We have in the course of the previous volume alluded to certain discrepancies, supposed to exist between the statements of Scripture, and the teachings of Geology. We have more than once intimated our intention of discussing at some length these questions, that have so long been tabooed by truly religious people, and often needlessly exaggerated by those who have possessed a “microscopic eye,” in the discovery of the weak points of Christian faith or opinion. Dropping the convenient and euphonious form of egotism, which allows sovereigns and authors to adopt the plural, we shall crave to stand before our readers in our personal and singular, rather than in our impersonal and plural, form of speech.

To the reader let me first say, that while I do not wish to appear before him as an advocate, as if I held a brief or had a retaining fee on behalf of Moses, I nevertheless feel rather keenly that the “reverend” put before my name may give something like this aspect to all my remarks. It may be thought, and that honestly enough, that because mine is the clerical profession, I am bound, per fas aut nefas, to contend for the authority of Scripture. It may be thought—in fact, it is daily alleged against us—that the particular “stand-point” we occupy is an unfair one, inasmuch as a preacher is bound to “stick to the Bible;” and indeed that he always comes to it with certain à priori conclusions, that to a great extent invalidate his reasonings, and destroy the morality of his arguments.

Possibly there may be more truth in this than any of us dream of: fas est ab hoste doceri. I therefore make no professions of honesty, and appeal to no one’s feelings; let us go and look at the Bible, and at the earth’s crust, and be guided by our independent researches. Should this happen to be read by any one whose mind is out of joint with Scripture; who no longer reposes with satisfaction on the old book of his childhood and his youth; who has begun to fear,—perhaps to think that it is only a collection of “cunningly devised” fables; and who is on the verge of giving up Christianity and all “that sort of thing;” to such an one I shall speak, supposing him to be as honest in his doubts as I am in my convictions. I cannot deal with man as if he had no right to doubt; I have never yet “pooh-poohed” any one’s unbelief; but I have always striven to regard all doubts expressed in courteous phrase, as the result of investigation, even though it may be partial, as the fruit of study, although it may have been misguided, and as the painful conclusions of a thinking mind, and not cherished for the sake of “having a fling” at moral truth or a righteous life, or at the mothers and sisters whose life “remote from public haunt” has saved them from ever doubting the truth of revelation.

Doubting and scorning are very opposite phases of mind: we here address the doubter; with the scorner we have nothing to do; if ridicule is his substitute for argument, by all means let him enjoy it; and if calling names is his substitute for patient investigation, let him enjoy that pastime also—hard words break no bones; but for the doubter, for the man who has his honest difficulties, and finds large stumbling-blocks in the path of unresisting acquiescence in household faiths, for such an one I have much to say in this chapter, if he will read it,—to him I stretch forth my hand in cordial greeting, and invite him to examine evidence, and consider facts; and then, whatever may be the result, whether I shake his doubts or he shake my faith, we shall at least have acted a manly and a straightforward part. At any rate, we ought ever to meet as friends, and to be candid and forbearing, as men liable to err through manifold besetments and biasses.

Having thus thrown myself upon my reader’s candour, by a clear avowal of the spirit in which such controversies ought to be conducted, let us together proceed to the purpose of this chapter. Between Geology and Scripture interpretation there are apparent and great contradictions—that all admit: on the very threshold of our future remarks, let us allow most readily that between the usually recognised interpretations of Scripture and the well-ascertained facts of Geological science, there are most appalling contradictions; and the questions arising thence are very important, both in a scientific and in a theological point of view. Is there any method of reconciliation, by which the harmony of the facts of science with the statements of the Bible can be shown? Where is the real solution to be found? Are we mistaken in our interpretations, or are we mistaken in our discoveries? Have we to begin religion again de novo, or may the Bible and the Book of Nature remain just as we have been accustomed to regard them; both as equally inspired books of God, waiting only the service and worship of man, their priest and interpreter?

