tific worthlessness of the story of which it forms a part.

tion.

be so, nevertheless. Indeed, I think it is quite possible that further research will show Indeed, we may go further. It is not even that Homo sapiens existed not only before admissible to say that the water-population, as Equus caballus, but before many other of the a whole, appeared before the air and the land- existing forms of animal life; so that, if all populations. According to the Authorized the species of animal shave been separately Version, Genesis especially mentions among created, man, in this case, would by no means the animals created on the fifth day "great be the " consummation" of the land-populawhales," in place of which the Revised Version reads "great sea monsters." Far be it from I am raising no objection to the position of me to give an opinion which rendering is right, the fourth term in Mr. Gladstone's "order" or whether either is right. All I desire to re- --on the facts, as they stand, it is quite open mark is, that if whales and porpoises, dugongs to any one to hold, as a pious opinion, that the and manatees, are to be regarded as mem- fabrication of man was the acme and final bers of the water-population (and if they are achievement of the process of peopling the not, what animals can claim the designation ?), globe. But it must not be said that natural then that much of the water-population has as science counts this opinion among her " demoncertainly originated later than the land-popu-strated conclusions and established facts," for lation as bats and birds have. For I am not there would be just as much, or as little. reason aware that any competent judge would hesitate to admit that the organization of these animals shows the most obvious signs of their descent from terrestrial quadrupeds.

A similar criticism applies to Mr. Gladstone's assumption that, as the fourth act of that "orderly succession of times" enunciated in Genesis, "the land-population consummated in man."

for ranging the contrary opinion among them.

It may seem superfluous to add to the evidence that Mr. Gladstone has been utterly misled in supposing that his interpretation of Genesis receives any support from Natural Science. But it is as well to do one's work thoroughly while one is about it; and I think it may be advisable to point out that the facts, as they are at present known, not only refute Mr. Gladstone's interpretation of Genesis in detail, but are opposed to the central idea on which it appears to be based.

If this means simply that man is the final term in the evolutional series of which he forms a part, I do not suppose that any objection will be raised to that statement on the part of There must be some position from which students of natural science. But if the pen- the reconcilers of science and Genesis will tateuchal author goes, further than this, and not retreat, some central idea the maintenance intends to say that which is ascribed to him of which is vital and its refutation fatal. Even by Mr. Gladstone, I think natural science will if they now allow that the words "the evenhave to enter a caveat. It is by not any means ing and the morning" have not the least refcertain that man-I mean the species Homo erence to a natural day, but mean a period of sapiens of zoological terminology-has "con- any number of millions of years that may be summated" the land-population in the sense necessary; even if they are driven to admit of appearing at a later period of time than that the word "creation," which so many any other. Let me make my meaning clear millions of pious Jews and Christians have by an example. From a morphological point held, and still hold, to mean a sudden act of of view, our beautiful and useful contempo- the Deity, signifies a process of gradual evorary-I might almost call him colleague-the lution of one species from another, extending Horse (Equus caballus), is the last term of the through immeasurable time; even if they are evolutional series to which he belongs, just as willing to grant that the asserted coincidence Homo sapiens is the last term of the series of of the order of Nature with the "fourfold which he is a member. If I want to know order" ascribed to Genesis is an obvious whether the species Equu caballus made its error instead of an established truth; they appearance on the surface of the globe before are surely prepared to make a last stand upon or after Homo sapiens, deduction from known the conception which underlies the whole, and laws does not help me. There is no reason that which constitutes the essence of Mr. GladI know of why one should have appeared sooner stone's "fourfold division, set forth in an or later than the other. If I turn to obser- orderly succession of times." It is, that the vation, I find abundant remains of Equus caballus in Quaternary strata, perhaps a little earlier. The existence of Homo sapiens in the Quaternary epoch is also certain. Evidence has been adduced in favor of man's existence in the Pliocene, or even in the Mio- This statement appears to me to be the incene epoch. It does not satisfy me; but I terpretation of Genesis which Mr. Gladstone have no reason to doubt that the fact may supports, reduced to its simplest expression.

animal species which compose the water-population, the air-population, and the land-population respectively originated during three distinct and successive periods of time, and only during those periods of time.

