Benjamin Silliman - Appendix to Bakewell's Geology

A Bird's Eye View or Map of the Country from Lake Erie to Queenstown,
exhibiting the Chasm formed by the retrograde movement of the Falls of Niagara.
 

Nature and Application of the Argument. - It is we trust obvious that we have been occupied, not in the superfluous labor of giving a system, a work which is ably done by our author, but in selecting a few facts from the principal geological classes and epochs, to evince that our planet, before it was inhabited by man, was subjected to a long course of formation and arrangement, the object of which evidently was, to fit it for the reception, first of plants and animals, and finally of the human race. This is the sole object which we have had in view in our citations of geological facts, all of which go to prove that the world is not eternal. For in that remote period of which he who recorded the fact probably knew not the date: - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and established the physical laws, the ordinances of heaven, by which the material world was to be governed.
    The earliest condition of the surface of the planet appears to have been that of a dark abyss of waters of unknown depth and continuance, which repressed the deep seated forces of internal fires.
    The structure of the crust affords decisive evidence of a long series of events, in relation both to the formation of rocks, and to the creation and succession of organized bodies, which exist in the strata and mountains in such astonishing quantities.
    Succession and revolution are plainly recorded in the earth and sacred history expressly, states that the events involved both order and extent of time.
    Geology cannot decide on the amount of years or ages, but it assures us that there was enough to cover all the events connected with the formation of the mineral masses, and with the succession of the generations of living beings, whose remains are found preserved in them.
    It is obvious that ages must have passed while the various geological events, which are recorded in the structure of the earth, were happening, and particularly while the innumerable organic beings that had been created, lived, perpetuated their race, died, were entombed and preserved in the rocks, and this through a vast succession of generations of an immense number of families, genera and species.
    As already suggested, (page 510,) we will not inquire whether almighty power inserted plants and animals in mineral masses, and was thus exerted, without design or end, in working a long series of useless and therefore incredible miracles. Can any rational man believe, for example, that many genera of fishes, with vertebrae and fins, and therefore created to live in water, like those of the present day, were placed by mere sovereign power in the slates and other rocks beneath the coal and therefore (as these formations exist in England and supposing all to be present that belong above) nearly two miles below the present surface; or that the iguanodon, with his gigantic form, seventy to eighty feet in length, ten in height, and fifteen in girth, was created in the midst of consolidated sandstone, and placed down one or two thousand feet from the surface of the earth, in a rock composed of ruins and fragments, and containing fish, vegetables, shells, and rolled pebbles! With such persons we can sustain no discussion, since there is no common ground on which we can meet: we must leave them to their own reflections, for they cannot be influenced by reason and sound argument, and can, with or without evidence, believe any thing that accords with their prepossessions. And yet we have known such individuals - those who either deny the best established facts, or endeavor to avoid their effect by making the most absurd suppositions, inconsistent alike with the truths of science, and with candor and fair dealing in argument.
    Persons there are, also, who endeavor to do away the argument derived from organic remains, by denying their reality. They affect to regard them, as a lusus nature, which phrase, if it has any meaning, would imply, that the relics are not real, but only bear an accidental resemblance to plants or animals. This resort is too ridiculous to deserve refutation, and no individual would hazard such an explanation, who had been in the slightest degree acquainted with fossils, those beautiful medals of past ages. They have been, by the operation of natural laws, laid by, and preserved in the solid strata of the earth, as authentic and imperishable monuments both of the progress of the mineral formations, and of the numerous creations of animals and plants that occupied the successive surfaces of the planet before man was called into being; nor did the record cease to be enrolled when man appeared - it was, and is, and will be continued, as long as the earth shall exist.
    The order of the physical events, discovered by geology, is substantially the same as that recorded by the sacred historian ; that is, as far as the latter has gone, for it was evidently no part of his object to enter any farther into details than to state that the world was the work of God, and thus he was led to mention the principal divisions of natural things, as they were successively created. It is sufficient therefore that there is a general correspondence, which is indeed, in the great features, exceedingly striking, and deficient only in less important particulars not to be expected. in so general a narrative, written chiefly for moral purposes ; but it is in no respect contradictory to facts.
    The Bible is not a book of physical science, and its allusions to physical subjects are necessarily adapted to common apprehensions. Still, the creation and the deluge, although they have a momentous moral bearing, were, in their nature, entirely physical operations. Why should any One refuse to attend to a history of these two stupendous events, merely because that history professes to have proceeded from the same author as the work itself; and why should we suppose that the brief notices of the great physical facts, connected with a physical creation and a physical destruction, are not correctly stated, in this earliest and most venerable of histories?
    If all our discoveries regarding the surface and interior of the planet tend, when properly understood, to confirm the credibility of both- these events, and to enable us to discriminate between the circumstances and evidence which belong to them respectively, what moral consideration can, in this case, forbid a happy application of the discoveries of science, and why should science refuse to lend its aid to the support of moral truth?
    The question then recurs, bow can the amount of time be found, consistently with the Mosaic history, for the order of the facts and of -the history is the same. The solution of this difficulty has been attempted in the following modes.
    1. The present crust of the planet has been regularly formed between the first creation "in the beginning,"¹ and the
commencement of the first day.- It appears to be generally admitted by critics, that the period alluded to in the first verse of Genesis, "in the beginning," is not necessarily connected with the first day. It may therefore be regarded as standing by itself, and as it is not limited, it admits of any extension backward in time which the facts may require.²
    Dr. Chalmers says: "Does Moses ever say, that when God created the heavens and the earth, he did more at the time alluded to than transform them out of previously existing materials? Or does he ever say, that there was not an interval of many ages betwixt the first act of creation, described in the first verse of the book of Genesis, and said to have been performed in the beginning, and those more detailed operations, the account of which commences at the second verse, and which are described to us as having been performed in so many days? Or, finally, does he ever make us understand, that the generations of man went further than to fix the antiquity of the species, and of consequence that they left the antiquity of the globe a free subject for the speculations of philosophers." -Evid. Christ. Rev. in Ed. Encyc.
    By asserting that there was a beginning, it is declared that the world is not eternal, and the declaration that God made the heavens and the earth, is a bar equally against atheism and materialism. The world was, therefore, made in time by the omnipotent Creator.
    The creation of the planet was no doubt instantaneous, as regards the materials, but the arrangement, at least of the crust, was gradual. As a subject either of moral or physical contemplation, we can say nothing better, than that it was the good pleasure of God not only that this world should be called into existence; but, that the arrangement by which it was to become a fit habitation for man, should be gradually progressive through many ages.
    This is in strict analogy with the regular course of things in the physical, moral and intellectual world. Every thing, except God, has a beginning, and every thing else is progressive. The human mind and our bodily powers, the growth of the animal and vegetable rages, the seasons, seed time and harvest, science and arts, wealth, civilization, national power and character, and a thousand things more, evince that progression is stamped upon every thing, and that nothing reaches its perfection by a single leap. The gradual preparation of this planet for its ultimate destination, presents therefore no anomaly, and need not excite our surprise.
    It is of no importance to us, whether our home was in a course of preparation during days or ages, for the moral dispensations of God towards our world could not begin until the creation of man.
    The abyss of waters which existed before the emergence of the land, which preceded the creation of man, and continued for an unknown period of time, is just such a state of things, in coincidence with the operation of internal fire, as is demanded for the formation of the central rocks, and for their elevation, as far as facts may justify us in supposing that it took place before the formation of the derivative rocks, and of those containing organic remains.
    The supposition now before us is equally consistent with both igneous and aqueous action; and indeed it would be impossible to account for the appearance of things without the conjoined agency of internal fire, and of an incumbent ocean ; the latter repressing the expansive and explosive power of the former, causing its heat greatly to accumulate, even to the fusion of the most refractory materials; preventing the escape of gaseous matter, as for instance of carbonic acid gas from the limestones, and by its pressure and slow cooling, from the small conducting power of water, preventing melted rocks from assuming the appearance of volcanic cinders, stags, scoriae, and other inflated masses.
    The incumbent ocean is therefore indispensable, equally so with the agency of internal fire, to the correct deductions of the theoretical geologist.
    With these views, then, the historical record happily agrees, and geology coincides with the sacred history. During the period when this dark abyss of waters prevailed, the earth was without form, and void, or better, as Hebricians say - " the earth was invisible and unfurnished;" we may presume that then the early operations of geological formation and arrangement began, by producing the fundamental rocks, and thus providing materials for all the derivative strata, which, in the course of their consolidation, were destined to embosom such an endless diversity of extraneous contents.
    This theory is satisfactory as far as it goes: it fairly recognizes and encounters the real difficulty in the case, and it would be quite sufficient to reconcile geology and the Mosaic history, as usually understood, did not the latter assign particular events to each of the successive periods called days; the most important of these events are, the first emergence of the mountains' and the creation of organized and living beings. It seems necessary therefore to embrace the days in the series of geological periods; and the difficulties of our subject will not be removed, unless we can show that there is time enough included in those periods called days, to cover the organic creation, and the formation of the rocks, in which the remains of these bodies are contained.
