Chapter I: Creation (1)

FITLY the written word of God to the race begins with the _creation_. In every reflecting mind the first inquiry must be this: Whence am I? Whence came my being――this wonderful existence; these active powers? It must be that I am indebted for all these gifts to some higher Being; how earnestly then do I ask――_To whom?_――――No other question can claim priority to this. Every thing in its nature and relations gives it precedence above all other questions. Inasmuch as my reason affirms to me that I owe my existence to some great Maker, I feel that I must know Him and must know my responsibilities to Him. I need to learn also how the further question――my future destiny――may link itself with my relations to Him who brought me into being.

Of secondary yet similar interest are the corresponding questions as to the world we live in. Who made it? Does its Maker hold it under his own control? Does He still operate its forces and wield its agencies? Have I any obligations and duties toward Him who made the earth and all that is therein? Verily I must assume that if there be a God, at once Creator and Upholder of the earth and Father of his rational offspring, his written word will hasten to throw light on the otherwise dark minds of his children――will let them know that “in the beginning God made the heavens and the earth” and man.

The _moral lessons_ of this great fact――God our Creator――are forcibly brought out in later scriptures. Listen to the Psalmist: “O come, let us sing unto the Lord ... for he is a great God and a great King above all gods. In his hands are the deep places of the earth; the strength of the hills is his also. The sea is his and he made it, and his hands formed the dry land. O come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord our Maker, for he is our God and we are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand.” (Ps. 95: 1–7.) Note also the blended sublimity and beauty of David’s appeal: “Praise the Lord; sing unto him a new song, for the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap; he layeth up the depth in store-houses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him, for he spake and it was: he commanded, and it stood fast.” (Ps. 33: 1–9.) Still higher if possible rises the lofty strain of Isaiah when he would set forth the unequalled power of the great Creator as the Refuge and Salvation of his trustful children:――“Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and meted out heaven with a span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance? To whom then will ye liken God”? etc. (Isa. 40: 12, 18).――――So when Job had indulged himself too far in questioning the ways of God in providence, the Lord replied out of the whirlwind, demanding of him――“Where wert thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof if thou knowest――who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened, or who laid the corner-stone thereof when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy”?... “Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds that abundance of waters may cover thee? Canst thou send lightnings that they may go and say unto thee, Here are we”? (Job 38: 4–7, 34, 35.)

In that great conflict of ages against idolatry, the one final appeal was wont to be made to this great fact of God’s Creatorship. We have examples in Ps. 115: 2–8 and Jer. 10: 1–16 and elsewhere.――――Thus throughout the sacred word this great fact that God is our Creator, involving the whole sphere of God in nature, stands as the first witness to his true divinity, the first proof that in him we live and have our being――the ground of the first claim upon us for supreme homage, worship, trust, love and obedience. The first lessons taught in Eden were taken from this great and open volume of natural religion. The first lessons which God’s people were to place before the heathen in their mission work of the early ages were drawn from the visible worlds and from their testimony to the Great Creator. These manifestations are the alphabet of God; the point therefore from which progressive revelations begin.

Noticeably the record of the creation (Gen. 1 and 2) rests not with simply giving the general statement that God made all things, but enters somewhat into the particulars, reciting in certain points the _steps of the process and the order of its details_. First the heavens and the earth had a beginning and this beginning was _from God_. At some stage in the process, perhaps the next in order after the heavens and the earth could be said to be, the earth was chaotic, _i. e._ formless and desolate; then God brought forth light; then to clear the atmosphere somewhat of mists and vapors, he caused some of its waters to rise into the expanse, and some to descend to the earth below; then gathered waters below into seas, leaving portions of the earth’s surface dry land. Then he brought forth grass and herbage; next, the light-bearers in the heavens appeared――the sun, moon and stars; then came into being fish, reptiles and fowl; and on the sixth day land, animals and man. Thus in six successive periods of time, through steps of gradation easily traced by the witnessing “sons of God” (Job 38: 7), the processes of this creative work were finished. The Great Father would have his first-born unfallen “sons” as well as his later-born and redeemed children enjoy these works of his creative hand, and therefore he developed them slowly and in the order of naturally successive steps that they might see that all was truly “good,” “very good.”

Partly because of advances made within recent times in physical science, partly because of speculations not always friendly in tone to the inspired record, and partly because of the intrinsic interest and importance of the subject, some special points in this narrative demand very particular attention.

