tiM.aM^^mimi'i™''>fmi>miii,wmmmit-mmii».

isfXHAPtER # GENESIS
AS Tli ROgC FOUNDATION
FORSCIEPlckANDRELlGI

[DLEY

pit

¥'d"r

^j

'i^i

BUA ,.«-.-

f

Sir9: -,

¦A- \ '

..5

!.»'./' M ». At'

; ' -r-*
V I*
"is! r '
i*sffi
i:-!^
"I gimiie/e Booh
for the founding if a. CoSigi in this ColonyV

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS
AS THE ROCK FOUNDATION
FOR SCIENCE AND
RELIGION BY
ALBERT L. GRIDLBY, A. M.
Author of
"Jesus Only," "Suborganic Evolution,"
"Organic Evolution," etc.

RICHARD G. BADGER
THE GORHAM PRESS
BOSTON

COPYRIGHT 1913 BY RICHARD G. BADGER

All Rights Reserved

/*t

THE GOEHAM PEiSS, BOSTON, V. S. A.

TO ONE
Who, in the twenty-seven short years of her life was
always in look, word and deed filial, faithful
and loving our daughter
BEN A EMILY PETTIBONE
this little volume is affectionately inscribed

FOREWORD
IT is a remarkable fact in connection with both
science and religion that the teachers in both realms
have persistently overlooked the provision God has
made that each should supplement the other.
His evident intention is that science should enlarge the
borders of the religious sphere and that the Bible as a
teacher of religion should not only keep abreast of scien
tific attainment but even lead the way to higher iatel-
leetual results.
While this is true of the whole Bible it is particularly
so of the opening chapter of that book.
In earlier ages it served as an exercise of faith that
was reasonable only because it formed a part of records
that all through the ages have been regarded as the word
of God and that all along bore the imprints of the Maker
of all things. But in an age when science has advanced
so as more nearly to comprehend its truth, it stands as
a monument to a wisdom more than human. As such it
lends its warrant to other records that are based upon it.
But before proceeding to develop thoughts along this
line it may be well to outline a brief summary of the
argument. Consider first the cosmogony of Genesis I.
Geology has already established some propositions that
are universally acknowledged to be correct.
1st. The earth was once covered with water and every
thing was at a very high temperature.
2d. Owing to rapid evaporation of water from the
earth's interior heat, dense clouds formed in the upper
5

6 Foreword
atmosphere which excluded the light from the heavenly
bodies, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
3d. After a time there were upheavals of the earth's
crust and the continents began to appear.
4th. As cooling proceeded, precipitation would dimin
ish the density of the overhanging clouds, and light could
penetrate them enough to make a distinction between
day and night, and to permit the existence of low forms
of vegetable and animal life, long before one could locate
the heavenly bodies.
5th. Vegetable life appeared before animal life.
6th. Low forms of animal life followed the first ap
pearance of vegetable life.
7th. Following these, the higher forms of animal life
appeared. To say nothing of any others, here are seven proposi
tions, reached by purely scientific methods, and yet they
are clearly stated in the first chapter of Genesis. The
writer of that chapter must have known something in
general of the subject that he was writing upon.
Farther than this, the records in the rocks in countless
instances confirm the biogenesis of that chapter, as will be
shown in its proper place.
Admitting these confirmations by modern science of
the records in Genesis we may look for further conclu
sions. The science of astronomy has been advancing for
centuries. During the last century every advance, every
newly discovered fact points to the conclusion that the
original condition of matter was a very comminuted, dis
sipated one, call it nebula if you choose. It is somewhat
dangerous to touch upon this subject for there may still
be some who think, as the present writer once did,
that this view borders upon atheism. Really, however.

Foreword 7
it is one of the most fundamentally important revelations
in the interests of religion that has been made in the
progress of scientific discovery.
For one thing, if admitted, it establishes beyond the
possibility of reasonable doubt, as will be shown, that
there must have been a beginning, and that, astronomic
ally, that beginning was but a very short time ago.
And again, if it can be shown to be reasonably certain
that the writer of Genesis saw that truth also, it will add
vastly to the probability that he knew something about
other things that he has written.
The words that he uses with reference to the first con
dition of matter are "tohu, hohu," defined as "empti
ness, vacancy," or "formless, void." Whatever other
meanings these words may have, if any, they certainly
convey the idea of matter in an attenuated, dififused con
dition. They as clearly define the probable first condi
tion of matter as any words in the Hebrew language
could do. At least, they settled the matter in the mind
of the present writer. As stated above, he once held the
nebular theory to border on atheism and attempted to
prove by mathematical calculations that it would be
impossible for a mass of matter in that condition so to
contract as to form spheres moving in planetary orbits.
But the result of his calculations in 1872 proved that it
was possible and further, that the contraction must have
been exceedingly rapid. From that time on he held t^^
theory tentatively until the meaning of those words came
to him like a revelation, and from that time there has
been no shadow of doubt as to the manner of creation,
for Genesis had spoken. The ions and electrons of modern
science were balanced in the primitive atoms scattered
through space, and what we call natural laws directing

8 Foreword
the operation of physical forces caused them to assume
the forms they have. Science and Genesis harmonize in
this -saew.
It is, then, beyond a peradventure that from the ap
pearance of primitive matter to the appearance of man
on the planet the writer of Genesis I. has correctly
described the necessary processes, or, to say the least, he is
in harmony with modern scientific results.
This being so, there is reasonable ground to suppose
that he may be correct in some other of his statements.
Instead of setting up our own supposed knowledge as
opposed to his supposed ignorance, it may be wiser for
us to hold our own wisdom in abeyance and see if we
cannot learn something from that writer.
One of the most seemingly absurd things in the order
of events as recorded in Genesis is the appearance of light
before that of the heavenly bodies. But, as stated in
proposition 4 above, no one could dispute that in the
natural order light could penetrate the clouds enough to
make a distinction between night and day long before
the sun, moon and stars could be located in the heavens.
The only question is as to how long this condition could
have continued. Men assume that it must have been very
short. But this assumption is contrary to all other
assumptions regarding cosmic processes. It may have
been long enough to admit of all the events recorded in
Genesis I. Men, even now, might learn something from
one whose wisdom in this matter has been so wonderfully
demonstrated. In the earlier stages of the earth's history the changes
were very rapid, but when the earth had cooled suffi
ciently to allow life upon its surface, they were much

Foreword 9
more slow, so that ages might have passed before the
heavenly bodies could have been located.
To pass for a moment beyond the first chapter. The
idea has been ridiculed that there could have been no
rainbow before the flood. But first, one may have been
seen many times before without the significance that
God attached to it after the flood. But if we have to
admit that one had never been seen before, it is reason
able to suppose that over the limited area then occupied
by the human race the rains could have been universal
with no local showers. In that case there would have been
no rainbow.
But one of the objections to the correctness of
Genesis I. is in the use of the Hebrew word "rakia,"
"expanse," or, as it is translated, "firmament." This
word is sometimes tortured back into one of its original
meanings regardless of the fact that a word may have
several meanings and that candor requires us to use that
meaning that will fit into the connection and make sense.
The sense here is determined by the narrative itself that
speaks of ' ' fowl that may fly above the earth in the open
firmament of heaven."
Genesis speaks of grass or vegetation before animal life
began. Every one knows that this is the order of nature
though the rocks have not, as yet, yielded any fossils of
"the tender grass" here spoken of.
There is no insuperable objection to receiving the entire
narrative as scientifically correct though some of its
statements may not yet be fully comprehended.
So much for the cosmology of that chapter.
An introductory hint as to the biogenesis of that
chapter has already been given but another word is due.
It is simply that, taking the records in Genesis as they

10 Foreword
read and the records in the rocks as they are, there is
absolute agreement. It is only when one puts impossible
interpretations upon the record in geology that he finds
any difficulties in Genesis.
Now, admitting some things that we cannot yet fully
understand, there are enough statements that science has
fully verified to prove that the writer of Genesis I. knew
what he was talking about. The question then is, if he
had a knowledge that has been reached only by several
thousand years of scientific study, is it not probable that
he knew what he was saying in the declaration, "in the
beginning God created"? We are brought, then, by a
process of connected reasoning, from the records in
Genesis, confirmed by science, to God, the Absolute in
philosophy, the Ultimate in science.
Men have tried to find God by searching along one line.
He may be found by searching along either one of two
lines if we had the ability to find the truth and the can
dor to admit it.
We may look along the line of science as Prof. Win-
cheU has done in his very valuable book. Reconciliation
of Science and Religion, but some may not admit the
validity of the argument. We may look along the line
of revelation, and God is found all through the book by
those who admit a divine revelation, but some do not
admit such a revelation. But putting the two together,
we have writings sustained, proven true by science, and
they plainly declare the existence of such a Being. We
have direct statements backed up by scientific proof.
But the question arises, Are those writings above refer
red to a revelation ? The writer of Genesis had a knowl
edge of cosmogony thousands of years before modern
science was dreamed of. How did he obtain it ? It could

Foreword 11
hardly have been by unaided intellectual effort. If it
were, men were vastly wiser in those early ages than they
have ever had the credit of being. The most reasonable
supposition is that the One who made the heavens and
the earth in some way revealed the methods He employed.
It is infinitely probable that the writer of that book was
one of those "Holy men of God" who "spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Genesis I., then, furnishes a solid foundation for
science and the first business of science is to build upon
that foundation. God is, God created, God made is the
absolute fact back of all philosophy. This, too, is the
bottom fact of a tnie religion. Some of the essentials of
a religion based upon this fact are outlined in the fol
lowing pages.
A chapter, XIV, on the writer's own experience is
given to establish the certainty of the further fact that
this infinite God condescends to guide His trusting chil
dren. It is within the power of every one to know as cer
tainly of the existence and the constant presence of God
as to know the same of his earthly parents.
After all, the great final purpose of the sacred writ
ings is to bring men into this immediate, personal rela
tionship with Him.
To those who have learned God in this way it may
seem unnecessary to look along the lines suggested above.
They do not need to. But there may be those who have
never found Him in this way and yet may be led by
reason to look in such a way as to find a saving knowledge
of the truth.
At any rate, one who has found Him by direct expe
rience in any way need not depend whoUj^ upon that

12 Foreword
experience to convince another of the reasonableness of
the faith that is in him.
He may base that faith upon conclusive, scientific
proof. Science confirms Genesis and Genesis says ' ' in the
beginning God. " He is the Author of religion. He is the
Ultimate to which philosophy must appeal and beyond
which science cannot go. Thus the chapter that contains
such marvellous truths becomes the standard of truth,
the Rock foundation of Science and Religion.
The chapters on Cosmogony and Biogenesis are to a
considerable extent taken from booklets which the
present writer had printed some time ago and a few
copies sent out for examination and comment. Follow
ing these chapters are a few touching upon some of the
more prominent features of the Christian religion.
While the writer believes that every position taken in
these chapters is correct, there may be some that may not
be readily granted. But however this may be, all that are
essential to the present contention are either axiomatic,
demonstrable or vouched for on the highest authority.
An appendix is added to make more clear some difficult
parts, and it may be well for the reader to refer to it
when necessary. To cast some side lights upon the
problems of cosmogony an excursus is added.
Hoping that these thoughts may be of some assistance
to the strengthening of an intelligent faith in the Bible
as the word of God, with its attendant benefits to those
two agencies for the upbuilding of true manhood, science
and religion, they are respectfully submitted to those who
may be inclined to read them.
A. L. G.
Parsons, Kansas,
October, 1913,

CONTENTS
Chapter Page
/ The Cosmogony of Genesis and That of
Science is the Same    17
II The Origin of lAfe as Described in Genesis
and Recorded in the Rocks  45
III The Origin of Life as Described in Genesis
and Recorded in the Rocks, continued  60
IV The Science of Geology, Confirming the
Records of Genesis I  75
V The Fall of Man  94
VI The Story of Redemption    102
VII Subjective Salvation  120
VIII An Answer to Criticism — Isaiah  131
IX Another Answer to Criticism — Daniel  140
X Dangers of Egocentric Theology  145
XI The Bible as an Authority to be Obeyed.  156
XII The Reasonableness of the Christian's Faith 161
XIII Individual Attitude   167
XIV An Individual Experience of God Present
and Guiding     173
XV The New Life From God  183
XVI Concluding Words      197
Appendix    201

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS
AS THE ROCK FOUNDATION
FOR SCIENCE AND
RELIGION

CHAPTER I
The Cosmogony of Genesis and That of Science
is the Same
BEFORE considering the contents of this mar
vellous chapter it may be well to stop for a
moment upon the popular conception concern
ing the ancient cosmologies.
Without dwelling upon the ideas of the Babylonians,
Egyptians, the Indians and others, it is desirable here to
mention only the supposed cosmology of the ancieiit
Hebrews. The most erroneous ideas are attributed to the sacred
writers from such poetic expressions as "Hast thou with
him spread out the sky which is strong and as a molten
looking glass?"
Some think that this passage proves that Job thought
that the sky was something like a brass vessel inverted
overhead and scoured bright like an ancient mirror.
This is one of a few passages upon which is based the
idea of the ignorance of the ancients. But as opposed to
this we quote again from Job (26:7, 8) "He stretcheth
out the north over the empty place and hangeth the earth
upon nothing. He bindeth up the waters in his thick
clouds ; and the cloud is not rent under them. "
A little farther on in the same chapter (V. 13) he says
"By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand
hath formed the crooked serpent." In this he refers to
the constellation, the Dragon. He speaks also of other
constellations. Speaking of God he says, "Which maketh
Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the
south. ' ' Again, ' ' Canst thou bind the sweet influences of
17

18 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
the Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou
bring forth Mazzaroth in his season ? or canst thou guide
Arcturus with his sons?"
The constellations as we now have them were known
and named hundreds if not thousands of years before the
time of Moses. There is evidence that the constellations
were already divided and named in the time of Enoch.
Cassini commences his history of astronomy by saying
"it is impossible to doubt that astronomy was invented
from the beginning of the world. ' ' Sir William Drum-
mond says, "the fact is certain that at some remote
period there were mathematicians and astronomers who
knew that the sun is the center of our system and that
the earth, itself a planet, revolved around it. ' '
In a recent article on Progressive Astronomy we read
that Chaldea, Egypt, China, India, the Incas, the Aztecs,
the Druids — all ancient peoples, back to prehistoric times,
have observed the stars. The zodiac, or sun's path
among the stars each year, the phases of the moon, the
fixed constellations and wandering comets, the eclipses
of the sun and moon and the conjunction of the planets
were aU known before Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees.
Archaeologists have discovered, in Babylonia, multiplica
tion tables as high, at least, as 1300, which were used,
as Hilprecht observes, as we use logarithms and in
astronomical calculations. It is very probable that the
ancients knew as much about astronomy as we should
know today without instruments.
The great pyramid of Egypt was built more than 600
years before the time of Moses, but an astronomer, taking
a hint from that, calculated the distance of the sun
within 270 miles of the results of the most accurate
observations and calculations of the 19th century. The

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 19
builders of that pyramid knew the distance to the sun
and left a record of their knowledge. Prof. Neweomb
is right in the declaration that not enough credit has been
given the ancient astronomers. There is no time within
the scope of history when it was not known that the
earth is a sphere.
As compared with the science of astronomy the book
of Genesis is a recent work, and aside from any inspira
tion Moses was "Learned in aU the wisdom of the
Egyptians." Egypt, at that time, was the seat of the
world's learning.
I have glanced at some of these facts to establish an
antecedent probability that Moses knew something of
what he was writing about even aside from any inspira
tion from on high.
There is reason, however, to believe that the original
revelation concerning the creation was made to mankind
ages before the time of Moses. The grotesque forms the
story afterward assumed was the result of changes made
by men who thought that they were too wise to accept it
in its form as given, and so they modified it to suit their
own wisdom.
Beginning now with the chapter, I pass over the first
declaration, In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth, and pass to the condition of matter thus
created. The earth was "tohu," "bohu." These words are
variously translated, as "without form," "void," or as
Young defines them "emptiness," "vacancy."
There are probably no words in the Hebrew language
that could more accurately define what science for the
past 100 years declares to have been the primordial con
dition of the material composing our solar system. There

20 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
is every reason to believe that the writer used those words
knowingly, and that he meant to convey the idea that it
was in a very comminuted, dissipated form, not respon
sive to the sense of touch.
Without doubt this was the original condition of mat
ter and if it were created in that form and then left to
the operation of "natural law" as we should say, and
physical forces, every phenomenon that scientists have
since observed or proven to exist, would have followed
in natural order and without further miraculous inter
vention. Further than this, there has been left recorded
in nature the Divine plan and the Divine mode of opera
tion. Assuming, then, as a working hypothesis, that this was
the first form of matter and that then it was left to the
operations of natural law and physical forces, some
things may be affirmed with certainty.
I. The nebulas must have been extremely tenuous. A
moment's calculation would show that if it extended to
the outmost known limits of our system it must have been
at least 10,000 times as thin as common air at sea level. It
must have existed as gas, vapor or dust. Gas is a form of
matter whose particles seem to have the power of affect
ing other particles without actual contact as shown by
sound and light. Vapor is a liquid in a state of minute
sublivision and dust is a solid in the same condition. The
nebula must have existed as one or more of these forms
of matter. Above the temperature of 312 below zero, air
exists as a gas. At that temperature it exists as a liquid,
and perhaps at interstellar or absolute cold it would exist
as a solid, and in nebula would be extremely comminuted.
If this be true of air it certainly would be true of those

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 21
forms of matter that liquefy and solidify at much higher
temperatures. II. The nebula may have been either cold or hot.
The supposition used to be that it must have been
originally at a temperature that would be required to
return the system to that condition of tenuity. That
assumption, however, is not essential to the theory. The
concussion of condensation near the close of the process
of star formation would produce more heat than there are
traces of at present. If the temperature were originally
very high, the nebula would have cooled with great
rapidity, according to the law of radiation, from each
separate particle with little hindrance by surround
ing particles, rather than according to the law for the
cooling of liquids or solids, in which heat must pass
by conduction from the interior parts with radiation
only from the surface. This is shown by the almost
instantaneous cooling of gases formed by explosive com
pounds, in which the loss of heat is almost instantaneous.
It is thus that the super-heated nebula would cool. The
higher the temperature, the more rapid would be the
process of cooling and the super-incumbent gases or
other substances, though great in volume, would be
so exceedingly tenuous as to offer but little resistance
to radiation. If originally cold, as noted above, heat
would be produced by the concussion of contraction and
toward the close of the process of star formation the
amount would be very great. In either case contraction
could so proceed as to form a stellar system like our own.
III. Whatever its condition it must have been very
much more dense toward the center. This must have
been the case, at least when it existed within the boun
daries of the present system. This conclusion is necessary

22 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
from the sizes of the planets. If the mass had been of
equal density throughout, and Uranus and Neptune had
taken their share of the material they would have taken
from three-fourths to seven-eights of all the matter in
the solar system — % if the nebula was diskoid, Yg if
spherical. It was probably spheroidal as shown by the
satellites of Uranus and Neptune. Instead, however, of
having even % of the matter in the system, the sun itself
contains nearly 10,000 times as much as they both com
bined. The nebula then must have been indefinitely more
dense in its central than in its external portions.
IV. It must have rotated upon its axis — at least its
external portions, in about the same time that Neptune
revolves around the sun. When it had contracted to the
orbit of Uranus it must have increased its rate of rota
tion to that of the planet Uranus in its orbit. And so of
all. As it contracted, its rate of rotations must have
increased so as to equal, successively, the orbital velocities
of Saturn, Jupiter and so on. The orbital velocity of
Neptune is about 3% miles per second, that of Uranus
about 4% miles per second. Contraction must have pro
ceeded at such a rate as to have produced that increase
in orbital motion.
V. It then becomes a very easy problem to ascertain
the rate of contraction as it is simply one of resultant
motion. In the diagram. Fig. 1, if, say, a body were moving
along the line a 6 at a rate of 20 miles per hour and some
other force should drive it along the line a d at a rate of
10 miles per hour it would take the direction a c and its
rate could ea,sily be determined. So its impulse along
the line a d could be found if its rate along a c were
known and the impulse along the line ab. It would be

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 25
simply the square root of a c square minus a h square.
The same would be true if the lines ab, ac and ed were
curved. This is the case under consideration. The
orbital velocity of each interior planet is the resultant
of the rate of velocity of the planet next exterior and the
rate of contraction.*
The rule for determining this is. From the square of
the velocity of any interior planet, subtract the square of
the velocity of the one next exterior and the square root
of the remainder wiU be the rate of contraction. Apply
ing this rule we find that the time for contracting from
Neptune to Mercury is a little less than 25 years.
VI. Objections to this view of rapid contraction.
1st. It is generally thought that if the solar system
once existed as a nebula extending to Neptune it must
have taken millions or billions of years to contract. But
this long period is based upon the assumption that radia
tion was never more rapid than it is at present from the
sun. This could not have been the case. It is not con
ceivable that with a surface area 36,000,000 times the sur
face of the sun, and a volume 216,000,000,000 times that
of the sun, and with its outer portions millions of times
as tenuous as air, that it should lose heat only at the same
rate that the sun now does.
The fact that gases do cool with great rapidity is con
stantly demonstrated. The loud report occasioned by
explosives has been mentioned. Cases also have been
known in which the walls of buildings have been blown
outward near magazine explosions. When the building
has stood far enough away not to be destroyed by the
explosion and yet near enough to be influenced by it,
*See appendix (a).

26 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
the instantaneous cooling of super-heated gas has created
a partial vacuum and the air inside of the building has
expanded in consequence with sufficient force to cause
the walls to fall outward. The most signal illustration
of this occurred in the explosive eruption of Mt. Pelee
in Martinique. Immense quantities of super-heated
steam or other gases displaced the air and, instantly
cooling, the bodies of men burst as if instantaneously
placed in vacuum. Super-heated gases cool with great
rapidity. Besides, there is hardly a possibility that the elements
were in a gaseous state when they reached the present
limits of the solar system. There is hardly a probability
otherwise than that they existed as attenuated vapor and
dust perhaps at an interstellar temperature.
For a further discussion of this subject see the author's
Suborganic Evolution.
VII. The thickness of the rings must have been such
that by the contraction they would produce the satellites
and the axial rotation of the planets. The thicker the
ring or mass, the more rapid the resulting rotation and,
of course, the larger the planet, as per Kirkwood's law.
The great rapidity, for example, of Jupiter's rotation is
owing to the greatness of its mass, which extended far
beyond its present position, and the outside portions
moved with a velocity proportional to its distance. As it
contracted the angular velocity would increase, while
the actual velocity would also be increased by resultant
motion. A seeming difficulty in applying this principle
to Jupiter's rotation only accentuates the rapidity with
which that planet assembled its elements, owing to the
greatness of its mass.
VIII. The nebular masses forming the planets could

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 27
not have been of uniform density throughout. If they
had been, the tendency would have been to form meteoric
dust or meteorites, like the rings of Saturn.
IX. The original nebular mass must have been inter
spersed with nebular densities that formed the centers of
the various planets and satellites.*
X. The contraction of the whole mass from the ex
terior could not have been continuous, owing to the much
greater density at the center. This occasioned the rup
ture between Jupiter and Mars, the fragments produced
by the rupture forming the planetoids. The orbits of
these bodies confirm this idea, particularly by the greater
eUipticity of those nearer the sun. These having less
motion than those more remote, while they would require
a greater motion, necessarily move in more eccentric
orbits, their positions at the moment of separation being
aphelion. XI. While the deposition of planetary nebula must
have been very rapid, the assembling of planetary ele
ments must have been very slow, as each planetary mass
could have had only the attractive power of its own mass
for assembling its parts. No figures can be made to even
approximate the time, for so much depends upon the un
known quantities of dispersion, size and position of
nuclear density, its physical condition and so on.
XII. Fragments detached from the main masses at
any part of the process form meteorites revolving in
elliptical orbits around the Sun.
XIII. The interior planets may be older, as planets,
than the exterior ones, as from the increased density
of their nebular masses the work of assembling would be

•See appendix (b).

28 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
relatively more rapid ; stiU conditions unknown to us may
have existed. the formation OF THE SUN
We pass to consider the formation of the Sun. 1st. Al
though this is formed of the residue of matter after the
planetary nebulae had been deposited — its power to
assemble its constituent elements being so great owing to
its comparative density, its great mass, its slight disper
sion and so on — it is by far the oldest body, as such, in the
solar system. If the material composing it had been of
perfectly uniform tenuity and not gaseous, after deposit
ing Mercury its contraction would have been in accord
ance with the law regulating the motion of a body falling
through the earth, considering the earth of uniform den
sity throughout. The force acting upon each portion
would be in proportion to its distance from the center.
As a pendulum vibrates through a larger or smaller sec
tion of its arc in the same time, so portions of the Sun's
dispersed mass would begin movement toward the center,
at rates calculated to bring them all to the center at the
same time. Particles a mile from the center would move
toward the center with a velocity only sufficient to make
them reach the center at the same time that portions
millions of miles from the center would.* Theoretically
all would be moving at rates proportional to their dis
tances and all so as to reach the center at the same time.
In this case, it would seem that the angular motions of
the parts would have been practically uniform, and there
would have been little tendency for other portions to flow
around the interior portion except as the actual velocities
of the outer portions were increased by resultant motion.
* Appendix (c).

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 29
Even if the mass had been of uniform density when ex
tending to the orbit of Mercury, there would have been
some tendency for outer portions to increase the angular
motion of rotation and flow around the portions within.
But this tendency would have been indefinitely increased
by the fact that, as we have seen, it was very much more
dense in its central portions. This tendency must have
been increased, too, if there had been any gaseous ele
ments in its composition. In any event, precipitation
would have begun very early and probably had begun
when the outside planetary masses were left. This nu
cleus, if rotating on its axis at all, would have rotated
very slowly, not more rapidly than the whole mass, or once
in a year of Neptune, probably not so fast as that. Then
as each layer of matter was deposited on the outside it
would be moving not only with a greater angular but with
a greater actual velocity, and every layer would flow
around that within so that had no motion been imparted
to the inner portions by the parts outside, we should have
the center of the Sun revolving on its axis but once, per
haps, in a hundred and fifty or more years, while the out
side would be revolving with a much higher velocity than
at its present rate. Of course, if precipitation did not
begin at the center of the Sun until after Mercury was
left, stiU the core would have revolved on its axis only
once in a year of Mercury or not so rapidly as that. Then
as precipitation continued, each outer portion would
have flowed around the parts interior to itself.
In figure 2, (facing page 22), suppose the whole body
to be revolving with uniform motion. S, the core of the
Sun, revolves in one of Mercury's years, and a point as
A performs its revolution in the same time. It is
evident that as A is twice as far from the center as M,

30 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
it would have just twice the actual though the same
angular velocity as one at M. But when by contraction it
reaches M, it will have twice the angular velocity it had
at A even if its actual velocity had not been increased by
resultant motion. In other words it would run around
parts interior. This was the case during the whole pro
cess of the sun's formation. The outside portions con
tinually fiowed around the inner portions already formed.
A remnant of this phenomenon still appears in what is
called the equatorial acceleration of the sun's rotation.
It is, however, transient and wiU soon disappear. It was
thus that the present writer accounted for this pheno
menon within a half hour after learning of its existence
and eighteen months before reading of the calculations
of Professor Sampson. Professor Sampson's calculations,
however, confirmed in a very satisfactory and conclusive
way the correctness of the author's own conclusions.
But the phenomenon presents itself in a very much
more wonderful way and with much more conclusive
proof as to its origin, in the planet Jupiter, and to a less
extent in Saturn. Professor Charles A. Young in his
text-book on astronomy observes: — "The planet rotates
on its axis in about nine hours and fifty -five minutes. The
time can only be given approximately, not because it is
difficult to find and observe distinct markings on the
planet's surface, but simply because different results are
obtained from different parts according to their nature
and their distance from the planet's equator. Speaking
generally, spots near the equator indicate a shorter day
than those in higher latitudes, and certain small, sharply
defined, bright, white spots, such as are often seen, give
a quicker rotation than the dark markings in the same
latitude."

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 31
Everything in this exactly accords with necessary
results if the planet were formed by contraction from a
larger revolving gaseous spheroid or nebulous mass. As
condensation proceeded, the outside portions, revolving
not only with a greater angular but with a greater actual
velocity, would flow around the portions already formed.
The outside portions, which bear the small white spots,
being partially, at least, transparent, reveal the more
slowly moving portions within. The great red spot was
an island or huge mountain peak pushed up by internal
forces above the superincumbent and more rapidly mov
ing layers.*
The rotation near the equator is also more rapid than
near the poles. If the planet had been diskoidal the
phenomenon would have been much more apparent. But
it is sufficiently spheroidal to make plainly apparent the
method of its formation.
This view of the cause of equatorial acceleration is still
more wonderfully confirmed by the facts contained in a
note to the article quoted above.
"According to WiUiams there are at least nine 'belts'
of atmospheric current on Jupiter clearly distinct from
each other. The swiftest, at the equator, has a rotation
period of only nine hours, fifty minutes, twenty seconds,
while that of the slowest is nine hours and fiLfty-six min
utes. The great red spot has given values ranging from
9 hrs. 55 min. 34.9 sec. (in 1879) to 9 hrs. 55 min. 40.7
seconds (in 1886), and 9 hrs. 55 min. 41.4 sec. (in 1896).
The increase has been unmistakable and has not been due
to any uncertainty in the observations." t
•See appendix (d).
t General Astronomy— Young.

32 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
The nine belts of rotation spoken of are not necessarily
sharply defined and distinct from each other, but grad
ually merge into each other.
The most remarkable thing in connection with this
whole subject is the rapid diminution of relative velocity
of rotation, or slowiiig of the outside portions as their
momentum is imparted to the portions interior. Note
what is said of the "great red spot" and observe that
there was a diminution in velocity of rotatiop of about six
seconds in the 7 years f JcJiA '79 to '86 whi^e the diminution
amounted to -^ of a second in the ten years from '86
to '96. This indicates the rapidly approaching end of
inequality of rotation, or the time when the outer portions
will have communicated enough of their own motion to
the interior to make the whole rotate with the same
angular velocity that the earth and all the smaller planets
now do. . I • • I
Observe the statement "The increase has been un
mistakable and is not due to any inaccuracy in the ob
servations. ' '
The same phenomena once presented themselves in all
the planets, probably, that are large enough to have
passed from a nebulous through a liquid condition to
their present condition. They may present themselves in
Uranus and Neptune, but telescopes may not be suffi
ciently powerful to detect them. It is exceedingly for
tunate that they were detected in Jupiter before they
finally disappeared, thus hiding forever one of the bright
est pages in the history of star formation.
These observations are made in this place because so
immediately connected with the subject of the equatorial
acceleration of the Sun's rotation.
Continuing with reference to the Sun, 2d, this equa-

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 33
torial current would by friction produce some heat but a
quantity very small in proportion to its expenditure. Dr.
Meyer calculated that a force sufficient to entirely stop
the Sun's rotation would produce only heat enough to last
the Sun 185 years.
3d. Precipitation at first would have proceeded very
slowly. Not so slowly as in the case of the planets but
still slowly.
This will appear if we consider (a) the mass as com
posed of dust or vapor. In this case, according to the
Jaw of pendulum vibration, parts near the center would
move very slowly towards the center. For example:
particles one mile from the center would have only a
sphere of gas or vapor two miles in diameter to draw
them towards the center, and in the condition of dust or
vapor their motion would not be hastened by pressure of
portions outside them. If we suppose (b) that it were
gaseous, energy of compression would develop sufficient
heat to materially retard precipitation.
But there is really no reason to suppose that the
nebula's temperature was much above that of inter-stellar
space. In that case not enough heat could be produced
in the earlier stages of condensation to have produced
luminosity. For example, when the nucleus of the Sun
was a ball a mile in diameter its attractive power was but
its present power at its surface divided by its diameter —
800,000. At present the Sun's attraction would cause a
body to fall 444 feet per second. When a mile in diameter,
even if its density were the same as now, it would have
attracted matter toward it at the rate of ^^1^^ or
.000555 of a foot per second. Very little heat could be
produced by that rate of motion. The center of the Sun
may now be comparatively cold and solid, not yet having

34 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
become superheated by conduction from its outer portion,
as the motion from the outer portions has not yet been
fully communicated to the interior.* The same may be
true and probably is of the earth's interior. It may be
cold and solid to near the surface, where there is a thin
layer of molten matter over which is the cold outside
layer. 4th. The temperature would increase with the increase
in size of the forming body. The larger it became, the
greater would be its power of attraction, drawing more
matter to itself in a given time and giving each portion a
greater kinetic effect.
The precipitation of nebular densities would produce
seasons of greater luminosity. Generally the period of
greatest luminosity would have been towards the close
of its formation period. Some variable stars may be
accounted for in this way.f They are still forming. To
illustrate, consider a possible contingency in the forma
tion of our own system. If the nebulous masses that
formed the planets of our own system had not been mov
ing with sufficient velocity to prevent it, each one would
have been precipitated upon the Sun, successively pro
ducing seasons of greater luminosity until the outmost
one had fallen upon the sun.
In this case the seasons of greater luminosity would
have succeeded each other with but short intervals. The
inter-stellar spaces, however, are so vast that a distant
sun may have its brilliancy increased by the precipitation
of nebular masses or stellar bodies that it has been years
or hundreds of years in drawing to itself. The increased
*See appendix (e).
tSee appendix (f).

