EMORY UNIVERSITY
GENESIS RE-READ;
OR
THE LATEST CONCLUSIONS
OF
PHYSICAL SCIENCE,
VIEWED IN THEIR RELATION TO THE MOSAIC RECORD.
By T. G. STEWARD, D.D.
TO WHICH IS ANNEXED AN IMPORTANT CHAPTER ON THE
DIRECT EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, BY
BISHOP J. P. CAMPBELL, D.D., LL.D.
PHILADELPHIA:
A. M. E. BOOK ROOMS, 631 PINE STREET.
1885.
Copyright, 18S5.
By T. G. Steward, I>.
■ias. b. rodders printing co.
electrotypers and printers,
54 north sixth st., philadelphia.
PREFACE.
rjIHE writer of this book assumes the existence of a per¬
sonal God, and maintains that the universe is from
Him. The book does not advance any final exposition of the
methods by which the heavens and the earth were brought
into existence, but seeks to show that the arguments which
have been so far made against the Biblical statements are not
invulnerable. That positivism which, in the settlement of
the great questions relating to the origin and organization of
the material universe, would rule out th^ Mosaic record alto¬
gether as a mere mythical legend, unworthy cf credence or
respect, is examined and traced to its basis of authority.
Without pronouncing finally upon the subject of Evolution,
the writer of this book believes that the Mosaic record, while
surely teaching a direct creation, also allows for orderly de¬
velopment ; and hence does not regard the evidences of evo¬
lution as in any way affecting the credibility of the Bible.
It is admitted also that there may be much in the Scripture
yet to be re-read ; that our Bible is to be read in the light of
facts of nature, and while it sheds an unborrowed light upon
the moral and spiritual phases of life, bringing to our know¬
ledge the great facts which exist in the realm of religion, it
'also receives light from the facts of nature discovered by the
industry and attention of man.
iii
iv
Preface.
Every new opening made by man's ingenuity into the
labyrinth of nature has thus far brought its tribute of facts,
in aid of the truth of God, as it is finally and fully revealed
in Jesus, the Gift of God and the Light of the world. Let us
not fear that modern physical science shall prove an excep¬
tion, and let us not overestimate the authority of its position.
Wiihin a few days, the appearance of but one small star in the
heavens has threatened the overthrow of a vast pyramid of
science. Science may abound with great names, and present
us with the results of severe labors and vast speculations,
and it may, indeed, rest upon the literal rock, but it still
contains a huge element of uncertainty in all its progress.
If, therefore, there is uncertainty on the side of theology,
there is also uncertainty on the side of science. The advo¬
cates of neither should urge the facts of one system against
those of the other. The Bible is True, Nature is True. The¬
ology may be in error, because founded on man's reading of
the Bible. Science may be in error, because founded on
man's reading of nature. The scientist may humbly seek to
correct his reading of nature by the facts of the Bible; the
Christian may seek to correct his reading of the Bible by the
facts of nature.
It is with a view of inviting to this mutual consideration
and respect that Genesis Re-read has been written.
T. G. S.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Introductory 1
CHAPTER II.
Sketch of the Life and Character of Moses. 7
CHAPTER III.
A General Survey of the Contents of the
Book 16
CHAPTER IV.
A Resume of the History contained in the
Book 21
CHAPTER V.
Confirmations of this History gathered from
various Sources 52
CHAPTER VI.
The New Coup de Main 76
V
vi
Contents.
CHAPTER VII.
Creation 86
CHAPTER VIII.
The Origin of Life 104
CHAPTER IX.
Mind 118
CHAPTER X.
The Six Days, the Deluge and the Tower of
Babel 128
CHAPTER XI.
The Theology and Morals of Genesis . . . 169
CHAPTER XII.
Summary and Conclusion 198
CHAPTER XIII.
A Brief Review of the Direct Evidences of
Christianity 222
Appendix 246
GENESIS EE-READ;
OR, THE LATEST CONCLUSJONS OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE,
VIEWED IN THEIR RELATION TO THE
MOSAIC RECORD.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
THE Book of Genesis, the first book of the
Bible, and probably the oldest writing in the
world, claims to give a true account of the creation
of the world and of the origin of the human race.
It gets its name, Genesis, from a translation of the
book into Greek, made more than two thousand
years ago. Genesis is a Greek word signifying
generation, creation, origin or birth, from geno, a
verb obsolete in the present tense, but found in
many other tenses, signifying, I create, or produce.
The application of this title to the Book was
not, however, wholly an original conception on
the part of those who translated it into Greek.
1
2
Genesis Re-read.
The book had borne, in its original language, a
title of very nearly the same signification. The
original title was Beraishith, literally, in the
beginning, taken from the first line, but which,
standing as a title for the book, was equivalent to
" The Beginning."
The beraishith ' of the Hebrew, as it stands
in the first verse of the book, is literally produced
in the en archce of the Greek, and as it stands in
the title by the Genesis of the Greek. Greek lan¬
guage and thought were more scientific than the
Hebrew, and consequently their method of affixing
the title to the book was much more logical. The
name resulted doubtless from a comprehension to
a greater or lesser extent of the contents of the
book. The Hebrew method of naming seems to
have been purely accidental, much the same as the
prevalent custom of the present is to indicate
hymns by their first lines. The Book of Genesis
was originally written in Hebrew, by Moses. It
contains now fifty chapters; and these chapters are
divided into numerous verses. In the Hebrew,
in the Greek and in the English, the same number
of chapters prevails. The division into chapters
and verses was not, however, the work of the
author, but the work of a much later hand. Ori«i-
O
Introductory.
3
nally the whole book was written consecutively,
with no division into verses or even chapters, and
with but little, if any, separation into words. The
division into chapters was accomplished by Mor-
decai Nathans, in the XlVth century, the same
century in which the first English translation was
made. The Greek Scriptures had been divided, it
is true, at an earlier period by Cardinal Hugo,
but we cannot regard the division as accomplished
until it had been passed through the Hebrew and
Greek text by Nathans, as before stated. The
division of the New Testament into verses we may
remark by way of parenthesis was made by one
Robert Stephens, while on a journey from Lyons
to Paris, two centuries later. The division of the
whole Bible into verses, it is presumed, speedily
followed, although no record of the event seems to
have been preserved.
Let the reader think for a moment what great
facilities this division has afforded for the profit¬
able study of these sacred books! Indeed, it seems
now impossible to conceive how any important
progress could be made in this study without these
artificial aids. How much we ought to thank
God for the labor of other men in opening the
great Bible to us!
4
Genesis Re-read.
Previous to the division into chapters and
verses, Euthanias had inserted accents in the
New Testament, and Jewish scholars had put in
vowel signs and elaborate accents, partly to aid
the pronunciation and reading, and partly to avoid
ambiguity and clear the sense in the Hebrew
Bible. Commentaries had been written generally
upon the Scriptures, viz.: the Talmud and the
Mishna, but nothing like the helps which any
Sunday school can furnish to-day were in existence.
The Book of Genesis contains an account of the
origin of the world, of the origin of the human
race, of the origin of civil society, of the origin of
sin, an account of the origin of sacrifice, of wor¬
ship, of the Church, of slavery, of war, murder,
death and salvation by faith. It gives also a
description of the origin of races and nations, and
of the foundation of the historic world. Hence,
it is appropriately named " The Book of the Be¬
ginnings."
We shall study it biographically, historically, sci¬
entifically, theologically and with reference to the
plan of salvation for man in general, as developed
in that collection of sacred books recognized by
Christians as bearing to us a revelation from God—
the Bible. Genesis is one book or section, written
Introductory.
5
by Moses, bound up in connection with other writ¬
ings of his, and united to the Prophets and Psalms,
and all joined to that other collection of books writ¬
ten in later ages by the Evangelists and Apostles,
making, as it is claimed by Christians, one indivisi¬
ble whole, from the genesis of all things, as described
in the first book, to the end of all things, de¬
scribed in the last. This great Book, the Bible,
is, then, speaking figuratively, the Alpha and the
Omega, the beginning and the ending, the genesis
and the consummation, covering the whole course
of this world's history in its scope.
The biography of Genesis includes the lives of
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob and Joseph; all
men of strong character and occupying grand
places in this early history. Their lives are great
mountain peaks, serving as land-marks in settling
the chronology and historic march of that rude
age. The strength and beauty of their characters
may be compared to great mountain ridges, which
pour down moisture and fertility into the valleys
below, enriching others by a lovely self-sacrifice.
Genesis is peculiarly rich in individual greatness,
although the shades amid which it is found are
often deep and dismal. There is one name, how¬
ever, that claims precedence. We cannot enter
6
Genesis Re-read.
upon the study of this book without surveying
briefly,, at least, the character of the great writer
although he did not live within its period. He
wrote as a historian reviewing events as the know¬
ledge of them had reached him. Moses claims atten¬
tion above all others, and we therefore pause a
moment to contemplate his life before we attempt
in our study of personal character to look into
the books he has written or to examine the
characters of the heroes therein mentioned.
Life and Character of Moses.
7
CHAPTER II.
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF MOSES.
milE material out of which we are to con-
struct the portrait of this man whose influence
is so prominent still upon the human race is, after
all, not so abundant as we could wish. Born in
an age of the world when population was sparse,
civilization low, and learning confined to a very
few, the record of his life is found almost al¬
together in the books he has written and in the
great monuments, the Jewish Church, religion and
people that have survived him. The few tradi¬
tions which Josephus gives concerning him in
addition are of but little importance.
There are a few aids to our view of his character
which we may gather from the times and circum¬
stances, as depicted by himself and other writers
with more or less distinctness, which are of
considerable importance. Some conception of the
climate and of the country of his birth, a survey
of the ordinary landscape of his childhood and
youth, an appreciation of the state of nature
amid which his corporeal form assumed its manly
8
Genesis He-read.
proportions, cannot fail to be pleasing ; as also an
inquiry into the social, literary and religious sur¬
roundings which fostered or hindered the growth
of his soul. These natural and spiritual circum¬
stances exerted their influence upon the developing
character of Moses, we may suppose, with their
ordinary force ; to be reacted upon by him with
such inherent force of personal character as had
been bestowed upon him originally.
The special points, then, from which we should
consider the character of Moses are, his parentage,
and circumstances attending his conception and
birth, the climate and topography of that land
which became the cradle of his manhood, and the
social state in which he was reared.
Moses appeared in the world at the exact time wrhen
circumstances imperatively demanded such a per¬
sonage, and was born and reared in that place best
adapted to school him in those virtues necessary to
render him not only the great leader and organizer of
his race, but also a benefactor of mankind. Egypt,
the birthplace of Moses, lies along the Mediter¬
ranean Sea, on the north of Africa, watered and
enriched by the river Nile, which makes its great
central highway. The natural scenery along this
river was soft and rich, backed as it was with
Life and Character of Moses. 9
mountains and hills, which served as a kind of
natural frame to the picture which the valley
produced. The soil in this valley was exceed¬
ingly fertile and, in Moses' time, was well culti¬
vated, producing abundance of grain. There was
always " corn in Egypt." The Egyptians had
learned the art of agriculture, as, indeed, all the
arts of civilization, from the Ethiopians, who at an
earlier age had brought these blessings from their
country up the Nile, and had subjugated and
amalgamated themselves with the Egyptians. As
to complexion, the Egyptians were of a dark-brown?
only, perhaps, a few shades lighter, than the deep-
dyed Ethiopian, whose intense color has always
been remarkable. These Ethiopians, who built
Meroe and Thebes, finally reached that portion of
Egypt now known as the Delta, and became the
richest agriculturists in the world.
Before the days of Moses, however, a horde of
red-haired and blue-eyed barbarians (M. Lami
Fleury), quite probably from the same race which
at a later age overran al*l Italy and Egypt, in
search of plunder, came down upon Egypt, slew
the Ethiopian priests and secured the control of
Lower Egypt. These foreigners were not farmers
but ranchmen, and succeeded in making the shep-
10
Genesis Re-read.
herd an abomination to the Egyptians. They held
sway for more than three hundred years in Lower
Egypt, but were never able to get possession of
the Thebaid or Upper Egypt.
It was just after the expulsion of the shepherd
kings, or barbarous northern ranchmen, that
Joseph became great in Egypt and brought into the
country his father and brethren, the descendants of
Abraham and progenitors of Moses. Although
warmly welcomed during the era of the famine,
there came a time afterward when these people
were detested and feared, and deliberate plans
were established for their extermination. This
prejudice may have been stimulated by similarity
in occupation and appearance between the Hebrews
and the barbarous Hycsos and their supporters
whom the Egyptians and the Ethiopians had suc¬
ceeded in driving from the land. Whatever the
cause or the occasion, the settled policy of the
government was to work the complete annihila¬
tion, silently but surely, of the entire Jewish
population. It was during the prevalence of this
policy, while the situation called loudly for a
leader of extraordinary endowments among these
now isolated people, that the subject of our sketch
was born. Moses then greets the light in perilous
Life and Character of Moses. 11
times but by his devoted mother is preserved from
the wrath of the king. Three months he is kept
concealed from the murderous vigilance of jealous
power, until that mother, driven to desperation by
the fear that she would not be longer able to hide
him constructs an ark of bulrushes and deposits
the infant in the reeds along the banks of the
Nile, and stations her little daughter Miriam
(Mary) to watch it. It is not necessary to en¬
large upon the romantic and touching occurrences
connected with the finding of Moses. Painters
and poets, engravers and writers, have made this
beautiful scene familiar to the world.
Suffice it to say, that Moses, having been drawn
out of the water, recognized as a Hebrew, was,
nevertheless, adopted by his deliverer, the daughter
of Pharaoh, and was subsequently brought up in
accordance with his station, and instructed in
all the learning and wisdom of the Egyptians.
His own mother was selected as his nurse, and
compensated, that she might attend to the develop¬
ing character of her son. Moses was emphatically
his mother's son.
We must remember that Egypt was at this
time the school of the world; and the learning of
Egypt consisted in quite an extensive degree of
12
Genesis Re-read.
information in the sciences and arts, and in philos¬
ophy and religion, and especially in the prin¬
ciples of government. The education of Moses,
though conducted under Egyptian instructors,
however, did not carry his affections away from the
traditions, religion and hopes of his people. He
early manifested a hatred of oppression, and ap¬
peared as a vindicator of the wrongs of his race.
Seeing an Egyptian cruelly oppressing a Hebrew
he is drawn by a brotherly sympathy into the
fight, and in the heat of the occasion kills the
Egyptian outright, and hides his body in the
sand. A subsequent event shows the craven spirit
of his people and reflects in the usual way the
effects of systematic oppression,—effects so hard to
be understood by those who have lived outside of
the experience. The next day after the fight
in which the Egyptian had been killed, Moses
looked upon a contention between two Hebrews,
and, perhaps, softened by recollections of the
unhappy event of the day before, he ap¬
proached them in the spirit of a peacemaker
and sought to reconcile them; but the aggressor
retorted with spirit, "Who made thee a prince
and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me as
thou killedst the Egyptian?" Here was a jeal-
Life and Character of Moses. 13
ousy of Moses' power and place, and also an ex¬
pression showing that they were in possession of
Moses' secret and that they were very willing
to tell it, characteristics common to most slaves.
Hence, Moses fled into the land of Midian, where
he dwelt with a priest of that land, who further
aided him by instruction as to methods of govern¬
ment. Moses was forty years old when he left
Egypt, and he dwelt forty years in Midian. To¬
ward the close of this latter period Jehovah
appeared to him in a burning bush in Mount
Horeb and commanded him to return to Egypt
and bring away this people, who, as St. Stephen
says, had before refused him.
In the work of delivering them and settling
their religious and civil polity, he spent the re¬
maining forty years of life, in which work the
information which he had previously gained in
Egypt did him great service. He was learned,
says St. Stephen, in all the wisdom of the Egypt¬
ians and was mighty in words and in deeds. His
utterances spoken and written are of the utmost
importance, and his actions, as deliverer and law¬
giver, arose to the sublime.
The character of Moses is entirely above the
conception of a rude age, both in what it contains
14
Genesis Re-read.
and in what it lacks, and hence it is but reason¬
able to conclude that the story of his life, so
modestly told, is true to fact. He died at the age
of one hundred and twenty years, alone, in the
midst of Moab, and thus ended a life of rugged
grandeur which in its outlines and embellishments
seems to have no connection with the learned
court of Egypt, whose glories he despised.
His literary works, so far as we know, consist
of the Pentateuch, perhaps some of the Psalms,
and perhaps the book of Job also. I say, perhaps
the book of Job; for, while it is probable that Moses
wrote this book, it is by no means certain, nor is
it certain that he composed the ninetieth Psalm,
although it is commonly ascribed to him. He
lived, he labored, he wrote and died, and left be¬
hind him the most enduring monuments that
have ever been credited to any mere human
being. Through him came that great body of
divinity, that great volume of truth, that great
flood of light, known as the Law, which contin¬
ued in full force, with its living machinery under
it, unto the days of John the Baptist, or through
a period of fourteen centuries. And, although
"no man knows his sepulchre unto this day,"
and no monument of granite has been erected
Life and Character of Moses. 15
to his memory, the whole Christian world has
become accustomed to regard him as a most
honored servant of God, who endured great men¬
tal and physical sufferings, and finally entered
into rest.
16
Genesis Re-read.
CHAPTER III.
GENERAL SURVEY OF THE BOOK.
THE book of Genesis contains fifty chapters of
what appears to be connected history, covering
a period of over twenty three hundred years, or
more than half the time that intervened between
Adam and Christ. Hence we may see at the outset
that there is a longer period of time covered in
these fifty chapters than is gone over by all the
other books of the Old Testament and the Apoc¬
rypha together.
One advantage, however, we have in examining
this long period as described in Genesis, which is
of vast importance in simplifying the events. I
speak of the tremendous longevity which pre¬
vailed in the first half of it. From Adam to the
Flood, a period of over sixteen hundred years,
there were but ten generations including Adam
at the beginning of this period and Noah at its
close. The genealogy runs thus : From the cre¬
ation of Adam to the birth of Seth, from Seth to
Enos, from Enos to Cainan, from Cainan to Maha-
leel, from Mahaleel to Jared, from Jared to Enoch,
General Survey of the Booh. 17
from Enoch to Methuselah, from Methuselah to
Laniech, from Lamech to Noah, from Noah to the
Flood, six hundred years, making in all sixteen
hundred and fifty-six years.
In this period there are about as many gen¬
erations as would occur in three or four cen¬
turies of modern history; and granting it to be
real history, it is but reasonable to suppose that
in the absence of electricity, steam-power, gun¬
powder, printing and navigation, the earth being
but little known and the population sparse and all
of but one kindred and language, the events were
but few and of diminutive proportions generally.
Another important event which tends to simplify
the history of this great period is the reputed
destruction of the whole human race, excepting
the family of Noah, by a flood. This disposes of
the world of mankind, which had been multiply¬
ing upon the earth for nearly seventeen centuries,
and takes us back to a second beginning, thus ren¬
dering it comparatively an easy task to arrange the
details of all antediluvian history, and dismiss
them as having no connection with post-diluvian
affairs, only as they are brought over the waters by
Noah's ark.
A third thing which renders it possible to fol-
2
18
Genesis Re-read.
low the historian as he sketches the events of the
period, is to be found in the concentration which
he practices, especially after the Flood. Two
hundred and ninety-two years after the Flood, we
are brought through another course of ten gen¬
erations to Abraham counting, as before, Shem at
the beginning and Abraham at the close. It runs
thus: Shem to Arphaxed, after the Flood two
years ; Arphaxed to Salah, Salah to Eber, Eber to
Peleg, Peleg to Reu, lieu to Serug, Serug to Nahor,
Nahor to Terah, Terah to Abram, making two hun¬
dred and ninety-two years. Contrast the period of
two hundred and ninety-two years, during which
the ten generations came and went, with the period
of one thousand and fifty-six years covered by the
ten generations before the flood, and the aston¬
ishing longevity of the earlier period cannot fail
to appear.
During this period and subsequently, to the
close of the book, the historian quite uniformly
ignores all extraneous matter and follows closely,
in an interesting and pleasing style, the fortunes
of a single family, and of a marked line even
within the family. From Abraham to Isaac,
from Isaac to Jacob, touching only incidentally
upon other things, and from Jacob to Joseph,
General Survey of the Booh. 19
during the course of three hundred and fifty years
to the close of the book.
A fourth element of the book renders it inter¬
esting and also easily to be understood, as it relates
to affairs merely human, is its combination of the
biographical and the dramatic. The prominence
given to individuals and the dramatic marshaling
of men and women, with the right words in their
mouths and performing the right actions as to
their several characters, render the book readable
and cause the apparently sterile period of thou¬
sands of years to bloom with life. It is a drama
from Paradise unto the conclusion of Joseph's
address to his brothers. Men and women live
and rejoice, sorrow and die, in all the naturalness
and simplicity of life uncorrupted by modern art
and unburdened by modern civilization. It will
be our purpose in the course of the following
pages to look upon this book from three stand¬
points. We shall further analyze the contents,
first, by presenting in detail the human his¬
tory contained in the book, recasting the story
only for the sake of separating it from other ele¬
ments and bringing it within the limits of the pre¬
sent purpose. Secondly, that element in the book
which reveals the character of God will be viewed,
20
Genesis Re-read.
and we shall seek to obtain a conception of the
idea of the Divine Being which the writer of this
book seems to possess, and to show how he presents,
beside human history, also a history of the Divine
administration, introducing in it also the same
personal and dramatic element. The God of Gen¬
esis, it may be observed in advance, also walks
and talks, smiles and rests, repents and grieves, is
indeed an intensely personal existence.
Thirdly, we shall pass in special review the
pretended facts of this book and submit them to
the fair criticism of science, and leave the reader
to judge if the book of Genesis is worthy of credit.
This book, with its story of creation, of the fall
and of the flood, shall be our Afghanistan, and on
it we will rest in part the claims of all that which
follows. Modern science has driven us to this
battle-field. We go there to meet it, asking only
candor and honesty from those who oppose them¬
selves to that which we believe, and which mil¬
lions of others believe to be the truth, and nothing
but the truth.
History contained in the Booh of Genesis. 21
CHAPTER IV.
A RESUME OF THE HISTORY CONTAINED IN THE
BOOK OF GENESIS.
Tj^OR tlie sake of convenience, in looking over the
events of the book of Genesis, we may group
them within three periods, viz.: From the creation
of man to the flood, a period of sixteen hundred
and fifty-six years; from the flood to the call of
Abraham, a period of three hundred and sixty-
seven years; and from the call of Abraham to the
death of Joseph, a period of a little over two
hundred years.
Perhaps it would be well to consider, first, the
matter of chronology. It will be observed that
th§ figures of the first and second periods are given
with exactness. This is because they have been
made up directly from our English Bibles, and
about them there can be no important dispute. In
the third period the chronology is not given in
such an exact manner, as any one will see who
attempts to arrange it from the text; and yet it is
sufficiently exact to enable us to say that the time
from Abraham's call to Joseph's death was but
22
Genesis Re-read.
little over two hundred years. Abraham was sev¬
enty-five years old when the Divine call came to
him; twenty-five years later, Isaac was born;
Isaac was over forty years old when Jacob was
born. This would give us sixty-five years of the
period. Joseph lived one hundred and ten years.
Sixty-five years added to one hundred and ten
years would make one hundred and seventy-five
years. The unknown quantity is the age of Jacob
before the birth of Joseph. We know that Isaac
lived at least forty years before the birth of Jacob,
and we may reasonably infer that Jacob lived as
long or longer before the birth of Joseph; so
that we can safely place the period from the call
of Abraham to the death of Joseph at over two
hundred years. This latter period, however, oc¬
cupies thirty-eight chapters out of the fifty con¬
tained in the book. That is to say, about four-fifths
of the book is taken up with the history of the last
two centuries and a half of the great period of
Genesis; and the events of the other twenty cen¬
turies are crowded within the other fifth.
The period from Adam to Noah, or to the flood,
covering nearly seventeen centuries, is disposed of
with seven short chapters; the events of the
middle period are related in four brief chapters,
with more or less of detail.
History contained in the Book of Genesis. 23
Let us take up a more minute survey of the
First Period.
FROM THE CREATION OP ADAM TO THE
FLOOD, A PERIOD OF SIXTEEN HUN¬
DRED AND FIFTY-SIX YEARS.
The principal events of this period are the
planting of Eden and the placing of the man in
it ; the creation of Eve ; the visit of the serpent
to the garden; the expulsion of the pair; the
murder of Abel; the spread of corruption and the
consequent flood. If we think of these events
as covering a period of seventeen centuries, we
must at once conclude that much more has been
omitted than has been related. The first ques¬
tion, then, to settle is this : What probably guided
the historian in the selection and arrangement of
his material ? Did he chronicle all he knew, fol¬
lowing the order of time and events as far as
possible, or did he write with a purpose and bring
in such events as were suited to his scope ? And
is it possible to determine the end the writer had
in view? Once recognizing the aim of the writer,
we are better prepared to estimate his work and to
follow the course which his own mind has trav¬
eled in prosecuting it.
The writer of Genesis evidently prepared his
24
Genesis Re-read.
work especially for the descendants of Abraham,
and subordinated the historic facts which he re¬
lated to certain religious doctrines and duties
which he enforced. He wrote the history, then,
in the interest of a religion already established
among the Israelites. There is sufficient in the
book to show that this religion existed and, in¬
deed, was well known when Moses wrote the book.
The words God, Jehovah, altar, sacrifice and
priest are used with no explanations.
Granting this to have been the purpose of the
writer, we might expect such events to be recorded
as would favor this religion, and as would also sus¬
tain the claim of the Israelites as being the favored
people of God. Hence we may say that the roots
of that great system of religion which was unfolded
later into the Jewish, and still later into the Chris¬
tian Church, are to be found amid the historic facts
of Genesis. Creation, marriage, holiness, sin, re¬
demption, retribution are all found here. A para¬
dise, a fall, and a redemption through blood, are
all pointed out in the book of Genesis.
It is the belief of the writer of this work that
the historic recital occupies but a secondary place
in the book of Genesis, and may be regarded
as a necessary background upon which the author
History contained in the Book of Genesis. 25
seeks to portray the outlines of that religion which
stands partly revealed in its pages.
But let us resume the history. First, let us
retrace the line of genealogy from Adam to Noah,
and thus settle in our minds at the same time the
chronology of the period. It is said, " Adam lived
an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in
his own likeness, after his image, and called his
name Seth." Hence, we may say, from the
creation of Adam to the birth of Seth there inter¬
vened one hundred and thirty years; from Seth
to Enos, one hundred and five years; from Enos
to Cainan, ninety years; from Cainan to Mahaleel,
seventy years; from Mahaleel to Jared sixty-five
years; from Jared to Enoch, one hundred and sixty-
two years; from Enoch to Methuselah, sixty-five
years; from Methuselah to Lamech, one hundred
and eighty-seven years; from Lamech to Noah,
one hundred and eighty-two years. Tabled thus:
Adam to Seth 130 years.
Seth to Enos 105 "
Enos to Cainan 90 "
Cainan to Mahaleel 70 "
Mahaleel to Jared 65 "
Jared to Enoch 162 "
Enoch to Methuselah 65 "
Methuselah to Lamech . . 187 "
Lamech to Noah 182 "
26
Genesis Re-read.
Noah to the Flood 600 years.
Length of the period 1656 "
The number of generations, including both
Adam and Noah is ten, as has already been shown;
but we must bear in mind that these generations
largely overlapped. Adam lived after he begat
Seth eight hundred years, or up until the times of
Methuselah and Lamech. Indeed, when Adam
died, Lamech, Methuselah's son, must have been
seventy-six years old, while Methuselah lived to
within two years of the flood, and of course was
contemporary with Noah.
This is important, if we consider the matter of
tradition. The facts of creation and of the fall,
of the murder of Abel and other events, could
reach Noah from Adam with only one man be¬
tween. Adam conversed, we will suppose, with
Methuselah and with Lamech, Noah's father, and
Noah learns from his grandfather, Methuselah,
and from his father, Lamech, all the story of the
Genesis. Practically it amounts to no more than
the passing of the most impressive historic know¬
ledge that can be thought of from grandfather to
grandson. Noah had not seen Adam, but Noah's
father had lived with him three-fourths of a cen¬
tury, and Noah's grandfather had passed centuries
History contained in the Booh of Genesis. 27
in his company, and these both were still living
with Noah up to within a short time of the flood,
or, for nearly six hundred years. Hence, Noah's
ark was not only stored with animals to keep life
upon the earth and convey across the flood the
important physical link which should connect the
world to come with the world past, but Noah's
memory was also stored with that historic know¬
ledge of early times which as yet had found no
other record. He carried the remembrance of the
things which had occurred within his own times,
and also of those which had been related to him
by Lamech and Methuselah which they had re¬
ceived from-Adam, going back to the beginning.
We may grant that this tradition does not, and
cannot, account for Moses' knowledge of the crea¬
tion of the world, nor are we including that event
within the history of this period. The period of
unknown duration, occurring between the begin¬
ning, as mentioned in the first verse of Genesis,
and the creation of Adam, mentioned further on,
will receive special treatment hereafter. We con¬
template for the present the human period, from
Adam to the flood, and we have endeavored to
show that the historic materials of that period
could have readily survived with Noah, as we
28
Genesis Re-read.
presume they did; and this presumption is founded
upon the circumstances described above.
Adam might tell something of the mysterious
coming of Eve; he could tell the sad experiences
of the fall, the cruel murder of Abel; and what
more natural than to suppose that he did do so?
The story of Eden, with its short-lived sweetness;
the great disappointment and bitter sorrow that
came over the happy home which God had made
for them as emblematic of His love, in conse¬
quence of their sin, must have lingered with
Adam and Eve, and found expression in words
and sighs and tears.
Passing over the creation of Woman, which
will be better discussed in another place, the first
striking event, or rather series of events, which
occurs to us, is that catalogued as " The Fall of
Man." A creature called "the serpent" converses
with Eve in reference to a commandment which
God had made respecting the tree of the know¬
ledge of good and evil, which was in the midst of
the garden. God had said that Adam should not
eat of this tree under pain of death. This Eve
knew, and in conversation with the serpent said
even more. "God hath said," said she, 'Ye shall
not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it lest ye die/ "
History contained in the Booh of Genesis. 29
Under the persuasion of this beast of the field,
the serpent, who was so " subtile," Eve turned aside
from the command of God and took of the fruit.
She listened, she looked, she lingered, she took and
she ate, and gave to her husband and he did eat.
This unhappy event caused their expulsion
from the garden, and brought down upon the
earth a curse on their account. The man was
doomed to labor, the woman was doomed to suffer;
and over their heads was pronounced the dread
sentence, " Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou
return." A flaming sword kept them back from
the tree of life, and their immortality seemed gone
forever. The Eden life was so short that it seems
like a dream, and the remembrance of it has floated
down in some form over all races and nations,
and all men are constantly evidencing a desire
to regain it. Oh, Eden ! Eden ! Eden ! is the
wail of humanity, whether in the burning tropics
or amid the ice-bound polar circles, in civili¬
zation or in savagery, the same sad cry arises
everywhere—Eden !
It is worthy of remark that not once in the
history of more than two thousand years recounted
in this book, is this transaction in the garden
again referred to, or any expression made upon its
30
Genesis Re-read.
consequences. Adam and Eve go on their way.
Two sons are born to them, one of whom becomes
a tiller of the soil and the other a keeper of sheep.
Why sheep were reared it would perhaps be hard
to say, unless it be conceived that thus early their
flesh had become an article of food. Their wool
could hardly have been used for clothing, unless
we may understand that their un tanned skins were
thus employed.
Enough is said, however, to show that useful
industry commenced with this earliest family.
