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