1. _The origin of the written record and the manner of its revelation to men._

The entire book of Genesis is ascribed to Moses on most valid grounds; whether as compiler only or as original author, is, therefore, the first question.――――I do not see how this point can be determined with absolute certainty. The probabilities in my view favor the supposition of previously written documents, these probabilities arising, not to any considerable extent from manifest differences of style in its various portions, and not at all from diversities in the use of the names of God, Jehovah and Elohim; but mainly from the strong presumption that such genealogical records as abound in Genesis, coupled so largely with numbers, would be put in writing before the age of Moses. Men who had the knowledge of writing would certainly appreciate its utility for the preservation of such facts as these.――――And further; the very use of the word “generations”[1] (Gen. 2: 4) in the sense of history, and much more still the statement (Gen. 5: 1), “This is the _book_ of the generations of Adam,” raise this presumption nearly or quite to a certainty.――――In making up the historical portions of the Scriptures it seems rational to assume that the Lord moved “holy men of old” to put in writing such facts falling under their personal observation and immediate knowledge as he deemed useful for these sacred records. In some cases the writer might be (as was Luke) just one remove from the original eye-witnesses, yet in a position to learn the facts with “perfect understanding” and “certainty.” We should not doubt the _power_ of God to give to holy men these historic facts by immediate revelation; but the question is not one of power, but of wisdom, of divine policy, and of fact. The divine policy seems to have been (in this case as in miracles) never to introduce the supernatural, the miraculous, to do what the natural might accomplish equally well. On this principle inspired men were moved of God to use their own eyes and minds in writing Scripture history in all cases when the facts came within their certain knowledge. There were facts, like these of the creation, which fell under no human eye, and which therefore do not come under this principle. Some form of direct revelation from God is, therefore, to be assumed here. Though the supposition of a revealing angel might find some support from subsequent prophetic Scriptures, yet a direct revelation from God to some inspired writer is the more obvious supposition.――――It has been asked――Was this creation in its processes and announcements shown in a manner analogous to prophetic vision――the writer then recording in his own phrase what he saw and heard?――――There being no testimony on this point from either of the two parties――the divine Revealer or the human writer――we must leave it undecided. Fortunately it is of no particular importance to us.――――It is, however, of some importance that we consider the question whether in this account of the creation we are to look for statements adjusted to science――not merely to the stage of its progress in this present year of the nineteenth century, but to the perfect science of ultimate fact; or, on the other hand, for statements adapted to the average mind of Hebrew readers in the age of Moses, written for their comprehension, instruction and spiritual culture. I answer unhesitatingly, the latter. “All Scripture, given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine ... and for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3: 16), and was of God designed and shaped for these ends.――――Yet let it be borne in mind; these statements respecting the processes of creation, being in the sense intended, actually true, will not conflict with any true science. They may omit processes which human analysis and research may render probable, passing them as not germain to the scope of a moral revelation and as not likely to be intelligible to the masses of mankind.――――Finally――that the assumed stand-point of view from which these processes of creation are contemplated is on this earth and not elsewhere in the universe is certain from the fact that it was written to be read and understood by men and not by angels. Hence we must expect the facts to be presented _as they would have appeared to a supposed observer upon our globe_.

2. _What is the true idea of nature, and what the line between nature and the supernatural?_

A reference to familiar facts will best set forth the case. Thus; it is in and by nature that at a certain temperature water becomes vapor; at another temperature, ice; that vapor rises in the atmosphere, water runs downward, and ice abides under the laws of solids. On the other hand it is _not_ in nature that water in any of its forms creates itself. Its elements can not begin to be, save by some power above nature.――――Again, by nature plants and animals reproduce their kind, but never can of themselves _begin_ their own existence. Hence some of the processes brought before us in this record of creation come under the head of nature; others are as obviously supernatural――from the immediate hand of God. The work of the second day――the mists of the atmosphere, in part ascending in vapor, in part precipitated upon the earth in water――seems to have followed natural law. In the work of the third, the waters on higher portions of the earth’s surface subsiding into the seas, follow the law of flowing water. But the original creation of matter and the beginnings of life, both vegetable and animal, must have been supernatural――from the immediate fiat of the Almighty.

This point would scarcely need special definition had not extreme views been put forth in our times; as (_e. g._) that nature is virtually a second-rate deity――indebted to God, indeed, for the original gift of its powers, but thenceforward working those powers independently of God――made to run without God after he has once wound it up as the mechanic makes and winds up his watch. But the Scriptures recognize no such semi-deification of nature. According to their teaching, God still “_upholds_ all things by the word of his power” (Heb. 1: 3); “By him all things consist” (Col. 1: 17)――_i. e._, are maintained in their existence――are held to system and order under natural law. It is precisely God himself who gives or withholds the rain; who calls to the lightnings and they answer, “Here we are”――(Job 38: 35); and it is none the less God who wields these agencies because he does it in harmony with principles which are just as fixed as he pleases to have them. Therefore true science will take no exception to the doctrine that nature is nothing more or less than _God’s established mode of operation_. We may call these modes of operations “laws” or “powers,” and may think and speak of them as constituting “Nature;” but if we come to regard Nature as a maker and a doer, working independently of God, we have (inadvertently perhaps, but none the less really) ruled God out of his own universe. Both Scripture and reason hold that “in him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17: 28.) The broad fact that God’s intelligent creatures must live in this material world and be constantly acting upon matter and acted upon by matter, suggests abundant reasons why God should ordain fixed laws for the changes and states of all material things. But why should we think of God’s hand as any the less present in all these changes of material states and forms because they follow fixed and ascertainable laws? In truth the divine wisdom is only the more abundantly manifested by means of this reliable uniformity.

