turing the creation of animals as a direct and instant creation of God without any thought of Mother Earth at all.

The objection to this, and to Milton's unreal, incongruous, but more faithful picture, is not to the instantaneousness of the work, nor to the directness of the Divine agency. Such a mode of creation is conceivable, and it may seem to some the most glorious that can be thought of. So far as it holds to a power of God therein it is perfectly correct. And this idea is involved also in the true idea, and in it, too, the birth is instantaneous. But the fault in the former is, there is no birth. It is a miracle, an instantaneous work of God, with no antecedent working in space and time of any cause, and nothing subsequent for its perfection. There is no gestation, and no growth. It is all perfect in the twinkling of an eye. It is no birth at all. There is no possible way of connecting it with long series of times. It neither requires, nor admits of them.

The true idea is inseparable from long time. The restricted time idea, as was said before of similar phenomena, passes away before the thought. And the time expands indefinitely in connection with another thought there considered, and now, to be applied here. This power to bring forth living creatures, like the power to bring forth plants, may be conceived of as general, or as it was then called, defining the term, an unlimited power. And if it be such, then from the general tenor of the record, which evidently describes a related and ascending series, the first putting forth of this power would be attended with lower and less perfect results than the later. Taking the thought of the vast and unmeasured, which we contend it must have suggested and did suggest to those to whom it was given, and entering into the spirit of the record, this would lead to the conclusion that the plant and animal kingdoms, the fishes, too, of the seas, and the ocean-born birds of the air, were related to, but not the same, as those in the age of man. This would naturally follow from the conception of the power as general and running on through these closely related cycles of time, all tending to the complete and highest cycle, in which

man is created; in which, the world being finished, History begins.

It seems that such would be the fair conclusion of one who interprets the record in harmony with its spirit. But let a doubt at this point be admitted, and then how does the case stand? The power may be general, or special; it may extend to many acts, or be limited to one instant; and the question is, how shall its character in this respect be determined? An attempt has been made to arrive at its decision from a priori considerations. But it may, perchance, be determined in another way, which may be illustrated thus: A master gives his tenant a command to sow his fields. There may be circumstances going to show whether this be a general or a special power. Thus, if it be at some beginning; if the master leaves the country for a period of years; if it connect itself with some improvement of the estate, going on for years; then these considerations would have a bearing upon it. But if such considerations were not thought to decide it, it would be decided, one would think, by inquiring into the subsequent facts; by ascertaining whether the tenant did go on to repeat the sowing from year to year, or not. If he did, the power given would be known to be a general and not a special power.

At this point, then, Science might be called in to testify how the subsequent facts were. She has traversed some of these Days, and studied this producing power of the Earth, and if she finds it stretching on through vast periods, and repeating itself, her testimony is sufficiently decisive of the question. No matter whether she recognizes it as the scriptural power or not, it is known what the power is. Its beginning is known from Divine Revelation; it is only farther to be known whether it be special or general; and the testimony of Science, good on this point, is that it is a general power.

It would seem, then, that science upholds what is here supposed to be the true interpretation, and reason has nothing that contravenes it.

If it might be permitted here to touch on one point, which

might have been adverted to before, we would say: It is very difficult to conceive how the life principles could have been preserved during the long cycles previous to their manifestation in a visible vesture of materiality, subjected, as it would seem they must have been, to the intense power of the agencies known to have been then in action. But may not this come from the fact, that now we ever see their local habitation in some gross and easily destructible form? Is not the idea really that of the difficulty of the preservation of that which gave them locality and distinction, and which is conceived of as something grossly material, the idea coming from what is seen now? But why necessarily conceive of this as something which, as in the seemingly analogous cases now, can be easily changed and destroyed? Is there nothing which can resist the intensest action of fire? Or what if these life-seeds, borne in the womb of Nature, were seeds of fire itself; that is, of fire outwardly covering the inner life? There are, too, wonderfully potent and mysteriously fine essences, which are material, but on which no outer force might be able to work the least harm. But let all this be left to the Divine power, which can work greater wonders in nature than this.

As to the thought within this thought, the probable destruction of the principles themselves in their very essence, in the intense conflict of fire and water, known to mark the growth of the world, there need be no trouble. Possibly that which it is feared would destroy them, may have been requisite to their perfection. And the idea of the absolute indestructibility of all force- that is, apart from some Divine volition – is taking more and more hold on the scientific thought of the world. And life is force; what else it may be, is unknown; but it is certainly force, indestructible force.

Science and reason, then, cannot allege aught against these ideas. But all revealed of Creation is wonderful, and at this point in the cycles where animal life is first visibly manifested, most wonderful. Wonder is the parent of adoration. The creation of the animals is truly wonderful. Wonder, but be

lieve. If ever fell on human ears words plain and certain in their import, they are these: "And God said, let the Earth bring forth the living creature ;" and if the Church heeded and kept not their import, be their value less or more in comparison with higher truths she kept, she might well fall into extreme peril, through so doing, to learn that the least word of God is higher than the highest word of man.

It has been supposed that this power must have been commensurate with the cycle in which it was given, and have been carried into other cycles of time.

And if Science tells of

births strange and rude, then higher and more complicate; or if she be not altogether sure of this, is at least sure that races came and passed away, and new appeared and vanished again; and others came in succession long, till cabinets cannot contain their fossil bones; and language, with its complications, fails to express their varieties and almost interminable succession, all this might follow from such a power as here is seen to be given to the Earth.

CHAPTER III.

THESE truths being philologically established, that the Days of Creation are indefinite in duration, and that the natural, as truly as the supernatural, enters into Creation, the two grand arguments raised by Science in its debate with the Church as to the Divine Record of Creation, are answered.

But the answer must be clothed in the authority of the everexisting and divinely-taught Church, before it can avail. Before attempting to show that this is possible, we stop here to unfold certain ideas, whose presentation seems requisite for the elucidation of the scriptural history of Creation; to draw out the correspondence between Nature and Revelation; and to show what, in the true sense of the term, Creation is.

Closely as the Record of Creation has been studied, there is one fact in it of which it may be paradoxically said, it has received much attention, and none. Some minds have been struck with it,— minds, too, of different schools and ages, while most have seen nothing in it. But every peculiarity in divine language is significant; and, if what has seemed a slight peculiarity, furnishes, in connection with other truths, an answer to several of the arguments against the Mosaic Creation, which remain after the two grand arguments against it have been answered, then that truth may receive new illustration.

The fact is this: while Moses describes certain of the Days of creation as second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, he does not describe the Day which preceded them as the first Day, but as Day one. If this be, as some think, merely a cardinal number for an ordinal, nothing need be said about it; but, his language is so condensed, that it would seem wiser to heed everything in it. This idea gathers strength from the fact,