i>xic 
 
 <UK<}<A<UyA<X i 
 
 '4<yA<A<:<y 
 
 '<A*AAA<A</ 
 '<<<<A<AAAAAAA^?l'?'< 
 
 <-<■<<< <<<<^< <■<<<< m^ 
 A\*A\*AAAA 
 
 
".tit.:^'-' 
 
 ^ PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 BL 240 .H64 1892 
 Holborow , Arthur . 
 Evolution and scripture; or 
 the relation between the 
 
 Shelf 
 
m 
 
EVOLUTION AND SCRIPTIJEB 
 
The rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved. 
 
EVOLUTION AND SCEIPTURE 
 
 OR 
 
 THE RELATION BETWEEN THE TEACHING 
 
 OF SCRIPTURE AND THE CONCLUSIONS 
 
 OF ASTRONOMY, GEOLOGY, AND 
 
 BIOLOGY 
 
 WITH AX INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF THE 
 SCRIPTURES AND INSPIRATION 
 
 ARTHUR HOLBOROW 
 
 " The words that I speak unto yon, they are spirit." 
 
 John vi. 63 
 
 LONDON 
 KEGAN PAUL, TREXCH, TRUBNER & CO., Ltd. 
 
 PATERNOSTEll HOUSE, CHARING CROSS ROAD 
 
 1892 
 
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 THE SUSSEX DAILY NEWS. 
 
 " The book shows profound research into the most stupendous 
 problems with which the mind could be confronted." 
 
 THE CRITICAL REVIEW. 
 
 " An interesting book." 
 
 THE LIVERPOOL MERCURY. 
 
 " This is a volume of calm and scholarly thought, pleasantly written, 
 and making, from the latest facts of science, a groundwork for an insight 
 into the biblical records of creation, which gives the writer a clear horizon 
 
 and a wide outlook He draws some tine and useful distinctions 
 
 between the evolution theory of Darwin and that of Wallace, and shows 
 generally an independence of men and a confidence in truth that make 
 his book exceptionally gratifying." 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN WORLD. 
 
 " A thouglitful contribution to the subject, marked by varied know- 
 ledge, and instinct throughout with reverence and faith." 
 
 THE SCOTSMAN. 
 
 " Compared with the attempts that used to be made to reconcile 
 Genesis and Science, this work marks a distinct advance." 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MIRROR. 
 
 " We commend the work to the attention of all Christian ministers 
 and Divinity students, and indeed all who take an interest in the modern 
 theory of Evolution." 
 
 THE MANCHESTER EXAMINER. 
 
 " To some readers the book will be full of interest." 
 
 THE BRITISH WEEKLY. 
 
 " It contains a great deal that is original, and many suggestions 
 which will be helpful to the student." 
 
 THE RELIGIOUS REVIEW OF REVIEWS. 
 
 " The book deserves the careful study and attention of all who 
 are interested in the mental combat of science and theology." 
 
PEEFA.CE 
 
 This work lias more to do Avitli the Book of Genesis than 
 with any other Scripture ; but as it has, notwithstanding, 
 much to do with the Bible as a whole, the title Evolution 
 and Scripture has been chosen. 
 
 The first half of the work is occupied chiefly with the 
 nature of the Scriptures and their inspiration, the remainder 
 
 with Gen. i.-xi. Evolution is dealt with chiefly in the first 
 
 and eighth chapters. 
 
 To do justice to the subject is obviously difficult. Much 
 has been written on Science and Scripture, and of late 
 years the question of Inspiration has also received much 
 attention. Still it is the author's belief that more remains 
 to be said ; and that a work of this description, dealing with 
 the whole subject as here sketched out, and more par- 
 ticularly with the complex c^uestion of Evolution, will bo 
 helpful to many. 
 
 The work is not intended for those who can read their 
 Bibles in simple faith, unaffected by difficulties; nor yet 
 for those who see some difficulties, but have arrived at a 
 solution of them which they deem satisfactory. To these, 
 the Bible is the Work of God, and anything that the author 
 can say will not make it more ; whilst it is possible that the 
 discussion may have the undesired effect of making it less. 
 For it is easier to 'raise the giant ' than to slay him, and 
 the frank discussion of numerous difficulties may suggest 
 problems new to the reader, and may leave him unsatisfied 
 
VI 
 
 Preface. 
 
 by the solutions given. However excellent a cure may be, 
 we would not make our friends ill in order to prove its 
 efficacy. 
 
 Moreover, many of us have in our childhood acquired 
 beliefs which, though closely associated in our minds with 
 some of the doctrines of Scripture — so closely indeed that 
 they are regarded by many as essential parts of Scripture 
 — are none the less erroneous. These errors must be 
 eliminated, and there is obvious danger lest when uprooting 
 the tares, we uproot also the wheat. The process of 
 elimination should at least be gradual, and natural to 
 the peculiarities of each person ; there is dinger lest a com- 
 pressed discussion, such as this, bring about too abrupt a 
 chano-e. Many of the questions raised require careful 
 study, and it would doubtless be better that this study 
 should be given to Scriptural truths than to tlie difficulties 
 suggested by the conclusions of modern science. For these 
 reasons the author would warn those readers who have no 
 serious difficulties, that tltis work is not intended for them. 
 
 There are many believers who have modified their views 
 about Inspiration ; others, educated in modern science and 
 theolof^y, have never held the older views. To such the 
 mode of treatment adopted here may seem unusual ; it need 
 not, however, be unfruitful. 
 
 But this work is addressed rather to those who find it 
 difficult to reconcile some of the conclusions of modern 
 science with their Bible, and especially to those who have 
 been impressed with the reasonableness of evolutionary 
 ideas. To such readers this book is commended, in the 
 belief that it will throw light on these matters, and with 
 the confidence that what it presents is, in substance at least, 
 the Truth, 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The WoiiD or God and the Scope op Scripture . . 32 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Writers op Scripture and the Development of 
 
 THE Knowledge op God 51 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Several Phases op the Development of the Know- 
 ledge OF God : The Book of Enoch . . .86 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Inspiration and the General Structure of the Bible 139 
 
 CHAPTER YI. 
 The Chaldean Account of Genesis 163 
 
viii Contents. 
 
 CHAPTER VIT. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The CiiEATiox 192 
 
 CHAPTER VIIT, 
 V Human Evolution and the Fall 231 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 The Flood ^"299 
 
EVOLUTION AND SCRIPTURE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTEODUCTION. 
 
 Man has received from God two revelations — the Word of 
 God and His Works, the Bible and the Book of Nature. 
 Both of these we read. 
 
 Of these two books the Bible has the higher place. It 
 contains truths of a higher order than those which can be 
 gathered from a perusal of the Book of Nature. At the 
 same time the Book of Nature ought not to be, and cannot 
 be entirely, disregarded. For, (1) the Bible itself appeals 
 to Nature more than once ; notably in Rom. i. 20, " For 
 the invisible things of him since the creation of the world 
 are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that 
 are made, even his everlasting powder and divinity." 
 (2) Our own mental and bodily structure is itself part of 
 Nature, and constitutes the only means whereby the written 
 Word can be read. Without our own pre-existing thoughts 
 and experience, Scripture would be to us nothing more than 
 a page in some unknown language. We could not read a 
 word of it. And how far our thoughts are literally com- 
 posed of our experience of Nature outside of ourselves, 
 becomes ever more and more apparent the more the subject 
 is studied. Whence it appears that, whereas the Bible 
 
 occupies the higher position of these two books. Nature 
 
 B 
 
Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 occupies — or at least some parts of it do — the first position, 
 in being nearer to ourselves^ verily a part of ourselves, and 
 the only means of access to the written Word. 
 
 I do not mean to say that the evil part of human nature 
 forms the terms wherein Scripture truths must be conceived. 
 For, although in man evil nature co- exists with the nature 
 that is the work of God's hands, the two are distinct. 
 Moreover, a new light is revealed with the study of the 
 Word of God, and new terms of thought are formed ; but 
 these are only possible by means of our previous know- 
 ledge, upon which the new thoughts are grafted. When 
 we use the term 'Nature,' the nature that is the work of 
 God's hands is generally understood, especially as it is not 
 so often applied to man himself as to the phenomena 
 around him. In this sense the term is used in the fore- 
 going remarks, as it will be generally, if not always, 
 throughout this work. In using the term above, however, 
 I have included man's mental structure and knowledge, and 
 these (always excluding his evil nature) are as much a 
 portion of the Work of God's hands as any other reality. 
 
 Human knowledge then, being essential to any know- 
 ledge of the truths of Scripture, as well as being a most 
 important part of man himself, is entitled to all respect. 
 And Science, as everybody knows, is simply an extension 
 of human knowledge. It has brought many blessings to 
 mankind ; its light is a gift from God. It cannot there- 
 fore be lightly esteemed. 
 
 Now, as others have remarked, if Nature is the work of 
 God's hands, and if the Bible is the Word of God^ it is 
 impossible that the two should disagree ; and Science, if it 
 be indeed Science, must be in accord with both. Science 
 may not, indeed, arrive at the spiritual truths contained in 
 Scripture, but it cannot possibly reveal anything really at 
 variance with those truths. 
 
Introduction. 
 
 But is this dogmatic assertion confirmed by a cursory 
 perusal of the first few chapters of Genesis ? Certainly not. 
 It requires but a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy or 
 geology to bring difficulties before the reader's mind ; and 
 the more he examines the text, with a view, it may be, to 
 clear them up, the greater do these difficulties become. 
 Many of those who read the Bible have no idea of the 
 number, extent, and serious nature of these difficulties. 
 And it is well that they are ignorant of them ; for the true 
 and full explanation does not readily occur to the reader. 
 Consequently, if he is not satisfied with some of the current 
 explanations, he seems forced to the conclusion — at any 
 rate many have arrived at the conclusion —that the Bible 
 is man's word, not God's. And of all conclusions this is 
 one of the most fatal at which he could possibly arrive ; 
 for he has thereby removed from beneath his feet the only 
 sure foundation existing in this whole world. 
 
 Volumes have been written to prove, and to disprove, 
 the agreement of the early chapters of Genesis with known 
 scientific truth. In this place it must suffice to notice 
 some of the most important questions at issue. 
 
 The first is both astronomical and geological, namely, 
 the creation of heaven and earth and the contents of the 
 latter in six days. The meaning attached to the passage 
 by those who are not scientifically educated is, that the 
 whole work was done in six consecutive ordinary twenty- 
 four-hour days. But every student of geology knows that 
 vast periods of time were occupied in the work. To 
 
 meet this difficulty it was formerly argued that Gen. i. 1 does 
 not record part of the six days' work, but an act prior to, 
 and possibly vast ages prior to, the commencement of the 
 six days. In reply to this Exodus xx. 11 was quoted, ''For 
 in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and 
 all that in them is, and rested the seventh day ; wherefore 
 
 B 2 
 
Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." The 
 rejoinder was that the word in Exodus is not ' created ' as 
 in Gen. i. 1, but 'made'; that the Hebrew word is not in 
 other places in Genesis (where it occurs 154 times) once 
 rendered 'created,' but is used in the sense of *did, 
 appointed, constituted, set for a particular purpose or use ;' 
 and that therefore Gen. i. 1 relates to the primordial crea- 
 tion of matter, and Exodus xx. 11 to the subsequent six 
 days' work of Gen. i. 2 — 31. To this it was replied that the 
 Hebrew word, however translated, is used elsewhere, as in 
 Gen. i. 25, 26 ; vi. 6, in the sense of ' create.' Which 
 
 party was right on this point I will not undertake to say ; 
 but will pass to the explanation most generally accepted, 
 which is supposed to clear up the foregoing difficulty and 
 also the following one. 
 
 Geological science has established the fact that, not six days 
 only, but thousands, even millions, of years were occupied in 
 the separating of land and water, and the creation of plants 
 and animals. The explanation now very generally 
 
 adopted is that the days of Gen. i. are not meant as twenty- 
 four-hour days, but as vast periods of time. To this, how- 
 ever, it is replied that ordinary days are clearly indicated in 
 the text; that a twenty-four-hour day is unquestionably meant 
 in verse 14, and it is unreasonable to attribute a different 
 meaning to the word in the other places, especially as it 
 would then be used in two different senses in the two 
 adjacent verses 13 and 14. It is also objected that in Gen. 
 ii. 2, 3, and Exodus xx. 11, the seventh day is virtually 
 stated to have been an ordinary day ; for how should the 
 Sabbath be an ordinary day and the seventh day a long 
 period 1 that the word ' day ' has here again to be taken in 
 two different senses in the same short sentence. It is urged 
 that the description of a week, the mention of evening and 
 morning, the appointment of tlie Sabbath because God 
 
Introduction. 
 
 rested on the seventh day, and the whole context, all 
 clearly relate to ordinary days. 
 
 The expounders of these passages are also charged with 
 applying new meanings to the words of Scripture in order to 
 make them agree with Science. 
 
 Then another difficulty arises. From astronomy and 
 geology it is known that the work of Creation was not all 
 done in the chronological order which Gen. i. appears to state. 
 The heavenly bodies were not created some time after the 
 earth (see Gen. i. 14—19), but in most cases long before it. 
 Throughout the whole period of organic creation^ sea and 
 land have been continually exchanging places; and the 
 present distribution of land and water was accomplished 
 long after the lower forms of life had appeared on the 
 earth ; in fact after the greater number of vegetable and 
 animal forms had been created. Gen. i. 9 appears, at first 
 sight, to state that this separation of land and water was 
 effected once for all on the third day, before any living 
 forms were created, animal or vegetable. Here, however, 
 it requires but a moment's thought to see that the separation 
 referred to may just as well be the original separation of 
 land and water as the present distribution of the two. It is 
 known, too, that plants, inhabitants of the water, of the air, 
 and of the land, were not created precisely in the order given, 
 and in mutually exclusive periods of time. For instance^ 
 some of the water animals appeared in the beginning, and 
 others towards the end, of the whole period of creation of 
 things on the earth. Many parts of the work of creation 
 went on at the same time. Yet nothing is more certain, 
 from the remains of extinct animals buried in rocks of 
 different ages, than the broad fact that the lower forms of i 
 life appeared first and the higher ones last. Here at any | 
 rate there is a general agreement between the record in/ 
 Genesis and the conclusions of science. 
 
Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 This upward progress of life is described by Dr. Draper 
 {History of tlie Conflict hetween Religion and Science, 
 London, 1887, p. 191), as follows: — 
 
 ". . . there has been an advancing physiological progres- 
 sion of organic forms, both vegetable and animal ; . . . those 
 which inhabit the surface in our times are but an insignificant 
 fraction of the prodigious multitude that have inhabited it 
 heretofore ; for each species now living there are thousands 
 that have become extinct. Though special formations are 
 so strikingly characterized by some predominating type of 
 life as to justify such expressions as the age of mollusks, 
 the age of reptiles, the age of mammals, the introduction of 
 the new-comers did not take place abruptly, as by sudden 
 creation. They gradually emerged in an antecedent age, 
 reached their culmination in the one which they charac- 
 terize, and then gradually died out in a succeeding. There 
 is no such thing as a sudden creation, a sudden strange ap- 
 pearance — but there is a slow metamorphosis, a slow develop- 
 ment from a pre-existing form." 
 
 Such is the Theory of Evolution. The alternative sup- 
 position is that species almost innumerable were created, 
 destroyed, and superior- species created in their places ; 
 this process being repeated a very great number of times at 
 intervals of thousands or millions of years. 
 
 At this point the believer in Scripture has generally de- 
 clined to follow further the conclusions of students of science, 
 the divergence from his creed being too great. He has ad- 
 hered to the hypothesis of successive crqations and rejected 
 that of the Evolutionists. 
 
 Some years ago the teachings of geologists were regarded 
 as opposed to Scripture. Kalisch gives an instance of 
 resistance to their theories in his work on Genesis. He 
 
 "It was, and — incredible to say— is still (1853) asserted, 
 that the fossils have never been animated structures, but were 
 formed in the rocks through the planetary influences, — that 
 
Introduction. 
 
 the mammoth, which at the conclusion of the last century was 
 found in the ice of the polar regions in such remarkable pre- 
 servation that dogs and bears fed upon its flesh, had never 
 been a living creature, but was created under the ice, and then 
 preserved, instead of being transmuted into stone, — that all 
 organisms found in the depth of the earth are models, created 
 in the first day, to typify the living plants and animals to be 
 produced in the subsequent part of the creative week ; but, 
 inasmuch as many forms, which lie buried in the earth, do not 
 exist on the earth, these latter were rejected, as inappropriate 
 or imperfect. ... See J. Brief and Complete Refutation of 
 the Aniiscriptural Theory of Geologists, by ' a Clergyman of the 
 Church of England.' " 
 
 k better informed writer, a learned Professor, has asserted 
 that demoniacal powers interfered in the course of creation, 
 probably by corrupting or misleading the animals ; that 
 they ''stirred up the dark fiery principle of the creature, 
 and made unnatural mixtures and mongrel formations, 
 mutual murder, disease and death, common among the races 
 of God-created animals ; " that in consequence of this, whole 
 generations, called into existence by God, were swept away 
 on account of their unfitness ; that " the shaping of the 
 mountains began on the Third Day, without having been 
 brought to a close when plants and animals began to appear. 
 The earth became again and again the grave of the organic 
 beings, which she had long borne upon her surface." He 
 supposes the last creation of animals and plants to have 
 taken place on the Sixth Day, after man's creation ; referring 
 to which he says, " The nature, which was taken possession 
 of by the spirits of evil, is destroyed, and ... a plant- 
 world and an animal-world have now come into being (as 
 the last links of the plant-and-aniraal- creation which was 
 begun with the third and sixth days), such as corresponds 
 to him, who is called to be lord and conqueror of evil, viz. 
 Man " . . J 
 
 1 Quoted from Delitzsch by Bishop Colenso, The Pentateuch, 
 
 SaJ. ■ n.Virirlo-Rrl 
 
 p. 334 : Qrbridged. 
 
8 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 One object of this last theory is to reconcile the two 
 accounts of the Creation in Gen. i. and ii. with each other ; 
 for, as the attentive reader of his Bible will have noticed, 
 Gen. i. places the creation of plants and animals before that 
 of man, whereas Gen. ii. places that of man first. 
 
 The above are some of the greatest difficulties attaching 
 to the Cosmogony of Gen. i. The reader will see they are 
 serious, and that the explanations above given are unsatis- 
 factory or incomplete. On the other hand, one is struck 
 with the fact that the general divisions of the work of crea- 
 tion are drawn by a masterly hand. It is a short grand 
 outline of the work. Such an account could not possibly 
 have been produced by one ignorant of the essential facts. 
 
 The covering of the earth with water, and certain other 
 things related in the Story of the Flood, present much 
 greater difficulties, and there the language does not admit 
 of doubt as to the writer's meaning. All these matters will 
 be more fully treated of in a later portion of this work. 
 
 Let us now refer briefly to the history of this important 
 question before our own time. The Earth was for- 
 
 merly thought to be flat and vastly larger than the celestial 
 bodies, which were regarded as small objects fixed in the 
 sky. Gen. i. 6—18 was supposed to maintain this view of 
 the structure of the Universe ; both Catholics and Pro- 
 testants so read it in the' Middle Ages. When people 
 began to reason from the Sun's motions and other facts that 
 it must pass every night under the Earth, theories were 
 invented to account for such phenomena upon grounds com- 
 patible with the teaching of Scripture as they understood it. 
 One of these theories asserted that, in the northern parts of 
 the flat Earth there is an immense mountain behind which 
 the Sun passes every night. When Copernicus was 
 convincing the world that the Sun was the great centre of the 
 Solar System (as we now call it), and the Earth merely one 
 
Introduction. 
 
 of a number of much smaller bodies which revolve round 
 it, the Catholic Church condemned his work on the ground 
 that it was entirely contrary to the Holy Scriptures. In 
 those days, however, stronger measures were taken than in 
 the present day, for the suppression of error. Galileo, who 
 helped to establish the Copernican theory by his telescopic 
 discoveries, was summoned before the Inquisition, accused 
 of having taught a doctrine utterly contrary to the Scrip- 
 tures, and imprisoned. Scientific truth had something to 
 contend with in those days ; but, leing m^z^/^ it overcame 
 every obstacle. 
 
 We have little idea of what seemed to be surrendered to 
 Science in that contest, from a religious point of view. If 
 the reader will turn to the foot of page 301, and read the 
 outline there given of the old notions about the structure of 
 the Universe, he will see that, to the people of the time, the 
 theory of Copernicus involved much. For, to them, the 
 region situated over the Earth was transformed by it from 
 being God's divelling-plaoe, into a mere empty qmce. We 
 are children of a subsequent education, having quite new 
 ideas as to the heaven where God dwells. The Copernican 
 theory has not destroyed belief in the existence of such a 
 heaven, but it has utterly changed men's views as to its 
 situation and character. And this is the nature of every 
 one of the victories of Science over Christian beliefs. In the 
 questions before referred to, the fact of God's having created 
 all is not touched, but only the manner of His doing so. 
 The shell is taken away (and ofttimes it is not a bad 
 riddance), but the kernel remains untouched. The con- 
 
 flict with Evolution (though not with automatic Evolution) 
 is one of the same character — it touches only the means, not 
 the fact of God's action in the matter. 
 
 But, leaving theological considerations, in the meantime 
 let us see briefly what Science says (1) as to Evolution as a 
 
lo Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 process, (2) as to self-acting or spontaneous Evolution, 
 which is held by some writers. 
 
 (1) It is a wide subject, but the issue can be stated in 
 few words. 
 
 Biological. 
 
 I. Comparative Anatomy contributes strong evidence in 
 favour of the theory. Within each great group the members 
 exhibit great similarities of structure, they are built on the 
 same type ; this fact suggests community of descent. Man 
 himself in his bodily structure resembles the anthropoid 
 apes, from which '' in all parts of his organization he differs 
 less than these do from the lower members of the same 
 group." ' 
 
 II. Embryology affords more convincing evidence : 
 witness the famous induction of von Baer, of which Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer gives the following exposition ^ : — 
 
 " The germ out of which a human being is evolved, 
 differs in no visible respect from the germ out of which 
 every animal and plant is evolved. The first conspicuous 
 structural change undergone by this human germ, is one 
 characterizing the germs of animals only — differentiates 
 them from the germs of plants. The next distinction 
 established, is a distinction exhibited by all Vertehrata ; but 
 never exhibited by Annulom, Mollusca, or Goelentenda. 
 Instead of continuing to resemble, as it now does, the 
 rudiments of all fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammals ; this 
 rudiment of a man, assumes a structure that is seen only in 
 the rudiments of mammals. Later, the embryo undergoes 
 changes which exclude it from the group of implacental 
 mammals ; and prove that it belongs to the group of 
 placental mammals. Later still, it grows unlike the 
 embryos of those placental mammals distinguished as 
 ungulate or hoofed; and continues to resemble only the 
 unguiculate or clawed. By and by, it ceases to be like any 
 
 " Quoted by Mr. Darwin from Professor Huxloy {Descent of 
 Man, p. 150). 
 
 3 Principles of Biology, 1881, vol. 1, p. 112. 
 
Introduction. u 
 
 foetuses but those of the quadrumana ; and eventually the 
 foetuses of only the higher quadrumana are simulated. 
 Lastly, at birth, the infant, belonging to whichever human 
 race it may do, is structurally very much like the infants of 
 all other human races ; and only afterwards acquires those 
 various minor peculiarities of form that distinguish the 
 variety of man to which it belongs." 
 
 III. Paleontology. The manner of the appearance of 
 the different species in geological times has been already 
 noticed/ There is also the fact of the former existence of 
 animal forms intermediate between now-existing ones, as 
 between the reptile and the bird. The conclusion naturally 
 follows that the higher forms of life, both animal and plant, 
 are the modified descendants of lower forms ; and — still more 
 important — that man himself forms no exception to this. 
 In geological formations which, although the latest in the 
 whole series, are yet generally admitted to be tens of thou- 
 sands of years old, have been found the bones and flint 
 implements of man. In some cases they were intermixed 
 with the bones of the mammoth and other extinct animals 
 of the Glacial Epoch. In certain other cases the significant 
 fact is the order of superposition of the implements dis- 
 covered. The lowest down are manifestly the oldest ; and 
 the lowest down are rough or chipped flint, then come 
 polished flint, then bone or horn, then bronze. From this 
 is inferred the primitive rude state of the first men, and 
 their gradual progress in knowledge and habits of life. 
 
 IV. In DOMESTIC ANIMALS we liavc the clearest evidence 
 of the plasticity of animal forms. So unhke are many 
 varieties of the dog (for instance) which are of common 
 descent, that these would be unhesitatingly regarded as 
 distinct species if found in the wild state. So with the 
 pigeon, the history of which is still better knoAvn. 
 
 •* See the quotation from Dr. Draper's work on p, 6. 
 
12 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Human. 
 
 V. Ethnology furnishes evidence that the physical cha- 
 racteristics of the different races of men cannot be recon- 
 ciled with the theory of their descent from a j^erfect man. 
 The same applies to their mental qualities, habits, manners 
 and customs, and civilizations — the latter having been 
 separate growths, effected under different conditions of life 
 as these races have developed from primitive men of a lower 
 mental condition, and traceable largely to the climates 
 and to the physical and other features of their respective 
 habitats. There has been degeneration in some cases ; but, 
 even with the lower races, the course has been not down, 
 but up. 
 
 VI. The Science op Language testifies that languages 
 (speaking generally) have in like manner separately de- 
 veloped from small beginnings, the art of speech itself 
 having been one of man's greatest achievements, though 
 accomplished when his intellect was young. 
 
 VII. Psychology, Sociology, and Comparative Mytho- 
 logy contribute their respective testimonies to the truth of 
 the theory of Evolution. 
 
 Inorganic. 
 
 VIII. Evolution (or development) is exhibited throughout 
 the inorganic world, as revealed by astronomy, geology, 
 etc. 
 
 Eeligious. 
 
 IX. The Bible illustrates the evolution of the true 
 Religion, from the original Israelitish polytheism (Josh, 
 xxiv. 2) up to the full knowledge of the true God, as 
 revealed in the New Testament. 
 
 Indeed the fact of Evolution is now accepted by nearly 
 all students of science, by biologists and anthropologists. 
 
Introduction. 13 
 
 philologists and psychologists alike. And Ave all are not so 
 opposed to its principle as we perhaps think. For all 
 living things come into being now by a process of evolution, 
 and creation by miracle is a phenomenon of which we have 
 no knowledge ; yet we recognize God as the maker of all. 
 
 Some of the foregoing facts can be accounted for upon 
 other theories than Evolution, whilst others are denied by 
 some writers. An unbiassed judgment, however, must 
 admit that, though the writers' motives may be good^ these 
 arguments generally savour of special pleading. 
 
 (2) So much in favour of Evolution as a process. But 
 what must be said about the Cause ? Is there evidence that 
 Evolution is self-acting and self-originated ? There is 
 
 indeed considerable evidence of the natural and necessary 
 working out of the laws of nature in certain parts of the 
 process ; but there is, in the results, incontestible evidence 
 of Design. From universal experience we have all arrived 
 at at least this scientific generalization, that the forces of 
 nature if undirected are liable to soon destroy what they 
 have produced. This theory of automatic evolution is based 
 ultimately upon cliance, strangely blind as its supporters are 
 to the fact. And — without here going into details — if we 
 apply to the theory the Eules of Logic for the calculation 
 of chances, the fraction representing the evidence in its 
 favour will have 1 for its numerator, and for its denomi- 
 nator the algebraic symbol for infinity, or something very 
 like it. In other words the chances are almost infinity to 
 one against such a theory ; its foundations are utterly swept 
 away.^ Whereas, therefore, we are compelled to admit 
 
 that the evidence of Science in favour of Evolution as a 
 process is overwhelming, the evidence against its undirected, 
 
 ' In order to avoid interrupting the argument, I reserve 
 further remarks on this matter for the supplement to this 
 chapter. 
 
14 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 self-acting, and self-originated character, is far more over- 
 whelming. So much as to the words of Science. 
 
 But what does the Word of God say ? If there are any 
 fundamental principles in it, this is one, that organic heings, 
 and especially Man, are not the outcome of accident, but 
 were designedly created by God. Scripture and Science are 
 agreed, therefore, as to the kernel. As to the shell, it 
 
 will be shown in this work that the antithesis supposed to 
 exist between the Word of God and Evolution (as a process) 
 is not real but apparent only. Here we can only stay to 
 remark that the xmnciple of growth and development is 
 taught in many places in the Bible. 
 
 Of those interested in these matters, the Christian is in 
 the best position to judge the general question of Design 
 (though not to decide if evenj biological phenomenon is the 
 result of special design, for many of these are unknown to 
 him). But the free-thinking man of science is in the best 
 position to judge the other question, that of Evolution as a 
 process. Eor the former studies much less those branches 
 of science which (rightly or wrongly) he believes to oppose 
 the Scriptures ; nor, until the truth is forced upon him from 
 without, does he believe it. He abstains from reading the 
 works that treat of such subjects ; and wisely, so long as he 
 cannot reconcile their conclusions with Scripture. He has 
 enough to contend with in his spiritual course, without 
 raising unnecessary obstacles to his faith. 
 
 Let us now return and briefly summarize this long contest 
 between Science and the Traditionary Interpretation of 
 Scripture. At first men sought to explain astronomical phe- 
 nomena in accordance with the old views about the structure 
 of the physical universe, wdiich they believed to be main- 
 tained in Genesis i. When, about 400 years ago, students 
 of Astronomy began to show that those views were wrong, 
 they were regarded by the Church as infidels, and their 
 
Introduction. 15 
 
 theories were condemned as false. In like manner, 
 
 when, about half a century ago, students of Geology began 
 to substantiate their views, these also were regarded as 
 false by those who believed in Scripture. So, lately, 
 
 with the theory of Evolution. 
 
 But the views of those astronomers, whilst containing 
 some errors, were in the main correct. Their errors were 
 eliminated, but their views prevailed, and are now accepted 
 undoubtingly by all. The Principles of Geology, also 
 
 undergoing the sifting process, in like manner stood their 
 ground, and are now universally accepted. 
 
 And what is the state of affairs in regard to the theory of 
 Evolution ? It is being accepted among the best-informed, 
 and, through them among the less-well-informed, as surely 
 as Astronomy and Geology have been before it. Not only 
 so; but, just as Astronomy and Geology underwent the 
 sifting process, so is the Evolution theory being cleared of 
 the great error before indicated. For many now who 
 believe in it see that the Darwinian theory is not recon- 
 cilable with some of the facts. Many evolutionists are 
 departing from the strict Darwinian formula — of natural 
 selection operating on fortuitous variations — and approximat- 
 ing to a conception of necessary growth; as the result of 
 which all organic forms would be in a sense designed, for 
 all would be outcrops of what is implicit in the beginning. 
 A more important fact is that evolutionists now generally 
 make the all-important distinction between the fact of evolu- 
 tion and its method.*^ Nor is this all, for there are 
 
 " J. Le Conte, for instance, says {Evolution and its Relation to 
 Religious TlwugJit, p. 253), " Let it not be concluded . . . that 
 the lato of evohition is still in the region of uncertainty. It cannot 
 be too strongly insisted on that the fact of evohition as a universal 
 law must be kept distinct from the causes, the factors, the con- 
 ditions, the processes, of evolution. The former is certain, the 
 latter are still imperfectly understood." 
 
i6 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 many learned men who believe in tlie divine origin of the 
 Bible and also believe in Evolution. 
 
 Writers, too, who on religious grounds still oppose the 
 theory of Evolution, seem to do so with less confidence — 
 and, one is glad to add, with less bitterness— than those 
 who have opposed it in the past. 
 
 This concurrence of facts of so many kinds can only he 
 accounted for in one icay — ice had better take a lesson from 
 the former victories of Science and accept the fact — the 
 Theory of Evolution is triumphing because IT IS TRUE. 
 
 Here and henceforward the term ' Evolution ' is used in 
 this work to designate the process only, expressly rejecting 
 the conception of automatic mechanism, which is often 
 implied in the use of the term. 
 
 Upon examining in the light of Science the opening 
 chapters of Genesis, in order to separate the real from the 
 apparent, the all-important spiritual truth from the unim- 
 po?iant terms in which it is expressed ; it becomes evident 
 that we cannot maintain the historical character of the 
 whole of the narrative of the Garden, nor that of certain 
 other portions of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Dr. 
 Kinns, who cannot believe in any ignorance on the part of 
 the writers of Scripture — unless perhaps, in one case' — 
 remarks in regard to the Antiquity of Man : — 
 
 " some striking facts have come out in reference 
 
 to the time of man's first appearance, which seem to place the 
 elate much farther back than has been generally received. 
 This, however, will not affect the authenticity of Holy Writ, 
 for there are no dates mentioned in the Bible. It is only the 
 commentators and the compilers of chronological systems who 
 
 '' Where (referring to the universality of the Deluge) he says 
 (Moses and Geology, p. 398), " There can, 1 think, be no doubt but 
 that Moses obtained his information from some tablets written by 
 Noah, who only spoke of what he saw, and his range of vision was 
 limited bv the horizon." 
 
Introduction. 17 
 
 have put forward the 6000 years ; but so completely has it 
 taken hold of the human mind, that a little while ago it would 
 have been thought by many persons the direst heresy to mention 
 a longer period. Human remains have been found in strata 
 which would seem to make man contemporary with the Mam- 
 moth and other wild beasts which have long since passed away. 
 
 There are others who think dilferently from both 
 
 Hugh Miller and Lyell, and say that a primitive race of men 
 might have existed long before Adam, but that they were des- 
 troyed by some sudden glacial condition of the districts 
 inhabited by them, or by some great convulsion similar to the 
 Noachian Deluge, and that the Adamic creation took place 
 
 afterwards I am inclined to think that the first 
 
 chapter of Genesis gives the general account of man's creation, 
 and the second the special creation of Adam as the ancestor 
 of our Lord, and that he was endowed with a high amount of 
 
 knowledge and refinement I certainly cannot believe 
 
 that Adam was an untutored savage; and if ethnologists 
 insist uj)on asserting that the rude implements found with 
 human bones are evidences of his uncivilized condition, then 
 I must go back to my former proposition, that the record of the 
 first chapter of Genesis relates to these primeval men, and the 
 second to the ancestor of our Saviour and ourselves. And 
 with regard to those contemporaries of the Mammoth, let me 
 say that ignorance of the arts would not at all imply that they 
 had savage and brutal minds " ^ 
 
 We have been familiar with these stories in Gen. i. 
 to xi. from our childhood, and both their spiritual truths 
 and their historical details have become sacred in our eyes. 
 It does not readily occur to us, and we are perhaps unwilling 
 to believe, that the former of these may have been wisely 
 hidden in the latter, in order to meet our mental condition 
 and that of our predecessors. Yet in solne of these scrip- 
 tures I doubt not that it is so. This subject will be more 
 fully discussed in a later page. In another place, too, we 
 shall see other reasons for judging of the historical character 
 of Gen. i. to xi. in a somewhat different light from the 
 later portions of Scripture history. Here let us only 
 
 pause and ask ourselves critically the question, Is it our con- 
 
 '^ Moses and Geology ^ p. 352 — 355. 
 
i8 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 victiou that these first chapters of the Bible co7itain no 
 assertions that are not historically true or consistent -with 
 Science ? or is the conviction really that they can contain 
 none such ? Is it not that, having both been taught and 
 proved for ourselves that the Bible is the Work of God, we 
 know the Word of God cannot err ? That is the impreg- 
 nable position, not the other. That is the conviction which 
 Dr. Kinns has expressed when he says ^ " . . . . the time 
 will come when the advance of Science will remove every 
 difficulty, and make scepticism synonymous with ignorance. 
 For the Word of God onust prevail." The spirit has shed 
 its power over the letter, whilst the letter has been the 
 vehicle of the spirit, so that we unconsciously attribute to 
 the letter the virtue that belongs to the spirit alone. 
 
 Bearing this in mind — when from these early chapters of 
 Genesis Science has swept away portions of the letter, and 
 when consequently we may be inclined to let the spirit of 
 those portions go with them, only maintaining with the 
 more tenacity such other portions of the letter as we think 
 may yet defy Science — we shall do well to pause and con- 
 sider whether or not we are cleaving to something that is 
 worthless, and letting the valuable part go. This I think 
 we do, if we assert that the Deluge was not meant to be 
 represented as universal, or that ' the man ' of Gen. ii., iii. 
 does not represent the first of mankind. Leaving further 
 remarks hereon to a later page, I have only now to add, that 
 I am therefore not anxious to maintain the historical 
 accuracy of these ancient stories. " The words that I 
 speak ^" unto you, they are spirit." This doubtless applies 
 to Scripture generally, as well as to the special words 
 referred to in John vi. 63. 
 
 Most of the works that have been produced in the past 
 
 3 Moses and Geology, p. 16. ^^ Or "have spoken," R.A.V. 
 
Introduction. 19 
 
 for the purpose of defending Scripture may be referred to 
 two classes : — (1) those which resist science ; (2) those 
 which, accepting its conclusions, endeavour to reconcile the 
 language of Scripture with them. Those of the first class 
 do much harm. 
 
 Both merited and unmerited obloquy have been cast upon 
 men of science. The first attaches to those who were 
 brought up in the belief in the divine authority of Scripture, 
 but have rejected that authority and sought to lead others 
 in their step. The second attaches to those who have been 
 educated in those sciences which are too often thought to 
 negative the divine authority of Scripture, and have had 
 little or no respect for the latter instilled into them in their / 
 youth. The mistake of such scientific men lies in the] 
 too hasty inference that that which, in certain places, seems 1; 
 to contain scientific error, cannot be the organ of Divine 
 Truth. The mistake of the orthodox party is that, in | 
 refusing the false theological conclusions of such men of 
 science, they also prematurely conclude that their science is '» 
 false too. Upon the questions at issue it may be said that 
 Astronomy, Geology, and Evolution represent the physical 
 side, and that Scripture represents the psychical side. The 
 prevalent misunderstanding is in great part due to the fact 
 that both sides overlook the distinction between scientific 
 conclusions and spiritual truths. The former are based 
 on the data of our sense-experience, and are reached by the 
 use of our powers of induction. The latter are attained by 
 the ' understanding of the heart,' by the acceptance of God's 
 revelation of Himself. Scientific conclusions are expressed 
 in the sciences — such as Astronomy, Geology, and Biology, 
 and the theory of Evolution is one of their most important \ 
 generalizations. Spiritual truths are expressed in the I 
 language of religion, and it is as an expression of these that / 
 the Scripture account must be appreciated. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 The writings in defence of the traditionary reading of 
 Scripture answer the purpose of satisfying the reader when 
 the following five conditions are fulfilled : (1) the explanation 
 of one text not noticed to be at variance with some other 
 textj or (2) not seen to be at variance with the explanation 
 given of some other text ; (3) the verbal contents of two 
 texts not noticed to disagree (as in the case of the order of 
 creation in Gen. i., ii.) ; (4) the reconciliation of a text with 
 one fact of science not noticed to be nullified by some other 
 fact of science; (5) only a few of these difficulties recognized 
 at the same time. These conditions are often fulfilled, 
 perhaps in most cases in which Christian men who are not 
 scientifically educated, have had their attention called to 
 the existence of such difiiculties. And thus, by missing 
 enlightenment on an insignificant fact, they escape the most 
 fatal error of the day — that of questioning, or still worse, 
 disbelieving, the divine origin of the Bible. Thus such 
 writings do much good. 
 
 But unfortunately they also do much harm, especially 
 when they resist science. For what does the better- 
 informed man, the man of science, think of them when 
 they state what he knows to be wrong ? Naturally he 
 regards them as the offspring of ignorance, and — more than 
 anything else does — they tend to confirm him in the belief 
 that Scripture is the work of man. For if, as has been 
 I stubbornly maintained, these ignorant beliefs are necessary 
 doctrines of Scripture, then indeed it seals its own doom. 
 Also, when he is told that the words of Scripture do not 
 mean what they have always been supposed to mean, he is 
 entitled to an answer to the question, Why then are such 
 words used? But this is far from all. Science 
 
 spreads from its special students to other people ; in this 
 case too often accompanied by the belief that it negatives 
 Scripture. Thus the fatal error spreads over civilized society. 
 
Introduction. 21 
 
 There are several classes in the present clay who are 
 differently aifected by the foregoing facts. There are those 
 who are convinced, from their superior knowledge of all 
 the sciences concerned, that the traditionary reading of Gen. 
 ii. to xi. cannot possibly be maintained. There are others 
 Avho, from their knowledge of one or more of those sciences, 
 perceive great difficulty in maintaining it. There are a 
 still larger class who, not possessing sufficient knowledge of 
 their own to notice these difficulties, yet hear of them 
 through the better-informed. 
 
 Most important, however, are the young, who are taught, 
 and will be taught, much more about those conclusions 
 which negative the traditionary belief than their fathers 
 knew ; who have, moreover, a belief in Scripture much less 
 undoubting than that which their fathers enjoyed. So 
 that, as knowledge spreads amongst the present generation, 
 and still more as these pass away and their children take 
 their places, belief in the Bible must become less and less, 
 if it is maintained that the traditionary reading of Gen. ii. 
 to xi. is of the essence of 'Scripture. 
 
 I may here quote an extract from The Unseen Universe, 
 relating to the increasing disbelief in resurrection (p. 23 
 5th edition) : — 
 
 "... the disbelievers in such doctrines form a minority 
 of the race, but at the same time it must be acknowledged 
 that the strength of this minority has of late years greatly 
 increased, so much so that at the present moment it numbers 
 in its ranks not a few of the most intelligent, the most 
 earnest, and the most virtuous of men. . . . Now these 
 men can have had nothing to gain, but rather much to lose, 
 in arriving at this result. It has been reached by them 
 with reluctance, with misgivings, not without a certain kind 
 of persecution, nor without the loss of friends and the stir- 
 ring up of strife ; still they have fearlessly looked things in 
 the face, and have followed whithersoever they imagined 
 they were led by facts, even to the brink of an abyss." 
 
22 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Dr. Draper takes a very serious view of the matter on 
 other than religious grounds. In his preface to the History 
 of the Conflict between Religion and Science, he writes: — 
 
 " Whoever has had an opportunity of becoming acquainted 
 with the mental condition of the intelligent classes in Europe 
 and America, must have perceived that there is a great and 
 rapidly-increasing departure from the public religious faith, 
 and that, while among the more frank this divergence is not 
 concealed^ there is a far more extensive and far more 
 dangerous secession, private and unacknowledged. 80 wide- 
 spread and so powerful is this secession, that it can neither 
 be treated with contempt nor with punishment. It cannot 
 be extinguished by derision, by vituperation, or by force. 
 The time is rapidly approaching when it will give rise to 
 serious political results. . . . The tranquillity of society 
 depends so much on the stability of its religious convic- 
 tions. ..." 
 
 This departure from the faith is partly due to the fact that 
 increase of knowledge has made it manifest that the early 
 chapters of the Bible cannot be accepted (everywhere at 
 least) in their literal reading ; whilst the letter has been so 
 much insisted on by exegetes, that it has been commonly 
 regarded as an essential part of Scripture'. Dr. Draper also 
 writes : — 
 
 "... we have to admit a primitive animalized state (of 
 
 man), and a slow^ a gradual development. But this forlorn, 
 
 this savage condition of humanity is in strong contrast to 
 
 the paradisiacal happiness of the Garden of Eden, and, what 
 
 I is far more serious, it is inconsistent with the theory of the 
 
 ! Fall." . . . 
 
 "Many good and well-meaning men have attempted to 
 reconcile the statements of Genesis with the discoveries of 
 Science, but it is in vain. The divergence has increased so 
 much, that it has become an absolute opposition. One of the 
 antagonists must give way." . . . 
 
 '* What theni shall we give up these books? (the Penta- 
 
Introduction. 23 
 
 teuch). Does not the admission that the narrative of the 
 fall in Eden is legendary carry with it the surrender of 
 that most solemn and sacred of Christian doctrines, the 
 atonement 1 " '' 
 
 This writer professes to take, as far as possible, an im- 
 partial view of the matter. One can but regard his opinions 
 as honest. 
 
 Yet there are those of us who know, hij the surest of con- 
 victions, that the Bible is indeed the Book of the Living 
 God. It is a marvellous fact of our experience that through 
 its pages we have entered into knowledge of His Person. 
 By experience we have proved that the Word, and the Word 
 alone, is a safe and infallible rock to rest on — a sure guide 
 through life. And there is even many a humble cottager 
 
 who could laugh at the doubts of the man of science ; so 
 real, so certain, is his knowledge of God^ acquired through 
 this book, the Bible. 
 
 It is scarcely hoped that this work will, of itself, convince 
 any that the Bible is God's Book. The Word itself must 
 do that. And if the Scriptures are duly searched it will do 
 so, as effectually as it acquired its supremacy over civilized 
 society in the past. But it is hoped that the work will 
 present to the general reader a satisfactory explanation of 
 the difficulties before referred to^ especially those attending 
 the question of Evolution ; and that thus to some readers it 
 will be the means of preventing the entrance being closed to 
 the sacred truths of the Bible. 
 
 Such then is the object of this work:— (1) To show that 
 there is no real antagonism between the Word of God and 
 Evolution ; (2) To show why there is much in the language 
 of Gen. i.— xi. that is inconsistent with Science; and (3) 
 
 " Ristori/ of the Conflict between Religion and Science, pages 199, 
 219, 224. 
 
24 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 in the most important case?, to separate the divine truth 
 from its verhal covering — the kernel from the shell.^^ 
 
 It is evident that the true and full explanation does not 
 readily occur to the reader of these Scriptures. Yet, when 
 the matter is duly examined, that explanation is most simple, 
 most natural, most satisfactory ; revealing not less, but more, 
 of the wisdom of their Divine Author ; and especially is this 
 the case with the first three chapters of Genesis. But 
 
 to the reader who does not believe in Evolution, and to 
 whom the traditionary reading of Gen. i. to xi. presents no 
 difficulty, the case may be otherwise. For much that he 
 perhaps regards as fundamental truth will have to be rejected 
 as nothing more than ' shell/ and therefore what is here pre- 
 sented may be neither satisfactory nor acceptable. The work 
 is not meant for Mm. The student of Nature, how- 
 
 ever — the one who is deeply impressed with these important 
 questions — is earnestly invited to accompany the writer 
 through this investigation. Especially he is requested to 
 study for himself the various questions Avhich will be touched 
 upon, and others which may occur to him by the way. His 
 trouble will not be thrown away : the subject is all- 
 important. 
 
 ^■- The three things will not be dealt with in the order given 
 here. 
 
SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER I. 
 
 As some readers may not have bestowed much thought 
 upon all the bearings of the important question of Evolution, 
 it may be well to supplement what has been said by an 
 illustration and some further remarks. 
 
 Let us suppose some far-distant age when the present race 
 of men shall have passed from off the earth. In the tract of 
 land we now call England there are a few scattered remains 
 of its former industries, not sufficient to reveal their nature or 
 the ways of civilized man. We ourselves come upon the 
 scene as intelligent beings but otherwise unlike man, and all 
 that we find here is strange to us. Traversing the land 
 
 we come upon the ruins of some engineering works. In one 
 part of the ruined building there are a few vestiges of 
 lathes, drilling and planing-machines, etc. Of these we can 
 make nothing ; but in another compartment we see in 
 wonderful preservation a complete, high-class, modern 
 steam-engine. We are not the first visitors : others have 
 examined the engine before, and seen how admirably it used 
 to work. So great a source of wonder is it that there is now a 
 resident guide, who exhibits it and explains its mechanism to 
 visitors. We ask him how he accounts for the existence of 
 
 this engine. He has a ready answer, " Some great one 
 
 amongst the wonderful former inhabitants of the land con- 
 ceived the plan, called upon the engine to appear, and forth- 
 with it arose, complete as it now stands," 
 
 A few years afterwards we visit the place again. In the 
 meantime excavations have been made. One who has been 
 an active agent in these, and has spent much labour in 
 endeavours to understand the meaning of what has been dis- 
 covered, is now our cicerone. He has been able so far to 
 restore some of the other machinery about the place, that he 
 now understands how the lathes used to work, how the power 
 was transmitted from wheel to wheel throughout the manu- 
 factory, how the whole was driven by an engine like the one in 
 question, with boiler to supply the steam. There is even a half- 
 planed casting in one of the old planing-machines, with the tool- 
 marks on it — clear evidence of how it used to work. We 
 
26 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ask him how he accounts for the existence of this engine. In 
 reply he directs our attention to the things just named, and 
 particularly to the half -planed casting ; then takes us to 
 the cylinder of the engine, removes the cover, and triumph- 
 antly points out some tool-marks there, closely like the others. 
 " This part," he says, " was planed in that planing-machine, 
 like the piece which you saw there ; this piston-rod was turned 
 in one of those lathes ; this surface was chii3ped by chisel, that 
 smoothed by file." But we are at a loss to see his mean- 
 
 ing ; for he has never hinted at human agency and intelli- 
 gence as the 23rime cause of all. The restored machines are 
 standing there, still as death ; the old chisels and files lie 
 motionless upon the bench ; the engine stands here, the old 
 machines are over yonder. We venture to suggest this 
 
 last difficulty. He points triumphantly to the crane. 
 
 But we are still in doubt about his meaning, till he has 
 explained at length that the force which is in the steam can 
 set the lathes in motion, can work the crane and so transfer 
 the parts across to these machines and back again. He tells 
 how the iron was first melted in the cupola and ran into 
 moulds, where it cooled and hardened into the shapes of the 
 various castings in the engine. He does not say much about 
 the files, how they did their work ; nor how the moulds were 
 made, and the shaft forged — all that is not well understood 
 yet. Neither does he tell us lioiv the lathes and other machines 
 happened to he there, each one so well suited for its appointed 
 work. But the strangest part is that it should seem quite 
 
 natural to him that all the parts of this complex engine should 
 have been so made by these blind material agencies, as to 
 exactly fit each other, forming such an admirable and useful 
 whole. " Was this by chance .^ " we ask. " Oh no ; every 
 
 motion is produced by some other motion or force ; everything 
 has its definite cause ; there is no such thing as chance." 
 
 In order to convince us he goes up to the old boring-machine 
 and i^oints out that if the cylinder of the engine were lying in 
 a certain position thereon, with the boring-tool in its place and 
 the machine once set in motion, the tool would be obliged to 
 bore out just such a smooth straight hole as the one we see in 
 it. He shows us, too, that some of the lathes would turn a 
 long bar just as necessarily, and as accurately, when once 
 set in motion. Similarly with the planing-machine. Here 
 then is positive proof that it only required certain conditions 
 and the results must follow, whilst we have the evidence that 
 there have been the conditions and the results. " Doubtless," 
 he adds, " it was a case of necessity throughout the whole 
 process, as it was here." 
 
 We have heard two theories. The first we cannot well 
 
Supplement to Chapter I. 27 
 
 accept, for we can see tliat tlie engine is composed of parts, 
 and each part we know to be composed of numerous molecules ; 
 and we cannot well believe that all of these jumped by magic 
 into their proper places. And then there are those tool-marks 
 to be accounted for. But the second theory is worse. 
 
 Those necessary sequences tend to blind one to the fact, but it 
 depends on accident in the end ; and that the engine was not 
 made by accident is inost certain. And what machines can 
 have worked those files and chisels ? 
 
 We pay a third visit, finding still further discoveries have 
 been made. A human body has been dug up, so well pre- 
 served that its marvellous internal mechanism has revealed 
 itself to careful students — all except its mind, of whose very 
 existence nothing is known. Such a thing as mind connected 
 with matter is beyond our discoverers' conception. Here then, 
 in this automaton, is an agency which may have done those 
 parts of the work of which our cicerone has before failed 
 to give an account, and which involved so many minor 
 changes, so much irregularity of motion. To him the chain of 
 evidence is now complete. But we cannot understand 
 
 how these automata happened to perform in the 'proper order all 
 those myriads of minor changes which were necessary to the 
 moulding, and to the fitting especially : how they came to put 
 each bar or casting into the lathe and take it out again ^ttsi at 
 the right moment. We turn our glance upon the cylinder, the 
 crank, the condenser, the valve gear, noticing the wonderful 
 fit of each part to each other part, the mutual action of the 
 parts, the marvellous control exerted by the governor upon the 
 working of the whole. The theory will not do. 
 
 But we come for a fourth and last time. The secret is out 
 now. For books have been found and deciphered, works on 
 psychology amongst others ; and the drawing-office with its 
 contents have also come to light. All can see plainly now how 
 the whole was planned by one who never put his own hands to 
 the actual work of manufacture ; how, through the light of 
 their intelligence, his living human servants formed ^ the 
 moulds, carried the ladles, or worked the cranes that lifted 
 them, and so transferred the molten iron and brass from 
 cupola to mould ; how they controlled the machinery, putting 
 each part in and taking it out when done ; how they 
 worked the files to and fro upon the castings, chipped the 
 iron with hammer and chisel, fitting each piece, great and 
 small ; and finally joined the whole together as it now is. 
 
 It is seldom that the artificial well illustrates the natural, 
 and here the parallel by no means holds throughout, whilst 
 sundry inconsistencies in the story will not have escaped the 
 
28 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 reader's notice. The meclianism of the steara-engine is bat a 
 poor substitute for the marvellous structure of the human 
 body ; not to mention all else there is in ISTature to be 
 accounted for. At the same time the above necessary 
 sequences do not well illustrate those in organic creation, 
 upon which the Automatic-Evolutionists build so much. The 
 forces are all external, instead of being chiefly internal. But 
 in the history of the lathe we may trace a general parallel 
 with the growth of the machinery of Nature, from the earth 
 as a homogeneous gaseous mass to the infinity of complicated 
 natural phenomena it presents to-day; or we may compare it 
 to the development from the first germ to the j)lant and ani- 
 mal forms now existing. In tracing the history of the lathe, 
 we begin at the rude paleolithic stone celt, the first known 
 implement of man. By its means is produced in time the 
 polished celt, then bronze, and later, iron, instruments. By 
 this stage we have the more complex apparatus, a rude forge, 
 then perhaps a roughly-constructed wooden lathe, then a rude 
 iron one, finally the admirable machine of to-day. The fact 
 to be noted is, how each one of these has come into existence 
 solely through the ingenuity of man, and how each one could 
 only be made by means of its simpler predecessor. Similarly 
 in Nature. We do not attribute the implements to accident ; 
 those which precede history are attributed to human manu- 
 facture as much as the others, where this is traceable. Is it 
 not the most natural (i.e. the most scientific) conclusion, that 
 the Creator constructed first the simple and then thereby the 
 complex in the machinery of Nature ? It is one of man's 
 highest achievements to make a machine which will do his 
 work better than his unaided hands could do, requiring only 
 supervision, sometimes not even that. Such things would be 
 to a discoverer in later times the greatest testimony to the 
 ingenuity of their constructors ; yet like agencies in Nature 
 are to some the proof that they have made themselves, or 
 necessarily developed from their simpler predecessors, and 
 this because some necessary links in the chain can be dis- 
 cerned ! Especially we admire such automatic action as the 
 well- governed engine presents — a grand result of man's inven- 
 tion and constructive skill. Yet necessary sequence, or 
 automatic action, where these do appear in Nature — as in the 
 development of the embryo, or in ' natural selection ' — are not 
 a proof of Creative Skill, but of the absence of a Creator alto- 
 gether ! ! 
 
 Although Creative Design is persistently ignored through- 
 out the Darwinian system, yet Mr. Darwin himself clearly saw 
 the difficulty of accounting for things generally without it. 
 He sfiys {Descent of Man, 1888, p. 613) : — 
 
Supplement to Chapter I. 29 
 
 " The birth both of the species and of the individual are 
 equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our 
 minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The 
 understanding revolts at such a conclusion, whether or not we 
 are able to believe that every slight variation of structure, — 
 the union of each pair in marriage, — the dissemination of each 
 seed, — and other sucli events, have all been ordained for some 
 special purpose." 
 
 On the other hand, Mr. Darwin assumed that if there was 
 Design at all, then every biological phenomenon, great and 
 small, must have been specially ordained (see the end of 
 Variations of Animals and Plants under Domestication) ; and 
 he concluded that this diflSculty was insoluble. 
 
 Yet the matter seems to me very simple. If I take a plant, 
 and, in order to improve its appearance, or for other reason, 
 cut off some of its branches and leaves, my act may result in 
 the death, or changed conditions of life, of many insects who 
 are deriving their means of subsistence from those leaves. 
 These changes may in their turn affect other creatures in the 
 animal-world. Yet, whether I know of these matters or not, 
 they do not occur through my tvilli^ig that they should do so. 
 My voUtion relates only to the appearance of the plant : these 
 other things are merely contingent results of that volition. 
 Again, if I use a machine for cutting out things to a required 
 shape, which it is only capable of doing with precision when 
 running at a high speed; it may very probably cut some such 
 things imperfectly, when attaining to its proper speed. Or 
 it may be necessary to trim the material before it will be fit 
 to go into the machine ; the trimmings being merely so much 
 waste, or perhaps used for other purposes. 
 
 Now if the Creator made use of such an agency as ' natural 
 selection ' in the work of creation, we can clearly see that some 
 such contingent results would naturally follow, unless special 
 provision were made to prevent it. There would be thousands 
 of such cases. 
 
 If then we go so far as to assert that the Creator does use 
 any such agencies for carrying out His purposes, there is no 
 occasion to wonder that there are things in the organic world 
 which are not the outcome of special design. The wonder 
 would be if there were none such. We must not forget, how- 
 ever, that such results have been turned to wonderful account 
 in many known ways, and doubtless in infinitely more ways 
 that are unknown. 
 
 Physical fatalism is in like manner opposed by what we 
 find in Nature. Does the persistence of force tie the hands of 
 man ? With the example before our eyes of those stores of 
 energy which man has at his command, it is nonsense to assert 
 
Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 that there can be no such stores at the command of the 
 Creator, ready to be utilized where and how He will. 
 
 But how ? What connection can there be between Unseen 
 and Seen such that the first can thus control the second ? A 
 
 parallel is close at hand. If we take a voluntary motion of a 
 human limb and trace it to its cause, we find it in the first 
 place due to the movement of a tendon ; this to the contrac- 
 tion of muscles adjacent to that tendon ; this to the action of 
 the nerves upon those muscles, caused in its turn by a 
 molecular current from the brain. All these things belong to 
 the visible world, and investigation of the Visible can take us 
 no farther. We must go to the region of the Unseen for 
 further information. There by the light of Mind we find 
 that a volition to move the limb was the secret cause of its 
 motion. However closely related mental activity and mole- 
 cular motion in the brain may be, whatever be the precise 
 relation between Mind and Matter, what we are most sure of 
 is, that we will to move the limb and that in normal conditions 
 it does move. This action of Mind upon Matter, of Unseen 
 
 upon Seen, may be but little like what occurs in the Divine 
 control of natural agencies, but may yet suffice to indicate 
 something of its nature. 
 
 There is no more rational method of interpreting natural 
 phenomena than this application of well-known processes to 
 explain the nature of processes that are unknown, or partly 
 known. 
 
 It matters little to us here whether the process of Creation 
 was designed and arranged once for all in the beginning, and 
 then set in motion like a wound-up clock, after the manner 
 of some thinkers ; or whether the whole process was subjected 
 to incessant supervision, planned out in general at the begin- 
 ning, worked out in detail as it went on. For in either case 
 there is the Design of the Creator, and that is all that con- 
 cerns us here. The first hypothesis is, however, somewhat 
 like the theory of creation by miracle — it is unnatural. 
 
 As before seen. Embryology affords most convincing evidence 
 in favour of Evolution, the individual embryo assuming in 
 succession those forms which its ancestors assumed in the 
 evolution of the race. Here the characteristics of the mature 
 organism are in some way determined by the fertilized germ ; 
 in normal conditions there is a continuous unfolding and 
 development of these from first to last. But this affords no 
 evidence that in the evolution of the race, the forms of later 
 and higher organisms were vi ani/ way inherent in the earlier 
 and lower ones. There is this wide difference between the 
 two cases — now the system of reproduction with its mechanism 
 is complete ; then it had to be made. 
 
SUPrLEMENT TO CHAPTER I. 3 1 
 
 It is mucli more rational to suppose that the j^rocess of 
 creation was of a similar nature to that of the manufacture 
 of the steam-engine before described — that natural agencies 
 did the work, or much of the work, under the control and 
 direction of the Creator. And in those cases where we find 
 these natural agencies possess a mechanical or automatic 
 character — as in the development of the embrjo, in natural 
 selection, in numbers of physical processes — it is natural to 
 conclude that such agencies were constructed by the Creator 
 to do their appointed work. 
 
 It seems to me that men of science are much too slow in 
 making such practical applications to explain what they find 
 in Nature, It is characteristic of only a part of Nature, and 
 that its lower part, that event demonstrably follows cause in a 
 purely mechanical way ; in its higher parts we find that 
 Mind, which often regulates the course of things, is a factor 
 that must be taken into account ; man, his will and ways, 
 occupying the foreground. To obtain a rational explanation 
 of Nature, the whole of Nature should be applied; and this 
 brings us at once to predicate a personal, intelligent, and 
 active Creator. 
 
 Moreover, if the divine control of natural agencies be an 
 action of Mind upon Matter, it is obvious that investigation 
 of natural phenomena can never directly reveal that control : 
 outwardly every event must a]3pear to be caused by an ante- 
 cedent visible one, there must be the appearance of necessary 
 sequence everywhere, Evolution must appear to be a mechanic- 
 al process such as the ' natural evolution ' theory assumes ; 
 whilst he who builds his philosophy on these appearances 
 only, must arrive at erroneous conclusions, missing the ultimate 
 cause which alone explains the whole. 
 
 In conclusion, special creation by miracle may be theo- 
 retically possible, but it is not scientifically verifiable. 
 Evolution without Design is neither theoretically conceiv- 
 able nor scientifically verifiable. Creation by natural 
 means, the process being an evolution, is both conceivable 
 and verifiable. 
 
CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE WORD OF GOD AND THE SCOPE OF SCRIPTUEE. 
 
 "Every word of Scripture is the Word of God." What 
 are the contents of this apparently simple proposition 1 It 
 pre-supposes a superior Being, God, who speaks ; an inferior 
 being, man, to whom He speaks ; and a written language 
 known to both, wherein the Divine message is expressed. 
 As a general expression of the facts this outline is correct 
 enough ; but it is far from being an accurate expression of 
 all the facts. A correct understanding of this matter is of 
 vital importance to the present inquiry. No superficial 
 knowledge will help us ; we must carefully analyze what 
 we mean when we call the Scriptures the Word of God. 
 
 The Scriptures, as we have them, are not expressed in the 
 English language of to-day, but in that which was spoken 
 by our forefathers between 200 and 300 years ago. They 
 were not originally delivered to mankind in that language, 
 nor in any language of that Northern European group to 
 which the English language belongs ; nor yet in any modern 
 language. They were delivered ^ to mankind originally in 
 two ancient languages — the New Testament in a language 
 (Greek) of the same (Indo-European) race that we English 
 people belong to; the Old Testament in Hebrew, the 
 language of the very distinct Semitic race. And respecting 
 
 ^ This expression must not be taken too literally. What 
 qualification it requires will be seen in the next chapter. 
 
The Word of God. 33 
 
 the Old Testament, it is further to be noted that its latter 
 part was originally delivered in the language of the 
 Hebrews when they were a more or less developed .nation, 
 whereas its first part was delivered in the language of that 
 nation when in its youth, and consequently in a somewhat 
 crude state of society and literature. 
 
 All these facts apparently count for nothing when it is 
 remembered that the Scriptures have been translated into 
 the English language of 200-300 years ago, and that that 
 language is much the same as the English of to-day. But 
 the true meaning of these facts will become manifest from 
 the following considerations. , 
 
 All language is nothing more than a system of con- 
 ventional signs used for the communication of ideas and 
 feelings. There is no inherent meaning in loords, all the 
 meaning which they possess being lent to them hy the mind. 
 The mental states are the all-important realities, not the 
 linguistic signs by which they are conveyed. 
 
 If the reader has not given thought to this subject, he 
 may be inclined to doubt this statement. If he is one of 
 those who believe that there can be no thought except by 
 means of language, he may be reminded that even on that 
 supposition, Mind is still the principal and language the 
 instrument, the latter deriving all its meaning, all its 
 virtue, from the mental states to which it is so powerful a 
 help. Professor Whitney, referring to the Chinese 
 
 language, makes the following remark : — ^ 
 
 '^ It illustrates in a manner which the student of language 
 cannot too carefully heed, the truth that language is only 
 an instrumentality, and the mind the force that uses it ; 
 that the mind which in all its employment of speech implies 
 a great deal more than it expresses, is able to do a high 
 quality of work with only the scantiest hints of expression, 
 
 - Life and Growth of Language, 2ad Editiou, p. 23S. 
 
 D 
 
34 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 catching from the connection and from position the shades 
 of meaning and the modes of relation which it needs." 
 
 It does not come within the scope of this Avork to 
 elucidate this matter, which belongs to the sciences of Lan- 
 guage and of jMind. A few facts, however^ may be given. 
 
 The notion that meaning is inherent in words arises partly 
 from the way in which w^e learnt from our spelling books, 
 and still learn from our dictionaries. We were taught that a 
 certain word means so and so. But we overlook the facts, 
 that it only possesses that meaning because, and as long as, 
 the community choose to use it in that sense ; and that they 
 use it in that sense because their predecessors at some past 
 time attached that meaning to the word ichen they wanted to 
 communicate a certain idea. Language does not arise 
 ready-made. It comes into existence only as it is needed 
 for the expression of thought ; and this is true of it from 
 its very beginning. The beginning of speech was largely, 
 if not entirely, onomatopoetic ; the beginning of writing, 
 hieroglyphic — the first representing the sound, the second 
 the appearance, of the thing signified. In both these cases 
 we find the language-making closely associated with the 
 perception of similarity. 
 
 When our forefathers wished to express in language the 
 thought that some person or deed bore a resemblance to 
 God, they said that he, or it, was * God-like ' ; and usage 
 has transformed the word into 'godly.' Bearing in mind 
 how this suffix ly has been formed, the following extract 
 from Prof. Whitney will illustrate the matter further : — ^ 
 
 " Often, as everyone knows, there is an accumulation of 
 formative elements in the same word. In truthfully, for 
 example, we have the adverbial suffix ?j/ added to the primitive 
 truthful ; in which, again, the adjective suffix /«Z has performed 
 
 3 Language and the Study of Language, 1884, pp. 64, 65. 
 
The Word of God. 35 
 
 the same office toward the remoter primitive truth. By the 
 use of a formative element of another kind, a prefix, "we might 
 have made the yet more intricate compound untriitlifidly . 
 Nay, further, truth itself contains a suffix, and is a derivative 
 from the adjective true, as appears from its analogy with 
 tvealth from well, tvidth from wide, strength from strong, and 
 many other like words ; and even true, did we trace its his- 
 tory to the beginning, we should find ending in a formative 
 element, and deriving its origin from a verbal root meaning 
 'to be firm, strong, reliable.' . . . ^\\q term. incqDplicahilities 
 contains two prefixes, the negative in and the proposition ad, 
 which means 'to,' and three suffixes, able, forming adjectives? 
 ti/, forming abstract nouns from adjectives, and s, the plural 
 ending, all clustered about the verbal root pile, which we have 
 ah'eady seen itself forming a suffix, in douhle, triple, and soforth, 
 and which conveys the idea of ' bending ' or ' folding.' By 
 successive extensions and modifications of meaning, by trans- 
 ferral from one category to another through means of their 
 appropriate signs, we have developed this simple idea into a form 
 which can only be represented by the long paraphrase ' numer- 
 ous conditions of being not able to bend (or fit) to something.' ' 
 And he adds this striking remark : — 
 
 " With but few exceptions — which, moreover, are only 
 apparent ones — all the words of our language admit of such 
 analysis as this, which discovers in them at least two ele- 
 mentSj whereof the one conveys the central or fundamental 
 idea^ and the other indicates a restriction, application, or 
 relation of that idea." 
 
 These facts illustrate how words come into existence only 
 as the mind requires their help, and how they get their 
 meaning from the mind. When, however, they have been 
 long in use, they often lose all traces of their origin, retain- 
 ing their meaning by the consent of the community through 
 force of habit. Thus not only single words, but sequences 
 of words, possess a purely conventional meaning. It is at 
 this stage that the meaning seems to be inherent in the 
 words. We have just seen, however, that it originated in 
 Mind and remains associated with the words by the consent 
 of Mind. It is also a mental propert}' ; it has no existence 
 apart from the Mind ; the words (and sequences of words) 
 
 D 2 
 
36 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 are only signs which call up the mental states — a process 
 which may be likened to the firing of a gun by striking 
 the cap. The mental states are the realities, which the signs 
 merely serve to excite. Thus Mind is the principal ; Lan- 
 guage only the instrument.^ 
 
 It may be added that the literal meaning (as we call it) 
 often forms the basis on which are built, or out of which are 
 developed, further meanings and shades of meaning. Jn 
 some of these cases the literal meaning does an office very 
 like that of the verbal sign itself. For as this literal mean- 
 ing was first attached by the mind to the verbal sign^ so to 
 this literal meaning are attached by the mind further mean- 
 ings and shades of meaning. In such cases the verbal signs, 
 (in reading) call up the literal meaning, and then the literal 
 meaning calls up the vital meaning which is conveyed by 
 the passage. But this process is not always gone through ; 
 and when it is, it is done too quickly, perhaps, to be noticed. 
 
 It follows from this important fact that there is no such 
 thing as a common language unless there is likeness between 
 the minds which use such language for expressing their 
 ideas and feelings. 
 
 If we seek an instance of such community of ideas, we 
 shall probably find the nearest approach to it in the case of 
 brothers or sisters who have always lived together, have 
 been educated alike, and have never even moved in difl'erent 
 spheres. They have inherited the family likeness of mind, 
 and have not been subjected to different conditions of life, 
 so as to have differences wrought in their minds. They 
 have had the same teaching, been occupied with the 
 same things, have therefore much the Fame thoughts, 
 
 "o'-J 
 
 ' It may be said that no well-informed person supposes that 
 meaning is inherent in words. But (even supposing this work 
 was intended only for well-informed persons) many do so prac- 
 tically. There is often an nncouscious assumption th^t language 
 arises ready-made, containing within itself the meaning which in 
 reality the mind lends to it as it uses it. 
 
The Word of God. 37 
 
 and use much the same words to express those thoughts. 
 They, more than most people, may be said to have 
 throughout, common ideas and a common range of words 
 whereby they communicate those ideas. Even here, how- 
 ever, sundry individual differences of character and of 
 mental range intervene, and even these brothers or sisters 
 cannot strictly be said to speak a common language. 
 
 There is only one true instance of such a community of 
 ideas, namely that which may be said to exist between one's 
 own mind and the several mental states which compose that 
 mind. Every one has a range of mental states common to 
 himself alone ; he habitually uses certain groups of words 
 for the expression of those mental states, and in terms of 
 those same mental states he reads (or it may be said trans- 
 lates to himself) all words which come to him from other 
 minds, whether spoken or written. He passes through a 
 great number of these mental states, they are his whole 
 experience, the sum of his mind, of his knowledge, of his inner 
 self; he cannot think of anything except in the terms 
 which these furnish (though they are ever being modified by 
 external influences), and he cannot consequently attach any 
 meaning to spoken words or written signs until they have 
 been rendered into these mental states. But he is not con- 
 scious of going through this translating process when he is 
 spoken to or when he reads. For, during all his life, the 
 spoken sounds or written signs have been so frequently 
 associated with the corresponding ideas, that his mental struc- 
 ture has become moulded into conformity with them ; and 
 the co-adjustment has become so complete that the sounds 
 and signs call up immediately the corresponding ideas, and 
 the ideas call up immediately the corresponding sounds and 
 signs, automatically. The process is a rapid and unconscious 
 one. 
 
 Since then no two minds ^ are quite alike, and all spoken 
 5 The reader should be advised that the term ' Mind ' is used here, 
 
38 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 or written language acquires meaning only when it lias been 
 rendered into the hearer's or reader's ideas, it follows that 
 every one gives it a more or less different rendering from that 
 of others, and therefore a truly common language cannot 
 exist. It further follows that the true difference be- 
 
 tween the languages used by different individuals is in propor- 
 tion to the difference between their minds. And the differences 
 between the minds existing on the earth are enormous, as 
 everybody knows. We may notice a few of them. 
 
 People of the same class or station in life, but of different 
 occupations^ or some living in town and others in the coun- 
 try, differ more than the brothers or sisters before mentioned. 
 But with people of different classes, even though they may 
 dwell in the same place, the difference is far wider. The differ- 
 ence between the mental states of the master ^and those 
 of the servant are manifestly great ; and correspondingly 
 great are the differences between the meanings which 
 they attach to the same words. The difference between 
 dialects in different parts of a country where the same lan- 
 guage is spoken, is an expression of other differences between 
 the inhabitants of those respective parts. The next differ- 
 ence we have to note is that existing between people 
 speaking languages which have a family resemblance. After 
 this the gap widens fast, when we consider people of differ- 
 ent races, people inhabiting countries with different climates, 
 physical and other differences of many kinds, all of which 
 stamp their effect on the inhabitants. Lastly we have to note 
 the vast difference between people in a highly-developed and 
 cultivated state of society and people in a crude social state.^ 
 
 and generally throughout this work, in the psychological sense, as 
 equivalent to the whole ego, sensational, intellectual, and emo- 
 tional, not to the intellect only. 
 
 ^ I have seen somewhere an old proverb (I think Latin) to ihe 
 effect that " If two languages say the same thing, it is not the same 
 thing." 
 
The Word of God. 
 
 39 
 
 All these facts should therefore be borne in mind when it 
 is stated that the Scriptures have been translated into our 
 own language. We must remember that the translation of 
 any passage can be perfect only in as far as the English 
 mind resembles that of the Hebrew of the period when 
 that passage was written. It will be approximately correct 
 where these minds do not differ much. It will be no trans- 
 lation at all where, if anywhere, they differ totally. The 
 translation will obviously be least accurate in the early 
 parts of the Old Testament, where the mental difference is 
 greatest. 
 
