,,the ,,story ,,of ,,creation ,,as      
,,told ,,by ,,theology ,,and ,,by       
,,science4    ,,by ,t4 ,s4 ,,ackland1   
,m4,a41    ,,formerly ,,fellow ,,of     
,,clare ,,college1 ,,cambridge2 ,,vicar 
,,of ,,wold ,,newton1  ,,yorkshire4     
,,sirs1 ,,ye ,,are ,,brethren3 ,,why    
,,do ,,ye ,,wrong ,,one ,,to ,,another8 
,,contents4      ,,chapter ,i4   ,,the  
,,case ,,stated  ,,chapter ,,ii4        
,,difficulties ,,in ,,geology  ,,chapter
 ,,iii4 ,,difficulties ,,in ,,astronomy 
,,chapter ,,iv4  ,,difficulties ,,in    
,,physiology  ,,chapter ,v4   ,,science 
,a ,,help ,,to ,,interpretation         
,,chapter ,i4    ,,the ,,case ,,stated4 
,the ,history of the ,creation with     
which the ,bible commences1 is not  a   
mere incidental appendage to ,god's     
,revelation1 but constitutes  the       
foundation on which the whole of that   
,revelation is based4  ,setting forth as
 it does the relation in which man      
stands to ,god  as his ,maker1 and to   
the world which ,god formed for his     

abode1 it  forms a necessary            
introduction to all that ,god has seen  
fit to  reveal to us with reference to  
,his dispensations of ,providence and   
of ,grace4    ,it is1 however1 not      
uncommonly asserted that this history   
cannot  be reconciled with a vast number
 of facts which modern science has      
revealed to us1 and with theories based 
on observed facts1 and  recommended by  
the unquestioned ability of the men by  
whom they  have been brought forward4   
,at first sight there does seem to be   
some ground for this assertion4         
,geology1 for instance1 makes us        
acquainted with strata of rock of       
various kinds1 arranged in exact  order1
 and of an aggregate thickness of many  
miles1 which are  filled with the       
remains of a wonderful series of plants 
and  animals1 these remains not being   
promiscuously collected1 but  arranged  
in an unvarying order4 ,it seems        
impossible that all these  plants and   
animals could have lived and died1 and  

been imbedded in  the rocks in this     
exact succession1 in six of our ordinary
 days4  ,astronomy directs our attention
 to changes now going on in the  starry 
heavens which occupy ages in their      
development1 and points  to traces in   
the constitution of our own world which 
seem to  indicate that it was formed by 
analogous means4 ,physiology reveals  to
 us the fact that the different         
varieties of plants and animals  now in 
existence are not separated from each   
other by well defined  lines of         
demarcation1 but shade into each other  
by almost  imperceptible gradations2 and
 geological researches show that  while 
the existing species of animals are the 
representatives of  those which lived   
and died at a period in which we can    
find no  traces of man1 they are not    
identical with them1 but that either    
the old species must have died out1 and 
been replaced by a fresh  creation1 or a
 considerable change must have taken    
place in the  course of ages4 ,these    

facts are held to be incompatible with  
the  account of creation given by       
,moses1 and hence it is inferred that  a
 record1 which appears to be so widely  
at variance with admitted  facts1 cannot
 be entitled to the authority which is  
claimed for  it1 as a fundamental       
portion of a ,revelation made by the    
,creator  ,himself4    ,this difficulty 
is sometimes met by the assertion that  
the ,bible  was not given to us to teach
 us ,science1 but to convey to us       
certain information which was essential 
to our moral welfare1 and  which we     
could not obtain by any other means2    
that these  discrepancies do not in any 
way interfere with that portion of      
those truths which is involved in the   
,history of ,creation1 but  that1       
however the narrative may be viewed as  
far as regards its  details1 the facts  
that ,god is the ,creator of all things 
visible  and invisible1 that ,he is a   
,being of infinite ,wisdom1 ,power1 and 
,love1 and that ,he has placed man in a 

peculiar relation to  ,himself1 remain  
unaffected4 ,on this ground it is often 
urged that  we may pass over scientific 
inaccuracies as matters of no great     
importance4    ,theologians are by no   
means agreed as to the nature and limits
 of  that inspiration by which ,holy    
,scripture was written4 ,there are  many
 who think that in matters purely       
incidental to its main  object1 and     
lying within the reach of human         
faculties1 the sacred  writers were left
 to the ordinary sources of information1
 and that  many alleged difficulties may
 be removed by this view4    ,but       
whatever may be thought of the          
application of this hypothesis  to some 
parts of the ,bible1 there are others to
 which it is  plainly inapplicable1 and 
of these the narrative of the ,creation 
is evidently one4 ,no theory of limited 
inspiration can be admitted  to explain 
any supposed inaccuracies in that       
narrative4 ,it cannot  be liable to     
those imperfections which are inevitable

 when men  have to obtain knowledge by  
the ordinary means1 because there were  
no ordinary means by which such         
information could be obtained4 ,the     
most carefully preserved records1 the   
oldest traditions could not  extend     
backwards beyond the moment when the    
first man awoke to  conscious existence4
 ,for every thing beyond that point the 
only  source of knowledge available was 
information derived from the  ,creator  
,himself4 ,it may be that a revelation  
of this character was  made to ,adam in 
the days of his innocence1 that it was  
carefully  handed down to his           
descendants1 and that ,moses1 under the 
divine  direction1 incorporated it into 
his history2 or it may have been        
directly communicated to ,moses by      
special inspiration--that  matters      
not--but a divine revelation it must    
have been1 or it is  nothing2 the dream 
of a poet1 or the theory of a           
philosopher1 if  we can believe that    
such a philosopher existed at such a    

time4 ,but  if it be indeed a revelation
 from the ,creator ,himself1 we cannot  
imagine that ,he could fall into any    
error1 or sanction any                  
misrepresentation with reference even to
 the smallest detail of  ,his own work4 
,if then there are really any errors in 
this record--any assertions  which the  
discoveries of science have proved to be
 untrue1 we  cannot account for them on 
any theory of limited inspiration4 ,a   
single proved error would be fatal to   
the authority of the whole  narrative4  
,but1 on the other hand1 we are not     
justified in  expecting such an account 
of the ,creation as would commend itself
  to the scientific intellect of the    
present day4 ,when we attempt to  form a
 judgment upon it4 ,we must look not    
only to its alleged  author1 but also to
 the purposes for which1 the            
circumstances  under which1 and the     
persons to whom it was given4 ,in these 
we may  expect to meet with many        
limitations4 ,it was not designed for   

the  communication of scientific        
knowledge1 it was necessarily conveyed  
in human language1 and addressed to     
human intelligence1 that  language and  
that intelligence being1 not as they are
 now1 but as  they were1 taking the     
latest possible date that can be        
assigned to  it1 considerably more than 
three thousand years ago4    ,this last 
consideration affects not only the      
record itself1 but  also our facilities 
for understanding and forming a judgment
 upon  it4 ,we have to contend with     
difficulties of interpretation arising  
from our inability fully to realize the 
circumstances under which  it was given1
 and to place ourselves in the mental   
position of its  original recipients4   
,owing to our want of this power it may 
well  happen1 that though we are in     
possession of vastly increased          
knowledge1 we may be far more liable to 
fall into error in some  directions1 in 
the interpretation of it1 than those to 
whom it was  originally addressed4      

,an additional difficulty arises from   
the circumstance that our  knowledge1   
wonderfully as it has been increased of 
late1 is yet  very far from complete1   
and is probably in many cases still     
mixed  with error4 ,hence it may very   
well happen that where there is         
complete harmony between the history and
 the facts1 we may suspect  discord     
owing to our misunderstanding of the    
record1 or our  misconception of the    
facts4 ,in order that the harmony may be
  recognized in its fulness1 there must 
be a perfect understanding  of the      
record1 and a perfect knowledge of the  
facts4 ,but from both  of these we are  
probably at present very far removed4   
,if a person who was a thorough master  
of some science undertook to  write a   
treatise for the purpose of teaching    
children the  rudiments of that science1
 we should expect1 and the more strongly
  if the author were a master of        
language as well as of science1  that   
his work should contain indications of a

 master's hand4 ,we  should expect that 
while the book conveyed clearly and     
simply to  the minds of those for whom  
it was written1 the truths which it  was
 intended to teach1 it should also      
convey to the more educated  reader some
 intimations of a deeper knowledge on   
the part of its  author4 ,the choice of 
a word1 the turn of a phrase1 the order 
in  which facts were arranged1 the      
occurrence here and there of a  sentence
 which an ordinary reader would pass    
over as unimportant1  would to such a   
person be indications of trains of      
thought far  more profound than those   
which appeared on the surface4 ,and this
  recognition would be proportional to  
two things--the amount of  scientific   
knowledge possessed by the reader1 and  
his mastery of  the language in which   
the book was written4    ,such1 then1   
are the characteristics which we may    
expect to find in  the ,record of       
,creation1 if it be indeed1 as we       
believe1 a  revelation from ,god1 made  

to men in a very low stage of           
intellectual development4 ,in order that
 we may be able to form a  satisfactory 
judgment of it1 it will be well for us  
to consider a  little in detail two     
classes of difficulties4 #a4 ,those     
which  belong to the ,revelation itself1
 arising from the limitations to  which 
it was necessarily subject in its       
delivery4 #b4 ,those which  arise from  
our imperfect knowledge of the language 
in which it is  written1 and from our   
inability to place ourselves in the     
intellectual position of those to whom  
it was originally given4    #a4 ,when   
this record was committed to writing1   
language was in a  very different       
condition from that in which it is now4 
,we have an  account of the first       
recorded exercise of the faculty of     
speech in  ,gen4 ii4 #ai4 ,adam first   
used it to give names to all the living 
creatures as they passed in review      
before him4 ,in accordance with  this   
statement it appears1 from the          

researches of philologists1  that       
language in its earliest state was      
entirely1 or almost  entirely limited to
 words denoting sensible objects and    
actions4  ,it seems probable that these 
names were derived from radicals        
expressing general ideas ,footnote3 ,max
 ,muller's ,lectures on the  ,science of
 ,language1 ,first ,series ,lect4 viii4 
ix42 but there is  reason to doubt      
whether these radicals ever had a formal
 existence  as words--they seem rather  
to have been the mental stock out of    
which words were produced4 ,but the     
human mind had from the first  powers   
for the exercise of which this limited  
vocabulary was  insufficient4 ,even in  
the outer world there was much which was
 the  object of reason and inference    
rather than of sense1 while the  whole  
world of consciousness was entirely     
unprovided with the  means of           
expression4 ,to meet this difficulty    
words1 which  originally denoted objects
 of sense1 were used figuratively to    

express ideas which bore some           
resemblance or analogy1 real or         
fancied1 to their original significance4
 ,as time passed on this  difficulty was
 gradually diminished3 synonyms crept   
into all  languages from various        
sources1 and when once adopted1 they    
were  in many cases gradually           
differentiated1 the various senses which
  the original word had borne were      
portioned off among them1 and  increased
 precision was thus obtained4    ,but in
 the infancy of mankind the figurative  
system was in full  operation4 ,hence1  
all early documents have a strong tinge 
of the  poetic element4 ,poetry1        
strictly so called1 probably had not as 
yet a separate existence2 but the whole 
spoken and written  language was        
permeated by that poetic spirit which   
delights in  tracing subtle analogies1  
and in expressing the invisible by means
  of the visible4 ,the translation of   
the ,sanscrit ,hymns1 which has         
recently appeared ,footnote3 ,hymns of  

the ,big ,veda ,sanhita1  translated by 
,max ,muller1 vol4 i41 furnishes a most 
valuable  illustration of this state of 
thought and of language4 ,these hymns   
are probably nearly coeval with the     
,pentateuch4 ,they were the  production 
of a different branch of the human      
family1 and indicate  a different tone  
of thought1 but they bring out very     
clearly the  figurative character of    
primitive language1 abounding in        
fanciful  descriptions of natural       
phenomena1 which1 when their            
metaphorical1  character was forgotten1 
passed by an easy transition into the   
graceful myths and legends of early     
,greece4    ,then there was a poverty in
 these primitive vocabularies even in   
reference to sensible objects1 which in 
many cases rendered it  necessary to    
employ the same word in more or less    
extensive  significations1 and in the   
,semitic languages the power of         
inflexion was in some directions very   
limited4 ,this limitation is  most      

remarkable in the forms used for the    
expression of time4 ,one  form alone was
 available to express those             
modifications which are  indicated by   
the imperfect1 perfect1 pluperfect1 and 
aorist tenses  of the classical         
languages4    ,instances of all these   
sources of uncertainty meet us very     
early  in ,genesis4 ,in the very first  
verse we have a word1 ,hebrew  script1  
which has great latitude of meaning4 ,it
 is either the  earth as a whole 7ver4  
#a71 or the land as distinguished from  
the  water 7ver4 #aj71 or a particular  
country 7ii4 #aa74 ,in many cases1  as  
in all these1 the context at once       
determines the sense to be  chosen2 but 
there are other cases in which          
considerable difficulty  arises4 ,the   
whole question of the universality of   
the deluge  turns1 in a great degree1   
upon the signification which is assigned
  to this same word in the sixth and    
following chapters4 ,in the  second     
verse we have another word1 ,hebrew     

script1 which is  capable of various    
interpretations4 ,it is used throughout 
the  ,bible in the three distinct       
meanings of wind1 breath1 and  spirit4  
,where we read1 ,and the ,spirit of ,god
 moved upon the  face of the waters1 the
 ,jewish paraphrase is1 ,and a wind of  
,god  7i4e4 a great wind7 moved1 c4     
,here there is nothing in the  context  
to assist us in determining the sense to
 be chosen2 but1  as will be seen in the
 sequel1 modern science indicates that  
the  ,jewish interpretation is          
untenable1 and that our translation is1 
consequently1 the correct one4 ,as an   
instance of confusion of  time1 we may  
refer to ii4 #ai4 ,in our translation   
this verse seems  to place the creation 
of animals after that of man2 but in    
xii4 #a1  the very same form is         
translated by the pluperfect1 ,now the  
,lord  had said unto ,abram4 ,it ought  
evidently to be translated in the  same 
way here3 ,and out of the ground the    
,lord ,god had formed1  c4 ,in ii4 #e1  

on the other hand1 the pluperfect might 
with  advantage have given place to     
another form3 ,for the ,lord ,god did   
not cause it to rain4 ,the phenomenon   
referred to appears to have  been local 
and temporary4 ,had the pluperfect been 
omitted in one  case and supplied in the
 other two sources of apparent          
difficulty  would have been removed4    
,it is very clear1 then1 that there     
could be no approach to  scientific     
accuracy in a narrative written in such 
a language as  this4 ,such accuracy is1 
in fact1 attainable only in proportion1 
as  science has moulded language for its
 own purposes4 ,but language is  at all 
times an index of the general mental    
condition of the  people who use it1 and
 so the knowledge and the ideas of the  
men  of these primitive times must have 
been extremely limited in all  those    
directions with which we have to do4    
,accordingly1 we find no  trace of any  
doubt whether the information with      
reference to  external objects which was

 received through the senses was in all 
cases to be depended on4 ,there can be  
little doubt that to those  early       
observers the sky was a solid vault1 on 
the face of which  the sun1 moon1 and   
planets moved in their appointed        
courses2 the  stars were points of      
light1 golden studs in the azure canopy2
 the  sun and moon were just as large as
 they appeared to be1 and the  earth was
 a solid immovable plane of             
comparatively small extent4  ,at the    
time of the ,exodus1 it seems clear     
that1 even among a  people so far       
advanced as the ,egyptians1 all that lay
 beyond the  mountains which bounded    
their land on the west was believed to  
belong not to living men1 but to        
disembodied spirits4 ,it was the        
terrible country through which the souls
 of the departed made  their arduous way
 to the ,hall of ,judgment ,footnote3   
,the ,nations  ,around1 pp4 #di1 #ej4   
,accordingly1 we find that the          
,egyptians made  no attempt to extend   

the limits of their empire in this      
direction1  while the monarchs of the   
,mesopotamian region seem to have been  
equally unambitious of conquest beyond  
the mountain ranges which  bounded the  
valley of the ,tigris on the east4      
,mesopotamia1 then1  on the east1 ,egypt
 on the west1 ,armenia and ,asia ,minor 
on the  north1 and ,arabia on the south1
 seem1 in the view of the               
contemporaries of ,moses1 to have been  
the utmost regions of the  world4       
,ignorant as they were of any countries 
beyond these1 they  were1 of course1    
equally ignorant of the numberless      
varieties of  plants and animals that   
were to be found in them1 and with which
  we are familiar4 ,mining was not      
unknown1 but the mines were few  and    
superficial2 they could not reveal much 
of the structure of  the earth1 and what
 little they did reveal passed          
unnoticed4  ,nothing was known of the   
successive beds of rock which form the  
crust of the earth1 of the fossils with 

which they abound1 or of  the gradual   
changes to ,which they are still        
subject4 ,if any one  had told the men  
of that generation that the solid earth 
on which  they stood1 or the everlasting
 hills which surrounded them1 were      
undergoing slow but steady              
modifications1 he would have been       
looked upon as a madman4    ,a          
revelation1 then1 addressed to men whose
 language1 whose  intellectual powers1  
and whose stock of ideas were thus      
limited1  must of itself also           
necessarily have been both limited and  
destitute of precision4 ,it could only  
deal with things with which  they had   
some acquaintance1 or of which they     
could form some idea1  while1 from the  
character of the language1 and the      
extreme brevity  of the record1 the     
treatment of even these few subjects    
must have  been of a vague and          
indefinite character4 ,traces of a      
deeper  knowledge there might be1 but   
they would not lie upon the surface4    

,they must be carefully sought for1 and 
then they would be  discernible only by 
those who were in possession of the key 
which  would unlock their hidden        
secrets4    ,such are the limitations   
under which the revelation was          
necessarily given4 ,we have now to      
consider our own especial  difficulties1
 the obstacles which stand in our way   
when we would  discover for ourselves   
all the information which the record is 
capable of conveying4 ,for if this      
record be1 as we believe1 the  work of  
the ,great ,architect of the ,universe1 
then it is probable  that its every     
detail is significant2 that wherever it 
was  possible words were chosen which1  
when scrutinized1 would convey  much    
more information than appeared on the   
surface4 ,the great  problem for us to  
solve is1 ,what are the difficulties    
which stand  in our way when we would   
seek this knowledge1 and what are the   
means by which those difficulties may be
 surmounted1 and the  hidden treasure   

displayed8    ,our first difficulty     
arises from a matter which1 viewed in   
another  light1 is one of our greatest  
blessings4 ,we are familiar with the    
,record through the medium of our own   
noble version4 ,probably it is          
impossible for any translation more     
exactly to represent the  original as it
 presented itself in the first instance 
to the minds  of those to whom it was   
addressed4 ,accordingly we learn it in  
our  earliest childhood2 its majestic   
phrases imprint themselves on our       
memory2 our undeveloped minds seem      
capable of taking in all that  it was   
intended to convey1 and so the          
impressions formed of it in  our infancy
 abide with us all our days4 ,we are    
contented with  them1 and do not trouble
 ourselves to inquire whether there is  
not  something beyond1 which we have not
 realized4    ,all this time we forget  
that1 excellent as it is1 it is after   
all  only a translation1 and that the   
very best translation cannot  represent 

in their fulness the ideas embodied in  
the original4  ,etymological relations  
between words often give a force and    
meaning to a sentence which it is       
impossible to transfuse into  another   
language1 because the same relations do 
not exist between  the words which we   
are constrained to employ4 ,then there  
is an  intimate relation between men's  
thoughts and the language which  they   
habitually use1 so that those thoughts  
cannot be perfectly  expressed in a     
language whose character is different4  
,again in  every language there are many
 words which bear several cognate       
senses1 which may be represented by as  
many different words in the  language of
 the translation2 so that if the best   
word is chosen1  much of the fulness of 
the original must be lost2 while it may 
so  happen that the selected word has   
also a variety of  significations1 which
 do not correspond with the varying     
meanings  of the original word1 and thus
 senses may be ascribed to the  original

 which it will not bear1 because the    
reader annexes to the  word in the      
translation a sense different from that 
in which it  corresponds to the original
 word4 ,to all these sources of         
imperfection must be added the fact that
 our translation was made  at a time    
when science was not yet sufficiently   
developed to  exercise any influence    
upon it4 ,there was nothing to induce   
the  translators to attempt1 where it   
was possible1 to preserve any           
indications of a deeper meaning1 because
 they had no reason to  suspect that any
 such deeper meaning existed1 or that   
any  indications of such a meaning were 
to be found4    ,to the difficulties of 
translation must be added the           
difficulties  of accumulated tradition4 
,the characteristics which mark our own 
childish intellect are apparent also in 
the collective intellect  of the human  
race in its earlier and ruder           
development4 ,there are  two            
characteristics of the human mind in    

this condition1 which  have had a very  
great effect on the interpretation of   
this portion  of the ,bible4    ,the    
first of these is the impatience of     
doubt and uncertainty4 ,the  power of   
recognizing the imperfection of our     
knowledge1 and the  consequent necessity
 of suspending our judgment1 is a power 
which  is only gradually acquired with  
the accumulation of experience4  ,the   
young untrained mind finds it difficult 
to realize the truth  that any          
information communicated to it is not   
altogether within  the grasp of its     
faculties4 ,it must attach some definite
 meaning  to the words2 it must image to
 itself some way in which great  events 
were brought about1 great works were    
accomplished4 ,it finds  it difficult to
 realize a fact as accomplished1 unless 
it can also  picture to itself some way 
in which it might have been effected4   
,for this purpose such knowledge as it  
has at its command is  employed1 and    
where that fails recourse is had to the 

imagination  to supply the deficiency4  
,thus it has been with ourselves in our 
childhood1 and thus it was in the       
childhood of the world4  ,knowledge was 
indeed sought1 but it was not sought in 
the right  way1 and so the search often 
resulted in error1 and this error       
produced its effect in the              
interpretation of the passage in        
question4 ,the old school of inquirers  
started from certain  abstract          
principles1 and endeavoared to reduce   
the results of  observation to          
conformity with those principles4 ,this 
was the case  with astronomy4 ,the old  
astronomers taking as axioms the two    
assumptions that everything connected   
with the heavenly bodies  must be       
perfect1 and that the circle is the only
 perfect figure1  easily satisfied      
themselves that the orbits of all the   
heavenly  bodies must be circles4 ,hence
 came the        ,cycle on epicycle1 orb
 on orb1    by which they sought to     
account for the phenomena which they    

observed4 ,when once the method was     
changed1 when once it had  occurred to  
,kepler that1 as it seemed to be        
impossible to account  for the apparent 
motion of ,mars by any theory of        
circular orbits1  it might be worth     
while to try to ascertain by observation
 what  its orbit really was1 a few years
 of patient labour sufficed to  solve   
the problem4    ,it was science such as 
this1 then1 that our forefathers brought
 to  the interpretation of the ,mosaic  
,record1 and the consequence was  that  
when1 from time to time1 facts were     
casually brought to light  which might  
have led the way to vast discoveries1   
their true  significance was never      
discerned2 all that was sought from them
  was some additional support to the old
 views4 ,thus sometimes  gigantic bones 
were exhumed3 without investigation1 it 
was at once  assumed that they were     
human bones1 and they were brought      
forward  to prove the truth of the      
statement1 ,there were also giants in   

the earth in those days4 ,sea-shells    
were found on mountain sides1  far from 
and high above the sea--they were       
evidences of the  ,deluge4    ,the      
second characteristic of that state of  
mind is its admiration  of the startling
 and the vast4 ,in these alone it       
recognizes the  tokens of unlimited     
power4 ,it is unable to appreciate those
 more  majestic manifestations of power 
which are discerned by the  enlightened 
eye1 when a stupendous scheme is        
developed1 gradually  and imperceptibly1
 but without pause or hesitation through
 a long  succession of ages2 when a     
multitude of seemingly discordant       
elements are at last brought together in
 a perfect work2 when a  power1 unseen  
and unnoticed1 slowly but surely        
overrules the  working of ten thousand  
apparently independent agents1 through a
  thousand generations1 and moulds their
 separate works into one  harmonious    
whole4 ,such a manifestation of power as
 this was beyond  the grasp of the      

untrained mind2 but to such intellects  
there was  something irresistibly       
fascinating in the idea of a world      
rising  into perfect existence in a     
moment1 of innumerable hosts of living  
creatures called into being at a word4  
,such was the meaning of the  account of
 creation which naturally suggested     
itself to the  untrained mind1 and there
 was nothing in science in those early  
days to throw any doubt upon it1 and so 
this belief was  unhesitatingly and     
almost universally adopted4 ,here and   
there1  indeed1 some man of deeper      
thought than his brethren1 such as ,st4 
,augustine ,footnote3 ,see ,st4         
,augustine1 ,de ,genesi ad ,literam1    
,liber ,imperfectus1 and ,libri         
,duodecim1 and also ,confessionum       
,liber xiii41 suspected that there might
 be more in that seemingly  simple      
record than was generally acknowledged2 
but such men had no  means of verifying 
their conjectures1 and their number was 
very  small4 ,for three thousand years  

the old view was practically            
unquestioned1 it received the tacit     
sanction of the ,church1 it  gradually  
became identified in the minds of all   
with the record  itself1 and was as much
 an article of faith as the very ,creed4
    ,this was the state of things1 when 
at last science awoke from its  long    
slumber1 and began for the first time to
 employ its energies  in the right      
direction4 ,very soon discoveries were  
made which  startled the minds of all   
believers in the ,bible4 ,the first     
shock  which the old belief sustained   
was from the establishment of the       
,copernican view of the ,solar ,system4 
,that the world was the  immovable      
centre of the universe1 around which    
sun1 moon1 and  planets moved in their  
appointed courses1 was universally held 
to  be the express teaching of the      
,bible2 and when ,galileo ventured to   
maintain the new views in ,italy1 the   
,roman ,curia took up the  question1 and
 by the agency of the ,inquisition wrung

 from him a  reluctant retractation of  
his so-called heresy4 ,but it was of no 
avail4 ,the new doctrine was true1 and  
it could not be crushed4  ,fresh        
evidence of its truth was continually   
coming forward1 till  at last it was    
universally received4 ,then the         
defenders of the  ,bible had recourse to
 the suggestion that as the ,bible was  
not  intended to teach us science1 such 
errors were of no consequence1  ,but    
this argument1 though perfectly sound   
with reference to such  passages as     
,joshua x4 #ab-ad1 where an event is    
described as it  appeared to those who  
witnessed it1 is not admissible in such 
a  passage as ,psalm xcvi4 #aj1 where   
the supposed immobility of the  earth is
 alleged as a proof of ,god's           
sovereignty1 and is made the  foundation
 of the duty of proclaiming that        
sovereignty among the  heathen4 ,when   
the supposed proof was found to be a    
fallacy1 the  statement in support of   
which it was alleged would be more or   

less  shaken4 ,in such a passage1 then1 
the theory of limited inspiration  is   
evidently untenable4 ,at last the only  
sensible course was  adopted4 ,recourse 
was had to the original1 and it was at  
once  apparent that the supposed        
difficulty had no real existence1 but   
that there was a very trifling          
inaccuracy in the translation2 for  that
 the word translated shall not be moved 
really signified  shall not be shaken or
 totter4 ,the same word is used in      
,psalm  xvii4 #e1 ,hold up my goings in 
,thy paths1 that my footsteps ,,slip    
,,not4 ,instead1 then1 of an error1 we  
have an exact description of  the       
earth's motion--a motion so steady and  
equable1 that for  thousands of years no
 single individual out of the myriads   
who  were continually carried along by  
it had ever suspected its  existence4   
,well had it been for all if the lesson 
thus taught had been deeply  laid to    
heart4 ,but unhappily it was entirely   
unnoticed4 ,science  pursued its way    

with increasing energy1 and more facts  
were year  by year brought to light     
which seemed entirely to contradict the 
teaching of the ,bible1 and again alarm 
and distrust sprung up in  the minds of 
what1 for want of a better name1 we may 
perhaps be  allowed to designate as the 
,theological ,party4 ,the power of the  
,church of ,rome was by this time so far
 curtailed that the old  means of       
repression were no longer available2 but
 the old spirit  survived1 and not in   
,rome only4 ,there was the same blind   
distrust1  the same mistaken zeal for   
supposed truth1 the same indignation    
which naturally arises when things which
 we hold precious are  attacked1 and1 as
 it seems to us1 without any sufficient 
reason4    ,there was indeed much to    
account for and even to justify the     
feelings of anger and alarm which were  
excited1 for the time when  these       
discoveries began to be brought         
prominently forward was the  latter half
 of the last century4 ,at that time the 

famous ,french  ,academy was doing its  
deadly work1 and the new discoveries    
were  gladly hailed by the infidel      
philosophers of ,france1 as weapons     
against the ,bible4 ,but the reception  
given to these discoveries by  the      
theological party1 though partially     
justified by the  circumstances of the  
times1 was nevertheless very mischievous
 in  its results4 ,for though the new   
discoveries were hailed                 
enthusiastically by the infidel school1 
a very large portion of  the men by whom
 they were made1 and of those who were  
convinced of  their truth1 were men of a
 very different character4 ,they were   
simple earnest seekers after truth as it
 is displayed in ,god's  works4 ,their  
belief in the ,bible rested in most     
cases on the  authority of others4 ,they
 had not investigated for themselves its
  external evidences2 in many cases they
 had neither the ability nor  the       
opportunity to do so2 nor had many of   
them as yet become  practically familiar

 with that internal evidence which the  
faithful ,christian carries within him1 
though in time they might  have become  
so1 had they not been driven into       
infidelity by the  reception which was  
given to their discoveries4 ,when men of
 this  character were informed by those 
to whom they were accustomed to  look up
 as teachers in religious matters1 that 
the discoveries1 of  the truth of which 
they were so firmly convinced1 and in   
which  they took such justifiable pride1
 were contradictory to the  teaching of 
the ,bible1 they were placed in a       
position of extreme  difficulty4 ,for   
this statement was1 in fact1 a demand   
made upon  them that they should give up
 these discoveries as erroneous1 or     
else renounce their belief in the       
,bible4 ,but their belief in the  ,bible
 rested in the main on the authority of 
others2 they felt  themselves           
incompetent judges of the evidence on   
which it rested1  while they were fully 
acquainted with1 and competent judges   

of1  the grounds on which their own     
discoveries were based4 ,the  evidence  
on which they acted was1 to their minds1
 quite as  convincing as the ,biblical  
evidence was to the minds of their      
antagonists4 ,two things1 then1 were    
pronounced incompatible by  what seemed 
to be a competent authority2 they could 
not adhere to  both1 and the natural    
consequence was that their assent was   
given  to those statements which rested 
on evidence which they thoroughly       
understood1 and the ,bible was rejected4
 ,thus it has come to pass  that many of
 our scientific men1 if not professed   
unbelievers1  have yet learnt to look   
upon the ,bible with suspicion and      
distrust4 ,to some of them1 as is       
evident from their writings1  their     
position is a matter of profound sorrow4
    ,there have1 indeed1 been many noble
 exceptions to this state of  things4   
,many men whose pre-eminence in         
scientific knowledge and  research is   
admitted by all1 have yet clung in      

childlike trust to  the ,bible4 ,they   
have recognized its authority1 they have
 been  satisfied that ,god's ,word could
 not be in opposition to ,his ,work1    
and they have been content to wait in   
unquestioning faith for the  day when   
all that now seems dark and perplexing  
shall be made  clear4 ,but there have   
also been very many with whom this has  
not  been the case1 and their unbelief  
has not affected themselves  alone4 ,the
 knowledge of it has had a deadly effect
 upon thousands  who were utterly       
incompetent to form any judgment on     
either  theological or scientific       
subjects1 but who gladly welcomed       
anything which would help to justify    
them to their own consciences  in their 
refusal to submit themselves to a law   
which1 in their  ignorance1 they deemed 
to be harsh and intolerable4 ,there has 
also  been another class of sufferers4  
,many persons who loved the ,bible1  but
 whose education1 and1 consequently1    
whose powers of judgment  in the matter 

were very limited1 have received very   
great injury  from the doubt which has  
been thrown on its authority4 ,unable of
  themselves to form a judgment on the  
subject1 they could not be  unmoved by  
the opinion expressed by those whom they
 regarded as  better informed than      
themselves4 ,hence their faith has      
received a  shock always painful and    
dangerous1 often perhaps fatal4    ,many
 attempts have been made to overcome the
 difficulty which has  thus arisen4     
,when geologists first began to study   
the lessons  which are to be learnt from
 fossils1 a suggestion was made which1  
though it was soon shown to be          
untenable1 has still perhaps a few      
supporters4 ,it was said that these     
fossils were not what they  seemed to   
be1 the remains of creatures which once 
lived1 but  simple stones1 fashioned    
from the first in their present form by 
the will of the ,creator4 ,but such an  
idea is at variance with all  that      
either ,nature or ,revelation teaches us

 concerning ,god4 ,all  those who have  
any familiarity with the subject cannot 
but feel  that the suggestion of such a 
solution of the difficulty is little    
short of a suggestion that the ,almighty
 has stamped a lie upon the  face of    
,his own ,work4    ,another proposed    
solution1 which for a time seemed       
satisfactory1  assumed several          
successive creations and destructions of
 the world  to have taken place in the  
interval between the first and second   
verses of ,genesis4 ,to these all the   
fossil remains were ascribed1  while the
 present state of things was supposed to
 be the result of  the operations       
recorded in the remainder of the        
chapter4 ,but as  geological knowledge  
advanced1 it soon became clear that     
there  were no breaks in the chain of   
life2 no points at which one set of     
creatures had died out1 while another   
had not yet arisen to fill  up the void1
 but that all change had been gradual   
and progressive1  and that species still