    2. The present crust was formed from the ruins and fragments of an earlier world, re-arranged and set in order
during the six days of the creation. - This explanation has been given by men of powerful minds, both theologians and geologists - men strongly impressed with the overwhelming evidence which the earth presents of innumerable events, and of progressive development through successive ages. It therefore honestly meets the difficulty, and fully grants the necessity of allowing sufficient time for the series of geological formations. This theory assigns the crystallization and consolidation of the primary rocks to a period of indefinite geological antiquity, and it also admits that they have undergone more recent modifications, particularly in being upheaved by subterranean force, which elevated not only themselves but the superincumbent strata.
    The hypothesis has great merit, inasmuch as it admits, in the long gone-by ages, of just such events and successions as geology has proved to have taken place; but it demands general catastrophes, which do not appear to have happened, and it implies a reconstruction of the crust of the planet entirely out of its own ruins, a supposition which is inconsistent with the state of facts. It is therefore unsatisfactory, because it does not provide at all for the regular successions of entombed animal and vegetable races, and for the progressive consolidation, often in long continued tranquillity, of the strata which are formed around the organic bodies, and also for the numerous alternations and repetitions of these strata, frequently, as in the coal fields, in a regular order. All this demands time, and seasons of protracted repose, interrupted indeed by occasional elevations, subsidences, and other violent movements. In order that this solution may prove satisfactory, it is necessary that the earth should really be what it actually is not, a confused pile of ruins, not only of loose fragments, such as are now found on its surface, but they must be consolidated, to form the mountains and the strata. Ruins, the mountains and strata do indeed in many places contain, but they form only a portion of a vast structure, in which ruins have no part.
    The earth 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 rearranged for purposes of utility and ornament, but also covered by the regular and perfect constructions of subsequent centuries.
    The period is not far distant, when all thinking and reasonable men who make themselves acquainted with the structure of the earth, will come to the conclusion that the formation and arrangement of the crust, as we now see it, must have occupied many ages. This is already the conviction of all geologists, and of many who are not so by their pursuits; and nothing can prevent its becoming universal but ignorance of the facts, or a blind or perverse rejection of them in opposition equally to sound science and common sense. It is now generally admitted that the beginning was in remote antiquity, at a period whose date is unknown; and we are at liberty in consistency with sacred history to assume as much time anterior to the first day, as the events recorded in the structure of the earth may require. This appears at first view to remove the difficulties, as they are supposed to exist between geology and revelation, and therefore this solution has been eagerly adopted by those who receive equally the truth of revelation as recorded in the Bible, and the truths of nature as registered in the earth. This extension of time may answer sufficiently for the primary rocks, and for those composed of fragments and ruins, so far as they do not contain organic remains or contain them accidentally. It is true, however, that among the fragmentary and brecciated rocks there are those that contain ruins charged with the remains of animals and plants; pieces of limestone, for example, enclosing corals, shells, or crinoidea, are found as parts of calcareous breccias, and in the same manner, plants embraced in argillaceous iron, or in slates and sandstones, may enter into the puddingstones and breccias, and it would be true of such rocks that they are formed from the ruins, if not of a previous world, at least of an earlier state of this world. But it must be observed, that by the supposition the organic remains now alluded to are not in the situation in which they were originally enclosed.
    We will illustrate this by examples. Suppose a country occupied by the encrinal and coralline limestone. The rocks exhibit those beautiful forms either as they grew in the ocean, with all their exuberant and curious joints and branches standing upon their proper columns or stems and gently wrapped in the calcareous carbonate as it concreted around them; or perhaps they were fallen upon the floor of that early ocean, and their members perchance scattered around, but in the end they were equally enclosed in the delicate pabulum which was to preserve them without father alteration to distant ages.
    Suppose also the fossils of the chalk formation - the echini with or without their spines, the alcyonia and sponges, the innumerable testacea, the vertebrated fishes, and, as we are now instructed, myriads of microscopic corallines and shell fish; let these and the other fossils of this chalk series be imagined as living in their native seas at the time when they were so exquisitely folded in their white chalky mantle as to insure the perfect preservation of their delicate forms, often with their minutest processes, spines, or other frail parts uninjured; still farther, let the flint, dissolved perhaps in thermal alkaline waters, thrown up and issuing from the bottom of the chalk, now seek the organic forms and convert many of them into its own substance, but copying their organization so as to present silicified sponges, echini, alcyonia, &c.
    Now these are instances of geological formations which, in such or in some other analogous modes, have certainly taken place, and innumerable repetitions of similar events have occurred from the time of the earliest organized beings down through successive ages, and are still going on. No one will however contend that these things are to be referred to the ruins of a former world; they are regular formations, and the animals and plants that may have been enclosed in the forming rocks have had no previous existence; where they are found petrified there they were born, and there they were interred in their stony tombs. Should any of these rocks, still retaining the enclosed organic bodies, be broken up into fragments, and should these fragments become united so as to form a breccia or conglomerate, this might with some propriety be called a formation from the ruins of a former world, or at least of an earlier stage of the present.
    Regular and extensive formations, which enclose organized beings in immense numbers and in high preservation, must have demanded great time, prevailing tranquillity, and all the circumstances necessary both to sustain organic beings and to furnish the pabulum by which they were to be enclosed. The astonishing diversity of petrified and fossilized forms, found in strata of different kinds, of wide geographical extent, and in many instances of vast thickness, with their distinct and sometimes sudden alternations, successions, interventions and repetitions, demonstrate that physical laws of great energy reigned and produced their proper effects through vast periods of time.
    It does not militate against the argument, that there were occasional convulsions, lacerating and dispersing in ruins portions of the fair fabrics that had been raised; or that less violent operations, carried on from age to age, tended more slowly but not less surely to the same result; the intercalated or concomitant processes of destruction served only to prove that there previously existed solid structures which the tooth of time or the crash of catastrophes had invaded, and therefore the regular mineral formations, the entombed organized bodies, and the partial demolitions are thus linked into a harmonious system, furnishing a true geological chronometer and an authentic chronicle of physical events.
    Now if the long range of time included between the beginning and the first day recorded in the Genesis is to cover not only the period in which those rocks were formed, that preceded the dawn of life, but also those that include organized beings and the formations composed of fragments, then it is obvious that the Mosaic history contains no notice of these events, as belonging to that epoch. But if it is still contended that the events really belonged to that period, although they are passed over in silence by the historian, and that six common days were allotted to rearrange and fit up the ruins of this ancient world, not only of rocks, but of animals and plants, so as to prepare the earth for the reception of the human race, then we feel justified in saying, that upon this supposition, the furniture of our present world could not possibly be what it now is, nor by any operation of physical laws could the arrangements be effected in so brief a period of time. The design would be most inappropriate, the appearances widely different from what we behold, and the work, except as a miracle, impossible. No supposition consistent alike with the work and the history will meet the exigencies of the case but a progress in the mineral formations coincident with the periods called days, in which life, in both organic kingdoms, is first announced in the Genesis, as the result of creative power.
    Some eminent geologists, with whom reverence for the Scriptures and reverence for natural truth are only different modes of the same religious sentiment, both having for their basis veneration for the all-wise and beneficent Creator, and proposing for their object, the promotion of confidence in him, and of obedience to his laws, have adopted this, as it appears to me, Imperfect, if not inconsistent solution of the geological difficulties. As regards the coincidence of mineral formations with organic beings, it is just such a solution as would be satisfactory, were there no divisions of time in the Mosaic narrative, and nothing more announced in it than the order of events as actually narrated, the whole range between the beginning and the creation of man being left unernbarrassed by the limitation of days, and perfectly free to be appropriated in ample eras, as the events may seem to require. As the earth is really constituted, it will however answer no valuable purpose to imagine the collected ruins of a former world, brought together, to be remodelled; as the mariner who has survived the tempest, refits, with broken spars and sails, his wrecked and ruined ship. If the ruins and fragments of the present world are to be regarded as mere materials which are again to be concocted; in part dissolved or melted, and elaborately and skilfully wrought over anew, to produce our present world, then this is equivalent to a new creation, and thus we introduce a double operation by almighty power, when one is quite
sufficient, and after all, we leave our difficulties where we found them, without solution and without mitigation. This we must conclude is far from the truth, and our convictions are confirmed by surveying, with Mr. Lyell, the causes that are still in full operation, the geological events that are now in progress, and the effects that are proceeding without impediment or delay, and we thus discover, that since the creation, as regards geological causes, except their varying if not diminished intensity of action, all things remain as they were; no new code of physical laws has been enacted; while the beginning was with God, the continuation of events is with us, and a distant posterity may not witness their termination.
    3. It has been supposed that the succession of geological events may have happened in the first ages of the world, after the creation of man, and before the general deluge. - This supposition is wholly irreconcilable with facts. The universal
prevalence of the waters, rendered it indispensable that the first geological movement should elevate some portion of the land above the ocean. The great series of geological events by which the continents and islands were raised, was incompatible with the residence of man upon the earth: they precluded even the existence of terrestrial quadrupeds, which both geology and the scripture history assign to a late period in the order of things, the same period in the close of which man himself first appears; these movements were, until the period immediately preceding, hostile to the welfare of any beings that required more land than amphibious reptiles; and the vast deposits of fossilized and of crystallized rocks that preceded the era of reptiles, demanded an alternate and concomitant prevalence of water on the surface, and of fire beneath, which were ill adapted to produce and insure the quiet and firm state of the surface, such as we see it now. Although the great agents are still in operation, fire, water, storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, &c., their ultimate effects, if not mitigated in force, are spread through such a range of time, that human life is too limited to cover an extensive cycle of geological changes; the entire period since man was created is, in comparison with geological eras, but a brief space, and does not begin to bear any proportion to eternity. We have therefore, no reason to suppose that the earth has undergone any such changes, as to affect materially the integrity of its entire crust, since man appeared in the world.
