182 MK. GLADSTONE AND OEXESIS v 



philosophy; and (.'*) tliat I should show causo for 

 my hesitation in accepting the assertion that 

 ( ! nesis is supported, at any rate to the extent of 

 ill.' first two verses, by the nebular hypothesis. 

 A certain sense of humour prevents me from 



j'ting 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 ivspect 

 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 unintel- 

 ligible to ignorant people ; but how is the matter 

 in* -ndrd if, being scientifically untrue, they must 

 i !><< Is be rejected by instructed people ? 



With ivspect to the second suggestion, it would 

 be presumptuous in me to pretend to instruet Mr. 

 ( Gladstone in matters which lie as much within the 

 province of Literatim- and History as in that of 

 S.-i.-nrr ; but if any one desirous of further know- 

 I'-dgo will be so good as to turn to that most 



llrnt and by no means recondite sourer of in- 

 t"rm;itioii. the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," he will 

 find, undrr tlir Irttrr K, the word "Evolution," 

 and a long article on that subject. Now, T do 

 not rrrommrnd him to read the first half of the 



