Handbook for Bible Students

“E” Entries

Easter, Chaldean Origin of.—What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people of Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar. The worship of Bel and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain, along with the Druids, “the priests of the groves.” [p. 103] ... HBS 160.4

If Baal was thus worshiped in Britain, it will not be difficult to believe that his consort Astarte was also adored by our ancestors, and that from Astarte, whose name in Nineveh was Ishtar, the religious solemnities of April, as now practised, are called by the name of Easter, that month, among our pagan ancestors, having been called Easter-monath. HBS 160.5

The festival, of which we read in church history under the name of Easter, in the third or fourth centuries, was quite a different festival from that now observed in the Romish Church, and at that time was not known by any such name as Easter. It was called Pasch, or the Passover, and though not of apostolic institution, was very early observed by many professing Christians, in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ. That festival agreed originally with the time of the Jewish Passover, when Christ was crucified, a period which, in the days of Tertullian, at the end of the second century, was believed to have been the 23rd of March. That festival was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent. “It ought to be known,” said Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, writing in the fifth century, and contrasting the primitive church with the church in his day, “that the observance of the forty days had no existence, so long as the perfection of that primitive church remained inviolate.” Whence, then, came this observance? The forty days’ abstinence of Lent was directly borrowed from the worshipers of the Babylonian goddess. HBS 160.6

Such a Lent of forty days, “in the spring of the year,” is still observed by the Yezidis, or pagan devil worshipers of Koordistan, who have inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians. Such a Lent of forty days was held in spring by the pagan Mexicans, for thus we read in Humboldt, where he gives account of Mexican observances: “Three days after the vernal equinox ... began a solemn fast of forty days in honor of the sun.” Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt, as may be seen on consulting Wilkinson’s “Egyptians.” This Egyptian Lent of forty days, we are informed by Landseer, in his “Sabaean Researches,” was held expressly in commemoration of Adonis or Osiris, the great mediatorial god. [pp. 104, 105] ... HBS 161.1

Among the pagans this Lent seems to have been an indispensable preliminary to the great annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz, which was celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing, and which, in many countries, was considerably later than the Christian festival, being observed in Palestine and Assyria in June, therefore called the “month of Tammuz;” in Egypt, about the middle of May; and in Britain, some time in April. To conciliate the pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and pagan festivals amalgamated, and by a complicated but skilful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get paganism and Christianity-now far sunk in idolatry-in this as in so many other things, to shake hands. [p. 105] ... HBS 161.2

This change of the calendar in regard to Easter was attended with momentous consequences. It brought into the church the grossest corruption and the rankest superstition in connection with the abstinence of Lent. [p. 106] ... HBS 161.3

The difference, in point of time, betwixt the Christian Pasch, as observed in Britain by the native Christians, and the pagan Easter enforced by Rome, at the time of its enforcement, was a whole month; and it was only by violence and bloodshed, at last, that the festival of the Anglo-Saxon or Chaldean goddess came to supersede that which had been held in honor of Christ. [p. 107]-“The Two Babylons,” Rev. Alexander Hislop, pp. 103-107, 7th edition. London: S. W. Partridge & Co. HBS 161.4

Easter, Not Appointed by the Apostles.—The apostles had no thought of appointing festival days, but of promoting a life of blamelessness and piety. And it seems to me that the feast of Easter has been introduced into the church from some old usage, just as many other customs have been established. In Asia Minor most people kept the fourteenth day of the moon, disregarding the Sabbath; yet they never separated from those who did otherwise, until Victor, bishop of Rome, influenced by too ardent a zeal, fulminated a sentence of excommunication against the Quartodecimani in Asia. But Irenaus, bishop of Lyons in France, severely censured Victor by letter for his immoderate heat, telling him that although the ancients differed in their celebration of Easter, they did not depart from intercommunion. Also that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who afterward suffered martyrdom under Gordian, continued to communicate with Anicetus, bishop of Rome, although he himself, according to the usage of his country, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, as Eusebius attests in the fifth book of his “Ecclesiastical History.” While therefore some in Asia Minor observed the day above mentioned, others in the East kept that feast on the Sabbath indeed, but not in the same month.... HBS 161.5

Moreover the Quartodecimani affirm that the observance they maintain was delivered to them by the apostle John, while the Romans and those in the western parts assure us that their usage originated with the apostles Peter and Paul. Neither of these parties, however, can produce any written testimony in confirmation of what they assert.... HBS 162.1

The fasts before Easter are differently observed. Those at Rome fast three successive weeks before Easter, excepting Saturdays and Sundays. The Illyrians, Achaians, and Alexandrians observe a fast of six weeks, which they term “the forty days’ fast.” Others commencing their fast from the seventh week before Easter, and fasting three five days only, and that at intervals, yet call that time “the forty days’ fast.” HBS 162.2

It is indeed surprising that thus differing in the number of days, they should both give it one common appellation; but some assign one reason for it, and others another, according to their several fancies. There is also a disagreement about abstinence from food, as well as the numbers of days. Some wholly abstain from things that have life; others feed on fish only of all living creatures; many, together with fish, eat fowl also, saying that, according to Moses, these were likewise made out of the waters. Some abstain from eggs, and all kinds of fruits; others feed on dry bread only; and others eat not even this; while others, having fasted till the ninth hour, afterward feed on any sort of food without distinction. And among various nations there are other usages, for which innumerable reasons are assigned.—“A History of the Church” (306-445, A. D.), Socrates, book 5, chap. 22 (“Greek Ecclesiastical Historians,” Vol. III, pp. 400-404). London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1844. HBS 162.3

Easter, Time of Observance of.—The Christians of Asia Minor were called Quartodecimans from their custom of celebrating the Pascha invariably on the 14th of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish year and falling in the springtime. The date might fall on Friday or on any of the other days of the week, which fact made no difference in the celebration of the paschal feast. For this reason the day of the resurrection did not always fall on a Sunday. In the churches of the West and also in parts of the East a different custom prevailed. The result of these differences was that different sections of the church might and did observe the Pascha on different dates. Out of this difference grew the Paschal Controversies, so-called. The Council of Nicaa had for its second object the unification of the date of the Christian Pascha, which the Council of Arles (314) had referred to as a most desirable thing, “that the Pascha of the Lord should be observed on one day and at one time throughout the world” (cf. Hefele, “Conciliengeschichte,” i. 205). The decree of Nicaa fixed as Easter Sunday the Sunday immediately following the fourteenth day of the so-called paschal moon, which happens on or first after the vernal equinox. The vernal equinox invariably falls on March 21. Easter, then, cannot occur earlier than March 22, or later than April 25.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IV, art. “Easter,” p. 44. HBS 162.4

Ebionism, Principal Types of.—Ebionism presents itself under two principal types, an earlier and a later, the former usually designated Ebionism proper or Pharisaic Ebionism, the latter, Essene or Gnostic Ebionism. The earlier type is to be traced in the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, etc.; the later in those of Epiphanius especially. HBS 163.1

(a) Ebionism Proper.-The term expresses conveniently the opinions and practices of the descendants of the Judaizers of the apostolic age, and is very little removed from Judaism. Judaism was to them not so much a preparation for Christianity, as an institution eternally good in itself, and but slightly modified in Christianity. Whatever merit Christianity possessed, was possessed as the continuation and supplement of Judaism. The divinity of the old covenant was the only valid guaranty for the truth of the new. Hence the tendency of this class of Ebionites to exalt the old at the expense of the new, to magnify Moses and the prophets, and to allow Jesus Christ to be “nothing more than a Solomon or a Jonas” (Tertullian de Carne Christi, 100:18). Legal righteousness was to them the highest type of perfection; the earthly Jerusalem, in spite of its destruction, was an object of adoration “as if it were the house of God” (Irenaus, l. c.); its restoration would take place in the millennial kingdom of Messiah, and the Jews would return there as the manifestly chosen people of God. [p. 25] ... HBS 163.2

(b) Essene or Gnostic Ebionism.-This, as the name indicates, was a type of Ebionism affected by external influences. The characteristic features of the ascetic Essenes were reproduced in its practices, and the traces of influences more directly mystical and Oriental were evident in its doctrines. The fact that Ebionism generally passed through different phases at different times renders it, however, difficult to define with precision the line which separates Gnostic and Pharisaic Ebionism.... HBS 163.3