    It is true that events are in progress by which a series of fragmentary and fossilized if not of crystallized rocks is forming anew, and they may in time be elevated above the waters of the existing seas, while fresh-water deposits may in turn be drained; this world may last so long, that new continents may arise, where there is now a wild waste of waters, and far more ample space of redeemed land may be provided for the human family, without materially abridging the great highway of nations over the seas. There is no intimation in Sacred History, that any such events happened between the creation and the deluge, and it is obvious that the sparse population of the antediluvian world did not require more territory, especially when the existing races, with the exception of a few individuals, were soon to be consigned to the bosom of the deep, and all the continents and islands when again redeemed from water, were about to be given, in full dominion, to a single family. Although but one fourth part of the land of our world is, to this hour, reclaimed from the ocean, the population of the human family is far from occupying it all. Few countries are as yet peopled to the extent of their means of support, and it will require ages of peace and pure morals and effective industry, before more room will be demanded. We cannot therefore suppose, that a new continent would be elevated, until there should be a necessity for its appearance, and as nothing in sacred or profane history or in the structure of the earth intimates that such an event has happened, we feel quite certain that the great geological arrangements were accomplished before the human era.
    4. It has been supposed that a general deluge will account for all geological events. - In the progress of the preceding
remark we have already had occasion to express a decided opinion on this subject, and it now remains only to sum up the argument.
    This view is entirely inadmissible, except as to those superficial ruins which are commonly spoken of as diluvial. In using this term, geologists do not intend to imply, that these ruins are, of course, attributable to the deluge of the Scriptures.
    In geology, a deluge is a rise and overflow of water. It has no exact limit in time, altitude or violence. A rain, a snow
thaw, an outburst of a lake, a tide, a gale, or a whirlwind, may produce an overflow, but it is not usual to call the event a deluge unless the elevation has been both sudden and considerable. Were the barrier which forms the falls of Niagara to be suddenly ruptured, Lower Canada, New England and New York would be deluged; but the remarkable accumulation of water in the late seasons in the great lakes, in consequence of which they overflowed many buildings and many square miles of territory was not called a deluge.
    The facts revealed by geology demand many partial deluges, and they are admitted by all geologists, with greater or less extent, to account for the transport and deposition of those things which water alone, or water aided by ice could convey. It is necessary also to suppose, that both fresh and salt water, either by their rising or by the subsidence of land, have alternately prevailed and retired, after continuing an indefinite period; sufficiently long, however, to give time for the various animals and plants, marine, littoral, pelagian, fluviatile, or lacustrine, which we find in successive strata, to be deposited and entombed. Igneous action, giving rise, in its vicissitudes, to subterranean expansion and shrinking, heaving and collapses, was the probable cause of these alternate movements.
    Our concern, however, in the discussion under this head, is not with those regular formations which demand long continued energy of physical powers, and corresponding time to produce the effects; but it is with the general deluge, described in the book of Genesis, because we are writing for the sake of those who believe in the genuineness and authenticity of that history.
From the whole course of our argument, it is obvious, that the regular geological formations cannot be ascribed to that short and transient catastrophe. Its genuine effects are exactly those which all geologists ascribe to diluvial action; namely, the transportation of the loose ruins of mineral masses, and of the organic world, which are found strewed every where over the surface of the earth, or buried in its diluvium.
    Professor Buckland, in his Reliquiae Diluvianae, has most ably illustrated the nature and effects of diluvial action; and it is obvious, that the former practice of attributing the organized remains found in the solid strata of the earth to this catastrophe, is founded entirely in an imperfect acquaintance with the subject, and that no man, who had studied geology thoroughly, would, at the present period, fall into such an error.
    As the impression has gone abroad that Professor Buckland has deserted the opinions which he formerly maintained we give him an opportunity to speak for himself. "The evidence (says he) which I have collected in my Reliquiae Diluvianae,1823, shows, that one of the last great physical events that have effected the surface of our globe was a violent inundation, which overwhelmed a great part of the northern hemisphere, and that this event was followed by the sudden disappearance of a large
number of the species of terrestrial quadrupeds which had inhabited these regions in the period immediately preceding it. I also
ventured to apply the name Diluvial, to the superficial beds of gravel, clay and sand, which appear to have been produced by this great irruption of water.
    "The description of the facts that form the evidence presented in this volume, is kept distinct from the question of the identity of the event attested by them with any deluge recorded in history. Discoveries which have been made since the publication of this work, show, that many of the animals therein described, existed during more than one geological period preceding the catastrophe by which they were extirpated. Hence it seems more probable that the event in question was the last of the many geological revolutions that have been produced by violent irruptions of water, rather than the comparatively tranquil inundation described in the inspired narrative.
    "It has been justly argued, against the attempt to identify these two great historical and natural phenomena, that as the rise and fall of the waters of the Mosaic deluge are described to have been gradual and of short duration, they would have produced comparatively little change on the surface of the country they overflowed. The large preponderance of extinct species among the animals we find in caves, and in superficial deposits of diluvium, and the non-discovery of human bones along with them, afford other strong reasons for referring these species to a period anterior to the creation of man. This important point, however, cannot be considered as completely settled, till more detailed investigations of the newest members of the Pliocene, and of the diluvial and alluvial formations, shall have taken place."³
    It appears then, that there is no other change in Prof. Buckland's views than what is common to the geological world, viz. that amidst the vast exuberance of diluvial remains, it is impossible to appropriate to the general deluge, those that belong to it, rather than to more local debacles, and to those of a different era.
    It is not to be supposed that all deposits of gravel, sand, pebbles, &e. are attributable to the deluge of the Scriptures, for it is beyond our power to identify the particular piles and scattered ruins. It is sufficient to say, that as the earth bears every where, marks of diluvial ruins, and is in every country strewed with diluvial ruins, each observer will, for himself, assign to local deluges, or to a general debacle, as great a portion of the effects as may in his view belong to each. Scepticism cannot nullify or set aside the evidence, while the most reverent mind need not desire it to be more ample, nor is he who attributes diluvial remains, in many instances, to other diluvial events, to be censured, or regarded as an enemy to religious truth.
    To those who would assign to the agency of a general deluge the vast work of depositing the immense consolidated geological formations, with all their varied stores of animals, and plants, and fragments, and diversified successions, we can only repeat the opinion already expressed, that such effects, from such a cause, are physically impossible, especially within the limits
of time and under the circumstances assigned in the Mosaic account. It is not necessary to go again into the induction of
particulars.
    We are however still of the opinion, that the actual disposition and arrangement of no small portion of the loose materials is to be attributed mainly to a diluvial ocean - no other probable cause being capable of reaching the regions remote from, and elevated above the present great waters of the globe, while the outline, and in many instances the mass of these deposits, must have been often disturbed by subsequent events.
    The arrangement of the loose materials, on shores and in outlets, and in regions occasionally flooded, is to be referred to agencies now in operation.
    It is also true, that water-worn pebbles are produced at the present time. No one who, on the sea shore, has observed the
incessant lashing of the waves, and has listened to the hollow hum of the stones and pebbles rubbing against each other, with ceaseless friction, can doubt, that rounded, water-worn pebbles, are now every moment forming; and were they found no where else, except on the shores, and in moving waters, there would generally be no difficulty in assigning their origin to this cause. But rounded stones, water-worn pebbles, and bowlders, are found in every country, on the surface and in the soil, and in regions the most remote from the ocean. This of course proves the universal prevalence, sooner or later, at once or successively, of agitated waters.
    Why not, says an inquirer, attribute the rounding, as well as the position of the inland water-worn stones to the diluvial ocean? The obvious answer is, that the time allotted to the deluge described in Genesis is too short for the process of grinding
down hard stones, which would necessarily occupy a very long period. A deluge attended by rapid currents and by floating ice could transport immense masses of these ruins, and deposit them where, to a great extent, we now find them; but it was not
possible that it could, in so limited a period, have effected much, in abrading the angular fragments of quartz, topaz,⁴ and other hard stones, into ovoidal and globular pebbles and bowlders. That effect appears to have been, principally, the work of the earlier oceans.
    The form of the loose materials that cover the rocks, more or less, in every country, is attributable chiefly to the wearing effects of agents, operating, in all time, to produce disintegration and decomposition; their present position may, in many cases, be fairly attributed to diluvial agency.
    An ingenious author, Mr. Penn, convinced that the deluge could not account for the geological successions, has supposed them to be formed in the ocean, between the creation of man and the deluge, at which time the then existing land was, as he thinks, sunk, and the bed of the ocean raised, to form our present continents, bringing up, of course, all the marine deposits of sixteen centuries.
