His MI;. GLADSTONE AND GENESIS v 



Socrai' > i- ivp>rted to have said of the works 

 of Heraclitus that he who attempted to eom- 

 pivhend them should be a "Delian swimmer, 

 but that, for his part, what he could understand 

 \\.is so good that he was disposed to believe in 

 the excellence of that which he found unin- 

 telligible. In endeavouring to make myself 

 master of Mr. Gladstone's meaning in these pa_ 

 I have often been overcome by a feeling analo- 

 gous to that of Socrates, but not quite the same. 

 That which I do understand has appeared to me 

 so very much the reverse of good, that I ha\v 

 sometimes permitted myself to doubt the value 

 of that which I do not understand. 



In this part of Mr. Gladstone's reply, in fact, I 

 lii id nothing of which the bearing upon my argu- 

 ments is clear to me, except that which relates to 

 ili< i question whether reptiles, so far as they are 

 represented by tortoises and the great majority of 

 li/ards and snakes, which are land animals, are 

 hoping things in the sense of the pentateuchal 

 writer or not. 



I have every respect for the singer of the Song 

 of the Three Children (whoever lie may have 

 1" en) ; I desire to cast no shadow of doubt upon, 

 hut, on the contrary, marvel at, the exactness of 

 Mr. Gladstone's information as to the considera- 

 tions which "affected the method of the Mosaic 

 \\riter'; nor do 1 venture to doubt thai tin- 

 inconvenient intrusion of these contemptible ivp- 