These are questions surely of no common importance. Neither the Christian nor the doubter act a consistent part in ignoring them. Should the Christian say, “I want no teachings of science: I want no learned phrases and learned researches to assist me in understanding my Bible: for aught I care, all the ‘ologies’ in the world may perish as carnal literature: I know the Book is true, and decline any controversy with the mere intellectual disputant;” and if the Christian should go on to add, as probably he would in such a state of mind, and as, alas! too many have done to the lasting disgust and alienation of the thoughtful and intelligent: “These are the doubts of a ‘philosophy falsely so called:’ science has nothing to do with Revelation: they have separate paths to pursue; let them each go their own way: and should there come a collision between the two, we are prepared to give up all science once and for ever, whatever it may teach, rather than have our views upon Revelation disturbed:”—now, if the Christian talks like that, he is acting a most unwise part. He is doing in his limited sphere of influence what the Prussian Government intended to have done when Strauss’ “Life of Christ” appeared. It was the heaviest blow that unbelief had ever struck against Christianity, and the Government of Prussia with several theological professors were disposed to prosecute its author, and forbid the sale of the book. But the great Neander deprecated this course, as calculated to give the work a spurious celebrity, and as wearing the aspect of a confession that the book was unanswerable. He advised that it should be met, not by authority, but by argument, believing that the truth had nothing to fear in such a conflict. His counsel prevailed, and the event has shown that he was right.

If, on the other hand, the doubter should say, “The intelligence of the day has outgrown our household faiths; men are no longer to be held in trammels of weakness and superstition, or to be dragooned into Religion;—the old story about the Bible, why, you know we can’t receive that, and look upon those compilations that pass by that name as divinely inspired Books; we have long since been compelled to abandon the thought that Christianity has any historic basis, or that its Books have any claim upon the reverence or faith of the nineteenth century, as of supernatural origin.”

To such an one I should say, that this begging of the question, this petitio principii, is no argument; these are statements that require every one of them a thorough demonstration before they are admitted; you deny the Christian one single postulate: you deny him the liberty of taking anything for granted; and then begin yourself with demanding his assent unquestioned to so large a postulate as your very first utterance involves, “that the intelligence of the age has outgrown our household faiths.” Before you proceed you must prove that; and we must know what is meant by those terms, before we can stand upon common ground, and hold anything like argument upon these debated points.

From such general observations let us come to the precise objects before us: Geology and Scripture are supposed to be at variance specially on three points. The age of the earth: the introduction of death: and the Noachian Deluge. These apparent contradictions are the most prominent difficulties, and cause the most startling doubts among those who imagine Science to be antagonistic to Christian revelation. I propose to devote a little attention to each of these questions, while I endeavour honestly to show how, in my opinion, apparent contradictions may be reconciled. The questions are these, to state them in a popular form: 1. Is the world more than 6,000 years old? and if it is, how are the statements of Scripture and Geology to be reconciled? 2. Was death introduced into the world before the fall of man? and if it was, how are the truths of Scripture on this question to be explained? and, 3. What was the character of the Noachian Deluge? was it partial or universal? and what are the apparent discrepancies in this case, between science and the Bible?

Perhaps before I proceed a step further I ought to add that, in my belief, the age of the earth, so far as its material fabric, i.e. its crust, is concerned, dates back to a period so remote, and so incalculable, that the epoch of the earth’s creation is wholly unascertained and unascertainable by our human arithmetic; whether this is contradicted in the Scripture, is another question.

With regard to the introduction of death, I believe that death upon a most extensive scale prevailed upon the earth, and in the waters that are under the earth, ages, yea countless ages, before the creation of man—before the sin of any human being had been witnessed; that is what Geology teaches most indisputably: whether the Scriptures contradict this statement, is another question.

With regard to the Noachian Deluge, I believe that it was quite partial in its character, and very temporary in its duration; that it destroyed only those animals that were found in those parts of the earth then inhabited by man; and that it has not left one single shell, or fossil, or any drift or other remains that can be traced to its action. Whether the Scriptures teach any other doctrine, is another question.

By this time the ground between us is narrowed, and I may probably anticipate that I shall have objections to answer, or misapprehensions to remove, quite as much on the part of those who devoutly believe, as on the part of those who honestly doubt the Christian Scriptures.