    It is not necessary to discuss this theory. It is disproved by the discovery in caverns, and in the loose wreck, on the surface of the ground, of immense deposits of the bones of terrestrial animals, which have not, within the limits of human knowledge, lived in those countries where they are now found, and many of which could not exist in the present climates of those regions; for instance, the tropical animals, elephants, tigers, hyenas, hippopotami, rhinoceros, &c., are found now abundantly in the diluvium of England, and consequently England was dry land before the deluge that buried these remains, and therefore the existing continents have not been raised from the ocean since the creation of terrestrial quadrupeds, unless they were submersed after that epoch and then raised again. Of this there is not only no proof but the opposite is proved, because the diluvium is not covered by marine strata. Nor is it possible that the drowned quadrupeds of tropical regions should, by drifting, have reached England, and other countries still farther north, without decomposition and falling to pieces.
    The coal beds also, present indubitable proofs of having been formed from terrestrial vegetables, and therefore the regions where they are could not have been submarine, although the occurrence in coal-fields of some marine shells or plants may prove, that at the coal period there were islands and estuaries, where the sea had at least occasional access. Had the continents been again submersed and the bottom of the sea raised, after the creation of man, we should find in the surface of the present crust, nothing but marine remains, which is contrary to the fact.
    The existence of scratches and furrows⁵ upon many rocks, (probably upon all when the diluvium is first removed from them,) appears to prove, that they have been subjected to movements of heavy bodies passing over them, either rolling down inclined surfaces or forced along by floods, or pushed by glaciers, or dragged by moving ice, in which stones and rocks are very often frozen. The direction of these scratches on this continent, as well as in Europe, is such as to give the idea of a current or irruption from the north.
    If the general deluge were a gentle movement, as Dr. Buckland now supposes, it could, as he justly observes, have produced very little alteration on the surface of the earth. If violent and rapid, then the effects would not have been forming, but destroying.
    This is not the place to discuss the question of its literal universality. Many theologians have supposed that it was no farther universal than to accomplish its great object, the destruction of the existing races, except the reserved few. If it were strictly universal, and the highest mountains now known were literally covered to a considerable depth, it will be found that its rise must have been fearfully rapid, far transcending the most violent tides and bores with which we are acquainted, and that it would then be well adapted to harrow up the surface of the ground, and to transport and disperse its ruins, far and wide, over distant countries.
    Upon either view, however, the deluge could never have produced the regular formations of the crust of the earth, and therefore, as regards this question, we may dismiss it from our contemplations.
    We conclude this head by observing, that the remains of the human family, if buried in the diluvium of that period, may, in most instances, have been covered too deep for discovery, or have been swept into the sea; or if found in any instances, it is not probable that they would be distinguished from bones buried in any other way, especially in countries like those which were then the principal seats of the human population; countries in which there has been since, no enlightened curiosity to prompt an intelligent research. We are not, at present, concerned to remove sceptical objections to the Scripture account of the deluge; we take it for granted that it is true, but the friends of the Bible sometimes suggest a question with respect to the inhumed human bones of that period, and this difficulty we wish to remove.
    5. The divisions of time called days in the Genesis are not necessarily restricted to twenty four hours, but may be
understood to be periods of indefinite length. - This view was supported, a few years since, by that eminent geologist, Professor Jameson, of the University of Edinburgh, in a comment upon the lectures of the illustrious Cuvier. We quoted the observations of Prof. Jameson,⁶ in discussing the subject, in connexion with our edition of Mr. Bakewell's Geology, in 1833, and we shall make use of some of them on the present occasion. Cuvier remarks: -
    "The books of Moses show us, that he had very perfect ideas respecting several of the highest questions of natural philosophy. His cosmogony especially, considered in a purely scientific view, is extremely remarkable, inasmuch as the order which it assigns to the different epochs of creation, is precisely the same as that which has been deduced from geological considerations."
    "This, then, is the issue, in the opinion of Baron Cuvier, of that science, which has been held by many persons to teach conclusions at variance with the Book of Genesis, - when at last more matured by a series of careful observations and legitimate induction, it teaches us precisely what Moses had taught more than three thousand years ago."
    We have already remarked, that the coincidences in the Mosaic account of the creation with the truths of geology, are the more valuable, because they are merely incidental to the main object of the history, which was to show that the world had a beginning, and was not eternal, to vindicate the claims of the Creator, as its author and governor, to point out the original state of the globe, and its progress towards a habitable condition, by the emergence of the land, - to indicate the commencement of life, the order in which the principal classes of animated beings first appeared, and the final redemption of so much of it from the waters as was necessary to prepare it for mail, whose creation consummated those astonishing displays of almighty power. Perhaps the claims to a perfect coincidence between geology and the sacred history, have been sometimes made in terms rather too unqualified. It is sufficient that there is a perfect coincidence in the great points, and inconsistency in nothing. A want of agreement has been stated as regards the priority of the animals of the transition rocks, in as much as they are found in deeper strata than the vegetation of the great coal period, whereas the vegetables are first named in the Mosaic account, and the earliest fossilized animals, actually found, are not mentioned at all. In regard to the vegetables, there is good reason to believe that they were at least as early as any animals; vegetables are found, more or less, through the whole transition series, in which the trilobites, orthocerae, encrinites, corallines and mollusca, first appear; and we may probably regard plumbago as the result of vegetable matter, so perfectly carbonized as to have entirely expelled all the gases, and to have destroyed the traces of vegetable structure, - an opinion which is entertained by many geologists. Upon this view, vegetables will take the highest rank in organic antiquity, since plumbago, and even anthracite, are found in some of the slaty rocks of the granite family, anterior to the first appearance of any animals.
    With respect to the silence of the history as to the very first animals, it may be said, that a brief narrative concerning the stupendous work of the creation, comprised within the limits of a single page, could not be expected to contain the minute details of natural history, and less important families would therefore naturally be omitted. Where in the history, is there mention made of infusorial animalculae, any more than of the animals of the transition rocks? But as we cannot dispute the existence of these beings, both fossil and recent, there can be no doubt that their originals were really created. If in every other particular, this surprising history is consistent almost with the letter of the facts, and for so general a sketch, remarkably complete, it may well excite our admiration and gratitude. Professor Jameson proceeds: -
    "The first chapter of Genesis is written in a pure Hebrew. This was the language spoken, and afterwards extensively written, by the people whom Moses conducted to Palestine from the land of Goshen. That it differed greatly from the language of the Egyptians, we have full proof in the Coptic remains of the latter, in the Egyptian proper names preserved in the Hebrew writings, and also in the circumstance that Joseph, when pretending to be an Egyptian, conversed with his brethren by means of an interpreter. Yet in the chapter in question, we find no foreign terms, no appearance of its being translated from any other tongue; but, on the contrary, it bears every internal mark of being purely original, for the style is condensed and idiomatical in the very highest degree. Had Moses derived his science from Egypt, either by oral communication or the study of Egyptian writings, it is inconceivable that some of his terms, or the style of his composition, should not, in some point or other, betray the plagiary or copyist.
    "But the conjecture that Moses borrowed his cosmogony from the Egyptians, must rest, moreover, on a supposition that the order which he assigns for the different epochs of creation, had been determined by a course of observation and induction, and the correct application of many other highly perfected sciences to the illustration of the subject, equal at least in their accuracy and philosophical precision, to those by which our present geological knowledge has been obtained. Nothing less than this can account for Moses' teaching us precisely what the modern geology teaches, if we allow his knowledge to be merely human. How comes it to pass, then, that while he has given us the perfect and satisfactory results, he has been enabled so totally to exclude from his record every trace of the steps by which they were obtained? The supposition of such perfection of geological knowledge in ancient Egypt, implies a long series of observation by many individuals, having the same object in view. It implies of necessity, also, the invention and use of many defined terms of science, without which there could have been no mutual understanding among the different observers, and of course no progress in their pursuit. These terms have all totally disappeared in the hands of Moses. He translated, with precision, the whole science of geology into the language of shepherds and husbandmen, leaving no trace whatever of any one of its peculiar terms, any more than of the curious steps in its progress.
    "But there is a phenomenon in his record still more unaccountable, upon any supposition that his science is merely human. His geology, acknowledged by the highest authority in this age of scientific improvement, to be thus accurate, dwindles down in his hands to be a merely incidental appendage of the most rational and sublime theology. This latter he did not learn in Egypt, for it was in the possession of his ancestors while they were yet inhabitants of Canaan.
    "Shall we then conjecture, that Moses borrowed theology from the Hebrews on the one hand, and geological science from the Egyptians on the other, to compound out of them that brief, but unique and perfect system of both, which is presented to us in the first chapter of Genesis; or, is it possible that we could adopt any conjecture more absurd, and this, too, in utter destitution of all proof that the Egyptians possessed any knowledge of geology in the sense in which we use the term?
    "The result of our inquiry is, that the geology of Moses has come down to us out of a period of remote antiquity, before the light of human science arose; for, to suppose that it was borrowed from, or possessed by any other people than the remarkable race to which Moses himself belonged, involves us, on all hands, in the most inextricable difficulties and palpable absurdities. Of that race, it has been long since justly remarked, that while in religion they were men, in human learning and science they were children; and if we find in their records any perfect system of an extensive and difficult science, we know they have not obtained it by the regular processes of observation and induction, which in the hands of European philosophers, have led to a high degree of perfection in many sciences."
