{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_4598/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_4598","id":"gutenberg_4598","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4598","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Category: Science - Earth/Agricultural/Farming","Creation","Religion and science"],"text":"THE STORY OF CREATION AS TOLD BY THEOLOGY AND BY SCIENCE.\n\nBY T. S. ACKLAND, M.A.,\n\nFORMERLY FELLOW OF CLARE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; VICAR OF WOLD NEWTON,\nYORKSHIRE.\n\n\"SIRS, YE ARE BRETHREN: WHY DO YE WRONG ONE TO ANOTHER?\"\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.   THE CASE STATED\nCHAPTER II.  DIFFICULTIES IN GEOLOGY\nCHAPTER III. DIFFICULTIES IN ASTRONOMY\nCHAPTER IV.  DIFFICULTIES IN PHYSIOLOGY\nCHAPTER V.   SCIENCE A HELP TO INTERPRETATION\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE CASE STATED.\n\n\nThe History of the Creation with which the Bible commences, is not\na mere incidental appendage to God's Revelation, but constitutes\nthe foundation on which the whole of that Revelation is based.\nSetting forth as it does the relation in which man stands to God\nas his Maker, and to the world which God formed for his abode, it\nforms a necessary introduction to all that God has seen fit to\nreveal to us with reference to His dispensations of Providence and\nof Grace.\n\nIt is, however, not uncommonly asserted that this history cannot\nbe reconciled with a vast number of facts which modern science has\nrevealed to us, and with theories based on observed facts, and\nrecommended by the unquestioned ability of the men by whom they\nhave been brought forward. At first sight there does seem to be\nsome ground for this assertion. Geology, for instance, makes us\nacquainted with strata of rock of various kinds, arranged in exact\norder, and of an aggregate thickness of many miles, which are\nfilled with the remains of a wonderful series of plants and\nanimals, these remains not being promiscuously collected, but\narranged in an unvarying order. It seems impossible that all these\nplants and animals could have lived and died, and been imbedded in\nthe rocks in this exact succession, in six of our ordinary days.\nAstronomy directs our attention to changes now going on in the\nstarry heavens which occupy ages in their development, and points\nto traces in the constitution of our own world which seem to\nindicate that it was formed by analogous means. Physiology reveals\nto us the fact that the different varieties of plants and animals\nnow in existence are not separated from each other by well defined\nlines of demarcation, but shade into each other by almost\nimperceptible gradations; and geological researches show that\nwhile the existing species of animals are the representatives of\nthose which lived and died at a period in which we can find no\ntraces of man, they are not identical with them, but that either\nthe old species must have died out, and been replaced by a fresh\ncreation, or a considerable change must have taken place in the\ncourse of ages. These facts are held to be incompatible with the\naccount of creation given by Moses, and hence it is inferred that\na record, which appears to be so widely at variance with admitted\nfacts, cannot be entitled to the authority which is claimed for\nit, as a fundamental portion of a Revelation made by the Creator\nHimself.\n\nThis difficulty is sometimes met by the assertion that the Bible\nwas not given to us to teach us Science, but to convey to us\ncertain information which was essential to our moral welfare, and\nwhich we could not obtain by any other means; that these\ndiscrepancies do not in any way interfere with that portion of\nthose truths which is involved in the History of Creation, but\nthat, however the narrative may be viewed as far as regards its\ndetails, the facts that God is the Creator of all things visible\nand invisible, that He is a Being of infinite Wisdom, Power, and\nLove, and that He has placed man in a peculiar relation to\nHimself, remain unaffected. On this ground it is often urged that\nwe may pass over scientific inaccuracies as matters of no great\nimportance.\n\nTheologians are by no means agreed as to the nature and limits of\nthat inspiration by which Holy Scripture was written. There are\nmany who think that in matters purely incidental to its main\nobject, and lying within the reach of human faculties, the sacred\nwriters were left to the ordinary sources of information, and that\nmany alleged difficulties may be removed by this view.\n\nBut whatever may be thought of the application of this hypothesis\nto some parts of the Bible, there are others to which it is\nplainly inapplicable, and of these the narrative of the Creation\nis evidently one. No theory of limited inspiration can be admitted\nto explain any supposed inaccuracies in that narrative. It cannot\nbe liable to those imperfections which are inevitable when men\nhave to obtain knowledge by the ordinary means, because there were\nno ordinary means by which such information could be obtained. The\nmost carefully preserved records, the oldest traditions could not\nextend backwards beyond the moment when the first man awoke to\nconscious existence. For every thing beyond that point the only\nsource of knowledge available was information derived from the\nCreator Himself. It may be that a revelation of this character was\nmade to Adam in the days of his innocence, that it was carefully\nhanded down to his descendants, and that Moses, under the divine\ndirection, incorporated it into his history; or it may have been\ndirectly communicated to Moses by special inspiration--that\nmatters not--but a divine revelation it must have been, or it is\nnothing; the dream of a poet, or the theory of a philosopher, if\nwe can believe that such a philosopher existed at such a time. But\nif it be indeed a revelation from the Creator Himself, we cannot\nimagine that He could fall into any error, or sanction any\nmisrepresentation with reference even to the smallest detail of\nHis own work.\n\nIf then there are really any errors in this record--any assertions\nwhich the discoveries of science have proved to be untrue, we\ncannot account for them on any theory of limited inspiration. A\nsingle proved error would be fatal to the authority of the whole\nnarrative. But, on the other hand, we are not justified in\nexpecting such an account of the Creation as would commend itself\nto the scientific intellect of the present day. When we attempt to\nform a judgment upon it. We must look not only to its alleged\nauthor, but also to the purposes for which, the circumstances\nunder which, and the persons to whom it was given. In these we may\nexpect to meet with many limitations. It was not designed for the\ncommunication of scientific knowledge, it was necessarily conveyed\nin human language, and addressed to human intelligence, that\nlanguage and that intelligence being, not as they are now, but as\nthey were, taking the latest possible date that can be assigned to\nit, considerably more than three thousand years ago.\n\nThis last consideration affects not only the record itself, but\nalso our facilities for understanding and forming a judgment upon\nit. We have to contend with difficulties of interpretation arising\nfrom our inability fully to realize the circumstances under which\nit was given, and to place ourselves in the mental position of its\noriginal recipients. Owing to our want of this power it may well\nhappen, that though we are in possession of vastly increased\nknowledge, we may be far more liable to fall into error in some\ndirections, in the interpretation of it, than those to whom it was\noriginally addressed.\n\nAn additional difficulty arises from the circumstance that our\nknowledge, wonderfully as it has been increased of late, is yet\nvery far from complete, and is probably in many cases still mixed\nwith error. Hence it may very well happen that where there is\ncomplete harmony between the history and the facts, we may suspect\ndiscord owing to our misunderstanding of the record, or our\nmisconception of the facts. In order that the harmony may be\nrecognized in its fulness, there must be a perfect understanding\nof the record, and a perfect knowledge of the facts. But from both\nof these we are probably at present very far removed.\n\nIf a person who was a thorough master of some science undertook to\nwrite a treatise for the purpose of teaching children the\nrudiments of that science, we should expect, and the more strongly\nif the author were a master of language as well as of science,\nthat his work should contain indications of a master's hand. We\nshould expect that while the book conveyed clearly and simply to\nthe minds of those for whom it was written, the truths which it\nwas intended to teach, it should also convey to the more educated\nreader some intimations of a deeper knowledge on the part of its\nauthor. The choice of a word, the turn of a phrase, the order in\nwhich facts were arranged, the occurrence here and there of a\nsentence which an ordinary reader would pass over as unimportant,\nwould to such a person be indications of trains of thought far\nmore profound than those which appeared on the surface. And this\nrecognition would be proportional to two things--the amount of\nscientific knowledge possessed by the reader, and his mastery of\nthe language in which the book was written.\n\nSuch, then, are the characteristics which we may expect to find in\nthe Record of Creation, if it be indeed, as we believe, a\nrevelation from God, made to men in a very low stage of\nintellectual development. In order that we may be able to form a\nsatisfactory judgment of it, it will be well for us to consider a\nlittle in detail two classes of difficulties. 1. Those which\nbelong to the Revelation itself, arising from the limitations to\nwhich it was necessarily subject in its delivery. 2. Those which\narise from our imperfect knowledge of the language in which it is\nwritten, and from our inability to place ourselves in the\nintellectual position of those to whom it was originally given.\n\n1. When this record was committed to writing, language was in a\nvery different condition from that in which it is now. We have an\naccount of the first recorded exercise of the faculty of speech in\nGen. ii. 19. Adam first used it to give names to all the living\ncreatures as they passed in review before him. In accordance with\nthis statement it appears, from the researches of philologists,\nthat language in its earliest state was entirely, or almost\nentirely limited to words denoting sensible objects and actions.\nIt seems probable that these names were derived from radicals\nexpressing general ideas [Footnote: Max Muller's Lectures on the\nScience of Language, First Series Lect. viii. ix.]; but there is\nreason to doubt whether these radicals ever had a formal existence\nas words--they seem rather to have been the mental stock out of\nwhich words were produced. But the human mind had from the first\npowers for the exercise of which this limited vocabulary was\ninsufficient. Even in the outer world there was much which was the\nobject of reason and inference rather than of sense, while the\nwhole world of consciousness was entirely unprovided with the\nmeans of expression. To meet this difficulty words, which\noriginally denoted objects of sense, were used figuratively to\nexpress ideas which bore some resemblance or analogy, real or\nfancied, to their original significance. As time passed on this\ndifficulty was gradually diminished: synonyms crept into all\nlanguages from various sources, and when once adopted, they were\nin many cases gradually differentiated, the various senses which\nthe original word had borne were portioned off among them, and\nincreased precision was thus obtained.\n\nBut in the infancy of mankind the figurative system was in full\noperation. Hence, all early documents have a strong tinge of the\npoetic element. Poetry, strictly so called, probably had not as\nyet a separate existence; but the whole spoken and written\nlanguage was permeated by that poetic spirit which delights in\ntracing subtle analogies, and in expressing the invisible by means\nof the visible. The translation of the Sanscrit Hymns, which has\nrecently appeared [Footnote: Hymns of the Big Veda Sanhita,\ntranslated by Max Muller, vol. i.], furnishes a most valuable\nillustration of this state of thought and of language. These hymns\nare probably nearly coeval with the Pentateuch. They were the\nproduction of a different branch of the human family, and indicate\na different tone of thought, but they bring out very clearly the\nfigurative character of primitive language, abounding in fanciful\ndescriptions of natural phenomena, which, when their metaphorical,\ncharacter was forgotten, passed by an easy transition into the\ngraceful myths and legends of early Greece.\n\nThen there was a poverty in these primitive vocabularies even in\nreference to sensible objects, which in many cases rendered it\nnecessary to employ the same word in more or less extensive\nsignifications, and in the Semitic languages the power of\ninflexion was in some directions very limited. This limitation is\nmost remarkable in the forms used for the expression of time. One\nform alone was available to express those modifications which are\nindicated by the imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and aorist tenses\nof the classical languages.\n\nInstances of all these sources of uncertainty meet us very early\nin Genesis. In the very first verse we have a word, [Hebrew\nscript], which has great latitude of meaning. It is either the\nearth as a whole (ver. 1), or the land as distinguished from the\nwater (ver. 10), or a particular country (ii. 11). In many cases,\nas in all these, the context at once determines the sense to be\nchosen; but there are other cases in which considerable difficulty\narises. The whole question of the universality of the deluge\nturns, in a great degree, upon the signification which is assigned\nto this same word in the sixth and following chapters. In the\nsecond verse we have another word, [Hebrew script], which is\ncapable of various interpretations. It is used throughout the\nBible in the three distinct meanings of \"wind,\" \"breath,\" and\n\"spirit.\" Where we read, \"And the Spirit of God moved upon the\nface of the waters,\" the Jewish paraphrase is, \"And a wind of God\n(i.e. a great wind) moved,\" &c. Here there is nothing in the\ncontext to assist us in determining the sense to be chosen; but,\nas will be seen in the sequel, modern science indicates that the\nJewish interpretation is untenable, and that our translation is,\nconsequently, the correct one. As an instance of confusion of\ntime, we may refer to ii. 19. In our translation this verse seems\nto place the creation of animals after that of man; but in xii. 1,\nthe very same form is translated by the pluperfect, \"Now the Lord\nhad said unto Abram.\" It ought evidently to be translated in the\nsame way here: \"And out of the ground the Lord God had formed,\"\n&c. In ii. 5, on the other hand, the pluperfect might with\nadvantage have given place to another form: \"For the Lord God did\nnot cause it to rain.\" The phenomenon referred to appears to have\nbeen local and temporary. Had the pluperfect been omitted in one\ncase and supplied in the other two sources of apparent difficulty\nwould have been removed.\n\nIt is very clear, then, that there could be no approach to\nscientific accuracy in a narrative written in such a language as\nthis. Such accuracy is, in fact, attainable only in proportion, as\nscience has moulded language for its own purposes. But language is\nat all times an index of the general mental condition of the\npeople who use it, and so the knowledge and the ideas of the men\nof these primitive times must have been extremely limited in all\nthose directions with which we have to do. Accordingly, we find no\ntrace of any doubt whether the information with reference to\nexternal objects which was received through the senses was in all\ncases to be depended on. There can be little doubt that to those\nearly observers the sky was a solid vault, on the face of which\nthe sun, moon, and planets moved in their appointed courses; the\nstars were points of light, golden studs in the azure canopy; the\nsun and moon were just as large as they appeared to be, and the\nearth was a solid immovable plane of comparatively small extent.\nAt the time of the Exodus, it seems clear that, even among a\npeople so far advanced as the Egyptians, all that lay beyond the\nmountains which bounded their land on the west was believed to\nbelong not to living men, but to disembodied spirits. It was the\nterrible country through which the souls of the departed made\ntheir arduous way to the Hall of Judgment [Footnote: \"The Nations\nAround,\" pp. 49, 50.] Accordingly, we find that the Egyptians made\nno attempt to extend the limits of their empire in this direction,\nwhile the monarchs of the Mesopotamian region seem to have been\nequally unambitious of conquest beyond the mountain ranges which\nbounded the valley of the Tigris on the east. Mesopotamia, then,\non the east, Egypt on the west, Armenia and Asia Minor on the\nnorth, and Arabia on the south, seem, in the view of the\ncontemporaries of Moses, to have been the utmost regions of the\nworld. Ignorant as they were of any countries beyond these, they\nwere, of course, equally ignorant of the numberless varieties of\nplants and animals that were to be found in them, and with which\nwe are familiar. Mining was not unknown, but the mines were few\nand superficial; they could not reveal much of the structure of\nthe earth, and what little they did reveal passed unnoticed.\nNothing was known of the successive beds of rock which form the\ncrust of the earth, of the fossils with which they abound, or of\nthe gradual changes to Which they are still subject. If any one\nhad told the men of that generation that the solid earth on which\nthey stood, or the everlasting hills which surrounded them, were\nundergoing slow but steady modifications, he would have been\nlooked upon as a madman.\n\nA revelation, then, addressed to men whose language, whose\nintellectual powers, and whose stock of ideas were thus limited,\nmust of itself also necessarily have been both limited and\ndestitute of precision. It could only deal with things with which\nthey had some acquaintance, or of which they could form some idea,\nwhile, from the character of the language, and the extreme brevity\nof the record, the treatment of even these few subjects must have\nbeen of a vague and indefinite character. Traces of a deeper\nknowledge there might be, but they would not lie upon the surface.\nThey must be carefully sought for, and then they would be\ndiscernible only by those who were in possession of the key which\nwould unlock their hidden secrets.\n\nSuch are the limitations under which the revelation was\nnecessarily given. We have now to consider our own especial\ndifficulties, the obstacles which stand in our way when we would\ndiscover for ourselves all the information which the record is\ncapable of conveying. For if this record be, as we believe, the\nwork of the Great Architect of the Universe, then it is probable\nthat its every detail is significant; that wherever it was\npossible words were chosen which, when scrutinized, would convey\nmuch more information than appeared on the surface. The great\nproblem for us to solve is, What are the difficulties which stand\nin our way when we would seek this knowledge, and what are the\nmeans by which those difficulties may be surmounted, and the\nhidden treasure displayed?\n\nOur first difficulty arises from a matter which, viewed in another\nlight, is one of our greatest blessings. We are familiar with the\nRecord through the medium of our own noble version. Probably it is\nimpossible for any translation more exactly to represent the\noriginal as it presented itself in the first instance to the minds\nof those to whom it was addressed. Accordingly we learn it in our\nearliest childhood; its majestic phrases imprint themselves on our\nmemory; our undeveloped minds seem capable of taking in all that\nit was intended to convey, and so the impressions formed of it in\nour infancy abide with us all our days. We are contented with\nthem, and do not trouble ourselves to inquire whether there is not\nsomething beyond, which we have not realized.\n\nAll this time we forget that, excellent as it is, it is after all\nonly a translation, and that the very best translation cannot\nrepresent in their fulness the ideas embodied in the original.\nEtymological relations between words often give a force and\nmeaning to a sentence which it is impossible to transfuse into\nanother language, because the same relations do not exist between\nthe words which we are constrained to employ. Then there is an\nintimate relation between men's thoughts and the language which\nthey habitually use, so that those thoughts cannot be perfectly\nexpressed in a language whose character is different. Again in\nevery language there are many words which bear several cognate\nsenses, which may be represented by as many different words in the\nlanguage of the translation; so that if the best word is chosen,\nmuch of the fulness of the original must be lost; while it may so\nhappen that the selected word has also a variety of\nsignifications, which do not correspond with the varying meanings\nof the original word, and thus senses may be ascribed to the\noriginal which it will not bear, because the reader annexes to the\nword in the translation a sense different from that in which it\ncorresponds to the original word. To all these sources of\nimperfection must be added the fact that our translation was made\nat a time when science was not yet sufficiently developed to\nexercise any influence upon it. There was nothing to induce the\ntranslators to attempt, where it was possible, to preserve any\nindications of a deeper meaning, because they had no reason to\nsuspect that any such deeper meaning existed, or that any\nindications of such a meaning were to be found.\n\nTo the difficulties of translation must be added the difficulties\nof accumulated tradition. The characteristics which mark our own\nchildish intellect are apparent also in the collective intellect\nof the human race in its earlier and ruder development. There are\ntwo characteristics of the human mind in this condition, which\nhave had a very great effect on the interpretation of this portion\nof the Bible.\n\nThe first of these is the impatience of doubt and uncertainty. The\npower of recognizing the imperfection of our knowledge, and the\nconsequent necessity of suspending our judgment, is a power which\nis only gradually acquired with the accumulation of experience.\nThe young untrained mind finds it difficult to realize the truth\nthat any information communicated to it is not altogether within\nthe grasp of its faculties. It must attach some definite meaning\nto the words; it must image to itself some way in which great\nevents were brought about, great works were accomplished. It finds\nit difficult to realize a fact as accomplished, unless it can also\npicture to itself some way in which it might have been effected.\nFor this purpose such knowledge as it has at its command is\nemployed, and where that fails recourse is had to the imagination\nto supply the deficiency. Thus it has been with ourselves in our\nchildhood, and thus it was in the childhood of the world.\nKnowledge was indeed sought, but it was not sought in the right\nway, and so the search often resulted in error, and this error\nproduced its effect in the interpretation of the passage in\nquestion. The old school of inquirers started from certain\nabstract principles, and endeavoared to reduce the results of\nobservation to conformity with those principles. This was the case\nwith astronomy. The old astronomers taking as axioms the two\nassumptions that everything connected with the heavenly bodies\nmust be perfect, and that the circle is the only perfect figure,\neasily satisfied themselves that the orbits of all the heavenly\nbodies must be circles. Hence came the\n\n    \"Cycle on epicycle, orb on orb,\"\n\nby which they sought to account for the phenomena which they\nobserved. When once the method was changed, when once it had\noccurred to Kepler that, as it seemed to be impossible to account\nfor the apparent motion of Mars by any theory of circular orbits,\nit might be worth while to try to ascertain by observation what\nits orbit really was, a few years of patient labour sufficed to\nsolve the problem.\n\nIt was science such as this, then, that our forefathers brought to\nthe interpretation of the Mosaic Record, and the consequence was\nthat when, from time to time, facts were casually brought to light\nwhich might have led the way to vast discoveries, their true\nsignificance was never discerned; all that was sought from them\nwas some additional support to the old views. Thus sometimes\ngigantic bones were exhumed: without investigation, it was at once\nassumed that they were human bones, and they were brought forward\nto prove the truth of the statement, \"There were also giants in\nthe earth in those days.\" Sea-shells were found on mountain sides,\nfar from and high above the sea--they were evidences of the\nDeluge.\n\nThe second characteristic of that state of mind is its admiration\nof the startling and the vast. In these alone it recognizes the\ntokens of unlimited power. It is unable to appreciate those more\nmajestic manifestations of power which are discerned by the\nenlightened eye, when a stupendous scheme is developed, gradually\nand imperceptibly, but without pause or hesitation through a long\nsuccession of ages; when a multitude of seemingly discordant\nelements are at last brought together in a perfect work; when a\npower, unseen and unnoticed, slowly but surely overrules the\nworking of ten thousand apparently independent agents, through a\nthousand generations, and moulds their separate works into one\nharmonious whole. Such a manifestation of power as this was beyond\nthe grasp of the untrained mind; but to such intellects there was\nsomething irresistibly fascinating in the idea of a world rising\ninto perfect existence in a moment, of innumerable hosts of living\ncreatures called into being at a word. Such was the meaning of the\naccount of creation which naturally suggested itself to the\nuntrained mind, and there was nothing in science in those early\ndays to throw any doubt upon it, and so this belief was\nunhesitatingly and almost universally adopted. Here and there,\nindeed, some man of deeper thought than his brethren, such as St.\nAugustine [Footnote: See St. Augustine, \"De Genesi ad Literam,\"\nLiber Imperfectus, and Libri Duodecim, and also \"Confessionum\"\nLiber xiii.], suspected that there might be more in that seemingly\nsimple record than was generally acknowledged; but such men had no\nmeans of verifying their conjectures, and their number was very\nsmall. For three thousand years the old view was practically\nunquestioned, it received the tacit sanction of the Church, it\ngradually became identified in the minds of all with the record\nitself, and was as much an article of faith as the very Creed.\n\nThis was the state of things, when at last science awoke from its\nlong slumber, and began for the first time to employ its energies\nin the right direction. Very soon discoveries were made which\nstartled the minds of all believers in the Bible. The first shock\nwhich the old belief sustained was from the establishment of the\nCopernican view of the Solar System. That the world was the\nimmovable centre of the universe, around which sun, moon, and\nplanets moved in their appointed courses, was universally held to\nbe the express teaching of the Bible; and when Galileo ventured to\nmaintain the new views in Italy, the Roman Curia took up the\nquestion, and by the agency of the Inquisition wrung from him a\nreluctant retractation of his so-called heresy. But it was of no\navail. The new doctrine was true, and it could not be crushed.\nFresh evidence of its truth was continually coming forward, till\nat last it was universally received. Then the defenders of the\nBible had recourse to the suggestion that as the Bible was not\nintended to teach us science, such errors were of no consequence,\nBut this argument, though perfectly sound with reference to such\npassages as Joshua x. 12-14, where an event is described as it\nappeared to those who witnessed it, is not admissible in such a\npassage as Psalm xcvi. 10, where the supposed immobility of the\nearth is alleged as a proof of God's sovereignty, and is made the\nfoundation of the duty of proclaiming that sovereignty among the\nheathen. When the supposed proof was found to be a fallacy, the\nstatement in support of which it was alleged would be more or less\nshaken. In such a passage, then, the theory of limited inspiration\nis evidently untenable. At last the only sensible course was\nadopted. Recourse was had to the original, and it was at once\napparent that the supposed difficulty had no real existence, but\nthat there was a very trifling inaccuracy in the translation; for\nthat the word translated \"shall not be moved\" really signified\n\"shall not be shaken or totter.\" The same word is used in Psalm\nxvii. 5, \"Hold up my goings in Thy paths, that my footsteps SLIP\nNOT.\" Instead, then, of an error, we have an exact description of\nthe earth's motion--a motion so steady and equable, that for\nthousands of years no single individual out of the myriads who\nwere continually carried along by it had ever suspected its\nexistence.\n\nWell had it been for all if the lesson thus taught had been deeply\nlaid to heart. But unhappily it was entirely unnoticed. Science\npursued its way with increasing energy, and more facts were year\nby year brought to light which seemed entirely to contradict the\nteaching of the Bible, and again alarm and distrust sprung up in\nthe minds of what, for want of a better name, we may perhaps be\nallowed to designate as the \"Theological Party.\" The power of the\nChurch of Rome was by this time so far curtailed that the old\nmeans of repression were no longer available; but the old spirit\nsurvived, and not in Rome only. There was the same blind distrust,\nthe same mistaken zeal for supposed truth, the same indignation\nwhich naturally arises when things which we hold precious are\nattacked, and, as it seems to us, without any sufficient reason.\n\nThere was indeed much to account for and even to justify the\nfeelings of anger and alarm which were excited, for the time when\nthese discoveries began to be brought prominently forward was the\nlatter half of the last century. At that time the famous French\nAcademy was doing its deadly work, and the new discoveries were\ngladly hailed by the infidel philosophers of France, as weapons\nagainst the Bible. But the reception given to these discoveries by\nthe theological party, though partially justified by the\ncircumstances of the times, was nevertheless very mischievous in\nits results. For though the new discoveries were hailed\nenthusiastically by the infidel school, a very large portion of\nthe men by whom they were made, and of those who were convinced of\ntheir truth, were men of a very different character. They were\nsimple earnest seekers after truth as it is displayed in God's\nworks. Their belief in the Bible rested in most cases on the\nauthority of others. They had not investigated for themselves its\nexternal evidences; in many cases they had neither the ability nor\nthe opportunity to do so; nor had many of them as yet become\npractically familiar with that internal evidence which the\nfaithful Christian carries within him, though in time they might\nhave become so, had they not been driven into infidelity by the\nreception which was given to their discoveries. When men of this\ncharacter were informed by those to whom they were accustomed to\nlook up as teachers in religious matters, that the discoveries, of\nthe truth of which they were so firmly convinced, and in which\nthey took such justifiable pride, were contradictory to the\nteaching of the Bible, they were placed in a position of extreme\ndifficulty. For this statement was, in fact, a demand made upon\nthem that they should give up these discoveries as erroneous, or\nelse renounce their belief in the Bible. But their belief in the\nBible rested in the main on the authority of others; they felt\nthemselves incompetent judges of the evidence on which it rested,\nwhile they were fully acquainted with, and competent judges of,\nthe grounds on which their own discoveries were based. The\nevidence on which they acted was, to their minds, quite as\nconvincing as the Biblical evidence was to the minds of their\nantagonists. Two things, then, were pronounced incompatible by\nwhat seemed to be a competent authority; they could not adhere to\nboth, and the natural consequence was that their assent was given\nto those statements which rested on evidence which they thoroughly\nunderstood, and the Bible was rejected. Thus it has come to pass\nthat many of our scientific men, if not professed unbelievers,\nhave yet learnt to look upon the Bible with suspicion and\ndistrust. To some of them, as is evident from their writings,\ntheir position is a matter of profound sorrow.\n\nThere have, indeed, been many noble exceptions to this state of\nthings. Many men whose pre-eminence in scientific knowledge and\nresearch is admitted by all, have yet clung in childlike trust to\nthe Bible. They have recognized its authority, they have been\nsatisfied that God's Word could not be in opposition to His Work,\nand they have been content to wait in unquestioning faith for the\nday when all that now seems dark and perplexing shall be made\nclear. But there have also been very many with whom this has not\nbeen the case, and their unbelief has not affected themselves\nalone. The knowledge of it has had a deadly effect upon thousands\nwho were utterly incompetent to form any judgment on either\ntheological or scientific subjects, but who gladly welcomed\nanything which would help to justify them to their own consciences\nin their refusal to submit themselves to a law which, in their\nignorance, they deemed to be harsh and intolerable. There has also\nbeen another class of sufferers. Many persons who loved the Bible,\nbut whose education, and, consequently, whose powers of judgment\nin the matter were very limited, have received very great injury\nfrom the doubt which has been thrown on its authority. Unable of\nthemselves to form a judgment on the subject, they could not be\nunmoved by the opinion expressed by those whom they regarded as\nbetter informed than themselves. Hence their faith has received a\nshock always painful and dangerous, often perhaps fatal.\n\nMany attempts have been made to overcome the difficulty which has\nthus arisen. When geologists first began to study the lessons\nwhich are to be learnt from fossils, a suggestion was made which,\nthough it was soon shown to be untenable, has still perhaps a few\nsupporters. It was said that these fossils were not what they\nseemed to be, the remains of creatures which once lived, but\nsimple stones, fashioned from the first in their present form by\nthe will of the Creator. But such an idea is at variance with all\nthat either Nature or Revelation teaches us concerning God. All\nthose who have any familiarity with the subject cannot but feel\nthat the suggestion of such a solution of the difficulty is little\nshort of a suggestion that the Almighty has stamped a lie upon the\nface of His own Work.