of the documents which have been placed in their hands by the Divine Wisdom and Goodness. If it be true that Scripture has provided us with a clear Natural History of the wonders of creation, by the statements of that history we must, of course, be prepared to abide, as faithfully as by the representation which Scripture has given us of other historical events. But before either party commit themselves to the mischievous and officious rashness of putting enmity between philosophy and Scripture, let each of them,-both the adherents and the pupils of philosophy, and the champions of Scripture, be quite sure that they have rightly comprehended and expounded the records in which they respectively profess to search for the truth.

66

It is well known that one expedient resorted to for bringing the testimony of geology into accordance with that of the Bible, has been, to expand the six days of creation into six demiurgic periods of indefinite length. This expedient, it is also well known, has been emphatically denounced by many distinguished divines, as a virtual surrender of the authority of the Sacred Record. "The testimony of the Sacred Historian," says Bishop Horsely, "is peremptory and explicit. No expressions could be found "in any language, to describe a gradual progress of the work for "six successive days, and the completion of it on the sixth, in "the literal and common sense of the word day, more definite "and unequivocal than those employed by Moses; and those "who seek or admit figurative expositions of such expressions as these, seem to be not sufficiently aware, that it is one thing to "write a history, and quite another thing to compose riddles."* And it is very remarkable that this same expedient seems, of late, to have found as little favor with the philosophers as with the divines. "Another indiscretion," says Professor Sedgwick, "has been committed by some excellent Christian writers on the "subject of Geology. They have not denied the facts established "by this science, nor have they confounded the nature of Physical "and Moral Evidence. But they have prematurely, (and therefore, "without an adequate knowledge of all the facts essential to the "argument), endeavoured to bring the natural history of the "earth into a literal accordance with the Book of Genesis; first, by extending the periods of time implied by the six days of the Creation, (and whether this may be rightly done, is a "question only of criticism, and not of Philosophy); and secondly, "by endeavouring to shew that, under this new interpretation of "its words, the narrative of Moses may be supposed to compre"hend and to describe in order, the successive Epochs of Geology.

66

* Bishop Horsely's Sermons. Vol. I. p. 455. 2nd Edition.

66

66

"It is to be feared that truth may, in this way, receive a double injury and I am certain that the argument just alluded to "has been unsuccessful. The impossibility of the task was, however, "(as I know by my own experience), a lesson hard to learn. But "it is not likely again to be attempted by any good Geologist."* Well, then, let us suppose this project to be dismissed; or, at least, to be suspended for the present, as premature. It will then remain to be considered, whether there is any thing in the language of the Book of Genesis which compels us to include, within the six demiurgic days, the production of those primordial elements of which the universe is composed. Lord Rosse appears to be fully satisfied that there is nothing in the Bible to extort from us this belief. Moses," he observes, "does not "assert that that, on the first day, God created the heaven and "the earth. His words amount to nothing more than a general "statement, that, at some indefinite period, these elements were "called into being by the will of the Omnipotent Creator. St. "John says, In the beginning was the Word; and the same was "in the beginning with God. Precisely similar to this is the "language of Moses; In the beginning God created the heaven "and the earth: that is, he created the materials of them ante"cedently to the commencement of time; but he had not yet "begun to shape and fashion them in the manner which they 66 were afterwards to assume. This he did not begin to do, till "the first of the six days. It is therefore expressly stated, in the "second verse, that the earth was without form and void, and "darkness was on the face of the waters. How long it remained "in this state, whether for years, or for hundreds and thousands "of years, we are not told. But it is very important to observe that, while in this state, the waters, according to Moses, were "uppermost, and therefore it is reasonable to presume, that "all the rest of the materials were then, as La Place repre"sents them, originally settled in layers, each layer above the "other, in the order of their densities." (Append. p. 412.) In this view of the matter he, of course, has the concurrence of the geologists. "The only way," says Professor Sedgwick, "to "escape from all difficulties, pressing on the questions of cos"mogony, has been already pointed out. We must consider the "old strata of the earth as monuments of a date long anterior to "the existence of man, and to the times contemplated in the "moral records of his creation. In this view, there is no collision

66

Sedgwick's Discourse on the Studies of the University. Append. Note F. Cambridge, 1833.

66

"between physical and moral truth. The Bible is left to rest "on its appropriate evidences, and its interpretation is left to "the learning and good sense of the critic and the commentator; "while geology is allowed to stand on its own basis, and the philosopher to follow the investigations of physical truth, wher"ever they may lead him, without any dread of evil consequences; "and with the sure conviction that natural science, when followed "with a right spirit, will foster the reasoning powers, and teach us "knowledge fitted at once to impress the imagination, to bear on "the business of life, and to give us exalted views of the univer"sal presence and unceasing power of God."*