Another doctrine yet more extreme severs all connection between nature and an intelligent Power above and over her, and thus makes her _supreme_ in her domain. This is so far Atheism――ruling God out from at least the entire material universe.――――Yet, again; to make nature herself intelligent――to ascribe to nature whatever traces of design appear in her operations, and to hold that nature is herself the universe, undistinguishable from any higher spiritual power, is Pantheism.――――It is therefore important to define nature so that her true relations to the Supreme Intelligence――the very God――Creator and Lord of the universe――shall be distinctly seen and reverently recognized.

The advocates of extreme naturalism have labored faithfully to verify their doctrine by experiment. They have put Nature to task――not to say torture――to compel her to originate _life_. Pushing their chemical analysis of those forms of matter in which life is thought specially to reside, they flatter themselves that they have at last got their hands on the very elements which, brought together, make life, viz. carbonic acid, ammonia, and water, chemically combined. To this compound they give the name, “protoplasm.” They have found, they say, that where life is there is protoplasm, its home and dwelling-place at least; and that life never appears lodging in any other home. They can not see that the presence of life adds any thing to this compound, or that its absence takes any thing away. Therefore they are sure they have found what makes life.

Now the skillful chemist in his laboratory has not the least difficulty in providing himself with carbonic acid, ammonia, and water. Why then does he not evolve the long-sought-for _life-force_ and prove his doctrine, past all doubt? Let him bring out new beings, new forms of life, vegetable or animal or both, in ample diversity, for the range is unlimited. Let his laboratory push forth into being such troops of offspring as will forever confound gainsayers and prove that Nature, properly manipulated, is equal to the production of life-forces in endless variety and abundance.

Have any modern scientists done this? Not yet. Have they made any approximation toward it? Mr. Huxley thinks he has come so near to it that if he could only have at his service the favorable conditions of the very earliest state of matter, he should succeed. “If it were given me (says he) to look beyond the abyss of geologically-recorded time to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, _I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter_. That is the expectation to which analogical reasoning leads me.”[2]――――“Not living matter evolving living protoplasm” means that matter itself, dead matter, begets real life. Nature would thus become herself a creator, exercising the most decisive functions of the Infinite God. Mr. Huxley can not make Nature do this exploit in the present state of this world or of the universe; but he fully believes there was a time when he should have seen it if he had been there! This is his proof of the new doctrine. He will not presume to “call it any thing but an act of philosophic faith.”

3. _The sense of the word “day” as used in Gen. I. of the six days of creation._

To simplify the subject I make the single issue――Is it a period of twenty-four hours, or a period of special character, indefinitely long? The latter theory supposes the word to refer here not so much to _duration_ as to _special character_――the sort of work done and the changes produced during the period contemplated.

Turning our attention to this latter theory, we raise three leading inquiries:

(1.) Do the laws of language and, specially, does the usage of the word “day” permit it?

(2.) Apart from the bearing of geological facts, are there points in the narrative itself which demand or even favor this sense of the word?

(3.) What are the geological facts bearing on this question, and what weight may legitimately be accorded to them?

(1.) Beyond all question the word “day” is used abundantly, (and therefore admits of being used) to denote a period of special character, with no particular reference to its duration. We have a case in this immediate connection (Gen. 2: 4), where it is used of the whole creative period: “In the _day_ that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Under the same usage we have “the _day_ of the Lord” (1 Thess. 5: 2) for the day of judgment; “the _day_ of God,” in the same sense (2 Pet. 3: 12); “the _day_ of salvation” (2 Cor. 6: 2); “day of redemption” (Eph. 4: 30); a “day of darkness and of gloominess; a day of clouds and of thick darkness” (Joel 2: 2). “In the day of prosperity, be joyful; but in the day of adversity, consider” (Eccl. 7: 14). “If thou hadst known in this thy _day_ the things,” etc. (Luke 19: 42). So also Job 19: 25, and John 8: 56, etc.

