The results at which we have arrived by the long, and we fear tedious,

line of argument pursued in the last Chapter, may be briefly summed up.

First, many illustrious Fathers of the Church--Saint Augustine, Origen,

Clement of Alexandria, Saint Athanasius, and others--plainly declared

against the opinion that the Days of Creation were days in the ordinary

sense of the word; and, therefore, it is a mistake to suppose that this

opinion is supported by the unanimous voice of Christian tradition.

Secondly, the word Day is frequently used in Scripture for a long

period of time, and sometimes for a period of indefinite duration.

Thirdly, there is nothing in the language of Moses that forbids us

to explain the word according to this sense, in the first chapter of

Genesis. And fourthly, there is, at least, one grave consideration,

derived from Holy Scripture itself, which distinctly points to such

an interpretation. The Six Days of Creation are contrasted with the

Seventh Day of God’s rest; and this Seventh Day of God’s rest is

unquestionably a long period of undefined duration. From all this it is

obvious to conclude, that we may fairly adopt this mode of interpreting

the Mosaic Days, if it will assist us in reconciling the received

conclusions of science with the truths of Revelation.

Now, there is a striking resemblance, in some important respects,

between the order of Creation as exhibited in the successive days of

the Sacred Record, and the order of Creation as manifested in the

successive periods of Geological time. Three days are specially marked

out by the Inspired Historian as distinguished by the creation of

vegetable and animal life--the Third, the Fifth, and the Sixth. On

the Third Day were created plants and trees; on the Fifth, reptiles,

fish, and birds; on the Sixth, cattle, and the beasts of the earth,

and, toward the end, man himself. Geologists, on the other hand, not

influenced in the least degree by the Scripture narrative, but guided

chiefly by the remains of animal and vegetable life which are preserved

in the Crust of the Earth, have established three leading divisions

of Geological time; the Palæozoic, or first age of organic life, the

Mesozoic, or second great age of organic life, and the Kainozoic,

or third great age of organic life. Here, no doubt, is a remarkable

coincidence.

But it would be still more remarkable if we could recognize, in the

three epochs of Geology, the same general characteristics of organic

life as we find ascribed by Moses to the three successive days of the

Bible narrative. And so we may, it is said, if we will only take the

pains to examine for ourselves the organic remains of these geological

epochs as they lie dispersed through the Crust of the Earth, or even

as they are to be found collected and arranged for exhibition in our

museums. The first great age of Geology is eminently distinguished

for its plants and trees; the second, for its huge reptiles and great

sea-monsters; the third, for its vast herds of noble quadrupeds. Nay,

to complete the harmony between the two Records, as man is represented

by the Inspired Writer to have been created toward the close of the

last day, so, toward the close of the last Geological age, the remains

of man and of his works are found, for the first time, laid by in the

archives of the Earth.

Such is the coincidence which some ingenious writers fancy they can

trace between the history that is set forth in the written Word of

God, and the history that is so curiously inscribed upon His works.

Our readers, perhaps, will not be unwilling to consider it a little

more in detail. We read in the first chapter of Genesis, that on the

Third Day God said: “Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and

such as may seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind,

which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. And

the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed

according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed

each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”[169]

Let us now turn to the Carboniferous Period of Geology, which occupies

a large space in the great Palæozoic age. All writers agree that it

was specially marked by a gorgeous and luxuriant vegetation: and as

we contemplate the multitudinous remains of plants and trees which

have been gathered so abundantly in our coal measures, and ranged with

such striking effect along the walls of our museums, we can scarcely

help thinking that we have before us a practical commentary on the

text of Moses. The gifted Hugh Miller, who is universally allowed

to have been one of the most practical and experienced Geologists of

the modern school, gives a very picturesque and graphic sketch of the

Carboniferous flora. “In no other age,” he says, “did the world ever

witness such a flora: the youth of the earth was peculiarly a green

and umbrageous youth,--a youth of dusk and tangled forests,--of huge

pines and stately araucarians,--of the reed-like calamite, the tall

tree-fern, the sculptured sigillaria, and the hirsute lepidodendron.

Wherever dry land, or shallow lake or running stream appeared, from

where Melville Island now spreads out its ice-wastes under the star of

the pole, to where the arid plains of Australia lie solitary beneath

the bright cross of the south, a rank and luxuriant herbage cumbered

every footbreadth of the dank and steaming soil; and even to distant

planets our earth must have shown, through the enveloping cloud, with

a green and delicate ray.”[170] Such an age as this might well be

described in history as the age in which the earth brought forth the

green herb, and the fruit-tree yielding seed according to its kind.

Again, the work of the Fifth Day is thus described in the Sacred

Narrative:--“God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping

creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under

the firmament of Heaven. And God created the great whales, and every

living and moving creature which the waters brought forth, according

to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God

saw that it was good.”[171] And in this case, as in the former, we may

find the counterpart of the Bible story in the records of Geology. “The

secondary age of the geologist,” says the eminent writer from whom

we have already quoted, “possessed, like the earlier one, its herbs

and plants, but they were of a greatly less luxuriant and conspicuous

character than their predecessors, and no longer formed the prominent

trait or feature of the creation to which they belong. The period

had also its corals, its crustaceans, its molluscs, its fishes, and,

in some one or two exceptional instances, its dwarf mammals. But the

grand existences of the age,--the existences in which it excelled every

other creation, earlier or later,--were its huge creeping things,--its

enormous monsters of the deep,--and, as shown by the impressions of

their footprints stamped upon the rocks, its gigantic birds. It was

peculiarly the age of egg-bearing animals, winged and wingless. Its

wonderful _whales_, not however as now, of the mammalian, but of the

reptilian class--ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and cetiosaurs--must have

tempested the deep; its creeping lizards and crocodiles, such as the

teleosaurus megalosaurus, and iguanodon,--creatures some of which more

than rival the existing elephant in height, and greatly more than

rivalled him in bulk,--must have crowded the plains, or haunted by

myriads the rivers of the period; and we know that the foot-prints of,

at least, one of its many birds, are fully twice the size of those made

by the horse or camel. We are thus prepared to demonstrate that the

second period of the geologist was peculiarly and characteristically a

period of whale-like reptiles of the sea, of enormous creeping reptiles

of the land, and of numerous birds, some of them of gigantic size.”[172]

Once more, it is written that, on the Sixth Day, “God said: Let the

earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping

things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was

so done. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds,

and cattle and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind.

And God saw that it was good.”[173] And again Geology seems to confirm

the truth of the Inspired narrative, and to fill up the details of the

picture. “The Tertiary period,” continues Hugh Miller, “had also its

prominent class of existences. Its flora seems to have been no more

conspicuous than that of the present time; its reptiles occupy a very

subordinate place; but its beasts of the field were by far the most

wonderfully developed, both in size and numbers, that ever appeared

upon the earth. Its mammoths and its mastodons, its rhinoceri and

its hippopotami, its enormous dimotherium and colossal megatherium,

greatly more than equalled in bulk the greatest mammals of the present

time, and vastly exceeded them in number. The remains of one of its

elephants (Elephas primigenius) are still so abundant amid the frozen

wastes of Siberia, that what have been not inappropriately termed

‘ivory quarries’ have been wrought among their bones for more than a

hundred years. Even in our own country, of which, as I have already

shown, this elephant was for long ages a native, so abundant are the

skeletons and tusks, that there is scarcely a local museum in the

kingdom that has not its specimens, dug out of the Pleistocene deposits

of the neighborhood. And with this ancient elephant there were meetly

associated in Britain, as on the northern continents generally all

around the globe, many other mammals of corresponding magnitude. ‘Grand

indeed,’ says an English naturalist, ‘was the fauna of the British

islands in those early days. Tigers as large again as the biggest

Asiatic species lurked in the ancient thickets; elephants nearly

twice the size of the largest individuals that now exist in Africa or

Ceylon roamed in herds: at least two species of the rhinoceros forced

their way through the primeval forests; and the lakes and rivers were

tenanted by hippopotami as bulky, and with as great tusks, as those

of Africa.’ The massive cave-bear and large cave-hyæna belong to the

same formidable group, with at least two species of great oxen, with a

horse of smaller size, and an elk that stood ten feet four inches in

height. Truly this Tertiary age--this third and last of the geologic

periods--was peculiarly the age of great ‘beasts of the earth after

their kind, and of cattle after their kind.’”[174]

We shall be told, perhaps, that there are Six Days assigned to the

work of creation in the Mosaic narrative, and that we have accounted

but for three. Let it be remembered, however, that Geology does not

profess to give a complete history of our Globe. It can set before us

those events only which have left their impress indelibly stamped upon

the rocks that compose the Crust of the Earth. These events Geologists

have attempted to reduce to the order of a chronological system; and in

prosecuting this task they have been guided almost exclusively by the

evidence of Organic Remains. Hence it was not to be expected that, in

Geological Chronology, we should find a Period specially set apart as

the Period in which Light was made; or another as the Period in which

the Firmament was spread out over the Earth; or a Third as the Period

in which the sun and moon and stars shone forth in the expanse of

Heaven. Such phenomena had, indeed, a very important influence on the

physical condition of our globe. But they must occupy a very secondary

place, if indeed they are distinctly chronicled at all in the records

of Geology. It is the formation of rocks and the embedding therein of

Fossil Remains that constitute the main study of the Geologist, and

that guide him in the distribution of Geological time.

Furthermore, we would observe that the scheme of Chronology which

Geologists put before us, affords abundant room for each and all of

the Mosaic Days. Let it be assumed for a moment that the Carboniferous

Period corresponds with the Third Day of the Sacred narrative. The

earlier Periods of the Palæozoic Age will then fit in with the First

and Second Days of Scripture; and the Permian, which intervenes between

the Carboniferous Period and the Secondary Age, may be supposed to

correspond with the Fourth Day of Scripture. This adjustment between

the Mosaic Days and the Periods of Geology will probably be made more

intelligible to the general reader by the Table that appears on the

following page.

The reader must not think it amiss, in this distribution of the Mosaic

Days, that four out of six are crowded together into one Geological

Age, while each of the other two has an entire Age assigned to

itself. If the Days of Creation were indefinite periods, there is no

incongruity in supposing that one may have corresponded to a longer,

another to a shorter interval in the history of our planet. But, in

truth, our scheme of distribution does not of necessity imply that

the Mosaic Days were periods of unequal length. Geologists do not

pretend that there is even a remote approximation to equality between

the several divisions of Geological time. The three great Epochs are

distinguished from each other by reason of the very marked difference

in the character of their Fossil Remains. And the multiplication

of Periods in each Epoch seems to depend rather upon the degree of

completeness with which the strata of that Age have been examined,

than upon any conjecture as to the probable length of its duration.

