D'Orbigny, so many distinct breaks or changes, that they cannot be harmonised with the six Mosaic days. This is, of course, denied by evolutionists, whose system displaces every theory or interpretation both as to periods and days; but although breaks and intervals remain, those who have accepted the period-interpretation have reasons for their conclusion which it is not our desire to ignore or repudiate' As that theory may present, to their judgment, the most satisfactory solution, it is their duty to retain it, while they watch with interest the progress of scientific investigation, and the bearing of its results on their conclusion.

Modifications of this theory have appeared from time to time; and we are not without hope that the day will come when science may constrain all classes to accept a common conclusion. "The seven days of creation," says a recent writer, "are neither seven literal days, of twenty-four hours each, nor yet seven definite historical periods, the events of which are literally recorded; but as the seven seals, trumpets, and vials of St. John's revelation, represented the history of the future by a typical representation of each of its grand divisions, without any of them being chronologically defined, so do the seven days of the Mosaic economy represent, in a dramatic and typical form, the successive changes which took place at creation, each grand feature being boldly sketched out in one scenic representation characteristic of that period." This supposition may to many be satisfactory.

The view which Dr. Chalmers propounded has, in its broad outline, the charm of simplicity and the advantage of placing the historical statement in the same light in which the others are received. "The first verse," he says, "describes the primary act of creation, and leaves us to

1 "Primeval Man Unveiled," p. 44.

place it as far back as we may; and the first half of the second verse describes the state of the earth at the point of time anterior to the detailed operations of this chapter." On this supposition, an immense interval elapsed between the beginning and the establishment of the present condition of the globe, and during that interval all the processes have transpired with whose results geologists are now conversant. It is much in favour of this view, as Dr. Duns observes, that it satisfied such philosophic observers as Sedgwick, Buckland, Hitchcock, and Fleming. The interpretation which renders the days of natural length has its difficulties, but they seem to be less than those of the period-interpretation.

The changes which are described in the first chapter of Genesis, had reference specially to Man. The light, the atmosphere, the plants, the animals, are introduced in obvious relation to him; and it is but natural to suppose that those changes only would be mentioned which had the closest historical connexion with him. While we cannot quite agree with Professor Duns in separating "In the beginning" in Genesis from the "In the beginning" in the Gospel of St. John, we have no hesitation in accepting his statement that the first chapter of Genesis is not a history of any order of things but the present. The paraphrase by Archdeacon Pratt, (p. 49,) omitting his supposition as to the. process by which light was introduced, is in harmony with the opinion which we have long held, and often fully explained; and his brief summary is, on the whole, an admirable statement of the view which we think most honours the histori cal directness of the Scriptures, and best meets the requirements of science. "We have but to suppose," he says, "that an interval of untold duration occurred between the

1 "Science and Christian Thought," p. 195.

first creation of the heaven and the earth (that is, of the planetary and starry heavens, and the heaven of heavens and all that they contain, and of the earth as a member of the solar system), and the preparation of the earth for the reception of man; that, in this interval, the plants and animals which we find fossilised in myriads in the earth's crust, lived, died, and were entombed, to tell in after ages their own story; and that regarding these-with which man was not concerned the Scriptures are silent. Thus the three geological discoveries regarding the antiquity of the earth, the existence of animals and plants long prior to the appearance of man, and the existence of the sun, also, prior to the work of the six days, may be true, and yet find no opposition in the statements of the book of Genesis, interpreted according to this theory which takes the days; and Scripture and science are found to be not at variance. The six days' creation exhibits a series of creative acts, which terminated in the appearance of the human race upon the

The facts of geology warrant the inference that, in immediate connection with the time of man's appearance, there were introduced plants and animals, not before existing, which were specially adapted to his wants.

While questions regarding details may be urged which, in the present stage of scientific inquiry cannot be satisfactorily answered, recent discoveries in geology and applications in natural philosophy, taken in connexion with advances in Biblical scholarship, warrant our anticipating such a combination of results as may soon shed light through what is still obscure. Meanwhile, we may suggest the probability that, while in the six natural days the preparation of the

1" Scripture and Science not at Variance," pp. 77, 78.

earth for man was consummated through a series of divinely instituted adjustments, these transactions are the outcome, or crown, of processes which had been transpiring through long antecedent periods,—but an outcome only through the mediately creative power of God. The six days' work, therefore, may be representative of those changes and advances which constitute the previous history of our globe as the intended abode of man. Revelation, in closing the Bible, unfolds the future; Genesis, in its commencement, reveals the distant past. The Bible sheds light in both directions, until it fades in mystery; but the same principles of intrepretation can be legitimately applied whether we look into the future or into the past. We may assume, therefore, that as one prophetic description sometimes serves to cover widely separated future events, so the one historical description in Genesis may embrace events in the past lying widely apart. In Ezekiel's description of the coming destruction of Tyre, for instance, we have events brought together which were in part fulfilled in the siege of Nebuchadnezzar, and in part, 250 years afterwards, by Alexander the Great; yet no such distinction in time is perceptible in the narrative itself. In like manner, the description, in the first chapter of Genesis, while setting forth those transactions which had most direct reference to man, may embrace those other transactions also which, although separated by intervening ages, yet pointed to the same result.

And the six literal days may themselves be representative, as Principal M'Cosh supposes, "of six epochs, just as our Lord's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem has, throughout, a reference to the final day." Taking this view, he indicates that the transaction recorded in the opening of Genesis may not be a mere vision, but "a reality which retains the natural days, as after the type of the natural

epochs, and keeps the seventh day as a true day, and yet a prefiguration of the Sabbath of rest which remaineth for the people of God." 1

It is unnecessary to prosecute this subject further; enough has been stated to show that the questions which have been raised may be differently answered, without displacing the Bible. Inferences may vary with the shifting results of science. Holding fast the Bible with the

one hand, we may grasp all that science brings to us with the other, and retain it until we find for it an appropriate place. There is nothing to repel the Christian in the records of science. He can, therefore, afford to wait for more light; and, in the meantime, may lay hold of such supports as are within his reach. Temporary in their character, they may guide to what is permanent. If there is one lesson more than another which the progress of the sciences is teaching us, it is that of caution and the necessity of repressing a dogmatic tendency; and if there is one benefit more than another which the history of this discussion is conferring, it is that of confidence in the truth of the Bible.

1 See an Instructive Note in "The Supernatural in relation to the Natural," pp. 343, 344.

NOTE.-Those who wish to look more closely into the subject than this outline admits, may consult Hugh Miller's Testimony of the Rocks. Dr. M'Caul's Essay in Aids to Faith; Professor Challis' Creation in Plan and Progress; Principal Dawson's Archaia; Dr. McCausland's Sermons in Stones; Dr. Duns' Science and Christian Thought; and Archdeacon Pratt's Scripture and Science not at Variance.