\n\nAnother proposed solution, which for a time seemed satisfactory,\nassumed several successive creations and destructions of the world\nto have taken place in the interval between the first and second\nverses of Genesis. To these all the fossil remains were ascribed,\nwhile the present state of things was supposed to be the result of\nthe operations recorded in the remainder of the chapter. But as\ngeological knowledge advanced, it soon became clear that there\nwere no breaks in the chain of life; no points at which one set of\ncreatures had died out, while another had not yet arisen to fill\nup the void, but that all change had been gradual and progressive,\nand that species still living on the earth are identical with some\nwhich were in existence when the lowest tertiary strata were in\nprocess of formation--a time which must have been many thousand\nyears prior to the appearance of man.\n\nOther attempts have been made upon literary grounds. Hugh Miller\n[Footnote: Testimony of the Rocks.] carefully worked out a\nsuggestion derived from a German source, that the history of\nCreation was presented to Moses in a series of six visions, which\nappeared to him as so many days with intervening nights. More\nrecently Dr. Rorison [Footnote: In Answers to \"Essays and\nReviews.\"] has maintained that the first chapter of Genesis is not\na history at all, but a poem--\"the Hymn of Creation.\" There is,\nhowever, nothing in the chapter itself to confirm either of these\nviews. When visions are recorded elsewhere we are told that they\nare visions, but no such hint is given us here. Nor do we find in\nthe passage any of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry. It is\ninserted in an Historical document, and in the absence of any\nproof to the contrary, it is plainly itself also to be regarded as\nHistory.\n\nBut there remains yet one method to be attempted. If there is\nreason to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, just as the\nuniverse is His Work, then we may well expect that each of them\nwill throw light upon and help us to a right understanding of the\nother. And if there be one part beyond all others in which this\nmay be confidently looked for, it is that part in which the Divine\nArchitect describes His own work. We know how difficult it is to\nunderstand a complicated process, or a complex piece of machinery,\nfrom a mere written description; and how our difficulty is\nlessened if we have the opportunity of inspecting the machinery or\nthe process. Just in the same way we may expect to encounter\ndifficulties, and to form erroneous conclusions when we study by\nitself such a document as the history of Creation, and we may well\nexpect that those difficulties will be diminished, and those\nerrors corrected by an examination of that material universe, the\nproduction of which it describes. And, on the other hand, if\nscience--the study of the universe--is found to throw light upon\nand to receive light from the Bible, this is a fresh proof that\nthe Bible and the universe are from the same source; the authority\nof the Bible is more firmly established, and the conclusions\narrived at by men of science are confirmed.\n\nBut before this can be done to any good purpose, something is\nrequired from both the contending parties. The theological party\nmust be prepared to sacrifice many an old opinion, many a\ncherished belief. Great care must be taken to discriminate between\nthe genuine statements of the Mosaic Record, and the old\ninterpretations which have been incorporated into and identified\nwith those statements. Some, perhaps, may fear lest, in rejecting\nthose interpretations, they may be setting at nought an authority\nto which they ought to submit, since these interpretations seem to\nhave the sanction of the Church. But it can hardly be maintained\nthat those promises of Divine guidance and protection from error\nwhich were given to the Church extended to such matters as this.\nNo question of faith or duty is involved in the interpretation\nwhich we may give to the details of Creation. If there are some\nparts of the Bible in which the earliest interpretation is\nunquestionably the true one, there are also other parts, such as\nmany of the prophecies, which became intelligible only when light\nwas thrown upon them by subsequent events. And so it seems to be\nwith the Record of Creation: it can only be rightly understood in\nproportion as we become acquainted with the details of the matters\nto which it refers. Any interpretation which was put upon it\nbefore those details were brought to light must of necessity be\nliable to error.\n\nBut something is also required of the opposite party. At the very\nthreshold of the investigation they must be asked to lay aside, so\nfar as is possible, those prejudices against the Bible which have\nnaturally arisen in their minds from the obstinacy with which\nviews, which they knew to be untenable, have been forced upon\ntheir acceptance as the undoubted teaching of God, so that they\nmay enter upon the investigation with unbiassed minds. Then they\nmust be careful to distinguish between established facts, and\ntheories however probable. There is something very fascinating in\na well constructed theory. Theories have again and again done such\ngood service in opening the way, first, to the discovery, and then\nto the arrangement of facts, that we are very apt to assign to\nthem an authority far beyond that to which they are really\nentitled. When, for instance, we have ascertained that a certain\nnumber of facts are explained by some particular theory, we are\napt to assume prematurely, that the same theory must account for\nand be in harmony with all similar and related facts; or, if we\nhave satisfied ourselves that certain results MAY have been\nproduced in a particular way, we are in great danger of being led\nto conclude that they MUST have happened in that way. No mere\ntheory can have any weight against a statement resting on solid\nevidence, but where the evidence is weak, or, what is practically\nthe same thing, where the knowledge of that evidence is defective,\na probable theory must carry great weight in influencing our\njudgment. Care must therefore be taken to keep theories in their\nproper place. Where we have to deal with well-established facts,\nany interpretations to which those facts may lead us may be taken\nas also established, but interpretations which are suggested by\ntheories only must be regarded as provisional, and liable to\nfuture modification or rejection, as our knowledge increases.\n\nThe Mosaic Record itself, when carefully examined, seems to be\npeculiarly open to the process suggested. No doubt there is yet\nmuch work for Philology to do in its interpretation [Footnote:\nSuch words, for instance, as [Hebrew script:],[Hebrew script:],\n[Hebrew script], used of different creative acts, may imply some\ndifference of which we are ignorant. So again the uses of the\nwords [Hebrew script], [Hebrew script:], and [Hebrew script:] for\n\"man,\" may have a bearing on some of those questions which now\nseem most perplexing.], but one thing seems certain--there is in\nit an absence of all detail. The facts to which it has reference\nare stated in the briefest and most simple manner, without the\nslightest reference to the means by which they were effected, or,\napart from the question of the days, the time which was occupied\nin their accomplishment. When stripped of all that is traditional,\nand examined strictly by itself, the narrative seems greatly to\nresemble one of those outline maps which are supplied to children\nwho are learning geography, on which only a few prominent features\nof the country are laid down, and the learner is left to fill in\nthe details as his knowledge advances. Only in this case the\ndetails have already been filled in by the light of very imperfect\nknowledge, aided by a fertile imagination. These we must\nobliterate if we would restore the possibility of a faithful\ndelineation, and we must be careful, in future, to avoid a similar\nerror. We must put down nothing as certain which has not been\nconclusively shown to be so.\n\nThis last caution is specially needed at the present time, for,\nproud as we are of our advance in science, the amount of what is\ncertainly known is probably very much less than we imagine. A\ngreat deal that was received as certain a few years ago, is now\nconsidered to be doubtful, or even recognized as a mistake and\nabandoned. This is especially the case with Astronomy, which seems\nto be almost in a state of revolution. Dependent, as it is almost\nentirely, upon mechanical and optical aid, every improvement and\ndiscovery in these departments changes its position, bringing to\nlight new facts, and modifying the aspect of those which were\npreviously known. The very basis of all astronomical calculations,\nthe standard of time, is now no longer relied upon as invariable.\nIt is suspected of a change resulting from a gradual retardation\nin the rate of the earth's rotation on its axis, produced by tidal\nfriction. When the binary stars were discovered, the discovery was\nhailed as a proof of the universal prevalence of the law of\ngravitation. Later observations have thrown doubt upon that\nconclusion, as many pairs are known to exist, which, though they\nhave what is termed a \"common proper motion,\" or are journeying\nthrough space together, have no relative motion, which they must\nshow, if they were moving under the influence of their mutual\nattractions. The supposed simplicity of the solar system has given\nplace to extreme complexity. A century ago, six planets, ten\nsatellites, and a few comets, were supposed to constitute the\nwhole retinue of the sun: now, instead of this, we have two groups\nof four planets each, the individual members of each group closely\nresembling each other in all points within our knowledge, while in\nall these points the groups differ greatly. Between these two\ngroups lies a belt of very small planets, of which the 1st was\ndiscovered on the first day of the present century, and the 124th\nthis year, and the number of known satellites has increased from\n10 to 17. Add to this the meteoric groups, and their suspected\nconnexion with certain comets, and the perplexing questions\nsuggested by the Solar Corona and the Zodiacal light, and it will\nbe seen that our knowledge is in a transitional state; that with\nso many problems unsolved, any apparent contradiction to the\nsacred record will require a careful scrutiny to ascertain that\nthe grounds on which it is brought forward are well established.\n\nGeology, so far as our present subject is concerned, stands upon a\nsomewhat different footing. Though a much younger science than\nastronomy, it has one great advantage over it; the facts with\nwhich it has to do are for the most part discernible by the\nunaided senses, and it is therefore independent of instrumental\nhelp. Many changes have occurred in the views of Geologists, but\nin the main they have reference to processes [Footnote: Such, for\ninstance, is the modification of the views of geologists as to the\nrelative effects of \"disruption\" and \"denudation\" in determining\nthe features of the earth's surface.] rather than to results, and\nit is the results with which we are chiefly concerned.\n\nPhysiologists have entered on the contest with the Bible on two\ndifferent, and seemingly contradictory grounds. Some of them have\nmaintained that the varieties of mankind are so distinct, that it\nis impossible they can all be descended from a single human pair,\nwhile others assert that not only all the varieties of mankind,\nbut all the varieties of living beings are descended from a single\nprogenitor. Between the advocates of these two systems there must\nbe such an enormous difference as to the extent to which variation\nis possible, as to justify us in assuming that the fundamental\nprinciples of physiological science are not yet satisfactorily\nascertained.\n\nThese are the three branches of science which come especially into\ncollision with the Mosaic Record of the Creation. Of these Geology\nis the most important, because it is able to bring forward\nunquestionable facts which are in direct opposition to the\ntraditionary interpretation Astronomy and physiology have little\nto object except theoretical views; the hypotheses of Laplace and\nDarwin. These, however, will have to be carefully considered. It\nwill be necessary for us first to ascertain whether there really\nexists any such fundamental discrepancy between the record and\nascertained facts, or theories so far as they are supported by\nfacts, and stand on a probable footing, as should render all\nattempts at harmonizing them vain. If this is found not to be the\ncase, we shall then be in a position to inquire whether modern\ndiscoveries afford us any really valuable light, and can assist us\nto form a somewhat more extended and accurate idea of the\nprocesses described by the sacred historian.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nDIFFICULTIES IN GEOLOGY.\n\n\nThe principal points on which there is a supposed discrepancy\nbetween the Mosaic Record and the discoveries of geologists are as\nfollows:--\n\nTHE MOSAIC RECORD APPEARS TO ASSERT--\n\nI. That the world in all its completeness, as it now exists, was\nmoulded out of material in a chaotic state in six ordinary days.\nGeologists have ascertained, beyond the possibility of a doubt,\nthat the process must have occupied countless ages.\n\nII. That the first appearance of animal life was on the fifth of\nthose six days. Geologists have discovered that animal life was in\nexistence at the very earliest period to which they have as yet\nbeen able to extend their investigations.\n\nIII. That all living creatures are divided into two classes, and\nthat the first of these classes was created on the fifth, the\nsecond on the sixth day; and that each class, in all its\ndivisions, with the exception of man, came into existence\nsimultaneously. Geologists trace the rise and increase of each\nclass through a long course of ages.\n\nIV. That death entered into the world through the sin of man. The\nvery existence of fossils implies that it was the law of all\nanimal life from the first.\n\nV. That till the fall all creatures lived exclusively on vegetable\nfood. Geologists have ascertained the existence of carnivorous\ncreatures from a very remote period.\n\nBesides these, there are some other supposed difficulties and\ninaccuracies of a less important character, which may be noticed,\nin passing, when the true meaning of the record is under\ndiscussion.\n\nSECTION 1. THE DAYS.\n\nThe question of the days is beyond all doubt the most important of\nthose which have to be discussed. On the one hand, the impression\nnaturally left upon the reader of the first chapter of Genesis is\nthat natural days are meant, and this impression is not removed by\na cursory inspection of the original. On the other hand, if there\nis any one scientific belief which rests on peculiarly solid\nground, it is the belief that the formation of the world occupied\na period which is beyond the grasp of the most powerful\nimagination.\n\nThere is, indeed, some reason to think that the time claimed by\ngeologists is somewhat exaggerated. Their views are in many cases\nbased on the assumption that change is now going on, on the\nsurface of the earth, as it did in all past time--that it is the\nsame in character, in intensity, and in rate. But there are good\nreasons for supposing that almost all the causes which lead to\nchange are gradually decreasing in intensity. The chief causes by\nwhich changes are brought about are the upheaval and subsidence of\nthe earth's surface; the destructive agencies of wind, storms at\nsea, rain and frost; and the action of the tides. Of these, all\nbut the last are directly dependent on the action of heat, and\nthere is every reason to believe that the heat of the earth is in\nprocess of gradual dissipation. If this be the case, all those\nagencies which are dependent on it must\n\n[Footnote: It is thought probable that this process is complete,\nor nearly so, in the moon. If this be the case, it is in all\nprobability in progress in the case of the earth, though, owing to\nthe much greater bulk of the latter, it occupies a longer period.\n--Lockyer, Lessons in Astronomy, p. 93.] be declining in intensity;\nbut the rate of that decrease is unknown; it may be in\narithmetical, or it may be in geometrical progression. It is,\nthen, by no means impossible that changes, which now only become\ndiscernible with the lapse of centuries, might, at some past\nperiod of our globe's history, have been the work of years only.\nNor is it at all probable that the present rate of change, which\nis assumed as the basis of the calculation, is known with any\napproach to accuracy. Exact observations are of very recent date;\nboth the inclination and the means for making them are the growth\nof the last two centuries, and the changes which have to be\nascertained are of a class peculiarly liable to modification from\na variety of local and temporary causes, so that a very much\nlonger period must elapse before we can arrive at average values\nwhich may be relied on as even approximately accurate.\n\nAnother circumstance, which seems to merit more attention than it\nhas received, is the very frequent recurrence in Greek mythology\nof allusions to creatures which have been usually regarded as the\ncreations of a poetic fancy, but which bear a strong resemblance\nto the Saurian and other monsters of the Oolite and Cretaceous\nformations. Of course, it is not impossible that these things may\nhave been purely poetic imaginings; but, if so, it is very\nremarkable that such realizations of those imaginings should be\nafterwards discovered. It would seem much more probable that these\nlegends were exaggerated traditions of creatures which actually\nexisted when the first colonists reached their new homes, in\nnumbers comparatively small, but still sufficient to occasion much\ndanger and alarm to the early settlers, and to cause their\ndestroyers to be regarded as among the greatest heroes of the time\nand the greatest benefactors of mankind. The Hindoo tradition of\nthe tortoise on whose back stands the elephant which upholds the\nworld, and the account of Leviathan in the Book of Job, seem to\npoint in the same direction. [Footnote: For additional instances\nsee Tylor's Early History of Mankind, p. 303.]\n\nBut, after all, the question is not one of a few thousands of\nyears more or less, but of six common days, or many thousands of\nyears. It may help us to arrive at a right conclusion on the\nsubject if we endeavour to ascertain, in the first instance,\nwhether there are any strongly-marked indications that the writer\nof the first chapter of Genesis did possess some accurate\ninformation on some points in the history of Creation which he was\nnot likely to obtain by his own researches. For this purpose we\nwill place in parallel columns the leading facts recorded by\nMoses, and a table of the successive formations of the rocks,\nabridged from the last edition (1871) of Sir C. Lyell's Student's\nGeology. This process will bring to light certain coincidences\nwhich may serve as landmarks for our investigation.\n\n       The Days.                                THE ROCKS.\n\n    1. Creation of light.\n\n    2. Creation of the Atmosphere.\n\n\n        |The earth covered with water          |Laurentian.\n    3.--|     [implied].                       |Cambrian.\n        |Upheaval of land.                ----|Silurian.\n        |Creation of terrestrial Flora.        |Devonian.\n                                               |Carboniferous.\n\n    4. The sun and moon made \"Luminaries.\"----|Permian.\n                                               |Triassic.\n\n                                               |Triassic.\n    5. Creation of birds and reptiles     ----|Jurassic.\n                                               |Cretaceous,\n                                               |Eocene.\n\n    6.--|Creation of land animals.        ----|Eocene.\n        |Creation of man.                      |Miocene.\n                                               |Pleiocene.\n                                               |Post Tertiary.\n\nCONCURRENT EVENTS.\n\nLaurentian: Upper Laurentian unconformably placed on Lower\nLaurentian, which contains Eozoon Canadense.\n\nCambrian: Traces of volcanic action. Ripple marks indicating land.\n\nSilurian: Earliest fish.\n\nDevonian: Earliest land plants.\n\nCarboniferous: The coal measures. Peculiarly abundant vegetation.\nEarliest known reptile.\n\nPermian: Foot-prints of birds and reptiles--with a few remains of\nthe latter.\n\nJurassic: The first bird, and the first mammal. The age of\nreptiles.\n\nCretaceous: Reptiles passing away, mammalia abundant and of large\nsize.\n\nPost Tertiary: Human remains found only in the most recent\ndeposits. In this table we see certain points of strongly-marked\ncoincidence:--\n\n1. The oldest rocks with which we are acquainted--the Lower\nLaurentian [Footnote: The age of granite is uncertain.--Lyell'a\nStudent's Geology, p. 548.]--were formed under water, but had\nbegun to be elevated before the next series, the Upper Laurentian,\nwere deposited. Ripple marks are found in the Cambrian group\n[Footnote: Ibid. p. 470], indicating that the parts where they\noccur formed a sea-beach, and, consequently, that dry land was in\nexistence at that time.\n\n2. The earliest fossil land plants as yet discovered are found in\nthe Devonian series, and they gradually increase till, in the\nCarboniferous strata, they attain the extreme abundance which gave\nrise to the coal measures.\n\n3. The age of reptiles. The earliest known reptile is found in the\nCarboniferous strata. In the Permian and Triassic groups the\nnumbers gradually increase, till in the Lias, Oolite, and\nCretaceous systems, this class attains a very great development\nboth numerically and in the magnitude of individual specimens.\nDuring the same period the first traces of birds are found. The\nfirst actual fossil bird was found in the upper Oolite.\n\n4. The age of mammalia. The first remains--two teeth of a small\nmarsupial--were discovered in the Rhaetic beds of the Upper Trias,\nand a somewhat similar discovery has been made in beds of\ncorresponding periods in Devonshire and North America. During the\nsubsequent periods the numbers slowly increase, till in the\nTertiary strata the mammalian becomes the predominant type.\n\n5. The earliest traces of man--flint implements--are found in the\nPost Tertiary strata.\n\nWe have then in the Mosaic narrative five points which correspond\nin order and character to five points in the Geological record;\nand with reference to two, at least, of these points, we cannot\nimagine any cause for the coincidence in the shape of a fortunate\nconjecture, because, so far as we can tell, there was nothing\napparent on the face of the earth to suggest to the mind of the\nwriter the long past existence of such a state of things as has\nbeen revealed to us by the discovery of the Carboniferous and\nReptilian remains. It seems then that Moses must have been in\npossession of information which could not be obtained from any\nordinary source. But if he was thus acquainted with the order in\nwhich the development took place, there is nothing improbable in\nthe supposition that he was not altogether ignorant of the length\nof time which that development required.\n\nLet us suppose then that his knowledge did extend a little\nfarther; let us suppose him to have been aware that each of the\nCreations which he describes was a process occupying many\nthousands of years--how could he have imparted this knowledge to\nhis readers? What modification could he have introduced into his\nnarrative, which without changing its general character, or\ndetracting from its extreme simplicity, should have embodied this\nfact?\n\nThis amounts to the question: What words significant of definite\nperiods of time were in use, and consequently at the writer's\ncommand, at this time? No language is very rich in such words; but\nin the early Hebrew they seem to have been very scanty. The day,\nweek, month, year, and generation (this last usually implying the\ntime from the birth of a man to that of his son, but possibly in\nGen. xv. 16, a century) are all that we find. These in their\nliteral sense were evidently inadequate. Nor could the deficiency\nbe supplied by numerals, even if the general style of the\nnarrative would have admitted their use, for we find in Genesis no\nnumeral beyond the thousand. There was no word at all in early\nHebrew equivalent to our words \"period\" and \"season.\" When such an\nidea was to be expressed, it was done by the use of the word\n\"day,\" either in the singular, or more commonly in the plural.\nThus, \"the time of harvest;\" \"the season of the first ripe fruit,\"\nare literally \"the days of harvest,\" \"the days of the first ripe\nfruit.\" In Isaiah xxxiv. 8, the singular is used, and followed by\nthe word year in the same indefinite sense. \"It is the day of the\nLord's vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy\nof Zion.\"\n\nThe only method then which was open to the writer was to make use\nof one of the words above mentioned in an extended sense, just as\nhe used the word [Hebrew script] (earth) in several senses. But if\none of them was to be employed, the one which he has chosen seems\nthe best; not only because its use in that way was common, but\nbecause the brevity of the time covered by its natural\nsignificance would in itself be a hint of the way in which it was\nused. That which was impossible in a day might be possible in a\nyear or a generation. The extended significance of the word would\nbecome apparent just in proportion as the time covered by its\nnatural significance was inadequate for the processes ascribed to\nit.\n\nAn additional reason may, perhaps, be found for the choice of the\nword \"day,\" in the accordance of its phenomena with some, at\nleast, of the processes which Moses describes--the dawn, the light\nslowly increasing to the perfect day, and then fading away\ngradually into night--these do seem aptly to represent the first\nscanty appearance, the gradual increase, and the vast development\nof plants, of the reptiles and of the mammalia, and in the case of\nthe first two classes, their gradual passing away.\n\nBut if the word was thus employed in a figurative, and not in its\nnatural sense, we may expect to find some indications in the\ncontext that this was the case. Such indications we do find. The\nfact that the work of Creation was distributed into days, is, in\nitself, significant. There is no reason to believe that in the\nopinion of the writer each day's work tasked to the utmost the\npower of the Creator. Moses was evidently as well aware as we are,\nthat to Him it would have been equally easy, had He so willed, to\ncall everything into instant and perfect being at a single word.\nNor was the detailed description necessary to establish the\nfoundation of all religion--the right of the Creator to the entire\nobedience of His creature For this the short recapitulation which\n(ch. ii. 4) prefaces the more detailed account of man's peculiar\nrelation to his Maker would have been sufficient. Some purpose,\nhowever, there must have been for this more particular account\nwhich precedes the summary. We may trace two probable reasons. It\nbrings before us the method of the Divine Working in the light of\nan orderly progress. But beside this, it is of infinite service to\nus, in enabling us more thoroughly to realize the Fatherly\ncharacter and ever watchful care of our Creator. As far as that\ncare itself was concerned, it was unimportant whether the work was\ninstantaneous or progressive; but it was very important to us, in\nso far as it affected our conceptions of God, and of our relations\nto Him. For all our conceptions of God must rest ultimately on our\nself-consciousness; we can form no idea of Him except in so far as\nthat idea is analogous to something which comes within the range\nof our own experience. Now to us and to our feelings there is a\nvery wide difference between an act performed in a moment, and a\nwork over which we have lovingly dwelt, and to which we have\ndevoted our time, our labour, and our thought, for months or\nyears. The one may pass from our mind and be forgotten as quickly\nas it was performed, but in the other we commonly feel an abiding\ninterest. When therefore the great Creator is represented to us as\nthus dwelling upon His work, carrying it on step by step, through\nthe long ages, to its completion, we find it far less difficult to\nrealize that other truth, so precious to us, that His care and His\ntender mercies are over all His works, that the loving\nwatchfulness which still upholds all, and provides for all, is but\nthe continuance of that care which was displayed in the creation\nof all. Creation, Providence and Grace are blended together in one\ncontinuous manifestation of the Divine Wisdom, Power, and Love.\n\nBut for this purpose it is of little importance to us whether\nCreation is described as taking place in a moment, or in six\nordinary days. If the division into six days indicates orderly\nprogress and watchful care, we naturally expect to find the same\nindications in each of the subordinate parts. To our imperfect\nconceptions each single day's work would bear that same character\nof vast instantaneous action which seemed so undesirable. It would\nnot help us to realize what it is so important that we should\nthoroughly feel. The very fact then that the history of Creation\nis divided into days carries with it a strong presumption that\nthose days are not ordinary days.\n\nIn the 14th and following verses, when Moses is describing the\nformation of the heavenly luminaries, he is particular in\nmentioning that one part of their office was to \"rule over the day\nand over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.\"\nHence it is sometimes inferred that he was under a mistake in\nspeaking of day and night at an earlier period. But such a mistake\nseems incredible. To suppose that Moses did not perceive that what\nhe wrote in the 14th and following verses was incompatible with\nwhat he had written in the 4th and 5th verses, if such an\nincompatibility really existed, is to impute to him an amount of\nignorance or carelessness which is at variance with the whole\ncharacter of his writings from beginning to end. Instead of this\nit will be shown hereafter that, in all probability, his\nstatements rested on a wide knowledge of facts. If then, under\nsuch circumstances, he uses the word \"day\" long before he comes to\nthe formation of the sun, the natural inference is that he did so\ndesignedly--that it was his intention that his readers should\nunderstand that he was speaking of something very different from\nthat natural day which is regulated by sunrise and sunset.\n\nThe way too in which he introduces the mention of the first and\nfollowing days is apparently significant, though its full meaning\nis probably more than we can at present understand. In ver. 5 he\ncarefully defines light and darkness as the equivalents of day and\nnight; but in the next verse he passes over these words, and\nintroduces two new ones, which he has not defined; these two words\nbeing as much out of place before the creation of the atmosphere\nas light and darkness are supposed to have been before the\nCreation of the Sun. And not only does he introduce two new words,\nbut he introduces them in a very remarkable and, with our present\nknowledge, unaccountable manner. Had he said \"And there was\nmorning and there was evening, one day,\" we should have found no\ndifficulty in harmonizing; his words with what he had previously\nsaid concerning the evolution of light. But he first of all\nreverses the order, and then does not supply the natural\ntermination to his sentence--\"And there was evening and there was\nmorning,\"--\"one night\" would seem to be the natural conclusion;\nbut instead of that we read, \"there was evening and there was\nmorning, one day.\" Whatever farther significance then may be\nhereafter discovered in this remarkable statement, one thing at\nall events seems clear, that it was designed to call attention to\nthe fact that the day spoken of was not a natural day. Probably\ncertain stages in the progress of the work were indicated, which\nfarther investigations may disclose to us. A few years ago such\nstages seemed to be discernible, but the continued progress of\ndiscovery has partly obliterated the supposed lines of\ndemarcation. Still further discoveries may bring to light other\ndivisions.\n\nIn the opening of the second chapter we are told that God rested\non the seventh day from all His work, and His rest is spoken of in\nsuch a way as to carry our thoughts at once to the Fourth\nCommandment. In that commandment the duty of hallowing a seventh\nportion of our time is based on the fact that \"in six days the\nLord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and\nrested the seventh day.\" But the analogy entirely fails unless the\ndays of the Creator's work bore the same proportion to the day of\nHis rest which man's six days of labour bear to his Sabbath. Now\nwe are expressly told in other parts of Scripture that the Divine\nSabbath is not yet ended (Heb. iii. iv.), and we are led to infer\nthat it will not end till He that sitteth upon the throne shall\nsay, \"Behold I make all things new.\" If then the Sabbath of the\nCreator is measured by thousands of years--the whole duration of\nman upon the earth--it follows that the days of His work must have\nbeen of corresponding length.\n\nOne more indication, so strong that in itself it seems sufficient\nto decide the question, is to be found in the 4th verse of the\nsecond chapter. [Footnote: It is not unusual with critics of the\nGerman school to assert that this is an independent account of the\nCreation. But the assertion does not appear to have any valid\nfoundation. The supposed grounds for it are well discussed in the\n\"Speaker's Commentary,\" vol. i. p. 23, and in \"Aids to Faith,\"\nEssay v., Sections 2, 4, 5. It has already been pointed out that\nthe supposed variations in order rest entirely on the\ntranslation.] In that verse all that is ascribed to the six days\nin the preceding chapter is summed up as the work of a single day.\nIf then the word is used in a natural sense in the first chapter,\nit is clearly used in an extended sense in the second chapter. But\nif it had been used in a natural sense in the first chapter, there\nwould have been no need whatever for its use here. Its place would\nhave been taken--and most appropriately--by the word [Hebrew\nscript], a week, with which Moses was familiar (ch. xxix. 28;\nDeut. xvi. 10). Its use here would have connected the weekly\ndivision of time with the Creation, and as its presence would have\nbeen thus strongly significant, its absence is a no less\nsignificant indication that the six days spoken of in the\npreceding chapter are something very different from six natural\ndays.