Thus, for example, Sir Charles Lyell thinks that, as far as the present

condition of Science affords the means of forming an opinion, almost

any one of the Periods in the Palæozoic Age was as long as all the

Periods of the Tertiary Age taken together.[175]

But there is another and a more serious objection against our

hypothesis. It has been observed more than once that the periods of

Geology are out of harmony with the Days of Genesis, even as regards

the history of Organic life. According to the Scripture narrative

no Organic life appeared upon the Earth previous to the Third Day.

Now the Third Day of Scripture corresponds, in our scheme, with the

Carboniferous Period of Geology. And yet there is abundant evidence

in the Fossil Remains of the Devonian, the Silurian, and the Cambrian

Formations, that Organic life--both plants and animals--prevailed upon

the Earth for many ages before the Carboniferous Period began. Nay,

it is now commonly held, since the discovery of the famous _Eozoon

Canadense_, the oldest known Fossil, that life already existed during

the deposition of the Laurentian Rocks, the earliest of all the

Stratified Formations. Furthermore, in the Mosaic account, Fish are

represented as having been created only on the Fifth Day, which we have

fitted in with the Secondary Age of Geology: whereas in the Geological

Record we find Fish as early as the Silurian Period, which is far back

in the Primary Age. These considerations, and divers others of a like

nature, have been regarded by some eminent writers as altogether fatal

to the hypothesis for which we are contending.

+--------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

| DAYS. | PERIODS. | EPOCHS. |

| | | |

| DAY OF GOD’S REST. | RECENT. | HISTORIC AGE. |

+--------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

| | POST-PLIOCENE. | |

| SIXTH MOSAIC DAY. | PLIOCENE. | TERTIARY |

| | MIOCENE. | OR |

| | EOCENE. | KAINOZOIC AGE. |

+--------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

| | CRETACEOUS. | SECONDARY |

| FIFTH MOSAIC DAY. | JURASSIC. | OR |

| | TRIASSIC. | MESOZOIC AGE. |

+--------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

| FOURTH MOSAIC DAY. | PERMIAN. | |

| THIRD MOSAIC DAY. | CARBONIFEROUS. | PRIMARY |

| | { DEVONIAN. | OR |

| FIRST AND SECOND | { SILURIAN. | PALÆOZOIC AGE. |

| MOSAIC DAYS. | { CAMBRIAN. | |

| | { LAURENTIAN. | |

+--------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

To us, however, it appears that such points of discrepancy involve no

contradiction between the two Records. The Sacred Writer tells us, no

doubt, that on the Third Day God created plants and trees: but he does

not say, either expressly or otherwise, that previous to the Third Day

the Earth was devoid of vegetation. Again, we read that reptiles, fish,

and birds were created on the Fifth Day. But there is nothing in the

language of the Inspired narrative from which it can be inferred that

these several classes of animal life may not have been represented

before that time, by many and various species: though probably, it

was only on the Fifth Day that they were developed in such vast

numbers, and assumed such gigantic proportions, as to become the most

conspicuous objects of creation.

The first chapter of Genesis is but a brief summary of an inconceivably

vast series of events. It is nothing more than a rapid sketch,

exhibiting, as it were, to the eye the prominent features in the

history of Creation. Moreover, we should remember that it was written

with a specific end in view. The purpose of the Sacred Writer was

plainly to impress upon the Hebrew people, naturally prone to idolatry,

the existence of One Supreme Being, who has made all things. Hence

we should naturally expect that, amid the boundless variety of God’s

works, he would make choice of those that were most calculated to

strike the mind with wonder and awe, and to bring home to a rude and

uncultivated race of men the Almighty Power and Supreme Dominion of

the Great Creator. Now the Zoophytes, and Graptolites, and Trilobites,

of the Devonian and Silurian Periods, however curious and interesting

they may be to men of science, would have had but little significance

for the Jewish people. Let us suppose that these more humble forms of

animal life had, in fact, existed during the First and Second Days

of the Mosaic narrative, and where is the wonder that the Inspired

Historian, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, should pass them

by in silence, and choose rather to commemorate the more striking and

impressive facts, that, at the bidding of God, Light shone forth from

the midst of darkness, and the blue firmament of Heaven was expanded

above the waste of waters?

We say, then, that events which are simply left unrecorded by the

Sacred Writer are not, on that account, untrue:[176] that he describes

to us, not all the works of Creation, which would have been an endless

task, but only the more conspicuous objects in each successive stage;

and that he sketches them, most probably, as they would have appeared

to the eye of a human observer, if a human observer at the time

had existed on the Earth. If this view be admitted, then it is not

inconsistent with the Scripture narrative to suppose that plants may

have existed before the Third Day, and fish before the Fifth. Each

Day in its turn would have been rendered conspicuous to an observing

spectator by those events which are recorded by Moses. But each Day,

too, would have witnessed many other events, unnoticed by Moses, of

which the memorials have been preserved, even to our time, in the Crust

of the Earth.

We should observe, however, that though this scheme of adapting

the Periods of Geology to the Days of Moses, may be defended as a

legitimate hypothesis, it cannot be upheld as an established truth. The

geological records that have hitherto been brought to light represent

but the merest fragment of the Earth’s past history. Each year that

passes over our heads is adding largely to the store of facts already

accumulated. And it needs but little reflection to perceive that an

hypothesis may be quite consistent with the knowledge we possess

to-day, and yet may be found altogether inconsistent with the knowledge

we shall possess to-morrow. We must be content, therefore, to suspend

our judgment, and to await the progress of events. It may be that

future discoveries shall bring to light new points of harmony between

the Days of Genesis and the Periods of Geology; it may be they shall

demonstrate that no such harmony exists. For us it is enough to have

shown that this hypothesis is consistent, on the one hand, with the

story of Genesis--on the other, with the actual discoveries of Geology;

and, therefore, that it may be adopted, in the present condition of

our knowledge, as a legitimate means of reconciling the established

conclusions of that science with the truths of Revelation.

* * * * *

CONCLUSION.--We have, then, two distinct systems of interpretation,

according to which the vast Antiquity of the Earth, asserted by

Geology, may be fairly brought into harmony with the history of

creation, recorded in Scripture. The one allows an interval of

incalculable duration between the creation of the Heavens and the

Earth, and the work of the Six Days: the other supposes each one of

these Six Days to have been itself an indefinite period of time. We

cannot, indeed, prove that either of these two systems is true in point

of fact; but we have attempted to show that neither is at variance with

the language of the Sacred Text. On the other hand, when we look to the

evidence of geological facts, we see no decisive reason for preferring

one to the other. Either mode of interpretation seems in itself

quite sufficient to meet all the present requirements of Geology;

for, according to either interpretation, the Bible narrative would

allow time without limit for the past history of our Globe; and time

without limit is just what Geology demands. We may say, then, on this

point, what Saint Augustine said long ago, in speaking of the diverse

interpretations which the text of Genesis admits: “Let each one choose

according to the best of his power: only let him not rashly put forward

as known that which is unknown; and let him not fail to remember

that he is but a man searching, as far as may be, into the works of

God.”[177]

It must not be supposed that, according to our view, the Sacred

Writer, in composing his account of the Creation, had before his mind

those vast Geological Periods about which we have said so much in

the course of this volume. Such an opinion is no part of our system.

We see no good reason for believing that the author of Genesis was

specially enlightened from Heaven on the subject of Stratified Rocks

and Fossil Remains, of Upheaval and Denudation, of Volcanic Action and

Subterranean Heat. These are matters of Physical, not of Religious

Science. And it seems to be the order of Providence to leave the

discovery of such things to the industry and ingenuity of man: “Cuncta

fecit bona in tempore suo, et mundum tradidit disputationi eorum.”[178]

What we maintain, then, is simply this: that the Sacred Writer recorded

faithfully, in language fitted to the ideas of his time, that portion

of Revelation which was committed to him; and, in the accomplishment of

this task, made such a choice of words and phrases, under the guidance

of the Holy Spirit, to whom all truth is present, as to set forth

plainly those facts that were unfolded to him, without introducing any

error about those facts of which he was ignorant. The language is the

language of men, but the voice that speaks therein is the voice of God.

And thus it comes to pass that this Mosaic story, when fairly examined

according to the ordinary laws of human speech, is found in every age

to accommodate itself, with quite an unexpected simplicity, to those

new and wonderful views of God’s manifold power which each human

science in its turn brings to light.

Before taking leave of the subject, we would venture to bring under the

notice of our readers one very obvious reflection, which is sometimes

lost sight of in the heat of controversy. The Mosaic history of the

Creation absolutely stands alone. It has no rivals, no competitors.

Every other attempt that has been made to explain the origin of

the world, and of the human race, is refuted by its own intrinsic

extravagance and absurdity. The wisest nations of antiquity failed to

discover that great fundamental truth, which stands out so boldly on

the first page of Genesis, that there is One God who hath made all

things. The philosophers of Chaldæa were familiar with the course of

the Heavens, and could predict the eclipses of the sun and moon. But

the philosophers of Chaldæa could not rise from the contemplation of

creatures to the knowledge of the Creator: the creatures themselves

were the gods that Chaldæa worshipped. Egypt had greatness of mind to

conceive the idea of the Pyramids, and skill to devise the plan of

their construction, and strength of arms to lift up the huge stones on

these stupendous piles. But Egypt raised up temples to the river that

waters its plain, and offered sacrifice to the reptile that crawls

upon the earth, and the beast that grazes in the field. In Greece the

human mind soared to its highest flight, and ranged over the widest and

most beautiful fields of thought. Peerless is she among the nations,

the mistress of the arts, the fountain source of refined taste, the

storehouse of intellectual power, the great nurse of human genius.

Her schools of philosophy have influenced and guided to a marvellous

extent the thoughts and speculations of all subsequent times. The

song of her immortal bard has kindled the imagination of the poet in

every generation, and enriched his mind with glowing images. Orators

and statesmen still love to copy the lofty sentiments, the graceful

diction, the flowing periods, of her golden eloquence. And students

from every clime stand enraptured before the beauty and the majesty

of her sculptured marble. But Greece, Imperial Greece, knew not the

One God, the giver of all good gifts, by whom she was so highly

endowed. She fashioned for herself gods and goddesses after her own

fancy, and portioned out the universe between them. Jupiter hurled

his thunderbolts from the clouds: Neptune ruled the sea: Pluto swayed

the sceptre of the infernal regions: Minerva was the goddess of

wisdom: Vulcan the god of fire: Apollo the god of music. Nay, the very

infirmities and vices of human nature were personified under the names

of divinities, and worshipped in the Pantheon of the gods. Rome, too,

the conqueror of the world, had its philosophers and its orators, its

poets and its sculptors, whose productions still charm and instruct

mankind. Yet was Rome no exception to the common lot of the gentile

world. For Rome, like Greece, had its long array of gods and goddesses,

with their petty jealousies, their vindictive malice, their shameless

passions. Alone, amidst all the Mythologies and Cosmogonies of ancient

nations, the story of the Hebrew Legislator rises superior to the gross

and silly speculations of mortal men. It alone proclaims to mankind

what Philosophy and Science, when left to themselves, have never been

able to teach, that, In the beginning God created the Heavens and the

Earth; that the plants and the animals, the ocean and the elements,

the sun and moon and stars, man himself, and all that delights the eye

and charms the ear and fills the mind, are His creatures; and that

besides Him there is no other God. Away, then, with the idea that

this Sacred Narrative, stamped as it plainly is with the imprint of

its Divine Author, should ever be found at variance with the truths

of science,--or rather, we should say, with those scanty fragments

of truth, those crumbs of knowledge, falling from the table of our

Heavenly Father, which it is given to man here below to gather up with

laborious care, and which, however they may excite his longings, cannot

satisfy his hunger.

