the raging deep-and at that era it was so. "And the spirit of God brooded on the face of the waters. And God said, let there be light." Where? In some place in the universe?

No. The

subject was not now the heaven and the earth, but the earth only. The light, therefore, was shown where the darkness had been, namely on the face of the deep. Before the solidity of earth permitted of land standing out of the waters, the water covered the whole earth to the depth of about two miles. The translation “in the beginning" was misleading; there was no article in the Hebrew here, although very plentifully used in this chapter. It was not, therefore, the beginning of all things, as of energy and matter, etc., that was intended, but a beginning relating mainly to this poor one-mooned world.

When we considered the facts that the time ratios of Genesis and of our leading geologists agreed; that the order and distribution of life, beginning first in the waters, also agreed with those stated by Sir Archibald Geikie; that the day divisions in Genesis agreed with the divisions of Professor Haeckel; that the days were called æons in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and were so understood by all the Greek fathers; then we dared not doubt the reality of Divine revelation and the truth of the Bible.

Dr. A. T. SCHOFIELD thought the beauty of Mr. Maunder's paper consisted in what it contained, and that a good deal of its wisdom consisted in what was left out. He thought Mr. Maunder's remark that the words "Let there be light" implied the creation of energy might be open to question, but he would ask whether it was quite certain that the words "Let there be light" necessarily implied the original creation of light in the universe. He would like to allude to Dean Wace's wonderful words about the breadth and scope of the magnificent painting in this chapter; he ventured to suggest that, being painted by the Divine Artist, its accuracy in respect to the minutest word used was as conspicuous as the majestic breadth of the painting. Now one speaker had already pointed out that the word "was" occurred twice in the second verse but was only expressed once. "Darkness upon the face of the deep"; the " not expressed; but "the earth was without form and void," the word "was" expressed; the Hebrew usage suggesting that the first statement simply expressed that the darkness was there, and the second that the earth had become without form and void

was

from its previous condition. If we further bear in mind that these last words never occurred in Scripture except in connection with sin and some judgment of God, we might perhaps get a fuller light upon that second verse. Then on page 133, Mr. Maunder said that each working day was bounded by the evening and the morning; it would be well to bear in mind the fact that on the seventh day, when God rested, there is no mention either of evening or of morning.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that unfortunately very few of them there were accurate Hebrew scholars, and he was convinced that no one but an actual Hebraist ought to discuss the minute verbal details of this chapter. The marvel was that books of such infinite difficulty for minute analysis conveyed such a splendid and distinct impression on the average man; it was one of the evidences of the Divine truth of the Holy Scriptures.

Professor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD was sure that the very hearty thanks of that large meeting would be given to the author of the paper to which they had been listening,-a paper which, for originality and vigour of thought, linked with vivacity of style and diction, took rank among the best of the many valuable contributions in religion, philosophy, and science, with which their Society had been favoured.

The paper was adorned by many gems of truth. Genesis i is a revelation of God by Himself,-"God is the only source of light concerning himself" (page 126). The creation work on any one of the six days" was good and complete in itself" but "contained no germ or potentiality" of the work of a future day (page 130); before the work comes the fiat; man is made in the image, and after the likeness, of God (page 141).

But though we concur with the author that the primary object of this revelation is religious and designed to teach men the seven great truths he brings forward on page 127, yet it may be pointed out that this is not a complete account of the matter. Genesis i contains also other truths. God has been pleased to put the spiritual jewel in an historical and scientific setting-a setting which, since He is the God of Truth, must (if the revelation be from Him) itself be true. The Divine Author of the chapter tells men several science-truths, unknown to science when the chapter was written and for centuries afterwards, e.g., the firmament in which the sun

and the moon are placed, is not a'solid vault but is an expanse " similar to that in which birds fly; grass (or sproutage) and herb yielding seed after his kind, etc., were earlier than the great whales (or sea monsters), which in their turn preceded cattle, succeeded by man. The fact that these and all other science statements are in complete accord with modern science goes to attest the Divine Authorship of the narrative.

The Rev. JAMES THOMAS expressed the earnest hope that the Council of the Victoria Institute would arrange for the special publication in separate form of this most important paper.

The LECTURER thanked the Meeting for the great attention with which they had listened to him, and for the very kind reception they had given him. He would not attempt, at that late hour, to reply to the different criticisms that had been offered on his paper; except to point out to Mr. Rouse, who had represented him as saying that there was no difference between "God created" and "God made," that he had really said that he would not debate the difference; not quite the same thing. And to Dr. Woods Smyth he would reply that, however the words of the chapter were translated, it yet remained clear, that when God said "Let this, or that be," something happened which would not have happened if that word had not been spoken.