First then,

I. How old is the world? How many years is it since it was called into being, as one of the planets? How many centuries have elapsed since its first particle of matter was created?

The answer comes from a thousand voices, “How old? why, 6,000 years, and no more, or closely thereabouts! Every child knows that;—talk about the age of the world at this time of day, when the Bible clearly reveals it!”

Now I ask, Where does the Bible reveal it? Where is the chapter and the verse in which its age is recorded? I have read my Bible somewhat, and feel a deepening reverence for it, but as yet I have never read that. I see the age of man recorded there; I see the revelation that says the human species is not much more than 6,000 years old; and geology says this testimony is true, for no remains of man have been found even in the tertiary system, the latest of all the geological formations. “The Bible, the writings of Moses,” says Dr. Chalmers, “do not fix the antiquity of the globe; if they fix any thing at all, it is only the antiquity of the species.”

It may be said that the Bible does not dogmatically teach this doctrine of the antiquity of the globe; and we reply, Very true; but how have we got the idea that the Bible was to teach us all physical science, as well as theology. Turretin went to the Bible for Astronomy: Turretin was a distinguished professor of theology in his day, and has left behind him large proofs of scholarship and piety. Well, Turretin went to the Bible, determined to find his system of astronomy in it; and of course he found it. “The sun,” he says, “is not fixed in the heavens, but moves through the heavens, and is said in Scripture to rise and to set, and by a miracle to have stood still in the time of Joshua; if the sun did not move, how could birds, which often fly off through an hour’s circuit, be able to return to their nests, for in the mean time the earth would move 450 miles?” And if it be said in reply, that Scripture speaks according to common opinion, then says Turretin, “We answer, that the Spirit of God best understands natural things, and is not the author of any error.”

We smile at such “ecclesiastical drum” noise now, and we can well afford to do so: but when people go to the Bible, determined to find there, not a central truth, but the truths of physics, in every department of natural science, are we to be surprised that they come away disappointed and angry? As Michaelis says, (quoted by Dr. Harris, in his “Man Primeval,” p. 12,) “Should a stickler for Copernicus and the true system of the world carry his zeal so far as to say, that the city of Berlin sets at such an hour, instead of making use of the common expression, that the sun sets at Berlin at such an hour, he speaks the truth, to be sure, but his manner of speaking it is pedantry.”

Now, this is just the way to make thoughtful men unbelievers: and we will not adopt that plan, because it is not honest, neither is it clever; the Gordian knot of every question might easily be solved in this way.

Bearing in mind that the question we are now trying to solve is this, “What is the evidence afforded by Geology, as to the history of creation, and in what way does the geological age of the world affect the supposed statement of Scripture, that the world is only 6,000 years old?” I reply thus, and I prefer to use the words of others rather than my own, lest it should be supposed that I am introducing mere novelties of opinion on this subject:—“That the first sentence in Genesis is a simple, independent, all-comprehending axiom to this effect; that matter, elementary or combined, aggregated only or organized, and dependent, sentient and intellectual beings have not existed from eternity, either in self-continuity or in succession: but had a beginning; that their beginning took place by the all-powerful will of One Being, the self-existent, independent and infinite in all perfection, and that the date of that beginning is not made known.”

These are the words of Dr. Pye Smith,^[123] of whose name as an authority, both in matters of science and philology, no one need be ashamed.

Dr. Redford says, “We ought to understand Moses as saying, indefinitely, far back, and concealed from us in the mystery of eternal ages, prior to the first moment of mundane time, ‘God created the heavens and the earth.’”

“My firm persuasion is,” says Dr. Harris, “that the first verse of Genesis was designed by the Divine Spirit to announce the absolute origination of the material universe by the Almighty Creator, and that it is so understood in the other parts of Holy Writ; that, passing by an indefinite interval, the second verse describes the state of our planet immediately prior to the Adamic creation; and that the third verse begins the account of the six days’ work.”