"Period of time" is substituted for "day; Sisyphus, the reconcilers of Genesis with "originated" is substituted for "created;" science; and it has the advantage of being and any order required for that adopted by founded on a perfectly legitimate appeal to our Mr. Gladstone. It is necessary to make this ignorance. It has been seen that on any inproviso, for if "day" may mean a few million terpretation of the terms water-population and years, and "creation" may mean evolution, land-population, it must be admitted that inthen it is obvious that the order (1) water-pop- vertebrate representatives of these populations ulation, (2) air-population, (3) land-population, existed during the lower Palæozoic epoch. No may also mean (1) water-population, (2) land- evolutionist can hesitate to admit that other population, (3) air-population; and it would land animals (and possibly vertebrates among be unkind to bind down the reconcilers to this them) may have existed during that time, of detail when one has parted with so many the history of which we know so little; and, others to oblige them. further, that scorpions are animals of such high organization that it is highly probable their existence indicates that of a long antecedent land-population of a similar character.

But even this sublimated essence of the pentateuchal doctrine (if it be such) remains as discordant with natural science as ever. It is not true that the species composing any one of the three populations originated during any one of three successive periods of time and not at any other of these.

Then since the land-population is said not to have been created until the sixth day, it necessarily follows that the evidence of the order in which animals appeared must be sought in the record of those older Palæozoic times in which only traces of the water-population have as yet been discovered.

Undoubtedly, it is in the highest degree probable that animal life appeared first under aquatic conditions; that terrestrial forms appeared later, and flying animals only after land Therefore, if any one chooses to say that animals; but it is, at the same time, testified the creative work took place in the Cambrian by all the evidence we possess, that the great or Laurentian epoch in exactly that manner majority, if not the whole, of the primordial which Mr. Gladstone does, and Natural Science species of each division have long since died does not affirm, Natural Science is not in a out and have been replaced by a vast suc-position to disprove the accuracy of the statecession of new forms. Hundreds of thousands ment. Only one cannot have one's cake and of animal species, as distinct as those which eat it too, and such safety from the contradicnow compose our water, land, and air-popula- tion of science means the forfeiture of her tions, have come into existence and died out support. again, throughout the æons of geological time which separate us from the lower Palæozoic epoch, when, as I have pointed out, our present evidence of the existence of such distinct populations commences. If the species of animals have all been separately created, then it follows that hundreds of thousands of acts of creative energy have occurred at intervals throughout the whole time recorded by the fossiliferous rocks; and, during the greater part of that time, the "creation" of the members of the water, land, and air-populations must have gone on contemporaneously.

Whether the account of the work of the first, second, and third days in Genesis would be confirmed by the demonstration of the truth of the Nebular Hypothesis; whether it is corroborated by what is known of the nature and probable relative antiquity of the heavenly bodies; whether, if the Hebrew word translated "firmament" in the Authorized Version really means "expanse," the assertion that the waters are partly under this "expanse" and partly above it would be any more confirmed by the ascertained facts of physical geography and meteorology than it was before; whether the creation of the whole vegetable world, and especially of "grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit," before any kind of animal is "affirmed" by the apparently plain teaching of botanical palæontology, that grasses and fruit trees originated long subsequently to animals-all these are questions which, if I mistake not, would be answered decisively in the negative by those who are specially conversant with the sciences involved. And it must be recollected that the issue raised by Mr. Gladstone is not whether, by some effort of ingenuity, the pentateuchal story can be shown to be not disprovable by scientific knowledge, but whether it is supreported thereby. He says :

If we represent the water, land, and air-populations by a, b, and respectively, and take vertical succession on the page to indicate order in time, then the following schemes will roughly shadow forth the contrast I have been endeavoring to explain :

Genesis (as interpreted by Mr. Gladstone).
b b b

ССС ааа

Nature (as interpreted by Natural Science).

c1 a3 b2
ca2 bl
bal b

a a a

So far as I can see, there is only one source left for those modern representatives of

"There is nothing, then, in the criticisms of Dr. Reville but what rather tends to confirm than to impair the old-fashioned belief that there is a revelation in the Book of Genesis."

