perfect in his genera- tions,” because his ancestors transmitted to him in uncorrupted line of descent from Adam, the pure Adamic flesh, and there were others in Noah’s time who were not perfect in their generations, by asso- sociation, with whom did their ancestors transmit to them a corrupted line of descent from Adam? Illicit intercourse between the Adamic males and females indicates a corrupt condition of their morals; but the offspring of such illegal unions will be as perfect in their generations — as pure in their genealogy — as if the relations of their parents had been legitimate. As long as man’s sexual relations are confined to the Adamic flesh , their genealogy is perfect and their line of descent pure. This being true, it follows that the genealogy of the antedilu- vians — their line of descent from Adam — could only have been corrupted by their sexual relations with some other “kind of flesh,” which resulted in the production of a fertile progeny. This enables us to realize the deep significance of this record concerning Noah’s genealogy. The antediluvians had gone in THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 431 the way of Cain; amalgamation had become general and widespread among them. Hence, when God decided to preserve Noah and his family from whom the Adamic stock of postdiluvian times are descended, He made it a matter of scriptural record that there was no taint of negro blood in Noah’s veins; he was a pure-blooded descendant of Adam — he was “perfect in his generations.” Noah’s wife was also a pure- blooded descendant of Adam, for, had there been any taint of negro blood in her veins, he could not have lain with her and “ walked with God.” Noah and his wife being pure-blooded descendants of Adam, their sons — Ham, Shem, and Japheth — were neces- sarily the same; and their wives were of pure Adamic stock, or they would not have been preserved, but would have been destroyed with the rest of the mixed-bloods. Amalgamation is the sole charge recorded against the antedilivians, as shown by the following: “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth and behold it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted His way on the earth. And God said to Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, be- hold, I will destroy them with the earth.” (Gen. vi, 11, 12, 13). Inasmuch as “ all flesh ” on the earth had been “ corrupted,” it is pertinent to inquire as to how many kinds of flesh there are on the earth. To as- certain this, we should first turn upon this question the light of Paul’s declaration: “That there is one 432 THE TEMPTEE OF EVE. kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds,” thus making four different kinds of flesh; then turn upon this question the light of the Mosaic record, which teaches that the fish were made to inhabit the waters; that the fowl were made to “fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven;” while man and beast were to occupy the dry land. This enables us to see that there are only two kinds of flesh which belong strictly to the earth; and that these are the “ flesh of men,” and the “ flesh of beasts.” As has been shown, no form of lust to which man can abandon himself within the Adamic family can corrupt the “ flesh of men.” However unlawful the intercourse between men and women may be, the offspring will be of pure Adamic flesh. The same is true of the animals. No hybridization which may occur between the different species or races of beasts, can corrupt the flesh of beasts; the hybrids, or mon- grels, resulting from such unions are the pure flesh of beasts. To corrupt the flesh, there must be sex- ual intercourse between two different kinds of flesh, and the corrupted flesh will express itself in the off- spring. For example: the flesh of man is a differ- ent “kind of flesh” from that of beasts; while the negro, being simply a race of the ape species, be- longs to the flesh of beasts. Hence, when a man as- sociates himself carnally with a negress, the flesh of that man is not corrupted by his intercourse with that beast; neither is the flesh of the negress cor- rupted by her intercourse with the man; the flesh of each is as pure after their sexual contact as it was be- THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 433 fore. But should their intercourse result in con- ception and birth, the corrupted flesh will express itself in the offspring — the mulatto — which is not the pure flesh of man, as was its Adamic parent; neither is it the pure flesh of beast, as was its Negro parent; it is what the inspired writer describes it as being, corrupted flesh, resulting from amalgamation between two different kinds of flesh. Having decreed the destruction of the inhab- itants of the earth by a flood, God commanded Noah to build an ark in which he and his family, together with a male and female of the fowls and land ani- mals should be preserved. “Thus did Noah; ac- cording to all that God commanded him, so did he.” (See Gen. vi, 14, 17, 18, 19, 22). Thus it is shown that man’s criminal relations with the negro led God in His wrath and disgust to “ bring upon the earth,” the deluge, the most terrible cataclysm the world has ever known. In a previous chapter we have shown that the waters which God employed to deluge the earth, were celestial waters. Thus, through the agency of a deluge, which was necessarily universal, God destroyed from the earth, the corrupted flesh and those who were instrumental in corrupting it, and restored the flesh of the earth to its original purity. CHAPTER XVI. Amalgamation and Its Results. Through the agency of the deluge, which was universal, God destroyed from the earth the cor- rupted flesh resulting from amalgamation between man and the negro; and also destroyed the degraded amalgamationists whose loathsome crimes had cor- rupted, in God’s eye, the earth itself. “ And Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” Thus the flesh of the earth was restored to its original purity. The negro entered the ark as an ape and was preserved with the rest of the ani- mals. As shown in a previous chapter, Adam and Eve, our first parents, were the most intellectual, cul- tivated, and refined people that ever graced the earth; their home in Eden was the most superb estate the world has ever known; they not only possessed a knowledge of the great events of the Creation, but, with God as their tutor, were in- structed in all the arts of civilization, including a a knowledge of letters. This great mass of invalu- able knowledge Adam transmitted to his descend- ants, who added to it such knowledge as they ac- quired from time to time. With all these advan- tages in their favor, we risk nothing in asserting that, in the long period intervening between the crea- 434 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 435 tion of man and the deluge, the descendants of Adam, with that lofty intelligence, ambition and energy, which characterizes the white, developed upon a considerable portion of the earth a splendid civilization, which was at least the peer of any of post- diluvian times. But, unfortunately, they descended to amalgamation with their negroes — they went “ in the way of Cain;” and so hateful was this crime in the eyes of God that He not only destroyed them and their civilization, but even the land which they occupied. “ And the Lord said, I will destroy them with the earth.” (Gen. vi, 13). This, of course means that He would destroy “ them ” and the por- tion of the earth upon which they dwelt. In the midst of this great antediluvian civiliza- tion, Noah and his family were born and reared. This illustrious family brought with them from their antediluvian home, and transmitted to their descend- ants, a thorough knowledge of the arts and sciences which had been accumulating in the Adamic family for ages. This explains the accomplished skill dis- played by the most ancient postdiluvian artisans, whose architectural remains are invariably the most superb. Mr. Taylor says: “To see gold jewelry of the highest order, the student should examine that of the ancients, such as the Egyptians, Greek, and Etruscan in the British Museum, and that of Mediae- val Europe. The art seems now to have passed its prime, and become a manufacture, of which the best products are imitations from the antique.” ( Anthro- pology , pp. 243, 244) . At the close of the deluge “ God blessed Noah 436 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. and his sons and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands are they deliv- ered.” (Gen. ix, 1,2). God thus gave Noah and his sons the domain over the earth and the animals that He gave Adam in the Creation. And the Lord said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I smite everything living as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and sum- mer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. (Gen. viii; 21, 22) . Having shown the true origin of the negro, as taught by the scriptures and the sciences; and inas- much as we have investigated the atheist explana- tion of his origin as expressed in the theory of de- velopment, it seems only fair to examine the modern church theory of the origin of the negro. This theory would have us believe that the negro is the son of Ham, Noah’s youngest son; and that his physical and mental inferiority to his “ white brother” is the result of a curse which Noah put upon Ham for his offensive conduct toward him. This absurd theory had its birth in the Dark Ages; and has descended to us from that frightful period of ignorance, superstition and crime, and because the church advocates it we are expected to accept it as “ both sound and sacred.” But since the Ham- THE TEMPTER OF EYE, 437 itic origin of the negro is opposed to all the results of scientific research, and to all observation and ex- perience, we should not be surprised to find that it is in conflict with the scriptures, upon which it is claimed to be based. The Bible teaches that after the deluge, “ Noah began to be an husbandman and planted a vineyard. And he drank of the Avine and \\ T as drunken; and he was uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon their shoulders and went backAvard, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces Avere backAvard and they saAV not their father’s nakedness. And Noah aAvoke from his Avine and knew Avhat his younger son had done unto him. And he said, cursed be Canaan; a ser\ r ant of ser- vants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dAvell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” (Gen. ix, 20, etc.). This is evidently a simple narrative of a son’s disrespectful conduct tOAvard his inebriated father, and the injustice displayed by the father in his man- ner of resenting it: no sane mind could ha\ T e any respect for Noah’s drunken desire to punish Canaan, an unoffending child, for an act which his father committed, and to which Canaan AA r as not a party; and it is highly probable that Avhen Noah recoA T ered from the effects of the AAune he Avas heartily ashamed of it, for Avhen sober he “was a just man.” Yet 438 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. strange to say, the curse which Noah, in his drunken spite desired to inflict upon Ham’s unoffending little boy, is advanced in this professedly enlightened age as an explanation of the origin of the negro; and stranger still is the fact that millions of intelligent people accept it. But let us investigate this subject further and see what we are compelled to believe in order to accept this absurd explanation. 1. We must disregard the plain teaching of the Bible that Noah performed no miracles, and believe that he performed the most wonderful miracle the world has ever known ; for, if he transformed a white- skinned, silken-haired boy, who was born in the “ image of God,” into a black-skinned, woolly-haired negro with all the physical and mental characters of the ape, this miraculous act stands unsurpassed in all history. We are aware that many, who recognize the absurdity of the whole proposition, attempt cO minimize the result by insisting that this transfor- mation was not accomplished suddenly; but that under the operations of Noah’s curse, Canaan and his descendants, in the course of time, were trans- formed into negroes. But this only exaggerates the absurdity of the whole proposition, since it accredits Noah with bringing into existence a law which would accomplish this result; and only God Him- self could enact such a law. Besides, God has not only cursed individuals, but nations, and even con- tinents, and in no instance did His curse change their physical and mental characters. Hence, we accredit to Noah a power which God Himself never exercised. And there is nothing in scripture to in- THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 439 dicate that Noah possessed any authority or power to thus afflict Canaan or anyone else. In addition to this, the narrative plainly shows that God was not a party to the disgraceful incidents recorded in our text, but that the whole affair was confined to Noah and his family. 