[10]Forthefirstcitationsabovemade，seeTheCosmogonyofGenesis，bytheRev。S。R。Driver，D。D。，CanonofChristChurchandRegiusProfessorofHebrewatOxford，intheExpositorforJanuary，1886；forthesecondseriesofcitations，seetheEarlyNarrativesofGenesis，byHerbertEdwardRyle，HulseanProfessorofDivinityatCambridge，London，1892。ForevidencethateventhestiffestofScotchPresbyterianshavecometodiscardtheoldliteralbiblicalnarrativeofcreationandtoregardthedeclarationoftheWestminsterConfessionthereonasa“disprovedtheoryofcreation。”seePrincipalJohnTulloch，inContemporaryReview，March，1877，onReligiousThoughtinScotland——especiallypage550。
　　II。THEOLOGICALTEACHINGSREGARDINGTHEANIMALSANDMAN。
　　InoneofthewindowsofthecathedralatUlmamediaevalglass-stainerhasrepresentedtheAlmightyasbusilyengagedincreatingtheanimals，andtherehasjustleftthedivinehandsanelephantfullyaccoutred，witharmour，harness，andhousings，ready-forwar。Similarrepresentationsappearinilluminatedmanuscriptsandeveninearlyprintedbooks，and，astheculminationofthewhole，theAlmightyisshownasfashioningthefirstmanfromahillockofclayandextractingfromhisside，withevidenteffort，thefirstwoman。
　　Thisviewofthegeneralprocessofcreationhadcomefromfar，appearingundervaryingformsinvariousancientcosmogonies。IntheEgyptiantemplesatPhilaeandDenderahmaystillbeseenrepresentationsoftheNilegodsmodellinglumpsofclayintomen，andasimilarworkisascribedintheAssyriantabletstothegodsofBabylonia。Passingintoourownsacredbooks，theseideasbecamethestartingpointofavastnewdevelopmentoftheology。[11]
　　[11]ForrepresentationsofEgyptiangodscreatingmenoutoflumpsofclay，seeMasperoandSayce，TheDawnofHistory，p。
　　156；fortheChaldeanlegendsofthecreationofmenandanimals，seeibid。，p。543；seealsoGeorgeSmith，ChaldeanAccountsofGenesis，Sayce’sedition，pp。36，72，and93；alsoforsimilarlegendsinotherancientnations，Lenormant，Originesdel’Histoire，pp。17etseq。；formediaevalrepresentationsofthecreationofmanandwoman，seeDidron，Iconographie，pp。35，178，224，537。
　　ThefathersoftheChurchgenerallyreceivedeachofthetwoconflictingcreationlegendsinGenesisliterally，andthen，havingdonetheirbesttoreconcilethemwitheachotherandtomouldthemtogether，madethemthefinaltestofthoughtupontheuniverseandallthingstherein。AtthebeginningofthefourthcenturyLactantiusstruckthekey-noteofthismodeofsubordinatingallotherthingsinthestudyofcreationtotheliteraltextofScripture，andheenforceshisviewofthecreationofmanbyabitofphilology，sayingthefinalbeingcreated“iscalledmanbecauseheismadefromtheground——homoexhumo。”
　　InthesecondhalfofthesamecenturythisviewastotheliteralacceptanceofthesacredtextwasreassertedbySt。
　　Ambrose，who，inhisworkonthecreation，declaredthat“MosesopenedhismouthandpouredforthwhatGodhadsaidtohim。”ButagreaterthaneitherofthemfastenedthisideaintotheChristiantheologies。St。Augustine，preparinghisCommentaryontheBookofGenesis，laiddowninonefamoussentencethelawwhichhaslastedintheChurchuntilourowntime：“NothingistobeacceptedsaveontheauthorityofScripture，sincegreateristhatauthoritythanallthepowersofthehumanmind。”ThevigourofthesentenceinitsoriginalLatincarrieditringingdownthecenturies：“MajorestScripturaeauctoritasquamomnishumaniingeniicapacitas。”