Here, for the present, we must stop. At some future time, perhaps,

if our opportunities permit, we shall return to this subject, and,

taking up the second branch of the controversy, investigate the recent

discoveries of Geology in reference to the teaching of the Bible as

regards the Antiquity of the Human Race.

[Illustration]

APPENDIX.

EXTRACTS FROM THE FATHERS AND THEOLOGIANS.

REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME.

(1.) SAINT AUGUSTINE.--P. 297.

“Et in rebus obscuris atque a nostris oculis remotissimis, si qua

inde scripta etiam divina legerimus, quae possunt salva fida qua

imbuimur, alias atque alias parere sententias; in nullam earum nos

praecipiti affirmatione ita projiciamus, ut si forte diligentius

discussa veritas eam recte labefactaverit, corruamus: non pro sententia

divinarum Scripturarum, sed pro nostra ita dimicantes, ut eam velimus

Scripturarum esse, quae nostra est; cum potius eam quae Scripturarum

est, nostram esse velle debeamus.”--De Genesi ad Litteram, lib. i. cap.

18, n. 37.

(2.) IDEM.--P. 298.

“Plerumque enim accidit ut aliquid de terra, de coelo, de caeteris

hujus mundi elementis, de motu et conversione vel etiam de magnitudine

et intervallis siderum, de certis defectibus solis ac lunae, de

circuitibus annorum et temporum, de naturis animalium, fruticum,

lapidum atque hujusmodi caeteris, etiam non christianus ita noverit,

ut certissima ratione vel experientia teneat. Turpe est autem

nimis et perniciosum ac maxime cavendum, ut christianum de his

rebus quasi secundum christianas Litteras loquentem, ita delirare

quilibet infidelis audiat, ut, quemadmodum dicitur, toto coelo errare

conspiciens, risum tenere vix possit. Et non tam molestum est, quod

errans homo deridetur, sed quod auctores nostri ab eis qui foris sunt,

talia sensisse creduntur, et cum magno eorum exitio de quorum salute

satagimus, tanquam indocti reprehenduntur atque respuuntur. Cum enim

quemquam de numero christianorum in ea re quam optime norunt, errare

deprehenderint, et vanam sententiam suam de nostris Libris asserere;

quo pacto illis Libris credituri sunt, de resurrectione mortuorum, et

de spe vitae aeternae, regnoque coelorum, quando de his rebus quas

jam experiri, vel indubitatis numeris percipere potuerunt, fallaciter

putaverint esse conscriptos? Quid enim molestiae tristitiaeque ingerant

prudentibus fratribus temerarii praesumptores, satis dici non potest,

cum si quando de prava et falsa opinione sua reprehendi, et convinci

coeperint ab eis qui nostrorum Librorum auctoritate non tenentur, ad

defendendum id quod levissima temeritate et apertissima falsitate

dixerunt, eosdem Libros sanctos, unde id probent, proferre conantur,

vel etiam memoriter, quae ad testimonium valere arbitrantur, multa inde

verba pronuntiant, ‘non intelligentes neque quae loquuntur, neque de

quibus affirmant’ (1. Tim., i. 7).”--Ibid., cap. 19, n. 39.

(3.) SAINT THOMAS.--P. 298.

“Dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus docet, in hujusmodi quaestionibus

duo sunt observanda. Primo quidem, ut veritas Scripturae inconcusse

teneatur. Secundo, cum Scriptura divina multipliciter exponi possit,

quod nulli expositioni aliquis ita praecise inhaereat, ut si certa

ratione constiterit hoc esse falsum quod aliquis sensum Scripturae esse

credebat id nihilominus asserere praesumat; ne Scriptura ex hoc ab

infidelibus derideatur, et ne eis via credendi praecludatur.”--Summa

Theologica, Pars Prima, Quaest. lxviii. art. primus.

(4.) PERRERIUS.--P. 302.

“Quod autem in xx. et xxxi. cap. Exod. dictum est, Deum sex diebus

fecisse coelum et terram, et omnia quae in eis sunt, non est huic

opinioni contrarium: illud enim spatium temporis ante primum diem

annumeratur sex diebus, quia fuit quam brevissimum, et fuit continuata

Dei operatio: nec sane plures dies naturales consumpti sunt quam sex:

ac licet ante primum diem, coelum et elementa facta sint secundum

substantiam, tamen non fuerunt perfecta et omnino consummata, nisi

spatio illorum sex dierum; tunc enim datus est illis ornatus,

complementum, et perfectio.”--Comment. in Genes., cap. 1, v. 4, n. 80.

(5.) TOSTATUS.--P. 302.

“_Sex diebus fecit Dominus coelum et terram._ Recte dicitur his

_facere_, quia coelum et terra, quae hic nominantur, et omnia alia,

quae nomine eorum subintelliguntur, ista quidem omnia de materia prima

facta sunt: materia autem non _facta_ sed _creata_ est.”--Comment. in

Exod., cap. 20, quaest. 15.

(6.) PETAVIUS.--P. 302.

Writing on the phrase _In die quo fecit Dominus Deus coelum et terram_,

he says, “hoc est, perpolitum et elaboratum esse sex continuis diebus,

id enim _faceindi_ vox Hebraeis ipsis interpretibus significare

videtur.”--De Opificio Sex Dierum, lib. cap. 14, sect. 1.

(7.) SAINT BASIL.--P. 304.

“_Et facta est vespera, et factum est mane, dies unus._ Vespera igitur

diei ac noctis est communis terminus: et similiter mane, est noctis

cum die vicinitas. Itaque ut _prioris generationis praerogativam

diei tribueret_, prius commemoravit finem diei, deinde noctis,

velut insequente diem nocte. Nam qui status in mundo fuit ante

lucis generationem, is non erat nox, sed tenebrae: quod autem a die

distinguebatur, eique opponebatur, id nox appellatum est.”--Homilia ii.

in Hexaemeron; Edit. Bened. p. 20; Edit. Migne, Patr. Graec. Cursus

Completus, tom. 29, p. 47.

(8.) SAINT CHRYSOSTOM.--P. 304.

“Ostendimus enim heri, ut meministis, quomodo beatus Moses enarrans

nobis horum visibilium elementorum creationem et opificium, dixerit:

_In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram: terra autem erat invisibilis

et incomposita:_ et vos causam docuimus, quare Deus terram informen et

nullis figuris expolitam creaverit; quae, opinor, omnia mente tenetis;

necessarium est igitur nos ad ea quae sequuntur hodie progredi. Nam

postquam dixit, _Terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita_, nos

accurate docet, unde invisibilis erat et inculta, dicens: _Et tenebrae

erant super abyssum, et Spiritus Dei superferebatur super aquam_....

Quandoquidem igitur diffusa erat magna universi visibilis informitas,

praecepto suo Deus, optimus ille artifex, deformitatem illam depulit,

et immensa lucis visibilis pulchritudo producta tenebras fugavit

sensibiles, illustravitque omnia.”--In Cap. i. Genes. Homil. iii.;

Edit. Migne, Patr. Graec. Cursus Completus, tom. 53, p. 33. Here Saint

Chrysostom plainly teaches that the world existed before the creation

of light. In his Fifth Homily he is equally clear that the First Day

of the Mosaic narrative began with a period of light, and not with a

period of darkness: “Vide quomodo de singulis diebus sic dicat: _Et

factum est vespere, et factum est mane, dies tertius_: non simpliciter

nec absque causa: sed ne ordinem confundamus neque putemus vespera

ingruente finem accepisse diem; sed sciamus vesperam finem esse lucis,

et principium noctis: mane autem finem noctis, et complementum dici.

Hoc enim nos docere vult beatus Moses, dicens: _Et factum est vespere,

et factum est mane, dies tertius_.”--Edit. Migne, p. 52.

(9.) SAINT AMBROSE.--P. 305.

“_Terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita._ Bonus artifex prius

fundamentum ponit: postea, fundamento posito, aedificationis membra

distinguit, et adjungit ornatum. Posito igitur fundamento terrae, et

confirmata coeli substantia, duo enim ista sunt velut cardines rerum,

subtexuit: _Terra autem erat inanis et incomposita_.”--Hexaemeron,

Lib. i. cap. 7; Edit. Bened. p. 13; Edit. Migne, Patr. Lat. Cursus

Completus, tom. 14, p. 135.

“Principium ergo diei, vox Dei est: _fiat lux_; _et facta est

lux_.”--Lib. i. cap. 10; Edit. Bened. p 21; Edit. Migne, p. 144.

“In principio itaque temporis coelum et terram Deus fecit. Tempus enim

ab hoc mundo, non ante mundum: dies autem temporis portio est, non

principium.”--Lib. i. cap. 6; Edit. Bened. p. 10; Edit. Migne, p. 132.

(10.) VENERABLE BEDE.--P. 305.

“Scriptura ait: _Qui fecisti mundum de materia informi_. Sed materia

facta est de nihilo, mundi vero species de informi materia. Proinde

duas res ante omnem diem et ante omne tempus condidit Deus angelicam

videlicet creaturam et informem materiam.”--In Pentateuch. Comment.;

sub. cap. 1: Edit Migne, Patr. Lat. Cursus Completus, tom. 91, p.

191. In another place, citing the words of Ecclesiasticus, _Qui

vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul_, he says, “hoc utique ante

omnem diem hujus saeculi fecit, cum in principio coelum creavit et

terram.”--Hexaemeron, Lib. i. in Genes, ii. 4; Edit. Migne, tom. 91, p.

39.

“_Discipulus._ Da ordinem per sex dies factarum rerum? _Magister._ In

ipso quidem principio conditionis facta sunt coelum, terra, aer, et

aqua.... _Discipulus._ Sequere ordinem generationis? _Magister._ In

principio diei primae lux facta est; secunda vero factum firmamentum;”

etc.--_Quaestiones super Genesim_; Edit. Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. 93, p.

236. This work is classed by Migne among the Dubia et Spuria of Bede.

The critics, however, seem to be agreed that it belongs to a period not

later than the tenth century. If it is not the genuine composition of

Bede, which is considered more probable, then it only follows that we

have, besides Bede, another ancient authority in favor of our opinion.

(11.) PETER LOMBARD.--P. 306.