    Professor Jameson proceeds to remark: -
    "The term, the meaning of which we shall first investigate, is 'day' (in the Hebrew, yom.) The interpretation of this, in the sense 'epoch' or 'period,' has been a subject of animadversion, of unnecessary severity in some cases. A careful examination of the first chapter of Genesis itself, leads unavoidably to the conclusion, that our natural day of one revolution of the sun cannot be meant by it, for we find that no fewer than three of the six days had passed before the measure of our present day was established. It was only on the fourth day, or epoch of creation, that "God made two great lights to divide the day from the night, and to be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years.' The very first time that the term occurs in the Hebrew text, after the history of the six days' work, and of the rest of the seventh, as if to furnish us with definite information regarding its true import, we find it employed in a similar manner to that in which we must understand it here; for, in Gen. ii, 4, we have, 'These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, in the day (beyom) that the Lord God made the earth and heavens.' The use of the term in this indefinite sense is so common in the Hebrew writings, that it would be a great labor to quote all the passages in which it is found; and we shall satisfy ourselves by at present referring to Job xviii, 20, where it is put for the whole period of a man's life, 'They that come after him shall be astonished at his day,' (yomu,) speaking of the life of the wicked; and Isaiah xxx, 8, where it is put for all future time, 'Now go note it in a book, that it may be for the latter day (leyom) for ever and ever.' "
We will cite here the following passages to the same intent.
    Luke xvii, 24. - So also shall the son of man be in his day.
    John viii, 56. - Your father, Abraham, rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad.
    2 Peter iii, 8.-One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
    Job xiv, 6.- Turn from him, that he may rest till he shall accomplish as an hireling his day.
    Ezekiel xxi, 25. - And thou profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end.
    Proverbs vi, 34. - For jealousy is the rage of a man; therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.
    " It is quite obvious, from these examples, that the Hebrews used the term (Yom) to express long periods of time. The very conditions of the history in this chapter, prove that it must be here so understood."
    "They who object to this interpretation of the term here, immediately quote against it the reason added to the fourth commandment, 'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and sanctified it.' This is, however, no more than a brief reference, and the
terms of it must therefore be strictly interpreted in accordance with those of the detail to which the reference is made."⁷
    "It has been said that such an interpretation goes to nullify the reasons assigned for the sanctification of every seventh revolution of the sun; but this does not follow. In point of fact, the rest from the work of creation (we use this form of
speech from the example before us) did not endure for only one revolution of the sun, but has continued since the creation of man; and we have no grounds on which to establish even a conjecture of the time of its coming to a close; so that if we were urged to adopt a period of twenty four hours as the meaning of yom, that the six days of creation might literally correspond with our six working days, we  should then find the apparent disagreement, which, by this process, we would endeavor to avoid, transferred to our weekly period of rest, and the rest from the work of creation."
    "It will surely be readily allowed, that the sanctification of the Sabbath has respect to man and his duties; and since his Creator has been made known to him, and the order of the six successive epochs in which the earth was rendered fit for his
habitation; if we are to allow, what surely no reflecting mind will ever deny, that it is his duty to reflect with gratitude on the blessing he has received, and to maintain in his heart a sense of his dependence upon, and responsibility to him, who made the heavens and the earth, and all that they contain, no method could have been devised better calculated for preserving these feelings in constant activity, than appointing some definite portion of time, returning at short intervals, to be devoted to the contemplations that awaken them, nor any interval more appropriate than that which so directly recalls the order of the events of the creation."
    "Since we have introduced the subject of the measure of our present day, we would offer an observation regarding the work of the fourth day, which includes the sun, moon and stars. Respecting the period of their creation, geology, from its nature, gives us no precisely definite indications. The history regarding them is from the 14th to the 18th verses, and we would observe of it, that the terms employed are such as do not absolutely imply that these bodies were at this epoch first created, but admit of the interpretation that their motions were then first made the measures of our present days and seasons. We had found it already stated in the first verse, that the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning, antecedently to the work of six days, by which they were reduced to their present order, and the earth was peopled with organized beings. It would seem an unwarrantable interpretation to exclude the sun, moon and stars from among the objects expressed by the general terms, the
heavens and the earth. It is the most obvious interpretation, that they were then created, and were lighted up on the first day, but that it was only during the fourth epoch they were made, the greater light to rule over the present day, and the lesser light to rule over the present night, and to be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, according to the measures of time, which we now find established by them. This part of the history, then, when interpreted in consistency with, the first verse, and without any violence to the terms, implies, (in the common language of men, which, in all nations, refers the diurnal and annual revolutions of the heavenly bodies to the motions of these bodies themselves,) that the earth was, during this epoch, finally brought into its present orbit."
    "The work of the third epoch was the appearance of the dry land, and the creation of the vegetable kingdom."
    In following Professor Jameson, we shall here omit his critical remarks on the meaning of the Hebrew words in the original history, of the correctness of which Hebrew scholars will judge, and proceed at once to his conclusion, which is that it is very probable the cryptogamous vegetation was the first created; and this corresponds sufficiently well with the prevailing character of the earliest plants. This is a remarkable epoch, when the waters were gathered together into one place, and the dry land began to appear; or, in geological language, the first mountain top raised its crest above the waters of that shoreless ocean. Before this period, there could have been no terrestrial plants, for there was neither soil nor fixture. Internal fire, doubtless, lifted the emerging islands and continents, while the desolation of the universal waters began to be cheered by the verdure of plants, the beauty of flowers, and the fragrance of fruits. Not far from this period also, as we learn from their fossilized remains, were created those early animals, which being entirely immersed in the ocean, and destined never to raise themselves above its surface, made no figure in the drama of creation, and are therefore passed over in silence in the brief roll-call of beings that were first called into life. In proceeding to those animals which are next announced, our author arrives at some important conclusions that appear worthy of great confidence. Omitting his criticisms, as before, we give the results.
    The creations of the fifth epoch are evidently not great whales, as usually understood, but great reptiles; and the entire work of the fifth day appears to have included things that rapidly multiplied in the waters, great reptiles, birds, and winged insects. This corresponds wonderfully with the contents of the rocks⁸ belonging to this period, the animals being altogether oviparous, and none of them viviparous.
    Lastly, in the sixth period, the terrestrial animals, mammalia and man, are called into being, and we know how well this agrees with the contents of the upper strata, where alone (with a solitary exception) viviparous animals are found, and man no where except at the surface. The following table of geological coincidences, drawn up by Professor Jameson, may need a few additions and alterations to accommodate it to more recent observations, but is still mainly correct.
 

Table of Coincidences between the Order of Events as described in Genesis, and that unfolded by Geological Investigation.⁹

    The following remarks in illustration of this table as a summary of the subject, are too interesting to be omitted.
    "In the above table we have not taken advantage of the distinction, which we conceive we have gone far to prove is expressed in the Hebrew text, between the cryptogamous and the other classes of plants, but have set downt he whole vegetable kingdom as forming only one element in the table. We shall also allow that the 4th, 5th, and 6th numbers may be liable to be interchanged among themselves in respect of place, and shall hinge no argument upon them farther than what arises from the circumstance that they are all placed in one group. Yet, after these abatements from the number of particulars, the coincidences here shown between the order of the epochs of creation assigned in Genesis, and that discovered by geology, are calculated to excite the deepest attention. Human science, in the probability of chances, as illustrated by La Place, has put us in possession of an instrument for estimating their value; and we feel amply entitled to take advantage of it for that purpose, for no case could well be pointed out where it would be more correctly applicable than in this, where the coincidences assume a definitely successive numerical form. We are entitled to adopt even the very language of La Place, and, to say, 'By subjecting the probability of these coincidences to computation, it is found that there is more than sixty thousand to one against the hypothesis that they are the effect of chance.'¹⁰
    "It is thus then that the discoveries of geology, when more matured, instead of throwing suspicion on the truths of revelation, as the first steps in them led some persons to maintain, have furnished the most overpowering evidence in behalf of one branch of these truths. The result of these discoveries has been in this respect similar to those of the Chinese and Egyptian histories and the Indian astronomy, but much more striking. Eminent men had pledged their fame in setting up these histories, and that astronomy, in opposition to the chronology of Genesis; but farther and more careful inquiry into their true characters, discovered, that when rightly understood, they only tended to confirm it."
    "We are not afraid that we shall have here quoted against us the words of Bacon, 'Tanto magis haec vanitas inhibenda venit, et coercenda, quia ex divinorum et humanorum, male sana admixtione, non solum educitur, philosophia phantastica, sed etiam religio haeretica.' We have only endeavored to illustrate and point out the consequences of the statement of Baron Cuvier 'that the order which the cosmogony of Moses assigns to the different epochs of creation, is precisely the same as that which has been deduced from geological considerations.' We have been guilty of no improper mixing up of divine and human things. We have examined the meaning of the terms in the first chapter of Genesis, in consistency with the acknowledged rules of criticism, and only by the light contained within itself, or that thrown upon it by the other books in the same language with which it is associated. The human science we have not extracted from any part of the Holy Scriptures; we have taken it simply as we find it in the works of eminent geologists. As the latter is not a philosophia phantastica, but a deeply interesting science, constructed by that method of careful observation and cautious induction, which Bacon was himself the first to recommend; so neither can the sense of the Scriptures present to us a religio haeretica. If our science, thus constructed, and our religion speak so obviously the same language, as we see they do on one important point, what else in the strictest application of Bacon's philosophy, can we deduce from the circumstance, but that both are certainly true?"