 living on the earth are identical with 
some  which were in existence when the  
lowest tertiary strata were in  process 
of formation--a time which must have    
been many thousand  years prior to the  
appearance of man4    ,other attempts   
have been made upon literary grounds4   
,hugh ,miller  ,footnote3 ,testimony of 
the ,rocks4 carefully worked out a      
suggestion derived from a ,german       
source1 that the history of  ,creation  
was presented to ,moses in a series of  
six visions1 which  appeared to him as  
so many days with intervening nights4   
,more  recently ,dr4 ,rorison ,footnote3
 ,in ,answers to ,essays and  ,reviews4 
has maintained that the first chapter of
 ,genesis is not  a history at all1 but 
a poem--the ,hymn of ,creation4 ,there  
is1  however1 nothing in the chapter    
itself to confirm either of these       
views4 ,when visions are recorded       
elsewhere we are told that they  are    
visions1 but no such hint is given us   
here4 ,nor do we find in  the passage   

any of the characteristics of ,hebrew   
poetry4 ,it is  inserted in an          
,historical document1 and in the absence
 of any  proof to the contrary1 it is   
plainly itself also to be regarded as   
,history4    ,but there remains yet one 
method to be attempted4 ,if there is    
reason to believe that the ,bible is the
 ,word of ,god1 just as the  universe is
 ,his ,work1 then we may well expect    
that each of them  will throw light upon
 and help us to a right understanding of
 the  other4 ,and if there be one part  
beyond all others in which this  may be 
confidently looked for1 it is that part 
in which the ,divine  ,architect        
describes ,his own work4 ,we know how   
difficult it is to  understand a        
complicated process1 or a complex piece 
of machinery1  from a mere written      
description2 and how our difficulty is  
lessened if we have the opportunity of  
inspecting the machinery or  the        
process4 ,just in the same way we may   
expect to encounter  difficulties1 and  

to form erroneous conclusions when we   
study by  itself such a document as the 
history of ,creation1 and we may well   
expect that those difficulties will be  
diminished1 and those  errors corrected 
by an examination of that material      
universe1 the  production of which it   
describes4 ,and1 on the other hand1 if  
science--the study of the universe--is  
found to throw light upon  and to       
receive light from the ,bible1 this is a
 fresh proof that  the ,bible and the   
universe are from the same source2 the  
authority  of the ,bible is more firmly 
established1 and the conclusions        
arrived at by men of science are        
confirmed4    ,but before this can be   
done to any good purpose1 something is  
required from both the contending       
parties4 ,the theological party  must be
 prepared to sacrifice many an old      
opinion1 many a  cherished belief4      
,great care must be taken to            
discriminate between  the genuine       
statements of the ,mosaic ,record1 and  

the old  interpretations which have been
 incorporated into and identified  with 
those statements4 ,some1 perhaps1 may   
fear lest1 in rejecting  those          
interpretations1 they may be setting at 
nought an authority  to which they ought
 to submit1 since these interpretations 
seem to  have the sanction of the       
,church4 ,but it can hardly be          
maintained  that those promises of      
,divine guidance and protection from    
error  which were given to the ,church  
extended to such matters as this4  ,no  
question of faith or duty is involved in
 the interpretation  which we may give  
to the details of ,creation4 ,if there  
are some  parts of the ,bible in which  
the earliest interpretation is          
unquestionably the true one1 there are  
also other parts1 such as  many of the  
prophecies1 which became intelligible   
only when light  was thrown upon them by
 subsequent events4 ,and so it seems to 
be  with the ,record of ,creation3 it   
can only be rightly understood in       

proportion as we become acquainted with 
the details of the matters  to which it 
refers4 ,any interpretation which was   
put upon it  before those details were  
brought to light must of necessity be   
liable to error4    ,but something is   
also required of the opposite party4 ,at
 the very  threshold of the             
investigation they must be asked to lay 
aside1 so  far as is possible1 those    
prejudices against the ,bible which have
  naturally arisen in their minds from  
the obstinacy with which  views1 which  
they knew to be untenable1 have been    
forced upon  their acceptance as the    
undoubted teaching of ,god1 so that they
  may enter upon the investigation with 
unbiassed minds4 ,then they  must be    
careful to distinguish between          
established facts1 and  theories however
 probable4 ,there is something very     
fascinating in  a well constructed      
theory4 ,theories have again and again  
done such  good service in opening the  
way1 first1 to the discovery1 and then  

to the arrangement of facts1 that we are
 very apt to assign to  them an         
authority far beyond that to which they 
are really  entitled4 ,when1 for        
instance1 we have ascertained that a    
certain  number of facts are explained  
by some particular theory1 we are  apt  
to assume prematurely1 that the same    
theory must account for  and be in      
harmony with all similar and related    
facts2 or1 if we  have satisfied        
ourselves that certain results ,,may    
have been  produced in a particular way1
 we are in great danger of being led  to
 conclude that they ,,must have happened
 in that way4 ,no mere  theory can have 
any weight against a statement resting  
on solid  evidence1 but where the       
evidence is weak1 or1 what is           
practically  the same thing1 where the  
knowledge of that evidence is defective1
  a probable theory must carry great    
weight in influencing our  judgment4    
,care must therefore be taken to keep   
theories in their  proper place4 ,where 

we have to deal with well-established   
facts1  any interpretations to which    
those facts may lead us may be taken  as
 also established1 but interpretations  
which are suggested by  theories only   
must be regarded as provisional1 and    
liable to  future modification or       
rejection1 as our knowledge increases4  
,the ,mosaic ,record itself1 when       
carefully examined1 seems to be         
peculiarly open to the process          
suggested4 ,no doubt there is yet  much 
work for ,philology to do in its        
interpretation ,footnote3  ,such words1 
for instance1 as ,hebrew script31,hebrew
 script31  ,hebrew script1 used of      
different creative acts1 may imply some 
difference of which we are ignorant4 ,so
 again the uses of the  words ,hebrew   
script1 ,hebrew script31 and ,hebrew    
script3 for  man1 may have a bearing on 
some of those questions which now  seem 
most perplexing41 but one thing seems   
certain--there is in  it an absence of  
all detail4 ,the facts to which it has  

reference  are stated in the briefest   
and most simple manner1 without the     
slightest reference to the means by     
which they were effected1 or1  apart    
from the question of the days1 the time 
which was occupied  in their            
accomplishment4 ,when stripped of all   
that is traditional1  and examined      
strictly by itself1 the narrative seems 
greatly to  resemble one of those       
outline maps which are supplied to      
children  who are learning geography1 on
 which only a few prominent features  of
 the country are laid down1 and the     
learner is left to fill in  the details 
as his knowledge advances4 ,only in this
 case the  details have already been    
filled in by the light of very imperfect
  knowledge1 aided by a fertile         
imagination4 ,these we must  obliterate 
if we would restore the possibility of a
 faithful  delineation1 and we must be  
careful1 in future1 to avoid a similar  
error4 ,we must put down nothing as     
certain which has not been  conclusively

 shown to be so4    ,this last caution  
is specially needed at the present time1
 for1  proud as we are of our advance in
 science1 the amount of what is         
certainly known is probably very much   
less than we imagine4 ,a  great deal    
that was received as certain a few years
 ago1 is now  considered to be doubtful1
 or even recognized as a mistake and    
abandoned4 ,this is especially the case 
with ,astronomy1 which seems  to be     
almost in a state of revolution4        
,dependent1 as it is almost  entirely1  
upon mechanical and optical aid1 every  
improvement and  discovery in these     
departments changes its position1       
bringing to  light new facts1 and       
modifying the aspect of those which were
  previously known4 ,the very basis of  
all astronomical calculations1  the     
standard of time1 is now no longer      
relied upon as invariable4  ,it is      
suspected of a change resulting from a  
gradual retardation  in the rate of the 
earth's rotation on its axis1 produced  

by tidal  friction4 ,when the binary    
stars were discovered1 the discovery was
  hailed as a proof of the universal    
prevalence of the law of  gravitation4  
,later observations have thrown doubt   
upon that  conclusion1 as many pairs are
 known to exist1 which1 though they     
have what is termed a common proper     
motion1 or are journeying  through space
 together1 have no relative motion1     
which they must  show1 if they were     
moving under the influence of their     
mutual  attractions4 ,the supposed      
simplicity of the solar system has given
  place to extreme complexity4 ,a       
century ago1 six planets1 ten           
satellites1 and a few comets1 were      
supposed to constitute the  whole       
retinue of the sun3 now1 instead of     
this1 we have two groups  of four       
planets each1 the individual members of 
each group closely  resembling each     
other in all points within our          
knowledge1 while in  all these points   
the groups differ greatly4 ,between     

these two  groups lies a belt of very   
small planets1 of which the #ast was    
discovered on the first day of the      
present century1 and the #abdth  this   
year1 and the number of known satellites
 has increased from  #aj to #ag4 ,add to
 this the meteoric groups1 and their    
suspected  connexion with certain       
comets1 and the perplexing questions    
suggested by the ,solar ,corona and the 
,zodiacal light1 and it will  be seen   
that our knowledge is in a transitional 
state2 that with  so many problems      
unsolved1 any apparent contradiction to 
the  sacred record will require a       
careful scrutiny to ascertain that  the 
grounds on which it is brought forward  
are well established4    ,geology1 so   
far as our present subject is concerned1
 stands upon a  somewhat different      
footing4 ,though a much younger science 
than  astronomy1 it has one great       
advantage over it2 the facts with  which
 it has to do are for the most part     
discernible by the  unaided senses1 and 

it is therefore independent of          
instrumental  help4 ,many changes have  
occurred in the views of ,geologists1   
but  in the main they have reference to 
processes ,footnote3 ,such1 for         
instance1 is the modification of the    
views of geologists as to the  relative 
effects of disruption and denudation in 
determining  the features of the earth's
 surface4 rather than to results1 and   
it is the results with which we are     
chiefly concerned4    ,physiologists    
have entered on the contest with the    
,bible on two  different1 and seemingly 
contradictory grounds4 ,some of them    
have  maintained that the varieties of  
mankind are so distinct1 that it  is    
impossible they can all be descended    
from a single human pair1  while others 
assert that not only all the varieties  
of mankind1  but all the varieties of   
living beings are descended from a      
single  progenitor4 ,between the        
advocates of these two systems there    
must  be such an enormous difference as 

to the extent to which variation  is    
possible1 as to justify us in assuming  
that the fundamental  principles of     
physiological science are not yet       
satisfactorily  ascertained4    ,these  
are the three branches of science which 
come especially into  collision with the
 ,mosaic ,record of the ,creation4 ,of  
these ,geology  is the most important1  
because it is able to bring forward     
unquestionable facts which are in direct
 opposition to the  traditionary        
interpretation ,astronomy and physiology
 have little  to object except          
theoretical views2 the hypotheses of    
,laplace and  ,darwin4 ,these1 however1 
will have to be carefully considered4   
,it  will be necessary for us first to  
ascertain whether there really  exists  
any such fundamental discrepancy between
 the record and  ascertained facts1 or  
theories so far as they are supported by
  facts1 and stand on a probable        
footing1 as should render all  attempts 
at harmonizing them vain4 ,if this is   

found not to be the  case1 we shall then
 be in a position to inquire whether    
modern  discoveries afford us any really
 valuable light1 and can assist us  to  
form a somewhat more extended and       
accurate idea of the  processes         
described by the sacred historian4      
,,chapter ,,ii4    ,,difficulties ,,in  
,,geology4      ,the principal points on
 which there is a supposed discrepancy  
between the ,mosaic ,record and the     
discoveries of geologists are as        
follows3--    ,,the ,,mosaic ,,record   
,,appears ,,to ,,assert--    ,i4 ,that  
the world in all its completeness1 as it
 now exists1 was  moulded out of        
material in a chaotic state in six      
ordinary days4  ,geologists have        
ascertained1 beyond the possibility of a
 doubt1  that the process must have     
occupied countless ages4    ,,ii4 ,that 
the first appearance of animal life was 
on the fifth of  those six days4        
,geologists have discovered that animal 
life was in  existence at the very      

earliest period to which they have as   
yet  been able to extend their          
investigations4    ,,iii4 ,that all     
living creatures are divided into two   
classes1 and  that the first of these   
classes was created on the fifth1 the   
second on the sixth day2 and that each  
class1 in all its  divisions1 with the  
exception of man1 came into existence   
simultaneously4 ,geologists trace the   
rise and increase of each  class through
 a long course of ages4    ,,iv4 ,that  
death entered into the world through the
 sin of man4 ,the  very existence of    
fossils implies that it was the law of  
all  animal life from the first4    ,v4 
,that till the fall all creatures lived 
exclusively on vegetable  food4         
,geologists have ascertained the        
existence of carnivorous  creatures from
 a very remote period4    ,besides      
these1 there are some other supposed    
difficulties and  inaccuracies of a less
 important character1 which may be      
noticed1  in passing1 when the true     

meaning of the record is under          
discussion4    ,,section #a4 ,,the      
,,days4    ,the question of the days is 
beyond all doubt the most important of  
those which have to be discussed4 ,on   
the one hand1 the impression  naturally 
left upon the reader of the first       
chapter of ,genesis is  that natural    
days are meant1 and this impression is  
not removed by  a cursory inspection of 
the original4 ,on the other hand1 if    
there  is any one scientific belief     
which rests on peculiarly solid  ground1
 it is the belief that the formation of 
the world occupied  a period which is   
beyond the grasp of the most powerful   
imagination4    ,there is1 indeed1 some 
reason to think that the time claimed by
  geologists is somewhat exaggerated4   
,their views are in many cases  based on
 the assumption that change is now going
 on1 on the  surface of the earth1 as it
 did in all past time--that it is the   
same in character1 in intensity1 and in 
rate4 ,but there are good  reasons for  

supposing that almost all the causes    
which lead to  change are gradually     
decreasing in intensity4 ,the chief     
causes by  which changes are brought    
about are the upheaval and subsidence of
  the earth's surface2 the destructive  
agencies of wind1 storms at  sea1 rain  
and frost2 and the action of the tides4 
,of these1 all  but the last are        
directly dependent on the action of     
heat1 and  there is every reason to     
believe that the heat of the earth is in
  process of gradual dissipation4 ,if   
this be the case1 all those  agencies   
which are dependent on it must          
,footnote3 ,it is thought probable that 
this process is complete1  or nearly so1
 in the moon4 ,if this be the case1 it  
is in all  probability in progress in   
the case of the earth1 though1 owing to 
the much greater bulk of the latter1 it 
occupies a longer period4  --,lockyer1  
,lessons in ,astronomy1 p4 #ic4 be      
declining in intensity2  but the rate of
 that decrease is unknown2 it may be in 

arithmetical1 or it may be in           
geometrical progression4 ,it is1  then1 
by no means impossible that changes1    
which now only become  discernible with 
the lapse of centuries1 might1 at some  
past  period of our globe's history1    
have been the work of years only4  ,nor 
is it at all probable that the present  
rate of change1 which  is assumed as the
 basis of the calculation1 is known with
 any  approach to accuracy4 ,exact      
observations are of very recent date2   
both the inclination and the means for  
making them are the growth  of the last 
two centuries1 and the changes which    
have to be  ascertained are of a class  
peculiarly liable to modification from  
a variety of local and temporary causes1
 so that a very much  longer period must
 elapse before we can arrive at average 
values  which may be relied on as even  
approximately accurate4    ,another     
circumstance1 which seems to merit more 
attention than it  has received1 is the 
very frequent recurrence in ,greek      

mythology  of allusions to creatures    
which have been usually regarded as the 
creations of a poetic fancy1 but which  
bear a strong resemblance  to the       
,saurian and other monsters of the      
,oolite and ,cretaceous  formations4 ,of
 course1 it is not impossible that these
 things may  have been purely poetic    
imaginings2 but1 if so1 it is very      
remarkable that such realizations of    
those imaginings should be  afterwards  
discovered4 ,it would seem much more    
probable that these  legends were       
exaggerated traditions of creatures     
which actually  existed when the first  
colonists reached their new homes1 in   
numbers comparatively small1 but still  
sufficient to occasion much  danger and 
alarm to the early settlers1 and to     
cause their  destroyers to be regarded  
as among the greatest heroes of the time
  and the greatest benefactors of       
mankind4 ,the ,hindoo tradition of  the 
tortoise on whose back stands the       
elephant which upholds the  world1 and  

the account of ,leviathan in the ,book  
of ,job1 seem to  point in the same     
direction4 ,footnote3 ,for additional   
instances  see ,tylor's ,early ,history 
of ,mankind1 p4 #cjc4    ,but1 after    
all1 the question is not one of a few   
thousands of  years more or less1 but of
 six common days1 or many thousands of  
years4 ,it may help us to arrive at a   
right conclusion on the  subject if we  
endeavour to ascertain1 in the first    
instance1  whether there are any        
strongly-marked indications that the    
writer  of the first chapter of ,genesis
 did possess some accurate  information 
on some points in the history of        
,creation which he was  not likely to   
obtain by his own researches4 ,for this 
purpose we  will place in parallel      
columns the leading facts recorded by   
,moses1 and a table of the successive   
formations of the rocks1  abridged from 
the last edition 7#ahga7 of ,sir ,c4    
,lyell's ,student's  ,geology4 ,this    
process will bring to light certain     

coincidences  which may serve as        
landmarks for our investigation4        
,the ,days4                             
,,the ,,rocks4        #a4 ,creation of  
light4        #b4 ,creation of the      
,atmosphere4              ,the earth    
covered with water          ,laurentian4
      #c4--     implied4                
,cambrian4          ,upheaval of land4  
----,silurian4          ,creation of    
terrestrial ,flora4        ,devonian4   
,carboniferous4        #d4 ,the sun and 
moon made ,luminaries4----,permian4     
,triassic4                              
,triassic4      #e4 ,creation of birds  
and reptiles     ----,jurassic4         
,cretaceous1                            
,eocene4        #f4--;,creation of land 
animals4        ----,eocene4            
,creation of man4                       
,miocene4                               
,pleiocene4                             
,post ,tertiary4    ,,concurrent        
,,events4    ,laurentian3 ,upper        
,laurentian unconformably placed on     

,lower  ,laurentian1 which contains     
,eozoon ,canadense4    ,cambrian3       
,traces of volcanic action4 ,ripple     
marks indicating land4    ,silurian3    
,earliest fish4    ,devonian3 ,earliest 
land plants4    ,carboniferous3 ,the    
coal measures4 ,peculiarly abundant     
vegetation4  ,earliest known reptile4   
,permian3 ,foot-prints of birds and     
reptiles--with a few remains of  the    
latter4    ,jurassic3 ,the first bird1  
and the first mammal4 ,the age of       
reptiles4    ,cretaceous3 ,reptiles     
passing away1 mammalia abundant and of  
large  size4    ,post ,tertiary3 ,human 
remains found only in the most recent   
deposits4 ,in this table we see certain 
points of strongly-marked               
coincidence3--    #a4 ,the oldest rocks 
with which we are acquainted--the ,lower
  ,laurentian ,footnote3 ,the age of    
granite is uncertain4--,lyell'a         
,student's ,geology1 p4 #edh4--were     
formed under water1 but had  begun to be
 elevated before the next series1 the   

,upper ,laurentian1  were deposited4    
,ripple marks are found in the ,cambrian
 group  ,footnote3 ,ibid4 p4 #dgj1      
indicating that the parts where they    
occur formed a sea-beach1 and1          
consequently1 that dry land was in      
existence at that time4    #b4 ,the     
earliest fossil land plants as yet      
discovered are found in  the ,devonian  
series1 and they gradually increase     
till1 in the  ,carboniferous strata1    
they attain the extreme abundance which 
gave  rise to the coal measures4    #c4 
,the age of reptiles4 ,the earliest     
known reptile is found in the           
,carboniferous strata4 ,in the ,permian 
and ,triassic groups the  numbers       
gradually increase1 till in the ,lias1  
,oolite1 and  ,cretaceous systems1 this 
class attains a very great development  
both numerically and in the magnitude of
 individual specimens4  ,during the same
 period the first traces of birds are   
found4 ,the  first actual fossil bird   
was found in the upper ,oolite4    #d4  

,the age of mammalia4 ,the first        
remains--two teeth of a small           
marsupial--were discovered in the       
,rhaetic beds of the ,upper ,trias1  and
 a somewhat similar discovery has been  
made in beds of  corresponding periods  
in ,devonshire and ,north ,america4     
,during the  subsequent periods the     
numbers slowly increase1 till in the    
,tertiary strata the mammalian becomes  
the predominant type4    #e4 ,the       
earliest traces of man--flint           
implements--are found in the  ,post     
,tertiary strata4    ,we have then in   
the ,mosaic narrative five points which 
correspond  in order and character to   
five points in the ,geological record2  
and with reference to two1 at least1 of 
these points1 we cannot  imagine any    
cause for the coincidence in the shape  
of a fortunate  conjecture1 because1 so 
far as we can tell1 there was nothing   
apparent on the face of the earth to    
suggest to the mind of the  writer the  
long past existence of such a state of  

things as has  been revealed to us by   
the discovery of the ,carboniferous and 
,reptilian remains4 ,it seems then that 
,moses must have been in  possession of 
information which could not be obtained 
from any  ordinary source4 ,but if he   
was thus acquainted with the order in   
which the development took place1 there 
is nothing improbable in  the           
supposition that he was not altogether  
ignorant of the length  of time which   
that development required4    ,let us   
suppose then that his knowledge did     
extend a little  farther2 let us suppose
 him to have been aware that each of the
  ,creations which he describes was a   
process occupying many  thousands of    
years--how could he have imparted this  
knowledge to  his readers8 ,what        
modification could he have introduced   
into his  narrative1 which without      
changing its general character1 or      
detracting from its extreme simplicity1 
should have embodied this  fact8        
,this amounts to the question3 ,what    

words significant of definite  periods  
of time were in use1 and consequently at
 the writer's  command1 at this time8   
,no language is very rich in such words2
 but  in the early ,hebrew they seem to 
have been very scanty4 ,the day1  week1 
month1 year1 and generation 7this last  
usually implying the  time from the     
birth of a man to that of his son1 but  
possibly in  ,gen4 xv4 #af1 a century7  
are all that we find4 ,these in their   
literal sense were evidently inadequate4
 ,nor could the deficiency  be supplied 
by numerals1 even if the general style  
of the  narrative would have admitted   
their use1 for we find in ,genesis no   
numeral beyond the thousand4 ,there was 
no word at all in early  ,hebrew        
equivalent to our words period and      
season4 ,when such an  idea was to be   
expressed1 it was done by the use of the
 word  day1 either in the singular1 or  
more commonly in the plural4  ,thus1 the
 time of harvest2 the season of the     
first ripe fruit1  are literally the    

days of harvest1 the days of the first  
ripe  fruit4 ,in ,isaiah xxxiv4 #h1 the 
singular is used1 and followed by  the  
word year in the same indefinite sense4 
,it is the day of the  ,lord's          
vengeance1 and the year of recompenses  
for the controversy  of ,zion4    ,the  
only method then which was open to the  
writer was to make use  of one of the   
words above mentioned in an extended    
sense1 just as  he used the word ,hebrew
 script 7earth7 in several senses4 ,but 
if  one of them was to be employed1 the 
one which he has chosen seems  the best2
 not only because its use in that way   
was common1 but  because the brevity of 
the time covered by its natural         
significance would in itself be a hint  
of the way in which it was  used4 ,that 
which was impossible in a day might be  
possible in a  year or a generation4    
,the extended significance of the word  
would  become apparent just in          
proportion as the time covered by its   
natural significance was inadequate for 

the processes ascribed to  it4    ,an   
additional reason may1 perhaps1 be found
 for the choice of the  word day1 in the
 accordance of its phenomena with some1 
at  least1 of the processes which ,moses
 describes--the dawn1 the light  slowly 
increasing to the perfect day1 and then 
fading away  gradually into night--these
 do seem aptly to represent the first   
scanty appearance1 the gradual increase1
 and the vast development  of plants1 of
 the reptiles and of the mammalia1 and  
in the case of  the first two classes1  
their gradual passing away4    ,but if  
the word was thus employed in a         
figurative1 and not in its  natural     
sense1 we may expect to find some       
indications in the  context that this   
was the case4 ,such indications we do   
find4 ,the  fact that the work of       
,creation was distributed into days1 is1
 in  itself1 significant4 ,there is no  
reason to believe that in the  opinion  
of the writer each day's work tasked to 
the utmost the  power of the ,creator4  

,moses was evidently as well aware as we
 are1  that to ,him it would have been  
equally easy1 had ,he so willed1 to     
call everything into instant and perfect
 being at a single word4  ,nor was the  
detailed description necessary to       
establish the  foundation of all        
religion--the right of the ,creator to  
the entire  obedience of ,his creature  
,for this the short recapitulation which
  7ch4 ii4 #d7 prefaces the more        
detailed account of man's peculiar      
relation to his ,maker would have been  
sufficient4 ,some purpose1  however1    
there must have been for this more      
particular account  which precedes the  
summary4 ,we may trace two probable     
reasons4 ,it  brings before us the      
method of the ,divine ,working in the   
light of  an orderly progress4 ,but     
beside this1 it is of infinite service  
to  us1 in enabling us more thoroughly  
to realize the ,fatherly  character and 
ever watchful care of our ,creator4 ,as 
far as that  care itself was concerned1 

it was unimportant whether the work was 
instantaneous or progressive2 but it was
 very important to us1 in  so far as it 
affected our conceptions of ,god1 and of
 our relations  to ,him4 ,for all our   
conceptions of ,god must rest ultimately
 on our  self-consciousness2 we can form
 no idea of ,him except in so far as    
that idea is analogous to something     
which comes within the range  of our own
 experience4 ,now to us and to our      
feelings there is a  very wide          
difference between an act performed in a
 moment1 and a  work over which we have 
lovingly dwelt1 and to which we have    
devoted our time1 our labour1 and our   
thought1 for months or  years4 ,the one 
may pass from our mind and be forgotten 
as quickly  as it was performed1 but in 
the other we commonly feel an abiding   
interest4 ,when therefore the great     
,creator is represented to us as  thus  
dwelling upon ,his work1 carrying it on 
step by step1 through  the long ages1 to
 its completion1 we find it far less    

difficult to  realize that other truth1 
so precious to us1 that ,his care and   
,his  tender mercies are over all ,his  
works1 that the loving  watchfulness    
which still upholds all1 and provides   
for all1 is but  the continuance of that
 care which was displayed in the        
creation  of all4 ,creation1 ,providence
 and ,grace are blended together in one 
continuous manifestation of the ,divine 
,wisdom1 ,power1 and ,love4    ,but for 
this purpose it is of little importance 
to us whether  ,creation is described as
 taking place in a moment1 or in six    
ordinary days4 ,if the division into six
 days indicates orderly  progress and   
watchful care1 we naturally expect to   
find the same  indications in each of   
the subordinate parts4 ,to our imperfect
  conceptions each single day's work    
would bear that same character  of vast 
instantaneous action which seemed so    
undesirable4 ,it would  not help us to  
realize what it is so important that we 
should  thoroughly feel4 ,the very fact 

then that the history of ,creation  is  
divided into days carries with it a     
strong presumption that  those days are 
not ordinary days4    ,in the #adth and 
following verses1 when ,moses is        
describing the  formation of the        
heavenly luminaries1 he is particular in
  mentioning that one part of their     
office was to rule over the day  and    
over the night1 and to divide the light 
from the darkness4  ,hence it is        
sometimes inferred that he was under a  
mistake in  speaking of day and night at
 an earlier period4 ,but such a mistake 
seems incredible4 ,to suppose that      
,moses did not perceive that what  he   
wrote in the #adth and following verses 
was incompatible with  what he had      
written in the #dth and #eth verses1 if 
such an  incompatibility really existed1
 is to impute to him an amount of       
ignorance or carelessness which is at   
variance with the whole  character of   
his writings from beginning to end4     
,instead of this  it will be shown      

hereafter that1 in all probability1 his 
statements rested on a wide knowledge of
 facts4 ,if then1 under  such           
circumstances1 he uses the word day long
 before he comes to  the formation of   
the sun1 the natural inference is that  
he did so  designedly--that it was his  
intention that his readers should       
understand that he was speaking of      
something very different from  that     
natural day which is regulated by       
sunrise and sunset4    ,the way too in  
which he introduces the mention of the  
first and  following days is apparently 
significant1 though its full meaning  is
 probably more than we can at present   
understand4 ,in ver4 #e he  carefully   
defines light and darkness as the       
equivalents of day and  night2 but in   
the next verse he passes over these     
words1 and  introduces two new ones1    
which he has not defined2 these two     
words  being as much out of place before
 the creation of the atmosphere  as     
light and darkness are supposed to have 

been before the  ,creation of the ,sun4 
,and not only does he introduce two new 
words1  but he introduces them in a very
 remarkable and1 with our present       
knowledge1 unaccountable manner4 ,had he
 said ,and there was  morning and there 
was evening1 one day1 we should have    
found no  difficulty in harmonizing2 his
 words with what he had previously  said
 concerning the evolution of light4 ,but
 he first of all  reverses the order1   
and then does not supply the natural    
termination to his sentence--,and there 
was evening and there was  morning1--one
 night would seem to be the natural     
conclusion2  but instead of that we     
read1 there was evening and there was   
morning1 one day4 ,whatever farther     
significance then may be  hereafter     
discovered in this remarkable statement1
 one thing at  all events seems clear1  
that it was designed to call attention  
to  the fact that the day spoken of was 
not a natural day4 ,probably  certain   
stages in the progress of the work were 

indicated1 which  farther investigations
 may disclose to us4 ,a few years ago   
such  stages seemed to be discernible1  
but the continued progress of  discovery
 has partly obliterated the supposed    
lines of  demarcation4 ,still further   
discoveries may bring to light other    
divisions4    ,in the opening of the    
second chapter we are told that ,god    
rested  on the seventh day from all ,his
 work1 and ,his rest is spoken of in    
such a way as to carry our thoughts at  
once to the ,fourth  ,commandment4 ,in  
that commandment the duty of hallowing a
 seventh  portion of our time is based  
on the fact that in six days the  ,lord 
made heaven and earth1 the sea and all  
that in them is1 and  rested the seventh
 day4 ,but the analogy entirely fails   
unless the  days of the ,creator's work 
bore the same proportion to the day of  
,his rest which man's six days of labour
 bear to his ,sabbath4 ,now  we are     
expressly told in other parts of        
,scripture that the ,divine  ,sabbath is

 not yet ended 7,heb4 iii4 iv471 and we 
are led to infer  that it will not end  
till ,he that sitteth upon the throne   
shall  say1 ,behold ,i make all things  
new4 ,if then the ,sabbath of the       
,creator is measured by thousands of    
years--the whole duration of  man upon  
the earth--it follows that the days of  
,his work must have  been of            
corresponding length4    ,one more      
indication1 so strong that in itself it 
seems sufficient  to decide the         
question1 is to be found in the #dth    
verse of the  second chapter4 ,footnote3
 ,it is not unusual with critics of the 
,german school to assert that this is an
 independent account of the  ,creation4 
,but the assertion does not appear to   
have any valid  foundation4 ,the        
supposed grounds for it are well        
discussed in the  ,speaker's            
,commentary1 vol4 i4 p4 #bc1 and in     
,aids to ,faith1  ,essay v41 ,sections  
#b1 #d1 #e4 ,it has already been pointed
 out that  the supposed variations in   

order rest entirely on the  translation4
 ,in that verse all that is ascribed to 
the six days  in the preceding chapter  
is summed up as the work of a single    
day4  ,if then the word is used in a    
natural sense in the first chapter1  it 
is clearly used in an extended sense in 
the second chapter4 ,but  if it had been
 used in a natural sense in the first   
chapter1 there  would have been no need 
whatever for its use here4 ,its place   
would  have been taken--and most        
appropriately--by the word ,hebrew      
script1 a week1 with which ,moses was   
familiar 7ch4 xxix4 #bh2  ,deut4 xvi4   
#aj74 ,its use here would have connected
 the weekly  division of time with the  
,creation1 and as its presence would    
have  been thus strongly significant1   
its absence is a no less  significant   
indication that the six days spoken of  
in the  preceding chapter are something 
very different from six natural  days4  
,three points1 therefore1 seem to be    
clear3--    #a4 ,however the chapter may

 be interpreted1 there are in it        
coincidences with ascertained facts so  
marked that they cannot  possibly be    
fortuitous4 ,they prove therefore that  
,moses was in  possession of some       
accurate information on the subject on  
which he  was writing4    ,as we proceed
 with our subject we shall come upon    
many more  indications of this1 some of 
them exceedingly remarkable4 ,it is     
therefore by no means improbable that he
 was acquainted with the  fact1 that the
 work which he was describing was one   
which had  occupied a long series of    
ages4    #b4 ,supposing that ,moses was 
acquainted with all which has now been  
discovered by geologists1 and that he   
was desirous of imparting  that         
knowledge to his readers1 the language  
which he has employed  is the most      
appropriate that1 under the             
circumstances1 he could  have chosen for
 the purpose4 #c4 ,the phenomena        
exhibited by the  context indicate not  
only that he had this intention1 but    

