:'p^i 
 
 i ■.■■. ^ 
 
 
 LIBRA_RY 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 1BS~650 .W37 1870 
 Warington, George, 1840- 
 , 1874, 
 
 The week of creation 
 
 
By the same Author, 
 
 THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE PEN- 
 
 tateuch vindicated. 
 
 A Reply to Part I. of Bp. Colenso's Critical Examination. 
 
 8vo. 6s. 
 
 THE MOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 considered, in connection with Parts II. and III. of 
 
 Bp. Colenso's Critical Examination. 8vo. loj'. Gd. 
 
 THE PHENOMENA OF RADIATION, AS 
 
 exemplifying the Wisdom and Beneficence of God. (Actonian 
 Prize Essay, 1865). 8vo. 5^, 
 
 ECCE HOMO, AND ITS DETRACTORS: 
 
 A Review. 8vo. \s. 
 
 THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE, ITS 
 
 Limits and Effects. 8vo. 5J. 
 
 LONDON : W. SKEFFINGTON, 163, PICCADILLY, W. 
 
THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
CTamliritrse 
 
 PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
THE 
 
 WEEK OF CREATION, 
 
 OR 
 
 THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS 
 
 CONSIDERED IN ITS RELATION TO 
 MODERN SCIENCE. 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE WARINGTON, 
 
 AUTHOR OF "the HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE PENTATEUCH 
 VINDICATED," &C. 
 
 Hottbon antr Camfatibge: 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 1870. 
 
 \All Rights reserved. 'I 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 A CONSIDERABLE portion of the present work has 
 already appeared in the Jottrnal of the Victoria 
 Institute, having been read before that Society on 
 June I, 1868. It was originally intended simply 
 to reprint the paper then read, in a separate form ; 
 for which the Council of that Society readily gave 
 permission. Sundry additions and emendations, 
 however, soon suggested themselves, which led to 
 a careful revision of the whole. This revision has 
 resulted in the re-casting of the entire paper into 
 a new form, much being re-written, some parts 
 omitted, and a large quantity of altogether new 
 matter added. The present work, while thus 
 founded upon the former, is hence as a whole dis- 
 tinct and independent, the subject being handled 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 much more fully, and in a somewhat different or- 
 der. It is hoped that these changes will be found 
 to have resulted in a further elucidation, and more 
 thorough confirmation, of that Divine record which 
 forms the subject alike of the earlier and later 
 
 efforts. 
 
 G. W. 
 
 Caius College, Cambridge, 
 Feb. 24, 1870. 
 
THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 The history of creation is the only part of Scrip- 
 ture which can be said to involve direct scientific 
 teaching. Elsewhere, indeed, the facts and phe- 
 nomena of Nature with which science has to do 
 are frequently alluded to, but only in an indirect 
 way. They are never the object of Scripture- 
 teaching, but only the accessories or illustrations 
 of it. In every case, moreover, there existed a 
 natural knowledge of the matters referred to, on 
 the part both of writers and readers. Such in- 
 direct statements in regard to Nature are thus 
 precisely analogous in purpose and character to 
 that class of Scripture narratives which the writers 
 were acquainted with of their own natural know- 
 ledge, apart from inspiration, and which were 
 inserted merely as vehicles for spiritual teaching. 
 ^ , W. I 
 
THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 The examination of these narratives shews plain- 
 ly that the only point in which the inspiring in- 
 fluence affected the writers was the tone or spirit 
 of their compositions, i.e. the tise made by them 
 of naturally known facts, as vehicles for setting 
 forth God's truth and will ; while the facts them- 
 selves w^ere left untouched. In the teaching of 
 such histories, the tone and spirit that breathes 
 through their narration, we have the expression 
 of God's niind, In the detailed facts, with their 
 occasional little inaccuracies and inconsistencies, 
 we see evidence of the limited and imperfect 
 knowledge of the human writers, for which in- 
 spiration is in no way responsible \ This being 
 so in the qase of Scripture narratives, it is 
 only reasonable to suppose that the same rule 
 will hold in regard to the parallel case of allu- 
 sions to Nature and Natural phenomena. Here 
 also we may expect to find Divine truth in the 
 teaching which such allusions embody or illus- 
 trate ; while in the scientific knowledge of Nature 
 
 # 
 
 ^ For the evidence on which this assertion rests, the reader must 
 be referred to Chap. iii. of the author's work on 'The Inspiration of 
 Scripture; its limits and effects.' 
 
THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 which they exhibit we may very likely discern 
 the imperfection or inaccuracy naturally incident 
 to the writer's age and country. The discovery 
 of scientific errors in these parts of Scripture is 
 hence as much a matter of indifference as the 
 detection of occasional inaccuracies in Scripture 
 histories. Both are what might, under the cir- 
 cumstances, be reasonably expected. Neither in 
 the least affects the title of the Bible to be re- 
 ceived as an inspired book. 
 
 But however true this plea may be in the case 
 of ordinary Scripture allusions to Natural phe- 
 nomena, it is clear that in regard to the history 
 of creation it is of no avail. For here (i) no 
 natural knowledge of the facts could exist, to 
 whose partial and phenomenal character any sci- 
 entific inaccuracy in the record might be ascribed. 
 The knowledge of Nature possessed by the ori- 
 ginal writers and readers of the Bible (revelation 
 being put on one side) could plainly have ex- 
 tended at most no further than the first appear- 
 ance of man upon the earth. But the Scriptural 
 cosmogony deals in the main with Nature as it 
 was before man's appearance. The narrative 
 
 I — 2 
 
THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 which it contains must either, therefore, be a 
 mere string of fancies, the product of human 
 imagination ; or, if true, it must be the result 
 of Divine revelation. Then too (2) the object 
 which this cosmogony has in view is far too 
 intimately connected with the facts it details to 
 allow these to be regarded as non-essential or 
 unimportant. Its design is not merely to use the 
 history of creation in illustration of spiritual truth, 
 but dc novo to set forth what that history was, 
 and so convey that teaching which creation rightly 
 regarded is intrinsically fraught with. 
 
 In a word, the history of creation finds its 
 proper parallel, not in other Scripture-histories, 
 but in prophecy, where spiritual truths are taught 
 in connection with facts not otherwise known, but 
 whose revelation as facts is one of the objects in 
 view. Just, then, as in prophecy, in order to 
 establish it as Divine it is necessary not only to 
 shew the superhuman character of its teaching, 
 but also the truth of its particular predictions ; 
 so here in Genesis both teaching and facts must 
 be proved to be true, or the claim of the cos- 
 mogony to be Divine w^ould be set aside. That 
 
THE WEEK OF CREATION. 5 
 
 God should use mere human fancies about un- 
 known facts as the vehicle for spiritual teaching-, 
 and that too in such a way as to cause these 
 fancies henceforth to be received as true repre- 
 sentations of the facts, is an idea too utterly an- 
 tagonistic to all that we know of His dealings to 
 be credited for an instant. Where a natural know- 
 ledge of facts existed, sufficiently full and accu- 
 rate for the purpose He had in view in using 
 them, there no revelation of facts was necessary, 
 and so none was given. But where there was no 
 natural knowledge of the facts on which the teach- 
 ing was to be based, there a revelation of these 
 Avas indispensable, as the first step. In such cases, 
 then, facts as well as teaching must be regarded 
 as resting directly upon Divine authority. 
 
 These considerations will serve to shew both 
 the unique position, and the exalted claim of the 
 Biblical cosmogony, as a professed revelation of 
 otherwise unknown Natural facts, whose narration 
 as facts is an essential part of the purpose in 
 view. Whatever may be said, then, of other parts 
 of Scripture, where scientific matters are more or 
 less distantly and indirectly touched upon, this 
 
THE WEEK OF CREATION, 
 
 opening section not only allows but demands the 
 keenest scientific investigation. To bestow such 
 investigation is the object of the present work. 
 
 In the record of Genesis are a series of state- 
 ments concerning creation, which involve certain 
 doctrines as to its Author. How far, now, do 
 these statements and doctrines harmonise with the 
 discoveries and inferences of modern science t 
 
 To ascertain this it is necessary — 
 
 I. To examine minutely the original text of 
 the Scripture in question, with all the light which 
 scholarship and critical research can cast upon it, 
 so as to obtain the true meaning of every clause 
 and phrase contained in it. 
 
 II. To consider carefully the purpose and 
 scope of the passage as a whole, that we may 
 know what kind of information we have a right 
 to expect from it. 
 
 III. Having thus prepared the way for the 
 consideration of the real teaching of the cosmo- 
 gony, to compare that teaching in detail with 
 the facts and conclusions of inductive science. 
 
THE PASSAGE ITSELF. 
 
 I. THE PASSAGE ITSELF. 
 
 (I. i) In the beginning God created the hea- 
 vens and the earth. (2) And the earth was empty 
 and desolate, and darkness upon the face of the 
 deep. And the Spirit of God hovered upon the 
 face of the waters. (3) And God said, Let there 
 be light. And there was light. (4) And God saw 
 the light, that it was good. And God divided the 
 light from the darkness; (5) and God called the 
 light Day, and the darkness He called Night. 
 And there was evening, and there was morning; 
 one day. 
 
 (6) And God said. Let there be an expanse 
 in the midst of the waters, and let it be a division 
 of waters from waters. (7) And God made the 
 expanse, and divided the waters which were below 
 the expanse from the waters which were above the 
 expanse. And it was so. (8) And God called 
 the expanse Heavens. And there was evening, 
 and there was morning; a second day. 
 
8 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 (9) And God said, Let the waters below the 
 heavens be gathered unto one place, and let the 
 dry ground appear. And it was so. (10) And 
 God called the dry ground Land, and the gather- 
 ing of the waters He called Seas. And God saw 
 that it was good. (11) And God said, Let the 
 land sprout forth sprouts ; herbs seeding seed, 
 fruit-trees producing fruit after their kind wherein 
 is their seed, upon the land. And it was so. (12) 
 And the land brought forth sprouts; herbs seeding 
 seed after their kind, and trees producing fruit 
 wherein is their seed after their kind. And God 
 saw that it was good. (13) And there was even- 
 ing, and there was morning; a third day. 
 
 (14) And God said, Let there be luminaries in 
 the expanse of the heavens to divide the day from 
 the night, and let them be for signs, and for sea- 
 sons, and for days and years; (15) and let them 
 be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to 
 give light upon the earth. And it was so. (16) 
 And God made the two great luminaries, the 
 greater luminary to rule by day, and the lesser lu- 
 minary to rule by night ; and the stars. (17) And 
 God appointed them in the expanse of the heavens 
 
THE PASSAGE ITSELF. 
 
 to give light upon the earth, (i8) and to rule over 
 the day and over the night, and to divide the light 
 from the darkness. And God saw that it was 
 good. (19) And there was evening, and there was 
 morning; a fourth day. 
 
 (20) And God said. Let the waters swarm 1- 
 forth swarming things, living souls; and let birds 
 fly upon the land upon the face of the expanse of 
 the heavens. (21) And God created the great 
 monsters, and all the living souls that creep, which 
 the waters swarmed forth after their kind ; and all 
 birds of wing after their kind. And God saw that 
 it was good. (22) And God blessed them, saying, 
 Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in 
 the seas, and let the birds multiply in the land. 
 (25) And there was evening, and there was morn- 
 ing; a fifth day. 
 
 (24) And God said. Let the land bring forth 
 living souls after their kind, cattle, and creeping 
 things, and land-animals, after their kind. And it 
 was so. (25) And God made land-animals after 
 their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and all 
 creeping things of the ground after their kind. 
 And God saw that it was good. (26) And God 
 
THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 said, Let us make man in Our image, after Our 
 likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish 
 of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and 
 over the cattle, and over all the land, and over all 
 the creeping things that creep upon the land. 
 (27) And God created man in His image, in the 
 image of God He created him; male and female 
 He created them. (28) And God blessed them, 
 and God said unto them, Be fruitful and mul- 
 tiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have 
 dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the 
 birds of the heavens, and over all animals that 
 creep upon the land. (29) And God said, Behold 
 I have given unto you all herbs seeding seed which 
 are upon the face of all the land, and all the trees 
 wherein is the fruit of a tree seeding seed; they 
 shall be unto you for food; (30) and to all land- 
 animals, and to all birds of the heavens, and to all 
 creeping things upon the land wherein is a living 
 soul — all green herbs for food. And it was so. 
 (31) And God saw everything that He made, and 
 behold it was very good. And there was evening, 
 and there was morning; the sixth day. 
 
 (H. i) And the heavens and the earth were 
 
THE PASSAGE ITSELF. II 
 
 finished, and all their host. (2) And God finished 
 on the seventh day His work which He made, and 
 He rested on the seventh day from all His work 
 which He made. (3) And God blessed the seventh 
 day and hallowed it, because in it He rested from 
 all His work which God, by making, created. 
 
 (4) These are the generations of the heavens 
 and the earth in their creation. 
 
 I. 2. 'empty', ^HH. Emptiness or nothing- 
 ness, rather than formlessness (A. V.), is the uni- 
 versal sense of ^/IH ; which in Is. xlv. 18 is, in re- 
 gard to creation, expressly opposed to 'inhabited'. 
 The word is commonly used to describe a ruined 
 or desolate condition of country (Deut. xxxii. 10; 
 Job xii. 24; Ps. cvii. 40, &c.), and is also applied to 
 any vanity or thing of nought, as idols, &c. (Is. 
 xl. 17, xli. 29, xlix. 4, lix. 4). 
 
 I. 2. 'hovered'. The same word as is used in 
 Deut. xxxii. 1 1 of the eagle fluttering over her 
 young. The idea of brooding might also be well 
 included in the word, though it is not used in this 
 sense elsewhere in Scripture. 
 
 I. 5. 'And there was evening', &c. This is 
 
12 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 the exact force of the original, the verb being in- 
 variably inserted twice, and in exactly the same 
 form (^'^^l) as in the phrases 'And there was 
 light', 'And it was so', &c. The A. V. rendering 
 is hence quite untenable. See the versions of the 
 LXX., De Wette, and Benisch, and the commen- 
 taries of Kalisch, Tuch, Keil, and Knobel, all of 
 whom adopt some such rendering as that given 
 above. 
 
 I. 5. 'one day'; or 'a first day'. The defi- 
 nite article is only introduced in speaking of the 
 sixth and seventh days. 
 
 I. 6. 'expanse'. It is admitted on all hands 
 that y'p^ means ' that which is extended, stretched, 
 or beaten out'. Whether this be of a solid nature or 
 not, the word leaves entirely undefined, as it is used 
 equally of spreading out clouds, beating out metal 
 plates, and laying down pavement. The favourite 
 verse insisted on by those who argue for a solid 
 expanse as the true Scriptural idea, Job xxxvii. 18, 
 will be found discussed in Appendix No. I. ' Ex- 
 panse' is the translation adopted by Benisch, Ka- 
 lisch, Delitzsch, and Keil. 
 
 I. 10. 'Land'. The original V'lX has two sig- 
 
THE PASSAGE ITSELF. 1 3 
 
 nifications, 'earth' and 'land', which run side by 
 side throughout the whole of Scripture. The only 
 means of deciding in any case wJiich is intended, is 
 by looking to the context. Wherever therefore in 
 this passage 1**1^ appears to be used in a restrict- 
 ed sense, and especially wherever it is contrasted 
 with 'w^aters' (as in ver. lO, 20, 22), it has been 
 translated 'land', instead of uniformly 'earth', as 
 in A. V. 
 
 I. 14. 'luminaries'. A different w^ord (H^i^/p) 
 from the ' light' OiX) of ver. 3 — 5, meaning strictly 
 'light-bearers', or bodies giving light, not the light 
 itself This distinction is carefully observed in the 
 LXX., De Wette, Benisch, Kalisch, Tuch, Knobel, 
 Delitzsch, and Keil. 
 
 I. 17. 'appointed'. Literally ' gave'; a use of 
 the verb very common in the older sections of the 
 book of Genesis (ix. 12; xvii. 2, 5, 20; xlviii. 4). 
 The expression is the same as that used of the 
 sun in Jen xxxi. 35, where it is translated 'giveth'. 
 
 I. 20. 'let birds fly'; not 'birds that may fly', 
 as A. V. The former rendering is that adopted by 
 De Wette, Kalisch, and Delitzsch. 
 
14 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 II. 3. 'by making'. The verb is In the infi- 
 nitive, DiS^y? , and may therefore be rendered 
 either 'to make', or 'by making'; the former imply- 
 ing that God created the heavens and the earth in 
 oi'der to make their various inhabitants, &c. ; the 
 latter implying that His manner of accomplishing 
 creation was by a continued fashioning of the ma- 
 terials originally called into being. The latter 
 meaning plainly harmonises far better with the 
 context than the former. It is adopted by Gese- 
 nius, Ewald, Tuch, Knobel, and Keil; 'created to 
 make' is the rendering of Benisch and Delitzsch; 
 'created and made' is given by De Wette and 
 Kalisch. 
 
 II. 4. 'These are the generations', &c. This 
 phrase is taken to be the conclusion of the first 
 section of Genesis, instead of (as usually) the com- 
 mencement of the second, because (i) the detailed 
 account of creation just concluded answers far bet- 
 ter to what such a title would lead us to expect, 
 than does the partial view of a few particulars 
 (mentioned because of their relation to man's his- 
 tory) which follows ; and (2) because by breaking 
 the verse here the succeedin"- clause becomes much 
 
THE PASSAGE ITSELF. 1 5 
 
 more intelligible, '* In the day that the Lord God 
 made earth and heaven, then no field-plants were 
 yet in the earth, and no field-herbs yet grew; for," 
 &c. This construction of the verse is adopted 
 (with some minor variations) by Ewald, Delitzsch, 
 Tuch, Kiiobel, De Wette, and Kalisch. Of these 
 Ewald, Delitzsch, and Knobel regard the earlier 
 part of the verse as a subscription to the fore- 
 going history; while Tuch, De Wette, and Kalisch 
 prefer to make it the heading of what follows. 
 
l6 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 11. THE PURPOSE OF THE 
 COSMOGONY. 
 
 I. We have said that the cosmogony both 
 allows and even demands scientific investigation. 
 It would be a grave mistake, however, to sup- 
 pose that it was written for the sake of such in- 
 vestigation. As soon as independent knowledge 
 of the facts of creation exists, with which its 
 statements can fairly be compared, investigation 
 into its truth is, indeed, challenged. But its pro- 
 per purpose was one altogether different ; namely, 
 to instruct those who had no such independent 
 knowledge. In a word, the narrative of Genesis 
 was intended primarily, not for the scientific, but 
 for the tmscientific. It has been handed down to 
 us as part of the sacred writings of the Israelites, 
 a people whom we have no reason to suppose 
 knew anything of science properly so called ; who 
 at all events knew nothing of that particular 
 branch of science, geology, which throws most 
 
THE PURPOSE OF THE COSMOGONY. 1/ 
 
 light upon the history of creation. Nor do we find 
 that this record was committed to the IsraeHtes 
 merely to be preserved by them, and so handed 
 on to other and more enlightened readers. It 
 was no sealed writing, whose meaning and use 
 would first be perceived in future times when 
 knowledge was increased \ On the contrary, it 
 was pointed to as the authority and exemplar of 
 one of their most characteristic institutions, the 
 Sabbath (Ex. xx. ii, xxxi. 17). In the history of 
 creation here given them the Israelites wxre to 
 behold the reason and the pattern of their own 
 perpetually recurring six-days' labour and seventh 
 day's rest. It was a narrative, then, which was 
 held to be well within their comprehension, and 
 which was expressly designed for their instruc- 
 tion. And with this its whole structure and lan- 
 guage well agree. It is as simple, as straightforward 
 throughout as could possibly be conceived. There 
 is nothing obscure or ambiguous in it anywhere. 
 A child might understand it without difficulty. 
 
 Now what follows from this } If the cosmo- 
 gony of the Bible was intended primarily for those 
 
 ^ Dan. xii. 4. 
 W. 2 
 
1 8 THE WEEK OF CREATION, 
 
 unacquainted with science, if it was given to such 
 not merely for preservation but for practical daily 
 use, if it was couched in such language as sug- 
 gested a natural and intelligible meaning to those 
 to whom it was thus given ; surely this natural 
 meaning discerned by non-scientific readers must 
 be accepted as tJie meaning intended by the 
 Author. It may be, of course, that beside this 
 plain teaching of the narrative there are hidden 
 depths of meaning only to be discovered when 
 its pages are read in the searching light of sci- 
 ence. But granting this as possible, we must none 
 the less guard ourselves from putting any mean- 
 ing upon its statements and expressions which 
 would be out of harmony with the meaning these 
 suggest to the non-scientific. Science may enlarge 
 our conception of what the words of the cosmo- 
 gony denote, it may remove false notions which, 
 though not taught by these words, we have here- 
 tofore associated with them ; but it must not be 
 permitted to alter their natural meaning in the 
 very least. For, supposing that it did so, see what 
 would thereby be implied. The words have a 
 natural meaning on their face; the scientific reader 
 
THE PURPOSE OF THE COSMOGONY. 19 
 
 rejects this and assigns another meaning, such as 
 without science would have occurred to no one. 
 During all the preceding ages, then, this part of 
 the record must have been an enicrma waiting 
 for solution. Nay worse; for during all this time 
 it had a plain meaning discernible by all, which 
 meaning is now discovered to be false : so that 
 it was not only an enigma hitherto unsolved, but 
 one which up to the time of its solution was really 
 calculated to mislead on those points where it ap- 
 peared to instruct. Such a conclusion is a suffi- 
 cient refutation of the premises on which it rests. 
 Heathen oracles might deal in such deceiving rid- 
 dles, but not Divine revelation. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that as the cosmogony 
 was intended primarily for the non-scientific, so 
 the sense naturally attached to it by such must 
 be accepted everywhere as the true sense. Our 
 interpretation of it must be as independent of sci- 
 ence, as unbiassed by scientific opinion or facts, as 
 the interpretation given by the ancient Israelites. 
 
 2. Though it is in the Hebrew Scriptures that 
 we now read this history of creation, and to the 
 
20 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 Hebrew nation that we owe its preservation, yet 
 we are not to regard it as having been at the first 
 designed for their exclusive use, but rather for the 
 whole world. Other nations also had their cos- 
 mogonies, fragments of which have come down to 
 us, in some cases probably modified by tradition, 
 in others more nearly in their original form. These 
 records present a great variety of parallelisms 
 with the Hebrew narrative. Nearly all commence 
 with a primitive chaos of waters, empty and dark, 
 upon which the Creator acted. One speaks of 
 the Spirit moving over the waters, others of the 
 coming in of light, several of the division of the 
 waters into those above and below, and the sub- 
 sequent creation of plants and animals ; while 
 two arrange the work into six equal and conse- 
 cutive periods, with nearly the same order and 
 divisions as those of the Bible\ That these hea- 
 then cosmogonies are related in their origin to 
 the Hebrew one, there can be therefore no doubt. 
 While their exceedingly wide range — stretching, as 
 they do, from India, Persia, and Chaldea, on the 
 
 ^ A fuller account of these divers cosmogonies will be found in 
 Appendix II. 
 
THE PURPOSE OF THE COSMOGONY. 21 
 
 one hand, to Etruria, Greece, Egypt, and Phoe- 
 nicia, on the other; perhaps to be found even in 
 China, in Japan, in the islands of the Pacific, 
 and among- Scandinavian tribes — their wide range 
 sufficiently evidences the extreme antiquity of their 
 source. It proves also that they cannot be re- 
 garded as the result of later borrowings from the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, since they are found as fre- 
 quently among nations with whom we have no 
 reason to believe the Jews to have come in con- 
 tact, as they are among those with whom they did. 
 The strange distortions and mythological perver- 
 sions which continually accompany the points of 
 parallelism, also preclude the idea of imitation. 
 Rather must all these traditions be regarded as 
 diversified, fragmentary, and more or less dege- 
 nerate representatives of one primeval cosmogony, 
 of which the Hebrew Scriptures give by far the 
 most ancient, and (as we believe) the only tho- 
 roughly trustworthy, record. But though we still 
 look almost exclusively to these Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures for information in regard to the cosmogony, 
 we can no longer regard it as originating with 
 them. Its date must be thrust back beyond the 
 
22 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 origin of the Hebrew language even, to a period 
 before the dispersion, it may be even (who can 
 tell?) before the flood. 
 
