Furtheron,Mr。Sullyremarksthat\"Heraclitusdeservesaprominentplaceinthehistoryoftheideaofevolution,\"andhestates,withperfectjustice,thatHeraclitushasforeshadowedsomeofthespecialpeculiaritiesofMr。Darwin’sviews。ItisindeedaverystrangecircumstancethatthephilosophyofthegreatEphesianmorethanadumbratesthetwodoctrineswhichhaveplayedleadingparts,theoneinthedevelopmentofChristiandogma,theotherinthatofnaturalscience。TheformeristheconceptionoftheWord[logos]whichtookitsJewishshapeinAlexandria,anditsChristianforminthatGospelwhichisusuallyreferredtoanEphesiansourceofsomefivecenturieslaterdate;andthelatteristhatofthestruggleforexistence。Thesayingthat\"strifeisfatherandkingofall\"
[……],ascribedtoHeraclitus,wouldbeanotinappropriatemottoforthe\"OriginofSpecies。\"
IhavereferredonlytoMr。Sully’sarticle,becausehisauthorityisquitesufficientformypurpose。ButtheconsultationofanyofthemoreelaboratehistoriesofGreekphilosophy,suchasthegreatworkofZeller,forexample,willonlybringoutthesamefactintostillmorestrikingprominence。Ihaveprofessedno\"minuteacquaintance\"witheitherIndianorGreekphilosophy,butIhavetakenagreatdealofpainstosecurethatsuchknowledgeasIdopossessshallbeaccurateandtrustworthy。
Inthethirdplace,Mr。GladstoneappearstowishthatIshoulddiscusswithhimthequestionwhetherthenebularhypothesisis,orisnot,confirmatoryofthepentateuchalaccountoftheoriginofthings。Mr。Gladstoneappearstobepreparedtoenteruponthiscampaignwithalightheart。IconfessIamnot,andmyreasonforthisbackwardnesswilldoubtlesssurpriseMr。
Gladstone。Itisthat,rathermorethanaquarterofacenturyago(namely,inFebruary1859),whenitwasmyduty,asPresidentoftheGeologicalSociety,todelivertheAnniversaryAddress,Ichoseatopicwhichinvolvedaverycarefulstudyoftheremarkablecosmogonicalspeculation,originallypromulgatedbyImmanuelKantand,subsequently,byLaplace,whichisnowknownasthenebularhypothesis。WiththehelpofsuchlittleacquaintancewiththeprinciplesofphysicsandastronomyasIhadgained,Iendeavouredtoobtainaclearunderstandingofthisspeculationinallitsbearings。IamnotsurethatIsucceeded;butofthisIamcertain,thattheproblemsinvolvedareverydifficult,evenforthosewhopossesstheintellectualdisciplinerequisitefordealingwiththem。
AnditwasthisconvictionthatledmetoexpressmydesiretoleavethediscussionofthequestionoftheassertedharmonybetweenGenesisandthenebularhypothesistoexpertsintheappropriatebranchesofknowledge。AndIthinkmycoursewasawiseone;butasMr。Gladstoneevidentlydoesnotunderstandhowtherecanbeanyhesitationonmypart,unlessitarisesfromaconvictionthatheisintheright,Imaygosofarastosetoutmydifficulties。
Theyareoftwokinds——exegeticalandscientific。ItappearstomethatitisvaintodiscussasupposedcoincidencebetweenGenesisandscienceunlesswehavefirstsettled,ontheonehand,whatGenesissays,and,ontheotherhand,whatsciencesays。
Inthefirstplace,IcannotfindanyconsensusamongBiblicalscholarsastothemeaningofthewords,\"InthebeginningGodcreatedtheheavenandtheearth。\"SomesaythattheHebrewwordbara,whichistranslated\"create,\"means\"madeoutofnothing。\"Iventuretoobjecttothatrendering,notonthegroundofscholarship,butofcommonsense。Omnipotenceitselfcansurelynomoremakesomething\"outof\"nothingthanitcanmakeatriangularcircle。Whatisintendedby\"madeoutofnothing\"appearstobe\"causedtocomeintoexistence,\"withtheimplicationthatnothingofthesamekindpreviouslyexisted。
