第2章

Furtheron，Mr。Sullyremarksthat"Heraclitusdeservesaprominentplaceinthehistoryoftheideaofevolution，"andhestates，withperfectjustice，thatHeraclitushasforeshadowedsomeofthespecialpeculiaritiesofMr。Darwin’sviews。ItisindeedaverystrangecircumstancethatthephilosophyofthegreatEphesianmorethanadumbratesthetwodoctrineswhichhaveplayedleadingparts，theoneinthedevelopmentofChristiandogma，theotherinthatofnaturalscience。TheformeristheconceptionoftheWord[logos]whichtookitsJewishshapeinAlexandria，anditsChristianform<4>inthatGospelwhichisusuallyreferredtoanEphesiansourceofsomefivecenturieslaterdate；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，<5>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。ButthereareotherveryauthoritativecriticswhosaythattheancientIsraelite<6>whowrotethepassagewasnotlikelytohavebeencapableofsuchabstractthinking；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。<7>

"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。"<8>

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。<9>

Finally，IshouldliketodrawtheattentionofthosewhotakeinterestinthesetopicstotheweightywordsofoneofthemostlearnedandmoderateofBiblicalcritics:——

"AproposdecettepremierepagedelaBible，onacoutumedenosjoursdedisserter，apertedevue，surl’accorddurecitmosaiqueaveclessciencesnaturelles；etcommecelles—citouteloigneesqu’ellessontencoredelaperfectionabsolue，ontrendupopulairesetenquelquesorteirrefragablesuncertainnombredefaitsgenerauxoudethesesfondamentalesdelacosmologieetdelageologie，c’estletextesacrequ’ons’evertueatorturerpourlefaireconcorderaveccesdonnees。"<10>

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"Elohim<11>createdtheheavenandtheearth。"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，<12>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！