No sooner do we read this sentence than we find our minds full of perplexing questions. Quite naturally we ask in the “beginning” of what? It could not mean in the beginning of God, for it is supposed that he had no beginning; it could not mean the beginning of eternity, as that is without commencement or end, and it could not have been in the beginning of matter as it is eternal. If then matter is eternal, the story about the creation of the heaven and the earth is nothing more than a myth—a childish story that has come down to us from the dark ages of the remote past.

The indestructibility of matter is the corner-stone of modern philosophy, and the indestructibility of matter implies its eternal existence, that is, it never was created and it never will cease to exist. Theologians have taught for centuries that God created matter out of nothing. Enlightened people have to smile when they hear these stories repeated. Some theologians who have discovered the folly of such empty traditions have tried to reconstruct them by means of new interpretations. The Rev. De Witt Talmage, of Brooklyn, has discovered that God created matter out of a piece of omnipotence. This discovery is important, and may lead to grand results; still there are some people who doggedly refuse to accept this invention, and maintain that omnipotence is nothing more than an attribute, and that one could with as much propriety speak of God’s creating matter out of omniscience, or omnipresence.

There are others who do not claim that matter was made out of nothing, but that it was in a chaotic state, and that at a certain time (before time was), God formed it into the universe in six days of creation.

But this explanation does not help us out of our difficulties. For if God did not create matter out of nothing then it is eternal, and there could be no such thing as creation, or Creator. There is nothing in this old story at all, if it proves on examination that the “Creator” did not create matter; for in that case matter is co-eternal with God, and like him, is uncaused. When this old definition of creation fails the theological superstructure built upon it totters and falls to the ground. For if the Creator did not originate the universe from nothing, then matter is eternal, and God is not omnipotent, is not infinite, is not God. Thus we see that we have no reason whatever to think that there ever was a beginning to matter, or that creation of matter is at all thinkable. The words “beginning” and “creation,” as thus used are without meaning.

It is a marvel how long the mind of man has been subject to this childish fable. Surely the wise men of the different ages who heard it perceived its unreasonableness. But the wise men were few and the unwise were many, and the superstructure built over their heads in the form of theocracies and theologies, laid upon the foundations of this myth were too formidable to admit of free thought. The prophets must prophesy according to the traditions of the fathers. New interpretations were never welcome in this world. A radical idea is always a source of pain to the superficial or bigoted mind. And above all heresy was the worst of all things, and everything new was heresy. And because human reason was all the time making discoveries which revealed better things than had been known, and because reason exposed the weakness and falsity of traditions and superstitions, therefore reason itself was condemned and put under ban and was called “carnal reason,” and in order to overcome it, faith, blind belief, was set up as the greatest of all human virtues. And so strong was reason in its persistent attempts to get at the truth, it became necessary to preach faith all the time and to make salvation in another world depend upon it. And, as if this was not enough, he was constantly reminded that the sentence, “believe or be damned” did not relate wholly to another world. Damnation often began in this world. The persecutions, inquisitions, crusades, St. Bartholomew massacres all show how hard it is with those who have faith to have kindness of heart.

“And God said let there be light and there was light.” But how do we know he said so? Who was the reporter at that early date? In fact even if it were true, how could any one have ever found it out? And if any one had found it how could we know it? The same question might be asked in reference to creation. Who discovered the fact? How could we know that some one had learned it even if it were true?

“And God saw the light that it was good.” From this expression, we should infer that he did not know beforehand whether the light he was about experimentally to originate would be a good thing or not; but after having spoken it into existence and contemplating it for a while, he pronounced it good. The approval is spoken of it much after the manner of men. For instance we see a painter after having put the finishing touches on his picture step back and with satisfaction look at it, and say, “it is the greatest effort of my life.”

“And God divided the light from the darkness.” The originator of this story had not the slightest idea of the nature of light. He supposed it to be a substance that could be separated from darkness, which he also imagined a substance, as white beans may be separated from black beans.