 When a person reads the Bible in the present day, he 
 naturally, but unconsciously, goes through the rendering 
 process referred to above, interpreting the written symbols 
 in terms of his own ideas^ expecting to find the same con- 
 formity between the language of Scripture and his own 
 ideas as exists between the language of his own composing 
 and those ideas. With some qualifications, perhaps, he 
 thus expects to find all the truths of Scripture conveyed in 
 those forms of thought and those sequences of words which, 
 as before explained, we may call his own peculiar language ; 
 just as if God had, for his own sole and peculiar benefit, writ- 
 ten the words of Scripture that same day ! Seldom or never 
 does it occur to him that Scripture is intended to reach the 
 widely-different minds of people of all those classes which 
 dwell upon the earth — minds very different in calibre, in 
 education, in nature, and even in structure. Scripture truth 
 could not therefore be expressed everywhere, though it may 
 be in some parts, in those particular forms of thought which 
 constitute the reader's own peculiar language. It needs be 
 expressed in such ways as can be rendered into the widely- 
 different ideas of all mankind ; from those of the critical, 
 accurately-thinking, cultivated man, to those of the extreme 
 rustic, or even of the savage, who can gain a glimmering of 
 
40 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 meaning only from something in the form of a story or 
 parable. 
 
 Even therefore supposing that the truths of Scripture 
 had come direct from the Mind of God and had been penned 
 by His own hand to-day, and supposing further that those 
 truths were not of a nature different from that of ordinary 
 knowledge ; its language would necessarily differ much from 
 the peculiar language of the reader. Both of these sup- 
 positions are, however, far from according with the facts. 
 Let us consider the last of them first. In doing so we shall 
 clear up a difficulty which may have occurred to the reader, 
 or which certainly would occur to him when we are con- 
 sidering the wider differences necessarily existing between 
 each man's peculiar language and the language of some parts 
 of Scripture. The question is this — If there be differences 
 so wide, how do we understand it so well 1 Briefly, the 
 answer is, that every divinely-taught reader of Scripture 
 has, during his acquisition of its divine truths, had his 
 mind moulded into conformity with those truths, and his 
 thoughts accustomed and adapted to the Scripture language. 
 
 I have said that the nature of Scripture truths differs 
 from that of ordinary knowledge. The fact is that those 
 truths are indissolubly associated with the divine Person, 
 and a real reading of those truths involves contact with that 
 Person. God Himself is the true Word, as Scripture itself 
 teaches ^ (John i. 1 ; Ileb. iv. 12, 13 ; 1 John i. 1-3) ; and, 
 just as other literature is but the instrument whereby the 
 writer communicates with the reader, so the words of Scrip- 
 ture are but the channel of communication between God 
 and the reader of Scripture. The believer has a por- 
 
 7 It may appear to the reader an inconsistency to appeal to the 
 Bible as teachiug that the real Word of God is something different 
 from the Scripture language. Reflection, however, will show that 
 the inconsistency is apparent only, the appeal not being to the 
 language, but to its underlying truth. 
 
The Word of God. 41 
 
 tion of God's spirit dwelling within him, closely associated 
 with his own spirit (Kom. viii. 9, 16 ; 1 John iv. 15). He 
 may, or may not, have been conscious of its first entrance 
 there; but since that time it has been quietly working, 
 moulding his mind more and more into conformity with 
 God ; so that from that time forward and increasingly, God 
 dwells within him. 
 
 The first entrance of that Spirit took place by means of 
 Scripture truth, wdiich by the light of God he was then 
 enabled to apprehend ; and, as at that time so afterwards, 
 Scripture has been the channel of communication, though 
 not the only one, between God and him. Tliis intercourse 
 letween his mind and God's mind constitutes the only true 
 readi7ig of the Word of God. 
 
 Scripture is a vast store of written symbols whereby God's 
 mind is thus revealed to his mind. He sees those symbols, 
 and they call up in him mental states, which are produced, 
 modified, deepened, by the indwelling Spirit of God ; by 
 whose light (together with the light of his pre-existing 
 knowledge) he is enabled to perceive what underlies those 
 symbols, and so to come into closer contact with, and know 
 more and more of, the Person of God. 
 
 In that Mind of God there are infinite depth and variety, 
 both intellectual and emotional. In order that these may 
 be effectually communicated to the believer's mind, many 
 kinds of literary composition are adopted in the Bible. 
 Some of its truths are so simple, so manifestly expressed in 
 the ordinary meanings of words, that a child can understand 
 them. Others are apprehended only after the spiritual 
 training just referred to. Others can reach the mind only 
 by means of a parable ; others, as those in Revelation, by 
 means of pure symbols. 
 
 Need we be surprised, then, if we have to find that, as 
 New Testament parables and symbols serve only to impart 
 
42 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 spiritual truths, so the ancient stories of the Garden and the 
 Flood are adopted, partly or wholly, to convey truths which, 
 whether historical or not, are couched within those narra- 
 tives ; these truths being the vitally important part, and 
 the details of the stories unimportant ? The believer, how- 
 ever, who is accustomed to regard the parables as symbolic 
 and these narratives as history, will perhaps answer, '^ Of 
 course the former are symbolic and the latter purely histori- 
 cal." There is, however, no ^' of course " about it, except 
 that he has always been accustomed to regard them so, and 
 therefore to Mm it appears that they must be so. At the 
 same time there are dififerences between the two cases, and 
 these we shall consider later on. Attention is only called 
 to the matter here in order to show the congruity of such 
 a reading of those particular Scriptures with the principles 
 which we here find to hold for Scripture as a whole. 
 
 It is natural to us all to regard the meaning as inherent 
 in the words_, overlooking that all their meaning is lent to 
 them by the mind which uses them — attached to them by 
 the writer, detached from them by the reader. Therefore 
 the divinely-taught reader of the Bible does not often notice 
 the facts on which we have been dwelling. He knows, 
 indeed, that formerly he saiv no such meaning in the passages 
 of Scripture as he now sees ; and that, as he has learnt more 
 of God, more and more truths have been made known to 
 him through those same passages. But, in many cases at 
 least, he does not see that the education of his own mind 
 has wrought the change ; and that, through the improved 
 condition of his otvn mind, he has been reading more and 
 more of God's mind — the Spirit of God attaching to, and he 
 detaching from, the same tvords, more and more spiritual 
 truths which God by them has spoken to his soul. But so 
 it is, and necessarily. For if, as we have seen, the mind in 
 all its employment of language implies much more than it 
 
The Word of God. 43 
 
 expresses, even in regard to every-day subjects ; how much 
 more must it be so with those spiritual truths which are 
 above, and of a nature different from, ordinary knowledge. 
 How much more, when God speaks by Bible words, must 
 He light up those words with the divine meaning which He 
 conveys through them to the reader. 
 
 It is not meant that the student of Scripture ought to be 
 occupied with these facts. It is to the present inquiry 
 that they possess such importance. They should not, how- 
 ever, lower the Bible in the reader's eyes ; they only give 
 it a somewhat different position. It is God's Book ; it is 
 of God's construction ; it is admirably adapted through its 
 many kinds of literary productions to reach the minds of 
 all classes ; it is that whereby God speaks ; that to which 
 He has given His name ; that with which He is so closely 
 associated that we may say He dwells in it. For we may 
 compare the written word and the Living Word, which is 
 God, to the body and mind of man. As the body lives 
 and acts reasonably because of the mind which dwells in it, 
 so the written word is animated by the Living Word ; and 
 as the mind manifests itself through the body, so God 
 manifests Himself through the written Avord. The two are 
 vitally united : yet only so when God speaks by it to man, 
 for the Bible may lie for ages lifeless, if unread. 
 
 The above wonderful truth explains a fact on which the 
 
 sceptical mind will do well to reflect. Without coercion 
 
 the Bible has taken its place before civilized society as 
 
 the Word of God, and has maintained that position. The 
 
 more it is studied, and the better one becomes acquainted 
 
 with its nature and its truths, the more does one find that 
 
 it is indeed God's Book^ ; its depths do not become ex- 
 
 8 In many cases in this work I have made a verbal distinction 
 corresponding to the all-important real distinction between the 
 Word of God and the Book of God. Where this is not done I 
 believe the reader will see the meaning without difficulty. 
 
44 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 hausted, but show themselves ever deeper. If believing 
 readers have not such knowledge on some matters as highly- 
 educated men of science, on the other hand they are not 
 fools. If there had not been something in the Book 
 M'hich is not of man, would they not have i^racticalUj found 
 it out, and neglected it because it yielded nothing ? The 
 secret is that in its pages they find a living substratum, a 
 Being of exhaustless depth. 
 
 The sceptics build up their philosophy on what they call 
 ' facts of experience ' ; what I suggest is that they should 
 recognize with more respect this outstanding fact of expe- 
 rience — the Christian consciousness. They should surely 
 be slow to depreciate Christians for being in thought and 
 action true to their experience. They should be equally 
 slow to assume that the experience of others may not be 
 laro'er than their own. 
 
 The foregoing remarks may perhaps seem to imply that 
 the truths of Scripture are inaccessible to most people, or 
 at any rate difficult of access ; that readers are so placed as 
 to be very liable to misunderstand it ; that even its plainest 
 statements which are known to everybody, are perhaps mis- 
 understood. It is not meant, however, that that prepara- 
 tion of the believer's mind which we saw to be necessary 
 for the comprehension of its deepest truths, is the only 
 preparation that takes place. Indeed not one of its truths — 
 nor truths of any kind — could be grasped without previous 
 preparation of the mind. But^ as we shall see more fully 
 in the following chapters, not only the believer's mind, but 
 the minds of all civilized men, have been for a long time 
 undergoing preparation. The education we have had as 
 children in the doctrines of Scripture, and even the acquisi- 
 tion of ordinary knowledge, constitute such a preparation. 
 The Christian conception of God, for instance, which we 
 should not have had if we had not learnt it, is a funda- 
 
The Word of God. 45 
 
 mental piece of preparation. We have all our days been 
 taught many of the leading truths of Scripture, and much 
 of the New Testament is expressed in language so familiar 
 to all, so like the common language of every day, and there- 
 fore so nearly like each one's pecuHar language^ as to present 
 no difficulties of this kind. And it is in the New Testa- 
 ment that those truths are enunciated which everyone 
 should know. Those truths, therefore, are expressed in 
 (what we call) the literal meanings of the words. This 
 general preparation, this co-adjustment of the civiHzed 
 man and the language in which the Gospel is expressed, 
 forms the gateway, open to all, heading the road to deeper 
 truths within. The explanation here given, to be enlarged 
 on later in this work, does not therefore create any difficul- 
 ties of this kind. The important fact is that while these 
 portions of Scripture are so adapted that they can be readily 
 appreciated by modern readers,, other portions of the Book 
 are less perfectly adjusted. As far as we have yet examined 
 the matter, the factors which have produced this divergence 
 may not have appeared very important. We shall arrive 
 at more important ones. 
 
 But what has become of the apparently simple and 
 important proposition which stands at the head of this 
 chapter? As very commonly understood, it asserts that 
 what God has to say to man is inherent in the words of the 
 Bible; it also implies that this is all expressed in those 
 forms of thought which its readers are so accustomed to as 
 to regard them as the literal meanings of the words. For 
 obviously, if the meaning does not lie in this so-called 
 literal sense, it could not be inherent in any other way ; for 
 that is the only sense which words could, by themselves, 
 determine. It would follow therefore that in the words of 
 Scripture there could be but one meaning (though in many 
 cases we know that more than one truth is conveyed by the 
 
46 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 same words). Therefore all truths must be expressed alike, 
 (i.e. literally), and all the important meaning would be at 
 once shorn away from the parable and the symbol. This 
 conclusion overlooks that there are individual differences in 
 respect of those mental states which are the foundation of 
 thought, so that the so-called literal meaning differs in 
 many cases in the minds of different readers. It overlooks 
 that divine truths are different in nature from ordinary 
 knowledo-e, and are of many kinds ; and that the Bible is 
 designed to carry those truths in different ways to minds of 
 many classes. It forgets that Scripture was not written 
 to-day for the reader's own particular use, but has only 
 reached him through the minds of other nations, some of 
 them with modes of thought very different from his 
 own. So that this apparently simple proposition, 
 
 '^ Every word of Scripture is the word of God," when analyzed, 
 resolves itself into, or necessarily implies, several distinct pro- 
 positions, many, if not all of which, are false ; although it is 
 meant to express an important truth. Had the sentence run 
 thus : '^ Every part of Scripture is of God's construction, 
 designed to communicate His mind to man," it would have 
 been both true and important. But so comj)letely does it 
 mix up together the contents of these ttco propositions, 
 that, when analyzed, it falls all to pieces. 
 
 Indeed we might have arrived at a similar result, though 
 not so completely, if we had tested this proposition by a 
 few cases. When we read in one place that " tlie earth 
 abideth for ever," and in another place that '' heaven and 
 earth shall pass away " ; in one place " fear not," and in 
 another place "let us therefore fear"; it is evident that, if 
 the meaning is inherent in the words alone, we here have 
 contradictions. And when, admitting as we must, that 
 these groups of words have different meanings in the two 
 cases, we pass on to inquire how they have this ; we at 
 
The Word of God. 47 
 
 once see that they cannot have two intrinsic different 
 meanings, (possessing nothing of their own to distinguish 
 these) ; and therefore they must derive them from the mind 
 which employs them to express different things. When 
 
 we read in Kev. xiii. 1, ^' And I stood upon the sand of the 
 sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea," we know that 
 the ordinary meaning of these words has nothing to do with 
 the divine meaning which is attached to them.^ Again, 
 when we remember how much of Scripture is devoted to 
 giving information about the nature of God and about the 
 nature and condition of man, we see that the language tliere 
 derives its meaning from what it describes, namely the mind 
 of God and that of man. So that when the reader comes 
 
 to search for the supposed inherent literal meaning of the 
 words quoted above, he has at once to iuimfrom the words 
 to the mind in order to find it. The ease just given shows 
 us, taOj that the Word is not altogether as something that 
 has come down to man from another region ; for its very 
 essence there lies in the spiritual condition of man himself; 
 and, as God is its author, it shows how closely God and 
 man are in this sense together — how Scripture comes from a 
 God who is present in this scene, to whose eyes all things 
 are naked and open, who is in truth a discerner of the 
 thoughts and intents of the heart. " The word is nigh thee, 
 in thy mouth, and in thy heart." 
 
 Look at the matter which way we will, we see that the two 
 all-important factors are the Mind of God and that of man, 
 and that the words of the Bible are nothing but symbols, 
 deriving all their virtue and signification from these minds 
 and their mutual intercourse. 
 
 From this it follows that that will be the best arrange- 
 
 ^ Here the literal meaning is first called up in the mind, and 
 then in its turn calls up the divine meaning, as noticed on page 
 36. 
 
48 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ment of these signs, which will be most successful in 
 calling up in man's mind, the states necessary for his 
 reception of the communication from God. Clearly too, 
 the best arrangement of these signs, or in other words the 
 best kind of literary production, will depend upon the 
 nature and condition of man's mind ; so that for reaching all 
 minds, different kinds of literary productions should be 
 
 used as they are. For minds much prepared, the common 
 
 language of every day (regarded as using words in their 
 literal meanings) is very effective. This is so much the 
 case amongst us, that most of the Bible's greatest truths are 
 thus presented ; and doubtless were thus presented for the 
 same reason to the early Christians in the Greek language 
 which they spoke. But for reaching minds little prepared, 
 or almost totally unprepared, something different is neces- 
 sary — something which may still be effectual with well- 
 prepared minds, but may offend them in other ways. 
 
 Let us here clear the ground of one other mistake, which 
 is natural to us all — that of supposing the Bible was ever 
 intended to teach Science. To the thoughtless it may seem 
 that this wonderful Book of God should contain the sum of 
 all knowledge. This was a prevalent misunderstanding in 
 the early Church, long surviving in the antagonism of the 
 Church to secular knowledge. Further on we shall find 
 strong reasons why the language of Scripture should some- 
 times not accord with the language of Science. Here let us 
 only note these important facts — that man can acquire 
 scientific knowledge by his own efforts, and that the Bible's 
 mission is to teach truths of a higher order, which man 
 cannot gather for himself. In short, as already explained, 
 the Bible is a revelation of spiritual truth. 
 
 We might here proceed to examine the unscientific 
 passages in Gen. i.-xi. in the light of the foregoing conclu- 
 sions—the six-day division of Creation, for instance. We 
 
The Word of God. 49 
 
 know that the Word of God in this passage is Jiot that the 
 work was done in six ordinary days ; for it was not. 
 Neither can it be that the days mean long periods, for the 
 passage has never given that impression to anybody.^" But 
 there is this truth — God has chosen to divide the work into 
 six parts which He has likened to the days of a week, with 
 the seventh devoted to rest. Also in Exod. xx. 11, we 
 find this view of the work connected with the institution of 
 the Sabbath for the Hebrew ; and it seems to be, partly at 
 least, for the latter purpose that the periods of Creation are 
 so very like ordinary days in Gen. i. Here then are two 
 things, the one connected with the Sabbath having special 
 application for the Hebrew ; the other — -this divine view and 
 division of the work — being a truth for all people in all 
 ages. Are not these the Word of God, communicated by 
 the verbal signs " of the passage ; not scientific statements, 
 but words of religious significance, with a message to the 
 Hebrews specially, but also to all men 1 
 
 Again, in Gen. ii. 7 Jehovah-Elohim (or the Lord God) 
 is represented as having '^ formed man of the dust of the 
 ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." 
 Here we see at once the important truths, that God made 
 man, and that He made him of the earth earthy; and there is 
 also the implication that He gave him a certain kind of 
 relationship with Himself These are the Word of God, 
 which the language is well adapted to convey ; whilst it is 
 ill adapted to convey a correct idea of the manner in Avhich 
 man was made, this being a subject for scientific inquiry, 
 unimportant to Scripture. 
 
 There are, however, a great many other facts which we 
 
 '° But they may cover long periods notwithstanding, as we shall 
 see in chap. vii. 
 
 11 By the intermediation iu this case of the literal meaning as 
 noticed on page 36. 
 
50 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 need to imdersfcand before we shall he duly prepared to 
 examine these chapters and compare them with the conclu- 
 sions of science. We need a correct understanding of the 
 circumstances under which Scripture was delivered to 
 man, and of the means adopted by God for its production. 
 These, therefore, will form the subject of the next two or 
 three chapters. 
 
 Summary. 
 Let us now sum up the conclusions of this short chapter. 
 They are of vital importance to the present inquiry. 
 
 I. Scripture was not specially prepared for any one class 
 of readers (such as ourselves), but was intended for man 
 generally, and has therefore to meet the needs of minds of 
 all orders in all ages. 
 
 II. The meaning is not, and cannot be, inherent in the 
 words. The real Word of God is quite distinct from the 
 language of the Bible. The Word of God is that portion of 
 His mind which He desires to communicate to man. The 
 two all-important factors are thus the mind of God and that 
 of man, the Bible being nothing more than a store of 
 verbal signs adapted for the communication of the former to 
 the latter. 
 
 III. Its truths are of a nature different from ordinary 
 knowledge, and they are of various kinds. Since, therefore, 
 its object is to teach truths of this higher order, and of 
 various kinds, to minds of all classes, its excellence must 
 essentially consist in its suitahility for this purpose, 
 
 IV. It is no part of its object to teach science. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE WRITERS OF SCRIPTURE AND THE DEVELOPMENT 
 OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 
 
 It was tacitly assumed in the last chapter that the course 
 adopted by God for giving man a knowledge of spiritual 
 truths is not a course of miracle but a natural course. 
 Indeed the whole argument of the present work accords with, 
 and depends upon, the fact that God works naturally, and 
 not by miracle, in all departments of which man has any 
 knowledge, and that such is the normal course of His 
 actions. This matter therefore calls for a few remarks in 
 this place. 
 
 Everybody knows that there is continuous and orderly 
 sequence throughout the world of things which we see 
 around us in the present day. But only the student of 
 Nature knows how universally this is true, and how 
 thoroughly it can be verified. He also is the one who 
 knows that this orderly course of Nature can be traced out, 
 as in the present, so in the past, back almost to the founda- 
 tion of worlds. But he is not generally the one who 
 knows— and those who do know are not so much given as 
 he would be to notice the fact— that this truth applies in 
 the present day, not only to the work of God in Nature, 
 but also to His spiritual work in the hearts of men. AVe 
 have had occasion to notice this process in the case of the 
 believer who, by the improvement in his own spiritual 
 state, is fitted for, and enabled to receive, deeper and 
 
52 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 deeper spiritual truths as lie studies Scripture. No one 
 looks for miracles here any more than in the world around. 
 
 These two departments, in which the natural course is 
 found to hold universally, fill the whole realm of man's 
 experience, the whole region of which he can gain any 
 knowledge by observation. 
 
 But in regard to Scripture history, it is not uncommon to 
 predicate the miraculous rather than the natural, to a very 
 great extent. This is quite unwarranted by the Word of God. 
 Moreover, this assumption of miracle is likewise extended 
 to the case of the writers of Scripture, under the name of 
 ' Inspiration.' But it by no means follows, because 
 
 miracles are recorded in Scripture history, that its general 
 course was miraculous rather than natural. Nor does it by 
 any means follow, because the necessary measures were 
 taken for delivering the Word of God to man through the 
 agency of human writers, that those writers were miracu- 
 lously endowed with knowledge in advance of their times. 
 Both of these are mistaken conclusions. They may speak 
 well for the believer's reverence for the Bible, but they 
 are false conclusions none the less, and fruitful of much 
 error. 
 
 It is necessary to distinguish clearly between an arbitrary 
 interference with the course of nature, an event to outward 
 appearance in opposition to its laws, which is never known 
 now ; and a definite or special manifestation of God's action 
 which is yet seen to be accomplished by natural means, 
 such as is experienced by Christians in the present day. 
 To the former class only I apply the term ^ miracle ' in 
 this work. Eaising the dead, causing iron to swim, I 
 should call miracles. The sudden endowing of an English- 
 man who did not know a word of French, with a full 
 knowledge of that language, I should call a miracle. But 
 if God should prevent a person by some particular event, or 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 53 
 
 chain of events, from embarking on a ship doomed to be 
 lostj I should not call it a miracle. The spiritual work of 
 God in man's heart, although opposed to the evil part of 
 human nature, of ' the spirit ' and not of ' the natural 
 man,' I do not call miraculous, for the process is natural, 
 orderly, gradual, although in a sense supernatural. 
 This use of the terms ' natural ' and * miraculous ' may 
 be objectionable to those who believe that God takes no 
 active part in the present course of things — that event follows 
 cause everywhere in a purely mechanical way. To them no- 
 thing is natural that is not mechanical from beginning to 
 end ; wherever there is interference with this course, there is 
 an end to natural sequence. Unlike these, I have no doubt 
 that God does take an active part, chiefly in the affairs of 
 men, but also in Nature outside of man — not by opposing 
 the course of nature, but by controlling it, when such is 
 His will. As man does not stop a steam-engine (to return 
 to a former illustration) by laying hold of the connecting- 
 rod, but by shutting off the steam, so it is natural to 
 suppose that God would direct the course of nature by 
 regulating at the source, rather than where the current is at 
 the full. As we saw before that to interpret Nature 
 
 rightly the whole of Nature should be taken into account, 
 so using the term ' natural ' in this wider and truer sense, 
 we see here that a course of things may still be natural 
 though subjected to such Divine control. Even such a pro- 
 cess of controlling may be called natural, as it would be 
 accomplished in an orderly and not unnatural way. 
 
 But that is not all. For although an influx of the Spirit 
 is a supernatural occurrence, yet growth in grace and other 
 spiritual processes are natural, whilst at the same time 
 supernatural. This subject — the naturalness of the Super- 
 natural — has been so well treated by Professor Drummond 
 in his excellent work Natural Laiv in the Sjriritual World, 
 
54 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 as to need no further remarks in this place. But a 
 
 clear understanding of my use of these terms ' natural ' 
 and ' miraculous ' is necessary, to prevent misapprehension 
 of what follows. 
 
 The more we examine the facts, the more it appears that 
 the general course of Scripture history was a natural one ; 
 and that when we read of miracle, it is either for a special 
 sign or to meet some special necessity. This question is 
 not of so much importance to the present inquiry as the 
 other referred to above, that of Inspiration. But the two 
 are in a measure connected^ and a few remarks upon it 
 will not be out of place. We have to deal with stern facts 
 in this matter ; and it is therefore necessary to base our 
 conclusions upon facts, and to clear our minds of such 
 theories as will not bear the light of investigation. These 
 have done more harm than enough. 
 
 In the first place we do not find that the chosen people 
 was a supernaturally-produced nation, nor yet that its life 
 history was of a different character outioardly from that of 
 other early nations. At first there are pastoral families 
 under patriarchal authority. When their numbers have 
 increased they are governed by heroes who have delivered 
 them from their enemies and then exercise judicial 
 authority. Later on there is a government by kings. The 
 nation knows successes and reverses. It suffers from in- 
 ternal discord, resulting in the division of the Kingdom 
 into two parts. After many other vicissitudes it declines, as 
 other nations have done and are still doing. ^ 
 
 But all through its history God was amongst its people, 
 working an internal spiritual work, analogous to that which 
 He carries on to-day in His people. They were, however, 
 an earthly people, and therefore, according to their obedience 
 
 1 Of course this is not meant to imply that the Jews will not 
 again become a nation. Scripture seems to teach that they will. 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 55 
 
 or disobedience, they were made to prosper or to suffer in 
 temporal things. But, with few exceptions at most, there 
 was no reversing of the ordinary course of a nation's history. 
 
 Notwithstanding, the Scripture record, which enables us 
 to see behind the scenes, and traces out the secret spring of 
 their successes and reverses, makes them figure differently 
 from other nations. The active part which God takes in 
 their history is a characteristic feature possessed by no other 
 nation. 
 
 In their history we find presented an imposing system of 
 priesthood and sacrifices, with sacred buildings — Tabernacle 
 and Temple — which call up in the reader's mind pictures of 
 visible manifestations of the divine Presence such as one 
 hears of nowhere else. Then there are the recorded 
 miracles, which convey a like impression. All history has 
 the efi"ect of investing events with a glamour which is 
 absent in life itself : how much more has the history of 
 God's people this effect. From these facts, and another to 
 be named presently, it is no wonder that Hebrew history 
 should seem to us as a time when God was present among 
 men in a manner very different from what ever occurred 
 elsewhere. Upon examination, however, much of this 
 proves to be appearance only ; whilst the unobtrusive 
 spiritual icorh in their midst, with God's active part in 
 their destinies, remain as the real and vitally important 
 thing. 
 
 As to the sacred buildings, priesthood, and sacrifices, we 
 know from Acts vii. 48, Heb. ix., x., that all these things did 
 not possess the virtue that was attributed to them : they 
 were merely figures of the realities manifested at a later 
 date — figures which served to convey certain truths to 
 Hebrew minds, and thus to prepare them for the realities 
 when these should be revealed. 
 
 The language of the historical books of the Old Testa- 
 
Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ment is, perhaps, the chief thing that gives the above wrong 
 impression. We conclude that there must have been 
 direct intercourse with God, such as never occurred since, 
 when we read many of its passages. 
 
 The following extract from the inscription of Mesha, 
 king of Moab, discovered in 1869^ throws some light on 
 this matter. Not only does the inscription corroborate a 
 portion of Old Testament history, but it even reads, as 
 Professor Sayce has remarked," like a chapter from one of 
 the historical books of the Old Testament. 
 
 "And Chemosh said to me, 'Go take Nebo against 
 Israel.' And I went in the night, and I fought against it 
 from the break of dawn till noon, and I took it and slew 
 in all seven thousand men. . . . And the king of Israel 
 fortified Jahaz and occupied it when he made war against 
 me ; and Chemosh drove him out before me. . . . And 
 Chemosh said to me, 'Go down, make war against 
 Horonaim and take it.' And I assaulted it, and I took it, and 
 Chemosh restored it." \ . . 
 
 One other line of the inscription may be added, "And I took 
 from it the vessels of Jahveh (the Hebrew name translated 
 *^ the Lord " in the A.Y.), and offered them before Chemosh." 
 
 Now this inscription brings home to us, as nothing else 
 would do, the fact that there is much in the wording of the 
 historical books of the Old Testament which is solely due to 
 the language and custom of the times. We make a great 
 mistake when we treat these parts of the Old Testament as 
 we treat passages in the New Testament. Perhaps it ^vas 
 this free use of the name Jehovah (or Jahveh) amongst the 
 Israelites that is condemned in Exod. xx. 7 and Deut. v. 
 11, "Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in 
 vain." Whilst, however, we find that much of the 
 
 apparent direct intercourse with God in Israelitish hiscory is 
 
 "^ Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, p. 76. 
 
 ■^ Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, 1890, p. 75. 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 57 
 
 only ajiparent, being due to the language and custom of the 
 times, the reality of the unseen presence of God remains. 
 The spiritual work in their hearts was going on, slowly hut 
 surely. And according to their ways were they made to 
 prosper or to suffer. 
 
 When we consider the miracles of which we read in the 
 Bible, we find most of them grouped together at two periods 
 in the nation's history. The first group comprises those in 
 Egypt and the Desert ; the second group those performed 
 by Christ and His disciples. In Exod. vii. 3—5, we read 
 that those in Egypt were for special signs and for the 
 deliverance of Israel from Egyptian power; those in the 
 Desert clearly relate to the stern necessities of Israel when 
 passing through it. Also in John ii. 11 and other places 
 we read that some at least of Christ's miracles were per- 
 formed for a testimony to His divine mission. The others 
 of the second group probably answered both purposes, 
 that of testimony and that of meeting the need of those 
 who were afflicted. If we trace out the other mii'acles 
 recorded in the Bible, we likewise find some of them per- 
 formed for signs (as that of Gideon's fleece in Judges vi. 
 36—40, and the one related in Isa. xxxviii. 7, 8) ; and I 
 think it may be safely said about all the rest, that some 
 special necessity calls them forth. 
 
 Further^ it is to be remarked that, apart from these two 
 special groups, there are not a great number recorded, 
 considering the long period of nearly 20OO years of Jewish 
 history. 
 
 It appears then that there w as no wholesale, continuous, 
 prodigal, or uncalled-for manifestation of miracle throughout 
 Hebrew history. 
 
 On the other hand, when we trace out the manner in 
 which God took that active part in the nation's Ijistory, we 
 find traces of natural means everywhere. One of the most 
 
58 Evolution and Scripture: 
 
 striking features of that history, and common to its whole 
 course, is the repeated chastisement inflicted on the Israelites 
 for their transgressions. But how are they chastised '? In 
 the most natural way. Things are so ordered that their 
 enemies overcome them. When they are a very small 
 nation it is their near neighbours that afflict them. After- 
 wards, when they are more powerful, it is their more 
 distant neighbours, the great Powers of those days. Occa- 
 sionally it is Pestilence (2 Sam. xxiv. 15; Jer. xliv. 13), 
 or civil war (1 Kings xi. 11). 
 
 Times out of number we read of this triumph of their 
 enemies as a punishment for their sins ; as when (after the 
 sin of Achan) in Josh. vii. they are overcome by the men of 
 Ai ; by the king of Mesopotamia (Judges iii. 8) ; by the 
 king of Moab (Judges iii. 12) ; by Jabin, king of Canaan 
 (Judges iv. 1,2); by the Philistines and Ammonites (Judges 
 X. 7) ; by the Philistines (Judges xiii. 1). And so on time 
 after time, until finally the ten tribes are carried away by the 
 king of Assyria (2 Kings xvii. 18, 23) ; and the remaining 
 two tribes by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 
 xxiv. 1, 3 ; XXV.). Likewise in New Testament times they 
 are finally carried away and their capital destroyed by the 
 Romans. 
 
 When we inquire into the manner of their deliverance 
 from their enemies, we find, with few exceptions, that the 
 course is still a natural one. Men are raised up to lead 
 them ; as Othniel (Judges iii. 9), Ehud (Judges iii. 15), Barak 
 (Judges iv. 15), Gideon (Judges vi. 12, etc.), Jephthah 
 (Judges xi. 1), Saul, David, and others. Or the heart of 
 Cyrus is moved to let Judah return (Ezra, i), or Esther 
 comes into favour with Ahasuerus and procures their deliver- 
 ance. Or they are relieved from famine and the Syrians by 
 a panic among the latter (2 Kings vii. 6). 
 
 We may notice instances of other kinds where nature 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 59 
 
 takes its course : — how Jacob's speckled cattle are increased 
 (Gen. xxxi. 12); flesh is provided for Israel by quails 
 brought by a wind from the sea (Num. xi. 31) ; the cursed 
 children are destroyed by bears (2 Kings ii. 24) ; and when 
 Christ Himself appears on the earthy He is born and 
 brought up by a woman in a manner as far as possible a 
 natural one. 
 
 Perhaps as the reader has reviewed the above cases, 
 others of the opposite kind have been thought of which 
 have not been mentioned here. Whilst, however, he has 
 thought of the miracles noticed above, or of others, have 
 there in like manner occurred to him other instances of God's 
 acting 'without miracle ? I venture to say, No. This fact 
 is very significant. It shows that the mind is quick to 
 notice anything unusual, and correspondingly slow to notice 
 that which is usual. And hence, throughout all Scripture his- 
 tory, the reader is so impressed with those miracles which 
 are recorded, and so unimpressed by their absence where 
 there are none recorded, that he unconsciously arrives at the 
 notion of abundance of miracle in that history. This is 
 
 a most fruitful cause of the mistake of predicating miracle 
 so freely of Hebrew history. 
 
 I might multiply instances of the nse of natural means 
 similar to those noticed above, and give numbers of others 
 which are only seen when one traces out the spiritual work 
 of God in the nation. But the latter will become more 
 apparent as we go on, and then only will their full signifi- 
 cance be seen. 
 
 Perhaps the Enemy's suggestions '' Cast thyself down," 
 " Command that these stones be made bread," and the 
 Lord's answers, are not without significance for this ques- 
 tion of prodigality of miracle. 
 
 I think enough has now been said to show that— as in all 
 other fields of God's action which are open to man's in- 
 
6o Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 vestigation, so in this particular field of Scripture history — 
 the course of nature is the course adopted, miracle, where 
 it occurs, being the special exception. 
 
 What else could we expect ? If nature is God's appointed 
 course, and therefore a good course, why should it be 
 departed from in Scripture history any more than elsewhere 1 
 Clearly the only things that should call forth a departure 
 from it, are the two that we have noticed, namely, special 
 necessity, or a special proof of God's action. 
 
 No sooner, moreover, would the miracle become common, 
 than it would cease to be regarded as miracle, and so would 
 lose all its significance. 
 
 What, however, concerns us here is not so much the 
 history of the Hebrews, as the spiritual work of God in the 
 hearts of men, which is connected with the delivery of the 
 Word of God to mankind; and which covers the whole 
 period from the beginning of Hebrew history to the present 
 time ; but which for the most part corresponds with the 
 period embraced by the Scripture record. Now the object 
 of that work was, undoubtedly, to give man a Bible which 
 should meet his needs just as he is ; and this involves a 
 mutual adaptation of the written word to man and of man's 
 state to the Avritten word, as we noticed in the last chapter. 
 Therefore the special need in this matter is a natural process, 
 not a miraculous one. Miracle here would require miracle 
 throughout, in order to make the process work. Instead of 
 being a help to the course of nature it would be a positive 
 hindrance. 
 
 We find therefore every reason to predicate -a natural pro- 
 cess throughout this spiritual work Avhich was connected 
 with, and necessary for, the delivery of the Word of God to 
 man ; and we find nothing in Scripture to show that such 
 a process was not the one adopted.* 
 
 ** The question of the Inspiration of the writers will be better 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 6i 
 
 Recalling then two of the conclusions arrived at in the 
 last chapter — (1) that the all-important factors are the 
 mind of God and the mind of man, Scripture being only a 
 store of verbal signs, designed for the communication of the 
 former to the latter ; (2) that therefore its excellence must 
 essentially consist in its suitability for this purpose ; or, in 
 other words, in its adjustment to man's mental condition — 
 let us now proceed to trace out the course of the production 
 of Scripture. We will note both what we should expect 
 to find, and what we do find. 
 
 When two things have to work together, no matter what 
 their nature may be, they must fit into each other in their 
 working parts. Something of this is seen when a person 
 enters a room full of strangers ; or if he goes to a strange 
 place where he must at once find his way about ; or if he 
 suddenly make any great change in his surroundings ; or if, 
 in taking up a fresh subject, a host of new facts are suddenly 
 forced on his mind all together ; or even if he lay his head 
 sideways on the ground and look at a familiar landscape. 
 All these are but instances of a partial change in his 
 environment. Yet in every one of them he is at first 
 more or less perplexed ; and the only possible way out of the 
 difiiculty is to familiarize himself one by one with his new 
 surroundings. Those with which he familiarizes himself at 
 first then form stepping stones to the next, these to the next, 
 and so throughout ; until he " knows his way about," and 
 has become familiar with, or in other words fitted or ad- 
 justed to, them all, and they in their turn fitted or adjusted 
 to him. If, instead of a partial change like these, he should 
 undergo a total change in his environment, he could not 
 take the first step towards adjustment ; he could not con- 
 treated of further on, when it will be seen that it presents no- 
 thing in opposition to the above conclusion. Facts having an 
 important bearing on this question will come out as we proceed. 
 
62 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 tinue to live. Life generally, as Mr. Herbert Spencer shows 
 in his Principles of Biology, is " the continuous adjustment of 
 internal relations to external relations " — a correspondence or 
 intercourse between the organism and its environment. 
 This correspondence can only be brought about, as illus- 
 trated above, by a process of evolution. 
 
 Now this shows that a complete Scripture could not be 
 delivered to man in one piece. We might, perhaps^ conceive 
 of such a book, composed in the language of another world, 
 being handed to him complete (though even that supposi- 
 tion would not bear analyzing) ; but then he could not 
 possibly understand a word of it. There must be a small 
 beginning of the process out of which the whole is developed 
 step by step, each modification forming a basis for further 
 development. There must be throughout a mutual process 
 of adaptation ; both Scripture and man's mind being 
 moulded by each other little by little to suit each other. 
 The two must grow up together. 
 
 Not only so, but if the mind of God and that of man are 
 to correspond with each other, there need be also a mutual 
 adjustment, and even a kind of growing up together, be- 
 tween these two. This reads, perhaps, like a strange asser- 
 tion ; but the following truths will explain its significance. 
 The love and mercy of God are verily called into activity by 
 the condition of man. So in the case of the Christian ; not 
 only is God moved by his prayers, but there is an even closer 
 vital intercourse between the two. In all these cases ad- 
 justments are involved on the part of both minds. Mis- 
 taken reverence may seem obliged to predicate a rigid God, 
 but the very Soul of Keligion is — what the heart of man 
 requires — a Living One. 
 
 But it may appear that Scripture is sometimes received in 
 one piece by man ; as when one who has hardly read any 
 of it during all his previous life, is converted, and takes to 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 63 
 
 reading it all at once ; or when a heathen receives it through 
 a translation into his own language. 
 
 In the first of these two cases the fact is liable to be 
 overlooked, that such a one has been instructed more or 
 less in the leading truths of Scripture by his parents or 
 teachers, or even unavoidably by living in a community 
 where such truths are commonly believed. But where did this 
 community get them from ? A moment's thought, and 
 
 we trace their origin backwards from people to people to the 
 Apostles who first propagated them ; i.e. to the Hebrew 
 nation to which the Apostles belonged. Both the 
 
 written word and the means of understandinf:^ its leadins: 
 truths are thus traced back to the Jews, these truths havins: 
 been passed from mind to mind from the Apostles down to 
 ourselves. 
 
 As regards the second case mentioned above, that of the 
 heathen, we must remember that he has been taught some 
 at least of these same truths by the missionary who gives him 
 the translation, or perhaps by other converts. He does not 
 receive the word all at once, but little by little. Possibly^ 
 however, he may glean the way of salvation from the Bible 
 itself without such help; which fact will be explained 
 presently. 
 
 Again we have to note that no one who receives the 
 knowledge of the way of salvation becomes acquainted 
 with all the truths of Scripture ; and that the amount 
 of each one's acquaintance with these is just in proportion 
 to the amount of his previous adjustment to them and to 
 the language of the Bible. 
 
 In neither of these cases then is the Word of God 
 received all at once. 
 
 There is in the present day no adjustment of the language 
 of the Bible. All the adjustment that takes place now is 
 on one side ; and hence — as before remarked, and more fully 
 
64 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 to be seen later on — the incompleteness of the adaptation of 
 Scripture language to readers of the present day. Here we 
 see again that Scripture, being specially adjusted to the 
 Hebreio people who first received it, cannot therefore be 
 perfectly suited to the mind of each of its multiform readers 
 in the whole world. 
 
 But there is another point. Two things cannot grow up 
 together in mutual adjustment without being first placed in 
 contact. So it must be with God and man, before there 
 can be that correspondence between them which is involved 
 in a real reading of the Word by man. " The Word is nigh 
 thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart." We have here, 
 however, two kinds of correspondence. There is that closest 
 correspondence of hearts which requires the indwelling 
 Spirit of God, and there is that fainter correspondence of 
 the intellect alone. A measure of the latter is involved in 
 that general knowledge of Scripture truths which is possessed 
 by all civilized nations ; and which constitutes, as we have 
 seen, the means whereby the closer correspondence is formed 
 — a channel of communication between God and man along 
 which the deeper life can flow. 
 
 Man is placed then in a position sufficiently near to God 
 for this first contact, the knowledge of general divine truths, 
 to be formed in him ; after which follows in the Christian's 
 case the closer growth to God which is involved in true 
 communion. With the civilized man this outer contact is, 
 as we have seen, already formed. But how about the 
 savage ? If there are, as some travellers have said, a few 
 of the lowest who have no conception of any god, this outer 
 contact is in their case totally unformed. Clearly no trans- 
 lation of Scripture into the language of such a savage could 
 enable him to acquire a knowledge of God ; for he has no 
 ideas, and therefore no language, of the kind involved in such 
 translation. He must be taught as a child is taught, little 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 65 
 
 by little, and eery little lij very little, before any progress 
 can be made. 
 
 This shows that in the hypothetical case of a heathen's 
 learning by his own unaided efforts from Scripture, there 
 must have been some previous preparation. 
 
 In what does it consist ? The missionary best can tell — 
 he who has to work upon, modify, and develop, as best he 
 can, such crude ideas of a superior being, such gods of his 
 own imagining, as the savage may possess. These crude 
 ideas of a god are then the first preparation of man for the 
 hnowledge of God. They are in many cases not only very 
 
 low, but positively sensual and wicked. The idolatry of the 
 higher nations of antiquity was such ; their gods immoral 
 like themselves. But Comparative Mythology reveals the 
 fact that in the beginning it was not so. Primitive man 
 supposed the sun, moon, and stars to be living beings 
 superior to himself. The storm, the thunder^ the day, and 
 all physical phenomena, were interpreted in like manner 
 by his simple mind. It was only as man himself 
 grew in sin more and more that his worship became so 
 corrupt and defiled. The belief in and reverence for 
 higher powers were pure in themselves, though we cannot 
 say that there was a time when no evil co-existed with 
 them. 
 
 Putting all these facts together, we arrive at the conclu- 
 sion that these primitive ideas of gods were the work of 
 God's own hand, or at least that their growth was overruled 
 by Him so as to produce the notions which, in some form 
 or other, were absolutely necessary before any knowledge 
 of God could possibly be acquired by man. They form the 
 very basis for that first contact (a knowledge of general 
 truths about God) which must be possessed before there can 
 be vital correspondence between God and man — before the 
 minds of the two can be united and grow together. Some 
 
66 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 such notions of the Deity are possessed by ahnost all, if not 
 all, inhabitants of the earth. 
 
 We are now in a position to take an outline view of the 
 course which God took in the manifestation of Hiuiself to 
 mankind. He bestowed upon all peoples a measure of pre- 
 paration — that fundamental possession with which none 
 can dispense — some crude notions of the Deity. From the 
 most advanced of the nations of antiquity, He selected one, 
 the Hebrew, and taught that people a full knowledge of 
 Himself. Finally He directed them to communicate that 
 knowledge to the others, whom He had already so far pre- 
 pared that they could receive it. 
 
 We find, however, that the blessings of this knowledge 
 of God, both in its special and in its general character, have 
 been hitherto received by the higher races alone, the excep- 
 tions being relatively unimportant. When we come to the 
 Scripture story of the Flood, we shall see reason to believe 
 it has some bearing on this fact, amongst others. It appears 
 that these blessings, though open to all, were specially in- 
 tended for these higher races. No doubt they are the best 
 qualified to receive and appreciate them. Moreover, those 
 only who are acquainted with the state of morality in the 
 great nations of antiquity can form a correct idea as to how 
 much these races needed them. They had a deeper 
 need for this Great Light than the savage had. It was 
 necessary to the very existence of a moral and stable state 
 of society. 
 
 We need not here trace out further the initial work of 
 God among all nations, or that diffusion of the knowledge 
 of God from the Hebrews to other nations. What we have 
 now to consider is the delivery of the Bible to the Hebrew 
 nation. We have to trace out that process of growing to- 
 gether in mutual adjustment of the mind of that people and 
 the mind of God, together with the production of Scripture 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 67 
 
 in their midst, whereby this correspondence , of minds was 
 wrought out. As we might expect, we shall find it a 
 process of evolution. 
 
 The first thing we notice is that the Bible was not all 
 delivered to the Hebrews at one time, but little by little, 
 during a period of from one to two thousand years. To- 
 gether with this we find that that period covered nearly the 
 whole of the nation's history, during which great changes 
 took place. In the beginning of that history they are a 
 small people, a pastoral people. After awhile they are 
 much increased in numbers, and have become an agricultural 
 people. Whereas in the first place they are subject only 
 to patriarchal authority, when they have become an agri- 
 cultural and settled people they are governed by heroes who 
 have delivered them from their enemies, and then exercise 
 judicial authority over them. These Judges, moreover, do 
 not succeed each other regularly, but arise at intervals. 
 After this they are ruled by kings. Then the kingdom 
 is divided, and each part has its own king. Then they are 
 carried away captive to a foreign land. After their return 
 from captivity they pass through a long series of vicissitudes, 
 as recorded, more or less correctly, in the Apocrypha. 
 Finally, they are made tributary to the Romans and 
 governed by a Procurator. 
 
 I wish I could portray for my own and the reader's 
 benefit the mind of an average Hebrew at each stage above 
 noticed in the nation's history. Then we should see at a 
 glance what difi'erences there needed to be in the Books of 
 the Bible, as successively delivered to them, if these 
 writings were to be eff'ectual in reaching their intellects and 
 their hearts. What great changes there must have been in 
 their modes of life, in their customs, in their intellectual 
 capacity; and hence in their forms of t ought and the 
 language which accorded thereto. If, moreover, it was 
 
 p 2 
 
68 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 necessary that each portion of Scripture should meet the 
 needs of its recipients, it is evident that no class of 
 literature could do this so effectually as the class to which 
 they were accustomed. We must remember, however, not 
 only that there were no printed books in existence in the 
 earlier part of their histor}^, but also that there were then 
 very few manuscripts ; so that in those days reading must 
 have been confined to the few learned. At that time ex- 
 treme simplicity of thought must inevitably have prevailed 
 amongst the people. 
 
 In the next place we see that no agent would be so 
 suitable for the writing of the Scriptures, in the language 
 of the people, so as to meet their needs, as one chosen from 
 amongst themselves. This, accordingly, we find to have 
 been the course adopted by God for the production of the 
 Bible. 
 
 It will appear, however, from the above facts, that each 
 book of the Bible should exactly portray the mind of the 
 people, or of the better educated among them, at the time 
 it was written. But this is not altogether the case, as we 
 shall see. 
 
 Here then we are introduced to a third factor in the 
 delivery of God's Word to man. Hitherto (with one or 
 two unavoidable exceptions) the subject has been treated 
 as if the Bible had been penned by God's own hand. Now 
 toe have to note the action of an intermediate agent — the 
 human u'fiter. 
 
 This agent is of great importance to the present inquiry 
 respecting the unscientific character of the language of the 
 opening chapters of the Bible. To a later page must be 
 deferred the investigation of the question what Scriptural 
 grounds there are for predicating miraculous inspiration of 
 the writers of Scripture. Here let us notice what we should 
 expect to find, if God was educating a nation in tho 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 6g 
 
 knowledge of Himself, and at the same time producing 
 His written word. 
 
 We have seen that each original writer is one of the 
 people for whose benefit he w^rote. Like everyone else he 
 is a creature of his time. His manner of life, his customs, 
 his knowledge^ both of natural and of spiritual things, his 
 modes of thought^ his language, are all those of his fellow- 
 countrymen ; with only this diiSerence, that one of the more 
 advanced, not one of the common people, would be chosen 
 by God for the work. If, as we before concluded, the 
 excellence of Scripture must essentially consist in its adapta- 
 tion to man's mental state, then the features just noticed 
 would form the highest qualification the writer could have, 
 of course combined with a knowledge of the spiritual truth 
 which he had to communicate. And in most cases no one 
 would possess and teach this spiritual truth so well as he 
 who had learnt it thoroughly for himself ; whilst he would 
 learn it most thoroughly who did so experimentally, i.e. 
 by a grafting of it upon, and in part development out of, 
 .. previously-possessed knowledge in a natural Avay. 
 
 In the ordinary course of things, all knowledge, whether 
 natural or spiritual, is acquired by a slight advance upon 
 previously-possessed knowledge, on which it is grafted, out 
 of which it partly grows, without which it has no basis, no 
 means of its being apprehended. Therefore, in the case of 
 such a writer, not only would scientific knowledge beyond 
 that of his time be a psychological impossibility, but the 
 greatest hindrance would be caused to his readers in their 
 apprehension of the spiritual truth expressed in his writings, 
 if he mixed up science with his proper subject. No mill- 
 Avright in making a pair of cog-wheels wdiich are to work 
 together would think of putting one or two of the cogs ten 
 times larger than, or differently shaped from, the others ; 
 for he knows this would smash both of them to pieces. Yet 
 
^o Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 it is very commonly supposed that a parallel course must 
 have been taken in the composition of the Bible ! 
 
 But we have also to note that the delivery of spiritual 
 ti-uth to the Hebrews was very gradual. The Law, the 
 Psalms, the Prophets, the Gospels, the Epistles, illustrate 
 this. Moreover, as we shall see more fully in the next 
 chapter, combined with this gradual delivery of those 
 truths to the nation, there was a gradual evolution of 
 spiritual knowledge m the nation. Each increase of spirit- 
 ual knowledge in the people naturally produced a man fit 
 to receive from God spiritual truth in advance of that 
 which his contemporaries had^ and then fit to communicate 
 such further truth to the people. Thus the delivery of 
 Scripture to the Hehreics proceeded imri passu with their 
 advance in the hiowledge of God. 
 
 This progressive character of revelation, Avhich is in 
 accord with the principle of evolution, is not altogether new 
 to theologians. It seems to have received increased atten- 
 tion lately, being parallel to the attention which students of 
 science are on all sides directing to evolution. Thus Dr. 
 Stoughton writes in his Introduction to The Progress of 
 Divine Eevelation, pages 3 to 5 : — 
 
 " Revelation may be conceived of as communicated at 
 once, or nearly so, in systematic and complete form ; but 
 such has not been the method actually adopted. * God, 
 who at sundry times, and in divers manners,' hit by hit, 
 ' spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath 
 in these last days spoken unto us by His Son.' The record 
 of the Divine communication extends over the space of far 
 more than 4000 years. The last revelation is nearly 2000 
 years old. The first is much more than twice that age. 
 Between, there comes advance now rapid, now slow, now a 
 mighty leap, now a gentle step, now a wide rent in the 
 clouds, and an opeuing into the Heaven of Heavens ; now 
 the breaking out of a new star, perhaps, in the midst of a 
 
The Writers of Scripture, f:tc. 71 
 
 long-watched constellation. The history of this pro- 
 
 gress, as a characteristic fact, is over and over again recog- 
 nized and illustrated in the Book itself. 'The law was 
 given by Moses^ but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.' 
 ... ' These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs 
 (or parables) : but the time cometh, when I shall no more 
 speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly 
 of the Father.' . . . Nor can there be any question as to 
 the wisdom of such an arrangement. If revelation could 
 have been conveyed at once, it could not have been appre- 
 hended at once. Much time was requisite to learn the 
 momentous lessons ; and, partly at least on that account, 
 much time was taken up in sending them. In all God's 
 works adaptation is seen. Especially is it manifest in this 
 instance. The method of Paul was the method of every 
 Divine teacher. ' I have fed you Avith milk, and not with 
 meat : for hitherto ye were not aUe to bear it.' The Master 
 laid down the principle with regard to his own teaching. . 
 . . Things must sort ; and lessons must sort with the 
 capacity and previous attainments of the learner," 
 
 It is only the evolutionist who can see the full extent of 
 this progress of divine revelation, from its first small begin- 
 ning when the human mind became capable of receiving, 
 up to the fullest divine light which was bestowed on the 
 greatest Apostles, and even beyond that to full light in the 
 world to come. 
 
 It is of the utmost importance to this inquiry to under- 
 stand these circumstances under which Scripture was pro- 
 duced, little by little, and what was the first work which 
 each portion of it had to do. How each portion must not 
 only meet the needs of the people as they were, but must also 
 do its work amongst them so effectually as to produce a writer 
 qualified to produce the next portion. This progress of the 
 people in knowledge and true religion was therefore of quite 
 as much imjjortaiice as the writing of the Bible, and was 
 indispensahle to the progress of that tvorJc, For this reason it 
 
72 EV'OLUTION AND SCRIPTURE. 
 
 will ba well for us to trace out the evolution of the know- 
 ledge of God. 
 
 But first let us briefly observe what this necessary adapta- 
 tion naturally involves. If our Bible is a verbatim copy of 
 the original writings which were current amongst the 
 Hebrews, we should expect much defective knowledge to be 
 manifested in its earlier parts, not only scientific but also 
 religious. We should also expect the divine truths con- 
 tained in those earlier parts to be couched in literature of a 
 crude description. We know, however, that although 
 
 not written specially for ourselves or any other class except 
 its original recipients, the Bible was intended for the use of 
 all classes. How has this diflaculty been met ? 
 
 How should we expect it to have been met ? By mira- 
 culous inspiration of the writer ? It is well to see what 
 that means, and how far it would have been effective. 
 
 Let us take a somewhat parallel case. Here are a class of 
 children, the youngest of whom knows that two and two 
 make four, an average child can add up a column of pounds, 
 shillings,, and pence. The most advanced child is set to 
 teach the others by the master, who is well acquainted 
 with the formula : — 
 
 i;r = 4tan— H— tan-'^l^ 
 
 and whose name is associated with the work of the said 
 pupil teacher. For this reason the examples which the 
 pupil teacher gives the class to do are expected by some 
 to exhibit a knowledge equal to that of the master, and he 
 must therefore incorporate this formula with them. Is 
 the pupil teacher to be suddenly endowed (1) with a full 
 knowledge of arithmetic, (2) with a full knowledge of 
 algebra, (3) with a full knowledge of plane trigonometry 1 
 or is he to be made to understand the above formula with- 
 out first having cm^ such basis laid for his knowledge of 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 73 
 
 it ? In either case one would pity his pupils. Long 
 
 indeed will it be before they know trigonometry, or even 
 make further progress in arithmetic. 
 
 Yet a miracle as great, or greater, would have been 
 necessary te enable a heathen Hebrew of the earliest 
 times (see Josh. xxiv. 2) to write a passage of one of the 
 apostle Paul's epistles^ or even to write a small portion of 
 Gen. ii. in language consistent with the facts of Evolution. 
 When this knowledge had been given to the writer, it 
 would have been necessary to create language for its 
 expression — a small matter perhaps. Then we have to 
 
 consider how this unexceptionable phraseology Avould re- 
 appear in subsequent editions of the Book. Under such 
 circumstances the inspired writer could not have communi- 
 cated such knowledge to his successor unless he also were 
 miraculously inspired, and so throughout. The written 
 characters might, however, be perpetuated ; but they would 
 have no meaning after their writer's decease. On either 
 supposition the miracle would have had to be repeated for 
 the enlightenment of our translators of 1611 and all others, 
 if it was a passage containing advanced scientific truth. 
 Perhaps, however, the case would have been better met by 
 miraculously inspiring the whole Hebrew nation, instead of 
 giving them some 1500 years of progressive education in 
 spiritual truth ; whereas the world has taken three or four 
 thousand years to learn its science. But if such things 
 were, there would be little need for any Bible at all. 
 
 It does not concern us here to inquire whether God could 
 do such things as these or not. Let it be understood the 
 position is put thus in order to show what the miracle- 
 
 ^ Even in this day Evolation is by many supposed to imply that 
 man is (essentially) a developed monkey. What effect then would 
 its principles have had upon simple people whom it was desired 
 to teach that God was their Creator ! 
 
74 Evolution and ScRirruRE. 
 
 theory leads to ^hen it is examined. It is a harmless 
 theory to believe in ; but it is the greatest mistake to pre- 
 sent it for the acceptance of those who see very plainly 
 that the miracle-course was not adopted, whilst they do not 
 see why it was not adopted. Such theories are like the 
 
 views formerly held respecting the nature of geological 
 processes ; whereas the true history of revelation is like 
 that of the earth, as first clearly read to us by Lyell — a 
 history, not of cataclysms, sudden interpolations, and 
 revolutions, but of uniform progress and continuous develop- 
 ment. 
 
 Let us now ask, What natural course would have met the 
 case 1 It occurs to us that, as spiritual knowledge pro- 
 gressed among the Hebrews, the original writings might 
 have been superseded or revised through the agency of 
 later writers. We must not forget, however, that it was 
 necessary some writings should occupy continuously the 
 position of being sacred in the people's eyes. Sudden 
 change would not do at all, and therefore sudden super- 
 seding of older writings by others would not meet the case. 
 People would not exchange the old writings for the new in 
 that way. It appears then that transformations or revisions 
 of the original writings, retaining the essential part of their 
 substance and leaving the remainder to perish, would be the 
 best course to meet all the necessities of the case. 
 
 Be this judgment right or wrong, there is much evidence 
 that some such course was taken in the production of some 
 parts of the Bible. We read here and there in the Old 
 Testament of certain ' books ' which do not appear in the 
 Bible. In Josh. x. 13 and 2 Sam i. 18, we find a reference 
 to the ' Book of Jasher,' as the source from which the 
 writer has taken certain facts. In 1 Chron. xxix. 29, there 
 is a reference to the ' Book of Nathan, the prophet/ and 
 the ' Book of Gad, the seer.' Also in Num. xxi. 14, there 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 75 
 
 seems to be a reference to a ' Book of the wars of Jehovah ' 
 once existing. 
 
 It seems very likely then that in the early times, when 
 morality and spiritual knowledge were very defective, the 
 course adopted by God in the production of Scripture con- 
 sisted in the selection of the essential parts of older writings, 
 and in revisions of older writings by the agency of 
 Avriters of more enlightened times ; and that this latter 
 process was carried as far as it could be without destroying 
 their structure altogether ; whilst those manifestations of 
 the writer's imperfect knowledge which remained after this 
 process, were nullified by the truths of later Scriptures. 
 
 The subjection of the Old Testament to such an analysis 
 as it has received from German and other writers, is not a 
 study calculated to reveal what God has to say by it. At 
 the same time it is neither possible nor needful to resist 
 some of the conclusions of those writers. For instance, 
 analysis of the language of the Pentateuch must produce 
 some true evidence as to the period of its composition in its 
 present form, and also as to authorship. It is quite impos- 
 sible to maintain the theory that it was all written by 
 Moses,^ as was formerly supposed. I see no need to 
 
 ^ Upon this question Bishop Colenso writes {Colenso on the 
 Pentateuch, p. 94) : — " The books of the Pentateuch are never 
 ascribed to Moses in the inscriptions of Hebrew manuscripts, or 
 in printed copies of the Hebrew Bible. Nor are they even styled 
 the ' Books of Moses' in the Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate, 
 but only in our modern translations, after the example of many 
 eminent Fathers of the Church, who, with the exception of Jerome, 
 and, perhaps, Origen, were, one and all of them, very little 
 acquainted with the Hebrew language, and still less with its 
 criticism. But, in fact, these very titles, 'Books of Moses,' 
 * Book of Joshua,' may mean only ' Books about Moses and Joshua,' 
 and do not at all imply that the books in question were supposed 
 to have been written by Moses and Joshua, We might as well 
 infer from their titles that the ' Book of Judges' was written by 
 the Judges, and the ' Book of Ruth ' by Ruth." If all the Bishop's 
 remarks were as moderate as the above, his work would not be so 
 objectionable. 
 
^6 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 reject this conclusion. For if it shows that parts of the 
 Pentateuch were written in their present form at a time 
 when the people had made more spiritual progress, it accords 
 with the above conclusion as to what would have been the 
 best course for the production of those early Scriptures, as 
 far as we can see/ 
 
 Doubtless this is one reason why we find in the earliest 
 portions of the Bible traces of defective spiritual as well as 
 scientific knowledge on the writer's part, whilst nothing 
 remains that could lead a reader into error. 
 
 I now wish to draw the reader's special attention to the 
 means used for the education of man in divine truth before 
 the one which we call revelation. He will perhaps hesitate 
 to accept the fact, especially if he does not believe in evolu- 
 tion ; but it was a means which in the light of evolution 
 we see to have been necessary, simple, and effectual. It 
 accounts for important facts which have come to light in 
 connexion with the Scripture accounts of the Creation, the 
 Fall, and the Deluge ; and even for the non-Mosaic author- 
 ship of parts of the Books of the Law. Its full significance 
 will be seen as the later portions of this work are perused. 
 Here I can do no more than present it briefly. 
 
 Prior to revelation there was the overruling of men^s 
 thoughts and beliefs, the fostering of their ideas, the guiding of 
 their tradltmis, the leading of these in the direction of truth. 
 
 In predicating revelation we implicitly assert an unseen 
 connexion between God and the man who receives that 
 revelation. In the preceding part of this chapter we have 
 noticed an inner and an outer contact between God and 
 men, the outer one being the knowledge of general truths 
 about God, which must exist before the closer communion 
 is possible. Here in like manner we find a closer contact in 
 
 ' A fuller treatment of this question is given in the next 
 chapter. 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. j-j 
 
 the case of revelation, and a fainter one, but still a real one, 
 in this influencing of the unenlightened mind. The latter, 
 too, had different degrees ; for it began in the most distant 
 ages, long before historical times, in causing men's thoughts 
 to go vaguely in the direction in which the truth lay, it 
 proceeded in leading, or drawing, the mind closer and 
 closer to the truth, until finally it merged into revela- 
 tion itself. In thus preparing the mind for truth and 
 leading up to it, we see that it prepared the way, too, for 
 the writing of the Bible : further on we shall see that it 
 had a still closer connexion with the writing of the Bible 
 as regards its earliest part. 
 
 Very evidently there could not be revelation of any truth 
 before some ideas of a similar kind had been developed in 
 the human mind. Some such previous education was 
 indispensable ; and can we think of any other method 
 which would have been so simple, so effectual, so natural 
 that God should adopt, as this guiding of human thoughts 
 and beliefs % What so natural as that He who had built up 
 the mind of man should guide and foster the growth of his 
 ideas and beliefs towards that truth which He was waiting 
 to reveal % We might almost ask what other course was 
 possible ? 
 
 Moreover, we should consider here the ways of God, and 
 both Scripture and Christian experience surely reveal that, 
 in carrying out His purposes, He does not go out of the 
 way and create special means, but He takes up that which is 
 at hand, and works upon it, till what was needed has been 
 produced. And such was the course adopted here, in this 
 education of the human mind for the revelation that was to 
 follow. 
 
 We have also to notice here another guiding of the mind, 
 also unknown to the man himself, which had much to do 
 with the production of the eaily Scriptures, It was the 
 
yS Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 divine substitute for that miraculous inspiration which has 
 been wrongly predicated, and which, we have seen, would 
 not have been at all effective. !N'ot only was the public 
 mind thus led near the truth, but the words used by the 
 early writer of Scripture, and his compositions altogether, 
 were in many cases so overruled and arranged, as to present 
 for the benefit of later readers truths unknown to, and 
 beyond, his comprehension. 
 
 One is amazed to find what quality of w^ork was done in 
 the beginning of the Bible with instruments so poor as 
 these early writers, and how the Divine Mind did what the 
 poor human mind could not then do. 
 
 We find the writings of one, and sometimes of two or 
 more, of these writers, so overruled and woven together (in 
 ways obviously nnknown to themselves) as to present 
 pictures and other combinations exhibiting truths of many 
 orders. We even find scientific truths thus hidden where 
 they could not be clearly expressed. We find sometimes 
 an arrangement of words such that the simple reader of 
 early times reading them in the light of his own beliefs, 
 and the enlightened reader of later ages reading them in the 
 light of his knowledge, both gather the divine meaning, 
 which is the one important tiling. We find the very sim- 
 plicity of the writer and of his writings so made use of that 
 these convey, in some form or other, truths which one 
 would find it difficult to express in the fuller light and rich 
 language of to-day. If we want testimony to divine author- 
 ship and divine wisdom in these early Scriptures, both are 
 there in abundance. We shall have occasion to notice 
 many such instances. 
 
 The reader will see how such facts as these harmonize 
 with the conclusion at which we arrived in the previous 
 chapter — that the Bible is not, and cannot bo_, the Word 
 itself, which is a portion of the Mind of God, but that it is 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 79 
 
 God's Book designed to reveal that Mind to man. Thus it 
 is not always by the literal meaning, but sometimes by 
 indirect ways such as those just referred to, that the 
 Mind of God reaches the mind of man. We need not 
 therefore shut our eyes to the defective knowledge of the 
 human writer where it appears in these early Scriptures. It 
 is conspicuous in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which 
 treat of events preceding Hebrew history, but it also appears 
 sometimes in later writings, as we shall notice in tracing 
 out the evolution of the knowledge of God. It may be 
 well to notice one or two instances here. 
 
 The author of Psalm cxxxix. says (verses 21, 22) "Do 
 not I hate them, Jehovah, that hate thee? ... I hate 
 them with perfect hatred." A New Testament writer, 
 having learnt the grace of God, would never use such 
 language as this. But the Psalmist who lived in an age 
 in which that grace had not yet been fully revealed, uses 
 language more in accordance with the just principles of the 
 Law which he had learnt. 
 
 Similarly, when the author of the 95th Psalm would 
 extol Jehovah in the fulness of his heart, he says (verse 3) 
 "Jehovah is a great God, and a great king above all gods." 
 jSTo one would use such language as this in the present day 
 or in iSTew Testament times. In the next chapter we 
 shall have to trace out the leading of Hebrew belief from 
 Polytheism to the true Monotheism. Here we see that the 
 Psalmist has not been quite freed from polytheistic notions. 
 To his mind such beings as other gods are still in existence, 
 far inferior in power to Jehovah. The very excellence of 
 Jehovah's power seems to him to consist in His exalted 
 position as higher than those that are high. 
 
 One of the narratives of which we shall have to take 
 account in its place, as being irreconcilable with facts of 
 science, is that of the Tower of Babel in Gen. xi. Here we 
 
8o Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 have only to notice the writer's anthropomorphic conception 
 of Jehovah. The conception of an omnipresent spiritual 
 God was not taught to the Hebrews in a generation, and 
 it does not appear to have been in existence in this writer's 
 time. Therefore (Gen. xi. 5 — 9) he represents Jehovah as 
 coming down to see the city and the tower, as a man would 
 do. Shall we look down upon this imperfect conception of 
 God % Is it not more natural to regard the passage as a 
 treasured record of the lirstfruits of God's work in man ? 
 When as yet the full conception of God was not in exist- 
 ence, was not this incomplete conception precious in His 
 sio-ht, being the work of His own hands 1 We cannot now 
 stay to discuss the divine meaning of this passage ; but let 
 us pass on to see that meaning in another passage which 
 has been brought forward as evidence against the divine 
 origin of Scripture. 
 
 I refer to the thirty-first chapter of Numbers. After the 
 reader has perused the chapter, specially noticing verses 17, 
 18, and 35, will he turn also to Matt. xix. 8, where Christ 
 says to the Pharisees, " Moses for your hardness of heart 
 suffered you to put away your wives," and verse 9, where 
 He adds, " Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for 
 fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." 
 We know that, not only in the time of the Patriarchs, but 
 as late as that of David and Solomon, polygamy and con- 
 cubinage were largely practised. Notwithstanding, David 
 is called the man after God's heart, and Solomon the wise 
 man. Here we have ignorance of the principles of morality 
 manifested in several cases, and we have Christ's authority 
 for the fact that certain parts of the Law were adjusted to 
 the times. 
 
 Bishop Colenso takes it as a fair estimate (from verse 
 35) that there would have been 68,000 women and children 
 slain ' in cold blood ' ; and he asks, How could such an act 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 8i 
 
 and the adultery of verse 18 have been committed at the 
 command of God ? adding that the narrative itself is un- 
 historical. One might argue that the former act was just, 
 perhaps ; hut after what has been said, the matter appears 
 in a different light. We must recognize the customs and 
 notions of the times as to morality and the treatment of 
 conquered enemies, which were more or less those of the 
 lawgiver or writer of the passage. We must recognize the 
 custom of the times to associate Jehovah's name with the 
 acts of those in power, which is manifest from the similar 
 practice of their Moabite neighbours, as revealed by the 
 Moabite inscription referred to on page 56. However 
 honoured the position of Moses, these facts have some bear- 
 ing on the character of the passage. 
 
 But now let us see the other side. We notice that the 
 passage occurs in one of the Books of the Law, whose prin- 
 ciple is stern justice without mercy. The object of this 
 Scripture is, therefore, not to give a historical account ; nor 
 is it in this part of the Law to inculcate morality, that being 
 done in other parts. Here it is a question of equity, *' an 
 eye for an eye." Accordingly we have in verse 2 
 '^ Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites," and in 
 chapter xxv. 17, 18, "Vex the Midianites and smite 
 them, for they vex you. . . ." More particularly do 
 we notice this feature in respect to verses 17, 18. In the 
 previous verse (16) we have " tltese {women) caused the chil- 
 dren of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit 
 tresjmss against Jehovah in the matter of Fem\ and so the 
 plague was among the congregation of Jehovah.''^ Then 
 follow verses 17, 18 : " Now therefore kill every male among 
 the little ones, and kill every woman," etc. Here is the 
 very essence of the legal principle throughout. It is "an 
 eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, vexation for vexation, 
 death for death, adultery for adultery ^ It exhibits human 
 
82 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ignorance of the principles of morality, divine wisdom in 
 overruling it to express in this Scripture the character of 
 Law. If to the enlightened mind it seems to inculcate or 
 permit immorality, that is the inevitable concomitant of 
 the cumbersome language corresponding to the morality and 
 notions of that age. 
 
 In such touches as these we trace the hand of God in 
 these ancient Scriptures. These remain for instruction and 
 admiration to-day, whilst we should never forget that their 
 chief work was done long ago amongst the people who first 
 received them^ and to whom they were far better adjusted 
 than they are to us. But for their first work where would 
 now be found the enlightened minds of to-day which pass 
 judgment on them 1 Not in existence^ for it was only after 
 that first work had been done that fuller light could be 
 given, and thus upon that first work the whole was based. 
 Rejecting them in that way is like pulling out the founda- 
 tions upon which one stands. 
 
 When, therefore, we find defective knowledge manifested 
 in these ancient Scriptures, if there is any tendency to look 
 down upon them, it is well that we find ourselves thus con- 
 fronted with a manifestation of God's handiwork. Seeing 
 how He thus overruled such human imperfection to work 
 out His own ends, both in the first work amongst the 
 Hebrews and in the construction of the Bible for the use of 
 all ages, we shall be less likely to forget that it is not a 
 work of man's that we are handling, but the work of God, 
 worthy of all reverence. 
 
 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS OF THE CHAPTER. 
 
 Tlie law of a gradual natural course of things holds in 
 ■what we call Nature and in the spiritual work in men's 
 hearts — two departments which fill the Avhole 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. S^ 
 
 sible to observation. It is obvious that such a course, 
 being more thorough, is the best; and the only reason 
 for using miracle would be that of special necessity, 
 or as a special proof of God's action. This accordingly 
 we find to have been the course of Scripture history. 
 In the spiritual work among the Hebrews (connected 
 with the writing of Scripture) the special need was a 
 natural and thorough work. Miracle would have done 
 harm. 
 
 When two things have to work together, they must fit 
 into each other in their working parts, a state of things 
 which can only be produced by evolution. Therefore a 
 complete Bible could not be delivered to man all at once. 
 It must be done by a gradual process of adaptation, both 
 Scripture and man's mind being moulded by each other, 
 little by little. They must grow up together. So also with 
 the Mind of God and the mind of man. 
 
 But two things cannot grow up together in mutual adjust- 
 ment without being first placed in contact. Therefore man 
 is brought sufficiently near to God for such contact to be 
 established — he attains to a knowledge of general truths 
 about God, such as are possessed by civilized nations. 
 This forms a channel along which deeper Divine knowledge 
 can flow, and in the Christian's case this does flow, and thus 
 his mind grows together with God's Mind in a closer way. 
 
 But this general knowledge about God cannot be given 
 without a previous basis to build it on ; there must be some 
 pre-existing ideas of the Deity. These were produced, 
 partly at least, by means of the effects produced on primitive 
 men by physical phenomena, which were so overruled by 
 God as to form the conception of gods. God wrought this 
 basis in all peoples on the earth, taught full knowledge of 
 Himself by its means to the Hebrews, and then sent them 
 to teach the already-prepared heathens. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Scripture was delivered little by little to the Hebrews ; and, 
 as they passed through great social changes and gradually 
 progressed in knowledge^ its literature differs much. It was 
 necessary that the writers of Scripture should be like the 
 people, and should write in the literature of the day, in 
 order to reach the popular mind. Each increase of Divine 
 knowledge in the people produced a writer fit to receive 
 further revelation from God ; and his writings in their turn 
 furthered the growth of Truth in the people. This growth 
 of the people in Divine knowledge was quite as important as 
 the writing of the Bible ; neither could proceed without 
 the other. 
 
 We might therefore expect much ethically defective lan- 
 guage in the early parts of the Bible ; but as it was in- 
 tended for the use of enlightened people afterwards, every 
 serious defect of language has been removed, and the minor 
 ones which remain are cancelled by later Scriptures, written 
 in fuller light. Miraculous Inspiration of writers would 
 not have been effective ; not only would the greatest of 
 miracles have been required for this, but it would have im- 
 peded, instead of furthering, the growth of Truth. 
 
 After dim ideas of the Deity had been formed in man 
 in the manner before noticed, the theological beliefs of early 
 peojDles were gradually led nearer and nearer to the Truth. 
 This was continued in the early history of the Hebrews, 
 until amongst them its place was taken by revelation itself, 
 for which it had prepared the way. This was a most im- 
 portant part of the education of man in Divine truth. It 
 had an important connexion with the writing of the earliest 
 Scriptures, as will be seen further on. 
 
 When man was so poor an instrument, in those days, 
 for the writing of the Bible, God adopted many other means 
 in conjunction with the writer's own knowledge, such as the 
 controlling of his language in ways unknown to him. 
 
