$$$$$$

THE STORY OF CREATION AS TOLD BY THEOLOGY AND BY SCIENCE. 

BY T. S. ACKLAND, M. A. , FORMERLY FELLOW OF CLARE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; VICAR OF WOLD NEWTON, YORKSHIRE. 

"SIRS, YE ARE BRETHREN: WHY DO YE WRONG ONE TO ANOTHER?"

CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER I. THE CASE STATEDCHAPTER II. DIFFICULTIES IN GEOLOGYCHAPTER III. DIFFICULTIES IN ASTRONOMYCHAPTER IV. DIFFICULTIES IN PHYSIOLOGYCHAPTER V. SCIENCE A HELP TO INTERPRETATION

CHAPTER I. 

THE CASE STATED. 

The History of the Creation with which the Bible commences, is nota mere incidental appendage to God's Revelation, but constitutesthe foundation on which the whole of that Revelation is based. Setting forth as it does the relation in which man stands to Godas his Maker, and to the world which God formed for his abode, itforms a necessary introduction to all that God has seen fit toreveal to us with reference to His dispensations of Providence andof Grace. 

It is, however, not uncommonly asserted that this history cannotbe reconciled with a vast number of facts which modern science hasrevealed to us, and with theories based on observed facts, andrecommended by the unquestioned ability of the men by whom theyhave been brought forward. At first sight there does seem to besome ground for this assertion. Geology, for instance, makes usacquainted with strata of rock of various kinds, arranged in exactorder, and of an aggregate thickness of many miles, which arefilled with the remains of a wonderful series of plants andanimals, these remains not being promiscuously collected, butarranged in an unvarying order. It seems impossible that all theseplants and animals could have lived and died, and been imbedded inthe rocks in this exact succession, in six of our ordinary days. Astronomy directs our attention to changes now going on in thestarry heavens which occupy ages in their development, and pointsto traces in the constitution of our own world which seem toindicate that it was formed by analogous means. Physiology revealsto us the fact that the different varieties of plants and animalsnow in existence are not separated from each other by well definedlines of demarcation, but shade into each other by almostimperceptible gradations; and geological researches show thatwhile the existing species of animals are the representatives ofthose which lived and died at a period in which we can find notraces of man, they are not identical with them, but that eitherthe old species must have died out, and been replaced by a freshcreation, or a considerable change must have taken place in thecourse of ages. These facts are held to be incompatible with theaccount of creation given by Moses, and hence it is inferred thata record, which appears to be so widely at variance with admittedfacts, cannot be entitled to the authority which is claimed forit, as a fundamental portion of a Revelation made by the CreatorHimself. 

This difficulty is sometimes met by the assertion that the Biblewas not given to us to teach us Science, but to convey to uscertain information which was essential to our moral welfare, andwhich we could not obtain by any other means; that thesediscrepancies do not in any way interfere with that portion ofthose truths which is involved in the History of Creation, butthat, however the narrative may be viewed as far as regards itsdetails, the facts that God is the Creator of all things visibleand invisible, that He is a Being of infinite Wisdom, Power, andLove, and that He has placed man in a peculiar relation toHimself, remain unaffected. On this ground it is often urged thatwe may pass over scientific inaccuracies as matters of no greatimportance. 

Theologians are by no means agreed as to the nature and limits ofthat inspiration by which Holy Scripture was written. There aremany who think that in matters purely incidental to its mainobject, and lying within the reach of human faculties, the sacredwriters were left to the ordinary sources of information, and thatmany alleged difficulties may be removed by this view. 

But whatever may be thought of the application of this hypothesisto some parts of the Bible, there are others to which it isplainly inapplicable, and of these the narrative of the Creationis evidently one. No theory of limited inspiration can be admittedto explain any supposed inaccuracies in that narrative. It cannotbe liable to those imperfections which are inevitable when menhave to obtain knowledge by the ordinary means, because there wereno ordinary means by which such information could be obtained. Themost carefully preserved records, the oldest traditions could notextend backwards beyond the moment when the first man awoke toconscious existence. For every thing beyond that point the onlysource of knowledge available was information derived from theCreator Himself. It may be that a revelation of this character wasmade to Adam in the days of his innocence, that it was carefullyhanded down to his descendants, and that Moses, under the divinedirection, incorporated it into his history; or it may have beendirectly communicated to Moses by special inspiration--thatmatters not--but a divine revelation it must have been, or it isnothing; the dream of a poet, or the theory of a philosopher, ifwe can believe that such a philosopher existed at such a time. Butif it be indeed a revelation from the Creator Himself, we cannotimagine that He could fall into any error, or sanction anymisrepresentation with reference even to the smallest detail ofHis own work. 

If then there are really any errors in this record--any assertionswhich the discoveries of science have proved to be untrue, wecannot account for them on any theory of limited inspiration. Asingle proved error would be fatal to the authority of the wholenarrative. But, on the other hand, we are not justified inexpecting such an account of the Creation as would commend itselfto the scientific intellect of the present day. When we attempt toform a judgment upon it. We must look not only to its allegedauthor, but also to the purposes for which, the circumstancesunder which, and the persons to whom it was given. In these we mayexpect to meet with many limitations. It was not designed for thecommunication of scientific knowledge, it was necessarily conveyedin human language, and addressed to human intelligence, thatlanguage and that intelligence being, not as they are now, but asthey were, taking the latest possible date that can be assigned toit, considerably more than three thousand years ago. 

This last consideration affects not only the record itself, butalso our facilities for understanding and forming a judgment uponit. We have to contend with difficulties of interpretation arisingfrom our inability fully to realize the circumstances under whichit was given, and to place ourselves in the mental position of itsoriginal recipients. Owing to our want of this power it may wellhappen, that though we are in possession of vastly increasedknowledge, we may be far more liable to fall into error in somedirections, in the interpretation of it, than those to whom it wasoriginally addressed. 

An additional difficulty arises from the circumstance that ourknowledge, wonderfully as it has been increased of late, is yetvery far from complete, and is probably in many cases still mixedwith error. Hence it may very well happen that where there iscomplete harmony between the history and the facts, we may suspectdiscord owing to our misunderstanding of the record, or ourmisconception of the facts. In order that the harmony may berecognized in its fulness, there must be a perfect understandingof the record, and a perfect knowledge of the facts. But from bothof these we are probably at present very far removed. 

If a person who was a thorough master of some science undertook towrite a treatise for the purpose of teaching children therudiments of that science, we should expect, and the more stronglyif the author were a master of language as well as of science, that his work should contain indications of a master's hand. Weshould expect that while the book conveyed clearly and simply tothe minds of those for whom it was written, the truths which itwas intended to teach, it should also convey to the more educatedreader some intimations of a deeper knowledge on the part of itsauthor. The choice of a word, the turn of a phrase, the order inwhich facts were arranged, the occurrence here and there of asentence which an ordinary reader would pass over as unimportant, would to such a person be indications of trains of thought farmore profound than those which appeared on the surface. And thisrecognition would be proportional to two things--the amount ofscientific knowledge possessed by the reader, and his mastery ofthe language in which the book was written. 

Such, then, are the characteristics which we may expect to find inthe Record of Creation, if it be indeed, as we believe, arevelation from God, made to men in a very low stage ofintellectual development. In order that we may be able to form asatisfactory judgment of it, it will be well for us to consider alittle in detail two classes of difficulties. 1. Those whichbelong to the Revelation itself, arising from the limitations towhich it was necessarily subject in its delivery. 2. Those whicharise from our imperfect knowledge of the language in which it iswritten, and from our inability to place ourselves in theintellectual position of those to whom it was originally given. 

1. When this record was committed to writing, language was in avery different condition from that in which it is now. We have anaccount of the first recorded exercise of the faculty of speech inGen. Ii. 19. Adam first used it to give names to all the livingcreatures as they passed in review before him. In accordance withthis statement it appears, from the researches of philologists, that language in its earliest state was entirely, or almostentirely limited to words denoting sensible objects and actions. It seems probable that these names were derived from radicalsexpressing general ideas [Footnote: Max Muller's Lectures on theScience of Language, First Series Lect. Viii. Ix. ]; but there isreason to doubt whether these radicals ever had a formal existenceas words--they seem rather to have been the mental stock out ofwhich words were produced. But the human mind had from the firstpowers for the exercise of which this limited vocabulary wasinsufficient. Even in the outer world there was much which was theobject of reason and inference rather than of sense, while thewhole world of consciousness was entirely unprovided with themeans of expression. To meet this difficulty words, whichoriginally denoted objects of sense, were used figuratively toexpress ideas which bore some resemblance or analogy, real orfancied, to their original significance. As time passed on thisdifficulty was gradually diminished: synonyms crept into alllanguages from various sources, and when once adopted, they werein many cases gradually differentiated, the various senses whichthe original word had borne were portioned off among them, andincreased precision was thus obtained. 

But in the infancy of mankind the figurative system was in fulloperation. Hence, all early documents have a strong tinge of thepoetic element. Poetry, strictly so called, probably had not asyet a separate existence; but the whole spoken and writtenlanguage was permeated by that poetic spirit which delights intracing subtle analogies, and in expressing the invisible by meansof the visible. The translation of the Sanscrit Hymns, which hasrecently appeared [Footnote: Hymns of the Big Veda Sanhita, translated by Max Muller, vol. I. ], furnishes a most valuableillustration of this state of thought and of language. These hymnsare probably nearly coeval with the Pentateuch. They were theproduction of a different branch of the human family, and indicatea different tone of thought, but they bring out very clearly thefigurative character of primitive language, abounding in fancifuldescriptions of natural phenomena, which, when their metaphorical, character was forgotten, passed by an easy transition into thegraceful myths and legends of early Greece. 

Then there was a poverty in these primitive vocabularies even inreference to sensible objects, which in many cases rendered itnecessary to employ the same word in more or less extensivesignifications, and in the Semitic languages the power ofinflexion was in some directions very limited. This limitation ismost remarkable in the forms used for the expression of time. Oneform alone was available to express those modifications which areindicated by the imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and aorist tensesof the classical languages. 

Instances of all these sources of uncertainty meet us very earlyin Genesis. In the very first verse we have a word, [Hebrewscript], which has great latitude of meaning. It is either theearth as a whole (ver. 1), or the land as distinguished from thewater (ver. 10), or a particular country (ii. 11). In many cases, as in all these, the context at once determines the sense to bechosen; but there are other cases in which considerable difficultyarises. The whole question of the universality of the delugeturns, in a great degree, upon the signification which is assignedto this same word in the sixth and following chapters. In thesecond verse we have another word, [Hebrew script], which iscapable of various interpretations. It is used throughout theBible in the three distinct meanings of "wind, " "breath, " and"spirit. " Where we read, "And the Spirit of God moved upon theface of the waters, " the Jewish paraphrase is, "And a wind of God(i. E. A great wind) moved, " &c. Here there is nothing in thecontext to assist us in determining the sense to be chosen; but, as will be seen in the sequel, modern science indicates that theJewish interpretation is untenable, and that our translation is, consequently, the correct one. As an instance of confusion oftime, we may refer to ii. 19. In our translation this verse seemsto place the creation of animals after that of man; but in xii. 1, the very same form is translated by the pluperfect, "Now the Lordhad said unto Abram. " It ought evidently to be translated in thesame way here: "And out of the ground the Lord God had formed, "&c. In ii. 5, on the other hand, the pluperfect might withadvantage have given place to another form: "For the Lord God didnot cause it to rain. " The phenomenon referred to appears to havebeen local and temporary. Had the pluperfect been omitted in onecase and supplied in the other two sources of apparent difficultywould have been removed. 

It is very clear, then, that there could be no approach toscientific accuracy in a narrative written in such a language asthis. Such accuracy is, in fact, attainable only in proportion, asscience has moulded language for its own purposes. But language isat all times an index of the general mental condition of thepeople who use it, and so the knowledge and the ideas of the menof these primitive times must have been extremely limited in allthose directions with which we have to do. Accordingly, we find notrace of any doubt whether the information with reference toexternal objects which was received through the senses was in allcases to be depended on. There can be little doubt that to thoseearly observers the sky was a solid vault, on the face of whichthe sun, moon, and planets moved in their appointed courses; thestars were points of light, golden studs in the azure canopy; thesun and moon were just as large as they appeared to be, and theearth was a solid immovable plane of comparatively small extent. At the time of the Exodus, it seems clear that, even among apeople so far advanced as the Egyptians, all that lay beyond themountains which bounded their land on the west was believed tobelong not to living men, but to disembodied spirits. It was theterrible country through which the souls of the departed madetheir arduous way to the Hall of Judgment [Footnote: "The NationsAround, " pp. 49, 50. ] Accordingly, we find that the Egyptians madeno attempt to extend the limits of their empire in this direction, while the monarchs of the Mesopotamian region seem to have beenequally unambitious of conquest beyond the mountain ranges whichbounded the valley of the Tigris on the east. Mesopotamia, then, on the east, Egypt on the west, Armenia and Asia Minor on thenorth, and Arabia on the south, seem, in the view of thecontemporaries of Moses, to have been the utmost regions of theworld. Ignorant as they were of any countries beyond these, theywere, of course, equally ignorant of the numberless varieties ofplants and animals that were to be found in them, and with whichwe are familiar. Mining was not unknown, but the mines were fewand superficial; they could not reveal much of the structure ofthe earth, and what little they did reveal passed unnoticed. Nothing was known of the successive beds of rock which form thecrust of the earth, of the fossils with which they abound, or ofthe gradual changes to Which they are still subject. If any onehad told the men of that generation that the solid earth on whichthey stood, or the everlasting hills which surrounded them, wereundergoing slow but steady modifications, he would have beenlooked upon as a madman. 

A revelation, then, addressed to men whose language, whoseintellectual powers, and whose stock of ideas were thus limited, must of itself also necessarily have been both limited anddestitute of precision. It could only deal with things with whichthey had some acquaintance, or of which they could form some idea, while, from the character of the language, and the extreme brevityof the record, the treatment of even these few subjects must havebeen of a vague and indefinite character. Traces of a deeperknowledge there might be, but they would not lie upon the surface. They must be carefully sought for, and then they would bediscernible only by those who were in possession of the key whichwould unlock their hidden secrets. 

Such are the limitations under which the revelation wasnecessarily given. We have now to consider our own especialdifficulties, the obstacles which stand in our way when we woulddiscover for ourselves all the information which the record iscapable of conveying. For if this record be, as we believe, thework of the Great Architect of the Universe, then it is probablethat its every detail is significant; that wherever it waspossible words were chosen which, when scrutinized, would conveymuch more information than appeared on the surface. The greatproblem for us to solve is, What are the difficulties which standin our way when we would seek this knowledge, and what are themeans by which those difficulties may be surmounted, and thehidden treasure displayed?

Our first difficulty arises from a matter which, viewed in anotherlight, is one of our greatest blessings. We are familiar with theRecord through the medium of our own noble version. Probably it isimpossible for any translation more exactly to represent theoriginal as it presented itself in the first instance to the mindsof those to whom it was addressed. Accordingly we learn it in ourearliest childhood; its majestic phrases imprint themselves on ourmemory; our undeveloped minds seem capable of taking in all thatit was intended to convey, and so the impressions formed of it inour infancy abide with us all our days. We are contented withthem, and do not trouble ourselves to inquire whether there is notsomething beyond, which we have not realized. 

All this time we forget that, excellent as it is, it is after allonly a translation, and that the very best translation cannotrepresent in their fulness the ideas embodied in the original. Etymological relations between words often give a force andmeaning to a sentence which it is impossible to transfuse intoanother language, because the same relations do not exist betweenthe words which we are constrained to employ. Then there is anintimate relation between men's thoughts and the language whichthey habitually use, so that those thoughts cannot be perfectlyexpressed in a language whose character is different. Again inevery language there are many words which bear several cognatesenses, which may be represented by as many different words in thelanguage of the translation; so that if the best word is chosen, much of the fulness of the original must be lost; while it may sohappen that the selected word has also a variety ofsignifications, which do not correspond with the varying meaningsof the original word, and thus senses may be ascribed to theoriginal which it will not bear, because the reader annexes to theword in the translation a sense different from that in which itcorresponds to the original word. To all these sources ofimperfection must be added the fact that our translation was madeat a time when science was not yet sufficiently developed toexercise any influence upon it. There was nothing to induce thetranslators to attempt, where it was possible, to preserve anyindications of a deeper meaning, because they had no reason tosuspect that any such deeper meaning existed, or that anyindications of such a meaning were to be found. 

To the difficulties of translation must be added the difficultiesof accumulated tradition. The characteristics which mark our ownchildish intellect are apparent also in the collective intellectof the human race in its earlier and ruder development. There aretwo characteristics of the human mind in this condition, whichhave had a very great effect on the interpretation of this portionof the Bible. 

The first of these is the impatience of doubt and uncertainty. Thepower of recognizing the imperfection of our knowledge, and theconsequent necessity of suspending our judgment, is a power whichis only gradually acquired with the accumulation of experience. The young untrained mind finds it difficult to realize the truththat any information communicated to it is not altogether withinthe grasp of its faculties. It must attach some definite meaningto the words; it must image to itself some way in which greatevents were brought about, great works were accomplished. It findsit difficult to realize a fact as accomplished, unless it can alsopicture to itself some way in which it might have been effected. For this purpose such knowledge as it has at its command isemployed, and where that fails recourse is had to the imaginationto supply the deficiency. Thus it has been with ourselves in ourchildhood, and thus it was in the childhood of the world. Knowledge was indeed sought, but it was not sought in the rightway, and so the search often resulted in error, and this errorproduced its effect in the interpretation of the passage inquestion. The old school of inquirers started from certainabstract principles, and endeavoared to reduce the results ofobservation to conformity with those principles. This was the casewith astronomy. The old astronomers taking as axioms the twoassumptions that everything connected with the heavenly bodiesmust be perfect, and that the circle is the only perfect figure, easily satisfied themselves that the orbits of all the heavenlybodies must be circles. Hence came the

 "Cycle on epicycle, orb on orb, "

by which they sought to account for the phenomena which theyobserved. When once the method was changed, when once it hadoccurred to Kepler that, as it seemed to be impossible to accountfor the apparent motion of Mars by any theory of circular orbits, it might be worth while to try to ascertain by observation whatits orbit really was, a few years of patient labour sufficed tosolve the problem. 

It was science such as this, then, that our forefathers brought tothe interpretation of the Mosaic Record, and the consequence wasthat when, from time to time, facts were casually brought to lightwhich might have led the way to vast discoveries, their truesignificance was never discerned; all that was sought from themwas some additional support to the old views. Thus sometimesgigantic bones were exhumed: without investigation, it was at onceassumed that they were human bones, and they were brought forwardto prove the truth of the statement, "There were also giants inthe earth in those days. " Sea-shells were found on mountain sides, far from and high above the sea--they were evidences of theDeluge. 

The second characteristic of that state of mind is its admirationof the startling and the vast. In these alone it recognizes thetokens of unlimited power. It is unable to appreciate those moremajestic manifestations of power which are discerned by theenlightened eye, when a stupendous scheme is developed, graduallyand imperceptibly, but without pause or hesitation through a longsuccession of ages; when a multitude of seemingly discordantelements are at last brought together in a perfect work; when apower, unseen and unnoticed, slowly but surely overrules theworking of ten thousand apparently independent agents, through athousand generations, and moulds their separate works into oneharmonious whole. Such a manifestation of power as this was beyondthe grasp of the untrained mind; but to such intellects there wassomething irresistibly fascinating in the idea of a world risinginto perfect existence in a moment, of innumerable hosts of livingcreatures called into being at a word. Such was the meaning of theaccount of creation which naturally suggested itself to theuntrained mind, and there was nothing in science in those earlydays to throw any doubt upon it, and so this belief wasunhesitatingly and almost universally adopted. Here and there, indeed, some man of deeper thought than his brethren, such as St. Augustine [Footnote: See St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad Literam, "Liber Imperfectus, and Libri Duodecim, and also "Confessionum"Liber xiii. ], suspected that there might be more in that seeminglysimple record than was generally acknowledged; but such men had nomeans of verifying their conjectures, and their number was verysmall. For three thousand years the old view was practicallyunquestioned, it received the tacit sanction of the Church, itgradually became identified in the minds of all with the recorditself, and was as much an article of faith as the very Creed. 

This was the state of things, when at last science awoke from itslong slumber, and began for the first time to employ its energiesin the right direction. Very soon discoveries were made whichstartled the minds of all believers in the Bible. The first shockwhich the old belief sustained was from the establishment of theCopernican view of the Solar System. That the world was theimmovable centre of the universe, around which sun, moon, andplanets moved in their appointed courses, was universally held tobe the express teaching of the Bible; and when Galileo ventured tomaintain the new views in Italy, the Roman Curia took up thequestion, and by the agency of the Inquisition wrung from him areluctant retractation of his so-called heresy. But it was of noavail. The new doctrine was true, and it could not be crushed. Fresh evidence of its truth was continually coming forward, tillat last it was universally received. Then the defenders of theBible had recourse to the suggestion that as the Bible was notintended to teach us science, such errors were of no consequence, But this argument, though perfectly sound with reference to suchpassages as Joshua x. 12-14, where an event is described as itappeared to those who witnessed it, is not admissible in such apassage as Psalm xcvi. 10, where the supposed immobility of theearth is alleged as a proof of God's sovereignty, and is made thefoundation of the duty of proclaiming that sovereignty among theheathen. When the supposed proof was found to be a fallacy, thestatement in support of which it was alleged would be more or lessshaken. In such a passage, then, the theory of limited inspirationis evidently untenable. At last the only sensible course wasadopted. Recourse was had to the original, and it was at onceapparent that the supposed difficulty had no real existence, butthat there was a very trifling inaccuracy in the translation; forthat the word translated "shall not be moved" really signified"shall not be shaken or totter. " The same word is used in Psalmxvii. 5, "Hold up my goings in Thy paths, that my footsteps SLIPNOT. " Instead, then, of an error, we have an exact description ofthe earth's motion--a motion so steady and equable, that forthousands of years no single individual out of the myriads whowere continually carried along by it had ever suspected itsexistence. 

Well had it been for all if the lesson thus taught had been deeplylaid to heart. But unhappily it was entirely unnoticed. Sciencepursued its way with increasing energy, and more facts were yearby year brought to light which seemed entirely to contradict theteaching of the Bible, and again alarm and distrust sprung up inthe minds of what, for want of a better name, we may perhaps beallowed to designate as the "Theological Party. " The power of theChurch of Rome was by this time so far curtailed that the oldmeans of repression were no longer available; but the old spiritsurvived, and not in Rome only. There was the same blind distrust, the same mistaken zeal for supposed truth, the same indignationwhich naturally arises when things which we hold precious areattacked, and, as it seems to us, without any sufficient reason. 

There was indeed much to account for and even to justify thefeelings of anger and alarm which were excited, for the time whenthese discoveries began to be brought prominently forward was thelatter half of the last century. At that time the famous FrenchAcademy was doing its deadly work, and the new discoveries weregladly hailed by the infidel philosophers of France, as weaponsagainst the Bible. But the reception given to these discoveries bythe theological party, though partially justified by thecircumstances of the times, was nevertheless very mischievous inits results. For though the new discoveries were hailedenthusiastically by the infidel school, a very large portion ofthe men by whom they were made, and of those who were convinced oftheir truth, were men of a very different character. They weresimple earnest seekers after truth as it is displayed in God'sworks. Their belief in the Bible rested in most cases on theauthority of others. They had not investigated for themselves itsexternal evidences; in many cases they had neither the ability northe opportunity to do so; nor had many of them as yet becomepractically familiar with that internal evidence which thefaithful Christian carries within him, though in time they mighthave become so, had they not been driven into infidelity by thereception which was given to their discoveries. When men of thischaracter were informed by those to whom they were accustomed tolook up as teachers in religious matters, that the discoveries, ofthe truth of which they were so firmly convinced, and in whichthey took such justifiable pride, were contradictory to theteaching of the Bible, they were placed in a position of extremedifficulty. For this statement was, in fact, a demand made uponthem that they should give up these discoveries as erroneous, orelse renounce their belief in the Bible. But their belief in theBible rested in the main on the authority of others; they feltthemselves incompetent judges of the evidence on which it rested, while they were fully acquainted with, and competent judges of, the grounds on which their own discoveries were based. Theevidence on which they acted was, to their minds, quite asconvincing as the Biblical evidence was to the minds of theirantagonists. Two things, then, were pronounced incompatible bywhat seemed to be a competent authority; they could not adhere toboth, and the natural consequence was that their assent was givento those statements which rested on evidence which they thoroughlyunderstood, and the Bible was rejected. Thus it has come to passthat many of our scientific men, if not professed unbelievers, have yet learnt to look upon the Bible with suspicion anddistrust. To some of them, as is evident from their writings, their position is a matter of profound sorrow. 

There have, indeed, been many noble exceptions to this state ofthings. Many men whose pre-eminence in scientific knowledge andresearch is admitted by all, have yet clung in childlike trust tothe Bible. They have recognized its authority, they have beensatisfied that God's Word could not be in opposition to His Work, and they have been content to wait in unquestioning faith for theday when all that now seems dark and perplexing shall be madeclear. But there have also been very many with whom this has notbeen the case, and their unbelief has not affected themselvesalone. The knowledge of it has had a deadly effect upon thousandswho were utterly incompetent to form any judgment on eithertheological or scientific subjects, but who gladly welcomedanything which would help to justify them to their own consciencesin their refusal to submit themselves to a law which, in theirignorance, they deemed to be harsh and intolerable. There has alsobeen another class of sufferers. Many persons who loved the Bible, but whose education, and, consequently, whose powers of judgmentin the matter were very limited, have received very great injuryfrom the doubt which has been thrown on its authority. Unable ofthemselves to form a judgment on the subject, they could not beunmoved by the opinion expressed by those whom they regarded asbetter informed than themselves. Hence their faith has received ashock always painful and dangerous, often perhaps fatal. 

Many attempts have been made to overcome the difficulty which hasthus arisen. When geologists first began to study the lessonswhich are to be learnt from fossils, a suggestion was made which, though it was soon shown to be untenable, has still perhaps a fewsupporters. It was said that these fossils were not what theyseemed to be, the remains of creatures which once lived, butsimple stones, fashioned from the first in their present form bythe will of the Creator. But such an idea is at variance with allthat either Nature or Revelation teaches us concerning God. Allthose who have any familiarity with the subject cannot but feelthat the suggestion of such a solution of the difficulty is littleshort of a suggestion that the Almighty has stamped a lie upon theface of His own Work. 