Adam and Eve were placed in the garden to
" dress and keep it," and, at their expulsion, were
to transfer their labor from that favored spot to
a world that had upon it the curse of God. The
labor itself was no part of the punishment of the
transgression; but the conditions under which the
labor was to be performed, and the painful effects
and accompaniments of labor were the punish¬
ment. " Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in
sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy
life. . . In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat
bread till thou return unto the ground."
Cain and Abel thus engage in their diverse
callings, and, "in process of time," bring their
offerings unto the Lord. Was this an offering of
History contained in the Booh of Genesis. 31
gratitude? Had these people, just driven from
Eden, reason to be thankful to God? Were they
disposed to establish a " Thanksgiving Day " thus
early? Viewed in any light, is not the fact that
Cain and Abel brought offerings unto the Lord
evidence that something has been omitted in the
narrative thus far? Somehow this offering had
become a duty, either by a commandment, we will
suppose, or by the promptings of the human
heart, or perhaps by both of these acting in con¬
cert ; but we may feel sure that it was in accord
with the realities of the situation. Cain and Abel
had apprehended something more of the Divine
character than is disclosed thus far in the transac¬
tions. Something of the goodness of God, some¬
thing of mercy, had been made known, some
repenting of intended evil on the part of God had
been manifested, or the circumstance of the offer¬
ing unto the Lord is unaccountable.
These offerings, though apparently made with
the same spirit and purpose, were productive of
very different results. The Lord had respect unto
Abel's offering, which was from the "firstlings of
his flock and of the fat thereoof." The Lord
"had not respect" unto Cain and his offering,
which was "of the fruit of the ground." No
32
Genesis Re-read.
reason is assigned for this partial action on the
part of Jehovah beyond what may be found in
the descriptions of the two offerings. Abel's is
described as "the firstlings" and "fat," and
Cain's as merely the " fruit of the ground."
Cain grew very angry because Jehovah had dis¬
criminated against him and in favor of his brother
Abel, and being powerless to strike back directly
at Jehovah, he aims at him indirectly by rising
up against Abel and slaying him. It is evident
here that these men, though driven from Eden,
still had intercourse with God, and were permitted
to read, to some extent, His feelings. Cain could
see that God favored Abel, and did not accept
him, and upon the apprehension of this fact, pro¬
ceeded to the awful crime of murder.
It is worthy of remark also that, as the first
independent movement recorded of man in the
garden, the first step which he took in the way of
making history, resulted so disastrously, so the
first recorded step in religion, the first attempt
of man voluntarily to turn himself toward God,
was attended by most deplorable results. Cain,
the first-born of Adam, it would seem, at whose
birth Eve rejoiced as coming into a valuable pos¬
session, saying, " I have gotten a man from Je-
History contained in the Book of Genesis. 33
hovah,"—probably, with the help of, or through the
aid of Jehovah,— this Cain, the beginning of
human generation, is transformed into a murderer.
The threshold of the first family—but one remove
from God—is stained with a brother's blood,—a
blood which cried out of the ground upon which
it had been spilled unto God for vengeance. Again
there is a visit in judgment. Cain is arraigned
before God and driven out "from the face of the
earth, a " fugitive and a vagabond " but protected
from violence by the brand of Heaven. So far,
Adam has no progeny which God will accept.
Abel is cut off, and Cain is banished, going away
with the stain of a brother's blood upon him, to
beget a progeny like himself. A few historic
touches indicate the road over which Cain and his
descendants traveled until they were overtaken in
that awful catastrophe, the Deluge, that cut short
what we may call the First World.
Adam and Eve are without a successor until
God appointed them another seed in the person of
Setli. From him came that succession which con¬
nects Adam with Noah. Very little, indeed, is
said of that vast period coming in between the
murder of Abel and the building of the Ark.
We find a mere catalogue of names recorded in the
3
34
Genesis Re-read.
fiftli chapter covering these nine centuries. One
name stands out, however, in conspicuous brightness
and serves to introduce into the history a singular
element of the marvelous. Enoch, the seventh
from Adam, walked with God three hundred years
and was not; for God took him. The inference
seems to be that Enoch's life was in exact har¬
mony with the wTill and character of God. As
God proceeded so Enoch proceeded, walking in
conformity to the Divine will and in company
with the Divine Being, for a space of three hun¬
dred years, at the end of which period he ceased
to exist, because God, as a reward of his excel¬
lence, took him. Here is a slight indication thai
exalted virtue may lead to a man's being taken
away to be forever with the Lord. He walked
with God, and God took him so completely awaj
that the historian says, " he was not," thus ending
his walk by some other event than death. Happ}
Enoch, who walked with God all the way througl
life and up into heaven!
Two races are now upon the earth, viz.: th<
race of Cain and the race of Seth, perhaps distin
guished by such names as "children of God " anc
"children of men." It is said, soon after th<
birth of Seth, that men began to call upon th<
History contained in the Boole of Genesis. 35
name of the Lord; but the more probable reading,
from what follows, would be that men began to
call themselves by Jehovah's name; for we soon
read of the " sons of God " and the " daughters
of men/' and of marriages between them. Among
the children of men, i. e. the descendants of Cain,
are mentioned the originators of music and the
workers of iron and brass. The first specimen
of poetry is also found among them in the brief
address which Lamech makes to his two wives.
Music, polygamy, song and art seem to have
originated among these children of men, and their
daughters betook themselves to adornments and
accomplishments, and so became a snare to the
godly descendants of Seth. Mixed marriages
occurred, and children of prodigious powers were
born of them. These marriages seem to have
been altogether of the sons of God and the daugh¬
ters of men, illustrating a very natural human
tendency. Wickedness, violence and corruption
increased, until this amalgamation became quite
general, and " God looked upon the earth, and
behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted
his way upon the earth." There arises now a
second failure, or, indeed, we may say, a third
failure; for Adam had failed, Cain and Abel had
36
Genesis Re-read.
perished, the one in death, the other in moral ruin,
and now behold the seed of Seth involved in the
fate of Cain! The seed which God appointed has
become inextricably mixed with the seed of Cain,
and the earth is filled with violence.
God is intensely disgusted and determines to rid
the earth of the whole brood. But, there was a
remnant. Noah was a just man and perfect in
his generations. His genealogy was clear. Un¬
questionably he was in the direct physical succes¬
sion from Seth, and was untainted with the blood
of Cain. The curse of Cain had spread and aug¬
mented until it had poisoned all mankind except
one family of eight persons, and these God cannot
longer entrust in the midst of this corruption, lest
all moral light fade from the world, and He be
left entirely without a witness. Hence He brings
a flood—the physical and moral characteristics of
which will be discussed hereafter—and sweeps
from the earth the entire human race, excepting
the just Noah, whose lineage was clear.
Thus ends the first period of the world's history
as recorded in this wonderful book,—a period of
nearly seventeen centuries, distinguished by pro¬
digious failures and apparent mistakes—mistakes
which seem to bring the greatest disappointment
History contained in the Booh of Genesis 37
and chagrin to the Creator ana Governor of the
world. The freedom of man is strongly displayed,
and also the authority and power of Jehovah, who
brings to an end both man and his ways, when
they have exhausted His patience.
THE SECOND PERIOD, FROM THE FLOOD TO THE
CALL OF ABRAHAM, THREE HUNDRED
AND SIXTY-SEVEN YEARS.
The waters subside; the dove returns from her
weary flight at last, with an olive-leaf in her beak •
the hill-tops appear; land becomes dry, and the
pious and grateful Noah, with his family, come
forth from the ark. As there was no polygamy
at the first peopling of the world, so there is none
at this second peopling of it. There come out from
the ark Noah and his wife and his three sons and
their wives and, preparing an altar, they unite in
worship to God. Again man offers sacrifices, and
again God approaches man and deigns to talk with
him. His anger is passed away, His fury has
spent itself in the flood, and now He declares He
will not curse the ground any more for man's
sake. He admits that man's heart is evil from his
youth up, and seems to regard this fact of human
depravity as rather a palliating circumstance, and
hence adds that the general course of nature shall
38
Genesis Re-read.
go on as long as the " earth reraaineth. Very
kind and gracious words were spoken to Noah as
He established him lord of the earth, as Adam
had been, and welcomed him to communion with
Himself. He makes a covenant or solemn con¬
tract with Noah, and through him with all earthly
creatures, never to destroy the earth again with a
flood, and places His bow in the heavens as a sign.
Under the most favorable surroundings, en¬
lightened with all the history of the past, and
strengthened with this conversation with God,
encouraged by this gracious covenant and buoyed
up with the richest promises of blessings, Noah,
now well advanced in years, enters upon his second
life. But how soon is this bright spring morning
overspread with a cloud as we see this just man,
now in the gray hairs of a ripe old age, lying
drunk in the vineyard which he has planted, be¬
fore he has completed the harvest of his first crop.
The second period of the world's history opens
with a failure. Noah is drunk and indecently
exposed, a younger son is lacking in reverence, and
the curse of God comes in the household. The
Hamitic line pass under the ban as did the Cainites
before the flood. The same story repeats itself, as
we see the sciences and the arts originate and flour-
History contained in the Booh of Genesis. 39
ish among these people. A second separation
must follow and the sacred line must be extracted
from the corrupt hosts.
All the people are of one language and labial
conformation. All have the same cast of vocal
organs and all employ the same words. Destruc¬
tion is embargoed by the covenant. God cannot
again destroy the earth; what will He do ? He
will confound their speech and scatter them abroad.
While a united world was engaged in building
a city and a tower the " Lord came down to see
the city and the tower," and said, " Behold the
people are one, and they have all one language; and
this they begin to do; and now nothing will
be restrained from them which they have imagined
to do," and He decided to confound their speech,
and as a consequence they were scattered abroad
" from thence upon the face of all the earth."
From this point the history abandons all of man¬
kind except the line of Shem, and gives a mere
catalogue of names up to the close of this second
period or to the year of the world 2023. For the
sake of perspicuity, we may say that the three
events of this period are, (1) the establishing of
the covenant with Noah, and, indeed, with all the
earth, that there should be no second flood; (2)
40
Genesis Re-read.
the affair of the vineyard, including Noah's sad
drunkenness and the fearful malediction denounced
against the " younger son ;'' and (3) the confound¬
ing of the language of mankind and their conse¬
quent disbursement. This last event will be con¬
sidered specially later on.
THE THIRD PERIOD OF NEARLY THREE
CENTURIES, ENDING WITH THE
DEATH OP JOSEPH.
This period commences with the call of Abraham
The call is, in fact, a command of the Almighty to
Abraham to get out of his country and from his
father's house and go into a land which should be
shown to him. This call Abraham obeyed, and
thus became the first of those who leave kindred
and parents at the word of the Lord.
The Lord also made great promises to Abraham,
and, through him, to all the nations of the earth,
thus advancing in the manifestation of His good
character and intentions upon what He had said
both in the blessings promised and in the covenant
established with Noah and his sons. The covenant
with Noah was a covenant purely negative, guar¬
anteeing that no harm should befall the earth
while it remained; the covenant with Abraham
History contained in the Book of Genesis. 41
is wholly positive, securing to him and to his seed
after him great blessings and also promising bless¬
ings, through Abraham, to all the families of the
earth.
This intention of God is confirmed by solemn
repetition, by a vision and also by signs and tokens
of the most convincing character; and Abraham
believed God and reposed upon His promises; and
this faith on Abraham's part was counted to his
credit as righteousness. Noah was a just man and
perfect in his generations, but failed after the
flood. Enoch walked with God, but was not, and
left no succession, in a spiritual sense. Righteous¬
ness as a fact had fled from the earth, and God an¬
nounces that man's heart is evil; hence He substi¬
tutes faith for righteousness and Abraham becomes,
therefore, the first man who walks in this new way,
and hence is the first in the kingdom of heaven,
and the founder and Father of all in God's
Church.
Abraham manifests deplorable weakness in the
affair of Egypt when, under fear of death, he per¬
suades his wife, Sarai, to prevaricate; but this
seems almost immediately atoned for by his noble
conduct in reference to his nephew, Lot. The
reader will do well to read the history as found in
42
Genesis Re-read.
the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of Genesis, and
thus behold the noble and pitiable sides of Abra¬
ham's character at the same time.
Polygamy and concubinage are also found in
this chosen line as practiced especially by Abra¬
ham and Jacob. These matters will receive special
attention further on, when we come to consider the
religion and morals of this age. For the present
it is sufficient to note the fact, and also to freely
recognize its existence among those who are in
covenant relations to God and to whom is given a
righteousness founded upon faith. The circum¬
cised descendants of Abraham practiced these evils,
although they were members of the Church of
God!
Abraham and Sarai are blessed with a son, Isaac,
in their old age, and to him the blessings of the
covenant are quite generally restricted. The vary¬
ing fortunes of Abraham are, however, faithfully
and minutely followed by the writer from the
time of his call up unto the time of his death,
which occurred at the age of one hundred and
seventy-five years, or just one century after his
call. He is exhibited in the story as a general in
the first war of which there is mention made in
history. Infantile nations had grown up and a
History contained in the Book of Genesis. 43
rebellion broken out; confederations or alliances
were formed, and four kings meet five antagonistic
kings and "join battle with them in the vale of
Siddim."
Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family, are
captured and carried off by the victorious army,
with all " his goods." Abraham arms his trained
servants, three hundred and eighteen in number,
pursues and overtakes the victorious army, gains
a victory over them and rescues his kinsman Lot.
In connection with this signal exploit, the brief
story of Melchizedek's kindness is told. This
Melchizedek, who was king of Salem and priest
of the most high God, met Abraham and blessed
him, and received tithes from Abraham. It is
interesting to observe this early mention of a
priesthood and of tithes, and also to note the qual¬
ifying words "most high," as applied to God.
This is the first attempt of the writer to express
in words any idea of the Divine character. He
now describes God as the " most high." Perhaps
idolatry had commenced among men, and this
qualifying phrase is used for the purpose of dis¬
tinction, to emphasize the fact that this stranger,
Melchizedek, was a priest, not of any false deity,
but of the real God, the only God thus far men-
44
Genesis He-read.
tioned. Or the phrase may have been employed
to express the exalted conceptions of the writer,
regarding God as above all. The address of Mel-
chizedek accords most strictly with the latter
view: " Blessed be Abraham of the most high
God, possessor of heaven and earth."
In the days of Abraham also occurred that re¬
markable event, the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah. "With regard to these cities, we have
the first recorded example of intercessory prayer.
Abraham pleads with God that they may be spared,
and urges his plea on behalf of the righteous who
may be found in them. The view is presented
that God will not involve the wicked and the
righteous in a common fate, that God is the Judge
of all the earth, and that He will unquestionably
proceed in harmony with what justice demands.
Abraham, who is represented as being very familar
with God, believed that God would recognize the
distinctions which exist between right and wrong;—
o o
between the righteous and the wicked. He cannot
conceive the contrary, and ends his opening plea
with, "That be far from thee to do after this
manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked;
and that the righteous should be as the wicked,
that be far from thee. Shall not the Judge of all
the earth do riaT»f. 9"
History contained in the Booh of Genesis. 45
Abraham's plea was heard, but there were no
righteous persons found in Sodom and Gomorrah,
saving Lot and his two daughters; these escaped,
but the cities were destroyed.
Another interesting event in the life of Abraham
was his sincere effort to offer up his only son, Isaac,
as a sacrifice at the command of God. His faith
or confidence in God was unwavering, and his
loyalty and obedience to direct commands fault¬
less. Nothing came between him and the call of
God.
The family of Abraham produces the staple his¬
tory of the remainder of the book. Isaac obtains
a wife from among his own people, the gentle but
designing Rebecca, and Esau and Jacob, their
twin sons, enter upon life among the Canaanites.
Esau, by his mother's strategy, is deprived of his
father's dying blessing; but it must be remembered
that, at a much earlier date, he had lightly es¬
teemed his birthright and sold it to Jacob for a
"mess of pottage." If Jacob was grasping, and
was backed by his mother, it is also probable that
Esau was reckless, impulsive and untrustworthy,
although he appears to have been whole-souled
and generous. Esau, with his numerous progeny,
designated as Edomites, or red men, also slough off
46
Genesis Re-read.
from the consecutive line, as the descendants of
Ishmael, Abraham's illegitimate son, had done
earlier, and their history is summarily related in
the thirty-sixth chapter. There has been, we
may observe, since the flood the same tendency
which "was observed before in the case of Cain?
viz.: a tendency to throw off from the line of
succession all extraneous matters, and relieve the
history of all except the one direct stream. Soon
after the flood all was dropped except the family
of Shem; in Abraham's family but little is said
of his descendants except as they come through
Isaac; and now the line is divided in Isaac's
family; Esau, with all his posterity, is dismissed
from view, and Jacob's numerous family complete
the recital.
The book which set out with the world in all its
aspects before it, has in this short progress dis¬
missed all other considerations except the fortunes
of one family ; and yet one is not disgusted with
whimsicalness nor absurdity in its perusal. We
do not feel that it has entirely departed from its
purpose, but, on the contrary, we find ourselves
disposed to follow the narrative with increasing
interest as the details converge and the logic of
the progress becomes more apparent.
History contained in the Booh of Genesis. 47
Jacob, with his two wives—a clear example of
polygamy—and his concubines besides, with his
twelve sons from four different mothers—two wives
and two maids—does not furnish an example in all
respects worthy of regard. It must be borne in
mind, however, that up to this hour there is
nothing to show that the Divine law in favor of
monogamy had been revealed. It does not seem
that man was instructed upon this subject during
the period which prevailed before the issuing of
the law. This was during the times of man's ig¬
norance. It will scarcely do to assume that the
Mosaic law even forbade in express terms the
having of more wives than one, although it may
be claimed that the principle is emphasized in the
story of creation, in the second peopling of the
world through Noah's three sons and in all the
wilderness teaching and experience of the Israel¬
ites; but the law at this period had not been
given.
The story of Joseph, the son of Jacob and
Rachel, reads almost like a modern romance.
He is loved by his parents to partiality, hated
by his brethren, sold to Egypt, and mourned as
dead for thirteen years. In the meantime Joseph
is unjustly accused of a heinous crime; is thrown
48
Genesis Re-read.
into prison and brought to the gates of death; is
singularly delivered, raised to the premiership of
the country, and by his sagacious administration,
saves the nation from extermination through fam¬
ine. While filling this high position, his father
and brothers come to him; he is finally made
known to them, covers the former evil deeds of
his brethren with kindness, and brings the whole
family into Egypt and settles them in the best of
the land.
Thus the book closes, just about where the
earliest history obtained through other sources
commences. The rippling stream of history
emerging from Noah's ark as its doors open on
Mount Ararat, has, like the Eden-river, parted into
" several heads." The grandson of Ham, Nimrod,
had founded a kingdom and built the city of
Babylon; Ashur had established Assyria, and a
population and civilization had grown up in
Egypt. Wheeled vehicles are mentioned, and fine
garments and rings and chains of gold, and silver
cups. In this land, in the midst of its refinements
and luxuries, the descendants of Abraham remain,
i. e. those of them whose history is recounted in
this strange narrative. They numbered, including
Joseph's family, exclusive of the wives of Jacob's
History contained in the Booh of G-cnesis. 49
sons, seventy persons, with Jacob, their father,
at their head. He was one hundred and thirty-
years of age on their coming into Egypt, and he
lived seventeen years in Egypt, dying at the age
of one hundred and forty-seven years, and about
fifty years later, Joseph died and "gave command¬
ment concerning his bones."
Thus ends the book of Genesis, giving an ac¬
count of the beginning of human life, of sin and
of redemption.
This book has been selected as the battle-field for
the most subtle critics that have as yet assailed the
Word of God, and it is to meet their criticisms
that the present efforts are projected. This brief
survey of the book is presented as a kind of map
locating the principal points in the territory over
which the contending parties are likely to pass,
without attempting to state the casus belli or in¬
dicate the positions occupied by the combatants.
Its object is to present an uncolored outline map
within which the dispute is liable to be waged.
In parting from it attention is asked to the fol¬
lowing points:
1. To the period of time covered within the
limits of the Ijook. First, as to its great extent,
embracing, as it does, twenty-three centuries; and,
4
50
Genesis He-read.
second, as to its relation, as being the first period
of the world's history.
2. To the part of the world in which the events
described in the book are supposed to have taken
place.
3. Some attention must be paid to the language
in which the book was written and the transla¬
tions which are known to have been made.
4. Let it be distinctly understood that nothing
whatever is said here of the events or the time
that occurred previous to the creation of Adam.
This period is outside of the chronological nota¬
tion observed, and its events are not restated in
this survey. The tremendous events of that period
will be considered by themselves, after we shall
have attended to these affairs of human history
transpiring, it is claimed, under the observation
of human witnesses, and partly enacted by human
actors. We shall first see if the witness who re¬
lates this story in our hearing is credible with
regard to small matters, before we shall ascend to
those of graver import. We shall begin our re¬
view of his testimony at its closing words, and
take our course from the end to the begin¬
ning.
We have followed the writer from the beginning
History contained in the Booh of Genesis. 51
to the end, now let us examine from the end to the
beginning, commencing with our queries where it
will be possible to corroborate or to disprove.
To this work the next chapter will be devoted.
52
Genesis Re-read.
CHAPTER Y.
CONFIRMATIONS OF THIS HISTORY FROM VARI¬
OUS SOURCES.
IN regard to the history we have just read, the
first questions to be put are : Did such a man
as Moses ever live ? and, Did he write this Book ?
The first of these questions must be conceded,
because it is evidently much more difficult to deny
the fact claimed than to admit it. In other words,
the probabilities decide the question that Moses
was a fact and not a myth.
In regard to the authorship of this book, we
may also say that the verdict of all ages is, that
Moses, the founder of the Jewish polity, is justly
entitled to that honor. For more than two thou¬
sand years he has been regarded by Jews and
Samaritans and ever by Christians and Mahomme-
dans as the author of the books which bear his name.
These facts admitted, settle the date of the writ¬
ings. They were written during the lifetime of
Moses, or several years after the closing events of
Genesis. There are special reasons why Moses
should write such a book as for instance, to furnish
Confirmations from Various Sources. 53
with his people honorable views as to their origin,
and also to sustain them in their religious beliefs
and principles. The scope of the book fits in har¬
moniously with the work and mission of Moses,
and seeks to present to the Jewish nation what
the historian of every nation has sought to do
since, viz.: to give an intelligent account of the
origin of the people whose after-historic course
he seeks to describe. Moses, as the founder of
a nation and the author of a civil polity, also fur¬
nishes in his history the facts upon which both his
civil and religious administrations are founded.
Again, the circumstances surrounding Moses'
life admirably fit him for the task so far as liter¬
ary qualifications may go ; as he was instructed
in all the learning of his day. Writing was not a
common accomplishment, printing was unknown
and books were rare; hence it is probable that all
the Jewish history which had been noted down by
antediluvian patriarchs and by Abraham and his
descendants was well known to Moses, and the
events of that period were so striking that they
could hardly fail of being recorded.
Take the subject in all its aspects, there seems
to be nothing to shock the general conviction that
Moses wrote these books, and that he wrote in
54
Genesis Re-read.
them the things which he seriously believed to be
true. For example when writing the story of the
succession from Adam to Jacob, it seems almost
certain that he believed that he was recording facts,
as also when he relates other historic events touch¬
ing upon both the natural and ordinary, and also
upon the supernatural and marvellous. Honesty
of intention, I think, is apparent on every page of
the book; or, at least, there is an absence of the
acknowledged indications of fraud and dishonesty.
If the book is a production of Moses' age and
was written by him, then it partakes of his char¬
acter, a character marked by the highest integrity.
We may fairly take this as a presumption in its
favor, and thus relieve the book from all inten¬
tional errors of at least a serious character. Grant¬
ing Moses to have been sucli a character as the
Jews have always represented him to be, and as
his own actions show him to have been, we may
accept this writing as the thoughtful, serious effort
of an earnest and truthful man.
The question, then, of the truthfulness of the
record is to be determined by attending principally
to three things. 1. Is the story probable in itself?
i. e. is it free from self-destructive absurdities or
contradictious ? 2. Is it reasonable to suppose the
Confirmations from Various Sources. 55
facts within the knowledge of Moses? or, in other
words, Is it reasonable to suppose that Moses could
obtain the definite knowledge which is here set
down ? 3. Do any of the known historic facts of
the world corroborate this history ? In consider¬
ing this latter question, it is well also to ask our¬
selves upon what ground we accept these other
facts with which we presume to compare the facts of
Genesis, and whether we would be willing on the
same evidence to accept the book before us ? Such
an inquiry will disclose the state of our mind, and
show us whether we are prepared to examine the
subject impartially. Are we willing to put Moses,
to begin with, on an exact level with all other
writers of antiquity regardless of character ? This
is all that is asked for the present. Let us
approach the writings of Moses just as we would,
those of Homer or Xenophon, i. e. with a fair pre¬
sumption in their favor, because written for a peo¬
ple who were already informed by current tradi¬
tions of the general facts which they relate.
1. Is the story 'probable, in itself, or is there con¬
sistency in that view of history 'presented to us from
Adam to Joseph f We have already observed that
in so brief a recital of the events of so long a
period, much must be omitted. Hence there may
56
Genesis Re-read.
be apparent contradictions where, in fact, none
exist. Again, the original writing was in a lan¬
guage long ceased to be spoken by man, and hence
the exact ideas of the original may not always be
reproduced in the translation. Errors may have
occurred also in unimportant matters in trans¬
cribing, thus adding verbal difficulties to the un¬
avoidable omissions. Again, it must be remem¬
bered that it is not customary to employ at all
times all the words necessary to the complete
expression of an idea in any language, but to
leave the mind of the hearer to supply those words
which are lacking. In translating one language
into another where the idiom of the language
is unknown, or rather where the habits of the age
are unknown, it is often quite difficult to decide,
in all cases whether words have been omitted, and
more difficult still to decide, even where an ellipsis
has occurred, just what word to supply. Hence, in
the close reading of this book, we must be willing
to apply the same charity we would in reading
Caesar or Homer, at least. The mere existence of
difficulties, even should they be beyond our power
of explication, should not throw discredit over the
whole book. On the contrary, we will do better
to mark the verse, or passage or chapter in which
Confirmations from Various Sources. 57
they occur, as " not understood/' and leave the
other parts of the book undisturbed. In a word,
we must conclude that these difficulties can be
construed in harmony with the general scope,
rather than hastily to throw out the whole book
because we have reached passages which we cannot
interpret. This is asking no special favor. It is
just what all scholars are willing to allow in read¬
ing the classics. It is but asking respect to the
context and the scope.
Now it is frankly admitted that there are dif¬
ficulties even in Genesis. And first, there is a
difficulty as to the time in which the book was
written. Admitting the book to have been the
production of the times of Moses, the thirty-
first verse of the thirty-sixth chapter furnishes a
difficulty. It reads: " And these are the kings
that reigned in the land of Edom, before there
reigned any king over the children of Israel."
Paine urges this objection from the natural infer¬
ence that the writer must have lived after kings
had been chosen over Israel, and hence the book
must have been written long after Moses' death.
Now suppose this 31st verse were taken out of
the text altogether, the connection would go on
smoothly. It is possible that this statement has
58
Genesis Re-read.
been inserted by a later hand. An editor may
have added it as an explanatory remark, intending
to instigate a comparison between the history of
the Edomites and the children of Israel. This is
not an impossible theory, and would completely
remove the difficulty. Admitting the fact that
the book was revised after the establishment of
the kingdom and connected with others and formed
into the civil and religious code of the land, such
an event is not improbable.
But again, it may be remarked, that this iden¬
tical passage occurs in 1 Chron. 1st chap. 43d
verse. What, then, would be the ordinary result
of criticism on these facts? Here are two ac¬
counts of the same transaction ; one must be
original and the other copied; which is the origi¬
nal? All the circumstances , unite in placing the
passage in 1st Chronicles as the original. It
entirely harmonizes with the context in that place,
and agrees with the events of those times. It
does not so stand in Genesis, but is notoriously
out of connection with the context, and out of
harmony with the time?. It is an interpolation
without doubt, borrowed from the place where it
justly belongs, put in Genesis by some annotator,
perhaps, with the view of completing the sketch
Confirmations from Various Sources. 59
of the history of the Edomites. "VYe may, there¬
fore, eliminate this passage from Genesis and rele¬
gate it to 1st Chronicles where it fairly belongs.
The passage includes from the 31st to the 39th
verse and occupies from the 43d to the 50th in
the Chronicles.
Dismissing this passage, our book stands con¬
sistent as to time. It is to the advantage of all
that we have the pure text.
Another difficulty experienced in the early chap¬
ters of the book arises from the absence of the
mention of females. Adam and Eve are men¬
tioned and their two male children, Cain and
Abel; but no mention is made of daughters ; and
yet, directly after the murder of Abel, Cain's wife
is mentioned. The probability is, according to
the run of the narrative, that Cain was over one
hundred years old when this event occurred. Seth,
who seems to have been born shortly after Abel's
death, was born when Adam was one hundred
and thirty years old. Is it improbable to suppose
that during these one hundred and thirty years
many children were born to Adam and Eve who
are not mentioned ? Indeed, it seems almost cer¬
tain that such was the fact. After the birth of
Seth, it is said, Adam " begat sons and daughters."
60
Genesis Re-read.
Could not the same thing have been said before?
Omission is not contradiction. But it may be
objected, if the writer is particular enough to men¬
tion this fact after the birth of Seth, he would
have mentioned it before had it occurred. To this
it may be answered, that the remark, after all,
may be as true of his earlier as of his later life,
and may have been so intended by the writer.
For instance, he says, " And the days of Adam
after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred
years; and he begat sons and daughters." That
is, he is the father of these sons mentioned, and
of other sons and daughters not mentioned; and
among these daughters not mentioned Cain, per¬
haps Abel, and also Seth found wives.
Perhaps, some one, in astonishment, will say,
Do you mean to teach that these brothers married
their own sisters ? I mean to say, that there is no
natural law against such a proceeding; and as yet
laws of economy and prudence had not come into
existence, Twenty centuries later, Abraham's
half-sister became his wife, and cases have been
known even in our own times in which men have
practically and in the same sense that the men of
Genesis took their sisters, taken their own daugh¬
ters to their bosom as wives. Positive law has made
Confirmations from Various Sources. 61
such things to be criminal, but in the times of Gen¬
esis, such laws were but little understood, and in
the days of the first family had no existence.
There being no society in the world, men were to
"Be fruitful and multiply," under natural laws
only. Hence, if Cain, Abel and Seth married
their sisters, they not only are to be regarded as
innocent, because there was no law to the con¬
trary, but further, they are to be looked upon as
obeying the Divine injunction and conforming to
all the laws then in force.
Eve, the wife of Adam, was bone of his bone
and flesh of his flesh, taken from him; and yet he
did not hesitate to receive her as his wife not¬
withstanding this kinship. That sisters are not
proper persons for brothers to marry is an after
doctrine, and of such great importance to-day, that
we can hardly conceive of people living in its
practical denial; but it is not founded in nature.
It finds its sanction in social law and by Divine
injunction.
Without this marriage of brothers and sisters,
the peopling of the world from a single pair be¬
comes an impossibility. The family of Adam
would have subsided with its first generation bad
such a law prevailed then as fairly exists now.
62
Genesis Re-read.
Hence, to account for this propagation the his¬
torian says, Adam " begat sons and daughters."
Silence covers all the humiliating details, and
simply presents us with the results. Details of
the inner life of the first household could scarcely
be edifying, and they are graciously hidden. These
sons and daughters multiply, and Cain from among
them takes his mate, and with his family establishes
a succession of ungodly men and women, who
afterwards perish in the flood. Without, there¬
fore, doing any violence to any part of the record,
or without distorting it from its relations to the
times, we may answer the captious question con¬
cerning Cain's wife.
