10. P. H. Gosse (Omphalos, Lond. 1857). The theory of this writer is a reproduction of Granville Penn, with a dash of the old, arbitrar}', anti-geologic notion of the creation of the rocks, with fossils complete as they are. He affirms a principle which he calls the law of " Prochronism," in virtue of which the strata of the surface of the earth, with their fossil flora and fauna, may possible' belong to a "prochronic" (i. e. to an un- real and symbolical or tj-pical) develoi)ment of the might}^ plan of the life history of the world.
The preceding account, though it is onlv a very general view of the principal hypotheses on this sub- ject, yet sufficientl}^ shows how the minds of the framers have felt the power of the sacred writings. They have done homage, unconsciously in man}' in- stances, to divine truth, by acknowledging the neces- sity of accordance with it, however widely they have diverged from its plain teaching. It is a notable in- stance of the commanding power of the Scriptures that thus, through ages of ignorance and periods of enlightenment, the}'' should still have been the pole- star, guiding all voyagers in their pathless track to- wards the unknown.
11. "We have reserved until last, as being, on the whole, the most comprehensive and satisfactory, the conclusions of Mr. Crofton, which have now for some years been before the world (originally sketched in Kitto's Journal, Jan. 1850), and have not been refuted by any philologer. He affirms that, apart from geo- logical considerations, and judging from analogy with Scripture alone, the interpretation of the sacred vol- ume renders the following ten propositions credible.
(1.) That the absolute age of our earth is not defined, in the sacred volume.
(2.) That there may have been a long interval in duration between the creation of "the heaven and the earth" mentioned in the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis and the continuation of the earth's history in the second verse.
(;!.) That the term "the earth" does not apply nec- essarily, in every instance, to the whole of our planet, but sometimes only to a part of it.
(4.) That the state of the earth, described in the second verse as "without form and void," does not necessarily mean matter never reduced to form and order, but may signify matter reduced to disorder, after previous organization and arrangement.
(5.) That the "darkness" "upon the f;ice of the deep," also mentioned in the second verse, is not neg- ative of the previous existence of light, but may have boon only a temporary one.
((J.) That the commencement of the account of the first six days' creation dates from the beginning of the third verse, "And God said, Let there be light."
(7.) That the a<.'t of " the first day" does not neces- sarily signify the creation of light, but may have been only the calling of it into operation upon the scene of "darkness" described in the second verse.
GEOLOGY
797
GEOLOGY
(8.) That the calling of "the light Day" and " the darkness Night," with the declaration tliat " the even- ing and the morning were the first day," does not nec- essarily imply that this was the first day, ubsuluUbj speaking.
(9.) That the work of "the second daj^" mentioned in the sixth, seventh, and eighth verses, ma}' have been only an oiicration performed upon the atmosphere of our earth.
(10.) That the work of "the fourth daj^" described from tlie fourteenth to the eighteenth verses, does not necessarily imply that the sun, moon, and stars were then lirst created or formed, for the first time, from pre-existent matter ; but may only have been that they were then, for the lirst time in the detail of the liistory of tlie present earth, made visible to it, and ordained to their offices W'ith respect to the coming hu- man creation {Genesis and Geoiofjy, Lond. 1852 ; Phila. 1853).
II. Controversy between Geologists and Theolocjians. — "The kindred sciences of geology and palasontology cannot yet be said to have been in existence more than eighty years. But they had scarcely begun. to assume the form and lineaments of sciences when that jeal- ousy, which has never since the days of Galileo ceased to exist to some extent between the religionist and the natural philosopher, began to evince itself. The religionist was alarmed by rumors that the rocks, un- der the searching eye of the geologist, disclosed a state of facts which was wholly at variance with the Mosaic detail of the manner and order of the creation ; and the studies of the geologists were, without much in- quiry, condemned and denounced, in no very measured terms, as destructive of the doctrine of the divine in- spiration of the Scriptures, and as infidel in their in- ception and tendency. On the other hand, the man of science was not slow in retorting that, if the record of Moses was of divine origin, it had nothing to appre- hend from the development of facts ; and that, if it could not bear the test of physical truth, it must give way, even though it stood on the threshold of the treasury of inspiration ; for that, in such a crisis, the testimony of the senses with which man has been en- dowed for his guidance must prevail against mere matters of faith. In argument the man of science had the advantage, but in practice he erred by too fre- quently assuming geological facts and Scripture inter- pretation without sufficient inquiry, and so contribu- ted, by hastily formed conclusions, to put asunder the word and the works of God, which, by the decrees of Omniscience, must ever be joined together.