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" —

►

'^W

e/A

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

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

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

lils

difier

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

32X

,«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^'> \\

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

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.

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

':■! '-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 <leem it necessary to
trouble the reader with a very lengthy preface, which,
indeed, is not always looked upon as the most inter-
esting or instructive part of a book. The author,
however, avails himself of the opportunity so con-
veniently afforded, to inform his readers, that the two
following Lectures were delivered at University Col-
lege, at the special request of a large number of
students, who, at the beginning of this session, ex-
pressed a desire to have the first chapter of Genesis
more fully explained to them, than w^as convenient to
do at the ordinary lectures. The author, at first, felt
some reluctance in undertaking so responsible a task,
but remembering tlie very apt remark of an Irish
school teacher to his Bishop on visiting his school, that
" a teacher must impress his pupils wdth the idea of
knov/ing every thing, or he would soon lose all con-
trol over them," and fearing lest a refusal might bo

PREFACE.

construed as an incapabilit}^ the promise was given
that the request would be complied with sometime
during the session. Accordingly, the author set to
work to examine the various theories that, from time to
time, have been advanced in endeavoring to reconcile
the Mosaic account of the creation with the discoveries
made in geolog}'^, giving each a fair and impartial
examination. To the reviewing of these theories, the
whole of the first lecture is devoted. * '* . '^

The author, in the next place, proceeded to examine
carefully and critically the original text, with a view
to establish the natural day theory, which he always
regarded as the only theory that aflbrds a reasonable
and satisfactory solution of the various difficulties
with which the subject is supposed to be beset, without
imposing any forced constructions upon the language
of the original text. In explaining the chapter, to
which the second lecture is devoted, the author can
safely say, that in no case has he passed over in a
summary manner any objections which have been
urged by opponents, and that, although he may at
times have expressed himself somewhat warmly — for
which the reader will, no doubt, make due allowance,
considering the great importance of the subject — he
has always studiously abstained from using any harsh
language, even towards those who, in his opinion, have
promulgated the most extreme views.

Dr. Kalisch, in his preface to his Commentary on
Genesis remarks, that the Book of Genesis, " has pro-
voked an overwhelming mass of comment, partly in
confirmation, and partly in opposition to its statements

:i'

♦ PEETACE, t

it has proved the battle-field for almost every shade of
opinion, both religious and sceptical; and it is evi-
dently destined to become the arena for the critical
discussion of the whole ground-work of Biblical
theology, and for the introduction of a new era in
religious thought." This, alas ! is only too true. Bishop
Colenso's crusade against the Pentateuch is no doubt
still fresh in the mind of the reader ; and so, perhaps,
are the attacks scattered broad-cast in "The Essays
and Keviews," a work characterized in the introduction
to the American edition, as " a very significant volume
with a very insignificant title." Dr. Kalisch, and many
other writers, have likewise remorselessly hurled their
destructive shafts at the Five Books of Moses. But
although these attacks were generally directed against
the whole of the Pentateuch, no portion of it was ever
assailed with greater vehemence and detevmination
than the first chapter of Genesis. This chapter being 1

regarded as the very foundation of the Pentateuch,
and from the nature of the nan'ative itself considered
the most vulnerable point, it is not to be wondered at,
that the chief assault should be directed against it.
In these attacks, too, not a little stratagem is often
displayed. The objections are freq[uently put forth in | f^

the most plausible manner, and every little circum-
stance that apparently tends to favour their views is
pressed with great skill, and in the most captivating
manner, whilst anything that would argue against
their views, is either passed over in a summary manner,
or is not noticed at all. Many examples of this kind
will be brought to the notice of the reader in tho

PREFACE.

follovviiij,^ loctuies. 'J'o this we may add, that their
objectioiis ai*o generally represented to be perfectly
harmless, whilst at the same time they are most per-
nicious in their tendencies, strikingly I'esembling in
this respect the improved met'lcines inclosed in sugar
to make them more palatable. Under these circum-
stances, it is hardly to be wondered at that so many
should have be^n fascinated by their arguments, not
having had the means of judging of their correctness
or incorrectness themselves.

To the ordinary reader of the Bible the first chapter
of Genesis presents no difficulties : its language appa-
rently is plain, and indeed, up to a comparatively
recent period, its authority ha-5 not for a moment been
f|ucstioned. These peaceful times, unhappily, have
passed away. Of late years, there has been inaugu-
rated a levelling system, which Dr. Pusey has not
improperly characterized as " that tide of scepticism
let loose upon the young and uninstructed," and emi-
nent scholars seem now to vie with each other in dis-
covering discrepancies in the narrative of the creation.

Under these circumstances, it will be readily admitted,
that it is of the utmost importance that those Biblical
subjects which are so fiercely assailed, should be placed
before the public in such a light, " that he who runs
may read." It is in the author's opinion the only
effectual mode of counteracting the pernicious and
one-sided opinions now so freely promulgated in works
of eminent writers. The general reader will, in this
way, be armed with information which will enable
him to judge for himself, and also be less liable to be

PREFACE.

influenced by new theories affecting the inspiration of
Scripture. These considerations have induced the
author to acquiesce with the request made by many
who heard the lectures to have them published, in the
fervent hope that they may in some measure be con-
ducive in placing this important portion of Scripture
in a proper and clear light, and that, peradventure,
they might be the means of staying the willing pen in
the hand of some inventive writet, and make him
pause and reflect, that

!.:'

■ .1'

" Within this awful volume " (the Bible) "lies,
The mystery of mysteries.
Happiest they of human race
To whom (their) God has givea grace
To read, to fear, to hope, to pray ;
To lift the latch, and force the way.
And better had they ne'er been born
Than read to doubt, or read to scorn.'*

Toronto, MAiicn'SOth, 1874.

J. M. H.

-» <•> ♦-

> 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 .■

<r./'://

LECTURE I.

'¥ ■

'-.^ ,-

.-'Itr.''!' '■ :' ■

Is/-;

It affords me much pleasure, gentlemen, to fulfil now tae
promise made to yovi some time ago by devoting two special
lectures to the consideration of the Mosaic narrative of the
creation, as it is recorded in the first chapter of Genesis,
with a view of examining the various theories that have been
advanced in eiideavouring to reconcile that account with the
discoveries made by modern naturalists, and to shew that
these discoveries in no wise aftect the authenticity of the
sacred record as has of late been so strenuously and so confi-
dentially maintained by some writers.

In undertaking this task, I hope I shall not follow the
footsteps of those writers who seemingly have adopted the
plan to enforce their theories by hard words rather than by
sound arguments. It is greatly to be lamented, that the
beautiful sentiment of the Psalmist,

" Behold, how good and how pleasant it is,
For brethren to dwell together even in unity,"

is not written in golden letters over the portals of the temple
of science, 30 that those who enter might read and, perchance,
have kindlier feelings aroused in themselves. In treating on
this subject, I shall not deviate from the practice I have
always adopted, namely, to make the Bible as much as possi-
ble its own interpreter, and shall in every case endeavour to
establish my arguments by scriptural authority, and when-
ever it is necessary to deviate from the authorized version,

LECTURE 1.

invariably ishow that my rendering is in nowise arbitrary,
but in all cases sustained by scriptural usage. But to pro-
ceed to our subject.

Even the most casual reader of the Bible must have been
struck with the clearness and simplicity which characterizes
the whole of the writings of the great Lawgiver. Moses
seems to have preeminently possessed the faculty of bringing
the most obtuse and mysterious subjects within the grasp
of the human mind, and hence, even the most determined
opponents of Scripture, though they deny the authenticity of a
great portion of the Pentateuch, still express their unbounded
admiration as to the style and manner with which the
various narratives are described.

Among the various events recorded in the five books of
Moses, we may, however, safely sa}"-, that there is none which
is described with greater vivacity and simplicity than that of
the creation ; " a word or two," as Gilfillan says. " do the
loork of a plchtre.^ Indeed, when we contemplate the great
magnitude of the subject, and the great mystery which it
involves, we are lost in utter astonishment how so vast a
subject could possibly have been so briefly and yet so clearly
narrated in one chapter of only thirty-one verses.

The inspiration of the Mosaic account of the creation, up
to the present century, has never for a moment been ques-
tioned by the learned, either among the Jews, Mahometans,
or Christians, and although it ma} oe argued, that this does
not in itself constitute an absolute proof of its inspiration,
since we find that other theories have been universally held
up to a recent period, but which later discoveries have
proved incorrect. As, for example, the theory, that the sun
is the source of light, whereas it seems now a satisfactorily
established fact, that the sun is a dark body, and that the
light proceeds from hu atmosphere by which it is surrounded.

LECTURE I.

So, again, it has until recently been supposed, that np living
creatures could exist beneath a certain depth of the ocean,
whereas it seems now conclusivelv established that there
exist living creatures at the very bottom of the ocean. Still,
it will, I hope, not be deemed extravagant on my ])art, when
I ask, that such a time-hallowed opinion should at least not
be ruthlessly discarded, without there is foun-l incontestable
proof of its being incorrect.

Now the objections which have been advanced against
the Mosaic account of the creation, have been founded upon
certain discoveries which have of late vears been made in
geology. It is asserted by naturalists that the crust of the
earth, which is computed to be about 50,000 feet, or two
and a half geographical miles thick, and which has been
examined to about half of the depth,* is com|)osed of succes-
sive strata, which they allege are proofs of successive forma-
tion. Again, it is asserted, that in these strata are found
various fossil remains of plants, animals, and trees, differing
entirely from those now existing, and hence it is concluded
that the creation of these animals and plants must have been
anterior to the present formation of these strata. It is
further positively maintained, that these successive strata
must have occupied an infinitely longer time in forming than
the time allowed bv the Mosaic account, namely 6034 years,
for, according to the chronology based on the Old Testament,
the creation recorded in Genesis I. took place 4160 B. C

Now, with the exception^ of some infidel writers, all
naturalists agree in .ascribing the origin of the i'RIMART
MATTER of the world to an act of Divine creation ; when we
approach, however, the question as to the development of
the original matter into its present form, we find there exist

See Humboldt's Cosrooa, Vol. I., pp. 417-420.

LECTURE I.

two antagonistic schools, generally known by the vei'y appro-
priate names, Neptunists and Plutoniats ; the former attri-
bute the chief agency in the formation of the crust of the
earth, to water, and the latter to Jire, by means of volcanic
action. Of late years, naturalists have held the opinion,
that neither of these agencies, whether indi\ idiially or com-
bined, are quite sufficient to account ^br all the stupendous
revolutions through which our globe has passed, or to clear
away the difficulties connected with the relative position of
the rocks, and have therefore called to their aid a third
agent, namely, chemical poioers. This ju'otracted dispute,
which has been carried on since the middle of the last century,
has, I believe, now been settled in a most amicable way, by
granting tLat all three agencies have alike assiduously
laboured in raiding the gigantic fabric. May all disputes
hereafter be likewise as amicably and satisfactorily settled.

Whilst naturalists, however, still differ in matters of detail
— and where are the doctors who do not differ — they are,
nevertheless, all agreed upon the subject affecting the great
antiquity of our globe. All, without exception, exclaim, as
if it were with one voice, that the 6000 yeai's allowed
according to the Biblical chronology, sink in utter insigni-
ficance as compared with the vast periods that must have
elapsed in the formation of the various strata. . , ,5

It is maintained, for instance, that the Silurian strata,
consisting of slate rocks, >\ 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-

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
(>

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

ill

I Bridgewater Treatise, p, 78.

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 \<a.n
numerically not weak, yet they were not a warlike peoi)le,
and the only way the tr'be overcame his enemies was by
stratagem. Even Samson, the Hercules of the Jewish nation,
and who belonged to this tribe, never cou(piered by open
warfare, but always by personal exertion or stratagem.
Hence Dan is aptly compared to a viper which lurks in the
sand, and inflicts a deadly wound upon any one who may
chance to approach it unawares. It has also been justly
said by Keil, in his commentary, that *'in this prayer Jacob
furnished his sons with both shield and sword." Thus it
will be seen that the passage which at first sight apparently
forms no connection whatever with the context, and might
be regarded as a gloss, on a closer examination is found to
harmonize beautifully.

