DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY "v"iii— ,vm THE PENTATEUCH, PROGRESSIVE REVELATIONS OF GOD TO MEN. Designed for both Pastors and People. By REV. HENRY COWLES, D.D. "Under&tandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I uulesa some man should guide me ? "—Acts viii : 30, 31. NEW YORK: D. APPLETON & CO. 549 and 551 Broadway. 1874. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1873, by KEV. HENRY COWLES, D.D., In the OSBce of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. PKEFACE. My reasons for treating the Pentateuch topically rather than textually will be obvious. Criticism on the original text is rarely needed. There is seldom the least occasion to aid the reader in following the line of thought or the course of argu ment. The demand here is rather for the discussion and due presentation of the great themes of the book. My plan has therefore aimed to meet this demand, discussing these themes critically so far as seemed necessary either because of their in trinsic nature or because of popular objections or misconcep tions ; and always practically so far forth as to show the import ant moral bearings of these themes as revelations of God to man. It has been, however, my purpose to explain all the difficult, doubtful, or controverted passages. The modern objections to Genesis, more or less related to true science, have been brought under special examination because they are at present eliciting so much public attention. Let all real truth be welcomed and held in honor, whether revealed in the works of God or in his word. It is knowledge of God that we seek; some of which we learn through his works of creation or of providence ; more through his revealed word. It behooves us to dismiss all apprehensions lest these diverse forms of divine revelation may come into real conflict, and equally, all fear lest the Bible should be compelled to recede as Science advances. The points of contact between sacred and profane history and antiquities have been carefully examined, both for their own intrinsic interest and for the incidental confirmation which they bring to the sacred volume. (iii) IV PKEFACE. As will appear in the Introduction I have had an eye some what to the idea of progress in these successive steps of divine revelation — yet with an aim not so much to prove a point dis puted as to illustrate a fact sometimes overlooked ; hoping thus to heighten the reader's interest. This wonderful grouping of those events of the earliest ages of time, given us of God through the masterly hand of Moses, is for every reason worthy of profoundest study. In the humble hope that these pages may serve to obviate old difficulties ; sug gest new aspects of truth ; inspire fresh zeal in this study ; and enhance the spiritual profit of every reader — this volume is sub mitted to the Christian public. Henky Cowles. Obeelin, O., October, 1873. CONTENTS Introduction, p. 1. CHAPTER I. Creation, p. 9. Naturally the first fact revealed ; Its moral lessons, 9 ; The origin of this record and the manner of its revelation to men, 12 ; Nature and the supernatural, 13 ; Theories on the origin of life, 14 ; The sense of the word " day " in Gen. 1 : 16 ; Argued (1) From the laws of language, 17; (2) From the narrative itself, 18; Objection from the law of the Sabbath, 21; (3) From Geological facts and their bearings on the question, 22 Prominent points of harmony between Genesis and Geology, 25 Does "Create" (Gen. 1: 1) refer to the original production of matter? 26; The relation of v. 1 to v. 2, and to the rest of the chapter, 29 ; The work of the "fourth day, 31; The sense of the record as to the origin of life, vegetable and animal, 32 ; On God's " making man in his own image," 33 ; The relation of Gen. 2: 4-25 to Gen. 1: 35. CHAPTER II. Invakiability of " Kind " in the Vegetable and Animal Kingdom, 37 ; The theory of Mr. Darwin, 38; The issue between Darwin and Moses, 38; Darwin's five main arguments, 39; Brief replies, 40; Objections bearing generally against Darwin's scheme, 43 ; (1) It requires almost infinite time back of the earliest traces or possibilities of life, 43 ; (2) Requires what Nature does not give — a close succession of animal races, differing but inflnitesimally from each other, 43 ; (3) His argument is essentially materialistic and is therefore false, 45 ; (4) It ignores man's intellectual and moral nature, 46 ; (5) It ignores or overrides the law of nature by which hybrids are infertile, 46 ; (6) This scheme is in many points revolting to the common sense of mankind, 46 ; (7) It is recklesss of the authority of revelation, 48. (V) VI CONTENTS. THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN. Two main questions : (1) Is the human family older than Adam ? 49 ; (2) How far back was Adam 1 The argument for man's high antiquity, (1) From traces of his skeleton, 50 ; (2) From his tools and works, 52 ; (3) From the tradi tions and chronologies of the old nations, 59. CHAPTER III. Hebrew Chronology, 60; From birth of Christ back to the founding of Solomon's Tem ple, 60 ; First disputed period — that of the Judges, 60; second do.; that of the sojourn in Egypt, 62 ; third do. ; between Terah and Abraham, 64 ; fourth do. ; from the creation to the flood, 66 ; fifth do. ; from the flood to the call of Abraham, 68. CHAPTER IV. Antiquity of Man Resumed, 72 ; On the Antiquity of Egypt, 72 ; The date of Menes, its first king, and of the pyramids, 74 ; Unity of the human race : Were there races of pre-Adamic men, now extinct ? 75 ; Are the present living races descendants of the same first pair? 75; CHAPTER V. The Sabbath, 77; As old as Eden ; made for man as a race. CHAPTER VI. The Events of Eden, 81 ; Is the description of man's fall symbolic or historic ? 81 ; The moral trial, 84; The temptation, 87 ; The fall, 88. The curse ; the first installment of the penalty for transgression, 89 ; The first promise, 90. CHAPTER VII. From the Fall to the Flood, 92. Notes on special passages, Gen. 4: 1, "I have gotten a man— the Lord," 92 ; Gen. 4 : 6, 7— words of the Lord to Cain, 92 ; Gen. 4 : 23, 24, the song of Lamech, 92 ; Abel's offering and the origin of sacri fices, 93 ; The great moral lessons of the antediluvian age, 95. CHAPTER VIII. The Flood, 99 ; Its moral causes, 99 ; Its physical causes, 101 ; Was this flood uni versal ? 102 ; («) as to the earth's surface, (b) as to its population ; Traditions of a great deluge, 105. CONTENTS. Til CHAPTER IX. From the Flood to the call of Abraham, 107; The law against murder and its death-penalty, 107 ; The prophecy of Noah, 108; The genealogy of the historic nations, 110; Babel and the confusion of tongues, 112. CHAPTER X. Abraham, 114 ; His personal history ; the divine purposes in the new system in augurated with him ; Concentration of moral forces ; a more definite covenant between God and his people ; Utilizing the family relation, 116 ; Developing a great example of the obedience of faith, 120 ; (a) In leav ing his country at God's call, 120 ; (6) In waiting long but hopefully for his one son of promise, 120 ; (c) In obeying the command to offer this son a sacrifice, 121 ; God's revelations to Abraham progressive, 122 ; The missionary idea in this system— blessings to all the na tions, 125 ; The Messiah included in these promises, 120 ; Sodom and Gomorrah, 128 ; The angel of the Lord, 130. CHAPTER XL The Patriarchs, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, 132 ; Isaac, 132; Jacob and Bethel, 133; Jacob at Mahanaim, 137; The struggle of prayer ; The points and grounds of this conflict ; The law of prevailing prayer, 140 ; Jacob and Joseph, 143 ; Developments of personal character, 144 ; Joseph in Egypt, 146; The hand of God in this history— seen in the sufferings of the innocent, 155 ; The hand of God in overruling sin for good, 158 ; The purposes of God in locating Israel in Egypt, 160 ; Ancient Egyptian history and life confirms Moses, 162 ; Special passages considered : Going down into Sheol, Gen. 37: 35; Jacob's benedictions upon his sons, Gen. 49, 168 ; The Scepter of Judah, Gen. 49 : 10, 169; The less readable portions of Genesis, 171 ; Close of Genesis, 172. CHAPTER XII. Exodus— The oppression, 173 ; Moses, 175 ; His great mission, 179 ; The ten plagues,. 185 : These plagues supernatural, 187 ; Several of them specially adapted to Egypt, 189 ; The case of the magicians, 190 ; The shape of the demand upon Pharaoh to let the people go, 193 ; Tlie hardening of Pharaoh's heart, 194 ; History of the case 195 ; What is said of God's purpose in it, 203 ; Light on this case from God's revealed character, 204. V1U CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIII. The Passover, 206 ; Consecration of all first-born, 208; The long route to Canaan, 210; The march and the pursuit, 211; The guiding pillar of cloud and of fire, 212 ; The locality of the Red Sea crossing, 216. CHAPTER XIV. The Historic Connections of Moses with Pharaoh and Egypt, 217. CHAPTER XV. The Events near and at Sinai, 223 ; The manna, 223; Rephidim; water by miracle, 226; The battle with Amalek, 229 ; Jethro, 230 ; The Scenes at Sinai, 232 ; The national covenant ; The giving of the law, 234 ; The moral law, given from Sinai, 236 ; To be distinguished from " the statutes and judgments," 237 ; The commandments considered severally ; (1) 238 ; (2) 239 ; (3) 241 ; (4) 241; (5) 243; (6-9) 243; (10) 245; Progress in the revelations of God to man, 246. CHAPTER XVI. The Hebrew Theocracy: The supreme power, 251 ; The powers of Jehovah's Vicegerent, 253 ; The General Assembly and their Elders, 254 ; The scope afforded for self-government, democracy, 255 ; The fundamental principles of this system, 258 ; Its union of Church and State, 259 ; Its princi ples and usages in regard to war, with notice of the war-commis sion against the doomed Canaanites, 261; The grant of Canaan, and the command to extirpate the Canaanites, 262. CHAPTER XVII. The Civil Institutes of Moses, or the Hebrew Code of Civil Law: General view of it, 270 ; Analysis of the crimes condemned, 273 ; Crimes against God: Idolatry, 273 ; Perjury, 274 ; Presumptuous sins, 275 ; Violations of the Sabbath, 276 ; Magic arts, 276 ; Crimes against parents and rulers, 279 ; Crimes against person and life, i. e. crimes of blood, 280 ; Cities of refuge, 282 ; Murder by unknown hands, 284 ; Crimes against chastity, 285 ; Statutes to protect rights of property, 286 ; ¦y Statutes against usury, 288 ; Statutes lor the relief of the poor, 289 ; Crimes against reputation, 292. CONTENTS. ix CHAPTER XVIII. Civil Institutes of Moses Concluded: . Hebrew servitude, 294 ; Man-stealing, 294 ; No rendition of fugitives, 295 ; Severe personal injuries entitled to freedom, 295; Periodical emancipation, 296; Religious privileges of servants, 298 ; The slavery that existed be fore Moses, 299 ; The condition of Israel in bondage in Egypt, 299; The Jubilee, 300 ; Its bearing upon foreign servants, 301; Meaning of "bond-serv ant," 302 ; Servants of foreign birth, 302 ; Judicial Procedure, 304 ; Judges ; The seat of justice, 305 ; The processes of prosecution, 305 ; Advocates ; of witnesses, 305 ; Punishments, 306 ; Fines, 306; Sin and trespass offerings, 307; Stripes, 307; Excom munication, 308 ; Modes of capital punishment, 308 ; Disgrace after death, 308; Judicial procedure and punishment summary, 308; Statutes without penalties, 309 ; Two Historic Questions: (a) How far is this system indebted to Egypt ? 31 1 ; (6) How far have the best civil codes of the most civilized nations been indebted to this Hebrew code? 314; Progressive revelations of God in this code, 319. CHAPTER XIX. The Religious System of the Hebrews, 321 ; Classification of sacrifices, 322 ; Choice of animals for sacrifice, 323 ; The scenes of sacrifice, 324 ; The significance of sacrifices, 325 ; Of the portion taken as food, 326 ; Special sacrifices, 327 ; Sacred limes and seasons, 327 ; The three great festivals, 328; The Feast of Pentecost, 328; The Feast of Tabernacles, 329 ; The great day of Atonement, 331 ; Sacred Edifices and Apparatus, 334 ; The Sacred Orders, 335 ; Present value of the Mosaic ritual, 336 ; Its lessons on the blood of atonement, 338 ; That these lessons are steps of progress in the revelation of God to men, 340. CHAPTER XX. Historic Events of Hebrew History from Sinai to the Jor dan, 342; The golden calf, 342 ; The intercession of Moses, 344 ; The Lord re veals his name and glory, 346 ; Incidents connected with this idol- worship, 350; Lessons from Moses on prayer, 353; Taberah and Kibroth-hataavah, 354 ; Miriam and Aaron envious of Moses, 355 ; Kadesh-barnea and the unbelieving spies, 356 ; Rebellion of Koran and his company, 360; The fiery serpent and the brazen one, 363; Balak and Balaam, 364 ; Balaam's prophecies, 307 ; His prayer, 368. X CONTENTS. CHAPTER XXI. On the last Four Books of the Pentateuch; Their method and subject-matter, 375 ; Leviticus, 376 ; Numbers, 376 ; Deuteronomy, 377 ; Deut. 26, 378 ; The prophet like Moses, Deut. 18, 380; The blessings and the curses, 383; The last words of Moses, 384; Deut. 32, 385; Moses blesses the tribes, Deut. ,33, 394; Death and character of Moses, 401 ; The Mosaic system and the future life, 403 ; Progressive developments of truth and of God, 412. INTEODUOTIOK THE REVELATIONS OF GOD TO MEN PROGRESSIVE. It is supposable that God might have made his entire written revelation of himself to men at once, through one inspired prophet and one only ; in one definite locality (Eden or Jerusalem), and all brought within a twelve month. But he did not deem this the wisest way. He preferred to speak at considerable intervals of time — through a long succession of " holy men of old ; " " at sundry times and in diverse manners " (Heb. i : 1). Among the choice results of this progressive method we may name the following : (1.) That by means of it God made large and admirable use of history. This was revealing himself to men, not simply by his words but by his works. In ways which men could not well mis take, he was thus able to manifest himself as the God of nations; also as the God of families; and not least, as the God of individual men. It was vital to human welfare that he should place himself before men as being not a heathen Brumha, sunk in unconscious sleep for ages, but as the All-seeing, ever-active One, exercising a real government over men, ruling in equity and yet with loving-kindness ; ever present amid all their activities and impressing himself upon the thought and the heart of the race. In this line of policy how admirably did he give promises to his serv ants to inspire their faith in himself; then prove that faith through years and ages of trial and delay ; but at last confirm his word by its signal fulfillment! By (1) 2 INTRODUCTION. what other method could He so effectually reveal him self as a, personal God — the personal Friend of his trustful children — evermore worthy of their supreme confidence, whether they could or could not see at once all the rea sons of his ways ? His providential rule over nations as such found in this method ample scope for the fullest illustration. The record of this ruling in the ministrations of pros perity and adversity ; in the rise and the ruin of great nations through the lapse of the world's early centuries, constitute a marvelously rich portion of this progress ive revelation of God to man. A Bible made up of words from God without any deeds of God would be open to dangerous misunderstanding and thus might in great measure fail of its purpose. At best it would be tame and unimpressive compared with the method God has chosen of revealing himself largely in actual works at innumerable points along the ages for more than four thousand years. (2.) Again; no small gain accrued from the large number and various qualities of the holy men through whom God spake. The personal blessing to themselves was too rich to be limited to any one man. Rather let it be shared by many scores of men, standing forth be fore their respective generations age after age from Adam down to him of Patmos. We may also note the large range of diversity in their personal character and in their endowments as authors. How varied were the circumstances of their lives and the moral trials which were the refiner's fire to their spiritual life! How abundantly by this means did their personal experi ences illustrate the ways of God with those who come nearest to him in the fullness of heart communion! How many chapters are thus provided of the most re liable most varied and easily applied Christian experi ence! INTRODUCTION. 3 By means of the diversity of inspired writers, the Bible is enriched with the charms of a large variety in style, as well as in the experiences of the Christian life. Among all the sacred penmen, no two minds are cast in the same mold. Poetry, eloquence, imagination, logic, sublimity, pathos— in what endless combinations do we find these gifts apportioned and manifested! How should we admire the wisdom which chose out men of gifts so diversified, and then adopted a method of inspiration which left each writer's mind to the un restrained development of its own peculiar genius. (3.) Yet farther; the progressive historical method of making up the Bible opened the door widely for mir acles and prophecy. The occasions for miracles were multiplied. They could be introduced naturally where manifold and not single results should accrue. In this way there was no need to manufacture opportunities for miraculous interposition. Abundant occasions arose to demand them, when consequently they had a most thrilling effect. "We may see this in the scenes of the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the rescue of Hezekiah and his people. So also of prophecy. It asks for time. On the sup position that the fulfillment is to appear in the Scrip tures, an interval of some duration must come between the utterance and the fulfillment. It was also wise that prophecy should subserve the superadded purpose of spiritual comfort to God's people during the ages between comparative darkness and forth-breaking light. In fact it gave to God's people the first single beams of morning twilight, bearing the grateful assurance that the Sun of Righteousness would surely rise on the nations in the fullness of gospel times. (4.) Still again; by this method of making up in spired history it is placed side by side with profane history and the most ancient monuments of the race, 4 INTRODUCTION. and thus invites investigation on the point of its truth fulness. Is this progressive history of God's ways toward men confirmed by whatever reliable history of the same period has come down to us through other sources? This point well deserves and richly rewards a careful examination. (5.) Moreover, it is to be presumed that God would commence his revelation of himself to our race in the very infancy of their existence. The Bible shows us that he did. Assuming that at this point they had every thing to learn, we ought to expect that their first Bible lessons would . turn their thought to the great truths of natural religion — the manifestations of God in his works of creation and providence. In harmony with this reasonable expectation, we read — "In the begin ning God created the heavens and the earth." In that opening chapter of revelation, God said, "Let there be light," and it was; also "a firmament" above, and it was; "Let the dry land appear," and it appeared; "let there be light-bearers in the heavens," and they shine forth; let grass and herbs grow; let creatures live in the waters, in the air, and on the dry land, and it was so; and finally, "let us make man," far unlike all the rest — "in our own image and likeness" — and god-like man sprang into being. So onward the narrative wit nesses to the ever-present hand of God in the mists, the rains, and the teeming vegetation of the new-made world. God,, the great Author of, nature; God in nature and evermore over all nature, was the first les son recorded in.God's revelation of himself to men. In natural order, the next lesson like this, is God in providence — God administering the agencies of earthly good or ill, making his presence manifest among his intelligent and moral offspring, and even "coming down to see" (as the early record has it) what men were doing and whether the cry coming up to him told INTRODUCTION. 