 This conclusion is of importance as at once set- 
 ting aside all those schemes of interpretation which 
 Avould limit the creation spoken of to a particular 
 portion of the earth's surface. If the narrative 
 was intended for the instruction of the whole hu- 
 man race, to inform them concerning the origin 
 of the earth on which they dwelt ; then, inasmuch 
 as this race was intended to spread over the entire 
 earth, its creation as a whole must be that de- 
 scribed, or the cosmogony would fail of its pur- 
 pose. If, as some have thought, the record of 
 Genesis is a true account of creation as regards 
 Palestine, or some other limited eastern area, but 
 not as to the rest of the world; then those na- 
 tions who gradually transferred their habitation 
 from this area to the outlying regions would have 
 carried with them what was practically a false and 
 misleading idea of creation, since they would be 
 certain to apply their traditional knowledge to 
 these new lands equally with the old, whose history 
 (on this view) was yet in reality altogether dif- 
 
THE PURPOSE OF THE COSMOGONY. 23 
 
 ferent No: had God intended to reveal the oriorin 
 of a part of the earth only, this would either have 
 been explicitly stated in the record (which no one 
 I)retends to be the case), or at all events He would 
 have committed the revelation exclusively to those 
 who inhabited that part. The cosmogony is not 
 thus confined to a single nation, but is world-wide. 
 If, therefore, it be a Divine revelation its state- 
 ments and teaching also must be held to be 
 of world-wide application, including the entire 
 globe, equally true everywhere and at every 
 time. 
 
 3. What object had God in view in giving 
 such a revelation to the world ? Was it to teach 
 men Natural science .'^ That the history of crea- 
 tion contained information of a scientific character 
 not otherwise obtainable by those to whom it 
 was given, is not to be denied. But that to impart 
 such information was the proper end of the cos- 
 mogony, by no means follows. A moment's 
 glance at the structure of the narrative is suffi- 
 cient to shew that the main point everywhere 
 kept in view is not (as with science) the constitution 
 
THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 of Natural objects, or the explanation of Natural 
 phenomena, but the relation of these to God. 
 From first to last every item of information is 
 linked to some act of Deity. It is God who 
 creates, God who commands, God who names, God 
 who commissions, God who approves, God who 
 blesses. Let this, now, for a moment cease to be 
 so. Strike out all mention of God from the nar- 
 rative ; and what a bare and meaningless record 
 it becomes ! Who needed to be told that light, 
 air, land, seas, plants, celestial bodies, animals, 
 man, were the objects constituting the world of 
 Nature } Who needed such information as that 
 the light divided day from night ; that the sun 
 and moon were pre-eminent at different times, 
 and served to mark out months, seasons and 
 years ; that animals multiplied, and fed upon 
 plants, &c. } How utterly trite were such a mere 
 enumeration of objects and phenomena ! And yet 
 what besides this would be left in the cosmogony ? 
 Nothing whatever beyond the fact of the earth 
 having been originally dark, desolate and water- 
 bound, as a contrast to what it is now; and a 
 statement of the particular order and time in 
 
THE PURPOSE OF TPIE COSMOGONY. 25 
 
 which the successive parts of the world came 
 into existence. These new facts would certainly 
 remain, as a kind of skeleton ; but the whole life 
 and character of the story, its flesh and blood 
 so to speak, would be completely gone. Clearly, 
 then, it is in the theological information conveyed 
 by the cosmogony, rather than in the scientific, 
 that we are to discern its proper end. Its object 
 was to exhibit, by means of the history of crea- 
 tion, the relation of God to Nature, and Nature 
 to God. It is a manual of Natural theology, not 
 of Natural science. 
 
 The conclusion to be deduced from this in 
 regard to interpretation, is plain. If the teaching 
 of Natural theology is the true object of the cos- 
 mogony, so that a large part of its contents are 
 trite and meaningless when regarded from any 
 other point of view, then there is strong reason 
 to believe that the remainder also was intended 
 chiefly for the same end ; that the statements con- 
 cerning the time and order of creation, also, were 
 designed to set forth truths of Natural theology, 
 rather than mere facts in science. Any interpret- 
 ation, therefore, which assigns to these, or any 
 
26 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 other Items in the cosmogony, a purely scientific 
 import, is to be regarded as far less probable, 
 because less consistent with the manifest aim of 
 the whole, than one which makes them embodi- 
 ments of theological truths. 
 
 The consideration of ih&SQ prima facie charac- 
 teristics of the record has led us to three canons 
 of interpretation of the utmost value. 
 
 1. That we are to assign to every part that 
 meaning which the words would naturally suggest 
 to one unacquainted with science. 
 
 2. That we are not to confine the application 
 of the history to any one part of the earth, but 
 extend it equally to the whole. 
 
 3. That we are everywhere to expect and 
 look for theological, rather than purely scientific 
 truths, as the chief things intended to be taught. 
 
 But this is not all. We are in a position 
 to define, further, what amount and kind of scien- 
 tific teaching we have a right to expect from it. 
 
 Thus, in the first place, we have plainly no 
 right to expect scientific language, since this, to 
 people unacquainted with science, would have been 
 
THE PURPOSE OF THE COSMOGONY. 2/ 
 
 unintelligible and misleading. Scientific language, 
 moreover, is subject to serious modifications, if 
 not radical alterations, as science progresses ; while 
 the narrative of Genesis was intended, as we have 
 seen, for all time, and therefore must be couched 
 in language not liable to such changes. The 
 only language which possesses these two requi- 
 sites of general intelligibility and non-liabihty to 
 change, is the language of appearances. The facts 
 set forth must be described as they would have 
 seemed to be to the eye of man ; that is, in a 
 word, phenomenally, or the cosmogony would fail 
 in its purpose. All scrutiny or objection in the 
 matter of unscientific, or scientifically inaccurate 
 language, then, must be put on one side, as irre- 
 levant. 
 
 Then, secondly, we have no right to expect 
 more of Nature to be treated of than was natu- 
 rally known to men. The aim of the narrative 
 was not to enlarge men's views of Nature as such, 
 but, through Nature, to teach them concerning 
 Nature's God. Since, now, this was to be done 
 independently of science and scientific discoveries, 
 it was plainly essential that only those parts of 
 
28 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 Nature should be touched upon with which un- 
 scientific men everywhere were sure to be ac- 
 quainted. To have introduced anything beyond 
 this would have required as a preliminary some 
 amount of strictly scientific teaching, to make the 
 subjects sufficiently familiar to be thus adopted 
 as vehicles for conveying theological truth. But 
 such scientific teaching is not pre-supposed ; while, 
 to include it in the cosmogony, would have been 
 wholly inconsistent with its design. We conclude, 
 therefore, that the only parts of Nature which we 
 have any right to expect to find treated of are 
 those ordinarily known and familiar to the human 
 race. 
 
 But, lastly, what we have a right to expect 
 is (i) that the truths taught shall be in harmony 
 with the results of science, so that the same prin- 
 ciples of Natural theology which in Genesis are 
 applied to familiar objects and phenomena, shall be 
 found to be equally applicable to these, and others 
 like them, when viewed in the light of science ; 
 and (2) that the facts alleged as embodiments of 
 these truths shall be really facts, described in lan- 
 guage phenomenally correct. 
 
THE PURPOSE OF THE COSMOGONY. 29 
 
 To ascertain whether these expectations will 
 be verified, is the main task now before us. Before 
 however proceeding to this, it may be well to 
 notice briefly the way in Avhich the negative part 
 of our anticipations is realised in the actual details 
 of the narrative. 
 
 Take as an example the statements in regard 
 to the celestial bodies. They are introduced sim- 
 ply as luminaries, appointed to shine in the ex- 
 panse of heaven, and give light upon the earth, 
 thereby marking out times, seasons, days and 
 years. They are divided into sun, moon, and 
 stars, of which the sun and moon arc distinguished 
 as the two great luminaries, the stars being all 
 but ignored. How meagre a description in the 
 eye of science ! Here is no mention of the sun 
 as the centre of our system, no indication of the 
 true position of the moon towards us, no distinc- 
 tion between fixed stars and planets; nothing, in 
 a word, which would in the least enlarge men's 
 ideas as to the real nature of these objects, or 
 of the phenomena connected with them. The cos- 
 mogony confines itself strictly to that aspect of 
 the heavenly bodies, and that knowledge concern- 
 
30 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 ing- them, which was famihar to all men in every 
 part of the globe ; and within these narrow limits 
 it speaks of them only as they appear to the 
 uninstructed eye. Various theories have been cur- 
 rent at divers times, both false and true, to 
 account for these celestial appearances. The Bib- 
 lical narrative passes them all by in absolute 
 silence, and speaks exclusively of the phenomena. 
 And why } Plainly because the scientific inter- 
 pretation of Nature was not its object, but the 
 theological. When men instructed in this cos- 
 mogony gazed once more upon the host of hea- 
 ven they would know no more of their physical 
 nature, offices and relations, than they did before ; 
 it was not meant that they should. But they 
 would know this : — who made them, and how, 
 when, and why He made them.. They would 
 know, indeed, no more of astronomy than before, 
 but they would know more of God ; and to reveal 
 Him was the object in view. 
 
 So, once more, the narrative treats of the 
 various living things inhabiting the earth. How 
 does it denote them } Precisely according to those 
 natural divisions which, without making; the slicrht- 
 
THE PURPOSE OF THE COSMOGONY. 3 1 
 
 est claim to scientific character, are familiar to 
 everybody. The " sprouting things " or plants, are 
 divided into ''herbs" and ''trees" ; the inhabitants 
 of the waters into " creeping things " and " mon- 
 sters"; the terrestrial creatures into "cattle", "land 
 animals" {i.e. wild beasts), and "creeping things". 
 Not the slightest pretence to scientific classifica- 
 tion anywhere, but simply the natural groups 
 into which living things would be sure to fall 
 in the human mind everywhere, and throughout 
 all time. To teach zoology or botany wa^ no 
 object of the cosmogony, but only to exhibit 
 the position and relations of plants and animals 
 as creatures of the one true God. To have intro- 
 duced scientific ideas here would have been alto- 
 gether beside the mark. 
 
 To all such limited and non-scientific views, 
 then. Science is wholly Incompetent to make ob- 
 jection, since, so far as they go, they are plainly 
 correct enough ; while that the cosmogony goes 
 no further is attributable to the close and ex- 
 clusive attention everywhere bestowed upon its 
 proper aim. 
 
32 THE WEEK OE CREATION. 
 
 III. THE TEACHING OF THE COSMO- 
 GONY. 
 
 Returning now to the main point before us, 
 we have to inquire, i. What are the principles of 
 Natural theology enunciated in the cosmogony, 
 and how do they agree with those ded'ucible from 
 independent scientific investigation? 2. What are 
 the facts in creation alleged in connexion with 
 these principles, and how do they agree with those 
 discovered by Natural science? 
 
 I. First, then, of the principles of Natural the- 
 ology taught, for the sake of which, we conceive, 
 the entire narrative was constructed. They may 
 be briefly summed up as follows, i. The depend- 
 ence of all things upon God. 2. God's independ- 
 ence of His creatures. 3. God's manner of cre- 
 ating. 4. God's government by fixed law. 5. 
 God's method of gradual development. 6. God's 
 principle of subordination, 7. God's time of work- 
 ing. 8. God's rest. 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 33 
 
 I. TJie dependence of all tilings npon God. — 
 Each stage of progress, from the first calling into 
 existence of the heavens and the earth, to the mi- 
 nutest detail in the process of furnishing and per- 
 fecting the latter, is exhibited as depending directly 
 upon an act of God as its originative cause. In 
 some cases, indeed, Natural materials, and it would 
 seem Natural forces also, are spoken of as taking 
 part, as in the generation of plants and animals 
 from the land, or fishes from the sea, which is de- 
 scribed as 'the land sprouting forth sprouts', 'the 
 waters swarming forth swarming things', 'the land 
 bringing forth beasts.' Still, even here the relation 
 of all to God as their sole proper cause, is carefully 
 maintained; for not only do they arise at His 
 word, but before any life arises there has been in 
 the first place a 'hovering' (equivalent, probably, 
 in idea to 'brooding') of His Spirit over the empty 
 and desolate abyss of the primeval waters. This, 
 then, is the first and fundamental doctrine of the 
 Biblical cosmogony. There is but one First 
 Cause, to Whom every step of creation from first 
 to last is to be ascribed. What has science to say 
 to this.^ 
 
 w. x 
 
34 THE WEEK OE CREATION 
 
 Positively, science can simply say nothing. 
 The instruments of investigation at her command 
 are wholly inadequate to discern the spiritual 
 Cause asserted by the Bible to lie behind all Natu- 
 ral phenomena. She deals exclusively with the 
 material world as now existing, and however keen- 
 ly she may examine this, however thoroughly she 
 may understand its constitution and powers, nay, 
 however perfectly she may even trace its historical 
 development in the past, or predict, if it may be, 
 its future destiny, still of the origin of this actual 
 world of existence, either in respect to the matter 
 composing it or the forces enduing it, science 
 knows, and can know, nothing. The most ad- 
 vanced scientific generalization yet put forth — the 
 doctrine of continuity — fails confessedly to touch 
 this great question of origin. It may be pushed 
 back so far ae to be for a time lost sight of, but it 
 is not solved, and ever and anon springs up again, 
 the greatest problem of all, which science would 
 most delight to unravel, yet before which she stands 
 ever hopelessly silent and baffled \ 
 
 ^ " If you ask me whether science has solved, or is likely to solve, 
 the problem of this universe, 1 must shake my head in doubt. We 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 35 
 
 ' Science knows nothing of the destruction of 
 matter or force; she knows equally nothing of their 
 
 have been talking of matter and force; but whence came matter, 
 and whence came force? You remember the first Napoleon's ques- 
 tion, when the savans who accompanied him to Egypt discussed in 
 his presence the problem of the universe, and solved it to their 
 apparent satisfaction. He looked aloft to the starry heavens, and 
 said — 'It is all very well, gentlemen, but who made all these?' 
 That question still remains unanswered, and science makes no 
 attempt to answer it. As far as I can see, there is no quality in the 
 human intellect which is fit to be applied to the solution of the, 
 
 problem The phenomena of matter and force lie within our 
 
 intellectual range, and as far as they reach we will at all hazards 
 push our inquiries. But behind, and above, and around all, the 
 real mystery of this universe remains unsolved ; and here the true 
 philosopher will bow his head in humility, and admit that all he can 
 do in this direction is no more than what is within the compass of 
 an ordinary child." — Prof. Tyndall, Lecture to working men at 
 the Dundee British- Association Meeting, Sept. 1867, reported in 
 Chemical News. 
 
 "All our Science, then, is but an investigation of the mode in 
 which the Creator acts ; its highest laws are but expressions of the 
 mode in which He manifests His agency to us. And when the 
 Physiologist is inclined to dwell unduly upon his capacity for pene- 
 trating the secrets of Nature, it may be salutary for him to reflect, 
 that, even should he succeed in placing his department of study 
 upon a level with those Physical sciences, in which the most com- 
 plete knowledge of 'causation' (using that term in the sense of 
 'unconditional sequence') has been acquired, and in which the 
 highest generalizations have been attained, he is still as far as 
 ever from being able to comprehend that Power, which is the 
 'efficient cause' alike of the simplest and most minute, and of the 
 most complicated and most majestic phenomena of the Universe." — 
 
 3—2 
 
36 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 creation': — the dogma is sometimes hurled in our 
 teeth as if it involved the disproof of the possibility 
 of either. Yet, in truth, it is a dogma essentially 
 harmonious with the belief in creation as taught by 
 Scripture. Could science point to physical origi- 
 nation as a possibility, either in matter or force, 
 the necessity for referring these to a spiritual 
 Cause would be at an end ; the fundamental doc- 
 trine of the dependence of all things on God would 
 
 W. P). Carpenter, General and Comparative Physiology, 3rd Ed. 
 p. 1080. 
 
 "To assume that the evidence of the beginning or end of so 
 vast a scheme lies within the reach of our philosophical inquiries, 
 or even of our speculations, appears to be inconsistent with a just 
 estimate of the relations which subsist between the finite powers of 
 man and the attributes of an Infinite and Eternal Being." — Lyell, 
 Principles of Geology, icth Ed. 1868, Vol. ii. p. 613. 
 
 > "After no matter how great a progress in the colligation of 
 facts, and the establishment of generalizations ever wider and wider 
 — after the merging of limited and derivative truths, in truths that 
 are larger and deeper, has been carried no matter how far; the 
 fundamental truth remains as much beyond reach as ever. The 
 explanation of that which is explicable, does but bring out into 
 greater clearness the inexplicableness of that which remains behind. 
 Alike in the external and the internal Avorlds, the man of science 
 sees himself in the midst of perj^etual changes of which he can 
 
 discover neither the beginning nor the end In all directions 
 
 his investigations eventually bring him face to face with an insoluble 
 enijima ; and he ever more clearly perceives it to be an insoluble 
 enigma."— Herbert Stencer, First Principles, i. 3 § 21. 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. ^7 
 
 be shaken well-nigh to overthrow. But she cannot. 
 It is admitted that there is not in all the world of 
 Nature which science has examined any power or 
 principle capable of creating. The Biblical doc- 
 trine remains, then, not only untouched, but con- 
 firmed and supported by the negative testimony of 
 science. 
 
 2. God's independence of His creatiwes. — Most 
 carefully is this complementary truth set forth in 
 the cosmogony. It is not enough to say that God 
 created each successive member of the universe ; 
 but having created. He 'beholds' them, approves 
 of them, gives them 'names'; thus implying in the 
 most forcible way their absolute distinctness from 
 Himself. In respect to life, where confusion be- 
 tween creature and Creator was most liable to oc- 
 cur, the narrative is especially guarded. All such 
 ideas as emanation, all pantheistic notions of the 
 one Divine Life appearing under diverse forms in 
 every variety of creature, are forbidden at once by 
 the terms of the narrative: — 'the land sprouted 
 forth', 'the waters swarmed forth', not 'God 
 brought forth'. While with respect to man, not 
 
38 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 even the expression of the second chapter, of God 
 'breathing into his nostrils the breath of life', is 
 tolerated; but it is strictly 'in God's image', 'after 
 His likeness' — resemblance of nature merely, not 
 participation \ To Israel, where God's personality 
 was sufficiently guarded in other ways, the inti- 
 mate connexion of man's life with God's might be 
 freely, because safely, spoken of But for the 
 world at large God's absolute independence of all 
 other life or existence must be strenuously insisted 
 on in every particular. 
 
 The entire agreement of science with Scripture 
 on this head has been already implied in our re- 
 marks on the preceding one. Science recognises 
 and avows that in no created things, either animate 
 or inanimate, is there to be found any force or in- 
 
 1 The account of man's creation contained in Gen. ii. 4 — 25 may 
 be ascribed Avith tolerable certainty to the time, and most probably 
 the pen, of ISIoses. The cosmogony itself has been already shewn 
 to be of much earlier origin. In its present written form it must be 
 assigned to the early part of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, 
 since it is plainly from the same pen as other portions of Genesis 
 which can be proved from internal evidence to have been written at 
 that period. To enter into this evidence here is of course impossi- 
 ble; it is merely mentioned to account for the distinction between 
 these two sections of Genesis made above in the text. 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 39 
 
 fluence, latent or active, which can account for 
 their primal origin. In other words, the energy 
 and life of Nature is not a creating power, but a 
 created. Even in the wildest theories as to the 
 origin of life, where the vital principle is held to be 
 a mere modification of physical force, the admis- 
 sion is made, how^ever at times unnoticed or con- 
 cealed, that life also is not a self-originated power; 
 for does not science perpetually proclaim that of 
 the creation of such force she knows nothing.^ — 
 that there is no physical cause, either in itself or 
 elsewhere, to which it can be ascribed.'* The crea- 
 ture in all its parts, then, — matter, force, and life, — • 
 is admitted to be independent of, and different in 
 nature from, its Creator. Pantheism and Atheism 
 are alike alien to science, if science be but heard 
 impartially and fully. 
 
 3. God's manner of creating. —Every creative 
 ^ct is accomplished by a word of command. God 
 says, * Let it be', and it is. What are we to under- 
 stand by this.^ Not surely the bare literal fact 
 that before the creation of each new member of the 
 universe certain words were audibly uttered calling 
 
40 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 it forth. Such a view would be altogether contrary 
 to the analogy of Scripture language. As well 
 might we regard as literal the phrases, 'His right 
 hand hath gotten Him the victory,' or ' His eyelids 
 try the children of men.' In all such cases the 
 language used is that of accommodation ; God's acts 
 being presented to us under the figure of those acts 
 of men which most nearly correspond to them in 
 character. He gained a victory by His own sheer, 
 unaided strength;— it is described as 'gotten' by 
 * His right hand' ; not because He really has a right 
 hand, but because this would be the way in which 
 such a victory on the part of a man would be de- 
 scribed. He judges men, not by their profession, 
 but by watching their behaviour; — it is spoken of 
 as 'trying' them with 'His eyelids'; not because 
 He really has eyelids, but because in this way 
 would siicJi judgment on the part of a man be 
 spoken of Just so here He is said to create by a 
 'word', not because words were actually used in 
 creation, but because the fittest representation of 
 the kind of power exerted was the human word- 
 of-command. It was not a physical, material 
 power, but a moral, spiritual one. God creating 
 
THE TEACHING OE THE COSMOGONY. 4 1 
 
 the universe was not to be thought of as One put- 
 ting forth labour upon His work, but rather as One 
 standing aloof, calmly willing what should be, and 
 accomplishing all by mere will\ The world that 
 submitted to man only by material force, was to 
 God as a docile servant that obeyed at a word. 
 God's relation to Nature was to be thought of, 
 therefore, as an absolutely different kind of rela- 
 tion to man's. 
 
 While every act of creation is thus presented 
 as arising from a new spiritual impulse from God, 
 it is no less clearly laid down that each was also 
 in one sense a fasJiioning act. The materials for 
 the later stages of creation existed ready to hand 
 in the results of the earlier. The forces of Nature 
 already at work had their part in bringing about 
 the ends desired. Nowhere is this so clearly set 
 forth as in the account of the creation of life; just 
 where, perhaps, we should least have expected it. 
 At each stage there is, indeed, as elsewhere, a spe- 
 cial fiat, implying a new spiritual impulse. But 
 
 ^ In the Hindu cosmogony it is said that the Eternal One thought 
 'I will create worlds,' and the worlds were. The same idea as 
 here, only in another and less objective form. 
 
42 THt: WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 the fiat Is addressed to the already existing ' land' 
 and 'waters', commanding them to 'bring forth'. 
 This 'bring forth' too is everywhere the Hiphil or 
 causal Mo'iCQ. of the Hebrew verb; while wherever 
 possible the verb employed is identical in its root 
 with the name of the things brought forth — ' let 
 the land sprout forth sprouts', 'let the waters 
 swarm forth swarming things'. It is thus implied 
 (i) that the land and waters had an active, and not 
 merely a passive share in the origination of plants 
 and animals; (2) that this origination was proper 
 to their nature, not a strange unaccountable thing, 
 but what they were fitted naturally to accomplish, 
 directly the new impulse implied in God's com- 
 mand was given them. The perpetual generation 
 of life in the world of Nature was a phenomenon 
 familiar to every one. The cosmogony adopted 
 this as the truest representation available of the 
 original creation of life. Then also from pre-exist- 
 ing materials acting according to their proper na- 
 ture new beings arose; but it was in consequence 
 of a special impulse from above Nature, then first 
 given. Without that impulse no life would have 
 arisen, yet it was an impulse co-working with Na- 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 43 
 
 ture, and assigning to Nature a share in creation 
 like that which she now has in ordinary generation. 
 
 In other cases where this kind of double action 
 is not so distinctly asserted we have the general 
 statement of Gen. ii. 3, that God's method of crea- 
 tion was throughout *by making'; i.e. it was a 
 fashioning process, rather than a series of creations 
 totally de novo. The precise measure in which 
 these two complementary principles, of God's crea- 
 tive impulses, and Nature's normal powers, were 
 respectively concerned in any particular item of 
 creation, it was no object of the cosmogony to set 
 forth. We are merely required to accept both, to 
 ignore neither. 
 
 Unable as science is to reach creation at all 
 in her investigations, it is plain that in regard to 
 the manner of creation she can afford no direct 
 evidence. The idea, however, that its successive 
 stages were the result, partly of natural develop- 
 ment, partly of Divine impulses, is one essentially 
 harmonious with her discoveries. Let it be grant- 
 ed, says the man of science, that there existed the 
 materials of our present earth; let it be granted 
 that it received radiant force as at present from 
 
44 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 the sun; let it be granted that volcanic action 
 was at work within ; let it be granted that life was 
 there, in both its forms of vegetable and animal; 
 &c. ; and not only may the phenomena of to-day 
 be accounted for without assuming any creative 
 act whatever, but the past history of our globe 
 likewise, throughout all those ages of gradual 
 development which geology has disclosed. The 
 exact extent to which this is true, especially in 
 regard to the development of living beings, is a 
 matter of keen discussion in the scientific world 
 at the present day. The principle, however, is 
 accepted in regard to other points by all. With 
 respect to the origin of these fundamental ele- 
 ments, on the other hand, it is agreed that science 
 knows nothing\ They are many in number, and 
 
 1 "There exist in nature a number of permanent causes, which 
 have subsisted ever since the human race has been in existence, and 
 for an indefinite and probably enormous length of time previous. 
 The sun, the earth, and planets, with their various constituents, air, 
 water, and other distinguishable substances, whether simple or 
 compound, of which nature is made up, are such Permanent Causes 
 themselves. These have existed, and the effects or consequences 
 which they are fitted to produce have taken place (as often as the 
 other conditions of the production met) from the very beginning of 
 our experience. But we can give no account of the origin of the 
 Permanent Causes themselves. Why these particular natural agents 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 45 
 
 in several cases independent of each other, so that 
 the absence of one would not necessitate the ab- 
 sence of another, though considerably modifying 
 its effects. All this is clearly in exact accordance 
 with the teaching of Genesis. Whether, further, 
 these fundamental elements of the earth's physical 
 constitution acknowledged by science correspond in 
 detail to the impulses of creation recorded in the 
 cosmogony, is a question to be discussed hereafter. 
 All that is here noted is the harmony m principle 
 between the scientific view and the Biblical, which 
 both recognise in the phenomena of creation the 
 working of Natural causes, yet both point also to 
 something beyond these as necessary to account 
 for their existence and efficacy. 
 