The Writers of Scripture, etc. 85 
 
 These conclusions agree with those of Chapter II. — that 
 the Bible is not, and cannot be^ the Word of God itself 3 
 but is God's Book, designed to reveal His Mind to man, 
 and containing many classes of literature for that purpose. 
 
 The defective knowledge of the writers of Scripture may 
 therefore be freely admitted. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SEVEEAL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 
 KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 
 
 It has already been stated that it is very important to have 
 some knowledge of the circumstances under which the 
 successive portions of the Bible were produced, so as to 
 understand, in some measure, what their first work in the 
 hearts of men was, and how its language was necessarily 
 adapted to different people and times. It will therefore be 
 well to give here an outline of the development of the 
 knowledge of God. It is indeed almost entirely with the 
 earlier part of that development that this work has to do. 
 But the whole subject has a most important bearing upon 
 an attack that is made on the doctrines of the New 
 Testament, as will appear towards the end of this chapter. 
 For this additional reason let us proceed with our 
 investigation. 
 
 It is natural to us all to look for the deepest and most 
 advanced spiritual truths in the words of the Son of God — 
 those which He Himself uttered when on the earth. It is 
 soon found, however, that this is a mistake, for many of the 
 deepest and most advanced truths are to be found in the 
 Epistles. The reason is not far to seek. It lies in the 
 fact that when Christ was on the earth the minds of those 
 about Him were not prepared to receive such truths. After 
 His ascension and the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles 
 were fitted to receive from God the revelation of those 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. ^y 
 
 truths, and the early Christians were fitted to learn them 
 from the Apostles. It may indeed be said that such truths 
 were not uttered by the Lord to those about Him because 
 they concern only such as have the Holy Spirit, which 
 those about Him had not at that time. But this is only 
 repeating in another form the reason just given. 
 
 I have noticed before that the sequence of the Scriptures 
 — Law, Psalms, Prophets, Gospels, Epistles — illustrates the 
 gradual delivery of spiritual truth to the Hebrews. We 
 may be quite certain that any other order of delivery, 
 whether possible or not, would not have been effective. 
 Abolish slavery at one stroke without substituting a tem- 
 porary paternal control over the liberated slaves, and grave 
 ills will ensue in lieu of the greater ill of slavery itself. 
 The liberated slaves need to be controlled and taught how 
 to use their liberty, before they are fit to enjoy it. Show 
 grace to an uncivilized man, and he will probably take you 
 for a coward. In like manner, the Hebrews required a 
 long drilling in the principle of the stern justice of the 
 Law, before they were fit to hear the good tidings of Mercy 
 and Grace. 
 
 The lie which Rahab tells (Josh. ii. 5, 6) in order to 
 carry through her act of faith appears to be told in perfect 
 unconsciousness of its being wrong. Jael's treachery to 
 Sisera (Judges iv.) wears a like appearance; whilst the 
 rejoicing of Deborah and Barak over the fallen foe 
 (Judges V. 24 — 30) is of a character consistent with crude 
 times. Other cases might be cited which show the moral 
 darkness of the Hebrews at that early age, but the fact is 
 sufficiently well known. The reader may find information 
 on the subject in Canon Mozley's Lectures on the Old 
 Testament, Dr. Stoughton's Progress of Divine Revelation, 
 and other works. ^ 
 
 1 The last-named work contains the following: — "After the 
 
S8 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 In such times God could only reveal Himself to the 
 hard heart and darkened intellect of the early IsraeHte as 
 " a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon 
 the children, upon the third and upon the fourth genera- 
 tion of them that hate me ; and showing mercy unto 
 thousands of them that love me and keep my command- 
 ments " (Ex. XX. 5, 6). 
 
 At a later date the Prophet learns that if the sinner 
 have a son who does righteously^, the latter '^ shall not die 
 for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live " 
 (Ezek. xviii. U— 18). 
 
 And further than this, " when the wicked man turneth 
 away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and 
 doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul 
 alive" (Ezek. xviii. 27,28). Deut. xxiv. 16, which con- 
 tains language somewhat similar to Ezek. xviii. 14—18, 
 seems, from the context, to be a command given for the 
 Israelites to observe amongst themselves. Canon Mozley, 
 after affirming a double aspect of the law of the second 
 commandment, remarks upon Ex. xx. 5 : — 
 
 " Ezekiel understood the second commandment in a sense 
 different from the judicial punishments of one man for the 
 sins of another. . . . The interpretation of an earlier age 
 doubtless did not distinguish the didactic and judicial senses 
 of the law of the Second Commandment. . . , Dim and con- 
 fused in the first ages, the notion of desert — partly resting on 
 the individual, partly clogged with the irrelevant associations 
 of blood relationships and neighbourhood — struck an uncer- 
 
 settleraent in Canaan, decline rather than progress was visible. 
 The story of the people for many years was very sad. The heroes 
 Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson, though men of faith, though God's 
 power moved them to great exploits for the deliverance of their 
 oppressed brethren, present a low type of moral and religious 
 life. . . . Deborah's song, under the influence of Israelitish en- 
 thusiasm, can never be regarded as giving any Divine sanc- 
 tion to the act perpetrated by the wife of Heber the Kenite " 
 (p. 122). 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 89 
 
 tain ambiguous note in man's conscience. But as the law of 
 Sinai worked in men's minds, it gradiially developed the deeper 
 parts of his moral nature. . . . We recite this commandment 
 in our churches now, but we take it in a sense which satisfies 
 the terms of it, viz., the physical consequences." . . ." 
 
 If for natural descent we substitute spiritual descent (as 
 in John viii. 37 — 44) the judicial aspect seems to embody 
 an important principle. 
 
 The order of delivery of the books of the Bible thus 
 accords with the Hebrews' progress in religion, as already 
 stated. For the man whose heart was most fully moulded 
 to the justice of the law, and enlightened by its teaching, 
 was the fittest person to learn from God a little of His 
 merciful character — fit therefore to write Psalms. So, the 
 Hebrew who had read the Psalms, and had his heart 
 softened more, was a fit subject to learn more from God 
 and to write Prophecy. 
 
 It appears from the Apocrypha, too, that before the 
 coming of Christ, the teaching of the Psalms and Prophets 
 had so far taken effect upon the people, that the writer of 
 the Book of Ecclesiasticus says (chapter 28, verse 2) 
 " Forgive the neighbour the hurt that he hath done unto 
 thee, so shall thy sins also be forgiven when thou prayest." 
 Had there not been such progress in the moral condition of 
 the people, the fields would not have been ' white already 
 to harvest ' when Christ came. After He had M^ due time 
 died for the ungodly, the Holy Spirit was given to the be- 
 liever, and the wonderful spiritual blessings of which we 
 read in the Epistles were revealed to, and conferred upon, 
 him in Christ. 
 
 This is a very brief outline of the last phase of the 
 progress of the Hebrev>'s in Divine knowledge. Some 
 other details will, however, be brought out afterwards. 
 
 - Lectures on the Old Testament, pp. 120, 121. 
 
90 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Let us now pass on to another phase, which preceded it, 
 generally, though the two were not mutually exclusive. 
 
 Not only does it follow from the principles of Evolution 
 that all knowledge of God must have been developed from 
 small beginnings, and that originally all peoples must have 
 been in darkness ; but the Bible itself also testifies that the 
 earliest Hebrews were idolaters or polytheists. At that 
 time they had no more notion of God than other early 
 nations had. All were alike in darkness. 
 
 We read in Josh. xxiv. 2, " Thus saith Jahveh (or 
 Jehovah, as often spelt) the God of Israel, Your fathers 
 dwelt of old time beyond the River, even Terah, the father 
 of Abraham, and the father of Nahor : and they served other 
 gods" We also read that they served other gods in Egypt. 
 " Put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the 
 River, and in Egypt ; and serve ye Jehovah " (Josh. xxiv. 
 14). So in Exod. iii. 13 we read that Moses, when about 
 to go and declare to the Israelites '^The God of your 
 fathers hath sent me unto you," anticipates being answered 
 with the extraordinary question, '^ TFJiat is his 7iame ? '' 
 plainly showing that the common ideas of gods, such 
 as other nations had, were all they knew about the 
 DiAdnity. 
 
 So we read of Rachel stealing her father's teraphim, or 
 gods (Gen. xxxi. 19, 30) ; and it appears from 1 Sam. xix. 
 13-19 that such teraphim were kept in the house in the 
 time of Saul. 
 
 Not only do we find the Israelites in the desert wor- 
 shipping other gods, but all through the Book of Judges, 
 and even throughout the two Books of Kings, we again and 
 again read of their turning to other gods and serving them. 
 Even the wise Solomon is not sufiiciently superior to 
 heathen beliefs to resist the influence of his wives: he, 
 too, falls into idolatry (1 Kings xi. 4). The language of 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 91 
 
 2 Kings xviii. 4, " he brake in pieces the brazen serpent that 
 Moses had made ; for unto those days the children of Israel 
 did burn incense to it " seems to imply such a practice 
 from time immemorial. 
 
 Not until after the Captivity do we find the belief in 
 other gods thoroughly weeded out of the naticm. A ]3eriod 
 of more than 1000 years was required to do this icorh. By 
 that time, it appears, their original belief in other gods was 
 thoroughly rooted out. From that time forivard they 
 served the true God.^' 
 
 There is nothing which^ to my mind, shows the original 
 darkness of the Hebrews more than the story of Jephthah. 
 In Judges xi. 29, 32, he appears as one whom Jehovah 
 chose to deliver Israel from the Ammonites, and afterwards 
 he becomes their judge (Judg. xii. 7). Let us see what 
 is the extent of his knowledge of God. From verses 
 
 23, 24, it is manifest that Jehovah is to him nothing more 
 than one of the gods of the other nations. He says to the 
 king of Ammon " Jahveh (or Jehovah, as oftener spelt) the 
 god of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his 
 people Israel, and shouldst thou possess them ? Wilt not 
 thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to 
 possess ^ so whomsoever Jahveh our god hath dispossessed 
 from before us, them will we possess." 
 
 But the sequel is far more significant. Jephthah positively 
 Relieves that Jahveh takes pleasure in human sacrifices ! 
 
 In verse 30 we read, "Jephthah vowed a vow unto 
 Jahveh, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver the 
 
 ■' Canon Farrar has remarked that ..." a pure monotheism 
 and an independence of symbols was the result of a slow and 
 painful course of God's disciplinal dealings among the noblest 
 thinkers of a single nation, and not, as is so constantly and 
 erroneously urged, the instinct of the whole Semitic race ; in 
 other words, one single branch of the Semites was, under God's 
 providence, educated into pure monotheism only by centuries of 
 misfortune and series of inspired men." 
 
92 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 children of Ammon into mine hand, then it shall be, 
 that whosoever cometh forth of the doors of my house 
 to meet me, when I return in peace from the children 
 of Ammon, it (or he) shall be Jahveh's, and I will oflfer 
 it (or him) up for a burnt offering." 
 
 Our Revised Authorized Version gives, 'whatsoever 
 cometh forth,' with ' whosoever ' in the margin as alterna- 
 tive reading, and therefore ' it ' in the latter part of the 
 verse. But ' whosoever ' is manifestly the right word ; for 
 (1) Jephthah would not expect sm animal to come forth from 
 the doors of his house to meet him ; and (2) he would not 
 have considered himself bound to offer up his daughter, 
 if he had referred to an animal in that vow. And accord- 
 ingly (verse 39) he actually offers up that daughter in 
 sacrifice to Jehovah / 
 
 He was only acting according to the notions of his time. 
 As late as Ahaz' day (2 Kings xvi. 3) the rite of offering 
 human sacrifices was practised by the surrounding nations ; 
 and Ahaz and Manasseh offered up their own sons. Such 
 then was the darkness of Israel in Jephthah's time, that he, 
 their deliverer and judge, upon whom " came the spirit of 
 Jahveh," had no better knowledge of the true God, than to 
 believe such horrible rites to be pleasing to Him. 
 
 Ahaz and Manasseh in their wickedness practise such 
 rites before other gods; Jephthah in his goodness thinks 
 Jehovah is pleased with them. If the leader and judge in 
 Israel knows no better than this, what about the rest of the 
 nation at that time ? 
 
 It was to people living in so great darkness that God 
 sent His light, and the first and greatest work of the early 
 Scriptures was to lighten the darkness and soften the 
 hearts of these Hebrews of early times. 
 
 As progress is generally rhythmic, or marked by waves 
 with alternate heights and depths, tliis dark period of 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 93 
 
 Jephthah's time may have been preceded by a somewhat 
 lighter one. Ey judging of everyone else by ourselves, we 
 have all made the natural mistake of supposing that Moses 
 and the Patriarchs must have possessed as full a knowledge 
 of divine things as was only revealed long after their time. 
 Not only so, but it is very natural to invest the individuals 
 of Scripture history with a holy character and a perfection 
 of knowledge, even in cases where there is nothing in the 
 Bible to indicate these. Thus Job has been supposed to 
 have possessed superior knowledge when he said that God 
 '^ hangeth the earth upon nothing," simply because he is a 
 Bible character. Such thoughts result from a mistaken asso- 
 ciation of ideas. We find that there is neither reason for 
 them, nor reason in them, when the case is duly examined. 
 For instance^ if 2 Samuel iii. had not plainly stated that 
 David had sons by six different wives, but had only used 
 words that might imply it, would not the person who 
 should point out the fact have been resisted in his conclusion, 
 simply because David is presented in Scripture as a good 
 man'? In like manner one may feel called upon to defend 
 the characters of Jael and Jephthah. But it is better to 
 take them as Scripture presents them ; it does more honour 
 to the work of God, and the Scriptures too, to recognize 
 frankly what these have had to do, and have done. 
 
 So with Moses. Common sense tells us that amongst 
 such a people he would have been a more efficient servant 
 of God with the imperfect knowledge of the times, but 
 little in advance thereof, than any person of more enlight- 
 ened times could have been. Imperfect knowledge of God 
 on the part of Moses seems to be manifested in Exodus 
 XV. 11^ when he sings with the Israelites "Who is like 
 unto thee, Jahveh^ among the gods 1 " and on the part of 
 Aaron, when he makes a golden calf at the people's request 
 (Ex. xxxii. 1—4). Nor must we forget tlie testimony of 
 
94 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Num. xxxi., before referred to. If there are passages from 
 which it appears, not only that the Law of Moses exhibits 
 light in advance of those early times, and not only that the 
 Lato of Moses emanated from God Himself, but also that 
 the man Moses was supposed to have had such superior 
 knowledge and direct interviews with God — we must not 
 forget that the testimony of fuller light is " No man hath 
 seen God at any time." Nor can we shut our eyes to 
 the evidence as to the date of writing of portions of the 
 Books of the Law in their present form. But do not the 
 conclusions of Chapter II. of this work throw light on the 
 matter ? Was it not above all things necessary that the 
 truths of the Law and the fact of its Divine origin should 
 be presented in such forms as the Israelite could apprehend, 
 and as would reach his heart 1 And what would have an 
 effect upon the early Hebrew, who knew nothing of a 
 spiritual God, and very little of any abstractions, but whose 
 mind was only acquainted with, and capable of conceiving 
 of, material things? Nothing so much as a picture of a 
 man receiving his laws from a material God, a God of ven- 
 geance. Of this he could think. Of a spiritual unseen 
 God, or of such a thing as the principle of the law, he 
 could think little, or not at all, in those times before such 
 conceptions were developed. In short, the tnan Moses 
 
 is of little moment ; the principles of the Law — they con- 
 stitute the Word of God. If therefore in these cases Moses 
 is the figure under which that "Word is expressed ; if the 
 historical lawgiver and leader of Israel formed the centre 
 around which were clustered some teachings of a fuller light 
 than he ever knew, in order that the Word should reach 
 the Hebrew mind — would not this accord with the wisdom 
 of God, and with all the facts that bear upon this question, 
 which has been so much discussed "? 
 
 Before dismissing, however, a (question which afiects, not 
 
DeVELOPiMENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 95 
 
 the inner content, but the letter, not the substance, but 
 the form, of so many Scripture passages^ let us consider 
 some further facts bearing on the matter. 
 
 In a Tract on The Mosaic AutJwrship and Credibility of 
 the Pentateuch^ Dean K. Payne-Smith says (pp. 4, 5) : — 
 
 '' The earlier books (of the Bible) were composed when 
 the art of writing was in its infancy, when writing materials 
 were of the simplest kind, and when but few persons could 
 either make records of events, or read them when recorded. 
 And it is a well-established law of the Holy Scriptures that 
 in their outward form they were subject to the conditions 
 of the times when they were written. . . . There is never 
 anything magical in the Bible, and the writers of its many 
 books are never lifted out of the moral and mental state of 
 things among which they lived ; nor are their intellectual 
 endowments or physical qualities changed. ... In the Old 
 Testament many of our modern difficulties arise from the 
 demand, unconsciously often made, that everything should 
 be in accordance with nineteenth century advancement. 
 But the gift of inspiration, and the watchful care of the 
 Spirit that in the historical books the subjects selected and 
 the method of treating them should be for the edification of 
 the Church, did not raise the writers above the conditions 
 of their own times." 
 
 The above statements^ considered in the light of the 
 gradual progress of Divine Eevelation, involve much. 
 
 We have the notion that whatever is legendary is of 
 purely human origin, but the sooner we dismiss that idea 
 the better. It has already been maintained in this work 
 (pp. 76, 77) that the Divine leading of human beliefs and 
 traditions has played a most important part in the develop- 
 ment of the knowledge of God, We shall see this distinctly 
 in the chapter on the Chaldean Account of Genesis. Here 
 let us accept the fact ; and when we see how (as before 
 affirmed) this process began in the most distant ages, long 
 before historical times, in simply causing men's beliefs to 
 
96 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 go vaguely in the direction in which the truth lay, then 
 gradually led the mind nearer and nearer to the truth, until 
 finally in Hebrew times, having fully prepared the mind for 
 revelation itself, it gave place to it — then there will appear 
 less need to hesitate in thus applying the principle to 
 explain the difficulties as to authorship and literal accuracy 
 of parts of the Books of the Law. We shall see that in 
 early Hebrew times some of their traditionary beliefs about 
 Moses may have been thus divinely guided, so that in them 
 the people believed things which embodied important 
 truths, or which were even close approximations to, or 
 peculiar forms of, historical facts ; "* that these traditions 
 would be so firmly believed by the people as to be naturally 
 written down side by side with other records of Moses and 
 legal ordinances^ so completing the Books of the Law in 
 their present form. Lastly, if we fully bear in mind that 
 the important thing is what GocCs thougJits are, not what 
 those of any man such as Moses were, or what he did ; we 
 shall see how the whole Law, being associated with Moses, 
 is, scripturally considered. Mosaic, in a characteristic sense. 
 It is not the man Moses, but the Mosaic dispensation, its 
 spirit and principles, with the active work of God in foster- 
 ing these among the Israelites, and the Divine care and 
 protection specially accorded to them in those times — all as 
 heing of God — that are essential. Nothing would impress 
 these upon the Israelite of old so well as the language of 
 the Books of Exodus to Deuteronomy ; nothing would so 
 well convey the idea of the reality of God's actions in 
 their midst. 
 
 All is of Divine origin, all expresses Divine truth ; but 
 that truth is necessarily expressed in a somewhat crude 
 forui in some parts. 
 
 ■* For an instance of this see pp. 100, 101; see also pp. 157, 158. 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 97 
 
 Indeed there is a profound truth in the term 'Divine 
 Myths ' used b}' an accomplished exegete in reference to 
 some of the earlier parts of Scripture. 
 
 Upon the subject of ' progressive revelation ' Canon 
 Mozley writes ^ (it need hardly be said, in defence of the 
 letter of Scripture, and without reference to the question as 
 affected by Evolution) : — 
 
 *' It was the peculiarity of the Jewish dispensation that it 
 was both present and prospective in its design ; that it 
 worked for a future end, while it provided also for the existing 
 wants of man. . . . Scripture was progressive : it went from 
 lower stagje to higher, and as it rose from one stage to another 
 it blotted out the commands of an inferior standard and sub- 
 stituted the commands of a higher standard. This was the 
 nature of the dispensation as being progressive ; it was the 
 essential operation of the Divine government as it acted in 
 that period of the world. The dispensation then, as a whole, 
 did not command the extermination of the Canaanites, but a 
 subordinate step did; and this step passed from use and sight 
 as a higher was attained. . . . God allowed, during all those 
 ages, rude men to think of Him as one of themselves, acting 
 with the rudest and dimmest idea of justice. But He con- 
 descended at the moment, to prevail and conquer in the end. 
 In entering into and accepting their confused ideas, He grap- 
 pled with them. Through what a chaos of mistakes did final 
 light arise, and the true idea of justice make its way in the 
 world ! And God tolerated the mistakes, and allowed His 
 commands to go forth in that shape, but the condescension 
 was worth the result. It is the result alone which can explain 
 those accommodations ; but the result does explain them, and 
 brings them out as successful Divine policy." 
 
 The above remarks require one addition, so that the mind 
 may not associate God's name with evil : — The intermediate, 
 half-enlightened, human agent sometimes enacted in God's 
 name what God Himself never could have commanded. 
 
 In regard to the exterminating of the Canaanites it 
 may be added. What a faithful picture it presents of the 
 
 5 Lectures on the Old Testament^ pages 250-253. 
 
 H 
 
Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 necessity for giving no quarter to enemies of another kind 
 in the human heart. Such is the economy of Scripture, 
 many of these old passages having been designed for the 
 double purpose of yielding (1) instruction to the Hebrew of 
 old, (2) types and figures, and instruction, too, for to-day. 
 
 We have now to notice a striking instance of the Divine 
 policy which dealt so successfully with the heathen darkness 
 of the earliest Hebrews. It throws light on many facts in 
 the history of those times. 
 
 Why does Jephthah regard Jehovah in the same light as 
 Chemosh, the god of the Ammonites 1 Why does Moses 
 sing with the Israelites, " Who is like unto thee, Jahveh, 
 among the gods ? " ^ Here is another and more important 
 question: — Why, all through the Old Testament, is God 
 spohen of under the name of Jahveh in the Hebrew writings 1 
 For wherever in our Eevised Authorized Version the name 
 ' the Lord ' is in capitals, it is ' Jahveh ' in the Hebrew. 
 (See marginal note to Gen. ii. 4, and paragraph I. in the 
 Appendix between the Old and New Testaments). The 
 answer to all these questions is the same. 
 
 When God began to reveal Himself to the Hebrews they 
 had not the remotest idea of His omnipresent, omniscient, 
 or spiritual nature. This conception had to be developed 
 little by little, just as all things in the organic world and 
 mind itself are developed. They had some notions of 
 Beings superior to themselves, which they called gods, just 
 as the surrounding nations had. 
 
 It was in the likeness of these god(<, and under the name of 
 one of them, that God introduced Himself to the Hehreii' 
 people. 
 
 " Tt does not necessarily follow, however, that one who nsed 
 this language must have regarded Jehovah in the same light as 
 another god. It might possibly have been used simply in recog- 
 nition of the fact of surrounding Polytheism. 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 99 
 
 This conception of gods, such as it was, was the raw 
 material, which had to be modihed, developed, purihed, into 
 that conception of God's Being which in the present day we 
 all learn in our childhood from those who educate us. 
 Therefore, in the first instance, God introduces Himself first 
 to the Patriarchs, as god, simply, as a Being of that descrip- 
 tion, but without identifying Himself with any god in 
 particular ; and, later, in Egypt, He introduces Himself as 
 the peculiar god of the Hebrews, ' Jahveh.' 
 
 To the Patriarchs He is (not God Almighty as we con- 
 ceive Him, but) El Shaddai, 'the Powerful.' See Gen. 
 xvii. 1, XXXV. 11, and more particularly Exod. vi. 2, 3, 
 Revised Authorized Version, marginal readings ; where we 
 read " And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am 
 Jahveh : and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and 
 unto Jacob, as El Shaddai, but by (or as to) mij name 
 Jahveh I was not made known to them." (See also the 
 answer that Moses was to give to the question of the 
 Israelites, " What is his name V in Exod. iii. 13—16.) 
 
 There was originally a plural conception in the name 
 Elohini (translated God), of which there are traces here and 
 there in some of the very oldest writings. See, for instance, 
 Gen iii. 5 and Gen. xxxi. 53, where (R. A. Version) the 
 alternative reading ' gods ' is given in the margin for ' God,' 
 as if two different gods had been referred to in the pre- 
 ceding words of this latter verse by Laban, the speaker. 
 Later on that plural conception passed away, and when the 
 names Elohim and Jahveh were used, the One God was 
 understood, though it was long ages before He was known 
 to be the only real God, and the conception which was at- 
 tached to these names took that form. 
 
 Thus we have the command in Exod. xx. 3, 4, "Thou 
 shalt have none other gods before (or beside, margin) me. 
 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor the 
 
 11 2 
 
loo Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 likeness of any form that is in heaven above, etc.," which 
 may perhaps signify that the Israelites had been in the 
 habit of making images of Jahveh himself. Certain it is 
 that ^^ after the attempt of Jezebel to introduce the Baalim 
 of Sidon into the nortliern kingdom, Jahveh was still re- 
 garded as the national god, and that the worship carried on 
 at the high places, idolatrous and contrary as it was to the 
 law, was nevertheless performed in His name."" This 
 would be about 400 years after the Exodus. 
 
 Dr. Goldziher writes respecting the Hebrews of earliest 
 times {Mythology among the Flehreics, pp. 246, 247) : — 
 
 " The Hebrews . . . called every power which they regarded 
 as divine El and Shadday, ' the Powerful ;' and as these Powers 
 (which they also called Elohim, i.e. ' the Worshipped ' or 'the 
 Feared') were seen [in imagination] by them on the dark sky, 
 El was also called Elyon, ' the Highest.' To the Hebrews 
 these names were not yet exclusively theological. . . . Many 
 synonyms of the terms in question are found among the 
 Phenicians as religious terms, and among the Hebrews (when 
 the words are equally native there) in a completely appellative 
 sense, e.g., Ba'al' Lord,' Kabbir' Great, Powerful.' . . . Besides 
 El, Elohim, Elyon, Shadday, even Ba'al received worship from 
 the Hebrews in Canaan. . . ." 
 
 Thus, in the very beginning, God was thought of in the 
 Hebrew mind simply as god, or as the gods, later on as one 
 of their gods identified as ' Jahveh/ in no way different 
 from the others ; then as Jahveh, a particular god superior 
 in might to their other gods ; then as ' Jahveh,' their own 
 peculiar god and their only one ; then as the only real god 
 existing (the gods of the other nations being no gods) ; and 
 lastly as God as we ourselves conceive of Him. 
 
 How admirably the passage quoted above from Exod. vi. 
 2, 3, embodies this historical fact that the Hebrews first 
 knew God only, and how dimly, as Elohim or El Shaddai, 
 and later on as Jahveh — a fact, be it remembered, which no 
 
 '^ Fresh Light fro.n the Ancient Monuments, by Sayce, p. 77. 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. ioi 
 
 Israelite could have known from experience or even from 
 tradition. For the period covered was too long for know- 
 ledge by experience, and such facts are not transmitted by 
 tradition. If, however, God had guided their traditions, so 
 that according to one of them this colloquy had taken place 
 as recorded between Him and Moses, we see Divine Action 
 and Divine AVisdom in thus expressing the foregoing truth 
 in the Book in such terms that the people could and would 
 grasp it. 
 
 On the other hand, which of us really believes the letter 
 of Exod. vi. 2, 3, and at the same time the letter of Gen. 
 xiv. 22 ; xxvi. 22 ; xxviii. 16 : xxiv. 27 ; xxvi. 28, 29 ?— 
 where the Jahveist writer, when writing passages where 
 God's name comes in, very naturally uses the name Jahveh 
 to which he is accustomed, rather than Elohim which he 
 seldom uses. 
 
 We believe that we believe the letter everywhere until 
 we are confronted directly with such cases ; then we wisely 
 conclude that " it is all right/' knowing that it piust be so. 
 Unfortunately, however, there are many who conclude that 
 it is all ivfong. They see such difficulties plainly enough, 
 whose existence no honest mind can deny_, whilst they do 
 not see the case in all its bearings, some of which are of vital 
 importance to the forming of a correct judgment. To such 
 the present investigation may, it is hoped,, be of some 
 assistance. 
 
 One more point here. It is suggested above that parts 
 of the Books of the Law were presented in their present form 
 in order that their truths might be apprehended by the 
 Hebrew of old. But how far is their form of presentation 
 adapted to the mental constitution of the Englishman of 
 to-day? The tenacity to the letter w^hich is manifested, 
 even in cases where Science has swept the letter aAvay, with 
 the abandonment of the sinrit which Science has not touched, 
 
102 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 seem to show that the presentation of truths by means of 
 concrete pictures, of which we have so many examples in 
 the beginning of the Old Testament, is wisely adapted to 
 meet the needs of to-day, as well as those of the Hebrew of 
 old times. That is not all. How much is there, of 
 
 which we think we have a perfect comprehension, of which we 
 have only such an approximate one as is possible in the 
 present constitution of things ? However much of God's 
 mind is revealed through grace, how little is known of the 
 nature of His Being. Omnipresence in space is perhaps 
 the best approach that can be made to a true conception of 
 it, but undoubtedly that is only an approximation after all. 
 What is this but ignorance when viewed in the light of a 
 fuller knowledge to come ? And yet— ignorant inconsistency 
 — we regard this conception as knowledge and the old 
 anthropomorphic conception as ignorance ! 
 
 It may be added that a full knowledge of God is by no 
 means necessary to the performance of acts of faith, or to 
 such progress in divine things as we find manifested in the 
 character of David and others. Also that some sections of 
 the nation were always in advance of others ; some few 
 individuals perhaps very far in advance of the majority. 
 Therefore before God was known as Jahveh, when He was 
 conceived of as Elohim, there w^as surely faith in patriarchal 
 times. 
 
 Nor do I mean to imply that God never spoke to man by 
 signs, nor communicated definitely with him in those times. 
 U however He communicated with him, not by a physical 
 appearance, but in the way in which He spoke to Philip in 
 Acts viii. 29, by a motion of the intellect or heart, or both ; 
 there would be then no language in which to record the fact 
 in literal terms. Here, too, let me once more call 
 
 attention to the wide difference in respect of language 
 between New Testament times and those early days. In 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 103 
 
 New Testament times abstractions and ideas of spiritual 
 things were developed in the Jewish mind, and there icere 
 ivords and phrases existing wherein to express those ideas 
 literally, as we say. In the earliest times^ however, such 
 truths could only pass into and out of the mind when asso- 
 ciated with, and attached to, ideas of material things. This 
 is the fact that makes so wide a difference hetween the letter 
 of the New Testament and that of the early parts of the Old. 
 So great is the difference that (if actions do speak louder 
 than words) the reader often reads as much of the Divine 
 mind by the perusal of a single verse of the one, as by that 
 of a whole chapter of the other. 
 
 Doubtless many readers will object that it is not permis- 
 sible to depart from the letter of some of the early Old 
 Testament Scriptures in this way, notwithstanding the 
 impossibility, or at least extreme difficulty, of maintaining it. 
 To such it may be remarked — in addition to what has been 
 said, and much more that should have been said if the 
 subject were fully treated — that the principle is not a new 
 one, but an extension of one that is adopted where the 
 literal meaning of the text is obviously untenable. Thus 
 Dr. Kinns says in reference to the work of the fourth day 
 in Gen. i. " This does not describe the creation of the Sun 
 and Moon, but their appointment to special offices, etc.," 
 {Moses and Geology, 1889, p. 14). Thus Dr. Stoughton, 
 referring to the Biblical account of the Confusion of Tongues, 
 says (Progress of Divine Revelation, p. 39), " The only 
 way in which that history comes before us here is in refer- 
 ence to the Divine intervention to scatter the proud builders 
 on account of their presumption. It is described in human 
 language, and according to human forms of thought. In 
 what other mode could any revelation of God's icays and 
 purposes he revealed V And then he adds an argument 
 quoted from Lange, that our most philosophical language 
 
104 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 would have been no improvement upon the terms which are 
 used, and which suggest such crude conceptions. Thus, 
 (in the same work, p. 78, 79) he explains away the difficulty, 
 before referred to, about the names Elohim and Jehovah in 
 Exod. vi. 2, 3. It is not necessary to cite other cases. In 
 these we see how, when there has been due reason for it, 
 the letter has been consciously rejected. Ofttimes the 
 letter counts for nothing ; the s;pirit of the passage is every- 
 thing. 
 
 The conceptions of gods entertained by all peoples are 
 more or less coloured with man's own characteristics. Even 
 in the present day the nomadic tribes of Arabia, whom we 
 do not regard as savages, conceive of God as a Powerful 
 Komad Sheikh — at least much more like that than any- 
 thing else. The Zeus of the Greeks and the other gods 
 over whom he exercises authority are very like the members 
 of the Greek governments in early times. Naturally, unless 
 better instructed, man must regard his gods as more or less 
 like himself, only superior as regards power, place of resi- 
 dence, etc. The early Hebrews were no exception to this 
 rule. One instance has been given where the idea of a 
 man-like form appears. The anger of God was inevitably 
 conceived of as hot and impulsive like the passion of man. 
 They could conceive of it only in such terms, and it was 
 perhaps well that it was so for the time being. Truer 
 knowledge in this respect is manifested in the Psalms. 
 There, too, the notion of a man-like form has given place 
 to the truer one of a God omnipresent in space (see Psalm 
 cxxxix. 1-12), who knows all about man. There is addi- 
 tional meaning in this beautiful Psalm when one thus finds 
 that its author has learnt from God the truths which he 
 writes, some of them new to man and greater than any of 
 the discoveries of Science. 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 105 
 
 No real Monotheism lias been discovered in any other 
 nation. There is an apjDroach to it in the Grecian theology, 
 where there are a number of subordinate gods with Zeus 
 exercising authority over them. It would seem that this 
 stage is as far as the natural mind can go in the direction of 
 Monotheism. Beyond this stage, except in the Hebrew 
 nation, men found that their gods did not take any active 
 part in the affairs of men, and that their very existence 
 was unproved, having originated in the thoughts of their 
 primitive ancestors. 
 
 How markedly contrasted was the case of the Hebrews. 
 Their Theology stood the test. They found their Divinity 
 was a real Person, and so their religion took deeper root 
 than ever. They had begun to prove that reality when 
 their ideas of the Divinity were very crude indeed ; and the 
 nearer those ideas approached to the truth, the more real 
 did they find their God to be. It is a marvellous sight, 
 this little nation, slowly learning during more than a thou- 
 sand years the true conception of God, and during that time 
 and four or five hundred years more, a fuller knowledge of 
 Himself; watched over and j)rotected in the midst of 
 powerful neighbours, whose actions were overruled to the 
 furthering of the growth of Truth ; and then to see that 
 Truth spreading over and conquering the whole civilized 
 world. To lead that people from darkness into light was 
 the first work the Scriptures had to do. Thus did the 
 growth of Truth and the writing of the Bible proceed 
 side by side, each vitally necessary to the progress of the 
 other. 
 
 One other feature of this spiritual training of the Hebrews 
 should be noticed here — the ritual of sacrifice and the 
 priesthood. It is a mistake to suppose that these institu- 
 tions were specially designed and appointed by God for the 
 Israelites. We find institutions more or less like them 
 
io6 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 amongst other nations. We read of burnt offerings in the 
 very ancient ^ sacred book ' of the distant Hindus, the 
 Vedas. Parallel too with the Hebrew Levites, we find 
 among other ancient i^eoples special families with the 
 exclusive right of exercising ' sacred ' functions. In the 
 Bible we read of priests in Egypt (Gen. xlvii. 22), and that 
 Moses' father-in-law was priest of Midian (Exodus ii. 16), 
 before we hear anything about the Israelites' own ritual 
 being ordained.^ 
 
 Not only so, but just as we find Pheniciansor Canaanites 
 having deities similar to those of the earliest Hebrews, so 
 there is strong evidence that they practised the same Sacri- 
 ficial Eitual, and had similar High Places, sacred groves, etc. 
 The Sacrificial Tablet of Marseilles, of Carthaginian origin, 
 discovered in 1845, and certain existing Carthaginian Sacri- 
 ficial documents, furnish information respecting the system 
 of priests and sacrifices which prevailed among the Pheni- 
 cians (since Carthage was a Phenician colony). These are 
 very similar to those described in part of the Book of 
 Leviticus. 
 
 But these ceremonies were of the greatest importance. In 
 Hebrew ix., x., we read that Christ is the only true Sacrifice, 
 it being impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats 
 should take away sins ; and in Hebrew vii. we read that 
 He is likewise the true Priest. 
 
 But what meaning would these all-important truths have 
 had in the eyes of the Jews if their minds had not been 
 prepared for them through the Ritual to which they were 
 accustomed ? None whatever. The knowledge of the true 
 
 ^ So also witli portions of the Mosaic Law. Thus Canon 
 Mozley says {Lectures on the Old Testament, p. 201) that the case of 
 the Avenger of Blood under the Law of Goel " is an instance of an 
 unwritten law of the East, which was incorporated in the Mosaic 
 dispensation, as the new conditions which were annexed to it, and 
 by which it was partially modified, show." 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 107 
 
 nature of sin, that it could be purged only by the death of a 
 victim — the very essence of the doctrine of the Atonement — 
 could never have been apprehended or understood at all by 
 them, nor by mankind in general who have learnt it through 
 them, but for the ancient Sacrificial Kitual, by means of 
 which, little by little, the perception of such truths was 
 developed. 
 
 We now pass on to another phase in the evolution of the 
 knowledge of God— the third to be treated of here, but the 
 first in the order of time. For the benefit of the reader 
 who is unacquainted with the subject, I will begin with 
 stating a few of the facts of Mythology. No pretence is 
 made to an exhaustive treatment of the subject, the 
 object being merely to illustrate in a general way how the 
 conception of gods first arose in the mind of man. 
 
 When we were children and looked upwards to the sky 
 we did not know that there was only empty space above us, 
 with Sun and Stars at almost infinite distance, and thin 
 vapours but a few hundreds of yards away. We thought that 
 all was at about an equal distance, and that somewhere far 
 away on every side the sky extended downwards to the 
 ground. In like manner primitive men mixed up together 
 
 the phenomena of clouds, celestial bodies, and dome of 
 heaven, placing all in the same region — the region that is 
 above^ the place to which one cannot get. 
 
 Therefore, when we were children, we could only look 
 up at the wonderful things above, and make some crude in- 
 terpretations of our own as to the nature of what we saw. 
 
 So too did primitive men. 
 
 But what course did our thoughts take ? We 7wtlcedthat 
 in certain ivaijs the things above ivere like some of the things 
 around, and we therefore concluded that the things above 
 ■were of the same sort, or partly so, as the things around. 
 
io8 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 This is just what primitive men did ; and this, as we shall 
 soon see, was the source of their mythology. 
 
 Those white pillared clouds were like hills in outline, 
 white and soft in substance, more like snow than anything 
 else we had ever seen. So we thought they were a sort 
 of white, soft^ snowy, hills — delightful places to tumble 
 about in, if one could only get there. In some brilliant 
 sunset scene we saw something like a road — it was the 
 golden highway to Heaven. Other clouds looked more like 
 the common hills on earth. Some of us thought the moon 
 was a man's face ; and there are even some still who see the 
 outline of * the Man in the Moon ' with a thorny bush on 
 his back. We saw now and then a cloud in the shape of a 
 sheep, a bird, or some other animal — we thought it was a 
 real one. Or we hegan to think so, till our myth-making 
 was cruelly nipped in the bud by some wise Elder. 
 
 But there was no wise Elder near to correct primitive 
 man when he had such thoughts, and so his myth-making 
 developed fully, bearing a rich fruit of fancy. 
 
 It was in such scenes as the thunderstorm, especially the 
 violent tropical one, that he was most impressed. Totally 
 ignorant of causes, with a mind weak as a child's, helpless in 
 the scene, no wonder that he was so powerfully impressed by 
 all. Let us try to be ' primitive ' for a moment, and take 
 our place beside primitive man. We see the terrible com- 
 motion going on above and around us, knowing nothing. 
 The fearful, rolling, roaring noise reminds us of the roaring 
 of a wild beast, because we have never heard the like produced 
 by any other cause. Some dreadful living thing must be 
 above us who makes that fearful noise. And the dashing, 
 furious, pounding storm, what is it? We only know that 
 it also comes down from above, and in its motions it, 
 too, is like something alive ; or something hurled down 
 upon us by a powerful living thing up there. The wind 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 109 
 
 too tliat blows so fiercely, raging so madly, swaying the 
 trees, breaking the branches, tearing up root and all, destroy- 
 ing our huts, threatening to sweep ourselves away — what is 
 it ? We can only think of some awful unseen living thing 
 w^hose all-powerful breath causes the raging blast." But 
 
 what is the next thing 1 Two of us suddenly fall dead ! 
 The tree under which we stood is split to pieces ; and in 
 the same instant a more fearful roar than ever ! 
 What does it all mean ? Surely it is a fearful battle 
 
 that is being waged by those Powers above ! It is one of 
 their stray shots that has killed our friends, or they are 
 the victims of their raging passion. Terrified we fall 
 
 on our faces and pray the Thunderer to be merciful, and 
 the covering Night-god to hide and so protect us.^ 
 
 The reader's own superior knowledge and strength of mind 
 will have been an effectual barrier to his entrance to the 
 scene. But the picture will give some idea of it, and of 
 how the myths arose. 
 
 In describing such scenes there was no system : each one 
 spoke of just what he saw, or imagined ; so that the same 
 celestial phenomenon, seen in twenty different lights, gave 
 rise to as many different myths. It was later on that 
 such stories were woven into a system. The lightning 
 
 was a heavenly bird darting about ; or it was fire. The 
 Sun was a fire, for it warmed the earth and the people. 
 And the Fire itself, which cost them such labour to kindle 
 with the boring stick — what was that 1 
 
 ^ One of the most dramatic and profoundly true pictures in 
 Victor Hugo's Toilers of the Sea is that in which the hero, after 
 using his powers of knowledge and skill to the utmost, is sud- 
 denly bafiQed by the strength of the storm — he falls down and 
 prays. For in all ages prayer has been the resource of men who 
 have reached the limit of their human powers. These limits have 
 been extended in each succeeding age as the conquest of nature 
 has become more and more thorough ; but still at the limits of 
 their natural endeavours the men of to-day are true to the instinct 
 of their ancestors, and fall down and pray. 
 
no Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 They had seen him come down from above, in the light- 
 ning ; they saw the Sun-Fire always there in the sky. There- 
 fore Fire must have his home in the sky : he had come 
 down from on high to bless mankind. When the 
 
 wood did ignite, the flame appeared suddenly, and it often 
 disappeared as suddenly. Its motions altogether were 
 mysterious. They thought it was alive, and called it Agni. 
 He had come down from above, and now he dwelt in the 
 wood. He loved the rubbings when they worked their 
 fire machine ; it tempted him to come forth. But often he 
 required a deal of such coaxing before they could induce 
 him to come out. 
 
 But the Sun, what was that ? They saw him come up 
 from behind the hills in the morning, and after his day's 
 journey on high he in like manner disappeared at night. 
 Of course he w^8S alive, or he would not move like that. 
 But where did he pass the night 1 Their friends who lived 
 by the sea could tell, for at sunrise they had actually seen 
 him come up out of the water. Others had seen him go 
 down into the water. It was there that he passed the 
 night ; he took a journey under the water. He was 
 
 the All-seeing One. His rays were locks of golden 
 
 hair. When he disappeared behind a thick cloud, he 
 
 was swallowed by the Storm-god, or the Storm-serpent, as 
 in some cases it was conceived to be. Because he came 
 
 up after the Dawn, he was the son of the Dawn ; as the 
 Dawn coming after the Night was brought forth by the 
 Ni^ht. (Here probably the idea of producing arose before 
 that of mere sequence.) Or again, as the Day gave place 
 
 to the Night, it was thought that the two were fighting for 
 the mastery, and that Night was victor and slew the Day. 
 
 The tendency of the human mind, when beginning to 
 elaborate its first percepts and concepts, to regard the objects 
 as alive, is shown by the notions of savages to-day, who 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. i i i 
 
 are always in fear of the ' spirits ' of their own imagining. 
 The so-called Fetishism is in many cases a worship, not of 
 the inanimate thing which we see, in a stone for instance, 
 but of the ' spirit ' of the stone. ]N"ot, however, that their 
 idea of a spirit is the same as ours ; it is of a less abstract 
 and spiritual nature. 
 
 To the reader unacquainted with the subject two objec- 
 tions have very likely occurred : — (1) Where is the evidence 
 that these things are true ? (2) Men never invented gods 
 like that in a day. 
 
 In reply to the first objection — the striking resemblance 
 of myths found in all parts of the world gives the clue to 
 their origin ; the names of the gods, the features of the 
 myths, and other things adding their confirmation. Let us 
 also notice here a passage from the most jDrimitive writings 
 on earth, the Yedas. Max Miiller says {Lectures on the 
 Origin of Religion, p. 216), '^ We find in the Veda hymns 
 addressed to Vaya, the Blower, and to Vata, the blast. . . . 
 Though the Wind is not often praised, he, when he is 
 praised, holds a very high position. He is called the king 
 of the whole world, the first-born, the breath of the gods, 
 the germ of the world, wliose voices we hear, though tve can 
 never see /tm (Rig-Yeda x. 168)." The Yedas abound with 
 these mythical deities. 
 
 The second objection is quite correct. The conception of 
 gods was a slow growth. The lofty and inaccessible 
 
 position occupied by celestial phenomena, and their inscrut- 
 able character, would at once tend to make them objects of 
 curiosity, and of a measure of veneration. The activities 
 manifested in them, such as the changes from night to dawn, 
 dawn to sunrise, the sun's course through the sky, motions 
 in other celestial bodies, the specially active changes in the 
 wind and storm — all these could be accounted for only by 
 comparing them with the only other known source of act- 
 
112 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ivity — Life. The names they received from men expressed 
 these activities, their high position, their brightness; and 
 the very use of such names would strongly tend to place 
 them together in the mind in a class apart from ordinary 
 things. They would be regarded as the bright ones, or the 
 high ones, and the actions recorded of them, such as already 
 noticed, would ever tend to associate them in the mind more 
 and more with living things. But more especially did 
 
 this take effect as time went on, and men in succeeding 
 generations became accustomed to phenomena, and per- 
 ceived their purely physical nature. The old stories still 
 continued to be told_, still retaining their character as relating 
 to the Wonderful, the High, the Bright, the Active, the 
 Living Ones. Ketaining this character, and being no longer 
 associated with the physical phenomena which gave them 
 birth ; what could the later generation think, but that the 
 subjects of these stories were real Living Beings of a 
 superior order — inhabitants of an Upper Kegion, Invisible, 
 Powerful, Active, Living, doing the same things as men 
 did. There being nothing else but man (and occasionally 
 animals) to supply the form in which they should be 
 conceived of in the human mind, we can see how the 
 conception took the form of what we call gods.^" It was at 
 a far Mer date that men, finding no traces of their reality, 
 dared to question the existence of such gods. 
 
 Thus, and in other ways " which need not here be dis- 
 
 1° If it seem that sucli was the natural and necessary result, 
 however, we must remember that we judge of what is natural by 
 our own thoughts, which are in a sense the offspring of the 
 thoughts of our predecessors. Thus if an opposite effect had 
 followed, we should regard that as natural for the same reason. 
 We cannot infer that the above result would have followed with- 
 out a special control and fostering of man's ideas by God. 
 
 11 According to Professor Huxley, "the Fetishism, Ancestor- 
 worship, Hero-worship, and Demonology of primitive savages are 
 all different manners of expression of their belief in ghosts, and 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 113 
 
 cussed, arose the conception of, and belief in, gods ; and 
 long after the original myths were forgotten, these gods 
 remained as objects of belief and worship amongst mankind, 
 as they are to this day among those who have not been 
 taught the truths of Monotheism. 
 
 The reader will perceive that in all this there was no 
 devil-worship, nothing of what we call idolatry, nothing 
 necessarily debasing. It was only ignorance and mis-directed 
 reverence. It was not altogether mis-directed either, for it 
 was in the direction of better things, as near an approach 
 to an idea of the true object of reverence as men could then 
 form. We may even say that in such guises they ignor- 
 antly worshipped God after a fashion in those early days. 
 
 It was at the later stage, when men thought the gods had 
 evil passions like their own, and then set these debased gods 
 as their own examples, that the system became corrupt. In 
 some of the myths there were certain features which gave 
 this tendency, through a natural misinterpretation ; but 
 these matters do not here concern us. 
 
 Let us note, that in the beginning the myth was not 
 sinful, ^^ that the conception of the god was a most important 
 step, an indispensable step, towards the conception and know- 
 
 of the anthropomorphic interpretation of out-of-the-way events 
 which is its concomitant." He maintains that one of the most 
 clearly demonstrable articles of the theology of the early 
 Israelites was " the article which is to be found in all primitive 
 theologies; namely, the belief that a man has a soul which 
 continues to exist after death for a longer or shorter time, 
 and may return, as a ghost, with a divine, or at least, demonic 
 character, to influence for good or evil (and usually for evil) the 
 affairs of the living." (The Evolution of Theology, Nineteenth 
 Century, March, 1886, pp. 360-362.) Other writers take account 
 of both the myth and spirit-worship, and also of other forms. 
 Probably in some cases spirit-worship has served as a stepping- 
 stone to mythology. 
 
 ^- Of course we cannot assert that there was no evil in the 
 myth-makers; what we see is that there was nothing essentially 
 wrong in the myth-making itself, and how different it was from 
 a sensual or debasing idolatry. 
 
 I 
 
114 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ledge of the true God ; and that therefore this perfectly 
 natural process was undoubtedly made use of by God to 
 prepare man's mind for the revelation of Himself. 
 
 As to the necessity for this preparation, the following 
 quotation may help to present the matter in a clearer light 
 than has been done in preceding pages : — ^^ 
 
 "It is easy to understand that, even if a complete 
 grammar and dictionary had suddenly come down from 
 heaven, they would have been useless to beings that had 
 not themselves elaborated their percepts into concepts, and 
 that had not themselves discovered the relation in which 
 one concept may stand to another. They would have been 
 a foreign language, and who can learn a foreign language, 
 unless he has a language of his own 1 We may acquire 
 new languages from without : language and what it implies 
 must come from within. The same with religion. Ask a 
 missionary whether he can efficiently preach the mysteries 
 of Christianity to people who have no idea of what religion 
 is. All he can do is to discover the few germs of religion 
 ivhich exist even among the lowest savages, though hidden^ 
 it may be, beneath deep layers of rubbish ; to make them 
 grow afresh by tearing up the weeds that had choked them, 
 and then to wait patiently till the soil in which alone the 
 natural seeds of religion can grow, may become fit again to 
 receive and to nurture the seeds of a higher religion." 
 
 It has already been stated that all peoples on the earth 
 have passed through more or less of this myth stage ; which, 
 under God's overruling Hand, has resulted in a development 
 of their ideas, a preparation of their minds to receive a 
 knowledge of Himself, when the truth should be carried to 
 them by their fellow-men after it had been fully taught to 
 the Hebrews. 
 
 Although in the early history of the Hebrew people we 
 find them, like the nations round about them, believing in 
 
 '^ Lectures on the Origin of Religion, by Max Miiller, p. 263. 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 115 
 
 gods, yet it is evident that in the infancy of the nation 
 they were myth-makers as well as others. Whence it 
 appears that their notions of gods were derived partly from 
 their neighbours and partly through direct development 
 from their own myths. Some of the people appear to have 
 had more advanced notions than their contemporaries. 
 
 We find traces of such myths in the ancient Book of Job. 
 It appears from Job's answer to Bildad, in chap, xxvi., 
 that his own ideas of God are somewhat mythological. In 
 verse 8 he refers to the waters in the clouds ; and by the 
 sea in verse 12 he probably means the upper waters, which 
 among the early Hebrews were regarded as a sea, and which 
 he calls, in Job ix. 8, " the high places of the sea." And 
 then he says, " By his understanding he smiteth through 
 Eahab . . . his hand hath pierced the fleeing serpent." 
 Comparing this with the myth of the sun fighting with the 
 storm-serpent (referred to on page 110), of which ser- 
 pent Kahabh was originally the name — we find that Job 
 supposed Jahveh to have been the one engaged in this 
 conflict with the serpent in the clouds, and to have overcome 
 him. 
 
 Such notions on the part of Job are not only quite con- 
 sistent with the uprightness and spiritual-mindedness at- 
 tributed to him, but they are just the sort of twilight know- 
 ledge we should expect to find in those early days, when the 
 Hebrews were slowly learning the true nature of God. It 
 is better to take him as we find him than to begin with the 
 foregone conclusion, simply because he is a Bible character, 
 that he must have been possessed of superior knowledge. 
 Not only does much of the language of the book then possess 
 a meaning, which otherwise it has not ; but, when we see 
 what sort of people the Scriptures had first to teach, we 
 have some idea of the wonderful work they have done, and 
 why their language must sometimes differ in character from 
 
ii6 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 our own. If it be thought that Job's words in verse 7 
 of this chapter prove a knowledge superior to that of his 
 times, we must remember that in the Yedas we have words 
 very like them : ' ' Savitri has fastened the earth with cords, 
 he has established the heaven without a support." ^* Let us 
 also ask ourselves, " For what possible purpose should Job 
 have received any revelation of scientific truth beyond his 
 time ? " and we shall see the utter gratuitousness of such a 
 theory. It is merely the result of association of ideas, with- 
 out examination of what they involve, what they consist of, 
 and what they lead to. 
 
 The case is different, however, when we find Jehovah's 
 answer to Job containing similar expressions ; and one can- 
 not here so readily affirm mythological notions. Yet it is 
 just in this answer that we have two such non-existent mon- 
 sters (Behemoth and Leviathan) described, that no one does 
 believe in the literal meaning of the passage. Here semi- 
 consciously our minds find a way out of the difficulty, by 
 concluding that God did not mean what He was saying, but 
 only adopted that language for His own reasons. In doing 
 this we do not see that we are no more insisting on the 
 letter than if we had concluded that God for His own reasons 
 had the passage placed in the Bible as it stands. And 
 
 upon due consideration we see that the latter is the most 
 reasonable conclusion of the two, more especially after all 
 that has been said in foregoing parts of this work. 
 
 For it is evident that at that time, as the Hebrews were 
 learning the Almightiness of God, they were seeing it in 
 those physical phenomena, like the whirlwind, in which they 
 believed Him to be personally present. Naturally there- 
 fore, and at the same time most beautifully, language corre- 
 sponding to those ideas is used everywhere. We shall have 
 
 ^^ Max Muller's truuslarauu of tliis extract from the Vedu. 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 117 
 
 occasion to notice in another place that the Hebrews cer- 
 tainly did believe in the existence of those two monsters. 
 Whether, therefore, we believe that God conveyed the truth 
 of His power and greatness in mythological language, through 
 the intermediation of a partly- enlightened writer for the 
 benefit of many readers of those days, or conveyed it by 
 speaking such mythological language with His own mouth 
 out of the whirlwind for Job's henefit alone — in either case 
 we assert that He adapted His language to the [jeajjle and 
 the times. 
 
 It need hardly be repeated here that this princi]:)le is 
 most important to the subject of the present inquiry, and 
 clears away a host of difficulties. It is the principle before 
 suggested as removing the difficulties as to the date and 
 Mosaic ^^ authorship of parts of the Pentateuch, and one that 
 wull be applied still more when we are treating of the first 
 eleven chapters of Genesis. 
 
 In the foregoing remarks the poetical character of 
 the Book of Job is not considered ; but this should 
 on no account be overlooked. Many of the phrases 
 may have been used as mere figures of speech ; and, as 
 part of the same poem, it was necessary that Jehovah's 
 answer to Job should be in character with the rest of the 
 book. 
 
 In the expressions used here and there in the Psalms and 
 elsewhere, there are traces of former myths. Naturally the 
 Psalmist used the current expressions of his day ; and some 
 of these originally had mythological significations, wliich 
 they had lost by the time he used them. It is not necessary 
 here to trace out these. 
 
 Having seen then that the Hebrews were myth -makers 
 
 ^'^ By ' Mosaic ' here I only mean actually written by Moses. 
 Of course, scriptnrally considered, the Law is all Mosaic, being 
 associated with, and delivered in, his name, 
 
ii8 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 like other nations, we may just notice one other use which 
 God has, perhaps, made of the myth for preparing the mind 
 for truth. 
 
 In the storm-myth and certain others, primitive men ex- 
 pressed their belief in certain supernatural beings, who were 
 opposed to each other ; and we see that this belief was de- 
 rived from the apparent antagonism between certain physical 
 phenomena. They considered the actions of such Beings 
 as good or bad according as they appeared to affect the wel- 
 fare of man. To nomadic people abundance of rain was a 
 blessing, because it produced pasture for their cattle. But 
 to agricultural people these relations were inverted, for the 
 sun ripened their crops. Therefore to the nomad, the Storm- 
 god M^as good and the Sun-god wicked ; and he rejoiced 
 when, at sunset or the overclouding of the sky, the Sun- 
 god was slain by his opponent. But to the agriculturist, 
 the Storm-god, or it may have been the Storm-serpent, 
 was the bad party, and his myth celebrated the other's 
 victory. 
 
 When the Lord said to the Jews, '' Destroy this temple 
 and in three days I will raise it up," no one understood 
 Him, until after His resurrection the disciples remembered 
 that saying (John ii. 19-22). When He spoke to them 
 
 of their adversary Satan, could they have understood Him, 
 or have had the faintest idea of His meaning, if they had 
 liad no previous notions of such a being 1 Yet if the 
 
 saying " Forewarned is forearmed " be true, it was important 
 that they, and all Christians, should know something about 
 him. He is mentioned a few times in the later parts 
 
 of the Old Testament, but seldom, if ever, in its earliest- 
 written books. ^^ In Genesis iii., when there is occasion to 
 refer to him, this is achieved by an allegory, which, in the 
 
 16 He has an important place in the introductory part of the 
 Book of Job, however. 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 119 
 
 simple reading of the narrative, conveys no such idea as 
 an evil spirit. Where we have in the Kevised Authorized 
 Version * demons,' it appears to refer to the gods of the 
 nations, as in Deut. xxxii. 17. The Book of Chronicles was 
 written later than the Books of Samuel ; and accordingly 
 1 Chron. xxi. 1 mentions Satan (or an adversary) whereas 
 the parallel passage 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 does not. Not 
 
 until such ideas existed in the Hebrew mind did they 
 perceive that he was the being meant by ' the serpent ' of 
 Gen. iii. (See Wisdom ii. 24 and Rev. xx. 2). The 
 development of such conceptions was, doubtless, a much 
 slower and more difficult work than we are apt to suppose, 
 and in the beginning of the process God may have utilized 
 crude ideas such as those described on the preceding page. 
 
 Summary of Conclusions of the Chapter. 
 
 In order to understand the work wliich the Scriptures had 
 first to do, we must know the condition of the Hebrews at 
 different periods. Rahab, Jael, and others, show that in 
 their age they were a crude people, who required a long 
 drilling in the Law before they were fit to hear the tidings 
 of grace. The Hebrew thus drilled was fit to learn a little 
 of God's merciful character, and then to write, or to appre- 
 ciate, the Psalms. Later on the one who had been in- 
 structed and softened by the Psalms was fit to learn more 
 of God, and to write such truths as we find in the Prophetical 
 Books. These latter further prepared the Hebrews for 
 the teachings of Christ. 
 
 Moses had but imperfect knowledge of God, but was well 
 fitted for his work among such people. There is reason to 
 suppose that portions of the Books of the Law are the 
 expressions of traditionary beliefs, which were so guided by 
 God as to embody important truths, and present them in a 
 
120 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 form such that the early HebreAV could most readily appre- 
 hend them. In the earliest times such truths could enter 
 the mind only when associated with ideas of material 
 things ; neither abstract ideas of spiritual things nor the 
 language wherein to express them then existed. There- 
 fore in the beginning of the Old Testament many 
 truths are conveyed by means of narratives ; whereas in 
 the New Testament truths are literally expressed. But 
 the former method of reaching the mind is most useful 
 for people in the present day, as well as for the early 
 Hebrews. 
 
 But the Hebrews were originally Polytheists, with no 
 more notion of the true God than other nations had. The 
 story of Jephthah shows their original darkness very 
 strikingly. They were over 1000 years in learning to wor- 
 ship the only true God, and in giving up polytheism. 
 God introduced Himself to the early Hebrews under the 
 name, and in the likeness, of one of their gods, Jahveh. 
 Their conception of the god was the raw material which had 
 to be purified and developed into that of the true God. 
 The Hebrews at first only knew God dimly as Elohim, 
 or the Elohim (plural) ; then as Jahveh ; finally as God as 
 He is. But full knowledge of God was by no means neces- 
 sary to the acquisition of much spiritual truth, or to saintli- 
 ness of character ; so that we find such qualities in Moses 
 and David, and faith in the patriarchs. 
 
 All the theological systems of other nations broke down 
 when tested, because they were human ; but it was just at 
 that critical point that the Hebrew theology manifested its 
 Divine origin ; it stood the crucial test and took deeper root 
 than ever. The ritual of sacrifice and priesthood pre- 
 
 pared Hebrew ideas for the True Sacrifice and Priest. For 
 this important work they were essential. 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 121 
 
 The original worship of gods was an ignorant form of 
 worship of the true God ; it was in part God's own work, 
 achieved by natural means, chiefly through the effects pro- 
 duced upon primitive men by physical phenomena. It was 
 as men grew in sin that this was turned into corrupt 
 idolatry. It was the only channel through which man 
 could acquire acquaintance with the true God. Job 
 
 had mythological notions. In Jahveh's answer to him we 
 find, Avhichever way we look at itj that God adjusted His 
 language to the people and the times. 
 
 There are, however, two sides to most questions, and from 
 some of the foregoing facts conclusions opposite to the above 
 have sometimes been drawn. The false logic of a few of 
 these is illustrated below. But, to prevent misajDprehension, 
 let me distinctly state that these conclusions are not given 
 as being an average specimen of the beliefs of sceptics. 
 They represent the logic of iinlelief, rather than that of un- 
 believers. They are placed here solely in order to expose 
 the fallacies that underlie them, and to illustrate how in- 
 consistently the mind is apt to run to and fro in such 
 reasonings. Indeed some of them are given in their extreme 
 form, in order the better to show their true nature. In the 
 second column the reader will recognize for himself (1) 
 what has actually been concluded, (2) what should consist- 
 ently have been concluded, (3) what premisses or conclusions 
 are in direct opposition to previous premisses or conclusions, 
 (4) how some of them are disproved by a practical appli- 
 cation, as No. 3 to the Hebrews. Each paragraph in the 
 second column should be carefully compared with the one 
 bearing the same number in the first column ; paragraph 2 
 in the second column should also be connected with para- 
 graph 1 in the same column. 
 
122 
 
 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Logic of Faith. 
 
 1. The Bible teaches that 
 once in history certain super- 
 natural events occurred, for 
 special reasons. 
 
 Logic of Unbelief, 
 1. We have studied the 
 Universe as far as it is acces- 
 sible to man, and everything 
 proceeds in the natural way. 
 Therefore it could never have 
 been otherwise ; not even on a 
 particular occasion. 
 
 2. It is clear that without 
 natural laws all would be 
 chaotic confusion. They are 
 necessary to man's very exist- 
 ence, and are wisely appointed. 
 But laws previously unsus- 
 pected have been from time 
 to time discovered, and are 
 still being discovered. Man 
 cannot possibly see the ulti- 
 mate cause of phenomena. 
 Unknown forces may well have 
 been brought into operation on 
 special occasions. 
 Still 
 the general course of God's 
 manifestation of Himself to 
 man was clearly a natural one, 
 obviously because that was the 
 best. The Power in Nature 
 and the God of Religion are 
 the same. Both work in the 
 same manner. 
 
 2. Whatever is natural must 
 be of human origin. 
 
 i.e. 
 We cannot believe that Divine 
 power was manifested super- 
 naturally on special occasions, 
 where necessary ; but it would 
 have been so manifested 
 throughout the general process 
 of teaching man Eeligion, 
 where this was unnecessary. 
 
 Or otherwise, 
 Since some theologians hold 
 that the evidence of divine 
 action consists in super- 
 natural occurrences, which 
 theory we have proved to be 
 false ; we will base our oivn in- 
 ference, in this matter, on their 
 error, and so draw this true 
 conclusion : — As there were 
 no supernatural occurrences, 
 there was no divine action. 
 Therefore Religion is of man. 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 123 
 
 3. God chose out one nation 
 through which to reveal Him- 
 self to man. Some religious 
 notions were indispensable to 
 other peoples, before they could 
 possibly receive the knowledge 
 of God when brought to them 
 throudi the Hebrews. 
 
 4. The peculiarity, sole suc- 
 cess, efficiency, entire superi- 
 ority, of this Religion stamp 
 it as Divine. All others failed 
 when tested, because they were 
 of man. But it was just there 
 that this one especially began 
 to make its way. 
 
 5. It is the Divine element 
 in this Religion that has 
 raised and keeps the civilized 
 world above immorality, and 
 also keeps our social state 
 stable. We are all so imbued 
 with its precepts, that oui- 
 
 1^ History of the Conflict between 
 face, page vii. 
 
 3. Where there is a high or 
 low religion there is a high or 
 low morality in the people. 
 Therefore men make their own 
 religions^ which correspond to 
 their morality. Thus the 
 original darkness of the He- 
 brew produced the Light of 
 Christianity ; his immorality 
 produced its imrity ; his har- 
 haritij produced its gentleness ; 
 his belief in many gods similar 
 to those of other peoples, pro- 
 duced the belief in one God 
 totally different in Being and 
 in character from all others. 
 And so on. 
 
 4. Notwithstanding the fun- 
 damental difference between 
 this and all other religions, we 
 conclude that it also is human, 
 and will end like others. 
 
 5. Since " the tranquillity of 
 society depends so much on 
 the stability of its religious 
 convictions,"^^ Religion has 
 not helped man. But because 
 some of its false representa- 
 tives have been irreligious, 
 Religion and Science, 1887. Pre- 
 
124 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 philosophers who repudiate it notoriously in the Eomish 
 oivemuchof their own morality Church, in estimating what 
 to it. Religion has done for man, 
 
 we must take into account 
 only what the irreligion of 
 those men has done.^^ 
 6. Many of those who have 6. Kot having sought God 
 
 made the Bible their guide in that way, but having con- 
 know, in their own experience, fined our experience to some- 
 thai it leads man to the know- thing totally different, we can 
 ledge of God. form a true judgment of such 
 
 experiences, and pronounce 
 them imaginary. 
 Lest this Logic of Unbelief should seem unfair, I would 
 again remind the reader that it is not given as an average 
 specimen of the beliefs of sceptics, but rather of the reasonings 
 of prejudiced unbelief. Let the reader beware of these. When 
 traced to their root they will exhibit some such fallacy as 
 above. One cannot do more here than expose a few of them. 
 They originate largely through the natural tendency of the 
 mind to occupy itself with its familiar concepts, passing over 
 the deeper and greater realities of spirit; whilst the Enemy 
 will leave no stone unturned to misdirect all such reason- 
 ings. Before closing the chapter, however, attention may be 
 directed to one other fallacy that may have an effect on some 
 readers. 
 
 Having seen how the first religious emotions and ideas 
 arose in close connexion with mythological ignorance, it 
 
 ^8 History of the Conflict hetiveen Religion and Science, chap. x. 
 and pp. 325, 326. Here and elsewhere Dr. Draper estimates 
 what Science itself has done, and what the Representatives 
 of Religion have done, for man. If his interesting work had 
 been entitled ' History of the Conflict betAveen Science and the 
 Representatives of Religion,' superficial readers would not be so 
 likely to overlook the results of true Religion itself, whilst occupied 
 with the failings or sins of those who have professed it. 
 
Development of the Knowledge of God. 125 
 
 may be argued, notwithstanding what has been said, that 
 that ignorance was the origin of Religion. Not at all. 
 The beginnings of Religion were the truths that were pre- 
 sent in the mythological ideas ; such as the idea of a 
 Superior Power, his position above that of man (though 
 not above in space), the reverence due to him, etc. These 
 truths were the work of God's own Hand, they were the 
 beginnings of Religion^ whilst those ignorant forms which 
 they could then alone assume were erroneous, and have 
 therefore passed away. (It might be added that the Power 
 which primitive men sui3posed to be in the elements was 
 the Power who formed and owned the elements, and so the 
 worship was perhaps nearer the truth in the direction it 
 took, as well as in purity, than the idolatry of after ages 
 was. Professor Sayce remarks about a Babylonian psalm, 
 '*in reading it we do indeed feel that even in the darkest 
 ages of ignorance and heathenism God was still moving the 
 hearts of men, ' that they should seek the Lord, if haply 
 they might feel after Him and find Him ' " ; whilst the dif- 
 ferent tones of the Babylonian and Hebrew writings show 
 how the latter people had found what the former was dimly 
 seeking.) The Origin of Religion is God Himself, from 
 whom it all flows. It began to flow in those primitive times 
 when the human mind became capable of receiving it, and 
 throughout the progress of divine revelation it continued to 
 flow in ever-increasing waves, till attaining its full depth 
 in Apostolic times. From that same origin it flows 
 to-day. 
 
SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 An unavoidable defect of all works of this description is 
 that the wider their scope the more new difficulties do they 
 introduce to many readers, in the endeavour to remove such 
 for the help of others. This section refutes the arguments 
 against portions of the New Testament which have been 
 based on the Book of Enoch. It has very little connexion 
 with the subject of this work, and is intended only for 
 those readers who are alBfected by the aforesaid arguments. 
 
 We now pass on to one other phase in the evolution of 
 divine knowledge ; a most important one. 
 
 There are prophecies relating to the Messiah in the Old 
 Testament, and a few references to life beyond the grave. 
 But, not only was the last book of the sacred canon writ- 
 ten about 400 years B.C. according to the chronology ap- 
 pended to our Bibles, but those Scriptures also show that the 
 Jews of that day were in a spiritual condition widely different 
 from that of their descendants in New Testament times. 
 They possessed most meagre ideas — practically none — on these 
 important subjects. 
 
 But it was different when Christ was on earth. " Art thou 
 He that should come ? " *' Wilt thou at this time restore 
 again the kingdom to Israel ? " He was asked. We read in 
 Jewish history that many false Christs presented themselves 
 after the true One had come, and Gamaliel's speech (Acts v. 
 36, 37) may signify that some such had appeared before Him. 
 From these facts, from other passages in the New Testament, 
 and also from another source to be named presently, we know 
 that the Jewish mind was full of expectation of the Messiah's 
 coming at the time when He came. We also know that it 
 
 was much occupied with thoughts of another life and another 
 world. So much had these subjects been discussed, that a 
 sect had risen up who contended that there was no resurrec- 
 
The Book of Enoch. 127 
 
 tion, or that its existence could not be proved from the Law 
 (Matt. xxii. 23-29). 
 
 Clearly these two things were of the utmost importance to 
 the issue of the Lord's coming and teaching. If no one ex- 
 pected Him, no one would have believed on Him when He did 
 come. Still more apparent is this when we remember that 
 the manner of His coming was a disappointment to the Jews. 
 His work was of a nature different from what they expected 
 and_ desired. He had to turn their hopes from temporal to 
 spiritual and eternal things— a change not at all palatable to 
 the natural man. Few believed on Him during His lifetime, 
 and there was no triumphant manifestation of His resurrec- 
 tion to allure the many, even when His work was done. 
 Would He have had a single follower from first to last, had 
 He come to the Jews of the Old Testament with such teach- 
 ing? We may almost venture to say that He would not. 
 All the seed would have fallen on stony ground had He 
 offered Himself as the Christ to a people who knew nothing 
 about any Christ ; or had He preached the doctrines of Christ'^ 
 ianity and the hope of a future life to a people whose thoughts 
 were entirely occupied with the present ; who had no belief 
 in, and no ideas of, any other life. Indispensable as we have 
 seen all the previous preparations of the human mind to be, 
 before man_ could acquire a knowledge of God, this prepara- 
 tion was undoubtedly equally indispensable, and yet more deep 
 and full. 
 
 There is some reason to believe that one great (perhaps the 
 ultimate) object of the captivities, first of the ten and then of 
 the two tribes, was to sift the nation thoroughly; so that the 
 most spiritually and suitably minded of them (or of their 
 descendants) might be in Palestioe afterwards, when the 
 Gospel should come to the nation. Such would be those who 
 had to traverse vast countries under difficulties and to meet 
 further difiiculties and trials on their arrival in their native 
 land (see Amos ix. 9, 10). The carnal-minded would not 
 return, but would prefer to stay where they were. These 
 
 were not the only siftings of the people, as we learn from their 
 history in the period between Old and J^ew Testament times. 
 
 The Old Testament Scriptures had done much, the siftings 
 and trials of the captivities and subsequent wars did more ; 
 but obviously much still had to be done, and was done, during 
 the 400 years preceding the coming of Christ. 
 
 The reader will by this time agree with me, not only that 
 such a work required the power of God to accomplish it, but 
 also that it was necessary, or at least very desirable, that it 
 should be done, not by miracle, but by a natural, gradual, 
 and therefore more heart-pervading, process. We also see 
 
128 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 that, inasmucli as such truths were in advance of Old Testa- 
 ment teaching, the Old Testament Scriptures were not 
 adequate to the work. How then was it accomplished ? 
 
 Clearly, writings for the people's perusal were the necessary 
 accompaniments of the spiritual work in the heart. We look 
 down upon the' books of the Apocrypha which existed among 
 the Jews at that period, (1) because they are not Scripture, 
 and (2) because we find much in them that does not commend 
 itself. The latter character, however, does not apply to the 
 whole of their contents. Undoubtedly, as they were both 
 written and read by Jews of that period, they were made use 
 of by God— though not Scripture — to further the work in their 
 intellects and hearts. But the books commonly bound to- 
 gether as " the Apocrypha " do not contain very much litera- 
 ture calculated to develop ideas so far in advance of, so 
 different from, those of present things. Something else was 
 needed surely. At any rate, here we come upon something 
 else ; and something extraordinary — the Book of Enoch. 
 
 As this book is not much read by the public, I give the fol- 
 lowing brief account of it, preparatory to answering the 
 arguments based on it. 
 
