THE INTERPRETERS OF GENESIS AND THE INTERPRETERS OF NATURE

ESSAY #4 FROM "SCIENCE AND HEBREW TRADITION"

By Thomas Henry Huxley

Our fabulist warns "those who in quarrels interpose" of the fate whichis probably in store for them; and, in venturing to place myself betweenso powerful a controversialist as Mr. Gladstone and the eminent divinewhom he assaults with such vigour in the last number of this Review, [1]I am fully aware that I run great danger of verifying Gay's prediction. Moreover, it is quite possible that my zeal in offering aid to acombatant so extremely well able to take care of himself as M. Revillemay be thought to savour of indiscretion. 

Two considerations, however, have led me to face the double risk. Theone is that though, in my judgment, M. Reville is wholly in the rightin that part of the controversy to which I propose to restrict myobservations, nevertheless he, as a foreigner, has very little chance ofmaking the truth prevail with Englishmen against the authority and thedialectic skill of the greatest master of persuasive rhetoric amongEnglish-speaking men of our time. As the Queen's proctor intervenes, incertain cases, between two litigants in the interests of justice, soit may be permitted me to interpose as a sort of uncommissioned scienceproctor. My second excuse for my meddlesomeness is, that importantquestions of natural science--respecting which neither of the combatantsprofesses to speak as an expert--are involved in the controversy; andI think it is desirable that the public should know what it is thatnatural science really has to say on these topics, to the best beliefof one who has been a diligent student of natural science for the lastforty years. 

The original "Prolegomenes de l'Histoire des Religions" has not come inmy way; but I have read the translation of M. Reville's work, publishedin England under the auspices of Professor Max Muller, with very greatinterest. It puts more fairly and clearly than any book previously knownto me, the view which a man of strong religious feelings, but at thesame time possessing the information and the reasoning power whichenable him to estimate the strength of scientific methods of inquiry andthe weight of scientific truth, may be expected to take of the relationbetween science and religion. 

In the chapter on "The Primitive Revelation" the scientific worth ofthe account of the Creation given in the book of Genesis is estimatedin terms which are as unquestionably respectful as, in my judgment, theyare just; and, at the end of the chapter on "Primitive Tradition, " M. Reville appraises the value of pentateuchal anthropology in a way whichI should have thought sure of enlisting the assent of all competentjudges, even if it were extended to the whole of the cosmogony andbiology of Genesis:--

 As, however, the original traditions of nations sprang up in an epoch less remote than our own from the primitive life, it is indispensable to consult them, to compare them, and to associate them with other sources of information which are available. From this point of view, the traditions recorded in Genesis possess, in addition to their own peculiar charm, a value of the highest order; but we cannot ultimately see in them more than a venerable fragment, well-deserving attention, of the great genesis of mankind. 

Mr. Gladstone is of a different mind. He dissents from M. Reville'sviews respecting the proper estimation of the pentateuchal traditions, no less than he does from his interpretation of those Homeric mythswhich have been the object of his own special study. In the latter case, Mr. Gladstone tells M. Reville that he is wrong on his own authority, to which, in such a matter, all will pay due respect: in the former, heaffirms himself to be "wholly destitute of that kind of knowledge whichcarries authority, " and his rebuke is administered in the name and bythe authority of natural science. 

An air of magisterial gravity hangs about the following passage:--

 But the question is not here of a lofty poem, or a skilfully constructed narrative: it is whether natural science, in the patient exercise of its high calling to examine facts, finds that the works of God cry out against what we have fondly believed to be His word and tell another tale; or whether, in this nineteenth century of Christian progress, it substantially echoes back the majestic sound, which, before it existed as a pursuit, went forth into all lands. 

 First, looking largely at the latter portion of the narrative, which describes the creation of living organisms, and waiving details, on some of which (as in v. 24) the Septuagint seems to vary from the Hebrew, there is a grand fourfold division, set forth in an orderly succession of times as follows: on the fifth day

 1. The water-population; 2. The air-population; and, on the sixth day, 3. The land-population of animals; 4. The land-population consummated in man. "Now this same fourfold order is understood to have been so affirmed in our time by natural science, that it may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact. " (p. 696). 