Another proposed solution, which for a time seemed satisfactory, assumed several successive creations and destructions of the worldto have taken place in the interval between the first and secondverses of Genesis. To these all the fossil remains were ascribed, while the present state of things was supposed to be the result ofthe operations recorded in the remainder of the chapter. But asgeological knowledge advanced, it soon became clear that therewere no breaks in the chain of life; no points at which one set ofcreatures had died out, while another had not yet arisen to fillup the void, but that all change had been gradual and progressive, and that species still living on the earth are identical with somewhich were in existence when the lowest tertiary strata were inprocess of formation--a time which must have been many thousandyears prior to the appearance of man. 

Other attempts have been made upon literary grounds. Hugh Miller[Footnote: Testimony of the Rocks. ] carefully worked out asuggestion derived from a German source, that the history ofCreation was presented to Moses in a series of six visions, whichappeared to him as so many days with intervening nights. Morerecently Dr. Rorison [Footnote: In Answers to "Essays andReviews. "] has maintained that the first chapter of Genesis is nota history at all, but a poem--"the Hymn of Creation. " There is, however, nothing in the chapter itself to confirm either of theseviews. When visions are recorded elsewhere we are told that theyare visions, but no such hint is given us here. Nor do we find inthe passage any of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry. It isinserted in an Historical document, and in the absence of anyproof to the contrary, it is plainly itself also to be regarded asHistory. 

But there remains yet one method to be attempted. If there isreason to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, just as theuniverse is His Work, then we may well expect that each of themwill throw light upon and help us to a right understanding of theother. And if there be one part beyond all others in which thismay be confidently looked for, it is that part in which the DivineArchitect describes His own work. We know how difficult it is tounderstand a complicated process, or a complex piece of machinery, from a mere written description; and how our difficulty islessened if we have the opportunity of inspecting the machinery orthe process. Just in the same way we may expect to encounterdifficulties, and to form erroneous conclusions when we study byitself such a document as the history of Creation, and we may wellexpect that those difficulties will be diminished, and thoseerrors corrected by an examination of that material universe, theproduction of which it describes. And, on the other hand, ifscience--the study of the universe--is found to throw light uponand to receive light from the Bible, this is a fresh proof thatthe Bible and the universe are from the same source; the authorityof the Bible is more firmly established, and the conclusionsarrived at by men of science are confirmed. 

But before this can be done to any good purpose, something isrequired from both the contending parties. The theological partymust be prepared to sacrifice many an old opinion, many acherished belief. Great care must be taken to discriminate betweenthe genuine statements of the Mosaic Record, and the oldinterpretations which have been incorporated into and identifiedwith those statements. Some, perhaps, may fear lest, in rejectingthose interpretations, they may be setting at nought an authorityto which they ought to submit, since these interpretations seem tohave the sanction of the Church. But it can hardly be maintainedthat those promises of Divine guidance and protection from errorwhich were given to the Church extended to such matters as this. No question of faith or duty is involved in the interpretationwhich we may give to the details of Creation. If there are someparts of the Bible in which the earliest interpretation isunquestionably the true one, there are also other parts, such asmany of the prophecies, which became intelligible only when lightwas thrown upon them by subsequent events. And so it seems to bewith the Record of Creation: it can only be rightly understood inproportion as we become acquainted with the details of the mattersto which it refers. Any interpretation which was put upon itbefore those details were brought to light must of necessity beliable to error. 

But something is also required of the opposite party. At the verythreshold of the investigation they must be asked to lay aside, sofar as is possible, those prejudices against the Bible which havenaturally arisen in their minds from the obstinacy with whichviews, which they knew to be untenable, have been forced upontheir acceptance as the undoubted teaching of God, so that theymay enter upon the investigation with unbiassed minds. Then theymust be careful to distinguish between established facts, andtheories however probable. There is something very fascinating ina well constructed theory. Theories have again and again done suchgood service in opening the way, first, to the discovery, and thento the arrangement of facts, that we are very apt to assign tothem an authority far beyond that to which they are reallyentitled. When, for instance, we have ascertained that a certainnumber of facts are explained by some particular theory, we areapt to assume prematurely, that the same theory must account forand be in harmony with all similar and related facts; or, if wehave satisfied ourselves that certain results MAY have beenproduced in a particular way, we are in great danger of being ledto conclude that they MUST have happened in that way. No meretheory can have any weight against a statement resting on solidevidence, but where the evidence is weak, or, what is practicallythe same thing, where the knowledge of that evidence is defective, a probable theory must carry great weight in influencing ourjudgment. Care must therefore be taken to keep theories in theirproper place. Where we have to deal with well-established facts, any interpretations to which those facts may lead us may be takenas also established, but interpretations which are suggested bytheories only must be regarded as provisional, and liable tofuture modification or rejection, as our knowledge increases. 

The Mosaic Record itself, when carefully examined, seems to bepeculiarly open to the process suggested. No doubt there is yetmuch work for Philology to do in its interpretation [Footnote:Such words, for instance, as [Hebrew script:], [Hebrew script:], [Hebrew script], used of different creative acts, may imply somedifference of which we are ignorant. So again the uses of thewords [Hebrew script], [Hebrew script:], and [Hebrew script:] for"man, " may have a bearing on some of those questions which nowseem most perplexing. ], but one thing seems certain--there is init an absence of all detail. The facts to which it has referenceare stated in the briefest and most simple manner, without theslightest reference to the means by which they were effected, or, apart from the question of the days, the time which was occupiedin their accomplishment. When stripped of all that is traditional, and examined strictly by itself, the narrative seems greatly toresemble one of those outline maps which are supplied to childrenwho are learning geography, on which only a few prominent featuresof the country are laid down, and the learner is left to fill inthe details as his knowledge advances. Only in this case thedetails have already been filled in by the light of very imperfectknowledge, aided by a fertile imagination. These we mustobliterate if we would restore the possibility of a faithfuldelineation, and we must be careful, in future, to avoid a similarerror. We must put down nothing as certain which has not beenconclusively shown to be so. 

This last caution is specially needed at the present time, for, proud as we are of our advance in science, the amount of what iscertainly known is probably very much less than we imagine. Agreat deal that was received as certain a few years ago, is nowconsidered to be doubtful, or even recognized as a mistake andabandoned. This is especially the case with Astronomy, which seemsto be almost in a state of revolution. Dependent, as it is almostentirely, upon mechanical and optical aid, every improvement anddiscovery in these departments changes its position, bringing tolight new facts, and modifying the aspect of those which werepreviously known. The very basis of all astronomical calculations, the standard of time, is now no longer relied upon as invariable. It is suspected of a change resulting from a gradual retardationin the rate of the earth's rotation on its axis, produced by tidalfriction. When the binary stars were discovered, the discovery washailed as a proof of the universal prevalence of the law ofgravitation. Later observations have thrown doubt upon thatconclusion, as many pairs are known to exist, which, though theyhave what is termed a "common proper motion, " or are journeyingthrough space together, have no relative motion, which they mustshow, if they were moving under the influence of their mutualattractions. The supposed simplicity of the solar system has givenplace to extreme complexity. A century ago, six planets, tensatellites, and a few comets, were supposed to constitute thewhole retinue of the sun: now, instead of this, we have two groupsof four planets each, the individual members of each group closelyresembling each other in all points within our knowledge, while inall these points the groups differ greatly. Between these twogroups lies a belt of very small planets, of which the 1st wasdiscovered on the first day of the present century, and the 124ththis year, and the number of known satellites has increased from10 to 17. Add to this the meteoric groups, and their suspectedconnexion with certain comets, and the perplexing questionssuggested by the Solar Corona and the Zodiacal light, and it willbe seen that our knowledge is in a transitional state; that withso many problems unsolved, any apparent contradiction to thesacred record will require a careful scrutiny to ascertain thatthe grounds on which it is brought forward are well established. 

Geology, so far as our present subject is concerned, stands upon asomewhat different footing. Though a much younger science thanastronomy, it has one great advantage over it; the facts withwhich it has to do are for the most part discernible by theunaided senses, and it is therefore independent of instrumentalhelp. Many changes have occurred in the views of Geologists, butin the main they have reference to processes [Footnote: Such, forinstance, is the modification of the views of geologists as to therelative effects of "disruption" and "denudation" in determiningthe features of the earth's surface. ] rather than to results, andit is the results with which we are chiefly concerned. 

Physiologists have entered on the contest with the Bible on twodifferent, and seemingly contradictory grounds. Some of them havemaintained that the varieties of mankind are so distinct, that itis impossible they can all be descended from a single human pair, while others assert that not only all the varieties of mankind, but all the varieties of living beings are descended from a singleprogenitor. Between the advocates of these two systems there mustbe such an enormous difference as to the extent to which variationis possible, as to justify us in assuming that the fundamentalprinciples of physiological science are not yet satisfactorilyascertained. 

These are the three branches of science which come especially intocollision with the Mosaic Record of the Creation. Of these Geologyis the most important, because it is able to bring forwardunquestionable facts which are in direct opposition to thetraditionary interpretation Astronomy and physiology have littleto object except theoretical views; the hypotheses of Laplace andDarwin. These, however, will have to be carefully considered. Itwill be necessary for us first to ascertain whether there reallyexists any such fundamental discrepancy between the record andascertained facts, or theories so far as they are supported byfacts, and stand on a probable footing, as should render allattempts at harmonizing them vain. If this is found not to be thecase, we shall then be in a position to inquire whether moderndiscoveries afford us any really valuable light, and can assist usto form a somewhat more extended and accurate idea of theprocesses described by the sacred historian. 

CHAPTER II. 

DIFFICULTIES IN GEOLOGY. 

The principal points on which there is a supposed discrepancybetween the Mosaic Record and the discoveries of geologists are asfollows:--

THE MOSAIC RECORD APPEARS TO ASSERT--

I. That the world in all its completeness, as it now exists, wasmoulded out of material in a chaotic state in six ordinary days. Geologists have ascertained, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the process must have occupied countless ages. 

II. That the first appearance of animal life was on the fifth ofthose six days. Geologists have discovered that animal life was inexistence at the very earliest period to which they have as yetbeen able to extend their investigations. 

III. That all living creatures are divided into two classes, andthat the first of these classes was created on the fifth, thesecond on the sixth day; and that each class, in all itsdivisions, with the exception of man, came into existencesimultaneously. Geologists trace the rise and increase of eachclass through a long course of ages. 

IV. That death entered into the world through the sin of man. Thevery existence of fossils implies that it was the law of allanimal life from the first. 

V. That till the fall all creatures lived exclusively on vegetablefood. Geologists have ascertained the existence of carnivorouscreatures from a very remote period. 

Besides these, there are some other supposed difficulties andinaccuracies of a less important character, which may be noticed, in passing, when the true meaning of the record is underdiscussion. 

SECTION 1. THE DAYS. 

The question of the days is beyond all doubt the most important ofthose which have to be discussed. On the one hand, the impressionnaturally left upon the reader of the first chapter of Genesis isthat natural days are meant, and this impression is not removed bya cursory inspection of the original. On the other hand, if thereis any one scientific belief which rests on peculiarly solidground, it is the belief that the formation of the world occupieda period which is beyond the grasp of the most powerfulimagination. 

There is, indeed, some reason to think that the time claimed bygeologists is somewhat exaggerated. Their views are in many casesbased on the assumption that change is now going on, on thesurface of the earth, as it did in all past time--that it is thesame in character, in intensity, and in rate. But there are goodreasons for supposing that almost all the causes which lead tochange are gradually decreasing in intensity. The chief causes bywhich changes are brought about are the upheaval and subsidence ofthe earth's surface; the destructive agencies of wind, storms atsea, rain and frost; and the action of the tides. Of these, allbut the last are directly dependent on the action of heat, andthere is every reason to believe that the heat of the earth is inprocess of gradual dissipation. If this be the case, all thoseagencies which are dependent on it must

[Footnote: It is thought probable that this process is complete, or nearly so, in the moon. If this be the case, it is in allprobability in progress in the case of the earth, though, owing tothe much greater bulk of the latter, it occupies a longer period. --Lockyer, Lessons in Astronomy, p. 93. ] be declining in intensity;but the rate of that decrease is unknown; it may be inarithmetical, or it may be in geometrical progression. It is, then, by no means impossible that changes, which now only becomediscernible with the lapse of centuries, might, at some pastperiod of our globe's history, have been the work of years only. Nor is it at all probable that the present rate of change, whichis assumed as the basis of the calculation, is known with anyapproach to accuracy. Exact observations are of very recent date;both the inclination and the means for making them are the growthof the last two centuries, and the changes which have to beascertained are of a class peculiarly liable to modification froma variety of local and temporary causes, so that a very muchlonger period must elapse before we can arrive at average valueswhich may be relied on as even approximately accurate. 

Another circumstance, which seems to merit more attention than ithas received, is the very frequent recurrence in Greek mythologyof allusions to creatures which have been usually regarded as thecreations of a poetic fancy, but which bear a strong resemblanceto the Saurian and other monsters of the Oolite and Cretaceousformations. Of course, it is not impossible that these things mayhave been purely poetic imaginings; but, if so, it is veryremarkable that such realizations of those imaginings should beafterwards discovered. It would seem much more probable that theselegends were exaggerated traditions of creatures which actuallyexisted when the first colonists reached their new homes, innumbers comparatively small, but still sufficient to occasion muchdanger and alarm to the early settlers, and to cause theirdestroyers to be regarded as among the greatest heroes of the timeand the greatest benefactors of mankind. The Hindoo tradition ofthe tortoise on whose back stands the elephant which upholds theworld, and the account of Leviathan in the Book of Job, seem topoint in the same direction. [Footnote: For additional instancessee Tylor's Early History of Mankind, p. 303. ]

But, after all, the question is not one of a few thousands ofyears more or less, but of six common days, or many thousands ofyears. It may help us to arrive at a right conclusion on thesubject if we endeavour to ascertain, in the first instance, whether there are any strongly-marked indications that the writerof the first chapter of Genesis did possess some accurateinformation on some points in the history of Creation which he wasnot likely to obtain by his own researches. For this purpose wewill place in parallel columns the leading facts recorded byMoses, and a table of the successive formations of the rocks, abridged from the last edition (1871) of Sir C. Lyell's Student'sGeology. This process will bring to light certain coincidenceswhich may serve as landmarks for our investigation. 

 The Days. THE ROCKS. 

 1. Creation of light. 

 2. Creation of the Atmosphere. 

 |The earth covered with water |Laurentian. 3. --| [implied]. |Cambrian. |Upheaval of land. ----|Silurian. |Creation of terrestrial Flora. |Devonian. |Carboniferous. 

 4. The sun and moon made "Luminaries. "----|Permian. |Triassic. 

 |Triassic. 5. Creation of birds and reptiles ----|Jurassic. |Cretaceous, |Eocene. 

 6. --|Creation of land animals. ----|Eocene. |Creation of man. |Miocene. |Pleiocene. |Post Tertiary. 

CONCURRENT EVENTS. 

Laurentian: Upper Laurentian unconformably placed on LowerLaurentian, which contains Eozoon Canadense. 

Cambrian: Traces of volcanic action. Ripple marks indicating land. 

Silurian: Earliest fish. 

Devonian: Earliest land plants. 

Carboniferous: The coal measures. Peculiarly abundant vegetation. Earliest known reptile. 

Permian: Foot-prints of birds and reptiles--with a few remains ofthe latter. 

Jurassic: The first bird, and the first mammal. The age ofreptiles. 

Cretaceous: Reptiles passing away, mammalia abundant and of largesize. 

Post Tertiary: Human remains found only in the most recentdeposits. In this table we see certain points of strongly-markedcoincidence:--

1. The oldest rocks with which we are acquainted--the LowerLaurentian [Footnote: The age of granite is uncertain. --Lyell'aStudent's Geology, p. 548. ]--were formed under water, but hadbegun to be elevated before the next series, the Upper Laurentian, were deposited. Ripple marks are found in the Cambrian group[Footnote: Ibid. P. 470], indicating that the parts where theyoccur formed a sea-beach, and, consequently, that dry land was inexistence at that time. 

2. The earliest fossil land plants as yet discovered are found inthe Devonian series, and they gradually increase till, in theCarboniferous strata, they attain the extreme abundance which gaverise to the coal measures. 

3. The age of reptiles. The earliest known reptile is found in theCarboniferous strata. In the Permian and Triassic groups thenumbers gradually increase, till in the Lias, Oolite, andCretaceous systems, this class attains a very great developmentboth numerically and in the magnitude of individual specimens. During the same period the first traces of birds are found. Thefirst actual fossil bird was found in the upper Oolite. 

4. The age of mammalia. The first remains--two teeth of a smallmarsupial--were discovered in the Rhaetic beds of the Upper Trias, and a somewhat similar discovery has been made in beds ofcorresponding periods in Devonshire and North America. During thesubsequent periods the numbers slowly increase, till in theTertiary strata the mammalian becomes the predominant type. 

5. The earliest traces of man--flint implements--are found in thePost Tertiary strata. 

We have then in the Mosaic narrative five points which correspondin order and character to five points in the Geological record;and with reference to two, at least, of these points, we cannotimagine any cause for the coincidence in the shape of a fortunateconjecture, because, so far as we can tell, there was nothingapparent on the face of the earth to suggest to the mind of thewriter the long past existence of such a state of things as hasbeen revealed to us by the discovery of the Carboniferous andReptilian remains. It seems then that Moses must have been inpossession of information which could not be obtained from anyordinary source. But if he was thus acquainted with the order inwhich the development took place, there is nothing improbable inthe supposition that he was not altogether ignorant of the lengthof time which that development required. 

Let us suppose then that his knowledge did extend a littlefarther; let us suppose him to have been aware that each of theCreations which he describes was a process occupying manythousands of years--how could he have imparted this knowledge tohis readers? What modification could he have introduced into hisnarrative, which without changing its general character, ordetracting from its extreme simplicity, should have embodied thisfact?

This amounts to the question: What words significant of definiteperiods of time were in use, and consequently at the writer'scommand, at this time? No language is very rich in such words; butin the early Hebrew they seem to have been very scanty. The day, week, month, year, and generation (this last usually implying thetime from the birth of a man to that of his son, but possibly inGen. Xv. 16, a century) are all that we find. These in theirliteral sense were evidently inadequate. Nor could the deficiencybe supplied by numerals, even if the general style of thenarrative would have admitted their use, for we find in Genesis nonumeral beyond the thousand. There was no word at all in earlyHebrew equivalent to our words "period" and "season. " When such anidea was to be expressed, it was done by the use of the word"day, " either in the singular, or more commonly in the plural. Thus, "the time of harvest;" "the season of the first ripe fruit, "are literally "the days of harvest, " "the days of the first ripefruit. " In Isaiah xxxiv. 8, the singular is used, and followed bythe word year in the same indefinite sense. "It is the day of theLord's vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversyof Zion. "

The only method then which was open to the writer was to make useof one of the words above mentioned in an extended sense, just ashe used the word [Hebrew script] (earth) in several senses. But ifone of them was to be employed, the one which he has chosen seemsthe best; not only because its use in that way was common, butbecause the brevity of the time covered by its naturalsignificance would in itself be a hint of the way in which it wasused. That which was impossible in a day might be possible in ayear or a generation. The extended significance of the word wouldbecome apparent just in proportion as the time covered by itsnatural significance was inadequate for the processes ascribed toit. 

An additional reason may, perhaps, be found for the choice of theword "day, " in the accordance of its phenomena with some, atleast, of the processes which Moses describes--the dawn, the lightslowly increasing to the perfect day, and then fading awaygradually into night--these do seem aptly to represent the firstscanty appearance, the gradual increase, and the vast developmentof plants, of the reptiles and of the mammalia, and in the case ofthe first two classes, their gradual passing away. 

But if the word was thus employed in a figurative, and not in itsnatural sense, we may expect to find some indications in thecontext that this was the case. Such indications we do find. Thefact that the work of Creation was distributed into days, is, initself, significant. There is no reason to believe that in theopinion of the writer each day's work tasked to the utmost thepower of the Creator. Moses was evidently as well aware as we are, that to Him it would have been equally easy, had He so willed, tocall everything into instant and perfect being at a single word. Nor was the detailed description necessary to establish thefoundation of all religion--the right of the Creator to the entireobedience of His creature For this the short recapitulation which(ch. Ii. 4) prefaces the more detailed account of man's peculiarrelation to his Maker would have been sufficient. Some purpose, however, there must have been for this more particular accountwhich precedes the summary. We may trace two probable reasons. Itbrings before us the method of the Divine Working in the light ofan orderly progress. But beside this, it is of infinite service tous, in enabling us more thoroughly to realize the Fatherlycharacter and ever watchful care of our Creator. As far as thatcare itself was concerned, it was unimportant whether the work wasinstantaneous or progressive; but it was very important to us, inso far as it affected our conceptions of God, and of our relationsto Him. For all our conceptions of God must rest ultimately on ourself-consciousness; we can form no idea of Him except in so far asthat idea is analogous to something which comes within the rangeof our own experience. Now to us and to our feelings there is avery wide difference between an act performed in a moment, and awork over which we have lovingly dwelt, and to which we havedevoted our time, our labour, and our thought, for months oryears. The one may pass from our mind and be forgotten as quicklyas it was performed, but in the other we commonly feel an abidinginterest. When therefore the great Creator is represented to us asthus dwelling upon His work, carrying it on step by step, throughthe long ages, to its completion, we find it far less difficult torealize that other truth, so precious to us, that His care and Histender mercies are over all His works, that the lovingwatchfulness which still upholds all, and provides for all, is butthe continuance of that care which was displayed in the creationof all. Creation, Providence and Grace are blended together in onecontinuous manifestation of the Divine Wisdom, Power, and Love. 

But for this purpose it is of little importance to us whetherCreation is described as taking place in a moment, or in sixordinary days. If the division into six days indicates orderlyprogress and watchful care, we naturally expect to find the sameindications in each of the subordinate parts. To our imperfectconceptions each single day's work would bear that same characterof vast instantaneous action which seemed so undesirable. It wouldnot help us to realize what it is so important that we shouldthoroughly feel. The very fact then that the history of Creationis divided into days carries with it a strong presumption thatthose days are not ordinary days. 

In the 14th and following verses, when Moses is describing theformation of the heavenly luminaries, he is particular inmentioning that one part of their office was to "rule over the dayand over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. "Hence it is sometimes inferred that he was under a mistake inspeaking of day and night at an earlier period. But such a mistakeseems incredible. To suppose that Moses did not perceive that whathe wrote in the 14th and following verses was incompatible withwhat he had written in the 4th and 5th verses, if such anincompatibility really existed, is to impute to him an amount ofignorance or carelessness which is at variance with the wholecharacter of his writings from beginning to end. Instead of thisit will be shown hereafter that, in all probability, hisstatements rested on a wide knowledge of facts. If then, undersuch circumstances, he uses the word "day" long before he comes tothe formation of the sun, the natural inference is that he did sodesignedly--that it was his intention that his readers shouldunderstand that he was speaking of something very different fromthat natural day which is regulated by sunrise and sunset. 

The way too in which he introduces the mention of the first andfollowing days is apparently significant, though its full meaningis probably more than we can at present understand. In ver. 5 hecarefully defines light and darkness as the equivalents of day andnight; but in the next verse he passes over these words, andintroduces two new ones, which he has not defined; these two wordsbeing as much out of place before the creation of the atmosphereas light and darkness are supposed to have been before theCreation of the Sun. And not only does he introduce two new words, but he introduces them in a very remarkable and, with our presentknowledge, unaccountable manner. Had he said "And there wasmorning and there was evening, one day, " we should have found nodifficulty in harmonizing; his words with what he had previouslysaid concerning the evolution of light. But he first of allreverses the order, and then does not supply the naturaltermination to his sentence--"And there was evening and there wasmorning, "--"one night" would seem to be the natural conclusion;but instead of that we read, "there was evening and there wasmorning, one day. " Whatever farther significance then may behereafter discovered in this remarkable statement, one thing atall events seems clear, that it was designed to call attention tothe fact that the day spoken of was not a natural day. Probablycertain stages in the progress of the work were indicated, whichfarther investigations may disclose to us. A few years ago suchstages seemed to be discernible, but the continued progress ofdiscovery has partly obliterated the supposed lines ofdemarcation. Still further discoveries may bring to light otherdivisions. 

In the opening of the second chapter we are told that God restedon the seventh day from all His work, and His rest is spoken of insuch a way as to carry our thoughts at once to the FourthCommandment. In that commandment the duty of hallowing a seventhportion of our time is based on the fact that "in six days theLord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, andrested the seventh day. " But the analogy entirely fails unless thedays of the Creator's work bore the same proportion to the day ofHis rest which man's six days of labour bear to his Sabbath. Nowwe are expressly told in other parts of Scripture that the DivineSabbath is not yet ended (Heb. Iii. Iv. ), and we are led to inferthat it will not end till He that sitteth upon the throne shallsay, "Behold I make all things new. " If then the Sabbath of theCreator is measured by thousands of years--the whole duration ofman upon the earth--it follows that the days of His work must havebeen of corresponding length. 

One more indication, so strong that in itself it seems sufficientto decide the question, is to be found in the 4th verse of thesecond chapter. [Footnote: It is not unusual with critics of theGerman school to assert that this is an independent account of theCreation. But the assertion does not appear to have any validfoundation. The supposed grounds for it are well discussed in the"Speaker's Commentary, " vol. I. P. 23, and in "Aids to Faith, "Essay v. , Sections 2, 4, 5. It has already been pointed out thatthe supposed variations in order rest entirely on thetranslation. ] In that verse all that is ascribed to the six daysin the preceding chapter is summed up as the work of a single day. If then the word is used in a natural sense in the first chapter, it is clearly used in an extended sense in the second chapter. Butif it had been used in a natural sense in the first chapter, therewould have been no need whatever for its use here. Its place wouldhave been taken--and most appropriately--by the word [Hebrewscript], a week, with which Moses was familiar (ch. Xxix. 28;Deut. Xvi. 10). Its use here would have connected the weeklydivision of time with the Creation, and as its presence would havebeen thus strongly significant, its absence is a no lesssignificant indication that the six days spoken of in thepreceding chapter are something very different from six naturaldays. 

Three points, therefore, seem to be clear:--

1. However the chapter may be interpreted, there are in itcoincidences with ascertained facts so marked that they cannotpossibly be fortuitous. They prove therefore that Moses was inpossession of some accurate information on the subject on which hewas writing. 