 It represents itself as being the work of the antediluvian 
 patriarch Enoch, and consists of his visions and jjrophecies. 
 From the number and character of the allusions to its contents 
 in the Ne«^ Testament, there can be no doubt that it was 
 known amongst the Jews before the books of the New Testa- 
 ment were written. It seems that it was generally accepted 
 as the genuine work of Enoch and as the Word of G-od. N"o 
 reader amongst ourselves could well believe it to be, as a 
 whole, either of these — certainly not the work of Enoch ; and, 
 although it contains spiritual truth, certainly not a work of 
 the same class as the Scriptures. 
 
 Archbishop Laurence, who translated the book from the 
 Ethiopic in 1821, concluded, that it made its appearance 
 amongst the Jews in the first century B.C. ; that it was written 
 by a Jew residing at a distance from Palestine, perhaps a 
 member of one of the tribes carried away by Shalmaneser; and 
 that, being thus brought to Palestine from a distant place, 
 its true origin was not discovered by the Jews. ^ The author 
 of the Introduction to the latest edition of this translation 
 (1883), maintains that there is no doubt as to its Hebrew- 
 Chaldee origin, though he says the Archbishop's conclusion 
 as to the writer's place of residence, has been questioned. In 
 any case it must have been written by one well acquainted 
 with Jewish history down to about one or two centuries B.C., 
 and one who was deeply imbued with religious beliefs far in 
 advance of those of Old Testament times. This seems to me a 
 
The Book of Enoch. 129 
 
 serious objection to the theory that it was composed by an 
 Israelite of the ten tribes. Resurrection life and heavenly 
 
 glory are depicted in glowing- language as the reward of 
 the righteous ; and for the wicked, or the wicked angels, there 
 is so much of hell- fire as almost to make one tremble. 
 The Advent of the Son of Man, the Elect One of the Ancient 
 of Days, is annouDced much more definitely and emphatic- 
 ally than in the Old Testament Scriptures ; while accounts 
 of the actions and dwellings of good and bad angels fill a large 
 portion of the book. 
 
 The striking feature, to my mind, is the high moral tone 
 of the work. The Coming One is not represented as an 
 esTthly prince coming to deliver the Hebrew people from 
 their national enemies and reign in earthly glory over them. 
 He is the Holy One who is coming to deliver the righteous, 
 to bless and reward them, and to judge the wicked. (In the 
 writer's mind the righteous may, however, have been identical 
 with the Hebrew people). Iniquity is reproved on the ground 
 of its essential character, in a manner which, one feels, could not 
 have been assumed by any wicked impostor. Yet inter- 
 
 mixed with all this is a vast amount of fabulous description of 
 supernatural visions, and of unscientific astronomy. 
 
 Whilst, therefore, it is a complete mistake to regard the 
 writer as an ordinary impostor, the English mind finds it 
 diflBcult to understand how any man could have produced 
 such a work and presented it as the words of the Patriarch 
 Enoch. But the book does not appear to be all the work 
 
 of one hand, or if so, it was not delivered complete in its 
 present form. We find three or four chapters recording a 
 vision of Noah, as the speaker, not Enoch. Chapters xviii. 
 verses 13-16 and xxi. 1-4 are evidently duplicate accounts 
 of the same vision, differing slightly. The first half of the 
 68th chapter appears to be another version of chapters vii. 
 and viii. The end of verse 1 and beginning of verse 2 in 
 chapter xxxvii, appear as the words of a later writer, proba- 
 bly the real writer of the vision. Whence it seems likely 
 that there were several detached compositions in circulation, 
 which were finally united and preserved as one whole. The 
 author of the Introduction suggests that the writer may 
 have " through the accidental synchronism of some pre- 
 arranged sign, personated Enoch in the conscientious convic- 
 tion that he was piously fulfilling the will of the Deity." 
 But the following statements made by Professor Huxley 
 upon another subject, Saul's interview with the witch 
 of Endor, seem to throw light on the matter. He says, 
 (T/ie Evolviion of Theology, Nineteenth Century, March, 
 1886): — 
 
130 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 "Saul goes to this woman, who, after being assured of immu- 
 nity, asks, ' Whom shall I bring up to thee ? ' whereiapon Saul 
 says' ' Bring me up Samuel.' The woman immediately sees an 
 apparition. But to Saul nothing is visible, for he asks, * What 
 seest thou?' And the woman replies, ' I see Elohim coming 
 up out of the earth.' Still the spectre remains invisible to 
 Saul, for he asks, 'What form is he of ?'_ And she replies, 
 ' An old man cometh up, and he is covered with a robe.' So far, 
 therefore, the wise-woman unquestionably plays the part of a 
 ' medium,' and Saul is dependent upon her version of what 
 happens." (After quoting 1 Sam. xxviii. 14-20, he continues) — 
 *' The statement that Saul ' perceived ' that it was Samuel is not 
 to be taken to imply that, even now, Saul actually saw the shade 
 of the prophet, but only that the woman's allusion to the pro- 
 phetic mantle and to the aged appearance of the spectre con- 
 vinced him that it was Samuel Nor does the dialogue 
 
 between Saul and Samuel necessarily, or probably, signify that 
 Samuel spoke otherwise than by the voice of the wise-woman — 
 the Septuagint does not hesitate to call her a ventriloquist, im- 
 plying that it was she who spoke. . . . It is most probable 
 that, in accordance ivith the general theory of spiritual influences 
 which obtained among the old Israelities, the spirit of Samuel was 
 conceived to pass into the body of the ^vise-woman, and to use her 
 vocal organs to speak in his own name— for I cannot discover that 
 they drew any clear distinction between possession and 
 inspiration." 
 
 I quote the above for the sake of the sentence which I have 
 given in italics, without expressing any opinion as to the 
 correctness of Prof. Huxley's application of this 'general 
 theory of spiritual influences ' to the case of the witch of 
 Endor. For if this theory of spiritual influences was general 
 among the old Israelites, we can clearly see that the author 
 of the Book of Enoch was no ' impostor,' but believed him- 
 self to be the recipient of supernatural communications from 
 the patriarch Enoch, whose spirit had taken possession of him 
 for the time-being. He believed that Enoch was speaking in 
 him and by him. He was therefore only acting in accordance 
 with one of the beliefs and practices of his time; whilst, as 
 the seer of such visions, he must have been of a class very 
 much superior to that of the wizards, or dealers with familiar 
 spirits, of earlier times— of a class totally different from these. 
 
 Thus the writer, or writers, must have believed himself or 
 themselves, to be inspired; and, as before remarked, the Jews 
 read the work with the same conviction. 
 
 It is, however, an utter mistake to suppose that any 
 man invented all the contents of the work, as the said author 
 of the Introduction, although an Evolutionist, seems to imply ; 
 for no man conceives a world of new ideas in that way. He 
 
The Book of Enoch:. 131 
 
 can only re-arrange, modify, and develop, the notions he has 
 received from his predecessors : he may add something to 
 them ; but, in the evolution of such ideas as these, he can 
 only do this when he has pre-existing materials. 
 
 And, accordingly, in this case the passage in Genesis vi. 
 about the ' sous of God' is present, but much enlarged upon ; 
 there is the Oomiug of the Messiah, many times referred to in 
 the Old Testament (and in 2 Esdras) ; the language of Joel ii. 
 1, 2, 30, 31, of Malachi iv. 1, as to the great and terrible day 
 of the Lord, is enlarged upon and added to ; the new heavens 
 and new earth of Isaiah Ixv. 17, and the imagery of Daniel are 
 there J- ftwd the resurrection life of Daniel xii. 2, 2 Esdras vii. 
 32, 43, xiv. 35, etc. (But as to the actual date of the latter 1 
 cannot speak with certainty, since verses 28, 29 of chapter vii. 
 are doubtless a later interpolation). 
 
 There is nothing about the Atonement ; no consciousness 
 manifested of any need of it. But the Coming of the 
 
 Elect One ; the judgment of the wicked, and future blessings 
 of the righteous ; the descriptions of good and bad angels and 
 their habitations ; the spirits of the righteous dead separated 
 from those of the wicked dead, and regarded as in some sense 
 now living; the resurrection life on earth or in heaven — are all 
 so amply enlarged upon as (combined too with the composite 
 character of the book) to convince me that these subjects 
 were somewhat familiar to the Jews of that period. 
 
 At the same time no one can reasonably doubt that the 
 Book of Enoch, although not (as a whole at least) sacred writ, 
 was much used by God to deepen these sentiments in Jewish 
 minds before the Coming of Christ. In the present day 
 
 we often know of cases where the preaching of hell-fire, 
 although not a truly scriptural kind of preaching, is used to 
 awaken sinners and prepare them for a reception of the 
 Gospel. In the same manner, doubtless, was this work made 
 use of by God to prepare the Jews for the Coming of Christ, 
 and for the preaching of Christ and His apostles. God uses 
 whatever agency He chooses, when He works. 
 
 This is not all ; the book undoubtedly contains Scriptural 
 truths, although closely mixed up with wrong ideas and 
 accounts of fabulous visions ; out of which compound mass 
 these truths were separated, and incorporated with the New 
 Testament Scriptures, in a later day. 
 
 Thus, as a well-known instance, and the most striking one 
 there is, the writer of Jude 14, 15, sharing with his contem- 
 poraries the belief that Enoch was the author, introduces the 
 subject of the Lord's Second Coming in words almost identical 
 with those of chapters ii. and xxvi. 2 of the Book of Enoch, 
 from which no one can doubt he was quoting. Here of course 
 
 K 2 
 
132 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 it is unimportant whether or not such a man as Enoch ever 
 spoke the words in question. The important thing is what 
 Ood has to say to the reader in that passage. Doubtless it is 
 therefor a purpose. And when we notice the words "the 
 seveoitli from Adam " applied to Enoch, and connect them with 
 his pleasing God and his translation, there seems a connexion 
 in a characteristic sense. The latter usage is common in 
 Scripture. Thus the description of Melchisedech in Heb. vii. 
 3, contains features which are not stated about him in Gen. 
 xiv. 18-20, but are characteristic of the manner in which he 
 there makes his appearance. A holy character is essentially 
 a testimony against and judgment of sin, and perhaps also a 
 prophecy of its consequences.^ So the one who " walks with 
 God " judges the one who " speaks hard things against Him." 
 Nor must we forget that the manner in which the truth of the 
 Lord's coming is introduced in that passage, was probably 
 well suited to the people whom the writer was addressing ; who 
 believed,_ as he himself did, that the patriarch had written the 
 book which bore his name. Similarly, it may be recognized 
 that the language of the Old Testament, which sometimes 
 offends the refined mind, was suited to an unrefined people. 
 
 Mr. J. N. Darby has remarked {Synopsis, p. 19) that " Enoch 
 — who has his portion in heaven, and who bears witness to the 
 world of the coming of Jesus— and Noah, on the other hand, 
 warned for himself, preaching righteousness and judgment, and 
 passing through the judgments to begin a new world — are 
 figures of the Church and the Jews in connection with Christ's 
 coming." As we shall see, more fully, further on, the important 
 thing in the case of many of these early Old Testament 
 characters, is not the man himself, but the spirit manifested in 
 his character, or the figure or type which he presents. Doubt- 
 less this is the case with Enoch ; and we here find that the 
 character which he presents in the Old Testament is com- 
 pleted by this trait of prophesying of the Lord's coming, which 
 is given in the Epistle of Jude. 
 
 Further on in the present work we shall notice a good many 
 instances in which the simplicity of the writer of Scripture has 
 clearly been made use of by God, so that in writing what he 
 himself believed to be ordinary historical fact, he expressed 
 historical spiritual fact, or other spiritual truth. Since there 
 are these cases in the beginning of the Old Testament, it is 
 not surprising that we find one such case in the New. This 
 is, no doubt, the explanation of this quotation by the writer of 
 Jnde. 
 
 ^ ' "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 
 
The Book of Enoch. 133 
 
 In other instances we find the language of the Book of 
 Enoch used in the New Testament as the common expressions 
 and beliefs of the day. But some of these expressions may not 
 have been originally obtained from the Book of Enoch ; they 
 were perhaps current expressions before the book was written, 
 and thus naturally adopted by its writer or writers ; or the 
 passages which contain them may have been placed amongst 
 the other parts of the work when the whole was completed in 
 its present form, long after the original book was written — a 
 sort of thing which seems to have occurred in those days. 
 
 Its whole contents, original and derived, seem to present the 
 notions of Eschatology and the unseen world which prevailed 
 amongst the Jews when these subjects were first taking a large 
 hold on their mind. They are somewhat crude notions. 
 
 One labours in vain to unite the different passages which seem 
 to treat of the same subject, so as to find a system. The 
 fallen angels seem to be of a semi-material nature, for they 
 marry women, beget children, and are cast into a chasm in the 
 desert and covered up with stones. Resurrection life some- 
 times seems to be on earth and sometimes in heaven. Some- 
 times the raised saints seem to have material bodies ; some- 
 times they are spirits ; and whether they are to dwell together 
 with the righteous of a later day on earth (xxxix. 1), or to 
 have a place apart, it is dijBBcult to gather by making all 
 passages agree. Satan is not the leader of the fallen angels, 
 but Azazyel or Samyaza is. Where the name Satan occurs, it 
 does not at all convey the notion of the One Great Enemy and 
 the god of this world, as he is revealed in Scripture. There 
 is no being corresponding to him in the book. But one 
 
 feature is unmistakable— the old-world notion of the structure 
 of the Universe. It is in a material heaven where we see the 
 clouds and stars above us, that G-od and the angels dwell, so 
 that when the latter descend to earth they alight on a moun- 
 tain. The luminaries are closely related to angels ; sometimes 
 they are identical with them ; but generally they are rather 
 regarded as controlled by them. In that region God, the good 
 and bad angels, the stars, the clouds, and sometimes the saints, 
 are all mixed up together, i.e. all represented as existing there. 
 
 Out of this chaos of ideas truer ones were gradually evolved, 
 under divine guidance, on those points where better knowledge 
 was necessary for Christian welfare, and for the writing of 
 certain portions of the eschatological and prophetic parts of 
 the New Testament, The Book of Enoch served to introduce 
 some, and further the growth of others, of such ideas in the 
 Jewish mind, thus preparing the way for something better. 
 Then its work was done, and it gradually fell out of use. 
 
 We may notice here one or two instances which illustrate 
 
134 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 the fact already stated, that the Book of Enoch introduced to 
 the Jewish mind only approximations to certain truths ; after 
 which, through Christ's teaching and through revelation, the 
 truths themselves were made known. 
 
 The Book of Enoch knows nothing whatever about that 
 essential doctrine of Christianity — the Atonement; nor about 
 a first and second Coming of Christ. It only teaches that 
 sucb an One is coming, and that He is coming to deliver the 
 righteous and judge the wicked. The Jewish, mind being, 
 through this and the Old Testament prophecies, led to expect 
 Christ, He comes in due time, reveals that He is coming twice, 
 in the first case to die for man's redemption, and in the second 
 case to judge. 
 
 In Enoch x. Azazyel is to be bound hand and foot, blinded, 
 cast into an opening in the desert, and covered with stones ; 
 there to remain for ever, and iu the day of judgment to be 
 cast into the fire. Sarayaza and the other angels are to have 
 all their sons slain, then to be bound for seventy generations 
 underneath the earth until the day of judgment, then to be 
 taken away into the lowest depths of the fire in torments, and 
 in confinement to be shut up for ever. How different is 
 
 Kev. sx., where it is " the dragon, the old serpent, which is the 
 Devil, and Satan," who is to be bound and cast into the abyss, 
 that he should deceive the nations no more during the thousand 
 years ; then to be loosed for a little time, once more to deceive 
 the nations; and finally to be cast into the lake of fire and 
 brimstone and tormented day and night for ever and ever. 
 
 In Enoch Ixvi. we find the doctrine of Purgatory, which has 
 no place in the New Testament. 
 
 In the New Testament the language used on the subject of 
 Eschatology is necessarily figurative, as it also is in all the 
 prophetic parts of the Book of Eevelation. When we see the 
 extreme difficulty of conveying adequate ideas on such matters, 
 we are impressed with the absolute necessity for some such 
 literature as the Book of Enoch ; the mind must be familiar 
 with such subjects before those iScrijDtures which treat of them 
 could be written in a suitable form. It may be added that, 
 whereas future punishment is brought before the sinner as a 
 solemn warning in the Bible, such is not the course Scripture 
 usually takes for reaching the heart of man. It addresses his 
 conscience, ^^hilst it presents the Gospel as the greatest of 
 blessings, for his acceptance. 
 
 Had the One who came from God, to do the will and ivork 
 of God, and who required such a forerunner as John the 
 Baptist, had no harbinger of another kind, He would not have 
 found the ' fields white already to harvest.' After tracing, as 
 we have briefly done, the work of God in man's heart from 
 
The Book of Enoch. 135 
 
 the very beginning, we are not at all surprised to find — bat 
 should rather be surprised if it was not so — that He had duly 
 prepared the way for the crowning revelation of His Son, and 
 the gift of the Holy Spirit. We may, indeed, be sur- 
 
 prised that He should have used, amongst others, such an 
 instrument as this Book of Enoch. But He who, seeing the 
 end from the beginning, so overruled the action of ' natural 
 selection ' and other agencies as to produce results so mar- 
 vellous in the Evolution of Life — and who even makes use of 
 the Evil One to work out His purposes — was doubtless well 
 acquainted with the intricacies and peculiarities of the Semitic 
 mind, and knew how to deal with it. So indeed, in the 
 education and sanctification of His people in the present 
 day : He often brings them through strange trials and ex- 
 periences, brought about by many different and unexpected 
 agencies. 
 
 But on one point the foregoing observations are not, per- 
 haps, sufficiently explicit. The author of the Introduction to 
 the Book of Enoch argues that "if the author was not an 
 inspired prophet, who predicted the teaching of Christianity, 
 he was a visionary enthusiast whose illusions were accepted 
 by Evangelists and Apostles as revelation — alternative con- 
 clusions which involve the Divine or human origin of Christi- 
 anity."" 
 
 The answer is very simple. The boundary-line between that 
 which is of God and that which is not, corresjDonds neither 
 with the line which divides books from each other,^ nor with 
 the line which divides men from each other. It may, indeed, 
 correspond in places with these rough divisions, but in others 
 it cuts through both books and men. Therefore not only are 
 some parts of the Book of Enoch God's work, but part of the 
 mind of its writer was of God too. 
 
 We often err in supposing that those divisions which 
 present themselves to our senses are fundamental divisions. 
 Even whilst doing this we sometimes indirectly and semi- 
 consciously perceive where the true dividing line is. Instead of 
 trying to prove this principle, and then apply it to the case 
 before us, it will be better to take an example. I find one 
 close at hand. 
 
 1 have stated that the author of the Book of Enoch must 
 have believed himself to be * inspired,' that he wrote largely 
 
 2 Introdaction to the Book of Enoch, p. 42. 
 
 3 Perhaps it should be said this does not relate to the diflference 
 between the Bible and other books. In what manner the Bible 
 is God's work, and what is the Word of God, are questions dealt 
 with elsewhere in this work. 
 
136 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 of fabulous visions and unscientific astronomy, and yet that 
 he wrote in a high moral tone — I think I may add here, in an 
 unimpeachable spirit generally, though not everywhere. I do 
 not suppose that the reader questioned those statements, but 
 even if he did, they illustrate this matter. For if we ask. 
 Was that high moral tone, was the spirit thus manifested, of 
 God, or of man? there is only one answer, for it could only be 
 of God."* Yet the mental peculiarities with which they so 
 closely co-existed were of man ! 
 
 We need not, therefore, inquire how some of the writings of 
 this * visionary enthusiast ' could have been of God, or how 
 the Spirit of God could have pervaded a man of such mental 
 peculiarities, since we have just stated that in one respect it 
 ims so. However fine and untraceable such dividing lines 
 may appear to our eyes, they are most real; the^ are 
 fundamental. 
 
 Just in as far, therefore, as this writer was pervaded by the 
 Spirit of God, was his work of God ; no more, and no less. 
 
 God uses what instruments He chooses, to what extent He 
 chooses, and in what way He chooses. 
 
 Concerning the Book of Enoch we conclude then : — 
 
 (1) That it was an important harbinger of Christ Himself. 
 
 (2) That it was a most useful agent in leading Jewish 
 thought from the present life to the unseen world, and the 
 subject of Eschatology ; whilst it also developed their pre- 
 existing conceptions and introduced new ones, forming a 
 crude structure of ideas ready to be moulded into truer ones 
 by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 (3) That together with the intellectual peculiarities of the 
 writer, such a spirit is manifested as could only be of God : 
 that his visions were sometimes overruled by God to take the 
 direction of truth, so that they sometimes express an adum- 
 bration to certain truths, or even a closer approach. 
 
 (4) That when the Books of the New Testament were being 
 written, that which was of God, and also was intended to be 
 taught to people of subsequent times, was placed in the !New 
 Testament Scriptures. In the latter there are seldom com- 
 plete extracts ; but there is considerable alteration, as if the 
 essential part were taken out and put in its proper place and 
 connexion.^ 
 
 ^ If the foregoing account has not conveyed the impression 
 that the author of the Book of Enoch wrote in a spirit such as 
 could only be of God, it was intended to do so. 
 
 ^ Perhaps the reader will compare this with the remarks on 
 pp. 74, 75, as to the course of production of parts of the Bible. 
 
The Book of Enoch. 137 
 
 The Book of Enoch then presents no difficulty when the 
 facts are understood. It is also a strong confirmation of the 
 principles maintained in this work— that God habitually- 
 worked in those days as now, by natural means and not by 
 miracle ; that He therefore revealed truth to the writers of 
 Scripture only as their minds became prepared to receive it, 
 whilst they naturally embodied it in their writings only as their 
 readers were ready for it, and in the language to which they 
 were accustomed ; and that thus the growth of truth in the 
 mind of the people proceeded pari ]3assu with the writing of 
 the Scriptures, in a beautiful and orderly manner. 
 
 But it strikes the death-blow to the theory of ivliolesale 
 miraculous inspiration. 
 
 It has already been remarked that some sections of the 
 Hebrew people were further advanced in truth than others. 
 It appears too from Dr. Edersheim's Sketches of Jewish Social 
 Life, that even in the time of Christ there was much difference 
 between the several sections of the people in regard to their 
 religious tenets and in some other respects. Of course there 
 could not be such an interchange of thought amongst them as 
 amongst ourselves, where books are so abundant. It seems 
 extremely probable from these and other facts, that in the 
 evolution of the knowledge of divine truth amongst the 
 Hebrews, certain sections of the people made progress in some 
 branches of truth, and others in others, for a long time before 
 such truths became common to all. Doubtless the scattered 
 state of the Hebrews during the latter part of their history 
 furthered this condition of things. 
 
 A parallel may be noticed here. Before the beginning of 
 revelation, the human mind was being led in the direction 
 of truth, as already stated, and as will be more apparent 
 further on. In like manner the Jewish mind had been led 
 near to the divine truths of the Apocalypse, before these were 
 delivered to the early Christians. It may still seem 
 
 doubtful to the reader that God would use such a man as the 
 writer of the Book of Enoch. But when we realize that God 
 habitually uses ivhat is at hand to carry out His purposes, 
 whilst this writer was merely acting in acccordance with one 
 of the beliefs and practices of his time, that God should use a 
 spiritually-minded man possessing peculiarities presents no 
 difficulty. If the writer had been a ivicked man the case would 
 be different. 
 
 We have seen, moreover, that much of the Book of Enoch 
 consists of fabulous stories about angels, false astronomy, etc. ; 
 from which some have inferred that no other parts of the book 
 should have a place in the Bible, as expressing Divine truth. 
 But the argument is, in reality, in the opposite direction. For 
 
138 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 there can be little doubt that the whole book was accepted by 
 the Jews as of Divine origin ; and therefore the fact that none 
 of this fable or false astronomy was transferred to the Bible, 
 thonjjfh the other extracts were so transferred, is most 
 significant. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 INSPIRATION AND THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF 
 THE BIBLE. 
 
 We have not yet examined the question, What Scrip- 
 tural authority have we for the assertion, that the writers 
 of Scripture were habitually endowed with knowledge in a 
 manner involving the setting aside of the laws of Nature 1 
 and particularly for the extreme view, that this occurred 
 not only in cases where we might suppose it to have been 
 helpful, but even where (for reasons given in this work,) it 
 would have been useless and injurious to the work of God ? 
 It was thought well to defer that inquiry to this place, 
 because foregoing facts facilitate its discussion, and put us 
 in a better position for arriving at the truth of the matter. 
 
 Let us notice a few texts that seem to bear upon the 
 question. The Apostle Peter writes (2 Pet. i. 21), ''no 
 prophecy ever came by the will of man ; but men spake 
 from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost." Also in his 
 speech (Acts ii. 30, 31) he says of David that ''he foresee- 
 ing spake of the resurrection of the Christ," etc. But both 
 these passages refer to prophecies, and are not general state- 
 ments relating to writers of Scripture. So with 1 Peter i. 
 10-12. 
 
 The Apostle Paul writes (Gal. i. 12) that he received the 
 knowledge of the Gospel not from man, but "through 
 revelation of Jesus Christ," and (Eph. iii. 3) "by revela- 
 
140 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 tion was made known unto me the mystery," etc., whicli 
 latter revelation he probably received on the occasion 
 referred to in 2 Cor. xii. 1-8. Here, in the first place, 
 
 we have clearly something special and unusual. He has a 
 special call from God at the beginning of his Christian 
 career, on account of the important position he has to fill. 
 In like manner certain divine truths are revealed to him — and 
 what a fitting subject he was for such an honour — in a case 
 where we may say it was quite necessary, or at any rate 
 altogether suitable, for the communication of those truths 
 to the Church. But that is not all ; for there is every 
 reason to believe his own mind was fully prepared before- 
 hand for comprehending those truths, so that through 
 enlightenment of the Spirit he could receive them naturally 
 and without miracle. He says also (2 Cor. xii. 2, 3) that 
 
 he did not know whether he was in the body or out of the 
 body. There is no occasion therefore to affirm, even in 
 this special case, any miraculous transportation of his body. 
 If he was 'in the Spirit' in the same manner as the 
 Apostle John in Kev. i. 10, iv. 2, there seems little reason 
 to suppose there was miracle in his case, more than in the 
 Apostle John's. The same applies to the visions of pro- 
 phets. In all these cases such wonderful communications 
 from God seem to be quite possible without any miracle 
 in that sense of the word in which I always here use 
 itj —without any setting aside of the law that all 
 perceptions imply some mental preparation, some ideas of 
 a congruent character. In any case these are special 
 exceptions, which do not at all apply to the general course 
 of things. 
 
 But what have we in 2 Tim. iii. 16 ? ^' Every Scripture 
 inspired of God also profitable for teaching," etc. This is a 
 general statement at any rate. But what does it say^ We 
 n^ay — if we have been accustomed to read it so — see in it 
 
Inspiration & the Structure of the Bible. 141 
 
 the proposition at the head of Chapter II. of this work, 
 and perhaps even the additional assertion that the writers 
 of Scripture were miraculously ' inspired.' But it cannot 
 be said to contain either of these assertions — the second 
 would be a quite gratuitous attachment to it ; the first we 
 saw upon analysis to be in reality, not a true proposition, 
 but a pseudo- proposition. We might perhaps say that it 
 expresses the truth dwelt on at length on page 43, namely, 
 the connexion between the written word and the real 
 Word, which is God ; or the important truth that God is 
 the author of every Scripture, having produced such for 
 teaching, etc. These things satisfy completely the terms 
 of the passage. But let it be specially noted that it says 
 nothing as to the manner in which the writers of Scripture 
 were enabled to perform their task ; which is all that 
 concerns us in this inquiry. 
 
 Are we to infer miraculous inspiration, or unlimited 
 revelation, in the case of writers of tlie New Testament, 
 because they sometimes, when referring to Old Testament 
 passages, say things which we ourselves cannot find in those 
 Old Testament passages ? When, for instance, the Apostle 
 Paul states that Enoch, before his translation, ''had witness 
 borne to him that he had been well-pleasing to God" 
 (Heb. xi. 5), is it implied that he knew this by revelation? 
 No, for in the Septuagint Version, which was in use in the 
 Apostle's days, we read " Enoch was well-pleasing to God " 
 (Gen. V. 24). The mention of the names Jannes and 
 
 Jambres is another case. Comparing the passage (2 Tim. 
 iii 6-8) with Num. xxv., we find that the man Zimri agrees 
 in character with these two men ; and on referring to the 
 Septuagint Num. xxv. 6, 14, we find that, instead of one 
 man Zimri, it speaks of two men — a man and his brother — 
 one of whom was named Zambri, the other name not being 
 given. It seems most likely, therefore, that that was the 
 
142 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 event referred to in 2 Tim. iii. Q-S, and that Zambri and 
 Jambres are two forms of the same name. 
 
 Similarly with other cases : they are simply references. 
 Scripture does not teach that there was any such useless 
 revelation to the Apostles. 
 
 Whilst, however, we do not find^ as we have no right to 
 expect, that miracles were largely performed on behalf of 
 the writers of Scripture, what do we find ? That Moses 
 was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and Paul 
 was *' brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed accord- 
 ing to the strict manner of the law " — both men chosen by 
 God, well fitted by natural means for the work which they 
 had to do. Because some of the Apostles were fisher- 
 
 men we have inferred that they were poor and ignorant. 
 But it was the custom of well-to-do Jews to have their 
 children brought up to useful trades, so that even Paul is 
 said to have been a tent-maker (Acts xviii. 3). The 
 Apostles John and James were the sons of a fisherman who 
 owned a ship and had hired servants. The writer of the 
 Gospel of Luke and (as supposed) of the Acts was a physi- 
 cian, and naturally well fitted, one would think, for his 
 work of writing those two books. Other cases might be 
 cited, where such writers of Scripture were chosen by God 
 as were naturally qualified for their work. 
 
 It was stated in a former place that, in cases where such 
 natural qualification of the writer of Scripture was not com- 
 plete, owing to the times in which he lived, God used a 
 substitute for it. We may here notice a few instances 
 which illustrate this fact, which we shall find of great 
 importance in treating of Gen. i. to xi. I refer to cases 
 where there is a scriptural signification in passages which 
 appear at first sight to be merely historical, and where it is 
 obvious the writer of the passage had only the historical 
 facts before his own mind. 
 
Inspiration & the Structure of the Bible. 143 
 
 Did the writer of the narrative of Abraham offering up 
 Isaac, see what an affecting typical picture he was drawing 
 of the One who delivered up His only begotten Son (but 
 who was not, like Abraham, released at the last moment), 
 and of the Son who was made the Victim 'i There is no 
 reason to suppose he had any such light. 
 
 Careful searchers into the treasures of Old Testament 
 Scriptures have found in Elijah and Elisha representatives 
 of law and grace, as manifested in some of their charac- 
 teristics. 
 
 In the killing of the lamb in Exod. xii. 21--24, and the 
 striking of the blood upon the doorposts, what a beautiful 
 figure we have of the sacrifice of Christ, and the safety of 
 the believer who has in like manner trusted in His blood 
 and in the Word of God that declares it to be all-sufficient. 
 
 Safety in the Ark of Gen. vi. to viii. from surround- 
 ing judgment prefigures safety in Christ. In the nar- 
 rative of Numbers xxi. 9, where the serpent-bitten man 
 looks and is cured, are prefigured the lifting-up of the 
 Son of man, and the look of faith that saves (John iii. 
 14, 15). 
 
 In none of these cases, nor in many similar ones that 
 might be given, is there the least reason to attribute to the 
 writers any idea of the special significance of what they 
 were writing. Here we trace the Hand of God, who so 
 directed the action of the human writer, unknown to him, 
 as to express His own Mind in those passages. 
 
 This is further supported by 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, "it is 
 written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox 
 when he treadeth out the corn. Is it for the oxen that 
 God careth, or saith he it altogether for our sake 1 Yea, for 
 our sake it was written ; because he that ploweth ought to 
 plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of 
 partaking." Here it appears that the author of Deut. 
 
144 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 XXV. 4, did not at all understand the significance which God 
 attached to his words. 
 
 Nor is it only in historical parts of the Bible and in the 
 Law that we discover this unseen process. We even find it 
 in prophetical parts, where in some cases the writers did not 
 intend their words to be prophetic. In John xix. 36 we 
 read " these things came to pass, that the Scripture might be 
 fulfdled, A bone of him shall not be broken." Where is 
 that Scripture ? We find in Exod. xii. 46, a command 
 relating to the Passover, " neither shall ye break a bone 
 thereof," with its parallel passage Num. ix. 12. There is 
 also Ps. xxxiv. 19, 20 : — "Many are the afiBictions of the 
 righteous : but Jehovah delivereth him out of them all. He 
 keepeth all his bones ; not one of them is broken." One of 
 these passages is doubtless the prophecy referred to ; and in 
 neither of them is there anything to show that its writer had 
 his thoughts fixed on Christ, or that he intended his words 
 as a prophecy. 
 
 Several parallel cases may be found by comparing John 
 xix. 24 with Ps. xxii. 18; John xix. 37 with Ps. xxii. 16 
 and Zech. xii. 10; Matt. ii. 23 with Amos ii. 11 and Judg. 
 xiii. 5 ; Matt. ii. 17, 18 with Jer. xxxi. 15—17 ; Matb. 
 xiii. 35 with Ps. Ixxviii. 1, 2. Also in Matt. ii. 15 the pro- 
 phetic words " Out of Egypt did I call my son," relating to 
 Christ's return from Egypt, are taken from Hosea xi. 1, 
 " When Israel w^as a child, then I loved him, and called my 
 son out of Egypt." In all these cases there is much reason 
 to believe that the writers did not consciously prophesy of 
 the things named in the New Testament passages, but that 
 when they wrote, their words were so overruled and directed 
 by omniscient God as to express these prophecies. 
 
 Again in Matt. xii. 39, 40, we read " there shall no sign be 
 given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet ; for as Jonah 
 was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale ; 
 
Inspiration & THE Structure of the Bible. 145 
 
 so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in 
 the heart of the earth." Here we find the whole narrative 
 of Jonah and the whale to be a prophecy, of which fact there 
 is not the least reason to suppose the writer was aware. (It 
 is, however, true that in the parallel case. Acts ii. 30, 31, 
 before cited, the apostle Peter believed David to have fore- 
 seen the resurrection of Christ.) 
 
 We read also in John xi. 51, 52, that Caiaphas uttered a 
 prophecy ^' not of himself, but being high priest that year " 
 His words (John xi. 50) do not read like any such prophecy 
 as verses 51, 52 give ; and he seems to have thus prophesied 
 both involuntarily and unconsciously. This last instance 
 seems to give an insight into God's own ways and thoughts ; 
 and when we have realized that the men whom God used 
 for the production of the Bible were not immaculate or 
 inspired to an unlimited extent, it appears that such may 
 have been His way of producing prophetic writings to a 
 greater extent than is here affirmed. God may use ' exceed- 
 ing greatness of revelations ' and the miracle, for special 
 purposes now and then ; but a work is just as much of God 
 — and how much more like His work in Nature — when it 
 takes the gradual, quiet, and more effectual course. Nor 
 does it matter in the least how much, or how little, God 
 enlightened His human agents who wrote the Bible. The 
 only important fact for its reader to-day is that He icas its 
 author, from Gen. i. to Eev. xxii. 
 
 The reader may, perhaps, think it a mistake to insist, as 
 has been done in this work, on the imperfect condition of 
 the human writers of Scripture, although their very excellence 
 consisted, in the first instance, in their likeness to the people 
 for whom they wrote. I should quite agree with him if this 
 work was intended for those who know little or nothing 
 about the difficulties that form its subject. It is unques- 
 tionably better that they, missing enlightenment on matters 
 
 L 
 
146 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 relatively unimportant, can read their Bibles believing in the 
 letter (or what appears to them to be the letter) everywhere. 
 But the case is totally different for those who know the 
 serious nature of those difficulties. For it is this common 
 belief, that the divine origin of the Bible and the perfect 
 knowledge of its human writers, must stand or fall together, 
 that has so fatal an effect in the present day. It is therefore 
 of vital importance to remove this error on which so many 
 mistakes are built up ; and to build on what we have here 
 seen to be the only true and sure foundation. 
 
 This imperfect knowledge of the human writer must 
 inevitably show itself more or less in such a work as the 
 Bible, in the same manner that his Oriental peculiarities 
 must show themselves. 
 
 It has been shown that there is no such thing as expressing 
 truths in language outside of mind, because the ideas are the 
 realities, which language only serves to convey, and language 
 does not exist until the mind makes and uses it. Truths 
 must be conceived in the writer's mind before they can be 
 transmitted through his writings, and this process must be 
 repeated in the case of every writer through whom these 
 truths are transmitted to posterity, unless he simply tran- 
 scribes a well-known language. We have seen, too, that in 
 the evolution of such knowledge as we have in Scripture, 
 the people of early times can perceive only an approxima- 
 tion to many of the truths, and therefore their writings can 
 directly express only such an approximation. In the course 
 of ages, as these approximate perceptions approach nearer 
 and nearer to the reality, the language used also expresses 
 those clearer thoughts. Let us take an instance. A 
 
 Hebrew of early times has vaguely apprehended that God 
 is angry with the nation for their sins. Not only does he 
 represent his God as in human form, but he can think of His 
 
Inspiration & the Structure of the Bible. 147 
 
 anger only as hot, impulsive, unreasoniag, as his own pas- 
 sions are. It is impossible to read Esod. xxxii. 7-14 
 without perceiving a difference between the character of 
 Jahveh as depicted there and that of the God of the l^ew 
 Testament. So also the author of the Book of Judges relates 
 that "the anger of Jahveh was hot against Israel" (or 
 " kindled against Israel " E. A. V. ). A truth is expressed, 
 but crudely ; it could not be expressed otherwise till more 
 enlightened times. As an instance of another kind, we 
 
 may take the Flood. We know that a universal flood of 
 water is not the exact signification of that Scripture, for such 
 never occurred. Later on we shall see reason to conclude 
 that that truth is of a nature such that the early Hebrew 
 could not represent it to himself in thought. But a uni- 
 versal destruction of men by a flood of water is an approxi- 
 mation to it such as he could conceive of. Here we have 
 an instance of the guiding hand of God, working with the 
 human ignorance displayed in the details of the narrative. 
 The approximation to the divine truth which God wished 
 to have expressed in that passage could then be presented in 
 writing only through the medium of human ignorance, which 
 alone could produce such a story. In the first of these 
 
 two cases any possibility of a misapprehension to-day of the 
 character of God is prevented by the light of later Scriptures, 
 which confirm the truth of the passage and cancel its con- 
 comitant inaccuracy. In the second case both the scriptural 
 truth and the accompanying scientific error remain, for at the 
 time the Bible was completed men were still ignorant of 
 geology, and Scripture does not teach science. Here science 
 will not upset Scripture, but aid it, or should do so if the 
 question is properly approached, by enabling us to approach 
 nearer to the scriptural truth of the passage than our pre- 
 decessors could do. 
 
 Most of the truths expressed in the Bible are of a nature 
 L 2 
 
148 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 such that a writer could not express them without present- 
 ing a large proportion of his usual thoughts ; more than he 
 would present in expressing facts of common knowledge. 
 For divine truths are almost entirely truths of mind. They 
 can be conceived by the writer only in terms furnished 
 by, and composed of, his own thoughts_, with which they 
 are thus most closely associated. Therefore he can express the 
 truth only by expressing those very thoughts. Therefore if 
 those thoughts are Oriental, otherwise peculiar, or ignorant, 
 the Orientalism, other peculiarity, or ignorance, must in- 
 evitably be expressed in the very act of conveying the 
 divine truth. The ignorance need not appear in every 
 case, but in some cases, because there is so wide a range of 
 truths expressed in the Bible. 
 
 In foregoing pages we have noticed many facts which 
 justify the language and structure of the Bible. To my 
 mind, the above important fact furnishes the final vindica- 
 tion of the Bible. 
 
 We observe an Orientalism, and say, " Of course that is 
 expressed in the writer's words." It is equally " of course " 
 that his so-called ignorance does. The one is not, essentially, 
 more derogatory to Scripture than the other is, but we 
 are so ignorant ourselves that we are very slow to perceive 
 this. 
 
 I have before remarked upon the relative character of ignor- 
 ance. The reader will excuse my doing so again here, and 
 more fully. The diagram on the next page illustrates the 
 matter. The lines a, b, c, d, e, f, represent the upward pro- 
 gress of man. No distinction is made here between religious 
 and scientific or other progress, nor are the lines meant to be 
 in exact proportion to the reality. If we take our standpoint 
 at /, making / the standard to judge by, all predecessors a, 
 h, c, dj e, are ignorant ; but e is less so than the others be- 
 fore it, and so with r/, c, and h. If we stand at &, c, d, or e, 
 we can only see that our predecessors are shorter than (in- 
 
Inspiration & the Structure of the Bible. 149 
 
 ferior to) ourselves ; we cannot see s^\ 
 our longer (superior) successors, for 
 they are not yet come into existence. 
 Therefore neither of these positions 
 furnishes a true view of the 
 matter. The proper standpoint is 
 0. As we look at a we must 
 cover up all the other lines h, c, 
 etc., for tlieij do not exist at this 
 time. Then, truly, a is a marvel. 
 So, when we come to it^ is h. c is a 
 still greater marvel, and so on to 
 the end.' 
 
 ThuSj it is the short-sightedness 
 and self-complacency of e that makes 
 it regard d and the other shorter 
 lines as ignorant or low. The 
 ignorance is not an absolute quality, 
 but only a relative one. The 
 ignorance is applicable to e just 
 as well as to d, only in a less degree. 
 It is merely the act of looking 
 down that produces the idea of 
 ignorance (as derogatory) on the part 
 of predecessors. 
 
 From the proper standpoint 0, 
 each is wise, and wonderful. 
 
 Of course we cannot " step out of 
 the rank and take a look at our- 
 
 ^ Perhaps it should have been said 
 that the height at O forms the true 
 standard whereby to judge the other 
 lines; since, if the eye were actually- 
 placed at the angle, all the lines would 
 appear the same length. 
 
 ^' 
 
 gl^ 
 
150 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 selves " after the manner of the Irishman's suggestion. 
 We cannot see with the first man's eyes, or make a true 
 comparison of the Amoeba with the Man ; but we, at least, 
 possess the representative faculty in a sufficient degree to 
 get many of our natural false impressions removed by such 
 reflections. And, in some measure, we are certainly enabled 
 to approach to a true view of the facts. 
 
 However important the above fact, we should remember 
 that it does not at all affect the truths of God, but only the 
 biblical literature which merely serves to convey them to 
 our minds. 
 
 But, while seeing that, theoretically, that literature should 
 be no defect to the Book of God, we yet feel that it is so ; 
 because of our own mental constitution, which finds it 
 difficult to look down (as it cannot well help doing at 
 inferior knowledge) on the literature, and, in the same act, 
 to hold in due reverence the divine element which is so 
 closely associated with it. At the same time we see that 
 it could not be otherwise, unless God had chosen to wait 
 till man had ceased to progress in knowledge, before deliver- 
 ing His Book, or, at least, before completing it. However 
 well this might have suited our successors, ive have cause 
 to be glad that God did not choose that course. 
 
 It has been stated before that, as knowledge of divine 
 truths progressed among the Hebrews, abstract ideas of such 
 truths gradually came into existence, accompanied by ab- 
 stract terms for their expression. This culminated in New 
 Testament times. It therefore follows that New Testa- 
 ment writers expressed themselves in abstract terms to a 
 much greater extent than former writers had done; the 
 result of which is, that less of the New Testament writer's 
 own mind is presented in proportion to the divine truth 
 he expresses, than in the case of the Old Testament writer. 
 
Inspiration & the Structure of the Bible. 151 
 
 But even in the New Testament the writer's own mind is 
 inevitably expressed in some degree, with its Orientalisms, 
 and, occasionally, with its — as we call it — ignorance. 
 
 Perhaps the reader has demurred to the assertion that 
 abstract ideas of divine things did not exist till New 
 Testament times. We have, for instance, the abstractions 
 * good ' and ' evil ' as early as the second chapter of 
 Genesis. In Babylon the idea of 'spirits' existed long 
 before Hebrew times. In Greece there were psychological 
 abstractions at an early period. The answer is that 
 
 the above is a general statement respecting the progress 
 of such ideas in the Hebrew people alone ; that, as before 
 stated, progress differed in different sections of the Hebrew 
 people, so that some abstractions appeared long before 
 others, for this reason, as well as for the reason that this 
 would be the natural course of things; that when we 
 analyze the Babylonian conception of a spirit, we find in- 
 dications that it was of a material nature, as to-day among 
 savages. In the illustration of Merodach delivering the 
 Moon-god from the evil spirits, given in the Chaldean 
 Account of Genesis, p. 101, the evil spirit is represented 
 as an erect animal. Doubtless there are, however, other 
 indications known to students of Babylonian literature, 
 which show what their conception of spirits was like. 
 
 As to the progress in Greece, more remains to be said. 
 Under the successors of Alexander the Great, Greek culture 
 spread over South- Western Asia and Egypt, where many 
 Jews had settled. It continued to do so after their king- 
 doms had come under Eoman power. In the time of Christ 
 it had made its way in Palestine. The Apostles used (often, 
 but I think not always) the Greek translation of the Old 
 Testament which is called the Septuagint. The New 
 Testament was written in the Greek language. The 
 Hebrews did not study science much, but confined their 
 
152 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 studies to theology. What resources the Hebrew (or 
 
 the Aramean) language has in expressing abstract ideas I 
 do not well know, but there is no doubt that it is less rich 
 than the Greek in this respect. Did not the Greek language, 
 then, come into use among the Hebrews just when it was 
 needed, to facilitate the final development of abstract ideas 
 of spiritual things in the Hebrew mind, and furnish^ at the 
 same time, language for their expression "? ~ 
 
 But there is another fact. The progress of Christianity 
 was westwards. It has had its stronghold among Indo- 
 European people. How immense has been the advantage 
 to the latter that the truths of Christianity — the grand 
 truths of the Bible — were originally expressed in one of 
 their own tongues (the Greek)^ instead of in the tongue of 
 a Semitic race, such as the Hebrew. Here we see distinctly 
 how God had prepared the best of means to facilitate the 
 progress of Truth over the civilized world, in this spread 
 of the Greek language over so large a portion of the world 
 of those days, including Palestine, the cradle of that Truth. 
 Here, once more, we see that it was in due time that Christ 
 died. Here, once more, we recognize natural development 
 and not miraculous interference as God's way of working. 
 Just as God prepared the way for the progress of the truths of 
 Christianity among the Jews, as we saw in the last chapter, 
 so He also prepared the way for their diffusion among the 
 Europeans. 
 
 No doubt the Hebrews were a very suitable nation to be 
 taught the truths of God, for several reasons. For one 
 thing, they were a small people and young in knowledge, 
 and therefore their ideas could be readily moulded to the 
 truth as they developed ; whilst they were aided by some of 
 
 " Of course it is not meant that the Greek religious ideas and 
 psychology would exactly fit the Hebrew, but that they were of a 
 kindred nature and more extensive. 
 
Inspiration & the Structure of the Bible. 153 
 
 the literature of Babylon, as we shall see in the next 
 chapter ; also doubtless by that of Egypt. 
 
 Probably two difficulties have occurred to the reader 
 long ere this : — (1) However satisfactorily the foregoing 
 arguments may account for the presence of ignorant state- 
 ments in the Bible, how can we always be sure that we are 
 believing the divine element, and not the human ? Or if 
 the divine truth is not in some cases what it, at first sight, 
 appears to be, how are we to know what it really is ? (2) 
 If the early parts of the Bible are devoted to the rudiments 
 of the knowledge of God, and were written specially for the 
 early Hebrew, are they not uselessly present in the Bible 
 for this age ? 
 
 The first difficulty is a much smaller mountain than it 
 appears to be. It resolves itself into this, "If God has 
 been so careful to have His truths placed in the Biblical 
 literature in a form such that the ignorant could not fail to 
 apprehend them, how can the cultured man manage to 
 apprehend them 1 " When put thus, in its true form, the 
 difficulty is ludicrous. But there is another point 
 
 in regard to the second part of the above question. The 
 believer cannot, perhaps, arrive at the exact divine truth 
 in such cases ; but, seeing what his predecessors believed who 
 believed the letter of the passage, he may be sure that that 
 belief produced in their minds as near an approximation to 
 the exact truth as was necessary. If that approximation 
 has sufficed all these ages, there is no doubt that the exact 
 truth is one of a similar order, and if he himself cannot get 
 nearer to it, that is quite sufficient for him to knoiv. Unbelief 
 may see a host of difficulties, but they vanish before the 
 eye of simple faith. Or if they do not all vanish, we can rest 
 assured that God will provide for the difficulty in some way. 
 
 As to the second difficulty. Has the simple literature in 
 
154 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 which the earliest Old Testament truths are conveyed, been 
 of no use since the completion of the Bible 1 (!) Was it of 
 no use when the Civilized World was passing from Paganism 
 to Monotheism and Christianity ? (2) Is it of no use to the 
 missionary in heathen lands to-day ? (3) Is it of no use in 
 the Christian education of children amongst ourselves *? The 
 missionary can best answer the second question. Any 
 Christian mother can answer the third. How much of the 
 rudiments of the knowledge of God did we ourselves learn 
 in the beautiful narratives of Joseph, or David^ or in the 
 Story of the Garden 1 It was stated on an earlier page 
 
 that the simple language in which the Gospel is expressed 
 constitutes the gateway leading to deeper truths within. 
 The child can go in by it^ and after entering he can 
 gradually apprehend the more advanced truths of the 
 Epistles, etc. So with the Bible as a whole. Its 
 
 truths enter the mind as the tide gradually floods the bay, 
 as the wedge cleaves the oak. Genesis is the margin of the 
 water, or the thin end of the wedge ; the New Testament 
 is the deep water, or the thick end of the wedge. We have 
 overlooked it, very likely ; but, much as the Hebrews did of 
 old, so have we, got into the depths by beginning at the 
 shallows. There is no other way. 
 
 This water-side-like, wedge-like, evolution-like, structure 
 of the Bible may offend the dignity of the proud, or stagger 
 the unbelief of the sceptic, perhaps, who see their ob- 
 jections, but do not see the vital aspect of the case. But 
 to my mind, and I hope to the reader's mind, this structure 
 of the Bible is divine in its simplicity, perfect in those very 
 imperfections which so perfectly fit the deepest needs of 
 imperfect man. 
 
 Does the reader recognize this extract? "Let us try to 
 get hold of a few ideas about these interesting subjects ; and 
 first let us remember that in the Introductory Primer we 
 
Inspiration & THE Structure of the Bible. 155 
 
 have been taught the meaning of the words solid, liquid, 
 and gas. . . . Before we begin to study the chemistry of 
 air, water, and earth, let us start with FIKE, about which 
 you have not learnt much." Childish language ! And 
 
 what does the writer mean by such inconsistency as to say, 
 " We have been taught in the Primer," and then, " You 
 have not learnt much." This change from " we " to '^ you " 
 can only be the work of a poor composer, can it 1 And his 
 words are not correct, for Jie certainly did not learn from 
 the Primer. How can one read the works of such a writer 
 with any contidence 1 or without feeling his inferiority 1 
 
 Professor Roscoe, the words bear your name ; what is 
 the meaning of this 1 
 
 Yet the work which contains them, and is in the same 
 strain throughout, is an admirable one, beiiig ivritten for 
 children. It is not beneath the dignity of our most 
 
 learned men to come down to the child's level, that being 
 the best way to impart knowledge to them. Still less is it 
 concluded that they never wrote such words. But some- 
 liow — though upon what grounds I know not— such a state 
 of affairs in regard to the Bible is not to be thought of. 
 There snch language is clear evidence that the book is not 
 of God ! ! 
 
 Let me make one more remark about these early Old 
 Testament Scriptures. They are not limited to the teaching 
 of those simpler truths, but are replete with others. He 
 who reads them, searching for the mind of God, will read 
 them many times before they are exhausted. More prob- 
 ably what God has to say through them will be found 
 inexhaustible. 
 
 Some readers may see a difficulty about the fact so often 
 insisted on in this work, that God adjusted the language of 
 Scripture to the people and the times. For in certain cases 
 where it is seen in more enlightened times that language is 
 
156 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 used which cannot be reconciled with known facts, the 
 
 question may be asked, Is this consistent with the Truth of 
 
 God ? The following remarks throw light on the matter. 
 
 Dr. Stoughton writes in his Introduction to The Progress 
 
 of Divine Revelation, page 6 : — 
 
 "We should bear in mind, all the way through, the distinc- 
 tion between the ohjertive and the subjective aspects of 
 revelation. . . . Truth has existence independent of man. It 
 is what it is, let mortals apprehend it as they may. As to its 
 fulness, richness, and splendour, it is not to be estimated 
 according to the clearness and depth of human perceptions. 
 ... At the back of a truth revealed, there may lie an immense 
 amonnt of meaning unrevealed ; and the conscious apprehen- 
 sion of a revelation may lag behind the revelation itself." 
 
 Applying this principle to the case before us, we see how, 
 in the revelation of a certain truth to a man, nothing but 
 the unalloyed truth passes from the Divine to the human 
 mind ; but the man can apprehend it only by fusing, it with 
 his own ideas, which may be defective in many ways, and 
 when he expresses it in Avriting he must express it as lie has 
 apprehended it. Here, moreover, we see the admirable 
 
 fitness of using the intermediate human writer, so that, 
 whilst the unalloyed truth comes from God, the writer 
 presents that truth to his contemporaries dressed in a form 
 that is both suitable and absolutely necessary for their 
 apprehension of it. Upon this reasoning, then, the Divine 
 truth alone that is in Jehovah's answer to Job attaches to 
 the Divine Person, and the mythological part of that 
 answer attaches to the human agent. And if it be argued 
 that the use of incorrect language is inconsistent with truth, 
 it is better to read the passage in this way than to regard 
 it as spoken by God Himself. 
 
 As a matter of fact, however, the use of incorrect language 
 is perfectly consistent with truth ; for it is in the heart's 
 emotion that in man's case usually co-exists with wrong 
 
Inspiration & THE Structure of the Bible. 157 
 
 statements, that the falsehood lies. That is the evil, and 
 that alone. We see this when we remember how Christ 
 used parables and symbols, how we ourselves use figurative 
 language, or language adapted to children, as in the 
 elementary work on chemistry just referred to, and in 
 many other ways. 
 
 Something further remains to be said on the question of 
 miracles. Some of those presenting most difficulty find a 
 simple explanation in the principles maintained in the 
 second chapter of this work ; chiefly in the fact that the 
 old Hebrew notion of a miracle would have approximately 
 its true equivalent in modern English thought in a special 
 divine action accomplished by natural means. For instance, 
 Dean R. Payne-Smith has remarked, " The plagues of Egypt 
 are found generally to be based upon natural phenomena, 
 happening usually at long intervals. . . . This knowledge 
 of Egypt and Egyptian customs and phenomena is now 
 generally granted." Clearly the only important fact in 
 regard to the frogs, or the lice, is that God caused these to 
 increase at an extraordinary rate, so as to plague the Egyp- 
 tians. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this 
 enormous increase was brought about by perfectly natural 
 means. Could the Hebrew of that age possibly represent to 
 himself a spiritual God, controlling natural agencies in this 
 way % Surely not. How then was this special interference of 
 God on behalf of Israel to be conceived of and recorded ? 
 There w^as but one way : — " And Aaron stretched out his 
 hand over the waters of Egypt ; and the frogs came up, 
 and covered the land of Egypt." ..." And Aaron stretched 
 out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, 
 and there were lice upon man and upon beast" (Exod. viii. 
 5, 6, 16, 17) ; in both cases at the command of Jahveh.. 
 Translate the material Jahveh and the act of his servant 
 Aaron, into the spiritual God and His unseen control o£ 
 
158 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 natural agencies, causing the frogs and the lice to multiply 
 — the crude Hebrew idea into the more accurate modern 
 one — and difficulty disappears, but the vital truth remains. 
 This truth, the Woi'd of God, forms the centre of every one 
 of these ancient Scriptures, often expressed in a thick 
 covering of verbal signs or crude ideas. Strange that we 
 should be so quick to see the outer crudeness, so slow to 
 perceive that that is but a vehicle for the inner reality ; so 
 quick to see the difficulty, so slow to see the simple explan- 
 ation. 
 
 Such considerations as these have, doubtless, an important 
 bearing on the general difficulty in regard to miracles, 
 though we need by no means infer that they apply to 
 all. 
 
 Again, the pillar of fire and cloud (Exod. xiv.) clearly 
 "implies special divine protection of Israel. Such a visible 
 pillar would hardly be in itself a complete safeguard; it 
 appears to be a concrete picture of the divine protection 
 accorded — of God's decision in regard to the Egyptians : — 
 " Thus far and no further." This barrier would be alike 
 invisible to Hebrew eyes, and inconceivable to Hebrew 
 minds, but in its effects, of the utmost consequence. 
 
 It has been suggested that parts of the Books of the Law 
 are the expressions of divinely-guided Hebrew traditions, 
 embodying spiritual truths in concrete language and familiar 
 ideas. Such instances as these plagues and this pillar of fire 
 and of cloud, illustrate this guiding of traditions by the Hand 
 of God, and show how they would embody historical truth 
 of the highest order. Scripture history is thus for the most 
 part a spiritual history, expressed, in its early parts, in the 
 language of material things. 
 
Inspiration & the Structure of the Bible. 159 
 
 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE BIBLE. 
 
 Language is only a system of conventional signs used for 
 the communication from mind to mind of ideas, feelings, 
 etc. There is no inherent meaning in words, all the mean- 
 ing which they possess being lent to them by the mind* 
 The mental states are the all-important realities ; not the 
 language by which they are conveyed. 
 
 This applies to the Bible. The two all-important factors 
 here are the Mind of God and the mind of man, the Bible 
 being necessarily nothing more than a store of verbal signs 
 adapted for the communication of the former mind to the 
 latter. Thus the real Word of God is quite distinct from 
 the language of the Bible : it is that portion of God's mind 
 which He desires to communicate to man. 
 
 If, therefore, the language of the Bible is in places de- 
 fective, this does not at all affect the TrutJis of God, which 
 its office is only to convey, and which it most effectually 
 does convey. 
 
 This is its high mission, and not the teaching of scientific 
 truths, which man can acquire by other means. 
 
 The Bible was not specially prepared for any one class of 
 readers, such as ourselves; but was intended for all man- 
 kind ; and has therefore to meet the needs of minds of all 
 orders in all ages. These minds differ very much ; for 
 there are educated and uneducated, people who think 
 accurately and people who think loosely, people in different 
 states of society, of different races — people of widely-different 
 capacities of thought and modes of thought. 
 
 The Truths of God are of a nature different from ordinary 
 knowledge (at least until they have become part of ordinary 
 
i6o Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 knowledge), and they are of various kinds. Since, there- 
 fore, the Bible's mission is to teach truths of this high order, 
 and of various kinds, to minds of all classes, its excellence 
 must essentially consist in its suitability for this ^purpose. 
 
 The first duty of an author is to make himself under- 
 stood. If all are to understand the Truths of God, the 
 man of small intellectual capacity must do so^ amongst 
 others. If, therefore, the Truths of God are presented in 
 a form suitable for him, the wiser man must not charge the 
 Bible with that as a defect, but as an excellence. 
 
 The Bible, moreover, was not first delivered to ourselves, 
 but to the Hebrews ; and the Truths of God are therefore 
 presented in literature better adjusted to them than to 
 ourselves, or any other people. There were also consider- 
 able differences between the Hebrew of early and crude 
 times and the Hebrew of late and more cultivated times, 
 who also spoke a language more like our own ; and therefore 
 there is a corresponding difference between the early parts 
 of the Bible and its later and more important part, the New 
 Testament. If, therefore, the Divine Truths delivered in 
 its earliest portions are conveyed in literature suitable to 
 crude times, but which is also intelligible to us, this is no 
 defect in the Bible, taking its whole work into account. 
 
 But there is a more important factor to be taken into 
 account. Language does not exist until it is made ; ideas 
 must come into existence first, and language to suit them 
 ■after. So with the language that expresses Divine Truths. 
 The writing of the Bible therefore involved the teaching of 
 the Hebrews those Divine Truths. This was necessarily a 
 process of Evolution. The development of this knowledge 
 and the writing of Scripture proceeded together, the progress 
 of each depending on that of the other. In the beginning 
 the Truths of God could only gain access to the mind wlien 
 ►associated with ideas of familiar things ; therefore, in the 
 
Inspiration & the Structure of the Bible. i6i 
 
 beginning of the Bible they are conveyed almost entirely 
 by means of narratives and concrete pictures. As divine 
 knowledge progressed, the abstract ideas came into existence, 
 and therewith language corresponding to them, and this 
 state of things culminated in New Testament times. There- 
 fore the divine truths of the New Testament are delivered 
 in language more appropriate^ and better suited to our- 
 selves. 
 
 The Truths of God have thus come to us in the Bible 
 through the minds of men ; these men could apprehend 
 them only by grafting them upon, or fusing them with, 
 their own natural ideas ; they could express them in writing 
 only as they had apprehended them ; therefore in doing 
 so they must bring out in some measure their own natural 
 ideas ; and if these are Oriental or defective, in so wide a 
 range of Truths as there are in the Bible the Orientalisms 
 or defects must inevitably appear in some cases. From the 
 facts stated in the last paragraph it follows that inac- 
 curacies resulting from this will be most numerous in the 
 early parts of the Old Testament, and fewest in the New 
 Testament, where Divine Truths are conveyed to a much 
 greater extent in their own proper language, so that less of 
 the writer's own mind appears, and that mind is better 
 instructed, both in natural and Divine things. Miraculous 
 Inspiration for the avoidance of such things would not 
 have been at all effective ; it would have impeded rather 
 than helped the progress of the work. But other means 
 have been used to reduce these inaccuracies to a minimum, 
 and to prevent evils resulting from them, whilst in very 
 many cases they have been turned to useful account in 
 different ways. 
 
 Thus, proceeding from Genesis to Revelation, we find 
 the Bible like water which is shallow at the edge and 
 gradually deepens beyond human depth. We have over- 
 
 M 
 
i62 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 looked the advantage which this has been to ourselves, and 
 is to all learners in the present day, as well as in the 
 Hebrews' day. Instead of being a defect, this structure of 
 the Bible is seen to be its excellence, when we judge it by 
 the only true standard, its fitness for the work for which 
 it was desisrned. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 THE CHALDEAN ACCOUNT OF GENESIS. 
 
 In Heb. i. 1, 2, we read, " God, having of old time 
 spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions 
 and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken 
 unto us in his Son." 
 
 In former chapters of this work we have noticed, too, 
 how in later days God spoke to the Hebrews in the 
 language of spiritual abstractions and terms relating to a 
 future life : how, before these were in existence. He spoke 
 in language referring to this present life only, reaching 
 their hearts by the moral lessons drawn from their own 
 experience and that recorded of their ancestors : how in 
 early times He purified, developed^ and moulded into the 
 Law their crude precepts, amongst other things teaching 
 them by their notions about sacrifice the true significance 
 of Atonement : how, when He would give them a know- 
 ledge of His own Person, He began by introducing Himself 
 in the likeness of one of their gods. In all these cases we 
 see how God took up such crude materials as already 
 existed amongst them (albeit of His own producing), 
 worked upon their own ideas and beliefs, and, later on, 
 developed from these what was new and progressive. 
 
 Is it natural then to suppose that, when God had 
 occasion to teach them certain other important truths — 
 
 U 2 
 
i64 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 truths relating to the origin of things — He would adopt a 
 totally different course ? Evidently not. 
 
 Wonderful results were obtained by means of their 
 historical beliefs, the experience of the nation supple- 
 menting that of the individual ; and when these were 
 being committed to writing, the selection and grouping of 
 events was sometimes overruled so as to embody a meaning 
 of which the writers were not distinctly conscious. 
 
 But before they had a history — what was there then to 
 work upon 1 "We have seen that at about this time the 
 Hebrews had ideas of gods, and of right and wrong, which 
 God turned to wonderful account. So had they also un- 
 historical traditions, and traditions partly historical — myths 
 and legends ivhicJi they held as most sacred. These could 
 be worked upon, as well as their other ideas and beliefs. 
 Looking at the matter then from this position, we should 
 naturally expect to find that God made use of these beliefs, 
 moulding them into forms suited to convey those other 
 divine truths which He had to teach them, and mankind 
 after them. 
 
 This brings us again, therefore, to the position already 
 referred to on one or two occasions. In the light of 
 evolution, and in that of God's usual way of working, we 
 see that there could be no revelation before the human 
 mind was duly prepared to receive it — comprehending the 
 new truth by assimilating it with pre-existing ideas, in 
 the manner in which all knowledge is acquired. That 
 preparation of the human mind for revelation was two-fold. 
 The first and most important preparation consisted in the 
 genesis and growth of conceptions of the Deity, and of 
 religious sentiments generally. The second consisted in the 
 genesis and growth of traditionary beliefs about the Creation 
 of all things, and about the dealings of the Deity with man 
 in pre-historic times, and also included certain of the Hebrew 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 165 
 
 people's traditionary beliefs about His dealings witb them 
 in particular. The first of these has been briefly treated of 
 in the third and fourth chapters of this work ; and in the 
 same chapters the divine guiding of the strictly Hebrew 
 traditions has been suggested as an explanation of difficulties 
 as to the authorship of parts of the Books of the Law. It 
 is not my intention to deal further with either of these 
 matters in this work. But the genesis and growth of the 
 general traditionary beliefs about the Creation, etc., have an 
 important bearing on the subject of the following portion of 
 this work — the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis. 
 Some consideration of these traditionary beliefs is essential 
 to a correct understanding of those Scriptures, and the diffi- 
 culties attending them. I shall, therefore, give in this 
 chapter a brief account of the traditions o'f this description 
 which were current among the nations of Antiquity, 
 
 The many ancient inscriptions which have been dug up 
 in the East and deciphered, of late years, have thrown much 
 light on the history of the ancient Hebrews, and on the 
 Old Testament Scriptures. An interesting account of 
 several of these inscriptions is given in Prof. Sayce's Fresh 
 Light from the Ancient Monuments. Amongst others there 
 are the Monument of a Hittite King, the Moabite Stone, 
 the Inscription of Sennacherib, etc. Some of these in- 
 scriptions relate events of which we have the counterparts 
 in the Old Testament, and they unmistakably corroborate 
 some of its records . Indeed, some of them were executed 
 by, or by the orders of, men who were actors in those very 
 events. 
 
 There are also certain inscriptions of another class, of 
 which an outline is given in the above-named work, and 
 which are discussed more fully in the Chaldean Account of 
 Genesis. Thus we find an Account of the Deluge, 
 
i66 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 extracts from an Account of the Creation, sundry state- 
 ments which undoubtedly refer to a Story of the Fall, and 
 other matter relating to pre-historic events recorded in 
 Gen. i.-xi. Here, however, the records are not com- 
 
 posed by actors in the events related ; they are merely 
 ancient Chaldean or Accadian legends. 
 
 Can we, therefore, accept their testimony as corroborating 
 the Genesis narratives in the same manner that the other 
 class of inscriptions testify to the later events of Hebrew 
 history ? Manifestly not. We cannot give to them, on 
 their own merits, the credence which is due to authenticated 
 history ; we can only place that amount of faith in them 
 which can be placed in such legends generally. 
 
 But further remarks would be premature before the 
 reader has examined the contents of these inscriptions. 
 They are given below, from Fresh Light from the Ancient 
 Monuments by Sayce, and The Clialdean Account of Genesis 
 by G. Smith, revised by Sayce. I also give some extracts 
 from the writings of the Babylonian historian Berosus, and 
 a number of legends of other ancient nations, which have 
 come down to us through different channels. 
 
 It should be remarked that the original inhabitants of 
 Chaldea were the Accadians, a non-Semitic race, who were 
 conquered by the Semitic Chaldeans (the kinsmen or ances- 
 tors of the Hebrews) between 3000 and 2000 B.C. The 
 Accadian language became extinct as early as 1800 b.c' 
 
 The Story of the Flood is given first, as its resemblance 
 to the Genesis narrative is the most striking. It is well 
 known that the Biblical account is composed of the amal- 
 gamated versions of two different writers — the Elohist and 
 Jehovist, as they are called. I have noted in the margin 
 of the Chaldean account below, the parallel passages in 
 Genesis ; the texts belonging to the accounts of these two 
 
 ^ Clialdean Account of Genesis, pp. 20, 21. 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 167 
 
 writers are, with one or two exceptions, placed one under 
 the other, in cases where they both occur. 
 
 The Chaldean or Accadian Story of the Flood. 
 
 (From Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, pp. 27-32.) 
 
 This " formed the subject of more than one poem 
 among the Accadians. Two of these were amalgamated 
 together by the author of a great epic in twelve books, which 
 described the adventures of a solar hero whose name cannot 
 be read with certainty, but may provisionally be pro- 
 nounced Gisdhubar. The amalgamated acccount was intro- 
 duced as an episode into the eleventh book, the whole 
 epic being arranged upon an astronomical principle, so 
 that each book should correspond to one of the signs of 
 the Zodiac, the eleventh book consequently answering to 
 Aquarius. Sisuthros, who had been translated without 
 dying, like the Biblical Enoch, is made to tell the story 
 himself to Gisdhubar. Gisdhubar had travelled in search 
 of health to the shores of the river of death at the mouth 
 of the Euphrates, and here afar off in the other world he 
 sees and talks with Sisuthros : — 
 
 * Sisuthros speaks to him, even to Gisdhubar : 
 Let me reveal unto thee, Gisdhubar, the story of 
 my preservation, and the oracle of the gods let me 
 tell to thee. The city of Surippak, the city which, 
 as thou knowest, is built on the Euphrates, this 
 city was already ancient when the gods within it 
 set their hearts to bring on a deluge, even the Gen. vi. 
 great gods as many as there are — their father Ann, ^^^^^ ^.^ 
 their king the warrior Bel, their throne-bearer Adar, 11-13. 
 their prince En-nugi. Ea, the lord of wisdom, sat 
 along with them, and repeated their decree : " For 
 their boat! as a boat, as a boat, a hull, a hull! 
 hearken to their boat, and understand the hull, g^^Jfi^^^^^j, 
 O man of Surippak, son of Ubara-Tutu; dig up ark. 
 the house, build the ship, save what thou canst of Gen. vi. 14. 
 the germ of life. (The gods) will destroy the seed Gen.^vi. 
 of life, but do thou live, and bid the seed of life of Gen.vii.2,3, 
 every kind mount into the midst of the ship. The Dimen- 
 ship which thou shalt build, .... cubits shall be gen.%i. 
 its length in measure, .... cubits the content of 15, 16. 
 
i68 
 
 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 its breadth and its height. (Above) the deep cover 
 it in." I understood and spake to Ea, my lord: 
 "The building of the ship which thou hast com- 
 manded thus, if it be done by me, the children of 
 the people and the old men (alike will laugh at 
 me)."^ Ea opened his mouth and said, he speaks to 
 me his servant : " (If they laugh at thee) thou shalt 
 say unto them, ' (Every one) who has turned against 
 me and (disbelieves the oracle that) has been given 
 me, ... I will judge above and below.' (But as 
 for thee) shut (not) the door (until) the time comes 
 of which I will send thee word. (Then) enter the 
 door of the ship, and bring into the midst of it thy 
 corn, thy property, and thy goods, thy (family), thy 
 household, thy concubines, and the sons of the 
 people. The cattle of the field, the wild beasts of 
 the field, as many as I would preserve, I will send 
 unto thee, and they shall keep thy door," Sisuthros 
 opened his mouth and speaks ; he says to Ea, his 
 lord : " (0 my lord) no one yet has built a ship (in 
 this fashion) on land to contain the beasts (of the 
 field). (The jDlan?) let me see and the ship (I will 
 build). On the land the ship (I will build) as thou 
 hast commanded me." . . . On the fifth day (after it 
 was begun) in its circuit (P) fourteen measures its 
 hull (measured) ; fourteen measures measured (the 
 roof) above it. I made it a dwelling-house (?)... 
 I enclosed it. 1 compacted it six times, I divided 
 (its passages) seven times, I divided its interior 
 (seven) times. Leaks for the waters in the midst 
 of it I cut off. I saw the rents, and what was want- 
 ing I added. Three sa7-i of bitumen I poured over 
 the outside. Three sari of bitumen I poured over 
 the inside. Three sari of men, carrying baskets, 
 who carried on their heads food, I provided, even a 
 saros of food for the people to eat, while two sari of 
 food the boatmen shared. To (the gods) I caused 
 oxen to be sacrificed ; I (established offerings) each 
 day. In (the ship) beer, food, and wine (I collected) 
 like the waters of a river, and (I heaped them up) 
 like the dust (?) of the earth, and (in the ship) the 
 food with my hand I placed. (With the help) of 
 Samas [the Sun-god] the compacting of the ship 
 was finished; (all parts of the ship) were made 
 strong, and I caused the tackling to be carried 
 above and below. (Then of my household) went 
 two-thirds : all that I had I heaped together ; all 
 
 Gen. vi 
 19-21. 
 Gen. V 
 2,3. 
 
 Making the 
 Ark. 
 
 Gen. vi. 22. 
 Gen. vii. 5. 
 
 Coating 
 ■with pitch. 
 Gen. vi. 14. 
 Taking 
 food in. 
 Gen. vi. 21. 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 169 
 
 that I had of silver I heaped together ; all that I 
 had of gold I heaped together ; all that I had of 
 the seed of life I heaped together. I brought the Entering 
 whole up into the ship ; all m)^ slaves and con- Q^^^y^; 
 cubines, the cattle of the field, the beasts of the 7-10'. 
 field, the sons of the people, all of them did I bring 5^3^_^g^"* 
 up. The season Samas fixed, and he spake, saying : 
 " In the night will I cause the heaven to rain de- 
 struction. Enter into the midst of the ship and 
 close thy door." The season came round ; he spake, 
 saying : " In the night will I cause the heaven to 
 rain destruction.'' Of that day I reached the even- 
 ing, the day which I watched for with fear. I 
 entered into the midst of the ship and shut the Shutting 
 door, that I might close the ship. To Buzursadi- Gen^vS'is. 
 rabi, the boatman, I gave the palace, with all its 
 goods. Then arose Mu-seri-ina-namari [The Water Coming of 
 of Dawn at Daylight] from the horizon of heaven JJg^/Jjg"^- 
 (like) a black cloud. Rimmon in the midst of it 10-12. 
 thundered, and Nebo and the V\^ind-God go in front ; 
 the throne-bearers go over mountain and plain ; 
 Nergal the mighty removes the wicked ; Adar goes 
 overthrowing all before him. The spirits of earth 
 carried the flood ; in their terribleness they sweep 
 through the land ; the deluge of Rimmon reaches 
 unto heaven ; all that was light to (darkness) was 
 turned. (The surface) of the land like (fire ?) they 
 wasted ; (they destroyed all) life from the face of People 
 the land ; to battle against men they brought (the ^^^''""J^^- 
 waters). Brother saw not his brother; men knew 21,22. 
 not one another. In heaven the gods feared the Gen. vii. 23. 
 flood, and sought a refuge ; they ascended to the 
 heaven of Anu. The gods, like a dog in his kennel, 
 crouched down in a heap. Istar cries likes a mother ; 
 the great goddess utters her speech : " All to clay is 
 turned, and the evil I prophesied in the presence of 
 the gods, according as I prophesied evil in the pre- 
 sence of the gods, for the destruction of my people I 
 prophesied (it) against them ; and, though I their 
 mother have forgotten my people, like the spawn of 
 the fishes they fill the sea." Then the gods were 
 weeping with her because of the spirits of earth ; 
 the gods on a throne were seated in weeping ; 
 covered were their lips because of the coming evil. Duration of 
 Six days and nights the wind, the flood, and the Deluge. 
 storm go on overwhelming. The seventh day when f2^°24!"* 
 it approached the storm subsided ; the flood which Gen. vii. 17. 
 
