mr. gladstone and genesis-第2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！



the　consummated　production　of　a　fair　and　goodly；　a　furnished　and

a　peopled　world。





This　〃fact〃　can　be　regarded　as　of　value　only　by　ignoring　the

fact　demonstrated　in　my　previous　paper；　that　natural　science

does　not　confirm　the　order　asserted　so　far　as　living　things　are

concerned；　and　by　upsetting　a　fact　to　be　brought　to　light

presently；　to　wit；　that；　in　regard　to　the　rest　of　the

pentateuchal　cosmogony；　prudent　science　has　very　little　to　say

one　way　or　the　other。





Thirdly；　the　fact　that　its　cosmogony　seems；　in　the　light　of　the

nineteenth　century；　to　draw　more　and　more　of　countenance　from

the　best　natural　philosophy。





I　have　already　questioned　the　accuracy　of　this　statement；　and　I

do　not　observe　that　mere　repetition　adds　to　its　value。





And；　fourthly；　that　it　has　described　the　successive　origins　of

the　five　great　categories　of　present　life　with　which　human

experience　was　and　is　conversant；　in　that　order　which　geological

authority　confirms。





By　comparison　with　a　sentence　on　page　14；　in　which　a　fivefold

order　is　substituted　for　the　〃fourfold　order；〃　on　which　the

〃plea　for　revelation〃　was　originally　founded；　it　appears　that

these　five　categories　are　〃plants；　fishes；　birds；　mammals；　and

man；〃　which；　Mr。　Gladstone　affirms；　〃are　given　to　us　in　Genesis

in　the　order　of　succession　in　which　they　are　also　given　by　the

latest　geological　authorities。〃



I　must　venture　to　demur　to　this　statement。　I　showed；　in　my

previous　paper；　that　there　is　no　reason　to　doubt　that　the　term

〃great　sea　monster〃　（used　in　Gen。　i。　21）　includes　the　most

conspicuous　of　great　sea　animalsnamely；　whales；　dolphins；

porpoises；　manatees；　and　dugongs；　and；　as　these　are

indubitable　mammals；　it　is　impossible　to　affirm　that　mammals

come　after　birds；　which　are　said　to　have　been　created　on　the

same　day。　Moreover；　I　pointed　out　that　as　these　Cetacea　and

Sirenia　are　certainly　modified　land　animals；　their　existence

implies　the　antecedent　existence　of　land　mammals。



Furthermore；　I　have　to　remark　that　the　term　〃fishes；〃　as　used；

technically；　in　zoology；　by　no　means　covers　all　the　moving

creatures　that　have　life；　which　are　bidden　to　〃fill　the　waters

in　the　seas〃　（Gen。　i。　20…22。）　Marine　mollusks　and　crustacea；

echinoderms；　corals；　and　foraminifera　are　not　technically

fishes。　But　they　are　abundant　in　the　palaeozoic　rocks；　ages　upon

ages　older　than　those　in　which　the　first　evidences　of　true

fishes　appear。　And　if；　in　a　geological　book；　Mr。　Gladstone　finds

the　quite　true　statement　that　plants　appeared　before　fishes；　it

is　only　by　a　complete　misunderstanding　that　he　can　be　led　to

imagine　it　serves　his　purpose。　As　a　matter　of　fact；　at　the

present　moment；　it　is　a　question　whether；　on　the　bare　evidence

afforded　by　fossils；　the　marine　creeping　thing　or　the　marine

plant　has　the　seniority。　No　cautious　palaeontologist　would

express　a　decided　opinion　on　the　matter。　But；　if　we　are　to　read

the　pentateuchal　statement　as　a　scientific　document　（and；　in

spite　of　all　protests　to　the　contrary；　those　who　bring　it　into

comparison　with　science　do　seek　to　make　a　scientific　document　of

it）；　then；　as　it　is　quite　clear　that　only　terrestrial　plants　of

high　organisation　are　spoken　of　in　verses　11　and　12；　no

palaeontologist　would　hesitate　to　say　that；　at　present；　the

records　of　sea　animal　life　are　vastly　older　than　those　of　any

land　plant　describable　as　〃grass；　herb　yielding　seed　or

fruit　tree。〃



Thus；　although；　in　Mr。　Gladstone's　〃Defence；〃　the　〃old　order

passeth　into　new；〃　his　case　is　not　improved。　The　fivefold　order

is　no　more　〃affirmed　in　our　time　by　natural　science〃　to　be　〃a

demonstrated　conclusion　and　established　fact〃　than　the　fourfold

order　was。　Natural　science　appears　to　me　to　decline　to　have

anything　to　do　with　either；　they　are　as　wrong　in　detail　as　they

are　mistaken　in　principle。



There　is　another　change　of　position；　the　value　of　which　is　not

so　apparent　to　me；　as　it　may　well　seem　to　be　to　those　who　are

unfamiliar　with　the　subject　under　discussion。　Mr。　Gladstone

discards　his　three　groups　of　〃water…population；〃　〃air…

population；〃　and　〃land…population；〃　and　substitutes　for　them

（1）　fishes；　（2）　birds；　（3）　mammals；　（4）　man。　Moreover；　it　is

assumed；　in　a　note；　that　〃the　higher　or　ordinary　mammals〃　alone

were　known　to　the　〃Mosaic　writer〃　（p。　6）。　No　doubt　it　looks；　at

first；　as　if　something　were　gained　by　this　alteration；　for；　as　I

have　just　pointed　out；　the　word　〃fishes〃　can　be　used　in　two

senses；　one　of　which　has　a　deceptive　appearance　of　adjustability

to　the　〃Mosaic〃　account。　Then　the　inconvenient　reptiles　are

banished　out　of　sight；　and；　finally；　the　question　of　the　exact

meaning　of　〃higher〃　and　〃ordinary〃　in　the　case　of　mammals　opens

up　the　prospect　of　a　hopeful　logomachy。　But　what　is　the　good　of

it　all　in　the　face　of　Leviticus　on　the　one　hand　and　of

palaeontology　on　the　other？



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　i