52 



EEV. G. F. WHIDBOENE, M.A., F.G.S., ON 



known congriiities between them are so multitudinous and so 

 vast, the possibility of science ever hereafter finding an over- 

 mastering incongruity is absolutely nil. 



IV. The tkikd line of Inquiry, i.e., by way of History 



Narration. 



1. The Biblical accottnt of creation historically true. 



One other side of the matter remains. We have concluded 

 that the Scriptural conception of God is congruous with, and 

 adequate to account for, the innumerable facts of existing and 

 historic nature. But we not only have the history of creation 

 written by God in the books of nature ; we also have accounts, 

 of it given to us by inspiration in that very Book which has. 

 taught us about God. No doubt the statements about creation, 

 in the Bible may be deemed subsidiary to its main purpose, 

 and may be judged in some degree by their own w^eight without- 

 nacessarily affecting the authority of the book witli regard to 

 its primary object. Some even strangely explain them as only 

 human concomitants of divine revelation, iguoring their organic 

 connection with the most evident messages of God. The 

 question is raised whether these descriptions are true to the 

 known facts of nature, and tally with what has been discovered 

 about it by science, or whether they are to be treated as. 

 allegories, myths, or dreams. 



Beginning with the latter alternative of tliis question, we- 

 may firstly inquire, whether there is any reason for regarding^ 

 the account given in the first chapters of Genesis as a vision 

 or dream. This theory has been put forward to meet the 

 supposed difficulty of the shortness of the creative days. It 

 supposes the course of creation to have been revealed to 

 Moses in a series of visions, each of which lasted through a 

 solar day. All that need be said of this tlieory is : — first, 

 that it seems unnecessary, for the supposed difficulty of the 

 " days " can be far better explained by other interpretations ; 

 and, secondly, that it is altogether gratuitous; for there is 

 nothing whatever in Scripture to suggest it. The accounts 

 in Genesis purport to be plain narrative ; and the allusions to 

 the work of creation even in the poetical books are clear-cut 

 and precise, as if they alluded to historical facts. The 

 institution of the Sabbath, moreover, most certainly would 

 not have been made to commemorate the stages of a di'eam. 



But the suggestion that it was an allegory or myth is far 