All the events of Genesis from the creation of
Adam may have taken place within the time
specified and very many more which are not men¬
tioned, but which bear incidentally upon the nar¬
rative. The time allotted for this history is ample,
and the march of its events is orderly, so that the
record of it may be truthful. The facts, for aught
we can say to the contrary, are possible, and there¬
fore, may have taken place, and this record of
them may be strictly true.
As before remarked, the fact that Moses wrote
the book affords a strong presumption iu its favor
Confirmations from Various Sources. 63
from his recognized integrity, his skill and learn¬
ing, and specially from his intimate connection
with the people themselves and from his deep
interest in their welfare. His integrity and ability
would give him general fitness, and his affection for
and relation to the people would call him specially
to such a task. It is natural that he would ponder
with the profoundest interest over the facts of past
history as treasured up in the memory of his gene¬
ration or written in private memoirs or graven on
public tables. Born about one hundred and twenty
years after the death of Joseph, the history of all
this great past, condensed as it was, came almost
directly to his hand, and he was fairly prepared to
put on record the story as handed down to him.
The best proof of this preparation is to be
found in the fact that he did the work with so
much success that the people of all others most
concerned, namely, the Jews themselves, have con¬
tinued to accept his history as of the highest
authority for over three thousand years. Amid
all the increase in geographical and historical
knowledge, they still retain their confidence in the
writings of Moses.
Referring more directly to our third query, we
may proceed to bring our history into the light
64
Genesis Re-read.
of sucli historic glimpses as we can obtain
of the early world, and observe whether they
confirm or weaken our confidence in it. It is
worth while to remark, first, however, that the
early history of all nations is very largely lost in
obscurity. This is quite true of modern nations,
and especially true of the ancient nations. Hume
begins his history of England with the admission
that, in regard to early times, fiction, in the shape
of fables, is " commonly employed to supply the
place of true history." Macaulay says, thai
"Hengist and Horsa, Vortigern and Rowena, Ar¬
thur and Mordred are mythical persons whose very
existence may be questioned, and whose adventures
must be classed with those of Hercules and Rom¬
ulus." Abbot commences his history of Russia
with the remarks : " Those vast realms of north¬
ern Europe, now called Russia, have been inhabited
for a period beyond the records of history by wan¬
dering tribes of savages. These barbaric hordes
have left no monuments of their existence. The
annals of Greece and Rome simply inform us that
they were there," and speaks of times fifteen cen¬
turies later than the close of Genesis, as " the haze
of those distant times." The early history of
Rome is filled with accounts of prodigies and
Confirmations from Various Sources. 65
demigods, so that, although dating back to Joseph's
time, it is utterly of no historic value, even if
it came within geographical range of Genesis,
which it does not. The general conclusion of a
historian is thus stated in regard to all early his¬
tory : " The early history of the ancient world is
so intermingled with fable that it is impossible to
separate truth from falsehood."
These are the witnesses, then, by whom we are
to confirm the testimony of Genesis, and yet their
character is so untrustworthy. But observe, we
are not to depend upon the veracity of single his¬
torians, but upon some general historic facts which
fall in incidentally, as, for instance, the general
history of Egypt and Assyria.
Egypt was, according to the testimony of all
ancient history, and according to the lair logical
inference which may be drawn from the present
state of the world, the earliest seat of civilization.
With this view agree the prodigious monuments
and splendid ruins which exist in that land to-day.
This Egypt took its name from a son of Ham, and
is called all through Hebrew literature Mitsraim
which is preserved in the Arabic of the present,
and is so given in the Koran. Again, it is known
that the " shepherd kings " at one time ruled in
5
66
Genesis Re-read.
Egypt, and the writer of Genesis makes Joseph
remark, "For every shepherd is an abomination
unto the Egyptians." Why was this? If Egyptian
history can unwittingly explain this incidental al¬
lusion then it will tend to confirm our record. The
names Ham and Mitsraim and Cush, that are
found in Africa, are decidedly confirmatory, so far
as they have force. The general picture of Egypt¬
ian civilization, as drawn by their own and Grecian
historians, agrees with those incidental reflections
of it which occur in Genesis.
The names of places and persons, we repeat,
found in Egyptian and Assyrian history agree some¬
what with Genesis, and serve as confirmations of
Moses. Damascus, whose history may be traced
back to the earliest antiquity, still stands and
agrees with the Mosaic mention of it.
For the sake of definiteness, we may reduce
the historic confirmations which are found, into the
following groups, without stopping to elaborate or
comment upon them :
1. Egypt appears in Genesis as a land exempt
from famine and able to supply strangers with
corn. Abraham went into Egypt in consequence
of the famine in his day. All ancient history
concurs in pointing out Egypt as the richest
agricultural country of the ancient world.
Confirmations from Various Sources. 67
2. Genesis shows us Egypt as the home of
ceremony, refinement and wealth. Chariots and
fine linen are mentioned. It is probable also that
horses were in use in Egypt, although they are
not mentioned in Genesis. All history concurs
in so describing ancient Egypt.
3. Genesis shows us priests in Egypt who
occupied lands, or, at least, possessed lands, in
their own right, and who were supported by the
government. During the famine, under the pre¬
miership of Joseph, it is said that the priests
did not sell their lands, because they received
their portion from Pharaoh. Ancient history
concurs in placing the priests next to the king,
and describes them as the depositories both of re¬
ligion and science.
4. We come now to the special incident respect¬
ing the feeling of the Egyptians toward shep¬
herds. Why should an agricultural people have
an antipathy toward those whose business had
been about cattle ? It is a most unnatural thing,
and yet Joseph assumes such to have been the fact,
and makes use of this prejudice in order to
situate his people more advantageously in the
land. He directs his brethren to answer when
asked concerning their occupation, as follows:
68
Genesis Re-read.
" Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from
our youth even until now, both we and also our
fathers." His object in having this answer given
was that they might dwell in the land of Goshen,
and he assigns as an evidence of the fitness of this
answer the fact that " every shepherd is an abom¬
ination to the Egyptians."
The interview between Pharaoh and the five
brethren whom Joseph selected does not show that
he was possessed of any such feeling. On the
contrary, when he learned that the men were
shepherds, he said to Joseph, "The land of Egypt
is before thee; in the best of the land make thy
father to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them
dwell; and if thou knowest any men of activity
among them, then make them rulers over my
cattle."
Observe that this Pharaoh was possessed of cat¬
tle and that he seemed to look with favor upon
these herdsmen. The dream of Pharaoh, which
Joseph had so successfully interpreted, had also
been of cattle and of corn, so that this man seems
to be of a decidedly rural turn. It is hardly
probable that he shared the feelings of the com¬
mon Egyptians in their antipathy to shepherds.
Was it because of his superior intelligence that
Confirmations from Various Sources. 69
he was thus free from this vulgar prejudice, or
because of some more marked distinction between
himself and the Egyptians ?
In the table scene described in the 43d chapter
reference is made to another "abomination" to
the Egyptians. When Joseph ordered dinner for
himself and his brothers, those who had the pre¬
paration of the dinner in charge set three tables;
one for Joseph himself, one for the Egyptians
who were accustomed to dine with Joseph, and
one for Joseph's brothers; and this was done be¬
cause the Egyptians might not eat bread with the
Hebrews; for that is an " abomination unto the
Egyptians." Pharaoh did not seem to have any
such prejudice, for he had previously made Joseph
prime ruler, and said to him, " Thou shalt be over
my house," and took off his ring and put it on
Joseph's hand and arrayed him in vestures of fine
linen, and put a gold chain about his neck." No
trace of prejudice can be found in all of Pharaoh's
conduct with Joseph or with his father's family.
The conclusion is, therefore, reached, that there
may have been, from the days of Joseph, very
different views and feelings with regard to the Is¬
raelites between Pharaoh and the Egyptians. The
Egyptians may have abominated Joseph and his
70
Genesis Re-read.
brethren from the beginning, but were restrained
from doing them any injury, through Pharaoh.
Enough is seen in Genesis to intimate that Pha-
raoh and the Egyptians were not in accord on the
subject of the Israelites. Here is a sovereign en¬
tirely oblivious to a great national prejudice, out
of sympathy with the popular character. How
shall we account for it? Subsequent history
shows, that as soon as a new king arose who
knew not Joseph this popular antipathy broke
out with tremendous force, thus clearly disclosing
what is intimated in Genesis, viz.: That Pharaoh
was favorable to the Hebrews and that the Egyp¬
tians were against them.
Erom what has been shown it would seem fair
to infer that this king was a stranger, ruling by
force, and that the people at large were rendering
an unwilling submission. Early history, from
other sources, will furnish singular confirmations
to the Book of Genesis in these particulars. The
population of Egypt among whom Joseph lived
was composed of a mixture of Ethiopians and
Egyptians, and in all probability quite a large
number of persons who were derived from an in¬
termixture of the blood of these ranchmen who
had ruled the country for nearly three cen-
Confirmations from Various /Sources. 71
turies. It is a universal rule that the conquering
or dominant race infuses its blood into the subject
race. The rude ravishment of earlier ages may
give way to less revolting methods, but the results
do not vary; hence it is fair to assume that the
party of the Shepherd Kings had also joined in
corrupting the Egyptian race, producing a mixed
multitude quite like the Jews in personal appear¬
ance.
A popular prejudice would readily associate
the ranchmen, the Jews and the mixed multi¬
tude and the occupation of tending the flocks,
in the one catalogue of detested things.
Again, if it be remembered that a force princi¬
pally of Ethiopians it would seem from upper
Egypt had succeeded in overthrowing these
Shepherd Kings and driving them from the
country, reasons for this active prejudice both
against the pastoral life and the Hebrews may
be readily discovered. Victory had sharpened
the hatred of those who had been humiliated
and oppressed by these stranger foes, who had
fled the country, and were therefore beyond the
reach of popular vindictiveness. This hatred
would therefore seek an object in whatever
seemed to represent this exiled party, and hence
72
Genesis Re-read.
the Egyptians held in the depths of execration
the work of a shepherd and the association with
the Hebrews at meals.
The Pharaoh who governed had never been con¬
quered and consequently did not share the popu¬
lar feeling. He had come into the country from
the Thebaid with a victorious army, liberated the
Egyptians and established over them a govern¬
ment quite in conformity with the traditions and
the tempers of the people, and was cool enough to
weigh the merits of men, and to distinguish be¬
tween the ranchmen and the Hebrews, and between
the Shepherd tyrants and profitable laborers.
Ilence he retained his flocks and herds, quite
likely the recent property of the expelled dyn¬
asty and its friends, and was glad to receive a
contribution of efficient herdsmen to look after
them. The Egyptians being unwilling to per¬
form this service, Jacob's sons were specially
welcome to Pharaoh, whose statesmanship was
far superior to any prejudices of his age. This
brief survey of Egyptian history may serve to
illustrate how the story of Genesis fits into the
times claimed for it.
Only one more view of evidences with regard
to the truthfulness of Genesis as history, will be
Confirmations from Various Sources. 73
presented. The early historians of the world
accept this story whether the facts have been
obtained from Moses or not. Justin speaks ex¬
pressly of Joseph and his work in Egypt. Jose-
phus in his two books against Apion quotes many
historians who amid all their prejudices confirm
facts which afford a necessary sequel to Genesis.
The connection between Genesis and the entire
body of sacred books is complete, and it may be
remarked that all the evidence going to support
the genuineness and authenticity of all these
books comprising both the Old Testament and the
New, by construction, applies to Genesis a neces¬
sary part of that one great volume. The evidence
upon which these writings repose, so far as they
come to us as matters of history, is of a superior
degree. The pathway of the whole Bible can be
traced with satisfactory clearness from the apos¬
tolic age unto the present hour. Jesus Christ
and his apostles were unquestionably historical
realities. The Septuagint translation of the Scrip¬
tures was a fact. In a word we may say the
whole Bible seats itself amid the unquestioned
facts of history upon a basis so broad and con¬
sistent that attack upon this field is never feared.
Infidelity is compelled to seek other ground than
74
Genesis Re-read.
the historical upon which to assail this singular
book. The existence of the division of time into
periods of seven days is a confirmation of Genesis
of no mean importance unless it can be otherwise
accounted for. This division exists now and has
for ages. A thousand years before the Christian
era reference is made to this custom. Homer,
Hesiod, Callimachus, Lucian and Porphyry speak
of the holy seventh day. Joseph us says : " There
is no city, either of the Greeks or Barbarians, or
any other nation, where the religion of the Sab¬
bath is not known." Grotius says : " That the
memory of the creation being performed in seven
days was preserved not only among the Greeks
and Italians, but among the Celts and Indians, all
of whom divided their time into weeks." Eusebius
says: "Almost all the philosophers and poets
acknowledge the seventh day as holy." Does not
this fact in connection with others that have been
mentioned, regarded in the light of the present
state and well established history of Christianity,
place the Bible in general, and our book in par¬
ticular, on a footing of respectability as to its
claims to being genuine history? All that is
desired thus far is to induce a willingness to
accept the history of Genesis as true. Two
Confirmations from Various Sources. 75
things have been aimed at which may be suc¬
cinctly restated here. First, to show that this book
was written by Moses about the time claimed as
his age. Secondly, to show, that in so far as it has
related merely human transactions it is prob¬
ably true, and therefore worthy of belief. The
paragraph upon the subject of the seventh day,
it is to be admitted, does not bear upon this
subject directly, but it was thought best to insert
it here that its weight might be taken account
of in support of facts mentioned in Genesis
afterward to be attended to.
76
Genesis Reread.
CHAPTER VI.
THE MODERN COUP DE MAIN.
mHE evidences of Christianity, both external and
•*- internal, so far as they have been developed and
arranged, are generally of a literary and histori¬
cal character. Other things have been brought
in incidentally, as for instance in such works as
Bishop Butler's Analogy or Paley's Natural The¬
ology, but ordinarily the evidences have been se¬
lected from historic testimony, and from indica¬
tions of probability found within the writings
themselves. And it is fair to say, that this body
of evidence selected and arranged by Christian
scholars, has never been destroyed, and never can
be, without overthrowing the foundations of all
history and disrupting the ordinary chain of events.
It is abundant and ample, and practically excludes
respectable infidelity from the field. Stubborn,
ignorant, willful infidelity, may resist or ignore it;
but intelligent and liberal infidelity must retire
in its presence. It is voluminous, coherent, and
invulnerable, as any patient investigator will find.
Successful assault upon the Bible is therefore
The Modern Coup de Main. 77
hopeless through historical criticism. Research
upon this field either in the examination of records
or the survey of countries and places, the study of
monuments or deciphering of hieroglyphics,
has all tended thus far to confirm the claims of the
Bible and make firmer the historic outposts of the
Christian religion. The enemies have recognized
the utter futility of further effort by any direct
assault upon these ramparts, and hence withdraw¬
ing from the field and masking themselves under
cover of being friends to mankind, and champions
of liberty, equality, fraternity and progress, they
are engaged in executing a flank movement, and
are seeking to bring up against the Bible the forces
of rationalism, morality, and physical science.
By rationalism they would eliminate from the
book whatever is marvelous, and reduce it to a
level with the sacred books of other religions.
Soaring to a grand generalization they would seek
to enforce the notion after M. Burnouf that there
is after all but one religion, and that all forms are
merely local and chronological reflections of it.
The religions of India and China, of Egypt and
Assyria, Palestine and Greece, ancient Rome and
modern England, (I might say America, but alas!
America has no religion, tolerating all, even Mor-
78
Genesis Re-read.
monism) are after all but one thing expressing it¬
self in forms suitable to place and age. Supersti¬
tion gives place to advancing knowledge; the mar¬
vellous subsides, and that which is reasonable pre¬
vails. This rationalism would annul the testi¬
mony of Moses respecting the creation, the deluge,
and the destruction of the cities of Sodom and
Gomorrah, and would take out of the record all
mention of the actions and sayings of the Divine
Being.
It would admit the fact that Moses lived and
wrote, and that we have his works in a reasonably
fair state of preservation, but that these writings
must be interpreted by having respect to human
reason; and we must regard all those extraor¬
dinary occurrences that are described in the book of
Genesis, as crude attempts of the undeveloped su¬
perstitious mind to account for the phenomena
which surrounded it. It was a reverential super¬
stition, and a comparatively pure and ennobling
superstition, but of course we are not to give credit
to the marvellous part of the story. Moses be¬
lieved what he wrote, and in writing it he repre¬
sented the prevailing ideas and beliefs of his age,
but his testimony is worth but little against en¬
lightened reason. What he says about the crea-
The Modern Coup de Main. 79
tion, the deluge, the conflagrations, are, with the
exception perhaps of the story of the creation, ex¬
aggerations of certain local catastrophes that im¬
pressed themselves with indelible effect upon the
.early mind. Rationalism, by addressing itself to
human complacency and pride, would avoid all
the affirmative testimony and seek to break down
our confidence in the Bible by a concealed a priori
process. While admitting the history it would at
the same time carefully exclude all supernatural ele¬
ments from the book and thus incapacitate it to bear
any valuable testimony on the subject of religion.
This method of attack is very safe and plausible,
and may be conducted with a vast amount of
idealism and rhetoric, and is accordingly well
adapted to secure the support of a respectable por¬
tion of the intellectual classes. This adroit foe
avoids the outposts by a general balloon ascension,
and directs its attack at once upon the citadel, not
recognizing that in so doing all the outposts
are thereby left in a complete state of de¬
fense, and that shots fired from so shifty
a support as a "platform in the air" furnishes,
are liable to be more brilliant than dangerous;
doing much more in the way of winning applause
from partisans than in inflicting real damage upon
80
Genesis Re-read.
the foes. Rationalism is very successful in win¬
ning recruits, but an utter failure in winning vic¬
tories, having never damaged a single position
held by the supporters of revelation. Like Nico-
demus, it stands and puzzlingly asks: " How can
these things be?"
Other infidels have sought to array the very
morals which the Bible has taught against this
book, and thus render it unworthy of respect.
Abraham's concubinage and prevarication, Noah's
drunkenness, Jacob's roguery, Joseph's shrewd¬
ness, all have been objected to. None of them,
however, have a word to say against Adam.
Sins against God appear to be of small import;
but injuries to man are exceedingly grave. These
defects of character, as they are presented in the
record, are freely admitted by Christians, and
constitute no mean element in the vividness and
realness of the scenes presented in apparent good
faith by the writer. The writer exhibits these
scenes without, in a single instance, venturing a
word of censure or praise, or in any other way
showing his personality. The whole procession
of history passes before us voluntarily, without
the visible aid of any organizing or directing
hand, and these blemishes go with the rest.
The Modern Coup de Main. 81
The effort of the unbelievers is to bring the
book into distaste, because it contains indelicate or
immodest references, and because it rather lends
its countenance to sexual irregularities and social
and financial intrigue. A popular orator of the
present day makes' great capital of these points,
and by his audacity captivates and blinds many,
but blesses none.
The study of nature has long been a favorite
employment with men of certain temperaments.
Some have studied it contemplatively as poets,
placing themselves in sympathy with its pheno¬
mena, and employing its scenes as correspondent
expressions of the experiences of their own souls.
Their minds within have answered to the majestic
surroundings, and their souls have broadened and
warmed, and evolved thoughts that have issued
forth in melodious measures for the pleasure and
profit of mankind. But even this sort of contem¬
plation seeks a mind, a will, an intelligence, ob¬
scure as to personal location, but expressing itself
through all the beautiful or awful phenomena of
nature.
Others have studied nature with a pious intent,
in order to discover illustrations of the wisdom
and goodness of the Creator, and thus strengthen,
6
82
Genesis Re-read.
or rather bring out with more clearness, this
phase of the argument for his existence. With
this view they have examined the heavens and
the earth, that they might discover the marks of
the Almighty hand of the Framer.
These studies are more generally engaged in,
however, by persons who pursue them from spe¬
cial inclination, and often with a desire to obtain
worldly glory ; or for practical purposes, that some
immediate benefits may accrue from their achieve¬
ments. The whole civilized world stands ready
to encourage the man who ventures into the re¬
gion of the unknown, and to honor him if he dies
in the struggle, to applaud him if he succeeds, and
to forget him if he fails. In the geographical,
geological, astronomical and chemical realms, as
well as in all the departments of applied science,
there is the greatest encouragement to adventure;
and in the seducing glory that awaits the disco¬
very of anything new, and in the sharp compe¬
tition of the most active and daring men in the
world, there is the strongest temptation to pounce
upon hasty conclusions. In the exploration of
the unknown parts of the earth's surface, each is
anxious to give his name to a river, a lake, an
island, a point; in the study of the rocks each
The Modern Coup de Main. 83
would gladly push the boundary of knowledge a
little further onward; in the study of the heav¬
ens, there is the same commendable anxiety.
These students of nature are, in the main, en¬
tirely independent of the Bible, and some of them
unbelievers. The results of their discoveries can¬
not be regarded as tinctured with the Christian
faith. They are conclusions reached, perhaps
methodically, by men who have kept their eyes
steadily fixed upon physical facts. Hence in that
body of knowledge called science, having now
special reference to physical science, we are sup¬
posed to have the teachings of nature. It may be
regarded as a vast body of circumstantial evi¬
dence. Now, what is it worth?
Genesis is now to be attacked upon information
drawn from the study of nature, especially from
the realm included within the science of geology,
and it is to stand or fall so far as its story of crea¬
tion goes by this evidence! Now, before we go
to examine this evidence, I ask the reader's atten¬
tion to the following preliminary points. This is
the more necessary because of the ponderous re¬
spectability of science. We have clothed the
teachers of science with an imaginary ability
amounting almost to infallibility, and hence are
84
Genesis Re-read.
often captivated because we do not carefulweigh
the evidence. We pay much greater respect to
the witness than to the testimony. Science is a
vain abstraction, whose voice is, after all, the
voice of poor, fallible man. Scientific men differ,
dispute and deceive themselves and others, as fre¬
quently as other men do. But to the points:
1. It must be remembered that there is a cer¬
tain amount of affirmative evidence which will
stand in support of the Scriptures, including Gen¬
esis, no matter what science produces to the con¬
trary from the fields of geology, astronomy and
natural history.
2. The real question is between the weight of
this testimony, which is chiefly of a historical and
literary character, it is admitted, and the testimony
which science has to offer. The conclusion reached,
to be just, must be based upon the testimony sub¬
mitted by both sides.
3. The evidence submitted by scientists is cir¬
cumstantial in its character; but the circumstances
are related by themselves, and the inferences are
drawn by them. It is plainly evident that all the
circumstances have not been discovered yet. A
partial relation of the circumstances of an event,
or series of events, often gives an effect directly
The 3Iodern Coup de Main. 85
opposite to the truth. The circumstantial evi¬
dence is not complete. After discoveries may
reverse many conclusions now considered estab¬
lished.
Observing these points, viz., that the evidence
for the Scriptures still remains and must be con¬
sidered, and that the negative testimony is not all
in yet, we may go into this controversy carrying
our whole Bible well-buttressed by cumulative
evidence, and still hold fast to the Book of Gene¬
sis, including even the story of creation. We may
still assert, in the face of all science, with all con¬
fidence: "In the beginning God created the heav¬
ens and the earth," and re-affirm the invulnerable
grounds of our faith. Thus will we meet this
new-attempted coup de main.
86
Genesis Re-read.
CHAPTER YIT.
THE CREATION".
WE now return to the first chapter of Genesis,
and occupy ourselves with the period ante¬
dating the creation of man. This period seems to
have in it two important epochs; one denom¬
inated "the beginning," when God created the
heaven and the earth, and the other, a period of
" six days," within which God created, or caused
to spring forth, all things, includiug man.
The manner of creating heaven and earth is
not at all explained; but a brief negative refer¬
ence is made to the condition of the earth after it
was created. It was formless and empty, and en¬
veloped in darkness. The book assumes this con¬
dition to start with, and affirms as a fact that it
was produced by the hand of God. Hence all
the explanations which follow proceed upon the
basis that a creation of the heaven and earth had
already taken place, and this creation was com¬
plete as far as it had gone; but no organization
had as yet occurred. We therefore denominate
the period referred to in the first verse as em-
The Creation.
87
phatically the creative period ; and concerning
the work of that period, further than to declare
its results, Moses is silent.
The period of organization follows, which is
divided into six days, or sub-periods. Although
Mr. Huxley amused himself at the flexibility of
a language which would allow this word (day) to
be used to signify anything else than a period of
twenty-four hours, we may easily show that the
writer could have used it in no such sense at this
time. , In the first place, the first three of these
periods occur before mention is made of the sun
at all. It is true that evening and morning are
mentioned as the closing and opening of the day.
It is worthy of notice also that evening is always
spoken of first—"And it was evening, and it was
morning, day one," and so on through the record.
We may therefore seriously affirm that these "six
days" may have been six periods of vast duration.
But this is unimportant for two reasons. First,
it is evident that this description of the creation
has not been obtained through eye-witnesses, for
no man lived before Adam, and he not until crea¬
tion was complete. Hence Moses wrote in regard
to this subject matters which had been communi¬
cated to him or to others in some extraordinary
88
Genesis Re-read..
way. By plain, ordinary rules of criticism we
must dismiss this part of the story altogether ou
the ground that it was impossible for the writer to
have obtained the information necessary to con¬
struct such statements. Hence whatever the six clays
may mean with reference to extent of duration is
of but little importance now. "Whether all this
work of organization occurred within one hun¬
dred and twenty-four hours or within as many thou¬
sands of years is unimportant to us; nor does it
matter what Moses' opinion was.
To apply a posteriori reasoning to show that
these days were great periods is very largely a
waste of time, because it may at once be frankly
admitted and the remark added, that neither
Moses nor any human being could have been
present to determine the length of these days.
Nothing is insisted upon with regard to the length
of these periods here.
A second reason which renders this discussion
unimportant is found in the following statement:
It is plainly evident that the writer is describing
a series of very important events entirely extra¬
ordinary, viz., the creation of the world. Can
we expect to apply ordinary laws through what
must be the most extraordinary period in the
The Creation.
89
world's history? The creation of the material of
the heavens and earth and the organization of
this material into forms and the production of
vegetable and animal life, taken as a whole, is a
work sui generis; and hence the attempt to apply
ordinary laws of progress and thus demand great
periods where only "days" are mentioned is an
attempt to apply the laws of peace in the midst
of battle, or the rules of fair weather in the midst
of the hurricane. The days may have been God's
days rather than man's, as the work of the days was
God's work. Shall man measure the length of God's
day or estimate the amount of His day's work?
The only person apparently who witnessed this
transaction was the Creator Himself, and from Him
directly or indirectly Moses got his information, or
he did not get it at all; hence, if we should find in¬
accuracy here, it does not necessarily vitiate the testi¬
mony of the historian with regard to the ordinary
events recorded within the periods already treated of.
The essential propositions with which we have
to do in our examination of the first chapter of
Genesis are these: 1st. That God created the
heavens and the earth. 2d. That He created
them in a certain order. As to the matter of
time, it is utterly unimportant to us. It does not
90
Genesis Re-read.
affect the result whether the creation was com¬
pleted in six days or six millions of years. The
primal question is: Did God create the world?
If so, then the truth has been stated by Moses;
if not, then Moses has been misinformed con¬
cerning matters lying beyond the sphere of ordi¬
nary observation, but may still be believed with
regard to other matters, if his statements are not
improbable and not contradicted by facts.
True, there is a maxim that, if a narrator has
been proven false in one thing, the inference may
be drawn that he is unworthy of belief in all
things; but this applies properly only where
there is evidence that the false statement has been
wilfully made. The very best witnesses are liable
to mistake and to be misinformed; and unless the
misstatement discloses a moral defect, it ought not
to be allowed to interfere with our confidence in
other parts of the discourse. Should it therefore
result that the cosmogony of Moses is disproved by
fact, we need only give up so much of the record as
is overthrown. It does not follow, I repeat, that we
must give up all of Genesis, all of the Pentateuch,
all of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa¬
ment, and all of the Jewish and Christian religions
even should the story of creation fail.
The Creation.
91
Admitting that the first chapter of Genesis
bears a necessary connection with the rest of the
book, yet it stands in an entirely different relation,
containing as it does, a recital of things taking
place before human history began. The course of
human history from its fountain in the first pair
may have been truly followed, although the ac¬
count of the construction of the fountain may
have been fabulous or mythical. Unless we are
willing to admit this, we must remove from our
shelves the most important histories of the world.
The history of all branches of the human race—
all aggregations of men developing into nations,
begins in fable and myth, but at length reaches a
realm of fact. We do not discard that which is
probable and which is confirmed, because we find
it connected necessarily with a recital of what is
absurd and unsupported. If this is found to be
the character of all history ancient and modern,
viz. that it derives the nations of which it treats
from sources that are largely imaginary perhaps,
certainly not proven, and yet we acccept the later
facts related to us by the ancient historians as in no
way damaged by their early vagaries so we may
accept the Mosaic history as in no way affected by
his cosmogony or theology.
92
Genesis Re-read.
But there is no reason to fear that the two
propositions which are enclosed within Moses'
cosmogony are to be overthrown by any counter
evidence. Perhaps an objector may think that in
order to get rid of the whole affair it is only
necessary to demand the proof for these assertions.
The proof given in the affirmative is ample but
will not be elaborated here. It is only partially
stated in order that the counter proof may be
examined. Following the distinctions drawn by
lawyers we may classify the proof into primary
and secondary. The primary proof consists in
the testimony of the Almighty Himself. In other
words, we believe that God created the heavens
and the earth and that He did so after a certain
order because he himself says so. This
evidence for the time being we postpone, because
those with whom we dispute are unwilling to
admit the testimony.
We must therefore refer to our secondary testi¬
mony. It is proper to remark, however, that no
possible evidence can overthrow a conclusion based
upon such testimony as that which we have classed
as primary here, and hence, if our secondary
evidence should entirely fail, and should there ap¬
pear a decided preponderance not only against our
The Creation.
93
hypothesis, but also in favor of a counter hypothe¬
sis after this lower field of evidence has been
examined, we still may most triumphantly carry
our case if we can make it evident that the Divine
Being has at any time declared in support of
these propositions. I desire to have the reader
consider that all that is urged here is that this
matter is worthy of belief; not that we can really
know it to be true. The extent of the effort of
this argument will be to show that the world may
have been created and probably was created, as
described in Genesis. What is the popular belief
upon this subject? What has mankind generally
believed with regard to the origin of the world?
" There is a general consensus of opinion," says a
writer in the Encyclopedia Britannica, "among
primitive races that, before the present order of
things, nature held all things in solution" which
a creator or organizer put into the present shape.
These are the two elements in all ancient thought
upon this subject—chaos and a creator. We are
bound to account for this common belief which
includes the two most prominent elements found
in the story in Genesis. Indeed it is but little
short of the whole process. The statement made
by so trustworthy a writer as we have seen Moses
94
Genesis Re-read.
to be, and confirmed in this partial manner by
mankind, constitutes a strong presumption that
a basis of fact exists somewhere.
Much the same things may be said concerning
the fact that the early nations observed a division
of time into weeks—nations which could not have
learned this custom from Moses or from the Jews.
The Sabbath originated somehow, and either
originated among several nations quite simultane¬
ously in some unaccountable manner of which
there is no record, or the story of creation is
probably true. In other words we may say that
the story of creation as told by Moses, and the
subsequent derivation of the entire human family
from one parent stock fully explains the origin
and prevalence of the Sabbath. In turning our at¬
tention more definitely to the subject of creation we
may say with safety, that either the world as to its
material has existed forever, or it has been created;
for we cannot suppose that mattter produced itself.
The issue then lies between these two hypotheses,
the eternity of matter in some form, or in its
creation. Is there reason to believe that matter is
eternal? Suppose we put it in the form of an
assertion and say matter is eternal; where, then, is
the proof? No writing similar to this of Moses
The Creation.
95
has ever said so, nor does any one in making this
assertion expect to support it by Divine testimony.
