byThomasHenryHuxleyIncontroversy，asincourtship，thegoodoldruletobeoffwiththeoldbeforeoneisonwiththenew，greatlycommendsitselftomysenseofexpediency。And，therefore，itappearstomedesirablethatIshouldprefacesuchobservationsasImayhavetoofferuponthecloudofarguments（therelevancyofwhichtotheissuewhichIhadventuredtoraiseisnotalwaysobvious）putforthbyMr。GladstoneintheJanuarynumberofthisreview，<1>byanendeavourtomakecleartosuchofourreadersashavenothadtheadvantageofaforensiceducationthepresentnetresultofthediscussion。
Iamquiteawarethat，inundertakingthistask，Irunalltheriskstowhichthemanwhopresumestodealjudiciallywithhisowncauseisliable。ButitisexactlybecauseIdonotshunthatrisk，but，rather，earnestlydesiretobejudgedbyhimwhocomethafterme，providedthathehastheknowledgeandimpartialityappropriatetoajudge，thatIadoptmypresentcourse。
Inthearticleon\"TheDawnofCreationandWorship，\"itwillberememberedthatMr。Gladstoneunreservedlycommitshimselftothreepropositions。Thefirstisthat，accordingtothewriterofthePentateuch，the\"water—population，\"the\"air—population，\"
andthe\"land—population\"oftheglobewerecreatedsuccessively，intheordernamed。Inthesecondplace，Mr。
Gladstoneauthoritativelyassertsthatthis（aspartofhis\"fourfoldorder\"）hasbeen\"soaffirmedinourtimebynaturalscience，thatitmaybetakenasademonstratedconclusionandestablishedfact。\"Inthethirdplace，Mr。Gladstonearguesthatthefactofthiscoincidenceofthepentateuchalstorywiththeresultsofmoderninvestigationmakesit\"impossibletoavoidtheconclusion，first，thateitherthiswriterwasgiftedwithfacultiespassingallhumanexperience，orelsehisknowledgewasdivine。\"Andhavingsettledtohisownsatisfactionthatthefirst\"branchofthealternativeistrulynominalandunreal，\"
Mr。Gladstonecontinues，\"SostandsthepleaforarevelationoftruthfromGod，apleaonlytobemetbyquestioningitspossibility\"（p。697）。
Iamasimple—mindedperson，whollydevoidofsubtletyofintellect，sothatIwillinglyadmitthattheremaybedepthsofalternativemeaninginthesepropositionsoutofallsoundingsattainablebymypoorplummet。Stillthereareagoodmanypeoplewhosufferunderalikeintellectuallimitation；and，foronceinmylife，IfeelthatIhavethechanceofattainingthatpositionofarepresentativeofaverageopinionwhichappearstobethemodernidealofaleaderofmen，whenImakefreeconfessionthat，afterturningthematteroverinmymind，withalltheaidderivedfromacarefulconsiderationofMr。
Gladstone’sreply，Icannotgetawayfrommyoriginalconvictionthat，ifMr。Gladstone’ssecondpropositioncanbeshowntobenotmerelyinaccurate，butdirectlycontradictoryoffactsknowntoeveryonewhoisacquaintedwiththeelementsofnaturalscience，thethirdpropositioncollapsesofitself。
Anditwasthisconvictionwhichledmetoenteruponthepresentdiscussion。Ifanciedthatifmyrespectedclients，thepeopleofaverageopinionandcapacity，couldoncebegotdistinctlytoconceivethatMr。Gladstone’sviewsastothepropermethodofdealingwithgraveanddifficultscientificandreligiousproblemshadpermittedhimtobaseasolemn\"pleaforarevelationoftruthfromGod\"uponanerrorastoamatteroffact，fromwhichtheintelligentperusalofamanualofpalaeontologywouldhavesavedhim，Ineednottroublemyselftooccupytheirtimeandattention[167]withfurthercommentsuponhiscontributiontoapologeticliterature。ItisforotherstojudgewhetherIhaveefficientlycarriedoutmyprojectornot。
