Visit https://testbankfan.

com to download the full version and

browse more test banks or solution manuals

Building Java Programs 3rd Edition Reges Test Bank

_____ Press the link below to begin your download _____

https://testbankfan.com/product/building-java-programs-3rd-
edition-reges-test-bank/

Access testbankfan.com now to download high-quality

test banks or solution manuals
Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at testbankfan.com

Building Java Programs A Back to Basics Approach 4th

Edition Reges Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/building-java-programs-a-back-to-
basics-approach-4th-edition-reges-test-bank/

Building Java Programs A Back to Basics Approach 4th

Edition Reges Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/building-java-programs-a-back-to-
basics-approach-4th-edition-reges-solutions-manual/

Juvenile Justice Policies Programs and Practices 3rd

Edition Taylor Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/juvenile-justice-policies-programs-
and-practices-3rd-edition-taylor-test-bank/

Marketing of High Technology Products and Innovations 3rd

Edition Mohr Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/marketing-of-high-technology-products-
and-innovations-3rd-edition-mohr-solutions-manual/
JavaScript The Web Warrior Series 6th Edition Vodnik
Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/javascript-the-web-warrior-series-6th-
edition-vodnik-solutions-manual/

American Government 14th Edition Ansolabehere Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/american-government-14th-edition-
ansolabehere-test-bank/

Strategic Management Concepts and Cases Competitiveness

and Globalization 12th Edition Hitt Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/strategic-management-concepts-and-
cases-competitiveness-and-globalization-12th-edition-hitt-solutions-
manual/

Criminology Today An Integrative Introduction 6th Edition

Schmalleger Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/criminology-today-an-integrative-
introduction-6th-edition-schmalleger-test-bank/

Western Civilization 8th Edition Spielvogel Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/western-civilization-8th-edition-
spielvogel-test-bank/
Understanding Pharmacology Essentials for Medication
Safety 1st edition Workman Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/understanding-pharmacology-essentials-
for-medication-safety-1st-edition-workman-test-bank/
 Sample Final Exam #8
(Summer 2009; thanks to Victoria Kirst)

1. Array Mystery
Consider the following method:
public static void arrayMystery(int[] a) {
for (int i = 1; i < a.length - 1; i++) {
a[i] = a[i + 1] + a[i - 1];
}
}
Indicate in the right-hand column what values would be stored in the array after the method arrayMystery executes
if the integer array in the left-hand column is passed as a parameter to it.
Original Contents of Array Final Contents of Array
int[] a1 = {3, 7};
arrayMystery(a1); _____________________________

int[] a2 = {4, 7, 4, 2, 10, 9};

arrayMystery(a2); _____________________________

int[] a3 = {1, 5, 0, 0, 5, 0};

arrayMystery(a3); _____________________________

int[] a4 = {13, 0, -4, -2, 0, -1};

arrayMystery(a4); _____________________________

int[] a5 = {2, 4, 6, 8, 16};

arrayMystery(a5); _____________________________

1 of 8
2. Reference Semantics Mystery
(Missing; we didn't give this type of question that quarter.)

3. Inheritance Mystery
Assume that the following classes have been defined:

public class Denny extends John { public class Michelle extends John {
public void method1() { public void method1() {
System.out.print("denny 1 "); System.out.print("michelle 1 ");
} }
}
public String toString() {
return "denny " + super.toString(); public class John extends Cass {
} public void method2() {
} method1();
System.out.print("john 2 ");
public class Cass { }
public void method1() {
System.out.print("cass 1 "); public String toString() {
} return "john";
}
public void method2() { }
System.out.print("cass 2 ");
}

public String toString() {

return "cass";
}
}

Given the classes above, what output is produced by the following code?
Cass[] elements = {new Cass(), new Denny(), new John(), new Michelle()};
for (int i = 0; i < elements.length; i++) {
elements[i].method1();
System.out.println();
elements[i].method2();
System.out.println();
System.out.println(elements[i]);
System.out.println();
}

2 of 8
4. File Processing
Write a static method called runningSum that accepts as a parameter a Scanner holding a sequence of real numbers
and that outputs the running sum of the numbers followed by the maximum running sum. In other words, the nth
number that you report should be the sum of the first n numbers in the Scanner and the maximum that you report
should be the largest such value that you report. For example if the Scanner contains the following data:
3.25 4.5 -8.25 7.25 3.5 4.25 -6.5 5.25

your method should produce the following output:

running sum = 3.25 7.75 -0.5 6.75 10.25 14.5 8.0 13.25
max sum = 14.5
The first number reported is the same as the first number in the Scanner (3.25). The second number reported is the
sum of the first two numbers in the Scanner (3.25 + 4.5). The third number reported is the sum of the first three
numbers in the Scanner (3.25 + 4.5 + -8.25). And so on. The maximum of these values is 14.5, which is reported on
the second line of output. You may assume that there is at least one number to read.

3 of 8
5. File Processing
Write a static method named plusScores that accepts as a parameter a Scanner containing a series of lines that
represent student records. Each student record takes up two lines of input. The first line has the student's name and
the second line has a series of plus and minus characters. Below is a sample input:
Kane, Erica
--+-+
Chandler, Adam
++-+
Martin, Jake
+++++++
Dillon, Amanda
++-++-+-

The number of plus/minus characters will vary, but you may assume that at least one such character appears and that
no other characters appear on the second line of each pair. For each student you should produce a line of output with
the student's name followed by a colon followed by the percent of plus characters. For example, if the input above is
stored in a Scanner called input, the call of plusScores(input); should produce the following output:
Kane, Erica: 40.0% plus
Chandler, Adam: 75.0% plus
Martin, Jake: 100.0% plus
Dillon, Amanda: 62.5% plus

4 of 8
6. Array Programming
Write a method priceIsRight that accepts an array of integers bids and an integer price as parameters. The method
returns the element in the bids array that is closest in value to price without being larger than price. For example, if
bids stores the elements {200, 300, 250, 999, 40}, then priceIsRight(bids, 280) should return 250,
since 250 is the bid closest to 280 without going over 280. If all bids are larger than price, then your method should
return -1.
The following table shows some calls to your method and their expected results:
Arrays Returned Value
int[] a1 = {900, 885, 989, 1}; priceIsRight(a1, 880) returns 1
int[] a2 = {200}; priceIsRight(a2, 320) returns 200
int[] a3 = {500, 300, 241, 99, 501}; priceIsRight(a3, 50) returns -1
int[] a2 = {200}; priceIsRight(a2, 120) returns -1
You may assume there is at least 1 element in the array, and you may assume that the price and the values in bids will
all be greater than or equal to 1. Do not modify the contents of the array passed to your method as a parameter.