 4. God's government by fixed lazv. — He Is re- 
 presented not only as making all the parts of the 
 universe, but as making each for a special definite 
 purpose, and assigning to each a particular pro- 
 existed originally, and no others, or why they are commingled in 
 such and such proportions, and distributed in such and such a 
 manner throughout space, is a question we cannot answer." — J. S. 
 Mill, Logic, 7th ed. 1868, in. 5, § 7. 
 
46 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 vince and work. Thus the light is to divide day 
 from night ; the expanse is to separate waters above 
 from waters below ; the luminaries are to be for 
 signs, and for seasons, and for days and years ; the 
 herbs are to be for food to man and beast 
 The same idea appears in another form in the 
 names which are given to certain members of the 
 universe, designating their place and function — 
 'day', 'night', 'heavens', 'land', 'seas'. In yet 
 other cases special commissions are given; as, 
 to the animals, 'Be fruitful and multiply'; and 
 to man, in addition, ' Subdue and have do- 
 minion'. Nothing is left to adjust itself, or even 
 find out its proper office, but all is arranged before- 
 hand by the great Designer. And this arrange- 
 ment is plainly not a temporary, but a permanent 
 one. For all time, as much as for the present, 
 everything is subject to law. " He commanded, 
 and they were created; He hath also established 
 them for ever and ever; He hath given a decree, 
 and it shall not pass." 
 
 How completely science is in accordance with 
 Scripture on this point it is unnecessary to insist 
 on at any length. The reign of law throughout 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 4/ 
 
 every department of Nature is the best established 
 of all the larger generalizations of science. And 
 this in both the particulars implied in the Biblical 
 doctrine; — (i) the existence of a distinct function 
 and purpose in every created thing, to which its 
 constitution and properties are exactly adapted; 
 and (2) the stability and invariableness with which 
 the laws governing all things are maintained. It 
 is impossible to imagine two testimonies more ab- 
 solutely agreed than are the voices of Scripture 
 and science on these points. 
 
 5. God's method of gradual development. — He 
 does not create a perfect universe at once, but 
 slowly builds it up step by step. As He first 
 creates it 'the earth is empty and desolate', and 
 only at the close of a whole week of progress does 
 it become fully ordered and peopled after God's 
 mind. Nor is this all. At every stage of the 
 work God surveys the steps already taken, and 
 pronounces them 'good'. It may seem strange 
 to say so. What good, men might say, is the light 
 with no eye to see it t What good is the sea, 
 or the land, or the expanse, with none to inhabit 
 
48 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 them? What good are the plants, with none to 
 use them? But God thinks differently. Not only 
 does His foreseeing eye recognise the beauty and 
 fitness of each element in creation regarded as a 
 co-working part of the complex whole, but He 
 discerns also a beauty and fitness intrinsic to each. 
 And so, while He finds supreme satisfaction only 
 at the close, when He can say of the whole finish- 
 ed work that it is 'very good'; yet there is a 
 lower satisfaction, calling forth a lower meed of 
 approval (simply 'good'), at every step. Hence 
 He is in no hurry to carry out the entire scheme 
 at once, but will rather develope it slowly, stage 
 by stage. 
 
 It needs but few words to point out the con- 
 current witness of science on this head also. The 
 whole science of Geology, — what is it but one 
 overwhelming testimony to the fact that the fur- 
 nishing and perfecting of the earth has been a 
 gradual process, not accomplished all at once, but 
 slowly, step by step? To some it has seemed a 
 strange, an almost unaccountable thing, that the 
 earth should have existed for ages peopled only by 
 the lower animals, without man. To the narrow 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 49 
 
 self-conceit of those who regard man not only 
 as the most important, but as the only important 
 member of terrestrial creation ; who regard all 
 things as arranged on the earth solely for his 
 benefit and use; — to such it must indeed seem 
 strange that for by far the larger part of our earth's 
 history, as disclosed by Geology, there were no 
 human beings whatever inhabiting it, but only in- 
 ferior creatures. If man is the proper end of ter- 
 restrial creation, why was the preparation for his 
 coming so unnecessarily long and slow ? To all 
 this science answers, that however true it may be 
 that at the present day man is the centre of the 
 earthly universe, yet it is certain that in past ages 
 he was not so; and that these past ages are of 
 such magnitude, and present such characteristics, 
 as to make it impossible to regard them as mere 
 preparations for his advent, but that they have a 
 beauty and an excellence strictly their own, in- 
 ferior it may be in degree to the beauty and 
 excellence of the period since his introduction, but 
 yet essentially similar in kind. In a word, the 
 truth enforced by Geology is exactly the same as 
 that taught by Genesis — man is the highest mem- 
 w. 4 
 
50 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 ber of terrestrial creation, but the excellence of 
 creation does not depend upon his presence, for 
 there were stages of creation prior to him which 
 well deserved the epithet 'good,' and on these 
 stages the Creator could look with a complacent 
 satisfaction only inferior to that with which He 
 regarded His completed work. The process of 
 creation was not a hurried, rapid one, but slow and 
 gradual. 
 
 6. God's principle of subordinatioji. — The in- 
 trinsic excellence of each stage of creation, just 
 noticed, is not by any means their only, or even 
 most important characteristic ; they have wider and 
 higher relations. Each one is a step onward and 
 upward, and so is not only 'good' in itself, but is 
 necessary for a yet better one to come, and is in- 
 troduced in preparation for it. This is very beau- 
 tifully and subtly expressed in the arrangement of 
 the work under the six days. Attentively con- 
 sidered, these six days are found to fall into two 
 corresponding and parallel halves, the first, second, 
 and third answering severally to the fourth, fifth, 
 and sixth. Thus on the first day, light is called 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 5 1 
 
 forth; on the fourth day, luminaries or hght-bear- 
 ers. On the second day, the expanse is formed, 
 and the waters divided ; on the fiftJi day, expanse 
 and waters are peopled with appropriate creatures. 
 On the thii'd day, the dry land appears and is 
 clothed with vegetation; on the sixth day, beasts 
 and man are made to dwell on the land, and con- 
 sume the vegetation. In this way the universe is 
 made to appear, both in past and present, as an 
 organized whole, in which every member depends 
 upon those below, and has obligations to those 
 above. While the crowning point being plainly 
 man, to whom dominion over the whole is given, — 
 man, however, as God's representative — the grand 
 truth at once beams forth, that man's office and 
 obligation is to use and govern all things in subor- 
 dination to his Maker; and hence, that faithful oc- 
 cupation, not selfish enjoyment, is his part and 
 mission on the earth. 
 
 Reserving for a later stage of our inquiries the 
 consideration of the facts here alleged, the identity 
 in principle between the cosmogony and science on 
 this head needs but few words to demonstrate. 
 That all things in Nature are linked together in an 
 
52 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 intricate web of mutual dependence, so that none 
 can exist and flourish without the assistance of 
 some other, and each by fiUing its own place, and 
 obtaining that which itself wants, at the same time 
 ministers to and supports others ; — this is too trite, 
 too familiar, to need insisting on. Equally clear is 
 it that this dependence follows the same kind of 
 order as that depicted in Genesis. The higher 
 members of creation are dependent upon the lower, 
 not the lower upon the higher. Animals depend 
 absolutely upon plants for food, and so could not 
 exist without them. The dependence of plants 
 upon animals is altogether different; the latter 
 being merely the auxiliaries, not the essential con- 
 ditions of vegetable life. So again plants depend 
 upon soil; plants and animals alike upon the atmo- 
 sphere; so that without soil and atmosphere they 
 could not live. Yet neither soil nor atmosphere 
 depend in anything like the same fashion upon 
 them, and could be well conceived as existing in 
 their absence. The parallelism in character be- 
 tween the view of Nature thus presented, and the 
 subordination taught in the cosmogony, is unmis- 
 takeable. 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 53 
 
 While for the crowning feature of all, what 
 truth has science more repeatedly and emphati- 
 cally enforced than this — that all things in the 
 earth are under the dominion and for the use of 
 man to a degree which they are not to any other 
 creature? He is of all terrestrial beings in fact the 
 most dependent, and yet appears at first sight the 
 most independent, because in him are found powers 
 of adapting and controlling the inferior members 
 of the world, such as no other creature possesses. 
 In a word, those below him in rank are not only 
 naturally suited to supply his wants, but they are 
 under his dominion. He, by his higher faculties of 
 mind, can compel service from them all ; and so by 
 choosing on whom he will depend, make himself 
 apparently independent. Once more, precisely the 
 distinctive position assigned to him in Genesis. 
 
 7. God's time of zvorking. — Hitherto, in con- 
 sidering the principles of Natural theology taught 
 by the cosmogony, it has sufficed briefly to men- 
 tion them, point out the particular clauses of the 
 narrative intended to convey them, and then pro- 
 ceed at once to the testimony of science on the 
 
54 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 same head. Nor is the intrinsic character of our 
 present point such as to require any difYerent mode 
 of treatment in its case. Were it possible to divest 
 the reader's mind of all the theories which a pro- 
 tracted controversy has gathered round the subject, 
 its elucidation and illustration need occupy no 
 larger space than has been devoted to some of the 
 points already considered. This, however, is im- 
 possible. The theories are there, and must first of 
 all be cleared out of the way, if any good is to be 
 done. They involve two questions: — (i) Do the 
 six days spoken of embrace the whole history of 
 creation, or only its latest stage.? (2) Is the word 
 'day' to be taken in its ordinary sense, or other- 
 wise.'' To an unprejudiced reader of Genesis, 
 knowing nothing of modern controversy, both ques- 
 tions would seem to be so trite and simple as not 
 to require a moment's consideration. The former 
 alternative in both instances appears the only one 
 tenable for a moment. Not thus lightly, however, 
 can we venture to dismiss their discussion. How- 
 ever decisive may be the verdict of such an un- 
 biassed mind, there has been too much ingenuity 
 expended on behalf of the contrary opinions to 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 55 
 
 allow us to rest on common sense merely as a suf- 
 ficient ground for their rejection. We must ex- 
 amine the evidence in detail. 
 
 First, then, of the question, Do the six days 
 embrace the whole of creation, or only part? No 
 one will dispute that the cosmogony as a whole 
 embraces the entire history of creation. Its open- 
 ing clause — "In the beginning God created the 
 heavens and the earth;" and its closing subscription 
 — '' These are the generations of the heavens and 
 the earth in their creation," — are alike conclusive 
 on this point. At the close of this whole work of 
 creation, then, we find the sabbath of rest. This 
 sabbath, we are repeatedly told, was a rest from 
 all God's work, — " And the heavens and the earth 
 were finished, and all their host. And God finished 
 on the seventh day His work which He made; 
 and He rested on the seventh day from all His 
 work which He made. And God blessed the 
 seventh day, and hallowed it; because in it He 
 rested from all His work which God, by making, 
 created." The stress upon the 'all' here is unmis- 
 takeable. But the seventh day's rest being thus a 
 rest from all the work of creation ; to suppose, as 
 
56 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 some have done, that the preceding six days, 
 where the gradual process of creation is described, 
 include but a portion, and that a very small por- 
 tion, of creative work, is plainly to destroy the 
 proportion and symmetry of the narrative altoge- 
 ther. God's sabbath, on this view, becomes a sab- 
 bath not after six days' work, as the narrative 
 distinctly implies, but after six days' work and a 
 great deal more, of which great-deal-more the nar- 
 rative makes simply no mention and gives no hint 
 whatever! 
 
 On what grounds, then, is this theory of the 
 partial scope of the six days put forward? 
 
 1st. It is said that geology requires us to re- 
 gard the time spent on creation (i. e. the time prior 
 to, and ending in, the appearance of man on the 
 earth) as enormously larger than six days. That 
 the narrative of Genesis must, therefore, in some 
 way be made to cover, or at least allow of, such a 
 longer period. That the only point in the narra- 
 tive where a break can be imagined into which 
 these geologic ages can be slipped without vio- 
 lence, is between the first and second verses. That 
 to this * blank space', therefore, is to be referred 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY, 57 
 
 the whole, or very nearly the whole, of that past 
 history of the earth which geology has disclosed. 
 
 2nd. It is said that the description of the 
 earth's condition given in the second verse accords 
 best with the idea — some would say, actually re- 
 quires us to believe — that there had been an over- 
 throw of some past order of things, upon which 
 the new order was now to rise. The special point 
 insisted on is the expression ^Hl^ ^HH ('empty 
 and desolate'), which, it is alleged, is elsewhere 
 used to denote a rinned condition of things ; while 
 in one place (Is. xlv. i8) it is distinctly asserted 
 that when God created the earth He did not create 
 it ^nh (i.e. 'empty'), the same word exactly as in 
 Gen. i. 2. 
 
 For the first of these positions, it is sufficient 
 to refer to the canon of interpretation laid down 
 at starting, ''that we are to assign to every part 
 that meaning which the words would naturally 
 suggest to one unacquainted with science" (p. 26). 
 Those who knew nothing of geologic ages could 
 have no reason, on their account, for imagining a 
 'blank space' of enormous duration between the 
 first and second verses. And we are bound in 
 
58 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 honesty, as already shewn, to take tJieir view of 
 the passage, rather than any other, as the true 
 one. Let those who advocate such interpretations 
 consider for a moment what they involve. If it 
 be admitted that science has cast such a new light 
 upon the history of creation as to make the natural 
 significance of the six days' work, as all-embracing, 
 untenable; and a new interpretation is required, 
 altogether alien to the spirit of the cosmogony; 
 then a blow has been struck at the authority and 
 divinity of the latter even more formidable than 
 direct rejection, for whereas the bolder course of 
 rejection ascribes no more than ignorance to the 
 author of the narrative, the weaker one of altered 
 interpretation in effect asserts his cunning, in so 
 framing his account as that, while bearing one 
 meaning plainly on the face (deceiving those who 
 for ages looked to it for truth), there should still 
 be a loophole for escape when facts should even- 
 tually prove that natural meaning to be a false 
 
 1 It has not been lost sight of in thus speaking that there were 
 some who, before the discoveries of Geology, held a similar view in 
 regard to a space between the first and second verses. But whence 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 59 
 
 The second position deserves more respectful 
 attention, as professing to find a reason for the 
 theory within the passage itself, or at all events 
 in Scripture. The word !)nri is used elsewhere 
 to describe a ruined condition ; therefore this is the 
 sense to be attached to it in Gen. i. 2; — this is 
 the argument. Now if it could be shewn that T\T\ 
 is never used of any other state or quality but 
 that of ruin, there would be some force in the 
 reasoning. But how stands the case.^ Without 
 doubt it is used at times to describe the desola- 
 tion consequent upon ruin, as in Is. xxiv. 10, 
 xxxiv. II ; Jer. iv. 23. But it is also used as com- 
 monly of the desolation characteristic of a wilder- 
 ness, where the idea of ruin is altogether out of 
 sight, as in Deut. xxxii. 10; Job xii. 24; Ps. cvii. 
 40. While still oftener it is used, not of desolation 
 at all, but as an equivalent to * vanity', 'nothing', 
 &c., as in Job vi. 18; Is. xxix. 21, xl. 17, xli. 29, 
 
 did this idea originate? Simply in the difificnlty where else in the 
 cosmogony to place the creation and fall of angels. The prmdple^ 
 therefore, on which these ancient interpreters acted was the very 
 same as that of their modern followers — the solution of imaginary 
 difficulties by ignoring the natural meaning of the text and intro- 
 ducing ideas altogether out of harmony with its structure. 
 
6o THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 xliv. 9, xlix. 4, lix. 4. From this it is clear that 
 the radical significance of the word is not even 
 ' desolation', still less ' ruin', but ' emptiness' (p. 1 1), 
 since this sense only is sufficient to account for 
 all the uses to which it is put. When, there- 
 fore, Gen. i. 2 says that ' the earth was ^nH,' it 
 simply describes an actual state of 'emptiness', 
 without thereby giving the slightest hint of any 
 kind as to how it came into that condition, whe- 
 ther by original creation, or subsequent catas- 
 trophe. But it is said that in one passage, Is. xlv. 
 18, we are distinctly told that God did not create 
 the earth ^inh. Upon this part of the argument 
 it may be remarked, (i) that the question at issue 
 is not whether the earth ever was desolate during 
 the process of creation (for this both views equally 
 admit), but zuhen it was so; one view placing this 
 desolate epoch at the commencement of creation, 
 the other at the commencement of its latest stage. 
 Had now Isaiah said that God did not create the 
 earth desolate ' at first ', this might have availed 
 somewhat; but since he makes no mention of time 
 whatever, it is plain that his statement leaves 
 the real question at issue altogether untouch- 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 6l 
 
 ed\ What then does Isaiah mean? This is clear 
 the instant we look (2) to the latter part of his sen- 
 tence, God ''did not create it ^HH, but He made' 
 it to be inhabited^ Had Isaiah intended to deny 
 that the earth when first created was in a desolate 
 condition, he would surely in the latter clause 
 have said what condition it was created in. But 
 this he does not do; his latter clause is not about 
 condition at all, but purpose. So also, then, must 
 the former clause be understood; and his meaning 
 will be this : — emptiness was not the end God had 
 in view when He created the earth, but habita- 
 tion. A truth which, as before, leaves the point 
 under discussion quite untouched. 
 
 There being thus absolutely no reason for sup- 
 posing a break between the ist and 2nd verses, or 
 for assigning the description of ver. 2 to a later 
 period than that to which it would naturally be 
 
 ^ That the use of 5*5^1 ('create') here does not fix the act spoken 
 of to be a primal one, is evident from such passages as Gen. i. -21, 
 27; Is. xlv. 7; which, if this view were taken, would require us to 
 regard 'darkness', 'evil', 'sea-monsters', and 'man' as belonging 
 to the earliest stage of creation ! There does not seem, indeed, in 
 Hebrew usage to be any sharp distinction between 'create' and 
 'make', 'form', &c. when used of God. 
 
62 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 referred by an unprejudiced reader, further argu- 
 ment might seem to be unnecessary. Considering, 
 however, the importance of the subject, it may be 
 well to glance briefly at three additional reasons 
 which may be adduced for adopting this natural 
 construction as the true one. 
 
 1st. The manner in which the second verse is 
 linked on to the first is not such as to suggest 
 the idea of a space between them, but rather the 
 contrary. Wherever elsewhere in the chapter one 
 event or state of things is described as succeeding 
 another, the verb is invariably placed first, in order 
 that the sequence of the several acts and changes 
 narrated may have especial prominence. The 
 force of this mode of narration may be repre- 
 sented by the following modified translation of a 
 short passage, ver. 3 — 5, " Then said God, Let 
 there be light. Then was there light. Then saw 
 God the light, that it was good. Then divided 
 God the light from the darkness. Then called 
 God the light day, and the darkness He called 
 night. Then was there evening. Then was there 
 morning; one day." Such a rendering no doubt, 
 by its substitution of 'then' for ' and', exaggerates 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 6^ 
 
 the force of the construction not a little ; nor is 
 it intended to assert for an instant that wherever 
 it is employed, temporal sequence is thereby im- 
 plied. All that is alleged is this: that wherever in 
 this narrative of creation a sequence in time is 
 described, this construction is invariably adopted, 
 as being the most suited to give prominence to 
 such an idea. The cases in which a different 
 mode of construction is employed (i.e. the con- 
 junction and noun placed first, the verb second) 
 are (i) the second clauses in the account of the 
 naming of Day and Night, and of Land and Seas, 
 these double namings being regarded not as con- 
 secutive but simultaneous, (ii) the clause 'male 
 and female He created them', which is explana- 
 tory of, and so in like manner simultaneous with, 
 the immediately preceding one; and (iii) the state- 
 ment in verse 2, which runs, not 'then was the 
 earth', but 'and the earth was'. No reason can 
 be assigned for this last exception, unless it be 
 that the writer desired to mark this statement as 
 referring to the same time as that spoken of in 
 ver. I. Had he meant in ver. 2 to describe a con- 
 dition into which the earth passed subsequently to 
 
64 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 its original creation, he would surely have used 
 the same construction as that which he invariably 
 does further on, when consecutive events and con- 
 ditions are denoted^ 
 
 2nd. No one who attentively reads the de- 
 scription itself can fail to see that in every par- 
 ticular it has reference to what is to follow, not 
 to anything that may possibly have gone before. 
 Thus 'empty and desolate' is contrasted with 
 the fulness and order about to come, 'darkness' 
 with the light, ''the deep' with the divided waters 
 and dryland; while the 'hovering' of 'the Spirit 
 of God' is the natural preliminary to the crea- 
 tion of life. Of any previous order, fulness, light, 
 or land, we read nothing. 
 
 3rd. On this point we have not only the clear 
 language of Genesis, but the if possible still more 
 conclusive words in the fourth commandment, 
 whose importance as an authoritative re-statement 
 of the main outlines of the cosmogony none will 
 
 ^ The strict connection of verse 2 with verse i, without any 
 break between, is the view taken by Benisch, De Wette, Kalisch, 
 Tuch, Knobel, and Keil. The contrary is maintained by Delitzsch, 
 Kurtz, and Pusey. 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 65 
 
 dispute. Here it is stated categorically, " In six 
 days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the 
 sea, and all that is in them" (Ex. xx. 11); and, 
 again, '' In six days Jehovah made the heavens 
 and the earth" (Ex, xxxi. 17). Anything more 
 precise than this can hardly be imagined. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that in the six-days' 
 work is to be included the entire history of crea- 
 tion as given in the cosmogony, from the first 
 verse to the last. This point being settled, we 
 turn now to the second question, Is the word 
 May' to be taken here in its ordinary sense, or 
 otherwise.'* If the word May' be used of a period 
 of time, we find in Scripture, as everywhere else, 
 but two meanings which can be assigned to it — a 
 period of twenty-four hours, or a period of twelve. 
 
 True, occasionally in prophecy days are made 
 the symbols of longer periods, as years (e.g. Ezek. 
 iv. 4 — 6) ; but this in no way affects the question 
 at issue, since (i) the natural sense of 'day' is not 
 even here in the least put aside, but merely used 
 as a type or emblem of something else; and (2) 
 the cosmogony is not a symbolical prophecy, but 
 an historical narrative. 
 
 w. 5 
 
65 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 True, further, that not unfrequently ' day ' is 
 used in a loose, indefinite sense, as in the phrases 
 * day of judgment', 'day of the Lord', &c. This 
 also, however, is useless for our present purpose, 
 since we have not in these phrases really any 
 longer or different period of duration spoken of, 
 but rather the whole idea of duration put out of 
 sight, and 'day' used merely in the sense of 
 epoch, as is evident from the fact that in such 
 expressions we can invariably substitute a differ- 
 ent term, as 'hour', or a general term, as 'time', 
 without in the least affecting the sense. In this 
 way we may speak of 'the day of creation', as, 
 indeed, is done in Gen. ii. 4, v. 1 ; but this plainly 
 means no more than 'the time when God created', 
 the duration of this time being wholly left out of 
 account. But that the six days are not; to be thus 
 taken is evident, — (i) from their being successive 
 days, following one another in an orderly and 
 natural manner; (2) from the mention of 'even- 
 ing' and ' morning' as constituting the conclud- 
 ing portion of each; and (3) from their being in 
 the fourth commandment paralleled with the days 
 of human toil, which unquestionably are periods of 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 6/ 
 
 definite duration, and unquestionably of twenty- 
 four hours' length. The notion, therefore, advo- 
 cated by some that the word here translated 'day' 
 is to be taken as intended to denote a period of 
 long duration, must be met by the counter-asser- 
 tion that nowhere in Scripture or elsewhere has 
 the word 'day' any such significance. To as- 
 sume such a meaning merely to get over difficul- 
 ties is unwarrantable. 
 
 Are we, then, to conclude that it was the inten- 
 tion of the cosmogony to teach us that in six lite- 
 ral days of twenty-four hours each the whole of 
 creation was accomplished, from beginning to end.'* 
 Surely not. The description given us of creation 
 certainly speaks of 'days', and these days are, as 
 we have seen, without doubt literal days, and not 
 long or indefinite periods. It by no means follows, 
 however, that because the description speaks of 
 literal days, therefore the realities thus described 
 were also days. Such a doctrine would be wholly 
 foreign to the spirit and design observable through- 
 out. This may seem a somewhat paradoxical as- 
 sertion, but a little consideration will show that 
 the paradox exists only in appearance. 
 
