377 
that the dry land was first made to appear at one particular portion of the 
terraqueous globe, and that the creation of what the land produced com- 
menced there. Then, if we grant that from the first certain laws and prin- 
ciples in nature were established, and that those laws were carried into 
effect by acting upon the material elements and under certain conditions ; 
as, for instance, that the earth should “ bring forth ” grass and plants, &c., 
according to the soil ; then, I think, we must see that there is no reason to 
suppose that creation should not thus have commenced in one place. You will 
remember that the late Mr. Hopkins, in his interesting theory of the forma- 
tion of the earth, told us of new land, such as that of Australia, for instance, 
coming up out of the w r ater and producing the primitive forms of plants and 
trees ; — I do not, of course, mean to say without seeds, but by the earth 
nourishing the originally implanted seeds or principles, it might be, of vege- 
table life which had remained in it. The prolificacy of virgin soils is, in fact, 
proverbial. I cannot myself see the slightest difficulty in accepting the literal 
days of the Scriptures if we adopt this view of a definite centre of creation ; 
and, certainly, there is none in geology. Mr. Davison seemed to think that 
Mr. Warington went too far in what he said about the whole of the earth’s 
materials having probably been under water ; and even Mr. Warington 
himself says this is perhaps too bold an assertion. But, so far as geology is 
concerned, I should say that this perhaps is rather too mild ; for we know that 
the sedimentary rocks have necessarily been under water, and we now know 
also that the crystalline rocks have been transformed or metamorphosed from 
sedimentary rocks. Granite itself is now admitted to have been formed in 
that way.* But I should like to be informed by geologists how they now 
imagine the sedimentary strata were formed, and upon what foundation they 
were laid. There is another point I must mention, because I do not think 
Mr. Warington has shown himself so logical or clear-headed as usual with 
regard to it. He says : — 
“ The Biblical cosmogony was intended for no one single nation or place, 
but for the whole world. This is evident from the fact that similar cosmogo- 
nies — some, indeed, grievously distorted, and all markedly inferior in simple 
sublimity — are found among many other ancient nations also!” 
I think this conclusion is a non sequitur, and Mr. Warington, I think, will 
hardly be able to maintain this argument from the fact that similar cosmogo- 
nies are found among other nations — 
Mr. Warington. — Read the remainder of the passage, from “ If, then.” 
Mr. Reddie. — Certainly : — 
“ If, then, the Biblical cosmogony be, as it implicitly claims to be, a Divine 
revelation, it clearly must have been one intended for mankind generally, 
given before the dispersion, and of equal value in every part of the world.” 
But I do not see how its general value now makes it evident that “ the 
Biblical cosmogony was intended for no one single place ” — 
* Vide Journ, of Trans., vol. ii. p. 334. 
