Moreover, as the regular succession in periods of light and darkness on the earth, and the sequence of seasons was not organized (but only a generally diffused light, and, probably, an uniform and moist state of climate without seasons) till after the commands for the formation of the whole of the large classes of plants, both cryptogams and phanerogams, it is obvious that as many of these would require the fuller development of seasonal influences, the whole process could not have been worked out before the fourth day’s creative work was begun.

This instance alone—­and it would be easy to add others—­shows that the narrative cannot be meant to indicate what actually happened on earth, i.e., to summarize the entire realization of the Divine command.

Such being the plain facts with regard to the kind of accomplishment meant by the terms “it was so,” “the earth brought forth,” &c., it is quite plain that no violence is done to the text by explaining it as intended to describe what God did in heaven, with the addition, that as each command was formulated, the result on earth surely followed, the thing “was so,” and the earth and water respectively no doubt began to “bring forth.”  More than this cannot be made out on any interpretation that accords with facts.  It seems so clear to me that this is so, that I hardly need refer to the use of the terms the “waters brought forth" and the “earth brought forth" and the phrase in chapter ii. 5—­the Lord made every plant before it grew.

If, as we have been long allowed to suppose, God spake and the water and earth were at once fully and finally peopled with animals where before nothing but plants had existed, and so on, I should hardly have expected the use of words which imply a gradual process—­a gestation and subsequent birth (so to speak) of life-forms.

How the order in which the events are recorded stands in relation to the subsequent history of life-development on earth, and what its significance may be, I will consider later on.  First I will conclude the argument for the general interpretation of the narrative.

2. The Second Genesis Narrative.

I have only one more direct argument to offer; but I think it is a very important one.  The first division of Genesis ends with the Divine commands creating man and the day of rest which followed.  The narrative ending at chapter ii. verse 3 (the division of chapters here, as elsewhere, is purely arbitrary), we have at verse 4 of chapter ii, what has been loudly proclaimed as another account of the same Creation, which, it is added (arbitrarily enough—­but any argument will do if only it is against religion!) is contrary to the first.[1]

[Footnote 1:  The contradiction is supposed to be in verse 19, as if then the creation of animals was for the first time effected—­after the man and his helpmate.  But it is quite clear that the text refers to the fact that God had created animals; the command was, “Let the earth bring forth,” and the immediate act spoken of was not the formation of animals, but the bringing of them to Adam to see what he would call them.]