important differences between the heathen cosmogonies on the one hand, and the Mosaic cosmogony on the other. The idea of actual creation is entirely unknown to the heathen. Delitzsch says: 1 "The Biblical cosmogony alone presents the pure idea of creation from nothing, without eternal substance, without the assistance of an intermediate Being or Demiurgos; this idea appears among the heathen, but it is obscured; the heathen cosmogonies either presuppose an existing substance and are therefore dualistic, or they substitute emanation for creation and are therefore pantheistic. Then they are all of a national and limited character, they have been formed by the influence of the particular mythological ideas of the separate peoples, and have been affected by their local and climatic circumstances. There is nothing narrow of this kind in the Biblical account of creation. And how wonderfully the Biblical cosmogony stands out from all the others by its plain and noble historic form! Manu's Book of Laws teaches that the seed of the primeval waters developed into a golden egg, in which Brahma remained at rest for a whole year of creation, till at length he split it, and from its two halves formed the heavens and the earth; the Babylonians say that Bel cut the mermaid Homoraka in two, and made from one half the earth, and from the other the heavens; that he then cut off his own head, and that the gods mixed the falling drops of blood with earth and made men out of them; according to the Egyptians, Num-Ra, the great divine creator, made gods and goddesses with his

1 Genesis, 3rd ed. p. 83 (4th ed. p. 71).

hands, and formed the son of Isis on a potter's wheel; while the Biblical account of creation shows in its first verses the grand simplicity which is the stamp of truth. The whole narrative is sober, decided, clear, concrete. The history as it is related is suggestive of much profound thought and poetical beauty; but in itself it is free from the influence of human poetry and human philosophizing." A. Dillmann, another expounder of Genesis, expresses himself in a similar way: "As here the just and clear division between God and the world is accomplished, and God is conceived in His full sublimity, spirituality, and goodness, so the account of the manner of creation is sublimer, worthier, and more exact than anywhere else; without intermixture of the grotesque and fantastic, simple, sober, clear, and true. There is nothing which could seem unworthy even of the purest idea of God, and if an attempt must be made to describe in human fashion the secret of the creation, which yet must always remain a secret for man, it could not have been made more sublimely or worthily."

1

If, among the different cosmogonies, any one has reproduced truly the original divine revelation concerning the order of the creation, it is without doubt the Mosaic. But to us the Mosaic account of

1 Genesis, p. 10. Dillmann does not trace the Hexameron back to an actual revelation, but to the popular ideas about the origin of the world which obtained among the Israelites, and the great family of nations with which they were connected. These old-established ideas were purified and transformed by the Mosaic writer (p. 9). The Hexameron may be said to be a revelation, for only where God had revealed Himself in His true form could this history have been composed: it is a work of the spirit of revelation,” p. 10.

creation has more than a merely relative truth, if we believe in the inspiration of the Bible. I trust that the above discussion has at least shown you clearly, that if we take up the theological position, we must accept the following propositions: (1) God gave in ancient times, probably to the first man, a revelation concerning the creation of the world. (2) This revelation was handed down by tradition to Moses, and Moses, with the assistance of the Divine Spirit, so transcribed it, that his transcription reproduces truly the original revelation. We have therefore (3) in the Mosaic account of creation a divine and thus an undoubtedly true account of the creation of all things.

God has, however, revealed Himself to man not only in the Bible, not only in a supernatural way, but also through nature. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." And according to the unanimous teaching of the Old and New Testaments, as given in the first chapter of Romans and the thirteenth chapter of Wisdom, the contemplation of visible things is a means of attaining to a knowledge of God and His greatness, even for those who stand outside the sphere of supernatural revelation.

But if the Bible and nature are both a means of revelation, if God speaks to man through both, if both are alike books written by the hand of God, so that

1 Ps. xix. 1, 3, 4.

man should read the truth therein, it is impossible that the teaching of the Bible and the teaching of nature should contradict each other. Cardinal Wiseman says: If we are firmly convinced "that God is as much the author of our religion as He is of nature, we must be also thoroughly assured that the comparison of His works, in both these orders, must necessarily give a uniform result."

"For," adds another English savant, "an Allwise and Almighty God can have revealed nothing which could be proved afterwards by natural science to be false."2 We must go farther, and say that nature can teach man nothing which would contradict what God has certainly revealed. The Bible and nature," says Kurtz, "in so far as they are both the word of God, must agree. When this appears not to be the case, either the interpretation of the theologian or that of the natural philosopher is at fault."

66

If we hold fast to this simple but weighty statement, it will be a help and a comfort to us in the difficulties and hindrances which we shall find on our way. The revelation of God given us in the Bible can contain no error, but neither can nature teach us anything erroneous, for it is the work of the same God whose word is the Bible; one and the same God speaks to the spirit of man in the language of the Bible and in the dumb signs of nature. But the spirit of man may err. The words of the Bible and the words of nature are undoubtedly

1

Op. cit. i. 8.

2 Geology in its Relation to Revealed Religion, by C. B., p. 1.

3 Bibel und Astronomie, p. 6.

true, but we must not forget that we may possibly hear and interpret wrongly these undoubtedly true words, and that we certainly have heard or interpreted them wrongly if it seems that the words of the Bible and the words of nature contradict one another. If, then, it happens that a statement obtained from the Bible by the help of exegesis contradicts a statement which men of science, relying on their observations and inquiries, believe to be an assured truth, we may assume beforehand that it is not the teaching of the Bible or nature, or both, which is wrong, because contradictory, but that the supposed contradiction has been caused through the error either of the theologian or of the natural philosopher; and that a more minute exegetical examination of the Bible, or a more complete and thorough inquiry into nature, would certainly lead to a different result.1

This certainty is especially calculated to preserve for the theologian that freedom and honesty which every inquirer, but above all the theological

1 "A theologian may err by drawing a mistaken conclusion from a dogma or a passage in the Bible, and by opposing it to the well-founded assertions of natural science; or he may interpret wrongly a scientific statement, and may mark this wrong interpretation of the statement as contradicting a point of religious belief. A natural philosopher may advance false theories, or draw false conclusions from true theories, and may then use these errors of his to attack religion. But in every case science when it has become more exact and impartial, and theology when it has become better instructed and has abstained from interference outside its own sphere, have reconciled contradictions which were caused, not by the nature of things, but either by a misunderstanding which might be cleared up, or an error which might be corrected, or an interference with each other's province which might be set right. It is fortunate that there are many different ways by which human reason can attain to a conclusion, and that these different ways control each