"Understood?" By whom? I cannot bring myself to imagine that Mr. Gladstone has made so solemn and authoritative a statement on a matterof this importance without due inquiry--without being able to foundhimself upon recognised scientific authority. But I wish he had thoughtfit to name the source from whence he has derived his information, as, in that case, I could have dealt with [143] his authority, and I shouldhave thereby escaped the appearance of making an attack on Mr. Gladstonehimself, which is in every way distasteful to me. 

For I can meet the statement in the last paragraph of the above citationwith nothing but a direct negative. If I know anything at all aboutthe results attained by the natural science of our time, it is "ademonstrated conclusion and established fact" that the "fourfold order"given by Mr. Gladstone is not that in which the evidence at our disposaltends to show that the water, air, and land-populations of the globehave made their appearance. 

Perhaps I may be told that Mr. Gladstone does give his authority--thathe cites Cuvier, Sir John Herschel, and Dr. Whewell in support of hiscase. If that has been Mr. Gladstone's intention in mentioning theseeminent names, I may remark that, on this particular question, the onlyrelevant authority is that of Cuvier. But great as Cuvier was, it is tobe remembered that, as Mr. Gladstone incidentally remarks, he cannot nowbe called a recent authority. In fact, he has been dead more than halfa century; and the palaeontology of our day is related to that of his, very much as the geography of the sixteenth century is related to thatof the fourteenth. Since 1832, when Cuvier died, not only a new world, but new worlds, of ancient life have been discovered; and those whohave most faithfully carried on the work of the chief founder ofpalaeontology have done most to invalidate the essentially negativegrounds of his speculative adherence to tradition. 

If Mr. Gladstone's latest information on these matters is derivedfrom the famous discourse prefixed to the "Ossemens Fossiles, " Ican understand the position he has taken up; if he has ever opened arespectable modern manual of palaeontology, or geology, I cannot. For the facts which demolish his whole argument are of the commonestnotoriety. But before proceeding to consider the evidence for thisassertion we must be clear about the meaning of the phraseologyemployed. 

I apprehend that when Mr. Gladstone uses the term "water-population" hemeans those animals which in Genesis i. 21 (Revised Version) are spokenof as "the great sea monsters and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind. " And Ipresume that it will be agreed that whales and porpoises, sea fishes, and the innumerable hosts of marine invertebrated animals, are meantthereby. So "air-population" must be the equivalent of "fowl" in verse20, and "every winged fowl after its kind, " verse 21. I suppose I maytake it for granted that by "fowl" we have here to understand birds--atany rate primarily. Secondarily, it may be that the bats and the extinctpterodactyles, which were flying reptiles, come under the same head. But whether all insects are "creeping things" of the land-population, or whether flying insects are to be included under the denomination of"winged fowl, " is a point for the decision of Hebrew exegetes. Lastly, I suppose I may assume that "land-population" signifies "the cattle" and"the beasts of the earth, " and "every creeping thing that creepeth uponthe earth, " in verses 25 and 26; presumably it comprehends all kinds ofterrestrial animals, vertebrate and invertebrate, except such as may becomprised under the head of the "air-population. "

Now what I want to make clear is this: that if the terms"water-population, " "air-population, " and "land-population" areunderstood in the senses here defined, natural science has nothing tosay in favour of the proposition that they succeeded one another inthe order given by Mr. Gladstone; but that, on the contrary, all theevidence we possess goes to prove that they did not. Whence it willfollow that, if Mr. Gladstone has interpreted Genesis rightly (on whichpoint I am most anxious to be understood to offer no opinion), thatinterpretation is wholly irreconcilable with the conclusions at presentaccepted by the interpreters of nature--with everything that can becalled "a demonstrated conclusion and established fact" of naturalscience. And be it observed that I am not here dealing with a questionof speculation, but with a question of fact. 

