admitted that the geological facts do not exactly correspond in all their minuter details with the events as they are here narrated. Are we then, in conformity with some à priori theory of inspiration, to put a strain upon the language of the chapter, which it will not bear, or deny the scientific facts; or, if we can do neither, abandon our belief in Christianity as a divine revelation? I reply, that there is a more rational alternative, viz., to apply Butler's principles to the case before us.

First the leading idea of the whole chapter is not a scientific but a religious one; its object being to affirm that the Universe is the work of one almighty and intelligent Creator. This being its obvious aim, it is strictly in conformity with the above principles, that the scientific arrangement being entirely subordinate to the main purpose, may have been accommodated to the religious one. Butler's principles firmly establish the fact, that we have no à priori

to justify a positive and dogmatical affirmation on the subject. Our duty is therefore to hold ourselves in a state of expectancy, free from all à priori theorizing, and ready to accept the truth from whatever quarter it may come. If we keep ourselves steadily in this position, we shall avoid the danger of having to beat any further retreats before the advance of scientific knowledge. In whatever way it may be ultimately proved that the universe has been constructed, it will never be discovered to have been built by the sole action of the blind forces of nature, without the interposition of an intelligent Creator. In speaking of theories of evolution, it should ever be kept in mind that there are many others besides the Darwinian in conformity with which the Creator may have partially energized in His creative work. Scriptural Theism unquestionably affirms that the forces of the universe are a constant manifestation of the energies of God. A theory which contemplates the universe as a self-acting machine which was once constructed by God, but the forces of which, when once brought into existence, continue their everlasting operations independently of His immanence in them, and grind out a succession of results with faultless precision, independently of His intelligent control, may be abstractedly consistent with Theism, but hardly with the Theism of the Bible, which contemplates God, not merely as a perfect mechanist or chemist, which this theory represents Him to be, but as a Father.

certainty that a revelation, whose one great object is the communication of religious truth, must be minutely accurate on points of scientific knowledge in the record which contains it, on pain of forfeiting its character as a revelation from God.

Secondly the narrative nowhere affirms that its contents were communicated by immediate revelation to the author of the Book of Genesis. There is nothing whatever to imply that they were not in existence long prior to his time, or that the writer did not find them already in existence, and incorporate them into his work. He is in fact very particulr in informing us what parts of the Pentateuch were communicated to him by special revelation; but he gives us no hint whatever that he derived his knowledge of any part of the book of Genesis in this way. As, however, it is certain that the contents of this chapter, unless they were the result of a lucky guess, must have been the subject of some primitive revelation, it follows that during some period the vehicle of its transmission must have been a traditionary one. It is impossible to compare the different ancient cosmogonies without seeing that they possess many points in common, and that they are in all probability as many different versions of some primeval account, of which the grotesque elements are subsequent interpolations in the course of oral transmission.* Here then we may invoke Butler's principle, that we have no à priori certainty that God would interfere to prevent the account from undergoing some degree of corruption in the course of such transmission; and consequently, that this may have been the source of its minuter divergencies from the strict accuracy of scientific facts. If this be so, it follows on the same principles, that we have no right to affirm that

*This is strongly confirmed by the discovery of the genuine Chaldean cosmogony by the late Mr. G. Smith. Its close resemblance to that in Genesis is unmistakable, the latter being the monotheistic account of Creation, and the former being the same account exhibited in a polytheistic dress.

a supernatural enlightenment must have been imparted to the author of the book of Genesis, to enable him to correct them. The practice therefore which has been adopted by numerous defenders of Christianity, of representing that its truth must stand or fall with our ability to reconcile every statement of this chapter with the minutest accuracy of scientific facts, cannot be too strongly reprobated. If the writer had expressly affirmed that he had received every word of it by immediate revelation from God; and that such revelation was intended to be scientifically correct, the presence of errors in his narrative would have been inconsistent with his pretensions. But as Butler has well observed, the presence of errors of this kind would only invalidate a revelation if the record of it contained a definite promise that it should be exempt from them.

