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！
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