“Cum Deus in sapientia sua angelicos condidit spiritus, alia etiam

creavit, sicut ostendit supradicta Scriptura, quae dicit _in principio

Deum creasse coelum_, id est, angelos, _et terram_ scilicet, materiam

quatuor elementorum adhuc confusam et informem, quae a Graecis dicta

est chaos, _et hoc fuit ante omnem diem_. _Deinde_ elementa distinguit

Deus, et species proprias atque distinctas singulis rebus secundum

genus suum dedit; quae non simul, ut quibusdam sanctorum Patrum

placuit, sed per intervalla temporum ac sex volumina dierum, ut aliis

visum est formavit.”--Sentent. Lib. ii. Distinct. 12; Edit. Migne,

Patr. Latin. Cursus Completus, tom. 192, p. 675.

(12.) HUGH OF SAINT VICTOR.--P. 306.

“Principium ergo divinorum operum fuit creatio lucis, quando ipsa

lux non materialiter de nihilo creata est; sed de praejacenti illa

universitatis materia formaliter facta est ut lux esset, et vim ac

proprietatem lucendi haberet. Hoc opus prima die factum est; sed

hujus operis materia ante primam diem creata. Moxque cum ipsa luce

dies cœpit; quia ante lucem nec nox fuit nec dies, _etiamsi tempus

fuit_.”--De Sacram. Lib. i. Pars i. cap. 9: Edit. Migne, Patr. Lat.

tom. 176, p. 193.

(13.) SAINT THOMAS.--P. 307.

“Sed melius videtur dicendum quod _creatio fuerit ante omnem diem_.” In

II. Sentent. Distinct. xiii. Art. 3, _ad tertium_: see also ibidem _ad

primum_, and _ad secundum_. And again in the Summa he says: “Coelum et

terram fecit in prima die, _potius ante omnem diem_.”--Pars i. Quaest.

lxxxiv. Art. 2.

(14.) PERRERIUS.--P. 307.

“Licet ante _primum diem_, coelum et elementa facta sint _secundum

substantiam_, tamen non fuerint perfecta et omnino consummata,

nisi spatio illorum sex dierum: tunc enim datus est illis ornatus,

complementum, et perfectio. Quanto autem tempore status ille mundi

tenebrosus duraverit, hoc est, utrum plus an minus quam unus dies

continere solet, nec mini compertum est, nec opinor cuiquam mortalium

nisi cui divinitus id esset patefactum.”--Comment. in Genesim, cap. 1,

v. 4, n. 80.

(15.) PETAVIUS.--P. 307.

“Nostra itaque sententia haec est; prima ilia Geneseos verba: _In

principio creavit Deus coelum et terram_; non peculiare opus aliquod

continere, quod initio, et ante dies sex molitus sit Deus: quasi ante

lucem, ac reliquas deinceps opificii partes, qualecumque coelum ac

terram creaverit. Sed esse generale quoddam effatum, quo omnia, quae

sunt a Deo facta, complexus est. Etenim Moses, ut initio dicebam,

Judaeos statim edocere voluit; totam illam aspectabilem rerum

universitatem a Deo conditore profectam esse. Quare ita pronuntiavit,

tanquam diceret: Quidquid videtis et quodcumque coeli ac terrae

comprehendit ambitus, una cum coelo ipso, terrâque, id omne fabricatus

est initio Deus. Postea vero per partes, ac singillatim, ut quaeque est

elaborata, decripsit.”--De Opificio Sex Dierum, Lib. i. cap. 2, sect.

10.

“Imprimis _ante dierum sex initium_ solam cum aqua terram extitisse

credimus:.... Habet haec opinio fidem ex Mosis narratione; qui ante

coelum id est _firmamentum_, terram, et aquarum abyssum extitisse

refert.... Nam illud Severiani valde probatur, prima die Deum omnia

creasse: reliquis autem diebus, ex jam extantibus: Ubi primam diem non

lucis tantum creatione circumscribit: sed quod ante illam factum est,

id eidem tribuit. Quod intervallum quantum fuerit, nulla divinatio

posset assequi. Neque vero mundi corpora illa, quae _prima omnium

extitisse_ docui, aquam et terram, arbitror _eodem, in quem lucis ortus

incidit, fabricata esse die_; ut quibusdam placet, haud satis firma

ratione.”--Ibid., cap. 10, sect. 6.

(16.) A LAPIDE.--P. 307.

“S. Basilius et Beda putant coelum et terram non primo die, sed paulo

ante primum diem, utpote ante lucem, create esse. Verum haec non ante,

sed ipso primo die, puta initio primae diei, antequam lux produceretur,

creata esse, patet Exodi xx. v. 11.”--Comment. in Genes., cap. 1, v. 1.

(17.) SAINT AUGUSTINE.--P. 308.

“Fecisti ante omnem diem in principio coelum et terram.”--Confess.

Lib. xii. cap. 12: see also Lib. xii. cap. 8. And again, De Genesi ad

Litteram, Lib. i. cap. 9, he writes:--“Atque illud ante omnem diem

fecisse intelligitur, quod dictum est, _In principio fecit Deus coelum

et terram_; ... Terrae autem nomine invisibilis et incompositae, ac

tenebrosa abysso, imperfectio corporalis substantiae significata est,

unde temporalia illa fierent, quorum prima esset lux.”

(18.) PETAVIUS.--P. 311.

“Quod intervallum quantum fuerit, nulla divinatio posset assequi.”--De

Opific. Sex Dierum, Lib. i. cap. 10, sec. 6.

(19.) PERRERIUS.--P. 311.

“Quanto autem tempore status ille mundi tenebrosus duraverit, hoc est,

utrum plus an minus quam unus dies continere solet, nec mihi compertum

est, nec opinor cuiquam mortalium, nisi cui divinitus id esset

patefactum.”--Comment. in Genes., cap. 1, v. 4.

(20.) HUGH OF SAINT VICTOR.--P. 311.

“Fortassis jam satis est de his hactenus disputasse, si hoc solum

adjecerimus _quanto tempore_ mundus in hac confusione, prius quam ejus

dispositio inchoaretur, perstiterit. Nam quod illa prima rerum omnium

materia, in principio temporis, vel potius cum ipso tempore exorta sit,

sonstat ex eo quod dictum est: in principio creavit Deus coelum et

terram. _Quamdiu_ autem in hac informitate sive confusione permanserit,

_Scriptura manifeste non ostendit_.”--De Sacram., Lib. i., pars i. cap.

6.

(21.) SAINT AUGUSTINE.--P. 319.

“Qui dies cujusmodi sint, aut perdifficile nobis, aut etiam impossibile

est cogitare; quanto magis dicere.”--De Civitate Dei, Lib. xi. cap. 6.

Again: “Arduum quidem et difficillimum est viribus intentionis

nostrae, voluntatem scriptoris in istis sex diebus mentis vivacitate

penetrare.”--De Genesi ad Litteram, Lib. iv. cap. 1.

(22.) IDEM.--P. 319.

“Ac sic per _omnes illos dies units est dies, non istorum dierum

consuetudine intelligendus, quos videmus solis circuitu determinari

atque numerari_; sed alio quodam modo, a quo et illi tres dies, qui

ante conditionem istorum luminarium commemorati sunt, alieni esse non

possunt. Is enim modus non usque ad diem quartum, ut inde jam istos

usitatos cogitaremus, sed usque ad sextum septimumque perductus est; ut

longe aliter accipiendus sit dies et nox, inter quae duo divisit Deus,

et aliter iste dies et nox, inter quae dixit ut dividant luminaria

quae creavit, cum ait, ‘Et dividant inter diem et noctem.’ Tunc enim

hunc diem condidit, cum condidit solem, cujus praesentia eumdem

exhibet diem: ille autem dies primitus conditus jam triduum peregerat

cum haec luminaria illius diei quarta repetitione creata sunt.”--De

Genesi ad Litteram, Lib. iv. cap. 26. “De quo enim Creatore Scriptura

ista narravit, _quod sex diebus consummaverit omnia opera sua, de

illo alibi non utique dissonanter scriptum est, quod creaverit omnia

simul_ (Eccles. xviii. 1). Ac per hoc et _istos dies sex vel septem vel

potius unum sexies septiesve repetitum simul fecit qui fecit_ omnia

simul. Quid ergo opus erat sex dies tam distincte dispositeque narrari?

Quia scilicet ii qui non possunt videre quod dictum est, ‘Creavit

omnia simul;’ nisi cum eis sermo tardius incedat ad id quo eos ducit,

pervenire non possunt.”--Ib. cap. 33.

(23). PHILO JUDÆUS.--P. 320.

“Tum igitur omnia _simul_ sunt condita. In quo quidem universali

opificio necesse erat servari ordinem.”--De Mundi Opificio; Edit.

Francofurti, p. 14. This passage may, at first sight, appear somewhat

obscure; but the meaning of it is made clear enough, when we read

elsewhere in the same writer: “_Rusticanae simplicilatis est putare,

sex diebus, aut utique certo tempore mundum conditum._... Ergo cum

audis: ‘Complevit sexto die opera, intelligere non debes de diebus

aliquot, sed de senario perfecto numero.’”--De Legis Allegor.; Edit.

Francofurti, p. 41.

(24). CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.--P. 320.

Stromatum, Lib. vi. Edit. Benid. p. 291; Edit. Migne, Patrum Graec.

Cursus Completus, vol. 9, pp. 370-5. See also Dissertatio de Libris

Stromatum, by the learned Benedictine, Nicholas le Nourry, cap. viii.

artic. 1.

(25). ORIGEN.--P. 320.

“Quod autem prima die lucem, secunda firmamentum creaverit, tertia

aquae quae sub coelo erant, in suis fuerint collectae receptaculis,

atque ita terra solius naturae administratione suos fructus protulerit;

quod quarta creata fuerint luminaria et stellae, quinta vero natatilia,

sexta demum terrestria et homo, haec omnia, prout facultas tulit, in

nostris in Genesim commentariis explicavimus. Quin et supra _contra

eos qui obvio sensu Scripturam interpretantes asserunt sex dies ad

creationem mundi insumptos fuisse_, adduximus hunc locum: ‘Iste est

liber generationis coeli et terrae quando creata sunt, in die quo

fecit Deus coelum et terram,’”--Contra Celsum, Lib. vi. Edit. Bened.

pp. 678, 679; Edit. Migne, Patr. Graecor. Cursus Completus, vol. 11,

p. 1390: for the passage referred to at the close of the extract see

p. 1378. The Commentary upon Genesis of which Origen here speaks no

longer exists, but the following passage has been preserved. “Aliqui

jam absurdum existimantes Deum architecti more non aliter, quam plurium

dierum, labore, fabricam valentis absolvere, intra multos dies mundum

perfecisse _uno cuncta momento_ ac simul extitisse aiunt, et hinc illud

adstruunt; ordinis autem causa, et ut series constet, dierum et rerum

quae in illis factae sunt, numerum dictum putant. Hi probabiliter

sententiam stabiliunt ea auctoritate qua dictum est: ‘Ipse dixit et

facta sunt; ipse mandavit, et creata sunt.’”--Selecta in Genesim, Edit.

