Archaia. 491 



It is true that in this upward series of creation we do not find 

 all the lines of life to begin at the same time. The lines of lower 

 life are first. In the vegetable kingdom the order is : Thallogens 

 Acrogens, Gymnogens, Exogens. But these lines when once 

 severally begun are carried up to the close by the creation of new 

 species in each, the whole bursting forth in our present magnificent 

 flora. Again, in the Animal Kingdom the order of the lines is : 

 Molluscus, Radiata, Articulata, Vertebrata. In each of these sub- 

 kingdoms the generic and specific lines of creation increase in num- 

 ber as they ascend and in the human period emerge in a magnifi- 

 cent procession of animal life the leader and lord of which is man. 



Although our author does not give much prominence to this 

 phase of continuous creation observed in the geological record, 

 he yet affords ample evidence of its truth. For this we would 

 refer the reader to pages 116, 335 to 337 and to Appendix F, 

 page 370. Reference may also be made to the 14th chapter of 

 " Agassiz and Gould's Principles of Zoology." 



From this sketch of geological facts we think that the periods of 

 life revealed by the rocks do not correspond with our author's 

 scientific interpretation of the day-periods of Genesis. Upon no 

 scientific principle can it be said that we have in geology first the 

 creation of plants and then in two stages or periods the creation 

 of animals. To make geology agree with the day-period hypothe- 

 sis it would require to be shown that all the plants were created 

 at one period, all the fishes, birds, batrachians and serpents at 

 another ; all the mammals at a third, and all too in regular succes- 

 sion. Now we maintain that geological science can, upon no 

 scientific arrangement of its materials, be made to yield such 

 results. No advantage is therefore gained by interpreting the 

 "day" of Genesis in the non-natural sense of a long period; 

 for even then the long periods of the record will not agree with 

 the long periods of the rocks. 



In these circumstances we must therefore come to one of two 

 conclusions : 



1st, That geology has not yet reached that stage at which its 

 inductions or results can be regarded as sufficiently determined or 

 final as to permit their adjustment with the statements of the sacred 

 record. This is the position which unscientific theologians and 

 critics are very apt to assume. They consequently say to the 

 geologists " agree as to the final inductions of your science, tell us 

 when you have reached the limits of your discoveries, then, come 



