GEOLOGY AND GENESIS. 133 



the question, how the work of creation could have 

 continued so long as six days, seeing that it was ac 

 complished by a fiat of the Almighty ? * It was nat 

 ural that some should find it difficult to abandon the 

 ancient and uniform interpretation of Scripture for 

 the sake of accommodating the latter to the deduc 

 tions of a new science. They considered that the 

 change of interpretation that was demanded was 

 inconsistent with a sound method of exegesis; and 

 that either the doctrine of the entire infallibility of 

 the Bible must be surrendered, or geology be rejected. 

 Such was the view, for example, of Professor Moses 

 Stuart. They naturally chose the latter branch of 

 the alternative. But it must be confessed that the 

 proofs which geology offered were often disregarded, 

 or disposed of in an uncandid way. One would 

 think that very little reflection was requisite to show 

 that the mighty phenomena of displacement and 

 deposition which geology pointed out, could not be 

 referred to the Noachian deluge, to which they had 

 been popularly ascribed, and that the theory of the 

 creation of the fossils in the rocky beds where they 

 lie, is contrary to all right ideas of creative wisdom, 

 and is a form Of irrational scepticism. Professor 

 Silliman was embarrassed in this conflict by his sin 

 cere respect for the teachers of 1-eligion, and his 

 reluctance to lower the estimation in which they 

 were held. Hence, whatever he published on this 

 theme, is characterized by the utmost forbearance 

 and courtesy. For his own part, he felt that the 

 Bible was a revelation from God. Its teachings 

 were daily " a lamp to his feet." Not being in the 



* See Poole's Synopsis, Genesis i. 