Dr. Davidson, in his “Sacred Hermeneutics,” says,—“If I am reminded, in a tone of animadversion, that I am making science, in this instance, the interpreter of Scripture, my reply is, that I am simply making the works of God illustrate His word in a department in which they speak with a distinct and authoritative voice; that it is all the same whether our geological or theological investigations have been prior, if we have not forced the one into accordance with the other. And it may be deserving consideration whether or not the conduct of those is not open to just animadversion who first undertake to pronounce on the meaning of a passage of Scripture, irrespective of all appropriate evidence, and who then, when that evidence is explored and produced, insist on their à priori interpretation as the only true one.”

But I quote no more: such are some of the eminent theological contributions to this department of science:—satisfactory in this respect, that a fair interpretation of Scripture does not require us to fix any precise date, much less the inconsiderable one of six thousand years, as the period of the earth’s formation.

Geology teaches the same thing.—Of the various formations that compose the earth’s trust, to the ascertained extent of ten miles, suppose we select two,—the Old Red Sandstone and the Chalk formations. Laborious and scientific men have been at the pains to calculate the gradual increase of some of these now proceeding deposits,—such as the Deltas, in course of formation at the mouth of the Nile, and at the gorges of the Ganges; and they find that the progress of the depth of increase is exceedingly small,—probably not more than a foot in many years. Mr. Maculloch, a name standing very high for accurate investigation, states, from his own observation, that a particular Scottish lake does not form its deposit at the bottom, and hence raise its level, at the rate of more than half-a-foot in a century; and he observes, that the country surrounding that lake presents a vertical depth of far more than 3,000 feet, in the single series of the Old Red Sandstone formation; and no sound geologist, he hence concludes, will, therefore, accuse the computer of exceeding, if, upon the same ratio as the contiguous lake, he allows 600,000 years for the production of this series of rock alone.

A last instance which may here be adduced, of the apparent length of time required for the construction of a particular rock, offers itself in the Chalk formation. The enormous masses of this rock, presenting their tall white precipices in such simple grandeur to our view, might well excite our astonishment at the periods which would seem needful for their collection and deposition, even if they were mere inorganic concretions of calcareous matter. But what shall we say when the investigations of the microscope have lately revealed to us that these mountains of chalk, instead of being formed of mere inert matter, are, on the contrary, mighty congeries of decayed animal life,—the white apparent particles, of which the chalk masses are composed, being each grain a well-defined organized being, in form still so perfect, their shells so entire, and all their characteristics so discoverable, as to cause no doubt to naturalists as to the species in the animal economy to which they belonged. How justly does Sir Charles Lyell, who in his “Elements” records at length this surprising discovery, exclaim,—

“Look at the lofty precipices which lay naked a slight section of the Chalk at the Culvers, or the Needles in the Isle of Wight, or the still loftier Shakspeare Cliff at Dover, and let the mind form a conception, if it can, of the countless generations of these minutest of living creatures it must have required to build up, from their decayed bodies and their shelly exuviæ, layer on layer, those towering masses thus brought to our view. Who shall dare to compute the time for this entire elaboration? The contemplation almost advances us a step towards forming a conception of infinitude.”^[124]

I need not dwell longer on the antiquity of the globe:—Geology and Scripture present no conflicting testimonies on this subject. Our interpretation of Scripture has, undoubtedly, been modified; but the living Word itself abideth, in all its grandeur and purity, for ever. And “the time is not far distant when the high antiquity of the globe will be regarded as no more opposed to the Bible than the earth’s revolution round the sun and on its axis. Soon shall the horizon, where geology and revelation meet, be cleared of every cloud, and present only an unbroken and magnificent circle of truth.”^[125]

The reader shall not be detained so long on the second point of inquiry, which is