As we proceed with our subject we shall come upon many moreindications of this, some of them exceedingly remarkable. It istherefore by no means improbable that he was acquainted with thefact, that the work which he was describing was one which hadoccupied a long series of ages. 

2. Supposing that Moses was acquainted with all which has now beendiscovered by geologists, and that he was desirous of impartingthat knowledge to his readers, the language which he has employedis the most appropriate that, under the circumstances, he couldhave chosen for the purpose. 3. The phenomena exhibited by thecontext indicate not only that he had this intention, but that healso intended that such of his readers as were competent toentertain the idea, should have sufficient indications to guidethem to his meaning. 

Whatever then may be the real significance of the "days"--a pointwhich the knowledge at present in our possession seemsinsufficient to explain--it seems very clear that something verydifferent from natural days is intended. And this is a sufficientanswer to the objection which is founded on that interpretation. That there would be very many points which as yet we are unablefully to understand, has been already shown to be not onlypossible but probable; and among them it appears this question ofthe true meaning of the days must be left for the present. When wecome to consider subsequently the great number of points in whichharmony between the narrative and discovered facts is brought outon investigation, [Footnote: Chap. V. ] we may well be content toleave many points unexplained till our knowledge is greatlyincreased. 

SECTION 2. FIRST TRACES OF LIFE. 

The second objection has reference to the relative antiquity ofthe various forms of life, of which we find traces in thesuccessive strata of the rocks. If it be assumed that the apparentcoincidences which have been pointed out between the Mosaicnarrative and the geological records are real, and that thetraditional 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 thePteraspis, which has been discovered in the upper Silurianformation at Leintwardine, in Shropshire. The first member of thereptilian order, Archegesaurus, occurs in the coal measures; andthe first traces of a mammalian--two teeth--occur at the junctionof the Lias and Trias. In every case, then, we meet with traces oflife at a period long anterior to that at which we shouldnaturally expect them. 

In order to ascertain the real weight of this objection we hare toinvestigate two points:--

1. What are the animals to which the Mosaic Record refers?

2. What does it really tell us about the creation of thoseanimals?

1. It is commonly assumed that all living creatures arecomprehended under the terms used in describing the work of thefifth and sixth days. But a more careful examination shows thatthere is no real ground for this assumption. The first point whichpresents itself is the omission of the Hebrew word for fish, [Hebrew script], in the account of the fifth day--an omission themore marked, because the word does occur in vv. 26, 28, in whichdominion over all living creatures is granted to man. The twowords which are used in ver. 21 are [Hebrew script] from [Hebrewscript], to stretch out, to extend, and [Hebrew script], from[Hebrew script], identical with [Hebrew script], to trample withthe feet. The description then points us to animals of great size, especially length, which trample with the feet. "Great sea-monsters, " Gesenius calls them. These words clearly indicate theSaurian and allied tribes of reptiles; and when we turn to therocks we find the remains of these creatures occurring in greatnumbers, precisely at the point which Moses assigns to them. 

Again, in the account of the sixth day, three classes of animalsare mentioned; but we have no means whatever of ascertaining whatkinds of animals were comprehended in these three classes, orwhether they included all the mammalia then known to the Jews;much less then are we justified in inferring that they comprehendall mammalia that were then, or ever had been in existence. 

But it may perhaps appear strange, that the account of theCreation of living beings should be of such limited extent, embracing only reptiles, birds, and mammals. A littleconsideration, however, will remove this apparent strangeness. Weshould, perhaps, naturally expect to have some notice of the firstappearance of animal life; but from the circumstances under whichMoses wrote such a notice was simply impossible. The lowest andsimplest form of life with which we are now acquainted is theAmoeba Princeps, a minute particle of jelly-like substance, calledsarcode--scarcely larger than a small grain of sand--and with nodistinction of organs or limbs. [Footnote: Carpenter, TheMicroscope and its Revelations, p. 428. ] The oldest known fossil, Eozoon Canadense, is of a class but little above this--theforaminifera; we may therefore deem it probable that life beganwith some form not very unlike the Amoeba. How could the formationof such a creature have been described to the contemporaries ofMoses? They could have had no idea of its existence. To describethe first beginnings of life then, was, under the circumstances, an absolute impossibility. But if a part only of the long seriesof animal life could possibly be noticed, the determination of thepoint at which he should first speak of it would be left to thewriter, guided as he would be by considerations of the object forwhich, and the persons for whom, he wrote, which we mustnecessarily in our position be unable duly to estimate. All thatwe are entitled to expect is that the account, so far as itextends, should be in accordance with facts. 

The next point to be ascertained is, "Does the Mosaic Recordintimate that the creations of reptiles on the fifth, and ofmammals on the sixth days were entirely new creations, i. E. Thatno creatures of these classes had existed before?" There is nodirect assertion to this effect; it is only an inference, though anatural one, when we consider the circumstances under which it wasdrawn. When, however, we turn to the original we find the 20thverse worded in a way which seems designed to avoid the suggestionof such an inference. Literally translated it is, "Let the watersswarm swarms, the soul of life. " Such creatures then may haveexisted before, but not in swarms. And in the account of the sixthday, as has been already noticed, three forms of mammalia arespecified, and we have no knowledge as to the varieties includedin these three forms. Nor is there here any intimation that it wasthe first creation of such animals. The greater part of theearlier fossils belong to the Marsupialia and Mouotremata, and wehave no reason to believe that these classes have existed inhistoric times in Europe, Asia, or Africa. They are now confined(with the exception of the opossums, which are American) toAustralia. They were therefore entirely unknown to the Jews, andin consequence necessarily omitted in a document intended fortheir use. 

What has been said with reference to reptiles is also applicableto birds. The first traces of them are found in the ornithichnitesof the new red sandstone, and the first fossil--Archaeopteryx, inthe Solenhofen strata, belonging to the Oolite. From the nature ofthe case the remains are necessarily scanty, since birds would beless exposed than other animals to those casualties which wouldlead to their preservation as fossils, but enough traces have beenfound to show that in the period corresponding to the fifth daythey were very numerous, and attained in many instances to agigantic stature. A height of from ten to twelve feet was notuncommon. 

When, therefore, we notice that the fifth and sixth dayscorrespond to two periods, in the first of which reptiles andbirds, and in the second mammalia, were the prominent types, thewords of the sacred historian seem to have an adequateinterpretation in that fact. There is no contradiction between thetwo records. Moses describes but a very few of the facts whichgeology has brought to light, but those few facts are in exactaccordance with the results of independent observation. The actsof Creation of which Moses speaks correspond to remarkabledevelopments of the orders of animals to which he refers. To havenoticed the time of the appearance of the first individual memberof each class, as distinguished from the time when that classoccupied the foremost place in the ranks of creation, would havebeen inconsistent with the simplicity and brevity of thenarrative, while it would have been unintelligible to those forwhom the narrative was intended, since these primeval types hadpassed out of existence ages before the creation of man. It is, however, noteworthy, that the first appearances of the severalorders follow precisely the same arrangement as the times of theirgreatest development. 

SECTION 3. SIMULTANEOUS CREATION. 

This objection may be very briefly disposed of, though it appearsto be one which has made a very deep impression on Mr. Darwin. [Footnote: Origin of Species, p 1, &c. ] It is entirely aninference drawn from the old interpretation of the six days. Whilethat interpretation was received it followed, as a necessaryconsequence, that the creation of all kinds of plants on the thirdday, and of reptiles, birds, and mammalia on the fifth and sixthdays respectively, must have been simultaneous. But if thatinterpretation is proved to be untenable, the inference drawn fromit falls to the ground. The language of the narrative seems topoint in an opposite direction. There is one instance in thechapter in which the words used seem to point to an instantaneousresult. "And God said 'Let light be' and Light was, " though inthis case the words probably have a further significance, whichhas been brought out by the discovery of the nature of light. Butin these three cases the command is first recorded, with (in twocases) the addition "and it was so, " and then the narrative goeson to speak of the fulfilment of the command, as if the commandand its fulfilment were distinct things. 

SECTION 4. DEATH. CARNIVOROUS ANIMALS. 

These two objections may advantageously be considered together, since the fifth is in a great measure, though not entirely, dependent upon the fourth. For if death, in the common sense ofthe word, was unknown till the fall of Adam, it follows as anecessary consequence that no carnivorous creatures could haveexisted before that time. On the other hand, it may be consideredas the natural death of large classes of animals to be devoured bythe carnivora; so that if there were no carnivorous animals priorto the Fall, one of the avenues to death, at all events, had notbeen opened. 

There is really no ground at all for the first of these objectionsin the actual history of Creation. It is only when the threat heldout to Adam (ii. 17) is viewed in the light of St. Paul's commentupon it (Rom. V. 12; viii. 20) that the supposition can beentertained. This, then, is the real foundation of the difficulty. 

But, first of all, there is no reason to suppose that St. Paul'swords refer to any death but that of man. Now, it may well havebeen, that although man, having a body exactly analogous to thoseof the animals, would naturally have been subject, like them, tothe ordinary laws of decay and death, yet in the case of acreature who possessed so much which raised him above the level ofthe lower animals, there may have been some provision made whichshould exempt him from this necessity. That this was the caseappears probable from the mention made in the narrative of theTree of Life. We have no intimation whether the action of thefruit of this tree was physical or sacramental, but that, in oneway or other, it had the power to preserve man from physical deathseems almost certain from the way in which it is spoken of afterthe Fall (iii. 22-24). But the mention of the Tree of Life leadsto the inference that the case of Adam was entirely exceptional. 

In the next place, it does not seem probable that that dissolutionof the body which was the natural lot of all other animals was thewhole, or even the chief part, of the evil consequence of Adam'sfall. That it was included in the penalty seems probable, but itonly constituted a comparatively unimportant part of that penalty. The threat was, "In THE DAY that thou eatest thereof thou shaltsurely die, " and we cannot doubt that the Divine words wereexactly fulfilled, though Adam's natural death did not take placefor many hundred years. But the guilty creatures, covering theirnakedness with fig-leaves, crouching among the trees of the gardenin the vain hope of hiding themselves from the face of theirMaker, who were to transmit an inheritance of sin and shame andmisery to their yet unborn posterity, were surely very differentbeings from those whom the Creator but a short time before hadpronounced "very good. " The true life of the soul was gone; theimage of God defaced. This was the real, the terrible death. Ifdeath in its full sense means nothing more than the dissolution ofthe body, our Lord's words, "He that liveth and believeth in Meshall never die, " have failed of their fulfilment. That promisehas been in force for more than eighteen centuries, and yet nocase has occurred of a Christian, however holy he may have been, or however strong his faith, who has escaped the universal doom. The Church of the Patriarchs could point to an Enoch, the JewishChurch to an Elijah, who were exempted from the universal penalty;but Christianity can point to no such exemption, nor does she needit. To her members, to die is to sleep in Jesus; to be absent fromthe body is to be present with the Lord, for the penalty of deathis cancelled. 

Though, then, it seems by no means improbable that Adam, if he hadnot fallen, would have been exempt from the dissolution of thebody, yet this is not absolutely certain, and even if it werecertain, his case would be an exceptional one: no inference as tothe immortality of the animal creation could have been drawn fromit. 

The supposition that all animals prior to the fall lived entirelyon vegetable food rests partly on this groundless inference, andpartly on the Divine Words recorded in verse 30: "And to everybeast of the field, and to every fowl of the air, have I givenevery green herb for meat. " But it is important to notice thatthese words are not recorded as addressed to the animals, like thecommand to be fruitful and multiply. Had this been the case, anyomission to mention the flesh of other animals, might have beenlooked upon as significant. Instead of this they are addressed toAdam, and they follow other words in which the same things areassigned to Adam for his food. They come then in the form of alimitation to the rights granted to Adam, rather than of adefinition of the rights of the lower animals. Adam was to havethe free use of every green herb, but he was not to accounthimself the exclusive owner of it. The beast of the field and thefowl of the air were to be co-proprietors with him; they were tohave the use of it as freely as himself; but that they were to berestricted to the use of vegetable food nowhere appears. Accordingly we know that carnivorous creatures have existed fromthe first, and that though to a superficial observer this mayappear a cruel arrangement, yet in reality it is a most mercifulprovision, by which aged, weak, or maimed animals are preservedfrom the agonies of death by starvation. 

We may conclude then that there is no real contradiction betweenthe conclusions at which Geologists have arrived, and the wordsactually made use of by Moses, but that all such supposedcontradictions have arisen from meanings being attached to thosewords, which, though possible or even probable, were not the onlypossible meanings. When the difficulty has been suggested, and thewords have in consequence been more closely examined, it appearsthat they are capable of an interpretation in strict harmony withevery fact which Geologists have as yet discovered, and that inmany cases there are not wanting indications that the writerintended them to be thus understood. 

CHAPTER III. 

DIFFICULTIES IN ASTRONOMY. 

These objections, so far as they are based or supposed to be basedon ascertained facts, are very few and insignificant. The chief ofthem are as follows:--

1. Moses describes light, and the division of night and day asexisting before the Creation of the Sun. 

2. Moses describes the firmament as a solid vault. 

3. Moses speaks of the stars as created on the fourth day, onlytwo days before Adam, whereas astronomers have asserted that manyof them are so distant that the light by which we see them musthave been on its way ages before Adam was created. 

That part of the first objection which refers to the existence oflight prior to the creation of the Sun, appears so extremelychildish that it might have been thought unnecessary to notice it, had it not been solemnly propounded in such a work as "Essays andReviews. " [Footnote: Page 219] Anyone who is in possession of atelescope of but moderate power may satisfy himself of itsfutility on any starlight night. He has only to turn his telescopeto one or two of the more conspicuous nebulae; the Great Nebula inOrion, for instance, or the Ring Nebula in Lyra, and his eye willreceive light which has not come from any Sun, for it is a well-ascertained fact that these nebulae are nothing but vast masses ofincandescent gas. And this objection is singularly inappropriatein the mouth of the opponents of the Mosaic Record, inasmuch asthe Nebular hypothesis is with them the favourite method ofaccounting for the present state of things. The view which theybring forward as an alternative to the Mosaic account assumes thevery state of things which, when, alleged by Moses, they denounceas impossible. The other part of this objection, which refers tothe division of day and night, will be more advantageouslydiscussed when we come to consider the actual accounts of thefirst and fourth days' work. It will then appear probable that thestatements which Moses has made on this subject, instead of beingindications of ignorance, are the result of a profound knowledgeof the subject on which he was writing. 

Next, it is alleged that Moses describes the firmament as a solidvault. [Footnote: Essays and Reviews, p. 220. ] "The work of thesecond day of creation is to erect the vault of heaven, which isrepresented as supporting an ocean of water above it. " That theGreek and Latin translations in this place do seem to imply theidea of solidity seems indisputable; and from the Latin the word"firmament" has passed into our own language. But there is noreason to think that the Hebrew word has any such meaning. It isderived from a root signifying "to beat out--to extend. "[Footnote: May not this root, [Hebrew script], have some connexionwith [Hebrew script], "to be light, " from which is derived theAramaic "Raca" of Matt. V. 22?] The verb is often applied to thebeating out of metals, but not always. It is a new doctrine inetymology, that the meaning of a verbal noun is to be deduced fromthe nouns which often supply objects to its root, instead of fromthe meaning of the root itself. But even if it can be shown thatthe word did originally involve such a meaning, that would benothing to the purpose. It would only be in the same case with avast number of other words, which, though etymologically untrue, are habitually used without inconvenience, because they do conveyto the minds of others the idea which we intend to convey, theiretymology being lost sight of. Probably, the very persons whobring forward the objection do sometimes use the word "firmament, "though they know the error which is involved in it. Nor would theybe any more accurate if they substituted for it the Saxon word"heaven, " since that also involves a scientific inaccuracy. Theword used by Moses was the commonly recognized name for the objectof which he was writing; and no objection to his use of it can bemaintained, unless it can be shown that in using it he rejectedsome other word equally intelligible to all, and which was at thesame time etymologically correct. But there is no ground for theassumption that any such word existed in the time of Moses or atany subsequent period. 

The third objection, of course, ceases to have any force if thedays of creation are no longer regarded as natural days. But theobjection is in itself, apart from this condition, of noconsequence whatever. For, in the first place, it is by no meanscertain, or even probable, that the stars referred to in thefourth day's work are the fixed stars. The Hebrew has no word forplanets as distinguished from the fixed stars, although, as weknow for certain, the difference between the planets and the fixedstars was recognized from a very early period. In every case, then, the context must determine the sense to be given to theword. In this case, the fact that these stars are mentioned inconnexion with the sun and moon, combined with our knowledge thatthe planets, like the moon, are dependent upon the sun for theirlight, would lead us to infer that they are meant. 

But even if the fixed stars were meant, the objection would be nolonger tenable. It rests on certain estimates as to the supposeddistances of the fixed stars and star clusters, which were formedby the late Sir W. Herschel from what he designated the "space-penetrating power" of his telescopes. Starting with the assumptionthat the stars were of tolerably uniform size and brilliancy, andthat the difference in apparent brightness was the result, andtherefore a measure of their distances, he proceeded to apply thesame process to the star clusters, which, even in a fairtelescope, present only the appearance of faint nebulous spots oflight, but are resolved into clusters of stars by more powerfulinstruments. In many cases, he found that a certain proportionexisted between the telescopic power by which a cluster was firstrendered visible, and that required for its resolution, and bythis means he formed what he considered a probable estimate of itsdistance. Other clusters there were which only became visible inhis most powerful telescopes, and which, therefore, he could neversucceed in resolving. These he placed at a still greater distance, and from this estimate he deduced the conclusion that their lightmust have been in some cases as much as 60, 000 years in reachingthe earth. 

But the whole foundation on which this long chain of inferencerested has now been shown to be evanescent. In the first placemany of his irresolvable nebulae have been proved by thespectroscope to be true nebulae--masses of luminous gas, and notstar clusters at all; and, in the next place, the actual distancesof a few of the fixed stars have been approximately ascertained, and it is proved beyond all doubt that the different degree ofbrightness exhibited by different stars is no test at all of theirdistance. Of all the stars in our hemisphere whose distance hasthus been measured, the nearest to us is one which can only justbe discerned by a practised eye on a favourable night, 61 Cygni, whilst the most brilliant star visible in England, Sirius, is at aconsiderably greater distance. The most competent judges estimatethe magnitude of Sirius as about one thousand times that of thesun [Footnote: Mr. Proctor in Good Words, February, 1872. ]. Inaddition to this, many stars of very different magnitudes arefound to be related to each other in such a way as to show thatthey are in actual, and not merely in optical proximity. Theclusters which were formerly supposed to consist of large stars atenormous distances from us, are now, upon very solid grounds, believed to be formed of much smaller stars, at much more moderatedistances, so that it is very improbable that there is any objectvisible in the heavens whose light has taken so much as 6000years, instead of 60, 000 years to reach us. 

THE NEBULAR THEORY. 

We come now to the consideration of the Nebular Theory of Laplace, in so far as it is opposed to the Mosaic account. It must beremembered that, after all, this is only a theory. Even if itcould be satisfactorily established, it would only point out a wayin which this world MIGHT have been formed. That it could not havebeen formed in any other way is an independent proposition, insupport of which no single argument has ever yet been broughtforward. There may be a greater or less probability that the earthwas formed in this particular way, that probability depending onthe extent to which the theory accounts for observed facts. Thisit does in many cases, and it has in consequence been accepted ASA WHOLE by many scientific men, as a substitute for the Scripturalaccount. As will be seen hereafter, there are strong reasons foradmitting it as a supplement to the brief account given by Moses;but our business now is to ascertain, whether it has any justclaim to be received instead of that account. 

The theory seems to have been suggested by certain speculations ofSir W. Herschel. In his telescopic examination of the Nebulae andstar clusters, he found that in a great number of cases, when anebula was rendered visible by a certain amount of telescopicpower, it would be resolved into separate stars by a telescope ofa little higher power. But there were some nebulae, visible invery small telescopes, or even discernible with the naked eye, such as those in Orion and Andromeda, which could not be resolvedeven by his great four-foot reflector, the largest telescope thathad then been constructed. And these nebulae exhibited a greatvariety of forms. Some of them were vast shapeless masses of faintlight; others, which he designated "planetary" nebulae, exhibiteda regular form--a circular disc more or less clearly defined, often brightest in the centre. Others seemed to be intermediatebetween these two classes. Hence he was led to the idea that thesewere worlds in the process of formation, and that their varyingforms indicated varying stages of that process. 

This suggestion was eagerly adopted by the members of the FrenchAcademy, who were at that time on the look-out for anything whichthey thought would help them to account for the existence of theworld, while they refused to acknowledge a Creator. It was takenup by one of their number--Laplace--a man who stood in the veryforemost rank as a mathematician and physical astronomer, andmoulded into shape by him. [Footnote: There is a very full accountof Laplace's hypothesis, extracted from the works of Pontecoulant, in Professor Nichol's System of the World, pp. 69--86. ]

He assumed, that the Solar System existed at the very earliestperiod as a shapeless nebula, a vast undefined mass of "fire-mist;" that at some time or other the separate particles of thisfire-mist began to move towards their centre of gravity, under theinfluence of their mutual attractions, and thus assumed aspherical shape; that by some means or other a motion of rotationwas originated in this spherical mass, which increased in rapidityas the process of condensation advanced. The effect of thisrotation would be a flattening of the sphere; the equatorialdiameter would increase while the polar diameter, or axis ofrotation, diminished; and when the centrifugal force thus producedhad reached a certain point, a ring would detach itself from theequator, but would continue to revolve about the common centre. Hesupposed that a succession of rings were thus thrown off, whichfinally broke up and accumulated into one or more sphericalmasses, forming the planets and their satellites, while theremainder of the original sphere was condensed into the sun. Theplanets and their satellites would continue to revolve about thecentre as the ring from which they were formed had done, while thedifferent original velocities of the particles of which they wereformed, some having been in the outer, some in the inner part ofthe ring, would cause them also to rotate on their axis. As thecondensation advanced, the heat which had originally existed inthe "fire-mist" would be condensed also, so that all the masseswhen formed would be in an incandescent state, but the planets andtheir satellites being comparatively small would soon cool down, while the sun, owing to its greatly superior bulk, still retainsits heat. 

There is no doubt much to be said in favour of this theory, whichmay be more advantageously considered hereafter, when we shallhave to consider it as supplementary to the Mosaic account. Atpresent we are only concerned with it as it claims to stand alone, and to be accepted as a substitute for that account. Viewed inthis light, as a substitute for a Creator, as showing us how theuniverse might have come into existence spontaneously, it utterlybreaks down in three points. 

1. It gives us no account whatever of the origin of matter, butassumes that it was already in existence at the time from whichthe theory takes its point of departure. But some account of itmust be given. Either it was created by some higher power, or itwas eternal; for the idea of its being self-originated ismanifestly untenable. If it was created, there is an end of thetheory--the act of creation assumes the existence of a Creator;and the only question left is, whether that Creator did more orless. But the very object of the theory was to dispense with theexistence of a Creator. This alternative, then, it must reject, and there is nothing left but to fall back upon the other, and toassume that it existed from all eternity. But it is certainly notless difficult to us to conceive the possibility of inert matterbeing self-existent and eternal, than it is to recognize theexistence of an eternal and all-powerful Spirit. Our ownconsciousness helps us to realize the possibility of the existenceof an Eternal Mind, and of the exercise of power by that mind; butwe have nothing to help us to a conception of self-existentmatter. 

In addition to this, the idea of eternity precludes from its verynature the idea of possible change. If there is change there mustbe the distinction of before and after, and so of the successionof existence, which involves the idea of time. That which issubject to change, and this theory assumes a change in thecondition of matter, cannot be eternal. 

2. The next failing point is, that this theory assumes a change, of the origin of which it can give no account. The assumption is, that matter which had existed from all eternity, or for anindefinite time, in a state of perfect rest, suddenly began tomove towards its centre of gravity. A body, or a system ofparticles, can remain at rest only under one of two conditions. Either it must be acted on by no force at all, or all the forcesby which it is acted on must be in perfect equilibrium. If matterexisted under the first of these conditions, whence did the forcesuddenly emanate? Force cannot be self-originated any more thanmatter. But if the other alternative be adopted, how was theequilibrium disturbed? It is a fundamental axiom of mechanics that"a body (or system of bodies) at rest will continue at rest tillit be acted upon by some external force. " But the theory suppliesno such external force, for it could only originate in that whichthe theory ignores--the will and power of some intelligent Being. 

3. The third defect is, that the theory does not give anysatisfactory account of the origin of the motions of rotation andrevolution. Laplace does not attempt this. He simply assumes thata motion of rotation was set up somehow; but many of hisfollowers, perceiving that the theory broke down here--though theypassed the other two defects unnoticed--have attempted to supplythe deficiency in this point. Some have attempted to account forthis motion by analogy. It has been suggested that it was of thesame nature, and produced by the same causes, as the vortex whichis formed when a vessel full of fluid is emptied through anorifice in its bottom. Pontecoulant, in his account of the theory, enters more into detail. He assumes that in the process ofagglomeration large bodies of matter impinged obliquely on thealready formed mass, and so imparted to it a motion of rotation. 

A consideration of the mechanical conditions of the problem willshow the unsoundness of Pontecoulant's views. It is of courseassumed that the forces by which this rotation is said to havebeen produced are identical in their character with those withwhich we are familiar, for the introduction of any force peculiarto that time would be equivalent to an admission of a directingpower. The following propositions then seem unquestionable:--

1. The nebula must be considered as a system of particles acted onby their mutual attractions, and by no other force. 

2. When two particles of matter, a and b, attract each other, itis a fundamental principle of mechanics, (commonly known as the"Third Law of Motion") that whatever amount of momentum isproduced in a, an equal and opposite momentum must be produced inb. Hence if the mutual action remain undisturbed, the twoparticles will approach each other and finally meet. On theirunion, the two momenta being equal and opposite will neutralizeeach other, and there will be no tendency to produce motion of anykind. 3. The same law will hold good with reference to any numberof particles, and therefore with reference to the supposed nebula. Every single particle will produce a certain momentum in each ofthe other particles, and at the same time will have impressed uponit by each of the other particles an equal and opposite momentum. Hence when all the particles are collected into a single mass, each individual momentum will be balanced by an equal and oppositeone, and there can be no resultant motion. 

The analogy from fluids flowing through an orifice fails, because--

1. The particles of the fluid are acted on by forces other thantheir mutual attractions, and in many cases affecting themunequally, e. G. , friction against the sides of the containingvessel and the orifice. 

2. Because the orifice is not a point, but a finite area, andconsequently the particles of the fluid are acted on by forceswhich do not pass through the same point. 

