Brian Carnell's Wiki

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
<html>
    <h1>
      MR. GLADSTONE AND GENESIS
    </h1>
    <h3>
      ESSAY #5 FROM "SCIENCE AND HEBREW TRADITION"
    </h3>
    <p>
      <br />
    </p>
    <h2>
      By Thomas Henry Huxley
    </h2>
    <p>
      <br />
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /> <br /> <br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <br /> <br />
    </p>
    <h3>
      Contents
    </h3>
    <table summary="" style="margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto">
      <tr>
        <td>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2H_4_0001"> NOTE ON THE PROPER SENSE OF THE "MOSAIC"
            NARRATIVE OF THE CREATION. </a>
          </p>
          <p class="toc">
            <a href="#link2H_FOOT"> FOOTNOTES </a>
          </p>
        </td>
      </tr>
    </table>
    <p>
      <br /> <br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <br /> <br />
    </p>
    <p>
      In controversy, as in courtship, the good old rule to be off with the old
      before one is on with the new, greatly commends itself to my sense of
      expediency. And, therefore, it appears to me desirable that I should
      preface such observations as I may have to offer upon the cloud of
      arguments (the relevancy of which to the issue which I had ventured to
      raise is not always obvious) put forth by Mr. Gladstone in the January
      number of this review, <a href="#linknote-1" name="linknoteref-1"
      id="linknoteref-1"><small>1</small></a> by an endeavour to make clear to
      such of our readers as have not had the advantage of a forensic education
      the present net result of the discussion.
    </p>
    <p>
      I am quite aware that, in undertaking this task, I run all the risks to
      which the man who presumes to deal judicially with his own cause is
      liable. But it is exactly because I do not shun that risk, but, rather,
      earnestly desire to be judged by him who cometh after me, provided that he
      has the knowledge and impartiality appropriate to a judge, that I adopt my
      present course.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the article on "The Dawn of Creation and Worship," it will be
      remembered that Mr. Gladstone unreservedly commits himself to three
      propositions. The first is that, according to the writer of the
      Pentateuch, the "water-population," the "air-population," and the
      "land-population" of the globe were created successively, in the order
      named. In the second place, Mr. Gladstone authoritatively asserts that
      this (as part of his "fourfold order") has been "so affirmed in our time
      by natural science, that it may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and
      established fact." In the third place, Mr. Gladstone argues that the fact
      of this coincidence of the pentateuchal story with the results of modern
      investigation makes it "impossible to avoid the conclusion, first, that
      either this writer was gifted with faculties passing all human experience,
      or else his knowledge was divine." And having settled to his own
      satisfaction that the first "branch of the alternative is truly nominal
      and unreal," Mr. Gladstone continues, "So stands the plea for a revelation
      of truth from God, a plea only to be met by questioning its possibility"
      (p. 697).
    </p>
    <p>
      I am a simple-minded person, wholly devoid of subtlety of intellect, so
      that I willingly admit that there may be depths of alternative meaning in
      these propositions out of all soundings attainable by my poor plummet.
      Still there are a good many people who suffer under a like intellectual
      limitation; and, for once in my life, I feel that I have the chance of
      attaining that position of a representative of average opinion which
      appears to be the modern ideal of a leader of men, when I make free
      confession that, after turning the matter over in my mind, with all the
      aid derived from a careful consideration of Mr. Gladstone's reply, I
      cannot get away from my original conviction that, if Mr. Gladstone's
      second proposition can be shown to be not merely inaccurate, but directly
      contradictory of facts known to every one who is acquainted with the
      elements of natural science, the third proposition collapses of itself.
    </p>
    <p>
      And it was this conviction which led me to enter upon the present
      discussion. I fancied that if my respected clients, the people of average
      opinion and capacity, could once be got distinctly to conceive that Mr.
      Gladstone's views as to the proper method of dealing with grave and
      difficult scientific and religious problems had permitted him to base a
      solemn "plea for a revelation of truth from God" upon an error as to a
      matter of fact, from which the intelligent perusal of a manual of
      palaeontology would have saved him, I need not trouble myself to occupy
      their time and attention with further comments upon his contribution to
      apologetic literature. It is for others to judge whether I have
      efficiently carried out my project or not. It certainly does not count for
      much that I should be unable to find any flaw in my own case, but I think
      it counts for a good deal that Mr. Gladstone appears to have been equally
      unable to do so. He does, indeed, make a great parade of authorities, and
      I have the greatest respect for those authorities whom Mr. Gladstone
      mentions. If he will get them to sign a joint memorial to the effect that
      our present palaeontological evidence proves that birds appeared before
      the "land-population" of terrestrial reptiles, I shall think it my duty to
      reconsider my position&mdash;but not till then.
    </p>
    <p>
      It will be observed that I have cautiously used the word "appears" in
      referring to what seems to me to be absence of any real answer to my
      criticisms in Mr. Gladstone's reply. For I must honestly confess that,
      notwithstanding long and painful strivings after clear insight, I am still
      uncertain whether Mr. Gladstone's "Defence" means that the great "plea for
      a revelation from God" is to be left to perish in the dialectic desert; or
      whether it is to be withdrawn under the protection of such skirmishers as
      are available for covering retreat.
    </p>
    <p>
      In particular, the remarkable disquisition which covers pages 11 to 14 of
      Mr. Gladstone's last contribution has greatly exercised my mind. Socrates
      is reported to have said of the works of Heraclitus that he who attempted
      to comprehend them should be a "Delian swimmer," but that, for his part,
      what he could understand was so good that he was disposed to believe in
      the excellence of that which he found unintelligible. In endeavouring to
      make myself master of Mr. Gladstone's meaning in these pages, I have often
      been overcome by a feeling analogous to that of Socrates, but not quite
      the same. That which I do understand has appeared to me so very much the
      reverse of good, that I have sometimes permitted myself to doubt the value
      of that which I do not understand.
    </p>
    <p>
      In this part of Mr. Gladstone's reply, in fact, I find nothing of which
      the bearing upon my arguments is clear to me, except that which relates to
      the question whether reptiles, so far as they are represented by tortoises
      and the great majority of lizards and snakes, which are land animals, are
      creeping things in the sense of the pentateuchal writer or not.
