IN PLAN AND IN PROGRESS: BEING AN ESSAY ON THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. BY THE REV. JAMES CHALLIS, M.A., F.R.S., F.R.A.S. PLUMIAN PROFESSOR OF ASTRONOMY AND EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY Πίστει νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι Θεοῦ. Heb. XI. 3. MACMILLAN AND CO. Cambridge: AND 23, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, London. 1861. PREFACE. THIS work was begun with the intention of answering the Essay entitled "Mosaic Cosmogony" in the volume of "Essays and Reviews," it being thought that after that volume had received so much attention and currency, it was the time for some one to speak on the scientific bearing of the questions discussed, who had gone into the depths of modern physical science, and at the same time did not share in the mistrust of the Scriptures which is so prominent a feature of those Essays. The course of the reasoning which I followed with this view, involved a leading idea, which is intended to be conveyed by the Title, Creation in Plan and in Progress; namely, that the creation, being a work, must have been, like every other work, designed as well as executed, and that this two-fold view of it is in the Scriptures. It was, however, found that the elucidation of this idea and carrying it out to its consequences, so much outweighed in importance any other purpose which the book might answer, that it could no longer be regarded as merely a reply to the "Mosaic Cosmogony." For this reason all direct reference to that Essay is made in the notes, in order to keep the general argument free from adventitious matter. Mr Goodwin's Essay has certainly the merit of bringing distinctly forward the questions and difficulties which it is reasonable to ask for explanations of from those who maintain the Divine Authority of the first Chapter of Genesis, although he has contributed nothing towards any answer to these questions. In the course of this Essay I have adduced answers and explanations drawn from principles which are appropriate to the science of Scripture, and distinct from the principles of Natural science. I would particularly call the attention of the reader to the discussion in the Introduction (pp. 6-10) respecting the distinction between the view of nature as presented to sense, and as presented by the light of science. In writing this Work I have experienced much difficulty from the consciousness that the very elements of what I have ventured to call Scriptural science are at this time but little known, and that many would not even allow that there is such a science. It is reasonable to request that this should be taken into account if any of the arguments should appear novel and strange; and, since the book is a little one, I may be permitted to ask those who read it once, to read it again before they discard it. Unless this be done, the reasons for Italicising certain of the words, which, as the subject is difficult to follow, it was thought would contribute to clearness, will scarcely be understood. For the sake of the generality of readers, technical terms have been as much as possible avoided in the text and thrown into notes, and all the Greek and the criticisms are confined to the notes. CAMBRIDGE, June 25, 1861. J. C. |