DAWN OF CREATION AND OF WORSHIP. 



869 



(v. 1), of which after the first outset we 

 hear no more, were included the heavenly 

 bodies ? In any case what is afterward con- 

 veyed is not the calling into existence of the 

 sun and moon, but the assignment to them 

 of a certain place and orbit respectively, 

 with a light-giving power. Is there the 

 smallest inconsistency in a statement which 

 places the emergence of our land, and its 

 separation from the sea, and the commence- 

 ment of vegetable life, before the final and 

 full concentration of light upon the sun, and 

 its reflection on the moon and the planets ? 

 In the gradual severance of other elements, 

 would not the severance of the luminous 

 body, or force, be gradual also ? And why, 

 let me ask of Dr. Reville, as there would 

 plainly be light diffused before there was 

 light concentrated, why may not that light 

 diffused have been sufficient for the purposes 

 of vegetation? There was soil, there was 

 atmosphere, there was moisture, there was 

 light. What more could be required ? Need 

 we go beyond our constant experience to be 

 aware that the process of vegetation, though 

 it may be suspended, is not arrested, when, 

 through the presence of cloud and vapor, 

 the sun's globe becomes to us invisible? 

 The same observations apply to the light of 

 the planets ; while, as to the other stars, 

 such as were then perceptible to the human 

 eye, we know nothing. The planets, being 

 luminous bodies only through the action of 

 the sun, could not be luminous until such a 

 degree of light, or of light-force, was ac- 

 cumulated upon or in the sun as to make 

 them luminous, instead of being 

 " Silent as the moon, 

 "When she deserts the night 

 Hid in her vacant interlunar cave." * 



Is it not, then, the fact, thus far, that the im- 

 peachment of the Book has fallen to the 

 ground ? There remains to add only one 

 remark, the propriety of which is, I think, 

 indisputable. Easy comprehension and im- 

 pressive force are the objects to be aimed at in 

 a composition at once popular and summary ; 

 but these can not always be had without 

 some departure from accurate classification 

 and the order of minute detail. It seems 

 much more easy to justify the language of 

 the opening verses of Genesis than, for ex- 

 ample, the convenient usage by which we 



* ■' Samson Agonistes." 



affirm that the sun rises, or mounts above 

 the horizon, and sets, or descends below it, 

 when we know perfectly well that he does 

 neither the one nor the other. As to the 

 third charge of scientific error, that the 

 vegetable kingdom appeared before it could 

 be subjected to the action of solar light, it 

 has been virtually disposed of. If the light 

 now appropriated to the sun alone was 

 gradually gathering toward and round him, 

 why may it not have performed its proper 

 office in contributing to vegetation when 

 once the necessary degree of severance be- 

 tween solid and fluid, between wet and 

 dry, had been effected ? And this is just 

 what had been described in the formation 

 of the firmament, and the separation of land 

 from sea. 



More singular still seems to be the next 

 observation offered by Dr. Reville in his 

 compound labor to satisfy his readers, first, 

 that there is no revelation in Genesis, and 

 secondly that, if there be, it is one which 

 has no serious or relevant meaning. lie 

 comes to the remarkable expression in v. 

 26, " Let lis make man in our own image." 

 There has, it appears, been much difference 

 of opinion even among the Jews on the 

 meaning of this verse. The Almighty ad- 

 dresses, as some think. His own powers ; as 

 others think, the angels ; others, the earth ; 

 other writers, especially, as it appears, Ger- 

 mans, have understood this to be a plural 

 of dignity, after the manner of kings. Oth- 

 ers, of the rationalizing school, conceive 

 the word Elohim to be a relic of polytheism. 

 The ancient Christian interpreters,* from 

 the Apostle Barnabas onward, find in these 

 words an indication of a plurality in the 

 Divine Unity. Dr. Reville (p. 43) holds 

 that this is " simply the royal plural used in 

 Hebrew as in many other languages," or 

 else, and more probably, that it is an appeal 

 to the Bene Elohim or angels. But is not 

 this latter meaning a direct assault upon the 

 supreme truth of the Unity of God ? If 

 he chooses the former, from whence does he 

 derive his knowledge that this " royal plu- 

 ral " was used in Hebrew ? Will the royal 

 plural account for (Gen. iii, 22) "when the 

 man is become as one of us " ? and would 



♦ On this expression, I refer again to the com- 

 mentary of Bishop Harold Browne. Bishop Mant 

 supplies an interesting list of testimonies. 