    </p>
    <p>
      I have every respect for the singer of the Song of the Three Children
      (whoever he may have been); I desire to cast no shadow of doubt upon, but,
      on the contrary, marvel at, the exactness of Mr. Gladstone's information
      as to the considerations which "affected the method of the Mosaic writer";
      nor do I venture to doubt that the inconvenient intrusion of these
      contemptible reptiles&mdash;"a family fallen from greatness" (p. 14), a
      miserable decayed aristocracy reduced to mere "skulkers about the earth" (<i>ibid.</i>)&mdash;in
      consequence, apparently, of difficulties about the occupation of land
      arising out of the earth-hunger of their former serfs, the mammals&mdash;into
      an apologetic argument, which otherwise would run quite smoothly, is in
      every way to be deprecated. Still, the wretched creatures stand there,
      importunately demanding notice; and, however different may be the practice
      in that contentious atmosphere with which Mr. Gladstone expresses and
      laments his familiarity, in the atmosphere of science it really is of no
      avail whatever to shut one's eyes to facts, or to try to bury them out of
      sight under a tumulus of rhetoric. That is my experience of the "Elysian
      regions of Science," wherein it is a pleasure to me to think that a man of
      Mr. Gladstone's intimate knowledge of English life, during the last
      quarter of a century, believes my philosophic existence to have been
      rounded off in unbroken equanimity.
    </p>
    <p>
      However reprehensible, and indeed contemptible, terrestrial reptiles may
      be, the only question which appears to me to be relevant to my argument is
      whether these creatures are or are not comprised under the denomination of
      "everything that creepeth upon the ground."
    </p>
    <p>
      Mr. Gladstone speaks of the author of the first chapter of Genesis as "the
      Mosaic writer"; I suppose, therefore, that he will admit that it is
      equally proper to speak of the author of Leviticus as the "Mosaic writer."
      Whether such a phrase would be used by any one who had an adequate
      conception of the assured results of modern Biblical criticism is another
      matter; but, at any rate, it cannot be denied that Leviticus has as much
      claim to Mosaic authorship as Genesis. Therefore, if one wants to know the
      sense of a phrase used in Genesis, it will be well to see what Leviticus
      has to say on the matter. Hence, I commend the following extract from the
      eleventh chapter of Leviticus to Mr. Gladstone's serious attention:&mdash;
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
   And these are they which are unclean unto you among the creeping
   things that creep upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and
   the great lizard after its kind, and the gecko, and the land
   crocodile, and the sand-lizard, and the chameleon. These are
   they which are unclean to you among all that creep (v. 29-3l).
</pre>
    <p>
      The merest Sunday-school exegesis therefore suffices to prove that when
      the "Mosaic writer" in Genesis i. 24 speaks of "creeping things," he means
      to include lizards among them.
    </p>
    <p>
      This being so, it is agreed, on all hands, that terrestrial lizards, and
      other reptiles allied to lizards, occur in the Permian strata. It is
      further agreed that the Triassic strata were deposited after these.
      Moreover, it is well known that, even if certain footprints are to be
      taken as unquestionable evidence of the existence of birds, they are not
      known to occur in rocks earlier than the Trias, while indubitable remains
      of birds are to be met with only much later. Hence it follows that natural
      science does not "affirm" the statement that birds were made on the fifth
      day, and "everything that creepeth on the ground" on the sixth, on which
      Mr. Gladstone rests his order; for, as is shown by Leviticus, the "Mosaic
      writer" includes lizards among his "creeping things."
    </p>
    <p>
      Perhaps I have given myself superfluous trouble in the preceding argument,
      for I find that Mr. Gladstone is willing to assume (he does not say to
      admit) that the statement in the text of Genesis as to reptiles cannot "in
      all points be sustained" (p. 16). But my position is that it cannot be
      sustained in any point, so that, after all, it has perhaps been as well to
      go over the evidence again. And then Mr. Gladstone proceeds as if nothing
      had happened to tell us that&mdash;
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
   There remain great unshaken facts to be weighed. First, the fact
   that such a record should have been made at all.
</pre>
    <p>
      As most peoples have their cosmogonies, this "fact" does not strike me as
      having much value.
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
    Secondly, the fact that, instead of dwelling in generalities, it
    has placed itself under the severe conditions of a chronological
    order reaching from the first <i>nisus</i> of chaotic matter to
    the consummated production of a fair and goodly, a furnished and
    a peopled world.
</pre>
    <p>
      This "fact" can be regarded as of value only by ignoring the fact
      demonstrated in my previous paper, that natural science does not confirm
      the order asserted so far as living things are concerned; and by upsetting
      a fact to be brought to light presently, to wit, that, in regard to the
      rest of the pentateuchal cosmogony, prudent science has very little to say
      one way or the other.
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
   Thirdly, the fact that its cosmogony seems, in the light of the
   nineteenth century, to draw more and more of countenance from
   the best natural philosophy.
</pre>
    <p>
      I have already questioned the accuracy of this statement, and I do not
      observe that mere repetition adds to its value.
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
   And, fourthly, that it has described the successive origins of
   the five great categories of present life with which human
   experience was and is conversant, in that order which geological
   authority confirms.
</pre>
    <p>
      By comparison with a sentence on page 14, in which a fivefold order is
      substituted for the "fourfold order," on which the "plea for revelation"
      was originally founded, it appears that these five categories are "plants,
      fishes, birds, mammals, and man," which, Mr. Gladstone affirms, "are given
      to us in Genesis in the order of succession in which they are also given
      by the latest geological authorities."
    </p>
    <p>
      I must venture to demur to this statement. I showed, in my previous paper,
      that there is no reason to doubt that the term "great sea monster" (used
      in Gen. i. 21) includes the most conspicuous of great sea animals&mdash;namely,
      whales, dolphins, porpoises, manatees, and dugongs; <a href="#linknote-2"
      name="linknoteref-2" id="linknoteref-2"><small>2</small></a> and, as these
      are indubitable mammals, it is impossible to affirm that mammals come
      after birds, which are said to have been created on the same day.
      Moreover, I pointed out that as these Cetacea and Sirenia are certainly
      modified land animals, their existence implies the antecedent existence of
      land mammals.
    </p>
    <p>
      Furthermore, I have to remark that the term "fishes," as used,
      technically, in zoology, by no means covers all the moving creatures that
      have life, which are bidden to "fill the waters in the seas" (Gen. i.
      20-22.) Marine mollusks and crustacea, echinoderms, corals, and
      foraminifera are not technically fishes. But they are abundant in the
      palaeozoic rocks, ages upon ages older than those in which the first
      evidences of true fishes appear. And if, in a geological book, Mr.
