,,mr4 ,,gladstone ,,and ,,genesis       
,,essay #e ,,from ,,science ,,and       
,,hebrew ,,tradition   ,by ,thomas      
,henry ,huxley    ,in controversy1 as in
 courtship1 the good old rule to be off 
with the old before one is on with the  
new1 greatly commends itself to my sense
 of expediency4 ,and1 therefore1 it     
appears to me desirable that ,i should  
preface such observations as ,i may have
 to offer upon the cloud of arguments   
7the relevancy of which to the issue    
which ,i had ventured to raise is not   
always obvious7 put forth by ,mr4       
,gladstone in the ,january number of    
this review1 #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 
discussion4  ,i am quite aware that1 in 
undertaking this task1 ,i run all the   
risks to which the man who presumes to  
deal judicially with his own cause is   
liable4 ,but it is exactly because ,i do
 not shun that risk1 but1 rather1       

earnestly desire to be judged by him who
 cometh after me1 provided that he has  
the knowledge and impartiality          
appropriate to a judge1 that ,i adopt my
 present course4  ,in the article on    
,the ,dawn of ,creation and ,worship1 it
 will be remembered that ,mr4 ,gladstone
 unreservedly commits himself to three  
propositions4 ,the first is that1       
according to the writer of the          
,pentateuch1 the water-population1 the  
air-population1 and the land-population 
of the globe were created successively1 
in the order named4 ,in the second      
place1 ,mr4 ,gladstone authoritatively  
asserts that this 7as part of his       
fourfold order7 has been so affirmed in 
our time by natural science1 that it may
 be taken as a demonstrated conclusion  
and established fact4 ,in the third     
place1 ,mr4 ,gladstone argues that the  
fact of this coincidence of the         
pentateuchal story with the results of  
modern investigation makes it impossible
 to avoid the conclusion1 first1 that   

either this writer was gifted with      
faculties passing all human experience1 
or else his knowledge was divine4 ,and  
having settled to his own satisfaction  
that the first branch of the alternative
 is truly nominal and unreal1 ,mr4      
,gladstone continues1 ,so stands the    
plea for a revelation of truth from     
,god1 a plea only to be met by          
questioning its possibility 7p4 #fig74  
,i am a simple-minded person1 wholly    
devoid of subtlety of intellect1 so that
 ,i willingly admit that there may be   
depths of alternative meaning in these  
propositions out of all soundings       
attainable by my poor plummet4 ,still   
there are a good many people who suffer 
under a like intellectual limitation2   
and1 for once in my life1 ,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 men1 when ,i make  
free confession that1 after turning the 
matter over in my mind1 with all the aid

 derived from a careful consideration of
 ,mr4 ,gladstone's reply1 ,i cannot get 
away from my original conviction that1  
if ,mr4 ,gladstone's second proposition 
can be shown to be not merely           
inaccurate1 but directly contradictory  
of facts known to every one who is      
acquainted with the elements of natural 
science1 the third proposition collapses
 of itself4  ,and it was this conviction
 which led me to enter upon the present 
discussion4 ,i fancied that if my       
respected clients1 the people of average
 opinion and capacity1 could once be got
 distinctly to conceive that ,mr4       
,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 fact1 from which the intelligent     
perusal of a manual of palaeontology    
would have saved him1 ,i need not       
trouble myself to occupy their time and 

attention #afg with further comments    
upon his contribution to apologetic     
literature4 ,it is for others to judge  
whether ,i have efficiently carried out 
my project or not4 ,it certainly does   
not count for much that ,i should be    
unable to find any flaw in my own case1 
but ,i think it counts for a good deal  
that ,mr4 ,gladstone appears to have    
been equally unable to do so4 ,he does1 
indeed1 make a great parade of          
authorities1 and ,i have the greatest   
respect for those authorities whom ,mr4 
,gladstone mentions4 ,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 reptiles1 ,i shall think it 
my duty to reconsider my position--but  
not till then4  ,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 ,mr4 ,gladstone's reply4  

,for ,i must honestly confess that1     
notwithstanding long and painful        
strivings after clear insight1 ,i am    
still uncertain whether ,mr4            
,gladstone's ,defence means that the    
great plea for a revelation from ,god is
 to be left to perish in the dialectic  
desert2 or whether it is to be withdrawn
 under the protection of such           
skirmishers as are available for        
covering retreat4  ,in particular1 the  
remarkable disquisition which covers    
pages #aa to #ad of ,mr4 ,gladstone's   
last contribution has greatly exercised 
my mind4 ,socrates is reported to have  
said of the works of ,heraclitus that he
 who attempted to comprehend them should
 be a ,delian swimmer1 but that1 for his
 part1 what he could understand was so  
good that he was disposed to believe in 
the excellence of that which he found   
unintelligible4 ,in endeavouring to make
 myself master of ,mr4 ,gladstone's     
meaning in these pages1 ,i have often   
been overcome by a feeling analogous to 

that of ,socrates1 but not quite the    
same4 ,that which ,i do understand has  
appeared to me so very much the reverse 
of good1 that ,i have sometimes         
permitted myself to doubt the value of  
that which ,i do not understand4  ,in   
this part of ,mr4 ,gladstone's reply1 in
 fact1 ,i find nothing of which the     
bearing upon my arguments is clear to   
me1 except that which relates to the    
question whether reptiles1 so far as    
they are represented by tortoises and   
the great majority of lizards and       
snakes1 which are land animals1 are     
creeping things in the sense of the     
pentateuchal writer or not4  ,i have    
every respect for the singer of the     
,song of the ,three ,children 7whoever  
he may have been72 ,i desire to cast no 
shadow of doubt upon1 but1 on the       
contrary1 marvel at1 the exactness of   
,mr4 ,gladstone's information as to the 
considerations which affected the method
 of the ,mosaic writer2 nor do ,i       
venture to doubt that the inconvenient  

intrusion of these contemptible         
reptiles--a family fallen from greatness
 7p4 #ad71 a miserable decayed          
aristocracy reduced to mere skulkers    
about the earth 7ibid47--in consequence1
 apparently1 of difficulties about the  
occupation of land arising out of the   
earth-hunger of their former serfs1 the 
mammals--into an apologetic argument1   
which otherwise would run quite         
smoothly1 is in every way to be         
deprecated4 ,still1 the wretched        
creatures stand there1 importunately    
demanding notice2 and1 however different
 may be the practice in that contentious
 atmosphere with which ,mr4 ,gladstone  
expresses and laments his familiarity1  
in the atmosphere of science it really  
is of no avail whatever to shut one's   
eyes to facts1 or to try to bury them   
out of sight under a tumulus of         
rhetoric4 ,that is my experience of the 
,elysian regions of ,science1 wherein it
 is a pleasure to me to think that a man
 of ,mr4 ,gladstone's intimate knowledge