Bened. p. 27; Edit. Migne, Patr. Graec. Cursus Completus, vol. 12, p.

98. Again, in his Treatise De Principiis, Lib. iv., he says: “Quis

igitur sanae mentis existimaverit primam et secundam et tertiam diem,

et vesperam, et mane, sine sole, luna, et stellis, et eam quae veluti

prima erat, diem sine coelo fuisse?” Edit. Bened. p. 175; Edit. Migne,

vol. 11, p. 378. See also P. Danielis Huetii Origeniana, Lib. ii. cap.

2, Quaest. 8, § 6; Edit. Migne, vol. 17, p. 979.

(26.) SAINT ATHANASIUS.--P. 320.

“Cum ex supra dictis constet, _nullam e rebus creatis prius altera

factam esse_, sed res omnes factas uno eodemque mandato _simul_

extitisse.”--Oratio ii. Contra Arianos, n. 63. Edit. Bened. p. 418. New

Edition, p. 528. Edit. Migne, Patr. Graecor. Cursus Completus, p. 275.

(27.) SAINT EUCHERIUS.--P. 320.

Speaking strictly we should rather say the author of a Commentary upon

Genesis belonging to a very early period of the Church, ascribed by

some to Saint Eucherius, and usually published with his works. This

author says, no doubt, that God first, in the beginning, created the

substance of all things, and afterward developed the various forms

on successive days (Gen. ii. 4): but then he tells us expressly that

the substance did not precede the forms by any priority of time, but

only by priority of origin (Gen. i. 2). Thus his view coincides pretty

nearly with that of Saint Augustine, whose words, indeed, he seems to

borrow. “‘Terra autem erat inanis et vacua.’ Id est, adhuc informis

erat ipsa materia: quia necdum ex ea coelum et terra, necdum omnia

formata erant, quae formari restabant: haec enim materia, ex nihilo

facta, praecessit tamen res ex se factas, _non quidem aeternitate

vel tempore, sicut praecedit lignum arcam_; sed sola origine, _sicut

praecedit vox verbum, vel sonus cantum_: nam ‘qui vivit in aeternum

creavit omnia simul.’”--Edit. Migne, Patr. Latin Cursus Completus, vol.

50, p. 894.

(28.) PROCOPIUS OF GAZA.--P. 320.

We quote this writer on the authority of Perrerius, from whom the

following passage is taken. “Idem censet hoc loco Procopius Gazæus:

Mozen enim, inquit, in describendo mundi opificium, sex dierum

distinctione usum esse docendi gratia ob tarditatem, videlicet,

ruditatemque Judæorum, quibus hæc scribebat: qui quæ Deus _simul_

fecerat, ob tantam eorum multitudinem atque varietatem simul et

indiscrete capere et comprehendere, ut erant angustissimis ingeniis

nequaquam potuissent.”--In Genes., cap. 2, vers. 4, 5, 6, n. 179.

(29.) ALBERTUS MAGNUS.--P. 320.

“Videtur mihi Augustino consentiendum.”--Summa P. 1, Quæst. 12, art. 6.

See Pianciani, Cosmogonia Naturale, p. 23.

(30.) SAINT THOMAS.--P. 320.

Summa Pars. 1. Quæst. 74, art. ii.; also in an earlier work, Super

Libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi Commentarius, Distinct. xii. art. i.

and iii. Having explained the opinion of Saint Augustine that there was

no real succession in the order of time between the various works of

the creation, but that all were created together; and also the opinion

of other Holy Fathers, that there was a real succession, he continues

thus: “Prima ergo opinio [Sancti Augustini] _magis convenit rationi,

nec est contra Scripturam_; quia ea quae in Scriptura ordinem temporis

importare videntur, ad ordinem naturae Augustinus refert: secunda vero

magis convenit Scripturae secundum suam superficiem. Quia ergo utraque

a Sanctis patrocinium habet, utramque sustinendo, objectionibus hinc

inde factis respondendum est.”--Loco citato, art. i. Solutio.

(31.) CARDINAL CAJETAN.--P. 320.

We are again indebted to Perrerius for the views of Cardinal Cajetan.

He writes thus: “Accedit huic sententiæ Cajet. in Comment. super i.

cap. Genes., et distinctionem sex dierum putat in id positam a Mose,

quo facilius declararet naturalem rerum ordinem, consequentiam et

dependentiam. Sic enim res suaptè natura inter se aptæ et connexæ sunt,

ut si mundum successivè voluisset Deus facere, non alio ordine vel

successione, quàm ut hic narratur, facturus eum fuisset.”--In Genes.,

cap. ii. vers. 4, 5, 6, n. 179.

(32.) VENERABLE BEDE.--P. 323.

“Aperte intelligi quia diem hoc loco Scriptura _pro omni illo tempore

ponit_ quo primordialis natura formata est. Neque enim in unoquolibet

sex dierum coelum factum est et sideribus illustratum, et terra est

separata ab aquis, atque arboribus et herbis consita; sed _more

sibi solito Scriptura diem pro tempore ponit_; quomodo Apostolus,

cum ait, ‘Ecce nunc dies salutis,’ non unum specialiter diem, sed

totum significat tempus hoc quo in praesenti vita pro aeterna salute

laboramus.”--Hexaemeron, Lib. i. in Gen. ii. 4; Edit. Migne, Patr. Lat.

Cursus Completus, vol. 91, p. 39.

(33.) SAINT AUGUSTINE.--P. 323.

“Superius septem dies numerantur, nunc unus dicitur dies, quo die fecit

Deus coelum et terram, et omne viride agri, et omne pabulum, _cujus

diei nomine omne tempus significari bene intelligitur_. Fecit enim Deus

omne tempus simul cum omnibus creaturis temporalibus, quae creaturae

visibiles coeli et terrae nomine significantur.”--De Genesi contra

Manichaeos, Lib. ii. cap. 3, n. 4.

(34.) MOLINA.--P. 323.

“Dicunt Doctores communiter, Moysem eo loco sumpsisse _diem_ pro

_tempore_ juxta illud Deuteronomii xxxii., juxta est dies perditionis,

... et alibi saepe, in Scriptura sumitur dies pro tempore.”--In primam

partem, De opere sex dierum, D. I. See Pianciani, Cosmogonia Naturale,

p. 27.

(35.) BANNEZ.--P. 323.

“Dies potest accipi pro quacumque duratione et mensura.”--In Summa,

Pars 1. Quæst. 73.

(36.) PERRERIUS.--P. 323.

“Nec officit huic sententiae, quod paullo superius ex cap. ii. Geneseos

prolatum est, ‘In die quo fecit Dominus Deus coelum et terram.’

Ibi enim _dies pro tempore, sicut crebro fit in Scriptura, positus

est_.”--In Gen. cap. i. v. 4, n. 80; see also cap. ii., n. 186.

(37.) PETAVIUS.--P. 323.

“Postquam Moyses sex dierum opificium toto primo capite descripsit,

mox in sequenti summatim universeque colligens, ‘Istae sunt,’ inquit,

‘generationes coeli et terrae, quando creata sunt, in die quo fecit

Dominus Deus coelum et terram.’ Quae verba non unius diei mentionem

faciunt, ut quibusdam videtur; qui primum diem designari putant, in quo

factum illud est, praeter lucem, quod initio libri Moyses explicat, ‘In

principio creavit Deus coelum et terram.’ Sed eam nos opinionem minime

probamus, ac supra docuimus, _diei_ nomen istic usurpari pro _tempore_:

quod apud Graecos Latinosque, non minus quam Hebraeos, usitatem est.

Exemplo sit Ciceronis illud ex libro secundo in Verrem: ‘Itaque cum

ego diem in Siciliam inquirendi prexiguam postulavissem, invenit iste,

qui sibi in Achaiam _biduo breviorem diem_ postularet.’ Igitur cum

dixisset, _in die_, id est tempore illo, factum esse coelum et terram,

hoc est perpolitum et elaboratum esse sex continuis diebus,” etc.--De

Opificio Sex Dierum, Lib. i. cap. 14, sect. 1.

(38.) SAINT AUGUSTINE.--P. 335.

“Tres enim dies superiores quomodo esse sine sole potuerunt, cum

videamus nunc solis ortu et occasu diem transigi, noctem vero fieri

solis absentia, cum ab alia parte mundi ad orientem redit? Quibus

respondemus, potuisse fieri ut tres superiores dies singuli per tantam

moram temporis computarentur, per quantam moram circumit sol, ex quo

procedit ab oriente quousque rursus ad orientem revertitur. Hanc

enim moram et longitudinem temporis possent sentire homines etiamsi

in speluncis habitarent, ubi orientem et occidentem solem videre non

possent. Atque ita sentitur potuisse istam moram fieri etiam sine sole

antequam sol factus esset, atque ipsam moram in illo triduo per dies

singulos computatam. Hoc ergo responderemus, nisi nos revocaret, quod

ibi dicitur, ‘Et facta est vespera et factum est mane,’ quod nunc sine

solis cursu videmus fieri non posse. Restat ergo ut intelligamus, in

ipsa quidem mora temporis _ipsas distinctiones operum sic appellatas,

vesperam propter transactionem consummati operis, et mane propter

inchoationem futuri operis_; de similitudine scilicet humanorum operum,

quia plerumque a mane incipiunt, et ad vesperam desinunt. Habent enim

consuetudinem Divinae Scripturae de rebus humanis ad divinas res verba

transferre.”--De Genesi contra Manichaeos, Lib. i. cap. 14, n. 20.

(39.) SAINT EUCHERIUS.--P. 335.

It is uncertain, as we before observed, if this commentary is the

genuine work of Saint Eucherius; at all events it is the production of

some learned and Catholic writer of the fifth or sixth century. His

words run thus: “_Vespere conditae creaturae terminus; mane initium

condendae creaturae alterius._”--Comment. in Genes. cap. i. v. 4; Edit.

Migne, Patr. Latin. Cursus Completus, vol. 50, p. 897. And again in v.

10 et seqq.:--“Si quarto die facta sunt luminaria, quomodo tres dies

jam ante fuerunt? nisi ut intelligamus, in ipsa hora temporis ipsas

operum distinctiones ita appellatas; _vesperam propter transactionem

consummati operis; mane propter inchoationem_ futuri diei; in

similitudinem humanorum operum quod plerique mane incipiunt et in

vesperam desinunt.”--Ib. p. 899.

(40.) VENERABLE BEDE.--P. 335.

“Quid est _vespere_ nisi _ipsa perfectio singulorum operum_? et _mane_,

id est inchoatio sequentium?”--De Sex Dierum Creatione, De Prima Die;

Edit. Migne, Patrum Lat. Cursus Completus, vol. 93, p. 210.