\n\nThree points, therefore, seem to be clear:--\n\n1. However the chapter may be interpreted, there are in it\ncoincidences with ascertained facts so marked that they cannot\npossibly be fortuitous. They prove therefore that Moses was in\npossession of some accurate information on the subject on which he\nwas writing.\n\nAs we proceed with our subject we shall come upon many more\nindications of this, some of them exceedingly remarkable. It is\ntherefore by no means improbable that he was acquainted with the\nfact, that the work which he was describing was one which had\noccupied a long series of ages.\n\n2. Supposing that Moses was acquainted with all which has now been\ndiscovered by geologists, and that he was desirous of imparting\nthat knowledge to his readers, the language which he has employed\nis the most appropriate that, under the circumstances, he could\nhave chosen for the purpose. 3. The phenomena exhibited by the\ncontext indicate not only that he had this intention, but that he\nalso intended that such of his readers as were competent to\nentertain the idea, should have sufficient indications to guide\nthem to his meaning.\n\nWhatever then may be the real significance of the \"days\"--a point\nwhich the knowledge at present in our possession seems\ninsufficient to explain--it seems very clear that something very\ndifferent from natural days is intended. And this is a sufficient\nanswer to the objection which is founded on that interpretation.\nThat there would be very many points which as yet we are unable\nfully to understand, has been already shown to be not only\npossible but probable; and among them it appears this question of\nthe true meaning of the days must be left for the present. When we\ncome to consider subsequently the great number of points in which\nharmony between the narrative and discovered facts is brought out\non investigation, [Footnote: Chap. v.] we may well be content to\nleave many points unexplained till our knowledge is greatly\nincreased.\n\nSECTION 2. FIRST TRACES OF LIFE.\n\nThe second objection has reference to the relative antiquity of\nthe various forms of life, of which we find traces in the\nsuccessive strata of the rocks. If it be assumed that the apparent\ncoincidences which have been pointed out between the Mosaic\nnarrative and the geological records are real, and that the\ntraditional interpretation is the true one, then we ought to find--\n\n1. No traces at all of animal life below the Trias.\n\n2. No traces of mammalia below the Cretaceous formation.\n\nBut the examination of the rocks leads to a very different result.\nTraces of life have been found, probably in the Laurentian,\ncertainly in the Cambrian rocks. The earliest known fish is the\nPteraspis, which has been discovered in the upper Silurian\nformation at Leintwardine, in Shropshire. The first member of the\nreptilian order, Archegesaurus, occurs in the coal measures; and\nthe first traces of a mammalian--two teeth--occur at the junction\nof the Lias and Trias. In every case, then, we meet with traces of\nlife at a period long anterior to that at which we should\nnaturally expect them.\n\nIn order to ascertain the real weight of this objection we hare to\ninvestigate two points:--\n\n1. What are the animals to which the Mosaic Record refers?\n\n2. What does it really tell us about the creation of those\nanimals?\n\n1. It is commonly assumed that all living creatures are\ncomprehended under the terms used in describing the work of the\nfifth and sixth days. But a more careful examination shows that\nthere is no real ground for this assumption. The first point which\npresents itself is the omission of the Hebrew word for fish,\n[Hebrew script], in the account of the fifth day--an omission the\nmore marked, because the word does occur in vv. 26, 28, in which\ndominion over all living creatures is granted to man. The two\nwords which are used in ver. 21 are [Hebrew script] from [Hebrew\nscript], to stretch out, to extend, and [Hebrew script], from\n[Hebrew script], identical with [Hebrew script], to trample with\nthe feet. The description then points us to animals of great size,\nespecially length, which trample with the feet. \"Great sea-\nmonsters,\" Gesenius calls them. These words clearly indicate the\nSaurian and allied tribes of reptiles; and when we turn to the\nrocks we find the remains of these creatures occurring in great\nnumbers, precisely at the point which Moses assigns to them.\n\nAgain, in the account of the sixth day, three classes of animals\nare mentioned; but we have no means whatever of ascertaining what\nkinds of animals were comprehended in these three classes, or\nwhether they included all the mammalia then known to the Jews;\nmuch less then are we justified in inferring that they comprehend\nall mammalia that were then, or ever had been in existence.\n\nBut it may perhaps appear strange, that the account of the\nCreation of living beings should be of such limited extent,\nembracing only reptiles, birds, and mammals. A little\nconsideration, however, will remove this apparent strangeness. We\nshould, perhaps, naturally expect to have some notice of the first\nappearance of animal life; but from the circumstances under which\nMoses wrote such a notice was simply impossible. The lowest and\nsimplest form of life with which we are now acquainted is the\nAmoeba Princeps, a minute particle of jelly-like substance, called\nsarcode--scarcely larger than a small grain of sand--and with no\ndistinction of organs or limbs. [Footnote: Carpenter, The\nMicroscope and its Revelations, p. 428.] The oldest known fossil,\nEozoon Canadense, is of a class but little above this--the\nforaminifera; we may therefore deem it probable that life began\nwith some form not very unlike the Amoeba. How could the formation\nof such a creature have been described to the contemporaries of\nMoses? They could have had no idea of its existence. To describe\nthe first beginnings of life then, was, under the circumstances,\nan absolute impossibility. But if a part only of the long series\nof animal life could possibly be noticed, the determination of the\npoint at which he should first speak of it would be left to the\nwriter, guided as he would be by considerations of the object for\nwhich, and the persons for whom, he wrote, which we must\nnecessarily in our position be unable duly to estimate. All that\nwe are entitled to expect is that the account, so far as it\nextends, should be in accordance with facts.\n\nThe next point to be ascertained is, \"Does the Mosaic Record\nintimate that the creations of reptiles on the fifth, and of\nmammals on the sixth days were entirely new creations, i.e. that\nno creatures of these classes had existed before?\" There is no\ndirect assertion to this effect; it is only an inference, though a\nnatural one, when we consider the circumstances under which it was\ndrawn. When, however, we turn to the original we find the 20th\nverse worded in a way which seems designed to avoid the suggestion\nof such an inference. Literally translated it is, \"Let the waters\nswarm swarms, the soul of life.\" Such creatures then may have\nexisted before, but not in swarms. And in the account of the sixth\nday, as has been already noticed, three forms of mammalia are\nspecified, and we have no knowledge as to the varieties included\nin these three forms. Nor is there here any intimation that it was\nthe first creation of such animals. The greater part of the\nearlier fossils belong to the Marsupialia and Mouotremata, and we\nhave no reason to believe that these classes have existed in\nhistoric times in Europe, Asia, or Africa. They are now confined\n(with the exception of the opossums, which are American) to\nAustralia. They were therefore entirely unknown to the Jews, and\nin consequence necessarily omitted in a document intended for\ntheir use.\n\nWhat has been said with reference to reptiles is also applicable\nto birds. The first traces of them are found in the ornithichnites\nof the new red sandstone, and the first fossil--Archaeopteryx, in\nthe Solenhofen strata, belonging to the Oolite. From the nature of\nthe case the remains are necessarily scanty, since birds would be\nless exposed than other animals to those casualties which would\nlead to their preservation as fossils, but enough traces have been\nfound to show that in the period corresponding to the fifth day\nthey were very numerous, and attained in many instances to a\ngigantic stature. A height of from ten to twelve feet was not\nuncommon.\n\nWhen, therefore, we notice that the fifth and sixth days\ncorrespond to two periods, in the first of which reptiles and\nbirds, and in the second mammalia, were the prominent types, the\nwords of the sacred historian seem to have an adequate\ninterpretation in that fact. There is no contradiction between the\ntwo records. Moses describes but a very few of the facts which\ngeology has brought to light, but those few facts are in exact\naccordance with the results of independent observation. The acts\nof Creation of which Moses speaks correspond to remarkable\ndevelopments of the orders of animals to which he refers. To have\nnoticed the time of the appearance of the first individual member\nof each class, as distinguished from the time when that class\noccupied the foremost place in the ranks of creation, would have\nbeen inconsistent with the simplicity and brevity of the\nnarrative, while it would have been unintelligible to those for\nwhom the narrative was intended, since these primeval types had\npassed out of existence ages before the creation of man. It is,\nhowever, noteworthy, that the first appearances of the several\norders follow precisely the same arrangement as the times of their\ngreatest development.\n\nSECTION 3. SIMULTANEOUS CREATION.\n\nThis objection may be very briefly disposed of, though it appears\nto be one which has made a very deep impression on Mr. Darwin.\n[Footnote: Origin of Species, p 1, &c.] It is entirely an\ninference drawn from the old interpretation of the six days. While\nthat interpretation was received it followed, as a necessary\nconsequence, that the creation of all kinds of plants on the third\nday, and of reptiles, birds, and mammalia on the fifth and sixth\ndays respectively, must have been simultaneous. But if that\ninterpretation is proved to be untenable, the inference drawn from\nit falls to the ground. The language of the narrative seems to\npoint in an opposite direction. There is one instance in the\nchapter in which the words used seem to point to an instantaneous\nresult. \"And God said 'Let light be' and Light was,\" though in\nthis case the words probably have a further significance, which\nhas been brought out by the discovery of the nature of light. But\nin these three cases the command is first recorded, with (in two\ncases) the addition \"and it was so,\" and then the narrative goes\non to speak of the fulfilment of the command, as if the command\nand its fulfilment were distinct things.\n\nSECTION 4. DEATH. CARNIVOROUS ANIMALS.\n\nThese two objections may advantageously be considered together,\nsince the fifth is in a great measure, though not entirely,\ndependent upon the fourth. For if death, in the common sense of\nthe word, was unknown till the fall of Adam, it follows as a\nnecessary consequence that no carnivorous creatures could have\nexisted before that time. On the other hand, it may be considered\nas the natural death of large classes of animals to be devoured by\nthe carnivora; so that if there were no carnivorous animals prior\nto the Fall, one of the avenues to death, at all events, had not\nbeen opened.\n\nThere is really no ground at all for the first of these objections\nin the actual history of Creation. It is only when the threat held\nout to Adam (ii. 17) is viewed in the light of St. Paul's comment\nupon it (Rom. v. 12; viii. 20) that the supposition can be\nentertained. This, then, is the real foundation of the difficulty.\n\nBut, first of all, there is no reason to suppose that St. Paul's\nwords refer to any death but that of man. Now, it may well have\nbeen, that although man, having a body exactly analogous to those\nof the animals, would naturally have been subject, like them, to\nthe ordinary laws of decay and death, yet in the case of a\ncreature who possessed so much which raised him above the level of\nthe lower animals, there may have been some provision made which\nshould exempt him from this necessity. That this was the case\nappears probable from the mention made in the narrative of the\nTree of Life. We have no intimation whether the action of the\nfruit of this tree was physical or sacramental, but that, in one\nway or other, it had the power to preserve man from physical death\nseems almost certain from the way in which it is spoken of after\nthe Fall (iii. 22-24). But the mention of the Tree of Life leads\nto the inference that the case of Adam was entirely exceptional.\n\nIn the next place, it does not seem probable that that dissolution\nof the body which was the natural lot of all other animals was the\nwhole, or even the chief part, of the evil consequence of Adam's\nfall. That it was included in the penalty seems probable, but it\nonly constituted a comparatively unimportant part of that penalty.\nThe threat was, \"In THE DAY that thou eatest thereof thou shalt\nsurely die,\" and we cannot doubt that the Divine words were\nexactly fulfilled, though Adam's natural death did not take place\nfor many hundred years. But the guilty creatures, covering their\nnakedness with fig-leaves, crouching among the trees of the garden\nin the vain hope of hiding themselves from the face of their\nMaker, who were to transmit an inheritance of sin and shame and\nmisery to their yet unborn posterity, were surely very different\nbeings from those whom the Creator but a short time before had\npronounced \"very good.\" The true life of the soul was gone; the\nimage of God defaced. This was the real, the terrible death. If\ndeath in its full sense means nothing more than the dissolution of\nthe body, our Lord's words, \"He that liveth and believeth in Me\nshall never die,\" have failed of their fulfilment. That promise\nhas been in force for more than eighteen centuries, and yet no\ncase has occurred of a Christian, however holy he may have been,\nor however strong his faith, who has escaped the universal doom.\nThe Church of the Patriarchs could point to an Enoch, the Jewish\nChurch to an Elijah, who were exempted from the universal penalty;\nbut Christianity can point to no such exemption, nor does she need\nit. To her members, to die is to sleep in Jesus; to be absent from\nthe body is to be present with the Lord, for the penalty of death\nis cancelled.\n\nThough, then, it seems by no means improbable that Adam, if he had\nnot fallen, would have been exempt from the dissolution of the\nbody, yet this is not absolutely certain, and even if it were\ncertain, his case would be an exceptional one: no inference as to\nthe immortality of the animal creation could have been drawn from\nit.\n\nThe supposition that all animals prior to the fall lived entirely\non vegetable food rests partly on this groundless inference, and\npartly on the Divine Words recorded in verse 30: \"And to every\nbeast of the field, and to every fowl of the air, have I given\nevery green herb for meat.\" But it is important to notice that\nthese words are not recorded as addressed to the animals, like the\ncommand to be fruitful and multiply. Had this been the case, any\nomission to mention the flesh of other animals, might have been\nlooked upon as significant. Instead of this they are addressed to\nAdam, and they follow other words in which the same things are\nassigned to Adam for his food. They come then in the form of a\nlimitation to the rights granted to Adam, rather than of a\ndefinition of the rights of the lower animals. Adam was to have\nthe free use of every green herb, but he was not to account\nhimself the exclusive owner of it. The beast of the field and the\nfowl of the air were to be co-proprietors with him; they were to\nhave the use of it as freely as himself; but that they were to be\nrestricted to the use of vegetable food nowhere appears.\nAccordingly we know that carnivorous creatures have existed from\nthe first, and that though to a superficial observer this may\nappear a cruel arrangement, yet in reality it is a most merciful\nprovision, by which aged, weak, or maimed animals are preserved\nfrom the agonies of death by starvation.\n\nWe may conclude then that there is no real contradiction between\nthe conclusions at which Geologists have arrived, and the words\nactually made use of by Moses, but that all such supposed\ncontradictions have arisen from meanings being attached to those\nwords, which, though possible or even probable, were not the only\npossible meanings. When the difficulty has been suggested, and the\nwords have in consequence been more closely examined, it appears\nthat they are capable of an interpretation in strict harmony with\nevery fact which Geologists have as yet discovered, and that in\nmany cases there are not wanting indications that the writer\nintended them to be thus understood.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nDIFFICULTIES IN ASTRONOMY.\n\n\nThese objections, so far as they are based or supposed to be based\non ascertained facts, are very few and insignificant. The chief of\nthem are as follows:--\n\n1. Moses describes light, and the division of night and day as\nexisting before the Creation of the Sun.\n\n2. Moses describes the firmament as a solid vault.\n\n3. Moses speaks of the stars as created on the fourth day, only\ntwo days before Adam, whereas astronomers have asserted that many\nof them are so distant that the light by which we see them must\nhave been on its way ages before Adam was created.\n\nThat part of the first objection which refers to the existence of\nlight prior to the creation of the Sun, appears so extremely\nchildish that it might have been thought unnecessary to notice it,\nhad it not been solemnly propounded in such a work as \"Essays and\nReviews.\" [Footnote: Page 219] Anyone who is in possession of a\ntelescope of but moderate power may satisfy himself of its\nfutility on any starlight night. He has only to turn his telescope\nto one or two of the more conspicuous nebulae; the Great Nebula in\nOrion, for instance, or the Ring Nebula in Lyra, and his eye will\nreceive light which has not come from any Sun, for it is a well-\nascertained fact that these nebulae are nothing but vast masses of\nincandescent gas. And this objection is singularly inappropriate\nin the mouth of the opponents of the Mosaic Record, inasmuch as\nthe Nebular hypothesis is with them the favourite method of\naccounting for the present state of things. The view which they\nbring forward as an alternative to the Mosaic account assumes the\nvery state of things which, when, alleged by Moses, they denounce\nas impossible. The other part of this objection, which refers to\nthe division of day and night, will be more advantageously\ndiscussed when we come to consider the actual accounts of the\nfirst and fourth days' work. It will then appear probable that the\nstatements which Moses has made on this subject, instead of being\nindications of ignorance, are the result of a profound knowledge\nof the subject on which he was writing.\n\nNext, it is alleged that Moses describes the firmament as a solid\nvault.[Footnote: Essays and Reviews, p. 220.] \"The work of the\nsecond day of creation is to erect the vault of heaven, which is\nrepresented as supporting an ocean of water above it.\" That the\nGreek and Latin translations in this place do seem to imply the\nidea of solidity seems indisputable; and from the Latin the word\n\"firmament\" has passed into our own language. But there is no\nreason to think that the Hebrew word has any such meaning. It is\nderived from a root signifying \"to beat out--to extend.\"\n[Footnote: May not this root, [Hebrew script], have some connexion\nwith [Hebrew script], \"to be light,\" from which is derived the\nAramaic \"Raca\" of Matt. v. 22?] The verb is often applied to the\nbeating out of metals, but not always. It is a new doctrine in\netymology, that the meaning of a verbal noun is to be deduced from\nthe nouns which often supply objects to its root, instead of from\nthe meaning of the root itself. But even if it can be shown that\nthe word did originally involve such a meaning, that would be\nnothing to the purpose. It would only be in the same case with a\nvast number of other words, which, though etymologically untrue,\nare habitually used without inconvenience, because they do convey\nto the minds of others the idea which we intend to convey, their\netymology being lost sight of. Probably, the very persons who\nbring forward the objection do sometimes use the word \"firmament,\"\nthough they know the error which is involved in it. Nor would they\nbe any more accurate if they substituted for it the Saxon word\n\"heaven,\" since that also involves a scientific inaccuracy. The\nword used by Moses was the commonly recognized name for the object\nof which he was writing; and no objection to his use of it can be\nmaintained, unless it can be shown that in using it he rejected\nsome other word equally intelligible to all, and which was at the\nsame time etymologically correct. But there is no ground for the\nassumption that any such word existed in the time of Moses or at\nany subsequent period.\n\nThe third objection, of course, ceases to have any force if the\ndays of creation are no longer regarded as natural days. But the\nobjection is in itself, apart from this condition, of no\nconsequence whatever. For, in the first place, it is by no means\ncertain, or even probable, that the stars referred to in the\nfourth day's work are the fixed stars. The Hebrew has no word for\nplanets as distinguished from the fixed stars, although, as we\nknow for certain, the difference between the planets and the fixed\nstars was recognized from a very early period. In every case,\nthen, the context must determine the sense to be given to the\nword. In this case, the fact that these stars are mentioned in\nconnexion with the sun and moon, combined with our knowledge that\nthe planets, like the moon, are dependent upon the sun for their\nlight, would lead us to infer that they are meant.\n\nBut even if the fixed stars were meant, the objection would be no\nlonger tenable. It rests on certain estimates as to the supposed\ndistances of the fixed stars and star clusters, which were formed\nby the late Sir W. Herschel from what he designated the \"space-\npenetrating power\" of his telescopes. Starting with the assumption\nthat the stars were of tolerably uniform size and brilliancy, and\nthat the difference in apparent brightness was the result, and\ntherefore a measure of their distances, he proceeded to apply the\nsame process to the star clusters, which, even in a fair\ntelescope, present only the appearance of faint nebulous spots of\nlight, but are resolved into clusters of stars by more powerful\ninstruments. In many cases, he found that a certain proportion\nexisted between the telescopic power by which a cluster was first\nrendered visible, and that required for its resolution, and by\nthis means he formed what he considered a probable estimate of its\ndistance. Other clusters there were which only became visible in\nhis most powerful telescopes, and which, therefore, he could never\nsucceed in resolving. These he placed at a still greater distance,\nand from this estimate he deduced the conclusion that their light\nmust have been in some cases as much as 60,000 years in reaching\nthe earth.\n\nBut the whole foundation on which this long chain of inference\nrested has now been shown to be evanescent. In the first place\nmany of his irresolvable nebulae have been proved by the\nspectroscope to be true nebulae--masses of luminous gas, and not\nstar clusters at all; and, in the next place, the actual distances\nof a few of the fixed stars have been approximately ascertained,\nand it is proved beyond all doubt that the different degree of\nbrightness exhibited by different stars is no test at all of their\ndistance. Of all the stars in our hemisphere whose distance has\nthus been measured, the nearest to us is one which can only just\nbe discerned by a practised eye on a favourable night, 61 Cygni,\nwhilst the most brilliant star visible in England, Sirius, is at a\nconsiderably greater distance. The most competent judges estimate\nthe magnitude of Sirius as about one thousand times that of the\nsun [Footnote: Mr. Proctor in Good Words, February, 1872.]. In\naddition to this, many stars of very different magnitudes are\nfound to be related to each other in such a way as to show that\nthey are in actual, and not merely in optical proximity. The\nclusters which were formerly supposed to consist of large stars at\nenormous distances from us, are now, upon very solid grounds,\nbelieved to be formed of much smaller stars, at much more moderate\ndistances, so that it is very improbable that there is any object\nvisible in the heavens whose light has taken so much as 6000\nyears, instead of 60,000 years to reach us.\n\nTHE NEBULAR THEORY.\n\nWe come now to the consideration of the Nebular Theory of Laplace,\nin so far as it is opposed to the Mosaic account. It must be\nremembered that, after all, this is only a theory. Even if it\ncould be satisfactorily established, it would only point out a way\nin which this world MIGHT have been formed. That it could not have\nbeen formed in any other way is an independent proposition, in\nsupport of which no single argument has ever yet been brought\nforward. There may be a greater or less probability that the earth\nwas formed in this particular way, that probability depending on\nthe extent to which the theory accounts for observed facts. This\nit does in many cases, and it has in consequence been accepted AS\nA WHOLE by many scientific men, as a substitute for the Scriptural\naccount. As will be seen hereafter, there are strong reasons for\nadmitting it as a supplement to the brief account given by Moses;\nbut our business now is to ascertain, whether it has any just\nclaim to be received instead of that account.\n\nThe theory seems to have been suggested by certain speculations of\nSir W. Herschel. In his telescopic examination of the Nebulae and\nstar clusters, he found that in a great number of cases, when a\nnebula was rendered visible by a certain amount of telescopic\npower, it would be resolved into separate stars by a telescope of\na little higher power. But there were some nebulae, visible in\nvery small telescopes, or even discernible with the naked eye,\nsuch as those in Orion and Andromeda, which could not be resolved\neven by his great four-foot reflector, the largest telescope that\nhad then been constructed. And these nebulae exhibited a great\nvariety of forms. Some of them were vast shapeless masses of faint\nlight; others, which he designated \"planetary\" nebulae, exhibited\na regular form--a circular disc more or less clearly defined,\noften brightest in the centre. Others seemed to be intermediate\nbetween these two classes. Hence he was led to the idea that these\nwere worlds in the process of formation, and that their varying\nforms indicated varying stages of that process.\n\nThis suggestion was eagerly adopted by the members of the French\nAcademy, who were at that time on the look-out for anything which\nthey thought would help them to account for the existence of the\nworld, while they refused to acknowledge a Creator. It was taken\nup by one of their number--Laplace--a man who stood in the very\nforemost rank as a mathematician and physical astronomer, and\nmoulded into shape by him.[Footnote: There is a very full account\nof Laplace's hypothesis, extracted from the works of Pontecoulant,\nin Professor Nichol's System of the World, pp. 69--86.]\n\nHe assumed, that the Solar System existed at the very earliest\nperiod as a shapeless nebula, a vast undefined mass of \"fire-\nmist;\" that at some time or other the separate particles of this\nfire-mist began to move towards their centre of gravity, under the\ninfluence of their mutual attractions, and thus assumed a\nspherical shape; that by some means or other a motion of rotation\nwas originated in this spherical mass, which increased in rapidity\nas the process of condensation advanced. The effect of this\nrotation would be a flattening of the sphere; the equatorial\ndiameter would increase while the polar diameter, or axis of\nrotation, diminished; and when the centrifugal force thus produced\nhad reached a certain point, a ring would detach itself from the\nequator, but would continue to revolve about the common centre. He\nsupposed that a succession of rings were thus thrown off, which\nfinally broke up and accumulated into one or more spherical\nmasses, forming the planets and their satellites, while the\nremainder of the original sphere was condensed into the sun. The\nplanets and their satellites would continue to revolve about the\ncentre as the ring from which they were formed had done, while the\ndifferent original velocities of the particles of which they were\nformed, some having been in the outer, some in the inner part of\nthe ring, would cause them also to rotate on their axis. As the\ncondensation advanced, the heat which had originally existed in\nthe \"fire-mist\" would be condensed also, so that all the masses\nwhen formed would be in an incandescent state, but the planets and\ntheir satellites being comparatively small would soon cool down,\nwhile the sun, owing to its greatly superior bulk, still retains\nits heat.\n\nThere is no doubt much to be said in favour of this theory, which\nmay be more advantageously considered hereafter, when we shall\nhave to consider it as supplementary to the Mosaic account. At\npresent we are only concerned with it as it claims to stand alone,\nand to be accepted as a substitute for that account. Viewed in\nthis light, as a substitute for a Creator, as showing us how the\nuniverse might have come into existence spontaneously, it utterly\nbreaks down in three points.\n\n1. It gives us no account whatever of the origin of matter, but\nassumes that it was already in existence at the time from which\nthe theory takes its point of departure. But some account of it\nmust be given. Either it was created by some higher power, or it\nwas eternal; for the idea of its being self-originated is\nmanifestly untenable. If it was created, there is an end of the\ntheory--the act of creation assumes the existence of a Creator;\nand the only question left is, whether that Creator did more or\nless. But the very object of the theory was to dispense with the\nexistence of a Creator. This alternative, then, it must reject,\nand there is nothing left but to fall back upon the other, and to\nassume that it existed from all eternity. But it is certainly not\nless difficult to us to conceive the possibility of inert matter\nbeing self-existent and eternal, than it is to recognize the\nexistence of an eternal and all-powerful Spirit. Our own\nconsciousness helps us to realize the possibility of the existence\nof an Eternal Mind, and of the exercise of power by that mind; but\nwe have nothing to help us to a conception of self-existent\nmatter.\n\nIn addition to this, the idea of eternity precludes from its very\nnature the idea of possible change. If there is change there must\nbe the distinction of before and after, and so of the succession\nof existence, which involves the idea of time. That which is\nsubject to change, and this theory assumes a change in the\ncondition of matter, cannot be eternal.\n\n2. The next failing point is, that this theory assumes a change,\nof the origin of which it can give no account. The assumption is,\nthat matter which had existed from all eternity, or for an\nindefinite time, in a state of perfect rest, suddenly began to\nmove towards its centre of gravity. A body, or a system of\nparticles, can remain at rest only under one of two conditions.\nEither it must be acted on by no force at all, or all the forces\nby which it is acted on must be in perfect equilibrium. If matter\nexisted under the first of these conditions, whence did the force\nsuddenly emanate? Force cannot be self-originated any more than\nmatter. But if the other alternative be adopted, how was the\nequilibrium disturbed? It is a fundamental axiom of mechanics that\n\"a body (or system of bodies) at rest will continue at rest till\nit be acted upon by some external force.\" But the theory supplies\nno such external force, for it could only originate in that which\nthe theory ignores--the will and power of some intelligent Being.\n\n3. The third defect is, that the theory does not give any\nsatisfactory account of the origin of the motions of rotation and\nrevolution. Laplace does not attempt this. He simply assumes that\na motion of rotation was set up somehow; but many of his\nfollowers, perceiving that the theory broke down here--though they\npassed the other two defects unnoticed--have attempted to supply\nthe deficiency in this point. Some have attempted to account for\nthis motion by analogy. It has been suggested that it was of the\nsame nature, and produced by the same causes, as the vortex which\nis formed when a vessel full of fluid is emptied through an\norifice in its bottom. Pontecoulant, in his account of the theory,\nenters more into detail. He assumes that in the process of\nagglomeration large bodies of matter impinged obliquely on the\nalready formed mass, and so imparted to it a motion of rotation.\n\nA consideration of the mechanical conditions of the problem will\nshow the unsoundness of Pontecoulant's views. It is of course\nassumed that the forces by which this rotation is said to have\nbeen produced are identical in their character with those with\nwhich we are familiar, for the introduction of any force peculiar\nto that time would be equivalent to an admission of a directing\npower. The following propositions then seem unquestionable:--\n\n1. The nebula must be considered as a system of particles acted on\nby their mutual attractions, and by no other force.\n\n2. When two particles of matter, a and b, attract each other, it\nis a fundamental principle of mechanics, (commonly known as the\n\"Third Law of Motion\") that whatever amount of momentum is\nproduced in a, an equal and opposite momentum must be produced in\nb. Hence if the mutual action remain undisturbed, the two\nparticles will approach each other and finally meet. On their\nunion, the two momenta being equal and opposite will neutralize\neach other, and there will be no tendency to produce motion of any\nkind. 3. The same law will hold good with reference to any number\nof particles, and therefore with reference to the supposed nebula.\nEvery single particle will produce a certain momentum in each of\nthe other particles, and at the same time will have impressed upon\nit by each of the other particles an equal and opposite momentum.\nHence when all the particles are collected into a single mass,\neach individual momentum will be balanced by an equal and opposite\none, and there can be no resultant motion.\n\nThe analogy from fluids flowing through an orifice fails, because--\n\n1. The particles of the fluid are acted on by forces other than\ntheir mutual attractions, and in many cases affecting them\nunequally, e. g., friction against the sides of the containing\nvessel and the orifice.\n\n2. Because the orifice is not a point, but a finite area, and\nconsequently the particles of the fluid are acted on by forces\nwhich do not pass through the same point.