How then we may ask is it to be proved? If
the order of creation cannot be proved by human
testimony because no witnesses were present, how
can we prove a fact of eternity ? It is certain we
cannot prove it by human testimony; nor can
we prove it by circumstances, for these are all
limited to time. Suppose we trace back the ex¬
istence of matter for millions of years, and then
secure a fair basis of calculation demanding its
existence billions of years earlier, yet all this has
no bearing upon the proposition that matter is
eternal. There may have been a time anterior to
all these years when matter began to exist, and on
this point there is no evidence. The proposition
therefore that matter is eternal is not a necessary
deduction, is not sustained by evidence, and is not
evident in itself; it is therefore a mere probability
pushed in to meet the assertion that matter has
been created.
No system of philosophy we may say has ac¬
counted for the existence of the world except
by assuming a certain amount of matter on hand.
" Of the beginning of the universe," says Pro¬
fessor Clifford, " we know nothing at all." Prof.
96
Genesis Re-read.
J. C. Maxwell tells us that " we must from the
first assume an infinite number of molecules exactly
alike in their weight and rate of vibration." Mr.
Spencer does not account for his " homogeneous first
elements." All evolution assumes " some definite
initial arrangement, which is supposed to contain
the possibilities of the order which we find to
be evolved, and no other possibility."
All these grand theories therefore fall very
far short of the subject at issue, for they plant
their first stake in territory already furnished
them. Our question is not now concerning organ¬
ization, which will be dealt with hereafter, but with
origination. How will we account for that given
condition upon which evolution begins ? Whence
came those first elements and how came they
possessed of those exact possibilities which are
evolved from them ? Evolution cannot tell, and
we may reassert with increased boldness that for
all evolution has as yet shown, Moses may have
spoken the exact truth when he said, "In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Evolutionists say we do not know how the
universe began; Genesis gives a direct statement
of this beginning and there is nothing in evolu¬
tion to interrupt our confidence in this statement.
The Creation.
97
Science is, therefore, not prepared to combat
with success our first proposition. There is a
primordial condition which is left entirely unac¬
counted for, and no science dare affirm this as
eternal. It cannot be held that even atoms have
existed from all eternity. "Science," says a writer,
"is incompetent to reason upon the creation of
matter itself out of nothing." Hence science
brings no valid objection to the assertion that the
world was originally created, that is as to its ma¬
terial. The original matter is, as we have seen,
from all eternity, or created. Science runs up
to a beginning and stops, because it finds no fur¬
ther signs of change which it can trace. It has
pursued its retrospective investigations from ef¬
fect to cause until the trail is entirely lost in a
condition which seems to have never been subject
to change. This condition is original to all scien¬
tific theories, and is the end of all scientific re¬
search. Here all process began; here all investi¬
gation ends. We reach the protoplasm, and this
may have been miraculously produced. To re¬
state the problem, we may say : an original condi¬
tion of matter, involving, of course, its existence, is
discovered by science. Matter is found in that
early condition. It did not reach that stage by
7
98
Genesis Re-read.
any natural process discoverable; indeed, all known
natural processes begin from this condition.
There is no evidence of its eternity, nor are we un¬
der any necessity of concluding it to be eternal.
Indeed, the metaphysical arguments would drive
us to say that it is not eternal, and that it could
not have created itself. Therefore, this matter
may have been produced in the state, in which
science finds it, or in some antecedent state, by
some supernatural hand, and no better way of ac¬
counting for it has yet been shown than to admit
the statement of Moses. The first verse of Gene¬
sis may therefore be true in spite of all science.
It is not the duty of the Christian believer to
attempt to explain the process of creation, or to
show how material can be produced from nothing.
He may frankly admit that the whole affair is
utterly beyond his conception. He cannot see
how matter can be originally produced no more
than he can see how it can be destroyed. But there
is no absurdity in supposing such a work done.
All that is necessary for the creation of the ma¬
terial out of which the universe is formed is the
room and the capacity. Let the capacity and the
space be given, there is no contradiction in sup¬
posing such a result to follow. Hence, for crea-
The Creation.
99
tion we have need of an infinite and eternal being.
If any work of creation ever took place, God
must have performed it, for it is conceivably a
work beyond the limits of any capacity less than
infinite. It demands plainly a God who can do
all things. The natural ends where we take
leave of the philosophers; the supernatural then
comes before us. Who will guide us in our quest
of knowledge in that ? The philosophers acknowl¬
edge that they cannot. Will they seek to de¬
prive us of all source of light in that realm?
It may be true that Moses can guide us from that
God who is at first unrevealed, unto the comple¬
tion of this first creation which gives us a form¬
less and barren earth, enveloped in darkness and
swept with floods, to which evolution conducts
us. The supernaturalist Moses and the naturalists
of modern times may therefore meet at a
common trysting-place, and from this place
start downward to compare the records with re¬
gard to the order in which organization has
taken place. Science does not overthrow, then,
our first proposition, that God in the beginning
created the material out of which the heavens
and earth were framed.
Now although I have drawn the distinction
100
Genesis Re-read.
between the creative and formative periods,—that
is, between the work described in the first verse
of the opening chapter of Genesis and the work
described in the succeeding verses,—I will not
maintain that the author of the book had any such
distinction in his mind. The first may have been
a general statement of the same fact which is pre¬
sented in detail in what follows, put in as some¬
what explanatory. The meaning may be, and
probably is, that in the beginning God created
the heaven and earth, and created them in the
following manner. The original production of
the material in separation may not have been in
Moses' thought, and may not have been in the
words ; but this formless and void condition may
have been the point from which creation started,
even as Moses puts it. Instead, therefore, of read¬
ing the Vav "and" we might read it in a conces¬
sive sense and say " now " or " yes " the earth was
without form, etc. It would be exactly such a
usage as is found in other parts of the writings of
the same author, and would put us upon a creation
from a given basis exactly where evolution finds
us. The Mosaic record will permit us to assume
a chaotic world to begin with, if the necessities of
the case should demand it, but I do not think they
The Creation.
101
do. It may be asked, Will such a view stand
the test of Scripture comparison ? Will the Scrip¬
tures harmonize throughout with the view that this
formless mass was the given point from which crea¬
tion began ? I know nothing in the Scripture that
brings out in actual words the idea that God created
all things out of nothing. The word which we
translate create cannot be restricted to any such
meaning. Gesenius gives its primary meaning as
signifying to cut, or carve. Indeed, I doubt if
such a thought entered into the minds of the He¬
brews at all. The creation of Moses may therefore
have been only organizing and imparting life, but
the position is maintained here that God is the
author of the universe both with regard to its mat¬
ter and form, and the distinction is held between
the creative age and the formative age.
Thus far we have discussed creation proper, as
expressed in the first verse of Genesis, and have
not advanced to consider any of the events of the
six days. The issue with regard to that is met,
and the case stands with no evidence whatever
against the Mosaic statement, even with such a
rigid interpretation as is put upon it here. I beg
the reader's attention again to the fact that the
interpretation, even if overthrown, does not neces-
102
Genesis Re-read.
sarily involve the Mosaic statement in the same
fate, as has been shown above. It may still re¬
tain all the force of another and better meaning.
The statement may contain the description of the
heaven and earth after the first great work of crea¬
tion or a description of the state of heaven and earth
before any work of that creation which Moses is
describing has taken place. The conjunction trans¬
lated "and" may, according to a well-known cus¬
tom in Hebrew language, introduce no new facts,
but simply furnish a starting-place for the presenta¬
tion of several exegetical details. The Vav of the
Hebrew is a general conjunction or copula, with¬
out distinguishing, as our prepositions and conjunc¬
tions do, the manner of the connection. See espe¬
cially section 287, paragraph 1, of Green's Hebrew
Grammar, where it is shown that this conjunction
stands for "and" "but," "for," "wherefore," "in
order that," " as," and "when." By careful examina¬
tion it will be seen that this is no forced interpretation.
Before leaving this element of the subject per¬
haps we had better, even at the expense of some
repetition, take a final view of the text itself: " In
the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth. And the earth was without form and void,
and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
The Creation.
103
Now, this is capable of being read three ways.
First, we may regard the first verse as announcing
in general terms all that- God did in the matter.
He created the heaven and earth, and the verses
following tell how He did it. Secondly, we may
read it in the same sense and take the second verse
as describing the condition of things before this
described creation began. We would then read
it about as follows : " In the beginning God cre¬
ated the heavens and the earth, for the earth was
without form and void and darkness was upon the
face of the deep; but the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters and God said, Let there be
light, etc." Thirdly, we may read the first verse as
absolute, stating the fact of an antecedent creation,
and regard the second verse as describing the re¬
sults of that creation. Having no desire to con¬
ceal my own view from the reader, I beg to say
that my preferences go with the second reading,
although in this book I prefer to defend the third,
because it accords nearest with orthodoxy and de¬
fines the issue more sharply. But the second
reading impresses me as the probable future read¬
ing of this passage, and perhaps the one nearest
its true meaning; and it is certainly well sustained
by the Hebrew grammar.
104
Genesis Retread.
CHAPTER VIII.
LIFE—ITS ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT.
LIFE and organization go together. Wherever
we see organization we may look for life,
but life seems logically to preceds the organization.
We may, therefore, consider it first.
The reader is asked to reproduce in his mind,
that formless, empty, dark and motionless world.
All matter exists, as to its atoms, for " the forma¬
tion of the molecule is an event not belonging to
that order of nature under which we live. It is
an operation of a kind which is not, so far as we
are aware, going on on earth, or in the sun or the
stars, either now or since these bodies began to be
formed." The creation or production of these
atoms was a work belonging to an epoch earlier
than that of the formation of the earth and the
solar system.
Here, then, is the material of which the world,
or the universe if you please, is to be constructed.
Now, I ask, Can any progress whatever be made
until there is associated with this matter another
element ? It must remain forever in absolute
Life—Its Origin and Development. 105
statu quo unless joined with what scientists are
pleased to call force. Where can this force come
from ? Certainly not out of the mass of matter
itself, for this is absolutely inert. The entire
quantity of atoms may exist, but there is in them
absolutely no power.
There can be no philosophy without assuming
another element beside matter. That is to say,
the man who attempts to account for the present
state of nature on purely natural grounds, must
not only assume the previous existence of all the
material, but is compelled to assume the existence
and action of something else equally inexplicable,
viz.,—Force. Now, after all, what is the won¬
derful light which science has cast upon the
Genesis ? Practically it says : Allow us to assume
matter enough on hand to build the universe of,
and force enough to put it up, and we can tell by
examining the marks of workmanship the manner
and order of construction, and make reasonable in¬
ferences as to the time employed. It does not
pretend to tell us where the material came from,
nor where the force came from. Now, Moses tells
us exactly where the material came from, we will
suppose, when he says God created the heavens and
the earth; and tells us exactly where the force
106
Genesis Re-read.
comes from when He says, " And the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters."
Herbert Spencer, who is described as "the
thinker who has done more than any one else to ela¬
borate a consistent philosophy of evolution on a sci¬
entific basis," sets out with a limited mass of
homogeneous matter, acted upon by incident
forces, and "excludes all consideration of the
question how life first arose." His elements are
matter and force. The elements really to be ac¬
counted for are, 1—The existence of matter itself.
2—The existence of organizing force. 3—The ex¬
istence of life. 4—The existence of mind. Mat¬
ter cannot be evolved out of nothing; hence it is
assumed as eternal. Force cannot be accounted
for; hence it is assumed also, and the question of
the origin of life is excluded or glossed over with
glittering generalities.
In order to obtain a convenient view of the
phase of the subject we are now endeavoring to
contemplate, we will divide all matter into two
sorts, viz.: living matter, and dead matter, that is,
matter with which life is associated and matter
with which life is not associated. This distinc¬
tion is not the same as organic and inorganic,
although, as a rule, life and organization go to-
Life—Its Origin and Development. 107
gether. We prefer to say living matter and dead
matter, because these terms mark a very clear dis¬
tinction. Matter unorganized and matter organ¬
ized may be the same,—that is, may possess the
same qualities and be subject to much the same
laws,—but living matter is so plainly different
from dead matter that it stands in little danger of
being confounded with it in thought. Is all mat¬
ter living? All natural philosophy, chemistry
and common sense, say No.
The power or force in nature which is observed
by chemists and philosophers, and expressed by
various terms as it is modified by various circum¬
stances, cannot be confounded with life. Attrac¬
tion, caloric, electricity or galvanism are not life.
These are forces capable of producing motion, but
they are not life. While all the mechanical force
found in the solar system may be readily traced to
the sun, from which it is drawn by the family
of planets that encircle him in ceaseless revolu¬
tion, it is hardly safe to say that the sun, won¬
drous as are its effects, is the author of life.
The protoplasm assumed by the men of science
is already endowed with life. Quoting from Prof.
Asa Gray's lectures before Yale College, "As
Professor Allman puts it, wherever there is life,
108
Genesis Re-read.
from its lowest to its highest manifestations, there
is protoplasm ; wherever there is protoplasm, there,
too, is life." Hence there must be assumed not
only matter and force, but also life, i. e., living
matter. It may be " a formless, apparently difflu¬
ent and structureless mass/' but it must be living,
as science has no method of accounting for the
origination of life. The present condition of
scientific belief on this subject, says Mr. Gray, is
just where it was forty-five years ago, only "on a
better-tried and firmer footing. Thus far spon¬
taneous generation, or abiogenesis, is not supported
by any unequivocal evidence." Given the ma¬
terial and the wondrous power called life, evolu¬
tion can go on its highway rejoicing; but it gives
no answer to the question, Whence comes life?
Mr. Gray, although a thorough man of science,
and an evolutionist of the Darwinian school,
nevertheless affirms "God alone originates life."
To a conclusion quite similar all science must
come. Science does not account for the origina¬
tion of life, but life is necessary to its system, and
is here. Philosophy demands some word as to its
origin, and science must answer, Wait. Perhaps,
it says, we may be able to show, in the future that
life has been developed from matter itself, under
Life—Its Origin and Development. 109
certain conditions. In the meantime it can offer no
objection to the theological view, and consequently,
in spite of itself, bears testimony to the conclusion
that life is from God.
Protoplasm, or that living matter which fur¬
nishes the base of all vegetable and animal life
on the face of the globe, is not, as we have seen,
necessarily distinguished by organization, but by
certain other essential qualities or characteristics.
]st, By its chemical composition, containing, as it
invariably does, the so-called protein. 2d. By its
tendency to waste and reproduce itself, giving off
material and taking on material. 3d. By its
tendency to undergo cyclical changes. Proceed¬
ing from other living matter, it takes on the
character of its predecessor, and sooner or later
ceases to live. These characteristics are not found
connected with anything but living matter. All
living matter, then, has a peculiar composition,
is constantly taking in new matter and going to
waste by disintegration and oxidation, and has its
genesis, its growth and its death.
This is the ultimatum of science in its analysis
of living matter as quoted from its latest stand¬
ards. This is the positive view, but it gives us
no answer as to life itself. '' The fact is, that at
110
Genesis Re-read.
the present moment there is not a shadow of
trustworthy, direct evidence that abiogenesis does
take place, or has taken place, within the period
during which the existence of life on the globe is
recorded." Says the same writer: "If the hypo¬
thesis of evolution is true, living matter must
have arisen from not-living matter," even though
we should suppose, with Sir W. Thompson, that
living germs had been transported to our globe
from some other. Suppose we admit the early
condition of the globe to have been gaseous, it is
known that life is entirely incompatible with the
gaseous state. " Of the causes which have led to
the origination of living matter, then, it may be
said that we know absolutely nothing." In the
above quotations and the running comments there¬
on is presented the latest collected views from the
new science, " Biology," and they clearly show that
so far life is a mysterious principle, which may be
associated with matter in a certain chemical com¬
pound ; but this compound has never yet been ar¬
tificially produced. Though it is known to consist
of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, united
with a large proportion of water, it has so far defied
all the powers of science in its composition. Scientists
can analyze it, but as yet they cannot reproduce it.
Life—Its Origin and Development. Ill
We may now return to our formless and empty
world enshrouded in darkness, and behold the
earliest action as recorded in Genesis upon it, and
these are the moving of the Spirit and the creation of
light. We may not be under obligation to read
the passage, " And the spirit of God moved," but
may read as well perhaps the " wind of God," which
is a Hebrew form of expressing the superlative de¬
gree in its highest aspects. A tremendous mighty
wind may have moved upon this great deep, and
God said, Let there be light. But let us read,
Spirit. A distinguished lecturer on science, whose
work is now before me, gives the following passage
in his lecture on "Man; His Place in Nature:"
"The Divine Spirit, brooding upon primal chaos,
communicated to it an influence, an energy, a life,
call it what you like, which became the force of evo¬
lution of the cosmos, and still controls and main¬
tains its beautiful order." Matter becomes thus
impregnated by spirit. This, I am inclined to be¬
lieve, is the correct view, but we are not obliged to
advance that far as yet. If the scientist demands
an early age of tornado and natural convulsion as
a world emerges from darkness and enters upon
the final stage of its struggle for an organized ex¬
istence, a perfectly legitimate reading will allow
112
Genesis Re-read.
him to have as much of that as he can wish with¬
out antagonizing with Moses. But there is noth¬
ing in these convulsions, however extensive or
violent, to evolve life. Wind and light may
come, and still no life. Electricity works unseen
everywhere and produces wondrous effects, but it
does not give off life. Geology opens up to us
an Archean age in which there was no life; hence
matter existed, in a word, we may say the earth,
with all the material it now has, was here, but
there was no life upon it. Life is an after-inci¬
dent, and so far we have no reason to believe it a
result of development.
But if science starts with so much on hand,
perhaps it has traced the development of life from
the lower to the higher forms and fortified its
conclusions at every step by experiments and evi¬
dence. So that, having the material, the forces
and this mysterious principle life, it can read the
history of the progress regularly from the mol-
lusk to the man. I give my readers here a full
quotation from a man of science, Mr. Gray:
"So, then," he says, "Darwinism has real causes
at its foundation, viz., the fact of variation and
the inevitable operation of natural selection, de¬
termining the survival only of the fittest forms
Life—Its Origin and Development. 113
for the time and place. It is, therefore, a good
hypothesis so far. Bat is it a sufficient and a
complete hypothesis? Does it furnish scientific
explanation (i. e., assign natural causes) for the
rise of living forms from low to high, from simple
to complex, from protoplasm to simple plant and
animal, from fish to flesh, from lower animal to
higher animal, from brute to man? Does it scien¬
tifically account for the formation of any organ ;
show that, under given conditions, sensitive eye-
spot, initial hand or brain, or even a different hue
or texture, must then and there be developed as
the consequences of assignable conditions? Does
it explain how and why so much, or any, sensi¬
tiveness, faculty of response by movement, per¬
ception, consciousness, intellect is correlated with
such and such an organism? I answer, Not at
all."
If, therefore, science traces the progress, it is ut¬
terly unable to account for it. Mr. Darwin be¬
lieved that life was "originally breathed by the
Creator into few forms, or into one," but that all
which follows has been developed under the action
of two principles, viz., variation and natural selec¬
tion. But Darwinism does not account for this
impulse of variation nor of selection. Natural
8
114
Genesis Re-read.
selection is partly presented as the effect of inor¬
ganic nature upon living and organic nature, de¬
stroying those specimens which are more unfit and
fostering those best fitted to service; but nothing
is done to explain the tendency to variety. All
life-beginnings, even when propagated in the or¬
dinary way, are wrapped up in impenetrable mys¬
tery, and hence science can give us no reason why ?
along the pathway of this development which it
so carefully follows. It is still mere assumption.
Give us plenty of material, plenty of force and
protoplasm, and then the active principles of
variation and natural selection, and we can account
for the existence of the world on natural or
secondary causes but cannot assign reasons for
any particular form, although we believe the chain
of cause and effect everywhere holds. It is almost
like saying everything in general can be accounted
for, but nothing in particular. Of course this state¬
ment may seem very unfair, but it is substantially
quoted from scientists themselves. Natural selec¬
tion does not account for variation. Viewed as to
its effects upon life, it is a negative or pruning
principle, selecting those that are to remain, just as
the cotton-planter selects the stalks that are to re¬
main of the vast number he has planted, viz.,
Life—Its Origin and Development. 115
by "chopping out" those that are to be removed.
But why individuals should be like their pro¬
genitors is unknown, although it is the ruling fact
in the march of life; how, then, can we account
for the apparently accidental differences which,
nevertheless, proceed, it would seem, in accordance
with some law? Variation seems to be somewhat
limited as to the direction it may take, and is in¬
troduced somehow, or somewhere in the transit
from parent to offspring; but of its cause it is
said: " It is generally agreed that the variation is
from within, is an internal response to external
impressions."
The case, then, seems to be this: Granted the
living matter on hand, and certain external reali¬
ties to play upon it, it will proceed to develop in
various directions within certain limits; given now,
an antagonistic system of nature which will con¬
stantly prune out the inferior specimens, and an
evolution from the lower to the higher forms is
probable. The facts which science has presented
are of vast importance in the survey of the sub¬
ject, but we are only warranted in accepting the
elaborate philosophy built upon them as a re¬
spectable structure of scientific belief.
We may, therefore, unite with science so far
116
Genesis Re-read.
as to say the origin of life is entirely unaccounted
for on natural grounds, and the course of evolu¬
tion, so far as revealed in nature, does not vitiate
the testimony of Moses. Let us restate briefly the
progress thus far made in this survey of creation.
1. Science admits that the origination of atoms,
or of matter, does not belong to the age of the
present system of nature. If the creation of our
world occurred at all, it took place before the
establishment of the present order.
2. There is no evidence that matter is eternal,
and no absurdity in supposing it to have been
created; perhaps no evidence of its having been
created, because we do not know how to discover
evidences of the work of an Infinite hand. Per¬
haps we are not able to satisfactorily trace the
work of supernatural agency.
3. There is evidence that the earth was at first
composed of non-living matter during the earlier
part of the Archean age.
4. There is no evidence that living matter was
ever developed from non-living matter.
5. The introduction of life, therefore, is unac¬
counted for by science.
6. Evolution depends upon the assumption of
the tendency of life to vary in its forms, and of
Life—Its Origin and Development. 117
nature to cut off inferior specimens; but we cannot
account for these principles themselves, nor ex¬
plain how they act in producing certain forms, and
especially how they act in giving this or that turn
to the coming offspring.
Conclusion. There is, therefore, room to sup¬
pose the existence of a Creator of all the material,
an Author of life, and a Superintendent of the
whole course of evolution.
118
Genesis Re-read.
CHAPTER IX.
mind.
MAKING what the professors call a "prolepsus,"
we pass over, for the present, that vast do¬
main of organization and life-production described
as the work of five days, the records of which
geologists seem to discover amid the rocks of our
earth, and stop to consider another distinct element
observed to exist, viz.: mind. A question may be
put like this: Have we any direct evidence to show
that mind exists as something distinct from matter?
Is not mind also one of the constituents of living
matter, and hence involved in the protoplasm?
Science has succeeded in determining that ani¬
mal and vegetable life do not so greatly differ as
was formerly supposed. The mouth and stomach
of the animal are not now sufficient to distinguish
it. Animal and vegetable are now known to
unite in multitudinous forms, which cannot be
classed as either animal or plant. Indeed, it has
been demonstrated that animal and plant are the
same chemically and physiologically. Some plants
feed upon other plants and upon animals, and
digest their food.
Mind.
119
"From such lowly basis the two kingdoms may
be conceived to rise, diverging as they ascend in
separate lines—the one developing close relations
with sunlight and becoming the food-producing
realm; the other, the food-consuming animal
realm, which, dispensed from the labor of assimi¬
lation and from the fixity of position which gene¬
rally attends it, may rise to higher and freer
manifestations of life." Automatic movement has
been also found in plants, while some lower ani¬
mals are known to be fixed; so that the power of
breathing, of eating and of self-motion cannot be
regarded as evidence of animal life, for plants do
all of these.
Now, if mind is an essential quality of this one
living material which is erected into both the ani¬
mal and the vegetable kingdoms, then it is to be
found, in a latent state, or in some degree of de¬
velopment, in all animal life and in all plant life.
We would have as much ground to conclude that
mind resides in the tree as in the man, only, of
course, in different degrees, providing it is held
that man is a higher animal developed from the
grade below. The doctrine of evolution involves
the view that man has been evolved or developed
from what has come before him, although as yet
120
Genesis Re-read.
no evidence is found of such a process. As far
back as we can obtain a view of man, he was the
perfect man he is now: but we will suppose
that all the animal kingdom and all the vegetable
kingdom, including man, have been developed
from the one common physical base, now what
shall we say about mind?
There seem to be three distinct phases of life
revealed by common observation and experience:
first, Life without known sensation as plant life,
although some plants, as, for instance, the fly-trap,
seem to feel; second, Life with sensation and mo¬
tion ; and, third, Life connected with reason and
conscience. There is a psychological gradation to
be observed in the animal kingdom ; but the lines
between the grades seem absolutely impassable.
Man is especially recognized by all philosophers
and by scientists as an exceptional creature, al¬
though directly connected, as to his physical or¬
ganism, with both the animal and vegetable
kingdoms.
A philosopher who accepts this view, and who
declares life itself to be "only transformed physi¬
cal and chemical force," has attempted to explain
"the relation of the immortal spirit of man to the
anima of animals, the vital principle of plants
Mind.
121
and the physical and chemical forces of nature
but he regards the natural forces as the Divine
effluence. These forces, generalized in association
with matter, seem to produce a compound, equiva¬
lent to unorganized living matter. Certain efforts
at individualizing take place, and plants shoot up;
under higher conditions this living matter is indi¬
viduated still more, and produces the anima, con¬
taining sensation, consciousness, will, instinct.
This is the soul of animals. " Again, a spark of
the pervading Divine energy struggles still up¬
ward, and under still higher conditions, completes
its individuality, and becomes the living soul or im¬
mortal spirit of man ; it attains, in addition to cons¬
ciousness, self-consciousness; in addition to will,
free, self-determining will; in addition to instinct,
reason; it becomes a separate entity, a person."
This quotation from a Christian scientist pre¬
sents, in full light, the utter inability of natural¬
ists to account for the origin of mind, except by
assuming the Divine breath. "When the natu¬
ralist is asked, what and whence the origin of
man, he can only answer, in the words of Quatre-
faeres and Yirchow: ' We do not know at all.'"
o
This difficulty has led some to seek for the
elimination of both life and mind, if considered
122
Genesis He-read.
as anything more than conceptions of certain coi
ditions of physical and chemical forces. The
seem to think that inasmuch as matter and fore
are indestructible in fact, although ever changin
in form, perhaps under some law it will hereafte
be found that both life and mind are evolvci
from them. Gasparin, in his work on the con
science (" La Conscience"), thus expresses hi
view of the situation into which this positiv
philosophy drives the man, by showing what on
must believe in order to get rid of an Eterna
Being who has created the world : u 1 Or, ma con'
science est d'un autre avis. Elle refuse de croire
sur votre seule garantie, que la matiere s'est cret
elle-meme de toute eternity; qu'elle s'est donnc
des lois a elle-meme; qu'elle-meme a formi l'uni-
vers et lui a impost l'ordre qui le regit; qu'elle
a fagonnS elle-meme toutes les series des £tres or¬
ganises.
" La matiere creant l'esprit, ce qui a l'etendue
errant ce qui a la pensee et le sentiment, cela peut
sembler fort naturel aux savants qui ne croient
que ce qu'ils out vu; mais moi, que voulez vous?
je ne suis pas assez cr6dule pour §tre incrMule a ce
point. Ma conscience proteste tres-positivement,
1 For translation see Note 2 in Appendix.
Mind.
123
au nom de tout ce que j'ai en moi (^'intelligence
et de coeur au mom de cette conscience mSme qui
serait sortie elle aussi d'une combinaison de la
matiere."
Mind, therefore, must be furnished as some¬
thing also outside of matter and force. Life has
never been evolved out of dead matter, and before
it all science is obliged to acknowledge the neces¬
sity of a God. Mind has never been evolved from
matter at all. Life exists, and mind exists; whence
came they ?
Perhaps some one will be disposed to ask, What
is mind? or what evidence have we that it exists?
Has it ever been seen, or heard, or felt? Cer¬
tainly not, we reply. The mind, if it exists, is not
related to our physical senses. These senses were
given us in order to bring us into contact with
the material world, and they are clearly instru¬
ments. The mind is that which employs the
instruments, and is marked by certain definite
qualities. The actual productions of my mind
are now being transcribed on this paper by my
hand and the pen, the one a permanent instru¬
ment, the other an accidental instrument, to be
laid down at pleasure. That which thinks and
reasons, loves and hates, rejoices and grieves, is
124
Genesis Re-read.
the mind, and these are its qualities. We can
only tell what anything is by telling the ideas
which it has power to awaken in us. Perhaps no
one has succeeded better in elaborating this view,
as it applies to matter, than that distinguished
metaphysician and apostle of "ideas," John Locke.
He shows conclusively, it seems to me, that of
essences we can know nothing, even if any such
thing exists, and makes all distinctions in things
to consist rather in our ideas of them. That
faculty, therefore, within us, which has none of
the qualities of matter, but which is capable of
awakening in us, on the one hand, ideas of order,
wisdom and purpose, or on the other, of receiving
such ideas, is what we mean by mind.
It is not material, and has no evidence to submit
of its presence to the mere court of sensation; but
it brings appropriate evidence of such a con¬
vincing character that no man can ignore it.
Mind is a fact as well as matter, and stands far¬
ther away from matter than even life. Life may
have been an after-event, but mind seems to have
been a necessity from the beginning. If life-germs
are so far from being found indigenous to our
globe that profound philosophers have supposed
that they may have been transported here from
Mind.
125
other spheres, what shall we say of mind ? Two
thousand years men have been studying mind
without the least doubt that they were studying a
reality, and yet no hint as to its origination has
ever been given.
Serious reflection will compel us to recognize
mind as before matter in the formation of the
universe, or else recognize both as eternal. We
may, therefore, call mind by a more comprehen¬
sive term, viz.: Spirit, and conclude that there
is evidence of the existence of spirit in the uni¬
verse. Intelligence and will are too manifest to
be denied, and these imply something else beside
matter. Here in the universe are the unmistakable
signs, and only two answers can be given, viz.:
either mind resides in matter and is developed, or
here is the presence of God.
" Is mind a quality of matter ? Is it to matter
what fragrance is to the rose ? If so, it either be¬
longs to each particle of matter as an essential
quality, or it is an accidental quality belonging to
matter under certain forms. Would any one be
willing to allow this quality to matter wrought in
highest forms by painters' art or sculptors' chisel ?
Is there any philosopher who can allow it, even
when looking upon the grandest works of na-
126
Genesis Re-read.
tare? If we are not willing to admit our doc¬
trine with regard to matter near at hand and in
its highest forms, it does not improve the case to
remove it to ages of antiquity and associate it
with the lowest forms of matter. If matter
ever possessed the power to organize, when and
how did it put it off? And if matter could ever
plan and execute, one would think forests and
mountains should have long ago risen up in arms
against man"
But to return for a moment to John Locke.
He says, "Matter, incogitative matter, and motion,
whatever changes it might produce of figure and
bulk, could never produce thought; knowledge
will still be as far beyond the power of motion
and matter to produce as matter is beyond the
power of nothing or nonentity to produce." Know¬
ing and thinking, planning and executing, do not
belong to matter either in its atoms or combina¬
tions. Life and mind are not things of matter.
They may be intimately associated with it, but
not necessarily. Matter can exist disassociated
with life or with mind, according to the testimony
of our senses. Mind and life can exist disassociated
with matter, according to the testimony of our
reason.
Mind.
127
They are all here in the universe and on the
earth, and are to be accounted for. Mind is, there¬
fore, another element outside of evolution.
