IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I iM m m 11^ ^ IM 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 M 6" — ► v] (? /2 e '^W e/A 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D n n n D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever poss'ble, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film66S. Additional commeras:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es ^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachetdes ou piqudes r~7[ Pages detached/ \JLj Pages d^tachdes [^ Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matdriel supplementaire D D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont dt6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. ra' This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X x/ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X lils Ju difier me lage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6ndrosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationaie du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —^-(meaning "CON- TINUED "). or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole --^ signifie "A SUiVRE", le symbote V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. rrata to pelure, nd n 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ,«A IN WHIC THE CREATION: BEING TWO LECTURES ON THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION,! \ AS RECORDED IN GENESIS I., .^- IN WHt(!H THE VARIOUS THEORIES THAT HAVB BEEN *p>'«tCF.nM|r ^(SfP5A|0tfi|l^a *5^^ TO RECONCILE THAT ACCOUNT WITH THE Dl.SC^«fWtfa ,^« tfeoi.OQV ARE ■^•' . i^S^sN» lULLT BKVIEVVED, WITH A CRITICAli^B'xm^Kra OF THE *- '*^ ^> "^ FIRST CHAPTER orj&ASll^ lEN .*ii1i'«tcF.T/iF'^(^r5AiotfH|uia- ■3^^ IC^tfWtS ftfetfedLOOV ARE ■■'^•'^ . C^^**S 'B'XJM^rok OF THE 1^'> \\ BY LECTURER JACOB M. Hmscri*^^:^Rj^^^^::^^ IN OUJKNTAL LITERATURE, UNIVERSITY OOLLW^Jr'WWflJI'i'O. ■ ^1 ■«' •' Of old hast Thou laid the foundatiou of the earth : And the ht;avei>s are the work of Thy hands." PaALM oil, 2.'i. \ TORONTO : ROWSELL & HUTCHISON. 1874. mw'^ww^'i^^MW^wwmw^- THE CREATION: BEIXO \ n^ TWO LECTURES i ♦ r ^ O.V THE i * MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION. AS RECORDED IN GENESIS I., IN WHICH THE VARIOUS THEORIES THAT IIAVB BEEN ADVANIJED IN ENDRAVOURINO TO nKCONCILE THAT ACCOUNT WITH THE DISCOVERIES IX OEOLOOY ARK iULtY REVIEWED, WITH A CRITICAL EXPOSITION OP TUB FIRST CHAPTER OF OENESIS. BY JACOB M. HIRSCHFELDER, LECTURER IN ORIENTaI, I.IIERATURE, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, TORONTO. '• Of old hast Tliou laid the foundation of the eaith : And tho heavens are the work of Thy hands." Psalm cii, 25. TORONTO : ROWSELL & HUTCHISON, 1874. '^4^1 >« (-'.' 3S,fe5l ■i'- . • ;' , - ■. ' , " ,• 71& ' ' H 5 ' ■' •■,- ." ■ / % H T ■M ! -■ ■i;f.' ■-;■<•'■■♦■ t Entered accoidiug to Act of Pai-liameiit of Canada, in the year of our Lord cue thousand eight hundred and 8event.v-four, bj- Jacob >[4in Hirsciifslder, In the office of the Minister of Agriculture, fOROXro : ROWSELL and HDTCHWON, VRINTERS, KIXO STREKt. »jr f/ ':■! '-iv:,--.'',''. ('. .J , . . .. , ' - .. . n PREFACE. '>r?* ..,.1. ■} A BOOK, however small, iii these days, is hardly considered complete without a preface ; and certainly that appendage, to say the least, is very convenient, as it affords the author an opportunity to explain to the reader, the scope of the work, the reason which actuated him in undertaking the task, Szc. In the present case, the author does not ♦- w > The above beautiful lines are taken from the " Christian Repository," No. 1, p. 49. They were " vvritten on a blank leaf of a Bible, a few weeks before his death, by Lord Byron. Comraunicated from a quarter which stamps their authenticity" !^-' .'■'>.> '■" , p'- ■;. :f vi -!"' 1^4'^^yt •■',■'' ,\'i .■ \ ith dark limestone, sandstone, and flagstone, and have a united thickness of about a mile and a half, must alone liave occupied, in the production of these formations, myriads of years. The production of the coal Beries of Newcastle are computed at a moderate estimate to have occvipied at least 200,000 years. To come nearer home, Lyell, in his "Travels in North America," Vol. 1, pp. 50-53, Bftys, ** that the River Niagara wears away the edge over LECTURE I. which it falls, about oue foot annually, and that it has hith- erto worn away about a space of seven miles in the direction of Lake Erie, which process must at least have taken 35,000 years." I do not think that the deduction in the last case is» conclusive, the rock may have crumbled away at times much more rapidly from various causes. Be that, however, as it may, the proofs which naturalists adduce in establishing the great antiquioy of our globe are so numerous and so cogent, that it must unhesitatingly be accepted as an established fact. In order, therefore, to reconcile the Mosaic account of the creation with the facts brought to light by geologists as to the age of the earth. Biblical scholars, as well as other eminent writers, have set to work to investigate the Mosaic account more* closely, and as might be expected, that in deal- ing with such a profound and mysterious subject, have come to different conclusions, and thus we have various theories advanced in attempting to solve the apparent difficulty. You will, I am sure, readily agree with me, that it is but an act of courtesy if not of justice to those writera who have treated upon this subject, that their theories — no matter