other point of view the correspondence is so far
established, and so undeniably unprecedented (in human cosmogonies) and
noteworthy, as to demand imperatively our careful consideration and
compel us to account for it.
It will be observed, first of all, that the whole "creation" (omitting
all incidental and preparatory works) is stated in _groups_ each having
an order within itself.
_Group_ 1. God created (both land and water) "vegetation"--plants
yielding seed, fruit-trees.
_Group_ 2.
In water, not necessarily excluding _amphibia_:--Great aquatic monsters;
fish and all other creatures that move. In air:--Winged fowl.
_Group_ 3. On land generally--for some forms are amphibious:--Beasts
(_Carnivora_), cattle (_Ungulata_, &c.), and other things that creep
on the ground (the smaller and lower forms of life collectively).
The order _within_ the groups is evidently of no consequence, because
the writer does not adhere to it in two consecutive verses dealing with
the same subject; while the "versions" seem to point to some variations
in the text itself as to arrangement, though not as to substance.
But as regards the order _of_ the groups themselves, it is, as I said,
very natural (but yet not logically inevitable) to expect that when the
results came to be existent on earth, those results should exhibit a
sequence corresponding to the order in which the groups were created.
And it is never denied (in _any_ of the most recent publications[1])
that to this extent nature confirms the belief.
[Footnote 1: I have done my best to verify this from the well-known
latest Manuals of Etheridge, Seeley, and Alleyne-Nicholson.]
I am aware that Professor Huxley's recent articles may at first sight
seem to go against this; but that is not so on any grounds of actual
fact, but of a particular _interpretation_--which I submit is wholly
unwarranted.
For instance, it is insisted that the "sea-monsters" of the second group
included _sirenia_ and _cetacea_ (dugongs, manatees, and whales,
dolphins, &c.), which are mammals. In that case a portion of the command
would not have been obeyed--a number of the designed forms would have
been kept in abeyance--for a long time. And the same is still more true
if bats--a highly placed group of mammals--were included in "winged
fowl."
But both these interpretations are distinctly arbitrary, incapable of
holding good, and also entirely ignore the conditions of a Revelation.
The narra
|