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 35
brilliancy of Nova Persei as well as that of many other
variable stars was undoubtedly owing to this cause.
5th. Can the system ever return to a nebulous con
dition by heat generated by the precipitation of planets
into the Sun ? The theory used to be advanced that pos
sibly the precipitation of planets into the Sun might suffi
ciently raise the temperature to restore the system to a
nebula again, to undergo changes such as it has perhaps
passed through. But (a) the succession of shocks would
be at such long intervals that the heat produced by one
would be dispersed before the next one, and if it were
possible for all the planets to strike the Sun at the same
time, there would not probably be the millionth part of
the necessary amount of heat produced for such an effect.
Again such an accidental, so to speak, expansion could
no more produce the solar system by contraction than
throwing a handful of dust into the air would produce a
watch. If any one of a vast number of circumstances in the
beginning had been different, results would have been
different. It would be impossible for any accident to
reproduce those circumstances such as rate of rotation,
size and position of nebular densities, extent of disper
sion of nebulous masses, and so on. Note one particular,
rate of rotation. A point on the surface of the Sun now
moves at the rate of about a mile per second. If it were
to expand to the orbit of Mercury, it would have to have
its velocity increased to 29 miles per second in order by
contraction to again deposit that planet. This illustrates
the case of all. It may be urged that the precipitation
of a planet would necessarily be upon one side of the Sun
near the equator and this would naturally tend to ac
celerate its rotation. That is very true, but the answer

36 Oinesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
is apparent. Every pound of energy expended in the
production of motion is lost for the production of heat,
and any planet is so small as compared with the Sun that
if all the energy of its fall were expended in accelerating
the Sun's rotation and none at all for the production of
heat, it would produce an unappreciable fraction of the
required motion.
The same is true of all of them put together. How,
then, could they produce the necessary heat and motion
both? "The Sun is but a spark of fire,
A transient meteor of the sky."
There was a beginning, there must also be an end of
the present order of things. OBJECTIONS
It may be well to consider a few objections that may
be urged against the possibility of the hypothesis. Many
have been urged which a moment's consideration at once
disposes of. Some are not so easily answered.
1st. There are many nebulae now that are not under
going any such changes as contemplated above. But the
answer is, they were differently constituted. Some may
be undergoing changes very slowly, others more rapidly.
2d. The motions of the satellites of the outermost
planets of the system. These motions only argue a more
spherical form for the nebula than it afterwards assumed
as rate of rotation increased, also that the original nuclear
densities were farther removed from the plane of the
planets' orbits.
3d. The action of Phobos, the inner moon of Mars,
that rises in the west and sets in the east. The revoln-

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 37
tion of that satellite is more rapid than the axial rotation
of the planet, that is, it passes around the planet in less
time than the planet turns upon its axis. This, of course,
is well known. But the comparatively slow rotation of
the planet (only, however, a little slower than the
earth's) is owing to the relatively greater mass of the
nebular density that formed not only the nucleus but a
large portion of the planet. It is only an evidence for
the author's view that such densities must have existed.
Every such density before separation from the parent
mass rotated on its axis once during its rotation around
the Sun.
Any additional velocity arises both directly from eon-
traction and indirectly by resultant motion from that
contraction. The greater and denser the central mass, rotating
slowly, the greater the resistance to the forces that would
accelerate it, coming from the more swiftly moving but
much lighter outside portions. The outside portions of
the Sun, Jupiter an^ Saturn are all moving more slowly
than they once did, for they are and have been imparting
motion to interior parts. The interior parts are rotating
with a higher velocity for they have been receiving that
motion. With Mars, the original slowly rotating center
was so comparatively great that, after receiving all the
motion that the outside tenuous portions could impart,
its rotation was only increased to its present rate.
It is not necessary to suppose that the axial rotation
of Mars has been retarded. It simply has not been more
accelerated. We have a suggestion as to the condition in
the small white spots op Jupiter. They move more
rapidly than the rest of the planet, and if there were
no visible connection between them and the planet, they

38 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
would seem to be satellites revolving around it in a
shorter period than the planet's axial rotation.
They would seem to rise in the west and set in the east.
The same would be true of a body at the equatorial sur
face of the Sun or Saturn. The case of Mars and Phobos
is but the same condition magnified. When the nebulous
mass that formed Mars and its satellites extended to
Deimos — its outer moon — the outside was revolving with
sufficient rapidity to deposit that moon, i. e. in 30 hrs. 18
min. But the center may not have rotated with the same
angular velocity, any more than that of the Sun or
Jupiter or Mars now does.
When it contracted to the orbit of Phobos, the outside
again may have rotated and did rotate with the velocity
with which that moon now moves. But the main central
mass may not have revolved in less than thirty or forty
hours. The precipitation of the rapidly moving but very
tenuous outside portion would have increased the rotation
to its present rate.
It offers no obstacle to the hypothesis. In fact, so far as
known there is no insuperable objection to the theory,
but every circumstance that has seemed to present diffi
culties has, upon examination, only revealed some addi
tional conditions, and thus enlarged our knowledge of
what the original conditions must have been. Before the
peculiar rotation of the Sun, of Jupiter and probably
Saturn was discovered, it is said that astronomers had
pointed out something like three hundred remarkable
coincidences that could not well be accounted for upon
any other supposition than that the entire solar system
had developed from a parent mass of attenuated dust,
"emptiness," "vacancy." The recently discovered
peculiarity in the axial rotation of the Sun, Jupiter and

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 39
probably Saturn affords the final, and, as it may well
be considered, conclusive proof that the original condi
tion of the earth was tohu, bohu. At least it carries the
evidence to an exceedingly high degree of probability,
and such a probability as does not exist with reference to
any other theory.
Some conclusions necessarily follow :
1st. No unaided human being could have known the
circumstances and have described them so tersely and
accurately. The words in Gen. 1 :2 were written centuries
before modern science was born or men had dreamed of
the nebular hypothesis. Hence the narrative must have
been inspired. The One who made the worlds alone could
have imparted a knowledge of His methods to the one who
wrote the account.
2d. The matter must have been created very near the
time the planetary masses were deposited. There is no
conceivable theory as to the eternal existence of matter
as such that can stand a moment's investigation. It is
true that the potentiality of matter existed from eternity
in the personality of the Creator, but it did not assume
the form of matter until He willed it. The modern veri
fication of Newton's theory of matter makes it inde
finitely easier to conceive of creation than when the old
ideas prevailed. At least that is true of those who admit
the existence of a Creator.
3d. The creation must have been comparatively
recent. The sun is the oldest globe in the solar system
and Jupiter, owing to its mass, assembled its material
so rapidly that it may be the next oldest, or at least it
cannot be far from it. But neither of them has existed
as a globe long enough for their motions to become equal
ized so but that the outer portions still flow around

40 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
the interior parts. This idea of the recency of creation
makes the fact of creation more visible to our minds,
more real.
Owing to the limitations of our minds a fact seems to
dissolve or lose its force as a fact if pushed too far back
in the infinite past. The fact of creation is not so remote
as to lose its force as a fact. It is a thing of yesterday.
It is easy to conceive that Jupiter's rotation could have
been such that for thousands of years its equatorial rota
tion could have been retarding and that some of its ac
celeration should remain. But it is hardly conceivable
that this could have been going on for millions of years.
The estimates as to the age of the earth have of late been
decreasing, and yet they are probably too large. They
seem to be based upon the supposition that the disin
tegrating and erosive agencies were never more active
than at present, and that the rocks were never softer
than they are now. But in the very nature of the case
such suppositions must be incorrect. For instance, it is
not conceivable that Niagara was not more active when
the vast inland sea, of which the Great Lakes are the
remaining puddles, was draining off and pouring its
waters toward the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as toward
the Gulf of Mexico.
Then as to the rocks. The fact of their being sedimen
tary presupposes a former soft condition like a sand
bank, in which erosion is easy. It is certainly suppos-
able that when portions of the continents first emerged
from the waters, they were still soft and easily worn
away. The grand canons of the Colorado may have been
cut under circumstances in which a few decades would
accomplish more than millions of years in present cir
cumstances. But without dwelling upon the evidences

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 41
in geology, those in astronomy point unmistakably to the
comparative recency of creation.
4th. Another conclusion is that, as the writer of these
words in Genesis seemed to utter a truth, it is eminently
probable that the first statement is true, "In the begin
ning God." There is a practically infinite probability
that the earth was "emptiness, vacancy," and the
probability that the writer knew what he wrote makes it
probable that he also knew that "in the beginning God"
created. The first declaration in Gen. 1:2 is pregnant
with immeasurable meaning, and the religious world can
never discharge its debt of gratitude to science for turn
ing its search light upon it and enabling men to read that
meaning. The next declaration is, "And darkness was upon the
face of the deep." In any rational view of this chapter
we must admit that the writer takes no account of time
and that the word ' ' day" refers to a period of time. The
sequence at least is orderly. After the globe had formed,
without reference to time, "darkness was upon the face of
the deep." It is hardly possible that our globe as such
could ever have presented a luminous appearance. The
entire surface was enveloped by a layer of water ten
thousand feet deep. While the ball was hot this could
only have existed as an envelope of superheated steam,
and this again surrounded by an outer covering of vapor
ous clouds formed by radiating their heat into outer
space. To an outsider, our planet would have presented
the appearance of a ball of clouds which light could not
penetrate either from within or from without. And this
emphasizes again the extreme rapidity of the cooling
process. Every one knows that water poured upon a hot

42 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
surface will absorb heat with great rapidity, carry it off
and lose it by radiation.
This would be the process in the case under considera
tion. A mass of steam and vapor enough to make, when
condensed and precipitated, a layer of water ten thou
sand feet deep was the medium for conveying the heat
from the surface to outer space. As the temperature
diminished the water would gradually remain as such
and accumulate to form seas, while dense clouds of vapor
would still overhang the earth. There was a "deep"
and darkness was upon the face of it, and too, at first it
covered the whole globe. There was a time when there
was no dry land. The declaration then, "And darkness
was upon the face of the deep," expresses a fact which
is abundantly substantiated. The appearance of light
and day as opposed to night before mention of the sun
presents no difficulty, for that would be the necessary
order. The account is written from the view point of
the earth's surface. After the earth's surface had
cooled sufficiently for the main portion of the waters to
remain in contact with the solid matter, the cooling pro
cess would be much slower and perhaps for ages the
earth would be enveloped with clouds of vapor dense
enough to completely hide the sun, as a body, and yet
admit sufficient light to distinguish between day and
night. Indeed the theory that this was the condition up to the
time of the Noachian deluge is not entirely without
foundation. It may be that the sun never penetrated the
clouds sufficiently to form a rainbow until that flood sub
sided, and that the hot house condition then existing ac
counted for the long life of the antediluvians. This
theory, however, is not essential to the present conten-

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 43
tion. It is sufficient that day and night could have suc
ceeded each other for some time before the heavenly
bodies, as such, were distinguishable. The writer has
lived for years where the mists, rising from Lake Michi
gan, have clouded the sky and obscured the sun for weeks
at a time, and for months it would only occasionally
break through. It could not have been otherwise than
that for ages, perhaps, the sky was overcast with clouds
so as to hide the sun and yet day and night be perfectly
distinguishable. "There was evening and there was
morning, one day." Evening was mentioned first for
darkness preceded the light.
With reference to the word "day," but little need be
said, for it has been the opinion of many scholars and
theologians from the time of Augustine that the word
refers to a period of time rather than to a twenty-four
hour day. With regard to the "firmament," the mean
ing of the Hebrew word rakia is expanse, expansion.
Whatever its derivation, or whatever other meanings it
may have, the meaning here is apparent for one thing
from the statement in the 20th verse, "and fowl that may
fly in the midst of the firmament. " It is as correct and
expressive of the truth as any scientific term that could
be invented at the present day. And when the writer
speaks of the heavenly bodies as being "set in the firma
ment of the heaven" candor requires us to think that he
uses the words popularly as we speak correctly of "the
stars of the sky. "
The emerging of the continent from the water is next
described, and it is necessarily next in geological order.
The fact that the waters once covered the whole surface
of the earth and that the land emerged from them is a
geological truth that needs only to be mentioned.

44 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
The appearance of grass is next mentioned. The fact
that geology has few records of the "tender grass"
(Hebrew) is not surprising for it could hardly exist as
fossils. So of the herb and fruit trees. However, the
Algae appears as far back as the Eozoon, or first form of
animal life. The term ' ' fruit tree ' ' does not necessarily
mean the apple, pear, plum and other trees now speci
fically designated by that term. It may even refer to
some of the vegetation that formed our coal measures.
However this may be, vegetable life must have preceded
animal life as the record in Genesis states. All these
could have flourished before the heavenly bodies as such
could have been seen from the earth's surface.
With regard to the appearance of these heavenly
bodies, as before stated the narrative seems to have
contemplated the earth's surface as the writer's stand
point. The sun, moon and stars would be mentioned
when first seen. But it is not necessary to infer that the
writer even thought that they were not created until
that time. The statement is simply ' ' God said. Let there
be lights in the firmament" and so on, followed by the
declaration, ' ' God made two great lights .... He
made the stars also. ' ' This view is sustained by the fact
that the writer does not use the Hebrew word bara
(create) but asak (to make). In the beginning God cre
ated the heavens and the heavenly bodies. At this junc
ture He made them to appear, or in time He may refer to
a remote past.

CHAPTER II
The Origin of Life as Described in Genesis and Recorded
in the Rocks
THE next period introduces animal Ufe. This
together with that of vegetable life and that
of man requires a more extended study. The
first inquiry is concerning what Genesis ac
tually teaches as to the origin of life and then how
that teaching is corroborated in nature. There is first
the statement that "God created (bara) great sea mon
sters," and also God created (bara) man in His own
image. "In the image of God created (bara) he him."
The same word is used with reference to both Adam and
Eve, "in the image of God created (bara) he them."
This statement is made twice with reference to both. The
same word is employed eight times in Genesis with refer
ence to the human race and eight times in other parts of
the scriptures, where it is translated "create, created,"
and once where it (bara) is translated "made," as in
Ps. 89:47, "Wherefore hast thou made all men."
With reference to the lower forms of life we read,
"And God said. Let the earth bring forth grass" and so
on, (Gen. 1:11, 12). And again, "Let the waters bring
forth abundantly" and so on. The word "create" is not
here used, but the Psalmist (Ps. 104:30 and 148:5) uses
the word bara with reference to practically aU of God's
works. They came into being at the fiat of God. But it
may be urged that this may refer only to the fact of
creation and not to the mode, and that mode may be
gradual development, as the solar system was created
45

46 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
and yet took ages for its completion. The analogy, how
ever, could hold only as far as the development of grass,
herbs and trees from the seed is concerned, or the
"swarmers" from the ova without a transmutation of
species. The apparent meaning seems to be that grass
was created as grass, herbs as herbs, trees as trees, the
sea "swarmers" as such, and that the creation form was
the terminal form. That is the popular understanding
of these words and that is the way the great naturalist,
Charles Darwin, understood the narrative. But he
believed in that system of phylogenetic zoology popularly
known as evolution. Considering this system of zoology
as merely modal, the narrative in Genesis is correct
whichever view is taken. Were it not for the vast struc
tures of philosiphy, history, theology, and Christology
that are built upon the evolutionary theory the distinc
tion would be worthy of but little thought. But in view
of such structures as are based upon this distinction it
becomes necessary to examine briefly the subject and
claims of Organic Evolution.
ORGANIC EVOLUTION
In speaking of Evolution in general we are confronted
with the indefiniteness of the term as commordy used.
It may mean little or it may mean a great deal. There
are three main divisions of the thought as commonly ex
pressed by the word, the sub-organic, the organic, and
the super-organic. The first refers to the development of
matter without life to different forms and is applied
generally to the formation of the solar or stellar systems
from some more crude conditions of matter. This has
already been referred to in a few words.*
•Above, Nebular Hypothesis.

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 47
Organic Evolution is the name for a process, real or
imaginary, of derivations or development of the forms
of life, vegetable and animal that have existed or that
now exist in the world.
Superorganic Evolution refers to the same process in
metaphysical spheres. At present we have to do only with
organic evolution. But here, even in this restricted ap
plication of the word, the widest divergence of opinion as
to the use of the term prevails. It is applied to the
ordinary growth of a vegetable from a seed, the hatch
ing of a chick from an egg or the change of a tadpole
to a frog. It is applied also to the gradual, progressive
developments made without interference from without,
But by its own inherent potentiality, of some primordial
germ to all the varied forms of vegetable and animal life
that have existed on the globe. Between these two ex
tremes there exist almost as many degrees of thought as
there are men who receive the hypothesis. Some admit
but one or at least but very few starting points for the
upward movement, some admit more. There seems to
be no one very definite consensus of opinion regarding
the number of creation centers, to use a theistie evolu
tionist's phrase.
Further than this the term is also applied to a mere
category of thought without reference to material deve
lopment. Further stUl it is thought of as Causal, or modal, that
is as the Cause of all life, or as but the mode by which a
personal Creator has brought about the diversified forms
of life. In other words it is thought of as atheistic or
theistie. •Above, Nebular Hypothesis.

48 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
CAUSAL EVOLUTION
At this point we may consider the probabilities that
all the advance in the universe has been in accordance
with laws and by forces inherent in themselves inde
pendently of any exterior power or Great First Cause.
If we were to admit that the solar system has never
existed in any other than its present form, that the sun
has always had its present form, that the earth and other
planets had never existed in any other form, it would
be comparatively easy to believe that they could have
existed in their present form from Eternity. The sun's
continued luminosity would be the only thing to account
for and many various theories have been advanced to
do this. One could look upon the earth and say that it
had existed just as it is from all Eternity, and so of
celestial objects, but when we admit as true a declaration
from writings that are at least entitled to our respect,
"The earth was without form and void," all this is
changed. There is no possibility that changes like those
we have been contemplating could have been going on
from a past eternity. There must have been a beginning,
and judging from the condition of the sun, the planet
Jupiter and Saturn and perhaps others, that beginning
was quite recent. There is no possibility that the solar
system could have been undergoing changes according
to a theory of self-perpetuating metamorphoses. This
has been considered. The space now occupied by the
solar system could not have been filled from eternity with
the dust vapor or gas that never responded to the power
of gravitation or cohesion until within recent years.
Nothing in the universe more clearly points to a begin
ning than the solar system, when conceived of as having
once existed in the form described in Gen. 1 : 2. There

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 49
is no theory as to the eternity of the matter in the solar
system more tenable than that a quantity measured by a
mathematical zero could contain within itself the power
to multiply itself to infinity. Granted a beginning and
a priori it is as reasonable to predicate a Cause for that
beginning as to suppose that a universe sprang of its
own accord from nothingness. But aside from this and
aside from the declaration in any writings extant, there
are collateral and direct evidences of such a great First
Cause. We may dismiss as sufficiently understood the
first group of collateral evidences such as the cosmo-
logical, ontological, teleological, moral and so on, and
consider as matter of scientific value a direct, personal,
and positive knowledge of such a Cause. And in this
connection this subject is introduced not as a matter of
sentiment, emotion or religion but as a matter of inestim
able value to the scientist who would go deeper than a
mere superficial knowledge of phenomena.*
A knowledge of such a Cause is as essential to knowing
nature as a knowledge of steam is to an engineer. We
may imagine a man who knows something of machinery
watching the movements of the piston rod of a great en
gine. He sees and recognizes the relations of other parts
of the machinery to the piston rod, but positively
refuses to admit that there is any power or anything that
exerts power in the cylinder. It is the nature of the
piston rod to move back and forth and the development
•The writers (or scientists?) who have criticised the
late Lord Kelvin for inferentiaUy admitting the exist
ence of a First Cause display a superficiality that would
invalidate any of their own conclusions reached by
original investigation.

50 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
of its power is an accident. He goes to see an experi
mental engine in which the cylinder is of glass so that
he can see the interior. Then he knows that there is
nothing to move the piston back and forth but that it
moves because it is its nature to do so. He can see the
head of the cylinder, the piston rod and all there is, and
there is nothing there. He might have considerable
knowledge of machinery, but if his prejudice against the
fact that there is such a thing as steam should prevent
his taking any steps to find out about it, he could hardly
find employment as an engineer where any great interests
were at stake. Not that he might not know what levers
to pull or what joints to oil, or what other routine motions
to make, but the fact that prejudice prevents his obtain
ing a knowledge of something intimately connected with
his business when that knowledge was clearly and easily
within his reach would argue a mind unbalanced to such
an extent as to render him unfit for responsible positions.
Nature is such an engine, with a great invisible Cause at
work first to produce it, then to work through it.
That Cause is knowable as to fact, though unknowable
in the infinite reaches of his being. Here we stand on
solid ground, that of absolute knowledge. There is no
use of mincing words or making concessions to the un
belief of those who have never sought to know that Cause
by methods adapted to the nature of the subject. Adapta
tion to the nature of the subject investigated is always
essential. One could not find the moons of Jupiter by
the methods of the alchemist nor microbes by astronomy.
The methods of investigation must be adapted to the
subject investigated. There may once have been an in
stinct in every human being that could direct him to the
right methods of investigation in order to find that cause.

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 51
At any rate there is a hint contained in a book within the
reach of all that will start one right, "Then shall ye find
me when ye shall search for me with all your heart."*
This is but the requirement for the successful pursuit of
science along any line. The moral nature must be such
as to insure candor in the investigation, the will must be
in such an attitude as to accept results. The only differ
ence is that in searching for the great First Cause more
depends upon the attitude of the will and condition of the
moral nature than in the search for lower objects. But
no man has ever complied with the prescribed conditions
who has not found God as an objective fact and the
master fact of the universe. As stated before, he may
not, cannot, know Him in the infinite reaches of his being
but he may know him as a fact and enough of him for his
own practical needs. One may know the fact of the
Mississippi river, and enough of it to supply him with
drinking water and to row his boat upon, and yet not
have explored it from its mouth to the source of all its
tributaries. So one may know God as a fact and enough
of Him to supply all his needs and yet not know aU about
Him. But this knowledge may increase. "Then shall
we know if we follow on to know the Lord."t This
knowledge of a fact and as a fact vitally connected with
all we know of nature has never been sufficiently em
phasized. Men are apt to tread softly, and speak tem-
porizingly and make concessions, and be very uncertain
when the fact is questioned. It need not be so. One may
speak positively when he says there is such a thing as a
central sun in the solar system, though some blind men

•Jer. 29 :13.
tHos. 6:3.

52 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
may say that they do not know it and it is unknowable.
The sun as an objective fact is known by millions of
people, and known as independent of the cognitions of
any man or set of men. God as an objective fact exists
and is known by millions of men and as an objective fact
exists independently of the cognitions of any subjective
"ego." If any one is ignorant of that fact or in doubt with
reference to that fact, it is because he has never pursued
an investigation adapted to the nature of the subject,
and is ignorant of the fact most intimately connected with
everything that can be known. And this fact corroborates
a statement not only that there was a beginning to the
cosmos, but in the beginning "God," and we may carry
out the statement, "In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth." And this truth is the corner
stone of that rock foundation that we find in Gen. 1, for
exact science as well as for revealed rtligion. Admitting
this fundamental fact, our next inquiry would naturally
be, to what extent the great First Cause has been im
manent and active in the orderly development of creation.
Beginning pretty well back, if God had withdrawn after
speaking the first stellar system into existence, would
other unknown millions of stellar systems have come into
existence? The answer seems apparent when we reflect
that every stellar system is independent of every other and
is itself a distinct creation center. He was still immanent
and active, at least until the last sun was made. But after
the fiat for the solar system had gone forth, did he with
draw to the shades after enduing matter with inherent
power to produce the phenomena that have since ap
peared ? The question may come closer home. What is
his relation to the universe now ? Has He withdrawn to

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 53
the shades after enduing matter with inherent power to
produce phenomena? The question may appear with
more distinct outlines in the form, "What if God should
die ? ' ' There are forces in existence now, would they con
tinue to operate ? The sun exerts an inconceivable power
over the planets that revolve around it. What is that
power? Men call it gravitation, but that accounts for
nothing. Naming a phenomenon does not explain it. If
God should die, would the sun continue to exert that
force? Would other suns? Would any matter still
retain the power over adjacent matter that it now has?
Would force known as heat exist, or light, or electricity ?
Would the X-ray manifest its power? These questions
might be continued through the catalogue of more subtle
forces, cohesion, crystallization. The forces that regulate
the action of particles of solid matter, as, for example, of
steel, would they continue to operate? It may be that
the very existence of matter itself depends upon the per
sistence of force or forces. Would any forces remain in
operation if God should cease to exist? Would there be
anything material, would anything of any nature or even
space itself remain ? Some would answer these questions
instantly in the affirmative. But after all that answer
may not be correct. Whatever may be the answer there
is an orderly succession that suggests cause and effect,
and if the power to produce effects inheres in the nature
of matter independently of an exterior great First Cause,
it exists there because an intelligent and infinite First
Cause has placed it there.*
•Note the opinion expressed by Sir Oliver Lodge, that
"the existence of a great World-Soul is the best explana
tion of things as they are."

54 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
This may seem a dogmatic assertion. But with all due
deference there is no use in mincing one's words and
hesitating and expressing doubt upon this point. A
modern iconoclast has tried to prove by a priori reason
ing, or in some other way, that the Chinese wall is only the
figment of imagination, that really there is no such thing.
Suppose some intelligent European had lived for twenty
years within sight of it, had walked upon its top, had
noted its towers and had traced its course for hundreds
of miles, would it be necessary for him to speak doubt-
ingly, or, out of deference to the opinion of one who had
never taken pains to inform himself, say ' ' I may be mis
taken. I may have dreamed that I lived in China for
twenty years, or I might have been mistaken when I
thought I saw it, or have been laboring under a hallucina
tion when I imagined that I was travelling along its top.
It may be that the thousands with whom I have talked
and the millions whom I know to believe in it as a fact
are mistaken.
"At least out of deference to the opinion of one who
does not believe in it, we must be careful not to be too
dogmatic in our assertions concerning it. I have never
traversed the whole 3,000 miles of its course. I do not
know the composition of all the stones that enter into
its construction. I do not know the cause of the fissures
it crosses or the precipices it scales. I was not living in
the reign of Shi Hwang-ti who is reported to have caused
it to be built. In fact I find there is so little about it that
I do know that I may be mistaken in it all. ' '
There is no call for any such concessions to the ignor
ance of one who has complacency in his ignorance and
will not take pains to inform himself. Of course the
answer some will make to this line of argument is that

Genesis, Foundation for Sscience and Religion 55
the Chinese wall is an object of sense perception, while
God is not. True, but the cognitions which are brought
to the soul of man by perception are not material. And
the only function of the senses is to bring intangible and
non-material cognitions to the soul. But there are cog
nitions that are not conveyed through these channels.
The sense of smell brings cognitions of things that are
responsive to the sense of smell, so of sight, taste, touch.
But these cover but a small range of cognitions. The cog
nition, "I am" does not come to one in that way. The
The cognition "God" need not, and both may be equally
well known as facts. One may say "ego sum" without
hesitating or making concessions to the Gnostic philo
sophy, and any such concession even would not relieve
the situation. One may say "Deus est" with as little call
for concession to one who doubts the fact. ' ' In the begin
ning God" is the corner stone of the rock foundation in
Gen. I., for exact science as well as for revealed religion.
design IN CREATION
Admitting the fact that God is and that God created
and made, the question is asked, did He have design in
making the worlds and the things in them? Are parts
designedly placed in certain relation to parts for a
designed result or for a purpose that would not have
been served by accident ? The question does not differ in
kind or degree from the same question concerning a
steam threshing machine. Admitting that some one made
the machine is it likely that there was a designed con
struction and adjustment of parts for specific ends or are
the different parts of one machine fortuitous collections
of matter assembled by some other fortuitous circum
stances? Such a question needs no answer. Neither
does the former save for a strange mistiness of conception

56 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
or confusion of thought that takes everything for
granted. And when one argues for design in nature, the
argument usually proceeds about as one might proceed
in arguing for the manifestation of design in a steam
threshing machine. ' ' This is evidently not the result of
chance, for the belt is just long enough and none too long
to convey motion from the belt wheel of the engine to the
cylinder in the machine that threshes the grain." The
complex mechanism of the boiler and engine and their
adaptations to each other as well as the still more com
plicated separator with its thousands of parts all con
structed with reference to the purpose they are to serve
and adjusted to each other so as to secure the desired end,
all these are taken for granted. They come as a matter
of course and do not need to be accounted for and we
need not look into them for evidence of design. But there
is design in every part and manifestation of design per
vades the whole of these structures, even to the smallest
bolt, screw, nail or curiously shaped fragment of wood.
These things, thousands of them, are to be taken into
consideration as well as the length of the belt in arguing
for design as manifested in their construction. It is so in
nature. One might argue for design in the human body
because the pneumogastric nerve rises near the seat of life
in the base of the brain and proceeds to the organs in the
body most closely connected with and necessary for the
life of the body. One might say that design is mani
fested here because if the functions of the vital organs
had depended upon nerves issuing from the spinal cord
at its nearest point an injury, so likely to occur, to the
spinal cord would necessarily prove fatal. An injury is
less likely to occur to a nerve situated entirely within the
body than to one near the outside, like the spinal cord. So

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 57
design is manifested in the human body in this arrange
ment. The argument would be correct as far as it went.
But it would be about as exhaustive as an argument from
the length of the belt would be for design in the case
before mentioned. There is design manifested in the
position of that nerve. There is design in its construction
so that it conveys just the messages from the brain that
are needed for the action of those vital organs. There is
design manifested in the great sympathetic system of
nerves and in its almost total independence of the cerebro
spinal system. There is design manifested in the con
struction as well as in the position of the optic nerve, so
that it conveys impressions produced upon the retina by
light. There is design in the construction of the auditory
nerve so that it responds to vibrations of the tympanum.
There is design manifested in the construction of nerves
so that some fibres convey messages of sense and others
of motion. There is as much design in the eye itself as in
the telescope, in the ear as in the phonograph. There is
design manifest in the construction of the lungs so that by
endosmose oxygen may pass into the blood and by
exosmose carbonic acid may go out. There is design mani
fest in the construction and ramifications of the tubes
themselves as well as in the gas or water pipes of a great
city. The list might be extended indefinitely, for there
is not a portion of the animal frame as large as a pin's
head but what is as complicated in its construction as a
watch, so far as the human maker is concerned, and con
tains as much evidence of design. It is so of every frag
ment of the vegetable kingdom. It is so of every frag
ment of the mineral kingdom. We do not realize it be
cause of the limitations of our knowledge concerning
them. But in the final analysis, a grain of sand with the

58 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
ultimate atoms composing it, their forms, their nature,
their responses to the action of forces that keep them
together and that cause them to assume certain shapes,
their own activities among themselves, their adaptations
to each other and to the universe at large, these with other
circumstances connected with it make a grain of sand
as complicated in its structure and to contain within
itself as much evidence of design as the most complicated
machine of human contrivance.* There is design man
ifest in the infinite vastness of the stellar systems. There
is design manifest in the infinitely small. But the
answer of some to the foregoing is of course known.
These things come in the course of nature. In the mineral
kingdom they are formed by forces operating in the
inorganic world. In the vegetable and animal kingdoms
they grow. With some that answer is sufficient and satis
factory. It is the Topsy philosophy, "There didn't
nobody make me, I growed." But in the light of the
absolute, the positive knowledge that "God is," "God
created," "God made," there is a profounder wisdom
than the Topsy philosophy. These things are made, they
are made for a purpose, they are made from design.
With reference to the wonderful formation of even so
apparently simple a thing as a grain of sand or a drop
of water note the foUowing.- AN ATOM
"Atom" means something indivisible, but the chemical
atom has belied its name. The atom of hydrogen, the
smallest and lightest of them all, is now believed to be
made up of about seven hundred "electrons" — a name
given to the ultimate particles of matter, each of which
is charged with electricity.

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 59
There is, perhaps, no grander conception of the con
stitution of matter than is that set forth in a recent
lecture by Sir Oliver Lodge, one of the foremost men of
science of our time. He asks us to consider an atom of
any element as an infinitely little solar system. If the
electron be conceived of as having the size of the full stop
at the end of this sentence, the size of an atom of
hydrogen will be that of a church one hundred and sixty
feet long, eighty feet broad and forty feet high.
Less than a thousand electrons occupy the atom, in the
sense that an army occupies a country. They prevent
anything else from entering; they make the atom im
penetrable, although they do not fill a trillionth part of
the space with their actual substance. The electrons are
in violent motion among themselves, having a speed prob
ably one-tenth that of light — thousands of miles a
second. Yet there is little danger of collision, for the electrons
are much farther apart in proportion to their size than
are the planets of our system. Thus, says Sir Oliver, we
have come to an atomic astronomy, and he suggests the
amazing thought that there is no such thing as absolute
size, and that even solar and star systems may be the
atoms of a larger universe.
It seems a contradiction in terms to speak of the study
of an atom as a means of broadening the mind ; but where
can one find a higher flight of the fancy than in the idea
of that atom as a sphere of motion at a speed which the
human mind can hardly conceive ?