that he  also intended that such of his 
readers as were competent to  entertain 
the idea1 should have sufficient        
indications to guide  them to his       
meaning4    ,whatever then may be the   
real significance of the days--a point  
which the knowledge at present in our   
possession seems  insufficient to       
explain--it seems very clear that       
something very  different from natural  
days is intended4 ,and this is a        
sufficient  answer to the objection     
which is founded on that interpretation4
  ,that there would be very many points 
which as yet we are unable  fully to    
understand1 has been already shown to be
 not only  possible but probable2 and   
among them it appears this question of  
the true meaning of the days must be    
left for the present4 ,when we  come to 
consider subsequently the great number  
of points in which  harmony between the 
narrative and discovered facts is       
brought out  on investigation1          
,footnote3 ,chap4 v4 we may well be     

content to  leave many points           
unexplained till our knowledge is       
greatly  increased4    ,,section #b4    
,,first ,,traces ,,of ,,life4    ,the   
second objection has reference to the   
relative antiquity of  the various forms
 of life1 of which we find traces in the
  successive strata of the rocks4 ,if it
 be assumed that the apparent           
coincidences which have been pointed out
 between the ,mosaic  narrative and the 
geological records are real1 and that   
the  traditional interpretation is the  
true one1 then we ought to find--    #a4
 ,no traces at all of animal life below 
the ,trias4    #b4 ,no traces of        
mammalia below the ,cretaceous          
formation4    ,but the examination of   
the rocks leads to a very different     
result4  ,traces of life have been      
found1 probably in the ,laurentian1     
certainly in the ,cambrian rocks4 ,the  
earliest known fish is the  ,pteraspis1 
which has been discovered in the upper  
,silurian  formation at ,leintwardine1  

in ,shropshire4 ,the first member of the
  reptilian order1 ,archegesaurus1      
occurs in the coal measures2 and  the   
first traces of a mammalian--two        
teeth--occur at the junction  of the    
,lias and ,trias4 ,in every case1 then1 
we meet with traces of  life at a period
 long anterior to that at which we      
should  naturally expect them4    ,in   
order to ascertain the real weight of   
this objection we hare to  investigate  
two points3--    #a4 ,what are the      
animals to which the ,mosaic ,record    
refers8    #b4 ,what does it really tell
 us about the creation of those         
animals8    #a4 ,it is commonly assumed 
that all living creatures are           
comprehended under the terms used in    
describing the work of the  fifth and   
sixth days4 ,but a more careful         
examination shows that  there is no real
 ground for this assumption4 ,the first 
point which  presents itself is the     
omission of the ,hebrew word for fish1  
,hebrew script1 in the account of the   

fifth day--an omission the  more marked1
 because the word does occur in vv4 #bf1
 #bh1 in which  dominion over all living
 creatures is granted to man4 ,the two  
words which are used in ver4 #ba are    
,hebrew script from ,hebrew  script1 to 
stretch out1 to extend1 and ,hebrew     
script1 from  ,hebrew script1 identical 
with ,hebrew script1 to trample with    
the feet4 ,the description then points  
us to animals of great size1  especially
 length1 which trample with the feet4   
,great sea-  monsters1 ,gesenius calls  
them4 ,these words clearly indicate the 
,saurian and allied tribes of reptiles2 
and when we turn to the  rocks we find  
the remains of these creatures occurring
 in great  numbers1 precisely at the    
point which ,moses assigns to them4     
,again1 in the account of the sixth day1
 three classes of animals  are          
mentioned2 but we have no means whatever
 of ascertaining what  kinds of animals 
were comprehended in these three        
classes1 or  whether they included all  

the mammalia then known to the ,jews2   
much less then are we justified in      
inferring that they comprehend  all     
mammalia that were then1 or ever had    
been in existence4    ,but it may       
perhaps appear strange1 that the account
 of the  ,creation of living beings     
should be of such limited extent1       
embracing only reptiles1 birds1 and     
mammals4 ,a little  consideration1      
however1 will remove this apparent      
strangeness4 ,we  should1 perhaps1      
naturally expect to have some notice of 
the first  appearance of animal life2   
but from the circumstances under which  
,moses wrote such a notice was simply   
impossible4 ,the lowest and  simplest   
form of life with which we are now      
acquainted is the  ,amoeba ,princeps1 a 
minute particle of jelly-like substance1
 called  sarcode--scarcely larger than a
 small grain of sand--and with no       
distinction of organs or limbs4         
,footnote3 ,carpenter1 ,the  ,microscope
 and its ,revelations1 p4 #dbh4 ,the    

oldest known fossil1  ,eozoon           
,canadense1 is of a class but little    
above this--the  foraminifera2 we may   
therefore deem it probable that life    
began  with some form not very unlike   
the ,amoeba4 ,how could the formation   
of such a creature have been described  
to the contemporaries of  ,moses8 ,they 
could have had no idea of its existence4
 ,to describe  the first beginnings of  
life then1 was1 under the circumstances1
  an absolute impossibility4 ,but if a  
part only of the long series  of animal 
life could possibly be noticed1 the     
determination of the  point at which he 
should first speak of it would be left  
to the  writer1 guided as he would be by
 considerations of the object for       
which1 and the persons for whom1 he     
wrote1 which we must  necessarily in our
 position be unable duly to estimate4   
,all that  we are entitled to expect is 
that the account1 so far as it  extends1
 should be in accordance with facts4    
,the next point to be ascertained is1   

,does the ,mosaic ,record  intimate that
 the creations of reptiles on the fifth1
 and of  mammals on the sixth days were 
entirely new creations1 i4e4 that  no   
creatures of these classes had existed  
before8 ,there is no  direct assertion  
to this effect2 it is only an inference1
 though a  natural one1 when we consider
 the circumstances under which it was   
drawn4 ,when1 however1 we turn to the   
original we find the #bjth  verse worded
 in a way which seems designed to avoid 
the suggestion  of such an inference4   
,literally translated it is1 ,let the   
waters  swarm swarms1 the soul of life4 
,such creatures then may have  existed  
before1 but not in swarms4 ,and in the  
account of the sixth  day1 as has been  
already noticed1 three forms of mammalia
 are  specified1 and we have no         
knowledge as to the varieties included  
in these three forms4 ,nor is there here
 any intimation that it was  the first  
creation of such animals4 ,the greater  
part of the  earlier fossils belong to  

the ,marsupialia and ,mouotremata1 and  
we  have no reason to believe that these
 classes have existed in  historic times
 in ,europe1 ,asia1 or ,africa4 ,they   
are now confined  7with the exception of
 the opossums1 which are ,american7 to  
,australia4 ,they were therefore        
entirely unknown to the ,jews1 and  in  
consequence necessarily omitted in a    
document intended for  their use4       
,what has been said with reference to   
reptiles is also applicable  to birds4  
,the first traces of them are found in  
the ornithichnites  of the new red      
sandstone1 and the first                
fossil--,archaeopteryx1 in  the         
,solenhofen strata1 belonging to the    
,oolite4 ,from the nature of  the case  
the remains are necessarily scanty1     
since birds would be  less exposed than 
other animals to those casualties which 
would  lead to their preservation as    
fossils1 but enough traces have been    
found to show that in the period        
corresponding to the fifth day  they    

were very numerous1 and attained in many
 instances to a  gigantic stature4 ,a   
height of from ten to twelve feet was   
not  uncommon4    ,when1 therefore1 we  
notice that the fifth and sixth days    
correspond to two periods1 in the first 
of which reptiles and  birds1 and in the
 second mammalia1 were the prominent    
types1 the  words of the sacred         
historian seem to have an adequate      
interpretation in that fact4 ,there is  
no contradiction between the  two       
records4 ,moses describes but a very few
 of the facts which  geology has brought
 to light1 but those few facts are in   
exact  accordance with the results of   
independent observation4 ,the acts  of  
,creation of which ,moses speaks        
correspond to remarkable  developments  
of the orders of animals to which he    
refers4 ,to have  noticed the time of   
the appearance of the first individual  
member  of each class1 as distinguished 
from the time when that class  occupied 
the foremost place in the ranks of      

creation1 would have  been inconsistent 
with the simplicity and brevity of the  
narrative1 while it would have been     
unintelligible to those for  whom the   
narrative was intended1 since these     
primeval types had  passed out of       
existence ages before the creation of   
man4 ,it is1  however1 noteworthy1 that 
the first appearances of the several    
orders follow precisely the same        
arrangement as the times of their       
greatest development4    ,,section #c4  
,,simultaneous ,,creation4    ,this     
objection may be very briefly disposed  
of1 though it appears  to be one which  
has made a very deep impression on ,mr4 
,darwin4  ,footnote3 ,origin of         
,species1 p #a1 c4 ,it is entirely an   
inference drawn from the old            
interpretation of the six days4 ,while  
that interpretation was received it     
followed1 as a necessary  consequence1  
that the creation of all kinds of plants
 on the third  day1 and of reptiles1    
birds1 and mammalia on the fifth and    

sixth  days respectively1 must have been
 simultaneous4 ,but if that             
interpretation is proved to be          
untenable1 the inference drawn from  it 
falls to the ground4 ,the language of   
the narrative seems to  point in an     
opposite direction4 ,there is one       
instance in the  chapter in which the   
words used seem to point to an          
instantaneous  result4 ,and ,god said   
',let light be' and ,light was1 though  
in  this case the words probably have a 
further significance1 which  has been   
brought out by the discovery of the     
nature of light4 ,but  in these three   
cases the command is first recorded1    
with 7in two  cases7 the addition and it
 was so1 and then the narrative goes  on
 to speak of the fulfilment of the      
command1 as if the command  and its     
fulfilment were distinct things4        
,,section #d4 ,,death4 ,,carnivorous    
,,animals4    ,these two objections may 
advantageously be considered together1  
since the fifth is in a great measure1  

though not entirely1  dependent upon the
 fourth4 ,for if death1 in the common   
sense of  the word1 was unknown till the
 fall of ,adam1 it follows as a         
necessary consequence that no           
carnivorous creatures could have        
existed before that time4 ,on the other 
hand1 it may be considered  as the      
natural death of large classes of       
animals to be devoured by  the          
carnivora2 so that if there were no     
carnivorous animals prior  to the ,fall1
 one of the avenues to death1 at all    
events1 had not  been opened4    ,there 
is really no ground at all for the first
 of these objections  in the actual     
history of ,creation4 ,it is only when  
the threat held  out to ,adam 7ii4 #ag7 
is viewed in the light of ,st4 ,paul's  
comment  upon it 7,rom4 v4 #ab2 viii4   
#bj7 that the supposition can be        
entertained4 ,this1 then1 is the real   
foundation of the difficulty4    ,but1  
first of all1 there is no reason to     
suppose that ,st4 ,paul's  words refer  

to any death but that of man4 ,now1 it  
may well have  been1 that although man1 
having a body exactly analogous to those
  of the animals1 would naturally have  
been subject1 like them1 to  the        
ordinary laws of decay and death1 yet in
 the case of a  creature who possessed  
so much which raised him above the level
 of  the lower animals1 there may have  
been some provision made which  should  
exempt him from this necessity4 ,that   
this was the case  appears probable from
 the mention made in the narrative of   
the  ,tree of ,life4 ,we have no        
intimation whether the action of the    
fruit of this tree was physical or      
sacramental1 but that1 in one  way or   
other1 it had the power to preserve man 
from physical death  seems almost       
certain from the way in which it is     
spoken of after  the ,fall 7iii4        
#bb-bd74 ,but the mention of the ,tree  
of ,life leads  to the inference that   
the case of ,adam was entirely          
exceptional4    ,in the next place1 it  

does not seem probable that that        
dissolution  of the body which was the  
natural lot of all other animals was the
  whole1 or even the chief part1 of the 
evil consequence of ,adam's  fall4 ,that
 it was included in the penalty seems   
probable1 but it  only constituted a    
comparatively unimportant part of that  
penalty4  ,the threat was1 ,in ,,the    
,,day that thou eatest thereof thou     
shalt  surely die1 and we cannot doubt  
that the ,divine words were  exactly    
fulfilled1 though ,adam's natural death 
did not take place  for many hundred    
years4 ,but the guilty creatures1       
covering their  nakedness with          
fig-leaves1 crouching among the trees of
 the garden  in the vain hope of hiding 
themselves from the face of their       
,maker1 who were to transmit an         
inheritance of sin and shame and  misery
 to their yet unborn posterity1 were    
surely very different  beings from those
 whom the ,creator but a short time     
before had  pronounced very good4 ,the  

true life of the soul was gone2 the     
image of ,god defaced4 ,this was the    
real1 the terrible death4 ,if  death in 
its full sense means nothing more than  
the dissolution of  the body1 our       
,lord's words1 ,he that liveth and      
believeth in ,me  shall never die1 have 
failed of their fulfilment4 ,that       
promise  has been in force for more than
 eighteen centuries1 and yet no  case   
has occurred of a ,christian1 however   
holy he may have been1  or however      
strong his faith1 who has escaped the   
universal doom4  ,the ,church of the    
,patriarchs could point to an ,enoch1   
the ,jewish  ,church to an ,elijah1 who 
were exempted from the universal        
penalty2  but ,christianity can point to
 no such exemption1 nor does she need   
it4 ,to her members1 to die is to sleep 
in ,jesus2 to be absent from  the body  
is to be present with the ,lord1 for the
 penalty of death  is cancelled4        
,though1 then1 it seems by no means     
improbable that ,adam1 if he had  not   

fallen1 would have been exempt from the 
dissolution of the  body1 yet this is   
not absolutely certain1 and even if it  
were  certain1 his case would be an     
exceptional one3 no inference as to  the
 immortality of the animal creation     
could have been drawn from  it4    ,the 
supposition that all animals prior to   
the fall lived entirely  on vegetable   
food rests partly on this groundless    
inference1 and  partly on the ,divine   
,words recorded in verse #cj3 ,and to   
every  beast of the field1 and to every 
fowl of the air1 have ,i given  every   
green herb for meat4 ,but it is         
important to notice that  these words   
are not recorded as addressed to the    
animals1 like the  command to be        
fruitful and multiply4 ,had this been   
the case1 any  omission to mention the  
flesh of other animals1 might have been 
looked upon as significant4 ,instead of 
this they are addressed to  ,adam1 and  
they follow other words in which the    
same things are  assigned to ,adam for  

his food4 ,they come then in the form of
 a  limitation to the rights granted to 
,adam1 rather than of a  definition of  
the rights of the lower animals4 ,adam  
was to have  the free use of every green
 herb1 but he was not to account        
himself the exclusive owner of it4 ,the 
beast of the field and the  fowl of the 
air were to be co-proprietors with him2 
they were to  have the use of it as     
freely as himself2 but that they were to
 be  restricted to the use of vegetable 
food nowhere appears4  ,accordingly we  
know that carnivorous creatures have    
existed from  the first1 and that though
 to a superficial observer this may     
appear a cruel arrangement1 yet in      
reality it is a most merciful           
provision1 by which aged1 weak1 or      
maimed animals are preserved  from the  
agonies of death by starvation4    ,we  
may conclude then that there is no real 
contradiction between  the conclusions  
at which ,geologists have arrived1 and  
the words  actually made use of by      

,moses1 but that all such supposed      
contradictions have arisen from meanings
 being attached to those  words1 which1 
though possible or even probable1 were  
not the only  possible meanings4 ,when  
the difficulty has been suggested1 and  
the  words have in consequence been more
 closely examined1 it appears  that they
 are capable of an interpretation in    
strict harmony with  every fact which   
,geologists have as yet discovered1 and 
that in  many cases there are not       
wanting indications that the writer     
intended them to be thus understood4    
,,chapter ,,iii4    ,,difficulties ,,in 
,,astronomy4      ,these objections1 so 
far as they are based or supposed to be 
based  on ascertained facts1 are very   
few and insignificant4 ,the chief of    
them are as follows3--    #a4 ,moses    
describes light1 and the division of    
night and day as  existing before the   
,creation of the ,sun4    #b4 ,moses    
describes the firmament as a solid      
vault4    #c4 ,moses speaks of the stars

 as created on the fourth day1 only  two
 days before ,adam1 whereas astronomers 
have asserted that many  of them are so 
distant that the light by which we see  
them must  have been on its way ages    
before ,adam was created4    ,that part 
of the first objection which refers to  
the existence of  light prior to the    
creation of the ,sun1 appears so        
extremely  childish that it might have  
been thought unnecessary to notice it1  
had it not been solemnly propounded in  
such a work as ,essays and  ,reviews4   
,footnote3 ,page #bai ,anyone who is in 
possession of a  telescope of but       
moderate power may satisfy himself of   
its  futility on any starlight night4   
,he has only to turn his telescope  to  
one or two of the more conspicuous      
nebulae2 the ,great ,nebula in  ,orion1 
for instance1 or the ,ring ,nebula in   
,lyra1 and his eye will  receive light  
which has not come from any ,sun1 for it
 is a well-  ascertained fact that these
 nebulae are nothing but vast masses of 

incandescent gas4 ,and this objection is
 singularly inappropriate  in the mouth 
of the opponents of the ,mosaic ,record1
 inasmuch as  the ,nebular hypothesis is
 with them the favourite method of      
accounting for the present state of     
things4 ,the view which they  bring     
forward as an alternative to the ,mosaic
 account assumes the  very state of     
things which1 when1 alleged by ,moses1  
they denounce  as impossible4 ,the other
 part of this objection1 which refers to
  the division of day and night1 will be
 more advantageously  discussed when we 
come to consider the actual accounts of 
the  first and fourth days' work4 ,it   
will then appear probable that the      
statements which ,moses has made on this
 subject1 instead of being  indications 
of ignorance1 are the result of a       
profound knowledge  of the subject on   
which he was writing4    ,next1 it is   
alleged that ,moses describes the       
firmament as a solid  vault4,footnote3  
,essays and ,reviews1 p4 #bbj4 ,the work

 of the  second day of creation is to   
erect the vault of heaven1 which is     
represented as supporting an ocean of   
water above it4 ,that the  ,greek and   
,latin translations in this place do    
seem to imply the  idea of solidity     
seems indisputable2 and from the ,latin 
the word  firmament has passed into our 
own language4 ,but there is no  reason  
to think that the ,hebrew word has any  
such meaning4 ,it is  derived from a    
root signifying to beat out--to extend4 
,footnote3 ,may not this root1 ,hebrew  
script1 have some connexion  with       
,hebrew script1 to be light1 from which 
is derived the  ,aramaic ,raca of ,matt4
 v4 #bb8 ,the verb is often applied to  
the  beating out of metals1 but not     
always4 ,it is a new doctrine in        
etymology1 that the meaning of a verbal 
noun is to be deduced from  the nouns   
which often supply objects to its root1 
instead of from  the meaning of the root
 itself4 ,but even if it can be shown   
that  the word did originally involve   

such a meaning1 that would be  nothing  
to the purpose4 ,it would only be in the
 same case with a  vast number of other 
words1 which1 though etymologically     
untrue1  are habitually used without    
inconvenience1 because they do convey   
to the minds of others the idea which we
 intend to convey1 their  etymology     
being lost sight of4 ,probably1 the very
 persons who  bring forward the         
objection do sometimes use the word     
firmament1  though they know the error  
which is involved in it4 ,nor would they
  be any more accurate if they          
substituted for it the ,saxon word      
heaven1 since that also involves a      
scientific inaccuracy4 ,the  word used  
by ,moses was the commonly recognized   
name for the object  of which he was    
writing2 and no objection to his use of 
it can be  maintained1 unless it can be 
shown that in using it he rejected  some
 other word equally intelligible to all1
 and which was at the  same time        
etymologically correct4 ,but there is no

 ground for the  assumption that any    
such word existed in the time of ,moses 
or at  any subsequent period4    ,the   
third objection1 of course1 ceases to   
have any force if the  days of creation 
are no longer regarded as natural days4 
,but the  objection is in itself1 apart 
from this condition1 of no  consequence 
whatever4 ,for1 in the first place1 it  
is by no means  certain1 or even        
probable1 that the stars referred to in 
the  fourth day's work are the fixed    
stars4 ,the ,hebrew has no word for     
planets as distinguished from the fixed 
stars1 although1 as we  know for        
certain1 the difference between the     
planets and the fixed  stars was        
recognized from a very early period4 ,in
 every case1  then1 the context must    
determine the sense to be given to the  
word4 ,in this case1 the fact that these
 stars are mentioned in  connexion with 
the sun and moon1 combined with our     
knowledge that  the planets1 like the   
moon1 are dependent upon the sun for    

their  light1 would lead us to infer    
that they are meant4    ,but even if the
 fixed stars were meant1 the objection  
would be no  longer tenable4 ,it rests  
on certain estimates as to the supposed 
distances of the fixed stars and star   
clusters1 which were formed  by the late
 ,sir ,w4 ,herschel from what he        
designated the space-  penetrating power
 of his telescopes4 ,starting with the  
assumption  that the stars were of      
tolerably uniform size and brilliancy1  
and  that the difference in apparent    
brightness was the result1 and          
therefore a measure of their distances1 
he proceeded to apply the  same process 
to the star clusters1 which1 even in a  
fair  telescope1 present only the       
appearance of faint nebulous spots of   
light1 but are resolved into clusters of
 stars by more powerful  instruments4   
,in many cases1 he found that a certain 
proportion  existed between the         
telescopic power by which a cluster was 
first  rendered visible1 and that       

required for its resolution1 and by     
this means he formed what he considered 
a probable estimate of its  distance4   
,other clusters there were which only   
became visible in  his most powerful    
telescopes1 and which1 therefore1 he    
could never  succeed in resolving4      
,these he placed at a still greater     
distance1  and from this estimate he    
deduced the conclusion that their light 
must have been in some cases as much as 
#fj1jjj years in reaching  the earth4   
,but the whole foundation on which this 
long chain of inference  rested has now 
been shown to be evanescent4 ,in the    
first place  many of his irresolvable   
nebulae have been proved by the         
spectroscope to be true nebulae--masses 
of luminous gas1 and not  star clusters 
at all2 and1 in the next place1 the     
actual distances  of a few of the fixed 
stars have been approximately           
ascertained1  and it is proved beyond   
all doubt that the different degree of  
brightness exhibited by different stars 

is no test at all of their  distance4   
,of all the stars in our hemisphere     
whose distance has  thus been measured1 
the nearest to us is one which can only 
just  be discerned by a practised eye on
 a favourable night1 #fa ,cygni1  whilst
 the most brilliant star visible in     
,england1 ,sirius1 is at a  considerably
 greater distance4 ,the most competent  
judges estimate  the magnitude of       
,sirius as about one thousand times that
 of the  sun ,footnote3 ,mr4 ,proctor in
 ,good ,words1 ,february1 #ahgb44 ,in   
addition to this1 many stars of very    
different magnitudes are  found to be   
related to each other in such a way as  
to show that  they are in actual1 and   
not merely in optical proximity4 ,the   
clusters which were formerly supposed to
 consist of large stars at  enormous    
distances from us1 are now1 upon very   
solid grounds1  believed to be formed of
 much smaller stars1 at much more       
moderate  distances1 so that it is very 
improbable that there is any object     

visible in the heavens whose light has  
taken so much as #fjjj  years1 instead  
of #fj1jjj years to reach us4    ,,the  
,,nebular ,,theory4    ,we come now to  
the consideration of the ,nebular       
,theory of ,laplace1  in so far as it is
 opposed to the ,mosaic account4 ,it    
must be  remembered that1 after all1    
this is only a theory4 ,even if it      
could be satisfactorily established1 it 
would only point out a way  in which    
this world ,,might have been formed4    
,that it could not have  been formed in 
any other way is an independent         
proposition1 in  support of which no    
single argument has ever yet been       
brought  forward4 ,there may be a       
greater or less probability that the    
earth  was formed in this particular    
way1 that probability depending on  the 
extent to which the theory accounts for 
observed facts4 ,this  it does in many  
cases1 and it has in consequence been   
accepted ,,as  ,a ,,whole by many       
scientific men1 as a substitute for the 

,scriptural  account4 ,as will be seen  
hereafter1 there are strong reasons for 
admitting it as a supplement to the     
brief account given by ,moses2  but our 
business now is to ascertain1 whether it
 has any just  claim to be received     
instead of that account4    ,the theory 
seems to have been suggested by certain 
speculations of  ,sir ,w4 ,herschel4 ,in
 his telescopic examination of the      
,nebulae and  star clusters1 he found   
that in a great number of cases1 when a 
nebula was rendered visible by a certain
 amount of telescopic  power1 it would  
be resolved into separate stars by a    
telescope of  a little higher power4    
,but there were some nebulae1 visible in
  very small telescopes1 or even        
discernible with the naked eye1  such as
 those in ,orion and ,andromeda1 which  
could not be resolved  even by his great
 four-foot reflector1 the largest       
telescope that  had then been           
constructed4 ,and these nebulae         
exhibited a great  variety of forms4    

,some of them were vast shapeless masses
 of faint  light2 others1 which he      
designated planetary nebulae1 exhibited 
a regular form--a circular disc more or 
less clearly defined1  often brightest  
in the centre4 ,others seemed to be     
intermediate  between these two classes4
 ,hence he was led to the idea that     
these  were worlds in the process of    
formation1 and that their varying  forms
 indicated varying stages of that       
process4    ,this suggestion was eagerly
 adopted by the members of the ,french  
,academy1 who were at that time on the  
look-out for anything which  they       
thought would help them to account for  
the existence of the  world1 while they 
refused to acknowledge a ,creator4 ,it  
was taken  up by one of their           
number--,laplace--a man who stood in the
 very  foremost rank as a mathematician 
and physical astronomer1 and  moulded   
into shape by him4,footnote3 ,there is a
 very full account  of ,laplace's       
hypothesis1 extracted from the works of 

,pontecoulant1  in ,professor ,nichol's 
,system of the ,world1 pp4 #fi--hf4     
,he assumed1 that the ,solar ,system    
existed at the very earliest  period as 
a shapeless nebula1 a vast undefined    
mass of fire-  mist2 that at some time  
or other the separate particles of this 
fire-mist began to move towards their   
centre of gravity1 under the  influence 
of their mutual attractions1 and thus   
assumed a  spherical shape2 that by some
 means or other a motion of rotation    
was originated in this spherical mass1  
which increased in rapidity  as the     
process of condensation advanced4 ,the  
effect of this  rotation would be a     
flattening of the sphere2 the equatorial
  diameter would increase while the     
polar diameter1 or axis of  rotation1   
diminished2 and when the centrifugal    
force thus produced  had reached a      
certain point1 a ring would detach      
itself from the  equator1 but would     
continue to revolve about the common    
centre4 ,he  supposed that a succession 

of rings were thus thrown off1 which    
finally broke up and accumulated into   
one or more spherical  masses1 forming  
the planets and their satellites1 while 
the  remainder of the original sphere   
was condensed into the sun4 ,the        
planets and their satellites would      
continue to revolve about the  centre as
 the ring from which they were formed   
had done1 while the  different original 
velocities of the particles of which    
they were  formed1 some having been in  
the outer1 some in the inner part of    
the ring1 would cause them also to      
rotate on their axis4 ,as the           
condensation advanced1 the heat which   
had originally existed in  the fire-mist
 would be condensed also1 so that all   
the masses  when formed would be in an  
incandescent state1 but the planets and 
their satellites being comparatively    
small would soon cool down1  while the  
sun1 owing to its greatly superior bulk1
 still retains  its heat4    ,there is  
no doubt much to be said in favour of   

this theory1 which  may be more         
advantageously considered hereafter1    
when we shall  have to consider it as   
supplementary to the ,mosaic account4   
,at  present we are only concerned with 
it as it claims to stand alone1  and to 
be accepted as a substitute for that    
account4 ,viewed in  this light1 as a   
substitute for a ,creator1 as showing us
 how the  universe might have come into 
existence spontaneously1 it utterly     
breaks down in three points4    #a4 ,it 
gives us no account whatever of the     
origin of matter1 but  assumes that it  
was already in existence at the time    
from which  the theory takes its point  
of departure4 ,but some account of it   
must be given4 ,either it was created by
 some higher power1 or it  was eternal2 
for the idea of its being               
self-originated is  manifestly          
untenable4 ,if it was created1 there is 
an end of the  theory--the act of       
creation assumes the existence of a     
,creator2  and the only question left   

is1 whether that ,creator did more or   
less4 ,but the very object of the theory
 was to dispense with the  existence of 
a ,creator4 ,this alternative1 then1 it 
must reject1  and there is nothing left 
but to fall back upon the other1 and to 
assume that it existed from all         
eternity4 ,but it is certainly not  less
 difficult to us to conceive the        
possibility of inert matter  being      
self-existent and eternal1 than it is to
 recognize the  existence of an eternal 
and all-powerful ,spirit4 ,our own      
consciousness helps us to realize the   
possibility of the existence  of an     
,eternal ,mind1 and of the exercise of  
power by that mind2 but  we have nothing
 to help us to a conception of          
self-existent  matter4    ,in addition  
to this1 the idea of eternity precludes 
from its very  nature the idea of       
possible change4 ,if there is change    
there must  be the distinction of before
 and after1 and so of the succession  of
 existence1 which involves the idea of  

time4 ,that which is  subject to change1
 and this theory assumes a change in the
  condition of matter1 cannot be        
eternal4    #b4 ,the next failing point 
is1 that this theory assumes a change1  
of the origin of which it can give no   
account4 ,the assumption is1  that      
matter which had existed from all       
eternity1 or for an  indefinite time1 in
 a state of perfect rest1 suddenly began
 to  move towards its centre of gravity4
 ,a body1 or a system of  particles1 can
 remain at rest only under one of two   
conditions4  ,either it must be acted on
 by no force at all1 or all the forces  
by which it is acted on must be in      
perfect equilibrium4 ,if matter  existed
 under the first of these conditions1   
whence did the force  suddenly emanate8 
,force cannot be self-originated any    
more than  matter4 ,but if the other    
alternative be adopted1 how was the     
equilibrium disturbed8 ,it is a         
fundamental axiom of mechanics that  a  
body 7or system of bodies7 at rest will 

continue at rest till  it be acted upon 
by some external force4 ,but the theory 
supplies  no such external force1 for it
 could only originate in that which  the
 theory ignores--the will and power of  
some intelligent ,being4    #c4 ,the    
third defect is1 that the theory does   
not give any  satisfactory account of   
the origin of the motions of rotation   
and  revolution4 ,laplace does not      
attempt this4 ,he simply assumes that  a
 motion of rotation was set up somehow2 
but many of his  followers1 perceiving  
that the theory broke down here--though 
they  passed the other two defects      
unnoticed--have attempted to supply  the
 deficiency in this point4 ,some have   
attempted to account for  this motion by
 analogy4 ,it has been suggested that it
 was of the  same nature1 and produced  
by the same causes1 as the vortex which 
is formed when a vessel full of fluid is
 emptied through an  orifice in its     
bottom4 ,pontecoulant1 in his account of
 the theory1  enters more into detail4  

,he assumes that in the process of      
agglomeration large bodies of matter    
impinged obliquely on the  already      
formed mass1 and so imparted to it a    
motion of rotation4    ,a consideration 
of the mechanical conditions of the     
problem will  show the unsoundness of   
,pontecoulant's views4 ,it is of course 
assumed that the forces by which this   
rotation is said to have  been produced 
are identical in their character with   
those with  which we are familiar1 for  
the introduction of any force peculiar  
to that time would be equivalent to an  
admission of a directing  power4 ,the   
following propositions then seem        
unquestionable3--    #a4 ,the nebula    
must be considered as a system of       
particles acted on  by their mutual     
attractions1 and by no other force4     
#b4 ,when two particles of matter1 a and
 b1 attract each other1 it  is a        
fundamental principle of mechanics1     
7commonly known as the  ,third ,law of  
,motion7 that whatever amount of        

momentum is  produced in a1 an equal and
 opposite momentum must be produced in  
b4 ,hence if the mutual action remain   
undisturbed1 the two  particles will    
approach each other and finally meet4   
,on their  union1 the two momenta being 
equal and opposite will neutralize  each
 other1 and there will be no tendency to
 produce motion of any  kind4 #c4 ,the  
same law will hold good with reference  
to any number  of particles1 and        
therefore with reference to the supposed
 nebula4  ,every single particle will   
produce a certain momentum in each of   
the other particles1 and at the same    
time will have impressed upon  it by    
each of the other particles an equal and
 opposite momentum4  ,hence when all the
 particles are collected into a single  
mass1  each individual momentum will be 
balanced by an equal and opposite  one1 
and there can be no resultant motion4   
,the analogy from fluids flowing through
 an orifice fails1 because--    #a4 ,the
 particles of the fluid are acted on by 

forces other than  their mutual         
attractions1 and in many cases affecting
 them  unequally1 e4 g41 friction       
against the sides of the containing     
vessel and the orifice4    #b4 ,because 
the orifice is not a point1 but a finite
 area1 and  consequently the particles  
of the fluid are acted on by forces     
which do not pass through the same      
point4    ,considered then as a         
substitute for the action of an         
intelligent  ,creator1 ,laplace's theory
 utterly breaks down in three points1   
which1 as they will have to be referred 
to hereafter1 it is well  to            
recapitulate4    #a4 ,it does not       
account for the origin of matter4    #b4
 ,it does not account for the emergence 
of the force of  attraction4    #c4 ,it 
does not give a satisfactory account for
 the motion of  rotation4               
,,chapter ,,iv4    ,,difficulties ,,in  
,,physiology4      ,the third science   
which is supposed to come into collision
 with  the ,mosaic ,record is           