 of ,english life1 during the last      
quarter of a century1 believes my       
philosophic existence to have been      
rounded off in unbroken equanimity4     
,however reprehensible1 and indeed      
contemptible1 terrestrial reptiles may  
be1 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       
ground4  ,mr4 ,gladstone speaks of the  
author of the first chapter of ,genesis 
as the ,mosaic writer2 ,i suppose1      
therefore1 that he will admit that it is
 equally proper to speak of the author  
of ,leviticus as the ,mosaic writer4    
,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 matter2  
but1 at any rate1 it cannot be denied   
that ,leviticus has as much claim to    
,mosaic authorship as ,genesis4         
,therefore1 if one wants to know the    

sense of a phrase used in ,genesis1 it  
will be well to see what ,leviticus has 
to say on the matter4 ,hence1 ,i commend
 the following extract from the eleventh
 chapter of ,leviticus to ,mr4          
,gladstone's serious attention3--       
,and these are they which are unclean   
unto you among the creeping    things   
that creep upon the earth3 the weasel1  
and the mouse1 and    the great lizard  
after its kind1 and the gecko1 and the  
land    crocodile1 and the sand-lizard1 
and the chameleon4 ,these are    they   
which are unclean to you among all that 
creep 7v4 #bi-cl74  ,the merest         
,sunday-school exegesis therefore       
suffices to prove that when the ,mosaic 
writer in ,genesis i4 #bd speaks of     
creeping things1 he means to include    
lizards among them4  ,this being so1 it 
is agreed1 on all hands1 that           
terrestrial lizards1 and other reptiles 
allied to lizards1 occur in the ,permian
 strata4 ,it is further agreed that the 
,triassic strata were deposited after   

these4 ,moreover1 it is well known that1
 even if certain footprints are to be   
taken as unquestionable evidence of the 
existence of birds1 they are not known  
to occur in rocks earlier than the      
,trias1 while indubitable remains of    
birds are to be met with only much      
later4 ,hence it follows that natural   
science does not affirm the statement   
that birds were made on the fifth day1  
and everything that creepeth on the     
ground on the sixth1 on which ,mr4      
,gladstone rests his order2 for1 as is  
shown by ,leviticus1 the ,mosaic writer 
includes lizards among his creeping     
things4  ,perhaps ,i have given myself  
superfluous trouble in the preceding    
argument1 for ,i find that ,mr4         
,gladstone is willing to assume 7he does
 not say to admit7 that the statement in
 the text of ,genesis as to reptiles    
cannot in all points be sustained 7p4   
#af74 ,but my position is that it cannot
 be sustained in any point1 so that1    
after all1 it has perhaps been as well  

to go over the evidence again4 ,and then
 ,mr4 ,gladstone proceeds as if nothing 
had happened to tell us that--          
,there remain great unshaken facts to be
 weighed4 ,first1 the fact    that such 
a record should have been made at all4  
,as most peoples have their cosmogonies1
 this fact does not strike me as having 
much value4      ,secondly1 the fact    
that1 instead of dwelling in            
generalities1 it     has placed itself  
under the severe conditions of a        
chronological     order reaching from   
the first nisus of chaotic matter to    
the consummated production of a fair and
 goodly1 a furnished and     a peopled  
world4  ,this fact can be regarded as of
 value only by ignoring the fact        
demonstrated in my previous paper1 that 
natural science does not confirm the    
order asserted so far as living things  
are concerned2 and by upsetting a fact  
to be brought to light presently1 to    
wit1 that1 in regard to the rest of the 
pentateuchal cosmogony1 prudent science 

has very little to say one way or the   
other4     ,thirdly1 the fact that its  
cosmogony seems1 in the light of the    
nineteenth century1 to draw more and    
more of countenance from    the best    
natural philosophy4  ,i have already    
questioned the accuracy of this         
statement1 and ,i do not observe that   
mere repetition adds to its value4      
,and1 fourthly1 that it has described   
the successive origins of    the five   
great categories of present life with   
which human    experience was and is    
conversant1 in that order which         
geological    authority confirms4  ,by  
comparison with a sentence on page #ad1 
in which a fivefold order is substituted
 for the fourfold order1 on which the   
plea for revelation was originally      
founded1 it appears that these five     
categories are plants1 fishes1 birds1   
mammals1 and man1 which1 ,mr4 ,gladstone
 affirms1 are given to us in ,genesis in
 the order of succession in which they  
are also given by the latest geological 

authorities4  ,i must venture to demur  
to this statement4 ,i showed1 in my     
previous paper1 that there is no reason 
to doubt that the term great sea monster
 7used in ,gen4 i4 #ba7 includes the    
most conspicuous of great sea           
animals--namely1 whales1 dolphins1      
porpoises1 manatees1 and dugongs2 #b    
and1 as these are indubitable mammals1  
it is impossible to affirm that mammals 
come after birds1 which are said to have
 been created on the same day4          
,moreover1 ,i pointed out that as these 
,cetacea and ,sirenia are certainly     
modified land animals1 their existence  
implies the antecedent existence of land
 mammals4  ,furthermore1 ,i have to     
remark that the term fishes1 as used1   
technically1 in zoology1 by no means    
covers all the moving creatures that    
have life1 which are bidden to fill the 
waters in the seas 7,gen4 i4 #bj-bb47   
,marine mollusks and crustacea1         
echinoderms1 corals1 and foraminifera   
are not technically fishes4 ,but they   

are abundant in the palaeozoic rocks1   
ages upon ages older than those in which
 the first evidences of true fishes     
appear4 ,and if1 in a geological book1  
,mr4 ,gladstone finds the quite true    
statement that plants appeared before   
fishes1 it is only by a complete        
misunderstanding that he can be led to  
imagine it serves his purpose4 ,as a    
matter of fact1 at the present moment1  
it is a question whether1 on the bare   
evidence afforded by fossils1 the marine
 creeping thing or the marine plant has 
the seniority4 ,no cautious             
palaeontologist would express a decided 
opinion on the matter4 ,but1 if we are  
to read the pentateuchal statement as a 
scientific document 7and1 in spite of   
all protests to the contrary1 those who 
bring it into comparison with science do
 seek to make a scientific document of  
it71 then1 as it is quite clear that    
only terrestrial plants of high         
organisation are spoken of in verses #aa
 and #ab1 no palaeontologist would      