Itisfurtherusuallyassumedthat\"theheavenandtheearth\"
meansthematerialsubstanceoftheuniverse。Hencethe\"Mosaicwriter\"istakentoimplythatwherenothingofamaterialnaturepreviouslyexisted,thissubstanceappeared。Thatisperfectlyconceivable,andthereforenoonecandenythatitmayhavehappened。ButthereareotherveryauthoritativecriticswhosaythattheancientIsraelitewhowrotethepassagewasnotlikelytohavebeencapableofsuchabstractthinking;andthat,asamatterofphilology,baraiscommonlyusedtosignifythe\"fashioning,\"or\"forming,\"ofthatwhichalreadyexists。Nowitappearstomethatthescientificinvestigatoriswhollyincompetenttosayanythingatallaboutthefirstoriginofthematerialuniverse。Thewholepowerofhisorganonvanisheswhenhehastostepbeyondthechainofnaturalcausesandeffects。Noformofthenebularhypothesis,thatIknowof,isnecessarilyconnectedwithanyviewoftheoriginationofthenebularsubstance。Kant’sformofitexpresslysupposesthatthenebularmaterialfromwhichonestellarsystemstartsmaybenothingbutthedisintegratedsubstanceofastellarandplanetarysystemwhichhasjustcometoanend。Therefore,sofarasIcansee,onewhobelievesthatmatterhasexistedfromalleternityhasjustasmuchrighttoholdthenebularhypothesisasonewhobelievesthatmattercameintoexistenceataspecifiedepoch。Inotherwords,thenebularhypothesisandthecreationhypothesis,uptothispoint,neitherconfirmnoropposeoneanother。
Next,wereadintherevisers’version,inwhichIsupposetheultimateresultsofcriticalscholarshiptobeembodied:\"Andtheearthwaswaste[’withoutform,’intheAuthorisedVersion]
andvoid。\"Mostpeopleseemtothinkthatthisphraseologyintendstoimplythatthematteroutofwhichtheworldwastobeformedwasaveritable\"chaos,\"devoidoflawandorder。
Ifthisinterpretationiscorrect,thenebularhypothesiscanhavenothingtosaytoit。Thescientificthinkercannotadmittheabsenceoflawandorder;anywhereoranywhen,innature。
Sometimeslawandorderarepatentandvisibletoourlimitedvision;sometimestheyarehidden。Buteveryparticleofthematterofthemostfantastic—lookingnebulaintheheavensisarealmoflawandorderinitself;and,thatitisso,istheessentialconditionofthepossibilityofsolarandplanetaryevolutionfromtheapparentchaos。
\"Waste\"istoovagueatermtobeworthconsideration。\"Withoutform,\"intelligibleenoughasametaphor,iftakenliterallyisabsurd;foramaterialthingexistinginspacemusthaveasuperficies,andifithasasuperficiesithasaform。
Thewildeststreaksofmarestailcloudsinthesky,orthemostirregularheavenlynebulae,havesurelyjustasmuchformasageometricaltetrahedron;andasfor\"void,\"howcanthatbevoidwhichisfullofmatter?Aspoetry,theselinesarevividandadmirable;asascientificstatement,whichtheymustbetakentobeifanyoneisjustifiedincomparingthemwithanotherscientificstatement,theyfailtoconveyanyintelligibleconceptiontomymind。
Theaccountproceeds:\"Anddarknesswasuponthefaceofthedeep。\"Sobeit;butwhere,then,isthelikenesstothecelestialnebulae,oftheexistenceofwhichweshouldknownothingunlesstheyshonewithalightoftheirown?\"AndthespiritofGodmoveduponthefaceofthewaters。\"Ihavemetwithnoformofthenebularhypothesiswhichinvolvesanythinganalogoustothisprocess。
