to the completion of the ancient dispensations in the "grace and truth" of the gospel. Nothing can be plainer than that our Lord and his apostles gave honour to Moses as the most faithful servant of God, as an inspired person, and as the initiating prophet of a national dispensation which was constituted by divine authority to be the symbol and preparative of a religion that should be universal and permanent for mankind, the "glad tidings concerning Jesus Christ."*

I trust it will appear in the sequel of these lectures, that we neither torture the Bible to make it speak the language of philosophy, nor suppress or mutilate the facts of nature in order to bring about an agreement with the Bible.

III. An hypothesis was resorted to about thirty years ago by several men of eminence in geological knowledge, such as the late Mr. James Parkinson, Baron Cuvier, and Professor Jameson of Edinburgh; and it has found approvers and advocates more recently; among whom we may reckon Professor Silliman (at least a few years ago,) and the anonymous clergyman who wrote the able Preliminary Essay to Dr. Mantell's Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, published in 1822: but it is now so generally relinquished that more than a brief mention of it will not be necessary. This is, that the Six Days of Creation may be understood of periods of time, of indefinite though of a very great length. Finding in frequent instances of scripture-use, what is indeed the case in all languages, that the term day is put metaphorically to denote any portion of time which has been marked by the accomplishment of some great event or series of events, it was concluded that the same figurative application might be resorted to here. The mind was thus left at liberty to attach to each of these periods any length that the exigency of the case might require, in order to obtain the protracted time which the supporters of this hypothesis knew to be an indispensable provision for the mineral and palæontological formations. They went further, and supposed that the succession of geological beds, with respect to organic

* Besides the whole bearing of the Old Testament prophecies and the writings of the New Testament, particular evidences are Matt. xvii. 3; Luke xvi. 31; xx. 37; xxiv. 27; John i. 17, 46; iii. 14; v. 46, 47; Acts iii. 22; vii. 35; xxvi. 22, 23; xxviii. 32; Rom. iii. 2, 21, 31; iv. throughout; ix. 4, 5; 2 Cor. iii.; Heb. throughout; Rev. xv. 3.

L

remains, exhibited a correspondence with the contents of the sacred narrative in describing the several operations of divine power. Upon this theory a few remarks are submitted.

1. More accurate investigations have proved that the correspondence just mentioned does not exist. Though, to a superficial view, some plausible appearances of this kind present themselves, the scheme fails when it is attempted to be carried into detail.

2. Admitting, what indeed every person must be aware of, that the word is often used in the wide acceptation, as when we speak of "the day of the Son of man,"-" the day of salvation," -the day of human life;-it is evident that this figurative use is employed, more generally indeed in poetical or oratorical diction, but always when the connexion in any given instance makes it unquestionably manifest that a figurative sense is intended. No examples need be brought in proof of this fact: it must be familiar to every person.

Yet there is one instance which is peculiarly important, because it occurs in another of the archaic records with which Moses the inspired and faithful servant of God,* was directed by the Divine Being to commence his narrative. For, it is not irrelevant here to remark, that the earlier part of the Book of Genesis consists of several distinct compositions, marked by their differences of style and by express formularies of commencement. It is entirely consonant with the idea of inspiration, and established by the whole tenor of the scriptural compositions, that the heavenly influence operated in a concurrence with the rational faculties of the inspired men; so that prophets and apostles wrote from their own knowledge and memory, the testimony of other persons, and written documents, to which indeed express appeal is often made. From the

"My servant Moses is not so [on an equality with other prophets,] who is faithful in all my house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently [Heb. in visible form,] and not in dark speeches [obscure representations:] and the similitude of Jehovah he shall behold." Numb. xii. 7, 8; and compare Heb. iii. 2, 5.

The following appear to be the distinct compositions, yet it must be observed that the evidence is not equally clear in every case. I. Gen. i. 1, to ii. 3. II. ii. 4, to iii. 24. III. chap. iv. IV. v. 1, to vi. 8. V. vi. 9, to ix. 29. VI. chap. x. VII. xi. 1–9. VIII. xi. 10–26. IX. xi. 27, and all that follows may be regarded as the records of the house of Abraham. Chap. xxxvi. a separate document, inserted in the most suitable place.

We have these instances in the Old Testament, Numb. xxi. 14, 17, 18, 27-30. Josh. x. 13. 2 Sam. i. 18. 1 Kings xi. 41. 1 Chron. ix. 1; xxix. 29. 2 Chron.

evidence of language and of matter, we have no slight reasons for supposing that Moses compiled the chief parts of the Book of Genesis, by arranging and connecting ancient memorials, under the divine direction, and probably during the middle part of his life, which he spent in the retirements of Arabia. Thus, though it is impossible to affirm with confidence such a position, yet it appears far from improbable that we have, in this most X ancient writing in the world, the family archives of Amram and his ancestors, comprising the history of Joseph, probably written in great part by himself; documents from the hands of Jacob, Abraham, Shem, Noah, and, possibly, ascending higher still, authentic memorials from Enoch, Seth, and Adam.

