mr. gladstone and genesis-第5部分

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！



with　no　form　of　the　nebular　hypothesis　which　involves　anything

analogous　to　this　process。



I　have　said　enough　to　explain　some　of　the　difficulties　which

arise　in　my　mind；　when　I　try　to　ascertain　whether　there　is　any

foundation　for　the　contention　that　the　statements　contained　in

the　first　two　verses　of　Genesis　are　supported　by　the　nebular

hypothesis。　The　result　does　not　appear　to　me　to　be　exactly

favourable　to　that　contention。　The　nebular　hypothesis　assumes

the　existence　of　matter；　having　definite　properties；　as　its

foundation。　Whether　such　matter　was　created　a　few　thousand　years

ago；　or　whether　it　has　existed　through　an　eternal　series　of

metamorphoses　of　which　our　present　universe　is　only　the　last

stage；　are　alternatives；　neither　of　which　is　scientifically

untenable；　and　neither　scientifically　demonstrable。　But　science

knows　nothing　of　any　stage　in　which　the　universe　could　be　said；

in　other　than　a　metaphorical　and　popular　sense；　to　be　formless

or　empty；　or　in　any　respect　less　the　seat　of　law　and　order　than

it　is　now。　One　might　as　well　talk　of　a　fresh…laid　hen's　egg

being　〃without　form　and　void；〃　because　the　chick　therein　is

potential　and　not　actual；　as　apply　such　terms　to　the　nebulous

mass　which　contains　a　potential　solar　system。



Until　some　further　enlightenment　comes　to　me；　then；　I　confess

myself　wholly　unable　to　understand　the　way　in　which　the　nebular

hypothesis　is　to　be　converted　into　an　ally　of　the

〃Mosaic　writer。〃



But　Mr。　Gladstone　informs　us　that　Professor　Dana　and　Professor

Guyot　are　prepared　to　prove　that　the　〃first　or　cosmogonical

portion　of　the　Proem　not　only　accords　with；　but　teaches；　the

nebular　hypothesis。〃　There　is　no　one　to　whose　authority　on

geological　questions　I　am　more　readily　disposed　to　bow　than　that

of　my　eminent　friend　Professor　Dana。　But　I　am　familiar　with　what

he　has　previously　said　on　this　topic　in　his　well…known　and

standard　work；　into　which；　strangely　enough；　it　does　not　seem　to

have　occurred　to　Mr。　Gladstone　to　look　before　he　set　out　upon

his　present　undertaking；　and　unless　Professor　Dana's　latest

contribution　（which　I　have　not　yet　met　with）　takes　up　altogether

new　ground；　I　am　afraid　I　shall　not　be　able　to　extricate　myself；

by　its　help；　from　my　present　difficulties。



It　is　a　very　long　time　since　I　began　to　think　about　the

relations　between　modern　scientifically　ascertained　truths　and

the　cosmogonical　speculations　of　the　writer　of　Genesis；　and；　as

I　think　that　Mr。　Gladstone　might　have　been　able　to　put　his　case

with　a　good　deal　more　force；　if　he　had　thought　it　worth　while　to

consult　the　last　chapter　of　Professor　Dana's　admirable　〃Manual

of　Geology；〃　so　I　think　he　might　have　been　made　aware　that　he

was　undertaking　an　enterprise　of　which　he　had　not　counted　the

cost；　if　he　had　chanced　upon　a　discussion　of　the　subject　which　I

published　in　1877。



Finally；　I　should　like　to　draw　the　attention　of　those　who　take

interest　in　these　topics　to　the　weighty　words　of　one　of　the　most

learned　and　moderate　of　Biblical　critics：





〃A　propos　de　cette　premiere　page　de　la　Bible；　on　a　coutume　de

nos　jours　de　disserter；　a　perte　de　vue；　sur　l'accord　du　recit

mosaique　avec　les　sciences　naturelles；　et　comme　celles…ci　tout

eloignees　qu'elles　sont　encore　de　la　perfection　absolue；　ont

rendu　populaires　et　en　quelque　sorte　irrefragables　un　certain

nombre　de　faits　generaux　ou　de　theses　fondamentales　de　la

cosmologie　et　de　la　geologie；　c'est　le　texte　sacre　qu'on

s'evertue　a　torturer　pour　le　faire　concorder　avec

ces　donnees。〃





In　my　paper　on　the　〃Interpreters　of　Nature　and　the　Interpreters

of　Genesis；〃　while　freely　availing　myself　of　the　rights　of　a

scientific　critic；　I　endeavoured　to　keep　the　expression　of　my

views　well　within　those　bounds　of　courtesy　which　are　set　by

self…respect　and　consideration　for　others。　I　am　therefore　glad

to　be　favoured　with　Mr。　Gladstone's　acknowledgment　of　the

success　of　my　efforts。　I　only　wish　that　I　could　accept　all　the

products　of　Mr。　Gladstone's　gracious　appreciation；　but　there　is

one　about　which；　as　a　matter　of　honesty；　I　hesitate。　In　fact；　if

I　had　expressed　my　meaning　better　than　I　seem　to　have　done；　I

doubt　if　the　particular　proffer　of　Mr。　Gladstone's　thanks　would

have　been　made。



To　my　mind；　whatever　doctrine　professes　to　be　the　result　of　the

application　of　the　accepted　rules　of　inductive　and　deductive