Bible expounders have found it difficult to reconcile the word “day” with the teachings of geology. According to common chronology the creation of this universe out of nothing took place four thousand and four years before the birth of Christ, which would make the universe about six thousand years old. The testimony of geology is that the formation of this earth as it now is, must have a record of millions of years. And astronomy demonstrates that there are stars so far from this earth that it would take an indefinitely long time for the light from them to reach this earth.

Here then are two witnesses against this story which makes the earth about six thousand years old. These witnesses cannot be impeached.

What shall be done with the record? Oh, put a new interpretation upon it. “A person who is not a critic,” says Huxley, “and is not a Hebrew scholar, can only stand up and admire the marvelous flexibility of the language which admits of such adverse interpretations.”

The great expounders who explain the inexplicable things assure us that the six days of creation spoken of in the book of Genesis do mean literal days of twenty-four hours, but that the word “day” is here used to mean an indefinite period, “a great while.” But there are so many, and such great difficulties in the way of our accepting this explanation that we are forced to reject it.

In the first place the record says “days,” and says nothing in connection with the word that would lead us to think the writer meant anything by the word more than it usually signifies; while on the other hand all the uses of the word seem to imply that a day in every instance where the word is used, means a period of twenty-four hours.

Hugh Miller, and an eminent geologist, attempted to reconcile Genesis with geology, and after a laborous effort to achieve this end committed suicide. He attempted an impossible task.

There is not the slightest grounds for supposing the writer of Genesis to mean by the word “day” anything more than we mean by the same word. The language, “the evening and the morning were the first day,” can admit of but one interpretation, and that is the duration of twenty-four hours. We shall find that the writer uses the word “day” where, by no possible flexibility of interpretation, can the word mean anything other than this, and gives no hint that he means anything different in the use of the word in the latter case from its signification in its previous use.

And still another instance may be given to show that the word “day” has no double meaning: “And God made two great lights, the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night.” The word “day” obviously means what we mean by it when we use it in connection with night.

These proofs settle the question of the meaning of the word “day.” It means in Genesis just what it means when we use it. The account given of creation in speaking of “days” meant literally twenty-four hours; and geology and astronomy prove such statements to be childish and foolish. If we should admit that the word “day” in this narrative meant millions of years, then the first Sabbath upon which the Lord rested and was refreshed also meant millions of years. If this be so then it is safe to infer that he is still resting. This may in some degree account for the fact that the ministers are trying to run the world in his name. For if God exerts his power over the world to guide and control it according to his own sovereign will it is nothing less than high handed presumption if not rebellious usurpation on the part of the clergy to attempt to take the management out of his hands.

In the second chapter of Genesis, Adam is said to have been made before the animals were created. After Adam had given names to all the animals as they passed before him in grand review, there was no helpmeet found among them for him, and as an afterthought God formed a woman for him out of a rib. But here was a very long period between the creation of Adam and Eve. According to the first chapter of Genesis Adam and Eve were created at the same time, and before the creation of the animal kingdom, but in the second chapter man was the first creature made and woman the last. This would make Adam millions of years older than Eve, if the word “day” means millions of years in the first chapter of Genesis.

According to this writer’s ideas heaven and earth were two flat spheres, upon each of which were vast quantities of water. The firmament in which were set the sun, moon, and stars was in some way supported at a short distance above the earth.

One not acquainted with the wonderful flexibility of biblical interpretation, might conclude after reading this explicit definition of the rakia that the story of creation was an inspired revelation, but not true. We ourselves are inclined to this opinion, and we accept the conclusion that the Mosaic description of the firmament “does not harmonize with strict philosophical truth; and possibly we shall conclude that all parts of the Mosaic cosmogony will show that the writer who attempts to give a history of the beginning of the universe, did nothing more than describe things as they appeared to his mind’s eye, rather than as they actually were.

This was on the third day, and we read that on the fifth day, “God created great whales and every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind.” But in the evolution of life upon this earth, grasses, trees and plants do not precede the evolution of marine animals. Here again we come upon one of those instances where the account given does not harmonize with strict philosophical truth; but the answer to such objections is that “the writer describes things as they appear rather than as they are.” In modern language we should say he was merely guessing at the riddle of existence.