One example more. In Isaiah vii. 17, we read, '• I will
bring upon thee and upon thy people, and upon thy father's
2

LECTURE I.

I I,
' I

house, days such as have not come since Ephraim departed
from Judah, even the King of Assyria." Now the phrase,
" even the King of Assyria," has evidently been introduced
here by the prophet as explaining by whom the days of
trouble should be brought upon Judah, and nothing could be
more plain or consistent. And yet, Gesenius, in his com-
mentary on Isaiah, in commenting on this verse, says : " I
hold these words not as an expression of the author, but as a
gloss introduced from the margin," and then adds, "in this
I follow Bauer, Houbigant, Archbishop Seeker, Louth, and
others."* Here we have an eminent array of authorities for
the expunging of the passage. Now let us hear what reason
Gesenius assigns for discarding in so summary a manner a
whole passage of Scripture, the sole reason is, " because in
the following verses Egypt, as well as Assyria, is mentioned
who should harass Judah, and because Egypt is tir.st men-
tioned." All Jewish commentators, however, whether
ancient or modern, have justly retained the passage as
genuine, for they not only saw its agreement with the con-
text, but at the same time entertained too great a reverence
for the sacred text as to reject in so arbitrary a manner a
whole passage of Scripture as spurious. The object of the
prophet in introducing this explanatory phrase seems quite
obvious. In verse 20, Assyria is particularly mentioned as
the enemy who should afflict Judah, and to show also, that
that nation was to harass Judah first after the delivery of
this prophecy, yes, even during the reign of King Ahaz, to
whom the prophecy was delivered, and because Judah
suflfered infinitely more from the Assyrians than from the
Egyptians. »

These explanations one should think ought to satisfy the
most fastidious critic that the phrase in question was used

* CommeDtary on Isaiah, p. 515. German edition.

LECTURE I.

by tlie prophot desIgnoJly and thajt it is genuine. Indeed,
the liigh degree of veneration in wliich the sacred text was
always lield by the Jewish nation, and the precautions they
adopted to guard it from innovation prechides the idea to a
certainty of its having ever been tampered with, or of glosses
or interpolations having foiind their way into the text of
the Old Testament.'

I have dwelt at some length on the opinion expressed by
Orenville Pene, and other writers who have adopted the same
view, not that I thought it worthy of a refutation, but simply
because it is spread about among the people through their
writings, and many who will not, or cannot examine the sub-
ject for themselves, might be led astray by it. There is how-

* A striking example of the great veneration in which the sacred
text was held by the ancient Jews, is furnished in the laborious revi-
sion of the Biblical text by that celebrated body of Jewish doctors
generally called Masorites. They would not even alter, much less
omit, a letter of the text, even in cases where it was perfectly obvious
that words in transcribing had been erroneously written, but they suf-
fered such words to remain unaltered, and merely placed a little circle
(o) above it to draw attention to the mistake, whilst they placed the
emendation in the margin. As an example of the great precaution
they took to guard against any innovation, I may mention, that the
same body of Rabbins undertook the laborious work of numbering the
verses, words, and letters of each book in the Bible. Thus according
to the Masorah the number of verses in Genesis for example, i:* given
at 1,534, the number of words at 20,713, and the number of letters at
78,100. The letters occur as follows in the Pentateuch :

;*: , ; / Aleph Jj^ occurs 42,377 times.

Beth 2 " 38,218

Gimel ^ '* 20,537

Daleth ^ " 32,530

He n " 47,754

And so the numbers of the rest of the letters of the alphabet are given.

LECTURK r.

ever, yet a mom eo<^e)jt lea.sou whicli iiitluced me to digress
from the subject and introduco the two cxamplcH of supposed
interpolations, and that is, this mode — I was about to say of
criticism — but I sliould ratlier say of dealing with the original
text has become altogether too common a practice, and I
thought this a fit opportunity to draw particularly the stu-
dents attention to it.

It would almost a|»pear as if some writers regarded the
Old Testament as if it were an ornamental tree, which may
be shaped according to the fancy of this one, or that one, by
lopping a branch here and a branch there. It may, indeed, be
useful as a ready mode of getting over a difficulty, but surely
no one can call it sound criticism But to return to our
subject.

The next theory which it becomes my duty to notice, la
one which, if it could be sustained, would strike at the very
root of the inspiration of Scripture. And yet, strange to
say, we find that theory advocated in quarters where we
would naturally expect to find sounder judgments prevail.
The theory in substance is, that Moses in writing the account
of the creation, merely wrote as any ordinary man to the
best of his knowledge. This view is promulgated with great
earnestness and determination by the Rev. C. W. Goodwin,
M.A., in his "Mosaic Cosmogony," which forms one of the
Essays in the '• Essays and Reviews," a work now well known
and widely read. Let us hear what the Kev. gentleman says :

" If it be said the Mosaic account is simply the speculation
of some early Copernicus'"* or Newton, who devised the

* Nicolaus Copernicus, an eminent astronomer, was born at Thorn,
in Prussia, January lUtli, 1472. After upwards of 20 years labour be
established the system of the world, which goes by his name, and is
now universally received. His work is entitled, *' De revolutionibus
orbium ccslestium." He died May 24th, 1543.

I [

LECTJ'UE I.

scheme of the oarth'.s formation aa nearly as he might in
accordance with his own obHervations of natni'o, and with
«nch vicwH of things as it wan possihU; for an nnansisti'd
thinker in those days to take, we may admire the a))[)roxi-
mate correctness of the picture drawn, while we see that the
writer, as might be expected, took evorytliing from a differ-
ent point of view from ourselves, and conseqently represented
much quite differently from the fact. But nothing of this
sort is reuUy inteP'^ ^Ve are asked to believe that a

vision of creation wai. nted to him by Divine ])0wer, for

the purpose of enabling him to inform the world of what he
had seen ; which vision inevitably led him to give a descrip-
tion which has misled the world for centuries, and in which
the truth can now only with difficulty be recognized." *
And a little further on the liev. author remarks, " If God
made use of imperfectly informed men to lay the foundations
of that higher knowledge for which the human race was
destined, is it wonderful that they should have committed
themselves to assertions not in accordance with facts, although
they may have believed them to be true 1 On what grounds
has the popular notion of Divine revelation been built up ?
Is it not plain that the plan of Providence for the education
of man is a progressive one 1 And as imperfect men have
been used as the agents for teaching mankind, is it not to be
expected that their teachings should be partial, and to some
extent erroneous ?" (See p. 275.) Still a little further on
(p. 277), occurs the following remarkable passage: "But if
we regard it as a speculation of some Hebrew Descartest or
Newton, promulgated in all good faith, as the best and most

* Essays and Reviews, pp. 171, 172.

f Rene Descartes, an eminent mathematician and astronomer, born
at Haye, in the department of Indre and Loire, in the year 1596,
died 1650.

LECTURE I.

probable account that could be then given of God's universe,
it resumes the dignity and value of which the writers in
question " (/.e., Hugh Miller, Buckland, and others) " have
done their utmost to deprive it. It has been sometimes felt
as a difficulty to taking this view of the case, that the writer
asserts so solemnly and unhesitatingly that for which he
must have known that he had no authority ; but this arises
only from our modern habits of thought, and from the
modesty of assertion which the spirit of true science has
taught us. Mankind has learned caution through repeated
(••lips intlie process of tracing out the truth."

The author of the Essay, however, felt that the dose which
he administered was an exceedingly nauseous one, in closing
his Essay he very considerately endeavours to allay its bad
effects by giving a little sugar, not indeed to remove the
nauseousness altogether, but merely to make it in some
degree more endurable. Hence he continues, " The early
speculator was harassed by no such scruples, and asserted as
facts what he knew in reality only as probabilities : but we
are not on tiiat account to doubt his perfect good faith ; nor
need y<e attribute to him wilful misrepresentation, or con-
sciousness of asserting that which he knew not to be true.
He had seized one great truth, in which, indeed, he antici-
pated the highest revelation of modern enquiry ; namely, the
unity of the design of the world and its sv/oordination to one
sole Maker and Lawgiver. With regard to details, observa-
tion failed him. He knew little of the earth's surface, or of
its shape and place in the universe ; the infinite varieties of
organized existences which people it, the distinct floras and
faunas of its different continents were unknown to him."**
Now, 1 would ask, how does the author of the essay know,
that "as regards details observation failed him?" Where

* Essays and Keviews, p, 277-78.

LECTURE I.

liad he any opportunity to draw such an inference ? Certainly
not from the Mosaic narrative. I am not prepared to say
that Moses possessed any knowledge of the sciences of
geology, botany, or astronomy, or any other science, but what
I do mean to say is that his writings do not in the least lead
us to infer that he did not possess such knowledge. He does
not make use of a single scientific term ; and in speaking of
the creation of the earth, he does not as much as allude to a
single component part, nor how these parts are situated, or
how they were formed, or what period of time they occupied
in forming ; all that the sacred writer tells us in his account
as regards the universe is, that God created it "in the begin-
ning," when that " beginning" Wjas, Moses does not utter
one word. And as regards our globe in particular, he merely
informs us that when his narrative commences, it was covered
by waters, and how it had been set free from its dominion.
In speaking of the cre-^^ion of tiie vegetable kingdom, he
divides it very appropriately into three classes, grass, herbs,
and trees. In speaking of the heavenly bodies, merely the
sun, moon, and stars are mentioned. I affirm — and challenge
contradiction — that there is not a single term used by Moses,
when we examine his language carefully, which would
warrant us to say that Moses was an " imperfectly informed "
man, or that would not stand the closest scrutiny, if scruti-
nized by one who has at least some knowledge of the language
in which the account was originally written. It must be
remembered that Moses was a Hebrew, he thought in Hebrew,
he wrote in Hebrew, and for Hebrews, and had to use such
terms as the language afforded, and employ such terms as
would be readily understood by his nation. It is only in
that light that his writings can be properly understood. If
writers will not take the trouble to make themselves familiar
with the original language, they should at least, in common

i j 1 1

LECTURE I.

1 !

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.

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

•t

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 /.

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.

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

I ' 'jj

LECTURE I.

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-

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.

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

;

■?|5:

LECTURE 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

LECTURE I.

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.

"II,

§i

iliil !

- • «

ill!'

:'::

^'^y.

lil

}
' i ■

III!

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.

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

ijii
111

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.

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 <f Uje, but
such a phrase as evening and morning of a period, we unhes-
itatingly assert haw never been i)enned by any writer in any

''fi

i;:

r'\\\

til

1 '■

■fc

* Tcstimooy of the Rocks, p. 134.

fT!

LECTURE I.

illlr.
Ml.; I

I'' '

Ih;; I

known language. And even if the terras evening and morn-
ing were suitable terms to be used in connexion with period,
surely the proper way of expressing it would be morning
and evening of a period, for in such a connexion, morning
could only be used instead of beginning, and evening instead
of end. Then, again, we are met with the stubborn fact,
that if the six days of the creation are six periods, the seventh
day must likewise be an indefinite ^jenW. Then what
becomes of our Sabbath ] Is that likewise an indefinite
period 1 If so, what becomes of the fourth commandment 1
Exod. XX. 9, 10, 11. Let any one read that cjmmandment
and substitute 2^^^'^od for day, and he will find that it is
rendered utterly incomprehensible. Yet that command-
ment cannot possibly be separated from the six days of
creation, for the last verse assigns the reason why the
Sabbath should be kei)t holy, namely, '^ For in six days the
Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is,
and rested on the seventh day : wherefore the Lord blessed
the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Then, again, in Exod.
xxxi. 12-18, we have this commandment enlarged u^wn, and
the punishment for not keeping it assigned, namely, " every
one that defileth it shall surely be j>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

rill SI

LECTURE I.

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

( i

'■'1'

■I

! '■

LECTURE I.