      Gladstone finds the quite true statement that plants appeared before
      fishes, it is only by a complete misunderstanding that he can be led to
      imagine it serves his purpose. As a matter of fact, at the present moment,
      it is a question whether, on the bare evidence afforded by fossils, the
      marine creeping thing or the marine plant has the seniority. No cautious
      palaeontologist would express a decided opinion on the matter. But, if we
      are to read the pentateuchal statement as a scientific document (and, in
      spite of all protests to the contrary, those who bring it into comparison
      with science do seek to make a scientific document of it), then, as it is
      quite clear that only terrestrial plants of high organisation are spoken
      of in verses 11 and 12, no palaeontologist would hesitate to say that, at
      present, the records of sea animal life are vastly older than those of any
      land plant describable as "grass, herb yielding seed or fruit tree."
    </p>
    <p>
      Thus, although, in Mr. Gladstone's "Defence," the "old order passeth into
      new," his case is not improved. The fivefold order is no more "affirmed in
      our time by natural science" to be "a demonstrated conclusion and
      established fact" than the fourfold order was. Natural science appears to
      me to decline to have anything to do with either; they are as wrong in
      detail as they are mistaken in principle.
    </p>
    <p>
      There is another change of position, the value of which is not so apparent
      to me, as it may well seem to be to those who are unfamiliar with the
      subject under discussion. Mr. Gladstone discards his three groups of
      "water-population," "air-population," and "land-population," and
      substitutes for them (1) fishes, (2) birds, (3) mammals, (4) man.
      Moreover, it is assumed, in a note, that "the higher or ordinary mammals"
      alone 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?
    </p>
    <p>
      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.
    </p>
    <p>
      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:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      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). 4. Another stage of animal life, in
      the order of birds. 5. Another in the order of beasts (v. 24, 25). 6. Last
      of all, man (v. 26, 27).
    </p>
    <p>
      Mr. Gladstone then tries to find the proof of the occurrence of a similar
      succession in sundry excellent works on geology.
    </p>
    <p>
      I am really grieved to be obliged to say that this third (or is it
      fourth?) modification of the foundation of the "plea for revelation"
      originally set forth, satisfies me as little as any of its predecessors.
    </p>
    <p>
      For, in the first place, I cannot accept the assertion that this order is
      to be found in Genesis. With respect to No. 5, for example, I hold, as I
      have already said, that "great sea monsters" includes the Cetacea, in
      which case mammals (which is what, I suppose, Mr. Gladstone means by
      "beasts") come in under head No. 3, and not under No. 5. Again, "fowl" are
      said in Genesis to be created on the same day as fishes; therefore I
      cannot accept an order which makes birds succeed fishes. Once more, as it
      is quite certain that the term "fowl" includes the bats,&mdash;for in
      Leviticus xi. 13-19 we read, "And these shall ye have in abomination among
      the fowls... the heron after its kind, and the hoopoe, and the bat,"&mdash;it
      is obvious that bats are also said to have been created at stage No. 3.
      And as bats are mammals, and their existence obviously presupposes that of
      terrestrial "beasts," it is quite clear that the latter could not have
      first appeared as No. 5. I need not repeat my reasons for doubting whether
      man came "last of all."
    </p>
    <p>
      As the latter half of Mr. Gladstone's sixfold order thus shows itself to
      be wholly unauthorised by, and inconsistent with, the plain language of
      the Pentateuch, I might decline to discuss the admissibility of its former
      half.
    </p>
    <p>
      But I will add one or two remarks on this point also. Does Mr. Gladstone
      mean to say that in any of the works he has cited, or indeed anywhere
      else, he can find scientific warranty for the assertion that there was a
      period of land&mdash;by which I suppose he means dry land (for submerged
      land must needs be as old as the separate existence of the sea)&mdash;"anterior
      to all life?"
    </p>
    <p>
      It may be so, or it may not be so; but where is the evidence which would
      justify any one in making a positive assertion on the subject? What
      competent palaeontologist will affirm, at this present moment, that he
      knows anything about the period at which life originated, or will assert
      more than the extreme probability that such origin was a long way
      antecedent to any traces of life at present known? What physical geologist
      will affirm that he knows when dry land began to exist, or will say more
      than that it was probably very much earlier than any extant direct
      evidence of terrestrial conditions indicates?
    </p>
    <p>
      I think I know pretty well the answers which the authorities quoted by Mr.
      Gladstone would give to these questions; but I leave it to them to give
      them if they think fit.
    </p>
    <p>
      If I ventured to speculate on the matter at all, I should say it is by no
      means certain that sea is older than dry land, inasmuch as a solid
      terrestrial surface may very well have existed before the earth was cool
      enough to allow of the existence of fluid water. And, in this case, dry
      land may have existed before the sea. As to the first appearance of life,
      the whole argument of analogy, whatever it may be worth in such a case, is
      in favour of the absence of living beings until long after the hot water
      seas had constituted themselves; and of the subsequent appearance of
      aquatic before terrestrial forms of life. But whether these "protoplasts"
      would, if we could examine them, be reckoned among the lowest microscopic
      algae, or fungi; or among those doubtful organisms which lie in the
      debatable land between animals and plants, is, in my judgment, a question
      on which a prudent biologist will reserve his opinion.
    </p>
    <p>
      I think that I have now disposed of those parts of Mr. Gladstone's defence
      in which I seem to discover a design to rescue his solemn "plea for
      revelation." But a great deal of the "Proem to Genesis" remains which I
      would gladly pass over in silence, were such a course consistent with the
      respect due to so distinguished a champion of the "reconcilers."
    </p>
    <p>
      I hope that my clients&mdash;the people of average opinions&mdash;have by
      this time some confidence in me; for when I tell them that, after all, Mr.
      Gladstone is of opinion that the "Mosaic record" was meant to give moral,
      and not scientific, instruction to those for whom it was written, they may
      be disposed to think that I must be misleading them. But let them listen
      further to what Mr. Gladstone says in a compendious but not exactly
      correct statement respecting my opinions:&mdash;
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
   He holds the writer responsible for scientific precision: I look
   for nothing of the kind, but assign to him a statement general,
   which admits exceptions; popular, which aims mainly at producing
   moral impression; summary, which cannot but be open to more or
   less of criticism of detail. He thinks it is a lecture. I think
   it is a sermon. (p. 5).
