rative: it is whether natural science, in the
patient exercise of its high calling to examine facts, finds
that the works of God cry out against what we have fondly
believed to be His word and tell another tale; or whether, in
this nineteenth century of Christian progress, it substantially
echoes back the majestic sound, which, before it existed as a
pursuit, went forth into all lands.

First, looking largely at the latter portion of the narrative,
which describes the creation of living organisms, and waiving
details, on some of which (as in v. 24) the Septuagint seems to
vary from the Hebrew, there is a grand fourfold division, set
forth in an orderly succession of times as follows: on the
fifth day

1. The water-population;
2. The air-population;
and, on the sixth day,
3. The land-population of animals;
4. The land-population consummated in man.
"Now this same fourfold order is understood to have been so
affirmed in our time by natural science, that it may be taken as
a demonstrated conclusion and established fact." (p. 696).

"Understood?" By whom? I cannot bring myself to imagine that Mr.
Gladstone has made so solemn and authoritative a statement on a matter
of this importance without due inquiry--without being able to found
himself upon recognised scientific authority. But I wish he had thought
fit to name the source from whence he has derived his information, as,
in that case, I could have dealt with [143] his authority, and I should
have thereby escaped the appearance of making an attack on Mr. Gladstone
himself, which is in every way distasteful to me.

For I can meet the statement in the last paragraph of the above citation
with nothing but a direct negative. If I know anything at all about
the results attained by the natural science of our time, it is "a
demonstrated conclusion and established fact" that the "fourfold order"
given by Mr. Gladstone is not that in which the evidence at our disposal
tends to show that the water, air, and land-populations of the globe
have made their appearance.

Perhaps I may be told that Mr. Gladstone does give his authority--that
he cites Cuvier, Sir John Herschel, and Dr. Whewell in support of his
case. If that has been Mr. Gladstone's intention in mentioning these
eminent names, I may remark that, on this particular question, the only
relevant authority is that of Cuvier. But great as Cuvier was, it is to