that the words, "let light be," do not mean that light was then created, but that the atmosphere became so far cleared as to be pervious to it, though not yet perfectly transparent; that the words, "let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven," mean not that the sun and moon were then created, but that the atmosphere was rendered pellucid, so that the sun shone forth in all his glory. Dr. Smith further thinks, that the deluge was not universal, that it extended no further than was necessary to destroy the human family. Now, as our author has more than once stated that the interpretation of the Bible is to be conducted by a vigorous process of examination into words and phrases-a process solely grammatical, and which must not be checked or turned out of its straight-forward course by any foreign considerations, the question in my mind is this, Is the interpretation which Dr. Smith has put upon various words and phrases that which a process purely grammatical, conducted on philological considerations alone, unaffected by assumed geological discoveries, would suggest? Dr. Smith thinks it is. I cannot but fancy that he deludes himself; that geological considerations have more extensively affected his explanations of scripture (whether rightly so, or not, I at present say not) than he is aware. To decide the question whether this is so or not we must examine these explanations separately. Let us begin with Gen. i. 1, 2. Dr. Smith maintains that the heavens and the earth were not created in the six days subsequently mentioned, but previously to them, and, for any thing that appears to the contrary, millions of ages before them; and thus he secures time for the assumed geological changes. Now I ask if philological considerations alone would, or could, lead to this opinion? By the phrase, "the heaven and the earth," in the first verse, he himself understands the whole of the dependent uniAre we not obliged, then, on philological grounds merely, to attach the same meaning to the phrase in the 2d chapter, verses 1st and 4th; and in Exodus xx. 11? But in the latter passage it is expressly declared, "that in SIX DAYS the Lord made heaven and earth," &c.; while the commencement of the second chapter is all but equivalent with the same declaration; for the words are, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the hosts of them;" i. e. in six days, as described in the former chapter; for it is immediately added, " And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made," &c. Supposing, then, we had no source of information concerning the age of the world, (I do not mean to acknowledge that geology is a source,) except that which the Scriptures supply, i. e. supposing we were thrown on philological ground exclusively, I venture to ask any unprejudiced man whether he would not, and must not, draw the conclusion that the creation of the heaven and the earth, the production of light, and the division of the light from the darkness, were all of them the work of the first day? I do not say, let it be observed, that the scripture statements will not bear any other sense; nor do I venture to affirm that Dr. Smith's interpretation is not the correct one; but, that he has been led to it by geological and not philological considerations, I hold to be undoubted. It is in vain for Dr. Smith to contend, as he has done,

verse.

N. S. VOL. IV.

Qq

that, because many aforetime, who had no tincture of geological knowledge, held the opinion that the heaven and the earth were created before the first day, they must have been led to that conclusion by reasons purely critical. The conclusion is an inconsequent one. There was what was falsely called science then, and that science, and not philology, may have governed their opinions.

Again, Dr. Smith maintains that on grounds solely philological he is convinced that the connecting particle between the first and second verses does not denote the relation of an immediate sequence with the preceding statement, but of posteriority merely. Now, unless the Doctor is prepared to maintain (which I assume he will not venture to do) that this conjunction never denotes immediate sequence, but exclusively and invariably posteriority, it will be impossible for him to support this opinion. I admit that the Hebrew particle has much greater latitude of signification than our conjunction "and." It sometimes connects one event with another to which it was immediately subsequent; at other times it occurs, between the narratives of events, separated by a considerable interval of time. I am quite prepared, accordingly, to allow that it does not, in the commencement of the second verse, necessarily express the immediate sequence of the events described in the following verses; but that it only expresses posteriority is an assumption resting on no philological grounds. It may, I grant, mean no more, and may be proved to mean no more, but geology must do it, philology cannot. Philology is adverse to the supposition, inasmuch as the cases in which it expresses the relation of posteriority are far less frequent than those in which it denotes that of an immediate sequence. In a doubtful case, then, we ought to be guided in our conceptions by the general rule, or to hold our judgments in suspense; but it cannot be right to affirm that it denotes only posteriority. On this point I may observe, in passing, that it appears to me a subject of regret that Dr. Smith seems to have adopted the reading of a German divine, who translates thus, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. BUT AFTERWARDS the earth became waste and desolate." Does the particle ever bear the sense of afterwards? Is there any philological ground for translating the substantive verb "became ?" I ask, again, whether, if we had no information except that which the Bible supplies concerning the age of the world, we should conceive of any interval between the events recorded in the first and second verses? Would not the impression of all men be that the world was created in a chaotic state, and not that it sunk into that state after its creation? Let it be again observed, that I do not deny that the particle will bear the supposition of an interval; but it appears to me that, if we admit that supposition, it must rest on geological grounds exclusively.