5 of 8
7. Array Programming
Write a static method named compress that accepts an array of integers a1 as a parameter and returns a new array
that contains only the unique values of a1. The values in the new array should be ordered in the same order they
originally appeared in. For example, if a1 stores the elements {10, 10, 9, 4, 10, 4, 9, 17}, then
compress(a1) should return a new array with elements {10, 9, 4, 17}.
The following table shows some calls to your method and their expected results:
Array Returned Value
int[] a1 = {5, 2, 5, 3, 2, 5}; compress(a1) returns {5, 2, 3}
int[] a2 = {-2, -12, 8, 8, 2, 12}; compress(a2) returns {-2, -12, 8, 2, 12}
int[] a3 = {4, 17, 0, 32, -3, 0, 0}; compress(a3) returns {4, 17, 0, 32, -3}
int[] a4 = {-2, -5, 0, 5, -92, -2, 0, 43}; compress(a4) returns {-2, -5, 0, 5, -92, 43}
int[] a5 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}; compress(a5) returns {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
int[] a6 = {5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5}; compress(a6) returns {5}
int[] a7 = {}; compress(a7) returns {}
Do not modify the contents of the array passed to your method as a parameter.

6 of 8
8. Critters
Write a class Caterpillar that extends the Critter class from our assignment, along with its movement behavior.
Caterpillars move in an increasing NESW square pattern: 1 move north, 1 move east, 1 move west, 1 move south,
then 2 moves north, 2 moves east, etc., the square pattern growing larger and larger indefinitely. If a Caterpillar
runs into a piece of food, the Caterpillar eats the food and immediately restarts the NESW pattern. The size of the
Caterpillar’s movement is also reset back to 1 move in each direction again, and the increasing square pattern
continues as before until another piece of food is encountered.
Here is a sample movement pattern of a Caterpillar:
• north 1 time, east 1 time, south 1 time, west 1 time
• north 2 times, east 2 times, south 2 times, west 2 times
• north 3 times, east 3 times, south 3 times, west 3 times
• (runs into food)
• north 1 time, east 1 time, south 1 time, west 1 time
• north 2 times, east 1 time
• (runs into food)
• north 1 time
• (runs into food)
• north 1 time, east 1 time, south 1 time, west 1 time
• north 2 times, east 2 times, south 2 times, west 2 times
• (etc.)
Write your complete Caterpillar class below. All other aspects of Caterpillar besides eating and movement
behavior use the default critter behavior. You may add anything needed to your class (fields, constructors, etc.) to
implement this behavior appropriately.

7 of 8
9. Classes and Objects
Suppose that you are provided with a pre-written class Date as // Each Date object stores a single
described at right. (The headings are shown, but not the method // month/day such as September 19.
bodies, to save space.) Assume that the fields, constructor, and // This class ignores leap years.
methods shown are already implemented. You may refer to them
or use them in solving this problem if necessary. public class Date {
private int month;
Write an instance method named subtractWeeks that will be private int day;
placed inside the Date class to become a part of each Date
object's behavior. The subtractWeeks method accepts an // Constructs a date with
integer as a parameter and shifts the date represented by the Date // the given month and day.
public Date(int m, int d)
object backward by that many weeks. A week is considered to be
exactly 7 days. You may assume the value passed is non- // Returns the date's day.
negative. Note that subtracting weeks might cause the date to public int getDay()
wrap into previous months or years.
// Returns the date's month.
For example, if the following Date is declared in client code: public int getMonth()
Date d = new Date(9, 19);
// Returns the number of days
The following calls to the subtractWeeks method would // in this date's month.
modify the Date object's state as indicated in the comments. public int daysInMonth()
Remember that Date objects do not store the year. The date
before January 1st is December 31st. Date objects also ignore // Modifies this date's state
// so that it has moved forward
leap years.
// in time by 1 day, wrapping
Date d = new Date(9, 19); // around into the next month
d.subtractWeeks(1); // d is now 9/12 // or year if necessary.
d.subtractWeeks(2); // d is now 8/29 // example: 9/19 -> 9/20
d.subtractWeeks(5); // d is now 7/25 // example: 9/30 -> 10/1
d.subtractWeeks(20); // d is now 3/7 // example: 12/31 -> 1/1
d.subtractWeeks(110); // d is now 1/26
public void nextDay()
// (2 years prior)

// your method would go here

8 of 8
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
his religion, which begins by giving predominance to the good Spirit,
ends by being honey-combed with nature-worship.”

2. Emanation.

This theory holds that the universe is of the same

substance with God, and is the product of successive
evolutions from his being. This was the view of the
Syrian Gnostics. Their system was an attempt to
interpret Christianity in the forms of Oriental
theosophy. A similar doctrine was taught, in the last
century, by Swedenborg.

We object to it on the following grounds: (a) It

virtually denies the infinity and transcendence of
God,—by applying to him a principle of evolution,
growth, and progress which belongs only to the finite
and imperfect. (b) It contradicts the divine holiness,
—since man, who by the theory is of the substance
of God, is nevertheless morally evil. (c) It leads
logically to pantheism,—since the claim that human
personality is illusory cannot be maintained without
also surrendering belief in the personality of God.

Saturninus of Antioch, Bardesanes of Edessa, Tatian of Assyria,

Marcion of Sinope, all of the second century, were representatives of
this view. Blunt, Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theology, art.: Emanation:
“The divine operation was symbolized by the image of the rays of
light proceeding from the sun, which were most intense when
nearest to the luminous substance of the body of which they formed
a part, but which decreased in intensity as they receded from their
source, until at last they disappeared altogether in darkness. So the
spiritual effulgence of the Supreme Mind formed a world of spirit,
[pg 384]the intensity of which varied inversely with its distance
from its source, until at length it vanished in matter. Hence there is a
chain of ever expanding Æons which are increasing attenuations of
his substance and the sum of which constitutes his fulness, i. e., the
complete revelation of his hidden being.” Emanation, from e, and
manare, to flow forth. Guericke, Church History, 1:160—“many
flames from one light ... the direct contrary to the doctrine of
creation from nothing.” Neander, Church History, 1:372-74. The
doctrine of emanation is distinctly materialistic. We hold, on the
contrary, that the universe is an expression of God, but not an
emanation from God.

On the difference between Oriental emanation and eternal

generation, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:470, and History Doctrine,
1:11-18, 318, note—“1. That which is eternally generated is infinite,
not finite; it is a divine and eternal person who is not the world or
any portion of it. In the Oriental schemes, emanation is a mode of
accounting for the origin of the finite. But eternal generation still
leaves the finite to be originated. The begetting of the Son is the
generation of an infinite person who afterwards creates the finite
universe de nihilo. 2. Eternal generation has for its result a
subsistence or personal hypostasis totally distinct from the world;
but emanation In relation to the deity yields only an impersonal or at
most a personified energy or effluence which is one of the powers or
principles of nature—a mere anima mundi.” The truths of which
emanation was the perversion and caricature were therefore the
generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit.