Their principal tenets were as follows: Christianity they identified with primitive religion or genuine Mosaism, and as distinguished from what they termed accretions to Mosaism, or the post-Mosaic developments described in the later books of the Old Testament.... They accepted the Pentateuch alone among the Old Testament writings, and emasculated it, rejecting whatever reflected questionably upon their favorites. They held that there were two antagonistic powers appointed by God, Christ and devil; to the former was allotted the world to come, to the latter the present world. The conception of Christ was variously entertained. Some affirmed that he was created (not born) of the Father, a spirit, and higher than the angels; that he had the power of coming to this earth when he would, and in various modes of manifestation; that he had been incarnate in Adam, and had appeared to the patriarchs in bodily shape; others identified Adam and Christ. In these last days he had come in the person of Jesus. Jesus was therefore to them a successor of Moses, and not of higher authority. [p. 26] ... HBS 163.4

To the observance of the Jewish Sabbath they added also the observance of the Christian Lord’s day. Circumcision was sacred to them from the practice of the patriarchs and of Jesus Christ; and they declined all fellowship with the uncircumcised. On the other hand, they repudiated the sacrifices of the altar and the reverence of the Jew for the temple. In common with the Ebionites proper, they detested St. Paul, rejected his epistles, and circulated stories discreditable to him. The other apostles were known to them by their writings, to which they assigned inferiority in comparison with their own gospel. HBS 163.5

It may perhaps be impossible to state precisely when Gnostic Ebionism replaced Ebionism proper, just as it is impossible to state definitely when Essenism became affected by Gnosticism; but the conjecture appears not improbable that as the siege of Jerusalem under Titus gave an impetus to Ebionism proper, so the ruin under Hadrian developed Gnostic Ebionism. Not that Gnosticism began then to affect it for the first time, but that Gnostic ideals hitherto held in solution were precipitated and found a congenial home among men who through contact with Oriental systems in Syria were already predisposed to accept them. The Essene Ebionite in accepting Gnosticized Christianity brought to it the customs to which he was most attached.—“A Dictionary of Christian Biography,” Smith and Wace, Vol. II, art. “Ebionism and Ebionites,” pp. 25-27. London: John Murray, 1880. HBS 164.1

Edict of Milan, a. d. 313.—As we long since perceived that religious liberty should not be denied, but that it should be granted to the opinion and wishes of each one to perform divine duties according to his own determination, we had given orders that each one, and the Christians among the rest, have the liberty to observe the religion of his choice and his peculiar mode of worship. And as there plainly appeared to be many and different sects added in that edict, ¹³ in which this privilege was granted them, some of them, perhaps, after a little while, on this account shrunk from this kind of attention and observance. Wherefore, as I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, came under favorable auspices to Milan, and took under consideration all affairs that pertained to the public benefit and welfare, these things among the rest appeared to us to be most advantageous and profitable to all. HBS 164.2

We have resolved among the first things to ordain those matters by which reverence and worship to the Deity might be exhibited; that is, how we may grant likewise to the Christians, and to all, the free choice to follow that mode of worship which they may wish, that whatsoever divinity and celestial power may exist may be propitious to us and to all that live under our government. Therefore, we have decreed the following ordinance, as our will, with a salutary and most correct intention, that no freedom at all shall be refused to Christians, to follow or to keep their observances or worship; but that to each one power be granted to devote his mind to that worship which he may think adapted to himself, that the Deity may in all things exhibit to us his accustomed favor and kindness. It was just and consistent that we should write that this was our pleasure, that all exceptions respecting the Christians being completely removed, which were contained in the former epistle that we sent to your fidelity, and whatever measures were wholly sinister and foreign to our mildness, that these should be altogether annulled; and now that each one of the Christians may freely and without molestation, pursue and follow that course of worship which he has proposed to himself: which, indeed, we have resolved to communicate most fully to your care and diligence, that you may know we have granted liberty and full freedom to the Christians, to observe their own mode of worship; which as your fidelity understands absolutely granted to them by us, the privilege is also granted to others to pursue that worship and religion they wish, which it is obvious is consistent with the peace and tranquillity of our times; that each may have the privilege to select and to worship whatsoever divinity he pleases. But this has been done by us, that we might not appear in any manner to detract anything from any manner of religion or any mode of worship. HBS 164.3

And this we further decree, with respect to the Christians, that the places in which they were formerly accustomed to assemble, concerning which we also formerly wrote to your fidelity, in a different form, that if any persons have purchased these, either from our treasury or from any other one, these shall restore them to the Christians, without money and without demanding any price, without any superadded value, or augmentation, without delay or hesitancy. And if any have happened to receive these places as presents, that they shall restore them as soon as possible to the Christians, so that if either those that purchased or those that received them as presents, have anything to request of our munificence, they may go to the provincial governor, as the judge, that provision may also be made for them by our clemency; all which, it will be necessary to be delivered up to the body of Christians, by your care, without any delay. HBS 165.1

And since the Christians themselves are known to have had not only those places where they were accustomed to meet, but other places also, belonging not to individuals among them, but to the right of the whole body of Christians, you will also command all these, by virtue of the law before mentioned, without any hesitancy, to be restored to these same Christians, that is, to their body, and to each conventricle respectively; the aforesaid consideration, to wit, being observed; namely, that they who as we have said restore them without valuation and price, may expect their indemnity from our munificence and liberality. HBS 165.2

In all which it will be incumbent on you to manifest your exertions, as much as possible, to the aforesaid body of Christians, that our orders may be most speedily accomplished, that likewise in this provision may be made by our clemency, for the preservation of the common and public tranquillity. For by these means, as beforesaid, the divine favor with regard to us, which we have already experienced in many affairs, will continue firm and permanent at all times. But that the purpose of this our ordinance and liberality may be extended to the knowledge of all, it is expected that these things written by us should be proposed and published to the knowledge of all, that this act of our liberality and kindness may remain unknown to none.—Edict of Constantine (and Licinius?), A. D. 313; cited in “An Ecclesiastical History,” Eusebius, book 10, chap. 5 (“Greek Ecclesiastical Historians,” Vol. II, pp. 430-433). London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1847. (See also “The Library of Original Sources,” Vol. IV, pp. 19, 20.) HBS 165.3

Edom, Extent of.—That the name “Edom,” in its Greek form “Idumea,” extended over the upper desert south of Palestine in the later centuries before the Christian era, and subsequently, is abundantly shown by references to it in the Apocrypha, the Talmud, and the writings of Pliny, Josephus, Ptolemy, Jerome, and others. Diodorus Siculus, indeed, speaks of the Dead Sea as in the center of the satrapy of Idumea. And as has been already noted, all the geographers down to the days of Reland were at one on this point. So far there is no dispute. The only question raised by any scholar is, whether the westward stretch of Edom beyond the ‘Arabah was prior to the period of Judah’s captivity. Yet not a particle of evidence is to be found in favor of the westward limitation of ancient Edom by the bounds of the ‘Arabah, at any period whatsoever; while both the Bible text and the Egyptian records give proof that there was no such limitation in the days of the conquest of Canaan. HBS 165.4

As yet, the precise limits of ancient Edom, westward, cannot be designated with confidence. It is probable, judging from what we know of ancient boundaries generally, that these limits were conformed to some marked natural features of the country. When the Azâzimeh, or Muqrâh, mountain tract shall have been carefully explored, such natural features may be there shown for the marking of the western border of Edom, as have already been pointed out for the southern border of Canaan.—“Kadesh-Barnea,” H. Clay Trumbull, D. D., pp. 100, 101. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884. HBS 166.1

Egypt, Israel in, Bricks Without Straw.—It lends additional interest to the discovery of Pithom that the city is found to be built almost entirely of brick. It was in brickmaking that the Israelites are said in the book of Exodus (chap. 1:14; 5:7-19) to have been principally employed. They are also said to have been occupied to some extent “in mortar” (chap. 1:14); and the bricks of the store chambers of Pithom are “laid with mortar in regular tiers.” They made their bricks “with straw” until no straw was given them, when they were reduced to straits (chap. 5:7-19). It is in accordance with this part of the narrative, and sheds some additional light upon it, to find that the bricks of the Pithom chambers, while generally containing a certain amount of straw, are in some instances destitute of it. The king’s cruelty forced the Israelites to produce in some cases an inferior article.—“Egypt and Babylon,” George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 147. New York: John B. Alden, 1885. HBS 166.2

