JA day of the first chapter of Genesis be not allowed to have been ended at the time when Moses received the commandments in "tables of stone, written with the finger of God*" on Mount Sinai, or even supposing it to have terminated prior to that event, and to have consisted of a long period of years; then in this xxth chapter of Exodus we find the the seventh day, used in two different senses in the course of two succeeding verses†,—in one case to signify the duration of twenty-four hours -in the other, a period of 6000 years. The anonymous author of the "Preliminary Essay," affixed to Mr. Mantell's work on " The Fossils of the South Downs," &c. published in the year 1822-a work of laborious geological research, (the value of which however is by no means enhanced by the appendage of the" Essay" to its pages,) has fallen into an error similar to that of Mr. Faber, with regard to the mode of rendering the word ",-Iom,-Day, although he does not, with the author of " The Three Dispensations," apply a similar length of time either to all the six days of creation, or to the seventh day of rest. "It will probably occur," observes this writer, "to most readers, that they can recollect the time, when they presumed that every day and night mentioned in the first * Exod. xxxi. 18, and Deut. ix. 10. + Exod. xx. 10 and 11. chapter of Genesis must be strictly confined to the term of twenty-four hours, though there can be no doubt but that Moses never intended any such thing*. Critics, moreover, inform us, that his words ought never to have been so translated, as to lead us into any suspicion that he intended to make any declaration to that effect. We are told, that the word translated DAY, does in fact signify an indefinite period of time; but common sense ought to have led us to the same conclusion in regard to the three first days. For how could Moses intend to limit the duration of the day to its present length, before, according to his own shewing, the sun had begun to divide the day from the night?" For an able and satisfactory reply to the query contained in the latter part of the above extract, respecting the formation of light, and the appearance of the solar orb, as it regarded the earth, I would refer the reader to "The Comparative Estimate." Had this anonymous writer, who, it seems, is "a Clergyman of the * The late Mr. Parkinson in his "Outlines of Oryctology," in bringing forward his ideas upon this subject, has made use of language rather more moderate than that of the author of the Preliminary Essay He says in p. 336 of the Outlines, &c. "With submission and deference—may not the days of Creation be considered as periods of long and indefinite durations?" The Fossils of the South Downs, by G. Mantell, F.L.S., &c. p. 2. Established Church," been himself a critic in the original Hebrew-had he not confided in the false criticism of others he would have known that the word,-Iom,-Day, in the singular number, never does imply a period of undetermined length: but that, on the contrary, such an interpretation of the word is "a sense which the Hebrew language absolutely and radically disclaims." Had he carefully examined the original, he would not, too, so readily have admitted the Heathen doctrine of a chaos, nor have had the temerity to have penned the following passages. "As to the manner in which the mass of the earth came into existence, we are left wholly in the dark; Moses simply declares it to be a creation; and he claims the glory of its creation for the one true God *." "As to the period when this mass was made, he only says that it was in the beginning;' a period this, which might have been a million of years before, just as well as on or immediately previous to the three first days. But that it could not have been on these appears to me plain, from Moses' own words in the second verse, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' Moses here describes an * Fossils of the South Downs, &c. p. 3. intermediate state of our planet between the creation in the beginning and that of the six days; and it is especially remarkable, that he speaks of the earth and water as being actually in existence during this intermediate state, the earth was, the deep' of waters' also 'was *?". For a proof of the fallacy of the opinions here hazarded, as well as that of the conclusion of the geologist respecting the deposition of granite from water, "since it is full of regular crystallizations," of that of the existence of orders of created beings on the earth previous to the Mosaic account†, and of the authority of Patrick respecting the chaotic pe *Fossils of the South Downs, &c. p. 3. + That it were not consistent with reason to suppose that the ordinary processes of nature were going on for thousands, yea millions of years, previous to the existence of man, for whose support all such processes were instituted, even an heathen seems to maintain the idea-" Sin quærat quispiam, cujusnam causa tantarum rerum molitio facta sit: arborumne et herbarum? quæ, quanquam sine sensu sunt, tamen a natura sustinentur: at id quidem absurdum est. An bestiarum? nihilo probabilius, Deos mutarum et nihil intelligentium causa tantum laborasse. Quorum igitur causa quis dixerit effectum esse mundum? Eorum scilicet animantium quæ ratione utuntur." Cic. de Nat. Deor. lib. ii, cap. 54. Though the above remark is made by Dr. Kidd in the Introduction to his "Outlines of Mineralogy," p. xxii. ; yet does he still lean to the side of a chaos-the ruin of a former world. riod, adduced in a succeeding part of The Preliminary Essay, I must again refer the reader to the pages of the Comparative Estimate. But there is one other part of the Preliminary Essay, which I cannot pass over without notice. In speaking of Cuvier, the author makes the following observations. "In the beginning of his last chapter he distinctly states, that if there be any one circumstance thoroughly established in geology, it is, that the crust of the globe has been subjected to a great and sudden revolution.' And while, as to the manner of this revolution, he again speaks of the bed of the last ocean being dry land (according to Moses, the dry land appearing at the word of God); as to the date of this revolution, he makes this most important remark, The epoch of this revolution cannot be dated much further back than five or six thousand years.' A period this, strikingly corresponding with the date probably to be assigned to the third day of the Mosaic creation, which, on the presumption, that the following days after the first appearance of the sun, were actually days of the present length, will be about 5820 years * دو Now by adopting in this case a mode of reasoning similar to that which was employed * Fossils of the South Downs, &c. p. 9. |