On the Mosaic account of the Creation. 369 



believe the Bible to be the word of God ; and the second, of 

 those who disregard it, or deny its truth. 



To the last of these it would almost be in vain to shew the 

 connexion of geology with Him, of whose existence they are 

 more than sceptical, and therefore to the first more especially 

 I venture to address myself. 



Does it not then appear strange, I had almost said ridicu- 

 lous, that he who professes to believe, from the bottom of his 

 soul, that the Bible is the word of God, the very essence of 

 truth, should yet hesitate to adopt it as the base on which to 

 build up a system of geology ? 



Believing, as he says, that book to be correct, is it not 

 rather the very base of all others to be desired and selected ? 



Yet he tells you, that in choosing a basis for your theory 

 from the passages in that book, you are starting on assump- 

 tions, which in geology are inadmissible. He tells you in- 

 deed, that you are wrong in assuming truth to be truth ; 

 without perceiving that, that which is true, is no longer an 

 assumption, but a positive fact ! 



How is this contradiction to be understood ? 



If he believe the Bible to be true, surely in selecting it for 

 the foundation of geology it is no longer an assumption, but 

 the adoption of fact, of truth itself, for his basis ? 



Ask the believer, cc Who made heaven and earth }" His an- 

 swer will be ec God." 



" Who caused the different hills and strata of the earth to 

 assume their present appearances, and to contain the pheno- 

 mena which astonish and delight us ?" 



It is obvious that his answer will still be " God/' How 

 then ? If God be He who formed the earth, and disposed 

 by his laws the strata as we find them, can we separate the 

 created from the Creator ; can we separate the maker from 

 his works ? 



And if we cannot, then how is geology, the offspring of God's 

 will, to be separated from its origin, which is God himself ? 