Egypt, Exodus, Testimony of Manetho Concerning.—The exodus of the Jews was an event which could scarcely be omitted by Manetho. It was one however of such a nature-so entirely repugnant to all the feelings of an Egyptian-that we could not expect a fair representation of it in their annals. And accordingly, our fragments of Manetho present us with a distinct but very distorted notice of the occurrence. The Hebrews are represented as leprous and impious Egyptians, who under the conduct of a priest of Heliopolis, named Moses, rebelled on account of oppression, occupied a town called Avaris, or Abaris, and having called in the aid of the people of Jerusalem, made themselves masters of Egypt, which they held for thirteen years; but who were at last defeated by the Egyptian king, and driven from Egypt into Syria. We have here the oppression, the name Moses, the national name, Hebrew, under the disguise of Abaris, and the true direction of the retreat; but we have all the special circumstances of the occasion concealed under a general confession of disaster; and we have a claim to final triumph which consoled the wounded vanity of the nation, but which we know to have been unfounded. On the whole, we have perhaps as much as we could reasonably expect the annals of the Egyptians to tell us of transactions so little to their credit; and we have a narrative fairly confirming the principal facts, as well as very curious in many of its particulars.—“The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records,” George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 74. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. HBS 166.3

Egypt, Menephthah.—What, then, does profane history tell us of the Menephthah whom we have shown to be at once the traditional “Pharaoh of the exodus” and the king pointed out by chronological considerations as the ruler of Egypt at the period? M. Lenormant begins his account of him by observing, “Moreover, he was neither a soldier nor an administrator, but one whose mind was turned almost exclusively toward the chimeras of sorcery and magic, resembling in this respect his brother, Kha-m-uas.” “The book of Exodus,” he adds, “is in the most exact agreement with historical truth when it depicts him as surrounded by priest-magicians, with whom Moses contends in working prodigies, in order to affect the mind of the Pharaoh.”-“Egypt and Babylon,” George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 142. New York: John B. Alden, 1885. HBS 166.4

Egypt, The Horses of.—Among the changes in manners and customs belonging to the Middle Empire, there is one which cannot be gainsaid-the introduction of the horse. The horse, which is wholly absent from the remains, written or sculptured, of the Old Empire, appears as well known and constantly employed in the very earliest records of the New, and must consequently have made its appearance in the interval. Hence it has been argued by those best acquainted with the ancient remains that the military successes of the Hyksos, and especially their conquest of Egypt, were probably the result to a considerable extent of their invading the country with a chariot force and with cavalry at a time when the Egyptians fought wholly on foot. Neither horses nor chariots, nor even carts, were known under the Pharaohs of the Old Empire; they were employed largely from the very beginning of the New Empire, the change having been effected by the empire which occupied the intervening space. [pp. 127, 128] ... HBS 167.1

The contrast between the Egypt of Abraham’s time and that of the time of Joseph in respect of horses has often been noticed. As the absence of horses from the list of the presents made to Abraham (Genesis 12:16) indicates with sufficient clearness the time of the Old Empire, so the mention of horses, chariots, and wagons in connection with Joseph (chap. 41:43; 46:29; 47:17; 50:9) makes his time either that of the Middle Empire or the New. The fact that the possession of horses does not seem to be as yet very common, points to the Middle Empire as the more probable of the two.—Id., pp. 127-129. HBS 167.2

Egypt, Time of Joseph’s Visit to.—The time of Joseph’s visit to Egypt is variously given by chronologers. Archbishop Usher, whose dates are followed in the margin of the English Bible, as published by authority, regards him as having resided in the country from b. c. 1729 to b. c. 1635. Most other chronologers place his sojourn earlier: Stuart Poole, from b. c. 1867; Clinton, from b. c. 1862 to b. c. 1770; Hales, from b. c. 1886 to b. c. 1792. Even the latest of these dates would make his arrival anterior to the commencement of the New Empire, which was certainly not earlier than b. c. 1700. If we add to this the statement of George the Syncellus, that all writers agreed in making him the prime minister of one of the shepherd kings, we seem to have sufficient grounds for the belief that the Egypt of his time was that of the Middle Empire, or Hyksos, an Asiatic people who held Egypt in subjection for some centuries before the great rising under Aahmes, which re-established a native dynasty upon the old throne of the Pharaohs.—Id., p. 123. HBS 167.3

Egypt, Sun Worship in.—Ra was the Egyptian sun god, and was especially worshiped at Heliopolis. Obelisks, according to some, represented his rays, and were always, or usually, erected in his honor. Heliopolis was certainly one of the places which were thus adorned, for one of the few which still stand erect in Egypt is on the site of that city. The kings for the most part considered Ra their special patron and protector; nay, they went so far as to identify themselves with him, to use his titles as their own, and to adopt his name as the ordinary prefix to their own names and titles. This is believed by many to have been the origin of the word Pharaoh, which was, it is thought, the Hebrew rendering of Ph’ Ra, “the sun.” Ra is sometimes represented simply by a disk colored red, or by such a disk with the ankh, or symbol of life, attached to it; but more commonly he has the figure of a man, with a hawk’s head, and above it the disk, accompanied by plumes or by a serpent. The beetle (scarabaus) was one of his emblems. As for his titles, they are too numerous to mention; the “Litany of Ra,” alone contains some hundreds of them.—“The Religions of the Ancient World,” George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 20. New York: Hurst & Co. HBS 167.4

Egypt, Pharaoh of the Exodus.—The Pharaoh under whom the exodus actually took place could not have been Ramses II himself, but his son and successor, Meneptah II, who ascended the throne about b. c. 1325. His reign lasted but a short time, and it was disturbed not only by the flight of the children of Israel, but also by a great invasion of northern Egypt by the Libyans, which was with difficulty repulsed. This took place in his fifth year.—“Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,” A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 60, 61. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. HBS 168.1

Elam, Persia.—The name of Elam has first received its explanation from the decipherment of the Assyrian texts. It was the name of the mountainous region to the east of Babylonia, of which Shushan, or Susa, was at one time the capital, and is nothing more than the Assyrian word elam, “high.” Elam was itself a translation of the Accadian Numma, under which the Accadians included the whole of the highlands which bounded the plain of Babylonia on its eastern side. It was the seat of an ancient monarchy which rivaled in antiquity that of Chaldea itself, and was long a dangerous neighbor to the latter. It was finally overthrown, however, by Assur-bani-pal, the Assyrian king, about b. c. 645. The native title of the country was Anzan or Ansan, and the name of its capital, Susan or Shushan, seems to have signified “the old town” in the language of its inhabitants.—Id., pp. 40, 41. HBS 168.2

Encyclical, Definition of.—According to its etymology, an encyclical (from the Greek [Greek words] [enkuklios, kuklos], meaning a circle) is nothing more than a circular letter. In modern times, usage has confined the term almost exclusively to certain papal documents which differ in their technical form from the ordinary style of either bulls or briefs, and which in their superscription are explicitly addressed to the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops of the universal church in communion with the apostolic see. By exception, encyclicals are also sometimes addressed to the archbishops and bishops of a particular country.... From the nature of the case, encyclicals addressed to the bishops of the world are generally concerned with matters which affect the welfare of the church at large. They condemn some prevalent form of error, point out dangers which threaten faith or morals, exhort the faithful to constancy, or prescribe remedies for evils foreseen or already existent.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, art. “Encyclical,” p. 413. HBS 168.3

Epistles, Interpretation of Facts Relating to Christ.—It is to the epistles that we must first go for an explanation of the facts of Christ’s person and his relation to God and man. Paul’s epistles are really of the nature of a confession and manifesto of Christian belief. HBS 168.4

Communities of believers already existed when the apostle directed to them his earliest letters. In their oral addresses the apostles must have been accustomed not only to state facts which were familiar to their hearers, but also to draw inferences from them as to the meaning of Christ and the great truths centering in his person-his incarnation, His death and resurrection (as we may see from the recorded sermons of Peter and Paul in Acts). It is to these facts that the epistles appeal.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. II, art. “Creed,” p. 741. HBS 169.1

