480 Archaia, 



In the application of this principle to biblical interpretation 

 we would, in terms slightly different from those of chapter third 

 of " Archaia/' in which the general views of nature contained in 

 the Scriptures are noted, say : — 1st. That Scripture represents 

 nature as subject to invariable law, because such is the aspect in 

 which it appears to the accurate observer; — 2nd. That it repre- 

 sents nature as in constant progress and development, because 

 such are the aspects in which it appears to ordinary perception ; — 

 3rd. That the Bible notes purpose, use, and special adaptations 

 in nature, because such are apparent to sight and sense; — 4th. 

 That the law of type or pattern is just so far indicated in the 

 Sacred Record, as it appears in the objects of nature themselves. 

 All these are truths, from which science may start on its glorious 

 mission of discovery into the veiled realms of creation. 



Before proceeding to an examination of the exegetical part of 

 " Archaia," we have yet to premise that in the objections we may 

 take to its conclusion, we are not influenced by what its author 

 Quaintly styles a " pedantic hyperorthodoxy." Orthodox we 

 profess to be in the highest and best sense of that term, but our 

 orthodoxy has not yet led us to fear or tremble for the safety of 

 our Ark. As regards the cosmical statements of Genesis we have 

 always held ourselves free to accept of any light which might aid 

 our understanding of them come from what quarter it may. 

 We began our thinking on the subject with the rejection of the 

 Cuvierian hypothesis of day-periods and a determination to 

 keep by the old paths till more light dawned to guide us. We 

 afterwards accepted the first-verse theory of the venerable Chal- 

 mers, fairly captivated under the influence of his commanding 

 genius. Next, the powerful arm of Hugh Miller in his first 

 Exeter Hall lecture came down upon us with such force as to 

 shatter to pieces our former ideas, and constrain us to become 

 his devoted disciple. At this we stood for many a day. But 

 every time in the course of private reading that we came to the 

 text in Genesis, we felt an uncomfortable consciousness of the 

 insecurity of our position. We have since tried the theories of 

 Pye Smith, Hitchcock and others, with an occasional attempt at 

 an adjustment of our own. But the last expositions of Miller, 

 together with a study of the profound views of Kurtz, has driven 

 us to begin a new, inch by inch, investigation of the subject the 

 results of which are conclusions somewhat different from those so 

 ably stated by our author. 