\n\nConsidered then as a substitute for the action of an intelligent\nCreator, Laplace's theory utterly breaks down in three points,\nwhich, as they will have to be referred to hereafter, it is well\nto recapitulate.\n\n1. It does not account for the origin of matter.\n\n2. It does not account for the emergence of the force of\nattraction.\n\n3. It does not give a satisfactory account for the motion of\nrotation.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nDIFFICULTIES IN PHYSIOLOGY.\n\n\nThe third science which is supposed to come into collision with\nthe Mosaic Record is Physiology. Here, however, we meet with no\nobjections which rest upon ascertained facts, as in the case of\ngeology. We have only to do with theories. All that can be brought\nforward is merely matter of opinion or theory--such theory\nresting indeed on a foundation of ascertained facts--but being in\nitself a mere inference more or less probable from those facts.\nEven if it were proved to be a true account of the causation of\nthose facts, it would be by no means certain that other facts,\nhowever similar, might not have had a totally different origin.\n\nAt one time it was very confidently asserted, by many eminent\nphysiologists, that the differences between various branches of\nthe human race were so great, that it was impossible that all\nshould have descended from the same original stock. Probably this\nopinion is still maintained in some quarters, but of late years\nviews of a diametrically opposite character have been brought\nforward, and very ably advocated. In proportion as these views are\nadmitted to have in them an element of truth, the importance of\nthe older objection is diminished. It will therefore be\nunnecessary to dwell upon it. This new view is, that not only all\nbranches of the human race, but all living beings now existing, or\nthat have ever existed on the face of the earth, are descended by\nthe process of \"evolution,\" carried on under what are designated\nas \"natural laws\" from some one variety, or small number of\nvarieties of living creatures of the lowest type.\n\nThis theory, like that of Laplace, had its origin among the French\nAcademicians, at the close of the last century. Its author was La\nMarck. According to his view the simplest form of animal life, the\n\"monad,\" was spontaneously developed by some unknown process. From\nthis monad higher forms of animal life were produced, and the\ncourse of development was continued till it finally culminated in\nman. But it does not appear that La Marck suggested any means by\nwhich the various stages of development were brought about, and\nthe view attracted little attention. Some thirty years ago it was\nrevived by an anonymous writer, in a work called \"Vestiges of\nCreation.\" In this work the idea of spontaneous generation was\nrepudiated. The original monad was supposed to have derived its\nexistence from an act of Creative Power, and to have been then\nleft to work out its own development, by virtue of powers\noriginally implanted in it. All its variations and advances were\nsupposed to be the result of the will and efforts of the creature\nacting through many generations. Thus the desire and attempt to\nwalk ended in the development of legs, while wings were the final\nresult of its efforts to fly. It was felt, however, that this was\nby no means a satisfactory account of the state of things, and so\nthe work, though it produced a great sensation at the time, has\nnow been almost entirely forgotten.\n\nLatterly, however, the theory has found a far more able advocate\nin the person of Mr. Darwin, with whose name it has been popularly\nidentified. By his indefatigable labours a vast variety of facts\nhave been collected and skilfully arranged, to show that all the\nvarieties of life may be satisfactorily accounted for by the\ncontinued action, through a long course of ages, of certain\nnatural causes, with the results of which we are familiar, and of\nwhich intentional use is continually made by man. Mr. Darwin does\nnot deny the existence of a Creator, but the tendency of his\narguments is to prove that His interference was limited to the\nsingle act of original Creation; and that from the moment of its\ncreation the world has been a sort of automatic machine, producing\nits results without any interference from any higher power.\n\nThe theory taken as a whole comes into contact with the Mosaic\nRecord in three points:--\n\n1. As it assumes the possibility that life may be self-originated.\n\n2. As it indicates a mode of procedure different from that given\nby Moses.\n\n3. As it requires unlimited time.\n\nOf these the last is already disposed of, when the narrative is\nshown to be capable of an interpretation in accordance with it.\nThe first requires only a brief notice; but the second must be\ncarefully investigated, to separate ascertained truth from\ninferences which have no sufficient foundation.\n\nThe theory of spontaneous generation rests almost entirely upon\nassumptions. Its only semblance of support from facts is derived\nfrom certain experiments of a very unsatisfactory character, which\nare said to have resulted in the production of some of the lowest\nforms of animal life. These experiments have been by no means\nuniformly successful. One or two experimenters have thought that\nthey have succeeded, but not uniformly, while the same process,\nrepeated by men whose scientific and manipulative powers are\nuniversally recognized, has never once resulted in any seeming\ndevelopment of life. Even if, however, they had been uniformly\nsuccessful, there would have been great reason to doubt whether\nthe apparent success was not really a failure--a failure in the\nprecautions necessary to exclude all germs of life from the matter\nexperimented upon. For the lower forms of life are excessively\nminute; and their germs--eggs, seeds, or spores--must be far\nsmaller. It is known that these are constantly floating in the\natmosphere, though, owing to their extreme minuteness, the fact\ncan only be ascertained by the most skilful investigation. And the\nlower forms of animalcules have a singular tenacity of life; they\ncan pass unharmed through processes which would be fatal to\ncreatures of higher organization. One variety is known to survive\nentire desiccation; another lives upon strychnine; others bear\nwithout injury great extremes of heat and cold; and if this is the\ncase with the mature creatures, it is probable that the germ\npossesses still stronger powers of vitality. If one acarus can\nlive upon strychnine, then it is not impossible that mineral acids\nshould be harmless to others; the germs might be carried through\nsulphuric acid in air without coming into contact with the acid,\nas air would pass through in bubbles, in the centre of which they\nmight be suspended; or if like the diatomaceae, they were coated\nwith silex, they might come into contact with it and resist its\naction. Thus one of the precautions commonly taken is not certain\nin its action, and the same might be shown to be true of the\nothers. The theory of spontaneous generation is, in fact,\ngenerally repudiated by Evolutionists, and cannot therefore be\ntaken as a starting-point.\n\nWe come then to the theory of Evolution with which Mr. Darwin's\nname is associated. This theory asserts that all the varieties of\nanimal life now existing on the earth, however widely they may\ndiffer from each other, are in reality derived from one, or a very\nfew original types; and that in this general statement the human\nrace is to be included. This theory rests upon the following\nadmitted facts.\n\n1. There are not, as was at one time commonly supposed, broad and\ndistinct lines of demarcation between the different varieties of\nanimals and plants. Our increasing knowledge of zoology has\nbrought to light the fact that one species shades off into another\nby almost imperceptible gradations. As we go back in the fossil\nrecords of animal life in the past, we find that the species now\nexisting, while they are closely allied to correspondent species\nof an earlier period, are scarcely ever identical with them, and\nthat the few cases of identity which do occur, are limited to the\nmost recent rocks. Either then the old species must have perished,\nand new ones, similar but not identical, must have been created to\ntake their places, or there must have been a process of gradual\nchange, by which the present species have been derived from their\npredecessors. In one or two cases fossils have been found which\ncombine, to some extent, forms which are now found in distinct\nspecies, as if the process of variation had proceeded in distinct\nlines from a common source.\n\n2. No two animals of any class are exactly alike in all points.\nEach has its individual peculiarities, and in some cases these\npeculiarities are strongly marked.\n\n3. Man has been enabled, to a certain extent, to make use of these\nindividual peculiarities, and by means of them to produce great\nvarieties in the breeds of domesticated animals. This has been\nsometimes done unconsciously through a selection influenced by\nother motives, and then the process has been very slow; but\nlatterly intentionally, with a view to the production of improved\nbreeds, and whenever this has been the case, changes of\nconsiderable extent have been rapidly produced. By carefully\nselecting the animals to be paired, any desired modification can\ngenerally be produced in the course of a few generations. This is\nexemplified in the numerous and increasing varieties of the breeds\nof almost all domestic animals and birds.\n\nThe theory of Evolution then suggests that the same processes\nwhich are employed by the cattle-breeder have been in operation\nthrough untold ages. For the intention and care of the human\nagent, Mr. Darwin substitutes two principles; one designated as\n\"Natural Selection,\" the other as \"Sexual Selection.\" For their\nfull development he claims unlimited time. The ground on which the\nProcess of Natural Selection is maintained is as follows:--\n\nIt has been already noticed that no two individuals of the same\nkind are exactly alike in all respects; each individual has some\npeculiarities, generally very trifling, but sufficient to\ndistinguish it from all other individuals. Some of these\npeculiarities will probably be such as to be of some service to\nthe individual in the struggle of life; they will assist it in\nprocuring food, or in resisting or escaping from its natural\nenemies, while on the other hand the peculiarities of other\nindividuals will be prejudicial to them in these ways. The\nconsequence will be that a larger proportion of those having\nfavourable peculiarities will survive and propagate their kind;\ntheir offspring will inherit the peculiarities of their parents,\nand reproduce them in various degrees. The same process will then\nbe repeated, and thus from generation to generation the\npeculiarity will be increased, till at last it is sufficient to\nmark out, first a new variety, then a new species, and so on. This\nprocess then, continued through a long course of ages, was at one\ntime considered by Mr. Darwin sufficient to account for all the\nvarieties of living creatures now existing, or that have existed\nin past ages. But he has more recently satisfied himself\n[Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. i p. 152.] that there are many\nphenomena which are not satisfactorily accounted for by this\nprinciple, since many of the specific differences of animals are\nfound to exist in matters which, cannot directly promote their\nsuccess in the struggle of life. Such, for instance, are the\nbrilliant colours which are found, especially among the males, in\nmany species of birds. These he proposes to explain by the\nsupplementary theory of \"Sexual Selection.\" His suggestion is that\nthese peculiarities are in some way attractive to animals of the\nopposite sex, so that the individuals in which they are most\nstrongly developed are more successful than others in obtaining\nmates, and that in this way the peculiarity is gradually fixed and\nincreased.\n\nBy these two processes, then, Mr. Darwin supposes that all the\ndifferences now existing among animals have been produced and\nperpetuated; and not only that, but that man also is the result of\nsimilar processes, acting through a very long period; that the\nprogeny of certain \"anthropomorphous apes\" have, by slow degrees,\nrisen in the scale of being above their progenitors; that all our\nfaculties, intellectual and moral as well as physical, differ from\nthose possessed by lower animals in DEGREE only, and not in KIND,\n[Footnote: Descent of Man, chaps, ii.-v.] so that man has arrived\nat his present state by what may be termed purely natural\nprocesses, without the intervention of any external power.\n\nIn considering these theories, our attention must first be\ndirected to some defects which appear to weaken the whole course\nof the argument; and then we may consider the peculiar\ndifficulties in the way of the processes of natural and sexual\nselection; and the grounds for the belief that man is in\npossession of something entirely different in KIND from any\nfaculty or power possessed by any lower animals, which could not\ntherefore be derived by inheritance and improvement.\n\nThe first thing which strikes us in Mr. Darwin's works is that,\nfrom time to time, he betrays a sort of latent consciousness that\nhis theory is insufficient; that the processes to which he\nascribes such vast results are not quite adequate to the purpose,\nbut that they need in some way to be supplemented. Every now and\nthen recourse is had to some law--some unknown cause--which must\nco-operate in the production of the results he is considering. In\nspite of the apparent care which he has taken to guard against it,\nhe is continually betrayed into a confusion between the two senses\nin which the word \"law\" is employed. In its proper significance,\nlaw is an expression of the will of an intelligent superior,\nenforced by adequate power. In this sense the law may be\nconsidered as an efficient cause. The combination of will and\npower is an adequate cause for any result whatever. But Mr. Darwin\nexpressly excludes this sense of the word, in a sentence which\nseems to involve a self-contradiction. \"I mean by nature only the\naggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by law only\nthe ascertained sequence of events.\" [Footnote: Plants and Animals\nunder Domestication, vol. i. p. 6.] Law, in this sense, then, is\nsimply the statement of observed facts, and as such can have no\naction at all. It asserts that certain phenomena do uniformly\nfollow each other in an ascertained order; but it gives us no\ninformation whatever as to the cause of those events, or the\nreason why they do thus succeed each other. But, taking law in\nthis last sense, by his own definition, Mr. Darwin does,\nnevertheless, continually bring forward certain \"laws\" as\naccounting for certain results. Thus, we have the laws of\n\"Correlation of Growth,\" [Footnote: Origin of Species, ed. 1872,\np. 114.] \"Inheritance limited to Males,\" [Footnote: Descent of\nMan, vol. i. pp. 256, 257.] and a \"Principle of Compensation.\"\n[Footnote: Origin of Species, p. 117.] When Mr. Darwin, therefore,\nbrings forward these laws as efficient causes, he not only tacitly\nadmits the inadequacy of his theory to account for the phenomena\nin question, but he also endeavours to supply the defect by\nanother cause, which, by his own definition, is no cause at all.\nAnd further, Mr. Darwin calls in the action of \"unknown agencies.\"\n[Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. i. p. 154.]\n\nBut it may be said, \"Is not this the case with all sciences, at\nleast in their earlier stages? Are there not frequently, or\nalways, many phenomena which at first seem inexplicable, but which\nare gradually accounted for as knowledge increases? If, then, this\nis no objection in scientific pursuits generally, why should it be\nso here?\" This reasoning would be perfectly valid if Darwinism\nwere regarded simply as a scientific investigation. But it is\nunder consideration now on very different rounds. Whatever Mr.\nDarwin's own views may be, the theory is brought forward by\nothers, not as a mere interesting speculation, but as antagonistic\nto a record whose authority is attested by evidence of the very\nhighest class. It claims to discredit that record, and to be\nreceived as a substitute for it. But that record, however it may\nbe interpreted, does give us adequate causes for all that it\nprofesses to account for, in the will and operation of an Almighty\nCreator. The theory, therefore, which professes to supplant it,\nmust at least stand upon an equal ground--it must give an\nadequate account of everything. There must be no unverified laws.\nTo fall back upon such laws is in reality to fall back on the\nworking of that very power whose operation is formally denied.\n[Footnote: See Foster's Essays, Essay i. Letter 5.]\n\nThe next point to be noticed is a great confusion between\nassumptions and proved facts. This is especially prominent in that\npart of his last work which is devoted to sexual selection. Thus,\nin one case it is taken for granted, that various characteristics\nof the males \"serve only to allure or excite the female.\"\n[Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. i. p. 258.] \"Hence\" (because\nbrilliant colours of insects have probably not been acquired FOR\nTHE PURPOSE of protection), \"I am led to suppose that the females\ngenerally prefer, or are most excited by the more brilliant\nmales.\" [Footnote: Ibid. p. 399.] \"Nevertheless, when we see many\nmales pursuing the same female, we can hardly believe that the\npairing is left to blind chance; that the female exerts no choice,\nand is not influenced by the gorgeous colours, or other ornaments\nwith which the male alone is decorated\" [Footnote: Descent of Man,\nvol. i p. 421.] Such sentences are of continual occurrence, and do\nduty in the argument as if they expressed ascertained facts. And\nnot only this, but in the very part of the work which is devoted\nto establishing the adequacy of sexual selection to produce\ncertain effects, that adequacy is assumed from the very beginning.\nThus, we read, \"That these characters are the result of sexual\nselection is clear,\" [Footnote: Ibid. p. 258.] before we have got\nsix pages into an argument which occupies a volume and a half.\nThis is surely a strong instance of what is commonly called\n\"begging the question.\" Another instance of confusion of ideas is\nto be found in the assumption of design which occasionally occurs.\nThus, we read, \"In some other remarkable cases beauty has been\ngained for the sake of protection, through the imitation of other\nbeautiful species.\" [Footnote: Ibid. p. 393.] \"From these\nconsiderations Mr. Bates inferred, that the butterflies which\nimitate the protected species, had acquired their present\nmarvellously deceptive appearance through variation and natural\nselection, in order to be mistaken for the protected kinds.\"\n[Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. i. p. 411.] In these cases there\nis an assumption of purpose and design, which, necessarily implies\na designer, just as law, treated as an efficient cause, implies a\nlaw-giver. It may indeed be that this is only an inaccurate way of\nexpressing something else; but then, such modes of expression are\nusually the result of a want of clear perception of the ideas to\nbe expressed; and, in this case, such expressions must diminish\nthe weight to be assigned to Mr. Darwin's judgment.\n\nWe come now to the consideration of the first of Mr. Darwin's\nsupposed agencies--\"Natural Selection,\" or, \"Survival of the\nfittest.\" The results produced by this process must be ascribed to\none of two causes: either they are the work of a Superintending\nProvidence, watching over and directing every separate detail; or\nthey are the result of pure chance and accident. There is nothing\nintermediate between these two causes. Natural law--apart from\ndesign and a designer--is, as we have seen, a nonentity--a mere\nexpression of observed facts, for which it can give no account\nwhatever. Mr. Darwin's argument is expressly directed to exclude\nthe interference of a superintending Providence. Chance is the\nonly cause which he can bring forward. The very first question,\nthen, which arises is, What is there upon which chance may\noperate? What are the conditions from which the probabilities may\nbe calculated? Mr. Darwin assumes, and no doubt correctly, that\nminute variations are continually taking place. But as these\nvariations are the result of accident [Footnote: If they are not\nthe result of accident, we again see design and need a designer.]\nthey will take place in various directions; some of them will have\na beneficial, some of them a noxious tendency. As, moreover, they\nare supposed to be very small at each step, the difference of\nadvantage in the case of different individuals must be also very\nsmall, and will not be likely to produce any considerable\ndifference in the chances of pairing. But in order that any\nvariation may be perpetuated and increased, the pairing of\nsimilarly affected individuals is necessary. Parents, in which the\nvariations took opposite directions, would probably have offspring\nof the normal type, the opposite variations neutralizing each\nother. And this must be repeated again and again; and with every\nrepetition of the process required, the probabilities against it\nwould rapidly increase. Thus, supposing that in the first\ngeneration the proportion of favourable conditions were such, that\nof those animals that paired there were four of each sex that had\nthem to three that wanted them, the chances that any given pair\nwere alike in possessing them would be represented by the product\n4/7 x 4/7, or 16/49. Hence, the chances would be rather more than\ntwo to one against it. In the next generation it would be\n256/2401, or more than eight to one, and so on. [Footnote: This is\ngiven merely as an illustration of the nature of the calculation.\nIn any actual case the conditions would be infinitely more\ncomplex, but the calculation, if it could be made at all, must be\nmade on this principle.]\n\nBut next, we have not to do with one series of changes only, but\nwith a vast number of different series going on in different\ndirections, if we are to have a large variety of animals produced\nfrom a common stock. All the probabilities against the separate\nvariations must be combined, not by addition, but by\nmultiplication, so that the probabilities against the production\nof all these separate forms become enormous.\n\nAgainst all this improbability Mr. Darwin brings forward the\nsupposed advantages which these variations give to their\npossessors. But here again a new element is introduced into the\ncalculation. It is assumed, in the very statement of the question,\nthat the process of adaptation has already taken place; the\noriginal stock must have been adapted to the circumstances under\nwhich they existed, or in their case the whole theory fails. If,\nthen, a fresh adaptation is wanted, it must be because a change in\nexternal circumstances must have taken place. In order that a new\nvariety may be established there must be a concurrence between the\nchange of external circumstances and the change in the animals.\nHere we get a new, and a large factor for our multiplication.\n\nThis argument may be, perhaps, made clearer by an illustration.\nMr. Darwin has written a very interesting book on the\nfertilization of orchids by means of insects. According to his\nview all insects are descended from one common type, and all\norchids are also descended from one parent; but we meet with\ninsects and orchids in pairs, each perfectly adapted to the other.\nWe will suppose that a change takes place in a particular orchid,\nthat the nectary recedes to a greater distance from the point to\nwhich the insect can penetrate, and so an advantage is given to\nthose insects in which the haustellum is of a length above the\naverage. This may have a slight tendency to increase the number of\nsuch insects; but then it will have an opposite tendency in the\ncase of the orchid. It cannot, of course, be supposed that the\nvariation, which is only partial in the insect, is universal in\nthe plant. The unchanged insects will therefore be confined to the\nunchanged flowers, while the changed insects will be indifferent\non the subject, as they will be able to reach the nectary in any\ncase. Hence, an advantage will be given to the unchanged flower,\nwhich will be more likely to be fertilized, and the two lines of\nvariation will move in opposite directions.\n\nBut next, the variation in the insects and the flowers must take\nplace at the same time and the same place, or no result will\nfollow to the insect, while the new variety of orchid must perish\nfor want of an insect to fertilize it. It is this which makes the\nsupposition of unlimited time almost useless, because just in\nproportion as the time is increased the probability of two\nindependent events happening simultaneously is diminished.\n\nBut even supposing this difficulty out of the way, we meet with an\nimmediate repetition of it. The insect derives an advantage from\nits increased haustellum, but what advantage does the plant derive\nfrom its retiring nectary? How does that help it in the \"struggle\nof life?\" But if it produces no beneficial result, the variation\naccording to the theory must drop. Hence we should arrive at an\ninsect suited for a new form of the flower, but no flower suited\nto the new form of the insect.\n\nIf, then, we reject the idea of superintendence and design, we\nhave on the one hand an enormous antecedent improbability, while\non the other hand we have only a very small power by which a\ndirection may be given to the course of events, since by the\nhypothesis in any one generation the change, and consequently the\nsuperior advantage, is exceedingly small, and there is a strong\ntendency in related changes, as in the case of the orchid and\ninsect, to move in opposite directions.\n\nBut next, in the varieties of animals with which we are\nacquainted, there is a certain connexion between the differences\nof independent organs, for which this theory does not help us to\naccount. Thus, for instance, according to this theory the canine\nand the feline races are descended from a common ancestor. But\nthere are several points of difference between a cat and a dog.\nThere are the differences in the form of jaws, in the dentition;\nin the muscles by which the jaws are moved, and in the feet and\nclaws. All animals of the cat tribe agree in all these respects,\nso do all animals of the dog tribe. We never find a cat's head\ncombined with the feet of a dog. Why is this? Mr. Darwin attempts\nto account for it by his supposed law of \"correlation of growth,\"\nbut, as has been already shown, any such law, being by Mr.\nDarwin's definition the observed sequence of events and nothing\nmore, is utterly useless, when it is brought forward as a cause\nfor those events. On this point the theory completely breaks down.\n\n3. The theory does not account for any changes which are not\nimmediately beneficial. [Footnote: In the \"Origin of Species\" (Ed.\n1872) Mr. Darwin makes an admission which is virtually a giving-up\nof his whole theory. He says, \"In many other cases modifications\nare probably the direct result of the laws of variation or of\ngrowth, independently of any good having been thus gained; but\neven such structures have often, as we may feel assured, been\nsubsequently taken advantage of,\" pp. 165, 166. Here, then, we\nhave a preparation for future circumstances, which surely implies\ndesign.] If any rudimentary advance is made in the organism, if,\nfor instance, the rudiments of a new bone, or joint, or organ of\nsense are developed, the nascent organ must, according to the\nhypothesis of minute changes, be useless in the first instance.\nHence it would confer no advantage in the struggle of life; there\nwould be no tendency towards its preservation and growth. This\nbecomes a very important consideration, when certain important\ndifferences in animal structure and habits are to be accounted\nfor. How, for instance, could the mammary glands be developed in\noviparous creatures? Mr. Darwin regards them as originating in\ncutaneous glands, developed in the pouch of the marsupials. But\nhis grounds for this statement are very meagre. To a great extent\nthey rest on what an American Naturalist \"believes he has seen;\"\nand besides, the ornithorhyncus, which has no pouch, and which is\nlower in the scale of life than the marsupials, by Mr. Darwin's\nown admission (O. S., p. 190), possesses the glands. Mr. Mivart's\nquestion (Darwin, O. S., p. 189) is a very pertinent one.\n\nAnother point which this view fails to explain, is the\ndetermination of the line of development in particular directions\nat different periods. At one time it is most marked in fishes, at\nanother in reptiles, at another in mammals. How is this to be\naccounted for?\n\n4. The experience of cattle-breeders does not warrant the\nassumption that the principle of natural selection has more than a\nlimited operation. No case has as yet been brought forward in\nwhich varieties have been produced which were not capable of\ninterbreeding. Apart from their experience there is not a particle\nof evidence in favour of the assertion that races which cannot be\nmade to breed together can be descended from a common stock. The\nunlimited application of this principle is therefore a pure\nassumption.\n\n5. To this must be added the circumstance that no authenticated\ninstance of variation by natural selection can be brought forward.\nIt is true that this is not a very important argument, because our\nknowledge of those classes of animals in which natural selection\ncould act is even now very incomplete; and our knowledge of their\npast history is still more limited, so that we are not in a\ncondition to prove a negative. But in such a case as this the onus\nof proof should surely lie on the other side. It is for those who\nwould assert the theory to bring forward positive proof of it.\nThere is, however, one point in Mr. Darwin's view of domesticated\nanimals which tells against his theory. The cat remains unchanged,\nbecause from its vagrant habits man has no control over its\npairing [Footnote: Darwin's \"Animals and Plants,\" vol. ii. p.\n236.]. Now considering the variety of conditions under which cats\nexist, here is surely a great opening for natural selection. But\nit has produced no results.\n\nWe come now to the theory of Sexual Selection, which is to account\nfor those peculiarities and distinctions which can have no\nbeneficial effect in the struggle of life, and which are accounted\nfor on the supposition that they render their possessors more\nagreeable to the opposite sex, and so facilitate pairing, so that\nthose animals which possess them in a remarkable degree would have\nthe greatest chance of continuing their race. The case on which\nMr. Darwin mainly rests his argument is that of birds, in which\nthe males are frequently distinguished by exquisite colours and\nvery graceful markings, and in which also the proceedings of the\nsexes can, in many cases, be more easily watched.\n\nIt is in maintaining this theory that Mr. Darwin has such frequent\nrecourse to what may be called the \"argumentum ad ignorantiam.\"\n\"If such and such organs or ornaments were not designed for this\nor that particular object, then we do not know of what use they\nare.\" [Footnote: For instance, Descent of Man, vol. ii. pp. 284.\n399.] This maybe very true, but it proves nothing, unless we\nassume that we are or ought to be acquainted with, the use and\nobject of everything in nature. And it involves another and a very\nwide question. There are certain tastes which seem to be inherent\nin our nature, and there are certain external objects which afford\ngratification to those tastes. Must we view this coincidence as\nmerely accidental? or is it a part of the design of the world that\nit should minister not only to our needs, but also to our\nenjoyments? Mr. Darwin does not reject the idea of an Author and\nDesigner of Nature, is he then prepared to assert that beauty did\nnot form a part of the design as well as utility? [Footnote: In\nthe \"Origin of Species,\" p 159, Mr. Darwin does seem to assert\nthis; but he says in conclusion, \"How the sense of beauty in its\nsimplest form--that is, the reception of a peculiar kind of\npleasure from certain colours, forms, and sounds--was first\ndeveloped in the mind of man and of the lower animals is a very\nobscure subject,\" p. 162. To Mr. Darwin, with his present views,\nit may well be obscure; but it presents no obscurity at all to\nthose who believe that the universe in all its details was\ndesigned, and its formation superintended, by a loving Father,\nwhose will was that it should not only supply the needs, but also\nminister to the enjoyment of all His creatures, nor to those who\nin every form of beauty, physical, intellectual, or moral, behold\na far-off reflexion of the glory of the Invisible Creator.] If he\nis not prepared to assert this, he must admit the possibility that\nmany things exist whose sole object is to minister to that sense\nof beauty which is probably possessed by other beings besides\nourselves.\n\nMr. Darwin admits that many other causes, beside the supposed\npreference on the part of one sex for certain material adornments\npossessed by the other, influence the pairing of animals. In a\nvery large number of cases the female is quite passive in the\nmatter. The question is decided by a battle between the males, and\nthe female seems, as a matter of course, to become the mate of the\nconqueror. In many other cases pairing seems to be the result of\naccident; the two sexes pair as they happen to meet each other.\nThe great points on which Mr. Darwin rests his argument are that\nin some cases, on the approach of breeding-time, certain\nornamental appendages become more highly developed or more\nbrilliantly coloured, [Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. ii. p. 80.]\nand that in many cases the males, when courting the females, are\nobserved to display their ornaments before them. [Footnote: Ibid.\nvol. ii. p. 86, et seq.] but then there are other facts, which Mr.\nDarwin. also notices, which detract more than he seems willing to\nallow, from the relevancy of these facts. The development of\nornaments at breeding-time sometimes takes place in both sexes,\nindicating some latent connexion with the reproductive organs;\nthus the comb of the domestic hen becomes a bright red, as well as\nthat of the cock. It would appear then that the object of the\nchange is not to render the cock more attractive to the hens, for\nhow could it serve the hens (if the choice lies with them) to be\nmade more attractive to the cocks? Then again an old hen who is\npast laying, often assumes, to a considerable extent, the plumage\nof the cock. When these ornaments are the exclusive possession of\nthe male, they are often displayed for other purposes than the\ngratification of the female. The possessors seem to be conscious\nof their beauty, and to take a pleasure in displaying it to any\nspectators.