The Meeting adjourned at 6.15 p.m.

SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATIONS.

Mr. J. SCHWARTZ, Junr.: I agree with the two fundamental propositions of our lecturer, but I fear that he will consider me quite unqualified to discuss this subject to any profit, as I cannot accept absolutely the third proposition that God is Himself the Author of this chapter.

There is no more evidence of this assertion than for the similar claims of priests and the like all the world over for their own traditions. The vast majority of men of liberal education, including a number of the clergy, accept to-day his alternative that it was written by men who did not know but imagined it. I admit that it seems self-evident both that the universe does exist, and that it had a beginning, and that we desire to know how it began. Our author has put exceedingly well the relativity and limitations of our knowledge, from which it follows that such wish is never likely to be

realised, as we can never hope to get final explanations, or ultimate knowledge.

Much of the Bible that is taken literally by the orthodox appears to many of us to be meant figuratively, but this story of the Creation, which from the richness of the details clearly refers to the manufacture of the Universe, including our World, and all therein in six literal days, is taken figuratively. Geology, anthropology, and astronomy have demonstrated that this literal account is quite inconsistent with the established truths of evolution. It would be a strange form of revelation that caused Christians for seventeen centuries to accept this plain tale of Creation about 6,000 years ago, and to resist the growth of natural knowledge which has ultimately disproved it and established modern civilization. This new knowledge is being spread broadcast, and our author, by linking these obsolete traditions with the ethical inspiration of the Bible, is ensuring the rejection of both, or, as the German proverb puts it, is "throwing away the baby with the bath."

The Rev. J. IVERACH MUNRO, M.A.: The value of this paper, showing as it does the impossibility of true Science coming into collision with the religious aspect of the universe revealed in Genesis, chapter i, is very great. The aspect pertaining to Physical Science must be left to men of Science, but with regard to Biblical Science, and in connection with the sublime reticence of the narrative, and the lofty conception of God, as alone the Author of all, attention may be drawn to a single point, viz., there is room in the narrative for the creation and rebellion of angels prior to the creation of mankind, and for their destructive influence.

Contrary to the usual opinion, the Hebrew narrative actually appears to go out of its way to make room for this doctrine, which, developed in the Old Testament, culminates in the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles in the New.

In the second verse the usual Hebrew construction to express continuous development would have been, as all Hebraists are aware, the imperfect with vav conversive, i.e., wat-tehî ha-'a-rets, which would be correctly translated "and the earth was," etc. The fact, however, is that the narrative goes out of the usual order to say wha-a-rets ha-ythah, the vav being separated from its verb, the usual way in Hebrew of expressing the pluperfect. The earth was not created a waste and a void, it had

become so. become," etc.

Translate " now' (cf. Genesis iii, 1),

"the earth had

When we turn to the third chapter of Genesis, verse 1, we find the same peculiarity in the narrative. The "Serpent," used as the embodiment of the power of evil, is spoken of thus: Wehan-na-hāsh hā-yah. "Now the Serpent had become," etc., not was as in our translation. Hence the hypothesis (b), mentioned by Mr. Maunder on page 132, has a distinct basis in the Hebrew, and is consonant with the development of the teaching of both the Old Testament and the New concerning " principalities and powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places," which wrought desolation in this created order of things, and tempted man to his destruction, but have now been conquered by the God-Man Who is to be manifested in all them that believe. Dr. HEYWOOD SMITH, M.A., M.D.: I accept all three of Mr. Maunder's propositions wherewith he opens his paper.

I believe there is nothing in the Bible contrary to Science when we read them both aright, for they both have the same Author. Take, e.g., the circular theory of storms, a discovery of comparatively recent origin, it is clearly set forth in Ecclesiastes i, 6,-or Job xxvi, 7, "He hangeth the earth upon nothing."

:

any

Starting on these premises, I hold that Genesis i, 1, stands unique, as a comprehensive statement of fact that then millions of ages rolled by, giving time for the deposits of coal and other strata, the crystallization of gems, possibly by electricity, etc., and then (verse 2) for some cause (hidden from us) the earth became " how and nohow," a water-covered dark sphere, and it needed the "brooding over" of the Holy Spirit to usher in what we may call the second stage of creation. Then God said "Let light be, and light was." Remark that light was not created: light is the result of energy, possibly electrical (see Ezekiel i, describing the electrical (amber) manifestations round the throne)-or the sun, being its source, yet hidden by the dense mist rising from the hot watercovered earth, gave a sort of day and night to the already rotating earth.

And here I may state that I see no reason, if we are to believe in an Omnipotent Creator, why this fitting of the earth for the preAdamic race should not have been accomplished in six days as we have them now.