2. To accept this theory, we must believe that a wise, just, merciful, and loving God would consent that Noah, in his drunken rage, should visit this terrific curse upon Canaan, an unoffending child; and that, in addition to this, He would lend his aid to the perpetuation of this curse on the descendants of Canaan throughout all time. 3. We must believe that Noah’s curse deprived Canaan of the exalted physical and mental characters which, as has been shown, distinguish the white from the negro, and gave him the degraded physical and mental characters which approximate the negro to the lower organisms. But the absurdity of this theory does not end here. It will be observed that the narrative plainly teaches that Canaan was the only individual upon whom Noah manifested any desire to visit this dire calamity; there was no white female cursed and transformed into a negress to mate with Canaan, and thus enable him to beget a progeny of negroes. Hence, in the absence of a negress, he had no alter- native than to take a wife from among the whites; for he certainly had a wife, by whom he became the father of the Canaanites. Our personal observation of the results of amalgamation between whites and negroes, enables us to see at a glance that the off- 440 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. spring resulting from the union of a male negro and a white female would not be negroes, but half-breeds — mulattoes. These, upon reaching maturity, would not have intermarried among themselves, but would have taken husbands and wives from among the whites. The offspring resulting from these inter- marriages between whites and mulattoes would not have been negroes; but three-quarters white. Thus, through the intermarriage of these mixed-bloods with whites, each succeeding generation of the descend- ants of Canaan would have grown whiter, and their hair straighter, until finally it would be difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish them from pure whites. Under these conditions, it is plain that Canaan could never beget a pure-blooded negro, and that when he had lived out his days and died, he would have been the last, as the advocates of this theory would have us believe he was the first negro, and the origin of the negro of subsequent ages would remain unex- plained. Thus, when we view this narrative in the light of our personal observations, it at once becomes plain that, to ask us to accept the absurd theory of the Hamitic origin of the negro, is simply an appeal to our credulity. The negro is not the son of Ham; he is not a descendant of Adam. On the contrary, as shown by the scriptures and the sciences, the gen- uine negro is an ape, and, like all the apes, he made his appearance on the earth long prior to the creation of man. When the incidents related in this narration are viewed in a rational way, it becomes plain that when Noah awoke from his wine he was highly offended THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 441 at the indignities which Ham had put upon him; and that he desired to retaliate ; and realizing that it would be more hurtful to Ham’s feelings to say something offensive to Canaan, than if he said the same thing to Ham himself, Noah said: “Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” By way of further showing his resent- ment toward Ham, and his appreciation of the con- duct of Shem and Japheth, Noah said, “ God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” That Noah’s curse upon Canaan was merely the spiteful utterances of an old man just coming out of his cups, that God never sanctioned it, and that it had no effect upon Canaan and his descendants, is clearly proved by the fact that it was not fulfilled. On the contrary, the very reverse is true; for example: While the Israelites, who were the descendants of Shem, were servants to the Egyptians, who were the descendants of Ham, the Canaanites, the descendants of Canaan, whom Noah cursed, were the possessors of one of the richest countries on the globe, a country which God pronounced “a goodly land,” — “ a land flowing with milk and honey.” Further proof that Noah’s drunken utterances had no effect upon the relations of Canaan and his descendants to Shem and Japheth and their descend- ants, is shown by the language of Moses in explain- ing why God dispossessed the Canaanites of their country and gave it to Israel. It was not in fulfill- ment of Noah’s curse upon Canaan, nor because of the “ righteousness of the Israelites,” but “ for the 442 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. wickedness of those nations.” ( Deut . ix, 4) . And when the land of Canaan was given to the Israelites, they were not ordered to enslave them, but to “ utterly destroy them, and leave nothing alive that breatheth.” (Deut. xx, 16, 17). This absurd the- ory of the Hamitic origin of the negro offers the only explanation of the origin of the negro, which lays any claim to a scriptural basis. But, as a mat- ter of fact this theory is as anti-scriptural, as it is unscientific and irrational; for this reason it has been repudiated by many of the leading theologi- ans of our day. However, the majority of the laity adhere to it as one of the most cherished tradi- tions of the church. After the deluge, Noah and his family, with their negroes, and other domestic animals, domestic plants, metallic implements, etc., settled upon one of the continents and developed a great civilization. In the course of time they increased in number, and sent out colonies to other continents; these colonists carried with them their negroes, and other domestic animals, domestic plants, and all the appliances of civilized life, and developed those great civilizations, the remains of which are found on ever} 7 continent of the earth. “And the sons of Noah that went forth of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. * * * These are the three sons of Noah, and by them was the whole earth overspread.” (Gen. ix, 18, 19). “And the whole earth was of one lan- guage and one speech.” (Gen. xi, 1). All the facts indicate that for a long period after the deluge, the descendants of Noah respected the THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 443 design of God in creating man, lived in obedience to Divine law, and maintained that dominion over the negro in common with the rest of the animals, which God designed them to have, and commanded them to exercise. This period is referred to in the ancient book of the Quiches, the “ Popnl Vuh,” as one in which the whites and the blacks lived together “ in great peace,” “ and all seem to have spoken one lan- guage.” (Bancroft’’ s Native Races, Vol. V, p. 548) . This goes fai to sustain the teachings of scripture that, in the remote past, there was one universal language; then the black servant spoke the language of his white master. It is significant that the Popul Vuh mentions only the whites and blacks, which in- dicates that, at that remote period, they represented the population of the earth; no mention is made of any brown, red, or yellow inhabitants, and these would certainly have been mentioned, had they then existed. The statement of the Popul Vuh also indi- cates that some ancient white was the author of this old American book. Further evidence of the presence of whites and blacks in America in the remote past is furnished by * Mr. Donnelly who says, Quetzalcoatl, the leader of the Nahua family, who was deified, is described as a white man, with strong formation of body, broad fore- head, large eyes, and flowing beard. (Atlantis, p. 165). “ On the monuments of Central America there are representations of bearded men. How could the beardless American Indian have imagined a bearded race?” (Ibid). Prof. Wilson describes the hair of 444 THE TEMPTER OE EYE. the ancient Peruvians, as found upon their mum- mies, as “ a lightish brown and of a fineness of text- ure which equals that of the Anglo-Saxon race.” (Ibid) . Hayward says that in the early part of the century, three mummies were found in a cave on the south side of the Cumberland river (Tennessee) , who were buried in baskets as the Peruvians generally buried; their skin was white and their hair auburn and of a fine texture. ( Natural and Aboriginal His- tory of Tennessee) . Mr. Donnelly says: “Very an- cient ruins, showing remains of large and remark- able edifices, were found near Huamanga, and de- scribed by Ciecade Leon. The native traditions said this city was built by bearded white men who came there long before the Incas and established a settle- ment.” (Ibid ) . “Desare Charney has published in the North American Review for December, 1880, photographs of a number of idols exhumed at San Juan de Teotihua- can, which show striking negroid faces.” (Ibid) . Dr. Le Plongeon says: “Besides the sculptures of long- bearded men seen by the explorer at Chichen Itza, there were tall figures of people with small heads, thick lips and curly, short hair or wool, regarded as negroes. * * * We always see them as standard or parasol bearers, but never engaged in actual war- fare.” ( Maya Arclixology) . Thus it is shown that in the remote past the relations between the whites and negroes in America was that of master and ser- vant. We also find the white and the negro figured on the monuments of ancient Egypt, the latter “ with THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 445 halters about their necks,” indicating that they were in servitude. ( Preadimites , p. 206) . Some conception of the ancient civilization of America may be acquired from the fact that such high authorities as Charnay, Stevens, and Dupaix pronounce the architectural remains of Central America to equal in solidity, beauty, and finish the best specimens of Egypt, Rome, or Greece. “The Peruvians made large use of aqueducts, which they built with notable skill, using Hewn stone and cement, and making them very substantial. One extended four hundred and fifty miles across sierras and over rivers. * * * The public roads of the Peruvians were most remarkable; they were built of masonry. One of these roads ran along the mountains through the whole length of the empire, from Quito to Chili; another, starting from this at Cuzco, went down to the coast, and extended northward to the equator. These roads were from twenty to twenty-five feet wide, were macadamized with pulverized stone mixed with lime and bituminous cement, and were walled in by strong walls more than a fathom in thickness. In many places these roads were cut for leagues through the rock; great ravines were filled up with solid masonry; rivers were crossed by suspension bridges, used here ages before their introduction into Europe.” (Ibid ) . Of Gran-Chimu, Mr. Donnelly says: “Its re- mains exist to-day, the wonder of the southern con- tinent, covering not less than twenty square miles. Tombs, temples, and palaces arise on every hand, ruined but still traceable. Immense pyramidal 446 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. structures, some of them half a mile in circuit; vast areas shut in by massive walls, each containing its water tank, its shops, municipal edifices, and the dwellings of its inhabitants, and each a branch of a larger organization; prisons, furnaces for smelting metals, and almost every concomitant of civilization existed in the ancient Chimu capitol. One of the pyramids, called the ‘Temple of the Sun/ is 812 feet long by 470 wide and 150 high. These vast struc- tures have been in ruins for centuries.” (Ibid). The splendid civilization of the ancient Americans extended from New York to Chili; and from the Atlantic to the Pacific; it was of the same high order as those of Java, India, Egypt, Rome, Greece, etc. The magnitude of those superb old civilizations, extending over the various continents, indicates that their development was the work of ages; and that the nations which developed them must have num- bered their whites and negroes by the hundreds of millions. What became of them? What became of those hundreds of millions of whites? They have long since disappeared from three of the five conti- nents; a mere remnant of their white descendants are left, and these are practically confined to Europe and America. What became of those hundreds of millions of negroes? They have disappear eel ~from four of the five continents. Their pure-blooded de- scendants are now confined to a few tribes in Africa. Where did all these so-called brown, red, and yellow “ races of men ” come from which we find in posses- sion of the remains of these great civilizations, and which in the sum of their characters are not distin- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 447 guishable from the known offspring of whites and negroes in our midst? These miserable, worthless creatures never developed the civilization they pos- sess, and as a rule they have no idea who did. In many cases the remains of superb civilizations are found in sections which are now inhabited by wild, hunting tribes of savages. The atheist, with his theory of development can throw no light on these grand old civilizations ; their very existence goes far to prove the falsity of his theory. Ages ago these superb old civilizations were the centres of wealth, culture, and refinement; their crumbling ruins, now often found in pathless jungles, or in barren wastes — the abodes of barbarians and savages — tells a tale of retrogression that is fright- ful to contemplate. When we appeal to the scriptures for informa- tion as to the architects of these ancient civilizations, w r e are taught that Noah and his family were the finest specimens of antediluvian culture and refine- ment; that they built the ark, and preserved the animals and the domestic plants from the deluge; that they transmitted to their descendants their knowl- edge and refinement; and that by them “was the whole earth overspread.” That they were whites is shown by the fact that all the great civilized nations of antiquity were their descendants, and were whites. When we appeal to the sciences for light on this sub- ject, we are taught that, “No negro civilization has ever appeared; no Mongolian one has greatly devel- oped.” “The white is pre-eminently, the man of civilization.” When we appeal to profane history we 448 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. are taught that the white has been in all ages of his history what he is to-day — the great, building, develop- ing power of the earth. When we appeal to tradition, we find that in many cases the savages now in pos- session of these old civilizations have traditions that their ancestors were white. When we appeal to the monuments, we find the bearded white figured on monuments as old as the edifices and other evidences of these by-gone civilizations, and the whole crumb- ling into decay from age and neglect. And, as has been shown, the negro also, is sometimes figured on these ancient monuments; and we have also shown that, in those remote ages the white and the negro held the same relation to each other that they have in all subsequent ages — the white was the master — the thinker; the negro was the servant — the worker. If we desired further evidence of the existence of the whites and the negroes on the various continents, in the remote past, it is found in the fact that the so-called brown, red, and yellow races, now in pos- session of the remains of these old civilizations, are, in the sum of their characters, identical with the known offspring