were known to the "Mosaic writer" (p. 6). No doubt it looks, at
first, as if something were gained by this alteration; for, as I
have just pointed out, the word "fishes" can be used in two
senses, one of which has a deceptive appearance of adjustability
to the "Mosaic" account. Then the inconvenient reptiles are
banished out of sight; and, finally, the question of the exact
meaning of "higher" and "ordinary" in the case of mammals opens
up the prospect of a hopeful logomachy. But what is the good of
it all in the face of Leviticus on the one hand and of
palaeontology on the other?

As, in my apprehension, there is not a shadow of justification
for the suggestion that when the pentateuchal writer says "fowl"
he excludes bats (which, as we shall see directly, are expressly
included under "fowl" in Leviticus), and as I have already shown
that he demonstrably includes reptiles, as well as mammals,
among the creeping things of the land, I may be permitted to
spare my readers further discussion of the "fivefold order."
On the whole, it is seen to be rather more inconsistent with
Genesis than its fourfold predecessor.

But I have yet a fresh order to face. Mr. Gladstone (p. 11)
understands "the main statements of Genesis in successive order
of time, but without any measurement of its divisions, to be as
follows:--

1. A period of land, anterior to all life (v. 9, 10).
2. A period of vegetable life, anterior to animal life
(v. 11, 12).
3. A period of animal life, in the order of fishes (v. 20).