808 
THE GEOLOGIST. 
*Alplionse X, roi de Castille, mort le 24 Avril, 1284, dans les 
Tables de Jean Miiller, appele aussi Kegiomontanus 6984,' 
and ending with 
'Louis Lippoman, savant Yenitien, mort en 1554 3616.' 
*' The Rev. Dr. Hales, in his * New Analysis of Chronology,' gives a similar 
list of ' Epochs of the Creation,' and adds : — ' Here are upwards of one 
hundred and twenty different opinions, and the list might be swelled to three 
hundred. This specimen, however, is abundantly sufficient to show the dis- 
graceful discordance of chronologers even in this prime era.' 
" I have endeavoured, by inquiries at Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, and 
at the Queen's printers in London, to ascertain by what specific authority, 
royal or ecclesiastical, the date of 4004 was added to the first verse in Genesis 
in the authorized vertion, and I have not been able to discover that any record 
exists of such an authority. In Lewis's ' Complete History of the Transla- 
tions of the Holy Bible into English,' it is stated, in p. 349, that, to an edition 
in folio of the Bible, published in 1701, under the direction of Archbishop 
Tenison, Dr. Lloyd, Bishop of Worcester, added chronological dates at the 
head of the several columns, and on the margin of the title of Genesis the 
following : — ' Year before the common year of Christ, 4004.' This edition is 
to be seen in the British Museum : it was printed by Charles Bill and the 
executrix of Thomas Newcomb, deceased, printers to the King's Most Excel- 
lent Majesty. 
" The copy of the Bible in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, in which that date 
first appears over against the first verse of Genesis, bears the date of 1727; 
but there is no doubt that for more than a century and a half that unauthorized 
marginal note has been added, up to the present time. 
" I have thus laid before you the origin of this settled point in Sacred His- 
tory as taught at this day in our schools, and, from its juxta-position to the 
text of the Bible, held m veneration by millions, there is every reason to 
believe, as an undoubted truth. The study of geoloo:y has become so general 
that those who are instructed in its mere elements cannot fail to see the dis- 
crepancy between this date and the truths which geology reveals. The youth 
is told in the morning at school, probably by his own minister of religion, as I 
myself have witnessed, that not more than about six thousand years have 
elapsed since the creation of the world. In the evening he may attend a lec- 
ture on geology, very possibly by one of the ninety -three clergymen who are 
EeUows of this Society, and hear that, in a work just issued from the press (a 
Lecture by a Professor in the University of Oxford, delivered before the Vice- 
Chancellor of the University of Cambridge), it is stated that ' the probable 
length of time required for the production of the strata of coal, sandstone, 
shale, and ironstone in South Wales is half a million of years.' It is thus 
easy to see what a confusion must be created in the youth's mind, and that he 
wiU involuntarily ask himself, ' Which of the two statements am I to believe ?' 
There can be very little doubt what his decision would be ; for he found the 
lecturer resting his statement on unmistakeable records preserved in the great 
book of Natui-e, the genuine incorruptible register of God's works ; whereas 
his school instructor had adduced no evidence from the sacred text for his 
averment. To remove any inaccuracy in notes accompanying the autliorized 
version of our Bible is surely an imperative duty. The retention of the mar- 
ginal note in question is by no means a matter of indifference : it is untrue, 
and therefore it is mischievous. If in future editions this erroneous date be 
removed, the omission of any other will best express that entire ignorance of 
' The Beginning' which no human power will ever be able to dispel. 
"I cannot conclude .his subject better than by quoting the eloquent words 
of one of the most able and accomplished of our Associates, the Rev. Adam 
