i?t the Fhsl Chapter of Genesis. 157 



a country covered with vegetation, which perished and was re- 

 newed at distant and successive periods. 



Those, however, who, without the knowledge which enables 

 them to form an opinion on the subject, feel any latent wish that 

 this evidence should be overthrown, would do well to remember 

 that geology also furnishes strong evidence in favour of the 

 much more direct statement of Moses, as to the recent creation 

 of Man. And although we must ever feel a certain degree of cau- 

 tion in admitting negative evidence as conclusive ; ^ yet, in the 

 present instance, the multitude of fossil bones which have been 

 discovered, and which, when examined by persons duly qualified 

 for the task, have been uniformly pronounced to be those of va- 

 rious tribes of animals, and not those of the human race, un- 

 doubtedly affords strong corroborative evidence in confirmation 

 of the Mosaic account. 



In truth, the mass of evidence which combines to prove the 

 great antiquity of the Earth, is so irresistible, and so unshaken 

 by any opposing facts, that none but those who are alike incap- 

 able of observing the facts and of appreciating the reasonino-, can 

 for a moment conceive the present state of its surface to have 

 been the result of only six thousand years of existence. 



What, then, have those accomplished who have restricted the 

 Mosaic account of creation to that diminutive period, which i? 

 as it were, but a span in the duration of the Earth's existence 

 and who have imprudently rejected the testimony of the senses 

 when opposed to their philological criticisms ? Undoubtedly if 

 they have succeeded in convincing either themselves or others 

 that one side of the question must be given up as untenable 

 those who are so convinced are bound to reject that which rests 

 on testimony, not that which is supported by still existing facts. 

 The very argument which Protestants have opposed to the doc- 

 trine of transubstantiation * would, if' their viezo of the case 

 were correct, be equally irresistible against the book of Genesis. 



• The historian of the " Decline of the Roman Empire" carried the argu- 

 ment yet farther: — " I still remember (he remarks) my solitary transjiort at 

 the discovery of a jiliilosophical argument against transubstantiation ; that the 

 text of scripture, wliich seems to indicate the real presence, is attested only by 

 a single sense — our sight ; while the real presence itself is disproved by three 

 of our senses— the sight, the toucli, the taste." — Gibltoit'a Memoirs of his Life, 

 vol. i. p. 5C. 



