For the mind at once perceives the improbability, that the earth should have been created and stocked with inhabitants thousands of ages before the existence of the heavens," or any of those worlds which form the present system of the universe.

The reply to this objection is, that the heavenly bodies were created before the fourth day for Moses expressly declares that the "heavens" as well as the earth were created in the beginning and who can doubt but that by heavens and earth, he means the universe? It is true that our common English translation conveys the idea that the sun moon and stars were brought into existence on the fourth demiurgic day but we very much doubt whether the original implies any thing more than that on that day these bodies had their offices and stations assigned them in other words, that the present arrangement of things in the heavens was then first completely established.

On another page we have quoted a passage that shows the Hebrews to have adopted this view of the subject; although, according to Vatablus, most of the Greek and Latin writers maintained a contrary opinion. Origen, however, was an exception.* Some of the ablest modern philologists adopt the view taken by the Hebrews:

66

Hitherto," says Hensler, "the only way of distinguishing day from night was, that in the day time it was lighter and in the night darker. Through a perfectly visible rising and setting of the sun a more perfect boundary of day and night resulted. In the language of the original, not indeed expressed with mathematical accuracy, it is said, "God said, now let the lights in the firmament of the heavens distinguish between day and night, and they shall mark appointed times, days and years: they shall lighten the firmament of the heavens to shine upon the earth, and it was so. Of the two great lights God placed the greater to rule the day, and the smaller, together with the stars, to rule the night." +

Granville Penn thinks the following to be a correct interpretation of the fourth day's work. "Let it be, that the lights in the firmament of heaven for dividing between the day and the night be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years."‡

"If If any one," says Rosenmüller, "who is conversant with the genius of the Hebrew, and free from any previous bias of his judgment, will read the words of this article (Gen. 1: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.) in their natural connection, he will immediately perceive, that they import the direction, or determination of the heavenly bodies to certain uses which they were to render to the earth. The words nis are not to be separated from the rest, or to be rendered fiant luminaria, let there be lights; i. e. let lights be made; but rather, let lights be, that is, serve in the expanse of heaven, for distinguishing between day and night; and let them be, or serve, for signs, &c. to observe, that the verb to be, in construction with the prefix for, is generally employed to express the direction or determination of a thing to an end; and not the production of the thing."—"The historian speaks of the determination of the stars to certain uses which they were to render to the earth, and not of their first formation."*

For we are

We might multiply authorities in favor of this interpretation: but it is unnecessary. Suffice it to say, that there is a decided preponderance among the ablest commentators in favor of this view of the subject.

4. The language of the fourth commandment is thought to be decisive against the opinion that a long period preceded the demiurgic days. This expressly declares that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, &c. Now on what principle of interpretation shall we introduce a period thousands of ages long before the six days commenced, when Moses expressly embraces all the creative processes in those days?

We confess that such is not the natural meaning of the words of this passage: that is, it does seem to teach the creation of the whole universe in six literal days: And it is certainly an objection to the proposed mode of interpreting the Mosaic account of the creation which deserves a very serious consideration. For it must demand quite decisive proof before we can admit that the natural and obvious meaning of a writer, is not the true meaning. There is, however, a principle of interpretation applicable in this case, which may perhaps satisfy every mind, that the supposed existence of a long period anterior to the Mosaic days is perfectly consistent with the fourth commandment. We

Quoted in Penn's Comparative Estimate, Vol. I. p. 225, and 229.

refer to the principle, that when a writer describes the same event in more than one place, the briefer statement is to be interpreted in accordance with the more extended one. We can refer to an illustrative example in Genesis relating to the subject of creation. In Chapter 2: v. 4, it is said, These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. Now if this were the only account in the Bible of the work of creation, who would have suspected that more than a single day was occupied by it? But the statement in the first chapter of Genesis compels us to attach a meaning to the words just quoted different from the natural and obvious one: nor does any one acquainted with the laws of exegesis, imagine that there is any real discrepancy between the two statements. On the same principle, is it not reasonable to explain the fourth commandment by comparing it with the more extended account of the creation, in the first chapter of Genesis? It is not, indeed, as clear from the statement in Genesis that a long period intervened between the creation and the Mosiac days, as that six days were employed in the demiurgic processes. But still we can hardly conceive how any candid man can deny that the first four verses do naturally admit such a period. We cannot, therefore, allow that the fourth commandment is insuperably opposed to the interpretation under consideration.

