26. And the evening and the morning following were the sixth day.

When much more is known about the primitive man, we shall be better able to dogmatize about the time of his appearance. Till then, I, for one, am content to wait.

The great importance of the subject is my apology, even at the risk of being tedious, for giving a sort of bird'seye view of this extraordinary account.

God.

Creation of heaven and earth.

The earth's earliest condition.

It was without form (tohu) and void.
Darkness covered it.

Motion is imparted.

Light begins to shine.

It is pronounced good light.

A division is made between the light and the darkness, and day and night begin.

An open space, or an expanse, is made in the midst of the water.

The expanse not good.

The land appears and the seas are formed.

The land and waters are good, finished, no further change.

Present vegetation appears and is pronounced good, no new kinds since.

Seasons begin and are pronounced good.

Present water animals and birds appear at the same time, and both are pronounced good, i. e. no new species.

Living kinds of land animals are produced and are pronounced good, i. e. the finishing up of the land crea

tures.

Adam was created.

Of "these theologies" I hardly think this one will be annihilated even under Professor Huxley's stalwart blows. Possibly it may rise in his estimation, if he will ask himself how science would be affected if it should turn out that the statements in this account, or their order, are untrue. If, for example, it should be proved that the heavens and the earth had no beginning, what would become of that latest addition to science, Tait's "Degradation of Energy"? If the earth never was without form (tohu), it never was in a gaseous condition, and the foundation of every possible form of nebular hypothesis is annihilated, and Professor Huxley would have to take back that part of his New York lecture in which he said, "The physical form of the earth can be traced back to a condition in which its parts were separated as little more than a nebulous cloud, making part of a whole in which we find the sun and planets also resolved."

And as to the order, if that is wrong, how, for example, would all theories of light fare? For how could light precede motion? And what dependence can be put on spectroscopy, if light did not become good light until after cosmic evolution had made a division between light and darkness, i. e., after day and night had begun? And what of geology, if the order of life here given is wrong?

Whether all this was a mere guess on the part of some ancient sage each must answer for himself, but on any calculus of probabilities, the chances seem infinitely against it.

Since the above was written, my attention has been called to an article in the New York Tribune of February 12, in which Professor Huxley is said to have recently restated his position. The following is given as his reply to Mr. Gladstone's order of life:

"It was agreed on both sides that, according to Gen. i. 20-25, 'creeping things and beasts of the earth' and 'every

thing that creepeth on the ground' appeared on the sixth day, while winged fowl' had come into existence on the fifth day; and it was not disputed that 'winged fowl' included birds, and 'creeping things,' reptiles. Consequently, if my assertion that, according to natural science, birds appeared on the earth after reptiles, is correct (and it has not been challenged), it follows that the teachings of natural science, so far from affirming the order given in Genesis, diametrically contradict it."

Here we have it again, the Genesis of tradition, which assumes that Moses undertook to tell of the long procession of life from its dawn in the Eozoic, down through millions of years to Man. It requires small knowledge of geology to prove that this would carry with it contradiction of science. But all that the real Genesis speaks of, is the present living head of that procession, all else of which is buried out of sight. The order of the appearance of the four classes which compose this head, is a very different question. Will Mr. Huxley say that present plants of rank as high as grasses, herbs, and fruit trees, did not appear before the present vertebrate air and water "populations"? and that these did not appear before the present land vertebrate "population"? If he cannot do this, I am unable to see on what grounds he can refuse to admit that the Genesis order of life is correct.

I submit that it will not be enough to show that here and there a species even of land mammal now extinct extends back into the tertiary. To disprove the Genesis order, he must show that as to a preponderance of living plants and animals, it is not true.

Of course everybody knows that the first fishes made their appearance before reptiles; the first reptiles before birds; the first birds most probably before mammals; and the first mammals before present fruit trees, and most probably before any kind of angiosperm, but as Genesis speaks only

of those kinds of plants and animals which are now living, man's contemporaries, the order of the others, however interesting in itself, or important as a matter of science, is in reference to Genesis, wholly irrelevant.

I cannot leave this account without speaking of a curious peculiarity in the wording of verses 21 and 25, a peculiarity which becomes luminous in the light of modern discovery. If the reader will turn to the first chapter of Genesis, he will see in verses 20 and 24, God's commands to the water, and to the land, to produce water creatures, and fowl, and cattle, beasts, and creeping things, and that nothing is said as to the comprehensiveness of the fiat. All, or every, does not occur in it. But in verses 21 and 25, we read that God created, or made, the creatures which the water and the land had been required to produce, and furthermore that he made, or created, every living creature that moveth in the water, and every winged fowl, and everything that moveth (creepeth) on the earth. The record of the work done is wider than the command, a fact easily explained, if the author knew that among the animals contemporaneous with man, were some that had existed before those called for in the fiats, and, meaning to include them also in God's claim to creatorship, he added that God made every living creature, those that came into existence then, and also all that had come down from an earlier period.

ARTICLE VII.

"WE SHALL NOT ALL SLEEP."

BY THE REV. SMITH B. GOODENOW, BATTLE CREEK, IOWA.

WE regard this statement (of 1 Cor. xv. 51) as one of the most startling and important announcements of the New Testament. It is commonly said that all men must die. But here it is declared, that we shall not all die! There is coming an end to this sad, sorrowful business of dying. This is the "mystery" here solved, and there is no getting away from it.

What a beautiful euphemism (or smoothing of language) this is, by which death in Scripture is represented as sleep! It is the favorite expression of the Bible, from the earliest down to the latest times; this being the common word used to designate the departure of godly people. The patriarchs "slept with their fathers;" and they with their successors were said to "sleep in the dust of the earth." David prayed, "Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death." Christ said of the departed maiden, "She is not dead, but sleepeth;" that is, what you call death is really but a sleep. And so of Lazarus he declared, "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, but I go that I may awake him out of sleep." How often the apostle Paul uses this mode of speech concerning deceased disciples! In 1 Thessalonians he tells us of those "who sleep in Jesus," and in this 15th of 1 Corinthians he repeatedly uses the expression: "they that are fallen asleep in Christ," "them that slept," and here in our motto, “we shall not all sleep."

We need not here stop to dwell on the reason why this