,physiology4 ,here1 however1 we meet    
with no  objections which rest upon     
ascertained facts1 as in the case of    
geology4 ,we have only to do with       
theories4 ,all that can be brought      
forward is merely matter of opinion or  
theory--such theory  resting indeed on a
 foundation of ascertained facts--but   
being in  itself a mere inference more  
or less probable from those facts4      
,even if it were proved to be a true    
account of the causation of  those      
facts1 it would be by no means certain  
that other facts1  however similar1     
might not have had a totally different  
origin4    ,at one time it was very     
confidently asserted1 by many eminent   
physiologists1 that the differences     
between various branches of  the human  
race were so great1 that it was         
impossible that all  should have        
descended from the same original stock4 
,probably this  opinion is still        
maintained in some quarters1 but of late
 years  views of a diametrically        

opposite character have been brought    
forward1 and very ably advocated4 ,in   
proportion as these views are  admitted 
to have in them an element of truth1 the
 importance of  the older objection is  
diminished4 ,it will therefore be       
unnecessary to dwell upon it4 ,this new 
view is1 that not only all  branches of 
the human race1 but all living beings   
now existing1 or  that have ever existed
 on the face of the earth1 are descended
 by  the process of evolution1 carried  
on under what are designated  as natural
 laws from some one variety1 or small   
number of  varieties of living creatures
 of the lowest type4    ,this theory1   
like that of ,laplace1 had its origin   
among the ,french  ,academicians1 at the
 close of the last century4 ,its author 
was ,la  ,marck4 ,according to his view 
the simplest form of animal life1 the   
monad1 was spontaneously developed by   
some unknown process4 ,from  this monad 
higher forms of animal life were        
produced1 and the  course of development

 was continued till it finally          
culminated in  man4 ,but it does not    
appear that ,la ,marck suggested any    
means by  which the various stages of   
development were brought about1 and  the
 view attracted little attention4 ,some 
thirty years ago it was  revived by an  
anonymous writer1 in a work called      
,vestiges of  ,creation4 ,in this work  
the idea of spontaneous generation was  
repudiated4 ,the original monad was     
supposed to have derived its  existence 
from an act of ,creative ,power1 and to 
have been then  left to work out its own
 development1 by virtue of powers       
originally implanted in it4 ,all its    
variations and advances were  supposed  
to be the result of the will and efforts
 of the creature  acting through many   
generations4 ,thus the desire and       
attempt to  walk ended in the           
development of legs1 while wings were   
the final  result of its efforts to fly4
 ,it was felt1 however1 that this was   
by no means a satisfactory account of   

the state of things1 and so  the work1  
though it produced a great sensation at 
the time1 has  now been almost entirely 
forgotten4    ,latterly1 however1 the   
theory has found a far more able        
advocate  in the person of ,mr4 ,darwin1
 with whose name it has been popularly  
identified4 ,by his indefatigable       
labours a vast variety of facts  have   
been collected and skilfully arranged1  
to show that all the  varieties of life 
may be satisfactorily accounted for by  
the  continued action1 through a long   
course of ages1 of certain  natural     
causes1 with the results of which we are
 familiar1 and of  which intentional use
 is continually made by man4 ,mr4       
,darwin does  not deny the existence of 
a ,creator1 but the tendency of his     
arguments is to prove that ,his         
interference was limited to the  single 
act of original ,creation2 and that from
 the moment of its  creation the world  
has been a sort of automatic machine1   
producing  its results without any      

interference from any higher power4     
,the theory taken as a whole comes into 
contact with the ,mosaic  ,record in    
three points3--    #a4 ,as it assumes   
the possibility that life may be        
self-originated4    #b4 ,as it indicates
 a mode of procedure different from that
 given  by ,moses4    #c4 ,as it        
requires unlimited time4    ,of these   
the last is already disposed of1 when   
the narrative is  shown to be capable of
 an interpretation in accordance with   
it4  ,the first requires only a brief   
notice2 but the second must be          
carefully investigated1 to separate     
ascertained truth from  inferences which
 have no sufficient foundation4    ,the 
theory of spontaneous generation rests  
almost entirely upon  assumptions4 ,its 
only semblance of support from facts is 
derived  from certain experiments of a  
very unsatisfactory character1 which    
are said to have resulted in the        
production of some of the lowest  forms 
of animal life4 ,these experiments have 

been by no means  uniformly successful4 
,one or two experimenters have thought  
that  they have succeeded1 but not      
uniformly1 while the same process1      
repeated by men whose scientific and    
manipulative powers are  universally    
recognized1 has never once resulted in  
any seeming  development of life4 ,even 
if1 however1 they had been uniformly    
successful1 there would have been great 
reason to doubt whether  the apparent   
success was not really a failure--a     
failure in the  precautions necessary to
 exclude all germs of life from the     
matter  experimented upon4 ,for the     
lower forms of life are excessively     
minute2 and their germs--eggs1 seeds1 or
 spores--must be far  smaller4 ,it is   
known that these are constantly floating
 in the  atmosphere1 though1 owing to   
their extreme minuteness1 the fact  can 
only be ascertained by the most skilful 
investigation4 ,and the  lower forms of 
animalcules have a singular tenacity of 
life2 they  can pass unharmed through   

processes which would be fatal to       
creatures of higher organization4 ,one  
variety is known to survive  entire     
desiccation2 another lives upon         
strychnine2 others bear  without injury 
great extremes of heat and cold2 and if 
this is the  case with the mature       
creatures1 it is probable that the germ 
possesses still stronger powers of      
vitality4 ,if one acarus can  live upon 
strychnine1 then it is not impossible   
that mineral acids  should be harmless  
to others2 the germs might be carried   
through  sulphuric acid in air without  
coming into contact with the acid1  as  
air would pass through in bubbles1 in   
the centre of which they  might be      
suspended2 or if like the diatomaceae1  
they were coated  with silex1 they might
 come into contact with it and resist   
its  action4 ,thus one of the           
precautions commonly taken is not       
certain  in its action1 and the same    
might be shown to be true of the        
others4 ,the theory of spontaneous      

generation is1 in fact1  generally      
repudiated by ,evolutionists1 and cannot
 therefore be  taken as a               
starting-point4    ,we come then to the 
theory of ,evolution with which ,mr4    
,darwin's  name is associated4 ,this    
theory asserts that all the varieties of
  animal life now existing on the earth1
 however widely they may  differ from   
each other1 are in reality derived from 
one1 or a very  few original types2 and 
that in this general statement the human
  race is to be included4 ,this theory  
rests upon the following  admitted      
facts4    #a4 ,there are not1 as was at 
one time commonly supposed1 broad and   
distinct lines of demarcation between   
the different varieties of  animals and 
plants4 ,our increasing knowledge of    
zoology has  brought to light the fact  
that one species shades off into another
  by almost imperceptible gradations4   
,as we go back in the fossil  records of
 animal life in the past1 we find that  
the species now  existing1 while they   

are closely allied to correspondent     
species  of an earlier period1 are      
scarcely ever identical with them1 and  
that the few cases of identity which do 
occur1 are limited to the  most recent  
rocks4 ,either then the old species must
 have perished1  and new ones1 similar  
but not identical1 must have been       
created to  take their places1 or there 
must have been a process of gradual     
change1 by which the present species    
have been derived from their            
predecessors4 ,in one or two cases      
fossils have been found which  combine1 
to some extent1 forms which are now     
found in distinct  species1 as if the   
process of variation had proceeded in   
distinct  lines from a common source4   
#b4 ,no two animals of any class are    
exactly alike in all points4  ,each has 
its individual peculiarities1 and in    
some cases these  peculiarities are     
strongly marked4    #c4 ,man has been   
enabled1 to a certain extent1 to make   
use of these  individual peculiarities1 

and by means of them to produce great   
varieties in the breeds of domesticated 
animals4 ,this has been  sometimes done 
unconsciously through a selection       
influenced by  other motives1 and then  
the process has been very slow2 but     
latterly intentionally1 with a view to  
the production of improved  breeds1 and 
whenever this has been the case1 changes
 of  considerable extent have been      
rapidly produced4 ,by carefully         
selecting the animals to be paired1 any 
desired modification can  generally be  
produced in the course of a few         
generations4 ,this is  exemplified in   
the numerous and increasing varieties of
 the breeds  of almost all domestic     
animals and birds4    ,the theory of    
,evolution then suggests that the same  
processes  which are employed by the    
cattle-breeder have been in operation   
through untold ages4 ,for the intention 
and care of the human  agent1 ,mr4      
,darwin substitutes two principles2 one 
designated as  ,natural ,selection1 the 

other as ,sexual ,selection4 ,for their 
full development he claims unlimited    
time4 ,the ground on which the  ,process
 of ,natural ,selection is maintained is
 as follows3--    ,it has been already  
noticed that no two individuals of the  
same  kind are exactly alike in all     
respects2 each individual has some      
peculiarities1 generally very trifling1 
but sufficient to  distinguish it from  
all other individuals4 ,some of these   
peculiarities will probably be such as  
to be of some service to  the individual
 in the struggle of life2 they will     
assist it in  procuring food1 or in     
resisting or escaping from its natural  
enemies1 while on the other hand the    
peculiarities of other  individuals will
 be prejudicial to them in these ways4  
,the  consequence will be that a larger 
proportion of those having  favourable  
peculiarities will survive and propagate
 their kind2  their offspring will      
inherit the peculiarities of their      
parents1  and reproduce them in various 

degrees4 ,the same process will then  be
 repeated1 and thus from generation to  
generation the  peculiarity will be     
increased1 till at last it is sufficient
 to  mark out1 first a new variety1 then
 a new species1 and so on4 ,this        
process then1 continued through a long  
course of ages1 was at one  time        
considered by ,mr4 ,darwin sufficient to
 account for all the  varieties of      
living creatures now existing1 or that  
have existed  in past ages4 ,but he has 
more recently satisfied himself         
,footnote3 ,descent of ,man1 vol4 i p4  
#aeb4 that there are many  phenomena    
which are not satisfactorily accounted  
for by this  principle1 since many of   
the specific differences of animals are 
found to exist in matters which1 cannot 
directly promote their  success in the  
struggle of life4 ,such1 for instance1  
are the  brilliant colours which are    
found1 especially among the males1 in   
many species of birds4 ,these he        
proposes to explain by the              

supplementary theory of ,sexual         
,selection4 ,his suggestion is that     
these peculiarities are in some way     
attractive to animals of the  opposite  
sex1 so that the individuals in which   
they are most  strongly developed are   
more successful than others in obtaining
  mates1 and that in this way the       
peculiarity is gradually fixed and      
increased4    ,by these two processes1  
then1 ,mr4 ,darwin supposes that all the
  differences now existing among animals
 have been produced and  perpetuated2   
and not only that1 but that man also is 
the result of  similar processes1 acting
 through a very long period2 that the   
progeny of certain anthropomorphous apes
 have1 by slow degrees1  risen in the   
scale of being above their progenitors2 
that all our  faculties1 intellectual   
and moral as well as physical1 differ   
from  those possessed by lower animals  
in ,,degree only1 and not in ,,kind1    
,footnote3 ,descent of ,man1 chaps1     
ii4-v4 so that man has arrived  at his  

present state by what may be termed     
purely natural  processes1 without the  
intervention of any external power4     
,in considering these theories1 our     
attention must first be  directed to    
some defects which appear to weaken the 
whole course  of the argument2 and then 
we may consider the peculiar            
difficulties in the way of the processes
 of natural and sexual  selection2 and  
the grounds for the belief that man is  
in  possession of something entirely    
different in ,,kind from any  faculty or
 power possessed by any lower animals1  
which could not  therefore be derived by
 inheritance and improvement4    ,the   
first thing which strikes us in ,mr4    
,darwin's works is that1  from time to  
time1 he betrays a sort of latent       
consciousness that  his theory is       
insufficient2 that the processes to     
which he  ascribes such vast results are
 not quite adequate to the purpose1  but
 that they need in some way to be       
supplemented4 ,every now and  then      

recourse is had to some law--some       
unknown cause--which must  co-operate in
 the production of the results he is    
considering4 ,in  spite of the apparent 
care which he has taken to guard against
 it1  he is continually betrayed into a 
confusion between the two senses  in    
which the word law is employed4 ,in its 
proper significance1  law is an         
expression of the will of an intelligent
 superior1  enforced by adequate power4 
,in this sense the law may be           
considered as an efficient cause4 ,the  
combination of will and  power is an    
adequate cause for any result whatever4 
,but ,mr4 ,darwin  expressly excludes   
this sense of the word1 in a sentence   
which  seems to involve a               
self-contradiction4 ,i mean by nature   
only the  aggregate action and product  
of many natural laws1 and by law only   
the ascertained sequence of events4     
,footnote3 ,plants and ,animals  under  
,domestication1 vol4 i4 p4 #f4 ,law1 in 
this sense1 then1 is  simply the        

statement of observed facts1 and as such
 can have no  action at all4 ,it asserts
 that certain phenomena do uniformly    
follow each other in an ascertained     
order2 but it gives us no  information  
whatever as to the cause of those       
events1 or the  reason why they do thus 
succeed each other4 ,but1 taking law in 
this last sense1 by his own definition1 
,mr4 ,darwin does1  nevertheless1       
continually bring forward certain laws  
as  accounting for certain results4     
,thus1 we have the laws of  ,correlation
 of ,growth1 ,footnote3 ,origin of      
,species1 ed4 #ahgb1  p4 #aad4          
,inheritance limited to ,males1         
,footnote3 ,descent of  ,man1 vol4 i4   
pp4 #bef1 #beg4 and a ,principle of     
,compensation4  ,footnote3 ,origin of   
,species1 p4 #aag4 ,when ,mr4 ,darwin1  
therefore1  brings forward these laws as
 efficient causes1 he not only tacitly  
admits the inadequacy of his theory to  
account for the phenomena  in question1 
but he also endeavours to supply the    

defect by  another cause1 which1 by his 
own definition1 is no cause at all4     
,and further1 ,mr4 ,darwin calls in the 
action of unknown agencies4  ,footnote3 
,descent of ,man1 vol4 i4 p4 #aed4      
,but it may be said1 ,is not this the   
case with all sciences1 at  least in    
their earlier stages8 ,are there not    
frequently1 or  always1 many phenomena  
which at first seem inexplicable1 but   
which  are gradually accounted for as   
knowledge increases8 ,if1 then1 this  is
 no objection in scientific pursuits    
generally1 why should it be  so here8   
,this reasoning would be perfectly valid
 if ,darwinism  were regarded simply as 
a scientific investigation4 ,but it is  
under consideration now on very         
different rounds4 ,whatever ,mr4        
,darwin's own views may be1 the theory  
is brought forward by  others1 not as a 
mere interesting speculation1 but as    
antagonistic  to a record whose         
authority is attested by evidence of the
 very  highest class4 ,it claims to     

discredit that record1 and to be        
received as a substitute for it4 ,but   
that record1 however it may  be         
interpreted1 does give us adequate      
causes for all that it  professes to    
account for1 in the will and operation  
of an ,almighty  ,creator4 ,the theory1 
therefore1 which professes to supplant  
it1  must at least stand upon an equal  
ground--it must give an  adequate       
account of everything4 ,there must be no
 unverified laws4  ,to fall back upon   
such laws is in reality to fall back on 
the  working of that very power whose   
operation is formally denied4           
,footnote3 ,see ,foster's ,essays1      
,essay i4 ,letter #e4    ,the next point
 to be noticed is a great confusion     
between  assumptions and proved facts4  
,this is especially prominent in that   
part of his last work which is devoted  
to sexual selection4 ,thus1  in one case
 it is taken for granted1 that various  
characteristics  of the males serve only
 to allure or excite the female4        

,footnote3 ,descent of ,man1 vol4 i4 p4 
#beh4 ,hence 7because  brilliant colours
 of insects have probably not been      
acquired ,,for  ,,the ,,purpose of      
protection71 ,i am led to suppose that  
the females  generally prefer1 or are   
most excited by the more brilliant      
males4 ,footnote3 ,ibid4 p4 #cii4       
,nevertheless1 when we see many  males  
pursuing the same female1 we can hardly 
believe that the  pairing is left to    
blind chance2 that the female exerts no 
choice1  and is not influenced by the   
gorgeous colours1 or other ornaments    
with which the male alone is decorated  
,footnote3 ,descent of ,man1  vol4 i p4 
#dba4 ,such sentences are of continual  
occurrence1 and do  duty in the argument
 as if they expressed ascertained facts4
 ,and  not only this1 but in the very   
part of the work which is devoted  to   
establishing the adequacy of sexual     
selection to produce  certain effects1  
that adequacy is assumed from the very  
beginning4  ,thus1 we read1 ,that these 

characters are the result of sexual     
selection is clear1 ,footnote3 ,ibid4 p4
 #beh4 before we have got  six pages    
into an argument which occupies a volume
 and a half4  ,this is surely a strong  
instance of what is commonly called     
begging the question4 ,another instance 
of confusion of ideas is  to be found in
 the assumption of design which         
occasionally occurs4  ,thus1 we read1   
,in some other remarkable cases beauty  
has been  gained for the sake of        
protection1 through the imitation of    
other  beautiful species4 ,footnote3    
,ibid4 p4 #cic4 ,from these             
considerations ,mr4 ,bates inferred1    
that the butterflies which  imitate the 
protected species1 had acquired their   
present  marvellously deceptive         
appearance through variation and natural
  selection1 in order to be mistaken for
 the protected kinds4  ,footnote3       
,descent of ,man1 vol4 i4 p4 #daa4 ,in  
these cases there  is an assumption of  
purpose and design1 which1 necessarily  

implies  a designer1 just as law1       
treated as an efficient cause1 implies a
  law-giver4 ,it may indeed be that this
 is only an inaccurate way of           
expressing something else2 but then1    
such modes of expression are  usually   
the result of a want of clear perception
 of the ideas to  be expressed2 and1 in 
this case1 such expressions must        
diminish  the weight to be assigned to  
,mr4 ,darwin's judgment4    ,we come now
 to the consideration of the first of   
,mr4 ,darwin's  supposed                
agencies--,natural ,selection1 or1      
,survival of the  fittest4 ,the results 
produced by this process must be        
ascribed to  one of two causes3 either  
they are the work of a ,superintending  
,providence1 watching over and directing
 every separate detail2 or  they are the
 result of pure chance and accident4    
,there is nothing  intermediate between 
these two causes4 ,natural law--apart   
from  design and a designer--is1 as we  
have seen1 a nonentity--a mere          

expression of observed facts1 for which 
it can give no account  whatever4 ,mr4  
,darwin's argument is expressly directed
 to exclude  the interference of a      
superintending ,providence4 ,chance is  
the  only cause which he can bring      
forward4 ,the very first question1      
then1 which arises is1 ,what is there   
upon which chance may  operate8 ,what   
are the conditions from which the       
probabilities may  be calculated8 ,mr4  
,darwin assumes1 and no doubt correctly1
 that  minute variations are continually
 taking place4 ,but as these  variations
 are the result of accident ,footnote3  
,if they are not  the result of         
accident1 we again see design and need a
 designer4  they will take place in     
various directions2 some of them will   
have  a beneficial1 some of them a      
noxious tendency4 ,as1 moreover1 they   
are supposed to be very small at each   
step1 the difference of  advantage in   
the case of different individuals must  
be also very  small1 and will not be    

likely to produce any considerable      
difference in the chances of pairing4   
,but in order that any  variation may be
 perpetuated and increased1 the pairing 
of  similarly affected individuals is   
necessary4 ,parents1 in which the       
variations took opposite directions1    
would probably have offspring  of the   
normal type1 the opposite variations    
neutralizing each  other4 ,and this must
 be repeated again and again2 and with  
every  repetition of the process        
required1 the probabilities against it  
would rapidly increase4 ,thus1 supposing
 that in the first  generation the      
proportion of favourable conditions were
 such1 that  of those animals that      
paired there were four of each sex that 
had  them to three that wanted them1 the
 chances that any given pair  were alike
 in possessing them would be represented
 by the product  #d_/g x #d_/g1 or      
#af_/di4 ,hence1 the chances would be   
rather more than  two to one against it4
 ,in the next generation it would be    

#bef_/bdja1 or more than eight to one1  
and so on4 ,footnote3 ,this is  given   
merely as an illustration of the nature 
of the calculation4  ,in any actual case
 the conditions would be infinitely more
  complex1 but the calculation1 if it   
could be made at all1 must be  made on  
this principle4    ,but next1 we have   
not to do with one series of changes    
only1 but  with a vast number of        
different series going on in different  
directions1 if we are to have a large   
variety of animals produced  from a     
common stock4 ,all the probabilities    
against the separate  variations must be
 combined1 not by addition1 but by      
multiplication1 so that the             
probabilities against the production  of
 all these separate forms become        
enormous4    ,against all this          
improbability ,mr4 ,darwin brings       
forward the  supposed advantages which  
these variations give to their          
possessors4 ,but here again a new       
element is introduced into the          

calculation4 ,it is assumed1 in the very
 statement of the question1  that the   
process of adaptation has already taken 
place2 the  original stock must have    
been adapted to the circumstances under 
which they existed1 or in their case the
 whole theory fails4 ,if1  then1 a fresh
 adaptation is wanted1 it must be       
because a change in  external           
circumstances must have taken place4 ,in
 order that a new  variety may be       
established there must be a concurrence 
between the  change of external         
circumstances and the change in the     
animals4  ,here we get a new1 and a     
large factor for our multiplication4    
,this argument may be1 perhaps1 made    
clearer by an illustration4  ,mr4       
,darwin has written a very interesting  
book on the  fertilization of orchids by
 means of insects4 ,according to his    
view all insects are descended from one 
common type1 and all  orchids are also  
descended from one parent2 but we meet  
with  insects and orchids in pairs1 each

 perfectly adapted to the other4  ,we   
will suppose that a change takes place  
in a particular orchid1  that the       
nectary recedes to a greater distance   
from the point to  which the insect can 
penetrate1 and so an advantage is given 
to  those insects in which the          
haustellum is of a length above the     
average4 ,this may have a slight        
tendency to increase the number of  such
 insects2 but then it will have an      
opposite tendency in the  case of the   
orchid4 ,it cannot1 of course1 be       
supposed that the  variation1 which is  
only partial in the insect1 is universal
 in  the plant4 ,the unchanged insects  
will therefore be confined to the       
unchanged flowers1 while the changed    
insects will be indifferent  on the     
subject1 as they will be able to reach  
the nectary in any  case4 ,hence1 an    
advantage will be given to the unchanged
 flower1  which will be more likely to  
be fertilized1 and the two lines of     
variation will move in opposite         

directions4    ,but next1 the variation 
in the insects and the flowers must take
  place at the same time and the same   
place1 or no result will  follow to the 
insect1 while the new variety of orchid 
must perish  for want of an insect to   
fertilize it4 ,it is this which makes   
the  supposition of unlimited time      
almost useless1 because just in         
proportion as the time is increased the 
probability of two  independent events  
happening simultaneously is diminished4 
,but even supposing this difficulty out 
of the way1 we meet with an  immediate  
repetition of it4 ,the insect derives an
 advantage from  its increased          
haustellum1 but what advantage does the 
plant derive  from its retiring nectary8
 ,how does that help it in the struggle 
of life8 ,but if it produces no         
beneficial result1 the variation        
according to the theory must drop4      
,hence we should arrive at an  insect   
suited for a new form of the flower1 but
 no flower suited  to the new form of   

the insect4    ,if1 then1 we reject the 
idea of superintendence and design1 we  
have on the one hand an enormous        
antecedent improbability1 while  on the 
other hand we have only a very small    
power by which a  direction may be given
 to the course of events1 since by the  
hypothesis in any one generation the    
change1 and consequently the  superior  
advantage1 is exceedingly small1 and    
there is a strong  tendency in related  
changes1 as in the case of the orchid   
and  insect1 to move in opposite        
directions4    ,but next1 in the        
varieties of animals with which we are  
acquainted1 there is a certain connexion
 between the differences  of independent
 organs1 for which this theory does not 
help us to  account4 ,thus1 for         
instance1 according to this theory the  
canine  and the feline races are        
descended from a common ancestor4 ,but  
there are several points of difference  
between a cat and a dog4  ,there are the
 differences in the form of jaws1 in the

 dentition2  in the muscles by which the
 jaws are moved1 and in the feet and    
claws4 ,all animals of the cat tribe    
agree in all these respects1  so do all 
animals of the dog tribe4 ,we never find
 a cat's head  combined with the feet of
 a dog4 ,why is this8 ,mr4 ,darwin      
attempts  to account for it by his      
supposed law of correlation of growth1  
but1 as has been already shown1 any such
 law1 being by ,mr4  ,darwin's          
definition the observed sequence of     
events and nothing  more1 is utterly    
useless1 when it is brought forward as a
 cause  for those events4 ,on this point
 the theory completely breaks down4     
#c4 ,the theory does not account for any
 changes which are not  immediately     
beneficial4 ,footnote3 ,in the ,origin  
of ,species 7,ed4  #ahgb7 ,mr4 ,darwin  
makes an admission which is virtually a 
giving-up  of his whole theory4 ,he     
says1 ,in many other cases modifications
  are probably the direct result of the 
laws of variation or of  growth1        

independently of any good having been   
thus gained2 but  even such structures  
have often1 as we may feel assured1 been
  subsequently taken advantage of1 pp4  
#afe1 #aff4 ,here1 then1 we  have a     
preparation for future circumstances1   
which surely implies  design4 ,if any   
rudimentary advance is made in the      
organism1 if1  for instance1 the        
rudiments of a new bone1 or joint1 or   
organ of  sense are developed1 the      
nascent organ must1 according to the    
hypothesis of minute changes1 be useless
 in the first instance4  ,hence it would
 confer no advantage in the struggle of 
life2 there  would be no tendency       
towards its preservation and growth4    
,this  becomes a very important         
consideration1 when certain important   
differences in animal structure and     
habits are to be accounted  for4 ,how1  
for instance1 could the mammary glands  
be developed in  oviparous creatures8   
,mr4 ,darwin regards them as originating
 in  cutaneous glands1 developed in the 

pouch of the marsupials4 ,but  his      
grounds for this statement are very     
meagre4 ,to a great extent  they rest on
 what an ,american ,naturalist believes 
he has seen2  and besides1 the          
ornithorhyncus1 which has no pouch1 and 
which is  lower in the scale of life    
than the marsupials1 by ,mr4 ,darwin's  
own admission 7,o4 ,s41 p4 #aij71       
possesses the glands4 ,mr4 ,mivart's    
question 7,darwin1 ,o4 ,s41 p4 #ahi7 is 
a very pertinent one4    ,another point 
which this view fails to explain1 is the
  determination of the line of          
development in particular directions  at
 different periods4 ,at one time it is  
most marked in fishes1 at  another in   
reptiles1 at another in mammals4 ,how is
 this to be  accounted for8    #d4 ,the 
experience of cattle-breeders does not  
warrant the  assumption that the        
principle of natural selection has more 
than a  limited operation4 ,no case has 
as yet been brought forward in  which   
varieties have been produced which were 

not capable of  interbreeding4 ,apart   
from their experience there is not a    
particle  of evidence in favour of the  
assertion that races which cannot be    
made to breed together can be descended 
from a common stock4 ,the  unlimited    
application of this principle is        
therefore a pure  assumption4    #e4 ,to
 this must be added the circumstance    
that no authenticated  instance of      
variation by natural selection can be   
brought forward4  ,it is true that this 
is not a very important argument1       
because our  knowledge of those classes 
of animals in which natural selection   
could act is even now very incomplete2  
and our knowledge of their  past history
 is still more limited1 so that we are  
not in a  condition to prove a negative4
 ,but in such a case as this the onus   
of proof should surely lie on the other 
side4 ,it is for those who  would assert
 the theory to bring forward positive   
proof of it4  ,there is1 however1 one   
point in ,mr4 ,darwin's view of         

domesticated  animals which tells       
against his theory4 ,the cat remains    
unchanged1  because from its vagrant    
habits man has no control over its      
pairing ,footnote3 ,darwin's ,animals   
and ,plants1 vol4 ii4 p4  #bcf44 ,now   
considering the variety of conditions   
under which cats  exist1 here is surely 
a great opening for natural selection4  
,but  it has produced no results4    ,we
 come now to the theory of ,sexual      
,selection1 which is to account  for    
those peculiarities and distinctions    
which can have no  beneficial effect in 
the struggle of life1 and which are     
accounted  for on the supposition that  
they render their possessors more       
agreeable to the opposite sex1 and so   
facilitate pairing1 so that  those      
animals which possess them in a         
remarkable degree would have  the       
greatest chance of continuing their     
race4 ,the case on which  ,mr4 ,darwin  
mainly rests his argument is that of    
birds1 in which  the males are          

frequently distinguished by exquisite   
colours and  very graceful markings1 and
 in which also the proceedings of the   
sexes can1 in many cases1 be more easily
 watched4    ,it is in maintaining this 
theory that ,mr4 ,darwin has such       
frequent  recourse to what may be called
 the argumentum ad ignorantiam4  ,if    
such and such organs or ornaments were  
not designed for this  or that          
particular object1 then we do not know  
of what use they  are4 ,footnote3 ,for  
instance1 ,descent of ,man1 vol4 ii4 pp4
 #bhd4  #cii4 ,this maybe very true1 but
 it proves nothing1 unless we  assume   
that we are or ought to be acquainted   
with1 the use and  object of everything 
in nature4 ,and it involves another and 
a very  wide question4 ,there are       
certain tastes which seem to be inherent
  in our nature1 and there are certain  
external objects which afford           
gratification to those tastes4 ,must we 
view this coincidence as  merely        
accidental8 or is it a part of the      

design of the world that  it should     
minister not only to our needs1 but also
 to our  enjoyments8 ,mr4 ,darwin does  
not reject the idea of an ,author and   
,designer of ,nature1 is he then        
prepared to assert that beauty did  not 
form a part of the design as well as    
utility8 ,footnote3 ,in  the ,origin of 
,species1 p #aei1 ,mr4 ,darwin does seem
 to assert  this2 but he says in        
conclusion1 ,how the sense of beauty in 
its  simplest form--that is1 the        
reception of a peculiar kind of         
pleasure from certain colours1 forms1   
and sounds--was first  developed in the 
mind of man and of the lower animals is 
a very  obscure subject1 p4 #afb4 ,to   
,mr4 ,darwin1 with his present views1   
it may well be obscure2 but it presents 
no obscurity at all to  those who       
believe that the universe in all its    
details was  designed1 and its formation
 superintended1 by a loving ,father1    
whose will was that it should not only  
supply the needs1 but also  minister to 

the enjoyment of all ,his creatures1 nor
 to those who  in every form of beauty1 
physical1 intellectual1 or moral1 behold
  a far-off reflexion of the glory of   
the ,invisible ,creator4 ,if he  is not 
prepared to assert this1 he must admit  
the possibility that  many things exist 
whose sole object is to minister to that
 sense  of beauty which is probably     
possessed by other beings besides       
ourselves4    ,mr4 ,darwin admits that  
many other causes1 beside the supposed  
preference on the part of one sex for   
certain material adornments  possessed  
by the other1 influence the pairing of  
animals4 ,in a  very large number of    
cases the female is quite passive in the
  matter4 ,the question is decided by a 
battle between the males1 and  the      
female seems1 as a matter of course1 to 
become the mate of the  conqueror4 ,in  
many other cases pairing seems to be the
 result of  accident2 the two sexes pair
 as they happen to meet each other4     
,the great points on which ,mr4 ,darwin 

rests his argument are that  in some    
cases1 on the approach of breeding-time1
 certain  ornamental appendages become  
more highly developed or more           
brilliantly coloured1 ,footnote3        
,descent of ,man1 vol4 ii4 p4 #hj4  and 
that in many cases the males1 when      
courting the females1 are  observed to  
display their ornaments before them4    
,footnote3 ,ibid4  vol4 ii4 p4 #hf1 et  
seq4 but then there are other facts1    
which ,mr4  ,darwin4 also notices1 which
 detract more than he seems willing to  
allow1 from the relevancy of these      
facts4 ,the development of  ornaments at
 breeding-time sometimes takes place in 
both sexes1  indicating some latent     
connexion with the reproductive organs2 
thus the comb of the domestic hen       
becomes a bright red1 as well as  that  
of the cock4 ,it would appear then that 
the object of the  change is not to     
render the cock more attractive to the  
hens1 for  how could it serve the hens  
7if the choice lies with them7 to be    

made more attractive to the cocks8 ,then
 again an old hen who is  past laying1  
often assumes1 to a considerable extent1
 the plumage  of the cock4 ,when these  
ornaments are the exclusive possession  
of  the male1 they are often displayed  
for other purposes than the             
gratification of the female4 ,the       
possessors seem to be conscious  of     
their beauty1 and to take a pleasure in 
displaying it to any  spectators4       
,very great beauty and brilliancy of    
colour is often found in cases  in which
 it can have nothing whatever to do with
 the relation  between the sexes4 ,thus1
 a vast number of caterpillars are      
remarkable for their beauty2 but in     
their immature state it can  have no    
relation to sexual selection2 and if it 
may1 or rather  must1 have a different  
object in one case1 what ground have we 
for  assuming that it may not have a    
different object in the other8          
,again1 we are not in a position to form
 any opinion as to the  causes which    