how extravagant some may be— should at least receive a careful consideration ; and I propose, therefore, to examine them one by one, faithfully pointing out in each case what may bo said either in its favor or against it. After having j)erfornied that duty, I shall then lay before you, as clearly, and yet as briefly as possible, the theory which 1 have always adopted, which will, howevej*, necessitate a careful examina- tion of the original text, you will then be in a position to judge yourself of the merits of the various theories, and exer- cise your own discretion in adopting whatever seems to be most reasonable, or rather, whichever you think is best sup- ported by scriptural authority. It ha})pens frequently when we wish to go to a certain place, that we have the choice of two ways in reaching our destina- 6 LECTURE I. tion, namely, one by taking a circuitous route, and another, by taking a short <. it. The question to decide in that case is, not only, which route will bring us in the shortest time, but also, in the safest manner, to the end of our journey An appa- rent short cut is by no means always the best nor the safest. No one could ever reach the summit of some of the peaks of the Alps by climbing up in a direct lime. Indeed, v^e may safely say, that short cuts often prove no cuts at all. And so it is precisely with investigating Biblical subjects. Some writers have jumped at conclusions because they a})parently seemed to be the easiest modes of getting over ditficulties regardless as to what the result may be. ^ If, indeed, great care is to bo exercised in investigating scientific subjects', how infinitely more careful ought the investigator of Biblical subjects be, when an erroneous opinion may not only lead thousands astray, but may even imperil the very belief in Holy Scripture. And yet there is no donbt, that Biblical subjects have very often been treated in a very summary manner. Thus, for example, in coming to the first theory, some writers have put forth th6 startling hypothesis, that the present knowledge of the Hebrew lan- guage is insufficient for an accurate understanding of the Mosaic narrative of the creation. Thus Babbage, in his Essay ** On the account of the Creation in the first chapter of Genesis," asks, ''What means do we possess in translating it ? In similar cases we avail ourselves of works of the immediate predecessors, and of the contemporaries of the writer ; but here we are acquainted with no work of any predecessor, nor do wo possess the work^ of any writei's in the same language, even during several centuries, if we except some few of the sacred books."* The learned Jewish Rabbins would, no u t BridgeTvater Treatise, Vol. IX., ch. iv., p, 75. ■'*l' e e (> LECTURE I. 7 doubt, be highly flattered, after having devoted a whole life- time to the study of the Hebrew language and its literature* to be after all told, that they cpnnot triinidate the first chap- ter of Genesis : a simple prose composition. And wlu.t must the great Hebraists of the present age, such as Geseniug, Ewald, Hengstenberg and a host of others, have thought of such an £3serti'^n, made too, by a writer who has not proved to be a Hebrew scholar himself, but on the contrary acknow- ledged "not having an acquaintance with the language in which the sacred volume was written. "t I can picture to myself the smile that this declaration must have called forth. " What means do we possess of translating it 1" Why an ordinary knowledge of the Hebrew language is all that is required, and as regards " the contemporary writers, to which we may refer in order to arrive at the true meaning of words, every word in the first chapter of Genesis occurs over and over again in the other books of the Old Testament, where we can trace the proper meaning of a word, should any difficulty present itself. You will find that ':his is precisely the mode which I have adopted. This theory, however, although it questions the acquirements of ancient and modem Hebraists, is yet perfectly innocent in its tendency, as it in nowise affects the inspiration of Scripture. » ' The next theory to which I shall have to call your atteu- tion is one not quite so innocent, butjwrould seriously affect the authenticity of the sacred text, if it could be substantiated ; ivnd, therefore, (^^'iiandsa closer investigation. It is maintained by some writers that the sacred text has from time to time been grossly corrupted by erroneous and absurd glosses, which, by mistake, have found their way into the Biblical narrative in the course of transcription by ancient IP ill I Bridgewater Treatise, p, 78. t* .a LECTURE I. crpyists. This theory is boldly put forth by Granville Penn, in his work entitled '• A Comparative Estimate of Mineral and Mosaical Geologies" ; as welJ as by other writers. It is a pity that the authors who have advanced this rnobl absurd theory, should have been sptisfied with merely making this general statement, without in the least endeavouring to shew which parts of the first chapter of Genesis are to be regarded as glosses, aid which genuine. It appears to me, however, that these writers could not well have understood the nature of a gloss. Now a gloss is either the introduction of foreign matter altogether, or is a sentence introduced in order to explain a preceding statement, and as such would be most easily detected, for either would interrupt or make a break in the chain of narration, or to say the least, a passage so intro- duced would not fully harmonize with what proceeds or follows. '..