CHAPTER III
The Origin of Life as Described in Genesis and Recorded
in the Rocks, Continued
MODAL EVOLUTION
WE next consider Evolution as Modal
This is, of course, the theory held by
all Christian evolutionists. In attempt
ing to study evolution, it is unfortunate
that there should be so much confusion or at least so great
a variety of thought in one term. It would help clarify
the subject if we were to use at least two terms for
different thoughts, as "development" for processes that
take place according to what we know as the laws of
nature, e. g., the hatching of an egg. The term "evolu
tion ' ' should be reserved for those processes that involve
at least as much as the transmutation of species.
It may be further stated that a consideration of this
subject can be carried on mainly without theological bias.
Except where the hypothesis is carried to the extreme of
morals and religion, it affects religion only indirectly and
incidentally rather than directly and necessarily.
To what extent this influence may be injurious owing
to the limitations of human nature we will not now con
sider. We win here say only that it touches religion con
tingently. Turning now to organic evolution, what is the
fundamental idea ? According to Huxley, life originated
in undifferentiated protoplasmic matter which by its in
herent power became endued with life, of the lowest form,
and then by a constant succession of transmutation of
species has passed into higher forms and has finally
60

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 61
produced mankind. Quoting his own words in speaking
of this process he says, "In all this vast progression
there would be no breach of continuity, no point at which
we could say, this is a natural process, and this is not a
natural process, but that the whole might be compared
to the " 'hatching of a chick from an egg.' " "That in
fact is what is meant by the hypothesis of evolution. ' '
The question then arises, did all life spring from one
protoplasmic cell or were there two? If two, one for
vegetable and one for animals, why not more? That is
the question to be settled by the evidence.
Referring to the stellar system, as I have before in
timated, there must be as many creation centers as there
are fixed stars and of these there are at a conser
vative estimate 50,000,000. Now if there are 50,000,000
creation centers in the stellar universe, is there any
inherent improbability that there were more than
one, two or a dozen such centers in the animal and
vegetable kingdoms of earth? The nebular theory, if
true, only illustrates the development of an individual
life and not that of even a species, to say nothing of a
series of transmutations of species.
In organic evolution, then, we must begin with the
question as to the evidence that all forms of life began
with one low form of life and if so, what? If from two,
one vegetable and one animal, what are the results ? No
definite opinion, so far as I know, is generally held. Hux
ley attempts to trace man back to the sea squirt, but was
that the original form ? No. There is not a naturalist or
geologist who would admit that, for that is a high form
of life compared with many others. The earliest fossil
remains so far found are those of animals. But animals
would not give birth to plants or, if they did, it would be

62 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
a downward rather than an upward movement. Without
doubt the first forms of life were vegetable of which no
traces have yet been found.
About the earliest vegetable forms known were those
of the algae or sea weeds. But during the geologic ages
that species has remained essentially unchanged and
abounds today in forms the same as those of the earliest
specimens yet found. Now if some algae parents begat
algae offsprings, so to speak, and have continued to do so
throughout the ages, is it probable that other algae
parents begat offspring of some other species and these
begat other species still and so, the thousands of species
of fossil and living plants have been produced? But
another fact confronts us. Of late the science of bac
teriology has been coming to the front. Students of that
science have reason to suppose that there are as many
varieties and species of microscopic vegetation as of the
larger forms which we see around us.
Have they all a common ancestor? And if they are
all the terminal forms of an upward movement that has
been going on through all the geologic ages, from what
did they begin ? If there has been an upward movement
through all these ages, it is incomprehensible that we
should have existing at the same time, in the same habitat,
thousands of forms of life from the microbe, or the mould,
to the sequoia or big trees of California. If evolution in
the vegetable kingdom has been a general law, it must be
exceedingly uncertain and capricious in its operations.
But we are told that it is not, cannot be a general law.
We hardly need to be told that, but, if it is not general,
how restricted is it ? and if not universal how are we to
determine the nature and extent of its restrictions ? An
assumed law that is so variable and capricious in its

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 88
operations, with so many unknowable restrictions in
itself, could hardly seem to form the basis of scientific
knowledge. Precisely the same is true of animal life. We have
microscopic forms of animal life as well as of vegetable
life. And we have today all of the practically infinite
varieties of life existing at the same time, life from that
of the microbe that produces diseases of the animal frame
to that of the elephant, forms of life from the parasite
of the microscopic insect to man, all being in the same
habitat, and yet exhibiting such variety. It is difficult to
conceive a law that would be as capricious in its opera
tions as that. I speak of microscopic insects. They are
not mentioned in evolution, but they are facts to be ac
counted for the same as elephants. Have all come from
the same starting point ? If we have to admit that there
must have been a few separate starting points why not
admit more, enough in fact, to obviate the necessity of
assuming transmutations of species?
But confining ourselves to the large animals. Haeckel
assumes that it has taken 1,000,000,000 years for men to
evolve from the lower vertebrate animals. But they do
not carry us farther than one-third at least of the way
back to the first forms of life. However, assuming that as
the full period of animal life on the globe, we have the
eozoon (first form) standing for a thousand millions of
years as a monument to fixity of species, for it exists to
day as it did in the eozoic age. If other forms of life
have come from it, we have the phenomena of some eozoon
parents producing eozoon offspring in unbroken succes
sion for that length of time while other eozoon parents
gave birth to Polyps, Acalephs, Echinoderms, Acephala,
Gasteropoda Cephalopoda, worms and so on in endless

64 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
variety through the great classes of Radriates, Mollusks
and Articulates, and all existing in the same waters and
at the same time. Then upward with the vertebrates with
their countless species to the highest ones. All of these
varieties, according to the hypothesis, have taken place
in the descendants of some eozoons, while some were con
tinuing absolutely without change.
Of course we are familiar with the evolutionists' ex
planations, that natural selection, survival of the fittest
and other factors produce different conditions. But the
conditions are such that the original eozoon lived and
multiplied. What was the necessity of its begetting
trilobite offspring ? And their conditions were such that
trilobites lived and flourished and have done so to the
present time. What was the necessity for them to beget
Aroncolae or Paradoxide offspring? These questions
could be repeated of thousands of different species all
living contemporaneously, in the same waters, with the
same food at their disposal, the same environments in
every respect. What need that one species should beget
another species to adapt it the better to its own home!
"Survival of the fittest" is another theory to account for
the phenomena. But it accounts for nothing, for fit or
unfit, the original forms survive for millions of years in
the same habitat as their supposed offspring. Partheno
genesis also comes in to help out the explanations. But
the fact, if it be a fact, that one sex in some moths and
some bees have offspring without intercourse with the
other sex explains nothing. All these causes or modes of
evolution are so utterly inadequate to account for the
phenomena that many evolutionists abandon them en
tirely and seek proof of evolution, without reference to
cause or mode, in Embryology.

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 65
It is observed that the human embryo passes through
stages in which it somewhat resembles some lower forms
of life. It is hence inferred that it gives a history of the
development of the human race from the lower animals.
But there must be some stages of development in which
the human form is not perfect. It is so with the oak —
with every form of life. The doctrine of epigenesis was
never sustained by any observations of nature. But
without discussing this phase of the question further,
it is apparent that this similarity accounts for nothing.
If it be an analogy to the development of the human race
then the records of that development would appear in
the rocks. The same may be said of the argument from
atrophied or rudimentary, or more properly, vestigial
appendages. They prove absolutely nothing. They may
suggest lines of inquiry, but anything to sustain such
theories must come from the records in nature — geology.
In any form of development that is worthy of a separate
name, transmutation of species must have occurred thou
sands if not millions of times. But there is not a particle
of evidence anywhere that it ever occurred even once.
Mr. Btheredge in charge of the Natural History depart
ment of the great British Museum, has plainly said, "In
all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence
of transmutation of species." No scientist, whether
evolutionist or not, has ever known of an individual case,
nor do they pretend to. They are still hunting for a
single specimen, but billions of them are required. The
transition of one species to another is supposed to have
taken place by a gradual differentiation from a lower to
a higher form, and evolutionists claim that billions of
years are sufficient to account for the change. But first
they haven't billions of years to work in, for, as has been

66 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
suggested before, in the chapter on Suborganic Evolution,
the sun is of such recent creation that it has not yet had
time to so equalize its own motion, but that the exterior
is still flowing around a more slowly revolving core. The
same is more strikingly true in the planet Jupiter. And
with reference to these long periods in general, the longer
the time the weaker the argument ; for the greater should
be the number of transitional forms, and not one has ever
yet been discovered.
Let us bring out the force of this argument by a specific
case, that of Huxley's "Demonstrative Evidence of
Evolution. ' ' In this he gives the pedigree, so to speak, of
the horse, according to specimens by the late Prof. Marsh
of Yale, which are now in the museum of Yale College.
These specimens are the remains of the Orohippus,
found in the eocene period; then in a rising scale there
are the Mesohippus, Miohippus, Protohippus, Pliohippus
and Equus, or horse, as at the present. The eocene period
takes us back about one-third of Haeckel 's billion years
to the first vertebrates. Say then for convenience that
the orohippus lived three hundred millions of years ago,
and as there are five stages to reach the horse we may as
sume as his figures that from one form to the other was
60 millions of years. How many transitional forms
might we not expect to find for each terminal one? Al
lowing five years for the young to become parents — and
in the early forms probably one year would suffice — and
there would naturally be 12,000,000 intermediate forms
between each fixed pair, and yet not one of them has ever
yet been discovered. This only illustrates one gap where
there are tens of thousands of them. To meet the diffi
culty Darwin and Huxley simply say, "We should not
expect to find any." But I should. Why not? Why

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 87
might we not expect to find a few of the 12,000,000 inter
mediate forms in this gap as well as in every case the one
or two at the extremes ? Huxley meets it as every evolu
tionist meets every difficulty, by the imperfection of the
records and by stating that in two cases an apparently
intermediate species has been found in two very wide
gaps. But, with reference to the imperfection in the
rock records, in hundreds of cases the records in the rocks
are sufficiently perfect to establish the fixity of species
for a large portion or the whole of geologic time. The
algae, for example, from the time that we have any traces
of vegetation have remained unchanged The records in
the rocks are perfect enough to establish fixity of species
for them all through the geological ages since vegetation
first appeared on the planet. Several other vegetable
species and many animal species for the same or nearly
the same length of time have remained unchanged.*
But suppose the transition from one species to another
to be abrupt, one species producing another or next
higher without transitional forms, then we should have
the phenomenon of one species remaining fixed for an
inconceivably long period of time and then at once bring
ing forth another species. As for instance, taking
Haeckel's large figures we should have the orohippus re
maining fixed for some 20 to 60 million years and then,
just as the eocene merged into what we may call the
mesocene, some orohippus parents brought forth meso
hippus offspring, which again maintained an absolute
fixity of species for another period of from 20 to 60 mil
lion years, when again some mesohippus parents brought
forth miohippus offspring and so on through the series.
•See appendix (g).

68 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
According to this theory each species would have pre
served an absolute fixity for millions of years and then
at once some parent in that species suddenly begat off
spring of another species. It would naturally seem as if
these millions of years were enough to establish fixity of
species in each case and if another species appears at the
end of one of these periods, it must be accounted for in
some other way than as being the offspring of antecedent
species that has been fixed so long.
There seems to be a mistiness of thought in some circles
as to cause and effect. We used to read in our school
readers that "Great effects result from little causes."
As a match could set fire to a city, a little break in a
river dam cause an overflow and so on; In the sense in
which the writer used the words he was correct, for he
referred only to the fact that some small forces could
direct or release greater forces that were sufficient to
produce the effects, while in fact admitting that no effect
is ever produced greater than the sum total of the forces
operating to produce it. A little girl some years ago
touched an electric button and the bed rock under the
Hell Gate in N. Y. harbor leaped from its resting place
in millions of fragments and the waters above were for
a moment converted into a boiling sea of foam. But the
ounce of force exerted by Gen. Newton's little girl was
not the efficient cause. It was not a great effect from a
little cause, because every pound of force manifested in
effect was the result of a pound of causing force behind it.
The little girl's touch only released forces that were suffi
cient to produce the effect.
So in every case. The final result is but the measure
of the cause that produced it. This statement is just as
true with reference to the potentiality of the protoplas-

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 69
mic cell. There are millions of such cells in existence
now, each one capable of receiving its life principle only
from its own peculiar source, and then its potency is con
fined to development only along its own peculiar line.
The protoplasmic cell on an incipient corn cob cannot
be fertilized by the pollen of the rose. It must be
fertilized by pollen from the corn tassel and then it
will appropriate the nutriment brought to it by the
parent stalk and it can develop only into a grain of corn.
Others will receive their life principle from other sources,
but each one from its own and exclusive source and will
develop it along its own line.
Now to endue the little aggregate of protoplasmic cells
in the germ of algae with potentiality to produce a
sequoia would be equivalent to the creation ex nihilo, of
the sequoia. To endue a polyp with power either directly
or indirectly to produce an elephant is equivalent to
producing an elephant. To endue a sea squirt with power
to finally develop into a man would be equivalent to the
creation of a man. Yet how easy it is for the imagination
to endue the ovum of the orohippus with the power to
produce the mesohippus or any other form. And how
easy it is for men in imagination to endue the "slimy
ooze of the early sedimentary deposits"* with power to
produce all the varied forms of life that have existed
since. But in every instance the enduement of such
power would have been equivalent to the creation of the
resultant forms.
But with reference to the "Demonstrative Evidence
of Evolution" one question is whether the movement is
upward or downward. The horse is larger than the oro-
*See appendix (h).

7U Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
hippus but not necessarily more highly organized. If size
be the measure of development, then the summit of evolu
tion was reached ages ago and we are now on a down
grade, for the largest forms of life existed long ago and
are now extinct. But if the eohippus begat the orohippus,
the orohippus the mesohippus, etc., is it an upward or
downward movement in animal organization? There is
increase in size, but the atrophying of parts, the extinc
tion or leaving but rudimentary of four members, leav
ing but one instead of five, could as legitimately be con
sidered degeneration* as evolution.
If some Nordeau, advocating degeneration in the
animal world, should use that as an illustration it would
have as much force.
But another very common argument is that we see the
process of evolution going on around us every day. The
egg hatches a tadpole, the tadpole evolves the frog, and
so on.
We could accept the theory if men would confine the
meaning of the term to what is proven by that means.
But when it is admitted that an egg can evolve a chick
or that the hatching of a chick is a process of evolution,
the term evolution is immediately extended so as to em
brace an entirely different idea. The process is some
thing like this. If an egg can evolve a chick, evolution is
established. But eggs have repeatedly been known to
evolve chicks, hence evolution is established. But evolu
tion means that a single protoprosmic cell has, by a pro
cess of multiplying forms through an indefinite number
of species produced all the forms of life that have existed
on earth.
•Appendix (i).

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 71
This conclusion or any part of it more than that an egg
can produce a chick, involves a logical fallacy that ought
to be seen even by one who has never studied logic.
But one of the greatest practical difficulties with any
theory of evolution is the existing condition of things.
If the organic life of today be the outcome of any process
of evolution, how is it that some of the primitive forms
have remained through all the geologic ages entirely or
practically unchanged? Others have changed but very
little and all have produced very capricious results.
Why is it? We have microbes that produce diseases in
men and we have elephants. Have all evolved from the
same protoplasm ? If so why are they not on something
of the same plane now? We have thousands of species
of microscopic plants and animals, thousands of species
of aquatic and thousands more of land animals from the
eozoon to man. Why is it that some have made no ad
vance at all, others have reached the highest conditions
as man, and all have stopped just where they are? We
have microbes, infusoria, and thousands of other members
of the animal kingdom. We have still the ovum, wiggler
gnat, ovum wiggler gnat, repeating the same small circle
of existence after aU the geologic ages have given them
time, but still the circle is unbroken. How long will it
take to get above that condition? We have ovum, tad
pole, frog, repeating themselves in the same small circle
with the thousand million years, so often quoted, behind
them and still they get no farther. We have all of the
thousands of species of larger animals with only a very
few near the head. If advance from the lower to the
higher forms of life is a general law of nature, why is it
that we have the very lowest forms still, and the highest
with all of the intermediate forms still in existenca?

72 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
Whether the differentiation has been by natural selec
tion, survival of the fittest, parthenogenesis or any other
means, there must be continual creation of the lower
forms to supply the advancing masses, as in college there
must be freshmen classes to supply advancing and
graduating ones.
But some admit that the law of evolution cannot be a
general one. If not, then how general or how special is
it? If we admit that it is a special law for only a few
lines of individual succession, there is no force at all in
a general argument, and we are at once thrown upon the
proofs for each specific case. If in the hundreds of thou
sands of species of plants and animals now in existence
there has been transmutation of species in only a few
instances, the strength of the presumption in favor of
those exceptional cases is greatly reduced.
There is a vast number of species of living things now
in existence — for convenience, we will say 100,000,
though there are doubtless more.
Now if the supposed progressive upward movement
has characterized only, say, a couple of independent lines
of individual successions, while the remaining 99,998
have remained without transmutation, the presumption
is very strong against the supposition of transmutation
in those two exceptional cases. This presumption is the
stronger because even in these two instances there is not
a particle of evidence that transmutation has occurred.
It may be urged that there is such evidence in the case
of a horse. But there is no evidence whatever that the
orohippus was the progenitor of the mesohippus nor that
the mesohippus of America was the parent of the miohip
pus of Europe. The presumption is in favor of the
theory that they were independent of each other, and the

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 73
presumption is strengthened by the fact that closely
allied forms have been found that are not considered to
be in the line of succession at all, as the Anchitherium
and Hipparion. So far as any proof is concerned, the
evidence is that there were several closely allied species
existing, some contemporaneously, some successively, but
no one derived from another, as there are many such
existing today, as in the case of monkeys and apes,
closely allied but not derived one from another, as the
geologic records show from the first that have appeared.
The other case in which transmutation is insisted upon,
whatever else in the theory must go, is that of man.
Whatever else must be yielded in the theory of evolu
tion, it is most strenuously insisted that man has been
evolved from lower orders of animals. Still there is not
a particle of proof, nothing but presumption; and the
presumptive evidence is greatly weakened by the fact
that nearly all of the species through which he is sup
posed to have passed are still in existence. It is difficult
even to suppose a line of descent through the various
species of vertebrates for man's descent, for no line seems
to be suggested but what is soon abandoned. But what
ever line we take, some parents must have brought forth
young of their own species, while other parents must
have brought forth young of another species, for the
various species have preserved their own separate exist
ence while supposedly furnishing an upward succession.
But such a presumption is too violent to be scientific, if
not too violent to come within the bounds of reason. Even
admitting that through some unknown line of individual,
not general, succession man has been evolved by gradual
differentiation, there must be millions of intermediate
fossil forms, while scientists are vainly looking for a

74 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
single link to prove evolution. But to prove the theory
in general, billions of them should be found. To prove
it in the single case of man would require hundreds of
thousands. Transmutation of species must have occurred
thousands of times even in this one line, and yet not in a
single instance has it ever been observed, nor would it be
admitted to be possible, for no experience or experiments
have shown it to be possible, except for the necessity of
sustaining a theory that in the minds of some must be
proven at all hazards.
The superintendent of the department of Natural
History in the British Museum referred to and in part
quoted before, declares : "In all this great museum there
is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species.
Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer non
sense, not founded on observation, and wholly unsup
ported by fact. They adopt a theory and then strain
their facts to support it. I read all their books, but they
make no impression on my belief in the stability of
species. Moreover the talk of the great antiquity of man
is of the same sort. There is no such thing as a fossil
man. Men are ready to regard you as a fool if you do
not go with them in all their vagaries. But this museum
is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views."

CHAPTER lY
The Science of Geology, Confirming the Records of
Genesis I
WE refer again to the records in the rocks a>
confirming the records in Genesis. As be
fore stated. Genesis seems to teach that
plants and animals brought forth after
their own kind or species and not after some other
species. We read with reference to vegetables, (Genesis
1:11, 12), "And Got said, let the earth bring forth
grass, the herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding
fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the
earth ; and it was so. "
"And the earth brought forth grass and herb yielding
seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose
seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it
was good." Also in reference to aquatic animal life
[Genesis 1:21], "And Got created great whales, and
every living creature that moveth, which the water
brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every
winged fowl after its kind, and God saw that it was
good." Then as to land animals, verse 25, "And God
made the beast of the field after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth
after its kind; and God saw that it was good."
It may be urged with reference to animal life that
it is not said that they brought forth after their kind, but
it is distinctly stated that God "created "or "made "them
after their several kinds or species. But of vegetables it
is distinctly affirmed that they "brought forth after their
kind. ' ' And of animals it is an inference so strong that
75

76 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
it is safe to say it never would have been questioned ex
cept as necessary to sustain some other theory. There is
authority for this view that ought to be considered high
by those who would entertain those other views. Charles
Darwin never hesitated in his belief that Genesis first
taught that in every instance the creation form was the
terminal form. He believed that Genesis was wrong and
that his theory of an upward movement through trans
mutation of species was correct. It was the persistency
of this idea, i. e., that Genesis was wrong and he was
right, that occasioned him finally to lose faith in Genesis,
in the Bible as a whole, in God and revealed religion, and
to die a practical unbeliever. It may seem a premature
statement, but it is undoubtedly true that in future years,
when the truth becomes more clearly seen, the greatest
lesson that Darwin has taught the world is the involun
tary testimony his experience bears to the unity, in
tegrity and absolute truthfulness of the Scriptures. But
it is not for us here to decide which is correct, his view
of the teaching of Genesis first as to the stability of
species, or his theory as to their transmutation from one
into another in an upward series. He is cited here only
that his high authority may confirm the commonly re
ceived idea that Genesis first teaches the permanence of
species, and that in every case the creation form is the
terminal form. This latter view seems to be the teaching
of geology without the shadow of dissent. To show this
clearly to the eye we have here represented some of the
strata of the earth, as the Laurentian, Huronian, Cam
brian, Silurian, Devonian, and so on, up to the Modern;
the divisions of time, also, as Eozoic, Paleozoic and
Neozoic. The perpendicular lines represent some of the
species, and their length represents approximately the

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 77

Ezoic Time

B

Paleozoic Time

EC n £p.
c » —
a 3 5 <
2, il » g

O B o ?«

5; B

Mesozolc Time

^ora Q>ora Q>o(Q
Q>ora 9>ora ^o(Q
noo ^iSO 9vS7
WoRl Q>DKI Q>offl

Heozic Time

S 2 3

Eozoon Animal Species from Eozoic
Algae Plant Life from Eozoic
Cedar "
Poplar 
Oak 
Tulip 
Willow 
Spice-wood 
Sassafras 
Walnut 
Buckthorn 
Sumac 
Cinnamon 
Apple 
Fig 
Plum 
SCO Species of Trilobites

Archeopteryx— Bird in Jurassic Period
 900 Species of Ammonities

700 of Ganoids from Paleozoic Times, some of which extend to present

450 Species of Nautilus from Silurian, some extending to
the present

1. Orohippus
2. Mesohippus
3. Horse — extinct species found by
Darwin in Pleistocene
4. Miohippus
S. Protohippus
6. Pliohippus
7. Equui of present

3

WBn
4
6
5_
7
78 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
geologic ages during which they have or did bring forth
' ' after their kind. ' ' In the vegetable world, for example,
we have the algae, that from Eozoic to the present,
whether the terrestrial years be a thousand, a million or
a thousand millions, have "brought forth after their
kind." The species has remained fixed through all th«
ages since it first appeared. The same may be said of
some other species.
Some lines represent the persistence of other species
from the carboniferous period — cedar, poplar, willow,
oak, fig, tulip, spice-wood, sassafras, walnut, buckthorne,
sumac, cinnamon, apple and the plum. Whenever you
look at one of these common trees you have evidence of
the truthfulness of the record in Genesis, ' ' They brought
forth after their kind"; for from the early geologic age,
or for some say 5,000,000 years, they have invariably and
unvaryingly produced their species, brought forth "after
their kind," as stated in Genesis 1:12. In the animal
kingdom a long line represents the persistence of
Eozoon, which has brought forth after its kind from the
earliest time that animal life appeared upon the globe.
We need not refer to years, for, whether thousands or
millions, it has reproduced its species — brought forth
after its kind — during them all. But many species are
so numerous that we have to let one line represent a hun
dred species. Note five lines representing five hundred
species of trilobites, that through the unknown ages of
the Paleozoic time brought forth "after their kind"
without even a hint that a single individual of any
species ever reproduced anything but a trilobite "after
its own kind." Note nine lines representing nine hun
dred species of ammonites, which brought forth after
their own kind through more or less of Meaozoic time;

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 79
also lines representing four hundred species of nautilus
that, while they existed, brought forth only "after their
kind, ' ' without the slightest trace of ever having deviated
from that rule. Again there are seven hundred species of
the ganoids of which the same may be affirmed.
To represent each species of plants and animals by
lines an inch apart we should have to extend the chart to
ten miles in length instead of one foot. In that chart
every line an inch apart for ten miles would represent a
species that so far as known has reproduced its own
species — brought forth "after its kind," as Genesis de
clares. To illustrate the supposed genealogy of the horse, in
stead of lines six inches long representing the fixity of
some species through all geologic time, five lines each a
fraction of an inch long represent species that are sup
posed to have passed from one to another in an ascend
ing scale. Men have guessed that in the last fraction of
geologic time, the modern period, the orohippus merged
into the mesohippus, and so on. In other words, the oro
hippus did not bring forth after its kind, but brought
forth of mesohippus kind; and that the mesohippus of
America brought forth the miohippus of Europe, and
this brought forth the protohippus, and that the pliohip
pus, and this the equus. But there is not the slightest
evidence that one of these forms was the direct descend
ant of any of the others — it is mere supposition. So far as
anything is yet known, every plant and animal has
brought forth after its kind.
To quote from an address of the author's on "The
Scientific Accuracy of Genesis I," an abstract of which
was recently published:
"The same holds true of the fancied descent of several

80 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
pachyderm animals from some primal ungulate in the
earlier strata. The supposition is that some one species
in the past was directly or indirectly the parent of several
lines of hybrids, or mongrels, and finally developed into
the tapir, elephant, rhinoceros, and so on. But there is
not the slightest evidence that that has been the case.
Science refers to what is known, and I am speaking of
Science and Genesis; and so far as anything is known,
the rocks confirm the records.
"But the most curious thing in connection with this
theory that plants and animals have not brought forth
after their kind is the supposition that if a species can
be found that is closely allied to some other species, the
fact would prove that those other species have merged
one into another. An eminent English man of science
once supposed that the discovery of two species in wide
gaps between other species proved that one of those
species had merged into the other, and, inferentiaUy, that
all of our ten miles of parallel lines had come from some,
perhaps, single line ; or at least from a very few.
"So, of the connection between the anthropoid apes
and man. The idea seems to prevail that if we can dis
cover even a single specimen of an, as yet, undiscovered
species, existing between the ape and man, that this dis
covery alone would prove that man sprang from the
ape. But, in fact, it would not prove that assumption any
more than the discovery of Bros proves that Mars once
traveled the Earth's orbit, and that all of the planets
have been splashed off from the surface of the sun. The
similarity is very close, the cases are parallel, but to show
it would require a discussion upon which we cannot enter
in a single evening 's address. I can only repeat that so
far as science, as opposed to conjecture, is concerned,

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 81
everything in the records of creation confirms the written
records in Genesis I.
"It is maintained that the records in the rocks are so
imperfect that it may yet be proved that Genesis is
wrong. But these records are perfect enough to establish
the fixity of species, in some instances through all geologic
time, and in thousands of other cases through all of
some geologic periods or large portions of them. In
establishing Genesis the rocks are not at fault. It is only
when we wish, to prove that Genesis is wrong that we have
to appeal to the imperfections in the geologic records.
But so far as science — that which is known — is con
cerned, without the suggestion of dissent, the rocks con
firm the records of Genesis I.
"Add to this the fact that a transmutation of species
has never been known to occur in geologic or modern
times. The invariability with which each produces ' ' after
its kind" suggests a law of necessity that this must be
the case.
"Add to this the admission of Darwin that if design
is manifest in the universe, or that if anything exists
except for utilitarian ends, the theory opposed to Genesis
is false. "Add to this the universal barrenness of hybrids and
the constant tendency to revert to type, and many other
considerations of the same kind, and we have a portion
of one line of argument — where several exist — in favor
of the correctness of the statement that each plant and
animal produces 'after its kind.' "
Indefinitely more might be said along the same line,
but enough has been said perhaps already to make it
pertinent to raise a question here. Is it scientific to as
sume that all this mass of evidence must go for nothing.

82 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
and that the truth is found in a theory of phylogenetic
zoology that is rapidly losing ground in Europe?
Upon the side of permanence, fixity of species, we have
the testimony from the records in geology without the
suggestion of dissent, confirmed by the statements in
Genesis I, as commonly understood and as interpreted by
Darwin. Upon the other side we have a few vague
analogies or inferences, some of which point one way and
some another, e. g. : The little caruncle in the corner of
the eye is claimed as evidence that man has descended
from some nocturnal bird, while the vermiform append
age is claimed as evidence that he descended from some
marsupial quadruped. Is it scientific to assume that all
of the evidence for permanence of species, a little of
which has been cited above, is to go for nothing as out
weighed by a few analogies, inferences and speculations
which have no facts to sustain them?
But here again we are confronted by the difficulty of
attaching a clear, definite, tangible idea to the word
evolution, and nothing can be said upon either side of
the question but what can be strained to support some
one of the various theories of evolution. As one has said,
' ' Darwin may be in error, Huxley may be wrong, Mivart
may be wide of the mark, Haeckel may be mistaken, Cope
may misjudge and Spencer be at fault, but evolution is
a great and established fact. ' ' Of course, for one can not
admit the existence of anything without admitting evo
lution if everything distinctive in the term is left out;
but is it scientific to build upon the theory thus emptied
of meaning the superstructures it could hardly sustain
if all the ideas thus eliminated remained in it? Is it
scientific to build the same superstructures upon the
creative evolution of Agassiz, Gray, McCosch, Baden

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 83
Powell, the Duke of Argyll and others, as upon the
atheistic evolution of some others? Is it scientific to re
write sacred history so as to make it correspond with
inferences drawn from an hypothesis that has nothing
but imagination to stand upon? It may be urged, of
course that there are facts upon which this hypothesis
is based. There are indeed facts which are supposed in
some measure to sustain the theory, but thus far the con
nection between them is purely imaginary, as before
noted in the supposed genealogy of the horse. There are,
as everyone knows, the remains of the orohippus, meso
hippus, protohippus and so on, but what evidence is there
that the orohippus did not appear as such and disappear
without undergoing any modification of form ? So of all
the others. That the mesohippus is the lineal descendant
of the orohippus, and so on, is pure imagination with the
presumptive arguments of the known fixity of species
against it. Farther, the remains of the Anchitherium and
Hipparion — very similar in form — are not in the line of
descent, and that some horses in the past were not so
derived is apparent, from the fact previously stated that
Darwin found and recognized the tooth of a horse con
temporary with some of the earlier so-called progenitors
of the horse. We do not claim these as positive proofs,
but they certainly present a mountain of probability that
one was not derived from the other, to offset the mere
fancy that they were.
Again, the fact that certain forms of life appear that
seem to be between the fish and the bird is assumed to
prove that birds are evolved from fishes. But is there
any evidence to show that any such forms have not ex
isted as they now are from their first appearance to the
present? Millions of other forms have so remained un-

84 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
changed; why not these? The presumptive evidence is
all in favor of the supposition that these also have so
remained, and there is nothing but a fancy that they are
transitional forms between the lower and the higher
forms of life. This presumptive evidence is immensely
strengthened by the fact that fully developed, perfectly
formed birds now exist and have existed for ages without
a suggestion of variation, except when such variation has
been forced by cultivation. Moreover the remains of per
fectly formed birds have been found in as old formations
as the Jurassic, and now there is so little suggestion of
change in bird life that four hundred varieties of hum
ming birds exist in one locality, of which some feathers
would never be mistaken for those of another variety.
The Balanoglossus is supposed to be a connecting link
between worms and the vertebrates. But we have worms
now and vertebrates from the lowest forms to man. Is it
probable that some worms millions of years ago produced
Balanoglossus offspring, and they in turn produced ver
tebrate animals, and so on, while some worms continued
to beget worm progeny to the present day ? If probable,
is the probability greater than the probability that like
thousands of other species of animals it first appeared in
its present form ? The same questions may be asked con
cerning the Bathybius, and Amoeba that are supposed
to be initial or transitional. Now is it scientific to base
conclusions of the greatest moment upon imaginary con
nections of facts ? To state the question is to answer it.
Science is but the discovery of facts and the tracing of ac
tual, not imaginary, connections between them. The Cape
to Cairo railroad in Africa is approaching Victoria Palls
from both north and south. When the two sections reach
the river on opposite sides there will be the fact that

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 85
road extends north to Cairo and south to the Cape, but
it will require something more than an imaginary bridge
over the chasm to make it safe to run trains across. It
would not be safe to attempt to run a train across an
imaginary bridge, but it would be just as scientific to
attempt that as to build vast structures of philosophy,
theology and history upon imaginary connections with
other facts.
Whatever the future may have in store, at present
there is no actual connection between facts such as to
warrant the vast structures that have been built upon
the fancied relations between them. Is it scientific?
Again I say to ask the question is to answer it. To call
such proceedings science or scientific is to use the term
in a loose, unmeaning, bastard sense that is a travesty on
its real meaning and an insult to true science. It is
because it has been so frequently abused that the term
itself has become a stench to the truly scientific spirit.
It is "science falsely so-called," and all of its contradic
tions to revealed religion are but "the oppositions of
science falsely so-called."
And the same observations hold with increased force
with reference to the recent adjustments of philosophy
and religion to the supposition that man has developed
from the lower animals. There are facts, of course, in
embryology, facts in zoology and natural history, but the
connection of those facts with any theory of such develop
ment is purely imaginary. There is a little caruncle at
the inner corner of the eye, but that it is a vestige of a
nictitating membrane and proves that man descended
from a nocturnal bird is pure imagination. There is the
vermiform appendix, but that it is vestigial of a greater
and perhaps useful appendix, and proves that man has

