369 
manifestation by the Word — the \oyoc, the living Word. Then we are told 
that the earth was without form, and darkness was on the face of the deep, 
whatever we may understand by the word deep — something very profound, 
as it is beautifully and truly stated. We come then to this point, that there 
was a period when what we call the earth was empty and void, and darkness 
was on the face of the deep. I take it for granted that our darkness is the 
type and outbirth of that darkness, and our light is the outbirth of that 
other light. So with the waters — indeed we could run through the whole of 
these terms and show that you do find something anterior to the creation, 
or to the manifestation of creation in our external world. We therefore 
come to perceive that time has nothing to do with our account of the world. 
The writer of this paper has touched upon some very important subjects, 
which we should do well to develop, and I am sure he deserves our best 
thanks for the essay he has given us. 
Rev. C. A. Row. — I cannot understand how the last speaker manages 
to translate the words ev apxy, “ by the beginning ; ” and I for one 
entirely deny that you can render “by.” I would also say that all 
the renderings of the Greek Testament which would anywhere translate tv , 
“by,” are wrong. I may observe, further, that I did not at all share 
Mr. Titcomb’s conclusion that Mr. Warington in his paper meant or im- 
plied that the Creator ceased working after the creation. I understood 
Mr. Warington simply to urge that the Creator ceased merely from His 
creative working, but by no means from His providential working. I 
understood Mr. Warington to express himself strongly upon that point, and 
very properly. The point is one which leaves room for the Darwinian theory, 
if it is true. I do not hold that theory myself, — indeed I think it is open to 
very serious objection, — but still it is one which if true admits the existence 
of creative power. There is one point on which I have some little doubt, 
and that is as to the precise value of these traditional evidences. We are 
perfectly devoid of any real knowledge as to the laws by which traditions 
are formed, and nothing is more difficult in historical studies than to arrive 
at a certain conclusion on the point. The only English works which have 
attempted to discuss the real character of traditions, and how they are formed, 
are Sir George Cprnewall Lewis’s Roman History and his Astronomy of the 
Ancients. There the subject is dealt with in a philosophical manner. Whei? 
we deal with traditions about the cosmogony, we may have some degree of 
doubt as to how far they represent traditions fairly handed down to us. 
Another point where I had a little doubt is one in which Mr. Warington 
seems to me to be rather obscure. Mr. Warington seems to me to have laid 
it down too broadly that if philosophy should discover that there is any 
defect in the cosmogony of Genesis, divine revelation falls to the ground — 
Mr. Warington. — But only the divine revelation of that chapter or that 
part. 
Rev. C. A. Row. — Then I have misinterpreted you. 
The further discussion of the paper was then postponed to the next 
Ordinary Meeting. 