^Mi::.' . •■ 'L^ i ,'■. , :- -■-.?;'-' ;;'•'"■ '• y ' •■'.'-■^v ■/-' ■ To prove the correctness of the above statement, '.A me give one or two examples of passages which have been regarded as glosses by well-known and eminent writers, with whom, however, I do not agree. In Genesis xlix. ] 8, we have the following passage : *' For thy deliverance (or help) I wait (or hope) O Jehovah." Now, on referring to the Bible, you will find that the passage apparently stands quite unconnected with what proceeds or follows. Hence such eminent critics as Bohlen, Vater, Maurer, and others, have assumed that the [)assage in question is a later interpolation of some copyist. They say that " this pious acclamation was probably placed by some devout Jew in the margin of his manuscript, and through the carelessness of some copyist has made its way into the text." Now I admit, and any one on referring to the passage must at once perceive, that at first sight its introduction LECTURE I. . 9 tlicro is anything but clear, and yet, whuu wc come to examine the context more closely, it will bo found that it harmonizes beautifully with what ])rccedes. The pious ]»atriarch, in predicting what .should befall his descendants after they had taken possession of the promised laml, ])lainly foresaw the severe conflicts that awaited the Israelites, but remembering the many difficulties which he had to encounter, and the many dangers whicli had threatened him, but from which, by the Divine aid of Jehovah, ho had always b(;en delivered, lie expresses here his confidence that the same Divine protection would also ba vouchsafed to his descendants, in the brief prayer, "For thy help, I wait, O Jehovah." This j)rayer is very appropriately offered up immediately after the projJiecy regarding the tribe of Dan, who, from the close vicinity to the Philistines, were in constant danger of being attacked by them, and who, indeed, never ceased to vex them whenever the slightest oj>portunity otfered itself. To this may be added, that although the tribe of Dan \M 1 ! i! 1 1 justice, reiVaia from criticising. Any one not having a knowledge of Greek, or having merely a smattering of it, would surely J make but an indifferent interpreter of a Greek author. Whether Mr. Goodwin has a knowledge of Hebrew, I cannot say, if he has, he certainly did not make use of it to any extent, for so far from examining the original text critically, and weighing carefully the various meanings of words and expressions as he ought to have done in bringing so serious a charge against the 8acred M^riter, he merely contents himself with noticijig iu a most cursory manner a Hebrew word here and there, without even troubling himself to enquire whether these words could bo used in a sense more suitable to the context, or whether certain sentences do not admit of a different construction. In speaking for example, of the second day's creatiou, his remarks occupying a paragra[)h of seventeen lines, in the wh V paragrai)h the only Hebrew word alluded to is ^'rakia i.e., expanse or lirmament. This word he quotes — like many have done before him — to prove from a few passages of Scripture, that the Hebrews understood the sky, firmament, or heaven, ''to be a permanent or solid vault," because it is represented to have pillars (Job 26, 11), foundations, (2 Sam. 22, 8), doors, (Psal. 78, 23), windows, (Genesis 7, 11), never for a moment hinting that these are figurative expressions. Why not also say, that Mose^, or the other sacred writers had no correct conception of God as a spirit, because they ascribe to Him hands, arms, eai*s, eyes, A;c. He might just as well say the Hebrew and Arabian poets understood the sun to have the figure of a human being, * or of some animal,, because they speak of its rays under the figure of eyelashes. Or that a hill must have the figm-e of a horned animal, because they s})eak of a summit of a hill, under the figure of a horn. i{ ■ LECTURE I. 17 In noticing the third clay's creation, also in a paragraph of seventeen lines, he makes use of only the English terms of our version, *' grass," ''herbs," and " fruit trees," and finds fault that these only are mentioned which are destined for food for man and animals, whilst '' nothing is said of herbs and trees which are not serviceable to this purpose." I shall hereafter show, when I come to examine the passage, that he is altogether wrong in his deduction, arising from his not having examined the Hebrew terms. The fourth day's work is also commented ou in a paragraph of seventeen lines. Here he likewise only refers to the Hebrew verb "hasah" i.e., to make — the word is hardly recognizable in its English dress— and insists upon that the sun, moon, and stars, were 7nade on the fourth day, but never so much as hints, that the verb is also often used in the sense, to fashion^ to appoint, to constitute, to ordain, though these significations are given in every dictionary, and the verb is often used in these significations throughouo the Old Testament. It appears, however, as if Mr. Goodwin had some partiality for the two sacred numbers of the Hebrews 7 and 10, as the three paragraphs above alluded to, by a strange coincidence, each has seventeen lines, In speaking of the fifth days creation, Mr. Goodwin betrays that he made the English version the basis of his remarks. He says, " tlic ivaters are called into productive activity, to bring forth fishes and marine animals, as also birds of the air." And in a note at the bottom of the pagOi he draws attention to the discrepancy, that " according to ch. ii. 19, the birds are said to have been formed out of the ground."