vapours or not, and whether specially made countable and recognizable by what we call the rising and setting of the sun, or not, and whether we were standing in Nova Zembla or in Australia.
Nor is it of much use to refer to the general use of “day” for indefinite periods, which is just as common in the English of to-day as it was in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the double use of the term in different senses has become general, just because it was found in practice that no confusion ordinarily resulted; and surely such a practice would not have been common, or at any rate would have been specially avoided in the sacred volume, wherever any mistake or confusion was likely or even possible.
No one can mistake what is meant when allusion is made to “the day in which God made the heaven and the earth.” No one falls into doubt when the “days” of the prophets are spoken of–any more than they do now when a man says, “Such a thing will not happen in my _day_.”
Whenever in Daniel, or in similar prophetic writings, the term “day” is used in a peculiar sense as indicating a term of years, we have no difficulty in recognizing the fact from the context and circumstances of the narrative; nor am I aware that any controversy has ever arisen regarding the use of the term “day” _in any passage of Scripture excepting in this_.
This fact alone is suspicious; the more so, because there is absolutely nothing in the context to indicate that anything but an ordinary day is intended. Not only so, but there _is_ in the context something that does very clearly indicate (and I think Dr. Reville is perfectly justified in insisting on this) that an ordinary terrestrial day is meant. One of the primeval institutions of Divine Providence for men, my readers will not need to be reminded, was that of a “Sabbath,” which any one reading the text would understand to mean a day, and which the Jews–the earliest formal or legal recognizers of it–_did_ so understand, and that under direct Divine sanction.
If the _days_ of Genesis mean indefinite periods of aeonian duration, how is the seventh _day_ of rest to be understood?
But even if these difficulties are overcome, absolutely nothing is gained by taking the day to be a period.
I presume that the object of gaining long periods of time instead of days in reading the Mosaic record, is to assume that the narrative means to describe the actual production on the earth of all that was created; in other words, to assume a particular meaning for the words “created,” “brought forth,” &c and then to make out that if a whole age is granted, Science will allow us a sequence of a “plant age” a “fish and saurian age,” a “bird age,” and a “mammalian age”;–that is, in general terms and neglecting minor forms of life. But then _to make any sense at all with the verses_ we are bound to show that each age preceded the next–that one was more than partly, if not quite completely, established _before_ any appearance of the next.
It is to this interpretation that Professor Huxley alludes when he says, in his first article,[1] “There must be some position from which the reconcilers of Science and Genesis will not retreat–some central idea the maintenance of which is vital, and its refutation fatal…. It is that the animal species which compose the water population, the air population, and the land population,[2] respectively, originated during three successive periods of time, and only during those periods of time.”
[Footnote 1: “Nineteenth Century,” December, 1885, pp. 856-7.]
[Footnote 2: These (unfortunate) terms are Mr. Gladstone’s.]
For my own part, I hasten to say that, as one of the despised race of “reconcilers,” not only is this idea no central position from which I will not retreat, but one which I should never think of occupying for one moment.
But on the view of the _periods_, some such position must be taken up. And if so, I must maintain that Professor Huxley has shown–if indeed it was not obvious already–that the idea of a series of periods, and in each of which a certain kind of life began and culminated (if it was not fully completed) _before_ another began, is untrue to nature. This, therefore, cannot have been intended by the author of Genesis.
I will here interrupt my argument for a moment to say that there is a _certain degree_ of _coincidence_ between the succession of life on the earth as far as it is explained by palaeontological research, and the order of creation stated in Genesis; but that is not concerned with any forced interpretation of the term “day.” The coincidence is just near enough to give rise to a desire to identify creative periods with the series shown by the fossil-bearing rocks; while it is attended with just enough of difference to furnish matter for controversy, and to expose the interpreters to be cut up.
But to return. Nothing, I submit, is gained by getting _day_ to mean period. Let us put the matter quite squarely. Let us take day to mean period, and let us take all the verses to mean the _process_ of _producing_ on earth the various life-forms.
In order to come at once to the point, let us begin with the time when the dry land and the waters are separate. At that moment, there is nothing said (or implied) about life already having begun in either water or on dry land. God commanded plants to grow; consequently during that _whole period_ nothing but plants, and that of all the kinds and classes mentioned, should appear either in water or on land. That period being done, then came the command for water animals, fish and great monsters, and also birds. We ought, accordingly, to come next upon a whole period in which no trace of anything but plants and these animals can be found; and lastly, we ought to find the period of mammalia, smaller reptiles, _amphibia_ and insects (creeping things).
That is the fair and plain result of what comes of supposing the terms “let there be,” &c., to mean _production on earth of the thing’s themselves_, and that the days are long _periods_.
All overlapping of the periods is inadmissible. All meaning is taken away, if we allow of fish (e.g.) appearing in the middle of our first period; for God did not command another day’s work till after the first was completed–“there was evening and there was morning, a first day” (period), &c.
No; to suit the text so interpreted, we must have a full _period_ of plants with no fish; then a period of both but no insects, no creeping things, no animals; and so on. Now it is quite idle to contend any longer, that any such state of things ever existed.
If we pass over the long series of the most ancient strata in which doubtful forms of obscure elementary plant and animal life appear _almost_ together, we shall come to shell-fish, and crustaceans fully established in the water, and scorpions, and some insects even on land, _before_ plants made any great show. For the Carboniferous–_the_ age of acrogen plants, _par excellence_–does not occur till after swarms of _Trilobite_ Crustaceans had filled the sea and passed away, and after the Devonian fish-age had nearly passed away; and so on throughout.
The groups in nature overlap each other so closely, that though plant-life (in elementary forms) probably had the actual start; virtually the two kingdoms–plant and animal–appeared almost simultaneously. There is nothing like the appearance of a first period in which one _alone_ predominated. And long before the plants are established in all classes, the great reptiles, birds, and some mammals, had appeared. The seed-bearing plants–true grasses and exogens with seed capsules (angiosperms) did not appear till quite Tertiary times. That is the essential difference between the facts and the theory. If we make a diagram, and let the squares represent the main groups, the order (according to the period interpretation) ought to be as in A, whereas it really more resembles B. Thus.
[Illustration: The dotted extensions of the squares indicate the fore runners of the families, i.e., their first indications in the ages.]
[Illustration: _A New Interpretation suggested_]
But then it will be asked, if the day means only an ordinary day–not a long period–what is there that actually could have happened, and did happen, in _three days_ (for that is the real point, as we shall see), such as the writer describes as the third, fifth, and sixth days?
I answer that on those days, and on the previous ones, God did exactly what He is recorded to have done. After the creation of light (first day), and the ideal adjustment of the distribution of land and water (second day), He (_a_) “_created_,” on the third day, plants, from the lowest cryptogam upwards; then (_b_) paused for a day (the fourth) in the direct work of creating life-forms, to adjust certain matters regarding times and seasons, and regulation of climate, which doubtless would not be essential during the early stages of life evolution, but would become so directly a certain point was reached; then (_c_) resumed the direct creating work (fifth day), with fishes, great reptiles,[1] and birds (grouped purposely so, as we shall see); and, lastly (_d_), before the Day of Rest, created the group of mammals (_carnivora_ and _herbivora_), the “creeping things” of the earth, and man (also grouped together).
[Footnote 1: This term may be here accepted for the moment–not to interrupt the argument. It will be more fully dealt with in a subsequent chapter.]
But some one will ask, You then accept the earlier theory, that the whole life-series that is now revealed to us by the rocks, from the Laurentian to the Recent, is excluded from the narrative; and that some special acts of creation, regarding only modern and surviving life-forms, were made immediately before man appeared? By no-means; for such a theory is not only in itself improbable, but is contrary to all the evidence we possess of life-history on the earth, and is so hopeless that it is really not worth serious examination and refutation.
We have no evidence of any such gap–such sudden change in the history of life. Nor is it possible to find any place in the Mosaic story at which we could reasonably interpolate a _long_ period, such as that indicated by the entire series of rock strata. For a great part of such a period, not only must there have been a regular succession of life just the same in nature (though specifically different) as that now on earth, but a regular distribution of land and water, and a settled action of the sun and the seasons, would be required. No; we must give up all the older methods which try to ignore the study of the word “created,” or to assume for it a meaning that it is not intended to bear.
All depends, then, on what is meant by such terms as “created,” “let there be,” “let the earth bring forth,” &c. Perhaps it has occurred to but few of my readers seriously to examine into their own mental conception of an “act of creation.” Some will readily answer, “Of course it means only that at the Divine _fiat_, any given species–say an elephant–appeared perfect, trunk, tusks, and all the peculiar development of skull and skeleton, where previously no such creature had existed.” But what possible reason have they for this conclusion? None whatever. It has simply been carelessly assumed from age to age, because people at first knew no better; and when they began to know better, they did not stop to amend their ideas accordingly.
Of course, as Professor Huxley puts it, millions of pious Jews and Christians[1] supposed _creation_ to mean a “sudden act of the Deity”–i.e., to mean just what the knowledge of the time enabled them to imagine. They could do nothing else. The state of knowledge fifty years ago would not have rendered it possible for an article like Professor Huxley’s (that to which allusion has several times been made) to have been written at all. What wonder, then, that the multitude did not understand what _creation_ meant, and that a reasonable interpretation of the word has only become possible in quite recent times? Surely all that is the fault of the reader, not of the text. I do not even care that the writer himself did not fully apprehend the subject. When a human prophet is entrusted with the divulgation of high and wonderful things, it is quite possible that he may have been to greater or less extent in the dark as to all or some of the communication he was writing.
[Footnote 1: Article quoted, p. 857.]
All that can be reasonably required is that the narrative, as it stands, shall be consistent with actual truth, and shall at no time come to be provably at variance with it.
But let us look at the word “creation” more closely. We accept what we are told, that in the beginning God called into existence force and matter, the material or “physical basis,” and all other necessaries of life. Suppose, then (even dropping the question of Evolution, in order to satisfy the “pious millions”), that this “matter” was all ready (if I may so speak) to spring into organized form and being to take shape on earth–what shape should it take? Why (e.g.) an elephant? Why not any other animal, or a nondescript–a form which no zoologist could place, recognize, or classify? The _form_, the ideal structure, the _formula_, of the genus elephant must somehow have come into existence _before_ the obedient materials and the suitable forces of nature could work themselves together to the desired end.
Mr. Mivart has defined “creation” at page 290 of his “Genesis of Species.” There is original creation, derivative or secondary creation (where the present form has descended from an ancestor that was originally “directly” created), and conventional creation (as when a man “creates a fortune,” meaning that he produces a complex state or arrangement out of simpler materials). That is perfectly true, so far; but it is only a verbal definition, and still does not go inside, into the _idea_ involved. We must go farther.