6 truthfully of the guilty violence perpetrated by man upon his fellows. This idea — God ruling over the race in righteous retribution for their good or evil deeds — was obviously one of the first great moral lessons to be illustrated, enforced, impressed. So vital is this con viction to the ends of a moral government that it should not surprise us if the actual administration of present rewards and punishments in the common course of human life in this world should be. made far more prominent and palpable in the early than in the later ages of the race, so much so as to force itself upon the dullest eyes and compel the attention of the most stupid and reluctant observers. Such (we shall have occasion to notice) was unquestionably the divine policy throughout the earlier stages of human history, abundantly apparent in the records of the Bible. In later times,.,the exigencies of a system of probation, and especially the importance of giving large scope to faith, after sufficient evidence has been afforded, served to impose narrower limits upon present retribution, re serving the larger share to the perfect adjustments of the great future. In the earlier stages of human his tory, it would obviously be vital to give men sufficient demonstration that God does rule, and therefore is to be believed when he threatens to punish either here or hereafter, and consequently is evermore to be feared as the certain avenger of crime. Hence the imperative need in those early ages of such manifestations of God's justice as would impress the fear of his name. With our eye open to the native pride of depraved souls and to their appalling tendency to disown God and bid him "depart" and not trouble them with his "ways," it will not surprise us that God should shape his earliest agencies of providence to inspire fear rather than love. It needs but the least thought to see that this policy was a simple necessity — the most obvious dictate of 6 INTRODUCTION. wisdom. In this point revelation might naturally be progressive, advancing as soon as was safe and wise from manifestations inspiring fear to those which would re veal his love. The doctrine of divine providence in regard to the sufferings of good men — one of the hardest problems of human life — might be expected to unfold itself gradu ally. It would be quite too much for the infancy of human thought and knowledge to grasp this problem and master all its intricacies. Hence the scope for a gradual unfolding (as we may see) all the way from the discussions in Job and the Psalms to the clearer light which shines in the epistle to the Hebrews, as also in Peter and Paul. This beautiful illustration of progress in divine revelation will well reward attention in its place. (6.) On the supposition that God's scheme for the recovery of our lost race contemplated some atonement for sin — a provision in its very nature and relations toward both God and man exceedingly delicate and critical — it is at least presumable beforehand that God would bring out this idea with great care — with the wisest precaution against misconception, and not im probably with some foregoing illustrations of its signifi cance and of its intended application. Precisely this we see in the great sacrificial system of the Mosaic economy. We only put essentially the same idea into other and more general terms when we say that a pro tracted course of successive revelations provides for making an antecedent economy pave the way for a sub sequent one — a first revelation preparatory to a second — one set of ideas imprinted' and impressed upon the human mind, made conducive to other and higher rev elations yet to follow. The wisdom of such pro gressions can not fail to impress itself upon all thoughtful minds. Thus God's revelations of him- INTRODUCTION. 7 self from age to age were adjusted to the advance in spiritual development which he had provided for in the human mind. As training and culture developed higher capacities, new lessons were in order and higher attainments were made. "Whoso is wise and will observe these things, even they shall understand" the loving-kindness and matchless wisdom of the Lord. To forestall misapprehensions (possible and some times actual), let it be noted that progress in the re vealed science of God by no means supersedes what has gone before. Naturally it only serves to place old truths in new and richer lighjfc. No one fact affirmed concerning God in the earlier ages is denied in the later. Certain features of his character may be brought out more prominently in the later lessons, but there is no unsaying of the things said before. Nothing can conflict with this axiom of divine science — "I am the Lord; I change not." Prominence maybe given in the early ages to such manifestations as impress men with fear and as set forth God's righteous justice toward transgressors; while later revelations may disclose more fully the depths of divine love and compassion. Yet let none infer that God is less just in the New Testament than in the Old, or that the earlier policy of God's throne has been modified to a larger leniency toward persistent criminals. The men who flippantly talk of throwing aside the older revelation "as they do an old almanac" mistake most egregiously. God has written nothing to be thrown aside. The oldest records still give us lessons of God shining with unfading fresh ness and undimmed glory. The statutes binding on Israel in the wilderness and in Canaan may not be in the same sense binding on our age, but they have not for this reason become valueless. They made revela tions of God then, truthful and rich ; they make revela tions of God still which it were but small indication of wisdom or good sense to ignore. CHAPTER I. CREATION. Fitly the written word of God to the race begins with the creation. In every reflecting mind the first in quiry must be this: Whence am I? Whence came my being — this wonderful existence; these active powers? It must be that I am indebted for all these gifts to some higher Being; how earnestly then do I ask — To whom? No other question can claim priority to this. lE^ery thing in its nature and relations gives it pre cedence above all other questions. Inasmuch as my reason* affirms to me that I owe my existence to some great Maker, I feel that I must know Him and must know my responsibilities to Him. I need to learn also how the further question — my future destiny— may link itself with my relations to Him who brought me into being. Of secondary yet similar interest are the correspond ing questions as to the world we live in. Who made it? Does its Maker hold it under his own control? Does He still operate its forces and wield its agencies ? Have I any obligations and duties toward Him who made the earth and all that is therein ? Verily I must assume that if there be a God, at once Creator and Up holder of the earth and Father of his rational offspring, his written word will hasten to throw light on the oth erwise dark minds of his children — will let them know that " in the beginning God made the heavens and the earth " and man. The moral lessons of this great fact— God our Creator — are forcibly brought out in later scriptures. Listen to the Psalmist : " 0 come, let us sing unto the Lord for he is a great God and a great King above all gods. In his hands are the deep places of the earth; the strength of the hills is his also. The sea is his and he made it, and his hands formed the dry land. 0 come, (9) 10 CREATION. let us worship and bow down ; let us kneel before the Lord our Maker, for he is our God and we are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand." (Ps. 95 : 1-7.) Note also the blended sublimity and beauty of David's appeal : " Praise the Lord ; sing unto him a new song, for the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gath- ereth the waters of the sea together as an heap; he layeth up the depth in store-houses. Let all the earth fear the Lord ; let the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him, for he spake and it was : he commanded, and it stood fast." (Ps. 33 : 1-9.) Still higher if pos sible rises the lofty strain of Isaiah when he would set forth the unequalled power of the great Creator as the Refuge and Salvation of his trustful children : — " Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand?' and meted out heaven with a span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed' the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance? To whom then will ye liken God"? etc. (Isa. 40: 12, 18). So when Job had indulged himself tcto far in questioning the ways of God in providence, the Lord replied out of the whirlwind, demanding of him — "Where wert thou when I laid the foundations of the earth ? Declare if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof if thou knowest — who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened, or who laid the corner stone thereof when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy " ? ""Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds that abundance of waters may cover thee? Canst thou send lightnings that they may go and say unto thee, Here are we"? (Job 38 : 4-7, 34, 35.) In that great conflict of ages against idolatry, the one final appeal was wont to be made to this great fact of God's Creatorship. We have examples in Ps. 115 : 2-8 and Jer 10: 1-16 and elsewhere. Thus throughout the sacred word this great fact that God is our Creator, involving the whole sphere of God in nature, stands as the first witness to his true divinity, the first proof that in him we live and have our being — the ground of the ITS MORAL LESSONS. 11 first claim upon us for supreme homage, worship, trust, love and obedience. The first lessons taught in Eden weretaken from this great and open volume of natural religion. The first lessons which God's people were to place before the heathen in their mission work of the early ages were drawn from the visible worlds and from their testimony to the Great Creator. These manifesta tions are the alphabet of God; the point therefore from which progressive revelations begin. Noticeably the record of the creation (Gen. 1 and 2) rests not with simply giving the general statement that God made all things, but enters somewhat into the particulars, reciting in certain points the steps of the proc ess and the order of its details. First the heavens and the earth had a beginning and this beginning was from God. At some stage in the process, perhaps the next in order after the heavens and the earth could be said to be, the earth was chaotic, i. e. formless and desolate ; then God brought forth light ; then to clear the atmos phere somewhat of mists and vapors, he caused some of its waters to rise into the expanse, and some to descend to the earth below ; then gathered the waters below into seas, leaving portions of the earth's surface dry land. Then he brought forth grass and herbage; next, the light-bearers in the heavens appeared — the sun, moon and stars ; then came into being fish, reptiles and fowl ; and on the sixth day land animals and man. Thus in six successive periods of time, through steps of grada tion easily traced by the witnessing " sons of God " (Job 38 : 7), the processes of this creative work were finished. The Great Father would have his first-born unfallen " sons " as well as his later-born and redeemed children enjoy these works of his creative hand, and therefore he developed them slowly and in the order of naturally successive steps that they might see that all was truly " good," " very good." Partly because of advances made within recent times in physical science, partly because of speculations not always friendly in tone to the inspired record, and partly because of the intrinsic interest, and importance of the subject, some special points in this narrative de mand very particular attention. 12 CREATION : OF THE RECORD AND ITS REVELATION. 1. The origin of the written record and the manner of its revelation to men. The entire book of Genesis is ascribed to Moses on most valid grounds; whether as compiler only or as original author, is, therefore, the first question. 1 do not see how this point can be determined with absolute certainty. The probabilities in my view favor the sup position of previously written documents, these proba bilities arising, not to any considerable extent from manifest differences of style in its various portions, and not at all from diversities in the use of the names of God, Jehovah and Elohim ; but mainly from the strong presumption that such genealogical records as abound in Genesis, coupled so largely with numbers, would be put in writing before the age of Moses. Men who had the knowledge of writing would certainly appreciate its utility for the preservation of such facts as these. And further ; the very use of the word " generations " * (Gen. 2 : 4) in the sense of history, and much more still the statement (Gen. 5 : 1), " This is the book of the gen erations of Adam," raise this presumption nearly or quite to a certainty. In making up the historical portions of the Scriptures it seems rational to assume that the Lord moved "holy men of old" to put in writing such facts falling under their personal observa tion and immediate knowledge as he deemed useful for these sacred records. In sOme cases the writer might be (as was Luke) just one remove from the original eye witnesses, yet in a position to learn the facts with " perfect understanding " and " certainty." We should not doubt the power of God to give to holy men these historic facts by immediate revelation ; but the question is not one of power, but of wisdom, of divine policy, and of fact. The divine policy seems to have been (in this case as in miracles) never to introduce the supernat ural, the miraculous, to do what the natural might ac complish equally well. On this principle inspired men were moved of God to use their own eyes and minds in writing Scripture _ history in all cases when the facts came within their certain knowledge. There were facts, like these of the creation, which fell under no hu man eye, and which therefore do not come under this *nnVin CREATION : OF THE RECORD AND ITS REVELATION. 13 principle. Some form of direct revelation from God is, therefore, to be assumed here. Though the supposition of a revealing angel might find some support from sub sequent prophetic Scriptures, yet a direct revelation from God to some inspired writer is the more obvious supposition. It has been asked — Was this creation in its processes and announcements shown in a manner analogous to prophetic vision — the writer then record ing in his own phrase what he saw and heard? There being no testimony on this point from either of the two parties — the divine Revealer or the human writer — we must leave it undecided. Fortunately it is of no particular importance to us. It is, however, of some importance that we consider the question whether in this account of the creation we are to look for state ments adjusted to science — not merely to the stage of its progress in this present year of the nineteeth century, but to the perfect science of ultimate fact; or, on the other hand, for statements adapted to the average mind of Hebrew readers in the age of Moses, written for their comprehension, instruction and spiritual culture. I answer unhesitatingly, the latter. "All Scripture, given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine and for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3: 16), and was of God designed and shaped for these ends. Yet let it be borne in mind ; these statements respect ing the processes of creation, being in the sense in tended, actually true, will not conflict with any true science. They may omit processes which human analy sis and research may render probable, passing them as not germain to the scope of a moral revelation and as no.t likely to be intelligible to the masses of man kind. Finally — that the assumed stand-point of view from which these processes of creation are contemplated is on this earth and not elsewhere in the universe is certain from the fact that it was written to be read and understood by men and not by angels. Hence we must expect the facts to be presented as they would have ap peared to a supposed observer upon our globe. 2. What is the true idea of nature, and what the line between nature and the supernatural ? A reference to familiar facts will best set forth the case. Thus; it is in and by nature that at a certain temperature water becomes vapor; at another tempera- 14 CREATION: NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL. ture, ice; that vapor rises in the atmosphere, water runs downward, and ice abides under the laws of solids. On the other hand it is not in nature that water in any of its forms creates itself. Its elements can not begin to be, save by some power above nature. — —Again, by nature plants and animals reproduce their kind, but never can of themselves begin their own existence. Hence some of the processes brought before us in this record of creation come under the head of nature; others are as obviously supernatural — from the imme diate hand of God. The work of the second day — the mists of the atmosphere, in part ascending in vapor, in part precipitated upon the earth in water — seems to have followed natural law. In the work of the third, the waters on higher portions of the earth's surface subsiding into the seas, follow the law of flowing water. But the original creation of matter and the beginnings of life, both vegetable and animal, must have been supernatural — from the immediate fiat of the Almighty. This point would scarcely need special definition had not extreme views been put forth in our times; as (e. g.) that nature is virtually a second-rate deity — indebted to God, indeed, for the original gift of its powers, but thenceforward working those powers inde pendently of God — made to run without God after he has once wound it up as the mechanic makes and winds up his watch. But the Scriptures recognize no such semi-deification of nature. According to their teach ing, God still "upholds all things by the word of his power" (Heb. 1 : 3) ; "By him all things consist " (Col. 1 : 17) — i. e., are maintained in their existence — are held to system and order under natural law. It is precisely God himself who gives or withholds the rain ; who calls to the lightnings and they answer, "Here we are" — (Job 38 : 35) ; and. it is none the less God who wields these agencies because he does it in harmony with principles which are just as fixed as he pleases to have them. Therefore true science will take no excep tion to the doctrine that nature is nothing more or less than God's established mode of operation. We may call these modes of operations "laws" or "powers," and. may think and speak of them as constituting " Nature ;" but if we come to regard Nature as a maker and a doer, CREATION: ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. 