really influence the pairing of animals 
when choice  is exercised4 ,we have no  
certain knowledge upon the important    
question whether the ideal of beauty1 if
 possessed by the lower  animals at all1
 is in all1 or even in many cases1 in   
accordance  with our own4 ,we1 for      
instance1 admire a male humming-bird2   
what  certainty have we that he is      
equally beautiful in the eyes of his    
mate8 ,in cases where we have reason to 
believe that deliberate  selection has  
taken place1 we do not know that that   
selection was  influenced by only one   
condition--that of beauty4 ,there may   
have  been a thousand causes at work of 
which we know nothing4 ,mr4  ,darwin    
brings forward an instance in which the 
owner of a number  of peahens wished    
them to breed with a peacock of a       
particular  variety1 while they showed a
 deliberate preference for another      
bird2 and he supposes that their        
preference was decided by the  plumage4 
,but there might have been another      

cause--at least the  circumstances as   
related by him seem to suggest it--which
 would  give a very different turn to   
the affair4 ,the favoured peacock1      
spoken of as old1 ,footnote3 ,descent of
 ,man1 vol4 ii4 p4 #aai4  was probably  
an old friend of the hens1 while his    
unsuccessful  rival seems to have been a
 new introduction4 ,the preference shown
  by the hens would in this case be     
fully accounted for1 without  supposing 
them to have exhibited any choice in the
 matter of  plumage4    ,then there are 
a vast number of peculiarities which are
 certainly  not ornamental in our eyes1 
but which are confined to the male  sex4
 ,they are1 so far as we can tell1 of no
 service whatever in  the struggle of   
life4 ,with reference to these ,mr4     
,darwin's  argument seems to be         
this1--,they can serve no other purpose 
with  which we are acquainted1 therefore
 they must be attractive to the         
female--therefore they must be acquired 
by sexual selection4 ,such  arguments as

 these cannot carry much weight4        
,footnote3 ,descent of  ,man1 vol ii p  
#bhd4    ,on the whole1 we can hardly   
come to any other conclusion than that  
the theory of sexual selection is not   
proved4 ,in many cases it is  known that
 such selection is not the result of    
choice2 in other  cases1 where choice   
seems probable1 we have no ground for   
believing that external appearance is   
the sole ground of that  choice4 ,it may
 exercise some influence1 but that is   
all4 ,even if  admitted1 there are many 
things which cannot be accounted for by 
it without very extravagant assumptions4
 ,it cannot then be  admitted as        
covering the large classes of phenomena 
left  unaccounted for by the theory of  
natural selection4    ,so far as the    
lower animals are concerned1 the results
 to which an  examination of ,mr4       
,darwin's views has led us may be summed
 up in  the following propositions3--   
#a4 ,that the two causes1 natural and   
sexual selection1 have  probably        

exercised some influence in the         
modification of animal  forms2 but that 
the laws of probability preclude our    
entertaining  the belief that these     
causes can have had1 by themselves1 and 
apart from a superintending power1      
anything beyond a very limited          
operation4    #b4 ,that in cases where  
there have been related changes in      
different parts of the same organism1 or
 in different organisms1  the inadequacy
 of these two causes is virtually       
admitted by the  introduction of certain
 supposed laws2 and that these laws1    
being  defined by ,mr4 ,darwin to be no 
more than the ascertained sequence  of  
events1 cannot be regarded as efficient 
causes1 and so cannot  supply the       
defect4    #c4 ,that there are          
particular points in the chain of life1 
in which  the transition from one form  
to another is so great1 and so          
incapable of graduation1 that it is     
impossible to suppose that  these two   
causes can have been adequate to produce

 it4 ,of this a  notable instance is to 
be found in the transition from         
oviparous  animals to the mammalia4     
,we come now to the consideration of the
 origin of man1 which ,mr4  ,darwin1 in 
his last work1 ascribes also to natural 
and sexual  selection4 ,his view is1    
that man is descended from some family  
of  anthropomorphous apes1 and that all 
those enormous differences  which1 as he
 admits1 exist between the highest ape  
and the most  degraded member of the    
human race1 are differences of degree   
only1  and not of kind2 that all our    
intellectual wealth1 and all our  moral 
laws1 are simply the development of     
faculties and ideas  which were         
possessed in a ruder form by the        
creatures from whom  man is descended4  
,so far as man's physical constitution  
is concerned1 there is  undoubtedly     
something to be said in favour of this  
view4 ,for man's  bodily frame is       
composed of the same elements1 and      
moulded upon  the same general plan as  

that of the higher apes1 and1 what is   
still more remarkable1 it retains1 in a 
rudimentary form1 certain  muscles and  
organs which are fully developed and    
answer important  purposes in many of   
the quadrumana4 ,of these the tail is a 
remarkable instance4 ,but when the      
differences between the physical        
peculiarities of man1 and those of his  
supposed progenitors are  examined1 the 
theory of natural selection collapses   
entirely1 for  the development has taken
 the form which would be most           
disadvantageous in the struggle of life4
 ,this is very clearly put  by the ,duke
 of ,argyll4,footnote3 ,recent          
,speculations on ,primeval  ,man1 in    
,good ,words1 ,april1 #ahfh4    ,the    
unclothed and unprotected condition of  
the human body1 its  comparative        
slowness of foot2 the absence of teeth  
adapted for  prehension or for defence2 
the same want of power for similar      
purposes in the hands and fingers2 the  
bluntness of the sense of  smell1 so as 

to render it useless for the detection  
of prey which  is concealed2--all these 
are features which stand in fixed and   
harmonious relation to the mental powers
 of man4 ,but1 apart from  these1 they  
would place him at an immense           
disadvantage in the  struggle for       
existence4 ,this1 therefore1 is not the 
direction in  which the blind forces of 
selection could ever work 4444 ,man must
  have had human proportions of mind    
before he could afford to lose  bestial 
proportions of body4    ,but it is in   
the intellectual and spiritual part of  
man's nature  that the greatest         
difficulty in the way of the application
 of  these theories arises4 ,the        
strongest argument of all against them  
is one which is incapable of proof1     
since it arises not from facts  around  
us1 but from our own                    
self-consciousness--our realization of  
our own powers--and so1 to each         
individual man it must vary in  apparent
 strength1 in proportion as he realizes 

what he is1 and  what it is in his power
 to become4 ,the very outcry that has   
been  raised against ,mr4 ,darwin's     
proposition is a proof of this4 ,the    
theory of the descent of man1 as he     
propounds it1 was felt to be  an outrage
 upon the universal instincts of        
humanity4 ,but1 because  this objection 
rests upon such a foundation1 it is     
incapable of  being duly weighed and    
investigated as an argument1 and we     
proceed  therefore to such              
considerations as are within our reach4 
,first of all it is desirable to dispose
 of one of the stock  arguments in      
favour of the theory4 ,that argument is1
 that the  difference between the lowest
 type of savage and the highest type  of
 civilized man--between a ,fuegian or an
 ,australian on the one  hand1 and a    
,newton1 a ,shakspeare1 or a ,humboldt1 
on the other1--is  quite as great as    
that between the higher forms of ape and
 the  lowest forms of humanity4 ,but in 
this argument there is a fatal          

confusion of ideas4 ,the capacity for   
acquisition is confounded  with the     
opportunity for acquisition4 ,that the  
savage is in  possession of but very few
 ideas does not prove that he is        
incapable of more2 it may equally well  
arise from the fact that he  had had no 
opportunity of acquiring more4 ,the only
 way to test the  question is by putting
 a savagoe from his earliest infancy1   
under  the same favourable circumstances
 as the child of civilisation4          
,whenever this experiment has been      
tried1 and our missionaries have  had   
many opportunities of trying it1 the    
difference has either not  appeared at  
all1 or has proved to be very trifling4 
,mr4 ,darwin  himself seems to have been
 very much surprised at what he saw in  
some natives of ,terra del ,fuego1 who  
were for a time his  companions on board
 the ,beagle4 ,the ,fuegians rank       
amongst the  lowest barbarians1 but ,i  
was continually struck with surprise how
  closely the three natives on board    

,h4,m4,s4 ',beagle1' who had lived  some
 years in ,england1 and could talk a    
little ,english1 resembled  us in       
disposition1 and in most of our mental  
faculties4  ,footnote3 ,descent of ,man1
 vol4 i4 p #cd ,and these ,fuegians had 
not been educated from their infancy1   
they had only come to  ,england later in
 life1 and were thus under an           
incalculable  disadvantage4 ,had they   
been heirs to such an intellectual      
inheritance as fell to the lot of ,mr4  
,darwin1 there is nothing  extravagant  
in the supposition that they might have 
proved  themselves equal to him in the  
ability to make use of it4 ,the         
comparison then proves to be quite      
illusory2 but it draws our  attention to
 a fact which is of very high importance
 in our  investigation of the difference
 between man and all other animals4     
,man alone seems to be capable of laying
 up what may be termed an  external     
store of intellectual wealth4 ,other    
animals in the state  of nature make1 so

 far as we know1 no intellectual        
advances4 ,the  bee constructs its cell1
 the bird builds its nest precisely as  
its  progenitors did in the earliest    
dawn of history4 ,there is a            
possibility that some advance1 though a 
very small one1 may be  made by animals 
brought under the control of man4 ,it is
 said1 for  instance1 that a young      
pointer dog will sometimes point at game
  without any training4 ,but in this    
case the acquired knowledge is          
congenital1 and is therefore to be      
regarded as a development  brought about
 by superintended selection4 ,but with  
man none of the  acquired knowledge is  
innate4 ,it is a treasure entirely      
external  to himself until he has       
appropriated it by study of some kind or
  other4 ,there is no reason to believe 
that any advance in  intellectual power 
has been made by man1 in his collective 
capacity1 since his first appearance on 
earth4 ,various individuals  have       
varying powers1 but these differences   

are no result of  development1 since    
they may often be found among members of
 the  same family1 who have been        
subjected to the same discipline1 and   
enjoyed the same educational advantages4
 ,it follows that the gulf  between the 
ape and the lowest type of humanity is  
almost if not  quite as great as between
 the ape and the highest type4 ,the     
savage  does not in any way help to     
bridge over that gulf4    ,but it is    
said that the moral and intellectual    
faculties which man  possesses1 and     
which he looks upon as the great badge  
of his  superiority1 are in truth only  
different in degree and not in kind     
from those possessed by the lower       
animals4 ,but the grounds on  which this
 assertion is based are wonderful in    
their tenuity4 ,dogs  are possessed of  
self-consciousness because they         
sometimes emit  sounds in their sleep   
from which it is concluded that they    
dream4  ,footnote3 ,descent of ,man1    
vol4 i4 p4 #fb4 ,can we feel sure that  

an old dog1 with an excellent memory1   
and some power of  imagination1 as shown
 by his dreams1 never reflects on his   
past  pleasures in the chace8 ,and this 
would be a form of self-  consciousness4
 ,our duty to our neighbour is entirely 
the result  of social instinct1         
,footnote3 ,descent of ,man1 vol4 i4 pp4
 #gj-  #ajf4 and our duty to our ,god   
the development of a belief which  has  
its origin in dreams4 ,footnote3 ,ibid1 
p4 #ff4    ,it is impossible for us     
satisfactorily to meet these assertions 
with a direct negative1 ,footnote3      
,there are some who think that  this    
statement may be directly refuted4      
,their views will be found  in the      
,,quarterly ,,reveiw1 ,july1 #ahga4 for 
this simple reason1 that  we have no    
means whatever of knowing what ideas are
 present in the  minds of the lower     
animals1 or even what communications    
pass  between them4 ,for anything we can
 tell to the contrary1 the bark  of a   
dog may be as articulate to his         

fellow-dogs as our speech is  to our    
fellow-men1 while on the other hand to  
the dog our speech  may be as           
inarticulate as his bark is to us4 ,but 
our total  ignorance of the mental state
 of animals which have been the         
companions of man from the very earliest
 ages1 our utter inability  to hold any 
conversation with them1 is in itself a  
proof of the  wide gulf that separates  
them from us4 ,put two men of the most  
widely separated races on a desert isle 
together1 and a very  little time will  
elapse before they are able to hold some
  communication with each other4 ,if    
then the difference between man  and the
 lower animals were a difference of the 
same kind as that  between the civilized
 man and the savage1 though greater in  
degree1 surely in so many thousand years
 something might have been  done to open
 a way for intellectual communication2  
some  development of the faculties of   
the lower creatures would have  been    
perceived1 some means of interchanging  

ideas would have been  discovered4 ,if  
,mr4 ,darwin had had for his companions 
on board the  ,beagle1 instead of three 
,fuegians1 as many ,gorillas or         
,chimpanzees1 would he1 at the end of   
the voyage1 have been able to  report   
any approximation1 at all to ,european  
mental  characteristics1 or even to     
those of the lowest savage8 ,but if the 
difference be only one of degree1 some  
approximation ought to have  taken      
place4    ,as then we can have no direct
 knowledge of the moral and             
intellectual powers of animals1 we can  
only judge of them from  their actions1 
and other external signs4 ,one great    
mark of  difference has already been    
noticed4 ,man has1 other animals have   
not1 the power of laying up an external 
treasure of intellectual  acquirements4 
,then there are certain arts which seem 
to be  indispensable to man in his      
lowest state--no savage is so low that  
he is utterly destitute of them--no     
animal makes any pretence to  them4     

,such are the designing1 construction1  
and use of tools4 ,mr4  ,darwin asserts 
that in certain cases--very rare        
ones--apes have  been known to use      
stones to break open nuts2 but the mere 
use of a  stone is a very different     
thing from the conception and deliberate
  formation of a tool1 however rude4    
,then there is the kindling of  fire1   
and the use of it for the purpose of    
cooking2 and lastly1  the preparation   
and the wearing of clothes4 ,the tools  
or the  clothes may be of the rudest    
kind1 the tools may be formed from a    
flint1 and the clothes from bark or     
skin1 but in the preparation  of each   
there are signs of intellectual power1  
of which we find no  indications        
whatever in the lower animals4          
,another important difference between   
man and all other animals  lies in the  
fact1 that whatever an animal does it   
does perfectly  from the first1 but it  
makes no improvements4 ,a bird's first  
nest  is perfect4 ,with man the case is 

the reverse1 it is only by many  trials1
 many failures1 that he attains to skill
 in any operation1  but then he goes    
forward4 ,arts improve from generation  
to  generation4 ,this seems to show that
 the faculties of man differ  from those
 of animals in kind1 and not in degree  
only4    ,the question also arises1 if  
man has been produced from an           
anthropomorphous ape by a process of    
natural development1 how is  it that the
 same process has not gone on in other  
lines8 ,the dog1  the horse1 and the    
elephant are at least equal in          
intelligence and  sagacity to the       
highest known apes4 ,such a development 
from them  cannot have proceeded through
 the line of the apes4 ,if these        
different orders are at all connected it
 must be through some  remote common    
ancestor4 ,why then has this development
 come to an  abrupt termination in some 
cases and not in all8 ,it may indeed be 
said that the dog and the horse are     
indebted for their  intelligence to the 

inherited results of long intercourse   
with  man1 but this cannot be the case  
with the elephant1 which is never  known
 to breed in captivity4 ,nor is there   
any reason to believe  that the present 
intelligence of the elephant is recently
  developed4 ,why then has it been      
arrested in its course8    ,whether or  
not we assume the theory of development 
to be wholly or  partially correct in   
reference to the lower animals1 we must 
admit  that it is true of man1 but in a 
sense totally different from that  which
 ,mr4 ,darwin suggests4 ,the development
 of which he is the  advocate is a      
development of race1 in which the       
advance made by  each individual        
generation is exceedingly small1 while  
the  difference in remote generations1  
the accumulated advance of  successive  
generations1 is great4 ,in man1 on the  
contrary1 there  is no reason whatever  
to believe that there has been any      
advance  at all in the race from the    
very earliest periods--that either in   

physical power or intellectual ability  
the present generation of  men1 taken as
 a whole1 are in any way superior to    
their most  remote ancestors4 ,the      
development of which man is especially  
capable is the development of the       
individual1 that development  being not 
physical1 but intellectual and moral1   
and being in a  great degree dependent  
on the will and perseverance of the     
individual1 and very little on external 
circumstances4 ,the result  of these    
individual developments has been the    
accumulation of a  vast fund of wealth1 
useful arts1 sciences1 literature1 which
 form  the common possession of the     
whole race1 but do not necessarily      
imply the slightest advance in any      
particular individual--that  advance    
being dependent1 not on the possession  
of those treasures1  but on the use made
 of them4 ,in the case of man then      
development  does certainly exist1 but  
it takes a line totally distinct from   
that which ,mr4 ,darwin advocates1 and  

thus forms another broad line  of       
demarcation between man and the most    
advanced of the lower  animals4    ,it  
appears then that the faculties of man  
differ generically from  those of the   
animals4 ,a new order of things seems to
 have  commenced with the appearance of 
man on the earth--an order in  which the
 highest place was to be maintained by  
intellectual  instead of physical power4
 ,no mere process of evolution then will
  account for man's origin4 ,his        
physical nature may have been formed  in
 that way2 but we cannot believe that   
his intellectual and moral  nature were 
developed from any lower creatures4     
,only some special  ,creative           
interference can account for his        
existence4    ,so far then as it tends  
to negative the continued operation of  
the  ,creator1 the theory of evolution  
is untenable4 ,like that of  ,laplace1  
it fails to give an adequate cause for  
existing  phenomena4 ,but it seems      
probable1 as will be seen in the next   

chapter1 that both theories have in them
 much of truth4 ,they  cannot point out 
the cause of the universe1 but they may 
give us a  more or less accurate view of
 the manner in which that cause         
operated4 ,the facts brought forward by 
geologists have been shown  not to be   
incompatible with interpretations which 
the ,mosaic  ,record readily admits1    
though they conflict with existing      
notions  upon certain points4 ,in no one
 then of the three sciences which  have 
been supposed to be specially           
antagonistic to that record1 is  there  
anything to be found which can be       
maintained as a reasonable  ground for  
doubting that that record is1 what it   
has always been  held to be by the      
,church1 a direct ,revelation from the  
,creator4            ,,chapter ,v4      
,,science ,a ,,help ,,to                
,,interpretation4      ,it is now clear 
that there is nothing in the ,mosaic    
,record itself1  which is contradicted  
by any scientific discovery1 and that   

all  the alleged difficulties arise     
either from interpretations  prematurely
 adopted1 or from theories which1 when  
carefully  examined1 are found to be    
defective1 but which may nevertheless   
contain in them a large element of      
truth4 ,but if scientific  discoveries  
are available for the refutation of     
erroneous  interpretations1 the         
probability is that when rightly        
understood  they will help us to arrive 
at the true meaning1 since the ,works   
of ,god are1 beyond all other things1   
likely to throw light on that  portion  
of ,his ,word in which those ,works are 
described4 ,nor are  the theories to be 
passed over--the greater the amount of  
truth  which they embody the greater    
will be the likelihood that they  will  
receive help from1 as well as throw     
light upon1 such a  record2 and thus we 
shall have additional evidence that the 
,word1  the ,work1 and the ,intellect1  
which has scrutinized and interpreted   
the ,work1 are all derived from the same

 source4 ,we proceed1  therefore1 to    
inquire whether these facts and theories
 do in any  way elucidate the concise   
statements of ,scripture1 so that we may
  be enabled to arrive at a somewhat    
clearer idea of the meaning of  this    
most ancient document1 and be enabled to
 entertain somewhat  more distinct views
 of the manner in which the ,divine     
,architect  saw fit to accomplish ,his  
,work4    ,in pursuing this             
investigation two points must be        
carefully kept  in mind2 the first is   
the distinction between theory and      
conjecture on the one hand1 and well    
ascertained facts on the  other4 ,we    
shall have much to do with theory1 and  
with conjectural  interpretations of    
observed facts4 ,these can never stand  
on the  same footing as the facts       
themselves1 but can only be regarded as 
invested with greater or less           
probability4 ,if it is found that  these
 theories do explain many observed      
facts1 that they harmonize  with1 and as

 it were dovetail into any proposed     
interpretation of  which the words of   
,moses are capable2 and still more if   
that  interpretation actually completes 
the defective points of the  theories1  
and supplies an adequate cause for facts
 hitherto  inexplicable--then the       
presumption is a very strong one that   
the  interpretation thus supported is at
 all events an approximation to  the    
true one4    ,the second point to be    
carefully kept in mind is the very      
imperfect state of scientific knowledge 
even at the present time4  ,as far as   
the matter in hand is concerned1 the    
facts which are  ascertained beyond all 
possibility of doubt1 are very few4 ,new
  means of investigation have very      
recently been discovered1 and as  a     
consequence new sources of information  
have been pointed out1  new fields of   
research have been laid open4 ,twenty   
years ago the  spectroscope was a thing 
undreamt of--now astronomers reckon it  
as  of equal value with the telescope1  

while chemists find it  indispensable to
 their researches4 ,who shall say that  
the next  twenty years may not witness  
some invention of equal importance1     
which shall throw upon us a fresh flood 
of light from some  unexpected quarter8 
,if then the principle which has        
hitherto been  maintained is correct1   
that all our difficulties arise from    
interpretations based upon insufficient 
knowledge1 but maintained  as if of     
equal authority with the record itself1 
there is a great  danger lest after a   
time the same difficulty should         
recur--that  the discovery of fresh     
facts may discredit interpretations     
based  upon our present knowledge4 ,any 
interpretation therefore to which  we   
may be led by the scientific views at   
present entertained1 must  be regarded  
as only provisional and tentative1      
liable at any time  to be either        
confirmed1 amended1 or rejected1 as     
fresh discoveries  may be made4         
,before we enter upon a detailed        

examination of the records of the       
several days1 there are two preliminary 
points to which attention  must be      
directed4 ,we shall have to make        
frequent reference to  law4 ,it will be 
well that the sense in which the term is
 used  should be made clear4 ,the       
account of the ,first ,day's ,work will 
lead to the recent theory of the        
,correlation of ,forces4 ,as this is    
probably a new subject to many1 some    
previous explanation of it  will be     
necessary4    ,,section #a4 ,,of ,,law4 
,footnote3 ,this subject is fully       
treated in the  ,duke of ,argyll's      
,reign of ,law4    ,law1 in its original
 and proper sense1 is the expression to 
an  inferior of the will of a superior1 
which the inferior has it in  his power 
to obey or to resist1 but resistance to 
which entails a  penalty more or less   
severe1 in proportion to the moral      
turpitude1  or the injurious            
consequences of the act of disobedience4
 ,in this  its strict sense the law can 

only exist in connection with beings    
possessed of reason to understand it1 of
 power to obey it1 and of  free will to 
determine whether they will obey it or  
not4 ,when  these three conditions are  
absent law can have no existence4 ,but  
the result of perfect law1 perfectly    
obeyed1 would be perfect  order4 ,hence 
the observation of perfect order leads1 
by a reversed  process1 to the          
supposition of some law of which that   
order is the  result4 ,hence arose in   
the first instance the term natural     
laws1  or laws of nature4 ,events were  
found to follow each other in a  uniform
 way1 and this uniformity was thus      
sought to be accounted  for4 ,probably  
in the minds of those by whom the word  
was thus  applied in the first instance 
,nature was not the mere abstraction  it
 is now1 but an unseen power--,deity or 
subordinate to ,deity--  working        
consciously and with design4            
,footnote3 ,mr4 ,darwin1 especially in  
the ,origin of ,species1  seems         

continually to betray the existence of  
this feeling in his  own mind4 ,though  
he from time to time reminds us that by 
,nature he  means nothing but the       
aggregate of sequences of events1 or    
laws1  he yet frequently speaks of      
,nature in a way which is applicable    
only to an intelligent worker4    ,but  
this feeling has disappeared1 and now we
 are told that natural  law is the      
observed sequence of events4 ,in this   
case1 then1 the  true meaning of the    
word is entirely lost--it is no longer  
possible to speak of law as the cause of
 any event4    ,but the old sense in    
which the word was applied to natural   
phenomena had in it far more of truth   
than the modern one4 ,it was  the       
imperfect expression of the great truth 
that ,god is a ,god of  order--that     
there is a uniform procedure in ,his    
works1 because in  ,him there is no     
change1 no caprice4 ,and it is of great 
importance  to us that we should realize
 this truth1 because we are dependent   

upon the laws of nature every moment of 
our lives4 ,every conscious  act is     
performed under the conviction that the 
natural forces  which that act calls    
forth will operate in a certain         
prescribed  manner4 ,but this           
conviction1 though it restricts us to   
the limits  of the possible1 does not   
further impede the freedom of our will4 
,to a certain extent we can choose what 
action we will perform1  what forces we 
will call forth for that purpose1 and   
what  direction we will give them4      
,sometimes we can arrange our forces  so
 that they will continue to act for a   
considerable time without  any          
intervention from us2 in other cases    
continued interference is  necessary4   
,but in all these cases there is no     
interruption of the  law by which the   
working of these forces is regulated4   
,we have  then a limited control over   
these forces1 and yet they are          
unchangeable in themselves1 and in their
 mode of action4    ,when1 however1 we  

strive to ascend from our own works to  
those of  ,god1 we can no longer regard 
these forces as absolutely              
unchangeable4 ,if they are practically  
so1 it is because it is ,his  ,will that
 they should be so4 ,it is this ,will   
then which has its  expression in the   
so-called laws of nature4 ,the term now 
assumes a  sense akin to1 though not    
identical with1 its original ethical    
sense4 ,it is no longer a rule imposed  
by a superior on an  inferior1 but the  
rule by which the ,supreme ,being sees  
fit to  order ,his own ,work4 ,while    
however we admit the possibility of law 
of this kind being changed1 we have no  
reason to believe that in  the universe 
with which we have to do any such change
 has ever  taken place4 ,but this does  
not preclude the possibility of ,divine 
interference in the processes either of 
,creation or of ,providence4  ,new      
forces may from time to time be         
supplied1 new directions may  be given  
to existing forces1 without any         

variation in the laws by  which the     
action of those forces is regulated4    
,and if we believe that ,creation was a 
progressive act1 it is  rather probable 
than otherwise that such interferences  
should take  place4 ,for a long period  
perhaps the uniformity of the work might
  lead us to forget the ,being who was  
working2 but times would  arrive when   
definite stages of the work were        
accomplished1 when  higher developments 
of being were rendered possible1 and in 
the  introduction of those higher       
developments a something would be  seen 
which could not be the result of the    
processes with which we  had already    
become acquainted4 ,such interference   
would not in any  way justify the       
supposition that the designs of the     
,author of  ,nature were changed1 or    
that ,his original plan had proved      
defective4 ,the more natural inference  
would be that they were a  part of the  
plan from the first1 but that the time  
for them was  not then come4    ,it will

 be seen in the sequel that in all      
probability many of the  special acts of
 ,creation1 mentioned in the ,mosaic    
,record1 are  interferences of this     
kind2 that for long periods of time     
matters  advanced in a uniform manner2  
that the sequence of events was such  as
 our own experience would lead us to    
anticipate2 but that these  periods were
 separated from one another by the      
introduction of new  forces and new     
results4 ,of the former we may speak    
then as carried  on under the operation 
of natural laws2 the other may be       
described  as special interferences not 
antagonistic1 but supplementary1 to     
natural laws1 and forming part of the   
original design4    ,,section #b4 ,,the 
,,correlation ,,of ,,forces4            
,footnote3 ,for fuller information on   
this subject1 ,grove's  ,correlation of 
the ,physical ,forces1 or ,tyndall's    
,lectures on  ,heat considered as a     
,mode of ,motion1 may be consulted4     
,it has long been known that heat and   

light are closely connected  together4  
,the accumulation of a certain amount of
 heat is always  accompanied by the     
appearance of light4 ,but when it was   
found that  the light could be separated
 from the heat by various means1 it     
seemed possible that the two phenomena  
were simply associated4 ,it  is now1    
however1 ascertained that light and heat
 are identical in  their nature1 and    
that a vast number of other phenomena-- 
electricity1 galvanism1 magnetism1      
chemical action1 and  gravitation1 as   
well as light and heat1 are different   
manifestations of one and the same      
thing1 which is called force or  energy4
 ,in a great number of cases it is      
possible for us1 by the  use of         
appropriate means and apparatus1 to     
transform these  manifestations1 so as  
to make the same force assume a variety 
of  forms4 ,thus motion suddenly        
arrested becomes heat4 ,a rifle-ball    
when it strikes the target becomes very 
hot4 ,the heat produced by  the         

concussion against an iron shield is    
found sufficient to  ignite the powder  
in some of the newly invented           
projectiles4 ,the  best illustration1   
however1 is to be obtained from         
galvanism4 ,by  means of the ,voltaic   
battery we set free a certain amount of 
force1 and we can employ it at pleasure 
to produce an intense  light in the     
electric lamp1 or to melt metals which  
resist the  greatest heat of our        
furnaces2 it will convert a bar of iron 
into  a magnet1 or decompose water into 
its constituents1 oxygen and  hydrogen1 
or separate a metal from its combination
 with oxygen4  ,but in all these        
processes no new force is produced--the 
force  set free is unchangeable in      
itself1 and we cannot increase its      
amount4 ,owing to the imperfection of   
our instruments and our skill  a part of
 it will always escape from our control1
 and be lost to  us1 but not destroyed4 
,when1 however1 due allowance is made   
for  this loss1 the results produced are

 always in exact proportion to  the     
amount of force originally set free4    
,thus1 if we employ it to  decompose    
water1 the amount of water decomposed   
always bears an  exact proportion to the
 amount of metal which has been oxidized
 in  the cells of the battery4    ,this 
force pervades everything which comes   
within the cognizance  of our senses4   
,it exists in what are termed the       
elementary  substances of which the     
crust of the earth is composed4 ,a      
certain  amount of it seems to be       
required to maintain them in the forms  
in  which we know them2 for in many     
cases1 when two of them are made  to    
combine1 a certain amount of force is   
set free1 which commonly  makes its     
appearance as heat4 ,this seems to      
indicate that a less  amount of force   
suffices to maintain the compound body  
than was  requisite for its separate    
elements4 ,thus1 when oxygen and        
hydrogen are combined to form water     
intense heat is produced4 ,if  we wish  

to dissolve the union1 and restore the  
oxygen and hydrogen  to a gaseous state1
 we must restore the force which has    
been lost4  ,this1 however1 must be done
 by means of electricity1 as heat       
produces a different change--converting 
the water into vapour1 but  not         
dissolving the union between its        
elements4    ,force1 in the shape of    
heat1 determines the condition in which 
all  inorganic bodies exist4 ,in most   
cases we can make any given  element    
assume the form of a solid1 a fluid1 or 
a vapour1 by the  addition or           
subtraction of heat4 ,thus if a pound of
 ice at #cb  degrees be exposed to heat1
 it will gradually melt--but the water  
produced will remain unchanged in       
temperature till the last  particle of  
ice is melted--then it will begin to    
rise in  temperature2 and1 if the supply
 of heat be uniform1 it will reach  a   
temperature of #agb degrees in exactly  
the same time as was  occupied in       
melting the ice4 ,thus then the force   

which was applied  to the ice as heat   
passes into some other form so long as  
the ice  is being melted--it is no      
longer perceptible by the senses--we    
only see its effect in the change from  
the solid to the fluid  form4 ,and this 
result is brought about by a definite   
quantity of  force4 ,each of the        
inorganic materials of which the crust  
of the  earth is composed seems thus to 
require in its composition a  definite  
amount of force4    ,the life of        
vegetables is developed in the formation
 of fresh  compounds of inorganic matter
 and force4 ,no vegetable can thrive    
without sunlight1 either direct or      
diffused4 ,this supplies the  force     
which the plant combines with carbon1   
hydrogen1 and other  elements to form   
woody fibre1 starch1 oils1 and other    
vegetable  products4 ,when we kindle a  
fire1 we dissolve the union which has   
thus been formed--the carbon and        
hydrogen enter into simpler             
combinations which require less force to

 maintain them1 and the  superfluous    
force supplies us with light and heat4  
,the life of animals is developed by a  
process exactly the reverse  of         
vegetable life4 ,it is maintained by the
 destruction of the  compounds which the
 vegetable had formed4 ,these compounds 
are  taken into the body as food1 and   
after undergoing certain  modifications 
and arrangements are finally decomposed4
 ,of the  force thus set free a part    
makes its appearance as heat1           
maintaining an even temperature in the  
body1 and another part  supplies the    
power by virtue of which the muscles1   
c41 act4 ,no  manifestation of animal   
life is possible except by force thus   
set  free4 ,it seems all but certain    
that we cannot think a single  thought  
without the decomposition of an         
equivalent amount of the  brain4 ,it    
must not1 however1 be concluded that    
force and life are  identical4 ,force   
seems to be only the instrument of which
 the  higher principle of life makes use

 in its manifestations4    ,force then  
pervades the whole universe so far as it
 is cognizable  by our senses4 ,but we  
cannot conceive of force as acting1     
without  at the same time conceiving of 
something on which that force acts4     
,that something1 whatever it may be1 we 
designate matter4 ,we have  not the     
slightest idea of what matter really    
is--no man has ever  yet succeeded in   
separating it from its combination with 
force4  ,even if success were possible1 
which seems very improbable1 it is  not 
likely that matter by itself would be   
discernible by any of  our senses4 ,we  
know that two of them1 sight and        
hearing1 enable us  to perceive certain 
kinds of motion1 i4 e4 manifestations of
  force1 and this is in all probability 
the case with the rest of  them4 ,the   
existence of matter then is not known by
 scientific  proof but by inference4    
,our belief in it arises from something 
in  the constitution of our minds which 
makes it a necessary  inference4        

