382 
me from any necessity of giving any other meaning to the words “ morning 
and evening.” Then I have been told that I omitted the effects produced 
by the fall of man. But that was because they did not come within the 
scope of my paper. My paper was not on the whole history of the creation 
and fall, but on one part, and I omitted all reference to the fall except to 
point out, by implication, the effect which the fall must have had upon the 
entire universe. I have said in my paper that the top stone of the whole 
system of creation was man, and that his office in the universe, by which he 
completed the whole work, was to act as the representative of God by the 
faithful occupation of the earth and not by the selfish enjoyment of it. 
When therefore he descended to the selfish enjoyment of it, it follows 
that he must have disturbed the work of the Creator. As to the 
existence of light before the heavenly bodies, some stars have been 
measured, and from the most distant stars actually measured, the light 
would not take more than a century to pass to us. It is, I believe, 
mere hypothesis founded on the apparent magnitude of certain stars, 
to say that there are stars beyond so distant that it would take a 
thousand years for their light to travel to us. But if that were proved, it 
would not touch my position. It would only be an evidence that the actual 
stages of creation were long and short periods, because the stars were called 
into existence on the fourth day, and had the whole of the fifth and sixth 
days before them. If science should demonstrate that there were stars in 
existence more than 6,000 years ago, that would only be a proof to my mind 
that the fifth and sixth days were long, and not short periods. I have been 
told by Mr. Mitchell that I wrote as if I were afraid of science. Now I 
must protest against that. Neither now nor at any other time have I had the 
slightest fear of science. I used to hold Hugh Miller’s theory, but I gave it 
up three years ago, because I found it sinned against both science and 
Scripture, and I remained without a theory for some time. Now I have 
another, which seems to me satisfactory in both respects. I have had no 
occasion to form one to satisfy my own mind — I could go on with a sus- 
pended judgment. I have a reverence for science, and that may have led 
me to endeavour to unite what I suppose to be the facts of science and the 
facts of Scripture. I was very much surprised to hear Mr. Mitchell say 
that these theories of cosmogony were based on doctrines of science given 
by scientific men. Many of the hypotheses put forward were not scientific 
at all, but purely theological — 
Rev. W. Mitchell. — My point was that when Christians put forward 
such crude ideas, it was because they were attempting to meet what were 
thought to be scientific facts, and that if there have been blunders on 
the part of Christians in attempting to defend their faith in Revelation, 
there have been still greater blunders brought forward under the guise 
of science. 
Mr. Warington. — It seems to me that these theological theories never 
had any scientific basis at all — the theologians had it all their own way. 
Then the question has been asked, “ Why should a long day be necessary ? 