In another place he says: “Vespere autem in toto illo triduo, antequam

luminaria essent, _consummati operis terminus_ non absurde fortasse

intelligitur; Mane autem _futuræ operationis significatio_.”--In

Pentateuchum Comment. Gen. cap. i.; Edit. Migne, vol. 91, p. 194.

(41.) SAINT HILDEGARDE.--P. 335.

“Sex enim dies, sex opera sunt; quia inceptio et completio singuli

cujusque operis dies dicitur.”--Epist. ad Colonienses. See Pianciani,

Cosmogonia, p. 34.

(42.) SAINT AUGUSTINE.--P. 342.

“Dies autem septimus sine vespere est nec habet occasum.”--Confess.

Lib. xiii. cap. xxxvi.

(43.) VENERABLE BEDE.--P. 342.

“Quia finem non habet, neque ullo termino clauditur.”--De Sex Dierum

Creatione, De Die Septima; Edit. Migne, Patr. Lat. Cursus Completus,

vol. 93, p. 218. And elsewhere he says: “Septimus dies coepit a mane et

in nullo vespere terminatur.”--In Pentateuch Comment., Gen. ii.; Edit.

Migne, vol. 91, p. 203.

(44.) SAINT AUGUSTINE.--P. 355.

“Eligat quis quod potest: tantum ne aliquid temere atque incognitum pro

cognito asserat; memineritque se hominem de divinis operibus quantum

permittitur quærere.”--De Genesi Liber Imperfectus, cap. ix., n. 80.

[Illustration]

APPENDIX TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

_From Prof. J. D. Dana’s Manual of Geology. [8vo. Philadelphia: T.

Bliss & Co.] By permission of the author._

COSMOGONY.

The science of cosmogony treats of the history of creation.

Geology comprises that later portion of the history which is within

the range of direct investigation, beginning with the rock-covered

globe, and gathering only a few hints as to a previous state of igneous

fluidity.

Through Astronomy our knowledge of this earlier state becomes less

doubtful, and we even discover evidence of a period still more remote.

Ascertaining thence that the sun of our system is in intense ignition,

that the moon, the earth’s satellite, was once a globe of fire, but is

now cooled and covered with extinct craters, and that space is filled

with burning suns,--and learning also from physical science that all

heated bodies in space must have been losing heat through past time,

the smallest most rapidly,--we safely conclude that the earth has

passed through a stage of igneous fluidity.

Again, as to the remoter period: the forms of the nebulæ and of other

starry systems in the heavens, and the relations which subsist between

the spheres in our own system, have been found to be such as would

have resulted if the whole universe had been evolved from an original

nebula or gaseous fluid. It is not necessary for the strength of this

argument that any portion of the primal nebula should exist now at

this late period in the history of the universe: it is only what might

have been expected that the nebulæ of the present heavens should be

turning out to be clusters of stars. If, then, this nebular theory be

true, the universe has been developed from a primal unit, and the earth

is one of the individual orbs produced in the course of its evolution.

Its history is in kind like that which has been deciphered with regard

to the earth: it only carries the action of physical forces, under a

sustaining and directing hand, further back in time.

The science also of Chemistry is aiding in the study of the earth’s

earliest development, and is preparing itself to write a history of the

various changes which should have taken place among the elements from

the first commencement of combination to the formation of the solid

crust of our globe.

It is not proposed to enter either into chemical or astronomical

details in this place, but, supposing the nebular theory to be true,

briefly to mention the great stages of progress in the history of the

earth, or those successive periods which stand out prominently in

time through the exhibition of some new idea in the grand system of

progress. The views here offered, and the following on the cosmogony of

the Bible, are essentially those brought out by Professor Guyot in his

lectures.

_Stages of progress._--These stages of progress are as follow:--

(1.) _The_ BEGINNING OF ACTIVITY IN MATTER.--In such a beginning from

matter in the state of a gaseous fluid the activity would be intense,

and it would show itself at once by a manifestation of light, since

light is a resultant of molecular activity. A flash of light through

the universe would therefore be the first announcement of the work

begun.

(2.) _The development of the_ EARTH.--A dividing and sub-dividing of

the original fluid going on would have evolved systems of various

grades, and ultimately the orbs of space, among these the earth, an

igneous sphere enveloped in vapors.

(3.) _The production of the_ EARTH’S PHYSICAL FEATURES,--by the

outlining of the continents and oceans. The condensible vapors would

have gradually settled upon the earth as cooling progressed.

(4.) _The introduction of_ LIFE _under its simplest forms_,--as in the

lowest of plants, and perhaps, also of animals. As shown on page 396,

the systems of structure characterizing the two kingdoms of nature, the

_Radiate_ of the Vegetable kingdom, and the _Radiate_, _Molluscan_,

_Articulate_, and _Vertebrate_ of the Animal, are not brought out

in the simplest forms of life. The true _Zoic_ era in history began

later. As plants are primarily the food of animals, there is reason for

believing that the idea of life was first expressed in a plant.

(5.) _The display of the_ SYSTEMS _in the Kingdoms of Life_,--the

exhibition of the four grand types under the Animal kingdom, being the

predominant idea in this phase of progress.

(6.) _The introduction of the highest class of Vertebrates--that of

the_ MAMMALS (the class to which MAN belongs), viviparous species,

which are eminent above all other Vertebrates for a quality prophetic

of a high moral purpose,--that of suckling their young.

(7.) _The introduction of_ MAN,--the first being of moral and

intellectual qualities, and one in whom the unity of nature has its

full expression.

There is another great event in the Earth’s history which has not

yet been mentioned, because of a little uncertainty with regard to

its exact place among the others. The event referred to is the first

shining of the sun upon the earth, after the vapors which till then had

shrouded the sphere were mostly condensed. This must have preceded the

introduction of the Animal system, since the sun is the grand source

of activity throughout nature on the earth, and is essential to the

existence of life, excepting its lowest forms. In the history of the

globe which has been given on page 196, it has been shown that the

outlining of the continents was one of the earliest events, dating even

from the Azoic age; and it is probable, from the facts stated, that it

preceded that clearing of the atmosphere which opened the sky to the

earth. This would place the event between numbers 3 and 5, and as the

sun’s light was not essential to the earliest of organisms, probably

after number 4.

The order will, then, be--

(1.) Activity begun,--light an immediate result.

(2.) The earth made an independent sphere.

(3.) Outlining of the land and water, determining the earth’s general

configuration.

(4.) The idea of life expressed in the lowest plants, and afterward,

if not contemporaneously, in the lowest or systemless animals, or

Protozoans.

(5.) The energizing light of the sun shining on the earth,--an

essential preliminary to the display of the systems of life.

(6.) Introduction of the system of life.

(7.) Introduction of Mammals, the highest order of Vertebrates,--the

class afterward to be dignified by including a being of moral and

intellectual nature.

(8.) Introduction of Man.

_Cosmogony of the Bible._--There is one ancient document on

cosmogony--that of the opening page of the Bible--which is not only

admired for its sublimity, but is very generally believed to be

of divine origin, and which, therefore, demands at least a brief

consideration in this place.

In the first place, it may be observed that _this document if true, is

of divine origin_. For no human mind was witness of the events; and no

such mind in the early age of the world, unless gifted with superhuman

intelligence, could have contrived such a scheme;--would have placed

the creation of the sun, the source of light to the earth, so long

after the creation of light, even on the _fourth_ day, and, what is

equally singular, between the creation of plants and that of animals,

when so important to both; and none could have reached to the depths of

philosophy exhibited in the whole plan.

Again, _If divine, the account must bear marks of human imperfection,

since it was communicated through man_. Ideas suggested to a human mind

by the Deity would take shape in that mind according to its range of

knowledge, modes of thought, and use of language, unless it were at

the same time supernaturally gifted with the profound knowledge and

wisdom adequate to their conception; and even then they could not be

intelligibly expressed, for want of words to represent them.

The central thought of each step in the Scripture cosmogony--for

example, Light,--the dividing of the fluid earth from the fluid

around it, individualizing the earth,--the arrangement of its land

and water,--vegetation,--and so on--is brought out in the simple and

natural style of a sublime intellect, wise for its times, but unversed

in the depths of science which the future was to reveal. The idea

of vegetation to such a one would be vegetation as he knew it; and

so it is described. The idea of dividing the earth from the fluid

around it would take the form of a dividing from the fluid above, in

the imperfect conceptions of a mind unacquainted with the earth’s

sphericity and the true nature of the firmament,--especially as the

event was beyond the reach of all ordinary thought.

Objections are often made to the word “day,”--as if its use

limited the time of each of the six periods to a day of

twenty-four hours. But in the course of the document this word

“day” has various significations, and, among them, all that

are common to it in ordinary language. These are--(1) The

light,--“God called the light day,” v. 5; (2) the “evening

and the morning” before the appearance of the sun; (3) the

“evening and the morning” after the appearance of the sun; (4)

the hours of light in the twenty-four hours (as well as the

whole twenty-four hours), in verse 14; and (5) in the following

chapter, at the commencement of another record of creation,

the whole period of creation is called a “day.” The proper

meaning of “evening and morning,” in a history of creation, is

_beginning and completion_; and, in this sense, darkness before

light is but a common metaphor.

A Deity working in creation like a day-laborer by earth-days

of twenty-four hours, resting at night, is a belittling

conception, and one probably never in the mind of the sacred

penman. In the plan of an infinite God, centuries are required

for the maturing of some of the plants with which the earth is

adorned.

The order of events in the Scripture cosmogony corresponds essentially

with that which has been given. There was first a void and formless

earth: this was literally true of the “heavens and the earth,” if they

were in a condition of a gaseous fluid. The succession is as follows:

(1.) Light.

(2.) The dividing of the waters below from the waters above the earth,

(the word translated _waters_ may mean _fluid_.)

(3.) The dividing of the land and water on the earth.

(4.) Vegetation; which Moses, appreciating the philosophical

characteristic of the new creation distinguishing it from previous

inorganic substances, defines as that “which has seed in itself.”

(5.) The sun, moon, and stars.

(6.) The lower animals, those that swarm in the waters, and the

creeping and flying species of the land.

(7.) Beasts of prey (“creeping” here meaning “prowling”)--

(8.) Man.

In this succession, we observe not merely an order of events, like

that deduced from science; there is a system in the arrangement, and

a far-reaching prophecy, to which philosophy could not have attained,

however instructed.

The account recognizes in creation two great eras of three days

each,--an _Inorganic_ and an _Organic_.

Each of these eras opens with the appearance of _light_: the _first_,

light cosmical; the _second_, light from the sun for the special uses

of the earth.