In every act of creation, two requisites can clearly be distinguished: (1) the matter of life, and the forces, affinities, and local surroundings necessary; and (2) the type, plan, ideal, or formula, to realize or produce which, the forces and the matter are to act and react. This second is all-essential; without it the first would only produce a limbo of
“Unaccomplisht works of Nature’s hand, Abortive, monstrous, or unkindly mixt.[1]”
[Footnote 1: “Paradise Lost,” iii. 455.]
No _creation_ in _any_ sense whatever could come out of it.
In the same way, when we speak of the Divine Artificer “creating,” or saying “Let there be,” there are two things implied: (i) the Divine plan or type-form, and its utterance or delivery (so to speak) to the builder-forces and materials; (2) the result or the translation into tangible existence of the Divine plan.
In every passage speaking of creation it _possible_ that both processes may be implied; it may be clear from the text (as in Genesis i. 1) that this is so. But it is equally possible that the first point only, which in some aspects is really the essential matter, is alone spoken of.
And I submit that, given the general fact that God originated everything in heaven and earth (as first of all stated generally in Genesis i. 1-3), the essential part of the _detailed_ or _specific_ creation subsequently spoken of, was the Divine origination of the types, the ideal forms, into which matter endowed with life was to develop; _without_ any _necessary_ reference to how, or in what time, the Divine creation was actually realized or accomplished on earth. It may be that the _form_ so conceived and drawn in Nature’s book by the Divine Designer is a final form, up to which development shall lead, and beyond which (at least in a material sense) it shall not go; or it may be that it is a type intended to be transitory;[1] but _both the intermediate and final forms must take their origin first in the Divine Mind, and be prescribed from the Heavenly Throne,_ before the obedient matter and forces and the life-endowment could co-operate to result in the realization of the forms and the population of the globe.
[Footnote 1: The idea which I am endeavouring to make clear is well illustrated by another passage in one of the Mosaic books–the account of the Tabernacle. Moses had no idea of his own of the structure, its furniture, implements, or the forms of these. The narrative expressly states that the Divine power originated the designs, and caused Moses to understand them. In a human work the designer would have drawn the objects with measures and specifications, and given the papers to the workmen. With the Divine work, where the design is in the Divine Thought, and the workmen and builders are forces and elementary matter, the process is a mystery, but in its practical bearing is understood from analogy. The Tabernacle was truly God’s _creation_, because it was all commanded in design and “pattern” by the Almighty before Moses put together the materials that realized the pattern in the camp of Israel.]
The reason why it is the _essential_ part, is, that when once the Divine command issued, the result followed inevitably–that will “go without saying.”
In human affairs, also, we speak of the architect having _created_ the palace or cathedral, or the ironclad; meaning thereby not the slow process of cutting and joining stone, or riveting steel plates, but the higher antecedent act of mind in evoking the ideal form and providing for all contingencies in the adaptation and subsequent working of the finished structure. And if we limit this use of the term “creation” somewhat in speaking of human works, it is because the concept of the human mind so often fails of realization; that it is one thing to design, and another to accomplish. The grandest design for a palace may fail to stand because some peculiarity of the stone has been forgotten, or some character of foundation and subsoil has been misunderstood. The noblest form of turret-ship may prove useless because the strength of some material will not correspond to the ideal, or some curve of stability has been miscalculated. Not only this: man may create, as a sculptor, the ideal form for his to-be statue, or the dramatist his character; but the perfect realization, either in marble or in an actual being, may be impossible; the ideal remains “in the air.” The ideal, therefore, is not the major part of “creation” in a human work.
But with the Divine work it is otherwise. The Divine thought in Creation and its result are separated by no possibility of failure. Given the matter and the laws of force and of life, directly the Great Designer has uttered His thought to those that are His builders, they _must_ infallibly and without discord, work through the longest terms, it may be, of an evolutionary series, till, every transitional condition passed, the final form emerges perfect.
Our very verbal definition, admitting as it does “derivative” creation, implies this. We all speak of ourselves as “created.” How so? We are not produced ready made. Nor do we wholly solve the matter by saying that we are “created” because we are born from parents who (if we go far enough back) originated in a first production from the hand of Nature. We are really “created” because the _design_–the _life-form of us_, which matter and force were to work together to produce–was the direct product of the Divine Mind.[1]
My question, therefore, of the Genesis interpreters is: Why will you insist on the text meaning only the second element in Creation–the production on earth, and not the Design or its issue in heaven?
The former we could find out some day for ourselves; we _have_ found out some of it (though only some) already; the latter we could never know unless we were told. Surely it is the “_dignus vindice nodus_” in this case. To tell us the earth’s history within a brief space would be impossible, and would have been for ages unintelligible if it could have been told; to tell us of God’s creation is possible–for it has been done; and the record, unless misread, is intelligible for all time.
The narrative, if it is a revelation of Divine Creation in heaven, takes up ground that none can trespass on. None can say “it is not so,” unless either he will show that the words will not bear the meaning, or that the context and other Scripture contradict it.
[Footnote 1: “_In Thy book_ were all my members written, while _as yet there were none_ of them” (Psa. cxxxix. 16).
“How did this all first come to be you? _God thought about me_
and I grew.”–_Macdonald_.]
So soon as the matter of earth and heaven (and all that is implied therewith) originated “in the beginning,” the narrative introduces to our reverent contemplation the solemn conclave in heaven, when, in a serial order and on separate days, God declared, for the guidance of the ever potentially active forces, and for materials ever (as we know) seeking combination and resolution,[1] the _form_ which the earth surface is (it may be ever so gradually) to take and the _life-forms_ which are to be evolved.
That this creative work was piecemeal, and on separate days, we know from the narrative. _Why_ it was so arranged we do not know. Vast as was the work to be done, almost infinite as was the complexity of the laws required to be formulated, it _could_ have all been done at once, in a moment of time; for time does not exist to the Divine Mind. But seeing that the work was to be on earth, and for the benefit of creatures to whom the divisions of time were all-important, we can dimly, at least, discern a certain fitness and appropriateness in the gradual and divided work.
[Footnote 1: The reader will recognize that there is not the least exaggeration in this. It is plain matter of fact, as I have endeavoured to show in the earlier chapters of this book. Everywhere we see _force_ ready to be evoked by the proper method. Everywhere we see _molecular_ motion, and a perpetual combination and resolution of elements and compounds, whether chemical or mechanical.]
CHAPTER XIV.
_THE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY OTHER SCRIPTURES._
In interpreting the narrative before us, we have an important aid which has hardly received the attention it deserves. I allude to the other passages of Scripture which were written by men undoubtedly familiar with the Book of Genesis.
Now, in more than one of them, I find the idea that the Creation spoken of is the _Divine work in heaven_, and not the subsequent and long process of its realization on the surface of our globe, fully confirmed.
In the beautiful thirty-eighth chapter of the very ancient Book of Job, we find a distinct allusion to a time when God “laid the foundations” of the earth, prescribed “its measures,” made a “decreed place” for the sea, and framed the “ordinances of heaven,” and this in presence of the heavenly host assembled–
“When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy.[1]”
[Footnote 1: Job xxxviii. 7. The sons of God are clearly the angels (_cf_. Job i, 6).]
The same idea can be gathered from the text which I have placed on the title-page of this book. “By faith we understand that the aeons (the whole system of nature in its various branches, physical, moral, and social) were ordained ([Greek: kataertisthai]) by the word of God.” The _process_ of actual development is here passed over, as not being the main thing; what attracts attention is the Divine Design, the “framing” of the wonderful ideal or ordinance without which the “aeons” could not proceed to unfold themselves. I do not mean, of course, for a moment to imply that, after God had formulated the laws and designed the forms, He left the working out of the results to themselves. I should be sorry if, in bringing into prominence what has generally been overlooked, I seemed to throw the rest in the shade. God’s providence and continued supervision are as important in themselves as the original design:–but this is not the central idea embodied in the passage.
There is another Scriptural allusion which suggests the idea of a Heavenly Conclave, and great act of Creation in heaven. It may be considered somewhat remote, and even fanciful–but the fact is recorded _both_ in the Old Testament and the New, and _something_ must be meant by it. And, moreover, other and very meaningless interpretations have been from the earliest times given, so that I can hardly omit the subject if I would. I refer to the permanent presence in heaven, around the Divine Throne, of the singular forms of being called _Cherubim_, which seem to indicate some mysterious connection between the life-forms of earth and the inhabitants of heaven, and some permanent representation of typical created forms in heaven. In Ezekiel, chapter i., and again in chapter x., this vision is presented to us.
The prophet was to be prepared, by a very vivid exhibition of the power and glory of God as the Author and Ruler of the universe, to appreciate the depth of degradation to which the Jews had fallen in their rejection of such a God as their Lord and King and of the justice of the terrible overthrow which was the consequence of that rejection.
The vision then displayed (as I understand it) GOD surrounded by the typical forms of creation and the irresistible forces of nature. All forms of life, all energies of nature, were thus shown to be His creatures. There, around the throne, were four “cherubim” of remarkable appearance. They were accompanied by the appearances of fiery orbs like beryl stones, revolving in all directions with ceaseless energy. Any account of this vision that I can give is, however, pitiable beside the inexpressibly sublime picture drawn in Ezekiel, to which I must refer the reader for his own study. And imagine what the feelings of the prophet must have been when, fresh from the impression of this grandeur of Creation–this glory and irresistible power of God as the Centre and great Mover of all, he was taken to witness the pitiable sight of the Jews turning away from His worship, and to see their elders burning incense before walls covered with “every form of creeping things and abominable beasts–all the idols of the house of Israel![1]” How must the vision have prepared him to realize the depth of degradation with which he had to contend, and have fired him with energy to denounce it!
There is, then, I think, considerable probability in the contention that the vision represents God in Creation, surrounded by the types of creation and the forces of nature.
There is, no doubt, the ancient tradition that the four Cherubim meant the four Gospels; and this has now become deeply associated with ecclesiastical symbolism. But I submit that this is only a fancy which can best be left to church embroidery and stained windows; it is unworthy of any serious notice. The beings are described, it will be observed, with great minuteness: all have the same characteristic powers of rapid motion, and all have _human hands_, a fact that so strikes the prophet that he repeats it three times.[2] These four Cherubim, then, seem to me clearly to indicate the archetypes of Creation, the great design-forms of created life, showing themselves the progressive scale from the Animal to the Man and the Angel. And these four great types exactly answer to the resulting groups of created life. We have the development of _Reptilia_ into _Birds_ as one final type; consequently one face of each cherub has the Bird type–the Eagle head[3]. Two other faces on each give us the _Animal_ type, one representing again the great order Carnivora (the Lion), the other the Herbivorous Ungulates (the Ox or Calf); while the fourth face indicates the last development, _Man_.