15 working independently of God, we have (inadvertently perhaps, but none the less realty) ruled God out of his own universe. Both Scripture and reason hold that " in him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17 : 28.) The broad fact that God's intelligent creat ures must live in this material world and be constantly acting upon matter and acted upon by matter, sug gests abundant reasons why God should ordain fixed laws for the changes and states of all material things. But why should we think of God's hand as any the less present in all these changes of material states and forms because they follow fixed and ascertainable laws ? In truth the divine wisdom is only the more abun dantly manifested by means of this reliable uniformity. Another doctrine yet more extreme severs all con nection between nature and an intelligent Power above and over her, and thus makes her supreme in her domain. This is so far Atheism— ruling God out from at least the entire material universe. Yet, again; to make nature herself intelligent — to ascribe to nature whatever traces of design appear in her operations, and to hold that nature is herself the universe, undis- tinguishable from any higher spiritual power, is Pan theism. It is therefore important to define nature so that her true relations to the Supreme Intelligence — the very God — Creator and Lord of the universe — shall be distinctly seen and reverently recognized. The advocates of extreme naturalism have labored faithfully to verify their doctrine by . experiment. They have put Nature to task — not to say torture — to compel her to originate life. Pushing their chemical analysis of those forms of matter in which life is thought specially to reside, they flatter themselves that they have at last got their hands on the very elements which, brought together, make life, viz, carbonic acid, ammonia, and water, chemically combined. To this compound they give the name, "protoplasm." They have found, they say, that where life is there is proto plasm, its home and dwelling-place at least ; and that life never appears lodging in any other home. They can not see that the presence of life adds any thing to this compound, or that its absence takes any thing away. Therefore they are sure they have found what makes life. 16 CREATION: ON THE WORD "DAY." Now the skillful chemist in his laboratory has not the least difficulty in providing himself with carbonic acid, ammonia, and water. Why then does he not evolve the long-sought-for life-force and prove his doc trine, past all doubt ? Let him bring out new beings, new forms of life, vegetable or animal or both, in am ple diversity, for the range is unlimited. Let his lab oratory push forth into being such troops of offspring as will forever confound gainsayers and prove that Nature, properly manipulated, is equal to the produc tion of life-forces in endless variety and abundance. Have any modern scientists clone this? Not yet. Have they made any approximation toward it? Mr. Huxley thinks he has come so near to it that if he could only have at his service the favorable conditions of the very earliest state of matter, he should succeed. "If it were given me (says he) to look beyond the abyss of geologically-recorded time to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter. That is the expectation to which ana logical reasoning leads me." * " Not living matter evolving living protoplasm " means that matter itself, dead matter, begets real life. Nature would thus be come herself a creator, exercising the most decisive functions of the Infinite God. Mr. Huxley can not make Nature do this exploit in the present state of this world or of the universe ; but he fully believes there was a time when he should have seen it if he had been there ! This is his proof of the new doctrine. He will not presume to " call it any thing but an act of philo sophic faith." 3. The sense of the word "day" as used in Gen. I. of the six days of creation. To simplify the subject I make the single issue — Is it a period of twenty-four hours, or a period of special character, indefinitely long? The latter theory sup poses the word to refer here not so much to duration as to special character — the sort of work done and the changes produced during the period contemplated. * Lay sermons on spontaneous generation ; pp. 364-366. CREATION: ON THE WORD "DAY." 17 Turning our attention to this latter theory, we raise three leading inquiries : (1.) Do the laws of language and, specially, does the usage of the word "day" permit it? (2.) Apart from the bearing of geological facts, are there 'points in the narrative itself which demand or 'even favor this sense of the word? (3.) What are the geological facts bearing on this question, and what weight may legitimately be accorded to them ? (1.) Beyond all question the word "day" is used abundantly, _ (and therefore admits of being used) to denote a period of special character, with no particular reference to its duration. We have a case in this im mediate connection (Gen. 2 : 4), where it is used of the whole creative period : " In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Under the same usage we have " the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5 : 2) for the day of judgment; "the day of God," in the same sense (2 Pet. 3 : 12) ; " the day of salvation " (2 Cor. 6 : 2) ; " day of redemption" (Eph. 4 : 30) ; a " day of dark ness and of gloominess; a day of clouds and of thick darkness " (Joel 2 : 2). " In the day of prosperity, be joyful ; but in the day of adversity, consider " (Eccl. 7 : 14). " If thou hadst known in this thv day the things," etc. (Luke 19: 42). So also Job 19: 25, and John 8: 56, etc. To set aside this testimony from usage as being in applicable to the present case, it has been said — (a.) That here is a succession of days, "first day," "second day," " third day," etc., and that this requires the usual sense of days of the week. To which the answer is that here are six special periods succeeding each other — a sufficient reason for using the word in the peculiar sense of a period of special character. Each of these periods is distinct from any and all the rest in the character of the work wrought in it. The reason for dividing the creative work into six periods — " days " — rather than into more or fewer lies in the divine wisdom as to the best proportion of days of man's labor to the one day of his rest, the Sabbath. God's plan for his creative work contemplated his own example as sug gestive of man's Sabbath and was shaped accordingly. This accounts for dividing the work of creation into six 18 CREATION: ON THE WORD "DAY." special periods, correlated to God's day of rest from cre ative work. (b.) It will also be urged that each of these days is said to be made up of evening and of morning — "The evening and the morning were the first day," etc. But the strength of this objection comes mainly from mistranslation and consequent miscon ception of the original. The precise thought is not that evening and morning composed or made up one full day ; but rather this : There was evening and there was morning — day one, i. e., day number one. There was darkness and then there was light, indicating one of the great creative periods.* It is one thing to say — There were alternations of evening and morning — i. e. dark scenes and bright scenes — marking the successive periods of creation, first, second, third, etc.; and another thing to affirm that each of these evenings and mornings made up a day. The point specially affirmed in the two cases, though some what analogous, is not by any means identical. Let it be considered moreover, that while in Hebrew as in Eng lish, night and day are often used for the average twelve- hourdurationof darkness and of light respectively in each twenty-four hours, yet in neither language are the words evening and morning used in this sense, as synonymous with night and day. Indeed " evening " and " morn ing" are rather points than periods of time; cer tainly do not indicate any definite amount of time — any precise number of hours; but are used to denote the two great changes — i. e. from light to darkness and from darkness to light ; in other words, from day to night and from night to day. Therefore to make evening and morning added together constitute one day is entirely without warrant in either Hebrew or English usage and can not be the meaning of these passages in Gene- sis.f (2.) The showing of the narrative itself, considered apart from the bearing of geological facts. (a.) Here vs. 3-5 demand special attention, this first * Dr. A. M'Caul in " Aids to Faith," page 241 renders it—" And evening happened and morning happened — one day." Precisely this is the sense of the Septuagint and of the Syriac. See also Tayler Lewis in Lange's Genesis, pp. 132, 133. t See the usage in David (Ps. 55 : 17), " Evening and morning and at noon will I pray." CREATION : ON THE WORD " DAY." 19 day being the model one. 1 understand "evening" to be the chaotic state of v. 2, when " darkness was on the face of the deep," and "morning" to be that first " light " which God spake into being. The reason for using these words — "evening and morning" — in this sense I find in the universal sentiment of mankind that light is pleasant and darkness is not. This sentiment is indicated here; "God saw the light that it was good." The state of chaos was in contrast with this — dismal, dreary, awakening no sense of beauty or order ; no emotions of joy. The light of day brings joy, and the freshest and best sensation of it comes with the morning. Hence these words were fitly and beautifully appropriate to the two great creative states — first chaos; secondly, light — which together marked off the first of the six creative days. But we can not for a moment think of this chaotic state as being only twelve hours. We can not rationally think of the word " evening " ap plied to it as having any reference to time, duration. It was an evening only in the sense of being dark, des olate, any thing but joyous like the morning. The word "evening" may be chosen rather than night for the sake of a more perfect antithesis with "morning." (b.) Throughout at least the first three of these crea tive epochs there was no sun-rising and setting to mark off the ordinary day. These therefore were not the common human day ; but, as Augustine long ago said, these are the days of God — divine days — measuring off his great creative periods. God moved through these six great periods by successive stages of labor and of rest. Beginning with the long evening of chaos ; then advancing to a glorious day of light ; then, after a ces sation analogous to man's rest by night, he proceeded to the work of the second day — the joyous and beautiful development of the firmament in the heavens. So on ward by stages of repose and of activity, these figura tive evenings and mornings continued through the six successive epochs of creation. (c.) In some at least of these creative epochs, the work done demands more time than twenty-four hours. For example, the gathering of the waters from under the heavens into one place to constitute the seas or oceans and leave portions of the earth's surface dry land. Nothing short of absolute miracle could effect this in 20 CREATION : ON THE WORD " DAY." one human day. But miracle should not be assumed here, the rule of reason and the normal law of God's operations being never to work a miracle in a case where the ordinary course of nature will accomplish the same results equally well. We must the more surely exclude miracle and assume the action of natural law only throughout these processes of the creative work because the very purpose of a protracted rather than an instan taneous creation looked manifestly to the enlighten ment, instruction, interest, and joy of those " morning stars," the "sons of God" who beheld the scene, then " sang together and shouted for joy " (Job 38 : 7). The greatness of the work assigned to the fourth day stringently forbids our compressing it within the limits of one ordinary human day. Especially is this the case if we understand the verse to speak of the original creation of these light-bearers — the sun and the moon and the stars also, and of their adjustment in their spheres for their assigned work. Think of the vastness of the sun and of the numbers, magnitude, and immense dis tances of the stars ; and ask how it is possible that the creation of these bodies could be either instructive or joyful to the beholding angels if it had been all rushed through within twenty-four hours of human time. This difficulty is in a measure relieved if we suppose the fourth day's work to have been, not the original cre ation of these heavenly bodies, but only the bringing of them into the view of a supposed spectator upon the earth — i. e. by clearing the atmosphere so as to make these heavenly bodies visible. The question at issue between these two constructions of the fourth day's work must be examined in its place. The amount of crea tive and other work brought within the sixth day should be noticed. First, God created all the land animals • then Adam ; then he brought " every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" to Adam to see what he would call them — which at least must assume that Adam had attained a somewhat full knowledge of language, and that he had time enough to study the special character of each animal so as to give each one its appropriate name, and time enough also to ascertain that there was not one among them all adapted to be a " helpmeet " for himself. Then the " deep sleep " of Adam — how long protracted, the record saith not; and finally the CREATION : ON THE WORD " DAY." 21 creation of Eve from one of his ribs— all to come within the sixth day ; for the creation of Eve certainly falls within this day, being a part of the creative work, and accom plished, therefore, before God's seventh day of rest from all his work began. These labors of the sixth day, moreover, were precisely such as should not be rushed through in haste. The importance, not to say solemnity, of these transactions and the special interest they must be sup posed to awaken in the first-born " sons of God " most strin gently preclude precipitate haste. It is not easy to see how Moses or his intelligent readers of the early time could have supposed all this to have transpired within the twelve hours of light in a human day. We may say, moreover, in regard to each and all of. these six creative periods that if the holy angels were indeed spectators of these scenes and if God adjusted his methods of cre ation to the capacities of these pupils — these admiring students of his glorious works — then surely we must not think of his compressing them within the period of six human days. Divine days they certainly must have been, sufficiently protracted to afford finite minds scope for intelligent study, adoring contemplation, and as the Bible indicates, most rapturous shouts of joy. Against the theory of indefinitely long periods, it is objected that the law of the Sabbath demands the usual sense of the word " day." The record in Gen. 2 : 2, 3, is — "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 sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which he had created and made." The words of the fourth command are — " Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work ; but the sev enth day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, etc. — for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth : where fore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." The real argument here rests on the analogy be tween God's working and resting, and man's labor and rest. In each case the period of labor is six out of seven ; of rest, one in seven. This argument does not require that God's six working days and one resting day should be of twenty-four hours each. If it did, we should be hard pressed to show that God's seventh day of rest from creation's work was a merely human day 22 CREATION : ON THE WORD " DAY." from sun to sun. No ; it suffices if we make God's days of creative energy and of creative rest each and all divine days — all alike periods of indefinite length — all of the same sort ; and on the other hand man's days of labor and his day of rest, all human days, of the same sort with each other, from sun to sun. As God's rest ing day is plainly of indefinite length — a period known by its character and not by its duration, so should his days of creative labor be : not only so may they be, but so they ought to be according to the analogy and argu ment in the case. We come therefore to the conclu sion that entirely apart from the demands of geological science, the creative days must be periods of indefinite length, called "days" with reference to the peculiar work done in them and to their peculiar character, and not as being the ordinary human day of twenty-four hours. It may be admitted, moreover, that the phrase ology and the whole shaping of the narrative in respect to days may have contemplated the institution of the Sabbath — to be founded as shown above upon the anal ogy of God's labor and rest with man's permitted labor and enjoined rest in commemoration of God's work of creation. (3.) We are to consider the geological facts bearing on this point and the weight legitimately due to them. If the point last put has been sustained, it will be seen at the outset that even should geology make large demands for time, far beyond the ordinary human day, we shall have no occasion to strain the laws of interpre tation to bring the record into harmony with such de mands. We open this inquiry therefore into the facts of geology, not so much to make out if possible a harmony between them and Genesis by toning down the facts of science or by toning up the inspired record, as to show how readily and how beautifully the facts just as they are (so far as known) accord with the le gitimate sense of the sacred record. Preliminary to the main inquiry before us is the question as to the primary original state of matter. Was it brought into existence in its primordial ele ments — those molecules which not only defy all human effort at analysis, but which seem to be in their nature the simplest forms of matter ? Chemistry has shown that many of the most familiar substances, long sup- CREATION : ON THE WORD " DAY." 23 posed to be simple, are really compound. Were they brought into existence in the state in which we com monly see them, or in their ultimate, most simple ele ments? For example, did God originally create water, or the two gases (hydrogen and oxygen) of which it is composed, which were subsequently combined chem ically into water? On this point the Scriptures are silent. If Science has any thing to reveal about it, the field is open to her and she may proceed, nothing in the sacred Scriptures dissenting or restricting. If she suc ceeds in proving or half proving that the first state of matter was nebulous — a "fire-mist" — gaseous in form, very well. I do not se.e that the record of Moses con tests this theory. It passes this point with no dog matic statements whatever, not even a fact which necessarily implies either the affirmative or the nega tive. The record in Genesis does assume that at the point where the second day's work begins, the atmos phere was heavily charged with vapor, and that a part of this was precipitated upon the earth in water and a part borne upward into the higher strata of the atmos phere. The third day's work gathered the waters then upon the earth's surface into the ocean beds and left portions of the land dry. Consequently the state of the atmosphere, and in general the condition of the waters of our globe were not arranged at first just as we have them now. So much we are told. There are yet other preliminary questions. On the shores of lakes, seas, oceans, we find pebbles rounded and smooth, mineralogically of the same ele ments which are found in rock formations. Were they created in this rounded and worn state, or were they once portions of these rock strata, but subsequently broken up by natural agencies and worn by the action of flowing water ? Another case. Coal beds often contain what seem to be whole trees and huge vegetables (ferns, etc.) ap parently charred and converted into coal. Were they created just as we find them, or were they indeed trees and vegetables before they became coal? Yet an other case. The rocks nearest the surface contain al most universally more or less of what seem like fos silized plants and animals. They have the form of the plant or animal in wonderful perfection. Were these 24 CREATION : ON THE WORD " DAY." fossiliferous rocks, containing apparent fossils, created as we see them, or were these fossils once real plants and animals ? 