168 
have omitted to notice what is to my mind one of the most important 
features of the paper, namely, that Mr. McCaul makes so strong a point of 
the world being created in six days, and assumes that the first verse of the 
book of Genesis is descriptive of an earlier creation. At one time of 
geological research it was thought that there had been immense convulsions 
which shook the earth, and that after each convulsion there was a fresh creation 
of plants and animals ; but now it is believed and proved, so far as we 
can prove anything in the ancient history of our planet, that there was 
a succession of animals and plants from the very earliest discoveries, in the 
very deepest deposits of the Silurian strata to the superficial gravel-beds of 
ihe Tertiary. This being so, I think the idea that the first verse of the first 
chapter of Genesis describes an earlier creation, and that the six following 
verses described the creation of the animal and vegetable world which is 
now existing, can scarcely be maintained. Then Mr. McCaul, speaking of 
the fourth commandment, says : — 
“ Whether the days spoken of, in this record, are periods of twenty-four 
hours, or of still greater duration, it is impossible to determine. There are 
many who think that they may be understood as indefinite periods. But 
the language of the Fourth Commandment seems to others to be unfavourable 
to such an interpretation.” 
Now, it seems to me very favourable to it. The Fourth Commandment tells 
us that God rested on the seventh day, and is not this just the seventh day 
on which God is still resting from the six periods of work and creation 1 I 
cannot certainly see that we should gain anything in the eyes of the scientific 
world by cutting off that first verse, and saying, “ there are certain other 
theories about creation in that first verse : here, in the following verses lies 
our belief.” By taking up the idea that the six days represent six periods 
of time, one after another, in which the world was created and brought 
forth everything, and that the seventh day was a period of rest which has 
not yet come to a close, we have a better solution of the difficulties, which I 
admit are very great, and a solution which I think ought to be satisfactory 
to the Christian. There is one other thing I will mention about prayer. I 
was sorry to hear the remarks made upon that subject, to the effect that it 
is not to be expected that we should receive an answer to our prayers. 
It seems to me that every one who prays truly and earnestly in the true spirit 
of a Christian may expect to receive an answer to his prayers. 
Eev. Sir T. M. Lushington-Tilson, Bart. — The speaker to whom you 
refer did not say that, I think : you are going beyond what he really did say. 
Mr. McClymont. — I would draw a distinction between the to hot' 
a\i)6tiav, ayaQuv, and ro <t>aivbfuvov ayaOov, the real wish of a good man which 
may be answered, and the wish which was not really good and which 
would not be answered. (Vide Aristotle, Ethics, Bk. 3, cap. iv. sec. 1-4.) 
Mr. Masterman.— P erhaps there may not be so much difference between 
us as I anticipated. 
Sir T. M. Lushington-Tii.son. — Mr. McCaul has touched on a great variety 
of points, and there may be a difference of opinion as to the minor ones, but 
on the major, all who are old-fashioned orthodox believers will agree with 