\n\nVery great beauty and brilliancy of colour is often found in cases\nin which it can have nothing whatever to do with the relation\nbetween the sexes. Thus, a vast number of caterpillars are\nremarkable for their beauty; but in their immature state it can\nhave no relation to sexual selection; and if it may, or rather\nmust, have a different object in one case, what ground have we for\nassuming that it may not have a different object in the other?\n\nAgain, we are not in a position to form any opinion as to the\ncauses which really influence the pairing of animals when choice\nis exercised. We have no certain knowledge upon the important\nquestion whether the ideal of beauty, if possessed by the lower\nanimals at all, is in all, or even in many cases, in accordance\nwith our own. We, for instance, admire a male humming-bird; what\ncertainty have we that he is equally beautiful in the eyes of his\nmate? In cases where we have reason to believe that deliberate\nselection has taken place, we do not know that that selection was\ninfluenced by only one condition--that of beauty. There may have\nbeen a thousand causes at work of which we know nothing. Mr.\nDarwin brings forward an instance in which the owner of a number\nof peahens wished them to breed with a peacock of a particular\nvariety, while they showed a deliberate preference for another\nbird; and he supposes that their preference was decided by the\nplumage. But there might have been another cause--at least the\ncircumstances as related by him seem to suggest it--which would\ngive a very different turn to the affair. The favoured peacock,\nspoken of as \"old,\" [Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. ii. p. 119.]\nwas probably an old friend of the hens, while his unsuccessful\nrival seems to have been a new introduction. The preference shown\nby the hens would in this case be fully accounted for, without\nsupposing them to have exhibited any choice in the matter of\nplumage.\n\nThen there are a vast number of peculiarities which are certainly\nnot ornamental in our eyes, but which are confined to the male\nsex. They are, so far as we can tell, of no service whatever in\nthe struggle of life. With reference to these Mr. Darwin's\nargument seems to be this,--\"They can serve no other purpose with\nwhich we are acquainted, therefore they must be attractive to the\nfemale--therefore they must be acquired by sexual selection.\" Such\narguments as these cannot carry much weight. [Footnote: Descent of\nMan, vol ii p 284.]\n\nOn the whole, we can hardly come to any other conclusion than that\nthe theory of sexual selection is not proved. In many cases it is\nknown that such selection is not the result of choice; in other\ncases, where choice seems probable, we have no ground for\nbelieving that external appearance is the sole ground of that\nchoice. It may exercise some influence, but that is all. Even if\nadmitted, there are many things which cannot be accounted for by\nit without very extravagant assumptions. It cannot then be\nadmitted as covering the large classes of phenomena left\nunaccounted for by the theory of natural selection.\n\nSo far as the lower animals are concerned, the results to which an\nexamination of Mr. Darwin's views has led us may be summed up in\nthe following propositions:--\n\n1. That the two causes, natural and sexual selection, have\nprobably exercised some influence in the modification of animal\nforms; but that the laws of probability preclude our entertaining\nthe belief that these causes can have had, by themselves, and\napart from a superintending power, anything beyond a very limited\noperation.\n\n2. That in cases where there have been related changes in\ndifferent parts of the same organism, or in different organisms,\nthe inadequacy of these two causes is virtually admitted by the\nintroduction of certain supposed laws; and that these laws, being\ndefined by Mr. Darwin to be no more than \"the ascertained sequence\nof events,\" cannot be regarded as efficient causes, and so cannot\nsupply the defect.\n\n3. That there are particular points in the chain of life, in which\nthe transition from one form to another is so great, and so\nincapable of graduation, that it is impossible to suppose that\nthese two causes can have been adequate to produce it. Of this a\nnotable instance is to be found in the transition from oviparous\nanimals to the mammalia.\n\nWe come now to the consideration of the origin of man, which Mr.\nDarwin, in his last work, ascribes also to natural and sexual\nselection. His view is, that man is descended from some family of\nanthropomorphous apes, and that all those enormous differences\nwhich, as he admits, exist between the highest ape and the most\ndegraded member of the human race, are differences of degree only,\nand not of kind; that all our intellectual wealth, and all our\nmoral laws, are simply the development of faculties and ideas\nwhich were possessed in a ruder form by the creatures from whom\nman is descended.\n\nSo far as man's physical constitution is concerned, there is\nundoubtedly something to be said in favour of this view. For man's\nbodily frame is composed of the same elements, and moulded upon\nthe same general plan as that of the higher apes, and, what is\nstill more remarkable, it retains, in a rudimentary form, certain\nmuscles and organs which are fully developed and answer important\npurposes in many of the quadrumana. Of these the tail is a\nremarkable instance. But when the differences between the physical\npeculiarities of man, and those of his supposed progenitors are\nexamined, the theory of natural selection collapses entirely, for\nthe development has taken the form which would be most\ndisadvantageous in the struggle of life. This is very clearly put\nby the Duke of Argyll.[Footnote: \"Recent Speculations on Primeval\nMan,\" in Good Words, April, 1868.]\n\n\"The unclothed and unprotected condition of the human body, its\ncomparative slowness of foot; the absence of teeth adapted for\nprehension or for defence; the same want of power for similar\npurposes in the hands and fingers; the bluntness of the sense of\nsmell, so as to render it useless for the detection of prey which\nis concealed;--all these are features which stand in fixed and\nharmonious relation to the mental powers of man. But, apart from\nthese, they would place him at an immense disadvantage in the\nstruggle for existence. This, therefore, is not the direction in\nwhich the blind forces of selection could ever work .... Man must\nhave had human proportions of mind before he could afford to lose\nbestial proportions of body.\"\n\nBut it is in the intellectual and spiritual part of man's nature\nthat the greatest difficulty in the way of the application of\nthese theories arises. The strongest argument of all against them\nis one which is incapable of proof, since it arises not from facts\naround us, but from our own self-consciousness--our realization of\nour own powers--and so, to each individual man it must vary in\napparent strength, in proportion as he realizes what he is, and\nwhat it is in his power to become. The very outcry that has been\nraised against Mr. Darwin's proposition is a proof of this. The\ntheory of the descent of man, as he propounds it, was felt to be\nan outrage upon the universal instincts of humanity. But, because\nthis objection rests upon such a foundation, it is incapable of\nbeing duly weighed and investigated as an argument, and we proceed\ntherefore to such considerations as are within our reach.\n\nFirst of all it is desirable to dispose of one of the stock\narguments in favour of the theory. That argument is, that the\ndifference between the lowest type of savage and the highest type\nof civilized man--between a Fuegian or an Australian on the one\nhand, and a Newton, a Shakspeare, or a Humboldt, on the other,--is\nquite as great as that between the higher forms of ape and the\nlowest forms of humanity. But in this argument there is a fatal\nconfusion of ideas. The capacity for acquisition is confounded\nwith the opportunity for acquisition. That the savage is in\npossession of but very few ideas does not prove that he is\nincapable of more; it may equally well arise from the fact that he\nhad had no opportunity of acquiring more. The only way to test the\nquestion is by putting a savagoe from his earliest infancy, under\nthe same favourable circumstances as the child of civilisation.\nWhenever this experiment has been tried, and our missionaries have\nhad many opportunities of trying it, the difference has either not\nappeared at all, or has proved to be very trifling. Mr. Darwin\nhimself seems to have been very much surprised at what he saw in\nsome natives of Terra del Fuego, who were for a time his\ncompanions on board the \"Beagle.\" \"The Fuegians rank amongst the\nlowest barbarians, but I was continually struck with surprise how\nclosely the three natives on board H.M.S. 'Beagle,' who had lived\nsome years in England, and could talk a little English, resembled\nus in disposition, and in most of our mental faculties.\"\n[Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. i. p 34] And these Fuegians had\nnot been educated from their infancy, they had only come to\nEngland later in life, and were thus under an incalculable\ndisadvantage. Had they been heirs to such an intellectual\ninheritance as fell to the lot of Mr. Darwin, there is nothing\nextravagant in the supposition that they might have proved\nthemselves equal to him in the ability to make use of it. The\ncomparison then proves to be quite illusory; but it draws our\nattention to a fact which is of very high importance in our\ninvestigation of the difference between man and all other animals.\nMan alone seems to be capable of laying up what may be termed an\nexternal store of intellectual wealth. Other animals in the state\nof nature make, so far as we know, no intellectual advances. The\nbee constructs its cell, the bird builds its nest precisely as its\nprogenitors did in the earliest dawn of history. There is a\npossibility that some advance, though a very small one, may be\nmade by animals brought under the control of man. It is said, for\ninstance, that a young pointer dog will sometimes point at game\nwithout any training. But in this case the acquired knowledge is\ncongenital, and is therefore to be regarded as a development\nbrought about by superintended selection. But with man none of the\nacquired knowledge is innate. It is a treasure entirely external\nto himself until he has appropriated it by study of some kind or\nother. There is no reason to believe that any advance in\nintellectual power has been made by man, in his collective\ncapacity, since his first appearance on earth. Various individuals\nhave varying powers, but these differences are no result of\ndevelopment, since they may often be found among members of the\nsame family, who have been subjected to the same discipline, and\nenjoyed the same educational advantages. It follows that the gulf\nbetween the ape and the lowest type of humanity is almost if not\nquite as great as between the ape and the highest type. The savage\ndoes not in any way help to bridge over that gulf.\n\nBut it is said that the moral and intellectual faculties which man\npossesses, and which he looks upon as the great badge of his\nsuperiority, are in truth only different in degree and not in kind\nfrom those possessed by the lower animals. But the grounds on\nwhich this assertion is based are wonderful in their tenuity. Dogs\nare possessed of self-consciousness because they sometimes emit\nsounds in their sleep from which it is concluded that they dream.\n[Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. i. p. 62.] \"Can we feel sure that\nan old dog, with an excellent memory, and some power of\nimagination, as shown by his dreams, never reflects on his past\npleasures in the chace? And this would be a form of self-\nconsciousness.\" Our duty to our neighbour is entirely the result\nof \"social instinct,\" [Footnote: Descent of Man, vol. i. pp. 70-\n106.] and our duty to our God the development of a belief which\nhas its origin in dreams. [Footnote: Ibid, p. 66.]\n\nIt is impossible for us satisfactorily to meet these assertions\nwith a direct negative, [Footnote: There are some who think that\nthis statement may be directly refuted. Their views will be found\nin the QUARTERLY REVEIW, July, 1871.] for this simple reason, that\nwe have no means whatever of knowing what ideas are present in the\nminds of the lower animals, or even what communications pass\nbetween them. For anything we can tell to the contrary, the bark\nof a dog may be as articulate to his fellow-dogs as our speech is\nto our fellow-men, while on the other hand to the dog our speech\nmay be as inarticulate as his bark is to us. But our total\nignorance of the mental state of animals which have been the\ncompanions of man from the very earliest ages, our utter inability\nto hold any conversation with them, is in itself a proof of the\nwide gulf that separates them from us. Put two men of the most\nwidely separated races on a desert isle together, and a very\nlittle time will elapse before they are able to hold some\ncommunication with each other. If then the difference between man\nand the lower animals were a difference of the same kind as that\nbetween the civilized man and the savage, though greater in\ndegree, surely in so many thousand years something might have been\ndone to open a way for intellectual communication; some\ndevelopment of the faculties of the lower creatures would have\nbeen perceived, some means of interchanging ideas would have been\ndiscovered. If Mr. Darwin had had for his companions on board the\n\"Beagle,\" instead of three Fuegians, as many Gorillas or\nChimpanzees, would he, at the end of the voyage, have been able to\nreport any approximation, at all to European mental\ncharacteristics, or even to those of the lowest savage? But if the\ndifference be only one of degree, some approximation ought to have\ntaken place.\n\nAs then we can have no direct knowledge of the moral and\nintellectual powers of animals, we can only judge of them from\ntheir actions, and other external signs. One great mark of\ndifference has already been noticed. Man has, other animals have\nnot, the power of laying up an external treasure of intellectual\nacquirements. Then there are certain arts which seem to be\nindispensable to man in his lowest state--no savage is so low that\nhe is utterly destitute of them--no animal makes any pretence to\nthem. Such are the designing, construction, and use of tools. Mr.\nDarwin asserts that in certain cases--very rare ones--apes have\nbeen known to use stones to break open nuts; but the mere use of a\nstone is a very different thing from the conception and deliberate\nformation of a tool, however rude. Then there is the kindling of\nfire, and the use of it for the purpose of cooking; and lastly,\nthe preparation and the wearing of clothes. The tools or the\nclothes may be of the rudest kind, the tools may be formed from a\nflint, and the clothes from bark or skin, but in the preparation\nof each there are signs of intellectual power, of which we find no\nindications whatever in the lower animals.\n\nAnother important difference between man and all other animals\nlies in the fact, that whatever an animal does it does perfectly\nfrom the first, but it makes no improvements. A bird's first nest\nis perfect. With man the case is the reverse, it is only by many\ntrials, many failures, that he attains to skill in any operation,\nbut then he goes forward. Arts improve from generation to\ngeneration. This seems to show that the faculties of man differ\nfrom those of animals in kind, and not in degree only.\n\nThe question also arises, if man has been produced from an\nanthropomorphous ape by a process of natural development, how is\nit that the same process has not gone on in other lines? The dog,\nthe horse, and the elephant are at least equal in intelligence and\nsagacity to the highest known apes. Such a development from them\ncannot have proceeded through the line of the apes. If these\ndifferent orders are at all connected it must be through some\nremote common ancestor. Why then has this development come to an\nabrupt termination in some cases and not in all? It may indeed be\nsaid that the dog and the horse are indebted for their\nintelligence to the inherited results of long intercourse with\nman, but this cannot be the case with the elephant, which is never\nknown to breed in captivity. Nor is there any reason to believe\nthat the present intelligence of the elephant is recently\ndeveloped. Why then has it been arrested in its course?\n\nWhether or not we assume the theory of development to be wholly or\npartially correct in reference to the lower animals, we must admit\nthat it is true of man, but in a sense totally different from that\nwhich Mr. Darwin suggests. The development of which he is the\nadvocate is a development of race, in which the advance made by\neach individual generation is exceedingly small, while the\ndifference in remote generations, the accumulated advance of\nsuccessive generations, is great. In man, on the contrary, there\nis no reason whatever to believe that there has been any advance\nat all in the race from the very earliest periods--that either in\nphysical power or intellectual ability the present generation of\nmen, taken as a whole, are in any way superior to their most\nremote ancestors. The development of which man is especially\ncapable is the development of the individual, that development\nbeing not physical, but intellectual and moral, and being in a\ngreat degree dependent on the will and perseverance of the\nindividual, and very little on external circumstances. The result\nof these individual developments has been the accumulation of a\nvast fund of wealth, useful arts, sciences, literature, which form\nthe common possession of the whole race, but do not necessarily\nimply the slightest advance in any particular individual--that\nadvance being dependent, not on the possession of those treasures,\nbut on the use made of them. In the case of man then development\ndoes certainly exist, but it takes a line totally distinct from\nthat which Mr. Darwin advocates, and thus forms another broad line\nof demarcation between man and the most advanced of the lower\nanimals.\n\nIt appears then that the faculties of man differ generically from\nthose of the animals. A new order of things seems to have\ncommenced with the appearance of man on the earth--an order in\nwhich the highest place was to be maintained by intellectual\ninstead of physical power. No mere process of evolution then will\naccount for man's origin. His physical nature may have been formed\nin that way; but we cannot believe that his intellectual and moral\nnature were developed from any lower creatures. Only some special\nCreative interference can account for his existence.\n\nSo far then as it tends to negative the continued operation of the\nCreator, the theory of evolution is untenable. Like that of\nLaplace, it fails to give an adequate cause for existing\nphenomena. But it seems probable, as will be seen in the next\nchapter, that both theories have in them much of truth. They\ncannot point out the cause of the universe, but they may give us a\nmore or less accurate view of the manner in which that cause\noperated. The facts brought forward by geologists have been shown\nnot to be incompatible with interpretations which the Mosaic\nRecord readily admits, though they conflict with existing notions\nupon certain points. In no one then of the three sciences which\nhave been supposed to be specially antagonistic to that record, is\nthere anything to be found which can be maintained as a reasonable\nground for doubting that that record is, what it has always been\nheld to be by the Church, a direct Revelation from the Creator.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nSCIENCE A HELP TO INTERPRETATION.\n\n\nIt is now clear that there is nothing in the Mosaic Record itself,\nwhich is contradicted by any scientific discovery, and that all\nthe alleged difficulties arise either from interpretations\nprematurely adopted, or from theories which, when carefully\nexamined, are found to be defective, but which may nevertheless\ncontain in them a large element of truth. But if scientific\ndiscoveries are available for the refutation of erroneous\ninterpretations, the probability is that when rightly understood\nthey will help us to arrive at the true meaning, since the Works\nof God are, beyond all other things, likely to throw light on that\nportion of His Word in which those Works are described. Nor are\nthe theories to be passed over--the greater the amount of truth\nwhich they embody the greater will be the likelihood that they\nwill receive help from, as well as throw light upon, such a\nrecord; and thus we shall have additional evidence that the Word,\nthe Work, and the Intellect, which has scrutinized and interpreted\nthe Work, are all derived from the same source. We proceed,\ntherefore, to inquire whether these facts and theories do in any\nway elucidate the concise statements of Scripture, so that we may\nbe enabled to arrive at a somewhat clearer idea of the meaning of\nthis most ancient document, and be enabled to entertain somewhat\nmore distinct views of the manner in which the Divine Architect\nsaw fit to accomplish His Work.\n\nIn pursuing this investigation two points must be carefully kept\nin mind; the first is the distinction between theory and\nconjecture on the one hand, and well ascertained facts on the\nother. We shall have much to do with theory, and with conjectural\ninterpretations of observed facts. These can never stand on the\nsame footing as the facts themselves, but can only be regarded as\ninvested with greater or less probability. If it is found that\nthese theories do explain many observed facts, that they harmonize\nwith, and as it were dovetail into any proposed interpretation of\nwhich the words of Moses are capable; and still more if that\ninterpretation actually completes the defective points of the\ntheories, and supplies an adequate cause for facts hitherto\ninexplicable--then the presumption is a very strong one that the\ninterpretation thus supported is at all events an approximation to\nthe true one.\n\nThe second point to be carefully kept in mind is the very\nimperfect state of scientific knowledge even at the present time.\nAs far as the matter in hand is concerned, the facts which are\nascertained beyond all possibility of doubt, are very few. New\nmeans of investigation have very recently been discovered, and as\na consequence new sources of information have been pointed out,\nnew fields of research have been laid open. Twenty years ago the\nspectroscope was a thing undreamt of--now astronomers reckon it as\nof equal value with the telescope, while chemists find it\nindispensable to their researches. Who shall say that the next\ntwenty years may not witness some invention of equal importance,\nwhich shall throw upon us a fresh flood of light from some\nunexpected quarter? If then the principle which has hitherto been\nmaintained is correct, that all our difficulties arise from\ninterpretations based upon insufficient knowledge, but maintained\nas if of equal authority with the record itself, there is a great\ndanger lest after a time the same difficulty should recur--that\nthe discovery of fresh facts may discredit interpretations based\nupon our present knowledge. Any interpretation therefore to which\nwe may be led by the scientific views at present entertained, must\nbe regarded as only provisional and tentative, liable at any time\nto be either confirmed, amended, or rejected, as fresh discoveries\nmay be made.\n\nBefore we enter upon a detailed examination of the records of the\nseveral days, there are two preliminary points to which attention\nmust be directed. We shall have to make frequent reference to\n\"law.\" It will be well that the sense in which the term is used\nshould be made clear. The account of the First Day's Work will\nlead to the recent theory of the Correlation of Forces. As this is\nprobably a new subject to many, some previous explanation of it\nwill be necessary.\n\nSECTION 1. OF LAW. [Footnote: This subject is fully treated in the\nDuke of Argyll's \"Reign of Law.\"]\n\nLaw, in its original and proper sense, is the expression to an\ninferior of the will of a superior, which the inferior has it in\nhis power to obey or to resist, but resistance to which entails a\npenalty more or less severe, in proportion to the moral turpitude,\nor the injurious consequences of the act of disobedience. In this\nits strict sense the law can only exist in connection with beings\npossessed of reason to understand it, of power to obey it, and of\nfree will to determine whether they will obey it or not. When\nthese three conditions are absent law can have no existence. But\nthe result of perfect law, perfectly obeyed, would be perfect\norder. Hence the observation of perfect order leads, by a reversed\nprocess, to the supposition of some law of which that order is the\nresult. Hence arose in the first instance the term \"natural laws,\"\nor \"laws of nature.\" Events were found to follow each other in a\nuniform way, and this uniformity was thus sought to be accounted\nfor. Probably in the minds of those by whom the word was thus\napplied in the first instance Nature was not the mere abstraction\nit is now, but an unseen power--Deity or subordinate to Deity--\nworking consciously and with design.\n\n[Footnote: Mr. Darwin, especially in the \"Origin of Species,\"\nseems continually to betray the existence of this feeling in his\nown mind. Though he from time to time reminds us that by Nature he\nmeans nothing but the aggregate of sequences of events, or laws,\nhe yet frequently speaks of Nature in a way which is applicable\nonly to an intelligent worker.]\n\nBut this feeling has disappeared, and now we are told that natural\nlaw is \"the observed sequence of events.\" In this case, then, the\ntrue meaning of the word is entirely lost--it is no longer\npossible to speak of law as the cause of any event.\n\nBut the old sense in which the word was applied to natural\nphenomena had in it far more of truth than the modern one. It was\nthe imperfect expression of the great truth that God is a God of\norder--that there is a uniform procedure in His works, because in\nHim there is no change, no caprice. And it is of great importance\nto us that we should realize this truth, because we are dependent\nupon the laws of nature every moment of our lives. Every conscious\nact is performed under the conviction that the natural forces\nwhich that act calls forth will operate in a certain prescribed\nmanner. But this conviction, though it restricts us to the limits\nof the possible, does not further impede the freedom of our will.\nTo a certain extent we can choose what action we will perform,\nwhat forces we will call forth for that purpose, and what\ndirection we will give them. Sometimes we can arrange our forces\nso that they will continue to act for a considerable time without\nany intervention from us; in other cases continued interference is\nnecessary. But in all these cases there is no interruption of the\nlaw by which the working of these forces is regulated. We have\nthen a limited control over these forces, and yet they are\nunchangeable in themselves, and in their mode of action.\n\nWhen, however, we strive to ascend from our own works to those of\nGod, we can no longer regard these forces as absolutely\nunchangeable. If they are practically so, it is because it is His\nWill that they should be so. It is this Will then which has its\nexpression in the so-called laws of nature. The term now assumes a\nsense akin to, though not identical with, its original ethical\nsense. It is no longer a rule imposed by a superior on an\ninferior, but the rule by which the Supreme Being sees fit to\norder His own Work. While however we admit the possibility of law\nof this kind being changed, we have no reason to believe that in\nthe universe with which we have to do any such change has ever\ntaken place. But this does not preclude the possibility of Divine\ninterference in the processes either of Creation or of Providence.\nNew forces may from time to time be supplied, new directions may\nbe given to existing forces, without any variation in the laws by\nwhich the action of those forces is regulated.\n\nAnd if we believe that Creation was a progressive act, it is\nrather probable than otherwise that such interferences should take\nplace. For a long period perhaps the uniformity of the work might\nlead us to forget the Being who was working; but times would\narrive when definite stages of the work were accomplished, when\nhigher developments of being were rendered possible, and in the\nintroduction of those higher developments a something would be\nseen which could not be the result of the processes with which we\nhad already become acquainted. Such interference would not in any\nway justify the supposition that the designs of the Author of\nNature were changed, or that His original plan had proved\ndefective. The more natural inference would be that they were a\npart of the plan from the first, but that the time for them was\nnot then come.\n\nIt will be seen in the sequel that in all probability many of the\nspecial acts of Creation, mentioned in the Mosaic Record, are\ninterferences of this kind; that for long periods of time matters\nadvanced in a uniform manner; that the sequence of events was such\nas our own experience would lead us to anticipate; but that these\nperiods were separated from one another by the introduction of new\nforces and new results. Of the former we may speak then as carried\non under the operation of natural laws; the other may be described\nas special interferences not antagonistic, but supplementary, to\nnatural laws, and forming part of the original design.\n\nSECTION 2. THE CORRELATION OF FORCES.\n\n[Footnote: For fuller information on this subject, Grove's\n\"Correlation of the Physical Forces,\" or Tyndall's \"Lectures on\nHeat considered as a Mode of Motion,\" may be consulted.]\n\nIt has long been known that heat and light are closely connected\ntogether. The accumulation of a certain amount of heat is always\naccompanied by the appearance of light. But when it was found that\nthe light could be separated from the heat by various means, it\nseemed possible that the two phenomena were simply associated. It\nis now, however, ascertained that light and heat are identical in\ntheir nature, and that a vast number of other phenomena--\nelectricity, galvanism, magnetism, chemical action, and\ngravitation, as well as light and heat, are different\nmanifestations of one and the same thing, which is called force or\nenergy. In a great number of cases it is possible for us, by the\nuse of appropriate means and apparatus, to transform these\nmanifestations, so as to make the same force assume a variety of\nforms. Thus motion suddenly arrested becomes heat. A rifle-ball\nwhen it strikes the target becomes very hot. The heat produced by\nthe concussion against an iron shield is found sufficient to\nignite the powder in some of the newly invented projectiles. The\nbest illustration, however, is to be obtained from galvanism. By\nmeans of the Voltaic battery we set free a certain amount of\nforce, and we can employ it at pleasure to produce an intense\nlight in the electric lamp, or to melt metals which resist the\ngreatest heat of our furnaces; it will convert a bar of iron into\na magnet, or decompose water into its constituents, oxygen and\nhydrogen, or separate a metal from its combination with oxygen.\nBut in all these processes no new force is produced--the force\nset free is unchangeable in itself, and we cannot increase its\namount. Owing to the imperfection of our instruments and our skill\na part of it will always escape from our control, and be lost to\nus, but not destroyed. When, however, due allowance is made for\nthis loss, the results produced are always in exact proportion to\nthe amount of force originally set free. Thus, if we employ it to\ndecompose water, the amount of water decomposed always bears an\nexact proportion to the amount of metal which has been oxidized in\nthe cells of the battery.\n\nThis force pervades everything which comes within the cognizance\nof our senses. It exists in what are termed the elementary\nsubstances of which the crust of the earth is composed. A certain\namount of it seems to be required to maintain them in the forms in\nwhich we know them; for in many cases, when two of them are made\nto combine, a certain amount of force is set free, which commonly\nmakes its appearance as heat. This seems to indicate that a less\namount of force suffices to maintain the compound body than was\nrequisite for its separate elements. Thus, when oxygen and\nhydrogen are combined to form water intense heat is produced. If\nwe wish to dissolve the union, and restore the oxygen and hydrogen\nto a gaseous state, we must restore the force which has been lost.\nThis, however, must be done by means of electricity, as heat\nproduces a different change--converting the water into vapour, but\nnot dissolving the union between its elements.\n\nForce, in the shape of heat, determines the condition in which all\ninorganic bodies exist. In most cases we can make any given\nelement assume the form of a solid, a fluid, or a vapour, by the\naddition or subtraction of heat. Thus if a pound of ice at 32\ndegrees be exposed to heat, it will gradually melt--but the water\nproduced will remain unchanged in temperature till the last\nparticle of ice is melted--then it will begin to rise in\ntemperature; and, if the supply of heat be uniform, it will reach\na temperature of 172 degrees in exactly the same time as was\noccupied in melting the ice. Thus then the force which was applied\nto the ice as heat passes into some other form so long as the ice\nis being melted--it is no longer perceptible by the senses--we\nonly see its effect in the change from the solid to the fluid\nform. And this result is brought about by a definite quantity of\nforce. Each of the inorganic materials of which the crust of the\nearth is composed seems thus to require in its composition a\ndefinite amount of force.\n\nThe life of vegetables is developed in the formation of fresh\ncompounds of inorganic matter and force. No vegetable can thrive\nwithout sunlight, either direct or diffused. This supplies the\nforce which the plant combines with carbon, hydrogen, and other\nelements to form woody fibre, starch, oils, and other vegetable\nproducts. When we kindle a fire, we dissolve the union which has\nthus been formed--the carbon and hydrogen enter into simpler\ncombinations which require less force to maintain them, and the\nsuperfluous force supplies us with light and heat.\n\nThe life of animals is developed by a process exactly the reverse\nof vegetable life. It is maintained by the destruction of the\ncompounds which the vegetable had formed. These compounds are\ntaken into the body as food, and after undergoing certain\nmodifications and arrangements are finally decomposed. Of the\nforce thus set free a part makes its appearance as heat,\nmaintaining an even temperature in the body, and another part\nsupplies the power by virtue of which the muscles, &c., act. No\nmanifestation of animal life is possible except by force thus set\nfree. It seems all but certain that we cannot think a single\nthought without the decomposition of an equivalent amount of the\nbrain. It must not, however, be concluded that force and life are\nidentical. Force seems to be only the instrument of which the\nhigher principle of life makes use in its manifestations.