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！