Either the geological record is sufficiently complete to afford usa means of determining the order in which animals have made theirappearance on the globe or it is not. If it is, the determination ofthat order is little more than a mere matter of observation; if it isnot, then natural science neither affirms nor refutes the "fourfoldorder, " but is simply silent. 

The series of the fossiliferous deposits, which contain the remains ofthe animals which have lived on the earth in past ages of its history, and which can alone afford the evidence required by natural science ofthe order of appearance of their different species, may be grouped inthe manner shown in the left-hand column of the following table, theoldest being at the bottom:--

 Formations First known appearance of Quaternary. Pliocene. Miocene. Eocene. Vertebrate _air_-population (Bats). Cretaceous. Jurassic. Vertebrate _air_-population (Birds and Pterodactyles). Triassic. Upper Palaeozoic. Middle Palaeozoic. Vertebrate _land_-population (Amphibia, Reptilia [?]). Lower Palaeozoic. Silurian. Vertebrate _water_-population (Fishes). Invertebrate _air_ and _land_- population (Flying Insects and Scorpions). Cambrian. Invertebrate _water_-population (much earlier, if _Eozoon_ is animal). 

In the right-hand column I have noted the group of strata in which, according to our present information, the _land, air, _ and _water_populations respectively appear for the first time; and in consequenceof the ambiguity about the meaning of "fowl, " I have separatelyindicated the first appearance of bats, birds, flying reptiles, andflying insects. It will be observed that, if "fowl" means only "bird, "or at most flying vertebrate, then the first certain evidence of thelatter, in the Jurassic epoch, is posterior to the first appearanceof truly terrestrial _Amphibia, _ and possibly of true reptiles, in theCarboniferous epoch (Middle Palaeozoic) by a prodigious interval oftime. 

The water-population of vertebrated animals first appears in the UpperSilurian. [2] Therefore, if we found ourselves on vertebrated animalsand take "fowl" to mean birds only, or, at most, flying vertebrates, natural science says that the order of succession was water, land, andair-population, and not--as Mr. Gladstone, founding himself on Genesis, says--water, air, land-population. If a chronicler of Greece affirmedthat the age of Alexander preceded that of Pericles and immediatelysucceeded that of the Trojan war, Mr. Gladstone would hardly say thatthis order is "understood to have been so affirmed by historical sciencethat it may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact. "Yet natural science "affirms" his "fourfold order" to exactly the sameextent--neither more nor less. 

Suppose, however, that "fowl" is to be taken to include flying insects. In that case, the first appearance of an air-population must be shiftedback for long ages, recent discovery having shown that they occur inrocks of Silurian age. Hence there might still have been hope for thefourfold order, were it not that the fates unkindly determinedthat scorpions--"creeping things that creep on the earth" _parexcellence--_turned up in Silurian strata nearly at the same time. Sothat, if the word in the original Hebrew translated "fowl" should reallyafter all mean "cockroach"--and I have great faith in the elasticityof that tongue in the hands of Biblical exegetes--the order primarilysuggested by the existing evidence--

 2. Land and air-population; 1. Water-population;

and Mr. Gladstone's order--

 3. Land-population; 2. Air-population; 1. Water-population;

can by no means be made to coincide. As a matter of fact, then, the statement so confidently put forward turns out to be devoid offoundation and in direct contradiction of the evidence at present at ourdisposal. [3]

If, stepping beyond that which may be learned from the facts of thesuccessive appearance of the forms of animal life upon the surfaceof the globe, in so far as they are yet made known to us by naturalscience, we apply our reasoning faculties to the task of findingout what those observed facts mean, the present conclusions of theinterpreters of nature appear to be no less directly in conflict withthose of the latest interpreter of Genesis. 

Mr. Gladstone appears to admit that there is some truth in the doctrineof evolution, and indeed places it under very high patronage. 

 I contend that evolution in its highest form has not been a thing heretofore unknown to history, to philosophy, or to theology. I contend that it was before the mind of Saint Paul when he taught that in the fulness of time God sent forth His Son, and of Eusebius when he wrote the "Preparation for the Gospel, " and of Augustine when he composed the "City of God" (p. 706). 