* Had Mr. Goodwin consulted the original he would have found that in the English version the verse is * Essays and Revievrs, pp. 246, 247, 248. v'Vy I •t 4: . 18 LECTURE I. II: wrongly iKjintcd, and the word " that " introduced, which is not in the Hebrew, which certainly makes it appear as if the fowl were also created out of the water. It is not so, according to the original, as I shall clearly show hereafter. It is hardly necessary to follow Mr. Goodwin any further in his objections to the Mosaic account, as I intend to exam- ine the whole chapter critically and carefully. From the few specimens I have given, it will be seen in what a summary and unfair manner he treats this important subject. If there is any fault to find, it is with the paucity of the Hebrew language, in not furnishing more suitable terms : the sacred writer could only make use of such as were at his command. The whole drift of Mr. Goodwin's '* Essay on the Mosaic Cosmogony" apparently is, to rebuke Mr. Buckland and others for advocating the six days of creation to be six natui'al days, and that the first chapter of Genesis speaks of two distinct creations. Having done this, he proceeds to take Hugh Miller to task for holding the six days to be six indefinite periods, and when this is accomplished, the sacred writer is brought under the merciless lash. This is no doubt quite legitimate, if done fairly. The Bible asks for no indul- gence, and requires none : it has a right, however, to expect fair play. Similar views to those advocated by Mr. Goodwin are set forth by Dr. Kalisch in his •* Commentary on Genesis,'* published in London (Englan 1). This commentator not only characterizes the hypothesis of the six days' creation denoting six indefinite periods as arbitrar}', but at the same time as quite ineffective. He says, ♦* If careful geological studies press upon the mind the conviction that even the present epoch commenced many ages before the appearance of man upon the earth ; let it be admitted without unavailing LECTURE /. 19 reluctance that the Mosaic record speaks of a creation in six days, which is irreconcilable with these investigations, since it is philologically impossible to understand the word " day " in this section in any other sense but a period of twenty- four hours. Thus geology preserves its legitimate freedom, and the Bible is liberated from the trammels of an irrational mode of interpretation." And a little further on he says, " But the devise that the six days denote epochs is not only arbitrary, but ineffective, the six days of creation correspond in no manner with the gradual formation of the cosmos. More than one attempt has, however, been made to shew this argument, but they crumble into nothing at the slightest touch.'"'' But the author asserts, that although it is utterly impossible in any way to reconcile the Mosaic account with the geological discoveries, *' that this does not affect the moral and religious teaching of the Scriptures." Now, how does Dr. Kalisch explain this ? Let us hear what be says on this point, " The Scriptures proclaimed* these spiritual and moral truths, which will be acknowledged in uli ages ; and they proclaimed them at a time when the whole earth was shrouded in mental darkness. But it is quite different with the scientific truths." I wish to draw particular attention to this remark : " But it is quite different with the scientific truths." " The people of Israel, although favoured as the medium of higher religious enlightenment, remained in all respects, a common member in the family of nations, subject to the same laws of progress, left to the same exertions, adhering to their former notions and habit of thought, recti- fied by their faith only in so far as to harmonize with the pure doctrine of monotheism and absolute rule of a just Pro* vidence." — (p. 40.) And on p. 43 he remarks : " We hav« ■'■■'■.' ' ■ " ♦ See Dr. Kaliscli's Commentary on Genesis, p. 46. . 20 LECTURE I. IP' thus shown, by positive argument, that a conciliation between the Bible aiul the natural sciences is impossible." At page o2, he thus sums up ; *'We must acquiesce in the conviction, that, at the time of the composition of the Pentateuch, tlie natural sciences were still in their infancy, and that the Hebrews were in those branches not matei-ially in nrlvance of the other nations." Now, I have already stated, Moses nowhere claims either for himself or for his nation such preeminence in the natural sciences. The question is, whether Moses in his account has set fortli anything adverse to what the natural sciences teach. That he has done so is positively asserted by these writers, for they distinctly declare, "that the Mosaic account cannot in anyway be reconciled with the geological disco- veries." But then they say, this is of little consequence, " since it does not affect the moral and religious teaching.'' Surely these writers cannot seriously believe such an absur- dity. What ] " not affect the religious and moral teach- 'O' ing?" Do not the words " And God said," in the narrative of the creation, stamp it with the same Divine authority as the words, "And God sjiake all these words, saying," do the ten commandments, or any other religious or moral com- mandments 1 If Moses has written his account of