Moses, in verse second, or the raising of the mountains and dry land, and the subsidence of the waters of the ocean, in verse ninth, of the first chapter of Genesis, with all the accompanying change and turmoil of a second chaos and new creation, had taken place. The preservation of these extinct animals, under such a condition of things, would certainly appear surprising.

When we examine the perfect state of preservation of some of our most delicately formed fossil leaves and stems, lying almost on the surface of the uppermost strata-the pearly lustre of shells-the tender tissues of animals- or think that the entire carcass of the Siberian elephant should have remained with only a slight covering of mud and ice, with the flesh in such a state of preservation as to be fit food for bears and wolves, we would require strong facts and powerful reasonings to persuade us that these have survived through "millions of millions of ages," the wreck of ancient worlds, the dark period of chaos, and the various commotions incident to the formation of an entirely new world. And yet there is no alternative between this supposition and the theories in question. They will not admit even of a catastrophe, such as the deluge, to disturb the surface of the soil at any period, subsequent to the commencement of the present creation, and existing order of things.

E

But it may be said, and has been adduced as a strong point of argument for the theory in question, Why are the extinct animals and plants of such a peculiar and almost exclusive character? It might rather be asked, assuming the theories to be true, Why are the fossil remains not more distinct and extraordinary than they are? They have the same structure, indicate similar habits, belong to the same general classes into which recent organized beings have been divided, and indicate similar genera, some species identical, and many, with slight variations; while every recent discovery, as it adds to the hitherto small amount of ascertained fossils, is swelling the proportion of those that are identical with existing species. If the facts of geology, then, demand an organized world anterior in date to the present, we must renounce altogether the authority of Moses as it is generally interpreted and understood.

A third theory has been partly suggested by the earlier divines, which is somewhat a modification of the extension of the term, Day. Bishop Patrick, who, in his commentary on Genesis, written about one hundred and fifty years ago, at a period when he was less likely to be influenced by scientific prepossessions than at present, though even then his biblical emendations were prompted by the doubts and suggestions of the geologists, thus remarks on the second verse of the first chapter of Genesis :

"Moses, in the words without form and void, gives a description of that which the ancients called chaos, wherein the seeds and principles of all things were blended together, which was indeed the first of the works of God, who, as Moses shews us in the sequel, produced this beautiful world out of this chaos. How long all things continued in mere confusion, after the chaos was created, before this light was extracted from it, we are not told. It might be, for any thing that is here revealed, a great while ; and all that time the mighty Spirit was making such motions in it as prepared, disposed, and ripened every part of it for such productions as were to appear successively in such spaces of time as are there afterwards mentioned by Moses, who informs us that after things were digested, and made ready to be wrought into form, God produced every day for six days together some creature or other till all was finished."

Bishop Horsley also remarks, "that the interval between the production of the matter of chaos, and the formation of light, is undescribed and unknown."*

Michaelis farther suggests, that the first four days of creation, previous to the visible introduction of the sun and moon, may have been elongated periods, as previous to the fifth and sixth days there was no definite measurement of time.

* Biblical Criticisms.

Other theorists and commentators entertain the opinion that the narrative of Moses may be couched in that figurative language which is common throughout some of the Scriptural writings; and that though the facts which he relates may be substantially true, yet that the narration is framed in that popular and pictorial style suited to the capacities of the general mass of men for whom it was intended.

But this is an extremely loose mode of reasoning indeed. The Scriptures must be held to contain matters of fact applicable to all men, of all intellects, otherwise they must lead only to error and delusion; and if we can conceive that it was the pleasure of the Divine Being to reveal to man so much of the origin of the world which he inhabits, as was deemed necessary, it is reasonable to suppose that it was just as easy to give that revelation simply and unequivocally as to clothe it in mystery and allegory. Nor indeed does the other parts of the book of Genesis partake of this character. It is, throughout, a plain, simple, and matter of fact history, with the names and dates given to a scrupulous nicety.

The utmost latitude, then, that the interpretation of the narrative of Moses will admit of, is, that an indefinite period of time may have elapsed between the first formation of the earth into a mass, and the commencement of the first of the days of creation,

when light was elicited.* In this period, the inorganic matter of the globe may have suffered change, but organized beings could have had no existence. In the four first days of creation, as morning and evening are not measured by the presence of the sun and moon, it is doubtful and unascertainable from the narrative whether day and night was exactly of the same length as the days and nights subsequently portioned out by the presence of those luminaries.

Assuming that there is room for making such interpretations as above, without doing violence to the Mosaic narrative, and supposing hypothetically that these interpretations are correct, what would be their bearing on geological phenomena ?

The indefinite period implied in the second verse of Genesis during the chaotic, "or empty and void," state of the earth, would give time, if, at such a period it was required, for the formation to any given extent of the primary nonfossiliferous strata; but an elongation of the first four days of creation into epochs or eras would meet with the same contradiction in the secondary fossiliferous strata as taken notice of in section I. page 76. In how far this elongation of the first days of creation would have been applicable to the appearance of the earth's surface, as first constituted, it is

* Genesis, i. 1, 2.