Considered then as a substitute for the action of an intelligentCreator, Laplace's theory utterly breaks down in three points, which, as they will have to be referred to hereafter, it is wellto recapitulate. 

1. It does not account for the origin of matter. 

2. It does not account for the emergence of the force ofattraction. 

3. It does not give a satisfactory account for the motion ofrotation. 

CHAPTER IV. 

DIFFICULTIES IN PHYSIOLOGY. 

The third science which is supposed to come into collision withthe Mosaic Record is Physiology. Here, however, we meet with noobjections which rest upon ascertained facts, as in the case ofgeology. We have only to do with theories. All that can be broughtforward is merely matter of opinion or theory--such theoryresting indeed on a foundation of ascertained facts--but being initself a mere inference more or less probable from those facts. Even if it were proved to be a true account of the causation ofthose facts, it would be by no means certain that other facts, however similar, might not have had a totally different origin. 

At one time it was very confidently asserted, by many eminentphysiologists, that the differences between various branches ofthe human race were so great, that it was impossible that allshould have descended from the same original stock. Probably thisopinion is still maintained in some quarters, but of late yearsviews of a diametrically opposite character have been broughtforward, and very ably advocated. In proportion as these views areadmitted to have in them an element of truth, the importance ofthe older objection is diminished. It will therefore beunnecessary to dwell upon it. This new view is, that not only allbranches of the human race, but all living beings now existing, orthat have ever existed on the face of the earth, are descended bythe process of "evolution, " carried on under what are designatedas "natural laws" from some one variety, or small number ofvarieties of living creatures of the lowest type. 

This theory, like that of Laplace, had its origin among the FrenchAcademicians, at the close of the last century. Its author was LaMarck. According to his view the simplest form of animal life, the"monad, " was spontaneously developed by some unknown process. Fromthis monad higher forms of animal life were produced, and thecourse of development was continued till it finally culminated inman. But it does not appear that La Marck suggested any means bywhich the various stages of development were brought about, andthe view attracted little attention. Some thirty years ago it wasrevived by an anonymous writer, in a work called "Vestiges ofCreation. " In this work the idea of spontaneous generation wasrepudiated. The original monad was supposed to have derived itsexistence from an act of Creative Power, and to have been thenleft to work out its own development, by virtue of powersoriginally implanted in it. All its variations and advances weresupposed to be the result of the will and efforts of the creatureacting through many generations. Thus the desire and attempt towalk ended in the development of legs, while wings were the finalresult of its efforts to fly. It was felt, however, that this wasby no means a satisfactory account of the state of things, and sothe work, though it produced a great sensation at the time, hasnow been almost entirely forgotten. 

Latterly, however, the theory has found a far more able advocatein the person of Mr. Darwin, with whose name it has been popularlyidentified. By his indefatigable labours a vast variety of factshave been collected and skilfully arranged, to show that all thevarieties of life may be satisfactorily accounted for by thecontinued action, through a long course of ages, of certainnatural causes, with the results of which we are familiar, and ofwhich intentional use is continually made by man. Mr. Darwin doesnot deny the existence of a Creator, but the tendency of hisarguments is to prove that His interference was limited to thesingle act of original Creation; and that from the moment of itscreation the world has been a sort of automatic machine, producingits results without any interference from any higher power. 

The theory taken as a whole comes into contact with the MosaicRecord in three points:--

1. As it assumes the possibility that life may be self-originated. 

2. As it indicates a mode of procedure different from that givenby Moses. 

3. As it requires unlimited time. 

Of these the last is already disposed of, when the narrative isshown to be capable of an interpretation in accordance with it. The first requires only a brief notice; but the second must becarefully investigated, to separate ascertained truth frominferences which have no sufficient foundation. 

The theory of spontaneous generation rests almost entirely uponassumptions. Its only semblance of support from facts is derivedfrom certain experiments of a very unsatisfactory character, whichare said to have resulted in the production of some of the lowestforms of animal life. These experiments have been by no meansuniformly successful. One or two experimenters have thought thatthey have succeeded, but not uniformly, while the same process, repeated by men whose scientific and manipulative powers areuniversally recognized, has never once resulted in any seemingdevelopment of life. Even if, however, they had been uniformlysuccessful, there would have been great reason to doubt whetherthe apparent success was not really a failure--a failure in theprecautions necessary to exclude all germs of life from the matterexperimented upon. For the lower forms of life are excessivelyminute; and their germs--eggs, seeds, or spores--must be farsmaller. It is known that these are constantly floating in theatmosphere, though, owing to their extreme minuteness, the factcan only be ascertained by the most skilful investigation. And thelower forms of animalcules have a singular tenacity of life; theycan pass unharmed through processes which would be fatal tocreatures of higher organization. One variety is known to surviveentire desiccation; another lives upon strychnine; others bearwithout injury great extremes of heat and cold; and if this is thecase with the mature creatures, it is probable that the germpossesses still stronger powers of vitality. If one acarus canlive upon strychnine, then it is not impossible that mineral acidsshould be harmless to others; the germs might be carried throughsulphuric acid in air without coming into contact with the acid, as air would pass through in bubbles, in the centre of which theymight be suspended; or if like the diatomaceae, they were coatedwith silex, they might come into contact with it and resist itsaction. Thus one of the precautions commonly taken is not certainin its action, and the same might be shown to be true of theothers. The theory of spontaneous generation is, in fact, generally repudiated by Evolutionists, and cannot therefore betaken as a starting-point. 

We come then to the theory of Evolution with which Mr. Darwin'sname is associated. This theory asserts that all the varieties ofanimal life now existing on the earth, however widely they maydiffer from each other, are in reality derived from one, or a veryfew original types; and that in this general statement the humanrace is to be included. This theory rests upon the followingadmitted facts. 

1. There are not, as was at one time commonly supposed, broad anddistinct lines of demarcation between the different varieties ofanimals and plants. Our increasing knowledge of zoology hasbrought to light the fact that one species shades off into anotherby almost imperceptible gradations. As we go back in the fossilrecords of animal life in the past, we find that the species nowexisting, while they are closely allied to correspondent speciesof an earlier period, are scarcely ever identical with them, andthat the few cases of identity which do occur, are limited to themost recent rocks. Either then the old species must have perished, and new ones, similar but not identical, must have been created totake their places, or there must have been a process of gradualchange, by which the present species have been derived from theirpredecessors. In one or two cases fossils have been found whichcombine, to some extent, forms which are now found in distinctspecies, as if the process of variation had proceeded in distinctlines from a common source. 

2. No two animals of any class are exactly alike in all points. Each has its individual peculiarities, and in some cases thesepeculiarities are strongly marked. 

3. Man has been enabled, to a certain extent, to make use of theseindividual peculiarities, and by means of them to produce greatvarieties in the breeds of domesticated animals. This has beensometimes done unconsciously through a selection influenced byother motives, and then the process has been very slow; butlatterly intentionally, with a view to the production of improvedbreeds, and whenever this has been the case, changes ofconsiderable extent have been rapidly produced. By carefullyselecting the animals to be paired, any desired modification cangenerally be produced in the course of a few generations. This isexemplified in the numerous and increasing varieties of the breedsof almost all domestic animals and birds. 

The theory of Evolution then suggests that the same processeswhich are employed by the cattle-breeder have been in operationthrough untold ages. For the intention and care of the humanagent, Mr. Darwin substitutes two principles; one designated as"Natural Selection, " the other as "Sexual Selection. " For theirfull development he claims unlimited time. The ground on which theProcess of Natural Selection is maintained is as follows:--

It has been already noticed that no two individuals of the samekind are exactly alike in all respects; each individual has somepeculiarities, generally very trifling, but sufficient todistinguish it from all other individuals. Some of thesepeculiarities will probably be such as to be of some service tothe individual in the struggle of life; they will assist it inprocuring food, or in resisting or escaping from its naturalenemies, while on the other hand the peculiarities of otherindividuals will be prejudicial to them in these ways. Theconsequence will be that a larger proportion of those havingfavourable peculiarities will survive and propagate their kind;their offspring will inherit the peculiarities of their parents, and reproduce them in various degrees. The same process will thenbe repeated, and thus from generation to generation thepeculiarity will be increased, till at last it is sufficient tomark out, first a new variety, then a new species, and so on. Thisprocess then, continued through a long course of ages, was at onetime considered by Mr. Darwin sufficient to account for all thevarieties of living creatures now existing, or that have existedin past ages. But he has more recently satisfied himself[Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. I p. 152. ] that there are manyphenomena which are not satisfactorily accounted for by thisprinciple, since many of the specific differences of animals arefound to exist in matters which, cannot directly promote theirsuccess in the struggle of life. Such, for instance, are thebrilliant colours which are found, especially among the males, inmany species of birds. These he proposes to explain by thesupplementary theory of "Sexual Selection. " His suggestion is thatthese peculiarities are in some way attractive to animals of theopposite sex, so that the individuals in which they are moststrongly developed are more successful than others in obtainingmates, and that in this way the peculiarity is gradually fixed andincreased. 

By these two processes, then, Mr. Darwin supposes that all thedifferences now existing among animals have been produced andperpetuated; and not only that, but that man also is the result ofsimilar processes, acting through a very long period; that theprogeny of certain "anthropomorphous apes" have, by slow degrees, risen in the scale of being above their progenitors; that all ourfaculties, intellectual and moral as well as physical, differ fromthose possessed by lower animals in DEGREE only, and not in KIND, [Footnote: Descent of Man, chaps, ii. -v. ] so that man has arrivedat his present state by what may be termed purely naturalprocesses, without the intervention of any external power. 

In considering these theories, our attention must first bedirected to some defects which appear to weaken the whole courseof the argument; and then we may consider the peculiardifficulties in the way of the processes of natural and sexualselection; and the grounds for the belief that man is inpossession of something entirely different in KIND from anyfaculty or power possessed by any lower animals, which could nottherefore be derived by inheritance and improvement. 

The first thing which strikes us in Mr. Darwin's works is that, from time to time, he betrays a sort of latent consciousness thathis theory is insufficient; that the processes to which heascribes such vast results are not quite adequate to the purpose, but that they need in some way to be supplemented. Every now andthen recourse is had to some law--some unknown cause--which mustco-operate in the production of the results he is considering. Inspite of the apparent care which he has taken to guard against it, he is continually betrayed into a confusion between the two sensesin which the word "law" is employed. In its proper significance, law is an expression of the will of an intelligent superior, enforced by adequate power. In this sense the law may beconsidered as an efficient cause. The combination of will andpower is an adequate cause for any result whatever. But Mr. Darwinexpressly excludes this sense of the word, in a sentence whichseems to involve a self-contradiction. "I mean by nature only theaggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by law onlythe ascertained sequence of events. " [Footnote: Plants and Animalsunder Domestication, vol. I. P. 6. ] Law, in this sense, then, issimply the statement of observed facts, and as such can have noaction at all. It asserts that certain phenomena do uniformlyfollow each other in an ascertained order; but it gives us noinformation whatever as to the cause of those events, or thereason why they do thus succeed each other. But, taking law inthis last sense, by his own definition, Mr. Darwin does, nevertheless, continually bring forward certain "laws" asaccounting for certain results. Thus, we have the laws of"Correlation of Growth, " [Footnote: Origin of Species, ed. 1872, p. 114. ] "Inheritance limited to Males, " [Footnote: Descent ofMan, vol. I. Pp. 256, 257. ] and a "Principle of Compensation. "[Footnote: Origin of Species, p. 117. ] When Mr. Darwin, therefore, brings forward these laws as efficient causes, he not only tacitlyadmits the inadequacy of his theory to account for the phenomenain question, but he also endeavours to supply the defect byanother cause, which, by his own definition, is no cause at all. And further, Mr. Darwin calls in the action of "unknown agencies. "[Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. I. P. 154. ]

But it may be said, "Is not this the case with all sciences, atleast in their earlier stages? Are there not frequently, oralways, many phenomena which at first seem inexplicable, but whichare gradually accounted for as knowledge increases? If, then, thisis no objection in scientific pursuits generally, why should it beso here?" This reasoning would be perfectly valid if Darwinismwere regarded simply as a scientific investigation. But it isunder consideration now on very different rounds. Whatever Mr. Darwin's own views may be, the theory is brought forward byothers, not as a mere interesting speculation, but as antagonisticto a record whose authority is attested by evidence of the veryhighest class. It claims to discredit that record, and to bereceived as a substitute for it. But that record, however it maybe interpreted, does give us adequate causes for all that itprofesses to account for, in the will and operation of an AlmightyCreator. The theory, therefore, which professes to supplant it, must at least stand upon an equal ground--it must give anadequate account of everything. There must be no unverified laws. To fall back upon such laws is in reality to fall back on theworking of that very power whose operation is formally denied. [Footnote: See Foster's Essays, Essay i. Letter 5. ]

The next point to be noticed is a great confusion betweenassumptions and proved facts. This is especially prominent in thatpart of his last work which is devoted to sexual selection. Thus, in one case it is taken for granted, that various characteristicsof the males "serve only to allure or excite the female. "[Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. I. P. 258. ] "Hence" (becausebrilliant colours of insects have probably not been acquired FORTHE PURPOSE of protection), "I am led to suppose that the femalesgenerally prefer, or are most excited by the more brilliantmales. " [Footnote: Ibid. P. 399. ] "Nevertheless, when we see manymales pursuing the same female, we can hardly believe that thepairing is left to blind chance; that the female exerts no choice, and is not influenced by the gorgeous colours, or other ornamentswith which the male alone is decorated" [Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. I p. 421. ] Such sentences are of continual occurrence, and doduty in the argument as if they expressed ascertained facts. Andnot only this, but in the very part of the work which is devotedto establishing the adequacy of sexual selection to producecertain effects, that adequacy is assumed from the very beginning. Thus, we read, "That these characters are the result of sexualselection is clear, " [Footnote: Ibid. P. 258. ] before we have gotsix pages into an argument which occupies a volume and a half. This is surely a strong instance of what is commonly called"begging the question. " Another instance of confusion of ideas isto be found in the assumption of design which occasionally occurs. Thus, we read, "In some other remarkable cases beauty has beengained for the sake of protection, through the imitation of otherbeautiful species. " [Footnote: Ibid. P. 393. ] "From theseconsiderations Mr. Bates inferred, that the butterflies whichimitate the protected species, had acquired their presentmarvellously deceptive appearance through variation and naturalselection, in order to be mistaken for the protected kinds. "[Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. I. P. 411. ] In these cases thereis an assumption of purpose and design, which, necessarily impliesa designer, just as law, treated as an efficient cause, implies alaw-giver. It may indeed be that this is only an inaccurate way ofexpressing something else; but then, such modes of expression areusually the result of a want of clear perception of the ideas tobe expressed; and, in this case, such expressions must diminishthe weight to be assigned to Mr. Darwin's judgment. 

We come now to the consideration of the first of Mr. Darwin'ssupposed agencies--"Natural Selection, " or, "Survival of thefittest. " The results produced by this process must be ascribed toone of two causes: either they are the work of a SuperintendingProvidence, watching over and directing every separate detail; orthey are the result of pure chance and accident. There is nothingintermediate between these two causes. Natural law--apart fromdesign and a designer--is, as we have seen, a nonentity--a mereexpression of observed facts, for which it can give no accountwhatever. Mr. Darwin's argument is expressly directed to excludethe interference of a superintending Providence. Chance is theonly cause which he can bring forward. The very first question, then, which arises is, What is there upon which chance mayoperate? What are the conditions from which the probabilities maybe calculated? Mr. Darwin assumes, and no doubt correctly, thatminute variations are continually taking place. But as thesevariations are the result of accident [Footnote: If they are notthe result of accident, we again see design and need a designer. ]they will take place in various directions; some of them will havea beneficial, some of them a noxious tendency. As, moreover, theyare supposed to be very small at each step, the difference ofadvantage in the case of different individuals must be also verysmall, and will not be likely to produce any considerabledifference in the chances of pairing. But in order that anyvariation may be perpetuated and increased, the pairing ofsimilarly affected individuals is necessary. Parents, in which thevariations took opposite directions, would probably have offspringof the normal type, the opposite variations neutralizing eachother. And this must be repeated again and again; and with everyrepetition of the process required, the probabilities against itwould rapidly increase. Thus, supposing that in the firstgeneration the proportion of favourable conditions were such, thatof those animals that paired there were four of each sex that hadthem to three that wanted them, the chances that any given pairwere alike in possessing them would be represented by the product4/7 x 4/7, or 16/49. Hence, the chances would be rather more thantwo to one against it. In the next generation it would be256/2401, or more than eight to one, and so on. [Footnote: This isgiven merely as an illustration of the nature of the calculation. In any actual case the conditions would be infinitely morecomplex, but the calculation, if it could be made at all, must bemade on this principle. ]

But next, we have not to do with one series of changes only, butwith a vast number of different series going on in differentdirections, if we are to have a large variety of animals producedfrom a common stock. All the probabilities against the separatevariations must be combined, not by addition, but bymultiplication, so that the probabilities against the productionof all these separate forms become enormous. 

Against all this improbability Mr. Darwin brings forward thesupposed advantages which these variations give to theirpossessors. But here again a new element is introduced into thecalculation. It is assumed, in the very statement of the question, that the process of adaptation has already taken place; theoriginal stock must have been adapted to the circumstances underwhich they existed, or in their case the whole theory fails. If, then, a fresh adaptation is wanted, it must be because a change inexternal circumstances must have taken place. In order that a newvariety may be established there must be a concurrence between thechange of external circumstances and the change in the animals. Here we get a new, and a large factor for our multiplication. 

This argument may be, perhaps, made clearer by an illustration. Mr. Darwin has written a very interesting book on thefertilization of orchids by means of insects. According to hisview all insects are descended from one common type, and allorchids are also descended from one parent; but we meet withinsects and orchids in pairs, each perfectly adapted to the other. We will suppose that a change takes place in a particular orchid, that the nectary recedes to a greater distance from the point towhich the insect can penetrate, and so an advantage is given tothose insects in which the haustellum is of a length above theaverage. This may have a slight tendency to increase the number ofsuch insects; but then it will have an opposite tendency in thecase of the orchid. It cannot, of course, be supposed that thevariation, which is only partial in the insect, is universal inthe plant. The unchanged insects will therefore be confined to theunchanged flowers, while the changed insects will be indifferenton the subject, as they will be able to reach the nectary in anycase. Hence, an advantage will be given to the unchanged flower, which will be more likely to be fertilized, and the two lines ofvariation will move in opposite directions. 

But next, the variation in the insects and the flowers must takeplace at the same time and the same place, or no result willfollow to the insect, while the new variety of orchid must perishfor want of an insect to fertilize it. It is this which makes thesupposition of unlimited time almost useless, because just inproportion as the time is increased the probability of twoindependent events happening simultaneously is diminished. 

But even supposing this difficulty out of the way, we meet with animmediate repetition of it. The insect derives an advantage fromits increased haustellum, but what advantage does the plant derivefrom its retiring nectary? How does that help it in the "struggleof life?" But if it produces no beneficial result, the variationaccording to the theory must drop. Hence we should arrive at aninsect suited for a new form of the flower, but no flower suitedto the new form of the insect. 

If, then, we reject the idea of superintendence and design, wehave on the one hand an enormous antecedent improbability, whileon the other hand we have only a very small power by which adirection may be given to the course of events, since by thehypothesis in any one generation the change, and consequently thesuperior advantage, is exceedingly small, and there is a strongtendency in related changes, as in the case of the orchid andinsect, to move in opposite directions. 

But next, in the varieties of animals with which we areacquainted, there is a certain connexion between the differencesof independent organs, for which this theory does not help us toaccount. Thus, for instance, according to this theory the canineand the feline races are descended from a common ancestor. Butthere are several points of difference between a cat and a dog. There are the differences in the form of jaws, in the dentition;in the muscles by which the jaws are moved, and in the feet andclaws. All animals of the cat tribe agree in all these respects, so do all animals of the dog tribe. We never find a cat's headcombined with the feet of a dog. Why is this? Mr. Darwin attemptsto account for it by his supposed law of "correlation of growth, "but, as has been already shown, any such law, being by Mr. Darwin's definition the observed sequence of events and nothingmore, is utterly useless, when it is brought forward as a causefor those events. On this point the theory completely breaks down. 

3. The theory does not account for any changes which are notimmediately beneficial. [Footnote: In the "Origin of Species" (Ed. 1872) Mr. Darwin makes an admission which is virtually a giving-upof his whole theory. He says, "In many other cases modificationsare probably the direct result of the laws of variation or ofgrowth, independently of any good having been thus gained; buteven such structures have often, as we may feel assured, beensubsequently taken advantage of, " pp. 165, 166. Here, then, wehave a preparation for future circumstances, which surely impliesdesign. ] If any rudimentary advance is made in the organism, if, for instance, the rudiments of a new bone, or joint, or organ ofsense are developed, the nascent organ must, according to thehypothesis of minute changes, be useless in the first instance. Hence it would confer no advantage in the struggle of life; therewould be no tendency towards its preservation and growth. Thisbecomes a very important consideration, when certain importantdifferences in animal structure and habits are to be accountedfor. How, for instance, could the mammary glands be developed inoviparous creatures? Mr. Darwin regards them as originating incutaneous glands, developed in the pouch of the marsupials. Buthis grounds for this statement are very meagre. To a great extentthey rest on what an American Naturalist "believes he has seen;"and besides, the ornithorhyncus, which has no pouch, and which islower in the scale of life than the marsupials, by Mr. Darwin'sown admission (O. S. , p. 190), possesses the glands. Mr. Mivart'squestion (Darwin, O. S. , p. 189) is a very pertinent one. 

Another point which this view fails to explain, is thedetermination of the line of development in particular directionsat different periods. At one time it is most marked in fishes, atanother in reptiles, at another in mammals. How is this to beaccounted for?

4. The experience of cattle-breeders does not warrant theassumption that the principle of natural selection has more than alimited operation. No case has as yet been brought forward inwhich varieties have been produced which were not capable ofinterbreeding. Apart from their experience there is not a particleof evidence in favour of the assertion that races which cannot bemade to breed together can be descended from a common stock. Theunlimited application of this principle is therefore a pureassumption. 

5. To this must be added the circumstance that no authenticatedinstance of variation by natural selection can be brought forward. It is true that this is not a very important argument, because ourknowledge of those classes of animals in which natural selectioncould act is even now very incomplete; and our knowledge of theirpast history is still more limited, so that we are not in acondition to prove a negative. But in such a case as this the onusof proof should surely lie on the other side. It is for those whowould assert the theory to bring forward positive proof of it. There is, however, one point in Mr. Darwin's view of domesticatedanimals which tells against his theory. The cat remains unchanged, because from its vagrant habits man has no control over itspairing [Footnote: Darwin's "Animals and Plants, " vol. Ii. P. 236. ]. Now considering the variety of conditions under which catsexist, here is surely a great opening for natural selection. Butit has produced no results. 

We come now to the theory of Sexual Selection, which is to accountfor those peculiarities and distinctions which can have nobeneficial effect in the struggle of life, and which are accountedfor on the supposition that they render their possessors moreagreeable to the opposite sex, and so facilitate pairing, so thatthose animals which possess them in a remarkable degree would havethe greatest chance of continuing their race. The case on whichMr. Darwin mainly rests his argument is that of birds, in whichthe males are frequently distinguished by exquisite colours andvery graceful markings, and in which also the proceedings of thesexes can, in many cases, be more easily watched. 

It is in maintaining this theory that Mr. Darwin has such frequentrecourse to what may be called the "argumentum ad ignorantiam. ""If such and such organs or ornaments were not designed for thisor that particular object, then we do not know of what use theyare. " [Footnote: For instance, Descent of Man, vol. Ii. Pp. 284. 399. ] This maybe very true, but it proves nothing, unless weassume that we are or ought to be acquainted with, the use andobject of everything in nature. And it involves another and a verywide question. There are certain tastes which seem to be inherentin our nature, and there are certain external objects which affordgratification to those tastes. Must we view this coincidence asmerely accidental? or is it a part of the design of the world thatit should minister not only to our needs, but also to ourenjoyments? Mr. Darwin does not reject the idea of an Author andDesigner of Nature, is he then prepared to assert that beauty didnot form a part of the design as well as utility? [Footnote: Inthe "Origin of Species, " p 159, Mr. Darwin does seem to assertthis; but he says in conclusion, "How the sense of beauty in itssimplest form--that is, the reception of a peculiar kind ofpleasure from certain colours, forms, and sounds--was firstdeveloped in the mind of man and of the lower animals is a veryobscure subject, " p. 162. To Mr. Darwin, with his present views, it may well be obscure; but it presents no obscurity at all tothose who believe that the universe in all its details wasdesigned, and its formation superintended, by a loving Father, whose will was that it should not only supply the needs, but alsominister to the enjoyment of all His creatures, nor to those whoin every form of beauty, physical, intellectual, or moral, beholda far-off reflexion of the glory of the Invisible Creator. ] If heis not prepared to assert this, he must admit the possibility thatmany things exist whose sole object is to minister to that senseof beauty which is probably possessed by other beings besidesourselves. 

Mr. Darwin admits that many other causes, beside the supposedpreference on the part of one sex for certain material adornmentspossessed by the other, influence the pairing of animals. In avery large number of cases the female is quite passive in thematter. The question is decided by a battle between the males, andthe female seems, as a matter of course, to become the mate of theconqueror. In many other cases pairing seems to be the result ofaccident; the two sexes pair as they happen to meet each other. The great points on which Mr. Darwin rests his argument are thatin some cases, on the approach of breeding-time, certainornamental appendages become more highly developed or morebrilliantly coloured, [Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. Ii. P. 80. ]and that in many cases the males, when courting the females, areobserved to display their ornaments before them. [Footnote: Ibid. Vol. Ii. P. 86, et seq. ] but then there are other facts, which Mr. Darwin. Also notices, which detract more than he seems willing toallow, from the relevancy of these facts. The development ofornaments at breeding-time sometimes takes place in both sexes, indicating some latent connexion with the reproductive organs;thus the comb of the domestic hen becomes a bright red, as well asthat of the cock. It would appear then that the object of thechange is not to render the cock more attractive to the hens, forhow could it serve the hens (if the choice lies with them) to bemade more attractive to the cocks? Then again an old hen who ispast laying, often assumes, to a considerable extent, the plumageof the cock. When these ornaments are the exclusive possession ofthe male, they are often displayed for other purposes than thegratification of the female. The possessors seem to be consciousof their beauty, and to take a pleasure in displaying it to anyspectators. 