of whites and negroes in our midst. No naturalist will deny that Blumenbach’s di- vision of the so-called “human species” into “five races of men,” was based strictly upon geographical lines, and not upon what the atheist would term racial distinctions. In Euro pe the complexions range from pure white to dark brown. In Africa they range from shades so light as to be almost white, to brown, red, yellow, and pure black. In Asia they range from light yellow to brown and black. In THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 449 Oceanica the complexions are light yellow, copper- colored, and dark brown. In America, prior to its discovery by Columbus, the complexions ranged from nearly white in the Mandans, Tuscaroras, Zunians, etc., to brown, red, yellow, and black. Among the Mandans were found blue, gray, and hazel eyes, while many had hair that was white from infancy to old age. {Gatlin ) . Among the so-called Malay, Indian, and Mongolian races are to be found individuals and tribes whose resemblance to each other is so strong as to make it impossible to distinguish them. And we might add representatives from Southern Europe and from certain African tribes. In support of our position we quote from Fontaine, who says: “If a congrega- tion of twelve representatives from Malacca, China, Japan, Mongolia, Sandwich Islands, Chili, Peru, Brazil, Chickasaws, Comanches, etc., were dressed alike, or undressed and unshaven, the most skillful anatomist could not, from their appearance, separate them.” ( How the World was Peopled, pp. 147, 244) . Fontaine might well have added representatives of our mulattoes to his list, as shown by the following: “Belle Weds A Negro. “White Girl Bought a Country Home Where She Lives with Her Dusky Groom. “Special to the Post-Dispatch. “Philadelphia, May 4. — Miss Emma Bethel, whose father was a physician of note, and who was a leader in exclusive society in West Philadelphia, has been married to Howard Lee, colored, formerly 450 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. employed as butler by John C. Uhle, a relative of the young woman. While residing with the Uhles several months ago Miss Bethel met Lee, who acted as her coachman when she drove out to dispense charity. Mr. Uhle heard rumors that the coachman was in love with Miss Bethel, and discharged him. Not long afterwards Miss Bethel, who had inde- pendent means, announced that she intended to purchase a summer residence in Hammonton, N. J. After Miss Bethel took possession of the house, Lee also appeared. Shortly Miss Bethel and he called upon the Rev. Mr. Albrum and were married. Mrs. Lee is pretty and is 30 years old. While living here she was a liberal contributor to the Episcopal Church, which she attended, and was active in the work of the parish. Lee is tall and quite dusky. * * * A dispatch from Hammonton, N. J., says that Mr. and Mrs. Lee live on the outskirts of the town. The man has passed as an Indian, Mrs. Lee said to-day.” (St. Louis Post- Dispatch, May 4, 1901) . Thus, we find that we are producing Indians here in the United States, by amalgamation between whites and negroes. But this is merely the fulfill- ment of the predictions of the most competent ob- servers. Referring to the writings of Mr. Reclus, and l’Abbe Brasseur de Bonbourg, Quatrefages says: “ Both these authors seem to admit that at the end of a given time, whatever be their origin, all the de- scendants of whites or of negroes who have emigrated to America will become red-skins.” (The Human Species, p. 255) . What is the “ red-skins? ” Simply a savage. Thus, under the demoralizing, degrading THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. 451 influences of our social, political, and religious sys- tems, we are descending to savagery — to ruin in time and to hades in eternity. Further evidence of this is found in the following: “Special to The Post-Dispatch: “ Chicago, July 17 — ‘The American people in their physical character are turning more and more like Indians every day. The only thing that prevents the people of the United States from becoming exactly similar to the nomadic tribes of Indians in facial characteristics is the intermarriage between residents of this country and emigrants from foreign lands.’ This is the statement made by Prof. Frederick Starr to his class in anthropology at the University of Chicago to-day. ‘ If the immigra- tion laws should once be strictly enforced, a few years would see us all Indians. Once make the cry general that America is being used as the dumping ground of European nations, and so stir up public spirit as to exclude foreign elements, and it would only take a few years for the Indian to haunt his old time pastures again.’” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch , July 17, 1901). Though perhaps not intended as such, it is nevertheless plain that no more severe arraignment of our social, political, and religious systems; no greater exposure of the emptiness of our accustomed boast, that “ we are an enlightened, progressive peo- ple; ” no more positive proof that we are in reality a dying nation — that we are descending to savagery — than is found in the fact stated by Prof. Starr, that “the American people in their physical characters 452 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. are becoming more and more like Indians every day;” that the only thing that prevents us from be- coming Indians is our intermarriage with emi- grants from foreign lands and that if the foreign ele- ment was excluded, “ it would only take a few years for the Indian to haunt his old time pastures again.” In other words, but for the influence of white stock from Europe, we would soon become Indians, and consequently savages. This humiliating admission, coming from a distinguished American anthropolo- gist, should arouse us to a sense of our danger. Prof. Starr offers no explanation of why the American people are turning to Indians, neither does he suggest a remedy; he merely intimates that we are kept white by the inflow of Europeans; but he fails to show that we draw our white stock onty from northern and central Europe, while unfortu- nately the great bulk of emigrants come from the dark, mixed-blooded nations of southern Europe. It is easy to see that our population of supposed whites is steadily growing darker, and that our population of supposed negroes is steadily growing correspond- ingly lighter. This is due solely to amalgamation, which tends to mix all the white blood with all the black blood. When this disastrous result is con- summated, the population of this country will settle down to about the level of the Indian; in sections where the white blood largely predominates, we will duplicate the Mandans, Tuscaroras, Zunians, etc. In sections where the negro blood largely predominates, we will duplicate the black tribes of California, the Raws of Kansas, the Carribs, etc. Under the curses THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 453 of God, our civilization will be laid in ruins, and our descendants of a few centuries hence will be naked savages in the woods — the Indian will haunt his old time pastures again. The fact that, by a few centuries of amalgama- tion between whites and negroes, we have produced Indians, and that, as a result of this loathsome crime, our whole population is becoming “ more and more like Indians every day,” is the most positive proof that the original Indian is simply the result of amal- gamation between the whites and negroes who set- tled upon this continent after the deluge. It is an affront to our intelligence to ask us to believe that, in the remote past, the same class of creatures were produced by development from the ape that we now produce by amalgamation between whites and ne- groes. “ Besides Indians, we are producing Malays by the tens of thousands; the absolute similarity be- tween the characters of many of our mulattoes and the Filipinos has led the American soldiers in the Philippines to pronounce the Filipinos negroes. Aguinaldo can be duplicated a thousand times over among our mulattoes. In addition to this, a close observer can see good specimens of Chinese, Japan- ese, Koreans, etc., among our mulattoes. Yet the atheists have deceived the whole world into believ- ing that these so-called Malays, Indians, and Mon- golians are lower races of men which have descended from the ape in remote ages, and which, in their vari- ous stages of barbarism and savagery, present so many cases of arrested development. Surely, there are not two ways of producing these creatures, one 454 THE TEMPTEE OF EYE. by amalgamation between whites and negroes, the other by development from the ape. As shown in a previous chapter, the pure white and the pure black — man and the negro — are the originals whom God made; this is proved by the fact that neither can be produced by any cross, and neither can survive a cross. The progeny resulting from any cross to which either man or the negro is subjected are neither man nor negro, but mixed-bloods. On the other hand, we have demonstrated here in the United States that the physical and mental charac- ters of the so-called brown, red, and yellow races can be produced by centuries of amalgamation between whites and negroes. Amalgamation is one of the most stealthy crimes, often requiring centuries for the accom- plishment of its work of absorbing and destroying both the whites and the negroes in a nation. When this crime begins, the relation of master and servant usually exists between the whites and negroes, and it is at first confined to the white males and the black females. Upon reaching maturity a greater or less number of their mixed-blooded progeny, both males and females, will mate with negroes; besides more or less of the white males will have paramours among both negroes and mixed-bloods. The negro thus be- comes the prey not only of the white males, but the mixed-bloods of both male and female. Under these conditions, it is simply a question of time when the negroes will be absorbed and destroyed, and their descendants become mixed-bloods. We have dem- onstrated this in the United States. The systematic THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 455 importation of negroes from Africa to this country began in A. D. 1619; though a few negroes were im- ported here by the Spaniards as early as the 16th century. Amalgamation at once began, and to-day there is not a 'pure blooded negro in America; the last one has disappeared from this continent, and their descendants are all mixed-bloods; however black their skin, or however woolly their hair may be, they will present in some character the evidence of cross- ing. Since amalgamation with the whites and mixed- bloods has destroyed the pure negro in our midst, it is easy to see that amalgamation between the whites and mixed-bloods will destroy the pure whites. When this dire calamity is accomplished, this con- tinent will again be populated with mixed-bloods — Indians. The fact that amalgamation will destroy both the pure white and the pure negro is easily demonstrated. Let a pure white take a pure negress to wife and raise a family; when the white father and negro mother dies, the pure white and the pure negro in that family are gone; their progeny are mixed-bloods; it is plain that this would hold good with a nation or a continent as the result of amal- gamation between whites and negroes; though in the case of a nation it might require centuries. Let us bear in mind that neither the white nor the negro can absorb the mixed-bloods; on the contrary, the mixed-bloods absorb both the white and the negro when either are brought in sexual contact with them; their offspring are mixed-bloods, without reference to whether they are mated with whites, negroes or 456 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. mixed-bloods. For this reason, they are a danger- ous, destructive element, and one which God detests. Woman, the female side or part of man, is the vital point of the Adamic Creation ; and so long as the marriages of the Adamic females of a nation are confined to Adamic males, the Adamic stock of that nation cannot be absorbed by amalgamation. While amalgamation between the Adamic males, negresses and mixed-blooded females is being carried on, the Adamic females, declining to descend to the low level of the negro and mixed-bloods, are confining their marriage relations to the Adamic males, and are pro- ducing pure Adamic offspring to much the same extent as if no amalgamation was going on. But unfortunate- ly, the mixed-blooded progeny of the Adamic males and negresses and mixed-blooded females, by mating continuously with Adamic males, grow whiter and whiter, and their hair longer and straighter with each succeeding generation, until finally it would be diffi- cult for the ordinary observer to distinguish them from pure whites. They may then remove to some distant section of country and pass themselves off as pure whites, and inter-marry with Adamic females. The offspring of these unhallowed unions will marry pure whites, and perhaps never know that they are of negro extraction; but the Adamic stock will be absorbed and destroyed as far as they inter-marry with them. In the meantime, God may visit His curse upon them in the form of famine, pestilence, war, etc., to force them to abandon their evil way; should they persist in it, He may destroy them and lay their civilizations in ruins; or, He may abandon THE TEMPTEE OF EVE. 457 them to the natural results of their crime; in this event the negroes will first be absorbed by associa- tion with the white males and the mixed-bloods; the whites will then be absorbed through their associa- tions with the mixed-bloods. When this occurs, that nation’s relation to God, its relations to the earth and the animals has completely changed. Its former population of whites and negroes were parts of God’s Creation, while their mixed-blooded pro- geny have resulted from the violation of His law. This change, which required centuries for its accom- plishment, was so gradual as to pass unnoticed at the time; and the cause of it was never investigated and ascertained. When the whites are all destroyed, their country, with its national name, wealth, relig- ion, their knowledge of the arts and sciences, is