 5—2 
 
68 THE WEEK OF CREATION, 
 
 The. 'days' of the description are ordinary 
 human days; the 'days' of the reality were Divine 
 days. Now, upon what principle does all Scrip- 
 tural description of God's being and God's acts 
 proceed? It is upon that of accommodation. 
 Human members, human feelings, human actions, 
 are freely attributed to God, though literally most 
 incongruous, just because in no other way could 
 the human mind grasp the reality of that which 
 was intended. To speak under the imagery of 
 such ideas was no doubt to speak most inade- 
 quately and inaccurately, but at least the kind of 
 notion was engendered which was required, and 
 it was felt as a real thing. To have spoken ab- 
 stractedly might have been theoretically more cor- 
 rect, but it would have been practically far more 
 inadequate and faulty, because not only would the 
 notions conveyed have been far more misty, but 
 especially the all-important element of reality 
 would have been wanting. The former method, 
 therefore, rather than the latter, is that invariably 
 adopted (of course, carefully guarded against mis- 
 conception) by Scripture. Now, what effect has 
 this upon interpretation.^ When we come to such 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 69 
 
 expressions as 'God's arm', 'God's eye', 'God's , 
 mouth', how do we deal with them? We assign 
 no new sense to the words themselves; 'arm' 
 as much means arm, 'eye' eye, 'mouth' mouth, 
 here as anywhere else. But we say that while the 
 words are to be taken in their literal sense, the' 
 ideas they convey are yet not to be pressed lite- 
 rally, but only by Avay of accommodation. These 
 .terms, 'arm', 'eye', 'mouth', are the best human 
 representatives of the Divine realities denoted; 
 their fitness as such representatives depending upon 
 their relation literally to man being similar in kind 
 to the relation of these Divine realities to God. 
 So in exactly the same way we treat such state- 
 ments as that ' God went down to see', that 'God 
 smelled a sweet savour', or that 'God repented'. 
 We do not say that 'go down' means anything 
 but go down, or ' smell' anything but smell, or 
 ' repent' anything but repent. Yet we do not 
 ascribe any one of these actions literally to God, 
 but we assert that there were actions of God hav- 
 ing the like relation to His nature, which these 
 actions, taken literally, have to our nature. The 
 natures are widely different, and therefore the 
 
70 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 parallelism must not be pressed too closely, but 
 still it remains the truest representation of the 
 actual verity which the imperfection of human 
 thought will allow of. 
 
 Wherever, then, a description is given of an 
 action or attribute of God, in language drawn 
 from actions or attributes of men, this rule is 
 to be applied: — the description is to be taken in 
 its natural, ordinary sense, but its relation to the 
 reality is simply that of being the truest accom- 
 modative i'epresentation which the human mind 
 was capable, on the whole, of receiving. 
 
 Now that upon this principle of representative 
 description the entire cosmogony is constructed, 
 is abundantly evident. As already noticed, when 
 we are told that God created by word-of-com- 
 mand, we do not understand by this a literal 
 utterance of audible words, but we understand that 
 the power or influence by which He created was 
 not a physical or material one, but a spiritual 
 or moral one, of which the fittest representative 
 was the human word-of-command. So when we 
 are told that God gave names, or commissions, 
 to certain members of His universe, we do not 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 7 1 
 
 take that to mean a literal bestowing of verbal 
 titles, or an actual spoken address, but we take 
 it to mean a defining of character, office, or mis- 
 sion, answering in His sphere to what the giving 
 of names and commissions would be among men. 
 So, again, when we are told that God ' made ' 
 things, or that having made them He afterwards 
 'beheld' and 'blessed' them, we do not sup- 
 pose that His fashioning, inspection, or approval, 
 were the same v/ith what a man's would be, but 
 only sufficiently like in their relation to be repre- 
 sentatively described under these terms. So, once 
 more, when we come hereafter to speak of God's 
 rest at the end of His work, variously described 
 in Scripture as 'leaving off' [TW , Gen. ii. 2, 3), 
 'sitting down' (HIJ, Ex. xx. 11), and 'taking 
 breath' {t^^^, Ex. xxxi. 17), will not every one 
 at once concede that such expressions, too, are 
 only true of God by accommodation } 
 
 In every one of these cases, it will be observed, 
 precisely the same principle of interpretation is 
 followed as that laid down above. In no instance 
 is the natural, ordinary meaning of the words 
 describing God's acts in the least degree tampered 
 
72 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 with ; ' said ', * called ', ' made ', * saw ', ' blessed ', 
 'rested', are all taken in their usual sense, and 
 none other ; but it is insisted that they are one 
 and all representative descriptions, drawn from 
 human analogies ; to press which literally, as exact 
 statements of what God really did, w^ould be alto- 
 gether unwarrantable. 
 
 If, then, this be the principle on \vhich God's 
 acts and attributes are universally spoken of in 
 Scripture ; if it be the principle on which the 
 whole of this very passage is constructed, — is it 
 not also the principle, rather than that of literal 
 force, on which we should interpret the word 
 * day ' ? When in the cosmogony we read of six 
 days, we have surely no more right to suppose 
 from this that in these literal periods God actually 
 created all things, than we have to suppose that 
 He literally spoke, named, or rested ; but we are 
 to understand that He created all things in such 
 periods of time as might to man's finite mind be 
 most fitly represented by six days. The whole 
 history then is at unity with itself, being all con- 
 structed on the same plan. Did man wish to 
 know how God created i^ — he had the imasfe in 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 73 
 
 his own command over his immediate servants. 
 Did he wish to know how God regarded His 
 creation ? — he had the image in his own satisfied / 
 inspection of some finished work. Did he wish to 
 know what God did after creation? — he had the 
 image in his own repose after toil. Did he wish 
 to know Jiow long God took to create.? — he had 
 the image in one of his own week's labours. Vast 
 as the universe was, and various as were its in- 
 habitants, he was to regard it as being to God 
 no greater task, no longer or more arduous labour, 
 than a week's work to himself. A single week ! — 
 let him choose out the very busiest week he had 
 ever known, the week employed about the most 
 momentous work he had ever been engaged upon, 
 and how small and insignificant it seemed com- 
 pared with the work and capabilities of his whole 
 life ! Just so, he was to believe, might God look 
 back upon the creation of the universe, as a small 
 and insignificant labour, just one among thou- 
 sands, when compared with the work and the 
 powers of His whole life-time. 
 
 This, then, is the doctrine of the cosmogony 
 in regard to time. No positive information as to 
 
74 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 the actual time, such as might satisfy men's curi- 
 osity ; no hint as to whether it were in itself long 
 or short, a million of ages or a few hours ; but 
 only a vivid picture of the relation in which that 
 time stood towards the whole time of God's being, 
 such as might elevate man's conception of his 
 Maker's greatness. 
 
 Further, if need be, to establish this view 
 of the six-days' work as the true one, we may 
 notice — 
 
 1st. That it is the only one which makes 
 these days of creation the embodiment of a theo- 
 logical principle. To be told that in six literal 
 periods of a particular length God made the world, 
 would be simply to gain a new fact in Natural 
 science. The time of creation would be brought 
 within man's comprehension, for he could compare 
 it with other measures of time, as e. g. of his own 
 life, or of known human history. He would, in 
 other words, know exactly what the time of crea- 
 tion was in relation to himself. But of its rela- 
 tion to God he would know nothing. Whether to 
 Him the time were long or short he could only 
 (on this view) know from information derived else- 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 75 
 
 where as to how long God's life was. In a word, 
 so far from the cosmogony enlightening men In 
 Natural theology, it would need (on this view) 
 that men should first be instructed in theology 
 from other sources before the theological import 
 of one of its most striking features could be in 
 the least perceived. Now had the object of this 
 history been to teach science, this would have 
 been in no way surprising. But we have seen that 
 its object was not to teach science, but theology 
 (p. 23 — 26). If then the literal view of the six 
 days be adopted, they at once become an excep- 
 tion to this, since they teach no theology but only 
 science. The view taken above, however, that they 
 represent the relation between the time of crea- 
 tion and God's whole life\ does assign to them 
 a theological import, rather than a scientific one. 
 The six days of creation, thus understood, convey 
 to men no new fact in science whatever ; they 
 
 ^ Of course the representation is inadequate, since no fragment, 
 however small, of a finite life could be so insignificant in its relation 
 to that life, as the vastest period is in relation to eternity. This 
 kind of inadequacy however is common to all such anthropomorphic 
 figures, and is hence no valid objection to the interpretation ad- 
 vocated. 
 
76 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 simply embody a principle of Natural theology 
 such as men could in no other way have arrived 
 at. On this ground also, then, must this view 
 of their significance be regarded as much the most 
 probable. 
 
 2nd. Not only does this view leave untouched 
 the parallelism insisted on in the fourth com- 
 mandment between the days of creation and the 
 days of man's labour, but it makes it even truer 
 and fuller than on the literal view. * Days ' are 
 not the only things thus paralleled, but also 
 'work' and 'rest'. That in the two latter items 
 the comparison is of an accommodative character, 
 none will deny : God's ' work ' is not the same 
 thing as man's work, nor His ' rest ' the same as 
 man's rest. If, then, the 'days' of work and rest 
 are yet insisted on as identical in both cases, it 
 is plain that the parallel halts ; since why, amidst 
 such difference in the character of occupation, 
 should the same absolute limits of time be ob- 
 served by both parties t But if ' days ' are also 
 representative terms, on the same scale as * work ' 
 and 'rest', then the parallel is perfect, since all 
 alike denote Divine realities, answering to human 
 
THE TEACHING OE THE COSMOGONY. 77 
 
 ones in precisely the same manner. As truly as 
 God's work is similar to our work, and His rest 
 to our rest, so are His days to our days. We 
 can and ought to copy Him, because, although 
 the actual character of each of these items is dif- 
 ferent in Him from what they are in us, yet the 
 relation which each bears to the other (the essen- 
 tial point of the parallel) is the same. 
 
 So far, then, as the principle of the matter 
 goes ; so far as the design of the cosmogony is 
 concerned ; so far as its use in the fourth com- 
 mandment bears witness, the testimony of all is 
 strongly in favour of the representative view of 
 'day' rather than the literal. One thing more 
 only can be demanded before this view be finally 
 accepted as established. If what has been urged 
 is sound, it ought to follow that in this representa- 
 tive sense was the expression actually taken by 
 those for whom the cosmogony was originally in- 
 tended, i.e. those unacquainted with and unbiassed 
 by the discoveries of science. Evidence that it 
 was so taken appears in several ways. 
 
 Thus (i) the principle insisted on, that human 
 measures of time when applied to God are only 
 
78 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 representative, was one which the Biblical writers 
 were quite familiar with. We may cite three pas- 
 sages by way of illustration — 
 
 Job X. 4, 5. " Hast Thou eyes of flesh, or seest 
 Thou as men see ? Are Thy days as man's days, 
 or Thy years as the days of man ? " 
 
 Ps. xc. 4. "A thousand years in Thine eyes 
 are as yesterday when it is passed, and as a watch 
 in the night." 
 
 2 Pet. iii. 8. " One day with the Lord is as 
 a thousand years, and a thousand years as one 
 day." 
 
 Of these, the first passage is remarkable as 
 placing 'days' and 'years' on precisely the same 
 footing in their application to God, as 'eyes' and 
 * seeing'. Every one admits that the latter are 
 representative terms. In the same manner, plainly, 
 did Job regard the former also. The other two 
 passages tell us how differently the same periods 
 of time look when viewed by man, and viewed 
 by God. An event which seems to us enormously 
 distant, seems to God but as a thing of yesterday\ 
 
 ^ That there is no special relation intended by the Psalmist 
 between a day and thousand years, as some might hastily imagine, 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 79 
 
 And so too when He speaks of the future, that 
 which He says shall come 'quickly' may be 
 thousands of years hence, so different is the rela- 
 tion of such periods of time to God and to us. 
 To men impressed with such ideas there could 
 be no difficulty in rightly apprehending the * days ' 
 of the cosmogony. 
 
 (ii) If such a view of the six days were not 
 current, it is difficult to account for the refer- 
 ences in Scripture to creation as so exceedingly 
 ancient. Look, for example, at such passages as 
 Ps. xc. 2, or Prov. viii. 22 — 26, where the eter- 
 nity of God and His Wisdom is enforced by the 
 statement that They existed "before the moun- 
 tains were brought forth, or ever the earth or 
 the world was made", &c. On the literal view of 
 the creative week the mountains were simply tivo 
 days older.) the whole universe but five days older 
 than the hum-an race. Yet who does not feel that 
 to substitute *man', for 'mountains' or 'world', 
 in such passages, would have been, in the mind 
 of the writers, a change which emptied them of 
 
 is evident from the second clause of his sentence, where the same 
 period is compared with a fraction of a single night. 
 
8o THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 all their force ? Is it not clear, then, that in thus 
 looking back to the creation of Natural objects, 
 as to a time of great antiquity, the Biblical writers 
 were not thinking merely of the three or four thou- 
 sand years which their chronology assigned to 
 man's existence on the earth, but of some far 
 longer and anterior period with which man had 
 nothing whatever to do ? Yet, in the face of the 
 record of Genesis, how could they have done this 
 except by regarding its days as representative, 
 not literal ? 
 
 (iii) The traditions of the cosmogony which 
 have been found among other nations, afford the 
 clearest of all testimonies to this view. In most 
 of them, indeed, the element of time has totally 
 disappeared ; but in those in which it has been 
 preserved the evidence for the representative sense 
 of the six days is very striking. One tradition 
 only, the Indian, has any mention of * days ' in its 
 account of creation. During 360 days, or one year, 
 it says, Brahman lay concealed within the world- 
 egg, ere he split it in two and formed of its two 
 halves heaven and earth. But what are these 
 days } The same tradition tells us that Brahman's 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 8 1 
 
 days are not days of 24 hours each, but are equal 
 each of them to 12,000,000 years. Such was the 
 Hindu conception of the meaning of a human 
 measure of time as apphed to God. Such their 
 idea of how long time one stage of creation was 
 parted from the next. Yet they still, be it ob- 
 served, spoke of these enormous periods under the 
 term * days'. Still more to the point, though in 
 a different way, are the traditions of Persia and 
 Etruria. Here we have the whole of creation 
 parcelled out into six stages, taking place in six 
 equal and consecutive periods of time ; the scope 
 and order of these stages being closely similar to 
 that of Genesis. Here, then, if anywhere, should 
 we expect to find literal days spoken of, if in 
 this sense was the primitive cosmogony understood 
 by those of old. But what do we find } Not 
 days, but six successive 1000 years, each of which 
 answers in character to a ' day ' in Genesis. 
 
 Nothing can be plainer than this testimony. 
 The days of creation were felt by ancient nations, 
 knowing nothing of geology or scientific difii- 
 culties of any kind, to be but representative 
 terms, really indicative of far longer periods. They 
 w. 6 
 
S2 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 could only have felt this from the principle of 
 the representative character of such human terms 
 as applied to God having been, at least at first, 
 so thoroughly familiar as to need no explanation 
 to make it apparent. But if so, then doubtless 
 after this manner were the days understood by 
 all those for whom the cosmogony was originally 
 designed. 
 
 It seemed necessary to go thus fully into the 
 principle and evidence of the view here advocated, 
 from the immense confusion of opinion which has 
 hitherto prevailed upon this question of the time 
 of creation, and the perpetual conflict in which 
 what is thought by one or another to be the 
 doctrine of the cosmogony is brought with the 
 discoveries and conclusions of modern science. 
 It is the old story over again, — men have put 
 their theories in regard to Scripture in the place 
 of its real teaching, and then are alarmed and 
 angry to find them opposed to the plain witness 
 of facts. The narrative has been twisted and 
 turned, this way and that, to make it harmonize 
 with science, but still discord has reigned trium- 
 phant. Interpretations have been altered, science 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 83 
 
 abused, science perverted, and still no better 
 result. And no wonder, since all this while it 
 was not the Bible that was clashing with science, 
 but the mistaken fancies of exegetical theorists. 
 Putting these aside, and getting back at last to 
 what has been shown to be the simple original 
 meaning of the passage itself, what becomes of 
 this much-vaunted contradiction between Genesis 
 and geology t It has dissolved into thin air, and 
 vanished altogether. A contradiction between 
 Genesis and geology in regard to the time of 
 creation is simply impossible. Their teaching on 
 this head is so essentially distinct in character, 
 that they cannot even come in contact. What- 
 ever science may discover or conclude is of neces- 
 sity limited to time as related to man, as measured 
 by human standards ; and of this the record of 
 Genesis tells us nothing. What it does tell us 
 is the time of creation in its relation to God ; a 
 point completely beyond the domain of science, 
 on which it is impossible that science should 
 ever tell us anything. One thing only science 
 can do, which in the least affects this doctrine 
 of the cosmogony in regard to time ; — by the 
 
 6—2 
 
84 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 help of science we may obtain a truer conception 
 of the real dimensions and marvellous constitu- 
 tion of the universe, a truer idea of the enormous 
 lapse of time during which it was being elabo- 
 rated to its present pitch of perfection ; thus ob- 
 taining also (what is of far greater importance) a 
 truer view of the nature of His eternal greatness 
 to whom the whole of this vast v/ork seemed 
 but as one week's labour! The same lesson as 
 before, but taught upon a grander scale, and with 
 a keener force. 
 
 8. God's rest, — The work of creation is not 
 carried on continuously, nor is it carried on for 
 ever, — there are pauses, and there is a final rest. 
 We might have expected to have heard that when 
 God called forth the light to shine upon the dreary 
 abyss of waters, He would proceed at once to the 
 next step in creation, and so on. But no. He 
 pauses ; * evening ' comes, the work is suspend- 
 ed ; and not until ' morning ' also comes, closing 
 the first day by ushering in a second, is the work 
 resumed. Creation is advanced another stage, 
 then another pause ensues ; again * evening ' comes, 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 85 
 
 and again ' morning ' comes, before the third day's 
 work begins \ So it goes on until the end, when 
 in addition to the nightly pause there comes a 
 whole day's rest, holy and blessed. What mean- 
 
 ^ This would seem to be the true meaning of the six times 
 reiterated clause, "And there was evening, and there was morning." 
 The A. V. indeed, by its mistranslation "the evening and the 
 morning were" &c., represents these as constituting the day just 
 described; which, however, makes their mention meaningless and 
 inexplicable, and would also require, if true, not "evening and 
 morning," but "night and day." The only place in Scripture 
 where evening and morning appear to be spoken of as making up 
 the whole day is Dan. viii. 14, where, however, the reference is not 
 to days simply, but to the daily sacrifice, which was offered every 
 evening and morning. To say that sacrifice should be suspended 
 for 2,300 "evening-mornings" was hence a natural expression for 
 2,300 days. But no such explanation manifestly can be given for 
 the use of such a periphrasis here in Genesis. The main points to 
 be observed, however, as decisive of the whole question, are (i) 
 that the verb is invariably inserted twice — ' ' there was evening, and 
 there was morning; a second day," &c.; and (2) that this verb is 
 the very same, and in precisely the same form i^'^'^S) as is used 
 throughout the chapter to describe the successive events of creation. 
 "There was light" and "there was evening" are precisely parallel 
 expressions ; and just as the first requires us to regard the light as 
 coming after the command which called it forth, so does the second 
 require us to regard the evening as coming after the light, the 
 morning after the evening, and the day therefore as not complete 
 until both evening and morning had thus sticceeded the creative acts 
 previously described. Nothing but a nightly rest, then, bounded in 
 this way by evening and morning, will satisfy the plain requirements 
 of the language. 
 
S6 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 ing now are we to assign to these successive rests ? 
 That they are introduced merely as a sort of 
 framework to the narrative, a necessary appendage 
 to the six days' work, is most improbable. Rather 
 may we expect to find them, like every other 
 detail in the cosmogony, embodiments and visible 
 manifestations of principles of Natural theology. 
 Nor when we examine them carefully is there 
 much difficulty in discerning what these under- 
 lying principles are, for the sake of which they 
 are introduced. These rests express, in fact, the 
 results now apparent in Nature of those principles 
 of creation already considered — independence, go- 
 vernment by law, gradual development, and sub- 
 ordination. Thus, first, of independence. The act 
 of creation is an act done once for all ; the crea- 
 ture once made, though still in a certain sense de- 
 pendent, yet exists henceforth quite distinct from 
 its Creator. But, secondly, mere existence is not 
 all. Every creature has besides some work as- 
 signed to it, to ensure the performance of which 
 a law has been imposed upon it, to be observed 
 not now only, but always ; to which also all its 
 parts and faculties are exactly adapted. Creation, 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 8/ 
 
 then, once accomplished, the law once given, and 
 the Creator not only may, but plainly must, so 
 far as that item of His work is concerned, rest. 
 As Ruler and Sustainer He doubtless works al- 
 ways, but as Creator — the only view of God here 
 regarded — His work is of such a character that 
 He works once only, and then rests. This is the 
 fundamental idea to be set forth. Since now, 
 thirdly, it is a principle of Divine action to create 
 gradually, step by step, it follows at once that 
 each of these steps of creation must be succeeded 
 by a corresponding rest. To represent which idea 
 adequately it was manifestly necessary that as 
 there were six stages of progress, six days of 
 work, so there should be also six pauses, six 
 nights of rest. Since, lastly, it is the crowning 
 principle of all to subordinate member to member 
 in such a manner that to man shall be com- 
 mitted the dominion of the earth and all things 
 in it, it follows that directly this system of organ- 
 ization is complete there succeeds not only the 
 proper rest consequent upon the particular act 
 of creation last accomphshed, but also a final 
 and lasting rest belonging to the whole — an idea 
 
88 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 represented in the cosmogony by the sabbath, a 
 day on which no work is done, because all is 
 finished and complete. This seventh day is pro- 
 nounced to be blessed and holy, because in it 
 God rests from all His work. A most important 
 point. For, observe, God does not rest because 
 the day is holy, but the day is holy because in 
 it God rests. It is the peculiar character of the 
 rest that makes the day blessed. And what is 
 the peculiarity of this rest } It is a rest, not only 
 from work ended, as before, but from work per- 
 fected, from work so perfected as to" need no 
 further addition or interference from the worker's 
 hand. Since, now, such perfect work belongs in 
 native right to God only, and none else, so the 
 rest which that perfection brings is also His 
 peculiarly, and is hence fitly called holy and 
 blessed, — holy and blessed just because it is 
 Divine, the perfect rest resulting from perfect 
 labour. 
 
 But the teaching does not stop here. It is 
 not merely that men are to regard God's work 
 as of this perfect character, both in its several 
 parts and as a whole ; they are in this not only 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 89 
 
 to learn, but to imitate. In condescension to man's 
 weakness God represents His work of creation 
 under the image of a week's labour. Man now 
 is to rise to the likeness of his Creator, and 
 make his real weeks' labours like the picture of 
 his God's. He is not to be an idle occupier of 
 the earth, but he is to 'work', to work 'six days', 
 and so to work that in each recurring- six days 
 he may " do all that he has to do " ; and then 
 on the seventh day let him enjoy a hallowed 
 blessed 'rest', a rest the more like God's, the 
 more truly his work during the week has been 
 after God's pattern, thorough, wise, and good. 
 Here then we have the final reason why crea- 
 tion is described as a six-days' work. The adop- 
 tion of some such representative term, to convey 
 the doctrine intended as to the time of creation, 
 was based, as we have seen, upon other grounds. 
 But the insignificance of the time of creation 
 might have been taught as well by the figure of 
 any short period, by some indeed more forcibly 
 than by that in fact adopted. This, therefore, 
 does not fully account for the six days. When, 
 however, we add to this that God designed to 
 
90 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 teach men, by the account of His work and rest, 
 how tJicy were to work and rest ; holding Himself 
 up as a model, that they might spend their time 
 as He spent His ; — when we see this also, then 
 the whole thing is clear. God knew that if man 
 did thus labour as He would have him, six days 
 of toil was as much as he could bear at once. 
 That both toil and rest, then, might be sanctified, 
 God would have both done, not only under His 
 approval, but after His pattern, that so whether 
 working or resting man might do all looking up 
 to Him as his guide, his aim, his end. Man was 
 to copy God ; and that he might the better do so, 
 God drew the pattern in such figures as, being 
 themselves well adapted for the teaching intrin- 
 sically involved in them, had besides this further 
 advantage, that they placed the desired imita- 
 tion in the clearest and simplest light possible. 
 
 It would be interesting to pursue this subject 
 into its farther and closely related stages of the 
 Christian ' Lord's day ' and the ' keeping of sab- 
 bath ' yet in store for God's people hereafter ; but 
 to do this would be to wander from the cosmo- 
 gony. We return therefore once more to the ques- 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. QI 
 
 tion, What has science to say to this doctrine of 
 God's rest ? 
 