hesitate to say that1 at present1 the   
records of sea animal life are vastly   
older than those of any land plant      
describable as grass1 herb yielding seed
 or fruit tree4  ,thus1 although1 in    
,mr4 ,gladstone's ,defence1 the old     
order passeth into new1 his case is not 
improved4 ,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
 was4 ,natural science appears to me to 
decline to have anything to do with     
either2 they are as wrong in detail as  
they are mistaken in principle4  ,there 
is another change of position1 the value
 of which is not so apparent to me1 as  
it may well seem to be to those who are 
unfamiliar with the subject under       
discussion4 ,mr4 ,gladstone discards his
 three groups of water-population1      
air-population1 and land-population1 and
 substitutes for them 7#a7 fishes1 7#b7 
birds1 7#c7 mammals1 7#d7 man4          
,moreover1 it is assumed1 in a note1    

that the higher or ordinary mammals     
alone were known to the ,mosaic writer  
7p4 #f74 ,no doubt it looks1 at first1  
as if something were gained by this     
alteration2 for1 as ,i have just pointed
 out1 the word fishes can be used in two
 senses1 one of which has a deceptive   
appearance of adjustability to the      
,mosaic account4 ,then the inconvenient 
reptiles are banished out of sight2 and1
 finally1 the question of the exact     
meaning of higher and ordinary in the   
case of mammals opens up the prospect of
 a hopeful logomachy4 ,but what is the  
good of it all in the face of ,leviticus
 on the one hand and of palaeontology on
 the other8  ,as1 in my apprehension1   
there is not a shadow of justification  
for the suggestion that when the        
pentateuchal writer says fowl he        
excludes bats 7which1 as we shall see   
directly1 are expressly included under  
fowl in ,leviticus71 and as ,i have     
already shown that he demonstrably      
includes reptiles1 as well as mammals1  

among the creeping things of the land1  
,i may be permitted to spare my readers 
further discussion of the fivefold      
order4 ,on the whole1 it is seen to be  
rather more inconsistent with ,genesis  
than its fourfold predecessor4  ,but ,i 
have yet a fresh order to face4 ,mr4    
,gladstone 7p4 #aa7 understands the main
 statements of ,genesis in successive   
order of time1 but without any          
measurement of its divisions1 to be as  
follows3--  #a4 ,a period of land1      
anterior to all life 7v4 #i1 #aj74 #b4  
,a period of vegetable life1 anterior to
 animal life 7v4 #aa1 #ab74 #c4 ,a      
period of animal life1 in the order of  
fishes 7v4 #bj74 #d4 ,another stage of  
animal life1 in the order of birds4 #e4 
,another in the order of beasts 7v4 #bd1
 #be74 #f4 ,last of all1 man 7v4 #bf1   
#bg74  ,mr4 ,gladstone then tries to    
find the proof of the occurrence of a   
similar succession in sundry excellent  
works on geology4  ,i am really grieved 
to be obliged to say that this third 7or

 is it fourth87 modification of the     
foundation of the plea for revelation   
originally set forth1 satisfies me as   
little as any of its predecessors4      
,for1 in the first place1 ,i cannot     
accept the assertion that this order is 
to be found in ,genesis4 ,with respect  
to ,no4 #e1 for example1 ,i hold1 as ,i 
have already said1 that great sea       
monsters includes the ,cetacea1 in which
 case mammals 7which is what1 ,i        
suppose1 ,mr4 ,gladstone means by       
beasts7 come in under head ,no4 #c1 and 
not under ,no4 #e4 ,again1 fowl are said
 in ,genesis to be created on the same  
day as fishes2 therefore ,i cannot      
accept an order which makes birds       
succeed fishes4 ,once more1 as it is    
quite certain that the term fowl        
includes the bats1--for in ,leviticus   
xi4 #ac-ai we read1 ,and these shall ye 
have in abomination among the fowls444  
the heron after its kind1 and the       
hoopoe1 and the bat1--it is obvious that
 bats are also said to have been created

 at stage ,no4 #c4 ,and as bats are     
mammals1 and their existence obviously  
presupposes that of terrestrial beasts1 
it is quite clear that the latter could 
not have first appeared as ,no4 #e4 ,i  
need not repeat my reasons for doubting 
whether man came last of all4  ,as the  
latter half of ,mr4 ,gladstone's sixfold
 order thus shows itself to be wholly   
unauthorised by1 and inconsistent with1 
the plain language of the ,pentateuch1  
,i might decline to discuss the         
admissibility of its former half4  ,but 
,i will add one or two remarks on this  
point also4 ,does ,mr4 ,gladstone mean  
to say that in any of the works he has  
cited1 or indeed anywhere else1 he can  
find scientific warranty for the        
assertion that there was a period of    
land--by which ,i suppose he means dry  
land 7for submerged land must needs be  
as old as the separate existence of the 
sea7--anterior to all life8  ,it may be 
so1 or it may not be so2 but where is   
the evidence which would justify any one

 in making a positive assertion on the  
subject8 ,what competent palaeontologist
 will affirm1 at this present moment1   
that he knows anything about the period 
at which life originated1 or will assert
 more than the extreme probability that 
such origin was a long way antecedent to
 any traces of life at present known8   
,what physical geologist will affirm    
that he knows when dry land began to    
exist1 or will say more than that it was
 probably very much earlier than any    
extant direct evidence of terrestrial   
conditions indicates8  ,i think ,i know 
pretty well the answers which the       
authorities quoted by ,mr4 ,gladstone   
would give to these questions2 but ,i   
leave it to them to give them if they   
think fit4  ,if ,i ventured to speculate
 on the matter at all1 ,i should say it 
is by no means certain that sea is older
 than dry land1 inasmuch as a solid     
terrestrial surface may very well have  
existed before the earth was cool enough
 to allow of the existence of fluid     

water4 ,and1 in this case1 dry land may 
have existed before the sea4 ,as to the 
first appearance of life1 the whole     
argument of analogy1 whatever it may be 
worth in such a case1 is in favour of   
the absence of living beings until long 
after the hot water seas had constituted
 themselves2 and of the subsequent      
appearance of aquatic before terrestrial
 forms of life4 ,but whether these      
protoplasts would1 if we could examine  
them1 be reckoned among the lowest      
microscopic algae1 or fungi2 or among   
those doubtful organisms which lie in   
the debatable land between animals and  
plants1 is1 in my judgment1 a question  
on which a prudent biologist will       
reserve his opinion4  ,i think that ,i  
have now disposed of those parts of ,mr4
 ,gladstone's defence in which ,i seem  
to discover a design to rescue his      
solemn plea for revelation4 ,but a great
 deal of the ,proem to ,genesis remains 
which ,i would gladly pass over in      
silence1 were such a course consistent  