128
Genesis Re-read.
CHAPTER X.
THE SIX DAYS, THE DELUGE AND THE TOWER
OF BABEL.
IN this section it is proposed to discuss that order
of development or creation which is described
as the work of the first six days; the deluge,
which swept away the early inhabitants of earth ;
and the Tower of Babel, which marks the origin
of the diversity of language.
Taking whatever reading of Genesis i. 1-2
which may seem to best express the meaning of
the original text, and best harmonize with what
follows, we may proceed to examine the order in
which this earth and its inhabitants were pro¬
duced. Let us re-read the passage, and I give it
from the revised version just four days from the
press:
" And God said, Let there be light: and there
was light. And God saw the light that it was
good: and God divided the light from the dark¬
ness. And God called the light day, and the
darkness he called night. And there was evening
and there was morning, one day.
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. J 29
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in
the midst of the waters, and let it divide the
waters from the waters. And God made the fir¬
mament, and divided the waters which were un¬
der the firmament from the waters which were
above the firmament: and it was so. And God
called the firmament heaven. And there was
evening and there was morning, a second day.
"And God said, Let the waters under the
heaven be gathered together unto one place, and
let the dry land appear: and it was so. And
God called the dry land earth ) and the gathering
together of the waters called he seas : and God saw
that it was good. And God said, Let the earth put
forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit tree
bearing fruit after its kind wherein is the seed
thereof, upon the earth : and it was so. And the
earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after
its kind and tree bearing fruit wherein is the seed
thereof after its kind : and God saw that it was
good. And there was evening and there was
morning, a third day.
" And God said, Let there be lights in the firma¬
ment of the heaven to divide the day from the night:
and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for
days and for years : and let them be for lights in
9
130
Genesis Re-read.
the firmament of the heaven to give light upon
the earth : and it was so. And God made the two
great lights, the greater light to rule the day and
the lesser light to rule the night: he made the
stars also. And God set them in the firmament
of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to
rule over the day and over the night, and to divide
the light from the darkness : and God saw that it
was good. And there was evening and there was
morning, a fourth day.
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and
let fowl fly above the earth in the open firma¬
ment of heaven. And God created the great sea-
monsters, and every living creature that moveth
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after
their kinds, and every winged fowl after its kind :
and God saw that it was good. And God blessed
them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill
the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in
the earth. And there was evening and there
was morning, a fifth day.
" And God said, Let the earth bring forth the
living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping
thing, and beast of the earth after its kind : and it
was so. And God made the beast of the earth af-
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 131
ter its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and
everything that creepeth upon the ground after its
kind: and God saw that it was good. And God
said, Let us make man in our image, after our like¬
ness : and let them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the
cattle and over all the earth, and over every creep¬
ing thing that creepeth upon the earth. And
God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he
them. And God blessed them : and God said un¬
to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish
the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over
the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold I have given you every
herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all
the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit
of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for
meat: and to every beast of the earth, and to
every fowl of the air, and to everything that creep¬
eth upon the earth wherein there is life, I havegiven
every green herb for meat: and it was so. And
God saw everything that he had made, and, be¬
hold, it was very good. And there was evening
and there was morning, the sixth day."
132
Genesis Re-read.
The stages which we mark in this great scheme
of progressive organization are about as follows:
From chaos to light, and the establishment of day
and niarht: then to the construction of the firm a-
© '
ment (carving out the globe from the watery mass
beyond it, let us imagine for the present); then to
the gathering together of the waters upon the
earth's surface, and the bursting forth of the dry
land, and the clothing of this dry land with vege¬
table life ; this takes us to the close of the third
day and gives us vegetable life as first upon earth.
The fourth day brings into view, or into existence,
the sun, moon and stars, and establishes the meas¬
urement of time belonging to the present period.
These lights are given to enable man to measure
his time, as well as for illumination, for signs and
for seasons.
The next step is to marine animals. Animal
life commences in the waters, and is followed by
winged animals only on land, to be succeeded later
by land animals of great variety, and ultimately
by man himself.
The course of life upon the earth, according to
Moses, has been in the following order :
1st, Vegetables; 2d, Sea animals; 3d, Wing¬
ed animals or fowls; 4th, Land animals in variety,
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 133
and 5th, Man. The first form of life was vegeta¬
ble, the last form Man. The course has undoubt¬
edly been from the lower to the higher, and there
is countenance to the theory of development found
in this record.
Let TlS proceed to examine more minutely the
progress described during the period anterior to
vegetable life upon the earth. The first step of
progress was the coming of light. This mysteri¬
ous substance or effect, of which so little is known,
was introduced, according to this view, while the
spirit of God was brooding over the waters. Sun,
moon and stars are not created yet, but God says
let light be, and light came. The separation
between light and darkness we may take to man
the separation between those parts of the earth
covered with darkness and those parts covered
with light. The area of darkness and light may
have extended much wider than the earth, to be
sure, but as the writer is now dealing with the
earth, it is fair to conclude that his division
is an earthly one. Some parts of the earth are
therefore covered with darkness, and some are
illuminated. Darkness seems to have been the
original condition of creation, a negative con¬
dition, but apparently a most natural condition.
134
Genesis Re-read.
The introduction of light, that positive principle,
is ascribed by Moses directly to God. Moses
made no attempt to explain how light may be
developed from darkness, but speaks of it as a
result of the fiat lux, and thus casts over this mov¬
ing surface the lights and shades which have
o O
chased each other around the globe ever since.
The parts enlightened as well as the light itself
he includes in his idea of day. The darkness
contrasted with the light he calls night. Day
and night include all the earth and all conditions,
viewed with respect to this new principle, light.
The reader cannot fail to notice a new sig¬
nificance of the word day. In this connection
it contains but little, if any, reference to time, but
is rather descriptive of condition. It is an ever-
continuing day, and an ever-continuing night. As
this great flood of light goes marching around the
world it carries day with it everywhere, driving
night before it, and being pursued by night in its
turn. There is, then, in this sense a day which
lias continued from the introduction of light unto
the present moment, and must continue as long as
this system of nature endures. The light, there¬
fore, that is ever journeying onward in its noiseless
march around the globe from east to west is Pay;
Hie Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 135
the darkness that ever flees before it is Night, and
thus night and day are forever separate, lit
emblem of the eternal distinction between good
and evil. When thus much is reached, one day
has been concluded. There has been an evening
and a morning.
Following this division into day and night
comes the division of this watery mass by a
firmament established " in the midst of the
waters," dividing the "waters from the waters."
Some of the waters found themselves above the
firmament, some beneath the firmament. The
word which Moses employs where we read firma¬
ment may signify expanse, or unoccupied space,
as the marginal reading of the revised version
indicates. This much done, another day closes.
The third day opens with the gathering together
of the seas and the appearing of the dry land,
which is called earth, in distinction from the
masses of water, which are called seas. During
this period, also, vegetable life appears.
We may call the period running from some
part of the first day to some part of the third day
the separating or classifying period. Light was
separated from darkness, the waters below the
firmament from those above it, and the water on
136
Genesis Re-read.
earth from that more solid substance called land.
Two positive principles have been introduced, viz.:
light and life. We will not now stop to discuss
either, but will examine this separating period as
described by Moses with such light as science
throws over the early history of the world.
The first thing, perhaps, to be noted in the
history of creation is what has previously been
remarked, viz.: that it is written by one who was
not an eye-witness of the events which he describes,
and it is utterly impossible that he should have re¬
ceived this information through other men. The
knowledge which enables him to make this descrip¬
tion came to him in some extraordinary way or he
did not have it all ? He wrote upon knowledge
supernaturally obtained, or he wrote without
knowledge, guessing his way along. It is certain
that Moses did not have the knowledge which
science furnishes to-day. Let us bring to bear
upon this period of separation the testimony of
science as so far formulated. All science leads us
back, as we have seen, to an unformed world and
supposes an early liquid state of matter. I repeat
an old story when I say that the early stages of
the creation described by Moses agree with mark¬
ed precision with that theory first adopted by Sir
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 137
William Herschel, and afterwards so largely ex¬
tended and applied by Laplace. Let me briefly
sketch this theory from an American author with¬
out stopping to examine the proofs upon which
it rests. "It is believed," says Prof. Mitchell,
" that at one time the sun was a vast nebulous
globe, of a diameter so great as to comprehend
within its limits the orbits of all the planets. At
this period there were no planets in existence, and
the matter of which these bodies and their satel¬
lites are composed was, at this period, a portion of
the masses of matter constituting that body which
we now call the sun. In the lapse of ages, the
mighty diameter of this primitive, globular body,
exceeding six thousand millions of miles, is sup¬
posed to have slowly contracted, by the radiation
of heat, into the regions of space. In case we
admit the beginning of a rotation of the globular
mass on its axis, the contraction of its dimensions
must, by necessity, increase the velocity of rotation.
If, then, the loss of caloric be ever continued, the
contraction of the mass must be perpetuated, and
the velocity of rotation will be ever increased,
until a time will come when the centrifugal force
generated at the equator of the revolving mass
will preponderate over the force of gravity, and
138
Genesis Re-read.
the particles of matter, thus acted upon in an
equatorial zone, will be lifted up in a vast ring
and finally severed from the central mass." How
like the making of a "firmament" does this seem
as there comes a separation between the waters
which are above the expanse or firmament and the
waters which are underneath the expanse! "This
cloudy, nebulous ring is then left in space, revolv¬
ing on an axis coincident with that of the parent
mass, and with a velocity exactly equal to that
due the central body at the moment it was dis¬
engaged.
The ring of matter thus detached and left to the
action of gravitation on its various particles, would
not retain its primitive form ; but its particles con¬
centrating about some centre of superior density,
would eventually assume the spherical form, and
a planet would thus be formed." This process
would go on until several rings would be thrown
off and several globes formed, and would finally
be stopped by a superior degree of condensation
which would increase the power of cohesive at¬
traction. This condensation might be brought
o o
about by the general cooling off of the mass, or,
as philosophers say, by the continued radiation of
the heat through illimitable space. The system
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 139
of planets which would be generated under the
operation of such laws would be exactly such as
we find the solar system to be. This theory
makes the solar system one family, and actually
produces all the planets from the sun. And
hence would bring in the sun, moon and stars,
allowing these moons or satellites to have been
thrown off from primary planets by a similar
process.
This is the theory of Laplace, as sustained by
Herschel's observations and Laplace's mathematics.
Laplace shows that the actual present condition of
the solar system would result from such a theory
as to its origin, and Herschel, by his observations
of forming stars, renders such a theory probable
ou the score of analogy.
Now, the founders of this theory, particularly
Laplace, had no desire to further the cause of the
Bible. The common belief with regard to La¬
place was, that he was not only irreligious, but
atheistical, and the theory which he developed was
for a time combated on religious grounds.
The points to be noticed in this theory are (1)
the existence of the material of which the solar
system is composed in a thin, gaseous condition,
(2) the existence of heat, (3) the existence of mo-
140
Genesis Re-read.
tion, (4) gravitation or the attraction of particles
of matter one for another, (5) radiation, or the
diffusion of this heat through space, allowing for
the cooling and hardening of the surfaces of the
masses which have been brought into spherical
form by the motion.
The chemical combination of the particles com-
posiug the rocks and metals would, according to
the laws of chemistry, supply the heat; but the
motion which commenced in this first nebulous
mass may have been imparted by the direct action
of a Divine hand, although I prefer to think of the
motion also as the result of the expanding or
radiating force of the heat, so affected by some
other force, perhaps that of cohesion, as to pro¬
duce a rotary motion. The heat creating a cen¬
trifugal force and the gravitation producing a
centripetal force, a rotary motion might ensue,
ever sustained by the same causes, in all the
spheres. Here, then, we have three periods : (1)
A world formless and void, the great mass of ma¬
terial of which the solar system is composed; (2)
the combining of the particles of matter under the
laws of attraction and the consequent evolution of
heat, and perhaps light—glowing light; (3) the
generation of motion by the counter-expansive
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 141
action of lieat and the concentration of matter
toward one great centre, and the throwing off of
rings to be ultimately metamorphosed into globes.
Science goes far enough to allow a progressive
creation, and Moses describes a progressive crea¬
tion. Moses knew nothing of this after-science,
and those who have reached these conclusions in
chemistry and astronomy have had no desire to
furnish confirmations for the Biblical record.
The next event described by Moses is the
gathering together of the waters on the surface of
the earth into masses called seas, and the appear¬
ing or coming forth of the dry land. The ma¬
terial which has been held in solution has been
deposited in strata, and has formed a resistance to
the escaping heat; crust after crust is formed, only
to be broken in its turn, until finally the up¬
heaved strata pass the surface of the waters.
" That the earth was once a liquid is now gener¬
ally admitted," says Dana. The crusts were
bent upward, fractured and folded, as geology
finds them, until the dry land fairly appeared.
Indeed, this work seems to be imperceptibly go¬
ing on still.
On these exposed surfaces vegetation appeared,
and this brings us to the opening of another of the
142
Genesis Re-read.
wondrous seven seals of creation. Vegetable life
coming before animal life is the logical order,—
the producing element before the consuming ele¬
ment, the food before the eater,—this is the order
of necessity, unless the cattle of the thousand hills
are " to feed upon the wind " until grass shall
clothe the fertile valleys. This conformity to the
logical order by Moses was, perhaps, not acci¬
dental. On this subject the testimony of geology
is that vegetable life, and animal life appear to
have been contemporaneous, with perhaps some
evidence in favor of the position that animal life
appeared first, although there are learned geolo¬
gists who maintain that the presence of graphite
and iron in the Archaean age is evidence of an
early prolific vegetation. This matter, however,
we can afford to leave to the scientists to settle,
remarking, in the mean time, that its worst effects
will but be to bring animal life and vegetable life
as contemporary, without giving any final word,
or indeed any word at all, as to the manner or
time of origin of either. " It has to be admitted
that we know very little about the past terrestrial
life of the globe," says Mr. Dana, and hence we
are under no necessity to depart from the ordinary,
although apparently unimportant, statement of
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 143
Moses respecting the order of vegetable and
animal life.
A period of sea-monsters and great winged
animals succeeds, and the relics of such creatures
are found. "It was," says Hugh Miller, "pe¬
culiarly the age of egg-bearing animals, winged
and wingless. Its wonderful whales must have
tempested the deep. . . . And we know that
the foot-prints of at least one of its many birds
are fully twice the size of those made by the horse
or camel." Geology finds its birds of gigantic
size, its creeping reptiles and its great sea-
monsters about where Moses would lead us
to expect them. Abundance of animals and
plants appeared before man. The progress, ac¬
cording to Mr. Dana, seems to have been from
marine animals to land animals, as reptiles first,
then birds and inferior mammals; later, higher
mammals, as beasts of prey and cattle ; lastly, man.
All science places man last, and utterly discon¬
nects him with the other animal creation. Man,
according to the view of science, is the culmina¬
tion of a system, and so he is plainly in revelation.
Moses places him last and best in all the works of
God on earth, and assigns him dominion over all
living creatures. Forty thousand species of
144
Genesis Re-read.
animals appear to have passed away from tlie
earth up to the present, and twenty-five thousand
species of plants. Will man pass away ? These
species have been derived, says science, from other
species ; was man derived ? All science answers
No ! Instead of looking for the " missing link/'
real science tells us that the first link of the line
ending in man has not yet been found. The man-
apes are the terminations of lines that have
reached down or up to them, but between them
and man an impassable gulf exists. Man is the
end of development or the crowning work of
creation, standing, so far as yet traced as to his
origin, underived from the sources of life below
him, and so vast in his endowments as to suggest
the immediate work of the Divine hand.
Without attempting to show particular agree¬
ment between the two records, that of nature and
of Moses, we may say that it is enough for us to
find a general harmony or parallelism in their re¬
spective descriptions of the work occurring within
the six days. Mr. Le Comte, professor of geology
and natural history, says: " There is an undoubted
and really wonderful general accordance between
the record of Scripture and the record of Nature.
The order of creation revealed in Scripture is the
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 145
order of the evolution of the material universe
and of the organic kingdom revealed in nature.
Is this genius ? If it be genius, it is a genius
which has anticipated the latest results of science."
Nothing, therefore, has as yet appeared in science
to compel us to discard the first chapter of Genesis.
Before leaving it, however, we may take a final
view upon its character as a document. It claims
to record events, somewhat in detail, which were
never witnessed by human eye, in the most solemn
and didactic manner, showing that the writer had
clear ideas in his own mind with regard to the
subjects. It is not at all improbable that Moses
had a succession of visions, as many suppose, in
which he witnessed the things described and wrote
them down somewhat in the order in which they
appeared. The story of creation w;as not told,
but shown him; otherwise it seems quite impos¬
sible that he should be able to give so vivid a
description in so few words. The descriptive
language which he employs appears to be entirely
first-hand, and given out directly from the scenes
themselves. It does not at all read like a story
that is retold, but rather as the impressive de¬
scription of sublime events, The writer seems to
throw into the record something of the natural
10
146
Genesis Re-read.
impressions which such transactions would produce
on the human soul.
As John, in the last book of that wonderful
volume, the Bible, is permitted to look upon the
closing scenes of the world's moral and physical
history, so we may conceive Moses, in this first
book, as witnessing in some extraordinary manner
the events which mark its opening chapters.
Finally, I ask the reader's attention to the fol¬
lowing elaboration of the Mosaic record of crea¬
tion made by that eminent Biblical scholar, Dr.
Smith, classical examiner in the University of
London and author of much classical Biblical
literature.
After briefly describing the breaking forth of
light through the floating vapors which surrounded
the earth, he thus describes the work which fol¬
lows :
" II. As yet the watery vapors raised by intense heat formed
an envelope of mist around the earth. They were now parted
into-two divisions, those which He upon and hang about the
surface of the earth, and those which float high above it. The
blue heavens became visible like a crystal vault, called the
firmament (literally expanse), because its appearance is that of
an outspread covering elsewhere likened to a tent. But the
word chosen no more implies that the sky is really a solid
vault than that it is a canvas tent. It forms, to the eye, the
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 147
partition between the upper and lower heavens, between ' the
waters under the firmament and the waters above the
firmament.' Such was the work of the Second Day.
" III. Next began the tremendous upheavings and sinkings
of the earth's crust, by the forces at work within it, which
formed it into mountains and valleys, and provided channels
and basins for the waters on its surface. These were now
gathered into collections which were called Seas, while the
name of Earth was applied, in a narrower sense than before,
to the portions exposed above the waters. On these portions
the germs of vegetation began at once to burst into life, form¬
ing grass and fruit-trees. These had their seed in themselves,
after their kind. Here is the great law of reproduction accord¬
ing to species, on which depends the order of the vegetable and
animal kingdoms. This was the work of the Thikd Day.
" IV. On the Fourth Day the Sun and Moon were seen in
the firmament of heaven. The fact of their previous creation
is involved in the stability of the earth, as a member of the
solar system, as well as in the appearance of light on the first
day. It is not said that they were first created on the fourth
day ; and of the stars, many of which must have existed
myriads of years before their light reached the earth, it is
simply said, He made the stars also, not when He made them.
In fact, the fourth day seems to mark the period during which
the air was cleared of its thick vapors by the action of the
plants and other causes, so that the heavenly bodies became
visible. Stress is laid on their ruling as well as lighting the
day and night. God said : ' Let them be for signs, and for
seasons, and for days and yearsThey were designed, as they
have ever since been used, to make out the periods of human
life; to inculcate the great lesson that ' to everything there ia
a season and a time to every purpose under heaven.'
148
Genesis Re-read.
" V. Vegetables could live and flourish in a tbick mo'st at¬
mosphere ; and the lower animal organism could already be
associated with them, though they had not been mentioned as
yet, because not outwardly visible. But now the larger animals
appeared. First, the waters teemed with the ' creeping things'
and the ' great sea-monsters,' with fishes and reptiles. Birds
were produced at the same time, and might have been seen
flying over the waters and in the open firmament of heaven.
I'll is was the work of the Fifth Day.
"VI. The Sixth Day witnessed the creation of the higher
animals and Man. These were formed out of the earth, the
chemical constituents of which are, in the main, the same as
those of animal bodies. The latter, in fact, derive their
materials from the vegetables, which have first derived theirs
from the earth and air and water; and all render back their
gaseous and fluid components to air and water, and their
solids to the earth."
We may conclude our survey of the creation
and organization of the world with this summary:
First,—The Scriptures show us a formless liquid
and waste mass as the earth in its primal condi¬
tion, as it left the Creator's hand.
Second,—They show us a progressive creation, in¬
cluding the mention of grass, herbs and trees, ma¬
rine animals, land animals, reptiles and birds,
finally ending with the creation of man.
Third,—Science finds the same liquid begin¬
ning, the same progressive creation and the same
ending in man.
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 149
Fourth,—Moses says the force and the wisdom
which produced the material and fashioned the
shapes and gave life to them, is God. That is, it was
God who said " Let the waters bring forth," and
" Let the earth bring forth," showing a develop¬
ment, or evolution, it may be, but one wrought
directly under the command of God.
It is worth while to observe more particularly
this mixed method which Moses employs in the
description of creation while we are striving to fix
the subject in our minds. He says, speaking of
trees and herbs, that the earth brought them forth,
and of sea-animals, that the waters brought them
forth. Here are words plainly favorable to evolu¬
tion. But, he says, God created the sea-monsters,
and God created man ; which would agree with
the facts of abrupt transition which are discovered
by geologists. There may have been some evolu¬
tion under Divine guidance, and some direct cre¬
ation by the Divine hand. The Creator and
Superintendent, according to Moses, is God. What
has science to say to this ? " Geology," says the
leading American author on this subject, " affords
no explanation of the origin of life, or of any of
nature's forces, and gives no rationale of creation."
Now, a word as to the noun rakea, which is
150
Genesis Re-read.
translated firmament. I am not sure but there is
some connection between this word and raik} an
adjective, reik, another noun, and raikium, an ad¬
verb. These latter words all signify some form of
the idea of emptiness. This idea may be trans¬
ferred from the sphere of the physical to the in¬
tellectual and moral, and will then signify vanity,
folly and worthlessness, becoming the Raca of the
Sermon on the Mount. Rahea, the first noun
spoken of, and the one translated in the Greek by
the word stereoma, is derived from the verb rcihkct,
signifying to beat out, or expand a thing by beat¬
ing it, as blacksmiths draw out iron on the anvil;
similar to another verb, rahhah, which signifies to
pound out also. Rah, an adjective derived from
one or the other of these verbs, signifies what is
beaten out, or something thin or lean. Rakea sig¬
nifies also what is expanded by beating, but seems
to look at the effect from another point of view. I
am inclined to the opinion that when the thinness
of the substance is considered, rah is used; and
when the extent in length and width is considered,
rahea is used. Hence, looking up to the heavens,
the expanse only was considered, and it was de¬
scribed as rahea,—i. e., something beaten out or
spread out so as to form an entire canopy for the
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 151
earth. Gesenius says : " The Hebrews supposed
the firmament to be spread out like a solid hemi¬
spheric arch over the earth, shining and pellucid as
sapphire." The Greek stereoma, from steroo, to ren¬
der firm, hard or solid, expresses the same idea with
still more clearnes and force than the Hebrew. Ac¬
cording to this word, the arch above us has been
constructed of a hard, firm substance, and is ren¬
dered perfectly solid and durable. The ideas of
great strength and durability seem to have been
associated with the vaulted skies in the Greek
mind.
It is, therefore, on perfectly legitimate grounds
that the English translators have rendered the
word firmament, if they were influenced at all by
the Septuagint version. Firmament, from firm-
are, to make firm, originally signified something
made firm, and the physical ideas of strength and
durability were associated with it.
Webster, however, says the Hebrew word signi¬
fies an expanse or wide extent, and he seems to
exclude from its meaning any physical idea. Ac¬
cording to Webster, it is an abstract idea of ex¬
panse, without reference to anything expanded; of
extent, without reference to anything extended.
He thinks rakea "coincides" with regio, regirn
152
Genesis Re-read.
or reach. "The original, therefore" he says,
"does not convey the idea of solidity, bat
of stretching, extension." According to this
view, the Hebrew idea is misrepresented by the
Greek stereomci and the Latin firmomentum, the
misconception probably arising in the Septuagint
translation. The English word firmament has
now become a proper name for the heavens, and
is used without any reference to its etymological
signification, in the present version, as an equiva¬
lent for expanse, as given in the margin. The
idea of simple space does not seem to be found in
Genesis. The original idea seems to be just such
as the phenomena of the heavens, unaided by sci¬
entific knowledge, would naturally produce; and,
although the word may be capable of an abstract
definition, and may be somewhat kindred in its
origin and development to the noun signifying
emptiness, I prefer to think that when Moses de¬
scribes the formation of the firmament which was
called heaven, he has in his mind an idea associ¬
ated, we may say, with a physical basis.
The next great physical event, described some¬
what in detail by Moses, is the deluge, occurring
over a thousand years after the beginning of
Adam's life on earth. The rain fell for a period
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 153
of forty days, and all the fountains of the great
deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven
were opened, and "the waters prevailed exceedingly
upon the earth, and all the high hills that were
under the whole heaven were covered, and all
flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl
and of cattle, and of beast and of every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every
man." This flood of water, reaching "fifteen
cubits upward," prevailed upon the earth one hun¬
dred and fifty days, and at its close " Noah only
remained alive, and they that were with him in
the ark."
Let us examine somewhat in detail the literal
representation which we find here, and seek to
view it in association with the ideas which neces¬
sarily underlie the statements. We may say,
then, in looking back upon this description, that
the language clearly sets forth two things: First,
that the flood was universal in extent, covering the
whole earth, including the hills and mountains;
and, second, that it was universal in its death-
dealing effects, destroying "all in whose nostrils
was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry
land." These are the statements; now, what are
the preconceived ideas underlying them? Plainly,
154
Genesis Re-read.
these: the writer conceived the earth to be a fl
surface, over which spread the bending heaven
bounded by the visible horizon. Hence his stat
ments are to be limited by the views which 1
then held, or the knowledge which he then hat
His whole earth under the heaven was the who
earth within the horizon, and over this whoi
earth, to the best of his knowledge and belief, 1:
asserts the flood spread, carrying death with i
So far as it relates to the destruction of all man
kind, we may observe that it is hardly probabl
that dispersion had proceeded far; and hence, t
carry out the retributive purposes of the Almighty
the surface of the earth covered need not hav
been so large even as the ideal world of tin
ancients was.
To fit these statements into the ideas and facti
of our times would entirely unfit them for th<
facts and ideas of Moses' times. The question
then, whether the flood was universal?—meaning
by that question to ask, Did the waters prevail al
around the globe, so as to envelop beneath theii
surface all hills and mountains of the earth, caus¬
ing it to become, in fact, one vast surface ol
water?—is purely an anachronism. It was utterly
impossible for Moses to assert any such fact, and
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 155
the whole physical history of the globe and philos¬
ophy of the universe is against any such suppo¬
sition.
The only proper questions of fact which may
be asked upon this record, when we consider the
necessary limitations which control it, are these:
Are there any insuperable objections against the
supposition that an immense flood of water was
brought upon some part of the earth's surface
through storm or tide? and are there any in¬
superable objections to the supposition that this
flood swept away all the human inhabitants which
were on earth at that time, because all in¬
habited the inundated section ? excepting, of course,
the few preserved in the ark. The theological
and moral aspects of the flood will be considered
in the next chapter, when we come to look upon
the character of the Divine Being as revealed in
Genesis.
To the first question as to the fact of the del¬
uge, we may bring forward the testimony of our
unimpeached witness, the author of Genesis, and
associate with it the traditions of nearly all un¬
civilized or unchristianized mankind. Men have
generally believed that in an early age a deluge
occurred and that only a few persons were saved
156
Genesis Re-read.
from its effects. " The fact of a deluge which 01
destroyed the whole race, with the exception of
few individuals," says Professor Barrett, " is o
of the best-proved events in all past history,
is sustained by an array of evidence as strong
is possible in regard to an event which lies so f
back of all written memorials—more impressh
indeed, than mere documents could furnish. Ith
been branded into the memory of the nations, ai
has come down from time immemorial in all pax
of the globe." I will not trouble the reader with
vast array of details, but will quote this stateme:
concerning the deluge from a JSTew England pasto:
"The student of the ancient languages finds it amor
the myths and legends of early Greek and Rome
history. Oriental scholars and travelers ha^
found it everywhere among the Asiatic nation
from the Red Sea through Persia, India, Chir
and northerly to the Frozen Ocean. Humbolt
found it among the Orinoco Indians, the primiti\
Brazilians and Peruvians. It also existed amon
the islanders of the South Seas and the Indians (
Terra Firma and North America. Its record es
ists in the rudely sculptured monuments of a los
race in Mexico and in the sacred book of th
Parsees and the Scandinavian Edda."
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 157
Let us go far enough out of our way to observe
two things respecting the wide existence of this
story of the deluge,—1st. If it is a tradition, it
points clearly to an early day when these widely-
scattered people were in much more intimate as¬
sociation, and hence is of some importance as
cumulative evidence in support of the common
origin of the race, and is consequently confirma¬
tory of the Mosaic history. 2d. If it is a fabri¬
cation, it is fairly indicative of a common human
nature, and would bear quite directly upon the
psychological oneness of the race, and, by conse¬
quence, still upon the genealogical derivation of
the race from one parent-stock.
Taken either way, the general existence of this
story must be accounted for, and as those who are
disposed to regard it as a natural product or in¬
vention of the primitive and prehistoric man so
far offer nothing in support of such a conclusion,
but psychological speculations and a priori glosses,
the believers in the traditional theory may assert
their conclusion, supported by all the history of
Genesis and corroborated by the general memory
of mankind. The story of the flood we believe
rests upon an early impressive fact. Against the
direct testimony which has been offered in support
158
Genesis Re-read.
of this conclusion, of course, modern science lias
nothing to say. Her business is to deal with the
facts of nature made apparent to the senses, and
she will not say that such a catastrophe may not
have taken place.
Let no one suppose that science is asked here to
prove a negative. Far from it! The case stands
thus: Certain direct testimony has been offered in
support of a conclusion. This testimony is not
successfully impeached, nor is any testimony of¬
fered in rebuttal; hence the conclusion is estab¬
lished.
But to return to details. An area of land suf¬
ficiently large for the purposes of the flood may
have been inundated by the sinking of some small
portion which had been serving as a dike or
breakwater keeping back the sea, thus allowing
the fountains of the great deep to be broken up.
Join to this a fall of rain similar to that which
fell at Cayenne, French Guiana, in February,
1820, in which there fell in twenty-four days
twelve and one-half feet of water, and all the con¬
ditions of the flood would be fulfilled. The flood
is no physical impossibility surely, and many geo¬
logic records would indicate that there have been
several. "We may, therefore, rest the matter of
Tiie Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 159
the cleluge upon the following testimony: (1)
Moses asserts it in a formal and circumstantial
way; (2) the scattered peoples of earth, nearly all,
have their deluge stories, corresponding in their
main features to the story we find in Genesis; (3)
it is not an impossible supposition that all these
stories came from a common centre and a common
fact; (4) science finds no natural obstacle in the
way of such a catastrophe, and offers no evidence
against the claimed historical fact of its occurrence;
but, on the contrary, finds abundance of evidence
in support of the belief that physical events of a
quite similar character have more than once taken
place. The record of the deluge, therefore, does
not place the book of Genesis among fabulous
literature. All that Moses says concerning it,
taking in consideration the preconceived ideas
which must lie at the basis of his statements, may
be absolutely true, notwithstanding all the light
that the scientific study of nature through ap¬
proved facilities has as yet thrown upon the
world.
From the flood we pass to the tower of Babel,
which witnessed the origin of that diversity of
language which has prevailed among men from
remotest antiquity. Here again we have a great
160
Genesis lie-read.
question answered with startling simplicity.