inherited by their mixed-blooded descendants; when the white blood largely predominates in them, they may, under favorable circumstances, retain more or less of their inherited civilization for an indefinite period, but they add nothing to it; and when they lose an art, or any part of their inherited knowledge, they never regain it; such was the case with the Mexicans, Peruvians, Chinese, Japanese, Hindoos, Greeks, Turks, Egyptians, etc. But in most cases they are driven from their civilization in the forest, and, with no capacity to develop a civilization, they descend to savagry; this is shown in the case of the Navajoes. They were an agricultural community ■when the Spaniards entered Mexico. When attacked by the Spaniards they abandoned their homes and fled to the mountains; they made no effort to de- 458 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. velop a civilization, but became a wild, blood-thirsty- band of savages, and have so remained. ( Baldwin , Ancient America, p. 68) . This explains the origin of the wild hunting tribes of browns, reds, and yel- lows which are found upon the various continents. Under the influence of the law of heredity, any physical or mental character is transmittable. “In- tellectual qualities are transmitted, as well as phy- sical characters.” (Topinard ) . When amalgama- tion between the Adamic males and the negresses and mixed-blooded females in a nation is carried on until the mixed-blooded males are able to impose themselves on the Adamic females as whites and in- ter-marry with them the Adamic Creation is success- fully assailed at its vital point — the female; and only the intervention of the Almighty could prevent its Adamic stock in that nation from being ultimately destroyed. The false teaching of atheism that the negro is a lower “ race of man” is now beginning to degrade woman to the level of the negro; here and there in this country Adamic females are manying those whom they recognize as negroes; but to the honor of the sex it may be said that the women who thus lower themselves are either moral degenerates or religious fanatics. The fact that the negro possesses the moral faculty to some extent is regarded by many as evi- dence that he is a man — that he has a soul. But before hastily deciding that this is so, we should re- member that there are three distinct creations — matter, mind, and soul; and that every thing in the material universe is a part of one or the other of these THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 459 three creations. This being true, we should first as- certain which of these creations the moral faculty is a part of. Since it does not exist in the plant it is evidently not a part of the matter creation. Hence, it is either a part of the mind creation, or the soul creation. If it is a part of the soul creation it is pe- culiar to man. If it is a part of the mind creation the animals share it with man. It is the moral fac- ulty which enables man to distinguish between right and wrong; that it is right to obey, and wrong to disobey God. But for the presence of this faculty in man, he could not justly be held responsible for his acts. The same is true of the animals; it is the moral faculty in them that enables them to under- stand that it is right to obey, and wrong to disobey their master. Then, if by accident, or disease, the mind of either man or the animal is impaired, the moral faculty is correspondingly impaired; if, as in the case of an insane man, woman, or animal, the mind is affected to such an extent as to temporarily or permanently destroy the reasoning faculty, the moral faculty is temporarily or permanently de- stroyed, as the case may be; the very moment that either man or the animal ceases to be a rational being, he ceases to be a moral being. Then, if his mind is restored, his moral faculty is at once re- stored; and again, the moral, like any attribute of the mind, may be cultivated and developed, or it may be neglected and dwarfed ; this is easily seen by comparing the cultivated with the uncultivated man, or the domesticated with the undomesticated ani- mal. Thus, it is shown that the moral faculty is a 460 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. part of the mind creation, which is common to man and the animals. Hence, the mere fact that the ne- gro possesses the moral faculty in any degree is no evidence that he is a man, or that he has a soul. The same is true of the mixed-bloods. The moral fac- ulty being a part of the intellectual, it is transmitti- ble. Hence, the mixed-blood might in some cases inherit the high moral characters of the white, to- gether with other intellectual qualities. Quatre- fages, in discussing the results of crossing, says: “ In the formation of a new being, the action of he- redity is divided into as many cases as there are char- ters to transmit. Both father and mother tend to reproduce themselves in their offspring; there is, consequently a struggle between both natures. But the battle, if we may use the expression, results in a number of single combats in which each parent may be in turn victor or vanquished. * * We know how far this victory can go, and how the two natures can, so to speak, divide the product between them. Lislet Geoffroy, entirely a negro physically, though entirely a white in character, intelligence, and apti- tudes, is a striking example of it.” ( The Human Species, p. 268) . This explains why a mixed-blood sometimes possesses fine intellectual qualities occa- sionally allied with rather elevated moral qualities; these were inherited from some Adamic ancestor; but as a rule, the intellectual and moral characters of the mixed-bloods approximate those of their ne- gro ancestors, and are of a very low order. The following estimates of brain weights, col- lected by Sanford B. Hunt, of the Federal army dur- THE TEMPTER OE EYE. 461 mg the late civil war in the United States, show that the blood of the white tends to elevate, and that the blood of the negro tends to lower the mentality of individuals, tribes and nations: 24 whites, Weight of Brain. Grammes. . . 1424 25 three parts white, . . . . 1390 47 half white, or mulattoes, . . 1334 51 one-quarter white, . . . . 1319 95 an eighth white, . . . . . 1308 22 a sixteenth white, . . . . 1280 141 pure negroes, . . . . . 1331” — ( Tojpinard , Anthropology, p. 312). Commenting on these estimates, Topinard says: “ This would lead us to believe that the mixed-breeds assimilate the bad more readily than the good/’ (Ibid). These estimates are quoted by Winchell, Quatre- fages, and other scientists. Though fair to the negro, and the grades of mixed-bloods referred to, it is plain that they place the white at a disadvan- tage, since they are evidently confined to the com- mon white soldiers; the higher grades of officers, and the most intellectual among the citizens of the United States were not represented; if they had been, the average brain weight of the whites would have been raised to the average of Noachites — 1500 grammes. However, Hunt’s estimates show that man (the white) is a distinct creation, and that whites and negroes are not different races of one species of animal. Breeders who attempt to pro- duce new varieties by crossing, experience great dif- 462 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. ficulty because of the disposition of the offspring to revert to one or the other of its parent stocks. But as shown by Hunt’s tables, if the offspring of man and the negro were mated with pure negroes for ages, they would never revert to the negro; but while approximating a lower grade of ape would re- tain the characters of mixed-bloods. The same re- sult must necessarily ensue if the offspring of whites and negroes were mated continuously with whites for ages; they could never revert to the pure white; the ape can never be bred out, nor the soul creation bred in, the offspring of man and the negro; though they might take on more and more the physical and mental characters of the white, they must remain mixed-bloods. The fact that the mixed-bloods can- not revert to either of their parent stocks proves that whites and negroes are not of the same hind of flesh. If the white and the negro were different races of one species of animal, their immediate offspring would take a position in point of brain weight, mid- way between the two, with a brain weight of 1,377-2- grammes; but, as Hunt shows, the half white has an average brain weight of 1,334 grammes; this is only three grammes in excess of that of the negro, and 90 grammes less than that of the white soldier. Hunt also shows that if the half white is mated with the pure negro, the brain weight of their offspring — the one-quarter white, is lowered to 1,319 grammes; this is 12 grammes less than that of the pure negro; and if the one-quarter white is mated with the pure ne- gro, the brain weight of their offspring — the one- 463 THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. eighth white, is reduced to 1,308 grammes; and if the one-eighth white is mated with the pure negro, the brain weight of their offspring — the one-six- teenth white, falls to 1,280 grammes. This is 23 grammes below that of the pure negro. This indi- cates that, with this rapid fall of brain weight with each succeeding generation, and the process contin- ued, the brain weight of their offspring would ulti- mately fall to the level of that of the gorilla, which is 600 grammes, according to Huxley. Thus is shown that the mixed-bloods, in whom the negro blood largely predominates over that of the white, is more degraded and ape-like in their physical and mental organisms, and conse- quently more depraved in their modes of life, cus- toms, etc., than the pure negro. This explains the following facts stated by Winchell: “The measure- ments already given show the Australian to possess an organism quite inferior to that of the negro. In intelligence he is said to be so low as to be unable to count five. Of the Aetas of the Philippines, De la Geronniere says they gave him the impression of being a great tribe of monkeys; their voices recalled the short cry of these animals, and their movements strengthened the analogy. * * * Some of the American tribes remain at the lowest point of deg- radation. This is the case with the Fuegians, and the Botecudos of Brazil have often been cited. Of the latter, Lallemand says: ‘I am sadly convinced that they are monkeys with two hands.’ ” (Ibid, pp. 267, 268) . The above facts, when viewed in the light of 464 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. Hunt’s estimates, show the effects of amalgamation upon cerebral development, and clearly shows how these so-called brown, red, and yellow races origi- nated. When the white is mated with the negro, the brain weight of their offspring is neither that of the white nor that of the negro; the same is true of their physical characters, they are neither white nor black, but some shade of brown, red, or yellow. The half white, when viewed from the atheist standpoint, and compared with their white and black ancestors, pre- sents all the physical characters of a new “ race of men,” with a brain weight of 1,334 grammes. Say there were 3,000 of these half whites, and that 1,000 of them found mates among themselves; their off- spring would be half white with a brain weight of 1,334 grammes. Let another thousand of the half whites mate with pure whites, their progeny would be three-quarters white, with a brain weight of 1,390 grammes. We would thus produce another so-called “race of men.” Let the remaining 1,000 half whites mate with pure negroes; their offspring would be one-quarter white, with a brain weight of 1,319 grammes. We would then have another so-called “ race of men,” making in all three new so-called “ races of men,” as widely different in their physical as in their mental qualities. If each of these three classes of creatures w'ere placed upon an island in the ocean, and thus separated from each other and isolated from the rest of the world, and the marriage relations of each confined to their own class, they would ultimately settle down to some fixed type. It is easy to see that the number of these so-called THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 465 “ races of men ” conlcl be increased to any desired extent by mating these three classes of mixed-bloods with pure whites, with pure negroes, and with mixed- bloods of different grades; the progeny of each cross would present a new “race of men” in the eyes of the atheist. Hunt’s estimates show there is a differrence of 93 grammes, between the brain weight of the white soldier and the negro; while there is a difference of 110 grammes, between the brain weight of the three- quarter white and the one-sixteenth white. Thus, the difference in brain weight between the extremes of mixed-bloods is greater than that between the whites and the negroes. Hence, at this stage, we might confine ourselves to the mixed-bloods in our efforts to produce new “races of men” by crossing, and still have a wider range than we had with the whites and negroes with which we began. However, we might largely increase this range by mating the progeny of three-quarter whites with whites, and by mating the progeny of the one-sixteenth white with negroes. In the offspring of the former, the in- crease of brain weight would correspond with the increase of white blood; in the offspring of the latter the decrease of brain weight would correspond with the increase of negro blood. These differences in their mental qualities, would be accompanied with corresponding differences in their physical qualities. The rapid reduction in brain weight which each in- fusion of negro blood, as shown by Hunt’s estimates, demonstrates that, if the progeny of the one-six- teenth white were mated continually with pure ne- 466 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. groes for centuries, they would ultimately fall as low in point of brain weight as the diminutive Hindoos, who are quoted by Huxley at 27 ounces. Thus it is shown: (1) That all of J he so-called brown, red, and yellow “ races ” to be found on the different continents can be produced by amalgama- tion between whites and negroes; and this is the only process by which they can be produced. This