with the respect due to so distinguished
 a champion of the reconcilers4  ,i hope
 that my clients--the people of average 
opinions--have by this time some        
confidence in me2 for when ,i tell them 
that1 after all1 ,mr4 ,gladstone is of  
opinion that the ,mosaic record was     
meant to give moral1 and not scientific1
 instruction to those for whom it was   
written1 they may be disposed to think  
that ,i must be misleading them4 ,but   
let them listen further to what ,mr4    
,gladstone says in a compendious but not
 exactly correct statement respecting my
 opinions3--     ,he holds the writer   
responsible for scientific precision3 ,i
 look    for nothing of the kind1 but   
assign to him a statement general1      
which admits exceptions2 popular1 which 
aims mainly at producing    moral       
impression2 summary1 which cannot but be
 open to more or    less of criticism of
 detail4 ,he thinks it is a lecture4 ,i 
think    it is a sermon4 7p4 #e74  ,i   
note1 incidentally1 that ,mr4 ,gladstone

 appears to consider that the           
differentia between a lecture and a     
sermon is1 that the former1 so far as it
 deals with matters of fact1 may be     
taken seriously1 as meaning exactly what
 it says1 while a sermon may not4 ,i    
have quite enough on my hands without   
taking up the cudgels for the clergy1   
who will probably find ,mr4 ,gladstone's
 definition unflattering4  ,but ,i am   
diverging from my proper business1 which
 is to say that ,i have given no ground 
for the ascription of these opinions2   
and that1 as a matter of fact1 ,i do not
 hold them and never have held them4 ,it
 is ,mr4 ,gladstone1 and not ,i1 who    
will have it that the pentateuchal      
cosmogony is to be taken as science4    
,my belief1 on the contrary1 is1 and    
long has been1 that the pentateuchal    
story of the creation is simply a myth4 
,i suppose it to be an hypothesis       
respecting the origin of the universe   
which some ancient thinker found himself
 able to reconcile with his knowledge1  

or what he thought was knowledge1 of the
 nature of things1 and therefore assumed
 to be true4 ,as such1 ,i hold it to be 
not merely an interesting1 but a        
venerable1 monument of a stage in the   
mental progress of mankind2 and ,i find 
it difficult to suppose that any one who
 is acquainted with the cosmogonies of  
other nations--and especially with those
 of the ,egyptians and the ,babylonians1
 with whom the ,israelites were in such 
frequent and intimate                   
communication--should consider it to    
possess either more1 or less1 scientific
 importance than may be allotted to     
these4  ,mr4 ,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   
myth2 and ,i hope it may be something   
more than the slowness of apprehension1 
to which ,i have confessed1 which leads 
me to imagine that a statement which is 
general but admits exceptions1 which is 
popular and aims mainly at producing    

moral impression1 summary and therefore 
open to criticism of detail1 amounts to 
a myth1 or perhaps less than a myth4    
,put algebraically1 it comes to this1   
xabc2 always remembering that there is  
nothing to show the exact value of      
either a1 or b1 or c4 ,it is true that a
 is commonly supposed to equal #aj1 but 
there are exceptions1 and these may     
reduce it to #h1 or #c1 or #j2 b also   
popularly means #aj1 but being chiefly  
used by the algebraist as a moral value1
 you cannot do much with it in the      
addition or subtraction of mathematical 
values2 c also is quite summary1 and if 
you go into the details of which it is  
made up1 many of them may be wrong1 and 
their sum total equal to #j1 or even to 
a minus quantity4  ,mr4 ,gladstone      
appears to wish that ,i should 7#a7     
enter upon a sort of essay competition  
with the author of the pentateuchal     
cosmogony2 7#b7 that ,i should make a   
further statement about some elementary 
facts in the history of ,indian and     

,greek philosophy2 and 7#c7 that ,i     
should show cause for my hesitation in  
accepting the assertion that ,genesis is
 supported1 at any rate to the extent of
 the first two verses1 by the nebular   
hypothesis4  ,a certain sense of humour 
prevents me from accepting the first    
invitation4 ,i would as soon attempt to 
put ,hamlet's soliloquy into a more     
scientific shape4 ,but if ,i supposed   
the ,mosaic writer to be inspired1 as   
,mr4 ,gladstone does1 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 accurately1 or1 at least1 not    
inaccurately1 express ,his own meaning4 
,it is sometimes said that1 had the     
statements contained in the first       
chapter of ,genesis been scientifically 
true1 they would have been              
unintelligible to ignorant people2 but  
how is the matter mended if1 being      
scientifically untrue1 they must needs  
be rejected by instructed people8  ,with

 respect to the second suggestion1 it   
would be presumptuous in me to pretend  
to instruct ,mr4 ,gladstone in matters  
which lie as much within the province of
 ,literature and ,history as in that of 
,science2 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 information1  
the ,encyclopaedia ,britannica1 he will 
find1 under the letter ,e1 the word     
,evolution1 and a long article on that  
subject4 ,now1 ,i do not recommend him  
to read the first half of the article2  
but the second half1 by my friend ,mr4  
,sully1 is really very good4 ,he will   
there find it said that in some of the  
philosophies of ancient ,india1 the idea
 of evolution is clearly expressed3     
,brahma is conceived as the eternal     
self-existent being1 which1 on its      
material side1 unfolds itself to the    
world by gradually condensing itself to 
material objects through the gradations 
of ether1 fire1 water1 earth1 and other 

elements4 ,and again3 ,in the later     
system of emanation of ,sankhya there is
 a more marked approach to a            
materialistic doctrine of evolution4    
,what little knowledge ,i have of the   
matter--chiefly derived from that very  
instructive book1 ,die ,religion des    
,buddha1 by ,c4 ,f4 ,koeppen1           
supplemented by ,hardy's interesting    
works--leads me to think that ,mr4      
,sully might have spoken much more      
strongly as to the evolutionary         
character of ,indian philosophy1 and    
especially of that of the ,buddhists4   
,but the question is too large to be    
dealt with incidentally4  ,and1 with    
respect to early ,greek philosophy1 #c  
the seeker after additional             
enlightenment need go no further than   
the same excellent storehouse of        
information3--     ,the early ,ionian   
physicists1 including ,thales1          
,anaximander1 and ,anaximenes1 seek to  
explain the world as    generated out of
 a primordial matter which is at the    

