252 
“Behold now Behemoth, whom I made with thee" — (part of the 
sixth day’s creation) — “ he eateth grass like the ox . . .he 
moveth his tail like a cedar.’’ 
3b\ An elephant, some say, is meant to be described here ; 
which neither moveth its tail like a cedar, nor (as we think) eateth 
grass like the ox. Does it not seem more probable that one of the 
now extinct mammalia was extant at the era of the writing of this 
book ? The mammoth delineated above had apparently a tail to 
which the above description might apply. The Hippopotamus, 
though once abundant in Egypt, and victor of its first king, had 
no doubt, at the period above referred to, become scarce if not 
extinct, having been easily subdued by the natives* 
37. I have shown that there is no contradiction between science 
and Scripture as to the fact of the coexistence of man and of the 
now extinct quadrupeds ; that they are, in fact, distinctly asserted 
in Genesis to have been created at the same time. 
38. I cannot say so much as to the imagined length of geo- 
logical eras, and the period deduced from a reasonable view of the 
Bible, as to the duration of man’s existence upon earth. When 
we enter on an examination of this apparent discrepancy, we cannot 
but feel that data do not at present exist from which to compute 
these lapsed ages with any accuracy. I have elsewhere touched 
upon this subject, and on the facile faith with which evidence 
tending in a certain direction is received by our scientific writers. 
To some of these it would be a mark of scientific heresy to doubt 
the universal prevalence of a stone, a bronze, and an iron age ; but 
we find in a quite recent work of one of our best Egyptologists and 
archaeologists the following startling announcement, which it may 
be best to give in the author’s own words : — “ L’age de la pierre, 
qu’on suppose avoir existfi partout avant la connaissance des 
metaux n’a laissfi aucune trace dans l’histoire, chez aucun dcs 
peoples du monde.”f 
39. Plow, then, shall we learn anything about the length of 
duration of so mythical an era ? M. Chabas again says (p. 552) : — 
“ L’age de la periode paleolithique, tel qu’il se prdsente a nous 
par son outillage, est fort loin de reclamcr pour son developpc- 
ment, une espace supericure aux quarante sieclcs historiques que 
nous avons reconnus antericuremcnt a cette date.” J 
logically, there is like evidence of confusion between B and M in the case 
of southern words introduced into the native languages of the same dis- 
tricts . . . .” In respect to its immediate origin, it seems to have reached 
us through the Russian from theSamoeid. 
* See Chabas, Etudes, p. 402. f Chabas, Stations prehist., p. 471. 
+ That is to say, “ before our era.” 