86 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
descended from some marsupial animal is imagination.
There is in the human embryo the ' ' lanugo, ' ' but to sup
pose that fact to prove that primeval man was hairy and
descended from some hairy animal ancestor is pure
imagination. So of other fancied proofs. All that any
thing along that line can do is to suggest lines of inquiry,
but if they point to facts the record of those facts could
be found in the rocks. They prove nothing, and even
suggest little in the matter concerning which they are
forced to do such great service.
The caruncle of the eye may serve some useful purpose
connected with the lachrymal duct, the vermiform ap
pendix may have a function, as has been suggested
recently, of lubricating the intestines. So of other
vestigial organs. Men have never yet exhausted the
resources of infinite wisdom, and purposes of use and
beauty may be served by means of which we have as yet
no knowledge.
With reference to the derivation of man the rocks are
silent, for no trace of a fossil man has ever been found.
But there is evidence regarding his derivation that should
have weight. It is scientific to accept evidence. Very
little of any man's scientific knowledge today has been
of his own discovery. Nearly all of it has been taken from
written or spoken testimony. It is scientific to accept
well authenticated testimony. If it is not, Kepler was
not scientific in accepting the evidence that formed the
basis for his celebrated "Third Law." But he was right
in accepting the evidence and correct in his use of it, for
the principle of that law is demonstrable and has been
demonstrated. It is scientific to admit evidence when the
authority of the source has been reasonably established.
Cosmogony and geology have established the terse, literal,

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 87
scientific accuracy of many statements in Genesis I. This
fact should take its testimony out of the nimbus of vague,
indefinite nebulosity that has enshrouded it. Its state
ments are clear, clean-cut, explicit and accurate, and en
titled to a respectful hearing. What is that testimony ?
"And God said let us make man in our image, after our
likeness * * * * So God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him; male and
female created he them. ' ' But of course we are met with
the Argument that this may be true, but he may have
taken millions of years through transmutation of species
in which to do it. Darwin did not so understand it.
Geology absolutely confirms similar statements concern
ing vegetables and lower animals as Darwin understood
those statements. If such evidence is to be assumed as
false there is no foundation in nature for any science
that has for its field of investigation the orderly succes
sion of plants, animals or men from ancestors. If higher
forms have been derived by gradual differentiations
from lower forms, first, billions of transitional forms
should be found for every terminal one that has been
found, whereas not one has been discovered and, second,
any divergence whatever outside of the limits of a clearly
defined species would invalidate the testimony of nature
as to the orderly succession of species, and make the
result so uncertain that a science of zoology would be im
possible. If on the other hand divergence comes by leaps
or bounds as Darwin suggests as possible and illustrates
by a diagram, that is, if a species may have brought forth
after its kind for thousands of years or through an entire
geological age and then give rise to a half dozen or even
one different species the case as to the possibility of
science is indefinitely worse. It would be like trying to

88 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
construct a science of astronomy where any heavenly
body was likely to start off at any moment upon a
different orbit or burst into a dozen pieces and each one
pursue a different and widely distant orbit of its own.
Anything like science would be impossible and all condi
tions of knowledge would be reduced to chaos. Is it scien
tific then to assume that all the evidence in nature and
revelation as to fixity of species is to go for naught and
that history, philosophy and theology are to be re- written
in the interest of such chaotic relations ?
Is it scientific to reject all the evidence of Genesis as to
the origin of man and conclude that he has descended
from an avis ancestor because in the corner of the human
eye is a supposed vestige of the nictitating membrane of
some ancient nocturnal bird, or from f he horse because he
has the platysma myoides of the neck, homologous with
the useful paniculus carnosus of the horse, or from the
ass because he has some useless ear muscles while in
that animal they are larger and useful, or from the ape
because of the coccyx or from some other animal because
of the lanugo in the embryo?
To call such proceedings philosophical or such pro
cesses scientific is to bring both terms into contempt. No
wonder the partisans of such philosophy and science find
a conflict between "science" and religion. We can ex
claim with Paul, "Beware lest any man spoil you through
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
Or again, ' ' Oh Timothy, keep that which is committed to
thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and op
positions of science falsely so-called, which some pro
fessing have erred concerning the faith. ' '
In these few thoughts there has been no attempt to

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 89
sustain or overthrow any system of phylogenetic zoology,
but to present some evidence and to raise the question.
Is the balance of evidence in favor of any system of
zoology involving the transmutation of species suffi
ciently great to be admitted as absolute truth or near
enough to it to warrant the tremendous structures of
history, philosophy and theology that have been based
upon it as if it were absolute truth? We might raise
another question, Is the balance of evidence such as to
sustain any theory of organic evolution until the term
is emptied of everything distinctive in it ? If we take the
term evolution and empty it of all the distinctive views of
representative evolutionists of the past generation, it is
sustained by all the evidence of geology as the creative
evolution of Gray, MeCosh, Baden Powell, the Duke of
Argyll, of Dawson and Agassiz and many other firm
believers in the inspired records. As the Duke of Argyll
says, " It is as certain as any fact of history that creation
has had a history. It has not been a single act done and
finished once for all, but a long series of acts, a work con
tinuously pursued through an inconceivable lapse of time.
It is another fact equally certain respecting this work,
that as it has been pursued in time so also it has been
pursued by method. There is an observed order of facts
in the history of creation, both in the organic and in the
inorganic world. ' ' No one would deny this. It is but a
re-statement of Genesis I, and there has never been any
controversy over the term as thus defined, until the ad
vent of men who would fill it with other meanings that
have no warrant in facts.
Whatever may be the outcome of present discussiczis
or future discovery, there is now no foundation in facts,
logically connected, upon which to build any structures

90 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
that could not be based upon the literal and exact scien
tific facts recorded in Genesis I. Thus far that chapter
is the rock foundation of exact science as well as of
revealed religion.
We have thus considered some of the essential state
ments in the first chapter of Genesis, with some of their
corroborative evidences in nature. There is a prac
tically infinite probability that they are correct. At
least they are indefiLnitely more probable than any
theories that are opposed to their correctness. Ancient
astronomy began to accumulate the facts upon which
is established the probability that the earth at one time
was "emptiness, vacancy." The modern sciences of as
tronomy, chemistry, optics, mathematics, spectrum
analysis and others have brought that probability in
finitely near to a demonstration. The primitive condi
tion of the earth as "tohu, bohu" is as satisfactorily
settled as if men had seen that condition with their own
eyes, as indeed a similar condition may actually have
been seen in the recent nebula around Nova Persei. This
condition involves the necessity for creation, while the
condition renders also more probable his declaration con
cerning creation. According to real science the fact of
making implies a maker, the fact of creation implies a
Creator. The first two verses in Genesis I are correct in
their statements. The rest of the chapter to the appear
ance of life follows necessarily. There is every reason
to believe that the statements as to the origin of life are
correct. The first chapter of Genesis is the narrative of
solid facts. It is a true foundation for every science
affected by it, the rock foundation for revealed religion
that is built upon it.

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 91
SUPERORGANIC EVOLUTION
A few words upon this subject may not be out of place
here. Much of modern speculation is based upon the
assumption that in the infancy of the human race men
were of a very low order of beings and that there has
been a gradual, steady movement upward, without as
sistance from outside himself, until the present civiliza
tion of Europe and America has been reached. Facts,
however, hardly sustain any such theory. Archaeology
seems to indicate that the farther back we go in the his
tory of the race, the higher the degree of civilization. At
least, this seems to be the case in that part of the world
that has been universally considered as the cradle of the
race, as Asia Minor and Egypt.
The pyramids of Egypt show degeneration rather than
advance. The oldest one is not only the largest but im
measurably transcends all the others in its suggestive-
ness, not to say, its teachings.
Ruins indicating a high degree of intelligence are scat
tered through Mexico, Central and South America as
well as in the islands of the Pacific, and these latter are
now occupied by the most inhuman cannibals and head
hunters. The Chinese have deteriorated from what they
were 2,000 years ago. The sacred books of India in
dicate an indefinitely higher condition of life and morals
than exist in that country to-day.
Alfred Russell Wallace, on the eve of his ninetieth
birthday, as reported, says, "Man has shown no im
provement either intellectually or in morals from the
days of the earliest Egyptians and Syrians 7,000 years
ago to the keel laying of the latest dreadnaught. " He
then goes on to say, "There has been, of course, a great
accumulation of human knowledge, but for all that we

92 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
are no cleverer than the ancients. The average of man
kind will remain the same until natural selection steps
in to raise it. ' ' He undoubtedly states a fact until he gets
to the remedy. Natural selection has had a chance to
operate, has been operating through all those 7,000 years
and still we have not only the average man, but we still
have men living in the stone age, we have cave dwellers
and more than that we have races that have not yet
reached the condition of using stone implements or living
in caves. The Cooboos or Kubus of southern Sumatra
still live like pigs, picking up nuts, berries, edible roots
and so on, with no habitations and the only difference
they know between a living and a dead person is that the
dead do not breathe. They leave their dead, unburied,
where they fall.
The world is strewed with the ruins of extinct civiliza
tions where now the rudest barbarism prevails.
What is the cause of this decay ? The -apostle Paul
cannot be far from the truth, "For the invisible things
of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead so that they are without ex
cuse : Because that, when they knew God they glorified
him not as God, neither were thankful ; but became vain
in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was dark
ened. Professing themselves to be wise they became
fools, and so on. There is rich food for thought in that
first chapter of his letter to the Romans. Divine revela
tion foretold the doom of many cities and nations and
history has verified those predictions. These may illus
trate the case of those civilizations that have not been
mentioned in holy writ. In the unrenewed man there is
no inherent, uplifting force. But to those who have been

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 93
'born of the Spirit,' to those who, by accepting Christ
and believing on Him, have been 'born again' there is
imparted an uplifting force and as the individual rises,
civilizations rise.

CHAPTER V
The Fall of Man
IF one had been stationed on some nearby star, had
seen the flash of newly-created nebula and then
had watched it as it formed its rolling spheres
circling around and completing the solar system,
the evidence as to its creation and formation could hard
ly have been clearer than it now is. Further, if one had
heard with his physical ears an audible fiat, "Let the
earth bring forth grass," and so on, the evidence could
hardly have been more conclusive as to the origin of life
upon the planet than it is now. And if the whole pro
cess had been concentrated into seven of our earth days,
the facts could hardly have been more vivid and real
than they are at present. Facts do not change their
nature by reason of age. No human eye saw or ear heard,
but He who ' ' spake and it was done, ' ' who ' ' commanded
and it stood fast," kindly revealed the facts to one who
wrote them down for our instruction.
This chapter is the basis of the Bible. Although com
posed of many books written in different periods, it bears
the marks of unity and of ultimate authorship. The first
of Genesis alone could mark it as unique. It is not
merely one of many sacred books. It stands alone.
There may be many books of human origin that contain
much truth, but there are none that bear the stamp and
seal of Divine authorship that mark the Bible. It stands
among books like the pyramid of Cheops among the
others. Others may resemble it in form, some perhaps
approach it in size, but there is an immeasurable distance
94

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 95
between them as to the teaching. The Bible is like the
miracles of Moses and Aaron in the presence of Pharoah
as compared with those wrought by the sorcerers.
Again, if one had seen and heard as stated above, and
had known that all was done in the interests of created
beings, nothing that could have secured the interests of
those creatures in after years could have seemed in
credible or to challenge a reasonable belief. Nothing
could be more reasonable than faith in the narrative that
follows that wonderful declaration of facts in Genesis I.
There is no miracle conceivable that could match in the
physical world the great miracle of creation. In fact
the very existence of . the universe is evidence, to a
thoughtful mind, of a stupendous miracle, and one that
makes all other miracles recorded in the Bible seem prob
able. To one who is cognizant of the constitution of mat
ter and who admits that "in the beginning God" existed,
creation itself and all its sequences as narrated in the
revealed word are credible, natural. The great World
Soul of Sir Oliver Lodge, the Supreme Intelligence of
Wallace, the ultimate Force, the persistence of which
(though not perhaps perceived as a Person) was the
basis of Spencer's philosophy and of Farrady's physics,
was known to Newton as God, to Moses as Elohim. The
same Person revealed Himself to His chosen people in
many ways and with names that adapt Him to every
need of the race, until in the fullness of time He became
Jesus, God incarnate, sacrificing Himself for the sins of
the world. This last is really the greatest miracle of all,
the one most vitally connected with man's welfare and
yet one most stubbornly denied even by some who admit
the miracle of creation. But this will be dwelt upon
later.

96 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
But here we must strenuously contend that a book
which opens with a revelation of such astounding, intel
lect-transcending truths as those in Genesis I, is reason
ably entitled to more than ordinary consideration. None
of its statements are to be fiippantly thrown aside. Any
rational religion involves the idea of a wisdom higher
than man's, and man's highest wisdom is a confession of
ignorance and dependence upon that which is higher.
When asked, in effect, whether we are to believe the
Bible because of its contents, or believe the contents be
cause they are in the Bible, the late Dr. Harper of Chi
cago University wisely replied "both." The idea
implied is that there are so many things in the Bible
that are known to be true that they establish the veracity
of the book as a whole and we must believe other things
in the book which we should be under no obligation to
believe but for the established veracity of the book. This
principle is involved in our every day affairs. The books
of the merchant would be worthless if this principle
were not allowed as valid in the courts. The merchant
can prove his books by proving that some of the entries
are correct. Other entries have to be admitted to be true
because they are in the books. This principle, of course,
is not infallible with reference to the merchant's books
for he may be dishonest and make false entries. In other
books there may be much truth and yet, owing to ignor
ance, there may be much that is untrue. But in the
Bible there is no motive for dishonesty, and a writer who
knew the wonderful facts recorded in Genesis I, would
not belikely in ignorance to write untruths. Again, some
may insist that Genesis I is allegory. No, it is no more
allegory than Euclid's geometry. It is not probable that
the following chapters are. It is true that the same man

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 97
may write the most profound mathematical works and
"Alice in Wonderland." A man has done it. But he
did not write a chapter of abstract mathematical truth
and then a chapter of "Alice in Wonderland," bind them
together and pass them off as one piece.
These thoughts apply here to the story of the fall of
man. Simian anthropology teaches that man was cre
ated in the image of an ape and has been stumbling up
ward. Genesis teaches that he was created in the image
of God and stumbled downwards. The first chapter of
Genesis is correct. It is probable that the third chapter
is. Accepting the fact that the universe is, that the nar
rative in Genesis I is true, there is no inherent impro
bability in the story of the fall. It is customary to smile
at the snake story. But the smile may arise from self-
complacent ignorance. At least it is not wise to treat as
frivolous a story recorded as a fact, that stands in such
close proximity with the wonderful story that immediate
ly precedes it.
It is to be noted first that there was not the enmity nor
fear existing between man and the serpent that there
now is. It is not probable that Eve would have been
more frightened at the sight of a large serpent than we
at the sight of a cat. Even now in some parts of the
earth serpents are domesticated like cats and for the same
purpose. Second, it is coming now to be an established
fact that animals have a language or means of com
munication among themselves which may be understood
by men. Note the fact that a learned professor has re
cently devoted himself to the study of the Simian
language, and the report that a department has been
established in one of our great universities for study
along the same lines. It is not impossible that our first

98 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
parents understood animal language and conversed with
some of them.
But leaving this as being little relevant and of slight
consequence, it is not a matter of surprise that Eve acted
so little astonished. Whether, in general, animals could
talk or not, with very limited experience she might not
have known but that all animals could talk. So to Eve
it may not have seemed marvelous that a beast should
talk, for if she had not talked with them she had never
spoken to any one but Adam and was totally inex
perienced. Then with reference to the serpent, it is no
more marvelous that it should have been endued with
the power of speech for the occasion than that in later
years, Balaam's ass should have been so endued.
Really the whole question of probability or impro
bability goes farther back than this first visible outcrop
ping of evil. Has sin entered the world? The question
needs no answer. It is too apparent everywhere. Ad
mitting then that sin is in the world, it requires no
stretch of credulity to believe that it entered with the
first man. But how? By yielding to some temptation.
But why should temptation in any form be allowed to
enter an earthly Eden ? The answer is apparent. It was
to make virtue, goodness, righteousness, moral character
possible to man. It must be an axiom of ethics that
without liberty to sin, there could be no possibility of
virtue. Without temptation to unrighteousness there
could be no righteousness. For some reason God designed
that man should be a moral agent, not a mere machine,
a moral agent with the possibility of forming moral
character, of cultivating virtue, growing in Godlikeness.
The idea that this could be possible without temptation
violates the very basic principle of morals. There could

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 99
be innocence without temptation but no virtue and none
of the rewards of virtue could have belonged to one
whose innocence had never been tried so that will power
had to be exerted toward the right. It is resisting temp
tation by the power of one's own will that constitutes
virtue, and it is persistence in this that builds up virtu
ous moral character, Godlikeness.
Men have been unnecessarily puzzled over the ques
tion why evil was allowed to come into the world. The
basis of what we call evil is in the benevolence of God.
This benevolence has shown itself in the construction of
the universe so that it can be a school of ethics, a gym
nasium for the practice of virtue, the development of
moral character. This comes in two ways. First, the
awful consequences of sin in the suffering it produces
appeals to others, and the efforts to help and save have ,
built up some of the most Godlike characters on earth.
Farther than this, if there had been but one person in the
world, he could have developed character ojily as, by the
power of his own will, he had resisted the evil tendencies
or inclinations that are within himself. While thus the
basis of evil is potentially in the goodness of God, the
actual, realized evil is the result of man's own choosing.
The stars move in their courses, yielding to the in
fluences that control them, and make nO devious ways.
But there is no virtue in the outward correctness of their
actions. God could have made men in the same way, but
there would have been no more merit or virtue in them
than in the stars. He did not choose to make them in that
way. He did choose to make them and their environ
ment so that infinite possibilities were within their reae]i.
It follows then that unless temptation had come into
the world, the whole machinery of the universe would

100 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
have been worthless for the purpose of developing free
agents into virtuous moral characters.
A celebrated evangelist was recently asked, ' ' If God is
all-powerful and all-good, why doesn't he kill the devil?"
The answer could have been, because the purpose of God
now is the same that it was at the outset — to give men a
chance to build up moral character by resisting tempta
tion. And there is no inherent improbability in the
statements regarding a personal devil who in the guise
of a serpent or in the person of the serpent presented
the first temptation. The story would seem violently
improbable were it not for the connection in which it oc
curs. But the universe exists, and we have the record
of its origin in a way that admits of no dispute that it
came as a revelation from its Maker. The whole story is
of miraculous events. It is itself a miracle in the sense
in which the word is commonly used. The story of the
fall is a part of that record. It is not to be tossed aside
with a smile of self-complacent incredulity. It will not
be so treated by those who are wise enough to feel their
own ignorance and bow to the wisdom of the Highest.
He has evidently revealed the truth to us in the records
He has inspired. The fact of the fall is one of the bottom
facts in human history, appallingly apparent every
where. But the question arises, was the temptation presented
by a person, or by an innate propensity to evil? It is
wiser to answer from the records than from any precon
ceived ideas of how it ought to be answered. There is
evidence that the tempter was a person in the sense in
which the term persona is applied to other spiritual
beings. The idea does not necessarily involve that of
locality or form, or space. God is a person and yet not

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 101
subject to these material limitations. In the records
there is the same evidence of the personality of Satan
that there is of the personality of God. If there is any
difference it is in degree and not in kind. Man has fal
len and that fall necessitates Redemption.

CHAPTER VI
The Story of Redemption
THIS story begins in Genesis and is continued
through all the book that is founded upon Gen
esis I. The promise was made in Eden that the
seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's
head. From there it runs through nearly or quite every
book of the Bible until it reaches its climax in the resur
rection of Christ. Redemption itself including the
atonement has its necessary origin in two facts. Justice
and Sin. In the very nature of things Divine justice
requires that sin should be punished. As in the material
universe, from a given force what is lost as force must be
made up in heat, light, electricity or some other of the
correlated forces of nature, so in the moral universe,
what is lost from righteousness must be made up in suf
fering. Sin must suffer its penalty. And this is true
whether as an attribute justice inheres in the nature of
God to be administered independently of governmental
relations, or whether it exists merely as a governmental
necessity. And whether the "nature of things" existed
first and God adapted Himself to it, or whether He ex
isted first and adapted "the nature of things" to Him
self, is not essential in this discussion.
Further, whether anything exists apart from the ex
istence of God, or whether all things are but a manifesta
tion of God, it is not necessary to consider, for no such
considerations affect the fact that justice exists and
justice demands that crime against our fellow men be
punished, even if from no other reason than as a restraint
of crime. Justice requires that sin should meet its
102

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 103
penalty even if for no other reason than to restrain men
from sin. But judging from the analogies of nature, the
correlation of forces, to say nothing of theological ar
guments, the Calvinistic idea that justice is an attribute
inherent in God and the nature of things is most nearly
correct. This requires that sin should be punished, that
crime should meet its penalty independently of govern
mental relations. Justice may have a deeper origin and
reach higher than governmental necessity. This neces
sity may be a sufficient warrant for justice in the punish
ment of crime in human society, but in the punishment
of sin against God, punishment future and invisible to
mortals, the sufficiency of this governmental necessity
is not so apparent. However, it becomes more apparent
as we remember that there are other intelligences than
human beings who are affected by it.
But independent of these and all other considerations,
justice demands the punishment of crime and sin. Con
sider this necessity first in human affairs, as there it is
most apparent. What would be the condition of human
society if all laws were done away with, or all penal
ties abrogated? Any such thing as order, peace or
safety would be impossible. Through the laxness in
the dispensation of justice, we have already approached
a social condition that is well nigh intolerable. Con
temporaneous with and following the teaching of loose
theological ideas concerning Divine justice and loose
administration of judicial justice, we are in the con
dition described by Hosea, (4:2) "By swearing and
lying and killing and stealing and committing adultery,
they break out and blood toucheth blood." This is the
natural and necessary result of following the legal
maxim, "It is better that ten guilty men escape than

104 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
that one innocent man be punished." The maxim is
false. The fact is coming to exist, that ten innocent per
sons do suffer for every guilty person who escapes due
punishment. It was to secure the greatest good of the greatest num
ber that God himself gave laws for the regulation of
society. The gist of those laws, the ten commandments,
was but the expression in words of eternal principles that
inhere in the very nature of things. This is a fact,
though it can be only stated here. The violation of
those principles involves evil consequences as a matter
of necessity. But in addition to those natural evil con
sequences of inherent principles, there are statutory
penalties decreed. By statutory enactment or by con
crete example, that penalty in every instance was death,
even to extreme cases of the mildest of the command
ments. This again must pass with the mere statement
except with a few examples. ' ' Thou shalt not kill, ' ' the
statutory penalty was death; "steal," "He that stealeth
a man .... shall be put to death"; "covet," Achan
coveted the gold and garment and suffered the penalty;
' ' false witness, ' ' the law prescribed that it should be done
to him as he thought to do to the one against whom he
bore false witness. If by false witness he was compassing
the death of another, he was himself to suffer the extreme
penalty ; "adultery, ' ' the statutory penalty was death for
both parties. So of every one of the ten commandments,
death was the penalty for the worst forms of violation
and there were other penalties for the milder forms of
their violation.
It is to be noted too that the penalty is not mere
chastisement designed to reform the criminal. It is not
reformatory punishment, but a satisfaction of justice

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 105
whether that justice be independent of or dependent
upon governmental necessity. But for offences smaller
than capital crimes the punishment is reformatory in so
far as it strikes at the propensity that produces the crime.
Avarice produces theft, the penalty strikes at the propen
sity that produces it, restoration many times over.
Where this can not be, the penalty resembles the offence
as a reminder of it, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, burn
ing for burning. These were the statutory penalties and
not mere natural consequences.
It is worthy of note further, that the infliction of these
penalties was intrusted to those who would be most likely
to carry them out, the nearest of kin, those whose defen
sive passions would assist in meting out justice by assist
ing to overcome pity. "Thine eye shall not pity, nor
thy hand spare." The good of society, the existence of
society in conditions in which existence was tolerable
demanded that justice should be meted out. It is notice
able too that every one was forbidden to attempt the
perversion of justice. "Thou shalt not .... counten
ance the poor man in his cause" (Ex. 23 :2,3), or the man
who has a poor cause. No official or professional was al
lowed to espouse a poor cause, or from professional pride,
ambition, or money to clear the guilty. A woe is pro
nounced upon those who "justify the wicked for reward"
(Is. 5:23). But on account of the prevalence of that
practice and other evils, "Therefore is the anger of the
Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched
forth his hand against them and smitten them." (Is.
5:25). Scripturally there is a kind of false witness
against society in clearing criminals that requires the
same penalties to be inflicted upon the one who thus
cheats the law as ought to have been inflicted upon the

106 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
culprit himself. If any person cheats justice by clearing
the guilty, the same justice should be meted out to him,
and professionalism does not count with God. "The
Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffer
ing and abundant in goodness and truth, * * * • and
that will by no means clear the guilty." (Ex. 34:6,7).
His moral excellencies manifested toward his people will
not permit him to clear the guilty.
This principle is written in nature. There is a moral
conservation of the forces of justice and righteousness
that what is lacking in one must be made up in the other,
and professionalism does not count in this matter. If
any man cheats justice the same justice should be meted
out to him. The welfare of society, the nature of God
and "the nature of things" require that justice should
be administered even if it has to be done in spite of the
modern machinery for defeating it. Modern courts are
not God 's vicegerents to the extent that he has appointed
them and is always satisfied with their decisions. Not
that they are consciously corrupt. It is probable that
they never were more upright. But the safeguards de
signed to protect the innocent are woefully perverted to
clear the guilty. Whatever its origin, whatever its na
ture, whatever the necessity for its existence, there is
such a thing as justice, and the welfare of humanity
requires that it be administered and that crimes against
humanity be punished.
So much for human law and the necessity for justice
in human affairs. Has it a broader field of activity?
Does it exist only in the relations of man with man, or
does it extend beyond these relations and into the sphere
of the Divine government? Evidently it has this
broader field, and enters into the sphere of the Divine

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 107
government. This is necessarily the case, if God is a per
son who has rights of his own, and can think and feel
and will. The first table of the decalogue has primarily
to do with sins against God. Crimes against men are
sins against God, but farther than this is the fact that
there are sins directly against God. Idolatry, not only
in the outward act, but in the inner thought is sin.
Blasphemy, the lightly taking of God's name upon our
lips, is sin, any form of disobedience is sin, even where
our fellow-men are not injured. It is noticeable that there
are statutory penalties attached to these sins as well as
evil consequences resulting from them. In the long run,
these evil consequences may be terrible, but they do not
sufficiently express the divine attitude towards sin. The
divine attitude is expressed by the statutory penalties at
tached to violations of the commandments. Death was
the penalty of idolatry, of enticement to idolatry, of
blasphemy and of some other sins against God. In general
"the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Death (sentence)
passed upon all men "for all had sinned." Whatever
its nature, whatever its origin, whatever the necessity
for its existence, there is such a thing as justice, and the
well being of all sentient beings demands that it be ad
ministered and that sins against God should be punished.
How then can any one escape? The problem was too
deep for human wisdom. The wisest statesmen of old
could not see how it was possible to forgive sin without
causing the law itself to come into contempt and be dis
regarded accordingly. But God solved the problem that
was too deep for men, and made provision for all future
emergencies. That provision is the planting in men of
the instinctive idea of the efficacy of substitution. When
men make a machine some of whose parts are likely to

108 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
get out of order, they make it with reference to the pos
sibility of renovating those parts. They thus make provi
sion for future contingencies. When God made man,
he made the same provision and that provision was made
by planting in him the sentiment or instinctive knowl
edge that vicarious substitution was effectual and this
makes vicarious sacrifice sufficient. The first men born
into the world betray the presence of the instinctive,
God-implanted sentiment, for, conscious of sin, they
offered sacrifices, and Cain's offering was rejected,
although it was a sacrifice of possessions, while Abel's
was accepted because in addition to this, there was in
volved vicarious suffering, a type of the Lamb that in the
future was to suffer for the sins of the world.
Men of all nations have shown the presence of the
same sentiment, for all nations, generally speaking, have
felt the necessity for expiatory sacrifices. All nations
have offered them.
When God made man he made his spiritual nature with
reference to the possibility of saving him should he need
salvation, as his Maker certainly knew that he would.
That possibility is in the instinct implanted in all human,
and, we may reason, in all sentient beings, of the efficacy
of vicarious sacrifice. This is the adjustment, so to
speak, of man's spiritual nature to the possibility of
salvation without himself paying the penalty of sin. All
the human race, angels and demons, are so constituted as
to recognize the efficiency of a voluntary substitution in
suffering penalty. If one transgresses the law, another
may by his own voluntary suffering satisfy justice so
that the transgressor may escape the penalty. Incidents
reported from Central Africa show the existence of an
instinctive sense not only that demerit, sin, must be

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 109
punished, but that another and innocent party may
voluntarily bear the penalty, and let the transgressor go
free. If a current story be true, our own government
has accepted a voluntary substitute in the place of the
guilty party. In one of the Southwestern Territories an
Indian murdered a white man. As usual, the govern
ment held the tribe responsible, and gave them a limited
time in which to surrender the guilty party, or have war
declared against them; and troops were sent to the place
to carry out the order. Every effort was put forth to find
the guilty party, but without success. Finally on the
evening of the last day an Indian offered himself to the
assembled chiefs as a substitute. "Take me," he says,
"shoot me, and turn my body over to the white." It was
done, and what could the whites do but accept it in the
place of the guilty one ?
Such voluntary offering of one 's self as that of Publius
Decius, or that of the Athenian king, Menaecius of
Thebes, or of the daughter of Orion, prove the existence
of this instinct in the people of those nations, which en
abled them to see that God could be just and yet the
justifier of all those who accept of their own vicarious
substitute. The spiritual constitution of the race was
adapted from the beginning to this plan of salvation.
That it is in accordance with God's purposes need not
be argued with any one who believes that God was the
author of the Mosaic law. Sacrifices, countless in num
ber, of innocent animals were commanded to be offered
as types of the one great sacrifice of Calvary. Atone
ment in the orthodox sense is in harmony with aU God's
teachings, verbal and by symbol.
The efficacy of vicarious substitution is written in the
constitution of nature. It is supplied in the kingdom

110 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
of grace by the vicarious atonement made by God himself
in the person of Jesus the Christ. But note, the substi
tution must be, as it was, vicarious and willing on the
part of the substitute. The Christ was not unjustly com
pelled to take the sinner's place. Upon his Father's
wish he voluntarily offered himself saying, "Lo I come
to do thy will, 0 God. " While it might have been unjust
for God to have compelled his son or any other innocent
party to suffer vicariously, it was not unjust for him to
accept a substitute freely offered and Jesus says, "I lay
down my life for the sheep. ' '
But how could this sacrifice avail for those who died
before it was offered? The written promise of the gov
ernment to pay is as good as the gold, and the promise
of God to redeem mankind was just as good before it
was redeemed as after. In the counsels of God, and the
knowledge of all sentient beings who were immediately
affected, was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of
the world. ' ' Even Abel, upon appearing at the gates of
paradise, could have been admitted upon promise of the
Son of God to pay the penalty of his sins four thousand
years hence on Calvary. In the correlation of spiritual
forces, what was lost by the fall is made up in redemp
tion. These things are stated as facts and as such they are
corroborated by certain passages of scripture, while the
probability that they are such lends additional proba
bility to the scripture statements themselves. As facts,
they interpret a symbolism of the old dispensation, while
that symbolism verifies the statements as facts. They
mutually sustain, explain and verify each other. The
whole Jewish ritual based upon sacrifices was typical
of the atonement of Christ. The first sacrifices offered

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 111
in the world were accepted or rejected according as they
did or did not typify the atonement. All the God-ap
pointed Jewish ritual was dead, unmeaning heathenism,
unless its rites were types and symbols of something in
the future. But they were not dead; they were not un
meaning heathenism, but God-appointed object lessons
regarding "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins
of the world." As stated, Abel's sacrifice was accepted
because of its symbolism and from his day to the time
when the great Antitype was slain on Calvary, every
sacrifice was accepted only as it pointed to the Lamb of
Calvaiy. As just stated, all these circumstances, types, symbols,
ritual tend to corroborate, interpret, verify certain state
ments in the scriptures. Theie are literally hundreds of
these that have their plainest, easiest, most harmonious
signification in view of the fact that Christ really took
the sinner's place, really suffered the penalty of broken
law, "the just for the unjust," that God might be just
and justify those who would accept that sacrifice. This
is the crux of the whole question as to the true nature
of the atonement.
Did Jesus die, not simply for us in the sense of dying
for our welfare, but in our stead ? Did he come to teach
men duty, how to live by setting a good example, and
then die as a martyr because he could not help himseK?
As for his example, the world had better examples in
Enoch, Abraham, Moses and others of the old prophets
and patriarchs than they had ever lived up to. As for
his teaching, he taught nothing but what was already
written in the old scriptures, and as for his martyrdom,
it is puerile to say that he died because he could not help
himself. One who could raise the dead could have saved

112 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
himself from the power of human enemies. He could
have stepped over the prostrate forms of those who came
to arrest him in Gethsemane ; he could have stayed away
from Jerusalem altogether, for he knew what was com
ing, or he could have summoned "twelve legions of
angels" ^ to his defense as he told Peter.
On the Mount of Transfiguration Moses and Elijah
talked with him concerning "the decease that he should
accomplish in Jerusalem. " * Jesus himself says, "Now
is my soul troubled and what shall I say? Father
save me from this hour but for this cause came I unto
this hour. ' ' ^ Almost his first recorded words refer to
the necessity for his death, "For as Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be
lifted up. " * A curse was pronounced upon all who
violated God's law. "It is written, Cursed be he
that eonfirmeth not all things which are written in
this law to do them. ' ' ' Man had broken every one
of them, but Christ redeemed us from the "curse."
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us: for it is written. Cursed
is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. 3:10, 13.)
He continually spoke of his death as the great object to
be "accomplished."
Now was that voluntary death a substitution for the
sinner's merited punishment? The question must be
answered by the scriptures and by the logic of events,
1 Mat. 26 :53.
- Luke 9 :31.
3 John 12 :27.
* John 3 :14.
' Dent. 27 :26.

