72 REVIEW—THE EARLY RECORDS OF GENESIS. 
Christians, happily, no longer oppose Science. It is freely admitted 
that God reveals himself in the Book of Nature as truly as in the Book 
of Revelation, and any apparent conflict between the two records is 
owing to misinterpretation. Many teachers of the Faith, nevertheless, 
unaware how well-founded are the conclusions of Science, shelter them- 
selves under the conviction that scientific opinion may change in the 
direction they desire; but their ground is untenable. ‘‘ Some of these 
well-established conclusions cut right across the statements” of the 
Mosaic Record “‘ as generally understood, and we ought to face the fact.” 
Two instances are given as types—the Creation of the World in six days 
and the universality of the Deluge of Noah. 
Geology has plainly proved that the present order of things was 
brought about only after the lapse of vast ages, and all the plausible 
attempts to torture the Mosaic narrative into meaning something 
different from its literal sense, which might make it and the geological 
record agree, have had, one after another, to be abandoned. 
The universality of the Deluge, andthe utter destruction of animal 
life outside the Ark, are plainly asserted, but scientific evidence disproves 
the statements. The fact that the quadrupeds of ‘Australia are 
marsupials, and are the only marsupials in existence saying one family 
in North America,” is convincing. ‘‘ Will any one maintain that the 
ancestors of the marsupials of Australia really came out of the Ark?” 
«‘ Journeyed together across land and sea from Ararat, nowhere settling, 
nowhere breeding, until they (and they alone) reached their future home ?” 
Probably no one acquainted with Natural History believes that the 
Noachian Deluge was more than local, confined, it may be, to the tract 
inhabited by a particular race of Man. ‘The evidence that man ante- 
dates the antiquity assignable to Adam and Eve ‘as_ historical 
personages”’ is fairly conclusive; and that difference of language existed 
long prior to the Tower of Babel Science has proved. 
The solution of the difficulty suggested by the writer is that, as in 
all other histories, the earliest sacred records are told in mythical form. 
This, in no respect, necessitates the rejection of their “inspiration. 
“Ts it not at least possible,” he asks, ‘‘ however strange at first sight, 
that the Holy Spirit should have employed myths in the first instance, 
even as He employed poems, parables, visions, in other places?” 
Grant that the early Biblical Record is mythical, and the conflict with 
Science ceases. ‘Science and History are left in possession of the 
territory which belongs to them ;” ‘‘ Faith and Religion are left in undis- 
turbed sovereignty within the domain of moral and spiritual truth.” 
“Tt would be folly to say there is no element of historic truth in the 
first ten chapters of Genesis. Unquestionably there is, only that 
element is not distinctly assignable.” As to where myth ends and 
history commences, our author considers there is abundant evidence. 
We regret our space forbids our following the argument further, but 
we trust the foregoing will awaken the interest of our scientific friends, 
and induce them to read the pamphlet carefully themselves. 
5. SR: 
