is dealt to the many theologians who have given such diverse inter- 
pretations to the first chapter of Genesis, while but little is said of the 
daring assertions of men calling themselves men of science, who gave those 
theologians the idea that they had scientific proof of matters which the 
evidence of science has since shown to be utterly baseless. Though I do not 
go with those theologians who have thus been led astray, still I cannot help 
feeling a sympathy for the men who, having in view the most powerful evi- 
dence that the human mind could obtain, that the Bible is God’s revealed 
word, and feeling the truth of that in their hearts and consciences, and having 
been told that science contradicted it, have not had the boldness and hardi- 
hood to say “We will examine your science, and see whether it contradicts or 
not,” but have striven to make the word of God square, not with science 
itself, but with imperfect and erroneous scientific interpretations. I care not 
for the absurdities with which many men have endeavoured to make revela- 
tion square, not with science, but with crude hypotheses; but I say these are 
nothing compared with the absurdities men have advanced under a different 
guise, and put forward as pure incontrovertible science. I am not afraid of 
science, nor am I afraid of being thought a century behind my time. I am 
bold enough to say that geology is in its infancy, and I find that some of 
those things which I was considered at one time almost a fool for maintaining, 
are now brought forward as new scientific discoveries. I would not go so far 
as Mr. Warington in attempting to give an accommodation to the words of 
Scripture, and which, after all, is only an accommodation. The book of Genesis 
gives a clear and intelligent account of creation, and if any of you want to 
know how clear and intelligent it is, I say compare this cosmogony of Moses 
with the Phoenician cosmogony, or any others, and you will see at once that 
you are dealing with a different type and character altogether. The cosmo- 
gony of the Bible is marked by a sublimity and simplicity which bears the 
impress of truth, even before you investigate it. Now what are these “ days 
of God,” of which Mr. Warington speaks ? Is it necessary that they should 
be lengthened periods ? Are they to be considered long periods, during which 
the earth was revolving on its axis, and day and night succeeding each other ? 
Were these days each equal to thousands of years or not ? Mr. Warington 
speaks of “God’s days,” and “man’s days,” using those terms in comparison 
with each other. Are these long periods required ? What do we know of 
the creative fiat ? Was it necessary that a thousand, or a million, or a billion 
years should have passed in the creation of all the seeds of the earth ? Look 
into that minute thing which gives birth to an oak Take an acorn, and 
take from it all the nutritious matter which is to sustain its life, and where 
is that minute matter that may be the parent of millions of trees ? Are we 
to say that God took a long period to bring these things forth, or did He 
create all things instantaneously by His almighty fiat ? Science tells you 
nothing here. There is nothing to contradict the plain and simple statement 
that all these things came into existence at the fiat of the Almighty. Was 
the creation of light a work of time, or was it done as quickly as man could 
say “ Let there be light ?” It is true the Bible tells us that God did take certain 