,there is one more point in reference to
 force which must be  noticed4 ,it is   
indestructible1 but it is capable of    
what is termed  degradation4 ,it may    
exist in various intensities and        
quantities1  and a small quantity of    
force of a higher intensity may be      
changed  into a larger quantity of force
 at a lower intensity4 ,in the  instance
 above given of the union of oxygen and 
hydrogen1 heat is  given out1 but heat  
does not suffice to dissolve that union4
 ,the  force must be supplied in the    
more intense form of ,voltaic           
,electricity4 ,but to reverse this      
process seems impossible for us4  ,as1  
however1 this is clearly explained in a 
previous volume of  this series1        
,footnote3 ,can we ,believe in          
,miracles8 p4 #aeb4 it is  not necessary
 to dwell upon it at length4    ,we may 
conclude then that the whole material   
universe is built up  of matter and     
force in various combinations1 but we   
can form no  conception of what these   

two things are in themselves2 they are  
only known to us by the effects produced
 by their union in various  proportions4
    ,,section #c4 ,,the ,,beginning4    
,in the beginning ,god created the      
heaven and the earth4    ,and the earth 
was desolate and void1 and darkness upon
 the face  of the deep4    ,these words 
carry us back to a time indefinitely    
remote4 ,eternity  and ,infinity are    
ideas which we cannot grasp1 and yet we 
cannot  avoid them4 ,if we stretch our  
imagination to conceive of the most     
distant possible period of time--the    
farthest point of space--  still we feel
 that there must have been something    
before the one1  that there must be     
something beyond the other2 and yet we  
cannot  conceive of that which has no   
beginning1 or no boundaries4 ,the  first
 verse marks out for us as it were a    
definite portion of this  limitless     
ocean4 ,in the beginning1 is the point  
from which time  begins to run--the     
heavens and the earth1 the visible      

universe  beyond which our              
investigations cannot extend4 ,whether  
other  manifestations of ,god have taken
 place in ,eternity1 or other  systems  
of worlds now exist in infinity1 we are 
not told4    ,the heavens and the earth 
then are to be considered as comprising 
the visible universe1 sun1 moon1 and    
stars1 and their  concomitants1 which   
the eye surveys1 or which scientific    
research  brings to our knowledge4 ,all 
are comprehended in this one group by   
,moses1 and recent spectroscopic        
investigations teach us that one        
general character pervades the whole4   
,every star whose light is  powerful    
enough to be analyzed1 is now known to  
comprehend in its  materials a greater  
or less number of those elementary      
substances  of which the earth and the  
sun are composed4 ,whether any of these 
worlds were called into perfect         
existence at once1 or whether they  all 
passed through various stages of        
development1 we are not told1  that in  

some of them the process of development 
is only  commencing1 while in others    
various stages of it are in progress1   
is1 as will be seen presently1 highly   
probable4 ,but the narrative  takes no  
farther notice of anything beyond our   
own group of  worlds1 and proceeds to   
describe the condition of the earth     
7probably including the whole solar     
system7 at the time at which  it        
commences4 ,its words imply such a state
 of things as  corresponds to what has  
been said in the preceding section of   
matter1 apart from force4 ,no better    
words could probably have been  chosen  
for the purpose4 ,the only word which   
seems to convey any  definite idea is in
 the following clause1 where water is   
mentioned4 ,until force was in operation
 water could not exist4  ,probably ,st4 
,augustine's interpretation is the      
correct one--the  confused mass is      
called alternately earth and water1     
because  though it was as yet neither   
one thing nor the other1 it contained   

the elements of both4 ,and the word     
water expressed its plastic  character4 
7,de ,genesi ad ,literam ,liber         
,imperfectus1 ,section #ac1  #ad47      
,one other important point in these     
words is1 that they negative  the       
eternal existence of matter4 ,the second
 verse describes it as  existing1       
because it had been called into         
existence at the bidding  of an         
,almighty ,creator1 as described in the 
first verse4    ,,section #d4 ,,the     
,,first ,,day4    ,and the ,spirit of   
,god 7was7 brooding upon the face of the
 water4    ,and ,god said1 ',let light  
be' and light was4    ,and ,god saw the 
light that it was good1 and ,god divided
 the light  from the darkness4    ,and  
,god called the light ,day1 and the     
darkness ,he called ,night4    ,and     
there was evening and there was morning1
 one day4    ,the first clause seems to 
belong rather to the period of action   
than to the precedent indefinite period 
of chaos1 and may  therefore be taken as

 marking the transition from the        
beginning  to the first day1 better than
 as belonging to that beginning  itself4
 ,the ,jewish interpretation of the     
clause is untenable in  the light of the
 doctrine of the ,correlation of the    
,physical  ,forces4 ,till force was     
evolved there could be neither air nor  
motion1 and so no wind4 ,the words of   
course bear on their face an  assertion 
of the action of the eternal ,spirit in 
the work of  ,creation2 but when we     
examine the position which they occupy1 
it  seems highly probable that they have
 beyond this a much more  definite      
signification4 ,in them a sort of       
localized action is  ascribed to the    
,spirit--a something very different from
 the idea  conveyed by the              
often-repeated phrase1 ,and ,god said4  
,what that  something may be it is hard 
for us to conceive1 harder still to     
express1 but the following              
considerations may perhaps throw some   
glimmering of light upon the matter3--  

#a4 ,there must be some point in which  
the ,creator comes into  contact1 as it 
were1 with ,his creature--a point at    
which ,his ,will  first clothes itself  
in the form of a physical fact--the     
point to  which all second causes lead  
up1 and at which they lose themselves   
in the one first cause1 the ,will of    
,god4 ,now this is what all  systems of 
philosophy require as their             
starting-point1 but it is  entirely out 
of their unaided reach4 ,but these words
 supply that  indispensable desideratum4
    #b4 ,these words come in immediate  
connexion with the evolution of  light4 
,light is throughout the ,bible         
intimately connected with the  ,deity4  
,it is ,his chosen emblem4 ,god is      
light4 ,it is ,his abode4  ,he dwelleth 
in the light inaccessible4 ,it is the   
symbol of ,his  presence1 and the means 
by which ,creation is quickened4 ,in    
,him  was life2 and the life was the    
light of men4    #c4 ,light1 as we now  
know1 is only one form of the force by  

which  the universe is upheld4 ,but the 
phenomena of light lead us to  infer the
 existence of what we call ,ether1 which
 is supposed to be  a perfectly elastic 
fluid1 imponderable1 and in fact exempt 
from  almost all the conditions to which
 matter1 as we know it1 is  subject1    
except that ,,possibly it offers        
resistance to bodies  moving in it4     
,footnote3 ,encke's comet shows signs of
 retardation1  as if moving in a        
resisting medium2 but it is possible    
that that  resistance may not arise from
 the ether1 but from the nebulous       
envelope of the sun4 ,this fluid must   
pervade the whole universe1  since it   
brings to us the light of the most      
distant star or  nebula4 ,as it is the  
medium through which light is conveyed1 
and  as light is now known to be        
identified with force of all kinds1 it  
seems by no means improbable that it is 
the medium through which  all force     
acts4    ,these words1 then1 seem to    
suggest the idea that the brooding of   

the ,spirit may have some connexion with
 the formation of that  ether which is  
indispensable to the manifestation of   
light1 and  probably to the operations  
of all force2 and that1 if so1 the      
ether may also be the point at which1   
and the medium through  which1 ,spirit  
acts upon ,matter4 ,on the one hand1 the
 facts that  force1 as used1 is         
constantly in process of degradation1   
and that  it is also constantly poured  
forth into space from the ,sun and      
,planets in the shape of heat1 and so   
lost to our system1 seem to  indicate   
that fresh supplies of it are           
continually needed2 while1  on the other
 hand1 the supply of that need seems to 
be implied in  the words1 ,by ,him all  
things consist4 ,upholding all things by
  the word of ,his ,power4    ,if this  
be so1 we have a point up to which      
natural laws may  possibly be traced1   
but at which they merge in the action of
 the  ,will of ,god1 which is beyond our
 investigation4 ,here1 then1 is a       

solution of that great difficulty1 which
 those who are most  familiar with the  
laws of nature have felt in reconciling 
the  existence of those laws with a     
particular ,providence and with the     
efficacy of ,prayer1 since we have here 
the point at which all  forces and all  
laws begin to act1 and at which1        
therefore1 the  amount of the force1 and
 the direction of its action1 are       
capable  of unlimited modification1     
without any alteration of1 or           
interference with1 the laws by which    
that action is regulated1 and           
consequently without the danger of      
introducing confusion into the          
,universe4    ,and ,god said1 ',let     
light be' and light was4 ,it has already
 been  pointed out that these words     
differ from those used in describing    
any other creative act4 ,they are the   
only ones which seem to imply  an       
instantaneous fulfilment of the command4
 ,another matter which  has long since  
been observed1 is their exact harmony   

with what  science teaches us respecting
 the nature of light4 ,light is not a   
material substance1 but a mode of       
motion4 ,it consists of very  small     
undulations propagated with             
inconceivable velocity4 ,hence of  it1  
and of it alone1 it could not be        
correctly said that it was  created4 ,to
 say that ,god made light would be      
inexact4 ,the words  which are used     
exactly suit the circumstances of the   
case4 ,but the  discovery of the        
correlation of forces has given to these
 words a  much more extended            
significance1 while at the same time it 
furnishes a satisfactory reason for     
their occurrence at this  particular    
point4 ,so long as they were supposed to
 refer to light  simply1 they seemed out
 of place4 ,light was not apparently    
needed  till there were organisms to    
whose existence it was essential4 ,but  
we now know that to call forth light1   
was to call force in all its            
modifications into action4 ,it has been 

seen that matter and force  are the two 
elements out of which everything that is
 discernible  by our senses is built up4
 ,the formation of matter has already   
been described in the original act of   
creation4 ,but till force  also was     
evolved1 matter must of necessity remain
 in that chaotic  state to which verse  
#b refers4 ,to matter is now added that 
which  was required to enable the       
progressive work of ,creation to be     
carried on4 ,the first result of this   
would probably be that the  force of    
gravitation would begin to act1 while1  
from what the  telescope reveals to us1 
we may conjecture1 that at the same time
  the whole incoherent mass would be    
permeated with light and heat1  and     
some1 at all events1 of those elementary
 substances with which  chemistry makes 
us acquainted would be developed1 and   
the whole  mass1 acted upon by the      
mutual attraction of its several        
particles1 would begin to move towards1 
and accumulate about its  centre of     

gravity4    ,it has been shown that     
,laplace's ,nebular ,hypothesis1 when   
substituted for the action of a         
,creator1 broke down in three  important
 points4 ,of these the first two were1  
that it failed to  give any account of  
the origin of matter1 and of the first  
commencement of the action of           
,gravitation4 ,these two defects are    
completely supplied by the first three  
verses of ,genesis4 ,we may  probably   
see in the ,great ,nebula in ,orion an  
illustration of the  condition of the   
solar system when light first made its  
appearance4 ,it is very probable that   
that nebula has only very  recently     
become visible4 ,galileo examined ,orion
 very carefully  with his newly invented
 telescope1 but makes no mention of it4 
,footnote3 ,webb's ,celestial ,objects1 
p4 #bee1 note4 ,at present it  is       
visible to the unaided eye even in      
,england1 where the  atmospheric        
conditions and its low altitude are     
alike  unfavourable4 ,in ,italy1 where  

the atmosphere is remarkably pure1  and 
the meridian altitude is greater by #g  
#a_/b degrees1 it must be  a conspicuous
 object1 and had it been so at the time 
when ,galileo  was observing the        
constellation1 it could hardly have     
failed to  attract his attention4 ,it   
was1 however1 noticed in #afah4 ,it is a
  vast1 shapeless mass1 having its      
boundaries in some parts  tolerably well
 defined1 while in other directions it  
fades away  imperceptibly2 its light is 
very faint1 and when examined by the    
spectroscope is found to proceed from a 
gaseous source4 ,professor  ,secchi has 
traced it through an extent of #e       
degrees4 ,when it is  remembered that at
 such a distance the semi-diameter of   
the  earth's orbit subtends an angle    
less than #a inch1 some idea of the     
enormous extent of this mass of gas may 
be formed4 ,drawings of it  have been   
made from time to time by our most      
distinguished  astronomers1 which are   
found to differ considerably4 ,great    

allowance must1 of course1 be made for  
differences in the  telescopic power    
employed1 and in the visual powers of   
the several  observers1 but the         
differences in the drawings seem too    
great to  be explained by those sources 
of inaccuracy alone1 and actual  change 
in the nebula is therefore strongly     
suspected4 ,another  nebula of similar  
character1 in which changes are         
suspected1 is  that which surrounds the 
star ,a in the constellation ,argo4     
,this is  being very carefully watched  
through the great telescope recently    
erected at ,melbourne1 and from the     
observations made there1 it is  probable
 that fresh light may soon be thrown on 
the subject4    ,the next act recorded  
is1 that ,god divided the light from the
  darkness4 ,this is one of those       
passages which we are very apt to  pass 
over as unimportant1 without giving     
ourselves any trouble to  ascertain what
 they mean1 or asking if they may not   
give valuable  information1 or supply   

some important hints4 ,it is evident1   
however1 that in these words some act of
 the ,creator is implied1  but when we  
inquire what that act was1 the answer   
does not lie  immediately on the        
surface4 ,darkness is simply the absence
 of  light4 ,it cannot therefore be said
 that ,god divided the light from  the  
darkness in the same sense in which it  
is said that a  shepherd divideth his   
sheep from the goats4 ,between light and
  darkness that division exists in the  
very nature of things1 and it  could not
 therefore be said to be made by a      
definite act4 ,nor  again1 is there any 
sharp well-defined boundary set between 
light  and darkness1 so that we can say1
 ,here light begins1 here  darkness     
ends4 ,the very opposite is the case1   
the one blends  imperceptibly into the  
other4 ,this then cannot be the meaning 
of  the words4 ,but the next verse      
guides us to the real meaning4 ,and     
,god called the light ,day1 and the     
darkness ,he called ,night4 ,the        

division of light from darkness then is 
the alternation of night  and day4 ,when
 ,god divided the light from the        
darkness ,he made  provision for that   
alternation4 ,but we know that that     
alternation  is the result of the       
earth's rotation upon its axis1 so that 
the  dividing the light from the        
darkness evidently implies the          
communication to the accumulated mass of
 the motion of rotation4    ,it does not
 clearly appear in the account of the   
first day1  whether this alternation of 
day and night took effect immediately4  
,certainly the introduction of it here  
does not prove that it did  so follow4  
,for there was no way in which the fact 
of the earth's  rotation could be       
directly communicated to those for whom 
the  narrative was primarily intended4  
,they were ignorant of the  spherical   
form of the earth1 and so could not have
 attached any  idea whatever to a       
statement that it revolved about its    
axis4    ,the only way then in which    

,moses could speak of that rotation was 
in connexion with some phenomenon       
resulting from it4 ,the only such       
phenomenon with which the ,jews were    
acquainted was the alternation  of day  
and night4 ,there was therefore no way  
in which ,moses could  record the fact  
except with reference to this ultimate  
effect4 ,it  does not follow that that  
effect was immediate4 ,beside the       
rotation of the earth1 another condition
 is required4 ,the light  must come from
 a single source1 and so when the act is
 recorded by  which that condition is   
effected1 the division of light and     
darkness is again noticed4 ,the sun and 
the moon are set in the  firmament of   
heaven to divide the light from the     
darkness4 ,but  that division was       
potentially effected when the motion of 
rotation  was given4    ,the third      
defect noticed in the ,nebular          
,hypothesis was1 that it  did not       
account for this motion of rotation4    
,this defect1 then1  like the two       

preceding ones1 is supplied by the      
,mosaic ,record1 and  the hypothesis    
thus supplemented becomes complete4 ,it 
is capable  of giving a satisfactory    
account of the phenomena to which it    
applies4 ,but as it is only a theory1   
and only points out a way in  which the 
universe might have been constructed1 it
 does not in  itself exclude the        
possibility that some other plan might  
in fact  have been adopted1 and we have 
now to examine into the reasons for     
supposing that it was the method which  
was actually employed4  ,these divide   
themselves into two classes3--those     
which render it  probable that similar  
processes are now in progress2 and those
  which render it probable that the     
solar system has passed through  such a 
process4    ,it has already been pointed
 out that the great nebulae in ,orion   
and ,argo seem to represent the         
condition of our system on the  first   
appearance of light1 and that changes   
are strongly suspected  to be taking    

place in both2 but we cannot expect to  
trace any  single nebula through the    
stages of its development1 since that   
development must occupy untold ages4    
,all we can do is to inquire  if there  
are other nebulas which seem to be in   
more advanced  stages4 ,it must at once 
be recognized1 that if this be one of   
the  processes now going on1 it is not  
the only one4 ,there are many  nebulas  
which have assumed forms for which the  
law of  gravitation1 as we know it1 will
 not enable us to account--such as  the 
,ring ,nebula in ,lyra1 the ,dumb-bell  
,nebula in ,vulpecula1 or the  double   
,horseshoe in ,scutum ,sobieski4 ,but   
some nebulas can be found  which arrange
 themselves so as to illustrate the     
stages through  which we may suppose our
 world to have passed4 ,these are       
chiefly  to be found among the planetary
 nebulse1 which in a small  telescope   
exhibit a faint circular disc1 but in   
larger instruments  frequently show     
considerable varieties of structure4    

,some of them  present the appearance of
 a condensation of light in the centre1 
which gradually fades off2 in others    
there is a bright ring  surrounding the 
central spot1 but separated from it by a
 darker  space4 ,the ,nebula ,andromeda 
#difdg1 ,footnote3 ,the numbers are     
those given by ,sir ,j4 ,hersohel4 as   
seen in ,mr4 ,lassel's four-foot        
reflector appears as a luminous spot1   
surrounded by two luminous  rings1      
which1 in the more powerful instrument  
of ,lord ,bosse1  combine into a spiral4
 ,its spectrum is gaseous1 with one line
  indicating some element unknown to us4
 ,in another nebula1 ,draco  #dcgc1     
there is a double spectrum1 the one     
gaseous1 indicating the  presence of    
hydrogen1 nitrogen1 and barium2 the     
other1 apparently  from the nucleus1    
continuous1 and so representing a solid 
or fluid  mass1 but so faint that the   
lines belonging to particular elements  
cannot be distinguished4 ,footnote3     
,hugging1 ,philosophical  ,transactions1

 #ahfd4 ,bridanus #hdf1 and ,andromeda  
#aaf1 are probably  similar nebulee     
occupying different positions with      
reference to  us4 ,they both give a     
continuous spectrum4 ,the one in        
,bridanus is  described as an eleventh  
magnitude star1 standing in the centre  
of a circular nebula1 itself placed     
centrally on a larger and  fainter      
circle of hazy light4 ,footnote3        
,lassell1 quoted in  ,webb's ,celestial 
,objects1 p4 #bbg4 ,the nebula in       
,andromeda  assumes a lenticular form2  
that in ,bridanus would probably present
  the same appearance if we saw it      
edge-ways4 ,the former has  probably    
increased in brilliancy in the course of
 centuries4 ,mr4  ,webb remarks of it1  
,it is so plain to the naked eye that it
 is  strange the ancients scarcely      
mention it4 ,footnote3 ,webb's          
,celestial ,objects1 p4 #ahj4 ,in these 
two nebulas we may perhaps  see the mass
 ready to break up into separate worlds1
 the  lenticular form being a natural   

result of extremely rapid  rotation4    
,prom the fact that ,andromeda #aaf     
gives a continuous  spectrum1 ,dr4      
,huggins inclines to the belief that it 
is an  unresolved star cluster4 ,but the
 reasons which led ,sir ,w4 ,herschel   
to conclude that the nebula in ,orion   
was gaseous1 7a conclusion  which1      
though for a time discredited by the    
supposed resolution of  the nebula in   
,lord ,kosse's telescope1 was ultimately
 found to be  correct71 are equally     
applicable here4 ,in general a certain  
proportion exists between the telescopic
 power requisite to render  a star      
cluster visible as a nebulous spot1 and 
that which will  resolve it into stars2 
but this nebula1 like that in ,orion1   
though  visible to the naked eye1 cannot
 be resolved by the most powerful       
instruments yet made4 ,and the nebula in
 ,draco #dcgc1 seems to  present an     
intermediate stage between the purely   
gaseous nebula  and this one4 ,the faint
 continuous spectrum is probably the    

result  of incipient central            
condensation4 ,this nebula1 if recent   
observations by ,mr4 ,gill1 of          
,aberdeen1 are confirmed ,footnote3     
,popular ,science ,review1 #ahga1 p4    
#dbf41 is much nearer to us than  any of
 the fixed stars4    ,we come now to the
 reasons derived from the ,solar ,system
 itself1  and of these there are        
several1 some of them of considerable   
weight4 ,the first is to be found in the
 uniform direction of  almost all the   
motions of the system4 ,they are from   
west to east4  ,the sun rotates upon his
 axis1 the planets revolve about the sun
  and rotate upon their axes1 and the   
satellites1 with one  exception1 revolve
 about their primaries1 and1 so far as  
is known1  rotate upon their axes in the
 same direction1 from west to east1  and
 the motions take place very nearly in  
the same plane--the  ecliptic4 ,this    
seems to point to the conclusion that   
these motions  have a common origin1 as 
would be the case if all these bodies at

  one time existed as a single mass     
which revolved in the same  direction4  
,the one exception is to be found in the
 satellites of  ,uranus1 whose motion is
 retrograde4 ,but there are certain     
phenomena1 which lead to the conclusion1
 that1 on the outskirts of  our system1 
there has at some time or other been an 
action of a  disturbing force1 of which1
 except from these results1 we know     
nothing4    ,footnote3 ,bode's ,law of  
,planetary ,distances1 ,what holds good 
as  far as ,uranus1 breaks down in the  
case of ,neptune4 ,both ,leverrier  and 
,adams were to some extent misled by    
this law4 ,the new planet  should       
according to their calculations1 based  
on this law1 have  been of greater      
magnitude and at a greater distance than
 ,neptune4    ,the polar axis of        
,uranus1 instead of being nearly        
perpendicular to  the ecliptic1 as in   
the case of all the other planets       
7except  ,venus71 is nearly coincident  
with it4 ,venus occupies an             

intermediate position1 the inclination  
of its equator to its orbit  being #di  
degrees #eh'4     ,there is also strong 
reason for believing that the sun is    
still a  nebulous star1 that the whole  
of the original nebula is not yet       
gathered up in the vast globe which at  
ordinary times is all that  we can see4 
,this aspect of the case1 however1 will 
come more fully  under our notice when  
we come to the work of the fourth day4  
,the  figure of the earth1 which is that
 naturally assumed by a plastic  mass   
revolving about its axis1 and the traces
 which it retains of  a former state of 
intense heat1 are both in accordance    
with this  theory4    ,when these facts 
are duly weighed1 there seems to be a   
reasonable  probability that this       
process is the one which was actually   
employed in the formation of the solar  
system4 ,the remarkable  manner in which
 the theory adapts itself to the ,mosaic
 account1  and the fact that that       
account records special interferences of

  the ,creator exactly at the points    
where the theory shows that such        
interferences would be necessary1 give  
rise to a very strong  presumption in   
its favour4 ,we have in it also a clear 
illustration  of the combination of     
general laws of nature with special     
interferences of ,creative ,power--the  
law of gravitation was called  into     
action1 and the work would proceed      
steadily under that law  for a          
considerable period1 till matters were  
ripe for a farther  stage in the        
progress1 and then the special          
interference would  take place1 in this 
instance the imparting the motion of    
rotation1  and the work would again     
proceed under the natural law4 ,all this
  while1 however1 the work would be one1
 and performed by one power1  the only  
difference being in the direct or       
indirect action of that  power4    ,the 
only point an reference to the first day
 which remains to be  inquired into is  
the extent to which the work had        

proceeded at its  close4 ,as the        
commencement of the second day's work   
implies that  at that time the earth had
 an independent existence1 we may       
conclude that the first day's work      
comprehended the casting off of  the    
several successive rings1 and the       
condensation of those rings1  or some of
 them1 into the corresponding planets   
and satellites4  ,these would probably  
still retain their intense heat1 in     
virtue of  which they would be luminous4
    ,many of the multiple stars may not 
improbably present to us much  the same 
appearance as the solar system then     
presented4 ,in many  cases we have one  
large star1 with one or more very minute
  attendants4 ,such a star is ,orionis1 
a tolerably conspicuous star1  which has
 two companions invisible to the naked  
eye1 but visible  with moderate         
telescopic power4 7,a telescope of #b4a 
inches  aperture1 by ,cooke1 shows them 
well47 ,five more companions are        
visible in a #d-;inch telescope4 ,in the

 large telescope at ,harvard  no less   
than #ce minute stars have been seen in 
apparent connexion  with the brilliant  
star ,vega4 ,in all these cases it is   
true that  the distances and periods of 
the companion stars are very much       
greater than in the case of the earth2  
but then our telescopes  will only      
enable us to discern the more distant   
companions4 ,any  small companion stars 
holding positions corresponding to those
 of  the four interior planets1 would be
 lost in the light of the  primary star2
 and if1 as is suspected1 all the       
heavenly bodies are  subject to some    
resistance1 however small1 from the     
medium in  which they move1 this        
resistance would in the course of ages  
diminish the mean distance1 and with it 
the periodic time of the  companion     
stars4    ,the latter part of the #eth  
verse has already been considered1 and  
there is no need to recur to it at this 
point4 ,at the close of the  history we 
shall be in a better position to        

ascertain if any light  has been thrown 
on that mysterious subject4    ,,section
 #e4 ,,the ,,second ,,day4    ,and ,god 
said1 ,let there be a firmament in the  
midst of the  waters1 and let it divide 
the waters from the waters4    ,and ,god
 made the firmament1 and divided the    
waters which were  under the firmament  
from the waters which were above the    
firmament1 and it was so4    ,and ,god  
called the firmament ,heaven1 and there 
was evening and  there was morning1 a   
second day    ,the work of the second   
and third days evidently has its scene  
on  the earth alone4 ,at its            
commencement the earth appears to have  
become distinctly separated from the    
gradually condensing mass of  the solar 
system1 and to have assumed its         
spherical form4 ,it had1  in fact1      
acquired an independent existence2 but  
it was still in a  chaotic state4 ,its  
elements1 which were hereafter to assume
 the  three forms of solid1 fluid1 and  
gas1 seem to have been still  blended   

together4 ,of the three states1 fluidity
 seems to have been  that to which the  
mass most nearly approached4 ,this seems
 to be  indicated by the application of 
the term1 waters1 to the two parts  into
 which it is now divided2 for the       
,hebrew has no general word  for fluid1 
so that the only method of expressing it
 was by the  use of this word water in  
an extended signification2 and all      
scientific investigations point to the  
same conclusion4 ,the heat1  as yet1    
must have been so intense that no rocks 
or metals with  which we are acquainted 
could have remained in a solid form4    
,the  sorting out and first arrangement 
of the materials of the earth1  with    
probably the farther development of a   
large portion of them  by the           
introduction of a new element1 seems to 
have been the work  of the second day4  
,when we proceed to examine the         
narrative more closely1 two  important  
questions suggest themselves3--l4 ,what 
special  interference of ,creative      

,power does it indicate8 #b4 ,what is   
the  meaning of the division between the
 waters which were above the  firmament 
and the waters which were under the     
firmament8    #a4 ,what special         
interference of ,creative ,power took   
place on the  second day8 ,till within  
the last ten years1 it would have been  
difficult to give a satisfactory answer 
to this question2 for if  all the       
elements were already in existence at   
the commencement of  the second day1    
their arrangement would1 as it seems1   
have been  brought about by the ordinary
 operation of natural laws which were   
already established4 ,the cooling and   
condensation of a portion of  the       
elements would have been effected by the
 radiation of their  heat1 and the      
portions thus condensed would1 under the
 influence  of gravitation1 have        
arranged themselves in immediate        
proximity to  the centre of gravity1    
forming a solid or fluid nucleus1 round 
which those portions which still        

remained in a gaseous state would  have 
formed an atmospheric envelope4 ,but    
here again the  spectroscope comes to   
our aid4 ,in many of the nebulae which  
give  in it the bright lines indicative 
of gas1 hydrogen and nitrogen  are the  
chief gases discovered4 ,these must be  
in an incandescent  state1 or they would
 not be visible at all4 ,but hydrogen   
cannot1  in the present state of things1
 remain in this condition in  contact   
with oxygen2 it must instantly combine  
with it1 that  combination being        
attended with intense heat1 and         
resulting in the  production of water4  
,the introduction of oxygen1 then1 must 
involve a very important crisis in the  
process of development2 but  that       
introduction must have preceded the     
formation of atmospheric  air and water4
 ,prior to the second day oxygen must   
either have  been non-existent1 or it   
must have existed in a form and under   
conditions very different from those    
under which it exists now4  ,free oxygen

 cannot be in existence in the sun or in
 any celestial  object in which the     
spectroscope indicates the existence of 
incandescent hydrogen4 ,the special act 
of the second day would  appear to have 
consisted in the development of oxygen1 
or the  calling it from a quiescent     
state into active operation4    ,but the
 effects of the new element thus called 
into operation  would not be limited to 
the production of air and water4 ,it is 
estimated that oxygen constitutes1 by   
weight1 nearly half of the  solid crust 
of the earth4 ,it forms a part of every 
rock and of  every metallic ore4 ,the   
second day1 then1 must have been a      
period  of intense chemical action1     
resulting from the introduction of  this
 powerful agent4    ,but 7#b7 what is   
the meaning of the division of the      
waters which  are above the firmament   
from the waters which were under the    
firmament8 ,at present all the water    
contained in the atmosphere1  in the    
shape of vapour and clouds1 is so       

insignificant in  comparison with that  
vast volume of water which not only     
fills the  ocean1 but also permeates the
 solid earth1 that such a notice of  it 
seems unaccountable4 ,mr4 ,goodwin1     
indeed1 maintains that there  was an    
ancient belief1 not only that the       
firmament was a solid  vault1 but that  
on it there rested another ocean1 at    
least as  copious as that with which we 
are acquainted4 ,footnote3 ,essays  and 
,reviews1 p4 #bbj ,in support of this   
assertion he brings  forward the phrase1
 ,the windows of heaven were opened     
7,gen1 ,,vii4  #aa7 and other similar   
expressions4 ,but such phrases as this  
evidently belong to the same class as   
the fanciful names so often  given to   
the clouds in the hymns of the ,rig     
,veda4 ,both expressions  evidently     
point to a time when figurative         
language1 if no longer a  necessity1 was
 at all events a common and favourite   
form of  speech1 and was understood by  
all4 ,dr4 ,whewell ,footnote3           