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 113
the facts of history. In prophecy some of the classic
passages are in Is. 53. "He was wounded for our trans
gressions, he was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastise
ment of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes
we are healed. " " The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity
of us all." "For the transgressions of my people was
he stricken." "When thou shalt make his soul an offer
ing for sin, he shall see his seed" and so on. "By his
knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many ; for
he shall bear their iniquities." "He hath poured out his
soul unto death: and he was numbered with the trans
gressors ; and he bare the sin of many, and made interces
sion for the transgressors." These are a few passages
from prophecy, all taken from a single chapter. But do
they refer to Christ ? Jesus thought they did, for he says
to his disciples, "For I say unto you, that this that is
Tvritten must yet be accomplished in me, 'And he was
reckoned among the transgressors.' " (Luke 22:37.) The
evangelist Mark thought they did, for speaking of his
being crucified between two thieves, he says, "And the
scripture was fullled which saith, "And he was numbered
with the transgressors. ' ' ' InferentiaUy, also, they con
sidered all the passages in the same chapter as apply
ing to him as other inspired writers did. The Ethiopian
eunuch was reading Is. 53 (see Acts 8 :32 and on) when
Philip interpreted the whole passage as being fulfilled in
Christ. The epistles are fuU of indirect references to the
same passages as referring to Christ, as (Heb. 9:28),
"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many."
I Peter 2 :24, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own
body on the tree." Christ himself says, "The son of
1 Mark 15 :28.

114 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and
to give his life a ransom for many. ' ' (Matt. 20 :28) . " This
is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many
for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26:28). "As Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son
of man be lifted up ' ' and so on. Paul exhorts the elders
of the church of Ephesus, "Feed the church of God which
he hath purchased with his own blood. ' ' ' Again he
speaks of "being justified freely by his grace, through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. "^ When we
were yet without strength in due time Christ died for
the ungodly.'" "God commendeth his love toward us,
in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."*
"We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ
by whom we have received the atonement." "Christ
our passover is sacrificed for us." "Christ died for
our sins according to the scriptures." "Ye who some
time were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ."
"Christ hath loved us and hath given himself for us an
offering and a sacrifice to God." "By his own blood he
entered in once into the holyplace having obtained eter
nal redemption for us." "Without the shedding of
blood is no remission." "But now once in the end of
the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself." "Christ was once offered to bear
the sins of many. " " We are sanctified through the offer
ing of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. " "Ye know
that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as
1 Acts 20:28.
2 Rom. 3:24.
»Rom. 5:6.
?Rom. 5:8.

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 115
silver and gold. . . . but with the precious blood of
Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."
"Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the
unjust that he might bring us to God, being put to death
in the flesh but quickened in the spirit." "If we walk
in the light, as he is in the light .... the blood
of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin."
In every way, by all forms of expression by which it is
possible for words to convey ideas, the idea of Christ as
a substitute for sinners is taught in the scriptures.
This teaching is not confined to the meaning of any
Greek preposition as "pro" and "huper" though it is
distinctly taught by them. Some people urge that those
prepositions have a broader meaning than "in our room"
or "in our stead," while admitting that if "anti" were
used there would be no possibility of denying that the
idea of substitution was conveyed. But the prepositions
"pro" and "huper" often do mean "instead of" while
both Christ and Paul use that preposition "anti" (in
composition) as Paul, (I Tim. 2:6) speaking of Christ,
"Who gave himself a ransom for all." {anti lutron).
Christ gave himself a ransom instead of the sinner.
Christ uses the same preposition in the same way, ' ' Even
as the son of man came not to be ministered unto but to
minister and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mat.
20:28.) {lutron anti pollon). Christ declares unequi
vocally that he came on purpose to give his life a ransom
instead of many.
A final consideration in this connection is the statement
of Paul, in arguing for the resurrection. He says, (I
Cor. 15:17,18.) "If Christ be not raised your faith is
vain, ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which
are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." But why would

116 Genesis, Foundation for Science mid ReUgion
answer except that unless Christ had accomplished his
work no sins could be forgiven. The apostle does not
argue that they were lacking on their part. He does not
deny that they had accepted Christ, and had fully and
heartily repented of their sins. He bases his declaration
entirely upon the fact, apparently, that unless Christ's
work were fully accomplished no sins could be forgiven,
the living were in their sins in spite of repentance and
their acceptance of Christ, the dead were lost in spite of
their, possibly, martyrdom. The Greek word translated
"atonement, {katallange) is from "katalasso" "to ex
change." The term means "substitution." The atone
ment of Christ is the substitution of his sufferings for
the punishment of sinners. And yet in spite of the fact
that the atonement is written in nature, on the soul of
man, taught aU through the Bible the most plainly of
any Bible truth, in spite of the symbolism of the original
Hebrew word and the meaning of the Greek original,
there is no fact so persistently, so illogically, so incon
sistently denied as the fact of the atonement in its proper
meaning. The objections are illogical for they are
answered by the logic of events; the fact is that Christ
did die, that God gave him to die. Christ came into the
world to die, and unless he accomplished something by
his death, and an end to some degree commensurate with
the sacrifice, his death would have been a mere empty
show,a mere playing to the galleries, as futile as wicked.
It is sometimes said that this scriptural view of the
atonement represents God as unmerciful. But so far as
this view has any weight, it is an objection against the
fact that Christ died at all. Whether merciful or un
merciful, Christ did die upon the cross. This is the ad
mitted fact and it surely would have been no more un-

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 117
merciful for God to send him into the world to die for a
great purpose than to die for nothing. The fact is,
Christ died. God "gave his only begotten son," Christ
gave himself. What f or ? He says, ' ' lutron anti pollon."
It is said that an atonement was not necessary. That is
not for us to decide. If it had not been necessary to
accompUsh some object, Christ would have stayed in
heaven. The fact however is He gave his life. What for ?
He says, "lutron anti pollon." The symbolism in the
old dispensation all pointed to an atonement. The sacri
fices and offerings from Abel to Calvary pointed to an
atonement. Christ gave himself an offering and a sacri
fice to God. He says, "This is my blood of the new
testament which is shed for many for the remission of
sins."* God knew better than men about the neces
sity for an atonement. It is sometimes urged that an
atonement in the scripture sense is unjust, incredible,
and of a demoralizing tendency. But so far as these are
objections, they are objections to the fact that Christ
died. But Christ dtd die. What for? He s&js, " lutron
anti pollon."
In general the answer to all objections is an appeal to
facts. Is it urged that God is too good to allow the in
nocent to suffer for the guilty? The one fact most ap
pallingly apparent everywhere and always is that the
innocent do suffer for the guilty, much more than the
guilty themselves, and often instea,d of the guilty.
Is it urged in particular that God is too good to send His
only begotten son into the world to die for men ? But He
did die. The argument for such goodness is an argument
against the one great central fact of the universe. Ad-

•Mat. 26:28.

118 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
mitting this, would it have been more cruel for God to
have suffered Him to die to accomplish a great object
than for a mere empty show? And unless He did ac
complish something more than a show, the show itself,
except as a monument of folly, was absolutely empty,
meaningless. This fact is well illustrated by the familiar incident
of a boy in Holland. Passing along a dike he discovered
a small break that he could stop with his hand. But
soon it would be too big for him to control. Before he
could get help or devise means by which to stop the flow
of water, it might pass beyond control and immeasur
able disaster befall his people. There was nothing to do
but to stop it with his hand, and so he lay all the chilly
night and was found nearly dead in the morning. The
gratitude of his people knew no bounds, for by his night
of agony, he had saved their houses, perhaps their lives.
He showed his love for his people by suffering to save
them. But suppose he had spent a terrible night upon
the cold ground of an unbroken dike, and had been found
by a passer-by in the morning.
"What are you doing there, chilled almost to death
by exposure through the night?"
"I am making a display of love for the people."
What would the answer be ?
"Display, indeed! Get up, and go home."
A Russian nobleman, traveling with his family and a
faithful servant, was overtaken by wolves. Every power
was exerted, every resource exhausted, to reach a place
of safety. Finally there was but one thing to do. One
of them must be a sacrifice to save the rest. The servant
volunteered, telling his master that he had hitherto shown
his love by the service of his life he would show it now by

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 119
sacrificing himself to save them. He leaped to the
ground. In the place where he was torn to pieces as a
vicarious sacrifice that nobleman erected a monument
bearing the words, ' ' Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends. ' ' He sacri
ficed himself for a purpose, and an object was secured.
But suppose he had gone out into the woods where there
was nothing at stake to find the wolves to devour him?
The master would have told him, "You can show your
love for me more effectually by living and serving me
faithfully through the rest of your life." Now, what
would have been the influence of Christ's death if no
farther object were secured than a mere display? Just
that of the boy freezing himself without an object, just
that of the servant sacrificing himself when nothing was
at stake — ^nothing. Christ's death exerts a moral influ
ence because an object of infinite importance was secured.
He redeemed humanity by the sacrifice of Himself. They
must indeed have confidence in histrionic display who
believe that an empty, purposeless death on Christ's part
could exert a moral influence. But to those who believe
that, "He bore our sins in His own body on the tree,"
there is a drawing influence of incalculable power. He
has made the atonement, the true, the only atonement for
sin and thus He is the "Lamb of God that taketh away
the sins of the world." Here is the great fact of objec
tive salvation. Here the mystery is explained, how God
can be just and yet forgive sins. Christ has suffered in
our stead, has borne the penalty for our sins, and this is
the great foundation act upon which subjective salvation
is established.

CHAPTER VII
Subjective Salvation
BUT this provision for setting aside the penalty
of broken law in behalf of those who accept
the substitute is only a part of redemption.
The other part is expressed by the apostle.
"He died for all that they which live should not hence
forth live unto themselves but unto him which died
for them and rose again." (II. Cor. 5:15.) Salva
tion is not simply a saving from a statutory penalty
for sin It is that and much more. It is a state of
heart, a new life, imparted by God Himself to those
who wiU come to Him. But how shall they come?
They must be drawn to Him by the power of an in
finite love manifested by an uplifted Christ bearing
our sins in His own body on the tree. As iron filings
in a heap of sand or sawdust respond to the draw
ing power of the magnet, so there are human natures
among the masses of men which respond to the drawing
power of this infinite love. As magnetism induces mag
netism, so love begets love, and this is the new life; for
God is love, and one born of God has God's nature.
What love ? The love that is responsive to and begotten
by the love of God manifest in the fiesh to make atone
ment for our sins.
Paul explains it. ' ' For the love of Christ constraineth
us because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then
were aU dead; and that He died for all that they which
live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto
Him which died for them and rose again."
After all, the great final purpose of Christ's death was
120

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 121
to provide this new motive — this impelling power in this
new life — in mankind. "He died for aU that they which
live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto
Him which died for them and rose again. ' '
Here is displayed the full power of the moral influence
of Christ's death. Here is shown in the fullness of its
scope "the expulsive power of a new affection." Those
who have been born again, and thus have been made
partakers of the divine nature, are no longer selfish, no
longer live unto themselves, "but unto Him which died
for them and rose again. " It is not strange that this side
of redemption should fill the angle of vision of some
minds, but it is strange that they have not seen that all
the influence which would secure subjective salvation is
based upon objective redemption. The "moral influence
theory" of the atonement is correct so far as it goes,
but is wrong in so far as it rejects objective redemption.
The scripture view includes both the so called orthodox
view and the "moral influence theory" and builds the
latter upon the former. Each is incomplete without the
other. Gratitude to God for what he has done for us
should be an inspiration to higher, nobler living. Fur
ther than that, the suffering, the work of the Christ for
man's objective redemption is a revelation of the nature
of God that could not have been made in any other way.
God, in the person of man, going about doing good, bear
ing our sickness, heaUng our diseases, and yet "despised
and rejected of men, ' ' scoffed at, spit upon, buffeted, cru
cified and all for love of the race that murdered Him!
What a revelation of the nature of God! There is in
one of the great galleries of Europe, a picture of
"Angels adoring the dead Christ." It is said that the
looks of admiration, love, astonishment, and worship

122 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
pictured in their faces are marvellous. Angels worship
Him not for any personal benefit they have received, but
because before them they have the proof of an excellence
of nature, a nobility of character such as they had never
dreamed of in all the ages they had known and loved
Him as the only begotten Son of God. But this suffering
for men was an exhibition of his true nature ; it was the
index of a character that marked him in heaven and on
earth as "the chief est among ten thousand" and "the
one altogether lovely."
No sentient being, human or angelic, who can appre
ciate moral excellence, admire true heroism, or marvel at
infinite self-sacrifice, can fail to be drawn to such a One.
This is the supreme culmination of spiritual infiuence.
But yet however great this drawing power may be, and
however great the subject of it is, it is but the beginning
of subjective redemption. It is but the paidagogos to
lead us to Christ and he imparts to us of that divine Ufe
which Adam lost by his transgression. God said to
Adam, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die. (Gen. 2:17.) But the death referred to was
not the separation of the spirit from the flesh. That did
not take place until nearly a thousand years afterward.
But it was the loss of the divine, the God-imaged life
which in later years is termed eternal life. This differs
from the natural life not simply in duration but in
quality, in kind. It was the life that allied him to God
and that was the image of God. Adam lost it by yielding
to the solicitations of selflsh gratification. When he
yields to the solicitations of divine, unselfish love that
life is restored to him by the act of God. "If any man
be in Christ he is a new creature." (II. Cor. 5:17.) "In
Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 123
uncircumcision but a new creature, " (Gal. 6 :15.) the cre
ation of a new life, the kind of life that Adam lost by
transgression. "As many as received him to them gave
he power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believed on his name ; which were born, not of blood, nor
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of
God." (John 1:12,13.)
This is subjective salvation, the change in the man
himself, or rather the creation in him of a new kind of
Ufe, and this kind of life may be as different from the
unrenewed man's immortal spirit as that spirit differs
from common animal life. No being can beget a kind
of life that itself does not possess. Vegetable life cannot
beget animal life; common animal life cannot beget the
immortal spiritual life of man. It is different in kind.
The common immortal spirit life of man cannot beget the
divine life, the God-imaged life that is termed eternal life.
Adam lost that life himself, he could not beget it in his
offspring. It must be created anew in those who would
possess it. This process is that described by the Christ,
"Ye must be born again." This is being "born of the
spirit." It is only thus that any of Adam's race can
become ' ' the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. ' '
This view is logical, consistent, reasonable, scientiflc, as
well as scriptural. All the scriptural declarations along
this line are not only reasonable but seem to be but ex
pressions in words of conditions that must inhere in the
very "nature of things." This new birth is subjective
salvation, the complement of objective redemption. It
cannot be otherwise than that the Savior's "ye must
be born again" is the expression of an absolute moral
necessity, the sine qua non of true spiritual life.
Here it is pertinent to inquire what must be the con-

124 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
dition of those who by heredity have acquired only the
Adam life, or who, having inherited the diAdne Ufe from
Christian parents, have lost it by their own voluntary
transgression and refused to yield to the drawing of the
uplifted Christ ? How about those who can look upon the
suffering, sin-bearing, grief -laden Savior in Gethsemane
or on Calvary and still reject him? "0 Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonedst
them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have
gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth
her chickens under her wings and ye would not. Behold
your house is left unto you desolate." (Mat. 23 :38.) No
tongue nor pen can describe the desolations that swept
Jerusalem — a warning to those who reject him now. "Ye
will not come unto me that ye might have life" (John 5 :
40) is the saddest wail from the bleeding heart of Jesus.
The wail implies that men cannot have the divine Ufe
without coming to him and that the many wiU not come.
"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under
two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment,
suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden
under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood
of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy
thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace?"
(Heb. 10:28,29.) Can it be possible that such persons
possess the new, the eternal Ufe ? Can it be that they are
subjectively saved while spurning the objective salva
tion? These questions need no answer, for the answer
is in the very nature of things. The gospel of Christ is
the "power of God unto salvation to every one that
believeth," but it caimot be otherwise than the source
of the greater guilt, ill desert, condemnation in those who
reject it.

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 125
This brings us to consider the function of beUef, or
the necessity for a creed. There is a great deal said
about and against creeds. Undoubtedly much of this op
position to creeds has arisen from an undue magnifying
of unessential particulars into barriers of separation
between different bodies of Christians. But here arises
the difficulty of deciding to the satisfaction of aU parties
what are the essential and what the unessential articles
of faith. Articles that some would consider trivial by
others are esteemed fundamental and, after aU, it may be
better to have some decided convictions even upon non
essentials than to be without them with reference to the
essential doctrines. But are there any articles in the
creeds that are essential for salvation ? Are we saved by
a creed? RationaUy and scripturally, yes. A creed is
exactly what we are saved by. ' ' He that cometh to God
must beUeve that he is" and so on. No one could come to
God who did not beUeve that there was a God. Neither
could one experience subjective salvation who did not
beUeve in Christ. Creed is from credo, ' ' I beUeve. ' ' Be
Uef is but another name for faith. "Without faith it is
impossible to please God." The eleventh chapter of
Hebrews is but a record of the wonders wrought by
faith. Jesus the Christ is none the less emphatic. Every
hope of benefit from Him is conditioned upon beUef , every
promise of salvation is limited to those who believe. ' ' The
Son of Man must be Ufted up that whosoever believeth
on him should not perish." ^ "He that believeth not is
condemned already because he hath not believed in the
name of the only begotten Son of God."^ Condemna-

1 John 3 :14.
^ John 3 :18.

126 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
tion was upon all men and could be ascaped only by
belief. "For God so loved the world . . . .that
whosoever believeth on him should not perish" and so
on. ^ "As many as received him to them gave he power
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on
his name."^ And this declaration is supplemented by
another, ' ' He that beUeveth on the Son hath everlasting
life : and he that believeth not the Son shall not see Ufe ;
but the wrath of God abideth upon him. '
These are very expUcit declarations made by those
who ought to know. Further, they are not the mere
ipse dixit of authority that could be made different by
power. They are not dependent upon the voUtions or
actions even of the Infinite, for they are conditioned upon
the Umitations of the Infinite. If the preceding reason
ing has been correct, the above declarations are but the
expression in words of principles that inhere in the very
nature of things immutable and eternal. And how many
times the same truths are expressed, varied in every con
ceivable form of expression so that there can be no pos
sibility of missing the truth and that ' ' the wayfaring men
though fools need not err" as to the way of salvation.
The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation
to those that believe. What was the answer of Paul and
Silas to the jailer at Philippi? "Believe in the Lord
Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. ' ' *
But the further citation of passages emphasizing this
truth would be tedious. The dark ages were but the
1 John 3 :16.
' John 1 :12.
3 John 3 :36.
*Acts, 16:31.

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 127
shadow cast in the eclipse of the truth, salvation is by
faith alone. A darker night will settle upon the earth if
for any reason that truth should be again eclipsed. But
how about works ? Christ says, ' ' This is the work of God
that ye believe on him whom he hath sent,"^ and he
said it in answer to the question, "What shall we do that
we may work the works of God?" The work of beUev-
ing is the one supreme work that is essential to salvation
and aU other works must be the outcome — the result of
a saving faith. The necessary works that James speaks
of must be the fruits of the faith that Christ declares
essential and that Paul emphasizes. It would seem then
that there are some things to be believed and, formulated,
they would constitute a creed. Furthermore, we are
not at liberty to elect what we shall believe concerning
him, and to reject anything that may not taUy with our
opinions. Jesus says to the Pharisees, "I go my way,
and ye shall seek me, and shaU die in your sins : whither
I go, ye cannot come." He says also, "Ye are from
beneath, I am from above: ye are of this world; I am
not of this world ; I said therefore unto you that ye shall
die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye
shaU die in your sins." ^ Jesus evidently thought that a
person must believe something definite, positive about
himself. What? That he was the Messiah, so long ex
pected, so definitely described in prophecy, and all that
Messiahship impUed. He declares very explicitly that
unless they believed that He was the Christ, with at
least an origin different from their own, "ye are from
beneath I am from above, ye are of this world, I am not
'John, 6:29.
" John 8 :23, 24.

128 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
of this world." If you do not believe this he says, "Ye
shall die in your sins ; whither I go ye cannot come. ' '
According to Christ's view, belief in His divinity was
essential to salvation. It may be now. At least, it is
safer to believe than to disbelieve. Christ's view is that
the evidences of his origin, his nature and his work are
so convincing that unbelief is the evidence of a moral
culpability that would unfit them for his own companion
ship and that of his companions. They must, then, neces
sarily, like Judas, go to their own place. This in addi
tion to paying the statutory penalty for the sin of unbe
lief. Christ says that the Holy Spirit should convince
"of sin because they believe not on me."^ Whatever
men may or may not think, the sin of unbeUef is the sin,
the great sin, the mother of all sins, for aU violations of
the moral law, termed sins, are but the progeny of the
old mother-sin of unbelief in and on the uplifted Christ.
Scripture testimony is very fuU, explicit and strong as
to the origin and results of the sin of unbelief, or lack
of belief. "How can ye believe which receive honor one
of another and seek not the honor that cometh from God
only ? " ^ There are some things certainly that men
must believe concerning the Christ or they cannot inherit
eternal life. "The fearful and unbelieving and the
abominable, and murderers" and so on through that
catalogue in Rev. 21 :8 ' ' shall have their iiart in the lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the
second death." We may not add to nor take from the
words of the Christ in this regard.
One cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without a
1 John 16 :9.
'^ John 5 :44.

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 129
creed, concerning the Christ, his origin, his nature, his
office, his works and work. How many articles must the
creed contain? Individual opinions differ, but it is cer
tain that the Christ and the inspired writers would make
it longer than many modern ministers would have it. The
creed of the individual may be long or short according to
the intelligence of the person himself. One may say, "I
believe in the universe." That is very comprehensive.
But as knowledge increases, this general statement may
include a practically infinite number of particulars
which when classified and arranged become the creed
statements regarding the universe. One may say, ' ' I be
lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ." That too is comprehen
sive, and comprehends almost as much as the creed con
cerning the universe and Uke it can be resolved, with
increasing knowledge, into, at least, a great many par
ticulars which when classified and arranged become a
creed statement concerning him. The works of nature
are worthy of study, of classifying and arranging. The
works and words of nature's Author are worthy of the
same, and, the more we learn of them, the longer our
creed becomes.
The objections to the creed statements already in ex
istence may arise from any one or more of several causes.
First, the creed statement may in reaUty fail to embody
the scripture teaching upon that subject; second, the
objector himself may fail to comprehend the depth of
truth contained in the statements; third, an unwiUing-
ness on the part of the objector to accept for his theology
the God of nature and the Bible. But the God of nature
and the Bible is the God with whom we have to do, and
we may as weU keep Him in our theology as thrust
Him out and in His place substitute one of our own ere-

130 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
ation. The God of nature is the God of the storm, the
volcano, the earthquake, as weU as of the gentle breeze,
the warm sunshine and balmy air. Every exhibition of
the destructive forces of nature is but a revelation of
the nature of the God with whom we have to do. If our
would escape the volcano, he must go beyond the reach
of its destructive power. In general, men must conform
to the laws of nature, for the laws of nature wiU not con
form to the caprice of man nor stay their operation to
accommodate men; and this without reference to the
opinions of men. And the laws of nature, if not wholly
projected into the realm of spirit, are counterparts of
the laws that operate in the spirit realm. In neither can
they be violated with impunity. When admonished to
flee from the storm, the earthquake or volcano, men must
find a refuge, or destruction overtakes them. The forces
of Nature are the forces of God, but they do not suspend
their operation if perchance a heedless human being gets
in their way. The Bible represents the same God as
ruUng in the unseen universe, and when he says, "Flee
from the wrath to come," they must and may find s
refuge, for in His infinite mercy. He has provided one.
That refuge must not be despised. "For our God is a
consuming fire." Perhaps the most pernicious faUacy
of modern theological thought is that, because God is a
father, men may violate his laws with impunity, that
because He is love. He never will punish sin. But it is
because He is a father, because He is love, that He holds
men amenable to the laws of His spiritual universe. The
love of the unincarnate Father is infinite, for "God so
loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that
whosoeA^er believeth on him should not perish but have
everlasting life." Men are saved by a "credo." "Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

CHAPTER VIII
An Answer to Criticism, — Isaiah
THUS far we have considered and quoted the
scriptures of the old and new testaments as
authoritative for instruction. We have as
sumed that a book of such unity and in
tegrity as the Bible, founded as it is upon such in
tellect-transcending revelations as Genesis I, must natu-
raUy be received as authoritative in its own depart
ment. This would seem to be reasonable especially
when its statements are so nearly aUied to ethical
axioms, or are the expressions in words of truths in
herent in the very nature of things. Until within the
last few years no apology would be needed for so con
sidering and quoting them. But within the last thirty
years or so, the trend of thought has been toward con
sidering the Bible as simply a man-made book. What
ever may be the professions or honest convictions of the
critics, this conclusion seems undeniable, and as a result
we are having forced upon us a man-made Bible, an
egocentric theology, a religion of evolution and salvation
by culture.
This drift of thought is synchronous with and greatly
promoted by a wrong use of modern critical methods.
It is not that a method of investigation by internal evi
dence is wrong in itself, but its results may be entirely
out of the way when those who apply such methods,
"lean to their own understanding," too much, or ignore
the fact that "Holy men of God spake as th»y were
moved by the Holy Ghost," or professing to "take
nothing for granted" they do take for granted the
131

132 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
soundness of their own premises and the infallibility of
their own intellectual processes.
To illustrate some of these points, the opinion prevails
that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy. But the last
chapter records the fact and manner of his death, his
age, the mourning of Israel, the appointment of Joshua
and an encomium upon Moses. It would seem to be and
is a legitimate inference that Moses did not write that
chapter, but that it was written by some other person and
at a later date, but it is not a legitimate inference that he
could not have written any of the book or even the whole
of it with the exception of the last chapter. It is very
common for one to write his autobiography and after his
death, for another to conclude the narrative by append
ing an account of the writer's death. In this case whether
it is an autobiography or not must be determined by
some other circumstances than that the last chapter con
tains an account of the writer's death, and so of Deute
ronomy. Again, a literary examination of the book of Job shows
it to be a poem, and the identity of style points to a
single author. There is nothing irreverent in the sup
position that an author much more recent than that
patriarch wrote it, but it is not necessary to conclude from
this that it is a mere figment of the imagination. We
believe in the existence of Julius Caesar as an historical
personage although Shakespeare wrote his poem more
than sixteen centuries after his time. Whether Job was
an historical personage or not must be determined by
some other circumstance than that probably the poem
concerning him was written by another and a later hand.
One of those circumstances is that Christ spoke of him
as a veritable personage. Again, why do we believe that

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 133
Moses wrote at least a portion of the Pentateucli? Be
cause it contains internal evidence of that fact in its
express declarations. "And God said unto Moses, 'write
this for a memorial' " and so on. (Ex. 17.14.) "And
Moses wrote all the words of the Lord and rose up early
in the morning" and so on. (Ex. 24:4.) "And the
Lord said unto Moses, "Write thou these words" and
so on. (Ex. 34.27.) "And Moses wrote their goings out
according to their journeys by the commandment of the
Lord." (Num. 33:2.) Here is direct internal evidence
that Moses wrote some portions at least, and that he was
inspired of God to do so.
Without entering upon a discussion of the merits or
claims of the higher critics with regard to the com
posite authorship of the Pentateuch, the great historian,
W. H. H. Leckey, gives us a hint that may well be pon
dered. ' ' I may be pardoned, ' ' he says, ' ' for expressing
my belief that this kind of investigation is often pushed
with exaggerated confidence. Plausible conjecture is too
often taken for positive proof. Undue significance is at
tached to what may be mere casual coincidences and a
minuteness of accuracy is professed in discriminating
between the different elements in a narrative which can
not be attained by mere internal evidence. In all writ
ings, especially in an age when criticism was unknown,
there will be repetitions, contradictions, inconsistencies
and diversities of style, which do not necessarily indicate
different authorship or dates. ' ' Even Leckey then would
be slow to accept the results of a very conservative criti
cism of the Pentateuch. Much less can we receive the
extravagant conclusions of radicals.
For first, many of their assumptions are entirely with
out foundation, e. g., some assume that a prophet of the

134 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
Lord would never hesitate to do what God commanded,
hence the story of Jonah is a myth. No man can know
the future, hence any book like the prophecies of Daniel
must have been written after the events had transpired.
This is the argument of Porphyry against the book of
Daniel fifteen centuries ago. It is assumed that aU
human progress has been steadily, uninterruptedly for
ward, without break or setback, and hence the descrip
tions of a higher civilization in Jewish history must refer
to a late date. It is assumed that a prophet living and
penning his prophecies through sixty years of time could
never have swerved a particle from his original style of
writing, hence the two Isaiahs. It used to be assumed
that the art of writing was unknown in the time of
Moses, and hence he could not have written the books
commonly ascribed to him, and that so grand a character
as his is described as being could not have lived in that
age, and hence there was never such a man as Moses. It
is assumed that in speaking through his prophets, God
never uses the prophetic past tense, and hence when he
says of Cyrus, ' ' I have called thee by thy name, thou art
mine," and so on, those words must have been spoken
during the life of that prince and certainly were not
written until afterward. The final great assumption is
that there is nothing but the purely human element
about the writings, nothing of a divine or superhuman
nature in them. This last assumption vitiates absolutely
every conclusion based upon it.
These examples serve to illustrate some of the assump
tions upon which some of the critics base their conclu
sions. To illustrate the fallibility of men in the application
of these methods, take a single example as a type of many,

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 135
the book of Isaiah. The first concession usually made to
the critics as being most reasonable is the double author
ship of that book. As one writer says, "The different
themes and literary styles, the frequent references to the
Babylonians, not as distant allies, as in the days of
Isaiah the son of Amoz, but as the hated oppressors of
the Jews; the evidence that the prophet's readers are not
exiles far from Judah; the many allusions to the con
quests of Cyrus — all these leave little doubt that chap
ters forty to fifty-five were written in the latter part of
the Babylonian or the first part of the Persian period."
This view seems very credible and many perfectly sincere,
earnest and candid Christian people may accept the
premises and conclusions. But an equally candid ex
amination of internal evidence would show that such
conclusions are not warranted. With reference to theme
and literary style take a passage from the book itself
' ' The wilderness and the soUtary place shall be glad for
them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the
rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with
joy and singing : the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto
it; the exceUency of Carmel and Sharon, they shaU see
the glory of the Lord and the excellency of our God.
. . . . Then shaU the lame man leap as an hart, and
the tongue of the dumb shaU sing : for in the wilderness
shaU waters break out and streams in the desert . .
. . And an highway shall be there, and a way and it
shaU be called, the way of holiness, the unclean shall not
pass over it; but it shall be for those; the way-faring
men though fools shall not err therein. No lion shall be
there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, but
the redeemed shaU walk there ; and the ransomed of the
Lord shall return and come to Zion with songs and ever-

136 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
lasting joy upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and
gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall fiee away."
Therefore, ' ' Comfort ye, comfort ye my people saith your
God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem and cry unto
her that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity
is pardoned; for she hath received of the Lord's hand
double for all her sins .... Every valley shall be
exalted and every mountain and hill shall be made low;
and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough
places plain ; and the glory of the Lord shaU be revealed
and all flesh shall see it together. ' '
Now, in the above extract, where do the theme and
style so radically change that the same man could not have
written the whole of it ? Or at what point is there such a
change that it is improbable that the same man wrote
the whole extract? Yet all that precedes the italicized
"therefore" is from the 35th chapter and the balance is
from the 40th chapter. Chapter 36, 37, 38 and 39 are
historical, Isaiah's account of Hezekiah's reign, just as
we should expect; for in II Chronicles 32:32, we read,
"Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness,
behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the pro
phet, the son of Amoz, and in the book of the kings of
Judah and Israel. ' '
Turning back to ' ' the book of the kings of Judah and
Israel," we find (II Kings, chapters 18, 19 and 20) an
account of Hezekiah, and turning forward to ' ' the vision
of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, ' ' we find in chap
ters 36, 37, 38 and 39, an account supplementing both the
preceding accounts of Hezekiah's life. Isaiah was an
historian as well as a prophet, and some of his historical
writings are found before we come to the 35th chapter.
With reference to Babylon's being referred to "in the

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 137
days of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, " as a friendly ally, read
chapters thirteen and a part of fourteen where such a
fearful doom is pronounced upon it. "The burden of
Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see. ' '
With reference to the assumption that the latter part
of the book was written after the return from the capti
vity, see chapter 49 :22 et seq. where the promise is that
God will bring his people back from captivity. "Thus
saith the Lord God, Behold I will lift up mine hand to the
Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people : and they
shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters
shall be carried upon their shoulders .... Shall
the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive
delivered? But thus saith the Lord, Even the captives
of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the
terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him
that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children. ' '
This certainly looks as if God's people were still in
captivity and that God in the then future was going to
deliver them. Such instances might be multiplied but
these will serve as examples. With reference to Cyrus,
there has been such a thing as prophecy in the sense of
foretelling future events as well as in the sense of teach
ing. That fact must be considered later, but here it is
sufficient to say that there is little reason to doubt the
generally received opinion that the prophet wrote in the
prophetic past tense of future events. And that Isaiah
is the author of these words is the more probable from
the fact that he is the undisputed author of most won
derful predictions concerning Babylon, detailing the
most minute circumstances concerning that city, those
predictions in the first part of the book and those in the

138 Genesis, Foundation for Seience and Religion
last part fit each other as accurately as the two pieces of
a paper that has been torn apart.
Besides this presumptive evidence, we have what, with
most men, is conclusive evidence upon this point, that of
the inspired writers of the New Testament. Isaiah is
quoted twenty-one times in the New Testament with his
name attached to the quotation, as Matt. 3 :3, "This is he
that was spoken of by the prophet Bsaias" and so on.
Christ makes one quotation and Matthew, Mark and
Luke (both in his gospel and the Acts) quote from
Isaiah and couple his name (in the Greek form) with the
quotation. Also Paul in his epistles. There are twenty-
one such quotations of which ten are from the first thirty-
nine chapters and eleven from the last twenty-seven or
from the assumed pseudo Isaiah. But of this it is said of
course that writers simply refiect the popular opinion
which the critics consider erroneous. But with refer
ence to this, an incident is suggestive. Luke, at least does
not eater to popular impressions when they are not cor
rect, as in the same chapter in which he speaks of Isaiah,
he corrects a popular misapprehension. In the beginning
of his genealogy «f Christ, he says (Luke 3:23), "Jesus
himself began to be about thirty years of age being as
was supposed the son of Joseph," implying that the sup
position was not correct, but that God was his father
He here corrects one misapprehension. If the popular
idea about Isaiah had been wrong, he probably would
have corrected that also.
Again, the scriptures from the time of Isaiah to Christ
were so scrupulously guarded that no one could have
joined his own works to those of that prophet even if he
had desired to sink his own personaUty after writing
such a wonderful production as those last twenty-seven

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 139
chapters. These considerations, among others, make the
probability practically infinite that "Isaiah the son of
Amoz ' ' was the author of the entire book that bears his
name. If the contentions of the critics fail in this case,
there is little reason for accepting their conclusions in
other cases.
Accepting such conclusions has a tendency to impair
our faith in the inspired writers of the New Testament.