Very great beauty and brilliancy of colour is often found in casesin which it can have nothing whatever to do with the relationbetween the sexes. Thus, a vast number of caterpillars areremarkable for their beauty; but in their immature state it canhave no relation to sexual selection; and if it may, or rathermust, have a different object in one case, what ground have we forassuming that it may not have a different object in the other?

Again, we are not in a position to form any opinion as to thecauses which really influence the pairing of animals when choiceis exercised. We have no certain knowledge upon the importantquestion whether the ideal of beauty, if possessed by the loweranimals at all, is in all, or even in many cases, in accordancewith our own. We, for instance, admire a male humming-bird; whatcertainty have we that he is equally beautiful in the eyes of hismate? In cases where we have reason to believe that deliberateselection has taken place, we do not know that that selection wasinfluenced by only one condition--that of beauty. There may havebeen a thousand causes at work of which we know nothing. Mr. Darwin brings forward an instance in which the owner of a numberof peahens wished them to breed with a peacock of a particularvariety, while they showed a deliberate preference for anotherbird; and he supposes that their preference was decided by theplumage. But there might have been another cause--at least thecircumstances as related by him seem to suggest it--which wouldgive a very different turn to the affair. The favoured peacock, spoken of as "old, " [Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. Ii. P. 119. ]was probably an old friend of the hens, while his unsuccessfulrival seems to have been a new introduction. The preference shownby the hens would in this case be fully accounted for, withoutsupposing them to have exhibited any choice in the matter ofplumage. 

Then there are a vast number of peculiarities which are certainlynot ornamental in our eyes, but which are confined to the malesex. They are, so far as we can tell, of no service whatever inthe struggle of life. With reference to these Mr. Darwin'sargument seems to be this, --"They can serve no other purpose withwhich we are acquainted, therefore they must be attractive to thefemale--therefore they must be acquired by sexual selection. " Sucharguments as these cannot carry much weight. [Footnote: Descent ofMan, vol ii p 284. ]

On the whole, we can hardly come to any other conclusion than thatthe theory of sexual selection is not proved. In many cases it isknown that such selection is not the result of choice; in othercases, where choice seems probable, we have no ground forbelieving that external appearance is the sole ground of thatchoice. It may exercise some influence, but that is all. Even ifadmitted, there are many things which cannot be accounted for byit without very extravagant assumptions. It cannot then beadmitted as covering the large classes of phenomena leftunaccounted for by the theory of natural selection. 

So far as the lower animals are concerned, the results to which anexamination of Mr. Darwin's views has led us may be summed up inthe following propositions:--

1. That the two causes, natural and sexual selection, haveprobably exercised some influence in the modification of animalforms; but that the laws of probability preclude our entertainingthe belief that these causes can have had, by themselves, andapart from a superintending power, anything beyond a very limitedoperation. 

2. That in cases where there have been related changes indifferent parts of the same organism, or in different organisms, the inadequacy of these two causes is virtually admitted by theintroduction of certain supposed laws; and that these laws, beingdefined by Mr. Darwin to be no more than "the ascertained sequenceof events, " cannot be regarded as efficient causes, and so cannotsupply the defect. 

3. That there are particular points in the chain of life, in whichthe transition from one form to another is so great, and soincapable of graduation, that it is impossible to suppose thatthese two causes can have been adequate to produce it. Of this anotable instance is to be found in the transition from oviparousanimals to the mammalia. 

We come now to the consideration of the origin of man, which Mr. Darwin, in his last work, ascribes also to natural and sexualselection. His view is, that man is descended from some family ofanthropomorphous apes, and that all those enormous differenceswhich, as he admits, exist between the highest ape and the mostdegraded member of the human race, are differences of degree only, and not of kind; that all our intellectual wealth, and all ourmoral laws, are simply the development of faculties and ideaswhich were possessed in a ruder form by the creatures from whomman is descended. 

So far as man's physical constitution is concerned, there isundoubtedly something to be said in favour of this view. For man'sbodily frame is composed of the same elements, and moulded uponthe same general plan as that of the higher apes, and, what isstill more remarkable, it retains, in a rudimentary form, certainmuscles and organs which are fully developed and answer importantpurposes in many of the quadrumana. Of these the tail is aremarkable instance. But when the differences between the physicalpeculiarities of man, and those of his supposed progenitors areexamined, the theory of natural selection collapses entirely, forthe development has taken the form which would be mostdisadvantageous in the struggle of life. This is very clearly putby the Duke of Argyll. [Footnote: "Recent Speculations on PrimevalMan, " in Good Words, April, 1868. ]

"The unclothed and unprotected condition of the human body, itscomparative slowness of foot; the absence of teeth adapted forprehension or for defence; the same want of power for similarpurposes in the hands and fingers; the bluntness of the sense ofsmell, so as to render it useless for the detection of prey whichis concealed;--all these are features which stand in fixed andharmonious relation to the mental powers of man. But, apart fromthese, they would place him at an immense disadvantage in thestruggle for existence. This, therefore, is not the direction inwhich the blind forces of selection could ever work . . . . Man musthave had human proportions of mind before he could afford to losebestial proportions of body. "

But it is in the intellectual and spiritual part of man's naturethat the greatest difficulty in the way of the application ofthese theories arises. The strongest argument of all against themis one which is incapable of proof, since it arises not from factsaround us, but from our own self-consciousness--our realization ofour own powers--and so, to each individual man it must vary inapparent strength, in proportion as he realizes what he is, andwhat it is in his power to become. The very outcry that has beenraised against Mr. Darwin's proposition is a proof of this. Thetheory of the descent of man, as he propounds it, was felt to bean outrage upon the universal instincts of humanity. But, becausethis objection rests upon such a foundation, it is incapable ofbeing duly weighed and investigated as an argument, and we proceedtherefore to such considerations as are within our reach. 

First of all it is desirable to dispose of one of the stockarguments in favour of the theory. That argument is, that thedifference between the lowest type of savage and the highest typeof civilized man--between a Fuegian or an Australian on the onehand, and a Newton, a Shakspeare, or a Humboldt, on the other, --isquite as great as that between the higher forms of ape and thelowest forms of humanity. But in this argument there is a fatalconfusion of ideas. The capacity for acquisition is confoundedwith the opportunity for acquisition. That the savage is inpossession of but very few ideas does not prove that he isincapable of more; it may equally well arise from the fact that hehad had no opportunity of acquiring more. The only way to test thequestion is by putting a savagoe from his earliest infancy, underthe same favourable circumstances as the child of civilisation. Whenever this experiment has been tried, and our missionaries havehad many opportunities of trying it, the difference has either notappeared at all, or has proved to be very trifling. Mr. Darwinhimself seems to have been very much surprised at what he saw insome natives of Terra del Fuego, who were for a time hiscompanions on board the "Beagle. " "The Fuegians rank amongst thelowest barbarians, but I was continually struck with surprise howclosely the three natives on board H. M. S. 'Beagle, ' who had livedsome years in England, and could talk a little English, resembledus in disposition, and in most of our mental faculties. "[Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. I. P 34] And these Fuegians hadnot been educated from their infancy, they had only come toEngland later in life, and were thus under an incalculabledisadvantage. Had they been heirs to such an intellectualinheritance as fell to the lot of Mr. Darwin, there is nothingextravagant in the supposition that they might have provedthemselves equal to him in the ability to make use of it. Thecomparison then proves to be quite illusory; but it draws ourattention to a fact which is of very high importance in ourinvestigation of the difference between man and all other animals. Man alone seems to be capable of laying up what may be termed anexternal store of intellectual wealth. Other animals in the stateof nature make, so far as we know, no intellectual advances. Thebee constructs its cell, the bird builds its nest precisely as itsprogenitors did in the earliest dawn of history. There is apossibility that some advance, though a very small one, may bemade by animals brought under the control of man. It is said, forinstance, that a young pointer dog will sometimes point at gamewithout any training. But in this case the acquired knowledge iscongenital, and is therefore to be regarded as a developmentbrought about by superintended selection. But with man none of theacquired knowledge is innate. It is a treasure entirely externalto himself until he has appropriated it by study of some kind orother. There is no reason to believe that any advance inintellectual power has been made by man, in his collectivecapacity, since his first appearance on earth. Various individualshave varying powers, but these differences are no result ofdevelopment, since they may often be found among members of thesame family, who have been subjected to the same discipline, andenjoyed the same educational advantages. It follows that the gulfbetween the ape and the lowest type of humanity is almost if notquite as great as between the ape and the highest type. The savagedoes not in any way help to bridge over that gulf. 

But it is said that the moral and intellectual faculties which manpossesses, and which he looks upon as the great badge of hissuperiority, are in truth only different in degree and not in kindfrom those possessed by the lower animals. But the grounds onwhich this assertion is based are wonderful in their tenuity. Dogsare possessed of self-consciousness because they sometimes emitsounds in their sleep from which it is concluded that they dream. [Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. I. P. 62. ] "Can we feel sure thatan old dog, with an excellent memory, and some power ofimagination, as shown by his dreams, never reflects on his pastpleasures in the chace? And this would be a form of self-consciousness. " Our duty to our neighbour is entirely the resultof "social instinct, " [Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. I. Pp. 70-106. ] and our duty to our God the development of a belief whichhas its origin in dreams. [Footnote: Ibid, p. 66. ]

It is impossible for us satisfactorily to meet these assertionswith a direct negative, [Footnote: There are some who think thatthis statement may be directly refuted. Their views will be foundin the QUARTERLY REVEIW, July, 1871. ] for this simple reason, thatwe have no means whatever of knowing what ideas are present in theminds of the lower animals, or even what communications passbetween them. For anything we can tell to the contrary, the barkof a dog may be as articulate to his fellow-dogs as our speech isto our fellow-men, while on the other hand to the dog our speechmay be as inarticulate as his bark is to us. But our totalignorance of the mental state of animals which have been thecompanions of man from the very earliest ages, our utter inabilityto hold any conversation with them, is in itself a proof of thewide gulf that separates them from us. Put two men of the mostwidely separated races on a desert isle together, and a verylittle time will elapse before they are able to hold somecommunication with each other. If then the difference between manand the lower animals were a difference of the same kind as thatbetween the civilized man and the savage, though greater indegree, surely in so many thousand years something might have beendone to open a way for intellectual communication; somedevelopment of the faculties of the lower creatures would havebeen perceived, some means of interchanging ideas would have beendiscovered. If Mr. Darwin had had for his companions on board the"Beagle, " instead of three Fuegians, as many Gorillas orChimpanzees, would he, at the end of the voyage, have been able toreport any approximation, at all to European mentalcharacteristics, or even to those of the lowest savage? But if thedifference be only one of degree, some approximation ought to havetaken place. 

As then we can have no direct knowledge of the moral andintellectual powers of animals, we can only judge of them fromtheir actions, and other external signs. One great mark ofdifference has already been noticed. Man has, other animals havenot, the power of laying up an external treasure of intellectualacquirements. Then there are certain arts which seem to beindispensable to man in his lowest state--no savage is so low thathe is utterly destitute of them--no animal makes any pretence tothem. Such are the designing, construction, and use of tools. Mr. Darwin asserts that in certain cases--very rare ones--apes havebeen known to use stones to break open nuts; but the mere use of astone is a very different thing from the conception and deliberateformation of a tool, however rude. Then there is the kindling offire, and the use of it for the purpose of cooking; and lastly, the preparation and the wearing of clothes. The tools or theclothes may be of the rudest kind, the tools may be formed from aflint, and the clothes from bark or skin, but in the preparationof each there are signs of intellectual power, of which we find noindications whatever in the lower animals. 

Another important difference between man and all other animalslies in the fact, that whatever an animal does it does perfectlyfrom the first, but it makes no improvements. A bird's first nestis perfect. With man the case is the reverse, it is only by manytrials, many failures, that he attains to skill in any operation, but then he goes forward. Arts improve from generation togeneration. This seems to show that the faculties of man differfrom those of animals in kind, and not in degree only. 

The question also arises, if man has been produced from ananthropomorphous ape by a process of natural development, how isit that the same process has not gone on in other lines? The dog, the horse, and the elephant are at least equal in intelligence andsagacity to the highest known apes. Such a development from themcannot have proceeded through the line of the apes. If thesedifferent orders are at all connected it must be through someremote common ancestor. Why then has this development come to anabrupt termination in some cases and not in all? It may indeed besaid that the dog and the horse are indebted for theirintelligence to the inherited results of long intercourse withman, but this cannot be the case with the elephant, which is neverknown to breed in captivity. Nor is there any reason to believethat the present intelligence of the elephant is recentlydeveloped. Why then has it been arrested in its course?

Whether or not we assume the theory of development to be wholly orpartially correct in reference to the lower animals, we must admitthat it is true of man, but in a sense totally different from thatwhich Mr. Darwin suggests. The development of which he is theadvocate is a development of race, in which the advance made byeach individual generation is exceedingly small, while thedifference in remote generations, the accumulated advance ofsuccessive generations, is great. In man, on the contrary, thereis no reason whatever to believe that there has been any advanceat all in the race from the very earliest periods--that either inphysical power or intellectual ability the present generation ofmen, taken as a whole, are in any way superior to their mostremote ancestors. The development of which man is especiallycapable is the development of the individual, that developmentbeing not physical, but intellectual and moral, and being in agreat degree dependent on the will and perseverance of theindividual, and very little on external circumstances. The resultof these individual developments has been the accumulation of avast fund of wealth, useful arts, sciences, literature, which formthe common possession of the whole race, but do not necessarilyimply the slightest advance in any particular individual--thatadvance being dependent, not on the possession of those treasures, but on the use made of them. In the case of man then developmentdoes certainly exist, but it takes a line totally distinct fromthat which Mr. Darwin advocates, and thus forms another broad lineof demarcation between man and the most advanced of the loweranimals. 

It appears then that the faculties of man differ generically fromthose of the animals. A new order of things seems to havecommenced with the appearance of man on the earth--an order inwhich the highest place was to be maintained by intellectualinstead of physical power. No mere process of evolution then willaccount for man's origin. His physical nature may have been formedin that way; but we cannot believe that his intellectual and moralnature were developed from any lower creatures. Only some specialCreative interference can account for his existence. 

So far then as it tends to negative the continued operation of theCreator, the theory of evolution is untenable. Like that ofLaplace, it fails to give an adequate cause for existingphenomena. But it seems probable, as will be seen in the nextchapter, that both theories have in them much of truth. Theycannot point out the cause of the universe, but they may give us amore or less accurate view of the manner in which that causeoperated. The facts brought forward by geologists have been shownnot to be incompatible with interpretations which the MosaicRecord readily admits, though they conflict with existing notionsupon certain points. In no one then of the three sciences whichhave been supposed to be specially antagonistic to that record, isthere anything to be found which can be maintained as a reasonableground for doubting that that record is, what it has always beenheld to be by the Church, a direct Revelation from the Creator. 

CHAPTER V. 

SCIENCE A HELP TO INTERPRETATION. 

It is now clear that there is nothing in the Mosaic Record itself, which is contradicted by any scientific discovery, and that allthe alleged difficulties arise either from interpretationsprematurely adopted, or from theories which, when carefullyexamined, are found to be defective, but which may neverthelesscontain in them a large element of truth. But if scientificdiscoveries are available for the refutation of erroneousinterpretations, the probability is that when rightly understoodthey will help us to arrive at the true meaning, since the Worksof God are, beyond all other things, likely to throw light on thatportion of His Word in which those Works are described. Nor arethe theories to be passed over--the greater the amount of truthwhich they embody the greater will be the likelihood that theywill receive help from, as well as throw light upon, such arecord; and thus we shall have additional evidence that the Word, the Work, and the Intellect, which has scrutinized and interpretedthe Work, are all derived from the same source. We proceed, therefore, to inquire whether these facts and theories do in anyway elucidate the concise statements of Scripture, so that we maybe enabled to arrive at a somewhat clearer idea of the meaning ofthis most ancient document, and be enabled to entertain somewhatmore distinct views of the manner in which the Divine Architectsaw fit to accomplish His Work. 

In pursuing this investigation two points must be carefully keptin mind; the first is the distinction between theory andconjecture on the one hand, and well ascertained facts on theother. We shall have much to do with theory, and with conjecturalinterpretations of observed facts. These can never stand on thesame footing as the facts themselves, but can only be regarded asinvested with greater or less probability. If it is found thatthese theories do explain many observed facts, that they harmonizewith, and as it were dovetail into any proposed interpretation ofwhich the words of Moses are capable; and still more if thatinterpretation actually completes the defective points of thetheories, and supplies an adequate cause for facts hithertoinexplicable--then the presumption is a very strong one that theinterpretation thus supported is at all events an approximation tothe true one. 

The second point to be carefully kept in mind is the veryimperfect state of scientific knowledge even at the present time. As far as the matter in hand is concerned, the facts which areascertained beyond all possibility of doubt, are very few. Newmeans of investigation have very recently been discovered, and asa consequence new sources of information have been pointed out, new fields of research have been laid open. Twenty years ago thespectroscope was a thing undreamt of--now astronomers reckon it asof equal value with the telescope, while chemists find itindispensable to their researches. Who shall say that the nexttwenty years may not witness some invention of equal importance, which shall throw upon us a fresh flood of light from someunexpected quarter? If then the principle which has hitherto beenmaintained is correct, that all our difficulties arise frominterpretations based upon insufficient knowledge, but maintainedas if of equal authority with the record itself, there is a greatdanger lest after a time the same difficulty should recur--thatthe discovery of fresh facts may discredit interpretations basedupon our present knowledge. Any interpretation therefore to whichwe may be led by the scientific views at present entertained, mustbe regarded as only provisional and tentative, liable at any timeto be either confirmed, amended, or rejected, as fresh discoveriesmay be made. 

Before we enter upon a detailed examination of the records of theseveral days, there are two preliminary points to which attentionmust be directed. We shall have to make frequent reference to"law. " It will be well that the sense in which the term is usedshould be made clear. The account of the First Day's Work willlead to the recent theory of the Correlation of Forces. As this isprobably a new subject to many, some previous explanation of itwill be necessary. 

SECTION 1. OF LAW. [Footnote: This subject is fully treated in theDuke of Argyll's "Reign of Law. "]

Law, in its original and proper sense, is the expression to aninferior of the will of a superior, which the inferior has it inhis power to obey or to resist, but resistance to which entails apenalty more or less severe, in proportion to the moral turpitude, or the injurious consequences of the act of disobedience. In thisits strict sense the law can only exist in connection with beingspossessed of reason to understand it, of power to obey it, and offree will to determine whether they will obey it or not. Whenthese three conditions are absent law can have no existence. Butthe result of perfect law, perfectly obeyed, would be perfectorder. Hence the observation of perfect order leads, by a reversedprocess, to the supposition of some law of which that order is theresult. Hence arose in the first instance the term "natural laws, "or "laws of nature. " Events were found to follow each other in auniform way, and this uniformity was thus sought to be accountedfor. Probably in the minds of those by whom the word was thusapplied in the first instance Nature was not the mere abstractionit is now, but an unseen power--Deity or subordinate to Deity--working consciously and with design. 

[Footnote: Mr. Darwin, especially in the "Origin of Species, "seems continually to betray the existence of this feeling in hisown mind. Though he from time to time reminds us that by Nature hemeans nothing but the aggregate of sequences of events, or laws, he yet frequently speaks of Nature in a way which is applicableonly to an intelligent worker. ]

But this feeling has disappeared, and now we are told that naturallaw is "the observed sequence of events. " In this case, then, thetrue meaning of the word is entirely lost--it is no longerpossible to speak of law as the cause of any event. 

But the old sense in which the word was applied to naturalphenomena had in it far more of truth than the modern one. It wasthe imperfect expression of the great truth that God is a God oforder--that there is a uniform procedure in His works, because inHim there is no change, no caprice. And it is of great importanceto us that we should realize this truth, because we are dependentupon the laws of nature every moment of our lives. Every consciousact is performed under the conviction that the natural forceswhich that act calls forth will operate in a certain prescribedmanner. But this conviction, though it restricts us to the limitsof the possible, does not further impede the freedom of our will. To a certain extent we can choose what action we will perform, what forces we will call forth for that purpose, and whatdirection we will give them. Sometimes we can arrange our forcesso that they will continue to act for a considerable time withoutany intervention from us; in other cases continued interference isnecessary. But in all these cases there is no interruption of thelaw by which the working of these forces is regulated. We havethen a limited control over these forces, and yet they areunchangeable in themselves, and in their mode of action. 

When, however, we strive to ascend from our own works to those ofGod, we can no longer regard these forces as absolutelyunchangeable. If they are practically so, it is because it is HisWill that they should be so. It is this Will then which has itsexpression in the so-called laws of nature. The term now assumes asense akin to, though not identical with, its original ethicalsense. It is no longer a rule imposed by a superior on aninferior, but the rule by which the Supreme Being sees fit toorder His own Work. While however we admit the possibility of lawof this kind being changed, we have no reason to believe that inthe universe with which we have to do any such change has evertaken place. But this does not preclude the possibility of Divineinterference in the processes either of Creation or of Providence. New forces may from time to time be supplied, new directions maybe given to existing forces, without any variation in the laws bywhich the action of those forces is regulated. 

And if we believe that Creation was a progressive act, it israther probable than otherwise that such interferences should takeplace. For a long period perhaps the uniformity of the work mightlead us to forget the Being who was working; but times wouldarrive when definite stages of the work were accomplished, whenhigher developments of being were rendered possible, and in theintroduction of those higher developments a something would beseen which could not be the result of the processes with which wehad already become acquainted. Such interference would not in anyway justify the supposition that the designs of the Author ofNature were changed, or that His original plan had proveddefective. The more natural inference would be that they were apart of the plan from the first, but that the time for them wasnot then come. 

It will be seen in the sequel that in all probability many of thespecial acts of Creation, mentioned in the Mosaic Record, areinterferences of this kind; that for long periods of time mattersadvanced in a uniform manner; that the sequence of events was suchas our own experience would lead us to anticipate; but that theseperiods were separated from one another by the introduction of newforces and new results. Of the former we may speak then as carriedon under the operation of natural laws; the other may be describedas special interferences not antagonistic, but supplementary, tonatural laws, and forming part of the original design. 

SECTION 2. THE CORRELATION OF FORCES. 

[Footnote: For fuller information on this subject, Grove's"Correlation of the Physical Forces, " or Tyndall's "Lectures onHeat considered as a Mode of Motion, " may be consulted. ]

It has long been known that heat and light are closely connectedtogether. The accumulation of a certain amount of heat is alwaysaccompanied by the appearance of light. But when it was found thatthe light could be separated from the heat by various means, itseemed possible that the two phenomena were simply associated. Itis now, however, ascertained that light and heat are identical intheir nature, and that a vast number of other phenomena--electricity, galvanism, magnetism, chemical action, andgravitation, as well as light and heat, are differentmanifestations of one and the same thing, which is called force orenergy. In a great number of cases it is possible for us, by theuse of appropriate means and apparatus, to transform thesemanifestations, so as to make the same force assume a variety offorms. Thus motion suddenly arrested becomes heat. A rifle-ballwhen it strikes the target becomes very hot. The heat produced bythe concussion against an iron shield is found sufficient toignite the powder in some of the newly invented projectiles. Thebest illustration, however, is to be obtained from galvanism. Bymeans of the Voltaic battery we set free a certain amount offorce, and we can employ it at pleasure to produce an intenselight in the electric lamp, or to melt metals which resist thegreatest heat of our furnaces; it will convert a bar of iron intoa magnet, or decompose water into its constituents, oxygen andhydrogen, or separate a metal from its combination with oxygen. But in all these processes no new force is produced--the forceset free is unchangeable in itself, and we cannot increase itsamount. Owing to the imperfection of our instruments and our skilla part of it will always escape from our control, and be lost tous, but not destroyed. When, however, due allowance is made forthis loss, the results produced are always in exact proportion tothe amount of force originally set free. Thus, if we employ it todecompose water, the amount of water decomposed always bears anexact proportion to the amount of metal which has been oxidized inthe cells of the battery. 

This force pervades everything which comes within the cognizanceof our senses. It exists in what are termed the elementarysubstances of which the crust of the earth is composed. A certainamount of it seems to be required to maintain them in the forms inwhich we know them; for in many cases, when two of them are madeto combine, a certain amount of force is set free, which commonlymakes its appearance as heat. This seems to indicate that a lessamount of force suffices to maintain the compound body than wasrequisite for its separate elements. Thus, when oxygen andhydrogen are combined to form water intense heat is produced. Ifwe wish to dissolve the union, and restore the oxygen and hydrogento a gaseous state, we must restore the force which has been lost. This, however, must be done by means of electricity, as heatproduces a different change--converting the water into vapour, butnot dissolving the union between its elements. 

Force, in the shape of heat, determines the condition in which allinorganic bodies exist. In most cases we can make any givenelement assume the form of a solid, a fluid, or a vapour, by theaddition or subtraction of heat. Thus if a pound of ice at 32degrees be exposed to heat, it will gradually melt--but the waterproduced will remain unchanged in temperature till the lastparticle of ice is melted--then it will begin to rise intemperature; and, if the supply of heat be uniform, it will reacha temperature of 172 degrees in exactly the same time as wasoccupied in melting the ice. Thus then the force which was appliedto the ice as heat passes into some other form so long as the iceis being melted--it is no longer perceptible by the senses--weonly see its effect in the change from the solid to the fluidform. And this result is brought about by a definite quantity offorce. Each of the inorganic materials of which the crust of theearth is composed seems thus to require in its composition adefinite amount of force. 

The life of vegetables is developed in the formation of freshcompounds of inorganic matter and force. No vegetable can thrivewithout sunlight, either direct or diffused. This supplies theforce which the plant combines with carbon, hydrogen, and otherelements to form woody fibre, starch, oils, and other vegetableproducts. When we kindle a fire, we dissolve the union which hasthus been formed--the carbon and hydrogen enter into simplercombinations which require less force to maintain them, and thesuperfluous force supplies us with light and heat. 

The life of animals is developed by a process exactly the reverseof vegetable life. It is maintained by the destruction of thecompounds which the vegetable had formed. These compounds aretaken into the body as food, and after undergoing certainmodifications and arrangements are finally decomposed. Of theforce thus set free a part makes its appearance as heat, maintaining an even temperature in the body, and another partsupplies the power by virtue of which the muscles, &c. , act. Nomanifestation of animal life is possible except by force thus setfree. It seems all but certain that we cannot think a singlethought without the decomposition of an equivalent amount of thebrain. It must not, however, be concluded that force and life areidentical. Force seems to be only the instrument of which thehigher principle of life makes use in its manifestations. 

