6. With regard to the earth's body, the Hebrews conceived its surfiice to be an immense disc, supported like tbe flat roof of an Eastern house by pHlan (Job ix, 6 ; Psa. Ixxv, 8), which rested on solid foundations (Job xxxviii, 4, 6; Psa. dv, 6; Prov. viii, 29); but where those foundations were on which the *' sockets" of the pillars rested, none could tell (Job xxxviii, 6).
• The more philosophical view of the earth being sus- pended in ttee space seems to be implied in Job xxvi, 7 ; nor is there any absolute contradiction between this and the former view, as the pillars of the earth's sur- tace may be concdved to have been founded on the deep bases of tbe mountains, which bases themsdves were unsupported. Other passages (Psa. xxiv, 2; cxxxvi, 6) seem to imply the existence of a vast sub- terraneous ocean ; the words, however, are susceptible of the sense that the earth was elevated above the level of the sea (Hengstenberg, Comm, in locX And that this is the sense in which &ey are to be accepted appears from the converse expression *' water under the earth" (Exod. xx, 4), which, as contrasted with "heaven above" and "earth beneath," evidently hn- plies the comparative elevation of the three bodies. Beneath the earth's surface was tikeol (^^^'0\ the hol- low place, " keW (Num. xvi, 80 ; Deut xxxii, 22 ; Job xi, 8), the "house appointed for the living" (Job xxx, 28), a " land of darkness" (Job x, 21), to which were ascribed in poetical language gates (Isa. xxxviii, 10) and bars (Job xvii, 16), and which had its valleys or deep places (Prov. ix, 18). It extended beneath the sea (Job xxvi, 5, 6), and was thus supposed to be con- terminous with the upper world. — Smith, Did, s. v. Earth.
7. The Mosaic statement of the world's formation (Gen. i) has been variously treated by different writ- ers on the connection between science and the Bible. Skeptics have designated the Mosaic heptameron as a **mytb,'* or, more mildly, the speculation of an an- dent sage. Most Christians speak of it as a "histo- ry" or "narrative," or, more vaguely, a "record." Huxtable calls it a " parable" {Sacred Record of Cre- ation, Lond. 1861). Others (e. g. Kurtz, Hugh Miller) suggest that it is a "vision ;" one styles it a "plan" (Challier, Creation, Lond. 1861). But these are evi- dently mere glosses. The choice still lies between the Chalmerian interpolation of the geological ages before the first creative day begins (so Buckland, I^e Smith, Hitchcock, Crofton, Archd. Pratt, Gloag, and others), and the Cuvierian expansion of tbe six days into geological ages (with Miller, Macdonald, Silliman, Gaussen, Sime, MHDausland, M^Caul, Dana, and oth- ers). See Dat. Mr. Rorison (T%e Creation Week, in Jieplies to *' Essays and Reviews, " Lond. and N. T. 1862, p. 285) thinks he has discovered a new solution of the difficulty by terming the first chapter of Genesis "the inspired Psalm of creation," and he accordingly sets his ingenuity to work to draw out the demiurgic pas- sage in a pajallelized or hemistich form like Hebrew poetry. Yet this is but a modification of the "myth- ical theory" applied in a less bold form to the sacred
text, but as really destructive of the historiol ve^ of tbe document as the more palpable ratiomlii^ views. There is no middle ground here betwea/sa andybfury. The language is too detailed to tdmtt tk general dismissal of it as a cosmogonic&l poem. Tk same writer's comparison of the 104th Psdm, as bei^ " section by section the daughter, the antiiJio&c, ^ echo" of the Mosaic proem, is utteriy preporttfou, » the most casual collation of the two will ahov. Be a fittal drcumstance to this hypothesis is that tbe &it chapter of Genesis lacks nearly every element of k- knowledged Hebrew poetry. In form it has netber the lyrioid prosody of the Psalms, nor the epic atres ture of Job ; neither the dithyramUe msieh of the Prophets, nor the idyllic colloquies of tbe Cutkk nor even the didactic collocations of the Pnreitia^ Ecdesiastes. There is no paronomasia (exc^ tk accidental one in the stereotyped phrase ^fO!^ -rtr = pell-mell), no ellipsis, no introversion, no pUmtm^ v> climactic character; in short, no fignratiTe eko^ whatever to distinguish its phraseology from the tw> est prose. There is no proper PARALLEUS]i(q.T.> Based upon intrinsic antithesis and aynoDjms; & rhythmic measure. ^(Compare Uie perfectioo in iD these respects of the earliest real ode on record, Gia iv, 28, 24.) Again, as to sesttdckot, it Isda tiot lofty moral tone, that fine play of the unagioatiga, that abrupt change of subject and fidd, whicb-era when other criteria fiul — serve to indicste the rbpso- dies of the Hebrew bards. The only thmg at aD re- sembling poetry in its dress is the strophic retaxs of the clause "evening and morning," wliich is m^ due to the necessary regularity of the hebdomadal pe- riods ; and the only feature in its substance alljiag^ to poetry is a certain dignity and advance of tlMR^ which is inherent in tiie incidents themsdves : aH ^ can properly be said of the diction is that it is rlietsi- cal and suited to the subject. Even Mr. Banm ^ to point out in its body the reqnidte artistie cflBati«> tiveness, or in its spirit the fiie of gemns eeaestia] » all poetic effusions. Almost any descriptiTe ptstks of the Old Testament would be found to exceed it m these respects, if carefrilly analyxed. The veiy aexi chapter of Genesis is fully as poetical, whether is n- gard to its topics, its style, or its compositian ; aa^ thus, by the same loose, unsdentific process, we o^ (as many would fain do) reduce the acoonnta of Adua's specific formation, of a local Eden, and of the orips of human depravity, to poetic legends. Just critid^ forbids such a distortion of prose to accommodate spec- ulative preconception. See Poetry. For an al« treatise on the bearings of the Hebrew coemok^ upon modem astronomy and geology, see Kjoti, Bi- o/the Old Covenant (Edinb. 1866, vd. i, ch. i; al« separately, Phila. 1867) ; comp. Johannsen, Die hm^- ffonischen Ansickien der ffdnuer (Alt 1833); Bront Mosaic Cosmogony (Lond. 1864). See O>6]f0G05T; Cbsation. CosmoB. See World. CoBsett, Frakcewat Rakita, D.D., a promiaeot minister of the Cumberland Presbyterian Cbutb. He was bom in Claremont, New Hampshire, AprO !i 1790. His parents were Episcopalians, bis gnod^* ther being the founder and for many years the pasW of the first Episcopd church of Claremont. He &^ led at liiddlebury College, Vermont, and gradutel in 1818. From the same institution he recdred is 1889 the degree of Doctor of Divinity, which degi« was also conferred upon him in after yean I7 Co^ berland College, Kentucky. Soon aftw leaving cd- lege he engaged in teaching a dasdcd school is Sof- ristown, N. J. After two years he accepted a c«B a prindpal of Vine Hill Academy, N. C, where he tangtj several years, when, his hedth bdng poor, he ^^^'^ to New England, where soon after he was conTtftw- He felt deeply impressed with the duty of pre**