ItcertainlydoesnotcountformuchthatIshouldbeunabletofindanyflawinmyowncase，butIthinkitcountsforagooddealthatMr。Gladstoneappearstohavebeenequallyunabletodoso。Hedoes，indeed，makeagreatparadeofauthorities，andIhavethegreatestrespectforthoseauthoritieswhomMr。Gladstonementions。Ifhewillgetthemtosignajointmemorialtotheeffectthatourpresentpalaeontologicalevidenceprovesthatbirdsappearedbeforethe\"land—population\"
ofterrestrialreptiles，Ishallthinkitmydutytoreconsidermyposition——butnottillthen。
ItwillbeobservedthatIhavecautiouslyusedtheword\"appears\"inreferringtowhatseemstometobeabsenceofanyrealanswertomycriticismsinMr。Gladstone’sreply。ForI
musthonestlyconfessthat，notwithstandinglongandpainfulstrivingsafterclearinsight，IamstilluncertainwhetherMr。
Gladstone’s\"Defence\"meansthatthegreat\"pleaforarevelationfromGod\"istobelefttoperishinthedialecticdesert；orwhetheritistobewithdrawnundertheprotectionofsuchskirmishersasareavailableforcoveringretreat。
Inparticular，theremarkabledisquisitionwhichcoverspages11
to14ofMr。Gladstone’slastcontributionhasgreatlyexercisedmymind。SocratesisreportedtohavesaidoftheworksofHeraclitusthathewhoattemptedtocomprehendthemshouldbea\"Delianswimmer，\"butthat，forhispart，whathecouldunderstandwassogoodthathewasdisposedtobelieveintheexcellenceofthatwhichhefoundunintelligible。
InendeavouringtomakemyselfmasterofMr。Gladstone’smeaninginthesepages，IhaveoftenbeenovercomebyafeelinganalogoustothatofSocrates，butnotquitethesame。
ThatwhichIdounderstandhasappearedtomesoverymuchthereverseofgood，thatIhavesometimespermittedmyselftodoubtthevalueofthatwhichIdonotunderstand。
InthispartofMr。Gladstone’sreply，infact，Ifindnothingofwhichthebearinguponmyargumentsiscleartome，exceptthatwhichrelatestothequestionwhetherreptiles，sofarastheyarerepresentedbytortoisesandthegreatmajorityoflizardsandsnakes，whicharelandanimals，arecreepingthingsinthesenseofthepentateuchalwriterornot。
IhaveeveryrespectforthesingeroftheSongoftheThreeChildren（whoeverhemayhavebeen）；Idesiretocastnoshadowofdoubtupon，but，onthecontrary，marvelat，theexactnessofMr。Gladstone’sinformationastotheconsiderationswhich\"affectedthemethodoftheMosaicwriter\"；nordoIventuretodoubtthattheinconvenientintrusionofthesecontemptiblereptiles——\"afamilyfallenfromgreatness\"（p。14），amiserabledecayedaristocracyreducedtomere\"skulkersabouttheearth\"
（ibid。）——inconsequence，apparently，ofdifficultiesabouttheoccupationoflandarisingoutoftheearth—hungeroftheirformerserfs，themammals——intoanapologeticargument，whichotherwisewouldrunquitesmoothly，isineverywaytobedeprecated。Still，thewretchedcreaturesstandthere，importunatelydemandingnotice；and，howeverdifferentmaybethepracticeinthatcontentiousatmospherewithwhichMr。
Gladstoneexpressesandlamentshisfamiliarity，intheatmosphereofscienceitreallyisofnoavailwhatevertoshutone’seyestofacts，ortotrytoburythemoutofsightunderatumulusofrhetoric。Thatismyexperienceofthe\"ElysianregionsofScience，\"whereinitisapleasuretometothinkthatamanofMr。Gladstone’sintimateknowledgeofEnglishlife，duringthelastquarterofacentury，believesmyphilosophicexistencetohavebeenroundedoffinunbrokenequanimity。
Howeverreprehensible，andindeedcontemptible，terrestrialreptilesmaybe，theonlyquestionwhichappearstometoberelevanttomyargumentiswhetherthesecreaturesareorarenotcomprisedunderthedenominationof\"everythingthatcreepethupontheground。\"
