,,creation ,,and ,,its ,,records4 ,greek3 ,pistei nooumen kataertisthai tous aionas rhmati theou eis to mi ek fainomenon to ,blepomenon gegonenai4--,,heb4 xi4 #c4 ,,creation ,,and ,,its ,,records4 ,a brief statement of ,christian ,belief with reference to ,modern facts and ,ancient ,scripture4 ,,by ,b4,h4 ,,baden-,,powell1 ,c4,i4,e41 ,f4,r4,s4,e4 ,,contents 99 99 99 99 99 ,,part ,i4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,introductory ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,the ,,element ,,of ,,faith ,,in ,,creation ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,creation ,,stated ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,creative ,,design ,,in ,,inorganic ,,matter ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,creation ,,of ,,living ,,matter ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,the ,,marks ,,of ,,creative ,,intelligence ,,in ,,the ,,evolution ,,of ,,organic ,,forms ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,the ,,descent ,,of ,,man ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,further ,,difficulties ,,regarding ,,the ,,history ,,of ,,man ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,concluding ,,remarks ,,part ,,ii4 ,,chapter ,x4 ,,the ,,genesis ,,narrative--,,its ,,importance ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,,scripture ,,methods ,,of ,,revelation ,,chapter ,,xii4 ,,methods ,,of ,,interpreting ,,the ,,narrative--,,assumptions ,,of ,,meaning ,,to ,,certain ,,terms ,,chapter ,,xiii4 ,,the ,,genesis ,,narrative ,,considered ,,generally 7i47 ,,the ,,first ,,part ,,of ,,the ,,narrative 7ii47 ,,the ,,second ,,part ,,chapter ,,xiv4 ,,the ,,interpretation ,,supported ,,by ,,other ,,scriptures ,,chapter ,,xv4 ,,and ,,supported ,,by ,,the ,,context ,,chapter ,,xvi4 ,,the ,,details ,,of ,,the ,,creation ,,narrative ,,appendix4 ,,professor ,,delitzsch ,,on ,,the ,,garden ,,of ,,eden ,,chapter ,i4 ,,introductory ,among the recollections that are lifelong1 ,i have one as vivid as ever after more than twenty-five years have elapsed2 it is of an evening lecture--the first of a series--given at ,south ,kensington to working men4 ,the lecturer was ,professor ,huxley2 his subject1 the ,common ,lobster4 ,all the apparatus used was a good-sized specimen of the creature itself1 a penknife1 and a black-board and chalk4 ,with such materials the professor gave us not only an exposition1 matchless in its lucidity1 of the structure of the crustacea1 but such an insight into the purposes and methods of biological study as few could in those days have anticipated4 ,for there were as yet no ,science ,primers1 no ,international ,series2 and the new biology came upon us like the revelation of another world4 ,i think that lecture gave me1 what ,i might otherwise never have got 7and what some people never get71 a profound conviction of the reality and meaning of facts in nature4 ,that impression ,i have brought to the attempt which this little book embodies4 ,the facts of nature are ,god's revelation1 of the same weight1 though not the same in kind1 as ,his written ,word4 ,at the same time1 the further conviction is strong in my mind1 not merely of the obvious truth that the ,facts and the ,writing 7if both genuine7 cannot really differ1 but further1 that there must be1 after all1 a true way of explaining the ,writing1 if only it is looked for carefully--a way that will surmount not only the difficulty of the subject1 but also the impatience with which some will regard the attempt4 ,like so many other questions connected with religion1 the question of reconciliation produces its double effect4 ,people will ridicule attempts to solve it1 but all the same they will return again and again to the task of its actual solution4 ,that the latter part of the proposition is true1 has recently received illustration in the fact that a review like the ,nineteenth ,century1 which has so little space to spare1 has found room in four successive numbers#a for articles by ,gladstone1 ,huxley1 and ,h4 ,drummond1 on the subject of ,creation and its ,records4 ,may ,i make one remark on this interesting science tournament8 ,i can understand the scientific conclusions ,professor ,huxley has given us4 ,i can also understand ,mr4 ,gladstone1 because he values the ,writing as the professor values the ,facts4 ,but one thing ,i can not understand4 ,why is ,professor ,huxley so angry or so contemptuous with people who value the ,bible1 whole and as it stands1 and want to see its accuracy vindicated8 ,why are they fanatics1 ,sisyphus-labourers1 and what not8 ,that they are a very large group numerically1 and hardly contemptible intellectually1 is1 ,i think1 obvious2 that a further large group 7who would not identify themselves wholly with the out-and-out ,bible defenders7 feel a certain amount of sympathy1 is proved by the interest taken in the controversy4 ,yet all reconcilers are ridiculed or denounced--at any rate are contemptuously dismissed4 ,can it be that the professor has for the moment overlooked one very simple fact8 ,footnote #a3 ,november1 ,december1 #ahhe2 and ,january1 ,february1 #ahhf4 ,the great bulk of those interested in the question place their whole hope for their higher moral and spiritual life in this world and the next on one central ,person--the ,,lord ,,jesus ,,christ4 ,if ,he is wrong1 then no one can be right--there is no such thing as right3 that is what they feel4 ,it will be conceded that it is hardly fanatical to feel this4 ,but if so1 surely it is not fanatical1 but agreeable to the soberest reason1 further to hold that this 7to them sacred7 ,,person did 7and ,his apostles with ,him7 treat the ,book of ,genesis as a whole 7and not merely parts of it7 as a genuine revelation--or1 to use the popular expression1 as the ,word of ,,god4 ,that being so1 can it be matter for surprise or contemptuous pity1 that they should be anxious to vindicate the ,book1 to be satisfied that the ,,master was not wrong8 ,that is the ultimate and very real issue involved in the question of ,genesis4 ,as long as people feel that1 they must seek the reconciliation of the two opposing ideas4 ,if the attempt is made in a foolish or bitter spirit1 or without a candid appreciation of the facts1 then the attempt will no doubt excite just displeasure4 ,but need it always be so made8 ,as to the first part of my proposition that attempts to reconcile religion and science are received with a certain dislike1 it is due partly to the unwisdom with which they are sometimes made4 ,prof4 ,h4 ,drummond speaks of the dislike as general4#a ,if this is so1 ,i1 as a reconciler1 can only ask for indulgence1 hoping that grace may be extended to me on the ground of having something to say on the subject that has not yet been considered4 ,nor1 as regards the impatience of the public1 can ,i admit that there is only fault on one side4 ,in the first place1 it will not be denied that some writers1 delighted with the vast1 and apparently boundless1 vision that the discovery 7in its modern form7 of ,evolution opened out to them1 did incautiously proceed1 while surveying their new kingdom1 to assert for it bounds that stretch beyond its legitimate scope4 ,footnote #a3 ,in the ,introduction to his well-known book1 ,natural ,law in the ,spiritual ,world4 ,religionists1 on the other hand1 imagining1 however wrongly1 that the erroneous extension was part of the true scientific doctrine1 attacked the whole without discrimination4 ,while such a misapprehension existed1 it was inevitable that writers anxious alike for the dignity of science and the maintenance of religion1 should step in to point out the error1 and effect a reconciliation of claims which really were never in conflict4 ,it is hardly the fault of religionists that it was at first supposed that one could not hold the doctrine of evolution without denying a special creation and a designing ,providence4 ,it was on this very natural supposition that the first leading attack--attributed to the ,bishop of ,oxford--proceeded4 ,and the writer fell into the equally natural mistake of taking advantage of the uncompleted and unproved state of the theory at the time1 to attack the theory itself1 instead of keeping to the safer ground1 namely1 that whatever might ultimately be the conclusion of evolutionists1 it was quite certain that no theory of evolution that at all coincided with the known facts1 offered any ground for argument against the existence of an ,intelligent ,lawgiver and ,first ,cause of all2 nor did it tend in the slightest to show that no such thing as creative design and providence existed in the course of nature4 ,what the discovery of evolution really did1 was to necessitate a revision of the hitherto popularly accepted and generally assumed and unquestioned notion of what creation was4 ,and it has long appeared to me1 that while now the most thoroughgoing advocates of evolution generally admit that their justly cherished doctrine has nothing to say to the existence of a ,creator1 or to the possibility of design--which may be accepted or denied on other grounds--the writers on the side of ,christianity have not sufficiently recognized the change which their views ought to undergo4 ,as long as this is the case1 there will continue to be a certain conflict1 not indeed between science and religion1 but of the kind which has been vividly depicted by the late ,dr4 ,draper4 ,it can scarcely have escaped the notice of the most ordinary reader that1 in the course of that interesting work1 the author has very little to say about religion--at any rate about religion in any proper sense of the term4 ,the conflict was between a ,church which had a zeal for ,god without knowledge1 and the progress of scientific thought2 it was also a conflict between discovered facts1 and facts which existed1 not in the ,bible1 but in a particular interpretation1 however generally received1 of it4 ,the present work is therefore addressed primarily to ,christian believers who still remain perplexed as to what they ought to believe2 and its aim is to prevent1 if may be1 an unreasonable alarm at1 and a useless opposition to1 the conclusions of modern science2 while1 at the same time1 it tells them in simple language how far those conclusions really go1 and how very groundless is the fear that they will ever subvert a true faith that1 antecedent to the most wonderful chain of causation and methodical working which science can establish1 there is still a ,divine ,designer--,one who upholds all things by the word of ,his power4 ,the doctrine of evolution is still the ignotum to a great many1 and it is therefore1 according to the time-honoured proverb1 taken pro magnifico1 as something terribly adverse to the faith4 ,nor can it be fairly denied1 as ,i before remarked1 that some of the students of the theory have become so enamoured of it1 so carried away by the intoxication of the gigantic speculation it opens out to the imagination1 that they have succumbed to the temptation to carry speculation beyond what the proof warrants1 and thus lend some aid to the deplorable confusion1 which would blend in one1 what is legitimate inference and what is unproved hypothesis or mere supposition4 ,it only remains to say that the basis of this little book is a short course of lectures in which ,i endeavoured to disarm the prejudices of an educated but not scientifically critical audience1 by simply stating how far the theory of cosmical evolution had been really proved--proved1 that is1 to the extent of that reasonable certainty which satisfies the ordinary prudent man in affairs of weight and importance4 ,i have tried to show that evolution1 apart from fanciful and speculative extensions of it1 allows1 if it does not directly establish1 that the operation of nature is not a chance or uncontrolled procedure1 but one that suggests a distinct set of lines1 and an orderly obedience to pre-conceived law1 intelligently and beneficently 7in the end7 designed4 ,there are obviously two main points which the ,christian reader requires to have made clear4 ,the first is that1 the modern theory of evolution being admitted1 the constitution of matter in the universe and the principles of development in organic life1 which that theory establishes1 not only do not exclude1 but positively demand1 the conception of a ,divine artificer and director4 ,the second point1 which is perhaps of still greater weight with the believer1 is that where revelation 7which is his ultimate standard of appeal7 has touched upon the subject of creation1 its statements are not merely a literary fancy1 an imaginary cosmogony1 false in its facts though enshrining ,divine truth1 but are as a whole perfectly true4 ,whatever novelty there may be1 is to be found in the treatment of the second subject4 ,the first portion of the work is only a brief and popular statement of facts1 quite unnecessary to the scientific reader but probably very necessary to the large body of ,churchmen1 who have not studied science1 but are quite able to appreciate scientific fact and its bearings when placed before them in an untechnical form1 and divested of needless details and subordinate questions4 ,but it is around the supposed declarations of ,scripture on the subject of creation that the real conflict has centred4 ,let us look the matter quite fairly in the face4 ,we accept the conclusion that 7let us say7 the horse was developed and gradually perfected or advanced to his present form and characteristics1 by a number of stages1 and that it took a very long time to effect this result4 ,now1 if there is anywhere a statement in ,holy ,writ that 7a7 a horse was per saltum called into existence in a distinctive and complete form1 by a special creative fiat1 and that 7b7 this happened not gradually1 but in a limited and specified moment of time1 then ,i will at once admit that the record 7assuming that its meaning is not to be mistaken7 is not provably right1 if it is not clearly wrong2 and accept the consequences1 momentous as they would be4 ,if1 in the same way1 the ,record asserts that man1 or at least man the direct progenitor of the ,semitic race1#a was a distinct and special creation1 his bodily frame having some not completely explained developmental connection with the animal creation1 but his higher nature being imparted as a special and unique creative endowment out of the line of physical development altogether1 then ,i shall accept the ,record1 because the proved facts of science have nothing to say against it1 whatever ,drs4 ,buchner1 ,vogt1 ,hckel1 and others may assert to the contrary4 ,footnote #a3 ,with whose history1 as leading up to the advent of the ,saviour in the line of ,david1 the ,bible is mainly concerned4 ,in the first of my two instances1 the popular idea has long been that the sacred record does say something about a direct and separate creative act2 and this idea has been the origin and ground of all the supposed conflict between science and religion4 ,as long as this idea continues1 it can hardly be said that a book addressed to the clearing up of the subject is unnecessary or to be rejected per se4 ,as to the method in which this subject will be dealt with1 ,i shall maintain that the ,scripture does not say anything about the horse1 or the whale1 or the ox1 or any other animal1 being separately or directly created4 ,and the view thus taken of the ,record ,i have not met with before4 ,this it is necessary to state1 not because the fact would lend any value to the interpretation--rather the contrary2 but because it justifies me in submitting what1 if new1 may be intrinsically important1 to the judgment of the ,church2 and it also protects me from the offence of plagiarism1 however unwitting4 ,if others have thought out the same rendering of the ,genesis history1 so much the better for my case2 but what is here set down occurred to me quite independently4 ,a study of the real meaning of the ,record1 in the light of what may be fairly regarded as proved facts1 cannot be without its use to the ,christian4 ,if it be true that a certain amount of information on the subject of creation is contained in revelation1 it must have been so contained for a specific purpose--a purpose to be attained at some stage or other of the history of mankind4 ,it is possible also that the study will bring to light a probable1 or at any rate a possible1 explanation of some of those apparent 7if they are not real7 dead-locks which occur in pursuing the course of life history on the earth4 ,such considerations will naturally have more weight with the ,christian believer than with those who reject the faith4 ,but at least the advantage of them remains with the believer1 till the contrary is shown4 ,the extreme evolutionist may cling to the belief that at some future time he will be able to account for the entrance of ,,life into the world's history1 that he will be able to explain the connection of ,,mind with ,,matter2 or he may hope that the sterility of certain hybrid forms will one day be explained away1 and so on4 ,but till these things are got over1 the believer cannot be reproached as holding an unreasonable belief when his creed maintains that ,life is a gift and prerogative of a great ,author of ,life2 that ,mind is the result of a spiritual environment which is a true1 though physically intangible1 part of nature2 and that the absence of any proof that variation and development cross certain--perhaps not very clearly ascertained1 but indubitably existing--lines1 points to the designed fixing of certain types1 and the restriction of developmental creation to running in certain lines of causation up to those types1 and not otherwise4 ,it can never be unreasonable to believe anything that is in exact accordance with facts as ascertained at any given moment of time--unless1 indeed1 the fact is indicated by other considerations as being one likely to disappear from the category of fact altogether4#a ,enough has thus1 ,i hope1 appeared1 to make the appearance of this little work1 at least excusable2 what more may be necessary to establish its claim to be read must depend on what it contains4 ,i have only to add that ,i can make no pretension to be a teacher of science4 ,i trust that there is no material error of statement2 if there is1 ,i shall be the first to retract and correct it4 ,i am quite confident that no correction that may be needed in detail will seriously affect the general argument4 ,footnote #a3 ,at present it is an ascertained fact that certain chemical substances are elements incapable of further resolution4 ,but there are not wanting indications which would make it a matter of no surprise at all1 if we were to learn to-morrow that the so-called element had been resolved4 ,such a fact is an example of what is stated in the text2 and a belief based on the absolute and unchangeable stability of such a fact would not be unassailable4 ,but none of the above stated instances of dead-lock in evolution are within measurable distance of being resolved4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,the ,,element ,,of ,,faith ,,in ,,creation4 ,in the extract placed on the title-page1 the author of the ,epistle clearly places our conclusion that ,god established the order of creation--the lines1 plans1 developmental-sequences1 aims1 and objects1 that the course of creation has hitherto pursued and is still ceaselessly pursuing1#a in the category of faith4 ,of course1 from one point of view--very probably that of the writer of the ,epistle--this conclusion is argued by the consideration that the human mind forms no distinct conception of the formation of solid--or any other form of--matter in vacuo1 where nothing previously existed4 ,and what the mind does not find within its own power1 but what yet is true in the larger spiritual kingdom beyond itself1 is apprehended by the spiritual faculty of faith4 ,footnote #a3 ,greek3 ,kataertisthai tous aionas4 ,this implies more than the mere originating or supplying of a number of material1 organic1 or inorganic 7or even spiritual7 forms and existences4 ,whatever may be the precise translation of ,greek3 aion1 it implies a chain of events1 the cause and effect1 the type and the plan1 and its evolution all included4 ,but from another point of view1 the immediate action of faith is not so evident4 ,if1 it might be said1 the law of evolution1 or the law of creation1 or whatever is the true law1 is1 in all its bearings1 a matter to be observed and discovered by human science1 then it is not easy to see how there is any exercise of faith4 ,we should be more properly said to know1 by intellectual processes of observation1 inference1 and conclusion1 that there was a ,law ,giver1 an ,artificer1 and a ,first ,cause1 so unlimited in power and capacity by the conditions of the case1 that we must call ,him ,divine4 ,and many will probably feel that their just reasoning on the subject leads them to knowledge--knowledge1 i4e41 as approximately certain as anything in this world can be4 ,but the text1 by the use of the term ,greek3 aion1 implies 7as ,i suggested7 more than mere production of objects2 it implies a designed guidance and preconceived planning4 ,if it were merely asserted that there is a first cause of material existence1 and even that such a cause had enough known 7or to be inferred7 about it1 to warrant our writing ,first ,cause with capitals1 then the proposition would pass on all hands without serious question4 ,but directly we are brought face to face1 not merely with the isolated idea of creation of tangible forms out of nothing 7as the phrase is71 but rather with the whole history and development of the world and its inhabitants1 we see so many conflicting elements1 such a power of natural forces and human passions warring against the progress of good1 and seeming to end only too often in disaster1 that it becomes a matter of faith to perceive a ,divine providence underlying and overruling all to its own ends4 ,the fact is1 that directly we make mention of the aeons--the world's age histories--we are met with that ,protean problem that always seems to lurk at the bottom of every religious question3 ,why was evil permitted8 ,mr4 ,j4,s4 ,mill1 many readers will recollect1 concluded that if there was a ,god1 that ,god was not perfectly good1 or else was not omnipotent4 ,now of course our limited faculties do not enable us to apprehend a really absolute and unlimited omnipotence4 ,we can only conceive of ,god as limited by the terms of ,his own ,nature and ,being4 ,we say it is impossible for ,god to lie1 or for the ,almighty to do wrong in any shape2 in other words1 we are1 in this as in other matters where the finite and the ,infinite are brought into contact1 led up to two necessary conclusions which cannot be reconciled4 ,we can reason out logically and to a full conclusion1 that given a ,god1 that ,god must be perfect1 unlimited and unconditioned4 ,we can also reason out1 provided we take purely human and finite premises1 another line of thought which forbids us to suppose that a ,perfect ,god would have allowed evil1 suffering1 or pain2 and this leads us exactly or nearly to ,mr4 ,mill's conclusion4 ,whenever we are thus brought up to a dead-lock1 as it were1 there is the need of faith1 which is the faculty whereby the finite is linked on to the ,infinite4 ,for this faith has two great features3 one is represented by the capacity for assimilating fact which is spiritual or transcendental1 and therefore not within the reach of finite intellect2 the other is represented by the capacity for reliance on1 and trust in1 the ,god whose infinite perfections we cannot as finite creatures grasp or follow4 ,in the difficult scheme of the world's governance1 in the storms1 earthquakes1 pestilences1 sufferings of all kinds--signs of failure1 sickness1 and decay1 and death1 signs of the victory of evil and the failure of good--we can only believe in ,god1 and that all will issue in righteous ends4 ,and our belief proceeds1 as just stated1 on two lines3 one being our spiritual capacity for knowing that ,,god ,,is1 and that we1 ,his creatures1 are the objects of ,his love2 the other being the fact that we only see a very little end of the thread1 or perhaps only a little of one thread out of a vast mass of complicated threads1 in the great web of design and governance1 and that therefore there is wide ground for confidence that the end will be success4 ,we rely confidently on ,god4 ,if it is asked1 ,why is it a part of faith to have a childlike confidence in an unseen ,god8--we reply1 that the main origin of such confidence is to be found in the wonderful condescension of ,god exhibited in the ,incarnation1 the ,cross1 and the ,resurrection4 ,this is not the place to enter on a detailed examination of the essential importance of these great central facts of ,christian belief in establishing faith in the unseen1 and distinguishing its grasp from the blind clutches of credulity2 but a single consideration will suffice at least to awaken a feeling of a wide vista of possibility when we put it thus3 ,do we wonder at the spectacle of a righteous man1 passing his life in suffering and poverty1 seemingly stricken by the ,divine hand8--,but is not the case altered when we reflect that the ,hand that thus smites is a hand itself pierced with the ,cross-nails of a terrible human suffering1 undergone solely on man's account8 ,it can be proved easily1 by exhaustive examples1 to be the case1 that wherever the finite is brought into contact with the ,infinite1 that there must be a dead-lock1 a leading up successively to two conclusions1 one of which is almost1 if not quite1 contrary to the other4 ,a very striking instance of this is the question of ,predestination and ,free-will4 ,from the finite side1 ,i am conscious that ,i am a free agent3 ,i can will to rise up and to lie down4 ,it is true that my will may be influenced1 strongly or feebly1 by various means--by the effect of habit1 by the inherited tendency of my constitution1 by some present motive of temptation1 and so forth3 but the will is there--the motive-influence or inclining-power is not the will1 but that which affects or works on will4 ,a motive pulls me this way1 another pulls me that2 but in the end1 my will follows one or the other4 ,i can1 then1 do as ,i please4 ,on the other hand1 ,infinite ,knowledge must know1 and have known from all eternity1 what ,i shall do now1 and at every moment of my future being3 and for ,omnipotence to know from all eternity what will be1 is1 in our human sense1 practically undistinguishable from the thought that the ,power has predestined the same2 and man cannot of course alter that4 ,here1 then1 by separate lines of thought1 we are brought to two opposite and irreconcilable conclusions4 ,it is so always4 ,we cannot ourselves imagine how a fixed set of laws and rules can be followed1 and yet the best interests of each and every one of ,god's creatures be served as truly as if ,god directly wielded the machinery of nature only for the special benefit of the individual4 ,the thing is unthinkable to us3 yet directly we reason on the necessarily unlimited capability of a ,divine ,providence1 we are led to the conclusion that it must be possible4 ,here then is the province of ,faith4#a ,footnote #a3 ,the ,scripture clearly recognizes the two opposing lines4 ,in one place we read1 ,thou hast given them a law which shall not be broken2 in another1 ,all things work together for good to them that love ,god4 ,it is by ,faith1 then--combined with only a limited degree of knowledge1 founded on observation and reasoning--that we understand that the aeons were constituted by the ,word of ,god1 so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear 7the phenomenal has its origin in the non-phenomenal74 ,while allowing1 then1 the element of ,faith in our recognition of a ,creator and ,moral ,governor of the world1 our care is in this1 as in all exercises of faith1 that our faith be reasonable4 ,we are not called on to believe so as to be put to confusion1 intellectually1 as ,tait and ,balfour have it4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,creation ,,stated4 ,it will strike some readers with a sense of hopelessness1 this demand for a reason in our faith4 ,a special and very extensive knowledge is required1 it seems1 to test the very positive assertion that some have chosen to make regarding the explosion of the ,christian faith in the matter of ,creation4 ,we are told in effect that every thing goes by itself--that given some first cause1 about which we know1 and can know1 nothing1 directly primordial matter appears on the scene1 and the laws of sequence and action which observed experience has formulated and is progressively formulating are given1 then nothing else is required2 no governance1 no control1 and no special design4 ,so that in principle a ,creator and ,providence are baseless fancies2 and this is further borne out by the fact1 that when the ,christian faith ventures on details as to the mode of ,creation it is certainly and demonstrably wrong4 ,if these propositions are to be controverted1 it must be in the light of a knowledge which a large body of candid and earnest believers do not possess4 ,fortunately1 however1 the labours of many competent to judge have placed within the reach of the unscientific but careful student1 the means of knowing what the conclusions of ,science really are1 as far as they affect the questions we have to consider4 ,at least1 any inquirer can1 with a little care and patient study1 put himself in a position to know where the difficulty or difficulties lie1 and what means there are of getting over them4 ,his want of technical knowledge will not be in his way1 so far as his just appreciation of the position is concerned4 ,without pretending to take up ground which has already been occupied by capable writers whose books can easily be consulted1 ,i may usefully recapitulate in a simple form1 and grouped in a suitable order1 some of the points best worth noting4 ,the theory of cosmical evolution is not1 in its general idea1 a new thing4 ,the sort of evolution1 however1 that was obscurely shadowed forth by the early sages of ,india 7much as it is the fashion now to allude to it7 really stands in no practical relation to the modern and natural theory which is associated with the name of ,,charles ,,darwin1 and which has been further taken up by ,mr4 ,,herbert ,,spencer and others as the foundation for a complete scheme of cosmic philosophy4 ,the theory is now1 in its main features1 admitted by every one4 ,but there are a few who would push it beyond its real ascertained limits1 and would substitute fancies for facts2 they are not content to leave the lacunae1 which undoubtedly do exist1 but fill them up by hypothesis1#a passing by easy steps of forgetfulness from the it was possibly1 it was likely to have been1 to the it must have been1 and it was6 ,to all such extensions we must of course object2 there are gaps in the scheme which can be filled in with really great probability1 and in such cases there will be no harm done in admitting the probability1 while still acknowledging it as such4 ,an overcautious lawyer-like captiousness of spirit in such matters will help no cause and serve no good purpose4 ,nor is it at all difficult in practice to draw the line and say what is fairly admissible conjecture and what is not4 ,there are other gaps1 however1 that at present1 no real analogy1 no fair inferential process1 can bridge over2 and to all speculations on such subjects1 if advanced as more than bare and undisguised guesses1 objection must be taken4 ,if this one line had been fairly and firmly adhered to from the first1 it can hardly be doubted that much of the acrimony of controversy would have been avoided4 ,it is just as essential at the present moment to insist on the point as ever4 ,but to proceed4 ,stated in the extreme form1 the theory is1 that given matter as a beginning1 that matter is thenceforth capable1 by the aid of fixed and self-working laws1 to produce and result in1 all the phenomena of life--whether plant1 animal1 or human--which we see around us4 ,matter developes from simple to complex forms1 growing by its own properties1 in directions determined by the circumstances and surroundings of its existence4 ,footnote #a3 ,it is enough to instance the theories of ,dr4 ,buchner and1 in earlier days1 of ,oken4 ,the ,hckel and ,virchow incident in this connection1 and the noble protest of the latter against positive teaching of unproved speculation1 are in the recollection of all4 ,if ,i may put this a little less in the abstract1 but more at length1 ,i should describe it thus#a3-- ,astronomers1 while watching the course of the stars1 have frequently observed in the heavens what they call nebulae4 ,with the best telescopes these look like patches of gold-dust or luminous haze in the sky4 ,some nebulae1 it is supposed1 really consist of whole systems of stars and suns1 but at so enormous a distance that with our best glasses we cannot make more out of them than groups of apparent star-dust ,but other nebulae do not appear to be at this extreme distance1 and therefore cannot consist of large bodies4 ,and when their light is examined with the aid of a spectroscope1 it gives indications that such nebulae are only masses of vapour1 incandescent1 or giving out light on account of their being in a burning or highly heated condition4 ,footnote #a3 ,the biological evolutionist will1 ,i am aware1 object to this1 saying that the origin of the cosmos and nebular theories are matters of speculation with which he is not concerned--they are no part of evolution proper4 ,but ,i submit that the general philosophical evolution does include the whole4 ,at any rate1 the materialist view of nature does take in the whole1 in such a way as the text indicates4 ,now1 it is supposed that1 in the beginning of the world1 there was1 in space1 such a nebula or mass of incandescent vapour1 which1 as it was destined to cool down and form a world1 philosophers have called cosmic gas4 ,this cosmic gas1 in the course of time1 began to lose its heat1 and consequently to liquefy and solidify1 according to the different nature of its components2 and thus a globe with a solid crust was formed1 the surface of which was partly dry and partly occupied by water1 and diversified by the abundant production of the various earths1 gases1 metals1 and other substances with which we are familiar4 ,these substances1 in time1 and by the slow action of their own laws and properties1 combined or separated and produced further forms4 ,but to come at once to the important part of the theory1 we must at once direct our attention to four substances2 these would certainly1 it is said 7and that no doubt is quite true7 be present2 they are oxygen1 hydrogen1 nitrogen1 and carbon4 ,the first three would be1 when the earth assumed anything like its present conditions of temperature and air-pressure1 invisible gases1 as they are at present2 the fourth is a substance which forms the basis of charcoal1 and which we see in a nearly pure form crystallized in the diamond4 ,now1 if these substances are brought together under certain appropriate conditions1 the oxygen and hydrogen can combine to form water2 the carbon and the oxygen will form carbonic acid2 while nitrogen will join with hydrogen to form that pungent smelling substance with which we are familiar as ammonia4 ,again1 let us suppose that three compound substances--water1 carbonic acid1 and ammonia--are present together with appropriate conditions2 it is said that they will combine to form a gummy transparent matter1 which is called protoplasm4 ,this protoplasm may be found in small shapeless lumps1 or it may be found enclosed in cells1 and in various beautifully shaped coverings1 and it is also found in the blood1 and in all growing parts or organs of all animals and plants of every kind whatsoever4 ,protoplasm1 then1 is the physical basis of life4 ,simple1 uniform1 shapeless protoplasm1 combined out of the substances just named1 first came into existence2 and as1 however simple or shapeless1 it always exhibits the property of life1 it can henceforth grow and develop from simpler to ever increasingly complex forms1 without any help but that of surrounding circumstances--the secondary causes which we see in operation around us4 ,if some readers should say they have never seen protoplasm1 ,i may remind them where every one has1 at some time or another1 met with it4 ,if you cut a stick of new wood from a hedge1 and peel off the young bark1 you know that the bark comes off easily and entire1 leaving a clean white wand of wood in your hand2 but the wand feels sticky all over4 ,this sticky stuff is nothing more than transparent growing protoplasm1 which lies close under the inner bark4 ,at first1 the materialist holds1 protoplasm appeared in very simple forms1 just such as can still be found within the sea1 and in ponds4 ,but the lower organized forms of life are extremely unstable1 and a different environment will always tend to evoke continuous small changes1 so that there may be advance in forms of all kinds4 ,for if by chance#a some creature exhibits a variation which is favourable to it in the circumstances in which it is placed1 that creature will be fitter than the others which have not that variation4 ,and so the former will survive1 and as they multiply1 their descendants will inherit the peculiarity4 ,thus1 in the course of countless generations1 change will succeed change1 till creatures of quite a complex structure and specialized form have arisen4 ,as the circumstances of life are always infinitely various1 the developments take place in many different directions2 some fit the creature for life in deep seas1 some for flying in the air1 some for living in holes and crevices1 some for catching prey by swift pursuit1 others for catching it by artful contrivance1 and so forth4 ,many changes will also arise from protective necessity3 if an insect happens to be like a dead leaf1 it will escape the notice of birds which would snap up a conspicuously coloured one2 and so the dull-coloured will survive and perpetuate his kind1 while the others are destroyed4 ,on the other hand1 beauty in colour and form may have its use4 ,this is chiefly exhibited in the preference which the females of a species show for the adorned and showy males4 ,footnote #a3 ,not really of course by chance1 but simply owing to such circumstances as cannot be accounted for by any direct antecedents4 ,supposing an organism developed so far as to be a bird1 but only with dull or ugly feathers4 ,by accident one male bird1 say1 gets a few bright-coloured feathers on his head4 ,here his appearance will attract birds of the other sex2 and then by the law of heredity1 his offspring are sure to repeat the coloured feathers1 till at last a regularly bright-crested species-arises4 ,in this way natural variability1 acted on by the necessities of environment 7which cause the survival of the fittest specimens7 and the principle of heredity1 viz41 that the offspring repeat the features of the parents1 aided by the principle of sexual selection1 have been the origin and cause of all the species we see in the world4 ,thus we have an unbroken series--certain substances condensing out of cosmic vapour1 some of them combining to form the variety of rocks1 soils1 metals1 c41 and others giving rise to protoplasm which grows' and develops into a thousand shapes and hues1 of insect1 fish1 reptile1 bird1 and beast4 ,and then it is1 that charmed with the completeness and symmetry of such a theory1 and overlooking the difficulties that crop up here and here--demanding some ,power from without to bridge them over--certain extreme theorists have rushed to the conclusion that in all this there is no need of any external ,creator or ,providence--nothing but what we call secondary causes1 ordinary causes which we see at work around us all day and every day4 ,how inconceivable1 they add1 is the truth of the ,book of ,genesis1 which asserts the successive creation of fully-formed animals by sudden acts of command2 and all accomplished in a few days at the beginning of the world's human history6 ,this ,i believe to be a fair outline1 though of course a very rough and general one1 of the ,theory of ,evolution as regards the forms of matter and living organisms4 ,now it will at once strike the candid reader1 that even granted the whole of the scheme as stated1 there is nothing in it that has any answer to the objection1--,but may ,i not believe that a wise ,creator conceived and established the whole plan--first creating ,,matter and ,,force1 then superadding ,,life at a certain stage1 and then drawing out the type and design according to which everything was to grow and develop8 ,is not such a production and such a design the true essence of ,creation8 ,can all these things happen without such aid8 ,let us then look more closely at some of the steps in the evolution just described4 ,and let us stop at the very beginning--the first term of the series4 ,we may agree 7in the absence of anything leading to a contrary conclusion7 that matter may first have appeared as a cosmic gas1 or incandescent vapour in space4 ,it is probable1 if not certain1 that our earth is a mass that has only cooled down on the surface1 the centre being still hot and to some extent1 at any rate1 molten2 and in the sun we have the case of an enormous globe surrounded with a photosphere1 as it is called--a blaze of incandescent substances1 which our spectroscopes tell us are substances such as we have on earth now in cooled or condensed condition--iron1 oxygen1 hydrogen1 and other such forms of matter4 ,first of all1 how did any substance1 however vapoury and tenuous1 come to exist1 when previously there was nothing8 ,if we admit1 that there was a time when even cosmic gas did not exist1 then there must have been an ,agent1 whose fiat caused the change4 ,and as that ,agent does not obviously belong to the material order1 it must belong to the spiritual or non-material2 for the two orders together exhaust the possibilities of existence4 ,if1 however1 it is urged that primal matter--cosmic vapour--containing the potentiality of all existence1 is eternal and alway existed of itself1 then we are brought face to face with innumerable difficulties4 ,in the first place1 the existence of matter is not the only difficulty to be got over2 not the only dead-lock along the line4 ,we pass it over and go on for a time1 and then we come to another--the introduction of ,,life4 ,i will not pause to consider that here2 we shall see presently that it is impossible to regard life as merely a quality or property of matter4 ,when we have passed that1 we have a third stoppage1 the introduction of ,reason or ,intelligence2 and then a fourth1 the introduction of the ,spiritual faculties1 which cannot be placed on the same footing as mere reason4 ,so that to get over the first point1 and dispense with a ,cause or a ,creator of matter1 is of no avail3 it is incredible that there should be no ,creator of matter1 but that there should be a ,creator of life--an ,imparter of reason1 an ,endower