mr. gladstone and genesis-第3章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



palaeontology　on　the　other？



As；　in　my　apprehension；　there　is　not　a　shadow　of　justification

for　the　suggestion　that　when　the　pentateuchal　writer　says　〃fowl〃

he　excludes　bats　（which；　as　we　shall　see　directly；　are　expressly

included　under　〃fowl〃　in　Leviticus）；　and　as　I　have　already　shown

that　he　demonstrably　includes　reptiles；　as　well　as　mammals；

among　the　creeping　things　of　the　land；　I　may　be　permitted　to

spare　my　readers　further　discussion　of　the　〃fivefold　order。〃

On　the　whole；　it　is　seen　to　be　rather　more　inconsistent　with

Genesis　than　its　fourfold　predecessor。



But　I　have　yet　a　fresh　order　to　face。　Mr。　Gladstone　（p。　11）

understands　〃the　main　statements　of　Genesis　in　successive　order

of　time；　but　without　any　measurement　of　its　divisions；　to　be　as

follows：



1。　A　period　of　land；　anterior　to　all　life　（v。　9；　10）。

2。　A　period　of　vegetable　life；　anterior　to　animal　life

（v。　11；　12）。

3。　A　period　of　animal　life；　in　the　order　of　fishes　（v。　20）。

4。　Another　stage　of　animal　life；　in　the　order　of　birds。

5。　Another　in　the　order　of　beasts　（v。　24；　25）。

6。　Last　of　all；　man　（v。　26；　27）。



Mr。　Gladstone　then　tries　to　find　the　proof　of　the　occurrence　of

a　similar　succession　in　sundry　excellent　works　on　geology。



I　am　really　grieved　to　be　obliged　to　say　that　this　third　（or　is

it　fourth？）　modification　of　the　foundation　of　the　〃plea　for

revelation〃　originally　set　forth；　satisfies　me　as　little　as　any

of　its　predecessors。



For；　in　the　first　place；　I　cannot　accept　the　assertion　that　this

order　is　to　be　found　in　Genesis。　With　respect　to　No。　5；　for

example；　I　hold；　as　I　have　already　said；　that　〃great　sea

monsters〃　includes　the　Cetacea；　in　which　case　mammals　（which　is

what；　I　suppose；　Mr。　Gladstone　means　by　〃beasts〃）　come　in　under

head　No。　3；　and　not　under　No。　5。　Again；　〃fowl〃　are　said　in

Genesis　to　be　created　on　the　same　day　as　fishes；　therefore　I

cannot　accept　an　order　which　makes　birds　succeed　fishes。

Once　more；　as　it　is　quite　certain　that　the　term　〃fowl〃　includes

the　bats；for　in　Leviticus　xi。　13…19　we　read；　〃And　these　shall

ye　have　in　abomination　among　the　fowls　。。。　the　heron　after　its

kind；　and　the　hoopoe；　and　the　bat；〃it　is　obvious　that　bats　are

also　said　to　have　been　created　at　stage　No。　3。　And　as　bats　are

mammals；　and　their　existence　obviously　presupposes　that　of

terrestrial　〃beasts；〃　it　is　quite　clear　that　the　latter　could

not　have　first　appeared　as　No。　5。　I　need　not　repeat　my　reasons

for　doubting　whether　man　came　〃last　of　all。〃



As　the　latter　half　of　Mr。　Gladstone's　sixfold　order　thus　shows

itself　to　be　wholly　unauthorised　by；　and　inconsistent　with；　the

plain　language　of　the　Pentateuch；　I　might　decline　to　discuss　the

admissibility　of　its　former　half。



But　I　will　add　one　or　two　remarks　on　this　point　also。　Does　Mr。

Gladstone　mean　to　say　that　in　any　of　the　works　he　has　cited；　or

indeed　anywhere　else；　he　can　find　scientific　warranty　for　the

assertion　that　there　was　a　period　of　landby　which　I　suppose　he

means　dry　land　（for　submerged　land　must　needs　be　as　old　as　the

separate　existence　of　the　sea）〃anterior　to　all　life？〃



It　may　be　so；　or　it　may　not　be　so；　but　where　is　the　evidence

which　would　justify　any　one　in　making　a　positive　assertion　on

the　subject？　What　competent　palaeontologist　will　affirm；　at　this

present　moment；　that　he　knows　anything　about　the　period　at　which

life　originated；　or　will　assert　more　than　the　extreme

probability　that　such　origin　was　a　long　way　antecedent　to　any

traces　of　life　at　present　known？　What　physical　geologist　will

affirm　that　he　knows　when　dry　land　began　to　exist；　or　will　say

more　than　that　it　was　probably　very　much　earlier　than　any　extant

direct　evidence　of　terrestrial　conditions　indicates？



I　think　I　know　pretty　well　the　answers　which　the　authorities

quoted　by　Mr。　Gladstone　would　give　to　these　questions；　but　I

leave　it　to　them　to　give　them　if　they　think　fit。