Principal Tulloch, in Encyc. Brit., 10:704—“All the Gnostics agree in

regarding this world as not proceeding immediately from the
Supreme Being.... The Supreme Being is regarded as wholly
inconceivable and indescribable—as the unfathomable Abyss
(Valentinus)—the Unnameable (Basilides). From this transcendent
source existence springs by emanation in a series of spiritual
powers.... The passage from the higher spiritual world to the lower
material one is, on the one hand, apprehended as a mere continued
degeneracy from the Source of Life, at length terminating in the
kingdom of darkness and death—the bordering chaos surrounding
the kingdom of light. On the other hand the passage is apprehended
in a more precisely dualistic form, as a positive invasion of the
kingdom of light by a self-existent kingdom of darkness. According
as Gnosticism adopted one or other of these modes of explaining the
existence of the present world, it fell into the two great divisions
which, from their places of origin, have received the respective
names of the Alexandrian and Syrian Gnosis. The one, as we have
seen, presents more a Western, the other more an Eastern type of
speculation. The dualistic element in the one case scarcely appears
beneath the pantheistic, and bears resemblance to the Platonic
notion of the ὕλη, a mere blank necessity, a limitless void. In the
other case, the dualistic element is clear and prominent,
corresponding to the Zarathustrian doctrine of an active principle of
evil as well as of good—of a kingdom of Ahriman, as well as a
kingdom of Ormuzd. In the Syrian Gnosis ... there appears from the
first a hostile principle of evil in collision with the good.”

We must remember that dualism is an attempt to substitute for the

doctrine of absolute creation, a theory that matter and evil are due
to something negative or positive outside of God. Dualism is a theory
of origins, not of results. Keeping this in mind, we may call the
Alexandrian Gnostics dualists, while we regard emanation as the
characteristic teaching of the Syrian Gnostics. These latter made
matter to be only an efflux from God and evil only a degenerate
form of good. If the Syrians held the world to be independent of
God, this independence was conceived of only as a later result or
product, not as an original fact. Some like Saturninus and
Bardesanes verged toward Manichæan doctrine; others like Tatian
and Marcion toward Egyptian dualism; but all held to emanation as
the philosophical explanation of what the Scriptures call creation.
These remarks will serve as qualification and criticism of the opinions
which we proceed to quote.

Sheldon, Ch. Hist., 1:206—“The Syrians were in general more

dualistic than the Alexandrians. Some, after the fashion of the Hindu
pantheists, regarded the material realm as the region of emptiness
and illusion, the void opposite of the Pleroma, that world of spiritual
reality and fulness; others assigned a more positive nature to the
material, and regarded it as capable of an evil aggressiveness even
apart from any quickening by the incoming of life from above.”
Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 139—“Like Saturninus, Bardesanes is said
to have combined the doctrine of the malignity of matter with that of
an active principle of evil; and he connected together these two
usually antagonistic theories by maintaining that the inert matter
was co-eternal with God, while Satan as the active principle of evil
was produced from matter (or, according to another statement, co-
eternal with it), and acted in conjunction with it. 142—The [pg
385]feature which is usually selected as characteristic of the Syrian
Gnosis is the doctrine of dualism; that is to say, the assumption of
the existence of two active and independent principles, the one of
good, the other of evil. This assumption was distinctly held by
Saturninus and Bardesanes ... in contradistinction to the Platonic
theory of an inert semi-existent matter, which was adopted by the
Gnosis of Egypt. The former principle found its logical development
in the next century in Manichæaism; the latter leads with almost
equal certainty to Pantheism.”

A. H. Newman, Ch. History, 1:192—“Marcion did not speculate as to

the origin of evil. The Demiurge and his kingdom are apparently
regarded as existing from eternity. Matter he regarded as intrinsically
evil, and he practised a rigid asceticism.”Mansel, Gnostic Heresies,
210—“Marcion did not, with the majority of the Gnostics, regard the
Demiurge as a derived and dependent being, whose imperfection is
due to his remoteness from the highest Cause; nor yet, according to
the Persian doctrine, did he assume an eternal principle of pure
malignity. His second principle is independent of and co-eternal with,
the first; opposed to it however, not as evil to good, but as
imperfection to perfection, or, as Marcion expressed it, as a just to a
good being. 218—Non-recognition of any principle of pure evil.
Three principles only: the Supreme God, the Demiurge, and the
eternal Matter, the two latter being imperfect but not necessarily
evil. Some of the Marcionites seem to have added an evil spirit as a
fourth principle.... Marcion is the least Gnostic of all the Gnostics....
31—The Indian influence may be seen in Egypt, the Persian in
Syria.... 32—To Platonism, modified by Judaism, Gnosticism owed
much of its philosophical form and tendencies. To the dualism of the
Persian religion it owed one form at least of its speculations on the
origin and remedy of evil, and many of the details of its doctrine of
emanations. To the Buddhism of India, modified again probably by
Platonism, it was indebted for the doctrines of the antagonism
between spirit and matter and the unreality of derived existence (the
germ of the Gnostic Docetism), and in part at least for the theory
which regards the universe as a series of successive emanations
from the absolute Unity.”

Emanation holds that some stuff has proceeded from the nature of
God, and that God has formed this stuff into the universe. But
matter is not composed of stuff at all. It is merely an activity of God.
Origen held that ψυχή etymologically denotes a being which, struck
off from God the central source of light and warmth, has cooled in
its love for the good, but still has the possibility of returning to its
spiritual origin. Pfleiderer, Philosophy of Religion, 2:271, thus
describes Origen's view: “As our body, while consisting of many
members, is yet an organism which is held together by one soul, so
the universe is to be thought of as an immense living being, which is
held together by one soul, the power and the Logos of God.” Palmer,
Theol. Definition, 63, note—“The evil of Emanationism is seen in the
history of Gnosticism. An emanation is a portion of the divine
essence regarded as separated from it and sent forth as
independent. Having no perpetual bond of connection with the
divine, it either sinks into degradation, as Basilides taught, or
becomes actively hostile to the divine, as the Ophites believed.... In
like manner the Deists of a later time came to regard the laws of
nature as having an independent existence, i. e., as emanations.”

John Milton, Christian Doctrine, holds this view. Matter is an efflux

from God himself, not intrinsically bad, and incapable of annihilation.
Finite existence is an emanation from God's substance, and God has
loosened his hold on those living portions or centres of finite
existence which he has endowed with free will, so that these
independent beings may originate actions not morally referable to
himself. This doctrine of free will relieves Milton from the charge of
pantheism; see Masson, Life of Milton, 6:824-826. Lotze, Philos.
Religion, xlviii, li, distinguishes creation from emanation by saying
that creation necessitates a divine Will, while emanation flows by
natural consequence from the being of God. God's motive in creation
is love, which urges him to communicate his holiness to other
beings. God creates individual finite spirits, and then permits the
thought, which at first was only his, to become the thought of these
other spirits. This transference of his thought by will is the creation
of the world. F. W. Farrar, on Heb. 1:2—“The word Æon was used by
the Gnostics to describe the various emanations by which they tried
at once to widen and to bridge over the gulf between the human
and the divine. Over that imaginary chasm John threw the arch of
the Incarnation, when he wrote: ‘The Word became flesh’ (John
1:14).”