　　Throughthemediaevalperiod，inspiteofarevoltledbynootherthanSt。Augustinehimself，andfollowedbyaseriesofinfluentialchurchmen，contending，asweshallhereaftersee，foramodificationoftheacceptedviewofcreation，thisphraseheldthemindsofmenfirmly。ThegreatDominicanencyclopaedist，VincentofBeauvais，inhisMirrorofNature，whilemixingideasbroughtfromAristotlewithatheorydrawnfromtheBible，stoodfirmlybythefirstoftheaccountsgiveninGenesis，andassignedthespecialvirtueofthenumbersixasareasonwhyallthingswerecreatedinsixdays；andinthelaterMiddleAgesthateminentauthority，Cardinald’Ailly，acceptedeverythingregardingcreationinthesacredbooksliterally。OnlyafaintdissentisseeninGregoryReisch，anotherauthorityofthislaterperiod，who，whilegiving，inhisbookonthebeginningofthings，afulllengthwoodcutshowingtheAlmightyintheactofextractingEvefromAdam’sside，withalltherestofnew-formedNatureinthebackground，leansinhiswritings，likeSt。
　　Augustine，towardabeliefinthepre-existenceofmatter。
　　AttheReformationthevastauthorityofLutherwasthrowninfavouroftheliteralacceptanceofScriptureasthemainsourceofnaturalscience。Theallegoricalandmysticalinterpretationsofearliertheologiansheutterlyrejected。”Why。”heasks。”shouldMosesuseallegorywhenheisnotspeakingofallegoricalcreaturesorofanallegoricalworld，butofrealcreaturesandofavisibleworld，whichcanbeseen，felt，andgrasped？Mosescallsthingsbytheirrightnames，asweoughttodo……IholdthattheanimalstooktheirbeingatonceuponthewordofGod，asdidalsothefishesinthesea。”
　　NotlessexplicitinhisadherencetotheliteralaccountofcreationgiveninGenesiswasCalvin。Hewarnsthosewho，bytakinganotherviewthanhisown，“baselyinsulttheCreator，toexpectajudgewhowillannihilatethem。”Heinsiststhatallspeciesofanimalswerecreatedinsixdays，eachmadeupofaneveningandamorning，andthatnonewspecieshaseverappearedsince。HedwellsontheproductionofbirdsfromthewaterasrestinguponcertainwarrantofScripture，butadds，“Ifthequestionistobearguedonphysicalgrounds，weknowthatwaterismoreakintoairthantheearthis。”Astodifficultiesinthescripturalaccountofcreation，hetellsusthatGod“wishedbythesetogiveproofsofhispowerwhichshouldfilluswithastonishment。”
　　ThecontrollingmindsintheRomanChurchsteadfastlyheldthisview。IntheseventeenthcenturyBossuetthrewhisvastauthorityinitsfavour，andinhisDiscourseonUniversalHistory，whichhasremainedthefoundationnotonlyoftheologicalbutofgeneralhistoricalteachinginFrancedowntothepresentrepublic，wefindhimcallingattentiontowhatheregardsastheculminatingactofcreation，andassertingthat，literally，forthecreationofmanearthwasused，and“thefingerofGodappliedtocorruptiblematter。”
　　TheProtestantworldheldthisideanolesspersistently。IntheseventeenthcenturyDr。JohnLightfoot，Vice-ChancelloroftheUniversityofCambridge，thegreatrabbinicalscholarofhistime，attemptedtoreconcilethetwomainlegendsinGenesisbysayingthatofthe“cleansortofbeaststhereweresevenofeverykindcreated，threecouplesforbreedingandtheoddoneforAdam’ssacrificeonhisfall，whichGodforesaw“；andthatofuncleanbeastsonlyonecouplewascreated。
