elementary facts in the history of Indian and Greek philosophy;
and (3) that I should show cause for my hesitation in accepting
the assertion that Genesis is supported, at any rate to the
extent of the first two verses, by the nebular hypothesis.

A certain sense of humour prevents me from accepting 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 respect 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 unintelligible to ignorant people; but how is
the matter mended if, being scientifically untrue, they must
needs be rejected by instructed people?

With respect to the second suggestion, it would be presumptuous
in me to pretend to instruct Mr. Gladstone in matters which lie
as much within the province of Literature and History as in that
of Science; but if any one desirous of further knowledge will be
so good as to turn to that most excellent and by no means
recondite source of information, the "Encyclopaedia Britannica,"
he will find, under the letter E, the word "Evolution," and a
long article on that subject. Now, I do not recommend him to
read the first half of the article; but the second half, by my
friend Mr. Sully, is really very good. He will there find it
said that in some of the philosophies of ancient India, the idea
of evolution is clearly expressed: "Brahma is conceived as the