Has any one ever disputed the contention, thus solemnly enunciated, thatthe doctrine of evolution was not invented the day before yesterday? Hasany one ever dreamed of claiming it as a modern innovation? Is there anyone so ignorant of the history of philosophy as to be unaware that itis one of the forms in which speculation embodied itself long before thetime either of the Bishop of Hippo or of the Apostle to the Gentiles?Is Mr. Gladstone, of all people in the world, disposed to ignore thefounders of Greek philosophy, to say nothing of Indian sages to whomevolution was a familiar notion ages before Paul of Tarsus was born?But it is ungrateful to cavil at even the most oblique admission of thepossible value of one of those affirmations of natural science whichreally may be said to be "a demonstrated conclusion and establishedfact. " I note it with pleasure, if only for the purpose of introducingthe observation that, if there is any truth whatever in the doctrine ofevolution as applied to animals, Mr. Gladstone's gloss on Genesis in thefollowing passage is hardly happy:--

 God created (a) The water-population; (b) The air-population. 

 And they receive His benediction (v. 20-23). 

 6. Pursuing this regular progression from the lower to the higher, from the simple to the complex, the text now gives us the work of the sixth "day, " which supplies the land-population, air and water having been already supplied (pp. 695, 696). 

The gloss to which I refer is the assumption that the "air-population"forms a term in the order of progression from lower to higher, fromsimple to complex--the place of which lies between the water-populationbelow and the land-population above--and I speak of it as a "gloss, "because the pentateuchal writer is nowise responsible for it. 

But it is not true that the air-population, as a whole, is "lower" orless "complex" than the land-population. On the contrary, every beginnerin the study of animal morphology is aware that the organisation of abat, of a bird, or of a pterodactyle presupposes that of a terrestrialquadruped; and that it is intelligible only as an extreme modificationof the organisation of a terrestrial mammal or reptile. In the same waywinged insects (if they are to be counted among the "air-population")presuppose insects which were wingless, and, therefore, as "creepingthings, " were part of the land-population. Thus theory is as muchopposed as observation to the admission that natural science endorsesthe succession of animal life which Mr. Gladstone finds in Genesis. Onthe contrary, a good many representatives of natural science would beprepared to say, on theoretical grounds alone, that it isincredible that the "air-population" should have appeared beforethe "land-population"--and that, if this assertion is to be found inGenesis, it merely demonstrates the scientific worthlessness of thestory of which it forms a part. 

Indeed, we may go further. It is not even admissible to say thatthe water-population, as a whole, appeared before the air and theland-populations. According to the Authorised Version, Genesisespecially mentions, among the animals created on the fifth day, "great whales, " in place of which the Revised Version reads "greatsea monsters. " Far be it from me to give an opinion which rendering isright, or whether either is right. All I desire to remark is, thatif whales and porpoises, dugongs and manatees, are to be regarded asmembers of the water-population (and if they are not, what animals canclaim the designation?), then that much of the water-population has, ascertainly, originated later than the land-population as bats and birdshave. For I am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate toadmit that the organisation of these animals shows the most obvioussigns of their descent from terrestrial quadrupeds. 

A similar criticism applies to Mr. Gladstone's assumption that, as thefourth act of that "orderly succession of times" enunciated in Genesis, "the land-population consummated in man. "