I/O 
 
 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Waters 
 subside. 
 Gen. viii. 1. 
 Gen. viii. 2. 
 
 Opering 
 the win- 
 dow. 
 Gen. viii. 6. 
 
 Ark rests 
 on a moun- 
 tain. 
 Gen. viii. 4. 
 
 Birds sent 
 out. 
 
 Gen. viii. 
 6-12. 
 
 Leaving 
 tlie Ark. 
 Gen. viii. 
 18, 19. 
 
 Altar built. 
 Sacrifice 
 offered. 
 Gen.viii.20. 
 
 Smelling 
 the savour. 
 Gen. viii.21. 
 
 The rain- 
 bow. 
 Gen. ix. 
 13-17. 
 
 had fought against (men) like an armed host was 
 quieted. The sea began to dry, and the wind and 
 the flood ended. I watched the sea making a noise, 
 and the whole of mankind was turned to clay ; like 
 reeds the corpses floated. I opened the window, and 
 the light smote upon my face ; I stooped and sat 
 down ; I weep ; over my face flow my tears. I watch 
 the regions at the edge of the sea ; a district rose 
 twelve measures high. To the land of Nizir steered 
 the ship ; in the mountain of Nizir stopped the 
 ship, and it was not able to pass over it. The first 
 day, the second day, the mountain of Nizir stopped 
 the ship. The third day, the fourth day, the moun- 
 tain of Nizir stopped the ship. The fifth day, the 
 sixth day, the mountain of Nizir stopped the ship. 
 The seventh day when it approached I sent forth 
 a dove, and it left. The dove went and returned, and 
 found no resting-place, and it came back. Then I 
 sent forth a swallow, and it left. The swallow went 
 and returned, and found no resting-place, and it 
 came back. I sent forth a raven, and it left. The 
 raven went and saw the carrion on the water, and it 
 ate, it swam, it wandered away ; it did not return. 
 I sent (the animals) forth to the four winds, I sacri- 
 ficed a sacrifice. I built an altar on the peak of the 
 mountain. I set vessels [each containing the third 
 of an ephah] by sevens ; underneath them I sj)read 
 reeds, pine-wood, and spices. The gods smelt the 
 savour ; the gods smelt the good savour ; the gods 
 gathered like flies over the sacrifices. Thereupon 
 the great goddess at her approach lighted up the 
 rainbow which Ann had created according to his 
 glory. The crystal brilliance of those gods before 
 me may I not forget ; those days I have thought of, 
 and never may I forget them. May the gods come 
 to my altar ; but may Bel not come to my altar, since 
 he did not consider but caused the flood, and my 
 people he assigned to the abyss. When thereupon 
 Bel at his approach saw the ship, Bel stopjDed ; he 
 was filled with anger against the gods and the spirits 
 of heaven : *' Let none come forth alive ! let no man 
 live in the abyss ! " Adar opened his mouth and 
 spake, he says to the warrior Bel: "Who except 
 Ea can form a design? Yea, Ea knows, and all 
 things he communicates." Ea opened his mouth 
 and spake, he says to the warrior Bel : " Thou, O 
 warrior prince of the gods, why, why didst thou not 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 171 
 
 consider but causedst a flood ? Let the doer of sin Sm caused 
 bear his sin, let the doer of wickedness bear his Gen. vi. 
 wickedness. May the just prince not be cut off, may 5-7. 
 the faithful not be (destroyed). Instead ofcausing fi^JsJ^' 
 a flood, let lions increase, that men may be minished ; Noah 
 instead of causing a flood, let hyaenas increase, that ^P^Jf-^ 
 men may be minished ; instead of causing a flood, righteous- 
 let a famine happen, that men may be (wasted) ; ness. 
 instead of causing a flood, let plague increase, that q^^* ^-j^ { 
 men may be (reduced). I did not reveal the deter- Never to 
 mination of the great gods. To Sisuthros alone a pj^o^^*^®^ 
 dream I sent, and he heard the determination of the Gen. viii. 
 gods," When Bel had again taken counsel with 21. 22. 
 himself, he went up into the midst of the ship. He Noah^^* 
 took my hand and bid me ascend, even me he bid warned, 
 ascend ; he united my wife to my side ; he turned ^^^- '^^^ ^^• 
 himself to us and joined himself to us in covenant ; 
 he blesses us (thus) : " Hitherto Sisuthros has been 
 a mortal man, but now Sisuthros and his wife are 
 united together in being raised to be like the gods ; 
 yea, Sisuthros shall dwell afar off at the mouth of Enoch, not 
 the rivers." They took me, and afar off at the mouth Jia^gfated. 
 of the rivers they made me dwell.' " Gen. v. 24.' 
 
 The Account of the Flood which has come down to us 
 through the Babylonian historian Berosus reads much like 
 an abstract of the above story. It also states that Sisuthros 
 was translated for his piety, and that the place where the 
 ship rested was in the land of Armenia. 
 
 Traditions of a Flood have been found among many other 
 nations. Sometimes it is a universal, sometimes a partial 
 one. In one of the Greek accounts (for there are two) it 
 appears that the object of the Flood was to destroy ' the 
 brazen race ' for their wickedness. The only righteous man, 
 with his wife and pairs of different kinds of animals, were 
 saved in a vessel which he had made. Here the vessel is 
 made to land on Mount Parnassus. The Phrygian legend 
 has probably been adopted from the Biblical story. The 
 Indian and Mexican legends somewhat resemble the 
 
172 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Chaldean one.^ Professor Delitzsch remarks that nearest 
 to the Biblical record stand the Plood-legends of the West 
 Asiatic circle of nations. In Persia, India, and China, 
 there is a second group peculiar to the countries of Eastern 
 Asia. A third group is formed by the legends of the 
 Grecian circle ; and a fourth by the legends of nations 
 lying beyond the intercourse of the ancient world, as the 
 Welsh, Mexicans, Peruvians. The legend of the Mexicans 
 and Islanders of Cuba agrees with the Biblical account 
 in respect of the dove and raven. The legend of the 
 Macusi-Indians in South America states that the only 
 man who survived the Flood repeopled the earth by 
 changing stones into men. According to that of the 
 Tamanaks of Orinoko it was a pair of human beings, who 
 cast behind them the fruit of a certain palm, and out of the 
 kernels sprang men and women. There are legends among 
 the Tahitians and other Society Islanders which bear some 
 resemblance to those of Asia. The inhabitants of Eaiatea 
 show, as a proof of the Flood having taken place, the corals 
 and mussels, which are found on the highest summits of the 
 island.^ 
 
 It is to be remarked that, except in the Hebrew account, 
 the ship, where there is one, is made by the narrators to 
 rest on some mountain in their own country. There is no 
 known Egyptian Flood legend. 
 
 The Chaldean Legend of the Creation. 
 (From Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, pp. 22-24.) 
 There were two or more of these legends, one of which, 
 writes Prof. Sayce : — 
 
 2 These facts are taken from extracts given by Bishop Oolenso 
 from various writers. The Pentateuch, pp. 380-382. 
 
 3 These remarks are quoted by Bishop Colenso from Delitzsch. 
 The Pentateuch, p. 383. 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 173 
 
 "bears a striking resemblance to the account of the 
 Creation in the first chapter of Genesis. . . . We possess, 
 unfortunately, only portions of it, since many of the series 
 of clay tablets on which it was inscribed have been lost or 
 injured. The account begins as follows : — 
 
 1. ' At that time the heavens above named not a name, 
 
 2. Nor did the earth below record one : 
 
 3. Yea, the deep was their first creator, 
 
 4. The flood of the sea was she who bore them all. 
 
 5. Their waters were embosomed in one place, and 
 
 6. The flowering reed was ungathered, the marsh-plant 
 
 was ungrown. 
 
 7. At that time the gods had not issued forth, any one of 
 
 them, 
 
 8. By no name were they recorded, no destiny (had they 
 
 fixed). 
 
 9. Then the (great) gods were made, 
 
 10. Lakhmu and Lakhamu issued forth (the first), 
 
 11. They grew up ... . 
 
 12. Next were made the host of heaven and earth, 
 
 13. The time was long (and then) 
 
 14. The gods Anu (Bel and Ea were born of) 
 
 15. The host of heaven and earth.' 
 
 " It is not until we come to the fifth tablet of the series 
 which describes the appointment of the heavenly bodies — > 
 the work of the fourth day of Creation, according to Genesis 
 — that the narrative is again preserved. Here we read that 
 the Creator ' made beautiful the stations of the great gods^' 
 or stars, an expression which reminds us of the oft-recurring 
 phrase of Genesis : ' And God saw that it was good.' The 
 stars, moon, and sun were ordered to rule over the night 
 and day, and to determine the year, with its months and 
 days. The latter part of the tablet, however, like the latter 
 part of the first tablet, is destroyed, and of the next tablet 
 — that which described the creation of animals — only the 
 first few lines remain. ' At that time,' it begins, 'the gods 
 in their assembly created (the living creatures). They 
 made beautiful the mighty (animals). They made the living 
 beings come forth, the cattle of the field, the beast of the 
 field, and the creej^ing thing.' What follows is too muti- 
 lated to yield a connected sense. 
 
 " There is no need of pointing out how closely this As- 
 
174 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Syrian account of the Creation resembles that of Genesis. 
 Even the very wording and phrases of Genesis occur in it, 
 and, though no fragment is preserved which expressly tells 
 us that the work of the Creation was accomplished in seven 
 days_, we may infer that such was the case, from the order of 
 events as recorded on the tablets. But, with all this simi- 
 larity, there is even greater dissimilarity. The philosophical 
 conceptions with which the Assyrian account opens, the 
 polytheistic colouring which we find in it further on 
 have no parallel in the Book of Genesis. The spirit of the 
 two narratives is essentially diflferent. 
 
 '^The last tablet probably contained an account of the 
 institution of the Sabbath. At all events, we learn that 
 the seventh day was observed as a day of rest among the 
 Babylonians, as it was among the Jews. It was even called 
 by the same name of Sabbath . . ." 
 
 In the fragments of the work of Berosus that have come 
 down to us, we read of " a time in which there existed 
 nothing but darkness and an abyss of waters^" and that 
 Belus divided the darkness, and separated the heavens from 
 the earth, and also " formed the stars, and the sun, and the 
 moon, and the five planets."* 
 
 Bishop Colenso quotes the following from Von Bohlen : — 
 
 ** The most intimate relationship may be observed between 
 the myth of Genesis and the Zend representation of Creation, 
 which was composed near the same locality, and has a similar 
 outline and succession of development. The universe is created 
 in six periods of time by Oemuzd (Ahura-Mazda) in the follow- 
 ing order : (1) the Heaven, and the terrestrial Light between 
 Heaven and Earth, (2) the Water, which fills the deep as the 
 sea, and ascends up on high as clouds, (3) the Earth, whose 
 seed was first brought forth by Albordj, (4) trees and 
 plants, (5) animals, and (6) lastly, Man, whereupon the 
 Creator rested, and connected the divine origin of the festivals 
 with these periods of Creation. We must remember, however, 
 that Zoroaster had taken the old Magian system as the founda- 
 tion of his reform, and had modified it to suit his purposes, — 
 that, consequently, his cosmogony, is the old Chaldean, which 
 
 ^ Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 34, 36. 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 175 
 
 very probably spread from the times of the Assyrians into 
 Western Asia. But the Bible narrative, apart from this 
 common basis, far surpasses the description of the Zendavesta 
 in simple dignity. . . ." 
 
 He also quotes from Aids to Faith by Dr. M'Caiil : — 
 
 "The Etruscans relate that God created the world in six 
 thousand years. In the first thousand, He created the heaven 
 and the earth, — in the second, the firmament, — in the third, the 
 sea and the other waters of the earth, — in the fourth, the sun, 
 moon, and stars, — in the fifth, the animals belonging to air, 
 water, and land, — in the sixth, man alone." 
 
 Chaldean Eeferences to the Story of the Fall. 
 (From FresJi Light from the Ancient Monuments^ pp. 25, 26.) 
 
 "No account of the Fall of Man, similar to that in 
 Genesis, has as yet been found among the fragments of the 
 Assyrian libraries. ... It is, nevertheless, pretty certain 
 that such an account once existed. An archaic Babylonian 
 gem represents a tree, on either side of which are seated a 
 man and woman, with a serpent behind them, and their 
 hands are stretched out towards the fruit that hangs from 
 the tree. A few stray references in the bilingual (Accadian 
 and Assyrian) dictionaries throw some light upon this re- 
 presentation, and inform us that the Accadians knew of ' a 
 wicked serpent,' ^ the serpent of night ' and ' darkness,' 
 which had brought about the fall of man. The tree of life, 
 of which so many illustrations occur on Assyrian monu- 
 ments, is declared to be 'the pine-tree' of Eridu, 'the 
 shrine of the god Irnin ' ; and Irnin is a name of the 
 Euphrates, when regarded as the ' snake river,' which en- 
 circled the world like a rope, and was the stream of Hea, 
 'the snake-god of the tree of life.' The Euphrates, we 
 must remember_, was one of the rivers of Paradise. 
 
 " The Site of Paradise is to be sought for in Babylonia. 
 The garden which God planted was in Eden, and Eden, as 
 we learn from the cuneiform records, was the ancient name 
 of the 'field' or plain of Babylonia, where the first living 
 creatures had been created. The city of Eridu, which the 
 people of Sumir called 'the good ' or 'holy,' was, as we have 
 
176 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 seen, the shrine of Irnin, and in the midst of a forest or 
 garden that once lay near it grew ' the holy pine-tree/ ' the 
 tree of life.' The rivers of Eden can be found in the rivers 
 and canals of Babylonia. Two of them were the Euphrates 
 and Tigris, called by the Accadians id Idikla, ' the river of 
 Idikla,' the Biblical Hiddekhel, while Pishon is a Babylonian 
 word signifying ' canal,' and Gihon may be the Accadian 
 Gukhan, the stream on which Babylon stood. Even the 
 word cherub is itself of Babylonian derivation. It is the 
 name given to one of those winged monsters, with the body 
 of a bull and the head of a man, which are sometimes 
 placed in the Assyrian sculptures on either side of the tree 
 of life. They stood at the entrance of a Babylonian palace, 
 and were supposed to prevent the evil spirits from entering 
 within. . . . 
 
 ^' Like cherub, Adam also was a Babylonian word. It has 
 the general sense of 'man,' and is used in this sense both in 
 Hebrew and in Assyrian. But, as in Hebrew it has come to 
 be the proper name" of the first man, so, too, in the old Baby- 
 lonian legends, the ' Adamites ' were ^ the white race ' of 
 Semitic descent, who stood in marked contrast to ' the black 
 heads/ or Accadians, of primitive Babylonia." 
 
 It seems clear, however, from Gen. ii. 13, that the river 
 Gihon is the Nile, since ' the same is it that compasseth the 
 whole land of Gush ' ; and so Josephus understood it. Pison 
 has been taken to mean the Indus. Josephus remarks that 
 ' running into India, it makes its exit into the sea, and is 
 by the Greeks called Ganges' (Ant. I. i.). 
 
 The flaming sword of Gen. iii. 24 has its parallel in the 
 flaming sword of Merodach, of Chaldean mythology.' The 
 Chaldeans made use of the Euphrates for artificial irrigation. 
 The present desert character of the country, where rain falls 
 only during a small portion of the year, and where trees 
 grow only on the river banks, powerfully calls to mind the 
 description in Gen. ii. 5, 10. 
 
 The following accounts of the Persian and Chinese myths 
 
 ^ Chaldean Accov.nt of Genesis, pp. 84, 86. 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 177 
 
 are extracted by Bishop Colenso^ from Kalisch's Work on 
 Genesis : — 
 
 The Persian. 
 
 " The first couple, the parents of the human race, Meshia 
 and Meshiane, lived originally in purity and innocence. Per- 
 petual happiness was promised to them by Ormuzd, the Creator 
 of every good gift, if they persevered in their virtue. But an 
 evil demon {Dev) was sent to them by Ahriman, the repre- 
 sentative of everything noxious and sinful. He appeared un- 
 expectedly in the form of a serpent, and gave them the fruit of 
 a wonderful tree, Horn, which imparted immortality, and had 
 the power of restoring the dead to life. Thus evil inclinations 
 entered their hearts ; all their moral excellence was destroyed. 
 Ahriman himself aj^peared under the form of the same reptile, 
 and completed the work of seduction. They acknowledged 
 him instead of Ormuzd as the creator of everything good ; and 
 the consequence was, that they forfeited for ever the eternal 
 happiness for which they were destined. They killed beasts, 
 and clothed themselves in their skins ; they built houses, but 
 paid not their debt of gratitude to the Deity. The evil demons 
 thus obtained still more perfect power over their minds, and 
 called forth envy, hatred, discord, and rebellion, which raged 
 in the bosom of the families. — {Zendavesta, Kleuher's Ed.). . . 
 
 " The Chinese also — have their age of virtue, when nature 
 furnished abundant food to the happy men, who lived peace- 
 fully surrounded by the beasts, exercised virtue without the 
 assistance of Science, and did not yet know what it meant to 
 do good or evil. The physical desires were j^erfectly subordi- 
 nate to the divine spirit in man, who had all heavenly, and no 
 earthly, dispositions ; disease and death never approached 
 him; but partly an undue thirst for knowledge, partly in- 
 creasing sensuality, and the seduction of women, were his 
 perdition : all m.oderation was lost ; passion and lust ruled in 
 the human mind ; the war with the animals began ; and all 
 nature stood inimically arrayed against him. . . . 
 
 " The Greeks believed that, at an immense distance beyond 
 the Pillars of Hercules, on the borders of the Earth, were the 
 Islands of the Blessed, the Elysium, abounding in every charm 
 of life, and the Garden of the Hesperides, with their golden 
 apples, guarded by an ever-watchful serpent (Ladon). But 
 still more analogous is the legend of the Hindus, that, in the 
 sacred mountain Meru, which is perpetually clothed in the 
 golden rays of the Sun, and whose lofty summit reaches into 
 heaven, no sinful man can exist, — that it is guarded by dreadful 
 
 ^ Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch, p. 341. 
 
 N 
 
178 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 dragons, — that it is adorned with many celestial plants and 
 trees, and is watered hy four rivers, which thence separate and 
 flow to the four chief directions. 
 
 " Equally striking is the resemblance to the belief of the 
 Persians, who suppose that a region of bliss and delight, the 
 town Eriene Vedsho, or Heden, more beautiful than all the 
 rest of the world, traversed by a mighty river, was the original 
 abode of the first men, before they were tempted by Ahriman, 
 in the shape of a serpent, to partake of the wonderful fruit of 
 the forbidden tree Horn. The ' tree of life ' has analogies in 
 the * king of trees,' Horn, which the Persians believed to grow 
 at the spring Ardechsur, issuing from the throne of Ormuzd, 
 and in the tall Filpel of the Indians, to which was also 
 ascribed the power of securing immortality and every other 
 blessing." 
 
 The following Calabar legend is given by Dr. Goldziher 
 
 from Bastian : — 
 
 " The first human pair is called by a bell at mealtimes to 
 Abasi (the Calabar God) in heaven ; and in place of the for- 
 bidden tree of Genesis are put agriculture and propagation, 
 which Abasi strictly denies to the first pair. The fall is 
 denoted by the transgression of both these commands, especially 
 through the use of implements of tillage, to which the woman 
 is tempted by a female friend who is given to her." 
 
 Chaldean Keference to the Tower of Babel. 
 {Yiova Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, pp. 35-37.) 
 
 " Mr. George Smith discovered some broken fragments of 
 a cuneiform text which evidently related to the building of 
 the Tower of Babel. It tells us how certain men had 
 * turned against the father of all the gods,' and how the 
 thoughts of their leader's heart ' were evil.' At Babylon 
 they essayed to build ' a mound ' or hill-like tower, but the 
 winds blew down their work, and Ann ' confounded great 
 and small on the mound,' as well as their ' speech,' and 
 ^ made strange their counsel.' The very word that is used 
 in the sense of ' confounding ' in the narrative of Genesis 
 is ased also in the Assyrian text. The Biblical writer, by a 
 play upon words, not uncommon in the Old Testament, com- 
 pares it with the name of Babel, though et3'mologically the 
 latter word has nothing to do with it. Babel is the As- 
 syrian Babili, 'Gate of God.' . . . 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 179 
 
 " The confusion of tongues was followed by the Dis- 
 persion OF Mankind. The earth was again peopled by the 
 descendants of the three sons of Noah — Shem, Ham, and 
 Japhet. Shem is the Assyrian Samu, 'olive-coloured;' 
 Ham is Khanimu, ' burned black ; " and Japhet Ippat, ' the 
 white race.' The tribes and races which drew their origin 
 from them are enumerated in the tenth chapter of Genesis. 
 The arrangement of this chapter, however^ is geographical, 
 not ethnological; the peoples named in it being grouped 
 together according to their geographical position, not according 
 to their relationship in blood or language. Here it is that 
 the non- Semitic Elamites are classed along with the Semitic 
 Assyrians, and that the Phoenicians of Canaan, who spoke 
 the same language as the Hebrews, and originally came from 
 the same ancestors, are associated with the Egyptians." 
 
 In The Chaldean Account of Genesis, p. 163, Prof. 
 Sayce writes : — " Both Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus 
 [through whom Berosus' fragments are preserved] state 
 that the building of the Tower of Babel was known to 
 Babylonian history. . . . The legend of Etana . . . 
 seems to imply that the Tower was supposed to have 
 been built under the superintendence of this mythical 
 hero." Lines 12 and 13 in the legend : "In his anger 
 
 also (his) secret counsel he pours out : [to] confound (their) 
 speeches he set his face," are closely parallel to Jehovah's 
 self -communing (if such it be) in Gen. xi. 6, 7. 
 
 The words in Gen. xi. 3^ "they had brick for stone, 
 and slime (i.e. bitumen, margin) had they for mortar," also 
 point to Chaldea (where bitumen is still found) as the origin 
 of the story ; and imply that the writer of the Biblical 
 account resided in a place where stones and mortar, not 
 bricks, Avere used for building. 
 
 In The Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 309-311, Prof. 
 Sayce writes : — 
 
 "The dynasty of gods with which Egyptian mythical 
 N 2 
 
i8o Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 history commences, resembles iu some respects the list of 
 antediluvian kings of Babylonia given by Berosus, as well 
 as the list of antediluvian patriarchs in Genesis. This 
 dynasty has sometimes seven, sometimes ten reigns, and 
 in the Turin Papyrus of kings, which gives ten reigns, there 
 is the same name for the seventh and tenth kings, both 
 being called Horus, and the seventh king is stated to have 
 reigned 300 years, which is the length of life of the seventh 
 patriarch, Enoch, after the birth of his son." 
 
 It may also be noticed that in the fragment of Berosus 
 which has come down through Apollodorus, there is a 
 parallel, not only to the ten antediluvian patriarchs, but also 
 to the passage in Gen. vi. 3 : — '^ yet (or therefore, margin) 
 shall his days be an hundred and twenty years." It 
 says, *' So that the sum of all the kings is ten ; and the 
 term which they collectively reigned an hundred and twenty 
 sari." 
 
 I have devoted considerable space to the foregoing ex- 
 tracts, as they have an important bearing upon the subject 
 of this work. Notwithstanding, they are but a brief outline, 
 especially in the case of those legends which are not taken 
 from the cuneiform inscriptions. A more complete account 
 might have been given of the latter if the subject had been 
 fully dealt with ; but the foregoing is quite suflScient for the 
 present purpose. 
 
 The reader cannot fail to have perceived the striking 
 resemblance between these legends and the narratives in 
 Gen. i. to xi. Many other points of resemblance in the 
 cuneiform accounts, besides those before mentioned, are 
 noticed by Professor Sayce in the Chaldean Account of 
 Genesis, where the subject is more fully discussed. 
 
 Besides this general resemblance, there is another import- 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. i8i 
 
 ant fact to be observed — that all the events which are 
 described in Gen. i. to xi. find their parallels in these 
 legends, with the exception of the Story of Cain and Abel, 
 one or two genealogies, sundry details in the life of Noah, 
 etc. We are thus at once brought to the conclusion that 
 the Biblical narratives and these legends must have had a 
 common origin ; and it becomes an important question, 
 Where was that origin 1 Prof. Sayce has no doubt that it 
 was not in Palestine, but in Chaldea ; and, as the reader 
 will have observed, Prof. Sayce is no enemy to the 
 Word of Truth. Whilst finding more or less of detail 
 which is unquestionably incorrect in the Biblical stories 
 he undoubtingly believes in their essentially historical cha- 
 racter. 
 
 There are four important things to be considered in 
 deciding as to the origin of these stories. (1) Which are 
 the more ancient, the cuneiform inscriptions or the relevant 
 parts of Genesis? (2) Which nation, the Hebrew or the 
 Chaldean, was the older, the greater, the more influential, 
 and, therefore, the more likely to have been the source, not 
 only of these Hebrew and Chaldean accounts of the Crea- 
 tion, the Deluge, etc., but also of all those legends which, 
 in some form or other, were common to the surrounding 
 Eastern nations 1 (3) Can we trace any connection between 
 the Hebrew and the Chaldean nations which is likely to 
 indicate the course by which these legends passed from the 
 one to the other 1 (4) Is there anything in the Biblical stories 
 which suggests that Chaldea was the place where they were 
 originally composed ? 
 
 The second question may be confidently answered in 
 favour of Chaldea. This was the great source and centre of 
 Eastern civilization ; and, during early Hebrew history, the 
 seat of the Capital of the world. The Hebrews, on the 
 other hand, were never more than a small nation. 
 
1 82 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 As regards the first question, Prof. Sayce shows in The 
 Chaldea7i Account of Genesis (pages 178, 20, 21), that the 
 Deluge legend is an Assyrian translation of an Accadian 
 original, which latter was composed at least as early as 
 2000 B.C. The Creation legend, in its present form, is not 
 older than the 7th century B.C., though the story itself was 
 undoubtedly more ancient.''' The Sabbath was an Accadian 
 institution.^ (The Accadians^ the reader will remember, 
 were the original inhabitants of Chaldea.) The fir-cones 
 shown in the representations of the Tree of Life may point 
 to the conclusion that the Accadians brought that tradition 
 from their original home in the mountains of Media.^ 
 The Exodus from Egypt took place in the reign of Menep- 
 tah II., who ascended the Egyptian throne about B.C. 1325,^° 
 so that we cannot assign nearly so old a date as B.C. 2000 to 
 the composition of Gen. i. to xi. The Chaldean legend 
 
 of the Deluge is therefore older than the Biblical narrative 
 of the same, and there is every reason to believe that the 
 original Chaldean legends of the Creation and the Fall were 
 also older than the parallel accounts in Genesis, 
 
 Thirdly, we know that the Hebrews were of the same 
 race as the Semitic Chaldeans, that the latter were in pos- 
 session of Chaldea before the time of the Hebrew patriarchs, 
 and that the languages of the two nations were as closely 
 allied as two modern English dialects are.^^ And, according 
 to Gen. xi. 28-31, xii. 5, the Hebrew Patriarchs were na- 
 tives of the Chaldean city of Ur, who had migrated to 
 Haran, and thence to Canaan. Some have thought that 
 Ur of the Chaldees was in Mesopotamia, near Haran, so that 
 it is marked there in the maps in our Bibles ; wrongly, as 
 
 ' Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 56, 57. 
 
 » Ibid., p. 89. 'J Ibid., p. 85. 
 
 '*> Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, pp. 60, 61. 
 
 11 Ibid., p. 19. 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 183 
 
 Prof. Sayce showvs/^ It may also be remarked that the^ 
 Septuagint Version of Gen. xi. 31 reads, ^' . . . led them 
 forth out of the land of the Chaldees, to go into the land of 
 Chanaan, and they came as far as Charrhan, and he dwelt 
 there." This speaks of Charrhan, or Haran, as in a different 
 country, and at a distance, from Chaldea, the land of their 
 nativity : not at all as if Haran and Ur of the Chaldees 
 were near together in Mesopotamia, as shown in the afore- 
 said maps. Ur is well known to have been where Mugheir 
 now stands, in Southern Chaldea, where it is also marked 
 in our maps. It was one of the most ancient cities of the 
 land, once the capital, and one of the first occupied by 
 the Semitic Chaldeans. It appears, therefore, that the 
 Chaldeans were the parent nation, the Hebrews being 
 descendants of colonists from Chaldea, who settled first in 
 Mesopotamia or Syria. We know, moreover, that 
 
 writing was practised in Ur in very early times, as is shown 
 by the cylindrical signet of its ancient king Uruch, one of 
 the oldest relics found there. The Hebrew colonists may, 
 therefore, have taken with them written copies of these 
 legends (which were most sacred in their eyes), and their 
 descendants may have preserved them till the time when 
 the earliest portions of Genesis were written. Or, 
 
 possibly, since these stories seem to have passed by tradition 
 to many of the other nations of Western Asia, they may 
 in like manner have passed into the hands of the ancient 
 Hebrews. The close agreement, however, of the Chaldean 
 Deluge legend with the Biblical narrative seems to imply 
 that a written copy, and not a verbal tradition, was the 
 means of its passage into Hebrew hands. 
 
 Lastly, the language of the Biblical stories furnishes 
 internal evidence that they were composed in Chaldea and 
 
 ^2 Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, pp. 44, 45. 
 
184 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 were modified in their new home in Palestine. Attention 
 has ah-eady been called to such an implication in the words 
 of Gen. xi. 3, " They had brick for stone, and bitumen had 
 they for mortar." In like manner the reference to bitumen 
 or pitch in the Deluge narrative, the dates of commence- 
 ment and termination of the Flood as given by the Elohist 
 writer (which agree with the periods of inundation by the 
 Babylonian rivers), and other details, point clearly to Chaldea 
 as the place where the original story was composed ; whereas 
 the term tebah, ' a coffer,' substituted for ' ship/ indi- 
 cates the work of an inhabitant of an inland country. The 
 phraseology of the Story of the Fall still more strikingly 
 suggests a description of Chaldean scenery and surroundings ; 
 and in the Genesis account of the Creation there are traces 
 of the former existence of mythological language, which was 
 reraoved or altered during the compilation of those passages. 
 
 Thus lue are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that, 
 with one or two small exceptions, the stories which form the 
 subject matter of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, loere all 
 ancient Hebreio traditions, originally obtained and probably 
 inherited from the Chaldeans. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to assert^ much less to dilate on, the 
 difference in character between the Biblical narratives and 
 the foregoing legends. As Sayce remarks, the spirit of the 
 two is essentially different. 
 
 But another feature should be mentioned here — the terse 
 and finished character of the Biblical stories as compared 
 witli these legends. Moreover, when the legends are com- 
 pared with each other, it seems clear that the Chaldean 
 stories, more than any others, resemble those in the Bible, 
 and that the Chaldean legends are more developed than those 
 of the Hindus, Chinese, and other nations racially more 
 distant. In considering this question we must remember 
 that the Persian accounts of the Creation and the Fall are. 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 185 
 
 in all probability, modifications of the Chaldean ; and, in 
 judging of the latter, these Persian legends should, therefore, 
 be taken into account, in conjunction with the cuneiform 
 inscriptions. ' ^^Tow, if the Semites, Indo-Europeans, and 
 Mongolian peoples dwelt together, or not far apart, at some 
 very distant date ; if, at a later date, the Semites and Indo- 
 Europeans remained near each other after their separation 
 from the Mongolian races; and if, finally, the different 
 Semitic nations alone remained together at a still later date, 
 the above-named features of these legends would be most 
 simply accounted for. For we should conclude that they had 
 a common origin ; we should place that origin in the first 
 of these periods, trace their growth through the second, and 
 their full development in the third. This would make their 
 origin very very old, perhaps incredibly old ; but if they 
 were thus handed down, we may be sure they had acquired 
 a most sacred character in the people's eyes long before 
 Hebrew times. At any rate, we may safely say that the 
 
 genesis and growth of these legends agreed, generally, 
 with the course suggested above, in that they originated in 
 very early times, and grew up to their final form by little 
 and little, ever growing in sacredness in the people's sight. 
 
 How deeply interesting is this matter when we see in it the 
 then unseen Hand of God. For we see here the laying of the 
 foundations of the Book of God. (See'pp. 163, 164.) How 
 crude is the first material ; how slowly is it shaped, as nearer 
 and nearer the ideas and the leliefs approach to their ultimate 
 Divine form as expressed in our Bible. In a former chapter 
 we saw how closely connected was the evolution of Divine 
 knowledge among the Hebrews with the writing of the 
 Scriptures. Here we find a like connection and inter- 
 dependence, in these dim distant ages, between the growth 
 of theological sentiments and ideas, by means of which came 
 the Divine knowledge, and the growth of traditionary 
 
1 86 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 beliefs about the actions of the Deity, etc., out of which 
 began the writing of the Bible. 
 
 Readers who mistake names for realities, or cannot look 
 beneath the surface, will, perhaps, be alarmed at such words 
 as myth and tradition when thus associated with the Person 
 and Book of God. But the student of Nature will see that — 
 as in the sculpturing of the statue, and as throughout the 
 whole realm of Nature, the rude form must exist before the 
 finished, so here — before there could be revelation and the 
 written Word, there must be the crude religious ideas and 
 beliefs. Before there was revelation (in its proper sense, 
 though we might call this revelation on account of its Divine 
 origin,) the writing of the Scriptures was a very different 
 thing from what it was in the full light of apostolic times. 
 But these opening chapters of the Bible are most important 
 Scriptures ; and we here see that special provision was made 
 to ensure their efficiency, the Hand of God doing almost of 
 itself what the hand of man could not then do. We see 
 that it was necessary, first, to form the raw material of public 
 theological conceptions and beliefs ; then^ whilst purifying, 
 guiding, and developing these conceptions little by little, to 
 shape the growth of the concomitant traditional 'beliefs, 
 until they arrived at the desired form ; . when the old Hebrew 
 writer, in writing the treasured and sacred record, as it was 
 in the people's eyes, expressed — though still, as we shall 
 see, in rather crude form — the sacred truths of the Living 
 God. 
 
 If the reader hesitates to accept this conclusion, will he 
 pause and try to answer the question. What other course 
 would have been so effective as this for the propagation of 
 divine truths ? Indeed, what other course could have been 
 taken % 
 
 It would be well if we could realize the utter impossibility 
 of imparting truths to a people who possessed no ideas and 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 187 
 
 beliefs of a similar kind. If we think of miraculous inspira- 
 tion of a writer as a means, we must instantly reject it. 
 No one could comprehend his words : no one would accept 
 them. 
 
 Again, let us remember, (1) how natural it would be that 
 the One who had built up the human mind^ should thus, 
 in preparation for the revelation that was to follow, influence, 
 regulate, and foster the growth of its ideas and beliefs; (2) that 
 it is Grod's way to use what is at hand for carrying out His 
 purposes ; not to go out of the way and create special means. 
 Then let us realize the whole position, and we shall never 
 again hesitate to believe that the truths of Gen. i.-xi. — and 
 probably some of those in the Books of the Law — were 
 communicated from God to the Hebrews by the guidance of 
 traditionary ideas and beliefs. 
 
 The internal evidence of the Divine origin of these ancient 
 Scriptures cannot be given here,, in further support of this 
 conclusion, but some of it will come under notice in the 
 remaining part of this work. 
 
 Of course after this guiding of primitive traditions had 
 been limited to the Semitic and then to the Hebrew, in the 
 manner outlined above, the original traditions would 
 naturally still continue to develop in different forms among 
 the remaining nations, so producing the various forms of 
 such beliefs which have been discovered in that part of the 
 world. It is of little importance to the foregoing conclu- 
 sion, whether the first beginning of all such primitive beliefs 
 was an entirely natural product of the human mind, or 
 whether it was the result of a special Divine interposition ; 
 it suffices that the traditions undoubtedly were specially 
 directed in their development, more particularly in their 
 later course as they passed into Chaldean and Hebrew 
 hands. 
 
 The association of tradition with these early Scriptures is 
 
Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 not altogether new. Several Christian commentators have 
 concluded that some of them were traditions handed down 
 from the first man to Mosaic times, the first man having 
 received his knowledge direct from God. This is in part 
 parallel to what is here asserted, namely, that these beliefs 
 were handed down traditionally from the earliest times, the 
 truths coming indeed from God Himself, though by a very 
 different process. 
 
 These Scriptures, we must remember, were thus produced 
 at a very early period in Hebrew history ; and therefore at 
 a time when the Hebrew's knowledge of God, if not also 
 his natural knowledge, was in its infancy. Although 
 intended also for the use of all mankind afterwards, they 
 were primarily designed to meet the needs of a people who 
 possessed neither abstract ideas of spiritual things, nor 
 language for their expression, though the germs of these 
 they doubtless had. We have before remarked upon the 
 difiiculty of bringing Divine truths home to such minds, 
 and the necessity for concrete pictures for that purpose. 
 Add to this the facts : — that even in New Testament times 
 Christ often taught by parables, that the Bible closes with 
 a book of symbolic language, and that God often so over- 
 ruled the Old Testament writer's words as to invest his 
 work with important truths in types and figures. We then 
 have strong reason to conclude that the essence of these 
 oldest Scriptures lies more or less in their symbolic meaning ; 
 or in such spiritual truths as must pass into the mind when 
 the narratives are being read and believed as historical fact. 
 There are, however, diff'erent kinds of truths in Gen. i.-xi., 
 and it is therefore natural to expect some parts to be 
 symbolic, and others not so, or not wholly so. For instance, 
 we should hardly apply the principle to Gen. i. as a whole ; 
 whilst, as we shall see further on, there is much reason to 
 apply it to Gen. ii., iii., and some subsequent passages. 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 189 
 
 But here we seem to be met by a grave difficulty. For 
 although as long ago as the date of the Book of Wisdom, the 
 Jews had perceived a connexion between the serpent of 
 Gen. iii. and the Devil (Wisdom ii. 24) ; still it is manifest 
 that the Story of the Fall and all Gen. i.-xi. were regarded 
 as historical by the Jews of New Testament times, the 
 writers of the New Testament Scriptures included. The 
 difficulty is only apparent, however. 
 
 For if these narratives had well fulfilled their purpose 
 of conveying their included divine truths to Hebrew readers 
 of all times, late as well as early, there was no reason why 
 those of the later age should have been specially taught to 
 read them, or portions of them, in a different light. In 
 fact we need but ask. How else were they to read them, 
 who knew nothing of the facts revealed by Science in these 
 days ? and the answer is plain. And that their natural strong 
 tendency would be to cling to their forefathers' manner of 
 reading them, we see very plainly, by the desperate tena- 
 city to the traditionary view which is manifested in these 
 days, even after the very foundations of parts of these 
 stories have been swept away. 
 
 But if we find the Lord Himself apparently treating them 
 in the same light ? The answer again is simple. He 
 
 who came from God to teach them spiritual truths would 
 have no occasion to correct any of their imperfect know- 
 ledge of other matters ; especially where their very manner 
 of reading those old Scriptures was not a hindrance, but 
 a help, to their apprehension of divine truth. Whether 
 there be other reasons or not, this is reason enough, for His 
 quoting from those old Scriptures as they were. 
 
 That, however, is not all. Wherever we find those 
 Scriptures quoted in the New Testament, the very sub- 
 stance of the extract is seen to consist in the moral truth 
 which is contained in the Old Testament passage. Very 
 
igo Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 different in this respect are the reproductions of those 
 narratives which we iind in the Apocrypha. It may be 
 added that in one instance Christ, in quoting from one of 
 them, departs distinctly from the letter of the story, 
 putting Adam's words into the mouth of God (Matt. xix. 4), 
 whilst selecting two conspicuous divine truths from different 
 passages (Gen. i. 27 and ii. 24), and joining them together 
 as if they had been one quotation. 
 
 We ourselves often quote from the parables somewhat as 
 if they were historical. Thus we talk of the events in the 
 parable of the Prodigal Son, saying that the son did so-and- 
 so, and that on his return, " his father saw him, while he 
 was yet afar off, and . . . ran and fell on his neck, and 
 kissed him." We repeat these words ^ well knowing in our 
 own minds the rich depth of meaning which lies beneath 
 them. In the same manner may Christ have quoted the 
 old passages in Genesis, seeing Himself their full meaning, 
 whilst those around Him saw only as much as it was essen- 
 tial that they should see. He said much to the multitude 
 of which He revealed the meaning only to His disciples. 
 When these asked Him about things which it was not neces- 
 sary for them to know, rather than answer such questions, 
 He at once directed their attention to what was essential 
 (Acts i. 6-8; John xxi. 21, 22). Once when they had 
 totally failed to apprehend Him, He supplemented His 
 explanation with the significant statement " The words 
 
 are spirit" (John vi. 63). So too are the words 
 
 of Genesis. 
 
 In teaching children, we do not always speak in words 
 that are perfectly accurate, for our aim is to present certain 
 truths in a form adapted to the child-mind. Was not the 
 matchless Teacher in a similar position ? ^^ 
 
 i'< Perhaps it should not be overlooked that those who recorded 
 Christ's references to the Old Testament could not, without a 
 
The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 191 
 
 Not must we forget that, whilst these old Scriptures are 
 unhistorical as narratives, they are yet spiritually historical, 
 expressing thus the deepest of all historical truths. If 
 then the writers of the New Testament quoted them simply 
 as they stood^ they in doing so were stating the truth, and 
 the deepest of truths ; only in their form of expressing it 
 they were not, as they could not be till more enlightened 
 times^ accurate. 
 
 Further remarks would be superfluous here, as the 
 bearings of these questions will be more clearly seen by the 
 reader as we pass under review these first eleven chapters 
 of Genesis. At first sight it doubtless appears a serious 
 difficulty ; but I am certain that the more fully the matter is 
 investigated, the more it will be manifest that the course 
 taken in this matter as we find it in our Bible, was both 
 necessary, and the outcome of deepest Divine wisdom. 
 
 miracle — a miracle with, at most, distant utility— free themselves 
 from their own thoughts on the subject. Whilst, therefore, they 
 were well qnalified as regards spiritual knowledge, and, with the 
 help of inspiration, undoubtedly were enabled to give a spiritually 
 perfect report of the teachings of Christ, it is possible that in 
 these cases they used forms of expression not identical with 
 those which He Himself used. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE CREATION. 
 
 The object of Gen. i. 1 to ii. 4 is to give man an account 
 of the Creation as it seemed in the eyes of God— to convey 
 to man God's thoughts on this important subject. It is of 
 vital importance to keep that fact always in remembrance. 
 
 But, as the account is given for man's instruction, it does 
 not necessarily present all God's thoughts about the works 
 of His hands. 
 
 Thirdly, whilst the account was designed for all people 
 in all ages, it possesses many special features, because it 
 was designed more particularly for the early Hebrew people . 
 It was given them when science was unknown, and when 
 the knowledge of God was in its infancy. Its divine 
 truths, therefore, both the general and the special, are 
 clothed in the crude language corresponding to the crude 
 ideas of that age. 
 
 As we saw in the first chapter of this work, man's view 
 of the Creation, derived from a scientific investigation, 
 differs in certain particulars, either from the Divine view 
 itself, or from certain things which the language used in 
 Gen. i. has led most readers to believe, but which are no 
 part of the Divine view itself — or perhaps, we may here 
 add, it differs from both of these. Our object now is to 
 ascertain, as far as possible, in the chief of those cases 
 
The Creation. 193 
 
 where this difference occurs, what is the Divine view, and 
 what are the erroneous beliefs which have generally been 
 associated with it ; and also to give a satisfactory reason 
 why the language is such as to generate those beliefs. 
 
 As we proceed, the Divine view will perhaps seem to us 
 in certain respects ideal. As to this, if we refer to 
 Kom. iv. 17j ^' God who . . . calleth the things that are 
 not as though they were," we at once find a Scriptural 
 reason for this apparent Divine idealism. Lest, however^ 
 we should entertain the notion that our own views are in 
 entire accord with the reality, and therefore essentially 
 preferable to the Divine views, let us pause awhile and 
 briefly examine the nature and foundation of our owai 
 knowledge of objective reality. 
 
 Psychology, then, forces upon us — without possibility of 
 escape — the conviction that, whatever the material things 
 around us may be in themselves, they are not what to us 
 they seem to be. All that we know, or can know, about 
 them is conceived in terms of the sensations which they 
 excite in us. When we perceive an object the first efi'ect 
 is that a group of these (presentative) states of consciousness 
 is called up. The second efifect is that another group of 
 (representative) states of consciousness is thereby called 
 forth from the recesses of the mind. The union of these 
 two groups forms a complete mental picture of the object ; 
 the discerning of a relation among these states of con- 
 sciousness constitutes our perception of it. Thus what we 
 are conscious of is an affection of our own mind. Why 
 should these states of consciousness which are parts of our 
 mindhe in any degree like the external object which, has merely 
 served to excite them 1 The object is certainly adequate, 
 under the circumstances, to cause them to come up in the 
 mind, and that is all we can venture to assert. But we 
 
 have abundant proof that the object is not like the sensa- 
 
 
 
194 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 tions which it excites. Colour furnishes a simple case. Jt 
 is not easy to conceive that a green leaf is not green in 
 itself. Yet what we are conscious of is the sensation of 
 green; and if w^e insist that this greenness is not entirely 
 within the mind, we must attribute it not at all to the leaf, 
 but to the light which the leaf reflects, wdiilst absorbing the 
 other-coloured rays. 
 
 A simple instance of another kind may be given. We 
 take a smooth cylindrical piece of wood, small and long, 
 and call it ' a stick,' or ' piece of wood.' But if we use 
 it habitually for a few weeks for guiding the pen in drawing 
 straight lines, what is it then ? It is not merely a stick. 
 It is a much more important entity : it has become a Euler. 
 Yet in itself there has been no change. This illustrates the 
 fact that many of the supposed properties of our familiar 
 things really consist in the tises which we make of them. 
 
 In these two instances, which might be multiplied in- 
 definitely, we see how qualities which really appertain 
 almost exclusively to our minds are habitually attributed 
 exclusively to the objects around us. And this process is 
 carried to a far greater extent than we have any idea of, till 
 we pursue the analysis. Then we arc obliged to admit 
 that our knowledge of any object consists entirely of feel- 
 ings (or states of consciousness) excited in us by an unknown 
 and unknowable substratum. Mr. Herbert Spencer writes 
 {First Principles, 1887, pp. 68, G9) :— I 
 
 '' The conviction that human intelligence is incapable of 
 absolute knowledge is one that has been slowly gaining 
 ground as civilization has advanced. Each new ontological 
 theory, from time to time propounded in lieu of previous 
 ones shown to be untenable, has been followed by a new 
 criticism leading to a new scepticism. All possible con- 
 ceptions have been one by one tried and found wanting ; 
 and so the entire field of speculation has been gradually 
 exhausted wuthout positive result : the only result arrived 
 
The Creation. 195 
 
 at being the negative one above stated — that the reality 
 existing behind all appearances is, and must ever be, un- 
 known. To this conclusion almost every thinker of note 
 has subscribed. 'With the exception,' says Sir William 
 Hamilton, ' of a few late Absolutist theorisers in Germany, 
 this is, perhaps, the truth of all others most harmoniously 
 re-echoed by every philosopher of every school.' " 
 
 We should therefore be very slow to conclude that our 
 view of the universe, or of its creation, is more in accord 
 with the reality than the Divine one is, even if the latter 
 does appear in some respects ideal. 
 
 It appears from the above analysis that our knowledge is 
 composed of impressions produced upon the mind by that 
 which lies outside the mind. How is God's view of the 
 Creation constituted, as we find it in Gen. '\.% Of two parts, 
 (1) the plan, or rather the volition that certain things shall 
 exist, — ' Let there be Light,' ' Let there be a firmament,' 
 etc. ; (2) the review, ' And God saw that it was good.' 
 
 The first of these parts does not find its parallel in our 
 views of Nature, but an Inventor can perhaps form some 
 idea of it. Merely remembering that it is the volition of 
 the Author of Being^ let us pass to the second part of 
 the Divine view. 
 
 This we find is of the same nature as our knowledge, 
 inasmuch as it is composed of impressions produced upon 
 the mind/ Which set of impressions then is likely to be 
 the truest, those produced on us, or tliose — if we may so 
 speak — produced on God 1 Without going into all the 
 conditions necessary to a true impression, we see a most 
 important one at the outset — the position of the observer. 
 
 ^ These statements about the miud, impress'ons, and the like, 
 of God, may read like anthropomorphisms. Of course they must 
 not be taken too literally ; but, in the sense here intended, they 
 are, I think, warranted by what is revealed of the nature of 
 God. 
 
 O 2 
 
196 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 It should be a central position, Avliere everything can be 
 clearly seen, and valued according to its importance — not a 
 one-cornered position, where things present a distorted 
 appearance. The former is the Divine standpoint ; the 
 latter is our own. We can easily find an illustration of 
 
 our liability to take a distorted view, by referring to the 
 diagram on page 149. Situated as w^e will suppose our- 
 selves to be at e, we may think, for instance, that a is not 
 ' good,' because we take a relative view of the matter, and 
 cannot take an absolute one. We look down when we 
 should look up, from the starting point of Creation. Pre- 
 sently we will examine the respective merits of our view 
 and the Divine view of certain things in Gen. i. First, 
 however, let us notice one conclusion that seems to follow 
 from the above metaphysical reasoning. 
 
 Since in all Perception, the Mind, discerning the position 
 occupied by the exciting cause of its sensations, attributes 
 to the external object those qualities which really are part 
 of itself (though in their vivid form the Mind cannot of 
 itself excite them) ; and since we cannot pass outside the 
 region of these impressions, to know anything about what 
 lies beyond them — does it not follow that, whatever other 
 realities may exist, the ^lind is a reality which far transcends 
 every other reality that we can know ? This seems to be a 
 legitimate conclusion from the former position. This con- 
 clusion, indeed, opens wide questions which cannot be 
 discussed here. But it is not the Idealist's creed ; it leaves 
 room for a like reality in minds other than our own ; above 
 all, for the greatest reality in the Mind of God. I should 
 add, perhaps, to prevent misunderstanding, that it is here 
 presented purely as derived from man's correspondence 
 with Nature, not from his correspondence with God, as 
 realized by the Christian. Lastly, does it not accord with 
 the Scriptural doctrine which gives the spirit (the most 
 real part of ^lind) so important a place ? 
 
The Creation. 197 
 
 If then the ^Mind is so real, and if God is the author of 
 Being, we should be very slow to attribute unreality to that 
 which exists as God sees. It may be added that where, 
 in Rom. iv. 17, it says_, 'God who . . . calls the things 
 which be not as being' (as another translation has it), we 
 yet have Abraham's pargntage asserted as a, reality of a kind 
 other than the fleshly one, namely, the spiritual. 
 
 We find therefore that the Divine view of Creation in 
 its reviewing, or impression-receiving, character is, in its 
 nature and from the position of the Observer, far more 
 trustworthy than the human view ; and that the apparent 
 Divine Idealism, where it occurs, is entitled to profound 
 respect. 
 
 Let us pass on then to consider the principles on which 
 this Account of the Creation is drawn up. The first verse 
 tells us that God created the heaven and the earth. The 
 second verse proceeds immediately, almost abruptly, to deal 
 with the earth ; and we read no more about the heaven 
 (except its mention in Gen. ii. 1) ; for the firmament, or 
 expanse^ which God called heaven (verse 8)_, and the 
 ^firmament of the heaven' (verse 14) are clearly that which 
 God made on the Second Day; not the heaven of verse 1. 
 Having announced then these two things which make up 
 the sum of what God created ; the first of them_, the heaven, 
 is dismissed from the account as done with ; and of the 
 earth alone we have a detailed account. After the first 
 verse, therefore. Gen. i. is devoted to a description of earthly 
 things ; and if there is any reference to other phenomena, 
 they are consistently noticed only in their relation to the 
 earth. Gen. i. 1 is a cosmogony ; the rest is more properly 
 a geogony. 
 
 But there are other reasons why the account should be 
 confined to earthly things. (1) The 26th, 2rth, and 28th 
 verses tell us that the chief work of creation was man himself. 
 
198 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 who was not only given dominion over all the other things, 
 hut was even made in God's own image. (2) The Bible, 
 and therefore Gen. i., was written for man's benefit. (3) 
 It was meant to teach him religious truths only. It is 
 therefore proper that the account should be devoted chiefly 
 to man himself and his conditions of existence and environ- 
 ment ; and, as man is an earthly creature, this limits the 
 description to earthly things. From the religious point of 
 view it is important for man to know his own origin — that 
 God created him : his relation to the things around him — 
 set over them by the will of God ; and also their origin — 
 created by God. Man, man's environment, and God, and 
 the relations of these three with each other— these are the 
 subjects of the chapter. And what a wealth of informa- 
 tion this short chapter contains for man on these three 
 subjects ! 
 
 Since man and his earthly environment are tlie subjects 
 of the chapter (with God and their relations to Him as just 
 stated), not only is no account called for of the luminaries 
 outside of their relations to the earth, but any other descrip- 
 tion of them would here be out of place. It is of no im- 
 portance here what the sun, moon, and stars may be as 
 heavenhj bodies, or what their physical constitutions are. 
 These things belong to astronomy, and the Bible has nothing 
 to do with teaching astronomy. The one question here is. 
 What are their efl'ects on man and on the earth? From this 
 position there are, as man sees when he looks up, two Great 
 Lights, which divide the day from the night, divide time 
 into years, and furnish similar guidance ; give light to the 
 earth and its inhabitants, and produce the seasons ; and 
 there are other minor Lights, the stars. And as man looks 
 upward, ivhere does he see these Lights *? He sees them set 
 in the firmament of heaven above him, and accordingly that 
 is where Genesis locates them. Such is an account of what 
 
The Creation. 159 
 
 they are to man, where they are to man, and how they came 
 to be thus, namely, by the will of God, who made them. 
 
 " Very good so far/' it might be said, " and if one of the 
 sun's potent effects on the earth — its attraction of gravita- 
 tion—is omitted, the ultimate effects of even this are given, 
 these being the years and the seasons. But this view of 
 the luminaries is ideal, for it is confined to the ajjjyearance, 
 whereas astronomy gives the reality which causes that 
 appearance and those effects." Let us see. 
 
 First, it is well to notice Jiotv real things as described in 
 Gen. i. are to man in general. It is only a small proportion 
 of the human race to-day, the astronomically educated, who 
 view things in some respects differently ; and to all mankind 
 down to about 400 years ago, as they appeared to the eye, 
 so they were, most real. Even then were the argument 
 raised that Gen. i. does not truly describe the effects on 
 educated men to-day, it would still be right as a general 
 application to man, this being but a small exception. 
 
 Not until we learn about other things behind the ap- 
 pearance, and by means of which this state of affairs has 
 been brought about, does the appearance lose some of its 
 reality. Then, as best we can, we form, crude symbolic 
 conceptions of a spherical earth on which we dwell, with 
 empty space all round it, and the sun and stars as far larger 
 bodies than the earth. For the most part, however, ap- 
 pearance is still too strong for us, and the original state of 
 things retains most of its reality. When then we thus think 
 away some of our original or natural conceptions, by what 
 are they replaced *? Merely by others which are based upon 
 further axjpearance (as revealed by scientific investigation of 
 the heavens), not upon the ultimate reality which underlies 
 that appearance, for it is incognizable. Yet at each stage of 
 our advancing knowledge we complacently regard our last- 
 formed conception as that of the feality. 
 
200 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 It appears then that our present conception of the 
 region we inhabit is similar in nature to that of untutored 
 man, both being hased upon cq^j^earance. However natural, 
 it is inconsistent, if we maintain that the reality accords 
 with our present conceptions, simply because tliej are at 
 present ultimate ones, and yet deny all reality to those 
 original conceptions, which were likewise ultimate in their 
 day. AVe need know more of Ontology before we can do 
 this ; and that is the lesson which Psychology has taught 
 us, or ought to have taught us, as we saw before. 
 
 One realit}'" has, however, continued throughout these 
 changes in the appearance of the luminaries — a real effect has 
 always been produced by these upon the human mind ; which 
 fact reminds us of the transcendent reality of Mind itself, 
 already predicated. And not only have the effects produced 
 on the mind of man, generally, been those taken account of 
 in Genesis, but the different effects produced on the astro- 
 nomer have not destroyed the original ones. To him, as to 
 other men, the luminaries are still the Great Lights (what- 
 ever else they may be;, which also divide the time and 
 produce the seasons. Genesis therefore has recognized 
 
 the abiding reality, the effect produced on the human mind ; 
 and, where that effect has varied, it has recognized those 
 parts of it which have alone remained constant. 
 
 What physical science tells us, moreover, is confined to 
 the means whereby these effects have been produced ; for 
 such is our knowledge about the heavenly bodies. Whence 
 it appears that, after all, the Bible tells us about the reality, 
 and science tells us about the means whereby that reality 
 Avas produced. 
 
 But that is not all. Undue obloquy has fallen upon this 
 passage of Scripture simply in consequence of the same name 
 being applied to two different conceptions. When untutored 
 man looks up and sees the Great Light of day, set as it 
 
The Creation. 201 
 
 seems to be in the firmament not far above the earth, he 
 
 forms the conception of a Light, and he calls that Light ' the 
 
 Sun.' When the astronomer, by various processes, perceives 
 
 a huge lieavenly tody some 93 million miles beyond the 
 
 firmament where the Light appears,2 \^q forms the conception 
 
 of a heavenly body, the great centre of the solar system, and 
 
 he calls that heavenly body 'the Sun.' Here then are 
 
 two totally ditFerent conceptions, two entirely dififerent 
 
 things, the Light in the aerial firmament, and the Heavenly 
 
 Body some 93 million miles further away, and both these 
 
 things are called 'the Sun.' The first thing is a real light, 
 
 the second thing is a real heavenly body — both on a par, 
 
 according to our common notions of reality ; and both have 
 
 been called by the same name, ' the Sun.' And this name 
 
 originally appertained^ not to the Heavenly Body, but to 
 
 the Light. It is not, therefore, the Bible which is wrong 
 
 if it calls that Light 'the Sun,' /or it is its own name. It 
 
 is astronomy that has taken the name of the Light and 
 
 applied it to something else, to a later conception and 
 
 dififerent thing, the heavenly body. It had a right to do so, 
 
 perhaps; but it is unjust to the Bible to charge it with such 
 
 a misapplication where there is nothing of the kind. 
 
 Such then— in as far as this exegesis is correct — is the 
 
 ])ivineview of the luminaries, considered in their relation to 
 
 man. It is perfectly justified ; and no one will say that the 
 
 language of Gen. i. 14-19 is not well adapted to convey it 
 
 to the human mind. But we must not forget the other side 
 
 of the question— that the cursory sceptical reader sees in 
 
 that language the notions of an ignorant age, and nothing 
 
 more ; the words of man, not the Word of God. A 
 
 2 I have merely afifirmed this distance between the Light and 
 the heavenly body to distinguish clearly between the two concep- 
 tions. It would be most unjust lo Genesis to say that it places 
 the Light at this distance from the heavenly body. It only 
 places the Light in the firmament, stating nothing about how far 
 the firmament extends. 
 
202 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 mere reference to the former portions of this work furnishes 
 the complete ans^Yer to that objection. The passage was 
 designed to teach all mankind these Divine views, but 
 primarily, and most important, to teach them to people of 
 au unscientific age ; and it was also produced by the agency 
 of one of those people. Therefore these Divine Truths, 
 which are the Word of God, are expressed in language 
 generally adapted to all and specially adapted to the people of 
 that age. If the account had been written to-day, the Truths 
 would have been the same, the language somewhat different. 
 
 Here, and in some other places in the chapter, the language 
 might be taken as describing the universe according to the 
 notions of antiquity (see pp. 301, 302), and that is how the 
 people of early times undoubtedly applied it, as they could 
 only apply it. Yet the account nowhere commits itself to 
 those views. The educated reader of to-day applies it with 
 equal, or almost equal, facility to his own ideas of the 
 Cosmos. Whilst, as a matter of fact, it describes neither 
 the first nor the second, but is devoted to something higher 
 and more important, namely, to teaching man God's thoughts 
 about him and his environment and the creation of these. 
 
 I wonder if the reader has noticed one important respect 
 in which the above remarks have done but meagre justice to 
 Gen. i. 14-19. I did not notice the fact myself till after 
 these were written, and I leave them as they were (with a 
 slight alteration), for they show how the text is sometimes 
 blamed for what is not even in it. 
 
 It has been shown above that the Bible has a perfect right 
 to call ihe two Great Lights by their own original names, the 
 Sun and the Moon. And in many places we read of the Sun 
 and the Moon in the IJible. IJuthere these names are absent. 
 It has already been remarked that the opening chapters of 
 the Bible are very important Scriptures, and special Divine 
 care has been taken to ensure their efficiency. Later Scrip- 
 
The Creation. 203 
 
 tiires are devoted to subjects different from those dealt with 
 here, and the language used in them is chosen with a view 
 to deliver their particular truths effectually, sometimes being 
 defective if judged on other grounds. But Gen. i. is devoted 
 t3 an Account of the Creation, and language which would 
 pass without challenge elsewhere w^ould be inadmissible here. 
 The names Sun and Moon, which are used elsewhere, could 
 not, as we have seen, have been objected to even here ; yet, 
 as if to make the very language as far as possible under the 
 circumstances of its composition^ unexceptionable, these 
 names are omitted in the text. And that they are purposely 
 omitted is clear from verse 16, where we have the name 
 ' the stars.' Who, in writing the 16th verse, would have 
 used such a sequence of words as these^ "And God made 
 the two great lights ; the greater ligltt to rule the day, and 
 the lesser light to rule the night ; the stars also," instead 
 of using names of the same order, such as the sun, the 
 moon, and the stars? A literary critic in the old times 
 would surely have condemned such an inconsistency. IJut 
 God, knowing all things, and not forgetting the needs of 
 a subsequent and more enlightened age, has provided for 
 those needs, by overruling the writer's choice of words, even 
 in such a matter as this. We have but this one mention 
 of the stars, which tells us simply that God made them. 
 Verse 17 may be said to state that the stars, as lights, were 
 set in the firmament ; or it may not, though such is the 
 implication. 
 
 We find then the account of the luminaries still further 
 justified, inasmuch as it not only takes account simply 
 of the Lights, stating that these were set in the firmament 
 where man sees them, but it is careful also not to say 
 anything about the Sun and the Moon which man, applying 
 to-day to the Jieav^nly bodies, might regard as incorrect. 
 
 We return to the first verse. The Hebrew word which 
 
104 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 is translated ' heaven ' does not, it appears, involve the con- 
 ception of a spiritual heaven. Nov could we expect it, if 
 that conception did not exist in Old Testament times. Eut 
 "we must not forget that the physical heaven was supposed 
 in those days to be God's dwelling place ; so that the idea 
 which is expressed in Gen. i. 1 may, I think, he taken as 
 including that important feature. Further on, in Gen. ix., 
 X., and other places, where men and nations are enumerated, 
 we find a deliberate practice of giving those last which are 
 to be the subjects of future treatment, and those first about 
 which nothing more is to be said. Probably, therefore, for 
 two reasons Gen. i. 1 gives heaven first, earth second ; 
 namely, because as God's dwelling place heaven is the more 
 important, and because nothing more is to be said about it 
 in the chapter. We must, however, carefully note that 
 Gen. i. 1 does not commit itself to any statement that the 
 physical heaven is God's dwelling place. It merely tells us 
 that God created the heaven, and gives us no further inform- 
 ation on the subject. If the term ' the heaven ' includes 
 two distinct ideas fused together, or rather as yet unseparated, 
 the physical heaven and God's dwelling place, the truth 
 delivered in Gen. i. 1 may be, either that God created one, 
 or the other (since the name ' heaven ' is required to denote 
 either of them), or both. A third reason for naming heaven 
 first ma}^ be that it was created before the earth Avas. 
 
 "What are the Days of Genesis i. 1 They are not ordinary 
 24-hour days. They are not successive and mutually- 
 exclusive long periods, although they have a successive 
 character, and embrace long periods; according to our 
 thoughts, at least. Is it then a strange conception that is 
 represented by these Days ? No, it is a somewhat familiar 
 one. 
 
 AVhat is included in the term ' hour ' in this passage : — 
 
The Creation. 205 
 
 " The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear 
 the voice of the Son of God ; and they that hear shall live " 
 (John V. 25) ? The reference here is not to the re- 
 surrection of the body (as in verse 28), but to the passing 
 from spiritual death to life which occurs at conversion. 
 That ' hour,' therefore, has already lasted nearly 2000 
 years, whilst it has not embraced all that has occurred in 
 the world during that period, but only those special events, 
 the passing of certain persons from death to life. It had a 
 beginning and will have an end^ so that it has both 
 longitudinal and lateral boundaries. It is a period 
 possessing certain characteristics, and its scope is confined to 
 those characteristics. Of such a nature are the Days of 
 Genesis i., and in that sense we ourselves often use the 
 term ' day.' 
 
 If, for instance, we use the expression ' Solomon's day,' 
 we mean the period embraced l)y Solomon's life. We mean 
 a period of many years, and we also mean a period not 
 extending outside of the regal ilomain of a small kingdom, 
 Israel. We m.ay indeed say that certain events in distant 
 Babylon occurred in Solomon's day ; but that is, notwith- 
 standing, a departure from the essential feature of the con- 
 ception. We think of Solomon's life and surroundings ; 
 and these, or the period characterized by these, are what we 
 really mean. For if we directed our thoughts to Greece and 
 found that Homer lived at the same time as Solomon, we 
 should speak of Homer's day and Solomon's day as two 
 perfectly distinct times, in each case confining our 
 thoughts to their respective lives, although from a purely 
 chronological point of view these may have coincided. 
 
 Again, thinking of the state of civilized society, we say 
 " This is a day of knowlef.lge." Whereas, if we were 
 occupied with the state of the negroes of Central Africa, or 
 any other savages, we should have to say, '^ This is a day of 
 
2o6 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ignorance." Confined to England it is a day of scepticism, 
 a day of religion, a day of irreligion, a day of industrial 
 progress, a day of peace, etc., according as we turn our 
 attention to one subject or one section of tlie people. Yet 
 all these distinct 'days' are synchronous. 
 
 Times out of number we find the term ' day ' used in the 
 Bible in this sense, more or less definitely. It is so used in 
 Jer. 1. 27 J ' for their day is come, the time of their 
 visitation' ; in Zech. iv. 10, 'the day of small things'; in 
 John viii. 56, ' Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my 
 day'; in '2 Cor. vi. 2, 'now is the day of salvation'; in 
 Deut. xxxi. 18, 'And I will surely hide my face in that 
 day ' ; in Amos ii. 16, ' And he that is courageous among 
 the mighty shall flee away naked in that day ' ; in John xiv. 
 20, ' In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, 
 and ye in me, and I in you'; in John xvi. 23, 'And in 
 that day ye shall ask me nothing'; in John xvi. 26, 'In 
 that day ye shall ask in my name.' 
 
 The conception of the Day of Genesis i, is brought before 
 the mind more definitely by the use of the term ' day,' as 
 applied to a human life, as in ' Solomon's day,' ' Homer's 
 day,' than in the other cases before noticed. By this means, 
 too, we may obtain an idea of the Six Days in their relation 
 to each other. Thus if we take six persons' lives, such as 
 ]Moses' day, Joshua's day, Samuel's day, Saul's day, David's 
 day, and Solomon's day, we have six particular periods 
 before the mind. They were successive periods, but not 
 entirely successive. Each one was a later period than the 
 one before it ; some of them were entiridy completed (from 
 a chronological point of view) before others began, as were 
 both Moses' and Joshua's day before Samuel's and the 
 others. Several of them were contemporaneous, as Samuel's 
 day, Saul's day, and David's day, during a certain part of 
 each. Some of the events, too, of one of these were con- 
 
The Creation. 207 
 
 iiected with some of the events of another, as with Saul and 
 David. Yet, inasmuch as the essential feature of each con- 
 ception is the period, events, surroundings, and character- 
 istics, of the particular life, each of these ' days ' is a period 
 of itself, distinct from the others. Of this character, and 
 thus related to each other, are the Days of Gen. i. 
 
 Dr. Reusch has given their character to some extent in 
 these words {Nature and the Bihle, Edinburgh, 1886, vol. i. 
 p. 188) : " Taken as a whole, the six days correspond to 
 the whole series of periods which elapsed between the first 
 beginning of things and the creation of man ; but they do 
 not mean six successive periods, but only six sides or phases 
 of the creative activity of God ; six principal heads under 
 which the creating and forming acts of God can be brought." 
 After discussing at length the other interpretations of the 
 Six Days that have been entertained, he concludes this is 
 the right one (pp. 363, 364). It is a mistake, however, 
 to dismiss altogether (as the above diagnosis seems to do, 
 though perhaps not intentionally) the successive character of 
 the Six Days ; for this clearly is one of their essential 
 features, whilst it yields, after reaching a certain point, to 
 other more important considerations. 
 
 These Days have been called 'ideal.' We have seen, 
 however, that they do not express either a strange or an 
 illegitimate conception, from our point of view. It remains 
 to be shown that from God's point of view they need not be 
 at all ideal, and that they seem ideal to us because we 
 occupy a different standpoint. 
 
 The undue importance we attach to Time is one cause. 
 We regulate our actions so much by our clocks and watches, 
 and measure so many things in terms of the motions of these, 
 that we have given Time an objective reality which it does 
 not possess. It has only a sort of representative value like 
 money, but more like a banking account where no actual 
 
2oS Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 coia passes ; most convenient for measuring, for rendering 
 expenditures of force, and what not, of one kind into those 
 of other kinds, but not possessing in itself the properties 
 attributed to it. It is so excellent a servant that we have 
 made it our master. It is a conception which the mind has 
 manufactared and then set over its own head. 
 Scripture is wiser than man ; and not only here in Genesis i. 
 is Time given a subordinate place, but it is very often 
 treated so, sometimes quite disregarded, in God's thoughts as 
 expressed in the Bible. Man thinks of the dates at which 
 certain events occurred, or the time which they covered, 
 according to his way of reckoning, as if these were the 
 great realities. God takes account rather of the events 
 themselves, and groups them together as He sees it suitable. 
 Not, however, that man is altogether blind to the virtues 
 of the latter system, for he frequently adopts it when it suits 
 his convenience, notwithstanding the profound submission 
 we all pay to the god Time. 
 
 Moreover, in arriving at his present geological know- 
 ledge, the arranging of the different formations in a chrono- 
 logical system has been of great assistance to man; and 
 this has again tended to occupy his thoughts with the time 
 aspect of the creation. But in Gen. i., as before 
 
 remarked, the first thing of which we read in each instance 
 of a creation is the formation of a certain plan in the mind 
 of God. ' Let there be a firmament ' is the first thing, and 
 then follow^s, ' and God made the firmament.' We should 
 say then, if we might so speak, that the Divine Mind was 
 naturally occupied, not with the chronological sequence of 
 the numerous events which occurred in the realizing of the 
 plan, as revealed by science, but with the carrying out of 
 the plan itself. Many other things may have occurred, 
 incidentally connected with the carrying out of the Divine 
 schemes; but it is not the business of Genesis i. to tell us 
 
The Creation. 209 
 
 about these. Its object is to tell us what God intended to 
 do, and what He did. The Divine plans were duly realized, 
 as we are told again and again in the quaint words of the 
 old Hebrew writer, 'And God saw that it was good.' 
 Biologists should remember what information Gen. i. is 
 meant to give, if they find things in the animal-world which 
 they think should have been referred to in this account of 
 the Creation. I mean such things as predatory animals, 
 parasites, struggle for life, etc. 
 
 We find very good reason, therefore, for concluding that 
 the ideal character which we are disposed to attribute to 
 these Six Days, results entirely from the standpoint from 
 which we view them ; and that from the Divine point of 
 view they are i:)robably not so ideal, but most real. 
 
 Lastly, seeing what Science tells ns about the simultaneous 
 and intermixed character of the work of Creation, we might 
 perhaps with advantage pause and ask ourselves. What 
 strictly chronological division of the work could have been 
 made 1 
 
 But, having thus recognized the true character of the Six 
 Days, let us not seem to assert that there is anything in 
 Genesis i. to indicate this. We have to thank Science for 
 this information. As we shall see presently, there is a 
 striking indication in the chapter that these Days were 
 Divine Days, and not ordinary human ones ; and, as the 
 Bible is not meant to teach science, we conclude that that 
 was quite sufficient information for it to give, without goinf^ 
 into their character, as we are now able to do in the light of 
 science. Moreover, six days of this kind are not readily 
 united in the mind so as to form the idea of a week ; whilst 
 the Week is a most important feature of this account of the 
 Creation. God has not only regarded the Creation as the work 
 of several Days_, but He has specially stated that there were 
 Six of these Days, wherein He worked, and One wherein He 
 
 P 
 
210 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ceased to work, or rested. The whole constituted the Divine 
 Week, of which onr week (or, to speak accurately, the 
 Hebrew week) was the human copy. It was most important 
 that the Hebrews should form such a conception of this 
 Divine Week as would enable them, and cause them_, to 
 divide their time into the human weeks in imitation of it, 
 and in obedience to the Divine commands. It mattered 
 little, therefore, whether they thought of the Days accu- 
 rately in their true character or not, whilst it mattered 
 much that they should so think of them as to liken 
 them to ordinary 24-hour days, and so adopt the human 
 iceeli. Therefore if they thought they were actually the 
 same as earthly days, that mistake was a help_, and not a 
 hindrance, to the carrying out of this important Divine 
 ordinance. N"© wonder, therefore, that they, and all the 
 world after them, believed that these Six Days were earthly 
 days till Science corrected the mistake. 
 
