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！
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；〃 which is 〃popular〃 and 〃aims
mainly at producing moral impression；〃 〃summary〃 and therefore
open to 〃criticism of detail；〃 amounts to a myth； or perhaps
less than a myth。 Put algebraically； it comes to this；
x=a＋b＋c； always remembering that there is nothing to show
the exact value of either a； or b； or c。
It is true that a is commonly supposed to equal 10； but
there are exceptions； and these may reduce it to 8； or 3； or 0；
b also popularly means 10； but being chiefly used by the
algebraist as a 〃moral〃 value； you cannot do much with it in the
addition or subtraction of mathematical values； c also is
quite 〃summary；〃 and if you go into the details of which it is
made up； many of them may be wrong； and their sum total equal to
0； or even to a minus quantity。
Mr。 Gladstone appears to wish that I should （1） enter upon a
sort of essay competition with the author of the pentateuchal
cosmogony； （2） that I should make a further statement about some
elementary facts in the history of Indian and Greek philosophy；
and （3） that I should show cause for my hesitation in accepting
the assertion that Genesis is supported； at any rate to the
extent of the first two verses； by the nebular hypothesis。
A certain sense of humour prevents me from accepting the first
invitation。 I would as soon attempt to put Hamlet's soliloquy
into a more scientific shape。 But if I supposed the 〃Mosaic
writer〃 to be inspired； as Mr。 Gladstone does； it would not be
consistent with my notions of respect for the Supreme Being to
imagine Him unable to frame a form of words which should
accurately； or； at least； not inaccurately； express His own
meaning。 It is sometimes said that； had the statements contained
in the first chapter of Genesis been scientifically true； they
would have been unintelligible to ignorant people； but how is
the matter mended if； being scientifically untrue； they must
needs be rejected by instructed people？
With respect to the second suggestion； it would be presumptuous
in me to pretend to instruct Mr。 Gladstone in matters which lie
as much within the province of Literature and History as in that
of Science； but if any one desirous of further knowledge will be
so good as to turn to that most excellent and by no means
recondite source of information； the 〃Encyclopaedia Britannica；〃
he will find； under the letter E； the word 〃Evolution；〃 and a
long article on that subject。 Now； I do not recommend him to
read the first half of the article； but the second half； by my
friend Mr。 Sully； is really very good。 He will there find it
said that in some of the philosophies of ancient India； the idea
of evolution is clearly expressed： 〃Brahma is conceived as the
eternal self…existent being； which； on its material side；
unfolds itself to the world by gradually condensing itself to
material objects through the gradations of ether； fire； water；
earth； and other elements。〃 And again： 〃In the later system of
emanation of Sankhya there is a more marked approach to a
materialistic doctrine of evolution。〃 What little knowledge I
have of the matterchiefly derived from that very instructive
book； 〃Die Religion des Buddha；〃 by C。 F。 Koeppen； supplemented
by Hardy's interesting worksleads me to think that Mr。 Sully
might have spoken much more strongly as to the evolutionary
character of Indian philosophy； and especially of that of the
Buddhists。 But the question is too large to be dealt
with incidentally。
And； with respect to early Greek philosophy； the seeker after
additional enlightenment need go no further than the same
excellent storehouse of information：
The early Ionian physicists； including Thales；
Anaximander； and Anaximenes； seek to explain the world as
generated out of a primordial matter which is at the same time
the universal support of things。 This substance is endowed