II. “Was death introduced into the world before the fall of man? and if it was, how are the statements of Scripture, on this question, to be explained?” To this I have replied by anticipation, that, in my opinion, death, upon a most extensive scale, prevailed upon the earth, and in the waters that are under the earth, countless ages before the creation of man. Into the proof of this position allow me to go very briefly, although I am well aware that I run the risk of incurring the charge of heterodoxy, when I state my full conviction, that death, as well as the world, was pre-Adamite. The general impression is the contrary; but general impressions are not always right:—“general impression” is a very unsubstantial ghost to deal with, very like that cant phrase we spoke of at the beginning of this lecture,—“the intelligence of the age.” “General impression” has it, that death was not pre-Adamite; that there was no death before the fall; and that, to say the contrary, is, at least, to tread on very dangerous ground. In vain does Geology—“now happily a true science, founded on facts, and reduced to the dominion of definite laws”—lay bare the Silurian rocks, and discover even there extinct forms of life in exquisitely beautiful preservation. In vain does Geology, after showing us the fossil trilobite and coral, unfold the volume of the Old Red Sandstone, and show us there the fossil remains of fish—so perfect that we might imagine them casts rather than fossils. In vain does Geology open its vast Oolitic system, and show us there other forms of extinct life in fossil insects, tortoises, mighty saurians, and huge iguanodons. In vain does Geology lay bare the Chalk, with its marine deposits; and the Tertiary formation, with its enormous theroid mammalia, far surpassing in size the largest animals we are acquainted with. In vain are all these fossil remains exhibited imbedded in the earth; and in vain do we search, amidst all these, for one fossil remain of man, or one fossil vestige of man’s works. The easy, the cheap, the unreflective answer is, “Oh! these things were created there, or else Noah’s flood left them there.”

Of course, we can fall back upon a miracle as having done all this; but to have recourse to miracles when no miracle is recorded, is just to shake our faith in that all-inspired testimony, that supernatural Book, the existence of which is the great miracle of time. But there are the fossils! How did they come there if the forms of animal life, once inhabiting those remains, had not previously lived and died? Created! What? Created fossils? Then why not, when the Almighty created man, did he not create, at the same time, some skeletons of man, and place them in the earth, as he put skeletons of trilobites, fishes, reptiles, and mammals there? Our common sense and reverence both reject the idea. As to the puerile notion that Noah’s flood put them there, did not Noah’s flood overwhelm man as well as animals? and as the bones of man are as durable as the bones of animals, how is it that we never meet with a fossil human skull or thigh bone, or house?

We believe that death was a part of the divine plan of God’s creation; that death is a law of all organic life—a necessary law and a most benevolent provision; that the living structure of all animals derives its substance from dead organic matter. We believe that, altogether apart from human sin, preceding and successive generations must be the order of being; for if there were no death, animals would soon pass beyond the limit of provision sufficient for nutritive support, or of localities for suitable habitations. We believe that if there had been no death prior to man’s sin, it would involve the supposition that all animals were herbivorous; whereas, even the little ladybird cannot live without its meal of aphides; and, so believing, we find our faith in Scripture deepened when, seeing on every hand the extensive proofs of death, we find man, the moment he lost his lordship and proud eminence, and reduced himself voluntarily to the condition of animalism, immediately brought penally within the influence of that law of death, whose existence he must have recognised in the death of animals from the first day of his creation.

Does any one reply, “This is contrary to Scripture?” I ask them what Scripture teaches that the death of animals is the result of man’s sin?—rather would not Scripture sanction the thought that death was a part of the divine plan of God’s creation, and that the certainty of man’s transgression was the reason for giving this constitution to nature? True, Milton sings, in his noble poem, that will live as long as the English language lives—

but we are not obliged to call the Paradise Lost our Bible; or to quote Milton as a physiological authority, although the prevalence of the opinion that death was not pre-Adamite, and a good deal of theology besides, is more of Miltonic than of Scripture teaching.

I leave this branch of my subject far before it is exhausted: so far from that, each of the three points enumerated might easily be expanded into a lecture; and I can only hope that my brevity in treating these topics will not be misconstrued into a desire to shirk any of the difficulties with which their investigation is surrounded.