Again, Dr. Smith understands the term earth, in the commencement of the second verse, as comprehending only that portion of its surface which was destined to be the abode of the first man. It ought not to be concealed, however, that this opinion has been but of short duration. Not more than three years ago our author explained the term earth, by the phrase "our planet:" and, in a letter

inserted in the Magazine of Popular Science, he stated that a philological survey of the initial section of the Bible brings out as one of its results, "that at a recent epoch OUR PLANET was brought into a state of disorganization, detritus, or ruin, (perhaps we have no perfectly appropriate term,) from a former condition." Reminded, however, by a brother geologist, in a somewhat taunting manner and tone, that "he did not seem to be aware that" the position just stated is precisely that which is absolutely contradicted by all geological evidence," Dr. Smith exercised "closer attention;" and now he brings out of his philological survey the altered position, (altered, apparently, because the former one contradicted geology,) that a comparatively small portion of the surface of the earth, that region which was to be inhabited by man, had sunk into a condition of superficial ruin.

There seems, however, to be a little misgiving of mind, on the part of Dr. Smith, whether this restricted meaning of the term is, after all, suggested by the philological survey. His language, on this point, is to me remarkable. "I can find no reason against" thus understanding the term. "We are not obliged" to give it, is the substance of what he says, greater comprehension. This is but a poor defence of the result of this second philological survey; and it is worthy of notice that he scarcely casts overboard the result of the first. He could not retain it consistently with geology. Professor Baden Powell succeeded in convincing him of this. Yet it would seem as if philology would not allow him entirely to reject it; for his language is, "I must profess, then, my conviction that we are not obliged, by the terms made use of, to extend the narrative of the six days to a wider application than this; a description, in expressions adapted to the ideas and capacities of mankind in the earliest ages, of a series of operations by which the Being of omnipotent wisdom and goodness adjusted and furnished THE EARTH GENERALLY; but, as the particular subject under consideration here, a PORTION of its surface, for most glorious purposes," &c.

Now, I do not wonder at this somewhat pertinacious clinging to this the original conception of the meaning of the term earth. Consistently with his explanation of its import in the first verse, philology can furnish no other. There it means, he acknowledges, the globe, "our planet," i. e. the whole of it. How can it, then, be conceived to mean only a portion of it, and an inconsiderable portion too, when used a second time with only two words of interval, and in what has all the appearance of being a continuous narrative? It seems to me so impossible to justify this great and radical difference in the translation of the term, that I apprehend Dr. Smith must give up his rendering of the first verse, and maintain, with Professor Bush, of New York, that the words heaven and earth denote the firmament and the dry land, mentioned verses 8 and 10-that the creation of the first verse is merely an anticipative and brief statement of the formation, more fully detailed in the subsequent part of the chapter-that the second verse is first in the order of sense, the two being connected by the particle for, thus, " In the beginning

૨૧૩

God arranged the chaotic materials, for the earth was without form and void," and so needed such arrangement. This translation and explanation do less violence to philology, but they rob us of all proof that the world was, in the proper sense of the word, created by God.