,plurality of ,worlds1 chap4 x4 ,section
 #e4 has put forward the  curious notion
 that when the creation of the interior 
planets was  completed1 there remained a
 superfluity of water1 which was        
gathered up into the four exterior      
planets4 ,but the only fact in  favour  
of such an hypothesis is the close      
correspondence between  the apparent    
density of these planets and that of    
water4 ,now1 as  will be seen           
immediately1 there is strong reason to  
believe that  the true density of these 
planets is much greater than their      
apparent diameters would seem to        
indicate2 so that the one  solitary     
ground on which the suggestion rests    
vanishes when it is  examined4 ,apart   
from this1 however1 the suggestion that 
there  would be any superfluous material
 when the work of creation was          
finished1 is a very strange one4        
,neither of these views1 then1 can  be  
accepted as giving a satisfactory       
meaning to the text4    ,astronomical   

investigations however1 which have been 
carried on  with great diligence during 
the last four winters1 and which are    
still being continued with unremitting  
interest1 have brought to  light        
phenomena which seem to be in remarkable
 correspondence with  the state of      
things spoken of in the text4 ,it has   
already been  noticed that the eight    
greater planets at present known to us  
are  divided into two groups of four by 
the intervening belt of minor  planets4 
,these two groups have totally distinct 
characteristics4  ,in density1          
magnitude1 and length1 of day the       
members of each  group differ little    
from each other1 while the two groups   
differ  very widely4 ,the moon is the   
only satellite as yet known in the      
inner group4 ,the planets of the outer  
group are attended by at  least         
seventeen satellites4    ,of these outer
 planets ,jupiter1 from his great       
brilliancy1  specially attracts         
observation1 while from his comparative 

proximity to the earth we are enabled to
 examine him much more  satisfactorily  
than we can ,saturn1 ,uranus1 or        
,neptune4 ,two facts  with reference to 
him have long been well known1 the one1 
that the  polar compression in his case 
is much greater than it is in any of    
the interior planets1 so that when seen 
through a telescope of  very moderate   
power his disc is evidently elliptical1 
while the  compression of the interior  
planets can only be detected by the     
most delicate micrometrical             
measurements--the other1 that his       
apparent surface is always crossed by   
several alternating belts of  light and 
shade1 which though subject to constant 
changes of  detail1 always preserve the 
same general character4 ,until recently 
the generally received theory was that  
these belts consisted of  clouds1 raised
 by the heat of the sun1 and arranged in
 zones under  the influence of winds    
similar in character to1 and produced by
  the same causes as1 the trade-winds   

which blow over our own  oceans4 ,this  
view1 however1 has been shown by ,mr4   
,proctor to be  untenable4 ,footnote3   
,see a paper by ,mr4 ,proctor in the    
,monthly  ,packet for ,october1 #ahgj4  
,about forty years ago1 a very          
remarkable phenomenon was observed      
simultaneously1 but independently1 by   
three astronomers1 ,admiral  ,smyth1    
,mr4 ,maclean1 and ,mr4 ,pearson1 who   
were watching a transit  of ,jupiter's  
second satellite from stations several  
miles apart4  ,admiral ,smyth's account 
of it is as follows3--,on ,thursday1 the
  #bfth of ,june1 #ahbh1 the moon being 
nearly full1 and the evening  extremely 
fine1 ,i was watching the second        
satellite of ,jupiter as  it gradually  
approached to transit the disc of the   
planet4 ,my  instrument was an excellent
 refractor of #c #c_/d inches aperture1 
and five feet focal length1 with a power
 of one hundred4 ,the  satellite        
appeared in contact at about half-past  
ten1 and for some  minutes remained on  

the edge of the limb1 presenting an     
appearance  not unlike that of the lunar
 mountains which come into view during  
the first quarter of the moon1 until it 
finally disappeared on the  body of the 
planet4 ,at least twelve or thirteen    
minutes must have  elapsed when1        
accidentally turning to ,jupiter again1 
,i perceived  the same satellite outside
 the disc4 ,it was in the same position 
as to being above a line with the lower 
belt1 where it remained  distinctly     
visible for at least four minutes1 and  
then suddenly  vanished4 ,a somewhat    
similar phenomenon1 but of shorter      
duration1  was witnessed by ,messrs4    
,gorton and ,wray1 during an occultation
 of  the same satellite1 ,april #bf1    
#ahfc4 ,in this case the satellite      
reappeared after passing behind the     
apparent disc of the planet4  ,so lately
 as #ahfh this phenomenon was regarded  
as inexplicable4  ,footnote3 ,webb's    
,celestial ,objects1 p4 #ada4    ,in the
 winter of #ahfh-i the attention of     

astronomers was called to  the fact that
 rapid and extensive changes were taking
 place in the  appearance of ,jupiter's 
belts1 and they have consequently been  
watched from that time with unremitting 
attention by astronomers  furnished with
 telescopes of the best quality4 ,the   
results of  these observations are given
 in two very interesting papers1        
communicated to the ,popular ,science   
,review1 by ,mr4 ,webb4  ,footnote3     
,popular ,science ,review for ,april1   
#ahgj1 and ,july1  #ahga4 ,very curious 
markings and variations in the depth of 
shade  have been seen1 accompanied by   
equally curious changes of colour4  ,mr4
 ,browning compares these changes to    
those which are seen when a  cloud of   
steam of varying depth and density is   
illuminated from  behind by a strong    
light1 as when we look through the steam
  escaping from the safety-valve of a   
locomotive at a gas-lamp  immediately   
behind it4 ,this appears to be the true 
explanation of  the phenomenon4         

,footnote3 ,popular ,science ,review1   
#ahga1 p4 #cjg4  ,these belts are       
probably due to vast masses of steam1   
poured forth  with great force from the 
body of the planet4 ,as the atmosphere  
of  ,jupiter is probably of enormous    
depth1 the rotatory velocity of  its    
upper portions would be much greater    
than that of the surface  of the planet1
 hence the steam would arrange itself in
 belts  parallel to the equator of the  
planet4 ,but this view leads us to      
wonderful conclusions with reference to 
the condition of the  planet4           
,processes of the most amazing character
 are taking place beneath  that cloudy  
envelope1 which forms the visible       
surface of the  planet as seen by the   
terrestrial observer4 ,the real globe of
 the  planet would seem to be intensely 
heated1 perhaps molten1 through  the    
fierceness of the heat which pervades   
it4 ,masses of vapour  streaming        
continually upward from the surface of  
this fiery globe  would be gathered at  

once into zones because of their rapid  
change  of distance from the centre4    
,that which is wholly unintelligible    
when we regard the surface of ,jupiter  
as swept like our earth by  polar and   
equatorial winds1 is readily interpreted
 when we  recognize the existence of    
rapidly uprushing streams of vapour4    
,footnote3 ,mr4 ,proctor in ,monthly    
,packet1 ,october1 #ahgj4    ,supposing 
then that the atmosphere of ,jupiter is 
of very great  depth1 and thus laden    
with masses of watery vapour1 the effect
 of  a sudden current of heated1 but    
comparatively dry1 air or gas  would be 
the immediate absorption of the whole or
 a large portion  of the vapour1 and the
 consequent transparency of the portion 
of  the atmosphere affected by it4 ,we  
see this result continually on a  small 
scale in our own atmosphere1 when a     
heavy cloud comes in  contact with a    
warm air current1 and rapidly melts     
away1 ,many of  the rapid changes which 
have been witnessed in ,jupiter's       

appearance are readily explained if this
 view is admitted4  ,supposing such a   
thing to have happened near the edge of 
the disc1  the phenomenon recorded by   
,admiral ,smyth is at once              
satisfactorily  explained4 ,when the    
satellite appeared to pass on to the    
disc1 and  to be lost in the light of   
the planet1 it would for some time1     
proportional to the depth of ,jupiter's 
atmosphere1 have behind it  a background
 of clouds only1 it would not have      
entered upon the  actual disc of the    
planet4 ,if then these clouds were      
suddenly  absorbed1 the atmosphere      
behind the satellite would become       
transparent and invisible1 the          
background would be gone1 and the       
satellite would reappear4 ,in the case  
of the occultation witnessed  by        
,messrs4 ,gorton and ,wray1 the         
satellite would at first be hidden  by  
cloud only1 and would reappear if the   
cloud were removed4 ,such  seems to be  
the true explanation of these hitherto  

mysterious  phenomena4 ,that they could 
not have resulted from any alteration   
in the motions of the planet or the     
satellite is evident4 ,such an          
alteration would have been instantly    
detected1 since the places of  both the 
planet and the satellites are computed  
years in advance1  and any such change  
would at once have thrown out all these 
computations4    ,assuming that this is 
the true solution of the mystery1 we are
  enabled to form an approximate        
estimate of the extent of the           
atmosphere of ,jupiter4 ,the time       
between the first and second            
disappearances does not seem to have    
been accurately noted4  ,admiral        
,smyth's account makes it #af or #ag    
minutes2 but if we  estimate it at #ae  
minutes only1 and if we further assume  
that the  second disappearance was upon 
the actual disc of ,jupiter1 and not    
upon a lower stratum of clouds1 we shall
 be safe from any risk of  exaggeration4
 ,the probability seems to be that the  

second  disappearance was caused not by 
the disc1 but by the formation of  a    
fresh body of cloud1 as it was not      
gradual1 as in the first  instance1 but 
sudden4 ,we shall then only have an     
estimate which  cannot be greater1 but  
may be much less1 than the true value4  
,the mean distance of the second        
satellite from the centre of  ,jupiter  
is in round numbers #dbe1jjj miles1 and 
consequently the  circumference of its  
orbit is #b1fga1jjj miles4 ,the         
satellite  travels through this orbit in
 about #hf hours1 which gives a horary  
velocity of #ca1djj miles1 or #ghej     
miles in #ae minutes4 ,this then  is the
 least possible depth of the atmosphere 
of ,jupiter4  ,footnote3 ,for the       
direction of the motion of the satellite
 would  be at right angles to the line  
of sight4 ,the whole diameter of        
,jupiter1 atmosphere and all1 is #he1cij
 miles4 ,deduct from this  #ae1gjj miles
 for the atmosphere1 and we have for the
 diameter of  the solid nucleus rather  

less than #gj1jjj miles4 ,the height of 
the  atmosphere is therefore not less   
than three-fourteenths of the  radius of
 the planet1 and may be much greater4   
,the extent of the  atmosphere1 combined
 with the rapidity of rotation1 accounts
  satisfactorily for the great apparent 
polar compression of the  planet4       
,another inference is that the density  
of the planet must  exceed the ordinary 
estimate in the proportion of two to    
one4    ,but next1 the atmosphere of    
,jupiter is probably of very great      
density4 ,dr4 ,huggins states that he   
has observed in the spectrum  of        
,jupiter three or four strong lines1 one
 of them coincident  with a strong line 
in the earth's atmosphere4 ,footnote3   
,lecture  at ,manchester1 ,november #af1
 #ahgj4 ,strong lines mark increased    
density in the absorbent medium1 and    
lines hitherto unobserved  indicate new 
elements4 ,it is therefore probable that
 the  atmosphere of ,jupiter is not only
 much more dense than that of the       

earth1 but also contains some           
elements--which are absent from the     
latter4 ,when with this fact we connect 
the very great extent of  the           
atmosphere1 it will be evident that the 
pressure at the  surface of the planet  
will be enormous1 and from this we can  
form  an estimate of the intensity of   
the forces which must be at work  in the
 interior of the planet1 to project jets
 of vapour through  such an atmosphere  
to so great a height4    ,the link which
 connects ,jupiter with the earth1 in   
the second  stage of its existence1 is  
the mention by ,moses of the waters     
which were above the firmament4 ,viewed 
in the light of the  present condition  
of the earth such a notice seems        
unaccountable4  ,but if the earth at    
that time were in a condition similar to
 that  in which ,jupiter appears to be  
now1 the water in the atmosphere or     
above the firmament would be a very     
important element in any  description   
that might be given of it4 ,it is in    

fact most probable  that all the water  
7in the strict sense of the word7 then  
in  existence would be in a state of    
vapour1 and that the waters which  were 
under the firmament were the molten     
materials which  afterwards formed rocks
 and ores1 since1 as has been already   
noticed1 the word is the only one which 
could be employed to  describe fluids in
 general4    ,we may now try to form    
some idea of the probable state of the  
earth at this period4 ,its centre would 
be occupied by a fused  mass1 in which  
were blended all the more intractable   
solid  constituents of the present      
world4 ,this would be surrounded by an  
atmosphere of very great height and     
density1 containing not only  all the   
present constituents of air1 but also   
all1 or nearly all1  the water1 and all 
the more volatile of the metals and     
other  elements4 ,carbonic acid1 to a   
very large extent1 would probably be    
present1 and a very considerable        
proportion of the oxygen which  now     

exists in combination with various      
bases1 and forms by weight  so large a  
proportion of the solid crust of the    
world4    ,owing to the intense heat1   
chemical combinations would readily be  
formed between the ingredients of the   
fused mass and the other  elements which
 existed in the form of vapour1 and thus
 the  earliest of the vast variety of   
existing minerals would be  elaborated4 
,the volumes of steam which floated in  
the upper  regions of the atmosphere    
would rapidly part with their heat by   
radiation into space1 and would descend 
towards the surface of the  earth in the
 form of rain4 ,at first probably1 and  
for a long time1  they would not reach  
the surface1 but as they approached it  
would  be again converted into vapour1  
and re-ascend to pass again and  again  
through the same process4 ,but by this  
means the intense heat  of the nucleus  
would be gradually conveyed away1 till  
the cooling  reached a point at which   
some of the superficial materials would 

assume a solid form4 ,it is by no means 
certain what is the true  primary       
rock--for a long time it was almost     
universally assumed to  be granite1     
since granite is uniformly found        
underlying the oldest  sedimentary rocks
 that are known4 ,but as these rocks    
have been  forced from their original   
position and tilted up1 the underlying  
stratum may probably be of later date   
than the upper ones1 since  it was the  
elevating agent4 ,so that we can have no
 certain  knowledge on this point1 since
 the earliest sedimentary strata1       
wherever they retain their original     
position1 must be at a depth  far below 
the reach of man4 ,if1 however1 ,sir ,c4
 ,kyell's view of  the conditions       
requisite for the formation of granite  
are correct1  these conditions          
,footnote3 ,student's ,geology1 chap4   
xxxi4--heat1  moisture1 and enormous    
pressure--would all be present at the   
surface of the nucleus4 ,some kind of   
solid floor must have been  formed      

before the next stage could be reached1 
at which it would  be possible for water
 to exist in a fluid state4 ,this1      
however1  would be possible at a much   
higher temperature than at present1     
owing to the enormous atmospheric       
pressure4 ,it is possible now1 by       
artificial means1 to raise water1 nearly
 if not quite1 to a red  heat1 without  
the formation of steam1 and the pressure
 of the  atmosphere in the case supposed
 would1 in all probability1 be much     
greater than any which we can now apply 
under the conditions  necessary for     
heating the water4    ,it is probable   
that at this point the close of the     
second day must  be placed3 but the     
indications of the narrative do not     
enable us  to fix it with any degree of 
certainty4 ,as1 however1 from this      
point a new series of processes would   
commence1 and those  processes are in   
intimate connexion with the first of the
 two  developments ascribed to the third
 day1 the period when water  could first

 maintain a fluid form on the earth's   
surface1 seems to  present the most     
probable line of demarcation4           
,,section #f4 ,,the ,,third ,,day4      
,and ,god said1 ,let the waters under   
the ,heaven be gathered  together in one
 place1 and let the dry land appear2 and
 it was so4    ,and ,god called the dry 
land ,earth1 and the gathering together 
of  the waters called ,he ,seas1 and    
,god saw that it was good4    ,and ,god 
said1 ,let the earth sprout sprouts1 the
 herb seeding  seed1 and the fruit-tree 
yielding fruit after his kind1 whose    
seed is in it1 ,footnote3 ,it seems     
preferable to itself here4  ,the same   
,hebrew word stands for both1 but if the
 fruit-tree be  taken as the antecedent1
 which it must be if we translate       
itself1 there seems no meaning in the   
statement4 ,if we read  it1 the pronoun 
will refer to the fruit--the tree whose 
seed is  in its fruit--which gives an   
intelligible sense4 upon the earth1  and
 it was so4    ,and the earth caused to 

go forth sprouts1 the herb seeding seed1
  and the fruit-tree yielding fruit     
whose seed is in it1 after his  kind1   
and ,god saw that it was good4 ,and     
there was evening1 and  there was       
morning1 a third day4    ,the record of 
the third day is a very important one1  
because it is  the first point at which 
the ,mosaic ,record comes in contact    
with  that other record which is written
 in the rocks4 ,up to this time  we have
 only been able to compare the          
statements of ,moses with  conjectural  
views of the earliest condition of the  
earth1 which1  though they may be highly
 probable1 are at best only conjectures4
  ,but from this point we have to deal  
with a number of ascertained            
facts--certain landmarks stand out which
 enable us to fix the  correspondent    
parts of the two narratives1 and guide  
us to the  identification and           
interpretation of their minor details4  
,the first of these landmarks is the    
appearance of the dry land1  or1 in     

geological language1 the commencement of
 the process of  upheaval4 ,at the close
 of the second day the earth was1 in all
  probability1 as we have seen1 a globe 
internally molten1 but  having a solid  
crust which was uniformly covered with a
 layer of  water1 and surrounded by an  
atmosphere which1 though it had parted  
with some of its ingredients1 was still 
very much more complex1  more dense1 and
 more extensive than it is at present4  
,the newly  condensed waters would rest 
on the surface of the primeval rock1    
whatever that rock might be4 ,the       
internal heat conducted through  it     
would keep the waters in a state of     
intense ebullition1 and at  the same    
time their surface would be agitated by 
violent  atmospheric currents as the    
heated air ascended1 and was replaced   
by cooler air from the outer regions of 
the atmosphere4 ,under  these           
circumstances the water would dissolve  
or wear down portions  of the           
newly-formed rock on which it rested4   

,at the same time the  steam1 which     
would be continually rising from the    
boiling ocean1  would descend from the  
upper regions of the atmosphere in the  
form  of rain1 and bring with it in     
solution considerable quantities of     
those elements which still existed in   
the form of vapour1 just as  rain now   
brings down ammonia and carbonic acid   
which it has  absorbed in its passage   
through the atmosphere4 ,new            
combinations  would thus be formed      
between the materials dissolved or      
abraded by  the ocean and those brought 
down by the rain4 ,when these           
combinations had reached a certain      
amount they would be deposited  in the  
form of mud upon the bed of the ocean1  
and thus the  earliest sedimentary rocks
 would be formed4 ,as the temperature   
gradually decreased1 the character of   
these combinations would  probably be   
changed1 and at the same time the       
atmosphere would be  diminished in      
volume and density1 and become more pure

 by the  absorption of a large portion  
of its original constituents1 which     
would have been incorporated into       
various minerals4    ,the earliest      
sedimentary rock with which we are      
acquainted at  present is what is known 
as the ,laurentian formation4 ,footnote3
  ,the whole of the geological details  
in this section are taken from  ,sir ,c4
 ,lyell's ,geology for ,students4 ,it   
occupies an area of  #bjj1jjj square    
miles north of the ,st4 ,lawrence2 and  
is also traced  into the ,united ,states
 and the western highlands of ,scotland 
and  some of the adjacent isles4 ,it is 
divided into two sections--the  ,upper  
and ,lower ,laurentian4 ,it is not      
certain that it is really  the oldest   
rock2 for as every sedimentary rock is  
formed of the  debris of preceding      
rocks1 it is very possible that all the 
exposed portions of some older rocks may
 have been decomposed and  worn away2   
but it is the oldest yet known4 ,the    
thickness of the  lower portion is      

estimated at #bj1jjj feet1 or nearly    
four miles1  while the ,upper           
,laurentian beds are #aj1jjj feet thick4
 ,at this  point we meet with the first 
traces of that process of upheaval  and 
subsidence which has ever since been    
going on in the earth4  ,the ,lower     
,laurentian rocks had been displaced    
from their original  horizontal position
 before the ,upper ,laurentian were     
deposited  upon them4    ,this process  
of upheaval of some parts of the earth1 
accompanied  with subsidence in other   
parts1 is one which cannot be accounted 
for by any natural laws with which we   
are acquainted4 ,it is in all           
probability the result of a series of   
changes which are taking  place in the  
interior of the earth1 but of which we  
know nothing  at all4 ,it is in the     
commencement of this series of changes  
that  we trace that direct interference 
of the ,creator--which is  indicated by 
the command1 ,let the waters under the  
firmament be  gathered together into one

 place1 and let the dry land appear4 ,we
  have not1 however1 any means of       
ascertaining how long a period  elapsed 
before the process of upheaval reached  
the point at which  the land would rise 
above the surface of the ocean4    ,the 
,lower ,laurentian rocks are remarkable 
in another way4 ,there is  little doubt 
that traces of life1 the earliest yet   
known1 occur in  them4 ,they include a  
bed of limestone varying in thickness   
from  #gjj to #aejj feet4 ,in all       
probability limestone1 wherever it      
occurs1 is an animal product1 though in 
many cases all traces of  its           
organization have been lost by exposure 
to heat4 ,this  particular bed appears  
to have been formed by a very lowly     
creature1 which in organization was akin
 to the foraminifera1 of  which large   
quantities are now known to exist at the
 bottom of the  ,atlantic4 ,it differed 
from them1 however1 in one respect--the 
individuals were connected together1 as 
is the case now with many  varieties of 

the coral animal4 ,no notice of this    
first appearance  of life is found in   
the ,mosaic ,record1 nor1 for reasons   
already  given1 was it possible that any
 mention of it should be made4    ,the  
rocks which come next to the ,laurentian
 in the order of time  are those known  
as the ,cambrian4 ,they are so called   
because they  constitute a large portion
 of the mountains of ,north ,wales1 and 
it  was there that their characteristics
 were first carefully studied  by       
,professor ,sedgwick4 ,in one of the    
strata of this formation--the  ,harlech 
,grit--what are known as ripple-marks   
are found1 proving  that parts of these 
rocks at the time of their deposition   
formed a  sea-beach1 and that           
consequently at this time1 at the       
latest1 the  dry land had emerged from  
the ocean4 ,in these rocks there are    
also  decided traces of ,volcanic       
,action1 which seem to indicate the     
existence of a ,volcano similar to the  
recent ,graham's ,island4 ,at  this     

point a considerable advance in animal  
life is found4 ,the  fossils comprise   
several corals1 varieties of mollusca1  
and a  class of crustaceans peculiar to 
the very early rocks--the  trilobites4  
,on the ,cambrian rocks rest the        
formations known as ,silurian1 from  the
 fact that they were first thoroughly   
examined in ,south ,wales  7,siluria7 by
 ,sir ,e4 ,murchison4 ,in these rocks   
many fresh varieties  of invertebrate   
fossils are found1 and the vertebrata   
make their  first appearance1 numerous  
remains of fishes having been           
discovered4 ,the earliest specimen was  
found in the ,lower ,ludlow  beds at    
,leintwardine1 while the ,upper ,ludlow 
formation contains an  extensive bed    
composed almost entirely of fish-bones4 
,immediately  above this bed are found  
what seem to be traces of land-plants1  
in  the shape of the spores of a        
cryptogamous plant4    ,the ,silurian   
rocks are succeeded by rocks which      
present two  distinct characters1 but   

are probably contemporaneous1 the       
,devonian and the old ,red ,sandstone4  
,the former seem to have been  deposited
 in the bed of the sea1 while the latter
 is a fresh-water  formation4 ,in these 
decided remains of land plants are      
found1 of  which about #bjj species have
 at present been discovered4 ,the old   
,red ,sandstone is also peculiarly rich 
in fossil fish4 ,the first  signs of    
coal appear in this series of rocks1 but
 on a very small  scale4    ,we now come
 to what are known as the ,carboniferous
 rocks1 of which  the lower series is   
known as the mountain limestone1 and    
above it  come the coal measures1       
containing numerous beds of coal1       
sometimes of great thickness4 ,these    
beds have resulted entirely  from the   
decomposition1 under peculiar           
circumstances1 of an  enormous          
development of terrestrial vegetation4  
,they seem to have  originated in vast  
swamps1 subject to occasional flooding1 
and to  alternate movements of upheaval 

and subsidence4 ,on these swamps  there 
must have existed for ages a vegetation 
of whose luxuriance  the richest        
tropical jungles of the present time can
 give us no  idea4 ,they tell the tale  
of a time when the temperature of the   
earth1 was uniformly high 7since coal   
fields are found in high  northern      
latitudes71 when the atmosphere was     
charged with  moisture1 and probably    
contained a large proportion of carbonic
  acid4 ,in the coal measures we come   
upon the first traces of land  animals4 
,several remains of reptiles have been  
found1 as well as  footprints left on   
the soft mud or sand of a riverbank or  
sea-  beach4 ,there seems to be no doubt
 that they were left by lung-  breathing
 animals4    ,the carboniferous strata  
form the second of our landmarks4 ,they 
seem to point to the fulfilment of the  
command that the earth1  should bring   
forth vegetation4 ,there is1 however1   
one point which  requires some notice4  
,the ,mosaic account1 as we read it in  

our  ,english ,bibles1 seems to be      
limited to phanerogamous plants--       
grass1 the herb yielding seed1 and the  
fruit-tree yielding fruit4  ,now1 it is 
a well-known fact that the great mass of
 the  vegetation1 the remains of which  
constitute coal1 consisted of           
cryptogamic plants1 which do not produce
 seed1 properly so called1  but only    
spores2 the distinction being that the  
spore contains the  germ and nothing    
more1 while in the seed the germ is     
provided with  a store of nutriment to  
assist in the earlier stages of the     
development of the plant4 ,what appears 
to be a farther  discrepancy1 the       
absence of any traces of the grasses1   
leads in  reality to the solution of the
 difficulty4    ,the word which is      
translated grass ,hebrew script means in
  reality1 any fresh sprout4 ,now it is 
remarkable that ,moses  specifies three 
kinds of vegetation1 with regard to two 
of which  it is noted that they produce 
seed1 while nothing is said of the  seed

 of the remaining class4 ,grass too1 is 
really a herb bearing  seed1 and1 as    
such would be included in the second    
class1 and  there would have been no    
occasion1 to mention it separately4 ,it 
would appear then that the first class  
consisted of seedless  plants1 i4 e4 of 
the cryptogamia4 ,this conclusion is    
strengthened  when we turn to verses #bi
 and #cj4 ,if the word ,hebrew script   
were  correctly translated grass1 we    
should certainly expect to find  it in  
those verses1 since the grasses         
contribute more to the food  of both man
 and beast1 than all the other          
herbaceous plants put  together4 ,this  
omission then1 is an indication that the
 word1 as  used in this chapter1 denotes
 a class of plants which are not        
commonly employed for food1 and this    
condition also is fulfilled  in the     
cryptogamia4    ,there are then four    
special points in this period1 of which 
two  seem to correspond with the ,mosaic
 record1 while the other two are        

unnoticed in it4 ,the two points of     
correspondence are the upheaval  of the 
dry land1 and the prevalence of a very  
abundant and  luxuriant ,flora4 ,as in  
the case of the fifth and sixth days1   
the  words used with reference to land  
plants seem to denote a period  of      
remarkable development1 rather than the 
first appearance4 ,the  two points      
unnoticed are the beginnings of animal  
and vegetable  life4 ,in the case of    
animal life the omission has already    
been  accounted for4 ,the beginning of  
vegetable life was probably             
contemporaneous with that of animal     
life1 for each is necessary to  the     
other1 since the food of the animal must
 be prepared by the  vegetable1 and     
after being used by the former returns  
to a state  in which it is fitted for   
the nourishment of the latter4 ,as      
animal  life commenced in the ocean1 so 
in all probability did vegetable  life1 
though no certain traces of it are found
 in the earliest  rocks2 but this is    

easily accounted for by the very        
perishable  character of the simpler    
forms of algae4 ,like the earliest      
animals1 the first algae were probably  
microscopic plants1 and the  omission of
 any mention of them was therefore      
inevitable4    ,one characteristic of   
cryptogamic vegetation is important for 
its  bearing on the work of the fourth  
day4 ,almost all the phanerogamic       
plants are dependent for their          
development upon the direct light  and  
heat of the sun4 ,deprived of these they
 either perish  entirely1 or make an    
unhealthy growth1 and produce little or 
no  fruit4 ,but the cryptogamia1 in     
general1 thrive best when they are      
protected from the direct rays of the   
sun4 ,they nourish in a  diffused light1
 and with abundant atmospheric moisture4
 ,and so we  find them at this time     
doing what seems a very important work  
in  the progress of the world4 ,by      
taking up and decomposing the excess  of
 carbonic acid which at this time       

probably existed in the  atmosphere1    
they at once purified that atmosphere1  
and rendered it  fit for the respiration
 of more highly organized creatures1 and
  laid up in the earth an invaluable    
store of fuel for the future  use of    
man4 ,the other orders of vegetation    
seem to have existed in  very small     
proportions at this time1 and only in   
their lower  forms4 ,as the conditions  
of the earth changed1 the cryptogamia   
seemed to have dwindled away1 while     
higher forms of vegetation  asserted    
their supremacy4 ,it is not1 however1   
improbable that a  special development  
at a much later period is indicated by  
the  mention in the second chapter of   
the formation of the garden of  ,eden4  
,,section #g4 ,,the ,,fourth ,,day4     
,and ,god said1 ,let there be luminaries
 in the firmament of heaven  to divide  
between the day and the night1 and let  
them be for signs  and for seasons1 and 
for days and for years4    ,and let them
 be for luminaries in the firmament of  

heaven to give  light upon the earth2   
and it was so4    ,and ,god made the two
 luminaries1 the great ones2 the        
luminary1  the great one1 to rule over  
the day1 and the luminary1 the small    
one1 to rule over the night1 and also   
the stars4    ,and ,god gave them in the
 firmament of heaven to give light upon 
the earth4    ,and to rule over the day 
and over the night1 and to divide       
between the light and between the       
darkness2 and ,god saw that it  was     
good4    ,and there was evening1 and    
there was morning1 a fourth day4        
,this day's work differs from that of   
the preceding and succeeding  days1 in  
the fact that its sphere was without the
 earth1 which was  only indirectly      
influenced by it1 and consequently the  
geological  records give us no direct   
information upon the subject1 though in 
two points they tally with the ,mosaical
 account4 ,in the first  place1 the     
deposits of coal1 which preceded this   
period1 indicate  a time when a nearly  

uniform temperature1 and that a high    
one1  prevailed throughout the world4   
,the coal beds are found not only  in   
tropical regions1 but in very high      
latitudes4 ,not only is the  vegetation 
of which these coalfields are the       
result1 analogous to  that which is now 
found in warm climates only--7this might
 be the  case1 and yet we should not be 
justified in drawing the inference  that
 the actual species of plants were      
tropical1 for it often  happens that    
different species of the same genus1    
having  considerable external           
resemblance1 are very different in their
  habits1 some requiring tropical heat1 
while others flourish only  in temperate
 climates7--but the marked feature is   
the astonishing  luxuriance of this     
vegetation1 which could only have been  
developed under the most favourable     
circumstances of warmth and  moisture4  
,now the heat which any particular      
portion of the earth's  surface receives
 from the sun depends entirely upon the 

latitude4  hence it is impossible that a
 uniform high temperature could exist   
in a world which derived its heat wholly
 or chiefly from that  source4 ,whether 
the high temperature which prevailed on 
the earth  during the deposition of the 
coal measures was derived from  internal
 heat it is impossible to say2 it is    
evident that the  temperature of the    
earth's surface has been in past times1 
and  perhaps is now1 modified by causes 
which no scientific research  has been  
enabled to detect ,footnote3 ,since the 
sun's secular  motion has been known1   
astronomers have suggested that the     
solar  system has been carried through  
portions of space having variable       
temperatures4 ,geologists1 however1 do  
not seem inclined to accept  this as a  
sufficient reason for the phenomena     
observed44 ,but we  may safely conclude 
that during the third day the earth did 
not  derive its heat from the sun4 ,the 
second point1 the barrenness of  the    
geological records of this period1 will 

be noticed hereafter4    ,the record of 
the fourth day's work admits of two     
interpretations1  it may describe things
 merely as they appeared1 or as they    
actually occurred4    #a4 ,it is        
possible that the events of the fourth  
day may be  described phenomenally--that
 up to this period the state of things  
on the earth had been to a great extent 
similar to that which we  have reason to
 believe is still existing in the planet
 ,jupiter-  that the atmosphere was so  
charged with vapour that no direct rays 
from the heavenly bodies could penetrate
 it2 but that at this  time1 owing to   
the declining heat1 a great part of the 
aqueous  constituents of this vapour had
 been precipitated in the form of  rain1
 while other vapours had entered into   
chemical combinations  with other       
elements to form the various minerals of
 the earth's  surface1 and the          
atmosphere had become first translucent1
 and then  transparent4 ,while this     
process was going on1 no direct light   

from  the sun1 supposing it to be       
already in existence1 could penetrate   
the veil4 ,diffused light only could    
reach the earth's surface1 but  when the
 atmosphere became clear the sun1 moon1 
and stars would  become visible4        
,against this view several objections   
may be brought4 ,in the first  place1 as
 has been already noticed1 we cannot    
treat the account of  the ,creation as  
derived from ordinary human sources4    
,either it is  a revelation from the    
,creator or it is nothing4 ,now we can  
readily  admit that a man1 speaking of  
an event which lie had witnessed1  but  
did not understand1 would describe it as
 it appeared to him1  but we cannot     
admit this supposition when the work is 
described by  the ,great ,artificer     
,himself4 ,in the next place1 the       
temperature of  the earth's surface must
 in this case have been affected by the 
sun1 and must therefore have been more  
or less dependent upon  latitude--and in
 the third place the distinction between

 day and  night must have come into     
operation1 whereas the narrative implies
  that it was yet incomplete4    #b4    
,the other possible interpretation is1  
that at this period the  concentration  
of light and heat in the sun was so far 
completed  that he became the luminary  
of the system1 which had hitherto       
derived its light and heat from other   
sources4 ,probably1 for a  long time1   
the internal heat of the planets may    
have been so great  that they were a    
light to themselves4 ,this state of     
things1  however1 must have come to an  
end before animal or vegetable life     
could have existed on their surface1 but
 other ways exist1 and are  in operation
 in other parts of the universe1 by     
which light and  heat might have been   
supplied independently of the sun4 ,that
 light  which is now gathered up in the 
sun might for a long time have  existed 
as a nebulous ring1 similar to the      
well-known ,ring ,nebula  in ,lyra4 ,any
 planets existing within such a ring    

would probably  derive from it          
sufficient light and heat4 ,or the      
nebulous matter1  in a luminous state1  
while slowly advancing to concentration1
  might as yet have been so diffused as 
to fill a space in which the  earth's   
orbit was included4 ,in either case the 
earth would have  received a uniform    
diffused light1 without any alternations
 of  night and day4 ,it is of course    
impossible that we should be able  to   
say whether there are any worlds in     
which such a state of  things prevails  
at present4 ,up to this time1 with one  
possible  exception1 ,footnote3 ,sirius 
is accompanied by a #aj mag4 star1      
whose existence was suspected 7like that
 of ,neptune71 long before  its         
discovery by ,alvan ,clark in #ahfa1    
from the irregular movements  of its    
primary4 ,but though it appears so      
small1 its disturbing  effects can only 
be accounted for on the supposition that
 its mass  is at least half that of     
,sirius1 in which case its light must be