If this means simply that man is the final term in the evolutionalseries of which he forms a part, I do not suppose that any objectionwill be raised to that statement on the part of students of naturalscience. But if the pentateuchal author goes further than this, andintends to say that which is ascribed to him by Mr. Gladstone, I thinknatural science will have to enter a _caveat. _ It is not by any meanscertain that man--I mean the species _Homo sapiens_ of zoologicalterminology--has "consummated" the land-population in the sense ofappearing at a later period of time than any other. Let me make mymeaning clear by an example. From a morphological point of view, our beautiful and useful contemporary--I might almost call himcolleague--the horse (_Equus caballus_), is the last term of theevolutional series to which he belongs, just as _Homo sapiens_ is thelast term of the series of which he is a member. If I want to knowwhether the species _Equus caballus_ made its appearance on the surfaceof the globe before or after _Homo sapiens, _ deduction from known lawsdoes not help me. There is no reason, that I know of, why one shouldhave appeared sooner or later than the other. If I turn to observation, I find abundant remains of _Equus caballus_ in Quaternary strata, perhaps a little earlier. The existence of _Homo sapiens_ in theQuaternary epoch is also certain. Evidence has been adduced in favour ofman's existence in the Pliocene, or even in the Miocene epoch. It doesnot satisfy me; but I have no reason to doubt that the fact may be so, nevertheless. Indeed, I think it is quite possible that further researchwill show that _Homo sapiens_ existed, not only before _Equus caballus, _but before many other of the existing forms of animal life; so that, ifall the species of animals have been separately created, man, in thiscase, would by no means be the "consummation" of the land-population. 

I am raising no objection to the position of the fourth term in Mr. Gladstone's "order"--on the facts, as they stand, it is quite open toany one to hold, as a pious opinion, that the fabrication of man was theacme and final achievement of the process of peopling the globe. Butit must not be said that natural science counts this opinion among her"demonstrated conclusions and established facts, " for there would bejust as much, or as little, reason for ranging the contrary opinionamong them. 

It may seem superfluous to add to the evidence that Mr. Gladstone hasbeen utterly misled in supposing that his interpretation of Genesisreceives any support from natural science. But it is as well to do one'swork thoroughly while one is about it; and I think it may be advisableto point out that the facts, as they are at present known, not onlyrefute Mr. Gladstone's interpretation of Genesis in detail, but areopposed to the central idea on which it appears to be based. 

There must be some position from which the reconcilers of science andGenesis will not retreat, some central idea the maintenance of which isvital and its refutation fatal. Even if they now allow that the words"the evening and the morning" have not the least reference to a naturalday, but mean a period of any number of millions of years that may benecessary; even if they are driven to admit that the word "creation, "which so many millions of pious Jews and Christians have held, and stillhold, to mean a sudden act of the Deity, signifies a process of gradualevolution of one species from another, extending through immeasurabletime; even if they are willing to grant that the asserted coincidence ofthe order of Nature with the "fourfold order" ascribed to Genesis is anobvious error instead of an established truth; they are surely preparedto make a last stand upon the conception which underlies the whole, andwhich constitutes the essence of Mr. Gladstone's "fourfold division, setforth in an orderly succession of times. " It is, that the animalspecies which compose the water-population, the air-population, andthe land-population respectively, originated during three distinct andsuccessive periods of time, and only during those periods of time. 

This statement appears to me to be the interpretation of Genesis whichMr. Gladstone supports, reduced to its simplest expression. "Periodof time" is substituted for "day"; "originated" is substituted for"created"; and "any order required" for that adopted by Mr. Gladstone. It is necessary to make this proviso, for if "day" may mean a fewmillion years, and "creation" may mean evolution, then it isobvious that the order (1) water-population, (2) air-population, (3) land-population, may also mean (1) water-population, (2)land-population, (3) air-population; and it would be unkind to bind downthe reconcilers to this detail when one has parted with so many othersto oblige them. 

But even this sublimated essence of the pentateuchal doctrine (if it besuch) remains as discordant with natural science as ever. 

It is not true that the species composing any one of the threepopulations originated during any one of three successive periods oftime, and not at any other of these. 

Undoubtedly, it is in the highest degree probable that animal lifeappeared first under aquatic conditions; that terrestrial forms appearedlater, and flying animals only after land animals; but it is, at thesame time, testified by all the evidence we possess, that the greatmajority, if not the whole, of the primordial species of each divisionhave long since died out and have been replaced by a vast succession ofnew forms. Hundreds of thousands of animal species, as distinct as thosewhich now compose our water, land, and air-populations, have come intoexistence and died out again, throughout the aeons of geological timewhich separate us from the lower Palaeozoic epoch, when, as I havepointed out, our present evidence of the existence of such distinctpopulations commences. If the species of animals have all beenseparately created, then it follows that hundreds of thousands of actsof creative energy have occurred, at intervals, throughout the wholetime recorded by the fossiliferous rocks; and, during the greater partof that time, the "creation" of the members of the water, land, andair-populations must have gone on contemporaneously. 