To set aside this testimony from usage as being inapplicable to the present case, it has been said――(a.) That here is a succession of days, “first day,” “second day,” “third day,” etc., and that this requires the usual sense of days of the week.――――To which the answer is that here are six special periods succeeding each other――a sufficient reason for using the word in the peculiar sense of a period of special character. Each of these periods is distinct from any and all the rest in the character of the work wrought in it.――――The reason for dividing the creative work into six periods――“days”――rather than into more or fewer lies in the divine wisdom as to the best proportion of days of man’s labor to the one day of his rest, the Sabbath. God’s plan for his creative work contemplated his own example as suggestive of man’s Sabbath and was shaped accordingly. This accounts for dividing the work of creation into six special periods, correlated to God’s day of rest from creative work.――――(b.) It will also be urged that each of these days is said to be made up of evening and of morning――“The evening and the morning were the first day,” etc. But the strength of this objection comes mainly from mistranslation and consequent misconception of the original. The precise thought is not that evening and morning composed or made up one full day; but rather this: There was evening and there was morning――day one, _i. e._, day number one. There was darkness and then there was light, indicating one of the great creative periods.[3]

It is one thing to say――There were alternations of evening and morning――_i. e._ dark scenes and bright scenes――marking the successive periods of creation, first, second, third, etc.; and another thing to affirm that each of these evenings and mornings _made up_ a day. The point specially affirmed in the two cases, though somewhat analogous, is not by any means identical.――――Let it be considered moreover, that while in Hebrew as in English, _night_ and _day_ are often used for the average twelve-hour duration of darkness and of light respectively in each twenty-four hours, yet in neither language are the words _evening_ and _morning_ used in this sense, as synonymous with night and day. Indeed “evening” and “morning” are rather points than periods of time; certainly do not indicate any definite amount of time――any precise number of hours; but are used to denote the two great changes――_i. e._ from light to darkness and from darkness to light; in other words, from day to night and from night to day. Therefore to make evening and morning added together constitute one day is entirely without warrant in either Hebrew or English usage and can not be the meaning of these passages in Genesis.[4]

(2.) _The showing of the narrative itself_, considered apart from the bearing of geological facts.

(a.) Here vs. 3–5 demand special attention, this first day being the model one.――――I understand “evening” to be the chaotic state of v. 2, when “darkness was on the face of the deep,” and “morning” to be that first “light” which God spake into being. The reason for using these words――“evening and morning”――in this sense I find in the universal sentiment of mankind that light is pleasant and darkness is not. This sentiment is indicated here; “God saw the light that it was good.” The state of chaos was in contrast with this――dismal, dreary, awakening no sense of beauty or order; no emotions of joy. The light of day brings joy, and the freshest and best sensation of it comes with the morning. Hence these words were fitly and beautifully appropriate to the two great creative states――first chaos; secondly, light――which together marked off the first of the six creative days.――――But we can not for a moment think of this chaotic state as being only twelve hours. We can not rationally think of the word “evening” applied to it as having any reference to time, duration. It was an evening only in the sense of being dark, desolate, any thing but joyous like the morning. The word “evening” may be chosen rather than night for the sake of a more perfect antithesis with “morning.”

(b.) Throughout at least the first three of these creative epochs there was no sun-rising and setting to mark off the ordinary day. These therefore were not the common human day; but, as Augustine long ago said, these are the days of God――divine days――measuring off his great creative periods. God moved through these six great periods by successive stages of labor and of rest. Beginning with the long evening of chaos; then advancing to a glorious day of light; then, after a cessation analogous to man’s rest by night, he proceeded to the work of the second day――the joyous and beautiful development of the firmament in the heavens. So onward by stages of repose and of activity, these figurative evenings and mornings continued through the six successive epochs of creation.

(c.) In some at least of these creative epochs, the work done demands more time than twenty-four hours. For example, the gathering of the waters from under the heavens into one place to constitute the seas or oceans and leave portions of the earth’s surface dry land. Nothing short of absolute miracle could effect this in one human day. But miracle should not be assumed here, the rule of reason and the normal law of God’s operations being never to work a miracle in a case where the ordinary course of nature will accomplish the same results equally well. We must the more surely exclude miracle and assume the action of natural law only throughout these processes of the creative work because the very purpose of a protracted rather than an instantaneous creation looked manifestly to the enlightenment, instruction, interest, and joy of those “morning stars,” the “sons of God” who beheld the scene, then “sang together and shouted for joy” (Job 38: 7).――――

