453 successive classes of plants and animals to have been created, and that which geology developes; and Professor Jameson has contrived to draw out a table of these coincidences in such a manner as to make the argument appear quite plausible. But its fallacy is demonstrated by the principles which we are examining. For, in the first place, it appears clear, that if Moses' account of the creation of organized beings embraces the fossil species, then the present races of animals and plants were not included: an opinion too absurd to be admitted by any reasonable man. But if he does not include the fossil species, then of course the pretended coincidence between the biblical and the geological order of creation must be given up. In the second place, even if we admit the fossil species to be comprehended in the Mosaic account, the order in which we find them in the rocks does not correspond with the statements in Genesis, if we suppose the days to be extended periods. Moses represents vegetables only to have been created on the third day, and no animals until the fifth : so that if these days were long periods, the earth must have existed a great while, nearly one-third of its whole duration, (12 or 14 thousands of years according to Faber,) covered only by plants. Hence we should expect to find about one-third of the fossiliferous rocks, reckoning upward from the lowest, to contain only vegetable remains. But the fact is, animal remains are found as low among the rocks as vegetables; although, perhaps, in the very lowest the latter are the most numerous: but taking in the whole of the graywacke group of De La Beche, animals are fifty times more numerous than plants. And the graywacke group does not by any means embrace one third of the fossiliferous rocks. Again, according to the Bible thus interpreted, we ought to expect, after about one third of the fossiliferous rocks were deposited, that those which follow should contain a great abundance of marine animals and birds: whereas, in fact, when we have ascended through about one-third of the series, abounding in marine animals, we find a formation (the coal measures), containing vegetable relics almost exclusively and immediately above this, we come to an extensive group (the red sandstone formation,) containing but few animals or vegetables: and then a mixture of the two to the top of the series! It seems to us, then, that if we confine our attention to organic remains, and suppose the Mosaic days to be extended periods, we shall find a marked discrepancy between the order of creation given in Genesis and that shown us by the geological records. True, there is a remarkable coincidence between the two records as to the state of the globe before we have any evidence that it contained organized beings: but this has nothing to do with the theory which regards the Mosaic days as extended periods. It is an example of coincidence between geology and revelation, and not between any particular theory of interpretation and the sacred record. Yet if this be stricken out of Prof. Jameson's" table of coincidences," as well as his last item, which relates not to the Mosaic days but to the deluge, there will be left only a feeble support to this peculiar theory; especially if, as we have endeavoured to show, there exists discrepancy where he describes coincidence. In conclusion of this extended view of the theory which expands the Mosaic days into indefinite periods, we cannot avoid the conclusion, that both philology and geology present very powerful arguments against its adoption: and, therefore, nothing but the most urgent necessity, nothing but the conviction that we must either adopt it or abandon Revelation, should lead us to admit it. In such a case we should coincide with the opinion of Sharon Turner.—“ If," says he, "there were an absolute necessity for making such an election, it would be most reasonable to coincide with their idea" (who advocate this theory*.) "We are not by any means sure with Mr. Faber and others," says the Christian Observer, "that with a view to make geology and Scripture coincide, it is necessary to construe the word "day" in the first chapter of Genesis, as meaning an indefinite and lengthened period of time; but even if it be so, it is a less terrific conclusion that this is the right sense, than that the Bible says one thing, and the undeniable phenomena of the earth's structure anothert." But we are far from believing that any such alternative as this exists. And such is the opinion of many of the ablest geologists in Europe. "Another indiscretion," says Professor Sedgwick, "has been committed by some excellent Christian writers on the subject of geology. They have not denied the facts established by this science, nor have they confounded the nature of physical and moral evidence: but they have prematurely endeavoured to bring the natural history of the earth into a literal accordance with the book of Genesis-first, by greatly extending the periods of time implied by the six days of creation (and whether this may be rightly done, is a question only of criticism, and not of philosophy); and secondly, by endeavouring to show, that, under this new interpretation of its words, the narrative of Moses may be supposed to comprehend and describe