If we represent the water, land, and air-populations by _a, b, _ and _c_respectively, and take vertical succession on the page to indicateorder in time, then the following schemes will roughly shadow forth thecontrast I have been endeavouring to explain:

 Genesis (as interpreted by Nature (as interpreted by Mr. Gladstone). Natural science). _b b b c1 a3 b2 c c c c a2 b1 a a a b a1 b a a a_

So far as I can see, there is only one resource left for those modernrepresentatives of Sisyphus, the reconcilers of Genesis with science;and it has the advantage of being founded on a perfectly legitimateappeal to our ignorance. It has been seen that, on any interpretation ofthe terms water-population and land-population, it must be admitted thatinvertebrate representatives of these populations existed during thelower Palaeozoic epoch. No evolutionist can hesitate to admit that otherland animals (and possibly vertebrates among them) may have existedduring that time, of the history of which we know so little; and, further, that scorpions are animals of such high organisation that itis highly probable their existence indicates that of a long antecedentland-population of a similar character. 

Then, since the land-population is said not to have been created untilthe sixth day, it necessarily follows that the evidence of the orderin which animals appeared must be sought in the record of those olderPalaeozoic times in which only traces of the water-population have asyet been discovered. 

Therefore, if any one chooses to say that the creative work took placein the Cambrian or Laurentian epoch, in exactly that manner which Mr. Gladstone does, and natural science does not, affirm, natural scienceis not in a position to disprove the accuracy of the statement. Onlyone cannot have one's cake and eat it too, and such safety from thecontradiction of science means the forfeiture of her support. 

Whether the account of the work of the first, second, and third daysin Genesis would be confirmed by the demonstration of the truth of thenebular hypothesis; whether it is corroborated by what is known of thenature and probable relative antiquity of the heavenly bodies; whether, if the Hebrew word translated "firmament" in the Authorised Versionreally means "expanse, " the assertion that the waters are partly underthis "expanse" and partly above it would be any more confirmed by theascertained facts of physical geography and meteorology than itwas before; whether the creation of the whole vegetable world, andespecially of "grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and treebearing fruit, " before any kind of animal, is "affirmed" by theapparently plain teaching of botanical palaeontology, that grassesand fruit-trees originated long subsequently to animals all these arequestions which, if I mistake not, would be answered decisively inthe negative by those who are specially conversant with the sciencesinvolved. And it must be recollected that the issue raised by Mr. Gladstone is not whether, by some effort of ingenuity, the pentateuchalstory can be shown to be not disprovable by scientific knowledge, butwhether it is supported thereby. 

 There is nothing, then, in the criticisms of Dr. Reville but what rather tends to confirm than to impair the old-fashioned belief that there is a revelation in the book of Genesis (p. 694). 

The form into which Mr. Gladstone has thought fit to throw this opinionleaves me in doubt as to its substance. I do not understand how ahostile criticism can, under any circumstances, tend to confirm thatwhich it attacks. If, however, Mr. Gladstone merely means to express hispersonal impression, "as one wholly destitute of that kind of knowledgewhich carries authority, " that he has destroyed the value of thesecriticisms, I have neither the wish nor the right to attempt to disturbhis faith. On the other hand, I may be permitted to state my ownconviction, that, so far as natural science is involved, M. Reville'sobservations retain the exact value they possessed before Mr. Gladstoneattacked them. 

Trusting that I have now said enough to secure the author of a wise andmoderate disquisition upon a topic which seems fated to stir unwisdomand fanaticism to their depths, a fuller measure of justice thanhas hitherto been accorded to him, I retire from my self-appointedchampionship, with the hope that I shall not hereafter be called upon byM. Reville to apologise for damage done to his strong case by imperfector impulsive advocacy. But, perhaps, I may be permitted to add a wordor two, on my own account, in reference to the great question of therelations between science and religion; since it is one about which Ihave thought a good deal ever since I have been able to think at all;and about which I have ventured to express my views publicly, more thanonce, in the course of the last thirty years. 