conception of religion which appears to me to be as wonderful an inspiration of genius as the art of Pheidias or the science of Aristotle :

ginian and Roman, by Jew and Gentile, down to the present day. Our Art (except, perhaps, Music) and our Science are the contributions of the Aryan; but the essence of our Religion The form into which Mr. Gladstone has is derived from the Semite. In the eighth centthought fit to throw this opinion leaves me in ury B.C., in the heart of a world of idolatrous doubt as to its substance. I do not under-polytheists, the Hebrew prophets put forth a stand how a hostile criticism can, under any circumstances, tend to confirm that which it attacks. If, however, Mr. Gladstone merely means to express his personal impression, "as one wholly destitute of that kind of knowledge which carries authority," that he has destroyed the value of these criticisms, I have neither the wish, nor the right, to attempt to disturb his faith. On the other hand, I may be permitted to state my own conviction that so far as natural science is involved, M. Réville's observations retain the exact value they possessed before Mr. Gladstone attacked them.

Trusting that I have now said enough to secure the author of a wise and moderate disquisition upon a topic which seems fated to stir unwisdom and fanaticism to their depths, a fuller measure of justice than has hitherto been accorded to him, I retire from my selfappointed championship, with the hope that I shall not hereafter be called upon by M. Réville to apologize for damage done to his strong case by imperfect or impulsive advocacy. But perhaps I may be permitted to add a word or two, on my own account, in reference to the great question of the relations between science and religion; since it is one about which I have thought a good deal ever since I have been able to think at all, and about which I have ventured to express my views publicly, more than once, in the course of the last thirty

years.

“And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justiy, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy

God?"

If any so-called religion takes away from this great saying of Micah, I think it wantonly mutilates, while, if it adds thereto, I think it obscures, the perfect ideal of religion.

But what extent of knowledge, what acuteness of scientific criticism, can touch this, if any one possessed of knowledge or acuteness could be absurd enough to make the attempt? Will the progress of research prove that Justice is worthless, and Mercy hateful; will it ever soften the bitter contrast between our actions and our aspirations; or show us the bounds of the universe, and bid us say, Go to, now we comprehend the infinite?

A faculty of wrath lay in those ancient Israelites, and surely the prophet's staff would have made swift acquaintance with the head of the scholar who had asked Micah whether, peradventure, the Lord further required of him an implicit belief in the accuracy of the cosmogony of Genesis?

What we are usually pleased to call Religion nowadays is, for the most part, Hellenized Judaism; and, not unfrequently, the Hellenic element carries with it a mighty remnant of old-world paganism and a great infusion of the worst and weakest products of Greek scientific speculation; while fragments of Persian and Babylonian, or rather Accadian, mythology burden the Judaic contribution to the common stock.

The antagonism between Science and Religion, about which we hear so much, appears to me to be purely factitious-fabricated, on the one hand, by short-sighted religious people who confound a certain branch of science, Theology, with Religion; and on the other, by The antagonism of Science is not to Reequally short-sighted scientific people who ligion, but to the heathen survivals and the forget that Science takes for its province only bad philosophy under which Religion herself that which is susceptible of clear intellectual is often well-nigh crushed. And, for my part, comprehension, and that outside the bounda- I trust that this antagonism will never cease; ries of that province they must be content with but that, to the end of time, true science will imagination, with hope, and with ignorance. continue to fulfil one of her most beneficent It seems to me, that the moral and intellect-functions, that of relieving men from the burual life of the civilized nations of Europe is den of false Science which is imposed upon the product of that interaction, sometimes in them in the na.ne of Religion. the way of antagonism, sometimes in that of profitable interchange, of the Semitic and the Aryan races, which commenced with the dawn of history, when Greek and Phoenician came in contact, and has been continued by Cartha

This is the work that M. Réville and men such as he are doing for us; this is the work which his opponents are endeavoring, consciously or unconsciously, to hinder.-T. H. HUXLEY, in The Nineteenth Century.

THE NEW STAR IN ANDROMEDA.*

suggest a faint star shining through. The Dun Echt observers located the new star 16 s.