of soul4 ,but let us revert to the first stage and look at the nature of ,,matter4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,creative ,,design ,,in ,,inorganic ,,matter4 ,i take as self-evident the enormous difficulty of self-caused1 self-existent matter4 ,and when we see that matter acting1 not irregularly or by caprice1 but by law 7as every class of philosopher will admit71 then it is still further difficult to realize that matter not only existed as a dead1 simple1 inactive thing1 but existed with a folded-up history inside it1 a long sequence of development--not the same for all particles1 but various for each group3 so that one set proceeded to form the object1 and another the environment of the object2 or rather that a multitude of sets formed a vast variety of objects1 and another multitude of sets formed a vast variety of environments4 ,when we see matter acting by law1 then if there is no ,creator1 we have the to us unthinkable proposition of law without a lawgiver6 ,on the other hand1 if we shut out some of the difficulties1 keep our eye on one part of the case only--and that is what the human mind is very apt to do--we can easily come round to think that1 after all1 elementary matter--cosmic gas--is a very simple thing2 and looks really as if no great ,power1 or ,intellect1 were required to account for its origin4 ,after all1 some will say1 if we grant your great1 wise1 beneficent1 designing ,creator1 the finite human mind has as little idea of a self-existing ,god1 as it has of self-existing matter and self-existing law4 ,you postulate one great mystery1 we postulate two smaller ones2 and the two together really present less unthinkableness to the mind than your one4 ,that is so far plausible1 but it is no more4 ,to believe in a ,,god is to believe in ,one ,existence1 who necessarily 7by the terms of our conception7 has the power both of creating matter1 designing the forms it shall take1 and originating the tendencies1 forces1 activities--or whatever else we please to call them--which drive matter in the right direction to get the desired result4 ,to believe not only that matter caused itself1 but that the different forces and tendencies1 and the aims and ends of development1 were self-caused1 is surely a much more difficult task4 ,it is the existence of such a variety1 it is the existence of a uniform tendency to produce certain though multitudinous results1 that makes the insuperable difficulty of supposing matter always developing 7towards certain ends7 to be self-caused4 ,the advocates of eternal matter really overcome the difficulty1 by shutting their eyes to everything beyond a part of the problem--the existence of simple matter apart from any laws1 properties1 or affinities4 ,but the simplest drop of water1 in itself1 and apart from its mechanical relations to other matter1 is really a very complex and a very wonderful thing2 not at all likely to be self-caused4 ,water is made up1 we know1 of oxygen and hydrogen--two elementary colourless1 formless gases4 ,now we can easily divide the one drop into two1 and1 without any great difficulty1 the two into four1 and 7perhaps with the aid of a magnifying glass7 the four into eight1 and so on1 as long as the minute particle still retains the nature of water4 ,in short1 we speak of the smallest subdivision of which matter is capable without losing its own nature1 as the molecule4 ,all matter may be regarded as consisting of a vast mass of these small molecules4 ,now1 we know that all known matter is capable of existing either in a solid1 liquid1 or gaseous form1 its nature not being changed4 ,water is very easily so dealt with4 ,some substances1 it is true1 require very great pressure or very great cold1 or both1 to alter their form2 but even carbonic acid1 oxygen1 and hydrogen1 which under ordinary conditions are gases1 can with proper appliances be made both liquid and solid4 ,pure alcohol1 has1 ,i believe1 never been made solid1 but that is only because it is so difficult to get a sufficient degree of cold3 there is no doubt that it could be done4 ,it might be supposed that the molecules of which dead matter 7whether solid1 liquid1 or vapourous7 is composed1 were equally motionless and structureless4 ,but it is not so3 every molecule in its own kind is endowed with marvellous properties4 ,in the first place1 every molecule has a double capability of motion4 ,in the solid form the molecules are so packed together that1 of course1 the motion is excessively restricted2 in the liquid it is a little easier2 in the gaseous state the molecules are in a comparatively open order4 ,in most substances that are solid under ordinary conditions1 by applying heat continuously we first liquefy and ultimately vapourize them4 ,in those substances which under ordinary conditions are gas 7like carbonic acid1 for instance71 it is by applying cold1 with perhaps great pressure as well1 that we induce them to become liquid and solid2 in fact1 the process is just reversed4 ,as we can most easily follow the process of heating1 ,i will describe that4 ,first1 the solid 7in most cases7 gets larger and larger as it progresses to liquefaction1 and when it gets to vapour1 it suddenly expands enormously4 ,take a rod of soft iron1 and reduce it to freezing temperature3 let us suppose that in that condition it measures just a thousand inches long4 ,then raise the temperature to #bab degrees 7boiling point71 and it will be found to measure #a1jab inches4 ,why is that8 ,obviously1 because the molecules have got a little further apart4 ,if you heat it till the iron gets liquid1 the liquid would also occupy still more space than the original solid rod2 and if we had temperature high enough to make the melted iron go off into vapour1 it would occupy an enormously increased space4 ,i cannot say what it would be for iron vapour2 but if a given volume of water is converted into vapour1 it will occupy about #a1gjj times the space it did when liquid1 though the weight would not be altered4 ,it may here be worth while to mention that it is not invariably true that a substance gets contracted1 and the molecules more and more pressed together1 as it assumes a solid form4 ,there is at least one exception4 ,if we take #a1gjj pints of steam1 the water1 as ,i said1 on becoming cool enough to lose the vapourous form1 will shrink into a measure holding a single pint2 if we cooled lower still1 it will get smaller and smaller in bulk 7though of course not at all at the same rate7 till it arrives at a point when it is just going to freeze2 then suddenly 7#g degrees above the freezing point7 it again begins to expand4 ,ice occupies more space than cold water2 its molecules get arranged in a particular manner by their crystallization4 ,on the admission of an intelligent ,creator providing1 by beneficent design1 the laws of matter1 it is easy to give a reason for this useful property4 ,it prevents the inhabitants of northern climates being deprived of a supply of water4 ,as it is1 the solid water or ice expands1 and1 becoming lighter1 forms at the top of the water1 and the heavier warmer water remains below4 ,but if ice always got denser and sank1 the warmer liquid would be perpetually displaced and so come up to the surface1 where it would freeze and sink in its turn4 ,in a short time1 then1 all our water supplies would 7whenever the temperature went down to freezing1 which it constantly does in winter7 be turned into solid ice4 ,this would be a source of the gravest inconvenience to the population of a cold climate4 ,if we deny a designing mind1 the alternative is that this property of water is a mere chance4 ,but to return to molecules4 ,molecules are endowed with an inherent faculty of motion2 only under the conditions of what we call the solid1 they are so compressed1 that there is no room for any motion appreciable to the senses4 ,even if the solid is converted into vapour1 the molecules are still much restrained in their movements by the pressure of the air4 ,but of late years1 great improvements 7partly chemical1 partly mechanical7 have been made in producing perfect vacua2 that is to say1 in getting glass or other vessels to be so far empty of air1 that the almost inconceivably small residue in the receptacle has no perceptible effect on the action of a small quantity of any substance already reduced to the form of gas or vapour introduced into it4 ,dr4 ,w4 ,crookes has made many beautiful experiments on the behaviour of the molecules of attenuated matter in vacua4 ,the small quantity of vapour introduced contains only a relatively small number of molecules1 which thus freed from all sensible restraint within the limits of the glass vessel used1 are free to move as they will2 they are observed to rush about1 to strike against the sides of the vessel1 and under proper conditions to shine and become radiant1 and to exhibit extraordinary phenomena when subjected to currents of electricity4 ,so peculiar is the molecular action thus set up1 that scientific men have been tempted to speak of a fourth condition of matter 7besides the three ordinary ones1 solid1 liquid1 and gaseous71 which they call the ultra-gaseous or radiant state of matter4 ,this marvel of molecular structure seems already to have removed us sufficiently far from the idea of a simple inert mass1 which might be primordial and self-caused4 ,but we have not yet done4 ,even imagining the extreme subdivision#a of the particles in one of ,dr4 ,crookes' vacuum globes1 the particles are still water4 ,but we know that water is a compound substance4 ,the molecule has nine parts1 of which eight are hydrogen and one oxygen--because that is the experimentally known proportion in which oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water4 ,as we can 7in the present state of our knowledge7 divide no farther1 we call these ultimate fragments of simple or elementary substance atoms4 ,footnote #a3 ,as to the possibility of indefinite subdivision of matter1 see ,sir ,w4 ,thomsons's lecture1 ,nature1 ,june1 #ahhc1 et seq4 ,every substance1 however finely divided into molecules1 if it is not a simple substance1 must therefore have1 inside the molecular structure1 a further atomic structure4 ,and in the case of unresolvable or elementary substance1 the molecule and the atom are not necessarily the same4 ,for though there is reason to believe that1 the molecule of these does consist1 in some cases1 of only one atom--in which case the atom and the molecule are identical2 in other cases1 the molecule is known to consist of more than one atom of the same element2 and the atoms are capable of being differently arranged1 and when so arranged have different properties or behaviour1 though their nature is not changed4 ,this property is spoken of by chemists as allotropism4 ,no chemist on earth can detect the slightest difference in constitution between a molecule of ozone and one oxygen2 but the two have widely different properties1 or behave very differently4 ,there is thus a great mystery about atoms and their possible differences under different arrangement1 which is as yet unsolved4 ,those who wish to get an insight into the matter 7which cannot be pursued farther here7 will do well to read ,josiah ,cooke's ,the ,new ,chemistry1 in the ,international ,scientific ,series4 ,the mind is really lost in trying to realize the idea of a fragment of matter too small for the most powerful microscope1 but existing in fact 7because of faultless reasoning from absolutely conclusive experiments71 and yet so constituted that it is practically a different thing when placed in one position or order1 from what it is when placed in another4 ,turning from this mystery1 as yet so obscure1 to what is more easily grasped1 we shall hardly be surprised to learn1 further1 that every kind of1 atom obeys its own laws1 and that while atoms of one kind always have a tendency to combine with atoms of other kinds1 it is absolutely impossible to get them to combine together except on certain conditions4 ,the difference between combination and mixture is well known4 ,shake sand and sugar in a bag for ever so long1 but they will only mix1 not combine or form any new substance even with the aid of electric currents2 but place oxygen and hydrogen gas under proper conditions1 and the gases will disappear1 and water 7in weight exactly equal to the weight of the volume of gases7 will appear in their place4 ,it is only certain kinds of atoms that will combine at all with other kinds2 and when they do so combine1 they will only unite in absolutely fixed proportions1 so that chemists have been able to assign to every kind of element its own combining proportion4 ,the substances that will combine will do so in these proportions1 or in proportions of any even multiple of the number1 and in no other4 ,thus fourteen parts of nitrogen will combine with sixteen of oxygen2 and we have several substances in nature1 called nitrous oxide1 nitric oxide1 nitric di-oxide1 c41 which illustrate this1 in which fourteen parts of nitrogen combine with sixteen oxygen or fourteen nitrogen with a multiple of sixteen oxygen1 or a multiple of fourteen nitrogen combine with sixteen oxygen1 and so on4 ,see now where we have got to4 ,when we had spoken of a tiny fragment of primal matter--a drop of water1 for instance--it seemed as if there was no more to be said2 but no1 we found ourselves able to give a whole history of the molecules of which the substance consists2 and when we had considered the molecule1 we found a further beautiful and intricate order of atoms inside the molecule1 as it were4 ,and there is no reason to suppose that science has yet revealed all that is possible to be known about atoms and molecules2 so that if further wonders should be evoked1 the argument will grow and grow in cumulative force4 ,let me sum up the conclusion to be drawn from these facts in a quotation from a discourse of ,sir ,john ,f4,w4 ,herschel4 ,when we see1 says that eminent philosopher1 a great number of things precisely alike1 we do not believe this similarity to have originated except from a common principle independent of them2 and that we recognize this likeness1 chiefly by the identity of their deportment under similar circumstances strengthens rather than weakens the conclusion4 ,a line of spinning jennies1 or a regiment of soldiers dressed exactly alike and going through precisely the same evolutions1 gives us no idea of independent existence3 we must see them act out of concert before we can believe them to have independent wills and properties not impressed on them from without4 ,and this conclusion1 which would be strong even if there were only two individuals precisely alike in all respects and for ever1 acquires irresistible force when their number is multiplied beyond the power of imagination to conceive4 ,if we mistake not1 then1 the discoveries alluded to effectually destroy the ideas of an eternal self-existent matter by giving to each of its atoms the essential characters at once of a manufactured article and of a subordinate agent4 ,in other words1 continuing the metaphor of the trained army1 we see millions upon millions of molecules all arranged in regiments1 distinct and separate1 and the regiments again made up of companies or individuals1 each obeying his own orders in subordination to1 and in harmony with1 the whole3 are we not justified in concluding that this army has not been only called into being by some cause external to itself2 but further1 that its constitution has been impressed upon it1 and its equipments and organization directed1 by an ,infinite ,intelligence8 ,there is1 then1 no such thing to be found in ,nature as a simple1 structureless primal matter which exhibits nothing tending to make self-causation or aboriginal existence difficult to conceive4 ,to look at matter in that light is not only to take into consideration a part of the case2 it is really to take what does not exist1 a part that exists only in the imagination4 ,the simplest form of matter we can deal with1 exhibits within itself all the wondrous plan1 law1 and sequence of the molecular and atomic structure we have sketched out2 and when we consider that1 having taken matter so far1 we have even then only introduced it to the verge of the universe1 ushered it on to the threshold of a great aeon1 when and where it is to be acted on by gravitation and other forces1 to act in relation to other matter1 and to be endowed perhaps with ,,life1 we shall feel that the self-existence--the uncaused existence of matter1 and of the principles on which matter proceeds or acts1 is in reality not a less mystery than the self-existence of a ,designing and ,intelligent ,cause1 but one so great as to be itself unthinkable4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,creation ,,of ,,living ,,matter4 ,we now come to ,living ,matter2 directing attention1 first1 to that elementary form of life as exhibited in simple protoplasm and in the lower forms of organism1 and then to the perfect forms of bird and beast4 ,in each case1 we shall find the same evidence of ,design and ,intelligence1 the same proof of contrivance and purpose1 which we cannot attribute to the mere action of secondary causes4 ,the simplest form in which ,,life is manifested is in a viscid gelatinous substance without colour or form1 called ,protoplasm4 ,wherever there is life there is protoplasm4 ,protoplasm1 as before remarked1 lies just under the bark in trees1 and is the material from which the growth of the wood and bark cells and fibres proceeds4 ,protoplasm1 is also present in the muscles and in the blood1 and wherever growth is going on4 ,but protoplasm also exists by itself2 or1 more properly speaking1 there exist living creatures1 both plant and animal1 which are so simple in structure1 so low in organization1 that they consist of nothing but a speck of protoplasm4 ,such a creature is the microscopic amoeba4 ,sometimes these little specks of protoplasm are surrounded with beautifully formed silicious shells--a skeleton of radiating spiculae or crystal-clear concentric spheres of exquisite symmetry and beauty4#a ,the simplest amoeba however1 has no definite form2 but the little mass moves about1 expands and contracts1 throws out projections on one side and draws them in on the other4 ,it exhibits irritability when touched4 ,it may be seen surrounding a tiny particle of food1 extracting nutriment from it and growing in size4 ,ultimately the little body separates or splits up into two1 each part thenceforth taking a separate existence4 ,footnote #a3 ,professor ,allman4 ,now it is claimed that such a little organism contains the potentiality of all life2 that it grows and multiplies1 and develops into higher and higher organisms1 into all 7in short7 that we see in the plant and animal world around us4 ,this1 it is argued1 is all done by natural causes1 not by any direction or guidance or intervention of a ,divine agency4 ,here we must stop to ask how this protoplasm1 or simplest form of organic life1 came to exist8 ,how did it get its life--its property of taking nourishment1 of growing and of giving birth to other creatures like itself8 ,the denier of creation replies1 that just in the same way as1 by the laws of affinity1 other inanimate substances came together to produce the earth--salts and other compounds we see in the world around us--so did certain elements combine to form protoplasm4 ,this combination when perfected has the property of being alive1 just as water has the property of assuming a solid form or has any other of the qualities which we speak of as its properties4 ,now it is perfectly true that1 treated as a substance1 you can take the gummy protoplasm1 put it into a glass and subject it to analysis like any other substance4 ,but simple as the substance appears1 composition is really very complicated4 ,professor ,allman tells us that so difficult and wonderful is its chemistry1 that in fact really very little is known about it4 ,the best evidence we have1 ,i believe1 makes it tolerably certain that protoplasm consists of a combination of ammonia1 carbonic acid1 and water1 and that every molecule of it is made up of #gf atoms1 of which #cf are carbon1 #bf hydrogen1 #d nitrogen1 and #aj oxygen4#a ,but no chemist has ever been able either to account theoretically for such a composition1 still less to produce it artificially4 ,it is urged1 however1 that it may be only due to our clumsy apparatus and still very imperfect knowledge of chemistry1 that we were unable artificially to make up protoplasm4 ,footnote #a3 ,nicholson 7,zoology1 p4 #d7 gives for ,albumen1 which is nearly identical with protoplasm--,carbon1 #add2 ,hydrogen1 #aaj2 ,nitrogen1 #ah2 ,oxygen1 #db2 ,sulphur1 #b4 ,these figures nearly equal those in the text1 being those figures multiplied each by #d 7approximately7 and without the trace of sulphur4 ,and of course there is no answer to a supposition of this sort4 ,nevertheless there is no sort of reason to believe that protoplasm will ever be made2 nor1 if we could succeed in uniting the elements into a form resembling protoplasmic jelly1 is there the least reason to suppose that such a composition would exhibit the irritability1 or the powers of nutrition and reproduction1 which are essentially the characteristics of living protoplasm4 ,it is not too much to say that1 after the close of the controversy about spontaneous generation1 it is now a universally admitted principle of science that life can only proceed from life--the old omne vivum ex ovo in a modern form4#a ,but here the same sort of argument that was brought forward regarding the possibility of matter and its laws being self-caused1 comes in as regards life4 ,footnote #a3 ,see ,critiques and ,addresses1 ,t4,h4 ,huxley1 ,f4,r4,s41 p4 #bci4 ,so much is this the case1 that it is really superfluous1 however interesting1 to recall the experiments of ,dr4 ,tyndall and others1 which finally demonstrated that wherever primal animal forms1 bacteria and other1 microbes1 were produced in infusions of hay1 turnip1 c41 apparently boiled and sterilized and then hermetically sealed1 there were really germs in the air enclosed in the vessel1 or germs that in one form or another were not destroyed by the boiling or heating4 ,dr4 ,bastian's argument for spontaneous generation is thus completely overthrown4 7,see ,drummond1 ,natural ,law1 pp4 #fb-fc47 ,the argument in the most direct form was made use of by ,professor ,huxley1 but it is difficult to believe that so powerful a thinker could seriously hold to a view which will not bear examination1 however neatly and brilliantly it may go off when first launched into the air4 ,the argument is that life can only be regarded as a further property of certain forms of matter4 ,oxygen and hydrogen1 when they combine1 result in a new substance1 quite unlike either of them in character1 and possessing new and different properties4 ,the way in which the combination is effected is a mystery1 yet we do not account for the new and peculiar properties of water 7so different from those of the original gases7 as arising from a principle of aquosity1 which we have to invoke from another world4 ,the answer is that the argument is from analogy1 and that there is not really the remotest analogy between the two cases4 ,it is true that1 as far as we know1 electricity is necessary to force a combination of the requisite equivalents of oxygen and hydrogen into water4 ,but though we do not know why this is1 or what electricity is1 we can repeat the process as often as we will4 ,but mark the difference2 the water once existing is obviously only a new form of matter1 in the same category with the gases it came from3 it neither increases in bulk1 nor takes in fresh elements to grow1 and give birth to new drops of water4 ,but protoplasm has something quite different--for there may be dead protoplasm and living protoplasm1 both identical to the eye and to every chemical test4 ,in either condition1 protoplasm1 as such1 has properties of the same nature 7though not of the same kind7 as those of water1 oxygen gas1 or any other matter2 it is colorless1 heavy1 sticky1 elastic1 and so forth2 but besides all that 7without the aid of electricity or any physical force we can apply7 one has the power of producing more protoplasm--gathering for itself1 by virtue of its inherent power1 the materials for growth and reproduction4 ,if directly water was called into existence it could take in nourishment1 and divide and go on producing more water--and if some water could do this1 while other water 7which no available test could distinguish from it in any other respect7 could not1 then we should be perfectly justified in giving a special name to this power1 and calling it aquosity or vitality or anything else1 it being out of all analogy to anything else which we call a property of matter4 ,in the introduction of ,,life into the aeon of organic developmental history1 we have a clear and distinct period1 as we had when matter came into view1 or when the change was ushered in which set the cosmic gas cooling and liquefying1 and turning to solid in various form4 ,the fact is that every organic form1 whether plant or animal1 derived from the protoplasmic compounds of carbon-dixoide1 ammonia and water1 is1 as ,mr4 ,drummond puts it1#a made of materials which have once been inorganic4 ,an organizing principle1 not belonging to their kingdom1 lays hold of them and elaborates them4 ,footnote #a3 ,natural ,law1 p4 #bcc4 ,thus by the introduction of ,,life we have a vastly enlarged horizon4 ,before1 in the organic world1 we had only the principle of solidifying or crystallizing1 liquefying1 and turning to gas or vapour1 ever stopping when the state was attained4 ,or if a combination was in progress1 still the result was only a rearrangement of the same bulk of materials 7however new the form7 in solid1 liquid1 or gas1 but no increase1 no nutrition1 no reproduction4 ,in the organic world we have something so different1 that whether we talk of property or principle1 the things are entirely distinct4 ,the essential difference1 stated as regards the mere facts of irritability or motion1 nutrition and reproduction1 is so grandly sufficient in itself1 that one almost regrets to have to add on the other facts which further emphasize the distinction between life and any property of matter4 ,but these further facts are highly important as regards another part of the argument4 ,for while what has just been said almost demonstrates the necessity of a ,giver of ,life from a kingdom outside the organic1 the further facts point irresistibly to the conclusion that we must predicate more about the ,giver of ,life that we can of an abstract and unknown ,cause4 ,the original protoplasm1 when dead1 is undistinguishable by the eye1 by chemical test1 or by the microscope1 from the same protoplasm when living2 and living protoplasm1 again1 may be either animal or vegetable4 ,both are in every respect 7externally7 absolutely identical4 ,yet the one will only develop into a plant1 the other only into an animal4 ,nor does it diminish the significance of the fact to say that the differentiation is now fixed by heredity4 ,if we suppose protoplasm to be only a fortuitous combination of elements1 what secondary or common natural cause will account for its acquisition of the fixed difference8 ,it is true that some forms of plants exhibit some functions that closely approach the functions of what we call animal life2 but1 as we shall see presently1 there is no evidence whatever that there is any bridge between the two--we have no proof that a plant ever develops into an animal4 ,here is one of the gaps which the theory of ,evolution1 true as it is to a certain extent1 cannot bridge over2 and we must not overlook the fact4 ,we shall revert to it hereafter4 ,can it be believed1 then1 that protoplasm1 as the origin of life1 is self-caused1 and self-developed8 ,and this is not all4 ,i must briefly remind my readers that the way in which animal protoplasm deals with the elements of nutrition is quite opposite to that which plant protoplasm follows4 ,i might1 indeed1 have mentioned this at an earlier stage1 when ,i mentioned ,professor ,huxley's comparison of the chemical action in the formation of water with what he assumed to be the case in the formation of protoplasm4 ,when water is formed1 the two gases disappear1 and an exactly equal weight of water appears in their place2 but if living protoplasm is enabled to imbibe liquid or other nutriment containing ammonia1 water1 and carbonic acid1 there is no disappearance of the three elements and an equivalent weight of living protoplasm appearing in its place4 ,protoplasm consumes the oxygen and sets free the carbonic acid4 ,both kinds of protoplasm do this1 until exposed to the light2 and then a difference is observed2 for under the influence of light1 animal protoplasm alone continues to act in this way1 and vegetable protoplasm begins at once to develop little green bodies or corpuscles in its cells1 and afterwards acts in a totally opposite way1 taking the carbon into its substance and giving off the oxygen4#a ,footnote #a3 ,certain fungi seem to afford an exception to this4 ,the above is1 ,i believe1 true as a theoretical action of plants and animals in protoplasmic form4 ,but practically1 in all higher developments of either kind1 other distinctions come into play2 e4g41 that plants can make use of inorganic matter1 gases1 and water1 and elaborate them into organic matter4 ,animals cannot do this1 they require more or less solid food--always requiring complex organic bodies which they ultimately reduce to much simpler inorganic bodies4 ,they are thus mediately or immediately dependent on plants for their subsistence 7,nicholson1 ,zoology1 #fth ed4 p4 #ag74 ,it is perhaps with reference to this that in the ,book of ,genesis the ,creator is represented as giving plant life to the service of man and animals--while nothing is said of the preying of ,carnivora and ,insectivora on animal life4 ,not only then has each kind of protoplasm its own mysterious character impressed on it1 and is compelled to act in a certain way2 but still further1 each particle of animal and vegetable protoplasm1 when directed into its general course of development as plant or animal1 will again only obey a certain course of development in its own line4 ,but we must proceed a step further2 for those who would believe in the sufficiency of unaided ,evolution1 bid us bear in mind how very elementary the dawn of instinct or the beginning of reason is in the lowest forms which are classed as animal1 and how very small is the gap#a between some highly organized plants and some animal forms1 and argue therefore that they may justly regard the distinction as of minor importance1 and hope that the missing link will be yet discovered and proved4 ,at any rate1 they minimize the difference1 and urge that it is of no account if at least they can establish the sufficiency of a proved development extending unbroken from the lowest to the highest animal form4 ,and having fixed attention on this side1 no doubt there is a long stretch of smooth water over which the passage is unchecked4 ,footnote #a3 ,at the risk of repetition ,i will remind the reader that nature contains nothing like a progressive scale from plant to animal4 ,it is never that the highest plant can be connected with the lowest animal as in one series of links4 ,the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom are absolutely apart4 ,both start from similar elementary proteinaceous structures2 and both preserve their development upwards--each exhibiting some of the features of the other4 ,it is at the bottom of each scale that resemblance is to be found1 not between the top of one and the lowest members of the other4 ,the ,evolution theory is that all the different species of animals1 birds1 and other forms of life have been caused by the accumulation and perpetuation of numerous small changes which began in one or at most a few elementary forms1 and went on till all the thousands of species we now know of were developed4#a ,it is a fact that all organic forms have a certain tendency to vary4 ,i need only allude to the many varieties of pigeons1 horses1 cattle1 and dogs which are produced by varying the food1 the circumstances of life and so forth1 and by selective breeding4 ,the contention then is3 given certain original simple forms of life1 probably marine or aquatic--for it is in the water that the most likely occur--these will gradually change and vary1 some in one direction1 some in another2 that the changes go on increasing1 each creature giving birth to offspring which exhibits the stored-up results of change1 till the varied and finished forms--some reptile1 some bird1 some animal--which we now see around us1 have been produced4 ,and at last man himself was developed in the same way4 ,all this1 observe1 is by the action of just such ordinary and natural causes as we now see operating around us--changes in food and in climate1 changes in one part requiring a corresponding change in others1 and so on4 ,footnote #a3 ,the reader may find this admirably put in ,wallace1 ,contributions to the ,theory of ,natural ,selection1 p4 #cjb4 ,nature contains no sharply drawn lines4 ,plants are different from animals2 but there are animals so low down in the scale of life that it is difficult to distinguish them from plants4 ,pigeons are distinct from pheasants1 but the line at which the one species ends and the other begins is difficult to draw4 ,this fact seems to invite some theory of one form changing into other4 ,accordingly the evolutionist explains the working of the process which he asserts to be sufficient to produce all the various forms of life in our globe4 ,after stating this more in detail than we have previously done1 we shall be in a better position to judge if the process 7which in the main we have no desire to deny or even to question7 can dispense with guidance and the fixing of certain lines and limits within which1 and of certain types towards which1 the development proceeds4 ,that is our point4 ,it is hardly necessary to illustrate the enormous destruction of life which goes on in the world4 ,even among the human race1 the percentage of infants that die in the first months of their life is very large4 ,but in the lower forms of life it is truly enormous4 ,only consider the myriads of insects that perish from hunger or accident1 and from the preying of one species on another4 ,if it were not so1 the world would be overrun by plagues of mice1 of birds1 of insects of all kinds1 and indeed by creatures of every grade4 ,the term struggle for existence is1 then1 not an inapt one4 ,all forms of living creatures have to contend with enemies which seek to prey upon or to destroy them1 with the difficulty of obtaining food1 and with what ,i may call the chances of nature--cold1 storms1 floods1 disease1 and so forth4 ,now1 it is obvious that if some creatures of a given kind possess some accidental peculiarity or modification in their formation which gives them 7in one way or another7 an advantage over their fellows1 these improved specimens are likely to survive1 and1 surviving1 to have offspring4 ,it is this perpetuation of advantageous changes1 originally induced by the circumstances of environment1 that is indicated by the term natural selection4 ,nature chooses out the form best suited to the circumstances which surround it1 and this form lives while the others die out4 ,and this form goes on improving by slow successive changes1 which make it more and more fit for the continually changing circumstances of its life4 ,subordinate also to this natural selection is the principle that bright colour and other special qualities may be developed in the males of a race1 because individuals with such advantages are more attractive1 and therefore more easily find mates1 than dull-coloured or otherwise less attractive individuals4 ,of each of these principles ,i may give a simple example4 ,supposing a species of bird with a soft slender beak to be placed on an island1 where the only food they could obtain was fruit enclosed in a hard or tough shell or covering4 ,supposing some birds accidentally possessed of a beak that was shorter and stouter than the others'1 these would be able to break open the shell and get at the fruit1 while the others would starve4 ,some of the descendants of the birds with the stout beaks would inherit the same peculiarity1 and in the course of several generations there would thus arise a species with short and strong1 perhaps curved1 beaks just fitted to live on fruits of the kind described4 ,in a similar way the webbed feet of birds that swim were developed by their aquatic habits4 ,and so with the long slender toes of the waders1 which are so well fitted for walking over floating aquatic plants4 ,of the other principle1 sexual selection1 a familiar example is the bright and showy colouring of the male birds of many species3 the females of their species1 as they need protection while helplessly sitting on their eggs1 are dull-coloured like the bark of trees or the sand1 among which their nests lie hid4 ,some of the ,himalayan pheasants exhibit this peculiarity to a marked degree4 ,originally1 it is said1 the male bird1 which was more brightly coloured than the rest1 got mated more easily by the preference shown to him for his bright colour4 ,the question is1 can we suppose all this to go on1 by self-caused laws and concurrence of circumstances1 without a pre-existing design for the forms to reach or an external guidance in the processes8 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,the ,,marks ,,of ,,creative ,,intelligence ,,in ,,the ,,evolution ,,of ,,organic ,,forms4 ,the heading of this chapter does not mark a new departure1 for we have been tracing existing forms of matter from the first1 and have already seen the necessity of believing in ,creative ,intelligence and ,guidance4 ,we have seen that inorganic matter1 with what we call its molecular or atomic structure1 cannot be reasonably regarded as self-caused2 and we have concluded with ,sir ,j4,f4,w4 ,herschell that the sight of such a well-arranged army1 performing its evolutions in a regular and uniform manner1 irresistibly suggests a great ,commander and ,designer4 ,we have further found that the advent of ,,life demands a ,power ab extra4 ,we have called attention to the gap1 between plant and animal1 which is ignored or made light of1 chiefly on account of the close approach of the two kingdoms4 ,but there is one broad distinction1 namely1 that of elementary reason and no reason1 or of consciousness and unconsciousness1 which is1 in itself1 a sufficient difficulty to pull us up shortly4 ,we have not yet fully considered this matter1 because it will come more appropriately at a later stage1 and in the fortiori form4 ,but we have justly noted it here4 ,we cannot account for the most elementary reason by any physical change2 there is no analogy between the two4 ,the connection of mind and matter is unexplainable2 and no theory of development of physical form can say why1 at any given stage1 physical development begins to be accompanied by brain-power and consciousness4 ,admit candidly that the addition of intelligence at a certain stage1 however mysteriously interwoven with structural accompaniments1 is a gift ab extra1 and we have at least a reasonable and so far satisfactory explanation4 ,but when we have got an animal form1 however simple and elementary1 with at least a recognizable potentiality of intelligence1 we enter1 as ,i said1 a long stretch of apparently smooth water1 over which1 for an important part of our passage1 we seem able to glide without any difficulty from the necessary intervention of the so-called supernatural4 ,i have1 then1 to show that even here there is really no possibility of dispensing with a ,creator who has a purpose1 a designed scheme1 and a series of type-forms to be complied with4 ,in order to fully exhaust the question how far natural selection is capable of accounting for everything1 it would be necessary to take a very wide view of natural history and botany1 which it is quite impossible for us to attempt4 ,but this is not necessary for our purpose4 ,we are perfectly justified in selecting certain topics which must arise in the discussion4 ,if1 in studying these points1 we find that there at least the intervention of a ,controlling ,power becomes necessary1 and the absence of it leaves things without any reasonable explanation1 then we shall have good and logical ground for holding to our faith in the universal presence of such a ,power4 ,no chain is stronger than its weakest link4 ,if secondary causes cannot succeed at any one part of the chain1 it is obvious that they fail as a universal explanation4 ,this part of the work has already been done far better than ,i could do it4 ,in the first eight chapters of ,mivart's ,genesis of ,species #a the argument has been ably and clearly put1 and whatever answer is possible has been given by ,darwin and others2 so that the world may judge4 ,all that can here be usefully attempted1 is1 by way of reminder1 to reproduce some main topics on which no real answer has been given4 ,these are selected1 partly because they are less abstruse and difficult to follow than some which might be dealt with1 partly because they are calculated to awaken our interest1 and partly because the conclusion in favour of a continual ,providence2 working through organized law and system1 appears to follow most clearly from them4 ,footnote #a3 ,second ,edition1 #ahga4 ,the points ,i would call attention to are the following3-- 7,i7 ,that as natural selection will only maintain changes that have been beneficial to the creature1 it is contrary to such a law1 if acting entirely by itself1 that that there should be developments 7not being mere accidental deformities1 c47 disadvantageous to the creature4 ,and yet the world is full of such4 7#b7 ,that there are forms which cannot be accounted for on the evolutionist supposition1 that they were gradually obtained by a series of small changes slowly progressing towards a perfect structure4 ,they would be of no use at all unless produced at once and complete4 7#c7 ,that natural selection1 as apart from a ,divine ,designer1 altogether fails to account for beauty1 as distinguished from mere brilliancy or conspicuousness1 in nature4 ,whereas1 if we suppose the existence of a beneficent ,creator1 who has moral objects in view1 and cares for the delight and the improvement of ,his creatures1#a and looking to the known effects on the mind of beauty in art and in nature1 the existence is at once and beyond all cavil explained4 ,footnote #a3 ,he hath made everything beautiful in his time 7,eccles4 iii4 ,,ii74 7#d7 ,that we have positive evidence against uncontrolled evolution 7uncontrolled by set plan and design i4e47 and a strong presumption in favour of the existence of created types2 so that evolution proceeds towards these types by aid of natural laws and forces working together 7in a way that our limited faculties necessarily fail to grasp adequately72#a and so that1 