1 see no reason whatever to hesitate over these questions. We can not suppose that God created these worn and rounded pebbles, these charred trees and ferns, these prints of animal footsteps — these facsimiles of his creative work in the vegetable and an imal kingdom, for the sake of puzzling or misleading, or, in plainest words, deceiving his intelligent off spring. He never could have meant to baffle all scien tific inquiry into his works of creation. Rather we must assume that he lays his works open to such in quiries, and invites men to study and learn his ways. If this be admitted, it follows that these stratified and fossil-bearing rocks open to us a great volume of Pre- Adamic history of our globe, revealing its processes of rock -formation ; to some extent its climatic and various conditions for the support of life, vegetable and animal, and for its successive populations of plants and an imals. Grouping comprehensively some geological facts bear ing on the duration of the great creative periods, I note (1.) Vast strata of rock-formations, widely diverse from each other, too diverse to have been formed under the same circumstances and conditions of our globe. Some — the lowest in relative position — appear to have been once in a state of fusion under intense heat, while others — in general all the higher rocks — seem to have been deposited under water. Mineralogically, these rocks differ from each other very widely and also from the fused rocks. (2.) Again, some are manifestly composed of fragments of pre-existing rocks, broken off and worn by long-continued attrition and then com pacted — known as pudding-stone — the breccias. (3.) Yet again; immense strata of these intermediate and higher rocks contain fossil organic remains, some of vegetables, others of animals or of both, and also in very great variety. More marvelous still; they are found occurring in groups, bearing a well defined rela tion to each other, so that one strata of rock contains species of vegetables and also of animals in a measure adapted to each other, and adjusted to the condition of the earth's surface and climate at one and the same time. Another strata shall contain a different group, creation: on the word "day." 25 to some extent new and yet not altogether so, but lap ping on with some of the earth's old inhabitants repro duced, and omitting other species. (4.) Again, im mense beds of coal are found, undoubtedly of vegetable origin, differing somewhat widely from each other as having been formed from diverse vegetable and forest material, and under various degrees of heat and press ure. No small amount of time must be given for the growth and deposition of these mountain piles of tree and fern. The charring of these coal-pits of nature was provided for in the " fervent heat " of the earth just below the surface, coupled with pressure brought upon them it would seem by convulsions and upbreakings, to which the earth's crust has been many times sub jected. (5.) Limestone, largely of animal origin, de mands in like manner time for the growth of the ani mals whose shelly incasements, accumulating age after age, have made such ample provision of limestone and of lime for the use of man. This list of nature's facts as the practiced eye reads them from the crust of our earth does not claim to be exhaustive. If it were all, however, it would still be amply sufficient to sustain the demand for long cre ative periods as opposed to ordinary human days. It should not be forgotten that this demand, coming forth from the facts developed in the crust of the earth, falls in most fully with what we have seen to be the legiti mate construction of the Mosaic record. Prominent points of harmony between Genesis and Geology. (1.) Creation was a gradual process, spanning from beginning to end long periods of time. I use the word "creation" to comprehend not only the original produc tion of matter, but its subsequent changes and trans formations till the earth was fully prepared for the abode of man. (2*) The earth was for a considerable time under water. The record of Moses is decisive to this point. The cur rent theory in respect to the formation of most if not all the rocky strata of the earth's crust is equally so. (3.) There was light on the earth before the appearance of the sun. Genesis dates the light from the first day; the appearance of the sun, from the fourth. The theory that the primitive state of created matter was gaseous (or nebulous) provides for this, since it is well known 26 creation: genesis and geology at one. that the chemical combination of the two gases that form water (for instance) — a combination produced by electricity, evolves light. But we are not restricted to this hypothesis to account for light before the sun was visible. The state of the atmosphere may furnish all the causes needed. See below, page 32. (4.) Vegetables were created before animals. So Moses, for he locates the former on the third day ; the latter on the fifth and sixth. This is of course the order of nature since the animals are to subsist on vegetables. Geology finds vegetables in fossil state below the ear liest animals. (5.) Among the animal tribes, those of the water are before those of the land. Genesis gives us fish and rep tiles and even fowl before the mammals — land ani mals — the former on the fifth day; the latter with man on the sixth. Geology indorses this order, showing that fish and reptiles lie in rocks lower and older than quadrupeds. (6.) Man is last of all. The testimony of the rocks is here at one with that of Genesis — other animals and the vegetables also, long ages before man. Now how has it happened that this record, coming to us through Moses, harmonizes so wonderfully with the main results of a science yet in its infancy — almost utterly unknown until the present century ? Is it due to the scientific attainments of Moses? Is it not rather due to inspiration — "holy men of old" — Moses himself or the fathers before him — being taught by the same Being who "in the beginning created the heavens and the earth ? " The marvel is that this rec ord should be so constructed as to present a very intel ligible view of the processes of the six days' work to the average mind of the race before geological science was born, and yet when this science begins to develop the constitution and composition of the earth's" surface, the inspired record is found to harmonize with these devel opments in all important features. So it is wont to happen. Truth rejoices in the light. A truthful Bible and all true science meet in loving communion, evin cing their common parentage — offspring of the same Infinite Father. 4. " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Was this the original production of matter ; CREATION : SENSE OF " CREATE " IN GEN. 1:1. 27 or was it only the modification of pre-existent matter into new forms ? , (1.) That this was the original pro duction of matter is probable a priori because it is true, and because it is a truth very important to affirm in this first revelation. Matter is not eternal and self- existent. Those who intelligently believe in one Supreme God — an Infinite, Intelligent Spirit, will need no words wasted to disprove the assumption that matter existed from eternity, the Author of itself ; for this assumption ascribes to matter the distinctive qualities of God himself. It is moreover important that God should declare himself to be the author of all existing matter in the universe. This is one of his great and distinctive works — one which human speculation has been prone to deny him, and which therefore it is of the utmost consequence that he should affirm. (2.) The passage (Ps. 90 : 2) ascribed to Moses, expressly declares that God existed " before the mountains." " Before the mountains were brought forth, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God." Moses did not think matter to be eternal. He knew and taught that God existed from eternity and that matter did not. The obvious sense of his words is that God " brought forth " (i. e. into existence) the mountains of this earthly globe. (3.) The writer to the Hebrews affirms that this doc trine — God the original Creator of matter — is accepted by faith, i. e. upon the credit of God's own testimony. " By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things that do appear " (Heb. 11 : 3). Not being constructed out of matter previously apparent, they must have been made by the direct production of matter not before existing. (4.) This is the natural and obvious sense of the words and this the place to affirm this first fact in the work of creation. This is the point to start with. How came the matter of the universe into being at all? Whence came this material substance composing the heavens and the earth ? In the beginning God created it. It may be said truthfully that if God had pur posed to reveal himself as the Author of matter— the real Maker of it all — he could have found no words more fitted to his purpose than these. Hence to deny 28 creation: sense of "create" IN GEN. 1: 1. that this is their sense is the next thing to denying to God the right or the power to reveal this fact at all. (5.) It is objected that the primary sense of the word bara * (used here) is not to bring into existence what had no existence before, but " to cut, to cut out, to carve " (Gesenius) ; " to cut, form, fashion " (Fuerst). But this objection, though plausible to a merely superficial view, is really of very little force. Usage, not etymological relation, gives law to language. The etymological, pri mary sense of barak, the common Hebrew word for bless, is to break ; then to bend as the knee, to kneel and to cause one to kneel; and then, perhaps from the custom of kneeling to receive the patriarchal benediction, or to implore blessings from God, comes the ultimate and by far the most common significance — to bless. Usage in every case must determine the most common and there fore most probable sense; then the context and the known opinions of the writer come in to aid toward the true sense in any given instance. In the Hebrew verb regard must be had to its form, technically called its " conjugation," since the sense of , the several conjugations from the same root may vary widely. In this verb (bara) the sense of Hiphil conju gation is to fatten — which is very remote from the sens'e of "Kal" and of its passive "Niphal." In Piel only do we find the etymological sense to cut, to carve out (five times only) and these spoken of human opera tions exclusively (Josh. 17 : 15, 18 and Ezek. 23 : 47 and 21: 19). But in Kal and its passive Niphal, we find the word used forty-eight times, and always of divine operations— always of some form of creative work wrought by God himself and never by man.f t The following synoptical view of the passages in which sna or Nina occurs is given in the Bibliotheca Sacra (Oct. 1856, pp 763, 764) by Prof. E. P. Barrows. "It is used, I. Of the original creation: 1. Of the world generally, or parts of it : Gen. 1 : 1 and 1 : 21 and 2 : 3, 4 and Ps. 89 : 12 and 148 : 5 and Isa. 40 : 26 and 40 : 28 and 42 : 5 and 45 : 18 (twice), Amos 4:13. Also Isa. 45: 7 (twice); making fourteen times in all. 2. Of rational man : Gen. 1 : 27 (thrice) and 5:1,2 (twice) and 6 : 7 and Deut. 4 : 32 and Isa. 45 : 12 and Eccl. 12 : 1 and Mai. 2 : 10. Here also we may conveniently place Ps. 89 : 47 ; twelve times. II. Of a subsequent creation: 1. Of the successive generations of men, Ps. 102 : 18 and of animal beings, Ps. 104 : 30. 2. Of nations CREATION : SENSE OF " CREATE " IN GEN. 1:1. 29 The testimony therefore from usage is entirely con clusive to the point that this word in this form of it was specially appropriated to signify God's creative acts — the exertion of his creative power. There are two other Hebrew words having the sense to make, to form, [asah and yatsar], which are sometimes used of God as creating but by far most often of man's work in forming and molding material things. Now note the argument. The Hebrews had these three Mrords for making, out of which one only is used exclusively of God — never of man — as a maker. Now there is one special sense in which God can make and man can not, viz. that of bringing into existence what had no existence before. Over against this, place the fact that their word "bara" is used of God's making forty-eight times and of man's making never, and we must conclude that they ex pressed by this word that distinctive power of God which man never can even approach — viz. the power to give existence to matter, to mind and to life. In passages where this sense of " bara " is appropriate, there can be no question that it is the real meaning. 5. The relation of v. 1 to v. 2 and to the rest of the chapter. Some have maintained that v. 1 is only a statement in general terms of the contents of the chapter, a head ing, stating no particular fact distinct from what fol lows. Others take it to be one fact in the series — the first step in the process of the creative work — the suc cessive steps then following in due order. This latter construction I accept ; and urge in its support, (1.) That this is the most obvious sense of the words. The word "And" (v. 2) uAnd the earth was without # under the figure of individuals, Ezek. 21 : 35 (Eng. version v. 30) and 28 : 13, 15 ; three times in Ezekiel only. 3. Of particular men as the instruments of God's purposes ; Isa. 54 : 16 (twice). 4. Of miraculous events ; Ex. 34 : 10 and Num. 16 : 30 and Jer. 31 : 22. 5. Of events foretold in prophecy ; Isa. 48 : 7. III. Of creation in a moral sense : 1. Of a clean heart and holy af fections and actions ; Ps. 51 : 10 and Isa. 45 : 8 and 57 : 19. 2. Of Israel as God's covenant people, or of a member of Israel ; iRa. 43 : 1, 7, 15. 3. Of a new and glorious order of things for Israel and in Israel ; Isa. 4 : 5 and 41 : 20 and 65 : 17, 18 (twice). An examination of these passages (half of which relate to the original creation) will show that in every instance the idea is that of bringing into being by divine power. Whether that which is created is new matter, or something else that is new, must be deter mined by the context." 30 creation: relation of v. 1 to what follows. form," etc., must be taken as continuing the subject — not as commencing it. It should give us another and suc ceeding fact, and not be taken to begin a detailed history. (2.) This is the natural order of the facts. _ First, matter must be 'brought into existence. Nothing can be done with it, nothing can be said about it, until it is. The first verse therefore is the natural beginning of the narrative — the first fact to be stated. The second verse gives naturally the next fact, viz. the condition of this matter immediately prior to the six days' creative work upon it. Deferring the little he has to say upon the " heavens," he calls our attention to the earth as being of chief interest to man, and makes this the main theme of the chapter. An observer would have seen the earth mantled in darkness, its atmosphere laden with murky vapors and dense mists ; the surface (if indeed the waters below could be distinguished from the waters above) one wide waste of waters, all formless, vast, dis mal ; with nothing of order or beauty on which the eye could rest. Above and upon this shapeless mass the Spirit of God was hovering, or shall we say incubating, for such may be the figure involved in the Hebrew verb. Moreover it seems to be implied that this action of the creative Spirit was protracted. The Hebrew participle (used here) expresses continued action — was brooding over, incubating, this wild, waste, desolate mass. Some scientific men suppose they find in this second verse, not water, but the gaseous matter which ulti mately became water and solid earth. This construc tion originates in a theory in regard to the primal form in which the matter of our world came from the Crea tor's hand, which theory may or may not be true, but if true is too remote from the common mind and too foreign from the scope of divine revelation to allow us to suppose that God would refer to it in his revelation. Carrying out this scientific theory, some have held* that not only the " waters " of v. 2 but those of vs. 6, 7, were gases, not waters. The fatal objections to this theory are — that these "waters" are the same which in vs. 9, 10, are " gathered into one place " and " called seas;" also that the common people for several thousand * See Bib. Sacra, April, 1855, pp. 325, 326. creation : work of fourth day. 31 years could not have understood Moses if he had spoken of gases— certainly could not have understood their common word for waters to mean gases. It is not well to strain and force this simple narrative to speak so scientifically as to be unintelligible to those for whom it was primarily written. The first state of created matter may have been gaseous. The record in Gene sis has said nothing to forbid this. It certainly could not come within its province to teach it. Suffice it that time enough may be found between verses 1 and 2 for a portion of this gaseous matter to form water — not to say also to form the more solid portions of this globe. The connection of v. 2 with v. 1 is such that an in definitely long period may have intervened. The first verb of v. 2 implies no close connection with v. 1. But in v. 3 the form of the first verb — " And then God said" — does make a close historical connection with v. 2. 6. The work of the fourth day. Were the light-bear ers ("lights" in the sense of luminaries) in the heav ens, viz. the sun, moon, and stars also, " made," created, on this day, or simply brought forth to the view of a supposed observer upon the earth? The latter theory that they were not first brought into being then, but only brought into view from the earth — seems to me most probable, because — (1.) To suppose them created then would be out of all proportion for one day's work among the six. Throughout the other five days' work a beautiful proportion obtains : it should therefore be expected in this. If it be said that this consideration draws its great strength from our astronomical knowl edge of those heavenly bodies — much more enlarged than those of the age of Moses, I answer (a.) Moses, "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," was not altogether a novice in astronomy — (b.) Modern astron omy is essentially true, not overrating the relative magnitude of the heavenly bodies ; and this record in Genesis comes from one who knew all the truth. (2.) If these verses be understood to speak of their orig inal creation, it would seem to be out of place here be tween the creation of vegetables (third day) and of the earliest born animals (the fifth). But in the sense of bringing these heavenly bodies to view and the sun 32 creation. into its normal action upon vegetables and upon ani mal comfort, it is precisely in place. (3.) According to the interpretation given to v._ 1 (above) the matter composing these heavenly bodies was brought into existence " in the beginning " when "God created the heavens" as well as "the earth" and before the six days' work began. If so, then the inter vening processes of modification must naturally have been going on from that time until this fourth day. (4.) Some expositors and scientists account for the light on the first day without the sun by means of elec tricity or other chemical agents ; but it is scarcely pos sible that Moses and his first readers could have thought of any thing but the sun as the source of that light, es pecially because " God called it Day," and the darkness alternating with it then (as ever since the earth began its diurnal revolutions) " he called Night." This refer ence to day and night must naturally carry every He brew mind to the sun as the source of that light and to its well-known withdrawal at evening as the reason for the darkness and the night. It need not be sup posed that the body of the sun was then visible. The state of the atmosphere might have admitted a portion of his light and yet not have disclosed his face. In our times we have seen cloudy, dark days, with no sun vis ible, yet with a manifest distinction between day and night. 