Ihavesaidenoughtoexplainsomeofthedifficultieswhichariseinmymind,whenItrytoascertainwhetherthereisanyfoundationforthecontentionthatthestatementscontainedinthefirsttwoversesofGenesisaresupportedbythenebularhypothesis。Theresultdoesnotappeartometobeexactlyfavourabletothatcontention。Thenebularhypothesisassumestheexistenceofmatter,havingdefiniteproperties,asitsfoundation。Whethersuchmatterwascreatedafewthousandyearsago,orwhetherithasexistedthroughaneternalseriesofmetamorphosesofwhichourpresentuniverseisonlythelaststage,arealternatives,neitherofwhichisscientificallyuntenable,andneitherscientificallydemonstrable。Butscienceknowsnothingofanystageinwhichtheuniversecouldbesaid,inotherthanametaphoricalandpopularsense,tobeformlessorempty;orinanyrespectlesstheseatoflawandorderthanitisnow。Onemightaswelltalkofafresh—laidhen’seggbeing\"withoutformandvoid,\"becausethechickthereinispotentialandnotactual,asapplysuchtermstothenebulousmasswhichcontainsapotentialsolarsystem。
Untilsomefurtherenlightenmentcomestome,then,Iconfessmyselfwhollyunabletounderstandthewayinwhichthenebularhypothesisistobeconvertedintoanallyofthe\"Mosaicwriter。\"
ButMr。GladstoneinformsusthatProfessorDanaandProfessorGuyotarepreparedtoprovethatthe\"firstorcosmogonicalportionoftheProemnotonlyaccordswith,butteaches,thenebularhypothesis。\"ThereisnoonetowhoseauthorityongeologicalquestionsIammorereadilydisposedtobowthanthatofmyeminentfriendProfessorDana。ButIamfamiliarwithwhathehaspreviouslysaidonthistopicinhiswell—knownandstandardwork,intowhich,strangelyenough,itdoesnotseemtohaveoccurredtoMr。Gladstonetolookbeforehesetoutuponhispresentundertaking;andunlessProfessorDana’slatestcontribution(whichIhavenotyetmetwith)takesupaltogethernewground,IamafraidIshallnotbeabletoextricatemyself,byitshelp,frommypresentdifficulties。
ItisaverylongtimesinceIbegantothinkabouttherelationsbetweenmodernscientificallyascertainedtruthsandthecosmogonicalspeculationsofthewriterofGenesis;and,asIthinkthatMr。Gladstonemighthavebeenabletoputhiscasewithagooddealmoreforce,ifhehadthoughtitworthwhiletoconsultthelastchapterofProfessorDana’sadmirable\"ManualofGeology,\"soIthinkhemighthavebeenmadeawarethathewasundertakinganenterpriseofwhichhehadnotcountedthecost,ifhehadchanceduponadiscussionofthesubjectwhichI
publishedin1877。
Finally,IshouldliketodrawtheattentionofthosewhotakeinterestinthesetopicstotheweightywordsofoneofthemostlearnedandmoderateofBiblicalcritics:——
\"AproposdecettepremierepagedelaBible,onacoutumedenosjoursdedisserter,apertedevue,surl’accorddurecitmosaiqueaveclessciencesnaturelles;etcommecelles—citouteloigneesqu’ellessontencoredelaperfectionabsolue,ontrendupopulairesetenquelquesorteirrefragablesuncertainnombredefaitsgenerauxoudethesesfondamentalesdelacosmologieetdelageologie,c’estletextesacrequ’ons’evertueatorturerpourlefaireconcorderaveccesdonnees。\"
Inmypaperonthe\"InterpretersofNatureandtheInterpretersofGenesis,\"whilefreelyavailingmyselfoftherightsofascientificcritic,Iendeavouredtokeeptheexpressionofmyviewswellwithinthoseboundsofcourtesywhicharesetbyself—respectandconsiderationforothers。IamthereforegladtobefavouredwithMr。Gladstone’sacknowledgmentofthesuccessofmyefforts。IonlywishthatIcouldacceptalltheproductsofMr。Gladstone’sgraciousappreciation,butthereisoneaboutwhich,asamatterofhonesty,Ihesitate。Infact,ifIhadexpressedmymeaningbetterthanIseemtohavedone,I
doubtiftheparticularprofferofMr。Gladstone’sthankswouldhavebeenmade。