;l i' ; '

111 .: '

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<l " day " necessarily means a natural
day. *

Again, Job xviii. 2, has been referred to, where the term
^y) ( Yom) day, is siaid to be used to denote at least
a part of the human life. The passage reads, " They that
come after him, shall be astonished at his day." The term
DS"!"^ {Yomo) *'his day," is here poetically used for his

LECTURE I.

day of calamity J namely, that of tlie wicked spoken of in
verse 5, and belongs, therefore, to the same category of
figurative expressions, such as " the day of their misfortune,
(Deut, xxxii. 35); "the day of Jerusalem," i e., the day
when Jerusalem was taken, (Psalm cxxxvii. 7) ; "day of
darkness " (Job xv. 23) ; " the day of salvation," (Isaiah
xlix. 8) ; **in the day of war," (Hosea x. 14) ; ** the day of
Jehovah," (Joel i, 15.) So, also, the expression so frequently
employed *'in that day," (Isaiah xxii. \'1\ xxvii, 12, 13.)
Such expressions like the above, are merely Biblical met -
phors, and are altogether restricted to the poetical and pro-
phetical portions of Scripture, and even there not in a single
instance can they possibly give rise to conjecture, for their
meaning is invariably rendered clear by the context. To
bring forward such passages as the above in support of the
theory that the word ^31'^ {Yom) day in Genesis I. may
mean an indefinite jieriod of time, is simply the height of
absurdity.

The Hebrew word ^"^n {Yom) day is in the prosaic books
of the Old Testament, used about 140 times, but not in a
single instance is it used in any other sense than a natural
day, when it stands in its simple form like it does in Genesis
I. without a preposition or sijffix. Nor is it used in any
other sense than that, in any of the cognate languages, the
Chaldee, Syriac, or even the Arabic, which is still a widely
spoken language.

I repeat, therefore, that in the Mosaic account of the
creation, which is a plain, simple, and purely historical
narrative, the word ^y^ (^Yom) day, cannot possibly be
taken in any other sense, than that of a natural day, defined
too, as it is, by the words " evening " and " morning." But
further, it may reasonably be asked, why should Moses have
used the ambiguous terra day when he meant j^ai'iodf in such
5 ■f*^-

Jil

i-. ;

-.■ ! *

ill

<• -Jt

ivli

!i i -i

' : ', I

i t

I !•'

I ■!

lili
i

i|'i!

1 1

i IM.

llhJ

LECTURE I.

an important narrative, which waa intended to be readily-
understood by all classes of readers 1 Is it not more reason-
able to suppose that in that case he would rather have used
the words J7|''1J?!5<*1 (ResJutJi) i.e., beginning, and yp (Kctz)
i.e., end ; and ^^ (Eth) time, and would have written, and
the beginning loas a?id the end was time one. Or the sacred
writer might have used the term t3bl5? ( Olani) which, from
its derivation denotes a hidden or indefinite period oj time, of
which the beginning and end is uncertain, and is used in the
sense of a long period or long time iii Isaiah xlii. 14.

It cannot, therefore, be said, that the sacred writer had
r.o words at his command to express an indefinite period of
time, whiuh would at once have been more intelligible and
more suitable had he intended to convey that meaning in
Oenesis I. ; but not having used any of these terms clearly
shews by using the term ^y^ (Yom) day, he meant that
that word should be taken in its proper sense.

I have now, and 1 hope fairly, examined the period theory
in the three differeht aspects, and have shewn that not in any
point of view will it stand the slightest test. Whether the
arguments which I have adduced are deemed sufficiently
conclusive in your minds, is for you to decide. The subject
is one of the highest importance, and not only deserves but
demands your most serious and careful consideration. Pope,
in his " Essay on Criticism " has justly said,

'Tis with our judgments as our watches; none
Go just alike, yet each believe bis own."

This is quite true, judgments once formed are not always
so easily inquished, preconceived opinions become often
so deeply rooted that they are with difficulty eradicated;
still, when facts prove these to be wrong, there is no other
alternative than to offer them on the shrine of truth.

-» <» ■

il ■•

LECTURE II.

In my last lecture, I reviewed, and I hope fairly, the
various theories that have been advanced in endeavouring to
reconcile the Mosaic account with the geological discoveries,
and I venture to say, that the arguments which I have
adduced on that occasion, clearly show, that none of these
theories aftbrd a satisfactory solution of the difficulties which
present themselves in the attempt to reconcile the sacred
narrative of the creation in respect to the great antiquity of
our globe, and the ages that have passed away, of which the
various rocks only now stand forth like so many gravestones,
with the indelible inscription, ages, ages, ages.

It will, however, be necessary before entering upon the
examination of the next theory, to bring to your notice
once more — and it will serve as a connecting link — the
admitted fact by all naturalists, that " the vast geological
scale divides itself into three g!*eat parts, end that in each
part or master division we find a typo of life so unlike that
of others that even the unpractised eye can detect the differ-
ence." Or as M. D'Orbigny has described it, " twenty-nine
creations separated one from another by catastrophes which
have swept away the si>ecies existing at the time, so that not
a single sjjecies survived the last catastrophe which ended the
tertiary pp'^'od."

Thus, you will perceive, there is nothing, either in the
vegetable or animal kingdom which, in any way, connects

I'll

:,; 1 1

•li

iiil !

^ I!

Ill

U
I li

LECTURE II.

"i|r ri

I I ■

f I) I

!i !! V

ilHit

the tertiary period with tliut of the human period,
fossils of any existing siiecie.s have ever been found, " j

are distinctly told that not a single species survived i. .ast
catastrophe which ended the tertiary period. Hence it
follows that there must have been, from time to time, new
creations, for, as I have said before, new types necessarily
imply new creations. But you will, perha))S, ask me, is that
Scriptural 1 I answer that question with the words of our
Saviour, who himself declared, " My Father worketh hith-
erto, and I woik."* Who can tell what new creations may
not daily, hourly, nay momentarily take place, in the waters,
upon the ground, or in space 1 That new creations must
have taken place from time to time is an admitted fact, and
therefore, there can no longer be any objection on that score
in my applying Genesis I. to the human period only, or, in
other words, to the creation of the living things which now
inhabit our globe.

You are, no doubt, already aware, without my telling
you, that I am not the author of this theory, or to use the
Hebrew idiom, " the father of it." I am merely a humble
advocate of it, and all that I can hope for in the way of
gaining credit is, that perchance I may be fortunate enough
to throw out a few hints, which may be serviceable in illus-
trating the brief but grand Biblical narrative of the creation.
Precisely similar views which I am about to advocate have
already been entertained by some of the early fathers of the
church, for St. Gregory Nazianzen and Justin Martyr held
that there elapsed an indefinite 2JGriod between the creation
and the first ordering of things. St. Basil, St. Ctesarius,
and Origen express themselves still more exj)licitly on the

* St. John, V. 17.

LECTURE II.

!l!

subject.* To these may bo added Augustine, Theodoret,
Episcopius, ard otliei'.s, who maintiiined the existence of a
long interval "between the creation spoken of in the first
verso of Genesis, and that of which an account is given in
the third and following verses, "t In more recent times,
but still long before geology became a science, the same view
as to the independent character of the first verso of Genesis
was maintained by such eminent divines as Calvin, Patrick,
and Dr. Jennings.j. Indeed, in some old editions of the
English Bible, where there is no division into verses, there
is actually a space left between the first and second verses of
Genesis I. ; and in liuther's Bible (Wittenberg, 1557) the
figure 1 occurs at the beginning of the third verse, in order
to indicate that it was the beginning of the account of the
first day's creation. Now, as these views were already held
long before geologists had yet entered the regions of fossil
rocks, and consequently long before the geological discov-
eries had been brought in contact with the Biblical narrative,
it cannot be said that these views were merely sprung upon
the world as an attempt to harmonize the Scriptural record
with the discoveries in the natural sciences, although, if even
that were the case, so long as they could be substantiated,
their modern origin would by no means lessen their validity,
or else many theories in the natural sciences would be placed
in precisely the same position. '

The theory, then, to which 1 would now call your atten-
tion, may be briefly summed up as follows. The first verse
of Genesis I. merely furnishes us with a brief account of

• Piiucipn' Wiseman's Lectures on the connection between Science
nnd Revealed Religion, Vol. I., p. 297. ^ ,-

u t Note in Buckland's Bridgewator Treatise, by Dr. Pusoy, who
refers to Pctavius, Lib. C. Cap. ll, Sec. 1-8.

X Dr. J. Pye Smith's Scripture and Geology, pp. 179, 180. - -'»

! (

;<!"

LECTURE II.

MV.!

i ill.

1; ,;',

I, .■]'

ir:-<

■•i!

pi
m

llll!''lllll'|

111;!! ■

pi i'

I ;'ii:

the creation of the universe in general, whilst the rest of the
chapter gives a more detailed account of the rearrangement
and the distribution of previoisly existing matter, and of
the creation of the beings which now inhabit our globe.
Or, in other words, that the Mosaic narrative, with the
exception of the lirst verso, speaks only of the creation which
ushered in ilte fourth or hunvin period. This theory, I may
remark at the outset, cannot fail to i*ecommend itself at once
to our favourable consideration, since, on the one hand, it
furnishes with lavish hands as much time as the naturalists
require, whilst, on the other hand, it tends to harmonize the
Mosaic account without imposing forced constructions on the
language of the sacred writer. Yet there are — and probably
ever will be— persons who " will not hearken to the voice of
the charmers, charming never so wisely," but will persist in
maintaining that both the language and the whole strain of
the narrative indicate, that it is one continued narrative.

It is, therefore, nothing but right that the objections
urged against the diurnal day theory, should be carefully and
impartially examined. It would hardly be fair to subject
the theories of the o})ponents to the lash of criticism, and
merely content oneself by broadly stating one's own theory
without giving proofs of its correctness. Such, 1 can safely
say, has rover been my practice in dealing with controverted
Biblical subjects, and I have no desiie, in this instance, to
fascinate with appearance instead of convincing by argu-
ments. In order, therefore, to do full justice to the opponents
of the diurnal day theory, as well as to the important
subject itself, I will proceed to consider the various objec-
tions that have been urged against that theory, and in doing
so, I shall endeavour, in every instance, to support my
arguments by Scriptural authority, for I have always held
that the true and sound mode of interpreting the Bible is, to

i.'"

LECTURE II.

31)

make it as much as possible its own interpreter. Tlie truth
of this maxim will at once become apparent — and I desire
to draw your special attention to it here, as it will greatly
assist you in understanding my remarks on the text — when
I tell you that the Bible abounds with expressioiis which are
peculiar to the Scriptures and to the Hebrew language.
Then, again, many words common in our modern languages,
are entirely wanting in the Hebrew, and their places can
only bo supplied by employing indirect expressions, or by
circumlocution, or by using elliptical sentences. Thus, for
example, Genesis xl. IG, "The three baskets are three
days," i.e.t represent three days : the Hebrew language not
having a word equivalent to our word represent. Then,
again, many of the Hebrew words have various significa-
tions, and hence great care has to be exercised in selecting
that meaning of the word which is best suited to the context.
It is in this respect, particularly, that the translators of our
beautiful version have so often failed, and has been the chief
cause of a revised version being so loudly called for. Let
me give you an example. In Genesis vi. 6, f^'^J^i tSHS'^l
{vayytnndchem^ Jehovah) is rendered, " Audit repented the
Lord." This rendering might lead to the supposition that
God is variable in His purposes, and is contrary to what is
said of Grod : 1 Sam. xv. 27, " for he is not a man to
repent." The passage should have been rendered '' and it
grieved the Lord," and indeed, to grieve, is the primary
meaning of the verb, it is only in a secondary signification
that the verb denotes to repent. This is only one example
out of a very great mamj which I might adduce, and I wish
my hearers particularly to bear this in mind, as I shall have
to deviate in the following remarks in several instances from
the rendering given in the English Version, but, in doing
HO, I shall always give Scriptural authority for it.

' I

:,!(!

ii I

n^i

I "I' !