logic　to　its　subject…matter；　and　which　accepts；　within　the

limits　which　it　sets　to　itself；　the　supremacy　of　reason；　is

Science。　Whether　the　subject…matter　consists　of　realities　or

unrealities；　truths　or　falsehoods；　is　quite　another　question。　I

conceive　that　ordinary　geometry　is　science；　by　reason　of　its

method；　and　I　also　believe　that　its　axioms；　definitions；　and

conclusions　are　all　true。　However；　there　is　a　geometry　of　four

dimensions；　which　I　also　believe　to　be　science；　because　its

method　professes　to　be　strictly　scientific。　It　is　true　that　I

cannot　conceive　four　dimensions　in　space；　and　therefore；　for　me；

the　whole　affair　is　unreal。　But　I　have　known　men　of　great

intellectual　powers　who　seemed　to　have　no　difficulty　either　in

conceiving　them；　or；　at　any　rate；　in　imagining　how　they　could

conceive　them；　and；　therefore；　four…dimensioned　geometry　comes

under　my　notion　of　science。　So　I　think　astrology　is　a　science；

in　so　far　as　it　professes　to　reason　logically　from　principles

established　by　just　inductive　methods。　To　prevent

misunderstanding；　perhaps　I　had　better　add　that　I　do　not　believe

one　whit　in　astrology；　but　no　more　do　I　believe　in　Ptolemaic

astronomy；　or　in　the　catastrophic　geology　of　my　youth；　although

these；　in　their　day；　claimedand；　to　my　mind；　rightly　claimed

the　name　of　science。　If　nothing　is　to　be　called　science　but　that

which　is　exactly　true　from　beginning　to　end；　I　am　afraid　there

is　very　little　science　in　the　world　outside　mathematics。

Among　the　physical　sciences；　I　do　not　know　that　any　could　claim

more　than　that　it　is　true　within　certain　limits；　so　narrow　that；

for　the　present　at　any　rate；　they　may　be　neglected。　If　such　is

the　case；　I　do　not　see　where　the　line　is　to　be　drawn　between

exactly　true；　partially　true；　and　mainly　untrue　forms　of

science。　And　what　I　have　said　about　the　current　theology　at　the

end　of　my　paper　＇supra　pp。　160…163＇　leaves；　I　think；　no

doubt　as　to　the　category　in　which　I　rank　it。　For　all　that；　I

think　it　would　be　not　only　unjust；　but　almost　impertinent；　to

refuse　the　name　of　science　to　the　〃Summa〃　of　St。　Thomas　or　to

the　〃Institutes〃　of　Calvin。



In　conclusion；　I　confess　that　my　supposed　〃unjaded　appetite〃　for

the　sort　of　controversy　in　which　it　needed　not　Mr。　Gladstone's

express　declaration　to　tell　us　he　is　far　better　practised　than　I

am　（though　probably；　without　another　express　declaration；　no　one

would　have　suspected　that　his　controversial　fires　are　burning

low）　is　already　satiated。



In　〃Elysium〃　we　conduct　scientific　discussions　in　a　different

medium；　and　we　are　liable　to　threatenings　of　asphyxia　in　that

〃atmosphere　of　contention〃　in　which　Mr。　Gladstone　has　been　able

to　live；　alert　and　vigorous　beyond　the　common　race　of　men；　as　if

it　were　purest　mountain　air。　I　trust　that　he　may　long　continue

to　seek　truth；　under　the　difficult　conditions　he　has　chosen　for

the　search；　with　unabated　energyI　had　almost　said　fire





May　age　not　wither　him；　nor　custom　stale

His　infinite　variety。





But　Elysium　suits　my　less　robust　constitution　better；　and　I　beg

leave　to　retire　thither；　not　sorry　for　my　experience　of　the

other　regionno　one　should　regret　experiencebut　determined

not　to　repeat　it；　at　any　rate　in　reference　to　the　〃plea

for　revelation。〃







NOTE　ON　THE　PROPER　SENSE　OF　THE　〃MOSAIC〃　NARRATIVE

OF　THE　CREATION。



It　has　been　objected　to　my　argument　from　Leviticus　（suprà

p。　170）　that　the　Hebrew　words　translated　by　〃creeping　things〃　in

Genesis　i。　24　and　Leviticus　xi。　29；　are　different；　namely；

〃reh…mes〃　in　the　former；　〃sheh…retz〃　in　the　latter。　The　obvious

reply　to　this　objection　is　that　the　question　is　not　one　of　words

but　of　the　meaning　of　words。　To　borrow　an　illustration　from　our

own　language；　if　〃crawling　things〃　had　been　used　by　the

translators　in　Genesis　and　〃creeping　things〃　in　Leviticus；　it

would　not　have　been　necessarily　implied　that　they　intended　to

denote　different　groups　of　animals。　〃Sheh…retz〃　is　employed　in　a

wider　sense　than　〃reh…mes。〃　There　are　〃sheh…retz〃　of　the　waters

of　the　earth；　of　the　air；　and　of　the　land。　Leviticus　speaks　of

land　reptiles；　among　other　animals；　as　〃sheh…retz〃；

Genesis　speaks　of　all　creeping　land　animals；　among　which　land

reptiles　are　necessarily　included；　as　〃reh…mes。〃

Our　translators；　therefore；　have　given　the　true　sense　when　they

render　both　〃sheh…retz〃　and　〃reh…mes〃　by　〃creeping　things。〃



Having　taken　a　good　deal　of　trouble　to　show　what　Genesis　i。…ii。

4　does　not　mean；　in　the　precedin