the idea of man, God's chief work in creation, was coupled with his future history (all present to the divine mind)-as fallen, yet also as redeemed, and specially as redeemed by means of the incarnation of the Son of God in human flesh. Supposing this incarnation present to the divine thought, the significance of this plural would be-Let us proceed to make in our own image this wonderful being whose nature the eternal Son shall one day assume-this man who is to bear relations to us so extraordinary, so wonderful before the angels, so signal before all created minds, so glorious in its results to the whole moral universe! Have not we-Father, Son and Holy Ghost-a most surpassing interest in the creation of this being, man!

9. The relation of Gen. 2: 4-25 to Gen. 1.

Here are two points of some importance to be considered.

(1.) Are the two passages by the same author?

(2.) Do they both speak of the creation of the same first man, i. e. the same Adam, or is the Adam of Gen. 2 another and different first man, brought into being long subsequent to him of Gen. 1: 26-28?

(1.) That the two passages are from different authors has been maintained on the following grounds. (a.) That v. 4-"These are the generations * of the heavens and the earth "-appears like the heading of a new and distinct portion of history.But nothing forbids that it should be the heading of a new section or chapter of the same continuous history by the same author, resuming his subject with only a very comprehensive allusion to the great facts of creation which he had given in chap. 1, as fully as his plan required. This done he may proceed to a more full account of the creation of man and the events of his early history.

-(b.) That the account here differs somewhat from that in Gen. 1, e. g. as to the creation of man, and yet more especially, the creation of woman. -But these differences are not discrepances and are fully accounted for by the scope and design of this portion, viz. to give the history of the first man and woman in much more

*The word, "generations," obtains the secondary sense of family history and then the sense of history in general, from the fact that the earliest written historical records were so largely made up of genealogies-the records of human generations.

detail. (c.) But especially this diversity of authors has been argued from the different names of God which appear in these two passages. In chap. 1 and 2: 1-3, the name is simply and exclusively God (Elohim). In chap. 2: 4-25 and in chap. 3, the name is "the Lord God" (Jehovah Elohim).This difference is indeed a palpable fact, and has been the theme of an indefinite. amount of critical speculation based for the most part on the utterly groundless assumption that the same author can not be supposed to have used both these names for God. Those critics (mostly German) who have flooded their literature with disquisitions on this subject assume in the outset that none but a "Jehovist" ever used the name Jehovah, and none but an "Elohist," the name Elohim, it being in their view impossible or at least absurd that the same author should use sometimes one of these names and sometimes the other-which assumption seems to me supremely arbitrary, irrational, and uncritical. Authors now use at their option the various names for God, either for the mere sake of variety, or because in some connections one seems more euphonious or more significant than another. Why may not an equal license of choice be accorded to Hebrew writers? It is unquestionable that the same Hebrew author does use both of these names for God. -They made far more account than we of the various senses of the several names for the Deity. The names Jehovah and Elohim, were not precisely identical in their suggested ideas, although both are legitimately used of the one true God. Elohim suggests that he is the Exalted, Eternal One, the Infinite Creator of all. This name is therefore specially appropriate in chap. 1. "Jehovah" conceives of him as the Immutable and ever faithful One, coming into covenant relation with his people as the Maker and the Fulfiller of promise. (See remarks on this as God's memorial name in my Notes on Hos. 12: 5). Hence as the narrative in Gen. 2 and 3 brings God before the mind in these special relations to the first human pair and to the race, this name is here specially appropriate. But lest some might suppose that this Jehovah is thought of as another God than the Elohim of chap. 1-the writer uses both names-the Elohim who is also Jehovah to his

rational creature man and especially to all his obedient trustful people.

(2.) That Gen. 2: 7 relates to the creation of the same first man as Gen. 1: 26-28, and not of another man ages later, seems to me to admit of no rational doubt. The inducements to make out two distinct creations, i. e. of two different first men, come from the supposed proof of the existence of man on the earth ages before the Adam of antediluvian history. I propose to treat below this question of the antiquity of man. Let it suffice here to say that we must not mutilate the record or disregard the laws of philology for the sake of making the sacred narrative conform to theories which are yet rather assumptions than scientifically proven facts. As to the correspondences and variations in the two narratives of the creation of man, the first makes prominent his being created in the image of God: the second assumes this in the fact that God gave him law in Eden; in the knowledge of the lower animals which his naming them assumes; in the superior dignity which the Lord's bringing them before him for names implies; and in the fact that among them all no helpmeet for him could be found. His nature ranked far above theirs.— The earlier narrative says briefly that God "created them male and female." The later one expands this fact much more fully and makes it the foundation for the law of marriage. The later record treats with the utmost brevity the main part of the six days' work and must have been written with the previous record before the mind, to be a supplementary and continuative history, designed to bring out prominently the creation of woman and the scenes of the garden, its moral trial and ultimately its results.The supposition of a different Adam from that of the former record could never have occurred to the Hebrew mind, and therefore can not be accepted as the sense of the passage.

