On page 134 Mr. Maunder speaks of the chapter as the record of some seer to whom the whole was revealed. But in whatever way the revelation was given, must it not have been given to Adam? The institution of marriage was necessary to man from the beginning; so also was the institution of the Sabbath; and the allusions to reckoning by sevens, as in the cases of Lamech and Noah, and the mention of the Sabbath in the Babylonian inscriptions, are surely proofs of its antiquity. The paper does not mention what is known as the second narrative of Creation. I believe that if we look upon that as having been written by Adam himself from his own point of view— of course, under Divine guidance-it will clear up many difficulties. I am not sure that I understand the reference on page 135 to the address of Wisdom in the eighth chapter of Proverbs, but by the use of capital letters the Messianic character of the passage is apparently recognised. Let me say that if we could clear up all the problems connected with the Creation narrative we should be creating a Scripture difficulty instead of solving one. For it is by faith that we are to understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. It is very remarkable that this verse comes in the portrait gallery of the Heroes of Faith-the saints of old who endured every kind of trial and suffering as a test of their faith. We are in no danger in these days of being stoned, or sawn asunder, or even of suffering bonds and imprisonment. And yet there is a trial of faith for every young Christian who stands up for the truth of God to-day. And is there any part of Scripture that has been so much attacked as the Creation Story? AUTHOR'S REPLY. I fear that Mr. Schwartz has not quite grasped the point that I wished to make in the first section of my paper. I had no intention of asserting that those who thought that the source of the chapter was in " Iman who did not know, but imagined it," were thereby disqualified from discussing it; but simply that, to be consistent, they must regard all such discussion as meaningless. "This first chapter of Genesis is only valuable if it comes to us from knowledge." Dr. Irving infers that I have not made up my mind about Evolution. I had quite made up my mind that it would be foreign to my purpose to discuss it here. The chapter before us deals with Creation, and Creation is not a phase of Evolution. I should like to distinguish between two things which seem to me very different, namely, the past physical history of the world, and the account of its being brought into existence. For Scripture distinguishes clearly between two different modes of the Divine action, and we ought to do the same. There is that action which Scripture speaks of as "upholding all things by the word of His power "; or which we express by the "continuity of nature," or "the operation of the law of causality." It is within this field, and this field only, that Science can work, for "if the law of causality is acknowledged to be an assumption which always holds good, then every observation gives us a revelation, which, when correctly appraised and compared with others, teaches us the laws by which God rules the world." But there is also that other Divine action: "by Him were all things created"; that is, He called them into being. There should be no difficulty in distinguishing between the two thoughts. For example, let us assume that man has come, by descent, that is to say by successive generation, from a lower animal; say a lemur of Madagascar; his modifications having been brought about by natural and sexual selection, by the struggle for existence, and the force of environment. If this be so, it affords us an example of Evolution, but no instance of Creation; and we must search into the ancestry of the lemur before we reach the Creation of Man. However far we can trace back man's unbroken descent--provided always that there has been no special Divine interposition, no new material, conditions or powers introduced-we are dealing simply with Evolution, and not at all with Creation. If I read this chapter rightly, we are herein told expressly that the past history of the world has not been a single evolution; but that eight times as Mr. Bishop well points out-the Creator has introduced new powers or new conditions, which did not arise necessarily and continuously out of those previously existing. In other words, it gives us no statement for, or against, the descent of man from a lower form, but it tells us expressly that he was not *Theory of Observations, Thiele, page 1. evolved from a lower form. The distinction is important. The question of man's actual descent is one of scientific evidence; but, if he be so descended, then we know by the revelation of this chapter that that living form which stood to him in the relation of ancestor, had in itself no power or potentiality of ever producing a man, no matter what the influence upon it of selection or environThat which rendered the evolution of man possible was the creative word of God, "Let us make man." Whether man was, or was not, formed of new material, unrelated by descent to any other form of life, is unessential; that which is essential is, that all that makes him man, and not brute, was by the new creation of God. ment. But if it be the case that man is descended from the brute, and has become man by creation, what evidence can Science offer us as to the Creation? It