explanation of their origin is sustained by the scrip- tures and the sciences; arrayed against i is the un- demonstrated and undemonstrable theory of the atheist that these degraded creatures developed from the ape. (2) That these so-called brown, red, and yellow “ races,” which apparently span the gulf between the whites and the negro, and which shade up from almost pure black to almost pure white, thus giving the Theory of Descent the little plausi- bility it enjoys, are really the result of amalgamation between whites and negroes. (3) That if all these mixed -bloods were destroyed, and only the white and the negro remained, no advocate of the Bible, however partial he might be to the negro, would consent to believe that the white and the negro are the progeny of one primitive pair; neither would the most avowed opponent of the Bible consent to believe that there could possibly be such a thing as a “human species” composed of only two “races of men,” the one white and the other black, and in absolute contrast to each other in their physical and mental organisms and in their modes of life, aspir- ations, customs, habits, manners, gestures, etc. We have now shown: (1) That after the deluge THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 467 Noah and his family, with their negroes and other domestic animals, domestic plants, metallic imple- ments and all the appliances of civilized life, settled upon one of the continents and developed a great civilization which finally spread to other continents. “ By them was the whole earth overspread.” They were one people and spoke one language. “ Behold the people is one and they have all one language.” (Gen. xi, 6). The whole earth was of one language and one speech. (2) That Noah and his family were white. (3) That their white descendants have disappeared from three of the five continents, leav- ing a mere remnant in parts of Europe and America. (4) That their negroes have disappeared from four of the five continents, the remnant of them being confined to a few tribes in Africa. (5) That the greater part of their once splendid civilizations are now in ruins. (6) That now the great bulk of their descendants on the various continents are brown, red, and yellow barbarians and savages, which, in the sum of their characters, are identical with the known offspring of whites and negroes in our midst. These facts indicate that, after living obediently to the laws of God for a long period after the deluge, the descendants of Noah forgot God, and their obli- gations to Him, and violated His law by descending to amalgamation with their negroes; then the smiles of heaven in which they had prospered were with- drawn, and the curses of God were visited upon them in the form of war, famines, pestilence, etc., to compel them to abandon their wicked, destructive 468 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. course. But they persisted in it with the results above shown. In order to appreciate the value of these great truths, we must disabuse our minds of the false teachings of atheism with reference to man’s development; we must accept the teachings of the Bible that man was created man; that he was created “a little lower than the angels;” that he has not developed, but retrograded. CHAPTER XVII. Amalgamation the Parent of Atheism and Idolatry.— The Mission of Jesus Christ. The course of the modern amalgamationist, and the origin and spread of amalgamation in modern times, throws a flood of light on the ancient amalga- mationist, and the spread of amalgamation in ancient times. When amalgamation began in this country, the man who was so degraded as to take a negress to wife was looked upon with scorn and contempt, and was ostracised from the society of decent peo- ple; and this is the case in some sections to-day. Many of the States of this government enacted laws against amalgamation. But at the same time trans^ ientT amours were tolerated; this resulted in the utter destruction of our genuine negroes, and the production of an immense mixed-blooded popula- tion that will yet absorb the whites if they are al- lowed to remain here. When viewed in the light of these modern events, it is plain that the first amalgamationists were severely denounced and punished by their neighbors who were aware that amalgamation was the most infamous crime known to the law of God, and that its indulgence had led to the destruction of the antediluvians. Under these circumstances it would seem only natural that those ancient amalga- 469 470 THE TEMPTEK OF EVE. mationists, who were determined to pursue their sinful course, should desire that some semblance of respectability be given their acts; the only way pos- sible to do this was by devising some iniquitous scheme by which the negro and the mixed-bloods would be received into the family of man; for at that remote period, and for long afterwards, the negro was known to be a beast — the beast of the field. Doubtless the God-fearing people of that age did their utmost to stamp out amalgamation; but de- spite their efforts it spread until in many sections of the earth the pure whites and pure negroes were de- stroyed and their country populated with mixed- bloods; general demoralization, and the increase of every form of crime, kept pace with the rapid growth of amalgamation; this demoralizing condition of af- fairs gave the amalgamationist his opportunity; and he availed himself of it by renouncing God, and re- pudiating the doctrine of Creation, and devised the theory of development. Taking advantage of the existence of the various tribes and nations of mixed- bloods, he combined them with the whites and ne- groes as different “races” of the “species — man.” By this means the negro and the mixed-bloods were thrust into the family of man, where they have since remained, in contempt of God’s plan of Creation, and in wanton violation of His law. Thus amalga- mation became the parent of atheism , with its theory of development. This theory gradually broadened out, and finally crystalized into the general theory of development, which attributes the whole phe- nomena of the universe to natural causes. THE TEMPTEE OF EVE, 471 The literature of these ancient peoples, like their civilizations, has long since crumbled into dust. Hence, it is impossible for us at this late day to ascertain the exact date upon which this crim e was committed. However, we have reliable data which proves that it occurred between the Deluge and the birth of Abraham. The theory of develop- ment doubtless existed together with idolatry among the antediluvians; if so, the evolutionist, the idola- ter, with the amalgamationist and mixed bloods, were destroyed by the Deluge. The fragment of Plato’s history of Atlantis contains the first mention of the “races of men” to be found in profane history. Plato lived 300 years B. C.; he was the descendant of Solon, the great law-giver of Athens. Solon spent ten years in Egypt, where he first heard of Atlantis and the records concerning it to be found in the sacred registers of Egypt. He was granted permis- sion to examine them, and obtained the data from which to write a history of Atlantis. But Solon died before completing his work. His data seems to have fallen into the hands of Plato, who began to write a history of Atlantis; but after writing a description of the continent, its population, products, wealth, religion, culture, power, etc., Plato died, leaving a mere fragment of history, which, if finished, would have been an invaluable contribution to the litera- ture of the world. The sacred registers of Egypt were so much more ancient than the historical rec- ords of the Greeks, that an Egyptian priest said to Solon: “You have no antiquity of history, and no history of antiquity.” These terms of the atheist 472 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. could only have originated in the atheistic school of development; they are always employed by the ad- vocates of the theory of man’s descent from the ape. However, their presence in the sacred registers of ancient Egypt indicates that the theory of develop- ment was universally taught in that remote period, in perhaps as systematized and elaborated a form as it is in our day; and it is possible that it had existed among the ancients from a period so remote that it is doubtful whether the Egyptians of Solon’s day were aware of the time or place of its origin. The continued existence of this degrading, de- structive theory was insured by man’s criminal lust, to which it owed its origin; it was universally taught in the ages preceding the birth of Christ, and forms the basis of the theory of development, as shown by the statement of Prof. Haeckel, who says: “ We will here mention only that as early as the seventh cen- tury before Christ, the representatives of the Ionian philosophy of nature, Thales, Anaximenes, and An- aximander, of Miletus, and more especially Anaxi- mander, established important principles of our mod- ern monism. Their teaching pointed to a uniform law of nature as the basis of the various phenomena, a unity of all nature and a continual change of forms. Anaximander considered that the animalcules in water came into existence through the influence of the warmth of the sun, and assumed that man had developed out of fish-like ancestors. At a later date also we find in the natural philosophy of Heraclitus, and Empidocles, as well as in the writings of Dem- ocritus and Aristotle, many allusions to conceptions THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 473 which we regard as the fundamental supports of our modern theory of development. Empedocles points out that things which appear to have been made for a definite purpose may have arisen out of no pur- pose whatever. Aristotle assumes spontaneous gen- eration as the natural manner in which the lower organisms came into existence.” ( History of Crea- tion, Vol. I, pp. 78, 79). Thus, we find that in remote ages it was taught that man is merely a species of animal which is com- posed of races of men who trace their descent through the lower organisms to “ fish-like ancestors,” themselves the result of spontaneous generation. Thus, the theory of these ancient atheists, like that of the modern atheists, taught that from man’s “ fish- like ancestors ” on up to, and including man, there is just one flesh in different stages of development. Hence, according to this theory, all flesh is akin. This theory proposed to degrade man to the level of the brute, by establishing a blood relationship be- tween man and the animals. It was this theory that practically swept monotheism from the earth prior to the birth of Abraham. It was to counter- act the degrading influences of this theory that God raised up the nation of Israel; and when the Israelites became the victims of this theory, as they often did, God sent prophet after prophet to induce them to renounce this pernicious the- ory which degrades man to the level of the ne- gro and the mixed-bloods. But, disregarding every influence that was brought to bear, they adhered to this theory and the demoralizing influences 474 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. which it exerts, until every circle of society was permeated and corrupted by it. Then God sent His son, Jesus Christ, but, like many of the prophets who preceded Him on this mission, He lost His life in the vain effort to eradicate from the minds of men this demoralizing theory, and counteract its degrad- ing influences. In Paul’s day the theory of devel- opment threatened to sweep the church from the narrative of creation upon which the Saviour estab- lished it, and land it a wreck on the quicksands of atheism and negroism where we find it to-day. It was in his fierce struggle with this theory and its false teachings that Paul exclaimed: “All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of man, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” But despite every effort to eradi- cate it, this destructive theory has survived to our day, and is now universally taught and accepted by professed Christians; and as a result, the negro and the mixed-bloods are now recognized as lower races of men who must be developed and christianized. This is a plain violation of the law of God. The ne- gro, being an ape, was not involved in the fall of man. Hence, he is not included in the plan which God devised for man’s redemption. The mixed- bloods were not in existence at the time of Adam’s transgression; they are simply the ultimate result of his violation of God’s law in descending to social equality with the negro in Eden. Prior to the creation of man, the negro had no more idea of God or of Divine worship than a go- rilla. But the link of kinship which God estab- THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 475 lished between Himself and man, forms a bond of love and sympathy between them which makes it possible for man to recognize the existence of, re- spect, and worship, an all-wise, all-powerful, but in- visible God. But no kinship, and no bond of love and sympathy exists between God and the mixed- bloods. Hence, though these creatures inherit from their white ancestors a belief in God and a pure form of religious worship, they can not long retain it when left to themselves; when relieved of the in- fluence of the white, they soon lose all confidence in an invisible God; they want a God that they can see; and in the absence of such an one they make for themselves Gods of stone, wood, or metal, or de- ify some animate or some inanimate object as the case may be. Hayti illustrates the truth of this. The “ black republic” of Hayti was formally ac- knowledged by England in 1825. That rich, pro- ductive island was turned over to the negroes and mixed-bloods: they were provided with organized political and religious systems, with schools, churches, and all the appliances of civilization; yet in spite of the efforts of both Catholics and Protes- tants, they have descended to fetish worship. They not only sacrificed their own offsping to snakes, but they eat the sacrifice; their disgusting ceremonies end in a drunken debauch which is characterized by the most indiscriminate intercourse between the sexes. (Sir Spencer St. John, Hayti or The Black Republic). This enables us to realize that