 The fact of God being at the present time 
 resting from creation, is one to which science 
 abundantly testifies. Minutely as she may ex- 
 amine Nature, whether animate or inanimate, no 
 trace of creation as a process now going on can 
 she anywhere detect. Changes, transformations, 
 developments, reproductions, there may be in a- 
 bundance, but no creation. Creative force is not 
 now in action. It can only be inferred from its 
 results. No other token of its existence is per- 
 ceptible. The Creator is resting. Nor does science 
 stop here, but boldly comes forward with a reason 
 for this inactivity. There is no need for creative 
 power (she says), for all things in the universe 
 are so constituted, so governed by law, so fitted 
 into one another, that by mutual action and re- 
 action the whole machinery of the world is kept 
 in unceasing motion, (to all appearance) self-guided, 
 self-adjusted, self-energised \ The wonderful spec- 
 
 ^ "There is no Thing produced, no event happening, in the 
 known universe, which is not connected by an uniformity, or in- 
 variable sequence with some one or more of the phenomena which 
 
92 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 tacle thus presented has afforded a pretext to some 
 to deny that there is any Creator at all. The 
 world exists and goes on without one, — why may 
 it not always have done so ? Neither the question 
 thus put, nor the answer by which it must be 
 met, are- properly any part of demonstrative 
 science, and need not therefore be here discussed. 
 Two remarks only shall be made. First, in the 
 analogical case of man's works the principle here 
 contended for certainly does not hold good. A 
 watch is a wonderful piece of mechanism, but it 
 requires constantly winding up. Could man make 
 a watch that should be ever winding itself up as 
 fast as it ran down, would this be considered an 
 article less evidently the result of skilled work- 
 manship than an ordinary dial } Would it not 
 rather be considered to involve proof of far greater 
 and more perfect skill 1 Just so the universe, ever 
 
 preceded it These antecedent phenomena, again, were con- 
 nected in a similar manner with some that preceded them ; and so 
 on, until we reach, as the ultimate step attainable by us, either the 
 properties of some one primeval cause, or the conjunction of several. 
 The whole of the phenomena of nature were therefore the necessary, 
 or in other words, the unconditional consequences of some former 
 collocation of the Permanent Causes." J. S. Mill, Logic, 7th ed. 
 1868. in. 5, § 7- 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 93 
 
 returning on and (apparently) sustaining itself, is 
 intuitively felt to be a greater evidence of creative 
 power and wisdom than it would have been if so 
 constituted as perpetually to need its Creator's 
 interfering hand to keep it in action. Secondly, 
 had the case been indeed thus, and the world 
 been less (apparently) self-reliant than it is, the 
 doctrine of the cosmogony would have been proved 
 false ; for the rest into which God entered at the 
 close of creation would have been shown to be 
 not final, not lasting, not perfect. As it is, science 
 in this very doctrine, which has been hailed by 
 some as getting rid of the Creator altogether, has 
 but borne a powerful, though unknowing, testi- 
 mony to the Scriptural truth of the perfection of 
 that creation which such have thought to ignore. 
 The Creator has rested from His work and does 
 rest, and His rest is not only the cessation from 
 labour ended, but the satisfied beholding of a 
 perfected design ; a sabbatical rest, holy and 
 blessed. 
 
 It is needless to summarize the results of this 
 comparison in respect to principles. The concord 
 of science and Scripture throughout, wherever they 
 
94 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 come in contact, has been too self-evident to re- 
 quire further insisting on. We proceed, therefore, 
 at once to our second question — 
 
 II. What are the facts in creation alleged in 
 connection with these principles, and how do they 
 agree with those discovered by Natural science } 
 
 These facts being for the most part simply 
 the ordinary phenomena of Nature familiar to 
 every one (pp. 27, 28), we cannot expect to find 
 much to compare with science under this head, 
 except in regard to two points. 
 
 (i) It is asserted in the cosmogony that the 
 objects and phenomena which constitute the world 
 of Nature made their appearance in a particular 
 order. Is this order in accordance with what 
 science has discovered from her researches into 
 the past history of the world, or would regard as 
 probable from her knowledge of the relation in 
 which the different members of the universe stand 
 to each other } 
 
 (2) The history of Genesis separates these 
 objects and phenomena into distinct groups, which 
 are represented as arising from distinct and sue- 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 95 
 
 cesslve creative impulses. Are these groups of 
 such a character as to make the existence of a 
 distinct impulse for each scientifically credible ? 
 
 These are the two main inquiries now before us. 
 The relation of the two to each other is so close that 
 we shall best consider them together. The order of 
 the cosmogony is not merely an order of appear- 
 ances, but rather an order of impulses which 
 gave rise to appearances. Each of these impulses 
 may be regarded as equivalent to what would 
 be called in scientific language the introduction 
 of a new force or principle, which at its intro- 
 duction would at once give rise to certain before 
 unknown efi'ects, yet whose action would by no 
 means be limited to these immediate results, but 
 which would go on producing other and similar 
 effects so long as it continued at work. That this 
 is the view of the narrative of Genesis is easily 
 seen. The Natural objects whose creation it de- 
 scribes are those which are familiar to every one. 
 But the objects actually seen by men now are 
 certainly not as a rule the very same as those 
 originally created. The animals, for example, and 
 plants, which men now see, are not the same in- 
 
96 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 dividuals as those first created. What then does 
 the narrative really teach about these individuals 
 now present ? It describes, not their own crea- 
 tion, but the creation of their progenitors. That 
 is, it describes the introduction of such an impulse 
 into the universe as not only then and there led 
 to the ' bringing forth ' of living beings, but which 
 also ever after kept up this ' bringing forth ', and 
 would continue to do so as long as God's provi- 
 dence should allow it to work. The new step in 
 creation marked by the appearance of each group 
 of living beings was of such a character as to 
 ensure, without fresh creative impulse, the con- 
 tinued production of similar results in time to 
 come. So also doubtless are we to regard all 
 the stages of the cosmogony. When, for example, 
 it speaks of the creation of land and seas, it no 
 more follows that these were the same land 
 and seas with which we are now acquainted, than 
 it follows that when birds are spoken of, these 
 were the same birds which we now see in the 
 heavens. Indeed, the changes which are known 
 historically to have taken place in the limits of 
 sea and land, assure us that this is not the case. 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 9/ 
 
 What we are to understand is that at a parti- 
 cular stage of creation an impulse was given, a 
 force or principle introduced, which led to the 
 appearance of land, and that to this same im- 
 pulse, force, or principle, in its further working, 
 is the existence of land ever since to be ascribed. 
 In looking for scientific evidence confirmatory or 
 otherwise of the order of creation given in Gene- 
 sis, we have to be careful, then, of two things, 
 (i) We have to seek, not for the occurrence of the 
 same objects and phenomena as those now ex- 
 isting, but for their like ; such, that is, as would 
 naturally arise from the working of the same 
 cause, it may be under very different circum- 
 stances, (ii) We have to seek, not for the great- 
 est development of each class of objects or phe- 
 nomena, but for the first development ; since that 
 is the true mark of the introduction of the cause. 
 That the first development should be also the 
 greatest has no probability in its favour, but 
 rather the contrary. To suppose, as some have 
 done, that the epoch of the first introduction of 
 plants, for example, must have been marked by 
 their occurrence in the greatest number, is as 
 w. 7 
 
THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 unreasonable as to suppose that the epoch of the 
 first appearance of land must have been marked 
 by its appearance to the greatest extent. The 
 analogy of the single pair, in the case of man, 
 would rather lead us to suppose the beginning in 
 each case to have been small and insifjnificant. 
 
 We now proceed to the examination of this 
 order of impulses in detail. 
 
 I. The first action ascribed to God after the 
 original creation of 'the heavens and the earth', is 
 the * hovering' of His Spirit 'upon the face of the 
 waters'. As no special result is attributed to this 
 * hovering' in the narrative, it is probably to be 
 regarded as a general diffused influence lasting 
 throughout the whole period of creation, and ena- 
 bling the earth to 'bring forth' at His commands, 
 rather than as a particular creative impulse. The 
 first impulse, then, which demands attention is 
 that resulting in the creation of ligJit. By this 
 Might' we are of course not to understand light in 
 its technical scientific sense, as distinguished from 
 heat, but rather in its ordinary popular sense as 
 including heat; such light in fact as we meet with 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 99 
 
 in Nature in the light of the sun\ The creation of 
 'light' may be taken, therefore, as equivalent to what 
 we should now call the creation of radiant force. 
 
 Now, what is the teaching of science on this 
 point? It has shown us most abundantly that 
 on such radiant force, imparted to the earth by 
 the sun, and by the earth once more scattered 
 into space, depends in the first place well-nigh the 
 whole of the phenomena of meteorology. That 
 it is the cause not only, as we readily perceive, of 
 the temperature of the earth, but also of the moist- 
 ness of the atmosphere, of winds, of clouds, of 
 dew, of rain, of ocean currents— in a word, of every 
 one of the elements which, variously combined and 
 conditioned by the earth's external features, go to 
 make up climate. Further, that on this climate, 
 so produced, very many of these same external 
 features themselves not a little depend; the action 
 of rain and its consequent rivers, of winds, and 
 ocean currents, being in particular largely instru- 
 mental in actually altering the surface of the earth. 
 
 1 How closely the ideas of light and heat were united in the 
 Hebrew mind is shown by the same word being used for both, with 
 merely a slight difference in pronunciation, "11 X and *^•1^<. 
 
 7-2 
 
lOO THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 Once more, that this radiant force supplies the 
 physical power needed for the life and growth of 
 plants, and through them indirectly . of animals 
 also; so that without it there could exist no life 
 upon the earth at all. Next, therefore, to the 
 materials of which the earth is composed, there 
 is no element in its constitution of such paramount 
 and extensive importance as 'light'; while, from 
 the relation in which it stands towards other parts 
 of creation, it plainly must have preceded them 
 in order, since without it they could not be. Be- 
 fore there could be expanse or clouds, plants or 
 animals, there must be light. So science teaches, 
 and so Scripture also lays down the order of crea- 
 tion; first, the materials; then, as the first step in 
 developing and arranging, *' Let there be light". 
 
 Whether by this creation of light we are to 
 understand the creation of the actual force itself, 
 or the creation of the particular condition of radia- 
 tion (known technically as the cether, which is sup- 
 posed to permeate all transparent space and sub- 
 stance) does not appear; but the latter seems the 
 more probable view. In either case science would 
 have no difficulty in recognising the change thus 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. lOI 
 
 described as well worthy to be assigned a distinct 
 place by itself, as a unique and fundamental work- 
 ing-element in the phenomena of Nature. 
 
 It will be observed that of the source of this 
 light the cosmogony says nothing. The difficul- 
 ties which have been raised under this head will 
 be considered when we come to speak of the crea- 
 tion of the luminaries on the fourth day. That the 
 light came from an external source of some kind, 
 and that the earth then also revolved upon its 
 axis, appears from the alternation of light and 
 darkness described in ver. 4, 5. 
 
 2, The next creative impulse recorded is that 
 which resulted in the separation of the waters 
 above from the waters below, and the interposition 
 of an expanse. There has been much controversy 
 as to what we are to understand by these * waters 
 above the expanse'. No one, however, who con- 
 siders carefully the structure of the cosmogony can 
 doubt that clouds are intended. The narrative 
 embraces all prominent groups of natural ob- 
 jects, familiar to men; among these must surely be 
 reckoned 'clouds'. Yet if the 'waters above the 
 
102 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 expanse' be not the clouds, where are these latter 
 so much as alluded to ? Nor is this all ; a com- 
 parison of other parts of Scripture shows that it 
 was a usual thing to speak of the clouds as Svaters' 
 (see 2 Sam. xxii. 12; Ps. civ. 3; Job xxvi. 8, 
 xxxvii. 1 1, xxxviii. 37). While, still more conclu- 
 sively, in Prov. viii. 22 — 31, where the creation of 
 the world is referred to, in speaking of the forma- 
 tion of the 'heavens' and the limit thus assigned 
 to the abyss of waters, mention is made not as 
 in Genesis of the 'waters above', but of 'the clouds 
 above' (ver. 28). That the Jews, therefore, under- 
 stood clouds by these 'waters' is clear. And if 
 so, in this natural sense are we bound also to take 
 them. The ' waters above' being clouds, then, it 
 follows at once that the ' expanse' is the atmo- 
 sphere, which does indeed divide these upper waters 
 from the lower, in which appear the luminaries of 
 heaven, and where also the birds fly. All ideas 
 of an upper sphere of water encircling the entire 
 earth, and bounded internally by a solid vault or 
 firmament, however such ideas may have been at 
 certain times associated with the language of 
 Genesis, must be dismissed as altogether alien to 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 103 
 
 its real meaning, being neither taught by it, nor 
 being indeed so consistent with it as the simpler 
 view of clouds and an atmosphere. The creation 
 of these, then, is the result of the second Divine 
 impulse. 
 
 Now inasmuch as the production of clouds at 
 the present time is due, as already noted, to the 
 action of radiant force, the only new point here 
 is the atmosphere. Without an atmosphere radiant 
 force would be powerless to cause clouds to sepa- 
 rate from the waters below. The only effect it 
 could have would be to wrap these round with 
 a dense clothing of vapour (comp. Job xxxviii. 9). 
 But with an atmosphere the formation of clouds 
 must follow at once. Scientifically regarded, then, 
 the work of the second day resolves itself into the 
 creation of the atmosphere. And here science is 
 compelled to halt, for of the origin of the earth's 
 atmosphere she can tell us nothing. Of its im- 
 portance there is no doubt, nor that it must have 
 preceded both plants and animals in order of de- 
 velopment, since it is independent of these and yet 
 essential to their life. So far, therefore, science 
 confirms the order in which Genesis places this 
 
104 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 part of creation. But how there came to be an 
 atmosphere — this is a problem altogether unsolved. 
 The statement of the cosmogony, therefore, that 
 the formation of the atmosphere and consequent 
 production of clouds was the result of a special 
 creative impulse, and so involved the introduction 
 of some new principle or force, must be left un- 
 tested, as science has no information as yet to give 
 upon the subject. 
 
 3. The work of the third day involved two 
 creative impulses, (i) that which caused dry land 
 to appear; and (2) that which caused herbs and 
 trees to sprout forth from the land. What has 
 science to say to these ? 
 
 (i) The formation of land. As already re- 
 marked radiant force has, partly directly, and part- 
 ly indirectly through the agency of rain, &c., a 
 very important part in determining the relations 
 of sea and land at the present time. Its part, 
 however, so far as we can at present trace it, is ex- 
 clusively one of destruction — the disintegration and 
 levelling-down of the land, not the building it up. 
 If radiant and atmospheric influences were the 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 105 
 
 only agencies at work, there is every reason to 
 believe that in time they would reduce the globe 
 to one vast unbounded sea. There is clearly some 
 other and counteracting agency at work as well, 
 some other cause which occasions land to rise out 
 of the water, and so maintains the balance. What- 
 ever this cause may be, it is certainly different 
 from any of those yet enumerated. It produces 
 altogether different results, and it works, not from 
 without, but from within. Various theories are 
 and have been current as to what this cause of 
 terrestrial upheaval is, some identifying it with 
 volcanic action, some regarding it as distinct. In 
 either case, however, the problem is equally an 
 unsolved one at the present time. What forces 
 are involved in this upheaving action, or on what 
 principles it depends, science has not yet deter- 
 mined. As before, therefore, the statement of 
 Genesis that the first appearance of land was the 
 result of a distinct creative impulse, must be left 
 scientifically unchecked. So far as probabilities 
 go, these are plainly in favour of the distinctness 
 of this cause from the others formerly considered. 
 While in regard to order, the creation of land after 
 
I06 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 that of light, atmosphere, and clouds, but before 
 plants and animals, is plainly the most natural 
 that can be conceived. The origin of land from 
 the water is also in exact accordance with the 
 discoveries of geology, which seem to point to 
 water as the birth-place of nearly every known 
 rock. 
 
 (2) The production oi plants. Terrestrial ve- 
 getation at the present time depends for its con- 
 tinuance upon (i) soil, whence is obtained a very 
 important part of the food of plants, and which 
 also furnishes them with a basis and support for 
 growth ; (ii) air, whence a still more important 
 and principal part of their food is derived; (iii) 
 water, which maintains the soil and air in a fit 
 condition for these ends ; (iv) light and heat, which 
 supply the plants with those stores of force which 
 they require to enable them to carry out their 
 functions. These, it will be observed, are pre- 
 cisely the conditions which the narrative of Genesis 
 represents as in existence when the fiat went forth, 
 '' Let the land sprout forth sprouts". Is, then, the 
 concurrence of these four conditions sufficient to 
 account for the production of vegetation } There 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 10/ 
 
 are some scientific men at the present day who 
 seem disposed to think that we have in these the 
 whole account of the causes of vegetable life. But 
 the general opinion lies strongly the other way, 
 recognising over and above all these a distinct 
 principle — vital force — which acts as the enabling, 
 determining, directing cause of vegetable life. This 
 vital force is held to be of a totally different order 
 to physical forces (such as heat, electricity, gravi- 
 tation, &c.), to be governed by totally different 
 laws, in fact to have nothing whatever in common 
 with them\ If this be so, then it is plain that 
 
 1 "Living matter is not a machine, nor does it act upon the 
 principles of a machine, nor is force conditioned in it as it is in a 
 machine, nor have the movements occurring in it been explained by- 
 physics, or the changes whicli take place in its composition by 
 chemistry. The phenomena occurring in living matter are peculiar, 
 differing from any other known phenomena, and therefore, until we 
 can explain them they may well be distinguished by the term vital. ^^ 
 — Prof. L. Beale, note appended to Croonian Lecture 1865. 
 Royal Soc. Proceedings, x I v. p. 232, 
 
 "Solar light and heat supply to each germ the whole 
 
 power by which it builds itself up, at the expense of the materials it 
 draws from the Inorganic Universe, into the complete organism ; 
 
 while the mode in which that power is exerted depends upon 
 
 the 'germinal capacity' or directive agency inherent in each particu- 
 lar germ." W. B. Carpenter, On the application of the prin- 
 ciple of 'Conservation of Force' to Physiology. Quart. Joitrn, 
 Science, April 1864. 
 
Io8 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 we have in this vital force precisely the new crea- 
 tive impulse described in Genesis. Everything 
 else necessary to vegetation was already there — 
 soil, air, water, heat and light ; only vital force was 
 needed. The impulse was given — vital force was 
 added ; and forthwith '■ the land brought forth 
 sprouts'. So long as the difference of opinion just 
 noticed exists among scientific men> it is of course 
 impossible to allege this doctrine of vital force 
 as a certain confirmation of the teaching of the 
 cosmogony. It is, however (regarded from a 
 purely scientific view), at all events an extremely 
 probable one. The accordance between science 
 and Scripture as to the stage of development at 
 which plants first arose is too clear to need in- 
 sisting on. 
 
 But the Biblical account of the creation of 
 plants comes in contact with scientific speculation 
 in yet another point. It is believed by many emi- 
 nent Naturalists that the plants now clothing the 
 earth, as also those whose existence in past ages 
 geology discloses to us, are one and all the diver- 
 sified lineal descendants of a very few original 
 types, if indeed they may not be all traced back 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 109 
 
 to one. To a far greater extent than with the 
 doctrine of vital force just noticed, is this develop- 
 ment-theory a moot point in the scientific world at 
 present, being eagerly contested by advocates on 
 both sides. Its relation to the statements of Gene- 
 sis is hence not as yet a matter of pressing mo- 
 ment. We might fairly leave the question of 
 agreement or disagreement with Scripture until 
 such time as men of science should have become 
 pretty well agreed to accept the theory as true. 
 Its popular interest and growing influence, how- 
 ever, are such, that it seems better to adopt a dif- 
 ferent course. 
 
 In the first place, then, be it observed that this 
 theory does not in the slightest degree afTect the 
 fundamental point, of vitality being the result of a 
 distinct creative impulse. The belief that it was 
 so is expressed by Mr Darwin, the great pro- 
 pounder of the theory in its present form, as clearly 
 and unhesitatingly as by any of his antagonists \ 
 The problem which this theory attempts to solve 
 
 ^ *' There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, 
 having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or 
 into one." Darwin, Origin of Species^ 4th edit. 1866, p. 577. 
 
no THE WEEK OF CREATION, 
 
 is not the ultimate source and cause of the life 
 which animates, but merely the proximate source 
 and cause of the diverse forms in which that life 
 manifests itself. Mr Darwin supposes that life was 
 introduced once for all in a few, or perhaps one 
 original form, from which all others are descended \ 
 Those who reject his view suppose there to have 
 been not only a far larger number of forms coming 
 into being independently of each other, but also a 
 considerable number of distinct epochs when life 
 was freshly introduced. How do these rival views 
 agree with the statements of Genesis ? 
 
 With respect to the number of forms originally 
 created, the narrative by distinguishing 'herbs' and 
 * trees', and speaking of each of these as produced 
 'after their kind', seems clearly to point to a diver- 
 sified vegetation as the immediate result of the 
 Divine command. The extreme view, therefore, to 
 
 1 "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied 
 with the view that each species has been independently created. 
 To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws 
 impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and ex- 
 tinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have 
 been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and 
 death of the individual." Darwin, Origin of Species, 4th edit. 
 1866, p. 576. 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. Ill 
 
 which Mr Darwin says that 'analogy' (not scientific 
 evidence) might perhaps lead him, is apparently 
 contrary to the teaching of Genesis. The extent 
 of the tariety implied by 'after their kind' is 
 plainly however quite undetermined. A few well- 
 marked forms would be quite enough to satisfy the 
 language employed, and more therefore cannot be 
 insisted on. 
 
 On the other hand, with respect to the number 
 of initial epochs, it is clear that the Darwinian 
 theory accords far better with Scripture, than does 
 the opposite view. Genesis speaks of but one 
 creation of plants, after which reproduction by 
 'seed' is the order of existence; and so precisely 
 Darwinism also teaches. It may of course be that 
 the creative impulse was of such a nature as not 
 only at the time, but also afterwards, to cause 
 the direct production of new forms. But this is 
 manifestly a far less simple and natural view than 
 that which regards the original generation of new 
 forms as taking place once only, at the time when 
 the necessary impulse was first given, and all other 
 forms as lineal descendants of these. 
 ' So far, then, from Scripture having anything to 
 
112 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 fear from the Darwinian theory, it appears that if 
 carried out to that extent which its author thinks 
 scientific evidence warrants, it accords with the 
 cosmogony exceedingly well; harmonising with it, 
 indeed, in one important respect, even better than 
 does the ordinary view. 
 
 4. The fourth day's work consisted in the 
 creation of liLuiinaries. That it is exclusively in 
 respect to their light-giving functions that the 
 heavenly bodies are here regarded, has been al- 
 ready pointed out {pp.29, 30). To this light-giving 
 quality, therefore, must the creative impulse here 
 described be strictly limited. The heavenly bodies 
 themselves may have existed before, or they may 
 have but now come into being; — of this the narra- 
 tive here tells us nothing. All that it asserts is, 
 that they now first began to shine as luminaries. 
 The most probable view is that their original crea- 
 tion is described in ver. i, under the general term 
 * heavens', and that the work of the fourth day was 
 simply the causing them to assume the new office 
 of light-bearers. But the evidence is hardly con- 
 clusive enough to warrant our regarding this as 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. II3 
 
 certain. Suffice it to know that in our scientific 
 examination of this part of the cosmogony we have 
 to do only with the creation of the heavenly bodies 
 as luminaries, and not as material members of the 
 universe. 
 
 The distinction here drawn is one quite harmo- 
 nious with science. Regarded merely as centre of 
 the solar system, a body constituted like the moon, 
 or earth, would (mass and distance being supposed 
 equal) be as efficient as our present sun ; yet would 
 it, in the absence of light shed upon it from with- 
 out, be no light-bearer. The sun also, then, may 
 have been thus dark in some former stage of its 
 existence, and yet the structure and motions of the 
 solar system been the same as at present. Nor is 
 this a mere gratuitous hypothesis. Astronomical 
 researches have demonstrated the existence of a 
 companion star to Sirius (the brightest known 
 star), which though of mass sufficient to influence 
 perceptibly its motion at the enormous distance 
 from Sirius of, it is believed, at least 5000 millions 
 of miles, yet is with difficulty discerned as a visible 
 object even with powerful telescopes \ Such a 
 
 ^ See Sir J. Herschel's Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects^ 
 1867. pp. 209 — 213. 
 
 w. 8 
 
114 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 body may be called, in comparison with Sirius, a 
 dark sun. While that changes in luminosity do in 
 fact take place in heavenly bodies, is abundantly 
 evidenced by the phenomena observed in 1866 of 
 the star t Coronas Borealis, whose sudden, and in 
 this case transient, increase in splendour was 
 proved to have arisen from physical changes inter- 
 nal to itself\ That the sun, therefore, should have 
 been at one stage of its existence a dark body, and 
 afterwards have become a luminary, is an idea as 
 credible scientifically, as it is probable exegetically. 
 But the cosmogony speaks not only of the sun, 
 but of the moon and stars. Now the moon and 
 planets shining, as they do, by virtue of the light 
 of the sun, and not of themselves, their becoming 
 luminaries would follow as a matter of course di- 
 rectly it became so. The fixed stars, so far as we 
 at present know them, appear to be constituted 
 physically much after the same manner as the sun. 
 Their luminosity, therefore, arises probably from 
 the same cause. The grouping together, then, of 
 all the heavenly bodies, as becoming luminaries 
 from the action of one creative impulse, is in entire 
 
 1 See Rev. C. Pritchard's article in Good Words, April, 1867. 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. II5 
 
 accordance with the scientific view of their rela- 
 tions to one another. 
 
