154 



E. WALTER MAUNDER, P.R.A.S._, ON 



view. In that case, verses 3 to end of chapter must refer in their 

 leading interpretation to restoration and not to original creation. 



It may, however, be the case that the six days' work contains also a 

 revelation of the chief order of events in the original creation, 1)ef ore 

 the catastrophe of verse 2 happened, and that only those events 

 common to both — prior to the creation of man — are mentioned. 

 There may also have been a pre-Adamic race of men, whose wicked- 

 ness caused the catastrophe, and whose disembodied spirits are the 

 demons, as distinguished from the devil's angels. 



I incline to the view that the clays of Genesis i are short days, 

 unless — what is not mentioned in the chapter — the higher grade 

 plants were brought into existence on the fifth day when there was 

 insect life to fertilize them. 



As to the mystic meaning attached to the Hebrew tenses, I have 

 heard the same sort of thing with reference to other languages ; and 

 I may say that I do not believe a word of it. The Bible was not a 

 message confined to the learned few who alone could under- 

 stand it. 



Regarding the fifth — sixth day creation, did I not know how 

 " the world is given to lying," I should wonder why the nineteenth 

 century revisers kept out of the text the " living souls " of the 

 lower animals, in verses 20, 21, 24, and 30, and also in ii, 19, though 

 they are in the text of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. 



Referring to the Dean of Canterbury's remark on verse 28 — "Be 

 fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and sul)due it," I 

 would observe that those alone have a right to the privilege of the 

 former part, who observe the duties of the second. " What there- 

 fore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 

 xix, 6). The God of nature does not encourage the survival of the 

 unfittest. 



• The Rev. A. Irvincj, D.Sc, B.A. : So far as I have been able to 

 study this paper, I do not see that the author has done much for 

 the further elucidation of such a difficult subject, even if he does 

 not "set back the hands of the clock." He seems to me to be 

 not entirely emancipated from that " slavish literalism " which 

 Sir Gabriel Stokes used to deprecate strongly at the Victoria 

 Institute. This comes out, I think, in his excessive reliance upon 

 the Authorised Version. I would specially notice the fallacy of 

 l easoning from the statement " God rested " on the seventh day. 