Upton, Hibbert Lectures, chap. 2—“In the very making of souls of his
own essence and substance, and in the vacating of his own causality
in order that men may be free, God already dies in order that they
may live. God withdraws himself from our wills, so as to make
possible free choice and even possible opposition to himself.
Individualism [pg 386]admits dualism but not complete division.
Our dualism holds still to underground connections of life between
man and man, man and nature, man and God. Even the physical
creation is ethical at heart: each thing is dependent on other things,
and must serve them, or lose its own life and beauty. The branch
must abide in the vine, or it withers and is cut off and burned”
(275).

Swedenborg held to emanation,—see Divine Love and Wisdom, 283,

303, 905—“Every one who thinks from clear reason sees that the
universe is not created from nothing.... All things were created out
of a substance.... As God alone is substance in itself and therefore
the real esse, it is evidence that the existence of things is from no
other source.... Yet the created universe is not God, because God is
not in time and space.... There is a creation of the universe, and of
all things therein, by continual mediations from the First.... In the
substances and matters of which the earths consist, there is nothing
of the Divine in itself, but they are deprived of all that is divine in
itself.... Still they have brought with them by continuation from the
substance of the spiritual sum that which was there from the Divine.”
Swedenborgianism is “materialism driven deep and clinched on the
inside.” This system reverses the Lord's prayer; it should read: “As
on earth, so in heaven.” He disliked certain sects, and he found that
all who belonged to those sects were in the hells, condemned to
everlasting punishment. The truth is not materialistic emanation, as
Swedenborg imagined, but rather divine energizing in space and
time. The universe is God's system of graded self-limitation, from
matter up to mind. It has had a beginning, and God has instituted it.
It is a finite and partial manifestation of the infinite Spirit. Matter is
an expression of spirit, but not an emanation from spirit, any more
than our thoughts and volitions are. Finite spirits, on the other hand,
are differentiations within the being of God himself, and so are not
emanations from him.

Napoleon asked Goethe what matter was. “Esprit gelé,”—frozen

spirit was the answer Schelling wished Goethe had given him. But
neither is matter spirit, nor are matter and spirit together mere
natural effluxes from God's substance. A divine institution of them is
requisite (quoted substantially from Dorner, System of Doctrine,
2:40). Schlegel in a similar manner called architecture “frozen
music,” and another writer calls music “dissolved architecture.”
There is a “psychical automatism,” as Ladd says, in his Philosophy of
Mind, 169; and Hegel calls nature “the corpse of the understanding
—spirit to alienation from itself.” But spirit is the Adam, of which
nature is the Eve; and man says to nature: “This is bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh,” as Adam did in Gen. 2:23.
3. Creation from eternity.

This theory regards creation as an act of God in

eternity past. It was propounded by Origen, and has
been held in recent times by Martensen, Martineau,
John Caird, Knight, and Pfleiderer. The necessity of
supposing such creation from eternity has been
argued from God's omnipotence, God's timelessness,
God's immutability, and God's love. We consider each
of these arguments in their order.

Origen held that God was from eternity the creator of the world of
spirits. Martensen, in his Dogmatics, 114, shows favor to the
maxims: “Without the world God is not God.... God created the
world to satisfy a want in himself.... He cannot but constitute himself
the Father of spirits.” Schiller, Die Freundschaft, last stanza, gives
the following popular expression to this view: “Freundlos war der
grosse Weltenmeister; Fühlte Mangel, darum schuf er Geister, Sel'ge
Spiegel seiner Seligkeit. Fand das höchste Wesen schon kein
Gleiches; Aus dem Kelch des ganzen Geisterreiches Schäumt ihm die
Unendlichkeit.” The poet's thought was perhaps suggested by
Goethe's Sorrows of Werther: “The flight of a bird above my head
inspired me with the desire of being transported to the shores of the
immeasurable waters, there to quaff the pleasures of life from the
foaming goblet of the infinite.” Robert Browning, Rabbi Ben Ezra, 31
—“But I need now as then, Thee, God, who mouldest men. And
since, not even when the whirl was worst, Did I—to the wheel of life
With shapes and colors rife, Bound dizzily—mistake my end, To slake
thy thirst.” But this regards the Creator as dependent upon, and in
bondage to, his own world.

Pythagoras held that nature's substances and laws are eternal.

Martineau, Study of Religion, 1:144; 2:250, seems to make the
creation of the world an eternal process, [pg 387]conceiving of it
as a self-sundering of the Deity, in whom in some way the world was
always contained (Schurman, Belief in God, 140). Knight, Studies in
Philos. and Lit., 94, quotes from Byron's Cain, I:1—“Let him Sit on
his vast and solitary throne, Creating worlds, to make eternity Less
burdensome to his immense existence And unparticipated solitude....
He, so wretched in his height, So restless in his wretchedness, must
still Create and recreate.” Byron puts these words into the mouth of
Lucifer. Yet Knight, in his Essays in Philosophy, 143, 247, regards the
universe as the everlasting effect of an eternal Cause. Dualism, he
thinks, is involved in the very notion of a search for God.

W. N. Clarke, Christian Theology, 117—“God is the source of the

universe. Whether by immediate production at some point of time,
so that after he had existed alone there came by his act to be a
universe, or by perpetual production from his own spiritual being, so
that his eternal existence was always accompanied by a universe in
some stage of being, God has brought the universe into existence....
Any method in which the independent God could produce a universe
which without him could have had no existence, is accordant with
the teachings of Scripture. Many find it easier philosophically to hold
that God has eternally brought forth creation from himself, so that
there has never been a time when there was not a universe in some
stage of existence, than to think of an instantaneous creation of all
existing things when there had been nothing but God before.
Between these two views theology is not compelled to decide,
provided we believe that God is a free Spirit greater than the
universe.” We dissent from this conclusion of Dr. Clarke, and hold
that Scripture requires us to trace the universe back to a beginning,
while reason itself is better satisfied with this view than it can be
with the theory of creation from eternity.

(a) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by

God's omnipotence. Omnipotence does not
necessarily imply actual creation; it implies only
power to create. Creation, moreover, is in the nature
of the case a thing begun. Creation from eternity is a
contradiction in terms, and that which is self-
contradictory is not an object of power.

The argument rests upon a misconception of eternity, regarding it as

a prolongation of time into the endless past. We have seen in our
discussion of eternity as an attribute of God, that eternity is not
endless time, or time without beginning, but rather superiority to the
law of time. Since eternity is no more past than it is present, the
idea of creation from eternity is an irrational one. We must
distinguish creation in eternity past (= God and the world coëternal,
yet God the cause of the world, as he is the begetter of the Son)
from continuous creation (which is an explanation of preservation,
but not of creation at all). It is this latter, not the former, to which
Rothe holds (see under the doctrine of Preservation, pages 415,
416). Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 81, 82—“Creation is not from
eternity, since past eternity cannot be actually traversed any more
than we can reach the bound of an eternity to come. There was no
timebefore creation, because there was no succession.”