[Footnote 1: Ezek. viii. 10.]
[Footnote 2: See chapters i. 8, x. 8, and x. 21. Remark, in passing, that the human hand has always been the subject of wonder as an evidence of Divine skill in Creation. Sir Charles Bell’s Bridgewater treatise, on the human hand as illustrating the proof of Divine wisdom and contrivance in Creation, is just as good an argument _for Design_ now as ever it was. I cannot here resist the temptation to notice one of those small points in which the accuracy of the Bible is so constantly brought to light. The popular notion of angels gives them wings as well as hands–a form quite impossible from the natural history point of view; _all_ animals of the vertebrate orders never have _more_ than two pairs of limbs. And in winged animals the fore-limbs become wings. The popular notion about angels is, however, artistic, not Biblical. Just the contrary in fact. Here _is_ a vision of a mysterious form with wings and hands, but how?–the figures are fourfold; and being winged, each division might have been winged like the eagle, so each cherub would have had _eight_ wings. But as one of the divisions had a human face and human hands, the prophet only saw _six_ wings to each, leaving one division where, nature’s _Divine type_ being obeyed, there were _hands_, and consequently no wings.]
[Footnote 3: Reptiles are unrepresented, perhaps as not being a final type.]
I would say here, as regards the animal creation being represented by a double form, that it is most curious to notice that this double division of animals is found throughout Scripture, and seems to have its counterpart in the actual facts of creation on earth.
Accompanying these created beings in this remarkable vision were “wheels” which appeared to be spheres within spheres, revolving with ceaseless activity and never turning, but always going forward. The wheels were full of eyes. It appears to me probable that these symbolize–and if so the symbol is at once full of meaning and grandeur–the inevitable, ever wakeful energies and forces of nature, the marvellous agency of electricity, chemical affinity, heat, attraction, repulsion, and so forth. We are accustomed to speak of “blind force;” but here observe the wheels are _full of eyes_, ever vigilant to fulfil the purpose for which they are appointed. And this representation of _forces_ appears necessary to complete a symbolic representation of God in nature: since the world is made up of dead matter, of living forms, and of forces or energies which are in ceaseless motion and action, producing the changes which in fact constitute the working of the whole system.
I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the imagery of this vision lend support to the belief that there was a great Creation enacted in heaven, which was followed by the actual carrying out of the processes on earth, _but which has retained its representative forms in the heaven itself_. Had this vision stood alone, it might have been passed over, on the ground that it deals with high and transcendental matters, and that it would be hardly safe to let a practical argument rest too much on it. But the fact is that again in the New Testament a very similar vision is mentioned (in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation): here again the four living creatures represent the typical forms of life, the bird, the carnivorous and herbivorous animals, and man; and it will be observed that in this case there is hardly room to doubt that we have an exhibition of _Creation_, for there is express allusion to it in the address of the elders–“Thou hast _created all things_, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.”
CHAPTER XV.
_AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT._
But a step further is necessary: if the conclusion that I have come to, by accepting “day” in its ordinary and natural sense, and by giving a hitherto overlooked (and so far a new) meaning to “creation,” is sound, it must not only be rendered probable by reference to other parts of Scripture written when Genesis was much nearer its original publication than it is now; it is still (before all things) necessary, that the interpretation adopted should be conformable to the context.
And I have heard it objected that there are verses which imply not only a Divine Act in heaven, with the Sons of God in conclave around the throne–sublime and wonderful picture!–but also distinctly indicate a corresponding action on earth, and so require us to include in our rendering of “creation” _both_ the ideas which (page 169 ante) I have admitted may, on occasion be required by the terms. For example: after the creative command in verses 7, 9, 11, 15, and 24, is declared, it is followed by the words of fulfilment–“and it was so;” and in verse 11, when God has said “Let the earth bring forth grass, &c.”, in the next verse it is positively recorded that the earth _did_ bring forth grass, &c.
I of course admit all this, but it is in no way opposed to my suggestion.
The _commencement_ of the _result_ probably, if not necessarily, followed immediately on the issue of the finished command, viz., the promulgation of the forms to be obtained and the processes to be followed. The _whole_ result did not become accomplished then and there, in the time mentioned, or exactly in the order mentioned: we know that for a fact. Take, for example, the case of _vegetation_. Here the author, in terms at once precise and universally intelligible, speaks of “vegetation[1]” (grass of the A.V.), “herb yielding seed,” and “trees yielding fruit,” thereby exhaustively enumerating the members of the vegetable kingdom.
[Footnote 1: Nothing more is meant by the Hebrew “_deshe_.” The true “grasses” (_graminea_),–cereals, bamboos, &c., are certainly not intended, for these are all conspicuously flowering plants, “herbs yielding seed,” and therefore coming under the second plainly defined group. But the general term “sproutage” or “vegetation” is just adapted to signify the mass of cryptogamic plant-life, the mosses, lichens, algae, and then ferns, &c., which evidently formed the first stage of plant-life on the globe.]
Now, as a matter of fact, there was no one long (or short) period during which the whole of this command was realized, _before_ the next creative act occurred.
At first _algae_ and low forms of vegetable life appeared; and doubtless we have lost myriads upon myriads of such lower forms of plant-life in the early strata, because such forms were ill calculated for fossil-preservation, owing to the absence of woody fibre, silicious casing, or hard fruit or seed vessels. But when we first have a marked accumulation of specialized plant-life in the coal measures (Upper Carboniferous), it is still only of cryptogams–ferns and great club mosses. A beginning of true seed-bearing plants (Gymnosperm exogens) had been made with the _conifers_ of the Devonian strata; but true _grasses_, and the other orders of phanerogamic plants and arboreous vegetation, do not appear till the tertiary rocks were deposited, very long after the age of fish and great reptiles had culminated, and the inauguration of the bird age and the mammalian age had taken place.
Looking only to the abundant, prominent, and characteristic life-forms of the several strata, it could certainly be said that the period when the _water_ actually brought forth a vast mass of its life-forms–corals, sertularias, crustaceans, and fish of the lower orders–must have _preceded_ (not followed) the time when the earth produced vegetation of all kinds, and further that it must have come after the appearance of scorpions and some land insects.[1]
[Footnote 1: A single wing found little more than a year ago is the sole evidence of insects older than the Devonian; and scorpions (highly-organized crustaceans) have been found in the Upper Silurian in some abundance.]
Moreover, as the regular succession in periods of light and darkness on the earth, and the sequence of seasons was not organized (but only a generally diffused light, and, probably, an uniform and moist state of climate without seasons) till _after_ the commands for the formation of the whole of the large classes of plants, both cryptogams and phanerogams, it is obvious that as many of these would require the fuller development of seasonal influences, the whole process could not have been worked out before the fourth day’s creative work was begun.
This instance alone–and it would be easy to add others–shows that the narrative cannot be meant to indicate what actually happened on earth, i.e., to summarize the _entire realization_ of the Divine command.
Such being the plain facts with regard to the _kind of accomplishment_ meant by the terms “it was so,” “the earth brought forth,” &c., it is quite plain that no violence is done to the text by explaining it as intended to describe what God did in heaven, with the addition, that as each command was formulated, the result on earth surely followed, the thing “was so,” and the earth and water respectively no doubt _began_ to “bring forth.” More than this cannot be made out on _any_ interpretation that accords with facts. It seems so clear to me that this is so, that I hardly need refer to the use of the terms the “_waters brought forth”_ and the “_earth brought forth”_ and the phrase in chapter ii. 5–the Lord made every plant _before it grew_.
If, as we have been long allowed to suppose, God spake and the water and earth were _at once_ fully and finally peopled with animals where before nothing but plants had existed, and so on, I should hardly have expected the use of words which imply a gradual process–a gestation and subsequent birth (so to speak) of life-forms.
How the _order_ in which the events are recorded stands in relation to the subsequent history of life-development on earth, and what its significance may be, I will consider later on. First I will conclude the argument for the general interpretation of the narrative.
2. _The Second Genesis Narrative._
I have only one more direct argument to offer; but I think it is a very important one. The first division of Genesis ends with the Divine commands creating man and the day of rest which followed. The narrative ending at chapter ii. verse 3 (the division of chapters here, as elsewhere, is purely arbitrary), we have at verse 4 of chapter ii, what has been loudly proclaimed as _another_ account of _the same_ Creation, which, it is added (arbitrarily enough–but _any_ argument will do if only it is against religion!) is contrary to the first.[1]
[Footnote 1: The contradiction is supposed to be in verse 19, as if then the creation of animals was for the first time effected–after the man and his helpmate. But it is quite clear that the text refers to the fact that God had created animals; the command was, “Let the earth bring forth,” and the immediate act spoken of was not the formation of animals, but the bringing of them to Adam to see what he would call them.]
Now, even if there is a _second_ account of Creation, it would surely be a circumstance somewhat difficult to explain. _Contrary_ in any possible sense, the narrative (from chapter ii. 4, onward) certainly is not. But why should there be a second narrative at all? On the hitherto received supposition that chapter i. intends to tells us the _process_ of creation–what God caused to be done on earth, not merely what He did in heaven–there is apparently no room for a second narrative. Nor have I seen any completely satisfactory explanation. But if we accept the view that the first chapter explains the Divine Design, and its being published (so to speak) and commanded in heaven, then it would be very natural that that narrative should be followed by a second, which should detail not the _whole_ process of all life existence on earth, but (as the Bible is to be henceforth concerned with Man, his fall and his redemption) with an account of _just so much of the_ process as relates to the actual birth on the earth’s surface of the particular man Adam, the most important (and possibly not the only) outcome of the _fiat_ recorded in chapter i. vers. 27, 28.
In this view, not only _a_ second narrative, but just the particular kind of narrative we actually have, is not only natural, but even necessary. _Before_, we had a general account of how God ordained the scheme of material-form and life-form on the earth; _now_ we have a detailed account of how He actually carried out one portion of it–that one portion we are most concerned to hear about, namely the man Adam, the progenitor of our own race, of whom came JESUS CHRIST, “the son of Adam.[1]”
The account is designed to introduce to us the scene of Adam’s birthplace–the Garden of Eden.[2] The mention of a garden, and the subsequent important connection of the trees of that garden with the conduct of the man, naturally turn the writer’s attention to the general subject of the vegetation on the earth’s surface. He prefaces his new account accordingly with a brief summary–which I may paraphrase thus without, I trust, departing from the sense of the original: “Such was the origin of the earth (and all in it) and of the heavenly host, at the time when God made them. He had made every plant _before_ it was in the earth–every herb of the field _before_ it grew” (mark the language as confirming what I have said–God “created” everything before it actually developed and grew into being on the earth). “Rain did not then fall (in the same way as now) on the earth, but the mist that exhaled from the soil re-condensed, and fell and moistened the ground; but there was as yet no MAN to till and cultivate the soil.”