\n\nForce then pervades the whole universe so far as it is cognizable\nby our senses. But we cannot conceive of force as acting, without\nat the same time conceiving of something on which that force acts.\nThat something, whatever it may be, we designate \"matter.\" We have\nnot the slightest idea of what matter really is--no man has ever\nyet succeeded in separating it from its combination with force.\nEven if success were possible, which seems very improbable, it is\nnot likely that matter by itself would be discernible by any of\nour senses. We know that two of them, sight and hearing, enable us\nto perceive certain kinds of motion, i. e. manifestations of\nforce, and this is in all probability the case with the rest of\nthem. The existence of matter then is not known by scientific\nproof but by inference. Our belief in it arises from something in\nthe constitution of our minds which makes it a necessary\ninference.\n\nThere is one more point in reference to force which must be\nnoticed. It is indestructible, but it is capable of what is termed\n\"degradation.\" It may exist in various intensities and quantities,\nand a small quantity of force of a higher intensity may be changed\ninto a larger quantity of force at a lower intensity. In the\ninstance above given of the union of oxygen and hydrogen, heat is\ngiven out, but heat does not suffice to dissolve that union. The\nforce must be supplied in the more intense form of Voltaic\nElectricity. But to reverse this process seems impossible for us.\nAs, however, this is clearly explained in a previous volume of\nthis series, [Footnote: Can we Believe in Miracles? p. 152.] it is\nnot necessary to dwell upon it at length.\n\nWe may conclude then that the whole material universe is built up\nof matter and force in various combinations, but we can form no\nconception of what these two things are in themselves; they are\nonly known to us by the effects produced by their union in various\nproportions.\n\nSECTION 3. THE BEGINNING.\n\n\"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.\n\n\"And the earth was desolate and void, and darkness upon the face\nof the deep.\"\n\nThese words carry us back to a time indefinitely remote. Eternity\nand Infinity are ideas which we cannot grasp, and yet we cannot\navoid them. If we stretch our imagination to conceive of the most\ndistant possible period of time--the farthest point of space--\nstill we feel that there must have been something before the one,\nthat there must be something beyond the other; and yet we cannot\nconceive of that which has no beginning, or no boundaries. The\nfirst verse marks out for us as it were a definite portion of this\nlimitless ocean. \"In the beginning,\" is the point from which time\nbegins to run--\"the heavens and the earth,\" the visible universe\nbeyond which our investigations cannot extend. Whether other\nmanifestations of God have taken place in Eternity, or other\nsystems of worlds now exist in infinity, we are not told.\n\nThe heavens and the earth then are to be considered as comprising\nthe visible universe, sun, moon, and stars, and their\nconcomitants, which the eye surveys, or which scientific research\nbrings to our knowledge. All are comprehended in this one group by\nMoses, and recent spectroscopic investigations teach us that one\ngeneral character pervades the whole. Every star whose light is\npowerful enough to be analyzed, is now known to comprehend in its\nmaterials a greater or less number of those elementary substances\nof which the earth and the sun are composed. Whether any of these\nworlds were called into perfect existence at once, or whether they\nall passed through various stages of development, we are not told,\nthat in some of them the process of development is only\ncommencing, while in others various stages of it are in progress,\nis, as will be seen presently, highly probable. But the narrative\ntakes no farther notice of anything beyond our own group of\nworlds, and proceeds to describe the condition of the earth\n(probably including the whole solar system) at the time at which\nit commences. Its words imply such a state of things as\ncorresponds to what has been said in the preceding section of\nmatter, apart from force. No better words could probably have been\nchosen for the purpose. The only word which seems to convey any\ndefinite idea is in the following clause, where water is\nmentioned. Until force was in operation water could not exist.\nProbably St. Augustine's interpretation is the correct one--the\nconfused mass is called alternately earth and water, because\nthough it was as yet neither one thing nor the other, it contained\nthe elements of both. And the word \"water\" expressed its plastic\ncharacter. (\"De Genesi ad Literam\" Liber Imperfectus, Section 13,\n14.)\n\nOne other important point in these words is, that they negative\nthe eternal existence of matter. The second verse describes it as\nexisting, because it had been called into existence at the bidding\nof an Almighty Creator, as described in the first verse.\n\nSECTION 4. THE FIRST DAY.\n\n\"And the Spirit of God (was) brooding upon the face of the water.\n\n\"And God said, 'Let light be' and light was.\n\n\"And God saw the light that it was good, and God divided the light\nfrom the darkness.\n\n\"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.\n\n\"And there was evening and there was morning, one day.\"\n\nThe first clause seems to belong rather to the period of action\nthan to the precedent indefinite period of chaos, and may\ntherefore be taken as marking the transition from the \"beginning\"\nto the first day, better than as belonging to that beginning\nitself. The Jewish interpretation of the clause is untenable in\nthe light of the doctrine of the Correlation of the Physical\nForces. Till force was evolved there could be neither air nor\nmotion, and so no wind. The words of course bear on their face an\nassertion of the action of the eternal Spirit in the work of\nCreation; but when we examine the position which they occupy, it\nseems highly probable that they have beyond this a much more\ndefinite signification. In them a sort of localized action is\nascribed to the Spirit--a something very different from the idea\nconveyed by the often-repeated phrase, \"And God said.\" What that\nsomething may be it is hard for us to conceive, harder still to\nexpress, but the following considerations may perhaps throw some\nglimmering of light upon the matter:--\n\n1. There must be some point in which the Creator comes into\ncontact, as it were, with His creature--a point at which His Will\nfirst clothes itself in the form of a physical fact--the point to\nwhich all second causes lead up, and at which they lose themselves\nin the one first cause, the Will of God. Now this is what all\nsystems of philosophy require as their starting-point, but it is\nentirely out of their unaided reach. But these words supply that\nindispensable desideratum.\n\n2. These words come in immediate connexion with the evolution of\nlight. Light is throughout the Bible intimately connected with the\nDeity. It is His chosen emblem. \"God is light.\" It is His abode.\n\"He dwelleth in the light inaccessible.\" It is the symbol of His\npresence, and the means by which Creation is quickened. \"In Him\nwas life; and the life was the light of men.\"\n\n3. Light, as we now know, is only one form of the force by which\nthe universe is upheld. But the phenomena of light lead us to\ninfer the existence of what we call Ether, which is supposed to be\na perfectly elastic fluid, imponderable, and in fact exempt from\nalmost all the conditions to which matter, as we know it, is\nsubject, except that POSSIBLY it offers resistance to bodies\nmoving in it. [Footnote: Encke's comet shows signs of retardation,\nas if moving in a resisting medium; but it is possible that that\nresistance may not arise from the ether, but from the nebulous\nenvelope of the sun.] This fluid must pervade the whole universe,\nsince it brings to us the light of the most distant star or\nnebula. As it is the medium through which light is conveyed, and\nas light is now known to be identified with force of all kinds, it\nseems by no means improbable that it is the medium through which\nall force acts.\n\nThese words, then, seem to suggest the idea that the brooding of\nthe Spirit may have some connexion with the formation of that\nether which is indispensable to the manifestation of light, and\nprobably to the operations of all force; and that, if so, the\nether may also be the point at which, and the medium through\nwhich, Spirit acts upon Matter. On the one hand, the facts that\nforce, as used, is constantly in process of degradation, and that\nit is also constantly poured forth into space from the Sun and\nPlanets in the shape of heat, and so lost to our system, seem to\nindicate that fresh supplies of it are continually needed; while,\non the other hand, the supply of that need seems to be implied in\nthe words, \"By Him all things consist.\" \"Upholding all things by\nthe word of His Power.\"\n\nIf this be so, we have a point up to which natural laws may\npossibly be traced, but at which they merge in the action of the\nWill of God, which is beyond our investigation. Here, then, is a\nsolution of that great difficulty, which those who are most\nfamiliar with the laws of nature have felt in reconciling the\nexistence of those laws with a particular Providence and with the\nefficacy of Prayer, since we have here the point at which all\nforces and all laws begin to act, and at which, therefore, the\namount of the force, and the direction of its action, are capable\nof unlimited modification, without any alteration of, or\ninterference with, the laws by which that action is regulated, and\nconsequently without the danger of introducing confusion into the\nUniverse.\n\n\"And God said, 'Let light be' and light was.\" It has already been\npointed out that these words differ from those used in describing\nany other creative act. They are the only ones which seem to imply\nan instantaneous fulfilment of the command. Another matter which\nhas long since been observed, is their exact harmony with what\nscience teaches us respecting the nature of light. Light is not a\nmaterial substance, but a \"mode of motion.\" It consists of very\nsmall undulations propagated with inconceivable velocity. Hence of\nit, and of it alone, it could not be correctly said that it was\ncreated. To say that God made light would be inexact. The words\nwhich are used exactly suit the circumstances of the case. But the\ndiscovery of the correlation of forces has given to these words a\nmuch more extended significance, while at the same time it\nfurnishes a satisfactory reason for their occurrence at this\nparticular point. So long as they were supposed to refer to light\nsimply, they seemed out of place. Light was not apparently needed\ntill there were organisms to whose existence it was essential. But\nwe now know that to call forth light, was to call force in all its\nmodifications into action. It has been seen that matter and force\nare the two elements out of which everything that is discernible\nby our senses is built up. The formation of matter has already\nbeen described in the original act of creation. But till force\nalso was evolved, matter must of necessity remain in that chaotic\nstate to which verse 2 refers. To matter is now added that which\nwas required to enable the progressive work of Creation to be\ncarried on. The first result of this would probably be that the\nforce of gravitation would begin to act, while, from what the\ntelescope reveals to us, we may conjecture, that at the same time\nthe whole incoherent mass would be permeated with light and heat,\nand some, at all events, of those elementary substances with which\nchemistry makes us acquainted would be developed, and the whole\nmass, acted upon by the mutual attraction of its several\nparticles, would begin to move towards, and accumulate about its\ncentre of gravity.\n\nIt has been shown that Laplace's Nebular Hypothesis, when\nsubstituted for the action of a Creator, broke down in three\nimportant points. Of these the first two were, that it failed to\ngive any account of the origin of matter, and of the first\ncommencement of the action of Gravitation. These two defects are\ncompletely supplied by the first three verses of Genesis. We may\nprobably see in the \"Great Nebula\" in Orion an illustration of the\ncondition of the solar system when light first made its\nappearance. It is very probable that that nebula has only very\nrecently become visible. Galileo examined Orion very carefully\nwith his newly invented telescope, but makes no mention of it.\n[Footnote: Webb's Celestial Objects, p. 255, note.] At present it\nis visible to the unaided eye even in England, where the\natmospheric conditions and its low altitude are alike\nunfavourable. In Italy, where the atmosphere is remarkably pure,\nand the meridian altitude is greater by 7 1/2 degrees, it must be\na conspicuous object, and had it been so at the time when Galileo\nwas observing the constellation, it could hardly have failed to\nattract his attention. It was, however, noticed in 1618. It is a\nvast, shapeless mass, having its boundaries in some parts\ntolerably well defined, while in other directions it fades away\nimperceptibly; its light is very faint, and when examined by the\nspectroscope is found to proceed from a gaseous source. Professor\nSecchi has traced it through an extent of 5 degrees. When it is\nremembered that at such a distance the semi-diameter of the\nearth's orbit subtends an angle less than 1 inch, some idea of the\nenormous extent of this mass of gas may be formed. Drawings of it\nhave been made from time to time by our most distinguished\nastronomers, which are found to differ considerably. Great\nallowance must, of course, be made for differences in the\ntelescopic power employed, and in the visual powers of the several\nobservers, but the differences in the drawings seem too great to\nbe explained by those sources of inaccuracy alone, and actual\nchange in the nebula is therefore strongly suspected. Another\nnebula of similar character, in which changes are suspected, is\nthat which surrounds the star A in the constellation Argo. This is\nbeing very carefully watched through the great telescope recently\nerected at Melbourne, and from the observations made there, it is\nprobable that fresh light may soon be thrown on the subject.\n\nThe next act recorded is, that \"God divided the light from the\ndarkness.\" This is one of those passages which we are very apt to\npass over as unimportant, without giving ourselves any trouble to\nascertain what they mean, or asking if they may not give valuable\ninformation, or supply some important hints. It is evident,\nhowever, that in these words some act of the Creator is implied,\nbut when we inquire what that act was, the answer does not lie\nimmediately on the surface. Darkness is simply the absence of\nlight. It cannot therefore be said that God divided the light from\nthe darkness in the same sense in which it is said that \"a\nshepherd divideth his sheep from the goats\". Between light and\ndarkness that division exists in the very nature of things, and it\ncould not therefore be said to be made by a definite act. Nor\nagain, is there any sharp well-defined boundary set between light\nand darkness, so that we can say, \"Here light begins, here\ndarkness ends.\" The very opposite is the case, the one blends\nimperceptibly into the other. This then cannot be the meaning of\nthe words. But the next verse guides us to the real meaning. \"And\nGod called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.\" The\ndivision of light from darkness then is the alternation of night\nand day. When God divided the light from the darkness He made\nprovision for that alternation. But we know that that alternation\nis the result of the earth's rotation upon its axis, so that the\ndividing the light from the darkness evidently implies the\ncommunication to the accumulated mass of the motion of rotation.\n\nIt does not clearly appear in the account of the first day,\nwhether this alternation of day and night took effect immediately.\nCertainly the introduction of it here does not prove that it did\nso follow. For there was no way in which the fact of the earth's\nrotation could be directly communicated to those for whom the\nnarrative was primarily intended. They were ignorant of the\nspherical form of the earth, and so could not have attached any\nidea whatever to a statement that it revolved about its axis.\n\nThe only way then in which Moses could speak of that rotation was\nin connexion with some phenomenon resulting from it. The only such\nphenomenon with which the Jews were acquainted was the alternation\nof day and night. There was therefore no way in which Moses could\nrecord the fact except with reference to this ultimate effect. It\ndoes not follow that that effect was immediate. Beside the\nrotation of the earth, another condition is required. The light\nmust come from a single source, and so when the act is recorded by\nwhich that condition is effected, the division of light and\ndarkness is again noticed. The sun and the moon are set in the\nfirmament of heaven to divide the light from the darkness. But\nthat division was potentially effected when the motion of rotation\nwas given.\n\nThe third defect noticed in the Nebular Hypothesis was, that it\ndid not account for this motion of rotation. This defect, then,\nlike the two preceding ones, is supplied by the Mosaic Record, and\nthe hypothesis thus supplemented becomes complete. It is capable\nof giving a satisfactory account of the phenomena to which it\napplies. But as it is only a theory, and only points out a way in\nwhich the universe might have been constructed, it does not in\nitself exclude the possibility that some other plan might in fact\nhave been adopted, and we have now to examine into the reasons for\nsupposing that it was the method which was actually employed.\nThese divide themselves into two classes:--those which render it\nprobable that similar processes are now in progress; and those\nwhich render it probable that the solar system has passed through\nsuch a process.\n\nIt has already been pointed out that the great nebulae in Orion\nand Argo seem to represent the condition of our system on the\nfirst appearance of light, and that changes are strongly suspected\nto be taking place in both; but we cannot expect to trace any\nsingle nebula through the stages of its development, since that\ndevelopment must occupy untold ages. All we can do is to inquire\nif there are other nebulas which seem to be in more advanced\nstages. It must at once be recognized, that if this be one of the\nprocesses now going on, it is not the only one. There are many\nnebulas \"which have assumed forms for which the law of\ngravitation, as we know it, will not enable us to account--such as\nthe Ring Nebula in Lyra, the Dumb-bell Nebula in Vulpecula, or the\ndouble Horseshoe in Scutum Sobieski. But some nebulas can be found\nwhich arrange themselves so as to illustrate the stages through\nwhich we may suppose our world to have passed. These are chiefly\nto be found among the planetary nebulse, which in a small\ntelescope exhibit a faint circular disc, but in larger instruments\nfrequently show considerable varieties of structure. Some of them\npresent the appearance of a condensation of light in the centre,\nwhich gradually fades off; in others there is a bright ring\nsurrounding the central spot, but separated from it by a darker\nspace. The Nebula Andromeda 49647, [Footnote: The numbers are\nthose given by Sir J. Hersohel.] as seen in Mr. Lassel's four-foot\nreflector appears as a luminous spot, surrounded by two luminous\nrings, which, in the more powerful instrument of Lord Bosse,\ncombine into a spiral. Its spectrum is gaseous, with one line\nindicating some element unknown to us. In another nebula, Draco\n4373, there is a double spectrum, the one gaseous, indicating the\npresence of hydrogen, nitrogen, and barium; the other, apparently\nfrom the nucleus, continuous, and so representing a solid or fluid\nmass, but so faint that the lines belonging to particular elements\ncannot be distinguished. [Footnote: Hugging, Philosophical\nTransactions, 1864.] Bridanus 846, and Andromeda 116, are probably\nsimilar nebulee occupying different positions with reference to\nus. They both give a continuous spectrum. The one in Bridanus is\ndescribed as \"an eleventh magnitude star, standing in the centre\nof a circular nebula, itself placed centrally on a larger and\nfainter circle of hazy light.\" [Footnote: Lassell, quoted in\nWebb's \"Celestial Objects,\" p. 227.] The nebula in Andromeda\nassumes a lenticular form; that in Bridanus would probably present\nthe same appearance if we saw it edge-ways. The former has\nprobably increased in brilliancy in the course of centuries. Mr.\nWebb remarks of it, \"It is so plain to the naked eye that it is\nstrange the ancients scarcely mention it.\" [Footnote: Webb's\n\"Celestial Objects,\" p. 180.] In these two nebulas we may perhaps\nsee the mass ready to break up into separate worlds, the\nlenticular form being a natural result of extremely rapid\nrotation. Prom the fact that Andromeda 116 gives a continuous\nspectrum, Dr. Huggins inclines to the belief that it is an\nunresolved star cluster. But the reasons which led Sir W. Herschel\nto conclude that the nebula in Orion was gaseous, (a conclusion\nwhich, though for a time discredited by the supposed resolution of\nthe nebula in Lord Kosse's telescope, was ultimately found to be\ncorrect), are equally applicable here. In general a certain\nproportion exists between the telescopic power requisite to render\na star cluster visible as a nebulous spot, and that which will\nresolve it into stars; but this nebula, like that in Orion, though\nvisible to the naked eye, cannot be resolved by the most powerful\ninstruments yet made. And the nebula in Draco 4373, seems to\npresent an intermediate stage between the purely gaseous nebula\nand this one. The faint continuous spectrum is probably the result\nof incipient central condensation. This nebula, if recent\nobservations by Mr. Gill, of Aberdeen, are confirmed [Footnote:\nPopular Science Review, 1871, p. 426.], is much nearer to us than\nany of the fixed stars.\n\n\"We come now to the reasons derived from the Solar System itself,\nand of these there are several, some of them of considerable\nweight. The first is to be found in the uniform direction of\nalmost all the motions of the system. They are from west to east.\nThe sun rotates upon his axis, the planets revolve about the sun\nand rotate upon their axes, and the satellites, with one\nexception, revolve about their primaries, and, so far as is known,\nrotate upon their axes in the same direction, from west to east,\nand the motions take place very nearly in the same plane--the\necliptic. This seems to point to the conclusion that these motions\nhave a common origin, as would be the case if all these bodies at\none time existed as a single mass which revolved in the same\ndirection. The one exception is to be found in the satellites of\nUranus, whose motion is retrograde. But there are certain\nphenomena, which lead to the conclusion, that, on the outskirts of\nour system, there has at some time or other been an action of a\ndisturbing force, of which, except from these results, we know\nnothing.\"\n\n[Footnote: Bode's \"Law of Planetary Distances,\" What holds good as\nfar as Uranus, breaks down in the case of Neptune. Both Leverrier\nand Adams were to some extent misled by this law. The new planet\nshould according to their calculations, based on this law, have\nbeen of greater magnitude and at a greater distance than Neptune.\n\nThe polar axis of Uranus, instead of being nearly perpendicular to\nthe ecliptic, as in the case of all the other planets (except\nVenus), is nearly coincident with it. Venus occupies an\nintermediate position, the inclination of its equator to its orbit\nbeing 49 degrees 58'.]\n\n There is also strong reason for believing that the sun is still a\nnebulous star, that the whole of the original nebula is not yet\ngathered up in the vast globe which at ordinary times is all that\nwe can see. This aspect of the case, however, will come more fully\nunder our notice when we come to the work of the fourth day. The\nfigure of the earth, which is that naturally assumed by a plastic\nmass revolving about its axis, and the traces which it retains of\na former state of intense heat, are both in accordance with this\ntheory.\n\nWhen these facts are duly weighed, there seems to be a reasonable\nprobability that this process is the one which was actually\nemployed in the formation of the solar system. The remarkable\nmanner in which the theory adapts itself to the Mosaic account,\nand the fact that that account records special interferences of\nthe Creator exactly at the points where the theory shows that such\ninterferences would be necessary, give rise to a very strong\npresumption in its favour. We have in it also a clear illustration\nof the combination of general laws of nature with special\ninterferences of Creative Power--the law of gravitation was called\ninto action, and the work would proceed steadily under that law\nfor a considerable period, till matters were ripe for a farther\nstage in the progress, and then the special interference would\ntake place, in this instance the imparting the motion of rotation,\nand the work would again proceed under the natural law. All this\nwhile, however, the work would be one, and performed by one power,\nthe only difference being in the direct or indirect action of that\npower.\n\nThe only point an reference to the first day which remains to be\ninquired into is the extent to which the work had proceeded at its\nclose. As the commencement of the second day's work implies that\nat that time the earth had an independent existence, we may\nconclude that the first day's work comprehended the casting off of\nthe several successive rings, and the condensation of those rings,\nor some of them, into the corresponding planets and satellites.\nThese would probably still retain their intense heat, in virtue of\nwhich they would be luminous.\n\nMany of the multiple stars may not improbably present to us much\nthe same appearance as the solar system then presented. In many\ncases we have one large star, with one or more very minute\nattendants. Such a star is Orionis, a tolerably conspicuous star,\nwhich has two companions invisible to the naked eye, but visible\nwith moderate telescopic power. (A telescope of 2.1 inches\naperture, by Cooke, shows them well.) Five more companions are\nvisible in a 4-inch telescope. In the large telescope at Harvard\nno less than 35 minute stars have been seen in apparent connexion\nwith the brilliant star Vega. In all these cases it is true that\nthe distances and periods of the companion stars are very much\ngreater than in the case of the earth; but then our telescopes\nwill only enable us to discern the more distant companions. Any\nsmall companion stars holding positions corresponding to those of\nthe four interior planets, would be lost in the light of the\nprimary star; and if, as is suspected, all the heavenly bodies are\nsubject to some resistance, however small, from the medium in\nwhich they move, this resistance would in the course of ages\ndiminish the mean distance, and with it the periodic time of the\ncompanion stars.\n\nThe latter part of the 5th verse has already been considered, and\nthere is no need to recur to it at this point. At the close of the\nhistory we shall be in a better position to ascertain if any light\nhas been thrown on that mysterious subject.\n\nSECTION 5. THE SECOND DAY.\n\n\"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the\nwaters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.\n\n\"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were\nunder the firmament from the waters which were above the\nfirmament, and it was so.\n\n\"And God called the firmament Heaven, and there was evening and\nthere was morning, a second day\"\n\nThe work of the second and third days evidently has its scene on\nthe earth alone. At its commencement the earth appears to have\nbecome distinctly separated from the gradually condensing mass of\nthe solar system, and to have assumed its spherical form. It had,\nin fact, acquired an independent existence; but it was still in a\nchaotic state. Its elements, which were hereafter to assume the\nthree forms of solid, fluid, and gas, seem to have been still\nblended together. Of the three states, fluidity seems to have been\nthat to which the mass most nearly approached. This seems to be\nindicated by the application of the term, waters, to the two parts\ninto which it is now divided; for the Hebrew has no general word\nfor \"fluid,\" so that the only method of expressing it was by the\nuse of this word \"water\" in an extended signification; and all\nscientific investigations point to the same conclusion. The heat,\nas yet, must have been so intense that no rocks or metals with\nwhich we are acquainted could have remained in a solid form. The\nsorting out and first arrangement of the materials of the earth,\nwith probably the farther development of a large portion of them\nby the introduction of a new element, seems to have been the work\nof the second day.\n\nWhen we proceed to examine the narrative more closely, two\nimportant questions suggest themselves:--l. What special\ninterference of Creative Power does it indicate? 2. What is the\nmeaning of the division between the waters which were above the\nfirmament and the waters which were under the firmament?\n\n1. What special interference of Creative Power took place on the\nsecond day? Till within the last ten years, it would have been\ndifficult to give a satisfactory answer to this question; for if\nall the elements were already in existence at the commencement of\nthe second day, their arrangement would, as it seems, have been\nbrought about by the ordinary operation of natural laws which were\nalready established. The cooling and condensation of a portion of\nthe elements would have been effected by the radiation of their\nheat, and the portions thus condensed would, under the influence\nof gravitation, have arranged themselves in immediate proximity to\nthe centre of gravity, forming a solid or fluid nucleus, round\nwhich those portions which still remained in a gaseous state would\nhave formed an atmospheric envelope. But here again the\nspectroscope comes to our aid. In many of the nebulae which give\nin it the bright lines indicative of gas, hydrogen and nitrogen\nare the chief gases discovered. These must be in an incandescent\nstate, or they would not be visible at all. But hydrogen cannot,\nin the present state of things, remain in this condition in\ncontact with oxygen; it must instantly combine with it, that\ncombination being attended with intense heat, and resulting in the\nproduction of water. The introduction of oxygen, then, must\ninvolve a very important crisis in the process of development; but\nthat introduction must have preceded the formation of atmospheric\nair and water. Prior to the second day oxygen must either have\nbeen non-existent, or it must have existed in a form and under\nconditions very different from those under which it exists now.\nFree oxygen cannot be in existence in the sun or in any celestial\nobject in which the spectroscope indicates the existence of\nincandescent hydrogen. The special act of the second day would\nappear to have consisted in the development of oxygen, or the\ncalling it from a quiescent state into active operation.\n\nBut the effects of the new element thus called into operation\nwould not be limited to the production of air and water. It is\nestimated that oxygen constitutes, by weight, nearly half of the\nsolid crust of the earth. It forms a part of every rock and of\nevery metallic ore. The second day, then, must have been a period\nof intense chemical action, resulting from the introduction of\nthis powerful agent.\n\nBut (2) what is the meaning of the division of the waters which\nare above the firmament from the waters which were under the\nfirmament? At present all the water contained in the atmosphere,\nin the shape of vapour and clouds, is so insignificant in\ncomparison with that vast volume of water which not only fills the\nocean, but also permeates the solid earth, that such a notice of\nit seems unaccountable. Mr. Goodwin, indeed, maintains that there\nwas an ancient belief, not only that the firmament was a solid\nvault, but that on it there rested another ocean, at least as\ncopious as that with which we are acquainted. [Footnote: Essays\nand Reviews, p. 220] In support of this assertion he brings\nforward the phrase, \"The windows of heaven were opened\" (Gen, VII.\n11) and other similar expressions. But such phrases as this\nevidently belong to the same class as the fanciful names so often\ngiven to the clouds in the hymns of the Rig Veda. Both expressions\nevidently point to a time when figurative language, if no longer a\nnecessity, was at all events a common and favourite form of\nspeech, and was understood by all. Dr. Whewell [Footnote:\nPlurality of Worlds, chap. x. Section 5.] has put forward the\ncurious notion that when the creation of the interior planets was\ncompleted, there remained a superfluity of water, which was\ngathered up into the four exterior planets. But the only fact in\nfavour of such an hypothesis is the close correspondence between\nthe apparent density of these planets and that of water. Now, as\nwill be seen immediately, there is strong reason to believe that\nthe true density of these planets is much greater than their\napparent diameters would seem to indicate; so that the one\nsolitary ground on which the suggestion rests vanishes when it is\nexamined. Apart from this, however, the suggestion that there\nwould be any superfluous material when the work of creation was\nfinished, is a very strange one. Neither of these views, then, can\nbe accepted as giving a satisfactory meaning to the text.\n\nAstronomical investigations however, which have been carried on\nwith great diligence during the last four winters, and which are\nstill being continued with unremitting interest, have brought to\nlight phenomena which seem to be in remarkable correspondence with\nthe state of things spoken of in the text. It has already been\nnoticed that the eight greater planets at present known to us are\ndivided into two groups of four by the intervening belt of minor\nplanets. These two groups have totally distinct characteristics.\nIn density, magnitude, and length, of day the members of each\ngroup differ little from each other, while the two groups differ\nvery widely. The moon is the only satellite as yet known in the\ninner group. The planets of the outer group are attended by at\nleast seventeen satellites.