10. Invariability of "kind" in the vegetable and animal kingdoms.

The record in Genesis sets forth that God created grass, herb, and then fruit tree; "each after his kind;" also reptiles, fish, fowl and land-animals, each "after his kind;" and finally man "in the image of God.” Over against this the modern theory which bears the

name of Darwin holds that all the animals of our globe 'have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number;"* and moreover, that man has in this respect no pre-eminence above the beasts, but has descended in the same line with them from some one of the four or five progenitors of the great animal kingdom. More still he says in the same connection-" Analogy would lead me one step further, viz. to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype."These four or five progenitors of the whole animal kingdom correspond substantially with what Webster calls the five sub-kingdoms, viz. Vertebrates, Articulates, Mollusks, Radiates, and Protozoans. The technical classification under these sub-kingdoms into Classes, Orders, Families, Genera, and Species becomes of little or no account in any discussion of Darwin's system, for his theory of "descent with modifications" is reckless of all these lines of demarkation, traveling over and through them all without finding the least obstruction.

Let it be distinctly understood therefore that though Mr. Darwin makes frequent use of the word "species," and entitles one of his volumes-" The Origin of Species," yet his theory takes a far wider range than the question whether "species are variable." In his view not only are species variable, intermixing at will and passing from one into another, but genera also and families and orders and classes-not to say also each of the great sub-kingdoms of the animal world; † even the distinction between animals and vegetables fades away under his analogical argument. Hence the issue between Darwin and Moses is relieved of whatever uncertainty hangs

Darwin's Origin of Species, p. 420.

"The Quadrumana and all the higher mammals are probably derived from an ancient marsupial animal, and this, through a long line of diversified forms, either from some reptile-like or some amphibian-like creature, and this again from some fish-like animal. In the dim obscurity of the past we can see that the early progenitor of all the vertebrate must have been an aquatic animal, provided with branchiæ [gills] with the two sexes united in the same individual, and with the most important organs of the body (such as the brain and the heart) imperfectly developed. This animal seems to have been more like the larvæ of our existing marine Ascidians than any other known form." Darwin's Descent of Man, vol. 2, 372.

over the dividing line between species and varieties, and may fitly be limited to these two points; the invariability of "kind" in the sense of Moses in Genesis; and the distinct origination of man.

Under Mr. Darwin's system "community of descent" and not " some unknown plan of creation" is "the hidden bond" which unites together all living existences. of our globe. "Looking to some unknown plan of creation" (in his own words) has prevented the truly scientific classification and history of the forms of life in our world. The Bible has stood in the way of the growth of science. -Under his system the changes by natural descent from any given parent to its offspring, taken individually, have been exceedingly small. Hence the theory requires an indefinitely long time from the point of the original creation of the four or five primordial forms to the present status of living things, vegetable and animal, in our world. -The above remarks will suffice for a very general introduction to Mr. Darwin's system.

Wishing to bring this discussion within the narrowest possible limits and yet do justice to Darwin, to Genesis, and to the truth, I propose to state briefly his main arguments; then comprehensively my rejoinder to them severally in their order, and then subjoin some general considerations bearing upon his entire theory.

1. Darwin holds that by natural law the offspring vary, though slightly, from the parent, and hence, that, given an indefinitely long time, he has any desired amount of variation.

2. When animals multiply beyond the means of subsistence, there ensues a struggle for life in which the strongest and most favored in circumstances are the victors and survive. This law which he calls "Natural Selection" (or "the survival of the fittest") works a gradual improvement in the race. A twin argument with this comes from "sexual selection," the amount of which is that in the case of some at least of the animal races, there arises a struggle among the males for the possession of the females, in which struggle the most attractive in beauty or in song, or the champions in fight, being the victors, perpetuate the race and thus improve it. This law of the animal races (“sexual selection") works precisely in the same line with the law