Force then pervades the whole universe so far as it is cognizableby our senses. But we cannot conceive of force as acting, withoutat the same time conceiving of something on which that force acts. That something, whatever it may be, we designate "matter. " We havenot the slightest idea of what matter really is--no man has everyet succeeded in separating it from its combination with force. Even if success were possible, which seems very improbable, it isnot likely that matter by itself would be discernible by any ofour senses. We know that two of them, sight and hearing, enable usto perceive certain kinds of motion, i. E. Manifestations offorce, and this is in all probability the case with the rest ofthem. The existence of matter then is not known by scientificproof but by inference. Our belief in it arises from something inthe constitution of our minds which makes it a necessaryinference. 

There is one more point in reference to force which must benoticed. It is indestructible, but it is capable of what is termed"degradation. " It may exist in various intensities and quantities, and a small quantity of force of a higher intensity may be changedinto a larger quantity of force at a lower intensity. In theinstance above given of the union of oxygen and hydrogen, heat isgiven out, but heat does not suffice to dissolve that union. Theforce must be supplied in the more intense form of VoltaicElectricity. But to reverse this process seems impossible for us. As, however, this is clearly explained in a previous volume ofthis series, [Footnote: Can we Believe in Miracles? p. 152. ] it isnot necessary to dwell upon it at length. 

We may conclude then that the whole material universe is built upof matter and force in various combinations, but we can form noconception of what these two things are in themselves; they areonly known to us by the effects produced by their union in variousproportions. 

SECTION 3. THE BEGINNING. 

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 

"And the earth was desolate and void, and darkness upon the faceof the deep. "

These words carry us back to a time indefinitely remote. Eternityand Infinity are ideas which we cannot grasp, and yet we cannotavoid them. If we stretch our imagination to conceive of the mostdistant possible period of time--the farthest point of space--still we feel that there must have been something before the one, that there must be something beyond the other; and yet we cannotconceive of that which has no beginning, or no boundaries. Thefirst verse marks out for us as it were a definite portion of thislimitless ocean. "In the beginning, " is the point from which timebegins to run--"the heavens and the earth, " the visible universebeyond which our investigations cannot extend. Whether othermanifestations of God have taken place in Eternity, or othersystems of worlds now exist in infinity, we are not told. 

The heavens and the earth then are to be considered as comprisingthe visible universe, sun, moon, and stars, and theirconcomitants, which the eye surveys, or which scientific researchbrings to our knowledge. All are comprehended in this one group byMoses, and recent spectroscopic investigations teach us that onegeneral character pervades the whole. Every star whose light ispowerful enough to be analyzed, is now known to comprehend in itsmaterials a greater or less number of those elementary substancesof which the earth and the sun are composed. Whether any of theseworlds were called into perfect existence at once, or whether theyall passed through various stages of development, we are not told, that in some of them the process of development is onlycommencing, while in others various stages of it are in progress, is, as will be seen presently, highly probable. But the narrativetakes no farther notice of anything beyond our own group ofworlds, and proceeds to describe the condition of the earth(probably including the whole solar system) at the time at whichit commences. Its words imply such a state of things ascorresponds to what has been said in the preceding section ofmatter, apart from force. No better words could probably have beenchosen for the purpose. The only word which seems to convey anydefinite idea is in the following clause, where water ismentioned. Until force was in operation water could not exist. Probably St. Augustine's interpretation is the correct one--theconfused mass is called alternately earth and water, becausethough it was as yet neither one thing nor the other, it containedthe elements of both. And the word "water" expressed its plasticcharacter. ("De Genesi ad Literam" Liber Imperfectus, Section 13, 14. )

One other important point in these words is, that they negativethe eternal existence of matter. The second verse describes it asexisting, because it had been called into existence at the biddingof an Almighty Creator, as described in the first verse. 

SECTION 4. THE FIRST DAY. 

"And the Spirit of God (was) brooding upon the face of the water. 

"And God said, 'Let light be' and light was. 

"And God saw the light that it was good, and God divided the lightfrom the darkness. 

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. 

"And there was evening and there was morning, one day. "

The first clause seems to belong rather to the period of actionthan to the precedent indefinite period of chaos, and maytherefore be taken as marking the transition from the "beginning"to the first day, better than as belonging to that beginningitself. The Jewish interpretation of the clause is untenable inthe light of the doctrine of the Correlation of the PhysicalForces. Till force was evolved there could be neither air normotion, and so no wind. The words of course bear on their face anassertion of the action of the eternal Spirit in the work ofCreation; but when we examine the position which they occupy, itseems highly probable that they have beyond this a much moredefinite signification. In them a sort of localized action isascribed to the Spirit--a something very different from the ideaconveyed by the often-repeated phrase, "And God said. " What thatsomething may be it is hard for us to conceive, harder still toexpress, but the following considerations may perhaps throw someglimmering of light upon the matter:--

1. There must be some point in which the Creator comes intocontact, as it were, with His creature--a point at which His Willfirst clothes itself in the form of a physical fact--the point towhich all second causes lead up, and at which they lose themselvesin the one first cause, the Will of God. Now this is what allsystems of philosophy require as their starting-point, but it isentirely out of their unaided reach. But these words supply thatindispensable desideratum. 

2. These words come in immediate connexion with the evolution oflight. Light is throughout the Bible intimately connected with theDeity. It is His chosen emblem. "God is light. " It is His abode. "He dwelleth in the light inaccessible. " It is the symbol of Hispresence, and the means by which Creation is quickened. "In Himwas life; and the life was the light of men. "

3. Light, as we now know, is only one form of the force by whichthe universe is upheld. But the phenomena of light lead us toinfer the existence of what we call Ether, which is supposed to bea perfectly elastic fluid, imponderable, and in fact exempt fromalmost all the conditions to which matter, as we know it, issubject, except that POSSIBLY it offers resistance to bodiesmoving in it. [Footnote: Encke's comet shows signs of retardation, as if moving in a resisting medium; but it is possible that thatresistance may not arise from the ether, but from the nebulousenvelope of the sun. ] This fluid must pervade the whole universe, since it brings to us the light of the most distant star ornebula. As it is the medium through which light is conveyed, andas light is now known to be identified with force of all kinds, itseems by no means improbable that it is the medium through whichall force acts. 

These words, then, seem to suggest the idea that the brooding ofthe Spirit may have some connexion with the formation of thatether which is indispensable to the manifestation of light, andprobably to the operations of all force; and that, if so, theether may also be the point at which, and the medium throughwhich, Spirit acts upon Matter. On the one hand, the facts thatforce, as used, is constantly in process of degradation, and thatit is also constantly poured forth into space from the Sun andPlanets in the shape of heat, and so lost to our system, seem toindicate that fresh supplies of it are continually needed; while, on the other hand, the supply of that need seems to be implied inthe words, "By Him all things consist. " "Upholding all things bythe word of His Power. "

If this be so, we have a point up to which natural laws maypossibly be traced, but at which they merge in the action of theWill of God, which is beyond our investigation. Here, then, is asolution of that great difficulty, which those who are mostfamiliar with the laws of nature have felt in reconciling theexistence of those laws with a particular Providence and with theefficacy of Prayer, since we have here the point at which allforces and all laws begin to act, and at which, therefore, theamount of the force, and the direction of its action, are capableof unlimited modification, without any alteration of, orinterference with, the laws by which that action is regulated, andconsequently without the danger of introducing confusion into theUniverse. 

"And God said, 'Let light be' and light was. " It has already beenpointed out that these words differ from those used in describingany other creative act. They are the only ones which seem to implyan instantaneous fulfilment of the command. Another matter whichhas long since been observed, is their exact harmony with whatscience teaches us respecting the nature of light. Light is not amaterial substance, but a "mode of motion. " It consists of verysmall undulations propagated with inconceivable velocity. Hence ofit, and of it alone, it could not be correctly said that it wascreated. To say that God made light would be inexact. The wordswhich are used exactly suit the circumstances of the case. But thediscovery of the correlation of forces has given to these words amuch more extended significance, while at the same time itfurnishes a satisfactory reason for their occurrence at thisparticular point. So long as they were supposed to refer to lightsimply, they seemed out of place. Light was not apparently neededtill there were organisms to whose existence it was essential. Butwe now know that to call forth light, was to call force in all itsmodifications into action. It has been seen that matter and forceare the two elements out of which everything that is discernibleby our senses is built up. The formation of matter has alreadybeen described in the original act of creation. But till forcealso was evolved, matter must of necessity remain in that chaoticstate to which verse 2 refers. To matter is now added that whichwas required to enable the progressive work of Creation to becarried on. The first result of this would probably be that theforce of gravitation would begin to act, while, from what thetelescope reveals to us, we may conjecture, that at the same timethe whole incoherent mass would be permeated with light and heat, and some, at all events, of those elementary substances with whichchemistry makes us acquainted would be developed, and the wholemass, acted upon by the mutual attraction of its severalparticles, would begin to move towards, and accumulate about itscentre of gravity. 

It has been shown that Laplace's Nebular Hypothesis, whensubstituted for the action of a Creator, broke down in threeimportant points. Of these the first two were, that it failed togive any account of the origin of matter, and of the firstcommencement of the action of Gravitation. These two defects arecompletely supplied by the first three verses of Genesis. We mayprobably see in the "Great Nebula" in Orion an illustration of thecondition of the solar system when light first made itsappearance. It is very probable that that nebula has only veryrecently become visible. Galileo examined Orion very carefullywith his newly invented telescope, but makes no mention of it. [Footnote: Webb's Celestial Objects, p. 255, note. ] At present itis visible to the unaided eye even in England, where theatmospheric conditions and its low altitude are alikeunfavourable. In Italy, where the atmosphere is remarkably pure, and the meridian altitude is greater by 7 1/2 degrees, it must bea conspicuous object, and had it been so at the time when Galileowas observing the constellation, it could hardly have failed toattract his attention. It was, however, noticed in 1618. It is avast, shapeless mass, having its boundaries in some partstolerably well defined, while in other directions it fades awayimperceptibly; its light is very faint, and when examined by thespectroscope is found to proceed from a gaseous source. ProfessorSecchi has traced it through an extent of 5 degrees. When it isremembered that at such a distance the semi-diameter of theearth's orbit subtends an angle less than 1 inch, some idea of theenormous extent of this mass of gas may be formed. Drawings of ithave been made from time to time by our most distinguishedastronomers, which are found to differ considerably. Greatallowance must, of course, be made for differences in thetelescopic power employed, and in the visual powers of the severalobservers, but the differences in the drawings seem too great tobe explained by those sources of inaccuracy alone, and actualchange in the nebula is therefore strongly suspected. Anothernebula of similar character, in which changes are suspected, isthat which surrounds the star A in the constellation Argo. This isbeing very carefully watched through the great telescope recentlyerected at Melbourne, and from the observations made there, it isprobable that fresh light may soon be thrown on the subject. 

The next act recorded is, that "God divided the light from thedarkness. " This is one of those passages which we are very apt topass over as unimportant, without giving ourselves any trouble toascertain what they mean, or asking if they may not give valuableinformation, or supply some important hints. It is evident, however, that in these words some act of the Creator is implied, but when we inquire what that act was, the answer does not lieimmediately on the surface. Darkness is simply the absence oflight. It cannot therefore be said that God divided the light fromthe darkness in the same sense in which it is said that "ashepherd divideth his sheep from the goats". Between light anddarkness that division exists in the very nature of things, and itcould not therefore be said to be made by a definite act. Noragain, is there any sharp well-defined boundary set between lightand darkness, so that we can say, "Here light begins, heredarkness ends. " The very opposite is the case, the one blendsimperceptibly into the other. This then cannot be the meaning ofthe words. But the next verse guides us to the real meaning. "AndGod called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. " Thedivision of light from darkness then is the alternation of nightand day. When God divided the light from the darkness He madeprovision for that alternation. But we know that that alternationis the result of the earth's rotation upon its axis, so that thedividing the light from the darkness evidently implies thecommunication to the accumulated mass of the motion of rotation. 

It does not clearly appear in the account of the first day, whether this alternation of day and night took effect immediately. Certainly the introduction of it here does not prove that it didso follow. For there was no way in which the fact of the earth'srotation could be directly communicated to those for whom thenarrative was primarily intended. They were ignorant of thespherical form of the earth, and so could not have attached anyidea whatever to a statement that it revolved about its axis. 

The only way then in which Moses could speak of that rotation wasin connexion with some phenomenon resulting from it. The only suchphenomenon with which the Jews were acquainted was the alternationof day and night. There was therefore no way in which Moses couldrecord the fact except with reference to this ultimate effect. Itdoes not follow that that effect was immediate. Beside therotation of the earth, another condition is required. The lightmust come from a single source, and so when the act is recorded bywhich that condition is effected, the division of light anddarkness is again noticed. The sun and the moon are set in thefirmament of heaven to divide the light from the darkness. Butthat division was potentially effected when the motion of rotationwas given. 

The third defect noticed in the Nebular Hypothesis was, that itdid not account for this motion of rotation. This defect, then, like the two preceding ones, is supplied by the Mosaic Record, andthe hypothesis thus supplemented becomes complete. It is capableof giving a satisfactory account of the phenomena to which itapplies. But as it is only a theory, and only points out a way inwhich the universe might have been constructed, it does not initself exclude the possibility that some other plan might in facthave been adopted, and we have now to examine into the reasons forsupposing that it was the method which was actually employed. These divide themselves into two classes:--those which render itprobable that similar processes are now in progress; and thosewhich render it probable that the solar system has passed throughsuch a process. 

It has already been pointed out that the great nebulae in Orionand Argo seem to represent the condition of our system on thefirst appearance of light, and that changes are strongly suspectedto be taking place in both; but we cannot expect to trace anysingle nebula through the stages of its development, since thatdevelopment must occupy untold ages. All we can do is to inquireif there are other nebulas which seem to be in more advancedstages. It must at once be recognized, that if this be one of theprocesses now going on, it is not the only one. There are manynebulas "which have assumed forms for which the law ofgravitation, as we know it, will not enable us to account--such asthe Ring Nebula in Lyra, the Dumb-bell Nebula in Vulpecula, or thedouble Horseshoe in Scutum Sobieski. But some nebulas can be foundwhich arrange themselves so as to illustrate the stages throughwhich we may suppose our world to have passed. These are chieflyto be found among the planetary nebulse, which in a smalltelescope exhibit a faint circular disc, but in larger instrumentsfrequently show considerable varieties of structure. Some of thempresent the appearance of a condensation of light in the centre, which gradually fades off; in others there is a bright ringsurrounding the central spot, but separated from it by a darkerspace. The Nebula Andromeda 49647, [Footnote: The numbers arethose given by Sir J. Hersohel. ] as seen in Mr. Lassel's four-footreflector appears as a luminous spot, surrounded by two luminousrings, which, in the more powerful instrument of Lord Bosse, combine into a spiral. Its spectrum is gaseous, with one lineindicating some element unknown to us. In another nebula, Draco4373, there is a double spectrum, the one gaseous, indicating thepresence of hydrogen, nitrogen, and barium; the other, apparentlyfrom the nucleus, continuous, and so representing a solid or fluidmass, but so faint that the lines belonging to particular elementscannot be distinguished. [Footnote: Hugging, PhilosophicalTransactions, 1864. ] Bridanus 846, and Andromeda 116, are probablysimilar nebulee occupying different positions with reference tous. They both give a continuous spectrum. The one in Bridanus isdescribed as "an eleventh magnitude star, standing in the centreof a circular nebula, itself placed centrally on a larger andfainter circle of hazy light. " [Footnote: Lassell, quoted inWebb's "Celestial Objects, " p. 227. ] The nebula in Andromedaassumes a lenticular form; that in Bridanus would probably presentthe same appearance if we saw it edge-ways. The former hasprobably increased in brilliancy in the course of centuries. Mr. Webb remarks of it, "It is so plain to the naked eye that it isstrange the ancients scarcely mention it. " [Footnote: Webb's"Celestial Objects, " p. 180. ] In these two nebulas we may perhapssee the mass ready to break up into separate worlds, thelenticular form being a natural result of extremely rapidrotation. Prom the fact that Andromeda 116 gives a continuousspectrum, Dr. Huggins inclines to the belief that it is anunresolved star cluster. But the reasons which led Sir W. Herschelto conclude that the nebula in Orion was gaseous, (a conclusionwhich, though for a time discredited by the supposed resolution ofthe nebula in Lord Kosse's telescope, was ultimately found to becorrect), are equally applicable here. In general a certainproportion exists between the telescopic power requisite to rendera star cluster visible as a nebulous spot, and that which willresolve it into stars; but this nebula, like that in Orion, thoughvisible to the naked eye, cannot be resolved by the most powerfulinstruments yet made. And the nebula in Draco 4373, seems topresent an intermediate stage between the purely gaseous nebulaand this one. The faint continuous spectrum is probably the resultof incipient central condensation. This nebula, if recentobservations by Mr. Gill, of Aberdeen, are confirmed [Footnote:Popular Science Review, 1871, p. 426. ], is much nearer to us thanany of the fixed stars. 

"We come now to the reasons derived from the Solar System itself, and of these there are several, some of them of considerableweight. The first is to be found in the uniform direction ofalmost all the motions of the system. They are from west to east. The sun rotates upon his axis, the planets revolve about the sunand rotate upon their axes, and the satellites, with oneexception, revolve about their primaries, and, so far as is known, rotate upon their axes in the same direction, from west to east, and the motions take place very nearly in the same plane--theecliptic. This seems to point to the conclusion that these motionshave a common origin, as would be the case if all these bodies atone time existed as a single mass which revolved in the samedirection. The one exception is to be found in the satellites ofUranus, whose motion is retrograde. But there are certainphenomena, which lead to the conclusion, that, on the outskirts ofour system, there has at some time or other been an action of adisturbing force, of which, except from these results, we knownothing. "

[Footnote: Bode's "Law of Planetary Distances, " What holds good asfar as Uranus, breaks down in the case of Neptune. Both Leverrierand Adams were to some extent misled by this law. The new planetshould according to their calculations, based on this law, havebeen of greater magnitude and at a greater distance than Neptune. 

The polar axis of Uranus, instead of being nearly perpendicular tothe ecliptic, as in the case of all the other planets (exceptVenus), is nearly coincident with it. Venus occupies anintermediate position, the inclination of its equator to its orbitbeing 49 degrees 58'. ]

 There is also strong reason for believing that the sun is still anebulous star, that the whole of the original nebula is not yetgathered up in the vast globe which at ordinary times is all thatwe can see. This aspect of the case, however, will come more fullyunder our notice when we come to the work of the fourth day. Thefigure of the earth, which is that naturally assumed by a plasticmass revolving about its axis, and the traces which it retains ofa former state of intense heat, are both in accordance with thistheory. 

When these facts are duly weighed, there seems to be a reasonableprobability that this process is the one which was actuallyemployed in the formation of the solar system. The remarkablemanner in which the theory adapts itself to the Mosaic account, and the fact that that account records special interferences ofthe Creator exactly at the points where the theory shows that suchinterferences would be necessary, give rise to a very strongpresumption in its favour. We have in it also a clear illustrationof the combination of general laws of nature with specialinterferences of Creative Power--the law of gravitation was calledinto action, and the work would proceed steadily under that lawfor a considerable period, till matters were ripe for a fartherstage in the progress, and then the special interference wouldtake place, in this instance the imparting the motion of rotation, and the work would again proceed under the natural law. All thiswhile, however, the work would be one, and performed by one power, the only difference being in the direct or indirect action of thatpower. 

The only point an reference to the first day which remains to beinquired into is the extent to which the work had proceeded at itsclose. As the commencement of the second day's work implies thatat that time the earth had an independent existence, we mayconclude that the first day's work comprehended the casting off ofthe several successive rings, and the condensation of those rings, or some of them, into the corresponding planets and satellites. These would probably still retain their intense heat, in virtue ofwhich they would be luminous. 

Many of the multiple stars may not improbably present to us muchthe same appearance as the solar system then presented. In manycases we have one large star, with one or more very minuteattendants. Such a star is Orionis, a tolerably conspicuous star, which has two companions invisible to the naked eye, but visiblewith moderate telescopic power. (A telescope of 2. 1 inchesaperture, by Cooke, shows them well. ) Five more companions arevisible in a 4-inch telescope. In the large telescope at Harvardno less than 35 minute stars have been seen in apparent connexionwith the brilliant star Vega. In all these cases it is true thatthe distances and periods of the companion stars are very muchgreater than in the case of the earth; but then our telescopeswill only enable us to discern the more distant companions. Anysmall companion stars holding positions corresponding to those ofthe four interior planets, would be lost in the light of theprimary star; and if, as is suspected, all the heavenly bodies aresubject to some resistance, however small, from the medium inwhich they move, this resistance would in the course of agesdiminish the mean distance, and with it the periodic time of thecompanion stars. 

The latter part of the 5th verse has already been considered, andthere is no need to recur to it at this point. At the close of thehistory we shall be in a better position to ascertain if any lighthas been thrown on that mysterious subject. 

SECTION 5. THE SECOND DAY. 

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of thewaters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 

"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which wereunder the firmament from the waters which were above thefirmament, and it was so. 

"And God called the firmament Heaven, and there was evening andthere was morning, a second day"

The work of the second and third days evidently has its scene onthe earth alone. At its commencement the earth appears to havebecome distinctly separated from the gradually condensing mass ofthe solar system, and to have assumed its spherical form. It had, in fact, acquired an independent existence; but it was still in achaotic state. Its elements, which were hereafter to assume thethree forms of solid, fluid, and gas, seem to have been stillblended together. Of the three states, fluidity seems to have beenthat to which the mass most nearly approached. This seems to beindicated by the application of the term, waters, to the two partsinto which it is now divided; for the Hebrew has no general wordfor "fluid, " so that the only method of expressing it was by theuse of this word "water" in an extended signification; and allscientific investigations point to the same conclusion. The heat, as yet, must have been so intense that no rocks or metals withwhich we are acquainted could have remained in a solid form. Thesorting out and first arrangement of the materials of the earth, with probably the farther development of a large portion of themby the introduction of a new element, seems to have been the workof the second day. 

When we proceed to examine the narrative more closely, twoimportant questions suggest themselves:--l. What specialinterference of Creative Power does it indicate? 2. What is themeaning of the division between the waters which were above thefirmament and the waters which were under the firmament?

1. What special interference of Creative Power took place on thesecond day? Till within the last ten years, it would have beendifficult to give a satisfactory answer to this question; for ifall the elements were already in existence at the commencement ofthe second day, their arrangement would, as it seems, have beenbrought about by the ordinary operation of natural laws which werealready established. The cooling and condensation of a portion ofthe elements would have been effected by the radiation of theirheat, and the portions thus condensed would, under the influenceof gravitation, have arranged themselves in immediate proximity tothe centre of gravity, forming a solid or fluid nucleus, roundwhich those portions which still remained in a gaseous state wouldhave formed an atmospheric envelope. But here again thespectroscope comes to our aid. In many of the nebulae which givein it the bright lines indicative of gas, hydrogen and nitrogenare the chief gases discovered. These must be in an incandescentstate, or they would not be visible at all. But hydrogen cannot, in the present state of things, remain in this condition incontact with oxygen; it must instantly combine with it, thatcombination being attended with intense heat, and resulting in theproduction of water. The introduction of oxygen, then, mustinvolve a very important crisis in the process of development; butthat introduction must have preceded the formation of atmosphericair and water. Prior to the second day oxygen must either havebeen non-existent, or it must have existed in a form and underconditions very different from those under which it exists now. Free oxygen cannot be in existence in the sun or in any celestialobject in which the spectroscope indicates the existence ofincandescent hydrogen. The special act of the second day wouldappear to have consisted in the development of oxygen, or thecalling it from a quiescent state into active operation. 

But the effects of the new element thus called into operationwould not be limited to the production of air and water. It isestimated that oxygen constitutes, by weight, nearly half of thesolid crust of the earth. It forms a part of every rock and ofevery metallic ore. The second day, then, must have been a periodof intense chemical action, resulting from the introduction ofthis powerful agent. 

But (2) what is the meaning of the division of the waters whichare above the firmament from the waters which were under thefirmament? At present all the water contained in the atmosphere, in the shape of vapour and clouds, is so insignificant incomparison with that vast volume of water which not only fills theocean, but also permeates the solid earth, that such a notice ofit seems unaccountable. Mr. Goodwin, indeed, maintains that therewas an ancient belief, not only that the firmament was a solidvault, but that on it there rested another ocean, at least ascopious as that with which we are acquainted. [Footnote: Essaysand Reviews, p. 220] In support of this assertion he bringsforward the phrase, "The windows of heaven were opened" (Gen, VII. 11) and other similar expressions. But such phrases as thisevidently belong to the same class as the fanciful names so oftengiven to the clouds in the hymns of the Rig Veda. Both expressionsevidently point to a time when figurative language, if no longer anecessity, was at all events a common and favourite form ofspeech, and was understood by all. Dr. Whewell [Footnote:Plurality of Worlds, chap. X. Section 5. ] has put forward thecurious notion that when the creation of the interior planets wascompleted, there remained a superfluity of water, which wasgathered up into the four exterior planets. But the only fact infavour of such an hypothesis is the close correspondence betweenthe apparent density of these planets and that of water. Now, aswill be seen immediately, there is strong reason to believe thatthe true density of these planets is much greater than theirapparent diameters would seem to indicate; so that the onesolitary ground on which the suggestion rests vanishes when it isexamined. Apart from this, however, the suggestion that therewould be any superfluous material when the work of creation wasfinished, is a very strange one. Neither of these views, then, canbe accepted as giving a satisfactory meaning to the text. 

Astronomical investigations however, which have been carried onwith great diligence during the last four winters, and which arestill being continued with unremitting interest, have brought tolight phenomena which seem to be in remarkable correspondence withthe state of things spoken of in the text. It has already beennoticed that the eight greater planets at present known to us aredivided into two groups of four by the intervening belt of minorplanets. These two groups have totally distinct characteristics. In density, magnitude, and length, of day the members of eachgroup differ little from each other, while the two groups differvery widely. The moon is the only satellite as yet known in theinner group. The planets of the outer group are attended by atleast seventeen satellites. 