\n\nOf these outer planets Jupiter, from his great brilliancy,\nspecially attracts observation, while from his comparative\nproximity to the earth we are enabled to examine him much more\nsatisfactorily than we can Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune. Two facts\nwith reference to him have long been well known, the one, that the\npolar compression in his case is much greater than it is in any of\nthe interior planets, so that when seen through a telescope of\nvery moderate power his disc is evidently elliptical, while the\ncompression of the interior planets can only be detected by the\nmost delicate micrometrical measurements--the other, that his\napparent surface is always crossed by several alternating belts of\nlight and shade, which though subject to constant changes of\ndetail, always preserve the same general character. Until recently\nthe generally received theory was that these belts consisted of\nclouds, raised by the heat of the sun, and arranged in zones under\nthe influence of winds similar in character to, and produced by\nthe same causes as, the trade-winds which blow over our own\noceans. This view, however, has been shown by Mr. Proctor to be\nuntenable. [Footnote: See a paper by Mr. Proctor in the Monthly\nPacket for October, 1870.]\n\nAbout forty years ago, a very remarkable phenomenon was observed\nsimultaneously, but independently, by three astronomers, Admiral\nSmyth, Mr. Maclean, and Mr. Pearson, who were watching a transit\nof Jupiter's second satellite from stations several miles apart.\nAdmiral Smyth's account of it is as follows:--\"On Thursday, the\n26th of June, 1828, the moon being nearly full, and the evening\nextremely fine, I was watching the second satellite of Jupiter as\nit gradually approached to transit the disc of the planet. My\ninstrument was an excellent refractor of 3 3/4 inches aperture,\nand five feet focal length, with a power of one hundred. The\nsatellite appeared in contact at about half-past ten, and for some\nminutes remained on the edge of the limb, presenting an appearance\nnot unlike that of the lunar mountains which come into view during\nthe first quarter of the moon, until it finally disappeared on the\nbody of the planet. At least twelve or thirteen minutes must have\nelapsed when, accidentally turning to Jupiter again, I perceived\nthe same satellite outside the disc. It was in the same position\nas to being above a line with the lower belt, where it remained\ndistinctly visible for at least four minutes, and then suddenly\nvanished.\" A somewhat similar phenomenon, but of shorter duration,\nwas witnessed by Messrs. Gorton and Wray, during an occultation of\nthe same satellite, April 26, 1863. In this case the satellite\nreappeared after passing behind the apparent disc of the planet.\nSo lately as 1868 this phenomenon was regarded as inexplicable.\n[Footnote: Webb's Celestial Objects, p. 141.]\n\nIn the winter of 1868-9 the attention of astronomers was called to\nthe fact that rapid and extensive changes were taking place in the\nappearance of Jupiter's belts, and they have consequently been\nwatched from that time with unremitting attention by astronomers\nfurnished with telescopes of the best quality. The results of\nthese observations are given in two very interesting papers,\ncommunicated to the Popular Science Review, by Mr. Webb.\n[Footnote: Popular Science Review for April, 1870, and July,\n1871.] Very curious markings and variations in the depth of shade\nhave been seen, accompanied by equally curious changes of colour.\nMr. Browning compares these changes to those which are seen when a\ncloud of steam of varying depth and density is illuminated from\nbehind by a strong light, as when we look through the steam\nescaping from the safety-valve of a locomotive at a gas-lamp\nimmediately behind it. This appears to be the true explanation of\nthe phenomenon. [Footnote: Popular Science Review, 1871, p. 307.]\nThese belts are probably due to vast masses of steam, poured forth\nwith great force from the body of the planet. As the atmosphere of\nJupiter is probably of enormous depth, the rotatory velocity of\nits upper portions would be much greater than that of the surface\nof the planet, hence the steam would arrange itself in belts\nparallel to the equator of the planet. But this view leads us to\nwonderful conclusions with reference to the condition of the\nplanet.\n\n\"Processes of the most amazing character are taking place beneath\nthat cloudy envelope, which forms the visible surface of the\nplanet as seen by the terrestrial observer. The real globe of the\nplanet would seem to be intensely heated, perhaps molten, through\nthe fierceness of the heat which pervades it. Masses of vapour\nstreaming continually upward from the surface of this fiery globe\nwould be gathered at once into zones because of their rapid change\nof distance from the centre. That which is wholly unintelligible\nwhen we regard the surface of Jupiter as swept like our earth by\npolar and equatorial winds, is readily interpreted when we\nrecognize the existence of rapidly uprushing streams of vapour.\"\n[Footnote: Mr. Proctor in Monthly Packet, October, 1870.]\n\nSupposing then that the atmosphere of Jupiter is of very great\ndepth, and thus laden with masses of watery vapour, the effect of\na sudden current of heated, but comparatively dry, air or gas\nwould be the immediate absorption of the whole or a large portion\nof the vapour, and the consequent transparency of the portion of\nthe atmosphere affected by it. We see this result continually on a\nsmall scale in our own atmosphere, when a heavy cloud comes in\ncontact with a warm air current, and rapidly melts away, Many of\nthe rapid changes which have been witnessed in Jupiter's\nappearance are readily explained if this view is admitted.\nSupposing such a thing to have happened near the edge of the disc,\nthe phenomenon recorded by Admiral Smyth is at once satisfactorily\nexplained. When the satellite appeared to pass on to the disc, and\nto be lost in the light of the planet, it would for some time,\nproportional to the depth of Jupiter's atmosphere, have behind it\na background of clouds only, it would not have entered upon the\nactual disc of the planet. If then these clouds were suddenly\nabsorbed, the atmosphere behind the satellite would become\ntransparent and invisible, the background would be gone, and the\nsatellite would reappear. In the case of the occultation witnessed\nby Messrs. Gorton and Wray, the satellite would at first be hidden\nby cloud only, and would reappear if the cloud were removed. Such\nseems to be the true explanation of these hitherto mysterious\nphenomena. That they could not have resulted from any alteration\nin the motions of the planet or the satellite is evident. Such an\nalteration would have been instantly detected, since the places of\nboth the planet and the satellites are computed years in advance,\nand any such change would at once have thrown out all these\ncomputations.\n\nAssuming that this is the true solution of the mystery, we are\nenabled to form an approximate estimate of the extent of the\natmosphere of Jupiter. The time between the first and second\ndisappearances does not seem to have been accurately noted.\nAdmiral Smyth's account makes it 16 or 17 minutes; but if we\nestimate it at 15 minutes only, and if we further assume that the\nsecond disappearance was upon the actual disc of Jupiter, and not\nupon a lower stratum of clouds, we shall be safe from any risk of\nexaggeration. The probability seems to be that the second\ndisappearance was caused not by the disc, but by the formation of\na fresh body of cloud, as it was not gradual, as in the first\ninstance, but sudden. We shall then only have an estimate which\ncannot be greater, but may be much less, than the true value.\n\nThe mean distance of the second satellite from the centre of\nJupiter is in round numbers 425,000 miles, and consequently the\ncircumference of its orbit is 2,671,000 miles. The satellite\ntravels through this orbit in about 86 hours, which gives a horary\nvelocity of 31,400 miles, or 7850 miles in 15 minutes. This then\nis the least possible depth of the atmosphere of Jupiter.\n[Footnote: For the direction of the motion of the satellite would\nbe at right angles to the line of sight.] The whole diameter of\nJupiter, atmosphere and all, is 85,390 miles. Deduct from this\n15,700 miles for the atmosphere, and we have for the diameter of\nthe solid nucleus rather less than 70,000 miles. The height of the\natmosphere is therefore not less than three-fourteenths of the\nradius of the planet, and may be much greater. The extent of the\natmosphere, combined with the rapidity of rotation, accounts\nsatisfactorily for the great apparent polar compression of the\nplanet. Another inference is that the density of the planet must\nexceed the ordinary estimate in the proportion of two to one.\n\nBut next, the atmosphere of Jupiter is probably of very great\ndensity. Dr. Huggins states that he has observed in the spectrum\nof Jupiter \"three or four strong lines, one of them coincident\nwith a strong line in the earth's atmosphere.\" [Footnote: Lecture\nat Manchester, November 16, 1870.] Strong lines mark increased\ndensity in the absorbent medium, and lines hitherto unobserved\nindicate new elements. It is therefore probable that the\natmosphere of Jupiter is not only much more dense than that of the\nearth, but also contains some elements--which are absent from the\nlatter. When with this fact we connect the very great extent of\nthe atmosphere, it will be evident that the pressure at the\nsurface of the planet will be enormous, and from this we can form\nan estimate of the intensity of the forces which must be at work\nin the interior of the planet, to project jets of vapour through\nsuch an atmosphere to so great a height.\n\nThe link which connects Jupiter with the earth, in the second\nstage of its existence, is the mention by Moses of the \"waters\nwhich were above the firmament.\" Viewed in the light of the\npresent condition of the earth such a notice seems unaccountable.\nBut if the earth at that time were in a condition similar to that\nin which Jupiter appears to be now, the water in the atmosphere or\nabove the firmament would be a very important element in any\ndescription that might be given of it. It is in fact most probable\nthat all the water (in the strict sense of the word) then in\nexistence would be in a state of vapour, and that the waters which\nwere under the firmament were the molten materials which\nafterwards formed rocks and ores, since, as has been already\nnoticed, the word is the only one which could be employed to\ndescribe fluids in general.\n\nWe may now try to form some idea of the probable state of the\nearth at this period. Its centre would be occupied by a fused\nmass, in which were blended all the more intractable solid\nconstituents of the present world. This would be surrounded by an\natmosphere of very great height and density, containing not only\nall the present constituents of air, but also all, or nearly all,\nthe water, and all the more volatile of the metals and other\nelements. Carbonic acid, to a very large extent, would probably be\npresent, and a very considerable proportion of the oxygen which\nnow exists in combination with various bases, and forms by weight\nso large a proportion of the solid crust of the world.\n\nOwing to the intense heat, chemical combinations would readily be\nformed between the ingredients of the fused mass and the other\nelements which existed in the form of vapour, and thus the\nearliest of the vast variety of existing minerals would be\nelaborated. The volumes of steam which floated in the upper\nregions of the atmosphere would rapidly part with their heat by\nradiation into space, and would descend towards the surface of the\nearth in the form of rain. At first probably, and for a long time,\nthey would not reach the surface, but as they approached it would\nbe again converted into vapour, and re-ascend to pass again and\nagain through the same process. But by this means the intense heat\nof the nucleus would be gradually conveyed away, till the cooling\nreached a point at which some of the superficial materials would\nassume a solid form. It is by no means certain what is the true\nprimary rock--for a long time it was almost universally assumed to\nbe granite, since granite is uniformly found underlying the oldest\nsedimentary rocks that are known. But as these rocks have been\nforced from their original position and tilted up, the underlying\nstratum may probably be of later date than the upper ones, since\nit was the elevating agent. So that we can have no certain\nknowledge on this point, since the earliest sedimentary strata,\nwherever they retain their original position, must be at a depth\nfar below the reach of man. If, however, Sir C. Kyell's view of\nthe conditions requisite for the formation of granite are correct,\nthese conditions [Footnote: Student's Geology, chap. xxxi.]--heat,\nmoisture, and enormous pressure--would all be present at the\nsurface of the nucleus. Some kind of solid floor must have been\nformed before the next stage could be reached, at which it would\nbe possible for water to exist in a fluid state. This, however,\nwould be possible at a much higher temperature than at present,\nowing to the enormous atmospheric pressure. It is possible now, by\nartificial means, to raise water, nearly if not quite, to a red\nheat, without the formation of steam, and the pressure of the\natmosphere in the case supposed would, in all probability, be much\ngreater than any which we can now apply under the conditions\nnecessary for heating the water.\n\nIt is probable that at this point the close of the second day must\nbe placed: but the indications of the narrative do not enable us\nto fix it with any degree of certainty. As, however, from this\npoint a new series of processes would commence, and those\nprocesses are in intimate connexion with the first of the two\ndevelopments ascribed to the third day, the period when water\ncould first maintain a fluid form on the earth's surface, seems to\npresent the most probable line of demarcation.\n\nSECTION 6. THE THIRD DAY.\n\n\"And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered\ntogether in one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.\n\n\"And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of\nthe waters called He Seas, and God saw that it was good.\n\n\"And God said, Let the earth sprout sprouts, the herb seeding\nseed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose\nseed is in it, [Footnote: \"It\" seems preferable to \"itself\" here.\nThe same Hebrew word stands for both, but if the \"fruit-tree\" be\ntaken as the antecedent, which it must be if we translate\n\"itself,\" there seems no meaning in the statement. If we read\n\"it,\" the pronoun will refer to the fruit--\"the tree whose seed is\nin its fruit\"--which gives an intelligible sense.] upon the earth,\nand it was so.\n\n\"And the earth caused to go forth sprouts, the herb seeding seed,\nand the fruit-tree yielding fruit whose seed is in it, after his\nkind, and God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and\nthere was morning, a third day.\"\n\nThe record of the third day is a very important one, because it is\nthe first point at which the Mosaic Record comes in contact with\nthat other record which is written in the rocks. Up to this time\nwe have only been able to compare the statements of Moses with\nconjectural views of the earliest condition of the earth, which,\nthough they may be highly probable, are at best only conjectures.\nBut from this point we have to deal with a number of ascertained\nfacts--certain landmarks stand out which enable us to fix the\ncorrespondent parts of the two narratives, and guide us to the\nidentification and interpretation of their minor details.\n\nThe first of these landmarks is the appearance of the dry land,\nor, in geological language, the commencement of the process of\nupheaval. At the close of the second day the earth was, in all\nprobability, as we have seen, a globe internally molten, but\nhaving a solid crust which was uniformly covered with a layer of\nwater, and surrounded by an atmosphere which, though it had parted\nwith some of its ingredients, was still very much more complex,\nmore dense, and more extensive than it is at present. The newly\ncondensed waters would rest on the surface of the primeval rock,\nwhatever that rock might be. The internal heat conducted through\nit would keep the waters in a state of intense ebullition, and at\nthe same time their surface would be agitated by violent\natmospheric currents as the heated air ascended, and was replaced\nby cooler air from the outer regions of the atmosphere. Under\nthese circumstances the water would dissolve or wear down portions\nof the newly-formed rock on which it rested. At the same time the\nsteam, which would be continually rising from the boiling ocean,\nwould descend from the upper regions of the atmosphere in the form\nof rain, and bring with it in solution considerable quantities of\nthose elements which still existed in the form of vapour, just as\nrain now brings down ammonia and carbonic acid which it has\nabsorbed in its passage through the atmosphere. New combinations\nwould thus be formed between the materials dissolved or abraded by\nthe ocean and those brought down by the rain. When these\ncombinations had reached a certain amount they would be deposited\nin the form of mud upon the bed of the ocean, and thus the\nearliest sedimentary rocks would be formed. As the temperature\ngradually decreased, the character of these combinations would\nprobably be changed, and at the same time the atmosphere would be\ndiminished in volume and density, and become more pure by the\nabsorption of a large portion of its original constituents, which\nwould have been incorporated into various minerals.\n\nThe earliest sedimentary rock with which we are acquainted at\npresent is what is known as the Laurentian formation. [Footnote:\nThe whole of the geological details in this section are taken from\nSir C. Lyell's Geology for Students.] It occupies an area of\n200,000 square miles north of the St. Lawrence; and is also traced\ninto the United States and the western highlands of Scotland and\nsome of the adjacent isles. It is divided into two sections--the\nUpper and Lower Laurentian. It is not certain that it is really\nthe oldest rock; for as every sedimentary rock is formed of the\ndebris of preceding rocks, it is very possible that all the\nexposed portions of some older rocks may have been decomposed and\nworn away; but it is the oldest yet known. The thickness of the\nlower portion is estimated at 20,000 feet, or nearly four miles,\nwhile the Upper Laurentian beds are 10,000 feet thick. At this\npoint we meet with the first traces of that process of upheaval\nand subsidence which has ever since been going on in the earth.\nThe Lower Laurentian rocks had been displaced from their original\nhorizontal position before the Upper Laurentian were deposited\nupon them.\n\nThis process of upheaval of some parts of the earth, accompanied\nwith subsidence in other parts, is one which cannot be accounted\nfor by any natural laws with which we are acquainted. It is in all\nprobability the result of a series of changes which are taking\nplace in the interior of the earth, but of which we know nothing\nat all. It is in the commencement of this series of changes that\nwe trace that direct interference of the Creator--which is\nindicated by the command, \"Let the waters under the firmament be\ngathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.\" We\nhave not, however, any means of ascertaining how long a period\nelapsed before the process of upheaval reached the point at which\nthe land would rise above the surface of the ocean.\n\nThe Lower Laurentian rocks are remarkable in another way. There is\nlittle doubt that traces of life, the earliest yet known, occur in\nthem. They include a bed of limestone varying in thickness from\n700 to 1500 feet. In all probability limestone, wherever it\noccurs, is an animal product, though in many cases all traces of\nits organization have been lost by exposure to heat. This\nparticular bed appears to have been formed by a very lowly\ncreature, which in organization was akin to the foraminifera, of\nwhich large quantities are now known to exist at the bottom of the\nAtlantic. It differed from them, however, in one respect--the\nindividuals were connected together, as is the case now with many\nvarieties of the coral animal. No notice of this first appearance\nof life is found in the Mosaic Record, nor, for reasons already\ngiven, was it possible that any mention of it should be made.\n\nThe rocks which come next to the Laurentian in the order of time\nare those known as the Cambrian. They are so called because they\nconstitute a large portion of the mountains of North Wales, and it\nwas there that their characteristics were first carefully studied\nby Professor Sedgwick. In one of the strata of this formation--the\nHarlech Grit--what are known as \"ripple-marks\" are found, proving\nthat parts of these rocks at the time of their deposition formed a\nsea-beach, and that consequently at this time, at the latest, the\ndry land had emerged from the ocean. In these rocks there are also\ndecided traces of Volcanic Action, which seem to indicate the\nexistence of a Volcano similar to the recent \"Graham's Island.\" At\nthis point a considerable advance in animal life is found. The\nfossils comprise several corals, varieties of mollusca, and a\nclass of crustaceans peculiar to the very early rocks--the\ntrilobites.\n\nOn the Cambrian rocks rest the formations known as Silurian, from\nthe fact that they were first thoroughly examined in South Wales\n(Siluria) by Sir E. Murchison. In these rocks many fresh varieties\nof invertebrate fossils are found, and the vertebrata make their\nfirst appearance, numerous remains of fishes having been\ndiscovered. The earliest specimen was found in the Lower Ludlow\nbeds at Leintwardine, while the Upper Ludlow formation contains an\nextensive bed composed almost entirely of fish-bones. Immediately\nabove this bed are found what seem to be traces of land-plants, in\nthe shape of the spores of a cryptogamous plant.\n\nThe Silurian rocks are succeeded by rocks which present two\ndistinct characters, but are probably contemporaneous, the\nDevonian and the old Red Sandstone. The former seem to have been\ndeposited in the bed of the sea, while the latter is a fresh-water\nformation. In these decided remains of land plants are found, of\nwhich about 200 species have at present been discovered. The old\nRed Sandstone is also peculiarly rich in fossil fish. The first\nsigns of coal appear in this series of rocks, but on a very small\nscale.\n\nWe now come to what are known as the Carboniferous rocks, of which\nthe lower series is known as the mountain limestone, and above it\ncome the \"coal measures,\" containing numerous beds of coal,\nsometimes of great thickness. These beds have resulted entirely\nfrom the decomposition, under peculiar circumstances, of an\nenormous development of terrestrial vegetation. They seem to have\noriginated in vast swamps, subject to occasional flooding, and to\nalternate movements of upheaval and subsidence. On these swamps\nthere must have existed for ages a vegetation of whose luxuriance\nthe richest tropical jungles of the present time can give us no\nidea. They tell the tale of a time when the temperature of the\nearth, was uniformly high (since coal fields are found in high\nnorthern latitudes), when the atmosphere was charged with\nmoisture, and probably contained a large proportion of carbonic\nacid. In the coal measures we come upon the first traces of land\nanimals. Several remains of reptiles have been found, as well as\nfootprints left on the soft mud or sand of a riverbank or sea-\nbeach. There seems to be no doubt that they were left by lung-\nbreathing animals.\n\nThe carboniferous strata form the second of our landmarks. They\nseem to point to the fulfilment of the command that the earth,\nshould bring forth vegetation. There is, however, one point which\nrequires some notice. The Mosaic account, as we read it in our\nEnglish Bibles, seems to be limited to phanerogamous plants--\ngrass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit.\nNow, it is a well-known fact that the great mass of the\nvegetation, the remains of which constitute coal, consisted of\ncryptogamic plants, which do not produce seed, properly so called,\nbut only spores; the distinction being that the spore contains the\ngerm and nothing more, while in the seed the germ is provided with\na store of nutriment to assist in the earlier stages of the\ndevelopment of the plant. What appears to be a farther\ndiscrepancy, the absence of any traces of the grasses, leads in\nreality to the solution of the difficulty.\n\nThe word which is translated \"grass\" [Hebrew script] means in\nreality, any fresh sprout. Now it is remarkable that Moses\nspecifies three kinds of vegetation, with regard to two of which\nit is noted that they produce seed, while nothing is said of the\nseed of the remaining class. Grass too, is really a herb bearing\nseed, and, as such would be included in the second class, and\nthere would have been no occasion, to mention it separately. It\nwould appear then that the first class consisted of seedless\nplants, i. e. of the cryptogamia. This conclusion is strengthened\nwhen we turn to verses 29 and 30. If the word [Hebrew script] were\ncorrectly translated \"grass,\" we should certainly expect to find\nit in those verses, since the grasses contribute more to the food\nof both man and beast, than all the other herbaceous plants put\ntogether. This omission then, is an indication that the word, as\nused in this chapter, denotes a class of plants which are not\ncommonly employed for food, and this condition also is fulfilled\nin the cryptogamia.\n\nThere are then four special points in this period, of which two\nseem to correspond with the Mosaic record, while the other two are\nunnoticed in it. The two points of correspondence are the upheaval\nof the dry land, and the prevalence of a very abundant and\nluxuriant Flora. As in the case of the fifth and sixth days, the\nwords used with reference to land plants seem to denote a period\nof remarkable development, rather than the first appearance. The\ntwo points unnoticed are the beginnings of animal and vegetable\nlife. In the case of animal life the omission has already been\naccounted for. The beginning of vegetable life was probably\ncontemporaneous with that of animal life, for each is necessary to\nthe other, since the food of the animal must be prepared by the\nvegetable, and after being used by the former returns to a state\nin which it is fitted for the nourishment of the latter. As animal\nlife commenced in the ocean, so in all probability did vegetable\nlife, though no certain traces of it are found in the earliest\nrocks; but this is easily accounted for by the very perishable\ncharacter of the simpler forms of algae. Like the earliest\nanimals, the first algae were probably microscopic plants, and the\nomission of any mention of them was therefore inevitable.\n\nOne characteristic of cryptogamic vegetation is important for its\nbearing on the work of the fourth day. Almost all the phanerogamic\nplants are dependent for their development upon the direct light\nand heat of the sun. Deprived of these they either perish\nentirely, or make an unhealthy growth, and produce little or no\nfruit. But the cryptogamia, in general, thrive best when they are\nprotected from the direct rays of the sun. They nourish in a\ndiffused light, and with abundant atmospheric moisture. And so we\nfind them at this time doing what seems a very important work in\nthe progress of the world. By taking up and decomposing the excess\nof carbonic acid which at this time probably existed in the\natmosphere, they at once purified that atmosphere, and rendered it\nfit for the respiration of more highly organized creatures, and\nlaid up in the earth an invaluable store of fuel for the future\nuse of man. The other orders of vegetation seem to have existed in\nvery small proportions at this time, and only in their lower\nforms. As the conditions of the earth changed, the cryptogamia\nseemed to have dwindled away, while higher forms of vegetation\nasserted their supremacy. It is not, however, improbable that a\nspecial development at a much later period is indicated by the\nmention in the second chapter of the formation of the garden of\nEden.\n\nSECTION 7. THE FOURTH DAY.\n\n\"And God said, Let there be luminaries in the firmament of heaven\nto divide between the day and the night, and let them be for signs\nand for seasons, and for days and for years.\n\n\"And let them be for luminaries in the firmament of heaven to give\nlight upon the earth; and it was so.\n\n\"And God made the two luminaries, the great ones; the luminary,\nthe great one, to rule over the day, and the luminary, the small\none, to rule over the night, and also the stars.\n\n\"And God gave them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon\nthe earth.\n\n\"And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide\nbetween the light and between the darkness; and God saw that it\nwas good.\n\n\"And there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.\"\n\nThis day's work differs from that of the preceding and succeeding\ndays, in the fact that its sphere was without the earth, which was\nonly indirectly influenced by it, and consequently the geological\nrecords give us no direct information upon the subject, though in\ntwo points they tally with the Mosaical account. In the first\nplace, the deposits of coal, which preceded this period, indicate\na time when a nearly uniform temperature, and that a high one,\nprevailed throughout the world. The coal beds are found not only\nin tropical regions, but in very high latitudes. Not only is the\nvegetation of which these coalfields are the result, analogous to\nthat which is now found in warm climates only--(this might be the\ncase, and yet we should not be justified in drawing the inference\nthat the actual species of plants were tropical, for it often\nhappens that different species of the same genus, having\nconsiderable external resemblance, are very different in their\nhabits, some requiring tropical heat, while others flourish only\nin temperate climates)--but the marked feature is the astonishing\nluxuriance of this vegetation, which could only have been\ndeveloped under the most favourable circumstances of warmth and\nmoisture. Now the heat which any particular portion of the earth's\nsurface receives from the sun depends entirely upon the latitude.\nhence it is impossible that a uniform high temperature could exist\nin a world which derived its heat wholly or chiefly from that\nsource. Whether the high temperature which prevailed on the earth\nduring the deposition of the coal measures was derived from\ninternal heat it is impossible to say; it is evident that the\ntemperature of the earth's surface has been in past times, and\nperhaps is now, modified by causes which no scientific research\nhas been enabled to detect [Footnote: Since the sun's secular\nmotion has been known, astronomers have suggested that the solar\nsystem has been carried through portions of space having variable\ntemperatures. Geologists, however, do not seem inclined to accept\nthis as a sufficient reason for the phenomena observed.]. But we\nmay safely conclude that during the third day the earth did not\nderive its heat from the sun. The second point, the barrenness of\nthe geological records of this period, will be noticed hereafter.\n\nThe record of the fourth day's work admits of two interpretations,\nit may describe things merely as they appeared, or as they\nactually occurred.\n\n1. It is possible that the events of the fourth day may be\ndescribed phenomenally--that up to this period the state of things\non the earth had been to a great extent similar to that which we\nhave reason to believe is still existing in the planet Jupiter-\nthat the atmosphere was so charged with vapour that no direct rays\nfrom the heavenly bodies could penetrate it; but that at this\ntime, owing to the declining heat, a great part of the aqueous\nconstituents of this vapour had been precipitated in the form of\nrain, while other vapours had entered into chemical combinations\nwith other elements to form the various minerals of the earth's\nsurface, and the atmosphere had become first translucent, and then\ntransparent. While this process was going on, no direct light from\nthe sun, supposing it to be already in existence, could penetrate\nthe veil. Diffused light only could reach the earth's surface, but\nwhen the atmosphere became clear the sun, moon, and stars would\nbecome visible.\n\nAgainst this view several objections may be brought. In the first\nplace, as has been already noticed, we cannot treat the account of\nthe Creation as derived from ordinary human sources. Either it is\na revelation from the Creator or it is nothing. Now we can readily\nadmit that a man, speaking of an event which lie had witnessed,\nbut did not understand, would describe it as it appeared to him,\nbut we cannot admit this supposition when the work is described by\nthe Great Artificer Himself. In the next place, the temperature of\nthe earth's surface must in this case have been affected by the\nsun, and must therefore have been more or less dependent upon\nlatitude--and in the third place the distinction between day and\nnight must have come into operation, whereas the narrative implies\nthat it was yet incomplete.\n\n2. The other possible interpretation is, that at this period the\nconcentration of light and heat in the sun was so far completed\nthat he became the luminary of the system, which had hitherto\nderived its light and heat from other sources. Probably, for a\nlong time, the internal heat of the planets may have been so great\nthat they were a light to themselves. This state of things,\nhowever, must have come to an end before animal or vegetable life\ncould have existed on their surface, but other ways exist, and are\nin operation in other parts of the universe, by which light and\nheat might have been supplied independently of the sun. That light\nwhich is now gathered up in the sun might for a long time have\nexisted as a nebulous ring, similar to the well-known Ring Nebula\nin Lyra. Any planets existing within such a ring would probably\nderive from it sufficient light and heat. Or the nebulous matter,\nin a luminous state, while slowly advancing to concentration,\nmight as yet have been so diffused as to fill a space in which the\nearth's orbit was included. In either case the earth would have\nreceived a uniform diffused light, without any alternations of\nnight and day. It is of course impossible that we should be able\nto say whether there are any worlds in which such a state of\nthings prevails at present. Up to this time, with one possible\nexception, [Footnote: \"Sirius is accompanied by a 10 mag. star,\nwhose existence was suspected (like that of Neptune), long before\nits discovery by Alvan Clark in 1861, from the irregular movements\nof its primary. But though it appears so small, its disturbing\neffects can only be accounted for on the supposition that its mass\nis at least half that of Sirius, in which case its light must be\nvery faint, possibly wholly reflected.\" (Webb's Celestial Objects,\np. 202.)] the only worlds which the telescope has revealed to us,\nbeyond the limits of our own system, are self-luminous. No\nreflected light is strong enough to make its existence perceptible\nat such enormous distances in the most powerful telescope which\nhas yet been constructed.