the offspring of whites and negroes ultimately descend to idolatry; though there are many tribes of mixed- 476 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. bloods who have lost all knowledge of a God, and have no form of religious worship. Thus, strange as it may seem, amalgamation is not only the parent of atheism, which denies the existence of God, but is also the parent of idolatry with its worship of many gods. This reveals the startling truth that the idolatry for which God punished Israel and her neighboring nations, had its origin in amalgamation. When the whites of a nation are absorbed by amalgamation, their mixed-blooded descendants ultimately descend to idolary; this idolatry spreads to the mixed-bloods of neighboring nations, and may even spread among the whites of those nations, as shown in the case of Solomon. Solomon took wives of the mixed-blooded females of the Egyptians, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites. These were na- tions with which God forbade Israel to inter-marry; and Solomon’s mixed-blooded wives led him into idolatry. (See I Kings , xi) . Ahab did the same. (See I Kings, xvi) . When idolatry first enters a nation it appeals to the depraved nature of the mixed-bloods. The men have no confidence in the idol; but the obscene rites, and the indiscriminate intercourse between the sexes which usually char- acterizes the worship of idols, appeals to their lusts, and in order to gratify these unrestrained they re- nounce God, abandon His worship, and embrace idolatry. Their descendants are raised in the midst of amalgamation and idolatry; and in the course of time they lose all knowledge of the true God, and become heathen. Hence, the heathen are not ne- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 477 groes; neither are they mixed-bloods. The heathen are pure-blooded descendants of Adam, who have lost their knowledge of God through their ancestors’ descent to amalgamation and idolatry; and it was to these that God sent the prophets, the Saviour, and His disciples to reclaim. When, after the deluge, amalgamation began among the descendants of Noah, it continued to spread, destroying the whites and negroes in nation after nation, and populating them with mixed-bloods until, in the course of time, the earth was in much the same condition that it was prior to the deluge; as amalgamation increased, the mixed-bloods in- creased at the expense of the pure whites and the pure negroes; and atheism and idolatry, the twin crimes which owe their birth to amalgamation, in- creased at the expense of monotheism. This strug- gle for supremacy between monotheism on the one side and atheism and idolatry on the other, finally culminated in war. In our next book of this series we shall show that in these great religious wars, which lasted for centuries, and in which every con- tinent was involved, the earth was drenched in blood. In this long, unequal struggle monotheism was practically swept from the globe, and the sacred writings, which had been handed down from Adam through Noah and his family, were all destroyed. When this sad event occurred God’s plan of Creation as revealed to Adam survived only in tradition, and these traditions in their oral transit through the cen- turies became so corrupted with errors and super- stitions as to be practically worthless; these old cor- 478 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. rupted traditions linger now in the cosmogonies of the Chinese, Hindoos, Babylonians, Egyptians, etc. The God-believing, God-loving people, widely scattered among the remnant of pure whites, be- came more and more powerless to withstand the overwhelming tide of atheism, negroism and idola- try that had practically swept monotheism from the globe; and the destruction of both man and the negro, and the consequent destruction of God’s plan of creation, was as seriously threatened as before the deluge. In this grave emergency God conceived the design of raising up for Himself a great nation — a chosen people — a people whom He desired should be peculiar, in that they would never descend to amalgamation, atheism, and idolatry. In the execu- tion of this design God selected Abraham, of Uz, in Chaldea, and said unto him: “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy fath- er’s house, unto a land that I will show thee. And I will make thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a bless- ing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. xii. 1, 2, 3). God directed Abraham to the land of Canaan, and said unto him, “ Lift up now thine eyes * * For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and thy seed forever.” (Gen. xiii, 14, 15). The Canaanites had descended to amalgamation with their negroes; though there were more or less of pure whites among them, and some of these sur- vived to a late period in Israelitish history. This is THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 479 shown in the case of Uriah, the Hittite, whom David had killed that he might possess himself of Uriah’s wife. However, the mixed-bloods had become so white that it was impossible to distinguish them from whites in many cases. Hence, it was danger- ous to inter-marry with them, as shown by the fact that, when Abraham’s son Isaac reached maturity he was forbidden to take a wife from among the daughters of Canaan; but that he should take a wife from among Abraham’s kindred. (See Gen. xxiv, 3, 4) . This was done, and Isaac took to wife Rebekah, who bore him two sons, Esau and Jacob. Esau inter- married with the Canaanites; and Rebekah, fearing that Jacob might do likewise, said to Isaac, " I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?” {Gen. xxvii, 46) . This God- fearing, devoted mother realized that if Jacob took a wife from among the mixed-blooded females of Heth and begat a progeny of mixed-bloods, her life would be lived in vain. And Isaac, startled at the thought, “ called Jacob and blessed him * * ‘ and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife from among the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Padan-aram to the house of Bethuel, thy mother’s father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of La- ban, thy mother’s brother. And God Almighty bless thee * * and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; and give thee the blessing of Abraham * * * and to thy seed with thee, that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a 480 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.’ ” (Gen. xxviii, 1, 2, 3, 4). Jacob took to wife Leah and Ra- chel the daughters of Laban. Jacob and his family, consisting of seventy souls, moved into the land of Egypt, where they were well treated for a time, but their descendants were finally enslaved and held in bondage for about 400 years; but God kept His prom- ise to Abraham, and released them from bondage, and directed them to the land of Canaan. He gave them an organized system of political government, and an organized system of religion ; and in order to counteract the teachings of atheism as set forth in the theory of evolution, God inspired Moses to write the Narrative of Creation, and the early historj^ of the Adamic family as set forth in the Pentateuch. God forbade the Israelites to inter-marry with the Canaanites, saying: “ Neither shall thou make mar- riages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.” ( Deut . vii, 3) . “ But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them.” (Deut. xx, 16, 17). At the same time they were per- mitted to inter-marry with nations “ afar off.” (Deut. xx) . After enumerating and forbidding every form of lust which it was possible for the Adamic family to indulge among themselves, God enacted the most stringent law against their amalgamation with the negro, and affixed the death penalty to the violation of the law, as follows: “Neither shaft thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. 481 any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto; it is confusion.” (Levt. xviii, 23) . And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman ap- proach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman and the beast; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Levt. xx, 15, 16). Continuing, God said: “Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you ; and the land is defiled; there- fore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it; and the land itself vomiteth out its inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and not commit any of these abominations * * * that the land spue not you out also when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.” (Levt. xviii, 24, 25, 26, 28) . God thus specifically charges the Canaanites with lying with beasts. In this we have the most positive proof that there is a beast with which a man may lie, just as he would with a woman, or, to which a woman might “lie down thereto,” just as she would to a man. Corrupt and defile are synonymous terms, and investigation of this subject will show that amalga- mation with the negro is the only crime that will (1) corrupt the flesh; (2) that will corrupt the earth it- self in God’s eye; (3) that will bring upon its perpe- trators the penalty of death, under the law of God. Previous to the deluge, God looked upon the earth and said: “It was corrupt; for all flesh had cor- rupted His way on the earth.” This, as has been 482 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. shown, could only have resulted from amalgamation. Previous to the entry of the Israelites into Canaan, God said of Canaan: “The land is defiled.” He charges the Canaanites with lying with beast, and this corrupted the flesh of Canaan as it corrupted the flesh of the antediluvians; and in each case God destroyed the corrupted flesh, and the amalgama- tionists who corrupted it. He destroyed the ante- diluvians by the deluge, and the Canaanites by a war of extermination. The immediate offspring of man and the negro — the mulatto — is the result of man’s violation of that Divine law, thou shalt not lie with any beast; and under the penalty which God attached to the viola- tion of this law, the mulatto was doomed to instant death in the moment of conception. This being true, it follows that neither the mulatto nor his ulti- mate offspring can ever acquire the right to live ; that they have no rights, social, political, or religious; this is shown by God’s destruction of the antedilu- vians, and His command to Israel to destroy the Ca- naanites without regard to age or sex, and “leave nothing alive that breatheth,” and take their posses- sions. The immediate offspring of man and the ne- gro is merely the result of man’s violation of Divine law, and, as such, is not a part of God’s creation. Hence, its ultimate offspring could never become so; it was corrupted flesh to begin with, and can never become pure by reverting to either man or the ne- gro. Neither can there be any peace between God and man as long as these monstrosities are allowed to defile the earth with their presence. THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 483 Gocl made Jerusalem the religious center of the world; the pure-blooded descendants of Adam, whatever their nationality, were entitled to mem- bership in the Jewish church by complying with its laws. God desired that Israel would disseminate the plan of Creation, as set forth in the Mosaic Rec- ord, among the pure-blooded descendants of Adam, and counteract the degrading influences of idolatry and the theories of atheism; that all should know that man had not descended from “fish-like ances- tors,” themselves the result of “ spontaneous genera- tion;” but that man was created “the son of God,” and that he is not a highly developed species of ape which is composed of five or more races of men in different stages of development; but that he is a sep- arate creation, wholly distinct from the animals. But the Israelites seemed to have no apprecia- tion of the great mission which they were brought into existence to accomplish; they thought only of the gratification of their own desires; instead of re- sponding to the just requirements of God by re- claiming their fellowmen from the errors and crimes into which they had fallen, they abandoned them- selves to the indulgence of the follies and crimes they were commanded to eradicate. Once settled in their new homes they disregarded the laws of God, and as Josephus says, “were full of the evil doings that were common among the Canaanites.” They not only descended to amalgamation with their negroes, and inter-married with the mixed-blooded nations they were commanded to destroy, but they even renounced God and embraced idolatry. The 484 THE TEMPTEK OF EYE. history of the Israelites from Sinai to the crucifixion is largely a narrative of their descent to idolatry and fornication; no charge made against them is more common than that of fornication. They went in the way of Cain. A notable instance of this is presented in the case of King Solomon, who not only took wives of the mixed-blooded princesses of nations with which Israel was forbidden to inter-marry, but he had negro concubines, as shown by the utter- ances of one of them as follows: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth; for thy love is better than wine. Because of the savior of thy good ointments thy name is as oint- ment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee. Draw me; we will run after thee: the king hath brought me unto his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine. * * * I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me be- cause I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: * * * While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof. A bundle of myrrh is my well beloved unto me; he shall lie all night between my breasts. * * * Behold, thou art fair, my beloved, yea pleasant: also our bed is green.” {Cant, i, 2, 3, etc.). The dis- gusting spectacle of Solomon’s black concubine ex- ulting over the “daughters of Jerusalem” because of the favor shown her by the king, has been often repeated in our day; in our own country many a black concubine, who had received the attentions of THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 485 some demoralized father, husband, son