COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 626
COSMOLOGY
the eaith*8 rarlkce ; and chap, ii as a detailed aoooont of a mibsequeni creation of the Adamic or Hebrew line- age in particular. It cannot be denied that the differ- ence in language (especially the distinctive use of the titles ''Jehovah" and " Elohim"), and the resumptive fbrm of the latter chapter, somewhat favor this view ; but, on the other hand, it is emphatically forbidden by the doctrine of tiie unity of die human race (and ''man*' is in both cases alilce called D^?) * '^^ '"^^^ '^ ^^ leaves essentially untouched the principal question of the reconcilement of the Mosaic mrder and date of cre- ation with those suggested by science. See Adam. (2.) Others regard tiie several "days" of the scrip- tural narrative as periods of indefinite extent, and BO find time enough for the astronomical and geo- logical cycles required. See Earth. But this in- terpretation is met by two objections : (a) Altiiongh the term Di% day, is sometimes used in a vague sense for a longer or shorter period of time, such a sig- nification here is forbidden by the distinct recur- rence of the divisions " night and morning" stated in connection with each wx^rfifupov or space of twenty- four hours; and the Sabbath comes in as a similar space of time at the close of the week, in a sense probably strict and literal, since it is made the basis of the hebdomadal cycle religiously observed ever since. See Dat. (6) The exact number of tix such periods cannot be maide out satisfactorily fh>m the rec- ords of science : e. g. the astronomical system requires the sun at the outset of the demiurgic period, whereas Moses does not introduce it till the fourth day, al- though light had existed fh)m the first ; and the low- est geological strata exhibit animal life, whereas Mo- ses speaks of vegetables as created first. See Geolo- OT. (3.) Perhaps the best solution of the difficulty is that which inserts the entire geological period be- tween the original creation of matter in ver. 1 of Gen. 1, and the literal account of the last, or, properly, Mo- saic creation of the present races of living things de- tailed in verses 11-81 ; the intermediate verses (2-10) describing phenomeiuU^, 1. e. just as the facts would have appeiu^d to a spectator, the gradual restoration of mundane order, after the grand cataclysm that closed the geological period, and swept off the terres- trial tribes then existing; and chap, ii, resuming the account for the purpose of further detail, especially with reference to the formation of Eve. See Creation.
For a more general exposition of the Hebrew views on this subject, see Ck)8MOLOOT.
CoBmologioal Are;iiment See God; Nat- ural Theology.
COBxnology, Bibucal. The views of the He- brews on this subject are, in a scientific point of view, confessedly imperfect and obscure. This arises partiy from the ulterior objects which led them to the study of natural science, and still more fh>m the poetical col- oring with which they expressed their opinions. The books of Genesis, Job, and Psalms supply the most nu- merous notices : of these, the two latter are strictiy po- etical works, and their language must be measureid by the laws of poetical expression ; in the first alone have we any thing approaching to a historical and system- atic statement, and even this is but a sketch — an out line— which ought to be regarded at the same distance, from the same point of view, and through the same re- ligious mediimi as its author regarded it. The act of creation itself, as recorded in the first chapter of Gene- sis, is a subject beyond and above the experience of man ; human language, derived, as it originally was, from the sensible and material world, fails to find an adequate term to describe the act ; for our word " cre- ate** and the Hebrew bora, though most appropriate to express the idea of an original creation, are yet appli- cable and must necessarily be applicable to other modes of creation ; nor does the addition of such expressions
as "out of things that were not** (^ aim ^i^mv,2 vii, 28), or" not from things which appear** Qt^ Im ^ex- vofuvwVf Heb. xi, 8) contribute much to the force ef the declaration. The absence of a term which shal describe exclusively an original creation ia m. iw* ■ !■■ ry infirmity of language : as the event occurred hm. once, the corresponding term must, in order to be ade- quate, have been coined for the occaatoo and reaert^d for it alone, which would have been impoasible. The same observation applies, though in a modified ' to the description of the various processes to the existence of original matter. Moaea viewvd matter and all the forms of matter in their raUtkai primarily to (}od,and secondarily to man — as warn- festing tiie gloiy of Grod, and as designed tor the ^e of man. In relation to the former, he deecribea en- ation with the special view of illnstrating the divae attributes of power, goodness, wisdom, and aooorffio^ he throws this narrative into a form whi(^ iiiipmi i the reader with the sense of these attributes. In rela- tion to the latter, he selects his materials with the spe- cial view of illustrating the subordination of all the or- ders of material things to the necessitiea and coilutts of man. With these objects in view, it ought not is be a matter of surprise if the simple narrative of cna- tion omits much that scientific research has sxnoe sup- plied, and appears in a guise adapted to those ohfects. The subject itself is througtiout one of a tzmnsoendea- tal character; it should consequently be subjected t9 the same standard of interpretation as otiier psiign of the Bible, descriptive of objects which are entinily beyond the experience of man, such as the day of judg- ment, the states of heaven and hell, and the r^nese^a- tions of the divine mi^esty. The style of criticasD ap- plied to Gen. i by the opponents, and not uniteqaatir by the supporters of revelation, is such as woidd be subversive of many of the most nohle and ▼alaabk portions of the Bible. See below.