62 Does the Mosaic Cosmogony 



that while in religion they were men, in human learning and 

 science they were children ; and if we find in their records any 

 perfect system of an extensive and difficult science, we know 

 they have not obtained it by the regular processes of observa- 

 tion and induction, which, in the hands of European philoso- 

 phers, have led to a high degree of perfection in many sciences. 



Let us now, then, inquire into the true value and necessary 

 result of Baron Cuvier''s statement, " that the cosmogony of 

 Moses assigns to the epochs of creation precisely the same order 

 as that which has been deduced from geological considerations.'^ 



Before we proceed to that detail and comparison of particu- 

 lars which are necessary in the due prosecution of the inquiry, 

 we purpose to shew that a right understanding of the terms 

 employed by Moses will lead us to several more agreements be- 

 tween his statements and the results of the modern geology, 

 than are indicated by our common English translation. This 

 will lead us into a critical examination of several of these terms. 

 We do not mean to hinge much of these criticisms on gramma- 

 tical niceties, but to rest them chiefly on an examination of other 

 passages of the Hebrew Scriptures, where the terms are also em- 

 ployed, and where the context throws such light on them as 

 puts an end to all doubt about their true import. This is a 

 process of criticism which is universally allowed to be quite sa- 

 tisfactory, where we have resources for employing it, as happens 

 to be the case in the present instance. 



To make our criticisms intelligible, without the labour of 

 turning to the passages quoted, we shall quote the common Eng- 

 lish translation to such an extent as may be necessary. 



The term, the meaning of which we shall first investigate, is 

 " day"^ (in the Hebrew, yom). The interpretation of this, in 

 the sense " epoch^ or " period,"" has been a subject of animad- 

 version, of an unnecessary severity in some cases. A careful 

 examination of the first chapter of Genesis itself leads unavoid- 

 ably to the conclusion, that our natural day of one revolution 

 of the sun cannot be here meant by it, for we find that no fewer 

 than three of the six days had passed before the measure of our 



other than the language of both Noah and Adam. But these questions are 

 too important and extensive to be more than thus brie% alluded to in a 

 note. 