 Of course the Hebrew week did not come into existence 
 suddenly in obedience to Divine command. The sacred 
 character of the seventh day was as old as Accadian times ; 
 and so were the foundations of this Scripture, as we saw in 
 the last chapter. There we saw that even before Hebrew 
 times there had been a divinely- overruled development of 
 Eastern theological sentiments and beliefs ; and these were 
 further developed and purified among the Hebrews. As 
 there was even in the myth an ignorant worship of God, so, 
 as we here see, this Divine command about the Sabbath 
 was vaguely "^'ritten in the human conscience, which re- 
 garded the seventh day as sacred, in Accadian times. It 
 matters nothing at what point in the process it became 
 strictly a Divine command and truly apprehended as such. 
 Suffice it that eventually it became so. 
 
 It should perhaps be added that, although our week, with 
 the observance of the first day as ' the Lord's day/ has 
 
The Creation. 211 
 
 superseded the old Hebrew week, it has come into existence 
 through the latter ; and the blessings of our weekly day 
 of rest are due to this Divine Week of Genesis i., with the 
 command about the Sabbath. The opponent of the Bible 
 might remember this to advantage. 
 
 Another point should not be overlooked. The Apostle 
 Peter writes, ' one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, 
 and a thousand years as one day.' Therefore, notwith- 
 standing the length of these periods of Creation, this Divine 
 Week may well present to the mind of God much the same 
 thing that the human week does to the mind of man. In 
 that case, if the language of Genesis tends to make one 
 regard the Divine Week as a human week, it presents God's 
 conception of the Divine Week in the most suitable terms 
 for human apprehension. 
 
 But we must not forget that this belief in the 24-hour 
 duration of the Days of Creation presents a serious 
 difficulty to an honest, well-educated mind to-day. It may 
 have been well in ignorant times that all should thus inter- 
 pret the words of Genesis i. ; but it is not well that they 
 should be so interpreted to-day. Sceptics may point to it, 
 as they do, as the words of ignorance and therefore not the 
 Word of God. God has not overlooked this. The indica- 
 tion that these Days were not the same as human ones, but 
 were Divine Days, is given in this chapter. Since it was 
 needful, that the early Hebrews should recognize the days 
 of Creation as human days, that so the human week might 
 have Divine corroboration ; and since it was imperative that 
 the language of Scripture should convey Divine truths to 
 its original recipients rather than be perfectly adjusted to 
 the minds of later ages ; how should we expect this Divine 
 character of the Days to be expressed in Gen. i. 1 Certainly 
 not in a conspicuous way. It could be done only in a 
 hidden way. Hidden, that is, to the human writer, whose 
 
Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 words were Divinely overruled so as to present and preserve 
 tins truth for readers of a later age. 
 
 The first indication that they were not ordinary days is 
 that three of the Divine Days had already elapsed before the 
 human 24i-honr day was brought into existence. It may be 
 added that this beginning of the human days on the 4th 
 Divine Day is not purely ideal. As we shall see presently, 
 the alternation of earthly day and night did not exist during 
 the early parts of the Week of Creation. 
 
 Before we cai discuss the second indication that the Six 
 Days were Divine and not earthly ones, we must deal with 
 the creation of Light. According to Genesis, Light was 
 created on the First Day, but the two Great Lights were 
 set in the firmament on the Fourth Day, a circumstance 
 which has often been pointed out triumphantly as the proof 
 of ignorance on the writer's part. There is, however, very 
 evidently another side to that question, namely. Is it the 
 sort of account which any man would have drawn up 1 
 Having the fact clearly before his mind^ as expressed in the 
 1 4th to I9th verses, that the earthly light was produced by 
 the two Great Lights, would any writer have stated, of his 
 own free will, that Light itself was created three days 
 before those Lights "? In all probability, Xo. 
 
 If, however, we have here an account of God's own 
 working in the process of Creation, what is the meaning of 
 this statement about the creation of Light ? According to 
 verses 3, 4, 5 : (1) ' God said. Let there be light ; and there 
 was light. And God saw the light, that it was good : (2) 
 and God divided the light from the darkness. (3) And 
 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.' 
 And according to verses 14, 15, 18 : (1) 'God made the two 
 great lights ' ' to give light upon the earth,' (2) ' to divide 
 the light from the darkness,' (3) 'to divide the day from 
 the night,' etc. I have changed the order in the second 
 
The Creation. 213 
 
 passage so as to show the three-fold parallel. By comparing 
 (1) with (1), (2) with (2), and (3) with (3), it will be seen 
 that in both passages we have the production of Light, the 
 dividing of the light from the darkness, and the dividing of 
 the day from the night. Does God do tliese three things 
 twice ? and more especially,, Does He create Light twice 1 
 Not the same Light, surely. Two different kinds of light 
 must be referred to. It is clear that verses 14 to 19 relate to 
 the light by which we see ; for the Great Lights are made to 
 ' give light upon the earth.' What other Light should 
 
 there be, then? Surely, as God is giving an account of 
 His own working, it is the Light by which He Himself sees, 
 as He carries on that work. It has been well observed 
 
 that Genesis i. gives Light as a creation of the First Day, so 
 that God should not be represented as working three days 
 in darkness. But would He not have been working all the 
 Six Days in darkness if Light had not been created first 1 
 Would He work by the earthly light after it was made ? 
 But did God really require any such light as this ? We read in 
 1 John i. 5 that '^ God is light, and in Him is no darkness 
 at all " — a truth, however, which was not known in earliest 
 Hebrew times. The words of Gen. i. 3 conveyed the 
 truth, though in a crude form, that God did not do the work 
 of Creation in darkness, but in light, and also the principle 
 that God does work in light. Presuming thoughtlessly that 
 every one then knew what we know, we are liable to be 
 occupied with the form in which a truth was conveyed, and 
 to entirely overlook the important fact that that truth teas 
 conveyed by the words used, whilst only in a crude form 
 could such truth then be communicated at all. 
 
 Clearly, this is the reason why Genesis gives the creation 
 of Light on the First Day. Whence it has nothing to do 
 with the earthly light, which was produced upon the Fourth 
 Day. It is in no way connected with the luminaries. It 
 
2 14 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 is the Divine Liglit whereby the Divine Being works 
 throughout the Six Divine Days. 
 
 We should not forget, however, that physical science is 
 in favour of the theory that, before assuming its present 
 form, the solar system existed as a luminous nebula. 
 
 Moreover, some have thought the luminiferous ether — 
 presumably universal, all-saturating — may be the physical 
 aspect of that light in which God dwells ; and physical 
 science could hardly object to that having been the iirst 
 creation. 
 
 Of course we should not suppose these Divine Days to 
 have consisted of alternations of light and darkness, like the 
 earthly ones. If we suppose the First Day to have begun 
 at the beginning of verse 3, verses 3, 4, and 5 may be taken 
 as a figurative presentation of the Divine Day. For we 
 have darkness followed by light as the evenis of the First 
 Day, and then ' the evening and the morning ' as consti- 
 tuting the First Day — a striking parallel. But this parallel 
 does not appear in the other Days. We find, however, the 
 enunciation of the First Day following close upon, and 
 seemingly connected with, the work that had just been done. 
 And this may be taken as defining the First Day as the 
 'period loherein that icork ivas done ; so indicating the nature 
 of these Divine Days. This seems a safer conclusion than 
 the other. If it be said that this is not taking the words 
 in their simple and apparent meaning, the answer is, as 
 already said, that we have abundant reason to expect that 
 God's thoughts, or rather some of them, would be presented 
 figuratively in this place. 
 
 These words, ' evening and morning,' have been pointed 
 out as inconsistent with the symbolic character of the Days. 
 To which it has been well replied, that if the Days are 
 figurative, so, consistently, are the evening and the morn- 
 ing. How important a place is given to Light in this 
 
The Creation. 215 
 
 account of the Creation ! since a whole Day seems devoted 
 to the Divine light (though it is not quite clear to me that 
 verse 1 precedes the First Day), and another whole Day to 
 the Great Lights and the stars for giving light on the earth, 
 etc.— apparently two whole Days out of the six. 
 
 It seems, then, that the object of verses 3, 4, and 5 is 
 not only to convey the truth that God worked in the light, 
 but to present to us in figurative language the character of 
 the Divine Days, as distinct fmm the earthly days. We 
 have seen the first indication of this in the fact that Three 
 Divine Days elapsed before the earthly days existed. Here 
 is the second indication. 
 
 Let us now see upon what principles this Account of the 
 Creation is drawn up. 
 
 I. We have seen that, though not accurately representing 
 the chronological order of the entire v»^ork, these Days are 
 yet successive in character. Instead of presenting the pro- 
 gress of Time Q,^ determining the contents of each Day, they 
 present rather the progress of the ivork itself. That work is 
 portioned out into several natural grand divisions, and the 
 order in which these followed each other is taken account 
 of, though not rigidly adhered to throughout. 
 
 II. The necessary sequence is most carefully observed. 
 Thus, Plants are not created before the ground whereon 
 they grow. Animals are not created before their food — the 
 plant. The Great Lights are not made before the Firma- 
 ment in which they are to be set. And so on. 
 
 III. The Account is drawn up on the principle of 
 Evolution. We find upward progress throughout, and par- 
 ticularly noticeable in the organic creation. It is a striking 
 fact that we here find this truth, so fully realized in the 
 Nineteenth Century, presented in the first chapter of the 
 Bible. 
 
2l6 
 
 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Other things are observed, of which we may notice one or 
 two presently ; hut obviously the account is drawn up on 
 the above Three Principles. The first is not adhered to 
 throughout ; the second I think is ; and perhaps the third 
 also. Each of them is given the preference in those places 
 where it is the most important and suitable of the three. 
 In many cases they all lead to the same results, and there we 
 may have the application of one, two, or all of them. These 
 facts will be made clearer by the following analysis : — 
 
 First 
 Day. 
 
 1. Heaven. — Mentioned before the earth for 
 one or more reasons, as already explained. Scrip- 
 ture does not say this is 'waste and void,' nor is 
 any further information about it here necessary. 
 
 2. Earth. — The subject now to be treated of. 
 This is ' waste and void/ and has therefore to be 
 reduced to order and completed. 
 
 / 3. Light. — For God is not going to 
 darkness. This is the Divine Light, 
 earthly. Also Day and Xight, or the 
 
 of light from darkness, must be given 
 
 work in 
 not the 
 division 
 here, as 
 
 Second 
 Day. 
 
 forming the terms in which the Day is announced, 
 before the term Day could be applied to the 
 divisions of the work. This First Day also 
 covers the jDeriod during which the work of verses 
 3, 4, and 5 (if not the previous ones also) was 
 done, with which it is connected, so further 
 defining the Divine Day. The ' evening and 
 ^tlie morning' present the Day figuratively. 
 
 4. The Firmament or Expanse. — Dividing 
 the lower waters from the upper. First step in 
 reducing the Earth to order. In this the Lights 
 are to be set on the Fourth Day. It is also to be 
 the habitation of the Fowls of the air on the Filth 
 Day — so preparing for both of these. 
 
The Creation. 
 
 217 
 
 5. Division of the Earth into Land and 
 Water. — Second step in reducing the Earth to 
 order and completeness. The Water is to be the 
 habitation of the sea-animals on the Fifth Day. 
 The Land is to be the habitation of the plants, 
 and, more important, the land-animals and Man 
 on the Sixth Day. 
 
 6. Grass (or Sproutage), Herbs with Seed, 
 and Trees bearing Fruit. — The first result of 
 these is to clothe the land, and this finishes the 
 Earth itself. The second result is that food is 
 now provided for the coming inhabitants : green 
 
 Third 
 Day. 
 
 Fourth 
 Day. 
 
 Fifth 
 Day. 
 
 Sixth 
 Day. 
 
 herbs for animals^ herbs with seed and fruit for 
 man, as stated in verses 29, 30. The mention of 
 seed and fruit may also indicate provision for 
 reproduction. The order in which these plants 
 Vare named is from lower to Tiigher. 
 
 7. The Lights. — To produce an earthly day and 
 / night (for the Divine Day is something different, 
 I and does not provide this), and other time- 
 j divisions ; to produce the Seasons ; and to give 
 ] light upon the earth— all these being necessary 
 / for the coming inhabitants. They are set in the 
 \ Firmament made on the Second Day. Every- 
 ' thing is now ready for Animals and Man. 
 r 8. Inhabitants of the Water. — Lowest 
 \ order of animals generally. 
 
 9. Inhabitants of the Air. —Intermediate 
 order of animals generally. 
 
 10. Inhabitants of the Land (Animal).— 
 Highest forms of animals generally. Not till 
 now was all ready for Man. 
 
 11. Man. — The principal creation, made in 
 God's image, to rule over all the other creatures. 
 Completion of the work. 
 
 ■( 
 
2i8 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Seventh ) t, 
 
 ■r Rest. 
 Day. 3 
 
 The following other features have heen noticed by 
 different commentators : — 
 
 The waters above the firmament constitute the clouds, 
 and the rain which falls from these is necessary to the 
 plants created the next Day. 
 
 The expression * God saw that it was good,' implies the 
 completion of the preceding portion of the work, the 
 realization of the Divine plan. It does not, therefore, 
 appear after the Second Day_, the work of which was in a 
 measure incomplete, whereas it appears twice on the Third 
 Day. After the Second Day the Firmament still needed 
 the Lights, and the lower waters needed dividing, whereas 
 the Third Day comprised two portions of the work, each 
 completed. 
 
 The earth, as first described, was both ' waste,' or 'with- 
 out form,' and ' void.' The first of these two features had 
 been completely removed by the first half of the Third 
 Day. By then the earth was reduced to form, but was 
 still ' void,' till life appeared thereon. Yet the appearing 
 of the land and its producing vegetation are well placed on 
 the same Day, as the land and its vegetation are so closely 
 related to each other. 
 
 The works of the first three Days are respectively 
 parallel to those of the last three. Thus— on the fird 
 Day the Divine light is created ; on the fourth Day, the 
 earthly light. On the second Day the lower waters are 
 divided from the upper, and the aerial expanse or firma- 
 ment formed ; on the fftlt. Day the waters are inliabitcd by 
 sea animals, and the air by fowl. On the third Day the 
 dry land appears, and the vegetation on it ; on the sixth 
 Day the land-animals and man are created. 
 
 In several respects the creation of man differs from that 
 
The Creation. 219 
 
 of the animals. The waters and tlie earth are called upon 
 to 'bring forth' the animals, but God creates man. He 
 also announces His intention, ' Let us make man,' which He 
 never does in other cases. Man's exercise of dominion is 
 one feature wherein he is created in God's image. The 
 animals, and all else, must be created before man, so that 
 his kingdom may be all ready for his coming. 
 
 I may add that there is no ' evening and morning ' to the 
 Seventh Day ; so that it did not end, like the others, so far 
 as we are told ; nor has it, therefore, the progressive 
 character of the other Days. It has rest, hallowing, and 
 blessing only. 
 
 When each portion of the work is reviewed the verdict is 
 ^ good ' ; when the whole is completed and reviewed to- 
 gether, it is ' very good.' 
 
 Such then — in as far as this exegesis and these comments 
 present them correctly — are the Divine meaning and the 
 Divine workmanship in the Genesis account of the Creation. 
 Seeing these, and bearing in mind the sort of people for 
 whom primarily, and through whose agency, it was pro- 
 duced, we may fearlessly encounter all that sceptics can 
 urge against it. Let it be said that the narrative originated 
 in Chaldean myth, and even that in its present form it 
 clearly exhibits mythical features, the passage is none the 
 less of Divine origin and replete with Divine truth. If 
 it be urged that the writer represented to himself the 
 Divine Being in human form, calling to the Light, to the 
 Firmament, etc., to come forth into existence, and to the 
 waters ^ and the earth to bring forth their respective animal 
 
 '* Even here we have the testimony of Science that the sea was 
 the cradle of the first animal population. Truly it *' brought theui 
 forth," or " swarmed with " them (Qen. i. 20), though by u slower 
 process. 
 
220 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 populations, and believed that these and the other commands 
 were instantly obeyed, and that the whole process was thus 
 gone through in six ordinary days — we can admit all this. If 
 this is myth, then Genesis i. is myth, but it is not only myth. 
 An account of the Creation composed in such literature was 
 well suited for bringing home its Divine Truths to the 
 people of that age, as closely as their intellectual capacities 
 would admit of it ; whilst in all subsequent ages, when 
 knowledge should be increased, not only a fuller apprehen- 
 sion of those Divine Truths, but others also, which had 
 been hidden within it, were to be the portion of its be- 
 lieving and attentive readers. 
 
 Anthropomorj^hisms are there, but they are carefully 
 veiled. We are struck with this when we compare Gen. i. 
 with the following chapters, where they are conspicuous^ 
 but not out of place as they would be in this Account of the 
 Creation. The Elohim of this chapter is the all-pow^erful 
 Creator. 
 
 The crude knowdedge and ideas of the age are also ap- 
 parent ; and, although they are turned to account and built 
 together so skilfully, we cannot help noticing them, so that 
 this Divine Account of the Creation is not a highly-finished 
 one. It is as well for us to see these crudenesses ; for other- 
 wise we might mistake for God's thoughts that which is 
 present merely through human imperfection. 
 
 Thus the classification of animals is : — water animals, 
 animals of the air, land animals, with man last. Now, al- 
 though in Gen. i. these sections of organic life are admir- 
 ably connected, as we have seen, with their respective 
 habitats, yet we need not conclude that on other grounds 
 God prefers this classification to the one adopted by natural- 
 ists to-day. The inference is in the opposite direction. 
 For Evolution is one of the principles on which the account 
 is draw^n up, but this classification of the animals does 
 
The Creation. 221 
 
 not admit of more than a general application of that princi- 
 ple. The same applies to the plants. Possibly, therefore, 
 if the chapter had been produced to-day it would contain 
 such terms as Cryptogams and Phanerogams, Invertebrates 
 and Vertebrates, or even the minor classifications ; especially 
 because with finer divisions the record could have been 
 made to agree more closely with the actual progress of the 
 work, as revealed by Geology. This is, undoubtedly, a 
 small matter from a religious point of view ; but, as the 
 l^rogress of the work is one of the principles applied, it 
 would perhaps have been desirable to show that progress 
 more completely. If this had no other virtue from a re- 
 ligious point of view, the account would, at least, have been 
 better adjusted to the educated mind to-day ; though we 
 must never forget that what suits the learned does not 
 usually suit the majority of the human race. 
 
 It is the largeness and crudeness of these divisions of the 
 work that makes the account agree but generally, and not 
 in detail, with the conclusions of science. As stated in a 
 former place, some of the water-animals appeared early and 
 others very late in the period of organic Creation ; so that 
 whilst, speaking generally, the water-animals were created 
 first in the series, yet many of the air and land animals ap- 
 peared before the inhabitants of the water were complete. 
 So throughout. Keusch quotes the following passage from 
 Pfaff :— 
 
 " If we look on the earthly creation as being 07ie from the 
 beginning of the earth up till now, as forming a ichole in 
 spite of all changes at different times, it is impossible to 
 describe the events otherwise than is done in Genesis, or to 
 suppose that they occurred in any other order. For in 
 Genesis the separate kingdoms are contemplated separately 
 and apart, without further reference to the changes in the 
 history of each of them, and we are told how they suc- 
 cessively made their appearance : the condition of chao3, 
 
222 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 the mass of waters, the formation of the land, after this the 
 organic world, first the vegetable world, then the animal 
 Avorld represented at first only by inferior water animals, 
 then by land animals, and finally the appearance of man, 
 are represented as occurring in their true sequence, and these 
 separate portions of the history of development are desig- 
 nated as da3\s." 
 
 This necessary crudeness of human ideas affords a simple 
 explanation of other differences relating to the earlier con- 
 dition of the Earth. According to the belief of many 
 geologists and astronomers, the Earth existed at first in a 
 gaseous and then in a molten condition, before assuming its 
 present form. In his work Moses and Geology (pages 69, 
 70) Dr. Kinns remarks : — 
 
 " And then, Figuier in The World before the Delude, says, 
 the metals, the chlorides, the sulphides, and even the silicates 
 ot"* alumina and lime, would exist in a gaseous form ; also 
 the enormous body of water constituting our oceans, seas, and 
 rivers, would be in a vaporous condition ; added to these, the 
 component parts of air— nitrogen, oxygen, and carbonic acid 
 — would swell the atmosphere to such au extent, that it must 
 have extended a thousand times farther into space than it does 
 now. Under these circumstances the dili'erent substances 
 composing such an atmosphere would at first be ranged rouud 
 the Earth in the order of their respective densities ; that part 
 of it nearest to the molten globe being formed of the heavier 
 vapours This order of superposition would not, how- 
 ever, be long preserved. In spite of their differences of 
 densities, these atmospheric layers would become mixed by 
 diffusion, also formidable storms and violent ebullitions would 
 frequently confound these incandescent zones. As to 
 
 the globe itself, without being so much agitated as its hot and 
 stifling atmosphere, it would be no less subject to peri^etual 
 tempests occasioned by a thousand chemical actions which 
 were taking place in its molten mass. In this manner 
 
 would our globe circulate in space, carrying in its train the 
 flaming streaks of its multiple atmosphere, unfitted as yet for 
 living beings, and impeneirahle to the rays of the Sun." 
 
 Also on page 73, as to the first formation of the universal 
 sea, he writes : — 
 
 " Gradually these lurid flames would subside, and then the 
 
The Creation. 223 
 
 water having given up its oxygen to these metals, they would 
 become alkalies and earths. The hydrogen being set free, 
 however, would again unite with the oxygen of the atmo- 
 sphere, and, as a highly-heated vapour, would ascend to the 
 top, where, coming lato contact with the glacial regions of 
 space, it would be condensed and fall again upon the Earth ; 
 but as time weut on there would be no conflagration, for on 
 coming into contact with the still heated rocks, the water 
 would re-ascend as vapour. This might take place many 
 times ; but each time the earth would become cooler, for each 
 time much heat would be withdrawn from the surface of the 
 globe, and at last the waters would settle down and form a 
 universal ocean, boiling and seething and assimilating all the 
 soluble matters of very diverse natures, particularly the soda, 
 potassa, ammonia, magnesia, and even the vitrified and 
 agglomerated metals, which would be violently stirred and up- 
 heaved by the hot, thick, troubled water— a sort of witches' 
 broth, wherein all the liquid and solid elements boil over the 
 central furnace. . . ." 
 
 And on page 74, as to the formation of land : — 
 
 . . . " in cooling, irregularities would appear on the sur- 
 face, forming the earliest mountain-chains, valleys, rents, and 
 ravines, according as the various parts of the surface might 
 radiate heat in an unequal manner. Over these early moun- 
 tains and ravines the boiling ocean would dash and the hot 
 rain would fall, causing a disintegration of the rocks, which, 
 after being suspended for a short time in the water, would be 
 deposited at the bottom of the sea. In this manner, we have 
 strong grounds for believing, the first stratitied rocks were 
 produced." 
 
 These extracts would have been clearer if I had space to 
 give them in full, but they are sufficient for the present 
 purpose. Comparing Gen. i. 1-10 with wdiat Science, or 
 scientific deductions (or speculations if the reader prefer), 
 have to say about the earliest conditions of the earth, we 
 find a general but not detailed agreement. First the 
 
 earth is 'waste' or 'without form,' perhaps corresponding 
 to the gaseous condition. But it appears as covered with 
 waters; the expanse is formed in the midst of these waters, 
 and then divides the lower from the upper. If Science is right 
 
224 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 we should say rather that the expanse was formed amidst 
 the gases, and that their condensation into the waters below, 
 with the clouds remaining thereafter floating above^ left the 
 expanse between the two. 
 
 Undoubtedly the old Hebrew idea, following the Baby- 
 lonian, of the waters above the firmament, was that of an 
 upper sea rather than clouds. But what did they know 
 about the early conditions of the earth ? Nothing toliatever. 
 Here therefore, as elsewhere, it appears that their crude 
 ideas and beliefs were divinely overruled, so as to express 
 approximately these facts about the first stages in the world's 
 creation. Could aught but Divine knowledge have pro- 
 duced this account? Surely not. Accident will not ac- 
 count for it ; and certainly the knowledge of those times 
 will not do so. If, as we have seen, the Light men- 
 
 tioned in verse 3 is the Divine light, probably the darkness of 
 verse 2 is the absence or negation of that Divine light. The 
 earth itself would have been more luminous in its earliest 
 condition than after it had cooled down. But we must not for- 
 get that light is no liglit before there are material eyes for it 
 to act upon so as to produce vision. In a double sense, 
 therefore, the earth was shrouded in darkness at that time. 
 
 This question fitly introduces another, which may have 
 been present in the reader's mind from the first. It is the 
 one apparently great disagreement of Genesis i. with Science, 
 from a chronological point of view at least — the creation, or 
 appointment, of the two Great Lights on the Fourth Day. 
 The superficial reader says, " These two Lights are the Sun 
 and Moon, and instead of their having come into existence 
 so late as the Fourth Day or period, they existed as soon as 
 the Earth itself did." Without going into the question 
 
 whether or not the Hebrew word in verse 16 signifies an 
 appointment to their special offices, and not their original 
 creation ; let us confine ourselves to the words of the text. 
 
The Creation. 225 
 
 We have already seen that the passage only relates to, and 
 mentions^ the Lights, which appeared, or ^ were set,' in the 
 firmament on the Fourth Day ; that it neither mentions, 
 nor has anything to do with, the heavenly hodies. 
 
 When did these Lights first make their appearance in the 
 firmament to beings located on the earth 1 The answer 
 given by exegetes is related to parts of the foregoing extracts 
 from Dr. Kinns' work, which is one reason why these are 
 given here. The reader will have noticed in italics the 
 words ' impenetrable to the rays of the Sun.' On pages 187 
 and 188 of his work, Moses and Geology ^ Dr. Kinns further 
 says : — 
 
 "I have shown you before that both the Sun and Moon 
 must have been created contemporaneously with the Earth, 
 but that during the early ages of the world much of their 
 light was hidden from our globe by the dense vapours which 
 surrounded it ; that, up to the time now under consideration, 
 a similar cHmate existed all over the Earth ; and that, there- 
 fore, there were no seasons properly so called until after the 
 Carboniferous period. When, however, the Sun blazed forth 
 in all his glory, seasons commenced, as both the fauna and 
 flora testify. There was probably also a continuous twilight 
 from the dense and vaporous condition of the atmosphere, and 
 here again Science and the Bible harmonise, for the Sun was 
 not appointed ' to rule over the day and over the night, and to 
 divide the light from darkness ' until after this period, . . . 
 the Sun became at this era not only the visible sign for 
 distinguishing days and years, but also the efficient cause of 
 seasons." 
 
 Dr. Keusch, however, says {Nature and the Bihle, vol. i. 
 pp. 346, 347) :—" Palseontologists will not admit that the 
 sun first began to give light and warmth on the earth after 
 the Carboniferous age, and that up to that time the earth 
 was only warmed by its own heat, and was surrounded by 
 such a thick atmosphere that the sun was quite hidden by 
 it." So that it is safer, at any rate, not to try to make the 
 parallel so complete as is done by some writers. 
 
 Q 
 
226 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 It does not here concern iis to do so. We can see at once 
 that the making of the Lights is well placed on the Fourth 
 Day, just before the creation of the animals which were to 
 see by their light. Lest, however, this arrangement should 
 seem to be entirely ideal, it is well for us to see the general 
 agreement of Science with Scripture on this matter : — The 
 Bible first provides the Firmament (or expanse) on the 
 Second Day, and then says about the Fourth. Day, " And 
 God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven 
 . . . and God set them ??^ the firmament, etc. : " Science 
 says that in the first period there was no such aerial expanse 
 between the earth and the clouds as there is now ; and 
 that not until a later period would the Sun and Moon have 
 appeared in this expanse (or in the sky) to an observer 
 situated on the earth; nor would the seasons have begun. 
 Finally, it may be added that if there is any reference in 
 Gen. i. to the heavenly hodies themselves it is in the very 
 beginning, where " God created the heaven and the earth." 
 ' Heaven ' may include these. 
 
 Of course a critic might object that light is required for 
 the growth of plants ; that air, which is of vital importance 
 to living creatures, is never mentioned as being created for 
 that purpose ; and so on. But these and similar facts 
 before noticed, show how the whole account is accommo- 
 dated to the ideas of the time of its composition. Thus 
 breath within the body seems to be inseparable from, if not 
 identical with, life itself, according to the old Hebrew idea, 
 but of outward material for that breath it takes no account. 
 So again we find ' the fowl of the air ' * in this very chapter, 
 but the idea of ' gas ' nowhere, I believe, in Hebrew times. 
 "We need not wonder, therefore, if the waters are mentioned 
 
 ^ I believe, however, this should be translated ' fowl of the 
 heaven,' or * expanse.' 
 
The Creation. 227 
 
 and not the gaseous condition of the earth, for the latter 
 could not be literally expressed when the idea of gas did not 
 exist. 
 
 Rather than occupy ourselves with such matters, we may 
 perhaps with advantage notice what glaring defects might 
 naturally have been present in the text, as they seem to 
 have been during the shaping out of this Account of the 
 Creation. 
 
 For instance. Genesis might have commenced with an 
 account of the flood of the sea bringing forth the heavens 
 and the earth, and the creation, or coming into existence, 
 of the gods ; as in the Babylonian creation-legend cited in 
 the last chapter. But it opens with the stable and sublime 
 announcement, * In the beginning God created the heaven 
 and the earth.' What a difference ! 
 
 Here is another instance. In the sixth chapter of the 
 Second Book of Esdras, the writer recapitulates, or reviews, 
 the work of the Six Days of Creation. After going through 
 the first Four Days and part of the Fifth (or perhaps all of 
 it) he says (verse 49) : — 
 
 " Then didst thou ordain two living creatures, the one thou 
 calledst Enoch, and the other Leviathan ; and didst separate 
 the one from the other ; for the seventh part, namely, where 
 the water was gathered together, might not hold them both. 
 Unto Enoch thou gavest one part, which was dried up the 
 third day, that he should dwell in the same part, wherein are 
 a thousand hills : but unto Leviathan thou gavest the seventh 
 part, namely, the moist ; and hast kept him to be devoured of 
 whom thou wilt, and when." 
 
 He then proceeds to the work of the Sixth Day, giving 
 it approximately as in Genesis. In the Book of Enoch 
 
 (Iviii. 7) we read (in regard to the day of judgment) : — 
 
 " In that day shall be distributed (for food) two monsters ; 
 a female monster, whose name is Leviathan, dwelling in the 
 depths of the sea, above the springs of waters ; and a male 
 (monster), whose name is Behemoth ; which possesses, (moving) 
 on his breast, the invisible wilderness. His name was Den- 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 dayen in the east of the garden, where the elect and the 
 righteous will dwell; where he received (it) from my ancestor, 
 who was man, from Adam the first of men, whom the Lord of 
 spirits made. Then I asked of another angel to show me the 
 power of those monsters, how they became separated on the 
 same day, one (being) in the depths of the sea, and one in the 
 desert." 
 
 Lastly, we find in the Book of Job long, and in some 
 respects parallel, descriptions of Behemoth and Leviathan 
 (Chap. xl. 15 to xli. 34). Comparing these three pas- 
 
 sages, it becomes evident that they relate to the same 
 imaginary creatures of early Hebrew belief. And, seeing 
 the general agreement of the work of the Six Days as related 
 in 2 Esdras vi. with what is given in Gen. i.^ it seems clear 
 that the account of the Creation which was current among 
 the Hebrews in earlier times contained the creation of those 
 two monsters. The Chaldean legend gives the first shaping, 
 and this passage in 2 Esdras a more advanced but unfinished 
 stage, of the Biblical Account of the Creation. 
 
 Now if Gen. i. affirmed the creation of these two monsters, 
 or that of ' the spirit of the firmament' (as in 2 Esdras vi.) 
 instead of 'the firmament,' there would be something to 
 which the sceptic might point with due cause. In regard 
 to this we must bear in mind the jealous care with which 
 ancient ' sacred writings ' have in many cases been preserved 
 in their literal integrity. 
 
 These facts throw light on the passage in Job before 
 
 mentioned. Eor, evidently, the early Hebrews believed in 
 
 the existence of these two monsters : they believed God had 
 
 created them; and these probably occupied a prominent 
 
 place in their thoughts. Naturally, therefore, in the 
 
 demonstration to Job of the greatness of God, as recorded 
 
 by the Hebrew writer, these find a place in the subjects 
 
 chosen.^ There the mention of these two monsters, which 
 
 5 Further remarks on this subject are made in Chap, iv., 
 pp. 115-117. 
 
The Creation. 229 
 
 would have been most out-of- place in an Account of the 
 Creation, is perfectly admissible. In the Book of Job the 
 pre-existing materials of Hebrew belief are taken np as a 
 means to bring home to the people of that age certain 
 Divine truths, such as the power and greatness of God. In 
 Gen. i. an account of what God created is the substance of 
 the chapter, and these two monsters were no part of that. 
 If every Scripture were judged according to its efficiency 
 in imparting its own special Divine truth, or truths, a host 
 of difficulties would vanish out of sight. 
 
 Noticing then the absence of such real defects in Gen. i,, 
 in places where they might be expected, we shall be less 
 likely to be unduly occupied with those crudenesses which 
 are, for reasons so obvious, necessarily present. These may 
 have some bearing on the non-reference to those biological 
 phenomena which seem to disagree in character with this 
 Account of the Creation. For, possibly, if the Account 
 had been produced in a less crude age, some light would 
 have been given on such matters. We have seen one other 
 probable reason why there is no reference to them. 
 
 To sum up^ briefly. Gen. i. gives GotVs views of the 
 Creation. Whilst its truths are all, on that account, of the 
 greatest importance to man, and higher than the facts of 
 Science, we may yet safely assert that some of them are 
 intrinsically more important than others. Thus the fact 
 that God created all is clearly of more importance than the 
 time, or order, in which He did so, or even than the par- 
 ticular principles on which He has drawn uj) this Account 
 of the Creation. All such fundamental Truths are ade- 
 quately and unequivocally expressed in this chapter, as 
 elsewhere in the Bible. As regards the less important ones, 
 no doubt many of them would have been expressed differently, 
 and perhaps others would have been added, if the chapter 
 
230 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 had been produced in a more enlightened age. The general 
 agreement of the chapter with the facts revealed by Science 
 is such as can be accounted for only by Divine origin. 
 Where it differs from Science, which is in matters of detail, 
 this is due to two causes: — in some cases God's view of 
 things differs from man's ; in other cases the cumbersome 
 ideas of the age when the account was composed were not 
 suited to express the facts very accurately. 
 
 It is an admirable structure built out of rough materials. 
 Because of this roughness it is not a highly-finished struc- 
 ture. The roughness of the materials is in places evident ; 
 but the skill of the Architect in fitting them together is 
 everywhere more evident. In the words of the Hebrew 
 writer, the structure of each part viewed separately is ' good ': 
 the edifice as a whole is ^ very good.' 
 
 More especially when we consider its marvellous ad- 
 justment to readers of all ages^ do we see how ' very good ' 
 it is. 
 
CHAPTER VIU. 
 HUMAN EVOLUTION AND THE FALL. 
 
 There are several theories respecting the Origin of Man. 
 
 (1) There is the old-fashioned belief that the clay was 
 moulded into human form by the Hand of God, and trans- 
 formed into man by a miraculous process. To those who 
 hold this theory, it seems that a more natural process was 
 unnecessary, that an intermediate animal stage would be 
 opposed to the teaching of Scripture, and derogatory to the 
 dignity of man. We have seen, hoAvever, in the first chap- 
 ter of this work that this is a position which Science has 
 overthrown. 
 
 (2) Others believe that man evolved from ape-like 
 animals, belonging to a stock from which the anthropoid 
 apes also arose. No Darwinian believes that man is de- 
 scended from any existing form of ape ; but all believe that 
 man and the anthropoid apes sprang from one stock. Now 
 Mr. Darwin and his followers have done little in the way of 
 analyzing out the factors which could contribute to the 
 evolution of so marvellous a result as man, though it must 
 be allowed that they have been industrious in trying to 
 make their general conclusion acceptable — the conclusion 
 namely, that an ape-like animal evolved by natural and 
 necessary processes, through stages uncontrolled m any 
 special way by God, till at length arose the man. We have 
 seen, also in the first chapter of this work, how untenable 
 is any theory based so much on chance. 
 
232 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ^ (3) Some authorities, such as Mr. A. K. Wallace, believe 
 
 / that man, as a physical organism — with body and brain — 
 
 / was evolved from simpler predecessors, but maintain that to 
 
 \ account for the higher and most human characteristics it is 
 
 \ necessary to postulate a special spiritual influx. If the view 
 
 here to be maintained differs from that of Mr. Wallace, it 
 
 / differs in form rather than in substance. 
 
 To Mr. Wallace's views, some see the objection that they 
 are a departure from the theory of natural evolution. In 
 the first chapter (supplement) of this work we saw, how- 
 ever, that this ' natural evolution ' theory proves to be an 
 un natural one ; because it is only in the lower parts of Nature 
 that event demonstrably follows cause in a purely mechanic- 
 al way, whereas in its higher parts we find that such 
 mechanical sequences are often interfered with, and the 
 course of things regulated by the Mind of Man ; and, as a 
 rational explanation of Nature requires that the whole of 
 Nature should be taken into account, the most natural way 
 of accounting for what exists is to postulate a personal, intel- 
 ligent, and active Creator. We saw moreover that, rather 
 than suppose that th e process of Creation was designed and 
 arranged once for all in the beginning and then set in 
 motion like a wound-up clock, it is far more natural to con- 
 clude that the whole process was subjected to incessant 
 , supervision, planned out in general at the beginning, worked 
 1 out in detail as it went on — that natural agencies did the 
 \ work, or much of the work, under the control and direction 
 I of the Creator. If, therefore, we have to predicate 
 
 spiritual influxes in order to account for the truly human 
 qualities of man, these would not be an unnatural exception, 
 but a p)rocess in part at least resembling the other processes, 
 'all being the work of an active Creator. But must we limit 
 I the spiritual influxes to the case of man % With the fact of 
 (Biogenesis before us, are we not obliged to affiim an influx 
 of spirit, or at least of life, in order to account for the loicest 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 233 
 
 forms of animal life? And, seeing the wide differences 
 between the lower and the higher forms of animal life, the 
 lower forms with no mind, the higlier ones possessing the 
 animal mind, is it not necessary, in order to account for all 
 these forms of life, to predicate a whole series of influxes 
 of spirit, or of mind, or of life ? 
 
 From the fact that the higher forms have arisen by the 
 common process of reproduction, which connected them, 
 through millions of successive links, with their simpler 
 ancestors, it may seem at first sight that the qualities of the 
 higher were in some way present in the lower. But, in the 
 first place, this inference is based on totally insufficient data, 
 and, in the second pL^ce, the facts, as far as we observe them, 
 testify that it is false. If indeed we compare any organism 
 with its parent, we see that most of its qualities were 
 possessed by that parent, and this tends to cause some con- 
 fusion of thought. But when, taking links in the chain that 
 are more widely separated, we compare the man with the 
 higher animal, and the higher animal with the amoeba, we 
 see that the man possesses a host of qualities which the 
 higher animal does not, and the higher animal possesses a 
 host of qualities which the amoeba does not. We not only 
 see that these superior qualities are in no way present in 
 the lower form in as far as it is amenable to observation — • 
 and it is only the aggregate of knowable parts of an organ- 
 ism that are properly included in our concept of it — but wo 
 also totally fail to conceive of any manner in which they 
 could he present in it. But were not the germs of such 
 qualities present 1 If the reader can represent to himself 
 how the germs of aesthetic sentiments, or of abstract thoughts, 
 cmdd he present in the amoeba, to him this proposition has 
 a meaning. To my mind the attempt only shows that this 
 whole assumption of the presence of the higher qualities in 
 the lower forms of life, is an empty proposition, one whose 
 terms may indeed be separately conceived, but which refuse 
 
234 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 to be united so as to convey any real meaning. It shows 
 that of the real genesis of mental properties we know little 
 or nothing, and if we know anything we derive that know- 
 ledge from subjective analysis, rather than from observation 
 of external phenomena. The latter may tell us something 
 about the conditions necessary to the development and 
 workings of mind, such as the presence of a nervous system 
 with its molecular motions ; but of the essential nature of 
 the genesis and growth of mind, such observations can re- 
 veal little or nothing. And it is with the substance of 
 mind, especially of the human mind, that we have here to 
 do. AVhilst then Science has revealed that the animal was 
 a basis necessary to the production of the man, we are 
 compelled to believe that the higher human attributes are 
 not of the same essence as those of the animal, and have not 
 come from that source. 
 
 In the unthinking mind the association of the ideas, man, 
 anima], and descent, produces thoughts of an essential rela- 
 tionship which does not in reality exist. There is the 
 widest difference between this purely physical relation in- 
 volved in the reproductive process — in this case involving, 
 if not weakened by, myriads of links— and the psychical 
 and social relationship involved in parentage and the 
 family tie as known amongst ourselves. How largely our 
 conception of relationship is composed of these psychical 
 and social qualities is seen from the fact, that the child says 
 of an unrelated person who takes the place of his parent, 
 treating him as that parent should have done, " He is a 
 father to mc/' '^ She is a mother to me." Or again, where 
 two unrelated youths or men live together in mutual affec- 
 tion, it is said that they are like brothers. The failure to 
 think of the purely physical aspect of the descent, or ascent, 
 of man, withoiit associating these important psychical pro- 
 jjerties theretvith, leads to false ideas of relationship between 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 235 
 
 man and the ape. The real genesis of the soul is not 
 identical with that process. 
 
 The difference between the physical and the psychical as- 
 pect of parentage is strongly insisted on in Scripture. There 
 we find that the only real relationship is the spiritual one. 
 
 In John viii. 37-44, the principle is expressed. Christ 
 says, '^ I know that ye are Abraham's seed ; yet ye seek to / 
 kill me, because my word hath not free course in you. I y 
 speak the things which I have seen with my Father ; and w 
 ye also do the things which ye have heard from your father. 
 They answered and said unto him, Our father is Abraham. 
 Jesus saith unto them, If ye icere Abraham's cMldren, ye 
 u-ould do the ivorls of Abraham. . . Ye do the icorks of 
 your father. . . Ye are of your father the devil." Here 
 clearly, while Christ admits the natural descent of those 
 Jews, He maintains that it is nothing, the only real descent 
 is the spiritual one. The only validity which the natural 
 descent possesses is in virtue of the spiritual descent 
 which is involved in it, which spiritual descent was here 
 wanting. The principle is again expressed in Matt, xxiii. 
 29-31. " Ye say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, (p. 
 we should not have been partakers with them in the blood ■ 
 of the prophets. AVherefore ye icitness to yourselves, that ye 
 are sons of them that slew the prophets:' He knows their \j 
 natural descent, but does not on that account charge them 
 with such a parentage. He lays it to their account only on 
 the ground of their own testimony and of their deeds (see 
 also verses 32, 33). Again in Kom. iv. 16, 17, the Apostle 
 Paul says, that before God Abraham is the father, not only 
 of his natural descendants, the Jews, but of all the faithful. 
 Can anything more clearly show that God knows where 
 alone real inheritance lies 1 namely, not in the natural, but 
 in the spiritual ; not in the biological, but in the psycho- 
 logical. It is quite consistent with this that in its proper 
 
236 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 lA-a.ce and manner natural parentage is recognized — recog- 
 nized because of what it involves. Natural descent in a 
 general way involves, or is accessory to, sj^iritual descent ; 
 but where, as in the case of those Jews, and in the ascent 
 of man, it does not involve it, there is no relationship in the 
 real sense of the term. 
 
 But why is such prominence given to the ape-like pro- 
 genitor ? That was nothing more than one of the millions 
 of links in the progressive chain of life. If it be selected 
 in preference to previous forms because it was the last and 
 most like man, it is on that account all the more worthy of 
 honour. The naturalist divides the animal world into many 
 classes, and the nearer any one of these resembles man, the 
 higher it stands in the scale j the nearer it resembles inor- 
 ganic matter the lower it stands. Yet any connexion of 
 man with the highest form of animal life is offensive, whilst 
 it is no dishonour to have come out of the lowest of the 
 low — ' the dust of the ground.' 
 
 This introduces us to another aspect of evolution. Des- 
 cent furnishes nothing more than a series of connecting 
 links between the successive forms of life in the upward 
 chain ; it has done none of the work of creation, or of evolu- 
 tion. We might, therefore, well lose sight of the individu- 
 ality of the successive forms of life, and treat them as if 
 they w^ere successive states of one creature. If, therefore, in 
 Gen. ii. 7, Jehovah-Elohim represents God, His hands (im- 
 plied though not mentioned in the text) the forces of Nature 
 — or if these forces are instruments in those hands — and 
 His breathing the unseen connexion between God and His 
 creature ; then that which Science has revealed of the pro- 
 cess of creation ^ is not essentially different from what is 
 
 ' I do not limit the term * creation ' to tlie formation of some- 
 tliing out of nothing. To me it means the bringing into being, by 
 any process, through the will of God. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 237 
 
 implied in the text. If instead of many successive 
 
 organisms in the evolution of life, as revealed by Science, 
 there had been only one organism whose many successive 
 states, identical with those of the many organisms that 
 formed the chain, had followed each other rapidly in thU 
 individual ; no one would demur to this method of creation 
 as at variance with the teaching of Scripture ; and no one 
 would be confused with false notions of relationship. And 
 yet we here see that there is practically no difference 
 between the two cases. The history of every individual 
 human being presents approximately a miniature of such a 
 continuous organism. 
 
 Let us remember, moreover, the difference between the 
 Creation as described in Gen. i. and the account of it given 
 by geology. In Gen. i. the creative acts, such as the separa- 
 tion of land and water, appear at first sight as if done by 
 one stroke of the Creator's hand. From geology we know 
 that these were slow processes. So here. Man is formed 
 by the Creator of the dust of the ground. That is just what 
 we learn from Evolution, whilst we find a very long process 
 by which man was thus formed. Science tells us a good 
 deal about that process as it appeared outwardly, but of the 
 unseen part it can tell us nothing. What part of man's con- 
 stitution was received from God, not being the outcome of 
 organized physical substance; and the mysterious inner 
 process of the formation of his being — these are matters on 
 which Science can say nothing. 
 
 Some further suggestions on the question of influxes may 
 be helpful. We might conceive that there was only one 
 kind of influx, to which first the animal and afterwards the 
 man was subjected. If we pour molten matter into a 
 mould it solidifies into the shape of that mould : if we pour 
 clear water into a muddy pool or a dirty vessel, it becomes 
 dirty. So, if there were influxes of the formative substance 
 
238 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 of mind into organisms of many kinds^ we should suppose 
 that the structures of those organisms would cause it to 
 assume their different forms of mind. And if we take the 
 / case of an influx into a partly developed organism ; as clear 
 I water is made muddy, so we should expect this formative 
 substance of mind to assume in some degree the quality of 
 the pre-existing mind of that organism. Possibly, therefore, 
 an influx of one kind would answer for all cases. But there 
 may have been influxes of several kinds, and this seems the 
 more likely of the two suppositions. 
 
 But, leaving the case of the animal, let us confine our 
 
 attention to that of man. Here we have something more 
 
 substantial to build on. For both Scripture and Christian 
 
 / experience testify to the fact that a spiritual influx of one 
 
 \kind is knoim to man — the influx of the Spirit which occurs 
 
 at conversion, and also in after Christian life. Undoubtedly 
 
 / this is an influx of a higher kind than the one whereby 
 
 / man was made what he is ; that, namely, which is implied 
 
 in Gen. ii. 7 : — " Jehovah-EIohim formed man of the dust 
 
 I of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of 
 
 life." But the latter is something which no development 
 
 of an animal could ever produce ; it is a life, a soul, received 
 
 from God Himself. 
 
 We should, however, be on our guard against supposing 
 such a spiritual influx to have occurred all at once, or even 
 in large quantities at few times. Rather we should sup- 
 pose it to have occurred in very small quantities at very 
 many times, as fast only as the developing man was able to 
 ' digest ' it — perhaps so gradual as to seem like an absorp- 
 tion into man rather than an inflowing, of this formative 
 substance of mind. This indeed brings us to another 
 
 diflicult question, the relation in which God stands to 
 
 I Nature, or to Matter. According to Joseph Le Conte, 
 *' Either God is far more closely related with Nature, and 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 239 
 
 operates it in a more direct way than we have recently been 
 accustomed to think, or else Nature operates itself and needs 
 no God at all." Kejecting the latter view, he insists that 
 we must believe in "a God immanent, a God resident m 
 Nature, . . . a God in whom in the most literal sense, not 
 only we but all things have their being, in whom all things 
 consist, through whom all things exist, and without whom 
 there would be and could be nothing." After explaining 
 these views more fully than can be done here, he proceeds 
 to point out the difference between them and Idealism on the 
 one hand, and Pantheism on the other. ^ Mr. Herbert 
 
 Spencer, rejecting the Christian conception of God, yet re- 
 marks : — " We are obliged to regard every phenomenon as 
 a manifestation of some Power by which we are acted upon ; 
 though Omnipresence is unthinkable, yet, as experience dis- 
 closes no bounds to the diffusion of phenomena, we are un- 
 able to think of limits to the presence of this Power. . ." •' 
 
 If we very carefully guard against confusing the Personality 
 of God with what we call Nature, or the Universe, dis- 
 tinguishing clearly between a God omnipresent in Nature 
 and a God identical with it, His omnipresence in Matter 
 differs little (from a theological point of view) from an 
 omnipresence in space, except that it would seem to be the 
 more rational assumption of the two. And if it be assumed 
 that God is 'the unknown substratum,' the Supporter, 
 of that which is manifested to us outwardly as matter, 
 there is less liability to such a confusion as that of the 
 Pantheist. God everywhere, is one of the doctrines of 
 Scripture. 
 
 If such an omnipresence as this be assumed, those influxes 
 
 which we have been discussing, or some of them, might 
 
 well resolve themselves into a continuous absorption into the 
 
 • Evolution and its Relation to Religious TliourjU, pp. 279-285. 
 3 ]pirst Principles, p. 99. 
 
240 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 developing man, of the formative substance of mind, from 
 Him "m whom we live and move and have our being" 
 (Acts xvii. 28). And this may apply both to the evolution 
 of the race and to that of every individual. Given (a) the 
 inherent tendency of the physiological unit, or fertilized 
 germ, to reproduce the parental form; and (b) this formative 
 substance of mind in some way joined with what we call 
 matter, whose future form normally is determined by the 
 forces resident in that unit — will not these factors account 
 for, or at least agree with, the phenomena which are 
 manifested in the mental development of every individual ? 
 (The fact has been pointed out in Chapter I. that in the 
 evolution of the race there was this difference, that the 
 polarity, as we might call it, of the human germ did not 
 exist. It was being made, that of each successive generation 
 approaching nearer to it.) 
 
 But before adopting definite conclusions on this and some 
 of the other matters touched on here, both a fuller investiga- 
 tion of these subjects than could be undertaken here, and 
 much clearness of thought, are indispensable. It is not 
 iny purpose in this place to dogmatize on such matters, but 
 only to suggest. 
 
 Leaving the question of influxes, there yet remains a 
 testimony which no reasoning can overthrow, to the fact that 
 there is no real relationship between the man and the 
 animal — the testimony of the human consciousness. If 
 there were any such community between the two, would not 
 our forefathers have found it out, or at least suspected it, at 
 some time or other, before the date when it seemed to be 
 involved in the evolution theory 1 It is surely a striking 
 fact that the instinct of humanity never pointed in that 
 direction, but always in the opposite one. Mr. Darwin has 
 remarked that it is only our natural prejudice, and that 
 arrogance which made our forefathers declare that they 
 
Human Evolution and tpie Fall. 241 
 
 were descended from demi-gods, which leads us to demur 
 to the admission of such a relationship {Descent of Man, 
 p., 25). Whence this ^natural prejudice ' ? a prejudice all 
 the more striking when we remember that man has always 
 observed and freely admitted certain points of resemblance 
 between himself and the animal. It is the expression of 
 that which is within man, of man's own essence, the human 
 consciousness^ which has always testified, and, resisting the 
 voice of reason, still testifies, that the human soul is 
 different in essence from the lower creation. Let us con- 
 sider which of these opponents. Consciousness and Reason, 
 we can most safely trust for guidance in this particular 
 case. 
 
 Consciousness versus Eeason. 
 
 In the first place, nolens volens, we mnst unreservedly allow 
 Reason to conduct the argument ; we must unhesitatingly 
 accept the validity of the reasoning process ; for if Con- 
 sciousness, or Reason himself, or any one else, should show 
 that that process is untrustworthy, the whole argument 
 collapses at the outset. 
 
 But there is reasoning in the light and reasoning in the 
 twilight. Arithmetical calculations performed in the light 
 are presumed to be correct; but with those done in the 
 tAvilight the figures are very liable to be misread ; 3 may 
 be taken for 5 or 8, 1 for 7, or a greater mistake may 
 arise by overlooking a figure altogether. So, the reasoning 
 process is wholly trustworthy, but in certain twilight cases, 
 Reason is very liable to mistake his ciphers, and it is here 
 that the blundering comes in. 
 
 In reading those sensations which answer to external 
 phenomena, Reason is working in the light, or in the lightest 
 place accessible to him. But in reading mental phenomena 
 he is much more in the twilight ; tlie ciphers are too close 
 
 E 
 
242 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 under his eye-lids to be distinctly seen ; so that here he is 
 far more liable to mistake 3 for 8, or 1 for 7. But Con- 
 sciousness does not need such inversion of her eyes, here her 
 reading is direct, immediate ; it is not in fact a reading of 
 herself, but an expression of herself. 
 
 Whence does Reason obtain his ciphers when he works 
 out this community between man and the animal ? There 
 is only one source open; and that source is Consciousness, 
 So he first accepts the testimony of Consciousness, bases his 
 calculations wholly on the words of Consciousness, and 
 thence arrives at the astounding conclusion that Conscious- 
 ness is untrustworthy ! meanwhile forgetting that this con- 
 clusion of his own, based as it is on Consciousness, falls with 
 the fall of Consciousness ! He has misread his ciphers. Seeing 
 that the physical process of reproduction was in some way 
 necessary to the genesis of the human soul, he has con- 
 cluded that the two things are identical. Seeing that the 
 animal was instrumental in the production of the man, he 
 infers that the man is a modified form of the animal. 
 Using the same name to denote things essentially different, 
 he has mistaken the one for the other. 
 
 It may be objected to the above argument that the words 
 of Consciousness on which Reason bases his calculation 
 respecting the origin of man, are not the same word of Con- 
 sciousness as that which denies the relationship with the 
 animal ; that the calculation is based on other deliverances 
 of Consciousness, which are correct. But that is to say that 
 there Reason accepts unhesitatingly the testimony of 
 Consciousness (whence he must obtain all his ciphers) in 
 hundreds, nay in thousands of cases (for the argument that 
 proves evolution consists of a very long chain of links), an 
 error in almost any one of which would prove fatal ; and 
 thence arrives at the conclusion that Consciousness is not 
 trustworthy ! His conclusion that she is not reliable is 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 243 
 
 based on the iindoubting assumption that, in thousands of 
 cases at least, she is wholly reliable. 
 
 Throughout evolution Consciousness is always in advance 
 of Reason: Reason follows after, and depends on Con- 
 sciousness for all he has to say. Consciousness therefore is 
 surely more reliable than Reason. The reasoning process is 
 always mediate, often manifold mediate ; but Consciousness 
 is always mmediate^ she does not interpret or read ; she is 
 the direct expression of that loliicU is. The reasoning 
 process is always valid, but in reading his ciphers he is in 
 many cases most liable to err. When Consciousness seems 
 to err, it proves on analysis that Reason has come to her aid, 
 and it is he that has made the mistake. I do not see how 
 Consciousness herself can ever err. 
 
 " Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, 
 And lean not upon thine own under standing.^' 
 
 Prov. iii. 5. 
 
 That Reason does make such mistakes is well known. 
 For instance, he asserts that (1) there must be, and (2) there 
 cannot be, infinite space. (1) That matter must have a 
 limit seems obvious ; beyond that limit there can be no 
 matter, we might jDroceed for ever, and never meet with 
 a resisting substance. But (2) does not that imply 
 that space itself is infinite 1 which is equally incon- 
 ceivable. Reason has misread his ciphers. In trying to 
 think of notliirig beyond the matter, he has unwittingly 
 brought that nothing into the category of entities, treating 
 it in the second case as a something^ which he calls 
 space. It is this something which, it seems, must ' have a 
 limit too. To assert, however, that matter must be 
 
 finite, presupposes a measure which can be stretched thereon 
 only so many times in succession. But as all measures are 
 themselves relative, adopted merely for convenience, as wc 
 
 E 2 
 
244 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 know of nothing to determine an absolute measure^ it 
 appears that, absokitely, there can be neither finity nor 
 infinity. The idea seems to be fundamentally wrong. 
 
 Eeason then, wholly trustworthy so far as the process 
 goes, is so liable when in twilight to misread his ciphers, 
 that in this important question of man's community with 
 the animal, he is wholly untrustworthy as a guide. So is he 
 also in mani/ psydiologlcal and theological questions, ichere 
 he opposes the testimony of Consciousness and the testimony 
 of the Word of God. 
 
 As the simplest way of expressing myself I have had 
 occasion to speak of man's descent from an animal, or ape- 
 like progenitor ; but let it be distinctly understood that the 
 expression is not intended to involve anything further than 
 what has been admitted in this discussion. 
 
 That there are similarities between some of the mental 
 attributes of man and those of the animal, is a fact known 
 to everybody 3 and it appears to follow therefrom that both 
 are in part composed of the same formative mental sub- 
 stance. But I do not believe for a moment that the revela- 
 tions of science in regard to the descent, or ascent, of 
 man, establish any closer connexion between the man and 
 the animal, than that to which observation testifies. 
 
 Moreover, since we can conceive of anything only in 
 those terms which are furnished by our own consciousness, 
 it is -well to remember that we are very liable, in interpret- 
 ing the animal mind, to attribute thereto qualities which 
 exist only in our own. 
 
 Eor several reasons, therefore, I deny man's relationship 
 with the animal. Science fails to give any real account of 
 the genesis of the human soul. Several New Testament 
 Scriptures teach that it is not identical with the physical 
 process of reproduction. The human Consciousness, more 
 reliable than Reason, is emphatic on the matter. Gen. ii. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 245 
 
 7, and other Scriptures, clearly teach that it was from God 
 Himself that man received his hein;^. 
 
 There is a wide difference between the subject of Gen. i. 
 and that of Gen. ii. and subsequent chapters — a fact which 
 should be distinctly borne in mind when examining these 
 Scriptures. Gen. i. treats of the creation of the Earth, the 
 Lights, the plants, the animals and man, etc. All, with 
 such exceptions as noticed in the last chapter, are concepts 
 familiar to the mind of man — physical things possessing their 
 own conventional names. Gen. ii. and following chapters, 
 on the contrary, deal with the moral history of the human 
 race in the first ages, with man's relations with God — with 
 spiritual things. It is true that Gen. i. does not consider 
 Nature from the same point of view that physical science 
 does, but rather from a spiritual standpoint, as we saw in 
 the last chapter. The subsequent chapters of Genesis, how- 
 ever, have very little to do in any way with physical things. 
 So that, as a general truth, we may say that Gen. i. treats 
 of physical .things and the following chapters of psychical 
 things. Thus we are brought at once into the midst of un- 
 familiar concepts ; or rather of things which, though funda- 
 mentally separate in themselves, are yet not commonly 
 presented as separate to the mind of man — things of which 
 he has formed, even to-day, but very vague concepts, and 
 often not even any concepts at all. 
 
 Enough has been said in previous chapters as to the diffi- 
 culty of expressing truths of this latter order — a difficulty 
 which still existed in New Testament times ; and which, 
 working backwards from then, we find ever presenting 
 itself as greater and greater. Here then in the very begin- 
 ning of the knowledge of such truths we find that difficulty 
 at its greatest. We saw that much later in Hebrew history 
 
\l 
 
 246 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 there was need of such truths being presented by means of 
 concrete pictures. How much more so, then^ at the very 
 beginning. We cannot, in fact, see lioio such truths could 
 2:)0ssihly have been presented in any form other than in con- 
 crete pictures. 
 
 Our analysis of Gen, i. further confirms us in this anti- 
 cipation. There, natui'ally, we found those things with 
 which the human mind is well acquainted, such as the 
 earth, the sea, the animals, etc.^ called by their own familiar 
 names. But when we passed from these to such things as the 
 Divine divisions of the work of Creation, the Divine Light, 
 etc., we found them presented for human apprehension in the 
 likeness of natural days, natural light, etc. And, just as 
 the Divine truths of Gen. ii., iii., are presented under the 
 guise of a narrative, so were those of Gen. i. presented. 
 We cannot very well deny, what there is no need to den}^ 
 that the writer of Gen. i. saw, in his own mind, tlie Creator 
 going through the creative acts, calling things into exist- 
 ence, dividing the waters, etc., one after another for a 
 period of six of our common days. Yet when we compare 
 that chapter with what science has told us, we find that an 
 almost infinite number of events, covering myriads of 
 ages, are condensed,, and thus as it were dramatically pre- 
 sented, in that short narrative. It will be a parallel case 
 then, if we find the whole history of the human race in its 
 relation to God, for many ages, in like manner condensed 
 and presented, in the narrative of Gen. ii., iii. 
 
 Our own treatment of the latter story is still further sig- 
 nificant. Whilst seemingly adhering to the character of 
 this Scripture as a strictly historical record about material 
 things, we have positively spiritualized some of it, and 
 taken some of it as allegorical ! The story mentions only 
 a serpent, a real snake. This we have transformed, partly 
 or wholly, into a spiritual being, Satan. The Divine Being 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 247 
 
 is presented in the story as a man, or man-like being, 
 throughout ; for which, partly or wholly, we have substi- 
 tuted a spiritual God. (I speak here for myself, concluding 
 that others have done likewise.) There has been no con- 
 sistent adherence to either character in these two cases, 
 sometimes the spiritual being and sometimes the physical 
 one being before the mind, which has thus accommodated 
 itself very conveniently, so as to make a compact between 
 its own ideas and the details of the story. Convenient 
 
 this indeed is, but mod inconsistent. Seeing how the story 
 itself relates entifehj to material things, and how compact it 
 is, it appears quite unallowable to allegorize some of the 
 characters, leaving the others as the story gives them. 
 
 Let us make up our minds to accept the story as what it 
 is, an allegory altogether. 
 
 And having done so, let us now examine it from other 
 points of view. Comparing the passage with Gen. i., we 
 find striking contrasts between the two. In Gen. i. we find, 
 as noticed in the last chapter, a beautiful order preserved 
 throughout its details. There nothing is created before its 
 place is duly prepared to receive it. In Gen. ii. such ne- 
 cessity is utterly disregarded ; for the man is made before 
 the garden is planted ; the serpent makes its appearance 
 provided with human knowledge and a voice ; and, after 
 several other such inconsistencies and impossibilities, we 
 find in the 4th chapter that the son of the first man finds a 
 "vvife, and builds — not a house, or even a village, but — a 
 City ! 
 
 When, therefore, we find such inconsistencies in the 
 story itself, need we wonder if it gives an order of Creation 
 distinctly at variance with the one given in Gen. i. ? Is 
 the splendid order of Gen. i. to give place to a story of this 
 character, or to be reconciled with it? Gen. i. deals ad- 
 mirably with its own proper subject, the Creation ; this is 
 
V 
 
 248 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 meant to teach truths of a quite different nature. Surely 
 God never intended them to present any detailed agreement. 
 Gen. i. has given us the details and order of the Creation ; 
 if the language of Gen. ii. seems to contradict that order, 
 it must not be set beside Gen. i., but examined in the 
 light furnished by an investigation of its OAvn particular 
 province. 
 
 Comparing Gen. i. with the Chaldean legend of the 
 Creation, and Gen. ii., iii. with the Chaldean Story of the 
 Fall (as well as we can construct the latter out of the parts 
 that remain in the Cuneiform inscriptions and ancient seals, 
 together with the Persian myth which obviously grew out 
 of it (pp. 173-178)), the narrative in Gen. ii., iii. seems 
 to have undergone less change in Hebrew hands than 
 that in Gen. i. It is probably more like the original myth. 
 
 In the light of Science, more especially of Evolution, the 
 story of Gen. ii., iii. can have no basis as historical fact. It 
 is swept away. 
 
 Now all these considerations point to two conclusions : — 
 (1) that the story itself is an impossible old myth, (2) that 
 the Divine meaning of the passage does not lie in its his- 
 torical character as a narrative, but in those truths which 
 are hidden within it. 
 
 The story is thus none the less a myth because the passage 
 is Scripture ; and the passage is none tlie less Divine because 
 the story itself is myth. 
 
 It expresses, as before implied, in allegorical language, the 
 early history of the human race in its relations with God. 
 But all its truths are not conveyed allegorically, for there 
 are certain features in the story which have other 
 significance (see foot of p. 252). 
 
 Critics have pointed out as impossible, or inconsistent, 
 many features in the story, such as the making and naming, 
 in the manner related, of " every beast of the field and every 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 249 
 
 fowl of the air;" the man's acquaintedness with family 
 matters, and even future Eastern custom (Gen. ii. 24); the 
 Hebrew names ' Isshah ' and ' Havvah ' which he gives his 
 wife ; the increasing of the woman's travail, whereas she 
 had then borne no children; the supposed change in the 
 condition of the Earth's soil; the connection of the four 
 rivers with each other, etc. Also the anthropomorphisms 
 of the Story, such as the planting of the Garden, and driving 
 out the man ; the bringing the animals to the man ; pre- 
 paring the skins ; and the self-communings of Gen. ii. 18, 
 iii. 22, etc. 
 
 I have already remarked how our thoughts have run to 
 and fro between the Divine Being as presented in the story 
 and a Spiritual God, and between the Devil and the snake, 
 so destroying in many respects the simple meaning of the 
 beautiful old story. I have little doubt that, if we could read 
 the story in its original simplicity, we should discern many 
 significant and not unimportant features in its details, espe- 
 cially in the beautiful (although man-like) character of the 
 Divine Being. For this reason it would have been desirable 
 to try to trace out the simple story as it was read by the 
 Hebrew of old ; but its historical character and details have 
 become so sacred in people's eyes that, no matter what the 
 reader may believe, his feelings would most likely take 
 offence at some of the things which would have to be said, 
 and thus more harm than good would be done. 
 
 The following extracts from so old a writer as Josephus 
 are of special interest {Antiquities of the Jews^ Book I. 
 Chapter 1): — 
 
 «'Now the garden was watered by one river, which ran 
 round about the whole earth, and was parted into four parts. 
 And Phison, which denotes a multitude, running into India, 
 makes its exit into the sea, and is by the Greeks called Ganges. 
 Euphrates also, as well as Tigris, goes down into the Red Sea. 
 Now the name Euphrates, or Phrath, denotes either a disper- 
 
250 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 sion, or a flower : by Tigris, or Diglath, is signified what is 
 swift, with narrowness ; and Geon runs throngh Egypt, and 
 denotes what arises from the East, which the Greeks call 
 Nile. 
 
 " God therefore commanded that Adam and his wife should 
 eat of all the rest of the j^lants, but to abstain from the tree 
 of knowledge ; and foretold to them, that, if they touched it, 
 it would prove their destruction. But while all the livincj 
 creatures had one language, at that time, the serpent, which 
 then lived together with Adam and his wife, showed an envious 
 disposition, at his supposal of their living happily, and in 
 obedience to the commands of God ; and imagining, that, 
 when they disobeyed them, they would fall into calamities, he 
 persuaded the woman, out of a malicious intention, to taste of 
 the tree of knowledge. . . . But when God came into the 
 garden, Adam, who was wont before to come and converse 
 with him, being conscious of his wicked behaviour, went out 
 of the way. This behaviour surprised God ; and he asked 
 what was the cause of this his procedure. . . . He also deprived 
 the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious 
 disposition towards Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison 
 under his tongue, and made him an enemy to men ; and 
 suggested to them that they should direct their strokes against 
 his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous 
 designs towards men, and it being easiest to take vengeance 
 on him that way ; and when he had deprived him of the use 
 of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging 
 himself upon the ground.^' 
 
 Do not the passages in italics in the above extract show 
 that, in bringing our own conceptions and beliefs to the 
 narrative, we have destroyed the real meaning of the sen- 
 tences, i.e. the meaning which the Hebrew writer attached 
 to his words'? Truly we have believed in the historical 
 character of the substance of the story (or of one something 
 like it), but of many of its details we have not done so at all. 
 
 We have believed that we believed it all ; we have really 
 believed it but in part. Could we possibly represent to our- 
 selves an omniscient spiritual God bringing, — hringing — the 
 animals to Adam to see what he will call them ? or addressing 
 a snake, or even Satan, in these words ; — " upon thy belly 
 shalt thou gOj and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy 
 
HUxMAN Evolution and the Fall. 251 
 
 life " 1 Surely, as above stated, we have not read the rml 
 story, but only an approximation to it. 
 
 Many of these details, so impossible, and some of them 
 out of place, in the story regarded as a story, we shall see 
 to be both possible and possessing important signification, 
 when the true meaning of the passage is apprehended. 
 
 There is a great difierence between the Elohim of Gen. i. 
 and the Jahveh-Elohim of Gen. ii., iii. The first creates 
 all things, and lastly man in his own image, whom he 
 makes lord of all. Nearer to man than this he does not come. 
 The second enters into relations with man, and shows a 
 desire for his friendship. Elohim is all-powerful, and 
 whatever anthropomorphisms there are in that chapter, are 
 indefinite and inconspicuous. But Jahveh-Elohim is like a 
 supernaturally-powerful man. 
 
 Before endeavouring to compare this passage of Scripture 
 Avith what is known of pre-historic man, it will be best to 
 make a few general remarks applying to the whole of Gen. 
 i.-xi. Although some of them have already been applied to 
 Gen. i., they are more conveniently given here, and they 
 relate more especially to Gen. ii.-xi. It has already been 
 stated that much of the contents of these chapters is of 
 symbolic character, presenting the moral history of primitive 
 man, by means of narratives about individuals, and concrete 
 pictures. In searching for the full Divine signification of 
 these passages^ we may very safely lay down the following 
 principles : — 
 
 I. Since for some 3000 years they have been almost 
 invariably regarded by their readers as purely historical, we 
 may be certain that the most important part of the Divine 
 meaning is such as would be taken in by readers in the 
 act of reading them as historical fact. For whether they are 
 regarded as historical or not is, undoubtedly, of no im- 
 
252 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 portance, provided that God's meaning is apprehended ; and 
 mankind have not been left much in the dark as to this all 
 this time. As remarked in Chapter V. of this work, if the 
 Divine truth of any passage is not the same as that which 
 tlie words express in their literal meaning, we may be sure 
 that that Divine truth is of a nature similar to that which 
 tlie words do conve3^ 
 
 II. The object of these Scriptures is not to give a 
 scientific account of the early history of the world and man, 
 but to teach certain Divine truths about them ; especially to 
 impart moral truths. But, as these truths relate very largely 
 to primitive man, there must be considerable agreement 
 between the Divine record and the teachings of Science. 
 As the latter were unknown when these Scriptures were 
 written, we shall expect such of them as Scripture does 
 give, to be hidden, and not clearly expressed. We shall 
 expect the Scriptures to be so constructed as to give pro- 
 minence to the more important moral truths, whilst showing 
 in a less conspicuous way their historical application to 
 primitive man. 
 
 III. On account of their psychical nature and the absence 
 of psychological language and ideas in those days, those 
 spiritual truths are expressed by means of narratives and 
 concrete pictures ; therefore they must be expressed crudely, 
 and in some cases only approximately. 
 
 IV. For the above reasons we shall not expect any 
 passage to contain a complete representation of any portion 
 or event of primitive history ; nor that any passage will be 
 entirely devoted to the giving of such a representation. 
 Consistently with the marvellous economy of Scripture, we 
 should rather expect to find the narratives packed with as 
 many truths as possible. Therefore we may have truths of 
 diiferent kinds intermixed : — historical facts (such as the 
 creative acts of Gen. i.), what we may call historical spiritual 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 253 
 
 facts (such as that God made woman out of man), ex- 
 pressions of what is in God's heart (as manifested in the 
 character of Jahveh-Elohim), general moral principles— in 
 fact truths of all orders. 
 
 V. It is quite possible that certain sentences are nothing 
 more than necessary links connecting the important 
 parts of the narratives. Some parts contain primitive no- 
 tions which have passed away (as that of the serpent eating 
 dust for food) ; these may have important symbolic 
 significations, as some of them certainly have, or they may 
 be merely such necessary connecting links. 
 
 VI. Those truths in these chapters which are specially 
 referred to in the New Testament are probably amongst the 
 most important. But we must not forget that the writers of 
 the New Testament necessarily read these chapters accord- 
 ing to the light and ideas of their own age. If, through 
 the light of Science, we are able to arrive more precisely at 
 the Divine truths of Genesis, the writers of the New 
 Testament could not do this in their times. They appre- 
 hended those spiritual truths whilst reading the old 
 narratives simply as historical fact, as their predecessors had 
 done J and therefore we must not expect to find in their 
 words those truths expressed apart from the details of the 
 old narratives. As it is in the old Scriptures so we may 
 expect it to be in the New. 
 
 A few remarks are here necessary respecting the human 
 race in the very earliest times. Gen. i. gives the beast of 
 the earth as the last but one, and man as the last, of the 
 things which God created, — an order which is strikingly in 
 accord with the testimony of Geology. According to Gen. 
 ii., iii., and Acts xvii. 26, God 'made of one (or one blood, 
 A. V.) every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of 
 the earth.' The question whether the human race came of 
 
2 54 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 one stock, or of more than one, has been freely discussed ; 
 and, although some writers have held the latter theory^ the 
 evidence in favour of one com.mon origin so preponderates 
 that modern zoologists take this view. Darwin maintains 
 it ; 0. Peschel adduces powerful arguments in its support in 
 his work on the Races of Man; E. B. Tylor writes 
 {Anthropology, 1881, p. 6), "We may accept the theory of 
 the unity of mankind as best agreeing with ordinary 
 experience and scientific research." Of course this does 
 not mean that all men descended from a single pair. 
 
 From this it may be inferred that the race at first 
 occupied some particular region^ from which it spread to 
 other parts. From the necessities of the case it follows that 
 that region had a warm climate ; and there are other reasons 
 for assuming it to have been somewhere in the equatorial 
 regions of the Old World. Southern Asia, Central Africa^ 
 land then occupying the site of the present Indian Ocean, 
 have been pointed out as covering the most likely spots. 
 