Mr。GladstonespeaksoftheauthorofthefirstchapterofGenesisas\"theMosaicwriter\"；Isuppose，therefore，thathewilladmitthatitisequallypropertospeakoftheauthorofLeviticusasthe\"Mosaicwriter。\"WhethersuchaphrasewouldbeusedbyanyonewhohadanadequateconceptionoftheassuredresultsofmodernBiblicalcriticismisanothermatter；but，atanyrate，itcannotbedeniedthatLeviticushasasmuchclaimtoMosaicauthorshipasGenesis。Therefore，ifonewantstoknowthesenseofaphraseusedinGenesis，itwillbewelltoseewhatLeviticushastosayonthematter。Hence，IcommendthefollowingextractfromtheeleventhchapterofLeviticustoMr。
Gladstone’sseriousattention:——
Andthesearetheywhichareuncleanuntoyouamongthecreepingthingsthatcreepupontheearth:theweasel，andthemouse，andthegreatlizardafteritskind，andthegecko，andthelandcrocodile，andthesand—lizard，andthechameleon。Thesearetheywhichareuncleantoyouamongallthatcreep（v。29—3l）。
ThemerestSunday—schoolexegesisthereforesufficestoprovethatwhenthe\"Mosaicwriter\"inGenesisi。24speaksof\"creepingthings，\"hemeanstoincludelizardsamongthem。
Thisbeingso，itisagreed，onallhands，thatterrestriallizards，andotherreptilesalliedtolizards，occurinthePermianstrata。ItisfurtheragreedthattheTriassicstrataweredepositedafterthese。Moreover，itiswellknownthat，evenifcertainfootprintsaretobetakenasunquestionableevidenceoftheexistenceofbirds，theyarenotknowntooccurinrocksearlierthantheTrias，whileindubitableremainsofbirdsaretobemetwithonlymuchlater。Henceitfollowsthatnaturalsciencedoesnot\"affirm\"thestatementthatbirdsweremadeonthefifthday，and\"everythingthatcreepethontheground\"onthesixth，onwhichMr。Gladstonerestshisorder；
for，asisshownbyLeviticus，the\"Mosaicwriter\"includeslizardsamonghis\"creepingthings。\"
PerhapsIhavegivenmyselfsuperfluoustroubleintheprecedingargument，forIfindthatMr。Gladstoneiswillingtoassume（hedoesnotsaytoadmit）thatthestatementinthetextofGenesisastoreptilescannot\"inallpointsbesustained\"（p。16）。Butmypositionisthatitcannotbesustainedinanypoint，sothat，afterall，ithasperhapsbeenaswelltogoovertheevidenceagain。AndthenMr。Gladstoneproceedsasifnothinghadhappenedtotellusthat——
Thereremaingreatunshakenfactstobeweighed。First，thefactthatsucharecordshouldhavebeenmadeatall。
Asmostpeopleshavetheircosmogonies，this\"fact\"doesnotstrikemeashavingmuchvalue。
Secondly，thefactthat，insteadofdwellingingeneralities，ithasplaceditselfunderthesevereconditionsofachronologicalorderreachingfromthefirstnisusofchaoticmattertotheconsummatedproductionofafairandgoodly，afurnishedandapeopledworld。
This\"fact\"canberegardedasofvalueonlybyignoringthefactdemonstratedinmypreviouspaper，thatnaturalsciencedoesnotconfirmtheorderassertedsofaraslivingthingsareconcerned；andbyupsettingafacttobebroughttolightpresently，towit，that，inregardtotherestofthepentateuchalcosmogony，prudentsciencehasverylittletosayonewayortheother。
Thirdly，thefactthatitscosmogonyseems，inthelightofthenineteenthcentury，todrawmoreandmoreofcountenancefromthebestnaturalphilosophy。
Ihavealreadyquestionedtheaccuracyofthisstatement，andI
donotobservethatmererepetitionaddstoitsvalue。
And，fourthly，thatithasdescribedthesuccessiveoriginsofthefivegreatcategoriesofpresentlifewithwhichhumanexperiencewasandisconversant，inthatorderwhichgeologicalauthorityconfirms。