Two hundred years ago the appearance of preceding and 5" south of this nucleus. Seva new star would have caused widespread con-eral observers think the nebula on the side sternation and forebodings of the end of the preceding the new star is less bright, while on world, or of some great and universal calamity. the following side is a "knot of light," or a Two thousand years ago it would have been but the deification of another hero. To-day, however, the appearance of a new star only excites the curiosity of a few scientific men, while the bulk of the 30,000,000 folk, "mostly fools," as Carlyle says, are hardly aware of its existence.

The first intimation of the discovery is conveyed in the Dun Echt circular No. 97, where it is stated that Prof. Krueger telegraphed from Kiel, midnight, August 31, "Variation in Andromeda nebula found by Dr. Hartwig of Dorpat starlike nucleus."

This undoubtedly was the announcement which first called general attention to the star, though it seems that Mr. I. Ward reports having seen it as early as August 19. Other observers also saw it independently about August 30. Fortunately there is no doubt that this is a new star, for none of the maps show any star in that part of the nebula. Also we are fortunate in having a photograph of the nebula taken a year ago by Mr. A. Common, in which there is no trace of a star where the one in question now appears, though other far fainter stars are clearly shown elsewhere in the nebula. It may then be taken as proved that this is a bona fide new star, or at any rate has become visible now for the first time.

"faint brush of light," as it is variously described. It is agreed that the new star has varied in appearance since first discovered, for on September 3 it was clear and distinct, on September 4 hazy, and since then distinct again. It has also decreased in magnitude since September 3. Knobel says on September 4 it was of a magnitude less bright than September 3, and by September 9 it had decreased by another of a magnitude. He places it 20" from the real nucleus of the nebula. At first all agreed in describing its spectrum as exactly like that of the nebulanamely, quite continuous with a sudden degradation of light at the red end. Later, however, Lord Rosse and others think they have seen a bright line in the spectrum on the more refrangible side of the D line.

Perhaps the first question that deserves attention is one on which considerable difference of opinion prevails-namely, is the new star really or only apparently within the Andromeda nebula? On previous occasions when new stars have appeared, two out of three have been connected with nebula-namely, Argus in the keyhole nebula, and the new star of 1876 in a nebula in Cygnus, which makes it rather probable that for some reason new stars generally belong to nebulæ. But the continuous spectrum of the Andromeda nebula shows conclusively that it is not a true gaseous nebula, and up to now it has been tacitly assumed to be a galaxy of suns innumerable, so distant that the most powerful telescope fails to distinguish them as separate stars; another universe, so to speak, almost infinitely removed from our universe, and appearing like a small faint cloud-light. But the new star was of the

And now there comes the question, Whence is it and what has caused it? Has the Great Spirit of the Universe made another sun from nothing? Has the command again gone forth, "Let there be light," with the same result as Moses saw, or whence is this strange new light? A hundred years ago the idea of a sudden creation of a new world from nothing would have been a satisfactory explanation, and a proof that the Deity was still working 7th magnitude,* and, if it be in such a distant out the architecture of heaven. And so He may be but science now steps in; and, not content with the bare statement, "God made it," would fain know how it was made, what were the foundations, what the material, and what the forces at work. Let us then see first the facts as observed up to the present, and then what explanation, if any, science can offer.

As already stated, the new star was first announced on August 31. As early as July last, however, several observers had noticed a very perceptible brightening of the old nucleus of the nebula, so much, says Mr. Tarrant, as to

The LIBRARY MAGAZINE for November contained a paper by Mr. Richard A. Procter upon this subject. The accompanying article may be regarded as a kind of companion to that paper.

universe, must be 30,000 million times as large as our sun, which is almost inconceivable; moreover, the energy expended on the star during the last month must be equal to all the energy expended on our sun for hundreds of thousands of years. No wonder, then, that astronomers stand aghast at the idea, and begin to doubt whether the star is really in the nebula. May it not be much nearer to us than the nebula, and only by a mere accident in the same line of vision? The spectroscope answers, almost without hesitation, “No,” the star and the nebula are physically connected. The spectra of the nebula and the star are both continuous and peculiar for a sudden cut

* At the end of October it had decreased to about the 10th magnitude.

ence. Nay, rather, seeing that the Andromeda nebula in all probability is a vast collection of luminous meteoric bodies, it might be urged that the new star must be much older than these meteoric bodies for it to give the same spectrum, because large masses of gas take longer to cool down to solid or liquid form than small masses.