Tomymind,whateverdoctrineprofessestobetheresultoftheapplicationoftheacceptedrulesofinductiveanddeductivelogictoitssubject—matter;andwhichaccepts,withinthelimitswhichitsetstoitself,thesupremacyofreason,isScience。Whetherthesubject—matterconsistsofrealitiesorunrealities,truthsorfalsehoods,isquiteanotherquestion。I
conceivethatordinarygeometryisscience,byreasonofitsmethod,andIalsobelievethatitsaxioms,definitions,andconclusionsarealltrue。However,thereisageometryoffourdimensions,whichIalsobelievetobescience,becauseitsmethodprofessestobestrictlyscientific。ItistruethatI
cannotconceivefourdimensionsinspace,andtherefore,forme,thewholeaffairisunreal。ButIhaveknownmenofgreatintellectualpowerswhoseemedtohavenodifficultyeitherinconceivingthem,or,atanyrate,inimagininghowtheycouldconceivethem;and,therefore,four—dimensionedgeometrycomesundermynotionofscience。SoIthinkastrologyisascience,insofarasitprofessestoreasonlogicallyfromprinciplesestablishedbyjustinductivemethods。Topreventmisunderstanding,perhapsIhadbetteraddthatIdonotbelieveonewhitinastrology;butnomoredoIbelieveinPtolemaicastronomy,orinthecatastrophicgeologyofmyyouth,althoughthese,intheirday,claimed——and,tomymind,rightlyclaimed——
thenameofscience。Ifnothingistobecalledsciencebutthatwhichisexactlytruefrombeginningtoend,Iamafraidthereisverylittlescienceintheworldoutsidemathematics。
Amongthephysicalsciences,Idonotknowthatanycouldclaimmorethanthatitistruewithincertainlimits,sonarrowthat,forthepresentatanyrate,theymaybeneglected。Ifsuchisthecase,Idonotseewherethelineistobedrawnbetweenexactlytrue,partiallytrue,andmainlyuntrueformsofscience。AndwhatIhavesaidaboutthecurrenttheologyattheendofmypaper[suprapp。160—163]leaves,Ithink,nodoubtastothecategoryinwhichIrankit。Forallthat,I
thinkitwouldbenotonlyunjust,butalmostimpertinent,torefusethenameofsciencetothe\"Summa\"ofSt。Thomasortothe\"Institutes\"ofCalvin。
Inconclusion,Iconfessthatmysupposed\"unjadedappetite\"forthesortofcontroversyinwhichitneedednotMr。Gladstone’sexpressdeclarationtotellusheisfarbetterpractisedthanI
am(thoughprobably,withoutanotherexpressdeclaration,noonewouldhavesuspectedthathiscontroversialfiresareburninglow)isalreadysatiated。
In\"Elysium\"weconductscientificdiscussionsinadifferentmedium,andweareliabletothreateningsofasphyxiainthat\"atmosphereofcontention\"inwhichMr。Gladstonehasbeenabletolive,alertandvigorousbeyondthecommonraceofmen,asifitwerepurestmountainair。Itrustthathemaylongcontinuetoseektruth,underthedifficultconditionshehaschosenforthesearch,withunabatedenergy——Ihadalmostsaidfire——
Mayagenotwitherhim,norcustomstaleHisinfinitevariety。
ButElysiumsuitsmylessrobustconstitutionbetter,andIbegleavetoretirethither,notsorryformyexperienceoftheotherregion——nooneshouldregretexperience——butdeterminednottorepeatit,atanyrateinreferencetothe\"pleaforrevelation。\"
NOTEONTHEPROPERSENSEOFTHE\"MOSAIC\"NARRATIVE
OFTHECREATION。
IthasbeenobjectedtomyargumentfromLeviticus(suprà
p。170)thattheHebrewwordstranslatedby\"creepingthings\"inGenesisi。24andLeviticusxi。29,aredifferent;namely,\"reh—mes\"intheformer,\"sheh—retz\"inthelatter。Theobviousreplytothisobjectionisthatthequestionisnotoneofwordsbutofthemeaningofwords。Toborrowanillustrationfromourownlanguage,if\"crawlingthings\"hadbeenusedbythetranslatorsinGenesisand\"creepingthings\"inLeviticus,itwouldnothavebeennecessarilyimpliedthattheyintendedtodenotedifferentgroupsofanimals。\"Sheh—retz\"isemployedinawidersensethan\"reh—mes。\"Thereare\"sheh—retz\"ofthewatersoftheearth,oftheair,andoftheland。Leviticusspeaksoflandreptiles,amongotheranimals,as\"sheh—retz\";