or brother, has thus exulted over his injured mother, wife, daughter, or sister. In this age of atheism and infidelity the inhab- itants of the earth, without regard to their physical and mental characters, or the laws of God, are all in- cluded under the term “people.” But no such per- nicious course was pursued by the inspired authors; they divided them into three classes: (1) “People.” (2) “No people,” or “those which are not a people.” (3) “ The mingled people.” The “people” are evidently the pure-blooded descendants of Adam; this is proved by the fact that the Israelites, whom God so often befriended, are referred to as “people.” “Those which are not a people,” or “no people,” were certainly animals — “beasts of the field” — negroes. God warned the Israelites through Moses that if they cultivated criminal relations with them that He would use these creatures as a weapon against them. He said, “ I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people.” In addition to this He says, “I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.” ( Deut . xxxii, 21). Many centuries after this event, when the Israelites had abandoned themselves to the most criminal relations with these creatures “which are not a people,” and had been led off into idolatry, and were suffering the vengeance of God for their crimes, Paul charged them with not being ignorant upon this subject, and reminded them of the warning God had given them through Moses; Paul said to them: “ Did not Israel know? First, Moses saith, 486 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.” {Rom. x, 19) . These creatures “ which are not a people” were not of the flesh of men — they were beasts — apes; and if the theologian thinks they were not negroes, he should inform us as to what animal the inspired writers referred to. The “mingled people” were evidently mixed- bloods; mixing and mingling are synonymous terms; these “mingled people” were the result of mingling man’s blood with the blood of beasts — beasts of the field — they were the offspring of whites and negroes ; they presented the physical and mental characters of man blended and confused with those of the ne- gro; they were neither man nor negro, but were the result of man’s violation of God’s law against confu- sion. (See Levi, xviii, 23). They were a “mingled people.” Further evidence of the fact that the “mingled people” were mixed-bloods, is found in the fact that, like the antediluvians, Canaanites, etc., they were destroyed by Divine edict: “The Word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy and say, * * * the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near, * * * and the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in Ethio- pia, * * * Ethiopia, and Libya, and Lydia, and all the mingled people, and Chub, and the men of the land that is in the league, shall fall by the sword.” ( Ezek . xxx, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; see also Jer. xxv) . Thus we find that the Ethiopians of the times of THE TEMPTEB OF EVE. 487 Jeremiah and Ezekiel were a “mingled people” — mixed-bloods. The fact that the Ethiopians of to-day, in Africa, are blacks, has led many to suppose that the ancient Ethiopians of the time of Moses were blacks — ne- groes. This is a sad mistake. However, this error has been seized upon by modern amalgamationists as proof of God’s approval of amalgamation between whites and negroes; in support of their pernicious theory, its advocates point to the fact that Moses married an Ethiopian woman, and insist that she was black; the fact that Miriam, the sister of Moses, was punished with leprosy for complaining against Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman, is seized upon as further evidence of God’s approval of amal- gamation. But this is all wrong; nothing could be more absurd, and nothing more bl asph emous, than to suppose that God would select a degraded amal- gamationist, with a black wife, to lead the Israelites to Canaan. It will be remembered that the Israel- ites were forbidden to inter-marry promiscuously with other nations, for amalgamation was common in that remote period, as it is to-day; realizing this, Miriam feared that the Ethiopian wife of Moses might be a mixed-blood, and she expressed her dis- pleasure at his marriage. But this was a reflection on God, who approved of the marriage of Moses to the Ethiopian woman, and Miriam was severely punished. The very fact that God approved of the marriage of Moses to this Ethiopian woman, is the most positive proof that she was of pure Adamic stock — that she was white. 488 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. In addition to this, modern research has dem- onstrated beyond all doubt that the original Ethio- pians were not Africans, but Asiatics. The seat of the Ethiopian Empire was situated “in the province of Omar, in southern Asia.” ( Preadamites , p. 17. Observe the long list of high and recent authorities cited by Prof. Winchell in support of this) . The Ethiopians developed on the Arabian peninsula, in Asia, one of the finest civilizations of ancient times. This is further evidence that they were not blacks, but whites, for scientific research has shown that “no negro civilization has ever appeared;” but that the white is the great building, developing power of the earth. The Ethiopians were one of the most enlightened, enterprising, and powerful nations of their day. They developed a commerce which ex- tended over a considerable portion of Asia and Africa, and perhaps Europe. The history of such a people must have been an important one; in this, we find further proof that they were not negroes: the most careful research shows that “ no woolly-haired nation ever had an important history.” The whites have always been the commercial power of the globe. Mr. Bancroft says: “ The Semites early peopled the Arabian peninsula and established a state in Ethiopia, as some believe, before Egypt had attained its full development. The Ethiopians established a commerce on the Red Sea with the eastern coasts of Africa and with India, and contributed greatly to the resources of ancient Egypt.” (Footprints of Time, p. 33). Thus, according to this learned historian, and THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 489 other high authorities, the Ethiopians were not the sons of Ham, but were the descendants of Shem. It should prove a trifle embarrassing to the advocates of the theory that the original Ethiopians were ne- groes, when they are called upon to explain how the Ethiopians, who were one branch of the family of Shem, were black, while the Israelites, another branch of the family of Shem, were white. It is probable that more or less amalgamation existed among the Ethiopians of Moses’ day; they were originally of pure white stock, and that more or less of this stock remained at that period is shown by the fact that the marriage of Moses with an Ethi- opian woman received the sanction of God. Addi- tional proof that they were originally pure whites who were finally absorbed by amalgamation with their negroes, is shown by the fact that nearly nine hundred years after the time of Moses we find them described as a ‘‘mingled people” and included in the list of that class of nations who were destroyed by Divine edict. We should bear in mind that at one period of its history the inhabitants of a nation may consist of pure whites and pure negroes; the whites may descend to amalgamation, and in the course of centuries both the pure whites and the pure negroes will be absorbed, and their descendants will all be mixed-bloods. This was the case with the Ethiopians. This destructive crime destroyed the great nations of antiquity, and populated the greater part of every continent of the earth with mixed- bloods. All the facts indicate that the Ethiopians sent 490 THE TEMPTER OE EYE. out a colony from their empire in Asia which settled on the upper Nile. These colonists with their ne- groes developed a fine civilization, but finally de- scended to amalgamation, and both whites and ne- groes were absorbed, and their civilization was laid in ruins. Their mixed-blooded descendants are now found in Nubia, Sennaar, Kardofan, and Abyssinia. “ The population of this vaguely defined region is a mixture of Arabian and Libyan races with the gen- uine Ethiopians. The latter had well-formed limbs, and a facial outline resembling the Caucasian in all but its inclination to prominent lips and a somewhat sloping forehead. Their language was Semitic.” C. K. Adams, Universal Encyclopedia , Art., Ethiopia). Thus, we find in these modern Ethiopians of Africa the “ facial outline resembling the Caucasian,” blended with the “prominent lips” and “sloping forehead,” which is a character of the negro. We might add that his complexion is another character of the negro. In this blending of the characters of whites and negroes, in the modern Ethiopians, we find the most positive proof of their being mixed- bloods. In the face of these evidences of crossing, there is not an anthropologist on the earth who would accept the theory that the Ethiopian of to-day is a genuine negro. The very fact that the modern Ethiopians of Africa are mixed-bloods, shows that they trace their descent to v r hites and negroes. The original Ethiopians who developed the splendid civilization of the Arabian peninsula, de- scended to amalgamation with their negroes and their descendants became colored; and however much THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 491 they might desire it, they could never revert to the complexion of their white ancestors. It was doubt- less his knowledge of this that led Jeremiah to con- temptuously ask: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?” This passage has been seized upon as proof that the Ethiopians of that period were black; but there is nothing in the text to warrant such construction. They might have been of any other complexion ; besides it is plain that it would be as impossible for the whites, or the reds, or the yellows, to change their complexion, as it would be for the blacks to change theirs. _ Amalg a-___ gamation alone can change the complexion (“skin ”) "^f^Tbribe^Farnation. In discussing these questions, we should bear in mind that the disposition of the ancients to migrate from one country to another was much the same as it is with the moderns. Ebed- melech, the Ethiopian, who befriended Jeremiah, presents a case in point. (Jer. xxxviii) . Ebed- melech was evidently a white whose ancestors, more or less remote, migrated from Ethiopia to Judea, and thus escaped amalgamation and the destruction which befel their kinsman in Ethiopia. The advocates of the theory that the original Ethiopians, like their mixed-blooded descendants were blacks, would have us believe that the Queen of Sheba, who visited Sol- omon, was a negress; but this is a mere assumption, and is not supported by the least shadow of proof. For aught we know, she was a pure-blooded white. In discussing Meroe, Mr. Charles R. Gillett says it was “the name given by Cambyses to the Ethiopian city Saba, in honor of his sister, who died 492 THE TEMPTER OE EYE. there. It was situated on the Nile between the fifth and sixth cataracts, in upper Nubia. * * * After the decay of Napata, * * * it became the Ethio- pian capital. * * * The Greek tradition that Me- roe furnished the original Egyptian civilization is wrong, being based, probably, on limited observation and temporary relations. * * * The pyramids of the region were of late construction, dating from 600 to 100 B. C., and are simply formal imitations of those of Egypt.” ( Universal Encyclopedia, Art. Me- roe) . The above statement fully confirms our conten- tion that the original Ethiopians were not Africans, but Asiatics; that they were not blacks, but whites; and that at some period intervening between the time of Moses and the time of Ezekiel, they sent a colony of whites with their negroes into Africa. This col- ony settled on the Nile, in what is now Nubia, and developed a splendid civilization, the remains of which are in existence to-day. This colony of white Ethiopians survived the destruction of the mother country, which occurred in the da 3 T s of Ezekiel, more than 500 B. C. We find these white Ethiopi- ans in Africa developing their country, building monuments, etc., down to a period 100 B. C. Doubt- less a considerable number of them survived until long after the birth of Christ. It is highly probable that more or less of them embraced Christianity; the Ethiopian eunuch whom Phillip baptised presents a notable example of this. However, they finally went “in the way of Cain,” and were destroyed; their civilization was laid in ruins, and their mixed- THE TEMPTEB OF EYE. 493 blooded descendants exist to-day in Africa in various stages of barbarism and savagery. After the original Ethiopians were destroyed in Asia, the world lost all knowledge of their former existence, and the African Ethiopians came to be regarded as the only Ethiopians. But it is plain that if we accept this theory the Bible with its teaching that the Ethiopians were destroyed 500 years before Christ is disproved; for we find them (in Africa) building monuments, etc., 100 B. C. But when we understand that there was a great Ethi- opian empire in Asia from which the African Ethi- opians were a colony, and that it was the parent country that was destroyed, the whole subject be- comes plain. Further evidence that the Israelites violated the laws of God by descending to amalgamation with the negro and mixed-bloods, is shown by the following: “For mine eyes are upon all their ways. * * * And first I will recompense their iniquity and their sins double; because they have defiled mine inheritance with the carcasses of their detest- able and abominable things.” (Jer. xvi, 17, 18). Israel was God’s “inheritance.” (See I Kings, viii, 51; Isaiah, xix, 25, etc.). Thus, by their amalga- mation they had filled Israel — the nation of Israel — with the “ carcasses ” of “things” — mixed-bloods — that were “ detestable and abominable ” in the eyes of God; and by so doing they defiled the land as the Canaanites did. Prior to the time of Jeremiah, the Israelites had persisted in amalgamation for so long a period that 494 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. their