[Footnote 1: St. Luke iii. 38.]
[Footnote 2: Which had a real historic existence. _Vide_ Appendix A.]
Then God actually formed or fashioned _a man_. It is not now that He created the ideal form to be produced in due time, but that He actually formed the individual Adam, and placed him in a garden which He had prepared for the purpose. All the words used now imply actual production. The Divine ideal was ready, and the earth-elements (of which we know man’s body to consist) were ready at the Divine word to assume the human shape. And that done, God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (mark the direct _act_ on the man himself), and the man became a “living soul.” There is nothing here of the “earth bringing forth” as in the former narrative. We have the direct act of God, not in the design only, but in the production of the thing itself.
If this is not a complete explanation and justification of the second narrative, I do not know what, in common fairness, is entitled to be so called.
The language may be rigorously examined, and it will fully bear out the position taken up.
I conceive, then, that the cumulation of proof need go no further. The true explanation of Genesis i. also supplies the place for Genesis ii. 4, _et seq._, and overcomes all the difficulty that has hitherto existed on the subject.
It will now, I trust, be clear that by such an interpretation of Genesis we at once give (1) a full and natural meaning to all the terms; we reconcile it with other Scripture, and we enhance all the sublime attributes which we have been reverentially accustomed to connect with this ancient passage. (2) We obviate the difficulty regarding the second narrative in chapter ii. 4. And (3) we place the whole above any possible conflict with science, and above any need for “reconciliation.” Here, too, is a purpose and meaning assigned to the _whole_ narrative, without being driven into the difficult position of supposing the verses to be the literary outcome of an ignorant imagination which gave expression to its crude ideas only–though enshrining among utterly false details a sublime truth, regarding which one can only wonder why it could not have been stated without the encumbrance of the surroundings.
The naturalist and the biologist may continue, unquestioned, to work out more and more of the wondrous story of Life on the globe. They can never disprove, or on any of their own grounds deny, that God is the Author of all things–matter, force, and mind alike; that He designed the form and relations of the earth; that He organized its light, its seasons, and its changes; that He has furnished the types and patterns of all life-forms which matter and force are conformably thereto, developing on the earth. In short, REVELATION tells us that God did all this “in the beginning,” how His form-designs were thought out and declared in six days, and how He rested on the seventh day.
SCIENCE will tell us how, when, and where the Creative fiats and the designs of heaven were realized and worked out on earth.
Here is the separate province of each, without fear of clashing, or room for controversy.
CHAPTER XVI.
_THE DETAILS OF THE CREATION NARRATIVE._
Sec.1. _The Explanation of the Verses._
It remains only now to go over the narrative, the _general_ bearing of which I have thus endeavoured to vindicate, so that minor matters of detail, in which it is supposed (1) that some contradiction to known physical fact may still lurk, and (2) something that negatives the explanation suggested, may be cleared up.
Let us take it seriatim:–
“In the beginning God created the heaven (plural in the original) and the earth.”
As I have before remarked, we have no real need to discuss whether “bara” means originated (created where nothing previously existed), or whether we should render it “fashioned,” i.e., moulded material (thus assumed in terms to be) already in existence.
Either will yield perfectly good and consistent sense; but, as a matter of fact, there is a virtual consensus of the best scholars that the word is here used to denote original production of the material.
It is also clear that the text is intended to embrace the whole system of planets, suns, stars, and whatever else is in space. So the Psalmist understood it: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and _all_ the host of them by the breath of his mouth.[1]” Nor is there any reasonable doubt, exegetically, that the subsequent allusion to the sun, moon, and stars, refers (as the sense of the text itself obviously requires) to their _appointment_ or adjustment to certain relations with the earth, and assumes their original material production in space, to have been already stated or understood.
“And the earth was (became) without form[2] and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
I have, in another connection, already remarked on this verse, and so shall not repeat those remarks.
[Footnote 1: Psa. xxxiii. 6, and so Psa. cii. 25; _cf_. 2 Peter iii. 5.]
[Footnote 2: Waste (R.V.).]
I will only say that the elemental strife and rushing together of chemical elements under the stress of various forces and the presence of enormous heat, would naturally envelop the globe in dense vapours, a large portion of which would be watery vapour, capable of condensation or of dispersion, under proper conditions, afterwards to be prescribed and realized. As it is beautifully expressed in Job xxxviii., “When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling-band for it” (verse 8).
Then commences the serial order of Divine acts with reference to the _Earth_:–
(1) “AND GOD SAID; LET THERE BE LIGHT: AND THERE WAS LIGHT.”
This verse is commonly taken as indicating a creation of light for the first time in the entire cosmos or universe. And if it be so, there is no objection, on any scientific ground, to the assertion that there was once a time when as yet the vibrations and waves which we connect with the idea of Light, had not yet begun. It is true that nebular matter, as now observed, is believed to be, partially at any rate, self-luminous. But this fact, supposing it to be such, is not inconsistent with a still earlier time when light had not yet begun. From the “wave-theory” of light, which is one of those working hypotheses which are indispensable, and which, in a sense, may be said to be demonstrated by their indispensability, it can clearly be seen that if light is caused by rapid vibrational movement, there must have been–or at any rate there is nothing against an authoritative declaration that there was–a moment of time when the first vibrational impulse was given, when, in fact, God said “Let there be light, and there was light,” _before_ which also there was “darkness upon the face of the deep.[1]”
[Footnote 1: It also needs only to be remarked, in passing, that we are really in complete ignorance as to the light-medium, the “luminiferous-ether” outside the comparatively thin stratum of our own terrestrial atmosphere. We do not know whether there might not have been a condition of the medium in which, up to the moment of a creative _fiat_, it was incapable of transmitting light-waves.]
There is no necessary connection between the creation of light _per se_, and the existence of any particular source (or sources) of light to our planet or to other planets.
No justification is now needed for such a remark, and the almost forgotten cavils of one of the “Essays and Reviews” may still survive as a “scientific” curiosity, to warn us against too hastily concluding that (in subjects where so little is really _known_) the Bible must be wrong, and the favourite hypothesis of the day right.
But as a matter of fact, the text, especially when read in connection with Job xxxviii., need not be taken to refer to any original creation of light in the universe generally, but merely to the letting in of light on the hitherto dark and “waste” earth. The command “Let there be light” was followed on the next day by the formation of a firmament or expanse. So that all the verse _necessarily_ implies is, that the thick clouds and vapours which surrounded the earth were so dealt with, that light could reach the earth: the light was thus divided from the darkness, and the rotating globe would experience the alternation of day and night.
The “day” having thus been created formally (so to speak), the Divine Author proceeds to mark, by His own Procedure, the use of the “days” which He had provided for the earth.
On this view, of course, the origin of light as a “force”–the first beginning of its pulsations–is not detailed, any more than the origin of electric force, or heat, or gravitation.
Here, too, I may remark that the idea of _creation_, which it has been one of my chief objects to develop, is illustrated. This remark holds good, whether an original creation of light is intended, or only an arrangement whereby light was for the first time introduced to the earth’s surface. The idea of creating light not only involves the Divine Conception of the thing, and the marvellous method of its production,[1] but doubtless, also, all those wonderful laws of reflection, refraction, polarization, and a thousand others, which the science of Physical Optics investigates.
[Footnote 1: And this is still a mystery to us. _What_ light is we do not know–we can only speak of our own sensation of it. Nor do we know _what_ vibrates to produce light. Hypothetical terms, such as “ether,” “luminiferous-medium,” and so forth, only conceal our ignorance.]
Naturally enough, in this case, the double idea involved in creation–the Divine concept and its realization–will, in the nature of things, fall into one. No process of evolution is required; none is indicated by science. Directly the Divine hand gave the impulse concurrently with the Divine thought–light would be. In the nature of things there is no place for a line between the Divine fiat and its realization, as there is in the production of life-forms on the earth. Or, on the other view, directly the Divine command went forth, the vapours would clear and allow the transmission of light.
(2) “AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE A FIRMAMENT (EXPANSE) IN THE MIDST OF THE WATERS, AND LET IT DIVIDE THE WATERS FROM THE WATERS….AND GOD CALLED THE FIRMAMENT HEAVEN.”
There has been gathered round this verse what I may call rather an ill-natured controversy, because there is no real ground for it; and the objections taken seem rather of a desire to find out something against the narrative at any price, than to make the best of it. The verse, when duly translated, implies that an “expanse”–the setting of a clear space of atmosphere around the globe–formed one of the special design-thoughts of the Creator, followed by its immediate (or gradual) accomplishment. I think we should have hardly had so much cavilling over this word “expanse” if it had not been for the term subsequently used by the Seventy in their Greek version ([Greek: stereoma]). The ancients, it is said, believed the space above the earth to be “solid.”
Now I would contend that even if the Hebrew writer had any mistaken or confused notions in his own mind, that would not afford any just ground against revelation itself. But I would point out that many of the expressions which may be quoted to show the idea of solidity, are clearly poetical. And if we go to the poetic or semi-poetic aspect of things, may I not ask whether there is not a certain sense in which the earth-envelope may be said to be solid? The air has a considerable density, its uniform and inexorable pressure on every square inch of the earth’s surface is very great. Such a word as [Greek: stereoma] (_firmamentum_) does not imply solidity in the sense in which gold is solid–as if the heavens were a mass of metal, and the stars set in it like jewels; it implies, rather, something fixed and offering resistance.
It is obvious that a creative act was necessary for this “expanse.” We know of spheres that have no atmosphere; and we are so ignorant of the true nature of what is beyond the utmost reach of our air-stratum, that there is room for almost any consistent conjecture regarding it.
Moreover, observe that the atmosphere is not a _chemical_ combination of gases, and one, therefore, that would take place like any other of the metallic, saline, or gaseous combinations, of which no detailed account is given–all being covered by the general phrase, “God created the heaven and the earth.” The air is a mechanical mixture, pointing to a special design and a special act of origin. The necessary proportions of each gas and its combined properties could not have originated without guidance.
But the main purpose of the expanse, as stated in the text, was to regulate the water supply. That vast masses of watery vapour must at one time have enveloped the globe, seems probable–apart from revelation; and that part of this should condense into seas and fresh-water, and part remain suspended to produce all the phenomena of invisible air-moisture and visible cloud, while an “expanse” was set, so that the earth surface should be free, and that light might freely penetrate, and sound also, and that all the other regular functions of nature dependent on the existing relation of earth and air should proceed–all this was very necessary. And when we recollect what a balanced and complex scheme it is–how very far from being a simple thing; we recognize in the adjustment of earth’s atmospheric envelope, a special result worthy of the day’s work.