can only testify as to the descent. I do not wish to call in question the parallelism which r. v (page 132, section d) have traced between the succession of events recorded in this chapter, and the history of the earth as Science presents it. But it seems to me, that, if used as an argument for the inspiration of Holy Scripture, it is not free from the charge of circularity. From the scientific point of view there is the further objection that it would appear to stereotype scientific conclusions: in other words, to put an end to scientific development. But there is one thing upon which the man of science will always insist:-that is, his perfect. freedom to change any scientific conclusion, however firmly held today, if fresh evidence should be forthcoming to-morrow. There is also a serious religious objection, as Mr. Bishop has very wisely reminded us. A complete scientific demonstration of this chapter would remove it from the sphere of faith, and it is "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God." I have heard faith defined as "the assent of the intellect to a demonstrated proposition." This is exactly what faith is not, and if we could make this chapter a demonstrated proposition, Hebrews xi, 3, would be made of no effect. If we have faith in our fellow-man it is not because our intellect assents to some proposition that has been demonstrated concerning him, but because we know, or think we know, his character. So faith in God means that we know Him: that is, we in some measure apprehend His character; not that we agree to some logical proposition respecting Him. I think we are sometimes tempted to forget this. The interpretation of this chapter, which I have lettered b, on page 132, turns on some minute and questionable refinements of But I do not wish to argue that, as a partial Hebrew grammar. interpretation, it may not have some validity. May I turn back to the seven truths which I believe the chapter was intended to teach us? I am no Hebrew scholar, but before writing my paper, I read carefully and in detail the translations and comments of many of the best Hebrew scholars, and I came to the conclusion that no one of these truths was in the least affected by any permissible variation in the rendering. Hence I followed generally the Authorized Version. I feel assured that these seven truths must appear on the surface of every translation of this chapter that has ever been issued from the Bible House; no matter what the tongue into which they were rendered, or how unskilful the translator. They are truths which are perfectly consistent with Science, but they are not deductions from it, nor do they enter within the range of its possible challenge. And they are fundamental for men for all men; for us to-day, as in the dawn of the world's history. As the Rev. T. H. Darlow told us in the paper to which I have already referred, "The Word of God in the Bible is not of a nature to be affected by verbal changes such as can be made by time or accident." "In every version the Book retains its power to pierce the thoughts of the heart; it still remains sharper than a two-edged sword; it still divides joint and marrow." : NOTE. The Rev. J. Iverach Munro points out that the part of the word "re-plenish" in Genesis i, 28, which Dr. Heywood Smith emphasises (page 153, line 5), is not represented in the Hebrew. It is the simple verb male, "to fill." It may be added that replere in Latin, and replenish in English, both often carry the meaning of "to fill thoroughly," and not necessarily that of "to fill again." 555TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, HELD (BY KIND PERMISSION) IN THE ROOMS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS, ON MONDAY, APRIL 20TH, 1914, AT 4.30 P.M. MR. A. W. OKE TOOK THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. The SECRETARY announced that Mr. Alfred Haigh had been elected an Associate of the Institute. The SECRETARY also announced that the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury had been elected a Vice-President, and Mr. Joseph Graham a Member of Council. The CHAIRMAN then called upon Dr. T. G. Pinches to read his paper, which was illustrated by numerous lantern slides. THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. A I.-CREATION-STORIES. By S in the past, since its foundation in the first half of the last century, the science of Assyriology continues its forward march; and as it progresses, it heaps up a fund of knowledge-small in this country, but greater in volume abroad; for it is the one domain of Oriental research in which discoveries of importance and real interest, in its various branches, can be made. Every day brings Assyriology's votaries nearer to more precise interpretation of the inscriptions, and every year many new texts, some of them of considerable importance, are brought from the ruin-mounds of Babylonia and Assyria. Now and again finds take place in the museums where documents harvested in former years lie, awaiting the time when they can be studied at ease and their contents made known. Earliest in the order of time-if their contents were really historical are the legends, headed by those dealing with the Creation. Of these, three versions are known that detailing the fight between Bel and the Dragon, which was first translated by George Smith; the creation-legend of Cuthah; and the bilingual version, which is simply an introduction to an |