in order, the successive epochs of geology. It is to be feared that truth may, in this way, receive a double injury; and I am certain that the argument just alluded to has been unsuccessfult." It has been already remarked, that most commentators on the Bible reject the interpretation which extends the length of the Mosaic days. It ought to be mentioned, however, that very few of them, perhaps none, have been practically acquainted with geology: and therefore their opinions on this point have less weight than in cases where philology only is concerned. Judging by philological rules only, the most distinguished among them are very decided as to the meaning of " day." "Many of those," says Rosenmüller, "who believe that things did really originate as here explained, by those six days understand periods of many days or years, evidently contrary to all the laws of interpretation and the scope of the whole narrative; notwithstanding what Hensler may say, &c."§ "As to the views of our author, in respect to the length of the days and nights at the creation," says Professor Stuart," nothing can be plainer than that usual days and nights are meant. How could he say, that the evening and the morning made them,' if this be not true?" But it is unnecessary to multiply authorities on this subject. 12. Some have maintained that our present earth was formed out of the ruins of a former world; and that the creation described in Genesis was merely a re-arrangement of these materials. "We are not called upon," says Bishop Sumner," to deny the possible existence of previous worlds, from the wreck of which our globe was organized, and the ruins of which are now furnishing matter to our curiosity ¶." "Geology," says another able writer, " goes further than the Mosaic account, in showing that the present system of this planet is built on the wreck and ruins of one more ancient***" In our quotations from Dathe and Doederlin on a former page, it appears that views similar to those of Bishop Sumner are very prevalent in Germany. They differ from the next mode which we shall describe of interpreting the Mosaic account * Sacred History of the World, vol. i. p. 34. London Christian Observer, 1833, p. 743. Sedgwick's Discourse. § Rosen, in Vet. Test: Leipsic, 1828. Hebrew Chrestomathy, p. 118. Andover, 1829. ** Vindicia Geologicæ, p. 24. so as to correspond with geology, only in supposing that the former world, on which our present fossil animals and plants lived and died, was destroyed and the earth reduced to a chaotic state, from which God redeemed it during the six days of creation. Indeed, we have very much doubted whether, in the minds of most writers, there is any distinction between these two theories: for they use language which seems to imply that when they speak of the "wreck" and "ruins" of a previous world, they mean nothing more than that a widely different state of things formerly existed on the globe, so that in some sense it might be called another world; and some great change must have taken place before the present order of things was established and the present races of animals and plants was created. But if they do mean that in early times this globe was, for a long period, in a state similar to the present as to climate and temperature, so that the existing races of animals and plants might have inhabited it, and that afterwards it was reduced again to a chaotic state, they are unsustained in such opinions by geological facts. There is no evidence that there has ever been any deterioration in the condition of our planet, except for a short period at the time when some general catastrophe happened for in the end it appears that every change has been improvement in its condition. The crust of the globe is not a confused mixture of the fragments of former worlds: but the formations are superimposed one upon another in as regular a manner as the drawers of a well regulated cabinet. True, the strata have been mostly fractured and tilted up, and sometimes dislocated; but all this has rarely disturbed their order of superposition. To the superficial observer there is an appearance of confusion and ruin: but a thorough examination shows that this is a deception. Every thing demonstrates that the globe has undergone a succession of changes, slow in their consummation though attended often by paroxysmal efforts, fitting it for races of animals and plants successively more complicated and delicate in their organization, until at last, about 6000 years ago, it became adapted to be the probationary abode of moral and intellectual beings. There is certainly no evidence of a middle state of desolation and chaos between an earlier and a later condition, adapted to animal and vegetable natures. "The earth," in the eloquent language of Professor Silliman," is unlike Memphis, Thebes, Persepolis, Babylon, Balbec, or Palmyra, which present merely confused and mutilated masses of colossal and beautiful architecture, answering no purpose except to gratify curiosity, and to awaken a sublime and pathetic moral feeling ;-it is rather, like modern Rome, replete indeed, with the ruins of the ancient city, in part re-arranged for purposes of utility and ornament, but also covered by the regular and perfect constructions of subsequent centuries." It is only against that point of this theory which regards the crust of the globe as a confused mass of ruins derived from an earlier world, that we object. But the argument in favor of, and against, the leading principles of the theory, viz., that which supposes the Mosaic account to pass in silence a long period between the original creation of the globe and the creation of our present races of plants and animals,—this argument we shall examine under the next reconciling theory. Bakewell's Geology, p. 436. [To be continued.] V.