With reference to the former there are two objections urged. The first is that of the infidel who denies the possibility of the miracle, but with that I have nothing to do, as I have already shown that miracles are not within the range of science. The second is founded on the language of the narrative, which is thought to imply an ignorance of the earth’s rotation on its axis. But really this is so childish that it is scarcely worth our notice. Is there any one in his senses who would have expected Joshua to say, ‘Earth, suspend your rotation round your axis;’ or to have framed his language in any other way so as to describe that rotation? And if Joshua ought to have so expressed himself, why do not astronomers and other learned men alter their own language now according to their own science? Or are we to suppose that after all they know nothing about astronomy, because they speak like ignorant men, and say, like the rest of us, ‘the sun rises and the sun sets?’ The other case, however, is more important, for it is the object of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis to give an account of creation, and it is perfectly reasonable therefore to expect to find it in harmony with geological facts. But mark. There is a great difference between being in harmony with geological _facts_, and in harmony with every geological _theory_ that is started. We must confine the argument to what is known, and we have nothing to do with what people think. True science is a rigid thing, and relates to facts, not opinions. When, _e.g._, people tell us that there could not be light before the sun, they are thoroughly unscientific in so saying, for they know nothing of the kind. There is a vast amount of light at this present time quite independent of the sun, and the idea that there could be none before it is nothing more than an unscientific conjecture. No! we must keep rigidly to facts, to facts really established by trustworthy evidence; and, keeping stedfastly to such facts, I have not the least shadow of anxiety respecting geological discovery. On the contrary, I believe that the first chapter of Genesis will furnish us, and is even already furnishing us, with one of the grandest arguments ever yet produced for the divine inspiration of the book of Scripture. I cannot but think that that first chapter is placed in the forefront of the book in order to present us, at the outset of the whole, with an unanswerable evidence of the divinity of its origin. For what is the present position of geology? In the first place, it is a very young science, one of scarcely more than fifty years’ growth. The most profound geologists are most convinced how much there is still to be learned, and they are learning more every day. No really wise man therefore would give up the inspiration of Scripture in deference to these present conclusions, even if those conclusions should at first sight seem to be opposed to the inspired word.