Esther, The Book of.—The Hebrew name for the Persian king Ahasuerus is Achashverosh, the Persian is Chshyarsha, and the Babylonian, Chishiyarsha (var. Akkashiyarshi). It was through the Babylonian form of the name that the identification of Ahasuerus as Xerxes was finally fixed. This one point determined, we are prepared to examine the general features of the document in the light of modern discoveries. The dramatic character of the book of Esther has assigned it, in some minds, to the realm of fiction, and has attributed it to some author who lived late in the Greek or in the Maccabean era. Little more can be done than to ascertain in how far the manners, customs, and laws reflected in the book are distinctively Persian and in how far the author gives a true picture of the social and political conditions of the times of Xerxes. HBS 169.2

The opening verses of the book describe a one-hundred-and-eighty-day feast given by the king in the third year (483 b. c.) of his reign. His guests were princes and nobles from all his realm, “from India to Ethiopia,” who came in successive companies for a period of six months, to enjoy the favors of the king, to be impressed by the magnificence of his court, and to admire the majesty of his imperial person. The real purpose of these banquets, however, was to consider and decide on the feasibility of another campaign against Greece. The banqueting passion of the Persians was insatiate. Some of these feasts had as many as 15,000 persons present, and cost nearly $100,000. HBS 169.3

At the close of this series of banquets, at which it was decided to prepare for another campaign against Greece, a banquet of seven days was given the citizens of Susa. Vashti also entertained the women in a separate feast of like magnificence. Xerxes’ excess at wine confused his brain, and he ordered his chamberlains to bring in and exhibit before his intoxicated companions the beauty of Queen Vashti. Herodotus tells us that Macedonian ladies, introduced to a similar banquet in Darius’ day, were basely insulted. Vashti may have known of this event, and so refused. On consulting his chief counselors, Xerxes decided to suppress such insubordination, and deposed her. This left a vacancy in the royal household. During the next four years he was busily engrossed in preparing for, and in conducting, that memorable campaign against Greece. The affairs of the royal household were in the care of underofficers, and the necessary preparations were on foot to secure an incumbent for the place of Vashti, whether or not she were the chief queen. HBS 169.4

The remaining chief events of the book of Esther are located after Xerxes’ disastrous campaign against Greece. What more natural than that the proud monarch, smarting under his humiliating defeat at the hands of the Greek troops, should seek to drown himself in the luxuries of his palace? Esther’s introduction to him took place (chap. 2:16) in December, 479 b. c. She immediately wins the favor of the king, and is made queen instead of Vashti. It is not improbable that Amestris during all this time, as stated by Herodotus, was the only legitimate wife, that is, the only one derived from one of the seven royal houses specified in Persian law. That Esther was decorated with a royal crown is no more noteworthy than that Mordecai, a kind of prime minister, should wear such a mark of high honor (chap. 8:15). This promotion of Esther was celebrated in true Persian style by “a great feast to all his princes and his servants: and he made a release to the provinces, and gave gifts, according to the bounty of the king” (chap. 2:18). The defeat of his great expedition, doubtless, militated against the power and majesty of the king in the eyes of his subjects. But a wide distribution of favors such as is here described would do much to restore their confidence in his beneficent character. HBS 169.5

The first incident in this dramatic story that is especially illuminated by the discoveries at Susa, is Haman’s method of fixing a date for the destruction of the Jews. Strange to tell, M. Dieulafoy found in the mound at Susa one of the dice that were used in Persia to determine events. It is a quadrangular prism, on the quadrangular faces of which are engraved: one, two, five, six. Throw this die, and it will stop on an odd or an even number. A vigorous objection has been made to the possibility of the reality of Haman’s decree, because of the long interval of time which was allowed the Jews before the arrival of the day of their execution. On the other hand, this is rather in favor of the genuineness of the story. A careful test shows that one may throw this die even scores of times before it will stop on the desired number. Haman’s fixing of the date was left entirely to the die. The word for die at Susa in that time was Pur; whether or not it was Persian is of no consequence. The text (chap. 3:7) says: “They cast Pur, that is, the lot”-an explanation added for the Jews, to tell them that it answered the same purpose in Susa as “the lot” did among the Jews. The long projection into the future of the massacre of the Jews was not Haman’s personal wish, but was the fate fixed for them by the Pur, “the lot.” [pp. 254-258] ... HBS 170.1

The antiquities brought from Susa to Paris have been deposited in two large rooms of the Louvre. On the basis of these finds, M. Dieulafoy has not only set up various parts of the palace, such as the bases and capitals of the columns in their natural size, but has made a model, on the basis of the best information, of the great palace of Artaxerxes. The throne-room was made by thirty-six fluted columns, sixty-seven feet in height, supporting a flat cedar-wood roof brought from Phonicia. These columns were arranged in the form of a square, the two sides and back of the room consisting of a solid wall, through which four small doorways pierced. Either corner is guarded by a great pylon, “composed of two high walls, crowned with battlements, and standing at right angles to one another. These pylons form wings at each side of the entrance to the central hall, and at each end of the two colonnades at the sides.” They were built of brick, and were decorated on the outside with narrow, perpendicular recesses and projections, and with friezes of enameled bricks. These friezes are lions, warriors, or the royal bodyguard, and the like, characteristically Persian. In fact, the whole structure as restored in the model shows us just the environment in which Esther and the other actors in that drama moved about. HBS 170.2

With this picture before us, we can now locate “the king’s gate,” where Mordecai worried the soul of Haman, “the inner court of the king’s house over against the king’s house” (chap. 5:1), where Esther appeared unbidden before the king; “the outward court of the king’s house” (chap. 6:4), where Haman appeared to request permission to hang Mordecai; “the palace garden” (chap. 7:7), to which the king retired to cool his anger against Haman-in fact, almost all the features of “Shushan the palace,” in which those tragic events took place. HBS 170.3

In view of the extensive revelations made in the mounds of Susa, we can assert, at least, that the book of Esther is true to what is known of Persian institutions and customs in the times of Xerxes; that the so-called improbabilities of the book now reduce themselves to a minimum. [pp. 259-261]-“The Monuments and the Old Testament,” Ira Maurice Price, Ph. D., pp. 254-261. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1907. HBS 171.1

Evolution, Meaning of.—Evolution (or evolutionism) is the view that the whole world and all it contains was not established once for all, but that it is in a state of perpetual motion and development. HBS 171.2

Scope of the Term.-As a metaphysical theory, evolution is distinguished from the doctrine of emanation by the fact that according to the latter the primal principle remains unchanged in quantity and quality in spite of every efflux and development proceeding from it; while according to the theory of development in its logical completeness, nothing is excluded from the process of development or change, not even the original principle itself, if any such is assumed. Another point of difference is, that in the doctrine of emanation the development proceeds by various stages, from the highest to ever lower stages, while evolution works continually toward what is higher and more perfect. HBS 171.3

Both these theories, and especially the latter, are opposed to that of creation, according to which the whole world and the matter contained in it are the products of a free and conscious act of God; and they are opposed equally to the sort of dualism, in the main Platonic, which conceives a permanent world of ideas in contrast with a mutable matter still to be formed, and derives the visible phenomena from the influence of the former upon the latter. In a narrower biological sense, evolution often means the development of organic beings from inorganic matter, and their further descent from one another. HBS 171.4

In the views of the evolutionistic school two different tendencies are to be distinguished. One is teleological, or more broadly organic, which deduces motion and change from internal causes or purposes inherent in the things subject to the process. This view is found not seldom in the older philosophers, and also in the modern, especially the German idealists. The other may be called the mechanical, since it ascribes the changes to external causes. This is the view chiefly held by modern evolutionists. HBS 171.5

The terms “evolution” and “development” in this sense are of comparatively recent origin, and when they first make their appearance, relate not to the entire universe, but to some special partial process. The doctrine, however, which is now meant by them, appears in the early stages of Greek philosophy, and traces of it may be found in Oriental thought. The terms “evolution” and “evolutionism,” though found in a partially analogous sense as early as Nicholas of Cusa, and in Leibnitz and other seventeenth and eighteenth century philosophers in a sense still nearer to the modern, seem to have gained their full import first in England. They are now used also by French and German writers, and designate what forms an important, if not the central, point in the modern conception of the world.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IV, art. “Evolution,” p. 229. HBS 171.6