Birks, Scripture Doctrine of Creation, 78-105—“The first verse of

Genesis excludes five speculative falsehoods: 1. that there is nothing
but uncreated matter; 2. that there is no God distinct from his
creatures; 3. that creation is a series of acts without a beginning; 4.
that there is no real universe; 5. that nothing can be known of God
or the origin of things.” Veitch, Knowing and Being, 22—“The ideas
of creation and creative energy are emptied of meaning, and for
them is substituted the conception or fiction of an eternally related
or double-sided world, not of what has been, but of what always is.
It is another form of the see-saw philosophy. The eternal Self only is,
if the eternal manifold is; the eternal manifold is, if the eternal Self
is. The one, in being the other, is or makes itself the one; the other,
in being the one, is or makes itself the other. This may be called a
unity; it is rather, if we might invent a term suited to the new and
marvellous conception, an unparalleled and unbegotten twinity.”

(b) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by

God's timelessness. Because God is free from the law
of time it does not follow that creation is free from
that law. Rather is it true that no eternal creation is
conceivable, since this involves an infinite number.
Time must have had a beginning, and since the
universe and time are coëxistent, creation could not
have been from eternity.

[pg 388]

Jude 25—“Before all time”—implies that time had a beginning, and

Eph. 1:4—“before the foundation of the world”—implies that creation
itself had a beginning. Is creation infinite? No, says Dorner,
Glaubenslehre, 1:459, because to a perfect creation unity is as
necessary as multiplicity. The universe is an organism, and there can
be no organism without a definite number of parts. For a similar
reason Dorner, System Doctrine, 2:28, denies that the universe can
be eternal. Granting on the one hand that the world though eternal
might be dependent upon God and as soon as the plan was evolved
there might be no reason why the execution should be delayed, yet
on the other hand the absolutely limitless is the imperfect and no
universe with an infinite number of parts is conceivable or possible.
So Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 1:220-225—“What has a goal or
end must have a beginning; history, as teleological, implies creation.”

Lotze, Philos. Religion, 74—“The world, with respect to its existence

as well as its content, is completely dependent on the will of God,
and not as a mere involuntary development of his nature.... The
word ‘creation’ ought not to be used to designate a deed of God so
much as the absolute dependence of the world on his will.” So
Schurman, Belief in God, 146, 156, 225—“Creation is the eternal
dependence of the world on God.... Nature is the externalization of
spirit.... Material things exist simply as modes of the divine activity;
they have no existence for themselves.” On this view that God is the
Ground but not the Creator of the world, see Hovey, Studies in
Ethics and Religion, 23-56—“Creation is no more of a mystery than is
the causal action” in which both Lotze and Schurman believe. “To
deny that divine power can originate real being—can add to the sum
total of existence—is much like saying that such power is finite.” No
one can prove that “it is of the essence of spirit to reveal itself,”or if
so, that it must do this by means of an organism or externalization.
Eternal succession of changes in nature is no more comprehensible
than are a creating God and a universe originating in time.

(c) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by

God's immutability. His immutability requires, not an
eternal creation, but only an eternal plan of creation.
The opposite principle would compel us to deny the
possibility of miracles, incarnation, and regeneration.
Like creation, these too would need to be eternal.

We distinguish between idea and plan, between plan and execution.

Much of God's plan is not yet executed. The beginning of its
execution is as easy to conceive as is the continuation of its
execution. But the beginning of the execution of God's plan is
creation. Active will is an element in creation. God's will is not always
active. He waits for “the fulness of the time” (Gal. 4:4) before he
sends forth his Son. As we can trace back Christ's earthly life to a
beginning, so we can trace back the life of the universe to a
beginning. Those who hold to creation from eternity usually interpret
Gen. 1:1—“In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth,” and John 1:1—“In the beginning was the Word,” as both
and alike meaning “in eternity.” But neither of these texts has this
meaning. In each we are simply carried back to the beginning of the
creation, and it is asserted that God was its author and that the
Word already was.

(d) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by

God's love. Creation is finite and cannot furnish
perfect satisfaction to the infinite love of God. God
has moreover from eternity an object of love
infinitely superior to any possible creation, in the
person of his Son.

Since all things are created in Christ, the eternal Word, Reason, and
Power of God, God can “reconcile all things to himself” in Christ
(Col. 1:20). Athanasius called God κτίστης, ού τεχνίτης—Creator, not
Artisan. By this he meant that God is immanent, and not the God of
deism. But the moment we conceive of God as revealing himself in
Christ, the idea of creation as an eternal satisfaction of his love
vanishes. God can have a plan without executing his plan. Decree
can precede creation. Ideas of the universe may exist in the divine
mind before they are realized by the divine will. There are purposes
of salvation in Christ which antedate the world (Eph. 1:4). The
doctrine of the Trinity, once firmly grasped, enables us to see the
fallacy of such views as that of Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 1:286—“A
beginning and ending in time of the creating of God are not
thinkable. That would be to suppose a change of creating and
resting in God, which would equalize God's being with the
changeable course of human life. Nor [pg 389]could it be
conceived what should have hindered God from creating the world
up to the beginning of his creating.... We say rather, with Scotus
Erigena, that the divine creating is equally eternal with God's being.”

(e) Creation from eternity, moreover, is inconsistent

with the divine independence and personality. Since
God's power and love are infinite, a creation that
satisfied them must be infinite in extent as well as
eternal in past duration—in other words, a creation
equal to God. But a God thus dependent upon
external creation is neither free nor sovereign. A God
existing in necessary relations to the universe, if
different in substance from the universe, must be the
God of dualism; if of the same substance with the
universe, must be the God of pantheism.
Gore, Incarnation, 136, 137—“Christian theology is the harmony of
pantheism and deism.... It enjoys all the riches of pantheism without
its inherent weakness on the moral side, without making God
dependent on the world, as the world is dependent on God. On the
other hand, Christianity converts an unintelligible deism into a
rational theism. It can explain how God became a creator in time,
because it knows how creation has its eternal analogue in the
uncreated nature; it was God's nature eternally to produce, to
communicate itself, to live.” In other words, it can explain how God
can be eternally alive, independent, self-sufficient, since he is Trinity.
Creation from eternity is a natural and logical outgrowth of Unitarian
tendencies in theology. It is of a piece with the Stoic monism of
which we read in Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 177—“Stoic monism
conceived of the world as a self-evolution of God. Into such a
conception the idea of a beginning does not necessarily enter. It is
consistent with the idea of an eternal process of differentiation. That
which is always has been under changed and changing forms. The
theory is cosmological rather than cosmogonical. It rather explains
the world as it is, than gives an account of its origin.”

4. Spontaneous generation.

This theory holds that creation is but the name for a

natural process still going on,—matter itself having in
it the power, under proper conditions, of taking on
new functions, and of developing into organic forms.
This view is held by Owen and Bastian. We object
that

(a) It is a pure hypothesis, not only unverified, but

contrary to all known facts. No credible instance of
the production of living forms from inorganic material
has yet been adduced. So far as science can at
present teach us, the law of nature is “omne vivum e
vivo,” or “ex ovo.”