The greatness of the work assigned to the fourth day stringently forbids our compressing it within the limits of one ordinary human day. Especially is this the case if we understand the verse to speak of the original creation of these light-bearers――the sun and the moon and the stars also, and of their adjustment in their spheres for their assigned work. Think of the vastness of the sun and of the numbers, magnitude, and immense distances of the stars; and ask how it is possible that the creation of these bodies could be either instructive or joyful to the beholding angels if it had been all rushed through within twenty-four hours of human time.――――This difficulty is in a measure relieved if we suppose the fourth day’s work to have been, not the original creation of these heavenly bodies, but only the bringing of them into the view of a supposed spectator upon the earth――_i. e._ by clearing the atmosphere so as to make these heavenly bodies visible. The question at issue between these two constructions of the fourth day’s work must be examined in its place.――――The amount of creative and other work brought within the sixth day should be noticed. First, God created all the land animals; then Adam; then he brought “every beast of the field and every fowl of the air” to Adam to see what he would call them――which at least must assume that Adam had attained a somewhat full knowledge of language, and that he had time enough to study the special character of each animal so as to give each one its appropriate name, and time enough also to ascertain that there was not one among them all adapted to be a “helpmeet” for himself. Then the “deep sleep” of Adam――how long protracted, the record saith not; and finally the creation of Eve from one of his ribs――all to come within the sixth day; for the creation of Eve certainly falls within this day, being a part of the creative work, and accomplished, therefore, before God’s seventh day of rest from all his work began. These labors of the sixth day, moreover, were precisely such as should not be rushed through in haste. The importance, not to say solemnity, of these transactions and the special interest they must be supposed to awaken in the first-born “sons of God” most stringently preclude precipitate haste. It is not easy to see how Moses or his intelligent readers of the early time could have supposed all this to have transpired within the twelve hours of light in a human day.――――We may say, moreover, in regard to each and all of these six creative periods that if the holy angels were indeed spectators of these scenes and if God adjusted his methods of creation to the capacities of these pupils――these admiring students of his glorious works――then surely we must not think of his compressing them within the period of six human days. Divine days they certainly must have been, sufficiently protracted to afford finite minds scope for intelligent study, adoring contemplation, and as the Bible indicates, most rapturous shouts of joy.

Against the theory of indefinitely long periods, it is objected that _the law of the Sabbath demands the usual sense of the word “day.”_ The record in Gen. 2: 2, 3, is――“On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which he had created and made.” The words of the fourth command are――“Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, etc.――for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”――――The real argument here rests on the analogy between God’s working and resting, and man’s labor and rest. In each case the period of labor is six out of seven; of rest, one in seven. This argument does not require that God’s six working days and one resting day should be of twenty-four hours each. If it did, we should be hard pressed to show that God’s seventh day of rest from creation’s work was a merely human day from sun to sun. No; it suffices if we make God’s days of creative energy and of creative rest each and all _divine days_――all alike periods of indefinite length――all of the same sort; and on the other hand man’s days of labor and his day of rest, all human days, of the same sort with each other, from sun to sun. As God’s resting day is plainly of indefinite length――a period known by its character and not by its duration, so should his days of creative labor be: not only so _may_ they be, but so they _ought_ to be according to the analogy and argument in the case.――――We come therefore to the conclusion that entirely apart from the demands of geological science, the creative days must be periods of indefinite length, called “days” with reference to the peculiar work done in them and to their peculiar character, and not as being the ordinary human day of twenty-four hours. It may be admitted, moreover, that the phraseology and the whole shaping of the narrative in respect to days may have contemplated the institution of the Sabbath――to be founded as shown above upon the analogy of God’s labor and rest with man’s permitted labor and enjoined rest in commemoration of God’s work of creation.

(3.) We are to consider _the geological facts bearing on this point and the weight legitimately due to them_.

If the point last put has been sustained, it will be seen at the outset that even should geology make large demands for time, far beyond the ordinary human day, we shall have no occasion to strain the laws of interpretation to bring the record into harmony with such demands.――――We open this inquiry therefore into the facts of geology, not so much to make out if possible a harmony between them and Genesis by toning down the facts of science or by toning up the inspired record, as to show how readily and how beautifully the facts just as they are (so far as known) accord with the legitimate sense of the sacred record.

Preliminary to the main inquiry before us is the question as to the primary original state of matter. Was it brought into existence in its primordial elements――those molecules which not only defy all human effort at analysis, but which seem to be in their nature the simplest forms of matter?――――Chemistry has shown that many of the most familiar substances, long supposed to be simple, are really compound. Were they brought into existence in the state in which we commonly see them, or in their ultimate, most simple elements? For example, did God originally create water, or the two gases (hydrogen and oxygen) of which it is composed, which were subsequently combined chemically into water?――――On this point the Scriptures are silent. If Science has any thing to reveal about it, the field is open to her and she may proceed, nothing in the sacred Scriptures dissenting or restricting. If she succeeds in proving or half proving that the first state of matter was nebulous――a “fire-mist”――gaseous in form, very well. I do not see that the record of Moses contests this theory. It passes this point with no dogmatic statements whatever, not even a fact which necessarily implies either the affirmative or the negative. The record in Genesis does assume that at the point where the second day’s work begins, the atmosphere was heavily charged with vapor, and that a part of this was precipitated upon the earth in water and a part borne upward into the higher strata of the atmosphere. The third day’s work gathered the waters then upon the earth’s surface into the ocean beds and left portions of the land dry. Consequently the state of the atmosphere, and in general the condition of the waters of our globe were not arranged at first just as we have them now. So much we are told.

There are yet other preliminary questions.

On the shores of lakes, seas, oceans, we find pebbles rounded and smooth, mineralogically of the same elements which are found in rock formations. Were they created in this rounded and worn state, or were they once portions of these rock strata, but subsequently broken up by natural agencies and worn by the action of flowing water?