The antagonism between science and religion, about which we hear somuch, appears to me to be purely factitious--fabricated, on the onehand, by short-sighted religious people who confound a certain branchof science, theology, with religion; and, on the other, by equallyshort-sighted scientific people who forget that science takes forits province only that which is susceptible of clear intellectualcomprehension; and that, outside the boundaries of that province, theymust be content with imagination, with hope, and with ignorance. 

It seems to me that the moral and intellectual life of the civilisednations of Europe is the product of that interaction, sometimes in theway of antagonism, sometimes in that of profitable interchange, of theSemitic and the Aryan races, which commenced with the dawn of history, when Greek and Phoenician came in contact, and has been continued byCarthaginian and Roman, by Jew and Gentile, down to the present day. Ourart (except, perhaps, music) and our science are the contributions ofthe Aryan; but the essence of our religion is derived from the Semite. In the eighth century B. C. , in the heart of a world of idolatrouspolytheists, the Hebrew prophets put forth a conception of religionwhich appears to me to be as wonderful an inspiration of genius as theart of Pheidias or the science of Aristotle. 

"And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to lovemercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

If any so-called religion takes away from this great saying of Micah, I think it wantonly mutilates, while, if it adds thereto, I think itobscures, the perfect ideal of religion. 

But what extent of knowledge, what acuteness of scientific criticism, can touch this, if any one possessed of knowledge, or acuteness, couldbe absurd enough to make the attempt? Will the progress of researchprove that justice is worthless and mercy hateful; will it ever softenthe bitter contrast between our actions and our aspirations; or show usthe bounds of the universe and bid us say, Go to, now we comprehend theinfinite? A faculty of wrath lay in those ancient Israelites, and surelythe prophet's staff would have made swift acquaintance with the head ofthe scholar who had asked Micah whether, peradventure, the Lord furtherrequired of him an implicit belief in the accuracy of the cosmogony ofGenesis!

What we are usually pleased to call religion nowadays is, for the mostpart, Hellenised Judaism; and, not unfrequently, the Hellenic elementcarries with it a mighty remnant of old-world paganism and a greatinfusion of the worst and weakest products of Greek scientificspeculation; while fragments of Persian and Babylonian, or ratherAccadian, mythology burden the Judaic contribution to the common stock. 

The antagonism of science is not to religion, but to the heathensurvivals and the bad philosophy under which religion herself is oftenwell-nigh crushed. And, for my part, I trust that this antagonism willnever cease; but that, to the end of time, true science will continue tofulfil one of her most beneficent functions, that of relieving men fromthe burden of false science which is imposed upon them in the name ofreligion. 

This is the work that M. Reville and men such as he are doing for us;this is the work which his opponents are endeavouring, consciously orunconsciously, to hinder. 

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: _The Nineteenth Century. _]

[Footnote 2: Earlier, if more recent announcements are correct. ]

[Footnote 3: It may be objected that I have not put the case fairlyinasmuch as the solitary insect's wing which was discovered twelvemonths ago in Silurian rocks, and which is, at present, the soleevidence of insects older than the Devonian epoch, came from strata ofMiddle Silurian age, and is therefore older than the scorpions which, within the last two years, have been found in Upper Silurian strata inSweden, Britain, and the United States. But no one who comprehends thenature of the evidence afforded by fossil remains would venture to saythat the non-discovery of scorpions in the Middle Silurian strata, upto this time, affords any more ground for supposing that they did notexist, than the non-discovery of flying insects in the Upper Silurianstrata, up to this time, throws any doubt on the certainty that theyexisted, which is derived from the occurrence of the wing in the MiddleSilurian. In fact, I have stretched a point in admitting that thesefossils afford a colourable pretext for the assumption that the land andair-population were of contemporaneous origin. ]