Genesisspeaksofallcreepinglandanimals,amongwhichlandreptilesarenecessarilyincluded,as\"reh—mes。\"
Ourtranslators,therefore,havegiventhetruesensewhentheyrenderboth\"sheh—retz\"and\"reh—mes\"by\"creepingthings。\"
HavingtakenagooddealoftroubletoshowwhatGenesisi。—ii。
4doesnotmean,intheprecedingpages,perhapsitmaybewellthatIshouldbrieflygivemyopinionastowhatitdoesmean。
IconceivethattheunknownauthorofthispartoftheHexateuchalcompilationbelieved,andmeanthisreaderstobelieve,thathiswords,astheyunderstoodthem——thatistosay,intheirordinarynaturalsense——conveyedthe\"actualhistoricaltruth。\"Whenhesaysthatsuchandsuchthingshappened,Ibelievehimtomeanthattheyactuallyoccurredandnotthatheimaginedordreamedthem;whenhesays\"day,\"I
believeheusesthewordinthepopularsense;whenhesays\"made\"or\"created,\"Ibelievehemeansthattheycameintobeingbyaprocessanalogoustothatwhichthepeoplewhomheaddressedcalled\"making\"or\"creating\";andIthinkthat,unlessweforgetourpresentknowledgeofnature,and,puttingourselvesbackintothepositionofaPhoenicianoraChaldaeanphilosopher,startfromhisconceptionoftheworld,weshallfailtograspthemeaningoftheHebrewwriter。Wemustconceivetheearthtobeanimmovable,moreorlessflattened,body,withthevaultofheavenabove,thewateryabyssbelowandaround。
Wemustimaginesun,moon,andstarstobe\"set\"ina\"firmament\"with,orin,whichtheymove;andabovewhichisyetanotherwaterymass。Wemustconsider\"light\"and\"darkness\"tobethings,thealternationofwhichconstitutesdayandnight,independentlyoftheexistenceofsun,moon,andstars。Wemustfurthersupposethat,asinthecaseofthestoryofthedeluge,theHebrewwriterwasacquaintedwithaGentile(probablyChaldaeanorAccadian)accountoftheoriginofthings,inwhichhesubstantiallybelieved,butwhichhestrippedofallitsidolatrousassociationsbysubstituting\"Elohim\"forEa,Anu,Bel,andthelike。
Fromthispointofviewthefirstversestrikesthekeynoteofthewhole。Inthebeginning\"Elohimcreatedtheheavenandtheearth。\"Heavenandearthwerenotprimitiveexistencesfromwhichthegodsproceeded,astheGentilestaught;onthecontrary,the\"Powers\"precededandcreatedheavenandearth。
Whetherby\"creation\"ismeant\"causingtobewherenothingwasbefore\"or\"shapingofsomethingwhichpre—existed,\"seemstometobeaninsolublequestion。
AsIhavepointedout,thesecondversehasaninterestingparallelinJeremiahiv。23:\"Ibeheldtheearth,and,lo,itwaswasteandvoid;andtheheavens,andtheyhadnolight。\"
Iconceivethatthereisnomoreallusiontochaosintheonethanintheother。Theearth—disklayinitswateryenvelope,liketheyolkofaneggintheglaire,andthespirit,orbreath,ofElohimstirredthemass。Lightwascreatedasathingbyitself;anditsantithesis\"darkness\"asanotherthing。
Itwassupposedtobethenatureofthesetwotoalternate,andapairofalternationsconstituteda\"day\"inthesenseofanunitoftime。
Thenextstepwas,necessarily,theformationofthat\"firmament,\"ordomeovertheearth—disk,whichwassupposedtosupportthecelestialwaters;andinwhichsun,moon,andstarswereconceivedtobeset,asinasortoforrery。Theearthwasstillsurroundedandcoveredbythelowerwaters,buttheupperwereseparatedfromitbythe\"firmament,\"beneathwhichwhatwecalltheairlay。Asecondalternationofdarknessandlightmarksthelapseoftime。
