"The inquiries you make concerning the word yom, in Genesis i. I will briefly answer. It does not signify an indefinite period of time, but always some specific and definite one, when employed as it is in Gen. i. in the singular number. It sometimes means a specific day of the week; sometimes lo-day, that is this day; sometimes a specific day, or season of calamity, joy, particular duty, action, suffering &c. It is only the plural yamim, which is employed for time in an indefinite way, as, in many days to come, days of my life, &c. But even here the plural in most cases is a limited one-limited by some adjective, numeral, &c. and yamim signifies, therefore, a limited portion of time; often it stands for a year."

"In general, the Hebrew word that means either day or days, corresponds quite well with our English word, by which we translate it. Thus, when we say, in the day of his calamity he will repent; in the day of his prosperity he will rejoice; in the day when God will judge; all the days of his life; his days will be short; in past days; at a future day; &c., we express ourselves in all respects as the Hebrew scriptures do.

"But when the sacred writer in Gen. i. says, the first day, the second day, &c., there can be no possible doubt, none I mean for a philologist, let a geologist think as he may,—that a definite day of the week is meant, which definite day is designated by the numbers first, second, third, &c. What puts this beyond all question in philology, is that the writer says specifically, that the evening, and the morning were the first day, the second day, &c. Now is an evening and a morning a period of some thousands of years? Is it in any sense when so employed, an indefinite period? The answer is so plain and certain that I need not repeat it."

66

Plain as it is, however, I have never seen a geologist notice it. He has his reasons, no doubt, for this, and one reason also, may be, that he analyzes his rocks and his coal strata, somewhat better than he does Hebrew roots. What have a priori speculations, however, to do with such a matter? If Moses has given us an erroneous account of the creation, so be it. Let it come out, and let us have the whole. But do not let us turn aside his language to get rid of difficulties that we may have in our speculations."

"When the great Lord of the Sabbath ordained that the seventh day of the week should be kept as holy time, because on the seventh day, God rested from all his work, and finished his work in six days,' how, in the name of common sense, did Moses expect, in communicating such a command, that the people of Israel would understand him as meaning a period of 6000 years, for each of the days in which God created? And, if they did so understand him, what reason could this be for the Hebrews to keep holy every seventh day of the week? The whole thing bears on the face of it, the appearrnce of something monstrous and incredible. No philologist can ever believe it."

"Then as to the taste of such a conceit. The Creator, who spake and it was done; who commanded and it stood fast,' who said let there be light, and light was;' this great and glorious Creator-the Almighty God, 36,000 years in making a world!"

Andover, 5th Feb., 1833.

Mr. Penn's Criticism. It is believed that few, at the present day, will venture to throw themselves into the scale of philology in opposition to Professor Stuart; and yet to show the coincidence of authority on this point, we will quote the opinion of another able critic who, at the same time, has spent many years in geological investigations.

In the sequel of twenty octavo pages, which Mr. Granville Penn has written on this subject, he comes to the following conclusions, and which the reader may observe, are precisely those of Prof. Stuart.

The Hebrew noun yom, which means day, is always definite in its import, and essentially excludes the wide, and extensive notion which we attach to the English word period. The peculiar signification of yamim, the plural of yom, is a point totally irrelative to the present question, which turns exclusively upon the singular yom; that singular noun, which is the word used by Moses in his history of each day of the creation, and which alone we have to consider, never in any single instance denotes a year, but

* Author of the "Comparative Estimate of the Mineral and Mosaical Geologies." London, 1825, 2d Ed.

only each of the individual parts of a year, which lie between two sun sets. It is true, that it sometimes is represented as denoting time, but in that case it always denotes and defines, actual time, or time actually impending-and we might with just as much foundation affirm, that the Greek singular hemera, the Latin dies, the French jour, or the English day, are terms peculiarly indefinite, and would be more accurately expressed by periodus, periode, and period, as to affirm it of the Hebrew singular yom.