7. The true sense of the record as to the origin (1) of vegetable life (vs. 11, 12), and (2) of animal life (vs. 20, 21, 24, 25.) The important words are, " Let the earth bring forth grass " (v. 11); " and the earth brought forth grass" (v. 12). "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature," etc. (v. 20); "and God created every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly" (v. 21). "Let the earth bring forth the living creature" (v. 24); "and God made the beast of the earth," etc. (v. 25). Here note that the historical statements give tlie true sense of the imperatives, and show plainly that the earth and the waters are not creative but only sustaining powers, and that they bring forth and sustain only under the fiat of the Almighty — only when and as God said, Do it. For the whole tenor of these chapters (Gen. 1 and 2) pre sents to us God himself as sole and supreme Creator. ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. 33 In the closest connection with the earth's bringing forth the living creature, we are told that God made the beast of the field. Though the waters brought forth abun dantly, yet it was still God himself who created " every living creature that moveth." The agency of the earth in producing grass is presented in a popular way — the precise, fundamental thought being, that God made the earth his instrument in bringing forth all things that grow ; and in like manner in sustaining animal life. If we will, we are at liberty to push our queries and ask not only who gave life, vegetable and animal, but how? In just what way did he impart that something — be it quality or power or substance — which we call life? and deeper still — What is life? Is it some subtle form of matter, or only some indefinable force given to mat ter; and if this be it, To what special form of matter is it given ? If it be matter, did God sow the tiny germs thereof in the waters and on the land and leave them to be developed under auspicious circumstances? Or did he breathe forth from his own infinite life these life-forces into material things to make plants or ani mals? And yet again; What was the status of that lump of dead matter (small or great) at the point when God put into it the life-force and it became living mat ter, vegetable or animal? Was the first form of the living animal the egg, or its microscopic cell ; or was it the fully developed animal, prepared for all life's func tions, and ready to furnish other life-bearing cells for reproduction ? On these points what says the record ? Not much at the utmost. It does seem to assume that Adam began existence, not an infant in the normally helpless condition of human birth, but with fully de veloped powers. Beyond this we look in vain to the record for light. We only know that the life-force — that subtle entity which always eludes the most vig ilant search — which distances all the strides of scien tific scrutiny — which mocks at chemical analysis and never comes to our call ; — this life-force we simply know is from God himself and from God alone. The original gift of it is his prerogative and the secret thereof is for evermore with him. 8. In the passage— "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness " (v. 26) there are two special points to be considered : — (a.) In what sense is man made 34 CREATION. in the image of God? (b.) The explanation of the plural pronouns, " us " and "our " — " Let us make man in our image." (a.) Inasmuch as God is a spirit and never to be thought of as having a corporeal nature — material, tan gible to our bodily senses, we are at once shut off from all reference to man's physical, corporeal nature and shut up to his spiritual nature to find in it the points of this resemblance. Consequently man is made in God's image as being gifted like his Maker with intel ligence and with capacities for moral action — beyond comparison the noblest possible elements of being. He has the sense of moral obligation and the voluntary powers requisite to fulfill such obligation. He can find his supreme joy in voluntarily seeking the good of oth ers, even of all other sentient beings, and in laboring even to the extent of self-sacrifice to promote their wel fare. This is the pre-eminent perfection of God — the very point ultimately in which man is made in his image, and capable of becoming more and more God like, forever approximating toward his holiness and blessedness. His intellectual powers are only the servants of these highest and noblest activities of his being.— — (b.) The use of the plural pronouns — " Let us make, in our image" — has been accounted for vari ously. Some would make this plural intensive, cor responding to the emphatic plural in Hebrew nouns. But there seems to be no real analogy in the two cases. -Some make it the plural of dignity (" pluralis excellentiae "), as an oriental monarch puts forth his edict, saying " we," not I. But the great simplicity of this whole narrative goes against this explanation. Moreover, this usage, so far as it appears in literature, sacred or profane, is later by many ages than Moses. Besides, there is no apparent reason why God should assume more dignity in saying — " Let us make man," than in saying, Let us make light, or the sun in the heavens. Indeed, the form of the divine behest — " Let there be light," seems to our ideas the more sublime and the more expressive of God's supreme dignity. I see no explanation of this plural that is at all satis factory save that which assumes a reference to the per sons of the Trinity. As one reason for such reference it may be suggested as certainly not improbable— that MAN MADE IN GOD's IMAGE. 35 the idea of man, God's chief work in creation, was coupled with his future history (all present to the di vine mind) — as fallen, yet also as redeemed, and specially as redeemed by means of the incarnation of the Son of God in human flesh. Supposing this incarnation present to the divine thought, the significance of this plural would be — Let us proceed to make in our own image this won derful being whose nature the eternal Son shall one day assume — this man who is to bear relations to us so extraordinary, so wonderful before the angels, so signal before all created minds, so glorious in its results to the whole moral universe ! Have not we — Father, Son and Holy Ghost — a most surpassing interest in the creation of this being, man ! 9. The relation of Gen. 2 : 4-25 to Gen. 1. Here are two points of some importance to be consid ered. (1.) Are the two passages by the same author? (2.) Do they both speak of the creation of the same first man, i. e. the same Adam, or is the Adam of Gen. 2 another and different first man, brought into being long subsequent to him of Gen. 1 : 26-28 ? (1.) That the two passages are from different authors has been maintained on the following grounds. (a.) That v. 4 — " These are the generations * of the heavens and the earth " — appears like the heading of a new and distinct portion of history. But nothing forbids that it should be the heading of a new section or chapter of the same continuous history by the same author, resuming his subject with only a very compre hensive allusion to the great facts of creation which he had given in chap. 1, as fully as his plan required. This done he may proceed to a more full account of the creation of man and the events of his early history. (b.) That the account here differs somewhat from that in Gen. 1, e. g. as to the creation of man, and yet more especially, the creation of woman. But these differences are not discrepances and are fully accounted for by the scope and design of this portion, viz. to give the history of the first man and woman in much more *The word, "generations," obtains the secondary sense of family history and then the sense of history in general, from the fact that the earliest written historical records were so largely made up of genealogies— the records of human generations. 36 CREATION : RELATION OF GEN. 2 TO GEN. 1. detail. (c.) But especially this diversity of authors has been argued from the different names of God which appear in these two passages. In chap. 1 and 2: 1-3, the name is simply and exclusively God (Elohim). In chap. 2 : 4-25 and in chap. 3, the name is " the Lord God" (Jehovah Elohim). This difference is indeed a palpable fact, and has been the theme of an indefinite amount of critical speculation based for the most part on the utterly groundless assumption that the same author can not be supposed to have used both these names for God. Those critics (mostly German) who have flooded their literature with disquisitions on this subject assume in the outset that none but a " Jehovist " ever used the name Jehovah, and none but an " Elo- hist," the name Elohim, it being in their view im possible or at least absurd that the same author should use sometimes one of these names and sometimes the other — which assumption seems to me supremely arbi trary, irrational, and uncritical. Authors now use at their option the various names for God, either for the mere sake of variety, or because in some connections one seems more euphonious or more significant than another. Why may not an equal license of choice be accorded to Hebrew writers ? It is unquestionable that the same Hebrew author does use both of these names for God. They made far more account than we of the various senses of the several names for the Deity. The names Jehovah and Elohim, were not precisely iden tical in their suggested ideas, although both are legiti mately used of the one true God. Elohim suggests that he is the Exalted, Eternal One, the Infinite Creator of all. This name is therefore specially appropriate in chap. 1. " Jehovah " conceives of him as the Immu table and ever faithful One, coming into covenant rela tion with his people as the Maker and the Fulfiller of promise. (See remarks on this as God's memorial name in my Notes on Hos. 12 : 5). Hence as the narrative in Gen. 2 and 3 brings God before the mind in these special relations to the first human pair and to the race, this name is here specially appropriate. But lest some might suppose that this Jehovah is thought of as an other God than the Elohim of chap. 1 — the writer uses both names — the Elohim who is also Jehovah to his CREATION : RELATION OF GEN. 2 TO GEN. 1. 37 rational creature man and especially to all his obedient trustful people. (2.) That Gen. 2: 7 relates to the creation of the same first man as Gen. 1 : 26-28, and not of another man ages later, seems to me to admit of no rational doubt. The inducements to make out two distinct creations, i. e. of two different first men, come from the supposed proof of the existence of man on the earth ages before the Adam of antediluvian history. I propose to treat below this question of the antiquity of man. Let it suf fice here to say that we must not mutilate the record or disregard the laws of philology for the sake of making the sacred narrative conform to theories which are yet rather assumptions than scientifically proven facts. As to the correspondences and variations in the two narratives of the creation of man, the first makes prom inent his being created in the image of God : the sec ond assumes this in the fact that God gave him law in Eden ; in the knowledge of the lower animals which his naming them assumes ; in the superior dignity which the Lord's bringing them before him for names implies ; and in the fact that among them all no help meet for him could be found. His nature ranked far above theirs. The earlier narrative says briefly that God " created them male and female." The later one expands this fact much more fully and makes it the foundation for the law of marriage. The later record treats with the utmost brevity the main part of the six days' work and must have been written with the pre vious record before the mind, to be a supplementary and continuative history, designed to bring out prominently the creation of woman and the scenes of the garden, its moral trial and ultimately its results. The supposi tion of a different Adam from that of the former record could never have occurred to the Hebrew mind, and therefore can not be accepted as the sense of the pas sage. 10. Invariability of " kind " in the vegetable and animal kingdoms. The record in Genesis sets forth that God created grass, herb, and then fruit tree; "each after his kind;" also reptiles, fish, fowl and land-animals, each " after his kind;" and finally man "in the image of God." Over against this the modern theory which bears the 38 CREATION : DARWIN'S THEORY. name of Darwin holds that all the animals of our globe "have descended from at most only four or five pro genitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number ; " * and moreover, that man has in this respect no pre-em inence above the beasts, but has descended in the same line with them from some one of the four or five pro genitors of the great animal kingdom. More still he says in the same connection — " Analogy would lead me one step further, viz. to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype." These four or five progenitors of the whole animal king dom correspond substantially with what Webster calls the five sub-kingdoms, viz. Vertebrates, Articulates, Mollusks, Radiates, and Protozoans. The technical classification under these sub-kingdoms into Classes, Orders, Families, Genera, and Species becomes of little or no account in any discussion of Darwin's system, for his theory of " descent with modifications " is reckless of all these lines of demarkation, traveling over and through them all without finding the least obstruction. Let it be distinctly understood therefore that though Mr. Darwin makes frequent use of the word " species," and entitles one of his volumes — " The Origin of Species," yet his theory takes a far wider range than the question whether "species are variable." In his view not only are species variable, intermixing at will and passing from one into another, but genera also and families and orders and classes — not to say also each of the great sub-kingdoms of the animal world ; f even the distinc tion between animals and vegetables fades away under his analogical argument. Hence the issue between Dar win and Moses is relieved of whatever uncertainty hangs * Darwin's Origin of Species, p. 420. t " The Quadrumana and all the higher mammals are probably de rived from an ancient marsupial animal, and this, through a long line of diversified forms, either from some reptile-like or some am phibian-like creature, and this again from some fish-like animal. In the dim obscurity of the past we can see that the early progeni tor of all the vertebrata? must have been an aquatic animal, pro vided with branchiae [gills] with the two sexes united in the same individual, and with the most important organs of the body (such as the brain and the heart) imperfectly developed. This animal seems to have been more like the larvae of our existing marine As- cidians than any other known form." Darwin's Descent of Man vol. 2, 372. ' creation: darwin's theory. 39 over the dividing line between species and varieties, and may fitly be limited to these two points; the in variability of "kind" in the sense of Moses in Genesis; and the distinct origination of man. Under Mr. Darwin's system " community of descent " and not " some unknown plan of creation " is " the hid den bond " which unites together all living existences of our globe. " Looking to some unknown plan of crea tion " (in his own words) has prevented the truly scien tific classification and history of the forms of life in our world. The Bible has stood in the way of the growth of science. Under his system the changes by natural descent from any given parent to its offspring, taken individually, have been exceedingly small. Hence the theory requires an indefinitely long time from the point of the original creation of the four or five primordial forms to the present status of living things, vegetable and animal, in our world. The above remarks will suffice for a very general introduction to Mr. Darwin's system. Wishing to bring this discussion within the narrow est possible limits and yet do justice to Darwin, to Gen esis, and to the truth, I propose to state briefly his main arguments ; then comprehensively my rejoinder to them severally in their order, and then subjoin some general considerations bearing upon his entire theory. 1. Darwin holds that by natural law the offspring vary, though slightly, from the parent, and hence, that, given an indefinitely long time, he has any desired amount of variation. 2. When animals multiply beyond the means of sub sistence, there ensues a struggle for life in which the strongest and most favored in circumstances are the victors and survive. This law which he calls "Nat ural Selection " (or " the survival of the fittest ") works a gradual improvement in the race. A twin argument with this comes from "sexual selection," the amount of which is that in the case of some at least of the ani mal races, there arises a struggle among the males for the possession of the females, in which struggle the most attractive in beauty or in song, or the champions in fight, being the victors, perpetuate the race and thus improve it. This law of the animal races (" sexual se lection ") works precisely in the same line with the law 40 creation: darwin's theory. called " natural selection." It may serve therefore to provide a little more of the same thing, but no new or different product whatever. Hence it does not seem to call for a distinct refutation. 3. Homologous anatomical structure is found to ob tain very extensively among widely diverse races, e._ g. in the arm of man, the fore-leg of the monkey and in deed of all quadrupeds, in the wing of the bird and the fin of the fish. This indicates a common parentage. 4. Some animals which, fully grown, differ from each other widely, are scarcely distinguishable in the em bryo. Hence he infers their common origin. 5. The fact of rudimentary organs is assumed to be historic, proving that some ancient progenitor used them, and that they have gradually passed out of use. This is held to prove that great changes of structure come of genealogical descent. BRIEF REPLIES. 1. To Darwin's first law, viz. that the offspring al ways vary though slightly from the parent, and there fore, given indefinite time, he has any desired amount of variation, I reply that this law of variation becomes practically worthless for his theory, because these vari ations from parent to offspring run in all conceivable directions and not in the one definite direction required for his purpose, i. e. toward a higher grade of perfection, or [which his argument requires] toward a new form of animal life. For example, there is always some change in the human countenance from parent to child. Yet who does not know that those changes run in every possible direction and not in one uniform line of prog ress or advance, as from monkey toward man and from man toward angel ? For another example we may take the shape of the skull and of the brain — evermore dif fering slightly from parent to offspring yet not by any means on one given line. The skulls of Egyptian mummies entombed three thousand years ago do not differ appreciably from those of the Copts (their lineal descend ants) of to-day, i. e. are no more pithecoid — ape-like. On Darwin's theory three thousand years backward ought surely to approximate toward the ape ; otherwise these variations are fruitless. This law of successive genealogical changes amounts to nothing for his argu- CREATION: DARWIN'S THEORY. 