While the students of language are pondering
over the great mass of various and subtle facts
which this realm supplies, seeking for the laws
which govern its development and produce its
variations, in order to establish a chain of reason¬
ing which would conduct them back into the past,
and serve as a key for the unlocking of problems
connected with social progress, Moses conducts us
by a plain statement directly to the beginning of
the diversity of language, and spreads before us,
through Divine agency, the effects of a work done
instantaneously. Let us quote the story from
his hand (Genesis xi: 1-9): " And the whole
earth was of one language and of one speech, And
it came to pass, as they journeyed from the East,
that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and
they dwelt there, And they said, Go to, let us
make brick and burn them thoroughly. And
they had brick for stone, and slime had they for
mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a
city and a tower, whose top may reach unto
heaven; and let us make us a name lest we be
scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
And the Lord came down to see the city and the
tower which the children of men builded. And
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 161
the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and
they have all one language ; and this they begin
to do: and now nothing will be restrained from
them, which they have imagined to do. Go to,
let us go down and there confound their language
that they may not understand one another's speech.
So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence
upon the face of all the earth; and they left off to
build the city. Therefore is the name of it called
Babel; because the Lord did there confound the
language of all the earth ; and from thence did the
Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the
earth." Let us first obtain a concise view of the
event itself. Moses says the people were one,
with one language, or one lip, and one speech or
vocabulary. They seemed to have the same ad¬
justment of vocal organs, or, as we might express
it, the same tuning of vocal organs and the same
set of words. The work of the Lord seems to
have been entirely upon that element called in the
Hebrew lip, and in our version, language. He did
not confound their speech, i. e., their vocabulary,
giving them different names for things and differ¬
ent words for actions, but he confounded their
language or disturbed the adjustment of their
vocal organs, so that the same words were given a
11
162
Genesis Re-read.
difference in pronunciation. The miracle was
quite largely, we will suppose, if not altogether,
physical. So that, although their ideas were the
same and their words the same, the pronunciation
was so different that they could not understand
one another's speech (words). The unity of lan¬
guage remained in the abstract, but the diversity
of pronunciation was complete, and this, in turn,
would accomplish great divergence in the language
itself when coupled with the fact of dispersion.
We may consider next the place where this
event is said to have taken place. It is called " a
plain in the land of Shinar," which the united de¬
scendants of Noah, who then composed " the
whole earth," found as they were journeying
a from the east" (eastward). This " land of
Shinar " Dr. Smith identifies with Babylonia, and
says the matter admits of no doubt—a tract of land
lying along the Euphrates not far from where the
site of Paradise appears to have been.
The time of the event, as fixed by the ordinary
chronologers, is about a century after the flood.
To repeat, let us remark that this confounding of
language, as stated by Moses, took place in the
land of Babylon about from one hundred to one
hundred and fifty years after the flood.
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 163
In considering this event, we may remark, first,
that no record of diversity of language earlier than
this date has as yet been found; hence, there is
nothing in the way of supposing this to have been
the first instance of it, and to some extent the
origination of the great distinctions in language.
Dr. Smith says : " Certainly it seems to be implied
that some of the most striking diiferences which
mark the various families of languages were then
suddenly caused by God's immediate act, and that
the builders separated because they could no
longer understand each other; but it does not
follow that languages were then formed as they
exist now, and the comparative grammarian may
trace up the beautiful laws which show the very
opposite of confusion, without fearing to contradict
the true sense of the Scripture narrative."
If we read the record with the distinction be¬
tween the instruments of utterance, which were,
perhaps, distorted, and the words themselves, which
were not confounded, we can at once see how lan¬
guage might go on in quite regular development
notwithstanding this great confusion. If this
reading is correct, we ought to find in language a
primitive base, or Archaean age of unity, with
subsequent strata of variations evolved in part, at
164 Genesis Re-read.
least, from this antecedent condition after much
the same order which we find in geology, natural
history and biology. Philology ought to show us
the same ordinary growth interrupted by the same
inexplicable freaks and abrupt transitions, and so
it does. All the languages of the earth, as they
come to be studied philosophically may be
grouped in five or six grand families, and these
great families are so related to each other as
actually to suggest an earlier age of unity. There
is fair presumptive evidence outside of Scripture
for the belief that all human languages are out¬
growths from a common stock. Professor Good¬
win, a distinguished American theologian, in the
" syllabus" which he uses in his classes, holds
that " comparative philology points to the proba¬
ble unity of original languages," and " implies the
physiological and psychological unity of the race."
,He argues that the similarities in sound and sense
and grammatical structure found in all known
languages render it highly probable that all these
languages have come from a common origin.
Here, then, are the two sides of the problem of
philology,—1. Great variety in the known lan¬
guages of earth patent to all. 2. A thread of
unity pervading all languages, discoverable only
by those who study language patiently.
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 165
These facts fully accord with the early history
of the human race as sketched by Moses, and
with the peculiar transaction at Babel. Let us
suppose that orderly dispersion described in the
tenth chapter to be the description of the
" scattering abroad" which the Lord caused at
Babel. Let us suppose the tenth chapter to ad¬
vance in point of time beyond the passage which
we have quoted from the eleventh chapter; we will
then be able to show how these great linguistic
families may have received their first outlines.
The tenth chapter proceeds to unfold to our view
the various branches of the Noachian family, and
occupies itself with their genealogy and territorial
settlement, sending Japheth northward to Europe,
Shem eastward toward Asia, and Ham southward
toward Africa, and concludes with the statement,
" These are the families of the sons of Noah, after
their generations, in their nations ; and by these
were the nations divided in the earth after the
flood." Now suppose, instead of closing the
chapter here, we read right on and render the Vav
which now opens the eleventh chapter by " for,"
and regard the passage to the ninth verse as
exegetical. The whole recital, then, from the be¬
ginning of the tenth chapter will connect logically
1G6
Genesis Re-read.
with the remaining part of the eleventh chapter,
and all the confusion in the dispersions will dis¬
appear.
Let us re-read the passage as suggested and see
at once how the obscurities modify. "These are
the families of the sons of Noah, after their gener¬
ations, in their nations ; and by these were the
nations divided in the earth after the flood, for
the whole Earth was of one language and of one
speech," etc. The cause and origin of the disper¬
sion are then narrated as necessary to explain
the manner and extent of this dispersion previous¬
ly described. When we consider that the Hebrew
had no sub-division of its past tense, we can see
readily how persons in reading it may have mis¬
conceived the time-relations of the events narrated.
Soon after this orderly dispersion we find men¬
tion of Egypt in the narrative. Egypt, Assyria,
Babylon and the Jews are everywhere recognized
as among the earliest nations, and their origin, so
far as known, corresponds quite fairly with the
forecast which Genesis tenth affords. The his¬
torian finds the nations referred to located where
we would be led by Genesis to expect them ; and
the languages drop into great families, quite in
accordance with this early partition, allowing for
The Six Days, Deluge and Tower of Babel. 167
the necessary" blending which has occurred in the
lapse of ages. The facial conformation and com¬
plexion may also date, as to its origin, from this
dispersion, although further developed by physi¬
cal and spiritual conditions. The confounding
of lip may have been the implanting of a tend¬
ency toward certain facial divergencies correspond¬
ing to the languages to be spoken, and further
necessary to accomplish the Divine purpose, as
against the huddling inclination of man. Man
congregates, and plans to locate himself perma¬
nently in one spot; God spreads him abroad over
all the earth through differences of language, as
expressed, and through differences of form and
feature, as may fairly be implied. Clear distinc¬
tions in the races, visible to the eye, are recognized
very soon after this dispersion. These have been
from earliest antiquity, showing the same unity
and physical connection which we find every¬
where in nature, and yet the same striking variety
which is everywhere else present, and which here,
as elsewhere, may be partly accounted for by nat¬
ural causes, and partly referred to causes of which
we are ignorant. Impressive unity and perplex¬
ing diversity meet us in ethnology as well as in
philology. The Tower of Babel marks the origin
168
Genesis Re-read.
of this diversity, while Noah's Ark emphasizes
the historic expression of this unity. Here, as
elsewhere, the diversity is apparent, the unity to
be sought for.
The six days of creation, the deluge and the
aifair of Babel have all been considered, and they
so agree with the facts of observation and exper¬
ience that the stories have been explained on the
ground that the facts suggested them. It is claimed
that the unsophisticated mind, looking only upon
outward phenomena, fabricated these stories as ex¬
planatory of the facts which surrounded him. Nor
has advancing science done more than to confirm
the historic statements of Genesis in regard to all of
these supernatural events. Science has demon¬
strated the necessity of an organizing, life-giving
and mind-producing agency, if not an immediate
originator of matter. It has shown the possibility
of the deluge and the probability of Babel, thus
actually strengthening, rather than vitiating, the
testimony upon which mankind has always accepted
the book of Genesis.
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 169
CHAPTER XI.
THE THEOLOGY AND MORALS OF THE BOOK OF
GENESIS.
WE approach now the most difficult part of
the work proposed in this review of the Book
of Genesis, as we proceed to exhibit what we may-
express as the Theography wThich we find here
and there through its pages, as well as the theo¬
logical and moral problems which are therein in¬
volved.
The great theological problems of Genesis are
the fall, the flood and sacrifice. These must be
considered somewhat in detail in order that their
treatment may correspond with the general course
of the book, but need not be too thoroughly exam¬
ined, for the special reason that they are patent
theological topics and are fully dealt with by the¬
ological writers in general.
The morals of Genesis must be viewed under
peculiar considerations repecting the state of the
times in general. The men whose lives stand out
prominently because of their religious excellence
must be viewed in reference to the age in which
170
Genesis Re-read.
they lived, and not brought into comparison with
modern standards. Religion, consisting of an
acknowledgment of God and a desire to obey and
please Him, was plainly a ruling sentiment in the
lives of some of the heroes of Genesis; but their
conduct in certain particulars appears to us to be
little less than reprehensible.
One finds a very strange melange in Abraham's
piety and concubinage, in Rebecca's religion and
deception, in Jacob's vows at Bethel and subse¬
quent knavery, in Noah's devotion and drunken¬
ness, as also in the conduct of the daua-hter-in-
law of Jacob and the daughters of Lot. The moral
sense seems to have been singularly obtuse, and
moral ideas loose and confused.
Singularly enough, in all this recorded experi¬
ence there seems to be no return in thought to the
Eden-state of purity, nor to the dreadful fall. Nor
does there appear to be on the part of man any
general acknowledgment of sinfulness, or confes¬
sion of inherent depravity. The Elohim bears
such testimony concerning man, but man himself
does not seem to feel it with such keenness as
might be suspected in this primitive age.
But, to proceed somewhat after the order indi¬
cated in the topic of this section, let us re-open
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 171
the Book of Genesis and read it with special refer¬
ence to the light it affords, particularly upon the
moral elements or phases of the Divine character.
The first difficulty we encounter, as we read the
first two chapters of the book, arises in part from
a confusion of titles. In the first chapter the
Divine Being is spoken of as God (Elohim) ; in
die second as Lord God (Jehovah Elohim). How
are we to account for this ? Are these two names
for the same Being ? If so, why should Moses
apply one so definitely in his direct account of
creation, running from the opening of the Book
to the fourth verse in the second chapter, and both
in the elaborate review apparently of the same
events? These facts have puzzled students for
many years, and have furnished occasion for much
literature; but up to the present no complete
solution has been offered which has met with
general acceptance. A quite fair representative
supposition is that Moses compiled two traditions
or blended two documents,—the one Elohistic
(from Elohim) the other Yahvistic (from Jehovah).
This would indicate two shades of early religion,
a Yahvistic and an Elohistic, and of these, the
Elohistic would appear to be the earlier.
Jehovah is unquestionably the God of the
172
Genesis Re-read.
later Pentateuch, as, indeed, of the Old Testa¬
ment in general; and this Jehovah is sufficiently
identified with the Christ of the New Testa¬
ment to make it proper to regard him as the
same. Jesus Christ appears to be Jehovah incar¬
nate. Elohim frequently appears in Genesis ; but
often in such connection as to show that it is a
name for the same Being referred to as Jehovah.
Jehovah, as a name for the God of the Hebrews,
was earlier than Moses without doubt, as a cer¬
tain form of the name appears in the name of
Jochebed, Moses' mother. As to the significance
of the name, so much has been written that it
seems hardly worth while to add to it. We may
remark, however, that the preponderance of lin¬
guistic authority would derive the name Jehovah
from the future of the neuter verb in its Kal spe¬
cies. Some regard it as from the Hiphil. If
from the Kal species, the significance is literally
"He will be," or, as applied to a person, it might rep¬
resent the eternal future of such a one,—He always
will be. If it should be derived from the Hiphil spe¬
cies, it might take the causative sense and represent
the Divine Being as the one wTho caused things to
be. The idea of ever-continued existence seems
to be involved somehow in the name of Jehovah.
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 173
We may conclude that the Yahvistic doctrine be¬
ing as early as the days of Moses, if not earlier,
the Jehovah of Moses was the Elohim of an
earlier age, perhaps, and denotes a further stage
of thought.
From the consideration of the name Jehovah
we pass to that of Elohim, translated God. This
name is plural and is sometimes, although seldom,
used in connection with plural verbs; as, for in¬
stance, in the speech of Abraham before Abime-
lech, where, in Gen. xx: 13 he says, "And it came
to pass when God caused me to wander," etc.,
literally, " And it came to be when the Gods
caused me to wander." (nrfibx tynn "imo
Generally the plural form is supposed to be an
instance of what the grammarians call pluralis
majestatis, although Gesenius supposes it to be a
relic of an earlier usage when polytheism pre¬
vailed. The fact with which we have to do is
the undoubted plurality of the name.
In connection with this plurality the instances
of Divine consultation are to be specially noted.
When the Creator contemplates the creation of
man it is recorded that he said, " Let us make
man." Should we read the noun plural we could
say, "And the Gods said let us make man."
174
Genesis Re-read.
Here is consultation apparently among persons of
equal dignity, and equally interested in the work
of creation. The man was to be, still following
the record, "in our image, after our likeness."
An assemblage of gods seems fairly necessary to
render this statement intelligible. The difficulty,
however, in giving an entirely plural interpreta¬
tion lies in the verb " said." The words " And
God said " offer an insuperable difficulty, because
the Hebrew verb has a distinct form for the num¬
ber,—u-yomer for the singular, wyomeroo for the
plural. The verb in this instance is unquestion¬
ably singular, D'nS^ translated in the Septua-
gint xat C'.tcev o Oeoq. Hence, we are obliged to
read the passage so as to bring this singular into
consultation with other persons who partake of
the one likeness and image. The passage shows
a separation in persons, and a oneness in likeness
and image.
A second consultation occurs directly after the
fall, the record of which is found in the twenty-
second verse of the third chapter, " And the Lord
God said, Behold, the man is become as one of
us to know good and evil: and now lest he put
forth his hand and take also of the tree of life,
and eat and Jive forever," etc. Here we have
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 175
Jehovah Elohim as the subject of a singular verb,
(wyomer), and yet the words following ap¬
pear to be addressed to persons of equal dignity
with the speaker, or at least to persons who are
like Jehovah Elohim in the important respect of
knowing good and evil. He says the man has
become as one of us. To whom does he refer by
this pronoun us ? We may answer that it is
clear that he refers to himself and to other be¬
ings whom he classes with himself; and the prin¬
ciple of classification in this instance seems to
have been the knowledge of good and evil. Je¬
hovah Elohim and the persons he addresses are
described in this passage by implication as persons
having the knowledge of good and evil, and man
has now partaken of an experience which renders
him as one of them; but he is not to be per¬
mitted to enter into this association. This con¬
sultation seems also to show persons in company
with God, who are, in some respects, quite similar
to Him.
Not to mention here in detail the instances in
which cherubim and angels are referred to, nor
the apparent identification of the angel with
Jehovah and Elohim, we may say this much at
the conclusion of this brief review of Genesis
176
Genesis Re-read.
upon the subject of the Unity of the Divine
Being: 1. The Jewess of nature appears always,
in these views of the Divine Being; the apparent
equality in importance and dignity, and most
certainly, the plurality of persons. 2. These per¬
sons are with God, and appear to join with Him in
work and administration. Are they God ? or are
they persons attending upon Him ? Genesis taken
by itself does not favor the doctrine of Monothe¬
ism, but rather tends toward a plurality in the
Godhead,—a plurality positively expressed by
Abraham in Gen. xx. 13, as before explained.
It is frankly admitted, however, that the strong
personality of the Divine Being is frequently
brought out, and often in such way as to exclude
the thought of partnership in the administration
of human affairs; as, for instance, in the flood
and in the deluge of fire. Before the flood God
is represented as soliloquizing thus, "I will de¬
stroy man whom I have created from the face
of the earth." " For it repenteth me that I have
made them." At the close of the flood He says,
"And I, behold, I establish my covenant with
you and with your seed after you, and with every
living creature that is with you, etc." And He
adds, " I will remember my covenant which is
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 177
between me and you and every living creature
of all flesh."
In regard to the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah the Lord said, "Because the cry of
Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their
sin is very grievous I will go down now, and see
whether they have done altogether according to
the cry of it which is come unto me; and if not
I will know."
These latter extracts and references show the
administration of God to be entirely personal, and
seem to leave no room for an advisory corps of
any sort, and hence stand in quite sharp contrast
to those acts of administration which occurred pre¬
viously and which were preceded by consultation.
Was there a change in the modus operandi of the
Divine government at the Fall? Such a thing is
supposable at least.
We proceed next to view the character of the
Divine Being as exhibited in Genesis with regard
to moral excellency. The reader of Genesis will
doubtless be struck at first with the exceedingly
human character of God as He stands related to
man; and it is in this view only that we desire to
consider Him. The natural attributes of power,
self-existence and eternity, are quite clearly pre-
12
178
Genesis Re-read.
sented in this early writing, but the moral at¬
tributes or elements are sadly confused, and the
Divine Being appears passionate and somewhat
vacillating.
Take, for example, the conduct of the Elohim
upon learning of the sin of Adam, the sin of the
Antediluvian multitudes and of the sins of Sodom
and Gomorrah. What manifestations of surprise,
sorrow, chagrin and anger! Some exception to
this statement is made with regard to the bearing
of Jehovah in the solemn arraignment and censure
of the serpent and of Adam and of Eve; but the
driving out and guarding the gates of the garden
seem to have been as much precaution as punish¬
ment. It was done to keep the man from eating
of the tree of life and thus living forever. Com¬
miseration mingles with the retributive sentence
as it is said, " Unto Adam also and to his wife did
the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed
them." So likewise in the case of Cain, the same
seasoning of mercy comes in amid the stern pro¬
nouncing of justice, as it is recorded that the Lord
put a mark of protection upon Cain, and said
lC therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall
be taken on him sevenfold."
These transactions are dignified, and the Divine
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 179
bearing is quite sublime as it exhibits rigid ad¬
herence to the laws of righteousness coupled with
tenderness and magnanimity toward the guilty
upon the part of the law-giver. But when we
take that exhibition of the Divine character pre¬
sented in the sixth chapter there appears some¬
thing entirely different. He repents that He has
made man upon the earth and grieves at His heart
on account apparently of His own acts, and re¬
solves to destroy man and with him all living
creatures from the face of the earth. He is thus
affected, and acts in accordance with this declara¬
tion, because of the wickedness of man. But
mark! as soon as the flood is over, the same fact,
viz., the wickedness of man, is made the basis of a
conciliatory policy. He said, " I will not again
curse the ground any more for man's sake ; for the
imagination of man's heart is evil from his
youth." Man's wickedness induced Him to bring
the flood; man's wickedness now apparently affords
a reason for the gracious declaration that "while
the earth remaineth," the general course of nature
should prevail.
God is vehement against the wicked, and yet,
after the infliction of this punishment, He returns
to Noah with gracious words and soothes him with
180
Genesis Re-read.
the assurance that His anger was but for a
moment, but His peace should abide always. In
Isaiah, 54th chapter, 8th and 9th verses, Jehovah
gives an explanation of His feelings and actions
upon this occasion. His conduct was like that
which He maintained at a later day toward Israel.
" For a small moment have I forgotten thee; but
with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little
wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment, but
with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on
thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer. For this is
as the waters of Noah unto me; for as I have
sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go
over the earth, so have I sworn that I would
not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. "
The coming of the flood was a temporary dis¬
play of Divine wrath, in which He wrote in
horrible hieroglyphics the detestable character of
sin and His own abhorrence of it, but afterward
His wonted " everlasting kindness" resumed its
sway never again to be interrupted in this manner.
To the declaration that the flood should no
more return upon the earth He affixes the rain¬
bow as a token or pledge, and declares that this
bow shall be to them a reminder of the " ever¬
lasting covenant" which He established between
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 181
Himself and all the living creatures upon earth.
Thus graciously terminates the third Divine in¬
fliction,—the first having been visited upon Adam,
the second upon Cain, the third upon all the earth
excepting the family of Noah.
A fourth display of vengeance is soon witnessed
in the rain of fire and brimstone upon the cities
of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Lord's anger, which
had been assuaged in the flood, again arises beyond
bounds, and although Abraham pleads with Him in
behalf of the city, no abatement of His fiery pur¬
pose is recorded. The character of the people who
dwelt in Sodom had been incidentally referred to
earlier, when the account of Abraham and Lot's sep¬
aration is related. It is there said that " the men
of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the
Lord exceedingly." This wickedness forms itselt
into a cry, or wail, which goes up to Jehovah,
who comes down and investigates. Two angels
are sent to warn Lot of the coming danger and to
hasten his escape, and then " the Lord rained upon
Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire
from the Lord out of heaven; And he overthrew
those cities and all the plain, and all the inhabitants
of the cities and that which grew upon the ground,"
remembering in mercy only Abraham and Lot.
182
Genesis Re-read.
The God of Genesis hates iniquity in man, and
makes haste to punish it; He also rewards virtue.
Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Joseph are wit¬
nesses to the goodness of God toward them that
walk uprightly before Him, even according to the
light they have. Isaac and Jacob receive His ap¬
proval in signal instances.
We may, therefore, sum up this view of the
moral phase of the character of the God of Genesis
as it is revealed by His own signal actions and
His recorded soliloquies and consultations, with
the following particulars: 1. God recognizes the
distinction, apparently essential and eternal, be¬
tween right and wrong. 2. He Himself is always
in favor of the right and against the wrong, re¬
warding the righteous and punishing the wicked.
3. He is a Person not only of perception and
judgment, but also of feeling, and is capable of
regret and grief.
The personal appearance of God, nor indeed of
any of the human characters of the book, is not
once alluded to; but He is represented as being
near to Adam, to Cain and to Abraham and to
others. Jacob, in his report of the vision at
Bethel, says the Lord stood above the ladder, but
gives no hint as to appearance. But by the atti-
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 183
tude described, viz., that of standing, we may at
least infer a human form. Genesis, xviii., de¬
scribes Jehovah as appearing to Abraham in pre¬
cisely a human form in one of the three men which
"stood by him." The twenty-second verse of
that chapter seems to make a distinction between
this one Lord and the men accompanying, as it
reads, "And the men turned their faces from
thence and went toward Sodom; but Abraham
stood yet before the Lord" If this be read in
connection with the third verse, which shows
Abraham addressing apparently one of the three
as "My Lord," and the thirteenth verse, which
says, "And the Lord said unto Abraham, Where¬
fore did Sarah laugh?" etc., and the thirty-third
verse, which represents the departure of the Lord
011 His way, some time after the departure of the
men toward Sodom, and then the immediate state¬
ment that two angels came to ° Sodom at even,"
found in the opening verse of chapter xix., the
conclusion seems almost certain that the three
men were Jehovah and two angels. (See note 1 in
appendix.)
The Jehovah walks, converses in ordinary hu¬
man speech, and everywhere seems to be referred
to in the book of Genesis as a man in the heavens,
184
Genesis Re-read.
but capable of appearing on earth. Concerning
the soliloquies and consultations which the writer
reports, applying the same dramatic style to the
Divine Being which he has employed in regard to
his human characters, it may be remarked again
that these have been communicated directly to
Moses, or to his informer, in some supernatural
way, or they are the fruits of his imagination
either with or without the aid of the Divine
Spirit. If Moses is recording plain fact, then he
must have obtained the knowledge through chan¬
nels not accessible to ordinary men; for it is
frankly admitted that there are no knowTn means
by which we may obtain reports of the proceed¬
ings which may occur in the Divine mind or in
the heavenly court. Genesis furnishes us reports
of such occurrences, apparently by a privileged
spectator, without any word of explanation what¬
ever. The author tells us what God said, how He
felt, what He resolved to do and what He did with¬
out one wrord as to how he obtained the informa¬
tion. Did the writer penetrate this spiritual realm
by mere imagination, or was he guided by superior
light? We have seen that he penetrated to the
depths of nature and spoke so well about it that,
up to the present hour, science has been unable to
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 185
convict him of positive misstatement; and his
statements concerning the source and centre of all
moral truth and spiritual light are not less fortu¬
nate, as we shall see; and yet he was without
scientific knowledge or metaphysical learning.
The reader may pause a moment before the fol¬
lowing problem, modeled after the manner of Him
who taught as one having authority. Whether it
is easier to believe that Moses possessed enough
of natural genius to invent, elaborate and write
with such astonishing boldness and simplicity
such a comprehensive system of morals, religion
and nature as is presented in detached fragments
in this book, or to believe that Moses received
help from God for so prodigious a task? The
genius of Moses, or the inspiration of Moses.
Which? It is not high poetry, flowing out of an
elevated state of the soul, but the presentation of
glimpses from a region of truth, apparently in¬
finite in extent, here and there breaking through
in the naive statements of a simple mind. Nature
is sounded to its depths, measured and weighed;
sin is described in part, but not accounted for;
righteousness is revealed, and a righteous and
powerful God, creator of the universe and right¬
ful ruler of mankind, is brought into view, who
186
Genesis Re-read.
is anterior to the beginning—who makes an " ever¬
lasting covenant," and who contemplates the timo
when the heavens and earth shall pass away.
Let us return to examine in detail the doctrine
of sin as revealed in this sacred book. The first
use of the word sin occurs in Gen. iv. 7, in the
conversation of Jehovah with Cain, after his offer¬
ing had been rejected. The words are,—" If thou
doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou
doest not well, sin lieth at the door" The ideas
in this place seem to be so obscurely related that
no attempt will be made at present to interpret the
passage, further than to call attention to the one
fact, that sin is associated with a course of conduct
described as doing "not well" The text is quoted
to show the first use of the word, but the idea of
sin, in some form, seems to have been present ear¬
lier. In the midst of the garden of Eden there
was planted a tree of the knowledge of good and
evil. This tree bore the forbidden fruit, and of it
the man and woman whom God created in His
own likeness and image—and who were pronounced
by Him very good—partook, and became " as
gods knowing good and evil." The Lord God
Himself is recorded as saying, " Behold, the man
is become as one of us, to know good and evil."
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 187
Good and evil seem to have been anterior to
man, and although man was created without a
knowledge of them,—that is, without the moral
sense or capability of distinguishing good from
evil,—he soon acquired this ability, and with it
the grave responsibilities annexed to it. Here is
the origin of that great distinction between man
and all other earthly creatures, which renders him
liable to trial and punishment for ill-doing. He
alone has partaken of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil. From this fountain the whole sys¬
tem of moral obligations arise. The world-wide
fact of conscience, or recognized moral obligations,
the notions of truth and falsehood, duty and re¬
sponsibility, which are found expressed in all
known languages, find a fitting point of departure
in the eating of the fruit of the tree of moral
knowledge. It was then that man's eyes were
opened, and he knew good and evil, and knew
himself to be evil and felt the shame of his lot.
From Eden's gate man knew what was good and
what was evil, what was right and what was
wrong, although as yet there was no published
law. Wickedness became general, and men were
regarded by Jehovah as worthy of death because
of their wickedness. The antediluvians were
188
Genesis Re-read.
wicked men, possessing evil hearts and evil
imaginations; the inhabitants of Sodom and
Gomorrah were sinners before the Lord, ex¬
ceedingly great; Judah confessed his own and
his brothers' iniquity before Joseph as he stood
there with Benjamin convicted of theft, and, after
the death of Jacob, their father, the sons again
acknowledged their trespass and sin. We may,
therefore, infer this much, at least, from the narra¬
tive before us,—1, That the first moral doctrines
which were revealed consisted of the knowledge of
good and evil; 2, That before there was any
written law there was some standard so universally
known that men were responsible sinners; 3?
That there was an early, marked tendency in man
to go toward the evil; that this course, on man's
part, was very distasteful to God and resulted in
fearful catastrophes to the race; 4, There is rea¬
son to believe that the acquisition of moral and
spiritual truth has been, partly by revelation and
partly by evolution, harmonizing in its develop¬
ment with the whole course of nature, so far as
yet discovered. In moral truth we have also a
chaos, succeeded by an era of separation, during
which good and evil, like light and darkness,
heavenly waters and earthly waters, solid lands
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 189
and liquid substances, are separated; followed after¬
ward by a period of organization developing into a
church on earth destined to ultimate in a church
in heaven, when the separation between good and
evil shall have become final.
There are also two kinds of righteousness revealed
in the Book of Genesis,—one real, the other
counted: God is really righteous. Enoch
walks with God, and is not; Noah is pro¬
nounced righteous among his contemporaries,
—quite likely his was a comparative right¬
eousness ; but Abraham's case opens an en¬
tirely new phase of religious truth. Righteous¬
ness, on man's part, is rewardable,—the righteous
man shall be rewarded,—but here is a man who
finds favor with God upon an entirely different
ground. In Genesis xv. it is recorded that the
Lord came unto Abraham, and, after some con¬
versation, " brought him forth abroad and said,
Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars if thou
be able to number them : and he said unto him,
So shall thy seed be. And he (Abraham) believed
in the Lord ; and he counted it to him for right¬
eousness." Up to this hour the only thing re¬
wardable in the sight of God was righteousness;
but now he places Abraham's faith upon an exact
190
Genesis Re-read.
plane with righteousness, and hence the man who
believes God is entitled to the reward which be-
longsto righteousness. This novel principle becomes
a basis of construction, and upon it men are brought
again into favorable association with God, plainly
implying that it was no longer possible for man to
fulfil the conditions of actual righteousness. This
principle furnishes the taproot of all evangelical
theology, and Abraham's experience lays the first
stone in the great earthly temple of God. Abra¬
ham is the first or father of all believers, and with
him the Church of God begins. Here we have
the origin of religious life making after-progress
and a developed church possible. Subsequent his¬
tory will show the same development of the re¬
ligious phase of man's life, accompanied by great
transitions demanding the appliance of outer force
which we have found in nature and morals. Here,
too, there is law and development, or evolution, if
you please; but there is also a God revealing
Himself at first by the prophets and finally by His
Son, and a Holy Ghost working the mightiest
changes with the quickness of the lightning's touch.
Mr. Pressense, in his " History of Redemption,"
has beautifully traced the development of evan¬
gelism from the promise, through the period
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 191
before Judaism,—through Judaism and through the
nations outside of Judaism,—to Jesus Christ, the full
revelation of God on the one hand, and the complete
deliverer of man on the other ; but the limits of our
present purpose do not allow us to enter this in¬
viting territory. We may only affirm that the
whole theory of salvation by faith, making it
possible for man to love God, because exhibiting,
in the liveliest manner, the Divine regard for
man, finds its source in the Book of Genesis, and
specially in the case of Abraham, and that the
germ there given is sufficiently ample to account
for all that has followed upon the mere line of de¬
velopment. Religion, as an active, moving prin¬
ciple, takes its rise from Abraham's call.