same time    the universal support of   
things4 ,this substance is endowed with 
a generative or transmutative force by  
virtue of which it passes    into a     
succession of forms4 ,they thus resemble
 modern    evolutionists since they     
regard the world1 with its infinite     
variety of forms1 as issuing from a     
simple mode of matter4  ,further on1    
,mr4 ,sully remarks that ,heraclitus    
deserves a prominent place in the       
history of the idea of evolution1 and he
 states1 with perfect justice1 that     
,heraclitus has foreshadowed some of the
 special peculiarities of ,mr4 ,darwin's
 views4 ,it is indeed a very strange    
circumstance that the philosophy of the 
great ,ephesian more than adumbrates the
 two doctrines which have played leading
 parts1 the one in the development of   
,christian dogma1 the other in that of  
natural science4 ,the former is the     
conception of the ,word ,greek textlogos
 which took its ,jewish shape in        
,alexandria1 and its ,christian form #d 

in that ,gospel which is usually        
referred to an ,ephesian source of some 
five centuries later date2 and the      
latter is that of the struggle for      
existence4 ,the saying that strife is   
father and king of all ,greek text4441  
ascribed to ,heraclitus1 would be a not 
inappropriate motto for the ,origin of  
,species4  ,i have referred only to ,mr4
 ,sully's article1 because his authority
 is quite sufficient for my purpose4    
,but the consultation of any of the more
 elaborate histories of ,greek          
philosophy1 such as the great work of   
,zeller1 for example1 will only bring   
out the same fact into still more       
striking prominence4 ,i have professed  
no minute acquaintance with either      
,indian or ,greek philosophy1 but ,i    
have taken a great deal of pains to     
secure that such knowledge as ,i do     
possess shall be accurate and           
trustworthy4  ,in the third place1 ,mr4 
,gladstone appears to wish that ,i      
should discuss with him the question    

whether the nebular hypothesis is1 or is
 not1 confirmatory of the pentateuchal  
account of the origin of things4 ,mr4   
,gladstone appears to be prepared to    
enter upon this campaign with a light   
heart4 ,i confess ,i am not1 and my     
reason for this backwardness will       
doubtless surprise ,mr4 ,gladstone4 ,it 
is that1 rather more than a quarter of a
 century ago 7namely1 in ,february      
#ahei71 when it was my duty1 as         
,president of the ,geological ,society1 
to deliver the ,anniversary ,address1 #e
 ,i chose a topic which involved a very 
careful study of the remarkable         
cosmogonical speculation1 originally    
promulgated by ,immanuel ,kant and1     
subsequently1 by ,laplace1 which is now 
known as the nebular hypothesis4 ,with  
the help of such little acquaintance    
with the principles of physics and      
astronomy as ,i had gained1 ,i          
endeavoured to obtain a clear           
understanding of this speculation in all
 its bearings4 ,i am not sure that ,i   

succeeded2 but of this ,i am certain1   
that the problems involved are very     
difficult1 even for those who possess   
the intellectual discipline requisite   
for dealing with them4 ,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  
knowledge4 ,and ,i think my course was a
 wise one2 but as ,mr4 ,gladstone       
evidently does not understand how there 
can be any hesitation on my part1 unless
 it arises from a conviction that he is 
in the right1 ,i may go so far as to set
 out my difficulties4  ,they are of two 
kinds--exegetical and scientific4 ,it   
appears to me that it is vain to discuss
 a supposed coincidence between ,genesis
 and science unless we have first       
settled1 on the one hand1 what ,genesis 
says1 and1 on the other hand1 what      
science says4  ,in the first place1 ,i  
cannot find any consensus among         

,biblical scholars as to the meaning of 
the words1 ,in the beginning ,god       
created the heaven and the earth4 ,some 
say that the ,hebrew word bara1 which is
 translated create1 means made out of   
nothing4 ,i venture to object to that   
rendering1 not on the ground of         
scholarship1 but of common sense4       
,omnipotence itself can surely no more  
make something out of nothing than it   
can make a triangular circle4 ,what is  
intended by made out of nothing appears 
to be caused to come into existence1    
with the implication that nothing of the
 same kind previously existed4 ,it is   
further usually assumed that the heaven 
and the earth means the material        
substance of the universe4 ,hence the   
,mosaic writer is taken to imply that   
where nothing of a material nature      
previously existed1 this substance      
appeared4 ,that is perfectly            
conceivable1 and therefore no one can   
deny that it may have happened4 ,but    
there are other very authoritative      

critics who say that the ancient        
,israelite #f who wrote the passage was 
not likely to have been capable of such 
abstract thinking2 and that1 as a matter
 of philology1 bara is commonly used to 
signify the fashioning1 or forming1 of  
that which already exists4 ,now it      
appears to me that the scientific       
investigator is wholly incompetent to   
say anything at all about the first     
origin of the material universe4 ,the   
whole power of his organon vanishes when
 he has to step beyond the chain of     
natural causes and effects4 ,no form of 
the nebular hypothesis1 that ,i know of1
 is necessarily connected with any view 
of the origination of the nebular       
substance4 ,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 end4 ,therefore1 so 
far as ,i can see1 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 epoch4 ,in other words1 the   
nebular hypothesis and the creation     
hypothesis1 up to this point1 neither   
confirm nor oppose one another4  ,next1 
we read in the revisers' version1 in    
which ,i suppose the ultimate results of
 critical scholarship to be embodied3   
,and the earth was waste 'without form1'
 in the ,authorised ,version and void4  
,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 chaos1 devoid of 
law and order4 ,if this interpretation  
is correct1 the nebular hypothesis can  
have nothing to say to it4 ,the         
scientific thinker cannot admit the     
absence of law and order2 anywhere or   
anywhen1 in nature4 ,sometimes law and  
order are patent and visible to our     
limited vision2 sometimes they are      
hidden4 ,but every particle of the      

matter of the most fantastic-looking    
nebula in the heavens is a realm of law 
and order in itself2 and1 that it is so1
 is the essential condition of the      
possibility of solar and planetary      
evolution from the apparent chaos4 #g   
,waste is too vague a term to be worth  
consideration4 ,without form1           
intelligible enough as a metaphor1 if   
taken literally is absurd2 for a        
material thing existing in space must   
have a superficies1 and if it has a     
superficies it has a form4 ,the wildest 
streaks of marestail clouds in the sky1 
or the most irregular heavenly nebulae1 
have surely just as much form as a      
geometrical tetrahedron2 and as for     
void1 how can that be void which is full
 of matter8 ,as poetry1 these lines are 
vivid and admirable2 as a scientific    
statement1 which they must be taken to  
be if any one is justified in comparing 
them with another scientific statement1 
they fail to convey any intelligible    
conception to my mind4  ,the account    