 When we ask further, What is this common 
 cause to which the luminosity of the sun and stars 
 is to be ascribed? we are met with diverse and 
 conflicting answers. Recent discoveries in regard 
 to the constitution of the sun have drawn attention 
 largely to the problem, but they have as yet done 
 no more than render its solution a matter of plau- 
 sible hope. The views advanced so far are con- 
 fessedly mere theories, possible solutions which we 
 have no ground for receiving as true beyond their 
 intrinsic adequacy. Nor on this point even are 
 scientific men by any means agreed, a solution 
 regarded as sufficient by some, being rejected by 
 others as altogether insufficient. This much only, 
 then, can be affirmed at present: — the problem of 
 the cause of the sun's luminosity is not only an un- 
 solved one, but no known cause which speculation 
 has thus far imagined for it has been admitted as 
 adequate by scientific men as a whole. The state- 
 ment of Genesis, which ascribes the creation of 
 luminaries to a new and distinct impulse, is hence 
 tentatively confirmed. The ultimate relation of 
 
 Z—2 
 
Il6 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 science and Scripture on this head must be left for 
 time and further researches to determine. 
 
 With respect to the order in which this creation 
 of luminaries stands, one point only demands at- 
 tention. Of the existence of such lights prior to 
 the history of man, we have, and can have, no trace 
 whatever. Indirectly, from the existence of plants 
 and animals, we may infer with confidence the ex- 
 istence also of light and heat in long anterior ages. 
 But whether these came to the earth from the same 
 sources whence we now derive them, we have no 
 means of knowing. Which of course is precisely the 
 point we must ascertain, if the accuracy of the cos- 
 mogony here is to be really tested. One objection 
 in regard to order, however, is so commonly urged 
 that it cannot be passed over without remark. The 
 narrative separates the creation of luminaries from 
 the creation of light, interposing two entire days' 
 work between them. It is objected that this pre- 
 cedence of light to the sources of light is incredible. 
 Now if science were so intimately acquainted with 
 the relation of the sun to the light which it emits 
 as to explain precisely how and why it is a source 
 of light, there might be some show of plausibility 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 11/ 
 
 in this objection. But this we have seen is not the 
 case. What right, then, have we to object to the 
 statement of Genesis ? We cannot understand, it 
 is said, any other way in which light could have 
 shone, except from a central luminary like the sun. 
 True; but neither can we understand the way in 
 which light could have shone from the sun; for the 
 phenomenon, common as it is, is one which science 
 has hitherto failed to explain. It is hard to see 
 how, under such circumstances, a mere difficulty of 
 understanding the way in which it was done can be 
 made an objection to the belief in a different mode 
 of illumination from that we now enjoy. The dif- 
 ficulty is plainly not one of the reason, but of the 
 imagination. But this ignorance as to the source 
 of the sun's light is not all; we are equally in the 
 dark as to what becomes of that light when 
 once shed forth. It is calculated that less than 
 ir.TToo.oVo.wo th part of it reaches the earth. Other 
 minute fractional portions go to the planets. What 
 becomes of the rest.-* Even these parts which are 
 stayed by the planets are retained only for a little 
 while, and are then shed forth again, more or less 
 modified, into space. Where does it all go to.^ 
 
Il8 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 Throughout all space, so far as we know it, and 
 certainly to enormous distances, there is no ob- 
 stacle to the passage of this light ; it is dispersing 
 freely in all directions. The light from the stars is 
 being scattered in like manner. Whither does it all 
 tend.-^ To suppose that it ceases to be, is to con- 
 travene the fundamental scientific axiom of the 
 indestructibility of force. To suppose that it is at 
 last stayed in its outward course, is to assume the 
 existence of a stupendous absorbent envelope en- 
 closing the entire universe. And even then, what 
 becomes of it.'* It is not sent back, at all events in 
 anything like the same form that it goes out; for 
 if it were, then we ought to be as cognisant of this 
 return as we are of the original scattering. Is it 
 retained then, and stored up for future use.'* An 
 assumption as gigantic as the former one. In the 
 face of such a mystery, baffling utterly both reason 
 and imagination, yet whose existence as a fact is 
 beyond dispute, it ill becomes the man of science 
 to cavil at the infinitely lesser and merely imagi- 
 native difficulty of the shining of light indepen- 
 dently of our present luminaries. 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. II9 
 
 5. The account of the fifth day's work com- 
 prises apparently two simultaneous impulses, that 
 which peopled the zuatcrs, and that which peopled 
 the air. It is, however, not improbable that these 
 two results really sprang from the same impulse 
 exerted in different spheres; since both in the com- 
 mand, and in the account of the result, inhabitants 
 of waters and air are ranged together in a close 
 and intimate manner. The current idea, however, 
 that the birds also were produced from the water 
 (suggested by the A. V. rendering), finds no coun- 
 tenance in the text. 
 
 Here, then, we have the first introduction of 
 animal life. It is unnecessary to discuss this fully, 
 since what was said above in regard to vegetable 
 life (pp. 106 — 108) applies mutatis miLtandis here 
 also. Animal life is generally recognised as involv- 
 ing a totally distinct principle from physical force 
 of any kind, distinct also equally from vegetable; 
 though some, as before, hold a contrary opinion. 
 Similarly, the remarks then made in respect to 
 Darwinism (pp. 108 — 112) apply equally here also. 
 One point only requires special attention, — the 
 order in which this first introduction of animals is 
 
I20 THE WEEK OE CREATION. 
 
 placed in the cosmogony. It is placed later on than 
 the creation of plants. And here it is plain that 
 science is perfectly agreed. The food of animals 
 is derived entirely from the vegetable world; by 
 some directly, by others (the carnivora) indirectly, 
 through the consumption of those who have fed 
 upon the plants. The power, from the simpler 
 substances, as carbonic acid, water, and ammonia, 
 to build up the more complex organic bodies; the 
 power to render latent in such compounds the heat- 
 force derived from the sun; these alike appear to 
 be peculiar properties of the plant. The animal 
 can only break up and take down, more or less 
 completely, that which the plant has put together; 
 can only let out and use the force which the plant 
 has stored up. In the order of creation, then, the 
 plant must have come before the animal, since 
 without it the animal could not exist. 
 
 6. The concluding day of creation involved 
 two impulses, (i) that which resulted in the forma- 
 tion of land animals; (2) that which resulted in the 
 introduction of man; this last being an impulse 
 not only distinct in nature, and separate in time, 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 121 
 
 but also plainly, from the terms of the solemn 
 prelude with which it is introduced, of an alto- 
 gether higher order than any of those which had 
 gone before. 
 
 In describing the origin of the animal world, 
 then, the cosmogony proceeds upon a different 
 plan from that followed in regard to vegetation. 
 The creation of plants is represented as the result 
 of a single impulse occupying part only of the third 
 day. The creation of animals is the result of three 
 or perhaps four (see p. 119) impulses, and occupies 
 the whole of the fifth and sixth days. It is clear 
 that the range in development and organization of 
 animals is considered to be far greater than that 
 of plants. It is clear also that this greater range 
 is ascribed to the successive introduction of diverse 
 impulses in an ascending ratio of character. 
 
 On the first of these points science is entirely 
 at one with Genesis. The difference between the 
 lowest algae and the highest exogen, great as it is, 
 would be universally admitted to be far less, both 
 in amount and importance, than that between the 
 lowest protozoa and the highest mammal. Nor is it 
 less self-evident that whereas the extremest differ- 
 
122 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 eiice in plants is merely one of simple or compli- 
 cated organization, and the number of essentially 
 diverse typical groups under which they can be 
 classed is very small ; in animals, on the contrary, 
 the extreme difference involves, besides organiza- 
 tion, various mental qualities, as will, intelligence, 
 reason; while the number of fundamental types is 
 larger, and the types themselves more widely sepa- 
 rated. So far, then, scientific views of the animal 
 world accord with the implied teaching of Genesis. 
 But what has science to say to the doctrine of 
 distinct successive impulses, as occasioning this 
 wider range and greater diversity? As on all 
 other of these questions in regard to the origin 
 and development of life, the answ^er is necessarily 
 doubtful, owing to the diverse opinions entertained 
 upon the subject. Those who advocate the belief 
 in many epochs of creation, each introducing fresh 
 species, would recognise in these epochs a confirma- 
 tion of the successive impulses of the cosmogony. 
 Albeit it must be confessed that their epochs are 
 far more numerous than those here described. On 
 the other hand, the Darwinian who believes in but 
 one epoch of original generation, would feel a dif- 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 123 
 
 ficulty in accepting these successive impulses at 
 all. The statements of Genesis appear really, how- 
 ever, to harmonise better with this latter hypothesis 
 than with the former, provided it be modified in 
 certain unessential particulars. It is commonly as- 
 sumed that the few primitive forms from which 
 the animal world is (on this view) supposed to 
 have sprung, were introduced at one time. But 
 this is plainly quite unnecessary to the consistency 
 of the theory. They might as naturally have been 
 introduced at different times. In which case they 
 would correspond, more or less, to the successive 
 creative impulses of Genesis. Or there is another 
 way of taking it: — The narrative of Genesis does 
 not say how far the results of the later impulses 
 described were due to them alone, or how far to 
 the preparatory and assisting influences of impulses 
 that had gone before. That both elements are re- 
 cognised as co-working throughout the whole of 
 creation has been shewn above (pp. 41 — 43). Hence 
 in regard to the later stages of animal life two views 
 are tenable, (i) that they started from the same 
 basis as the earliest stage, viz. inorganic materials 
 and powers ; or (2) that they started from the fur- 
 
124 THE WEEK OE CREATION. 
 
 thest points of development which the whole series 
 of preceding impulses had as yet produced; the 
 new impulse being added to enable a still higher 
 point to be reached, which the former ones alone 
 could not have attained to. For example, the crea- 
 tion of man may have been either (i) an entirely 
 de novo fashioning of dead matter into a living 
 frame, to which were given at once all the qualities 
 and attributes of man; or (2) it may have been 
 merely the super-adding of the distinctive features 
 of man's nature upon those of the highest and 
 most similar creature then existing. On the first 
 view, the part taken by prior creative impulses is 
 placed at a minimum; on the second, at a maxi- 
 mum. Yet inasmuch as this part, as well as the 
 proper working of a new and distinct impulse, is 
 recognised by each, either view is consistent with 
 the statement of Genesis, which simply points to 
 a twofold causation, without defining in any way 
 the limits or manner of co-working of old and new. 
 Neither view is endorsed, either is allowed. Now 
 this second view is plainly one which harmonises 
 with Darwinism exceedingly well, allowing to the 
 full the lineal sequence of organic development 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 1 25 
 
 from primitive types, but adding to this the fur- 
 ther influence of two new impulses, producing sud- 
 den strides of progress which mere development 
 by variation could never have effected. 
 
 With respect to the latter of these two im- 
 pulses, that which led to the introduction of man, 
 the recognition of such a stride of progress is al- 
 most as much a part of the scientific creed as of 
 the Scriptural. Regarded merely in respect to 
 physical structure and organization, the difference 
 between man and the highest inferior mammal is 
 comparatively small ; the transition from one to 
 the other would be (on Darwinian views) compara- 
 tively easy. But regarded in respect to mental 
 powers and spiritual faculties, the difference is 
 simply enormous. To pass from the most in- 
 telligent mammal to man is mentally to take a far 
 greater stride, than it were strnctnrally to pass 
 from the lowest vertebrate to the highest. It is 
 not merely a higher development of faculties com- 
 mon to both, but the introduction of altogether 
 new faculties of a higher order. It may be ob- 
 jected that in the most degraded savages this men- 
 tal difference between brute and man becomes 
 
126 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 practically very insignificant. True; and with 
 equal justice might it be urged that the mental dif- 
 ference between a babe and a puppy Is extremely 
 small. In each case the question is not one be- 
 tween powers actually in use, but between faculties 
 capable of being used. The babe can become a 
 speaking, reasoning, moral, God-aspiring being, 
 the puppy cannot; — that is the true difference. 
 To what extent the babe actually does become 
 such may depend upon circumstances, but the 
 faculties are there in any case. In the puppy they 
 are simply absent, hopelessly absent, let circum- 
 stances be as they will. Just so with the savage 
 and the monkey. Experience has amply proved 
 that the most degraded savages have in no way 
 lost, however much they may have enfeebled, the 
 faculties proper to mankind. They are capable of 
 improvement, of education; and, given the circum- 
 stances favourable, there Is no domain of human 
 attainments which they have not shewn themselves 
 capable of entering upon. Can the like, or any- 
 thing ever so distantly approaching the like, be 
 said of any monkeys.^ Until it can, the mental 
 chasm between these and men remains clearly as 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 12/ 
 
 great as ever, even when the most degraded spe- 
 cimens of the latter are selected for comparison. 
 In presenting, then, the transition between animals 
 and man (however that transition was accom- 
 plished) as the special work of a new creative im- 
 pulse, different, and higher in order, to any that 
 had gone before, the cosmogony does no more 
 than adequately account for phenomena which 
 science cannot but recognise both as true, and 
 also as most easily explicable in some such way 
 as that here set forth. 
 
 With respect to the earlier impulse, that which 
 led to the introduction of land-animals, a similar 
 accordance of science cannot be so easily perceived. 
 That as a whole the animals of the land offer ex- 
 amples of higher organization and greater intelli- 
 gence than those of the water or air, none will dis- 
 pute. But there does not seem to be any special 
 characteristic distinguishing the two groups, which 
 can be regarded as equivalent scientifically to this 
 new impulse. One possible solution of this diffi- 
 culty may however be mentioned, which it must 
 be left for time to decide the merits of. The later 
 impulses of creation cannot have been without in- 
 
128 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 fluence upon the results proper to the earlier ones. 
 The creation of the atmosphere, for example, must 
 have considerably modified the effects of the 
 pre-existing light ; both of which would again be 
 still further changed by the introduction of lumi- 
 naries. The later impulses thus not only pro- 
 duced the results directly assigned to themselves 
 [e.g. the separation of the waters, the marking sea- 
 sons, &c.), but also introduced alterations in what 
 had gone before. Yet are only the direct results of 
 each impulse mentioned in the narrative, albeit the 
 phenomena resulting from the preceding ones are 
 known to us at the present time only as modified 
 by those which followed. May not something of the 
 same kind be true of the successive impulses con- 
 cerned in the production of animal life.'' The waters 
 and the air were already peopled with various 
 creatures. A new impulse was given whose special 
 direct result was to occasion the peopling of the 
 land. May it not also have had a modifying in- 
 fluence upon some of those who yet remained inha- 
 bitants of the waters and air.^ Of course this hypo- 
 thesis assumes as its basis the second view of these 
 impulses of creation stated above (pp. 123, 124). 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 1 29 
 
 Supposing, however, this view to be the true one, 
 and supposing such a modification as that just 
 mentioned to have in fact taken place, and our dif- 
 ficulty is at an end. The most characteristic ani- 
 mals of the land are plainly the vertebrates. Be- 
 tween these and the invertebrates is the greatest 
 structural and physiological break in the animal 
 world. The transition from invertebrates to verte- 
 brates would answer, therefore, very naturally to 
 the earlier creative impulse of the sixth day; while 
 man also being a vertebrate, the propriety of in- 
 cluding his creation in the same day's work is 
 manifest. But then, vertebrates are found also in- 
 habiting the waters and the air; — this is the diffi- 
 culty on the ordinary view. Let it, however, be 
 admitted that the impulse was one given to exist- 
 ing forms of life, and that it was given not to one 
 form or in one direction only, but to several forms 
 and so in several directions, and all is clear. The 
 analogies presented by the highest members of the 
 invertebrates at the present time suggest strongly 
 that if transition ever did take place between such 
 as these and the vertebrates, it was as likely to 
 take place from several starting points, and in 
 \v. 9 
 
130 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 several directions, as one. And if so, that the na- 
 tural result must have been not merely a peopling 
 of the land, but modifications also in many of the 
 dwellers in sea and air. This of course is mere 
 speculation. It is advanced, therefore, not to con- 
 firm the narrative of Genesis (which it necessarily 
 cannot do), but simply to shew that this apparent 
 difficulty may after all be only due to our igno- 
 rance of the precise manner in which creation was 
 accomplished. 
 
 Lastly, we have to consider the evidence af- 
 forded by geology as to the order of appearance 
 of these groups — animals of the water and air, 
 animals of the land, man — in the actual history 
 of the earth. With regard to man this evidence 
 is very clear, and strongly confirmatory of the 
 statements of Genesis. Amid all the controversy 
 in regard to man's antiquity now pending, on one 
 point every geologist is agreed: — the traces of 
 man's existence are strictly limited to the latest 
 portions of the most recent group of strata. The 
 whole of the Primary and Secondary formations, 
 and by far the larger part of the Tertiary, must be 
 assigned to periods antecedent to man's first ap- 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 131 
 
 pearance on the earth. No animal can be shewn 
 to have made its appearance since man. Man, 
 therefore, is universally regarded not only as a late, 
 but as the very latest, member of creation; precisely 
 the position assigned to him in the cosmogony. 
 
 With regard to the precedence of aquatic and 
 winged creatures to those of the land, the evidence 
 is less conclusive. The former are found indeed 
 in much earlier strata than the latter, and so far 
 geology accords exactly with Genesis. But the 
 preservation of the remains of land-animals in the 
 rocks has been of necessity so exceptional, that 
 their absence from the majority of strata can 
 never be taken as a proof that there w^ere none 
 such existing at the period when those strata were 
 formed. Add to which that the strata now exist- 
 ing for inspection present mere isolated fragments 
 of the earth's past history, and that of these frag- 
 ments we have as yet but a very limited and im- 
 perfect knowledge ; and it is clear that to lay 
 any stress upon the coincidence between geology 
 and Genesis on this point of order would be both 
 unsafe and unjust. On the hypothesis that the 
 work of the sixth day was the creation of verte- 
 
 9—2 
 
132 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 brates, the confirmation of order would be worth 
 a good deal more, since the precedence of inverte- 
 brates to vertebrates may be regarded as a fact 
 almost as certain geologically as the late intro- 
 duction of man. It will be observed that on this 
 latter view a large proportion of the Primary for- 
 mations, as well as all the Secondary and Tertiary, 
 would be assigned to the sixth day of creation. 
 The enormous extension which this Vv^ould require 
 in our notion of the time creation has occupied 
 may seem startling; but it is no more than many 
 advanced thinkers are disposed to claim on purely 
 scientific grounds^ 
 
 The comparison in regard to facts now com- 
 
 ^ *'The whole history of the world, as at present known, al- 
 though of a length quite incomprehensible by us, will hereafter be 
 recognised as a mere fragment of time, compared with the ages 
 which have elapsed since the first creature, the progenitor of 
 innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created." Darwin, 
 Origin of Species, 4th edit. 1866, p. 575. 
 
 *'As we increase our knowledge of the inexhaustible variety 
 displayed in living nature, and admire the infinite wisdom and 
 power which it displays, our admiration is multiplied by the reflec- 
 tion, that it is only the last of a great series of pre-existing creations, 
 of which we cannot estimate the number or limit in times past." 
 Lyell, Elements of Geology, 6th edit. 1865, p. 772. 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 1 33 
 
 pleted has led to much the same result as the 
 former comparison in regard to principles. As 
 before there have been found several points in 
 which science is not in a position to check the nar- 
 rative of Genesis at all, from their lying beyond the 
 limits of her knowledge. In those instances where 
 the contrary is the case, and science is entitled 
 to speak with authority, the most complete agree- 
 ment has ever been found to prevail. The re- 
 maining instances are ones in which there is some 
 element of doubt, either from the scientific bear- 
 ing of the statements of the cosmogony being 
 uncertain (as, from its designedly non-scientific 
 character, might naturally often be expected), or 
 more frequently from men of science being not 
 as yet agreed as to the true interpretation to be 
 assigned to Natural phenomena. In all these cases, 
 however, the ultimate agreement of science with 
 Scripture has been shewn to be not only possible, 
 but nearly always probable also. More than this 
 could hardly under the circumstances have been 
 expected. 
 
 To dwell at length upon the conclusion to be 
 deduced from this two-fold comparison, as to the 
 
134 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 Divine origin of this wonderful record of the 
 world's creation, is quite unnecessary. That such 
 a narrative, so pregnant with the deepest truths 
 both of Theology and Science, could have been 
 the result of the mere fancy of unscientific men in 
 early times — this is surely a proposition far more 
 incredible, an explanation of phenomena far more 
 improbable, than the ascription of the whole to 
 direct revelation from the Creator Himself. The 
 challenge to scientific scrutiny has ended in the 
 triumphant vindication of the cosmogony as the 
 work of God, and not man. But it has done more 
 than this. It has shewn, besides, what is the true 
 relation which subsists between this Divine record 
 and human science, and which will ever continue 
 to subsist however far that science may extend its 
 researches. 
 
 In its record of Natural facts, there are already 
 items in which the cosmogony, while confirmed, 
 is also superseded. The outline of Genesis has 
 given place to the detailed knowledge of science. 
 It is probable that as science progresses other 
 items will in like manner be superseded, pos- 
 . sibly in the end all may be. But what then t 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 1 35 
 
 To teach facts of Nature was not the main de- 
 sign of the cosmogony, but to teach Natural 
 theology. And this we have seen science can- 
 not teach, not because her researches have not 
 gone far enough, but because such teaching is 
 altogether beyond her domain. Those funda- 
 mental principles of Natural theology which the 
 cosmogony sets forth so simply and succinctly, yet 
 withal so profoundly and comprehensively, as em- 
 bodied in the work of creation, — these principles 
 science can indeed illustrate abundantly in their 
 lower phenomenal aspects, but she could never 
 have discerned them. Their truth in relation to 
 Nature she can testify to in the clearest and most 
 authoritative manner. But as the doctrines take 
 a higher flight, and rising from Nature soar ever 
 nearer and nearer to Nature's God, the testimony 
 of science becomes meagre, her voice falters, grows 
 indistinct, and soon is altogether silent. She is of 
 the earth, earthy; and no effort can make her rise 
 to the heavenly. Left to herself, she is like those 
 ancient miners so eloquently described in the book 
 of Job (ch. xxviii.). She has found indeed the source 
 of silver, the place of fine gold ; has drawn forth 
 iron out of the dust, and melted brass out of the 
 
136 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 stone. She has put an end to darkness in her deep 
 searchings of all hidden things. Away from all 
 common paths, by ways unknown, in depths pro- 
 found, she has carried on her course, turning up. 
 the earth and all earthly things as it were with 
 fire. In her researches she has found all manner 
 of precious gems, and won unmeasured riches of 
 material wealth. Surpassing in keenness the eye 
 of eagles, in strength the pride of lions, she has 
 gone down even to the roots of mountains, has 
 hewn paths through the solid rocks, has stayed 
 and controlled the very springs, has brought forth 
 the most secret things to light. It is her pride 
 and glory thus to have done. Yet is the great 
 treasure of all beyond her reach. What means 
 this world of matter that she has investigated } 
 whence came it 1 whither goes it .'' This is the 
 true wisdom, beside which all earthly spoils are 
 valueless. But where shall she find it .'' How shall 
 she attain to real understanding.? She appeals to 
 Nature, but there is no answer. Yet is it this 
 which is of all things most to be desired. All the 
 rich fruits of her labours, the material wealth, the 
 brilliant jewels, cannot equal this. Her search 
 with all its glories has been in vain ; the highest 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE COSMOGONY. 137 
 
 wisdom is still concealed from her eyes. Only in 
 death and destruction is there a whisper of ano- 
 ther world wheni:e this wisdom may come — they 
 have heard the sound thereof with their ears. 
 Into that other world science cannot penetrate. 
 But out of it comes a voice, the voice of God. 
 The mystery of the universe is no mystery to Him, 
 for all Nature is the work of His hands, the 
 material expression of His Being. The wisdom 
 for which man has sought in vain is nothing else 
 than the knowledge of God. Nature has a testi- 
 mony to its Creator, if man could but discern it. 
 But he cannot. And so, when the marvels of 
 creation were complete, God added to these the 
 further marvel of a revelation of Himself, His 
 greatness and His character; and stooping to man 
 declared, " Behold, the fear of the Lord is wisdom, 
 and to depart from evil is understanding." The 
 cosmogony of Genesis, standing as it does at the 
 very head of Scripture, is the first utterance, the 
 first syllable, as it were, of this great message, 
 beginning as was fit with the revelation of that 
 part of hidden wisdom which lay in "the heavens 
 and the earth in their creation." 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 Job xxxvii. 1 8. " Hast thou with him spread out the 
 sky, ivhich is strong, and z.s a molten looking-glass?" 
 
