6i8 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



sion, which was the sole object of Reville's attack, and the main 

 object of my defense ; and which is the largest portion of the whole 

 subject. Will Mr. Huxley venture to say that Cuvier is an unavail- 

 able authority, or that Ilerschel and Whewell are other than great 

 and venerable names, with reference to the cosmogony ? Yet he has 

 quietly set them aside without notice ; and they with many more 

 are inclusively bespattered with the charges, which he has launched 

 against the pestilent tribe of Reconcilers. 



My fourth and last observation on the "method" of Professor 

 Huxley is that, after discussing a part, and that not the most consider- 

 able part, of the Proem of Genesis, he has broadly pronounced upon 

 the whole. This is a mode of reasoning which logic rejects, and 

 which I presume to savor more of license than of science. The four- 

 fold succession is condemned with argument ; the cosmogony is thrown 

 into the bargain. True, Mr. Huxley refers in a single sentence to three 

 detached points of it partially touched in my observations (p. 453). 

 But all my argument, the chief argument of my paper, leads up to the 

 nebular or rotatory hypothesis i^N. C 089-94 and G97-8). This hy- 

 pothesis, with the authorities cited — of whom one is the author of 

 " Vestiges of the Creation " — is inclusively condemned, and without a 

 word vouchsafed to it. 



I shall presently express my gratitude for the scientific part of Mr. 

 Huxley's paper. But there are two sides to the question. The whole 

 matter at issue is, 1, a comparison between the probable meaning of 

 the Proem to Genesis and the results of cosmological and geological 

 science ; 2, the question whether this comparison favors or does not 

 favor the belief that an element of divine knowledge — knowledge 

 which was not accessible to the simple action of the human faculties — 

 is conveyed to us in this Proem. It is not enough to be accurate in 

 one term of a comparison, unless we are accurate in both. A master 

 of English may speak the vilest and most blundering French. I do 

 not think Mr. Huxley has even endeavored to understand what is the 

 idea, what is the intention, which his opponent ascribes to the Mosaic 

 writer ; or what is the conception which his opponent forms of the 

 weighty word Revelation. He holds the writer responsible for scien- 

 tific precision : I look for nothing of the kind, but assign to him a 

 statement general, which admits exceptions ; popular, Avhich aims 

 mainly at producing moral impressions ; summary, which can not but 

 be open to more or less of criticism in detail. He thinks it is a lect- 

 ure. I think it is a sermon. He describes living creatures by struct- 

 ure. The Mosaic writer describes them by habitat. Both I suppose 

 are right. I suppose that description by habitat would be unavailing 

 for the purposes of science. I feel sure that description by structure, 

 such as the geologists supply, would have been unavailing for the pur- 

 pose of summary teaching with religious aim. Of Revelation I will 

 speak by-and-by. 



