"The circumstantial description of the framing of the Heaven out of the waters proves that the words 'Heaven and Earth,' in the first verse, must be taken proleptically."--(p. 227.) But we may as well stop the torrent of long words, by simply pointing out that "the heavens," (_hashamaim_,) spoken of in Gen. i. 1, are quite distinct from "the firmament," (_rakia_,) spoken of in ver. 6. The word is altogether different, and the sense is evidently altogether different also; although Mr. Goodwin seeks to identify the two[126]. And further, we take leave to remind our modern philosopher that _no_ "circumstantial description of the framing of the heaven out of the waters," is to be found either in ver. 6, or elsewhere. And this must suffice. The entire subject shall be dismissed with a very few remarks.--Mr. Goodwin delights in pointing out the incorrectness of "the sense in which the Mosaic narrative was taken by those who first heard it:" (p. 223:) and in asserting "that this meaning is _primâ facie_ one wholly adverse to the present astronomical and geological views of the Universe." (p. 223.) But we take leave to remind this would-be philosopher that "the idea which entered into the minds of those to whom the account was first given," (p. 230,) is not the question with which we have to do when we are invited to a "frank recognition of the erroneous views of Nature which the Bible contains." (p. 211.) "It is manifest,"--(in this I cordially agree with Mr. Goodwin,)--"that the whole account is given from a different point of view from that which we now unavoidably take:" (p. 223:) and, (I beg leave to add,) _that_ point of view is _somewhere in Heaven_,--not here on Earth! The "Mosaic Cosmogony," as Mr. Goodwin phrases it, (fond, like all other smatterers in Science, of long words,) is _a Revelation_: and the same HOLY GHOST who gave it, speaking by the mouth of St. John, not obscurely intimates that it is mystical, like the rest of Holy Scripture,--that is, that it was fashioned not without a reference to the Gospel[127]. But we are touching on a high subject now, of which Mr. Goodwin does not understand so much as the Grammar. _He_ is thinking of the structure of the globe: _we_ are thinking of the structure _of the Bible_. But to return to Earth, we inform the Essayist that it is simply unphilosophical, even absurd, for him to insist on what _shall_ be implied by certain words employed by Moses,--(of which he judges by their etymology;) and further to assume what erroneous physical theories those words must have been connected with, by his countrymen, and so forth; and straightway to hold up the greatest of the ancient prophets to ridicule, as if those notions and those theories were all _his_!