Again, Dr. Smith denies that the darkness of the second verse was total. He denies that the sublime words, "Let there be light, and there was light," are expressive of the creation or separation, or first influence of light. Their grammatical meaning may be thus expressed, "Let the atmosphere become so far cleared as to become pervious to light, and the atmosphere was cleared." Now I ask whether this interpretation has been gathered from these words "by a process solely grammatical"- a process not "turned out of its straight-forward course by any foreign considerations?" Has philology only been consulted? How can it be thought so? The best mode of ascertaining the grammatical sense of the words, "Let there be light," is to compare them with other cases of their occurrence in the immediate connexion, "and God said, let there be a firmament," &c. Does not the language here denote the creation of the firmament? and the corresponding phrases, "Let the earth bring forth grass," "Let the waters bring forth abundantly,' “ Let the earth bring forth the living creature," do not they denote the creation of grass, of fishes, of beasts, &c.? Does the context, does grammar or philology, supply any reason for so different an interpretation of the 3d, 6th, 11th, the 20th, and the 24th verses?-for supposing that, in the last four, the language of the sacred historian denotes the primary production of the things and beings specified, while, in the third verse, it does not denote the creation or the first action of light? But for scientific considerations there never would have been any doubt as to the meaning of these plain declarations; nor would any meaning have been attached to them but the common, or, as Dr. Smith would call it, the vulgar one. Geology has come in and turned the grammatical process out of its straightforward course, that light might be secured for the unnumbered ages before the creation.

Also I ask, whether it be possible, by any solely grammatical process, to extract from the words, "Let there be lights," or light bearers, in the firmament of heaven," the meaning that the atmosphere had become perfectly peliucid," so that the sun then burst out with his full glory upon the infant world? To me, I acknowledge, this is more like interpreting a sense into the words, than bringing one out of them.

Further, Dr. Smith seems to deny all miraculous interposition in the changes which the surface of the earth underwent previous to the one of which we have an inspired account in the first chapter of Genesis. To bear him out in this opinion he states, in language far too general, that God "has wrought them, (i. e. miracles,) only for the purpose of accrediting the claim of some one who professed to be the bearer of a revelation from" himself. But he wrought them in the last creation, as the Doctor admits. The preceding statement

of the fact is, therefore, not correct. Or, if the miracles performed in this creation are intentionally excluded from the statement, then the fact fails to support the conclusion he draws from it. At all events, I cannot find that Dr. Smith admits the action of miracles in preparing a soil and a place of residence for the lizards, and alligators, and megatheriums, and iguanodons of the not merely antideluvian, but anticreation world. The action of the properties with which the Creator had endowed the simple elements, "produced, and is still producing, all the forms and changes of organic and inorganic nature." Yet, in the last creation-the Mosaic-there was, in the opinion of our author, miraculous action. "The divine power," we are told, "acted through the laws of gravity and molecular attraction; and, where requisite, in an immediate, extraordinary, or miraculous manner." "The elevated land was now clothed with vegetation instantly created." "The language of the text," Gen. i. 11, 12, he says, 66 expresses a creation of these vegetables in a state of maturity."

Now there are two or three questions which force themselves upon our minds. If the ordinary laws of nature had been left to produce the long series of changes in the times of the megatheriums and iguanodons, how comes it to pass that miraculous action was employed in favour of the animals of the present world? This is neither an unnecessary nor an irreverent question. Infidels will put it if we do not; and Dr. Smith, at least, will not deny that it is desirable, if possible, to satisfy them. It is sufficient for us to find the Bible declaring that God did resort to miraculous agency; but it will not be sufficient for the infidel philosopher. How, indeed, should we expect it to be so? Will he not argue that the improbability of a departure from a course of proceeding which the Divine Being had not once deviated from during millions of ages, not even at times when a deviation seemed more powerfully called for, is so strong as to justify him in rejecting a history which affirms that in the Mosaic creation such a deviation took place? No doubt he would be wrong in thus thinking and acting; but how shall we, and how, especially, can Dr. Smith, with his expressed opinions in regard to miracles, convince him of his error?

Again, reasoning conversely, we may ask Dr. Smith-since he admits miraculous influence in the arrangement of the present world -how he can safely indulge such strong confidence that every thing necessary to provide a residence and support for the megatheriums and iguanodons of high and venerable antiquity, was effected by the slow operation of the laws of nature? That which was done by miracle for our world, to fit it for the residence of men and animals, might have been effected by the influence of the same laws; and, had this been the case, no difference in the result could have been detected. We know that miraculous agency was exerted; but we gain our knowledge of this only by revelation. How, then, is it possible for us, or any one, to deny that miracles innumerable blended their influence with that of the laws of nature in producing the long and magnificent series of changes which are supposed to