We may reference to the successive periods of creation. observe further, that "evening" is not synonymous with night, nor "morning" with day, and consequently that the meaning of the expression, "it was evening and it was morning," or evening was and morning was," cannot fairly be interpreted as equivalent to an assertion that the evening and morning constituted one complete day. We think, moreover, and we differ here from Dr. Buckland, that there is no allusion in this expression to the Jewish custom of computing their days from sunset to sunset. The natural interpretation of the words we take to be that the day, whatever the length of its duration, began with the time when the fiat went forth, "Let there be light," and that it ended with the commencement of the morning of the second day. That the days were not necessarily periods of twenty-four hours' duration seems a natural inference from the fact, that the appointment, or constitution, in relation to the earth, (not necessarily the existence) of the sun is assigned to the fourth of the creative days; a fact which, as is well known, at one time perplexed philosophers, and was deemed by many a clear instance of inconsistency between Scripture and Science, but which is now found to be not only in harmony with the independent conclusions of science, as to the nature of light, but also with the fact that the exhumed remains of animals belonging to prehistoric times had eyes, and therefore, as may be reasonably concluded, since God made nothing in vain, had also light. The following is Dr. Buckland's note upon the words, "Let there be light.' "I learn from Professor Pusey that the words, 'Let there be light,' (Gen. i. 3) by no means necessarily imply, any more than the English words by which they are translated, that light had never existed before. They may speak only of the substitution of light for darkness upon the surface of this our planet; whether light had existed before in other parts of God's creation, or had existed upon this earth before the darkness described in verse 2, is foreign to the purpose of the narrative." (p. 20.) There is also, in the opinion of some geologists, another point of agreement between the records of Revelation and the discoveries of Science, so far as they have hitherto extended, which we are unwilling wholly to ignore, but which does not appear to us to be established with sufficient certainty to be relied upon in controversy, and, we may add, seems to be encompassed with great difficulties. The creation of vegetable and animal life is ascribed by Moses to the third, the fifth, and the sixth of the creative days. Geologists, in like manner, have divided geological time into three successive ages, viz., the Paleozoic, or first age of organic life; the Mesozoic, or second age of organic life; and the Kainozoic, or third great age of organic life. And yet further, these three great epochs of geology appear to have been distinguished by the same general characteristics which Moses has assigned to the three corresponding days of creation. The work of the third creative day was, according to Gen. i. 11, 12, the production of herbs and trees. In like manner, all writers agree that a large portion of the Paleozoic age was marked by an abundant vegetation. Again, the creation of fishes and of fowl is ascribed, in Gen. i. 21, to the fifth day, or second creative age of organic life. In like manner the grand existences of the Secondary or Mesozoic age were, as Hugh Miller informs us, "its huge creeping things, its enormous monsters of the deep; and, as shown by impressions of the footprints stamped upon the rocks, its gigantic birds."* And once more, whereas the sixth day is assigned, in Gen. i. 25, 26, as that of the creation first of the beasts of the earth, and afterwards of man; so, in like manner, we are informed, on the same authority to which we have last referred, that the Tertiary or Kainozoic period had also " its permanent class of existences." "Its flora," writes Hugh Miller, "seems to have been no more conspicuous than that of the present time; its reptiles occupy a very subordinate place; but its beasts of the field were by far the most wonderfully developed, both in size and numbers, that ever appeared upon the earth." On the supposition of this correspondence between the days of creation and the great geological epochs, there is of course no necessity for presuming that the Mosaic days were necessarily periods of equal length. It is remarkable, however, that whilst, in accordance with Hugh Miller's theory, four out of six of the creative days are crowded together into one great geological period, Sir Charles Lyell is of opinion that, so far as the present stage of science enables us to form any opinion on the subject, "almost any one of the periods in the Paleozoic age was as long as all the periods of the Tertiary age taken together." The opinion of Dr. Buckland on this point is well deserving of serious consideration. In a note appended to page 27 of the edition of his Bridgewater Treatise, now before us, we read as follows: "In my second chapter I have stated that this opinion (i.e., that each of the Mosaic days comprehended a space of many thousand years) has been entertained both by learned theologians and by geologists, but is not entirely supported by geological facts, and have adopted the hypothesis which supposes an indefinite amount "Testimony of the Rocks," p. 126. of time to have elapsed between the creation of the matter of the universe and that of the human race. According to that view, placing the beginning at an indefinite distance before the first of the six days described in the Mosaic history of creation, I see no reason for extending the length of any of these beyond a natural day; and I suppose that an interval, sufficient to afford all the time required by the phenomena of geology, elapsed between the prior creation of the universe recorded in the first verse of Genesis, and that later creation of which an account is given in the third and following verses, and which has especial relation to the preparation of the earth for the abode of man." We have already intimated that the theory to which we have last referred does not appear to us to be sufficiently established to entitle it to more than a passing notice, as one of the possible methods by which, should it appear to any that there is no break between the first and second verses of the first chapter of Genesis, the conclusions of geology may be reconciled with the