-H'

'ii':\

fit'

LF.CTURE II.

iilii'

The sacred writer begins his narrative by setting forth the
grand fundainental truth, tha^ *' In tlie beginning God
created the heaven and the earth." This declaration,
although embracing a subject so vast, that the human mind
staggers in its attempt to grasp it, yet is conveyed to us in
the original in seven words, or fourteen syllables, and in
language so simple that even the most uneducated may
readily comprehend its meaning, so far as God intended that
so profound a mystery should bo understood by finite being.s.
Men who endeavour to pass the boundary set by the
Almighty, would do well to ponder on the words of Eliphaz,
t]ie Tomanite :

" IIo takcth the wise in their own crftfiincss :
And the counsel of the froward is carried hcad'ong.
They meet with darkness in the day time,
And grope in the noonday as in the night."

Job, v. 13, 14.

The declaration contains just so much as is necessary for
mankind to know in order to dispel the absurd notions which
have been entertained by ancient nations in regard to the
origin of the universe in general, and of our globe in par-
ticular.

That Moses must have received this information by Divine
inspiration is self-evident, since the human mind could not
podsibly have conceived such an idea, it being beyond the
grasp of the human understanding to conceive how any-
thing could bo created out of nothing. Had Mo.ses,
indeed, written as any ordinary man, as Kalisch, Goodwin,
and othei-s have asserted, he would more likely have written,
in the beginning the world was perched on a turtle, as was
held by some of the ancient sages, or that it sprung from an
egg, as was held by other ancient wisemen, or some other
such absurd theory formerly believed by ancient philoso-

'm.

LECTURE II.

pliers ; but never could lie have given to tlie world such a
docliiration as that given in the first verse of Genesis. It
declares (jnite the opposite to what was held by the most
learned heathen philosophers, who laid down the doctrine,
" ex nihilo nihil fit," t.e , out of notJuny — nothing r.omes.
If, then, it must be adniittetl, that the first verse was written
under the Divine guidance, it follows th^t the remaining
portion of the narrative must have likewise been so written,
since it equally speaks of creations cut of nothing. The
langua<^e, too, which the sacred writer enijdoys, stamps his
record with the Divine signet, "and God said," "and God
saw," " and God called," are exju'essions which would not
have been used by the holy and meek lawgiver of the
Hebrews, without having Divine authority to do so. It is
therefore, ssimply impious to say that the Bible merely
" furnishes here a history of creation, such as it was able to
give, without regard to the possible future discoveries in
physical sciences.''*

It has, indeed, been argued by some writers, and among
them by Prof. Lewis, of Union College, in his work entitled
" The Six Days of Creation, or the Scriptural Cosmology,"
that the verb J*^*i2l (^^^^) employed in the first verse, does
not necessarily denote to create out of nothing ^ since it is also
used in the sense, to heio, to cut down, as Josh. xvii. 15-16,
and to create or form from preexisting matter, as in Genesis
i. 27, where it is said " God created man in his own image,*'
whilst in Genesis ii. 7, it is distinctly stated, that " the Lord
God formed the man of the dust of the ground," and hence
it is argued, as both passages refer to the creation of man,
the verb jj^"^!?!, (bara) in the former passage cannot mean to
create out of nothing, since, according to the latter passage

;':!'

'11

'-■<

* See Kalisch, Commentary on Qenesis, p. 51.
6

LECTURE 11.

i!lP'

Adam was formed from the j^reexisting ground. This is, no
doubt, quite true ; but Moses had to use some word which
would convey the meaning to create out of nothing, and this
is the only word he could possibly have employed, as there ,
is no other which would have afforded that sense. Why did
those authors not inform us what verb the sacred writer
could have used which would have been more suitable 1 It
is, however, quite evident that they did not pay sufficient
attention to the modes in which the verb in question is used
in Scripture. The verb 15^*^21 (bard) in the primary conju-
gation Kalf is only inployed in the sense to create, and only^
in reference to Div/r-^ creation, though in the creation of
Adam it does not extlude preexisting matter. Hence, this
verb is always employed when God is spoken of as creating a
new thing such as never before had any existence. Thus,
for example, Numb. xvi. 30, "But if the Lord Jj^^^'i
nil^'^*l3 ^^^^ create a wonderful thing." (English Version,
"make a new thing.") Those who are acquainted with
Hebrew, will perceive that the noun itself is derived from
the same verb, so that the literal rendering of the passage in
reality is, ^'create a created thing J^ So, also, Jer^ xxxi.
22, *** for the Lord Ij^'^^l (^<^^«) ^^^^ created a new thing."
It is only in the derivative conjugation Piel that the verb, in
a few instances, is used in the sense to cut, to hew^ to mark
out. It will also be observed, that in Genesis I., it is merely
stated that " God created the heaven and the earth," whilst
in Genesis ii. 7, not only is the verb -)^i (t/atsar) i.e., to
form used, but the preexisting material is also mentioned.
That the verb ;s^*i2l {hara) in the passage under considera-
tion can only be taken in the sense to create out of nothing,
is evident from Hebrews xi. 3, '* By faith," says the Apostle,
" we understand that the worlds were formed by the word
of God, so that the things which are seen, were not made

Hi'

'If

!■?•

LECTURE II.

from those which do appear." The Apostle evidently refers
here to the first verse of Genesis, for he refere next to
Genesis iv. 4, " By faith Abel offered, ' &:c. ; and then to
Genesis v. 24, ''By faith Enoch was translated," &,c. ; and
so to other subjects in Genesis in orderly succession. Indeed,
no other meaning was ever attached to Genesis i. 1, by the
ancient Jewish Church than that given by St. Paul. In
2 Maccab. vii. 28, occur the following words, *' I beseech
thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all
that is therein, and consider that God made them of things
that do not exist," i.e., from nothing ])reviously existing.
Many of the most learned Rabbins render the first verse,
" In the beginning God created the substance of the heaven
and the substance of the earth."* And they declare, that
those who maintain a previous existence of matter as " alto-
gether unbelievers in the Law and Revelation."

I repeat, that the sacred writer made use of the only
suitable verb which the language afforded in order to express
io create out of nothinj. There is still an opportunity for
some one to immortalize himself by discovering a more suita-
ble verb either in Hebrew or its cognate languages. Again,
it is urged by some writers, that Moses, in using the expres-
sion, ** the heaven and the earth," betrays an ignorance
which is not consonant with that of an inspired writer,, in as
much as he mentions the earth separately, whilst in reality
it forms a component part of the planetary system, and,
therefore, is already included in the term heaven. It is
greatly to bo lamented that such frivolous objections should
be gravely made in so important a subject, since many who

lil

■ ■I i

* The Rabbins, who renJer th« passage thus, have taken f^Jj^ (elh)
in the sense of substance. Compare Aben Ezra ; KiincUi, in his " Book
of Roots;" and Doxtorf's Talmudio Laxicon.

|lii!

Pi iiii

I IF''

LECTURE II.

may not be able to judge for themselves may be easily led
astra}'^ by them. Any one having a moderate acquaintance
with Hebrew phraseology must know that this is the only
expression used by the Hebrews in speaking of the universe,
there is no other term for it in the Hebrew language, it is
used by the other sacred writers throughout the Old Testa-
ment. Compare Genesis xiv. 19-22 ; Isaiah i. 2, &c. Had
Moses invented a word for it, it would simply have been a
dead letter, no one would have understood it. It is well
known that every language has its idioms, and every nation
its peculiar modes of expressions congenial to its vernacular
tongud, hence the acute Wolfgang Mentzel in his work on
German Literature (Vol. I. p. 67) has justly remarked, that
" a translation can never be entirely faithful : to be so in
one respect, it must deviate in another." Even in our
expressive language we have many words having difierent
senses, which would puzzle the most profound philologist to
show the connection of their meanings. Thus, for example,
in what docs a crab, a shell fish, resemble or have in common
with a crab, a wild apple? Or in what does a diet, an
assembly of state, resemble a diet, eating food by rule ] Or
what connection is there between mace, an ensign of authority,
and mace, a kind of spice ? There are no less than about
300 'words in the English language which have difierent
meanings. Surely " those living in glass houses should
forbear from casting stones."

I maintain, therefore, that the first verse of Genesis I.
merely annunciates the fact, that " In the beginning," or as
it would be ixiore correctly rendered, In a beginning God
created the universe, as to when that beginning was, or what
length of time elapsed between that creation, and the begin-
ning of the Mosaic six days of creation, in which the earth
was rendered fit for the reception of mankind, and was again

LECTURE II.

replenished with various plants and animals, God has not
vouchsafed to inform us. Naturalists say, myriads of years
are required to form the various strata ; be it so, the sacred
writer does not say one word to the contrary. Kurtz, a
very esteemed German writer, very pertinently remarks,
that •• Between the first and second, and between the second
and third, verses, of the Biblical history of the creatior.,
revelation leaves two great white pages, on which human
science may write what it will, in order to fill up the blanks
of natural history, which revelation omitted itself to supply,
as not being its oflice.*"

"Of each of these 'carte blanches' revelation has only
given a superscription, a summary table of contents. The
first runs, •' In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth." * • * The second * carte blanche ' has the
summary inscription, " the earth was void and waste, and
the Spirit of God was brooding on the face of the waters."*

Dr. Harris, President of Chestnut College^ says, From a
careful consideration of the subject, my full conviction is,
that the verse just quoted (i.e., Genesis i. 1,) " was placed by
the hand of inspiration at the opening of the Bible, as a
distinct and independent sentence ; that it was the Divine
intention to affirm by itj that the material world was primarily
originated by God from elements not previously existing ;
and that this originating act was quite distinct from the acts
included in the six natural days of the Adamic creation. "t
And so a host of most eminent writers might be adduced,
who expressed similar views on the subject.

Nor has the Almighty vouchsafed to inform us how this
globe became submerged under the water, or how long it
remained in that condition, all such informaticm might, no

* Kurtz, Biebel and Astronomie, p. 433.
f Th? Proodamito Earth, p. 76.

f:'

« !

LECTURE II.

doubt, gratify the inquisitive, but forms no essential part of
the narrative which follows, and hence the sacred writer
merely tells of the condition of our globe when his narrative
commences. This condition is also described in a brief but
graphic manner. "And the earth was" lit, ♦» wasteness
and emptiness," i.e., waste and empty \ "and darkneSiS was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters." The Rev. Mr. Goodwin, Dr.
Kalisch, and others, who ridicule the period theory, and
insist that the six days must mean six natural days, still
persist in maintaining that Genesis I. speaks only of one
creation, this they do to uphold their pet theory, that Moses
wrote as "an uninformed man." Mr. Goodwin, as I have
already shown, does not deal much in Hebrew, but not so
Dr. Kalisch, who is evidently an eminent Hebrew scholar,
and a more formidable opponent to deal with. Yet he has,
no doubt, allowed himself sometimes to be influenced by
preconceii'^ed opinions, which led him,— as is the case with
GeseniuB, Ewald, and some other distinguished Hebraists —
to stretch rules too far, and in some cases to give arbitrary
interpretations. This commentator, in order to show that
the first verse does not speak of a previous creation, but must
be taken in connection with what follows, lays great stress
upon the conjunction " and." He says, in his Commentary
on Genesis (p. 48) " The second verse, beginning with and or
hut tlie earth (y^'ij^T\'[)> stands evidently in a very close con-
nection with the preceding verse, the contents of which it
qualifies and defines, describing the state of the earth in its
chaotic confusion, and leaving the "heaven " (that is all the
stellar host) to a later consideration. The connecting par-
ticle (^) ",and " expresses here necessarily, immediate
sequence."