  very faint1 possibly wholly reflected4
 7,webb's ,celestial ,objects1  p4      
#bjb47 the only worlds which the        
telescope has revealed to us1  beyond   
the limits of our own system1 are       
self-luminous4 ,no  reflected light is  
strong enough to make its existence     
perceptible  at such enormous distances 
in the most powerful telescope which    
has yet been constructed4    ,there are 
some facts connected with our own system
 which make it  appear not improbable   
that up to the time of which we are     
speaking  the light which is now        
gathered up in the sun was diffused over
 a  space in which at all events the    
earth's orbit was included4 ,it is  now 
a recognized fact that all the light of 
the system is not as  yet wholly        
concentrated in the sun1 as we generally
 recognize it1  but that to some extent 
the sun is still a nebulous star4 ,under
  ordinary circumstances we see only    
that circular disc1 which we  usually   
recognize as the sun4 ,its surpassing   

brightness overpowers  every thing else1
 whether we view it with the unaided eye
 or  through the telescope4 ,but when   
the actual disc is hidden from us  by   
the moon in a total eclipse1 other      
regions of light surrounding  the disc1 
make their appearance1 and in them the  
most wonderful  processes are           
continually going on4 ,the simultaneous 
discoveries  of ,messrs4 ,lockyer and   
,janssen1 in #ahfh1 have enabled some of
  these processes to be continuously    
watched when the sun is not  eclipsed1  
but others can as yet only be seen      
during the few  minutes 7never amounting
 to seven7 which a total eclipse lasts1 
so  that as yet we know very little of  
them4    ,immediately surrounding the   
disc of the sun1 which is visible to    
the naked eye1 is a brilliant ring of   
light1 known now as the  chromosphere or
 sierra4 ,this is the region which till 
#ahfh could  be seen only during total  
eclipses1 but can now be watched at all 
times by means of the spectroscope4 ,in 

it symptoms of intense  action are from 
time to time witnessed4 ,for many years 
past1  whenever a total eclipse         
occurred1 there were observed on the    
edge  of this ring certain red          
prominences4 ,the spectroscope has      
revealed their nature4 ,they consist    
chiefly of enormous volumes of          
hydrogen1 ejected from the surface of   
the sun with a velocity  almost         
inconceivable1 and at the same time     
revolving about their  axis after the   
fashion of a cyclone4 ,footnote3        
,popular ,science  ,review1 ,january1   
#ahgb1 p4 #aej2 ,look4 ,byer's ,lecture 
on the ,sun1 at  ,manchester1 #ahga4 ,a 
very remarkable instance of this was    
observed  in ,america in ,september     
#ahga1 by ,professor ,young4 ,a mass of 
incandescent hydrogen was propelled to a
 height of #bjj1jjj miles  above the    
visible disc2 of these the last #ajj1jjj
 miles were  passed through in #aj      
minutes4 ,such events1 though not       
commonly on  so vast a scale1 are       

continually occurring on the surface of 
the  sun1 and they seem to be in close  
connexion with the magnetic  phenomena  
occurring on the earth4    ,beyond the  
chromosphere lies the corona4 ,the      
spectroscope has not  yet rendered this 
visible at all times1 and consequently  
we are  dependent upon the information  
to be obtained during the few  minutes  
of total eclipses1 when alone it is     
visible4 ,consequently  during recent   
solar eclipses this has been the point  
to which the  attention of astronomers  
has been especially devoted4 ,the       
eclipse  of ,december1 #ahgj1 decided   
one point1 that the corona was a truly  
solar phenomenon1 and not1 as some      
astronomers imagined1 an  optical       
phenomenon1 produced by our own         
atmosphere4 ,the corona  presents the   
appearance of nebulous light1 fading as 
it becomes  more remote from the sun1 of
 very irregular outline1 at some  points
 not extending more than #ae'1 at others
 as much as #fj' or  #gj' from the sun's

 disc1 or1 in other words1 reaching to  
distances  from the sun's surface       
varying from #djj1jjj to #a1hjj1jjj     
miles4  ,more important information has 
been obtained from the eclipse of       
,december #ab1ahga4 ,it is now          
ascertained that the corona comprises   
not only gaseous elements1 especially   
hydrogen1 but also solid or  fluid      
particles1 capable of giving a          
continuous though very faint  spectrum  
with dark lines1 indicating the         
existence of matter  capable of         
reflecting light4 ,the character of the 
coronal spectrum  very much resembles   
that of the ,nebula in ,draco1 ,no4     
#dcgc4 ,the  ascertained extent of the  
corona exceeds a million of miles above 
the surface of the sun1 and it seems    
probable that the ,zodiacal  light is   
only a fainter extension of it4         
,footnote3 ,popular  ,science ,review1  
,april1 #ahgb1 pp4 #acf-adf4    ,on a   
clear evening in the early spring       
months1 as soon as twilight  is         

completely ended1 a conical streak of   
light may be sometimes  seen1 arising'  
from the western horizon1 and extending 
through an  arc of #fj or #gj degrees1  
nearly in the direction of the          
,ecliptic1  and finally terminating in a
 point4 ,this is the ,zodiacal light4   
,in  tropical climates it is seen much  
more frequently1 ,footnote3  ,humboldt1 
,kosmos1 vol4 i4 p4 #abf 7,bohu's       
edition74 and is much  more brilliant   
than in ,england4 ,this then is probably
 an envelope  of still fainter light    
than the corona4 ,it must extend beyond 
the  orbit of ,venus1 as the maximum    
elongation of ,venus is #dg degrees1    
while the ,zodiacal light has been      
traced for #gj degrees1 and  probably   
farther4 ,it is very possible that the  
earth is  occasionally involved in it1  
and that from it we derive that         
diffused light which1 though faint1 is  
very serviceable to us on a  starless   
evening1 and of which no other account  
has as yet been  given4 ,the light we   

receive in this way is often as powerful
 as  that which we should receive from  
the stars if they were not  hidden by   
clouds4    ,these phenomena seem to     
point to the conclusion that the        
condensation of light in the sun has    
been a very gradual process1  which is  
even yet incomplete4 ,if we suppose that
 at the time of  the formation of the   
coal measures it was not far advanced1  
but  that a diffused light extended     
beyond the orbit of the earth1  similar 
in some respects to the present         
,zodiacal light1 but equal  in intensity
 to the light which we now see in the   
corona1 the  phenomena of the third day 
will be satisfactorily accounted for4   
,there is1 however1 still an enormous   
amount of mystery connected  with the   
sun4 ,it is the centre from which an    
inconceivable amount  of force in the   
shape of light1 heat1 actinism1 and     
probably other  manifestations1 is      
hourly poured forth4 ,if the whole of   
that force  were divided into two       

thousand million parts1 the portion     
received  by the earth would be         
represented by one of those parts1 and  
the  whole amount received by all the   
planets would fall short of  twelve of  
them4 ,all the rest is radiated away    
into space1 and so  far as we know at   
present lost to the system4 ,the        
question then  arises1 ,how is this     
enormous expenditure supplied8 ,various 
sources of heat have been suggested1 but
 none of them seem  satisfactory4 ,one  
conceivable source there is1 but that   
lies out  of the domain of science4     
,then again1 metals1 which only our most
  powerful furnaces will even melt1     
exist in the sun's atmosphere in  the   
state of vapour4 ,what must be the      
intensity of the heat which  underlies  
that metallic atmosphere8 and what can  
be the solid or  fluid substances which1
 from the continuity of the spectrum1 we
  know must exist there8    ,we turn now
 to the ,mosaic ,record to see what     
light it throws upon  and receives from 

this investigation4 ,the first thing to 
be  noticed is that the word used by    
,moses for the sun and moon is not  the 
same as that employed to denote light4  
,it properly signifies a  light-holder1 
such as a candlestick1 and harmonizes   
with the view  that the sun in his      
original state was not luminous1 but was
 made  a luminary by the condensation of
 light previously existent under  other 
conditions4 ,in the next place1 though  
the apparent  dimensions of the sun and 
moon are the same1 ,moses correctly     
describes the one as the great light1   
the other as the little  light1 thus    
indicating a knowledge to which the     
astronomers of  his day had probably not
 attained4    ,the relation between the 
accounts of the first and fourth day's  
work becomes clear if we assume that the
 sun was not made a  luminary till the  
fourth day4 ,the division of night and  
day  depends upon two things1 the       
rotation of the earth upon its axis1    
and the concentration of light in the   

sun4 ,hence when the rotation  of the   
earth commenced that division was       
potentially provided for1  but the      
provision would not take effect until   
the second condition  was fulfilled by  
the concentration of light in the sun4  
,the  indications given by the coal     
measures point1 as we have seen1 to  the
 same conclusion4    ,the only remaining
 question is ,what was going on in the  
earth at  the same time8 ,our materials 
for answering this question are but     
scanty4 ,so great an alteration in the  
sources of light and heat  must have    
involved great physical changes on the  
earth's surface1  and there is reason to
 believe that great mechanical forces   
were  at work producing vast changes in 
the relations of land and water4  ,it   
has long been the opinion of the most   
eminent geologists that  the coalfields 
of ,lancashire and ,yorkshire were once 
united1 the  upper coal measures and the
 overlying ,millstone ,grit and         
,toredale  ,bocks having been           

subsequently removed by denudation2 but 
what is  remarkable is the ancient date 
now assigned to this denudation1  for it
 seems that a thickness of no less than 
#aj1jjj feet of the  coal measures had  
been carried away before the deposition 
of even  the lower ,permian ,rocks1     
which were thrown down upon the already 
disturbed truncated edges of the coal   
strata4 ,footnote3 ,lyell1  ,geology for
 ,students1 p4 #cgg4 ,and this is but a 
single instance4    ,during the interval
 between the deposition of the coal     
measures1  which seem to belong to the  
third1 and the ,saurian remains which   
mark the fifth day1 we have the ,permian
 and ,triassic ,rocks1 of  which the    
,magnesian4 ,limestone and the new ,red 
,sandstone are the  most important      
representatives in ,england4 ,till a    
very recent  period it was thought that 
these rocks belonged to a period        
remarkably destitute of animal life1    
very few fossils having been  found in  
them4 ,recently1 however1 some very rich

 deposits have  been found in the       
,tyrol1 belonging to this period1 but   
they are  only local4    ,of the        
,permian formation ,sir ,c4 ,lyell says1
 ,not one of the  species 7of fossils7  
is common to rocks newer than the       
,palaeozoic4 ,footnote3 ,geology for    
,students1 p4 #cfi4 ,this was  not then 
a time for the origination of new forms 
of life4 ,in the  ,trias1 however1 the  
new development of life1 which was to   
attain  its full dimensions on the fifth
 day1 begins to open upon us4 ,the      
earliest ,saurian fossils are found1 and
 the rocks still present us  with       
impressions of the feet of reptiles and 
birds1 which walked  over the soft      
seashore1 and left footprints1 which    
were first  dried and hardened by the   
sun and wind1 and then filled up with   
fresh sand by the returning tide1 but   
never entirely coalesced  with the new  
material4    ,at the close of this      
period the first traces of mammalian    
life  occur1 in the shape of teeth1     

which are supposed to have belonged  to 
some small ,marsupial quadrupeds1 and in
 ,america the whole lower  jaws of three
 such animals have been discovered2 but 
no other  remains have as yet been      
traced4    ,the ,trias then seems to    
mark the boundary between the fourth and
  fifth days4 ,the fourth day seems to  
have been on the earth a  period of     
great change1 not only in physical      
conditions1 but also  in the forms of   
life4 ,in the latter point of view1     
however1 it  seems to have been marked  
by the passing-away of old forms much   
more than by the origination of new     
ones1 and hence the barrenness  of the  
,geological ,records is in exact        
accordance with the silence  of the     
,mosaic ,record as to any new           
developments4    ,,section #h4 ,,the    
,,fifth ,,day    ,and ,god said4 ,let   
the waters swarm swarms1 the soul of    
life1 and  let fowl fly above the earth 
in the face of the firmament of  heaven4
    ,and ,god created the monsters1 the 

great ones1 and every soul of  life that
 creepeth1 with which the waters        
swarmed1 after their  kind1 and every   
winged fowl after his kind2 and ,god saw
 that it  was good4    ,and ,god blessed
 them1 saying1 ,be fruitful and         
multiply1 and fill  the waters in the   
sea1 and let fowl multiply on the earth4
    ,and there was evening1 and there   
was morning1 a fifth day4    ,the fifth 
and sixth days of ,creation are those to
 which the theory  of development       
chiefly refers4 ,it will1 therefore1 be 
better to  defer the consideration of   
its bearing on the narrative till the   
relation of that narrative to           
,geological facts has been  considered1 
since it can only be thoroughly weighed 
when taken in  connexion with the facts 
which belong to the two days4    ,the   
beginning of the fifth day may be       
assigned to a point near  where the     
,trias is succeeded by the ,lias4 ,as   
the ,trias is drawing  to its close1 the
 class of reptiles1 whose first known   

appearance  belongs to the carboniferous
 epoch of the third day1 begins to  show
 signs of advance4 ,the first true      
,saurians are found in the  ,trias3 the 
great development takes place in the    
,lias and ,oolite1  while in the chalk  
large quantities of kindred remains are 
found1  which1 however1 are not         
identical with the species found in the 
earlier groups4 ,of these some were     
probably almost entirely  aquatic1 as   
their limbs take the form of paddles2   
others were  purely terrestrial1 a large
 proportion were amphibious1 and some1  
as the pterodactylus1 bore the same     
relation to the rest of their  class as 
the bats bear to the other mammalia1    
being furnished with  membranous wings1 
supported upon a special development of 
the  anterior limbs4 ,one important     
characteristic of the race at this  time
 was the great size of many of its      
members3 thirty feet is by  no means an 
uncommon length4 ,this marks the fitness
 of the name  given to the class by     

,moses4    ,very few actual remains of  
birds have been found2 but this is not  
surprising1 since birds would rarely be 
exposed to the conditions  which were   
essential to the fossilization of their 
remains4 ,the  earliest known fossil    
bird is the ,archaeopteryx1 the remains 
of  which were found in #ahfb in the    
,solenhofen ,slates1 which belong to    
the ,oolite formation4 ,though the      
actual remains of birds are very  few1  
traces of their footprints have been    
found in many places1  from the ,new    
,red ,sandstone upwards1 and these      
traces prove not  only that they were   
very numerous1 but also that they       
attained to  a gigantic size1 as their  
feet were sometimes from twelve to      
fifteen inches in length1 and their     
stride extended from six to  eight feet4
 ,during this period1 then1 these two   
classes must have  been the dominant    
races of the earth4 ,as the precursors  
of these  classes made their appearance 
at a much earlier period1 so the  epoch 

of birds and reptiles witnessed the     
beginning and gradual  advance of the   
class which was to succeed them in the  
foremost  place--the mammalia4          
,generally1 however1 the mammalian      
remains of  this period belong to what  
are considered the lower classes--the   
monotremata and marsupialia4 ,the close 
of this period must have  been a time of
 great disturbance in the ,northern     
,hemisphere1 since  the chalk which runs
 through a great part of ,northern      
,europe1 and  frequently attains a      
thickness of #ajjj feet1 must have been 
deposited at the bottom of a deep sea1  
and subsequently elevated4    ,,section 
#i4 ,,the ,,sixth ,,day4    #a4 ,the    
,mammalia4    ,and ,god said1 ,let the  
earth cause to go forth the soul of     
life1  cattle1 and creeping thing1 and  
the beast of the earth 7wild  animals7  
after his kind2 and it was so4    ,and  
,god made the beast of the earth after  
his kind1 and cattle  after their kind1 
and every creeping thing of the ground  

after his  kind2 and ,god saw that it   
was good4    ,in these two verses there 
are one or two points which call for    
notice4 ,in the first place1 the        
creatures mentioned are divided  into   
three classes1 of which two1 cattle and 
the beast of the  earth1 are tolerably  
clear in their general significance1    
though  their extent is not determined4 
,the third is denoted by a word  which  
had already been employed to describe   
the work of the fifth  day1 and is      
translated in our version creeping      
thing4 ,the  probability seems to be    
that it has reference to such classes of
  animals as the smaller rodentia1 and  
the mustelidas1 whose motions  may be   
appropriately described by the word     
creeping4 ,that it  denotes four-footed 
creatures has already been pointed out4 
,the  next point is1 that in each case  
the singular is used2 in the case  of   
the domestic animals this fact is lost  
to the ,english reader by  the use of   
the collective noun cattle4 ,of course  

it is a common  usage1 to denote a class
 of animals by a singular noun used     
generically1 but the statements of the  
passage would also be  justified if one 
pair only of each of the three types    
specified  were called into existence at
 first4 ,it is also to be noticed that  
while the word ,hebrew script1 the earth
 is used to define the  wild beast2     
another word1 ,hebrew script the ground1
 is applied  to the creeping thing4     
,there is probably a reason for this1   
though it may not at present be         
apparent4    ,when we turn to the       
,geological record1 we find that the    
period of  the chalk was followed by the
 deposition of the tertiary strata4     
,during the upheaval of the chalk these 
strata seem to have been  gradually laid
 down in its hollows1 and around its    
edges4 ,they  extend from the ,london   
clay upward to the crag formations which
  appear on the ,eastern coast of       
,england at intervals from  ,bridlington
 to ,suffolk4 ,in these strata we see   

signs of an  approach to the existing   
state of things4 ,as we ascend through  
them1 a gradually increasing number of  
the fossil shells are found  to be      
specifically identical with those which 
at present inhabit  the ocean4          
,another characteristic of this period  
is the abundance of fossil  remains of  
mammalia2 but in this case1 although the
 remains are  evidently1 in many cases1 
those of creatures nearly allied to     
those now existing1 they are not        
identical1 very great  modifications    
both of bulk and of minor structural    
details having  taken place4 ,one very  
important point of difference is the    
vastly  superior bulk of these ancient  
animals3 a good illustration of  which  
may be seen in the skeletons of the     
mammoth and of the  modern elephant1    
which are placed near each other in the 
,british  ,museum4 ,many of these       
animals appear not to have become       
extinct  till long after the appearance 
of man4    ,the first appearance of     

mammalia1 as has been already noticed1  
must have been long before this1 as the 
earliest fossils yet found  are at the  
lower limit of the ,lias4 ,they belong1 
however1 to the  genus ,marsupialia1 of 
which1 as far as we know1 no            
representatives  were in existence in   
any part of the world known to ,moses1  
so that  even on the supposition that he
 intended to give an account of the     
first appearance of the classes of      
animals which he mentions1 the  omission
 of these would have been inevitable4   
,his words1 however1  appear to point to
 a time when the mammalia occupied the  
leading  place1 just as the reptiles had
 occupied the leading place at a        
previous epoch4 ,and his words are fully
 borne out by the records  of the rocks4
    ,at the close of the tertiary period
 great changes once more took  place in 
the ,northern hemisphere4 ,there was a  
great and extensive  subsidence1 in     
consequence of which a large portion of 
,northern  and ,middle ,europe must have

 been under water1 the mountain summits 
only appearing as detached islands4 ,at 
the same time1 from causes  utterly     
unknown to us1 there was a great        
depression of  temperature1 the result  
of which was1 that all1 or nearly all   
the  land1 in those regions which were  
not submerged1 was covered with         
glaciers1 much as ,greenland is now1 and
 from these glaciers vast  icebergs must
 from time to time have been detached by
 the sea and  floated off1 carrying with
 them fragments of rock1 some freshly   
broken1 some rounded by long attrition1 
which were deposited on  the then       
submerged lands as the ice melted1 and  
are now found as  boulders1 sometimes   
lying on the surface1 at others         
dispersed  through beds of clay and sand
 formed under water from the debris     
worn down by the glaciers4 ,a subsequent
 movement of elevation  ushered in the  
state of things which exists on the     
earth at the  present time4    #b4 ,man4
    ,and ,god said1 ,let ,us make man   

7,adam7 in ,our image after ,our        
likeness2 and he shall have dominion    
over the fish of the sea1 and  over the 
fowl of the heaven1 and over the cattle1
 and over all the  earth1 and over every
 creeping thing that creepeth upon the  
earth4    ,and ,god created man 7the    
,adam7 in ,his image1 in the image of   
,god  created ,he him2 male and female  
,he created them4    ,and ,god blessed  
them1 and ,god said to them1 ,be        
fruitful and  multiply1 and fill the    
earth and subdue it2 and rule over the  
fish  of the sea1 and the fowl of the   
heaven1 and over every animal that      
creepeth upon the earth4    ,and ,god   
said1 ,behold1 ,i have given you every  
herb seeding seed1  which is upon the   
face of all the earth1 and every tree   
which has  in it the fruit of a tree    
seeding seed2 to you it shall be for    
food4    ,and to every animal of the    
earth1 and to every fowl of the  heaven1
 and to every thing that creepeth upon  
the earth1 in which  is the soul of     

life1 every green herb is for meat2 and 
it was so4    ,and ,god saw every       
thing--which ,he had made1 and behold it
 was  good exceedingly4    ,and there   
was evening and there was morning1 the  
sixth day4    ,the terms in which the   
,creation of man is spoken of are such  
as to  challenge particular attention   
and to induce us to expect  something   
very different from what occurred on any
 previous  occasion4 ,in the first      
place1 more agents than one are         
introduced  by the use of the plural    
form of the verb1 and thus at the very  
commencement of man's career there is an
 intimation of that  mysterious fact of 
the ,trinity in ,unity which was to have
 so  important an influence upon his    
future destiny4 ,then we are told  that 
man was to be formed in the ,image of   
,god1 a statement which  probably is of 
very wide import4 ,it has been variously
 interpreted  as having reference to the
 spiritual1 moral1 and intellectual     
nature of man2 to the fact that the     

nature of man was afterwards  to be     
assumed by the ,second ,person of the   
,trinity2 to the  delegated empire of   
this world which man was to hold4 ,there
 are  two expressions of ,st4 ,paul3    
that man is the image and glory of  ,god
 7#a ,cor4 xi4 #g71 and that the        
invisible things of ,him from  the      
creation of the world are clearly seen1 
being understood by  the things that are
 made1 even ,his eternal ,power and     
,godhead  7,rom4 i4 #bj71 which seem to 
indicate that this record has a         
significance which as yet we can only   
partially understand4 ,then  the story  
of man's creation is repeated in the    
second chapter1 and  while the other    
events recorded in the first chapter are
 very  briefly summarized1 that of man  
is very much amplified4 ,this does  riot
 necessarily indicate an independent    
account1 as is sometimes  asserted2 at  
the fourth verse of the second chapter a
 distinct  portion of revelation        
commences--the special dealing of ,god  

with  man1 and this could not be        
intelligible without an amount of       
detail with reference to man's origin1  
which would have been out  of place in  
the short account of the origin of the  
world by which  it is preceded4 ,in this
 account the creation of ,adam and ,eve 
is  recorded as two separate events1 the
 latter of which is described  in terms 
of deep mystery1 of which all that we   
can say is that  they point to that     
still deeper mystery--the birth of the  
,bride--  the ,lamb's ,wife from the    
pierced side of the ,lamb4 ,but in the  
case  of ,adam there is a remarkable    
difference from anything that has  gone 
before4 ,two distinct acts of creation  
are recorded2 one of  which places man  
before us in his physical relation to   
the lower  animals1 while the other     
treats of him in his spiritual relation 
to his ,maker4 ,the ,lord ,god formed   
man 7the ,adam7 dust from the  ground   
7adamah71 and breathed into his nostrils
 the breath of  lives2 and man became a 

soul of life4 ,the inspiration of the   
breath of lives distinguishes the       
creation of man from that of  all other 
creatures4    ,the ,geological records  
harmonize exactly with the ,bible as to 
the  date of man's appearance on the    
earth4 ,it is towards the close of  the 
age of gigantic mammalia1 that the      
earliest remains of man's  workmanship  
make their appearance in the shape of   
tools and  weapons rudely fashioned from
 stone4 ,parts of human skeletons have  
also been occasionally found1 but they  
are exceedingly rare4  ,weapons and     
bones are alike confined to superficial1
 and  comparatively very recent         
formations4 ,from such traces as have   
been found there is no reason to believe
 that any physical changes  of          
importance have taken place in man's    
body since his first  appearance on the 
earth4 ,the differences which do exist  
are of the  same kind as1 and not       
greater than1 the differences which     
exist  between individuals at present4  

,the gift of dominion over the lower    
animals seems to indicate  something    
different from that which gives one     
animal superiority  over another1 and   
accordingly we find that it is not by   
physical  power that that dominion is   
exercised2 but that in most of his      
physical faculties man is inferior to   
the very animals which he  holds in     
subjection4 ,it is partly in virtue of  
his intellectual  superiority1 and      
partly perhaps by means of an           
instinctive  recognition on the part of 
the animals of man's higher nature      
7,gen4 ix4 #b7 that that supremacy is   
maintained4    ,,section #aj4           
,,development4    ,we have now to       
consider the question of development1 in
 reference  to the ,mosaic ,record of   
the last two days1 and to the known     
facts  to which that record has         
relation4 ,the account of the third     
day's  work has also a bearing on the   
subject1 but as the same  considerations
 will to a great extent apply to animals

 and to  plants1 it will not be         
necessary to make any special reference 
to  it4    ,the facts in favour of the  
theory of development are these3--#a4   
,the different classes of plants and    
animals are not separated by  broad     
lines of demarcation1 but shade         
insensibly into each other4  #b4 ,the   
characteristics of the same species are 
not constant2 the  lion1 for instance1  
the horse1 the elephant1 and the hyena  
of the  present day differ in many minor
 points from the corresponding  animals 
of the ,tertiary period1 so that unless 
there was a  possibility of spontaneous 
change1 we must assume successive       
creations of animals1 with only trivial 
differences4 #c4 ,in all  animals there 
are minute individual differences1 and  
if under any  circumstances these       
differences had a tendency to           
accumulate1 they  might in the course of
 time result in great structural        
modifications4 #d4 ,man has been able to
 take advantage of this fact  and by    

careful selection to mould the breeds of
 domestic animals  to a certain extent  
in accordance with his own wishes4      
,the theory of development assumes that 
for the care of man other  forces might 
be substituted1 which in a long course  
of ages might  result in changes of far 
greater extent than those produced by   
human agency4 ,the forces assigned are  
natural selection and sexual  selection4
 ,the difficulties in the way of this   
hypothesis have  been already           
considered1 and only require to be      
briefly re-stated4    #a4 ,as regards   
modifications of organs already         
existing1 the two  alleged causes are   
insufficient to account for the results 
which  we witness1 since in each        
individual case the concurrence of many 
contingent causes1 continued through a  
long series of ages1 is  required to    
produce the result4 ,but the            
probabilities against  such1 a          
concurrence in any one case are         
enormous1 and against  their concurrence

 in a large number of cases the chances 
are  practically infinite4    #b4 ,that 
such causes do not at all account for   
cases in which an  entirely new organ is
 developed1 such as mammary glands--or  
for  the case of man1 in which          
intellectual superiority is accompanied 
by a loss of physical power4    #c4     
,that from the nature of the case it is 
impossible for us to  ascertain that    
natural or sexual selection has ever    
acted to  produce a single modification1
 however small1 and that the results  of
 man's superintendence have not as yet  
passed beyond certain  narrow limits1 so
 that there is no justification for the 
assumption that such modifications are  
capable of being carried to  an         
unlimited extent4    ,we see that in the
 only case in which change is known to  
have been  brought about1 it has been   
the result of choice and design4 ,if    
then there is a probability that choice 
and design may have been  exercised by a
 power higher than man1 there is no     

longer any  reason to doubt but that    
results much greater than any to which  
man can attain may have been brought    
about by the same means4 ,and  in fact  
the advocates of the theory of          
development do virtually  admit the     
existence and action of such a power1   
whenever they have  recourse to assumed 
laws to account for phenomena for which 
their naked theory can give no reason4  
,for1 as has been shown1  law1 if it is 
to be assigned as an efficient cause1   
and not merely  as the statement of     
observed facts1 can only be regarded as 
the  expressed and enforced will of a   
higher power4 ,and there was no  reason 
why those minute variations themselves1 
which are the basis  of ,mr4 ,darwin's  
hypothesis1 should be considered casual4
 ,instead  then of natural selection1 or
 sexual selection1 let us suppose  that 
the selection took place under the      
superintending care of the  ,creator1   
and was directed towards the carrying   
out of ,his designs1  and then we shall 

have no reason to doubt but that all    
results  which consisted only in the    
modification of existing organs may     
have been obtained by the operation of  
those laws which we term  natural1      
because they express modes of operation 
with which we are  so familiar that we  
look upon them as automatic4    ,but    
there are other results for which no    
natural laws with which  we are         
acquainted will thus account4 ,just as  
no mechanical laws  within our knowledge
 will account for the rotation of the   
earth1  so no physiological laws yet    
discovered will account for the  changes
 when totally new orders of being came  
on the stage--when  the course of life  
took1 as it were1 a new point of        
departure4 ,but  it is precisely at     
these points that the ,mosaic ,record   
points to a  special interference on the
 part of the ,creator4 ,how that        
interference took place we are not      
informed4 ,very possibly it may  have   
been the result of other laws which lie 

wholly out of the  reach of our powers  
of observation4 ,but whatever may have  
been its  character1 it does not in any 
way imply change or defect in the       
original plan1 unless we know1 7what we 
do not know1 and cannot  ascertain7 that
 such interference formed no part of the
 original  design4 ,everything bears the
 marks of progressive development1 and  
there is nothing improbable1 but rather 
the reverse1 in the  supposition that   
such a plan should include special steps
 of  advance to be made when the        
preparation for them was completed4     
,the ,mosaic ,record tells us nothing   
about the method by which ,god  created 
the different varieties of plants and   
animals4 ,all that we  read there is    
just as applicable to a process of      
evolution1 as to  any other method which
 we may be able to imagine4 ,but it is  
remarkable that what ,moses does say is 
just what is required to  make ,mr4     
,darwin's theory possible4 ,so far then 
as the lower orders  of creation are    

concerned1 the hypothesis of            
development1 modified  by the admission 
of uniform superintendence and          
occasional special  interferences on the
 part of the ,creator1 may be accepted  
as being  the most satisfactory         
explanation that can be given1 in the   
present state of physiological science1 
of the ,scriptural  ,narrative4    ,but 
we have yet to consider this hypothesis 
as applied to man in  ,mr4 ,darwin's    
latest work4 ,we naturally recoil from  
the thought  that we have sprung from   
some lower race of animals--that we are 
only the descendants of some race of    
anthropoid apes4 ,so long as  it is     
asserted that we are no more than this1 
we may well be  reluctant to admit the  
suggestion4 ,but if it be admitted that 
to a  physical nature formed like the   
bodies of the lower animals1 a  special 
spiritual gift may have been superadded1
 the difficulty  vanishes4 ,all ,mr4    
,darwin's arguments with reference to   
physical  resemblances may then be      

admitted1 and we may allow that he has  
given a probable explanation of the     
method by which the ,lord ,god  formed  
the ,adam1 dust from the ground while we
 maintain that the  intellectual and    
moral faculties of man are derived from 
a source  which lies beyond the         
investigations of science4    ,the      
conclusions to be drawn from this       
investigation may be briefly  summed up 
as follows3--    #a4 ,there is every    
reason to conclude that the process of  
,creation  was carried on1 in great     
part1 under the operation of the system 
of natural laws which we still see      
acting in the world around us3  such    
laws being so far as we are concerned   
only an expression of  an observed      
uniformity in the action of that ,being 
by whom the  ,universe was created and  
is upheld4    #b4 ,that inasmuch as the 
development of a new state of things    
differs from the maintenance of a       
condition already existing1 the  working
 of these laws was necessarily from time

 to time  supplemented by special       
interferences of the ,creator1 but that 
such interferences formed parts of the  
original design1 and are  not           
indications of anything in the shape of 
change or failure4    #c4 ,that many of 
the events recorded in the ,mosaic      
,record are of  the nature of such      
special interferences1 while others     
point to  remarkable developments of    
particular forms of organic life4    #d4
 ,that these interferences thus recorded
 occur at the exact  points at which    
natural laws1 so far as science has yet 
been able  to ascertain them1 are       
inadequate to produce the phenomena     
which  then took place1 and that the    
developments are proved by geology  to  
have taken place at the points          
indicated4    #e4 ,that the six days    
into which the work is divided by ,moses
 do  correspond to the probable order of
 development--that in three of  them1   
the third1 fifth1 and sixth1 this       
correspondence is marked  by facts      

ascertained by ,geology--that the       
fourth1 in which no  terrestrial        
phenomenon is recorded1 corresponds to a
 very long  period in the ,geological   
record in which no indications of any   
new  development are found--while the   
first and second indicate a state  of   
things which the nebular hypothesis     
renders highly probable1  but of which  
no positive information is within the   
reach of  science4    ,admitting then   
that there is something in the way in   
which the  days are spoken of which we  
are at present unable to understand1  we
 may yet confidently assert that such a 
record could not have  been the product 
of man's thought at the period at which 
it was  written4 ,it is utterly         
impossible that it should have been the 
result of a series of fortunate         
conjectures without any foundation  to  
rest upon1 and scientific foundation    
there was none1 for there  is every     
reason to believe that the sciences     
which might perchance  now supply some  

foundation are entirely the growth of   
the last  three centuries4 ,there is    
then only one conclusion that we can    
draw1 that it is a revelation from the  
,creator ,himself1 and that  if there is
 anything in it which seems inexplicable
 or erroneous1  that appearance arises  
from our own ignorance of facts1 and not
  from any error on the part of the     
,author4