The creation of the sun and the moon was on the fourth day. But it is not made clear how there could have been a morning and an evening of three previous days, in the absence of the sun. Then again there is no possible explanation for the existence of vegetation without sunlight.

Grasses, trees, and plants will not grow without sunlight. And still another difficulty meets us in the same passage. The writer says God made two great lights, the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night. And this also is lacking in harmony with “strict philosophical truth,” for there is only one great light; the moon has no light, but merely reflects the sun’s rays. It is true it seems to be a light, and as “the writer describes things as they appear rather than as they are,” we can hold him responsible only for the revelation he makes as a matter of inspiration and not for its truth.

Before the sun was created, the writer gives us to understand that the dry land appeared—or to put it more definitely, God commanded saying, “Let the dry land appear.” But to whom was it to appear when there was no eye yet created to look upon it, and if there had been, there was no sunlight, and therefore if the world had been full of eyes the land would not have appeared! This is a problem. Did the waters lie on the mountain tops, and refuse to run down to the valleys, until they were commanded?

For how was it possible for a writer who describes things as they appear, to attempt to give us a glimpse of things which certainly could not have appeared, only to a mind diseased? But not wishing to appear captious we will let this pass, only however with the explicit understanding that the writer, in this case certainly attempted to describe things as they could not appear.

We find our perplexities increasing as we proceed. Especially when we attempt to read the stone book of geology in company with the Hebrew book of Genesis.

Whoever he may have been, and there can be no doubt of the sex of the writer, as the book everywhere betrays the spirit of the “lord of creation,” man, he seems to think that the earth was created before the sun, when the truth is the earth is the child of the sun. One could as well speak of a son being older than his father as to talk of the creation of the sun, after the earth had been created.

Thus, statement after statement of the story about creation falls for lack of support—and like bubbles the airy word pictures burst at the first touch of science.

What gross ignorance the writer betrays in speaking of the vast universe. It is nothing; it needs no extended description, five words are enough to describe the creation of an infinite universe, and hence to the writer it was quite sufficient to merely say, “He made the stars also.” And two of these words are supplied by the transcribers. As it seemed to this original cosmogonist the work of getting up a universe was not a matter of very great importance.

We are not disposed to credit this story for the reason that, the author makes it necessary for God to take five days to create the solar system, but for the infinite universe beyond, he needed less than one day. The Mosaic cosmogonist had no soul for astronomy or he would have seen the necessity of more time in the creation of the starry systems. We could have no patience with his description if it were not for the fact of which we are so well assured by Smith’s Bible Dictionary, that he is not giving us matter of fact but is “describing things as they appear rather than as they are.”

But no sooner do we quit one difficulty than we are beset with another. In looking over the leaves of the stone book of geology we find fossils of animals which existed untold ages before man, and as they had eyes there must therefore have been light, the sun must have existed an indefinitely long period before man.

And last of all on the sixth day late on Saturday afternoon, God created man in his own image. And as he stepped back and surveyed the week’s work which was before him he pronounced himself satisfied with it all. Everything was just as he would have it. Everything was perfect. “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good.” In fact there was not a single thing he could see a chance to make any improvement on; for it is impossible for us to think of a perfect creator making an imperfect creature. And if by any mistake he had made anything not just as it ought to be, and as he intended, we should think that knowing the fact he would make the necessary improvement; and if he would not, then we must conclude that he is not infinitely good. Thus every turn we make in this story drives us to the conclusion that it is not true, that it is only an ancient myth. It is the brass of ignorance which has been palmed off upon us for the gold of truth.

“So God created man in his own image,” and yet in the next breath the writer informs us that after Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, they became more like God, and if they had been permitted to eat of the tree of life they would have become still more like him. But it is hard for one who has not been born again to understand how Adam and Eve could become more and more like God, when they were created in his image and pronounced very good.

The command given them was, “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it lest ye die.” But the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil.”

And this was just how it turned out. After they had eaten of this prohibited tree, they became more like the gods than they had been. But we are led to immediately ask, could they have been made in the first place like them? And unless they were both counterfeits we cannot imagine how an image can be improved—that is, become more of an image.

