71

SECTION I.

THE MOSAICAL AND GEOLOGICAL VIEWS OF

CREATION.

If a stranger were to visit, for the first time, the ruins of Pompeii, without any knowledge of its previous history, he would view with interest the numerous fragments of most elaborate architecture strewed in ruins, and, struck with the still and silent antiquity of the scene before him, compared to the lively and luxuriant country around, his first impulse would be to inquire whether any tradition of this catastrophe existed. And thus it is, that the geologist turns from the contemplation of vast creative power, and of destruction and desolation every where around him, to ask of history, if it can throw any gleam of light on his perplexing meditations.

With the exception of national traditions and legends, which are all traceable to one common source, the Book of Genesis contains the only record of creation given to man. We do not deem

it necessary here to enter into any proof of the authenticity of the Mosaical history; but assume the fact as granted, that this account, brief as it is, is a genuine detail of the creation of the world.*

Unlike every other part of Sacred Scripture, which is entirely of a moral tendency, this is strictly a description of physical nature, and seems appropriately to have been given preparatory to a detail of the moral destinies of the human race; and though brief, is precise, as to the manner in which the world and all things it contains were created by the special operations of a great First Cause. This seemed necessary, lest notions, such as were broached among the ancient philosophers, of the fortuitous production of the world, from a chaos of atoms existing from all eternity, should gain general credence among the human race.

*

On entering on this subject, we must notice an

Conjectures have been formed whether Moses delivered his history of the creation from immediate inspiration, or whether he derived his knowledge of the facts from the Egyptians, who again had the tradition delivered through the Chaldæans, from the offspring of Noah. We have no means of stating any thing but conjectures on this subject, nor is the decision of the question of material moment. Our faith in the genuineness of the narrative is corroborated by its recognition by every subsequent inspired writer, and by the great founder of Christianity.

The Passover of the Jews has been instanced as a test of Moses's veracity as a historian, the observance of this event through subsequent ages being an indubitable proof of the actual occurrence which gave rise to it.

objection which has been frequently urged,—that as Revelation was evidently not intended to disclose a system of science, it is unwise to try geological facts by the test of Scripture. But if the Mosaical account of creation be not strictly and exclusively a statement of physical facts, it is nothing; and if the facts of Geology and the statements of Moses, when brought to bear upon each other, be not found to coincide, one of them must be false, or there must be something wrong in the mode of their conception, or the manner of their application. Two circumstances, however, are necessary, before a perfect and harmonious coincidence of both can be acquired.

We must, first, have a complete and accurate collection of the facts of Geology, and

We must have a precise and definite conception of the statements of Moses.

With this understanding of the matter, we now proceed to apply the ascertained facts of Geology, so far as known, to the statements in Genesis.

In perusing the simple, but sublime commencement of the Holy Scriptures, where the successive acts of creation are recorded, what is the natural and obvious conception of the passages by the general reader, unsophisticated by preconceived notions or critical propensities? As these records were most certainly penned for the general mass of mankind, and delivered, no doubt, with the view that they

should be universally and easily understood, we conceive this is the question by which their true meaning should be tried, and not by verbal criticism, and forced constructions of half sentences, and isolated passages. For of whatever nature, or

however simple, a writing may be, especially if that writing be in a dead language, apply the Proteus power of verbal criticism, and it becomes any thing or every thing. Take from, or add to a sentence, a single word or half a word, and, like a child's edifice of cards, it falls instantly to pieces, and you may rebuild it as your fancy pleases. Accordingly, among all the laborious verbal criticisms of the Hebrew text, there is not one but what seems to have darkened or perplexed the meaning of the original; but as, at least, two great systems of geological belief have grown out of these, we must examine each individually.

In order to prolong the period of creation, the Mosaical days were supposed not to be of the ordinary length of twenty-four hours, but to be capable of being extended to an indefinite period, the Hebrew word iom, day, being susceptible, as in our own language, of two significations, meaning either a natural day, which is the most definite and usual signification; or, in a collective sense, signifying an era or period of time. This interpretation was early resorted to by some of the Christian Fathers, as Origen, St Augustin, and Bede. It was subse

quently adopted by Whiston, and eagerly seized on by De Luc, Kirwan, and other Wernerian theorists, as favourable to their hypothesis of a periodical deposition of the strata from a universal ocean. Faber, adopting the opinion of De Luc, argues, that the seventh day, or Sabbath, which commenced immediately after the creation of the world, has not yet terminated; and therefore, as this day has had an extent of six thousand years, the other six days of creation could not have each been less than this period. Now, the "days" of Moses are exactly specified as consisting each of a morning and an evening; and that there may be no mistake, it is afterwards mentioned that the light was called day and the darkness night. Again, it is stated in Exodus as a reason for observing one day in the seven as a Sabbath, that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and rested on the seventh day." It is evident, then, that the Jews, to whom Moses, in the first instance, wrote, must have understood his meaning in the literal sense, and not according to the acceptation of Faber, else they would never have observed a Sabbath of one day, if a period extending to the end of the world was meant and intended. It is true that the Mosaic narrative speaks of days before they were measured by the sun; and on this account, the first periods may be allowed to be more indefinite.*

* Note IX.