Let it, then, be conceded, for the present, that this is so; and that the two first verses of Genesis are, as Lord Rosse contends, only introductory to the narrative which follows. In that case, the moving of the Spirit of God upon the face of the waters may, reasonably enough, be understood to denote the influence and operation of the Spirit's creative and plastic energy upon the compound mass, throughout the whole period anterior to the creation of man. There may, perhaps, be something rather dreary and repulsive to the imagination, in the thought of a vast and measureless abyss of time, during which nothing was going on but the slow deposition of strata, and perhaps the development of organic life, for the most part, in its lower and more imperfect forms. But then it should be recollected, that there was either this, or-nothing! And it would surely be difficult to say, why the contemplation of mere vacuity should be more comfortable or cheerful, than the imaginary spectacle of Supreme Power, gradually working out its beneficent purposes upon a chaotic congeries of materials. It is altogether beside the purpose, to say, that the whole of the great result might have been effected in an instant by the fiat of Omnipotence. For we know, if we know any thing, that it is not inconsistent with the majesty of Omnipotence, to work gradually, and slackly, as men count slackness. Many of the grandest operations of the God of Nature and of Grace, are slow and tedious to our puny apprehensions. But He who inhabiteth eternity, hath eternity to work in. And, whether his might be put forth in a stately and deliberate march, which wearies the impatient spirit of man, or in sudden and irresistible manifestations, which overwhelm the faculties of man-in either case, we may be perfectly assured that his working is in perfect harmony with his goodness, his wisdom, and his power.

In saying this, however, we desire not to be understood as

* Sedgwick, ubi supra,

contending for the absolute certainty of the position in question. We accept it rather as a sort of provisional hypothesis, which is to await the final result of scriptural criticism on the one hand, and of more extended scientific inquiry on the other. And, with this hypothesis in our hand, let us proceed to the first of the demiurgic days. The work of this day is announced in words, whose sublimity extorted the admiration of a heathen critic,-Let there be light, and there was light. Here, then, arises the question—are we to collect from this passage that the luminous element was, at this period, first brought into existence? Or, are we merely to understand that it was then so modified, and so combined, as to fit it for the use of the animated and vegetable natures, the production of which was speedily to follow? Did the ethereal fluid then, actually and literally, begin to be? Or, having pre-existed, was it then, for the first time, brought into that precise condition, which alone could qualify it to do the various offices of light or fire, for the inhabitants by whom the earth was thenceforth to be tenanted? The geologist, we presume, will contend for the latter of these suppositions. We collect as much from the words of Professor "Sedgwick. "Specu"lations like these," he says, "starting at least from actual phenomena, are not without their use. For, without lowering one "jot the proof of a pre-ordaining intelligence, they point, through "a long succession of material changes, towards a beginning of things, when there was not one material quality fitted to act on 66 senses like our own. And thus they take from nature that as"pect of unchangeableness and stern necessity, which has driven some men to downright atheism, and others to reject all na"tural religion."* We, likewise, collect as much from the obvious necessities of the hypothesis itself. For it must be observed, that "the lunar theory teaches us that the internal strata, as well as the external outline of our globe, are elliptical; their centres being coincident, and their axes identical with that of the sur"face; a state of things incompatible with a subsequent accom❝modation of the surface to a new and different state of rotation "from that which determined the original distribution of the 'component matter;" and, we may add, clearly incompatible with a state of rotation, commencing only after a solid spherical nucleus had been formed within. Now, if this be so, it seems inevitably to follow, "that the spheroidal form of the earth must "have preceded all geological phenomena, and makes probable "the condition of primeval fusion; and, following the same train

66

66

66

66

66

*Sedgwick's Discourse, &c. &c. p. 24.

Reports of the British Association, 1831-1832. Note to p. 407, 408.

"of thought, we have only to imagine another accession of heat, "and the whole earth must have been dissipated through pla"netary space, and have appeared (were there then an eye like our own to behold it), like a mere expanded nebulosity."* According to the hypothesis before us, then, the mass of our globe was once in a state of fusion. And how was there to be fusion, if there was no heat? And is not the element of heat, if not identical with that of light, for the most part, in the closest association with it? If, therefore, this hypothesis is to stand, how are we to understand the words, Let there be light? Are we to take them in their literal and rigorous import, as summoning into existence a perfectly new element, distinct from that of heat? Or are we to consider this decree as instantaneously communicating to an element, already existing, some peculiar and additional property, or influence, which might qualify it to "act on senses like our own," and so to become, to us, the agent now known by the name of light or fire? Even if this supposition should be adopted, we can perceive in it nothing which stands in audacious opposition to the announcement of scripture. For it can scarcely be doubted, that the various properties which now belong to the primordial elements have, at some time or other, been assigned to them by the Supreme will. All those elements, as Sir J. Herschel has observed, "have the essential "character of a manufactured article."† And if so-whenever the All-wise and All-powerful Artificer might be pleased to invest any one of them with new qualities, or to assign to it new modes of operation-the effect might fitly enough be spoken of as a fresh result of creative energy; and this, more especially, in a popular statement, designed, not for the advancement of science, but purely for the purpose of asserting the sovereignty of God, and recording the wonders of his omnipotence. On this subject, however, we speak, as becomes us, distrustfully and cautiously. Whether the soundest biblical critics will acquiesce in this accommodation of the passage to the views of physical science-or whether they will judge that, by this concession, the plain declarations of Scripture will be dangerously tampered with-we shall not here venture to anticipate. We speak not in the spirit of dogmatism, but of patient and candid inquiry. And we merely beg to point out this, as one of the questions that must seriously be considered, before the matter can be brought to a satisfactory adjudication.

But again we learn, that before the word went forth, let there Hersch. Nat. Philos. p. 38.

* Sedgwick's Discourse, &c. p. 24.