evidence for this supposition appears to me, so far as I have been able to form any judgment upon the matter, to be quite insufficient. Even apart from considerations of literary criticism, the great improbability that the pious Jews of the exile would ever have adopted the Creation narrative of their hated heathen captors is almost sufficient in itself to condemn the theory.

(b) On the other hand, the probability that the Genesis cosmogony is ultimately to be traced back to an Assyrian tradition may be reasonably admitted. The ancestors of Abraham were Assyrian; whether dwellers in Northern Assyria or in Babylonia itself, need not here be discussed. The various Creation legends current in Mesopotamia would presumably have been preserved in the clan of Terah, and have been transmitted from generation to generation.

If now our supposition is correct that the Assyrian Creation story of the Seven Tablets indicates, by its more orderly grouping, an age more developed in religious thought than the Cuthaean version, it is reasonable to suppose that a similar and almost parallel process may have taken place in a stock which was an offshoot from Mesopotamia, and which was privileged, in things religious, to receive the guidance of the Divine Spirit in so superlative a degree. If so, the cosmogony of Gen. i.-ii. 4o may reflect the process of systematisation, to which the primitive traditions of the Hebrew race were sub

mitted at a comparatively late period in the history of the nation. Thus the early traditions of the Semitic race were yoked to the service of the spiritual religion of Israel. The essential teaching of Jehovah respecting the Divine nature, the universe, and man's nature, was conveyed in the outline of a cosmogony, which, if it had its roots in the early Assyrian traditions, was finally expressed in all the dignified simplicity of Hebrew monotheism.

II.-The Days of Creation

According to this explanation, the Days of Creation in the Genesis cosmogony are to be understood as literal days; for as such they seem to be intended in the simple Hebrew narrative. At the same time, the spiritual teaching is obvious. The lesson underlying the mention of those seven days is that of the law of ordered progress which characterises the dealings of the Divine Creator with created matter. The literal interpretation of the Days of Creation is thus compatible with the spiritual, their origin in popular tradition with their consecration for emblematical instruction. The simple narrative is made the vehicle of Revelation respecting the things of the Spirit. But the seal of inspiration affixed to it does not alter the original character of the narrative, nor transform the imagery

of the Israelite cosmogony into absolute canons of physical science.

I am well aware that those who have looked for scientific teaching in Gen. i. have not failed to find it. They may be divided into two main groups according as they apply to the "Days" of Creation a literal or a metaphorical interpretation.

There are not probably many nowadays who would maintain, as once it would have been regarded as profane not to maintain, that this passage of Scripture, literally understood, contains a scientific account of the processes of Creation, which occupied six literal days. Since the time when this view prevailed, the Book of Divine Revelation in Nature has been opened more widely and studied more deeply. The writing in that volume has been readily and reverently received by Christendom. Christian thought now gladly welcomes the teaching of the geologist and the astronomer. It recognises as the truth, that, according to the working of the Omnipotent Creator's will, gradual change throughout infinite ages must have been the process which governed alike the evolution of sidereal systems, the moulding of the earth's crust, and the appearance of the animal and vegetable kingdoms upon its surface.

If, then, it was still to be supposed that Gen. i. definitely instructed us in science, some other interpretation of "the days" than the old literal one had

to be found. The very discoveries of physical science suggested a solution. If "the days" were understood not as literal days but as infinite ages, or as vast periods in the development of the earth's formation, then it seemed as if the threatened contradiction of Scripture and science might be averted, and as if the words of Genesis might receive unexpected confirmation from the testimony of science. Accordingly, the metaphorical interpretation of "the days" found very general favour. Scholars and men of science have sought to show, how, with allowance for the exigencies of poetic language, the statements of the opening chapter of Genesis may be brought into comparatively close agreement with even the most recent results of scientific inquiry.

But just as, in the earlier phase of interpretation, it was found that, by starting from a literal interpretation, a collision with scientific facts could not be avoided, so now, in the later phase, it is an objection that, starting from the facts of science, it has been necessary to have recourse to a forced or, at any rate, a non-literal interpretation. In a passage of striking simplicity of language, it is impossible not to feel an uncomfortable suspicion that it cannot be right to attach a non- literal explanation to just that one single word, the literal meaning of which happens to be a stumbling-block in the way of the desired method of exegesis. And, surely, the doubt, whether this non-literal explana

tion of "the days" can be correct, will be intensified in the mind of any one who also considers, that the proposed explanation could never have suggested itself to the ancient Israelite, and would never to-day have been mooted, but for the discoveries of modern science.

But even the acceptance of this interpretation fails to satisfy fully the demands of scientific facts. To mention but one single instance, the formation of the heavenly bodies on the fourth day is utterly unscientific: it is at variance with what we, through science, know to have been the actual order of creation. The assertion, that not the formation but the first manifestation of the heavenly bodies, through the mists that encompassed the earth, is indicated in Gen. i. 14, is an explanation of the difficulty too unnatural and forced to merit serious attention.

The endeavour to maintain the scientific accuracy of Gen. i. entails a choice between a natural literal exegesis which defies modern discoveries, and a nonnatural metaphorical exegesis which is introduced just on account of these modern discoveries, and in order to meet the apparent necessity of their claims.

The alternative principle of interpretation which is here preferred is free from both these disadvantages. It is embarrassed by no such dilemma. It starts with the assumption that the Divine Revelation gives us instruction on things spiritual, not on things of natural science. We are then ready, indeed