280 
way in which a class of writers, to whom I have before alluded, 
are in the habit of speaking of the Hebrew cosmogony. “No 
one,” says M. About, as reported in the Christianisme au XIX me 
Siecle, “ any longer defends the cosmogony of Moses ; one 
hardly dares to teach children from the catechism about the 
creation of light before the birth of the sun, the formation of the 
world in seven [? six] days ; or the legend of Adam moulded like 
a marble statue, and of Eve formed out of a rib of her husband.” 
63. It would be difficult to give clearer proof of the most 
crass ignorance than this specimen of French philosophy in the 
middle of the nineteenth century* The Mosaic cosmogony 
has been defended by illustrious Frenchmen, such as Cuvier, 
Brongniart, Prevost, and other philosophers of the present day, 
of whom M. About must have heard. The existence of light 
independent of the sun (not as M. About terms it, “ before the 
birth of the sun”) is one of the brilliant discoveries of modern 
science; the objection originally came from Voltaire, at whom 
the merest tvro in science may well smile, just as men will 
hereafter smile at him who now reproduces his sceptical sneer. 
The formation of the world as it now appears to us in six (not 
seven, as M. About curiously says) yoms or periods has been 
believed in and expounded by Descartes, Bacon, Newton, 
Leibnitz, Euler, and others, all of whom are still authorities in 
modern science. Thus much in answer to M. About. 
64. But to return to the consideration of what the Bible 
really teaches respecting the formation of the world. We may 
* M. A bout’s knowledge of the Hebrew cosmogony appears to be on a par 
with that of Mr. Goodwin’s, whose infidelity is but thinly concealed in the 
unsupported accusations which he brings against those who believe in the 
Divine record. Ignorance the most profound, joined to dogmatism the most 
presumptuous, is a marked characteristic of the sceptic’s creed ; of which we 
have a fair specimen in Mr. Goodwin’s statement that “ the plain meaning 
of the Hebrew record is unscrupulously tampered with, and in general the 
pith of the whole process lies in divesting the text of all meaning what- 
ever ! ! ! Physical science goes on unconcernedly pursuing its own paths. 
Theology maintains but a shivering existence, shouldered and jostled by the 
sturdy growths of modern thought, and bemoaning itself for the hostility 
which it encounters ” ! ! ! (Essays and Reviews, p. 211.) As the above state- 
ment does not appear to be redeemed by a single particle of truth, we can 
afford to pass it by in remembrance of the advice given by the wise King of 
Israel, “ Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto 
him.” The literary world seems to be of a similar opinion, for probably no 
book of such lofty pretensions has ever had so great a fall as that of the 
notorious Essays and Reviews. As a specimen of Mr. Goodwin’s knowledge 
of geology, he talks about “ the first records of organisms present ing them- 
selves in the so-called Silurian system ” (p. 214), whereas the merest tyro 
knows that the Laurentian beds of Canada, which underlie the Silurian 
system, contain sure proof of organic life. 