If Dr. ICalisch insists on the conjunction (']) i. e. and

LECTUttE II.

always implj'ing "a very close connection" with what pre-
cedes, he would produce some very curious connections of
certain passages. Thus, for example. Genesis xvi. begins,
"And Sarai " (English version "Now Sarai") "Abram's
wife bare him no children :" <fec , which has no connection
whatever with the last verse of the preceding chapter, which
together with the two preceding verses only contain a list of
proper names, and the conjunction and at the beginning of
the chapter can therefore not possibly "qualify and define"
what precedes. Again, the Book of Esther begins with the
•J {loav) conjunctive. "And it came to pass in the days of
Ahasuerus," (English version, " Now it came to pass"). If
the rule which Kalisch lays down were applied here, the con-
junction "and" would connect the Book of Esther (accord-
ing to the arrangement of the books in the Hebrew Bible)
with the Book of Proverbs, (or according to the arrange-
ments of the books in the English version) with the Book of
Nehemiah. So Samuel xxviii. 3, " And Samuel was dead "
(English version "Now Samuel was dead*') and all Israel
had lamented him and buried him in Bamah, even his own
city. And Saul put away those that had familiar spirits, and
the wizards, out of the land." This verse has likewise no
connection whatever with the preceding verse, which speaks
of David and Achish, a king of the Philistines. We have
in this verse also an example where the (■^) conjunctive, even
in the middle of a verse, does not exercise a connective
power ; '• And Saul put away those that had familiar spirits "
sui'ely has no connection with what goes before, the burying
of Samuel in his own city.

The fact is, the Hebrew (^) conjunction and, is frequently
used in the Bible to form a sort, of rhetorical continuity in
the narration, without any special reference to the contents
of the passages thus connected. It is used precisely in the

ill

Is t

i' I

!!li

LECTURE II.

same manner as we often use the particle noto in familiar
speech, and it will be seen from the above passages, and in
many others, that in the English version it is rendered by
"now." There can, therefore, not be the slightest objection
to rendering the passage in question, " Now the earth was,"
that is, at the time when the Mosaic account of the creation
commenced, instead of " And the earth was," " '" ^* -

But o'.rr opponents, like very shrewd lawyers, whilst they
lay hold of every little thing that may favour their views,
take very good care to refrain from noticing anything that
will argue against them. Hence Dr. Kalisch, whilst he
makes such a great flourish about the (i) wav conjunctive,
has not a word to aay about the peculiar introduction of the
verb " was." It is necessary to state here, for the infor-
mation of those who may not be familiar with the Hebrew
modes of expression, that the substantive verb is not used in
Hebrew as a mere copula^ but has always to be supplied, and
hence in all such cases it will always be found printed in
italics.

Now, had the sacred writer wished to convey the idea that
the earth was •» desolate and w^aste," when God created it,
according to the Hebrew idiom the verb ntl**?! {haySthah)
i. e. " was" would have been omitted, just as it is omitted in
the very next sentence, " and darkness upon the face of the
deep." In the English version it will be seen the copula
" toas " is printed in italics. So in the 4th verse, •• And God
saw the light, that good"; (English version, **it was")
in italics. The use of the verb nt^^iH (^i«y^<A«^0 '* was," by
the sacred writer, therefore, clearly shews that the contents
of the 2nd verse has no connection whatever with the 1st
verse, but speaks of some subsequent state of the earth when
i^ had become " desolate and waste." Indeed, it ia quite
evident from Isaiah xlv. 1 8, that the earth was not created

LECTURE II.

■ (:

in a desolate state, we have there the following distinct
declaration : " For thus said the Lord tliAt created the
heavens ; God hiraself that formed the earth and made it,
he hath C'^tablished it, he created it not iJ^f^ (thohoo)
desolate, (English Version, " in vain,") he foriried it to be
inhabited." The world did not come from the Creator's
hands in a chaotic state, but fit to be inhabited.

It is further worthy of notice, that in the only two other
places in the Old Testament where the two words ^ntl
•^ PI 121 {thohoo wavohoo) i e.^ desolate andioaste occur together,
they are in both places used in reference to a desolation as
the effect of Divine judgment. Thus, Jer. iv. 23, " I beheld
the earth, and, lo, it was (thohoc wavohoo) desolate and
waste ,i and / looked unto the heavens, and they had no
light " It will readily be perceived, that in this passage
which predicts a future desolation, a pointed reference is
made to the condition of the earth as described in Genesis
i. 2. So, also, Isaiah xxxiv. 17, "He shall stretch over it
the line of {thohoo) desolation, and the stones of (wohoo)
wasteness." As much as to say, He shall measure it out not to
be built by line, but to be destroyed. Here, then, the words
inil in In {tl^ohoo mohoo) i.e , desolation, loastenesSf are
again used in predicting a desolation of what before had
been beautiful.

And* so the words in Genesis i. 2, do not imply that the
earth was a confused mass of matter when it was created,
but are rather descriptive of the state of our globe prior to
the commencement of the six days' creation, and refer alto-
gether to the surface of the earth, which, through some
catastrophe, had again become "desolate and waste."

It is proper to state here, that the rendering "without
form," in the English version is not at all admissible; neither
of the two words in question is ever used in the sense

lectuhe II.

iiii

" without form " in Scripture, or in any other Hebrew
work. And, indeed, it is only in the English version, and
which has also been followed by the French version, that it
is so rendered. Besides, it would be logically incorrect, as
anything material cannot possibly subsist " without form."
Dean Swift has, therefore, very pertinently remarked ;

f'f.ki

l:-.'»

:7.,!i. 1^

.).,.fi.

■ m'

"Matter, as wise logicians say, ,?
Cannot without form subsist ;
And form, say I, as well as tliey,
Must fail, if matter brings no grist. "

■i I

'•^ How long the earth had been thus submerged, the sacred
writer does not say, as it in nowise comes within the scope
of his narrative, the aim of which is merely to inform man-
kind how the earth hath again been reclaimed. In this
desolate and empty state, however, the earth remained until
the third day, when, by the fiat of Jehovah, it was liberated
from the dominion of the waters, and clothed anew with
grass, herbs, and trees, so that the dreary waste became like
•'a garden which God hath planted." ■'

'** The sacred writer further tells us, that "darkness was
upon the face of the deep." The darkness which thus
reigned upon this vast expanse of water, was the natural
result from the absence of the light of the sun, which Was
then not visible on account of the dense mass of aqueous
and serial fluids by which our globe was surrounded. It,
however, existed already, and hence it is not spoken of as
being created ; just like the waters which covered the earth
are spoken of as already existing, and not of their being
created. The waters which covered the earth are here desig-
nated by the term Ql.nlD (J^^^^oni) i.e., deep watery or a

flood. "And the Spirit of God V)a3 hovering or brooding
07er the face of the waters." The phrase fiinbi^ ni"!!

H'i

LECTURiE II.

(vh'oodch Elohim) i e . " And the Spirit of God," has by
some writers been rendered by "and a mighty wind," in
accordance with tlie well known Hebrew idiom, that a super-
lative force is frequently obtained by using one of the Divine

names with a noun ; as tDTlDJ^ i^'^'DD {^^^^^ Elohim) lit.
a prince of God, ie., **a mighty prince," (Genesis (xxiii. 6)
bi^ ''TIJS^ (-4r.se El) lit. cedars of God, i e., " greatest or high-
est cedars," (Psalm Ixxx. lo.) Now, it is no doubt true, that
the word |-|i*^ {liooach) signifies both spirit and wind, but
the phrase in question is never used idiomatically in Scripture
to denote a great or strong wind, in that case the adjective
great is always employed, see Job i. 10, Jonah i. 4 ; or the
word pj^i (Roodch) ie , vnnd, is used alone with the
accessory signification stronj wind, as Genesis viii. 1, Psalm
i. 4. Nor is the rendering stronj wind, in the passage before
us, authorized by any ancient or modern version. The
celebrated Rabbi Nachmani, in his Hebrew commentary
entitled ''BSreshith Rabba," written in the 17th century,
interprets the phrase, " this is the Spirit of the King
Messiah." Nor would the rendering* mighty wind be suita-
ble in connection with the verb tlfc)n*l)3 (merachepheth)
which denotes a gentle hoverinj or brooding over, such as is
made by birds whilst hatching their eggs or fostering their
young, as Deut. xxxii. 11, * As an eagle stirreth up her
nest, fluttereth over her young." It is not at all improbable
that the expression " brooding over the face of the waters,"
gave )ise to the notion which so extensively prevailed among
the ancients, that *' the world sprang from an egg" The
true meaning of the passage, no doubt is, that the quickening
Spirit of God brooded over the wate:'8, to quicken the
lifeless mass by His creative Spirit, which is the principle of
all life. Hence the Pa:Hlmist says, *'By the word of Jehovah
the heavens were made ; and by the breath of his mouth all

fiii

LECTUAE II.

their host,' (Psalm xxxiii. 6.) Milton has beautifully
paraphrased the passage in question : •' '^^ "t * . (siis wi

'* Thou from the first
■ ' Waat present, and with mighty wingn outspread,
■' t Dove-like, sat'st brooding on the vast abysB, » ' *■' "^
{> :> And madest it pregnant." * * * ^ i >< »; .v .•

>ii

'ill.

> And madest it pregnant."

V. 3, "And God said, light be, and light was." With these
words, the work of the six days of creation commenced, for
it will be seen by glancing over the chapter, that the begin-
ning of each day's creation is likewise distinctly marked by
the words "And God said." The brevity of the expression,
"light be, and light was," is exceedingly sublime. God
merely commands, and it is. Hence the Psalmist says, "For
he spake and it was ; he commanded, and it stood." Luther,
too, has beautifully said, that " the words of God are not
mere sounds, but essential objects." Even Dionysius Lon-
ginus, one of the most judicious Greek critics, and who is
highly celebrated over the civilized world, for a treatise
entitled Xiept vyjrov^, concerning the Sublime, both in prose
and poetry ; and although himself a heathen, he speaks of
this passage in the following terms ; "So likewise the Jewish
Law-giver (who was no ordinary man) having conceived a
just idea of the Divine power, he expressed it in a dignified
manner : Let there be light ! and there was light. Let
THERE BE EARTH ! and there was earth." Longin. (Sect.
8, Edit. 1663.)

Thus, the first creative act of the Creator was to cause
the element light — without which nothing could subsist — to
burst through the dense mass of aqueous and serial fluids
by which our globe was surrounded. To this Divine act, it
appears to me, the Psalmist refers, when he says, Psalm civ.
2, " Who coverest the earth with light as with a garment ;
who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain." The trans-

LECTURE II.

lators have supplied the word tht/self in oui" version, " thou
coverest thysdf with light," instead of supplying the earth,
which not only forms a better parallelism with '* the heavens"
in the next clause, but is also better suited to the context.
The Psalmist alludes to the diflferent works of creation, in
order io derive from them matter of praise to Him who had
done so great and marvellous deeds. "' . .., • i ..,,,; j.rii,

The word "inji^ {or) i.e., light here employed, denotes the
elnnent lifjht, and is quite a different word from that employed
in verse 14, by which the luminaries or orbs are expressed.
The expression "let light be," is merely equivalent to let
light appear ; had Moses intended to convey the idea that
light was then first created, he would have written, God
created the light. We shall hereafter shew that the lumi-
naries already existed, and hence it follows that the element
fight must have existed likewise. .T^m i^i'C? lo

' V. 4, " And God saw the light that it was good :" it is God
impressed the seal of perfection upon it. The Hebrew
Adjective ^\^ (tov) i.e., good, is very expressive, it denotes
not only good, but also beautiful, 2:>leasant. *^^

"And God separated between the light and between the
darkness." Hitherto there was only darkness upon the face
of the earth, but henceforth light and darkness were to
succeed each other again in regular rotation, such as is
naturally produced by the revolution of the earth round its
axis. This, of course, would have been impossible unless
the sun had already existed, and performed its natural func-
tions. V. 5, " And God called the light" j^-j^i [yom) " day."
The answer why that designation was given to it, can only
be found in the etymology of the word. Unfortunately,
the derivation of the word is somewhat obscure. If the
word Q-^i {yorn) may be regarded as a softened form of tJllT^
(yocham) derived from the root jjn*' (ycicharn) to be icarm^

;-; ;

■■•■

LECTURE II.

Ill li- 4

to glow with hnaty the suitablenesH of the teim would at once
bo ap]>areiit. Whether this supposition, however, is correct
or not, it is certain, that some etymological reason existed
why it was so called. It must bo borne in mind, that there
are many Hebrew words occurring in the Bible of which
the derivation cannot now, with any certainty, be traced,
since their roots are obsolete. " And the darkness he called
night." Why darkness was called J^^i^ {Lay'elah) "night,"
is likewise impossible to say, as the root does not now exist.
Gesenius, indeed, conjectures that it mi^ht be derived from
the verb ^-^^ (J^^ol) to roll or lorap oneself in a cloak as a
protection from cold. But I have in vain looked to discover
such a root either in Hebrew or in any of its cognate
languages. • v .

