nd
also of very many who have no respect for their theory, that the Mosaic
cosmogony--that is, the account in Genesis of the creation of the earth
and its inhabitants, and all the visible universe--has never been
proved, and is incapable of proof, and that it holds its place in
popular belief solely because of its supposed connection with
Christianity; that it is merely a tradition (from however high and
venerable a source), and that it rests upon no knowledge or study of the
facts which it professes to explain; that it is in no way connected with
Christianity, which would stand on its own merits equally whether the
world were six thousand or six million years old, and whether it and its
inhabitants were made in six days or six aeons; that it--the Mosaic
account of the origin of the world--explains nothing, but simply tells
dogmatically that God made all and that God did so and so; that no
intelligent person would think of resting satisfied with the Mosaic
account, had it not come to be regarded as a requirement of religion to
do so, but that this has become so fixed that the whole orthodox system
is the natural and logical outgrowth of the Mosaic account of the
beginning of things: "the prevailing belief about God, the nature and
the fall of man, total depravity, the need and the schemes for
supernatural redemption, the whole structure, creed, and ritual of the
Church, the common belief about the nature and efficacy of prayer
meetings, the whole system of popular revivals, limited salvation, and
everlasting punishment"--all and each being built on the foundation of
the Mosaic cosmogony. Therefore for the vast number of intelligent
thoughtful people to whom the Mosaic account of the creation is no
longer authoritative, although it may be mythically instructive, the
foundation of their religion is gone. It is then assumed that religion
must rest upon a veneration for the creative power or agent to which the
present _cosmos_ owes its existence, and that as the traditional God or
Creator of Genesis has been eliminated from cognition by science, his
place in religion must be taken by the power by which he is supplanted.
Hence we have the god of evolution and the religion of evolution.

--But what is this god of evolution? In a very remarkable series of
papers which have appeared for some months past in "Macmillan's
Magazine," upon Natural Religion, remarkable equally for the subtlety
and closeness of their thought and their