the type once reached1 a certain degree of variation1 but never transgression of the type1 is possible4 ,further1 that on this supposition we are able to account for some of the unexplained facts in evolutionary history1 such as reversion and the sterility of hybrids2 and to see why there are gaps which cannot be bridged over1 and which by extreme theorists are only feebly accounted for on the supposition that as discovery progresses they will be bridged over some day4 ,footnote #a3 ,also ,he hath set the world in their heart1 so that no man can find out the work that ,god maketh from the beginning to the end 7,eccles4 iii ,,ii74 7#e7 ,lastly1 that there is no possibility of giving time enough on any possible theory of the world's existence1 for the evolution of all species1 unless some reasonable theory of creative arrangement and design be admitted4 ,the great objection--the descent of man and the introduction of reason1 consciousness1 and so forth1 into the world1 will then form two separate chapters1 concluding the first division of my subject4 ,there is one point which the reader may be surprised to see omitted4 ,it is1 that if these slow changes were always going on1 why is not the present world full of1 and the fossil-bearing rocks also abounding in1 intermediate forms1 creatures which are on their way to being something else8 ,but there are reasons to be given on this ground which make the subject a less definite one for treatment4 ,it is said1 for example1 that in the fossil rocks we have only such scanty and fragmentary records1 that it is not possible to draw a complete inference1 and that there is always the possibility of fresh discoveries being made4 ,such discoveries have1 it is asserted1 already been made in the miocene and again in later rocks2 different species of an early form of horse which are 7and this we may admit7 the ancestral or intermediate forms of our own horse1 have been found4 ,i therefore would not press the difficulty1 great as it is1 because of the escape which the hope of future discovery always affords4 ,i will take this opportunity to repeat that in this chapter ,i say nothing about the difficulty which arises from the introduction of elementary reason or instinct1 and of consciousness1 into the scale of organic being2 that will more appropriately fall in with the consideration of the development of man1 where naturally the difficulty occurs with its greatest force4 7#a7 ,i come at once to the great difficulty that1 if all existing forms are due to the occurrence of changes that helped the creature in the struggle for existence1 how is it possible now to account for forms which are not advantageous8 yet such forms are numerous4 ,of this objection1 the existence of imperfect or neuter bees and ants is an instance4 ,the modification in form which these creatures exhibit is of no advantage to them4 ,it is a great advantage1 no doubt1 to the other bees2 but then this introduces a view of some power making one thing for the benefit of another1 not a change in the form itself adapted of course to its own advantage--since natural laws1 forces1 and conditions of environment could not conceivably design the advantage of another form1 and cause one to change for the benefit of that other4 ,why is it1 again1 that crabs and crayfish can only grow by casting off their shells1 during which process they often die1 as well as remain exposed defenceless to the attacks of enemies8 ,why should stags shed their horns also1 leaving them defenceless for a time8 ,other animals do not do so1 and there is nothing in the nature of the horn which requires it4 ,this brief allusion is here sufficient4 ,mr4 ,mivart's work gives it at large4 7#b7 ,passing next to the question of the advantage of incomplete stages--portions of a mechanism only useful when complete1 the most striking examples may be found in the ,vegetable kingdom4 ,the fertilization of flowering plants is effected by the pollen1 a yellow dust formed in the anthers1 which is carried from flower to flower4 ,in the pines and oaks1 this is done by the wind4 ,but in other cases insects visit a flower to get the honey1 and in so doing get covered with pollen1 which they carry away and leave in the next flower visited4 ,now one of our commonest and most useful plants1 the red clover1 is so constructed that it can only be fertilized by humble bees4 ,if this bee became extinct1 the plant would die out2 how can such a development be advantageous to it8 ,but the contrivances by which this process of fertilization is secured are so marvellous1 that ,i confess ,i am completely staggered by the idea that these contrivances have been caused by the self-growth and adaptation of the plant without guidance4 ,there is a plant called ,salvia glutinosa#a--;easily recognized by its sticky calyx and pale yellow flowers4 ,the anthers that bear the pollen are hidden far back in the hood of the flower1 so that the pollen can neither fall nor can the wind carry it away2 but the two anthers are supported on a sort of spring1 and directly a bee goes to the flower and pushes in his head to get the honey1 the spring is depressed and both anthers start forward1 of course depositing their pollen on the hairy back of the bee1 which carries it to the stigma of the next flower4 ,this process can be tested without waiting for a bee1 by pushing a bit of stick into the flower1 when the curious action described will be observed4 ,it is very easy to say that this admirable mechanical contrivance is of great use to the plant in its complete form2 but try and imagine what use an intermediate form would have been6 ,if development at once proceeded to the complete form1 surely this marks design2 if not1 no partial step towards it would have been of any use1 and therefore would not have been inherited and perpetuated so as to prepare for further completion4 ,but many other plants have a structure so marvellous that this objection is continually applicable4 ,let me only recall one other case1 that of the orchid1 called ,coryanthes macrantha4 ,in this flower there are two little horns1 which secrete a pure water1 or rather water mixed with honey4 ,the lower part of the flower consists of a long lip1 the end of which is bent into the form of a bucket hanging below the horns4 ,this bucket catches the nectar as it drops1 and is furnished with a spout over which the liquid trickles when it is too full4 ,but the mouth of the bucket is guarded by a curiously ridged cover with two openings1 one on each side4 ,the most ingenious man1 says ,mr4 ,darwin1 would never by himself make out what this elaborate arrangement was intended for4 ,it was at last discovered4 ,large humble bees were seen visiting the flower2 by way of getting at the honey1 they set to work to gnaw off the ridges of the lid above alluded to2 in doing this they pushed one another into the bucket1 and had to crawl out by the spout4 ,as they passed out by this narrow aperture1 they had to rub against the anthers and so carried off the pollen4 ,when a bee so charged gets into another bucket1 or into the same bucket a second time1 and has to crawl out1 he brushes against the stigma1 and leaves the pollen on it4 ,i might well have adduced this plant as another instance of the first objection1 since it may well be asked1 ,how could such a development1 resulting in a structure which presents the greatest difficulty in the way of fertilization1 be beneficial to the plant8 ,but here the point is that1 even if any one could assert the utility of such an elaborate and complicated development1 and suppose it self-caused by accident or effect of environment1 it certainly goes against the idea that all forms are due to an accumulation of small changes4 ,for these curious contrivances in the case of ,salvia1 ,coryanthes1 and other plants1 would in any case have been no use to the plant till the whole machinery was complete4 ,now1 on the theory of slow changes gradually accumulating till the complete result was attained1 there must have been generation after generation of plants1 in which the machinery was as yet imperfect and only partly built up4 ,but in such incomplete stages1 fertilization would have been impossible1 and therefore the plant must have died out4 ,just the same with the curious fly-trap in ,dionoea4 ,whatever may be its benefit to the plant1 till the whole apparatus as it now is1 was complete1 it would have been of no use4 ,in the animal kingdom also1 instances might be given3 the giraffe has a long neck which is an advantage in getting food that other animals cannot reach2 but what would have been the use of a neck which was becoming--and had not yet become--long8 here intermediate stages would not have been useful1 and therefore could not have been preserved4#b ,in flat fishes it is curious that1 though they are born with eyes on different sides of the head1 the lower eye gradually grows round to the upper-side4 ,as remarked by ,mr4 ,mivart1 natural selection could not have produced this change1 since the first steps towards it could have been of no possible use1 and could not therefore have occurred1 at least not without direction and guidance from without4 ,mr4 ,darwin's explanation of the case does not touch this difficulty4 ,footnote #a3 ,this species was instanced because the lectures which form the basis of the book were originally delivered at ,simla1 in the ,n4,w4 ,himalaya1 where1 at certain seasons1 the plant is a common wayside weed4 ,mr4 ,darwin notices a similar and1 if possible1 more curious structure in a species of ,catasetum4 ,footnote #b3 ,see this fully explained by ,mivart1 ,genesis of ,species1 pp4 #bi1 #cj 7#bnd edition74 7#c7 ,the third point1 the occurrence of so much beauty in organic life1 is perhaps one of the most conclusive arguments for design in nature4 ,here1 if possible1 more clearly than elsewhere1 ,i see a total failure of natural causes4 ,we are told that the beauty of birds 7for instance7 is easily accounted for by the fact1 that the ornamented and beautiful males are preferred by the other sex2 and that this is an advantage1 so the beauty has been perpetuated2 and the same with butterflies and beetles4 ,we are told also that bright-coloured fruits attract birds1 who eat the soft parts of the fruit and swallow the hard stone or seed which is thus prepared for germination1 and carried about and dispersed over the earth's surface4 ,again1 showy coloured flowers attract insects1 which carry away pollen and fertilize other flowers4 ,all this is perfectly true2 but it entirely fails to go far enough to meet the difficulty4 ,now passing over such difficulties as the fact that bright colours in flowers do not attract insects in many cases1 but much more inconspicuous flowers if they have a scent 7mignonette1 for example7 do2 passing over such a fact as that afforded by the violet1 which 7as some may not be aware7 has two kinds of flower1 one scented and of a beautiful colour1 the other green and inconspicuous1 and it is the latter1 not the former which is usually fertile2--passing over all detailed difficulties of this kind1 ,i allude only to the one great one1 that in all these cases1 besides mere bright colour1 conspicuousness or showiness1 there is a great and wonderful beauty of pattern1 design1 or colour arrangement1 in nature4 ,now there is not a particle of evidence to show that any animal has1 to the smallest extent1 a sense of beauty4 ,on the contrary it is most improbable4 ,the sense of artistic beauty is not only peculiar to man1 but only exists in him when civilized and cultivated4 ,uneducated people among ourselves have no sense of landscape and other beauty4 ,how then can it exist in animals8 ,if there was nothing to explain but a uniform bright and showy colour1 natural selection might be sufficient to account for it4 ,how is it1 then1 that this is not the case8 ,we have not only colour1 but colour diversified in the most elaborate and charming manner4 ,look at the exquisite patterns on a butterfly's wing6 look at the various delicate arrangements of colour and pattern in flowers2 or look again at the arrangement of colour on a humming-bird--sometimes the tail1 sometimes the breast is ornamented1 sometimes a splendid crest covers the head1 sometimes a jewelled gorget or ruff surrounds the throat2 and these are not uniformly coloured1 but exhibit metallic and other changes of lustre not to be imitated by the highest art4 ,but to fully realize this1 ,i had best refer to a more familiar instance4 ,let any one examine--as an object very easily procurable in these days--a peacock's feather4 ,no doubt the whole tail when expanded is very brilliant2 but look closely at the structure of a single feather2 is all this arrangement needed only to make the tail bright or conspicuous8 ,observe how wonderfully the outer parts are varied2 part has a metallic lustre of copper1 part has this also shot with green3 then there is a delicate ring of violet with a double yellowish border1 all quite distinct from the inmost gorgeous eye of green1 blue1 and black1 and all arranged on the same feather6 ,take1 again1 the so-called diamond beetle of ,brazil2 here the wing case is black studded all over with little pits or specks1 which as a whole only give it a powdery pale-green colour2 but place it in the sunlight and look at it with a magnifying glass--each little speck is seen to be furnished with a set of minute metallic scales showing green and red flashes like so many diamonds4 ,how does such a delicate ornament answer the demands of mere conspicuousness8 ,but there is a stronger case than this4 ,i before alluded to the exquisite symmetry of the silicious and crystalline coverings of some of the simplest forms of marine animalcules2 and also ,i may here add the beautiful colouring of shells sometimes on the inside4#a ,in what possible way would this beauty serve for any purely useful purpose8 ,footnote #a3 ,see ,mivart1 p4 #fa4 ,lastly1 how are we to account for the beauty of autumnal tints in woods1 or coloured leaves in plants such as the ,caladium8 ,the beauty is of no conceivable use to the plant4 ,in ,canada the colours of the autumn forest are notorious4 ,even on cloudy days the hue of the foliage is of so intense a yellow that the light thrown from the trees creates the impression of bright sunshine1 each leaf presents a point of sparkling gold4 ,but the colours of the leafy landscape change and intermingle from day to day1 until pink1 lilac1 vermilion1 purple1 deep indigo and brown1 present a combination of beauty that must be seen to be realized2 for no artist has yet been able to represent1 nor can the imagination picture to itself1 the gorgeous spectacle4#a ,have we not here an exhibition which cannot be accounted for on any principle of natural utility8 ,footnote #a3 ,quarterly ,review1 #ahfa1 p4 #bj4 7#d7 ,the fourth point1 as previously stated1 will be best treated by stating beforehand what is the conclusion come to1 and then justifying it4 ,my suggestion is that if we suppose a continuous evolution without a series of designs prescribed before life began to develop1 and without any external guidance1 then we are lost in difficulties4 ,we cannot account for why variation should set in in the very different ways it does1 nor why such a vast variety of divergent results should be produced4 ,we cannot account for the tendency to reversion to a previous type1 when artificial or accidental variation is not continually maintained1#a nor for the sterility of hybrids2 nor1 above all1 for evolution performing such freaks 7if ,i may so say7 as the origination of our small finches and the tropical humming-birds from earlier vertebrates through the ,mesozoic reptiles1 the pterodactyles1 ,odontornithes and subsequent forms4 ,supposing that the ,almighty ,designer created a complete cosmos of 7#a7 the starry heavens and the planetary system1 7#b7 then a scheme whereby earth and water were to be duly distributed over our planet2 7#c7 established the relations by which the external heavenly bodies were to regulate our seasons1 tides1 and times 7as we know they do74 7#d7 ,suppose1 further1 that the ,designer did not make out of nothing the series of finally developed animals as we now have them1 but made the animals make themselves--that is to say1 created the type1 the ideal form1 and adapted the laws and forces which constitute environment1 so that development of form should go on regularly towards the appointed end1 but in separate and appropriate channels1 each terminating when its object had been attained4 ,suppose these conditions 7which1 as we shall afterwards see1 are what ,revelation1 fairly interpreted1 declares7 to exist2 all the known facts1 and also the fairly certain inferences of ,evolution1 are then accounted for4 ,footnote #a3 ,pigeon fanciers know that when they have once obtained1 by crossbreeding and selection1 a particular form or feather1 the utmost care is needed to preserve it4 ,if the parents are not selected the progeny wilt gradually revert towards the original wild pigeon type4 ,we have neither by revelation nor physical discovery an exact scheme of all the types1 nor which of the elementary forms were destined to remain unchanged throughout4 ,but some scheme of created types we surely have4 ,whether what we call species#a are all types or not1 we cannot say2 probably not4 ,all we can be sure of is that there are definite lines somewhere4 ,we see the sterility of some hybrids1 for instance1 which would seem to indicate that while some forms can conjugate and their offspring remain fertile1 others 7approaching1 as it were1 the verge of separation7 give rise to hybrids which are or not absolutely sterile1#b according as they approach1 or are more remote from1 the designed barrier-line4 ,and at that point the separation is insuperable4 ,certain forms of ,carnivora and ,ungulata seem to be for ever apart--not only the two great orders1 but even subdivisions within them4 ,reptiles and birds1 on the other hand1 unlike as they at first sight seem1 have no type line drawn to separate them2 that1 at least1 is one of the more recent conclusions of biological science4 ,footnote #a3 ,it should be borne in mind that what we call a species as distinct from a mere variety1 is a more or less arbitrary or provisional thing dependent on the state of science for the time4 ,species are constantly being lumped together by some and separated by others4 ,it follows most probably1 that while some species are really types--i4e41 one can never pass into the other and lose its essentials1 unless it is destined to disappear 7like the pterodactyle71 not being wanted in the whole scheme--other species are really only varieties1 and maybe lost or modified without limit4 ,footnote #b3 ,we may well regard the mule as a peculiar form just such as the evolutionist would rejoice to see3 here is a modified species1 which has qualities different from those of either of the parent stock1 and well fitted to struggle for existence4 ,yet this modified race would1 if left to itself1 die out4 ,in other cases where variation has occurred1 and especially when it is artificially--i4e41 by the aid of selective breeding--caused or favoured1 there is the constant tendency to revert1 which is at once intelligible if there is a type scheme to be maintained4 ,if there were a series of created types1 there may naturally have been what ,i may call sub-types2 which would be certain well-marked stages on the way to the final form4 ,such sub-type forms would naturally occur at different ages1 and being marked would show their place in the scale1 and their connection with the ultimate perfect form4 ,such a possibility would exactly account for the series of ,eohippus1 ,hipparion1 and horse1 which we have already instanced2 and still more so for the rise and disappearance of the great ,mesozoic ,saurians when their object was fulfilled4 ,deny guidance and type1 and everything becomes confused4 ,why should variation take certain directions8 how comes it that natural forces and conditions of life so occur and co-operate as to produce the variety of changes needed8 ,and there is also one other general objection which ,i desire to state4 ,why should development have gone in different directions towards the same object8 ,i grant that different circumstances would produce different changes1 but not for the same purpose4 ,for example take eye-sight4 ,the world shows several types of eye4 ,the insect eye quite unlike any other2 the crustacean eye also distinct2 and birds1 fishes1 and animals having an eye which is generally similar and is somewhat imitated by the eye of the cuttle fish 7which is not a fish1 but a cephalopod74 ,again1 granted that poison is a useful defence to creatures3 how is it given so differently8--to a serpent in the tooth2 to a bee or a scorpion in the tail2 to a spider in a specially adapted antenna1 and to the centipede in a pair of modified legs on the thorax4 ,one would have supposed that natural causes tending to produce poison weapons would have all gone on the same lines4 ,and1 curiously1 in some few cases1 we have a sameness of line4 ,about twelve species--all fish--have an electric apparatus1 familiar to most of us in the flat sea-fish called ,torpedo and in the fresh-water eel called ,gymnotus4 ,the only answer the anti-creationist can give to this dissimilarity of development is that there are many vacant places in the polity of nature1 and that development takes place in that direction which fits the creature to occupy a vacant place1 and is1 therefore1 diverse4 ,it seems to me that this--the only answer that can he given--is necessarily a modified form or mode of creation4 ,how can natural causes know anything about a polity of nature and a vacant place1 here and there1 so that the creature must develop in one way or another to fill it8 ,another set of cases is the production of similar functional results by most diverse means1 as in the case of flying animals1 birds1 pterodactyles1 and bats2 here there is a widely different modification of the fore-arm and other bones1 all for the same purpose4 ,the reader will do well to refer to ,mr4 ,mivart's book on this subject4 ,again1 the question of types seems to be pointed to in the curious fact of what ,i may call the double development of birds from reptiles4 ,mr4 ,mivart says1 ,if one set of birds sprang from one set of reptiles and another set from another set of reptiles1 the two sets could never by 'natural selection' only have grown into such perfect similarity4 ,yet we can trace the ,struthious birds 7those that1 like ostriches1 do not fly7 through the ,dinosaurs and ,dinornis1 and the flying ,carinate birds though pterodactyles1 ,archaeopteryx1 and ,icthyornis1 c4 ,it might well be added to this part of the subject1 that granted that developmental changes were often small1 that progress was attained little by little1 this does not appear to have been always the case4 ,the discoveries of the fossil species of horse1#a ,eohippus1 ,hipparion1 and so forth1 clearly establish a developmental series1 and the ancient forms are claimed as the ancestor of the modern horse2 but these 7,professor ,owen tells us7 differed more from one another than the ass and the zebra 7for instance7 differ from the horse4 ,still1 of course it may be that there are still undiscovered intermediate forms2 and in any case there need be no desire to detract from the value of the series1 as really pointing towards a gradual perfection of the horse from a ruder ancestor up to the latest type4 ,but having reached the type1 and though that type exhibits such 7considerable7 variations as occur between the ,shetland pony1 the ,arab1 and the dray-horse1 we have still no difficulty in recognizing the essential identity2 nor is there any evidence or any probability that the horse will ever change into anything essentially different4 ,all the fossil bats1 again1 were true bats3 and so with the rhinoceroses and the elephants4 ,granting the fullest use that may be made of the imperfection of the geological record1 it is difficult to account for this1 and still more for the absence of intermediate forms 7particularly suitable for preservation7 of the ,cetaceae4 ,the ,zeuglodons from ,eocene down to ,pliocene1 the ,dolphins in the ,pliocene1 and the ,ziphoids ,catodontidae1 and ,balaenidae in the ,pliocene1 are all fully developed forms1 with no intermediate species4 ,footnote #a3 ,the series is thus 7,nicholson1 p4 #gjb73--a4 ,eohippus--,lower ,eocene of ,america2 fore-feet have four toes and a rudimentary thumb or pollex4 #b4 ,orohippus 7about the size of a fox7--,eocene4 #c4 ,anchitherium--,eocene and ,lower ,miocene2 three toes1 but #b and #d are diminutive4 #d4 ,hipparion--,upper ,miocene and ,pliocene2 still three toes1 but #c more like the modern horse and #b and #d still further diminished4 #e4 ,pliohippus--later ,pliocene1 very like ,equus4 #f4 ,equus--,post-,pliocene4 ,mr4 ,mivart remarks1 ,there are abundant instances to prove that considerable modifications may suddenly develop themselves1 either due to external conditions or to obscure internal causes in the organisms which exhibit them4#a ,if it is not so1 granted to the full the imperfection of the ,geologic record1 but remembering the cases where we do find intermediate forms2 we ask why should they not be preserved in other cases8 ,if they ever existed we should surely see more changing forms2 not only such as are more or less uncertainly divided species1 but whole orders running one into another4 ,no evidence exists to show that any bird has gradually passed into an animal1 nor a carnivorous beast become ruminant1 or vice vers4 ,footnote #a3 ,p4 #aab ,transcriber's note3 ,chapter ,,viii ,the analogy of changes that are known will not bear extension enough to prove1 even probably1 any such change4 ,surely if our conclusion in favour of a ,divine ,design to be attained1 and a ,providential ,intelligence directing the laws of development1 is no more than a belief1 it is a probable and reasonable belief3 it certainly meets facts and allows place for difficulties in a way far more satisfactory than the opposite belief which rejects all but secondary and purely natural causes4 ,so clear does this seem to me1 that ,i cannot help surmising that we should never have heard of any objection to ,divine creation and providential direction1 if it had not been for a prevalent fixed idea1 that by creation must be meant a final1 one-act production 7per saltum7 of a completely developed form1 where previously there had been nothing4 ,such a creation would of course militate against any evolution1 however cautiously stated or clearly established4 ,and no doubt such an idea of creation was and still is prevalent1 and would naturally and almost inevitably arise1 while nothing to the contrary in the modus operandi of ,creative ,power was known4 ,what is more strange is that the current objection should not now be1 ,your idea of creation is all wrong1 rather than the one which has been strongly put forward 7and against which ,i am contending71 ,there is no place for a ,creator4 7#e7 ,this is the only other general point that remains to be taken up in connection with the theory that all living forms are due to the gradual accumulation of small favourable changes without creative intervention4 ,the objection is that we cannot obtain the inconceivably long time required for the process of uncontrolled and unaided evolution4 ,i am not here concerned to argue generally for the shortness or longness of the periods of geological time2 let us1 for the purposes of argument1 admit a very wide margin of centuries and ages2 but some limit there must be4 ,the sun's light and heat1 for one thing1 are necessary1 and though the bulk of combustible material in the sun is enormous1 there must be some end to it4 ,sir ,william ,thomson has calculated 7and his calculations have never been answered7 that on purely physical grounds1 the existence of life on the earth must be limited to some such period as #ajj millions of years2 and this is far too short for uncontrolled evolution4 ,we know from fossils1 that species have remained entirely unaltered since the glacial epochs began1 and how many generations are included even in that6 ,if no change is visible in all that time1 how many more ages must have elapsed before a primitive ,amoeba could have developed into a bird or a ,mammal8 ,in ,florida ,mr4 ,agassiz has shown that coral insects exist unchanged1 and must have been so for #cj1jjj years4 ,when we remember also the enormous destruction of life that takes place1 supposing that in a given form a few creatures underwent accidental changes which were beneficial and likely to aid them--still what chances were there that the creatures which began to exhibit the right sort of change should have died before they left offspring6 the chances against them are enormous3 and the chances have to be repeated at every successive change before the finally perfected or advanced creature took its place in the polity of nature4 ,moreover1 there is the chance of small changes being lost by intercrossing3 our own cattle-breeders have most carefully to select the parents1 or else the favourable variety soon disappears4 ,how then1 seeing the power of stability which at least some forms are found to exhibit--seeing too the enormous chances against the survival of the particular specimens that begin to vary1 and the further chances of the loss of variety by intercrossing2 how can we get the millions of millions of years necessary to produce the present extreme divergence of species8 ,the fact is that the force of this objection is likely to be undervalued1 from the mere difficulty of bringing home to the mind the immeasurable time really demanded by uncontrolled evolution4 ,nor is the question of time left absolutely to be matter of belief or speculation4 ,for here and there in the geological records of the rocks1 we have certain intermediate forms--or forms which we may fairly argue to be such4 ,but looking at the very considerable differences between the earlier and the later of these forms--differences greater than those which now separate well-defined species1 it seems questionable whether any of the divisions of ,tertiary time1 taking all the circumstances into consideration1 could be lengthened out sufficiently to accomplish the change4 ,at any rate1 if any particular example be disallowed1 the general objection must be admitted to be weighty4 ,now the intervention of any system of created designs of animal form--however little its details be understood--and the production of variations under divine guidance which would lead more directly to the accomplishment of such forms as the complicated flowers of orchids above described1 would unquestionably tend to shorten the requisite time4 ,there would1 by a process of reasoning easily followed1 be an immediate reduction of the ages required1 within practicable limits1 though the time must still remain long4 ,more than that is not necessary4 ,the ,ussherian chronology is not of ,divine revelation1 though some persons speak of it as if it was4 ,there is not the shadow of a reason to be gleaned from the ,bible1 nor from any other source1 that the commencement of orderly development1 the separation of land and water1 earth and sky1 and the subsequent provision of designs for organic forms of life and the first steps that followed the issue of the design1 began six thousand years ago1 or anything like it4 ,it can be shown1 indeed1 that historical man1 or the specific origin of the man spoken of as ,adam1 dates back but a limited time2 and it is calculable with some degree of probability how far2 but that is all4 ,we are therefore in no difficulty when ample time is demanded2 but we are in the greatest straits when the illimitable demands of a slowly and minutely stepping development1 perpetually liable to be checked1 turned back1 and even obliterated1 have to be confronted with other weighty probabilities and calculations regarding the sun's light and heat1 and the duration of particular geologic eras4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,the ,,descent ,,of ,,man4 ,we now approach a special objection which always1 has been 7and ,i shall be pardoned1 perhaps1 for saying always will be7 the crux of the theory of unaided1 uncreated evolution--the advent of reasoning1 and not only reasoning1 but self-conscious and ,god-conscious ,,man4 ,here again the lines of argument are so numerous1 and the details into which we might go so varied1 that a rigid and perhaps bald selection of a few topics is all that can be attempted4 ,but ,i may remark that naturalists are far from being agreed on this part of the subject4 ,agassiz rejects the evolution of man altogether4 ,mr4 ,st4 ,g4 ,mivart1 while partly admitting1 as every one else now does1 the doctrine of evolution1 denies the descent of man4 ,mr4 ,wallace1 the great apostle of evolution1 opposes ,darwin1 and will have none of his views on the descent of man2 and ,professor ,huxley himself says that1 while the resemblance of structure is such that if any process of physical causation can be discovered by which the genera and families of ordinary animals have been produced1 the process of causation is amply sufficient to account for the origin of man1 still he admits that the gulf is vast between civilized man and brutes1 and he is certain that whether from them or not1 man is assuredly not of them4 ,the first difficulty ,i shall mention is1 however1 a structural one4 ,supposing that an ape-like ancestor developed into man1 on the principles of natural selection2 then his development has taken place in a manner directly contrary to the acknowledged law of natural selection4 ,he has developed backwards2 his frame is in every way weaker2 he is wanting in agility2 he has lost the prehensile feet2 he has lost teeth fitted for fighting or crushing or tearing2 he has but little sense of smell2 he has lost the hairy covering1 and is obliged to help himself by clothes4#a ,if this loss was ornamental it is quite unlike any other development in this respect1 since no other creature has the same2 for ornamental purposes the fur becomes coloured1 spotted1 and striped1 but not lost4 ,it is easy to reply that man being intelligent1 his brain power enables him to invent clothes1 arms1 implements1 and so forth1 which not only supply all deficiencies of structure1 but give him a great superiority over all creatures4 ,but how did he get that intelligence8 ,by what natural process of causation 7without intelligent direction7 is it conceivable that1 given a species of monkey1 all at once and at a certain stage1 structural development should have been retarded and actually reversed1 and a development of brain structure alone set in8 ,nor1 be it observed1 has any trace of man with a rudimentary brain ever been discovered4 ,savages have brains far in excess of their requirements1 and can consequently be educated and improved4 ,the skull of a prehistoric man found in the ,neanderthal near ,dusseldorf is of average brain capacity1 showing that in those remote ages man was very much in capacity what he is at present4 ,footnote #a3 ,it is remarkable that the loss of the hairy covering is most complete when it is most wanted3 the back1 the spine1 and the shoulders are in nearly all races unprotected2 and yet the want of a covering from the heat or cold is such that the rudest savages have invented some kind of cloak for the back4 ,it must1 however1 be admitted that the special difficulties of the origin of man are not purely structural4 ,we do not know enough of the ,divine plan to be able to understand why it is that there is a certain undeniable unity of form1 in the two eyes1 ears1 mouth1 limbs and organs generally of the animal and man4 ,moreover1 much is made of the fact1 as stated by a recent ,edinburgh ,reviewer1 that the physical difference between man and the lowest ape is trifling compared with that which exists between the lowest ape and any brute animal that is not an ape4#a ,this fact no doubt negatives the idea put forward by ,bishop ,temple and others1 that if there was an evolution of man1 it must have been in a special branch which was foreseen and commenced very far back in the scale of organic being4 ,for the structural difference might not require such a separate origin2 while the mental difference1 affording objections of a different class1 will not allow of any such evolution at all4 ,that there is some connection between man and the animal cannot be denied1 and consequently1 in the absence of fuller information1 very little would be gained by insisting on the purely physical development question4 ,the ,bible states positively that the man ,adam 7as the progenitor of a particular race1 at any rate7 was a separate and actual production1 on a given part of the earth's surface4 ,all that we need conclude regarding that is that there is nothing known which entitles us to say1 ,this is not a fact1 and therefore is not genuine revelation4 ,footnote #a3 ,no4 #cca1 ,july1 #ahhe1 p4 #bbc4 ,moreover1 as to the question of the possibility of human development generally1 there are certain considerations which directly support our belief4 ,for example1 directly we look to the characteristic point1 the gift of intellect1 we can reasonably argue that the action of a ,creator is indispensable4 ,the entrance of consciousness and of reason1 however elementary1 marks something out of all analogy with the development of physical structure1 just as much as the entrance of ,life marked a new departure in no analogy with the properties of inorganic matter4 ,from the first dawn of what looks like will and choice between two things1 and something like a reason which directs the course of the organism in a particular way for a particular object1 we have an altogether new departure4 ,the difficulty commences at the outset1 and even in the animal creation2 it is merely continued and rendered more striking when we take into consideration the higher development of intellect into power of abstract reasoning1 self-consciousness and ,god-consciousness4 ,it is perfectly true that the difference between the instinct of animals and the reason and mind of man1 is one of degree rather than kind4 ,as ,christians1 we have no objection whatever to a development of reason from the lowest reason solely concerned with earthly and bodily affairs to the highest powers searching into deep and spiritual truths4 ,but such a development1 though it is parallel to a physical development--as spiritual law appears to be always parallel 7as far as the nature of things permits7 to physical laws--still is a development which cannot under any possible circumstances dispense with an external spiritual order of existence1 and one which cannot be physically caused4 ,nor is it conceivable that man should develop a consciousness of ,god1 when no ,god really exists externally to the consciousness4#a ,footnote #a3 ,for our consciousness of ,god is obviously very different from a figment of the imagination1 or the sort of reality experienced in a dream4 ,this is not the place to develop such an argument1 but it seems to me more than doubtful whether we can even imagine something absolutely non-existent in nature4 ,when the artist's imagination would construct1 e4g41 a winged dragon1 the concept is always made up of parts which are real--eyes like an alligator1 bat-wings1 scales of a fish or crocodile1 and so forth4 ,all the members or parts are real1 put together to form the unreal4 ,i do not believe that any instance of a human conception can be brought forward which on analysis will not conform to this rule4 ,the main objection1 then1 that ,i would press is1 that admitting any possibility of the development of man from a purely physical and structural point of view1 admitting any inference that may be drawn fairly from the undoubted connection 7increasingly great as it is as we go upwards from the lower animal to the ape7 between animals and man1 that inference never can touch the descent of man as a whole2 because no similarity of bodily structure can get over the difficulty of the mental power of man4 ,we have to deal not with a part of man1 but with the whole4 ,the difficulty cannot be got over by denying mind as a thing per se2 for all attempts to represent mind as the mere product of a physical structure1 the brain1 utterly fail4 ,nobody wishes to deny what ,dr4 ,h4 ,maudsley and others have made so plain to us1 that mind has 7in one aspect1 at any rate7 a physical basis--that is1 that no thought1 imagination1 or combination of thought1 is known to us apart from change and expenditure of energy in the brain4 ,nor can we1 by any process of introspection or observation of other subjects1 separate the mind from the brain and ascertain the existence of pure mind1 or soul1 experimentally4 ,but still1 there is no possibility of getting the operations of mind out of mere cell structure1 unless an external ,power has added the mind power1 as a faculty of ,his endowing2 then ,he may be allowed to have connected that faculty ever so mysteriously with physical structure2 we are content4 ,and ,i must insist on the total failure of all analogy between the development of bones or muscles and the development of mind2 and even if we grant a certain stage of instinct to have arisen1 we are still in the dark as to how that could develop into intellect such as man possesses1 including a belief in ,god4 ,on this subject let us hear ,professor ,allman4 ,between a development of material structure and a development of intellectual and moral features1 the ,professor says1 there is no conceivable analogy2 and the obvious and continuous path1 which we have hitherto followed up1 in our reasonings from the phenomena of lifeless matter to those of living form1 here comes suddenly to an end4 ,the chasm between unconscious life and thought is deep and impassable1 and no transitional phenomena are to be found by which1 as by a bridge1 we can span it over4#a ,there can be life or function without consciousness or thought2 therefore1 even if we go so far as to admit that life is only a property of protoplasm1 there can be no ground for saying that thought is only a property of protoplasm4 ,footnote #a3 ,british ,association ,address4 ,if1 says ,professor ,allman1 we were to admit that every living cell were a conscious and thinking thing1 are we therefore justified in asserting that its consciousness with its irritability is a property of the matter of which it is composed8 ,the sole argument on which this view is made to rest is analogy4 ,it is argued that because the life phenomena1 which are invariably found in the cell1 must be regarded as a property of the cell1 the phenomena of consciousness by which they are accompanied must also be so regarded4 ,the weak point in the argument is the absence of all analogy between the things compared3 and as the conclusion rests solely on the argument from analogy1 the two must fall to the ground together4 ,try and assign to matter all the properties you can think of1 its impenetrability1 extension1 weight1 inertia1 elasticity1 and so forth1 by no process of thought 