 There, we must assume, the human intelligence had begun 
 to develop. It is unlikely that, before men began to 
 separate, their intelligence was equal to that of the lowest 
 races of the present day. They must have lived on the 
 natural fruits of the earth, chiefly if not entirely, which in 
 such regions grow wild in abundance. They must have 
 lived in the open air, without dwellings and without 
 clothing. We know, moreover, that in the lower races 
 there is much less difference between the man and the 
 woman, both physically and psychically, than in the higher ; 
 and since, in the very beginning, there would be practically 
 no difference of the latter kind, and much less of the former 
 kind than there is now, these must have gradually de- 
 veloped during that and all later periods. As intelligence 
 increased, individual differences made their appearance, and 
 the need, or desire, for communicating ideas, led to the 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 255 
 
 beginnings of speech. As to marriage, evidence can be 
 gathered only from the various races of man as they exist in 
 the present day. Among all races marriage is customary, 
 though in some cases it is said not to be a life-tie, and in 
 others polygamy and polyandry prevail. On this subject 0. 
 Peschel writes {Races of Man, p. 229), " The hypothesis 
 that at a remote age marriage was unknown to the human 
 race is hardly credible. Even among animals we sometimes 
 find a strict pairing, that is to say, among monkeys, 
 predatory animals, ungulates, ruminants, and among song- 
 birds, chickens, and birds of prey. Darwin has also dis- 
 puted the probability of a community of wives among pre- 
 historic man. . . . The Veddahs of Ceylon, whom we 
 should expect to find most primitive, have a beautiful 
 proverb that death alone can part man and wife." And he 
 adds other arguments to the same effect. 
 
 Professor Drummond has described the Central African 
 of to-day as half animal, half cliild. Perhaps, as the reader 
 has thought of beings much nearer the animal, while 
 perusing the above remarks, his lips have curled uncom- 
 fortably. (Mr. Darwin would have replied with the cutting 
 remark that this act betrays his own origin.) But this 
 should not be lost sight of — that the fault lies Avith our- 
 selves if we are inclined to disgust. It is the result of 
 intruding our own feelings, which belong to our present 
 mental and social state, upon another domain in which they 
 are irrelevant. The first condition may have been pure 
 and good, though not refined, and it existed at a time when 
 nothing in advance of it had come into heing. The different 
 parts of that region of life were mutually adjusted, as the 
 different parts of our own environment are adjusted to each 
 other, and w^c to them. There was nothing essentially 
 offensive in the first, the offence merely arising in our minds 
 through associating two things (our mental constitution and 
 
256 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 that of primeval man) which are essentially distinct. "We 
 should think of these things with the intellect only, if we 
 must think at all. It is much to he regretted that in our 
 position it is impossible to form a correct estimate of those 
 first human beings. It would be possible, if one could 
 divest one's self entirely of knowledge of good and evil, of 
 all experiences of man — if, not being a man, not ever 
 having seen or conceived of one, having watched the 
 upward progress of life through its low^er forms, one should 
 then look upon the beings just referred to. Then would 
 they possess their true dignity in the spectator's eyes. The 
 misfortune is that our standpoint is at the wrong end of the 
 line : we look down when we should be looking up.'' But 
 the wrong becomes most apparent when it is remembered 
 tliat he who despises them despises those through whom he 
 himself has come into being. Where would he be but for 
 his predecessors 1 It is better not to look down on the 
 work of God's hands, but rather to reflect how we ourselves 
 have been "fearfully and wonderfully made." 
 , As the race spread to other regions they came gradually 
 under very different conditions of life ; conditions which, 
 in the course of ages, produced the existing differences 
 between the various races. The natural fruits of the earth 
 no longer sufficing for food, hunting and fishing were 
 resorted to. The skins of the animals also afforded clothiu"-. 
 The taming of certain wild animals was followed, in course 
 of time, by the practice of keeping numbers of those kinds 
 which were useful for food, etc., and the systematic breed- 
 ing of them. Similar to this beginning of the^^a^^omZ life 
 was that of agriculture, the wild plants yielding food 
 
 ^ There is, however, another view of the matter, which fuller 
 reflection brings. For when we consider man, the end to which 
 all antecedent steps were tending, we are better able to recognize 
 the dignity of those steps. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 257 
 
 having suggested the idea of planting and harvesting the same. 
 Gradually, too, the useful arts were discovered^ and civilization 
 and social organization grew up among the higher races. 
 
 But that the course of the human race has not been 
 altogether an upward progress, appears from the following 
 remarks, with which Mr. Wallace closes his work on Tlie 
 Malmj Archipelago. 
 
 " We most of us believe that we, the higher races, have pro- 
 gressed and are progressing. If so, there must be some state 
 of perfection, some ultimate goal, which we may never reach, 
 but to which all true progress must bring us nearer. What is 
 this ideally perfect social state towards which mankind ever 
 has been, and still is tending? Oar best thinkers maintain, 
 that it is a state of individual freedom and self-government, 
 rendered possible by the equal development and just balance 
 of the intellectual, moral, and physical parts of our nature, — 
 a state in which we shall each be so perfectly fitted for a social 
 existence, by knowing what is right, and at the same time 
 feeling an irresistible impulse to do what we know to be right, 
 that all laws and all punishments shall be unnecessary. In 
 such a state every man would have a sufficiently well-balanced 
 intellectual organization, to understand the moral law in all 
 its details, and would require no other motive but the free im- 
 j)ulses of his own nature to obey that law. Now it is very 
 
 remarkable, that among people in a very low stage of civiliza- 
 tion, we find some approach to such a perfect social state. I 
 have lived with communities of savages in South America and 
 in the East, who have no laws or law courts but the public 
 opinion of the village freely expressed. Each man scrupu- 
 lously respects the rights of his fellow, and any infraction of 
 those rights rarely or never takes place. In such a com- 
 munity, all are nearly equal. There are none of those wide 
 distinctions of education and ignorance, wealth and_ poverty, 
 master and servant, which are the product of our civilization ; 
 there is none of that widespread division of labour, which, 
 while it increases wealth, produces also conflicting interests : 
 there is not that severe competition and strugglefor existence, 
 or for wealth, which the dense population of civilized countries 
 inevitably creates. All incitements to great crimes are thus 
 wanting, and petty ones are repressed, partly by the influence 
 of public opinion, but chiefly by that natural sense of justice 
 and of his neighbour's right, which seems to be, in some 
 degree, inherent in every race of man. Now although we have 
 progressed vastly beyond the savage state in intellectual 
 
258 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 achievements, we have not advanced equally in morals . . . 
 it is not too much to say that the mass of our populations have 
 not at all advanced beyond the savage code of morals, and have 
 in many cases sunk below it. A deficient morality is the 
 great blot of modern civilization, and the greatest hindrance 
 to true progress. . . . Our mastery over the forces of nature 
 has led to a rapid growth of population and a vast accumula- 
 tion of wealth, but these have brought with them such an 
 amount of poverty and crime, and have fostered the growth of 
 so much sordid feeling and so many fierce passions, that it 
 may well be questioned, whether the mental and moral, status 
 of our population has not on the average been lowered, and 
 whether the evil has not overbalanced the good. . . . Until 
 there is a more general recognition of this failure of our civil- 
 ization ... we shall never, as regards the whole community, 
 attain to any real or important superiority over the better 
 class of savages. This is the lesson I have been taught by my 
 observations of uncivilized man." 
 
 The upward progress of the higher races has, in fact, been 
 accompanied with a degeneration, as the upward progress of 
 the lower races was accompanied with degeneration into 
 heartless cruelty and other vices. The former have grown 
 in corruption in ways quite unknown to the latter, which 
 have grown rather in violence, though this has been abated 
 in cases, as we see here. 
 
 We have now to compare Gen. ii., iii. with the early history 
 and conditions of the human race, and to see how those 
 Scriptures apply. 
 
 Speaking generally we may say that ' the man ' of Gen. 
 ii., iii., represents the race, and the history of the man repre- 
 sents the history of the race. 
 
 But let us distinctly understand that this Scripture is not 
 intended merely to give a history of the race. Its object is 
 a very different one, namely, to teach certain important 
 truths. The chief of these truths are :— That God made 
 man first, and, woman of man ; and ordained that^ the two 
 being one, man and woman should in all ages be united in 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 259 
 
 matrimony as a life-tie : that God made man, of the earth 
 earthy, yet with a life of relationship with God ; and that 
 man was intended for life and other divine blessings, and not 
 for death : that He placed the first of the race where labour 
 was unnecessary, and fruit for food was to be had for the tak- 
 ing ; but that sin came in, which passed unto all mankind, and 
 consequently the whole race forfeited the right to life and other 
 blessings ; and the race — or its first representative at least — 
 was condemned to a life of toil. These are manifestly the 
 leading truths contained in the passage itself, and in subse- 
 quent Scriptures relating to it ; and therefore the obj ect ^;ar 
 excellence of these two chapters was to teach man such 
 truths, whilst they contain others also. For this reason, 
 and others already given, we shall not expect to find an 
 exact parallel with the history of the race, following certain 
 hard and fast lines throughout ; but rather an arrangement 
 such as would not fail to convey these truths to simple 
 readers, while those with which we have now to do will be 
 less conspicuous. Yet I think that the parallel is on the 
 whole unmistakable, the story agreeing with the history of 
 the race in a manner that could only be the result of design. 
 
 There are, moreover, several instances in which the words 
 of Gen. ii., iii. have been commonly understood to apply to 
 man and luoman generally, and not merely to the first pair : 
 so that this exegesis is not altogether new. These instances 
 will be noticed as we come to them. And, since the object 
 of the passage is to teach truths about man, truths relating 
 to the human race, which includes primitive men, it is 
 natural that it should relate both to the race and to its 
 earliest representatives. At the end of this chapter we shall 
 remark on some of the cases where the words relate to the 
 race generally; others will be touched on as we come 
 to them ; but these Scriptures will now be considered 
 chiefly in their application to primitive man, 
 
 s 2 
 
26o Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 As in Gen. i. the events of vast ages are presented as 
 those of a day, so here the history of the human race for 
 long periods is covered by apparently short episodes in the 
 narrative. And as the divisions in Gen i. are in some cases 
 arbitrary, so here necessarily are they still more so. Of this 
 we have seen an instance in Gen. ii. 7, where the communi- 
 cation of life to man which (taking into account all that the 
 human soul is) must be regarded as a gradual work, extending 
 from the beginning onwards to recent times, seems from the 
 narrative to have been the work of a moment. Obviously 
 such truths must have been presented in that way, or not at 
 all ; and we shall find similar instances. Yet the chrono- 
 logical order is given, generally^ as we shall see. 
 
 I prefer to read * the man ' instead of ' Adam ' in the 
 text, because ' Adam ' is merely a Hebrew name for man, 
 and in the Eevised Authorized Version it is translated ' the 
 man.' 
 
 First it is necessary to remove a very common error. 
 Many of us have arrived at the conclusion that the first 
 man was a highly endowed being, superior to any of his 
 successors, and that the Garden of Eden was a paradise 
 little, if anything, short of heavenly. Whence these 
 notions 1 
 
 We have not derived them from Gen. ii._, iii., for there is 
 no such account of things there. They have come partly, 
 perhaps, from inferences too hastily drawn from the lan- 
 guage of Gen. ii., iii., but also from another source. For 
 when we turn to the Persian, Hindu, and other legends of 
 the Fall, which were cited in the sixth chapter of this work, 
 we find glowing descriptions of Paradise. As we saw in the 
 sixth chapter, the Genesis story and these legends had a 
 common origin ; and, as the tradition of the Fall was handed 
 down to posterity in the Eastern nations, Hebrews included, 
 that feature of the story never died out ; and, although the 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 261 
 
 language of Genesis is different, no doubt the Hebrews, as 
 they read this ScriiDture in later ages, brought their own 
 ideas to it, read it in the light of those ideas, and taught 
 their children that such was the teaching of Scripture, just as 
 is sometimes done amongst ourselves. So, further, the belief 
 was passed down to us through the same hands that preserved 
 the Bible itself. But, although we thus trace this belief to 
 its origin^ it has been magnified into greater error amongst 
 ourselves through the work of the poet Milton. Deriving 
 his ideas from the same source originally^ he so enlarged 
 upon them in Paradise Lost, as to impress the English mind 
 with the belief that the Bible teaches much which exists 
 only in his poem. 
 
 For we do not find these glowing descriptions in Genesis. 
 We read of a garden ivliere grows every tree that is 2'>leasant 
 to the sight and good for food, a {staked) man and his wife 
 who live there, and luhose business it is to dress and keep it. 
 But we find also God's presence there, and the Tree of Life ; 
 on the other hand the serpent is there, and the Tree of 
 Knowledge of Good and Evil. From Gen. iii. 19, 22, it 
 appears that the man is not in possession of any life other 
 than an earthly and temporal one — so the words ' till thou 
 return unto the ground, etc.,' and 'lest he put forth his 
 hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for 
 ever,' seem at least to imply. One might further infer 
 from the expression ' multiply thy sorrow ' (or pain), that 
 the man and woman also know pain. 
 
 It seems a medley. Some of the trees are natural, others 
 supernatural. The man and woman, and the animals are 
 natural; God and the serpent, although presented in ma- 
 terial form, are beings possessing supernatural powers. Man 
 is there, in relation with God, blessed, and, if we connect 
 him with Gen. i., made in God's image ; yet he is the 
 uncivilized man ; subject to death, yet with a right to life. 
 
262 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 All these things do not apply to the same scene. There is 
 the double environment of man, the natural world and the 
 spiritual world. There is the human race in general, with 
 God's purposes concerning it ; and there is the earliest 
 representative of the race — primeval man. 
 
 Let us now pursue the part which relates to the latter. 
 What truth there is in the notion of Paradise we shall 
 see later on. 
 
 Some of the language is not far removed from that 
 which would describe the conditions of life of the human 
 race in earliest times. Eor it is in a garden, without 
 a dwelling, in a state of nature, that the first man lives, 
 without toil, on the fruit which Nature provides. Not, of 
 course, that the fruits on which primeval man lived were 
 like the best cultivated fruits to which we are accustomed ; 
 for these are the result of long cultivation and careful 
 selection. But probably if they had been such as these, 
 man would have died. We must here correct the ever-\ 
 .recurring mistaKe^ of judging things from our own point of 
 /view»' The excellence of ^/zose fruits consisted in their suita- 
 bility to the men of those clays. To us such fruits would 
 be anything but good for food ; but that primeval man, 
 before his dispersion over the earth, existed under suitable 
 conditions of life, with his environment adjusted to him- 
 self, I thilik we may safely say. In the open air, amongst 
 the wild fruit-trees of a tropical climate, without clothing, 
 without labour, as we must conclude, lived primeval man. 
 
 The Bible does not teach that the first man was acquainted 
 with the useful arts and knowledge, for not before the 
 4th chapter of Genesis do we read of such things. Except 
 in one or two particulars which seem at first to imply other- 
 wise, but are really nee essary for pres,enting other important 
 features, the man appears as a child of nature ; and, not- 
 withstanding our thoughts of him as a superior man in 
 Paradise, we have gathered more or less of that impression. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 263 
 
 Taking leave somewhat of common sense, we may have \ jb**^ W 
 thought the natural conditions of life would be very pleasant ; \jU»- ^W^A 
 butj if we could have tried the experiment, it would n* yA;6^/i 
 probably have changed our ideas of this imagined Paradise. / \^°^ ' 
 Common sense affirms that upon the Earth such a life 
 would suit only the child of Nature, unacquainted with 
 civilization and its ways. And such, as Science tells us, 
 was primeval man. 
 
 The change from this free life, which suited the men who 
 lived it, to that of toil for the necessaries of life, especially 
 the toils of early agriculture, was a punishment for sin. 
 
 To us it may seem that the hardships of the hunter's 
 life were far worse than the toils of agriculture. But, 
 though these were probably a part of the punishment, the 
 sayings of hunting tribes to-day lead us to modify these 
 views. The following remarks are made by 0. Peschel 
 (Races of Man, pp. 153, 154):— 
 
 "... The so-called savage prefers a life of freedom to all 
 the advantages and conveniences of civilization. The difficulty 
 of accustoming hunting tribes to a sedentary life, is not that 
 they are incapable of living in our way, but that they choose 
 to live in their own way. . . . ' White" fellows work, not black 
 fellows ; black fellow gentleman,' say the Australians. When 
 the English and Dutch colonists settled on the Eastern shores 
 of the United States, a native was here and there ^ observed 
 watching from an elevation how the farmer followed his plough, 
 not in order to learn his secret, but first to gaze in wonder, 
 and then to turn away in pity. . . . The Red Indians of North 
 America imagine the next world to be a continuation of the- 
 present existence. The Great Spirit, as they hope, will trans- 
 plant them to regions abounding in game. . . . The life of 
 the uncivilized man appears to him so full of enjoyment that 
 he can think of another life only as an enhancement of the 
 same. ... We must therefore conclude . . . that the so-called 
 savage prefers to renounce existence rather than undergo the 
 burdens of civiHzation . . . Freedom is enjoyed only by the 
 Botocudo, the Australian, or the Eskimo." 
 
 When, therefore, we remember that Gen. ii., iii. treat of 
 primeval man's environment and conditions of life, not as 
 
264 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 they would affect us, but as they affected him, which is 
 obviously the real question^ we find that it gives a true 
 report of his earliest history — the first natural, out-of-door, 
 non-laborious life, and subsequent change,' not so much to 
 the hunting life as to the toils of agriculture, and more 
 especially the toils of early agriculture. We shall notice 
 the other judgments as we proceed ; and we shall also see 
 why certain features of the narrative, from which have been 
 gathered some false impressions as to the high endowments 
 of the first man, are necessarily j)resent in the passage. 
 
 And where does Scripture say the Garden was ? In 
 
 Eden, watered by a river which, in its lower course, separ- 
 ated into the Nile, the Euphrates, the Tigris, and the 
 Indus (or perhaps the Ganges). Such an account of the 
 river seems reconcilable only with defective geographical 
 knowledge on the writer's part. It seems to have been a 
 common belief in early times that certain of the known 
 rivers were difi'erent parts of the course of the same river ; 
 and that is probably the idea here. But is not this ignor- 
 ance made use of by God to embody another truth in the 
 passage ? If we try to find any connexion, either between 
 one and another of these rivers, or between them and a 
 planted garden, such as we have imagined the Garden of 
 Eden, we utterly fail. But when, tracing these rivers on 
 the map, we find that North-Eastern Africa, South- Western 
 Asia, and the middle of Southern Asia, are the regions 
 which they occupy ; and when we compare these with the 
 regions already named as covering the most likely spots for 
 the first home of the human race, the agreement is striking. 
 Surely here we have an intimation that the Garden was no 
 small, supernaturally-prepared garden, but a natural garden 
 
 ° But this is only one of the truths which Gen. iii. teaches as to 
 the Fall of Man. The most important of them will be discussed 
 at the end of this chapter. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 265 
 
 of wild fruit trees, covering considerable regions ; and 
 probably a further intimation that these regions were some- 
 where in that part of the world — a general indication as to 
 what portion of the earth's surface was inhabited by 
 primeval man. 
 
 We have already noticed that the order of creation in 
 Gen. ii. differs from that in Gen. i. It also differs from the 
 order revealed by Science. For according to the story the 
 man is made first, then the plants, (or rather those of the 
 Garden only,) and lastly the animals. The narrative gives 
 the impression that the Garden and the animals are 
 hoth made specially for man (the Garden for his dwelling- 
 place, the animals for their society, such as it is). I believe 
 the above order of creation is given in the narrative in order 
 to convey this truth. This is not expressed in Gen. i., 
 where the plant-world and the animal-world are given a 
 place of their own in the scheme of creation, whilst subject 
 to man w^ho has dominion over all. Thus the two accounts 
 supplement each other, the two together giving us God's 
 two-fold object in creating these things. We shall soon 
 have to notice other significant features in the passage 
 relating to the animals. First let us see how some of the 
 details of the story, especially when taken in the sequence 
 given, symbolize certain phases in human evolution. 
 
 Throughout the earlier part of the story, up to the end of 
 the second chapter, ' the man ' is the only existing human 
 being : it is only in the latter half that we have the man 
 and woman together, after the woman has been made out of 
 the man's rib. I have already remarked on the gradual 
 evolution of sexual difference in ItomOj which is greater in 
 the higher than in the lower races to-day ; and which avc 
 may treat as very little in the very beginning. The psychical 
 difference was then very small,'' and the physical dif- 
 
 ^ To prevent misapprehension, it is perhaps better to state that 
 
266 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ference much less than now. The psychical difference 
 chiefly concerns us here. That is the great distinction 
 between the sexes, and that is the one of which Scripture 
 takes account. How well chosen are the words of Gen. i., 
 which draw this distinction in man's case, in contrast with 
 the animal. To the inhabitants of the water and of the air 
 God says, "Be fruitful and multipl}^," as He also says to 
 man in verse 28. But nowhere does the text say of the 
 animals that God made them male and female. This is the 
 grand distinction that applies to man, as the other also does 
 with which it is connected in verse 27 — that they are made 
 in God's image. (That the expression, 'male and female' 
 animals, is used in the story of the Flood, does not at all 
 afi'ect this matter. For that is not an account of the Crea- 
 tion, and the words were quite necessary to convey the 
 desired meaning in that case.) Therefore we may say that 
 in * the man ' of the first part of the story is symbolized the 
 human being of the earliest age, before the psychical 
 differentiation of the sexes. It is man as the general type 
 of tlie Race that is made first. 
 
 I do not mean for a moment that there ever existed com- 
 pletely human and at the same time completely asexual 
 beings ; but that throughout evolution the human attri- 
 butes were at all times in advance of the womanly attributes. 
 As applied to the complete human beings, the above is 
 only relatively true — as the males and females of the lower 
 races to-day are more alike than those of the higher races, 
 ,^ the higher womanly attributes not having made their 
 fr I appearance in the women, so at a far distant day the sexes 
 were much more alike, few or none of the truly womanly 
 ^ A attributes having made their appearance in the females. 
 
 here and throughont this argument I ignore those emotions which 
 existed in the animal. Such lower activities may be of import- 
 ance to the biologist, but we have here to do with that only 
 which is purely human. 
 
Human Evolution and the "Fall. 267 
 
 Scripture does not confine itself to distinctions between 
 individuals ; it takes account of spiritual distinctions exist- 
 ing within the same individual. And here the truth incul- 
 cated is, that the essentially human attribute was evolved 
 first, and then differentiated into the manlike and the 
 womanly, the latter being the one wherein the greatest . 
 differentiation was involved. Not that all the human at- 
 tributes were first evolved, or that what we may call the 
 essentially human attribute was fully evolved before the 
 womanly began to appear, but that serially the human took 
 the lead. Denoting the human attributes^ or the com- 
 ponent parts of the human attribute, by a, h, c—z, and the 
 womanly by 1, 2, 3—26^ a preceded 1, h preceded 2 ; and 
 so on. Perhaps the reader will object that female qualities 
 existed in the animal before there were any human qualities. 
 Doubtless the female animal qualities did, but not the 
 female human, i.e. the womanly. If he still object, let him 
 fully define the term ^ womanly,' and he will have to call it 
 first that which is human (the genus), then that species of 
 the human which is characteristic of the woman. Of course 
 I do not mean that femaleness was made out of maleness — 
 the two are opposite poles — but, as we might express it, 
 that the mental substance which was made female in the 
 woman was the same substance as that of which the mind or 
 soul of the man was composed. 
 
 To have been explicit and accurate, many parts of this 
 chapter should have been analyzed as above, and even more 
 closely. If the reader fails to apprehend me in such cases, 
 he is requested to read those parts in the light of this 
 explanation, which I could not repeat at every stage. These 
 Scriptures treat of human qualities rather than of human 
 beings. 
 
 As men and women thus come into existence in course of 
 time, in lieu of the pre-existing beings of inferior order, 
 
268 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 they unite in natural marriage. The men do not necessarily 
 say loit'i their lips the words of Gen. ii. 23, 24, but they 
 act in accordance therewith. If we turn for a moment to 
 Eom. X. 13, ' Whosoever sliall call upon the name of the 
 Lord shall be saved,' we find another instance where the 
 language of the heart is meant : for no one could suppose 
 that the mere utterance of the words would avail in that 
 case.' So, obviously in this case (Gen. ii. 23, 24) ; the 
 acting upon the natural emotion implanted by God in prime- 
 val man, is here indicated by the words which, according to 
 the story^ the man speaks concerning the woman. 
 
 In Gen. ii. there is no marriage ceremony ; the transac- 
 tion is thus parallel to this natural marriage. 
 
 How beautifully does Scripture differ from human com- 
 positions in its account of these things. Often in the latter 
 the words used excite offensive or erroneous thoughts ; 
 whereas the offensiveness really arises through our cumber- 
 some way of thinking. Our thoughts are based upon space- 
 divisions and time-divisions, because these enter so largely 
 into the formation of our concepts; and we cannot help 
 regarding them as the essential dividing- lines between things, 
 even when we think of psychical phenomena, as we do here. 
 But God sees more clearly ; and Scripture teaches accord- 
 ingly, that the fundamental dividing-lines are different from 
 these, being those of the spirit. This we might know to be 
 the case with spiritual matters, such as these ; yet we are 
 constantly repeating the mistake, when thinking of such 
 subjects. Is it any wonder then that in early Hebrew 
 times we find these unseen sjuritual divisions, which cannot 
 even now be accurately expressed in words, approximately 
 expressed by means of familiar forms of thought 1 Is it not 
 wonderful how that primitive language is arranged so as to 
 
 ' Not that the stress should be laid on the * calling,' but rather 
 on the lohosoever, in this text, as appears from verse 12. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 269 
 
 exclu(fe offensive and false impressions, whilst conveying 
 all that is needful ? Such facts as these tend to convince 
 us that, in spite of all the crudenesses and inaccuracies ' 
 which Science shows to exist in these old stories, he who 
 simply believes them just as they stand, comes nearer- to 
 the greater truths and has fewer seriously erroneous belief s^ 
 after all, than he who believes only what he learns from 
 Science. 
 
 There is difficulty when treating of some subjects, with all 
 the rich language of to-day before us, to use words which 
 shall convey the desired meaning and nothing more. How 
 much more in old times. So from this text (Gen. ii. 23, 
 24) one perhaps infers that the man could speak untaught, or 
 had prophetic knowledge of family relations ; and therefore 
 one supposes that he was created in a highly-endowed con- 
 dition — all these being merely contingent implications of 
 the language, which is used for the one object of conveying 
 special truths about the original psychical unity, the 
 formation thereout of the two sexes, and thence the Divine 
 ordinance of the marriage-tie. We find that, (1) the 
 language is well suited to convey these most important 
 truths ; (2) it is so well chosen as to avoid inculcating those 
 errors which anthropologists are liable to make ; whilst (3) 
 it inevitably tends to produce certain mistaken beliefs in 
 scientific matters, which harm nobody. So it is in this 
 passage, and so it is in others in the early chapters of 
 Genesis. Yet if one carefully compared Scripture with 
 Scripture, these unimportant mistakes would in many cases 
 be eliminated by the. process. 
 
 Let us turn our thoughts from the sexual differences as 
 manifested outwardly to the sight, and confine them to the 
 mental qualities which constitute the inner self, the 
 psychical being, that which is conscious, and which is the 
 real individual; so that we may see how real is the 
 
2/0 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 truth taught in Gen. ii. 21-24 about the formation of 
 woman. 
 
 In the stoiy, the woman's body is formed out of the man's 
 rib ; the result of which proceeding is that there are two 
 beings, (1) the man minus the rib, (2) the woman made out 
 of the rib ; both, therefore, somewhat different from the pre- 
 existing man of Gen. ii. 7-20, and both made out of him. 
 Approximately so it appeared in the evolution of the sexes ; 
 the man and the woman of the later age apparently 
 developing out of the less sexually-differentiated human 
 being (psychically considered) of the earlier age. This 
 primordial human being — the type of the race in earliest 
 time — would thus correspond to ' the man ' of Gen. ii. 7-20, 
 which God first makes ; and the man and woman which 
 were in course of time developed^ as the sexes became more 
 psychically-differentiated, would correspond to the man and 
 woman of Gen. ii. 24 to iii. 24. But although this 
 
 represents in part the historical aspect of the matter, it is 
 not sufficient. Though Ave speak here of only the strictly 
 human qualities, there never was an asexual human being ; 
 and, as already stated, the process of reproduction is not 
 equivalent to the real genesis of the human soul. Only by 
 turning our thoughts from human beings to human qualities 
 can we arrive at the essential constitution of man and 
 woman, and realize the deeper truth expressed in Gen. ii. 21- 
 24 — the hidden process of the formation of the soul of 
 woman out of the soul of man,^ the production of that 
 psychical relation between the sexes, to the existence of which 
 the human consciousness testifies, but which it cannot explain. 
 This, and kindred historical spiritual facts, may seem to us of 
 
 ^ If the evolutionist's sense of precision is offended at the nse 
 of the term * man ' in Gen. ii., he may be reminded that it serves 
 better to express this relationship than a more general term 
 equivalent to human being would do; even presuming that the 
 Hebrew language contained such a term at that early age. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 271 
 
 less importance than the details of a narrative, when weighed 
 in the balance of Truth ; but, if our perceptions were duly 
 qualified, I doubt not we should see that they are tlie 
 deepest, the truest, the most real, of all historical fact." 
 
 Thus is " the woman of the man " (1 Cor. xi. 12). Thus 
 we see how " He which made them from the beginning 
 made them male and female, and said. For this cause shall 
 a man .... cleave to his wife ; and the twain shall 
 become one flesh" (Matt. xix. 4, 5). How admirably is this 
 psychological fact of creation conveyed in the old story of 
 the rib ! Could the dullest person, in believing it as 
 historical fact, possibly fail to perceive its Scriptural 
 signification ? Believing in, and thinking of, the physical 
 fact, he inevitably believes in the more real, and only 
 important, psychical fact. The other view of the matter, 
 as seen outwardly in the light of Evolution, does not 
 adequately convey the truth to our minds. It tells us 
 nothing of that hidden process of the formation of the soul 
 of woman out of the soul of man, of the psychical re- 
 lations of the sexes, of the definite hand of God in this 
 work, whilst avoiding offensive and erroneous thoughts ; all 
 of which are so well conveyed by the deep sleep, the taking 
 out of the rib, and the formation of the woman. For those 
 who can believe the old story simply as it stands, it is far 
 the best. 
 
 We must now return a little to the passage relating to the 
 animals (Gen. ii. 18-21) ; the main features of which are : — 
 
 (1) that they are made as companions for the man (vv. 18, 19) ; •" 
 
 (2) that they are formed out of the ground, as the man was, 
 
 ^ Has not the idealist who believes that states of consciousness 
 are the only things that exist, gone somewhere near, but missed, 
 this doctrine, so often insisted on in Scripture, that spiritual 
 activities are the transcendent realities ? " God is a Spirit," or 
 " God is spirit " (Margin, R. A. V., John iv. 24), 
 
 ^^ This seems the simple implication of the words ; and so several 
 exegetes, at least, have explained the passage. 
 
2/2 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 but do not, like him, receive their breath of life direct from the 
 Creator; (3) that the Creator brings them to the man to see 
 what he will call them, and that, in his naming'them we have 
 the first act of intelligence, the first speech, recorded of the 
 man ; and (4) that they do not prove altogether satisfactory 
 companions (v. 20), so that something better — something 
 worthy — is eventually provided in the woman. 
 
 We need not further discuss the second of these matters. 
 But in the first and fourth I think the upward progress of the 
 race in its very beginning is indicated. That the animals are 
 made for the man's companions seems to place him on a level 
 with them, to imply a community between the two, which 
 holds only for a time, till he rises superior to it, requires some- 
 thing better, and his need is met by the making of the woman. 
 Have we not here implied that primeval men were first of a 
 low order, nearer to the animal, and that, rising above it, in 
 sexual intercourse they attained to a suitable social life in a 
 higher state ? ^^ 
 
 The third feature seems still more significant. One of the 
 first things which primitive man would notice, as his intel- 
 ligence developed, would probably be the difierence between men 
 and animals ; and the latter, on account of their motions and 
 life, would be the first things to excite his curiosity and 
 interest. What then so natural as to imitate their cries; 
 and when desiring to communicate thoughts about them — 
 perhaps to warn each other of approaching danger — to repeat 
 the animal's cry to indicate the animal ? as we do to-day 
 when we speak of the cuckoo. Professor Whitney states that 
 to this onomatopoetic principle in the first steps of language- 
 making, he has been led to assign a higher and higher 
 eflS.ciency the more he has studied the subject. ^-^ Surely these 
 first-fruits of the human intellect, these first beginnings 
 of speech, are implied by this part of the passage about the 
 animals. 
 
 But why this interest on the Maker's part to see tvhat the 
 man will call these animals and birds ? Clearly it is not the 
 question what men will call them, so much as the all-important 
 fact that thei/ begin to call them anything. Parents take spe- 
 cial interest in the first prattlings of a first-born child. Is 
 not this something like it on the Creator's part ? After 
 watching the slow upward progress of this, the greatest work 
 of His hands, through untold ages, is it not natural that He 
 
 " On this, and some of the other conclusions which follow, the 
 reader will form his own judgment. They are not of much 
 importance to the main argument. 
 
 1- Preface to Language and the Study of Language, 1884. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 273 
 
 should take such interest in the first poor beginnings of human 
 speech ? 
 
 Nothing is said about the man's nakedness in the first part 
 of the story ; not till after he has a wife do we read that they 
 were both naked. N'akedness only becomes nakedness when 
 human mind and sexual difference come into existence. 
 
 Upon the subject of nudity in existing races, O. Peschel says 
 {Baces of Man, 1876, p. 171) : — 
 
 " The more familiar we have become with foreign customs 
 by means of thorough research, the more frequently have we 
 found that nudity is not incompatible with modesty, and, 
 above all, that in different nations modesty enjoins the veiling, 
 now of one, now of another portion of the body." (After 
 giving numerous instances he continues, p. 173) "Thus 
 habit and custom decide what is permissible and what is 
 ofi"ensive "... (and, p. 176) "... as we have shown, 
 chastity and morality are quite independent of the absence or 
 vividness of sexual modesty" ... A dark skin, to a white 
 man's eye at least, does much to remove the impression of 
 nakedness. 
 
 If, therefore,_we are inclined to think that the nudity of a 
 whole community must have been a very different matter from 
 that pf a pair, as. in Gen. iii., these facts will serve to correct 
 that impression. 
 
 The forhidden fruit. — A distinction is made in Gen. ii. 9, 
 between the Trees of Life and Knowledge and the other trees ; 
 and more strikingly in Gen. ii. 16, 17, iii. 2, 3, where they are 
 represented as not being trees of the garden. " Of every tree 
 of the garden thou mayest freely eat ; but of the tree of the 
 knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it." Here 
 is one reason why we should not regard them as natural 
 trees. 
 
 But, seeing the allegorical character of the whole passage, 
 seeing the difficulties of adhering here, as elsewhere, to its 
 apparent meaning, and seeing how such difficulties disapj)ear 
 when a rational interiDretation is applied, the sooner we dis- 
 miss the old idea the better. The same applies to the 
 colloquy between the woman and the serpent, whether we take 
 the latter as a snake or as Satan in some way personified in ' " 
 one. The same applies also to the command not to eat of the \ Mc ^>tv*^ 
 Tree. Transfer the whole scene to the region of mind and J Cy^ CI ( 
 conscience, and the interpretation is obvious. " 
 
 It is foreign to the piu'pose of this work to discuss fully the 
 details of the sinful act ; nor can we know exactly what 
 occurred. The words of Gen. iii. 6 have been regarded as 
 embodying ' the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the 
 pride of life.' At any rate the passage seems to imply carnal 
 
 T 
 
274 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 desire for indulgence of some kind, the nnseen tempter urging 
 the heart to yield, the instinct of conscience warning that the 
 act was wrong, and the yielding to the temptation ; followed 
 by the acquisition of such a knowledge of right and wrong as 
 was not possessed before. We cannot think so easily of these 
 occurrences in the case of many as in that of one, nor can we 
 conceive so readily of what passed in the hearts and minds as 
 of the events of the simple old narrative. He who simply be- 
 lieves these will not accurately represent to himself what 
 occurred, but he will be impressed with the most important 
 facts, as nearly as he needs, and probably as nearly as he can, 
 apprehend them. It is clear that the sin was brought about 
 by the devil, and that woman was in some way foremost therein. 
 These events may seem to presuppose a knowledge on the 
 part of man greater than he could have possessed at this early 
 stage ; because they must have preceded his spread over the 
 earth, though not necessarily over a considerable portion of its 
 warmer parts; because the spreading process_ must have been 
 very slow ; and because by the time he inhabited Europe his 
 condition was very rude, as shown by the earliest flint imple- 
 ments which he used in these regions. His intelligence, how- 
 ever, during the mammoth period seems to be shown by his 
 sketchings and carvings. Tylor remarks that these have been 
 done with so artistic a touch that some have supposed them 
 modern forgeries; but (he says) "they are admitted to be 
 genuine, while forgeries which have really been done to palm 
 off on collectors are just wanting in the peculiar skill with 
 which the savages who lived among the reindeer and mammoths 
 knew how to catch their forms and attitudes. "^^^ It must be 
 remembered, too, that we are not now speaking of the very 
 earliest of the race, which are the subject of Gen. ii., but of 
 those who lived after the beginnings of speech and the psy- 
 chical differentiation of the sexes, i.e. when intelligence was 
 more developed. Yet here we must beware of attributing an 
 intellectual knowledge of God, which, as we have seen, did not 
 exist till Hebrew times ; perhaps there were not even those 
 earliest crude ideas of the Deity which were discussed in 
 Chap. IV. Neither could man have had, at that time, a 
 thoroughly clear and rational distinguishing of right from 
 wrong, or a knowledge of the true nature of sin. But these 
 were not necessary. In many branches of knowledge an 
 intuitive perception of truths long precedes b, rational one ; 
 and this is pre-eminently true in regard to spiritual or moral 
 truths.^'' It is, therefore, quite possible that primitive man 
 
 13 Anthropology, 1881, p. 301. 
 
 i-" Roto. i. 19-22, 28, presents a similar difficulty, and has a 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 275 
 
 had a feeling, an intuitive perception, tliatthe deed was wrong. 
 He had a conscience, and in this we see the command of God, 
 which was disregarded. Such was the beginning of conscious 
 wrong-doing; which increased continually, as related in the 
 following chapters of Genesis, and as our knowledge of the 
 human race tends to show it must have done. Moreover, we 
 should not too quickly assume that the events to which this 
 passage relates occurred all at once ; some of the details may 
 have long preceded others. 
 
 Gen. Hi. 7-10. — The first consequence of the deed is that the 
 man and woman discover their nakedness, and therefore sew 
 fig-leaves together and make themselves aprons (or girdles, 
 margin). It hardly needs saying that this represents primi- 
 tive man's beginnings to clothe himself. " The simplest form 
 of dress," says O. Peschel, " consists of leaves or twigs stuck 
 into a girdle " {Races of Man, p. 177). " Leaves, also," says 
 Tylor, " are made into aprons or skirts which clothe various 
 rude tribes " {Anthropology , p. 245). 
 
 The second consequence of the deed is that they fear their 
 Maker. In other words, jDrimitive man had a bad conscience. 
 We must not here, and in the passing of judgment on the 
 several offenders, suppose any interview, with spoken words 
 (unless possibly in the case of the Enemy). The words of the 
 text relate to the judgments which God determined in His 
 own mind to inflict, and which are necessarily represented as 
 spoken personally to the offenders, in character with the whole 
 passage. 
 
 The judgment pass ed on the serpent. — It is hardly necessary 
 to say here that this relates to the devil. We have allegorized 
 that part of the story, and learnt the deep significance of the 
 words, "it shall bruise thy head." The serpent's seed also 
 represents the wicked section of the human race, whilst the 
 woman's seed also signifies the righteous. But the j)urely 
 allegorical character of this passage is more clearly seen when 
 we remember that these were not at all regarded as the mean- 
 ings of the words in early times. It was the snake itself that 
 had done the wicked deed, that was condemned to go on its 
 
 similar explanation. We know, though we are apt to forget, that 
 'the world' did not possess a full intellectual knowledge of God 
 till after apostolic times. But from history and mythology we 
 know that men had vague ideas of the Deity — a kind of intuitive 
 knowlege of God— and a perception of right and wrong. The 
 truth expressed in this passage seems to be, that iu these things 
 there was the beginning of a revelation, whioh was withdrawn 
 because men preferred sin and darkness to goodness and light. 
 Scripture ever deals with the underlying reality, the heart's 
 emotions. 
 
 T 2 
 
276 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 belly (instead of on feet as before), tliat was to eat dust for 
 food — an Eastern belief whicli, Kaliscb says, arose from the 
 fact that the serpent can subsist on very little food; or it may 
 have been due to the way in which some serpents feel about 
 the ground with their forked tongues — and that was to be at 
 enmity with mankind. In some parts of the East the extirpa- 
 tion of serpents was regarded as a religious duty. The snake 
 naturally bites the heel of man, who in return crushes its 
 head. 
 
 It is well to see how the true significance of this passage 
 has been known only in later times, through the light of sub- 
 sequent knowledge ; how, the very existence of the Devil being 
 unknown in early times, men were taught as near an approxi- 
 mation to the facts as they could then grasp, by means of the 
 character of the common serjoent as they conceived it. We 
 see that it was but an approximation in the first place; that, 
 when fuller knowledge made it possible, people saw more of 
 the real significance of the words ; that, after the Atoning 
 Sacrifice, they saw the hidden meaning of another part of the 
 passage (the bruising of the serpent's head), of which no one 
 had an idea before. How parallel is this to the interiDretation 
 of the other parts of Gen. ii., iii. insisted on here, and which 
 could be known only by the light of Science, in these days ; 
 long after the completion of the Bible, so that we should not 
 expect the full explanation there. 
 
 The reader may object that more than one meaning has 
 sometimes been attributed to the same paragraph, or perhaps 
 even to the same words. But this is not new to exegesis. We 
 have noticed one instance where the words are known to have 
 a double application : — the seed of the woman denoting, (1) 
 Christ Himself, who destroyed the devil's power, (2) the 
 righteous section of mankind, who are subject to the enmity 
 of the wicked. Such is the wonderful economy of Scripture, 
 as we all know ; ^^ such the wisdom wherewith it has been put 
 together by its Divine Author. Greater wisdom than that of 
 the serpent is manifested in this "old Hebrew myth" of 
 Gen. ii., iii. Jesus said to the disciples, " I beheld Satan 
 
 as lightning fall from heaven" (Luke x. 18). The devil is 
 seen to be cast out of heaven into the earth in Rev. xii. 7-10, 
 and lower still in Rev. xx. 3, 10. Some of these things are 
 doubtless symbolized in the words of Gen. iii. 14, relating to 
 the degradation of the serpent. 
 
 But why have these and other passages in the story a double 
 
 ^^ Of course these arguments are not meant to appeal to those 
 who do not believe in this economy, or even in the divine origin 
 of the Bible, 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 277 
 
 application? _ Because, as already remarked, they do not 
 relate to specific human beings so much as to the underlying 
 spirit which they manifest ; a spirit which may continue for 
 ages, being outwardly expressed in different human beings at 
 different times. They have really one application, but under 
 two (or more) forms. The excellence of these old Scriptures 
 consists in their wonderful power of imparting their truths 
 to readers of all ages. If, therefore, in the light of science 
 we see that they apply to primeval man in general, and 
 not to individuals, such as Adam, or Cain, or Noah, this 
 interpretation is not a totally different one, as it may at first 
 appear, but one essentially the same as that which it replaces. 
 The change is in form, not in substance. The seemingly 
 double interpretation is a single one, after all. 
 
 It may appear to the reader that such an economy in these 
 early Scriptures is inconsistent with the statement made in a 
 former place, that the writers were not automata, but wrote 
 naturally. If so, let me remind him of the conclusions of 
 Chap. YI., in regard to the antecedent leading of traditionary 
 beliefs, to which the writers gave expression when they wrote. 
 Their work being divinely guided, by this and other means, 
 they thus used language in their writings which was packed 
 with some significations above their own knowledge and com- 
 prehension. The writers of the Bible were something like 
 instruments in the hand of a Divine Writer. In New Testa- 
 ment times they were like the well-finished pen ; but in earliest 
 times more like a blunt pencil, so that the lines in the begin- 
 ning of Genesis are necessarily thick and crude. Exhibiting 
 the imperfections of the instrument, these compositions are 
 none the less the work of the Divine Author. To some 
 
 readers it will seem, perhaps, that certain interpretations here 
 suggested are rather far removed from the language of the 
 text. But those believers who have carefully compared Gen. i. 
 with the revelations of Science, and have discerned how, 
 disagreeing on the surface, it presents a wonderful general 
 agreement underneath, must see that the cases are very 
 parallel. Finding such a richness in Gen. i., we should natural- 
 ly expect to find the like in Gen. ii., iii. ; the subjects of all 
 three chapters being so important. 
 
 " Unto the woman he said, I ivill greatly onultipl^ thy sorroto 
 (or pain) and thy conception; in sorroto {or pain) thou shalt 
 bring forth children. . . ." — How could her conception and its 
 pain be multiplied if such things did not yet exist ? For it 
 appears from Gen. iv. 1 that she as yet had no children. 
 According to the true interpretation of the passage, however, 
 there is no such difficulty. For child-bearing was known to 
 the women of that age, and was increased, in their own case 
 
278 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ^ or in that of tlieir successors ; the text relates to the history 
 of woman, not merely to that of individual women. Bishop 
 Colenso, in the same paragraph ^"^ where he denies that the pain 
 of childbirth has been increased, says (inconsistently, as it 
 ai3pears to me, at least in the light of Evolutioa), " In tropical 
 countries, indeed, the birth of a child seems often to be 
 attended with little more pain and disturbance than the birth 
 of a beast." If this be true of the woman of tropical countries 
 — more like than others as we supj^ose her to be to primeval 
 woman — we need only compare her with the woman of the 
 higher races, to see that the punishment has been literally 
 fulfilled. There appears to have been a gradual increase in 
 the pain from the beginning. 
 
 This text, then, possesses three significant features : — 
 
 (1) the mention of pain, or sorrow, as already in existence ; 
 
 (2) the mention of child-bearing ' as already having occurred ; 
 
 (3) the inflicted increase of the child-bearing and its pain. 
 The first of these is quite irreconcilable with the character of 
 the earthly Paradise which the Bible does not teach, but is erro- 
 neously supposed to teach. The second is so at variance with 
 the other part of the narrative, that one is led to think the words 
 must have been altered, or specially overruled, so as to make 
 them agree with the actual fact of history, which is really 
 indicated by the passage. The third cannot well be applied to 
 an individual woman, but appears to be confirmed when 
 applied to the race. As to this, it will probably be re- 
 plied that everybody knows it applies to the race. This is 
 what Bishop Colenso denied, at least, as if it were common 
 belief. Here, then, we see that this exegesis is but an 
 extension of principles which have long been applied in part. 
 
 And thy desire shall he to thy hushand, and he shall rule over 
 thee. — As the inflicted toil had special reference to early times, 
 so, apparently, had this judgment on woman. Among the 
 more barbarous people to-day the husband generally exercises 
 over the wife the rights of a proprietor. In the East there is 
 a subjection of the wife to the husband which is unknown 
 amongst us, and this has been usual from earliest times. 
 Professor Delitzsch has remarked that this condition of woman 
 has been bettered, first, through the religion of Revelation. 
 Here, again, we apply the words to the race rather than, to the 
 first woman. 
 
 The ground cursed, and the man turned out of the garden and 
 condemned to a life of toil.~We cannot suppose that there has 
 been any change for the worse in the soil of the earth generally. 
 There may have been such a change, however, in the particular 
 
 ^^ Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch, p. 337. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 279 
 
 region which man first inhabited. But that is not the import- 
 ant question. Here is a judgment j^ctssed 07i man; it suffices 
 that he underwent the change indicated, from the non-laborious 
 life on the natural fruits of the earth, to the toiling life neces- 
 sary for obtaining food. We can understand that men of 
 early times would gather that impression most readily in be- 
 lieving that the ground had undergone a change,^' and that, 
 therefore, the language of the text takes that form, whilst it 
 seems to imply also that, as associated with man, the ground was 
 in a sense regarded as cursed. It has already been remarked 
 
 that the toils of early agriculture seem to be specially indicated 
 in this passage. In Gen. viii. 21, 22 we read, " And Jahveh said 
 in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for 
 man's sake. . . . While the earth remaineth, seedtime and 
 harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day 
 and night, shall not cease." Of Noah Lamech says (Gen. y. 
 29), " This same shall comfort us for our work and for the toil 
 of our hands, because of the ground _ which Jahveh hath 
 cursed." The latter remark has been said to mean that Noah 
 was looked upon as an improver in the means of agriculture. 
 There can be no doubt that in early times the labour of tilling 
 the ground was much greater than in the present day, because 
 of the want of proper appliances. Here, therefore, in the re- 
 
 duced labour of agriculture , and in other ways — such as the 
 procuring of a living by other means, which a large portion of 
 the community do, when division of labour comes in with the 
 growth of society — we have a mitigation of the burden on man, 
 which is, doubtless, the Sciptural meaning of the passage above 
 quoted, Gen. viii. 21, 22. It is of no consequence whether the 
 judgment was brought by a cursing of the ground, and a with- 
 drawing of that curse, or by any other means. SuflBce it that 
 there was such a judgment passed, and afterwards mitigated. 
 Nor is that all ; for it would probably be a mistake to apply it 
 exclusively to agricultural labour. It is more reasonable to 
 apply it to all the toils of human life, remembering that to the 
 people amongst whom this Scripture was produced these would 
 be most effectually represented by the toils of agriculture, to 
 which they were accustomed. 
 
 17 In the absence of a fuller discussion of the subject than I have 
 space for, it is not unlikely that some readers— confining their 
 thoughts to other aspects of evolution, and judging of primeval 
 man's environment too mueh by its unsuitability to our own con- 
 stitution (as no one can well avoid doing)— will not see the above 
 change in man's conditions in the light in which it is presented. 
 How, then, in crude times, when nothing was known of man's 
 early history, could this truth be so well conveyed in few words as 
 in the language of the text ? 
 
28o Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 We have yet to consider how primeval man was turned out 
 of his original place of dwelling. The extremely remote period 
 at which the event occurred, leaves ample room for those geo- 
 logical changes which take so long. A subsidence of the land 
 may have expelled man from that region, if, as some suppose, 
 it was on the site of the present Indian Ocean. Or climatic 
 changes may have converted it into a desert, or less fruitful 
 region. This would accord literally with the cursing of the 
 ground. Another effectual agent, if it took effect so early, 
 was the increase of population, resulting from the judgment 
 passed upon woman. With however slow an increase, some of 
 the people must, sooner or later, have moved to other regions 
 to procure food. Thus, without resisting the testimony of 
 Science, we find that, in tlie effects, jyroduced on man^ those 
 Scriptures were fulfilled; and it also appears that in the ex- 
 pulsion from the 'garden,' if not also in naturally-produced 
 deterioration in the soil, the words have almost a literal appli- 
 cation. 
 
 There would be the greatest difficulty, here as elsewhere, in 
 applying these events to the history of an individual man. 
 He might indeed be turned out of the garden ; but to change 
 his whole mode of life, from the garden-life to the agricultural 
 one, would be a very different thing. The difficulty as to his 
 need of knowledge might be got over, no doubt, by predicating 
 of him an original possession of all knowledge. This, however, 
 would be of no use without the means of applying it ; and if 
 the reader will try to get through a few hours of his ordinary 
 occupation with the use of nothing but his hands, it may sug- 
 gest a few thoughts on this subject which did not occur to him 
 before. To maintain the traditionary interpretation of this 
 Scripture one must predicate an original supernatural know- 
 ledge, and a host of other similar impossibilities ; which it may 
 be allowable to do, but not to say that such is the teaching of 
 Scripture. Here, therefore, we see that another group of 
 
 grave difficulties, standing in the way of the traditionary read- 
 ing of the text, disappear completely when we com2)are it with 
 the facts of anthropology, and when we follow the exegesis 
 already confirmed — namely, that of applying to the race what 
 the text applies to the first man. 
 
 It will be more convenient to discuss the question how the 
 threat of death was carried out, at the end of the present series 
 of observations. 
 
 And the man called Ids idfe's name Eve (margin, Havvah, i.e. 
 Living or Life), because she ivas the mother of all living. — How 
 could this be if she had as yet borne no children ? It appears 
 that the man himself gives her the name (meaning "living") 
 for the reason assigned ; as in the previous case (Gen. ii. 23) 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 281 
 
 he had called her ' Isshah ' because she was taken out of ' Ish.' 
 What man would, in writiug a story, put in such contradictions 
 as this ? _ We have seen, however, that primitive woman had 
 borne children, and thus these words are in order when applied 
 to the race — to primitive woman. Farentage is here first 
 recognized, namely, after men and women are evolved, tvho 
 unite in marriage, and also after the first sin. Thus the 
 human race are born of woman; and they are children of 
 sinful parents. 
 
 It is not without significance that all mankind down to this 
 period are summed up in one, and i^resented under the likeness 
 of one. It is natural to us, seeing only the physical aspect, to 
 regard the human race down to that period as consisting of 
 many. God, seeing the psychical aspect, and doubtless the 
 most real, regards it as one. If we consider the mental condition 
 of the individuals, we shall see, (1) that they possessed, in the 
 beginning especially, very little mind — one man to-day would 
 equal a great number of them in this respect; (2) that mental 
 differences in individuals of the same sex did not come into 
 existence till after the psychical difference between man and 
 woman did — which agrees with the course of things in Gen. ii,, 
 iii., iv., where we have first one man, then man and woman, 
 and lastly individual men and women ; (3; that, until such dif- 
 ferences existed, individuality could not count for much ; (4) 
 that, as one spirit sometimes pervades large bodies of people 
 (as in the case of a body of soldiers fighting for a common 
 cause, in the prevalence of a fashion, etc.), there may have been 
 a spiritual unity in the race at that time which has never 
 existed since. These are probably reasons, additional to those 
 already given, why the race is presented under the likeness of 
 an individual in these chapters. 
 
 And Jahveli-Eloliini made for Adam and for his loife coats of 
 shins and clothed them. — As we have seen, it is at the hunting 
 stage in human progress that people clothe themselves with 
 skins. Pastoral tribes also clothe themselves thus. In the 
 narrative, this clothing of the man and woman seems to take 
 place before the complete expulsion from the garden, though 
 not till after the judgments are passed on them, and may 
 have begun to take effect. The chief feature in verses 22-24 
 seems to be man's being shut out from the Tree of Life, rather 
 than the change in his conditions of life. In the history of 
 the race the hunting stage came before the toils of agriculture, 
 but after the primeval state of man. People may still live 
 partly on the natural fruits of the earth after adopting the 
 hunting life. Familiarity with this passage has blinded 
 
 us to the fact that, as a part of the narrative, it appears some- 
 what extraordinary. Why should the man and woman, so 
 
282 Evolution and Scripture, 
 
 lately, if not still, in sucli conditions of life tliat clothing was 
 not necessary, be now covered with anything so rude as the 
 skins of animals ? Should we not naturally expect that their 
 Maker would have clothed them with an aj)parel fit for 
 civilized people, such as cloth ? Some have supposed the 
 passage to imply that bloodshed was necessary for the cover- 
 ing of the sinner, but this seems rather far-fetched. Whilst 
 ill-fitted to the narrative, the passage so agrees with that 
 stage in the history of man when such clothing was adopted, 
 that there can be little doubt as to its meaning. Judging from 
 the Persian version, cited in Chap. YI. of this work, it seems 
 likely that in earlier forms of the legend the man and woman 
 clothed themselves with skins, which would agree with man's own 
 efforts to better a fallen condition. It is as provided by their 
 Maker that this clothing seems so unsuitable. Yet how signi- 
 ficant is this feature in the Scripture version. God did not 
 make His creatures and then leave them destitute ; the cloth- 
 ing was of God's providing, and, as Science tells us, it was 
 suited to primitive men. Not till after the adoption of 
 
 skins, which man finds ready for use, does he begin to use the 
 better kinds of apparel. Plaiting and the first forms of 
 weaving require more ingenuity, and the presence of suitable 
 materials. It appears that spindle-wheels were used by the 
 people of the " kitchen-middens " of Denmark, and bone 
 needles by the more ancient *' cave men." Clothing therefore 
 dates from a very early age. 
 
 And Jahveh-Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of 
 us to Jcnoio good and evil. — No doubt there was an increase of 
 evil ^:>ari ^^a^^n with the progress of man. This appears to 
 have been the course of things also wherever savage tribes 
 have developed a considerable civilization of their own. This 
 growth of evil in more advanced nations is illustrated in the 
 extract from Mr. Wallace's Ufa lay Archipelago, already given. 
 It is distinctly traceable in the early history of the world, as 
 given in Gen. iii. to vi., and it seems to be the universal 
 course in the history of man. 
 
 This brings us to the end of the 3rd chapter, and of this 
 wonderful 'Story of the Fall.' It is well known that the 
 4th chapter exhibits the progress of evil, and that of civilization, 
 in early times. Yet here, as in the Scriptures just considered, 
 there is not accuracy of detail, or of chronological sequence, 
 the respective passages being devoted also, and more espe- 
 cially, to the inculcation of moral truths. Thus we have a 
 general outline of the history of the human race from the 
 very beginning up to its civilized stage, the 4th chapter 
 continuing what the 2nd and 3rd had begun. 
 
 Birth of Gain and Abel ; Abel a she^jherd, Cain a tiller of 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 283 
 
 tlie ground. — Higlier than tlie Himting life are the Pastoral 
 life and the Agricultural life, and in a general way the three 
 succeeded in this order. But as men spread over the earth, and 
 adopted lives suiting their respective habitats and habits, all 
 these occupations were pursued by different tribes at the same 
 time, as they are to-day. The brothers Cain and Abel might 
 be taken to represent the agricultural and pastoral peoples 
 respectively. But this application is open to some doubt, as 
 we shall see further on. It should be remembered that, as 
 these chapters give the progress and general course of the 
 human race, Scripture notices here only its more advanced 
 sections. It does not imply that people of the inferior 
 grades of earlier civilization no longer existed on the earth ; it 
 is merely occupied with the higher ones, as rej^resenting the 
 race. 
 
 Cain^s offering unacceptahle because of sin : he slays Ahel, 
 and is utterly rejected. — We may here sketch a Dispensational 
 outline. Notwithstanding the Fall, men still continued to 
 hold the position of being God^s peoi^le on the Earth. Not 
 until the world is found full of sin do they lose that important 
 right. A portion of the human race are here rejected on that 
 account, as symbolized in Cain (as the wicked man, not as 
 the agriculturist). Seth, however, and his descendants con- 
 tinue to occupy the former position (see Gen. iv. 25, v. 1, 3, 
 etc.) ; they fill the foreground — in the 6th chapter — and are 
 the people, till the Flood ; whereas Cain and his descendants 
 are the outcast wanderers. Thus at that time the world is 
 regarded as God's world, the true seed (including the sons 
 and daughters in each generation of chapter v.) constituting 
 the world, and the wicked being in the minority — as regards 
 l^osition before God, at least, if not in numbers also — a condi- 
 tion of things the reverse of that which now is, when God's 
 people are but a selected few. This, lasts until Gen. vi., 
 when the whole world becomes full of iniquity, and is rejected 
 at the Flood.18 
 
 ^^ Of course this does not mean that man's position before God 
 then was the same as that of His people in the world to-day ; 
 but that until Gen. vi. they have a recognized position before 
 God, though only, it may be, on the ground of sacrifice. Seeing 
 how Cain is the outcast; how Seth is put in Abel's position; 
 how Gen. v. goes on to give the family of the man whom God 
 created in His own likeness and blessed, with Seth the first link, 
 and the other sons and daughters included in each generation ; 
 it does not appear that the true seed occupy the position of a 
 remnant in God's sight — until Gen. vi., when Noah alone is found 
 righteous. 
 
284 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 ' Cain,' says the Apostle John (1 Jno. iii. 12), ' was of the 
 evil one ; his works were evil, and his brother's righteous.' 
 In this episode, then, we seem to have the first fulfilment of the 
 curse spoken to the serpent — the enmity between the seed o£ 
 the serpent and that of the woman. The woman indeed says 
 of Cain, ' I have gotten a man with the help of Jahveh,' but 
 in Gen. iv. 25 that has been cancelled ; Abel is the seed of the 
 woman, not Cain. Here, too, in this murder, is a great 
 
 advance in sin on the part of man, beyond anything before 
 mentioned. 
 
 Cain builds a city, Jiis descendants pr ogress in the useful 
 arts, and invent music. Lamech's homicide and song. — Further 
 strides in civilization, here noticed only on the part of the re- 
 jected portion of mankind. The fact that Lamech sings about 
 his act of slaying a man, seems to indicate a heart hardened 
 in iniquity — a worse state of things than anything preceding 
 it in the Scripture record. The attentive reader of the Bible 
 will notice a strange feature in this chapter. Cain, condemned 
 to be a fugitive and a wanderer, goes and settles down in a 
 city, and his descendants prosper in like manner. The fact 
 of his building a citi/, so irreconcilable with his being only one 
 generation from Adam, fits into its place, presenting no diffi- 
 culty, when these Scriptures are applied to the race. The 
 other fact is explicable when we see that these Scriptures give 
 what I have called a '* dispensational outline," indicating 
 the position of man in God's sight. Cain is to be shut out 
 from God's face (verse 14), before God he is as a wanderer. 
 That he takes little notice of this, and prospers in the world, 
 accords with the general course of the world, which makes 
 itself comfortable, and has its pleasures (as the music 
 in this case) away from God, and in an already condemned 
 position. 
 
 Of course we are not to suppose that that j)ortion of man- 
 kind which is symbolized by the descendants of Seth, lived 
 separate from the other portion (descendants of Cain), or that 
 they did not also progress in civilization. No doubt people 
 were mixed up then, as now, when Scripture still makes divi- 
 sions between people which are equally fundamental — not 
 regional, but spiritual divisions — the people of God and those 
 who are of the world. The righteous JSToah, it may be re- 
 membered, is as far advanced in the useful arts as the rest of 
 men, in chapter vi. At the same time, he and Lamech both 
 appear as agriculturists in chapter v. 29 ; perhaps implying 
 that they, and the other descendants of Seth, accept the posi- 
 tion to which man was condemned, instead of ignoring God's 
 judgment, as Cain and his descendants had done. Cain is 
 not refused in the first place on account of his being an 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 285 
 
 agriculturist, but because of sin (Gen. iv. 7) ; and also 
 because his offering was inappropriate (Heb. xi. 4). 
 
 Then began men to call upon the name of Jahveh (at the \ 
 time of the hlrth of Enosh, the son of /Se^/i).— This is one of ] V 
 those passages which cannot jDossibly be taken literally. j 
 According to Exod. vi. 2, 3, the name of Jahveh was unknown 
 till ages after this, namely, in Hebrew times ; and in a former 
 chapter of this work we have seen the truth which Exod. vi. 
 2, 3 conveys. According to the letter of this same chapter of 
 Genesis, too, Cain and Abel had already made offerings to 
 Jehovah ; and, as eommonly understood, the first man had had 
 direct dealings with Jehovah-Elohim in the Garden. It is 
 well known that the name Jehovah often has the scriptural 
 signification of God in relationship, or covenant, with man. 
 We may take the meaning nearly as in our translation, ' then 
 began men to call upon the name of the Lord,' or of the Deity 
 — in other words, it was at this period that men began to ^7 
 have d efijiite__Eeligious sentiments, those 'first crude con- 
 ceptions and worship of the Deity, which were discussed in a 
 former chapter of this work. And it seems probable that the 
 name ' Jehovah ' being used rather than ' Elohim,' further 
 signifies primitive men's approaches to the Deity by offer- 
 ing sacrifice ; which, although done in much ignorance, was 
 the only ground on which God could have dealings with 
 man. 
 
 The birth of Enosh, the son of Seth, is not presented in the 
 Bible as very long subsequent to the offerings of Cain and 
 Abel ; so that, if we avoid drawing hard and fast lines, the 
 latter event might be taken as occurring within the general 
 period referred to in this verse. Religious emotions, as we 
 have seen, did not spring up in a day, but were a slow growth. 
 Until Hebrew times the worship of the Deity, although on 
 the right track, was performed in darkness. But there is 
 another reason why the passage about the offerings of Cain 
 and Abel should be placed thus early in Gen. iv. In the 
 third chapter we have been told about the fall of man, and 
 sin has passed upon the whole race, excluding them from 
 God's presence. It was important, therefore, that there should 
 be given in this early place an intimation of the truth, that 
 only upon certain ground could God thereafter accept man — 
 the ground of sacrifice. Cain thinks that of himself }iq can 
 produce something acceptable to God ; he offers the fruit of 
 his own labour. The same belief holds to-day — that man can 
 work his own way up to God. Abel, on the contrary, has 
 perceived that nothing but a sacrifice will be acceptable. 
 After the incoming of sin God can have to do with and accept 
 man only on the ground of the Atonement, which is here 
 
286 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 foreshadowed in tlie offering made by Abel. We need not 
 suppose that, at so early a period, any man conld have fully 
 apjDrehended this truth ; though, by the widespread custom of 
 offering sacrifices to the Deity in early times, we see that 
 God had begun to lead men's thoughts in the right direction. 
 Here, as in other early Scriptures, it was important that God's 
 thoughts and principles should be expressed ; and for ex- 
 pressing them suitably in those times, such narratives were 
 necessary. It was much more important that such truths 
 should be expressed in the early Scriptures, than that these 
 should agree precisely with the progress of human knowledge 
 and civilization. 
 
 It has been remarked by critics that Jabal, the descendant 
 of Cain after several generations, is said to have been ' the 
 father of such as dwell in tents and have cattle,' although 
 Abel had been a shepherd long before, according to the narra- 
 tive. But it appears that this account of Abel was necessary 
 for the expression of the important truth just referred to. 
 This may have been the sole reason why Cain and Abel appear 
 as an agriculturist and a shepherd ; or the passage may have 
 the additional application already suggested. At any rate 
 we have, evidently, in this chapter only general indications of 
 the early progress of mankind. The details do not all agree 
 accurately with each other, nor with what Science teaches 
 about man. Yet in a general way the progress is clearly 
 indicated, whilst the teaching of more important truths takes 
 the precedence. 
 
 I have remarked that the letter of this verse, Gen. iv. 26, 
 cannot be reconciled with certain passages in the Story of the 
 Garden, where the man seems to have direct intercourse with 
 Jahveh-Elohim, if the letter of these is also maintained. 
 Probably it is chiefly from these latter passages that people 
 have inferred the superior endowments and conditions of life 
 of the first of mankind. But the presence of these admits of 
 the same simple ex] )lanation as that which I have given in other 
 cases. The important truth which they do convey is God's 
 deep interest in, and sympathy for, His creatures, and His 
 presence among them, though unseen and unknown, in those 
 days before sin intervened. And if we ask how this truth 
 could be conveyed to readers in early times, I think we shall 
 see there was no other way than by those features in the 
 , narrative which give the impression of a more conscious inter- 
 
 ! course between God and man. We should also remember 
 that the needs of the soul can be met, and are largely met, 
 to-day, without conscious contact with God. May there not 
 \ have been some such influx, real though unknown to man, in 
 i primeval days ? 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 287 
 
 Some have too hastily inferred that, before social life and 
 civilization produced better things, primitive men must have 
 been utterly barbarous and devoid of good qualities. Eefine- 
 ment we cannot affirm of them ; but facts tend to show that 
 the former conclusion is wrong. We have seen, in the extract 
 from Mr. Wallace's Malai/ Archipelago, ihsit everything is not 
 due to high civilization, but that savages can live together in 
 a peaceful and comfortable way. The following extract may 
 be added from Tylor's Anthropology (p. 406) : — 
 
 "Under favourable circumstances, where food is not too 
 scarce nor war too wasting, the life of low barbaric races may 
 be in its rude way good and happy. In the West Indian Is- 
 lands, where Columbus first landed, lived tribes who have been 
 called the most gentle and benevolent of the human race. 
 Schomburgk, the traveller, who knew the warlike Caribs well 
 Id their home life, draws a paradise-like picture of their ways, 
 where they have not been corrupted by the vices of the white 
 men ; he saw among them peace and cheerfulness and simple 
 family afi:'ection, unvarnished friendship, and gratitude not 
 less true for not being spoken in sounding words ; the civilized 
 world, he says, has not to teach them morality, for though they 
 do not talk about it, they live in it. At the other side of the 
 world, in New Guinea, Kops, the Dutch explorer, gives much 
 the same account of the Papuans of Dory. . . ." (He gives 
 several other like instances, but adds) " Of course these 
 accounts of Caribs and Papuans show them on the friendly 
 side, while those who have fought with them call them monsters 
 of ferocity and treachery. But cruelty and cunning in war 
 seem to them right and praiseworthy ; and what we are here 
 looking at is their home peace-life. It is clear that low bar- 
 barians may live among themselves under a fairl}'- high moral 
 standard, and this is the more instructive because it shows 
 what may be called natural morality.'' 
 
 ^j^rofessor Drummond's descrij)tion of the Central African 
 may also be cited as an instance of savage life which is not bad, 
 but of primitive innocence and simplicity in its way. 
 
 These facts prove that everything good is not due to civiliza- 
 tion and culture ; but rather that whatsoever is good in man is 
 of God's implanting, which civilization and culture have merely 
 aided to develop, the good and the evil having grown and in- 
 creased side by side, like the tares and the wheat. They show 
 that before such growth of evil there may have been a better 
 condition of things. Even in civilization it is well known that 
 many tribes have retrograded. 
 
 We conclude, then, that this passage, ' Then began men to 
 
288 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 call upon the name of Jahveh,' relates to the earliest theo- 
 f logical sentiments in man, and that it is perhaps given as a 
 corrective of certain erroneous impressions one is liable to 
 I gather from some parts of the Story of the Garden and that of 
 I Cain and Abel, which are placed there for expressing other 
 ! truths. 
 
 In concluding this subject, perhaps it should be added that 
 the foregoing outline makes no pretence to show the exact 
 chronological order in which the historical truths of Gen. ii.- 
 iv. should be applied to the history of primitive man. Such a 
 task would be neither profitable nor possible. 
 
 To many readers the absence of a complete chronological 
 parallel between these two series, will perhaps seem a grave 
 objection to the whole of the foregoing interpretation of those 
 Scriptures. But it is obvious the latter do apply, chiefly at 
 least, to the early history of man. For if not, to what do they 
 apply ? 
 
 Gen. V. — The ten long -lived Patriarc/is. — It may help us here 
 to turn for a moment to the epistles to the angels of the Seven 
 Churches in Rev.i. 20-iii. 22, and ask what are meant by these 
 angels ? Not what are commonly understood as angels, 
 surely, for they are subject to human failings ; nor can we say 
 that they are men. We regard each of them as the ruling 
 spirit, or representative, of the particular church which bears 
 its name. Somewhat of the same character are these patriarchs 
 of Gen. V. Their lives cover long periods, and we may say that 
 each of them represents the age in which he lives ; not neces- 
 sarily giving any particular character to that age, as the afore- 
 said angels of the churches give to theirs, but like them only in 
 representing it. Thus, as each one lives a longtime, we gather 
 the impression of a very long period in the aggregate, — the 
 period between the creation of man and the event represented 
 by the Flood. There cannot be any special meaning attaching 
 to the exact figures given as the life of each patriarch ; for the 
 existing versions of the Old Testament difi'er considerably in 
 respect of these ; and the Septuagint Version, which was in 
 general use in New Testament times, makes Methuselah live 
 till fourteen years after the Deluge. Several successive ages 
 in human history, covering a very long period in the whole, 
 are all, therefore, that we gather from their long lives. 
 
 It should be particularly noted that these patriarchs and 
 their sons and daughters are presented as the family of the 
 man who was created in God's own likeness and blessed ; so 
 that they are thus distinctly recognized as God's people. The 
 rejected Cainites having been disposed of in the preceding 
 chapter, these, who are the people of the earth, and represent 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 289 
 
 the human race, are the subject of Scripture treatment through 
 the long ages till the Flood. Other features of the chapter are :— 
 that it is the seventh in the line who walks with God, and is 
 taken by God ; that, with this exception, all of them are said 
 to have died ; that, whilst only one of them is named in each 
 generation, the ' sons and daughters ' are of the same standing, 
 through descent. Lastly, it presents a genealogy, and one 
 
 through which the descent of Jesus is traced back to God in 
 Luke "iii. If it seem that such a genealogy must^ lose its 
 reality if we cease to regard these as historical men, living their 
 respective ages, we shall do well to recall what we have already 
 seen as to the Scriptural principle of descent (see page 235). 
 It is not the natural descent from the man Abraham that is 
 imj)ortant ; it is not Abraham as a man that is important as a 
 progenitor, but the siiirit manifested hy him^ and the possessor 
 of that spirit is the only real descendant in God's sight. At 
 the same time, the natural genealogy serves well to represent 
 the spiritual genealogy. This genealogy presents a chain 
 connecting (1) God's people, the Jews, and (2) Jesus, with the 
 man created in God's image, who is called the son of God. It 
 may further be remarked that the first link mentioned in the 
 chain (Luke iii. 23), Joseph, was only the 7'eputed father of 
 Jesus. 
 
 These considerations show us how significant is the fact that 
 Abraham, the first man and father of the Hebrews, manifests 
 faith so conspicuous in his life ; because his descendants thus 
 come, through their natural descent, to be regarded as the 
 children of the faithful man and of his faith, and are thus 
 stamped as God's people, the children of (the spirit of) faith. 
 
 We now come to the important question, How, in the 
 light of Evolution, is it true that sin and death passed upon 
 all men through the sin of the first man 1 Believers in the 
 historical character of the Story of the Fall have been 
 puzzled as to how the threat in Gen. ii. 17 was fulfilled, 
 since the man did not die on the day he ate the fruit, in the 
 manner to be expected. Some, referring to the passage 
 where it is said that 1000 years is with the Lord as one 
 day, have argued that he did not live quite 1000 years. 
 Others, taking the marginal reading, ' dying thou shalt die,' 
 have thought that he began to die at the time of his trans- 
 gression. Others have regarded the death as a loss of 
 
290 Evolution and Scripture, 
 
 fellowship with God. Others again, have thought that the 
 punishment affected the manner of his dying, rather than 
 the fact of his natural death. The difficulty, therefore, is 
 not a new one. 
 