Afterthis,thewaterswhichcoveredtheearth—disk,underthefirmament,weredrawnawayintocertainregions,whichbecameseas,whilethepartlaidbarebecamedryland。Inaccordancewiththenotion,universallyacceptedinantiquity,thatmoistearthpossessesthepotentialityofgivingrisetolivingbeings,theland,atthecommandofElohim,\"putforth\"allsortsofplants。Theyaremadetoappearthusearly,not,I
apprehend,fromanynotionthatplantsarelowerinthescaleofbeingthananimals(whichwouldseemtobeinconsistentwiththeprevalenceoftreeworshipamongancientpeople),butratherbecauseanimalsobviouslydependonplants;andbecause,withoutcropsandharvests,thereseemedtobenoparticularneedofheavenlysignsfortheseasons。
Thesewereprovidedbythefourthday’swork。Lightexistedalready;butnowvehiclesforthedistributionoflight,inaspecialmannerandwithvaryingdegreesofintensity,wereprovided。Iconceivethatthepreviousalternationsoflightanddarknessweresupposedtogoon;butthatthe\"light\"wasstrengthenedduringthedaytimebythesun,which,asasourceofheataswellasoflight,glidedupthefirmamentfromtheeast,andsliddowninthewest,eachday。Veryprobablyeachday’ssunwassupposedtobeanewone。Andasthelightofthedaywasstrengthenedbythesun,sothedarknessofthenightwasweakenedbythemoon,whichregularlywaxedandwanedeverymonth。Thestarsare,asitwere,thrownin。Andnothingcanmoresharplymarkthedoctrinalpurposeoftheauthor,thanthemannerinwhichhedealswiththeheavenlybodies,whichtheGentilesidentifiedsocloselywiththeirgods,asiftheyweremereaccessoriestothealmanac。
Animalscomenextinorderofcreation,andthegeneralnotionofthewriterseemstobethattheywereproducedbythemediuminwhichtheylive;thatistosay,theaquaticanimalsbythewaters,andtheterrestrialanimalsbytheland。Buttherewasadifficultyaboutflyingthings,suchasbats,birds,andinsects。Thecosmogonistseemstohavehadnoconceptionof\"air\"asanelementalbody。His\"elements\"areearthandwater,andheignoresairasmuchashedoesfire。Birds\"flyabovetheearthintheopenfirmament\"or\"onthefaceoftheexpanse\"ofheaven。Theyarenotsaidtoflythroughtheair。Thechoiceofagenerativemediumforflyingthings,therefore,seemedtoliebetweenwaterandearth;and,ifwetakeintoaccounttheconspicuousnessofthegreatflocksofwater—birdsandtheswarmsofwingedinsects,whichappeartoarisefromwater,I
thinkthepreferenceofwaterbecomesintelligible。However,I
donotputthisforwardasmorethanaprobablehypothesis。
Astothecreationofaquaticanimalsonthefifth,thatoflandanimalsonthesixthday,andthatofmanlastofall,Ipresumetheorderwasdeterminedbythefactthatmancouldhardlyreceivedominionoverthelivingworldbeforeitexisted;
andthatthe\"cattle\"werenotwanteduntilhewasabouttomakehisappearance。Theotherterrestrialanimalswouldnaturallybeassociatedwiththecattle。
Theabsurdityofimaginingthatanyconception,analogoustothatofazoologicalclassification,wasinthemindofthewriterwillbeapparent,whenweconsiderthatthefifthday’sworkmustincludethezoologist’sCetacea,Sirenia,andseals,allofwhichareMammalia;allbirds,turtles,sea—snakesand,presumably,thefreshwaterReptiliaandAmphibia;withthegreatmajorityofInvertebrata。
Thecreationofmanisannouncedasaseparateact,resultingfromaparticularresolutionofElohimto\"makemaninourimage,afterourlikeness。\"TolearnwhatthisremarkablephrasemeanswemustturntothefifthchapterofGenesis,theworkofthesamewriter。\"InthedaythatElohimcreatedman,inthelikenessofElohimmadehehim;maleandfemalecreatedhethem;