Owen, Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates, 3:814-818—on

Monogeny or Thaumatogeny; quoted in Argyle, Reign of Law, 281
—“We discern no evidence of a pause or intromission in the creation
or coming-to-be of new plants and animals.” So Bastian, Modes of
Origin of Lowest Organisms, Beginnings of Life, and articles on
Heterogeneous Evolution of Living Things, in Nature, 2:170, 193,
219, 410, 431. See Huxley's Address before the British Association,
and Reply to Bastian, in Nature, 2:400, 473; also Origin of Species,
69-79, and Physical Basis of Life, in Lay Sermons, 142. Answers to
this last by Stirling, in Half-hours with Modern Scientists, and by
Beale, Protoplasm or Life, Matter, and Mind, 73-75.

In favor of Redi's maxim, “omne vivum e vivo,” see Huxley, in Encyc.

Britannica, art.: Biology, 689—“At the present moment there is not a
shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis does take
place or has taken place within the period during which the
existence of the earth is recorded”; Flint, Physiology of Man, 1:263-
265—“As the only true philosophic view to take of the question, we
shall assume in common with nearly all the modern writers on
physiology that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation,—
admitting that the exact mode of production of the infusoria lowest
in the scale of life is not understood.” On the Philosophy of
Evolution, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 39-57.

[pg 390]
(b) If such instances could be authenticated, they
would prove nothing as against a proper doctrine of
creation,—for there would still exist an impossibility
of accounting for these vivific properties of matter,
except upon the Scriptural view of an intelligent
Contriver and Originator of matter and its laws. In
short, evolution implies previous involution,—if
anything comes out of matter, it must first have been
put in.

Sully: “Every doctrine of evolution must assume some definite initial

arrangement which is supposed to contain the possibilities of the
order which we find to be evolved and no other possibility.” Bixby,
Crisis of Morals, 258—“If no creative fiat can be believed to create
something out of nothing, still less is evolution able to perform such
a contradiction.” As we can get morality only out of a moral germ, so
we can get vitality only out of a vital germ. Martineau, Seat of
Authority, 14—“By brooding long enough on an egg that is next to
nothing, you can in this way hatch any universe actual or possible. Is
it not evident that this is a mere trick of imagination, concealing its
thefts of causation by committing them little by little, and taking the
heap from the divine storehouse grain by grain?”

Hens come before eggs. Perfect organic forms are antecedent to all
life-cells, whether animal or vegetable. “Omnis cellula e cellula, sed
primaria cellula ex organismo.”God created first the tree, and its
seed was in it when created (Gen. 1:12). Protoplasm is not proton,
but deuteron; the elements are antecedent to it. It is not true that
man was never made at all but only “growed” like Topsy; see Watts,
New Apologetic, xvi, 312. Royce, Spirit of Modern Philosophy, 273
—“Evolution is the attempt to comprehend the world of experience
in terms of the fundamental idealistic postulates: (1) without ideas,
there is no reality; (2) rational order requires a rational Being to
introduce it; (3) beneath our conscious self there must be an infinite
Self. The question is: Has the world a meaning? It is not enough to
refer ideas to mechanism. Evolution, from the nebula to man, is only
the unfolding of the life of a divine Self.”

(c) This theory, therefore, if true, only supplements

the doctrine of original, absolute, immediate
creation, with another doctrine of mediate and
derivative creation, or the development of the
materials and forces originated at the beginning. This
development, however, cannot proceed to any
valuable end without guidance of the same
intelligence which initiated it. The Scriptures,
although they do not sanction the doctrine of
spontaneous generation, do recognize processes of
development as supplementing the divine fiat which
first called the elements into being.

There is such a thing as free will, and free will does not, like the
deterministic will, run in a groove. If there be free will in man, then
much more is there free will in God, and God's will does not run in a
groove. God is not bound by law or to law. Wisdom does not imply
monotony or uniformity. God can do a thing once that is never done
again. Circumstances are never twice alike. Here is the basis not
only of creation but of new creation, including miracle, incarnation,
resurrection, regeneration, redemption. Though will both in God and
in man is for the most part automatic and acts according to law, yet
the power of new beginnings, of creative action, resides in will,
wherever it is free, and this free will chiefly makes God to be God
and man to be man. Without it life would be hardly worth the living,
for it would be only the life of the brute. All schemes of evolution
which ignore this freedom of God are pantheistic in their tendencies,
for they practically deny both God's transcendence and his
personality.

Leibnitz declined to accept the Newtonian theory of gravitation

because it seemed to him to substitute natural forces for God. In our
own day many still refuse to accept the Darwinian theory of
evolution because it seems to them to substitute natural forces for
God; see John Fiske, Idea of God, 97-102. But law is only a method;
it presupposes a lawgiver and requires an agent. Gravitation and
evolution are but the habitual operations of God. If spontaneous
generation should be proved true, it would be only God's way of
originating life. E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 91
—“Spontaneous generation does not preclude the idea of a creative
will working by natural law and secondary causes.... Of beginnings
of life physical science knows nothing.... Of the processes of nature
science is competent to speak and against its [pg 391]teachings
respecting these there is no need that theology should set itself in
hostility.... Even if man were derived from the lower animals, it
would not prove that God did not create and order the forces
employed. It may be that God bestowed upon animal life a plastic
power.”

Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, 1:180—“It is far truer to say that

the universe is a life, than to say that it is a mechanism.... We can
never get to God through a mere mechanism.... With Leibnitz I
would argue that absolute passivity or inertness is not a reality but a
limit. 269—Mr. Spencer grants that to interpret spirit in terms of
matter is impossible. 302—Natural selection without teleological
factors is not adequate to account for biological evolution, and such
teleological factors imply a psychical something endowed with
feelings and will, i. e., Life and Mind. 2:130-135—Conation is more
fundamental than cognition. 149-151—Things and events precede
space and time. There is no empty space or time. 252-257—Our
assimilation of nature is the greeting of spirit by spirit. 259-267—
Either nature is itself intelligent, or there is intelligence beyond it.
274-276—Appearances do not veil reality. 274—The truth is not God
and mechanism, but God only and no mechanism. 283—Naturalism
and Agnosticism, in spite of themselves, lead us to a world of
Spiritualistic Monism.” Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics, 36
—“Spontaneous generation is a fiction in ethics, as it is in psychology
and biology. The moral cannot be derived from the non-moral, any
more than consciousness can be derived from the unconscious, or
life from the azoic rocks.”
IV. The Mosaic Account of Creation.

1. Its twofold nature,—as uniting the ideas of

creation and of development.

(a) Creation is asserted.—The Mosaic narrative avoids

the error of making the universe eternal or the result
of an eternal process. The cosmogony of Genesis,
unlike the cosmogonies of the heathen, is prefaced
by the originating act of God, and is supplemented
by successive manifestations of creative power in the
introduction of brute and of human life.

