LESSONS IN ELEMENTARY BIOLOGY. By Professor T. JEFFREY PARKER, B.Sc., F.R.S. Ill.u.s.trated. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
DISEASES OF FIELD AND GARDEN CROPS, chiefly such as are caused by Fungi. By WORTHINGTON G. SMITH, F.L.S. Fcap. 8vo. 4s. 6d.
TIMBER AND SOME OF ITS DISEASES. By H. MARSHALL WARD, F.R.S., Professor of Botany, Royal Indian Engineering College, Cooper"s Hill. Crown 8vo. 6s.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
Notes
[1] With a few exceptions, which are duly noted when they amount to more than verbal corrections.
[2] _Declaration on the Truth of Holy Scripture_. The _Times_, 18th December 1891.
[3] _Declaration_, Article 10.
[4] Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi ecclesiae Catholicae me commoveret auctoritas.--_Contra Epistolam Manichaei_, cap. v.
[5] I employ the words "Supernature" and "Supernatural" in their popular senses. For myself, I am bound to say that the term "Nature" covers the totality of that which is. The world of psychical phenomena appears to me to be as much part of "Nature" as the world of physical phenomena; and I am unable to perceive any justification for cutting the Universe into two halves, one natural and one supernatural.
[6] The general reader will find an admirably clear and concise statement of the evidence in this case, in Professor Flower"s recently published work _The Horse: a Study in Natural History_.
[7] "The School Boards: What they can do and what they may do," 1870.
_Critiques and Addresses_, p. 51.
[8] _De Solido intra Solidum_, p. 5.--"Dato corpore certa figura praedito et juxta leges naturae producto, in ipso corpore argumenta invenire loc.u.m et modum productionis detegentia."
[9] "Corpora sibi invicem omnino similia simili etiam modo producta sunt."
[10] [Sir J. D. Hooker.]
[11] _The Nineteenth Century._
[12] Earlier, if more recent announcements are correct.
[13] It may be objected that I have not put the case fairly, inasmuch as the solitary insect"s wing which was discovered twelve months ago in Silurian rocks, and which is, at present, the sole evidence of insects older than the Devonian epoch, came from strata of Middle Silurian age, and is therefore older than the scorpions which, within the last two years, have been found in Upper Silurian strata in Sweden, Britain, and the United States. But no one who comprehends the nature of the evidence afforded by fossil remains would venture to say that the non-discovery of scorpions in the Middle Silurian strata, up to this time, affords any more ground for supposing that they did not exist, than the non-discovery of flying insects in the Upper Silurian strata, up to this time, throws any doubt on the certainty that they existed, which is derived from the occurrence of the wing in the Middle Silurian. In fact, I have stretched a point in admitting that these fossils afford a colourable pretext for the a.s.sumption that the land and air-population were of contemporaneous origin.
[14] _The Nineteenth Century_, 1886.
[15] Both dolphins and dugongs occur in the Red Sea, porpoises and dolphins in the Mediterranean; so that the "Mosaic writer" may well have been acquainted with them.
[16] I said nothing about "the greater number of schools of Greek philosophy," as Mr. Gladstone implies that I did, but expressly spoke of the "founders of Greek philosophy."
[17] See Heinze, _Die Lehre vom Logos_, p. 9 _et seq._
[18] Reprinted in _Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews_, 1870.
[19] "Ancient," doubtless, but his antiquity must not be exaggerated. For example, there is no proof that the "Mosaic" cosmogony was known to the Israelites of Solomon"s time.
[20] When Jeremiah (iv. 23) says, "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void," he certainly does not mean to imply that the form of the earth was less definite, or its substance less solid, than before.
[21] In looking through the delightful volume recently published by the Astronomer Royal for Ireland, a day or two ago, I find the following remarks on the nebular hypothesis, which I should have been glad to quote in my text if I had known them sooner:--
"Nor can it be ever more than a speculation; it cannot be established by observation, nor can it be proved by calculation. It is merely a conjecture, more or less plausible, but perhaps, in some degree, necessarily true, if our present laws of heat, as we understand them, admit of the extreme application here required, and if the present order of things has reigned for sufficient time without the intervention of any influence at present known to us" (_The Story of the Heavens_, p. 506).
Would any prudent advocate base a plea, either for or against revelation, upon the coincidence, or want of coincidence, of the declarations of the latter with the requirements of an hypothesis thus guardedly dealt with by an astronomical expert?