Evolution, A Sign of the Last Days.—The mockers here described certainly talk exactly like our modern uniformitarians; for they argue that “from the days that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” They imply that in the days of “the fathers” some people were foolish enough to believe differently; but since they “fell asleep,” we have learned better. It should also be carefully noted that their theory of uniformity stretches back, not to the close of creation, but to “the beginning of the creation.” Plainly, then, creation itself is embraced in their scheme of absolute uniformity; and according to their view all distinction is smoothed out between creation and the present perpetuation of the world by second causes. How could we ask for a more accurate word-picture of the modern popular doctrines of the evolutionists and their characteristic methods of reasoning than is here given us by an inspired prophecy nearly two thousand years ago?-“Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation,” George McCready Price, p. 141. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright 1917. HBS 171.7

Evolution, Not a Scientific Hypothesis.—The marks of a legitimate hypothesis in science are: “(1) That it must not be inconsistent with facts already ascertained or the inferences to which they lead. (2) The hypothesis must be of such a character as to admit of verification or disproof, or at least of being rendered more or less probable by subsequent investigations. (3) The hypothesis must be applicable to the description or explanation of all the phenomena, and, if it assign a cause, must assign a cause fully adequate to have produced them.” HBS 172.1

Now evolution in the anti-theistic forms clearly violates (1) and (3) of the above conditions, even as a hypothesis. It violates (1) in that it holds that the living comes from the non-living, contrary to the other scientific induction that life only can produce life, omne vivum ex vivo. In a sense it violates the second condition also, in that it assumes unlimited time for the transformation of the non-living into the living. It is thus incapable of verification in the time allotted to men. It violates (3) in that the hypothesis is not applicable to the description of all the phenomena, such, for example, as the psychic, social, and moral phenomena of human society. In view of these facts it would at least seem to be incumbent upon evolutionists to hold the theory with becoming modesty. It is of the nature of a surmise or bold speculation in its anti-theistic forms, and as yet has not attained to the dignity (if the above tests are true) of a scientific hypothesis.—“Why Is Christianity True?” E. Y. Mullins, D. D. LL. D., p. 70. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. HBS 172.2

Evolution, Not Proven and Not Provable.—In the present condition of our knowledge and of our methods, one verdict-“Not proven and not provable”-must be recorded against all grand hypotheses of the palaontologist respecting the general succession of life on the globe.—T. H. Huxley, quoted in “Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation,” George McCready Price, pp. 103, 104. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright 1917. HBS 172.3

What we need to do now is to adopt a true scientific attitude of mind, a mind freed from the hypnotizing influence of the current theories, in order correctly to interpret the facts as we already have them. HBS 172.4

How much of the earth’s crust would we have to find in this upside down order of the fossils, before we would be convinced that there must be something hopelessly wrong with this theory of successive ages, which drives otherwise competent observers to throw away their common sense and cling desperately to a fantastic theory in the very teeth of such facts? HBS 172.5

The science of geology as commonly taught is truly in a most astonishing condition, and doubtless presents the most peculiar mixture of fact and nonsense to be found in the whole range of our modern knowledge. In any minute study of a particular set of rocks in a definite locality, geology always follows facts and common sense; while in any general view of the world as a whole, or in any correlation of the rocks of one region with those of another region, it follows its absurd, unscientific theories. But wherever it agrees with facts and common sense, it contradicts these absurd theories; and wherever it agrees with these theories, it contradicts facts and common sense. That most educated people still believe its main thesis of a definite age for each particular kind of fossil, is a sad but instructive example of the effects of mental inertia.—“Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation,” George McCready Price, pp. 117, 118. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright 1917. HBS 173.1

Evolution, No Point of Contact with Christianity.—When we consider that the evolutionary theory was conceived in agnosticism, and born and nurtured in infidelity; that it is the backbone of the destructive higher criticism which has so viciously assailed both the integrity and authority of the Scriptures; that it utterly fails in explaining-what Genesis makes so clear-those tremendous facts in human history and human nature, the presence of evil and its attendant suffering; that it offers nothing but a negative reply to that supreme question of the ages, “If a man die, shall he live again?” that it, in fact, substitutes for a personal God “an infinite and eternal energy” which is without moral qualities or positive attributes, is not wise, or good, or merciful, or just; cannot love or hate, reward or punish; that it denies the personality of God and man, and presents them, together with nature, as under a process of evolution which has neither beginning nor end; and regards man as being simply a passing form of this universal energy, and thus without free will, moral responsibility, or immortality,-it becomes evident to every intelligent layman that such a system can have no possible points of contact with Christianity. He may well be pardoned if he views with astonishment ministers of the gospel still clinging to it, and harbors a doubt of either their sincerity or sanity.—A Layman, in Herald and Presbyter, Nov. 22, 1911; reprinted in “The Fundamentals,” Vol. VIII, p. 31. Chicago: Testimony Publishing Company. HBS 173.2

Evolution, Real Problem of.—The real problem of evolution in the organic kingdom is the genesis and the development of mind as it is realized in the individual and has been exercised by the race. Certain masters of scientific exposition have written as if the serious problem of evolution concerned the origin and succession of living forms. They have thought it enough to prove the mutability of species, the parts played by the factors of organism and environment in the development of the powers that best fitted for success and survival in the struggle for life. It has been imagined that we could, by the comparison and correlation of forms, exhibit the process of their evolution, or the mode and the order in which our planet came to be peopled with the busy tribes of flesh and blood. I raise no question as to the mode or as to the order; what I do question is, whether a theory as to the evolution and the succession of biological forms has any claim to be regarded as a theory adequate to the explanation of the facts of the case; i. e., to be considered a scientific hypothesis as to how the whole of nature, inclusive of every form and quality of life, came to be. HBS 173.3

The theory may indeed be described as essentially concerned with the creational mode rather than with the creational cause; but the mode cannot exist without the energies or the forces that, operating either in the organism or the environment, or in both, accomplish the evolution. Indeed, the theory expressly proceeds upon the principle that the only forces it knows or reckons with are those called natural, though it conceives nature in a strictly limited and exclusive sense. While, then, evolution, so far as it is a scientific doctrine, is a theory of the creational mode, yet where it is represented as an adequate account of the history of life upon this planet, it becomes also a theory of the creational cause. The theory is thus philosophical as well as scientific; and though the philosophy may be implicit, yet it never ceases to be both active and determinative in the science.... HBS 173.4

We may say that we understand evolution in the field of organic life to mean the emergence of such new organs or such a modification of old organs in the struggle for existence as secures the survival of the fittest, and through it the development of new species. We need not too curiously describe or consider the changes in Darwin’s hypothesis by later and younger men of science like Weismann. It is enough to say that the more the process is simplified, the more complex does it require the cause or the sufficient reason of the movement to be; and the more urgent does the demand become that the action of the cause be immediate, continuous, universal.—“The Philosophy of the Christian Religion,” Andrew Martin Fairbairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., pp. 38, 39. New York: George H. Doran Company, copyright 1902. HBS 174.1

Evolution, Some Results of, in Theology.—When we found that the world was more than six thousand years old, that there was no universal flood four thousand years ago, that Adam was not made directly from dust and Eve from his rib, and that the tower of Babel was not the occasion of the diversification of languages, we had gone too far to stop. The process of criticism had to go on from Genesis to Revelation, with no fear of the curse at the end of the last chapter. It could not stop with Moses and Isaiah; it had to include Matthew and John and Paul. Every one of them had to be sifted; they had already ceased to be taken as unquestioned, final authorities, for plenary inspiration had followed verbal inspiration just as soon as the first chapter of Genesis had ceased to be taken as true history. The miracles of Jesus had to be tested as well as those of Elijah. The date and purpose of the Gospel of John had to be investigated historically as well as that of the prophecy of Isaiah; and the conclusion of historical criticism had to be accepted with no regard for the old theologies. We have just reached this condition, and there is repeated evidence that it makes an epoch, a revolution, in theologic thought.... HBS 174.2

To this present teaching, which has invaded all our denominations, Jesus is the world’s prime teacher, but it can assert nothing more. There is, it declares, no reasonable proof of his birth from a virgin, no certainty of a physical resurrection; the Gospels must be analyzed, for they contain mythical elements, non-historical miracles, unverified assertions.... HBS 174.3