CHAPTER IX
Another Answer to Criticism — Daniel
THE assumptions of some of the more radical
critics that certain books must have been writ
ten after the events mentioned in them had
transpired requires a few moments' attention.
In our scriptures there are prophecies that do not par
take of the nature of Sybilline oracles, prophets who
were not Delphic priests nor any kin to them. As
certainly as certain writings are in existence, so cer
tainly must they have come into existence before some
of the things written in them transpired. Some years
ago the papers contained notices of a book written to
prove that the entire Bible is a fiction proceeding
from the brains of some monks in the middle ages.
But if the Bible did not exist before, how does he ac
count for the origin of monastic institutions? Few
however even of the radical critics would go to that
extreme. However, starting with the same premises
and reasoning in the same way, their conclusions are
not more reliable though less ridiculous. The fact is,
as declared by Peter (II Peter 1:21), "Prophecy came
not in old times by the will of man: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
If there is anything in history, sacred or profane, that
can be relied upon, the statement is true. If there is not.
then certainly the critics themselves have no grounds for
premise or conclusion. There are hundreds of prophecies
that, evidently, were written from a few days, perhaps,
to hundreds of years before the events transpired, and
140

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 141
that have been literally, accurately fulfiUed. We take
a single example to illustrate this, and we take it from
Daniel the more readily because he is one whose name
has been taken from the Ust of prophets by some of the
critics. A young graduate from a certain theological
seminary exclaimed, when reference was made to a
prophecy of Daniel, "Why, Daniel was not a prophet."
This statement indicates a modern drift of thought.
But let us examine a passage from the book that bears his
name (Daniel 9:25), "Know therefore and understand
that from the going forth of the commandment to restore
and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince
shall be seven weeks and three score and two weeks."
Here is a clean-cut, positive declaration as to an event
to take place in the future. The time periods are definite.
Each week (Shabua) refers to a period of seven years,
and there is no "day for a year" theory involved in this
consideration. When Daniel refers to a week of days,
he so defines it, as in 10 :2, ' ' In those days, I Daniel was
mourning three full weeks" — "weeks of days" (Shabua
ganim). The same in the third verse.
It is again to be noted that the prediction is to the
"Messiah." Jesus was not the Anointed One until his
baptism. The preceding verse (24th) also says "to
anoint the Most Holy. ' ' We are to look then for the end
of the 69 weeks at the baptism rather than the birth of
Jesus. From the going forth of the commandment and
so on to the baptism of Jesus was to be 7+62=69 weeks
X 7=483 years. Various starting points have been sug
gested with various unsatisfactory results, but there is
one that answers every requirement and absolutely fits
the conditions.
In Ezra 7:12-26 we have a decree that forms a very

142 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
striking landmark; that of Artaxerxes written in the
old Aramaic language and designed to arrest at once the
attention of the reader as being something of imusual
consequence. It may be urged that it was not a "com
mandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" but that
Is very plainly implied. The king himself calls ic a "de
cree" (verse 13). He gives all the exiled Jews permission
to return to Jerusalem and to carry practically im-
limited treasures, "And all the silver and gold that
thou canst find in all the province of Babylon with the
free wiU offerings of the people" and so on. (Ezra
7:16.) See also verse 15. Further than this he says
(verse 21), "I Artaxerxes the king do make a decree to
all the treasurers which are beyond the river that what
soever Ezra, the priest, the scribe of the law of the God
of heaven, shall require of you it shall be done speedily."
For what purpose were these vast treasures to be used?
One was as expressed, to buy sacrifices and offerings, but
the real purpose is expressed in the eighteenth verse,
"And whatsoever shall seem good unto thee and to thy
brethren to do with the rest of the silver and of the gold
that do after the will of your God." That contains the
gist of the whole decree. The temple had been rebuilt.
What should he and his brethren wish to do with such
vast treasures if not to repair the city itself, as weU as
the temple? According to Dr. Prideaux this is exactly
what Ezra did "with the rest of the money." The work
also was done in the first 7 Shabua =: 49 years mentioned
in the prophecy of Daniel. But that Ezra considered
that he had received a "commandment" similar to the
one mentioned in Daniel 9 is apparent, for in his prayer,
(Ezra 9 :9) he speaks of the favor of the kings of Persia
"to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusal^n. "

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 143
This decree was issued B. C. 457. Subtracting this
from the 483 years of Daniel's prophecy, we find Daniel's
69 weeks projecting 26 years into A. D. But Christ was
four years old at the beginning of A. D. and this added
to 26 makes him exactly 30 years old at the expiration of
Daniel's prophecy, taking the decree in Ezra 7 as the
starting point. To sum up, Daniel says that from the
going forth of a certain commandment to the Messiah
should be 483 years. In Ezra 7 there is a remarkable
landmark, calculated to arrest the attention of the most
casual reader of the original, — a decree given by the king
of Persia containing (verse 18) carte blanche pennission
for him to do whatever they chose with hundreds of
thousands if not millions of dollars.
Taking that as a starting point it is exactly 483 years
to the Messiah. After that the Messiah was to be "cut
off but not for himself. ' '
He was "cut off" three and one half years later or as
stated in verse 27, "in the midst of the week," that is
in the one remaining of the 70 mentioned in verse 24.
"He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,"
having fulfilled aU that which they typified.
It may be urged that the sacrifices and oblations did
not cease, but were offered after that. It is true that
the Jews who reject Christ continued to offer them,
but they were not required and the church did not offer
them. The minor details of that prophecy all harmonize with
the general result.
Of the panorama of future events spread out in vision
before the prophet we have here nothing to do. We only
insist upon the pivotal fact that hundreds of years before
the events transpired he uttered a prediction that was

144 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
fulfilled to the letter, and in the very year predicted. It
is enough here to show that Daniel was a prophet as Jesus
the Christ called him, that he was one of those "holy
men of God" who "spake as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost."
It does not help matters any to ascribe a later date to
the book of Daniel than the traditional one for it cer
tainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem
or the death of Christ. If we concede this we may as
well concede the traditional date. But with regard to the
traditional date of the book a very significant incident
is commonly overlooked. When Rawlinson in 1854 read
the cuneiform inscription concerning Belshazzar, Daniel's
correctness as a historian was established.
But that is only a part of the truth. Why was it that
Herodotus on his visit to Babylon half a century after the
traditional date of Daniel's book failed to find any men
tion of Belshazzar ? It was probably because the account
recently found buried in Ur of the Chaldees was buried
there before his visit. His very ignorance of Belshazzar
is evidence that the account had been written and lost
before his visit.
But not insisting upon this point as essential, the book
was written at least some centuries before the events
prophesied came to pass. This is but one instance of
hundreds. ' ' Prophecy came not in old time by the wiU of
man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost."
Fulfilled prophecy is one of the "infalUble proofs" of
the divine nature and origin of the "scriptures of truth"
— proofs that separate them by an infinite chasm from
the sacred books of the ethnic reUgions.

CHAPTER X
Dangers of Egocentric Theology
THE old testament as a whole is a solid struc
ture built upon Genesis I, its declaration, ' ' In
the beginning God" and the facts affirmed in
that first chapter. Its history is a record of
God's dealings with his chosen people.
The new testament is a solid structure based upon the
old and upon the further fact that "God was manifest
in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached
unto the gentiles, beUeved on in the world, received up
into glory. " (I Tim. 3 :16. ) " God hath visited and re
deemed his people." (Luke 1:68.) "The Word was
with God and the word was God." (John 1:1.) "This
is the true God and eternal life." (I John 5:20.) "The
only wise God our Savior. " (Jude 25.) "In him dwel-
leth aU the f uUness of the Godhead bodily. ' ' ( Col. 2 :9. )
The new testament is a record of the salvation provided
by the incarnate God. God himself provided salvation,
"eternal redemption." He has not only provided sal
vation but in the new testament he has left, plainly writ
ten out, the directions as to obtaining that salvation. We
have every reason to believe that those records are cor
rect, and their teachings to be reUed upon, and that they
are to be our guide.
With those who reject the Bible in its entirety we have
nothing here to do. But there are those inside of the
nominally Christian churches, leaders in those churches,
who profess themselves Christians and believers in God's
word, who yet openly teach that there is something
in each individual that is the final arbiter of ques-
145

146 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
tions of religious belief. This is an "inner light" or
"Christian consciousness" which they consider to be
paramount to the scriptures, and whose teachings are to
be received without reference to, and in spite of, the
teachings of the srciptures.
W. E. Channing has been styled "a prophet of the
Christian consciousness regarding the future. ' ' His posi
tion was, "whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly
taught in the scriptures we receive without reserve or
exception. ' ' But in recent years leaders in churches not
Unitarian go indefinitely beyond that position and say in
substance, "if you have [a supposed] consciousness of a
truth, cling to it in spite of anything that the Bible may
or may not say about it. ' '
One writer whom we have in mind has a "Christian
consciousness" that there is a probation after death, and
that there will be enough of such probations in the future
life to make it certain that everybody will be saved. Of
Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Anselm, Edwards and others,
he says, "This is their common colossal defect; that they
make but incidental use of the consciousness of Christ,
(that is the Christian consciousness) in their determina
tion of theological opinion." But he excuses them in
part, for exegesis was against it, the facts of life and the
common notion that the redemption scheme was confined
to this life were against such a belief. He goes on, "Texts
might be quoted almost without number against a nobler
theology [that is that there is probation after death] and
with the assumption that the day of grace was confined
to this world, and the awful facts of human history were
simply incompatible with an optimistic creed," (of
future probation).
The "optimistic creed" must be sustained at aU

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 147
hazards, no matter what becomes of "texts almost with
out number. ' '
But why does he think that all of these thinkers and
teachers have made such a colossal mistake as to suppose
that there was no probation after death or that salvation
was not universal? He answers, "These thinkers who
began with an open vision of the highest defer hardly at
aU to the creative Christian consciousness." Because
they did not create their religious systems out of their
own ' ' consciousness ' ' they were all at fault.
And yet that writer may be mistaken in supposing
that those men did not defer to a Christian consciousness,
for they may have had a consciousness of the truths re
vealed by the scriptures.
The writer above referred to has recorded several of
the creatures of his so-caUed Christian consciousness that
are not in accord with either the facts of nature or the
truths of revelation. We note one or two more. One is
the absolute universaUsm that his consciousnes3 evolves
or creates. He says, "The scheme that contemplates the
salvation of only a part of the human race is the ultimate
blasphemy of thought in which our western civilization
has been in part living for fifteen hundred years."
(Query, how long has our western civUization been in
existence ?)
With reference to those schemes of theology that con
template that some wiU be lost he says, "Now in the case
of those who believe that the Christian consciousness is
the creative and regulative source of all theology, these
partialistic schemes must be forever abandoned."
"Some will be first and some will be last, one will be
elected to lead and another to foUow; but all wiU be
chosen for service, aU for the beatific vision." He ad-

148 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
mits that many texts of scripture may be quoted against
this view, but, he says, this fact "need trouble no one."
We may add one more idea from the same writer, that
with reference to the nature of Christ and of men in
general. He says, "According to habits of thought but
recently broken up, God had but one son." But he
affirms, "This opinion is no longer preachable or cre
dible among thinking men."
Of course all of those passages of scripture that refer to
Christ as the "only begotten son" must be swept away
in the interest of his own particular belief. "All men
are sons of God, ' ' and he uses the term ' ' consubstantiated
with God." He indeed admits that Paul, James, John
and other scripture writers had this ' ' consciousness ' ' but
the teachings of their ' ' consciousness ' ' must be corrected
by his own "consciousness," or by that of any one else
who might differ from them.
We have considered a few propositions from a single
writer to illustrate a strong trend of thought at the
present time. A leading Unitarian expressly declared
that the Bible was an orthodox book, and one could get
nothing but orthodoxy out of it if it were taken as it
reads, but his idea was that all of its contents must be
arraigned at the bar of that so-called consciousness, and
must stand or fall by that as judge.
And such ideas are not confined to that denomina
tion. It is the trend of thought, the drift of opinion of a
large number of the leading teachers and preachers in
the so-called orthodox churches. One of the secrets of
its power is its covert flattery of men. It appeals to the
complacency of men in their own wisdom and goodness.
It virtually says to such, "You are learned, you are wise
you are good, you need not bow to any outside authority

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 149
for instruction. You are yourself able to decide what
is true and what is not. Stand by your beliefs."
This position is greatly aided by the higher criticism
by which almost any obnoxious teachings of the scrip
tures may be disregarded. Even where this is not wholly
the case it occasions a general relaxation of the strong
grip the Bible teachings formerly held upon the con
sciences of men.
But the bottom fact in the whole matter of this so-
called consciousness is that it may not be consciousness
at all but merely a belief so strong as not to be dis
tinguishable from consciousness. And yet that belief
may not be correct. One cannot have a consciousness
that there is a planet as large as Jupiter revolving around
the sun in an orbit between the orbits of Earth and Mars.
It is not a fact. One caimot have a consciousness that the
sun, moon and stars revolve around the earth as the
center of the solar system. It is not a fact, though for
ages men had a conviction so strong that it could not be
separated from consciousness that it was the case.
The Moslem world holds its religious convictions with
an absoluteness that cannot be distinguished from con
sciousness and yet those convictions may not be correct.
Any number of instances might be given where beliefs
have been held so strongly as not to be distinguished
from consciousness and yet have been proven to be false.
The whole force of this teaching about a Christian
consciousness is directed to the estabUshing of an egocen
tric theology. The individual himself is considered to be
the only infallible element in his beliefs. It is not an
infaUible church, an infallible pope, nor an infallible
Bible, but an infallible ego that is to be the final arbiter
of truth in matters pertaining to religion. The infallible

150 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
ego is the center of belief, the creator of its own theolo
gical system. But there are as many objective facts in
theology as in astronomy.
These facts cannot be removed by the wish of man nor
by the opinions of men. It is dangerous to assume that
they can be. They are false teachers who teach that they
can be. They are unsafe leaders who lead men to think
that each man is a law unto himself. But there is some
thing outside of one's self that assumes to be a guide.
It is a book that opens with a wonderful vision of how
the worlds were formed. That narrative as the record
of actual facts has been confirmed by aU of the advances
in astronomy for the last one hundred years, and the
discoveries of the last few years have as nearly proven
the account to be correct as any thing not the subject of
mathematical demonstration can be proven. But a
mathematical calculation Of probabilities as to the truth
of both would bring those probabilities so near infinity
as to be undistinguishable, practically, from it. To
gether, they form a wonderful voucher for the book that
is founded upon the first chapter of Genesis. The records
of geology absolutely confirm the records in those chap
ters. The discoveries of archaeology, since that science
was born, confirm the accuracy of the book in general.
In hundreds of instances some casual utterance is
found to be the declaration of an eternal principle in
nature that could hardly have been discovered by cen
turies of unaided human study. These are wonderful
vouchers for the truthfulness of the book.
Further, besides the first chapter of Genesis, hundreds
of prophecies, uttered from a few days to hundreds of
years before their fulfillment confirm the divine origin of
the book. It is a revelation of human nature and we can

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 151
hardly know ourselves without consulting its pages.
These circumstances should prove the book. The mer
chant does not have to prove every individual item
charged in his accounts. He may prove a reasonable
number, and all items must be admitted unless there is
plain proof to the contrary in each case. The conten
tion here is that these circumstances connected with the
Bible should prove the books so that a candid man may
rely upon their teachings even though he may not be
able to comprehend them. Any other course is like sub
jecting the magnetic needle to his own feelings. One
may have a compass that in hundreds of instances has
been correct. Its needle points to the magnetic pole.
But if the owner were lost in a forest he might feel that
the compass was not correct. Some disturbing influence
must be at work, he might think. The needle says that
one direction is north but he is conscious that another
direction is north. , But if he goes by that "conscious
ness" or acts in accordance with some "inner light," he
may find to his sorrow that the compass was right and
that he was wrong.
This illustrates our relations with the Bible. We may
feel that in some instances it must be wrong. S'MU it is
not safe to assume that it is. It should be taken as it
reads, simply remembering, that, Uke other literature, it
is adapted to the wants, the needs of men. It deals in
poetry, parables, figures of speech and so on. But these
are easily enough, as a general thing, distinguished by the
candid mind. They but adapt it the more perfectly to
free moral agents, throwing them back upon their own
candor and sincerity, demanding a right attitude of will,
requiring an earnest desire to find the truth that they
may live by it. That is why the Author of the Bible has

152 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
allowed difficulties to appear. They are valuable for de
veloping virtuous character in moral agents.
But the parables are readily seen to be parables, figures
of speech are seen to be such, and their meaning is
generally apparent; though sometimes that which seems
to be an extravagant figure of speech may, after all, but
express a truth too recondite for us to readily under
stand. As an example take the Savior's words to those who
have followed him "in the regeneration," "Every one
that hath forsaken houses or brethren or sisters or father
or mother or wife or children or lands for my name's
sake shall receive an hundred fold and shall inherit ever
lasting life." (Mat. 19:29.) Consider first relation
ships. He elsewhere says, "Whosoever shall do the will
of my father which is in heaven, the same is my brother
and sister and mother." (Mat. 12:50.) In this regard
he is speaking to those who have "followed him in the
regeneration," who have been "born of the spirit." He
is speaking to those, "as many as received him to them
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to those
that believe on his name ; which were born not of blood
nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of
God." He says to his disciples, "All ye are brethren."
They were, in the true sense of being the children of one
father, God. It is no perversion, either, to call the elder
ly women, who have been born again, mothers in the
church. We magnify fleshly relationships; Christ magnifies
spiritual relationships. With regard to possessions, the
true Christian can possess "all things" even though he
cannot and does not wish to exclude every one else from

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 153
their possession. This is "my country" though I cannot
push every one else out of it.
Whether or not I have been happy in choosing an
illustrative example, it is true that seeming figures of
speech may correctly express truth too recondite for us
to perceive, or which men would not readily accept if
they did perceive them.
There is poetry, too, in the Bible that indicates that
poetic license has been taken, but not to an extent to be
misleading. But there is enough plain, straightforward teaching
that cannot honestly be evaded. When the book says
that it shall not be weU with the wicked it is not safe to
assume that it will be well with the wicked. There is
an amiable complacency abroad that fails to take into
account the heinousness of sin against God. But God
wiU judge men according to his own view of sin, and it
may not be the amiable one that some men take. When
the book says, "These shall go away into everlasting
punishment," (Mat. 25:46.) it is not safe to assume
that all shall go into life eternal. It may have been
Jesus who spoke those fearful words, and they may be
true. When the scriptures in numberless instances speak
of the Devil as if he were a veritable personage, it is not
safe to teach that there is no such being. It may be that
there is, and that he has gained a great point in con
vincing religious teachers that there is not. When the
King is represented as saying to some, "Depart from me
ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil
and his angels," (Mat. 25:41.) it is not safe to assume
that those words were never spoken or if spoken, were
not true. They may have been spoken, they may be true
and have a f earftil significance.

154 Genesis, Foundation for ioienee and Religion
When Christ is represented as saying to certain reli
gious teachers, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the
lusts of your father ye will do," (John 8 :44) it is not safe
to teach that every man is a son of God and that all they
need is to become conscious of the fact.
When a man ceases to be a child of the devil and really
becomes a son of God he may become conscious of the
fact, for, ' ' He that believeth on the Son of God hath the
witness in himself, (I John 5:10.) "For as many as are
led by the Spirit of God they are the sons of God," (Rom.
8:14) and "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirits that we are the children of God." (Rom. 8:16.)
But this witness is given only to those who believe on the
Son and by believing on him have received the "power
to become the sons of God. ' ' When one becomes a child
of God he may become conscious of the fact and not be
fore. It is urged, however, that all such , passages must be
interpreted in the light of the parable of the prodigal
son. That parable has been very much overworked in
the interest of universal salvation. It, indeed, indicates
the attitude of the Father toward a returning son. But
it indicates not only the attitude of the father but also
that of the son. This is overlooked by universalists. The
attitude of the son is, "I will arise and go to my father
and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against
heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be
called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants."
(Luke 15:18,19.) There are some who evidently do not
take that attitude. Christ says, "No man cometh to the
Father but by me." (John 14:6.) One of his saddest
wails is, "Ye will not come to me that ye might have
Ufe." (John 5:40.) God wUl not say one thing by his

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 155
Son and the inspired apostles, and a contradictory thing
to the consciousness — so-caUed — of any man of to-day.
Of the same nature is the idea of an "inner light."
It may be right, it may not be. If it reveals ourselves to
ourselves in the same way that the Bible does we may be
sure that it is correct. One thing that the experience of
the centuries has confirmed is the statement, "Thy word
IS a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." (Ps.
119:105.) But we have a strong hint that one may im
agine that he has an "inner light" that is not light, for
Jesus says, ' ' If the light that is in you be darkness how
great is that darkness." (Mat. 6:23.)
Some of the most monstrous departures from the
Christian faith and practice have been occasioned by a
supposed "inner light." The reason for this the apostle
Paul makes clear, "And no marvel; for Satan himself
is transformed into an angel of Ught." (II Cor. 11:14.)
It is not safe for a captain to remain in his cabin and
steer his vessel by the Ught in that little room and dis
regard the lights that are in the heavens.
The Bible professes to reveal a knowledge of things
which the unaided human inteUect could never ascertain,
such as a knowledge of God, of his nature, a future life,
and the way of salvation. In thousands of instances
where men have found out truths they have confirmed the
teachings of the scriptures. Men are appealed to as
authorities upon subjects which they, are supposed to
understand. The Bible should be respected as an author
ity upon the subjects of which it treats. At least it is
safer than human imaginings. In matters pertaining to
God and his relations to men the Bible is an authority
for instruction. In its presence an egocentric theology
cannot stand.

CHAPTER XI
The Bible As An Authority to Be Obeyed
IN numberless instances the commands and precepts
of the Bible are found to be but a revelation to
men of eternal principles that inhere in the very
nature of things, to which men must conform their
lives in order to be in harmony with the universe or to get
any good out of it. They are given in the same spirit
with which a parent would command a child not to eat
poisonous berries, the nature of which the child could
not understand. Men are not so wise as many of them
think that they are. They need guidance more than
many of them think that they do. They cannot rely as
safely upon their own judgment as many of them think
that they can. There are principles in the universe
which the Maker of the worlds and the Maker of men
knows better than men have as yet been able to know
them. The path of obedience is the only path of safety.
The first sin on earth was unbelief, the second was dis
obedience. Men must learn that there is a wisdom supe
rior to their ov,m, that there is a power superior to them
selves, that there are laws which they must obey. "Hath
the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacri
fices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?" (I Samuel
15:22.) With reference to those occult principles of
nature which some commandments require us to observe,
we may mention one or two as examples which do not
seem at least to be very well understood. One of these
is the law of the Sabbath. ' ' Remember the Sabbath day
to keep it holy." Is that the expression of a principle
of nature that for our own wellbeing must be observed?
156

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 157
All the other commandments in the decalogue are clearly
seen to be. Is this a solitary exception? It is in good
company. They all come from the same source. He that
said, "Thou shalt not kill," said also, "Remember the
Sabbath day to keep it holy. ' ' There is evidence that it
was made for men and when man was made. At least
there is evidence that it was observed centuries before
the time of Moses. It is said that a Chaldean account
of creation has been discovered which confirms the state
ment that the Sabbath is coeval with creation. Other
tablets have been found that give an account of the Sab
bath which were written in a language that became ex
tinct two hundred years before the time of Moses. It
seems as if there must be some reason for it that the
superficial observer does not see. God expressed His
estimate of the day by commanding a man to be put to
death who had willfully violated it. All admit that it is
of use as a day of rest for the body, but even in this
respect the value of a conscience-bound day of rest is not
fuUy appreciated. One can rest when his conscience for
bids him to work as he could not were the time not so
bound. Utilitarian arguments along this line are urged for its
observance. They are good as far as they go and per
haps they are the only ones that can be used to secure
legislation for Sabbath observance, but there art; other
considerations for those who wish to develop their
spiritual natures, and after all these are of supreme im
portance. Even steel tools require an occasional season
of rest. But if our bodies were so made as never to need
a moment's rest, the law of the Sabbath would still be
as necessary for our spiritual natures as it is now. Seen
from one stand point, it would seem to be even more

158 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
necessary. A clock with the most perfect machinery,
the most perfectly oiled, and with heavier weights would
the more need a pendulum to keep it from running too
fast. So the Sabbath has its moral use in stemming for
a time the onrushing spirit of worldliness that is finally
so destructive of happiness.
We need a day when free from the work and worry
of life we can hold communion with the Father of our
spirits. Even if our bodies never needed rest, our
spiritual natures would need stated seasons of refresh
ing. Men need the law also as a test of faith and obedience.
As before noted, the first sin was unbelief, the second dis
obedience. The same test is still proposed to all; "Will
you believe God's word and obey, or will you disbelieve
and disobey?" It is a test of loyalty to One who is
infinitely our superior. It is also a test of fealty. Will
you be true to your sovereign Lord?
But perhaps one of its most important uses is that it
places a check on the spirit of avarice that so often
makes riches a curse. The law of tithes acts in the same
way, and one does not have to look very far into the
nature of things to see the divine wisdom in that law.
It is not that riches are a curse to their possessors or to
others when held with a right spirit. When God made
the animal frame he planned that some organs, as heart,
lungs, kidneys and other organs, should receive inde
finitely more blood than many other organs, and that
too was for the good of the whole system. In organized
society it may be as essential that some persons have
vastly more of the circulating medium than others in
order to carry on those vast enterprises that are for the
best interests of the whole people. And it does not f oUow

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 159
that the ones who have the most wealth are the most
avaricious or greedy. Abraham was not more avaricious
than Lot though he had greater possessions. Elisha was
not more avaricious than his slave Gehazi.
Many men have been given great abilities to acquire
and to invest wealth in railroads, telegraphs, pipe lines,
ocean cables, manufacturing establishments, and so on,
that are an inestimable blessing to society in general.
But whether this wealth is a blessing to its possessors or
not depends upon the spirit of loyalty to Him who gave
them the power to get wealth and whose stewards they
are. Misquotations of scripture are common, such as
"Money is the root of all evil." Money is the circulat
ing medium, the blood of society without which or
ganized society could not exist upon any extended scale.
"The love of money is the root of all evil." That is
another misquotation. The love of money is a divinely
implanted instinct to serve as a stimulus to that exertion
that is necessary for man's well being. It is only when
one is driven by it to transgress the supreme law of
benevolence, to violate the fundamental law of love to
God and our neighbor that it becomes a curse. Then it
becomes that " covetousness which is idolatry." That is
the teaching of Paul to Timothy, "Which while coveted
after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced them
selves through with many sorrows." (I Tim. 6:10.)
It is only when the instinct causes one to transgress the
"First and great commandment" and the other that
"is like unto it" that it becomes an evil. Now if in the
acquiring of wealth one would faithfully observe the law
of the Sabbath as an expression of love and fealty to God,
give a reasonable proportion of his income as an ex-

160 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
pression of his love for God and his fellow-man, it is
as plain as an axiom that riches would never be a curse
to their owner.
That, then, which seems to the superficial thinker to be
a mere arbitrary dictum of a superior power becomes the
divine prescription for happiness with wealth. There
may be many other instances of the same nature.
But without waiting to question the nature of a com
mand or precept, men should obey. No man is fit to
command who has not first learned to obey. The first
principle of obedience is obedience to God. The Bible
is His word. It is an authority to be obeyed. It is the
voice of superior wisdom, of superior authority. Even
Christ will be obeyed. "If ye love me keep my com
mandments, " is his declaration.