All nature-worship, whether it take the form of ancient polytheism or

modern materialism, looks upon the universe only as a birth or
growth. This view has a basis of truth, inasmuch as it regards
natural forces as having a real existence. It is false in regarding
these forces as needing no originator or upholder. Hesiod taught that
in the beginning was formless matter. Genesis does not begin thus.
God is not a demiurge, working on eternal matter. God antedates
matter. He is the creator of matter at the first (Gen. 1:1—bara) and
he subsequently created animal life (Gen. 1:21—“and God
created”—bara) and the life of man (Gen. 1:27—“and God create
man”—bara again).

Many statements of the doctrine of evolution err by regarding it as

an eternal or self-originated process. But the process requires an
originator, and the forces require an upholder. Each forward step
implies increment of energy, and progress toward a rational end
implies intelligence and foresight in the governing power. Schurman
says well that Darwinism explains the survival of the fittest, but
cannot explain the arrival of the fittest. Schurman, Agnosticism and
Religion, 34—“A primitive chaos of star-dust which held in its womb
not only the cosmos that fills space, not only the living creatures that
teem upon it, but also the intellect that interprets it, the will that
confronts it, and the conscience that transfigures it, must as
certainly have God at the centre, as a universe mechanically
arranged and periodically adjusted must have him at the
circumference.... There is no real antagonism between creation and
evolution. 59—Natural causation is the expression of a supernatural
Mind in nature, and man—a being at once of sensibility and of
rational and moral self-activity—is a signal and ever-present example
of the interfusion of the natural with the supernatural in that part of
universal existence nearest and best known to us.”

Seebohm, quoted in J. J. Murphy, Nat. Selection and Spir. Freedom,

76—“When we admit that Darwin's argument in favor of the theory
of evolution proves its truth, we doubt whether natural selection can
be in any sense the cause of the origin of species. It has probably
played an important part in the history of evolution; its rôle has been
that of increasing the rapidity with which the process of
development has proceeded. Of itself it has probably been powerless
to originate a species; the machinery by which species have been
evolved has been completely independent of natural selection [pg
392]and could have produced all the results which we call the
evolution of species without its aid; though the process would have
been slow had there been no struggle of life to increase its pace.”
New World, June, 1896:237-262, art. by Howison on the Limits of
Evolution, finds limits in (1) the noumenal Reality; (2) the break
between the organic and the inorganic; (3) break between
physiological and logical genesis; (4) inability to explain the great
fact on which its own movement rests; (5) the a priori self-
consciousness which is the essential being and true person of the
mind.

Evolution, according to Herbert Spencer, is “an integration of matter

and concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matter
passes from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite
coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained motion goes
through a parallel transformation.” D. W. Simon criticizes this
definition as defective “because (1) it omits all mention both of
energy and its differentiations; and (2) because it introduces into the
definition of the process one of the phenomena thereof, namely,
motion. As a matter of fact, both energy or force, and law, are
subsequently and illicitly introduced as distinct factors of the
process; they ought therefore to have found recognition in the
definition or description.” Mark Hopkins, Life, 189—“God: what need
of him? Have we not force, uniform force, and do not all things
continue as they were from the beginning of the creation, if it ever
had a beginning? Have we not the τὸ πᾶν, the universal All, the Soul
of the universe, working itself up from unconsciousness through
molecules and maggots and mice and marmots and monkeys to its
highest culmination in man?”

(b) Development is recognized.—The Mosaic account

represents the present order of things as the result,
not simply of original creation, but also of
subsequent arrangement and development. A
fashioning of inorganic materials is described, and
also a use of these materials in providing the
conditions of organized existence. Life is described as
reproducing itself, after its first introduction,
according to its own laws and by virtue of its own
inner energy.

Martensen wrongly asserts that “Judaism represented the world

exclusively as creatura, not natura; as κτίσις, not φύσις.” This is not
true. Creation is represented as the bringing forth, not of something
dead, but of something living and capable of self-development.
Creation lays the foundation for cosmogony. Not only is there a
fashioning and arrangement of the material which the original
creative act has brought into being (see Gen. 1:2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17;
2:2, 6, 7, 8—Spirit brooding; dividing light from darkness, and
waters from waters; dry land appearing; setting apart of sun, moon,
and stars; mist watering; forming man's body; planting garden) but
there is also an imparting and using of the productive powers of the
things and beings created (Gen. 1:12, 22, 24, 28—earth brought
forth grass; trees yielding fruit whose seed was in itself; earth
brought forth the living creatures; man commanded to be fruitful
and multiply).

The tendency at present among men of science is to regard the

whole history of life upon the planet as the result of evolution, thus
excluding creation, both at the beginning of the history and along its
course. On the progress from the Orohippus, the lowest member of
the equine series, an animal with four toes, to Anchitherium with
three, then to Hipparion, and finally to our common horse, see
Huxley, in Nature for May 11, 1873:33, 34. He argues that, if a
complicated animal like the horse has arisen by gradual modification
of a lower and less specialized form, there is no reason to think that
other animals have arisen in a different way. Clarence King, Address
at Yale College, 1877, regards American geology as teaching the
doctrine of sudden yet natural modification of species. “When
catastrophic change burst in upon the ages of uniformity and
sounded in the ear of every living thing the words: ‘Change or
die!’plasticity became the sole principle of action.” Nature proceeded
then by leaps, and corresponding to the leaps of geology we find
leaps of biology.

We grant the probability that the great majority of what we call

species were produced in some such ways. If science should render
it certain that all the present species of living creatures were derived
by natural descent from a few original germs, and that these germs
were themselves an evolution of inorganic forces and materials, we
should not therefore regard the Mosaic account as proved untrue.
We should only be required to revise our interpretation of the word
bara in Gen. 1:21, 27, and to give it there the meaning of mediate
creation, or creation by law. Such a meaning might almost seem to
be favored by Gen. 1:11—“let the earth put forth grass”; 20—“let
the waters bring forth abundantly [pg 393]the moving creature
that hath life”; 2:7—“the Lord God formed man of the dust”; 9
—“out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree”; cf.
Mark 4:28—αὐτομάτη ἣ γή καρποφορεῖ—“the earth brings forth fruit
automatically.” Goethe, Sprüche in Reimen: “Was wär ein Gott der
nur von aussen stiesse, Im Kreis das All am Finger laufen liesse? Ihm
ziemt's die Welt im Innern zu bewegen, Sich in Natur, Natur in sich
zu hegen, So dass, was in Ihm lebt und webt und ist, Nie seine
Kraft, nie seinen Geist vermisst”—“No, such a God my worship may
not win, Who lets the world about his finger spin, A thing eternal;
God must dwell within.”

All the growth of a tree takes place in from four to six weeks in May,
June and July. The addition of woody fibre between the bark and the
trunk results, not by impartation into it of a new force from without,
but by the awakening of the life within. Environment changes and
growth begins. We may even speak of an immanent transcendence
of God—an unexhausted vitality which at times makes great
movements forward. This is what the ancients were trying to express
when they said that trees were inhabited by dryads and so groaned
and bled when wounded. God's life is in all. In evolution we cannot
say, with LeConte, that the higher form of energy is “derived from
the lower.” Rather let us say that both the higher and the lower are
constantly dependent for their being on the will of God. The lower is
only God's preparation for his higher self-manifestation; see Upton,
Hibbert Lectures, 165, 166.