III. I come, lastly, to the question of the Noachian Deluge, and shall again repeat my own words: “What was the character of the Noachian Deluge?—was it partial or universal? and what are the apparent discrepancies, in this case, between science and the Bible?” And I have added to this my belief that the Noachian Deluge was quite partial in its character, and very temporary in its duration: that it destroyed only those animals that were found in those parts of the earth habitable by man, and that it has not left a single shell or fossil, or any drift boulders or pebbles, or any other remains that may be traced to its action.

Very briefly we shall try and prove this; and perhaps the most popular way will be the best remembered,—only that the reader will bear in mind that this little book does not pretend to exhaust the subject, but only to realize the idea expressed at the beginning of this chapter. Presuming, that all have in their recollection the Scriptural account of the Noachian Deluge, instead of quoting words with which all are familiar, I will only remark, as the basis of my illustrations, that rain descended, and probably the ocean overflowed, for forty days; that the waters lay upon the land, and covered them one hundred and fifty days; that at the end of that time they began to subside, and that in twelve months and twenty-seven days they were gone from the face of the earth, and the Noachian family liberated from the ark.

The question is, was this flood universal, and were all kinds of animals preserved in the ark? To which my answer, as involving my belief, is this, that the flood was local, and that only the animals peculiar to Armenia were provided for in Noah’s ark.

“Oh! but the Bible says it was universal,” says everybody. Yes; but that, you know, is just the question between us. The terms “all the earth” seem to imply universality, but they do not necessarily involve this. “All countries came to Egypt to buy corn;” certainly not all the world literally, but all the surrounding countries. So there were once dwelling at Jerusalem devout Jews “from out of every nation under heaven;” but not literally out of every nation, for the names of the nations are immediately given, and we find the nations to have been a few between Egypt and the Black Sea, and between Italy and Palestine. There are many other illustrations of a similar character: these will suffice: I only adduce these to show that at the beginning Scripture does not oblige us to consider “all” as meaning “every one;” or to understand literally “all the inhabitants of the earth” as meaning every creature.

Now, looking at the structure and composition of the earth’s crust, especially its fossiliferous rocks, I am driven to one of three conclusions, each of them involving difficulty, I acknowledge, but the one that involves the least is, of course, the most preferable. Either I must admit—

1. That the fossils in these rocks were all deposited in order and in succession, without injury, through a crust of rocks ten miles in thickness, during twelve months’ violent diluvial action:

2. Or that they were all deposited there during the 15,000 or 16,000 years that had elapsed since the creation of man prior to the Deluge; that is, supposing the creation of man and the creation of the earth to have been synchronous. Or, lastly, which theory I accept—

3. That the date of the earth’s physical being is unknown to us, and that the fossiliferous rocks were deposited in decades of ages before the creation of man.

For, on the other hand, let us suppose the flood to have been universal, in the strict and literal sense of the term; then let me suggest some of the consequences and difficulties of such a theory.

1. One consequence would be that some remains of man or of his works would have been found; but nothing of this kind has occurred. Even Armenia has been geologically examined, and no human remains have been found; and surely man’s bones would last as long as the shells of a trilobite or terebratula?

2. And, secondly, the organic remains, the fossils themselves, would have been found confusedly heaped together; whereas, the remains in the crust of the earth are as carefully arranged as the contents of a well-ordered cabinet. We know always to a certainty what fossils will be found in any rock before we examine that rock.

3. Besides which, some, at least, of the organic remains found ought to correspond with existing beings and species: yet the contrary is the case, except only a few fossils found near the surface of the earth, in that portion of the earth’s crust occupied by the tertiary system.

Nor is this all. Consider the vast difficulties the universal flood theory has to contend with, all of which are removed by the theory we have adopted.

1. There is the quantity of water required. If all over the earth the water rose twenty-two feet six inches above the tops of the highest mountains, the quantity of water required would be eight times the whole quantity of water now existing. Where all this could have come from first and gone to afterwards, are prodigious stumbling-blocks. Of course we can resort to miracle; but this is not the way to get rid of difficulty in a manly and honest spirit.

