((/.) In regard to theories of the creation and the deluge, it is necessary to distinguish with the utmost possible precision between the language of Scripture and any private interpretations of it. When the ques- tion is propounded whether the six days of the Adamic creation were literal days of one revolution of the globe, or Avere successive periods of time ; when it is asked whether the deluge was partial or universal, the par- ticular opinion which each man may form must not be fastened on the scriptural language, as if it were its nec- essary and only admissible interpretation. It must be acknowledged that opinions on either side are equally consistent with a devout acceptance of the inspired Word. Experience teaches the necessity of this cau- tion; for the lessons of geology have compelled us to separate between the creation and the beginning of (ien. i, 1, and the Adamic creation of the later verses, and to allow the existence of untold periods between them. Now that we are accustomed to this, we find
PENTATEUCH
922
PENTATEUCH
that the change of interpretation has not put any iHs- honor on tlic text, and \vc must feel that wliat has Jiap- pened in regard to one verse may happen in regard to others. Modern science has undoubtedly proved the pre-existence of immense geological periods: but we are quite able to reconcile them with the scriptural narra- tive. See Ckkation.
(i.) The same observation applies to the question of the deluge, and however these questions may be finally solved, the apologist for the Pentateuch must stand bj- the text of Scripture, and, whether he believes in a par- tial deluge or a universal deluge, must not confuse tlie infallible text with his own fallible interpretation of it. See DELUGii.
(c.) Lastly, the state of the controversy relative to the antiquity of man and the origin of races illustrates with peculiar force the crude and incomplete state of all scientific investigation on these subjects, and the conse- quent rashness of all conclusions drawn from them un- favorable to the authority of the Pentateuch. For the rationalistic attack is urged from two contrary direc- tions, and is supported b}' arguments directly contradic- tory to each other. On the one side we are told tiiat the distinctive physical peculiarities of different human races are so deep, so irremovable, that they must be con- sidered to indicate diversity of species, and not simply varieties of one species ; that no climatic and social in- fluences can explain them ; that consequently the races of men must have been created distinct, and the scrip- tural narrative which asserts the common descent of all mankind mu.-:t be unworthy of credit. See I'keadam- ITES. On the other side, the very fact of an intelligent creation is called into question, on the ground that there are in the world no distinctions of fixed species, but only variations so mutable that all existing differences are the mere result of natural causes. The inevitable con- clusion from such premises is that all forms of life what- ever are self-developed out of one common primal fbrm, and the idea of creation becomes superfluous, for the original monad can scarcely be considered as less self- developed than all the forms which have sprung from it. That such is the natural tendency of Mr. Darwin's theory of the origin of species we have a most impartial ■witness. "'This theory, when fidly enunciated, founds the pedigree of living nature upon the most elementary form of vitalized matter. One step farther would carry us back, without greater violence to probability, to in- organic rudiments, and then we should be called upon to recognise in ourselves, and in the exquisite elabora- tions of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, tlie ultimate results of mere material forces, left free to follow their own unaided tendencies" (SirW. Armstrong at the Brit- ish Association at Newcastle, 1863). On the one side we arc called to believe in the evidence of fixed species ; and on the other side to believe in their non-existence. We are asked to believe that all living beings whatever, including man himself, have descended from original monads, and at the same time to believe that the races of mankind cannot have descended from a common par- entage. Tiie two arguments are totally irreconcilable, and till something like congruity can be introduced into our scientilic theories, it is premature even to suggest their possible contradiction to the inspired authority of the Pentateuch. See Spkciks, Oiugin of.
(8.) A lleijed Moral Inconrp-uities in the rcntateuch. — This class of objections is so indefinite in its nature as to make explanation and refulalion, in the brief space of an article, equally dillicult. They are all fountled on the sufliciency of the human consciousness to pass a verdict on the propriety or impropriety of certain acts ascribed to God in the Pentateuch. The form thev take is, liowever, more subtle than this. Ortain acts iminited to God arc contrary to the idenl which the hu- man mind frames of the Deity; therefore it is argued that God cannot have done them, and consequcntlv the books which attribute them to him cannot declare the truth, cannot be divinely inspired. The ideal
God in the human consciousness is made the standard whereby revelation is measured. For instance, it is argued that the destruction of the Canaanitish nations by the sword of Israel under express command was a cruel deed, at which the human mind revolts, and which it is impossible to believe that God could have done. Olgections of the same kind are urged against the Jlosaic law, both against its positive enactments, as in the case of slavery, and against the minute and apparently trivial character of many of its details ; and then, in support of these allegations, a contrast is drawn between the spirit of the Mosaic code and the spirit of the Gospels and epistles. It will be enough for the present purpose to reply that these objections rest al- most entirely, and derive any force thej' may appear to have, from a misapprehension of the facts of the case, and an erroneous estimate of the Mosaic code on the one side, and of the Christian dispensation upon the other. A candid examination of the whole naiTative shows that the destruction of the Canaanitish nations was purely a judicial act, wherein God was the judge and the people of Israel the authorized and divinely appointed executioners. It will be found that the ut- most care was taken to present the whole transaction in this specific aspect, and that this act of judicial se- verit}' stood in the sharpest possible contrast to the general tenor of the Mosaic law, which was tolerant, gentle, and singularly beneficent both in spirit and in its positive provisions. Looking at the Pentateuch, v/e find in it the same law of love which we find in the Gospels ; and looking at the Gospel, we find in God the same attribute of punitive justice which stands conspicuous in the law. The argument ma}- be car- ried farther, for the analogy between God's character and dealings in providence and his dealings in grace, as contained in the book of revelation, is close and ex- act in the highest degree. On this whole question Bp. Butler's immortal Anuluyy may safely be referred to. See Canaaxite.