But this doubt, even this questioning or denial, changes the old evangelistic theology. It questions or denies the Trinity, the resurrection, the sacrifice of the cross, even all miracles, and it undermines all authority of inspiration or even revelation, and sends us back to human reason, with such divine guidance as may be allowed; the authority of the Bible and the authority of the church both to be validated only by human reason.—The Independent, New York, June 24, 1909. HBS 174.4

Evolution, A Literal Creation Demonstrated.—There is the further conclusion, the only conclusion now possible, if there is no definite order in which the fossils occur, namely, that life in all its varied forms must have originated on the globe by causes not now operative, and this creation of all the types of life may just as reasonably have taken place all at once, as in some order prolonged over a long period.... A strict scientific method may destroy the theory of successive ages, and it may show that there has been a great world catastrophe. But here the work of strict inductive science ends. It cannot show just how or when life or the various kinds of life did originate, it can only show how it did not. It destroys forever the fantastic scheme of a definite and precise order in which the various types of life occurred on the globe, and thus it leaves the way open to say that life must have originated by just such a literal creation as is recorded in the first chapters of the Bible. But this is as far as it can be expected to go. It is strong evidence in favor of a direct and literal creation; but it furnishes this evidence by indirection, that is, by demolishing the only alternative or rival of creation that can command a moment’s attention from a rational mind. HBS 174.5

But if life is not now being created from the not-living, if new kinds of life are not now appearing by natural process, if above all we cannot prove in any way worthy of being called scientific that certain types of life lived before others; if, in fine, man himself is found fossil and no one fossil can be proved older than another or than that of man himself, why is not a literal creation demonstrated as a scientific certainty for every mind capable of appreciating the force of logical reasoning?-“Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation,” George McCready Price, pp. 123, 124. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright 1917. HBS 175.1

Evolution, Missing Links in.—Evolution has not established its principle of continuity. It is not necessary to dwell upon this familiar point. It is enough to indicate that the various “links” which were missing from the chain in the earlier stages of the discussion of evolution, have never been fully supplied. Professor Wallace, one of the most eminent of modern scientists and an evolutionist, thinks there are at least three points in evolution where the continuity is broken. We cannot account for the rise of life out of the non-living; nor for the introduction of animal sensation and consciousness; nor most of all can we explain the higher nature of man. An unseen spiritual universe must be assumed, Professor Wallace thinks, to account for the mental, moral, and spiritual powers of man.—“Why Is Christianity True?” E. Y. Mullins, D. D., LL. D., p. 63. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. HBS 175.2

Evolution, Natural Selection Destructive, Not Constructive.—Natural selection does not and cannot produce new species or varieties or cause modifications of living organisms to come into existence. On the contrary, its sole function is to prevent evolution. In its action it is destructive merely, not constructive, causing death and extinction, not life and progression. Death cannot produce life; and though natural selection may produce the death of the unfit, it cannot produce the fit, far less evolve the fittest. It may permit the fit to survive by not killing them off, if they are already in existence; but it does not bring them into being, or produce improvement in them after they have once appeared.—Alexander Graham Bell, quoted in “Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation,” George McCready Price, p. 81. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright 1917. HBS 175.3

Evolution, The Onion-Coat Theory Unjustifiable.—The first and absolutely incontrovertible conclusion is that this theory of successive ages must be a gross blunder, in its baleful effects on every branch of modern thought deplorable beyond computation. But it is now perfectly obvious that the geological distinctions as to age between the fossils are fantastic and unjustifiable. No one kind of true fossil can be proved to be older or younger than another intrinsically and necessarily, and the methods of reasoning by which this idea has been supported in the past are little else than a burlesque on modern scientific methods, and are a belated survival from the methods of the scholastics of the Middle Ages. HBS 175.4

Not by any means that all rock deposits are of the same age. The lower ones in any particular locality are of course “older” than the upper ones, that is, they were deposited first. But from this it by no means follows that the fossils contained in these lower rocks came into being and lived and died before the fossils in the upper ones. The latter conclusion involves several additional assumptions which are wholly unscientific in spirit and incredible as matters of fact, one of which assumptions is the biological form of the onion-coat theory. But since thousands of modern living kinds of plants and animals are found in the fossil state, man included, and no one of them can be proved to have lived for a period of time alone and before others, we must by other methods, more scientific and accurate than the slipshod methods hitherto in vogue, attempt to decide as best we can how these various forms of life were buried, and how the past and the present are connected together. But the theory of definite successive ages, with the forms of life appearing on earth in a precise and invariable order, is dead for all coming time for every man who has had a chance to examine the evidence and has enough training in logic and scientific methods to know when a thing is really proved. HBS 176.1

And how utterly absurd for the friends of the Bible to spend their time bandying arguments with the evolutionist over such minor details as the question of just what geological “age” should be assigned for the first appearance of man on the earth, when the evolutionist’s major premise is itself directly antagonistic to the most fundamental facts regarding the first chapters of the Bible, and above all, when this major premise is really the weakest spot in the whole theory, the one sore spot that evolutionists never want to have touched at all.—“Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation,” George McCready Price, pp. 119, 120. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright 1917. HBS 176.2

Evolution, Tendency to Degenerate.—It is a universal law of living things that all forms left to themselves tend to degenerate. The necessity for continuous artificial selection in the sugar beet, in Sea Island cotton, in corn, in Jersey and Holstein cattle, in trotting horses, proves this universal tendency to degenerate. Natural selection in a somewhat similar way tends to postpone this degeneracy by killing off the “unfit,” but selection either artificial or natural cannot originate anything new, and its results are here displayed merely among the small fluctuating variations mentioned above. Even among the real genetic factors it may show itself by allowing some to survive alone; but as no combination of diverse factors can originate anything really new, its field for operation among these factors is extremely limited. Among species also it is operative, killing off some and allowing others to survive. But neither among fluctuations, among factors, nor yet among species can selection originate anything new. HBS 176.3

Nor is there any other method known to modern science by means of which new factors can be originated which were not potentially latent in the ancestry. The much-heralded new “species” of De Vries and others are now known to be merely new factors cropping out; for though they remain constant and breed true, they obey Mendel’s Law when crossed with their parental forms, and hence are merely the result of some new combination of factors which can be reproduced at will by using the same method of combination and segregation. The real scientific test for any form supposed to be a new “species” would be twofold: (1) to show that some new character had been added which no ancestor ever possessed; and (2) to show that this new character will breed true under all circumstances of hybridization, and not merely segregate as a unit character or mere analytic variety after hybridization. It is almost superfluous to say that no “new species” originating in modern times has ever justified itself under these tests. [pp. 94-96] ... HBS 176.4

Here again we find the record of creation confirmed; for the failure of the thousands of modern investigators to originate genuine new species proves that in this respect also creation is not now going on. And all the analogies from the origin of matter, of energy, of life, and from the laws of the reproduction of cells, indicate that we have at last found rock bottom truth regarding the vexed question of the origin of species. So far as science can observe and record, each living thing on earth, in air, in water, reproduces “after its kind.”-“Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation,” George McCready Price, pp. 94-96, 98. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright 1917. HBS 177.1

Evolution, Development Downward.—It is fashionable to speak of primitive man as a savage. The lowest tribes upon earth are hunted up and taken as types of human nature, and their fetish or something still lower (the expression of horror) is supposed to be the faint beginning from which full-blown Christianity has gradually been evolved. The Old Testament does not lend itself to this theory, nor do the remains of antiquity justify it. The low savage is a degenerate and demoralized being. He has developed downward. Prof. Max Müller, in his “Chips” (1. xxiii.), says: HBS 177.2

“If there is one thing which a comparative study of religions places in the clearest light, it is the inevitable decay to which every religion is exposed. It may seem almost like a truism that no religion can continue to be what it was during the lifetime of its founder and its first apostle. Yet it is but seldom borne in mind that without constant reformation,-i. e., without a constant return to its fountainhead,-every religion, even the most perfect, nay, the most perfect on account of its very perfection more than others, suffers from its contact with the world, as the purest air suffers from the mere fact of its being breathed.” HBS 177.3

The architecture and art of ancient days bears witness to the excellent gifts possessed by early men. It is difficult to see how the supposed semianimal savage of prehistoric times became ancestor to the astronomer of early Chaldea and to the pyramid builder of ancient Egypt. It would seem rather that primeval man was specially gifted with originality in its full sense, possessing the instinct to look up to the Creator. [pp. 108, 109] ... HBS 177.4