    "It does not come under our present subject to discuss the historical and moral evidences of the divine revelation of the Scriptures; but both are so full, even to overflowing, and impose upon us so many insuperable difficulties in the way of our being able to account for the quality and consistency of these remarkable books, excepting on the ground which has been all along assumed by themselves, that they are of more than human origin, that in estimating the accuracy of any part of the matters contained in them, the fastidiousness of human science appears to be carried to an unreasonable extent, not to take these evidences into calculation. In this country,¹¹ where for a long period we have had the Scriptures in our hands as a popular book, they among us who have been the most eminent for human learning and science, and whose fame has been in every view the most unsullied, have been so convinced by the force of these evidences, that they have in general been the most strenuous defenders of revelation."
    "Will not human science, then, condescend to borrow some light to direct the steps of its own inquiries, from a record the accuracy of which it has itself proved, and which is supported by other proofs of the highest order? Or,¹² what should we say to the illustrator of the relics of Pompeii and Herculaneum, who should reject the light thrown on them by the letters of Pliny, authenticated as these are by the existing remains of the buried cities, as well as the historical evidence which is proper to themselves."

    The opinions of Professor Jameson illustrating the views of the lamented Cuvier, being those that are satisfactory to ourselves, we have quoted them with few omissions.
    We now proceed to remark, that we are aware, from much communication on this subject with eminent biblical critics and divines, how tenacious they are, in common with the less enlightened Christian world, of the common acceptation of the word day. On points of verbal criticism we will not presume to speak with great confidence, but from much consideration, aided by the light both of criticism and geology, it does not appear to us necessary to limit the word day, in this account, to the period of twenty four hours.
    1. This word could have no definite application before the present measure of a day and night was established by the instituted revolution of the earth on its axis, before an illuminated sun, and this did not happen until the fourth period.
    2. The word day; in accordance with the practice of all languages, is used even in this short history, in three senses: for light as distinct from darkness, for the light and darkness of a single terrestrial revolution, or a natural day; and, finally, for time at large.
    3. In the latter case then the account itself uses the word day in the sense in which geology would choose to adopt it, that is, for time or a period of time.
    This latter fact appears to be overlooked or neglected by most of those who have criticised the views of geologists, as Professor Jameson justly remarks, "with an unnecessary severity;" but we have a right to hold them to this case, which is exactly in point, being presented precisely where we should wish to find it, and we shall therefore regard it as proving our point; for in the recapitulatory view of the creation in the beginning of the second chapter of Genesis, allusion is made to the whole work, in the expression "in the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth."
    4. If the canons of criticism require that one sense of the word day should be adopted and preserved throughout the whole account, how are we to understand this verse? "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth.'' Which of the three senses shall we adopt? If the most common, then the whole work was performed not in six days, but in one day - of twenty four hours in the popular sense; but according to the geological views the work was done in a sufficient time, be it more or less. The canons of criticism were made by man, and may therefore be erroneous, or at least they may be erroneously applied; the world was made by God, and if the history in question were dictated by him, it cannot be inconsistent with the facts. Why then should we not prefer that sense of the word used in the history itself, which is in harmony with the structure of the globe! It is said indeed by some critics, that the account in the second chapter of Genesis is a different one from that in the first; but with this opinion the geologist, as such, can have no concern; and since he finds both accounts in a connected history, he receives them as one.
    It is agreed on all hands, that the Hebrew word here used for day, although frequently used for time, usually signified a period of twenty four hours; and the addition of morning and evening is supposed to render it certain that, in the present case, this is the real sense and the only one that is admissible, especially as this view is said to be supported by the peculiar genius of the Hebrew language.
    But, in all languages, whenever the subject requires, it is usual to preserve this allusion to morning and evening, even when the word day is used for time; thus, when for instance we speak of the life of a man as his day, in harmony with the rhetorical figure we speak also of the morning and the evening of life.
    In all ages, countries, and languages, as already remarked, this sense of the word day is fully sanctioned, and it is frequently so used in the Scriptures.¹³ Indeed, it might not be too much to suppose that the arrangement by which the sun was to measure time was not completed until the evening of the, 4th day, and then our difficulties will be confined to one day, namely, the 5th. The first three days, obviously, could not have had the present measure of time applied to them, and their morning and evening must therefore have been figurative; an arbitrary division of time, accommodated to the advancing creation, and the work of
arranging the crust of the planet was so far finished by the evening of the 5th day, as to fit it for the reception of terrestrial quadrupeds, which first appeared on the 6th day, and finally, man was created, as would appear, at the conclusion of the same day; of course, the great geological revolutions, beneath the bed of the ancient ocean, must have been so far finished on the 3d day that the continents began to emerge, and thus dry land began to be provided not only for vegetables, but for terrestrial quadrupeds and for man, neither of which could, before this period, have existed on the earth. All this was done before the present measure of time was applied; we do not say before there was light, for elementary light was "the first born of the creation," nor even before the sun shone, but before he was set "to rule over the day and over the night."
    In the usual mode of understanding the account, all the immense deposits of coal, and of early vegetable remains and marine animals, with their vast strata and mountains, the grand mausoleums in which they lie entombed, must have been made within seventy two hours, for there was no dry land until the 3d day, and consequently no terrestrial vegetables; they appeared on that day, aquatic animals on the 5th, and land animals, with man, on the 6th; but the latter could not, as observed above, have appeared until the continents had emerged.
    According to the popular understanding, the transition and secondary mountains with their coal beds, plants, and animals were therefore formed, by physical laws, in two or three natural days, which is incredible, because it is impossible.
    We cannot conceive, therefore, that even the limitation of morning and evening is decisive against the extension which we would claim, and we are left at liberty to interpret the word day in harmony with the facts of geology.
    It is granted that Moses himself probably understood the word day according to the popular signification, and as regards the history in question, this sense is certainly the most obvious one to every mind not informed as to the structure of the globe; even those who are learned on other subjects, but ignorant of geology, always adopt, in this case, the literal and obvious meaning. This however proves nothing; for the truths of astronomy are in exactly the same situation. Until the modern astronomy arose, no one, whether learned or unlearned, entertained a doubt that the earth is an extended plain; that it stands on a firm foundation, even on pillars, and that around it as a center, the sun and starry heavens and the azure canopy, as a solid palpable firmament, revolve, while the waters of the heavens descend through its windows.¹⁴
    Such is still the impression of barbarous nations, while few even of the common people of enlightened countries would now fall into so gross an error; and no one in this age fears that he shall, like Galileo, be thrown into prison for declining (on this subject) to understand the Scriptures in their literal sense.¹⁵
    It is objected as already stated, that as the sabbath is a common day, and that as it is mentioned in the fourth commandment, and in other parts of the Scriptures, in connection with the other six days, they ought to be limited to the same time.
    We cannot see that this consequence follows. The sabbath is a moral enactment; all that precedes was physical, relating merely to the creation and arrangement of matter, and to irrational organized beings; the sabbath could have no relation to rocks and waters, vegetables and animals: it was ordained for man, as a rational being, to bring back his thoughts to his Creator by a day which naturally recalls the great act of creation; and in mercy as a day of rest from labor both for him and for the animal races that were to labor for him: it was a new dispensation, and although the same word is applied both to this period and to those that preceded, it does not appear to follow that the original periods were then, as they are now, of the same length. As the first three days that preceded the establishment of the relation between the sun and the earth could have no measure of time in common with our present experience, it appears to be no unwarrantable liberty to suppose matter may require, although those three days were also verbally limited by morning and evening, and that at a period of the creation when there could have been no morning and evening, in the sense in which those words are now used. It is very remarkable that the seventh day is not limited at all, either by morning or evening, like the other days, and although it must have been actually limited as to its beginning, it does not appear that as a day of rest and cessation from the work of creation it is even yet ended, after nearly 6000 years; therefore as regards the Supreme Being it has already of that length, and we know not when it will end.
The revolution of the earth on its axis in the presence of an illuminated sun being necessary to constitute morning and evening, it must also revolve with the same degree of rapidity as now, in order to constitute such a natural day, with its morning and evening, as we at present enjoy. But as already suggested, the sun not being ordained to rule the day until the fourth of those periods, it is not certain that even after this epoch, those early revolutions of the earth on its axis were as rapid as now; for these might cease altogether, or be greatly increased in rapidity, without affecting the planetary relations of the earth with the sun and with the other members of the system. The historian, as he must employ some term for his division of time, naturally adopted one that he found in familiar use, but it appears, both from the subject matter to which it is applied, and from the use made of it in this very history, that the word day is not in the present case necessarily restricted to its common acception.
It is asked whether Moses had any mental reservation, a double sense for the word day - one for the common people and for men of science; we answer that as it appears from his brief, simple and merely optical statement, that he had no astronomical knowledge beyond what was current among the Egyptians of that day, so it is almost certain that he had no geological knowledge beyond the order of time and events in the creation which his history exhibits. It is very probable that fossil and entombed organized remains and fragmentary rocks, and indeed most of the facts which geology has developed, were unknown to him, that he had observed little on this subject beyond the annual sedimentary deposits of the Nile, and that, as he told a story for mankind at large, he told it in the same spirit and with the same understanding with which it is commonly received. This however decides nothing more than in the case of all the sacred writers who relate astronomical events, or who allude to astronomical appearances in the vulgar sense, which is in direct contradiction to the actual state of facts in astronomy; whereas geology contradicts nothing contained in the Scripture account of the creation; on the contrary, it confirms the order of time and events, and requires only that the time should be sufficiently extended to render it physically possible that the events should happen, without calling in the aid of miracles in a case where natural successions are sufficient to account for all the facts.