41 ment unless the changes consent to come into line so that their results shall actually accumulate with the lapse of ages. The fatal lack in the argument is — no husbandry of these infinitesimal changes — not the least perceiva ble accumulation. A second branch of my reply suggests that Mr. Dar win misinterprets this law of nature, viz. perpetual vari ation from parent to offspring. It is doubtless a law, but Darwin has quite missed its divinely ordained pur pose — which is to indicate the relationship between parent and child on the one hand, and yet maintain individual identity on the other. The resemblances answer the former purpose ; the differences, the latter. Beings constituted to Dear personal responsibilities so momentous as those of man must be so organized that every one can identify his own individuality, lest one man be hung for some other man's crime. 2. His second argument comes from the law of " nat ural selection" — "the survival of the fittest" — with which it is convenient to couple the precisely similar law of " sexual selection " — the ascendency of the smart est over their inferiors, to perpetuate the race. Here a specific case will suffice both to illustrate and to refute. The principle of "natural selection" has a fair' chance for itself in the spawn of the shad. It is no doubt true that none but the smartest out of the many thousand spawned at once survive so as to become parents in their turn. Yet who believes that these smartest shad are becoming sturgeon or sharks or whales by this law of progress? Are they actually found to be any thing but shad after never so many hundred generations? It may seem superfluous to push the still more pertinent question — Are these smartest and most ambitious shad really found to be working up out of their watery element, i. e. working up into ducks or geese, or into blackbirds and crows ? For just this is Mr. Darwin's theory — the line of ascent running up from fish to fowl ; from fowl to mammal and so on up to man. The questions here suggested are therefore only-the fair and scientific test and touchstone of his argument. A law which has not made its re sults even perceptible since the birth of the first shad known to human history must be regarded as scien tifically worthless. 42 creation: darwin's theory. My second remark here is that Darwin errs not in finding these to be laws of nature — " natural selection," " sexual selection " — but in interpreting them, i. e. in detecting their divinely ordained design and their actual working and product. I suggest that these laws, appar ently made for the improvement of races, may be req uisite to enable them to hold their own against the ever present tendency to degeneracy. Life is a perpet ual struggle against death. The life-principle finds an antagonist force in chemical law which is evermore hurrying organized matter back to its inorganic state. Still further, be it considered, races excessively prolific would rapidly lose vitality but for these laws of natural and sexual selection. We may therefore rationally as sume that these laws are simply forms of the general principle of self-preservation, and not a purposed provision for lifting a lower race up to the plane of a higher. 3. As to homologous anatomical structure, e. g. of the arm, fore-leg, wing, fin, paddle — there are abundant reasons for its existence aside from the assumption of Darwin that it proves a common ancestry for man, monkey, calf, bull-dog, eagle, toad and whale. The ball and socket joint at man's shoulder is the perfect thing for use. Equally so is the same kind of joint for the fore-leg of a horse, the wing of an eagle or the fin of a fish. God made the anatomy of man's arm perfect. What forbids that he should make an equally perfect machinery for the motions and various uses of other an imals? The reason of this uniformly perfect ma chinery is found in the wisdom and benevolence of the Great Maker, and proves nothing in favor of a common descent from some one parent, i. e. it proves nothing unless you may assume that God could not have made two kinds of animals with homologous anatomical structures — two kinds, each with machinery perfect for its purposes. 4. As to the similar appearance of the embryo in very dissimilar races, there may be differences in the embryo which no microscope and no human test have yet discovered. The force of this argument seems to me to come rather from ignorance than from knowledge. 5. As to rudimentary organs, their history is very obscure and their design also. I suggest that Mr. Dar win begin with the history and the reason for the ru- creation : darwin's theory. 43 dimentary organs which appear on the bosom of the male in the species man. When he shall have mas tered this problem — the history and the reason — we can afford to consider his argument therefrom in proof that man has a common ancestry with whatsoever other an imal he may find having this male organ, not rudi mentary but in fufl activity. Probably he will prove that man must have come down by descent from that class of animals which economically combine the two sexes in one and the same individual ! Some objections of a more general bearing upon Darwin's scheme. 1. His system requires indefinite, almost infinite, ages of time back of the Silurian strata, i. e. back of the oldest known remains of life, vegetable or animal, on our globe.* That is, he requires for the development of his system an almost infinite extension of time back beyond the earliest traces or proofs of life, vegetable or animal, on our globe. And this, he would have men believe, is the perfection of modern Science ! — a science which pushes its sphere in time back indefinitely be yond all known facts upon the bare evidence of the ories and assumed analogies! But even this gives not the full force of the objection made by true Science to his system. It is not merely that he builds upon as sumed facts where no known facts are — which is build ing upon nothing — but where no facts can be, which is building not merely upon negatives but upon impossi bilities. There is no room for his assumed facts where he locates them. If Geology proves any thing it proves that vegetable and animal life commenced on our planet as soon as the planet was ready and not sooner, and that we have the remains of the earliest living organisms in the oldest fossil-bearing rocks. His scheme is therefore conditioned upon impossibilities and must be false. 2. His system requires a close succession of animal races, differing from parent to offspring by only the * " If my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods must have elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day ; and that, during these vast yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures." Darwin's Origin of Species, p. 269. 44 creation: darwin's theory. least possible amount, with no leaps, no gaps whatever. Thus from monkey up to man the system calls for at least a few scores not to say hundreds of intermediate links. Where are they? His suffering theory cries out for their support : there is no answer. The earth's surface responds not to the call; even "the depths say — They are not in me ! " From the original monad up to man all the way through at least the long line of the vertebrates — reptile, fish, bird, mammal — that is to say, through the serpent tribe ; the fish kingdom ; the swallow, blackbird and eagle, and especially through the quadruped family — the horse and camel and partic ularly the monkey household — through all this remark able line of ancestry, Darwin's system demands a very gradual upward march by the shortest possible stages of progress, so that the intermediate links must be barely less than infinite. It certainly ought to be very easy to trace a genealogical line so well represented. It is estimated that thirty thousand fossil species have been recognized. How many of these can be formed into this genealogical line from the aboriginal verte brate — supposed to be aquatic and Ascidian — up to man? Has Mr. Darwin set himself to marshal this proof-line of witnesses to his system ? No. Not only has he not done this very appropriate thing, but he has said little, quite too little on this most vital point, in the way of showing what could be done. He reiterates that the geological records are very imperfect. Doubt less they quite fail to come up to meet the demands of his system. It is the fatal weakness of his theory that just where it should find facts in animal history for its support, they are not there ! He himself admits that if you believe in a tolerably full showing of animal his tory in the geological records of our globe, you must disbelieve his system* He needs quite another geo logical record for his proofs. * These are his words — " Why then is not every geological forma tion and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain ; and this perhaps is the most obyious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies as I believe in the extreme imperfection of the geological records." And again — "He who rejects these views on the nature [i. e. the de fects] of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory. creation: darwin's theory. 45 3. His argument is essentially materialistic. In his reasonings and assumptions, all there is of mind in man or any animal is of the brain and the nervous or ganism. All animals have wants and are moved by a sense of want to supply them. This begets self-orig inated activity, and this activity involves thought — yet only as a function of the material brain. Most of the animals are social by nature : hence another mem ber in this family of wants and enjoyments, begetting another class of impulses and activities. But whether it be man or monkey, dog or kitten, these activities and these plans and thoughts underlying them, come of the nervous organism, of which the brain is the center. On his theory and in his words (Origin of Species, pp. 93, 94) "the moral sense is fundamentally identical with the social instinct." Hence it becomes the burden of his argument that the brain in man and in monkey is homologous — almost perfectly the same in shape, in quality, and in its bony incasement. He seems to be quite unaware that there may be something in the hu man brain that a twelve-inch rule will not measure, nor the nicest made scales weigh, nor the sharpest chemical tests discern. It seems never to have occurred to him that even if the brain of man and of monkey weighed in the same notch, fitted into the same cast, responded alike to the same chemical tests (which, however, is a good way from being the case), yet there might be material qualities in the human brain too subtle and ethereal to be appreciable under any known physical test; and much more still might be a spirit inhabiting the human brain and working through it which the monkey has not. " That the breath of the Almighty hath given to man understanding " is a fact higher than the range of Darwin's philosophy. The prima* facie probability thence arising that God would fit up a special material organism for the one only mind made in his own image seems to have entirely escaped Mr. Darwin's notice. The record by Moses on For he may ask in vain: Where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species found in the several stages of the great forma tions? He may ask, Where are the remains of those numerous or ganisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited ? " Origin of Species, pp. 246, 299. 46this point — that God created man by a special act, en tirely independent of all other forms of life, vegetable or animal, commends itself to the good sense of most men as more than probable, as indeed supremely ra tional and unquestionably true. 4. It is but a natural result of his materialistic sys tem that he should have no adequate conception of the pre-eminent glory of man's intellectual and moral nature. With great ingenuity he labors to make it appear that Tray feels shame and guilt and even the moral sense of oughtness — all the same in kind with those of man. He does not say in definite words that the best devel oped dog is capable of knowing his divine Creator and of rendering to Him the obedience, love, and homage of an adoring heart — is capable of becoming consciously a trustful child of God and a temple of the Holy Ghost. He does not quite say this ; indeed he does not seem to appreciate these exalted functions of a soul made in God's image, or to think them worthy of par ticular notice. It is a capital fault in his reasoning that he ignores almost entirely these highest, noblest activities of man's nature. Thus ignoring these most vital points which lift man so high above all the lower animals, how can it be expected that his reasoning upon the material relations of man and beast should be otherwise than lame and fallacious ? 5. Scientifically it is a sufficient condemnation of this system that it is compelled to fritter away the funda mental law of species which God fixed, not upon its surface but deep in its nature, viz. that hybrids shall be infertile — incapable of propagation. The crossing and consequent interblending of distinct species, gen era, families, and orders, if by their nature possible, would long ages ago have thrown the animal world into inextricable confusion, effacing every line of distinction. Such a result must have been simply fatal to all scien tific classification. If Mr. Darwin's theories had been taken as the divine plan, the world would have had more grades and orders of animal life than there have been days since the first monad came into being. 6. The scheme is in many points revolting to the common sense and sober convictions of men. Some of its assumptions lie close upon the border of the ridicu lous. Think of the stride upward from vegetable life creation: darwin's theory. 47 to animal— the plant pulling its roots out from the soil and beginning to use them for legs ! And of the very analogous aspirations and endeavors of the fish to live out of water — to push out his fins into wings ; convert his superabundant fat into muscle ; expand his lungs and soar off in mid-heaven — the very eagle himself! The effort to tone down these absurdities within the limits of sober sense by simply taking it little by little, spreading the change over a few thousands or millions of years and subdividing the work among a vast num ber of generations may help to confuse some minds and blunt the edge of its absurdity ; but soberly considered, the absurdity is still there. Hence we may note the fact that most writers seem to find themselves quite unable to discuss this theory to any extent without sliding, perhaps unconsciously, from sober argument into ridicule and irony. I am well aware that, to abate if not nullify the force of this apparent absurdity, it will be said that along the actual line between plant life and animal life, the veg etable and animal kingdoms are actually brought closely side by side ; that plant life shades off by almost imper ceptible stages till it comes so near to the lowest forms of animal life that the dividing line is scarcely if at all perceptible. This fact no scientist disputes. The real question turns upon its purposed object or ultimate reason. Is it, as Mr. Darwin's theory assumes, to bridge over this dividing line and facilitate the march of " gen ealogical descent with variations" across what else would be a bad if not an impassable gulf ? This being the claim set up by Mr. Darwin, I answer — (a.) The proper test of this theory is simple : Is there any " march " here at all — i. e. any progressive movement from one form of vegetable life to another, from lower forms to higher, or as this case seems to demand, from higher forms to lower, for along this dividing line we have the lowest known forms of both vegetable life and animal ? Is this army of the lowest vegetable species and of animal life-forms, down in this dark microscopic valley, really on the march, or is it absolutely moveless and fixed? Are the flora on the vegetable side of the line really doffing their plant-life uniform and regalia, and emerging on the other side of the line into fauna to swell the hosts of animal-life forms? This it would 48 creation: darwin's theory. seem must be the test for the proof or disproof of Dar win's theory. (b.) But again, I would reply in this as in other points; Mr. Darwin misses not so much the facts of nature as the ultimate reason of those facts. What is the ultimate reason for the remarkable fact that the plant kingdom crowds itself so closely upon the confines of the animal ? Not, I answer, to facilitate the transit of generations from the one province to the other. Of such transit there is not the first shade of evidence. But the reason is that the Great Author of nature out of his infinite resources has filled both king doms perfectly full of life-forms so that no territory between their respective domains lies unoccupied. It is simply a fecundity of life-forms or species, analogous to the fecundity of living representatives under most of these species — all alike traceable to the infinite resources of the Creator's wisdom and power. 7. Finally, this theory is reckless of the authority of revelation. It makes no effort to reconcile its doctrines with the testimony of the Scriptures. Especially on the great points of the creation of man — as to his body, independent of all other animals ; as to his spirit, made in the very image of God; and as to woman, formed from man — this system stands in absolute antagonism with God's word. It should not surprise us, therefore, that the common sense of mankind (with rare excep tions) revolts from its absurdities. It should not sur prise us that Science— the true Science which builds, not on unsupported assumptions but on ascertained and incontestable facts — should disown these theories and speculations. True Science, here as elsewhere, now and forever, is at one with Revelation ; and these pillars of the great temple of Truth are in not the least danger of being shaken. CHAPTER II. THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN. Under this head several questions arise : 1. Is the human family older than the Adam of Scripture history? 