</pre>
    <p>
      I note, incidentally, that Mr. Gladstone appears to consider that the <i>differentia</i>
      between a lecture and a sermon is, that the former, so far as it deals
      with matters of fact, may be taken seriously, as meaning exactly what it
      says, while a sermon may not. I have quite enough on my hands without
      taking up the cudgels for the clergy, who will probably find Mr.
      Gladstone's definition unflattering.
    </p>
    <p>
      But I am diverging from my proper business, which is to say that I have
      given no ground for the ascription of these opinions; and that, as a
      matter of fact, I do not hold them and never have held them. It is Mr.
      Gladstone, and not I, who will have it that the pentateuchal cosmogony is
      to be taken as science.
    </p>
    <p>
      My belief, on the contrary, is, and long has been, that the pentateuchal
      story of the creation is simply a myth. I suppose it to be an hypothesis
      respecting the origin of the universe which some ancient thinker found
      himself able to reconcile with his knowledge, or what he thought was
      knowledge, of the nature of things, and therefore assumed to be true. As
      such, I hold it to be not merely an interesting, but a venerable, monument
      of a stage in the mental progress of mankind; and I find it difficult to
      suppose that any one who is acquainted with the cosmogonies of other
      nations&mdash;and especially with those of the Egyptians and the
      Babylonians, with whom the Israelites were in such frequent and intimate
      communication&mdash;should consider it to possess either more, or less,
      scientific importance than may be allotted to these.
    </p>
    <p>
      Mr. Gladstone's definition of a sermon permits me to suspect that he may
      not see much difference between that form of discourse and what I call a
      myth; and I hope it may be something more than the slowness of
      apprehension, to which I have confessed, which leads me to imagine that a
      statement which is "general" but "admits exceptions," which is "popular"
      and "aims mainly at producing moral impression," "summary" and therefore
      open to "criticism of detail," amounts to a myth, or perhaps less than a
      myth. Put algebraically, it comes to this, <i>x=a+b+c</i>; always
      remembering that there is nothing to show the exact value of either <i>a,</i>
      or <i>b,</i> or <i>c.</i> It is true that <i>a</i> is commonly supposed to
      equal 10, but there are exceptions, and these may reduce it to 8, or 3, or
      0; <i>b</i> also popularly means 10, but being chiefly used by the
      algebraist as a "moral" value, you cannot do much with it in the addition
      or subtraction of mathematical values; <i>c</i> also is quite "summary,"
      and if you go into the details of which it is made up, many of them may be
      wrong, and their sum total equal to 0, or even to a minus quantity.
    </p>
    <p>
      Mr. Gladstone appears to wish that I should (1) enter upon a sort of essay
      competition with the author of the pentateuchal cosmogony; (2) that I
      should make a further statement about some elementary facts in the history
      of Indian and Greek philosophy; and (3) that I should show cause for my
      hesitation in accepting the assertion that Genesis is supported, at any
      rate to the extent of the first two verses, by the nebular hypothesis.
    </p>
    <p>
      A certain sense of humour prevents me from accepting the first invitation.
      I would as soon attempt to put Hamlet's soliloquy into a more scientific
      shape. But if I supposed the "Mosaic writer" to be inspired, as Mr.
      Gladstone does, it would not be consistent with my notions of respect for
      the Supreme Being to imagine Him unable to frame a form of words which
      should accurately, or, at least, not inaccurately, express His own
      meaning. It is sometimes said that, had the statements contained in the
      first chapter of Genesis been scientifically true, they would have been
      unintelligible to ignorant people; but how is the matter mended if, being
      scientifically untrue, they must needs be rejected by instructed people?
    </p>
    <p>
      With respect to the second suggestion, it would be presumptuous in me to
      pretend to instruct Mr. Gladstone in matters which lie as much within the
      province of Literature and History as in that of Science; but if any one
      desirous of further knowledge will be so good as to turn to that most
      excellent and by no means recondite source of information, the
      "Encyclopaedia Britannica," he will find, under the letter E, the word
      "Evolution," and a long article on that subject. Now, I do not recommend
      him to read the first half of the article; but the second half, by my
      friend Mr. Sully, is really very good. He will there find it said that in
      some of the philosophies of ancient India, the idea of evolution is
      clearly expressed: "Brahma is conceived as the eternal self-existent
      being, which, on its material side, unfolds itself to the world by
      gradually condensing itself to material objects through the gradations of
      ether, fire, water, earth, and other elements." And again: "In the later
      system of emanation of Sankhya there is a more marked approach to a
      materialistic doctrine of evolution." What little knowledge I have of the
      matter&mdash;chiefly derived from that very instructive book, "Die
      Religion des Buddha," by C. F. Koeppen, supplemented by Hardy's
      interesting works&mdash;leads me to think that Mr. Sully might have spoken
      much more strongly as to the evolutionary character of Indian philosophy,
      and especially of that of the Buddhists. But the question is too large to
      be dealt with incidentally.
    </p>
    <p>
      And, with respect to early Greek philosophy, <a href="#linknote-3"
      name="linknoteref-3" id="linknoteref-3"><small>3</small></a> the seeker
      after additional enlightenment need go no further than the same excellent
      storehouse of information:&mdash;
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
   The early Ionian physicists, including Thales,
   Anaximander, and Anaximenes, seek to explain the world as
   generated out of a primordial matter which is at the same time
   the universal support of things. This substance is endowed with
   a generative or transmutative force by virtue of which it passes
   into a succession of forms. They thus resemble modern
   evolutionists since they regard the world, with its infinite
   variety of forms, as issuing from a simple mode of matter.
</pre>
    <p>
      Further on, Mr. Sully remarks that "Heraclitus deserves a prominent place
      in the history of the idea of evolution," and he states, with perfect
      justice, that Heraclitus has foreshadowed some of the special
      peculiarities of Mr. Darwin's views. It is indeed a very strange
      circumstance that the philosophy of the great Ephesian more than
      adumbrates the two doctrines which have played leading parts, the one in
      the development of Christian dogma, the other in that of natural science.
      The former is the conception of the Word {Greek text}[logos] which took
      its Jewish shape in Alexandria, and its Christian form <a
      href="#linknote-4" name="linknoteref-4" id="linknoteref-4"><small>4</small></a>
      in that Gospel which is usually referred to an Ephesian source of some
      five centuries later date; and the latter is that of the struggle for
      existence. The saying that "strife is father and king of all" {Greek
      text}[...], ascribed to Heraclitus, would be a not inappropriate motto for
      the "Origin of Species."