the creation under inspiration, every word must be accepted as truth. If, on the other hand, Moses has merely given us his account as a Jewish /'Copernicus or Newton,'* what proofs have we that " his moral and religious laws " are any more inspired than those of the Chinese philosopher Con- fucius, or those of the Greek sage Solon 1 It may be said, that the Liws of Moses are often referred to by other inspired writers, but so likewise is his account of the creation. Bishop Colenso has adapted the same theory. He tells us, on one page, that the half of the Pentateuch is made up of 1/ I ' 'jj LECTURE I. n 1^ idle tales, of extravagant accounts, the mere offspring of a fertile oriental mind ; and thanks God that the time has come when one need no longer accept them as Divin/3 truths ; and on the next page he declares, that notwithstanding all this, there is no necessity for rejecting the other half. The veil which these writers have woven to cover the dangerous tendency of their theory is artfully woven, but the texture is too transparent. If we are only to believe what can strictly be accounted for or explained, what becomes of all the miracles recorded in the Bible. How can science explain the plagues of Egypt 1 If the Egyptian wise-men could by any ])ossible means have produced v/hat Moses effected by the mere waving of his staff, Pharaoh would never have discovered " the finger of God" in them. The creation, as described in Genesis I., is one stupendous miracle ; and if the sacred writer in describing even had made use of language, of which the meaning does not ahvays lie on the surface, it surely does not follow that because we cannot clearly comprehend it in all its bearings, that we should therefore deny its inspiration altogether. I hope, however, to be able satisfactorily to she\^ that such a theory as adopted by these writers is altogether unwarranted and uncalled for. » There are a few writers who ascribe the presence of the fossil remains in the various stratified rocks to the effect of the Deluge. One of the most able supporters of this theory is the Rev. Joseph Townsend, M.A., Rector of Pewsy, Wilts. This author enters fully into the discussion of the subject in his work entitled, " Geological and Mineralogical Researches, during a period of more than fifty years in Eng- land, Ireland, Switzerland, Holland, France, «fec., wherein the effects of the Deluge are traced, and the veracity of the Mosaic account ostablishecl." This writer comes to the con- P m f 22 LECTURE I. i!i elusion that oiu continents are not of a more remote anti- quity' than has been assigned to them by the sacred historian, in the beginning of his Pentateuch. — (See p. 403.) Here again, however, the stubborn facts present themselves, that the enormous thickness, and numerous subdivisions of these strata as well as the presence of the fossil remains of animals and plants differing as they do more and more from the existing species, as the strata in which they are found reach a greater depth, indicate clearly that long [jeriods of time must have elapsed during their slow and gradual formation. Indeed, the important fact that no traces of fossils of the human body, or of the creatures noio inhabiting our globe, have ever been discovered, throughout the entire series of geological formations, is in itself conclusive proof that the deposits of fossils in the various strata cannot possibly be attributed to the action of the Noachian Deluge, since, in that case, remains of the human specie would undoubtedly have been found among those of plants and animals. . It is proper to mention here one recorded case of human skeletons imbedded in a solid limestone rock, discovered on the shore of Guadaloupe. One of these skeletons is preserved in the British Museum. I have heard these fossil remains some- times alluded to, and much stress laid upon them as if they were of great antiquity, whilst they are iu reality only of comparatively recent formation. According to General Ernouf, " the rock, in which the human bones occur at Guadaloupe, is composed of consolidated sand, and contains, also, shells of species now inhabiting the adjacent sea and land, together with fragments of pottery, arrows, and hatchets of stone. The greater number of bones are dispersed. One entire skeleton was extended in the usual position of burial ; another, which was in a softer sandstone, seems to have been buried in a sitting position^ customary among the Caribs. LECTURE I. 23 The bodies thus differently interred, maj have belonged to two different tribes." General Ernouf also explains '* the occurence of scattered bones, by reference to " a tradition of a battle and massacre on this spot of a tribe of Gallibia by the Caribs, about the year 1770, A. C. These scattered bonefl of the Gallibis were probably covered by the action of the sea with sand, which soon afterwards became converted into solid rock." It is, however, admitted by all geologisi*? that the rock in which these skeletons occur is of very recent formation. " Such kind of stone," says Mr. Buckland, " is frequently formed in a few years from sand banks composed of similar materials on the shores of tropical seas."