If　I　ventured　to　speculate　on　the　matter　at　all；　I　should　say　it

is　by　no　means　certain　that　sea　is　older　than　dry　land；　inasmuch

as　a　solid　terrestrial　surface　may　very　well　have　existed　before

the　earth　was　cool　enough　to　allow　of　the　existence　of　fluid

water。　And；　in　this　case；　dry　land　may　have　existed　before　the

sea。　As　to　the　first　appearance　of　life；　the　whole　argument　of

analogy；　whatever　it　may　be　worth　in　such　a　case；　is　in　favour

of　the　absence　of　living　beings　until　long　after　the　hot　water

seas　had　constituted　themselves；　and　of　the　subsequent

appearance　of　aquatic　before　terrestrial　forms　of　life。

But　whether　these　〃protoplasts〃　would；　if　we　could　examine　them；

be　reckoned　among　the　lowest　microscopic　algae；　or　fungi；　or

among　those　doubtful　organisms　which　lie　in　the　debatable　land

between　animals　and　plants；　is；　in　my　judgment；　a　question　on

which　a　prudent　biologist　will　reserve　his　opinion。



I　think　that　I　have　now　disposed　of　those　parts　of　Mr。

Gladstone's　defence　in　which　I　seem　to　discover　a　design　to

rescue　his　solemn　〃plea　for　revelation。〃　But　a　great　deal　of　the

〃Proem　to　Genesis〃　remains　which　I　would　gladly　pass　over　in

silence；　were　such　a　course　consistent　with　the　respect　due　to

so　distinguished　a　champion　of　the　〃reconcilers。〃



I　hope　that　my　clientsthe　people　of　average　opinionshave　by

this　time　some　confidence　in　me；　for　when　I　tell　them　that；

after　all；　Mr。　Gladstone　is　of　opinion　that　the　〃Mosaic　record〃

was　meant　to　give　moral；　and　not　scientific；　instruction　to

those　for　whom　it　was　written；　they　may　be　disposed　to　think

that　I　must　be　misleading　them。　But　let　them　listen　further　to

what　Mr。　Gladstone　says　in　a　compendious　but　not　exactly　correct

statement　respecting　my　opinions：





He　holds　the　writer　responsible　for　scientific　precision：　I　look

for　nothing　of　the　kind；　but　assign　to　him　a　statement　general；

which　admits　exceptions；　popular；　which　aims　mainly　at　producing

moral　impression；　summary；　which　cannot　but　be　open　to　more　or

less　of　criticism　of　detail。　He　thinks　it　is　a　lecture。　I　think

it　is　a　sermon〃　（p。　5）。





I　note；　incidentally；　that　Mr。　Gladstone　appears　to　consider

that　the　differentia　between　a　lecture　and　a　sermon　is；

that　the　former；　so　far　as　it　deals　with　matters　of　fact；　may　be

taken　seriously；　as　meaning　exactly　what　it　says；　while　a　sermon

may　not。　I　have　quite　enough　on　my　hands　without　taking　up　the

cudgels　for　the　clergy；　who　will　probably　find　Mr。　Gladstone's

definition　unflattering。



But　I　am　diverging　from　my　proper　business；　which　is　to　say　that

I　have　given　no　ground　for　the　ascription　of　these　opinions；　and

that；　as　a　matter　of　fact；　I　do　not　hold　them　and　never　have

held　them。　It　is　Mr。　Gladstone；　and　not　I；　who　will　have　it　that

the　pentateuchal　cosmogony　is　to　be　taken　as　science。



My　belief；　on　the　contrary；　is；　and　long　has　been；　that　the

pentateuchal　story　of　the　creation　is　simply　a　myth。　I　suppose

it　to　be　an　hypothesis　respecting　the　origin　of　the　universe

which　some　ancient　thinker　found　himself　able　to　reconcile　with

his　knowledge；　or　what　he　thought　was　knowledge；　of　the　nature

of　things；　and　therefore　assumed　to　be　true。　As　such；　I　hold　it

to　be　not　merely　an　interesting；　but　a　venerable；　monument　of　a

stage　in　the　mental　progress　of　mankind；　and　I　find　it　difficult

to　suppose　that　any　one　who　is　acquainted　with　the　cosmogonies

of　other　nationsand　especially　with　those　of　the　Egyptians　and

the　Babylonians；　with　whom　the　Israelites　were　in　such　frequent

and　intimate　communicationshould　consider　it　to　possess　either

more；　or　less；　scientific　importance　than　may　be　allotted

to　these。



Mr。　Gladstone's　definition　of　a　sermon　permits　me　to　suspect

that　he　may　not　see　much　difference　between　that　form　of

discourse　and　what　I　call　a　myth；　and　I　hope　it　may　be　something

more　than　the　slowness　of　apprehension；　to　which　I　have

confessed；　which　leads　me　to　imagine　that　a　statement　which　is

〃general〃　but　〃admits　exceptions；〃　whic