** And there was evening, and there was morning, day one,
or first day." The evening is naturally mentioned first, as
darkness preceded the light. Hence, the Jews have always
adopted this mode of reckoning the day of four and twenty
hours, from evening to evening. In Leviticus xxiii. 32, it is
distinctly commanded *'from evening to evening shall ya
keep your Sabbath."

From the Hebrew word |2li? {Erev or Ereb) i.e.y evening y
the Greeks, no doubt, derived their Eip€^o<i (K^ehus) which
they deified, and made with night the parent of all things.
Hence, also, the name of the Carthagenian Deity Herehus^
whom they invoked as the God of Hell. The Hebrew word
is derived from the verb ^*^^ (arciv) i.e., to grow darJc. In
the Syriac and Arabic, the verb denotes also to set, and is
used in reference to the setting of the sun. The term,
therefore, denotes that part of time which intervenes between
sun set and utter darkness. In the passage before us, how-
ever, it evidently embraces the time from sun set to break of
day. The Hebrew term '^p^l {Boker) i.e., warning, denotes

liii:;

LECTURE II.

ni)

a hreakiiig fortli^ ?>., when the light breaks through dark-
ness, hence moniinij, but here employed to denote the time
thd,t intervenes between the breaking of day, antl the Hetting
of the sun. Thus, the Jews always divide the day into
evening and morning,

I would also draw your attention here to the peculiarity,
that the article is only employed with the sixth day's creation,
indicating thereby that the work of creation was then coin-
])letcd. The absence of the article with the other days seems
to mark the creation as one creative act, though the work
was spread over six days. In the original it is, ''first day,"
"second day," &c., and not ''the first day," "the second
day," except with //te sixth r?a^, when it is said, "And the
evening was, and the morning was the sixth day."

V. G, " And God said. Let there be an expanse between the
waters." Though the light had now burst through the
darkness which hitherto had obscured it, still the waters yet
held their dominion over the earth, nor had the sky yet
become visible. It is, of course, impossible to form even in
the slightest degree any adecpiate idea of the state of the
atmosphere of that time. The aqueous atmosphere and the
water which covered the earth, formed, as it would appear,
one undivided mass, and it vfas the dividing of this mass
■\yliich constituted the creative work of the second day.
The Hebrew word 3!lipl (Rdkla) «>., an expanse, denotes
something beaten or stretched out, hence the sky which con-
sists of condensed clouds, and to the eye assumes the appear-
ance of a solid substance. So Plato, in his Timceus, speaks
of the ethereoiis heaven under the notion of racrt? i.e., exten-
sion from reivm, to extend or expand , which corresponds to
the Hebrew term 3ii*ip*| (Rcikia) i.e., expanse, from ^p*^
(raka) i.e., to expand or heat out. 1 must repeat again, that
it is the usage of Scripture throughout the sacred volume to

'ill

iji

LECTURE II.

i'l

I ■!

describe things as thoy appear to the eyes, so as to briug
them witliin the limits of the most humble understanding.
This is not only the ease as regards natural phenomena, but
even ill reference to God. Hence, when God is angry wilh
the wicked, He is represented as to '* whet his sword," to
"bend his bow," Psalm vii. 13 (English version, v. 12)
" his hand is stretched out," (Isaiah xiv. 27.) It is for a
"' -/lar reason that our Saviour employed parables in his
teaching, as a ready mode of bringing profound subjects
within the grasp of the most uneducated of his hearers, whilst
at the same time, they tended to impress his declarations
forcibly on their minds. Hence Moses represents the sun,
moon, and stars, also, as set in the expanse or firmament, in
verse 14, although they are removed far beyond it, but
simply because they appear so to the eyes of an observer
from our globe. But it is simply absurd to charge Moses,
or any other sacred writer, with ignorance, because they
made use of such expressions. We might as well say that
the world-renowned Hersche> was ignorant of the first prin-
ciples in astronomy, because he uses the phrases, *' the sun
rises," ''the moon sets," phrases as unscientific as any ever
employed by Moses ; and yet are constantly used by every
per-son, no doubt because the sun and moon appear to the
eye to rise and to set. They are at once convenient expres-
sions, and readily understood by the most ignorant.

The Hebrew word ^TJ7)Sl {p«toclt) would have been here

better rendered by between than '♦ in the midst," as in the
English version. The word has various meanings, as midst,
between, loithin, ikc. ; but between conveys here a more
accurate idea, both of the situation and use of the expanse,
as the sacred writer wishes to convey the idea that the
design of the expanse was to separate between the waters
which are above, and which are below.

•

LECTURE II.

. The Hebrew term ^^p'^ (RaJcia) therefore, denotes the
whole visible expanse, including even the region of the stars,
which, as we have stated, are merely said to be set in it
because they appear so to the eye — as well as the space in which
vapours float, and clouds are formed. The translators, in
rendering the word by " firmanent," in our version, have
followed the Septuagint (rrepetdfia i.e., anything soUd^ the
fwmanent, and the \\}\g^ie jirmamentum^ which renders the
passage quite unintelligible, and does not afford the true
meaning of the Hebrew word. ' . '•^•"" ''^ ;</:? iu ^3 .

*' And let it be a dividing between waters with respect to
waters." The rendering in the English version, *' and let it
divide " is a free translation, which might lead to the suppo-
sition that the dividing process was then finished. The
original, on the contrary, by employing the participle^ con-
veys the idea of a process constantly going on as implanted
in nature. The participle in Hebrew, when used as a sub-
stantive, implies continued action, as ^)^ (lomed) teaching^
hence also one iclio constantly teaches — thus, a teache:'.
"DS*© (shophcA) judijing — hence also a judge. By this
Divine act of " dividing between waters with respect to
waters," one portion of the watery mass was made to rise
into the atmosphere, and held in solution, or made to float in
the form of clouds, whilst the other portion was forced down
in contact with our globe.

V. 7, " So God made " (or constituted or ordained) ' the ex
panaeand caused to divide between the waters which ire under
the expanse and between the waters which are above the
expanse : and it was so." This verse is a mere continuation
of the preceeding. " So God made or ordained." The
conjunction (•^) i.e., and, is often used in the sense of so or
80 then with subordinate clauses. Thus, for example, in
verse 26, «• And God said let us make man," <fec. ; henoe
8

\\ '

LECTURE II.

■\

verse 27, v/liicli is a continuation of the preceding verse,
'/tjegins, •' So God created man." where it will be seen the
(^) conjunctive is rendered in the English version by " So."
• I have already stated that the verb to he when used as
copula is not expressed in Hebrew, it is therefore better to
supply are, and read " which arc under the expanse," and
'• which are above the expanse," instead of icerc^ as in the
English version ; for the expanse could not have been the
lirst means of dividing the waters if a portion had already
been above and another below.

The expression, ** the waters which arc above the expanse,"
does not refer to a celestial ocean as Gesenius and other
writers hold, but refers merely to the waters which float in
the atmosphere ; they are here only described in popular
language to be " above the expanse," although, strictly speak-
ing, they are at no great elevation from the earth, still they
are above that part of the space in which birds fly.

V. 8, •* And God called the expanse heaven." The term
Qi^j*© (Shamayim) heaven^ is merely au-^ther name by which
the exijanse is designated ; hence the birds that fly in it are
called the fowl of the heaven or air," in vei-se 2Q. In it also
the rain and the dew are formed, and hence the expression
" the dew of heaven," Genesis xxvii., 28 ; and the " rain of
heaven," Deut. xi., 11. The root of the word, although not now
existing in Hebrew, is still found in the Arabic verb (shamaa),
i.e., to he high. The word, therefore, denotes a height. The
dual form of the word probably indicates its two- fold mean-
iug, namely, our atmosphere^ and the solar system.

V. 9, " And God said. Let the waters under the heaven be
gathered together it 7 one place, and let the dryness " (i. e.,
the dry land) "be seen : and it was so." The earth, which
\ip to this time had been covered by a vast ipass of water,
was now to be rendered fit to receive its inhabitants : and

LECTURE II.

( • ■

this formed part of the third day's creative work. What
means the Creator employed in thus reclaiming a large por-
tion of our glooe, the sacred writer does not inform us ; he
merely gives the bare results, without entering upon a des-
cription how these results were achieved. But although Moses
is altogether silent on the subject, the Psalmist in referring
to this mighty work of God, gives us some idea how it was
effected. In Psalms civ., 6-9, it is thus described : "Thou
coverest it" (i.e., the earth) *' with the deep as loith a gar-
ment : the waters stood above the mountains. At thy re-
buke they fled ; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
They go uj3 by the mountains, they go down by the valleys
unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast
set a bound that they may not pass over, that they turn not
again to cover the earth."

The sacred writer, in his narrative, says that the waters
were " gathered into one place," and is it not so 1 The At-
lantic, the Pa' 'fie, the Indian and other oceans, constitute in
fact but one uKiy of water, although parts of it are designated
by different names. How could Moses have known this, un-
less he had received this information by inspiration ?

V. 10, " And God called the dryness " (i.e., the dry land as
oj)posed to the collection of waters) V"^^ (^Erets) " earth."
Here again we have to lament our inability in not being able
to trace the etymological reason why the dri/ land was so
called, as the root of the word does not now exist in Hebrew
or any of its cognate languages.

" And the gathering of the waters he called Q^J^i (^Yam-
mlm) seas." The Hebrew word denotes roaring or tumult-
ous waters. The Hebrew term includes, however, all collec-
tions of waters — such as lakes and rivers, since the singular
of the noun is sometimes applied to a large river, as Isaiah,
xix., 5, Jer. li., 3G ; and the plural noun even to branches of
a river, as Ezek. xxxii., 3.

LECTURE II.

V. 11, " And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, herbs
yielding seed, fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose
seed is in itself upon the earth : and it was so." The earth
having now been divested of its watery cover, was not allow-
ed to remain long an empty waste but the same day was
adorned with all the various species of jUants and trees such
as do now exist. ^ »' •

').' f> ■'' "All vegetations, complicated schema, . '■' '

- ;-.,|i , Was formed from nothing— like a dream." - •'>. !.-,''

f^..'?J 'i ■ ■ . - . . ! 1 ■

Moses here aptly divides the whole vegetable king-
dom into three main classes, namely, ^i^'^ {Deshe) i. e.^
grass, which the celebrated Jewish commentator, Aber-
banel, understood to embrace those grasses which grow spon-
taneously without the care of man. The term may probably
include all such plants which are i)ropagated rather by the
division of their roots than by seeds ; and hence the plants
denoted by this term, it will be seen, are not like those of the
other two classes represented as bearing seed, Henge, too,
this term is generally employed in speakirjg of vegetation that
clothes the field, as Psalm xxiii., 2. " He maketh me to lie
down in pastures ^)^^ {De>:he) o*' grass." (English version,
*'in greet pastures.") So 2 Saiii , xxiii , 4,rts the grass spring-
ing out of the earth by clear sliiuiug Hfter the rain." The
second division called ^^^ {Esev) i.e , herbs, embraces all
kinds of seed bearing plant.s, whether wild or cultivated ; in
fact «D plants between gra.sses and trees, and serviceable for
fooQ both for man and beast. The third division yjy {Ets)
i.e., treeSy embraces all hard-wooded jMints, in contradistinc-
tion to herbage, which have a softer texture. The noun is
derived from the verb '^^'^^ (atsah), to mahejirm, or to shut
in ; probably so called from the bark forming a covering to
the tree. A German naturalist, Hieron. Bock or Bouc, gen-

LECTURE II.

