Page images
PDF
EPUB

unfolded in nature and providence, as the mode of determining the length of each creative day. Reasoning analogically, as we have once before remarked, nature and providence are "gradual" in their operations; not like "man," who is always for subitaneous violence; but deliberately proceeding, by "gradual evolutions," as illustrated in the physical and intellectual powers of man, to unfold to our view the properties, "first of matter, and then of mind."

Now, take a view of the vastness of the material universe of God, and I ask if there be any thing unreasonable in the conception of the possibility, that a greater period of time than that of six natural days of twenty-four hours each, was occupied in their formation? and if not, then arguing a posteriori, may we not attribute a period of proportionable, though of course indefinite amplitude, to the existence of the chaotic elements?

Without further preliminaries, we now observe, that in reference to this subject, there are four classes of opinions :

The first (and the popular opinion) excludes all distinction between the act of creation and that of formation; and assigns six natural days, of twenty-four hours each, to the production of the material universe.

The second admits the above distinction, and, like the first class, assigns six natural days, of twenty-four hours each, to the organization of the primeval aqueous matter; but asserts a previous organization to that of the six days, of vast, but indefinite length.

- The third also admits the above distinction; but

extends the six days to six periods, each of immense, though of various and indefinite length; and,

The fourth, which is the standard adopted in this Essay, the same as the third, with the exception that it prefers to equalise the time allotted to each period.

Before we proceed, however, to an examination, upon the basis of Scripture, of these several theories, it will be well to notice the expositions of that class of critics who assign an existence, prior to that of the earth, to other planets or worlds, which compose our astronomical system. The hypothesis assumed by these critics is as follows, viz.: That the chaotic mass out of which this earth was formed, was produced by the destruction of one of the previously existing planets, by the shock of some comet.

Names, ancient and modern, and preferring high claims to our regard, are quoted in support of this system. Basilius, Archbishop of Cæsarea, towards the close of the fourth century, in his commentary on Genesis, says, it is probable that something of creative nature existed before this World, though no narrative of it is furnished. Smith and Jennings follow Hally, the author of the above system, in the particular form in which it is there given; and with this harmonizes the claims of the celebrated Herschel, of having discovered, by his great telescope, that there are stars, the light of which has been two millions of years in its progress to our earth; which opinion is also adopted by Mr. Vince, the professor of Astronomy in the University of Cambridge.

The principal arguments adduced in support of this hypothesis, are,

1. That the cosmogony of Moses contemplates simply a history of the origin of the human species; all the other parts thereof being incidental. But, to our apprehension, this argument is irrelevant, and tends only to derogate from the wisdom and power of the Almighty, as displayed in the creation and formation of the material universe. True, the human species constitute the noblest part of God's handy-work; true, also, the earth was created as the abode of man. Taking the history, however, as it stands, and we see not why one event, as therein narrated, is not relatively as important as the other. The cosmogany of Moses was designed to furnish an account of the origin of the material universe, of which man, so far as it respects his animal nature, forms a part. Man's superiority, when compared with the other parts of the material world, consists in his endowment of a nature, of qualities, of attributes, not inherent in matter. He is a spiritual, immortal being-not that he possesses essential immortality; but only as it is the gift of his Creator-nor, after his sin, did this supernatural endowment shield him from the curse, "from DUST thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return."

2. Job, chap. xxxviii. 4-7, is quoted in proof of the existence of other parts of the creation before this globe. The veriest tyro, however, upon the face of that passage cannot but perceive that God is addressing himself to Job out of the whirlwind, demanding to know if he were present either at the creation of

organization of the material heavens and earth. "The sons of God" here spoken of, interpreters generally understand to be, that order of intelligent agents, called angels, the priority of whose existence to that of the material universe, or of man, none deny. "The morning stars," however, are quoted as decisive proof that there were pre-existent planets as well as angels. In proof, it is asserted that the 14th verse of the 1st chap. of Genesis, "Let there be light in the firmament of heaven," does not refer to the primary organization of the sun, moon, and stars, &c., but to a clearing in the superincumbent atmosphere of our globe, so as to render them visible! Now, to this we remark, that all that is said of the organization of light, and the formation of the planetary system, the sun, moon, and stars, relate to the first and fourth days. On the second day the air, or atmospheric expanse was formed, and which is represented to have been cleared of its superincumbent qualities, in order to expose to view the previously invisible planets. But we ask, was it on the first or the fourth day that the planets were first formed? Certainly the latter. See verses 14-16. And that they were so formed primarily on the fourth day, and not on the first, is incontrovertibly demonstrated by the 17th and 18th verses, where we read, "And God

7777 SET them (the sun, moon, and stars,) in the firmament of heaven," for the express purpose that they might "give light upon the EARTH, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to DIVIDE the light from the darkness.” This had not been done on the first day. All that was then accom

plished was a seperation of the elements of light and darkness, produced by the action of fire on the aqueous congeries.

Still it is said, in proof, that the earth we inhabit is merely a resuscitated globe, and that it had been a world many ages before it became the abode of

man;

3. That the passage rendered, "and the earth was without form and void," may be rendered, "but the earth became a ruin and a desolation." To this rendering we oppose the following—" And the earth was [as] a ruin and a desolation;" i. e., in appearance it resembled a vast city buried in ruins, and covered with desolation. With this agrees not only our excellent English version, but also the Septuagint and the Vulgate; the former of which has "d yn HN άógaros," and the latter, "terra autem ERAT inanis et vacua." Of those of more modern date, Luther renders it, "waste and empty;" Le Sage, “a solitude and desert;" Gaddes, "desolate and waste." It is also worthy of remark, that with these renderings agree the original 7 translated, "the earth," which with its root, signifies swift motion, indicative of that tremulous, confusedly agitated motion to and fro, of the earthly matter, (q. d. the rushing chaos,) the terra prima, the semi-formative of the world, as yet in embryo, and as having just received the impulsive fiat of its great Creator, who

"Nor stay'd, but on the wings of cherubim
Uplifted, in paternal glory rode

Far into chaos, and the world unknown."

« PreviousContinue »