(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:*j
SIR,—"A Layman," who objects to Mr. Davies's view of the Fourth Commandment, seems virtually to concede the point at issue, when he speaks of the beneficent energy of ministers of reli- gion being employed in providing against the rejection of the gold with the dross. This is exactly what Mr. Davies tries to do in his letter on the development of Christianity, otherwise that letter has no meaning, He thinks, rightly or wrongly, that the account of the Creation in Genesis contains a good deal of gold, much more gold, indeed, than dross. He is very anxious to preserve the gold, and he tells us, clearly enough, I think, in what it consists. Activity and rest must be predicated of the Divine Nature, if we are to approach to an adequate conception of that nature, and of its relation to man. The first chapter of Genesis expresses this truth in a parable, the most impressive, and, I believe, the truest way of conveying it. The word " day " is there used, as it has over and over again been used since by persons who have aimed at speaking with perfect plainness and simplicity. I can understand that such a use would not be appropriate in a legal document. But as a matter of fact, the word " day " continually stands for "a form of time," and indeed, notwithstanding "A Layman," I cannot see for what else it can stand. If thus taken in the Fourth Commandment, it has yet to be shown why its statements are erroneous. It will, I think, always be felt that there is a truth in them with which physical science, from its very nature, cannot come in collision, and that it is unprofitable to discuss whether they are " literally " true, whatever that expression may mean. It will be enough for most people that they are substantially true,—as Mr. Davies
Previous page
