179 
science, but philosophy. They are not the pure grain, but the 
husk cleaving to it ; and all experience shows that bigotry, and 
all the bad passions of man, cleave not to the certain and 
undeniable, but to the apocryphal and uncertain, whether in 
science or religion. So that, in the end, our teachers of 
science may prove teachers of science falsely so called; and, 
through their opposition to the dogmatic teaching of religion, 
those who are committed to their charge may be shipwrecked 
at the outset of the voyage of life. 
This would seem to be the very object of some of our 
“ scientists,” who even hang out false lights, as the wreckers 
on our coast did of old, to lui'e the vessel on to her destruc- 
tion. Falsehood is as welcome as truth, if only the too 
credulous public may be prejudiced against revelation. One 
recent instance may suffice. I noticed in one of our scientific 
journals an attack on the account of the creation of man in 
Genesis, showing that Moses was entirely mistaken in describ- 
ing man as formed out of clay, seeing that clay (alumina) does 
not enter into his composition. This was a false light 
calculated to mislead the unwary. The simplest Sunday 
scholar may see that Genesis never says anything of the kind. 
“Jehovah Elohim formed man out of the dust of the ground ”; 
’dphar (”>?V) implies neither clay nor alumina in a chemical 
sense, but simply the earthly materials out of which the atomic 
structure of a man’s body is built up. The word is used about 
a hundred times in Scripture, and never in the sense of clay ; 
but, on the other hand, it is said all are of the dust, and shall 
turn to dust again ; a very simple fact, which the process of cre- 
mation would make manifest to the most sceptical scientist ; or 
interment in quicklime, changing water into dust (hydrate of 
lime), would still further demonstrate. 
Of course I esteem it too great nicety of expression to 
object to the term clay as used in common language, and in 
the poetical diction of Job; but in Genesis the Scriptural ex- 
pression of the fact, however explained, is, that God formed 
man out of the dust of the earth. 
I am reminded of this evidence of the animus, not of sci- 
ence, be it observed, but of “ Scientists,” by what I read in 
a recent address in Paris of the great “ father ” Hyacinthe 
Loyson, to the effect that “ it mattered little, after all, whether 
we have had for an ancestor a monkey — when Genesis gives 
us an ancestor more vile still — the slime (Union) of the earth.” 
In an address on “ Le respect de la verite ,” it would have 
been better to verify the quotation from Scripture, for 
Genesis does not give us as an ancestor “ the mud of the 
n 2 