erally called Tragus, who flourished in the sixt ^euth century,
also divided ])lants into three classes. The Kev. Mr. Good-
win, in his essay (pp. 24:7, 248), objects to this part of the
Mosaic account, on the ground ** that nothing lA said of herbs
and ti-ees which are not serviceable as food for mar and ani-
mals." The three terms mentioned here^ however, include
all. Every plant or tree is of some use either to man or to
animals, otherwise they would not have been created. Hence
when they are appointed for food for man and beasts in verses
29-30, it means there they are appointed for general use,
whether for the purpose of food or medicine, or any other
purpose. What may be looked upon in one part of the world
as useless or even troublesome, is viewed in another part as
useful and even a blessing. Take for instance the vnld por-
lidacca, which with us is such a troublesome weed in our
gardens, in Arabia it is extensively used by the common peo-
ple as a salad, although, from its insipidness, it is called by
them the '^^ silly weed^

V. 14, "And God said, Let there be luminaries in the expanse
of the heaven." It is, let the luminiries now shine forth in
their full splendour, and continue to do so. It will be seen
there is here no mention made of their being created ; but
like the matte?' light, in v. 3, they are merely called upon to
appear. The Hebrew word fT)}*^^ (Meoroth) i. e., lumina-
ries, is quite a different word to that which is used in verse
3, which denotes the element light. The word here employed
means light dis2)ensers, in fact, lamps u])on a gigantic scale,
having no lights of their own, but are merely dispensers of
it. " To divide between the day and between the night," it
is, so that the distinction between day and night may hence-
forth be again distinctly marked. " And they shall he for
signs." The Hebrew word f^f^jj^ {Othoth) denotes also marks
by which anything is known. These luminaries were, there-

LECTURE II.

fore, to serve as marks or signs to form epochs of general
reckoning, for indicating the different quartei's of the heaven,
to aid the mariner in navigation, and to guide the husband-
man in his various pursuits. They were further also to serve
as signs portending extraordinary events or miraculous mani-
festations. Thus it is said, Luke xxi., 25 : '•' and there shall
be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars. (See
also Acts I L, 19-20,; Psalm Ixv., 8. "And for appointed
times ;" the luminaries were also to mark the seasons of the
year, and the various festivals and religious solemnities which
were afterwards to be appointed ; they were further to mark
the various seasons which influence the animals and birds,
tfec. Hence the prophet Jeremiah, ch. viii., 7, says : *' Yea,
the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times ; und
the tuvtle and crane and swallow observe the time of their
coming." " And for days and for years," i.e., signs for mark-
ing the division of days and years.

Y. 15, " And let them be for luminaries in the expanse of the
heaven to give light upon the earth : and it was so." This
most important office of the lumiuariew, is here especially
alluded to, although already included in the proceeding verse,
to mark the climax of the importance and utility of these
luminaries. ,.,

y . 1 6, * 'And God constituted or ordained the two great lumi-
naries ; the greater luminary for the ruling of the day, and
the lesser luminary for the ruling of the night : and He
appointed the stars also.^* It is the rendering of th'i Hebrew
verb tD^?"^! (wayydas) by " and he made" in the English
version, instead of " and he constituted or ordained," which
has chiefly led to the supposition that these luminaries weie
actually created on the fourth day. Now, this is not exactly
a mistranslation, but rather an unfortunate selection from
the various meanings which the Hebrew verb has. Had

'ill!

LECTURE II.

Moses intended to convey tlie idea tluit these luminaries
were created on the fourtli day, lie would unquestionably
have employed the verb ij^*^^ {bar a) i e. he created., which is
used in verse 1, and again in verse 21. *• And God created
the great sea monsters." Although the primary meaning of
the verb JT^J^ {aaah), is no doubt to malce^ to vorlc, yet it is
over and over again used also in the sense to constitute, to
ordain, ]\\fii as we often use the verb to make m the sense to
appoint, or to constitute. Thus we read, " the Lord that
made," (i.e. appointed) " Moses and Aaron," (1 Sam. xii, G.)
So Jeroboam 'made (/.c. appointed) priests from the low-
est of the people." (1 Kings, xii. .^»1.) And so in many
other places. The sun and moon are not in the passage
before us called " the greater " and *' the lesser," from
an astronomical point of view, but in reference to their
appearance to the inhabitants of the earth, since Moses
throughout his narrative aims to describe things just
as they would have appeared to any one had he been
present. The fact thiit many stars far surpasis in magnitude
both the sun and moon, is, therefore, not in the least affected
by the above declaration. As the designations "greater"
and " lesser," unmistakably point to the sun and moon, their
names are here omitted. The sun is, however, in Hebrew,
called 1^)2W {Shemesh), i.e., one that ministers, from its min-
istering light and heat to the earth, whilst the moon is called
f\yi {Yareach), i.e. the pale orb, from its paleness, and some-
times in poetry, HSJUb {Levanali), i.e. the white one.

" For the ruling," it is to regulate day and night by their
rising and setting. "And the stars," it is God constituted
the stars also to perform their various offices. It will be
seen that this phrase is very abruptly introduced as if it were
merely by parenthesis, the words he made or constituted, and
aha not being in the original. The abruptness of the ex-

LECTURE II.

pression may be accounted for, by the stars being merely
regarded as companions of the moon, to replace in some
measure, the absence of the light of the moon when that
luminary is not visible. Under the name of t3''IIlDT3
(^Cochavim,) i.e. stars, the Hebrews comprehended all con-
stellations, planets, and heavenly bodies except the sun and
moon; hence the Psalmist says, *' Praise ye him, sun and
moon : praise him all ye stars of light." Psalm cxlviii. 3,
V. 17. " So God constituted them in the expanse of the hea-
ven to give light upon the earth." As this verse is a mere
continuation of the preceeding, the ■) conjunctive, is here again
better rendered by so. The translators having rendered the
verb "^fi^ {nathan), by " set," in our version, it would of
course lead to the supposition that the luminaries were " set"
in the expanse on the fourth day. This verb has, however,
also various significations, as to give, to set, to make, to con-
stitute, to permit, kc. In Genesis ix., 13, our translators
have made precisely a similar unfortunate choice, and have
rendered, " I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for
a token of a covenant between me and the earth." This
rendering conveys the idea that the rain-bow never existed
before, whereas it must have been seen over and over again
in the clouds during the 1G5G years that elapsed between the
creation and the deluge. The passage should have been ren-
dered, " I do constitute my bow in the clouds," it would
then have been intelligible and strikingly beautiful. The
rain-bow, although often seen > before, was not until then ap-
pointed as a sign and pledge, of the promise made to Noah.
The beautiful phenomenon which no doubt often enchanted
its beholders, has now been made of peculiar significance —
nothing less than the visible sign of a covenant between the
eternal .Tehovah and frail man. No wonder that almost all
nations hare looked with special reverenee upon the rain-

LECTUnE II.

bow, and liave connected religious ideas with its appearance/
The ancient Greeks, apparently in reference to its emble-
matical significance, have called it IpL<; {Iris), which Eusta-
thius derives from the Greek verb etpw, to tell, to carry a
message, and was afterwards deified and regarded as the
messenger of the gods. Iris, or the Rain-bow was worship-
ped as a goddess, not only by the Greeks and Romans, but
also by the inhabitants of Peru, in South America.

As regards the Elebrew verb "ij^^, {nathari) i.e. to give, to
set, &c., numerous passages may be adduced where it is used
in the sense to constitute, to appoint. Thus Genesis xvii. 5,
"For a father of many nations I have constituted thee."
(English version, '' I have made thee.) Also, Exodus vii. 1,
*' See, I have appointed thee a god to Pharaoh." English
version), " I have made thee.") Hugh Miller, as I have
already stated, seeing the impossibility of plants created on
the third day, passing through a long period of darkness as
they must have done according to the period theory, had to
acknowledge in order to get over this difficulty, t,hat the sun,
moon, and stars may have been created long before, though
it was not until the fourth day of creation j that they became
visible from the earth's surface. (Test, page 134). But that
the stellar system existed even before the foundation of the
■world — the Scriptures itself affords evidence. Amtong the
numerous questions which God showered down upon Job in
rapid succession, illustrative of His omnipotence in the for-
mation and disposition of the v/orks of creation, is the follow-
ing one : " Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of
the? earth ? declare if thou hast understanding. Who hath
laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest ? or who hath
stretched the line upon it ? Whereupon are the foundations
thereof fastened ? or who laid the corner stone thereof %
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of
9

: \

LECTURE II.

God shouted for joy ?" Job, xxxviii, 4-7. To show what
stress writers were put to iu order to get over this passage,
which clearly proves that the stellar system was not created
on the fourth day of the Mosaic account of the creation, we
may instance the explanation which Dr. Kalisch gives of the
phrase "morning stars." He remarks, *» But the 'stars of
the morning,' ("\p|2 "^ISSllS) *^^"» ^^ ^^^^ poetical passage
only signify the young, newly-created stars ; and their origin
would, therefore, not date back much beyond the Bibical age
of the world, or about GOOO years, which contradicts all
astronomical results."* ■" , ; > .v

This positive statement is made without one single proof
that the word "^p^i (Boker') morning , according to Scripture

usage, may be used in the sense of young or newly ; and for
the best of reasons, as there is not a single instance in Scrip-
ture, or in any other Hebrew work, where it is used in that
sense. If, indeed, every commentator were allowed to put
such a construction upon a word as would suit his fancy, or
favour a special opinion, of course the Scriptures may in this
way be made to say anything, and every fancy be easily gra-
tified, and every opinion, no matter how extravagant, accom-
modated. The stars, which in the above quotation are called
"stars of the morning," or, as the English version has it,
'» mornittg stars," are in chapter iii., verse 9, again spoken of
where they are called "stars of the morning twilight." But
even supposing the Hebrew word *ip2l (Boker) mor?iing,
would admit of such a meaning which Dr. Kalisch attaches
to it, still it would require but a moment's reflection to dis-
cover the utter absurdity of the explanation which Dr. ICa-
lisoh attempts to force upon the passage. The " morning
atars " must either have been created before the Mosaic ac*

I 'i

* Commentary on Qenegis, page 62.

LECTURE II.

count commences, or they must have been created on the
fourth clay of the Mosaic account ; there can be, I think, no
two opinions on this point. If created before the ** corner
Btone" of the world was laid, we can easily understand the
beautiful figure of the numberless stars being represented as
taking part in the joy with other heavenly hosts, when the
siMi for the first time shed its benign light on our newly-
created r>vl,. But if^ as Dr. Kalisch and others maintain, the
earth was created on the first day of the Mosaic account, and
// the sol ir system on the fourth day, how could the " stars " be
said to take part in the joy at an event which took place
three clays before they were themselves called into existence f
It must not be forgotten that the words in the passage in
question are not the words of Job, or of his three friends, but
of God himself. It is strange that so shrewd a writer as Dr.
Kalisch should not have perceived that, in giving that ex-
planation, he was only laying a snare to entrap himself.

But perhaps it will be argued that in the fourth command-
ment it is distinctly said that "in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." (Exod.
XX., 11. Precisely so, ^"^^J^ (asah) inadey ordered, or fash-
ioned, but it does not say }j^"^^ (harob) created, as it does in
Genesis, i., 1, which latter verb would no doubt have been
enifiloyed by the sacred writer if the primary creation of
the universe were referred to. As the fourth command-
ment depends on Genesis i., hence it must be explained by
that chapter, for there is evidently only so much of the
creative work referred to in the commandment as relates
directly to the institution of the Sabbath, namely, **msix
days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is," and then is added, " and rested on the seventh
day : wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hal-
lowed it." Dr. Davis justly remarks, " it is a violation of

•AMldfl

i»

LECTURE II.

iii^

an essential rule ofsouuil interpretytion to infer the mean-
ing of an author from a condensed sentence, introduced in-
cidentally, iiistead of deriving it from his more direct, con-
nected, and am[)le statomcnts on the same subject."* As an
example of the truth of the foregoing remark we may in-
stance the sixth commandment, '• Thou shalt not kill."
Now, it would surely not be sound interpretation to infer,
that because this commandment is v/orded in the same man-
ner aa the eighth commandment, " Thou shalt not steal,"
therefore the murderer ought, not to be more severely pun-
ished than he who steals 1 The sixth commandment is a
condensed sentence of Genesis ix., 6, 6, by which it must be

interpreted. r, ,, , ,, ;

,-, I hope enough has been said to show that there is noth-
ing in the IMosaic account to warrant the supposition that
the planetary system was actually created on the fourth
day, but that, on the contrary, everything tends to prove
that the luminaries had their existence before the Mosaic
account commences.

