We are utterly at a loss what to say of this concession of the learned Professor. Is it so then, that the servant of the Lord God, who wrote down the words of inspiration as they were communicated to him, was so deficient in knowledge or understanding, as to stand corrected by the geologists of the present day? Who committed the error? Who made such a mistake as to put a single day for myriads of years,-for time indefinite? Was it Moses? Certainly not, for he only acted as the instrument by which God communicated to this wicked world the narrative of the creation and the fall of man. Did Moses misunderstand the intent and meaning of the inspired communications, or is his language such that it may convey error instead of truth? If so, why have not errors been found in other parts of his narrative. Who then made this mistake? Before we venture a reply to this question, had we not better ascertain more certainly that our facts are clearly incompatible with the sacred history as it stands, and as it is commonly understood, and as Moses understood it?

Coal Formations. But says Professor Silliman, “In the usual mode of understanding the account, all the immense deposites of coal, and of vegetable and aquatic animal remains, with their vast strata and mountains must have been made within seventy-two hours, for there was no dry land until the third day, and consequently no vegetables." (p. 69.)**" According to the popular understanding," he continues, "the transition and secondary mountains with their coal beds, plants and animals, were therefore, formed in two or three natural days, by physical laws, which is incredible, because it is impossible," (p. 70.)

It is believed that no one, who has given the least attention to this subject, ever supposed that these deposites were made within three days. Nor does the history render such a belief at all necessary. Coal is constantly forming at the present day, as is proved by specimens of lignite partially converted into that substance. The dif ferent formations in which coal is found, show also by their different ages, that coal has been formed at various periods of time.

When God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after

his kind," there is no doubt but the dry land which had so recently been prepared, was immediately covered with. vegetation from the herb, to the largest trees of the forest, and these all in full maturity. How soon after this, those violent changes commenced, which swept these vegetables into lakes and estuaries, to form the first, or lowest beds of coal, is unknown to us; nor can we now ascertain what periods of time elapsed between the formation of different beds of coal lying one over the other, twenty or thirty of which are pierced by some coal shafts. The fact, however of superincumbent coal beds is sufficient to prove beyond all doubt, that the vegetables of which they were formed were deposited at different periods of time.

It is agreed by all naturalists, that the origin of coal was wood, but no one has yet, shown what the conditions, or circumstances were, under which one is converted into the other, and much less the time which nature requires for such a process.

Now supposing, (and no one can show to the contrary,) that the wood of which the oldest beds of coal are formed was gathered immediately after the last day of creation; then according to Dr. Hale's Chronology, we have 2256 years for the carboniferous process, down to the time of the deluge; and 3155 years more for the same process to continue down to the Christian era, making 5411 to the latter period; the whole forming a lapse of 7245 years at the present time.

It is true that many coal beds are at a great depth from the surface, and the strata by which they are covered are ancient, though not primitive formations; while other carboniferous deposites are clearly of a more recent date.

But since it is impossible to determine what periods of time are required to convert wood into coal, or how much time elapsed between the depositions of vegetable matter forming the older and newer beds, and as we know nothing of the circumstances, or degrees of heat, under which this conversion was effected, so it is in vain to conjecture from any analogy observed at the present day, at what period of the world the process commenced.

As we understand the inspired historian, there is allowed us little more than 7000 years, in which to account for the formation of coal beds, and their phenomena, and yet, since these beds were formed at a period when tropical plants grew to enormous sizes under high northern lati

tudes, and when this globe was subject to mighty convalsions, they might have been formed and covered with the intervening strata, within the term of two or three thousand years.

With respect to vegetable and animal remains found in limestone and other secondary rocks, we are equally ig norant of the periods at which they were entombed, and therefore in reference to time, they must be placed on the same ground with the coal formations.

At the close of his treatise on the "Consistency of Geology with the Sacred History," Professor Silliman has the following

"REMARK."

"Suppose that there are inhabitants at the poles of the earth, how might they understand the days of creation? to them a day of light is six months long, and a night of darkness is six months long, and the day made up of night and day, covers a year, and it is a day too, limited by morning and evening." (p. 80.)