Each are ends in a “day” of two great works,--the two shown to be

distinct by being severally pronounced “good.” On the _third_ “day,”

that closing the Inorganic era, there was first the _dividing of the

land from the waters_, and afterward the _creation of vegetation_,

or the institution of a kingdom of life,--a work widely diverse from

all preceding it in the era. Soon the _sixth_ “day,” terminating the

Organic era, there was first _the creation of Mammals_, and then a

second far greater work, totally new in its grandest element, _the

creation of Man_.

The arrangement is, then, as follows:--

1. _The Inorganic Era._

1st Day.--LIGHT cosmical.

2d Day.--The earth divided from the fluid around it, or

individualized.

{ 1. Outlining of the land and water.

3d Day.--{ 2. Creation of vegetation.

2. _The Organic Era._

4th Day.--LIGHT from the sun.

5th Day.--Creation of the lower orders of animals.

6th Day.--{ 1. Creation of Mammals.

{ 2. Creation of Man.

In addition, the last day of each era included one work typical of the

era, and another related to it in essential points, but also prophetic

of the future. Vegetation, while, for physical reasons, a part of the

creation of the third day, was also prophetic of the future Organic

era, in which the progress of life was the grand characteristic. The

record thus accords with the fundamental principle in history that the

characteristic of an age has its beginnings within the age preceding.

So, again, Man, while like other Mammals in structure, even to the

homologies of every bone and muscle, was endowed with a spiritual

nature, which looked forward to another era, that of spiritual

existence.--The _seventh_ “day,” the day of rest from the work of

creation, is man’s period of preparation for that new existence; and it

is to promote this special end that--in strict parallelism--the Sabbath

follows man’s six days of work.

The record in the Bible is, therefore, profoundly philosophical in the

scheme of creation which it presents. It is both true and divine. It

is a declaration of authorship, both of Creation and the Bible, on the

first page of the sacred volume.

There can be no real conflict between the two Books of the GREAT

AUTHOR. Both are revelations made by Him to man,--the _earlier_ telling

of God-made harmonies coming up from the deep past, and rising to their

height when man appeared, the _later_ teaching man’s relations to his

Maker, and speaking of loftier harmonies in the eternal future.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Twelve Lectures on the Connection between Science and

Revealed Religion, by NICHOLAS WISEMAN, D.D., Principal of the English

College, and Professor in the University of Rome. Andover: Gould &

Newman, 1837.]

[Footnote 2: Prelectiones Theologicæ.]

[Footnote 3: Cosmogonia Naturale comparata Col Genesi.]

[Footnote 4: A Manual of Geology; treating of the Principles of the

science with special reference to American Geological History, etc., by

JAMES D. DANA, M. A., LL. D., etc., 8vo, pp. 998. Philadelphia: Thos.

Bliss & Co.]

[Footnote 5: January and July, 1856, and April and July, 1857, covering

in all 219 pages, 8vo.]

[Footnote 6: The Six Days of Creation, or the Scriptural Cosmology;

with the Ancient Idea of Time Worlds in Distinction from Worlds in

Space, by TAYLER LEWIS, Professor of Greek in Union College. 12mo, pp.

407. Schenectady, 1855.]

[Footnote 7: Man in Genesis and Geology; or, the Bible account of Man’s

Creation tested by Scientific Theories of his Origin and Antiquity, by

JOSEPH P. THOMPSON, D. D., LL. D. New York, 12mo, pp. 149. 1870.]

[Footnote 8: The Chemical History of the Six Days of Creation, by JOHN

PHIN, editor of the Technologist. American News Company, New York, pp.

95, 12mo, 1870.]

[Footnote 9: Genesis, or the First Book of Moses, together with a

General Theological and Homitetical Introduction to the Old Testament,

by JOHN PETER LANGE, D. D., Professor in Ordinary of Theology in the

University of Bonn. Translated from the German, with additions by

Professor TAYLER LEWIS, LL. D., Schenectady, New York, and A. GOSMAN,

D. D., Lawrenceville, N. J. New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 654

Broadway. 1868. 8vo, pp. 665.]

[Footnote 10: 2 Cor. vi. 1.]

[Footnote 11: 2 Pet. iii. 10.]

[Footnote 12: Rom. i. 18.]

[Footnote 13: It may be useful once for all to inform the reader that

the term _Rock_ is employed by Geologists in a technical sense. It is

applied to every large mass of mineral matter that goes to form the

Crust of the Earth, whether it be hard and strong, or soft and plastic.

Thus, for example, gravel and clay, coal and slate, are called _Rocks_,

just as well as limestone and granite. “Our older writers endeavored

to avoid offering such violence to our language, by speaking of the

component materials of the Earth as consisting of rocks and _soils_.

But there is often so insensible a passage from a soft and incoherent

state to that of stone, that Geologists of all countries have found

it indispensable to have one technical term to include both, and in

this sense we find _roche_ applied in French, _rocca_ in Italian, and

_felsart_ in German. The beginner, however, must constantly bear in

mind, that the term rock by no means implies that a mineral mass is in

an indurated or stony condition.”--Lyell’s Elements of Geology, p. 4.]

[Footnote 14: Lyell’s Elements of Geology, p. 7.]

[Footnote 15: See Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 411-413.]

[Footnote 16: See Jukes, The Student’s Manual of Geology, p. 125.]

[Footnote 17: Professor Tyndall, Odds and Ends of Alpine Life.]

[Footnote 18: Ecclesiastes, i. 7.]

[Footnote 19: Page, Advanced Text-Book of Geology, p. 55.]

[Footnote 20: See on this subject, Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol.

i., p. 458, and pp. 480-3; Jukes, Manual of Geology, pp. 105-11; Page,

Advanced Text-Book of Geology, pp. 52-56.]

[Footnote 21: Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 356-7.]

[Footnote 22: Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 360.]

[Footnote 23: See Jukes, Manual of Geology, pp. 108-10; Hopkins,

Presidential Address to the Geological Society of London, 1852, p.

xxvii.]

[Footnote 24: For these facts see Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol.

i., pp. 349, 350; Quarterly Journal of Science, No. xiii., New Series;

The English Cyclopædia, Natural History Division, Alluvium.]

[Footnote 25: For these facts illustrating the destructive action

of the waves of the sea we are chiefly indebted to the following

authorities: Hibbert, Description of the Shetland Isles; Phillips,

Rivers, Mountains, and Sea-coast of Yorkshire; Geology of Yorkshire, by

the same author; Pennant’s Arctic Zoology, vol. i.; Lyell’s Principles

of Geology, vol. i., chapters xx. and xxi.; Gardner’s History of the

Borough of Dunwich; the English Cyclopædia, Alluvium.]

[Footnote 26: Rennell’s Investigation of the Currents in the Atlantic

Ocean; Maury’s Physical Geography of the Sea, chapters ii. and iii.;

Humboldt’s Cosmos; The English Cyclopædia, Atlantic Ocean; Lyell’s

Principles of Geology, vol. i., chapter xx.]

[Footnote 27: Mantell’s Wonders of Geology, p. 70.]

[Footnote 28: In his notes to the translation of Humboldt’s Cosmos, p.

xcvii.]

[Footnote 29: A Hymn before Sunrise in the Vale of Chamouni, by Samuel

Taylor Coleridge.]

[Footnote 30: Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 374-5.]

[Footnote 31: Voyage in 1822, p. 233.]

[Footnote 32: Elements of Geology, pp. 145, 146.]

[Footnote 33: Captain Horsburg, On Icebergs in Low Latitudes. Phil.

Trans., 1830.]

[Footnote 34: Agassiz, Etudes sur les Glaciers; Tyndall, Glaciers of

the Alps; also Heat as a mode of Motion, by the same Author; Lyell,

Principles of Geology, vol. i., chapter xvi.; Elements of Geology,

chapters xi., xii.; Wallace, Ice Marks in North Wales, in the Quarterly

Journal of Science, No. xiii.]

[Footnote 35: Elements of Geology, p. 38.]

[Footnote 36: Mantell, Wonders of Geology, vol. i., p. 102.]

[Footnote 37: Lyell, Elements of Geology, p. 42; also Principles, vol.

i., p. 410.]

[Footnote 38: Mantell’s Wonders of Geology, pp. 70, 81, 82, 83.]

[Footnote 39: Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 431.]

[Footnote 40: Id. ib., p. 429.]

[Footnote 41: The figures given by Sir Charles Lyell, and derived from

the observations of Mr. Everest, are these: total discharge during the

four months of rain, 6,082,041,600 cubic feet; total discharge during

the three months of hot weather, 38,154,240 cubic feet.--Principles of

Geology, vol. i., p. 481.]

[Footnote 42: From a Special Correspondent, in the Times Newspaper,

December 7, 1866.]

[Footnote 43: Horner, Alluvial Land of Egypt, Phil. Trans., part I.,

for 1855; Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 431-9.]

[Footnote 44: The English Cyclopædia, Alluvium.]

[Footnote 45: Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., chapters XVIII.,

XIX.]

[Footnote 46: Consolations in Travel, p. 127.]

[Footnote 47: Handbook of Rome and its Environs: Murray, 1858, p. 325.]

[Footnote 48: Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., 400-3.]

[Footnote 49: Jukes, Manual of Geology, p. 127.]

[Footnote 50: See his Lecture On a Piece of Chalk, delivered during the

Meeting of the British Association at Norwich, 1868.]

[Footnote 51: Lyell, Elements of Geology, p. 318.]

[Footnote 52: Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. ii., chap. xlix.;

Mantell, Wonders of Geology, Lecture vi.; Jukes, Manual of Geology, pp.

130-3.]

[Footnote 53: Sacred Philosophy of the Seasons, by the Rev. Henry

Duncan, D.D.; Summer, p. 168.]

[Footnote 54: Ps. xcix. 3.]

[Footnote 55: Kotzebue’s Voyages, 1815-18, vol. iii., pp. 331-33.]

[Footnote 56: Wonders of Geology, p. 648.]

[Footnote 57: Organic Remains of a Former World, vol. ii., p. 16.]

[Footnote 58: Carbonic acid gas contains two equivalents of oxygen to

one of carbon, the chemical expression for the compound being CO_{2};

carburetted hydrogen, which is the gas we employ in illuminating our

streets and houses, contains four equivalents of hydrogen to two of

carbon, and is chemically expressed by the symbols C_{2}H_{4}; water is

composed of one equivalent of oxygen, and one of hydrogen, the symbolic

form being HO.]

[Footnote 59: See Jukes, Manual of Geology, pp. 138-141; Lyell,

Elements of Geology, p. 500.]

[Footnote 60: Jukes, Manual of Geology, p. 140.]

[Footnote 61: See Mantell, Wonders of Geology, pp. 680-2; also 760;

Lyell, Elements of Geology, 464, 465.]

[Footnote 62: Elements of Geology, p. 488.]

[Footnote 63: Mantell, Wonders of Geology, p. 67.]

[Footnote 64: Mantell, Wonders of Geology, p. 66.]

[Footnote 65: Id. Ib.]

[Footnote 66: Chemical Technology, Ronalds and Richardson, vol. i., p.

32.]