V. 20, " And God said. Let the waters swarm with moving
creatures, with living beings." The replenishing the waters
and the air with their inhabitants constituted the creative
work' of the fourth day. The Hebrew verb yyi^ (sharats)
denotes to sioarm, to multiply abundantly, and is applied to
all kinds of living creatures, whether inhabiting the waters or
dry land, which are remarkable for their rapid increase. It
is only in a few instances used by the sacred writer in re-
ference to the human spebies, where he wishes to express a
great increase. Thus, for exam2)le. Genesis ix., 7, God
blessing Noah and his sons. So also Exod. i., 7, where it is
very appropriately used in reference to the extraordinary in-

* Prc-Adamite Earth, p. 278.

LECTURE II.

creaae of the children of Isrcael iu Egypt. The uerm y*\l^
Sherets) i.e., moving creatures, therefore, although sometime.'?
applied to various kinds of land animals, as mice, lizards,
&c., yet according to its derivation, is especially used in re-
ference to those living creatures which are remarkable for
their fecundity, such as is pre-eminently the ca.so with the
finny tribev«i, and such creatures which are accustomed to move
about in swarms. Hence the sacred writer adds another
term H'Tl t2J£l5 {Nephesh chayyah) i.e., living creatures, as be-
ing more comprehensive in its moaning, and including all kinds
of water animals, small and large, and likewise also reptiles.
The rendering in the English version, " Let the waters bring
forth," rather leads to the supposition that the "waters"
were made the agent in the production of their inhabitants.
Such, hewever, it will be seen from the literal rendering, is
not the case ; they were called into existence by the mere fiat
of God. " And God said. Let the waters swarm with moving
creatures."

"And let fowl fly above the earth, upon the face of the
expanse." According to the pointing in the English version
and the insertion of the word " that,^^ it makes it appear as
if the fowl were created from the water also. The passage
i-eads : " And God said let the waters bring forth abundantly
the moving creatures that hath life, and fowl that may flv
above the earth." This is at variance with what is said in
chap, ii, 19 : *' And the Lord God formed from the ground
every beast of the field, and eveiy fowl of the heaven ;" and
iis I have already hinted in my last lecture, the Rev. Mr.
Goodwin points this out as a discrepancy in the Mosaic ac-
count. (See " Essays and Reviews," page 248.) On refer-
ring, however, to the original, it will be seen that the word
j-|lp^ (t%ay^a/0» *' life," has the pause accent (Athnach),
equal to our colon, and the word ** that" is not in the original.

LECTURE II.

'?-i i

|j!H;ft-

'i he apparent disci e[)ancy accordingly at once disappears if
w place a colon after the word " life," instead of a comma ;
and leave out the word ^Hhaf^^^ which is printed in italics;
and render **an:l let fowl fly above the earth." The sacred
writer here merely speaks of the creation of the fowl and the
element assigned to them in which they were to move, with-
out stating how they were created ; which information is
given in chap, ii, 1 9, The same is precisely the case with
the creation of man, which in chap, i, 26, 27, is merely
spoken of as having taken place without stating how he was
created ; a fuller account is given in chap. ii. , 7.

V. 21. **So God created the great sea monsters, and every
living creature that movelh, with which the waters swarm,
after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind : and God
saw that it was good." This verse gives merely a recapitu-
lation of what is stated in the preceding verse, just as verses
17 and 18 form a recapitulation of verses 14, 15, IG. The
rendering given in the English version, "great whales,** is
altogether too restricted, and does not convey the true mean-
ing of the original. The Hebrew terra Q5"»5^ {Tanniuim)
literally means long, stretched out animals, thus all kinds of
sea monsters. In later times, even monsters inhabiting the
land are designated by it, and in some instances the desert is
assigned as their place ot' habitation ; and in the English ver-
sion the word is in some places rendered by " dragon."
Moses, however, evidently uses the word here in the sense of
sea monsters, and mentions them particularly to show that
they were included in the term 'V"^''^25 (Sherets) " moving
creature," employed in theprccedingver.se. I may here just
remark that the sacred writers in general have frecpiently
to labour under great difficulty in expressing certain objects
owing to the j^aucity of specific names in the Hcbrr v/ lan-
guage. In such cases they generally select such terras which

LECTURE II.

5»

}

^V' ;

they consider would best convev tlieir ideas, and not unfio-
quently, indeed, they are guided in their use of words by the
derivation. The student of the Bible must, in such cases,
pay particular attention to the context. From what has
been said above, we may sum up the work of the fifth day's
creation to have comprehended all inhabitants of the waters,
the fowl of the air, including winged insects. _ ,. , •-

Y. 24, "And God said. Let the earth bring forth living crea-
tures after their kind, cattle, and reptiles, and beasts oi the
earth after their kind : and it was so.'' As the waters were
made to teem with living creatures, and the air filled with winged
birds and insects on the fifth day, it remained now only to
furnish the land with its inhabitantiJ in order to complete the
work of creation. Hence, on the sixth day, at the fiat of
Jehovah, the earth brought forth all kinds of living land ani-
mals. To be more precise, the sacred writer specifies these
under three classes, namely, n^JllSl (^^^^^'^ot/t), a term
which is generally applied to domestic animals, though in
later time its meaning was extended so that it sometimes also
includes all grass-eating quadrupeds, whether came or wild.
The second class is called 1^)^"^ (^Remes), a term which in-
cludes the smaller land animals which move either without
feet or with feet, which are so small that they are scarcely
perceptible ; hence insecU, reptiles, ivorms. The mo'Vtng
things B\ioken of in verse 21 ^ as being created on the fifth
day, arc inhabitants of the water, and hence it is distinctly
stated, "which the waters brought forth abundantly." But
the moving tilings created on the sixth day are in verse 2^,
particularly specified as *• moving tilings upon the earth,"
and theref ..e a different race from those that move in the
waters. The third class is denoted by the term y"^;j^ ItT^H
{Chayetho Erets) i.e., leasts of the earth, that is, such as are
freely moving about upon the fa^" of the earth, and what we

LECTURE II.

generally call loild beasts. I may mention here that the term
tT^n {Ohayyah) only means a livinj animal according to its
derivation, although this term no doubt is generally applied
to wild leasts in conti'adistinction to n^niS (-^^^^^w^'^^Oj
domestic animals. Hence we find that term sometimes quali-
fied as j^^?*^ JlTl {Chayyah rdah), ''an evil beast," Genesis
xxxvii. 33 ; or f^^p Ji^'iH {pl'-^yy^^li' Kaneli) **a beast of the
reeds," i.e., such as lurks in the reeds, as the crocodile —
Psalm Ixviii. 31. But the Hebrew term does not actually
imply any voracity in the nature of these animals, and it is
therefore very probable that at the time of their creation,
and before the fall of man, although these animals no doubt
were ejidowed with different natures,, some being more or less
adapted to be brought under the control of man, still, I say,
there is nothing in the signification of the Hebrew word
which would imply that they were at that time as fierce
and ravenous as they are at present. Indeed, the fact that
even the most ravenous of the wild beasts may be tamed, at
least to a certain extent, if not entirely, strongly argues in
favour of their not having possessed that fierceness from the
beginning. *

Hence, Isaiah, in his vivid prophetic declaration, ch. ix.,
6-9, speaking of the happy time that shall be ushered in
when sin shall have ceased again from man, paints that
happy time as one of universal peace and amity between •
beasts and beasts, and beasts and man, implying as it were,
that the same amity shall again reign as existed before sin
entered the world.

We come now to the crowning act of the creation, namely
the creation of man. And here, I may remark, that although
it may be convenient for naturalists to class man with the
animal kingdom, it is plain the sacred writer has not d'^ne
so. Man, as far as the structure of his body is icerned,

LECTUBE II.

sin

ill many respects, no doubt, bears a strong resemblance to the
animal ; yet, on the other hand, he possesses so many distinct
characteristics which, I think, fairly entitle him to a higher
position. Even heathen writers have not overlooked this
important fact. '■' Many things are mighty, but nothing is
mightier than man,*' says the great Greek tragic poet, Soph-
ocles. And Ovid, one of the finest poets of the Augustan
age, beautifully and graphically describes the superiority of
man in the following manner : —

. . *' A croature'of a more exalted kind

Was wanting yet, and then was man designed :
Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast,
For empire form'd, and fit to rule the rest :

Thus, while the whole creation downward bee d
Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,
Man looks aloft; and with erected eyes, .
Beholds his own hereditary skies." * ,

I must confess, it makes me almost shudder — I do not
know whether my hearers are impressed with similar sensi-
tive feelings— to be told by some modern naturalists that
there exists so close a relation between us and the horrid-
looking oran-outang. It is a Comfort, however, that if
such a relationship should exist — which I very much doubt
—that it is now so far removed to make it scarcely traceable.
On this subject I may, however, have something more to say
on a future occasion. ' ...

The sacred writer introduces the creation of man by repre-
senting God as taking counsel with Himself, v. 26. "And
God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,"
language which at once implies a superiority of man, and
forms a line of separation between him and other created
creatures which will last to eternity. Man is not called into

* Drydcn's Ovid, Met. i., 70, 77, 81-86.
10

• *

LECTURE II.

1 L
i li

r\\.

existence by a mere fiat of God, as was the case with the pre-
vious acts of creation, '-let there be light," " let the waters
swarm," tfec. ; but his creation is distinguished as being by
the immediate act of God himself, as is distinctly stated in
eh. ii. 7, '' And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life : and
man became a living soul." It is by this act of God's breath-
ing ill the nostrils of Adam the "breath of life," that man
became the image and likeness of God. It is for this reason
also, that the crime of murder was by divine commandment
to be punished by death ; '* Whoso sheddeth man's blood,
by man shall his blood be shed ; .for in the image of God
made he man." (Gen. ix., 2.) Hence, he that taketh man's
life effaces by that act the image of God. It is for this rea-
son also that the Psalmist says : " For thou hast made him "
(i.e., man) " a little lower than the angels." (Psalm, viii., 6.
Eng. ver , v. 5.) Ziegler, an eminent German writer, has
also very pertinently remarked on this passage : '' The breath
of God became the soul of man ; the soul of man, therefore,
is nothing but the breath of God. The rest of the world ex-
ists through the word of God ; man through his peculiar
breath. His breath is the seal and pledge of our relation to
God." Hence, Solomon also said that " the spirit shall re-
turn unto God who gave it." (Eccl. xii.^ 7.)

I have now, gentlemen, laid the subject of the JMosaic re-
cord of the creation before you to the best of my abilities,
and should I, according to the opinion of some 'of you, not
have entirely succeeded in clearing up all the difficulties which
beset this profound subject, let it be ascribed to my inability
to do so, and not to the sacred narrative as containing any-
thing adverse to the teaching of the natural sciences. In
treating on this subject, I can safely say that I have not taken
a one-sided view, but have, on the contrary, carefully weighed

• •

LECTURE II.

all the objections which have been urged against the Mosaic
accoupt.

Should I have been successful, even in the least degree, to
contribute in rendering the narrative more clear, I shall deem
myself amply rewarded for the labour I have bestowed upon
these lectures.

■.;;,.., M ^, -v riNIS. ' '■■•■ -.;.,h

■^ •■ ■ I i ' ■ ' , r ■■.'■':'.■•

:>: ■'■

'v.-,,. .

'':■.•; , \ :u

ill;.

I.;-;

TO THE READER.

Should these lectures meet with a favourable recei)tion by
the public, the author intends to continue the subject, and
take up other controverted and interesting Biblical subjects.
Each pamphlet will, however, be complete in itself.

J. M. H.

ilj:

•

I by

and

sets.

■'■■/■■

_;y

,'r -^^^^nm