    </p>
    <p>
      I have referred only to Mr. Sully's article, because his authority is
      quite sufficient for my purpose. But the consultation of any of the more
      elaborate histories of Greek philosophy, such as the great work of Zeller,
      for example, will only bring out the same fact into still more striking
      prominence. I have professed no "minute acquaintance" with either Indian
      or Greek philosophy, but I have taken a great deal of pains to secure that
      such knowledge as I do possess shall be accurate and trustworthy.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the third place, Mr. Gladstone appears to wish that I should discuss
      with him the question whether the nebular hypothesis is, or is not,
      confirmatory of the pentateuchal account of the origin of things. Mr.
      Gladstone appears to be prepared to enter upon this campaign with a light
      heart. I confess I am not, and my reason for this backwardness will
      doubtless surprise Mr. Gladstone. It is that, rather more than a quarter
      of a century ago (namely, in February 1859), when it was my duty, as
      President of the Geological Society, to deliver the Anniversary Address,
      <a href="#linknote-5" name="linknoteref-5" id="linknoteref-5"><small>5</small></a>
      I chose a topic which involved a very careful study of the remarkable
      cosmogonical speculation, originally promulgated by Immanuel Kant and,
      subsequently, by Laplace, which is now known as the nebular hypothesis.
      With the help of such little acquaintance with the principles of physics
      and astronomy as I had gained, I endeavoured to obtain a clear
      understanding of this speculation in all its bearings. I am not sure that
      I succeeded; but of this I am certain, that the problems involved are very
      difficult, even for those who possess the intellectual discipline
      requisite for dealing with them. And it was this conviction that led me to
      express my desire to leave the discussion of the question of the asserted
      harmony between Genesis and the nebular hypothesis to experts in the
      appropriate branches of knowledge. And I think my course was a wise one;
      but as Mr. Gladstone evidently does not understand how there can be any
      hesitation on my part, unless it arises from a conviction that he is in
      the right, I may go so far as to set out my difficulties.
    </p>
    <p>
      They are of two kinds&mdash;exegetical and scientific. It appears to me
      that it is vain to discuss a supposed coincidence between Genesis and
      science unless we have first settled, on the one hand, what Genesis says,
      and, on the other hand, what science says.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the first place, I cannot find any consensus among Biblical scholars as
      to the meaning of the words, "In the beginning God created the heaven and
      the earth." Some say that the Hebrew word <i>bara,</i> which is translated
      "create," means "made out of nothing." I venture to object to that
      rendering, not on the ground of scholarship, but of common sense.
      Omnipotence itself can surely no more make something "out of" nothing than
      it can make a triangular circle. What is intended by "made out of nothing"
      appears to be "caused to come into existence," with the implication that
      nothing of the same kind previously existed. It is further usually assumed
      that "the heaven and the earth" means the material substance of the
      universe. Hence the "Mosaic writer" is taken to imply that where nothing
      of a material nature previously existed, this substance appeared. That is
      perfectly conceivable, and therefore no one can deny that it may have
      happened. But there are other very authoritative critics who say that the
      ancient Israelite <a href="#linknote-6" name="linknoteref-6"
      id="linknoteref-6"><small>6</small></a> who wrote the passage was not
      likely to have been capable of such abstract thinking; and that, as a
      matter of philology, <i>bara</i> is commonly used to signify the
      "fashioning," or "forming," of that which already exists. Now it appears
      to me that the scientific investigator is wholly incompetent to say
      anything at all about the first origin of the material universe. The whole
      power of his organon vanishes when he has to step beyond the chain of
      natural causes and effects. No form of the nebular hypothesis, that I know
      of, is necessarily connected with any view of the origination of the
      nebular substance. Kant's form of it expressly supposes that the nebular
      material from which one stellar system starts may be nothing but the
      disintegrated substance of a stellar and planetary system which has just
      come to an end. Therefore, so far as I can see, one who believes that
      matter has existed from all eternity has just as much right to hold the
      nebular hypothesis as one who believes that matter came into existence at
      a specified epoch. In other words, the nebular hypothesis and the creation
      hypothesis, up to this point, neither confirm nor oppose one another.
    </p>
    <p>
      Next, we read in the revisers' version, in which I suppose the ultimate
      results of critical scholarship to be embodied: "And the earth was waste
      ['without form,' in the Authorised Version] and void." Most people seem to
      think that this phraseology intends to imply that the matter out of which
      the world was to be formed was a veritable "chaos," devoid of law and
      order. If this interpretation is correct, the nebular hypothesis can have
      nothing to say to it. The scientific thinker cannot admit the absence of
      law and order; anywhere or anywhen, in nature. Sometimes law and order are
      patent and visible to our limited vision; sometimes they are hidden. But
      every particle of the matter of the most fantastic-looking nebula in the
      heavens is a realm of law and order in itself; and, that it is so, is the
      essential condition of the possibility of solar and planetary evolution
      from the apparent chaos. <a href="#linknote-7" name="linknoteref-7"
      id="linknoteref-7"><small>7</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      "Waste" is too vague a term to be worth consideration. "Without form,"
      intelligible enough as a metaphor, if taken literally is absurd; for a
      material thing existing in space must have a superficies, and if it has a
      superficies it has a form. The wildest streaks of marestail clouds in the
      sky, or the most irregular heavenly nebulae, have surely just as much form
      as a geometrical tetrahedron; and as for "void," how can that be void
      which is full of matter? As poetry, these lines are vivid and admirable;
      as a scientific statement, which they must be taken to be if any one is
      justified in comparing them with another scientific statement, they fail
      to convey any intelligible conception to my mind.
    </p>
    <p>
      The account proceeds: "And darkness was upon the face of the deep." So be
      it; but where, then, is the likeness to the celestial nebulae, of the
      existence of which we should know nothing unless they shone with a light
      of their own? "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." I
      have met with no form of the nebular hypothesis which involves anything
      analogous to this process.
    </p>
    <p>
      I have said enough to explain some of the difficulties which arise in my
      mind, when I try to ascertain whether there is any foundation for the
      contention that the statements contained in the first two verses of
      Genesis are supported by the nebular hypothesis. The result does not
      appear to me to be exactly favourable to that contention. The nebular
      hypothesis assumes the existence of matter, having definite properties, as
      its foundation. Whether such matter was created a few thousand years ago,
      or whether it has existed through an eternal series of metamorphoses of
      which our present universe is only the last stage, are alternatives,
      neither of which is scientifically untenable, and neither scientifically
      demonstrable. But science knows nothing of any stage in which the universe
      could be said, in other than a metaphorical and popular sense, to be
      formless or empty; or in any respect less the seat of law and order than
      it is now. One might as well talk of a fresh-laid hen's egg being "without
      form and void," because the chick therein is potential and not actual, as
      apply such terms to the nebulous mass which contains a potential solar
      system.