Bycomparisonwithasentenceonpage14，inwhichafivefoldorderissubstitutedforthe\"fourfoldorder，\"onwhichthe\"pleaforrevelation\"wasoriginallyfounded，itappearsthatthesefivecategoriesare\"plants，fishes，birds，mammals，andman，\"which，Mr。Gladstoneaffirms，\"aregiventousinGenesisintheorderofsuccessioninwhichtheyarealsogivenbythelatestgeologicalauthorities。\"
Imustventuretodemurtothisstatement。Ishowed，inmypreviouspaper，thatthereisnoreasontodoubtthattheterm\"greatseamonster\"（usedinGen。i。21）includesthemostconspicuousofgreatseaanimals——namely，whales，dolphins，porpoises，manatees，anddugongs；<2>and，astheseareindubitablemammals，itisimpossibletoaffirmthatmammalscomeafterbirds，whicharesaidtohavebeencreatedonthesameday。Moreover，IpointedoutthatastheseCetaceaandSireniaarecertainlymodifiedlandanimals，theirexistenceimpliestheantecedentexistenceoflandmammals。
Furthermore，Ihavetoremarkthattheterm\"fishes，\"asused，technically，inzoology，bynomeanscoversallthemovingcreaturesthathavelife，whicharebiddento\"fillthewatersintheseas\"（Gen。i。20—22。）Marinemollusksandcrustacea，echinoderms，corals，andforaminiferaarenottechnicallyfishes。Buttheyareabundantinthepalaeozoicrocks，agesuponagesolderthanthoseinwhichthefirstevidencesoftruefishesappear。Andif，inageologicalbook，Mr。Gladstonefindsthequitetruestatementthatplantsappearedbeforefishes，itisonlybyacompletemisunderstandingthathecanbeledtoimagineitserveshispurpose。Asamatteroffact，atthepresentmoment，itisaquestionwhether，onthebareevidenceaffordedbyfossils，themarinecreepingthingorthemarineplanthastheseniority。Nocautiouspalaeontologistwouldexpressadecidedopiniononthematter。But，ifwearetoreadthepentateuchalstatementasascientificdocument（and，inspiteofallproteststothecontrary，thosewhobringitintocomparisonwithsciencedoseektomakeascientificdocumentofit），then，asitisquiteclearthatonlyterrestrialplantsofhighorganisationarespokenofinverses11and12，nopalaeontologistwouldhesitatetosaythat，atpresent，therecordsofseaanimallifearevastlyolderthanthoseofanylandplantdescribableas\"grass，herbyieldingseedorfruittree。\"
Thus，although，inMr。Gladstone’s\"Defence，\"the\"oldorderpassethintonew，\"hiscaseisnotimproved。Thefivefoldorderisnomore\"affirmedinourtimebynaturalscience\"tobe\"ademonstratedconclusionandestablishedfact\"thanthefourfoldorderwas。Naturalscienceappearstometodeclinetohaveanythingtodowitheither；theyareaswrongindetailastheyaremistakeninprinciple。
Thereisanotherchangeofposition，thevalueofwhichisnotsoapparenttome，asitmaywellseemtobetothosewhoareunfamiliarwiththesubjectunderdiscussion。Mr。Gladstonediscardshisthreegroupsof\"water—population，\"\"air—
population，\"and\"land—population，\"andsubstitutesforthem（1）fishes，（2）birds，（3）mammals，（4）man。Moreover，itisassumed，inanote，that\"thehigherorordinarymammals\"alonewereknowntothe\"Mosaicwriter\"（p。6）。Nodoubtitlooks，atfirst，asifsomethingweregainedbythisalteration；for，asI
havejustpointedout，theword\"fishes\"canbeusedintwosenses，oneofwhichhasadeceptiveappearanceofadjustabilitytothe\"Mosaic\"account。Thentheinconvenientreptilesarebanishedoutofsight；and，finally，thequestionoftheexactmeaningof\"higher\"and\"ordinary\"inthecaseofmammalsopensuptheprospectofahopefullogomachy。ButwhatisthegoodofitallinthefaceofLeviticusontheonehandandofpalaeontologyontheother？
As，inmyapprehension，thereisnotashadowofjustificationforthesuggestionthatwhenthepentateuchalwritersays\"fowl\"
