heat, attraction, repulsion, and so forth.  We are accustomed to speak of “blind force;” but here observe the wheels are full of eyes, ever vigilant to fulfil the purpose for which they are appointed.  And this representation of forces appears necessary to complete a symbolic representation of God in nature:  since the world is made up of dead matter, of living forms, and of forces or energies which are in ceaseless motion and action, producing the changes which in fact constitute the working of the whole system.

I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the imagery of this vision lend support to the belief that there was a great Creation enacted in heaven, which was followed by the actual carrying out of the processes on earth, but which has retained its representative forms in the heaven itself.  Had this vision stood alone, it might have been passed over, on the ground that it deals with high and transcendental matters, and that it would be hardly safe to let a practical argument rest too much on it.  But the fact is that again in the New Testament a very similar vision is mentioned (in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation):  here again the four living creatures represent the typical forms of life, the bird, the carnivorous and herbivorous animals, and man; and it will be observed that in this case there is hardly room to doubt that we have an exhibition of Creation, for there is express allusion to it in the address of the elders—­“Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.”

CHAPTER XV.

AND SUPPORTED BY THE CONTEXT.

But a step further is necessary:  if the conclusion that I have come to, by accepting “day” in its ordinary and natural sense, and by giving a hitherto overlooked (and so far a new) meaning to “creation,” is sound, it must not only be rendered probable by reference to other parts of Scripture written when Genesis was much nearer its original publication than it is now; it is still (before all things) necessary, that the interpretation adopted should be conformable to the context.

And I have heard it objected that there are verses which imply not only a Divine Act in heaven, with the Sons of God in conclave around the throne—­sublime and wonderful picture!—­but also distinctly indicate a corresponding action on earth, and so require us to include in our rendering of “creation” both the ideas which (page 169 ante) I have admitted may, on occasion be required by the terms.  For example:  after the creative command in verses 7, 9, 11, 15, and 24, is declared, it is followed by the words of fulfilment—­“and it was so;” and in verse 11, when God has said “Let the earth bring forth grass, &c.”, in the next verse it is positively recorded that the earth did bring forth grass, &c.

I of course admit all this, but it is in no way opposed to my suggestion.