    </p>
    <p>
      Until some further enlightenment comes to me, then, I confess myself
      wholly unable to understand the way in which the nebular hypothesis is to
      be converted into an ally of the "Mosaic writer." <a href="#linknote-8"
      name="linknoteref-8" id="linknoteref-8"><small>8</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      But Mr. Gladstone informs us that Professor Dana and Professor Guyot are
      prepared to prove that the "first or cosmogonical portion of the Proem not
      only accords with, but teaches, the nebular hypothesis." There is no one
      to whose authority on geological questions I am more readily disposed to
      bow than that of my eminent friend Professor Dana. But I am familiar with
      what he has previously said on this topic in his well-known and standard
      work, into which, strangely enough, it does not seem to have occurred to
      Mr. Gladstone to look before he set out upon his present undertaking; and
      unless Professor Dana's latest contribution (which I have not yet met
      with) takes up altogether new ground, I am afraid I shall not be able to
      extricate myself, by its help, from my present difficulties.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is a very long time since I began to think about the relations between
      modern scientifically ascertained truths and the cosmogonical speculations
      of the writer of Genesis; and, as I think that Mr. Gladstone might have
      been able to put his case with a good deal more force, if he had thought
      it worth while to consult the last chapter of Professor Dana's admirable
      "Manual of Geology," so I think he might have been made aware that he was
      undertaking an enterprise of which he had not counted the cost, if he had
      chanced upon a discussion of the subject which I published in 1877. <a
      href="#linknote-9" name="linknoteref-9" id="linknoteref-9"><small>9</small></a>
    </p>
    <p>
      Finally, I should like to draw the attention of those who take interest in
      these topics to the weighty words of one of the most learned and moderate
      of Biblical critics: <a href="#linknote-10" name="linknoteref-10"
      id="linknoteref-10"><small>10</small></a>&mdash;
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
   "A propos de cette premiere page de la Bible, on a coutume de
   nos jours de disserter, a perte de vue, sur l'accord du recit
   mosaique avec les sciences naturelles; et comme celles-ci tout
   eloignees qu'elles sont encore de la perfection absolue, ont
   rendu populaires et en quelque sorte irrefragables un certain
   nombre de faits generaux ou de theses fondamentales de la
   cosmologie et de la geologie, c'est le texte sacre qu'on
   s'evertue a torturer pour le faire concorder avec
   ces donnees."
</pre>
    <p>
      In my paper on the "Interpreters of Nature and the Interpreters of
      Genesis," while freely availing myself of the rights of a scientific
      critic, I endeavoured to keep the expression of my views well within those
      bounds of courtesy which are set by self-respect and consideration for
      others. I am therefore glad to be favoured with Mr. Gladstone's
      acknowledgment of the success of my efforts. I only wish that I could
      accept all the products of Mr. Gladstone's gracious appreciation, but
      there is one about which, as a matter of honesty, I hesitate. In fact, if
      I had expressed my meaning better than I seem to have done, I doubt if the
      particular proffer of Mr. Gladstone's thanks would have been made.
    </p>
    <p>
      To my mind, whatever doctrine professes to be the result of the
      application of the accepted rules of inductive and deductive logic to its
      subject-matter; and which accepts, within the limits which it sets to
      itself, the supremacy of reason, is Science. Whether the subject-matter
      consists of realities or unrealities, truths or falsehoods, is quite
      another question. I conceive that ordinary geometry is science, by reason
      of its method, and I also believe that its axioms, definitions, and
      conclusions are all true. However, there is a geometry of four dimensions,
      which I also believe to be science, because its method professes to be
      strictly scientific. It is true that I cannot conceive four dimensions in
      space, and therefore, for me, the whole affair is unreal. But I have known
      men of great intellectual powers who seemed to have no difficulty either
      in conceiving them, or, at any rate, in imagining how they could conceive
      them; and, therefore, four-dimensioned geometry comes under my notion of
      science. So I think astrology is a science, in so far as it professes to
      reason logically from principles established by just inductive methods. To
      prevent misunderstanding, perhaps I had better add that I do not believe
      one whit in astrology; but no more do I believe in Ptolemaic astronomy, or
      in the catastrophic geology of my youth, although these, in their day,
      claimed&mdash;and, to my mind, rightly claimed&mdash;the name of science.
      If nothing is to be called science but that which is exactly true from
      beginning to end, I am afraid there is very little science in the world
      outside mathematics. Among the physical sciences, I do not know that any
      could claim more than that it is true within certain limits, so narrow
      that, for the present at any rate, they may be neglected. If such is the
      case, I do not see where the line is to be drawn between exactly true,
      partially true, and mainly untrue forms of science. And what I have said
      about the current theology at the end of my paper [<i>supra</i> pp.
      160-163] leaves, I think, no doubt as to the category in which I rank it.
      For all that, I think it would be not only unjust, but almost impertinent,
      to refuse the name of science to the "Summa" of St. Thomas or to the
      "Institutes" of Calvin.
    </p>
    <p>
      In conclusion, I confess that my supposed "unjaded appetite" for the sort
      of controversy in which it needed not Mr. Gladstone's express declaration
      to tell us he is far better practised than I am (though probably, without
      another express declaration, no one would have suspected that his
      controversial fires are burning low) is already satiated.
    </p>
    <p>
      In "Elysium" we conduct scientific discussions in a different medium, and
      we are liable to threatenings of asphyxia in that "atmosphere of
      contention" in which Mr. Gladstone has been able to live, alert and
      vigorous beyond the common race of men, as if it were purest mountain air.
      I trust that he may long continue to seek truth, under the difficult
      conditions he has chosen for the search, with unabated energy&mdash;I had
      almost said fire&mdash;
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
   May age not wither him, nor custom stale
   His infinite variety.
</pre>
    <p>
      But Elysium suits my less robust constitution better, and I beg leave to
      retire thither, not sorry for my experience of the other region&mdash;no
      one should regret experience&mdash;but determined not to repeat it, at any
      rate in reference to the "plea for revelation."
