in a former part of this chapter, to expose the fallacy of Mr. Faber's interpretation of the word -Iom,-Day, we are constrained to admit from the argument of the author of the Preliminary Essay, that the word D,-Iom, must be used in two different senses in one and the same chapter. The third day, and therefore the first and second days, are not like the fourth, fifth, and sixth days, rendered by him as days of twenty-four hours, but as periods of indefinite length and consequently, it will follow, that the date of the birth of our Lord, and therefore of the space of time elapsed from the creation of the world to the present day, must in like manner be carried back to a much higher, and if we add the "million" of years included in the "beginning," to a still more distant period, than the vulgar computation.

Thus have I endeavoured to point out in the two foregoing instances the absurdity of understanding the word -Iom,-Day, as it refers to the creation, in any other sense, than in that, in which it is commonly understood, viz. of a period of twenty-four hours. Were a greater attention paid by the geologist to the original language of the Old Testament—were a more general acquaintance cultivated with the Hebrew Idiom, I am bold to assert, that, professing, as the Mineral and Mosaical Geologies do pro

fess, to make truth the aim of their researches, it would not be long before they might be brought to coincide with one another: but until that be the case, they will be kept asunder by an impassable limit. To the truth of the assertion that "Sound Philosophy and revealed Religion are naturally connected with each other," I cannot but add an unqualified assent. But I deny the soundness of that Philosophy which is founded on the basis of a false interpretation and misapplication of that language, in which true Religion was first revealed to mankind. That Philosophy cannot, I maintain, be a sound Philosophy, which, discovering certain effects in Geology, endeavours to accommodate the Scripture account to its own preconceived method of determining what must have been their primary causes. That reasoning

cannot surely be accounted correct, which, from false premises, affects to deduce just conclusions.

* Fossils of the South Downs, &c. p. 1.

CHAPTER II.

In the foregoing chapter it has been shewn to be contrary to the idiom of the Hebrew language, and to sound reasoning, to interpret the word D-Iom,-Day, in the account of the creation, and of the promulgation of the law, in any other sense than that of a determined period of twenty-four hours; and the " necessity of the narrative," as contained in our English translation of Gen. ii. 5. requiring it to be extended to an indefinite length, as urged by Mr. Faber, has been demonstrated, by a reference to the Lexicon of the Punctuists, to be as entirely without foundation, as the author of the Comparative Estimate has proved it to be, when tried by the interpretation of the most celebrated Anti-Punctuists. The reasoning of Mr. Penn, in vol. i. part ii. chap. vi. of the Comparative Estimate, on the first day of creation coinciding with the new moon, and his argument on the light succeeding the darkness in vol. i. part ii. chap. iii. will be found to be confirmed, and our English translation of the word -Iom,--Day, in the whole seven days, or the first week of Gen. 1st, will further appear to

be correct from some additional considerations advanced in the present chapter.

The learned German Frank, in his admirable Chronology, has shewn that "the first novilunium, or new moon, coincided with the first day of creation*" Now, it is worthy of remark, that amongst the festivals of the Jews, we find the feast of the new moon, or beginning of months-Exod. xii. 2; Numb. x. 10, xxviii. 11.; Isa. i. 13, 14. It is highly probable, therefore, that this feast was appointed to be held at the new moon, in commemoration of the creation of the world at the first novilunium, the tradition of which had never been entirely lost to mankind. "The feast of the new moon (observes Mr. Horne in his elaborate Introduction to the Critical Study, &c. of the Scriptures,) seems to have been in use long before the time of Moses, who, by the Divine command, prescribed what ceremonies were then to be observed t." "It is an old tradition amongst the Jews (says Beausobre), and received by several Christians, that the world was created at that season of the year;" i. e. at the new moon. And a famous Caraite doctor, named Elias, imagined that "the new moons were observed even in the time. of. Noah and

*

Comparative Estimate, vol. i. p. 232 and 317.

+ Horne's Introduction, &c. vol. iii. p. 322.

Abraham*." "In the Hebrew computation of days, the diurnal measure of darkness always preceded the diurnal measure of light, thus perpetuating a commemoration of the transactions of that first day." Accordingly, we find that the Jews were directed to use this computation of the day from evening to morning, by the express command of Moses, Lev. xxiii. 32; doubtless in reference to the evening or natural night preceding the morning or natural day in the account of the creation in the first chapter of Genesis. The prophet Daniel (Dan. viii. 14), to denote a civil day in his prophecy of the 2300 days, makes use of the compound term pay, evening-morning. And the same portion of time is denominated in Greek νυχθημερον. The Athenians are described as computing the space of a day from sunset to sunrise ‡. Tacitus, in his work upon the ancient Germans, notices, that they reckon their time in a manner different from the Romans, by nights, and not by days §. Cæsar also records a similar practice amongst the Gauls; and traces of this ancient custom

* Beausobre's Introduction to New Test. p. 157. + Comparative Estimate, vol. i. p. 186.

Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticæ, lib. iii. c. 2.

§ Tacitus, de Mor. Germ. c. 11.

Bell. Gall. lib. vi. c. 18.

C