* I approach now a theory which has not only been adopted by many naturalists, but likewise also by many commen- tators, and whose opinion has also b een espoused by many of their readers. The theory is, that *' the six days," mentioned in Genesis I., denote nothing less than '^six indefinite periods of time." Now I can readily understand why this theory should have found so many advocates among naturalists. They require indefinite ages for the formation of the different strata, and this theory would certainly furnish to the fuUeat extent the required time. Then, again, it is an easy mode of getting over the difficulty, without apparently casting a shadow of doubt upon the veracity of the Mosaic account. It requires but a change of the word day into period^ and to all appearance the dilficulty is overcome- It is, of course, hardly to be expected that naturalists would stop to enquire whether the Hebrew word ^y\ {Yorn) i.e., day, admits of such an interpretation, much less is it to be expected that they would carefully examine whether such a rendering at * See Lin. Transactions 1818, Vol. XII. p. Geology and Mineralogy, Vol. I. pp. 104, 105. 53. Also Buckland's ; m m f i ii ■?|5: 1 f i i- \ \ 24 LECTURE I. I all suits the context, or what effect it would have upon other passages of Scripture. I must confess, however, that it is somewhat surprising, that this theory should have been adopted by so many commentators, whose chief aim should be to harmoLize, and not to create confusion, to explain, and not to perplex, and to reconcile without violating the com- mon usage of language. Now, in order to show the utter fallacy of this theoiy, I propose to examine it in a threefold aspect. Firstly, whether this theory would, after all, remove all diflSculties in recon- ciling the Mosaic account with the discoveries made in geology, Secondly whether the substituting of the term period for da^/ is suitable to the context. And thirdly, whether the rendering of the Hebrew word ^3«)i (Yom) by period, is authorized by scriptural usage. As the choice, after all, lies between this theory and the one which I shall hereafter advocate, I crave your particular attention to the following remarks : According to the Mosaic narrative all plants and trees were created on the third day. The creatures inhabiting the waters, and the fowl of the air, on the Jifth day \ whilst the creatures inhabiting the dry ground were not created until the sixth day. Now, we are told by geologists that animals are found as deep in the rocks as vegetables ; indeed it would appear that shells, fishes, and reptiles existed long before the period of plants which are compressed in the carboniferous beds. Let us hear what the distinguished geologist, the late Hugh Miller, says on this subject : " All geologists agree in holding that the vast geological scale naturally divides into three great parts. There are many lesser divisions — divisions into systems, formations, deposits, beds, strata ; but the master divisions, in each of which wo find a type of life so unlike that of others, that even the Mi ^iLi i LECTURE I. 25 unpractised eye cau detect the difference, are simply three — the palaeozoic, or oldest fossiliferous division, the secondary or middle fossiliferous division, and the tertiary or latest fossiliferous division. In the first or palaeozoic division, he goes on to §ay, *' we find corals, crustaceans, mollusks, fishes ; and in its later formatiou a few reptiles. But none of theso classes give its leading cliaracter to the paheozoic : they do not constitute its prominent feature, or render it more remarkable as a scene of life than any of the divisions which followed. That which chiefly distinguished the palseozoie from the second and tertiary periods w^as its gorgeous flora." In like manner he describes graphically the other two great divisions. The middle division he characterizes *' as an age of egg bearing animals, winged and wingless. Its wonderful whales, not, however, as now of mamalian, but of reptilian class." In speaking of the tertiaiy period, ho remarks, that it had also " its prominent class of existences. Its flora seems to have been no more conspicuous than that of the present time ; its reptiles occupy a very subordinate place, but its beasts of the field were by far the most wonderfully developed, both in size and numbers, that ever appeared on earth." * Now, at first sight, these three grand divisions certainly appear to agree with the third, the fifth, and sixth days of the Mosaic account, but on a closer examination they will be found to present such difficulties as render a reconciliation with the Biblical account utterly impossible. According to the Mosaic account, on the third day nothing but plants were created ; but Hugh Miller, and he affirms all geologists agree in it, that " the first grand division, the palaeozoic," which is asserted to answer to the third day's creation, con- * Hugh Miller's Testimony of the Rocks, pp. 135, 169. m "II, §i iliil ! - • « ill!' :':: ^'^y. lil } ' i ■ III! 26 LECTURE I. tains also fishes and reptiles, wliicli, according to tl>e Biblical account, were only created on the fifth day, so that, according to the period theory, two indefinite ages of thon.sand.s and thousands of years must have elapsed between the creation of plants and that of the fishes and reptiles, during which time the constant formation of these strata was steadily ]>ro- ceeding, and, the first grand division, the palteozoic, ought, therefore, to contain only fossils of the vegetable kingdom. ■ Then, again, it will be seen from the above extract, that it is an admitted fact, that, "in each of the master divisions there is found a type of life so unlike that of the others, that even an unpractised eye can detect the difference." Now new types presupposes new creations. Indeed, *• the late M. D'Orbigny has demonstrated in his * Prodrome de Palaeontologie,' after an elaborate examination of vast multi- tudes of fossils, that there have been at least twenty-nine creations separated one from another by catastrophes which have swept away the species existing at the time, with very few solitary exceptions, never exceeding one and a half per cent of the whole number discovered, which have either survived the catastrophe, or have been erroneously designated. But not a single species of the preceding jjeriod survived the last of these catastrophes ; and this closed the Tertiary period and ushered in the Human period ."