 This verse has been largely used in proof of the as- 
 sertion that the Hebrews regarded the sky as a solid 
 vault. The usual answer to such an argument has been 
 that the language is poetical metaphor, and ought not 
 therefore to be taken in a literal sense. Sufficient as 
 this answer is, it is well to note further that the A. V. 
 rendering of the verse is more than doubtful, the original 
 being capable of another translation, far more probable 
 in itself, which entirely cuts away the ground of the 
 objection. 
 
 (i) The word here rendered 'sky' is not the J^^p*^ 
 of Genesis, nor yet the ordinary word for 'heavens' 
 (D'^^), but D^'pn^. This word is regularly used 
 for 'clouds' in the book of Job (xxxvi. 28, xxxvii. 21, 
 xxxviii. 37), as also in other parts of Scripture (Is. xlv. 
 8; Prov. iii. 20; Ps. Ixxvii. 17, Ixxviii. 23); though at 
 times employed to denote the heavens generally (Deut. 
 xxxiii. 26; Ps. xviii. 11, Ixxxix. 6). The significance of 
 the word, however, — 'that which is thin, fine, small' 
 (hence used also of 'dust,' Is. xl. 15) — leaves no doubt 
 that it is everywhere the ' clouds,' and not the open ' ex- 
 
APPENDIX. 139 
 
 parise' of heaven that is intended. The question of 
 EHhu refers, therefore, not to the blue vault of heaven, 
 but to the spreading out of clouds. It is these 'clouds' 
 which he denominates 'strong' or 'mighty' (CDjn, see 
 Job v. 15). 
 
 (2) The word translated 'looking-glass' (*^^"l) is 
 found nowhere else in Scripture with this meaning. It 
 occurs, however (*^'^), in the sense of 'vision' (Gen. 
 xvi. 13, 14), 'appearance' (i Sam. xvi. 12), 'sight' (Job 
 xxxiii. 21), and 'spectacle' (Nah. iii. 6); either of which 
 is hence a more probable rendering than 'mirror'. 
 
 (3) The word rendered 'molten' (p^^^) elsewhere 
 in Job denotes ' firmness,' especially such firmness as is 
 the result of pressure, frost, or some other cause which 
 would make that firm which was not so ordinarily. 
 Thus it is used to describe the cleaving together of loose 
 dust, produced by rain (xxxviii. 38), the confinement and 
 hardening of water by frost (xxxvii. 10), the extraordinary 
 texture of the flesh of leviathan (xli. 23, 24). It is also 
 used of firmness generally (xi. 15), and of straitness 
 (xxxvi. 16). 
 
 The verse might therefore be well translated, " Dost 
 thou with Him spread out the mighty clouds as the 
 appearance of firmness?" 
 
 The whole of this part of Elihu's speech (xxxvi. 27 — 
 xxxvii. 22) is concerned with God's wonderful dealings 
 in the natural world in sending rain, clouds, sunshine, 
 lightning, thunder, frost, winds, and all the varieties of 
 weather occasioned by these; as a type of His equally 
 
I40 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 varied and mysterious dealings in providence with men. 
 In such a connection what could be more natural than 
 to refer to that wonderful spreading out of mighty clouds, 
 which gave to things by nature the very thinnest, weak- 
 est, most proverbially transient, the appearance of firm- 
 ness and strength? Could Job understand such myste- 
 ries as these? How then should he presume to be the 
 judge of that equally mysterious appearance of God's 
 dealings towards himself? 
 
 Anyone who attentively considers the whole passage 
 will see, we think, that the meaning thus given to Elihu's 
 question is much more suitable to the occasion and con- 
 text than that assigned in the A. V. ; while the scientific 
 objection brought against the latter is altogether done 
 away with. 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 The following is a summary of the cosmogonies of 
 other nations which present more or less of similarity 
 to that preserved in the Scriptures \ 
 
 I. The Phoiuician^ recorded by Eusebius, from 
 Sanchuniathan. 
 
 The beginning of all things was a dark windy chaos. 
 Upon this chaos the Spirit acted; and there arose, by 
 union of the two, the original matter of creation. At 
 
 ^ The authorities referred to for information in regard to these 
 heathen cosmogonies, are the commentaries on Genesis of Tuch, 
 Knobel, Delitzsch, and Kalisch, and the Bampton Lectures of 
 Professor Rawlinson. 
 
APPENDIX. 141 
 
 first this appeared as a sort of watery slime, which 
 contained the germs of all things. Out of this sprang 
 the visible heavens in the form of an t%g, whence sun, 
 moon and stars began to shine. By the heating action 
 of the sun upon the sea and earth there arose winds, 
 clouds and rain. These producing thunder, awoke 
 thereby the living beings out of their slumber, and so 
 the world was peopled with animals and men. (See 
 Tuch and Knobel.) 
 
 2. The Egyptian^ handed down by Diodorus Siculus. 
 At first there was no distinction of heaven and 
 
 earth, but only a chaos. But the air began to move, 
 and the elements to separate; the fiery parts ascending 
 to the higher regions, the watery and slimy sinking 
 below. By still further separation sea and land were 
 formed. The sun's rays shining on the earth caused it 
 to bring forth creatures of all kinds to inhabit the air, 
 the land, and the sea. (See Tuch and Knobel.) 
 
 Egyptian mythology, in describing the relation and 
 origin of Athor (night), Phtha (breath or spirit), Neitha 
 (undeveloped matter), and Phanes (first-born light), agrees 
 still more closely with the Phoenician cosmogony. (See 
 Tuch.) 
 
 3. The Babylonian^ recorded by Syncellus and Eu- 
 sebius, from Berosus. 
 
 The world was at first a dark fluid mass, inhabited 
 by strange monsters, and ruled over by the sea. Belus 
 cut the sea in two, making of the one half earth, and 
 of the other half heaven ; whereupon the monsters, 
 not being able to endure air and light, perished. Then 
 Belus, in order to people the earth, mingled his blood 
 
142 THE WEEK OF CREATION, 
 
 with the dust, and so formed men, who were thus par- 
 takers of the Divine wisdom. He also made animals, 
 and the various heavenly bodies. (See Rawlinson's 
 Bampton Lect., pp. 46 — 48.) 
 
 4. The Persian^ contained in the Zend-Avesta. 
 
 Out of the dark universal primitive Being there arose, 
 by the creating Word, Ormuzd the God of light and good- 
 ness, and Ahriman the God of evil and darkness. Ormuzd 
 was the creator, and fashioned the world in six successive 
 periods of 1000 years each. In the first period light was 
 formed, and light-bearers; in the second period water, 
 which covered the earth, and driven by the wind formed 
 clouds; in the third period, the land was formed, and 
 the mountains; in the fourth period, trees; in the fifth, 
 animals; in the sixth, men. After each creative period 
 a festival was held by Ormuzd and the heavenly powers. 
 (See Tuch, Knobel and Delitzsch.) 
 
 5. The Indian^ contained in the Vedas and book of 
 Manu. The cosmogony here assumes various forms. 
 
 {a) At first all was dark, chaotic, indistinguishable. 
 But the Eternal One thought, ' I will create worlds,' and 
 thereupon water came into existence, in which was the 
 germ of all life. Light arose, and the water developed 
 into a brilliant egg, in which Brahman (the creator) cre- 
 ated himself, and abode for 360 days, or 4320,000,000 
 years. At the end of this period he split the ^gg in two, 
 and out of the halves made heaven and earth. The 
 first-born, water, is called Nara (Spirit of God'), and 
 this being the sphere of his first movements, Brahman 
 is hence styled Narayana, 'moving on the waters.' 
 
APPENDIX. 143 
 
 ip) At first Brahman was enveloped in a hovering 
 formless mist, in which however Being was mirrored. 
 The darkness was parted, and love arose as the produc- 
 tive creative power. 
 
 {c) God created by command, the creative Word 
 being in fact a co-ordinate power with Brahman, born in 
 the midst of the sea, penetrating all things, and throned 
 with him above heaven and earth. (See Tuch and 
 Kalisch.) 
 
 6. The Grecian, contained in Hesiod's Theogony. 
 The beginning of all things was chaos; then arose the 
 
 earth, the abyss, and love. Out of chaos sprang night 
 and day; out of earth sprang heaven. Then the moun- 
 tains and sea were produced. After this arose herbage 
 and rivers. Then the sun and moon received their 
 birth, with the stars. 
 
 A similar account is given by Aristophanes, who also 
 brings in the idea of the world-egg, so prevalent in these 
 cosmogonies. 
 
 7. The Latin, contained in Ovid's Metamorphoses. 
 Originally all Nature was in a state of chaos, without 
 
 form or distinction of parts, neither earth nor heaven, 
 but one dark watery abyss. Then the various elements 
 were parted; fire as the lightest ascended to the heavenly 
 vault, below this stood air, and still lower earth and 
 water. Then the eart-h was parted into land and sea, 
 mountains and rivers arose, and trees appeared. By the 
 various intensity of the sun's rays diverse climates and 
 seasons were produced; the stars also began to shine. 
 After this followed the creation of beasts, birds and 
 
144 THE WEEK OF CREATION. 
 
 fishes; and last of all man was formed, the partaker of 
 the Divine nature, and ruler of the world. 
 
 8. The Etruscan^ handed down by Suidas from an 
 Etruscan history. 
 
 God made the world in six periods of looo years 
 each. In the first He made heaven and earth ; in the 
 second the vault of heaven; in the third the sea and 
 other waters of the earth; in the fourth the sun, moon 
 and stars; in the fifth the animals of the air, the water, 
 and the land; and in the sixth men. (See Knobel and 
 Delitzsch.) 
 
 9. The notion of the world-egg, out of which sprang 
 heaven and earth, is found also among the Chinese, 
 Japanese, Society Islanders, Finlanders and North Ame- 
 rican Indians. The primitive chaos is held by the 
 Japanese and Icelanders. The Mexicans and Peruvians 
 make the first age the age of water. (See Delitzsch and 
 Kalisch.) 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
August, 1870. 
 
 16, BEDFORD STREET, COVENT GARDEN, 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO;S 
 
 THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 
 Ainger — Sermons preached in tlie Temple Church. 
 
 By the Rev. ALFRED AINGER, M.A., of Trinity Hall, Cam- 
 bridge, Reader at the Temple Church. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6*. 
 
 Twenty-four Sermons :— Our Views of Heaven ; Rest in Christ the True Com- 
 munion of Saints ; the Resurrection a Fact of History ; Culture and Tempta- 
 tion ; the Religious Aspect of Wit and Humour ; the Life of the Ascended 
 Christ, etc. , etc. 
 
 Bernard — The Progress of Doctrine in the New 
 
 Testament. In Eight Lectures preached before the University 
 of Oxford. By THOMAS D. BERNARD, M.A., Rector of 
 
 Walcot. Second Edition. 8vo. 8*. Qd. 
 
 Binney — Sermons preached in the King's Weigh 
 
 House Chapel, 1829—1869. By THOMAS BINNEY, D.D. 
 
 New and Cheaper Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 4*. Qd. 
 
 Birks — The Difficulties of Belief in connexion with 
 
 the Creation and the Fall. By T. R. BIRKS, M.A., Perpetual 
 Curate of Holy Trinity, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 4*. Qd. 
 
 Book of Praise Hymnal, compiled and arranged by 
 
 Sir ROUNDELL PALMER. 
 
 A — Royal 32mo., limp cloth. Qd. 
 
 B — Small 18mo., larger type, limp cloth. 1*. 
 
 C — Same Edition on fine paper, 18mo., cloth. Is. 6d. 
 Also an Edition with Music, selected, harmonized, and composed 
 by JOHN HULLAH. Square 18mo., cloth. 3^. 6d. 
 
 Burgon — A Treatise on the Pastoral Office. 
 
 Addressed chiefly to Candidates for Holy Orders, or to those 
 who have recently undertaken the cure of souls. By the Rev. 
 JOHN W. BURGON, M.A., Oxford. 8vo. 125. 
 
 Butler (G) — Sermons preached in Cheltenham Col- 
 lege Chapel. By the Rev. GEO. BUTLER, M.A., Principal 
 of Liverpool College. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 — Family Prayers. By the Eev. G. Butlee, 
 
 M.A. Crown 8vo. 5s. 
 
 Butler (H. M) — Sermons preached in the Chapel of 
 
 Harrow School. By H. MONTAGUE BUTLER, Head Master. 
 Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d. 
 
 — A Second Series. Crown Svo. 7s. ed. 
 
 0:2 
 1000 : 6 : 70 
 
2 Macmillan and Co.'s 
 
 Butler — Works by the Eev. Wm Archer Butler, 
 
 M.A., late Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of 
 Dublin :— 
 
 — Sermons, Doctrinal and Practical. 
 
 Edited, with a Memoir of the Author's Life, by T. WOODWARD, 
 M.A., Dean of Down. With Portrait. J^ighth and Cheajper 
 Edition. 8vo. 8-?. 
 
 — A Second Series of Sermons. 
 
 Edited by J. A. JEREMIE, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity 
 in the University of Cambridge. Fifth and Cheajper ^Edition. 
 Svo. 7*. 
 
 — Letters on Eomanism, in Eeply to Mr. New- 
 man's Essay on Development. Edited by T. WOODWARD, 
 M.A., Dean of Down. Svo. lO^. Qd. 
 
 Calderwood — Philosophy of the Infinite. 
 
 A Treatise on Man's Knowledge of the Infinite Being, in 
 answer to Sir W. Hamilton and Dr. Mansel. By the Rev. 
 B.Y.'^BX OKLD^^^OOY),M.k. Second Edition. Svo. 14*. 
 " A book of ^reat ability written in a clear style and may be easily 
 
 understood by even those who are not versed in such "discussions. " — British 
 
 Quarterly Review. 
 
 Cambridge Lent Sermons — Sermons preached 
 
 during Lent, 1864, in Great St. Mary's Church, Cambridge. By 
 the Bishop of Oxford, Rev. H. P. Liddon, T. L. Claughtok, 
 J. R. Woodford, Dr. Goulburn, J. W. Burgon, T. T. Carter, 
 Dr. PusEY, Dean Hook, W. J. Butler, Dean Goodwin. 
 Crown Svo. 7*. Qd. 
 
 Campbell — The Nature of the Atonement and its 
 
 Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life. By JOHN 
 M'LEOD CAMPBELL. Third Edition, revised. ^\o. \Os.Qd. 
 
 — Thoughts on Eevelation, with special refer- 
 ence to the Present Time. By JOHN M'LEOD CAMPBELL. 
 Crown Svo. 5*. 
 
 — Christ the Bread of Life. An Attempt to 
 
 give a profitable direction to the present occupation of Thought 
 with Romanism. By J. M'LEOD CAMPBELL, D.D. Second 
 Edition, much enlarged. Crown Svo. 4*. Qd. 
 
 Challis — Creation in Plan and in Progress : being 
 
 an Essay on the First Chapter of Genesis. By the Rev. 
 JAMES CHALLIS, M.A., F.R.S., F.R.A.S. Cr. Svo. 3^. Qd. 
 
 Choice Notes on the Gospels, drawn from Old and 
 
 New Sources. 4 vols, crown Svo. 4s. 6t/. each. St. Matthevr 
 and St. Mark in one vol., price 9*. 
 
Theological Works. 3 
 
 Cheyne — 'Notes and Criticisms on the Hebrew Text 
 
 of ISAIAH. By the Eev. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., Fellow of 
 
 Balliol College, Oxford. 8vo, 2s. 6d. 
 
 A critical discussion of about 50 passages in Isaiah, some probably corrupt, 
 and all more or less obscure, together with a re-examination of the ancient 
 interpreters, and a few fresh illustrations from MSS. in the Bodleian Library. 
 
 — The Book of Isaiah Chronologically Arranged. 
 
 An Amended Version, with Historical and Critical Introductions 
 and Explanatory Notes. By T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., Fellow of 
 Balliol College, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 The object of this edition is simply to restore the probable meaning of Isaiah, 
 so far as this can be expressed in modern English. The basis of the version 
 is the revised translation of 1611, but no scruple has been felt in introducing 
 alterations, wherever the true sense of the prophecies appeared to require it. 
 
 Chretien — The Letter and the Spirit. 
 
 Six Sermons on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture. By 
 CHARLES P. CHRETIEN. Crown 8vo. 5*. 
 
 Church — Sermons preached before the University 
 
 of Oxford. By R. W. CHURCH, M.A., late Fellow of Oriel 
 College, Rector of Whatley. Second JEdition. Cr. 8vo. 4*. Qd. 
 
 Clark — Four Sermons preached in the Chapel of 
 
 Trinity College, Cambridge. By W. G. CLARK, M.A., Public 
 Orator in the University of Cambridge. Fcap. 8vo. 2*. Qd. 
 
 Clay — The Power of the Keys. Sermons preached 
 
 in Coventry. By the Rev. W. L. CLAY, M.A. Fcp. 8vo. 3«. 6rf. 
 
 Clergyman's Self-Examination concerning the Apos- 
 tles' Creed. Extra fcap. 8vo. 1*. Qd. 
 
 Colenso — Works by the Eight Eev. J. W. Colenso, 
 
 D.D., Bishop of Natal:— 
 
 — Tillage Sermons. Seventh HdiUon. Fcap. 8vo. 2*. Qd. 
 
 — Companion to the Holy Communion. 
 
 Containing the Service, and Select Readings from the writings 
 of Mr. Maueice. 18rao. 1*. 
 
 Cotton — Works by the late George Edward Lynch 
 
 COTTON, D.D., Bishop of Calcutta:— 
 
 — Sermons, chiefly connected with Public Events 
 
 of 1854. Fcap. 8vo. 3*. 
 
 — Expository Sermons on the Epistles for the 
 
 Sundays of the Christian Year. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. 15.y. 
 
 — Sermons preached to English Congregations 
 
 in India. Crown 8vo. 7*. (dd. 
 
 — Sermons and Addresses delivered in Marl- 
 borough College during Six Years. Cro\\n 8vo. 10*. 6;/. 
 
4 Macmillan and Co.'s 
 
 Cure — The Seven Words of Christ on the Cross. 
 
 Sermons preached at St. George's, Bloorasbury. Bj E. 
 CAPEL CURE, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 3*. 6d. 
 
 Davies — AYorks by the Eev. J. Ll. Davies, M.A., 
 
 Eector of Christ Church, St. Marylebone. 
 
 — The Work of Christ ; or the World Eeconciled to 
 
 God. With a Preface on the AtonementControversy. Fcp. 8vo. 6*. 
 
 — Sermons on the Manifestation of the Son of 
 
 God. With a Preface addressed to Laymen on the present 
 position of the Clergy of the Church of England ; and an Ap- 
 pendix on the Testimony of Scripture and the Church as to the 
 possibility of Pardon in the Future State. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 — Baptism, Confirmation, and the Lord's Supper, 
 
 as interpreted by their Outward Signs. Three Expository Ad- 
 dresses for Parochial use. Fcap. 8vo., limp cloth, 1*. 6d. 
 
 — The Epistles of St. Paul to the Ephesians, the 
 
 Colossians, and Philemon. With Introductions and Notes, and 
 an Essay on the Traces of Foreign Elements in the Theology 
 of these Epistles. 8vo. 7*. 6d. 
 
 — Morality according to the Sacrament of the 
 
 Lord's Supper. Crown 8vo. 3^. 6d. 
 
 — The Gospel and Modern Life. Sermons on 
 
 some of the Difficulties of the Present Day, with a Preface on 
 the Theology of " The Pall Mall Gazette." Extra Fcp. 8vo. .6*. 
 
 De Teissier — Works by G. F. De Teissier, B.D. : 
 
 — Village Sermons. Crown 8vo. 9*. 
 
 Second Series. Crown 8vo. 8*. 6d. 
 
 — The House of Prayer ; or, a Practical Ex- 
 position of the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer in the 
 Church of England. 18mo. extra cloth, 4^. 6d. 
 
 Donaldson — A Critical History of Christian Lite- 
 rature and Doctrine, from the Death of the Apostles to the 
 Nicene Council. By JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D. 3 vols, 
 8vo. cloth, 31^. 6d. 
 
 Ecce Homo — A Survey of the Life and Work of 
 
 Jesus Christ. Tenth Ediiion. Crown 8vo. Qs. 
 
 Eastwood — The Bible Word Book. 
 
 A Glossary of Old English Bible Words. By J. EASTWOOD, 
 M.A., of St. John's College, and W. ALDIS WRIGHT, M.A., 
 Trinity College, Cambridge. 18mo. bs. 6d. 
 
Theological Woeks. 6 
 
 Farrar — The Fall of Man, and other Sermons. 
 
 By the Rev. F. W. FARRAR, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity 
 College, Cambridge. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Forbes — Yillage Sermons by a Northamptonshire 
 
 Rector. With a Preface on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture. 
 Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 — The Voice of God in the Psalms. By Granville 
 
 FORBES, Rector of Broughton. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 Gifford — The Glory of God in Man. 
 
 By E. H. GIFFORD, D.D. Fcap. Svo. cloth, 35. 6d. 
 
 Golden Treasury Psalter. The Student^s Edition, 
 
 Being an Edition with Briefer Notes of " The Psalms Chrono- 
 logically Arranged by Four Friends." 18mo. 3*. 6d. 
 In makinf? this abridgement of " Tlie Psalms Chronologically Arranged" the 
 Editors have endeavoured to meet the requirements oif readers of a different 
 class from those for whom the larger edition was intended. 
 Some, who found the large book useful for private reading, have asked for an 
 edition of a smaller size and at a lower price for familv use, while at the 
 same time some 'I'eachers in Public Schools have suggested that it would be 
 convenient to them to have a simpler book, which they could put into the 
 hands of younger pupils. 
 
 Hardwick — Works by the Yen. Archdeacon 
 
 HARDWICK:— 
 
 — Christ and other Masters. A Historical In- 
 quiry into some of the Chief Parallelisms and Contrasts between 
 Christianity and the Religious Systems of the Ancient World. 
 Neio Edition, revised, and a Prefatory Memoir by the Rev. 
 FRANCIS PROCTER. Two vols, crown 8vo. 15*. 
 
 — A History of the Christian Church. 
 
 Middle Age. From Gregory the Great to the Excommunication 
 of Luther. Edited by FRANCIS PROCTER, M.A. With 
 Four Maps constructed for this work by A. Keith Johnston. 
 Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 10*. 6d. 
 
 — A History of the Christian Church during the 
 
 Refoemation. Revised by FRANCIS PROCTER, M.A. 
 Second Edition. Crown Svo. 10*. 6d. 
 
 — Twenty Sermons for Town Congregations. 
 
 Crown Svo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 Howard — The Pentateuch ; or, ihQ Five Books of 
 
 Moses. Translated into English fi'om the Version of the LXX. 
 With Notes on its Omissions and Insertions, and also on the 
 Passages in which it differs from the Authorized Version. By 
 the Hon. HENRY HOWARD, D.D., Dean of Lichfield. Crown 
 Svo. Genesis, 1 vol. 8s. 6d. ; Exodus and Leviticus, 1 vol. 
 10*. 6d. ; NuMBEES and Deutebgnomy, 1 vol. 10*. 6d. 
 
6 Macmillan and Co.'s 
 
 Hervey — The Genealogies of our Lord and Saviour 
 
 Jesus Christ, as contained in the Gospels of St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke, reconciled with each other, and shown to be in har- 
 mony with the true Chronology of the Times. By Lord 
 ARTHUR HERVEY, M.A. 8vo. ]0.?. Qd. 
 
 Hymni Eeclesise. — Fcap. 8vo. cloth. Is. 6d. 
 
 Jameson. — Works by the Eev. F. J. Jameson, m.a. 
 
 — Life's Work, in Preparation and in Eetrospect. 
 
 Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge. Fcap. 
 8vo. 1*. 6d. 
 
 — Brotherly Counsels to Students. 
 
 Sermons preached in the Chapel of St. Catharine's College, 
 Cambridge. Fcap. Svo. Is. 6d. 
 
 Jones — The Church of England and Common 
 
 Sense. By HARRY JONES, M.A. Fcap. Svo. cloth, 3^. 6d. 
 
 Kingsbury — Spiritual Sacrifice and Holy Com- 
 munion. By T. L. KINGSBURY, M.A. Seven Sermons, 
 with Notes. Fcap. Svo. 3*. 6d. 
 
 Kingsley — Works by the Eev. Charles Kingsley, 
 
 M.A., Rector of Eversley, and Canon of Chester. 
 
 Good N^eWS of God. Fourth Edition. Fcap. Svo. 4^. Qd. 
 
 — Yillage Sermons. Seventh Edition. Fcap. Svo. 25. Qd. 
 
 — The Gospel of the Pentateuch. 
 
 Seco7id Edition. Fcap. Svo. 4*. 6d. 
 
 — Sermons for the Times. 
 
 Third Edition. Fcap. Svo. 3*. 6d, 
 
 — David. Four Sermons. 
 