[22] Lectures on Evolution delivered in New York (American Addresses).
[23] Reuss, _L"Histoire Sainte et la Loi_, vol. i. p. 275.
[24] For the sense of the term "Elohim," see p. 141.
[25] Perhaps even hippopotamuses and otters!
[26] Even the most st.u.r.dy believers in the popular theory that the proper or t.i.tular names attached to the books of the Bible are those of their authors will hardly be prepared to maintain that Jephthah, Gideon, and their colleagues wrote the book of Judges. Nor is it easily admissible that Samuel wrote the two books which pa.s.s under his name, one of which deals entirely with events which took place after his death. In fact, no one knows who wrote either Judges or Samuel, nor when, within the range of 100 years, their present form was given to these books.
[27] My citations are taken from the Revised Version, but for LORD and G.o.d I have subst.i.tuted Jahveh and Elohim.
[28] I need hardly say that I depend upon authoritative Biblical critics, whenever a question of interpretation of the text arises. As Reuss appears to me to be one of the most learned, acute, and fair-minded of those whose works I have studied, I have made most use of the commentary and dissertations in his splendid French edition of the Bible. But I have also had recourse to the works of Dillman, Kalisch, Kuenen, Thenius, Tuch, and others, in cases in which another opinion seemed desirable.
[29] See "Divination," by Hazoral, _Journal of Anthropology_, Bombay, vol.
i. No. 1.
[30] See, for example, the message of Jephthah to the King of the Ammonites: "So now Jahveh, the Elohim of Israel, hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and shouldest thou possess them?
Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh, thy Elohim, giveth thee to possess?" (Jud. xi. 23, 24). For Jephthah, Chemosh is obviously as real a personage as Jahveh.
[31] For example: "My oblation, my food for my offerings made by fire, of a sweet savour to me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in their due season"
(Num. xxviii. 2).
[32] In 2 Samuel xv. 27 David says to Zadok the priest, "Art thou not a seer?" and Gad is called David"s seer.
[33] This would at first appear to be inconsistent with the use of the word "prophetess" for Deborah. But it does not follow because the writer of Judges applies the name to Deborah that it was used in her day.
[34] Samuel tells the cook, "Bring the portion which I gave thee, of which I said to thee, Set it by thee." It was therefore Samuel"s to give. "And the cook took up the thigh (or shoulder) and that which was upon it and set it before Saul." But, in the Levitical regulations, it is the thigh (or shoulder) which becomes the priest"s own property. "And the right thigh (or shoulder) shall ye give unto the priest for an heave-offering," which is given along with the wave breast "unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons as a due for ever from the children of Israel" (Lev. vii. 31-34). Reuss writes on this pa.s.sage: "La cuisse n"est point agitee, mais simplement _prelevee_ sur ce que les convives mangeront."
[35] See, for example, Elkanah"s sacrifice, 1 Sam. i. 3-9.
[36] The ghost was not supposed to be capable of devouring the gross material substance of the offering; but his vaporous body appropriated the smoke of the burnt sacrifice, the visible and odorous exhalations of other offerings. The blood of the victim was particularly useful because it was thought to be the special seat of its soul or life. A West African negro replied to an European sceptic: "Of course, the spirit cannot eat corporeal food, but he extracts its spiritual part, and, as we see, leaves the material part behind" (Lippert, _Seelencult_, p. 16).
[37] It is further well worth consideration whether indications of former ancestor-worship are not to be found in the singular weight attached to the veneration of parents in the fourth commandment. It is the only positive commandment, in addition to those respecting the Deity and that concerning the Sabbath, and the penalties for infringing it were of the same character. In China, a corresponding reverence for parents is part and parcel of ancestor-worship; so in ancient Rome and in Greece (where parents were even called [Greek: deuteroi kai epigeoi theoi]). The fifth commandment, as it stands, would be an excellent compromise between ancestor-worship and monotheism. The larger hereditary share allotted by Israelitic law to the eldest son reminds one of the privileges attached to primogeniture in ancient Rome, which were closely connected with ancestor-worship. There is a good deal to be said in favour of the speculation that the ark of the covenant may have been a relic of ancestor-worship; but that topic is too large to be dealt with incidentally in this place.
[38] "The Scientific Aspects of Positivism," _Fortnightly Review_, 1869, republished in _Lay Sermons_.
[39] _Oeuvres de Bossuet_, ed. 1808, t. x.x.xv. p. 282.