326 SPARKS FROM A GEOLOGIST'S HAMMER. 



phantasmagoria the cosmogony of Genesis falls to the 

 ground. He says expressly: "I do not for one moment 

 venture to say that it could properly be called the bibli- 

 cal doctrine," and admits that such assumption would be 

 met by the authority of many eminent scholars, to say 

 nothing of men of science, who, in recent times, have 

 absolutely denied that this doctrine is to be found in 

 Genesis at all." He does give us clearly to understand 

 that the Miltonic theory is " untenable," " whatever the 

 source from which that hypothesis might be derived, or 

 whatever the authority it might be supported by.' 1 Just 

 so far, therefore, as exegesis may be able to show that the 

 Miltonic hypothesis, as set forth by Huxley, is a correct 

 interpretation of Genesis, so far the lecturer disputes the 

 biblical record. 



Now, though we do not propose to enter upon an 

 exegetical examination, we desire to record a denial that 

 the Miltonic order of creation, as set forth by Huxley, 

 does represent the teaching of Genesis, or the views of 

 well informed scholars as to that teaching. We need not 

 inquire whether the lecturer correctly sets forth the Mil- 

 tonic ideas. It is what he sets forth that is so clearly 

 antagonized by the facts of palseontology. We deny that 

 Genesis, in giving us tl\e creation of plants upon the 

 "third day," means "the plants which now live the 

 trees and shrubs which we now have." The language 

 refers to that order of existence familiarly exemplified 

 in " grass," and " herb," and " tree." Hence, it is not 

 necessary to infer a second creation of modern plants to 

 which the record makes no allusion. We deny, again, 

 that Genesis, in affirming the creation of terrestrial crea- 

 tures, familiarly exemplified in " cattle," " creeping things," 



