Widnes Examiner. — 1887-03-19 (Widnes, Cheshire, England)

THOUGHTS ON TWO LEO ['MIEN AND MR. G 4NDY.  Sir,—l accept Mr. Gandy's letter ss he ng the candid expression of his honest opinions. I hope he will accord to me the same courtesy. lam sorry to see him get into a rage. In this heated state he forgets that I merely mentioned the statements of others, and askA some questions. And lam still in this inquisitive mood. Does Mr. Gaudy and his like believe that GA through Moses and the Bible tells us that He created us and all existing things in six days—and, to make this statement still more definite, added the words, so often repeated, and there was evening, and there was morning ?" Does he and thee know that this statement of Moses is flatly contradicted by the fasts of geolyogv.? Is it not true that he and such as he are guilty of the illogical impiety of trying te tinker the Word of God so as to make it "Naar,/ with the revelations if science," when they deny that when God said six days lie means it, and not some hid-finite " periods " as they say He meant? And if the six days are periods of unknown length, how eloes Mr. Gandy arrive at his Sabbath ? Must not that be a period also, and ono in all probability not yet arrived?  Are we to infer that Messrs. Gandy and Co. know the Divine Author's meaning better than He knew it er could express it Himself ? and has it reqaired the lapse of all these desolate centuries, and the appearance of such luminaries as Dawson, Gandy, it Co., to expound this text to uo, and to teach us that the All Wire meant one thing when-He said another? Cannot these poor p-ople see that to mutilate and stultify an author is not the best way to defend him from his critics? Would it be possible to convince them that to pull down the walls of their fortress in order to pelt the enemy with the debris is not to be resorted to except in the Msence of better ammunition? Can believers in Revelation do otherwise than accept this text as it was given by its Divine Author literally without mutilation or alterm ties? Is it not a suspicious circumstance that the necessity for such impious and illogical tampering with the I text has only arisen since it became possible to read it I by the light of modern science Does Mr. Gandy think Hugh Miller, who, poor fellow, found refuge in suicide from the difficulties of recouciling the nedoubted facts of his lenience with the statements of Mmes,—does he think him to be an authoriry on evolut:on as it is to day? Then as the facts of geology and archmtlegy utterly confate the statement of Moses—so neither Mr. Gand• nor any ether mortal must be permitted to pare and shape them ; till they do so, can any remelting being do otherwise than accept the facts even if he must discard the statement? So I come to the object of my pre•ions letter, and ask: Is it right to continue to teach the statements in our Sunday Schools, asd to give the lie direct in the day schools by teaching the facts? What but confusion of ideas aids disbelief in the better parts of the Bible can be looked fir if a hey is told in the Sunday School that six days were sufficient for Creation, and finds in the week that six millions are not enough ? Can the teaching of one truth destroy another Is it likely that any subsequent d ircove, ies of science will in any way lessee the beauty sod motility of the iejunction to " Do unto others ao ye would they they should do unto you "? Then if true religion and , morality will not suffer by the discovery and promulgation of scientific truth,but only bibliolatry,who will be the worse though they be proclaimed from the hottse.tops ?