proceeds3 ,and darkness was upon the    
face of the deep4 ,so be it2 but where1 
then1 is the likeness to the celestial  
nebulae1 of the existence of which we   
should know nothing unless they shone   
with a light of their own8 ,and the     
spirit of ,god moved upon the face of   
the waters4 ,i have met with no form of 
the nebular hypothesis which involves   
anything analogous to this process4  ,i 
have said enough to explain some of the 
difficulties which arise in my mind1    
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 hypothesis4    
,the result does not appear to me to be 
exactly favourable to that contention4  
,the nebular hypothesis assumes the     
existence of matter1 having definite    
properties1 as its foundation4 ,whether 
such matter was created a few thousand  
years ago1 or whether it has existed    
through an eternal series of            

metamorphoses of which our present      
universe is only the last stage1 are    
alternatives1 neither of which is       
scientifically untenable1 and neither   
scientifically demonstrable4 ,but       
science knows nothing of any stage in   
which the universe could be said1 in    
other than a metaphorical and popular   
sense1 to be formless or empty2 or in   
any respect less the seat of law and    
order than it is now4 ,one might as well
 talk of a fresh-laid hen's egg being   
without form and void1 because the chick
 therein is potential and not actual1 as
 apply such terms to the nebulous mass  
which contains a potential solar system4
  ,until some further enlightenment     
comes to me1 then1 ,i confess myself    
wholly unable to understand the way in  
which the nebular hypothesis is to be   
converted into an ally of the ,mosaic   
writer4 #h  ,but ,mr4 ,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 with1 but       
teaches1 the nebular hypothesis4 ,there 
is no one to whose authority on         
geological questions ,i am more readily 
disposed to bow than that of my eminent 
friend ,professor ,dana4 ,but ,i am     
familiar with what he has previously    
said on this topic in his well-known and
 standard work1 into which1 strangely   
enough1 it does not seem to have        
occurred to ,mr4 ,gladstone to look     
before he set out upon his present      
undertaking2 and unless ,professor      
,dana's latest contribution 7which ,i   
have not yet met with7 takes up         
altogether new ground1 ,i am afraid ,i  
shall not be able to extricate myself1  
by its help1 from my present            
difficulties4  ,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 ,genesis2 
and1 as ,i think that ,mr4 ,gladstone   
might have been able to put his case    

with a good deal more force1 if he had  
thought it worth while to consult the   
last chapter of ,professor ,dana's      
admirable ,manual of ,geology1 so ,i    
think he might have been made aware that
 he was undertaking an enterprise of    
which he had not counted the cost1 if he
 had chanced upon a discussion of the   
subject which ,i published in #ahgg4 #i 
,finally1 ,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 critics3 #aj--     ,a propos  
de cette premiere page de la ,bible1 on 
a coutume de    nos jours de disserter1 
a perte de vue1 sur l'accord du recit   
mosaique avec les sciences naturelles2  
et comme celles-ci tout    eloignees    
qu'elles sont encore de la perfection   
absolue1 ont    rendu populaires et en  
quelque sorte irrefragables un certain  
nombre de faits generaux ou de theses   
fondamentales de la    cosmologie et de 
la geologie1 c'est le texte sacre qu'on 

s'evertue a torturer pour le faire      
concorder avec    ces donnees4  ,in my  
paper on the ,interpreters of ,nature   
and the ,interpreters of ,genesis1 while
 freely availing myself of the rights of
 a scientific critic1 ,i endeavoured to 
keep the expression of my views well    
within those bounds of courtesy which   
are set by self-respect and             
consideration for others4 ,i am         
therefore glad to be favoured with ,mr4 
,gladstone's acknowledgment of the      
success of my efforts4 ,i only wish that
 ,i could accept all the products of    
,mr4 ,gladstone's gracious appreciation1
 but there is one about which1 as a     
matter of honesty1 ,i hesitate4 ,in     
fact1 if ,i had expressed my meaning    
better than ,i seem to have done1 ,i    
doubt if the particular proffer of ,mr4 
,gladstone's thanks would have been     
made4  ,to my mind1 whatever doctrine   
professes to be the result of the       
application of the accepted rules of    
inductive and deductive logic to its    

subject-matter2 and which accepts1      
within the limits which it sets to      
itself1 the supremacy of reason1 is     
,science4 ,whether the subject-matter   
consists of realities or unrealities1   
truths or falsehoods1 is quite another  
question4 ,i conceive that ordinary     
geometry is science1 by reason of its   
method1 and ,i also believe that its    
axioms1 definitions1 and conclusions are
 all true4 ,however1 there is a geometry
 of four dimensions1 which ,i also      
believe to be science1 because its      
method professes to be strictly         
scientific4 ,it is true that ,i cannot  
conceive four dimensions in space1 and  
therefore1 for me1 the whole affair is  
unreal4 ,but ,i have known men of great 
intellectual powers who seemed to have  
no difficulty either in conceiving them1
 or1 at any rate1 in imagining how they 
could conceive them2 and1 therefore1    
four-dimensioned geometry comes under my
 notion of science4 ,so ,i think        
astrology is a science1 in so far as it 

professes to reason logically from      
principles established by just inductive
 methods4 ,to prevent misunderstanding1 
perhaps ,i had better add that ,i do not
 believe one whit in astrology2 but no  
more do ,i believe in ,ptolemaic        
astronomy1 or in the catastrophic       
geology of my youth1 although these1 in 
their day1 claimed--and1 to my mind1    
rightly claimed--the name of science4   
,if nothing is to be called science but 
that which is exactly true from         
beginning to end1 ,i am afraid there is 
very little science in the world outside
 mathematics4 ,among the physical       
sciences1 ,i do not know that any could 
claim more than that it is true within  
certain limits1 so narrow that1 for the 
present at any rate1 they may be        
neglected4 ,if such is the case1 ,i do  
not see where the line is to be drawn   
between exactly true1 partially true1   
and mainly untrue forms of science4 ,and
 what ,i have said about the current    
theology at the end of my paper supra   

pp4 #afj-afc leaves1 ,i think1 no doubt 
as to the category in which ,i rank it4 
,for all that1 ,i think it would be not 
only unjust1 but almost impertinent1 to 
refuse the name of science to the ,summa
 of ,st4 ,thomas or to the ,institutes  
of ,calvin4  ,in conclusion1 ,i confess 
that my supposed unjaded appetite for   
the sort of controversy in which it     
needed not ,mr4 ,gladstone's express    
declaration to tell us he is far better 
practised than ,i am 7though probably1  
without another express declaration1 no 
one would have suspected that his       
controversial fires are burning low7 is 
already satiated4  ,in ,elysium we      
conduct scientific discussions in a     
different medium1 and we are liable to  
threatenings of asphyxia in that        
atmosphere of contention in which ,mr4  
,gladstone has been able to live1 alert 
and vigorous beyond the common race of  
men1 as if it were purest mountain air4 
,i trust that he may long continue to   
seek truth1 under the difficult         