7as ,mr4 ,justice ,fry observes in an article in ,the ,contemporary ,review #a7 can you get out of them an adequate account of the phenomena of mind or spirit4 ,we just now observed that consciousness1 thought1 and so forth1 are never exhibited apart from the action of the brain2 some change in the brain accompanies them all4 ,we do not deny that4 ,but it is obvious that thought being manifested in the presence of cerebral matter or something like it1 is a very different thing from thought being a property of such matter1 in the sense in which polarity is the property of a magnet1 or irritability of living protoplasm4 ,footnote #a3 ,october1 #ahhj1 p4 #ehg4 ,to all this ,i have seen no answer4 ,the way in which the opponents of ,christian beliefs meet such considerations appears to be to ignore or minimize them1 so as to pass over to what seems to them a satisfactory if not an easy series of transitions4 ,if ,life is after all only a property of matter1 then given life1 a brain may be produced2 and as mind is always manifested in the presence of 7and apparently indissolubly united with7 brain structure1 it is not a much greater leap to accept life as a property of matter than it is to take thought as a property of a certain specialized physical structure4 ,it is true that the distance is great between the instinct of an animal and the abstract reasoning power of a ,newton or a ,herbert ,spencer2 but 7as we are so often told7 the difference is of degree not of kind1 and as the brain structure develops1 so does the power and degree of reason4 ,as to the difference in man1 that he is the only religious animal--the one creature that has the idea of ,god--that is a mere development of the emotions in connection with abstract reasoning as to the cause of things4 ,no part of our mental nature is more common to the animal and the man than the emotional2 and if in the one it is mere love and hatred1 joy and grief1 confidence and fear1 in the other the emotions are developed into the poetic sense of beauty1 or the awe felt for what is grand and noble2 and this insensibly passes into worship1 the root of the whole being fear of the unknown and the mysterious4 ,that is the general line of argument taken up4 ,even accepting the solution 7if such it maybe called7 of the two first difficulties--life added spontaneously or aboriginally to matter1 and thought and consciousness added to organism--still the rest of the path is by no means so easy as might at the first glance appear4 ,development in brain structure certainly does not always proceed pari passu with a higher and more complex reasoning4 ,in actual fact we find high reasoning power1 quite unexpectedly here and there1 up and down the animal kingdom4 ,some insects1 with very little that can be called a brain at all1 exhibit high intelligence2 and some animals with smaller brains are more docile and intelligent than others with a much larger development4 ,the ape1 in spite of his close physical approach to the structure of man1 and his still greater relative distance from the other animal creation1 is not superior 7if he is not decidedly inferior7 in reason or intelligence to several animals lower down in the scale4 ,savages1 again1 have a brain greatly in excess of their actual requirements 7so to speak74 ,hence the mere existence of brain1 however complex1 does not indicate the possession of mental power4 ,there is reason to believe that all thought and exercise of the mind--in fact1 every step in the process of ,education1 whereby an ignorant person is brought at last to apprehend the most abstract propositions--is accompanied by some molecular 7or other7 change4 ,so that a person who has been carefully educated has the brain in a different state from that of an exactly similarly constituted person whose brain has been subjected to no such exercise4 ,but even if this action could be formulated and explained1 it would not follow that thought is the product of the molecular change2 or that1 vice vers1 if we could artificially produce certain changes1 in the brain1 certain thoughts and perceptions would thereon coexist with the changes1 and arise in the mind of the subject forthwith4 ,and if not1 then no process of physical development accounts for grades of intellect2 we have only mind developing as mind4 ,but the theory of evolution will have nothing to do with any development but physical2 or at any rate with mental development except as the result of physical3 it knows nothing of pure mind1 or spiritual existence1 or anything of the sort4 ,in the nature of things we can have neither observation nor experiment in this stage4 ,we cannot by any process develop the lower mind of an animal into the higher mind of man1 and prove the steps of the evolution4#a ,it is important to remember that the power of directing the attention by a voluntary process of abstraction1 is one that distinctively belongs to man4 ,it is an effort of will1 of a kind that no animal has any capacity for4 ,by it alone have we any power of abstract reasoning1 and it is intimately concerned with our self-consciousness and memory1 and with our language4 ,i am quite aware that animals possess something analogous to a language of their own2 they can indicate certain emotions and give warning1 and so forth1 to their fellows4 ,but that language could never develop into human language1 or the animal will 7such as it is7 ever rise to a human will1 or animals become endowed with self-consciousness1 unless they could acquire the power of voluntarily abstracting the mind from one subject or part of a subject and fixing the attention on another4 ,we cannot formulate any process of change whereby the lower state could pass on to or attain to the higher in this respect4 ,footnote #a3 ,we can of course follow the sort of mental development which is traceable when we consider the origin of our own sagacious and faithful dogs in the wild prairie dog3 but this development is always in contact with the mind of man1 and is1 as it were1 the result of man's action1 as man's development in mind and soul is the result of ,god's action4 ,therefore again we conclude that the higher reason is a gift ab externo4 ,if we take a step further to the spiritual or moral faculties of man1 we have the same difficulty intensified1 if indeed it does take a new departure4 ,to examine the question adequately would require us to go into the deep waters of psychology2 and here we should encounter many matters regarding which there may be legitimate doubt and difference of opinion1 which would obscure and lead us away from our main line of thought4 ,this ,i would willingly avoid4 ,but it is quite intelligible1 and touches on no dangerous ground1 when we assert that there is a distinct ascent--an interval again raising developmental difficulties1 directly we pass from the intellectual to the moral4 ,we may wonder at the high degree of intelligence possessed by some animals2 but we are unable to conceive any animal possessing a power of abstract reasoning1 having ideas of beauty 7as such71 or of manifesting what we call the poetic feeling4 ,and still more is this so when we look at the further interval that lies between any perception of physical phenomena1 any reasoning in the abstract1 or investigation of mathematical truth1 and the overmastering sense of obligation to the moral law1 or the action of the soul in its instinctive possession of the conception of a ,divine ,existence external to itself4 ,it is because of this felt difference that we talk of the spiritual as something beyond and above the mental4 ,the distinction is real1 though we must not allow ourselves to be led too far in attempting to scan the close union that1 from another point of view1 exists between the one and the other4 ,in a recent number of ,the ,edinburgh ,review1#a the author complains of ,bishop ,temple thus3 ,he uses the word spiritual in such a way that he might be taken to imply that we had some other faculty for the perception of moral truths1 in addition to1 and distinct from1 our reason4 ,and the writer goes on to make an uncompromising assertion of reason as the one supreme faculty of man4 ,to depreciate reason 7he says7 to the profit of some supposed 'moral' illative sense1 would be to open the door to the most desolating of all scepticisms1 and to subordinate the basis of our highest intellectual power to some mere figment of the imagination4 ,footnote #a3 ,july1 #ahhe1 p4 #baa1 in the course of the article to which ,i have already alluded4 ,on the other hand1 some writers 7claiming to derive their argument from the ,scriptures7 have supposed they could assert three distinct natures in man--a spiritual1 a mental 7or psychic71 and a bodily4 ,now there is no doubt that1 rightly or wrongly 7,i am not now concerned with that71 the ,bible does distinctly assert that a breath of lives #a was specially put into the bodily form of man1 and adds that thereby man became a living soul4 ,but it is also stated of the animal creation that the breath of life was given to them1#b and animals are said to have a soul 7nephesh74#c ,so that neither in the one case nor the other have we more than the two elements3 a body1 and a life put into it2 though of course the man's life 7as the plural indicates1 and other texts explain7 was higher in kind than that of the animal4 ,footnote #a3 ,the plural of excellence appears to mark something superior in the spirit of man over that of the animals4 ,also compare ,job xxxiii4 #d1 ,the breath of the ,almighty hath given me life1 with ,isa4 xlii4 #e and ,zech4 xii4 #a4 ,footnote #b3 ,though not in the plural of excellence4 ,see ,gen4 vi #ag1 vii4 #bb1 c4 ,footnote #c3 ,gen4 i4 #bj1 margin of ,a4,v4 ,st4 ,paul1 it is true1 speaks of the whole spirit1 and soul1 and body4#a ,but our ,lord ,himself1 in a very solemn passage 7where it would be most natural to expect the distinction1 if it were absolute and structural1 to be noticed71 speaks of the soul and body only4#b ,the fact is that we are only able to argue conclusively that1 besides the physical form1 we have a non-material soul1 or a self4 ,and our ,lord1 whose teaching was always eminently practical1 went no further4 ,we are conscious of a self--something that remains1 while the body continually grows and changes4 ,there was in ,punch1 some time ago1 a picture of an old grandfather1 with a little child looking at a marble bust representing a child4 ,who is that8 asks the little one2 and the old man replies1 ,that is grandfather when he was a little boy4 ,and who is it now8 rejoins the child4 ,one smiles at the picture1 but in reality it conceals a very important and a very pathetic truth4 ,nothing could well be greater than the outward difference between the grey hairs and bowed figure and the little cherub face2 and yet there was a self--a soul1 that remained the same throughout4 ,in ,platonic language1 while the ,greek3 eidlon perpetually changes1 the ,greek3 eidos remains4 ,we have1 therefore1 evidence as positive as the nature of the subject admits that we are right in speaking of the body and the soul1 or self4 ,and as we cannot connect the higher reasoning1 and1 above all1 conscience and the religious belief1 as a property of physical structure1 we conclude that the ,scripture only asserts facts when it attributes both to the soul1 as a spiritual element or nature belonging to the body4 ,man is essentially one2#c but there is both a material and a non-material1 a physical and a spiritual element1 in the one nature4 ,but1 being a spiritual element1 that part of our nature necessarily has two sides 7so to speak74 ,it has its point of contact with self and the world of sense1 and its point of contact with the world of spirit and with the ,great ,spirit of all1 from whom it came4 ,because of that higher breath of lives given by the ,most ,high1 man possesses the faculty of consciousness of ,god 7i4e41 the higher spiritual faculties71 besides the consciousness of self1 or merely intellectual power regarding self and the external world4 ,therefore1 when an ,apostle desires to speak very forcibly of something that is to affect a man through and through1 in every part and in every aspect of his nature1 he speaks of the whole spirit1 soul1 and body4 ,to sum up3 all that we know from the ,bible is that ,god gave a soul 7nephesh7 to the animals1 in consequence of which 7when united to the physical structure7 the functions of life and the phenomena of intelligence are manifested4 ,so ,god gave a non-material1 and therefore spiritual1 element to human nature2 and this being of a higher grade and capacity to that of the animal world1 not only in its union with physical structure1 makes the man a living soul--gives him an intelligence and a certain reason such as the animals have1 but also gives him1 as a special and unique endowment2 the consciousness of self 7involving--which is very noteworthy--a consciousness of its own limitations7 and the consciousness of ,god4 ,hence man's power of improvement4 ,if the man cultivates only the self-consciousness and the reason that is with it1 the ,scriptures speak of him as the natural or psychic man2 if he is enabled by ,divine grace to develop the higher moral and spiritual part of his nature1 and to walk after the ,spirit1 not after the flesh1 he is a spiritual man4 ,footnote #a3 #a ,thess4 v4 #bc4 ,footnote #b3 ,matt4 x4 #bh4 ,footnote #c3 ,the well-known argument of ,st4 ,paul regarding the resurrection in #a ,cor4 xv4 7ver4 #de1 c47 is well worthy of consideration in this connection4 ,he deals with man as one whole2 nothing is said about a man being 7or having7 a spirit separate from his soul and his body1 and that spirit being given a higher body than it had upon earth2 but of the whole man1 soul and body1 being raised and changed into a man1 also one whole1 with a more perfect body--a body more highly developed in the ascending scale of perfection4 ,i do not forget the passage where the same ,apostle 7#b ,cor4 v4 #f7 speaks of being in the body1 and absent from the ,lord2 and of being clothed upon2 but this does not in any way detract from the importance of the treatment of the subject in the ,first ,epistle4 ,it is idle to speculate whether the nephesh of the animals1 or the living self of the man1 is an entity separate from the body1 and capable of existing per se--of its own inherent nature--apart from it4 ,we do not know that animal forms are the clothing of a lower-graded but separate spiritual form1 or that such an animal soul or spirit can exist separately from the body2 and we do not know 7from the ,bible7--whatever may be the current language on the subject--that man's spirit is in its nature capable of anything like permanent separate existence4#a ,man is essentially one2 and when the physical change called death passes over him1 it does not utterly obliterate the whole being4 ,the non-material element is not affected any more than it is by the sleep of every night2 and the man will be ultimately raised1 not a spiritual or immaterial form1 but provided1 as before1 with a body1 only one of a higher capacity and better adapted to its higher environments--the spiritual body of ,st4 ,paul1 in a word4 ,the original union of mind and matter is1 on any possible theory1 mysterious2 and the separation of them for a time is neither less so1 nor more4 ,all this is perfectly true1 whether the non-material element in man's nature is necessarily1 inherently and by nature1 immortal or not--a question which ,i do not desire to enter on4 ,hence it is that a certain element of truth is recognized in the protest of the ,edinburgh ,reviewer4 ,on the other hand1 as we have not only intelligence1 emotions 7which are possessed in lower degree by animals71 self-consciousness1 the power of abstract reasoning1 and the higher faculties of the imagination1#b but also the consciousness of ,god and the commanding sense of right and wrong2 and seeing that the last-named are different in kind from the former1 we give them a separate name1 and speak of the moral or spiritual nature or capacity of man1 as well as the intellectual or mental4 ,some 7by the way7 choose moral to include both1 holding that ethical perceptions arise out of 7or are intimately connected with7 our sense of ,god4 ,others would make a further distinction1 and confine moral to the 7supposed7 bare ethical perception of duty or of right and wrong1 and add spiritual to distinguish the highest faculty of all1 whereby man holds communion with his ,maker and recognizes his relation to ,him4 ,footnote #a3 ,this remark does not1 of course1 in any way touch the question whether the spiritual part of a man is conscious in the interval between death and resurrection1 or whether it can be made sensible in any way whatever to living persons4 ,footnote #b3 ,the poetic sense1 the perception of the beautiful1 c4 ,whether this further distinction is justified or not1 there is a distinction between the moral and the purely intellectual2 and we are justified in using different terms for things that are practically different4 ,this the ,edinburgh ,reviewer seems to have forgotten4 ,it was necessary to my argument to enter on this somewhat lengthy examination of the spiritual nature of man1 because1 while we acknowledge the unity of man1 we are compelled to recognize in his religious sense and aspirations and capacities something quite disparate--something that we could not get by a natural process of growth from such beginnings of reason as are observed in the lower animals4 ,i am aware that ,dr4 ,darwin conceived that the religious feeling of man might have grown out of the natural emotions of fear1#a love1 gratitude1 c41 when once men began to question as to the explanation of the phenomena of life1 and to ascribe the forces of nature to the possession of a spirit such as he himself was conscious of3 and with much more positive intent1 ,mr4 ,h4 ,spencer has also1 after most painstaking inquiries1 formulated what he conceives to be the origin of religious belief in man4 ,he refers us to the early belief in a double of self1 which double could be projected out of self1 and remained in some way after death1 so as to become the object of fear1 and ultimately of worship4 ,when this ancestor-worship resulted in the worship of a multitude of genii 7whose individuality1 as regards their former earthly connection1 is more or less forgotten71 then the idea of attaching the numerous divinities or ancestor-souls to the ocean1 the sky1 the sun1 the mountains1 and the powers of nature1 arises2 whence the poetic systems of ancient polytheistic mythology4 ,gradually men began to reason and to think1 and they refined the polytheism into the higher idea of one great1 central1 immaterial all-pervading power1 which they called ,god4 ,footnote3 #a ,see the ,descent of ,man1 vol4 i4 p4 #fh 7original edition74 ,but it is right to state that the subject is not treated in any way whatever so as to argue that the religious belief is a fancy1 or development of fancy1 with no ,god and no facts about ,god behind it4 ,mr4 ,spencer1 in effect1 concludes that this ,god is only man's own idea of filling up a blank1 of explaining the fact that there must be an ultimate first cause of whatever exists1 and there is also a great source of power of some kind external to ourselves4#a ,i am not going here to enter on any special argument as to the validity of these theories in their relation to the direct question of the nature and existence of ,god4 ,what we are here concerned with is1 whether they enable us to exclude the idea of a gift and a giver of spiritual or mental 7we will not quarrel about terms7 nature to man1 and whether1 by any fair reasoning from analogy1 we can suppose man's reason and his sensus numinis to arise by the mere stages of natural growth and development4 ,dr4 ,darwin's supposition takes no notice of the moral law and its influence2 indeed he adopts#b the view that conscience is no sense of right and wrong1 but only the stored up and inherited social instinct1 a sense of convenience and inconvenience to the tribe and to the individual1 which at last acts so spontaneously and rapidly in giving its verdict on anything1 that we regard it as a special sense4 ,it would of course be possible to expend much time and many words in argument on this subject4 ,there is not1 and never will be1 any direct evidence as to the origin of conscience2 and as that sense 7like any other power of our mental nature7 is capable of being educated1 evoked1 enlightened1 and strengthened1 and may also by neglect and contradiction deteriorate and wither away1 there is ample room for allowing a certain part of the theory4#c ,but many people who examine their own conscience will feel that the description certainly does not suit them2 there are many things which conscience disapproves1 of which no great evil consequences to themselves or any one else are felt4 ,conscience is constantly condemning the way that seemeth good unto a man4 ,ultimately no doubt1 there is real evil at the end of everything that conscience warns a man against2 but not such as inherited experience is likely to recognize4 ,is it1 for instance1 the experience of the mass of men1 as men1 that the fleshly mind is death1 but the spiritual mind is life and peace8 ,is not rather the world at large habitually putting money-making1 position-making1 and the care of the things of the body1 of time1 and of sense1 in the first place2 and is not the moral law perpetually warning us that the fashion of the world passes away1 and that what seems gold is in reality tinsel8 ,as far as the condemnation that conscience passes on the broad evils which affect society--thou shalt not steal1 thou shalt not lie1 or so forth--no doubt it is supported by the transmitted sense of inconvenience2 but who has told it of the evil of things that do not affect our social state8 and who has changed the inconvenient1 the painful1 into the wrong8 ,it is one thing to instinctively avoid a theft or a falsehood1 even if the first origin of such instinct were the fear of consequences or the love of approbation2 it is quite another--the inward condemnation of something which the deceitfulness of sin is able to excuse1 and which the world at large would regard as permissible or at least venial4 ,even if inherited use has its full play1 there is still a something wanted before the one can be got into 7or out of7 the other4 ,why1 again1 are savages prone to imagine natural phenomena to be caused or actuated by spirits8 ,surely it is because there is consciously a spirit in man1 and a ,higher ,power1 even ,god1 outside1 who exists1 though man in his ignorance has many false ideas regarding ,him4 ,footnote #a3 ,it is not necessary to my immediate argument1 and therefore ,i do not press it into the text 7though ,i should be sorry to seem to forget it for a moment71 to urge that ,st4 ,paul draws a clear distinction between the intellectual faculties and the higher spiritual ones1 when he assures us that the clearest intellect alone cannot assimilate the truths of religion4 ,for the spiritual faculties have been in man grievously deadened and distorted 7to say the least of it71 so that his intellectual faculties1 bright and highly developed as they may be1 will always prove insufficient for the highest life in the absence of the grace of ,god4 ,it is exactly analogous to the case of a man whom we might suppose to have his sense of sight1 touch1 c41 distorted1 and he himself unable to correct them by aid of the senses of others4 ,however acutely he might exercise his reason1 he would be continually wrong in his conclusions4 ,see #a ,cor4 ii41 the whole1 but specially vers4 #ad1 #ae4 ,footnote #b3 ,descent of ,man1 vol4 i4 p1 #gj4 ,footnote #c3 ,the attempt 7already alluded to7 to separate moral and spiritual1 to imagine something that is ethical1 apart from the religious idea1 has lent some strength to these ideas of the moral sense2 but in fact1 the moral sense is inseparably connected with the idea of ,god1 and ,his approval and disapproval4 ,the idea of ,god may be obscured and lost1 but conscience is the surviving trace of it2 the circumference that accounts for the broken arc4 ,it is an objection of the same order that applies to the other theory 7,mr4 ,spencer's74 ,there can be little doubt that in many respects it is true3 as an account of all human systems of religion it is adequate and natural2 but it breaks down hopelessly when we try to use it to explain how the conception of ,god originated in the mind4 ,just as there is a felt difference--not of degree or in form1 but essential and radical in its nature--between the undesirable and the wrong1 so there is a difference between the idea of a mysterious thing towards which apprehension or awe is felt1 and the conception of ,god4 ,granted that man believed in his own spirit or double1 and attributed similar immaterial motor powers as a cause for the wind and waves1 and so forth2 granted that he at last refined this into the belief in one ,spirit whose power was necessarily great and varied--the origin is still unexplained4 ,how did man get the idea of a personal spirit or double--no such thing1 ex hypothesi existing8 ,how did he get to formulate the idea of a ,god when he had simplified his group of many spirits into one8 ,if man is created with a consciousness of his own inner-self1 as a self1 he is able naturally to imagine a like self in other beings2 if he has an idea of ,god innate in him1 he can assimilate the truth when it is at last presented to his mind2 and that is why he feels that it is a refinement2 a rising from the lower to the higher 7because from falsehood to truth71 to let the many gods give place to the ,one ,god4 ,if the idea of ,god has been obscured1 and the power of its apprehension deadened1 the man can only grope about helplessly1 fashioning this explanation of nature and that--all more or less false1 but all dimly bearing witness to the two absolute facts1 that there is an inner non-material self1 and an external non-material ,god4 ,if then there are insuperable difficulties in connecting thought with matter by any process of unaided development1 there are also great difficulties1 even when thought in a rudimentary form is given1 in conceiving it developed into man's reason1 or man's religious belief1 by any known process of natural causation4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,further ,,difficulties ,,regarding ,,the ,,history ,,of ,,man4 ,there are1 however1 some other matters connected with the history of man on the globe1 unconnected with psychological development1 but which demand notice1 as making the argument against an undesigned1 unaided development of man a cumulative one4 ,it is urged that whatever may be thought of the connection of man with the animal creation1 at any rate the received ,christian belief regarding the origin of man--especially his late appearance on the scene--is contrary to known facts1 and that we have to mount up to a vast geologic antiquity to account for what is known from exhumed remains in caves and lake dwellings1 and the like4 ,now no one pretends that the history of man is free from doubt and difficulty1 but the doubt and difficulty are not confined to the orthodox4 ,for the inferences to be drawn from the exhumed remains are equally doubtful whatever views be adopted4 ,i shall not go into great length on this subject1 partly because some recent popular tracts of ,canon ,rawlinson1 ,mr4 ,r4,s4 ,pattison1 and others1 have already made the ordinary reader familiar with the main outlines of the subject2 and still more because1 be the views of archaeologists what they may1 it is impossible for any rational person to contend either that they can be reduced to anything like unity among themselves1 or that they lead to any conclusion favourable to the belief in the self-caused and undesigned evolution of man4 ,it may be regarded as known1 that at the dawn of history1 mankind was passing through what may be called a ,bronze age1 in which weapons of bronze were used before tools of iron were invented4 ,but this age was preceded by one in which even bronze was unknown4 ,stone implements1 and some of bone and horn1 were alone used4 ,it is also well ascertained that there were two widely divided stone ages4 ,the latter1 distinguished by the polishing of the stones1 is described as the neolithic2 the former1 in which flint and other hard stone fragments were merely chipped or flaked to an edge1 is called the palaeolithic4 ,it is hardly contended that the neolithic age could have been more than four or five thousand years ago4 ,there is always the greatest difficulty in fixing any dates because from the nature of the case written records are absent1 and the stages of growth in the history of peoples overlap so4 ,we know that sharp flakes of stone were still used for knives in the time of ,moses and ,joshua4 ,we are not out of the stone age yet1 as regards some portions of the globe2 and it is quite possible that parts of the earth1 not so very remote1 may have been still in the midst of a stone age when ,assyria1 ,chaldaea1 and ,egypt were comparatively highly civilized4 ,it is also fairly certain that between the neolithic or smooth-stone age1 and the palaeolithic1 certain important geological changes took place1 though those changes were not such as to have demanded any very great length of time for their accomplishment4 ,the palaeolithic stone implements are found in river gravels and clays1 along the higher levels of our own ,thames ,valley1 that of the ,somme in ,france1 and in other places4 ,they are also found at the bottom of various natural caverns4 ,no human bones have been found as yet with the implements1 but the bones of large numbers of animals have4 ,and it seems certain that the men who made the implements were contemporaries of the animals1 because in the later part of the age1 at any rate1 they drew or scratched likenesses of the animals on bone4 ,among these representations are figures of the mammoth an extinct form well known to the reader by description and museum specimens of remains4 ,the animals contemporary with these primeval men were the mammoth1 species of rhinoceros and hippopotamus1 the sabre-toothed lion1 the cave-bear1 the reindeer1 besides oxen1 horses1 and other still surviving forms4 ,in his address to the ,british ,association in #ahha ,sir ,john ,lubbock called attention to the fact that these animals appear to indicate both a hot and a cold climate1 and he referred to the fact 7known to astronomers7 that the earth passes through periods of slow change in the eccentricity of its orbit1 and in the obliquity of the ecliptic4 ,the result of the latter condition is1 to produce periods of about #ba1jjj years each1 during one-half of which the ,northern hemisphere will be hotter1 and in the other the ,southern4 ,at present we are in the former phase4 ,but the obliquity of the ecliptic does not act alone2 the eccentricity of the orbit produces another effect1 namely1 that when it is at a minimum the difference between the temperatures of the two hemispheres is small1 and as the eccentricity increases1 so does the difference4 ,at the present time the eccentricity is represented by the fraction 4#jaf4 ,but about #cjj1jjj years ago the eccentricity would have been as great as 4#bf to 4#eg4 ,the result1 it is explained1 would have been not a uniform heat or cold1 but extremes of both2 there would probably have been short but very hot summers1 and long and intensely cold winters4 ,this1 ,sir ,john ,lubbock thought1 might account for the co-existence of both hot and arctic species1 like the hippopotamus and rhinoceros on the one hand1 and the musk-ox and the reindeer on the other4 ,but such considerations really help us little4 ,in the first place1 it is only an assumption that the fossil hippopotamus was an animal of a hot climate--it does not in any way follow from the fact that the now existing species is such2 nor if we make the assumption1 does it explain how1 if the hot summer sufficed for the tropical hippopotamus1 it managed to survive the long and cold winters which suited the arctic species4 ,moreover1 no such calculations can really be made with accuracy3 we do not know what other astronomical facts may have to be taken into consideration1 nor can we say when such periods as those which are so graphically described1 began or ended4 ,in this very instance1 we know that the mammoth only became extinct in comparatively recent times1 since specimens have been found in ,siberia1 with the hair1 skin1 and even flesh1 entirely preserved4 ,granted that the intense cold of the ,siberian ice effected this1 it is impossible to admit more than a limited time for the preservation--not hundreds of thousands of years4 ,professor ,boyd ,dawkins is surely right in stating that the calculations of astronomy afford us no certain aid at present in this inquiry4 ,as regards the geological indications of age1 the best authority seems to point to the first appearance of man in the post-glacial times3 that is to say1 that the gravels in which the palaeolithic implements are found were deposited by the action of fresh water after the great glacial period1 when1 at any rate1 ,northern ,europe1 a great part of ,russia1 all ,scandinavia1 and part of ,north ,america were covered with icefields1 the great glaciers of which left their mark in the numerous scoopings out of ravines and lake beds and in the raising of banks and mounds1 the deposit of boulders1 and the striation of rocks in situ1 which so many districts exhibit4 ,the few instances in which attempts have been made1 in ,italy or elsewhere1 to argue for a pliocene man 7i4e4 in the uppermost group of the tertiary7 have ended in failure1 at least in the minds of most naturalists competent to judge4 ,one of the most typical instances of the position of the implement age has been discovered by ,fraas at ,shssenried in ,suabia2 here the remains of tools and the bones of animals 7probably killed for food7 were found in holes made in the glacial dbris4 ,but here1 again1 it is impossible to say when this glacial age terminated1 and whether man might not have been living in other more favoured parts while it was wholly or partially continuing4 ,in ,scandinavia no palaeolithic stone implements have been found1 from which it may be inferred that the glacial period continued there during the ages when palaeolithic man hunted and dwelt in caves in the other countries where his remains occur4 ,the best authorities do not suppose that the men originated in the localities where the tools are found2 and there is so little known about the geology of ,central ,asia 7for example7 that it is impossible to say whether tribes may not have wandered from some other places not affected by the glaciation we have spoken of4 ,again1 the gravels and brick earths containing the tools are just of the kind which defy attempts to say how long it took to deposit and arrange them4 ,it may be taken as certain1 that after the one age ceased and the first men appeared1 the beds in which their relics occur have been raised violently1 and again depressed and subjected to great flushes and floods of water4 ,the caves have been upheaved1 and the gravels are found chiefly along the valleys of our present rivers1 but at a much higher level1 showing that there was both a higher level of the soil itself and a much greater volume of water4 ,the ,straits of ,dover were formed during this period4 ,but none of these changes required a very long time2 and if we can trace back the later stone age1 which shows remains of pottery and other proofs of greater civilization1 to the dawn of the historic period not more than #djjj or #ejjj years ago1 there is nothing in the nature of the changes which1 as we have stated1 intervened between the palaeolithic and neolithic periods1 that need have occupied more than a thousand or two of years4 ,upheavals of strata and disruptions may be the work of but a short time1 or they may be more gradual4 ,and as to the effect of water1 that depends on its volume and velocity2 no certain rule can be given4 ,our own direct experience shows that very great changes may take place in a few hundred years4 ,the estuaries1 remarks ,mr4 ,pattison1#a around our south-eastern coast1 which have been filled up in historical times1 some within the last seven hundred years to a height of thirty feet from their sea-level1 by the gradual accumulation of soil1 now look like solid earth in no way differing from the far older land adjoining4 ,the harbours out of which our ,plantagenet kings sailed are now firm1 well-timbered land4 ,the sea-channel through which the ,romans sailed on their course to the ,thames1 at ,thanet1 is now a puny fresh-water ditch1 with banks apparently as old as the hills4 ,in ,bede's days1 in the ninth century1 it was a sea-channel three furlongs wide4 ,footnote #a3 ,age and ,origin of ,man--,present-,day ,tract ,series4 ,thus we are in complete uncertainty as to the date of the palaeolithic man1 or as to the time necessary to effect the changes in the surface of the earth which intervened between it and the later stone ages4 ,but there is nothing which conflicts with the possibility that the whole may have occurred within some #h1jjj years4 ,for the supposition of ,mons4 ,gabriel ,mortillet that man has existed for #bcj1jjj years1 there is neither evidence nor probability4 ,his theory is derived from an assumption that the geologic changes alluded to occupied an immense time2 and the further assumption 7if possible still more unwarranted7 that the old race which used the chipped stone tools remained stationary for a very long period1 and very gradually improved its tools and ultimately passed into the neolithic stage when the art of pottery became known1 however rudely4 ,but1 in point of fact1 we are not required by our belief in ,scripture to find any date for the origin of man1 at least not within any moderate limits 7not extending to scores of thousands of years74 ,the ,bible was not intended to enable us to construct a complete science of geology or anthropology1 and the utmost that can be got out of the text is that a date can be suggested 7not proved7 for one particular family 7that of ,adam7 by counting up the generations alluded to in ,holy ,writ before the time of ,abraham4 ,but these are manifestly recorded in a brief and epitomized form2 nor do all the versions agree4 ,we may well believe that a watchful ,providence has taken care of the record of inspiration1 but we know it has been done by human and ordinary agency4 ,the ,bible is ,god's gift to his ,church1 and the ,church has been made in all ages the keeper of it4 ,now in the matter of early dates and numbers1 an unanimous version has not been kept4 ,according to the construction adopted in the ,septuagint1 the creation of ,adam would go back #g1eag years1 while the ,vulgate gives #f1jfg years4 ,dr4 ,hale's computation makes #g1bid years1 and the ,ussherian #e1ifg2a the ,samaritan version is1 ,i believe1 further different from either4 ,as it is1 the facts show nothing inconsistent with an approximation to these several periods4 ,as to any absolute date for the appearance of man as a species1 no calculation is possible1 because of a certain doubt1 which no one can pretend to resolve1 as to whether the ,scriptures do assert the creation of all mankind at any one period4 ,if1 owing to more positive discoveries in the future compelling us to put further back the date of man's first appearance upon earth1 we have to suppose a beginning before the time of ,adam1 we are reminded that there is an allusion in the sixth chapter of the book called ,genesis to the sons of ,god and the daughters of men4 ,now this passage cannot conceivably refer to angels2 nor can we ignore its existence1 however doubtful we may feel as to its meaning4#b ,footnote #a3 ,i take these figures from ,mr4 ,r4,s4 ,pattison4 ,footnote #b3 ,the text which speaks of ,god making of one blood all nations for to dwell on the face of the earth1 would naturally apply to the races existing when the speaker uttered the words3 it would be as unreasonable to press such a text into the service of any theory of the creation of man1 as it was absurd for the ,inquisition to suppose that the ,psalmist1 when asserting that ,god had made the round world so fast that it could not be moved1 was contradicting the fact of the earth's revolution round the sun4 ,it can hardly be denied that such a text opens out the possibility of an earlier race than that of ,adam2 in that case the creation of ,adam would be detailed as the creation of the direct progenitor of ,noah1 whose three sons still give names 7in ethnological language7 to the main great races of the earth1 with whom exclusively the ,bible history is concerned1 and especially as the direct progenitor of that race of whom came the ,israelites1 and in due time the promised seed--the ,messiah4 ,i do not say this is so1 nor even that ,i accept the view for my own part2 ,i only allude to the possibility1 without ignoring any of the difficulties--none of which1 however1 are insuperable--which gather round it4 ,it is certainly a very remarkable fact that all about this region in which the ,semitic race originated1 traditions of ,creation somewhat resembling the account in ,genesis1 the institution of a week of seven days1 and a ,sabbath or day of rest from labour1 existed from very early times2 and with these traditions1 a belief in distinct races1 one of which owned a special connection with1 or relation to1 the ,creator4 ,here ,i may appeal to the work of ,mr4 ,george ,smith and his discoveries of tablets from the ancient libraries of ,assyria4 ,originally1 the country to which ,i have alluded consisted of ,assyria in the centre and ,babylonia to the south2 while to the east of ,assyria was a country partly plain and partly hill1 which formed the plain of ,shinar and the hills beyond occupied by ,accadian tribes1 from whose chief city1 ,ur1 ,abraham1 the forefather of the ,jews1 emigrated4 ,the ,assyrian documents are copies of ,babylonian originals1 but the ,babylonian kingdom itself was a ,semitic one founded on the ruins of an earlier population1 the inhabitants of the plain of ,shinar and the mountains beyond4 ,some time between #cjjj and #bjjj ,b4,c4 the ,semitic conquerors of ,babylonia took possession of the plains1 and some time later conquered also the ,accadian mountaineers4 ,the ,babylonians possessed and translated the old ,accadian records3 the ,assyrian tablets are mostly1 but not all1 copies1 again1 of the ,babylonian transcripts4 ,the celebrated ,creation tablets1 which contain an account closely corresponding to ,genesis1 are among those which were not copied from ,accadian originals2 and they do not date further back than the reign of ,assur-bani-pal1 the ,sardanapalus of the ,greeks2 who reigned in the seventh century ,b4,c4 ,they may therefore be derived from the ,bible1 not the ,bible from them4 ,it would seem from some earlier 7,accadian7 tablets1 that a different account of the ,creation existed among them4 ,but though it is doubtful how far the ,accadians had preserved this account1 or at