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2H_4_0001" id="link2H_4_0001">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      NOTE ON THE PROPER SENSE OF THE "MOSAIC" NARRATIVE OF THE CREATION.
    </h2>
    <p>
      It has been objected to my argument from Leviticus (<i>suprà</i> p. 170)
      that the Hebrew words translated by "creeping things" in Genesis i. 24 and
      Leviticus xi. 29, are different; namely, "reh-mes" in the former,
      "sheh-retz" in the latter. The obvious reply to this objection is that the
      question is not one of words but of the meaning of words. To borrow an
      illustration from our own language, if "crawling things" had been used by
      the translators in Genesis and "creeping things" in Leviticus, it would
      not have been necessarily implied that they intended to denote different
      groups of animals. "Sheh-retz" is employed in a wider sense than
      "reh-mes." There are "sheh-retz" of the waters of the earth, of the air,
      and of the land. Leviticus speaks of land reptiles, among other animals,
      as "sheh-retz"; Genesis speaks of all creeping land animals, among which
      land reptiles are necessarily included, as "reh-mes." Our translators,
      therefore, have given the true sense when they render both "sheh-retz" and
      "reh-mes" by "creeping things."
    </p>
    <p>
      Having taken a good deal of trouble to show what Genesis i.-ii. 4 does not
      mean, in the preceding pages, perhaps it may be well that I should briefly
      give my opinion as to what it does mean. I conceive that the unknown
      author of this part of the Hexateuchal compilation believed, and meant his
      readers to believe, that his words, as they understood them&mdash;that is
      to say, in their ordinary natural sense&mdash;conveyed the "actual
      historical truth." When he says that such and such things happened, I
      believe him to mean that they actually occurred and not that he imagined
      or dreamed them; when he says "day," I believe he uses the word in the
      popular sense; when he says "made" or "created," I believe he means that
      they came into being by a process analogous to that which the people whom
      he addressed called "making" or "creating"; and I think that, unless we
      forget our present knowledge of nature, and, putting ourselves back into
      the position of a Phoenician or a Chaldaean philosopher, start from his
      conception of the world, we shall fail to grasp the meaning of the Hebrew
      writer. We must conceive the earth to be an immovable, more or less
      flattened, body, with the vault of heaven above, the watery abyss below
      and around. We must imagine sun, moon, and stars to be "set" in a
      "firmament" with, or in, which they move; and above which is yet another
      watery mass. We must consider "light" and "darkness" to be things, the
      alternation of which constitutes day and night, independently of the
      existence of sun, moon, and stars. We must further suppose that, as in the
      case of the story of the deluge, the Hebrew writer was acquainted with a
      Gentile (probably Chaldaean or Accadian) account of the origin of things,
      in which he substantially believed, but which he stripped of all its
      idolatrous associations by substituting "Elohim" for Ea, Anu, Bel, and the
      like.
    </p>
    <p>
      From this point of view the first verse strikes the keynote of the whole.
      In the beginning "Elohim <a href="#linknote-11" name="linknoteref-11"
      id="linknoteref-11"><small>11</small></a> created the heaven and the
      earth." Heaven and earth were not primitive existences from which the gods
      proceeded, as the Gentiles taught; on the contrary, the "Powers" preceded
      and created heaven and earth. Whether by "creation" is meant "causing to
      be where nothing was before" or "shaping of something which pre-existed,"
      seems to me to be an insoluble question.
    </p>
    <p>
      As I have pointed out, the second verse has an interesting parallel in
      Jeremiah iv. 23: "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and
      the heavens, and they had no light." I conceive that there is no more
      allusion to chaos in the one than in the other. The earth-disk lay in its
      watery envelope, like the yolk of an egg in the <i>glaire,</i> and the
      spirit, or breath, of Elohim stirred the mass. Light was created as a
      thing by itself; and its antithesis "darkness" as another thing. It was
      supposed to be the nature of these two to alternate, and a pair of
      alternations constituted a "day" in the sense of an unit of time.
    </p>
    <p>
      The next step was, necessarily, the formation of that "firmament," or dome
      over the earth-disk, which was supposed to support the celestial waters;
      and in which sun, moon, and stars were conceived to be set, as in a sort
      of orrery. The earth was still surrounded and covered by the lower waters,
      but the upper were separated from it by the "firmament," beneath which
      what we call the air lay. A second alternation of darkness and light marks
      the lapse of time.
    </p>
    <p>
      After this, the waters which covered the earth-disk, under the firmament,
      were drawn away into certain regions, which became seas, while the part
      laid bare became dry land. In accordance with the notion, universally
      accepted in antiquity, that moist earth possesses the potentiality of
      giving rise to living beings, the land, at the command of Elohim, "put
      forth" all sorts of plants. They are made to appear thus early, not, I
      apprehend, from any notion that plants are lower in the scale of being
      than animals (which would seem to be inconsistent with the prevalence of
      tree worship among ancient people), but rather because animals obviously
      depend on plants; and because, without crops and harvests, there seemed to
      be no particular need of heavenly signs for the seasons.
    </p>
    <p>
      These were provided by the fourth day's work. Light existed already; but
      now vehicles for the distribution of light, in a special manner and with
      varying degrees of intensity, were provided. I conceive that the previous
      alternations of light and darkness were supposed to go on; but that the
      "light" was strengthened during the daytime by the sun, which, as a source
      of heat as well as of light, glided up the firmament from the east, and
      slid down in the west, each day. Very probably each day's sun was supposed
      to be a new one. And as the light of the day was strengthened by the sun,
      so the darkness of the night was weakened by the moon, which regularly
      waxed and waned every month. The stars are, as it were, thrown in. And
      nothing can more sharply mark the doctrinal purpose of the author, than
      the manner in which he deals with the heavenly bodies, which the Gentiles
      identified so closely with their gods, as if they were mere accessories to
      the almanac.
    </p>
    <p>
      Animals come next in order of creation, and the general notion of the
      writer seems to be that they were produced by the medium in which they
      live; that is to say, the aquatic animals by the waters, and the
      terrestrial animals by the land. But there was a difficulty about flying
      things, such as bats, birds, and insects. The cosmogonist seems to have
      had no conception of "air" as an elemental body. His "elements" are earth
      and water, and he ignores air as much as he does fire. Birds "fly above
      the earth in the open firmament" or "on the face of the expanse" of
      heaven. They are not said to fly through the air. The choice of a
      generative medium for flying things, therefore, seemed to lie between
      water and earth; and, if we take into account the conspicuousness of the
      great flocks of water-birds and the swarms of winged insects, which appear
      to arise from water, I think the preference of water becomes intelligible.
