The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-18
STATESMAN AND SCIENTIST.
Mr.. Gladstone Engages in Polemics
With the Eminent Professor Huxley,
On the Scientific Accuracy of the Mosaic Co.'S
mogonY-Gladstone Declares the Book
of "Genesis" God Given Record.

In the January number of the Nineteenth Cen
fury Mr.. Gladstone publishes. under the title
"Proem to Genesis" reply to Prof Huxley's
Interpolation in his dispute with Prof. Reville.
His first few pages are taken up with a rather
captious criticism of Mr Huxley's method.
and gives one the idea that the writer considers
himself to have been treated almost without due
respect. When, however he gets to work, the
gist of his argument is very much as follows:
He holds that Mr. Huxleys attack is misdirected.
His heavy guns are aimed at position which
was not occupied. 1t is. therefore, only neces-
sary to restate, in amended terms. the previous
reasoning, and to show how very little Mr.. Hux-
ley has done towards demolshing its essential
strength. Mr.. Gladstone says:
II do not think Mr.. Huxley has even endeav-
ored to understand what is the idea, what is the
intention, which his opponent ascribes to the
Mosaic writer; what is the conception which
his opponent forms of the weighty word REVEAL
ton. He holds the writer responsible for scen-
tiic precision; l look for nothing of the kind,
but assign to him a statement general, which
admits exceptions; popular. which aims mainly
at producing moral impression; summary, which
cannot but be open to more or less criticism In
detail. He he thinks it is a lecture. think it
is a sermon. He describes living creatures by
structure. The Mosaic writer describes them
by habitat Both suppose. are right. [ sup
pose that description by habitat would be un-
avallng for the purposes of science. feel sure
that description by structure, such as the geol-
ologists supply. would have been unavailing for
the purpose of summary ching with religious
aim"
Consequently one expects in Genesis such
narrative as would answer the authors evident
purpose of showing man his relation to God on
hn har nd M fha 10
other. We should, therefore, look for a cos
mogony as accurate as the purpose demanded,
but neither in form nor matter anticipating or
superseding scientific knowledge The proof of
its divine origin would. inter ALA, be it's convey
ance of knowledge unobtanable at that time
from human sources, but enduring the test of
comparison with the results of subsequent in
vestigation. After examining some points of
detail in which incorrectness has been imputed
to the Mosaic account, Mr.. Gladstone boldly
says:
II do not suppose it would be feasible even
for Professor Huxley, taking the nebular hypo-
thesis and geological discovery for his guides, to
give, in the compass of the first twenty-seven
verses of Genesis, an account of the cosmogony
and of the succession of life in the qualification
of the earth, which would combine scientific
procession of statement with the majesty, the
simplicity, the intelligibility and the impressive
ness of the record before us. Let me modestly
call it. for arguments sake. an approximation to
the present presumptions and conclusions of
science. Let me assume that the statement in
the text as to plants and the statement of verses
"a. 20 to reptiles, cannot in all points
be sustained; and yet still there re-
main great mistaken facts to be
weighed: First, the fact that such record
should have been made at all. Secondly, the
fact that instead of dwelling in generalities it
had placed itself under the severe conditions of
a chronological order. reaching from the first
nisus of chaotic matter to the consummated pro-
duction of a fair and good!y, furnished, and a
peopled world. Thirdly. the fact that it's cos
mogony seems, in the light of tue nineteenth
century, to draw more and more OF countenance
from the best natural philosophy; and, four.hly,
that it has described the successive origins o.
the five great categories of present life, with
which human experience was and is conversant,
in that order which geological authority confirms.
How came these things to bel How came they
to be- not among Arcadians. or Assyrans, or
Egyptians. who monopolized the stores of hui
man knowledge when this wonderful tradition
was born, but among the obscure records of
people who, dwelling in Palestine for 1000 years
from their sojourn in the valley of the Nile,
hardly had force to stamp even so much as their
name upon the history of the world at large, and
only then began to be admitted to the general
communion of mankind when their scriptures as
sumed the dress which GENTLE tongue was
needed to supply9 1t is more rational, 1 con-
tend, to say that these astonishing anticipations
were God given supply. than to suppose that a
which was uniformly and entirely short of the
great intellectual development of antiquity
should here not only have equaled and out
stripped it, but have entirely transcribed, in
kind even more than in degree, all known exer-
else of human faculties"
The reader will hardly care for a more minute
analysis of the argument. Two extracts from
the pages which are less controversial will be
more welcome. Of evolution Mr.. Gladstone
says:
Evolution is. to me, series with development.
And like series in mathematics whether arth-
metical or geometrica it establishes in things
an unbroken progression: it places each thing (if
only it stand the test of ability to live) in dis
tinct relation to every other thing, and makes
each witness to all that have preceded it, a
prophecy of all that are to follow it, It gives to
the argument of design now called the teleolog
lcal argument, at once wider expansion and an
augmented tenacity and solidiJy of tissue"
His remarks on religion and theology are of
wider interest:
1.-THE exaltation of religion as against theolo-
gy is at the present day not only so fashionable
but usually so domneering and contemptuous,
that am grateful to Professor Huxley for his
frank statement Up. 859) that theology is branch
of sciences nor do in the smallest degree QUAR-
rel with his contention that religion aud theology
ought not to be COMPOUNDED We may have q
great deal of religion with very little theology.
and great deal of theology with very little re-
ligion. l feel sure that Professor Huxley must
observe with pleasure how strongly practical,
ethical, and social is the general tenor of the
three synoptic gospels; and how the appearance
in the world of the great doctrinal gospel was re-
served to later stage, as il to meet later need
when men had been toned anew by the morality
and, above all, by the life of our Lord.
Il am not, therefore, writing against him
when | remark upon the habit of treating theol-
ogy with an affectation of contempt. It is moth
better | foch hon
ing no more reference to permanent principle
than the mass of ephemeral fashions that come
from Paris have with the immovable types of
beauty. Those who take for the burden of their
song respect religion, but despise theology
seem to me just as rational as if person were
to say admire the trees. the plants, the flowers
the sun, moon or stars, but despise botany and
despise astronomy Theology is ordered knowl-
edge, representing in the region of the intellect
what religion represents in the heart and life of