Even Haeckel, Hist. Creation, 1:38, can say that in the Mosaic
narrative “two great and fundamental ideas meet us—the idea of
separation or differentiation, and the idea of progressive
development or perfecting. We can bestow our just and sincere
admiration on the Jewish lawgiver's grand insight into nature, and
his simple and natural hypothesis of creation, without discovering in
it a divine revelation.” Henry Drummond, whose first book, Natural
Law in the Spiritual World, he himself in his later days regretted as
tending in a deterministic and materialistic direction, came to believe
rather in “spiritual law in the natural world.” His Ascent of Man
regards evolution and law as only the methods of a present Deity.
Darwinism seemed at first to show that the past history of life upon
the planet was a history of heartless and cruel slaughter. The
survival of the fittest had for its obverse side the destruction of
myriads. Nature was “red in tooth and claw with ravine.” But further
thought has shown that this gloomy view results from a partial
induction of facts. Palæontological life was not only a struggle for
life, but a struggle for the life of others. The beginnings of altruism
are to be seen in the instinct of reproduction and in the care of
offspring. In every lion's den and tiger's lair, in every mother-eagle's
feeding of her young, there is a self-sacrifice which faintly shadows
forth man's subordination of personal interests to the interests of
others.

Dr. George Harris, in his Moral Evolution, has added to Drummond's

doctrine the further consideration that the struggle for one's own life
has its moral side as well as the struggle for the life of others. The
instinct of self-preservation is the beginning of right, righteousness,
justice and law upon earth. Every creature owes it to God to
preserve its own being. So we can find an adumbration of morality
even in the predatory and internecine warfare of the geologic ages.
The immanent God was even then preparing the way for the rights,
the dignity, the freedom of humanity. B. P. Bowne, in the
Independent, April 19, 1900—“The Copernican system made men
dizzy for a time, and they held on to the Ptolemaic system to escape
vertigo. In like manner the conception of God, as revealing himself in
a great historic movement and process, in the consciences and lives
of holy men, in the unfolding life of the church, makes dizzy the
believer in a dictated book, and he longs for some fixed word that
shall be sure and stedfast.” God is not limited to creating from
without: he can also create from within; and development is as
much a part of creation as is the origination of the elements. For
further discussion of man's origin, see section on Man a Creation of
God, in our treatment of Anthropology.

2. Its proper interpretation.

We adopt neither (a) the allegorical, or mythical, (b)
the hyperliteral, nor (c) the hyperscientific
interpretation of the Mosaic narrative; but rather (d)
the pictorial-summary interpretation,—which holds
that the account is a rough sketch of the history of
creation, true in all its essential features, but
presented in a graphic form suited to the common
mind and to earlier as well as to later ages. While
conveying to primitive man as accurate an idea of
God's work as man was able to comprehend, the
revelation [pg 394] was yet given in pregnant
language, so that it could expand to all the
ascertained results of subsequent physical research.
This general correspondence of the narrative with
the teachings of science, and its power to adapt itself
to every advance in human knowledge, differences it
from every other cosmogony current among men.

(a) The allegorical, or mythical interpretation, represents the Mosaic

account as embodying, like the Indian and Greek cosmogonies, the
poetic speculations of an early race as to the origin of the present
system. We object to this interpretation upon the ground that the
narrative of creation is inseparably connected with the succeeding
history, and is therefore most naturally regarded as itself historical.
This connection of the narrative of creation with the subsequent
history, moreover, prevents us from believing it to be the description
of a vision granted to Moses. It is more probably the record of an
original revelation to the first man, handed down to Moses' time, and
used by Moses as a proper introduction to his history.

We object also to the view of some higher critics that the book of
Genesis contains two inconsistent stories. Marcus Dods, Book of
Genesis, 2—“The compiler of this book ... lays side by side two
accounts of man's creation which no ingenuity can reconcile.”Charles
A. Briggs: “The doctrine of creation in Genesis 1 is altogether
different from that taught in Genesis 2.” W. N. Clarke, Christian
Theology, 199-201—“It has been commonly assumed that the two
are parallel, and tell one and the same story; but examination shows
that this is not the case.... We have here the record of a tradition,
rather than a revelation.... It cannot be taken as literal history, and it
does not tell by divine authority how man was created.” To these
utterances we reply that the two accounts are not inconsistent but
complementary, the first chapter of Genesis describing man's
creation as the crown of God's general work, the second describing
man's creation with greater particularity as the beginning of human
history.

Canon Rawlinson, in Aids to Faith, 275, compares the Mosaic

account with the cosmogony of Berosus, the Chaldean. Pfleiderer,
Philos. of Religion, 1:267-272, gives an account of heathen theories
of the origin of the universe. Anaxagoras was the first who
represented the chaotic first matter as formed through the ordering
understanding (νοῦς) of God, and Aristotle for that reason called him
“the first sober one among many drunken.” Schurman, Belief in God,
138—“In these cosmogonies the world and the gods grow up
together; cosmogony is, at the same time, theogony.” Dr. E. G.
Robinson: “The Bible writers believed and intended to state that the
world was made in three literal days. But, on the principle that God
may have meant more than they did, the doctrine of periods may
not be inconsistent with their account.” For comparison of the
Biblical with heathen cosmogonies, see Blackie in Theol. Eclectic,
1:77-87; Guyot, Creation, 58-63; Pope, Theology, 1:401, 402; Bible
Commentary, 1:36, 48; McIlvaine, Wisdom of Holy Scripture, 1-54; J.
F. Clarke, Ten Great Religions, 2:193-221. For the theory of
“prophetic vision,” see Kurtz, Hist. of Old Covenant, Introd., i-xxxvii,
civ-cxxx; and Hugh Miller, Testimony of the Rocks, 179-210;
Hastings, Dict. Bible, art.: Cosmogony; Sayce, Religions of Ancient
Egypt and Babylonia, 372-397.

(b) The hyperliteral interpretation would withdraw the narrative from

all comparison with the conclusions of science, by putting the ages
of geological history between the first and second verses of Gen. 1,
and by making the remainder of the chapter an account of the fitting
up of the earth, or of some limited portion of it, in six days of
twenty-four hours each. Among the advocates of this view, now
generally discarded, are Chalmers, Natural Theology, Works, 1:228-
258, and John Pye Smith, Mosaic Account of Creation, and Scripture
and Geology. To this view we object that there is no indication, in
the Mosaic narrative, of so vast an interval between the first and the
second verses; that there is no indication, in the geological history,
of any such break between the ages of preparation and the present
time (see Hugh Miller, Testimony of the Rocks, 141-178); and that
there are indications in the Mosaic record itself that the word “day”
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

testbankfan.com