CHAPTER XII
The Reasonableness of the Christian's Faith
THIS receiving the scriptures as an authority
to be obeyed involves faith in them. Is this a
reasonable attitude ? Is faith in general reason-
ible ? Is the Christian faith as a system reason
able? A mistaken notion prevails that would answer
these questions in the negative. "Faith and reason are
contradictory terms," once declared a very intelligent
man to the writer. But if that be true, there is no reason
used in society today, for all of our activities are based
upon faith. Civilized society is built upon faith. If that
foundation should give way not only would organized
society disappear but death and destruction would hold
carnival. No banking house could survive a failure of
faith in it. Few commercial houses could survive even a
limited failure of pubUc confidence in them. If all
faith on the part of the people should fail, governments
even could not exist. Are people, then, all of the time
violating the dictates of reason? No. When conditions
warrant faith it is not reasonable to withold it. It is
reasonable for a man to have faith in a wife who has
through long years been true to him. A lack of faith
would indicate a culpable spirit of jealousy. It is
reasonable to trust friends who have always been true to
us. Even when there is so much crime committed as
there is at present, it is not reasonable to entertain a
pessimistic lack of faith in men. These propositions need
only to be stated to be received. If confidence in men is
reasonable, confidence in God is equally so.
Said the aged martyr Polycarp, "Eighty and six years
161

162 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
have I served him and he has never done me any harm."
With equal truth he could have said, "He has never de
ceived me." Millions of men and women in all ages
have found that ' ' The steps of faith fall on the seeming
void but find the rock beneath." The Christian's faith
is not a blind, unreasoning credulity, at least it need not
be. At the outset the required faith need only be a
right attitude of the will with reference to the truth or
to what may be truth. This attitude is what the apostle
refers to in Hebrews 11:6. "Without faith it is impos
sible to please him: for he that cometh to God must
believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him. ' ' Human experience has shown that
the required faith need not be very strong — only just
enough to apply the required test, and a faint faith may
be changed to positive knowledge for it is written, ' ' And
ye shall seek me and find me when ye shall search for me
with aU your heart. ' ' ( Jer. 29 : 13. )
That is a reasonable requirement. Further than that,
owing to the fact that man is a free agent, it is a neces
sary requirement. It is no more reasonable to dispute
the existence of God without applying that test than it
was for people in Galileo's time to dispute the existence
of Jupiter's moons while refusing to look through the
telescope to find out the truth.
The existence of a personal God is the fundamental
proposition in the Christian religion. It is reasonable
to believe in him. Admitting this, every objection to
miracles falls to the ground. The universe itself is proof
of the most stupendous miracle. A short time ago as
God counts time, where the solar system now is there was
nothing. But God by the fiat of his power and wisdom
caused the worlds to spring into being. That was a stu-

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 163
pendens miracle. Admitting that, no miracle is incre
dible where a moral exigency requires one. The resur
rection of Jesus the Christ from the dead was one of
those exhibitions of divine power where a great moral
exigency — the salvation of men — required it. It is
reasonable to believe it upon the authority of witnesses
whose testimony has come down to us. Other miracles
are equally credible when we admit the fundamental fact
to which the whole creation testifies, "In the beginning
God." There are mysteries in religion as there are in every
thing around us. We cannot take more than a step or
two in any direction in the physical sciences before we
are plunged into mysteries that we caimot solve. Men
quarrel with the doctrine of the trinity of God, but
readily admit the trinal entity of man which is just as
mysterious, just as intellect-transcending. If we admit
the latter fact upon the authority of men who have
studied men, it is reasonable to accept the trinity of
God upon the evident teachings of God himself.
Some of the scripture teachings that seem mysterious
are greatly if not positively confirmed by the facts of
our everyday lives, as those concerning a future life
We need not cite passages, they are so common. But we
need not depend entirely upon them for they are not the
only evidence. They should be received as evidence, but
•they are greatly strengthened by the experiences of our
everyday lives. Men have not made enough of common
sense arguments in this matter. They stand uncertain,
doubting, fearing or hoping that the scripture teaching
is true, while the teachings are confirmed by facts. In
answer to the question, "If a man die shall he live
again?" we may answer confidently, "yes." When

164 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
the protomartyr Stephen was about to die, it is stated
that he "looked steadfastly into heaven and saw the glory
of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."
The martyr himself exclaimed, "Behold I see the heavens
opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand
of God." (Acts 7:55,56.)
We do not have to go back to apostolic times for inci
dents like that. We have them in our own day in num
berless cases that make more credible the story in the
Acts, and that confirm our own faith in the future life.
The companion of my own earlier life, a little while be
fore she passed into the unseen, with a radiant smile
upon her face said, "I see my dear Jesus." Jesus said
before he went away, ' ' I will come again and receive you
unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also. ' ' It
is reasonable to believe that he kept his promise.
Only a few months since one dear to the writer as life
itself was about to pass into the unseen, when her pain-
racked features lighted up, and she exclaimed, "Beauti
ful, so beautiful." "What is so beautiful?" was asked.
"All heaven," was the reply. Stephen saw the heavens
opened and so have many in more recent times.
Some years ago the writer had three little sisters pass
away by that terrible scourge, diphtheria. The first one
to go was Alice, the youngest, who was five years old.
The night before she died she said, "I want to go up, I
want to go up and sing with the angels." Viola, aged
eight years, was the next to be called. She died looking
up and talking to Alice. Elsie, aged twelve years, went
next. A little while before she passed away she said,
' ' I have seen Alice and Viola. They are dressed in white
and have crowns on their heads. They are coming to
meet me and Alice has a crown for me. The river is

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 165
cold but I shall soon be there. The Savior beckons to me
with his hand to come."
Surely, ' ' Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast
thou perfected praise. ' '
Another incident. A cousin of the writer was near-
ing the end of her earthly life. She spoke of seeing
friends who had gone before and among them her father
and mother and one whom she did not know. She
described a boy who was at once recognized by the older
sisters as a brother who had died when she was too
young to remember him.
Such incidents might be multiplied indefinitely. The
few related above are some that have come so near us as
to be almost a part of our own personal experience. A
missionary writing from China speaks of the triumphant
death of a convert — a man — who had such visions of the
unseen world. He (the missionary) said that such ex
periences were very common and the danger was that
if one should pass away without such visions his friends
might doubt the genuineness of his conversion.
What shall we say of these things? Are they the
illusions of those whose faculties have been weakened by
approaching dissolution ? That cannot be. Stephen had
his vision of heaven before the first stone was thrown,
and he was stoned to death partly because he had such a
vision and told of it. My companion had her vision of
Jesus the day before she went to him, and all of the time
before and after she was as rational as she ever was.
It is hardly reasonable to try to account for the other
experiences on the illusion theory. The learned may
smile and skeptics may doubt, but the most rational ex
planation is the one on the face of them, that is, they are
facts. Some who are passing to the unseen are permitted

166 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
to see a little that is before them for their own encourage
ment, and to tell what they see for the comfort of those
who are left behind, and also to strengthen their faith
in the scripture teachings concerning the . future life.
Skepticism regarding such incidents is not wisdom. But
there is truth in what the Duke of Argyll says in a
paraphrase of a sentence from Bacon, "From the un
locking of the gates of sense and the kindling of a greater
natural light, incredulity and intellectual night have
arisen in our minds. " It is wiser to accept facts of what
ever nature and from whatever source they may come
and pray with Bacon, "This also we humbly beseech
thee that human things may not prejudice such as are
Divine, neither that from the unlocking of the gates of
sense, and the kindling of a greater natural light, any
thing of incredulity or intellectual night may arise in
our minds toward Divine mysteries."*
*Bacon, quoted by the Duke of Argyll in Reign of
Law, Chapter I, p. 3, foot note.

CHAPTER XIII
Individual Attitude
IT is a common supposition that a person who ac
cepts the Bible as an authority for instruction,
together with such corroborative evidences as the
above, is necessarily of a credulous nature, and
ready to accept without question anything that is
presented. This is not the case. In general, the wisest
philosophers, the most profound students of science, the
greatest men generally have been the firmest believers in
God and his revelation to men.
With reference to himself, the writer may be par
doned here for speaking in the first person in defining
his own attitude for the double purpose of refuting the
common opinion referred to above and of giving a brief
narrative of personal experience. A few pages concern
ing my own Ufe may not be out of place, especially when
they are written from a sense of obligation and in the
spirit of Paul, who, when about to introduce personal
matters wrote to the Corinthians, "Would to God ye
could bear with me a little in my f oUy, and indeed bear
with me." (II Cor. 11: L)
Probably no skeptic was ever more opposed to receiv
ing religious truth upon the authority of others than I
have always been with reference to everything that is
presented for acceptance as truth. No sentinel on duty
was ever more strict in challenging an approaching
stranger than I have always been in scrutinizing every
thing presented for me to believe. I confidently believe
that I never took a statement that could properly be
questioned, from teacher, preacher, lecturer or author
167

168 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
upon mere authority. Even text books which I used in
school and college were never exempt from scrutiny. Such
expressions would occur as "the hot air rises and the
cold air rushes in to fill the vacuum that would otherwise
occur. ' ' No, I could not but say to myself, ' ' that is not
correct." If I were to put a piece of iron into a vessel
and then pour in mercury the iron would not rise of its
own accord and the mercury rush in to fill a vacuum.
The iron would be forced up by the heavier mercury. No
more does the hot air rise of its own accord. It is forced
up by the heavier cold air. Sound was likened to waves
on the surface of water. No, it is the transmission of
unequal densities through a medium rather than wave
lets upon the top of one. In physical geography the
saltness of the oceans was accounted for by the rivers
constantly emptying into them. It is admitted that there
is not much salt in fresh water streams, but, it is con
tended, there is a little, enough to salt the ocean in time.
But a moment's mental calculation shows that there is
enough salt in the oceans to cover the whole land surface
of the earth hundreds of feet deep. Why suppose that
it was once all piled up on the land ?
Upon reading a statement a short time ago that from
the top of a certain mountain a party could see a place
250 miles away, the question instantly arose. Would the
curvature of the earth allow one to see that distance?
Again a moment's mental calculation showed it to be
impossible, and that the 250 miles must refer to the cir
cuitous paths they would have to traverse in order to
reach the place mentioned.
These instances but illustrate an habitual attitude of
mind from my earliest boyhood.
While yet a boy I heard the principal of an academy

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 169
ask a class that was reciting to him, "What would be the
motion of a body falling through the earth ? ' ' Some said
one thing and some another, but the teacher finaUy closed
the discussion by saying, "It would stop at the center."
I thought to myself. No, there is nothing to stop it there,
and after a few moments' thought I saw that it would go
on through to the other side of the earth and continue
lo vibrate in accordance with the law of pendulum vibra
tion. It was fully 35 years before I knew that any one
else had conceived the idea. At the time I saw it as if
by intuition though I afterward demonstrated it.
It is in accordance with that principle that I afterward
reasoned that the interior even of the sun may be cold
and soUd and that the interior of the earth and other
planets may be the same.
When the theory of the correlation and conservation
of forces and of the mechanical equivalent of heat was
first brought to my notice I rejected it, but, as usual, I
investigated it. I calculated the effect of a certain
amount of heat acting through different substances. The
result seemed to sustain my first opinion, for the visible
effect was only from one-half to one-thirtieth of the pro
ducing cause. At least, if my calculations were correct,
from twenty-nine thirtieths to one-half of the force was
exhausted in overcoming the cohesion of gases (Tyndall)
or in some way it was tangled up with the intermolecular
forces. When the effect of the tides in retarding the earth's
axial rotation was first suggested, it received the usual
challenge, but a little thought convinced me that the idea
was correct, and I at once used it, to account for the rate
of the moon's axial rotation. Of course its present rate
may have been its initial rate of rotation. But whether

170 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Relation
its rate were faster or slower, if there had been any con
siderable body of water on it its present rate would have
been produced by its tides.
In 1872 the nebular hypothesis was brought forcibly to
my attention, and it received a peremptory challenge. I
suggested to my teacher in mathematics that I believed
that I could prove mathematically that it was impossible
for a nebulous mass so to contract as to produce the
planets with their present motions. But sitting down one
evening to the task I found the opposite to be the case,
but concluded that contraction must have been exceed
ingly rapid. (See above.) That was the beginning of my
study of cosmogony, and I may state that every principle
in the preceding section upon this subject was an original
discovery, though many of them have been since con
firmed by the authority of others.
So also when the theory of organic evolution came up
for consideration it naturally and necessarily was sub
jected to the same scrutiny, and with the results recorded
in the preceding pages.
Again I state that these things are mentioned simply
to show my habitual or rather natural attitude toward
everything that is presented for my acceptance. I am
not easily overawed by the reputation of any man, and
have long had the habit of investigating for myself state
ments made even by specialists in their own departments.
It was owing to this irresistible tendency to investigate
that I demonstrated Kepler 's Third Law in my own way
and the effect of eUipticity of planetary orbits upon the
operation of that law.
It is hardly necessary to say that with such a constitu
tional make-up, reUgion would not be accepted with an
unreasonable credulity. For some years I was a skeptic

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 171
Not that skepticism was the outcome of logical processes,
but such a mind as I have described is the soil in which
skepticism, Uke a fungous growth, naturally flourishes.
When in a season of religious awakening a friend
spoke to me upon the subject of personal religion, my
reply was to the effect that the phenomena of religious
experience were in accordance with natural laws. That
is, the laws of mind acting in conjunction with certain
influences from without could produce such phenomena.
Given a certain temperament or mental constitution that
could respond to the appeals of supposed truth such
phenomena were possible. But I supposed that my own
mental make-up was not of that kind, and that however
much I might desire it, I could never undergo such ex
periences. Even then (two years before entering college) I could
see far enough over into the domain of "The Reign of
Law in the Spiritual World" to know what the Duke of
ArgyU referred to when he wrote, "I had intended to
conclude [his book. The Reign of Law] with a chapter
on Law in Christian Theology. « * * * For the
present however I have shrunk from entering upon ques
tions so profound, of such critical import, and so in
separably connected with religious controversy."
Again, I make this statement to show that it was not
from mere credulity that I accepted Christ as a personal
Savior. I found that there are two ways out of skepti
cism. One is by the study of the evidences of Christian
ity. This course, if one has the mental power to com
prehend them, wiU remove intellectual doubt.
The other way which is quicker and more satisfactory,
because more Uf e-giving, is simply to take the right atti
tude of will, or, in popular language, to open the heart

172 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
to receive God, and He will come in and bring all the
evidences any one can need. That was my own way. It
was satisfactory. It not only removed doubt, it pro
duced certainty as to some vital things. There are cer
tainties in the religion of Christ.
I advise young Christians to reach as many of these
certainties as possible and as soon as possible. We may
know as well as believe. The object of this little volume
is to help reach some of these certainties.

CHAPTER XIV
An Individual Experience of God Present and Guiding
FOR many years before I was converted, I had a
strong conviction that if I ever became a Chris
tian I should have to be a minister of the gospel.
This was occasioned by an elder sister's telling
me, while I was but a child, that it had been revealed to
her that I was to be minister. My whole being revolted at
the idea. When a Uttle older I wanted to study law,
and while a private soldier in the civil war I carried
around with me, in my knapsack, the two large leather-
bound volumes of Blackstone's commentaries to read as
I had opportunity. When I accepted Jesus the Christ
^s Savior I accepted him also as Lord. I must do his
wiU and work. I tried however to shake off the old im
pression, and to believe that I could serve my Master
and still pursue my own inclinations as to my Ufe's
work. It was a question that must be settled with greater
certainty than by a mere impression, however strong.
There were a number of other questions closely aUied to
this fundamental one that must be settled, so that in
after life there would never be any vacUlating or halt
ing. I wanted to be guided with absolute certainty to
the right course. The secret of God's guidance has
always been a secret between Himself and me. "The
secret of the Lord is with them that fear him." Friends
sometimes have secrets between themselves that it would
be a violation of confldence to tell to any one else. This
was a secret that I always felt that it would be sacrilege
to reveal. It may have been owing in part to constitu
tional reticence, but I am sure that it was owing more
173

174 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
to the fear that others would not regard its sacred char
acter as I regarded it. Veiy few, I felt, would unre
servedly believe it, and incredulity on the part of others
would be revolting to me. In a few instances in the past
it has seemed that I might make some revelation of it for
the benefit of others, but the impulse, " It 's a secret that
must not be revealed, ' ' has always restrained me. It has
been only very recently that I have felt relieved of that
restraint, and a conviction that I ought to speak of it as
proof that God is near, has taken its place. Hardly a veil
intervenes between Him and us. He is ready and wilUng
lO guide his children when they seek his guidance.
But first I may speak of the experience of another as
really a part of my own, for it was that which first
determined my own course. A gentleman, the one before
referred to as the one who spoke to me about being a
Christian, narrated to me an experience of his.
There was no injunction of secrecy, but I have never
mentioned it to any one. His wife had died and left him
with a family of little children. He had no one to help
him in bringing up those little ones. He felt that he
must have a companion, and a suitable one, and so re
solved to leave the matter to the Lord.
He wrote the names, on separate slips of paper, of aU
of the ladies of his acquaintance who were eUgible, put
them in a receptacle and was about to draw when he re
membered one whom he had met but once or twice and
who lived in a distant part of the state. He added her
name, and prayed most earnestly that God would guide
his hand. He drew, and drew the name of the one last
mentioned. He replaced it in the receptacle and prayed
again that if she were the one chosen for him, he might
draw the same name a second time. He drew, and the

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 175
second time drew the same name. Again he replaced the
name in the receptacle, shook them up thoroughly as be
fore, drew, and for the third time drew the same name.
All doubt was now removed. He made the journey,
visited her in her father's home, and, as he was certain
that he would do, took her home with him his wife.
This incident gave me faith to let the Lord determine
my future course by directing the lot. "The lot is cast
into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the
Lord." (Prov. 16:33.)
Of the disciples it is said, "They prayed and east
lots." Some may think that they thus left the decision
to chance. No, it was leaving it to the Lord. If one in
tended thus to leave it to chance, chance would decide
the matter. But if one is Spirit-moved to leave it to God
in that way, God wiU decide. At least that proved to
be my experience.
One of the first questions submitted was. Shall I go on
studying law? The answer, three times in succession,
was, no. Another question was, Must I preach the gos
pel ? After the most earnest prayer for guidance and for
God's forbearance, after the first throw of the die, the
answer three times in succession was, yes. I may say
that in no case could the answer be accepted until the
die, after the most earnest prayer before every cast, had
made the same answer three times in succession. The
question. Shall I take a course of study? was similarly
answered in the affirmative three times in succession.
ShaU I go to  school? Again the answer, three times
in succession, was yes. In all, some twenty questions,
involving some sixty throws of the die, were thus
answered without confusion or contradiction.
And not only were the most important questions

176 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
settled in that way but some which to the general reader,
would seem of small consequence.
I was teaching a school one winter, which, by the
public road, was about fourteen miles from home, but by
going a part of the way by logging roads, across fields
and forests, and crossing the river on the ice, I could
reach it by nine miles' travel. I went home quite fre
quently and always by the shorter route, starting Friday
after school. One Friday afternoon was clear and warm.
The snow was melting and the slush was deep, making
the walking very difficult. If the weather continued
warm my overcoat would be only a burden. Should I
take it? The lot, as usual three times in succession,
answered, yes. I took it. Friday evening was warm and
pleasant. Saturday was like a balmy spring day. Sun
day forenoon was just as warm. I began to question with
myself whether I had not been misguided for once. The
weather speedily answered. It suddenly turned most
bitterly cold with a biting wind. We lived in the country
and it would have been difficult if not impossible to have
bought or borrowed a coat. If I had not taken my own
I should have suffered even \f I could have endured that
nine mile walk.
I may say that never have I had an instant's doubt as
to the wisdom, the benevolence of every answer so re
ceived. Although in many cases it cost a terrible struggle
to obey, the years have shown that the decisions were
directed by a wisdom infinitely greater than my own.
One of the strange things connected with the matter is
that no answer was satisfactory to me until the die had
given the same answer three times in succession. I never
did, I never could, abide by the decision of the first or
second throw. But when the third answer confirmed the

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 177
first and second, the decision was absolute. But why
three times? I will not try to say with certainty, but
one thing is certain. The first answer might have been
attributed to chance. It would not be impossible for a
second answer to come in the same way. But it would
be unreasonable to attribute a third answer to chance.
God never seemed to reprove me for lack of faith in
not accepting his first or second answer as final. He
was willing and wished to prove beyond a peradventure
that it was Himself and not chance that was guiding me.
Of this he gave reasonable proof and he asks nothing
unreasonable of any one. He was willing to answer
three times. He probably expected me to ask three times.
' ' In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall
be established."
With reference to his expecting one to ask three times,
an incident from India is suggestive. Very much
abridged it is as follows :
In one of his long missionary journeys the Rev. Jacob
Chamberlain, with a party of about fifty men, found
himself in a most dangerous position. They were travel
ing parallel with the Godavery river and about a mile
from it, through a jungle infested with man-eating tigers
and the still worse malaria that might prove fatal with a
single night's exposure. They had expected to reach
high ground beyond an affluent of the river, but owing to
high water they could not reach it. He silently prayed
for deliverance. The answer came in a kind of inward
voice, "Turn to the left and go to the Godavery." He
rode to the front and questioned the guides, but found
that there was no village, no house, no boat, not even a
piece of high ground where they could safely pitch their
tents in that direction. He fell to the rear and again

178 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
sought help from God. Again the answer came, "Turn
to the left and go to the river." Again he consulted the
guides with the same result. The third time he prayed,
as life depended upon it, and the third time he received
the same answer in the same way. This time all doubt
vanished and he ordered his men at once to turn to the
left and cut their way to the river. But there was no
need to cut their way, for just then they struck an old
path that led directly to the river. Here they found a
large flat boat, large enough for their tent and the whole
company. On this they spent the night in safety, and
on it pursued their journey the next day. But the point
is that it was after the third answer that they struck the
only path leading to the river.
Some of the world's wise ones may smile with incre
dulity, but, "It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of
the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of
the prudent." (I Cor. 1:19.) Our Savior prays, "I
thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because
thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent
and hast revealed them unto babes. ' ' (Mat. 11 :25. ) "If
thou scomest, thou alone must bear it. ' ' (Prov. 9 :12.)
The question may arise as to whether any and every
one can be guided in the same way as I have mentioned
in my own experience. Probably not, but still I believe
that the guidance may be in accordance with the measure
of faith. But faith in a particular direction may be an
especial gift for a specific end. The twelfth chapter of
First Corinthians is suggestive along that line. "For
to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to
another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to
another faith by the same Spirit," and so on. (See
4-11.) "Are all apostles? Are all teachers? Are all

Genesis Foundation for Soienoe and Religion 179
workers of miracles ? Have all the gifts of healing ? Do
aU speak with tongues ? Do all interpret ? " " No, ' ' is the
implied answer. But as the apostle before said (see verse
11), "But all these worketh that one and the self same
Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." It
is not always as the individual may choose, but as the
Spirit wills. But I believe that many more might have
guidance in the same way if they were earnest enough
to know God's will, that they might do it. As in some
other cases, doing is necessary to knowing. For guidance
in that particular way the obedience must be implicit, un
compromising, absolute. But in one way or another
one may be conscious of the Spirit of God as present and
guiding. With me that particular manner of guidance
was pursued but for a short time. AJ ter those vital ques
tions were settled beyond the possibility of a doubt and,
too, after such lessons as to God's presence and guidance,
I was thrown more upon my own responsibility to use
my own judgment in matters of duty. Still there has
never been lacking an assurance of DiAone guidance
when needed and asked for.
A growing conviction of duty in some particular regard
is often, perhaps always, a call of God. One may have at
first a kind of vague suggestion as to some possible duty,
not strong enough of itself to form a positive conviction.
But when that is repeated with increasing force, month
after month, perhaps year after year, the caU may be
come imperative. My own experience, again, may be
suggestive to others. Months, perhaps a year or so,
before preparing my little book, "Jesus Only," I had a
sUght impression that I ought to prepare a book with
that title. With the passing months the conviction be
came stronger irntU it became so strong that I felt that

180 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
it must be obeyed. I felt tired, worn out, and greatly
desired a change of pastorate for relief. I had not come
to a positive conclusion concerning the book, but one
evening, on my way to my room, I halted for a moment
in the doorway and mentally promised God that if he
would give me another field 1 would write such a book.
No audible voice could have been heard more plainly or
have produced a stronger impression than the reply in
my consciousness, ' ' Why not write it before you move ? ' '
My own answer was instantaneous, "Lord I will." I
finally redeemed my promise and a few months after its
publication the book itself caused me to receive a call to
a field that in my physical condition at that time was
ideal. Sometimes I have had a feeling of rebellion, think
ing that other people have talents that are of value,
while I have only the one little talent of a certain power
of abstract thought, and I have been tempted to say, "I
will not use it." But while at work at something else
the impression would come as strong as any audible voice
could have made it, "Burying your one little talent."
Again it would be, "Despising your birthright." And
in that manner I have been urged to take up and con
tinue the work. I believe that such promptings have
come from God. My former experiences of His directing
me lead me the more positively to that conclusion.
But there is another way in which God speaks to us
and that is through his printed word. Here, again, it is
my conviction that many Christians do not secure all
the privileges that are at their disposal. How many,
many times when I have wanted courage or hope, com
fort or inspiration, I have opened my Bible at random
and have found just what I have needed. Indeed, when

(genesis. Foundation for Science and Religion 181
really in need, the word has never failed me. Sometimes
the recoUection of a passage of scripture has served the
same purpose.
Once, years ago, when in trouble and with some
anxiety as to financial matters the passage came to me,
"Trust in the Lord and do good, so shalt thou dwell
in the land and verily thou shalt be fed." (Ps. 37:3.)
It was Uke the voice of God addressed to me individually.
It became my life motto and ever since then my chief
concern has been to do the work that He would have me
do and leave the results with Him. At least that has
been the attitude of the will, my purpose which has
prevailed in the profounder depths of life, though, in
spite of this, the surface is often sadly ruffled.
When feeling wronged there is an instinctive desire for
revenge. But the passage, "Vengeance is mine, I will
repay, saith the Lord," (Rom. 12:19.) will check that
desire, and place in its stead the prayer, "Lord, this con
cerns Thee more than it does me, take the matter into
Thine own hands, but temper justice with mercy. ' ' The
result is a calm, settled peace with reference to the mat
ter, which is vastly more conducive to happiness than
cherishing a purpose to seek revenge would be.
The voice of God comes to us in remembering or read
ing the written word of God, the Bible. An incident to
illustrate the latter.
On one occasion I had been reading Dr. Behrends'
book, "The Old Testament Under Fire." I was myself
a Uttle disturbed in mind as to the outcome of recent
criticism and was about to retire for the night. I had
gone about half way up stairs when a strong inward im
pulse came, "Go back and read a passage of scripture."
I was about to disregard it and go on, but it came again,

182 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
"Go back and read a passage of scripture." I returned
asking myself what message there was for me. Opening
my Bible at random my eyes fell upon the twelfth
Psalm. I read the first few verses and thought that there
was nothing in particular there, but in the 6th and 7th
verses I read, "The words of the Lord are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them
from this generation forever."
There was my message. The words were a revelation
and an assurance. Why, I thought, it was no new thing,
even in David's time for the word of God to be under
fire, to be tried as in a furnace of earth. And, by the
way, there may be a good deal of the earthly element now
in the trying of the word of God.
But the assurance that sustained the Psalmist is en
couraging still. "Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou
shalt preserve them from this generation forever."
These are a few instances of a great many in which the
printed word has been not only a guide but a source of
encouragement, of hope and instruction. The word of
God in its simplicity, as it reads, is an authority for in
struction. It is more, it is life giving. I am assured by
my own experience that it is not dogmatism to say that
the Bible is God's word. And my experience is not
unique. It is the testimony of the experience of multi
tudes in all ages and climes. The Bible not only contains
God's word, mixed up with a mass of verbiage of human
authority, leaving to each reader the responsibility of
picking out God's part, but as a whole it is God's mes
sage to men.

CHAPTER XV
The New Life From God
IN a preceding chapter (VII) we touched incident
ally, and only in connection with another sub
ject, upon the nature of that Ufe which those
possess who by accepting Christ have received
subjective salvation. But this subject deserves a more
extended consideration than was there incidentally given
it. Jesus says, (John, 10:10) "I am come that they might
Lave life and that they might have it more abundantly."
In these words He defines His mission to the world.
With reference to the human race, everything else in His
Ufe, death and resurrection was subordinated to one end,
contributory to the one purpose of giving life to those
whom He called His sheep. And it is surprising, when
we come to consider it, how much He has to say about
life, and of Himself as the giver of life — how much He
has to say about eternal Ufe, everlasting life and of Him
self as the one who bestows it. But He was not moving
among dead bodies. He was not talking to dead bodies
So the natural life, of course was not meant. It is ap
parent also that He did not refer to a mere continuance
of existence after the spirit of man had left the body.
This continuance is admitted by him and he taught it.
In one sentence he speaks of a future life for both the
righteous and the wicked, "These shall go away into
everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life
eternal." Daniel says that they shaU "awake, some to
everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting con-
183

184 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
tempt. ' ' Paul also speaks of the resurrection of the just
and of the unjust.
The immortality of the spirit of man, both of the
wicked and the good was admitted in Christ's time, and
has been a fundamental doctrine of the Christian church
during all of the ages of its existence. What, then, does
he mean when he says, ' ' I am come that they might have
life?" The fact seems to be this: there is a kind of life
that is different in kind from the common mortal or im
mortal life of man. It is different in kind, and not simply
in degree or duration. All men have an immortal spirit
and that without regard to character. But the life that
Christ speaks of is as different from that, as the im
mortal life of man differs from animal or as animal,
differs from vegetable life. The facts seem to be that
when man was created he was endued, not only with an
immortal spirit, but with a life principle that partook of
the Divine nature. He was made in God 's image, in His
likeness. When man sinned that life was extinguished.
And here is a suggestion as to the effect of that sin. It
extinguished the divine life, and no created being can
beget in his offspring a different kind of life from that
which he, himself, possesses. After man had lost that
divine life he could not beget it in his offspring. So it is
a literal truth that ' ' in Adam all died. ' ' Not one of his
race could have by inheritance that true, that divine
life that allied him to God. If he or any of his descend
ants were to have that life it must be created in him
anew. So "if any man be in Christ he is a new crea
ture. ' ' He has a new life created within him.
To restate the proposition. When man was created
there was a life principle within him that was termed by
Christ eternal life or everlasting life. It was a life prin-

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 185
eiple entirely distinct from his common human life. It
partook of the divine and allied him to the Divine author
of life. It was of a kind that would produce Godlike
living, develop a Godlike character. It was of this
kind of life that the death sentence was pronounced upon
disobedience. God said to Adam, ' ' In the day that thou
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." But Satan said,
"Thou shalt not surely die." Which was right? That
depends upon what we mean by the term death. The
separation of the life principle from the tree is death
to the tree because it is the extinction of its life. The
separation of the Ufe principle from the animal is death
for the same reason, there is an extinction of Ufe. The
separation of the immortal spirit from the man is called
death, but only by way of accommodation. There is no
extinction of a life principle. That goes on Uving in
dependently of the body. If this separation were the
death spoken of, then Satan was right, for that separa
tion did not take place until about 900 years afterward.
But if the extinction of the divine life principle were
referred to then God was right. The Ufe principle that
alUed Adam to God, that would develop Godlike char
acter. Godlike living, became extinct and that was death
in an infinitely more important sense than the mere sepa
ration of the spirit from the body. That the divine Ufe
had gone out was shown by the conduct of our first
parents after they had sinned. Instead of loving God
and His companionship as before, they feared, hated,
shunned Him. They were dead as to the divine life.
That declaration, "in the day thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die, ' ' with its fearful realization, helps us to
understand his meaning in other places. But before con
sidering these, note that the first sin was unbelief and the

186 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
result of that was disobedience. Man lost the divine life
by unbelief and disobedience, he can regain it only by
reversing the process, by believing and obeying.
Now with this view of spiritual death and eternal life,
observe the light it casts upon certain passages of scrip
ture and how these same passages tend to confirm the
view itself. "I am come that they might have life."
It was not necessary for Christ to impart a life that they
already had. He must have meant something entirely
different from the natural life. He refers to eternal life
as He elsewhere says, "I give unto my sheep eternal
life. " " The gift of God is eternal life. ' ' Or, changing
the order for clearness, ' ' Eternal Ufe is the gift of God. ' '
(Rom. 6:23.) It is a new imparting of a Ufe principle.
Note again, "she that liveth to pleasure is dead while she
liveth. " (I Tim. 5:6.) Again, "To be carnally minded
is death." (Rom. 8:6.) Thou hast a name to live but
art dead." (Rev. 3:1.) There is nothing figurative,
mystical or mysterious about these words. They but ex
press a literal truth, for, so far as the divine life is con
cerned, those classes are dead. They are dead as Adam
was dead as concerns the divine Ufe after his transgres
sion. "You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses
and sins." (Eph. 2:1.) The word "quickened" means
the bringing to life, the giving or imparting of life. All
were dead as concerned the divine life that Adam lost by
sin. Paul again says, speaking of God who is rich in
mercy, "even when we were dead in sins hath he quick
ened" or given life to. (Eph. 2:5.) He uses the same
words in his letter to the Colossians. Again he says,
' ' If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. ' ' And
again, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 187
anything nor uncircumcision but a new creature." In
these passages he can refer to but one thing, and that is
the new, the different kind of Ufe that is created within
those who believe on Christ.
How is this new life obtained? We have just spoken
of it as the gift of God. But Christ also gives it. John
says it was by Christ that God made the worlds. It is
also through Him that this life is imparted. Jesus Him
self says, "for as the Father raiseth up the dead and
quickeneth them: even so the Son quickeneth whom he
will." (John 5:21.) Paul says, "the first man Adam
was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quick
ening spirit, ' ' or one that imparts Ufe. Christ teUs what
kind of life, "I give my sheep eternal Ufe." John says
of him, "as many as received him to them gave he the
power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor
of the will of the fiesh, nor of the wiU of man but of
God." (John 1:12,13.) John again speaks of that life
or of its nature, "Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot
sin, because he is born of God. " (I John 3 :9. ) A divine
nature is in those who are born of God, which they have
inherited from their Father.
That is the significance of the new birth. It is the
beginning of a new life, a different kind of life from that
which they had before. It partakes of the divine and
allies one to the Divine. It is thus, as Peter says, that we
are "partakers of the Divine nature."
Observe, too, what Christ himself says of this life and
of Himself as the author of it. He says to Nicodemus,
"Ye must be bom again," and note that this was spoken
to a rabbi, a member of the sanb^drin, a religious teacher.

