We next come to land animals, which we are told the earth was to _bring forth_. As however it is said in the next verse that God _made_ (or evolved) these creatures, this need not mean that they were produced directly from the earth, as in the case of plants. And the position in which they are placed, after fishes and birds and before man, is again correct. It is true that a few animals such as kangaroos, seem to have appeared as early as birds, but land animals as a whole undoubtedly succeeded them. Three classes are mentioned, _beasts of the earth_, _cattle_, and _creeping things_, probably small animals, since another Hebrew word is used for them, later on, which is said elsewhere to include weasels and mice.[20] [Footnote 20: Gen. 7. 21; Lev. 11. 29.] (9.) _Man._ Last of all we come to the creation of man. Four points have to be noticed here. The first refers to the _time_ of man's appearance, which everyone now admits was not till towards the close of the Tertiary or most recent group of strata; so Genesis is quite correct in placing him last of all. As to the actual date, it says nothing; for its chronology only leads back to the creation of _Adam_ in chapter 2, and not to that of the _human race_ (male and female) in chapter 1. And it is implied in several places, that there were men before Adam[21] and this was in consequence maintained by some writers long before geology was thought of.[22] We need not therefore discuss the difficulties connected with the story of Adam and Eve, as to which the present writer has never seen a satisfactory explanation. [Footnote 21: Gen. 4. 13-17, 26; 6. 2-4.] [Footnote 22: _E.g._, Peyreyrius, A.D. 1655, quoted in the Speaker's Commentary.] Secondly, the creation of man is represented as of an altogether _higher order_, than any of the previous ones, since God did not say, "Let the earth bring forth a thinking animal" or anything of that kind, but '_Let us make man_.' And this also is quite correct, for man, as we know (Chapter IV.) has a _free will_, which makes him a personal being, and therefore far above everything else on this planet. And when we consider the vast possibilities, involved in the creation of such a being,--able to act right or wrong, and therefore able, if he wishes, to act in opposition to the will of his Maker, thus bringing sin into the world with all its consequent miseries,--it seems only suitable that such a momentous step should have been taken with apparent deliberation and in a manner different from all the others. And it explains why no such expression as _after its kind_, which is so frequently used of plants and animals, is ever applied to man; for he is not one of a kind in the same sense. Each man is _unique_, a separate personal being, distinct from all else in the world, and not (like a tree for instance) merely one example of a certain way in which molecules may be grouped.