When Prof. Sir W. Ramsay began his study of Greek religion, he was a follower of Robertson Smith and M’Lennan, and accepted the Totemist theory as the key of truth, but the evidence compelled him to change his view. He saw that the modern savage, so far from being primitive, represents the last stage of degeneracy. In his “Cities of St. Paul” he says: HBS 177.5

“So far as the history of the Mediterranean lands reaches, I find only degeneration, corrected from time to time by the influence of great prophets and teachers like Paul. Whether there lies behind this historical period a primitive savage period, I am not bold enough or skilful enough to judge. I can only look for facts in the light of history. I dare not rush into the darkness that lies behind. The primitive savage who develops naturally out of the state of totemism into the wisdom of Sophocles and Socrates, or he who transforms his fetish in the course of many generations through the Elohistic stage into the Jehovah of the Hebrews, is unknown to me. I find nothing even remotely resembling him in the savages of modern times. I cannot invent for myself a primitive savage of such marvelous potentialities, when I find that the modern savage is devoid of any potentiality, in many cases unable to stand side by side with a more civilized race, a mere worthless degenerate who has lost even his vital stamina; in other cases, when he can survive, showing at least no capacity to improve except through imitation of external models.” [pp. 109, 110]-“Old Testament Theology and Modern Ideas,” R. B. Girdlestone, M. A., pp. 108-110. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909. HBS 177.6

Evolution, From Monkeys to Infidels.—Evolution once signified the movement of troops, or of a squadron of warships; but it is now used to describe the process by which monkeys are changed into infidels. Evolution signifies unrolling. You unroll a monar a few millions of years, and you have an oyster. You unroll your oyster for ages on ages, and you have a tadpole. You unroll your tadpole long enough, and you have a monkey; and you unroll your monkey a few thousand centuries, and you have an infidel. And this is science!-“The Anti-Infidel Library,” H. L. Hastings, “Was Moses Mistaken?” p. 28. Boston: Scriptural Tract Repository, 1893. HBS 178.1

Evolution, Fruits of.—It is rightly considered that the supreme test of any doctrine, religious, social, or scientific, is its bearing upon life and human action. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” What are the fruits of the evolution theory? We cannot help replying that, reduced to its last logical conclusion, it lands every one in sheer agnosticism,-the “gospel of despair,” according to Herbert Spencer. It was devised by infidels in the interests of infidelity; and it results in a point-blank denial of the loving fatherhood of God, which is the most fundamental idea of Christianity. The reason every one does not reach those barren, cheerless heights-beneath what they are pleased to term the “high and dry light of science,” but which is, on the contrary, the blackness of darkness-is because they are not so logical. The evidences of God’s loving care and tireless interest in them, as revealed in his works or in his Word, have in some measure got the better of the merciless logic of their godless theory. HBS 178.2

The majority readily admit that, in the light of their theory, the great First Cause must be supremely indifferent to the suffering and death of animals, perhaps of men. For during the untold ages the fittest have contrived to survive, even for a time, only at the expense of their fellows’ lives.... A few of the Christians of the present day still accept only that part of the theory which gives us a cooling globe and the geological succession of life; while, following the lead of Dawson and Dana, they demand a special creation, at least for man. They thus avoid the frightful heritage of bestial and savage nature which the evolution of man from the lower animals would necessarily entail. They cannot altogether forego every memory of an Edenic beginning for our race. As for the vast majority of the modern school of “Christian” evolutionists, who constantly profess that they can see nothing inconsistent between Christianity and Darwinism, I can only pity their crude ideas of the former, and protest in the name of my Master against coupling his name with a doctrine so subversive of his mission to earth.—“Outlines of Modern Christianity and Modern Science,” George McCready Price, pp. 234, 235. Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing Company, copyright 1902. HBS 178.3

Evolution, Logical Outcome of.—In the Dark Ages, when the Bible was shut away from the people, their ignorance of its truths resulted in crime and lawlessness on every side, and in their having no protection against their civil and ecclesiastical oppressors. Today, the destruction of faith in the Bible by this false science is accomplishing the same results as the destruction of the Bible itself. On every hand we see iniquity abounding, and the people with no care for, or knowledge of, their danger from the religio-political combinations now forging the chains for their enslavement. HBS 179.1

A world-wide organization or combination for the salvation of society as a mass, which must result in a religio-political despotism, is the logical outcome of the evolution theory; its triumph is only a question of time; and its strength and universality when established can be estimated only by the popularity of the teaching which for a half century has been preparing the world for just such a state of things, by teaching that the struggle for existence is the normal and not an abnormal condition of society; that man has developed from the lowest beginnings through this process, and can therefore complete the work of self-regeneration and purification without any outside “supernatural” help, or “restitution of all things.”-“God’s Two Books,” George McCready Price, pp. 37, 38. Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1911. HBS 179.2

Evolution, The Doctrine of Creation Established.—Both matter and energy seem now to be at a standstill, so far as creation is concerned, no means being known to science whereby the fixed quantity of both with which we have to deal in this world can be increased (or diminished) in the slightest degree. HBS 179.3

The origin of life is veiled in a mist that science has not dispelled and does not hope to dispel. By none of the processes that we call natural can life now be produced from the not-living. HBS 179.4

Unicellular forms can come only from pre-existing cells of the same kind; and even the individual cells of a multicellular organism, when once differentiated, reproduce only other cells after their own kind. HBS 179.5

Species of plants and animals have wonderful powers of variation; but these variations seem to be regulated and predestined in accordance with definite laws, and in no instance known to science has this variation resulted in producing what could properly be called a distinct new kind of plant or animal. HBS 179.6

Geology has been supposed to prove that there has been a long succession of distinct types of life on the globe in a very definite order extending through vast ages of time. This is now known to be a mistake. Most living forms of plants and animals are also found as fossils; but there is no possible way of telling that one kind of life lived and occupied the world before others, or that one kind of life is intrinsically older than any other or than the human race. HBS 179.7

In view of such facts as these, what possible chance is there for a scheme of organic evolution? HBS 179.8

Must we not say that every possible form of the development theory is hereby ruled out of court? There can be no thought of the gradual development of organic nature by everyday processes in a world where such facts prevail. Rather must we say, with the force of the accumulated momentum of all that has been won by modern science, that, instead of the animals and plants on our world having arisen by a long-drawn-out process of change and development of one kind into another, there must have been just such a literal creation at the beginning as the Bible describes. As we stand with uncovered head and bowed form in the presence of this great truth, it would seem almost like sacrilege to attempt by rhetoric to adorn it. Its inevitableness, its majesty, its transcendent importance for our generation, would only be obscured by so doing. HBS 179.9

The essential idea of the evolutionary theory is uniformity. It seeks to show that the present orders of plant and animal life originated by causes or processes identical with those now said to be operating in our modern world. It denies that at any particular time in the past, causes and processes were in operation to originate the present order of nature, which were essentially different from the processes now operating in our world under what we call natural law. Evolution seeks to smooth out all distinction between creation and the modern régime of “natural law.” HBS 180.1

On the other hand, the essential idea of the Christian doctrine of creation is that, back at a period called “the beginning,” forces and powers were brought into exercise and results were accomplished which have not since been exercised or accomplished. In other words, the origin of the world and the things upon it was essentially and radically different from the manner in which the present order of nature is now being sustained and perpetuated. The mere matter of time is in no way the essential idea in the problem. The question of how much time was occupied in the work of creation is of no importance, neither is the question of how long ago it took place. The one essential idea is that the processes and methods of creation are beyond us, for we have nothing with which to measure them; creation and the reign of “natural law” are essentially incommensurable. The one thing that the doctrine of creation insists upon is that the origin of our world and of the things upon it must have been brought about by some direct and unusual manifestation of the power of the Being whom we call the Creator; and that since this original creation the things of nature have been perpetuated and sustained by processes and methods which (though still essentially inscrutable by us) we call the order of nature and the reign of natural law. HBS 180.2

But in view of the series of facts enumerated in the previous pages, the doctrine of creation is established by modern scientific discoveries almost like the conclusion of a mathematical problem.—“Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation,” George McCready Price, pp. 125-128. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, copyright, 1917. HBS 180.3