Closely connected with this doctrine, and also
with such views of sin and Divine holiness as
were its necessary safeguards, comes the doctrine
of sacrifice. Abraham's confidence in God was
soon put to the severest test. Sacrifice had pre¬
vailed from the days of Cain and Abel, through
the flood down to Abraham's time, but not human
sacrifice. In Genesis ix., directly after the flood,
God, in giving particular instructions to Noah,
had declared that " whoso sheddeth man's blood,
by man shall his blood be shed," and assigned, as
192
Genesis Re-read.
a reason for this injunction, the following fact:
" for in the image of God made He man ; " but
after Abraham had been justified by faith God or¬
dered him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham
prepared to do this, binding his own son upon
the altar and taking into his hand the knife to slay
him. God appears at the proper instant, saves
Isaac and provides an offering for the altar.
The offerings, of which this is a sample, made
by fire unto the Lord, even after Abraham's faith
had been counted for righteousness, bring in
proper relation those two ideas so necessary to the
development of proper human conduct, viz., clear
views of the inherent detestableness of sin and of
the exacting holiness of God. Sin is something so
abhorrent as to demand destruction by fire; God is
so holy that He is to be approached only through
the purifying flame. Holiness, sin and redemp¬
tion are the three necessary attendant ideas upon
the grand process of salvation by faith. These,
all held together, make a system of belief which
cannot fail to have a salutary effect upon human
experience. These, too, are all found in Genesis.
Sacrifice, growing into atonement and expiation
afterward, finally resulting in the great death at
Calvary, finds its roots also in Genesis.
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 193
As to the theological problems referred to at
the beginning of this chapter, the fall and the
flood, we may propose the following solutions.
Granting the facts of the fall to have been as re¬
lated and to have been foreseen, yet God may
have permitted them to occur for wise purposes
which are hidden from us. Perhaps it was a
necessary transaction in order to reveal His moral
attributes. Perhaps a future era may thoroughly
repair all moral damages which have resulted
from it. Assuredly we can trust the consequences
in a general way in the hands of God, while each
one of us to whom the light has come should give
all diligence to make our calling and election sure.
The same general remarks include all the moral
effects of the flood.
But it may be observed more particularly con¬
cerning the flood, as well as the destruction of the
cities of the plain, that the result of the destruc¬
tion, so far as it applied to individuals, is not neces¬
sarily final. If there were innocent persons, as,
for instance, children and idiots or insane persons,
involved in this common ruin, there was after¬
wards a judgment in which individuals would re¬
ceive their dues. Abraham understood that the
Lord was judge of all the earth and that He would
13
194
Genesis He-read.
do right, and consequently would not involve the
righteous and the wicked in a common lot, but
perhaps did not have clear ideas of immortality.
But with our ideas of immortality we can easily re¬
concile the difficulties concerning these catastrophes
by bringing into view a compensating future, and
this view is necessary to the solution of nearly all
of the great moral problems of human life.
One more remark before we leave this part of
the subject, in which we are considering the con¬
duct and bearing of the Divine Being as exhibited
in relation to human affairs, deserves to be made.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Noah and Enoch and
Joseph were the men apparently of God's choice.
With them God walked and talked, and expresses
high opinions of them. He found Noah right¬
eous; He knew Abraham would command his
children and his household after him to keep
the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment;
He appeared unto Isaac and promised to be with
him ; He blessed Jacob and changed his name to
Israel, and pronounced blessings upon the sons of
Jacob; and yet all these men, perhaps with the
exception of Enoch and Joseph, were guilty of
serious faults. The question may be pertinent in
something like this form : How can this God of
Theology and Morals of Genesis'. 195
holiness, who is so intense in His hatred of sin,
take to Himself men who practiced concubinage,
told falsehoods and practiced fraud and deception ?
How can He countenance these men without count¬
enancing their sins ? These are some of the ob¬
jections brought now against the theology of
Genesis from moral science. The answer to them
is as old as the objections; nevertheless, we will
repeat it in substance here, in order that the
readers of this book who have not familiarized
themselves with more elaborate works may have a
complete, though short, answer. Observe, then, in
the first place, that Genesis teaches the doctrine
of the fall and the ensuing, if not consequent,
corruption of the whole human race. Wickedness,
according to Genesis, was the rule as a matter of
fact, righteousness the exception. Observe again
that a fictitious righteousness was soon recognized
by Jehovah,—a course of conduct which receives
the same reward and recognition from Jehovah as
righteousness; a course of conduct based upon
faith or trust in God. Indeed, the underlying act
of confidence in God, which includes an appre¬
hension of His character and promotes an intelli¬
gent reverence and affection for Him, is credited to
the individual as righteousness. Thus, a man who
196
Genesis Re-read.
was not righteous according to the true standard,
if he trusted in God, turning toward Him with all
his soul, was counted righteous. This was done
even in Abraham's case, which would imply that
he was destitute of the proper righteousness. Such
a view renders consistent the whole moral and re¬
ligious scheme of Genesis. Hence, the good men
of Genesis, from Abraham down, became rather
religious men than moral men ; and God brought
them into communion with Himself, not so much
upon moral grounds as upon religious grounds.
Yet it is fair to presume that among their con¬
temporaries their conduct shone out as beacon
lights, and that Noah, Abraham and Lot were
doubtless far superior morally to the age in which
they lived.
The book, then, as to religious bearing, tends in
favor of a purifying religion, containing a recog¬
nition of man's sinfulness and the doctrine that
sin is offensive to God and deserving of punish¬
ment,—a recognition of the righteous character and
acts of the Almighty, and also adumbrations of
a covenant of blood, or the great cardinal doctrine
of expiation, all of which are necessary corollaries,
or, perhaps, to speak more correctly, necessary
fundamentals, to the rallying doctrine of justifies-
Theology and Morals of Genesis. 197
tion by faith, so clearly expressed and illustrated
in the case of Abraham. As to morals, it favors
soundness, despite the defects which are seen in
the characters of the prominent men it mentions
as servants of God. The highest form which re¬
ligion has assumed may find its germs in the
doctrines taught in this book respecting God and
man. Although archaic in its forms of expression
and even in its forms of thought, there is, never¬
theless, some glimpses of spirituality and immor¬
tality, while universal brotherhood, which is the
highest ground upon which morality can be
placed, finds its firmest base in Moses' origin of
man. The religion of Genesis is catholic. All
the families of the earth are to be blessed through
its provisions, and, although there is no clear
vision of a land beyond the tomb, it seems quite
probable that its Sheol meant more than the
grave.
198
Genesis Re-read.
CHAPTER XII.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF THE FOREGOING.
THE Christian religion, as distinguished from
what we may regard as natural religion, rests
upon two fundamental propositions, which may be
stated in Scripture language about as follows:
"In Adam all die;" "In Christ shall all be
made alive." It is probable that the Apostle in
this passage is considering principally, if not
wholly, the physical death and resurrection of
Christian believers; but the words may easily be
accommodated to express the two assumed facts
lying at the basis of all Christian thought.
The first of these thoughts is, that man is a
fallen creature, disposed to evil naturally, and
consequently incapable of building up an abso¬
lutely correct life from his infancy onward. The
other thought is, that the infinitely holy God has
opened a way by which this sinful man may
nevertheless come into His favor and secure the
benefits which are due a life of spotless holiness.
The first of these assertions comes within the
range of human experience and is endorsed by
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 199
men in all countries and in all ages. • Man every¬
where acknowledges in general terms the sinfulness
of man. This is the primal doctrine, because it
renders all that redemption and remedial system
presented in Christian theology necessary. The
fact of sinfulness renders religion as a remedial
agency necessary; and the consciousness of sin¬
fulness renders it possible.
This fact is not only admitted but accounted for
in Genesis in the narrative of the sin of the first
pair ; and upon this narrative the Apostle builds a
substantial argument in his letter to the Romans,
particularly in the fifth chapter, where he shows
the effect of Adam's sin as coming upon all men.
The fall of man, then, is so intimately related to
the whole Christian system that if it was blotted
out the system would at once cease to be evan¬
gelical. Christianity might survive for a while,
perhaps, as a system * of morals, containing the
story of a beautiful life, and the portraiture of a
matchless character ; but it could no longer be
called the power of God unto salvation. All
true evangelism, then, finds its warrant in the con¬
dition of fallen man admitted everywhere in
Scripture, attested everywhere by experience,
but accounted for nowhere but in Genesis iii.
200
Genesis Re-read.
The other doctrine, viz.: " that tlie infinitely holy
God has opened a way by which this sinful man
may nevertheless come into His favor and secure
the benefits which are due a life of spotless holi¬
ness/' also finds its origin in Genesis. This
doctrine lies at the basis of all sacrifice, and is
recognized in some form whenever the bleeding
victim is offered up, or penance done, or volun¬
tary affliction in the service of religion under¬
gone. It is a refuge against despair on the one
hand, and a means of arousing hope on the
other. While the doctrine of sinfulness renders
man sober, serious and humble, the doctrine that
God will receive sinners renders his life bearable
and hopeful. They are necessary religious co¬
rollaries, the one correcting the excesses of the
other. The whole Christian system, as distin¬
guished from natural religion and natural morals,
consists in exposing the details of these two great
thoughts and their relations to each other; and
indicating by precept and example the methods
by which they are made operative. The Christian
religion then is but the development of these twro
ideas, viz.: sinfulness and salvation, and these are
both found in Genesis.
Hence, if Genesis should be overthrown so far
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 201
as it relates to these doctrines, the present system
of orthodoxy would undoubtedly go with it, and
some of the New Testament teaching would cer¬
tainly fail. The fall of man and the Abrahamic
covenant are necessary to the explanation of the
Epistles of the New Testament, and contain the
elementary conditions out of Avhich are drawn
and developed the great progressive phases of sin¬
fulness and redemption, affording scope for all
the machinery of salvation presented in the ful¬
ness of the Gospel. The spirit, method, ends,
hopes and effects of the Gospel all fall within, the
limits of the great outlines marked out to Adam
and to Abraham. Here, too there is origination
followed by natural development, both of evil and
good, interfered with occasionally by supernatural
power.
Hence, although the great bulk of the Old Testa¬
ment Scriptures might still be retained if Genesis
should be overthrown, and we would still have
the story of Jesus attested by its own evidence, yet
the entire basis of the evangelical system of faith
would be removed, and much of the Epistles would
be rendered meaningless. Christian theology would
no longer be possible.
The reader will consequently see that the assault
202
Genesis Re-read.
upon Genesis is well-timed for the enemies of
tlie present form of the Christian faith. It may
call to its support all infidels who reject Chris¬
tianity entire, all Universalists and Unitarians
who reject the doctrines of sin and expiation, but
it unquestionably seeks to subvert that faith which
is the heritage of the Church to-day.
Having passed in review the conclusions of
science as they bear upon the statements of Moses
respecting the heavens and the earth, we stop now
to inquire in Avhat condition do they leave the
Mosaic record?
It has clearly been shown, I think, that, for all
that science can say to the contrary, there may
have been at an early day a creation of all the
material out of which the heavens and the earth,
i. e., the physical universe, is formed. Indeed, we
have seen that such must have been the case unless
the eternity of matter is admitted, or unless we
acknowledge its development from nothing. The
first admission must be made without evidence, as
we have seen, and the latter is of course absurd.
Nature would be just such as we find it to be if
this creation had taken place prior to the first steps
of development. Nor has all the investigation of
science, thus far, made it impossible to believe that
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 203
mind exists now, and that it existed before matter;
that life was introduced into the world super-
naturally; and that there have been direct importa¬
tions or creations of living forms, as, for instance^
man. Hence the book of Genesis is not dislodged
by positive evidence against its teachings drawn
from the physical sciences.
We have not interrogated science with a view of
confirming the story of Genesis. The simple point
upon which attention has been fixed is this: Are
there any well-attested facts presented by science
which, fairly considered, would render Genesis un¬
worthy of belief? And this is fair, because those
who assault the Bible from this quarter do not recog¬
nize the evidence, historical and literary, which is
presented in favor of the Scriptures as a whole, but
single out this book as the object of special attack.
The position of those who oppose us upon this
ground is about this : " The story of Genesis can¬
not be true because of such and such facts found
in nature." It is in regard to this view of the
case that the argument is formed and the position
fairly reached that there are no facts as yet pre¬
sented by science which will oblige us to give up
the story of creation and the early history of man¬
kind found in Genesis.
204
Genesis Re-read.
Are we then to accept the book as true simply
because no one has succeeded in proving it false ?
By no means. But when we consider the virulence
of the attacks upon the Scriptures and the ability
of those who have made them, and the length of
time they have been engaged in their warfare, the
fact that as yet they have been unable to break the
hold of mankind upon these books, or to prove
them false, constitutes no mean presumption that
the Scriptures are not false; and we are entitled to
add the repeated failures of enemies to the con¬
stantly accumulating evidence in support of our
sacred books.
But we have direct evidence, outside and inside,
of the books. Historically, we can trace them back
to the Apostles' times. William Ellery Channing,
who was not orthodox, who did not believe in
human depravity or in the Trinity, thus summar¬
izes what he calls the first steps of reasoning in
regard to the origin of the Christian religion:
u 1. First (he says), we know with certainty
the time when Christianity was founded. As to this
fact, there is and can be no doubt. Heathen and
Christian historians speak on this point with one
voice. Christianity was first preached in the age
of Tiberius. Not a trace of it exists before that
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 205
period, and afterwards the marks and proofs of its
existence are so obvious and acknowledged as to
need no mention. Here is one important fact
placed beyond doubt.
" 2. In the next place, we know the place where
Christianity sprung up. No one can dispute the
country of its birth. . . .
" 3. Again, we know the individual by whom
Christianity was founded."
He goes on to say that we know the first minis¬
ters of this religion and what the religion was, in¬
dependent of the sacred books. " From the age
following that of Christ and the Apostles, down to
the present day, we have a series, and an almost
numberless host of writers on the subject of Chris¬
tianity; and whilst we discover in them a great
diversity of opinions and opposite interpretations of
some of Christ's teachings, yet on the whole they
so far agree in the great facts of his history, and in
certain great principles of his religion, that we can¬
not mistake as to the general character of the sys¬
tem which he taught."
The books that are represented as written by the
Apostles are so well attested that we apply almost
the same terms respecting them, and say we know
also when, where and by whom the New Testa-
206
Genesis Re-read.
merit was written. But upon this particular sub¬
ject,, viz., the evidences in favor of Christianity
both as to its books and its system of doctrines I
beg to refer the reader to works in general upon
the subject of Christian evidence, and especially
to those of Paley and Bishop Mcllvaine.1
The general subject upon which they treat does
not lie directly within the scope of the present
work, and hence is only touched upon incidentally
here.
Believing the historical evidence to be sufficient
to clearly establish the fact of Christianity, so far
as to locate the time and place of origin, identify
the founder and first propagators, and also deter¬
mine in outline the main features of its doctrines,
the question remaining is: How does this fact
bear upon the Old Testament Scriptures generally,
and upon our Book Genesis in particular ?
In our progress toward the solution of this
question we may observe, in the first place, that
both Jesus and His Apostles recognized the Old
1 Note.—Since writing the above, I have obtained the con¬
sent of Bishop Campbell, D. D., to print in my book two half-
hour lectures, delivered by him to the students of Wilberforce,
which state quite succinctly the usual historic evidences of
Christianity. To them, therefore, the reader is speciully
referred.
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 207
Testament Scriptures as existing and as being of
high authority. Jesus classifies Himself with
Moses, and thus brings the writer of our Book at
once into prominence. The Apostles represent
Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy,
and as being a prophet like unto Moses. The
character and writings of Moses were accordingly
well known in the Apostles' time.
The facts of Genesis are frequently referred to
and doubtless believed.
In that solemn discourse, recorded in the xxiv.
chapter of Matthew, He thus speaks of the flood :
" But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the com¬
ing of the Son of Man be, for as in the days that
were before the flood, they were eating and drink¬
ing, marrying and giving in marriage until the
day that Noah entered the Ark and knew not
until the flood came and took them all away."
In Luke xvii. 32, by His solemn words "Remem¬
ber Lot's wife!" He calls to mind the horrible
scenes of Sodom and Gomorrah. He speaks of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and deals familiarly
with the events of Genesis ; while His Apostles
speak of Adam and his transgression, and repre¬
sent Jesus as a second Adam who comes to give
life to those who have inherited death through the
208
Genesis Re-read.
first Adam. Hence, we are led by these facts,
granting that we have a fair record of what Jesus
taught among the Jews, far enough to say that
the general contents of Genesis were well known
and believed in Palestine during the days of
Christ and His Apostles.
The Jewish history anterior to the days of
Jesus can be traced directly back to the Exodus,
through such great names as Solomon and David,
down to the times of Moses. It is interesting to
know that faith in the story of the Exodus is so
firm that a company is already in process of form¬
ation to dredge that part of the Red Sea in which
Pharaoh's army is said to have been overthrown,
in the hope of profiting by the brass or copper
which may there be discovered. Moses undoubt¬
edly lived. We cannot make up the history of
the world without admitting the facts of his life.
Having, then, historic connection established from
the Apostles' times to the days of Moses, we con¬
sider, finally, the brief interval coming in between
the death of Joseph—the point to which we have
carried the history forward from creation,—and the
birth of Moses—the point to which we have car¬
ried the history backward from the present time.
When we shall have joined these two approaching
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 209
ends of historic consecutiveness, our chain of his¬
tory will have completed itself, and will be sus¬
tained at every point of its progress by internal
or external evidence.
This interval, covering just about one century,
is passed over in almost total silence, and fills up
the gap between the close of Genesis and the open¬
ing of Exodus. The events noticed are: 1. The
rapid increase of the children of Israel. 2. The
coming into power of a new king which knew not
Joseph. 3. The efforts of this new king to exter¬
minate the Israelitish race, during the progress of
which Moses was born. These events are all
necessary to explain the Exodus; indeed, they are
necessary causes to the Exodus, and a fitting
sequel to the history of Genesis. We may, there¬
fore, regard the religious historic chain as com¬
plete. There is no other history of an ancient
nation so logically and rationally portrayed as
this history of the Jewish nation and race. The
history of no other system of religion is so ration¬
ally and logically told as the history of the Chris¬
tian religion. Let us review but for a moment.
Christianity arose at the beginning of the present
era, in the land of Palestine, at the hands of a
person of the Jewish race. As to its persons, at
14
210
Genesis Re-read.
least, it was historically connected with the Jewish
race. Its founder and first preachers were Jews,
and their first preaching was to the Jews, both
before and after the resurrection. These founders
and early preachers, including John the Baptist
and Jesus Himself, claim that the doctrines of
the Gospel were largely evolved out of the Old
Testament, and that the people who embraced
the Christian religion were brought into the one
great association called " the kingdom of heaven,"
within which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all he¬
roes of Genesis, occupied prominent places. The
Prophets of the past and the Apostles of the
present were united in one great foundation by
Jesus Christ, the chief Corner-Stone. Christianity
is, historically at least, developed from Judaism,
as all, even the Jews themselves, must admit.
Early Christians were either apostatizing Jews
or progressive Jews. They were unquestionably
Jews, and Jews who departed from the traditions
of the elders. It seems equally clear that Chris¬
tianity is developed, dodrinally, from Judaism, as
it retains all the theology that the Jew taught,
and, added to it, such doctrines as appear, to some
extent, consequential. The prophecies and types of
the Old Testament seem to be largely fulfilled in
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 211
New Testament facts. The connection, historical
and doctrinal, between the Old Testament and the
New, and between Christianity and Judaism, is
too obvious to need elaboration or proof.
The point, however, to which attention is direct¬
ed especially is found in the historic and doctrinal
relation of Judaism to the religion of Genesis.
The historic connection is clear enough. We can
trace the rise of Judaism, so far as the persons are
concerned, through plain genealogy up to Abram
and to Adam. We see Jacob going into Egypt with
the seventy souls from whom sprang that vast
multitude which afterward emigrated from ihere,
and this Jacob whose name is changed to Israel at
the brook Jabbok is the grandson of Abraham and
father of the heads of the tribes of the children of
Israel. The historic connection is therefore com¬
plete, but when we turn from the historical to the
doctrinal, and confine our view strictly to these
two phases of religion, viz.: the one exhibited in
Genesis and the other exhibited in the further
writings of Moses, we shall find important dis¬
crepancies.
For instance, we have seen in Genesis state¬
ments which favor the idea of plurality in the
Godhead; statements which involve, perhaps, a
212
Genesis Re-read.
belief in spiritual existence and immortality.
When Jacob died it is said " he gathered up his
feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and
was gathered unto his people," and yet it is said
immediately afterward that the physicians oc¬
cupied forty days in embalming him, and "the
Egyptians mourned for him threescore and ten
days," and after this Joseph buried him in the
cave of the field of Macpelah, " where, indeed, his
fathers had been buried." Isaac also gave' up the
ghost and died and was gathered unto his people,
being old and full of days, and his sons Esau and
Jacob buried him. Abraham also gave up the
ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man and
full of years, and was gathered to his people.
Observe here that giving up the ghost, being
gathered to his people and being buried seem to
express distinct events and experiences, the bury¬
ing being the last, both in point of time and of
order. We may say, at least, that a foundation is
laid here for the belief in immortality, and this
belief is aptly borne out by the account of the
creation of man. God breathes into the nostrils of
this man whom He creates in His own image, and
the man becomes a living soul, and this " soul"
may be the same "ghost" which he dismisses or
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 213
"gives up" to the God who first advanced it to
him, when he dies. Man, then, viewed in relation
to his creation and dying in Genesis, bears an air
of immortality. Immortality, while not expressed,
is implied in Genesis; but it is not even im¬
plied in the doctrines and legislation of Judaism
until the days of the prophets. The rewards and
punishments in the Mosaic legislation take no note
whatever of eternity.
The marriage relation was viewed differently in
Genesis from what it was under organized Juda¬
ism. Righteousness by faith is recognized in
Genesis, but is not in the other books of Moses,
which contain the constitution and laws of the
Jewish church and nation. The legislation pro¬
vides for one race and in a certain locality; the
religion of Genesis was for all the families of the
earth. The legislation emphasizes the unity of
God; Genesis tends towards plurality in the God¬
head. We may reach the following view of the
situation without stopping to consider a larger
number of particulars, viz.: while the historic
connection between Judaism and the New Testa¬
ment church is assured, and the doctrinal sequence
quite regular, there are certain lines of doctrines
found in Genesis which do not flow down through
214
Genesis Re-read.
Judaism, but which are nevertheless taken up by
Christ and His Apostles and made prominent in the
Christian Church. The Jewish church, although
materially developed from the early Abraliamic
church, was local and temporary as to its minor
doctrines and legislation, and when in the fulness
of time it was superseded by the broader Christian
church, there was at once an appeal to the earlier
catholicity and purer doctrines of Genesis, and
righteousness by faith and immortality were
brought out in full light. There is striking doc¬
trinal consistency between all the parts of the
Bible, or between the three great dispensations,—
the Patriarchal, the Mosaic and the Christian,—
when they are viewed together. It is first the
blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.
Is the record of this system of facts from Abra¬
ham down to the present substantially true ?
President McCosh, in his " Criteria of theVarious
Kinds of Truth," published in the Princeton Re¬
view, gives, as rules to be followed in determining
whether a story is true in cases where we cannot
know the narrator, the following statements : First,
we must have reason to believe that he (the nar¬
rator) has no motive to deceive. He adds : " Some
other rules will also be followed ; such as, it is a
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 215
good thing when the narrative is easy and nat¬
ural ; it is a good sign when it is consistent."
These things concur, as writers on Apologetics
have abundantly shown, in the record of the true
religion. There is an absence of motive to
deceive, the story is natural, easy and consistent,
taking its rise from Genesis and flowing on to
the Apocalypse. The point aimed at throughout
this book is to show that the religion we profess
has no fabulous or mythical age, but starts out
from solid, rational facts; and that the writer of
Genesis deals with men of like passions w ith our¬
selves. Joseph and his brethren, Jacob, Isaac,
Abraham, Noah, Seth, Abel, Cain, Eve and Adam,
were all plainly, not demigods or fabulous beings
doing barbaric wonders, but simple human beings,
performing the ordinary functions of human life.
The broad foundation of the great after-system of
doctrine, as found laid in Genesis, conflicting in
principle with some of the details and much of the
spirit of the Mosaic legislation, is difficult to be
accounted for, except upon the doctrine of chance
or supernatural agency. How came Moses to be
inconsistent in his statement of doctrine involved
in his history of Abraham, or in the matter of
marriage as described in Genesis, and in his sub-
216
Genesis Re-read.
sequent legislation? A mere human mistake
perhaps. Very well, let us suppose so. How are
we to account for the fact that afterward, this
very discrepancy furnished all the argument for
superseding the very legislation which Moses
established, and for a return to the principles of
Genesis? Genesis reads just as if it had been
written by one who knew what the gospel would
afterward contain. In fact as to doctrine, it looks
more to the gospel than to Judaism. Though
historically connected with Judaism, it looks be¬
yond the Mosaic economy and on, to the Chris¬
tian era. Jesus, looking back to it, says : "Abra¬
ham saw my day and was glad." This view
seems to be correct with the whole of Gene¬
sis doctrinally. It anticipated a Christ who
should be the incarnate 3Ialak, who should bring
immortality to light, who should exhibit cle.arly
the doctrine of justification by faith, re-enunciate
the true doctrine of marriage, and re-affirm the
universal Fatherhood of God and the universal
Brotherhood of Man.
The Bible,. then, whose concrete history has
come down to us from the depths of antiquity,
has demonstrated by its sheer momentum that it
contains either the most comprehensive and attrac-
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 217
tive collection of ideas that the world has as yet
found, or that it has been aided by a long line of
fortuitous circumstances, or by a Divine hand,
or1, by all of these together, perhaps. The Bible
is no longer a book; it is the bulwark of the dom¬
inant civilization of the age, permeating all liter¬
ature and legislation. It has worked through the
measures of meal, and by easy analysis can be
found in all parts of its bulk.
How are we to account for its wondrous success
as a literary work? It lives and grows, and issues
from the press at the rate of "sixteen thousand
and eight copies per working day." Think of it!
One thousand three hundred and thirty-four copies
printed every hour. Since 1804, or within the
past eighty years, more than one hundred and
thirty million Bibles, in two hundred and seventy-
four languages and dialects, have been issued. It
is now printed in languages spoken by more than
one-half the inhabitants of the globe. It is the
greatest literary enterprise the world ever saw.
It seems to have upon it the dew of eternal youth,
and increases in its hold upon mankind daily.
The Bible claims to contain a revelation from
God, and is so reasonable that, so far, it has been
able to win the respect of mankind. Its power
218
Genesis Re-read.
does not consist in the beauty or grandeur of its
style, but in the tremendous importance of the
truths it professes to communicate. These truths,
so high in themselves, and yet presented in this
book in such a clear and rational manner, have
led men to the conclusion that the facts were not
only revealed to the writers, but the writers them¬
selves in some manner divinely guided in penning
them down for men. This is the doctrine of in¬
spiration, held in various forms by teachers in the
Christian Church. The revelation was imparted
and the writers guided by the Divine Being. No¬
where is this view more necessary than in dealing
with Genesis. Moses wrote things which he could
not otherwise know, and yet what he wrote stands
as true, or certainly is not disproved, after all
these ages. He wrote exactly what was needed
by the later Christian system, and the easiest ra¬
tional solution is, to suppose that he wrote under
Divine guidance. In selecting his material, and in
its arrangement, we may say One who saw the end
from the beginning looked over Moses' shoulder
and guided his pen. This is in substance the
view of the Christian Church; and it seems al¬
most a necessary view, when we consider the vast
extent of time over which the narrative of Genesis
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 219
runs, and the facility with which it serves as a
preface for both the Jewish and Christian Scrip¬
tures.
Here, then, we reach the end of our journey,
and we stop a moment before finally quitting the
subject to look back upon the pathway over which
we have come. In setting out, it was asserted
that, if the attested facts which science should
produce should overbalance the ordinary human
testimony which could be found in favor of Gene¬
sis, we would still have one recourse left. Even
should all our secondary evidence fail to prove
the truthfulness of the Mosaic record, if we are
able to bring to it the Divine testimony, the case
is settled. We have proceeded thus far with such
arguments as might tend to establish the truthful¬
ness of Genesis, and afford ground for believing
it to be inspired. The form of the argument has
been to show that these remarkable statements are
true, and therefore probably inspired. If this
process can be reversed, we shall be able to reach
a conclusion of certainty, if not of necessity. If
we can show that these wri tings are inspired, we
can say they are certainly, if not necessarily, true.
Believers have, or at least think they have, good
reason, not only in the writings themselves, to be-
220
Genesis Re-read.
lieve in inspiration, but also through the agency
of spiritual illumination they are enabled to per¬
ceive and to realize that the Sacred Scriptures are
the word of God. Christians who are enlight¬
ened by the Holy Ghost have the esoteric view
that the Scriptures are inspired, and therefore true,
and they believe the Scriptures with what the
theologians of a past century called a Divine faith.
Christians have "Thus saith the Lord" as an
answer to anything that science may project
against the history, morals or religion of the Bible.
The opinion of the Christian world and the con¬
viction of all active Christians is, that the Bible
is the Word of God, and this conviction rests upon
peculiar spiritual testimony arising from the relation
of the Word to the awakened moral and spiritual
nature. This testimony is more than ample for
the Christian himself, although of but little avail
in argument.
We have seen that by the investigation of sci¬
ence we can give no intelligent account of the
origin and progress of all things; displacing the
cosmogony of the Bible, it leaves us no account
of the beginning, no account of the origin of man
or of religion. By the revelations of faith the
case is entirely different. "Through faith we
Summary and Conclusion of the Foregoing. 221
understand that the worlds were framed by the
word of God, so that things which are seen were
not made of things which do appear." The
Mosaic record is therefore still worthy of our
faith and must remain so until shown to be false.
It has its own prima facie evidence, its corrobo¬
rating and constantly increasing testimony, and is
worthy of belief until opposers can show it either
inconsistent with itself, or inconsistent with other
facts about which there can be no reasonable
doubt.
222
Genesis Re-read.
CHAPTER XIII.
A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE DIRECT EVIDENCES OF
CHRISTIANITY.
Being the substance of two half-hour lectures delivered by
Bishop J, P. Campbell, D.D., LL.D., before the students
of Wilberforce University.
A REVELATION PROBABLE.
The importance of the subject.
This will appear when we consider the question,
Does the New Testament contain a revelation from
God; and are we under moral obligation to re¬
ceive it? When we have shown that the au¬
thenticity and the credibility of the New Tes¬
tament are fully sustained . by the laws of
evidence which are applied to other books which
are received, it will certainly be admitted a
matter of duty on the part of every one who has
heard the Gospel at least to study this evidence.
Especially should believers do this in order to be
able to successfully defend that faith for which
we should contend. The Christian believer should
also study the evidences of Christianity as a
source of pleasure and improvement. He should
study it as a duty he owes to God and humanity,
Direct Evidences of Christianity. 223
by which he may vindicate the cause of truth.
The study of the evidences of Christianity may
be brief or extended, according to the opportunity
of the student.
The evidences are of two classes, viz.: external
and internal. A complete investigation of the
subject would naturally begin with a discussion
of the necessity of a Divine revelation, as shown
in the history of mankind. Just now we do not
propose to pursue a course of study to this extent.
We propose to begin with the authenticity of the
New Testament.
If we prove that a revelation has been given,
we need not prove that a revelation was necessary.
Those who wish to be informed upon that branch
of the subject may find all that they can well de¬
sire in "Wilson's "Evidences of Christianity" and
Watson's " Institutes." On the subject of authen¬
ticity we begin with the New Testament, com¬
posed as it is of twenty-seven independent books,
written by eight different authors.