      However, I do not put this forward as more than a probable hypothesis. As
      to the creation of aquatic animals on the fifth, that of land animals on
      the sixth day, and that of man last of all, I presume the order was
      determined by the fact that man could hardly receive dominion over the
      living world before it existed; and that the "cattle" were not wanted
      until he was about to make his appearance. The other terrestrial animals
      would naturally be associated with the cattle.
    </p>
    <p>
      The absurdity of imagining that any conception, analogous to that of a
      zoological classification, was in the mind of the writer will be apparent,
      when we consider that the fifth day's work must include the zoologist's <i>Cetacea,
      Sirenia,</i> and seals, <a href="#linknote-12" name="linknoteref-12"
      id="linknoteref-12"><small>12</small></a> all of which are <i>Mammalia;</i>
      all birds, turtles, sea-snakes and, presumably, the fresh water <i>Reptilia</i>
      and <i>Amphibia;</i> with the great majority of <i>Invertebrata.</i>
    </p>
    <p>
      The creation of man is announced as a separate act, resulting from a
      particular resolution of Elohim to "make man in our image, after our
      likeness." To learn what this remarkable phrase means we must turn to the
      fifth chapter of Genesis, the work of the same writer. "In the day that
      Elohim created man, in the likeness of Elohim made he him; male and female
      created he them; and blessed them and called their name Adam in the day
      when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and
      begat <i>a son</i> in his own likeness, after his image; and called his
      name Seth." I find it impossible to read this passage without being
      convinced that, when the writer says Adam was made in the likeness of
      Elohim, he means the same sort of likeness as when he says that Seth was
      begotten in the likeness of Adam. Whence it follows that his conception of
      Elohim was completely anthropomorphic.
    </p>
    <p>
      In all this narrative I can discover nothing which differentiates it, in
      principle, from other ancient cosmogonies, except the rejection of all
      gods, save the vague, yet anthropomorphic, Elohim, and the assigning to
      them anteriority and superiority to the world. It is as utterly
      irreconcilable with the assured truths of modern science, as it is with
      the account of the origin of man, plants, and animals given by the writer
      of the second chief constituent of the Hexateuch in the second chapter of
      Genesis. This extraordinary story starts with the assumption of the
      existence of a rainless earth, devoid of plants and herbs of the field.
      The creation of living beings begins with that of a solitary man; the next
      thing that happens is the laying out of the Garden of Eden, and the
      causing the growth from its soil of every tree "that is pleasant to the
      sight and good for food"; the third act is the formation out of the ground
      of "every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air"; the fourth and
      last, the manufacture of the first woman from a rib, extracted from Adam,
      while in a state of anaesthesia.
    </p>
    <p>
      Yet there are people who not only profess to take this monstrous legend
      seriously, but who declare it to be reconcilable with the Elohistic
      account of the creation!
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="link2H_FOOT" id="link2H_FOOT">
      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      FOOTNOTES:
    </h2>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-1" id="linknote-1">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      1 (<a href="#linknoteref-1">return</a>)<br /> [ <i>The Nineteenth Century,</i>
      1886.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-2" id="linknote-2">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      2 (<a href="#linknoteref-2">return</a>)<br /> [ Both dolphins and dugongs
      occur in the Red Sea, porpoises and dolphins in the Mediterranean; so that
      the "Mosaic writer" may have been acquainted with them.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-3" id="linknote-3">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      3 (<a href="#linknoteref-3">return</a>)<br /> [ I said nothing about "the
      greater number of schools of Greek philosophy," as Mr. Gladstone implies
      that I did, but expressly spoke of the "founders of Greek philosophy."]
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-4" id="linknote-4">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      4 (<a href="#linknoteref-4">return</a>)<br /> [ See Heinze, <i>Die Lehre
      vom Logos,</i> p. 9 <i>et seq.</i>]
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-5" id="linknote-5">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      5 (<a href="#linknoteref-5">return</a>)<br /> [ Reprinted in <i>Lay
      Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews,</i> 1870.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-6" id="linknote-6">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      6 (<a href="#linknoteref-6">return</a>)<br /> [ "Ancient," doubtless, but
      his antiquity must not be exaggerated. For example, there is no proof that
      the "Mosaic" cosmogony was known to the Israelites of Solomon's time.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-7" id="linknote-7">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      7 (<a href="#linknoteref-7">return</a>)<br /> [ When Jeremiah (iv. 23)
      says, "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void," he certainly
      does not mean to imply that the form of the earth was less definite, or
      its substance less solid, than before.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-8" id="linknote-8">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      8 (<a href="#linknoteref-8">return</a>)<br /> [ In looking through the
      delightful volume recently published by the Astronomer-Royal for Ireland,
      a day or two ago, I find the following remarks on the nebular hypothesis,
      which I should have been glad to quote in my text if I had known them
      sooner:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      "Nor can it be ever more than a speculation; it cannot be established by
      observation, nor can it be proved by calculation. It is merely a
      conjecture, more or less plausible, but perhaps in some degree,
      necessarily true, if our present laws of heat, as we understand them,
      admit of the extreme application here required, and if the present order
      of things has reigned for sufficient time without the intervention of any
      influence at present known to us" (<i>The Story of the Heavens,</i> p.
      506).
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      Would any prudent advocate base a plea, either for or against revelation,
      upon the coincidence, or want of coincidence, of the declarations of the
      latter with the requirements of an hypothesis thus guardedly dealt with by
      an astronomical expert?]
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-9" id="linknote-9">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      9 (<a href="#linknoteref-9">return</a>)<br /> [ Lectures on Evolution
      delivered in New York (American Addresses).]
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-10" id="linknote-10">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      10 (<a href="#linknoteref-10">return</a>)<br /> [ Reuss, <i>L'Histoire
      Sainte et la Loi,</i> vol. i, p. 275.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-11" id="linknote-11">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      11 (<a href="#linknoteref-11">return</a>)<br /> [ For the sense of the term
      "Elohim," see the essay entitled "The Evolution of Theology" at the end of
      this volume.]
    </p>
    <p>
      <a name="linknote-12" id="linknote-12">
      <!-- Note --></a>
    </p>
    <p class="foot">
      12 (<a href="#linknoteref-12">return</a>)<br /> [ Perhaps even
      hippopotamuses and otters!]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br />
    </p>
</html>