210 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON 
spaces between them. But it is difficult to account for, if it means 
any material object, which would seem to require God’s approval 
like everything else. 
The only other instance in which God did not examine what He 
made, to see that it was good, is man. And this is at once explained 
when we remember that goodness in a free being must include moral 
goodness or righteousness. And man could not have been created 
righteous, using that word in its strict sense. He might have been 
created perfect, like a machine, or innocent, like a child, but to be 
righteous requires his own co-operation, his freely choosing to act 
right, though he might act wrong. No doubt he was made in a 
condition perfectly suited for the eaercise of his free choice ; but this 
seems included in God’s final approval of the whole creation that it 
was all very good. 
Thirdly, this view is confirmed by the symmetry of the narrative, 
for the six days are divided into two groups of three each, the first 
set being clearly a sort of preparation for the second. Thus we 
have light on the first day, and the light-giving bodies, the sun and 
moon, on the fourth day ; and we have land and vegetation on the 
third day, and animals and men, who live on the land and feed on 
the vegetation, on the sixth day ; and therefore we should expect a 
similar agreement between the second and the fifth day. Now on 
the fifth day we have fishes that live in the water, and birds that fly 
in the air; and if the work of the second day was the formation of 
the water, and the air (i.¢., the firmament), then, and only then, is 
the symmetry perfect. 
REPLY BY THE AUTHOR. 
Mr. Woods Smyth, L.R.C.P., etc., has been liberal in his 
criticisms. On the points which he has raised, I will endeavour to 
remark as briefly as possible, but the field covered is a large one. 
(1) I must insist upon the observation of nature as a source of 
knowledge, and even of primitive science in a crude way, to the 
early races of mankind. Evidence of this is referred to in my 
paper, and it might be greatly extended from the resources of 
anthropology. My contention is, that the “ inspiration of selection ” 
comes in here, as well as in dealing with prehistoric traditions. 
One of the greatest Biblical critics of Germany (Professor Zittel of 
