Nor is it of much use to refer to the general use of "day" for indefinite periods, which is just as common in the English of to-day as it was in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the double use of the term in different senses has become general, just because it was found in practice that no confusion ordinarily resulted; and surely such a practice would not have been common, or at any rate would have been specially avoided in the sacred volume, wherever any mistake or confusion was likely or even possible.

No one can mistake what is meant when allusion is made to "the day in which G.o.d made the heaven and the earth." No one falls into doubt when the "days" of the prophets are spoken of--any more than they do now when a man says, "Such a thing will not happen in my _day_."

Whenever in Daniel, or in similar prophetic writings, the term "day" is used in a peculiar sense as indicating a term of years, we have no difficulty in recognizing the fact from the context and circ.u.mstances of the narrative; nor am I aware that any controversy has ever arisen regarding the use of the term "day" _in any pa.s.sage of Scripture excepting in this_.

This fact alone is suspicious; the more so, because there is absolutely nothing in the context to indicate that anything but an ordinary day is intended. Not only so, but there _is_ in the context something that does very clearly indicate (and I think Dr. Reville is perfectly justified in insisting on this) that an ordinary terrestrial day is meant. One of the primeval inst.i.tutions of Divine Providence for men, my readers will not need to be reminded, was that of a "Sabbath," which any one reading the text would understand to mean a day, and which the Jews--the earliest formal or legal recognizers of it--_did_ so understand, and that under direct Divine sanction.

If the _days_ of Genesis mean indefinite periods of aeonian duration, how is the seventh _day_ of rest to be understood?

But even if these difficulties are overcome, absolutely nothing is gained by taking the day to be a period.

I presume that the object of gaining long periods of time instead of days in reading the Mosaic record, is to a.s.sume that the narrative means to describe the actual production on the earth of all that was created; in other words, to a.s.sume a particular meaning for the words "created,"

"brought forth," &c and then to make out that if a whole age is granted, Science will allow us a sequence of a "plant age" a "fish and saurian age," a "bird age," and a "mammalian age";--that is, in general terms and neglecting minor forms of life. But then _to make any sense at all with the verses_ we are bound to show that each age preceded the next--that one was more than partly, if not quite completely, established _before_ any appearance of the next.

It is to this interpretation that Professor Huxley alludes when he says, in his first article,[1] "There must be some position from which the reconcilers of Science and Genesis will not retreat--some central idea the maintenance of which is vital, and its refutation fatal.... It is that the animal species which compose the water population, the air population, and the land population,[2] respectively, originated during three successive periods of time, and only during those periods of time."

[Footnote 1: "Nineteenth Century," December, 1885, pp. 856-7.]

[Footnote 2: These (unfortunate) terms are Mr. Gladstone's.]

For my own part, I hasten to say that, as one of the despised race of "reconcilers," not only is this idea no central position from which I will not retreat, but one which I should never think of occupying for one moment.

But on the view of the _periods_, some such position must be taken up.

And if so, I must maintain that Professor Huxley has shown--if indeed it was not obvious already--that the idea of a series of periods, and in each of which a certain kind of life began and culminated (if it was not fully completed) _before_ another began, is untrue to nature. This, therefore, cannot have been intended by the author of Genesis.

I will here interrupt my argument for a moment to say that there is a _certain degree_ of _coincidence_ between the succession of life on the earth as far as it is explained by palaeontological research, and the order of creation stated in Genesis; but that is not concerned with any forced interpretation of the term "day." The coincidence is just near enough to give rise to a desire to identify creative periods with the series shown by the fossil-bearing rocks; while it is attended with just enough of difference to furnish matter for controversy, and to expose the interpreters to be cut up.

But to return. Nothing, I submit, is gained by getting _day_ to mean period. Let us put the matter quite squarely. Let us take day to mean period, and let us take all the verses to mean the _process_ of _producing_ on earth the various life-forms.

In order to come at once to the point, let us begin with the time when the dry land and the waters are separate. At that moment, there is nothing said (or implied) about life already having begun in either water or on dry land. G.o.d commanded plants to grow; consequently during that _whole period_ nothing but plants, and that of all the kinds and cla.s.ses mentioned, should appear either in water or on land. That period being done, then came the command for water animals, fish and great monsters, and also birds. We ought, accordingly, to come next upon a whole period in which no trace of anything but plants and these animals can be found; and lastly, we ought to find the period of mammalia, smaller reptiles, _amphibia_ and insects (creeping things).

That is the fair and plain result of what comes of supposing the terms "let there be," &c., to mean _production on earth of the thing's themselves_, and that the days are long _periods_.

All overlapping of the periods is inadmissible. All meaning is taken away, if we allow of fish (e.g.) appearing in the middle of our first period; for G.o.d did not command another day's work till after the first was completed--"there was evening and there was morning, a first day"

(period), &c.

No; to suit the text so interpreted, we must have a full _period_ of plants with no fish; then a period of both but no insects, no creeping things, no animals; and so on. Now it is quite idle to contend any longer, that any such state of things ever existed.