And the Lord God said, “Behold the man has become as one of us, (just as the serpent had foretold) to know good and evil.” Here is a clear contradiction of terms. And in order to explain the matter at all satisfactorily to ourselves we have to recur to the assurance of authority that it is not claimed that the narration is literal history of fact, but merely the writer’s opinions of how it seemed to him it ought to be.

Here is an explicit statement of Adam’s right to eat of any fruit he might find. But in the third chapter of this wonderful book, we find that there are two trees whose fruit he is prohibited from eating, “Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said he shall not eat of it.” Then after Adam and Eve had refreshed themselves from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which made them as the gods knowing good and evil, the Lord God said, “Now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever, therefore the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken.”

We fail to see any reason for the apparent change of plan in the mind of the Lord. He first grants Adam and Eve the privilege of eating any fruit they chose, and afterward prohibited them from eating of the fruit of two trees, which would have most benefited them. Certainly we can see no good reason for prohibiting them from acquiring knowledge, especially of good and evil, since the gods had this sort of knowledge themselves. In fact we would naturally suppose that the more accurate man’s knowledge of good and evil is the better off he would be; he would certainly be more moral. But let us imagine that it was not desirable for Adam and Eve to have such knowledge and morality and thus to resemble so closely the gods themselves, is there any good reason why they should not have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life, and thereby lived forever? Why should the fact that they had become more like the gods be a sufficient reason for preventing them from sharing in the immortal life? Would not it have been altogether probable that Adam and Eve would continue to become more and more like the gods, seeing that they had begun so persistently to acquire the godlike virtues?

“And when the woman saw the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise,” etc. We see that it was wisdom that was prohibited, and not murder, robbery, or drunkenness. Why was knowledge and wisdom forbidden to man when these above all things else he needed most? Why is it that religion has always condemned learning, discoveries, inventions, reforms, etc.? Knowledge is the forbidden fruit of all the gardens of the gods. But how could these celestial creators expect to prevent man from gaining knowledge after they had created him with a brain to think? To think is to have knowledge, and to have some knowledge is to thirst for more, and thus it was absolute madness to create man with a brain and command him not think. As well throw a bird into the air, and shoot it for flying, or spear a fish for swimming in the water, as to damn a human being for coming into possession of the knowledge of good and evil.

The story seems to imply many contradictions which are not explicitly expressed. For Adam and Eve must have been moral beings to have understood the supposed commands of God. If they were moral then they already knew what good and evil was. The way in which this primitive couple acquired knowledge reminds one of the description of the creation of the sun. In the first chapter of this wonderful book, we find light created, and on the fourth day afterward the sun is made. This is reversing the order of cause and effect, as in this effect comes before cause. There is this explanation, however, that the world was new and had not got fairly into working order.

In the case of Adam and Eve, we have no such explanation to offer. We find them from the very first moment, rational beings, and of course having a knowledge of good and evil; but the historian who gives us the account, declares that they came into the possession of knowledge not by virtue of their brains; but because of their eating of certain fruit. The effect is made to be the cause.

There is only one way out of the dilemma. The writer described things “as they seemed rather than as they are.”

Even so great a man as the Hon. W. E. Gladstone has to betake himself to specious arguments in attempting to refute the testimony of science when opposed to Genesis. His logic is kindred to that quoted from Smith’s Bible Dictionary, wherein the writer says of the author of Genesis that he “describes things as they appear, rather than as they are.” Mr. Gladstone in the “Order of Creation,” says:

Who was it that “intended to give moral, and not scientific instruction?” If it was the author of Genesis who intended it for only moral instruction, then it cannot be claimed to be a revelation from God; but if on the other hand it was God who intended to give only moral instruction, then he is responsible for making the author of Genesis record that which is not true. What a sight for gods and men! To see the ex-premier of England pettifogging at the bar of Reason for a dying, nay dead superstition; for certainly Genesis as a revelation is dead so far as reason and science are concerned.