　　Soliteralwasthiswholeconceptionoftheworkofcreationthatinthesedaysitcanscarcelybeimagined。TheAlmightywasrepresentedintheologicalliterature，inthepicturedBibles，andinworksofartgenerally，asasortofenlargedandvenerableNurembergtoymaker。AttimestheaccountsinGenesiswereillustratedwithevenmoreliteralexactness；thus，inconnectionwithawell-knownpassageinthesacredtext，theCreatorwasshownasatailor，seated，needleinhand，diligentlysewingtogetherskinsofbeastsintocoatsforAdamandEve。
　　SuchrepresentationspresentednodifficultiestothedocilemindsoftheMiddleAgesandtheReformationperiod；andinthesamespirit，whenthediscoveryoffossilsbegantoprovokethought，theseweredeclaredtobe“modelsofhisworksapprovedorrejectedbythegreatArtificer。”“outlinesoffuturecreations。”“sportsofNature。”or“objectsplacedinthestratatobringtonaughthumancuriosity“；andthiskindofexplanationlingeredonuntilinourowntimeaneminentnaturalist，inhisanxietytosavetheliteralaccountinGenesis，hasurgedthatJehovahtiltedandtwistedthestrata，scatteredthefossilsthroughthem，scratchedtheglacialfurrowsuponthem，spreadoverthemthemarksoferosionbywater，andsetNiagarapouring——allinaninstant——thusmystifyingtheworld“forsomeinscrutablepurpose，butforhisownglory。”[12]
　　[12]ForthecitationfromLactantius，seeDivin。Instit。，lib。
　　ii，cap。xi，inMigne，tomevi，pp。311，312；forSt。Augustine’sgreatphrase，seetheDeGenes。adlitt。，ii，5；forSt。Ambrose，seelib。i，cap。ii；forVincentofBeauvais，seetheSpeculumNaturale，lib。i，cap。ii，andlib。ii，cap。xvandxxx；alsoBourgeat，EtudessurVincentdeBeauvais，Paris，1856，especiallychaps。vii，xii，andxvi；forCardinald“ailly，seetheImagoMundi，andforReisch，seethevariouseditionsoftheMargaritaPhilosophica；forLuther’sstatements，seeLuther’sSchriften，ed。Walch，Halle，1740，CommentaryonGenesis，vol。i；forCalvin’sviewofthecreationoftheanimals，includingtheimmutabilityofSpecies，seetheComm。inGen。，tomeiofhisOperaomnia，Amst。，1671，cap。i，v，xx，p。5，alsocap。ii，v，ii，p。8，andelsewhere；forBossuet，seehisDiscourssurl’HistoireuniverselleinhisEuvres，tomev，Paris，1846；forLightfoot，seehisworks，editedbyPitman，London，1822；forBede，seetheHexaemeron，lib。i，inMigne，tomexci，p。21；forMr。Gosse’smoderndefenceoftheliteralview，seehisOmphalos，London，1857，passim。
　　ThenextimportantdevelopmentoftheologicalreasoninghadregardtotheDIVISIONSoftheanimalkingdom。
　　Naturally，oneofthefirstdivisionswhichstrucktheinquiringmindwasthatbetweenusefulandnoxiouscreatures，andthequestionthereforeoccurred，HowcouldagoodGodcreatetigersandserpents，thornsandthistles？TheanswerwasfoundintheologicalconsiderationsuponSIN。Toman’sfirstdisobedienceallwoesweredue。GreatmenforeighteenhundredyearsdevelopedthetheorythatbeforeAdam’sdisobediencetherewasnodeath，andthereforeneitherferocitynorvenom。
　　Sometypicalutterancesintheevolutionofthisdoctrineareworthyofapassingglance。St。Augustineexpresslyconfirmedandemphasizedtheviewthatthevegetableaswellastheanimalkingdomwascursedonaccountofman’ssin。TwohundredyearslaterthisutterancehadbeenechoedonfromfathertofatheroftheChurchuntilitwascaughtbyBede；hedeclaredthatbeforeman’sfallanimalswereharmless，butweremadepoisonousorhurtfulbyAdam’ssin，andhesaid，“ThusfierceandpoisonousanimalswerecreatedforterrifyingmanbecauseGodforesawthathewouldsin，inorderthathemightbemadeawareofthefinalpunishmentofhell。”