\n\nThere are some facts connected with our own system which make it\nappear not improbable that up to the time of which we are speaking\nthe light which is now gathered up in the sun was diffused over a\nspace in which at all events the earth's orbit was included. It is\nnow a recognized fact that all the light of the system is not as\nyet wholly concentrated in the sun, as we generally recognize it,\nbut that to some extent the sun is still a nebulous star. Under\nordinary circumstances we see only that circular disc, which we\nusually recognize as the sun. Its surpassing brightness overpowers\nevery thing else, whether we view it with the unaided eye or\nthrough the telescope. But when the actual disc is hidden from us\nby the moon in a total eclipse, other regions of light surrounding\nthe disc, make their appearance, and in them the most wonderful\nprocesses are continually going on. The simultaneous discoveries\nof Messrs. Lockyer and Janssen, in 1868, have enabled some of\nthese processes to be continuously watched when the sun is not\neclipsed, but others can as yet only be seen during the few\nminutes (never amounting to seven) which a total eclipse lasts, so\nthat as yet we know very little of them.\n\nImmediately surrounding the disc of the sun, which is visible to\nthe naked eye, is a brilliant ring of light, known now as the\nchromosphere or sierra. This is the region which till 1868 could\nbe seen only during total eclipses, but can now be watched at all\ntimes by means of the spectroscope. In it symptoms of intense\naction are from time to time witnessed. For many years past,\nwhenever a total eclipse occurred, there were observed on the edge\nof this ring certain red prominences. The spectroscope has\nrevealed their nature. They consist chiefly of enormous volumes of\nhydrogen, ejected from the surface of the sun with a velocity\nalmost inconceivable, and at the same time revolving about their\naxis after the fashion of a cyclone. [Footnote: Popular Science\nReview, January, 1872, p. 150; Look. Byer's Lecture on the Sun, at\nManchester, 1871.] A very remarkable instance of this was observed\nin America in September 1871, by Professor Young. A mass of\nincandescent hydrogen was propelled to a height of 200,000 miles\nabove the visible disc; of these the last 100,000 miles were\npassed through in 10 minutes. Such events, though not commonly on\nso vast a scale, are continually occurring on the surface of the\nsun, and they seem to be in close connexion with the magnetic\nphenomena occurring on the earth.\n\nBeyond the chromosphere lies the corona. The spectroscope has not\nyet rendered this visible at all times, and consequently we are\ndependent upon the information to be obtained during the few\nminutes of total eclipses, when alone it is visible. Consequently\nduring recent solar eclipses this has been the point to which the\nattention of astronomers has been especially devoted. The eclipse\nof December, 1870, decided one point, that the corona was a truly\nsolar phenomenon, and not, as some astronomers imagined, an\noptical phenomenon, produced by our own atmosphere. The corona\npresents the appearance of nebulous light, fading as it becomes\nmore remote from the sun, of very irregular outline, at some\npoints not extending more than 15', at others as much as 60' or\n70' from the sun's disc, or, in other words, reaching to distances\nfrom the sun's surface varying from 400,000 to 1,800,000 miles.\nMore important information has been obtained from the eclipse of\nDecember 12,1871. It is now ascertained that the corona comprises\nnot only gaseous elements, especially hydrogen, but also solid or\nfluid particles, capable of giving a continuous though very faint\nspectrum with dark lines, indicating the existence of matter\ncapable of reflecting light. The character of the coronal spectrum\nvery much resembles that of the Nebula in Draco, No. 4373. The\nascertained extent of the corona exceeds a million of miles above\nthe surface of the sun, and it seems probable that the Zodiacal\nlight is only a fainter extension of it. [Footnote: Popular\nScience Review, April, 1872, pp. 136-146.]\n\nOn a clear evening in the early spring months, as soon as twilight\nis completely ended, a conical streak of light may be sometimes\nseen, arising' from the western horizon, and extending through an\narc of 60 or 70 degrees, nearly in the direction of the Ecliptic,\nand finally terminating in a point. This is the Zodiacal light. In\ntropical climates it is seen much more frequently, [Footnote:\nHumboldt, Kosmos, vol. i. p. 126 (Bohu's edition).] and is much\nmore brilliant than in England. This then is probably an envelope\nof still fainter light than the corona. It must extend beyond the\norbit of Venus, as the maximum elongation of Venus is 47 degrees,\nwhile the Zodiacal light has been traced for 70 degrees, and\nprobably farther. It is very possible that the earth is\noccasionally involved in it, and that from it we derive that\ndiffused light which, though faint, is very serviceable to us on a\nstarless evening, and of which no other account has as yet been\ngiven. The light we receive in this way is often as powerful as\nthat which we should receive from the stars if they were not\nhidden by clouds.\n\nThese phenomena seem to point to the conclusion that the\ncondensation of light in the sun has been a very gradual process,\nwhich is even yet incomplete. If we suppose that at the time of\nthe formation of the coal measures it was not far advanced, but\nthat a diffused light extended beyond the orbit of the earth,\nsimilar in some respects to the present Zodiacal light, but equal\nin intensity to the light which we now see in the corona, the\nphenomena of the third day will be satisfactorily accounted for.\nThere is, however, still an enormous amount of mystery connected\nwith the sun. It is the centre from which an inconceivable amount\nof force in the shape of light, heat, actinism, and probably other\nmanifestations, is hourly poured forth. If the whole of that force\nwere divided into two thousand million parts, the portion received\nby the earth would be represented by one of those parts, and the\nwhole amount received by all the planets would fall short of\ntwelve of them. All the rest is radiated away into space, and so\nfar as we know at present lost to the system. The question then\narises, \"How is this enormous expenditure supplied?\" Various\nsources of heat have been suggested, but none of them seem\nsatisfactory. One conceivable source there is, but that lies out\nof the domain of science. Then again, metals, which only our most\npowerful furnaces will even melt, exist in the sun's atmosphere in\nthe state of vapour. What must be the intensity of the heat which\nunderlies that metallic atmosphere? and what can be the solid or\nfluid substances which, from the continuity of the spectrum, we\nknow must exist there?\n\nWe turn now to the Mosaic Record to see what light it throws upon\nand receives from this investigation. The first thing to be\nnoticed is that the word used by Moses for the sun and moon is not\nthe same as that employed to denote light. It properly signifies a\nlight-holder, such as a candlestick, and harmonizes with the view\nthat the sun in his original state was not luminous, but was made\na luminary by the condensation of light previously existent under\nother conditions. In the next place, though the apparent\ndimensions of the sun and moon are the same, Moses correctly\ndescribes the one as \"the great light,\" the other as \"the little\nlight,\" thus indicating a knowledge to which the astronomers of\nhis day had probably not attained.\n\nThe relation between the accounts of the first and fourth day's\nwork becomes clear if we assume that the sun was not made a\nluminary till the fourth day. The division of night and day\ndepends upon two things, the rotation of the earth upon its axis,\nand the concentration of light in the sun. Hence when the rotation\nof the earth commenced that division was potentially provided for,\nbut the provision would not take effect until the second condition\nwas fulfilled by the concentration of light in the sun. The\nindications given by the coal measures point, as we have seen, to\nthe same conclusion.\n\nThe only remaining question is \"What was going on in the earth at\nthe same time?\" Our materials for answering this question are but\nscanty. So great an alteration in the sources of light and heat\nmust have involved great physical changes on the earth's surface,\nand there is reason to believe that great mechanical forces were\nat work producing vast changes in the relations of land and water.\n\"It has long been the opinion of the most eminent geologists that\nthe coalfields of Lancashire and Yorkshire were once united, the\nupper coal measures and the overlying Millstone Grit and Toredale\nBocks having been subsequently removed by denudation; but what is\nremarkable is the ancient date now assigned to this denudation,\nfor it seems that a thickness of no less than 10,000 feet of the\ncoal measures had been carried away before the deposition of even\nthe lower Permian Rocks, which were thrown down upon the already\ndisturbed truncated edges of the coal strata.\" [Footnote: Lyell,\nGeology for Students, p. 377.] And this is but a single instance.\n\nDuring the interval between the deposition of the coal measures,\nwhich seem to belong to the third, and the Saurian remains which\nmark the fifth day, we have the Permian and Triassic Rocks, of\nwhich the Magnesian. Limestone and the new Red Sandstone are the\nmost important representatives in England. Till a very recent\nperiod it was thought that these rocks belonged to a period\nremarkably destitute of animal life, very few fossils having been\nfound in them. Recently, however, some very rich deposits have\nbeen found in the Tyrol, belonging to this period, but they are\nonly local.\n\nOf the Permian formation Sir C. Lyell says, \"Not one of the\nspecies (of fossils) is common to rocks newer than the\nPalaeozoic.\" [Footnote: Geology for Students, p. 369.] This was\nnot then a time for the origination of new forms of life. In the\nTrias, however, the new development of life, which was to attain\nits full dimensions on the fifth day, begins to open upon us. The\nearliest Saurian fossils are found, and the rocks still present us\nwith impressions of the feet of reptiles and birds, which walked\nover the soft seashore, and left footprints, which were first\ndried and hardened by the sun and wind, and then filled up with\nfresh sand by the returning tide, but never entirely coalesced\nwith the new material.\n\nAt the close of this period the first traces of mammalian life\noccur, in the shape of teeth, which are supposed to have belonged\nto some small Marsupial quadrupeds, and in America the whole lower\njaws of three such animals have been discovered; but no other\nremains have as yet been traced.\n\nThe Trias then seems to mark the boundary between the fourth and\nfifth days. The fourth day seems to have been on the earth a\nperiod of great change, not only in physical conditions, but also\nin the forms of life. In the latter point of view, however, it\nseems to have been marked by the passing-away of old forms much\nmore than by the origination of new ones, and hence the barrenness\nof the Geological Records is in exact accordance with the silence\nof the Mosaic Record as to any new developments.\n\nSECTION 8. THE FIFTH DAY\n\n\"And God said. Let the waters swarm swarms, the soul of life, and\nlet fowl fly above the earth in the face of the firmament of\nheaven.\n\n\"And God created the monsters, the great ones, and every soul of\nlife that creepeth, with which the waters swarmed, after their\nkind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it\nwas good.\n\n\"And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill\nthe waters in the sea, and let fowl multiply on the earth.\n\n\"And there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.\"\n\nThe fifth and sixth days of Creation are those to which the theory\nof development chiefly refers. It will, therefore, be better to\ndefer the consideration of its bearing on the narrative till the\nrelation of that narrative to Geological facts has been\nconsidered, since it can only be thoroughly weighed when taken in\nconnexion with the facts which belong to the two days.\n\nThe beginning of the fifth day may be assigned to a point near\nwhere the Trias is succeeded by the Lias. As the Trias is drawing\nto its close, the class of reptiles, whose first known appearance\nbelongs to the carboniferous epoch of the third day, begins to\nshow signs of advance. The first true Saurians are found in the\nTrias: the great development takes place in the Lias and Oolite,\nwhile in the chalk large quantities of kindred remains are found,\nwhich, however, are not identical with the species found in the\nearlier groups. Of these some were probably almost entirely\naquatic, as their limbs take the form of paddles; others were\npurely terrestrial, a large proportion were amphibious, and some,\nas the pterodactylus, bore the same relation to the rest of their\nclass as the bats bear to the other mammalia, being furnished with\nmembranous wings, supported upon a special development of the\nanterior limbs. One important characteristic of the race at this\ntime was the great size of many of its members: thirty feet is by\nno means an uncommon length. This marks the fitness of the name\ngiven to the class by Moses.\n\nVery few actual remains of birds have been found; but this is not\nsurprising, since birds would rarely be exposed to the conditions\nwhich were essential to the fossilization of their remains. The\nearliest known fossil bird is the Archaeopteryx, the remains of\nwhich were found in 1862 in the Solenhofen Slates, which belong to\nthe Oolite formation. Though the actual remains of birds are very\nfew, traces of their footprints have been found in many places,\nfrom the New Red Sandstone upwards, and these traces prove not\nonly that they were very numerous, but also that they attained to\na gigantic size, as their feet were sometimes from twelve to\nfifteen inches in length, and their stride extended from six to\neight feet. During this period, then, these two classes must have\nbeen the dominant races of the earth. As the precursors of these\nclasses made their appearance at a much earlier period, so the\nepoch of birds and reptiles witnessed the beginning and gradual\nadvance of the class which was to succeed them in the foremost\nplace--the mammalia. Generally, however, the mammalian remains of\nthis period belong to what are considered the lower classes--the\nmonotremata and marsupialia. The close of this period must have\nbeen a time of great disturbance in the Northern Hemisphere, since\nthe chalk which runs through a great part of Northern Europe, and\nfrequently attains a thickness of 1000 feet, must have been\ndeposited at the bottom of a deep sea, and subsequently elevated.\n\nSECTION 9. THE SIXTH DAY.\n\n1. The Mammalia.\n\n\"And God said, Let the earth cause to go forth the soul of life,\ncattle, and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth (wild\nanimals) after his kind; and it was so.\n\n\"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle\nafter their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after his\nkind; and God saw that it was good.\"\n\nIn these two verses there are one or two points which call for\nnotice. In the first place, the creatures mentioned are divided\ninto three classes, of which two, cattle and the beast of the\nearth, are tolerably clear in their general significance, though\ntheir extent is not determined. The third is denoted by a word\nwhich had already been employed to describe the work of the fifth\nday, and is translated in our version \"creeping thing.\" The\nprobability seems to be that it has reference to such classes of\nanimals as the smaller rodentia, and the mustelidas, whose motions\nmay be appropriately described by the word \"creeping.\" That it\ndenotes four-footed creatures has already been pointed out. The\nnext point is, that in each case the singular is used; in the case\nof the domestic animals this fact is lost to the English reader by\nthe use of the collective noun \"cattle.\" Of course it is a common\nusage, to denote a class of animals by a singular noun used\ngenerically, but the statements of the passage would also be\njustified if one pair only of each of the three types specified\nwere called into existence at first. It is also to be noticed that\nwhile the word [Hebrew script], the earth is used to define the\nwild beast; another word, [Hebrew script] the ground, is applied\nto the \"creeping thing.\" There is probably a reason for this,\nthough it may not at present be apparent.\n\nWhen we turn to the Geological record, we find that the period of\nthe chalk was followed by the deposition of the tertiary strata.\nDuring the upheaval of the chalk these strata seem to have been\ngradually laid down in its hollows, and around its edges. They\nextend from the London clay upward to the crag formations which\nappear on the Eastern coast of England at intervals from\nBridlington to Suffolk. In these strata we see signs of an\napproach to the existing state of things. As we ascend through\nthem, a gradually increasing number of the fossil shells are found\nto be specifically identical with those which at present inhabit\nthe ocean.\n\nAnother characteristic of this period is the abundance of fossil\nremains of mammalia; but in this case, although the remains are\nevidently, in many cases, those of creatures nearly allied to\nthose now existing, they are not identical, very great\nmodifications both of bulk and of minor structural details having\ntaken place. One very important point of difference is the vastly\nsuperior bulk of these ancient animals: a good illustration of\nwhich may be seen in the skeletons of the mammoth and of the\nmodern elephant, which are placed near each other in the British\nMuseum. Many of these animals appear not to have become extinct\ntill long after the appearance of man.\n\nThe first appearance of mammalia, as has been already noticed,\nmust have been long before this, as the earliest fossils yet found\nare at the lower limit of the Lias. They belong, however, to the\ngenus Marsupialia, of which, as far as we know, no representatives\nwere in existence in any part of the world known to Moses, so that\neven on the supposition that he intended to give an account of the\nfirst appearance of the classes of animals which he mentions, the\nomission of these would have been inevitable. His words, however,\nappear to point to a time when the mammalia occupied the leading\nplace, just as the reptiles had occupied the leading place at a\nprevious epoch. And his words are fully borne out by the records\nof the rocks.\n\nAt the close of the tertiary period great changes once more took\nplace in the Northern hemisphere. There was a great and extensive\nsubsidence, in consequence of which a large portion of Northern\nand Middle Europe must have been under water, the mountain summits\nonly appearing as detached islands. At the same time, from causes\nutterly unknown to us, there was a great depression of\ntemperature, the result of which was, that all, or nearly all the\nland, in those regions which were not submerged, was covered with\nglaciers, much as Greenland is now, and from these glaciers vast\nicebergs must from time to time have been detached by the sea and\nfloated off, carrying with them fragments of rock, some freshly\nbroken, some rounded by long attrition, which were deposited on\nthe then submerged lands as the ice melted, and are now found as\nboulders, sometimes lying on the surface, at others dispersed\nthrough beds of clay and sand formed under water from the debris\nworn down by the glaciers. A subsequent movement of elevation\nushered in the state of things which exists on the earth at the\npresent time.\n\n2. Man.\n\n\"And God said, Let Us make man (Adam) in Our image after Our\nlikeness; and he shall have dominion over the fish of the sea, and\nover the fowl of the heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the\nearth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.\n\n\"And God created man (the Adam) in His image, in the image of God\ncreated He him; male and female He created them.\n\n\"And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and\nmultiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and rule over the fish\nof the sea, and the fowl of the heaven, and over every animal that\ncreepeth upon the earth.\n\n\"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb seeding seed,\nwhich is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree which has\nin it the fruit of a tree seeding seed; to you it shall be for\nfood.\n\n\"And to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the\nheaven, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, in which\nis the soul of life, every green herb is for meat; and it was so.\n\n\"And God saw every thing--which He had made, and behold it was\ngood exceedingly.\n\n\"And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.\"\n\nThe terms in which the Creation of man is spoken of are such as to\nchallenge particular attention and to induce us to expect\nsomething very different from what occurred on any previous\noccasion. In the first place, more agents than one are introduced\nby the use of the plural form of the verb, and thus at the very\ncommencement of man's career there is an intimation of that\nmysterious fact of the Trinity in Unity which was to have so\nimportant an influence upon his future destiny. Then we are told\nthat man was to be formed in the Image of God, a statement which\nprobably is of very wide import. It has been variously interpreted\nas having reference to the spiritual, moral, and intellectual\nnature of man; to the fact that the nature of man was afterwards\nto be assumed by the Second Person of the Trinity; to the\ndelegated empire of this world which man was to hold. There are\ntwo expressions of St. Paul: that \"man is the image and glory of\nGod\" (1 Cor. xi. 7), and that \"the invisible things of Him from\nthe creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by\nthe things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead\"\n(Rom. i. 20), which seem to indicate that this record has a\nsignificance which as yet we can only partially understand. Then\nthe story of man's creation is repeated in the second chapter, and\nwhile the other events recorded in the first chapter are very\nbriefly summarized, that of man is very much amplified. This does\nriot necessarily indicate an independent account, as is sometimes\nasserted; at the fourth verse of the second chapter a distinct\nportion of revelation commences--the special dealing of God with\nman, and this could not be intelligible without an amount of\ndetail with reference to man's origin, which would have been out\nof place in the short account of the origin of the world by which\nit is preceded. In this account the creation of Adam and Eve is\nrecorded as two separate events, the latter of which is described\nin terms of deep mystery, of which all that we can say is that\nthey point to that still deeper mystery--the birth of the Bride--\nthe Lamb's Wife from the pierced side of the Lamb. But in the case\nof Adam there is a remarkable difference from anything that has\ngone before. Two distinct acts of creation are recorded; one of\nwhich places man before us in his physical relation to the lower\nanimals, while the other treats of him in his spiritual relation\nto his Maker. \"The Lord God formed man (the Adam) dust from the\nground (adamah), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of\nlives; and man became a soul of life.\" The inspiration of the\n\"breath of lives\" distinguishes the creation of man from that of\nall other creatures.\n\nThe Geological records harmonize exactly with the Bible as to the\ndate of man's appearance on the earth. It is towards the close of\nthe age of gigantic mammalia, that the earliest remains of man's\nworkmanship make their appearance in the shape of tools and\nweapons rudely fashioned from stone. Parts of human skeletons have\nalso been occasionally found, but they are exceedingly rare.\nWeapons and bones are alike confined to superficial, and\ncomparatively very recent formations. From such traces as have\nbeen found there is no reason to believe that any physical changes\nof importance have taken place in man's body since his first\nappearance on the earth. The differences which do exist are of the\nsame kind as, and not greater than, the differences which exist\nbetween individuals at present.\n\nThe gift of dominion over the lower animals seems to indicate\nsomething different from that which gives one animal superiority\nover another, and accordingly we find that it is not by physical\npower that that dominion is exercised; but that in most of his\nphysical faculties man is inferior to the very animals which he\nholds in subjection. It is partly in virtue of his intellectual\nsuperiority, and partly perhaps by means of an instinctive\nrecognition on the part of the animals of man's higher nature\n(Gen. ix. 2) that that supremacy is maintained.\n\nSECTION 10. DEVELOPMENT.\n\nWe have now to consider the question of development, in reference\nto the Mosaic Record of the last two days, and to the known facts\nto which that record has relation. The account of the third day's\nwork has also a bearing on the subject, but as the same\nconsiderations will to a great extent apply to animals and to\nplants, it will not be necessary to make any special reference to\nit.\n\nThe facts in favour of the theory of development are these:--1.\nThe different classes of plants and animals are not separated by\nbroad lines of demarcation, but shade insensibly into each other.\n2. The characteristics of the same species are not constant; the\nlion, for instance, the horse, the elephant, and the hyena of the\npresent day differ in many minor points from the corresponding\nanimals of the Tertiary period, so that unless there was a\npossibility of spontaneous change, we must assume successive\ncreations of animals, with only trivial differences. 3. In all\nanimals there are minute individual differences, and if under any\ncircumstances these differences had a tendency to accumulate, they\nmight in the course of time result in great structural\nmodifications. 4. Man has been able to take advantage of this fact\nand by careful selection to mould the breeds of domestic animals\nto a certain extent in accordance with his own wishes.\n\nThe theory of development assumes that for the care of man other\nforces might be substituted, which in a long course of ages might\nresult in changes of far greater extent than those produced by\nhuman agency. The forces assigned are natural selection and sexual\nselection. The difficulties in the way of this hypothesis have\nbeen already considered, and only require to be briefly re-stated.\n\n1. As regards modifications of organs already existing, the two\nalleged causes are insufficient to account for the results which\nwe witness, since in each individual case the concurrence of many\ncontingent causes, continued through a long series of ages, is\nrequired to produce the result. But the probabilities against\nsuch, a concurrence in any one case are enormous, and against\ntheir concurrence in a large number of cases the chances are\npractically infinite.\n\n2. That such causes do not at all account for cases in which an\nentirely new organ is developed, such as mammary glands--or for\nthe case of man, in which intellectual superiority is accompanied\nby a loss of physical power.\n\n3. That from the nature of the case it is impossible for us to\nascertain that natural or sexual selection has ever acted to\nproduce a single modification, however small, and that the results\nof man's superintendence have not as yet passed beyond certain\nnarrow limits, so that there is no justification for the\nassumption that such modifications are capable of being carried to\nan unlimited extent.\n\nWe see that in the only case in which change is known to have been\nbrought about, it has been the result of choice and design. If\nthen there is a probability that choice and design may have been\nexercised by a power higher than man, there is no longer any\nreason to doubt but that results much greater than any to which\nman can attain may have been brought about by the same means. And\nin fact the advocates of the theory of development do virtually\nadmit the existence and action of such a power, whenever they have\nrecourse to assumed \"laws\" to account for phenomena for which\ntheir naked theory can give no reason. For, as has been shown,\nlaw, if it is to be assigned as an efficient cause, and not merely\nas the statement of observed facts, can only be regarded as the\nexpressed and enforced will of a higher power. And there was no\nreason why those minute variations themselves, which are the basis\nof Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, should be considered casual. Instead\nthen of natural selection, or sexual selection, let us suppose\nthat the selection took place under the superintending care of the\nCreator, and was directed towards the carrying out of His designs,\nand then we shall have no reason to doubt but that all results\nwhich consisted only in the modification of existing organs may\nhave been obtained by the operation of those laws which we term\nnatural, because they express modes of operation with which we are\nso familiar that we look upon them as automatic.\n\nBut there are other results for which no natural laws with which\nwe are acquainted will thus account. Just as no mechanical laws\nwithin our knowledge will account for the rotation of the earth,\nso no physiological laws yet discovered will account for the\nchanges when totally new orders of being came on the stage--when\nthe course of life took, as it were, a new point of departure. But\nit is precisely at these points that the Mosaic Record points to a\nspecial interference on the part of the Creator. How that\ninterference took place we are not informed. Very possibly it may\nhave been the result of other laws which lie wholly out of the\nreach of our powers of observation. But whatever may have been its\ncharacter, it does not in any way imply change or defect in the\noriginal plan, unless we know, (what we do not know, and cannot\nascertain) that such interference formed no part of the original\ndesign. Everything bears the marks of progressive development, and\nthere is nothing improbable, but rather the reverse, in the\nsupposition that such a plan should include special steps of\nadvance to be made when the preparation for them was completed.\n\nThe Mosaic Record tells us nothing about the method by which God\ncreated the different varieties of plants and animals. All that we\nread there is just as applicable to a process of evolution, as to\nany other method which we may be able to imagine. But it is\nremarkable that what Moses does say is just what is required to\nmake Mr. Darwin's theory possible. So far then as the lower orders\nof creation are concerned, the hypothesis of development, modified\nby the admission of uniform superintendence and occasional special\ninterferences on the part of the Creator, may be accepted as being\nthe most satisfactory explanation that can be given, in the\npresent state of physiological science, of the Scriptural\nNarrative.\n\nBut we have yet to consider this hypothesis as applied to man in\nMr. Darwin's latest work. We naturally recoil from the thought\nthat we have sprung from some lower race of animals--that we are\nonly the descendants of some race of anthropoid apes. So long as\nit is asserted that we are no more than this, we may well be\nreluctant to admit the suggestion. But if it be admitted that to a\nphysical nature formed like the bodies of the lower animals, a\nspecial spiritual gift may have been superadded, the difficulty\nvanishes. All Mr. Darwin's arguments with reference to physical\nresemblances may then be admitted, and we may allow that he has\ngiven a probable explanation of the method by which \"the Lord God\nformed the Adam, dust from the ground\" while we maintain that the\nintellectual and moral faculties of man are derived from a source\nwhich lies beyond the investigations of science.\n\nThe conclusions to be drawn from this investigation may be briefly\nsummed up as follows:--\n\n1. There is every reason to conclude that the process of Creation\nwas carried on, in great part, under the operation of the system\nof natural laws which we still see acting in the world around us:\nsuch laws being so far as we are concerned only an expression of\nan observed uniformity in the action of that Being by whom the\nUniverse was created and is upheld.\n\n2. That inasmuch as the development of a new state of things\ndiffers from the maintenance of a condition already existing, the\nworking of these laws was necessarily from time to time\nsupplemented by special interferences of the Creator, but that\nsuch interferences formed parts of the original design, and are\nnot indications of anything in the shape of change or failure.\n\n3. That many of the events recorded in the Mosaic Record are of\nthe nature of such special interferences, while others point to\nremarkable developments of particular forms of organic life.\n\n4. That these interferences thus recorded occur at the exact\npoints at which natural laws, so far as science has yet been able\nto ascertain them, are inadequate to produce the phenomena which\nthen took place, and that the developments are proved by geology\nto have taken place at the points indicated.\n\n5. That the six days into which the work is divided by Moses do\ncorrespond to the probable order of development--that in three of\nthem, the third, fifth, and sixth, this correspondence is marked\nby facts ascertained by Geology--that the fourth, in which no\nterrestrial phenomenon is recorded, corresponds to a very long\nperiod in the Geological record in which no indications of any new\ndevelopment are found--while the first and second indicate a state\nof things which the nebular hypothesis renders highly probable,\nbut of which no positive information is within the reach of\nscience.\n\nAdmitting then that there is something in the way in which the\ndays are spoken of which we are at present unable to understand,\nwe may yet confidently assert that such a record could not have\nbeen the product of man's thought at the period at which it was\nwritten. It is utterly impossible that it should have been the\nresult of a series of fortunate conjectures without any foundation\nto rest upon, and scientific foundation there was none, for there\nis every reason to believe that the sciences which might perchance\nnow supply some foundation are entirely the growth of the last\nthree centuries. There is then only one conclusion that we can\ndraw, that it is a revelation from the Creator Himself, and that\nif there is anything in it which seems inexplicable or erroneous,\nthat appearance arises from our own ignorance of facts, and not\nfrom any error on the part of the Author.","title":"The Story of Creation as Told By Theology and By Science","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":48399}