andblessedthemandcalledtheirnameAdaminthedaywhentheywerecreated。AndAdamlivedanhundredandthirtyyearsandbegatasoninhisownlikeness,afterhisimage;
andcalledhisnameSeth。\"Ifinditimpossibletoreadthispassagewithoutbeingconvincedthat,whenthewritersaysAdamwasmadeinthelikenessofElohim,hemeansthesamesortoflikenessaswhenhesaysthatSethwasbegotteninthelikenessofAdam。WhenceitfollowsthathisconceptionofElohimwascompletelyanthropomorphic。
InallthisnarrativeIcandiscovernothingwhichdifferentiatesit,inprinciple,fromotherancientcosmogonies,excepttherejectionofallgods,savethevague,yetanthropomorphic,Elohim,andtheassigningtothemanteriorityandsuperioritytotheworld。Itisasutterlyirreconcilablewiththeassuredtruthsofmodernscience,asitiswiththeaccountoftheoriginofman,plants,andanimalsgivenbythewriterofthesecondchiefconstituentoftheHexateuchinthesecondchapterofGenesis。Thisextraordinarystorystartswiththeassumptionoftheexistenceofarainlessearth,devoidofplantsandherbsofthefield。Thecreationoflivingbeingsbeginswiththatofasolitaryman;thenextthingthathappensisthelayingoutoftheGardenofEden,andthecausingthegrowthfromitssoilofeverytree\"thatispleasanttothesightandgoodforfood\";thethirdactistheformationoutofthegroundof\"everybeastofthefield,andeveryfowloftheair\";thefourthandlast,themanufactureofthefirstwomanfromarib,extractedfromAdam,whileinastateofanaesthesia。
Yettherearepeoplewhonotonlyprofesstotakethismonstrouslegendseriously,butwhodeclareittobereconcilablewiththeElohisticaccountofthecreation!
FOOTNOTES
(1)TheNineteenthCentury,1886。
(2)BothdolphinsanddugongsoccurintheRedSea,porpoisesanddolphinsintheMediterranean;sothatthe\"Mosaicwriter\"
mayhavebeenacquaintedwiththem。
(3)Isaidnothingabout\"thegreaternumberofschoolsofGreekphilosophy,\"asMr。GladstoneimpliesthatIdid,butexpresslyspokeofthe\"foundersofGreekphilosophy。\"
(4)SeeHeinze,DieLehrevomLogos,p。9etseq。
(5)ReprintedinLaySermons,Addresses,andReviews,
1870。
(6)\"Ancient,\"doubtless,buthisantiquitymustnotbeexaggerated。Forexample,thereisnoproofthatthe\"Mosaic\"
cosmogonywasknowntotheIsraelitesofSolomon’stime。
(7)WhenJeremiah(iv。23)says,\"Ibeheldtheearth,and,lo,itwaswasteandvoid,\"hecertainlydoesnotmeantoimplythattheformoftheearthwaslessdefinite,oritssubstancelesssolid,thanbefore。
(8)InlookingthroughthedelightfulvolumerecentlypublishedbytheAstronomer—RoyalforIreland,adayortwoago,Ifindthefollowingremarksonthenebularhypothesis,whichIshouldhavebeengladtoquoteinmytextifIhadknownthemsooner:——
\"Norcanitbeevermorethanaspeculation;itcannotbeestablishedbyobservation,norcanitbeprovedbycalculation。
Itismerelyaconjecture,moreorlessplausible,butperhapsinsomedegree,necessarilytrue,ifourpresentlawsofheat,asweunderstandthem,admitoftheextremeapplicationhererequired,andifthepresentorderofthingshasreignedforsufficienttimewithouttheinterventionofanyinfluenceatpresentknowntous\"(TheStoryoftheHeavens,p。506)。
Wouldanyprudentadvocatebaseaplea,eitherfororagainstrevelation,uponthecoincidence,orwantofcoincidence,ofthedeclarationsofthelatterwiththerequirementsofanhypothesisthusguardedlydealtwithbyanastronomicalexpert?
(9)LecturesonEvolutiondeliveredinNewYork(AmericanAddresses)。
(10)Reuss,L’HistoireSainteetlaLoi,vol。i,p。275。
(11)Forthesenseoftheterm\"Elohim,\"seetheessayentitled\"TheEvolutionofTheology\"attheendofthisvolume。
(12)Perhapsevenhippopotamusesandotters!