Of these outer planets Jupiter, from his great brilliancy, specially attracts observation, while from his comparativeproximity to the earth we are enabled to examine him much moresatisfactorily than we can Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune. Two factswith reference to him have long been well known, the one, that thepolar compression in his case is much greater than it is in any ofthe interior planets, so that when seen through a telescope ofvery moderate power his disc is evidently elliptical, while thecompression of the interior planets can only be detected by themost delicate micrometrical measurements--the other, that hisapparent surface is always crossed by several alternating belts oflight and shade, which though subject to constant changes ofdetail, always preserve the same general character. Until recentlythe generally received theory was that these belts consisted ofclouds, raised by the heat of the sun, and arranged in zones underthe influence of winds similar in character to, and produced bythe same causes as, the trade-winds which blow over our ownoceans. This view, however, has been shown by Mr. Proctor to beuntenable. [Footnote: See a paper by Mr. Proctor in the MonthlyPacket for October, 1870. ]

About forty years ago, a very remarkable phenomenon was observedsimultaneously, but independently, by three astronomers, AdmiralSmyth, Mr. Maclean, and Mr. Pearson, who were watching a transitof Jupiter's second satellite from stations several miles apart. Admiral Smyth's account of it is as follows:--"On Thursday, the26th of June, 1828, the moon being nearly full, and the eveningextremely fine, I was watching the second satellite of Jupiter asit gradually approached to transit the disc of the planet. Myinstrument was an excellent refractor of 3 3/4 inches aperture, and five feet focal length, with a power of one hundred. Thesatellite appeared in contact at about half-past ten, and for someminutes remained on the edge of the limb, presenting an appearancenot unlike that of the lunar mountains which come into view duringthe first quarter of the moon, until it finally disappeared on thebody of the planet. At least twelve or thirteen minutes must haveelapsed when, accidentally turning to Jupiter again, I perceivedthe same satellite outside the disc. It was in the same positionas to being above a line with the lower belt, where it remaineddistinctly visible for at least four minutes, and then suddenlyvanished. " A somewhat similar phenomenon, but of shorter duration, was witnessed by Messrs. Gorton and Wray, during an occultation ofthe same satellite, April 26, 1863. In this case the satellitereappeared after passing behind the apparent disc of the planet. So lately as 1868 this phenomenon was regarded as inexplicable. [Footnote: Webb's Celestial Objects, p. 141. ]

In the winter of 1868-9 the attention of astronomers was called tothe fact that rapid and extensive changes were taking place in theappearance of Jupiter's belts, and they have consequently beenwatched from that time with unremitting attention by astronomersfurnished with telescopes of the best quality. The results ofthese observations are given in two very interesting papers, communicated to the Popular Science Review, by Mr. Webb. [Footnote: Popular Science Review for April, 1870, and July, 1871. ] Very curious markings and variations in the depth of shadehave been seen, accompanied by equally curious changes of colour. Mr. Browning compares these changes to those which are seen when acloud of steam of varying depth and density is illuminated frombehind by a strong light, as when we look through the steamescaping from the safety-valve of a locomotive at a gas-lampimmediately behind it. This appears to be the true explanation ofthe phenomenon. [Footnote: Popular Science Review, 1871, p. 307. ]These belts are probably due to vast masses of steam, poured forthwith great force from the body of the planet. As the atmosphere ofJupiter is probably of enormous depth, the rotatory velocity ofits upper portions would be much greater than that of the surfaceof the planet, hence the steam would arrange itself in beltsparallel to the equator of the planet. But this view leads us towonderful conclusions with reference to the condition of theplanet. 

"Processes of the most amazing character are taking place beneaththat cloudy envelope, which forms the visible surface of theplanet as seen by the terrestrial observer. The real globe of theplanet would seem to be intensely heated, perhaps molten, throughthe fierceness of the heat which pervades it. Masses of vapourstreaming continually upward from the surface of this fiery globewould be gathered at once into zones because of their rapid changeof distance from the centre. That which is wholly unintelligiblewhen we regard the surface of Jupiter as swept like our earth bypolar and equatorial winds, is readily interpreted when werecognize the existence of rapidly uprushing streams of vapour. "[Footnote: Mr. Proctor in Monthly Packet, October, 1870. ]

Supposing then that the atmosphere of Jupiter is of very greatdepth, and thus laden with masses of watery vapour, the effect ofa sudden current of heated, but comparatively dry, air or gaswould be the immediate absorption of the whole or a large portionof the vapour, and the consequent transparency of the portion ofthe atmosphere affected by it. We see this result continually on asmall scale in our own atmosphere, when a heavy cloud comes incontact with a warm air current, and rapidly melts away, Many ofthe rapid changes which have been witnessed in Jupiter'sappearance are readily explained if this view is admitted. Supposing such a thing to have happened near the edge of the disc, the phenomenon recorded by Admiral Smyth is at once satisfactorilyexplained. When the satellite appeared to pass on to the disc, andto be lost in the light of the planet, it would for some time, proportional to the depth of Jupiter's atmosphere, have behind ita background of clouds only, it would not have entered upon theactual disc of the planet. If then these clouds were suddenlyabsorbed, the atmosphere behind the satellite would becometransparent and invisible, the background would be gone, and thesatellite would reappear. In the case of the occultation witnessedby Messrs. Gorton and Wray, the satellite would at first be hiddenby cloud only, and would reappear if the cloud were removed. Suchseems to be the true explanation of these hitherto mysteriousphenomena. That they could not have resulted from any alterationin the motions of the planet or the satellite is evident. Such analteration would have been instantly detected, since the places ofboth the planet and the satellites are computed years in advance, and any such change would at once have thrown out all thesecomputations. 

Assuming that this is the true solution of the mystery, we areenabled to form an approximate estimate of the extent of theatmosphere of Jupiter. The time between the first and seconddisappearances does not seem to have been accurately noted. Admiral Smyth's account makes it 16 or 17 minutes; but if weestimate it at 15 minutes only, and if we further assume that thesecond disappearance was upon the actual disc of Jupiter, and notupon a lower stratum of clouds, we shall be safe from any risk ofexaggeration. The probability seems to be that the seconddisappearance was caused not by the disc, but by the formation ofa fresh body of cloud, as it was not gradual, as in the firstinstance, but sudden. We shall then only have an estimate whichcannot be greater, but may be much less, than the true value. 

The mean distance of the second satellite from the centre ofJupiter is in round numbers 425, 000 miles, and consequently thecircumference of its orbit is 2, 671, 000 miles. The satellitetravels through this orbit in about 86 hours, which gives a horaryvelocity of 31, 400 miles, or 7850 miles in 15 minutes. This thenis the least possible depth of the atmosphere of Jupiter. [Footnote: For the direction of the motion of the satellite wouldbe at right angles to the line of sight. ] The whole diameter ofJupiter, atmosphere and all, is 85, 390 miles. Deduct from this15, 700 miles for the atmosphere, and we have for the diameter ofthe solid nucleus rather less than 70, 000 miles. The height of theatmosphere is therefore not less than three-fourteenths of theradius of the planet, and may be much greater. The extent of theatmosphere, combined with the rapidity of rotation, accountssatisfactorily for the great apparent polar compression of theplanet. Another inference is that the density of the planet mustexceed the ordinary estimate in the proportion of two to one. 

But next, the atmosphere of Jupiter is probably of very greatdensity. Dr. Huggins states that he has observed in the spectrumof Jupiter "three or four strong lines, one of them coincidentwith a strong line in the earth's atmosphere. " [Footnote: Lectureat Manchester, November 16, 1870. ] Strong lines mark increaseddensity in the absorbent medium, and lines hitherto unobservedindicate new elements. It is therefore probable that theatmosphere of Jupiter is not only much more dense than that of theearth, but also contains some elements--which are absent from thelatter. When with this fact we connect the very great extent ofthe atmosphere, it will be evident that the pressure at thesurface of the planet will be enormous, and from this we can forman estimate of the intensity of the forces which must be at workin the interior of the planet, to project jets of vapour throughsuch an atmosphere to so great a height. 

The link which connects Jupiter with the earth, in the secondstage of its existence, is the mention by Moses of the "waterswhich were above the firmament. " Viewed in the light of thepresent condition of the earth such a notice seems unaccountable. But if the earth at that time were in a condition similar to thatin which Jupiter appears to be now, the water in the atmosphere orabove the firmament would be a very important element in anydescription that might be given of it. It is in fact most probablethat all the water (in the strict sense of the word) then inexistence would be in a state of vapour, and that the waters whichwere under the firmament were the molten materials whichafterwards formed rocks and ores, since, as has been alreadynoticed, the word is the only one which could be employed todescribe fluids in general. 

We may now try to form some idea of the probable state of theearth at this period. Its centre would be occupied by a fusedmass, in which were blended all the more intractable solidconstituents of the present world. This would be surrounded by anatmosphere of very great height and density, containing not onlyall the present constituents of air, but also all, or nearly all, the water, and all the more volatile of the metals and otherelements. Carbonic acid, to a very large extent, would probably bepresent, and a very considerable proportion of the oxygen whichnow exists in combination with various bases, and forms by weightso large a proportion of the solid crust of the world. 

Owing to the intense heat, chemical combinations would readily beformed between the ingredients of the fused mass and the otherelements which existed in the form of vapour, and thus theearliest of the vast variety of existing minerals would beelaborated. The volumes of steam which floated in the upperregions of the atmosphere would rapidly part with their heat byradiation into space, and would descend towards the surface of theearth in the form of rain. At first probably, and for a long time, they would not reach the surface, but as they approached it wouldbe again converted into vapour, and re-ascend to pass again andagain through the same process. But by this means the intense heatof the nucleus would be gradually conveyed away, till the coolingreached a point at which some of the superficial materials wouldassume a solid form. It is by no means certain what is the trueprimary rock--for a long time it was almost universally assumed tobe granite, since granite is uniformly found underlying the oldestsedimentary rocks that are known. But as these rocks have beenforced from their original position and tilted up, the underlyingstratum may probably be of later date than the upper ones, sinceit was the elevating agent. So that we can have no certainknowledge on this point, since the earliest sedimentary strata, wherever they retain their original position, must be at a depthfar below the reach of man. If, however, Sir C. Kyell's view ofthe conditions requisite for the formation of granite are correct, these conditions [Footnote: Student's Geology, chap. Xxxi. ]--heat, moisture, and enormous pressure--would all be present at thesurface of the nucleus. Some kind of solid floor must have beenformed before the next stage could be reached, at which it wouldbe possible for water to exist in a fluid state. This, however, would be possible at a much higher temperature than at present, owing to the enormous atmospheric pressure. It is possible now, byartificial means, to raise water, nearly if not quite, to a redheat, without the formation of steam, and the pressure of theatmosphere in the case supposed would, in all probability, be muchgreater than any which we can now apply under the conditionsnecessary for heating the water. 

It is probable that at this point the close of the second day mustbe placed: but the indications of the narrative do not enable usto fix it with any degree of certainty. As, however, from thispoint a new series of processes would commence, and thoseprocesses are in intimate connexion with the first of the twodevelopments ascribed to the third day, the period when watercould first maintain a fluid form on the earth's surface, seems topresent the most probable line of demarcation. 

SECTION 6. THE THIRD DAY. 

"And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gatheredtogether in one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. 

"And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together ofthe waters called He Seas, and God saw that it was good. 

"And God said, Let the earth sprout sprouts, the herb seedingseed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind, whoseseed is in it, [Footnote: "It" seems preferable to "itself" here. The same Hebrew word stands for both, but if the "fruit-tree" betaken as the antecedent, which it must be if we translate"itself, " there seems no meaning in the statement. If we read"it, " the pronoun will refer to the fruit--"the tree whose seed isin its fruit"--which gives an intelligible sense. ] upon the earth, and it was so. 

"And the earth caused to go forth sprouts, the herb seeding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit whose seed is in it, after hiskind, and God saw that it was good. And there was evening, andthere was morning, a third day. "

The record of the third day is a very important one, because it isthe first point at which the Mosaic Record comes in contact withthat other record which is written in the rocks. Up to this timewe have only been able to compare the statements of Moses withconjectural views of the earliest condition of the earth, which, though they may be highly probable, are at best only conjectures. But from this point we have to deal with a number of ascertainedfacts--certain landmarks stand out which enable us to fix thecorrespondent parts of the two narratives, and guide us to theidentification and interpretation of their minor details. 

The first of these landmarks is the appearance of the dry land, or, in geological language, the commencement of the process ofupheaval. At the close of the second day the earth was, in allprobability, as we have seen, a globe internally molten, buthaving a solid crust which was uniformly covered with a layer ofwater, and surrounded by an atmosphere which, though it had partedwith some of its ingredients, was still very much more complex, more dense, and more extensive than it is at present. The newlycondensed waters would rest on the surface of the primeval rock, whatever that rock might be. The internal heat conducted throughit would keep the waters in a state of intense ebullition, and atthe same time their surface would be agitated by violentatmospheric currents as the heated air ascended, and was replacedby cooler air from the outer regions of the atmosphere. Underthese circumstances the water would dissolve or wear down portionsof the newly-formed rock on which it rested. At the same time thesteam, which would be continually rising from the boiling ocean, would descend from the upper regions of the atmosphere in the formof rain, and bring with it in solution considerable quantities ofthose elements which still existed in the form of vapour, just asrain now brings down ammonia and carbonic acid which it hasabsorbed in its passage through the atmosphere. New combinationswould thus be formed between the materials dissolved or abraded bythe ocean and those brought down by the rain. When thesecombinations had reached a certain amount they would be depositedin the form of mud upon the bed of the ocean, and thus theearliest sedimentary rocks would be formed. As the temperaturegradually decreased, the character of these combinations wouldprobably be changed, and at the same time the atmosphere would bediminished in volume and density, and become more pure by theabsorption of a large portion of its original constituents, whichwould have been incorporated into various minerals. 

The earliest sedimentary rock with which we are acquainted atpresent is what is known as the Laurentian formation. [Footnote:The whole of the geological details in this section are taken fromSir C. Lyell's Geology for Students. ] It occupies an area of200, 000 square miles north of the St. Lawrence; and is also tracedinto the United States and the western highlands of Scotland andsome of the adjacent isles. It is divided into two sections--theUpper and Lower Laurentian. It is not certain that it is reallythe oldest rock; for as every sedimentary rock is formed of thedebris of preceding rocks, it is very possible that all theexposed portions of some older rocks may have been decomposed andworn away; but it is the oldest yet known. The thickness of thelower portion is estimated at 20, 000 feet, or nearly four miles, while the Upper Laurentian beds are 10, 000 feet thick. At thispoint we meet with the first traces of that process of upheavaland subsidence which has ever since been going on in the earth. The Lower Laurentian rocks had been displaced from their originalhorizontal position before the Upper Laurentian were depositedupon them. 

This process of upheaval of some parts of the earth, accompaniedwith subsidence in other parts, is one which cannot be accountedfor by any natural laws with which we are acquainted. It is in allprobability the result of a series of changes which are takingplace in the interior of the earth, but of which we know nothingat all. It is in the commencement of this series of changes thatwe trace that direct interference of the Creator--which isindicated by the command, "Let the waters under the firmament begathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear. " Wehave not, however, any means of ascertaining how long a periodelapsed before the process of upheaval reached the point at whichthe land would rise above the surface of the ocean. 

The Lower Laurentian rocks are remarkable in another way. There islittle doubt that traces of life, the earliest yet known, occur inthem. They include a bed of limestone varying in thickness from700 to 1500 feet. In all probability limestone, wherever itoccurs, is an animal product, though in many cases all traces ofits organization have been lost by exposure to heat. Thisparticular bed appears to have been formed by a very lowlycreature, which in organization was akin to the foraminifera, ofwhich large quantities are now known to exist at the bottom of theAtlantic. It differed from them, however, in one respect--theindividuals were connected together, as is the case now with manyvarieties of the coral animal. No notice of this first appearanceof life is found in the Mosaic Record, nor, for reasons alreadygiven, was it possible that any mention of it should be made. 

The rocks which come next to the Laurentian in the order of timeare those known as the Cambrian. They are so called because theyconstitute a large portion of the mountains of North Wales, and itwas there that their characteristics were first carefully studiedby Professor Sedgwick. In one of the strata of this formation--theHarlech Grit--what are known as "ripple-marks" are found, provingthat parts of these rocks at the time of their deposition formed asea-beach, and that consequently at this time, at the latest, thedry land had emerged from the ocean. In these rocks there are alsodecided traces of Volcanic Action, which seem to indicate theexistence of a Volcano similar to the recent "Graham's Island. " Atthis point a considerable advance in animal life is found. Thefossils comprise several corals, varieties of mollusca, and aclass of crustaceans peculiar to the very early rocks--thetrilobites. 

On the Cambrian rocks rest the formations known as Silurian, fromthe fact that they were first thoroughly examined in South Wales(Siluria) by Sir E. Murchison. In these rocks many fresh varietiesof invertebrate fossils are found, and the vertebrata make theirfirst appearance, numerous remains of fishes having beendiscovered. The earliest specimen was found in the Lower Ludlowbeds at Leintwardine, while the Upper Ludlow formation contains anextensive bed composed almost entirely of fish-bones. Immediatelyabove this bed are found what seem to be traces of land-plants, inthe shape of the spores of a cryptogamous plant. 

The Silurian rocks are succeeded by rocks which present twodistinct characters, but are probably contemporaneous, theDevonian and the old Red Sandstone. The former seem to have beendeposited in the bed of the sea, while the latter is a fresh-waterformation. In these decided remains of land plants are found, ofwhich about 200 species have at present been discovered. The oldRed Sandstone is also peculiarly rich in fossil fish. The firstsigns of coal appear in this series of rocks, but on a very smallscale. 

We now come to what are known as the Carboniferous rocks, of whichthe lower series is known as the mountain limestone, and above itcome the "coal measures, " containing numerous beds of coal, sometimes of great thickness. These beds have resulted entirelyfrom the decomposition, under peculiar circumstances, of anenormous development of terrestrial vegetation. They seem to haveoriginated in vast swamps, subject to occasional flooding, and toalternate movements of upheaval and subsidence. On these swampsthere must have existed for ages a vegetation of whose luxuriancethe richest tropical jungles of the present time can give us noidea. They tell the tale of a time when the temperature of theearth, was uniformly high (since coal fields are found in highnorthern latitudes), when the atmosphere was charged withmoisture, and probably contained a large proportion of carbonicacid. In the coal measures we come upon the first traces of landanimals. Several remains of reptiles have been found, as well asfootprints left on the soft mud or sand of a riverbank or sea-beach. There seems to be no doubt that they were left by lung-breathing animals. 

The carboniferous strata form the second of our landmarks. Theyseem to point to the fulfilment of the command that the earth, should bring forth vegetation. There is, however, one point whichrequires some notice. The Mosaic account, as we read it in ourEnglish Bibles, seems to be limited to phanerogamous plants--grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit. Now, it is a well-known fact that the great mass of thevegetation, the remains of which constitute coal, consisted ofcryptogamic plants, which do not produce seed, properly so called, but only spores; the distinction being that the spore contains thegerm and nothing more, while in the seed the germ is provided witha store of nutriment to assist in the earlier stages of thedevelopment of the plant. What appears to be a fartherdiscrepancy, the absence of any traces of the grasses, leads inreality to the solution of the difficulty. 

The word which is translated "grass" [Hebrew script] means inreality, any fresh sprout. Now it is remarkable that Mosesspecifies three kinds of vegetation, with regard to two of whichit is noted that they produce seed, while nothing is said of theseed of the remaining class. Grass too, is really a herb bearingseed, and, as such would be included in the second class, andthere would have been no occasion, to mention it separately. Itwould appear then that the first class consisted of seedlessplants, i. E. Of the cryptogamia. This conclusion is strengthenedwhen we turn to verses 29 and 30. If the word [Hebrew script] werecorrectly translated "grass, " we should certainly expect to findit in those verses, since the grasses contribute more to the foodof both man and beast, than all the other herbaceous plants puttogether. This omission then, is an indication that the word, asused in this chapter, denotes a class of plants which are notcommonly employed for food, and this condition also is fulfilledin the cryptogamia. 

There are then four special points in this period, of which twoseem to correspond with the Mosaic record, while the other two areunnoticed in it. The two points of correspondence are the upheavalof the dry land, and the prevalence of a very abundant andluxuriant Flora. As in the case of the fifth and sixth days, thewords used with reference to land plants seem to denote a periodof remarkable development, rather than the first appearance. Thetwo points unnoticed are the beginnings of animal and vegetablelife. In the case of animal life the omission has already beenaccounted for. The beginning of vegetable life was probablycontemporaneous with that of animal life, for each is necessary tothe other, since the food of the animal must be prepared by thevegetable, and after being used by the former returns to a statein which it is fitted for the nourishment of the latter. As animallife commenced in the ocean, so in all probability did vegetablelife, though no certain traces of it are found in the earliestrocks; but this is easily accounted for by the very perishablecharacter of the simpler forms of algae. Like the earliestanimals, the first algae were probably microscopic plants, and theomission of any mention of them was therefore inevitable. 

One characteristic of cryptogamic vegetation is important for itsbearing on the work of the fourth day. Almost all the phanerogamicplants are dependent for their development upon the direct lightand heat of the sun. Deprived of these they either perishentirely, or make an unhealthy growth, and produce little or nofruit. But the cryptogamia, in general, thrive best when they areprotected from the direct rays of the sun. They nourish in adiffused light, and with abundant atmospheric moisture. And so wefind them at this time doing what seems a very important work inthe progress of the world. By taking up and decomposing the excessof carbonic acid which at this time probably existed in theatmosphere, they at once purified that atmosphere, and rendered itfit for the respiration of more highly organized creatures, andlaid up in the earth an invaluable store of fuel for the futureuse of man. The other orders of vegetation seem to have existed invery small proportions at this time, and only in their lowerforms. As the conditions of the earth changed, the cryptogamiaseemed to have dwindled away, while higher forms of vegetationasserted their supremacy. It is not, however, improbable that aspecial development at a much later period is indicated by themention in the second chapter of the formation of the garden ofEden. 

SECTION 7. THE FOURTH DAY. 

"And God said, Let there be luminaries in the firmament of heavento divide between the day and the night, and let them be for signsand for seasons, and for days and for years. 

"And let them be for luminaries in the firmament of heaven to givelight upon the earth; and it was so. 

"And God made the two luminaries, the great ones; the luminary, the great one, to rule over the day, and the luminary, the smallone, to rule over the night, and also the stars. 

"And God gave them in the firmament of heaven to give light uponthe earth. 

"And to rule over the day and over the night, and to dividebetween the light and between the darkness; and God saw that itwas good. 

"And there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day. "

This day's work differs from that of the preceding and succeedingdays, in the fact that its sphere was without the earth, which wasonly indirectly influenced by it, and consequently the geologicalrecords give us no direct information upon the subject, though intwo points they tally with the Mosaical account. In the firstplace, the deposits of coal, which preceded this period, indicatea time when a nearly uniform temperature, and that a high one, prevailed throughout the world. The coal beds are found not onlyin tropical regions, but in very high latitudes. Not only is thevegetation of which these coalfields are the result, analogous tothat which is now found in warm climates only--(this might be thecase, and yet we should not be justified in drawing the inferencethat the actual species of plants were tropical, for it oftenhappens that different species of the same genus, havingconsiderable external resemblance, are very different in theirhabits, some requiring tropical heat, while others flourish onlyin temperate climates)--but the marked feature is the astonishingluxuriance of this vegetation, which could only have beendeveloped under the most favourable circumstances of warmth andmoisture. Now the heat which any particular portion of the earth'ssurface receives from the sun depends entirely upon the latitude. Hence it is impossible that a uniform high temperature could existin a world which derived its heat wholly or chiefly from thatsource. Whether the high temperature which prevailed on the earthduring the deposition of the coal measures was derived frominternal heat it is impossible to say; it is evident that thetemperature of the earth's surface has been in past times, andperhaps is now, modified by causes which no scientific researchhas been enabled to detect [Footnote: Since the sun's secularmotion has been known, astronomers have suggested that the solarsystem has been carried through portions of space having variabletemperatures. Geologists, however, do not seem inclined to acceptthis as a sufficient reason for the phenomena observed. ]. But wemay safely conclude that during the third day the earth did notderive its heat from the sun. The second point, the barrenness ofthe geological records of this period, will be noticed hereafter. 

The record of the fourth day's work admits of two interpretations, it may describe things merely as they appeared, or as theyactually occurred. 

1. It is possible that the events of the fourth day may bedescribed phenomenally--that up to this period the state of thingson the earth had been to a great extent similar to that which wehave reason to believe is still existing in the planet Jupiter-that the atmosphere was so charged with vapour that no direct raysfrom the heavenly bodies could penetrate it; but that at thistime, owing to the declining heat, a great part of the aqueousconstituents of this vapour had been precipitated in the form ofrain, while other vapours had entered into chemical combinationswith other elements to form the various minerals of the earth'ssurface, and the atmosphere had become first translucent, and thentransparent. While this process was going on, no direct light fromthe sun, supposing it to be already in existence, could penetratethe veil. Diffused light only could reach the earth's surface, butwhen the atmosphere became clear the sun, moon, and stars wouldbecome visible. 

Against this view several objections may be brought. In the firstplace, as has been already noticed, we cannot treat the account ofthe Creation as derived from ordinary human sources. Either it isa revelation from the Creator or it is nothing. Now we can readilyadmit that a man, speaking of an event which lie had witnessed, but did not understand, would describe it as it appeared to him, but we cannot admit this supposition when the work is described bythe Great Artificer Himself. In the next place, the temperature ofthe earth's surface must in this case have been affected by thesun, and must therefore have been more or less dependent uponlatitude--and in the third place the distinction between day andnight must have come into operation, whereas the narrative impliesthat it was yet incomplete. 

2. The other possible interpretation is, that at this period theconcentration of light and heat in the sun was so far completedthat he became the luminary of the system, which had hithertoderived its light and heat from other sources. Probably, for along time, the internal heat of the planets may have been so greatthat they were a light to themselves. This state of things, however, must have come to an end before animal or vegetable lifecould have existed on their surface, but other ways exist, and arein operation in other parts of the universe, by which light andheat might have been supplied independently of the sun. That lightwhich is now gathered up in the sun might for a long time haveexisted as a nebulous ring, similar to the well-known Ring Nebulain Lyra. Any planets existing within such a ring would probablyderive from it sufficient light and heat. Or the nebulous matter, in a luminous state, while slowly advancing to concentration, might as yet have been so diffused as to fill a space in which theearth's orbit was included. In either case the earth would havereceived a uniform diffused light, without any alternations ofnight and day. It is of course impossible that we should be ableto say whether there are any worlds in which such a state ofthings prevails at present. Up to this time, with one possibleexception, [Footnote: "Sirius is accompanied by a 10 mag. Star, whose existence was suspected (like that of Neptune), long beforeits discovery by Alvan Clark in 1861, from the irregular movementsof its primary. But though it appears so small, its disturbingeffects can only be accounted for on the supposition that its massis at least half that of Sirius, in which case its light must bevery faint, possibly wholly reflected. " (Webb's Celestial Objects, p. 202. )] the only worlds which the telescope has revealed to us, beyond the limits of our own system, are self-luminous. Noreflected light is strong enough to make its existence perceptibleat such enormous distances in the most powerful telescope whichhas yet been constructed. 