But this hostility to knowledge instituted in the garden of Eden has been perpetuated through all the ages. Faith has been held up as the all-important virtue, as by it the priests could get the people to believe anything. Somewhere Goethe says, “Belief is not the beginning but the end of knowledge.” In the early days of the church it was found necessary to abandon reason. The world had too many philosophers who stood prepared to expose the superstitions which set themselves up with authority. The injunction given to and heeded by chiefly the low and ignorant was, “Do not examine; only believe and thy faith will make thee blessed.” “Wisdom is a bad thing in life, foolishness is to be preferred.” But this sentiment was older than that date, for we find in the writings of Paul the same teaching, “If any man among you seemeth to be wise, let him become a fool that he may be wise.” At another time he insists that, “We are fools for Christ’s sake.”

My advice is to eat of the fruit of knowledge, and have your eyes opened to the truth no matter what it is. It may be that some delusive Santa Claus may fade away in the distance before your clearer vision. Let it go. Nothing is so expensive as error. Seek to know the truth, and struggle to throw off such prejudices as tempt you to fashion truth to your own intellectual myopia or moral obliquities. Eat and become more truly a man; eat and become more beautifully a woman.

This writer never visited a menagerie. His knowledge of the habits of the animal kingdom are as innocent as if he had never sought for knowledge, had never examined natural history, or else he would have known that such animals as lions, tigers, and wolves could not feed on grass. The vultures of the air do not live upon seeds or hay, but must have fish or flesh. Daniel going into a den of lions fed on hay, would be about as brave as a milk maid’s going into the stall to milk a cow. We cannot conjecture what state of mind the Mosaic cosmogonist could have been in when he described the lion as a herbivorous animal. It is so wide a departure from the most common knowledge of the habits of animals that our confidence in the accuracy of the historian is greatly shaken.

It is commonly believed that if man had not eaten of the forbidden fruit he would have been immortal. Now the very fact that Adam and Eve ate at all, proves them to have been mortal. For eating implies a nutritive system, which means growth, maturity, and decay of the organism. Death is natural, and not a penalty—not a curse pronounced upon the primitive pair for disobedience. They would have died even if they had partaken of the tree of life.

And in connection with this erroneous idea of the loss of immortality is another respecting labor. It has been a doctrine taught by the church that labor is a curse pronounced upon the family of man in consequence of Adam’s transgression, and proof often quoted is, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.”

This is the consequence of cherishing an ambition to become more like the gods. Because he was foolish enough to disobey in the matter of tasting some tempting fruit which attracted his eye, he and all his posterity must toil hard to get a mere subsistence, and then go to hell and roast forever. To an ordinary man this seems rather rough for so small an offense—to sweat in this life is bad enough, but to roast in another is too much, and we utter our righteous protest against it. And since we now have our choice between hell, hades, sheol or gehenna I, for one, prefer hades as its temperature is lower.

But this story like many others lacks consistency. For we read that before Adam transgressed the commandment, “The Lord took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” This looks like work, and gardeners and farmers would look upon all such arrangements as work, especially would they thus regard it, if the garden was large and it was the duty of one person to take the entire care of it, to that is, do all the work.

Labor therefore was natural to man and did not come upon him as a curse. It was not in consequence of his eating prohibited apples that the necessity of toil was imposed upon him as a curse, but because mental and physical activity are natural, and he could not exist without them.

Labor is natural and honorable. The hands and brain of man imply labor, as necessarily as the lungs imply air, or the gills of the fish imply water. Man could not exist without it; but the great evil which has arisen is the abuse of labor. Some have been enabled to get possession of wealth and thereby have the power to control the laborer and take such a share out of the profits of his toil as they see fit. The stronger prey upon the weaker. Our present civilization does not civilize, because it does not remove this relic of barbarism which allows the rich to rob the poor of the profits of their labor. The laborer who produces the wealth of the country is the one who does not get its benefits. The old form of European civilization which justifies and aids the rich in becoming richer and making the poor poorer is beginning to show traces of its existence in this country. And we must say we cannot see how or when this sort of civilization with gilded top and rotten base is to come to an end. Surely there is no way out of our barbarous degradation except by the development of the individual through his intelligence into liberty, morality, and manhood.

