no satisfactory scientific reason is assigned: it is merely alleged that any other view of the case would be difficult to be reconciled with the "received chronology." But can this be considered a sound argument? Is it philosophical to be biased in our view of physical facts by any received theory or system whatsoever? Let every fact stand firmly on its own feet, without either seeking support from, or permitting itself to be overthrown by, any hypothesis, or any rule of construction drawn from other sources.
We have no fear that the Word and the Works of God will or can come into collision with each other. It is impossible, when both are rightly interpreted and thoroughly understood. For God is a One, a Divine and Perfect One. And the Truth, consequently which proceeds from Him and is His image,—whether existing in word or in deed, whether written in words with the finger of God on tables of stone, or written with the same finger, in works, on the great rocky tablets of the earth,—is one and the same, and forms a harmonious whole. Truth expressed in words, and Truth expressed in facts (both being derived from God) cannot be supposed to contradict each other, that would be to make God contradict himself—which is impossible, He being a consistent One Truth written is, in fact, but a declaration or description of Truth done, that is, of truth that exists actually, whether in God Himself or in His created works. The book merely describes the fact. If God wrote the book (or if it were written by His direction), and if God also made the fact, then the two, having both proceeded from Him, must agree; because they were both derived from the same Mind, which having no