least had others along with it1 they had a seven days week and a ,sabbath4 ,all this points to one original tradition1 which specified days of creation and a ,sabbath1 though it got altered and distorted1 so that the true account was preserved as one among many local variations4 ,this goes to prove the immense antiquity of the story1 which is not affected by the fact that the actual inscription of it which we at present have1 dates only about #fgj ,b4,c4 ,the point here1 however1 interesting in the legends1 is that they contained the idea of a special connection of one particular race with the ,creator1 and of other races1 or of one other race1 besides4 ,as far as the possibility of bringing forward the history of mankind as any aid to the theory of ,evolution is concerned1 ,i might have very well let the subject alone1 or even noticed it more briefly than ,i have done4 ,for1 in truth1 there is no evidence whatsoever1 and all that the denier of creation can resort to is a supposed analogy and a probability that the peculiarities of man could be accounted for in this way or in that4 ,but the main purpose of my brief allusion is to introduce the fact that1 as far as any evidence to the contrary goes1 we have an absolutely sudden appearance of man on the scene1 and no kind of transitional form4 ,not only so1 but there is no trace of any gradual development of man when he did appear4 ,there was the first palaeolithic man2 then a considerable geologic perturbation of the earth's surface1 resulting in the upheaval of the cliffs in which the caves of remains occur1 and in the alteration of the gravel beds in which the human remains are found2 and then the neolithic age1 with its evidently greater civilization 7as evidenced by pottery1 c47 connected with early and traditional1 but still with recent1 history2 but no trace of any development of one race into the other4 ,the absence of all progressive change is forcibly indicated by the measurements of ancient skulls1 which1 though not found along with the flint tools1 have been found elsewhere4 ,it has been fully shown that they differ in no respect from the skulls of men at the present day2 while the skulls of the apes most nearly anthropoid1 or allied to the human form1 remain as widely separated in brain-capacity as ever4#a ,thus the fact remains1 that no intermediate form between the ape and the lowest man has been discovered1 and that there is nothing like any progressive development in the races of man4 ,these facts1 taken together with what has been brought forward in the last chapter1 show how completely the theory of the descent of man breaks down2 how utterly unproved and untenable is the idea that he should have been evolved by natural causes and by slow steps from any lower form of animal life4 ,footnote #a3 ,the gorilla has a brain size of #cj4ea cubic inches2 the chimpanzee and ourang-outang 7in the males7 from #be4de to #bg4cd inches4 ,according to ,dr4 ,j4 ,barnard ,davis the average of the largest class of ,european skulls is #aaa4ii1 that of the ,australian #ii4ce cubic inches4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,concluding ,,remarks4 ,it will naturally be asked1 ,if there is all this objection to some parts of the theory of ,evolution1 or to that theory in an extreme or absolute form1 how is it that it has been so eagerly accepted in the ranks of scientific men8 ,the answer is1 in the first place1 because the theory of ,evolution is to a great extent true4 ,when men speak of controversy with the ,evolutionist and so forth1 they of course mean such as insist on carrying the doctrine to a total and even virulent denial of any ,divine control at all4 ,and it must1 ,i think1 be admitted that much of the theological opposition offered to the doctrine was aimed at this aspect of it4 ,at first1 men zealous for what they believed to be ,divine truth1 did not discriminate2 they saw that the then new idea of evolution was1 in many branches of its application1 still very poorly proved1 and they conceived that it could not be accepted apart from a total denial of religion4 ,we have grown wiser in the course of time3 misconceptions have been swept away2 and everybody may be content with the assurance that there is no necessary connection even1 far less any antagonism1 between evolution and the ,christian faith at all4 ,we may admit all that is known of the one without denying the other4 ,where the controversy has to be maintained is1 that some will insist 7like ,professor ,hckel7 in carrying evolution beyond what evidence will warrant2 and not only so1 but will insist on polemically putting down all religion on the strength of their improved theories4 ,if ,evolutionists complain of the treatment they have received at the hands of ,theologians1 they will at least1 in fairness1 admit that there has been some misconception1 some error on both sides4 ,what we maintain is1 that evolution 7i4e41 here1 as always1 unlimited1 uncontrolled evolution7 still fails to account for many facts in nature2 that we are still far from holding anything like a complete scheme in our hands2 there may be limits to the wide circle of progressive changes1 to the results of development1 of which we are ignorant2 and there is1 above all1 in that most important of all questions--the descent of man--an absolute want of proof of animal descent 7i4e41 in any sense which includes the soul or spiritual faculties of man74 ,hence that evolution in no way clashes with an intelligent ,christian belief4 ,in saying this1 ,i would carefully avoid undervaluing the services which the evolution theory has rendered1 and is rendering1 to science4 ,even in its first form as a mere hypothesis1 it was an eminently suggestive one2 there was from the first quite truth enough in it to make it fruitful1 and many working hypotheses have been immensely useful in science1 which have in the end been very largely modified4 ,before ,darwin's wonderfully accurate mind and marvellous skill in collecting and making use of facts1 turned the current of natural science into this new channel1 men seemed to be without an aim for their naturalist's work4 ,the savant1 for example1 procured an animal evidently of the cat tribe1 and another species like a polecat4 ,he knew as a fact that the feline teeth had a certain structure1 and that the dental formula of the viverrine animals is different4 ,here1 then1 he could distinguish and perhaps name the species2 but what more was to be done8 ,all natural history as a study seemed to end in classifying and giving long names to plants and animals4 ,the ,evolution theory at once gave it a new object4 ,why is the dental formula of the viverrinae different8 ,what purpose has the long spur in the flower of ,angraecum1 or the marvellous bucket of ,coryanthes1 the flytrap of ,dionaea1 the pitcher of ,nepenthes8 ,what is the cause1 what is the purpose1 what is the plan in the scheme of nature1 of these structures8 ,under the stimulus of such questions naturalists woke up to new views of classification1 to new experiments1 inquiries1 and to research for facts and the explanation of facts1 in all quarters of the globe4 ,no wonder that science rose1 under such an impulse1 as a butterfly from its chrysalis4 ,but some will not be satisfied with any scheme the parts of which are separated1 or which admits of anything unknown or unexplainable4 ,they want to unite all into one grand and simple whole1 which glorifies their own intelligence1 and does not force them to humble patience and waiting for more light4 ,and then the fatal enmity of the human heart--which is a plain fact1 an undeniable tendency--delights to get rid of the idea of ,god's ,sovereignty1 the humbling sense that everything is at ,his absolute disposal1 and nothing could be but as ,he wills it4 ,it seems so satisfactory to eliminate all external mysterious power1 to make the whole totus teres atque rotundus--having started the great machine of being somehow to see it all expand and unroll of itself and advance to the end4 ,imagination leaps the chasms1 minimizes the difficulties1 passes from the possible to the certain1 from the may have been to the must have been and to it was so1 and1 fascinated with the completeness of its scheme1 commences to denounce and revile as ignorant and unscientific all that would1 calmly appeal to evidence1 and confess ignorance1 or at least a suspended judgment1 in any stage where the evidence is negative or incomplete4 ,it has been well observed that men are so constituted that completeness gives a special kind of satisfaction of its own1 and a habit of specially regarding the general uniformity of nature begets a desire to assume its absolute and universal uniformity4 ,there is a great mystery underlying life and the plan in which the animal form1 the organs of sight1 hearing1 and the rest1 run through the whole creation3 and1 given a mystery1 there is always ample room for speculation4 ,taking firm hold of the facts of development and variation1 the extreme evolutionist is carried away with the idea of having the same principle throughout3 he is impatient of any line or any check2 he is therefore prepared to ignore all difficulties1 to hope against hope for the discovery of to him necessary--but1 alas1 non-existent--intermediate forms1 till at last he comes to deny1 not only his ,god1 but his own soul1 as a spiritual and supra-physical entity4#a ,footnote #a3 ,those who want a specimen of the way in which extreme evolutionists will romance 7it can be called nothing else7 will do well to read ,dr4 ,hckel's ,history of ,creation1 only they must be on their guard at every step4 ,the author constantly states as facts 7or1 perhaps1 with an impatient must have been7 the existence of purely hypothetical forms1 of which there is no kind of evidence4 ,to such ends does the love of completeness lead6 ,such extremes are no part of true science1 and have neither helped the progress of knowledge1 nor advanced the condition of mankind4 ,but1 on the other hand1 let us hear no more of a sweeping condemnation of the theory of ,evolution as a whole2 let us beware of any insistence on1 or assumption of1 the supposed fact that ,god created separately--ready-made and complete--all known animal forms1 bringing them up from the ground1 like the armed men in the ,greek legend1 from the dragon's teeth4 ,we have no more right to dogmatize and assume a scheme of creation from a popular and long-accepted interpretation of the ,bible1 than the evolutionist has to ignore the palpable evidences of ,divine guidance and design1 and construct a theory or organic being which ignores both4 ,,part ,,ii4 ,,chapter ,x4 ,,the ,,genesis ,,narrative--,,its ,,importance4 ,we have now completed the first portion of our inquiry3 there remains the second1 which1 to a large class1 at any rate1 will appear of not less importance4 ,for the ,scriptures1 which they have been taught to trust1 contain a brief but direct and positive statement regarding ,creation1 as well as numerous other less direct allusions to the subject1 all 7as far as ,i know7 in unquestioned harmony with the first4 ,is the account in the ,book of ,genesis true8 ,it is necessary to answer this question1 because1 even if a general belief in an ,almighty ,author and ,designer of all things is shown to be reasonable1 still the ,scripture ought surely to support the belief2 and it would be strange if1 when we came to test it on this subject1 we found its professed explanations would not stand being confronted with the facts4 ,no one will1 ,i think1 deny that the question is important4 ,writers of the anti-theological school still continue to insist on the falsity of the ,mosaic narrative1 as if the error was not yet sufficiently slain1 and was important enough to be attacked again and again4 ,and theological writers1 down to the most modern1 continue to explain the text in one way or another2--besides1 they admit the importance1 under any circumstances4 ,i do not forget that there is a school of thought1 which is distinctly ,christian in its profession1 but does not allow the importance4 ,it would regard the narrative as addressed to ,jews only1 and therefore as one which does not concern us4 ,if that was all1 it would not be needful for me to discuss the position4 ,but it has been held1 not only that the narrative does not concern us1 but also that it is certainly inaccurate4 ,this view ,i cannot adopt3 it seems not quite fair to ourselves1 and not quite fair to the ,jews4 ,let me explain what ,i mean4 ,if we have nothing to do with the narrative1 let us abstain equally from defending it or pronouncing it wrong--that is for ourselves4 ,as to the ,jewish ,church1 a little more must be said4 ,let us admit1 at any rate for argument's sake1 that the separation between the ,jewish formal and ceremonial religion and ,christianity is as wide as can be wished4 ,nor would ,i undervalue the importance of insisting on pure ,christianity1 as distinct from ,judaism4 ,and1 further1 let us 7without any question as to ultimate objects7 regard the narrative as primarily addressed to ,jews1 and let us admit that it may have been unimportant1 for the purpose of the first steps in ,divine knowledge1 that any account should be given of ,creation beyond the primary fact that all idolatrous cosmogonies were false1 and that the ,unseen ,god of ,israel alone made the heavens and the earth in the beginning4 ,why should the ,jews have received that truth through the medium of a story of which the whole framework was false1 and nothing but the moral true8 ,the framework1 moreover1 is one so plainly professing to be fact1 that it was certain to be received as such by a simple people4 ,it seems to me that there is something very suspicious1 something repugnant to notions of truth and honest dealing1 in the possible communication of underlying ,divine truth through the medium of stories1 which are not stories on the face of them1 but profess and pretend to be statements of fact and authoritatively made4 ,but1 further1 it cannot be denied that1 whatever allowance may have to be made under the early ,jewish dispensation for the ideas and weaknesses of a semi-barbarous people1 whatever winking there may have been at times of ignorance1 the main object was1 by a gradual revelation1#a by a system of typical ordinances and ceremonies1 to lead up to the full spiritual light of the ,christian dispensation4 ,everything written1 said1 or done1 was a step--however small an one--always tending in the one direction1 according to the usual law of ,evolution4 ,the ,christian believer may then look back to the early stages as imperfect foreshadowings and dim illustrations of the whole truth2 but he would1 ,i should think1 on any ordinary principles1 be shocked to find truth developed out of positive error4 ,and should the error have been discovered1 as it now is#b 7in the view of these ,i am contending against71 this discovery might have arrested the further development of ,divine truth altogether4 ,if ,moses1 or whoever wrote the ,book of ,genesis--we will not cavil at that--was allowed to compose his own fancies or beliefs on the subject of ,creation1 and to state them as ,divine fact 7no matter that the reader at the time was not able to find out the error71 would not grave suspicion attach to whatever else he put forward8 ,who could tell that1 on any other subject1 the plainest and most direct statement of fact was not equally a fancy1 only embodying or enshrining 7under the guise of its errors7 some real ,divine facts8 ,if ,genesis i4 is unreliable1 we have a case of a writer going out of his way to add to certain truths1 which might easily have been stated by themselves1 a number of positive declarations1 as of ,divine authority1 regarding facts1 which are not facts4 ,footnote #a3 ,i am not aware of any authority1 living or dead1 who has gone so far as to deny that ,god's revelation to the ,jewish ,church was in any way connected with ,christianity2 that it was not even a stage of progress1 or preparatory step towards the kingdom of ,christ4 ,footnote #b3 ,and was sure to be sooner or later1 when a science of ,biology and ,palaeontology became possible4 ,the great truths that ,god is really the ,maker and ,author of all things1 and that man has a spiritual being1 and so forth1 surely gain nothing from being conveyed to the world in the folds of a fable4 ,and when it is not in a confessed fable1 but a fable put forth as fact--,god said1 ,god created1 it was so--not only is there no gain1 but our sense of fitness and of truth receive a shock4 ,a parable is always discernible as a parable1 a vision as a vision4 ,when our ,lord1 for example1 tells us of the ten virgins1 we do not suppose ,him to be revealing the actual existence of ten such maidens1 wise and foolish4 ,we know that ,he is reading a lesson of watchfulness4 ,but looking at the ,genesis narrative1 who could suppose it to be a parable8 ,if sober1 unmistakable statement of fact is possible1 we surely have it here1 in intention1 at least4 ,the plan of teaching truth in an envelope of error is per se difficult to conceive4 ,but how much worse is it when we consider--what criterion does mankind possess for disinterring and distinguishing the elements of truth8 ,if in religion we had only to do 7as some would perhaps contend7 with obvious enforcements of common morality and kindness1 there might be a possibility of getting over the difficulty1 because man would possess some kind of criterion whereby to distinguish what was fictitious1 by the simple process of considering whether any given statement bore on morals or not4 ,such a test would not indeed go very far1 because the human race is by no means agreed on all moral questions2 nor does it always find it easy to say what is1 and what is not1 directly or indirectly connected with morals4 ,but1 in fact1 the scope of religion cannot be so confined3 and then the difficulty returns2 for a revelation that tells us anything of the nature of ,god and ,his method of government1 of the nature of our own being and of a future state1 must necessarily go beyond our own ethical knowledge and powers of judging1 or it would not be a revelation4 ,supposing that the revelation regarding such vital subjects is occasionally conveyed through the medium of erroneous statements1 where in any given case would be the certainty as to what was ,divine truth1 and what not so8 ,this argument applies equally to another school of thinkers1 who do not care to tell us what the narrative in itself means3 who believe that ,god did not do what ,he is said to have done in ,genesis1 and yet who hold that the narrative is in a sense inspired1 and that we may learn from it the great facts that ,god 7and none other7 originated all things--that man has a spiritual element in his nature1 and that woman is equal in nature1 but subordinate in position1 to man1 and so forth4 ,not only is enlightened judgment1 even1 inadequate to pronounce with certainty on how much is true2 but the strange feeling still remains1 if ,god designed to teach us these truths only1 why was it not possible to enable the writer#a to state them without the 7purely gratuitous7 error8 ,the sufferance of such a strange and unnecessary mixture of error seems rather like that putting to confusion of the human mind1 which we feel sure the ,great ,teacher would never willingly perpetrate4 ,footnote #a3 ,for on the supposition stated1 there is a revelation in the text4 ,nor could any class of believer deny this4 ,it is entirely unnecessary to define the kind and extent of insphation4 ,but all ,scripture is 'theopneustos'--,i leave the word purposely untranslated 7#b ,tim4 iii4 #af72 that surely means that the ,divine ,spirit exercised some kind of continuous control over the writers4 ,nor1 again1 can the narrative be got over by saying it is a poetic side or aspect of the facts1 and not to be taken literally4 ,if any one knows exactly what this means1 and can tell us always how to translate the matter into plain language1 it is to be wished that he would enlighten the world as to the process4 ,but even if such process exists infallibly and universally1 still1 one would suppose1 the narrative must1 to begin with1 be unmistakable poetry4 ,and here1 again1 the narrative bears every mark of an intention to state facts1 not poetic aspects of facts4 ,nor can we take the narrative as belonging to a familiar class in ,scripture where a dream is used as a vehicle of communication4 ,in those cases there is really no room for doubt2 the visible facts themselves are obviously designed only to typify or represent some other facts4 ,the events stated in ,genesis are not of this class4 ,those1 therefore1 who would be content with getting over the narrative without caring for its details1 can1 ,i must suspect1 have hardly given adequate attention to the form and to the contents of the narrative as it stands4 ,not only are the statements positive1 but1 taking any interpretation whatever of them1 they are not nearly imaginative enough to suit the purpose4 ,they have an obvious amount of relation to fact which has never been denied4#a ,if the narrative is purely human even 7and that the school we are considering do not aver71 how did the writer come to be accurate even to that extent8 ,take only the order of events4 ,i admit it does not correspond with the geologic record in the way commonly asserted2 yet it has a very remarkable relation to that sequence4 ,now1 in any case1 the writer could have had no knowledge of any kind of his own on the subject3 how did he hit on this particular arrangement8#b ,it is a mere matter of calculation on the well-known rules of permutation and combination to realize in how many different ways the same set of events could have been arranged2 the number is very considerable4 ,and he could derive no assistance from any similar existing narrative4 ,if we conclude from the ,assyrian discoveries that a non-biblical but similar narrative existed1 still it is certain that the principal one we as yet have is so late in date1 that it is more likely to be derived from the ,bible than the ,bible from it4 ,and though1 on referring to the earlier tablets1 we find traces of the same narrative1 it is so obscured by idolatrous and false details1 that the ,bible writer must have had to make a virtually new departure to get his own simple narrative4 ,a re-revelation would be required4 ,as to all other cosmogonies1 ,egyptian1 ,indian1 and ,buddhistic1 nothing can be more opposed in principle and in detail than they are to the severe and stately simplicity and directness of the ,mosaic4 ,footnote #a3 ,not even1 for example1 by ,professor ,hckel4 ,footnote #b3 ,how1 for example1 did the writer come to introduce the adjustment of hours of daylight and seasons in the middle1 after so much work had been done8 ,how did he come to place birds along with fish and water monsters1 and not separately8 ,we cannot1 then1 account for the narrative on human grounds2 nor can we suppose that any inspiring control would have given the author so much truth1 and yet allowed so much error4 ,all this points to only one of two possible conclusions3 either the narrative is not inspired at all1 and is a mere misleading story1 into which the name of ,god is introduced by the author's piety--and so really teaches us nothing1 since it is not revelation2 or the narrative is1 as a whole1 divinely dictated1 and must be true throughout1 if we can only arrive by due study at its true meaning4 ,that part of it is1 or may be1 true1 even on the most cursory study1 is not denied2 that it is all true will appear1 ,i think1 in the sequel4 ,but there is a shorter and simpler reason why the rejection of the narrative in ,genesis would be a direct blow to ,christian faith4 ,the plain truth is that it can hardly be denied1 by any candid student of the ,new ,testament1 that our ,lord and ,his apostles certainly received the early chapters of ,genesis as of ,divine authority4 ,this has always been perceived by the whole school of writers opposed to the ,faith4 ,they therefore continue to attack these early revelations1 and rejoice to overturn them if they can1 because they are aware that hardly any chapters in the ,bible are more constantly alluded to and made the foundation of practical arguments by our ,lord and ,his apostles4 ,if these chapters can be shown to be mythical1 then the ,divine knowledge of our ,lord as the ,son of ,god1 and the inspiration of ,his apostles1 are called in question4 ,in the ,new ,testament1 especially1 there are repeated and striking allusions to ,adam1 the temptation of the woman by the ,serpent1 and the entrance into the world of sin and death4 ,our ,lord ,himself places the whole argument of ,his teaching on marriage and the permissibility of divorce on ,genesis ii4 #bd 7cf4 ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 and ,st4 ,mark x474 ,in ,st4 ,john viii4 #dd our ,lord clearly alludes to the ,edenic narrative when ,he speaks of the tempter as a manslayer 7,greek3 anthropoktonos7 from the beginning4 ,still more remarkable is the argument of ,st4 ,paul in ,romans v42 altogether based as it is on the historical verity of the account of the ,fall2 and other allusions are to be found in #a ,cor4 xi4 #h1 in #b ,cor4 xi4 #c1 in the ,epistle to the ,ephesians1 and elsewhere4 ,in short1 there are at least sixty-six passages in the ,new ,testament1 in which the first eleven chapters of ,genesis are directly quoted or made the ground of argument4 ,of these1 six are by our ,lord ,himself1 two being direct quotations2#a six by ,st4 ,peter1 thirty-eight by ,st4 ,paul1 seven by ,st4 ,john1 one by ,st4 ,james1 two by ,st4 ,jude1 two by the assembled apostles1 three by ,st4 ,luke1 and one by ,st4 ,stephen4 ,footnote #a3 ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #d2 ,st4 ,luke xvii4 #bg2 and perhaps we might add a third--,st4 ,matt4 xxiii4 #ce4 ,we cannot1 in fact1 possibly avoid the conclusion that our ,lord and ,his apostles admitted the ,divine origin and historical truth of these chapters4 ,therefore1 we are bound as ,christians to accept them1 and that without glossing or frittering away their meaning1 when we have arrived1 by just processes1 at what that meaning really is4 ,the fact just stated further warns us against accepting an indefinite interpretation which1 while it acknowledges the truth of the general conclusion1 still virtually1 if not in so many words1 allows that the details may be wholly inaccurate4 ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,,scripture ,,methods ,,of ,,revelation4 ,passing1 then1 to a consideration of the explanations of the narrative that may be or have been given at various times1 ,i would first call attention to the fact1 that it seems in many instances to have been the distinct purpose of ,divine inspiration to allow the meaning of some passages to be obscure2 perhaps among other reasons1 that men might be compelled to study closely1 to reason and to compare1 and thus to become more minutely acquainted with the record4 ,especially in a case of this sort1 where the world's knowledge of the facts would necessarily be gradual1 was it desirable that the narrative should be confined in scope1 and capable of being worked out and explained by the light of later discoveries2 because1 had the narrative really 7as has long been supposed7 been revealed to tell us what was the actual course of evolution of created forms on earth1 it would not only have occupied a disproportionate space in the sacred volume1 but would have been unintelligible to the world for many centuries1 and would have given rise to much doubting and false argument1 to the great detriment of men's spiritual enlightenment4 ,it would have diverted men's minds from the great moral and conclusion of the whole 7and here it is that the moral or conclusion is so important7 to set them arguing on points of natural science4 ,the ,bible was never intended 7so far we may agree with all the schools of thought7 to be a text-book on biology or geology4 ,we need rather to be impressed with the great facts of ,god's ,sovereignty and ,providence1 and to know definitely that all the arrangements of our globe and all forms of life are due to ,divinely-created types4 ,this is exactly secured by the narrative as it stands2 but such a purpose would not be served by a narrative which1 while it contained these great facts1 had them enwrapped in a tissue of unnecessary and false details4 ,and therefore it is1 if ,i may so far anticipate my conclusion1 that the narrative has no direct concern with how1 when1 and where1 the ,creation slowly worked itself out under the ,divine guidance which is still elaborating the great purpose of the ages2 it confines our attention to what ,god1 the great ,designer1 did and said in heaven1 as preliminary to all that was to follow on earth4 ,the former was not a proper subject for revelation1 because man would in time come to learn it by his studies on earth2 but the latter all ages could only learn--the first as well as the latest--from a ,divine ,revelation4 ,again1 let me address a few words to those who are tempted1 half unconsciously perhaps1 to think that any lengthy prelude and elaborate explanation of ,genesis must condemn the narrative priori1 or be derogatory to the dignity of ,revelation4 ,why the narrative should be brief and concise ,i have just suggested4 ,that it needs explanation of some sort is inevitable1 because it must be put into human language2 and directly such language is employed1 we come upon such terms as let there be1 he created1 and days1 which do not always call forth the same ideas in all minds4 ,it will not have escaped the attention of any earnest student1 that ,scripture has several different methods of describing things so as to reveal them to men4 ,this1 a moment's reflection will enable us to expect4 ,however high and wonderful the things to be stated are1 in order to be brought within reach of human understanding they must be expressed in terms of human thought and experience2 and these are imperfect and essentially inadequate4 ,hence it is1 that many truths have to be brought before us in special or peculiar ways4 ,how1 for instance1 are we told of the temptation and fall of man8 ,how are we to understand what was meant by the ,tree of ,life or the ,tree of ,knowledge of ,good and ,evil1 or by the ,serpent speaking and beguiling ,eve8 ,we are at a great loss to give a precise explanation1 though the practical meaning is not difficult4 ,the facts may be none the less true1 though from their transcendental character it may have been necessary to put them down in mysterious1 possibly even in merely allegorical1 language4 ,another instance of this might be given in the account of ,satan in the presence of the ,lord as described in the ,book of ,job1 or of the lying ,spirit described by ,micaiah when prophesying before ,ahab4 ,it maybe that these narratives describe to us transactions in a world beyond our own1 which could only be conveyed to us in figures or in imperfect form4 ,when ,st4 ,paul was caught up into the third heaven1 he heard unspeakable things which it was not possible for him to utter--the medium of expression was wanting4 ,divine or mysterious things have1 then1 to be described in peculiar language which is not always easy to understand4 ,nor1 having respect to the varying requirements of the different ages1 or the circumstances of the time and of the inspired writer1 is it easy to understand why any particular form of communication was selected1 though doubtless if we knew more we should see a good reason for it4 ,this gives us one class of ,scripture passages--of methods of revelation4 ,on the other hand1 there are in ,scripture many facts of the highest import1 and in themselves of transcendent magnitude1 which are yet capable of being stated without any possibility of our interpreting or understanding the narrative in more ways than one4 ,when it is stated that ,christ ,jesus rose from the dead1 we know beyond all reasonable doubt what is meant4 ,the fact may be true or false1 but the narrative of the fact needs no explanation2 there are no terms which need expansion--which could bear more than one possible meaning1 and which could be used accordingly in one sense or another4 ,this instances a second class4 ,again1 we can bring forward yet another class of ,scripture revelations1 namely1 passages which are necessarily understood with reference to certain other matters which are unexpressed but are taken for granted1 or in which the words used may bear more than one meaning1 or a meaning which is uncertain or obscure4 ,if the unexpressed matter can be supplied without doubt1 then all ages will agree in the interpretation2 and if the terms can 7by reference to context or otherwise7 be explained1 the same result follows3 if not1 then in interpreting the narrative1 each age will make its own assumption regarding the terms used1 on the basis of such knowledge as it possesses4 ,it follows1 then1 inevitably1 that if the state of knowledge varies1 the interpretation will be different according to the different standard of knowledge1 according to which the necessary assumptions are made4 ,and yet all the while the authority of the passage itself is not touched4 ,as it is unquestionable that such different classes of passage do occur in ,scripture1 it is merely a question of criticism whether any given passage is of this class or that1 and whether its terms do admit of or require explanation4 ,it is no doubt possible to make mistakes and to err by refusing the direct meaning1 and giving to the terms an assumed meaning for which there is no real necessity4#a ,we have always to be on our guard against giving special meanings to words where they are not required2 but granted that caution1 there undoubtedly are passages in which either the terms themselves are not plain1 or in which they may really have a meaning different from the ordinary one4 ,footnote #a3 ,as1 for example1 where persons desirous to get over the plain reference to ,baptism in ,st4 ,john iii4 #e1 try to explain away the term water to mean something metaphorically but not actually water4 ,to descend from the general to the particular1 it is obvious that the account of ,creation in ,genesis i41 ii4 is in such a form that we must assume our own ideas of the term day therein employed1 and also those to be attached to created and similar terms4 ,in early times1 no one would take day to mean anything else but an earth day of the ordinary kind1 and no one would question whether or not the whole existing animals and plants1 or their ancestors1 appeared on earth in six such days1 or whether anything else was meant4 ,again1 by the time ,st4 ,augustine was writing1 a little more knowledge of nature and a little more habit of reasoning about the origin of things was in the world1 and that knowledge led people to suppose that creation meant only the making of things out of nothing1 but that it would take longer than six times twelve hours1 so that days might mean periods4 ,and people imagined for a long time that--taking for an example the work in the middle of the narrative--there was a time when the earth emerged from the tumult of waters1 that it then got covered with plants1 the waters remaining barren of life2 but that when the plants had come up all over the ground1 then the waters all at once became full of all sorts of sea-shells1 fish1 and monsters of the deep1 and so on4 ,they did all this1 by naturally assuming that the terms creation1 day1 c41 meant what the existing state of knowledge at the time suggested4 ,at the present day1 one would have supposed that every one must feel that while the term day might or might not admit of explanation1 certainly creation 7i4e41 terms implying it7 did require very great care in interpreting1 and very great consideration as to what they really meant ,but however that may be1 we have here a passage which must have an explanation2 and which must have an explanation that depends on the state of knowledge4 ,the utility of ,revelation is not negatived by this necessary result of the employment of human language in describing the facts4 ,it was not necessary before1 that all should be understood2 it may be now increasingly necessary in the purposes of ,god that it should be4 ,at any rate the fact is so1 that in former days people did not possess the data for knowing fully what creation meant1 and certainly they do now possess it to a very much greater extent at least4 ,always men could learn from the narrative what it always was important for them to learn1 namely1 ,god's ,sovereignty and ,authorship4 ,it is in this way that the value of the general teaching of the narrative comes out1 and not by trying to allow a mixture of truth and falsehood in ,revelation4 ,all is and always was true2 but all the truth was not equally extractable at all times4 ,again3 the dignity of the old written ,revelation is not compromised because ,god has virtually given a further revelation in ,his works1 i4e41 by enabling man to know more about the rock-strata and the succession of life on the earth4 ,that is what it really comes to4 ,it should never be forgotten that the book of ,nature is a revelation4 ,the works of ,god1 if interpreted truly1 are evidence of the same nature as the word of ,god if interpreted truly4 ,god has created man and his reason4 ,it is impossible to suppose that it can be unrighteous reasoning in ,god's sight1 to derive from the facts of nature any legitimate conclusion to which those facts point4 ,it is childish to believe that ,god created ready-made--if ,i may so speak--rocks with fossils in them1 marks of rain-drops showing which way the wind blew at the time1 foot-prints of birds1 animals with remains of the prey they had been feeding on1 in their stomachs1 and so forth4 ,it is perfectly reasonable and right to conclude certainly1 that those creatures were once living beings2 that the surface of the earth was once a soft sediment which received the impression of the rain-drops as they fell2 and that stratified rocks were deposited out of lakes and seas1 as we see alluvial strata deposited at the present day4 ,it is impossible1 therefore1 that 7if we are not misled by appearances7 any well-ascertained fact can be contrary to the truth of ,god as explained by ,revelation4 ,if we are not sure of the facts of nature1 we must wait patiently till further knowledge enlightens us1 and must not hastily conclude that the ,bible is wrong4 ,the repeated corrections which successive years have compelled us to make in conclusions which were once firmly accepted and proclaimed as truths of science1 should teach us caution in this respect4 ,nor1 lastly1 is it any reproach to the ,church1 as keeper of the ,divine ,revelation1 that its opinion of certain passages should vary with the growth of knowledge4 ,it would be hardly necessary to make this obvious remark but for the fact that it has been reproached against ,christian belief1 that science is contrary to the ,bible1 and that the ,church has ever had to confess itself wrong1 after having persecuted people for not following its peculiar views4 ,it is1 indeed1 unfortunate that a blind zeal for ,god has led1 in the past1 to persecution2 the ,church failing to see that such men as ,galileo and ,bruno never denied ,god at all1 nor did their discoveries really contradict the ,word4 ,but persecution is not a sin peculiar to the ,church2 it is a sin of human nature4 ,it is also true that ,christian views may be wrong1 but the fault is in the views1 not in the ,bible4 ,scientific men1 of all people1 should be the last to complain of change in views1 seeing that what was science two hundred years ago is now 7much of it7 exploded nonsense4 ,there is no harm whatever in changing our views about the meaning of difficult passages--provided we never let go our hold on the central truth1 and put the error to our own account1 not saying that the ,word itself is wrong4 ,it may1 in this connection1 be at once observed that any particular explanation1 or that one which ,i propose presently to suggest1 of the first chapters of ,genesis1 may not commend itself to the reader1 and yet the general argument ,i have adduced will hold good notwithstanding4 ,all that ,i care to contend is1 that science does not contradict a syllable of the narrative on one possible interpretation1 and that changes in view as to interpretation are no arguments against the truth of the passage itself4 ,,chapter ,,xii4 ,,methods ,,of ,,interpreting ,,the ,,narrative--,,assumptions ,,of ,,meaning ,,to ,,certain ,,terms4 ,returning1 then1 to the narrative in the ,book of ,genesis1 ,i think we may take it as clear that the passage stands in such a concise and condensed form1 that it is obviously open to be interpreted4 ,further1 that we should not be surprised if the interpretation at the present day1 with our vastly increased knowledge of ,nature1 is different from what it was in earlier times4 ,i make no apology for repeating this so often1 because it is really amazing to see the way in which anti-theological writers attack what they suppose to be the interpretation of the narrative1 or what some one else supposes to be such1 and seem to be satisfied that in so doing they have demolished the credibility of the narrative itself4 ,if you choose to assume that ,creation as spoken of by the sacred writer means some particular thing1 or even if the mass of uneducated or unreflecting people assume it and you follow them1 ,i grant at once that the narrative can be readily made out to be wrong4 ,permit me1 then1 to repeat once more1 that the narrative is in human language1 and uses the human terms created1 made1 and formed1 and that these terms do 7as a matter of fact which there is no gainsaying7 bear a meaning which is not invariable4 ,hence1 without any glossing or torturing of the narrative1 we are under the plain obligation to seek to assign to these terms a true meaning with all the light that modern knowledge can afford4 ,now 7having already considered the school of interpretation which declines to attend to the exact terms7 we can confine our attention to two classes of interpreters4 ,one explains the term days to mean long periods of time2 the other accepts the word in its ordinary and most natural sense1 and endeavours to eliminate the long course of developmental work made known to us by palaeontological science1 and supposes all that to have been passed over in silence2 and argues that a final preparation for the advent of the man ,adam was made in a special work of six days4 ,all the well-known attempts at explanation1 such as those of ,pye-,smith1 ,chalmers1 ,h4 ,miller1 ,pratt1 and the ordinary commentaries1 can be placed in one or other of these categories4 ,now1 as regards both1 ,i recur to the curious fact 7already noted7 that it seems never to enter into the conception of either school to inquire for a moment what the sacred writer meant by created--,god created--,god said let there be4 ,it is curious1 because no one can reasonably say these terms are obvious1 they bear their own meaning on the surface2 a moment's analysis will scatter such an