heexcludesbats（which，asweshallseedirectly，areexpresslyincludedunder\"fowl\"inLeviticus），andasIhavealreadyshownthathedemonstrablyincludesreptiles，aswellasmammals，amongthecreepingthingsoftheland，Imaybepermittedtosparemyreadersfurtherdiscussionofthe\"fivefoldorder。\"
Onthewhole，itisseentoberathermoreinconsistentwithGenesisthanitsfourfoldpredecessor。
ButIhaveyetafreshordertoface。Mr。Gladstone（p。11）
understands\"themainstatementsofGenesisinsuccessiveorderoftime，butwithoutanymeasurementofitsdivisions，tobeasfollows:——
1。Aperiodofland，anteriortoalllife（v。9，10）。
2。Aperiodofvegetablelife，anteriortoanimallife（v。11，12）。
3。Aperiodofanimallife，intheorderoffishes（v。20）。
4。Anotherstageofanimallife，intheorderofbirds。
5。Anotherintheorderofbeasts（v。24，25）。
6。Lastofall，man（v。26，27）。
Mr。Gladstonethentriestofindtheproofoftheoccurrenceofasimilarsuccessioninsundryexcellentworksongeology。
Iamreallygrievedtobeobligedtosaythatthisthird（orisitfourth？）modificationofthefoundationofthe\"pleaforrevelation\"originallysetforth，satisfiesmeaslittleasanyofitspredecessors。
For，inthefirstplace，IcannotaccepttheassertionthatthisorderistobefoundinGenesis。WithrespecttoNo。5，forexample，Ihold，asIhavealreadysaid，that\"greatseamonsters\"includestheCetacea，inwhichcasemammals（whichiswhat，Isuppose，Mr。Gladstonemeansby\"beasts\"）comeinunderheadNo。3，andnotunderNo。5。Again，\"fowl\"aresaidinGenesistobecreatedonthesamedayasfishes；thereforeI
cannotacceptanorderwhichmakesbirdssucceedfishes。
Oncemore，asitisquitecertainthattheterm\"fowl\"includesthebats，——forinLeviticusxi。13—19weread，\"Andtheseshallyehaveinabominationamongthefowls……theheronafteritskind，andthehoopoe，andthebat，\"——itisobviousthatbatsarealsosaidtohavebeencreatedatstageNo。3。Andasbatsaremammals，andtheirexistenceobviouslypresupposesthatofterrestrial\"beasts，\"itisquiteclearthatthelattercouldnothavefirstappearedasNo。5。Ineednotrepeatmyreasonsfordoubtingwhethermancame\"lastofall。\"
AsthelatterhalfofMr。Gladstone’ssixfoldorderthusshowsitselftobewhollyunauthorisedby，andinconsistentwith，theplainlanguageofthePentateuch，Imightdeclinetodiscusstheadmissibilityofitsformerhalf。
ButIwilladdoneortworemarksonthispointalso。DoesMr。
Gladstonemeantosaythatinanyoftheworkshehascited，orindeedanywhereelse，hecanfindscientificwarrantyfortheassertionthattherewasaperiodofland——bywhichIsupposehemeansdryland（forsubmergedlandmustneedsbeasoldastheseparateexistenceofthesea）——\"anteriortoalllife？\"
Itmaybeso，oritmaynotbeso；butwhereistheevidencewhichwouldjustifyanyoneinmakingapositiveassertiononthesubject？Whatcompetentpalaeontologistwillaffirm，atthispresentmoment，thatheknowsanythingabouttheperiodatwhichlifeoriginated，orwillassertmorethantheextremeprobabilitythatsuchoriginwasalongwayantecedenttoanytracesoflifeatpresentknown？Whatphysicalgeologistwillaffirmthatheknowswhendrylandbegantoexist，orwillsaymorethanthatitwasprobablyverymuchearlierthananyextantdirectevidenceofterrestrialconditionsindicates？
IthinkIknowprettywelltheanswerswhichtheauthoritiesquotedbyMr。Gladstonewouldgivetothesequestions；butI
leaveittothemtogivethemiftheythinkfit。