Another case. Coal beds often contain what seem to be whole trees and huge vegetables (ferns, etc.) apparently charred and converted into coal. Were they created just as we find them, or were they indeed trees and vegetables before they became coal?――――Yet another case. The rocks nearest the surface contain almost universally more or less of what seem like fossilized plants and animals. They have the form of the plant or animal in wonderful perfection. Were these fossiliferous rocks, containing apparent fossils, created as we see them, or were these fossils once real plants and animals?――――I see no reason whatever to hesitate over these questions. We can not suppose that God created these worn and rounded pebbles, these charred trees and ferns, these prints of animal footsteps――these _fac-similes_ of his creative work in the vegetable and animal kingdom, for the sake of puzzling or misleading, or, in plainest words, deceiving his intelligent offspring. He never could have meant to baffle all scientific inquiry into his works of creation. Rather we must assume that he lays his works open to such inquiries, and invites men to study and learn his ways. If this be admitted, it follows that these stratified and fossil-bearing rocks open to us a great volume of Pre-Adamic history of our globe, revealing its processes of rock-formation; to some extent its climatic and various conditions for the support of life, vegetable and animal, and for its successive populations of plants and animals.

Grouping comprehensively some geological facts bearing on the duration of the great creative periods, I note (1.) Vast strata of rock-formations, widely diverse from each other, too diverse to have been formed under the same circumstances and conditions of our globe. Some――the lowest in relative position――appear to have been once in a state of fusion under intense heat, while others――in general all the higher rocks――seem to have been deposited under water. Mineralogically, these rocks differ from each other very widely and also from the fused rocks.――――(2.) Again, some are manifestly composed of fragments of pre-existing rocks, broken off and worn by long-continued attrition and then compacted――known as pudding-stone――the breccias.――――(3.) Yet again; immense strata of these intermediate and higher rocks contain fossil organic remains, some of vegetables, others of animals or of both, and also in very great variety. More marvelous still; they are found occurring in groups, bearing a well defined relation to each other, so that one strata of rock contains species of vegetables and also of animals in a measure adapted to each other, and adjusted to the condition of the earth’s surface and climate at one and the same time. Another strata shall contain a different group, to some extent new and yet not altogether so, but lapping on with some of the earth’s old inhabitants reproduced, and omitting other species.――――(4.) Again, immense beds of coal are found, undoubtedly of vegetable origin, differing somewhat widely from each other as having been formed from diverse vegetable and forest material, and under various degrees of heat and pressure. No small amount of time must be given for the growth and deposition of these mountain piles of tree and fern.――――The charring of these coal-pits of nature was provided for in the “fervent heat” of the earth just below the surface, coupled with pressure brought upon them it would seem by convulsions and upbreakings, to which the earth’s crust has been many times subjected.――――(5.) Limestone, largely of animal origin, demands in like manner time for the growth of the animals whose shelly incasements, accumulating age after age, have made such ample provision of limestone and of lime for the use of man.

This list of nature’s facts as the practiced eye reads them from the crust of our earth does not claim to be exhaustive. If it were all, however, it would still be amply sufficient to sustain the demand for long creative periods as opposed to ordinary human days. It should not be forgotten that this demand, coming forth from the facts developed in the crust of the earth, falls in most fully with what we have seen to be the legitimate construction of the Mosaic record.

_Prominent points of harmony between Genesis and Geology._

(1.) Creation was a _gradual process_, spanning from beginning to end long periods of time. I use the word “creation” to comprehend not only the original production of matter, but its subsequent changes and transformations till the earth was fully prepared for the abode of man.

(2.) _The earth was for a considerable time under water._ The record of Moses is decisive to this point. The current theory in respect to the formation of most if not all the rocky strata of the earth’s crust is equally so.

(3.) _There was light on the earth before the appearance of the sun._ Genesis dates the light from the first day; the appearance of the sun, from the fourth.――――The theory that the primitive state of created matter was gaseous (or nebulous) provides for this, since it is well known that the chemical combination of the two gases that form water (for instance)――a combination produced by electricity, evolves light. But we are not restricted to this hypothesis to account for light before the sun was visible. The state of the atmosphere may furnish all the causes needed. See below, page 32.

(4.) _Vegetables were created before animals._ So Moses, for he locates the former on the third day; the latter on the fifth and sixth. This is of course the order of nature since the animals are to subsist on vegetables. Geology finds vegetables in fossil state below the earliest animals.

(5.) Among the animal tribes, those of the water are before those of the land. Genesis gives us fish and reptiles and even fowl before the mammals――land animals――the former on the fifth day; the latter with man on the sixth. Geology indorses this order, showing that fish and reptiles lie in rocks lower and older than quadrupeds.

(6.) Man is last of all. The testimony of the rocks is here at one with that of Genesis――other animals and the vegetables also, long ages before man.

