(2.) Instead of carrying man back to tlie period assigned to the mammoth and other great extinct pachyderms, we arc re-, quired rather to bring tlie mammotli down to tlie period of man.
(3.) AVe may safely say that the facts elicited not only show- that those deposits in which remains of man have been found viaij have been formed within the six thousand ytars of his- torical clironology, but that in all probability such ivas the case.
(4.) The knowledge we yet have of the dynamical geology of the various sup-rftcial formations from the " pleistocene" upward, is not such as to enable lis to reach trustworthy con- clusions with reg.ard to past time.
(5.) Geological changes have taken place in the past with a rapidity seldom if ever witnessed at present.
6. In view of all the difficulties, some interpreters in despair abandon all attempt at reconcilement lietween the Mosaic record and scientific findings, e. g. Kalisch, as above, and in general the whole Eationalistic school. Even Quarry (Genesis and its Authorship, Lond. 1866 chap, i), while acutely and forcibly showing the un tenableness of the adjustments proposed in favor of the geological schemes, is not content with pronounc- ing the effort premature, in view of the unsettled state of the sciences involved, but proceeds to lay down the axiom that we must ''give up looking for physical truth where moral truth alone is to be expected." But surely this is not simph' a case where the phenomenal theorj' of interpretation is competent to explain the whole discrepancy — applicable as that principle was seen to be to much of the phraseology of the Jlosaic account as earh' as the time of Gregoiy of Nj'ssa {Hexaemeron, in 0pp. Greg. Nys., where the optical ex- planation is advocated) ; for as Moses is expresslj' writing on the subject of creation, a just exegesis de- mands that his statements — so far as they are parallel — must tally with all later discoveries and conclusions. See IIermeneutics.
Mr. Quarry {Genesis, p. 17 sq.) adduces the follow- ing alleged disci'epancies as evidence of the non-his- torical character of the narrative in Gen. i, ii : (1.) The apparently simultaneous ci'cation of both " the heavens and the earth" in the beginning, whereas the firmament, the celestial bodies at least, are represented as lieing formed in detail at a later day. But if, as we hold, the first verse merely declares the calling into existence of tlie primordial matter or element.s, not only docs all repetition vanish, but the distinction inherent in tlie nature of the case lietween creation proper and progressive development is duly observed. Our ex-
GEOLOGY
801
GEOLOGY
planation likewise dissipates his objection to the use of the term " days" before the creation of the sun. (2.) He alleges that the numeral 'IHX, one, being here anar- throus, cannot properly be rendered " first" in connec- tion -with the opening eve-morn of creation, in the sense of the order of time. But certainly it can have no other meaning when followed in the same series by the other undoubted ordinals "second," "third," etc. That the sixth day alone has the article is due to its emphasis as the concluding one of the working week. (.3.) The correlation between the two triads of works — " the luminaries of the fourth day corresponding to the light of the first, the fishes and birds of the fifth to the waters and the firmament of the second, and the ter- restrial animals of the sixth to tl;e dry land of the third"- — constitutes no valid argument against the matter-of-fact character of the representation ; for these are merely signs of the progress and harmonj' observ- able in all God's i)lans, and a special coincidence aris- ing in this case from the necessarily gradual prepara- tion of the globe for its varied classes of tenants. The assumptions that birds are impliedly represented as being produced from the air, that the creatures were all brought before Adam immediately upon their crea- tion, and that the woman was formed on a different day from the man, are all gratuitous and erroneous, as is likewise the supposition that the absence of veg- etation in chap, ii, 5 was absolute and universal, in- stead of referring to a mere spontaneous f/roicih, and that in Eden simply.
Iir. Geological Fo7-7na(ions.—'-^ The crust o{ the earth is composed of rocks, which have been formed, some b}' the action of five, such as granite, basalt, porphj-rj', and greenstone, which are termed igneous rocks, and some by sedimentary deposit at the bottom of water, such as sandstone, limestone, shale, etc., which are known as aqueous or stratified rocks. Igneous rocks were first formed ; and on these, from time to time, through the long ages of our planet's existence, were deposited the many successive layers of sedimentary stratified rocks, in which are found the fossil remains of the animals and plants that were in existence during the several periods of deposition. These lay- ers of rocks Iiave been frequently and extensively, throughout these ODras of their formation, broken up and distorted by volcanic action, and the protrusion of igneous rocks from beneath, upwards, and through them ; and by these the mountain ranges, in all pai'ts of the earth, have been elevated, and those diversities of land and sea which the face of our planet presents, have been formed." We shall continue, in accordance with the prevalent theory, to characterize the basis rocks, i. c. granite, and its unstratified congeners, as {ffneou.% although recent investigations tend to the con- clusion that the}^ as well as the superincumbent anima- ted series, are the result of the disintegrations, decom- positions, and fresh combinations of aqueous agency.