The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-05-17
1.-THE BOOK OF GENESIS"
4 CATEGORICAL REPLY TO dem
HART,s COMMENTS.
An EIucidation That Does Not Eincida'e'
An Explanation That Does Not Tx
plain or Enlighten.

ing the Dean's article carefully. we think
II may be said with equal truth an" pr
priety, We may Justly arrive at 'he s"iio
conclusion I'm regard TO his attempted eA-
PLANTATION of the creation, and MS eAes9
sis Of Moses account OF the same lOi
It Is an elucidation that does not eiuci-
date; an explanation that does not eN-
plain; an illustration that does not en-
tighten! TO our apprehension, any at
tempted explanation other than that
given in the Word Of God, savorJ OF sac
rllege IL God Is the omnipotent' the
omniscient the all-powerful Beng we
are taught to believe Him TO be, may we
not ask, as St. Paul did. when he forciply
and eloquently addressed King Agrippa'
"Why should IL be thought a thlng IN
credible with you that God should raise
the dead?" Why should any apology be
necessary? Why should we attempt TO
explain that which Is inexplicable? why
should we attempt TO solve that which IS
insolvable? Shall we put science against
divinity? Shall we combat His assertions
with human hypothesis?
II God could make the world from
nothing, which Is about the conclusion
that Laplace's doctrine of the Nebular
hypothesis teaches, and which always
struck u5 as n most illogical and un-
reasonable theory: II He could evolve
OF earth oceans, rocks, hills, and noun
tains. its seas. oceans, rivers, and rilis
from nebulac-l clOud-a vapor, mist-a
nothing, in the manner and in accord
ance with the suggestions Of Laplace
theory. which Dean Hart also adopts In
his religious scientific article, was 1t not
Just rs easy, just as reasonable 10 sup.
post that He could. by his fat His ips
dixit. His will, create st at once. IN an IN
slant. 'in the twinkling Of an eyer
Was IL not more I'm consonance with HIS
divinity to have done so? DO We not rob
God OF His power, His sublimity, Ills
glory, His opnipOtence in supposing lie
could not call the world into existence
in an instant? "For lie spoke, and 1t
wal done; He commanded, and 1t stood
fast" we are told.
NEEDS NO EXPLANATION.
Does He need anyone 20 explain His
methods. TO excuse His actions, 10 SIM
pUfy or mystify, as the case may be.
Ills statements: to set bounds and lin
it's to His presence? Is not the attempted
explanation Of the Nebulae hypothesis as
announced by Laplace and emphasized
by Dean Hart, more ineXplicable than
the belief. sanctioned by the narrative Of
Moses, that God created tho world. and
called IL into existence in the six pc
RODS Of time named in the Biblical ac-
count, by HIS viii and His Infinite power
Is 1t not possible that Laplace and Mr..
Hart may he mistaken. and that the Mo-
sale account IS true. and that God Great
ed the world In six days and that lie
rested on the seventh day from all his
work which He had done?"
Has Laplace or Mr.. Hart given Us
any information: have they added any
thing TO the subject? Have they thrown
any light on st? Have they solved the
mystery? Do they know more than Moses
dld2 Have they received a second inspira-
ton? Could any theory or hypothesis be
more awe-inspiring. more grandly sub
lime than God s command, Let there he
light" Could any command be more for
chilly. more sublimely. and divinely obey
Cd than that, instantaneOusly there was
light" Is not this the essence of pow
er the quintessence of divinity. the acme
of supremacy? Might we not just as well
attempt to explain the creation Of man
by adopting the scientific philosophic the
DRY Of the definition Of life, that Life
81 a product of solar energy. falling upon
the carbon compounds &c?'
Might we not as well accept Col. Inger-
soils Mistakes Of Moses" as the sueges-
lions Of I.aplace or Dean Hart? Shall
we accept some theory or hypothesis Of
the Immaculate Conception, the mystic
rious birth. the ineXpicable incarnation
Of our Lord? Shall we accept Romans
Resurrection of Christ, scientifically
Considered" as orthodox?
II strikes us just as plausible, just as
reasonable. just as satisfactory. just as
sacred. Just as inspired as Laplace's and
Mr.. Harris hypothesis OF the creation.
If the readers Of church literature are 20
be called upon TO surrender their faith IN
the Mosaic account Of the creation, and 10
accept Laplace's doctrines, sanctioned 10y
Dean Hart, I'm lieu Of the Biblical ac-
count may we not 20 step further
and adopt Mr. Darwn's theory Of the
evolution Of our species. instead of the
Mosaic account OF mans CREATION Snail
we put the beautiful tale Of the Garden
Of Eden upon the same plane as the
Arabian Knights. and the legend Of Da-
vid and Goliath on a level with Jack the
Giant-kmer?
II not, why not? One IS just as plausi-
Bile. and as excusable, and as orthodox a5
tho otherl
1t has pleased God to give u.s. through
Moses and the prophets. certain facts Ia
relation 10 the creation. certain essen
tlals TO the salvation OF mani - It not
the duty OF faith to accept these rovela-
tons without cavil or question, without
setting up hypothesis, theories. conjec-
belief than those originally given and
accepted? Genesis, SAYS God said" God
made" God Created" and we have no
authority to take away from the words
Of the book" nor snail "any man add
unto these things
This IS an iconOclastic age. n spirit Of
transcondentalsm IS rs rife among the
clergy as IS agnasticism amongst the
laity and slepticism amidst the masses
and empirical high criticism amongst the
scientists, and it does not behoove the
shepherds of the Lords flock TO encour-
age these tendencies.
MOST WORTHLESS NONSENSE"
We are told IN Mr. Harris article that
"the constituents of our solar system
were first brought into existence as
nebulous cloud: they were in gaseous
form. and heated to such degree that
the cloud was luminous" Now. 10 90
back TO first principles, ''in the begin
ming" why does be not explain whore
the cloud came from? Who made it2 How
d0ea ne know it was gaseous? Judging
from the constituents OF the earth u
might have been solid. And where did
the gas come from? And then, he says
It was heated. And where did the heat
come from? Nc says 1t was luminous
might il not have been OPAQUE? This
whole scientific explanation or suggestion,
20 my mind seems the most worthless
nonsense.
1t questions The authenticity OF the
Bible narrative, the truthfulness OF Gods
inspired Word, rohs Him Of His glory
His omnipotence. His subiimity!
After the nebula appears, We are told
by Mr.. Hart that, For necessity'J sake
the cloud had motion" but what the
necessity was we are not told, nor