We

As this stands alone, and closes Professor Silliman's treatise, we are led to suppose that the question it contains was considered important, and unanswerable. must therefore, view it as deserving a special reply; and if we should succeed in solving the problem to his satisfaction, we hope thus to become the humble means of advancing Professor Silliman one step towards a coincidence of opinion with Moses, in respect to the days of creation.

In the first place, since there are no inhabitants at the poles, the supposition itself is without foundation, and therefore we might justly, on this ground, give an evasive answer; but taking no such advantage, we will suppose that the poles are inhabited, then let us see whether the people would, or would not, be sensible of the diurnal revolutions of the earth.

Our answer requires it to be remembered, that the sun always shines on just one half of the earth, and therefore that the vicissitudes of summer and winter-of light and darkness, at the polar circles are caused by the alternate approach and recession of these parts towards, and from the sun's light.

Now as the Arctic, and Antarctic regions alternately enjoy the light of the sun, so they must of necessity be

alternately immersed in the dark shadow of the earth. But this alternate change cannot take place without throwing these parts into such a position with respect to the sun, that his rays will reach both poles at the same time, which takes place twice in each year, to wit, on, or about the 21st of September and the 21st of March, therefore, at these seasons there is a diurnal succession of day and night at both poles.

Besides, as the earth gradually turns each pole in succession towards the sun, so the line dividing the annual darkness from the light, must by degrees recede from and approach each pole; and as the earth turns constantly on her axis, and as the light of the sun alternately reaches 23° beyond each pole, it is clear, that before the seasons of total night and entire day at the poles, there must be there a period when day and night succeed each other, making together twenty-four hours, as they do at the equator.

Thus it is plain that were the poles inhabited, the people there, equally with those of the equator, would be acquainted with days, "limited by morning and evening."

These inquiries and remarks, have not been made in a spirit of contradicting the opinions of others, but under the sober conviction, that geology as yet presents no facts which when carefully examined, will be found to conflict with the Mosaic History of the creation, as it is commonly received, and as it is allowed the sacred historian himself understood it.

Scripture proof that the Mosaic days were of common length. Unless these days were of common length, how can the sun and moon "be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and for years?" If the days were six thousand years, or indefinitely long, what must have been the length of the scripture seasons and years?

Again, "six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt do no work. For, in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is and rested the seventh day. Wherefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."-Exodus xx.

Thus it appears that this commandment was expressly founded on the fact, that the heavens and the earth were created in six days, and is designed to be in imitation and in

perpetual commemoration thereof. "Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work.” "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth." But the seventh day is the Sabbath, "in it thou shalt not do any work," for the Lord rested on the seventh day, and "therefore blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

Now the commandment to work six days, and rest on the seventh, being in commemoration of the work of creation, and of the resting of the Creator, after it was finished; we would inquire whether this command is not in effect, an express declaration that the creative days were of the same length as those on which men were commanded to labor, and to rest. If therefore, it is discovered, that this is not the case, then we may humbly conceive that the command itself, though religiously observed through all generations to the present time, is no longer binding upon us; for if the days of creation were periods of 1000 years, then by the terms and connection of the command, men are required to labor 6000 years, and to rest 1000 years. The command, therefore, being an impossibility, we are not bound by its requirement.

But the express declaration of the inspired writer, that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth," cannot by any mode of exegesis be made to apply to other than ordinary days, for this declaration refers to a period, when the commandments were given to Moses, that is, about 2500 years after the creation, and therefore long after the ordinary course of nature had been established. These days therefore could only have referred to such as belonged to that period.

Criticism of Prof. Stuart. We have already extended this subject much further than was originally intended, but still, the question whether the Hebrew word, translated day, in the history of the Creation, admits of any other meaning, remains to be more particulaaly examined.

In this examination we must depend entirely on the opinions of Hebrew philologists, and we are gratified that it is in our power to offer such authority, on this part of our subject, as that of Prof. Stuart, of Andover, first stating, that the Hebrew word yom is that which is translated day, the plural of which is yamim.

On this word, Prof. Stuart writes to the author as follows.