If we pa.s.s over the long series of the most ancient strata in which doubtful forms of obscure elementary plant and animal life appear _almost_ together, we shall come to sh.e.l.l-fish, and crustaceans fully established in the water, and scorpions, and some insects even on land, _before_ plants made any great show. For the Carboniferous--_the_ age of acrogen plants, _par excellence_--does not occur till after swarms of _Trilobite_ Crustaceans had filled the sea and pa.s.sed away, and after the Devonian fish-age had nearly pa.s.sed away; and so on throughout.

The groups in nature overlap each other so closely, that though plant-life (in elementary forms) probably had the actual start; virtually the two kingdoms--plant and animal--appeared almost simultaneously. There is nothing like the appearance of a first period in which one _alone_ predominated. And long before the plants are established in all cla.s.ses, the great reptiles, birds, and some mammals, had appeared. The seed-bearing plants--true gra.s.ses and exogens with seed capsules (angiosperms) did not appear till quite Tertiary times.

That is the essential difference between the facts and the theory. If we make a diagram, and let the squares represent the main groups, the order (according to the period interpretation) ought to be as in A, whereas it really more resembles B. Thus.

[Ill.u.s.tration: The dotted extensions of the squares indicate the fore runners of the families, i.e., their first indications in the ages.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: _A New Interpretation suggested_]

But then it will be asked, if the day means only an ordinary day--not a long period--what is there that actually could have happened, and did happen, in _three days_ (for that is the real point, as we shall see), such as the writer describes as the third, fifth, and sixth days?

I answer that on those days, and on the previous ones, G.o.d did exactly what He is recorded to have done. After the creation of light (first day), and the ideal adjustment of the distribution of land and water (second day), He (_a_) "_created_," on the third day, plants, from the lowest cryptogam upwards; then (_b_) paused for a day (the fourth) in the direct work of creating life-forms, to adjust certain matters regarding times and seasons, and regulation of climate, which doubtless would not be essential during the early stages of life evolution, but would become so directly a certain point was reached; then (_c_) resumed the direct creating work (fifth day), with fishes, great reptiles,[1]

and birds (grouped purposely so, as we shall see); and, lastly (_d_), before the Day of Rest, created the group of mammals (_carnivora_ and _herbivora_), the "creeping things" of the earth, and man (also grouped together).

[Footnote 1: This term may be here accepted for the moment--not to interrupt the argument. It will be more fully dealt with in a subsequent chapter.]

But some one will ask, You then accept the earlier theory, that the whole life-series that is now revealed to us by the rocks, from the Laurentian to the Recent, is excluded from the narrative; and that some special acts of creation, regarding only modern and surviving life-forms, were made immediately before man appeared? By no-means; for such a theory is not only in itself improbable, but is contrary to all the evidence we possess of life-history on the earth, and is so hopeless that it is really not worth serious examination and refutation.

We have no evidence of any such gap--such sudden change in the history of life. Nor is it possible to find any place in the Mosaic story at which we could reasonably interpolate a _long_ period, such as that indicated by the entire series of rock strata. For a great part of such a period, not only must there have been a regular succession of life just the same in nature (though specifically different) as that now on earth, but a regular distribution of land and water, and a settled action of the sun and the seasons, would be required. No; we must give up all the older methods which try to ignore the study of the word "created," or to a.s.sume for it a meaning that it is not intended to bear.

All depends, then, on what is meant by such terms as "created," "let there be," "let the earth bring forth," &c. Perhaps it has occurred to but few of my readers seriously to examine into their own mental conception of an "act of creation." Some will readily answer, "Of course it means only that at the Divine _fiat_, any given species--say an elephant--appeared perfect, trunk, tusks, and all the peculiar development of skull and skeleton, where previously no such creature had existed." But what possible reason have they for this conclusion? None whatever. It has simply been carelessly a.s.sumed from age to age, because people at first knew no better; and when they began to know better, they did not stop to amend their ideas accordingly.

Of course, as Professor Huxley puts it, millions of pious Jews and Christians[1] supposed _creation_ to mean a "sudden act of the Deity"--i.e., to mean just what the knowledge of the time enabled them to imagine. They could do nothing else. The state of knowledge fifty years ago would not have rendered it possible for an article like Professor Huxley's (that to which allusion has several times been made) to have been written at all. What wonder, then, that the mult.i.tude did not understand what _creation_ meant, and that a reasonable interpretation of the word has only become possible in quite recent times? Surely all that is the fault of the reader, not of the text. I do not even care that the writer himself did not fully apprehend the subject. When a human prophet is entrusted with the divulgation of high and wonderful things, it is quite possible that he may have been to greater or less extent in the dark as to all or some of the communication he was writing.

[Footnote 1: Article quoted, p. 857.]

All that can be reasonably required is that the narrative, as it stands, shall be consistent with actual truth, and shall at no time come to be provably at variance with it.