Whether the separation between the condensed but ever re-evaporating and re-condensing water on the earth’s surface, and the water vapour in the atmosphere, is _all_ that is meant by the division of the “waters that are above the firmament” from those below, it would not be wise to assert. We know so little of the condition of space beyond our own air, and so little of the great stores of hydrogen which have been suggested to exist in space (and might combine to form vast quantities of liquid), that we may well leave the phrase as it stands, content with a partial explanation.
(3) “AND GOD SAID, LET THE WATERS UNDER THE HEAVEN BE GATHERED TOGETHER UNTO ONE PLACE, AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR: AND IT WAS SO. AND GOD SAID, LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS (VEGETATION), HERB YIELDING SEED, AND FRUIT TREE BEARING FRUIT AFTER ITS KIND, WHEREIN IS THE SEED THEREOF.”
The only remarks that the first part of this verse calls for, are, _first_, that it explains how far from mere chance-work the emergence of land from the water was; _second_ how well it illustrates the use of terms relating to creation.
The whole scheme of the distribution of the surface of earth into land and water is one which demanded Divine foresight and a complete ideal[1] which was to be attained by the action and reaction of natural forces, just as much as the production of the most specialized form of plant-or animal-life.
[Footnote 1: Compare Job xxxviii. 10, 11, and Psa. civ. 9.]
This is not the place to go into detail as to how much of the world’s life-history and its climatic conditions depend on the distribution of land and water. It is sufficient to recognize the immense importance of that distribution.
But, in the second place, it will be observed that while it is natural to suppose (though not logically necessary) that the working out of the Divine plan _commenced_ immediately on the issue of the Divine command and the declared formulation of the Divine scheme, yet we know–few things are better known–that the whole scheme was not completely realized in one day, or one age–certainly not _before_ there was any appearance of plant-life, aquatic, or dry land, or any appearance of animal-life.
I believe (though I have lost my reference) it is held by some authorities that the position of the great _oceans_ as they are now (and omitting, of course, all minor coast variations) has been fixed from very early geologic times. But, apart from that, we have ample evidence of whole continents arising and being again submerged; and of continual changes between land and water of the most wide-reaching character again and again happening during the progress of the world’s history. So that here we may see clearly an instance where the revelation of the creative act must be held to refer to the great primal design–teaching us that it is a fact that at first all _was_ laid down, foreseen, and designed by the Creator; but not referring to anything like an account of the _results_ upon earth, which, for aught we know to the contrary, may not yet be complete.
As to the second part of the text, we are here introduced to the commencement of life-forms on earth.
No separation is recorded. Directly the chemical elements of matter have so combined that a solid earth and liquid water (salt and fresh) are formed, and the cooling process has gone on sufficiently long to enable the dense vapours partly to settle down and condense, partly to remain as vapour (dividing the waters above from the waters below)–directly this process is aided by the admission of diffused light and by the adjustment of the atmosphere, and the superficial adjustment of the distribution of water and land surface is provided for, then plant-life is organized.
It will be observed that even aquatic plants and algae though growing in or under water, are nevertheless connected with the _earth_; so that the phrase, “Let the _earth_ bring forth,” is by no means inappropriate.
The earliest rock deposits are able to tell us little about the first beginning of plant-life. Moreover, as animal-life began only with the interval of one day (the fourth), we should expect to find–on the supposition that the heavenly _fiat_ at once received the _commencement_ of its fulfilment on each day–that the first lowly specimens of vegetable and animal life are almost coeval. And this is (apparently) the fact.
It is to be remarked that plant and animal always appear in nature as two separate and _parallel_ kingdoms. It is not that the plant is lower than the animal, so that the highest plant takes on it some of the first characters which mark the lowest animal: but both start separately from minute and little specialized forms so similar that it is extremely difficult to say which is plant and which is animal.[1]
[Footnote 1: See this well summarized in Nicholson’s “Manual of Zoology” (sixth edition, 1880), p. 13, _et seq._]
All the beginnings of life in _either_ kingdom would therefore be ill-adapted (most of them, at any rate) for preservation in rock-strata.[1]
[Footnote 1: I think this is quite sufficient, without relying on the evidence of the great quantities of _carbon_ in the earliest (Laurentian, Huronian, &c.) strata in the form of graphite. It is possible, or even probable, that this may be due to carbon supplied by masses of little specialized _Thallophyte_ and _Anophyte_ vegetation.]
All we know for certain is that vegetable-life was closely coeval with the lowest animal-life, and that it was very long before specialized forms, even of _cryptogams_, made a great show in the world.
Probability is entirely in favour of the actual priority being in vegetable forms; and more than that is not required. For the Mosaic narrative, while it places the origin of the vegetable kingdom actually first, lets the _fiat_ for the animal kingdom follow almost immediately.
As to the _order_ of appearance of the plants, I will reserve my remarks for the moment.
(4) “AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE HEAVEN, TO DIVIDE THE DAY FROM THE NIGHT; AND LET THEM BE FOR SIGNS, AND FOR SEASONS, AND FOR DAYS, AND FOR YEARS: AND LET THEM BE FOR LIGHTS IN THE FIRMAMENT TO GIVE LIGHT ON THE EARTH.”
The sun and the stars, and all the host of heaven, are clearly understood to have been created “in the beginning,” under the general statement of fact which forms the first verse of the narrative.
The 14th verse has always been understood to refer to the establishment of the _relations_ between the earth and the sun, moon, and stars, which have, as a matter of fact, been recognized by all ages and all people ever since. The writer of the 104th Psalm certainly so understood the passage–
“He appointed the moon for seasons;
The sun knoweth his going down.[1]”
The writer was instructed to use popularly intelligible language, and so the text speaks of the lights as they _appear_ in the sky or firmament.
Even if we suppose that before this act, the sun was already incandescent, and the moon capable of reflecting the light, the whole arrangement of the earth’s rotation may have been such that the alternations of light and darkness may have been very different from what they are now, and the seasons also. A moment’s reflection regarding the obliquity of the earth’s axis, nutation, the precession of the equinoxes, the eccentricity of the orbit and the changes in the position of the orbit, will show us what ample room there was for a special adjustment and adaptation between the earth and its satellite and between both to the solar centre.[2] So that faith which accepts this as a Divine arrangement made among the special and formal acts of Creation, cannot be said to be unreasonable, or to be flying in the face of any known facts.
[Footnote 1: Ver. 19, &c. The same word is also used of “making” priests (l Kings xii. 31), and appointing (R.V.)(“advancing” A.V.), (“making,” as we familiarly say) Moses and Aaron (1 Sam. xii. 6).]
[Footnote 2: And the Psalmist justly speaks of God as _preparing_ the light of the sun (Psa. lxxiv. 16).]
It is very remarkable, as showing how little we can attribute this narrative, on any basis of probability, to mere fancy or guess-work, that this matter should have been assigned to the fourth day–_after_ the fiat for plant-life had gone forth.
But the fact is that the unregulated light, and the vaporous uniform climate that must have continued if the fourth day’s command had never issued, though it might have served for a time for the lowest beginnings of life, especially marine or aquatic, would ultimately have rendered any advance in the series of design impossible. Such a fact would never have occurred to an ignorant and uninspired writer.
It is here impossible to say whether the whole arrangements indicated were made at once in obedience to the Divine Design, or were produced gradually.
It has been suggested that uniformity of climate and temperature continued up till the carboniferous ages, at any rate; and it is only in the later ages that such differences of _fauna_ in different parts of the world appear, as to show differences of climate more like what we have at present.
Whether this is so or not, I am not concerned to argue. The narrative tells us that God did, at a certain point in his Creative work, design and ordain the necessary arrangements; and physical science may find out, when it is able, how and when the adjustments spoken of came about.
(5) AND GOD SAID–
(i.) Let the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life, (ii.) Let fowl fly above the earth on the face of the expanse.
As to (i.) the “creation” consisted of–great sea-monsters (or water monsters), and every living thing that moveth.
Then the animal life received a _blessing_. Animals, even the lowliest, are capable of a new feature in life–happiness in their being, which cannot be predicated of plants.
(6) AND GOD SAID–
(i.) Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind … the beast of the earth _after its kind (Carnivora)_, cattle _after its kind_ (_Ungulata_), and everything that creepeth on the ground _after its kind_.[1]
And also–
(ii.) Let us make man…. So God created man in His own image–in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
(7) Then followed the day of rest.
[Footnote 1: See page 178.] [Transcriber’s Note: Chapter XIV.]
Sec. 2. _The Order of Events considered._
It was convenient first to bring these later Creative Acts together before beginning any remarks about any one of them.
It will now be desirable to notice what occurred, because here the question of _order_ is concerned. I could not avoid a partial statement on this subject at an earlier page, nor would it be quite sufficient simply to refer the reader back to those pages. At the risk of some repetition, I will therefore consider the subject here. It will be observed that on the older interpretation, which passed over the special act of God in _designing_ and _publishing the design,_ and descended at once to the earth to the process of producing the designed forms, this order was matter of great importance.
Granting the supporters of this view that the six days are unequal periods often of vast duration, with or without important subdivisions, they are bound to make out that each creation began, and was at any rate well advanced, _before_ the next began. We ought, in fact, to see a period more or less prolonged when the whole of what is indicated in the _plant_ verse was well advanced, _before_ any marine or fresh-water life appeared at all.[1]
[Footnote 1: There was “evening and morning” of the third day, i.e., beginning and _completion_, and also the whole interval of the fourth day, _before_ the command of the fifth.]
All attempts to make out that this _was_ so, have proved failures. It is assumed, for instance (and justly so), that life on the globe began with low vegetable forms; these represented the “grass” of the text, and it is suggested that the “fruit tree” is represented by the Devonian and Carboniferous _conifers_. This in itself is a very strained view. It is recollected that the terms used are not scientific, but for the world at large; but without confining “fruit tree” to mean only trees having _edible_ fruit, still the appearance of a few first species of _conifers_ in the Devonian, can hardly be called an adequate fulfilment of the requirements of the passage. But even so, myriads of fish and other animals existed _before_ the Devonian and Carboniferous plant age.
The animal forms that so existed, have therefore to be _ignored_, or are assumed to have been created without special notice: and it is said that the Mosaic period of “moving creatures of the deep,” fishes and monsters, only began when the rocks begin to show _great abundance_ of shells, of fish, and subsequently of huge reptilians which prepared the way for birds–which gradually make their appearance towards the Trias.
