338 
at most no further than the first appearance of man 
upon the earth. But the Scriptural cosmogony deals in the 
main with nature as it was before man’s appearance. The 
narrative which it contains must either, therefore, be a mere 
string of fancies, the product of human imagination ; or, if true, 
it must be the result of Divine revelation. But, again, the object 
which this cosmogony has in view is far too intimately con- 
nected with the facts it details to allow these to be regarded as 
non-essential or unimportant. Its design is not merely to use 
the history of creation in illustration of spiritual truth, but 
de novo to set forth what that history was, and so convey 
that teaching which creation rightly regarded is intrinsically 
fraught with. These considerations show at once the unique 
position and exalted claim of the Biblical cosmogony, as a 
professed revelation of otherwise unknown natural facts, 
whose narration as facts is an essential part of the purpose in 
view. Whatever may be said, then, of other parts of Scrip- 
ture, where scientific matters are more or less distantly and 
indirectly touched upon, this opening section not only allows 
but demands the keenest scientific investigation. To bestow 
such investigation is the object of the present paper. 
In comparing together the conclusions of inductive science 
and the statements of Genesis, it is of prime importance that 
we exclude, so far as possible, the interfering element of 
theory ; and this on both sides. That we exclude, that is, on 
the one hand, all mere hypotheses concerning the past history 
of the world, which are unsupported by facts ; and, on the 
other hand, all notions concerning the Biblical cosmogony 
which are unwarranted by the original text, read as those 
would have read it for whom it was at first designed. To ac- 
complish this, it will be inevitable that we enter somewhat 
into exegesis. This, however, will be done as slightly and 
briefly as may be, since our main object is not the interpreta- 
tion of this part of Scripture as such, but the comparison of 
what it says with the discoveries and inferences of modern 
science. Only, to make such a comparison fairly, it is indis- 
pensable that we rightly understand both sides. But for 
that interfering element, human theory, there need scarcely 
have been any observations on exegesis. Well-nigh all 
that is said on this score will be said to put aside the false 
and artificial crusts with which successive generations of com- 
mentators have covered the original text, and so get back 
once more, if it may be, to its simple and natural meaning. 
To this end, three fundamental propositions may be laid down, 
which, when duly weighed, will be found to furnish nearly all 
that we need. 