There are some facts connected with our own system which make itappear not improbable that up to the time of which we are speakingthe light which is now gathered up in the sun was diffused over aspace in which at all events the earth's orbit was included. It isnow a recognized fact that all the light of the system is not asyet wholly concentrated in the sun, as we generally recognize it, but that to some extent the sun is still a nebulous star. Underordinary circumstances we see only that circular disc, which weusually recognize as the sun. Its surpassing brightness overpowersevery thing else, whether we view it with the unaided eye orthrough the telescope. But when the actual disc is hidden from usby the moon in a total eclipse, other regions of light surroundingthe disc, make their appearance, and in them the most wonderfulprocesses are continually going on. The simultaneous discoveriesof Messrs. Lockyer and Janssen, in 1868, have enabled some ofthese processes to be continuously watched when the sun is noteclipsed, but others can as yet only be seen during the fewminutes (never amounting to seven) which a total eclipse lasts, sothat as yet we know very little of them. 

Immediately surrounding the disc of the sun, which is visible tothe naked eye, is a brilliant ring of light, known now as thechromosphere or sierra. This is the region which till 1868 couldbe seen only during total eclipses, but can now be watched at alltimes by means of the spectroscope. In it symptoms of intenseaction are from time to time witnessed. For many years past, whenever a total eclipse occurred, there were observed on the edgeof this ring certain red prominences. The spectroscope hasrevealed their nature. They consist chiefly of enormous volumes ofhydrogen, ejected from the surface of the sun with a velocityalmost inconceivable, and at the same time revolving about theiraxis after the fashion of a cyclone. [Footnote: Popular ScienceReview, January, 1872, p. 150; Look. Byer's Lecture on the Sun, atManchester, 1871. ] A very remarkable instance of this was observedin America in September 1871, by Professor Young. A mass ofincandescent hydrogen was propelled to a height of 200, 000 milesabove the visible disc; of these the last 100, 000 miles werepassed through in 10 minutes. Such events, though not commonly onso vast a scale, are continually occurring on the surface of thesun, and they seem to be in close connexion with the magneticphenomena occurring on the earth. 

Beyond the chromosphere lies the corona. The spectroscope has notyet rendered this visible at all times, and consequently we aredependent upon the information to be obtained during the fewminutes of total eclipses, when alone it is visible. Consequentlyduring recent solar eclipses this has been the point to which theattention of astronomers has been especially devoted. The eclipseof December, 1870, decided one point, that the corona was a trulysolar phenomenon, and not, as some astronomers imagined, anoptical phenomenon, produced by our own atmosphere. The coronapresents the appearance of nebulous light, fading as it becomesmore remote from the sun, of very irregular outline, at somepoints not extending more than 15', at others as much as 60' or70' from the sun's disc, or, in other words, reaching to distancesfrom the sun's surface varying from 400, 000 to 1, 800, 000 miles. More important information has been obtained from the eclipse ofDecember 12, 1871. It is now ascertained that the corona comprisesnot only gaseous elements, especially hydrogen, but also solid orfluid particles, capable of giving a continuous though very faintspectrum with dark lines, indicating the existence of mattercapable of reflecting light. The character of the coronal spectrumvery much resembles that of the Nebula in Draco, No. 4373. Theascertained extent of the corona exceeds a million of miles abovethe surface of the sun, and it seems probable that the Zodiacallight is only a fainter extension of it. [Footnote: PopularScience Review, April, 1872, pp. 136-146. ]

On a clear evening in the early spring months, as soon as twilightis completely ended, a conical streak of light may be sometimesseen, arising' from the western horizon, and extending through anarc of 60 or 70 degrees, nearly in the direction of the Ecliptic, and finally terminating in a point. This is the Zodiacal light. Intropical climates it is seen much more frequently, [Footnote:Humboldt, Kosmos, vol. I. P. 126 (Bohu's edition). ] and is muchmore brilliant than in England. This then is probably an envelopeof still fainter light than the corona. It must extend beyond theorbit of Venus, as the maximum elongation of Venus is 47 degrees, while the Zodiacal light has been traced for 70 degrees, andprobably farther. It is very possible that the earth isoccasionally involved in it, and that from it we derive thatdiffused light which, though faint, is very serviceable to us on astarless evening, and of which no other account has as yet beengiven. The light we receive in this way is often as powerful asthat which we should receive from the stars if they were nothidden by clouds. 

These phenomena seem to point to the conclusion that thecondensation of light in the sun has been a very gradual process, which is even yet incomplete. If we suppose that at the time ofthe formation of the coal measures it was not far advanced, butthat a diffused light extended beyond the orbit of the earth, similar in some respects to the present Zodiacal light, but equalin intensity to the light which we now see in the corona, thephenomena of the third day will be satisfactorily accounted for. There is, however, still an enormous amount of mystery connectedwith the sun. It is the centre from which an inconceivable amountof force in the shape of light, heat, actinism, and probably othermanifestations, is hourly poured forth. If the whole of that forcewere divided into two thousand million parts, the portion receivedby the earth would be represented by one of those parts, and thewhole amount received by all the planets would fall short oftwelve of them. All the rest is radiated away into space, and sofar as we know at present lost to the system. The question thenarises, "How is this enormous expenditure supplied?" Varioussources of heat have been suggested, but none of them seemsatisfactory. One conceivable source there is, but that lies outof the domain of science. Then again, metals, which only our mostpowerful furnaces will even melt, exist in the sun's atmosphere inthe state of vapour. What must be the intensity of the heat whichunderlies that metallic atmosphere? and what can be the solid orfluid substances which, from the continuity of the spectrum, weknow must exist there?

We turn now to the Mosaic Record to see what light it throws uponand receives from this investigation. The first thing to benoticed is that the word used by Moses for the sun and moon is notthe same as that employed to denote light. It properly signifies alight-holder, such as a candlestick, and harmonizes with the viewthat the sun in his original state was not luminous, but was madea luminary by the condensation of light previously existent underother conditions. In the next place, though the apparentdimensions of the sun and moon are the same, Moses correctlydescribes the one as "the great light, " the other as "the littlelight, " thus indicating a knowledge to which the astronomers ofhis day had probably not attained. 

The relation between the accounts of the first and fourth day'swork becomes clear if we assume that the sun was not made aluminary till the fourth day. The division of night and daydepends upon two things, the rotation of the earth upon its axis, and the concentration of light in the sun. Hence when the rotationof the earth commenced that division was potentially provided for, but the provision would not take effect until the second conditionwas fulfilled by the concentration of light in the sun. Theindications given by the coal measures point, as we have seen, tothe same conclusion. 

The only remaining question is "What was going on in the earth atthe same time?" Our materials for answering this question are butscanty. So great an alteration in the sources of light and heatmust have involved great physical changes on the earth's surface, and there is reason to believe that great mechanical forces wereat work producing vast changes in the relations of land and water. "It has long been the opinion of the most eminent geologists thatthe coalfields of Lancashire and Yorkshire were once united, theupper coal measures and the overlying Millstone Grit and ToredaleBocks having been subsequently removed by denudation; but what isremarkable is the ancient date now assigned to this denudation, for it seems that a thickness of no less than 10, 000 feet of thecoal measures had been carried away before the deposition of eventhe lower Permian Rocks, which were thrown down upon the alreadydisturbed truncated edges of the coal strata. " [Footnote: Lyell, Geology for Students, p. 377. ] And this is but a single instance. 

During the interval between the deposition of the coal measures, which seem to belong to the third, and the Saurian remains whichmark the fifth day, we have the Permian and Triassic Rocks, ofwhich the Magnesian. Limestone and the new Red Sandstone are themost important representatives in England. Till a very recentperiod it was thought that these rocks belonged to a periodremarkably destitute of animal life, very few fossils having beenfound in them. Recently, however, some very rich deposits havebeen found in the Tyrol, belonging to this period, but they areonly local. 

Of the Permian formation Sir C. Lyell says, "Not one of thespecies (of fossils) is common to rocks newer than thePalaeozoic. " [Footnote: Geology for Students, p. 369. ] This wasnot then a time for the origination of new forms of life. In theTrias, however, the new development of life, which was to attainits full dimensions on the fifth day, begins to open upon us. Theearliest Saurian fossils are found, and the rocks still present uswith impressions of the feet of reptiles and birds, which walkedover the soft seashore, and left footprints, which were firstdried and hardened by the sun and wind, and then filled up withfresh sand by the returning tide, but never entirely coalescedwith the new material. 

At the close of this period the first traces of mammalian lifeoccur, in the shape of teeth, which are supposed to have belongedto some small Marsupial quadrupeds, and in America the whole lowerjaws of three such animals have been discovered; but no otherremains have as yet been traced. 

The Trias then seems to mark the boundary between the fourth andfifth days. The fourth day seems to have been on the earth aperiod of great change, not only in physical conditions, but alsoin the forms of life. In the latter point of view, however, itseems to have been marked by the passing-away of old forms muchmore than by the origination of new ones, and hence the barrennessof the Geological Records is in exact accordance with the silenceof the Mosaic Record as to any new developments. 

SECTION 8. THE FIFTH DAY

"And God said. Let the waters swarm swarms, the soul of life, andlet fowl fly above the earth in the face of the firmament ofheaven. 

"And God created the monsters, the great ones, and every soul oflife that creepeth, with which the waters swarmed, after theirkind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that itwas good. 

"And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fillthe waters in the sea, and let fowl multiply on the earth. 

"And there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day. "

The fifth and sixth days of Creation are those to which the theoryof development chiefly refers. It will, therefore, be better todefer the consideration of its bearing on the narrative till therelation of that narrative to Geological facts has beenconsidered, since it can only be thoroughly weighed when taken inconnexion with the facts which belong to the two days. 

The beginning of the fifth day may be assigned to a point nearwhere the Trias is succeeded by the Lias. As the Trias is drawingto its close, the class of reptiles, whose first known appearancebelongs to the carboniferous epoch of the third day, begins toshow signs of advance. The first true Saurians are found in theTrias: the great development takes place in the Lias and Oolite, while in the chalk large quantities of kindred remains are found, which, however, are not identical with the species found in theearlier groups. Of these some were probably almost entirelyaquatic, as their limbs take the form of paddles; others werepurely terrestrial, a large proportion were amphibious, and some, as the pterodactylus, bore the same relation to the rest of theirclass as the bats bear to the other mammalia, being furnished withmembranous wings, supported upon a special development of theanterior limbs. One important characteristic of the race at thistime was the great size of many of its members: thirty feet is byno means an uncommon length. This marks the fitness of the namegiven to the class by Moses. 

Very few actual remains of birds have been found; but this is notsurprising, since birds would rarely be exposed to the conditionswhich were essential to the fossilization of their remains. Theearliest known fossil bird is the Archaeopteryx, the remains ofwhich were found in 1862 in the Solenhofen Slates, which belong tothe Oolite formation. Though the actual remains of birds are veryfew, traces of their footprints have been found in many places, from the New Red Sandstone upwards, and these traces prove notonly that they were very numerous, but also that they attained toa gigantic size, as their feet were sometimes from twelve tofifteen inches in length, and their stride extended from six toeight feet. During this period, then, these two classes must havebeen the dominant races of the earth. As the precursors of theseclasses made their appearance at a much earlier period, so theepoch of birds and reptiles witnessed the beginning and gradualadvance of the class which was to succeed them in the foremostplace--the mammalia. Generally, however, the mammalian remains ofthis period belong to what are considered the lower classes--themonotremata and marsupialia. The close of this period must havebeen a time of great disturbance in the Northern Hemisphere, sincethe chalk which runs through a great part of Northern Europe, andfrequently attains a thickness of 1000 feet, must have beendeposited at the bottom of a deep sea, and subsequently elevated. 

SECTION 9. THE SIXTH DAY. 

1. The Mammalia. 

"And God said, Let the earth cause to go forth the soul of life, cattle, and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth (wildanimals) after his kind; and it was so. 

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattleafter their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after hiskind; and God saw that it was good. "

In these two verses there are one or two points which call fornotice. In the first place, the creatures mentioned are dividedinto three classes, of which two, cattle and the beast of theearth, are tolerably clear in their general significance, thoughtheir extent is not determined. The third is denoted by a wordwhich had already been employed to describe the work of the fifthday, and is translated in our version "creeping thing. " Theprobability seems to be that it has reference to such classes ofanimals as the smaller rodentia, and the mustelidas, whose motionsmay be appropriately described by the word "creeping. " That itdenotes four-footed creatures has already been pointed out. Thenext point is, that in each case the singular is used; in the caseof the domestic animals this fact is lost to the English reader bythe use of the collective noun "cattle. " Of course it is a commonusage, to denote a class of animals by a singular noun usedgenerically, but the statements of the passage would also bejustified if one pair only of each of the three types specifiedwere called into existence at first. It is also to be noticed thatwhile the word [Hebrew script], the earth is used to define thewild beast; another word, [Hebrew script] the ground, is appliedto the "creeping thing. " There is probably a reason for this, though it may not at present be apparent. 

When we turn to the Geological record, we find that the period ofthe chalk was followed by the deposition of the tertiary strata. During the upheaval of the chalk these strata seem to have beengradually laid down in its hollows, and around its edges. Theyextend from the London clay upward to the crag formations whichappear on the Eastern coast of England at intervals fromBridlington to Suffolk. In these strata we see signs of anapproach to the existing state of things. As we ascend throughthem, a gradually increasing number of the fossil shells are foundto be specifically identical with those which at present inhabitthe ocean. 

Another characteristic of this period is the abundance of fossilremains of mammalia; but in this case, although the remains areevidently, in many cases, those of creatures nearly allied tothose now existing, they are not identical, very greatmodifications both of bulk and of minor structural details havingtaken place. One very important point of difference is the vastlysuperior bulk of these ancient animals: a good illustration ofwhich may be seen in the skeletons of the mammoth and of themodern elephant, which are placed near each other in the BritishMuseum. Many of these animals appear not to have become extincttill long after the appearance of man. 

The first appearance of mammalia, as has been already noticed, must have been long before this, as the earliest fossils yet foundare at the lower limit of the Lias. They belong, however, to thegenus Marsupialia, of which, as far as we know, no representativeswere in existence in any part of the world known to Moses, so thateven on the supposition that he intended to give an account of thefirst appearance of the classes of animals which he mentions, theomission of these would have been inevitable. His words, however, appear to point to a time when the mammalia occupied the leadingplace, just as the reptiles had occupied the leading place at aprevious epoch. And his words are fully borne out by the recordsof the rocks. 

At the close of the tertiary period great changes once more tookplace in the Northern hemisphere. There was a great and extensivesubsidence, in consequence of which a large portion of Northernand Middle Europe must have been under water, the mountain summitsonly appearing as detached islands. At the same time, from causesutterly unknown to us, there was a great depression oftemperature, the result of which was, that all, or nearly all theland, in those regions which were not submerged, was covered withglaciers, much as Greenland is now, and from these glaciers vasticebergs must from time to time have been detached by the sea andfloated off, carrying with them fragments of rock, some freshlybroken, some rounded by long attrition, which were deposited onthe then submerged lands as the ice melted, and are now found asboulders, sometimes lying on the surface, at others dispersedthrough beds of clay and sand formed under water from the debrisworn down by the glaciers. A subsequent movement of elevationushered in the state of things which exists on the earth at thepresent time. 

2. Man. 

"And God said, Let Us make man (Adam) in Our image after Ourlikeness; and he shall have dominion over the fish of the sea, andover the fowl of the heaven, and over the cattle, and over all theearth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 

"And God created man (the Adam) in His image, in the image of Godcreated He him; male and female He created them. 

"And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful andmultiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and rule over the fishof the sea, and the fowl of the heaven, and over every animal thatcreepeth upon the earth. 

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb seeding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree which hasin it the fruit of a tree seeding seed; to you it shall be forfood. 

"And to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of theheaven, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, in whichis the soul of life, every green herb is for meat; and it was so. 

"And God saw every thing--which He had made, and behold it wasgood exceedingly. 

"And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. "

The terms in which the Creation of man is spoken of are such as tochallenge particular attention and to induce us to expectsomething very different from what occurred on any previousoccasion. In the first place, more agents than one are introducedby the use of the plural form of the verb, and thus at the verycommencement of man's career there is an intimation of thatmysterious fact of the Trinity in Unity which was to have soimportant an influence upon his future destiny. Then we are toldthat man was to be formed in the Image of God, a statement whichprobably is of very wide import. It has been variously interpretedas having reference to the spiritual, moral, and intellectualnature of man; to the fact that the nature of man was afterwardsto be assumed by the Second Person of the Trinity; to thedelegated empire of this world which man was to hold. There aretwo expressions of St. Paul: that "man is the image and glory ofGod" (1 Cor. Xi. 7), and that "the invisible things of Him fromthe creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood bythe things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead"(Rom. I. 20), which seem to indicate that this record has asignificance which as yet we can only partially understand. Thenthe story of man's creation is repeated in the second chapter, andwhile the other events recorded in the first chapter are verybriefly summarized, that of man is very much amplified. This doesriot necessarily indicate an independent account, as is sometimesasserted; at the fourth verse of the second chapter a distinctportion of revelation commences--the special dealing of God withman, and this could not be intelligible without an amount ofdetail with reference to man's origin, which would have been outof place in the short account of the origin of the world by whichit is preceded. In this account the creation of Adam and Eve isrecorded as two separate events, the latter of which is describedin terms of deep mystery, of which all that we can say is thatthey point to that still deeper mystery--the birth of the Bride--the Lamb's Wife from the pierced side of the Lamb. But in the caseof Adam there is a remarkable difference from anything that hasgone before. Two distinct acts of creation are recorded; one ofwhich places man before us in his physical relation to the loweranimals, while the other treats of him in his spiritual relationto his Maker. "The Lord God formed man (the Adam) dust from theground (adamah), and breathed into his nostrils the breath oflives; and man became a soul of life. " The inspiration of the"breath of lives" distinguishes the creation of man from that ofall other creatures. 

The Geological records harmonize exactly with the Bible as to thedate of man's appearance on the earth. It is towards the close ofthe age of gigantic mammalia, that the earliest remains of man'sworkmanship make their appearance in the shape of tools andweapons rudely fashioned from stone. Parts of human skeletons havealso been occasionally found, but they are exceedingly rare. Weapons and bones are alike confined to superficial, andcomparatively very recent formations. From such traces as havebeen found there is no reason to believe that any physical changesof importance have taken place in man's body since his firstappearance on the earth. The differences which do exist are of thesame kind as, and not greater than, the differences which existbetween individuals at present. 

The gift of dominion over the lower animals seems to indicatesomething different from that which gives one animal superiorityover another, and accordingly we find that it is not by physicalpower that that dominion is exercised; but that in most of hisphysical faculties man is inferior to the very animals which heholds in subjection. It is partly in virtue of his intellectualsuperiority, and partly perhaps by means of an instinctiverecognition on the part of the animals of man's higher nature(Gen. Ix. 2) that that supremacy is maintained. 

SECTION 10. DEVELOPMENT. 

We have now to consider the question of development, in referenceto the Mosaic Record of the last two days, and to the known factsto which that record has relation. The account of the third day'swork has also a bearing on the subject, but as the sameconsiderations will to a great extent apply to animals and toplants, it will not be necessary to make any special reference toit. 

The facts in favour of the theory of development are these:--1. The different classes of plants and animals are not separated bybroad lines of demarcation, but shade insensibly into each other. 2. The characteristics of the same species are not constant; thelion, for instance, the horse, the elephant, and the hyena of thepresent day differ in many minor points from the correspondinganimals of the Tertiary period, so that unless there was apossibility of spontaneous change, we must assume successivecreations of animals, with only trivial differences. 3. In allanimals there are minute individual differences, and if under anycircumstances these differences had a tendency to accumulate, theymight in the course of time result in great structuralmodifications. 4. Man has been able to take advantage of this factand by careful selection to mould the breeds of domestic animalsto a certain extent in accordance with his own wishes. 

The theory of development assumes that for the care of man otherforces might be substituted, which in a long course of ages mightresult in changes of far greater extent than those produced byhuman agency. The forces assigned are natural selection and sexualselection. The difficulties in the way of this hypothesis havebeen already considered, and only require to be briefly re-stated. 

1. As regards modifications of organs already existing, the twoalleged causes are insufficient to account for the results whichwe witness, since in each individual case the concurrence of manycontingent causes, continued through a long series of ages, isrequired to produce the result. But the probabilities againstsuch, a concurrence in any one case are enormous, and againsttheir concurrence in a large number of cases the chances arepractically infinite. 

2. That such causes do not at all account for cases in which anentirely new organ is developed, such as mammary glands--or forthe case of man, in which intellectual superiority is accompaniedby a loss of physical power. 

3. That from the nature of the case it is impossible for us toascertain that natural or sexual selection has ever acted toproduce a single modification, however small, and that the resultsof man's superintendence have not as yet passed beyond certainnarrow limits, so that there is no justification for theassumption that such modifications are capable of being carried toan unlimited extent. 

We see that in the only case in which change is known to have beenbrought about, it has been the result of choice and design. Ifthen there is a probability that choice and design may have beenexercised by a power higher than man, there is no longer anyreason to doubt but that results much greater than any to whichman can attain may have been brought about by the same means. Andin fact the advocates of the theory of development do virtuallyadmit the existence and action of such a power, whenever they haverecourse to assumed "laws" to account for phenomena for whichtheir naked theory can give no reason. For, as has been shown, law, if it is to be assigned as an efficient cause, and not merelyas the statement of observed facts, can only be regarded as theexpressed and enforced will of a higher power. And there was noreason why those minute variations themselves, which are the basisof Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, should be considered casual. Insteadthen of natural selection, or sexual selection, let us supposethat the selection took place under the superintending care of theCreator, and was directed towards the carrying out of His designs, and then we shall have no reason to doubt but that all resultswhich consisted only in the modification of existing organs mayhave been obtained by the operation of those laws which we termnatural, because they express modes of operation with which we areso familiar that we look upon them as automatic. 

But there are other results for which no natural laws with whichwe are acquainted will thus account. Just as no mechanical lawswithin our knowledge will account for the rotation of the earth, so no physiological laws yet discovered will account for thechanges when totally new orders of being came on the stage--whenthe course of life took, as it were, a new point of departure. Butit is precisely at these points that the Mosaic Record points to aspecial interference on the part of the Creator. How thatinterference took place we are not informed. Very possibly it mayhave been the result of other laws which lie wholly out of thereach of our powers of observation. But whatever may have been itscharacter, it does not in any way imply change or defect in theoriginal plan, unless we know, (what we do not know, and cannotascertain) that such interference formed no part of the originaldesign. Everything bears the marks of progressive development, andthere is nothing improbable, but rather the reverse, in thesupposition that such a plan should include special steps ofadvance to be made when the preparation for them was completed. 

The Mosaic Record tells us nothing about the method by which Godcreated the different varieties of plants and animals. All that weread there is just as applicable to a process of evolution, as toany other method which we may be able to imagine. But it isremarkable that what Moses does say is just what is required tomake Mr. Darwin's theory possible. So far then as the lower ordersof creation are concerned, the hypothesis of development, modifiedby the admission of uniform superintendence and occasional specialinterferences on the part of the Creator, may be accepted as beingthe most satisfactory explanation that can be given, in thepresent state of physiological science, of the ScripturalNarrative. 

But we have yet to consider this hypothesis as applied to man inMr. Darwin's latest work. We naturally recoil from the thoughtthat we have sprung from some lower race of animals--that we areonly the descendants of some race of anthropoid apes. So long asit is asserted that we are no more than this, we may well bereluctant to admit the suggestion. But if it be admitted that to aphysical nature formed like the bodies of the lower animals, aspecial spiritual gift may have been superadded, the difficultyvanishes. All Mr. Darwin's arguments with reference to physicalresemblances may then be admitted, and we may allow that he hasgiven a probable explanation of the method by which "the Lord Godformed the Adam, dust from the ground" while we maintain that theintellectual and moral faculties of man are derived from a sourcewhich lies beyond the investigations of science. 

The conclusions to be drawn from this investigation may be brieflysummed up as follows:--

1. There is every reason to conclude that the process of Creationwas carried on, in great part, under the operation of the systemof natural laws which we still see acting in the world around us:such laws being so far as we are concerned only an expression ofan observed uniformity in the action of that Being by whom theUniverse was created and is upheld. 

2. That inasmuch as the development of a new state of thingsdiffers from the maintenance of a condition already existing, theworking of these laws was necessarily from time to timesupplemented by special interferences of the Creator, but thatsuch interferences formed parts of the original design, and arenot indications of anything in the shape of change or failure. 

3. That many of the events recorded in the Mosaic Record are ofthe nature of such special interferences, while others point toremarkable developments of particular forms of organic life. 

4. That these interferences thus recorded occur at the exactpoints at which natural laws, so far as science has yet been ableto ascertain them, are inadequate to produce the phenomena whichthen took place, and that the developments are proved by geologyto have taken place at the points indicated. 

5. That the six days into which the work is divided by Moses docorrespond to the probable order of development--that in three ofthem, the third, fifth, and sixth, this correspondence is markedby facts ascertained by Geology--that the fourth, in which noterrestrial phenomenon is recorded, corresponds to a very longperiod in the Geological record in which no indications of any newdevelopment are found--while the first and second indicate a stateof things which the nebular hypothesis renders highly probable, but of which no positive information is within the reach ofscience. 

Admitting then that there is something in the way in which thedays are spoken of which we are at present unable to understand, we may yet confidently assert that such a record could not havebeen the product of man's thought at the period at which it waswritten. It is utterly impossible that it should have been theresult of a series of fortunate conjectures without any foundationto rest upon, and scientific foundation there was none, for thereis every reason to believe that the sciences which might perchancenow supply some foundation are entirely the growth of the lastthree centuries. There is then only one conclusion that we candraw, that it is a revelation from the Creator Himself, and thatif there is anything in it which seems inexplicable or erroneous, that appearance arises from our own ignorance of facts, and notfrom any error on the part of the Author.