　　InthetwelfthcenturythisviewwasincorporatedbyPeterLombardintohisgreattheologicalwork，theSentences，whichbecameatext-bookoftheologythroughthemiddleages。Heaffirmedthat“nocreatedthingswouldhavebeenhurtfultomanhadhenotsinned；theybecamehurtfulforthesakeofterrifyingandpunishingviceorofprovingandperfectingvirtue；theywerecreatedharmless，andonaccountofsinbecamehurtful。”
　　ThistheologicaltheoryregardinganimalswasbroughtoutintheeighteenthcenturywithgreatforcebyJohnWesley。HedeclaredthatbeforeAdam’ssin“noneoftheseattemptedtodevourorinanywisehurtoneanother“；“thespiderwasasharmlessasthefly，anddidnotlieinwaitforblood。”NotonlyWesley，buttheeminentDr。AdamClarkeandDr。RichardWatson，whoseideashadtheverygreatestweightamongtheEnglishDissenters，andevenamongleadingthinkersintheEstablishedChurch，heldfirmlytothistheory；sothatnotuntil，inourowntime，geologyrevealedtheremainsofvastmultitudesofcarnivorouscreatures，manyofthemwithhalf-digestedremainsofotheranimalsintheirstomachs，allextinctlongagesbeforetheappearanceofmanuponearth，wasavictorywonbyscienceovertheologyinthisfield。
　　AcuriousdevelopmentofthisdoctrinewasseeninthebeliefdrawnbysundryoldcommentatorsfromthecondemnationoftheserpentinGenesis——abelief，indeed，perfectlynatural，sinceitwasevidentlythatoftheoriginalwritersoftheaccountpreservedinthefirstofoursacredbooks。Thisbeliefwasthat，untilthetemptingserpentwascursedbytheAlmighty，allserpentsstooderect，walked，andtalked。
　　Thisbeliefwashandeddowntheagesaspartof“thesacreddepositofthefaith“untilWatson，themostprolificwriteroftheevangelicalreformintheeighteenthcenturyandthestandardtheologianoftheevangelicalparty，declared：“Wehavenoreasonatalltobelievethattheanimalhadaserpentineforminanymodeordegreeuntilitstransformation；thathewasthendegradedtoareptiletogouponhisbellyimports，onthecontrary，anentirelossandalterationoftheoriginalform。”
　　Here，again，wasariperesultofthetheologicmethoddiligentlypursuedbythestrongestthinkersintheChurchduringnearlytwothousandyears；butthis“sacreddeposit“alsofadedawaywhenthegeologistsfoundabundantremainsoffossilserpentsdatingfromperiodslongbeforetheappearanceofman。
　　Troublesomequestionsalsoaroseamongtheologiansregardinganimalsclassedas“superfluous。”St。Augustinewasespeciallyexercisedthereby。Hesays：“IconfessIamignorantwhymiceandfrogswerecreated，orfliesandworms……Allcreaturesareeitheruseful，hurtful，orsuperfluoustous……Asforthehurtfulcreatures，weareeitherpunished，ordisciplined，orterrifiedbythem，sothatwemaynotcherishandlovethislife。”Astothe“superfluousanimals。”hesays，“Althoughtheyarenotnecessaryforourservice，yetthewholedesignoftheuniverseistherebycompletedandfinished。”Luther，whofollowedSt。Augustineinsomanyothermatters，declinedtofollowhimfullyinthis。Tohimaflywasnotmerelysuperfluous，itwasnoxious——sentbythedeviltovexhimwhenreading。