At the fourth verse of the second chapter, commences a new narrative in these words, "These are the generations" (—the Hebrew word is that commonly used to introduce an historical relation, and learned translators render it, in numerous places, by origin, history, account, or some similar word,-)" of the heavens and the earth, in their being created, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens." I read this in the most closely literal version. Undoubtedly the word requires to be understood here, in the less restricted sense of a period of time. But one obvious remark puts an end to all difficulty in the matter. The word used in this place and in chapter v. 1, 2, is not the simple noun; but it is a compound of that noun with a preposition, formed according to the genius of the Hebrew language, and producing an adverb, requiring to be rendered by such words as when, at the time, after.*

3. Upon the very face of the document, it is manifest that in the first chapter the word is used in its ordinary sense. For this primeval record (terminating, as was remarked in a former lecture, with the third verse of the second chapter,) is not a poem, nor a piece of oratorical diction; but is a narrative, in the simple style which marks the highest majesty. It would be an indication of a deplorable want of taste for the beauty of language, to put a patch of poetical diction upon this face of ix. 29; xii. 15; xx. 34. In the New Testament many of the anecdotal portions in the first three Gospels; and see Luke i. 1, 2.

* Examples are numerous; as Exod. xiv. 57; Numb. xxx. 5, &c; Deut. xxi.16; 2 Sam. xxii. 1; Neh. xiii. 15. Many other instances are adduced in Noldii Concord. Partic. Hebr.

natural simplicity. But, one might think that no doubt would remain to any man who had before his eyes the concluding formula of each of the six partitions, "And evening was, and morning was, day one;" and so throughout the series, repeating exactly the same form; only introducing the ordinal numbers, till we arrive at the last, " And evening was, and morning was, day the sixth."

4. If there were no other reason against this, which I may call device of interpretation, it would appear quite sufficient to require its rejection, that it involves so large an extension in the liberty, or license, of figurative speech. Poetry speaks very allowably of the day of prosperity or of sorrow, the day of a dynasty or of an empire: but the case before us requires a stretch of hyperbole which would be monstrous. A few hundreds, or even thousands, of days turned into years, would not supply a period sufficiently ample to meet the exigency of geological reasoning; while this way of proceeding, to obtain the object desired, is sacrificing the propriety and certainty of language, and producing a feeling of revolt in the mind of a plain reader of the Bible.

IV. We advance to the consideration of a theory, which has been held with strong attachment by persons of talent and piety, upon many of whom we cannot think without the feelings of christian affection. At the same time, it is incumbent on me to make an observation which is entitled to be well considered. It is, that the persons to whom I advert, and especially those who have most distinguished themselves as the advocates of this theory, are not practical men, not geologists who have devoted. the continuous labour of weeks and months, I might justly say years, in exploring those regions of Europe and other parts of the earth, which are the most important in a geological sense, because they present the greatest extent of natural sections, elevations, fractures, and outcrops, and the largest abundance and variety of organic remains. But the writers who have most signalized themselves in the advocacy of this view, appear to have chiefly derived their knowledge of geological subjects from the study of books and their own reflections in calm retirement. I am not so presumptuous as to imagine myself qualified to bear this testimony concerning those estimable persons, so as to

exclude all liability to mistake. I utter only the impression made upon my mind, by a small degree of actual knowledge, by credible information from other persons, and above all from the indications of their own writings.

The hypothesis referred to is that which, first, considers the Mosaic record as indubitably affirming the creation of the universe, within the period of six natural days, at an epoch about six thousand years back; then, it regards the interval from the creation to the Deluge, as affording a sufficient lapse of time for the deposition of the chief part of the stratified formations; and finally it considers the remainder of the phenomena as adequately accounted for by the action of the diluvial waters.

That interval, according to the chronology calculated from the Hebrew copy of the Bible, was 1656 years; according to the Greek translation usually called the Septuagint, it was 2262; but according to the estimate in the "Analysis of Chronology of the late Dr. William Hales of Dublin, the period was 2256 years. Professor Wallace brings out, from laborious investigation, 2262.*

1. The first thought that strikes our minds, on a survey of the inquiry, is this; that the materials, of which the advocates of this theory have framed it, are what they have derived from the labours of the very men who hold the opposite doctrine. The men whose persevering toils have brought to light the great facts of Geology, who have traced them through their vast extent, and who have described them with careful precision by their pens and pencils, are represented by this hypothesis as the worst interpreters of those facts; either incapable of drawing logical inferences from their own observations or unwilling to declare what the honest inferences are. Upon the former supposition, it must appear a strange thing that the persons, who have given such distinguished proofs of their general ability, and of their acuteness of penetration in this particular department of scientific study; who possess the resources of those auxiliary sciences which are the best guides in physical inquiry, and the most stern checks upon sanguine minds, to guard them against precipitance or inaccuracy in drawing * On the True Age of the World, and its Chronology; p. 298. 1844.