New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-09-19

choose tho terms which are much more IA
! milar to you, such "the doctrine Of ere
aton" or" tho Biblical doctrine" the doctrine
of Moses" all of which terms applied to tho hy-
pothesis to which have just referred are certainly
much more familiar to You than the title Of the
Miltonic hypothesis. Bat have had what cannot
but think axe very weighty reasons for taking the
course which have pursued. For example, have
discarded the title OF tie hypothesis Ol creation. be-
cause my present business is not with the question as
to how nature has originated, as to the causes wmei,
have lead 90 her orgnaOD but as t. The manner anu
order of her OrginalOn. Our present inquiry IL not
why the objects which constitute nature came INTO
existence, but when they came uto existence, ana
in what order. This is strictly historical question:,
a question completely historical as that about the
date ut which the Angles and the Jules l1yadeh
England. But the other question about creation Is
a philosophical question, and one which cannot be
solved or approached touched by tee Historical
method. What we want To know - whether therc
is evidence IN the facts go far ~ they are EnoWn,
that things arose in the way described by Milton or
not; ana when that question is settled, II MI De
time enough to inquire as TO the manner III Whlch
they arose.
In the second place. have not spoken of it as the
Biblical hypothesis. Ii is quite true chat persons rs
diverse their general views as Milton Che Protes-
tant and celebrated Jesuit Father, each read III
the Isl chapter of Genesis the Interpretation as
adopted IL il quite true that that interpr;la-
ton, unless l mistake, is thate Wnieh mas nS
been inStlllcd into every one ~ lis III our
childhood; but | do not for one mOment ven
ture 10 say that il could properly be called the
Biblical doctrine. In the first place, that Is NOT my
business 10 say what the Hebrew text contains, ana
what il does not and in the second place, were 20
say that this was the Biblical hypothesis, shouiu
he met by the authority of many eminent scholars
to say nothing of men of science who IN recent tmcs
have absolutely denied that this doctrine Is 10 De
found i'll Genesis at all If we are TO hste 10 oe ~
we must believe what seems so clearly deilou as ~
as very great pains have been taken ,Py tlctn
TO make no mistake. Tbe account IS divided INTO
periods that we may make JUST rs iohg as con.
yenience requires We are also to understand t0at
il is consistent with that phrascoiOgy 10 DesNe 'Ia
plants aud animals may have bcen eFoNeu o1
natural processes, lasting for millions OF years, oul
of similar Tudiments. person VINO Is NOT
Hebrew scholar can only stand by ana admire cue
marvellous hexibIty OF Language which hil'tS Vi
such diverse interpretations.
PROP HUXLEY NOT AN AUTHORITY on THE BIBLE.
Assuredly in the face Of such contradictory au-
thority upon matters upon which he Is competent 10
form no Judgment, he will abstain from giving any
opinion as do aud in the third place, have care
fully abstained from speaking OF this as Mosaic
doctrine because we are now assured upon the au-
thority of the highest critics. and even OF
dignitaries in the Church, that there IS
no evidence whatever that Moses ever wrote this
chapter, OF knew anything about it. don't say
give no opinion-it would be an impsrtinoncc upon
my part to volunteer an opinion upon such sub
iect. But that being the state OF opinion among the
scholars and the clergy, II ~ well for us the ialty,
who stand outside, 10 avoid entanglng ourselves IN
such yexed question. so M there Is a doubt, ana
as happily Milton leaves us no cOncclyaDle anpigu-
ity AZ TO what he means will continue to speak OF
II az the MiltOnan hypothesis lApplausc.l
Now then we have 10 test that hypothesis. For
my part | have no prejudice one way or the other
II there is evidence IN favor OF tGls view nave no
sort of theoretical difficulties in the way OF accept
ing il, but there must be evidence. We men Lot an
awkward habit-no l won't call it that, for
il is valuable habit-Of reasoning so
tina; we believe nothing unless there ~
evidence for IT,, and we have way Gl
looking upon belief winch y not based upon cyl
dence not only as Illogical but rs immoral we
will If you please test this view IN the hight OF
facts, for by what have said you will understand
that / don't propose To discuss the question OF
what testimonial evidence is 10 be addUced III
favor of tins view If those whose bust
ness il is to Judge are not one Is 10
II is bears witness the discussions of testimonial
evidence is superfuOus. But one regards this less
because the crcumstantal evidence, If carefully
considered, leaves him the conclusion that u Is M
adequate altogether, and cannot be adduced'
And the considerations upon when i na2e
that conclusion are Of the simplest possible
Character Whatever the feNibility of inter
probation Of MIltons views, II is quite impossible
TO deny that the kernel of the whole matter ~
statement aB TO a certain order succession at NV
ing forms. IL IL stated that plants, for example,
made their appearance upon the third day, ana hot
before. And you will understand that what was
meant by plants are plants winch nov lVe-the
trees and shrubs which VIC now have III II Is one 0t
two thiugs-either the existing plants have been
the result Of separate orSlnauOn OF when We
have no record for opposition, or else they nave
arisen by that direct process Of evolution from the
original stock. And IN che second Place II Is clear
I
and then on the fourth day marine animals aud
birds appeared. Aud IT ~ further clear that ter-
restral life made its appearance upon tue SiTta
day and not before. Hence II follows that
IL in this record, If IN this large mass OF circum-
stantial evidence as 10 what really has happened III
the past history Of the gobcIt IN that we ma down
10 a certain point indications Of the existence ol
terrestrial animals II IS perfectly certain
that ail that has taken place since that uhr
mast be referred TO the sixth day. In tins great
carbonifcrOus formation from whence America mas
derived so vast proportion OF her aStnai anu IGG
teutial wealth in that formation and IN the Deus
OF coal which are formed from the vegetation OF
that period, We find abundant evidence OF tho
existence of terrestrial animals. They have
been described not only by European naturaIsls
but by your own naturalists There are to be found
IN the coal of your own coal fields numerous insects
allied to our CoCkroaches. There are 10 be found
there scorpions of large size, ard similar 10 exist
ing scorpions that It requires the pfaclced
eye of the naturalist TO distinguish them-and
even spiders. Inasmuch az these things can be
epoch it is perfectly clear that, if the Milionic
account is correct that those huge rocks extending
from the middle Of the paleozolc formations
must belong TO the day or period which
is termed by Milton the sixth day Of
the creation But further, 1t - expressly
stated that aquatic animals took their origin upon
tie fifth day, and did not exist before, hence all
formations in which aquatic animals can be proved
TO exist aud which therefore lived at the time these
formations deposited, all those must have
been deposited during the time since the period
But there is absolutely fossillerOus rock in
which you do not tnd the remains OF marine ami
mails. The lowest forms OF life IN the silurian are
marine animals, and If the view which is enter
tanned by Principal Johnson and Dr. Carpenter of
the eOlone be correct, II 1t Is true
that animal remains exist at period "a
far antccedeut 20 the deposit in the coal the
coal is from us, at the very bottom in q series of
stratIfed rock, in state called the laurcntian
strata it follows plainly enough from this that the
whole series of stiatifed rocks, " they 10 be
init hpr YI