statements of Revelation. There are yet other explanations, some of which seem to demand a passing allusion; our object being, as our readers will have observed, not to pronounce dogmatically in favour of any one of the solutions we suggest, but simply to show that there are solutions of the difficulty with which we are dealing, at least as plausible as is the objection which they are designed to meet; the real fact being, that the alleged inconsistency is based entirely on the interpretation arbitrarily assigned to particular passages, and consequently that the proposed explanations of it are to a greater or less degree confessedly uncertain. One of the explanations to which we refer is that which attaches to the word "create," in verse 1, the same meaning which, as we have already seen, undoubtedly attaches to it when used in reference to the formation of man; i.e., that it denotes the construction, or reduction to order, of the heaven and the earth out of pre-existing materials, and not, as has been commonly (and, as we believe, correctly) maintained, an original production out of nothing by the creative fiat of the Almighty. This explanation leaves open to geology the whole field of the past history of the world, and limits the Mosaic account ab initio to the conformation and rehabilitation of the world as the chosen abode of man; but it appears to us that it is sufficiently refuted by the simple consideration, that after the act described in verse 1, the earth was found in a state of chaos, and needed to be reduced into a state of order. Another theory, which has been adopted by Professor Challis, is that which regards the Mosaic record of the work of creation as restricted to "plan," as it stands distinguished from "fulfil ment;" whilst yet another, that adopted by Mr. Rorison in his contribution to "Answers to Essays and Reviews," gets rid, as the author thinks, of the difficulties which belong to the rival theories which he condemns, by the somewhat remarkable conclusion that "the book of Genesis opens with the inspired Psalm of Creation."* The real difficulty with which the defenders of the truth of the Scriptural record have to contend, arises, as we have already stated, out of the inferential nature of the objections which have been raised against it. The same remark applies to the argument based upon the phraseology of the Fourth Commandment, in which, as it has been rashly inferred, the whole work of Creation is assigned to six literal days. That there is at least a prima facie probability that six literal periods, consisting each of twenty-four hours, are here intended, may perhaps fairly be argued from the fact, that man's labour is directed to be continued through the six literal days of the week, on the ground of the analogy with the continuance of God's creative work throughout a similar period. At the same time, with regard to the duration of the seventh day, the fact that the rest from the work of creation continues up to the present time, may well suggest the necessity of caution in drawing the conclusion above stated. In any case, the argument derived from the terms of the Fourth Commandment against the break between the first and second verses of Genesis i., i. e. between the original creation of the heavens and the earth, and the conformation of the globe which we inhabit for the dwelling-place of man, vanishes at once when the simple fact is taken into account, that the verb employed in Exodus xx. 11 is a different word from that which occurs in Genesis i. 1; and that whereas the latter undoubtedly is employed elsewhere, and, as we believe, in this place, to denote the original creation out of nothing, "so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Heb. xi. 3), the word employed in Exodus xx. 11 is a word of an entirely different character, and one which is confessedly used in very many places to denote, not an original act of creation, but rather that of a subsequent conformation. We cannot bring our remarks on this subject to a more appropriate close than by quoting the concluding paragraphs of one of the most interesting and valuable of the Bridgewater Treatises, of which we cordially commend to our readers this admirably executed edition. After speaking of the evidence to the Being and Attributes * Page 330. of God, which the science of geology affords, Dr. Buckland continued thus: "Some few there still may be, whom timidity or prejudice, or want of opportunity, allow not to examine its evidence; who are alarmed by the novelty or surprised by the extent and magnitude of the views which geology forces on their attention, and who would rather have kept closed the volume of witness which has been sealed up for ages beneath the surface of the earth, than impose on the student of Natural Theology the duty of investigating its contents; a duty in which, for lack of experience, they may anticipate a hazardous or a laborious task, but which, by those engaged in it, is found to afford a rational and righteous and delightful exercise of their highest faculties, in multiplying the evidences of the existence and attributes and providence of God. "The alarm, however, which was excited by the novelties of its first discoveries, has well-nigh passed away; and those to whom it has been permitted to be the humble instruments of their promulgation, and who have steadily persevered, under the firm assurance that Truth can never be opposed to Truth,' and that the works of God, when rightly understood and viewed in their true relations, and from a right position, would at length be found to be in perfect accordance with His word, are now receiving their high reward, in finding difficulties vanish, objections gradually withdrawn, and in seeing the evidences of geology admitted into the list of witnesses to the truth of the great fundamental doctrines of theology." SMITH'S BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1869. Prophecy a Preparation for Christ. Eight Lectures preached In the very valuable preface which Dr. Smith has prefixed. to them, he explains the nature, and vindicates the reality and importance, of Prophecy. The Prophet, as his office is represented to us in Holy Scripture, was the speaker for God," the bearer of God's message, whether that message related to things past, or present, or future. As thus understood, the difficulty which modern unbelief has discovered as lying at the root of prophecy utterly disappears. According to the principles of the negative critics, Vol. 69.-No. 391. 3 T |