2. Then consider the number of animals the ark must have contained. There are 1,000 species of mammalia, 5,000 species of birds, 2,000 species of reptiles, and 120,000 well-ascertained and distinct species of insects. Do we pretend that all these were housed and fed for nearly thirteen months in a vessel that was only 450 feet long, 75 feet broad, and 45 feet high; and that such a vessel contained room for them, and their food, besides that of man, for such a long period. The little toys of Noah’s ark are certainly pretty, but very mischievous, and most of the popular notions of the flood have grown up from our nurseries as much from the use of this toy in this case, as from the reading of Paradise Lost in the other: and the result is, the Bible is made responsible for it all.

3. Then consider the subsequent distribution of animals: the polar bear and the tropical elephant, the ferocious tiger and a young fawn, going out together in order, and without violence: of course we can suppose another miracle to repress passions and violence. Besides which, in addition to the fauna, the animal kingdom, we must ask what became of the flora or vegetable kingdom during this period, if the flood were universal? We have at least twenty-five botanical provinces, with their peculiar and numberless farms of vegetable life; what became of them? Were they preserved in the ark, or under the water?—for such questions must be answered by those who charge us with inconsistency in attempting to reconcile the facts of science with the words of Scripture. And as a last difficulty, (suggested first, I believe, by Dr. Pye Smith, and which I shall therefore state in his words, lest it should seem that I use “plainness of speech,”) let us look at the descent from Ararat out of the ark, into Armenia, with all these animals, birds, insects, plants and trees. “That mountain is 17,000 feet high, and perpetual snow covers about 5,000 feet from its summit. If the water rose, at its liquid temperature, so as to overflow that summit, the snows and icy masses would be melted; and on the retiring of the flood, the exposed mountain would present its pinnacles and ridges, dreadful precipices of naked rock, adown which the four men and the four women, and with hardly any exception the quadrupeds, would have found it utterly impossible to descend. To provide against this difficulty, to prevent them from being dashed to pieces, must we again suppose a miracle? Must we conceive of the human beings and the animals as transported through the air to the more level regions below; or that, by a miracle equally grand, they were enabled to glide unhurt adown the wet and slippery faces of the rock?”

Such are some of the difficulties and some of the consequences that must flow from an acceptance of any other theory than the one I have proposed: that the flood was partial in its character, extending only over the habitable parts of the earth; and that it was so temporary in its character as not to have left a single trace of its influence visible on rock or fossil.

I have thus endeavoured to suggest points of reconciliation between the accepted facts of Geology and the recorded statements of Scripture; and if this slight contribution be accepted as an aid to faith, and a proof of candour on my part to meet those who linger on the border land of doubt, my purpose will be fully answered.

Let me add, in the words of Chenevix Trench—words uttered in the University of Cambridge not long since: “May we in a troubled time be helped to feel something of the grandeur of the Scriptures, and so of the manifold wisdom of that Eternal Spirit by whom it came; and then petty objections and isolated difficulties, though they were multiplied as the sands of the sea, will not harass us. For what are they all to the fact, that for more than 1,000 years the Bible collectively taken, has gone hand in hand with civilization, science, law—in short, with the moral and intellectual cultivation of the species, always supporting and often leading the way? Its very presence as a believed book, has rendered the nations emphatically a chosen race; and this, too, in exact proportion as it is more or less generally studied. Of those nations which in the highest degree enjoy its influences, it is not too much to affirm that the differences, public and private, physical, moral, and intellectual, are only less than what might be expected from a diversity in species. Good and holy men, and the best and wisest of mankind, the kingly spirits of history enthroned in the hearts of mighty nations, have borne witness to its influence, and have declared it to be beyond compare the most perfect instrument and the only adequate organ of humanity: the organ and instrument of all the gifts, powers, and tendencies, by which the individual is privileged to rise beyond himself, to leave behind and lose his dividual phantom self, in order to find his true self in that distinctness where no division can be,—in the Eternal I am, the ever-living Word, of whom all the elect, from the archangel before the throne to the poor wrestler with the Spirit until the breaking of day, are but the fainter and still fainter echoes.”