conditions he has chosen for the search1
 with unabated energy--,i had almost    
said fire--     ,may age not wither him1
 nor custom stale    ,his infinite      
variety4  ,but ,elysium suits my less   
robust constitution better1 and ,i beg  
leave to retire thither1 not sorry for  
my experience of the other region--no   
one should regret experience--but       
determined not to repeat it1 at any rate
 in reference to the plea for           
revelation4     ,,note ,,on ,,the       
,,proper ,,sense ,,of ,,the ,,mosaic    
,,narrative ,,of ,,the ,,creation4  ,it 
has been objected to my argument from   
,leviticus 7supr p4 #agj7 that the      
,hebrew words translated by creeping    
things in ,genesis i4 #bd and ,leviticus
 xi4 #bi1 are different2 namely1 reh-mes
 in the former1 sheh-retz in the latter4
 ,the obvious reply to this objection is
 that the question is not one of words  
but of the meaning of words4 ,to borrow 
an illustration from our own language1  
if crawling things had been used by the 

translators in ,genesis and creeping    
things in ,leviticus1 it would not have 
been necessarily implied that they      
intended to denote different groups of  
animals4 ,sheh-retz is employed in a    
wider sense than reh-mes4 ,there are    
sheh-retz of the waters of the earth1 of
 the air1 and of the land4 ,leviticus   
speaks of land reptiles1 among other    
animals1 as sheh-retz2 ,genesis speaks  
of all creeping land animals1 among     
which land reptiles are necessarily     
included1 as reh-mes4 ,our translators1 
therefore1 have given the true sense    
when they render both sheh-retz and     
reh-mes by creeping things4  ,having    
taken a good deal of trouble to show    
what ,genesis i4-ii4 #d does not mean1  
in the preceding pages1 perhaps it may  
be well that ,i should briefly give my  
opinion as to what it does mean4 ,i     
conceive that the unknown author of this
 part of the ,hexateuchal compilation   
believed1 and meant his readers to      
believe1 that his words1 as they        

understood them--that is to say1 in     
their ordinary natural sense--conveyed  
the actual historical truth4 ,when he   
says that such and such things happened1
 ,i believe him to mean that they       
actually occurred and not that he       
imagined or dreamed them2 when he says  
day1 ,i believe he uses the word in the 
popular sense2 when he says made or     
created1 ,i believe he means that they  
came into being by a process analogous  
to that which the people whom he        
addressed called making or creating2 and
 ,i think that1 unless we forget our    
present knowledge of nature1 and1       
putting ourselves back into the position
 of a ,phoenician or a ,chaldaean       
philosopher1 start from his conception  
of the world1 we shall fail to grasp the
 meaning of the ,hebrew writer4 ,we must
 conceive the earth to be an immovable1 
more or less flattened1 body1 with the  
vault of heaven above1 the watery abyss 
below and around4 ,we must imagine sun1 
moon1 and stars to be set in a firmament

 with1 or in1 which they move2 and above
 which is yet another watery mass4 ,we  
must consider light and darkness to be  
things1 the alternation of which        
constitutes day and night1 independently
 of the existence of sun1 moon1 and     
stars4 ,we must further suppose that1 as
 in the case of the story of the deluge1
 the ,hebrew writer was acquainted with 
a ,gentile 7probably ,chaldaean or      
,accadian7 account of the origin of     
things1 in which he substantially       
believed1 but which he stripped of all  
its idolatrous associations by          
substituting ,elohim for ,ea1 ,anu1     
,bel1 and the like4  ,from this point of
 view the first verse strikes the       
keynote of the whole4 ,in the beginning 
,elohim #aa created the heaven and the  
earth4 ,heaven and earth were not       
primitive existences from which the gods
 proceeded1 as the ,gentiles taught2 on 
the contrary1 the ,powers preceded and  
created heaven and earth4 ,whether by   
creation is meant causing to be where   

nothing was before or shaping of        
something which pre-existed1 seems to me
 to be an insoluble question4  ,as ,i   
have pointed out1 the second verse has  
an interesting parallel in ,jeremiah iv4
 #bc3 ,i beheld the earth1 and1 lo1 it  
was waste and void2 and the heavens1 and
 they had no light4 ,i conceive that    
there is no more allusion to chaos in   
the one than in the other4 ,the         
earth-disk lay in its watery envelope1  
like the yolk of an egg in the glaire1  
and the spirit1 or breath1 of ,elohim   
stirred the mass4 ,light was created as 
a thing by itself2 and its antithesis   
darkness as another thing4 ,it was      
supposed to be the nature of these two  
to alternate1 and a pair of alternations
 constituted a day in the sense of an   
unit of time4  ,the next step was1      
necessarily1 the formation of that      
firmament1 or dome over the earth-disk1 
which was supposed to support the       
celestial waters2 and in which sun1     
moon1 and stars were conceived to be    

set1 as in a sort of orrery4 ,the earth 
was still surrounded and covered by the 
lower waters1 but the upper were        
separated from it by the firmament1     
beneath which what we call the air lay4 
,a second alternation of darkness and   
light marks the lapse of time4  ,after  
this1 the waters which covered the      
earth-disk1 under the firmament1 were   
drawn away into certain regions1 which  
became seas1 while the part laid bare   
became dry land4 ,in accordance with the
 notion1 universally accepted in        
antiquity1 that moist earth possesses   
the potentiality of giving rise to      
living beings1 the land1 at the command 
of ,elohim1 put forth all sorts of      
plants4 ,they are made to appear thus   
early1 not1 ,i apprehend1 from any      
notion that plants are lower in the     
scale of being than animals 7which would
 seem to be inconsistent with the       
prevalence of tree worship among ancient
 people71 but rather because animals    
obviously depend on plants2 and because1

 without crops and harvests1 there      
seemed to be no particular need of      
heavenly signs for the seasons4  ,these 
were provided by the fourth day's work4 
,light existed already2 but now vehicles
 for the distribution of light1 in a    
special manner and with varying degrees 
of intensity1 were provided4 ,i conceive
 that the previous alternations of light
 and darkness were supposed to go on2   
but that the light was strengthened     
during the daytime by the sun1 which1 as
 a source of heat as well as of light1  
glided up the firmament from the east1  
and slid down in the west1 each day4    
,very probably each day's sun was       
supposed to be a new one4 ,and as the   
light of the day was strengthened by the
 sun1 so the darkness of the night was  
weakened by the moon1 which regularly   
waxed and waned every month4 ,the stars 
are1 as it were1 thrown in4 ,and nothing
 can more sharply mark the doctrinal    
purpose of the author1 than the manner  
in which he deals with the heavenly     