-Specimen of Bengáli Enigmatical Composition. GENTLEMEN, To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer. Accompanying is a specimen of a species of enigmatical composition, frequently met with in Bengáli and Sanskrit. I have annexed a metrical version, as well as explanatory notes. Its insertion might prove gratifying to students of the native languages, as being both curious in itself and characteristic of the people who employ such modes of composition; serving also as a help towards the understanding of similar specimens when they present themselves, as well as of current allusions otherwise obscure, if not unintelligible. If deemed suitable to your purpose, it is at your service. I am, &c. CINSURENSIS. The speech of a forsaken mistress to her confidante, bewailing her fate. সখিরে বিরানয়ে দেহ দান বায়স অজরবে তনু মোর জরজর্ কি ভেলো পাপ পরাণ ৷৷ নেত্র তিন গুণ তাহার বাহন পুন তাহার ভক্ষ্যের ভক্ষ্য নিজহুতে। বাণ দন শিরো যার পুরী নষ্ট কৈল তার হ্যান দুঃখ প্রিয় দিলে মোকে ৷৷ সুরভিতনয় প্রভু তাহার ভূষণ রিপু তাহার প্রভুর নিজ হতে। তাহার পঞ্চম শরে দগ্ধে মোর কলেবরে কহ সখি বাঁচিবো ক্যামতে।। মুনি তিন গুণ করি বেদে মিশাইয়া পূরি দেখ সখি একত্র করিয়া। আমি অভাগিনী রামা বিধি মোরে হইল বামা গরাসিবো বাণ ঘুচাইয়া। Literal rendering. O my friend! Give me Virát's son; (1) Tell me (how I am to act); With the voices of the crow and the goat (2) With (hopeless) love My body is shattered. What a villainous spirit is this? The thrice told eyes-headed (3) Again his food's own son (5) Such grief has my lover occasioned me. The cow's son's (s) Lord His ornament's foe-(9) His Lord's own son,-(10) With his fifth arrow (11) This body of mine is burnt up. Say, friend, how shall I survive? Completing by adding the Veds, (13) See now, my friend, what Will swallow down! (15) And lo! my friend, hapless woman that I am, to whom fortune is unpropitious,- I shall swallow, namely, poison! (1) Virat was the first progeny of Brahma, whom he produced by divid ing himself into male and female. The son of Virát was named Uttar, which means posterior, subsequent, q. d. a successor in the creative office. The word uttar also signifies an answer, as subsequent to a question. The line here, therefore, means, Give me an answer. (2) The sound the crow makes is expressed by ká, and that of the goat by ma, which make káma (a) or the god of love, here taken for the passion of love; by which this female describes herself as affected. (3) Kartikeya the god of war and son of Shiva, is figured with six heads, and thence called Sharánan, or the six-faced. The eyes are two, which tripled make six, the number of the heads of this deity. () Whose vehicle was the Peacock. (5) The food of the peacock is described in Hindu poems to be the wind! Hanuman the monkey-king, who aided Ráma in his war on the giant of Ceylon, was the son of Pavana or the wind personified. (and 7) In Lanká or Ceylon was the kingdom and capital of the giant Ravana, who had ten heads, thence called Dashánan, or the ten headed; though here said to be only five-headed. (*) The white Bull was the constant accompaniment and vehicle of Shiva, or the destroyer; thence called Vrishapati, Lord of the Bull. (9) Shiva is represented enveloped in the folds of a serpent. The serpent was the prey of Garura, the vehicle of Vishnu, a creature half-man, half-bird. (10) Kandarpa or Káma-deva, the Indian Cupid, god of love, was son of Vishnu. His bow was of the sugar-cane, with a string of bees. (") The bow of Kandarpa was elegantly imagined to be furnished with five arrows tipped with as many several flowers, the fifth of which was the Vilwa or Bel, "to kindle fierce the scorching flame," as Sir W. Jones elegantly expresses it. In (2) The Munis or Rishis, ancient sages and saints, who form in astronomy the stars of the great bear, and are seven in number. this quibbling or enigmatical kind of writing or Hindu hieroglyphic, the Munis stand for the number seven simply. (3) The Vedas, or most ancient sacred writings of the Hindus, are four in number; thence these are the hieroglyphic for four. (14) The arrows of Káma, or the god of love, are here, from their hieroglyphical application, intended to denote five. (1) The Munis or seven trebled = 21+ the Vedas or 425. From 25 take 5, the number of Kandarpa's arrows, you have 20, which is in Bengali ft differing in spelling only, not (now) in sound from fax, poison, which is the thing intended to be swallowed by this love-sick lady, at once to end her mourning and her life! Such is the curious yet most absurd mode in which a Bengáli female is made to bemoan the desertion of her lover, and such the unnatural and enigmatical manner in which she addresses her confidante. The lament may be thus imitated : Metrical imitation of the preceding. |