5 2 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



of similar rudiments. A person who is not a Hebrew scholar can only 

 stand by and admire the marvelous flexibility of a language which 

 admits of such diverse interpretations. 



Assuredly, in the face of such contradictory authority upon mat- 

 ters upon which he is competent to form no judgment, he will abstain 

 from giving any opinion, as I do. In the third place, I have carefully 

 abstained from speaking of this as a Mosaic doctrine, because Ave are 

 now assured upon the authority of the highest critics, and even of 

 dignitaries in the Church, that there is no evidence whatever that 

 Moses ever wrote this chapter, or knew anything about it. You will 

 understand that I give no opinion it would be an impertinence upon 

 my part to volunteer an opinion upon such a subject. But, that being 

 the state of opinion among the scholars and the clergy, it is well for 

 us the laity, who stand outside, to avoid entangling ourselves in such 

 a vexed question. So, as happily Milton leaves us no conceivable am- 

 biguity as to what he means, I will continue to speak of the opinion 

 in question as the Miltonian hypothesis. 



Now we have to test that hypothesis. For my part, I have no 

 prejudice one way or the other. If there is evidence in favor of this 

 view, I have no sort of theoretical difficulties in the way of accepting 

 it, but there must be evidence. We scientific men get an awkward 

 habit no, I won't call it that, for it is a valuable habit of reason- 

 ing, so that we believe nothing unless there is evidence for it; and we 

 have a way of looking upon belief which is not based upon evidence, 

 not only as illogical, but as immoral. We will, if you please, test this 

 view iu the light of facts, for by what I have said you will understand 

 that I don't propose to discuss the question of what testimonial evi- 

 dence is to be adduced in favor of this view. If those whose business 

 it is to judge are not at one as to the authenticity of the document, 

 or as to the facts to which it bears witness, the discussion of testimo- 

 nial evidence is superfluous. But one regards this less because the 

 circumstantial evidence, if carefully considered, leads to the conclu- 

 sion that the hypothesis is altogether inadequate, and cannot be sus- 

 tained. And the considerations upon which I base that conclusion 

 are of the simplest possible character. Whatever the flexibility of in- 

 terpretation of the statement on which Milton's hypothesis is based, 

 it is quite impossible to deny that it contains assertions of a very 

 definite character relating to the succession of living forms. It is 

 stated that plants, for example, made their appearance upon the third 

 day, and not before. And you will understand that what was meant 

 by plants are plants which now live the trees and shrubs which 

 we now have. One of two things either the existing plants have 

 been the result of a separate origination of which we have no record 

 or ground for supposition, or else they have arisen by process of 

 evolution from the original stock. And, in the second place, it is 

 clear that there was no animal life before the fourth day, and that on 