 David's Weakness — David's Strength — David's Anger — David's 
 Deserts. Fcap. Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 . — Sermons on National Subjects. 
 
 First Series. Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. 55. 
 
 — Sermons on National Subjects. 
 
 Second Series. Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. bs. 
 
 — The Water of Life, and other Sermons. 
 
 Fcap. Svo. Qs. 
 
 — Discipline, and other Sermons. Fcap. Svo. 6*. 
 
 — Town and Country Sermons. 
 
 Second Edition. Extra Fcap. Svo. Qs. 
 
Theological Works. 7 
 
 Lightfoot — Works by J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., 
 
 Hulsean Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge : 
 
 — St. Paul's EiDistle to the Galatians. 
 
 A Revised Text, with Notes and Dissertations. TJiird Edition, 
 revised, 8vo. cloth, 125. 
 
 — St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. 
 
 A Revised _ Text, with Notes and Dissertations. 8vo. I2s. 
 Second Edition. 
 
 — S. Clement of Eome. The Two Epistles to the 
 
 Corinthians. With Introduction and Notes. 8vo. 8*. Qd. 
 
 Luckock — The Tables of Stone. Sermons preached 
 
 in All Saints' Church, Cambridge, by H. M. LUCKOCK, M.A., 
 Vicar. Fcap. 8vo. ^s. 6d. 
 
 Maclaren — Sermons preached at Manchester. 
 
 By ALEXANDER MACLAREN. Third Edition. Fop. 
 8vo. 45. 6d. 
 
 — A Second Series of Sermons. Fcap. 8vo. 4*. 6d. 
 Mackenzie — The Christian Clergy of the First 
 
 Ten Centuries, and their Influence on European Civilization. 
 By HENRY MACKENZIE, B.A., Scholar of Trinity College, 
 Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 M^Cosh — Works by James M^Cosh, LL.D., Prin- 
 
 cipal of Princeton College, New Jersey, U.S. : — 
 
 — The Method of the Divine Government, 
 
 Physical and Moral. Mnth Edition. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 — The Supernatural in relation to the Natural. 
 
 Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 — The Intuitions of the Mind. 
 
 A Neto Edition. 8vo. cloth, 10^. 6c?. 
 
 Maclear — Works by G. F. Maclear, B.D., Head 
 
 Master of King's College School, and Preacher at the Temple 
 Church : — 
 
 — A History of Christian Missions during the 
 
 Middle Ages. Crown 8vo. 10*. Qd. 
 
 — The Witness of the Eucharist ; or, The Institu- 
 
 ution and Early Celebration of the Lord's Supper, considered 
 as an Evidence of the Historical Truth of the Gospel Narrative 
 and of the Atonement. Crown 8vo. 4.?. 6d. 
 
 — A Class-Book of Old Testament History. 
 
 With Four Maps. Fifth Edition. ISmo. 4iS.Q>d. 
 
8 Macmillan and Co/s 
 
 Maclear (G. F.)— A Class-Book of New Testament 
 
 History. Including the Connexion of the Old and New- 
 Testament. Third Edition. 18mo. 5*. 60?. 
 
 — A Class-Book of the Catechism of the Church 
 
 of England. Second Edition. 18mo. cloth. 2s. 6d. 
 
 — A Shilling Book of Old Testament History. 
 
 18mo. cloth limp. 1*. 
 
 — A Shilling Book of IN'ew Testament History. 
 
 ISmo. cloth limp. 1^. 
 
 — A First Class-Book of the Catechism of the 
 
 Church of England, with Scripture Proofs for Junior Classes 
 and Schools. ISmo. 6c?. 
 
 — The Order of Confirmation. A Sequel to the 
 
 Class-Book of the Church Catechism, with Notes, and suitable 
 Devotions. ISmo. dd. 
 
 Marriner — Sermons preached at Lyme Eegis. 
 
 By E. T. MARRINER, Curate. Fcap. Svo. 4>s. 6d. 
 
 Maurice — Works by the Eev. Prederice: Denison 
 
 MAURICE, M.A., Professor of Casuistry and Moral Philosophy 
 in the University of Cambridge : — 
 
 — The Claims of the Bible and of Science ; a 
 
 Correspondence on some questions respecting the Pentateuch. 
 Crown Svo. 4*. 6d. 
 
 — Dialogues on Family Worship. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 — The Patriarchs and Lawgivers of the Old 
 
 Testament. Third and Cheaper Edition. Crown Svo. 5*. 
 This volume contains Discourses on the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and tho 
 begmnmg of the First Book of Samuel. 
 
 — The Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament. 
 
 Second Edition. Crown Svo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 This volume contains Discourses on Samuel I. and TI., Kings I. and II., Amos, 
 Joel, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Jeremiah, andEzekiel. 
 
 — The Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven. 
 
 A Series of Lectures on the Gospel of St. Luke. Crown Svo. 9s. 
 
 — The Gospel of St. John : a Series of Discourses. 
 
 Third and Cheaper Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 — The Epistles of St. John : a Series of Lectures 
 
 on Christian Ethics. Second and Cheaper Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 — The Commandments considered as Instruments 
 
 of National Reformation. Crown Svo. 4s. 6d» 
 
Theological Works. 9 
 
 Maurice — Expository Sermons on the Prayer- 
 Boole The Prayer-Book considered especially in reference to 
 the Eomish System. Second JEdiiion. Fcap'. 8vo. 5*. 60?. 
 
 — Lectures on the Apocalypse ; or, Book of the 
 
 Eevelation of St. John the Divine. Crown 8vo. IO5. M. 
 
 — What is Eevelation ? A Series of Sermons on 
 
 the Epiphany, to which are added Letters to a Theological Stu- 
 dent on the Bampton Lectures of Mr. Mansel. Cr. 8vo. lOs.Qd. 
 
 — Sequel to the Inquiry, " What is Eevelation?" 
 
 Letters in Reply to Mr. Mansel's Examination of " Strictures 
 on the Bampton Lectures " Crown Svo. 6*. 
 
 — Lectures on Ecclesiastical History. Svo. lOs. Qd. 
 
 Theological Essays. Second Edition. Cr. Svo. 10*. Qd. 
 
 — The Doctrine of Sacrifice Deduced from the 
 
 Scriptures. Crown Svo. 7*. M. 
 
 — The Eeligions of the World, and their Eola- 
 tions to Christianity. Fourth Edition. Fcap. Svo. 5*. 
 
 — On the Lord's Prayer. Uh Edition. Fcp. Svo. 2*. ^d. 
 
 — On the Sabhath Day: the Character of the 
 
 Warrior ; and on the Interpretation of History. Fcp. Svo. 2*. M. 
 
 — Learning and Working. Six Lectures on the 
 
 Foundation of Colleges for Working Men. Crown Svo. 55. 
 
 — The Ground and Object of Hope for Mankind. 
 
 Four Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge. 
 Crown Svo. 3^. 60?. 
 
 — The Conscience. Lectures on Casuistry de- 
 livered before the University of Cambridge. Svo. 8*. M. 
 
 — Social Morality. Twenty-one Lectures de- 
 livered in the University of Cambridge. Svo. \^s. 
 
 Moorhouse — Works by James Mooehouse, M.A., 
 
 Vicar of Paddington, Middlesex : — 
 
 — Some Modern Difficulties respecting the Facts 
 
 of Nature and Revelation. Fcap. Svo. 2*. Qd. 
 
 — Our Lord Jesus Christ the subject of Growth 
 
 in Wisdom. Four Sermons (being the Hulsean Lectures for 
 1865) preached before the University of Cambridge; to which 
 is added Three Sermons preached before the University of Cam- 
 bridge in February 1864. Crown Svo. 5^. 
 
 — Jacob. Three Sermons preached before the 
 
 University of Cambridge in Lent, 1870. Fcap. Svo. 3*. 6c?. 
 
10 Macmillan and Co.'s 
 
 Morse — Working for God, and other Practical 
 
 Sermons. By FRANCIS MOESE, M.A. Second Edition, 
 Ecap. 8vo. 5^. 
 
 O'Brien — Works by James Thomas O'Brien, D.D., 
 
 Bishop of Ossory : — 
 
 — An Attempt to Explain and Establish the 
 
 Doctrine of Justification by Faith only. Third Ediiion. 8vo. 12*. 
 
 — Charge deliyered at the Visitation in 1863. 
 
 Second Editioyi. 8vo. 2*. 
 
 — Vindication of the Irish Clergy. 8vo. 2*. 6^?. 
 
 — Charge delivered in 1866. 8vo. 2^. 
 
 Plea for a New English Version of the Scriptures. 
 
 By a Licentiate of the Church of Scotland. 8vo. 65. 
 
 Potter — A Voice from the Church in Australia: 
 
 Sermons preached in Melbourne. B7 the Rev. ROBERT 
 POTTER, M.A. Extra fcap. 8vo. 4*. M. 
 
 Prescott — The Threefold Cord. Sermons preached 
 
 before the University of Cambridge, by J. E. PRESCOTT, B.D. 
 Fcap. 8vo. 3*. Qd. 
 
 Procter — A History of the Book of Common 
 
 Prayer: with a Rationale of its Offices. By FRANCIS 
 PROCTER, M.A. Eigldli Edition, revised and enlarged. Crn. 
 8vo. 10^. M. 
 
 In the course of the last twenty yeai-s the whole question of liturgical knowled^ 
 has been reopened with great learning and accurate research, and it is mainly 
 with the view of epitomizing their extensive publications, and correcting by 
 their help the errors and misconceptions which had obtained currency, thai 
 the present volume has been put together. 
 
 Procter and Maclear — An Elementary Introduction 
 
 to the Book of Common Prayer. By FRANCIS PROCTER, 
 M.A., and G. F. MACLEAR, B.D. Eourth Ediiion, rearranged 
 and supplemented by an explanation of the Morning and Even- 
 ing Prayer and the Litany. 18mo. 2.s. ^d. 
 
 Psalms (The), Chronologically Arranged. 
 
 An Amended Version, with Historical Introductions and Ex- 
 planatory Notes. By FOUR FRIENDS. Cr. 8vo. 10^. 6c?. 
 
 PuUen — The Psalter and Canticles, Pointed for 
 
 Chanting, Avith Marks of Expression, and a List of Appropriate 
 Chants. By the Rev. H. PULLEN, M.A. 8vo. 5*. 
 
 Ramsay — The Catechiser's Manual ; or, the Church 
 
 Catechism Illustrated and Explained, for the use of Clergymen, 
 Schoolmasters, and Teachers. By ARTHUR RAMSAY, M.A. 
 Second Edition. 18mo. 1*. Qd. 
 
Theological Wokks. 11 
 
 Reynolds._]N^otes of the Christian Life. 
 
 A Selection of Sermons by HENRY EGBERT REYNOLDS, 
 B.A., President of Cheshunt Colle.i^e, and Fellow of University 
 College, London. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Roberts — Discussions on the Gospels. 
 
 By the Rev. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D. Second Edition, 
 revised and enlarged. 8vo. 16*. 
 
 Robertson — Pastoral Counsels. Being Chapters 
 
 on Practical and Devotional Subjects. By the Rev. JOHN 
 ROBERTSON, D.D. Third Edition, with a Preface by tho 
 Author of " The Recreations of a Country Parson." JExtra 
 fcap. 8vo. Qs. 
 
 Romanis.— Sermons preached at St. Mary's, Beading. 
 
 By WILLIAM ROMANIS, M.A. First Series. Fcap.Svo. Qs. 
 
 — Second Series. Pcap. Svo. Qs. 
 
 Scott — Discourses. By Alexa:nder J. Scott, m.a., 
 
 Professor of Logic in Owen's College, Manchester. Cr. Svo. 7*. Qd. 
 
 Selwyn — The Work of Christ in the World. 
 
 By G. A. SELWYN, D.D., Bishop of Lichfield. TJiird 
 Edition. Crown Svo. 2^. 
 
 — Verbal Analysis of the Bible. Folio. 14^. 
 Sergeant — Sermons. 
 
 By the Rev. E. W. SERGEANT, M.A., Assistant Master at 
 Winchester College. Fcap. Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Shirley. — Elijah ; Four University Sermons. 
 
 I. Samaria.— IL Carmel.— III. Kishon.— IV. Horeb. By W. 
 W. SHIRLEY, D.D., late Professor of Ecclesiastical History 
 in the University of Oxford. Fcap. Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Simpson — An Epitome of the History of the 
 
 Christian Church. By WILLIAM SIMPSON, M.A. Fourth 
 Edition. Fcap. Svo. 3*. 6d. 
 
 Smith — Obstacles to Missionary Success among 
 
 the Heathen. By W. SAUMAREZ SMITH, M.A., Fellow of 
 Trinity College, Cambridge. (The Maitland Prize Essay for 
 1867). Crown Svo. 3*. 6d. 
 
 — Christian Faith. Sermons preached before the 
 
 University of Cambridge. By W. SAUMAREZ SMITH, M.A., 
 
 Principal of St. Aidan's College, Birkenhead. Fcap. Svo. 3*. Qd. 
 
 Smith, — Prophecy a Preparation for Christ. 
 
 Lectures by R. PAYNE SMITH, D.D., Regius Professor of 
 Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Being the 
 Bamptou Lectures for 1869. Svo. 12*. 
 
12 Macmillan and Co.'s 
 
 Swainson — Works by C. A. Swainson, D.D., 
 
 Norrisian Professor of Divinity at Cambridge: — 
 
 — A Handbook to Butler's Analogy. 
 
 Crown 8vo. 1*. 6d. 
 
 — The Creeds of the Church in their Eolations 
 
 to Holy Scripture and the Conscience of the Christian. 8vo. 9*. 
 
 — The Authority of the 'New Testament, and other 
 
 Lectures, delivered before the University of Cambridge. 8vo. 12*. 
 
 Taylor — The Eestoration of Belief. 
 
 New and Eevised Edition. By ISAAC TAYLOE, Esq. 
 Crown Svo. 8*. Qd. 
 
 Temple — Sermons Preached in Eugby School 
 
 Chapel in 1858, 1859, 1800. By FREDERICK TEMPLE, 
 D D., Chaplain in Ordinary to her Majesty, Head Master of 
 Rugby School, Chaplain to the Right Hon. the Earl of Denbigh. 
 Third and Cheaper Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. ^s. Qd. 
 
 Thring — Sermons delivered at Uppingham School. 
 
 By the Rev. E. THRING, M.A., Head Master. Crown Svo. 5*. 
 
 Thrupp — Works by the Eev. J. F. Thrupp : — 
 
 — Introduction to the Study and use of the 
 
 Psalms. 2 vols. Svo. 21*. 
 
 — The Burden of Human Sin as borne by Christ. 
 
 Three Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge, 
 Lent 1865. Crown Svo. 3*. Qd. 
 
 — The Song of Songs. A [N'ew Translation, with 
 
 a Commentary and an Introduction. Crown Svo. 7s. Qd. 
 
 Todd — The Books of the Yaudois. 
 
 The Waldensian Manuscripts preserved in the Library of Trinity 
 College, Dublin, with an Appendix by JAMES HENTHORN 
 TODD, D.D., Professor of Hebrew at Dublin University. 
 Crown Svo. 6^. 
 
 Tracts for Priests and People. By Yarious "Writers. 
 
 First and Second Series. Crown Svo. 8.?. each. 
 
 — ]^os. one to fifteen, sewed, is. each. 
 
 Trench — Brief Notes on the Greek of the !N"ew 
 
 Testament (for Eni^lish Readers). By the Rev. FRANCIS 
 TRENCH, M.A. Crown Svo. cloth. Qs. 
 
 •' A very useful work, enabling the unlearned reader to see at once the places 
 in -which our translation is not quite literal or deiective in force. " — Spectator. 
 
Theological Woeks. 13 
 
 Trench — Works by E. Chenevix Trench, D.D., 
 
 Archbishop of Dublin : — 
 
 — Notes on the Parables of our Lord. 
 
 TentJi Edition. 8vo. 12^. 
 
 — Notes on the Miracles of our Lord. 
 
 Ninth Edition. 8vo. 12*. 
 
 — Sermons preached in Westminster Abbey. 
 
 Second Edition. 8vo. 10s. Qd. 
 
 — On the Authorized Version of the New Test- 
 ament. Second Edition. 7s. 
 
 — Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven 
 
 Churches in Asia. Third Edition, revised. 8s. 6d. 
 
 — Synonyms of the New Testament. 
 
 New Edition. 1 vol. 8vo. 10*. 6d. 
 
 — The Fitness of Holy Scripture for Unfolding 
 
 the Spiritual Life of Man ; Christ the Desire of all Nations ; or 
 the Unconscious Prophecies of Heathendom. Plulsean Lectures, 
 Fcap. 8vo. Fourth Edition. 5s. 
 
 — Subjection of the Creature to Yanity, and 
 
 other Sermons. Fcap. 8vo. 3*. 
 
 — Studies in the Gospels. Second Edition. 8vo. 10*. 6d. 
 
 — Shipwrecks of Faith : Three Sermons preached 
 
 before the University of Cambridge, in May, 1867. Fcap. 8vo. 
 2s. 6d. 
 
 — The Sermon on the Mount. An Exposition 
 
 drawn from the Writings of St. Augustine, with an Essay on his 
 merits as an Interpreter of Holy Scripture. Third Edition, 
 enlarged. 8vo. 10^. 6d. 
 
 — Primary Charge. 8vo. 2*. 
 
 — Charges delivered in 1866 and 1869. 
 
 8vo. 1*. each. 
 
 Tudor — The Decalogue Viewed as the Christian's 
 
 Law, with special reference to the Questions and Wants of tho 
 Times. By the Rev. RICHARD TUDOR, B.A. Crown 8vo. 
 10s. U. 
 
 Tulloch — The Christ of the Gospels and the Christ 
 
 of Modern Criticism. Lectures on M. Renan's "Vie de Jesus." 
 By JOHN TULLOCH, D D., Principal of the College of St. 
 Mary, in the University cf St. Andrew. Extra fcap. 8vo. 4j. Qd. 
 
14 Macmillan and Co.'s 
 
 Vaughan — Works by Charles J. Vaughan, D.D., 
 
 Master of the Temple . — 
 
 — Christ Satisfying the Instincts of Humanity. 
 
 Eight Lectures delivered in the Temple Church. Extra fcap. 
 8vo. 3^. Qd. 
 
 Eight Discourses on Christ as satisfying the several instincts of Truth, 
 Reverence, Perfection, Liberty, Courage, Sympathy, Sacrifice, and Unity. 
 
 — Memorials of Harrow Sundays. 
 
 A Selection of Sermons preached in Harrow School ChapeL 
 With a View of the Chapel. £hurth Edition. Crown 8vo. 
 10*. ed. 
 
 — St. Paul's Epistle to the Eomans. 
 
 The Greek Text, with English Notes. Third Edition, revised 
 and enlarged. Crown 8vo. 7*. Qd. 
 
 — Twelve Discourses on Subjects connected with 
 
 the Liturgy and Worship of the Church of England. Fcap. 
 Svo. Qs. 
 
 — Epiphany, Lent, and Easter. A Selection of 
 
 Expository Sermons. Neto Edition. Crown Svo. 10s. Qd. 
 
 — Eoes of Faith : Unreality, Indolence, Irrever- 
 ence, Inconsistency. Sermons before the University of Cam- 
 bridge, November, 1868. Fcap. Svo. 3*. Qd. 
 
 — Lectures on the Epistle to the Philippians. 
 
 Second Edition. Crown Svo. 75. M. 
 
 — The Book and the Life: and other Sermons, 
 
 Preached before the University of Cambridge. New Edition. 
 Fcap. Svo. 45. 6d. 
 
 — Lectures on the Eevelation of St. John. 
 
 Third and Cheaper Edition. 2 vols, extra fcap. Svo. 95. 
 
 — Life's Work and God's Discipline. Three 
 
 Sermons before the University of Cambridge in April and May, 
 1865. Fcap. Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 — Words from the Gospels. 
 
 A Second Selection of Sermons preached in the Parish Church 
 of Doncaster. Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. 4s. Qd. 
 
 — Lessons of Life and Godliness. 
 
 A Selection of Sermons preached in the Parish Church of Don- 
 caster. Fourth and Cheaper Edition. Extra fcap. Svo. 3*. 6d. 
 
 — Lessons of the Cross and Passion. 
 
 Six Lectures delivered in Hereford Cathedral during the Week 
 before Easter, 1869. Fcap. 8vo. 25. 6d. 
 
Theological Works. 15 
 
 Vaughan (C. J).— The Epistles of St. Paul. 
 
 For English Eeaders. Part I. containing- the First Epistle to 
 the Thessalonians. Second Edition. 8vo. I*. Qd. (Each 
 Epistle will be published separately.) 
 
 — The Church of the First Days : 
 
 Series I. The Church of Jerusalem. Second Edition. 
 
 " II. The Church of the Gentiles. Second Edition. 
 
 " III. The Church of the World. Second Edition. 
 Fcap. 8vo. 4^. Qd. each. 
 
 — The Wholesome Words of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Four Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge, in 
 November, 1866. Second Editioii. Fcap. 8vo. 3*. Qd. 
 
 Vaughan — Works by Dayid J. Vaughan, M.A., 
 
 Vicar of St. Martin's, Leicester : — 
 
 — Sermons preached in St. John's Church, Leices- 
 ter, during the Years 1855 and 1856. Crown 8vo. 5*. 6c?. 
 
 — Sermons on the Eesurrection. With a Preface. 
 
 Fcap. 8vo. 3.9. 
 
 — Christian Evidences and the Bible. 
 
 New Edition, revised and enlarged. Fcap. 8vo. cloth, 55. Qd. 
 
 — Sermons on Sacrifice and Propitiation. 
 
 Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Venn — On Some of the Characteristics of Belief, 
 
 Scientific and Religious. Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1869. 
 By J. VENN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer of Gonville and Cuius 
 College, Cambridge. Svo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 Warington — The Week of Creation; or. The 
 
 Cosmoo-ony of Genesis considered in its Relation to Modern 
 Science. By GEORGE WARINGTON, Author of " The 
 Historic Character of the Pentateuch Vindicated." Crown Svo. 
 4s. 6d. 
 
 Westcott — Works by Brooke Foss Westcott, 
 
 B.D., Assistant Master in Harrow School : — 
 
 — A General Survey of the History of the Canon 
 
 of the New Testament during the First Four Centuries. Crown 
 Svo. Third Edition in the Press. 
 
 — Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles. 
 
 Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge. With 
 Notes. Crown Svo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 — Introduction to the Study of the Four Gospels. 
 
 Third Edition. Crown Svo. 10*. 6d. 
 
16 Macmillan and Co.'s Theological Works. 
 Westcott — The Bible in the Church. 
 
 A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy 
 Scriptures in the Christian Churches. Second Edition. ISmo. 
 4*. Qd. 
 
 — The Gospel of the Eesurrection : 
 
 Thoughts on its Relation to Reason and History. New Edition, 
 Fcap. 8vo. 4s. Qd. 
 
 — A General View of the History of the English 
 
 Bible. Crown 8vo. 10s. M. 
 
 — Christian Life Manifold and One. Six Sermons 
 
 preached in Peterborough Cathedral. Crown 8vo. 2*. Qd. 
 
 Wilkins — The Light of the World. An Essay. 
 
 By A. S. WILKINS, M.A., Professor of Latin in Owen's 
 College, Manchester. Crown Svo. 3a-. Qd. Second Edition. 
 
 Wilson — An English Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon 
 
 and Concordance to the more correct understanding of the 
 English Translation of the Old Testament, by reference to the 
 Original Hebrew. By WILLIAM WILSON, D.D., Canon of 
 Winchester, late Fellow of Queens' College, Oxford. Second 
 Edition, carefully revised. 4to. cloth, 25*. 
 
 Wilton — The Negeb; or, '^ South Country" of 
 
 Scripture. By the Rev. EDWARD WILTON, M.A., Oxom 
 With a Map. Crown Svo. 7*. Qd. 
 
 Woodford — Christian Sanctity. 
 
 By J. RUSSELL WOODFORD, M.A. Fcap. Svo. cloth. 3*. 
 
 Woodward — Works by the Eev. Henry Wood- 
 ward, M.A. Edited by his Son, THOMAS WOODWARD, 
 M. A., Dean of Down : — 
 
 — The Shunammite. 
 
 Second Edition. Crown Svo. cloth. 10s. Qd. 
 Sermons. Fifth Edition. Crown Svo. 10^. Qd. 
 
 Worship (The) of God and Fellowship among Men. 
 
 Sermons on Public Worship. By Professor MAURICE and 
 Others. Fcap. Svo. cloth. 3^. Qd. 
 
 Worsley Christian Drift of Cambridge Work. 
 
 Eio-ht Lectures recently delivered on the Christian Bearings of 
 Classics Mathematics, Medicine, and Law Studies prescribed in 
 its Charter to Downing College. By T. WORSLEY, D.D., 
 Master of Downing College. Crown Svo. cloth. Qs. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: — rUINTED BY JONATHAN PALMER.