IfIventuredtospeculateonthematteratall，Ishouldsayitisbynomeanscertainthatseaisolderthandryland，inasmuchasasolidterrestrialsurfacemayverywellhaveexistedbeforetheearthwascoolenoughtoallowoftheexistenceoffluidwater。And，inthiscase，drylandmayhaveexistedbeforethesea。Astothefirstappearanceoflife，thewholeargumentofanalogy，whateveritmaybeworthinsuchacase，isinfavouroftheabsenceoflivingbeingsuntillongafterthehotwaterseashadconstitutedthemselves；andofthesubsequentappearanceofaquaticbeforeterrestrialformsoflife。
Butwhetherthese\"protoplasts\"would，ifwecouldexaminethem，bereckonedamongthelowestmicroscopicalgae，orfungi；oramongthosedoubtfulorganismswhichlieinthedebatablelandbetweenanimalsandplants，is，inmyjudgment，aquestiononwhichaprudentbiologistwillreservehisopinion。
IthinkthatIhavenowdisposedofthosepartsofMr。
Gladstone’sdefenceinwhichIseemtodiscoveradesigntorescuehissolemn\"pleaforrevelation。\"Butagreatdealofthe\"ProemtoGenesis\"remainswhichIwouldgladlypassoverinsilence，weresuchacourseconsistentwiththerespectduetosodistinguishedachampionofthe\"reconcilers。\"
Ihopethatmyclients——thepeopleofaverageopinions——havebythistimesomeconfidenceinme；forwhenItellthemthat，afterall，Mr。Gladstoneisofopinionthatthe\"Mosaicrecord\"
wasmeanttogivemoral，andnotscientific，instructiontothoseforwhomitwaswritten，theymaybedisposedtothinkthatImustbemisleadingthem。ButletthemlistenfurthertowhatMr。Gladstonesaysinacompendiousbutnotexactlycorrectstatementrespectingmyopinions:——
Heholdsthewriterresponsibleforscientificprecision:Ilookfornothingofthekind，butassigntohimastatementgeneral，whichadmitsexceptions；popular，whichaimsmainlyatproducingmoralimpression；summary，whichcannotbutbeopentomoreorlessofcriticismofdetail。Hethinksitisalecture。Ithinkitisasermon\"（p。5）。
Inote，incidentally，thatMr。Gladstoneappearstoconsiderthatthedifferentiabetweenalectureandasermonis，thattheformer，sofarasitdealswithmattersoffact，maybetakenseriously，asmeaningexactlywhatitsays，whileasermonmaynot。Ihavequiteenoughonmyhandswithouttakingupthecudgelsfortheclergy，whowillprobablyfindMr。Gladstone’sdefinitionunflattering。
ButIamdivergingfrommyproperbusiness，whichistosaythatIhavegivennogroundfortheascriptionoftheseopinions；andthat，asamatteroffact，Idonotholdthemandneverhaveheldthem。ItisMr。Gladstone，andnotI，whowillhaveitthatthepentateuchalcosmogonyistobetakenasscience。
Mybelief，onthecontrary，is，andlonghasbeen，thatthepentateuchalstoryofthecreationissimplyamyth。Isupposeittobeanhypothesisrespectingtheoriginoftheuniversewhichsomeancientthinkerfoundhimselfabletoreconcilewithhisknowledge，orwhathethoughtwasknowledge，ofthenatureofthings，andthereforeassumedtobetrue。Assuch，Iholdittobenotmerelyaninteresting，butavenerable，monumentofastageinthementalprogressofmankind；andIfinditdifficulttosupposethatanyonewhoisacquaintedwiththecosmogoniesofothernations——andespeciallywiththoseoftheEgyptiansandtheBabylonians，withwhomtheIsraeliteswereinsuchfrequentandintimatecommunication——shouldconsiderittopossesseithermore，orless，scientificimportancethanmaybeallottedtothese。
Mr。Gladstone’sdefinitionofasermonpermitsmetosuspectthathemaynotseemuchdifferencebetweenthatformofdiscourseandwhatIcallamyth；andIhopeitmaybesomethingmorethantheslownessofapprehension，towhichIhaveconfessed，whichleadsmetoimaginethatastatementwhichis\"general\"but\"admitsexceptions，\"whichis\"popular\"and\"aimsmainlyatproducingmoralimpression，\"\"summary\"andthereforeopento\"criticismofdetail，\"amountstoamyth，orperhapslessthanamyth。Putalgebraically，itcomestothis，x=a+b+c；alwaysrememberingthatthereisnothingtoshowtheexactvalueofeithera，orb，orc。
