Once more, as it is quite certain that the term "fowl" includes
the bats,--for in Leviticus xi. 13-19 we read, "And these shall
ye have in abomination among the fowls ... the heron after its
kind, and the hoopoe, and the bat,"--it is obvious that bats are
also said to have been created at stage No. 3. And as bats are
mammals, and their existence obviously presupposes that of
terrestrial "beasts," it is quite clear that the latter could
not have first appeared as No. 5. I need not repeat my reasons
for doubting whether man came "last of all."
As the latter half of Mr. Gladstone's sixfold order thus shows
itself to be wholly unauthorised by, and inconsistent with, the
plain language of the Pentateuch, I might decline to discuss the
admissibility of its former half.
But I will add one or two remarks on this point also. Does Mr.
Gladstone mean to say that in any of the works he has cited, or
indeed anywhere else, he can find scientific warranty for the
assertion that there was a period of land--by which I suppose he
means dry land (for submerged land must needs be as old as the
separate existence of the sea)--"anterior to all life?"
It may be so, or it may not be so; but where is the evidence
which would justify any one in making a positive assertion on
the subject? What competent palaeontologist will affirm, at this
present moment, that he knows anything about the period at which
life originated, or will assert more than the extreme
probability that such origin was a long way antecedent to any
traces of life at present known? What physical geologist will
affirm that he knows when dry land began to exist, or will say
more than that it was probably very much earlier than any extant
direct evidence of terrestrial conditions indicates?
I think I know pretty well the answers which the authorities
quoted by Mr.
Pages:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33