Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

ters,) asserted the principle here laid down, not only that there should be a distinction made between the work of creation and that of organization or formation, but that the six days assigned by the cosmogony of Moses thereto, should be extended to six demiurgic periods, he still treats those periods as of varying and consequently indefinite length. It is difficult, however, for us to conceive why one day, the first, for instance, should be supposed to embrace a period of three thousand years; the third, of five thousand; the fifth, of seven thousand, and the intermediate days of proportionate variation; and especially if, by analogy of language as he asserts, these days are to be understood "homogeneously," adopting, as he does, the seventh day as the criterion of measurement to the rest. Now, of this seventh day he says, that it is in truth a period commensurate with the duration of the created universe. And again, that it is a period of not less duration than six millenaries, i.e. of six thousand years. Here then, so far as his authority goes, we are safe in our estimate of the seventh day at six thousand years; for it is not of less duration than six millenaries. Wherefore, then, this doubt as to the distinct limits set to the duration of the created universe? Why, what that duration will be, says he, no one knows save the Father only; in proof of which he quotes St. Matthew, chapter xxiv., verse 36. But this passage, as we shall prove in its proper place, does not

2

4

3

1. Faber's Trea. vol. I., p. 112.

2. Treatise, &c. vol. I., p. 116. 3. Ibid, p. 117. 4. Ibid, p. 116.

-it

relate to the limits set to the created universe : speaks of the period of the SECOND ADVENT of Christ; which, as the Scriptures teach us, is to precede the destruction of the present earth and heavens, the time of which, between the present and its actual consummation, as to the day and hour, (not the year,) is known only to the Father. And we now assert, and challenge proof to the contrary, that the period of the second appearing of Christ, in its day and hour aspect, is the ONLY period, in unfulfilled prophetic chronology, concerning which, it can consistently be said that there is any uncertainty. The difference between the chronology of the Hebrew and Samaritan versions of the Scriptures, of which Mr. Faber speaks,' will hereafter receive due attention, and the reasons assigned why precedence should be given to the former.

In conclusion I would observe, that the misapprehension of the import of a single passage of Scripture, as that of Matthew xxiv. 36, has, to my mind, involved this part of the above learned treatise in a style of composition, the tendency of which is to defeat, in a measure, its own object, by undermining whatever of previous convictions may have been produced. The writer says "With respect to the analogy of language, we are told, that the Lord fashioned the world in six days, and that he rested on the seventh;" which analogy of language, he says, requires us to understand these days homogeneously. And then he puts the question, as to "what specific (or, as I suppose

1. Treatise, &c. vol. 1., p. 117.;

3

[ocr errors]

definite) period it (i. e. the term day) describes in the Mosaic history of the creation?" to which he adds"for, just as we understand one of these days, so must we understand them all,"1i. e. if one day (the seventh) is a natural or solar day, so are all or if one day (the seventh) is not less than six millenaries, so are all. Now, from premises thus assumed, one would naturally enough be led to look for specific results. Yet under the argument for the extension of the six demiurgic days, as founded in the discoveries of physiologists, he speaks of these "six creative days" as being "six periods of vast, though 'to us unknown duration;" and farther on he makes "each a period of more than six millenaries." But this he thinks is all satisfactorily accounted for in the indefinite import of the original Hebrew word day, which that word in English so imperfectly expresses. * But we ask whether, because a word in scriptural phraseology is considered equivocal, i. e. that in one place it may mean one thing, and elsewhere it may mean another, that therefore its true and definite sense cannot be ascertained? No biblical scholar will admit this for a moment. The subject with which it stands connected is the key to unlock its import. Indeed, it was this very mode of interpretation which Mr. Faber adopted in the commencement of his investigations of this subject. Sometimes, says he, it (the term day) denotes a single revolution of the earth round its axis: sometimes it denotes a revolu

1. Treatise I. pp. 112, 113. 2. Ibid, pp. 120, 121. 3. Ibid, p. 126. 4. Ibid, vol. I., pp. 119, 120.

2

tion of the earth round the sun, or what we call a natural year: 1 sometimes it denotes a whole millenary: sometimes it denotes a period of probably great, but of wholly indeterminate length; &c. Now, let the reader turn to the passages referred to, and see if, in each instance, there is not a specific, definite sense given to it.

Here therefore, we shall retrace our steps, in order to a recapitulation of the argument, that each of the six days organization or formation of the previously created chaotic elements mentioned in the cosmogony of Moses, must have greatly exceeded the length of a natural or solar day.

Our first argument was founded on the ordinary and obvious process of organization as therein described, which we illustrated by a comparison of the work of the third day, the period of organization of the vegetable family, with those of the fifth and sixth days, which were appropriated to the formation of fishes, birds, animals, reptiles, and finally, MAN. For, as the products of vegetation on the third day, were the only means of sustenance to all animals not carnivorous, &c., they must either have been formed by miracle in a mature state, (which we have demonstrated could not be,) or else time must have been allowed them for their natural growth.

1. Num. xiv., 34; Ezek. iv., 6; Dan. xii., 11, 12; Rev. xi., 3, 9; xii., 6.

2. Ps. xc., 4; 2 Pet. iii., 8.

3. Isa. ii., 12; xiii., 6; Joel i., 15; Zeph. i., 7, 8, 18; Mal. iv., 5; 1 Thess. v., 2; 2 Per. iii., 10.

grew,

But we adopted the latter conclusion, on the ground that, as the sacred historian informs us, "God made 99 i i. e,, HERB of the field, BEFORE it every before it sprouted or germinated; and if herbs, then by parity of reason, PLANTS also: on which principle, without the intervention of a superfluous miracle, all animals dependant on them for food, would have an abundant supply as soon as required, they not having been formed till the fifth and sixth days; while, on the contrary supposition, except by miracle, they must all have perished from hunger.

Our next argument for the extension of the six days to six periods, was founded on the physiological structure of our globe. Under this argument we premised, first, that the popular opinion that the first creation was stamped with absolute perfection, was contrary not only to the opinion of the Church in her best and purest ages, but also to fact for,

[ocr errors]

1. Existing fossil remains, found amid the wonders of the subterranean world, as they cannot be accounted for on the principle of the universal deluge, none of the genus of land-animals which entered by pairs into the Ark which Noah having, by that catastrophe, become extinct, it follows that they must have existed prior to that event; and if so, then prior to the creation of MAN; evidence of which is furnished from the fact, first, that the Strata in which these fossils are deposited, have been deranged, which proves them to have existed prior to the deluge,

1. Gen. ii., 4, 5,

« PreviousContinue »