“And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would name them.” Some animals, as the Armadillo, and Sloth of South America would consume more time in going from South America to the garden of Eden, than Adam’s life covered. And how could the polar bear and the humming bird of the tropics pass through the different temperatures to reach the garden of Eden? and how long could they survive if they were even there, and how could they find their way back to their former habitats? Did the fish all swim up to the shore and range themselves in a row to be named?

We wish to call attention to the grand review of the animals, to point out the implication that Adam could not find a helpmeet among them. We read:

Now the very words, “was not found,” imply that search was made for a helpmeet, but none could be found. And because none could be found, therefore the Lord God went immediately to work to make a woman for him. The Creator threw him into a deep sleep, and while in that unconscious condition and unable to do or say a thing in his own defense, the Lord took out a rib, or as Ingersoll says, “a cutlet,” while Dr. Talmage insists that God took out Adam’s “side” and reformed it into a woman, and as the text reads, “Brought her unto the man.” Was he not there right on the spot? Was it necessary for the Lord after taking out the rib to go off a distance by himself that he might finish the work undisturbed? Unless something of the kind was necessary we do not see the force of the sentence, “Brought her unto the man.”

The Greenlanders have a story that relates the creation of woman from man’s thumb. This is significant and much more probable. There is wisdom in this even if it be regarded as a myth. The bare fact that woman has always been under man’s thumb shows some kinetic relation. The masculine gender has not been reluctant to manifest a disposition to preserve the gentler sex in this position. He calls her by pet names, and bestows compliments upon her, and declares upon the honor of a despot that there is no name so sacred as mother, and that there is no virtue so precious as that possessed by woman—he will even die for her, but still he prefers to keep her in subjection under his thumb. Liberty will come to woman when she becomes tired of being a mere plaything, a pet, a favorite slave, and then, and not till then may she rise into the full dignity of womanhood, and throw off thumb authority and all allegiance to the legends which give the thumb its authority. Woman needs again to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, even if she be driven out of the social garden and ostracised therefrom with the flaming sword of respectability guarding the gates against her return. Her first rebellion brought knowledge and progress to man, and her second rebellion must be against both God and man.

“And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die.” Never in the history of snakes was there a match for this first one. It is highly probable that his snakeship did not have a protracted existence after this emeute of the garden. In fact we never hear of him more. Some historians say he changed his name and went west, and some have gone so far as to say that Satan, who attacked Job many centuries after the seduction of Adam and Eve was nothing more than the old Serpent under a new name.

One thing is certain, and that is, that the snake in the garden of Eden immortalized himself in a short time. But we can hardly comprehend the curse pronounced upon it for so laudable a work. This was the curse: “Above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” It would seem from this, that the serpent did not go naturally upon his belly, but some how or other he diddled along on the tip end of his tail. We fail to see any reason for this sort of locomotion unless it was to help him look out for other snakes. And we are perplexed to understand why he should be sentenced to eat dust. If he was cursed, it seems that the curse is quite conveniently borne by him; for he finds it just to his gait to go upon his belly, and as for eating dust, he never did and never will. He is defiant, rebellious, and successful.

The more we study the character of this original snake the more we find to admire in him.

It is true we do not always understand just how things could happen as they did, but we take them as they read and make the best of them. For instance we can form no idea of how it was possible for the serpent to talk to Eve, and reason with her like a philosopher. He talked to her the same as if he had had vocal organs, and a brain similar but superior to man’s. Unless he had a mouth and head like a human being we cannot see how he could have talked; and if his head was of that type we cannot see how he could have been called a snake. There was a great many suggestions prompted by reading the account of this wonderful serpent. We cannot understand why he should have been made. Or why, if it were necessary to have him, he was not placed under some restraint? Why was he not created so that God himself could govern him? Or why after seeing he had made him a little too wise, and a trifle too devilish he did not kill him? Or if that were impracticable or impossible, why did he not put up signs on all the fences around Eden, “Adam and Eve beware of snakes!”

