position, and even if it were not, is altogether

unsound.

The third argument, derived from the correspondency of ancient traditions, is wholly insufficient to prove that the six demiurgic days were six extended periods, since tradition, whatever weight it may have as corroborative testimony, can have but very little in the silence of holy Scripture.

The last and principal argument is derived from the discoveries, or possibly the re-discoveries of modern physiologists. These, in Mr. Faber's opinion, afford positive and direct and palpable demonstration, that the six creative days must have been six periods of vast, though to us unknown, duration. But confidently as this is propounded, it is obvious to remark that it stands upon very precarious ground. Geological science is but in its infancy, and, being conversant with the interior strata of the earth which has been only partially explored, it may well be doubted whether it yet affords sufficient data for a sound conclusion. In no branch of human knowledge has there been a greater variety of systems and theories; and many philosophers, who must be supposed far superior to

Vol. i. p. 20.

Mr. Faber in physiological knowledge, have arrived at a very different result. Hence but little dependence can be placed upon an argument drawn from a science, the uncertainty of which should teach us to pause and hesitate, rather than to indulge in peremptory decisions. Though religion has nothing to dread from the progress of knowledge, or the discoveries of science, the rashness is to be condemned which opposes the plain sense of the sacred Writings upon doubtful and imperfect information. In all cases where the deductions of natural philosophy are at variance with the declarations of Scripture, it is more reasonable to suspect our philosophy, than to deny the truth of Revelation, or to adopt interpretations which have nothing to recommend them but their accordance with our theories f.

"From the endless discordance in the opinions of philosophers on this point, from the manifest inadequacy of the data we are at present in possession of, and from the physical impossibilities which must for ever be a bar to any thing more than a superficial knowledge of the earth's structure, it is preposterous to suppose that that high degree of moral evidence, on which the credibility of Scripture rests, can with any justice be weakened by our interpretation of phenomena, the connexion of which among themselves even we certainly are at present, and probably ever shall be, incapable of explaining." Professor Kidd, Geological Essay, cap. 1. See also Granville Pen, Comparative Estimate, &c.; Watson, Theological Institutes, P. 1. cap. 20, ; Sumner, Records of the Creation, Append. 1.

.

To pursue the argument in detail would require a familiarity with geological science, to which the writer of these pages lays no claim. Declining an attempt, therefore, which, with his superficial acquaintance with physiology, would necessarily be unsatisfactory, he must content himself with submitting a few general observations.

The mode of reasoning adopted by those who espouse the notion of great mundane revolutions and catastrophes previous to the formation of man, appears strikingly fallacious. From the successive depositions of the strata forming the crust of our globe, and from the various fossil remains embedded even in the hardest of these strata, it is inferred that the age of the earth must be extended far beyond the period of the creation of the first human pair. But is it certain that these phenomena can only be explained upon such a supposition? May they not be attributed to some other cause? May not most of them be accounted for by the fact of the general deluge? If others cannot be so accounted for, may they not be owing to some partial catastrophe anterior to that event? May not several of them have originated at the moment when, at the Almighty word, order arose from the firstcreated chaos which was without form and void? May they not have been produced in much less

time than supposed, by the operation of those laws and principles by which the material world is regulated? In short, are they inexplicable upon any other hypothesis than that of some revolution or revolutions in the crust of our globe previous to the formation of man? To assert the impossibility of this would manifest a presumption and rashness utterly repugnant to all true philosophy; yet, unless such impossibility exists, the premises will not warrant the conclusion. The strata and fossil minerals of the earth, if they can be attributed to any other cause, will not prove any mundane revolutions prior to the date of the Mosaic history. The utmost extent of the argument will be, that these phenomena are not inconsistent with, or may be explained by anti-pentateuchal catastrophes, but, except it can be shewn that they can be referred to no other cause, they will not demonstrate the actual existence of such catastrophes. The existing phenomena may be, and probably are, owing to other causes, and, unless anti-pentateuchal revolutions in the crust of the earth be demonstrated, an extension of time beyond six natural days is not rendered necessary by these existing phe

nomena.

If even the existence of such mundane revolutions could be proved, it will not follow that the

six demiurgic days were six vast periods of time. Suppose it could be shewn by invincible evidence, that these are geological phenomena necessarily carrying us beyond the period assigned in the Scriptures to the creation of man, it will not be necessary to extend the creative labours described in Genesis beyond six natural days. The mass of crude and inert matter of which this world is composed may have been created at an immense distance of time previous to the six periods mentioned in the Mosaic narrative, and the subsequent organization there related may have been effected in the space of six natural days. Of this Mr. Faber is aware, and attempts, though unsuccessfully, to repel its force". It is not inconsistent with the language of Scripture; for Moses may be supposed to describe in the first verse of Genesis the original creation of matter, and in the second to commence an account of those detailed operations by which it was reduced to its present order and form. It surely does less violence to the expressions of the sacred historian than the other hypothesis, while it serves equally to account for the vestiges of ante-mundane revolutions, if any such really exist. This theory has been sanctioned by

Vol. i. p. 156.