2. How far back really w the date of Adam? i. e. How many years intervened from Adam to the flood and how many to the Christian era? Subsidiary questions are — (a.) Were there one or more races of primeval men pre-Adamic but now extinct ? (b.) Have there been various " head-centers " of the ex isting human family; or only one and that Adam? Or (the same question in another form) are all the living varieties of race lineally descended from Adam and all from Noah? The special interest of these questions will hinge upon their relation to the Scriptures — i. e. their sup posed or real bearing upon the truth of the Scripture history— the friends of the Bible desiring to know whether any well sustained facts exist to affect its credit, or to modify its currently received interpreta tion : and on the other hand, men whose sympa thies are not with the Bible, being inquisitive to see if by any means its authority can be impugned or im paired. It is obvious that this sort of special inter est, for or against the Bible, is liable to affect the can dor and fairness of the investigation on either side. The friends of the Bible, however, have really not the least occasion to fear for its stability. It is indeed pos sible that our interpretation of its chronology may re quire modification — but always and only toward truth. Also we may have erred in supposing the Bible to have taught what it never intended to teach. But the real word of God can have nothing to fear from the advance of human science— that is to say, from the real knowl edge of actual facts. With the utmost composure, therefore, we welcome all candid investigation, subject ing every new theory to appropriate scrutiny, sifting (49) 50 antiquity of man. the evidence on which it rests with no prejudice for or against the conclusions to which it may compel us. 1. The high antiquity claimed for man is fitly the first question in order. Here the evidence comes and of necessity must come (1.) From traces of man upon the crust of the earth, i. e. in the rock-strata, the drift-deposits, or in caves and lake-dwellings, or in monuments of human labor and skill : _ And (2.) from the traditions of the most ancient na tions and the high antiquity of their existence, civili zation, and monuments. Under the first head the traces are either : (A.) Remains of the human skeleton; or (B.) Remains of man's work and of his tools. (A.) As to the remains of the human skeleton. By universal admission these remains are not found in the rocks that bear in abundance the fossil vegeta bles of the third great epoch of creation ; nor in those yet higher strata that contain the oldest forms of an imal life whose home is in the waters; nor is man found with the reptiles, say of the fifth day of creation; nor indeed until we come to deposits of the most recent date, of a kind at least similar to those which are known to be forming within.the historic age of man. From these admitted facts I make this special point, viz. that if man had lived on the earth contemporary with the oldest animal species, we ought to find not merely one skeleton or half a skeleton buried along-side of myriads of fossil sea-shells and fishes, but a fair show of specimens, so many at least as to leave no question as to his being a joint occupant with them of the earth as it then was. One" or two, or even a dozen skeletons, gathered from every explored portion of the earth's surface, are too few for the base of a theory like this because such scattered cases, in number so meager, are always subject, more or less, to abatement from the fol lowing possibilities: (a.) The human family in all ages have buried their dead, and often, during the earlier ages, in rock-hewn sepulchers or in natural caves; (b.) In all ages of the world men have been liable to fall into rock-fissures and ravines and to die there; and to leave their skeletons to become fossil there, particu- REMAINS OF HIS SKELETON. 51 larly in calcareous and similar rocks where decomposi tion or solution in water and new deposits are in progress ; (c.) Men have been wont to frequent caves for shelter, for safety in war or from persecution, and consequently might leave their bones there; or (d.) Their bones may have been dragged into cav erns by flesh-eating animals or borne into strange posi tions by underground currents of water; or again, (e.) Since the historic Adam, drift deposits have in some circumstances been forming under water, in which waters men have been liable to be drowned and their skeletons to become imbedded in those deposits. Changes of elevation may bring such deposits to view. Such possibilities must practically nullify confidence in the proof of man's high antiquity from his bones so long as the specimens are so exceedingly few and even these few found only quite near the surface. This argument will be appreciated by those who duly consider, on the one hand, that if man were on the earth in those pre-Adamic ages, it is in the highest de gree improbable that his population ranged at a dozen for the area of all France, and a few hundreds only to a continent — for what should forbid him as well as the lower animals to "be fruitful and multiply and replen ish the earth"? Besides, a population so sparse and consequently weak could have made no stand against armies of hyenas, leopards, bears and lions. On the other hand, the occurrence of human bones, in num bers so very few and so remote from each other, will be much more rationally accounted for by the possibilities above indicated. Yet let it be understood .-—The way is open for any extent of further investigation. We have no occasion to fear the result of the search. Let the rocks be torn up and examined ;' let mountains be tunneled and ca nals be dug; let railroad grading go where it will; if the human skeleton should be found where none of these or similar possibilities admit its date since Adam, we will certainly give the case all due consideration and weight. (B.) Next is the argument from man's work, and from his tools. 52 ANTIQUITY OF MAN. Here a larger field opens. My limits scarcely allow me to do more than indicate briefly the present state of the question. Thus" far explorations have been mostly restricted to Northern and Western Europe, say north of the Alps and of ancient Greece, in the regions anciently known as Gaul, Germany, Scandinavia and Britain. The supposed remains of man's tools and work are found chiefly in caves and lake-dwellings, or under drift, and only to a small extent in monuments above the present surface. The lake-dwellings specially referred to are in Switzerland, where during the very dry winter of 1853-4 several remarkable villages were found built on piles below the present average water mark, which were once without doubt the abodes of men, with quite abundant traces indicating their modes of life, civilization, implements, and the contemporary animal races.* The various stages of civilization developed in these ancient remains have been usually classified under three heads: 1. The Stone age, in which man's cutting imple ments, working tools and weapons of war, were of stone. This age is sometimes subdivided, the older part being called " Palaeolithic " [old stone], and the more recent, " Neolithic " [new stone]. 2. The Bronze age, its implements being chiefly of copper or brass. 3. The Iron age, where iron first appears. Now the great question — the only one that comes within our range of inquiry — is the date of these traces of ancient men. When did the men of the Stone age and of the Bronze and the Iron age live ? In the outset, it can not be assumed reasonably that this stone-age civilization, apparent in Northern and Western Europe, was necessarily universal at that time over all the earth. It may have been coeval with the very high civilization of Egypt and even of Babylonia, Phe- nicia, Etruria. We must consider that large portions of the world in those early times were unknown to each other, even as interior Africa has been unknown to the civilized world almost to this very hour. It is therefore entirely an open question — Was this stone-age civili- *See Thompson's "Man in Genesis and in Geology," pp. 88-90, and Lyell on the Antiquity of Man, pp. 17-29. ARGUMENT FROM HIS WORKS. 53 zation pre-Adamic ? Was it anterior to Noah ; or shall its place in the ages be found contemporaneous with the early civilized nations of known history ? It is important here to premise yet further that the earth's surface has at no very remote period experienced considerable elevations and depressions and changes of temperature. Especially there are proofs of an extraor dinary period of glaciers and icebergs, by means of which huge bowlders have been transported from their ancient beds and scattered afar, and vast masses of debris, rocks ground down and pulverized, mixed with sand, gravel, and small stones, have been heaped up along the line of the glaciers and spread over their track. It is not easy to conceive the full measure of utility resulting from this great ice-flood and glacier movement, in grinding the surface of the rocky strata and mixing this finely pulverized matter with decom posed vegetable elements to prepare soil for our earth's surface. The opinion is becoming general that man was not placed upon the earth until after this glacial and ice bound age. He could not have lived here then : cer tainly not in portions reached by glacial action and ice floods; the earth was not ready for him till afterwards. No decisive traces of his presence at an earlier period have been found. Such traces appear shortly after. The problem of the time of man's first appearance upon the earth is for the most part one of estimates; and these estimates in the department of geology are com prised, at least chiefly, under these five heads : (1.) The time required for the alluvial deposits under neath which his remains or implements have been found. (2.) The time required for the growth of the peat under which we find man or his works. (3.) The time required for the succession of forest growths since his first appearance. (4.) The age of the animal races, extinct or living, whose remains are found associated with his. (5.) We have next and last another source of testi mony which is mainly free from the uncertainties of estimate, viz. the question of commercial relations be tween the barbarous* stone-age, bronze-age, or iron-age tribes, and the civilized nations of the early historic ages. 54 ANTIQUITY OF MAN. The estimates on these several points demand distinct consideration. (1.) The estimate of the time required for the alluvial deposits along the banks of rivers, has been extremely various. Lyell, having visited the delta of the Missis sippi river in person, estimated its time-period of accu mulation at one hundred thousand years.* But a care ful examination made by gentlemen of the Coast Survey and other United States officers, reduces this time-period to four thousand and four hundred years.f Again, Mr. Lyell estimates that 220,000 years are neces sary to account for changes now going on upon the coast of Sweden. Later geologists reduce the time to one- tenth of that estimate. A piece of pottery was discov ered deeply buried under the deposits at the mouth of the Nile. It was confidently asserted that the deposits could not have been made during the historic period, until it was proved that the article in question was of Roman manufacture.! Such diversities suffice to show at least that somebody has blundered. Some of these high estimates are gratuitously extravagant. All esti mates from the drift deposits, bearing on the antiquity of man, ought in reason to be made with careful refer ence to these two modifying considerations : (a.) That drift deposits may have been, and with the *Lyell's Antiquity of Man, pp. 43 and 204. tSee Eeport upon the Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi River by Capt. A. A. Humphreys and Lieut. H. L. Abbott ; 1861, pp. 435. The following extract will impress the reader as at once definite and reliable. " If it be assumed that the rate of progress has been uniform to the present day — and there are some considerations con nected with the manner in which the river pushes the bar into the gulf each year which tend to establish the correctness of that opin ion — the number of years which have elapsed since the river began to advance into the gulf can be computed. The present rate of prog ress of the mouth may be obtained by a careful comparison of the progress of all the mouths of the river as shown by the maps of Capt. Talbot, United States Engineer, 1838, and of the United States Coast Survey in 1851 — the only maps that admit of such compari son. They give two hundred and sixty-two feet forthe mean yearly advance of all the passes. This mean advance of all the passes represents correctly the advance of the river Adopting this rate of progress (two hundred and sixty-two feet per annum) four thousand four hundred years have elapsed since the river began to advance into the gulf." Bib. Sacra., April, 1873, p. 331. t Hodge's Systematic Theology, vol. 2, p. 33. ARGUMENT FROM HIS WORKS. 55 utmost probability were, much more rapid in the ear lier ages than at present. At the close of the glacial and ice period vast masses of loose matter were ready to be swept rapidly as drift by river freshets. Any farmer may have an illustration "of this if he will plow his side-hill field, running his furrows up and down the hill. He will find that the first powerful shower will bring down far more drift ^than the fortieth. It would be very short-sighted in him to take the drift of the tenth year after the said plowing for his rate of annual deposition and estimate the whole period from this data. But on this mistaken principle some geologists have made their time estimates for the drift simply mon strous. (b.) Human remains and tools may in many ways get far below the surface of the drift. They may have been buried under it after its deposition. While the drift lay under water, (soft and pliable therefore,) flints, arrow-heads, knives, or human bones, may have sunk in the mire. These and similar considerations may demand large abatement from the time-estimates built upon the amount of drift found above the remains of man. We may apply these modifying considerations to the case given by Lyell (Antiquity of Man, pp. 27, 28) of the drift deposits near the Lake of Geneva. Here are five inches in thickness deposited since the Roman period (known by its enclosed memorials) which we safely put at 1800 years. Next below is a strata of six inches depth, marked by bronze implements, which he estimates to reach back from the present time, 3000 to 4000 years. Similarly, the next strata (seven inches) indicated as the Stone age, he counts at 5000 to 7000 years old. But if the depositions were much more rapid in the early than in the later ages of our world, these estimates for the ages of bronze and of stone must be materially shortened, and may reasonably be brought within the historic period of man. (2.) The time required for the formation of peat beds has been usually estimated upon its observed growth and accumulation at the present day. Yet in the case of peat-growth as in the case of drift-deposits, it is at least possible and would seem highly probable that its growth and deposition were much more rapid during 56 ANTIQUITY OF MAN. the earlier ages of our race than at present. The vir gin soil was richer ; the climatic influences may have been more propitious. It should be considered also here (as in the case of drift) that the remains of man and his implements, instead of resting invariably upon the surface of the peat, may by various means have gone down much below the surface. The time of man's presence, therefore, as measured by the time estimated to be necessary for the deposit of the peat found above him, may be quite overestimated. The peat beds of Denmark are put by Lyell (An tiquity of Man, p. 17) at a minimum of 4000 years. In the valley of the Somme (France) they are found 30 feet deep ; and in its upper strata there are Romish and Celtic memorials, showing that its depositions contin ued a considerable time after the historic age of Rome. (3.) The time required for the succession of forest growths since the appearance of man. Geologists find in Denmark, earliest, a growth of Scotch fir ; next, of oak ; last, coming down to the present, of the beech. The age of civilization known as the Stone age synchronizes nearly with the fir; the Bronze age with the oak ; the historic period with iron implements answers to the beech.* Now the problem is — How much time is required for one species of forest growths to run its course and become supplanted by another ? Obviously this problem must depend not on time alone, but on climatic changes. Moreover, one kind of trees may require less time than another to exhaust the soil of the elements specially congenial to its health, vigor and stability. I do not see that any reliable measure of time can be found for estimating the life- period of different species of forest growths. (4.) Attempts have been made to estimate the an tiquity of man from the animal races with which his remains have been found associated. The animals brought into this estimate have been chiefly the mam mals, quadrupeds, most nearly related, by anatomical structure, to man. Great account has been made of the fact that the remains of man (his bones or his tools).. have been found in connection with the remains of land animals now extinct. The uncertain element in all such calculations is the date at which the said animal * See Lyell's Antiquity of Man, pp. 9-11. ARGUMENT FROM HIS WORKS. 57 species became extinct. This is perhaps fully as doubt ful as the age at which man began to live on the earth. So far as is known, some species have disappeared within the present century ; e. g. the Great Auk, or Northern Penguin (alca impennis), last seen alive in 1844. Sev eral species, once quite prominent for their hugeness or other qualities, are supposed to have disappeared within the historic period of man ; e. g. the mammoth, the mastodon, the woolly rhinoceros, the cave-bear, etc. But precisely when they severally became extinct, no existing data suffice to show. Of course it avails little to provethat man was coeval with a few animal races now extinct. (5.) Far more important in my view is the light thrown upon the antiquity of the Bronze and Iron ages of civilization in Northern and Western Europe by the traces of commercial relations between those respective peoples and the civilized nations of the known historic ages. In this case, the elements of uncertainty common to the preceding estimates are mostly if not wholly eliminated. When among the relics of the Bronze age, say in Switzerland or in Denmark, we find art-speci mens, valuable for use or beauty, which manifestly came from Phenicia, Etruria, or Egypt, bearing unmis takably the stamp of their civilization, and specifically, of their art, we need no further proof that the old Bronze age lay in time along-side of the reign of Etrurian or Egyptian art and civilization. On this subject the British Quarterly (Oct., 1872) on "The present Phase of Pre-historic Archeology" discusses the question whether the Bronze civilization in Central and North ern Europe was introduced by an invading people from the East, or by peaceful commerce with the peoples contiguous to the Mediterranean, viz. the Phenicians of Palestine, the Etrurians of Italy, and the Egyptians. The argument is strongly in favor of the latter alterna tive. " The beautiful bronze swords, spear-heads, axes, knives, razors, etc., which lie scattered over Northern and Central Europe are remarkable for the singular beauty of their form and ornamentation "—all bearing so much unity of design as to prove a common origin from the same source. "The double spirals, and dotted circles and spirals and zigzag ornaments which are so common on the bronze articles of France, Germany. 58 ANTIQUITY OF MAN. Britain, Ireland, and Scandinavia are identical with the designs which are found in Etruscan tombs. Some of the bronze swords and spear-heads are also identical; and the peculiar spuds and bronze axes, used by the Etrus cans, are similar to those which are found in Northern Europe." (pp. 247, 248). The limits of my plan for bid a full presentation of this argument. Suffice it to say briefly that very great progress has been made within the last fifty years toward disentombing the pre-historical ages of Central and Northern Europe, and bringing out their relation to the early historic civili zation of Egypt, Phenicia, and Etruria. The results thus far seem to identify the oldest race of man as known by his remains (i. e. they of the earlier Stone age) with the Esquimaux of Lapland ; the men of the later Stone age, with the Iberian or Basque people of Spain; after whom were the Celts and the Belgse who were on the field at the period where Roman history touches Britain and Gaul. How far back in time those Esquimau tribes lie, it seems yet impossible to de termine; but the next wave of population — they of the later Stone age — falls far within the period of scripture chronology — not necessarily older than the Phenicians, Assyrians, and Egyptians. Inasmuch as Phenician art and commerce were in their glory during the reigns of David and Solomon, we may at least pro vide a considerable interval of time for the Esquimau tribes of the older Stone age before we encounter the deluge of Noah, and much more still, before we come up to Adam. It is a fact of no trifling importance that the oldest race detected by the explorers of the earth's crust can be so clearly identified with the Esquimaux now occupying the highest northern latitudes inhab ited by man. More abundant still are the proofs which bring the Bronze and Iron ages of Northern Europe within what were the historic times of the nations on the borders of the Mediterranean. The estimates made by some geologists and antiquarians which carry the later Stone, the Bronze, and the Iron peoples back into the mighty Past anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 years seem to me extremely fanciful and unscientific. Thorough investi gation into all the facts bearing on the case coupled with sober estimates of the time which they indicate, VERY ANCIENT TRADITIONS. 