Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1876-10-27
TBeYermont 9Banit.
Prof Huxley and the DlDIe


To many minds, Prof Huxley's tone in
regard TO the Biblical account Of the crea-
ton, and his arguments against II, in his
recent lectures, have seemed subversivo OF
religious faith. We believe, on the other
hand, to sound Biblical scholars, even
when thoroughly imbued with modern
science, this narrative offers no difficulties,
and, on the contrary, strengthens faith.
cosmogony cannot in the nature Of things
be what Mr.. Huxley calls Testimonial
evidence" Moses or whoever was the au-
thor of the first two chapters of Genesis,
was not present at the occurrence of the
events he describes. He merely gives
broad pictures or visions of certain great
changes in the present order of things.
If our readers will compare any other
cosmogony Of the Semitic tribes, or will
take up those OF the Aryan, the Hindoo, or
the Persian race, or those believed in by
the half-civilized nations of this continent,
he will sec the Unreasonable superiority
of the jewish account. Opposed to the no.
ton of accident or chance among the
Greeks, or that of the eternity of matter so
common in the Orient, or the superstitions
of many gods and struggling spirits, the
Hebrew narrative gives us the sublime
truth Of the whole present order of things
having sprung from an intelligent and SUI
preme will. The date OF the first creation
II leaves behind in an Unreasonable past.
1t only finds in the beginning chaos, and
the first germ of the organic or inorganic
world called forth by Supreme Force.
This certainly is in harmony with the very
latest researches of science, and is at the
basis of whatever may be called religion in
the world. So long as man believes in an
order of things which did not come by
chance or accident, but which derived its
forces from the original and intelligent
Force, he Is no longer materialist but is
bound by unseen ties to the world invisi-
BILE. This grand truth the Hebrew record
teaches above all others, and with sim
plicity and dignity unsurpassed in the re-
ligious traditions of any other race. The
philosopher believing this has an anchor
against all tides of skepticsm. If the BIZ
BILE had transmitted no other truth but
this to mankind, 1t would deserve eternal
reverence.
The remaining visions or pictures in the
narrative Of Moses are obviously not in
tended TO be translated literally. They are
extremely dramatic and poetic in form,
though of severe simplicity. Mr.. Huxley
sneers at the various interpretations, and
especially of the word "day." But it is in
the nature of such poetic narratives or Wis.,
ions that they should be susceptible of
broad differences of rendering. No schol-
ar need be told that the word "day"
changes in all languages according to the
context. Certainly the interpretations of
even such vague terms as poetic express
ions are not half so varied as of what are
supposed TO be the definite facts in geology.
Exegesis has quite as firm a foundation as
reasoning from fossilferous strata. The
Testimony of the rocks' changes under
each interpreter even more than the testi-
mony of Scripture.
There is nothing in any reasonable IN
depreciation of the first chapters of Genesis
to prevent accepting the doctrine of evolu-
ton, for the Divine Creator can as easily
work through links of Inheritance and va
ration as by direct and special acts of Gre
alton. Creation, II it originated "three or
four kingdoms OF life," as Darwin express
es it, would be as truly creation as II every
germ in each individual were specially
made. The language of poetic cosmogony
must OF necessity be the language of ap-
pearance. Human vocabulary has no
terms or even powers OF comprehension for
the evolving of things from nothing for
Creation.
As to the sequence of creation or appear
ance of different orders OF living things, 1t
is doubtful If Mr.. Huxley himself is thus
far in a condition 10 affirm or deny, and
certainly the Interpretation OF the Hebrew
record is equally doubtful with the conclu-
sioss Of geology. What Mr.. Huxley called
"great whales may mean many other
monsters of sea or land, and as he himself
has fallen back on "the imperfection of the
geological record" to explain obvious gaps
in the evidence, the Biblical scholar may
do the same. When Mr.. Huxley has ex-
planned the existence of the Cocoon in the
Laurentian, or of trilobltes in ancient for
nations, or OF other forms of life quite out
of the range where, under evolution, they
should have appeared, the Biblical scholar
may explain the Mosaic order of creation
The sequence, is broad, seems harmonious
with modern theories: First, matter with
out order; then light, then aggregation in.
to systems, then the lowest vegetable and
animal life, then higher orders of life, and
finally man. Still, the devout and consis.
tent believer in the Scriptures will not look
for or expect exact scientific accuracy in
narrative whose obvious purpose is TO es
tablish divine creation as opposed to chance
or to the idea of opposing spirits, or TO the
belief in the eternity Of matter.
Tho "Miltonic Interpretation" orthe rec
ord was that OF an age which knew little OF
nothing Of modern science. Just as the
views of scholars in regard TO the chronol
ogy Of the world have changed, or in re-
gard 10 the antiquity of the rocks, or the
astronomy OF the universe, and in like
manner, the Interpretation of the Bible
yet without affecting its spiritual authori'
~, so the belief in the mode and sequence
OF creation may change, and yet the Bible
narrative be found consistent and its grea
relig ioas value undimlnished.-M Y
Times
The democratic party, with its record
and the elements which compose it, /.
liable always to be regarded as a standing