The conclusion then to which we come respecting this theory of reconciliation is, that though not entirely free from difficulty, it is the most probable that has been proposed, and it is accordingly adopted by more able geologists and philologists at the present day than any other.

14. But finally, even if none of the modes of reconciling the two records that have been examined are satisfactory, we still maintain that it would be premature, in the present state of geology and of sacred philology, to infer any real discrepancy

between them.

For

1. In the first place, the great mass of evidence by which the truth of the Bible is sustained, independent of geology, furnishes a strong presumption of its veracity in every case. we are slow to believe a man guilty of falsehood when the testimony to his veracity is strong from almost every quarter: and why should we not act on the same principle in relation to Moses? So strong is the proof of the authenticity and inspiration of the sacred record, that even if a point blank inconsistency

could be made out between it and geology, the latter must yield, because it is not sustained by proof so strong as revelation. Nothing however but the direct necessity ought to lead us to resort to such a mode of vindicating the sacred record: for in sceptical minds at least it would destroy all the practical influence of Christianity. But it is reasonable when an apparent discrepancy is seen between revelation and geology, to wait till we are sure we understand the subject fully before we pronounce the former to be erroneous. And who is there that will pretend that no new light can possibly be thrown upon the connection between the two subjects?

2. The recent origin and rapid progress of geology shows us the unreasonableness of hasty judgment against revelation. A few years since, Humboldt said, that "to boast of stability of opinion in geology, is to boast of an extreme indolence of mind: it is to remain stationary amidst those who go forward.” And another lecturer on this science has more recently said, that "geology is as yet only in its cradle, and its nurses have scarcely recognized the features of its countenance."* These statements we regard as too sweeping, and as inapplicable to their full extent to geology. For within a few years the great fundamental principles of the science have been settled beyond all dispute and thus fixed do we regard the fact that this world has existed through a very long period of time anterior to the creation of our present animals and plants. But there are some things in geology yet unsettled, and it would be unreasonable to infer that future discoveries in that science will not throw any real light upon the connection between the revealed and the observed cosmogonies. Hence every candid man will be disposed to wait for a time before pronouncing the existence of real discrepancies.

3. The great number of remarkable coincidences between the two records as pointed out by us in a former number of this work is another reason for delaying a decision against revelation. For these coincidences relate to numerous points where the two subjects come in contact: whereas the discrepancy relates to a single point: viz. the age of the world. The presumption then, even from geology alone, is decidedly in favor of revelation: and, therefore a decision against it, in the present state of the question, would be absurd in the highest degree.

Higgins's Mosaical and Mineral Geologies, p. 2.

4. We ought also to recollect that within a few years past several apparent discrepancies between geology and revelation have disappeared with the progress of discovery. The unavoidable inference is, that the only remaining one may ere long vanish before the fast increasing light.

5. Finally, the exegesis of the first chapter of Genesis can be considered as by no means settled. And several of the points yet unsettled are precisely those that bear upon the geological difficulty. Can we believe that criticism has reached its ne plus ultra in eking out the meaning? Nay, may not geology itself put into the interpreter's hands the clue that will disentangle all difficulties? Philology then as well as sound philosophy cries out in favor of delaying to decide against Moses until further developments have been made.

We

The conclusions then at which we arrive on this subject are these: In the first place, we maintain that between geology and revelation there are several unexpected and remarkable coincidences, such as could have resulted only from veracity on the part of the sacred historian; and that the points of agreement are far more numerous than the points of apparent collision ; and, therefore, even geology alone furnishes a strong presumptive evidence in favor of the truth of the Mosaic history. maintain, secondly, that the first chapter of Genesis is a portion of Scripture that has always occasioned much difficulty in its interpretation, apart from geology, and that those portions of it about which commentators have differed most, are the very ones with which geology is supposed to come into collision; so that in fact scarcely any new interpretation has been proposed to meet the geological difficulty. We admit, thirdly, that the geological difficulty is real; that is, the established facts of geology do teach us that the earth has existed through a vastly longer period, anterior to the creation of man, than the common interpretation of Genesis allows. We maintain, fourthly, that most of the methods that have been proposed to avoid or reconcile the geological difficulty are entirely inadequate, and irreconcilably at variance either with geology or revelation. We maintain, fifthly, that at least one or two of these proposed modes of reconciling geology and Scripture, although not free from objections, are yet so probable, that without any auxiliary considerations, they would be sufficient, in the view of every reasonable man, to vindicate the Mosaic history from the charge of collision with the principles of geology. And finally, we maintain, that