59 will _ at no distant day bring this problem of the an tiquity of man to a satisfactory solution. It does not become us to fear any revelations which come legiti mately from well ascertained facts. Another argument for the high antiquity of man has been drawn from the traditions of the most ancient nations — China and India ; also from the great population, the early civilization, and the art-monuments of Egypt. On the point of the traditions and chronologies of the ancient nations of the East, the first problem is to as certain what they are and what they claim. If they run up their figures (as sometimes said) to 20,000 years, the extravagance of the claim vitiates its credibility.* We put it to the account of fancy and fiction, or of national pride, and rule it out from the realm of historic science. But if as estimated by Bailly (Kitto; Chronol ogy, p. 434) the years from the Christian era back to the creation are put in Chinese chronology at 6157 ; in the Babylonian, at 6158 ; and in the Indian (by Gentil) at 6174, we give these chronologies our respectful at tention. The fact that the extreme difference in these three is but seventeen years is certainly striking, and indicates either a common origin of authority or an ap proximation toward the truth; perhaps both. We shall soon have occasion to compare these figures with the latest and most approved results of Biblical chro nology. As to the age of Egyptian art, civilization, and polit ical power, the time allowed for its development in harmony with Usher's chronology (the one usually in dicated in editions of the English Bible) must be ad mitted to be short — almost incredibly short. Here I submit that the primary question should be — the cor rectness of Usher. Let the Bible system of chronol ogy be rigidly scanned — not for the purpose of making it tally with Egyptian claims, or with any other system of chronology not sacred ; but for the purpose of arriv ing at the truth as ascertainable from the Bible itself. * See "Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race," by Rev. Eben- ezer Burgess, pp. 25-30. CHAPTER III. HEBREW CHRONOLOGY. From the Birth of Christ to the Creation. By general consent the birth of Christ is made the central point of all sacred chronology, the Christian ages being reckoned forward from that point (A. D.) and the Jewish or earlier ages being reckoned back ward (B. C). We treat of the latter only. Going backward from the Christian era, there is general agree ment and no reasonable ground for diversity till we reach the period of the Judges of Israel. The cardinal points are : b. c. The decree of Cyrus for the restoration of the Jews. 536 The duration of the captivity, from the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 70 years 606 (But counted from the fall of the city under Zede- kiah, 52 years only.) From the revolt, first year of Rehoboam to the fall of the city, 388 years 976 To the founding of the temple, beginning of Solo mon's fourth year, 37 years 1013 This last epoch has chronological importance — the foundation of the temple laid — A. D. 1013. The first disputed, diversely estimated, point is the period of the Judges; yet the proof texts and authorities cover the period from the Exodus to the temple. Usher makes the period of the Judges 339 years : Jahn and many others, 450. Usher relies on 1 K. 6 : 1 : "In the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solo mon's reign over Israel he began to build the house of the Lord." His computation runs thus : YF.AES. Hebrews in the wilderness 40 Hebrews under Joshua 17 (60) PERIOD OF THE JUDGES. 61 YEARS. Samuel and Saul together* 40 David (2 Sam. 5 : 4, 5) ".41 Solomon up to the founding of the temple 3 Judges— to fill out 480 339 480 The long period for the Judges rests primarily on Acts 13 : 20, which states that " after having divided to them the land of Canaa-n by lot, God gave them judges 450 years until Samuel the prophet." Placing 450 in the above computation in place of 339 — an excess of 111 years — we find the date of the Exodus B. C. 1604 in stead of Usher's figures A. D. 1491. In support of this long period for the Judges may be urged — (1.) The authority of Paul as above (Acts 13: 20) which makes this period 450 years. (2.) Josephus makes the interval from the Exodus to the founding of the temple 592 years, and not 480. The Jews of China also make it 592 — facts which favor the supposition that the Hebrew text of 1 K. 6: 1, is in error. It can not be supposed that either Josephus or the Chinese Jews adjusted their figures to harmonize with Paul. (3.) The internal dates in the Book of Judges demand the long period and can not be harmonized with the short one. Thus Judges 11 : 26 shows that the He brews had then dwelt in Heshbon, Aroer and along the coast of Arnon 300 years. These years lie between the entrance into Canaan and the beginning of Jephthah's judgeship. We have then this computation : YEABS. 300 years, minus 17 years for the term of Joshua, is..283 Add for Jephthah (Judg. 12 : 6) 6 For Ibzan 7 years ; for Elon 10; for Abdon 8 (accord ing to Judg. 12 : 8, 11, 14) 25 Servitude to the Philistines (Judg. 13 : 1) 40 Sampson (Judg. 15 : 20 and 16 : 31) not less than. . . 20 Eli (1 Sam. 4 : 18) 40 * Josephus slates explicitly that Samuel and Saul combined fill out 40 years. 62 HEBREW CHRONOLOGY. A period without dates (narrated Judg. 17-21) esti mated at 40 Makes a total of 454 It is entirely impossible to bring these internal dates in the history within the short period of 339 years for the Judges. We must therefore accept the long pe riod— 450 years — and place the Exodus in 1013+591:= B. C. 1604. The next period of conflicting authorities is the So journ in Egypt. The issue lies between the long period, 430 years, and the short one, 215 years. The first proof text is Ex. 12: 40: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years." Next is Gen. 15 : 13 : " Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs and shall serve them ; and they shall afflict them 400 years " : — which is quoted substan tially by Stephen, Ac. 7: 6. On the other hand stands Gal. 3 : 17, which makes the giving of the law on Sinai 430 years after the covenant made with Abraham. The interval from that covenant to Jacob's standing before Pharaoh is readily computed thus : From the covenant with Abram, he being then 75 years old (Gen. 12 : 4) to the birth of Isaac, Abraham 100 years old (Gen. 21 : 5) is 25 years. From birth of Isaac to birth of Jacob (Gen. 25: 26) 60. Jacob standing before Pharaoh (Gen. 47: 9) at 130, the sum of which numbers is 215. According to Paul, this would leave for the sojourn in Egypt but 215 years. A distinct class of proofs came from an estimate of the generations between the fathers who went down into Egypt and the sons who entered Canaan. Of this, presently. Reverting now to the obviously conflicting proof texts above cited, we may note that Ex. 12: 40 is read variously — the Septuagint (Vatican text) adding after "dwelt in Egypt," the words — "and in the land of Canaan;" while the Alexandrian text of the Sep tuagint adds also — "they and their fathers." Both these additions appear also in the Samaritan text and in the Targum Jonathan; while the Masoretic Hebrew is supported by the more reliable Targum of Onkelos; SOJOURN IN EGYPT. 63 also by the Syriac and the Vulgate. These additions as in the Septuagint are clumsily made. The dwelling in Canaan, referring to Abraham and Isaac, should come in before the dwelling in Egypt if at all, and not after. The diversity between the two texts of the Septuagint is suspicious. The authority of the old Hebrew text stands unshaken. The passage Gen 15: 13 is strong to the same pur port, since it was "in a land not his own" (i. e. not Canaan), and was a state of tyrannous oppression which was to continue 400 years — points which forbid us to include in this 400 years the life-history of Abra ham, Isaac and Jacob. As to Paul (Gal. 3 : 17) his readers had before them only the Septuagint ; he would therefore naturally follow its authority, and the more readily because the difference between that and the Hebrew in the length of the interval was a point of no importance to his argument. The evidence from the lapse of generations during the sojourn in Egypt is of great, not to say decisive, im portance to our question. Here, however, opinions as to its bearing differ totally. One of the test passages is Ex. 6 : 16-20, which makes the whole age of Levi 137 years ; of Kohath, his son, 133 ; of Amram — apparently his son and the father of Moses, 137. The age of Moses when he stood before Pharaoh (Ex. 7 : 7) was 80. Ko hath was born in Canaan ; his father was older by sev eral years than Benjamin; presumably, therefore, his children were older; yet Benjamin had .ten sons when he went down into Egypt (Gen. 46 : 21). If we suppose that Kohath was 25 when he went into Egypt, then he lived there 108 years. Amram lived there 137, and Moses at the Exodus had lived 80. With these given generations and ages, this computation is stretched to its utmost extent since it supposes Kohath's death at 133 and Amram's birth to have occurred in the same year ; also Amram's death at 137 and the birth of Moses to be in the same year ; yet the sum is only 325, which is less by 105 years than the long period. With these data the short period (215) might be readily provided for. But several circumstances combine to show that there must be several omitted links between the Amram 4 64 HEBREW CHRONOLOGY. here spoken of, and Kohath. For in this genealogical list (Ex. 6: 16-20) we have but two names between Levi, the tribe-father, and Moses, viz. Kohath and Am ram. But between Joseph, a younger tribe-father, and Zelophehad, a contemporary of Moses, there are four in tervening names (Num. 26: 28-33) ; between Judah and Bezaleel there are six (1 Chron. 2 : 3-5, 18-20) ; between Joseph (through Ephraim) and Joshua, there are nine (1 Chron. 7: 22-27). Again, we have in Num. 3: 27, 28, a census of the four Kohath families. The males, from one month and upward, are 8600. If we set off one-fourth of these to Amram (i. e. 2150) and remember that the Amram who was father to Moses had but one other son, Aaron, (known to this genealogy) with four sons, and that Moses had but two, we shall see it ut terly impossible that the male offspring of Moses and of Aaron could number 2150. Therefore Amram, the im mediate son of Kohath, must have been several genera tions back of the Amram who was father of Moses. The genealogy of Jochebed, the mother of Moses, might also be explained, but space forbids. The vast in crease of Hebrew population, from the 70 souls who went down into Egypt to the 600,000 men of age for war who went out (Ex. 12: 37), suggests a longer time than 215 years. The evidence on the whole preponder ates decisively against the shorter and in favor of the longer period, 430 years. The third doubtful period in Hebrew chronology lies between Abraham and his father Terah, the question being the age of Terah at Abraham's birth. Some au thorities make it 70 years; others, 130. The proof texts are — (a.) Gen. 11 : 26; " Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran." (b.) Gen. 11 : 32 ; " The days of Terah were 205 years ; and Terah died in Haran." (c.) Acts 7: 4; "Abram came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran ; and from thence, after his father was dead, he removed into this land wherein ye now dwell." (d.) Gen. 12: 4; "Abram was 75 years old when he departed out of Haran." The difficulty is that if Abram was born when his father was 70 and lived with him till his death at the age of 205, he should have been 135 and not merely 75 when his father died and he went into Canaan. To sur- TERAH TO ABRAHAM. 65 mount this difficulty some construe the text (a.) to mean that Terah lived 70 years before the birth of his first son; that Abram was not his first-born but is named first on account of his greater prominence in history and in character ; and that Abram was not born till his father was 130. Others assume that Stephen made the slight mistake of supposing that Terah was dead when Abram left Haran for Canaan, misled by the circumstance that the historian, in order to dispose of his case, narrated Terah's death before he spoke of Abram's emigration to Canaan, although (as they as sume) it in fact occurred 60 years afterwards. Others assume an error in the number of years assigned as the full age of Terah, making it 145 instead of 205— the Samaritan text giving these figures. The assumption that Stephen was mistaken is to be rejected ; partly because it was vital to the purposes of his speech that his historic points should be accurately made — at least in harmony with current Jewish opin ion—to say nothing of the further fact that he is before us as one " filled with the Holy Ghost " and specially inspired ; partly because the history represents Terah as sympathizing fully in the spirit of the removal from Ur to Canaan, and apparently prevented from going only by the infirmities of age. The choice seems, therefore, to lie between the first named explanation and the last. The first — making the passage (Gen. 11 : 26) mean only that Terah lived 70 years before the birth of his eldest, but became the father of three sons — leav ing us at liberty to fix Abraham's birth at his 130th year — is a possible construction, but is rendered some what improbable by Abram's question (Gen. 17: 17) "Shall a son be born to him that is 100 years old"? How could he have thought this strange if in fact he himself had been born when his father was 130 ? There may be an error in the number of years of Terah's life; the Samaritan text may be right in making it 145. This is below the average age of his fathers; but in those as in all other days, men were subject to die before they reached the maximum age of their generation. It would seem that he set out from Ur with the reason able expectation of going to Canaan. Hence a proba bility that he died unexpectedly, and at an earlier age 66 HEBREW CHRONOLOGY. than his fathers. I can express no positive opinion upon this case. Two other doubtful periods remain to be considered, viz. The interval from the creation to the flood ; and the interval from the flood to the call of Abram. The question upon these two intervals is substantially the same, so that they may properly be presented together. It hinges in both cases upon the authority of the texts — viz. for the former interval, Gen. 5: 3-32; and for the latter, Gen. 11 : 10-26. In form these tables are not chronological but genealogical. They do not reckon from any given era, as if (e. g.) to show the interval from the creation to the flood, but give the age of each member of the genealogical line when his son of the same line was born. It is therefore by adding together these measured portions of each man's life, viz. the years he lived before the next member in the line was born, that we obtain the entire interval. The tables give three facts as to each man's life ; (a.) how old he was when his son in this line was born; (b.) how long he lived afterwards ; and (c.) the sum total of his years. If the chain is perfect, with neither missing nor supernumer ary links, and if the numbers of the first class are all correct, the result must be reliable. But plainly the result will be changed at once by changing the first set of numbers and the second to correspond, — without changing the third at all. In the present case from Adam to Noah inclusive are ten generations. The sum of the first class of numbers as it stands in our Hebrew text is 1656, to the year of the flood. The only question of difficulty is upon the authority of the text. The Septuagint makes the same interval 2262 — an excess above the Hebrew of 606 years. In like manner from the birth of Arphaxad to the call of Abram (ten generations inclusive) the Hebrew text makes a total of 365 years; the Septuagint 1015, or by another text of the Sept. 1115, making an excess of 650 or 750 years. The sum of excess in the two periods is 1256 or 1356. The follow ing tables will serve to show how these diverse foot ings are produced. The numbers given by Josephus have some interest : I therefore place them in the table for the period before the flood. The numbers given in CREATION TO THE FLOOD. 67 the Samaritan text are frequently brought into this comparison. They. differ considerably from either of the other authorities, but seem to me of no particular value, and are therefore omitted. A. HEBREW TEXT. SEPTUAGINT. JOSEPHUS. NAMES *3 8-- 130105 9070 65 162 65 187182500 100 1656 .Si<*< o 800 807815840830 800300782595450 o 930 912 905910895962365969 777950 «! tttD H 700707715740730800200782595 450 o 930912905910895 962365969777950 2. Seth 3. Enos 8. Methusaleh 10. Noah To the flood Total * The Vatican text of the Seventy makes this number 167. Comparing the Hebrew figures with those of the Sep tuagint, it seems plain that one set or the other has been altered by design. It should be borne in mind that the Septuagint is a translation from Hebrew into Greek, made about 285 B. C, which is not far from 1500 years prior to the date of our oldest Hebrew manuscripts. Also that Josephus wrote in the latter part of the first century after Christ, giving Jewish history quite faith fully as then understood. In the first table Josephus sustains the Septuagint with only the one slight ex ception of making Lamech 182 instead of 188 at the birth of Noah — his total being thereby six years less. The reader will note carefully how these main differ ences between the Hebrew and the Septuagint stand. In the first five names and in the seventh, the years in the first column — i. e. the age of the father at the birth of his son, are less by 100 in the Hebrew than in the Septuagint, or (what amounts to the same thing) greater 68 HEBREW CHRONOLOGY. by 100 in the Septuagint than in the Hebrew. To cor respond, the years in the second column are greater by 100 in the Hebrew than in the Septuagint, so that the totals as they appear in the third column come out the same in both texts. These are the only important variations. The other is a slight one — the Septuagint adding six years to the age of Lamech at Noah's birth, or the Hebrew taking six years off from the number as in the Septuagint. In this case Josephus is with the Hebrew text. It may be noted also that in the cases of Jared and Methuselah, the figures agree. Now the question is — Which text is pure, and which has been cor rupted ? A better view perhaps of the whole question will be obtained if at this point we study the corresponding table for the period from the birth of Arphaxad (two years after the flood) to the call of Abram, made up from the Hebrew text, from the Septuagint and from the Samaritan text of Gen. 11 : 10-26: B. 1. Shem 2. Arphaxad. 3. Salah 4. Eber 5. Peleg , 6. Reu 7. Serug 8. Nahor , 9. Terah 10. Abram, his call. Total 365 HEBREW TEXT.