But let us look at the word "creation" more closely. We accept what we are told, that in the beginning G.o.d called into existence force and matter, the material or "physical basis," and all other necessaries of life. Suppose, then (even dropping the question of Evolution, in order to satisfy the "pious millions"), that this "matter" was all ready (if I may so speak) to spring into organized form and being to take shape on earth--what shape should it take? Why (e.g.) an elephant? Why not any other animal, or a nondescript--a form which no zoologist could place, recognize, or cla.s.sify? The _form_, the ideal structure, the _formula_, of the genus elephant must somehow have come into existence _before_ the obedient materials and the suitable forces of nature could work themselves together to the desired end.

Mr. Mivart has defined "creation" at page 290 of his "Genesis of Species." There is original creation, derivative or secondary creation (where the present form has descended from an ancestor that was originally "directly" created), and conventional creation (as when a man "creates a fortune," meaning that he produces a complex state or arrangement out of simpler materials). That is perfectly true, so far; but it is only a verbal definition, and still does not go inside, into the _idea_ involved. We must go farther.

In every act of creation, two requisites can clearly be distinguished: (1) the matter of life, and the forces, affinities, and local surroundings necessary; and (2) the type, plan, ideal, or formula, to realize or produce which, the forces and the matter are to act and react. This second is all-essential; without it the first would only produce a limbo of

"Unaccomplisht works of Nature's hand, Abortive, monstrous, or unkindly mixt.[1]"

[Footnote 1: "Paradise Lost," iii. 455.]

No _creation_ in _any_ sense whatever could come out of it.

In the same way, when we speak of the Divine Artificer "creating," or saying "Let there be," there are two things implied: (i) the Divine plan or type-form, and its utterance or delivery (so to speak) to the builder-forces and materials; (2) the result or the translation into tangible existence of the Divine plan.

In every pa.s.sage speaking of creation it _possible_ that both processes may be implied; it may be clear from the text (as in Genesis i. 1) that this is so. But it is equally possible that the first point only, which in some aspects is really the essential matter, is alone spoken of.

And I submit that, given the general fact that G.o.d originated everything in heaven and earth (as first of all stated generally in Genesis i.

1-3), the essential part of the _detailed_ or _specific_ creation subsequently spoken of, was the Divine origination of the types, the ideal forms, into which matter endowed with life was to develop; _without_ any _necessary_ reference to how, or in what time, the Divine creation was actually realized or accomplished on earth. It may be that the _form_ so conceived and drawn in Nature's book by the Divine Designer is a final form, up to which development shall lead, and beyond which (at least in a material sense) it shall not go; or it may be that it is a type intended to be transitory;[1] but _both the intermediate and final forms must take their origin first in the Divine Mind, and be prescribed from the Heavenly Throne,_ before the obedient matter and forces and the life-endowment could co-operate to result in the realization of the forms and the population of the globe.

[Footnote 1: The idea which I am endeavouring to make clear is well ill.u.s.trated by another pa.s.sage in one of the Mosaic books--the account of the Tabernacle. Moses had no idea of his own of the structure, its furniture, implements, or the forms of these. The narrative expressly states that the Divine power originated the designs, and caused Moses to understand them. In a human work the designer would have drawn the objects with measures and specifications, and given the papers to the workmen. With the Divine work, where the design is in the Divine Thought, and the workmen and builders are forces and elementary matter, the process is a mystery, but in its practical bearing is understood from a.n.a.logy. The Tabernacle was truly G.o.d's _creation_, because it was all commanded in design and "pattern" by the Almighty before Moses put together the materials that realized the pattern in the camp of Israel.]

The reason why it is the _essential_ part, is, that when once the Divine command issued, the result followed inevitably--that will "go without saying."

In human affairs, also, we speak of the architect having _created_ the palace or cathedral, or the ironclad; meaning thereby not the slow process of cutting and joining stone, or riveting steel plates, but the higher antecedent act of mind in evoking the ideal form and providing for all contingencies in the adaptation and subsequent working of the finished structure. And if we limit this use of the term "creation"

somewhat in speaking of human works, it is because the concept of the human mind so often fails of realization; that it is one thing to design, and another to accomplish. The grandest design for a palace may fail to stand because some peculiarity of the stone has been forgotten, or some character of foundation and subsoil has been misunderstood. The n.o.blest form of turret-ship may prove useless because the strength of some material will not correspond to the ideal, or some curve of stability has been miscalculated. Not only this: man may create, as a sculptor, the ideal form for his to-be statue, or the dramatist his character; but the perfect realization, either in marble or in an actual being, may be impossible; the ideal remains "in the air." The ideal, therefore, is not the major part of "creation" in a human work.

But with the Divine work it is otherwise. The Divine thought in Creation and its result are separated by no possibility of failure. Given the matter and the laws of force and of life, directly the Great Designer has uttered His thought to those that are His builders, they _must_ infallibly and without discord, work through the longest terms, it may be, of an evolutionary series, till, every transitional condition pa.s.sed, the final form emerges perfect.