But the Devonian “age of fishes” (Devonian including old red sandstone) was far too important a period to be thus got rid of; and it is difficult to understand _why_ the narrative should exclude all the extensive and beautiful (though often little specialized) orders of marine life–all the Corals, the Mollusca and Articulata, which had long abounded–especially some of the Crustaceans, not an unimportant group of which (_Trilobite_[1]) had also culminated and almost passed away before the Devonian; to say nothing of the fact that _land_ “creeping things” (scorpions among _crustacea_, and apparently winged insects) had occurred.
[Footnote 1: It is remarkable that the Trilobites rapidly culminated, so that we have the largest and most perfect forms, such as _Paradoxus_, with the lowest (_Agnostus_) in the same beds in Wales (Etheridge’s “Phillips’ Manual,” Part II. p. 32).]
It is a special difficulty also, that if _insects_ are included among the “creeping things” of the _earth_ then various families of the “land-creation” (sixth day) became represented _before_ the great reptiles of the “water-creation” (fifth day).
The fact is that a glance at the subjoined Tables (which are only generally and approximately correct) will suffice to show how the main features of the progress of life-forms differ from what is required by the older methods of reading Genesis. To reduce the table within limits, I have grouped together all the lower forms of life in the animal table, viz., the sponges, corals, encrinites, and molluscs. It is sufficient to say that these appear in all the rocks except the very oldest–the Caelenterata beginning, and the Molluscoids exhibiting an early order in _brachiopoda_, which seems to be dying out. Crustaceans and insects appeared as early as Silurian times.
The idea of successive “kingdoms” or “periods,” each of which was _complete_ in its actual fauna upon earth before the next was fully ushered in, can no longer be defended.
It is in the _completion_ of one class of life before the other, that the fallacy of the period theory lies–for completion is essential to that theory which supposes “the Mosaic author” to have intended to describe the _process of production on earth_.
But it is quite impossible to deny that there _is_ a certain observable movement and gradual procession in the history of life which is exactly consistent with what is most likely to have happened, supposing the Divine designs of life-forms were first declared in successive order at short intervals of time, and then that the processes of nature worked out the designs in the fulness of time and gradually in order, each one _beginning_ before the next, but only beginning.
I do not deny that it is perfectly _conceivable_ that the Creator might have designed the forms in one order, and that the actual production or evolution of the corresponding living creatures might not have been (for reasons not understood) exactly, or even at all, coincident with the order.
But it is impossible to deny the strong feeling of probability that the commands would _begin_ to be worked out, in the order in which they were uttered.
And here it is that the correspondence which undoubtedly exists, gives rise to controversy.
From one point of view it is just enough to encourage the “period” holders to try and arrange a scheme; but it is just hot enough to prevent their opponents (justly) taxing them with straining or “torturing” the text and failing fairly to make out their case after all. From another point of view the correspondence is so far established, and so undeniably unprecedented (in human cosmogonies) and noteworthy, as to demand imperatively our careful consideration and compel us to account for it.
It will be observed, first of all, that the whole “creation” (omitting all incidental and preparatory works) is stated in _groups_ each having an order within itself.
_Group_ 1. God created (both land and water) “vegetation”–plants yielding seed, fruit-trees.
_Group_ 2.
In water, not necessarily excluding _amphibia_:–Great aquatic monsters; fish and all other creatures that move. In air:–Winged fowl.
_Group_ 3. On land generally–for some forms are amphibious:–Beasts (_Carnivora_), cattle (_Ungulata_, &c.), and other things that creep on the ground (the smaller and lower forms of life collectively).
The order _within_ the groups is evidently of no consequence, because the writer does not adhere to it in two consecutive verses dealing with the same subject; while the “versions” seem to point to some variations in the text itself as to arrangement, though not as to substance.
But as regards the order _of_ the groups themselves, it is, as I said, very natural (but yet not logically inevitable) to expect that when the results came to be existent on earth, those results should exhibit a sequence corresponding to the order in which the groups were created. And it is never denied (in _any_ of the most recent publications[1]) that to this extent nature confirms the belief.
[Footnote 1: I have done my best to verify this from the well-known latest Manuals of Etheridge, Seeley, and Alleyne-Nicholson.]
I am aware that Professor Huxley’s recent articles may at first sight seem to go against this; but that is not so on any grounds of actual fact, but of a particular _interpretation_–which I submit is wholly unwarranted.
For instance, it is insisted that the “sea-monsters” of the second group included _sirenia_ and _cetacea_ (dugongs, manatees, and whales, dolphins, &c.), which are mammals. In that case a portion of the command would not have been obeyed–a number of the designed forms would have been kept in abeyance–for a long time. And the same is still more true if bats–a highly placed group of mammals–were included in “winged fowl.”
But both these interpretations are distinctly arbitrary, incapable of holding good, and also entirely ignore the conditions of a Revelation.
The narrative is not discussed or defended as an ordinary secular narrative, which is true according to the _writer’s uninspired intention or the state of his personal knowledge_. It is defended as a Revelation. The distinction is as obvious as it is important, directly a moment’s consideration is accorded.
If we assume, for a moment, that God _did_ (on any theory whatever of Inspiration) instruct, direct, or enable the writer in making the record, then it is obvious that the writer either put down what he saw in a vision, or what was in some other manner borne on his mind. In any case, he could have had no critical knowledge, and no historical knowledge as an eye-witness, of the actual facts; and he may very well therefore have used language the full meaning of which he did not apprehend.[1] What alone is essential is, that the narrative as it stands, on an ordinary critical, linguistic, and grammatical interpretation, should not contain anything which is untrue. Suppose, for example, the word “tanninim” to be _incapable_ of bearing any other meaning linguistically than “cetacean,” then the narrative might be objected to; but if it will bear a meaning which is consistent with fact, then it is no matter that the writer at the time had an erroneous, or (what is more likely) no defined, idea in his own mind of the meaning. And so with “winged fowl”–the objection fails entirely, unless it can be shown, not only that the writer might have thought “bats” to be included, _but_ that linguistically the word _cannot have_ any other meaning than one which would include bats.[2]
[Footnote 1: As is constantly the case in prophetic writings. Revelation tells of the remote past sometimes as well as the future, and in neither case could the inspired writer fully understand the meaning that was wrapped up in his sentences.]
[Footnote 2: As a matter of fact, in the one case, if the writer’s knowledge were of any importance, it is almost certain that he did _not_ mean _cetacean_ or _sirenian_. In the other case it is impossible to say whether he thought “bats” were included or not. It is not in the nature of things that the writer could ever have seen or even heard of a manatee or a dugong; nor is it likely that he had been a sea-farer, or could have seen any Mediterranean cetacean. As far as his own knowledge went, he probably had but a very confused idea. And if we refer to the poetic description in Psalm civ. 25, 26, we find “leviathan,” though distinctly a sea creature, still one of which the writer had only a vague traditional idea, certainly not a _known_ Mediterranean dolphin, for in Job xli. the same term is applied to the crocodile.]
We have every right, then, to say that the “tanninim” of the text may be taken to refer to that great and remarkable age of Saurians which is not only of very great importance in itself, but becomes doubly so when we see its connection backward with the fishes, and forward through the Pterodactyles to Odontoformae (_Apatornis_ and _Icthyornis_) and modern winged birds (_Hesperonis_ for the Penguins); and through the Dinosaurs[1] with the Saurornithes, with the _Dinornis_ and the struthious birds; and through the Theriodonts with the mammalian _carnivora_.
[Footnote 1: And perhaps the pachydermatous mammals (Nicholson, “Zoology,” p. 566).]
In that case the sequence of the two groups, plants and aquatic animal-forms, is explained. They come almost together–plants being probably actually the first, and mollusca, fishes, and saurians.
There is, further, no real dispute that the Saurians led up to the Aves, and that the third group (of mammals) follows all the members of the second group. The earliest known mammal (_microlestes_) is an isolated forerunner of not very certain location, the real bulk of the mammalian orders beginning in the Eocene. Seeing, too, how very closely one Creative command is recorded to have followed on the other, it is not in any way against the narrative that some land forms of crustaceans and insects (and possibly others) began to appear at an early stage, when the vegetable and water-animal forms had only progressed as far as the Silurian and Devonian ages. Nor should we wonder if mammalian forms had occurred earlier. I mention this because of the evident gap in the geologic record between the Cretaceous and the Eocene, and because in the article of December, 1885 (and elsewhere), Professor Huxley has used language which suggests that mammals may have existed of which the rocks give no sign. E.g. (p. 855): “The organization of the bat, bird, or pterodactyle, presupposes that of a terrestrial quadruped … and is intelligible only as an extreme modification of the organization of a terrestrial _mammal or_ reptile.” The italics are of course mine. And again (p. 855), “I am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate to admit that the organization of these animals (whales, dugongs, &c.) shows the most obvious signs of their descent from terrestrial quadrupeds.”
I do not quote these words of so great a master as presuming to question them (even if, as a scientific verdict, I had any motive for so doing), but merely to point out as a matter of plain and fair reasoning, that if a Divine Creator had designed certain forms to be gradually attained by the processes of Evolution, it would not be necessary that any actually realized form or tangible creature should have existed as ancestors. Logically, the necessity is _either_ that certain animals should have actually existed whose descendants gradually lost or gained certain features and functions till the forms we are speaking of resulted, _or_ that certain patterns or designs should have been created according to which development proceeded by regular laws till the forms in question resulted.
A few words as to the terms used in describing the contents of each group, may be added. It is obvious that the terms are intended to be exhaustive of certain main groups which are described sufficiently, without being cast in a form which would have been incompatible with the use (at the time) of a human agent as the medium of the recorded Revelation.
(1) “Vegetation” (of an indefinite character, but not bearing seed), plants bearing seed, trees bearing fruit with the seed in it–certainly exhaust the entire range of plant-life.
(2) Moving creatures that live (and fish are afterwards expressly mentioned) and great monsters (tann[i=]n[i=]m), cover the entire field of life up to Reptilia as far as these are aquatic forms.
(3) The terms used for the third group are also obviously exhaustive–the separate mention of the _cattle_ and the _beast_ (Carnivora and Ungulates) is a form which is invariably noticed throughout the Old and New Testaments. The “creeping things” would include all minor forms, all land reptiles not described above as the “tann[i=]n[i=]m,” and insects.
And it is remarkable that the tortoises, the snakes, and, the more modern forms of crocodile and lizard, and the amphibia and higher insects, are all cainozoic–some of them were preceded by more or less transitory representatives, e.g., the Carboniferous _Eosaurus_ and Permian _Protosaurus_ the ancient Labyrinthodons and Urodelas, Chelonians and the amphicaelian crocodiles. Snakes have no palaeozoic representative.