188 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
a theologian. He had knowledge, influence, position and
theology, but all of these availed nothing without the new,
the divine life the beginning of which is termed a new
birth. But that life must come by believing in Jesus.
' ' He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life : and
he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abideth on him." Again he says, "He
that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me,
bath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemna
tion: but is passed from Death unto life." "He that
believeth on me hath everlasting life. " "I am the resur-
rection and the life." "Whosoever liveth and believeth
in me shall never die. ' ' In all of these passages of what
can he be speaking but of that spiritual life that begins
with the new birth and makes us the children of God?
And, incidentally, note the infinite majesty of one who
can use such words and make them good. Note that
every promise of this life is conditioned upon belief in
Himself. As before observed, every promise of salvation
is coupled with belief in him.
And this leads us to consider what we must beUeve
concerning him. The answer is found in his own words
and in the facts of history. Jesus says to the Pharisees
and those gathered with them, "If ye believe not that I
am He," that is, the Messiah, "ye shaU die in your sins."
But of the Messiah it was written, "His name shall be
called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Ever
lasting Father, the Prince of Peace." If they did not
believe in him as such, they did not believe in him as the
Messiah. But they did not believe that he was such, and
crucified him because he claimed to be the Messiah. They
accused him of blasphemy for "making himself equal
with God, " as he claimed to be, while they believed him

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 189
to be a mere man. Read the history of the destruction of
Jerusalem and the subsequent dispersion of the Jews for
evidence as to whether they were saved in this world or
not. None of those who beUeved on him as the Christ
were involved in that terrible destruction, for believing
in him and admitting his claims, they beUeved his words
concerning the coming of that destruction and fled to a
place of safety. And this destruction was, evidently, not
of a mere temporal nature, for Jesus told them, "Whither
I go ye caimot come." And note his denunciations of
those classes. Yet they beUeved that there was such a
man as Jesus, they believed that he was the son of Joseph
as some now believe in his merely human paternity.
Many could not do otherwise than believe that he was a
good man, and the only bad thing any of them could find
about him was that "he deceiveth the people" in trying
to convince them that he was the Messiah. They believed
that he wrought miracles also. We read that after the
raising of Lazarus, ' ' Then gathered the chief priests and
Pharisees a council, and said, "What do we? for this man
doeth many miracles. If we let him alone aU men will
beUeve on him." (John 11:47,48.) Instead of being
convinced by the raising of Lazarus that Jesus was what
he claimed to be, they "consulted that they might put
Ijazarus also to death: because that by reason of him
many of the Jews went away and beUeved on Jesus."
(John 12 :10,11.) None of them, so far as we know, ever
denied the fact of his miracles nor even of the resurrec
tion of Christ, but, with reference to this last, they did
aU that they could to keep a knowledge of the fact from
reaching others, for when the Roman guard reported the
facts, "they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying
"Say ye, his disciples came by night and stole him away

190 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
while we slept, and if this come to the governor's ears,
we will persuade him and secure you. ' ' (Mat. 28 :12,13.)
Yes, they most decidedly believed in miracles. They were
also compelled to admit that others, also, wrought them
through faith in the name of Christ. When the man
lame from his birth was healed by Peter and John, and
the knowledge of that fact was rapidly spreading and
winning adherents to the cause of the apostles, these
same priests, scribes and Pharisees, the religious teachers,
"conferred among themselves, saying. What shaU we do
to these men ? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been
done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in
Jerusalem : and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no
farther among the people let us straitly threaten them
that they speak henceforth to no man in this name."
They believed many things concerning Christ, but evi
dently their belief was not a saving faith nor a beUef
that would insure eternal life.
Not only did men, wicked men, believe many things
concerning him but demons also did the same. We read,
' ' There met him two possessed with devils coming out of
the tombs, exceeding fierce so that no man might pass
that way. And, behold, they cried out saying, What have
we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God ? ' ' The faith
of the demons went farther than that of many men, but
they did not yield a willing obedience to him as their O'wn
Lord. James says (2:19), Thou believest there is one
God, thou doest well, the devils also believe and- tremble. "
Many, now, believe that there is one God, but claim that
Jesus Christ is in no sense that God.
What, then, is necessary? When Jesus asked his
disciples who he was, Peter answered, "Thou art the
Christ, the son of the living God." Thomas exclaimed

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 191
"My Lord and my God. ' ' The true nature of Christ was
revealed to them. "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona:
for fiesh and blood hath not revealed it imto thee but my
Father which is in heaven," was our Savior's declara
tion. That is the faith that complies with the condition, "As
many as received him to them gave he power to become
the sons of God, even to them that beUeve on his name. ' '
Simon Peter is not the only one to whom the Father
makes this revelation. He makes it to every one who will
voluntarily take the right attitude of will concerning
him. And this revelation can come in no other way for,
"No man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy
Ghost." And this explains why so many now are like
the scribes, Pharisees and others of old. They do not
submit to the teaching of the Holy Spirit as to the nature
of Jesus. He is Divine. He is Lord with a capital L.
He can impart the spiritual life, and does impart it to
all who receive him and believe in him as the Messiah as
that Messiah was described in the prophecy. To such he
imparts the divine life, the life that alUes men to God and
makes them partakers of the Divine nature. They thus
become the children of God because they are born of
God. They are the children of God in an entirely differ
ent sense than that used so often of late with reference
to all persons.
We hear a great deal about the fatherhood of God and
the brotherhood of man. There is a great truth contained
in that expression inasmuch as that aU should treat God
as one should treat a father and should recognize the
claims of their fellow men upon them. But this rather
fictitious relationship is by no means to be confounded
with that infinitely higher relationship that exists

192 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
between the Father and those who have been "born
again, " " born of the Spirit, " " born from above, " " born
of God," and by that birth have become the children of
God. To such God is a father because He has imparted
to them life, an entirely different kind of life, from that
which they possessed before.
Those who have been born of God, too, have an entirely
different relationship with each other from that of
humanity in general.
In this connection it should be emphasized, as has been
before stated, that this life is a new creation. "If any
man be in Christ he is a new creature. ' ' This life is not
a development of some other and lower kind of life. A
new kind of life has been created within him, or im
parted to him direct.
When vegetable life appeared upon our planet it was
the result of the creation of that kind of life. That life
has produced, perpetuated that kind of life and only
that kind of life, namely, vegetable Ufe. When animal
life appeared, it was the result of the creation of animal
life. Vegetable life did not beget animal life, it only
begat its own kind of Ufe, and not only in general but in
particular. Algae life did not beget oak nor cedar nor poplar life
It begat algae life and has continued to do so since the
first dawn of Ufe upon the planet. In the realm of animal
Ufe, the Eozon Ufe did not beget trilobite, nor ammonite
nor ganoid life. It begat and perpetuated its own kind
of Ufe and has begotten that kind only, since the first
trace of animal life appeared on earth.
The same law prevails in the spiritual world. ' ' Natural
law in the Spiritual World" prevails. Science as well
as reUgion teaches this truth. As Prof. Drummond well

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 193
says, "No organic change, no modification of environ
ment, no mental energy, no moral effort, no evolution of
character, no progress of civilization can endow any
single human soul with the attribute of spiritual Ufe.
The Spiritual world is guarded from the world next
beneath it by a law of Biogenesis — 'except a man be
born again * * « * except a man be born of water
and the Spirit he caimot enter the kingdom of God. ' ' '
Again the same writer observes, "there is no Spon
taneous Generation in reUgion any more than in nature.
Christ is the source of Ufe in the Spiritual World, and
"He that hath the Son hath Ufe and he that hath not
the Son," whatever else he may have, "hath not life."
Again he says, "It is clear that a remarkable harmony
exists here between the Organic World as arranged by
Science and the Spiritual World as arranged by Scrip
ture. We find one great law guarding the thresholds
of both worlds, securing that entrance from a lower
sphere shaU only take place by a distinct regenerating
act, and that emanating from the world next in order
above it.
There are not two laws of Biogenesis, one for the
natural, the other for the Spiritual. One law is for
both." The spiritual kingdom is as distinct from the animal
kingdom as that is from the vegetable, or as the vegetable
is from the mineral kingdom. Each has its beginning in
a new creation. The Christian is one in whom this new
kind of Ufe has been created, and the Christian religion
is a system of reUgion based upon that fact.
There is another remarkable harmony, also, between
these two worlds. Note that as in the material world so
in the spiritual the development of life is according to

194 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
its life principle. In tiie material universe every living
thing follows that law. There are today billions of
protoplasmic cells so nearly alike that, as science teUs us,
no microscopic examination, no chemical tests can detect
any difference between them, and yet one developing ac
cording to its life principle in a few days wiU become a
blade of grass, another may require thousands of years
to mature into a giant Sequoia.
In the animal kingdom, one may at maturity become
an oyster, another an elephant. Each developes in ac
cordance with the life principle that animates it.
So when the spirit of man becomes possessed of that
life principle that is caUed by our Lord "Eternal life,"
that life that comes when one is "born of God," the
spirit will develop according to that life principle, but
it will not come to its maturity in a day nor in a month
nor a year. It may require the "eternal years" for its
maturity into Godlikeness. Those who so thoughtlessly
criticise the imperfections of Christians fail to recognize
this fact. But even in this life the character may mature
sufficiently to bear "Fruit unto holiness."
' ' The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffer
ing, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance."
(Gal. 5:22.)
These quaUties are not the result of heathen culture, for
the fruits of such culture are the direct opposite of these.
But the difference between those who have this life and
those who do not have it is not so marked in those lands,
as Europe and America, in which the genius of Chris
tianity has shed its blessings upon aU ; like the sun that
rises upon the evil and the good, or the rain that descends
equaUy upon the just and upon the unjust. The differ-

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 195
ence is more marked in those regions where Christ and his
gospel are unknown.
When, by receiving Jesus the Christ as the Son of
God, an African has received this new life from God,
he is changed from a cruel, blood-thirsty monster in
human shape into a man, humble, teachable and yet
virile, sitting at the feet of his missionary teacher study
ing the life of his Master. Through faith in Jesus as
the Messiah, savages, miserable creatures who through
fear of death were aU their lifetime subject to bondage,
have received this life and by its animating principle
have unhesitatingly laid down their lives for the faith,
that they might be the means of imparting the same
life to others. There is not a spot on earth, and never
has been a spot, so dark, so savage, so steeped in heathen
ism that it has not been counted a joy for some of Christ's
children to make it their home and their grave, if need
be, if by that means they might advance the cause of
their Redeemer. Such conduct is the outgoing of the
Ufe within which has been imparted to them by Him
who laid down His life for us. It is evidence that
the life that inspires them is the offspring of God and
that they are, indeed, the children of God.
Nations are aggregates of individuals. What the indi
viduals are the nation is. As a nation becomes infused
with the divine element in the lives of its truly Christian
citizens, the evils resulting from selfishness and sin
gradually slough off; and so we have the enlightened
nations of today as compared with the barbarism that
once prevailed. Vice and crime indeed abound, but they
prevail in individual lives that have not been touched by
the Divine life. These vices and crimes are hideous and
in many instances surpass those of darker lands because

196 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
those who commit them sin against greater light and are
resisting stronger influences for good than have ever
before existed. But in spite of this the influence of Uves
that have been touched by the Divine Ufe has trans
formed the world of Caesar into the world of today, and
is working transformations more rapidly now than ever
before in the history of the human race.
The kind of life that the caterpiUer has causes it in
time to slough off its hairy outer covering and aU of
those organs that pertain only to its lower form of Ufe
and take on new forms more beautiful and better adapted
to higher external conditions. So the nations have been
sloughing off those hideous excrescences of human Ufe,
gladiatorial shows, suttee, infanticide, slavery, human
sacrifices, cannibalism, feudal wars, massacres of pri
soners taken in war, mitigating the horrors of war and
so on.
Christianity builds hospitals for the sick, almshouses
for the poor, supplies the destitute, pities the unfortu
nate, relieves the distressed.
It changes laws and remodels governments and is doing
this now with greater rapidity than ever before. We need
only to point to the islands of the seas, to Japan, to
China, to Persia, to Turkey.
But these results in the physical world only illustrate
that power which finds its more perfect sphere of activity
in the realm of the spirit where it is not limited by time
or space or any other limitation of material conditions.
It is the Ufe of God in man and that unites him to God
by the ties of a spiritual consanguinity.
Christ came to impart that life.

CHAPTER XVI
Concluding Words
FOR a number of years a confiict has been going
on in the Christian world over matters pertain
ing to religion. Heretofore the Unes have not
been sharply drawn so that the contending hosts
were fairly drawn up on opposite sides with the issues
distinctly outlined between them. But this seems to be no
longer the case, particularly with the leaders of the con
tending forces. There are hosts of people between the
two extremes of thought and hardly knowing which way
to turn. On one side there is a man-made Bible, a reli
gion of evolution, an egocentric theology, and salvation
by culture. On the other side is a God-inspired Bible
that is authoritative for instruction and conduct, a
Christo-centric theology, a reUgion that is based soUdly
upon the atonement of Christ and salvation by the credo,
"I beUeve on the Lord Jesus Christ" : in other words sal
vation by faith as the power by which we appropriate to
ourselves the new, the divine, the eternal Ufe that He
has to give us. This latter is the reUgious system that
conquered the world in the first Christian century. There
is no hope for its conquest in the twentieth except by the
same gospel, which is the only gospel of Christ.
Men ask what shall be the preaching for an age of
doubt ? The answer would be, the preaching that admits
no doubt about the eternal verities of the Christian faith.
There must be no evasions of the truth that men are dead
in sin, and can be made alive only by the power of the
One who raised up Christ from the dead.
What shall be the preaching for the twentieth cen-
197

198 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
tury? The preaching that conquered the world in the
first. It only can meet the facts in the world that are as
hard now as they were then. It is, of course, not to be
inferred that discretion is not to be used in presenting
the truth. There are many phases of the true gospel,
many truths in the one great truth. The phase of truth
presented must be adapted to the people appealed to.
Paul says, "Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord
Vie persuade men. ' ' But he could also say, ' ' I have not
shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. ' '
What shall be the preaching in view of the intel
lectual activity of the age? The preaching of the same
truths, coupled perhaps with intellectuality enough to
grasp the great facts recorded in the first chapter of
Genesis, and enough to see that those chapters are the
records of facts. If not the record of facts, the biblical
cosmogony is, at least, in harmony with all the advances
in astronomical science for the last hundred years. Its
biogenesis absolutely corresponds with the records in the
rocks. We need no theories of neo-creationism. The old
creationism meets aU of the conditions.
Archaeology, so far as it touches the Bible, confirms
its historicity. The Jewish race is a monument to that
historicity. The Bible as it is, without human emenda
tions or corrections, is a record of facts not only in cos
mogony and biogenesis but of facts in human experience,
and of eternal principles that determine that experience.
It has been said that "so long as the majority of theo
logians treat the Bible as a book of oracles, so long wUl
it appear as a book of fables to the majority of the
educated laity." Whether this is true or not depends
upon the amount and kind of education "the educated
laity" have, and the spirit with which that education

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 199
was pursued. A most deplorable feature of the present
time is the spirit of exultant joy, the perfect satisfaction,
the supreme complacency that we know so much, rather
than of humUity that we know so little. But the highest
reaches of human intellect as yet have been but as a
baUoon journey toward the stars.
There may be a kind of education that would lead men
to despise the oracles of God, but in doing so it places
human conceit above Divine wisdom. The Bible, to a
great extent, gives an account of its own origin, and the
ages have substantiated that account. The martyr
Stephen called the Mosaic law, at least, the oracles of
God delivered to Moses. Paul, Peter, the writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews and others of the inspired writers
refer to the books of the Bible as the oracles of God. The
old prophets spoke of the oracles of God and subsequent
events have proven their words to have been such. So
long as men substitute their own imaginings for the
truths of God, so long will they confuse the oracles of
God with those of Delphi or some other heathen shrine.
They do not belong in that category. Paul could say in
his time, "We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a
stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to
them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the
power of God and the wisdom of God. " ( I Cor. 1 :23,24. )
There are, essentiaUy, the same classes now. The in-
telUgent layman need not despise those oracles. The in
telligent preacher need not and does not stultify himself
in preaching the same facts that Paul preached, the
facts of a personal God, a God creating, a God reveaUng
himself in the scriptures of truth, a God redeeming, a
(Jod present and guiding, and a new life created in those
who beUeve on the Lord Jesus Christ. The stultifying

200 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
is on the part of those in the church, who, like wolves in
sheep's clothing, are covertly and insidiously subvert
ing the truths they are paid to advocate. The caU to-day
is the caU of Moses at Sinai, of Elijah at Mount Carmel.

APPENDIX
Notes to Chapter I
(a) This rapid contraction would necessarily pro
duce a spiral nebula. For a discussion of this subject
and for the proof of several positions I have taken in
this article, see Prof. Moulton's article, Evolution of the
Solar System, in the Astrophysical Journal for October,
1905. (b) With reference to these nebular densities note the
following from the Ency. Brit., Art. Geology. "The
fact of condensing around centers, however, indicates at
least differences in densities throughout the nebulous
mass." See also the article of Prof. Moulton referred to
above. (c) This action can be better understood by show
ing it to be according to the law of pendulum vibration.
The force that would be exerted upon a ball falling
through the earth would be in proportion to the distance
yet to be traversed. The same is true of the pendulum.
In figure 2 place the pendulum baU at any point as
at e. A part of the force of gravity acting along the line
c e would be expended in the pull upon the pendulum
rod. The remainder would be expended in urging it
along the tangent f g. This latter is as the angle a e c.
But this is = to the angle b a e, and this is the measure
of the distance yet to be passed through, the same as
that of the body falling through the earth.
(d) About eight months after this statement about
the Great Red Spot was written, the f oUowing item was
going the round of the papers. ?01

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

202

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 203
Something Hovering Over Jupiter
"A discovery of considerable importance in astrono
mical circles has recently been made which is arousing
much interest among astronomers," sayS the Toronto
Globe. "The planet Jupiter is the body upon which the
discovery has been made. Several pecuUar pyramid-
shaped spots have been observed on Jupiter, and the
astronomers who have been watching them have observed
that, as they travel with great velocity toward the object
known to astronomers as the Great Red Spot, they disap
pear and reappear at the other side of the Great Red
Spot. This seems to indicate that the Great Red Spot
is elevated, something which was not known before."
This seems to completely confirm the author's state
ment. (e) The Ency. Brit., article Geology, mentions
three theories as to the internal condition of the earth.
First, soUd crust, molten interior, 2d, with the exception
of local vesicular spaces, it is all solid, 3d, solid interior
and exterior with a layer of molten matter between.
With regard to internal fluidity Mr. Hopkins of Cam
bridge, (in 1839) calculated that the phenomena of pre
cession and nutation could not possibly be as they are if
the planet consisted of a central ocean of molten rock
surrounded by a crust 20 or 30 miles thick, and that the
least possible thickness of crust consistent with the ex
isting conditions or movements was from 800 to 1000
miles. Sir WilUam Thomson, the late Lord Kelvin, arrived in
dependently at the conclusion that the interior of the
earth must be solid. He estimated that the tide-produc
ing force of the moon and sun exerts such a strain upon

204 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
the substance of the globe that it seems in the highest
degree impossible that the planet could maintain its
shape as it does, unless the supposed crust were at least
2,000 or 2,500 miles in thickness.
His conclusion is that the globe as a whole must be
of the tenacity of glass or steel to resist these forces.
In his own words his conclusion is that the mass of the
earth, "is on the whole more rigid than a continuous
solid globe of glass of the same diameter. ' '
This is pretty good evidence of the correctness of my
own conclusion, arrived at simply by processes of reason.
(f) With regard to these transient bursts of light
note the words of the scientist. Dr. J. R. Meyer : ' ' The
transient appearance of stars which in some cases, like
the celebrated star of Tycho Brahe, have at first an ex
traordinary degree of brilUance, may satisfactorily be
explained by assuming the falling together of previously
invisible double stars." (Correlation and Conservation
of Forces, page 355.)
(g) In speaking of species it is well to remember that
the term is a rather variable one. It is admitted that
some of the so-caUed species may have originated from
some other so-called species. The statement is simply
that there is no evidence that such has been the case.
However hard it may be to conceive that each one of
the species, for instance, of the 700 of ganoids is an
original creation, and that the creation form is the ter
minal one, there is no evidence that there has been a
single case of transmutation. However, it may be that
future discoveries may show that the term "variety"
should be used where the term "species" is now em
ployed. (h) The "slimy ooze" of Prof. Huxley, which he

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 205
thought was endued with power to produce aU kinds of
Ufe either directly or indirectly, was finally discovered
to be but a precipitate that could be produced by simply
mbcing alcohol with sea water.
(i) See E. Ray Lankester on Degeneration.
HXCURSUS I
Closely connected with this subject of nebular densities
starting off on orbits of their own, is a consideration of
the sesquiplicate ratio of times and distances of Planets
or ' ' Kepler 's Third Law. ' '
The sesquiplicate ratio of the times and distances of
the planets is necessary from the fact that the force of
gravitation varies as the square of the distance, and that
with falling bodies the distance is as the square of the
time. To demonstrate the law a few principles must be
admitted as axiomatic.
1st. A body moving in a circle deviates from its
tangent according to the law of faUing bodies.
2d. Any power of the ratio of two or more numbers
is the ratio of the same power of those numbers.
3d. The force of gravitation varies as the square of
the distance. In fig. 2 (page 201) let S represent the posi
tion oftion of the sun, M the position of one planet and A
that of a planet supposed for convenience to be just twice
as far from the sun. The ratio (r) of distances would then
be 2. Let d^distance of M from the sun and D=that
of A from the sun. Let t=the time for M to pass from
M to P and T=the time for A to pass from A to C or
through J4 of its orbit.
As attraction varies as the square of the distance, it is
plain that the sun exerts but J4 of the power at A that

206 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
it does at M and hence a body at A would fall, or be
drawn from its tangent, only j4 as far in a given time
as one at M. At the same time it has twice as far to go
to complete the j4 oi its orbit that M has. So, if there
were no other consideration, that is, if the distance fallen
through were as the time we should have the proportion
t : T : : 1 : r3. But the distance varies as the square
of the time, so that instead of simply t and T we have t2
T2 and the proportion would become t2 : T2 : : 1 :
r3, where t2="t square" and r3="r cube." This is
by far the most convenient formula to apply in prac
tice. Take for example the time and distance of the
earth as a standard and we have only to multiply the
square of its time by the cube of the ratio of distances
ahd we have the square of the time of any other planet.
To obtain the ordinary formula of Kepler's Third Law
we have only to remember the second principle stated
above and for 1 : r3 substitute the numbers themselves
and we have t2 : T2 : : d3 : D3. What is true of one
ratio is true of any ratio and what is true for }i of the
orbit is true for the whole, so that the ratio of the times
and distances of the planets is necessarily sesquiplicate.
It is sometimes stated that the law is not quite true.
It is, however, necessarily and absolutely true of itself,
and would appear to be so if there were no disturbing
circumstances. If, for example, the solar system were
entirely isolated from other stellar bodies so as to be
undisturbed by them, the planets aU of the same size
moving through a nonresisting medium and in circular
orbits, or orbits of the same degree of eccentricity, there
could be no possibiUty of variation from the harmonic
law. In seeking the causes of variation from that law th?

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 207
writer found what he believes to be a true law and the
principal cause of variation from the harmonic law.
Briefiy stated it is this : A planet moving in an elliptical
orbit has a longer year than one at the same mean dis
tance would have moving in a circular orbit, or the
greater the eUipticity the longer the year in proportion
to its mean distance.
It seems as if this must appear from the following
reasoning. In a circular orbit the mean distance is
simply one radius, — r, or for a convenience of com
4r
parison — But suppose a circle of the same size or cir-
4
cumference to be depressed at two of its sides so as to
have a major and a minor axis. The major axis does
not lengthen as much as the minor axis shortens, for
when the minor axis becomes zero the major axis has
become only % of the original circumference and the
2:rr
4r  n r
original — becomes 2 or — Clearing of
4  4
4
fractions the 4r of the circle becomes „ r when the minor
axis has disappeared. But n: does not equal 4 but only
3.1416. The Umit of possible variation then is between
4 and 3.1416. To maintain, then, the same mean distance
from the sun, the eUiptical orbit must be lengthened as
eccentricity increases and as in a given time and at a
given distance the sun can produce only a given effect,
it would seem as if it must take longer to carry a planet
around the longer elliptical, orbit than around the shorter
circular one of the same mean distance.

208 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
The writer of this paper arrived at this conclusion
without knowing whether the years of the several plan
ets were longer or shorter than required by the harmonic
law. He tried to ascertain these facts by correspon
dence, but failing in this, he applied himself to the task,
using Kepler's full formula and confirming some of the
results by using his own shorter one (i. e., t2 : T2 : :
1 : r3.) The results surprised and gratified him by con
firming his views in every particular. But before speak
ing of these results we must refer for a moment to the
cause commonly attributed to account for the variation,
viz. the size of the planets. This will require but a
few words as it is treated in recent text books on astro
nomy. But the only possible result of increasing size
would be to shorten the year. For instance, the actual
year of Jupiter is 2.067 days shorter than it would be
if it were a mere particle. The earth's is 47.8 seconds
shorter. It would seem, then, that taking the time and distance
of the earth as a standard of comparison, aU planets
larger than the earth should have a shorter year than
that required by the harmonic law, and from the preced
ing conclusions as to the effect of eUipticity, all planets
whose orbits are more elliptical than the earth's should
have a longer year than required by the harmonic law.
Which exerts the controlUng infiuence can be learned by
calculation. Unless the writer of this paper is very much
mistaken in his own calculations and at the same time
fails to understand Newton's application of the law, ec
centricity of orbit exerts the controlling influence, for
without exception all the planets whose orbits are more
eccentric than that of the earth have longer years than
required by the harmonic law when the time and distance

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 209
of the earth are taken as the standard. The two whose
orbits are less eccentric have shorter years than so re
quired. For convenience of present investigation the following
table is placed before the reader. It contains calculations
made by the author four or five years ago with one or
two corrections made recently:

Planet

Mass.

Eccentricity

Sq. of Actual
YeaTB, days

^iSS'iJ47&'"

Mercury —

0,1183

.205618

7744

7737

Venus -..,- 

0.8832

.006833

50445

• 50583

Earth 

1.0000 0.1324

.016770.093262

Standard 471969

Mars ...-  -._

470543

Jupiter 

338.0342

.048239

18771293

18713900

Saturn 

101.0637

.055996

115757081

115511778

Ur 

14.7889

.046577

930692169

885500000

Nap 

24.6483

.008719

3615256224

3812000000

The first two columns (mass and eccentricity) are
taken from Snell's Astronomy and differ a little from
those given by Prof. Young in his astronomy, but the
difference is too small to affect the general result.
About four years after making the above calculations
the author had occasion to consult Newton's Principia
and from that takes, though in a different form, the fol
lowing table. Mean distances of the planets and of the
earth from the sun (omitting the three right hand fig
ures) according to —

Mercury-Venus 
Earth 
Mars 
Jupiter ...
Saturn ...

Harmonic

Kepler

Bullialdus

law

38806

38585

38710

72400

72398

72333

100000

100000

100000

152350

152350

152369

519650

522520

520096

951000

954198

954006

Consulting the first table we see that in every instance
where the eccentricity is greater than that of the earth's

210 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
orbit, the actual year is longer than required by the H. L.
In the two instances (Venus and Neptune) where the
eccentricity is less than that of the earth's orbit, the
actual year is shorter than is so required.
With regard to the second — Newton's — table, Uranus
and Neptune were unknown to Newton and, of course,
they are not mentioned. Then, too, instead of computing
the time as required by the H. L., as the present writer
did, he computed the distance as required by the actual
time, and, taking the distance as given by BulUaldus,
which is more nearly correct for Mercury, and that
given by Kepler, or both, for the others, in every instance
his conclusions coincide with those in the first table. For
instance, the distance of Mercury calculated from its
actual year is greater than its actual distance, showing
that its actual year is longer than required by the H. L.
In the case of Venus the distance as computed from its
actual year is less than the actual distance, showing that
its actual year is less or shorter than required by the
H. L. As far as Newton's table goes it sustains in every
particular the correctness of the conclusions recorded in
the first table and both confirm the inference before
stated, i. e., taking the time and distance of the earth as
a standard of comparison every planet whose orbit is
more eccentric than the earth's has a longer year than is
required by the H. L. Those whose orbits are less eccen
tric have shorter years than io required.
Of course the time and distance of any other planet
could be taken as the standard without affecting the
principles involved.
From the foregoing it wiU be seen that the exact effect
of eccentricity can be ascertained by sufficient accuracy
of computation. The author's calculations were made

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 211
for general results or for finding the general principle,
and decimals were omitted, which might be required for
accurate results.
But it would require only the fundamental rules of
arithmetic with that for square root for such computa
tions. First ascertain the effect of size. (See Art. 436
and 417, Young's General Astronomy, Ed. of 1898.)
For instance, Jupiter's year is a trifle over 2 days shorter
than if it were a mere particle. The earth's is 47.8
seconds. These show the effects of sizes. Carry on the
computations for the other planets, then ascertain the
exact difference between the actual periods of the planets
and those required by the H. L. Add or subtract as the
case requires and the result will be the effect of eccen
tricity of orbit.
A very much easier way, however, to calculate the
effect of eUipticity is to calculate it from the difference
between the actual distance and that as calculated by
the harmonic law.
For instance, from Newton's table above take the
actual distance of Saturn, as given by Kepler, and sub
tract this from the distance as Newton calculated it by
the H. L. and we have 954,006,000—951,000,000=
3,006,000 miles difference in distance. Multiply this by
3.1416 and we have 9,443,650 miles difference in length
of orbit. Divide this by its orbital velocity (6 miles per
second) and the result is that Saturn's year is, or would
be if Newton's data were correct, about 18 days longer
than it would have been if its eccentricity had been only
equal to that of the earth. Of course the distances of
the planets had not been ascertained in Newton's time
so accurately as at present, but the above is designed to

212 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion
iUustrate the method and, approximately, the effect of
eccentricity in one instance.
Any one who chooses can carry out this method, but
for the present, at least, the author leaves the subject
with these general results, and the suggestion before made
that the effect of eccentricity is manifested only as the
orbits have different degrees of eccentricity.
EXCURSUS n
A few thoughts in connection with the condition of
the sun not expressed elsewhere may be admitted here.
Some astronomers have suggested that the heat of the
sun may be maintained by the continuous precipitation
of matter upon its surface. A sufficient answer to that
view is that any increment to the sun's mass would oc
casion a shortening of the years of all of the planets.
For example, an accretion of -^ of its own mass would
^ ' 2000
shorten the year of Jupiter by more than a terrestrial
day while the variation of a few seconds would be notic-
able. Such a theory is not tenable.
Again, one astronomer asserts that the sun's contrac
tion of 300 feet per year would supply all of the heat lost
by radiation. But first, this view presupposes an ex
ternal force acting upon the sun from without, squeezing
the heat out as one would squeeze water from a sponge,
while the fact is that if there is any contraction at all it
is the result and not the cause of a loss of heat.
Again the amount of contraction would depend upon
the nature of the sun's substance and its capacity for
heat or specific heat. If, with the specific heat of water
it would contract 300 feet, with that of lead or bismuth
it would have to contract 9,000 feet, or at least it would

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 213
have to reduce its temperature 30 and more times as
much as it would were it of the specific heat of water.
But whether it would shrink at aU or not as it gives
out heat depends upon the nature of its substance.
Water expands in cooling from 39 degrees to 32 and con
tinues to expand as it is converted into ice. In the same
way bismuth expands through the whole process of cool
ing. It is not, however, necessary to suppose that the sun's
heat remains constant from age to age, but there is
reason to beUeve that the sun is not cooling off so rapidly
as it would by radiation if there were no source of supply
of heat.
One of these sources of supply, which is at the same
time an evidence of the recency of creation, is suggested
in the following communicatioji to a local daily paper:
IS THE SUN COLD AND SOLID?
Editor Sun: — Some years ago I published, in my
"Suborganic Evolution," the opinion that the body of
the sun is cold and solid. This conclusion was reached
by reasoning from fundamental principles. I have never
had occasion to change that opinion. On the contrary
that view is confirmed by more recent thoughts upon
phenomena connected with the sun. Farther than that,
we have reason to believe that it is composed of disso
ciated elements, and that the flames on the surface of
that body are real fires occasioned by combustion, or
union of those simple elements.
The late Prof. Young of Princeton advanced the idea
that these flames might bo produced by the recombina
tion of gases that had once been combined, and then

214 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
dissociated. But there is no reason to suppose that they
had ever been combined before. Between 35 and 40 dis
tinct simple elements have already been discovered in
the sun's photosphere. All we have to admit is that
oxygen, hydrogen, carbon or some other elements which
have a strong affinity for each other may exist in juxta
position, mingled in varying quantities and purity. As
heat penetrates toward the interior and raises these to
the ignition point, all the varying phenomena of flames,
spicules, prominences, etc., would be produced.
At times immense quantities of oxygen, hydrogen or
carbon may exist in juxtaposition with other non-com
bustible elements which retard combustion so that it pro
ceeds slowly and so produces ordinary flames such as
seem to cover the most of the surface of the sun.
One astronomer observes; "The appearance, whicH
probably indicates a fact, is as if countless jets of heated
gas were issuing through vents and spiracles over the
whole surface, thus clothing it with flame which heaves
and tosses like the blaze of a conflagration, 'Uke a prairie
on fire. ' ' ' How can it be better accounted for than upon
the supposition that it is fire ? At other times, instead of
the elements being so mingled as to produce ordinary
flame, thousands of cubic miles of oxygen, hydrogen, car
bon or some other element may exist in proper propor
tions to make an explosive compound which when ignited
would throw some of its own and superincumbent mate
rial hundreds of thousands of miles above the surface.
Thus the "prominences" can easily be accounted for.
The cavities thus produced, together with the cooling and
downpour of this material, as well as other circum
stances which we caimot stop to consider may account
for the principal phenomena in the sun's appearance.

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 215
Prof. Young, referred to above, thought that the dis
sociation and recombination of these elements could not
produce the high temperature of the sun. But, in the
first place, such a process could not be expected to pro
duce any great effect for, according to the principle of
the conservation of force, as much would be expended
in the process of the separation as would be given out by
their reuniting. In the second place, I have always been
skeptical as to the correctness of the speculations regard
ing the Sim's temperature. And this skepticism is not
diminished by the remarkable divergence of opinions in
regard to the matter; some placing the temperature as
high as 18,000,000 degrees, Fahrenheit, while others
place it as low as 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The union
of oxygen and hydrogen or of oxygen and carbon pro
duces a temperature of about 5,000 degrees; that of
oxygen and acetylene gas between 6,000 degrees and
7,000 degrees, Fahrenheit. Other elements in the sun,
by their combinations, may produce still higher pyro-
metrical effects. Indeed, we can place no limits to the
possibiUties of the sun in this regard.
Of course it is only the center or main body of the
sun that is supposed, as Sir WilUam Hershel supposed
it, to be cold and solid.
Another thought in this connection is that this com
bustion on the sun has not always proceeded at the same
rate. At times it may have been rapid enough to have
produced a tropical temperature in the polar regions of
the earth. At other times it may have been slow enough
to produce the age of ice.
Still, these conditions of the earth probably have been
owing almost entirely to the geological and meteorological
condition of the earth and its atmosphere. It is an ex-

216 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion
ceedingly mteresting subject and very much more might
be said in support of my views upon it, but this is prob
ably enough for this time. — ^A. L. Gridley. (Parsons
Daily Sun, August 20, 1910.)

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01536 2131

"'I ¦¦';]