282 
author of this cosmogony was no better than a mere Hebrew 
Descartes, possibly somewhat in advance of the intellects of his 
age. It would be well for such objectors if they could receive 
what Ewald has said in his comment on Genesis i. 1 — ii. 4, 
that “ the aim of the first connected narrative is to exhibit God 
as the Creator of the universe. The author then passes over 
from the perfected picture of the created universe to that which 
must have been to him, as to all writers of history, the most 
worthy of note — to the history of man. Yet he closes the first 
picture with the words — f These are the generations of the 
heavens and the earth.’ ”* 
6G. In comparing the Hebrew cosmogony with the discoveries 
of true t science, it may be well to consider them under these 
several heads : — 1st. The creation of the universe. 2nd. The 
existence of light. 3rd. The duration of the term translated 
“ days.” 4th. The formation of man. 
07. First, as regards the creation of the universe. It has 
been contended by some that the Mosaic cosmogony represents 
a distinction in point of time between the creation of the 
heavens and of the earth ; as if the stellar worlds of light 
(those unanswerable proofs of a Divine Architect, to use the 
argument of Napoleon I.) which are hung around us on all 
sides of the universe were made at one time, and earth with 
its ruler, man, was made at another time. But such is not the 
teaching of the Word of God. Nothing can be plainer than 
the declaration that the heavens, containing the whole stellar 
system, and that the earth, a small planet in the solar system, 
were called into existence simultaneously. “ In the beginning 
God created the heavens and the earth.” In these few simple 
words, if our finite minds are only able to fathom their full 
meaning, are contained all the depths of philosophy which the 
wit and wisdom of mau have enabled him to discover; he can 
add nothing thereto ; lie can take nothing therefrom ; and it 
should be his unceasing endeavour to understand what they 
teach, in order that the wit of man may not contradict the 
wisdom of God. 
* Ewald’s Composition per Genesis, p. 192. 
f I am obliged to use the word “ true ” ; for much that passes in the pre- 
sent day under the name of “ science ” is anything but true, and must be 
distinguished by the term “ pseudo-science.” The differences between those 
who claim for themselves the name of Savans, especially on the subject of 
geology , are so numerous and so great, that they may be fitly compared to the 
little difference between John Stuart Mill and the author of Ecce Homo, 
respecting “Christian morality,” of which the former, in his Essay on Liberty, 
p. 29, says, “ in its precepts ‘ thou shalt not ’ predominates over ‘ thou shalt 
Whereas the latter declares respecting the same, “ The old legal formula 
began ‘ thou shalt not,’ the new begins ‘ thou shalt ’ ” (p. 175). 