Land insects, as might naturally be expected, go back to the times when land vegetation was sufficiently established, and appear gradually all along the line from the Silurian onwards. The modern types, however, are Tertiary.
The succession, we observe, may be illustrated by the resemblance of a number of arrows shot rapidly one after the other in so many parallel courses: all would soon be moving nearly together.
Plant-life, the subject of the first Divine designing, has, as far as we can reasonably say, the start. According to known laws it appears in elementary and undeveloped forms, and gradually progresses. One group (Cryptogams) reaches a magnificent development and begins to die away in point of grandeur, though still abundantly exemplified. Phanerogamic plants in their lowest groups of gymnosperm exogens then begin to appear in the Devonian conifers, gradually followed by _cycads_. And it is not till Cainozoic times that we have the endogenous grasses and palms and angiospermous exogens.
But the command regarding animal life had followed the other after a short interval, so that we soon see this developing _pari passu_ with the other groups–first the lower marine forms and gradually advancing to the Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, and then to Aves, as a special division in the second great design group. Lastly the mammals appear and man.[1] But throughout all, we see the rise, culmination, and decay of many transitory and apparently preparatory groups–such as, for example, the Labyrinthodons and Urodelas–preceding the modern types of Amphibia; ancient fish-forms preceding modern ones, and either dying out or leaving but a few and distant representatives; or again, the whole tribes of ancient Saurians, of which something has already been said. All these wonderful under-currents and cross-currents, rises and falls, appearances and disappearances, nevertheless all work together till the whole earth is peopled with the forms, designed in the beginning by the Heavenly Creator.
[Footnote 1: Nor should we be surprised to find (should it be so discovered) that some animals appeared after man. (_Cf_. “Nineteenth Century” for Dec. 1885, p. 856.)]
No account of Creation can be other than wonderful and mysterious; nor can the mystery of the Divine act be explained in language other than that of analogy.
We can speak without mystery of a human architect conceiving a design in his mind; and when he utters it, it is by putting the plans and details upon paper, and handing them over to the builders, who set to work (under the architect’s supervision, and in obedience to all the rules he has prescribed as to the methods of work and materials to be used).
All this we can transfer by analogy only, to a Divine design. The design is in the Divine mind, and He utters it in no material plans or drawings: the forces of nature and the chemical elements, His obedient builders, have no hands to receive the plans or eyes to scan them; but we can perceive the analogy directly, and that is all that is necessary for Faith.
The origin of all we see in the world and in the entire Cosmos is, then, in God; and as regards the adjustments of our globe and its relations, and the actual life-forms in plant and animal, they came into existence pursuant to groups of types or designs, made by the Divine Mind, and declared by Him from His Throne in heaven, in six several days–periods of the rotation of our earth.
That is the message of Revelation. It requires no straining of the sacred text: it takes everything as it stands, and the seemingly lengthy explanation it requires is not to manipulate the text, but to clear away the heap of mistaken conceptions that have gathered round it:–to establish the idea, that the terms “God said, Let there be,” and so forth, mean Heaven work, in the design and type–not earth work in its realization and building up. Establishing this by illustration and argument, nothing more is required in the way of textual exegesis except to argue for the rejection of perverse and unsustainable meanings long given to “days,” to “expanse” or “firmament,” and to “great whales” in the narrative.
It will be admitted readily that if this account of Creation is the true one, if the meaning assigned to the Genesis narrative is correct, it affords no hindrance to _any_ conclusions that may progressively be demanded by the investigation of life-history on earth.
It requires us to believe that the forms which life assumes are not chance forms, nor the _unpremeditated_ results of environment and circumstance. But we are not told positively which forms are transitory, which are final.
It is only a matter of probable opinion, which it is quite open to any one to dispute, that there is any indication of finality. I should personally be inclined to think that we have indications that carnivora, ungulates, and birds are final forms; that no evolution will ever modify a bird further into anything that is not a bird; that no transition between the ungulates and the carnivora is possible; that the _proboscideae_ are not a final but a transitory type, dying out gradually–our elephants and similar forms will disappear as the mastodon did.
But I admit this is all mere speculation, in which I ask no one to follow me.
On one important point only is there a difference; and if the text is ever proved wrong on that, it must be given up. But it is here that all scientific knowledge fails, in _any way whatever,_ to touch the sacred text. There _is_ an unique and exceptional account of one “special creation.” A man “Adam” is described as having been actually created, not born as an ultimately modified descendant of ancestors originally far removed from himself. That is not to be denied; not only was his bodily form specially created (conformably to the _type_ created in Genesis i. 26), but a special spiritual and higher life was imparted–for I believe that no one disputes this as the meaning of the expression, “breathed into his nostrils the _breath of lives,_ and man became a living soul.”
It must be noted again–although I have before alluded to this in some detail–that it is not impossible that, pursuant to the general command “Let us make man,” there _may_ have been other human creations, perhaps not endowed with the higher life of Adam. If it is found difficult to realize this because the _image of God_ is connected (from the very first) with the design of Man’s life-form, still it is to be remembered as an undeniable fact, that the form, though one assumed by God Himself in the Incarnation, _is connected_ in structure and function with the general animal (Mammalian) type, and that even the Adamic or spiritually endowed man _may_, by neglecting the higher and giving way to the lower nature, develop much of the purely bestial in himself. So that the bare possibility of a pre-Adamite and imperfect man cannot be _a priori_ denied. More than that it is not necessary to say. Nor is it necessary that any origin of man should be limited to six or eight thousand years back. If the state of the text is such that a perfect chronology is possible,[1] then all that the Bible goes back to chronologically is the particular man Adam. And it is quite impossible that any scientific or historical contradiction can arise therefrom.
[Footnote 1: It should be borne in mind that just as Revelation is often absolutely silent on many points that mere curiosity would like to see explained, so also, the Divine Author may have allowed parts of the original text of Revelation to be so far lost or obscured as to leave further points that _might_ have been once recorded, now doubtful. All that we may be quite sure of is that the text has been preserved for all that is essential to “life and godliness.”]
APPENDIX.
_PROFESSOR DELITZSCH ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN._
The information here put together is a compilation from papers in “The Nineteenth Century,” and other sources. It has no pretentions to originality, but only to give a brief and connected account of the subject, more condensed and freed from surrounding details than that which the original sources afford.
Before entering on the subject, I would again call attention to the surpassing importance of these early chapters of Genesis. And, I add, that unbelievers are especially glad to be able to allege anything they can against them, because they are aware that hardly any chapters in the Bible are more constantly alluded to, and made the foundation of practical arguments by our Lord and His Apostles, than these early chapters in the Divine volume. If these chapters can be shown to be mythical, then the divine knowledge of our Lord, as the Son of God, and the inspiration of His Apostles, are put in question. All through the Old Testament, allusions to Adam and to the early history in Genesis occur; and among other passages, I will only here invite attention to the 31st chapter of Ezekiel, where there is, in a most beautiful description of the cedar-tree, an allusion to “Eden, the Garden of God” (see also chapter xxviii. ver. 13), which some have thought to indicate that the site was still known, and existing in the time of the prophet. This at least may be remarked, that in verse 9, where the prophet speaks of the “trees that _were_ in the Garden of God,” the word _were_ is not in the original, and the sense of the context would rather denote the present tense–“the trees that _are_ in the Garden of God.”
But it is in the New Testament that the most repeated and striking allusions to Adam, the temptation of the woman by the Serpent, and the entrance of sin and death into the life-history of mankind, occur.[1]
[Footnote 1: See on this subject page 137 _ante_.] [Transcriber’s note: Chapter X.]
As regards the narrative of Eden itself, there has been, from the very earliest times, some disposition to regard it as mystical or “allegorical,” i.e., to regard it as representing spiritual facts of temptation and disobedience, under the guise or story of an actual audible address by a serpent, and the eating of an actual fruit. The earliest translators seem to have glossed the “Gan-‘Eden,” everywhere in the Old Testament (_except_ in Gen. ii. 8), by the phrase “the paradise of pleasure,” or some other similar term. And the Vulgate _always_ uses some phrase, such as “place of delight,” “voluptas,” “deliciae,” &c. It must be admitted that there is some temptation to this course, because of the inveterate tendency of the human mind to reduce things to its own level–to suppose everything to have happened _in ways which are within its present powers to comprehend._ We figure to ourselves the fear and dislike _we_ should ourselves experience, of a large snake; we imagine the amazement with which an intelligible voice would be heard to proceed from such a creature; so far from being _tempted, we_ should at once be moved to hostility or to flight; and thus we are inclined to throw doubt on the narrative as it stands.
But this is to do what we justly complain of modern materialists and positivists for doing–reducing everything to terms of present experience and knowledge.
It has to be borne in mind, that _under the conditions of the case_, the serpent was neither ugly, dangerous, nor loathsome, but beautiful and attractive; that the residents of the Garden were familiar with the “voice of God”–i.e., they had habitual intelligible communication with heaven: probably, also, free intercourse with angelic messengers (inconceivable as it may now seem to us) was matter of daily experience to them. The woman would then recognize in the voice an Angel communication; and unaware at first that it was an evil angel, it would excite no surprise in her at all. Sensations of terror, surprise, dislike, and so forth, were _ex hypothesi_ unknown. Why then should not the narrative be exact, unless, indeed, we have some _a priori_ ground for supposing that human nature _never could_ have been in a state where the voice of God and angels sounded in its ears, and where innocence and the absence of all evil emotion was the daily condition of life? The unbeliever may sneer at such a state, but _reason_ why it should _not_ have been, he can give none. So, again, with the idea of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” and the “tree of life.” We are no doubt tempted to think that these terms may be symbolic; but a more careful reflection, and a deliberate rejection of the _influence of present experiences_, may lead us to accept the narrative more literally. Even now, we are not unfamiliar with the ideas of medicinal virtues in plants and fruits. I see nothing impossible in the idea that God may have been pleased to impart such virtue to the fruit of a tree standing in the midst of the Garden, that physical health, immunity from all decay, and constant restoration, should have been the result of eating the fruit; and the eating of this fruit, we know, was freely permitted. The late Archbishop Whately suggested, and I think with great probability, that the longevity of the earliest generations of the Adamic race may have been due to the beneficial effects of the eating of this fruit, which only gradually died out. Just as we know at the present time, that peculiarities introduced into human families, often survive from father to son, till they gradually die out after many generations.
Again, as regards the “forbidden tree,” it will not seem impossible, that as a simple _test of obedience_ in a very primitive state, the rule of abstinence from a particular fruit may have been literally enjoined, and that the consequence of the moral act of _disobedience_ (rather than the physical effect of the fruit eaten) should have been the knowledge of evil, the first sensation of shame, terror, angry dissension, and, worst of all, the alienation from God the source of all good, which followed.