ting-off of the red rays. Such a spectrum is unique, and it is highly improbable that so unusual a spectrum could be shown by two bodies unless they were intimately connected. It may then be concluded that the new star is actually in the nebula. Two alternatives then present themselves. Must we still suppose the nebula to be a galaxy quite separate from ours, and therefore the new star to be of such a size as to surpass all else we know of in the heavens, or is it not more likely that the nebula is within our own galaxy after all, and therefore much nearer than has been hitherto supposed? the collision of two large bodies of matter, If the latter be the case, as seems more probable, then the new star need not be so incon ceivably vast, and, moreover, the idea of other galaxies than ours will have been considerably shaken.

Having seen, then, that the new star is actually within the nebula of Andromeda, and that the nebula is much nearer in all probability than hitherto supposed, let us see what reasons can be assigned for the sudden appearance of this new star.

First, then, distinction must be drawn between really new stars-that is, freshly created stars and variable stars. What we call new stars may be, and in many cases are, undoubtedly only extreme cases of variables. Is, then, the Nova of Andromeda a newly-born sun, or is it in middle-life; and, if in middle life, why has it only now become visible to us?

Thus, then, the nebular theory affords no explanation of the sudden appearance of this star.

It may be suggested that it is the result of moving in space cold and dark, but suddenly rendered hot and luminous by the force of collision; two dead worlds perhaps clashing together and suddenly uniting to form one blazing sun. Such is indeed a tremendous possibility, though no instance can be certainly named. Here, again, the similarity of the new star's spectrum to that of the nebula precludes this.

So far, then, we have seen there are two ways in which stars may be made, neither of which will account for the new star in Andromeda. Therefore, unless there be some other method of creation unknown to us, we are forced to conclude that the Nova is not in reality a new star, but only a variable star, hitherto too faint to be seen, and we may well ask the question, What is the cause of its sudden brightness? Numerous theories are of fered to account for the variability of certain stars, some of which will be mentioned to see if they will account for this special star's ap pearance.

Of the birth of suns one theory alone presents itself the nebular theory. Briefly it is this that there exist in space huge masses of luminous gaseous matter, true nebula, which while radiating heat, are under the force of First, then, if a star in its course passes gravity slowly contracting and becoming in the through a region where meteoric matter course of millions of years luminous solids, and abounds, it is possible that such matter may then gradually cooling down till they become fall on it in such quantities and with such imcold, dark, and dead like our moon. The petus as very greatly to increase the star's light wonderful spiral nebula in Canes Venatici is and heat; so that a star previously invisible pointed to as an instance showing the conden- to us may become bright enough to be seen. sation of nebulous matter into distinct foci. If such region of meteoric matter be isolated, Can this theory, then, account for the new star the increased brightness of the star, besides in Andromeda ? Unhesitatingly we answer being temporary, may never occur again. But "No, and for three reasons: first, the theory if there be a regular zone of meteors crossing states the condensation to be slow and gradual, the star's orbit, like that through which the whereas the new star attained its present earth passes in November, but on a larger brightness in the course of certainly less than a year, and probably in less than a month; and even if we take into account the critical point where the condensation of gases is suddenly accelerated, certainly this short time would not satisfy the demands of the theory. Secondly, the continuous spectrum of the Andromeda nebula does not give evidence of gaseous matter sufficient to form a huge sun like the new star must be, however near we suppose it to be. And thirdly, the spectrum of the star being the same as that of the nebula seems to argue that both the nebula and the star are in nearly the same stage of their exist

scale, then there will be a periodical waxing and waning of the star's light. Such may be the partial cause of 7 Argûs changing every 46 years from 4th to 1st magnitude, and of R Cephei changing every 73 years from 11th to 5th magnitude. In the case of the temporary star in Cassiopeia in 1572, which suddenly became so bright as to be visible at noon, it is possible we have a variable star of long period; for a similar star appeared in 945, and again in 1264, in the same part of the sky. If so, we may expect its reappearance soon. If this were the cause of the new star of 1876 in the Swan, the fall of meteoric matter must have