    It may be worthy of remark, that supposing that there are inhabitants at the poles of the earth, to them a day of light is six months long, and a night of darkness is six months long, and the day, made up of night and day, covers a year, and it is a day too, limited by morning and evening.
    So at the polar circles there is once in every year a continued vision of the sun for 24 hours, and once in the year a continued night of 24 hours; while every where within the polar circles, the days and the nights respectively are for six months, more than 24 hours long, extending even, as we advance towards the poles, through the time of many of our days and nights. How are these people to understand the week of the creation, if limited to the popular view entertained in countries between the polar circles?
        In Mercury the day is 241 hours long.
        In Venus        " " " "  over 23 "        "
        In Mars          " " "            24h. 40m. "
        In Jupiter        " " "   nearly 6 hours "
        In Saturn the day is over 10 hours long.
        In our Moon " " " " " a lunar month.
    Thus it appears that the actual days of the planets differ considerably, and that of the earth¹⁶ differs remarkably at and within the polar circles, as those in lower latitudes differ very much from each other.
    The result of all our inquiries, then, is this.
    We find that the geological formations are in accordance with the Mosaic account of the creation; but more time is required for the necessary events of the creation than is consistent with the common understanding of the days. The history therefore is true, but it must be understood so as to be consistent with itself and with the facts. It is agreed on all hands, that there may be time enough for the central rocks before the first day; we have already given our reason why we cannot throw back the creation of organized beings into the indefinite period that precedes the first day; vegetables and animals are introduced in connection with the days and not before, and there is no reason to suppose that there has been a double creation or merely a new arrangement of fragments and ruins; therefore if the days be regarded as periods of time, so as to allow room for the events assigned to them, relating to organic beings, and to the masses in which they are entombed, all difficulty is removed.
    On the contrary, if they are restricted to the usual popular sense, it is not physically possible that the events should have happened within the time assigned; but they did happen, and as there was no call for miracles in cases where natural operations alone were sufficient, there can be no doubt that sufficient time was allowed.
    It is scarcely necessary to remark, that when the order and arrangement of creation was fully finished, and man appeared on the earth, the measures of time were, without doubt, finally established the same as now, and therefore we are not at liberty, as
there is clearly no occasion, to regard them in any other than the usually accepted sense.
    It is no valid objection to the supposition of more time than is commonly allotted to the week of the creation, that there were no human beings to be spectators of the work. Even upon the popular view they were excluded, because the human race did not appear until the very last act of the creation. Had they, however, been co-existent, they would scarcely have understood what was passing, as most of the geological facts were veiled by the ocean. But there were not wanting spectators; God, and angelic beings, far superior in intelligence and dignity to man, looked on, while in the beautiful and highly figurative language of the Scriptures - "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."¹⁷
    Before closing these remarks, we will respectfully submit a few suggestions for the consideration of two very different descriptions of persons, namely, those who deny, and those who defend, the truth of the Mosaic history.
    To the former class, so far as they are geologists, we will say, that, in relation to geology, any attempt to disprove the truth or genuineness of the Pentateuch, and of Genesis in particular, is wholly superfluous, and quite aside from any question that can, in this age, be at issue between geologists. No geologist, at the present day, erects any system upon the basis of Scripture history, or any other history. Still, historical coincidences with natural phenomena have always been regarded as interesting, because they are mutually adjuvant and confirmatory. The letter of Pliny, describing the death of his uncle, would have been true, although Herculaneum and Pompeii had never been discovered; and it would have been true that those towns were overwhelmed by a volcanic eruption, although the letter of Pliny had never been written; or being written, if it had been false as to the main fact of the death of the elder Pliny, or of their having been an eruption at the time assigned in that writing. But an authentic letter exists describing the event, and as it coincides with the facts revealed by the discovery of the buried cities, conviction flashes upon every mind, and the unexpected and beautiful coincidence, like many of those that add strength to the evidence in support of the sacred volume, affords one of those firm points of reliance upon which our confidence reposes with delight. Now if there is not sufficient proof in the appearance of the earth, that it was for a long time covered by water, and that the waters deposited, in the then forming strata and mountains, those organic bodies, of aquatic origin, which we find entombed in them, then no geologist of the present day would, in that character, on the authority of the first chapter of Genesis alone, assume the fact of terrene submersion, as the basis of his reasoning and as the foundation of a geological system.
    In the same manner, if he find on the face of the earth no proofs of diluvial devastation; if there be nothing to evince, that mighty rushing waters have torn up and transported to a distance the movable materials of the surface; then, as a geologist, he will never assume the Mosaic account of the deluge as the basis of a system of diluvial agency, any more than he will build similar conclusions upon the poetry, tables, and mythology, or even upon the history, of the ancients. But if he discover proofs, and those too, generally admitted by well instructed geologists, of both the stupendous events named above, or of a succession and diversity of such events, sufficient, on the whole, to mark the entire earth by the effects appropriate to each; if then he finds a history of high antiquity, and generally revered wherever known, describing such a state of things as the condition of the planet reveals, what rule of science or of philosophy can debar him from bringing the two into comparison, for mutual illustration, as is always done in the case of other antiquities. Why should any one object to his applying the terms of the history, as he understands them, and then measuring the phenomena by them, and them by the phenomena? If they agree, surely, it is reasonable that conviction should receive augmented strength in his mind. Should they, however, disagree, the phenomena, if correctly observed and correctly reported, will still be true, and the credit of the history will, of course, be impaired. Should, moreover, the genuineness or authenticity of the history be disproved, from other sources than the phenomena, the latter will still remain in all the obstinacy of immutable fact, which history may indeed illustrate, but cannot, on the contrary, disprove. If the history, on the other hand, be confirmed by the natural phenomena, it has then received the greatest confirmation possible, and may well exult in so powerful an ally.
    Should it, in the case of the Pentateuch, be proved even, that there was never any such person as Moses, or that the books that pass under his name were written by others, or that they are compilations of ancient and vague traditions, or even of reputed or real fables, this would not, in the least, affect the system of geological truth that has been erected by an ample course of investigation and induction. But, as long as the Mosaic history is admitted to be both genuine and true, any geologist who
receives the history in that character, may, with strict historical and philosophical propriety, illustrate the history by geology, and compare geology with the history.
    This he will do merely on the ground of historical and geological coincidence, and without drawing for the support of his scientific views upon any portion of his moral feeling, towards a work which, as an individual, he may revere as a communication from his Maker, for purposes far more important than the establishment of physical truth.
    To personal imputations on his motives, his science or his skill, or on those of eminent philosophers with whom he has the honor to think and to act, while he leaves the case, with the grand inquest of the learned, the candid and the wise, he will reply in no other manner than by expressing the hope that powerful and cultivated, but unbelieving minds, minds confiding implicitly in physical, but sceptical with respect to moral truth, may be influenced to see the harmony of all truth, whether historical, moral or physical, and to remember that man is, after all his acquirements in knowledge, a being, so darkly wise, although rudely great, that he is constantly in danger of error, error against which he should the more studiously guard when the
physical subjects which may be the objects of his study have also a high moral relation. While, therefore, in geology, as well as in other sciences, we fully approve, and follow the course of rigid induction - (the only safe and truly philosophical process of
investigation, and solid basis of physical truth,) we hold it to be entirely proper in a scientific view, to avail ourselves of every apposite historical fact, from whatever credible source it may be derived. Indeed, no geologist hesitates to cite history, travels, personal narrative, and even poetry and tradition, in confirmation or illustration of earthquakes, floods, or volcanic eruptions; of the rising or sinking of islands; of alluvial increase or destruction; of ruptures of the barriers of lakes; of irruptions of the sea - or whatever other fact may be the subject of his investigation. Why then should the Scripture history form the only exception among historical authorities?
    Having made these suggestions to those geologists who are not believers in divine revelation, we will now address a few remarks to believers who are not geologists.
    The subject before us is not one which can be advantageously discussed with the people at large. A wide range of facts, a familiarity with physical science, and an extensive course of induction, are necessary to the satisfactory exhibition of geological truths, and especially to establish their connexion and harmony with the Mosaic history. It is a subject exclusively for the learned, or at least for the studious and the reflecting; but as regards their own mental furniture, it can no longer be neglected with safety, by those whose province it is to illustrate and defend the sacred writings. The crude, vague, unskilful, and unlearned manner, in which it has been too often treated, when treated at all, by those who are, to a great extent, ignorant of the structure of the globe, or who have never studied it with any efficient attention, can communicate only pain to those friends of the Bible, who are perfectly satisfied, after full examination, that the relation of geology to sacred history, is now as little understood by many theologians, and biblical critics, as astronomy was in the time of Galileo.
    Non tali auxilio, non defensoribus istis, tentpus eget!
    There is but one remedy; theologians must study geology, or if they will not, or from peculiar circumstances, cannot do it, they must be satisfied to receive its demonstrated truths from those who have learned them in the most effectual way, not only in the cabinet, but abroad on the face of nature, and. in her deep recesses. They will then be convinced that geology is not an enemy, but an ally of revealed religion; that the subject is not to be mastered by mere verbal criticism; that faithful study must be applied to facts, as well as to words, and that there is, at most, only an apparent incongruity, an incongruity which vanishes before investigation.