Itistruethataiscommonlysupposedtoequal10，butthereareexceptions，andthesemayreduceitto8，or3，or0；
balsopopularlymeans10，butbeingchieflyusedbythealgebraistasa\"moral\"value，youcannotdomuchwithitintheadditionorsubtractionofmathematicalvalues；calsoisquite\"summary，\"andifyougointothedetailsofwhichitismadeup，manyofthemmaybewrong，andtheirsumtotalequalto0，oreventoaminusquantity。
Mr。GladstoneappearstowishthatIshould（1）enteruponasortofessaycompetitionwiththeauthorofthepentateuchalcosmogony；（2）thatIshouldmakeafurtherstatementaboutsomeelementaryfactsinthehistoryofIndianandGreekphilosophy；
and（3）thatIshouldshowcauseformyhesitationinacceptingtheassertionthatGenesisissupported，atanyratetotheextentofthefirsttwoverses，bythenebularhypothesis。
Acertainsenseofhumourpreventsmefromacceptingthefirstinvitation。IwouldassoonattempttoputHamlet’ssoliloquyintoamorescientificshape。ButifIsupposedthe\"Mosaicwriter\"tobeinspired，asMr。Gladstonedoes，itwouldnotbeconsistentwithmynotionsofrespectfortheSupremeBeingtoimagineHimunabletoframeaformofwordswhichshouldaccurately，or，atleast，notinaccurately，expressHisownmeaning。Itissometimessaidthat，hadthestatementscontainedinthefirstchapterofGenesisbeenscientificallytrue，theywouldhavebeenunintelligibletoignorantpeople；buthowisthemattermendedif，beingscientificallyuntrue，theymustneedsberejectedbyinstructedpeople？
Withrespecttothesecondsuggestion，itwouldbepresumptuousinmetopretendtoinstructMr。GladstoneinmatterswhichlieasmuchwithintheprovinceofLiteratureandHistoryasinthatofScience；butifanyonedesirousoffurtherknowledgewillbesogoodastoturntothatmostexcellentandbynomeansreconditesourceofinformation，the\"EncyclopaediaBritannica，\"
hewillfind，undertheletterE，theword\"Evolution，\"andalongarticleonthatsubject。Now，Idonotrecommendhimtoreadthefirsthalfofthearticle；butthesecondhalf，bymyfriendMr。Sully，isreallyverygood。HewilltherefinditsaidthatinsomeofthephilosophiesofancientIndia，theideaofevolutionisclearlyexpressed:\"Brahmaisconceivedastheeternalself—existentbeing，which，onitsmaterialside，unfoldsitselftotheworldbygraduallycondensingitselftomaterialobjectsthroughthegradationsofether，fire，water，earth，andotherelements。\"Andagain:\"InthelatersystemofemanationofSankhyathereisamoremarkedapproachtoamaterialisticdoctrineofevolution。\"WhatlittleknowledgeI
haveofthematter——chieflyderivedfromthatveryinstructivebook，\"DieReligiondesBuddha，\"byC。F。Koeppen，supplementedbyHardy’sinterestingworks——leadsmetothinkthatMr。SullymighthavespokenmuchmorestronglyastotheevolutionarycharacterofIndianphilosophy，andespeciallyofthatoftheBuddhists。Butthequestionistoolargetobedealtwithincidentally。
And，withrespecttoearlyGreekphilosophy，<3>theseekerafteradditionalenlightenmentneedgonofurtherthanthesameexcellentstorehouseofinformation:——
TheearlyIonianphysicists，includingThales，Anaximander，andAnaximenes，seektoexplaintheworldasgeneratedoutofaprimordialmatterwhichisatthesametimetheuniversalsupportofthings。Thissubstanceisendowedwithagenerativeortransmutativeforcebyvirtueofwhichitpassesintoasuccessionofforms。Theythusresemblemodernevolutionistssincetheyregardtheworld，withitsinfinitevarietyofforms，asissuingfromasimplemodeofmatter。