466 Revieivs — Robinsoris Biblical Studies. 



IV. — Biblical Studies. By "William Eobinson. Longmans, 1866. 



OUE concern with, this volume extends merely to a note respecting 

 the novel geological theory propounded by the writer on the 

 bafSing subject of the Mosaic account of the creation. 



The author affirms that the' burden of proof, in an examination of 

 the Mosaic narrative, lies on the objector. " Suppose there can be 

 presented a theory of creation, scientifically admissible, which is in 

 harmony with the Biblical record ; then, unless it can be shown by 

 evidence that the world was not formed according to that theory, the 

 voice of the objector is silenced." 



As the Bible is commonly received amongst us we acquiesce in 

 this as a rule of the contest. 



He then claims for his theory the place not of a dogmatic 

 assertion, but of a mere suggestion. 



Thus properly introduced we are in the presence of his argument, 

 which we give in his own words : — 



" Seven thousand years ago this earth may have been shaped as 

 the moon is thought to be, and may have moved in relation to the 

 sun, as the moon does in relation to the earth. [This is without ro- 

 tating on its axis.] If such were the case, one hemisphere of the 

 world was a chaos ; the other a deep, and dark : our present division 

 of day and night had no existence ; the firmament in which the 

 clouds now float, was not ; neither were the signs of the sky, as now 

 presented by sun, moon, and stars ; all which differences between 

 the past and present state of the world, are either affirmed or implied 

 in the Scriptural record of creation." pp. 8, 9, "Scientific men 

 assume that this earth rotated before the Adamic era, as it does now. 

 That postulate requires proof. The earth may have been formerly as 

 the moon is suj^posed to be now. No man has the right to say it was 

 not so. Therefore no man has the right to say that the first chapter 

 of the Bible cannot be history." p. 9. 



If the worthy author had wandered from his door at Cambridge as 

 far away as the noble Woodwardian Museum there, he could hardly 

 have written thus. He would hardly have consigned to darkness the 

 whole organisms of that glorious collection. The argument scarcely 

 needs serious consideration, save for the motive which induced its 

 publication. It is refuted, first, by the structure of all organic 

 remains, which are framed and fitted for optical conditions like the 

 present; secondly, by the actual physical condition of the earth's 

 crust, which in southern as well as in northern latitudes shews 

 alternations of land and water during all the past ; thirdly, by the 

 dynamical conditions of the solar system, which are fatal to the 

 supposition in question. 



We therefore feel ourselves relieved from the task of following 

 the illustrations and corroborative evidences adduced in support of a 

 proposition which is obviously untenable. But we protest against 

 the author's statement that the first chapters of Genesis are the key- 

 stone of the Bible. The fundamental facts of the latter are not to be 