II. As to the antiquity of Man. According to the popularly accepted theories of inspiration, the Scriptures are pledged to a system of Chronology which affirms that not more than about seven thousand years can have elapsed since the first creation of man, nor more than about five thousand years since the Flood; and any alleged discoveries of science which prove that man has existed on the earth for a longer period are consequently inconsistent with the claims of the Bible to contain a divine Revelation.*

So strong has been this conviction that to this hour no inconsiderable number of Bibles continue to be printed with this chronology in their margins, a practice which has led many people to view it as of equal authority with the sacred text. But the investigations which have recently

* Thus the question has been eagerly debated as to the exact time of the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt, or whether the interval of 450 years which St. Paul assigns to it in his address to the Jews in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia, is correct, as though the life of Christianity depended on the issue. As we have seen, we have neither à priori nor à posteriori knowledge that an apostle must have received supernatural illumination on the subject of Chronology. Why might not St. Paul have adopted that which he knew to be currently accepted by those whom he addressed? If he had done otherwise he would

been so successfully prosecuted in the early history of civilization, and the discoveries which have been made in the science of language, have gone a great way to show that this position will also prove as untenable as those which have already had to be abandoned; for the period which the received chronology lays down as separating the date of the building of Solomon's temple from that of the deluge seems inadequate to meet the demands that are made upon us by the growth of civilization and of language.

I am not here alluding to the demands made by a particular School of Geologists for millions of years since the first appearance of man on this planet, but to the longer interval of time than that which according to the received system separates the deluge from the present day, which has been proved to be absolutely necessary by the evidence of the gradual growth of civilization and of language. The facts may be briefly stated. We are now in the possession of data which prove the existence of an advanced state of civilization at a very early period, say, between three and four thousand years before Christ. This civilization, as in the case of Egypt, is united with a very complicated system of theology. The evidence is incontestable that neither of these came into existence spontaneously, but that both have been gradually developed. Whichever theory we may adopt as to whether man originated in a highly civilized or in a savage state, it is equally certain that the condition of things disclosed by the remains of antiquity could only have grown up during a long period, which must be added on to our earliest

have incurred the danger of diverting their attention from the allimportant question of the Messiahship of Jesus to the discussion of his new and previously unheard-of Chronology. To determine the true Chronology of Scripture is in itself a study of great interest; but to do so as though the accuracy of every statement in it was vital to Christianity, is to place a needless stumbling-block in the way of both believers and unbelievers.

historic date. Thus, if man began as a savage, he must have elevated himself to that state of civilization which the earliest monuments of Egypt and other countries disclose, by a gradual growth which must have required a long interval of time. If, on the other hand, he began in a highly civilized condition, and was possessed of a pure theology, a very considerable period must have elapsed before the complicated, and in many respects, degraded Egyptian theology could have grown out of this. I select this merely as a single illustration of the large mass of evidence which is daily accumulating upon us.

These considerations acquire an increased force which is becoming irresistible by the investigations which have been made into the origin and growth of language. Not only is it certain that the Sanskrit, the Latin and the Greek, and several others originated out of a common language at a period of very remote antiquity, but this common language and all the other primitive languages have had a long history of their own, during which they have gradually diverged from some original and common stock. The evidence of all this, which is accumulating on us with a rapid pace, is incompatible with the popularly accepted theories about the date which must be assigned to the deluge, or even to the creation of man, on the supposed authority of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Nor will the confusion of tongues at Babel free us from the difficulty, as the evidence is incontestable that after the formation of the original varieties these various languages have passed through a long period of gradual growth.

On the other hand, when we consider the data which the book of Genesis furnishes for the construction of a system of chronology, it is evident that they are of an extremely meagre character, and have little or no value independently of a particular theory of inspiration. The date of the building of the Temple by Solomon is tolerably certain, but beyond this we get involved in obscurity and mists, which gradually thicken into intense darkness. Not only are the