mixed-blooded progeny were not distinguish- able from pure whites; and the whole nation had become so demoralized and degraded that even the women of Israel were marrying mixed-bloods; and as a result it was unsafe for a man to take a wife from among them, and God forbid Jeremiah to do so, saying: “Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons and daughters in this place. For thus saith the Lord concerning the sons and concerning the daughters that are born in this place, and concerning their mothers that bare them, and concerning their fathers that begat them in this land: They shall die grievious deaths; they shall not be lamented, neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth; and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by fam- ine; and their carcasses shall be meat for the fowl of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.” ( Jer . xvi, 2, 3) . Thus it is a matter of scriptural record that, in the eyes of God, the mixed-bloods are only fit for dung on the face of the earth. Despite every effort made to reclaim them, the Israelites persisted in their amalgamation, atheism, and idolatry, and thus defiled the land until, as God had threatened, it spued them out also, as it spued out the nations that were before them. In the meantime God sent prophet after prophet to induce them to abandon their wicked course; but they mal- treated and often killed them; and as a last resort He sent His son Jesus Christ, and they maltreated and killed Him also. That the mission of the Saviour was identical with that of the prophets vdio preceded THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 495 Him is shown by His parable: “There was a certain Kouseholder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruit of it. And the hus- bandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants more than the first: And they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among them- selves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.” ( Mat . xxi, 33, 34, etc.) . In this parable it is plain that God is repre- sented by the “ householder;” the earth by the “ vine- yard;” souls by the “fruit;” the prophets by the “ servants; ” and Jesus Christ by “the son and heir.” We are thus taught (1) That the earth is God’s “vineyard.” (2) That the fruit He desires of it are souls. (3) That man is the husbandman to whom He let it out, and whom He desired to produce souls which, by a life of obedience to God, would be fitted for the realms of the blest in eternity, and thus in- crease the population of heaven. But amalgamation produces n o sou ls. Hence, the apostle Jude com- pares the mixed-bloods to clouds without water , and trees without fruit, that is bodies without souls. Refer- ring to the mixed-bloods as participants in Divine 496 THE TEMPTER OF EYE. worship, Jude says: “ These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding them- selves without fear.” Jude also displays an intimate knowledge of the disposition of the mixed-bloods to boast their white blood regardless of whether they are born in or out of wedlock, when he compares them to “ raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame.” (See Jude, verses 12, 13). (4) The Saviour’s parable teaches that each succeeding prophet came on the same mission as did the first one; and that the “ son and heir,” Jesus -Christ, came on the same mission as the prophets who preceded Him; and a moment’s reflection should convince us that if the first “servant” or prophet had suc- ceeded in his mission, the second one would not have been sent; and if any subsequent one had succeeded, the “son and heir” would not have been sent. Hence, the coming of the Saviour to reclaim man was a last resort; but He failed in His mission, as did the prophets who preceded Him; and atheism is as universally taught to-day, and amalgamation as universally indulged, as they were prior to the birth of Christ. In His efforts to redeem the whole Adamic family, both Jew and Gentile, the Saviour issued His great decree: “ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” {Mark, xvi, 15) . No decree was ever more misunderstood than this, and none more abused. In the very nature of things, the execution of thisdecreajwa s confined to the pure-blooded -descendants of Adam, who alone are involved in Adam’s transgression; if proof of THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 497 this is required, the Saviour furnishes it in the fol- lowing decree: “ Give , jgot that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you.” (Mat. vii, 6) . This prohibi- tory statute proves the existence of an animal upon which we, in our ignorance of God’s plan of creation, might be misled into attempting to christianize under the impression that he is a man; and this is shown to be true when we turn upon this decree the light of Paul’s teaching that, “ there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts,” etc. We find that the swine, the dog, and the negro, all be- long to the flesh of beasts. The scriptures are pro- nounced “ holy.” (Rom. i, 2) . While the kingdom of heaven is likened to “ goodly pearls.” (Mat. xiii, 45, 46). Thus we are justified in deciding, that “that which is holy,” and which God forbids man to give unto the dogs, is the Bible; and that the “pearls” which God forbids man to cast before swine, is the kingdom of heaven. Thus is becomes plain that this statute was intended to confine the Bible and Divine worship to man, and that it excludes the negro in common with the rest of the animals. This being true, it follows that it is as criminal to confer the Bible on the negro, as to confer it on the dog; and that it is as criminal to attempt to christianize the negro, as the swine. Man can make no distinc- tion between one animal and another in these re- spects. This prohibitory statute embraces the mixed-bloods. Further evidence that the negro and the mixed- 498 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. bloods are not included in the Plan of Salvation, is found in the statement of Paul, who says that in his day, the gospel “was preached to every creature under heaven.” (Col. i, 23). That is, it reached “ every creature ” for whom it was designed. Yet neither the Saviour nor His disciples preached the gospel to the negroes and mixed-bloods throughout Africa; nor to the Hindoos, Chinese, Japanese, etc., of Asia; nor to the Malays, Australians, etc., of Oceanica; nor to the Indians of North and South America; nor to the Basques, Laplanders and Fins of Europe. Thus, under the direction of the Saviour and His disciples, the gospel was confined to a frac- tional part of the inhabitants of the earth; and this fractional part was in exact proportion to its popula- tion of pure whites; while there were not only tribe after tribe, and nation after nation, but even conti- nents to which the gospel was not sent at all. In the face of these- significant facts it is pertinent to inquire where the modern church obtained its au- thority to send the gospel promiscuously throughout the globe. The extension of the gospel to the ne- groes and mixed-bloods is a plain violation of Divine law, and is due solely to the influence of atheism with its teaching that man is a highly developed species of ape of which the white is the highest, and the negro the lowest race, with the reds, browns, and yellows, as intermediate races in different stages of development. We should profit by the sad ex- perience of every nation of antiquity, whose ruined civilizations testify that man’s social, political, and religious equality with the negro and the mixed- THE TEMPTER OF EYE. 499 bloods inevitably leads to amalgamation, the most loathsome, destructive crime to which man can de- scend. The fact that as the result of amalgamation our population of supposed whites is growing- darker; and that our population of supposed ne- groes is growing lighter, should warn us that already we have strayed too far in forbidden paths; we should call a halt, ere amalgamation adds our beloved country to the long list of nations whose wrecks are thickly strewn along the shores of time. Our very existence as a people at once demands that we repudiate the false teachings which have brought us to the verge of ruin, and promptly return to first principles. The demoralizing conditions which con- front us on every side should enable us to realize that what the world wants is primitive Christianity; it wants a religious system based squarely on the narrative of the Divine Creation, and not on the atheistic theory of evolution; it wants a religious system that will bring our social, political, and re- ligious systems into harmony with the laws of God; it wants a religious system that will recognize and respect the broad distinction which God made in the Creation between man and the animals; and any religious system which declines to meet these requirements is simply a delusion and a snare. THE END. LIST OF AUTHORITIES CITED Abereombie, Dr., 310 Adams, 99 Adams, C. K., 490 Agassiz, 269 Allen, 163 Alexander, Stephen, 102 Anaximander, 472 Anaximenes, 472 Anthropology for the People, 185, 265, 267, 275, 276, 277 Annbis, 31 Archimedes, 100 Argyll, Duke of, 125 Aristotle, 99, 472 Bachaot, 247 Ball, Sir Robert, 68, 69, 76, 97, 107, 144, 148 Bancroft, 443, 448 Barrow, Dr. M. L., 284 Belt, 175 Bennett, 184, 192 Bextorf, 386 Bey, Primer, 164, 280 Blumenbach, 201, 341 Bonniot, R. P. de, 181 Bonbourg, l’Abbe Brasseur de, 450 Bouills, 351 Brehm, 17S Bristow, H. W., 89 Broca, 268, 269, 279 Brown, Robert, 89 Brown, Dr., 266 Bruno, 56, 97 Burmeister, 27S Burroughs, 193 Callisthenes, 99 Camper, 280 Cartright, Dr. S. A., 274 Catlin, 449 Chalmers, 46 Charnay, Desare, 444, 445 Clark. Adam, 385 Colquhoun, 175 Cuvier, 201 Dana, 122, 127, 136, 158, 162. 166, 168, 211, 214, 215 Darwin, 171, 183, 231, 25S, 316, 318, 319, 322, 325, 327, 328, 329, 330, 335 Dawson, 50, 104, 11S, 125, 137, 158, 187, 241, 242 Democritus, 472 Donnelly, 99, 176, 443, 444, 445 Dupaix, 445 Empedocles, 472 Ennis, 104, 115 Figuier, 90, 11S, 127 Fontaine, 449 Galileo, 97 Geronniere, De la, 463 Gillett, Charles R.,491 Goethe, 299 Goldburg, 260 Gollins, 390 Goodrich, 99 Gratiolet, 273 501 502 THE TEMPTER OF EVE, Guyot, 41, 43, 48, 59, 94, 102, 108, 110, 118, 123, 187 Haeckel, 49, 54, 94, 256, 257, 258, 265, 286, 311, 315, 317, 319, 320, 321, 325, 336, 338, 340, 341, 342, 472 Hall, 327, 329 Harny, 277 Hartman, 278 Hays, Dr., 171 Hayward, 444 Hendree, 283 Heraclitus, 472 Herschel, Sir John, 45, 96 Hooker, Sir Joseph, 133 Hopkins, Dr., 120 Houzeau, 173 Humbolt, 99, 176, 261, 299 Hunt, S. B., 460 Hutchinson, Col., 176 Huxley, 116, 183, 192, 194, 205, 284, 285, 319, 460, 463 Jacquart, 282 Josephus, 31, 100 Kalidasa, 298, 300 Kant, 318 Keans, 264 Kepler, 104, 106 Kinns, 118, 123, 124, 132, 143, 159 Kitto, Dr., 124 Lallemand, 460 La Mark, 318 La Place, 102, 115, 137 Layard, 100 Lecompte, l’Abbe, A., 181 Lenormant, 426 Leon, Cieca de, 444 Le Plongeon, 444 Le Verrier, 96, 109 Linnaeus, 295 Livingston, Dr., 129 Logan, 137 Luhbuck, Sir John, 125, 225 Lyell, Sir Charles, 119, 133 Macmillan, 356 Maxwell, James Clerk, 44 Michel, Dr. Middleton, 277 Mitchell, 99 Mitford, William, 31 Mohius, 172 Morris, 225, 256, 259, 378 Mosley, 282 Newton, 104, 105, 106 Origin, 100 Owen, 159, 214 Parker, Theodore, 255 Patterson, Dr., 43, 104 Perthes, Boucher de, 372 Plato, 471 Pliny, 31 Plutarch, 100 Pollok, 17, 354, 383 Pond, J., 115 Popul Vuh, 443 Post-Dispatch, 449, 451 Proctor, 108, 145, 150 Quatrefages, 179, 262, 271, 272, 276 279, 280, 282, 283, 348, 350, 450 460 Quenstedt, 257 Reclus, 450 Rengger, 175, 177 Schaff, 243, 251 Schimper, 178 Soemmering, 2S0, 282 Shakespeare, 135 Smith, Sir William, 29, 242 , 245 247, 310 Solon, 471, 472 Soudas, 31 Starr, 451 St. John, Sir Spencer, 475 Stephens, 445 Taylor, 435 Thales, 472 Thurman, 269 Topinard, 261, 263, 264, 265, 267 273, 274, 280, 2S1, 350, 351 458, 461 Tyndall, 89, 91 THE TEMPTER OF EVE. 503 Universal Dictionary, 143, 168, 245 Universal Cyclopedia, 211, 243, 245, 490, 492 Vemeau, 281 Von Meyer, 357 Vrolik, 280 Wallace, 178 Webber, 281 Webster, 168, 411 Welker, 268 Williams, Monier, 299 Wilmet, 390 Wilson, 443 Winehell, 258, 260, 265, 267, 268, 272, 277, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 335, 445, 463, 488 Wyman, 258 Young, Thomas, 113 Young, Robert, 309, 310 Inasmuch as this work is based on the Bible, the inspired authori- ties quoted are too numerous to index. THE ADAMIC LIBRARY. As the result of amalgamation, three continents of our earth with their civilizations were destroyed by Divine Edict and replaced by immense oceans. While for this crime nation after nation, under the curse of God, has dis- appeared from the remaining continents, leaving little or nothing to indicate their former existence, the Scriptures, the Sciences, Profane History, Tradition, the evidence fur- nished by ancient ruins and monuments place in our hands an amount of data sufficient to enable us to write an ap- proximately correct history of our globe from the Creation to the Twentieth Century of the Christian Era. This in- valuable fund of information will be given to the world for the first time in the Adamic Library. This Library will be composed of a series of books, each treating of different subjects and complete in itself. The second book of this series will be a work on Spiritualism, in which the reality and evils of spiritualism will be fully exposed. By Almina Thomas. The third book of this series will be a work on the Book of Bevelation, in which John's figurative language will be reduced to plain English, and his revelations shown to be in harmony with Profane History, Tradition, and Modern Science. By Charles Carroll. The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth books of this series will each be devoted to a history of one of the five continents from the Deluge to the Twentieth Century of the Christian Era. By Charles Carroll. Other books of this series will be announced later. These books will contain about 500 pages each, and will be bound in English Silk Cloth, price $2.00; Buck- ram, price $2.50; Half Morocco, price $3.00. ADAMIC PUBLISHING CO. ST. LOUIS, MO. Duke University Libraries D00404081 H 326.9 03191 495151 ( -Carroll ^6— iHfiEiplL fi-p rtf 1 326. S G319T 495151