CONFIRMED BY GEOLOGY. 63 beyond six or seven thousand years, is a position so involved in the narrative of the Mosaic books, that any thing inconsistent with it would no doubt stand in opposition to the testimony of those ancient records. On this subject, however, geology is silent." Far otherwise, geology is not silent upon this subject: geology has spoken out as to the recent introduction of man, upon the present stage of human life; but could Moses, I may ask, have known that he might rely upon the production, in time, of such a remarkable geological confirmation of his narrative? I am not willing to rest my case upon proofs less intelligible than the above, and fully admitted at this very day; it seems therefore, to be of considerable importance. Playfair was satisfied to show that there was no inconsistency; but here we have a remarkable consistency discovered between the evidence of the earth, and the Mosaic record, and rather a new and unexpected one, not sought after by physico-theologists, but forcing itself, as it were, upon the notice and attention of professed geologists. At the same time, it must be observed, that the professor very properly speaks of six or seven thousand years, as the date of man's introduction, or creation, thereby including the antediluvian period, the fossil evidences of which will come to be considered hereafter. Let us boldly and fearlessly at once give up all claim to the marine exuviæ visible in our ancient strata, as exclusively proofs of the Noachic deluge; yet it must be acknowledged that Moses describes just such a catastrophe, as may have produced submersions of continents, and elevations of sub-marine strata, correspondent exactly with what the face of the globe 64 PARKINSON'S ORGANIC REMAINS. Moses was no philosopher-no geologist―granted; but how then was he so wonderfully enabled to arrange the order of created things in such admirable conformity to terrestrial phenomena, as they now appear in a fossil state? I do not cite Sir Humphery Davy's Table of Successions, because connected with the theory of an organic development, but I cannot refrain from introducing the following passage from Mr. Parkinson's "Organic Remains," expressly alluding to the six dominical days: "In the first of these periods," (or days of creation), “the granitic and other primary rocks were separated from the water (Gen. i. 9). That this separation took place, as is stated in the scriptural record, previously to the creation of vegetables and animals, is evident from no remains of any organised substance having been found in any of these substances. In the next period we are informed by Scripture that the creation of vegetables took place (Gen. i. 12); almost every circumstance in the situation and disposition of coal, accords with this order of creation. The creation of the succeeding period was that of the inhabitants of the water and of the air (Gen. i. 20). In the next period, it is stated that the beasts of the earth, cattle, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth were made (Gen. i. 24). The agreement of the situations in which the remains of land animals are found with this order of creation is exceedingly exact, since it is only at the surface or in some superficial stratum, or in some comparatively lately formed deposition, that any of the remains of these animals are to be found. The creation of MAN was the work of the last period (Gen. i. 26), and in agreement with his having been created after all the ON THE ORDER OF CREATED THINGS. 65 other inhabitants of the earth, is the fact, that not a single decided fossil relic of man has been discovered. Thus a pleasing and perhaps unexpected accordance appears between the order in which, according to the scriptural account, creation was accomplished, and the order in which the fossil remains of creation are found deposited in the superficial layers of the earth. That so close an agreement should be found of the order of creation, as stated in Scripture, with the actual appearance of the depth of stratification which has been examined in modern times, must satisfy or surprise every one. Moses could not have learned this accordance from the Egyptians."Organic Remains, vol. iii.-Cuvier has made the same observations, and many others; see De la Fite's Introductory Remarks; but they must stand upon their own merits. It has been usual with offended, or perhaps rather too susceptible believers, to bring every part, almost every word of the Mosaic Cosmogony, and Noachic Deluge, to the test of natural philosophy. I should wish to take my stand on higher ground. I should wish to show that as Moses must have had preternatural help in some parts of his narration, it is not likely that he should have been allowed materially to deceive us in other particulars; and, while philosophers seem sure that they have found the right clue for the interpretation of nature, I should be disposed to ask, are they equally sure that they perfectly understand the narrative of Moses? It may be thought difficult to ascertain exactly, the precise length of the six days of creation; much has been written upon the subject'. It has been thought 1 See Mr. Penn's Comparative Estimate, and M. de la Fite's edition 64 PARKINSON'S ORGANIC REMAINS. Moses was no philosopher-no geologist-granted; but how then was he so wonderfully enabled to arrange the order of created things in such admirable conformity to terrestrial phenomena, as they now appear in a fossil state? I do not cite Sir Humphery Davy's Table of Successions, because connected with the theory of an organic development, but I cannot refrain from introducing the following passage from Mr. Parkinson's "Organic Remains," expressly alluding to the six dominical days : "In the first of these periods," (or days of creation), "the granitic and other primary rocks were separated from the water (Gen. i. 9). That this separation took place, as is stated in the scriptural record, previously to the creation of vegetables and animals, is evident from no remains of any organised substance having been found in any of these substances. In the next period we are informed by Scripture that the creation of vegetables took place (Gen. i. 12); almost every circumstance in the situation and disposition of coal, accords with this order of creation. The creation of the succeeding period was that of the inhabitants of the water and of the air (Gen. i. 20). In the next period, it is stated that the beasts of the earth, cattle, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth were made (Gen. i. 24). The agreement of the situations in which the remains of land animals are found with this order of creation is exceedingly exact, since it is only at the surface or in some superficial stratum, or in some comparatively lately formed deposition, that any of the remains of these animals are to be found. The creation of MAN was the work of the last period (Gen. i. 26), and in agreement with his having been created after all the ON THE ORDER OF CREATED THINGS. 65 other inhabitants of the earth, is the fact, that not a single decided fossil relic of man has been discovered. Thus a pleasing and perhaps unexpected accordance appears between the order in which, according to the scriptural account, creation was accomplished, and the order in which the fossil remains of creation are found deposited in the superficial layers of the earth. That so close an agreement should be found of the order of creation, as stated in Scripture, with the actual appearance of the depth of stratification which has been examined in modern times, must satisfy or surprise every one. Moses could not have learned this accordance from the Egyptians."Organic Remains, vol. iii.-Cuvier has made the same observations, and many others; see De la Fite's Introductory Remarks; but they must stand upon their own merits. It has been usual with offended, or perhaps rather too susceptible believers, to bring every part, almost every word of the Mosaic Cosmogony, and Noachic Deluge, to the test of natural philosophy. I should wish to take my stand on higher ground. I should wish to show that as Moses must have had preternatural help in some parts of his narration, it is not likely that he should have been allowed materially to deceive us in other particulars; and, while philosophers seem sure that they have found the right clue for the interpretation of nature, I should be disposed to ask, are they equally sure that they perfectly understand the narrative of Moses? It may be thought difficult to ascertain exactly, the precise length of the six days of creation; much has been written upon the subject'. It has been thought 1 See Mr. Penn's Comparative Estimate, and M. de la Fite's edition |