Since then yom in the singular, is the term applied by Moses to each of the six days of creation-since the operations executed in each of those days were creative acts, to which acts time could contribute no co-operation-and since the series of those six days, with the following seventh day, were specially presented, as the exemplar of seven days, to be perpetually observed from thenceforth, in sequence, and succession, in imitation and commemoration of them-there is no ground whatever, either in true criticism, or true philosophy, that will at all, either authorize, or justify, an interpretation of the days of creation different from that which they received from the age of the historian until a recent date-namely, a measure of time lying between two sun-sets.*

Thus it appears beyond all doubt, that the Hebrew word yom, which is translated day, as it is employed in the Mosaic history of the creation, cannot be extended to a period beyond twenty-four hours, without a gross misinterpretation, or wilful violation of the plain and obvious meaning of the sacred writings.

WHAT ARE THE GEOLOGICAL FACTS WHICH CONTRADICT THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF GENESIS.

Having, we hope, shown to the satisfaction of the reader, that the hypothesis of a longer period than six natural days, for the completion of the work of creation, is not only unwarranted by the terms of the common_translations, but is entirely incompatible with many other pas sages of Scripture; having also proved, by the best philo

* Comparative Estimate, vol. i. p. 288-295.

logical authorities, that the terms in which the history of the creation was originally written, cannot be made to signify that a day of creation was a period of more than one diurnal revolution of the earth; we will now examine some of the facts and circumstances, which have been supposed not to coincide with the common reading of Genesis.

We have shown, in the preceding work, that it is not an uncommon circumstance to find shells, plants, and the bones of various animals in the deep strata of the earth, and we have stated that many of these are of species now unknown, and are, therefore, considered extinct.

Some authors who are professed believers in the truths of inspiration, have proposed to account for these appearances, by supposing that there have been many successive creations before the earth was brought into its present form, and sometime between that period called in Scripture, "the beginning," and the time when the present races were created. In this manner it has been proposed to avoid the difficulty concerning the Mosaic days; to account for the extinction of the lost species during the lapse of ages, and thus give geologists ample time to reconcile all the appearances which the earth presents, both with reason, philosophy, and scripture.

The only ground on which it can be claimed that such a hypothesis may be reconciled with scripture is, that we are not bound to believe the work of creation detailed by Moses was the first, since we are no where told that this was the case; and, as it is plain, that the heavens and the earth were created before that time, that is, in the "beginning," why may we not suppose that animals of the lower orders, such as live under water, might not also have been created at that time? It appears to us, however, that this docrine cannot be adopted by those who acknowledge the inspiration of the scriptures; for, besides its want of coincidence with what is implied in the history of the creation, namely, that the work was commenced on the first day and finished on the sixth, we are expressly told in Ex. xx. that the whole creation was begun and finished within the compass of six days.

We are bound, therefore, by the terms of the Scriptures, to believe, that every organic substance, found in the strata of rocks, however ancient they may appear to be, and whether of plants, fish, or quadrupeds, originated

within the six days of creation, mentioned by Moses, and that these are the exact representations of their parents then made, or the parents themselves of all similar races now existing.

It is in vain to undertake to support the scriptures by denying some parts, and adopting others, as best suits our convenience. As well may we reject the whole at once; for if one part is false, all are so. Hence if we can believe that a single plant or shell, found in the earth, was created before the period alluded to in Genesis, it would be useless to declare our assent to the truth of the scriptures generally, (and at the same time, account for this appearance, by supposing a more ancient creation than is mentioned by Moses,) since the account he gives excludes any such idea; and, consequently, the two facts cannot be made to coincide with the history. To suppose, therefore, that the organic remains of strata, were formed before the time alluded to in Genesis, implies a denial of the truth of that history.

Strata supposed to be more ancient than is allowed by Moses. Some of the secondary strata which have appeared to geologists to claim a more remote antiquity than the Mosaic history allows, are of the following kinds.

First. Limestone, containing shells of extinct species, and which, from their situations, bear marks of great apparent antiquity. "It must always have been evident to unbiased minds," says Mr. Lyell," that successive strata, containing, in regular order of super-position, distinct beds of shells, and corals, arranged in families, as they grow at the bottom of the sea, could only have been formed by insensible degrees, in a great lapse of ages."

Second. The great number of different strata, observed in some formations, and occasionally amounting to several thousands, are, in the opinions of others, sufficient to indicate a lapse of time which the sacred history does not recognise.

Third. The great amount of alluvial matter, known to exist in some lakes, and the formation of land on the borders of certain seas, (considering how slowly these de