 If, however, the foregoing conclusions as to the true 
 meaning of the Story of the Fall be correct, it is evident 
 that a somewhat different explanation must be the true one. 
 It must be an explanation that agrees with the fact that 
 through the sin of the first man, or men, sin and death 
 passed upon all the race ; one that agrees with the facts of 
 Science ; and one that agrees with the characteristic fea- 
 tures of the Story in Gen. ii., iii. We have already re- 
 marked that parts of Gen. iii. have generally been inter- 
 preted as applying, not only to the first individuals, but also 
 to the race ; and this exegesis, so fully confirmed before, we 
 shall find applicable here. 
 
 In the next place the question naturally arises, Is the life 
 in question an eternal earthly life, or an eternal life else- 
 where, which should have followed the earthly life ? We 
 shall get a sufficient answer to this question by considering 
 a very striking fact relating to the Believer in Christ. 
 Scripture distinctly states that he has eternal life, that he 
 shall never die, that he is already passed from death to life. 
 Yet he is subject to bodily death, just as other men ; Scrip- 
 ture takes it for granted that he is ; which event it regards 
 as a " falling asleep." Here, therefore, the life which the 
 Believer has hereafter is a continuation of the life conferred 
 on him at his conversion ; it is one life, which begins then 
 and never ceases. Applying this to the matter under con- 
 sideration, we may dismiss the question as to what sort of 
 life is meant, as of no consequence, and entirely out of place. 
 As, with the Believer the two kinds of life, here and here- 
 after, constitute one life ; (the bodily death not having been 
 annulled because he has this life, and not being regarded as 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 291 
 
 death -,) so here, all that we should go so far as to pre- 
 dicate is life itself J never mind of what order, or orders. 
 Either an eternal earthly life, or a life beginning on earth 
 and lasting for ever under difierent conditions after bodily- 
 death, would equally satisfy the requirements of the case. 
 Both analogy and Science would, however, decide in favour 
 of the latter. 
 
 Now let us observe a peculiar feature in the narrative. 
 Not only does the man not die directly after eating the for- 
 bidden fruit, but it is taken for granted that the day will 
 come when he will " return to the ground." In addition 
 to this, Gen. iii. 22 distinctly expresses that he was not in 
 possession of eternal life. The Tree of Life had been placed 
 where he could have eaten of it, but he had not done so ; 
 he was driven out of the garden lest he should eat of it. So 
 far then as the details of the Story go, the man did not lose 
 his own earthly life, either immediately or eventually, 
 through his eating of the fruit ; neither did he lose his own 
 eternal life, for he never actually had it. But what he did 
 lose ivas the power or right to obtain the eternal life ivhich had 
 been intended for him. 
 
 Science says that the lifetimes of the first of the human 
 race were of limited duration ; and that the human body 
 is not, and never has been, so constituted as to admit of an 
 eternal life in it. (As to a post-earthly life of primeval man, 
 Science can say nothing. We know that the human mind 
 has been a gradual growth, the men of each age possessing 
 more of it than their predecessors ; but, knowing so little 
 about the soul apart from the body, we know nothing about 
 the souls of primeval men.) 
 
 The New Testament says that, for the Believer, God has 
 made another provision to make his life eternal. 
 
 Putting all these facts together, we arrive at the conclu- 
 sion, that God had intended eternal life (of some kind) for 
 
 u 2 
 
292 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 man ; that tlie first representatives of the race were not 
 probably in possession of more than the earthly life, and so 
 could not lose it for themselves ; but through their sin — 
 which passed upon their successors, who sinned in their turn 
 — the whole human race forfeited the eternal life which God 
 had intended for them. Rom. v. 12 states that "death 
 
 passed unto all men_, for that all sinned." They do not 
 simply inherit death, but they receive the sinful nature, 
 they sin themselves, and therefore merit death. 
 
 We conclude then that the Tree of Life placed in the 
 Garden, and the threat of death in Gen. ii. 17, represent 
 God's purposes concerning the whole human race ; whereas 
 the act of eating of the Tree of Knowledge symbolizes the 
 sin of the first representatives of the race. First man stood 
 at the head, holding the responsible position of determining 
 the destinies of the race : first man sinned, and so death to 
 the race foil owed. Thus '^through one man sin entered 
 
 into the world, and death through sin ; and so death passed 
 unto all men, for that all sinned " (Rom. v. 12). If this 
 present a difficulty in seeming to predicate the sin of many, 
 and not of one, let us recall our former conclusions as to 
 ithe mental condition of the many (page 281). Moreover, 
 'the sin may have begun with one individual. It may 
 also be remembered that, though Rom. v. 12 says ' one man,' 
 the narrative in Genesis says one woman first and then one 
 man. 
 
 Of course it does not follow that the life which God had 
 intended for the race involved all that the Believer possesses 
 in Christ. It could have been an eternal not-earthly life 
 without that ; perhaps a very different one. As things are, 
 no one who is born into the world inherits eternal life ; it 
 is only the few who believe in Christ now that get it. But for 
 sin, those who come into the world would have life as their 
 natural possession. Thus has death passed unto all men. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 293 
 
 Before leaving this subject it may be well to make a few 
 remarks as to the moral condition of primeval man. Con- 
 sidering the manner of his development, with the ' strnggle 
 for life ' which Evolution supposes him and his progenitors 
 to have passed through, it may appear that he was originally 
 and essentially of evil nature. But that does not follow. 
 
 "We may learn something of the structure of the human 
 mind indirectly, which goes to show that, as the mind 
 nhabits the body, so does spirit inhabit the structure of 
 mind. As Scripture teaches, and as Christians experience, 
 they themselves are complex creatures. Within the Be- 
 liever now dwells the Spirit of God, where formerly dwelt 
 and ruled the spirit of evil. The spirit of evil is not 
 entirely removed from within him, but whilst he ' walks in 
 the spirit ' it does not act, its former place is occupied by the 
 Spirit of God, which guides his actions and emotions. Yet, 
 notwithstanding this change of the ruling spirit within him, 
 a great part of his mental system remains unchanged. His 
 intellect remains almost entirely so, for he thinks by the 
 same process and in the same manner as before ; on most 
 subjects at least ; and where there is a change, it is in the 
 product of thought, and not in the process of thought. The 
 same applies largely to his emotions. Be his original 
 disposition dull or lively, so it continues after. His tastes, 
 bodily and mental, continue ; as, for instance, if he have 
 a taste for music, or study. His natural affections con- 
 tinue ; and so throughout. TJiese things^ formerly defiled, 
 are consecrated, as he lives for God, and not, as before, to 
 please himself ; but we can clearly see that in themselves 
 they constitute a portion of the whole mind which is 
 equally distinct from the Spirit of God and the spirit of 
 evil. We have no evidence, perhaps, that they can exist 
 apart from both of these, without any such ruling spirit ; 
 but here is evidence that they do exist apart from each in 
 
294 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 its turn, and hence they are not, in their own constitu- 
 tion, identical with either. To give them a name, we 
 may say that they constitute the human mental struc- 
 ture, within which may dwell the ruling spirit (good or 
 bad), somewhat in the same way that the mind inhabits 
 the body. 
 
 In the Scriptures which treat of these subjects (as Gal. 
 ii. 20, and others), we find divisions which run deeper than 
 those which divide man from man, and individuality is 
 even predicated of the indwelling spirit. In 1 John iii. 9, 
 for instance, it is stated that whosoever is begotten of God 
 does not, and cannot, sin ; which is not true of the man as 
 a whole, but is true of the Spirit of God within him. 
 
 We may look yet closer. Anger as manifested in man is 
 evil, but as manifested in God it is not. Clearly then there 
 may be such a sentiment as anger in other beings (theoretic- 
 ally at least) which does not contain the evil element — the 
 two even here are distinct. What we see in the animal we 
 do not regard as sin ; because, perhaps, the animal does not 
 possess reason ; but, whilst it appears in some cases as if it 
 were of the same essential nature as the sinful anger of 
 man, we cannot say whether it is so or not. The principle 
 of evil may be a distinct element, which is present in man 
 and not in the animal. Thus it is quite possible 
 
 \ that primeval man w^as rough and coarse, but at the same 
 time had not the evil principle within him. 
 
 As to the origin of evil, Scripture is silent. But it dis- 
 tinctly teaches that the Devil is a being distinct from 
 man ; he is the source of evil ; he is the ' god of this 
 world.' Christian experience says the same. Scripture 
 teaches, too, that God overrules the devil's actions to work 
 out His own ends. It may occur to us that such was also 
 the case before historic times, namely, in the evolution of 
 life ; but there is nothing in Scripture to substantiate this. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 295 
 
 If it be assumed that primeval man had the evil principle 
 within him, the following facts should be borne in mind. 
 The difference between conscious and unconscious sin is 
 great. A child may do many things very displeasing to his 
 parents, and yet in all sincerity hold up his head before 
 them, so long as he does not hno'io that he is doing wrong. 
 If after that he persist, the case is totally different. " Until 
 the law sin was in the world : but sin is not imputed when 
 there is no law" (Rom. v. 13) — law of conscience in the 
 case of primeval man (see also verse 14). ' Sin ' has been 
 called the tree, of which ' sins ' are the fruit ; and in this 
 sense these terms are used, sometimes at least, in the Bible. 
 ' Sin ' thus relates to something deeper and more funda- 
 mental than sinful acts — to the essential nature of emotions, 
 the root, the substance, the evil principle, as I have else- 
 where called it. 
 
 The assumption of such an unknown impurity in primeval 
 man, seems at first sight to imply that God created man 
 sinful ; which will seem inconceivable to some who will 
 hold at the same time that He created Satan, who is essen- 
 tially sin. As regards this^ those divisions must be borne 
 in mind to which we have just been referring, which run 
 deeper than the divisions between individuals. It would 
 then appear that what God created was the mental structure 
 of man, which, as we have just seen, is not essentially evil ; 
 not that He created the evil which dwelt within it. Regard- 
 ing this mental structure as the man, we should thus see 
 that all that God created was good, as described in Gen. i. 
 
 Finally, let us turn again to the matchless Old Parable, 
 so that Scripture may be our guide. Is there a double 
 character in the nakedness of the man^ since the conscious- 
 ness of this makes him feel unfit for his Maker's presence, 
 and makes him perceive his bodily nakedness ? Do the 
 words, " Who told thee that thou wast naked ? " imply that 
 
296 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 he was naked in the worst sense before, and knew it not 1 
 Why is the Tree of which he eats not called ' the Tree of 
 Evil,' but the ' Tree of K7ioivledge of Good and Evil ' ? 
 
 In the next place it should be remarked that an external 
 agency is distinctly suggested in the episode of the sinful 
 deed. The act is brought about by the devil. In the ^ew 
 Testament^ too, attention is called to the fact that the 
 woman was beguiled by the serpent in his craftiness (2 Cor. 
 xi. 3). In another place it says that Adam was not be- 
 guiled, as the woman was (1 Tim. ii. 14).^^ In the sinful 
 deed, not only was forbidden knowledge acquired, but certain 
 desires also were indulged. "When the woman saw that 
 the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the 
 eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, 
 she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat ; and she gave 
 also unto her husband with her, and he did eat." 
 
 He who believes that God works by magic, and not by a 
 natural process, may perhaps take it upon himself to say 
 that primeval man, as we have here considered him, would 
 have been, mentally, a product unworthy of God. I have 
 lately seen it remarked that the earth ' without form and 
 void ' could not have been, for this reason, created in that 
 state, but must have lapsed into it. But as the first step in 
 the process which, by the end of Gen. i,, leaves everything 
 in order, there is nothing unworthy of God. So is it 
 
 also with man. 
 
 It may again be objected — if we view things from our 
 own one-cornered position, forgetting that the absolute, not 
 the relative, is the true standpoint — Is this the man of 
 Genesis i., who is made in God's image ? If we look dou-n 
 on him from where we stand, we may think not. But if 
 
 1^ These references are, however, made in behalf of the subjects 
 under treatment, rather as taking the moral lesson from the Old 
 Testament passage, than as adding to, or explaining it. 
 
Human Evolution and the Fall. 297 
 
 we look at him from the bottom and beginning of the scale 
 we say, Yes_, in part. From the time he began to assume 
 the human form he began to take God's image, and in every 
 step of liis progress he has assumed it more and more, from 
 that day to this (albeit and excepting his moral regress). 
 Gen. i., as already stated, gives the general view — man as 
 the general type of the human race ; not primeval man. So, 
 doubtless, in another aspect than the one we have chiefly 
 considered here, does Gen. ii.^ iii. Finally, it may be 
 asked, if we must have man in God's perfect image, where 
 in past or present is he to be found % I can only think of 
 One, who might have been found in Palestine some 2000 
 years ago. 
 
 Hitherto, with some exceptions, we have considered 
 Gen. ii., iii., only in its application to primitive man. Now 
 we have to do with its application to the human race as a 
 whole, and God's purposes concerning it.'° We have touched 
 upon the latter in the foregoing remarks about the Tree of 
 Life. 
 
 It may help us to an apprehension of the truth if we 
 look at a somewhat similar case. A rich man, possessor of 
 large estates and princely wealth, has a son and heir. As 
 yet the heir is but a youth : the time is not yet come that 
 he should enter upon his possession. But his father is 
 disappointed in him ; he utterly disgraces himself, and con- 
 sequently he is disinherited. Say, reader. Does he 
 really lose all these things, or is it a purely ideal affair ^ 
 Yet perhaps " unreal " was the mental comment, on perusal 
 
 20 Here it is well to note why there is the double application, 
 and that it resolves itself, for the most part, into a single one. 
 For the passage gives— and has always been more or less under- 
 stood to give— the history of wan, and the judgments passed on 
 him for sin, the spiritual history of the human race; and the 
 spiritual history of primeval men is a part of this whole. 
 
298 Evolution and Scripture 
 
 of the foregoing statements as to how man lost tlie Life 
 which was intended for him. 
 
 Let us return to the Garden of Eden, charged, as much 
 as possible, with the belief that ' the things which are not 
 seen ' are not ideal, but most real. Let us draw a picture 
 of the whole scene, embracing both the physical environ- 
 ment of man, the natural world, and also the spiritual 
 environment, the spiritual world. It may help us to con- 
 ceive the natural world as in the centre of the spiritual 
 world — the natural garden as within the spiritual garden — 
 whilst that which belongs to the spiritual has free access to 
 the natural, but not quite vice versa. In the natural garden 
 are the fruit-trees of the earth : in the spiritual garden are 
 the fruit-trees of the spiritual world, including the Tree of 
 Life. God is in the spiritual garden, having access, as we 
 said, to the natural garden. Satan and the Tree of Know- 
 ledge are also there. In the midst of all this, in the natural 
 garden, God, the owner of all, has placed man. Not an 
 individual man ; not primeval man — we have done with 
 that side of the question — but the Jiumari race. Without 
 making it quite a hard and fast line, we may say that the 
 natural garden includes what man has, the spiritual garden 
 what he is to have. There God has placed man, with 
 purposes of life and blessing for him. If this be Paradise, 
 somewhat such as this is the Paradise of Genesis.^^ 
 
 Eut sin comes in, and man is disinherited. He is shut 
 out from the Tree of Life, from the fruit-trees of the 
 spiritual garden ; he is never to taste of them. He is 
 thrust out of the spiritual garden ; and, if it help us to 
 think of it so, we may say that the natural garden is thrast 
 out too. 
 
 ^' The word 'Paradise ' is not in Genesis. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE FLOOD. 
 
 One of the greatest of the difficulties raised by the text of 
 Scripture is the Story of the Flood. 
 
 He who reads the account in Genesis in the light of his own 
 conception of the Earth's shape, very naturally understands 
 it to assert that the surface of this huge spherical Earth on 
 which we dwell, was once entirely covered with water some 
 six miles deep. We shall see, however, that that conclusion 
 is drawn too hastily. The impossibility of maintaining 
 such a belief is so manifest that Evolutionist and Anti- 
 evolutionist, Opponent of Scripture and Defender of 
 Scripture, are ahke agreed that, never since the Earth has 
 been inhabited by man, has it been subjected to a universal 
 deluge. A few of the facts which enforce the latter con- 
 clusion may be given here. 
 
 Vast physical changes, entailing an entire re-constitution 
 
 of the Earth, would probably have been necessary. Upon 
 
 this subject Dr. Kinns writes (Moses and Geology, 1889, 
 
 p. 398) :— 
 
 . . . "The water could not have covered the whole globe 
 and all its mountains without a very large quantity being 
 created specially for the purpose ; for if all the water existing 
 in the oceans, seas, rivers, and atmosphere, was deposited 
 upon the globe, and equally divided over its surface, such a 
 universal sea would only be about two and a half miles in 
 depth. And thirty times as much would have been reqmred 
 to have formed a casing of water that would have covered over 
 
300 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 all the mountains of the world ; and then a most stupendous 
 miracle would have been necessary to get rid of this enormous 
 extra quantity of water, amounting to more than a thousand 
 millions of cubic miles. 
 
 ..." If the whole globe had been so encased with water, 
 science would have discovered a confirmation of it, whereas 
 there is everything in the infallible Book of Nature to contra- 
 dict such a supposition.'"' 
 
 There are mountain craters of older date than the first 
 men, composed of loose materials, which would have been 
 swept away by such a flood, and they bear no marks of any 
 disturbance of the kind. 
 
 The world may be divided into zoological provinces. Nu- 
 merous species of animals are, and always have been, 
 confined to those regions which they now inhabit. If any- 
 one supposes that pairs of these animals traversed the Earth 
 to the place where the Ark was, and back to their original 
 habitats afterwards, he must conchide that many of them 
 crossed several thousands of miles of ocean in the journey ! 
 He is brought face to face with many other such absurdities, 
 if he attempts to reconcile the details of the narrative with 
 their necessary implications. In the light of anthro- 
 
 pology it is impossible to hold that the lower races of man 
 are descended from a fully-developed and highly-civilized 
 man, such as Noah. It is known from the Egyptian monu- 
 ments that some of the distinguishing physical characteristics 
 of the different races were in existence 4000 years ago, i.e. 
 within two or three hundred years of the date commonly 
 assigned to the Elood ; whereas there is every reason to 
 believe that vast ages were required for such a difierentia- 
 tion of mankind. There is also the best evidence that 
 Egypt existed as a developed kingdom more than a thousand 
 years before that date. 
 
 We are thus forced to the conclusion that whatever 
 deluge of waters there was, must have been confined to a 
 
The Flood. 301 
 
 certain low-lying region ; that the lower races of man could 
 not have been destroyed by it, unless it occurred at a very 
 early period, long before civilized times ; and that but a 
 very small proportion of the species of animals could have 
 been preserved in the manner related. 
 
 The superficial reader of his Bible, surprised and perhaps 
 shocked at these plain statements^ will be not less surprised 
 to hear that he himself has never really believed all the 
 details of the story. He has only believed that he believed 
 them. For, as explained in Chapter YI., the account in 
 Genesis is composed of parts of two different versions of the 
 story, pieced together; and in places where there is a dupli- 
 cate account of the same events, these are sometimes mutually 
 contradictory. 
 
 Thus from internal evidence, as well as from external 
 evidence, it is undeniable that some of the story cannot be 
 historical fact. After all that we have seen in foregoing 
 parts of this work, however, we are not surprised or 
 alarmed at these facts. It is merely one more instance in 
 which God has made use of a crude primitive literary com- 
 position, embodying the beliefs of an early age, to convey 
 important truth to the minds of men. 
 
 First, let us try to read the ideas entertained by the 
 Hebrew writers of the story. We shall then be in a better 
 position to consider for what purpose it is placed in the 
 Bible. 
 
 The following is an outline of the ideas held by the 
 nations of antiquity in general, and by the Hebrews in 
 particular, respecting the structure of the Universe. 
 
 The Earth Avas not supposed to be spherical, but a flat 
 surface. The Babylonians, and the Hebrews after them, 
 believed that it had been originally drawn together out of 
 the waters of a vast abyss of ocean, upon which it afterwards 
 rested. ^' This dark infernal lake (says the author of the 
 
302 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Chaldean Account of Genesis, p. 69) was shut in by 
 gigantic gates and strong fastenings, which prevented the 
 floods from overwhelming the world." The celestial vault 
 (composed of material substance) was supported by the 
 Earth, by means of pillars. Above this vault, in heaven, (or 
 fixed in it) were the luminaries (supposed to be insignificant 
 in size). There dwelt the gods, the luminaries being in 
 some cases regarded as gods, or as the visible manifestations 
 of gods dwelling in them. With the Hebrews_, of course 
 God dwelt there, and the stars were often regarded as angels. 
 In earliest Hebrew times an ocean of waters was supposed 
 to be situated in this upper region, out of which came the 
 rain when the doors or " windows of heaven " were opened 
 for the purpose. Of course these beliefs varied amongst 
 difierent people and at different times. 
 
 These notions explain how the men of Babel thought they 
 could build a tower that would reach to heaven ; also the 
 language of Exod. xx. 4, " any form that is in heaven above, 
 or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under 
 the earth ; " also the language of David in 2 Sam. xxii. 8, 
 and of Job in Job xxvi. 11, as heaven was supposed to be 
 supported by the earth. (In verse 7, however, of the last- 
 named chapter, we find a change in the notion about the 
 lower waters, since it is said that '' he hangeth the earth 
 upon nothing.") Other facts might be given which illus- 
 trate these beliefs. 
 
 It is important to see that these notions lie at the very 
 foundations of this old Story of the Flood. We read them 
 clearly in Gen. vii. 11, ^' on the same day were all the 
 fountains of the great deep broken up, and the ivindoivs of 
 heaven tcere opened" In Gen. viii. 2 we have the same 
 again. Water rising from the ocean below, and water 
 coming down from the ocean above, were supposed to have 
 raised the level of the waters on which the earth rested, so 
 
The Flood. 303 
 
 as to completely cover it. Such is the event described, 
 
 and there is no such idea as the flooding of the vast surface 
 of a spherical earth. 
 
 Thus he who reads the account, thinking of the latter 
 phenomenon, is reading a story totally different from the one 
 which was in the minds of its writers. 
 
 These views explain another feature of the story. The 
 account represents, not only that the men and animals were 
 killed^ but also that the Earth itself was destroyed. In 
 Gen. vi. 13 we read, " I will destroy them with the earth " ; 
 and more plainly in Gen. ix. 12, "neither shall there any 
 more be a flood to destroy the earth." Such an earth as the 
 old notions represented^ drawn together out of the waters, 
 existing in and resting on them, would naturally be regarded 
 as utterly destroyed by such a rise of those waters, out of 
 which it was supposed to have received its very being. 
 
 It is not represented that the animals were destroyed 
 merely as a necessary consequence of the Flood, but that the 
 judgment was designedly extended to them. Gen. vi. 7, 8 : — 
 " And Jahveh said, I will blot out man whom I have 
 created from the face of the ground ; both man, and least, 
 and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth me 
 that I have made them. Eut ISToah found grace in the eyes 
 of Jahveh." Here, too, and in Gen. viii. 21, the Divine 
 anger, vexation, and acceptance of the sacrifice, are repre- 
 sented as like the emotions of a man — " And Jahveh smelled 
 the sweet savour ; and Jahveh said in his heart, I will not 
 again curse the ground any more for man's sake, etc." 
 Though these are conceived of after human thoughts, the 
 passages yet express important truths. It is better to see 
 that the story is of the same primitive character throughout, 
 for we shall then be more likely to arrive at true conclusions 
 as to the Divine meaning Avhich lies beneath it. 
 
 Again, Gen. vi. 1-5 is a strange passage. ' Sons of God ' 
 
304 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 was a Hebrew name for angels. No doubt the idea was 
 that of gods, or god-like beings, in early times ; and it was 
 believed that some such denizens of heaven had joined them- 
 selves in marriage to the daughters of men, producing giants 
 as offspring. 
 
 The event seems to be closely connected with, in fact to 
 produce, the wickedness of man, for which the Flood was 
 sent. Comparing the passage with Jude 6, 7 ; 2 Peter ii. 
 4; 1 Peter iii. 19, 20 ; also Job i. 6, 7 ; we seem to have 
 indicated here the work of evil spirits in the hearts of men. 
 
 Critics have not failed to remark on the utter impossibility 
 of the existence of such a numerous and motley group of 
 animals in a place like the Ark, of the coming of the animals 
 to Noah, etc. And until forced by Science to abandon our 
 former position, we have, with more zeal than knowledge, 
 endeavoured to make possible the impossible old story, by 
 predicating a host of miracles. The fact, however, that in the 
 narrative all is supposed to be accomplished by natural 
 means, should have taught us better. It is our cumbersome 
 way of treating all parts of the wonderful Book of God 
 alike, that leads to such mistakes — mistakes harmless 
 enough, perhaps, so far as we are concerned ; but too well 
 calculated to bring the Bible into contempt with those who 
 see these apparent defects, but do not Jmow its wonderful 
 and divine character. 
 
 But here we are compelled to own that this composition 
 belongs essentially to a primitive and ignorant age. The 
 word ' ignorant ' is not, however, a good one to use in this 
 case. If we use it, we do so much as the child of ten does 
 who calls the child of seven ' ignorant.' For, with all our 
 knowledge, we ourselves are but children, only we are rather 
 older children than our predecessors of three or four thou- 
 sand years ago. If they needed something simple and 
 ' ignorant ' to teach them the rudiments of the knowledge 
 
The Flood. 305 
 
 of God, we too require some things simple, and others very 
 symbolic, to teach us Divine truths somewhat more 
 advanced. Let us take a salutary lesson from this ; and, 
 seeing how well it is that each portion of Scripture is 
 expressed in the language and ideas of its own age, we need 
 not hesitate to admit that this old Story of the Flood was 
 primordially adjusted to, and intended for, our juniors in 
 knowledge. 
 
 It has been remarked, not at all in defence of Scripture, 
 that it is not easy to account for the widespread belief in a 
 Flood. Some writers have attributed it to the presence of 
 marine shells in the geological formations^, and to magnified 
 accounts of local floods. If we do not suppose that all people 
 till Hebrew times were left entirely without Divine light, 
 it seems very likely that some such traditions as the above 
 were so overruled as to lead men's beliefs near to spiritual 
 truth of a similar nature. Exegetes generally adopt the belief 
 that there was a partial Deluge, which is the subject of this 
 portion of Scripture, and the traditions of other nations are 
 adduced as corroborating Scripture. It is quite possible 
 that there was such a flooding of a large low-lying region, or 
 the subsidence of an island home, with destruction of tbe 
 inhabitants. The unsatisfactory part of this explanation is 
 that, with the facts of Science before us, we could not 
 suppose the flood to have destroyed all the race, unless it 
 occurred before the spreading of man over the earth, and 
 therefore before there was such an evolution of sin and of 
 civilization as we find associated with the event in the Bible. 
 But it is not necessary to abandon that view of the matter. 
 "Whilst it is not the explanation brought forward here, the 
 passage may have that as part of its meaning. 
 
 For, in accordance with the principles maintained on 
 pp. 251-253, we must not expect a complete parallel 
 between the old narrative and any one event. The passage 
 
 X 
 
3o6 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 is long, consists of four chapters, and possesses several 
 different features; each of which features may have a special 
 signification, distinct from the others. Such an economy 
 of Scripture is consistent with the principles maintained in ^ 
 the second chapter of this work ; with the exegesis adopted 
 in the two preceding chapters ; and with the experience of 
 divinely- taught students, who often read the mind of God in 
 these old Scriptures as in a parable, whilst, however, still 
 retaining belief in their historical character. 
 
 We shall find, then, without going into minor details, 
 three special significations attaching to different parts or 
 features of the narrative_, whilst the parallels between these 
 applications and the corresponding parts of the narrative are 
 not complete in all particulars. If the old story has suc- 
 ceeded in imparting these truths, or even an approximation 
 to them where they involve unfamiliar concepts, we can see 
 that it has answered its purpose. 
 
 It may help us if we take a somewhat parallel case. It 
 has already been remarked that the Book of Eevelation, 
 treating of unfamiliar subjects, necessarily uses symbols very 
 largely. If any one searches in the Book of Revelation for 
 any complete agreement of the symbolic language with the 
 facts of history, he reads his Bible in vain. But if he com- 
 pare its pages with the spirit manifested in certain pages of 
 history, present and past, also carefully observing and com- 
 paring with each other the characteristic features of these 
 Scriptures, he will find much. Let us take a case. 
 
 Students of Rev. ii., iii. have noticed striking parallels 
 between the descriptions of the Seven Churches, and the 
 successive phases of the Church's history from Apostolic 
 times to our own. But there is not complete agreement. 
 Very likely the members of those original seven churches in 
 Asia in like manner found that these epistles corresponded 
 but partially with the facts which they observed. It is 
 
The Flood. 307 
 
 natural to conclude that Kev. ii., iii. was intended jDartly to 
 apply to those seven churches, and in other respects to be pro- 
 phetic of the general history of the Church. Now it was as 
 impossible to express the truths of Gen. vi.-ix. literally, in 
 early times, as the truths of Revelation in later times. 
 
 First let us consider the ethnological parallel. In the 
 story death passes upon all men except one family. Of the 
 parent of that family come three sons who people the whole 
 Earth. What have we in a general ethnological classifi- 
 
 cation of mankind in historical times and to-day *? Anthro- 
 pologists do not all make the same divisions in minor 
 respects ; but they agree in the main divisions of mankind, 
 which is all that is important, at least to us here. A 
 classification commonly adopted gives three main divi- 
 sions : — the Ethiopian, the Mongolian, and the Caucasian or 
 Mediterranean. The first two of these divisions comprise 
 all the lower races, and the third, the Caucasian, are lords 
 of the eartli.^ This Caucasian Race consists of three 
 branches : — (1) the Hamite, represented chiefly by the ancient 
 Egyptians, who were the first to make great progress in 
 civilization and culture, far beyond any existing else- 
 where in the world at that time ; (2) the Semite, represented 
 chiefly by the Babylonians and Assyrians, who improved 
 upon the older Egyptian ; (3) the Indo-European, repre- 
 sented by Greece and Rome in the old world, and by modern 
 European nations to-day. To what extent these three branches 
 are related by family ties does not concern us much, as we 
 do not look for a strict parallel ; ' suffice it that their like- 
 ness is such that they have been classed as one race. But 
 compared with these three, or this three-branched race, all 
 
 ^ Pescliel divides mankind into seven classes ; — the Caucasian, 
 and six others which comprise .ill the lower races. 
 
 - For reasons already given, and because the simple ideas in 
 Genesis are quite inadequate to express the existing relations 
 between races, or the facts of ethnology generally. 
 
 X 2 
 
3o8 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 the races included in the other two divisions are of small 
 account. Some of these excel in numbers^ and there are 
 many grades in their civilization and culture ; but (notwith- 
 standina: certain partial exceptions, as the Chinese), 
 speaking generally it may be said that they have been 
 subjected to the death of stagnation and inferior conditions 
 of life ; whereas this Caucasian Race has had the progress, 
 the civilization, the light, the culture, the intellect, the 
 power — practically the earth is theirs — and, last but not 
 least, the Book is theirs. In that day, far back in the ages 
 past, when the rest of mankind stood almost still, this 
 Foremost Race began, and have ever since continued, their 
 marvellous career of progress. In a sense then, and a real 
 one, they alone retained the Life. 
 
 These blessings, this lordship of the Earth, seem to be 
 implied in the words, "and God blessed Noah and his 
 sons, and said unto them. Be fruitful and multiply and 
 replenish the earth " (Gen. ix. 1), also in the 8th and 9th 
 verses of the same chapter. And the agreement is 
 
 closer still. For the list of nations who peopled the Earth 
 after the Flood, as given in Gen. x., consists of members of 
 this Mediterranean Race.'^ 
 
 Hamite and Semite have, however, in the last few thousand 
 years fallen into the rear. Truly God has enlarged Japhet 
 (Gen. ix. 27), since noAv the Indo-European is far before the 
 other two. 
 
 According to the story, "the Earth was corrupt before 
 God, and the Earth was filled with violence " (Gen. vi. 11). 
 Doubtless corruption has increased since that time ; and 
 probably that aspect has more to do with the other applica- 
 tions of the passage, to be considered presently. For, as 
 before remarked, corruption is not a characteristic of the 
 lower races so much as violence is. Perhaps, too, in the 
 
 •^ There may be an insignificant exception or two ; I am not sure. 
 
The Flood. 309 
 
 ages that have passed since, their manners have been 
 softened ; and if so this feature of the passage may have 
 more special meaning than we can now learn anything 
 about from observation of men to-day. Violence in Cain ; 
 wanton violence in Lamech ; finally the Earth filled with 
 violence — this is an important feature of the brief outline 
 in Gen. iv., vi. 
 
 The application of Canaan's curse to the Negro is open to 
 doubt. The Negro belongs to one of the lower races ; and 
 if, on account of his dark colour, place of abode, and posi- 
 tion of slavery, he be considered as identified with Ham, 
 we yet fail to connect him in any way with the Canaanite, 
 with which the name Canaan seems to agree. The 
 
 God-honoured position of the Hebrews seems to be twice 
 implied : — (1) In the words " Jahveh, the God of Shem," 
 (2) in the words " God (enlarge Japhet), and let him dwell 
 in the tents of Shem " ; which seems best understood to 
 mean that God, not Japhet, was to dwell in the tents of 
 Shem ; as He may be said to have done in Hebrew history. 
 This relationship of God with the Hebrews brings us to the 
 second application of this passage about the Flood. 
 
 First, however, let us recall one fact which impressed us 
 in the third chapter of this work. After seeing how God 
 had bestowed upon all mankind the necessary preparation 
 of mind for comprehending those Divine truths which He 
 first taught the Hebrew, we saw, notwithstanding, that the 
 special blessing of receiving those truths has hitherto been 
 almost confined to the higher race of man. Does not the 
 foregoing ethnological application of this Scripture about 
 the Flood give the explanation of that fact? This does 
 not imply, of course, that such a judgment on the lower 
 races would shut out every individual from these blessings ; 
 but that exclusion from them was part of this general 
 judgment, passed on those races long ago. 
 
3IO Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 One most important feature in this Scripture is the 
 universality of the judgment. "The end of all flesh is 
 come before me. ... I will destroy them with the earth " 
 (Gen. vi. 13). Obviously, it is of little consequence whether 
 the physical earth was covered with water or not. The all- 
 important thing is universal judgment on the ivorld of men 
 for its sin. Let us consider for a moment how we use 
 
 the term " the world," and how it is used in the Xew Testa- 
 ment. We do not always refer to the physical earth when 
 we use the word. It is often used to denote Society. If a 
 person goes to an uninhabited or little-inhabited region, he 
 is said to go out of the world. If a person, while remaining 
 in the same place ^ withdraws from society, he is said to 
 withdraw from the world. The converted man who gives 
 up his old associations and manner of life, is said to give up 
 the world. In the ISTew Testament we find a somewhat 
 
 similar signification. "If ye were of the world, the world 
 Avould love its own ; but because ye are not of the world, 
 but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth 
 you " (John xv. 19). " . . they are not of the world, even as 
 I am not of the world ; I pray not that thou shouldest take 
 them out of the world ..." (John xvii. 14, 15). " God so 
 loved the world ..." (John iii. 16). So, many times, in 
 the first Epistle of John. 
 
 In most of the above cases we see that ^' the world " has 
 no reference to the physical earth, but denotes the world of 
 men regarded as one whole. And it is to this world of 
 men, taken as one icliole, that the judgment recorded in this 
 passage about the Flood in one sense relates. We need 
 but reflect that there were not, probably, in existence any 
 such mature idea and corresponding expression as this in 
 earliest Hebrew times, and we shall see that the language 
 used in Genesis was suitable and necessary for represent- 
 ing it. The idea is embodied in the account in Genesis, 
 
The Flood. 311 
 
 as becomes more apparent when we compare Scripture with 
 Scripture. 
 
 I have used the term ' dispensational ' to denote the 
 course of things as God sees them. This is the meaning 
 hei-e, inasmuch as this world (of men) held, before the Flood, 
 the important position of God's recognized j^eople on the earth 
 (see p. 283), but was never allowed that position afterwards. 
 
 Let us turn again to Revelation. The words in the 
 epistle to the church in Sardis (Eev. iii. 5), "I will in no 
 wise blot his name out of the book of life," have puzzled 
 some, seeing that a saving faith secures eternal life. We 
 need but refer, however, to the beginning of this epistle to 
 the church in Sardis (Eev. iii. 1), to see that the Speaker 
 had just blotted the name of Sardis out of his ' book of 
 life,' in the words '^ thou hast a name that thou livest, and 
 thou art dead." The faithful individual in Sardis was to 
 escajDC this general blotting out from the book of life. 
 Here it is a judgment of works, and seems to have no 
 reference to eternal life in Christ. 
 
 If, then, we should attribute special meaning to two 
 expressions in this passage in Genesis, we should find a 
 striking parallel to the passage just referred to. ^' The end 
 of all flesh is come lefore me" (Gen. vi. 13). "I will blot 
 out (marginal Hebrew reading) man whom I have created 
 from the face of the ground " (Gen. vi. 7). Before God 
 the world ceases to exist ; it is blotted out of His book. 
 We have seen that in Gen. v. the inhabitants of the earth 
 are distinctly recognized as God's people. Also the words 
 in Gen. vi. 3, '' My spirit shall not rule (or abide) in man 
 for ever (marginal reading) . . . yet shall his days be 120 
 years," seem to have a like import. It now remains to be 
 shown that the world is never allowed that place after the 
 Flood. 
 
 In Deut. xiv. 2 we read concerning Israel, " And Jehovah 
 
312 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, out 
 of all peoples that are upon the face of the earth." We 
 have the same thing in Exod. xix. 5, and Ps. exxxv. 4 ; 
 also in Amos iii. 1, 2, ^' children of Israel . . . you onhj 
 have I known of all the families of the earth ; therefore I 
 will visit upon you all your iniquities " (since 'whom the 
 Lord loveth he chasteneth,''' whereas because of their sins 
 '■ Cometh the ivrath of God upon the sons of disobedience ' "''). 
 This clearly shows that God does not acknowledge the world 
 as His people, but Israel only (at that time). 
 
 When we read Gen. ix. alone, we gather the impression 
 that Noah's descendants were to have all that before 
 belonged to the ante-diluvian world. But on reading the 
 Bible through we jBnd that God never again associates His 
 name with the world after its rejection at the Flood ; after- 
 wards He has to do with Israel alone. AVe have seen, 
 moreover, that that part of Gen ix. appears to relate to 
 those earthly blessings which have been conferred on tlie 
 three-branched Mediterranean race, raising them so far 
 above the rejected lower races ; so appertaining only to the 
 ethnological application of this Scripture passage about the 
 Flood. 
 
 The only place where we again find the world the subject 
 of Scripture treatment in this part of the Bible, is the 11th 
 chapter of Genesis. There we read of ^ the whole earth ' 
 being of one speech, trying to make themselves a name and 
 a position, by building a city, and a tower icliose top should 
 reach to heaven, lest they should be scattered abroad upon the 
 face of the whole earth (Gen. xi. 4). But does this passage 
 imply a rejection of the post-diluvian world similar to that 
 of the first world 1 It appears rather to imply an attempt 
 on the part of man to make a position to which he had no 
 
 -» Heb. xii. 6. '" Eph. v. 6. 
 
The Flood. 313 
 
 right before God, and that therefore his efforts are defeated. 
 He seeks a heavenly position, whereas God will allow him 
 no such position, or relations with Himself. On the con- 
 trary God Himself gives Israel its position. In Gen. xii. 
 1, 2 we read^ "Now Jehovah said nnto Ahram, Get thee out 
 of thy country . . . and I will make of thee a great nation, 
 and I will bless thee, and make thy name great." lUit as 
 to the position before God of the people of the earth after 
 the Flood — the world — this has changed ; it no longer figures 
 in Scripture as God's people ; it has come to an end in His 
 sight. He never again recognizes the world of men as His 
 own world. It has no such place before God ; He has 
 blotted it out of the book of life. 
 
 In subsequent Scripture history, other nations are noticed 
 only where they come in contact with Israel. In another 
 position, however, ' the world ' is referred to in the New 
 Testament ; but that is not God's world ; it is an evil world 
 with which He has nothing to do but to judge it. In Jolm 
 iii. 17 it is a lost world which the Son of God comes to 
 save. Now He saves, and has relations with, individuals 
 only (the ' whosoever ' of verse 16). I suppose the world 
 itself will be saved in that sense in miUenial days. 
 
 But is this not an ideal judgment? Not altogether idealj 
 seeing how people now wonder why certain things are 
 allowed to be, or why they are, in the world ; which is 
 sometimes called God's w^orld. The Divine ideal is apt to 
 be followed by what man considers real. Similarly there 
 are many things which people cannot understand, which 
 they might find explained in the Scripture, and in its prin- 
 ciples. This does not mean that God has nothing whatever 
 to do with the present course of things. In 1 Tim. iv. 10 it 
 is said that " the living God is the Saviour," or, as another 
 translation gives it, " preserver^ of all men," 
 
 Still these two applications of this passage about the 
 
314 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Flood do noL deem to fully satisfy its language. The dread- 
 ful judgment of which we there read, as poured out on all 
 men for their iniquity, seems to imply something more ; 
 and, considering all the circumstances of the case, I think 
 we shall not be wrong in assuming that what the lake of 
 fire is in the present world's eschatology, the iiood of waters 
 was in that of the old world. 
 
 That so very little knowledge is exhibited throughout the 
 Old Testament as to anything after bodily death, is sufficient 
 reason why such a judgment should be expressed in lan- 
 guage limited to the present life. All that we know about 
 the fiery judgment on the wicked is necessarily conceived in 
 terms relating to natural fire, though we do not suppose it 
 to be that ; and if we trace the growth of that knowledge, 
 we find links connecting it with certain Old Testament 
 passages where it is first foreshadowed — such passages as 
 Mai. iv. 1, Zeph. iii. 8, Joel ii. 30, 31 ; which use language 
 expressing physical things, but may not improbably relate 
 to this judgment on the soul. In 2 Peter iii. 5-7, which 
 uses the language of the Old Testament, we find the judg- 
 ment on the old world connected with that on the present 
 world : — " . . . there were heavens from of old, and an earth 
 compacted out of water and amidst water, by the v/ord of 
 God ; by which means the tvorld that then waSj being over- 
 flowed with water, perished ; but the heavens that now are, 
 and the earth j by the same word have been stored up for 
 fire, being reserved against the day of judgment, and de- 
 struction of ungodly men." Here, undoubtedly, the language 
 refers throughout to physical things, and if it be held that 
 its application must be limited to these, 1 do not wish 
 to insist on something different. 
 
 Not before the New Testament do we read of judgment 
 by fire as relating to the soul. The language of Rev. xx. 
 11-15 may be taken as applying to all the wicked who have 
 ever lived on the earth, or as having nothing to do with the 
 
The Flood. 315 
 
 ante-diluvian world. The lake of lire is twice said to be — 
 as regards man — the second death (Rev. xx. 14, xxi. 8). A 
 little reflexion will show that this second death, the lake of 
 fire, may well have its parallel in the old world in a ' second 
 death ' by water ; in both cases these terms being the most 
 appropriate to convey an idea of the reality. Both, more- 
 over, are additional judgments, not included in the loss of 
 eternal life, which, as we saw in the last chapter, passed on 
 the human race in consequence of the first sin. The lake 
 of fire is a special judgment for man's iniquity, as we are 
 taught in the I^ew Testament ; and the Flood was a special 
 judgment for iniquity, as we are told in Genesis. But 
 rather than dogmatize on any of these matters, I would, 
 having laid these points before the reader, leave him to form 
 his own judgment. 
 
 But it should be added that we must be slow to assume, 
 as to these three applications of the passage about the Flood, 
 that the events occurred simultaneously, or were subject to 
 any arbitrary time-division. Bearing in mind the group- 
 ings of the works of creation w^hich constitute the Days of 
 Gen. i., the use of the term ' hour ' in John v. 25, and other 
 considerations before named, we see that the divisions here 
 may be of a nature more fundamental than mere arbitrary 
 point of time. 
 
 The Tower of Balx?! and the confusion of tongues. — It has 
 already been remarked that the letter of this passage cannot 
 be reconciled with known scientific fact. There never was 
 a time when all the inhabitants of the Earth thus dwelt to- 
 gether, building cities, and speaking one language. We 
 have also seen in the sixth chapter of this work, that the 
 story itself originated in Chaldea, like the others already 
 discussed. But when we remember that, here as elsewhere, 
 not the letter but the spirit of the passage is alone important, 
 difficulty vanishes. 
 
 We have recently had occasion to notice one aspect of the 
 
3i6 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 passage (p. 312). In that aspect of course we do not sup- 
 pose that the ' men of Babel ' understood the significance of 
 that figure in God's sight. Now, however, we have to treat 
 of their own thoughts and deeds. This much is clear, that 
 there was human self-exaltation, apparently with a spirit of 
 opposition to, or setting themselves above, the Deity. There 
 could be all this without a knowledge of the oneness of 
 G od, as afterwards revealed to the Hebrews ; for we find 
 much the same thing in Nebuchadnezzar. Dan. iv. 29, 
 30, represents him as walking in his palace and saying, ^ Is 
 not this great Babylon, which I have built for the royal 
 dwelling-place, by the might of my power, and for the 
 glory of my majesty "? ' As we read in Dan. iii., he makes 
 an image and sets it above all the gods, in that he commands 
 everyone to worship it. Again 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4 states that 
 one is yet to come who 'opposeth and exalteth himself 
 against all that is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that 
 he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as 
 God.' Such is the kind of spirit that was first manifested 
 in the people represented by the men of Babel. That spirit 
 may not have been common to all the people then on the 
 earth ; suflBce it that such were those who represented the 
 head and greatness of the world. In such a case a differ- 
 ence arising in the language (which may have been a gra- 
 dual process) may well have had to do with the separation 
 of the people, and of the power they constituted. But the 
 more important feature doubtless is, that their greatness 
 was levelled, in judgment for their pride and self- exaltation. 
 The confusion of tongues seems also to have a Scriptural 
 connexion with the opposite course of things which we find 
 in Acts ii. 1-4. 
 
 This passage, and the subsequent genealogy of Abram 
 from the God-honoured Shem, bring us to the end of that 
 portion of the Bible which treats of events before the 
 
The Flood. 317 
 
 beginning of Hebrew times, and is thus altogether pre- 
 historical. 
 
 General Summary. 
 
 Two revelations have come from God to man — the Bible, 
 and the Book of Nature which Science undertakes to read. 
 Modern Science has revealed certain apparent discrepancies 
 between these two books, the first result of which has been 
 a resisting of Science by theologians. Astronomy and 
 Geology, both at first resisted, maintained their ground and 
 were finally accepted by all. The Theory of Evolution, 
 which now occupies the contested position, is in like manner 
 being recognized on all hands. The concurrent testimony of 
 many independent sciences in favour of the Evolution 
 Theory is overwhelming ; but this is true only of the general 
 fact of Evolution. Common sense and logical science testify 
 that the forces of Nature must be but instruments in the 
 hands of a Creator, to whose will the whole is to be attri- 
 buted. This conclusion receives further confirmation from 
 the present position of the Evolution Theory, inasmuch as 
 nearly all men of science are agreed as to the fact of evolu- 
 tion, whilst there is great diversity of opinion in regard to 
 the factors in the process. When we interpret Nature we 
 should take account of the ivlwle of Nature, and at its head 
 we find Man, whose mind, will, and ways regulate the course 
 of many things. It is therefore quite natural to assume that 
 God in like manner takes an active part in the course of 
 events (both in the world of men and in nature outside of 
 man), not miraculously opposing the forces of Nature, but 
 regulating them at the source, controlling and directing 
 them in a uatural way, as He chooses. But it does uot 
 follow from this that every minor event is the result of 
 special Design, some of these being merely contingent results 
 of the more important processes. 
 
Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 Whatever be the precise relation of God to Nature, we 
 should naturally expect that His control of natural agencies 
 would be an action of the Unseen upon the Seen. Even 
 the mind of man is invisible. Observation of the physio- 
 logical processes concerned in the voluntary motion of a 
 human limb, can never reveal the volition which was its 
 unseen cause ; every motion appears to be the necessary 
 result of some visible cause. Similarly in Nature — without 
 entertaining any pantheistic notions — we might expect the 
 mind of God to be invisible ; and consequently those who 
 build their philosophy wholly on wdiat they can see, would 
 inevitably be brought to such conclusions as that of ''natural 
 evolution' — the universe must appear to them as a vast 
 system of machinery. Some believe in ' natural evolution ' 
 as God's appointed means of carrying out His purposes ; but, 
 though this theory is not necessarily opposed to the doctrines 
 of Scripture, the foregoing conclusion is much preferable, 
 much more natural. 
 
 To the believer in Scripture, Evolution presents at first 
 sight graver difficulties than either Astronomy or Geology 
 does ; but, as this work undertakes to show, the antithesis 
 is only apparent, not real ; whilst there are satisfactory 
 reasons why the language of Genesis should be such as it is. 
 It is a fatal mistake to resist the truth of Evolution on 
 religious grounds. Scepticism, so much increased of late 
 years, is confirmed by such a course. 
 
 The notion is prevalent that meaning is inherent in 
 language, and that language can exist without having first 
 been made. But the fact is that all meaning lies within 
 the mind, that ideas are formed first, and language 
 comes into existence only as it is required for com- 
 municating those ideas. All language is nothing more 
 than a system of symbols, whose only office is to call 
 \\\) the mental states. Therefore there is no common 
 
The Flood. 319 
 
 language unless there is community of ideas. Strictl}^ 
 speaking, everyone has a peculiar language of his own ; 
 and, as minds dififer much, these peculiar languages 
 differ, and ever must differ, considerably. Therefore there 
 could be no Bible quite suited to every reader ; its language 
 could only be such as to call up as close an approximation 
 as possible to the desired ideas, in the widely-different 
 minds of all mankind. For this reason many different 
 kinds of literature are adopted in the Bible. It w^as 
 not prepared specially for ourselves, or any other class of 
 people. 
 
 In this case the meaning, the Word of God, is part of the 
 Mind of God, which has to be communicated to the mind of 
 man, the langaage of Scripture being nothing more than a 
 series of symbols designed and arranged for this purpose. 
 It is no part of the Bible's mission to teach science, which 
 man can acquire by his own efforts. Its object is to teach 
 spiritual truth only. Of all kinds of knowledge this spiritual 
 truth is the most difficult to impart to man ; it differs in 
 nature from ordinary knowledge, and it is of many kinds. 
 Since, therefore, the object of the Bible is to teach truths 
 of this higher order, and of various kinds, to minds of all 
 classes, its excellence must essentially consist in its suitability 
 for this purpose. 
 
 The universal course of things is a natural and gradual 
 one, as we find it manifested throughout Nature and also in 
 the spiritual work of God in the hearts of men — two depart- 
 ments wdiicli fill the whole region accessible to observation. 
 The only reason for departure from this natural and gradual 
 process would be that of special necessity, or as a special 
 proof of God's action. This natural course of things held 
 therefore in Hebrew history, miracle being the special ex- 
 ception. It was, above al], necessary that the spiritual 
 work of God amongst the Hebrews, which was connected 
 
320 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 with the writing of the Bible, should be natural and 
 thorough. There miracle would have done harm. 
 
 The conclusions of this work are based on this fact — that 
 the normal course of God's actions is natural : He does not 
 usually work by miraculous interference. 
 
 When two things have to work together, they must fit 
 into each other in their working parts, a state of affairs 
 which can be produced only by evolution. Therefore a com- 
 plete Bible could not be delivered to man all at once. Its 
 delivery necessarily involves a gradual process of adaptation, 
 Scripture and the mind of man being moulded by each other, 
 little by little. The two must grow up together. This is 
 in some measure true also of the relation between the mind 
 of man and the mind of God. 
 
 But two things cannot grow up together in mutual adjust- 
 ment without being first placed in contact. Therefore man 
 is brought sufficiently near to God to produce contact; which 
 consists in man's knowledge of general truths about God, 
 such as civilized nations have. Thus a channel is formed 
 along which deeper divine knowledge can flow, as it does 
 flow in the Christian's case, so that his mind grows together 
 with God's mind in a closer way. 
 
 But this general knowledge about God could not be im- 
 parted to man without a pre-existing basis : man must have 
 some conceptions of a Deity before he could comj^rehend 
 those truths. The conception of gods constituted such a 
 basis; it arose largely through the effects produced on 
 primitive men by physical phenomena. This was very 
 different in its o^Yn origin from corrupt idolatry, into which 
 it was afterwards degraded ; at first it was ignorance and 
 mis-directed reverence (though the worshippers themselves 
 may not have been free from evil). As the Athenians 
 ignorantly worshipped the U7ilinown God (Acts xvii. 23), so 
 with more sincerity was this worship of superior Powers an 
 
The Flood. 321 
 
 ignorant form of worship of the true God. There is no 
 doubt that God's Hand was in it, guiding the development 
 of the conception of the god, preparatory for (he knowledge 
 of God Himself. He prepared that basis amongst all peoples 
 on the earth, purified and developed that conception amongst 
 the Hebrews into the true conception of God, teaching them 
 a full knowledge of Himself, and then commissioned them 
 to instruct the already- prepared heathens. 
 
 Scripture was delivered little by little to the Hebrews, 
 and, as they passed through great social changes and 
 gradually progressed in knowledge, its literature differs 
 much. It was necessary that the writers of Scripture 
 should be like the people, and should express themselves 
 in the literature of the day, in order to reach the popular 
 mind. The result of their writings was to increase divine 
 knowledge in the people, and that in its turn produced 
 other writers fit to receive further revelation from God — a 
 process which was repeated again and again. This growth 
 of the people in divine knowledge was quite as important as 
 the writing of the Bible ; neither could proceed without 
 the other. 
 
 We might therefore expect much ethically defective 
 language in the early parts of the Bible ; but, as it was 
 intended for the use of enlightened people in after ages, 
 every serious defect of language has been removed, and the 
 minor ones which remain are cancelled by later Scriptures, 
 written in fuller light. Miraculous inspiration of the 
 writers would not have been at all effective : not only 
 would great miracles have been required for this, but it 
 would have impeded, instead of furthering, the progress of 
 truth. Defective knowledge, whether spiritual or scientific, 
 on the part of the writers of Scripture, may be freely 
 admitted. 
 
 Before we can form a true judgment of the Scriptures 
 
 Y 
 
322 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 we must know the work which they had first to do, and we 
 can know this only by inquiring into the condition of the 
 Hebrews at different periods. It is specially important to 
 know what their condition and knowledge of spiritual truth 
 were in the very earliest times. The characters of Rahab_, 
 Jael, and others, clearly show that they were then in a 
 crude social state, so that they required a long training in 
 the principles of the Law before they were fit to learn the 
 Grace of God. The Hebrew upon whom such teaching had 
 taken most effect, was the fittest subject to learn something 
 of God's merciful character, and hence to write Psalms. 
 At a later date, the one who had been instructed and softened 
 by the Psalms and the historical records of God's dealings 
 with Israel, was fitted to learn more from God, and then to 
 write such truths as are expressed in the Prophetical Books. 
 The latter further prepared the way for the teachings of 
 Christ. 
 
 Moses had not perfect knowledge of God, but was none 
 the less efi'ective as a spiritual power among the early 
 Hebrews. In those days spiritual truths could enter the 
 mind only Avhen associated with ideas of material things ; 
 neither the abstract ideas, nor the language that expresses 
 them, having yet come into existence. Consequently, there 
 is strong reason to suppose that portions of the Books of 
 the Law are the expressions of traditionary beliefs, which 
 were so guided by God as to embody spiritual truths, and 
 present them in a form such that Hebrew readers could 
 most readily apprehend them. The man Moses is of little 
 moment, the principles of the Law are the Word of God. 
 These principles, and the active part taken by God in 
 fostering their growth, and in the people's history at that 
 time — He being present among them, and w^atching over 
 them — are the important realities, which the language of 
 those Books is well suited to impress upon the reader. In 
 
Tpie Flood. 323 
 
 some cases, therefore, Moses may be merely the figure under 
 which such truths are presented. Biblical criticism reveals 
 facts relating to date of composition of parts of the Books 
 of the Law in their present form, and also some other 
 facts, which tend to lead us to this conclusion. The 
 method of inculcating spiritual truths by means of narra- 
 tives, such as we find in the beginning of the Old Testament, 
 is suited to readers in the present day, as well as to early 
 Hebrew readers. 
 
 The Hebrews were originally Polytheists, possessing no 
 more knowledge, or even conception of the nature, of God, 
 than the other early nations had. Jephthah evidently 
 regarded Jehovah in the same light as Chemosh the god of 
 the Ammonites ; he also positively believed that He delighted 
 in human sacrifices ! We saw before that there must 
 
 be the conception of the god before there could be that of 
 the God ; and examination of certain Scripture passages (such 
 as this one about Jephthah) reveals the fact that God first 
 introduced Himself to the Hebrews in the name, and under 
 the likeness, of one of their gods, Jahveh. That conception 
 was the raw material, which required to be slowly developed, 
 purified, and modified, till the true nature of God, who was 
 still called Jahveh or Jehovah, was made known. The 
 Hebrews first thought of the Deity vaguely as the Elohim ; 
 then as Jahveh, one of the Elohim ; eventually (under both 
 names) as God such as He is. But full knowledge of 
 
 God was not necessary for a considerable attainment of 
 spiritual truth, or for saintliness of character ; so that we find 
 such qualities in Moses and David, and faith in the Patri- 
 archs. 
 
 All the theological systems of other nations completely 
 failed when tested, because they were human ; but the 
 testing of the Hebrew theology was the means of proving 
 its Divine origin. It alone stood the test, and the power 
 
 V 9 
 
324 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 that was within it caused it to take deeper root and flourish 
 more and more. 
 
 It was absolutely necessary that the Hebrews, and man- 
 kind after them, should understand the principle of the 
 great Atoning Sacrifice. It was indispensable that the 
 Hebrew mind should be gradually prepared for this ; the 
 preparation was accomplished by means of the ancient 
 sacrificial ritual. In the Law we find the germs of other 
 important truths which were not fully understood before 
 the coming of Christ. Thus we see the important part 
 which was played by such ceremonies. 
 
 It was also necessary that at the time when Christ came 
 the Jews should be expecting such a Person. Otherwise 
 He would, humanly speaking, have had no followers. Such 
 prophecies of His coming as there are in the Old Testament 
 Scriptures, were not sufficient for this purpose ; also they 
 were written hundreds of years before. To produce this 
 expectant attitude was the work of the Book of Enoch. 
 
 It was equally necessary that Jewish thought should 
 be occupied with the unseen world, and the subject of 
 Eschatology ; because otherwise the teachings of Christ 
 could not have been understood and appreciated. To 
 develop such thoughts amongst the Jews was also the 
 work of the Book of Enoch. Whilst this Book is not a 
 work of the same class as the Scriptures, it nevertheless 
 contains spiritual truth. It served as a preparation for better 
 things to follow. 
 
 There is no Scriptural authority for asserting that the 
 writers of Scripture were habitually endowed with know* 
 ledge in advance of their times, or with knowledge which 
 their minds had not been prepared to receive. None of us 
 can apprehend new truths of a nature totally strange to us ; 
 we must liave some pre-existing ideas of a similar kind. 
 We accordingly do not find that the writers of Scripture 
 
The Flood. 325 
 
 were habitually inspired in a miraculous manner, or that 
 they were the subjects of unlimited revelation ; but we find 
 evidence that they were duly prepared by natural means 
 for the work which they had to do. In the Old 
 
 Testament there are many passages which seem at first 
 sight to be merely historical, but which we know possess a 
 typical, prophetic, or other special signification, In many 
 of these cases it is certain that the human writers did not 
 understand the special import which God attached to their 
 words. Moreover, we find that passages written by different 
 hands fit into each other and form wholes, in a manner 
 which shows that their writings were controlled and 
 directed by the unseen Hand of God. Much of the 
 wonderful economy of the early Old Testament Scriptures 
 is due to this process, the writers of that age having had 
 little spiritual knowledge of their own. 
 
 Early writers could not have more than approximate per- 
 ceptions of spiritual truths, and their writings could not 
 directly express more than they apprehended. In the 
 course of ages those approximate perceptions approached 
 nearer and nearer to the ultimate truths, and 'pari passu 
 there was evolved language suitable for the expression of 
 those clearer thoughts. For this reason spiritual truths 
 could be conveyed in early times only by means of 
 narratives, but in later times there were words expressing 
 the abstract ideas, so that in the New Testament truths are 
 expressed literally to a much greater extent. It must 
 
 also be remembered that the truths of Scripture are of such 
 a nature that a writer could not express them without at 
 the same time presenting a large proportion of his own 
 thoughts. Consequently, if in some cases those thoughts 
 were ignorant thoughts, the ignorance would necessarily 
 appear in conjunction with the divine truth, just as the 
 writer's Orientalisms would. The one is not essentially 
 
326 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 more derogatory to Scripture than the other is. This 
 applies more to the Old Testament; because, as just re- 
 marked, thoughts were much more matured when the New 
 Testament was written, and there was language suitable 
 to express these truths literally. It is a complete mis- 
 
 take to look down on the inferior knowledge of early 
 writers and call them ignorant. We are in like manner 
 ignorant considered in the light of future superior 
 knowledge. 
 
 Again, it may seem that if the early parts of the Bible 
 are devoted to the rudiments of the knowledge of God, and 
 were specially adjusted to the early Hebrew, they must be 
 of little use in the present day. But this is a mistake. 
 Not only are they most useful to the missionary in heathen 
 lands, but ,they are equally useful in the Christian 
 education of children amongst ourselves. By their means 
 the very foundations of our own knowledge were laid . 
 
 Herein we see the admirable structure of the Bible, its 
 early parts being so well adjusted to beginners, its 
 successive books becoming richer and richer in spiritual 
 truths, its ending deep beyond all human depth. 
 
 Moreover, even those early Scriptures are rich in 
 spiritual truths, some conspicuous, others hidden. He who 
 reads them, searching for the Mind of God, will not find 
 them soon exhausted. Notwithstanding the crudeness of 
 the language, sometimes so manifest, he will thus be richly 
 rewarded. Their divine truths do not lie in the letter so 
 much as clustered about the letter. The narratives are 
 like trees richly laden with celestial fruit. It is ungrateful 
 and unwise to complain that the shape of the trees and 
 branches does not suit our taste. Much better to pluck the 
 fruit. 
 
 As Scripture was not intended to teach Science, it is a 
 mistake to look for such teaching in it. The true standard 
 
The Flood. 327 
 
 of its excellence is its capacity for imparting spiritual truth. 
 As our learned men write books in language suited for 
 children, so has God been careful to make His truths in- 
 telligible to all. Whilst there is abundant evidence of 
 superior scientific knowledge manifested in the Account of 
 the Creation and elsewhere, this principle — the principle 
 on which all books are written — cannot be too strongly 
 insisted on. In this, the only true light, the Bible is a 
 perfect instrument — perfect with a divine perfection. 
 
 Bearing well in mind the two conclusions, (1) that God 
 works by natural means everywhere, (2) that, accordingly, 
 the writers of Scripture wrote naturally, and were not 
 automata miraculously inspired ; we have to consider how 
 the writers of the opening chapters of the Bible could most 
 naturally and most effectually have acquired and diffused 
 their information. Obviously, the first essential to 
 the diffusion of such truth would be some congruent 
 beliefs already existing amongst the people, and the 
 writer who embodied and presented in an improved 
 form such beliefs^ would be the most effectual agent. In 
 other words the one thing needful in the beginning was a 
 slow and general growth of such ideas and beliefs amongst 
 the people — ideas and beliefs divinely guided, fostered, and 
 purified. And, after comparing the traditions about the 
 Creation,, etc., which were current among the early Eastern 
 nations^, we are brought to the conclusion that there was 
 such a divine leading of traditionary beliefs ; beginning in 
 the very earliest times, probably before the separation of 
 races, limited first to the Semites and then to the Hebrews, 
 amongst whom these beliefs eventually gave place to 
 Revelation, for which they had prepared the way. The first 
 eleven chapters of Genesis consist almost entirely of such 
 divinely-led traditionary beliefs. We have seen that whilst 
 those chapters are replete with spiritual truths, these do 
 
328 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 not lie in the literal meaning of the words so much as 
 clustered about it, so as to enter the mind of the simple 
 reader. Certain references in the New Testament, which 
 appear to insist on the strictly historical character of those 
 passages, present at first sight some difficulty, but this dis- 
 appears when the question is fully examined. 
 
 By means of this divine guidance of Hebrew traditionary 
 beliefs, and of other special control over the selection of 
 subjects, expressions used^ etc., a great efficiency has been 
 secured for these important opening chapters of the Eible. 
 Thus, though the language of Gen. i. corresponds to the 
 ideas of a crude and unscientific age, there is yet manifested 
 a marvellous general agreement with the revelations of 
 Science, such as can be accounted for only by a divine 
 origin. Where there is not complete agreement, this is 
 partly due to the crudeness of the ideas of the age when 
 the account was composed, which were not suited to express 
 the facts very accurately ; and partly due to the fact that 
 Gen. i. presents GocVs view of the Creation, the main 
 object being to teach spiritual truth ; whereas Science 
 reveals the physical aspect and the process of Creation. 
 Physical Science is a knowledge of the outside appearance 
 of things, and is therefore of the same essential nature as 
 the early ideas which it has replaced.*^ But Genesis deals 
 rather with the effects produced on the human mind, which 
 psychology shows to be the ultimate elements of all know- 
 ledge — whatever other realities there be, Mind is the greatest 
 knowable reality. Perhaps, therefore, not only on religious 
 but also on other grounds, the aspect of Creation which 
 Scripture presents is more important than that of which 
 Science takes account. 
 
 A critical examination of Gen. i. reveals also the prin- 
 
 •^ The study of appearances has, however, revealed 'principles 
 to which this statement does not apply. 
 
The Flood. 329 
 
 ciples on which the account was drawn up, and a marvellous 
 economy appears in the way in which the crude ideas of an 
 early age were built together by God, so as to express a 
 maximum of spiritual truths suitably for readers of all 
 ages. 
 
 Man was not created by a miraculous process, but by a 
 divinely-controlled process of evolution. But from the 
 fact that there was an intermediate animal-stage we must 
 not infer that man is a developed animal, or that there is 
 any closer connection between man and the animal than 
 that to which observation testifies. Science fails to give 
 any real account of the genesis of the human soul. Several 
 New Testament Scriptures teach that that genesis is not 
 identical with the physical process of reproduction. The 
 human Consciousness, more reliable than Reason, testifies 
 against any relationship with the animal. Gen. ii. 7 
 and other Scriptures clearly teach that man received his 
 being from God Himself, 
 
 The difficulty of accounting for the truly human qualities 
 of man is acknowledged by evolutionists, so that some of 
 them believe that these were produced by means of a 
 special spiritual influx. This undoubtedly embodies the 
 real facts of the case ; but, without knowing the relation of 
 God. to Nature — doubtless a close one — we cannot say pre- 
 cisely in what manner man at first received^ or how every 
 individual now receives, his being from God. 
 
 The narrative in Gen. ii., iii. has long been regarded as 
 partly allegorical. Considering the date of its composition, 
 and the spiritual nature of the truths which it is obviously 
 intended to inculcate, it is more rational — as it is more 
 consistent — to conclude that it is ivholhj allegorical. We 
 are forced to some such conclusion by what Science has 
 revealed of the upward progress of man. And when we 
 compare the narrative with the history and conditions of 
 
330 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 life of primeval man, we find an agreement in certain par- 
 ticulars. The narrative in Gen. i. represents Elohim as 
 calling things into existence one after another during a 
 period of six days ; it has been called a carpenter-like 
 account of the Creation. But though on the surface it 
 appears unscientific, a closer examination reveals a mar- 
 vellous general agreement with the conclusions of Science, 
 and the principle of evolution is clearly discerned. It is 
 much the same with Gen. ii., iii. There is a fall from 
 better conditions and privileges in consequence of sin, im- 
 plying the loss of eternal life and other blessings which 
 were intended for man. But, though the language used 
 was necessary in that age for conveying this important 
 truth, as nearly as it could be apprehended, Genesis does 
 not give glowing descriptions of Paradise, such as we find 
 in the other Eastern traditions. The first of the human 
 race are in fact presented as children of nature, naked, living 
 in a garden, upon the fruits of the trees ; and when we 
 compare this with the conclusions of Science as to the very 
 earliest conditions of the human race — remembering how 
 primeval man's constitution was adjusted to his own envi- 
 ronment — we find an agreement in some respects at least. 
 Parts of Gen. ii., iii. — such as some of the judgments passed 
 on the man and woman— have long been regarded as apply- 
 ing to man and woman generally, not merely to the first 
 pair. The whole passage applies to the race, the history of 
 ' the man ' representing that of the race. But the parallel 
 is not intended to be complete, the chief object being to 
 impart, in the most eff'ectual manner, the sjnritual history 
 of man. Thus many spiritual and other truths are ex- 
 pressed or implied : — the first natural out-of-door life, the 
 beginnings of speech and of clothing, followed in Gen. iv. 
 by the progress of civilization ; the beginning of sin, and 
 its increase (in Gen. iv.-vi.) ; the (gradual) process of 
 
The Flood. 33 ^ 
 
 the formation of the soul of man, and thereout of the soul 
 of woman, with the mutual relation of the sexes, implied 
 in the story of the rib ; the sacred character of the marriage- 
 tie ; the (unseen) presence of God amongst, and His interest 
 in, His creatures, till sin caused alienation ; the temptation 
 presented (inwardly) to the human heart by the devil, and 
 the yielding thereto ; the opening of the eyes to the know- 
 ledge of right and wrong ; the change in man's mode of life 
 to a life of labour, eating bread instead of natural fruits ; 
 the forfeiture of the life and spiritual blessings which God 
 intended for man — these and other truths, so difficult to im- 
 part to the human mind, at least in that age, are conveyed 
 by means of familiar language and concrete pictures, in this 
 short narrative and following ones. 
 
 The 4th chapter of Genesis continues both the spiritual 
 history and the upward progress, begun in Gen. ii., iii. 
 
 The Story of the Flood presents many difficulties. No 
 one who is acquainted with these, believes that the earth 
 was entirely covered with water. Most theologians hold 
 that the deluge was a partial one. Without necessarily 
 abandoning that view of the matter, we find two important 
 applications of different parts and aspects of the narrative, 
 and also strong reason for attributing an eschatological 
 signification to the passage. 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 If the reader objects that in the foregoing commentary on 
 Gen. i.-xi., important departures from the apparent sub- 
 stance of the text have sometimes been taken, he will on 
 reconsideration find that these are changes of form only, and 
 not of substance— departures from the letter, whilst the spirit 
 is maintained. Obviously, since, in some instances at least, 
 the letter is quite untenable, it is not of vital importance 
 that the explanations offered should be everywhere entirely 
 
332 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 correct in their form. The all-important thing is that the 
 spirit of each Scripture, which is its vital part, its real 
 meaning, which alone is the Word of God, should be duly 
 maintained. This never has clashed with the revelations of 
 Science ; it never will, and never can. 
 
 The more one pursues this subject, the more one is con- 
 vinced, that wherever there is a passage of historical cha- 
 racter in the Bible, the reader who has read it as historical 
 fact has, in the act of doing so, read the Word of God ; and 
 that if Science shows the letter of that passage to be un- 
 tenable, its Divine meaning is a truth of the same order as 
 what the simple reader gathers— so much like it that, wher- 
 ever the difficulty seems inexplicable, one may safely be 
 satisfied with that conclusion. Science, as elsewhere re- 
 marked, will never, if rightly taken, lead away from the 
 truths of Scripture ; but will afford the means of arriving 
 more closely at their nature, and at the true essence of 
 those Avords which God has spoken to us, and which " are 
 spirit J' 
 
 Much that has been said in this work will, perhaps, give 
 offence to some readers. Such readers will be of the class 
 for whom, as stated in the Preface, the work was never 
 intended. For it will be those readers who best know the 
 divine origin of the Bible, who have read most of the Word 
 of God, who have received most of its spirit — which is 
 unconsciously reflected by their minds, so that the letter is 
 credited with what is not its own — and who therefore love 
 their Bible most, who will oppose any such departures from 
 the letter as are here maintained. They will be the readers 
 who will not accept, and perhaps are strangers to, such of 
 the teachings of modern science as are well known by 
 others to be established truth ; whilst they will, perhaps, 
 be slow to admit that these departures are, after all, changes 
 in form only, and not in substance. But they will be the 
 
The Flood. 333 
 
 best of men ; and, as such, it is matter of regret that the 
 contents of this work should have their censure. But there 
 are others, many others, who do not know what these do 
 know, and who do know what these do not know ; and if 
 this work yields light to them, the censure of the former 
 class will be outweighed thereby. 
 
 There are others, Christian readers, who, knowing both 
 the truths of modern science and the Divine origin of the 
 Bible, have arrived at many of the conclusions brought 
 forward in this work. But with regard to others of these 
 conclusions, it may appear to them that the author has erred, 
 in attributing a present-day meaning to many vScriptures 
 which served their purpose only in teaching the Hebrew long 
 ago. The author would be slow to say that he has altogether 
 escaped such mistakes. 
 
 Still it is his belief that, whilst the older views on 
 Inspiration attributed to the Bible a verbal integrity and 
 perfection which it does not possess, the modern views fail 
 to credit it with a spiritual integrity and perfection which 
 it does possess. 
 
 Moreover, the author's own endeavours to express many 
 of the thoughts which he has wished to submit to the reader, 
 have impressed him with the profoundest admiration for the 
 language of these early chapters of Genesis. He has often 
 feared that, in cases where he has endeavoured to express his 
 thoughts literally, the desired idea will not be called up in 
 the reader's mind ; or that in other eases he has failed to 
 avoid giving erroneous impressions. His reflexion naturally 
 has been : Oh that I could express myself nearly as well 
 as the Author of Genesis has done — a sentiment which the 
 reader has perhaps echoed. In cases that model has been 
 copied. 
 
 Of these passages in Genesis which have thus excited 
 the author's admiration, the Account of the Creation has 
 
334 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 impressed him much ; but not so much as the Old Story 
 which has too long been supposed to stand in opposition to 
 the Evolution Theory — the Story of the Garden and the 
 Fall. 
 
 rinally_, the author is not very anxious that the reader 
 should accept all the minor conclusions brought forward in 
 this work. But with its leading principles the case is 
 otherwise. These, at least, will not be overthrown. They 
 rest on two strong foundations. The First is Science, or 
 human knowledge, which will doubtless last as long as the 
 world endures. The Second has no such limited duration. 
 For concerning this foundation it is written : — 
 
 ^'' Heaven and earth shall ]jass aivay, 
 hut My icords shall not pass aicay.'^ 
 
 THE END.