143 
penclently of the sun’s influence. On the duration of the Creation-days more 
will be said presently. 
With respect to the creation of “ the greater light ” and “ lesser light ” 
on the fourth day, it is to be observed that the principle of the narrative 
demanded that their existence should date from the beginning of their 
visible existence, which could only be from the time when they began to 
determine days, and months, and seasons, and years. It would have been 
contradictory to the principle uniformly maintained in this record, that of 
stating only what is perceived by the senses, to have indicated that the 
luminaries had actual existence before they performed offices recognizable by 
human sense, for that would have been trenching on the ground of physical 
science. Still, it is to be said that scientific reasons might be given for dating 
the visible existence of the luminaries from the fourth day, if physical 
science, inclusive of the science of geology, were in such an advanced state 
as to allow of determining the forces and the operations whereby successive 
changes in the earth, the sea, and the atmosphere were produced in the 
geological epochs. (I have made some attempts in this direction in 
pp. 40-4’3 of my work.) In any case, however, an argument for the truth of 
the Scripture cosmogony may be drawn from the creation of the sun being 
assigned to the fourth day after it had been said that day and night had 
been generated on the • first day ; for this is just such a contradiction as a 
fabricator would have avoided. 
I propose now to state briefly the argument from which I have concluded, 
exclusively on Scriptural grounds, that the six days of Gen. i. are periods of 
long duration. (See the chapter on the Seventh Day, in pp. 101-111.) In 
what I am about to say I shall take for granted, as the only rational view 
that can be entertained respecting God’s Word, that the whole of it has 
virtually but One Author, the Divine Spirit, notwithstanding the number of 
human writers that have taken part in its composition, and the diversities of 
times, places, and circumstances under which the several books were written. 
The same Mind, for instance, dictated “ the tree of life ” in Gen. iii. 24, as 
in Eev. xxii. 2. There is so much of intimation in Scripture as to where, 
when, and by whom some parts were written, as serves to show that human 
agency has been employed in the composition of it, and so much silence on 
these points with respect to other parts (as the four Gospels), as to indicate 
that knowledge of this kind is not essential, so long as “ all Scripture ” is 
regarded as having been written either under the control, or by direct 
inspiration, of the Holy Spirit. Also, assuming that the Scriptures were 
written for the purpose of preparing souls for an immortal existence, it may 
be admitted that in the form in which we possess them at the present day, 
with all the imperfectionsand variety of readings due to the negligence or 
ignorance of scribes, they are still adequate to that purpose. In short, I do 
not hesitate to express my belief that, on its own principles and data, the 
words of Scripture as much admit of philosophical inquiry as do the facts of 
Nature on the principles of physical science, and are just as capable of 
giving trustworthy and exact answers to interrogatories rightly conducted. 
M 2 
