The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-04-07
PROFESSOR roy AND NOSES

vile in consequence of the lax views en-
tertained by him on the subject of inspi-
ration, has been publishing in the Reh-
gloatS Herald a series of articles explain
ing and defending his position. Our
attention has been called to one of these
communications in the last issue of the
Herald.
Prof. Toy is man of rare attainments
and his religious history is necessarily
interesting to us in Virginia where he is
so well and widely known. His retire
ment from the Southern Baptist Theo-
logical Seminary, on the ground that he
could not conscientiously maintain before
his class the old views as to the inspira-
ton of the Bible, made deep impress
sion. For his character and his learning
are beyond all challenge.
The present article in the Herald is on
the first chapter of Genesis, and Professor
Toy undertakes to explain why he was
compelled to come to the conclusion that
the Mosaic account of the creation is not
true, but merely 1.-The crude cosmogonic
ideas of the Israelites and of the Baby
lonians, from whom the Israelites seem
to have got them"
When men of this sort are openly as
sailing the narrative of the creation, it is
cowardly and silly to shirk the matter
as some are disposed to- For our own
part, we are not afraid of the light, and,
especially, we are not afraid to probe this
first chapter of Genesis to the bottom
When the battle is over, in our iudg-
ment, it will be found that the CORES
pondence between the geologic and the
Mosaic record is one of the most valua-
bic of all the testimonies to the infalli-
bility of the Bible.
We learn from Prof Toy that for a
number of years he was believer in the
Hugh Miller or Tayler Lewis theory
with regard to the Mosaic days, which
interpreted them as long periods But,
he tells us, that he was compelled to
give up this view because of Genesis i:
IA, Is, Is, where the natural day of
course is meant because of Exodus Xxx
H. and farther, because I he saw on
close examination that the days of our
chapter do not correspond to the geologi:
cal periods-for example, that vegetable
life does not precede animal in the rock
record-and that the deferring of the
creation of the sun, moon, and stars until
the fourth day is quite irreconcilable with
the generally received astronomy Git is
said in the chapter distinctly that these
bodies were created on the fourth day,
and had no existence before)."
1t is little remarkable that on so i'm
portant question DR.. Toy should have
relinquished the cherished beliefs of his
early theological life without informing
himself in the most accurate manner.
Certainly he ought to have made sure
that Moses was mistaken before throwing
him overheard unceremoniously as no
better than Hindoo or Babylonian COS
mogonist We should think in such a
matter one would take great pains before
slipping his cable. Well, what are the
facts? Is it Moses or is it DR.. Toy who
has got the thing wrong?
Different schemes of reconciliation be-
tween geology and the Mosaic record
have been adopted by different writer's,
as Chalmers and Hengstenberg, Hugh
Miller, Tayler Lewis, Dawson, and Shultz,
and others. The present writer, speak
ing for himself and no one else, and not
intending to commit this paper on the
subject, prefers the theory of Tayler
Lewis, Miller, Schultz, and Dawson
Prof. Toy rejects all these theories, but
displays manifest want Of acquaintance
with the scientific facts.
One of the troubles presented to DR..
Toys mind by the geological reccad was
this that vegetable life does not fin
this record precede animal life" Moses,
as we all know, introduces vegetation on
the third day, and the creation of the
marine animals is connected with the
fifth day But it is not true as Prof.
Toy alleges, Chat vegetable life does not