* I would particularly draw your attention to the closing remark of the above extract, where it is positively asserted, that not a single species survived the last oj these catastrophes which closed the Tertiary period. It will be found to agree precisely with the Biblical narrative, and thiis, so far from that narrative teaching anything adverse to geology, geology itself becomes an undoubted witness to the truthfulness of the * The above extract is quoted from the Essays aod Reviews, p. 263 LECTURE I. 27 Mosaic account. If it is thou admitted that new creations niiiHt liavo taken place, from time to time, in order to re])lace those j)huit8 and animals that have previously i)erished by catastrophes, what advantage does the period theory afford, even supposing there were no philological or other objections to it. Is it not, T ask, more reasonable to suppose, that the Mosaic account describes merely the commencement of the Fourth or Human period^ describing briefly the state of our globe as it existed at the close of the Tertiary period, and then proceeding to inform us how the earth was again rej)lenished with plants and animals, and above all, how man vvas created ? I would again remind you of the admitted fact, that there has never yet been found a single fossil of any of the now existing species which could possibly connect our period with that of the Tertiary period of the geologists, nor, as I have already said, has there ever been found a fossil remain belonging to the human species. If we then take this view of the subject, where, I would ask, does the first chapter of Genesis teach anything adverse to the dis- coveries in the natural sciences ] It never even so much as alludes to any of the preceding periods, if we except the general statement made in the first verse, It, of course, remains yet to be proved whether the language employed in Genesis I, admits of such a theory. Of this, however, I have not the slightest fear, but, on the contrary, I hope to be able conclusively to show that it admits of no other interpretation. There is yet another difficulty which the period theory presents, which, in itself, if even there were no others, is altogether fatal to that theory. According to the sacred narrative the vegetable kingdom was created on the " third day," and if that really means a geologic age, then it must have been a sunless, moonless, and starless age, since these i "2 ; 'fill •'M V: i m m I m ijii 111 28 LECTURE I. ii'i' l:l„i were only created or the fourth day, and it follows that the term ''evening" must then mean a long iieriod of uninter- ruptnl darkness, whilst the term " morning " must, on the other hand, mean an equally long period of uninternqjted light. Such a state of things would soon have been fatal to vegetable life, no plants or trees could possibly have survived such an ordeal. Any one who has ever tried to keep a few plants alive in a dark place during the few winter months^ may form some notion how utterly impossible it would be for plants to exist through, i)erhaps, thousands of years of uninterrupted darkne .;s. And yet such must inevitably have been the case according to the period theory. The celebrated botanist, J. H. Balfour, in his " Class Book of Botany," a work used in many Colleges, says, " If a i)lant is kept in darkness it soon becomes drojislcal, because the roots continue slowly to absorb moisture, while the leaves have no power to exhale it." (See p. 4jO.) And yet we find that the grass and herbs created on the " third day " were on the sixth day appointed for food, both for man and animals, which clearly demonstrates that they could not have been subjected to such an ordeal. Hugh Miller evidently perceived this difficulty, and endea- vours to get over it, by supi)osing the sun, moon, and stars to have been created long before. He says, " Let me, how- ever, pause for a moment to remark the peculiar character of the language in which we are first introduced, in the Mo^jiic narrative, to the heavenly bodies, — sun, moon, and stars. The moon, though absolutely one of the smallest lights of our system, is described as secondary and subordinate to only its greatest light, the sun. It is the apparent, then, not the * actual, which we find in the passage ; what seemed to be, not what was : and, as it was merely what appeared to be greatest that was described as greatest, on what grounds are LECTURE 1. 