Three points, therefore, seem to be clear:—­

1.  However the chapter may be interpreted, there are in it coincidences with ascertained facts so marked that they cannot possibly be fortuitous.  They prove therefore that Moses was in possession of some accurate information on the subject on which he was writing.

As we proceed with our subject we shall come upon many more indications of this, some of them exceedingly remarkable.  It is therefore by no means improbable that he was acquainted with the fact, that the work which he was describing was one which had occupied a long series of ages.

2.  Supposing that Moses was acquainted with all which has now been discovered by geologists, and that he was desirous of imparting that knowledge to his readers, the language which he has employed is the most appropriate that, under the circumstances, he could have chosen for the purpose. 3.  The phenomena exhibited by the context indicate not only that he had this intention, but that he also intended that such of his readers as were competent to entertain the idea, should have sufficient indications to guide them to his meaning.

Whatever then may be the real significance of the “days”—­a point which the knowledge at present in our possession seems insufficient to explain—­it seems very clear that something very different from natural days is intended.  And this is a sufficient answer to the objection which is founded on that interpretation.  That there would be very many points which as yet we are unable fully to understand, has been already shown to be not only possible but probable; and among them it appears this question of the true meaning of the days must be left for the present.  When we come to consider subsequently the great number of points in which harmony between the narrative and discovered facts is brought out on investigation, [Footnote:  Chap. v.] we may well be content to leave many points unexplained till our knowledge is greatly increased.

Section 2.  First traces of life.

The second objection has reference to the relative antiquity of the various forms of life, of which we find traces in the successive strata of the rocks.  If it be assumed that the apparent coincidences which have been pointed out between the Mosaic narrative and the geological records are real, and that the traditional interpretation is the true one, then we ought to find—­

1.  No traces at all of animal life below the Trias.

2.  No traces of mammalia below the Cretaceous formation.

But the examination of the rocks leads to a very different result.  Traces of life have been found, probably in the Laurentian, certainly in the Cambrian rocks.  The earliest known fish is the Pteraspis, which has been discovered in the upper Silurian formation at Leintwardine, in Shropshire.  The first member of the reptilian order, Archegesaurus, occurs in the coal measures; and the first traces of a mammalian—­two teeth—­occur at the junction of the Lias and Trias.  In every case, then, we meet with traces of life at a period long anterior to that at which we should naturally expect them.