Evolution, Testimony of History Concerning.—If man has sprung from the lower forms of life up through the savage to the civilized condition, we ought to be able to find many things confirming it in the conditions revealed at the dawn of history. And it is really most natural thus to work backward upon the supposed history of development; for there are certainly some leading facts about man’s early history that are many times more certain than most of the supposed generalizations of biology and geology. HBS 180.4

What, then, are the conditions revealed as the curtain rises on the first scenes of recorded human history? Briefly, and without attempting to offer much proof for the statements made, we may say that we have well-civilized tribes scattered over all the continents, in Peru, HBS 180.5

Mexico, the central plain of North America, Western Europe, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and the East, each possessing a civilization seldom equaled, save in very modern times, and in some respects not excelled by any, and yet of such a character, and so undeniably related to one another, as to prove that these scattered civilizations must have had a common source in some other civilized state before they were thus dispersed. It is also very strongly suggested in many ways that this primal home of civilized man before his dispersion is somehow lost in the geological changes which have taken place. In addition we shall find that the history of languages confirms the record of Babel; while all nations have not only traditions of the flood, but of an Edenic beginning; and at this first glimpse we get of human society, they give us in their social customs, and embalmed in the dry husks of their dead formalism and idolatry, gleams of lofty ideals and forms of prayer to one supreme God, the Creator,-all traces of a more intellectual, a more truly human state in the dim forgotten past, the afterglow of a once brighter day.—“God’s Two Books,” George McCready Price, pp. 40, 41. Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1911. HBS 181.1

Exodus, Route of.—It is just here [“at the head of Lake Timsah”] where the land route to Palestine begins, and was so used as a route by the Bedawîn before the days of the present Suez Canal. We must not forget that the chariot corps-“creme de la creme” of the Egyptian army-was stationed at Tanis; it could there the better guard the frontier. But a new command comes from the Lord God: that the array was to “turn.” They had been told not to go “the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war.” Exodus 13:17. Had they gone that direct route, they must have seen war, and plenty of it, too, for the chariot corps would have been well on their flank, and in their front the great fortified wall; and, moreover, Philistia at this time was under the sway of Egypt. None but a powerful array of trained soldiers could have had any hope of cutting their way through all these warlike forces of the enemy, and the Israelites were a frightened mob of captives, just liberated from hard bondage, with coward minds and frightened hearts. This “turn” gave Pharaoh courage. He thought they were “entangled in the land,” and here I will quote what I have previously written on this part of the subject, for, on re-examination of the whole route, I see no reason to alter it: HBS 181.2

“They now marched to encamp before ‘Pi-hahiroth,’ between Migdol and the sea over against ‘Baal-Zephon.’ ‘Pihahiroth’ means ‘edge of the sedge,’ or ‘where sedge grows;’ Baal-Zephon, ‘the Lord of the North.’ This latter was across the sea, and probably the high peaks of ‘Jebel Muksheih’ were in view. But have we any reason to believe that the ‘Red Sea’ extended in those days as far as ‘Lake Timsah’? Yes, plenty of proof. Egyptian records show how at that time the ‘sea’ extended to that place. They tell how a canal was made to connect the Nile with that sea, and give an account of the rejoicings on the opening of the canal. The ‘sea’ has retreated, owing to the elevation of the land. Proofs are in plenty from recent geological surveys, and now we can understand with a clearer eye what the prophet Isaiah means when he says (chap. 11:15): ‘And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian Sea, and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod.’ ‘Egyptian sea’-it could never have meant that which now ends at Suez, but one which all records prove extended to Lake Timsah. Sluggish, yes; for it was ‘weedy’ or ‘reedy.’ HBS 181.3

And here let me say there is no warrant, according to the best scholars, in calling the sea in question ‘Red Sea.’ The Hebrew words are clear, and mean ‘sea of reeds’ or ‘sea of weeds,’ when they describe the ‘sea’ the Israelites crossed. This, again, is a most powerful confirmation of the view that at one time the present Gulf of Suez extended to Lake Timsah.” HBS 182.1

Pharaoh thought that, hemmed in by that “sea,” the Israelites would be at his mercy; so he makes “ready his chariot” and takes chariot guard-600 chosen chariots-“and pursued after the children of Israel.” He overtakes the multitude, who see their danger: the desert toward Jebel Attaka, with its steep cliffs, in front; the “sea” on their left hand. They murmur at Moses, “Were there no graves in Egypt?” They remind him of their fears, their cowardly fears: “It had been better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should die in the wilderness!” The pursuit continued, for “Pharaoh drew nigh;” but the Lord orders that the people “go forward,” and the promise is that they shall cross the sea on “dry ground.” The host of Israel is led by a “pillar of fire” by night, a “pillar of cloud” by day. Eastern armies have from time immemorial been led by “cressets” of fire at night; Alexander so led his troops. The Mecca caravan of today is led by “cressets” of fire borne aloft. This is now done to escape the heat of the sun. But the pillar of cloud was now in the rear (Exodus 14:19) of the Israelites, showing its bright face to them, but darkness to the Egyptians. So those troops still pursuing would be as if in a fog; they would dimly see the fugitives moving on, but be ignorant of their own exact position. They, in the darkness caused by the cloud, would not see the waters. The Egyptian host is “troubled,” and, as old versions of the Bible read, “their chariot wheels were bound,” or “made them to drive heavily.” Yes, because the wind which had caused the sea to go back was changing by a miracle. So the water, percolating through the sand, would make the whole a quicksand; and “when the morning appeared,” the Egyptians saw their dangerous position, tried to fly-it was too late! they were all swallowed up; and “Israel saw the great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians.” HBS 182.2

“Egyptian records tell us that at this time the then Pharaoh had had to meet a serious invasion of Libyans and other peoples on the west.” This is probably why he had so weakened his garrisons at Tanis that he only had the chariot corps. HBS 182.3

I have already spoken of the great discovery of royal mummies, and told how Seti, Rameses, and many other royal bodies have been found. The mummy of Meneptah is missing! Though no mummy of Meneptah is found yet, in the Boulak Museum we can look upon his sculptured face, which, if the artist does not belie him, shows him to have been a weak, irresolute man, such as the Bible narrative suggests-puffed up by his grandeur; for he wears on his head a double crown, that for Upper and Lower Egypt. One thing is, however, clear from the monuments-that it was long ere any Egyptian expeditions across the border were undertaken; and this in itself would imply that the empire was weakened from some cause known to the Egyptians, and which they wished to conceal. Those best able to judge say that the explorations in the Delta, Tanis, and other towns, have as yet only touched the fringe of possible discovery. HBS 182.4

It is an interesting fact that Zoan, the Tanis of Pharaoh, was built seven years after Hebron, and from its name must have been built by Semitics. No trace of Zoan exists; Tanis was built over it, and city after city has been built over the ruins of that. We also see that “Hyksos inscriptions on sphinxes are always in a line down the right shoulder, never on the left. This honoring of the right shoulders by Semitics was followed by the Jews;” the Egyptians, on the contrary, when they wished to show honor, inscribed on the left shoulder, but they were usually indifferent. HBS 182.5

It will be seen that we totally disagree with those theories which would make the Israelites cross the Gulf of Suez. To my mind the whole of that theory is unsound; contrary to the position assigned in the Bible to the land of Goshen; entirely destroyed by M. Naville’s discovery of Pithom, which sets all doubt at rest. Theologians had read Josephus, and, misled by the Letopolis which he speaks of, thought it meant Heliopolis, near Cairo. Hampered by this vital mistake, they overlooked the Bible statements as to Zoan and Goshen, and have led the world astray. The Israelites had crossed by a miracle, and then “went three days in the wilderness and found no water.” Had they crossed at Suez, three hours would have taken the host to the “Wells of Moses;” but crossing about Lake Timsah, they would have to go “three days” before they could reach that oasis. HBS 183.1

Why should it be thought necessary that Pharaoh and his host descended a steep bank into a fearful chasm? His chariot wheels could not have driven down it, and it was really when they “drove heavily” that the soldiers found out where they were and turned to fly. Had the Bible been read more closely, this popular idea of Suez would never have gained credence.—“The Bible and Modern Discoveries,” Henry A. Harper, pp. 83-88. London: Printed for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund by Alexander P. Watt, 1891. HBS 183.2