29 4 we to hold tliat it may not also have been what appeared at the time to be made that has been described as made ] The sun, moon, and stars may have been created long before, though it was not until the fourth day of creation that they became visible from the earth's surface. "'" Preciselv so, it is just what I contend for. If these luminaries were created '• lunj before, thoufjh not visible until the fourth day oj creation,'^ it follows that our globe, which forms a part of the planetary system, must likewise have been created long before the frst day of creation, and therefore the account contained in Genesis I. furnishes no cosmo^'onv of the earth further than what is contained in the first verse of that chapter, and there is, therefore, nothing to be gainctl by adopting the period theory even if it were admissible. From the foregoing remarks, it will now be seen that however ])lausible the period theory may at first sight a[)pear, on a closer examination, as Dr. Kalisch says, "it crumbles to i)ieces " Then when we come to examine this theory as to its agree- ment with the context, and its eflect on other i)assages of Scripture, we are met at everj' ste]) with such difficulties, that one begins to wonder how such a theory could have been started at all. Let any one sit down, and write the sentence. There was cveiiiiKj and there ivus inorniuij the first period, and calndy look at it, and I feel persuaded he will at c'jrf n>iiie to the conclusion, that no writer would ever use suth .; pl.rase in conveying an idea which he wishes to be readily understood. We use the phrase '' moi'ning and even- ing of life" figuratively for youth and age ut to death : for who- soever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his pco])le. (v. 14 ) And in the following verse, " whosoever doeth icrry work in the sabbath day, shall sui'ely be put to death." Now, how could the Israelites have kept the sabbath day if it meant an indefinite period of rest 1 In Acts i. 12, " Mount Olivet " is said to be "from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey." What would that mean if the day meant an indefinite period ? I may add here, that from the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest, the numeral seven obtained a siKXjial significance throughout the Scriptures. Thus, we have the im rill SI LECTURE I. 31 gift of "seven" animals in making a covenant, (Gen. xxi. 28) : ''seven lamps" in the golden candlestick, (Exod. xxxii. 23); the blood was sprinkled ''seven times,'" (Lev. iv. G) It is also used to express a round or indefinite number, as Isaiah iv. 1, Prov. xxvi. 25; and it is even employed to express a climax, as "He shall deliver thee in six troubles yea in seven no evil shall touch thee," (Job v. 19.) See also Psalm xii. 7 : (Eng. Vers. v. G.) There is no number which is so frequently employed in Sciipture as the number seven. Will any one, after giving the above remarks an impartial consideration, still hold there are no objections on Scriptural grounds to rendering the term |3"]i ( Tom) day by period in Genesis 1.1 I can hardly think there is. And yet, this is not all. When we come to examine the period theory from a philological standpoint, we find that the language employed equally presents insurmountable difficulties to its adoption. In order to show this conclusively, let us examine the very passages that have been appealed to by the period theorists as favouring their hypothesis.- It is maintained that the Hebrew term ^"^i ( Yvm) day, is often used not strictly in a sense of a day, but sometimes indefinitely, and the first passage referred to is Gen. ii. 4, where it is said, "in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens " It is urged here that the term tUVS (^^7A''wO " i» t^><^ '^''^V)" i>^ \\cxo used to denote the whole six days of creation. Now, any one that has but a moderate acquaintance with Hebrew idioms, must know, Uiat the Hebrews in speaking of a time when an action took place, always expi'essod it by t3*^l2l ('^'"^^"O ^*** ^^*^ ^^y> **"^ is in that case only equivalent to tiin adyerb when, which in all cases would make just as good sense, as " when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The word " thai " is ill I ill ft m ( i '■'1' ■I u ! '■ 33 LECTURE I. ;l i' ; ' 111 .: ' I 1 .ji Ip'l^ not in the original. So, again, v. 17, Lit., "for in tlie day of tliy eating of it, thou shalt surely die." It is, "when tlion eatest of it, thou shalt surely die." Also Exod. x. 28, ' see my face no more : for in that day thou seest my face,' it is, "when tliou seest my face again thou shalt die" On referring to a concordance any number of such examples may be found. But I assert, that not in a single instance in the prosaic writings is tlie term ^-^n (Yom) day used in an indefinite sense without the preposition (^) in. To bring forw^ard such a common idiom of the language in support of their theory, is certainly exemplifying the old proverb, *• a drowning man will catch at a straw." Again, Psalm xc. 4, has been appealed to, where it says, " For a thousand years in thy sight are hut as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night," It is proper to state, that in the original it is "as a day of yesterday," that is, a day gone hy. Surely any one can see, that this passage merely describes the etcnity of the Deity as having no limits. It expresses a comparison, and if the preposition (5) "rts" were removed, it w^^^ld make no sense at all. So the passage in 2 Peter iii. 8, " One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a tliousand years as one day." It is, "one day" is in the sight of IL.. Jiord as **a thousand years," and *'a thousand years" are in the sight of the Lord as " one day." These passages, so far from arguing in favour of their theory, actually argue against it, since in both passages the wor