Now how has it happened that this record, coming to us through Moses, harmonizes so wonderfully with the main results of a science yet in its infancy――almost utterly unknown until the present century? Is it due to the scientific attainments of Moses? Is it not rather due to inspiration――“holy men of old”――Moses himself or the fathers before him――being taught by the same Being who “in the beginning created the heavens and the earth?” The marvel is that this record should be so constructed as to present a very intelligible view of the processes of the six days’ work to the average mind of the race before geological science was born, and yet when this science begins to develop the constitution and composition of the earth’s surface, the inspired record is found to harmonize with these developments in all important features. So it is wont to happen. Truth rejoices in the light. A truthful Bible and all true science meet in loving communion, evincing their common parentage――offspring of the same Infinite Father.

4. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Was this the original production of matter; or was it only the modification of pre-existent matter into new forms? (1.) That this was the original production of matter is probable a priori _because it is true_, and because it is a truth very important to affirm in this first revelation. Matter is _not_ eternal and self-existent. Those who intelligently believe in one Supreme God――an Infinite, Intelligent Spirit, will need no words wasted to disprove the assumption that matter existed from eternity, the Author of itself; for this assumption ascribes to matter the distinctive qualities of God himself.――――It is moreover important that God should declare himself to be the author of all existing matter in the universe. This is one of his great and distinctive works――one which human speculation has been prone to deny him, and which therefore it is of the utmost consequence that he should affirm. (2.) The passage (Ps. 90: 2) ascribed to Moses, expressly declares that God existed “_before the mountains_.” “Before the mountains were brought forth, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” Moses did not think matter to be eternal. He knew and taught that God existed from eternity and that matter did not. The obvious sense of his words is that God “brought forth” (_i. e._ into existence) the mountains of this earthly globe.

(3.) The writer to the Hebrews affirms that this doctrine――God the original Creator of matter――is accepted _by faith_, _i. e._ upon the credit of God’s own testimony. “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things that do appear” (Heb. 11: 3). Not being constructed out of matter previously apparent, they must have been made by the direct production of matter not before existing.

(4.) This is the natural and obvious sense of the words and this the place to affirm this first fact in the work of creation. This is the point to start with. How came the matter of the universe into being at all? Whence came this material substance composing the heavens and the earth? In the beginning God created it.――――It may be said truthfully that if God had purposed to reveal himself as the Author of matter――the real Maker of it all――he could have found no words more fitted to his purpose than these. Hence to deny that this is their sense is the next thing to denying to God the right or the power to reveal this fact at all.

(5.) It is objected that the primary sense of the word bara[5] (used here) is not to bring into existence what had no existence before, but “to cut, to cut out, to carve” (Gesenius); “to cut, form, fashion” (Fuerst). But this objection, though plausible to a merely superficial view, is really of very little force. Usage, not etymological relation, gives law to language. The etymological, primary sense of _barak_, the common Hebrew word for _bless_, is to break; then to bend as the knee, to kneel and to cause one to kneel; and then, perhaps from the custom of kneeling to receive the patriarchal benediction, or to implore blessings from God, comes the ultimate and by far the most common significance――to bless. Usage in every case must determine the most common and therefore most probable sense; then the context and the known opinions of the writer come in to aid toward the true sense in any given instance.

In the Hebrew verb regard must be had to its form, technically called its “conjugation,” since the sense of the several conjugations from the same root may vary widely. In this verb (bara) the sense of Hiphil conjugation is to _fatten_――which is very remote from the sense of “Kal” and of its passive “Niphal.” In Piel only do we find the etymological sense to cut, to carve out (five times only) and these spoken of human operations exclusively (Josh. 17: 15, 18 and Ezek. 23: 47 and 21: 19). But in Kal and its passive Niphal, we find the word used forty-eight times, and _always of divine operations_――always of some form of creative work wrought by God himself and never by man.[6]

The testimony therefore from usage is entirely conclusive to the point that this word in this form of it was specially appropriated to signify God’s creative acts――the exertion of his creative power.――――There are two other Hebrew words having the sense to make, to form, [asah and yatsar], which are sometimes used of God as creating but by far most often of _man’s_ work in forming and molding material things. Now note the argument. The Hebrews had these three words for _making_, out of which one only is used exclusively of God――never of man――as a maker. Now there is one special sense in which God can make and man can not, viz. that of bringing into existence what had no existence before. Over against this, place the fact that their word “bara” is used of God’s making forty-eight times and of man’s making never, and we must conclude that they expressed by this word that distinctive power of God which man never can even approach――viz. the power to _give existence to matter, to mind and to life_. In passages where this sense of “bara” is appropriate, there can be no question that it is the real meaning.