“And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him, where art thou?” But we are amazed at the very thought that it was possible for them to get out of sight of the omniscient eye! We read in many books, and have heard it all our lives that God sees all things, but according to this account, his first creatures, fresh from his plastic hands, and very near to him got beyond his omniscient sight. How could this be, when “the eyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good?”

And yet, notwithstanding he made all things, and sees all things, and knows all things, Adam and Eve were able to get behind the trees and hide away out of his sight.

On another occasion it is recorded that the Lord had come down from heaven to see whether the reports which were brought up to him were true or not. “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded.” And in still another place it is written: “And the Lord said because of the city of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is grievous I will go down now and see whether they have done according to the cry of it, which is come up before me, and if not I will know.”

And yet other equally inspired writers, describing things as they appeared rather than as they are, solemnly declare that “all things are naked and open to him with whom we have to do.”

But we pass on leaving Adam behind the tree, hid away from the presence of the Lord, to notice other sacred passages which are not in harmony with strict philosophical truth.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee.” Now there is no reason to suppose that the pain of childbirth has ever been increased in woman. Her physiological structure has in no way undergone a radical change. Besides, all animals bearing offspring bear pains. Did the curse upon woman extend to the females of animals bearing offspring? But wherein does the male suffer his share in this divine punishment?

“And he shall rule over thee.” This is a matter of fact—and is equally true of those people who know nothing of Israel or Israel’s god. Man has ruled over woman in all times and in all countries, and will continue to reign over her until she aspires to and contends for her rights.

The path of woman’s future is steep, slippery, and long. Many ages will pass before she attains the glory and beauty possible to womanhood, but with prophetic eyes we see that time coming. With joy we labor and wait, that at some future day this world will be made happy and grand through the evolution of truth, love, and liberty in the elevation of woman.

Another part of the curse is that, “Thorns and thistles shall it (the ground) bring forth,” but geology shows that thorns and thistles were as plentiful in the primeval world as they are now. Hence there must be some mistake on the part of the writer in setting down the origin of thorns and thistles for that particular date.

This is another astonishing statement. Eve was the mother of all (human beings) living, and there were none living but herself and Adam! If she was the mother of all living, she was not only Adam’s mother, but her own mother too.

It is true that when Cain grew to manhood and slew his brother, there were some people down in the land of Nod, but when God made them we have no means of knowing. They were not a people of much consequence as no notice is taken of them by our author, and besides they permitted Cain to come and live among them and take a wife. Perhaps these people were before Adam and Eve, for it is stated that in the city there were workers of iron and brass. Brass is a compound of copper and zinc, and these workers must have had a knowledge of the arts of mining and compounding metals. The mark, too, was set upon Cain that “whosoever” might not slay him; then there must have been a “whosoever.” It is very likely that if Cain built a city he must have had the aid of carpenters and workmen, and it may be that he found his wife in the land of Nod among the “whosoever” “workers in of iron and brass.” I think the clergy will agree that there was a “whosoever.” It would have been needless to put a mark on Cain to preserve his life from a “whosoever” if there were no “whosoever,” and my opinion is that Mr. Cain married some of the daughters of Mr. “Whosoever” in the land of Nod.

“And Adam called his wife Eve because she was the mother of all living!” That eclipses everything. And we were about concluding that nothing of the kind had ever been known before, but we remember the story about Ahaziah, and that he was two years older than his father.

In the book of Chronicles we have another account.

Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he came to the throne, and he reigned eight years, which made him forty years old at his death, and his son Ahaziah who took up the reins of government which dropped from the hands of his father, was forty-two years old—just two years older than his father, and the youngest son at that.

