preceded or followed the Romans. But the question about creation
is a philosophical problem, and one which cannot be solved, or
even approached, by the historical method. What we want to learn
is, whether the facts, so far as they are known, afford evidence
that things arose in the way described by Milton, or whether
they do not; and, when that question is settled it will be time
enough to inquire into the causes of their origination.

In the second place, I have not spoken of this doctrine as the
Biblical doctrine. It is quite true that persons as diverse in
their general views as Milton the Protestant and the celebrated
Jesuit Father Suarez, each put upon the first chapter of Genesis
the interpretation embodied in Milton's poem. It is quite true
that this interpretation is that which has been instilled into
every one of us in our childhood; but I do not for one moment
venture to say that it can properly be called the Biblical
doctrine. It is not my business, and does not lie within my
competency, to say what the Hebrew text does, and what it does
not signify; moreover, were I to affirm that this is the
Biblical doctrine, I should be met by the authority of many
eminent scholars, to say nothing of men of science, who, at
various times, have absolutely denied that any such doctrine is
to be found in Genesis. If we are to listen to many expositors
of no mean authority, we must believe that what seems so clearly
defined in Genesis--as if very great pains had been taken that
there should be no possibility of mistake--is not the meaning of
the text at all. The account is divided into periods that we may
make just as long or as short as convenience requires. We are
also to understand that it is consistent with the original text
to believe that the most complex plants and animals may have