[Footnote 67: See Lyell, Elements of Geology, 477-81; Jukes, Manual

of Geology, 138, 149-53; The English Cyclopædia, Natural History

Department, Article, Coal; Mantell, Fossils of the British Museum,

Chapter i., Part I.]

[Footnote 68: Page, Advanced Text-Book of Geology, n. 7, pp. 20, 21.]

[Footnote 69: From the Latin _Fossilis_, _dug up_.]

[Footnote 70: Elements of Geology, p. 38.]

[Footnote 71: Elements of Geology, p. 40.]

[Footnote 72: Manual of Geology, p. 375.]

[Footnote 73: Lyell, Elements of Geology, pp. 40-41. The reader will

find a singularly clear and simple exposition of this subject in Doctor

Haughton’s Manual of Geology, Lecture III.; an exposition which it

was not our good fortune to have read until our own brief summary was

already in type.]

[Footnote 74: Buckland, Bridgewater Treatise, vol. i., p. 123; Mantell,

Wonders of Geology, p. 269; Lyell, Elements of Geology, p. 687.]

[Footnote 75: Mantell, Wonders of Geology, Lecture IV., Fossils of the

British Museum, chapter V.; see, also, Medals of Creation, and Fossils

of the South Downs, by the same Author.]

[Footnote 76: Owen’s Palæontology, pp. 200-9; Buckland, Bridgewater

Treatise, vol. i., pp. 168-186; Mantell, Wonders of Geology, pp.

576-581; Lyell, Elements of Geology, pp. 420-425; Jukes, Manual of

Geology, pp. 598-599.]

[Footnote 77: Buckland’s Bridgewater Treatise, vol. i., pp. 202-14;

Owen’s Palæontology, 223-232.]

[Footnote 78: Buckland, Bridgewater Treatise, vol. i., pp. 139-164;

Owen’s Palæontology, pp. 390-2; Mantell, Wonders of Geology, pp. 166-9;

Fossils of the British Museum, pp. 465-480; The English Cyclopædia,

Natural History Division, Article, Megatheridæ.]

[Footnote 79: Lyell, Elements of Geology, p. 4.]

[Footnote 80: Wonders of Geology, p. 400.]

[Footnote 81: See Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 31, who

refers to Da Vinci’s MSS. now in the Library of the Institute of

France.]

[Footnote 82: See Lyell, Elements of Geology, pp. 94-96; Principles of

Geology, p. 116; Jukes, Manual of Geology, pp. 410, 411.]

[Footnote 83: Elements of Geology, p. 95.]

[Footnote 84: Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 115.]

[Footnote 85: Lyell, Elements of Geology, p. 100.]

[Footnote 86: Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 312.]

[Footnote 87: Ib. 313.]

[Footnote 88: Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 321, 322.]

[Footnote 89: Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects: London, 1867;

pp. 9, 10.]

[Footnote 90: It would be more strictly correct to say that the rate

of increase varies considerably in different places, though the main

fact is everywhere palpably apparent that the deeper we descend into

the Earth the higher the temperature becomes. Sir Charles Lyell records

a number of careful experiments made in England, France, Germany, and

Italy, which seem to show that an increase of one degree Fahrenheit for

every sixty-five feet of descent would represent pretty correctly the

general average. See his Principles of Geology, vol. ii., pp. 205, 206.]

[Footnote 91: See Sir John Herschel, Familiar Lectures on Scientific

Subjects, pp. 26, 27.]

[Footnote 92: See the elaborate work of Sir William Hamilton, entitled

Campi Phlegraei, in which he gives a full account of the formation

of Monte Nuovo, accompanied with colored plates. He has preserved

two interesting narratives of the eruption written at the time by

eye-witnesses. See also Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp.

606-616.]

[Footnote 93: Sir John Herschel, Familiar Lectures on Scientific

Subjects, p. 34; see also Lyell, Principles of Geology, chap. xxvii.;

Mantell, Wonders of Geology, pp. 872-4.]

[Footnote 94: See Herschel, Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects,

pp. 34-6. Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. ii., pp. 104-6.]

[Footnote 95: Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects, pp. 31, 32.]

[Footnote 96: Principles of Geology, vol. ii., pp. 59, 60.]

[Footnote 97: Principles of Geology, vol. ii. pp. 69, 70.]

[Footnote 98: For the account of these various Earthquakes we are

mainly indebted to the indefatigable industry of Sir Charles Lyell, who

has collected the facts with great care partly from the descriptions

of eye-witnesses, and partly from authentic documents written upon the

spot. See his Principles of Geology, vol. ii., chap, xxviii., xxix.,

xxx. See also Mr. Mallet’s Earthquake Catalogue; and the first of Sir

John Herschel’s Lectures on Familiar Subjects.]

[Footnote 99: The following are the sources from which we have chiefly

derived our information regarding the Peruvian Earthquake of 1868: (1)

a series of letters written upon the scene of the catastrophe, and

published in _The Times_ of September 26, 1868; amongst them is one

from the British Vice-consul, and one from the agent of the Pacific

Steam Navigation Company, who were both at the time residents of Arica:

(2) a letter of Mr. Clements Markham in _The Times_ of September 15,

1868: (3) Captain Powell’s Report to the Admiralty, dated September 14,

1868.]

[Footnote 100: Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. ii., p. 176.]

[Footnote 101: Id. ib.]

[Footnote 102: Letter from C. Hullmandel, Esq.; see Mantell, Wonders of

Geology, Appendix G., p. 470. For a full and elaborate disquisition on

the Temple of Jupiter Serapis, see also Lyell, Principles of Geology,

vol. ii., chap. xxv.]

[Footnote 103: Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. ii., chap. xxxi.]

[Footnote 104: Ibid.]

[Footnote 105: On a Piece of Chalk: A Lecture to Working Men.]

[Footnote 106: Genesis, v. 3-32.]

[Footnote 107: Ib., xi. 10-26.]

[Footnote 108: Ib., v. 3-9.]

[Footnote 109: Genesis, xii. 4.]

[Footnote 110: The Genesis of the Earth and Man, Edited by Reginald

Stuart Poole: London; Williams and Norgate; 1860.]

[Footnote 111: “Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two

years after the flood.”--Genesis, xi. 10.]

[Footnote 112: This second Cainan does not appear in the Hebrew or the

Samaritan version.]

[Footnote 113: Appendix (1).]

[Footnote 114: Appendix (2).]

[Footnote 115: Appendix (3).]

[Footnote 116: Exodus, xx. 9-11.]

[Footnote 117: Appendix (4), (5), (6).]

[Footnote 118: See Gesenius, sub vocibus.]

[Footnote 119: Appendix (7).]

[Footnote 120: Appendix (8).]

[Footnote 121: Appendix (9).]

[Footnote 122: Appendix (10).]

[Footnote 123: Appendix (11) (12).]

[Footnote 124: Appendix (13) (14) (15).]

[Footnote 125: Appendix (16).]

[Footnote 126: In Genes. cap. i. Quæst. xiv.]

[Footnote 127: Appendix (17).]

[Footnote 128: See his various works upon Genesis, passim; in

particular de Genesi ad Literam, Lib. i. cap. xv., Lib. iv. cap.

xxxiii.; De Genesi Liber Imperfectus, cap. vii. and cap. ix.]

[Footnote 129: This latter view might be fairly maintained in

conformity with the principles which Saint Augustine professes to

follow in the interpretation of Genesis. See De Genesi ad Literam, Lib.

i. cap. xxi. and cap. xxii.]

[Footnote 130: See De Genesi ad Literam, Lib. i. cap. xv.; De Genesi

Liber Imperfectus, cap. vii.; Confess., Lib. xii. cap. xxix.]

[Footnote 131: 2 Peter, iii. 8.]

[Footnote 132: Appendix (18) (19) (20).]

[Footnote 133: Wisdom, ix. 13-16.]

[Footnote 134: See Pianciani, Cosmogonia, pp. 384-90.]

[Footnote 135: See Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old

Testament Scriptures; in voce. He thus explains the first meaning

of this word: “_copulative_, and serves to connect both words and

sentences, especially in _continuing a discourse_.”]

[Footnote 136: Appendix (21).]

[Footnote 137: See De Genesi ad Literam, Lib. iv. capp. xxvi.-xxxv.,

Lib. v. cap. i. n. 3, and cap. iii. n. 6.]

[Footnote 138: Ecclesiasticus, xviii. 1.]

[Footnote 139: Appendix (22).]

[Footnote 140: Appendix (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31).]

[Footnote 141: See De Genesi ad Literam, Lib. iv. capp. xxvi., xxvii.;

also Lib. i. capp. x., xi., xii.]

[Footnote 142: Appendix (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37).]

[Footnote 143: Amos, viii. 11, 12.]

[Footnote 144: Psalm ii. 7.]

[Footnote 145: Heb. i. 5.]

[Footnote 146: Jeremias, cap. l. vv. 24-32.]

[Footnote 147: Jeremias, li. 1, 2.]

[Footnote 148: Jeremias, xlvi. 3-10, 19-21.]

[Footnote 149: Ezechiel, xxix. 19-21.]

[Footnote 150: Ezechiel, xxx. 3-9.]

[Footnote 151: Sophonias, v. 8-11, 14-17.]

[Footnote 152: Isaias, xxix. 17-19.]

[Footnote 153: Matth. xi. 4, 5.]

[Footnote 154: John, viii. 56.]

[Footnote 155: 2 Cor. vii. 1, 2.]

[Footnote 156: Luke, xix. 41-43.]

[Footnote 157: Dan. viii. 14.]

[Footnote 158: Appendix (38) (39) (40) (41).]

[Footnote 159: Exodus, xx. 9-11.]

[Footnote 160: Exodus, xxiii. 10-12.]

[Footnote 161: Leviticus, xxv. 2-7.]

[Footnote 162: 2 Cor. v. 14, 15.]

[Footnote 163: Matt. viii. 22; Luke, ix. 60.]

[Footnote 164: John, xx. 17.]

[Footnote 165: Rom. xiii. 12, 13.]

[Footnote 166: I. Thessal. v. 4, 5.]

[Footnote 167: Amos, viii. 9.]

[Footnote 168: Appendix (42) (43).]

[Footnote 169: Gen. i. 11, 12.]

[Footnote 170: The Testimony of the Rocks, p. 125.]

[Footnote 171: Genesis, i. 20, 21.]

[Footnote 172: Testimony of the Rocks, p. 126.]

[Footnote 173: Genesis, i. 24, 25.]

[Footnote 174: Testimony of the Rocks, pp. 127, 128.]

[Footnote 175: Elements of Geology, p. 100.]

[Footnote 176: “Aliquid esse a Deo conditum, de quo sileat liber

Genesis, nihil repugnat.” Saint Augustine, Confess. Lib. xii., cap.

xxii.]

[Footnote 177: Appendix (44).]

[Footnote 178: Ecclesiastes, iii. 2.]

[Transcriber's Note:

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]