274 
are liable to pains and penalties, as men who are guilty of 
breaking great moral laws.” The only suitable reply to this 
astonishing statement might be couched in the language of a 
Parisian wit, who is said to have criticised a work on natural 
history published by the French Academy, in which a crab was 
described as “ a red fish which walked backwards,” with these 
gentle words, “ Admirable ! Messieurs ; your definition would 
be perfect, save that a crab is not a fish, its colour is not red, 
and it does not walk backwards.” Even so, I think we may 
answer the learned professor by saying, that the clergy do not 
affirm that the world was created 6,000 years ago, for the Bible 
distinctly says it was created “ in the beginning”; neither do 
they affirm that it was created “ in the period of six days”; 
but that it was fitted up for the habitation of man within six 
periods (whatever the term “day” may mean) they don't deny, for 
Scripture says it was so; and true science has not yet proved any- 
thing to the contrary. But as for teaching that men of science, 
like Professor Huxley, are guilty of “ breaking great moral 
laws ” for denying the cosmogony of Scripture, as our accuser 
declares, it is one of the wildest hallucinations that ever entered 
the professorial brain. It may have been so with the clergy of the 
Church of Rome in the dark ages, but to accuse the clergy of the 
Church of England* in the middle of the 19th century of such 
bigotry is unworthy of the profession to which he claims to be- 
long. Such an accusation seems almost to deserve the reproof of 
the late Hugh Miller, who remarked that “ never was there a 
fancy so wild and extravagant but there have been men bold 
enough to dignify it with the name of philosophy, and inge- 
nious enough to find reasons for the propriety of the name.” 
49. In considering the subject of the Hebrew cosmogony 
as laid down in Scripture, it may be well to bear in mind 
these two points: 1st. That we should make every effort to 
ascertain the exact meaning of the words employed by Moses 
in his description of the world’s creation. 2nd. That we should 
accept the explanation given by the ancient Jews themselves 
in preference to that of Gentile critics in the present day. 
I do not mean of such critics as Bishop Colenso, or Professor 
Huxley, or Mr. Goodwin, j- one of the writers of Essays and 
* I recollect hearing the late Lord Brougham in the House of Lords, about 
twenty years ago, describe the Church of England as the most liberal and 
tolerant Church that had ever existed. I have noticed in my “Reply” the 
case of a clergyman, who, at the beginning of the last century, explained the 
Mosaic cosmogony in the way that Professor Huxley represents the clergy 
of the Church of England doing in the present day. 
+ Mr. Goodwin concludes that the Hebrew word jpp"\ rakia was not 
interpreted as “ expanse ” until by a happy afterthought theologians attempted 
