373 
periods for the creation of the universe, and that they were periods between 
evening and morning. But if you take from these words the plain meaning 
they bear, you are attempting to accommodate Scripture to your views of 
science. The narrative is very natural. It tells us that the light was sepa- 
rated from the darkness and called “ day,” and the darkness “ night.” Is 
that in reference to the evening and morning that follow ? Are we to ignore 
all that, and to give the words a metaphorical interpretation ? Are we 
not to take it that those successions of light and darkness implied evening 
and morning ? If we attempt to avoid difficulties and to give the interpre- 
tation offered by Mr. Warington, we shall fall into the difficulty which has 
before beset those who have attempted to make religion and science square 
upon various interpretations of the days of creation — whether those days are 
to be considered as long periods, or whether we are to take a long period 
of God’s working in creation between the first and second verses of Genesis. 
I know there is a lingering impression with many people that there is an enor- 
mous amount of irresistible evidence in geology to show that immensely long 
periods of time must have taken place in the formation of the earth’s strata. 
That is a feeling which exists in many minds, and which affects even Mr. 
Warington himself, and his interpretation of “God’s day” is for the very 
purpose of giving long periods, or for saying that the work of creation could 
not have been accomplished in a short period of time. But I would answer 
him in his own words : — 
“ The creation of a universe is to God no greater task, no longer or more 
arduous labour, than a week’s work to His creature.*’ 
If that is so, could not God have done all the work of creation in six days, 
such days as we ordinarily mean when we speak of days ? What right have 
you to limit the rapidity of His work ? The creation of the universe is to 
Him no greater task than a week’s work to one of us. If that is so, no 
longer period than a week’s labour is required. Why should not God be 
able to accomplish all creation in a week as we ordinarily interpret it ? I see 
gentlemen gravely shaking their heads at me for being so heretical as not to 
give in to what are still the popular theories with regard to geology. I am 
glad to see that Mr. Warington in his paper endeavours to show how very 
little purely scientific evidence geology has to give us on the subject at all. I 
say we have no means whatever in the present state of the problems of 
geology of determining how long a period of time any one single stratum took 
in its formation. I would like to know if Mr. Babbage could give you an 
equation to determine the age of granite or sandstone. What a vast number 
of unknown quantities you would have to put into your equation ! It would 
be an indeterminable equation at the least, consisting of a vast number of 
unknown quantities. Those who would endeavour to give an interpretation 
to the days in Genesis should wait until science is sufficiently advanced, if 
ever science does sufficiently advance, to give them something like a true 
geological theory. We have heard much of the nebular hypothesis, which 
was introduced to the world under the sanction of the name of Laplace, and 