idea to the winds4 ,yet the terms are passed by4 ,the commentators set themselves right earnestly to compare and to collate1 to argue and to analogize1 on the meaning of the term days2 the other term created they take for granted without--as far as ,i am aware--single line of explanation1 or so much as a doubt whether they know what it really means6 ,the interpretation that ,i would propose to the judgment of the ,church is just the very opposite4 ,it seems to me that the word day as used in the narrative needs no explanation2 it seems to me that the other does4 ,as regards the term day1 it is surely a rule of sound criticism never to give an extraordinary meaning to a word1 when the ordinary one will give good and intelligible sense to a passage4 ,and looking to the fact that1 after all1 when the days of ,genesis are explained to mean periods of very unequal but possibly enormous duration1 that explanation is not only quite useless1 but raises greater difficulties than ever1 ,i should think it most likely that the day of the narrative should be taken in the ordinary sense4 ,but of this hereafter4 ,on the other hand1 with regard to the terms creation1#a created1 ,let there be1 and so forth1 ,i find ample room for the most careful consideration and for detailed study before we can say what is meant4 ,even then there remains a feeling of profound mystery4 ,for at the very beginning of every train of reflection and reasoning on the subject1 we are just brought up dead at this wonderful fact1 the existence of matter where previously there had been nothing4 ,the phrase created out of nothing is of course a purely conventional one1 and1 strictly speaking1 has no meaning2 but we adopt it usefully enough to indicate our ultimate fact--the appearance of matter where previously there had been nothing4 ,nor is the difficulty really surmounted by alleging such a mere phrase as matter is eternal1 for we have just as little mental conception of self-existent1 always--and without beginning--existent matter1 as we have of creation out of nothing4 ,footnote #a3 ,the entire silence of commentators regarding the doubtful meaning of creation is so surprising1 that ,i have had the greatest difficulty in persuading myself that the explanation ,i propose is new4 ,yet certainly ,i have never come across it anywhere4 ,the human mind has always a difficulty when it is brought face to face with something that is beyond the scope not only of its own practical1 but1 even of its theoretical or potential ability4 ,the creation1 therefore1 of matter by a ,divine ,power is matter of faith1 as ,i endeavoured to set forth in the earlier pages of this little work2 but it is reasonable faith1 because it can be supported by sound reasoning from analogy and strong probability4 ,all our attention1 then1 ,i submit1 should be directed to understanding what is creation in the sacred narrative4 ,,chapter ,,xiii4 ,,the ,,genesis ,,narrative ,,considered ,,generally4 ,i4--,,the ,,first ,,part ,,of ,,the ,,narrative4 #a4 ,objections to the ,received ,interpretations4 ,taking the narrative as it stands1 we find it to consist of two parts4 ,first1 a general statement1 of which no division of time is predicated1 and which is unaccompanied by any detail4 ,second1 there is an account seriatim of certain operations which are stated to have been severally performed one on each of six days4 ,as regards the first portion1 we have no definite knowledge of scientific truth with which to compare the narrative4 ,it is obviously necessary for some ,divine teacher to tell us authoritatively that ,god originated and caused the material earth1 and the systems of suns and stars which men on the earth's surface are able to discern in the heavens4 ,we are consequently informed that in the beginning--there is no practical need for defining further--,god created the heavens and the earth4 ,here the question arises whether the ,hebrew bara1 which is a general term1 alludes to the first production of material1 or to the moulding or fashioning of material already 7in terms7 assumed to exist4 ,i think that the conclusion must be that the best authority is in favour of the idea of absolute origination of the whole2--the bringing the entire system into existence where previously there was a perfect blank4 ,but even if the secondary meaning of fashioned or forged be allowed1 we have still an intelligible rendering4 ,for in that case the first origination of matter is tacitly assumed by the term itself1 and the statement would be1 that the matter of the future cosmos so existing1 the ,divine ,artificer fashioned or moulded it into the orderly fabric it has come to be4 ,the narrative then at once refers to our earth1 with which1 and with its inhabitants1 the whole volume is to be in future directly concerned4 ,the earth was 7or became7 without form and void 7chaotic71 and darkness was on the face of the deep 7or abyss74 ,we have no positive knowledge of what the first condition of terrestrial matter was1 apart from ,revelation4 ,the remarkable discoveries that the spectroscope has enabled1 and the facts learned from the physical history of comets and meteorites1 can do no more than make what is known as the nebular hypothesis highly probable4 ,but it is amply sufficient for our purpose to point out1 that if it is true that matter originated in a nebulous haze to the particles of which a spiral rotatory motion had been communicated1 and if 7confining our attention to one planet only7 that attenuated matter gradually aggregated in a ring or rings1 and then consolidated into a solid or partly solid globe1 then the results are briefly1 but adequately and sublimely1 provided for by the form of the ,mosaic statement4 ,matter thus aggregating would have developed an enormous amount of heat1 and there would have been a seething mass of molten mineral matters1 with gases and other materials in the form of vapours1 which would have gradually cooled and consolidated4 ,vast masses of water would in time be formed on one hand1 and solid mineral masses on the other2 the latter would contract as cooling progressed1 causing great upheavals and depressions and contortions of strata4 ,and before the advent of life-forms1 it is not difficult to conceive that the first state of our globe was one which is intelligibly and very graphically described as being without form and void4 ,nothing more than that1 can1 from actual physical knowledge1 be stated4#a ,it is also stated that this confused elemental state of our earth was accompanied at first by darkness4 ,material darkness that is--for the potentiality of light and order was there2 the ,,spirit ,,of ,,god moved 7or brooded7 upon the face of the abyss4 ,this presents no difficulty of interpretation1 and may therefore be passed over for the present4 ,footnote #a3 ,it would be hardly necessary 7but for some remarks in the course of the ,gladstone-,huxley controversy7 to observe that the term void does not imply vacuity or emptiness1 as of substance1 but absence of defined form such as subsequently was evolved4 ,practically1 indeed1 there has been no grave difficulty raised over this first portion4 ,and if it is argued 7on the ground of what ,i have already in general terms indicated7 that the term created will1 on my own interpretation1 get us into difficulties1 ,i reply that here1 in its position and with the context1 there is no room for doubt1 for clearly the word implies both the great primary idea of the ,divine design or plan formulated in heaven1 and the subsequent result in time and space4#a ,this will become more clear when ,i have further explained the subject4 ,footnote #a3 ,and of course if the true sense be fashioned or moulded1 the question does not arise4 ,,ii4--,,the ,,second ,,part ,,of ,,the ,,narrative4 ,but from this point the narrative commences to be more precise1 and to exhibit a very singular and altogether unprecedented division of creative work into days4 ,now ,i have already indicated my doubt whether we ought to import any unusual meaning to explain this term4 ,in the first place1 the objection that till the movements and relations of the sun to the earth were ordained there would be no measure of a day will not stand a moment's examination4 ,nor will the further objection sometimes made1 that even with the sun1 a day is a very uncertain thing3 for example1 a day and a night in the north polar regions are periods of month-long duration1 quite different from what they are in ,england1 or at ,mount ,sinai4 ,obviously1 a day with reference to the planet for which the term is used1 means the period occupied by one rotation of the planet on its own axis4 ,the rotation of the earth is antecedent to anything mentioned in the narrative we are considering4 ,in the nature of things1 it would have been coeval with the introduction of the prima materies--at least if any nebular hypothesis can be relied on4 ,the day would be there whether it were obscured by vapours or not1 and whether specially made countable and recognizable by what we call the rising and setting of the sun1 or not1 and whether we were standing in ,nova ,zembla or in ,australia4 ,nor is it of much use to refer to the general use of day for indefinite periods1 which is just as common in the ,english of to-day as it was in the ,hebrew of the ,old ,testament4 ,but the double use of the term in different senses has become general1 just because it was found in practice that no confusion ordinarily resulted2 and surely such a practice would not have been common1 or at any rate would have been specially avoided in the sacred volume1 wherever any mistake or confusion was likely or even possible4 ,no one can mistake what is meant when allusion is made to the day in which ,god made the heaven and the earth4 ,no one falls into doubt when the days of the prophets are spoken of--any more than they do now when a man says1 ,such a thing will not happen in my day4 ,whenever in ,daniel1 or in similar prophetic writings1 the term day is used in a peculiar sense as indicating a term of years1 we have no difficulty in recognizing the fact from the context and circumstances of the narrative2 nor am ,i aware that any controversy has ever arisen regarding the use of the term day in any passage of ,scripture excepting in this4 ,this fact alone is suspicious2 the more so1 because there is absolutely nothing in the context to indicate that anything but an ordinary day is intended4 ,not only so1 but there is in the context something that does very clearly indicate 7and ,i think ,dr4 ,rville is perfectly justified in insisting on this7 that an ordinary terrestrial day is meant4 ,one of the primeval institutions of ,divine ,providence for men1 my readers will not need to be reminded1 was that of a ,sabbath1 which any one reading the text would understand to mean a day1 and which the ,jews--the earliest formal or legal recognizers of it--did so understand1 and that under direct ,divine sanction4 ,if the days of ,genesis mean indefinite periods of aeonian duration1 how is the seventh day of rest to be understood8 ,but even if these difficulties are overcome1 absolutely nothing is gained by taking the day to be a period4 ,i presume that the object of gaining long periods of time instead of days in reading the ,mosaic record1 is to assume that the narrative means to describe the actual production on the earth of all that was created2 in other words1 to assume a particular meaning for the words created1 brought forth1 c and then to make out that if a whole age is granted1 ,science will allow us a sequence of a plant age a fish and saurian age1 a bird age1 and a mammalian age2--that is1 in general terms and neglecting minor forms of life4 ,but then to make any sense at all with the verses we are bound to show that each age preceded the next--that one was more than partly1 if not quite completely1 established before any appearance of the next4 ,it is to this interpretation that ,professor ,huxley alludes when he says1 in his first article1#a ,there must be some position from which the reconcilers of ,science and ,genesis will not retreat--some central idea the maintenance of which is vital1 and its refutation fatal4444 ,it is that the animal species which compose the water population1 the air population1 and the land population1#b respectively1 originated during three successive periods of time1 and only during those periods of time4 ,footnote #a3 ,nineteenth ,century1 ,december1 #ahhe1 pp4 #hef-g4 ,footnote #b3 ,these 7unfortunate7 terms are ,mr4 ,gladstone's4 ,for my own part1 ,i hasten to say that1 as one of the despised race of reconcilers1 not only is this idea no central position from which ,i will not retreat1 but one which ,i should never think of occupying for one moment4 ,but on the view of the periods1 some such position must be taken up4 ,and if so1 ,i must maintain that ,professor ,huxley has shown--if indeed it was not obvious already--that the idea of a series of periods1 and in each of which a certain kind of life began and culminated 7if it was not fully completed7 before another began1 is untrue to nature4 ,this1 therefore1 cannot have been intended by the author of ,genesis4 ,i will here interrupt my argument for a moment to say that there is a certain degree of coincidence between the succession of life on the earth as far as it is explained by palaeontological research1 and the order of creation stated in ,genesis2 but that is not concerned with any forced interpretation of the term day4 ,the coincidence is just near enough to give rise to a desire to identify creative periods with the series shown by the fossil-bearing rocks2 while it is attended with just enough of difference to furnish matter for controversy1 and to expose the interpreters to be cut up4 ,but to return4 ,nothing1 ,i submit1 is gained by getting day to mean period4 ,let us put the matter quite squarely4 ,let us take day to mean period1 and let us take all the verses to mean the process of producing on earth the various life-forms4 ,in order to come at once to the point1 let us begin with the time when the dry land and the waters are separate4 ,at that moment1 there is nothing said 7or implied7 about life already having begun in either water or on dry land4 ,god commanded plants to grow2 consequently during that whole period nothing but plants1 and that of all the kinds and classes mentioned1 should appear either in water or on land4 ,that period being done1 then came the command for water animals1 fish and great monsters1 and also birds4 ,we ought1 accordingly1 to come next upon a whole period in which no trace of anything but plants and these animals can be found2 and lastly1 we ought to find the period of mammalia1 smaller reptiles1 amphibia and insects 7creeping things74 ,that is the fair and plain result of what comes of supposing the terms let there be1 c41 to mean production on earth of the thing's themselves1 and that the days are long periods4 ,all overlapping of the periods is inadmissible4 ,all meaning is taken away1 if we allow of fish 7e4g47 appearing in the middle of our first period2 for ,god did not command another day's work till after the first was completed--there was evening and there was morning1 a first day 7period71 c4 ,no2 to suit the text so interpreted1 we must have a full period of plants with no fish2 then a period of both but no insects1 no creeping things1 no animals2 and so on4 ,now it is quite idle to contend any longer1 that any such state of things ever existed4 ,if we pass over the long series of the most ancient strata in which doubtful forms of obscure elementary plant and animal life appear almost together1 we shall come to shell-fish1 and crustaceans fully established in the water1 and scorpions1 and some insects even on land1 before plants made any great show4 ,for the ,carboniferous--the age of acrogen plants1 par excellence--does not occur till after swarms of ,trilobite ,crustaceans had filled the sea and passed away1 and after the ,devonian fish-age had nearly passed away2 and so on throughout4 ,the groups in nature overlap each other so closely1 that though plant-life 7in elementary forms7 probably had the actual start2 virtually the two kingdoms--plant and animal--appeared almost simultaneously4 ,there is nothing like the appearance of a first period in which one alone predominated4 ,and long before the plants are established in all classes1 the great reptiles1 birds1 and some mammals1 had appeared4 ,the seed-bearing plants--true grasses and exogens with seed capsules 7angiosperms7 did not appear till quite ,tertiary times4 ,that is the essential difference between the facts and the theory4 ,if we make a diagram1 and let the squares represent the main groups1 the order 7according to the period interpretation7 ought to be as in ,a1 whereas it really more resembles ,b4 ,thus4 ,illustration3 ,the dotted extensions of the squares indicate the fore runners of the families1 i4e41 their first indications in the ages4 ,illustration3 ,a ,new ,interpretation suggested ,but then it will be asked1 if the day means only an ordinary day--not a long period--what is there that actually could have happened1 and did happen1 in three days 7for that is the real point1 as we shall see71 such as the writer describes as the third1 fifth1 and sixth days8 ,i answer that on those days1 and on the previous ones1 ,god did exactly what ,he is recorded to have done4 ,after the creation of light 7first day71 and the ideal adjustment of the distribution of land and water 7second day71 ,he 7a7 created1 on the third day1 plants1 from the lowest cryptogam upwards2 then 7b7 paused for a day 7the fourth7 in the direct work of creating life-forms1 to adjust certain matters regarding times and seasons1 and regulation of climate1 which doubtless would not be essential during the early stages of life evolution1 but would become so directly a certain point was reached2 then 7c7 resumed the direct creating work 7fifth day71 with fishes1 great reptiles1#a and birds 7grouped purposely so1 as we shall see72 and1 lastly 7d71 before the ,day of ,rest1 created the group of mammals 7carnivora and herbivora71 the creeping things of the earth1 and man 7also grouped together74 ,footnote #a3 ,this term may be here accepted for the moment--not to interrupt the argument4 ,it will be more fully dealt with in a subsequent chapter4 ,but some one will ask1 ,you then accept the earlier theory1 that the whole life-series that is now revealed to us by the rocks1 from the ,laurentian to the ,recent1 is excluded from the narrative2 and that some special acts of creation1 regarding only modern and surviving life-forms1 were made immediately before man appeared8 ,by no-means2 for such a theory is not only in itself improbable1 but is contrary to all the evidence we possess of life-history on the earth1 and is so hopeless that it is really not worth serious examination and refutation4 ,we have no evidence of any such gap--such sudden change in the history of life4 ,nor is it possible to find any place in the ,mosaic story at which we could reasonably interpolate a long period1 such as that indicated by the entire series of rock strata4 ,for a great part of such a period1 not only must there have been a regular succession of life just the same in nature 7though specifically different7 as that now on earth1 but a regular distribution of land and water1 and a settled action of the sun and the seasons1 would be required4 ,no2 we must give up all the older methods which try to ignore the study of the word created1 or to assume for it a meaning that it is not intended to bear4 ,all depends1 then1 on what is meant by such terms as created1 let there be1 let the earth bring forth1 c4 ,perhaps it has occurred to but few of my readers seriously to examine into their own mental conception of an act of creation4 ,some will readily answer1 ,of course it means only that at the ,divine fiat1 any given species--say an elephant--appeared perfect1 trunk1 tusks1 and all the peculiar development of skull and skeleton1 where previously no such creature had existed4 ,but what possible reason have they for this conclusion8 ,none whatever4 ,it has simply been carelessly assumed from age to age1 because people at first knew no better2 and when they began to know better1 they did not stop to amend their ideas accordingly4 ,of course1 as ,professor ,huxley puts it1 millions of pious ,jews and ,christians#a supposed creation to mean a sudden act of the ,deity--i4e41 to mean just what the knowledge of the time enabled them to imagine4 ,they could do nothing else4 ,the state of knowledge fifty years ago would not have rendered it possible for an article like ,professor ,huxley's 7that to which allusion has several times been made7 to have been written at all4 ,what wonder1 then1 that the multitude did not understand what creation meant1 and that a reasonable interpretation of the word has only become possible in quite recent times8 ,surely all that is the fault of the reader1 not of the text4 ,i do not even care that the writer himself did not fully apprehend the subject4 ,when a human prophet is entrusted with the divulgation of high and wonderful things1 it is quite possible that he may have been to greater or less extent in the dark as to all or some of the communication he was writing4 ,footnote #a3 ,article quoted1 p4 #heg4 ,all that can be reasonably required is that the narrative1 as it stands1 shall be consistent with actual truth1 and shall at no time come to be provably at variance with it4 ,but let us look at the word creation more closely4 ,we accept what we are told1 that in the beginning ,god called into existence force and matter1 the material or physical basis1 and all other necessaries of life4 ,suppose1 then 7even dropping the question of ,evolution1 in order to satisfy the pious millions71 that this matter was all ready 7if ,i may so speak7 to spring into organized form and being to take shape on earth--what shape should it take8 ,why 7e4g47 an elephant8 ,why not any other animal1 or a nondescript--a form which no zoologist could place1 recognize1 or classify8 ,the form1 the ideal structure1 the formula1 of the genus elephant must somehow have come into existence before the obedient materials and the suitable forces of nature could work themselves together to the desired end4 ,mr4 ,mivart has defined creation at page #bij of his ,genesis of ,species4 ,there is original creation1 derivative or secondary creation 7where the present form has descended from an ancestor that was originally directly created71 and conventional creation 7as when a man creates a fortune1 meaning that he produces a complex state or arrangement out of simpler materials74 ,that is perfectly true1 so far2 but it is only a verbal definition1 and still does not go inside1 into the idea involved4 ,we must go farther4 ,in every act of creation1 two requisites can clearly be distinguished3 7#a7 the matter of life1 and the forces1 affinities1 and local surroundings necessary2 and 7#b7 the type1 plan1 ideal1 or formula1 to realize or produce which1 the forces and the matter are to act and react4 ,this second is all-essential2 without it the first would only produce a limbo of ,unaccomplisht works of ,nature's hand1 ,abortive1 monstrous1 or unkindly mixt4#a ,footnote #a3 ,paradise ,lost1 iii4 #dee4 ,no creation in any sense whatever could come out of it4 ,in the same way1 when we speak of the ,divine ,artificer creating1 or saying ,let there be1 there are two things implied3 7i7 the ,divine plan or type-form1 and its utterance or delivery 7so to speak7 to the builder-forces and materials2 7#b7 the result or the translation into tangible existence of the ,divine plan4 ,in every passage speaking of creation it possible that both processes may be implied2 it may be clear from the text 7as in ,genesis i4 #a7 that this is so4 ,but it is equally possible that the first point only1 which in some aspects is really the essential matter1 is alone spoken of4 ,and ,i submit that1 given the general fact that ,god originated everything in heaven and earth 7as first of all stated generally in ,genesis i4 #a-c71 the essential part of the detailed or specific creation subsequently spoken of1 was the ,divine origination of the types1 the ideal forms1 into which matter endowed with life was to develop2 without any necessary reference to how1 or in what time1 the ,divine creation was actually realized or accomplished on earth4 ,it may be that the form so conceived and drawn in ,nature's book by the ,divine ,designer is a final form1 up to which development shall lead1 and beyond which 7at least in a material sense7 it shall not go2 or it may be that it is a type intended to be transitory2#a but both the intermediate and final forms must take their origin first in the ,divine ,mind1 and be prescribed from the ,heavenly ,throne1 before the obedient matter and forces and the life-endowment could co-operate to result in the realization of the forms and the population of the globe4 ,footnote #a3 ,the idea which ,i am endeavouring to make clear is well illustrated by another passage in one of the ,mosaic books--the account of the ,tabernacle4 ,moses had no idea of his own of the structure1 its furniture1 implements1 or the forms of these4 ,the narrative expressly states that the ,divine power originated the designs1 and caused ,moses to understand them4 ,in a human work the designer would have drawn the objects with measures and specifications1 and given the papers to the workmen4 ,with the ,divine work1 where the design is in the ,divine ,thought1 and the workmen and builders are forces and elementary matter1 the process is a mystery1 but in its practical bearing is understood from analogy4 ,the ,tabernacle was truly ,god's creation1 because it was all commanded in design and pattern by the ,almighty before ,moses put together the materials that realized the pattern in the camp of ,israel4 ,the reason why it is the essential part1 is1 that when once the ,divine command issued1 the result followed inevitably--that will go without saying4 ,in human affairs1 also1 we speak of the architect having created the palace or cathedral1 or the ironclad2 meaning thereby not the slow process of cutting and joining stone1 or riveting steel plates1 but the higher antecedent act of mind in evoking the ideal form and providing for all contingencies in the adaptation and subsequent working of the finished structure4 ,and if we limit this use of the term creation somewhat in speaking of human works1 it is because the concept of the human mind so often fails of realization2 that it is one thing to design1 and another to accomplish4 ,the grandest design for a palace may fail to stand because some peculiarity of the stone has been forgotten1 or some character of foundation and subsoil has been misunderstood4 ,the noblest form of turret-ship may prove useless because the strength of some material will not correspond to the ideal1 or some curve of stability has been miscalculated4 ,not only this3 man may create1 as a sculptor1 the ideal form for his to-be statue1 or the dramatist his character2 but the perfect realization1 either in marble or in an actual being1 may be impossible2 the ideal remains in the air4 ,the ideal1 therefore1 is not the major part of creation in a human work4 ,but with the ,divine work it is otherwise4 ,the ,divine thought in ,creation and its result are separated by no possibility of failure4 ,given the matter and the laws of force and of life1 directly the ,great ,designer has uttered ,his thought to those that are ,his builders1 they must infallibly and without discord1 work through the longest terms1 it may be1 of an evolutionary series1 till1 every transitional condition passed1 the final form emerges perfect4 ,our very verbal definition1 admitting as it does derivative creation1 implies this4 ,we all speak of ourselves as created4 ,how so8 ,we are not produced ready made4 ,nor do we wholly solve the matter by saying that we are created because we are born from parents who 7if we go far enough back7 originated in a first production from the hand of ,nature4 ,we are really created because the design--the life-form of us1 which matter and force were to work together to produce--was the direct product of the ,divine ,mind4#a ,my question1 therefore1 of the ,genesis interpreters is3 ,why will you insist on the text meaning only the second element in ,creation--the production on earth1 and not the ,design or its issue in heaven8 ,the former we could find out some day for ourselves2 we have found out some of it 7though only some7 already2 the latter we could never know unless we were told4 ,surely it is the dignus vindice nodus in this case4 ,to tell us the earth's history within a brief space would be impossible1 and would have been for ages unintelligible if it could have been told2 to tell us of ,god's creation is possible--for it has been done2 and the record1 unless misread1 is intelligible for all time4 ,the narrative1 if it is a revelation of ,divine ,creation in heaven1 takes up ground that none can trespass on4 ,none can say it is not so1 unless either he will show that the words will not bear the meaning1 or that the context and other ,scripture contradict it4 ,footnote #a3 ,in ,thy book were all my members written1 while as yet there were none of them 7,psa4 cxxxix4 #af74 ,how did this all first come to be you8 ,god thought about me and ,i grew4--,macdonald4 ,so soon as the matter of earth and heaven 7and all that is implied therewith7 originated in the beginning1 the narrative introduces to our reverent contemplation the solemn conclave in heaven1 when1 in a serial order and on separate days1 ,god declared1 for the guidance of the ever potentially active forces1 and for materials ever 7as we know7 seeking combination and resolution1#a the form which the earth surface is 7it may be ever so gradually7 to take and the life-forms which are to be evolved4 ,that this creative work was piecemeal1 and on separate days1 we know from the narrative4 ,why it was so arranged we do not know4 ,vast as was the work to be done1 almost infinite as was the complexity of the laws required to be formulated1 it could have all been done at once1 in a moment of time2 for time does not exist to the ,divine ,mind4 ,but seeing that the work was to be on earth1 and for the benefit of creatures to whom the divisions of time were all-important1 we can dimly1 at least1 discern a certain fitness and appropriateness in the gradual and divided work4 ,footnote #a3 ,the reader will recognize that there is not the least exaggeration in this4 ,it is plain matter of fact1 as ,i have endeavoured to show in the earlier chapters of this book4 ,everywhere we see force ready to be evoked by the proper method4 ,everywhere we see molecular motion1 and a perpetual combination and resolution of elements and compounds1 whether chemical or mechanical4 ,,chapter ,,xiv4 ,,the ,,interpretation ,,supported ,,by ,,other ,,scriptures4 ,in interpreting the narrative before us1 we have an important aid which has hardly received the attention it deserves4 ,i allude to the other passages of ,scripture which were written by men undoubtedly familiar with the ,book of ,genesis4 ,now1 in more than one of them1 ,i find the idea that the ,creation spoken of is the ,divine work in heaven1 and not the subsequent and long process of its realization on the surface of our globe1 fully confirmed4 ,in the beautiful thirty-eighth chapter of the very ancient ,book of ,job1 we find a distinct allusion to a time when ,god laid the foundations of the earth1 prescribed its measures1 made a decreed place for the sea1 and framed the ordinances of heaven1 and this in presence of the heavenly host assembled-- ,when the morning stars sang together1 ,and all the sons of ,god shouted for joy4#a ,footnote #a3 ,job xxxviii4 #g4 ,the sons of ,god are clearly the angels 7cf4 ,job i1 #f74 ,the same idea can be gathered from the text which ,i have placed on the title-page of this book4 ,by faith we understand that the aeons 7the whole system of nature in its various branches1 physical1 moral1 and social7 were ordained 7,greek3 kataertisthai7 by the word of ,god4 ,the process of actual development is here passed over1 as not being the main thing2 what attracts attention is the ,divine ,design1 the framing of the wonderful ideal or ordinance without which the aeons could not proceed to unfold themselves4 ,i do not mean1 of course1 for a moment to imply that1 after ,god had formulated the laws and designed the forms1 ,he left the working out of the results to themselves4 ,i should be sorry if1 in bringing into prominence what has generally been overlooked1 ,i seemed to throw the rest in the shade4 ,god's providence and continued supervision are as important in themselves as the original design3--but this is not the central idea embodied in the passage4 ,there is another ,scriptural allusion which suggests the idea of a ,heavenly ,conclave1 and great act of ,creation in heaven4 ,it may be considered somewhat remote1 and even fanciful--but the fact is recorded both in the ,old ,testament and the ,new1 and something must be meant by it4 ,and1 moreover1 other and very meaningless interpretations have been from the earliest times given1 so that ,i can hardly omit the subject if ,i would4 ,i refer to the permanent presence in heaven1 around the ,divine ,throne1 of the singular forms of being called ,cherubim1 which seem to indicate some mysterious connection between the life-forms of earth and the inhabitants of heaven1 and some permanent representation of typical created forms in heaven4 ,in ,ezekiel1 chapter i41 and again in chapter x41 this vision is presented to us4 ,the prophet was to be prepared1 by a very vivid exhibition of the power and glory of ,god as the ,author and ,ruler of the universe1 to appreciate the depth of degradation to which the ,jews had fallen in their rejection of such a ,god as their ,lord and ,king and of the justice of the terrible overthrow which was the consequence of that rejection4 ,the vision then displayed 7as ,i understand it7 ,,god surrounded by the typical forms of creation and the irresistible forces of nature4 ,all forms of life1 all energies of nature1 were thus shown to be ,his creatures4 ,there1 around the throne1 were four cherubim of remarkable appearance4 ,they were accompanied by the appearances of fiery orbs like beryl stones1 revolving in all directions with ceaseless energy4 ,any account of this vision that ,i can give is1 however1 pitiable beside the inexpressibly sublime picture drawn in ,ezekiel1 to which ,i must refer the reader for his own study4 ,and imagine what the feelings of the prophet must have been when1 fresh from the impression of this grandeur of ,creation--this glory and irresistible power of ,god as the ,centre and great ,mover of all1 he was taken to witness the pitiable sight of the ,jews turning away from ,his worship1 and to see their elders burning incense before walls covered with every form of creeping things and abominable beasts--all the idols of the house of ,israel6#a ,how must the vision have prepared him to realize the depth of degradation with which he had to contend1 and have fired him with energy to denounce it6 ,there is1 then1 ,i think1 considerable probability in the contention that the vision represents ,god in ,creation1 surrounded by the types of creation and the forces of nature4 ,there is1 no doubt1 the ancient tradition that the four ,cherubim meant the four ,gospels2 and this has now become deeply associated with ecclesiastical symbolism4 ,but ,i submit that this is only a fancy which can best be left to church embroidery and stained windows2 it is unworthy of any serious notice4 ,the beings are described1 it will be observed1 with great minuteness3 all have the same characteristic powers of rapid motion1 and all have human hands1 a fact that so strikes the prophet that he repeats it three times4#b ,these four ,cherubim1 then1 seem to me clearly to indicate the archetypes of ,creation1 the great design-forms of created life1 showing themselves the progressive scale from the ,animal to the ,man and the ,angel4 ,and these four great types exactly answer to the resulting groups of created life4 ,we have the development of ,reptilia into ,birds as one final type2 consequently one face of each cherub has the ,bird type--the ,eagle head#c4 ,two other faces on each give us the ,animal type1 one representing again the great order ,carnivora 7the ,lion71 the other the ,herbivorous ,ungulates 7the ,ox or ,calf72 while the fourth face indicates the last development1 ,man4 ,footnote #a3 ,ezek4 viii4 #aj4 ,footnote #b3 ,see chapters i4 #h1 x4 #h1 and x4 #ba4 ,remark1 in passing1 that the human hand has always been the subject of wonder as an evidence of ,divine skill in ,creation4 ,sir ,charles ,bell's ,bridgewater treatise1 on the human hand as illustrating the proof of ,divine wisdom and contrivance in ,creation1 is just as good an argument for ,design now as ever it was4 ,i cannot here resist the temptation to notice one of those small points in which the accuracy of the ,bible is so constantly brought to light4 ,the popular notion of angels gives them wings as well as hands--a form quite impossible from the natural history point of view2 all animals of the vertebrate orders never have more than two pairs of limbs4 ,and in winged animals the fore-limbs become wings4 ,the popular notion about angels is1 however1 artistic1 not ,biblical4 ,just the contrary in fact4 ,here is a vision of a mysterious form with wings and hands1 but how8--the figures are fourfold2 and being winged1 each division might have been winged like the eagle1 so each cherub would have had eight wings4 ,but as one of the divisions had a human face and human hands1 the prophet only saw six wings to each1 leaving one division where1 nature's ,divine type being obeyed1 there were hands1 and consequently no wings4 ,footnote #c3 ,reptiles are unrepresented1 perhaps as not being a final type4 ,i would say here1 as regards the animal creation being represented by a double form1 that it is most curious to notice that this double division of animals is found throughout ,scripture1 and seems to have its counterpart in the actual facts of creation on earth4 ,accompanying these created beings in this remarkable vision were wheels which appeared to be spheres within spheres1 revolving with ceaseless activity and never turning1 but always going forward4 ,the wheels were full of eyes4 ,it appears to me probable that these symbolize--and if so the symbol is at once full of meaning and grandeur--the inevitable1 ever wakeful energies and forces of nature1 the marvellous agency of electricity1 chemical affinity1 heat1 attraction1 repulsion1 and so forth4 ,we are accustomed to speak of blind force2 but here observe the wheels are full of eyes1 ever vigilant to fulfil the purpose for which they are appointed4 ,and this representation of forces appears necessary to complete a symbolic representation of ,god in nature3 since the world is made up of dead matter1 of living forms1 and of forces or energies which are in ceaseless motion and action1 producing the changes which in fact constitute the working of the whole system4 ,i cannot help thinking1 therefore1 that the imagery of this vision lend support to the belief that there was a great ,creation enacted in heaven1 which was followed by the actual carrying out of the processes on earth1 but which has retained its representative forms in the heaven itself4 ,had this vision stood alone1 it might have been passed over1 on the ground that it deals with high and transcendental matters1 and that it would be hardly safe to let a practical argument rest too much on it4 ,but the fact is that again in the ,new ,testament a very similar vision is mentioned 7in the fourth chapter of the ,book of ,revelation73 here again the four living creatures represent the typical forms of life1 the bird1 the carnivorous and herbivorous animals1 and man2 and it will be observed that in this case there is hardly room to doubt that we have an exhibition of ,creation1 for there is express allusion to it in the address of the elders--,thou hast created all things1 and for ,thy pleasure they are and were created4 ,,chapter ,,xv4 ,,and ,,supported ,,by ,,the ,,context4 ,but a step further is necessary3 if the conclusion that ,i have come to1 by accepting day in its ordinary and natural sense1 and by giving a hitherto overlooked 7and so far a new7 meaning to creation1 is sound1 it must not only be rendered probable by reference to other parts of ,scripture written when ,genesis was much nearer its original publication than it is now2 it is still 7before all things7 necessary1 that the interpretation adopted should be conformable to the context4 ,and ,i have heard it objected that there are verses which imply not only a ,divine ,act in heaven1 with the ,sons of ,god in conclave around the throne--sublime and wonderful picture6--but also distinctly indicate a corresponding action on earth1 and so require us to include in our rendering of creation both the ideas which 7page #afi ante7 ,i have admitted may1 on occasion be required by the terms4 ,for example3 after the creative command in verses #g1 #i1 #aa1 #ae1 and #bd1 is declared1 it is followed by the words of fulfilment--and it was so2 and in verse #aa1 when ,god has said ,let the earth bring forth grass1 c41 in the next verse it is positively recorded that the earth did bring forth grass1 c4 ,i of course admit all this1 but it is in no way opposed to my suggestion4 ,the commencement of the result probably1 if not necessarily1 followed immediately on the issue of the finished command1 viz41 the promulgation of the forms to be obtained and the processes to be followed4 ,the whole result did not become accomplished then and there1 in the time mentioned1 or exactly in the order mentioned3 we know that for a fact4 ,take1 for example1 the case of vegetation4 ,here the author1 in terms at once precise and universally intelligible1 speaks of vegetation#a 7grass of the ,a4,v471 herb yielding seed1 and trees yielding fruit1 thereby exhaustively enumerating the members of the vegetable kingdom4 ,footnote #a3 ,nothing more is meant by the ,hebrew deshe4 ,the true grasses 7graminea71--cereals1 bamboos1 c41 are certainly not intended1 for these are all conspicuously flowering plants1 herbs yielding seed1 and therefore coming under the second plainly defined group4 ,but the general term sproutage or vegetation is just adapted to signify the mass of cryptogamic plant-life1 the mosses1 lichens1 algae1 and then ferns1 c41 which evidently formed the first stage of plant-life on the globe4 ,now1 as a matter of fact1 there was no one long 7or short7 period during which the whole of this command was realized1 before the next creative act occurred4 ,at first algae and low forms of vegetable life appeared2 and doubtless we have lost myriads upon myriads of such lower forms of plant-life in the early strata1 because such forms were ill calculated for fossil-preservation1 owing to the absence of woody fibre1 silicious casing1 or hard fruit