There is no description of the style of these dresses, and we are left without data for judging of their fitness, only we are inclined to the opinion that the country where it was just the temperature for the natives to go naked, skin coats would be a trifle too winterish in style. We fail too see the necessity for such heavy clothing, or in fact for any clothing at all, inasmuch as they were created to go naked. For we read that, “They were both naked the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Or if they must have some protection for their modesty why were not fig-leaf aprons quite sufficient for that climate? And still further we can see no necessity for the Lord to turn tailor and make their clothes when Adam and Eve had already learned to sew; for “they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves aprons,” and as the seasons changed they could easily have learned to make garments of comfort for themselves, and also to set the fashions for the rest of the world. The origin of the universe is an insoluble mystery. And yet to the uninformed mind it seems to be no problem at all. We daily hear such people reasoning in this way: “There must have been a First Cause of all things, and that First Cause we call God.” It is only because the mind of man is uninformed, that he reasons in this way. It requires only a little reflection to see that there could have been no First Cause. It is clear that every cause must have an effect, for unless it produces an effect it cannot be a cause. Hence we cannot infer that there can be an effect which of itself does not become a cause, producing other effects, so that it is absolutely impossible in the nature of cause and effect, for a last cause or a first cause to exist. As a last cause would be a cause only when it produced an effect, and the last effect would be an effect only when it became a cause. It is equally true that there could be no First Cause; for whatever is, is the result of some previous cause. We can view causation only as a chain in form of a circle.

“If we apply to this question the notion of time we see the limit of our thought, because if we try to think of an absolute creative power before creation, we discover that the idea is unthinkable, as infinite and absolute creative power in the presence of inactivity and nothing are incompatible. It could not have been creative power without creating something. We are therefore unable to think of absolute creative power as inert—we are equally unable to think of it inactive in the presence of chaos, and as impotent to conceive of its existence as absolute. We cannot think of it existing after creation, as rest and inactivity are again incompatible with the notion of force.”

We may look at this subject in whatever way we choose we shall find that in no way whatever can we form any idea of a First Cause, an infinite and absolute Creator. Let us see. “The First Cause cannot be absolute, that is, it cannot exist out of all relation to the universe. Whereas a cause not only sustains some relation to its effect, but exists as a cause only by virtue of such relations. Suppress the effect and the cause has ceased to be a cause. Absolute cause, therefore, is like the phrase, circular triangle. The two words stand for conceptions which cannot be made to unite. We attempt, says Mr. Mansel, to escape from this apparent contradiction by introducing the succession of time. The absolute exists first by itself and afterward becomes a cause. But here we are checked by the third conception of the infinite. How can the infinite become that which it has not from the first.” (“Fisk’s Cosmic Philos.”)

Look at it whatever way we may the finite mind cannot grasp the conception of the infinite. Nay, cannot know of the existence of the infinite. Hence all efforts to explain the First Cause, the absolute, and the infinite, are more artificial and unreal than painted ships upon a painted sea.

We may view the subject in still another light. If God reasons, his knowledge is limited and he is finite. Man reasons because his knowledge is circumscribed. If he knew everything he would have no doubts, and hence would not need to investigate, experiment, recollect, and compare. He would not be compelled to lay down certain definite data, and follow their implications through rules of logic, and through scientific experiment in order to reach conclusions. The end would be as clearly before his mind as the beginning; in fact there would be to such a mind no beginning and no end. But we cannot imagine an infinite being who needs to recollect past events. But if we deny that in the mind of God there is the faculty of memory, we thereby deny that he reasons. The same may be said of doubt, for if the mind of God is never troubled with doubts, it is simply because he does not reason. Much of the mind’s activity is employed in doubts. Doubt and inquiry are necessary elements of thought. Does God doubt? Does he investigate, compare, and test matters by experiment? If he does then he is not infinite, and if he does not, then he does not reason. Has he imagination? If he exercises this important function of the mind then he deals in unrealities, idealizes, has dreams, cherishes visions, builds air castles. If he does not thus exercise imagination he cannot be said to reason.

It is an old argument that design implies a designer. The essential weakness of this argument lies in what is called “proofs of design.” And in support of this idea it is commonly urged that there are everywhere apparent in nature evidences of order, harmony, and adaptation. But to put this argument into a sentence, the maggot in the cheese could offer the same arguments to show there was a design in his position in the cheese. He could argue that everything about him showed order, harmony, and adaptation. It was just the cheese for him.

But even if we should admit this statement, it would not prove the existence of God, for if an intelligent mind had created the universe, it is certain that that mind itself must have been governed by law which yields to order, harmony, and adaptation, and if these imply a designer in one case they must also in the other, and therefore every designer must have had a designer.