Bishop Mcllvaine says :—" It professes to con¬
tain, and is continually appealed to as containing,
not only an accurate account of the history and
doctrine of Jesus Christ, but an account written
in the first age of Christianity by its earliest dis-
224
Genesis Re-read.
ciples and advocates, who were contemporaneous
with its author and were most of them eye-wit¬
nesses of the events related. Now, before we can
be reasonably warranted in placing implicit reli¬
ance in the New Testament as the book of the
facts and doctrines of the Gospel, two important
questions must be determined,—
First, is there satisfactory evidence that the
several writings of which it is composed were
written by the men to whom they are ascribed ?
"This involves the authenticity of the New Testa¬
ment. Secondly, is the New Testament deserving
of implicit reliance as to matters of historical de¬
tail, so that we may receive any narrative as un¬
questionably true because contained therein ? This
refers to the credibility of the New Testament.
Thus you perceive, whether a volume be authentic
and whether credible are two widely separate
questions neither necessarily implying the other,
however the evidence of the one may bear upon
the proof of the other. Writings may be authen¬
tic—composed by the men whose names they bear
—and yet not credible. They may be credible,
because correct in tlfeir statements, and yet not
authentic. The question of authenticity refers to
the author; that of credibility to the narrative.
Direct Evidences of Christianity. 225
'The Pilgrim's Progress' is authentic, because it
was actually composed by John Bunyan, to whom
it is ascribed, but as a narrative it is not credible,
being an allegory throughout. The book entitled
'Travels of Anacharsis the Younger' is credible
so far as it professes to exhibit a view of the an¬
tiquities, manners, customs, religious ceremonies,
etc., of ancient Greece, but it is not authentic, hav¬
ing been written in the eighteenth century by
Barthelemy, and fictitiously ascribed to the Scyth¬
ian philosopher. Marshall's ( Life of Washing¬
ton' is both authentic and credible, being a true
history, and worthily honored with the name of that
eminent and excellent man, from whose pen it pro¬
fesses to have come. That the New Testament is
also authentic and credible we undertake to show.
We exclude the more ancient portion of the sacred
volume, not because of any deficiency in its evidence,
but for the sake of unity and clearness in our in¬
quiries, and because, when the argument for the
New Testament is set forth in a conclusive form,
the authenticity and credibility of the other is ren¬
dered, as will hereafter appear, a necessary inference.
The two questions will be the subjects of different
lectures. So that to authenticity our attention will
first be confined Let us begin with the following.
15
226
Genesis Re-read.
" How does it appear that the several writings
composing the volume of the New Testament were
written by the men to whom they are ascribed—
the original disciples of Christ—and are conse¬
quently authentic ? We pursue precisely the same
method in determining the authorship of the New
Testament as in ascertaining that of any other
book of a past age. For example : we possess a
celebrated poem entitled c Paradise Lost.' It
bears the name of Milton. How do we know that
Milton composed it ? The answer is easy. Our
fathers received it as his production from their
fathers, and they from theirs. By such steps we
ascend to the very year in which the book was first
published, and find it invariably ascribed to Mil¬
ton. Moreover, the history of the age in which he
lived speaks of it as unquestionably and notoriously
his work. Writers of every succeeding age refer
to and quote it as well known to be his. The
language of it bears the characteristic marks of
Milton's times. Its spirit, genius and style display
the distinctive features of Milton's mind and charac¬
ter. and, finally, though Milton had many enemies,
and lived in a time of great divisions, and this poem
redounded greatly to his praise, and many must
have been disposed (had they been able) to discover
Direct Evidences of Christianity. 227
some false pretensions in his claim to its authority;
no other person in that age was ever mentioned as
disputing his title, but all united in acknowledging
him as the writer of 'Paradise Lost.' On this
evidence, although the poem professes to have been
written as far back as the year 1674, we are so
perfectly certain of its authenticity that the man
who should dispute it would be justly suspected of
idiocy or derangement. And had Milton lived in
the seventh instead of the seventeenth century, a
similar body of evidence would have been equally
satisfactory. If instead of the seventeenth century
he had lived in the first of the Christian era,
similar evidence reaching up to his time would
still prove beyond a question that he wrote ' Para¬
dise Lost.' Thus it is evident that time has no
effect to impair the force of such proof. Whether
a book be ascribed to the Christian era or to five
centuries before, the evidence being the same is
equally satisfactory. It as well convinces us that
the history ascribed to Herodotus, in the century
before Christ, was written by that historian as that
the JEneid was written by Virgil, a little before
the birth of Christ; or the 'Faerie Queene' by
Spenser in the fifteen hundred and ninetieth year
after that event. We are no less satisfied of the
228
Genesis Re-read.
authenticity of the orations of Demosthenes than
of Newton's ' Principia,' though between the
dates of their publication there is an interval of
more than two thousand years,—so little does the
age of a book affect the evidence required to estab¬
lish its authenticity. Now, in ascertaining the
authorship of the New Testament, we are furnished
with evidence precisely similar to that which settles
the question so conclusively as to either of the
works above mentioned. An unbroken chain of
testimony ascends from the present generation to
the preceding, and thence to the next beyond, and
thence onward again, till it reaches the very age of
the Apostles, exhibiting an uninterrupted series of
acknowledgments of the New Testament as having
been written indeed by those primitive disciples to
whom its several parts are ascribed. Besides this,
historians and other writers of the age ascribed to
this volume, as well heathen and Jewish as Chris¬
tian, not only recognize its existence in their day,
but speak of it as notoriously the production of its
reputed authors. The language is characteristic of
their age, nation and circumstances. The style and
spirit exhibit the well-known peculiarities of their
respective minds and dispositions. And again,
•although the New Testament at the time of its
Direct Evidences of Christianity. 229
first appearance, either in parts or collectively, was
surrounded with numerous learned and ingenious,
as well as most bitter enemies, both among heathen
and Jews, and although there arose at an early
period many animated controversies between the
real believers in gospel truth on one side and
sundry heretical pretenders to the Christian faith,
whose cause would often have been materially
served by a well-sustained denial of the authen¬
ticity of certain of the books of the New Testa¬
ment, none in the primitive ages, whether heretics
or open enemies, ever denied that this volume con¬
tained the genuine writings of the original apostles
and disciples of Christ. On the contrary, all re¬
ceived, argued and acted upon it as unquestionably
authentic. Thus we have the same evidence that
the books of the New Testament were written by
those whose names they bear as that ' Paradise
Lost' was written by the man whose name it
bears. The force of this evidence is in no wise
diminished by the consideration that the Apostles
lived in the first and Milton in the eighteenth
century. Thus have you received a general out¬
line of the argument." Books of the New Testa¬
ment are quoted and alluded to by writers, fol¬
lowed up in an unbroken chain to the days of the
230
Genesis Re-read.
apostles from the present age. We may begin at
the fourth century and trace the evidences back to
the Apostles. Augustine, Rufinus and Jerome are
witnesses in this : that in the year 397 a national
or provincial council assembled at Carthage, con¬
sisting of forty-four bishops, of whom Augustine,
Bishop of Hippo, was one.
The forty-seventh canon of that council is thus
written: " It is ordained that nothing beside the
canonical Scriptures be read in the Church under the
name of Divine Scriptures, and the canonical Scrip¬
tures are these," etc. In the enumeration we find
precisely our New Testament books and no more.
About the same time Augustine wrote a book
entitled, "Of the Christian Doctrine," in which is
furnished a catalogue of what he considered the
authentic writings of the evangelists and Apostles,
agreeing entirely with ours. "In these books,"
saith he, "they who fear God seek his will." Ru-
finus, a presbyter of Aquileia, published an ex¬
planation of the "Apostles' Creed" soon after the
above-named date, in which he includes a cata¬
logue of the Scriptures. Jerome, a contempora¬
neous writer, one of the Latin fathers, enumerates
the books of the New Testament. He says that
the Epistle to the Hebrews, by some, was not
Direct Evidences of Christianity. 231
considered the work of Paul. In the year 380
Philastrius, Bishop of Brescia, wrote a book con¬
cerning heresies. He gives a catalogue agreeing
entirely with ours, except he omits the Epistle to
the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He
does not say that they were not considered canoni¬
cal. He does say that the Epistle to the Hebrews
was sometimes read in the churches. About the
year 370 Gregory Nazianzen, Bishop of Con¬
stantinople, enumerates all of the present books
of the "New Testament, except that of Revelation.
This he has quoted in his other works. Epipha-
nius, Bishop of Constantia, wrote against heresies,
and gave a list of the New Testament books,
which agrees exactly with ours. About the year
350 a council of Laodicea published a catalogue,
differing in nothing from ours excepting the omis¬
sion of Revelation. Athanasius and Cyril, the
latter Bishop of Jerusalem, earlier in the century
have furnished catalogues, that of the former
agreeing entirely with ours, and that of the latter
agreeing in everything but the omission of the
Revelation. In 315 Eusebius, in his ecclesiastical
history, mentions all of our present books con¬
tained in the Scriptures. He says that the Epistle
of James, the Second of Peter and the Third of
232
Genesis Re-read.
John were questioned by some, but that they were
generally received by the Church, and not to be
doubted. Origen, who wrote about the year 230,
was born 184; he lived within a hundred years
of the death of St. John, and was, therefore, so
near the time of the publication of the books of
the New Testament that he could hardly avoid
obtaining the most accurate knowledge both of
the origin and of the authors of the Scriptures.
His enumeration includes all of the Scriptures
that we receive, and none others. In the third
century, agreeing with Origen, Victorinus, the
Bishop of Germany, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage,
Gregory of Neo-Csesarea, and Dionysius of Alex¬
andria in their writings, are found most copious
quotations from almost every book of the New
Testament.
We proceed to the second century, in which
lived Tertullian, a native of Carthage, born about
the year 150, within fifty years of the last of the
Apostles. He received our catalogue, and none
other, from which he made numerous quotations.
With him, we have in this century Irenseus and
Clement of Alexandria endorsing, with others, the
same catalogue. In this early age the book of
Revelation is especially ascribed to St. John.
Direct Evidences of Christianity. 233
The books of the New Testament were open to
all, and were well known. It is believed that in
the time of Tertullian the very autographs of the
Apostles were in the possession of those churches to
which they were specially directed. We have
ascended to the apostolic age, but we may ascend
a little higher; we have in our possession the well-
authenticated writings of five individuals and
fathers in the primitive Church, who, because
they were contemporary with the Apostles, are
called apostolical fathers, viz.: Barnabas, Clement,
Hernias, Polycarp and Ignatius. Polycarp was
the immediate disciple of St. John, and Ignatius
enjoyed the privilege of frequent intercourse with
the Apostles. Nearly every book of the New
Testament is quoted by one or another of these
fathers, and they are called by them the Sacred
Scriptures and the oracles of the Lord.
The testimony of these last-named witnesses is
incidental. They had no design of enumerating
for posterity or their contemporaries the books of
Scripture, because there was no controversy on
that subject in their age. We have ascended the
line of testimony up to the Apostles, and our evi¬
dence has been collected from only a few out of
the many witnesses that might have been cited.
234
Genesis Reread.
The Apostles are known to liave left some writ¬
ings.
Those writings have not been lost. The New
Testament contains them.
The books in this volume were considered to be
the writings of the Apostles by the whole Chris¬
tian Church as far back as the days of their con¬
temporaries and their companions. These books
were treated with supreme regard, as authority
above all other books upon religious subjects and
questions of controversy.
Roman and Grecian History cannot produce the
fifth part of this amount of evidence for their
authenticity and credibility. The books of the
New Testament are treated with supreme regard
as possessing an authority belonging to no other
books and as conclusive in questions of religion.
Irenseus calls them Divine Oracles and Scriptures of
the Lord, and says that "the Gospel was committed
to writing by the will of God, that it might be
for time to come the foundation and pillar of our
faith." Origen says " Christians believe Jesus to be
the Son of God in a sense not to be explained and
made known to men by any but by that Scripture
alone which is inspired by the Holy Ghostthat
is the Evangelic and Apostolic Scripture, as also
Direet Evidences of Christianity. 235
that of the Law and the prophets. Cyprian earn¬
estly exhorts "all in general, but especially Chris¬
tian ministers in all doubtful matters to have re¬
course to the Gospels and the Epistles of the
apostles, as to the fountain, where may be found
the true, original doctrine of Christ." " The pre¬
cepts of the Gospel/' he says, "are to be con¬
sidered as the lessons of God to us; as the foun¬
dations of our hope and the supports of our faith."
At a very early period the books of the New Tes¬
tament were collected into a distinct volume. At
a very early period—say from the very days of
the apostles to the year 347—the books of the
New Testament were read and expounded in
Christian congregations; commentaries were writ¬
ten upon the New Testament, harmonies formed and
diligently compared, and translations made into dif¬
ferent languages in the earliest ages of Christianity.
The agreement of the primitive church, as to
what were the authentic books of the New Testa¬
ment, is complete. That primitive church had
twelve catalogues; seven of these agree with ours
in every particular; three others differ only in the
omission of the Book of Revelation; and in the
two which remain the books omitted and spoken
of as doubtful in the estimation of some, were
236
Genesis Re read.
acknowledged and quoted as authentic by the
framers of the catalogues. Ancient sects of
heretics agreed as to the authenticity of the books
of the New Testament as entirely as did the Chris¬
tian Fathers. The evidences produced in the proof
of the authenticity of the New Testament cannot
be produced for the Apocryphal Scriptures. But
we have already pursued our subject beyond the
time intended. How wonderful are the ways of
God toward man. Divine Providence hath so
arranged the history and government that nothing
is done by what is called chance.
CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY.
********
We would have you to remember, that we have
more than intimated, that a book may be authen¬
tic, and yet not credible. It may have been
written by the reputed author, and yet its nar¬
rative may not have been worthy of confidence.
Such a case is possible though it may not often
happen. Generally, authentic histories prove to
be true, so that when we have ascertained a book
to be composed by the individual whose name it
contains, or is on it, we have strong presumptive
evidence, for the truth of all the important fea-
Direct Evidences of Christianity. 237
tares in its narrative, but for as much as these
two things are not always associated, a question
remains to be determined, before we can open the
New Testament as the book of the life and religion
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and worthy of our con¬
fidence, as an account of what He said and did
by Himself and His Apostles. Does the New
Testament contain a true history of events con¬
nected with the ministry of Christ and His
Apostles, so that we may receive as accurate
history whatever is related therein? Bishop Mc-
Ilvaine says it is not the inspiration of the
Gospel history, or that it was written by holy
men as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, that
Ave shall seek to prove this evening ; nor that it
contains a revelation from God, nor that its doc¬
trines are true; nor that any of its facts were
miraculous. These are subjects which it would be
premature to introduce at present. All at which
we now aim is to furnish conclusive evidence that
the Gospel history is true, in the same sense as
Marshall's Life of Washington is true ; that what
it relates as matter of fact, is worthy of entire re¬
liance on as matter of fact, independently of all
inferences or doctrines with which it may be con¬
nected. How do we prove the credibility of the
238
Genesis Re-read.
Gospel History ? "I answer," says the Bishop,
"precisely as you would ascertain the credibility
of any other history. Though as in the case of
authenticity, we are ready to produce a variety
and an abundance of evidence far exceeding what
the best established and the most unquestionable
books of ancient profane history can pretend to
do : still the nature of the evidence is the same in
one case, as the other. The fact that one history
is called sacred, and the other profane; that in
one book, the actions of a holy and extraordinary
philanthropist, named Jesus, are related, and in
another, the actions of a wicked and extraordinary
man-slayer, named Caesar, are related, occasions
not the least difference in the nature of the evi¬
dence by which the credibility of both must be
ascertained." Here it would be perfectly safe to
rest the question of credibility upon the proof ar¬
rived at in the last lecture. It does not always
follow, that to prove a book authentic, is to prove
it credible, with regard to its principal events, yet
in the case before us, the fact that the books of
the New Testament were written in the first cen¬
tury of Christianity, and by the Apostles and
original disciples of Christ, is complete evidence,
that in respect to the main events of the Gos-
Direct Evidences of Christianity. 239
pel History they are true. The credibility of
their statement is increased by their style and
spirit, and simplicity of their narrative ; also by
the freedom of manner, circumstantial details,
frequency of allusions to time, places and persons
with which all of the several writings abound;
also allusions to customs, institutions, prejudices
and political events' which occurred in the time of
their narrative. Two points in relation to any
historical document ai e necessary in order to its
credibility, namely, competent knowledge and
trustworthy honesty in the writer. Both of these
qualities were possessed by the writers of the
New Testament. They had ample opportunity to
know the truth with regard to their statements,
because they had been with Jesus and learned of
Him. They had heard all of the doctrines which
He taught and saw all of the miracles which He
performed, from the beginning to the ending of
His ministry. He said nothing, and did nothing
necessarily connected with His ministry, which
they did not see and hear. Thus the Apostle
John says on behalf of the Apostolic College of
which he was a member : "That which we have
seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also
may have fellowship with us, and truly our fel-
240
Genesis Re-read.
lowship is with the Father, and with His Son
Jesus Christ."
The apostles and writers of the New Testament
were trustworthy and honest men. With regard
to their qualities, they were never impeached;
their statements were not only made in general,
but they were circumstantial; they told a plain,
simple story in detail. It is further to be ob¬
served, that they made their statements without
painstaking. There is abundance of evidence that
the writers of the Gospel history were too honest
to relate anything but truth. Therefore they told
their own faults, as well as those of their co-labor¬
ers, when they told the simple story of the Gospel
of Christ. In a word, the apostles and writers of
the New Testament had knowledge, and they were
trustworthy and honest men, which is all that his¬
tory requires in a writer. The Gospel history has
all the testimony that could have been possibly
expected, in the nature of things, from the ene¬
mies of Christianity. It was not to be expected
that the Jews nor the Greeks would give a de¬
tailed history of the facts contained in the life of
Christ and His apostles. No fair-minded, intelli¬
gent man, would expect any such thing as Jews or
Greeks to give a history, in detail, of Christ and
Di rect Evidences of Christianity. 241
His apostles. It was utterly impossible that the
Gospel history should have gained such currency
as it had in the apostles' time, had it not been
true. Matthew published his gospel eight years
after Christ. He gives a detailed account of His
life, ministry, the doctrines which He taught, the
miracles which He performed, His sufferings,
death, resurrection and His ascension into heaven •
and this publication He made in the country, and
among the people, where all these transactions oc¬
curred, and without successful contradiction.
Mark, Luke and John told, substantially, the
same stories among both Jews and Gentiles
throughout the civilized world, beginning at Jeru¬
salem ; and these were not contradicted. The
Acts of the Apostles were written and published
about thirty years after the death, resurrection and
ascension of Christ. This book contains a history
of the organization of the Christian church and
the spread of the Gospel until, perhaps, within a
very short period before the destruction of Jerusa¬
lem. In it is an account, given in detail, of the
publication and spread of the Gospel throughout
all of the Roman Empire and adjacent countries.
It is perfectly safe to say, that before the destruc¬
tion of Jerusalem or the ending of the first cen-
16
242
Genesis Re-read.
tury after Christ, the Gospel was preached to all
the then known world. But the history contained
in that book called the Acts of the Apostles was
never contradicted. We have said it was not to
be expected of the Jews or Greeks to give a de¬
tailed history of the contents of the Gospel. This
they have not done. But we have that which is
better. We have the confession of both the Jew¬
ish nation and the Greeks to the same point. We
have referred to the fact that the Acts of the Apos¬
tles tells us of the spread of the Gospel from the
day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost was given
among Parthians, Elamites, Cretes, and Arabians
and dwellers in all countries, and among men of
every language. Therefore was it not in the
power of such modern infidels as Hobbes and
Chubb and Bolingbroke to deny the point in ques¬
tion. The latter, as an example of the others,
speaking of John and Matthew, acknowledges
that " they recorded the doctrines of Christ in the
very words in which He taught them; and they
were careful to mention the several occasions on
which He delivered them to His disciples or
others." If, therefore, Plato and Xenophon tell us,
with a good deal of certainty, what Socrates taught,
these two evangelists seem to tell us, with much
Direct Evidences of Christianity. 242
more, what the Saviour taught and commandec
them to teach. Here we rest the question of credi¬
bility.
My dear young friends we have endeavorec
to show you, preparatory we hope, to something
farther upon the subject, two of the leading oi
first principles involved in that discussion,—th<
authenticity and credibility of the Gospel history
We have made no attempt whatever to exhausi
the subject.
The greatest difficulty in the preparation oi
these lectures was to make a proper selection' and
choice of material to interest and create in you a
thirst for a more thorough and scientific investiga¬
tion of the subject, of which they constitute onl_y
an imperfect bird's-eye view. If we should be
successful in stirring up in you a laudable ambi¬
tion to pursue the subject until you have made ii
a part and parcel of your religious nature;
thoughts and feelings, we shall then have accom¬
plished all that we could have expected or hoped
to accomplish. We would not have you to think
that after a diligent, careful investigation of the
subject, for a period of forty years, we have been
able to master its contents in detail.
We are still a student in this branch oi
244
Genesis Re-read.
Christian theology, and, although unable to
completely master all of its contents in this
series of years, we have at all times, and under
all circumstances, found it to be a most
agreeable and profitable study. We can, there¬
fore, recommend it to you as a source of profit
and pleasure. The more you acquaint yourselves
with this subject, the farther will you be
removed from the region of doubts and fears
and alarm from the assaults and bitter revilings
and ridicule and blasphemy of infidels and skep¬
tics.
Master this subject in connection with the
other branches of Christian theology, namely, the
doctrines, morals and institutions of Christianity^
and you will never be removed from your stead¬
fastness. You will be enabled to say with the
sweet Psalmist of Israel, " My heart is fixed, O
God, my heart is fixed. Thy word is a lamp unto
my feet and a light unto my path." " I de¬
light in the law of the Lord, and meditate therein
day and night. I would rather be a door-keeper
in the house of my God than to dwell in the tents
of wickedness.
" The Lord God is a sun and a shield.
" The Lord will give grace and glory, and no
Direct Evidences of Christianity. 245
good thing will lie withhold from them that walk
uprightly.
" The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the
love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit
be with you in all of your studies and pursuits
after knowledge, and that wisdom which cometh
from above, evermore. Amen."
246 Genesis Re-read.
APPENDIX.
Note 1.—I have before remarked that the earliest form of
the Book of Genesis was without the division into verses or
chapters, and was hardly separated into words. I but repeat
the judgment of many biblical scholars when I say that the
division into chapters is made very arbitrarily, and often un¬
fortunately, for the sense. I think this to be the case in the
separation of several chapters in this book, specially the tenth
and eleventhj and the eighteenth and nineteenth. The narra¬
tive in the latter case is unquestionably continuous, and in
the former case the eleventh chapter affords the necessary ex¬
planation of the tenth, and deserves to be read in close con¬
nection with it.
The eighteenth chapter has plainly shown us Jehovah and
two other persons appearing to Abraham. The "Lord" and
the "men" are plainly separated,—the "men" going toward
Sodom, the "Lord" going "his way." The twentieth chapter
opens with the words "And there came two angels to Sodom
at even." How unfortunate the division and how misleading
the translation! The Hebrew is ritt'lD D'DnVdH 'JI? "nfcH
T : T T"
(And the two messengers came to Sodom). What two?
Plainly the two referred to before, as the Hebrew article is
never indefinite. The Septuagint reads 'HX&ov 6e ol 6vo
ayyz)\oi eig "Eodoua (And the two angels came to Sodom). The
whole context harmonizes with this reading, and the Hebrew
absolutely demands it, as the translators of the Septuagint
doubtless felt. The revised version puts in the article and
produces the sense as here demanded.
Note 2.—"Now my conscience compels me to adopt an
Appendix.
247
entirely different opinion. Conscience refuses to allow me to
believe, upon your guarantee alone, that matter has created
itself from all eternity, that it has given to itself laws and
formed the universe and established the order which prevails,
and brought into existence the whole series of organized
beings which are found in it.
But, matter creating spirit, that which has extension creat¬
ing that which has thought and sentiment! All this may seem
very natural to the savants who believe only what they have
seen, but I confess frankly that I am not credulous enough to
be incredulous to this extent.
My conscience, in the name of all there is within me of
mind and heart, aye, in the name of this very conscience
itself, which in such a case would be the mere result of a
combination of matter, protests very positively against such a
belief."
The following article, appearing in " The Church " of July
4, 1885, long after my book had been given to the printer is
here inserted as appendix, because it furnishes the most
happy corroborations to the views promulgated in its pages,
and also additional authorities and elaborations upon the
Bubjects of which it treats. It cannot fail to be of interest to
the reader.
" Evolution —The Book of Nature and the Book of Rev¬
elation do not contradict one another. Each is capable of
various readings. Theologians have not always agreed. And
the variations of philosophers are numerous, glaring and
persistent. Science and religion are two things ; but men s
ideas of science and religion are multitudinous. We are to
read the two books which God has given us, and are to accept
the teachings of both.
" It is only about two hundred and fifty years ago that the
248
Genesis Re-read.
theological qualifiers in the city of Home declared that the
teachings of Galileo on the subject of astronomy were sub¬
versive of religion. A great philosopher said the same thing
of the theory of gravitation, as taught by Sir Isaac Newton.
And in our own time, geology has been regarded by not a
few as irreconcilable with the Word of God, so that it re¬
quired the teachings of Buckland, and Chalmers, and Hugh
Miller, and Hitchcock to give the quietus to such apprehen¬
sions.
" And now, after astronomy, and gravitation, and geology,
evolution comes to terrify the timid. Christianity will not be
weaker if evolution should prove to be true, and it will not
be any stronger should evolution prove to be false.
" Evolution does not necessarily imply anything about the
origin of life, but only about the origin of species.
"Thus understood it has been accepted by large numbers
of scholars and scientists.
"McCosh says (Christianity and Positivism,p. 37): 'There
is nothing irreligious in the idea of development, properly
understood. We have constant experience of development—
of the development of individual plants and animals from
parent plants and animals. And why, if proof be produced,
should we not be allowed to believe in the development of a
new species from the crossing of two species in favorable
circumstances ?'
" Again he says (p. 39): ' The question as to whether
there is or is not a separate vital principle, and whether
there may not be a new species developed out of the old, is a
question for science to settle. And whichever way it is set¬
tled, there is room for irreligion, I am sorry to say ; but there
is room also for religion."
" Theologians have no authority from the Word of God to
Appendix.
249
say that every species of tiny moth has been created inde¬
pendent of all species of moth which have gone before."
We have quoted a Presbyterian divine, let us now listen to
a Roman Catholic scientist, St. George Mivart. In his book
on the "Genesis of Species" (p. 16), be says: "The general
theory of evolution has indeed for some time past steadily
gained ground, and it may be safely predicted that the num¬
ber of facts which can be brought forward in its support will,
in a few years, be vastly augmented. But the prevalence of
this theory need alarm no one, for it is, without any doubt,
perfectly consistent with strictest and most orthodox Christian
theology."
Again he says (Contemporary Review, January, 1872, p.
188): "All Christians owe a debt of gratitude to Professor
Huxley for calling forth more clearly the certainty that their
religion has nothing to fear from the doctrine of evolution.
It is, however, Catholic Christians who are pre-eminently
beholden to him for occasioning a fresh demonstration of the
wonderful way in which their greatest teachers of bygone
centuries, though imbued with the notions, and possessing
only the rudimentary, physical knowledge of their days, have
yet been led to emit fruitful principles by which the Church is
prepared to assimilate and harmonize even the most advanced
teachings of physical science."
But suppose that evolution should imply not just the origin
of species, but the origin of life, would religion break down
under that? As a matter of fact there have been eminent
Christians who held the theory of spontaneous generation,
and they suffered no harm either as to devotion or orthodoxy.
Tf Fathers in the ancient Church held that organic life was
potentially contained in inorganic matter, the doctors of the
modern Church need not shudder at such a hypothesis.
250
Genesis Reread.
Whatever any man can get out of "matter," we need not
doubt that God put that into it. Thus our amazement will be
increased at the tremendous possibilities of the simplest ele¬
ments under favorable conditions of concurrence and coopera¬
tion.
St. Augustine is quoted by Mivart as teaching that
" God created organic forms by conferring on the material
world the power to evolve them under suitable conditions.
The record in Genesis harmonizes with this view. ' God said,
Let the earth bring forth grass, and herb yielding seed after
its kind, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind.'
' And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
moving creature that hath life, and the fowl that may fly
* * * And God created * * * every living creature
that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly.'
It was none the less God's creative work, though it was done
mediately or derivatively by the earth or from the waters.
" The account of the creation of man differs widely from
this. ' The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man be¬
came a living soul.' Man is in alliance, then, as to the con¬
stituents of his body with the beasts that perish. He is a
part of the animal creation, but he stands at the head of it—
and what is more, ' he is full of the inspiration of God.'
' Man's body was not created in the primary and absolute
sense of the word, but was evolved from pre-existing material
(symbolized by the term " dust of the earth "), and was there¬
fore only derivatively created, i. e., by the operation of
secondary laws.' His soul, on the other hand was created in
quite a differentway, not by any pre-existing means, external
to God Himself, but by the direct act of the Almighty, sym¬
bolized by the term ' breathingthe very form adopted by
Appendix.1
251
Christ, when conferring the supernatural powers and graces
of the Christian dispensation." (Mivart's Genesis, p. 300.)
Men of Christian scholarship have enlarged upon the fact
that the Mosaic aecount anticipated, by nearly 4,000 years,
the discoveries of modern science, with which, in its leading
statements, it so remarkably harmonizes; but a celebrated
scientist went out of his way to attack the truthfulness of the
first chapter of Genesis. He called the Bible theory the
" Miltonic theory." And after he had denominated it as a
poetical account, he then proceeded to interpret it according to
the rules of the dryest literalism. Such a course of pro.
cedure may be scientific, but it cannot claim to be philoso¬
phic.
But, suppose, for arguments sake, that we accept the name
of our greatest Epic poet as descriptive of the wondrous nar¬
rative in Genesis, what then ? Epic poetry,' according to Dr.
Johnson, is the " relating of a great event in the most affecting
manner." Imagination comes to the aid of reason and vivi¬
fies the perception of whatever is most real and true. Poetry
is truth in its noblest expression.
Now that the account in Genesis is not to be taken in its
most literal meaning, is the conclusion of the majority of
Christian scholars. There are eminent persons who continue
to regard the six days of creation as six brief periods of
twenty-four hours following one another in rapid succession.
But such teaching is dying away, as an echo of the past.
Geology has vastly enlarged our conceptions of the works of
God. Geology has also taught us, that Genesis contains
broader principles and profounder truths than our ancestors
could have suspected. Knowledge has increased, and by the
increase, the first book of the Bible has been illuminated.
Men of highest repute have taken the view here indicated
252
Genesis lie-read.
of the narrative in Genesis. Father Pianciani, a Jesuit, in a
book published at Naples, has argued that the first chapter of
Genesis must be regarded as a sublime poetical description.
Hugh Miller's views are well known. They are substantially
adopted by the Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Payne Smith, who
contends that the narrative of the creation was a revelation
from God to Moses, and that it was made "by a succession of
scenes passing before the prophets mental vision and leaving
certain great truths impressed upon his mind."' Distin¬
guished representatives of the Roman, the Scottish, and the
Anglican communion unite in the acceptance of a theory
which a modern scientist, in an attempt to satirize, has made
conspicuous.
I have written these lines on the supposition (gratuitous it
may be) that evolution will be proved to be true. Men of
science are a unit in the acceptance of the general theory.
There are a few exceptions, and but few. Let it be under¬
stood that religion fears nothing, asks no odds of opponents,
and refuses to stand quietly on the defensive. Evolution has
been examined, its depths have been sounded, and no response
has come forth inconsistent with the declaration that in the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth. All the
talk about " physiological units," "molecular motion," "nat¬
ural selection," is so manifestly talk about what is secondary,
that it of necessity implies an originating Power—a living
Force, a Divine and Everlasting Cause. A.