or seed vessels4 ,but when we first have a marked accumulation of specialized plant-life in the coal measures 7,upper ,carboniferous71 it is still only of cryptogams--ferns and great club mosses4 ,a beginning of true seed-bearing plants 7,gymnosperm exogens7 had been made with the conifers of the ,devonian strata2 but true grasses1 and the other orders of phanerogamic plants and arboreous vegetation1 do not appear till the tertiary rocks were deposited1 very long after the age of fish and great reptiles had culminated1 and the inauguration of the bird age and the mammalian age had taken place4 ,looking only to the abundant1 prominent1 and characteristic life-forms of the several strata1 it could certainly be said that the period when the water actually brought forth a vast mass of its life-forms--corals1 sertularias1 crustaceans1 and fish of the lower orders--must have preceded 7not followed7 the time when the earth produced vegetation of all kinds1 and further that it must have come after the appearance of scorpions and some land insects4#a ,footnote #a3 ,a single wing found little more than a year ago is the sole evidence of insects older than the ,devonian2 and scorpions 7highly-organized crustaceans7 have been found in the ,upper ,silurian in some abundance4 ,moreover1 as the regular succession in periods of light and darkness on the earth1 and the sequence of seasons was not organized 7but only a generally diffused light1 and1 probably1 an uniform and moist state of climate without seasons7 till after the commands for the formation of the whole of the large classes of plants1 both cryptogams and phanerogams1 it is obvious that as many of these would require the fuller development of seasonal influences1 the whole process could not have been worked out before the fourth day's creative work was begun4 ,this instance alone--and it would be easy to add others--shows that the narrative cannot be meant to indicate what actually happened on earth1 i4e41 to summarize the entire realization of the ,divine command4 ,such being the plain facts with regard to the kind of accomplishment meant by the terms it was so1 the earth brought forth1 c41 it is quite plain that no violence is done to the text by explaining it as intended to describe what ,god did in heaven1 with the addition1 that as each command was formulated1 the result on earth surely followed1 the thing was so1 and the earth and water respectively no doubt began to bring forth4 ,more than this cannot be made out on any interpretation that accords with facts4 ,it seems so clear to me that this is so1 that ,i hardly need refer to the use of the terms the waters brought forth and the earth brought forth and the phrase in chapter ii4 #e--the ,lord made every plant before it grew4 ,if1 as we have been long allowed to suppose1 ,god spake and the water and earth were at once fully and finally peopled with animals where before nothing but plants had existed1 and so on1 ,i should hardly have expected the use of words which imply a gradual process--a gestation and subsequent birth 7so to speak7 of life-forms4 ,how the order in which the events are recorded stands in relation to the subsequent history of life-development on earth1 and what its significance may be1 ,i will consider later on4 ,first ,i will conclude the argument for the general interpretation of the narrative4 #b4 ,the ,second ,genesis ,narrative4 ,i have only one more direct argument to offer2 but ,i think it is a very important one4 ,the first division of ,genesis ends with the ,divine commands creating man and the day of rest which followed4 ,the narrative ending at chapter ii4 verse #c 7the division of chapters here1 as elsewhere1 is purely arbitrary71 we have at verse #d of chapter ii1 what has been loudly proclaimed as another account of the same ,creation1 which1 it is added 7arbitrarily enough--but any argument will do if only it is against religion67 is contrary to the first4#a ,footnote #a3 ,the contradiction is supposed to be in verse #ai1 as if then the creation of animals was for the first time effected--after the man and his helpmate4 ,but it is quite clear that the text refers to the fact that ,god had created animals2 the command was1 ,let the earth bring forth1 and the immediate act spoken of was not the formation of animals1 but the bringing of them to ,adam to see what he would call them4 ,now1 even if there is a second account of ,creation1 it would surely be a circumstance somewhat difficult to explain4 ,contrary in any possible sense1 the narrative 7from chapter ii4 #d1 onward7 certainly is not4 ,but why should there be a second narrative at all8 ,on the hitherto received supposition that chapter i4 intends to tells us the process of creation--what ,god caused to be done on earth1 not merely what ,he did in heaven--there is apparently no room for a second narrative4 ,nor have ,i seen any completely satisfactory explanation4 ,but if we accept the view that the first chapter explains the ,divine ,design1 and its being published 7so to speak7 and commanded in heaven1 then it would be very natural that that narrative should be followed by a second1 which should detail not the whole process of all life existence on earth1 but 7as the ,bible is to be henceforth concerned with ,man1 his fall and his redemption7 with an account of just so much of the process as relates to the actual birth on the earth's surface of the particular man ,adam1 the most important 7and possibly not the only7 outcome of the fiat recorded in chapter i4 vers4 #bg1 #bh4 ,in this view1 not only a second narrative1 but just the particular kind of narrative we actually have1 is not only natural1 but even necessary4 ,before1 we had a general account of how ,god ordained the scheme of material-form and life-form on the earth2 now we have a detailed account of how ,he actually carried out one portion of it--that one portion we are most concerned to hear about1 namely the man ,adam1 the progenitor of our own race1 of whom came ,,jesus ,,christ1 the son of ,adam4#a ,the account is designed to introduce to us the scene of ,adam's birthplace--the ,garden of ,eden4#b ,the mention of a garden1 and the subsequent important connection of the trees of that garden with the conduct of the man1 naturally turn the writer's attention to the general subject of the vegetation on the earth's surface4 ,he prefaces his new account accordingly with a brief summary--which ,i may paraphrase thus without1 ,i trust1 departing from the sense of the original3 ,such was the origin of the earth 7and all in it7 and of the heavenly host1 at the time when ,god made them4 ,he had made every plant before it was in the earth--every herb of the field before it grew 7mark the language as confirming what ,i have said--,god created everything before it actually developed and grew into being on the earth74 ,rain did not then fall 7in the same way as now7 on the earth1 but the mist that exhaled from the soil re-condensed1 and fell and moistened the ground2 but there was as yet no ,,man to till and cultivate the soil4 ,footnote #a3 ,st4 ,luke iii4 #ch4 ,footnote #b3 ,which had a real historic existence4 ,vide ,appendix ,a4 ,then ,god actually formed or fashioned a man4 ,it is not now that ,he created the ideal form to be produced in due time1 but that ,he actually formed the individual ,adam1 and placed him in a garden which ,he had prepared for the purpose4 ,all the words used now imply actual production4 ,the ,divine ideal was ready1 and the earth-elements 7of which we know man's body to consist7 were ready at the ,divine word to assume the human shape4 ,and that done1 ,god breathed into his nostrils the breath of life 7mark the direct act on the man himself71 and the man became a living soul4 ,there is nothing here of the earth bringing forth as in the former narrative4 ,we have the direct act of ,god1 not in the design only1 but in the production of the thing itself4 ,if this is not a complete explanation and justification of the second narrative1 ,i do not know what1 in common fairness1 is entitled to be so called4 ,the language may be rigorously examined1 and it will fully bear out the position taken up4 ,i conceive1 then1 that the cumulation of proof need go no further4 ,the true explanation of ,genesis i4 also supplies the place for ,genesis ii4 #d1 et seq41 and overcomes all the difficulty that has hitherto existed on the subject4 ,it will now1 ,i trust1 be clear that by such an interpretation of ,genesis we at once give 7#a7 a full and natural meaning to all the terms2 we reconcile it with other ,scripture1 and we enhance all the sublime attributes which we have been reverentially accustomed to connect with this ancient passage4 7#b7 ,we obviate the difficulty regarding the second narrative in chapter ii4 #d4 ,and 7#c7 we place the whole above any possible conflict with science1 and above any need for reconciliation4 ,here1 too1 is a purpose and meaning assigned to the whole narrative1 without being driven into the difficult position of supposing the verses to be the literary outcome of an ignorant imagination which gave expression to its crude ideas only--though enshrining among utterly false details a sublime truth1 regarding which one can only wonder why it could not have been stated without the encumbrance of the surroundings4 ,the naturalist and the biologist may continue1 unquestioned1 to work out more and more of the wondrous story of ,life on the globe4 ,they can never disprove1 or on any of their own grounds deny1 that ,god is the ,author of all things--matter1 force1 and mind alike2 that ,he designed the form and relations of the earth2 that ,he organized its light1 its seasons1 and its changes2 that ,he has furnished the types and patterns of all life-forms which matter and force are conformably thereto1 developing on the earth4 ,in short1 ,,revelation tells us that ,god did all this in the beginning1 how ,his form-designs were thought out and declared in six days1 and how ,he rested on the seventh day4 ,,science will tell us how1 when1 and where the ,creative fiats and the designs of heaven were realized and worked out on earth4 ,here is the separate province of each1 without fear of clashing1 or room for controversy4 ,,chapter ,,xvi4 ,,the ,,details ,,of ,,the ,,creation ,,narrative4 #a4 ,the ,explanation of the ,verses4 ,it remains only now to go over the narrative1 the general bearing of which ,i have thus endeavoured to vindicate1 so that minor matters of detail1 in which it is supposed 7#a7 that some contradiction to known physical fact may still lurk1 and 7#b7 something that negatives the explanation suggested1 may be cleared up4 ,let us take it seriatim3-- ,in the beginning ,god created the heaven 7plural in the original7 and the earth4 ,as ,i have before remarked1 we have no real need to discuss whether bara means originated 7created where nothing previously existed71 or whether we should render it fashioned1 i4e41 moulded material 7thus assumed in terms to be7 already in existence4 ,either will yield perfectly good and consistent sense2 but1 as a matter of fact1 there is a virtual consensus of the best scholars that the word is here used to denote original production of the material4 ,it is also clear that the text is intended to embrace the whole system of planets1 suns1 stars1 and whatever else is in space4 ,so the ,psalmist understood it3 ,by the word of the ,lord were the heavens made1 and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth4#a ,nor is there any reasonable doubt1 exegetically1 that the subsequent allusion to the sun1 moon1 and stars1 refers 7as the sense of the text itself obviously requires7 to their appointment or adjustment to certain relations with the earth1 and assumes their original material production in space1 to have been already stated or understood4 ,and the earth was 7became7 without form#b and void1 and darkness was upon the face of the deep4 ,and the ,spirit of ,god moved upon the face of the waters4 ,i have1 in another connection1 already remarked on this verse1 and so shall not repeat those remarks4 ,footnote #a3 ,psa4 xxxiii4 #f1 and so ,psa4 cii4 #be2 cf4 #b ,peter iii4 #e4 ,footnote #b3 ,waste 7,r4,v474 ,i will only say that the elemental strife and rushing together of chemical elements under the stress of various forces and the presence of enormous heat1 would naturally envelop the globe in dense vapours1 a large portion of which would be watery vapour1 capable of condensation or of dispersion1 under proper conditions1 afterwards to be prescribed and realized4 ,as it is beautifully expressed in ,job xxxviii41 ,when ,i made the cloud the garment thereof1 and thick darkness a swaddling-band for it 7verse #h74 ,then commences the serial order of ,divine acts with reference to the ,earth3-- 7#a7 ,,and ,,god ,,said2 ,,let ,,there ,,be ,,light3 ,,and ,,there ,,was ,,light4 ,this verse is commonly taken as indicating a creation of light for the first time in the entire cosmos or universe4 ,and if it be so1 there is no objection1 on any scientific ground1 to the assertion that there was once a time when as yet the vibrations and waves which we connect with the idea of ,light1 had not yet begun4 ,it is true that nebular matter1 as now observed1 is believed to be1 partially at any rate1 self-luminous4 ,but this fact1 supposing it to be such1 is not inconsistent with a still earlier time when light had not yet begun4 ,from the wave-theory of light1 which is one of those working hypotheses which are indispensable1 and which1 in a sense1 may be said to be demonstrated by their indispensability1 it can clearly be seen that if light is caused by rapid vibrational movement1 there must have been--or at any rate there is nothing against an authoritative declaration that there was--a moment of time when the first vibrational impulse was given1 when1 in fact1 ,god said ,let there be light1 and there was light1 before which also there was darkness upon the face of the deep4#a ,footnote #a3 ,it also needs only to be remarked1 in passing1 that we are really in complete ignorance as to the light-medium1 the luminiferous-ether outside the comparatively thin stratum of our own terrestrial atmosphere4 ,we do not know whether there might not have been a condition of the medium in which1 up to the moment of a creative fiat1 it was incapable of transmitting light-waves4 ,there is no necessary connection between the creation of light per se1 and the existence of any particular source 7or sources7 of light to our planet or to other planets4 ,no justification is now needed for such a remark1 and the almost forgotten cavils of one of the ,essays and ,reviews may still survive as a scientific curiosity1 to warn us against too hastily concluding that 7in subjects where so little is really known7 the ,bible must be wrong1 and the favourite hypothesis of the day right4 ,but as a matter of fact1 the text1 especially when read in connection with ,job xxxviii41 need not be taken to refer to any original creation of light in the universe generally1 but merely to the letting in of light on the hitherto dark and waste earth4 ,the command ,let there be light was followed on the next day by the formation of a firmament or expanse4 ,so that all the verse necessarily implies is1 that the thick clouds and vapours which surrounded the earth were so dealt with1 that light could reach the earth3 the light was thus divided from the darkness1 and the rotating globe would experience the alternation of day and night4 ,the day having thus been created formally 7so to speak71 the ,divine ,author proceeds to mark1 by ,his own ,procedure1 the use of the days which ,he had provided for the earth4 ,on this view1 of course1 the origin of light as a force--the first beginning of its pulsations--is not detailed1 any more than the origin of electric force1 or heat1 or gravitation4 ,here1 too1 ,i may remark that the idea of creation1 which it has been one of my chief objects to develop1 is illustrated4 ,this remark holds good1 whether an original creation of light is intended1 or only an arrangement whereby light was for the first time introduced to the earth's surface4 ,the idea of creating light not only involves the ,divine ,conception of the thing1 and the marvellous method of its production1#a but doubtless1 also1 all those wonderful laws of reflection1 refraction1 polarization1 and a thousand others1 which the science of ,physical ,optics investigates4 ,footnote #a3 ,and this is still a mystery to us4 ,what light is we do not know--we can only speak of our own sensation of it4 ,nor do we know what vibrates to produce light4 ,hypothetical terms1 such as ether1 luminiferous-medium1 and so forth1 only conceal our ignorance4 ,naturally enough1 in this case1 the double idea involved in creation--the ,divine concept and its realization--will1 in the nature of things1 fall into one4 ,no process of evolution is required2 none is indicated by science4 ,directly the ,divine hand gave the impulse concurrently with the ,divine thought--light would be4 ,in the nature of things there is no place for a line between the ,divine fiat and its realization1 as there is in the production of life-forms on the earth4 ,or1 on the other view1 directly the ,divine command went forth1 the vapours would clear and allow the transmission of light4 7#b7 ,,and ,,god ,,said1 ,,let ,,there ,,be ,a ,,firmament 7,,expanse7 ,,in ,,the ,,midst ,,of ,,the ,,waters1 ,,and ,,let ,,it ,,divide ,,the ,,waters ,,from ,,the ,,waters4444,,and ,,god ,,called ,,the ,,firmament ,,heaven4 ,there has been gathered round this verse what ,i may call rather an ill-natured controversy1 because there is no real ground for it2 and the objections taken seem rather of a desire to find out something against the narrative at any price1 than to make the best of it4 ,the verse1 when duly translated1 implies that an expanse--the setting of a clear space of atmosphere around the globe--formed one of the special design-thoughts of the ,creator1 followed by its immediate 7or gradual7 accomplishment4 ,i think we should have hardly had so much cavilling over this word expanse if it had not been for the term subsequently used by the ,seventy in their ,greek version 7,greek3 sterema74 ,the ancients1 it is said1 believed the space above the earth to be solid4 ,now ,i would contend that even if the ,hebrew writer had any mistaken or confused notions in his own mind1 that would not afford any just ground against revelation itself4 ,but ,i would point out that many of the expressions which may be quoted to show the idea of solidity1 are clearly poetical4 ,and if we go to the poetic or semi-poetic aspect of things1 may ,i not ask whether there is not a certain sense in which the earth-envelope may be said to be solid8 ,the air has a considerable density1 its uniform and inexorable pressure on every square inch of the earth's surface is very great4 ,such a word as ,greek3 sterema 7firmamentum7 does not imply solidity in the sense in which gold is solid--as if the heavens were a mass of metal1 and the stars set in it like jewels2 it implies1 rather1 something fixed and offering resistance4 ,it is obvious that a creative act was necessary for this expanse4 ,we know of spheres that have no atmosphere2 and we are so ignorant of the true nature of what is beyond the utmost reach of our air-stratum1 that there is room for almost any consistent conjecture regarding it4 ,moreover1 observe that the atmosphere is not a chemical combination of gases1 and one1 therefore1 that would take place like any other of the metallic1 saline1 or gaseous combinations1 of which no detailed account is given--all being covered by the general phrase1 ,god created the heaven and the earth4 ,the air is a mechanical mixture1 pointing to a special design and a special act of origin4 ,the necessary proportions of each gas and its combined properties could not have originated without guidance4 ,but the main purpose of the expanse1 as stated in the text1 was to regulate the water supply4 ,that vast masses of watery vapour must at one time have enveloped the globe1 seems probable--apart from revelation2 and that part of this should condense into seas and fresh-water1 and part remain suspended to produce all the phenomena of invisible air-moisture and visible cloud1 while an expanse was set1 so that the earth surface should be free1 and that light might freely penetrate1 and sound also1 and that all the other regular functions of nature dependent on the existing relation of earth and air should proceed--all this was very necessary4 ,and when we recollect what a balanced and complex scheme it is--how very far from being a simple thing2 we recognize in the adjustment of earth's atmospheric envelope1 a special result worthy of the day's work4 ,whether the separation between the condensed but ever re-evaporating and re-condensing water on the earth's surface1 and the water vapour in the atmosphere1 is all that is meant by the division of the waters that are above the firmament from those below1 it would not be wise to assert4 ,we know so little of the condition of space beyond our own air1 and so little of the great stores of hydrogen which have been suggested to exist in space 7and might combine to form vast quantities of liquid71 that we may well leave the phrase as it stands1 content with a partial explanation4 7#c7 ,,and ,,god ,,said1 ,,let ,,the ,,waters ,,under ,,the ,,heaven ,,be ,,gathered ,,together ,,unto ,,one ,,place1 ,,and ,,let ,,the ,,dry ,,land ,,appear3 ,,and ,,it ,,was ,,so4 ,,and ,,god ,,said1 ,,let ,,the ,,earth ,,put ,,forth ,,grass 7,,vegetation71 ,,herb ,,yielding ,,seed1 ,,and ,,fruit ,,tree ,,bearing ,,fruit ,,after ,,its ,,kind1 ,,wherein ,,is ,,the ,,seed ,,thereof4 ,the only remarks that the first part of this verse calls for1 are1 first1 that it explains how far from mere chance-work the emergence of land from the water was2 second how well it illustrates the use of terms relating to creation4 ,the whole scheme of the distribution of the surface of earth into land and water is one which demanded ,divine foresight and a complete ideal#a which was to be attained by the action and reaction of natural forces1 just as much as the production of the most specialized form of plant-or animal-life4 ,footnote #a3 ,compare ,job xxxviii4 #aj1 #aa1 and ,psa4 civ4 #i4 ,this is not the place to go into detail as to how much of the world's life-history and its climatic conditions depend on the distribution of land and water4 ,it is sufficient to recognize the immense importance of that distribution4 ,but1 in the second place1 it will be observed that while it is natural to suppose 7though not logically necessary7 that the working out of the ,divine plan commenced immediately on the issue of the ,divine command and the declared formulation of the ,divine scheme1 yet we know--few things are better known--that the whole scheme was not completely realized in one day1 or one age--certainly not before there was any appearance of plant-life1 aquatic1 or dry land1 or any appearance of animal-life4 ,i believe 7though ,i have lost my reference7 it is held by some authorities that the position of the great oceans as they are now 7and omitting1 of course1 all minor coast variations7 has been fixed from very early geologic times4 ,but1 apart from that1 we have ample evidence of whole continents arising and being again submerged2 and of continual changes between land and water of the most wide-reaching character again and again happening during the progress of the world's history4 ,so that here we may see clearly an instance where the revelation of the creative act must be held to refer to the great primal design--teaching us that it is a fact that at first all was laid down1 foreseen1 and designed by the ,creator2 but not referring to anything like an account of the results upon earth1 which1 for aught we know to the contrary1 may not yet be complete4 ,as to the second part of the text1 we are here introduced to the commencement of life-forms on earth4 ,no separation is recorded4 ,directly the chemical elements of matter have so combined that a solid earth and liquid water 7salt and fresh7 are formed1 and the cooling process has gone on sufficiently long to enable the dense vapours partly to settle down and condense1 partly to remain as vapour 7dividing the waters above from the waters below7--directly this process is aided by the admission of diffused light and by the adjustment of the atmosphere1 and the superficial adjustment of the distribution of water and land surface is provided for1 then plant-life is organized4 ,it will be observed that even aquatic plants and algae though growing in or under water1 are nevertheless connected with the earth2 so that the phrase1 ,let the earth bring forth1 is by no means inappropriate4 ,the earliest rock deposits are able to tell us little about the first beginning of plant-life4 ,moreover1 as animal-life began only with the interval of one day 7the fourth71 we should expect to find--on the supposition that the heavenly fiat at once received the commencement of its fulfilment on each day--that the first lowly specimens of vegetable and animal life are almost coeval4 ,and this is 7apparently7 the fact4 ,it is to be remarked that plant and animal always appear in nature as two separate and parallel kingdoms4 ,it is not that the plant is lower than the animal1 so that the highest plant takes on it some of the first characters which mark the lowest animal3 but both start separately from minute and little specialized forms so similar that it is extremely difficult to say which is plant and which is animal4#a ,footnote #a3 ,see this well summarized in ,nicholson's ,manual of ,zoology 7sixth edition1 #ahhj71 p4 #ac1 et seq4 ,all the beginnings of life in either kingdom would therefore be ill-adapted 7most of them1 at any rate7 for preservation in rock-strata4#a ,footnote #a3 ,i think this is quite sufficient1 without relying on the evidence of the great quantities of carbon in the earliest 7,laurentian1 ,huronian1 c47 strata in the form of graphite4 ,it is possible1 or even probable1 that this may be due to carbon supplied by masses of little specialized ,thallophyte and ,anophyte vegetation4 ,all we know for certain is that vegetable-life was closely coeval with the lowest animal-life1 and that it was very long before specialized forms1 even of cryptogams1 made a great show in the world4 ,probability is entirely in favour of the actual priority being in vegetable forms2 and more than that is not required4 ,for the ,mosaic narrative1 while it places the origin of the vegetable kingdom actually first1 lets the fiat for the animal kingdom follow almost immediately4 ,as to the order of appearance of the plants1 ,i will reserve my remarks for the moment4 7#d7 ,,and ,,god ,,said1 ,,let ,,there ,,be ,,lights ,,in ,,the ,,firmament ,,of ,,the ,,heaven1 ,,to ,,divide ,,the ,,day ,,from ,,the ,,night2 ,,and ,,let ,,them ,,be ,,for ,,signs1 ,,and ,,for ,,seasons1 ,,and ,,for ,,days1 ,,and ,,for ,,years3 ,,and ,,let ,,them ,,be ,,for ,,lights ,,in ,,the ,,firmament ,,to ,,give ,,light ,,on ,,the ,,earth4 ,the sun and the stars1 and all the host of heaven1 are clearly understood to have been created in the beginning1 under the general statement of fact which forms the first verse of the narrative4 ,the #adth verse has always been understood to refer to the establishment of the relations between the earth and the sun1 moon1 and stars1 which have1 as a matter of fact1 been recognized by all ages and all people ever since4 ,the writer of the #ajdth ,psalm certainly so understood the passage-- ,he appointed the moon for seasons2 ,the sun knoweth his going down4#a ,the writer was instructed to use popularly intelligible language1 and so the text speaks of the lights as they appear in the sky or firmament4 ,even if we suppose that before this act1 the sun was already incandescent1 and the moon capable of reflecting the light1 the whole arrangement of the earth's rotation may have been such that the alternations of light and darkness may have been very different from what they are now1 and the seasons also4 ,a moment's reflection regarding the obliquity of the earth's axis1 nutation1 the precession of the equinoxes1 the eccentricity of the orbit and the changes in the position of the orbit1 will show us what ample room there was for a special adjustment and adaptation between the earth and its satellite and between both to the solar centre4#b ,so that faith which accepts this as a ,divine arrangement made among the special and formal acts of ,creation1 cannot be said to be unreasonable1 or to be flying in the face of any known facts4 ,footnote #a3 ,ver4 #ai1 c4 ,the same word is also used of making priests 7l ,kings xii4 #ca71 and appointing 7,r4,v477advancing ,a4,v471 7making1 as we familiarly say7 ,moses and ,aaron 7#a ,sam4 xii4 #f74 ,footnote #b3 ,and the ,psalmist justly speaks of ,god as preparing the light of the sun 7,psa4 lxxiv4 #af74 ,it is very remarkable1 as showing how little we can attribute this narrative1 on any basis of probability1 to mere fancy or guess-work1 that this matter should have been assigned to the fourth day--after the fiat for plant-life had gone forth4 ,but the fact is that the unregulated light1 and the vaporous uniform climate that must have continued if the fourth day's command had never issued1 though it might have served for a time for the lowest beginnings of life1 especially marine or aquatic1 would ultimately have rendered any advance in the series of design impossible4 ,such a fact would never have occurred to an ignorant and uninspired writer4 ,it is here impossible to say whether the whole arrangements indicated were made at once in obedience to the ,divine ,design1 or were produced gradually4 ,it has been suggested that uniformity of climate and temperature continued up till the carboniferous ages1 at any rate2 and it is only in the later ages that such differences of fauna in different parts of the world appear1 as to show differences of climate more like what we have at present4 ,whether this is so or not1 ,i am not concerned to argue4 ,the narrative tells us that ,god did1 at a certain point in his ,creative work1 design and ordain the necessary arrangements2 and physical science may find out1 when it is able1 how and when the adjustments spoken of came about4 7#e7 ,,and ,,god ,,said-- 7i47 ,let the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life1 7ii47 ,let fowl fly above the earth on the face of the expanse4 ,as to 7i47 the creation consisted of--great sea-monsters 7or water monsters71 and every living thing that moveth4 ,then the animal life received a blessing4 ,animals1 even the lowliest1 are capable of a new feature in life--happiness in their being1 which cannot be predicated of plants4 7#f7 ,,and ,,god ,,said-- 7i47 ,let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind 444 the beast of the earth after its kind 7,carnivora71 cattle after its kind 7,ungulata71 and everything that creepeth on the ground after its kind4#a ,and also-- 7ii47 ,let us make man4444 ,so ,god created man in ,his own image--in the image of ,god created ,he him2 male and female created ,he them4 7#g7 ,then followed the day of rest4 ,footnote #a3 ,see page #agh4 ,transcriber's ,note3 ,chapter ,,xiv4 #b4 ,the ,order of ,events considered4 ,it was convenient first to bring these later ,creative ,acts together before beginning any remarks about any one of them4 ,it will now be desirable to notice what occurred1 because here the question of order is concerned4 ,i could not avoid a partial statement on this subject at an earlier page1 nor would it be quite sufficient simply to refer the reader back to those pages4 ,at the risk of some repetition1 ,i will therefore consider the subject here4 ,it will be observed that on the older interpretation1 which passed over the special act of ,god in designing and publishing the design1 and descended at once to the earth to the process of producing the designed forms1 this order was matter of great importance4 ,granting the supporters of this view that the six days are unequal periods often of vast duration1 with or without important subdivisions1 they are bound to make out that each creation began1 and was at any rate well advanced1 before the next began4 ,we ought1 in fact1 to see a period more or less prolonged when the whole of what is indicated in the plant verse was well advanced1 before any marine or fresh-water life appeared at all4#a ,footnote #a3 ,there was evening and morning of the third day1 i4e41 beginning and completion1 and also the whole interval of the fourth day1 before the command of the fifth4 ,all attempts to make out that this was so1 have proved failures4 ,it is assumed1 for instance 7and justly so71 that life on the globe began with low vegetable forms2 these represented the grass of the text1 and it is suggested that the fruit tree is represented by the ,devonian and ,carboniferous conifers4 ,this in itself is a very strained view4 ,it is recollected that the terms used are not scientific1 but for the world at large2 but without confining fruit tree to mean only trees having edible fruit1 still the appearance of a few first species of conifers in the ,devonian1 can hardly be called an adequate fulfilment of the requirements of the passage4 ,but even so1 myriads of fish and other animals existed before the ,devonian and ,carboniferous plant age4 ,the animal forms that so existed1 have therefore to be ignored1 or are assumed to have been created without special notice3 and it is said that the ,mosaic period of moving creatures of the deep1 fishes and monsters1 only began when the rocks begin to show great abundance of shells1 of fish1 and subsequently of huge reptilians which prepared the way for birds--which gradually make their appearance towards the ,trias4 ,but the ,devonian age of fishes 7,devonian including old red sandstone7 was far too important a period to be thus got rid of2 and it is difficult to understand why the narrative should exclude all the extensive and beautiful 7though often little specialized7 orders of marine life--all the ,corals1 the ,mollusca and ,articulata1 which had long abounded--especially some of the ,crustaceans1 not an unimportant group of which 7,trilobite#a7 had also culminated and almost passed away before the ,devonian2 to say nothing of the fact that land creeping things 7scorpions among crustacea1 and apparently winged insects7 had occurred4 ,footnote #a3 ,it is remarkable that the ,trilobites rapidly culminated1 so that we have the largest and most perfect forms1 such as ,paradoxus1 with the lowest 7,agnostus7 in the same beds in ,wales 7,etheridge's ,phillips' ,manual1 ,part ,,ii4 p4 #cb74 ,it is a special difficulty also1 that if insects are included among the creeping things of the earth then various families of the land-creation 7sixth day7 became represented before the great reptiles of the water-creation 7fifth day74 ,the fact is that a glance at the subjoined ,tables 7which are only generally and approximately correct7 will suffice to show how the main features of the progress of life-forms differ from what is required by the older methods of reading ,genesis4 ,to reduce the table within limits1 ,i have grouped together all the lower forms of life in the animal table1 viz41 the sponges1 corals1 encrinites1 and molluscs4 ,it is sufficient to say that these appear in all the rocks except the very oldest--the ,caelenterata beginning1 and the ,molluscoids exhibiting an early order in brachiopoda1 which seems to be dying out4 ,crustaceans and insects appeared as early as ,silurian times4 ,the idea of successive kingdoms or periods1 each of which was complete in its actual fauna upon earth before the next was fully ushered in1 can no longer be defended4 ,it is in the completion of one class of life before the other1 that the fallacy of the period theory lies--for completion is essential to that theory which supposes the ,mosaic author to have intended to describe the process of production on earth4 ,but it is quite impossible to deny that there is a certain observable movement and gradual procession in the history of life which is exactly consistent with what is most likely to have happened1 supposing the ,divine designs of life-forms were first declared in successive order at short intervals of time1 and then that the processes of nature worked out the designs in the fulness of time and gradually in order1 each one beginning before the next1 but only beginning4 ,i do not deny that it is perfectly conceivable that the ,creator might have designed the forms in one order1 and that the actual production or evolution of the corresponding living creatures might not have been 7for reasons not understood7 exactly1 or even at all1 coincident with the order4 ,but it is impossible to deny the strong feeling of probability that the commands would begin to be worked out1 in the order in which they were uttered4 ,and here it is that the correspondence which undoubtedly exists1 gives rise to controversy4 ,from one point of view it is just enough to encourage the period holders to try and arrange a scheme2 but it is just hot enough to prevent their opponents 7justly7 taxing them with straining or torturing the text and failing fairly to make out their case after all4 ,from another point of view the correspondence is so far established1 and so undeniably unprecedented 7in human cosmogonies7 and noteworthy1 as to demand imperatively our careful consideration and compel us to account for it4 ,it will be observed1 first of all1 that the whole creation 7omitting all incidental and preparatory works7 is stated in groups each having an order within itself4 ,group #a4 ,god created 7both land and water7 vegetation--plants yielding seed1 fruit-trees4 ,group #b4 ,in water1 not necessarily excluding amphibia3--,great aquatic monsters2 fish and all other creatures that move4 ,in air3--,winged fowl4 ,group #c4 ,on land generally--for some forms are amphibious3--,beasts 7,carnivora71 cattle 7,ungulata1 c471 and other things that creep on the ground 7the smaller and lower forms of life collectively74 ,the order within the groups is evidently of no consequence1 because the writer does not adhere to it in two consecutive verses dealing with the same subject2 while the versions seem to point to some variations in the text itself as to arrangement1 though not as to substance4 ,but as regards the order of the groups themselves1 it is1 as ,i said1 very natural 7but yet not logically inevitable7 to expect that when the results came to be existent on earth1 those results should exhibit a sequence corresponding to the order in which the groups were created4 ,and it is never denied 7in any of the most recent publications#a7 that to this extent nature confirms the belief4 ,footnote #a3 ,i have done my best to verify this from the well-known latest ,manuals of ,etheridge1 ,seeley1 and ,alleyne-,nicholson4 ,i am aware that ,professor ,huxley's recent articles may at first sight seem to go against this2 but that is not so on any grounds of actual fact1 but of a particular interpretation--which ,i submit is wholly unwarranted4 ,for instance1 it is insisted that the sea-monsters of the second group included sirenia and cetacea 7dugongs1 manatees1 and whales1 dolphins1 c471 which are mammals4 ,in that case a portion of the command would not have been obeyed--a number of the designed forms would have been kept in abeyance--for a long time4 ,and the same is still more true if bats--a highly placed group of mammals--were included in winged fowl4 ,but both these interpretations are distinctly arbitrary1 incapable of holding good1 and also entirely ignore the conditions of a ,revelation4 ,the narrative is not discussed or defended as an ordinary secular narrative1 which is true according to the writer's uninspired intention or the state of his personal knowledge4 ,it is defended as a ,revelation4 ,the distinction is as obvious as it is important1 directly a moment's consideration is accorded4 ,if we assume1 for a moment1 that ,god did 7on any theory whatever of ,inspiration7 instruct1 direct1 or enable the writer in making the record1 then it is obvious that the writer either put down what he saw in a vision1 or what was in some other manner borne on his mind4 ,in any case1 he could have had no critical knowledge1 and no historical knowledge as an eye-witness1 of the actual facts2 and he may very well therefore have used language the full meaning of which he did not apprehend4#a ,what alone is essential is1 that the narrative as it stands1 on an ordinary critical1 linguistic1 and grammatical interpretation1 should not contain anything which is untrue4 ,suppose1 for example1 the word tannnm to be incapable of bearing any other meaning linguistically than cetacean1 then the narrative might be objected to2 but if it will bear a meaning which is consistent with fact1 then it is no matter that the writer at the time had an erroneous1 or 7what is more likely7 no defined1 idea in his own mind of the meaning4 ,and so with winged fowl--the objection fails entirely1 unless it can be shown1 not only that the writer might have thought bats to be included1 but that linguistically the word cannot have any other meaning than one which would include bats4#b ,footnote #a3 ,as is constantly the case in prophetic writings4 ,revelation tells of the remote past sometimes as well as the future1 and in neither case could the inspired writer fully understand the meaning that was wrapped up in his sentences4 ,footnote #b3 ,as a matter of fact1 in the one case1 if the writer's knowledge were of any importance1 it is almost certain that he did not mean cetacean or sirenian4 ,in the other case it is impossible to say whether he thought bats were included or not4 ,it is not in the nature of things that the writer could ever have seen or even heard of a manatee or a dugong2 nor is it likely that he had been a sea-farer1 or could have seen any ,mediterranean cetacean4 ,as far as his own knowledge went1 he probably had but a very confused idea4 ,and if we refer to the poetic description in ,psalm civ4 #be1 #bf1 we find leviathan1 though distinctly a sea creature1 still one of which the writer had only a vague traditional idea1 certainly not a known ,mediterranean dolphin1 for in ,job xli4 the same term is applied to the crocodile4 ,we have every right1 then1 to say that the tannnm of the text may be taken to refer to that great and remarkable age of ,saurians which is not only of very great importance in itself1 but becomes doubly so when we see its connection backward with the fishes1 and forward through the ,pterodactyles to ,odontoformae 7,apatornis and ,icthyornis7 and modern winged birds 7,hesperonis for the ,penguins72 and through the ,dinosaurs#a with the ,saurornithes1 with the ,dinornis and the struthious birds2 and through the ,theriodonts with the mammalian carnivora4 ,footnote #a3 ,and perhaps the pachydermatous mammals 7,nicholson1 ,zoology1 p4 #eff74 ,in that case the sequence of the two groups1 plants and aquatic animal-forms1 is explained4 ,they come almost together--plants being probably