5. _The relation of v. 1 to v. 2 and to the rest of the chapter._

Some have maintained that v. 1 is only a statement in general terms of the contents of the chapter, a heading, stating no particular fact distinct from what follows.――――Others take it to be one fact in the series――the first step in the process of the creative work――the successive steps then following in due order. This latter construction I accept; and urge in its support,

(1.) That this is the most obvious sense of the words. The word “And” (v. 2) “_And_ the earth was without form,” etc., must be taken as _continuing_ the subject――not as _commencing_ it. It should give us another and succeeding fact, and not be taken to _begin_ a detailed history.

(2.) This is the natural order of the facts. First, matter must be brought into existence. Nothing can be done with it, nothing can be said about it, until it _is_. The first verse therefore is the natural beginning of the narrative――the first fact to be stated. The second verse gives naturally the next fact, viz. the condition of this matter immediately prior to the six days’ creative work upon it. Deferring the little he has to say upon the “heavens,” he calls our attention to the earth as being of chief interest to man, and makes this the main theme of the chapter.――――An observer would have seen the earth mantled in darkness, its atmosphere laden with murky vapors and dense mists; the surface (if indeed the waters below could be distinguished from the waters above) one wide waste of waters, all formless, vast, dismal; with nothing of order or beauty on which the eye could rest. Above and upon this shapeless mass the Spirit of God was hovering, or shall we say _incubating_, for such may be the figure involved in the Hebrew verb. Moreover it seems to be implied that this action of the creative Spirit was protracted. The Hebrew participle (used here) expresses continued action――was brooding over, incubating, this wild, waste, desolate mass.

Some scientific men suppose they find in this second verse, not water, but the gaseous matter which ultimately became water and solid earth. This construction originates in a theory in regard to the primal form in which the matter of our world came from the Creator’s hand, which theory may or may not be true, but if true is too remote from the common mind and too foreign from the scope of divine revelation to allow us to suppose that God would refer to it in his revelation.――――Carrying out this scientific theory, some have held[7] that not only the “waters” of v. 2 but those of vs. 6, 7, were gases, not waters. The fatal objections to this theory are――that these “waters” are the same which in vs. 9, 10, are “gathered into one place” and “called seas;” also that the common people for several thousand years could not have understood Moses if he had spoken of gases――certainly could not have understood their common word for waters to mean gases.――――It is not well to strain and force this simple narrative to speak so scientifically as to be unintelligible to those for whom it was primarily written.――――The first state of created matter may have been gaseous. The record in Genesis has said nothing to forbid this. It certainly could not come within its province to teach it. Suffice it that time enough may be found between verses 1 and 2 for a portion of this gaseous matter to form water――not to say also to form the more solid portions of this globe.

The connection of v. 2 with v. 1 is such that an indefinitely long period may have intervened. The first verb of v. 2 implies no close connection with v. 1. But in v. 3 the form of the first verb――“And _then_ God said”――does make a close historical connection with v. 2.

6. The work of the fourth day. Were the light-bearers (“lights” in the sense of luminaries) in the heavens, viz. the sun, moon, and stars also, “made,” created, on this day, or simply brought forth to the view of a supposed observer upon the earth?――――The latter theory that they were not first brought into being then, but only brought into view from the earth――seems to me most probable, because――(1.) To suppose them created then would be out of all proportion for one day’s work among the six. Throughout the other five days’ work a beautiful proportion obtains: it should therefore be expected in this.――――If it be said that this consideration draws its great strength from our astronomical knowledge of those heavenly bodies――much more enlarged than those of the age of Moses, I answer (a.) Moses, “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” was not altogether a novice in astronomy――(b.) Modern astronomy is essentially true, not overrating the relative magnitude of the heavenly bodies; and this record in Genesis comes from one who knew all the truth.

(2.) If these verses be understood to speak of their original creation, it would seem to be out of place here between the creation of vegetables (third day) and of the earliest born animals (the fifth). But in the sense of bringing these heavenly bodies to view and the sun into its normal action upon vegetables and upon animal comfort, it is precisely in place.

(3.) According to the interpretation given to v. 1 (above) the matter composing these heavenly bodies was brought into existence “in the beginning” when “God created the heavens” as well as “the earth” and before the six days’ work began. If so, then the intervening processes of modification must naturally have been going on from that time until this fourth day.

(4.) Some expositors and scientists account for the light on the first day without the sun by means of electricity or other chemical agents; but it is scarcely possible that Moses and his first readers could have thought of any thing but the sun as the source of that light, especially because “God called it Day,” and the darkness alternating with it then (as ever since the earth began its diurnal revolutions) “he called Night.” This reference to day and night must naturally carry every Hebrew mind to the _sun_ as the source of that light and to its well-known withdrawal at evening as the reason for the darkness and the night.――――It need not be supposed that the body of the sun was then visible. The state of the atmosphere might have admitted a portion of his light and yet not have disclosed his face. In our times we have seen cloudy, dark days, with no sun visible, yet with a manifest distinction between day and night.