bodies1 which the ,gentiles identified  
so closely with their gods1 as if they  
were mere accessories to the almanac4   
,animals come next in order of creation1
 and the general notion of the writer   
seems to be that they were produced by  
the medium in which they live2 that is  
to say1 the aquatic animals by the      
waters1 and the terrestrial animals by  
the land4 ,but there was a difficulty   
about flying things1 such as bats1      
birds1 and insects4 ,the cosmogonist    
seems to have had no conception of air  
as an elemental body4 ,his elements are 
earth and water1 and he ignores air as  
much as he does fire4 ,birds fly above  
the earth in the open firmament or on   
the face of the expanse of heaven4 ,they
 are not said to fly through the air4   
,the choice of a generative medium for  
flying things1 therefore1 seemed to lie 
between water and earth2 and1 if we take
 into account the conspicuousness of the
 great flocks of water-birds and the    
swarms of winged insects1 which appear  

to arise from water1 ,i think the       
preference of water becomes             
intelligible4 ,however1 ,i do not put   
this forward as more than a probable    
hypothesis4 ,as to the creation of      
aquatic animals on the fifth1 that of   
land animals on the sixth day1 and that 
of man last of all1 ,i presume the order
 was determined by the fact that man    
could hardly receive dominion over the  
living world before it existed2 and that
 the cattle were not wanted until he was
 about to make his appearance4 ,the     
other terrestrial animals would         
naturally be associated with the cattle4
  ,the absurdity of imagining that any  
conception1 analogous to that of a      
zoological classification1 was in the   
mind of the writer will be apparent1    
when we consider that the fifth day's   
work must include the zoologist's       
,cetacea1 ,sirenia1 and seals1 #ab all  
of which are ,mammalia2 all birds1      
turtles1 sea-snakes and1 presumably1 the
 fresh water ,reptilia and ,amphibia2   

with the great majority of              
,invertebrata4  ,the creation of man is 
announced as a separate act1 resulting  
from a particular resolution of ,elohim 
to make man in our image1 after our     
likeness4 ,to learn what this remarkable
 phrase means we must turn to the fifth 
chapter of ,genesis1 the work of the    
same writer4 ,in the day that ,elohim   
created man1 in the likeness of ,elohim 
made he him2 male and female created he 
them2 and blessed them and called their 
name ,adam in the day when they were    
created4 ,and ,adam lived an hundred and
 thirty years and begat a son in his own
 likeness1 after his image2 and called  
his name ,seth4 ,i find it impossible to
 read this passage without being        
convinced that1 when the writer says    
,adam was made in the likeness of       
,elohim1 he means the same sort of      
likeness as when he says that ,seth was 
begotten in the likeness of ,adam4      
,whence it follows that his conception  
of ,elohim was completely               

anthropomorphic4  ,in all this narrative
 ,i can discover nothing which          
differentiates it1 in principle1 from   
other ancient cosmogonies1 except the   
rejection of all gods1 save the vague1  
yet anthropomorphic1 ,elohim1 and the   
assigning to them anteriority and       
superiority to the world4 ,it is as     
utterly irreconcilable with the assured 
truths of modern science1 as it is with 
the account of the origin of man1       
plants1 and animals given by the writer 
of the second chief constituent of the  
,hexateuch in the second chapter of     
,genesis4 ,this extraordinary story     
starts with the assumption of the       
existence of a rainless earth1 devoid of
 plants and herbs of the field4 ,the    
creation of living beings begins with   
that of a solitary man2 the next thing  
that happens is the laying out of the   
,garden of ,eden1 and the causing the   
growth from its soil of every tree that 
is pleasant to the sight and good for   
food2 the third act is the formation out

 of the ground of every beast of the    
field1 and every fowl of the air2 the   
fourth and last1 the manufacture of the 
first woman from a rib1 extracted from  
,adam1 while in a state of anaesthesia4 
,yet there are people who not only      
profess to take this monstrous legend   
seriously1 but who declare it to be     
reconcilable with the ,elohistic account
 of the creation6     ,,footnotes3      
,footnote #a3 ,the ,nineteenth ,century1
 #ahhf4  ,footnote #b3 ,both dolphins   
and dugongs occur in the ,red ,sea1     
porpoises and dolphins in the           
,mediterranean2 so that the ,mosaic     
writer may have been acquainted with    
them4  ,footnote #c3 ,i said nothing    
about the greater number of schools of  
,greek philosophy1 as ,mr4 ,gladstone   
implies that ,i did1 but expressly spoke
 of the founders of ,greek philosophy4  
,footnote #d3 ,see ,heinze1 ,die ,lehre 
vom ,logos1 p4 #i et seq4  ,footnote #e3
 ,reprinted in ,lay ,sermons1           
,addresses1 and ,reviews1 #ahgj4        

,footnote #f3 ,ancient1 doubtless1 but  
his antiquity must not be exaggerated4  
,for example1 there is no proof that the
 ,mosaic cosmogony was known to the     
,israelites of ,solomon's time4         
,footnote #g3 ,when ,jeremiah 7iv4 #bc7 
says1 ,i beheld the earth1 and1 lo1 it  
was waste and void1 he certainly does   
not mean to imply that the form of the  
earth was less definite1 or its         
substance less solid1 than before4      
,footnote #h3 ,in looking through the   
delightful volume recently published by 
the ,astronomer-,royal for ,ireland1 a  
day or two ago1 ,i find the following   
remarks on the nebular hypothesis1 which
 ,i should have been glad to quote in my
 text if ,i had known them sooner3--    
,nor can it be ever more than a         
speculation2 it cannot be established by
 observation1 nor can it be proved by   
calculation4 ,it is merely a conjecture1
 more or less plausible1 but perhaps in 
some degree1 necessarily true1 if our   
present laws of heat1 as we understand  

them1 admit of the extreme application  
here required1 and if the present order 
of things has reigned for sufficient    
time without the intervention of any    
influence at present known to us 7,the  
,story of the ,heavens1 p4 #ejf74       
,would any prudent advocate base a plea1
 either for or against revelation1 upon 
the coincidence1 or want of coincidence1
 of the declarations of the latter with 
the requirements of an hypothesis thus  
guardedly dealt with by an astronomical 
expert8  ,footnote #i3 ,lectures on     
,evolution delivered in ,new ,york      
7,american ,addresses74  ,footnote #aj3 
,reuss1 ,l',histoire ,sainte et la ,loi1
 vol4 i1 p4 #bge4  ,footnote #aa3 ,for  
the sense of the term ,elohim1 see the  
essay entitled ,the ,evolution of       
,theology at the end of this volume4    
,footnote #ab3 ,perhaps even            
hippopotamuses and otters6