actually the first1 and mollusca1 fishes1 and saurians4 ,there is1 further1 no real dispute that the ,saurians led up to the ,aves1 and that the third group 7of mammals7 follows all the members of the second group4 ,the earliest known mammal 7microlestes7 is an isolated forerunner of not very certain location1 the real bulk of the mammalian orders beginning in the ,eocene4 ,seeing1 too1 how very closely one ,creative command is recorded to have followed on the other1 it is not in any way against the narrative that some land forms of crustaceans and insects 7and possibly others7 began to appear at an early stage1 when the vegetable and water-animal forms had only progressed as far as the ,silurian and ,devonian ages4 ,nor should we wonder if mammalian forms had occurred earlier4 ,i mention this because of the evident gap in the geologic record between the ,cretaceous and the ,eocene1 and because in the article of ,december1 #ahhe 7and elsewhere71 ,professor ,huxley has used language which suggests that mammals may have existed of which the rocks give no sign4 ,e4g4 7p4 #hee73 ,the organization of the bat1 bird1 or pterodactyle1 presupposes that of a terrestrial quadruped 444 and is intelligible only as an extreme modification of the organization of a terrestrial mammal or reptile4 ,the italics are of course mine4 ,and again 7p4 #hee71 ,i am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate to admit that the organization of these animals 7whales1 dugongs1 c47 shows the most obvious signs of their descent from terrestrial quadrupeds4 ,i do not quote these words of so great a master as presuming to question them 7even if1 as a scientific verdict1 ,i had any motive for so doing71 but merely to point out as a matter of plain and fair reasoning1 that if a ,divine ,creator had designed certain forms to be gradually attained by the processes of ,evolution1 it would not be necessary that any actually realized form or tangible creature should have existed as ancestors4 ,logically1 the necessity is either that certain animals should have actually existed whose descendants gradually lost or gained certain features and functions till the forms we are speaking of resulted1 or that certain patterns or designs should have been created according to which development proceeded by regular laws till the forms in question resulted4 ,a few words as to the terms used in describing the contents of each group1 may be added4 ,it is obvious that the terms are intended to be exhaustive of certain main groups which are described sufficiently1 without being cast in a form which would have been incompatible with the use 7at the time7 of a human agent as the medium of the recorded ,revelation4 7#a7 ,vegetation 7of an indefinite character1 but not bearing seed71 plants bearing seed1 trees bearing fruit with the seed in it--certainly exhaust the entire range of plant-life4 7#b7 ,moving creatures that live 7and fish are afterwards expressly mentioned7 and great monsters 7tanninim71 cover the entire field of life up to ,reptilia as far as these are aquatic forms4 7#c7 ,the terms used for the third group are also obviously exhaustive--the separate mention of the cattle and the beast 7,carnivora and ,ungulates7 is a form which is invariably noticed throughout the ,old and ,new ,testaments4 ,the creeping things would include all minor forms1 all land reptiles not described above as the tanninim1 and insects4 ,and it is remarkable that the tortoises1 the snakes1 and1 the more modern forms of crocodile and lizard1 and the amphibia and higher insects1 are all cainozoic--some of them were preceded by more or less transitory representatives1 e4g41 the ,carboniferous ,eosaurus and ,permian ,protosaurus the ancient ,labyrinthodons and ,urodelas1 ,chelonians and the amphicaelian crocodiles4 ,snakes have no palaeozoic representative4 ,land insects1 as might naturally be expected1 go back to the times when land vegetation was sufficiently established1 and appear gradually all along the line from the ,silurian onwards4 ,the modern types1 however1 are ,tertiary4 ,the succession1 we observe1 may be illustrated by the resemblance of a number of arrows shot rapidly one after the other in so many parallel courses3 all would soon be moving nearly together4 ,plant-life1 the subject of the first ,divine designing1 has1 as far as we can reasonably say1 the start4 ,according to known laws it appears in elementary and undeveloped forms1 and gradually progresses4 ,one group 7,cryptogams7 reaches a magnificent development and begins to die away in point of grandeur1 though still abundantly exemplified4 ,phanerogamic plants in their lowest groups of gymnosperm exogens then begin to appear in the ,devonian conifers1 gradually followed by cycads4 ,and it is not till ,cainozoic times that we have the endogenous grasses and palms and angiospermous exogens4 ,but the command regarding animal life had followed the other after a short interval1 so that we soon see this developing pari passu with the other groups--first the lower marine forms and gradually advancing to the ,pisces1 ,amphibia1 ,reptilia1 and then to ,aves1 as a special division in the second great design group4 ,lastly the mammals appear and man4#a ,but throughout all1 we see the rise1 culmination1 and decay of many transitory and apparently preparatory groups--such as1 for example1 the ,labyrinthodons and ,urodelas--preceding the modern types of ,amphibia2 ancient fish-forms preceding modern ones1 and either dying out or leaving but a few and distant representatives2 or again1 the whole tribes of ancient ,saurians1 of which something has already been said4 ,all these wonderful under-currents and cross-currents1 rises and falls1 appearances and disappearances1 nevertheless all work together till the whole earth is peopled with the forms1 designed in the beginning by the ,heavenly ,creator4 ,footnote #a3 ,nor should we be surprised to find 7should it be so discovered7 that some animals appeared after man4 7,cf4 ,nineteenth ,century for ,dec4 #ahhe1 p4 #hef47 ,no account of ,creation can be other than wonderful and mysterious2 nor can the mystery of the ,divine act be explained in language other than that of analogy4 ,we can speak without mystery of a human architect conceiving a design in his mind2 and when he utters it1 it is by putting the plans and details upon paper1 and handing them over to the builders1 who set to work 7under the architect's supervision1 and in obedience to all the rules he has prescribed as to the methods of work and materials to be used74 ,all this we can transfer by analogy only1 to a ,divine design4 ,the design is in the ,divine mind1 and ,he utters it in no material plans or drawings3 the forces of nature and the chemical elements1 ,his obedient builders1 have no hands to receive the plans or eyes to scan them2 but we can perceive the analogy directly1 and that is all that is necessary for ,faith4 ,the origin of all we see in the world and in the entire ,cosmos is1 then1 in ,god2 and as regards the adjustments of our globe and its relations1 and the actual life-forms in plant and animal1 they came into existence pursuant to groups of types or designs1 made by the ,divine ,mind1 and declared by ,him from ,his ,throne in heaven1 in six several days--periods of the rotation of our earth4 ,that is the message of ,revelation4 ,it requires no straining of the sacred text3 it takes everything as it stands1 and the seemingly lengthy explanation it requires is not to manipulate the text1 but to clear away the heap of mistaken conceptions that have gathered round it3--to establish the idea1 that the terms ,god said1 ,let there be1 and so forth1 mean ,heaven work1 in the design and type--not earth work in its realization and building up4 ,establishing this by illustration and argument1 nothing more is required in the way of textual exegesis except to argue for the rejection of perverse and unsustainable meanings long given to days1 to expanse or firmament1 and to great whales in the narrative4 ,it will be admitted readily that if this account of ,creation is the true one1 if the meaning assigned to the ,genesis narrative is correct1 it affords no hindrance to any conclusions that may progressively be demanded by the investigation of life-history on earth4 ,it requires us to believe that the forms which life assumes are not chance forms1 nor the unpremeditated results of environment and circumstance4 ,but we are not told positively which forms are transitory1 which are final4 ,it is only a matter of probable opinion1 which it is quite open to any one to dispute1 that there is any indication of finality4 ,i should personally be inclined to think that we have indications that carnivora1 ungulates1 and birds are final forms2 that no evolution will ever modify a bird further into anything that is not a bird2 that no transition between the ungulates and the carnivora is possible2 that the proboscideae are not a final but a transitory type1 dying out gradually--our elephants and similar forms will disappear as the mastodon did4 ,but ,i admit this is all mere speculation1 in which ,i ask no one to follow me4 ,on one important point only is there a difference2 and if the text is ever proved wrong on that1 it must be given up4 ,but it is here that all scientific knowledge fails1 in any way whatever1 to touch the sacred text4 ,there is an unique and exceptional account of one special creation4 ,a man ,adam is described as having been actually created1 not born as an ultimately modified descendant of ancestors originally far removed from himself4 ,that is not to be denied2 not only was his bodily form specially created 7conformably to the type created in ,genesis i4 #bf71 but a special spiritual and higher life was imparted--for ,i believe that no one disputes this as the meaning of the expression1 breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives1 and man became a living soul4 ,it must be noted again--although ,i have before alluded to this in some detail--that it is not impossible that1 pursuant to the general command ,let us make man1 there may have been other human creations1 perhaps not endowed with the higher life of ,adam4 ,if it is found difficult to realize this because the image of ,god is connected 7from the very first7 with the design of ,man's life-form1 still it is to be remembered as an undeniable fact1 that the form1 though one assumed by ,god ,himself in the ,incarnation1 is connected in structure and function with the general animal 7,mammalian7 type1 and that even the ,adamic or spiritually endowed man may1 by neglecting the higher and giving way to the lower nature1 develop much of the purely bestial in himself4 ,so that the bare possibility of a pre-,adamite and imperfect man cannot be priori denied4 ,more than that it is not necessary to say4 ,nor is it necessary that any origin of man should be limited to six or eight thousand years back4 ,if the state of the text is such that a perfect chronology is possible1#a then all that the ,bible goes back to chronologically is the particular man ,adam4 ,and it is quite impossible that any scientific or historical contradiction can arise therefrom4 ,footnote #a3 ,it should be borne in mind that just as ,revelation is often absolutely silent on many points that mere curiosity would like to see explained1 so also1 the ,divine ,author may have allowed parts of the original text of ,revelation to be so far lost or obscured as to leave further points that might have been once recorded1 now doubtful4 ,all that we may be quite sure of is that the text has been preserved for all that is essential to life and godliness4 ,,appendix4 ,,professor ,,delitzsch ,,on ,,the ,,garden ,,of ,,eden4 ,the information here put together is a compilation from papers in ,the ,nineteenth ,century1 and other sources4 ,it has no pretentions to originality1 but only to give a brief and connected account of the subject1 more condensed and freed from surrounding details than that which the original sources afford4 ,before entering on the subject1 ,i would again call attention to the surpassing importance of these early chapters of ,genesis4 ,and1 ,i add1 that unbelievers are especially glad to be able to allege anything they can against them1 because they are aware that hardly any chapters in the ,bible are more constantly alluded to1 and made the foundation of practical arguments by our ,lord and ,his ,apostles1 than these early chapters in the ,divine volume4 ,if these chapters can be shown to be mythical1 then the divine knowledge of our ,lord1 as the ,son of ,god1 and the inspiration of ,his ,apostles1 are put in question4 ,all through the ,old ,testament1 allusions to ,adam and to the early history in ,genesis occur2 and among other passages1 ,i will only here invite attention to the #cast chapter of ,ezekiel1 where there is1 in a most beautiful description of the cedar-tree1 an allusion to ,eden1 the ,garden of ,god 7see also chapter xxviii4 ver4 #ac71 which some have thought to indicate that the site was still known1 and existing in the time of the prophet4 ,this at least may be remarked1 that in verse #i1 where the prophet speaks of the trees that were in the ,garden of ,god1 the word were is not in the original1 and the sense of the context would rather denote the present tense--the trees that are in the ,garden of ,god4 ,but it is in the ,new ,testament that the most repeated and striking allusions to ,adam1 the temptation of the woman by the ,serpent1 and the entrance of sin and death into the life-history of mankind1 occur4#a ,footnote #a3 ,see on this subject page #acg ante4 ,transcriber's note3 ,chapter ,x4 ,as regards the narrative of ,eden itself1 there has been1 from the very earliest times1 some disposition to regard it as mystical or allegorical1 i4e41 to regard it as representing spiritual facts of temptation and disobedience1 under the guise or story of an actual audible address by a serpent1 and the eating of an actual fruit4 ,the earliest translators seem to have glossed the ,gan-',eden1 everywhere in the ,old ,testament 7except in ,gen4 ii4 #h71 by the phrase the paradise of pleasure1 or some other similar term4 ,and the ,vulgate always uses some phrase1 such as place of delight1 voluptas1 deliciae1 c4 ,it must be admitted that there is some temptation to this course1 because of the inveterate tendency of the human mind to reduce things to its own level--to suppose everything to have happened in ways which are within its present powers to comprehend4 ,we figure to ourselves the fear and dislike we should ourselves experience1 of a large snake2 we imagine the amazement with which an intelligible voice would be heard to proceed from such a creature2 so far from being tempted1 we should at once be moved to hostility or to flight2 and thus we are inclined to throw doubt on the narrative as it stands4 ,but this is to do what we justly complain of modern materialists and positivists for doing--reducing everything to terms of present experience and knowledge4 ,it has to be borne in mind1 that under the conditions of the case1 the serpent was neither ugly1 dangerous1 nor loathsome1 but beautiful and attractive2 that the residents of the ,garden were familiar with the voice of ,god--i4e41 they had habitual intelligible communication with heaven3 probably1 also1 free intercourse with angelic messengers 7inconceivable as it may now seem to us7 was matter of daily experience to them4 ,the woman would then recognize in the voice an ,angel communication2 and unaware at first that it was an evil angel1 it would excite no surprise in her at all4 ,sensations of terror1 surprise1 dislike1 and so forth1 were ex hypothesi unknown4 ,why then should not the narrative be exact1 unless1 indeed1 we have some priori ground for supposing that human nature never could have been in a state where the voice of ,god and angels sounded in its ears1 and where innocence and the absence of all evil emotion was the daily condition of life8 ,the unbeliever may sneer at such a state1 but reason why it should not have been1 he can give none4 ,so1 again1 with the idea of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life4 ,we are no doubt tempted to think that these terms may be symbolic2 but a more careful reflection1 and a deliberate rejection of the influence of present experiences1 may lead us to accept the narrative more literally4 ,even now1 we are not unfamiliar with the ideas of medicinal virtues in plants and fruits4 ,i see nothing impossible in the idea that ,god may have been pleased to impart such virtue to the fruit of a tree standing in the midst of the ,garden1 that physical health1 immunity from all decay1 and constant restoration1 should have been the result of eating the fruit2 and the eating of this fruit1 we know1 was freely permitted4 ,the late ,archbishop ,whately suggested1 and ,i think with great probability1 that the longevity of the earliest generations of the ,adamic race may have been due to the beneficial effects of the eating of this fruit1 which only gradually died out4 ,just as we know at the present time1 that peculiarities introduced into human families1 often survive from father to son1 till they gradually die out after many generations4 ,again1 as regards the forbidden tree1 it will not seem impossible1 that as a simple test of obedience in a very primitive state1 the rule of abstinence from a particular fruit may have been literally enjoined1 and that the consequence of the moral act of disobedience 7rather than the physical effect of the fruit eaten7 should have been the knowledge of evil1 the first sensation of shame1 terror1 angry dissension1 and1 worst of all1 the alienation from ,god the source of all good1 which followed4 ,all such considerations of the reality of the history must gain greatly in strength1 if we can demonstrate that the ,garden of ,eden1 the scene of the temptation1 the place where the trees that were the vehicles of such consequences to the occupants of the garden1 stood1 had a real existence and geographical site4 ,now ,i need hardly remark that the ,mosaic narrative unquestionably professes a geographical exactness and a literal existence of the garden1 as no fabled locality--no ,utopia or garden of the ,hesperides4 ,i need only refer to the data afforded to us by ,gen4 ii4 #h-ad4 ,the ,lord1 it is said1 planted a garden in ,eden3 it was eastward2 but that does not directly indicate its site4 ,from ,gen4 iv4 #af1 we also learn that the land of ,nod where ,cain dwelt 7after the murder of ,abel7 was on the east of ,eden4 ,a river went out and watered the garden4 ,after passing the limits of ,eden1 the river is said to have divided itself1 or parted1 into four heads1 i4e41 arms or branches4 ,the first branch was called ,pison4 ,this branch compasseth1 i4e41 forms the boundary along the whole length of1 the ,havilah4 ,this country is spoken of as being a tract wherein was produced good gold1 b'dolach 7translated bdellium7 and shoham 7translated onyx47 ,the second branch was ,gihon1 which is described as similarly compassing the district of ,kush4 ,here our ,a4,v41 by substituting ,ethiopia for the original ,cush1 has made a gloss rather than a translation2 and this gloss has given rise to several errors of commentators in identifying the site of ,eden4 ,the ,revised ,version has corrected the error4 ,the third branch was ,hiddekel1 the ,diklatu of the ,arabs1 the ,tigra of the old ,persians1 and the ,tigris of later writers4 ,this is said to run eastward towards ,assyria4#a ,the fourth river was the ,frat or ,euphrates4 ,observe1 in passing1 that the author gives no detail about the great river ,euphrates1 as being well known2 while he adds particulars about the ,tigris1 and describes the ,gihon and the ,pison in some detail4 ,footnote #a3 ,so the margin of the ,a4 and ,r4 ,versions more correctly4 ,now it will at once strike the reader that two of these rivers are well known to the present day4 ,the others are not4 ,it is in the identification of these two1 and of the districts which they compassed1 which form the difficulties of the problem4 ,up till recent times1 it is remarkable what a variety of speculations have been attempted as to the situation of ,eden4 ,dr4 ,aldis ,wright1 the learned author of the article ,eden in ,smith's ,biblical ,dictionary1 remarks3 ,it would be difficult1 in the whole history of opinion1 to find any subject which has so invited1 and at the same time completely baffled1 conjecture1 as the ,garden of ,eden4 ,and in another place he thinks that the site of ,eden will ever rank with the quadrature of the circle1 and the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy among those unsolved1 and perhaps insoluble1 problems which possess so strange a fascination4 ,it is1 however1 to be remarked1 7#a7that all that was written before ,professor ,delitzsch's researches were made known2 and 7#b7that really a great mass of the conjecture and speculation has been purely in the air--undertaken without any reference to the plain terms of the text to be interpreted4 ,it is the extravagance of commentators1 and their insisting on going beyond the narrative itself1 that has raised such difficulties1 and made the problem look more hopeless than it really is4 ,to what purpose are the three continents of the old world subjected to the most rigorous search1 as ,dr4 ,wright puts it--when it is quite plain from the text itself1 that the solution is to be sought in the neighbourhood of the ,euphrates1 or not at all8 ,the whole inquiry seems to have been one in which a vast cloud of learned dust has been raised by speculators1 who began their inquiry without clearly determining1 to start with1 what was the point at issue4 ,either the description in ,gen4 ii4 #c-ad is meant for allegory1 or geographical fact3 this question must first be settled2 and if the latter is agreed to1 then it is quite inconceivable that the words should imply any very extensive region1 or any fancied realm extending over a large proportion of one or other quarter of the globe4 ,the problem is then at once narrowed2 and it is simply unreasonable to look for ,havila in ,india1 or for ,pison in the province of ,burma1 as one learned author does6 ,yet commentators have forgotten this2 and gone--the earlier ones into interpretation of allegory--the later into impossible geographical speculation2 while only the most recent have confined themselves to the obvious terms of the problem as laid down in the narrative itself--a narrative which 7whether true or false7 is clearly meant to be definite and exact1 as we have seen4 ,our ,a4,v4 translators are to be held1 to some extent1 responsible for the freedom which speculation has exercised1 by themselves taking the ,cush of the narrative to ,ethiopia1 i4e41 to the ,african continent--for which there is no authority whatever4 ,as regards the allegorical interpretations1 they are too extravagant for serious notice4 ,souls1 angels1 human passions and motives1 are supposed to be represented by towns1 rivers1 and countries4 ,to all this it is enough to reply--,what reason can we have for supposing an allegory suddenly to be interpolated at ,gen4 ii4 #h8 ,there is no allegory before it1 there is none after4 ,then as to the early geographical expounders4 ,josephus and others supposed the allusion was made to the great rivers known to ancient geography1 all of which ran into that greatest river of all1 which encircled the globe4 ,in this view1 the ,gihon might be the ,nile1 and the ,pison the ,ganges6 ,here1 again1 it may be remarked it is impossible to read the narrative and believe that the author meant any such widespread region4 ,even if the author had the ancient ideas about cosmography generally1 that would not prevent his being accurate about a limited region lying to the east of a well-known river in a populous country4 ,in later times ,luther avoided the difficult speculation by supposing that the ,deluge had swept away all traces of the site6 ,but unfortunately for this convenient theory1 it is a plain fact that the ,deluge did not sweep any two out of the four rivers named4 ,the reader who is curious on the subject1 will find in ,dr4 ,a4 ,wright's article a brief account of the various identifications proposed by all these commentators4 ,it would not be interesting to go into any detail4 ,i shall pass over all those extravagant views which go to places remote from the ,euphrates1 and come at once to the later attempts to solve the question in connection with the two known rivers1 ,euphrates and ,hiddekel 7,tigris72 as this is the only kind of solution that any reasonable modern ,biblical student will admit4 ,the different explanations adopted maybe grouped into two main attempts3 7#a7 to find the place among the group of rivers that surrounds ,mount ,ararat in ,northern ,armenia1 vis41 in the extreme upper course of the ,euphrates near its two sources2 7#b7 to find the place below the present junction of the ,euphrates and the ,tigris1 along some part of the united course1 which is now more than two hundred miles long1 and is called ,shatt-el-',arb4 ,but neither of these attempts has been successful3 the first must1 indeed1 be absolutely dismissed2 because the ,hebrew phrases used in describing the four branches of the river that went out1 and watered the garden1 and then parted1 cannot be applied to four independent sources or streams--upstream of the ,euphrates4 ,it will not1 then1 satisfy the problem1 to find four rivers somewhere in the vicinity of the ,euphrates1 and which1 in a general way1 enclose a district in which ,eden might be placed4 ,it may1 indeed1 be doubted whether this first attempt 7which ,i may call the ,north ,armenian solution7 would ever have been seriously entertained1 but from the fact that the name ,gihon--or something very like it--did attach itself to the ,araxes or ,phasis1 a considerable river of ,armenia4 ,finding a ,gihon ready1 the commentators next made the ,pison1 the ,acampsis2 and then as ,pison was near the ,havila land1 this country was laid on the extreme north of ,armenia2 all this without a particle of evidence of any kind4#a ,i may here take the opportunity of remarking that a chance similarity of names#b has been1 throughout the controversy1 a fruitful source of enlarged speculative wandering4 ,thus this name ,gihon 7,gaihun1 ,jkhn1 ,geon1 c47 that appears in ,north ,armenia1 again appears in connection with the ,nile2 while again the name ,nile has wandered back to the confines of ,persia1 and one of the ,euphrates branches is still called ,shatt-en-nl4 ,the ancients1 indeed1 had very curious ideas about the ,nile4 ,its real sources being so long undiscovered--no ,speke or ,grant having appeared--imagination ran wild on the subject4 ,not only so1 but it is remarkable that the name ,cush should have acquired both a ,persian ,gulf and an ,egyptian employment3 and the writer of the able article in ,the ,nineteenth ,century 7,october1 #ahhb7 points out several other singular instances in which names are common both to the ,african-,egyptian region1 and to this4 ,footnote #a3 ,and it is astonishing to find the error generally perpetuated in maps attached to modern ,bibles4 ,footnote #b3 ,as distinct from a real philological connection of a modern name with a more ancient one1 and so forth4 ,turning now to the second of the two theories1 the identification of the site on the lower part of the ,euphrates after its now existing junction with the ,tigris 7and which the supporters of the theory have justified by making the ,gihon and ,pison two rivers coming from ,eden7 must also be set aside4 ,for the important fact has been overlooked that it is quite certain1 that anciently1 the joint stream1 7,shatt-el-',arb71 as it now is1 did not exist4 ,though the ,genesis narrative tells us of a junction immediately outside the southern boundary of the ,garden1 the ,euphrates channels and the ,tigris branch 7with part of the ,euphrates water in it7 flowed separately to the ,persian ,gulf4 ,it is quite certain that1 in the time of ,alexander the ,great1 the mouths of the ,euphrates and ,tigris were a good day's journey apart4 ,for this separate outflow there is the incontestable evidence of ,pliny and other authors quoted by ,professor ,delitzsch4 ,i may here also remark1 that anciently the ,persian ,gulf extended much farther inland than it does now4 ,in the time of ,sennacherib1 an inland arm of the sea extended so far1 that a naval expedition against ,elam was possible2 more than one hundred miles inland from the present sea-line4 ,the extension was called ,nar ,marratum4 ,in ,alexander's time1 the city of ,charax 7now ,mohamra7 was founded close to the sea 7that was in the fourth century ,b4,c474 ,it is known from later histories1 that shortly before the birth of our ,saviour1 the city was from fifty to one hundred and twenty ,roman miles inland4 ,the change is due to the ,delta1 or alluvial formation at the mouth of the rivers4 ,turning1 then1 to the recent inquiries 7published in #ahhaa7 by ,professor ,fried4 ,delitzsch1 it must be confessed that the results obtained are such as to completely avoid all the difficulties that beset the other explanations3 yet we ought not to be too confident that it is a final or absolute explanation4 ,a certain caution and reserve will still be wisely maintained on the subject4 ,at any rate1 they show that an explanation1 one that answers all the conditions of the problem1 can be given2 and that is a great thing4 ,footnote #a3 ,wo lag das ,paradies 7,leipzig1 #ahha7 is the title of the book4 ,footnote3 ,professor ,friedrich ,delitzsch is ,professor of ,assyriology in the ,university of ,leipzig4 ,in placing the site on the ,euphrates1 and far from the mountain sources1 there is no violence done to the ,hebrew language used to describe the first river1 as one that went out1 and watered the ,garden4 ,the words do not require that the river should actually take its rise within the ,garden limits2 but it is necessary that the river should be so situated1 that its waters could be distributed by means of creeks or canals across the ,garden1 that it could be said the river went out and watered the ,garden4 ,now it is a remarkable fact1 that in the district just above ,babylon1 the bed of the ,euphrates is in level much higher than the bed of the ,tigris 7,hiddekel7 to the east1 and that hence there always have been a number of very variable channels leading from the ,euphrates eastward to the ,tigris4 ,these1 it is well known1 were often enlarged by the ancients and converted into useful inundation canals for irrigation and the passage of boats4 ,imagine1 then1 the high level river bed of the ,euphrates1 and various streams flowing off it down to the valley of the ,tigris1 and we have a most efficiently irrigated ,garden1 and one accurately described by the text--the great river went out and watered it4 ,the ,euphrates1 moreover1 is liable to great flushes of water from the melting of the snows in wide tracts of mountain or highlands from which its waters are collected1 and these volumes of water found vent from the overcharged mother-channel by escape1 not only through the side channels1 just spoken of1 but also by other important branches on the other side4 ,every one who has seen one of the great rivers of ,northern ,india will at once realize the changes that take place where a river liable to floods has its bed at a high level4 ,it is almost a matter of certainty that1 in the course of years1 the branches and channels of rivers so constituted will change1 and old ones be left dry and deserted4 ,these essential topographical conditions have always to be remembered in interpreting the narrative of ,genesis ii4 ,in fact1 they furnish us with points which help us in the problem at the outset4 7#a7 ,there is a part of the ,euphrates1 just above ,babylon1 where the river naturally furnished abundant irrigation for a ,garden planted eastward of it1 by means of natural irrigation channels flowing from the high level down to the lower valley of the ,tigris2 and 7#b7 there is also a point from which the ,euphrates did branch out1 and several important arms anciently existed4 ,nor is the locality1 in point of verdure and fertility1 unsuitable4 ,not only do the ancient histories make frequent mention of the canals and streams flowing from the ,euphrates which ,i have alluded to1 but they speak of the palm groves1 the vines and the verdure of the ,babylonian or ,chaldean region4 ,herodotus1 in his first book1 has the most glowing description of the scene2 and the kings of ,babylon had numerous enclosed gardens or parks3 these were imitated in ,persia1 and gave rise to the ,persian name ,firdaus1 which ,xenophon imported into ,greek in the form of ,greek3 paradeisos or paradise--the term which was adopted by the ,seventy translators4 ,the actual locality which ,professor ,delitzsch proposes as the most probable site of the ,garden of ,eden is between the present ,euphrates and ,tigris1 just to the north of ,babylon4 ,the boundaries would be--roughly and generally speaking--the two rivers for ,east and ,west2 while for the ,north and ,south boundaries we should draw parallel lines through ,accad on the ,north and ,babylon on the ,south4 ,but granted that the general locality and the relations of the river ,euphrates and ,tigris satisfy the requirements of the text by such a location as this3 how about the other two and the countries which they compass8 ,the troubles of the earlier commentators will warn us1 that we need not be too ready to force names1 and to identify one river1 and then1 because we have fixed that1 make the country which the text requires follow it6 ,it is1 however1 in this matter that ,professor ,delitzsch's work is so satisfactory4 ,he has pointed out1 that there is historical evidence 7and also that the local traces are not wanting in the present day7 to prove that1 just below ,babylon1 we can find two prominently important channels or branches of the ,euphrates1 which will at least supply the place of ,pison and ,gihon4 ,as to the first1 it is known that in historic times a great channel called by the ,greeks ,pallakopas 7navigable for ships7 used to carry off the surplus water of the ,euphrates when swollen in the summer season by the melting snows of the ,armenian mountains4 ,it branched off from the main river at a point somewhat north of ,babylon1 and flowed into the ,persian gulf4 ,there is1 indeed1 no direct evidence to show that this branch bore a name resembling ,pison4 ,palgu is the ,assyrian whence the ,greek ,pallakopas was derived4 ,it is remarkable1 however1 that the word ,pison closely resembles the cuneiform term pisna1 or pisn1 which is used for a water-reservoir1 a canal or a channel2 and as this ,pallakopas was the channel par excellence1 it may very possibly have been called pisna or ,pison1 the 7great7 channel4 ,the identification of the channel called ,pallakopas will be found mentioned in ,colonel ,chesney's work1 ,an ,expedition to the ,tigris4 ,the name1 however1 of this channel is not the only means we have of identifying it4 ,the ,scripture says that the ,pison compasses the land of ,havilah4 ,now let us remember1 that the ,scripture tells of two ,havilahs3 7#a7 ,the second son of ,cush#a and brother of ,nimrod1 and 7#b7 one of the great great grandsons of ,shem 7,gen4 x4 #bi74 ,one we may call the ,cushite ,havilah1 the other the ,joktanite ,havilah4 ,the dwelling-place of the brother of ,nimrod is not mentioned1 but it is stated that the ,joktanite ,havilah dwelt in ,mesha4 ,the tenth of ,genesis is an important chapter1 as showing how the descendants of ,noah branched out and spread over the countries all round the ,euphrates2 some going north to ,assyria 7,nineveh71 others to the east and west1 and others south1 to ,arabia and ,egypt4 ,now it so happens that the whole country west of the great ,pallakopas channel1 was called by the ,assyrians ,mashu4 ,professor ,delitzsch identifies this ,mashu of the cuneiform inscriptions1 with the ,mesha mentioned in ,scriptures1 as the home of ,havilah4 ,we have also in ,gen4 xxv4 #h1b mention of a land of ,havila that is before--i4e41 eastward of--,egypt as thou goest toward ,assyria1 which would answer very well to this locality1 west of the ,euphrates4 ,it is also known 7from sources which it would take too long to detail7 that this country did yield gold-dust4 ,pliny also mentions ,bdellium1 if that was the substance known as ,b'dolach4 ,it is indeed uncertain what this was1 but ,gesenius long ago rejected the idea that it was a stone1 because there is no prefix to it1 as there is to shoham1 which follows1 and certainly is a precious stone4 ,the manna in the wilderness is described as being of the colour of bdellium1 and was also like hoar-frost2#c hence the idea that b'dolach was a crystal4 ,but a fragrant and precious gum-resin seems more likely4 ,the ,magi who came to worship the ,infant ,saviour from near this locality1 brought offerings of gold1 and also fragrant gums and myrrh4 ,was bdellium 7as probably being a fragrant gum7 one of these offerings8 ,footnote #a3 ,see ,gen4 x4 #i4 ,footnote #b3 ,see also #a ,sam4 xv4 #g4 ,footnote #c3 ,exod4 xvi4 #ad2 ,numbers xi4 #g3 ,the appearance 7lit4 eye7 of it was as the appearance of bdellium 7,r4,v474 ,the ,onyx1 or ,shoham1 was most probably a pure red cornelian1 and this also was found in the ,babylonian provinces1 and was specially worn by the ,babylonian kings4 ,so the country west of the ,euphrates answers very well to ,havila without any forcing1 and without any placing it there because of the river rendering such a plan necessary4 ,as to the fourth river 7,gihon71 ,delitzsch identifies it1 still more clearly1 with a channel known as the ,shatt-en-nl1 which branches off from the ,euphrates at ,babylon itself1 and passing the ,scriptural city of ,erech1 rejoins the main river lower down4 ,a clay tablet has actually been discovered1 having the ,euphrates1 ,tigris1 and this ,shatt-en-nl channel together3 the name of the latter is given as ,kahn de1 or ,gughnde1 a name which closely resembles ,gihon4 ,the channel is1 however1 identified independently of the name4 ,for the ,gihon is particularized in the narrative1 by the fact that it compasses the land of ,cush4 ,this 7as already pointed out7 is not the ,ethiopian ,cush4 ,delitzsch states1 that the whole country bounded by this branch was anciently called ,kash-shu1 which he identifies with the ,cush of ,genesis ii4 ,the syllable ,kash appears throughout this locality4 ,in fact ,kash-du or ,kal-du is the origin of the familiar name ,chaldea4 ,in the ,hebrew1 ,kush 7,cush7 is the name given to the father of ,nimrod1 who began his kingdom about this very site--,erech1 and ,calneh1 and ,accad 7,gen4 x4 #h1 #aj74 ,hence it is not surprising that relics of the name should be found all round this neighbourhood4 ,nor does the evidence end here4 ,the district immediately around ,babylon was called ,kr-dunish-i1 i4e41 the ,garden of the god ,dunish4 ,now ,kar is the ,turanian form of the ,semitic ,gan1 or ,gina 7garden72 and what is more likely than that1 as the true story was lost in the heathen traditions and mythology that grew up1 the garden was attributed to the god ,dunish--whereas the real original had been not ,gndunish1 but ,gan',eden8 ,this1 though only a conjecture1 is the more probable1 as one of the inscription-names of ,babylon itself was ,tintira1 which1 though a little obscure1 certainly means either the grove1 or the fountain1 of life4 ,we thus find1 not only that four great branches of the river that went out1 and watered the ,garden can be traced1 but that the two really do compass tracts1 that can1 with the highest degree of probability1 be identified as ,cush or ,kash1 and ,havilah4 ,the importance of ,professor ,delitzsch's work may now be briefly glanced at4 ,it may be objected1 that such a process of reasoning as that put forward1 is not convincing to a general reader who has not the means of criticizing or testing ,professor ,delitzsch's conclusions3 he therefore cannot be sure that1 in selecting two channels to represent the ,pison and the ,gihon1 and in identifying ,mashu with ,mesha of ,havilah1 and one of the ,babylonian districts with ,kush1 the ,professor has at last hit off a solution of the problem which will not in its turn be disproved1 as all earlier solutions have been4 ,there is1 however1 this important conclusion to be safely drawn1 viz41 that a complete explanation in exact accord with the ,hebrew text is possible1 and that hence nothing can be urged against the narrative1 on the ground 7hitherto sneeringly taken7 that the geography was impossible and so forth4 ,next let me very briefly sum up what it is that ,dr4 ,delitzsch has done--marshalling the evidence1 beginning from the broad end and narrowing down till we arrive at the point4 7#a7 ,first1 then1 we are fixed by the narrative to some place between the ,euphrates and the ,tigris4 7#b7 ,we find in the ancient inscriptions of the chief city of this locality1 constant allusions to a ,garden1 a primitive pair and a temptation3 one of these almost exactly reproduces the ,bible story2 it is not of the earliest date and is a copy4 ,but discovery is far from being exhausted2 all that we know is consistent with the idea of an original story1 gradually corrupted by the addition of legends1 and introduction of mythological persons and heathen divinities4 ,the true belief in one ,god1 who made ,himself known by voice or vision to ,his true worshippers1 seems early to have been confined to a few of the ,shemitic families1 while the others invented gods of their own4 7#c7 ,we find that the region about ,babylon itself was called ,kr-dunishi--which easily recalls ,kar or ,gn-,eden4 ,we also find the name 7,tintira7 applied1 indicating a grove or fountain of life2 in the locality where the direct legends most abound4 7#d7 ,we find from ancient authors that the district was one of rich verdure--a land of gardens and irrigation4 7#e7 ,we find that some way above ,babylon about ,accad1 the level of the river bed ,euphrates is so much higher than the valley of the ,tigris eastward1 that numerous streams flow off from it1 which would serve admirably to irrigate a garden situated between the two1 eastward of the ,euphrates4 7#f7 ,we find that the ,persian ,gulf once extended more than one hundred miles farther inland than it does now4 ,that there was no joint outflow of ,tigris and ,euphrates1 but1 though they did join their streams above1 they parted again and had still separate mouths--of the ,tigris branch one1 of the ,euphrates several4 7#g7 ,lastly1 ,professor ,delitzsch finds two channels which answer to ,pison and ,gihon4 7#h7 ,he proves these two to be the right ones by considering the countries which they compass3 and actually finds the one that he supposes to be the ,gaihn1 called1 in the cuneiform clay tablets1 ,kahn or ,gaghn-d4 ,it is really only in 7#g7 and 7#h7 that there is any room for doubt and for further inquiry4 ,at any rate1 the credibility of the narrative1 and a belief in its purpose1 as a topographically exact statement of fact1 not an allegory or legend1 is established4