All such considerations of the reality of the history must gain greatly in strength, if we can demonstrate that the Garden of Eden, the scene of the temptation, the place where the trees that were the vehicles of such consequences to the occupants of the garden, stood, had a real existence and geographical site. Now I need hardly remark that the Mosaic narrative unquestionably _professes_ a geographical exactness and a literal existence of the garden, as no fabled locality–no Utopia or garden of the Hesperides. I need only refer to the _data_ afforded to us by Gen. ii. 8-14.
The Lord, it is said, planted a garden in Eden: it was “eastward;” but that does not directly indicate its site. From Gen. iv. 16, we also learn that the land of Nod where Cain dwelt (after the murder of Abel) was on the east of Eden.
A river went out and watered the garden. After passing the limits of Eden, the river is said to have divided itself, or parted, into four heads, i.e., arms or branches. The first branch was called Pison. This branch “compasseth,” i.e., forms the boundary along the whole length of, “_the_ Havilah.” This country is spoken of as being a tract wherein was produced good gold, “b’dolach” (translated “bdellium”) and “shoham” (translated “onyx.”) The second branch was Gihon, which is described as similarly compassing the district of K[=u]sh. Here our A.V., by substituting “Ethiopia” for the original “C[=u]sh,” has made a gloss rather than a translation; and this gloss has given rise to several errors of commentators in identifying the site of Eden. The Revised Version has corrected the error.
The third branch was Hiddekel, the _Diklatu_ of the Arabs, the Tigra of the old Persians, and the _Tigris_ of later writers. This is said to run eastward towards Assyria.[1] The fourth river was the Frat or Euphrates. Observe, in passing, that the author gives no detail about the great river Euphrates, as being well known; while he adds particulars about the Tigris, and describes the Gihon and the Pison in some detail.
[Footnote 1: So the margin of the A. and R. Versions more correctly.]
Now it will at once strike the reader that two of these rivers are well known to the present day. The others are not.
It is in the identification of these two, and of the districts which they “compassed,” which form the difficulties of the problem. Up till recent times, it is remarkable what a variety of speculations have been attempted as to the situation of Eden. Dr. Aldis Wright, the learned author of the article “Eden” in Smith’s “Biblical Dictionary,” remarks: “It would be difficult, in the whole history of opinion, to find any subject which has so invited, and at the same time completely baffled, conjecture, as the Garden of Eden.” And in another place he thinks that “the site of Eden will ever rank with the quadrature of the circle, and the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy among those unsolved, and perhaps insoluble, problems which possess so strange a fascination.” It is, however, to be remarked, (1)that all that was written before Professor Delitzsch’s researches were made known; and (2)that really a great mass of the conjecture and speculation has been purely in the air–undertaken without any reference to the plain terms of the text to be interpreted. It is the extravagance of commentators, and their insisting on going beyond the narrative itself, that has raised such difficulties, and made the problem look more hopeless than it really is.
To what purpose are “the three continents of the old world” “subjected to the most rigorous search,” as Dr. Wright puts it–when it is quite plain from the text itself, that the solution is to be sought in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, or not at all? The whole inquiry seems to have been one in which a vast cloud of learned dust has been raised by speculators, who began their inquiry without clearly determining, to start with, what was the point at issue. Either the description in Gen. ii. 3-14 is meant for allegory, or geographical fact: this question must first be settled; and if the latter is agreed to, then it is quite inconceivable that the words should imply any very extensive region, or any fancied realm extending over a large proportion of one or other quarter of the globe. The problem is then at once narrowed; and it is simply unreasonable to look for Havila in India, or for Pison in the province of Burma, as one learned author does!
Yet commentators have forgotten this; and gone–the earlier ones into interpretation of allegory–the later into impossible geographical speculation; while only the most recent have confined themselves to the obvious terms of the problem as laid down in the narrative itself–a narrative which (whether true or false) is clearly meant to be definite and exact, as we have seen. Our A.V. translators are to be held, to some extent, responsible for the freedom which speculation has exercised, by themselves taking the C[=u]sh of the narrative to “Ethiopia,” i.e., to the African continent–for which there is no authority whatever.
As regards the _allegorical_ interpretations, they are too extravagant for serious notice. Souls, angels, human passions and motives, are supposed to be represented by towns, rivers, and countries. To all this it is enough to reply–What reason can we have for supposing an allegory suddenly to be interpolated at Gen. ii. 8? There is no allegory before it, there is none after.
Then as to the early geographical expounders. Josephus and others supposed the allusion was made to the great rivers known to ancient geography, all of which ran into that greatest river of all, which encircled the globe. In this view, the Gihon might be the Nile, and the Pison the Ganges! Here, again, it may be remarked it is impossible to read the narrative and believe that the author meant any such widespread region. Even if the author had the ancient ideas about cosmography generally, that would not prevent his being accurate about a limited region lying to the east of a well-known river in a populous country. In later times Luther avoided the difficult speculation by supposing that the Deluge had swept away all traces of the site! But unfortunately for this convenient theory, it is a plain fact that the Deluge did not sweep any two out of the four rivers named. The reader who is curious on the subject, will find in Dr. A. Wright’s article a brief account of the various identifications proposed by all these commentators. It would not be interesting to go into any detail. I shall pass over all those extravagant views which go to places remote from the Euphrates, and come at once to the later attempts to solve the question in connection with the two known rivers, Euphrates and Hiddekel (Tigris); as this is the only kind of solution that any reasonable modern Biblical student will admit.
The different explanations adopted maybe grouped into two main attempts: (1) to find the place among the group of rivers that surrounds Mount Ararat in Northern Armenia, _vis._, in the extreme upper course of the Euphrates near its two sources; (2) to find the place below the _present_ junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris, along some part of the united course, which is now more than two hundred miles long, and is called “Shatt-el-‘Arab.”
But neither of these attempts has been successful: the first must, indeed, be absolutely dismissed; because the Hebrew phrases used in describing the four _branches_ of the river that “went out,” and watered the garden, and then parted, cannot be applied to four independent sources or streams–_upstream_ of the Euphrates. It will not, then, satisfy the problem, to find four rivers somewhere in the vicinity of the Euphrates, and which, in a general way, enclose a district in which Eden might be placed. It may, indeed, be doubted whether this first attempt (which I may call the “North Armenian solution”) would ever have been seriously entertained, but from the fact that the name Gihon–or something very like it–did attach itself to the Araxes or Phasis, a considerable river of Armenia. Finding a Gihon ready, the commentators next made the Pison, the Acampsis; and then as Pison was near the “Havila land,” this country was laid on the extreme north of Armenia; all this without a particle of evidence of any kind.[1] I may here take the opportunity of remarking that a chance _similarity of names_[2] has been, throughout the controversy, a fruitful source of enlarged speculative wandering. Thus this name Gihon (Gaihun, Jikhun, G[=e][=o]n, &c.) that appears in North Armenia, again appears in connection with the _Nile_; while again the name “Nile” has wandered back to the confines of Persia, and one of the _Euphrates_ branches is still called “Shatt-en-nil.” The ancients, indeed, had very curious ideas about the Nile. Its real sources being so long undiscovered–no Speke or Grant having appeared–imagination ran wild on the subject. Not only so, but it is remarkable that the name _Cush_ should have acquired both a Persian Gulf and an Egyptian employment: and the writer of the able article in “The Nineteenth Century” (October, 1882) points out several other singular instances in which names are common both to the African-Egyptian region, and to this.
[Footnote 1: And it is astonishing to find the error generally perpetuated in maps attached to modern Bibles.]
[Footnote 2: As distinct from a real philological connection of a modern name with a more ancient one, and so forth.]
Turning now to the second of the two theories, the identification of the site on the lower part of the Euphrates after its now existing junction with the Tigris (and which the supporters of the theory have justified by making the Gihon and Pison two rivers coming from Eden) must also be set aside.
For the important fact has been overlooked that it is quite certain, that anciently, the joint stream, (Shatt-el-‘Arab), as it now is, did not exist. Though the Genesis narrative tells us of a junction _immediately outside_ the southern boundary of the Garden, the Euphrates channels and the Tigris branch (with part of the Euphrates water in it) flowed separately to the Persian Gulf. It is quite certain that, in the time of Alexander the Great, the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris were a good day’s journey apart. For this separate outflow there is the incontestable evidence of Pliny and other authors quoted by Professor Delitzsch. I may here also remark, that anciently the Persian Gulf extended much farther inland than it does now. In the time of Sennacherib, an inland arm of the sea extended so far, that a _naval_ expedition against Elam was possible; more than one hundred miles inland from the present sea-line. The extension was called N[=a]r Marratum. In Alexander’s time, the city of Charax (now Mohamra) was founded close to the sea (that was in the fourth century B.C.). It is known from later histories, that shortly before the birth of our Saviour, the city was from fifty to one hundred and twenty Roman miles inland. The change is due to the “Delta,” or alluvial formation at the mouth of the rivers.
Turning, then, to the recent inquiries (published in 1881[1]) by Professor Fried. Delitzsch, it must be confessed that the results obtained are such as to completely avoid all the difficulties that beset the other explanations: yet we ought not to be too confident that it is a final or absolute explanation. A certain caution and reserve will still be wisely maintained on the subject. At any rate, they show that _an_ explanation, one that answers _all_ the conditions of the problem, _can_ be given; and that is a great thing.
[Footnote 1: “Wo lag das Paradies” (Leipzig, 1881) is the title of the book.]
[Footnote: Professor Friedrich Delitzsch is Professor of Assyriology in the University of Leipzig.]
In placing the site _on_ the Euphrates, and far from the mountain sources, there is no violence done to the Hebrew language used to describe the first river, as one that “went out,” and watered the Garden. The words do not require that the river should actually _take_ its _rise_ within the Garden limits; but it is necessary that the river should be so situated, that its waters could be distributed by means of creeks or canals across the Garden, that it could be said the river “went out and watered the Garden.” Now it is a remarkable fact, that in the district just above Babylon, the bed of the Euphrates is in level much higher than the bed of the Tigris (Hiddekel) to the east, and that hence there always have been a number of very variable channels leading from the Euphrates eastward to the Tigris. These, it is well known, were often enlarged by the ancients and converted into useful “inundation canals” for irrigation and the passage of boats. Imagine, then, the high level river bed of the Euphrates, and various streams flowing off it down to the valley of the Tigris, and we have a most efficiently irrigated “Garden,” and one accurately described by the text–the great river “went out” and watered it. The Euphrates, moreover, is liable to great flushes of water from the melting of the snows in wide tracts of