    The mode in which the subject is now treated, or rather neglected or spurned by many theologians and critics, (not by all, for there are honorable exceptions,) is not safe, as regards its bearing on the minds of youth. If they go forth into the world in the stiffness of the letter, and without the knowledge or proper application of the facts, it is impossible that they should sustain themselves against those who, with great knowledge, and no reverence, may too powerfully assail what they cannot defend. In the pulpit, however, geology can be but very imperfectly explained, even by him who understands it; for it is impossible that he should there, intelligibly and adequately exhibit his proofs; they rest on a multitude of facts unknown to a common audience; and they are too far dependent on specimens, sections and other graphical illustrations, to be understood in such circumstances, especially by those who have enjoyed no mental preparation in kindred sciences, and in courses of inductive reasoning. Since
the subject has no other connexion with our faith as Christians, than so far as it affects the credibility of the early Scripture history, it is therefore wise, as to the literal sense of the days, not to disturb the early and habitual impressions of the common people, or even of the enlightened, who are ignorant of geology. Any discussion before such audiences, and in such circumstances, will be misunderstood, or not understood at all, and will only prejudice the reputation of the speaker without benefiting the hearer.
    This, however, does not excuse the theologian from being fully prepared to meet the subject in other places, and in situations where it will be forced upon his attention. It is a part of the panoply of truth, in which he should be fully clad, although he may rarely draw his bow, and perhaps never let fly an arrow from his appropriate watchtower.
    As the case now stands, with respect to most theologians in this country, the geological arguments in support of the Mosaic history, although powerful and convincing, are unknown and neglected, or they are denied, slighted and avoided; and of course they can be, and they actually are, by some few geologists, turned, with too much success, against the sacred records; it remains with the defenders of those records to say, whether the purloined weapons shall be returned to the armory whence they were stolen, and from which they may be again drawn forth for efficient use in support of the cause of truth.
    Theologians who were trained before geology was understood, and before it was possible to acquire, in our seminaries, an adequate knowledge of its elementary truths, are not included in these remarks, and we are happy to observe the increasing attention which is paid to the subject by some students in the sacred science.
    After a long course of careful study on this subject, the study of the earth in mines and mountains, as well as in books and cabinets, we feel it our duty to declare, that this noble science merits not the neglect with which it is frequently treated, nor the reproaches and hostility with which it is too often assailed. This mode of treatment will not destroy the facts, or for a moment retard the progress of truth. Were the thunders of the Vatican¹⁸ now levelled at geology, as they were two centuries ago at astronomy and some of its early cultivators, it would no more avail than it then did. The march of truth is onward, and onward it will go. Denunciation, neglect or sneers, will not arrest its course, nor can ignorance or misrepresentation long hold it in dishonor. The Christian world must and will admit its established truths, and these truths teachers must learn, or their pupils will leave them in the darkness which some appear to covet.
    Kind communications and instructions will remove the doubts and fears of those who are anxious lest old foundations of faith
should be disturbed, and they will perceive that the building does not totter to its fall, but that new buttresses and props have fixed it, more firmly than ever, on an immovable basis of physical as well as moral demonstration.
    These suggestions have been made with the sincere and earnest hope of doing good, especially to those who greatly neglect a subject of high interest, which it much concerns them to know.¹⁹ But it will be no new case, should a mediator between hostile armies fail to conciliate either party, and only provoke the artillery of both; nor would it create either surprise or displeasure, should the writer of these remarks be regarded as an intruder on consecrated ground. This ground, however, he considers as common to all the friends of truth, and among geologists there are not a few who regard the Scriptures with quite as high an interest as physical science, and who are anxious to prove, that where others discover only discord, there is a principle of harmony, which a skilful hand may draw forth, in tones delightful to all who have an ear to perceive and relish "the universal harmonies of nature."

Footnotes (as they originally appeared in the Silliman selection)

1. "Of old hast thou laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands." - Ps. cii: 25. "And thou, Lord, in the beginning, hast laid the foundations of the earth." Heb. i: 10.
2. "This statement appears to be entirely distinct from all that follows." - W.M. Higgins, F.G.S.; the Mosaic and Mineral Geologies: London, 1833.
3. Bridgewater Treatise, 2d Lond. edit., p.93, note.
4. Found on a beach in New Holland. We have a topaz pebble from these shores which is perfectly ovoidal.
5. See an interesting paper by Mr. T.A. Conrad on the subject of the transfer of bowlders, &c. in Am. Jour., Vol. xxxv, p.237. Also an admirable memoir by Prof. Agassiz on glaciers, moraines, and erratic blocks. - Jameson's Edinb. Jour., Vol. xxiv, p.364.
6. Am. Jour. Vol. xxv, p.26.
7. In accordance also with the popular acceptation of the length of the days of the creation, to which the allusions in the Scriptures are, every where, necessarily accommodated.
8. In our remarks upon the successive rock formations, we have purposely omitted any allusion to the metamorphic theory espoused by the Huttonian school, ably illustrated by Mr. Lyell, and carried to an incredible extreme by Prof. Keilhau in his account of the rocks around Christiana, Norway, where, according to him, granite passes, by insensible gradations, into slates replete with organic remains. His observations are very curious, and many of them original, but they will demand a very strict revision. - See Jameson's Edinb. Jour. Vol. 25, pp.80-203.
9. It has been objected to the geological account of the death of animals found in the rocks, that as death came into the world by sin, there could have been no death until the fall of Adam. Most evidently the death referred to is the spiritual death of the human race; we do not object to its being explained so as to include also their physical death, but plainly it has no reference whatever to the death of animals. The carnivorous regimen established among particular genera of all the classes of animals, sufficiently proves that the death of some was indispensable to the continuance of others in life; and Dr. Buckland has shown that it is on the whole a dispensation of mercy, as the amount of animal enjoyment is thereby much increased as well as by their natural death; otherwise the world would be overrun with aged and infirm races and individuals. - ED.
10. Syst. du Monde, book v, chap. 5
11. Scotland, but the author's remark applies with equal force in this country - ED.
12. This argument we attempted to illustrate in the early part of the present life discussion. - ED.
13. See the instances already cited previously in the selection.
14. For an admirable view of the inconsistencies of those who would adopt the light of science as regards the firmament, the rains, and the starry host, and celestial space, and deny the same liberty to geology as regards extensions of time, see Am. Jour. of Science and Arts, Vol. xxx, p.114, Sig. K.
15. When the present system of astronomy was introduced, it met with the most violent opposition, and the following is the "Judgment pronounced at Rome, in 1622, only two hundred and seventeen years ago, on the Philosophy of Galileo, and on the Philosopher himself, by the seven Cardinal Inquisitors." "To affirm that the sun is in the center, absolutely immoveable, and without locomotion, is an absurb proposition, false in sound philosophy, and moreover heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. To say that the earth is not placed in the middle of the world, nor immoveable, is also a proposition absurd and false in sound philosophy; and considered theologically, is at least erroneous with respect to faith." "Whereupon Galileo so refuted, was compelled on his knees to abjure, curse, and detest the absurdities, errors, and heresies, which the sagacity of the Cardinal Reviewers and Inquisitors had discovered in his writings." - Penn's Compar. Estimate, &c., 2d Ed. Vol. 1, p.37.
16. An eminent biblical critic and Hebraist, now in Europe, once remarked to me, when speaking of the word day as used in   the first chapter of Genesis, that the use of the word in the three first days was mere costume, (manner,) and if so in those cases, why, added he, may they not be so considered in all?
17. In this summary we have found it necessary to repeat some remarks in a new connexion.
18. The Vatican stands acquitted on the present occasion, for it is a curious fact, both in morals and science, that the lectures of the Rev. Dr. Nicholas Wiseman, of the Catholic church, Principal of the English College, and Professor of the University of Rome, recently delivered in Rome itself, under the very eye if not listening ear of the Pontiff, contain a view of the connexion of geology with the Scripture history, so truly catholic, and in the main, so just in science, that it may well gratify a Christian geologist, and reprove many Protestant divines.
19. It is perhaps not improper to mention, that an eminent Hebrician and biblical scholar, who had been trained up in the common opinions, which he had cherished for many years, and had never doubted their correctness, was entirely convinced on hearing a course of geological lectures, fully illustrated by specimens and drawings. With great candor he himself came out the next season, 1835, in a public course of lectures on the subject of the creation, and in the same room, (that of the Franklin Hall at New Haven,) avowing his conviction of the truth of our geological views, fully vindicated by the extension of time required by geology; even in the days themselves, as well as in the antecedent period.
    See also a very able and candid discussion of this subject in the comment of Prof. Bush, late of New York University, on the book of Genesis. We hazard nothing in predicting many conversions on this controverted subject, and ultimately perfect harmony between Christian geologists and Christian teachers.
    The view taken by Prof. Bush corresponds, substantially, with that sustained by Dr. Murdock, namely, that the long periods of the creation called days, may have been made up of many shorter days, each having its morning and evening. We are in no degree anxious as to the mode in which critics may furnish an explanation consistent with the requisite extension of time, provided the time be associated with the successive creations and fossilization of the organic beings which are truly medals of the ancient world.