552 



CREATION 



CR^BILLON 



slowly built up or evolved by secondary causes 

 under the control of natural laws. The new 

 scientific position did not traverse the biblical view 

 of the origin of matter or of life ; nor did it deny 

 that the laws of nature might be ' the hands of 

 the Living God.' But it claimed that the creation 

 of the world was an ordinary problem for scientific 

 investigation, and that so far as that had gone, 

 some form of development was probably the means 

 by which creation had been brought about. Frankly 

 recognising the right of science to deal with this 

 question, and accepting on certain points the over- 

 whelming evidence of geology, theologians found 

 themselves compelled to reconsider their ground. 

 The first difficulty was that of time. And here 

 they yielded at once by substituting ' periods ' for 

 the ' days ' of Genesis an expedient which, what- 

 ever literary objection may be taken to it, was 

 certainly allowed by the original Hebrew. Efforts 

 were next made to reconcile these ' periods ' with 

 the formations of geology and with the succession 

 of life as revealed by palaeontology. Devout men 

 of science worked out these harmonies with great 

 learning and ingenuity, and as new discoveries of 

 science threw their labours aside, fresh workers by 

 further manipulation of the data on either side con- 

 tinued the attempt to bring the apparently rival 

 records once more into line. Prominent among 

 these attempts were the Universal Pre-Adamite 

 Chaos theory of Dr Chalmers ; the Partial Chaos 

 theory of Dr Pye Smith ; the Vision theory of 

 Hugh Miller ; and the cognate though not identical 

 theories of Kurtz and Guyot. Such attempts were 

 at that time perfectly admissible, and even inevi- 

 table inevitable because the true direction from 

 which the solution was to come was not yet sus- 

 pected. But one by one these efforts faile"d. An 

 attempt by Mr Gladstone, so recently as 1885, 

 elicited a reply from Mr Huxley, who, in the 

 name of modern science, not only repudiated the 

 immediate theory but made it obvious that no 

 reconstruction along that line was ever likely to 

 square with acknowledged facts of science. It is 

 of course always possible to challenge the current 

 reading of a growing science, and the harmonist 

 may still take refuge if he chooses in the fallibility 

 of contemporary interpretations of nature. But on 

 the general question of gradual development versus 

 specific creation, the consensus of mature scientific 

 opinion is now so pronounced that any one still 

 clinging to the latter would find it impossible to 

 impress his views upon his age. In some other 

 way, then, the educated mind will seek to reconcile 

 to itself the apparent want of reconciliation between 

 the teaching of nature and the teaching of Scrip- 

 ture. 



Stated in a word, the explanation is to be sought 

 for in the fact recently brought into prominence 

 by the young science of biblical criticism that the 

 Scriptures really contain no teaching at all upon 

 matters of science. It is an elementary canon of 

 literary criticism that any interpretation of a part 

 of a book or of a literature must be controlled by 

 the dominant purpose or motif of the whole. And 

 when one investigates that dominant purpose in 

 the case of the Bible, it is found to reduce itself to 

 one thing religion. The books of the Bible, re- 

 spectively, can only be read aright in the spirit in 

 which each was written, with its original purpose 

 in view, and its original audience. Bearing that in 

 view in the case of Genesis it soon becomes evident 

 that a scientific theory of the universe formed no 

 part of the original writer's intention. Could any 

 one with any historical imagination for a moment 

 expect that it would have been ? There was no 

 science then. Scientific questions were not even 

 asked then. And to have given men science would 

 not only have been an anachronism, but a source of 



mystification and confusion. If the Bible had 

 really aimed at science-teaching, geology would 

 have been one of the last things upon which it> 

 would have enlightened mankind. Why was not 

 physiology taught to physicians, or the use of 

 chloroform to surgeons, or of the stars to navi- 

 gators matters which would have affected the 

 well-being and actual life of man? In fact it 

 is a first principle of revelation involved in the 

 very meaning of the word and proved by its whole 

 expression that matters which are discoverable 

 by human reasoning and observation should find 

 no place in it, that its subject matter is that alone 

 which men could not find out for themselves. 

 Men could find out for themselves the order in 

 which the world was made. What they could not 

 find out was, that God made it. That therefore 

 was the object of Genesis theology, not geology. 

 Genesis is a presentation of one or two great 

 elementary religious truths to the childhood of the 

 world. Dating from the infancy of the world, 

 written for children, and for that child-spirit in 

 man which remains unchanged by time, its literary 

 form takes colour and shape accordingly. It is not 

 dedicated to the reason but to the soul. It is a 

 sublime theology, clothed in the most memorable 

 and impressive dress, utilising, purifying, and trans- 

 fusing with the religious spirit some material at 

 least which was common to the cosmogonies of all 

 nations. Now from this point of view the problem 

 of the reconciliation of Genesis with geology simply 

 disappears. The question becomes as irrelevant as 

 when it is asked what the Paradise Lost is meant 

 to prove. Science and Genesis are no longer in 

 competition as to which shall be the accepted 

 authority regarding the process of the creation of 

 the world. Genesis does not even enter the field. 

 And in ceding this position it is only to assume, 

 with even greater authority, its legitimate and 

 much higher function. 



The strength of this attitude is that it is quite 

 independent of all conclusions of science. Evolu- 

 tion may be true or false, science may change its- 

 ground, new discoveries may arise ; but these can- 

 not affect the literary and theological province 

 within which wholly this question is now seen to- 

 lie. Hence the attack of science is for ever dis- 

 armed. And those Avho assent to evolution, and 

 the many who in its present form do not yet see 

 their way to accept it, may hold an equal truce 

 with Genesis. 



As regards the material utilised by the writer in 

 Genesis, it is sufficient to remark that most of it is 

 a common property of the older cosmogonies. The 

 mythology of Persia describes six creative periods 

 of a thousand years ; the cosmogony of the Chal- 

 deans is similar ; while that of the Etruscans agrees 

 still more closely with the order of Genesis. Thus 

 the Bible did not create this material, nor reveal it. 

 It incorporated it, inspired it, and so made it the 

 vehicle of a revelation. 



Cr^billon, PROSPER JOLYOT DE, a French 

 dramatist, was born at Dijon, on January 13, 1674. 

 His parents belonged to the middle class, and he 

 was educated in Paris for the law. He soon 

 abandoned a legal for a literary career, and his 

 tragedy of Idomenee was successfully produced in 

 1703. It was followed by Atree et Thyeste (1707), 

 Electre (1709), and Rhadamiste et Zenobie(\lll}. 

 The last is his best play, the character of Zenobia 

 being drawn with remarkable power. After writ- 

 ing several other pieces, Crebillon fell into neglect 

 and produced nothing for more than twenty years. 

 He was then pushed forward as a dramatic rival 

 to Voltaire by Madame de Pompadour and other 

 enemies of the great writer, elected to the 

 Academy, awarded a pension of 1000 francs, and 

 appointed royal censor, and one of the royal 



