covery, are tempted to regard the Earlier Portion of the Sacred Volume as not inspired. It is possible that the unbeliever may find something in these pages to soften his prejudices: but his case is not here specially contemplated.

My treatise is, therefore, of the defensive kind. It is intended to show the inquiring how difficulties are to be met and objections removed. Some hesitate as to the expediency of putting such books into the hands of the young, thinking them calculated to engender doubts where they never existed, and to create the very scepticism which they were intended to rebut. There is some weight in this; and, no doubt, were the mind never likely in after-life to encounter the false views of sceptics, it might be far better to leave it untainted. If the young could always be fenced around by truth, till its principles became so thoroughly infused into their minds and hearts as to make error innocuous when they go out into the wide world, to leave them ignorant of the different forms of doubt and unbelief till circumstances force them upon their notice, might be the better course. But it is next to impossible to protect them, even when under the wisest guidance, from becoming acquainted with, if not imbibing, some of the mischief, which a refined scepticism—especially regarding the historical character and full inspiration of the Holy Scriptures-is spreading far and wide through the press and other channels. If the hesitation regarding the propriety of teaching these things to the young arise from a dislike to see old and prima facie interpretations upset, such a course is most dangerous. By maintaining false and exploded inter

pretations as true, we are sowing in the minds of the young seeds of a future revulsion which is likely to injure them far more than the introduction of the new views at an earlier stage could possibly do. There can be no question that the safest course is conscientiously to teach the young the whole truth without reserve, not shrinking from stating in a plain and open manner the various objections and difficulties they will hear broached, explaining to them at the same time in what spirit and by what kind of argument they should be met.

The fact is, that sceptics and semi-sceptics are, unwittingly or not, undermining the faith of many in Scripture by subtle arguments drawn from the apparent contradictions between Scripture and Science. Against this it is necessary to provide an antidote: and the better fortified our youth are in their earlier days, the better prepared will they be to contend for the truth in after-life. It is not the Christian, but the worldly philosopher, who has raised these questions. But, having raised them, he forces the advocates of Scriptural truth to enter upon the contest, and to meet him on his own ground, that they may put a weapon of defence in the hands of those whose faith is in danger of being assailed.

I write for the protection and consolation of the faithful, under the attacks which Science, falsely-socalled, has brought against the Sacred Volume which is dear to them, and in which all their hopes of happiness are centred. There are excellent works which have the same end in view; but they take a different course. I will explain what I mean by an example.

Some advocates of Development, as the principle which has led to the present order of things, maintain, that creatures have their present habits, not because they were so created, and Divine Design is illustrated in the adaptation of their organs to those habits; but because no other habits could consist with such organs, that the organism has grown up in the natural course of things, in fact by natural law, and in cases where the habits were suitable to the organism, the organisms survived; in other cases they perished and disappeared. Now there are excellent treatises * which take up subjects of this kind on their own independent ground, not starting from the Scriptural side of the question; and the writers endeavour to show that an examination of the facts leads to an opposite conclusion; one which in the result coincides with Scripture statement. This requires a more lengthened treatment, and is very often successful. But there are instances in which this result cannot be thus absolutely attained; though nothing can be proved to the contrary. I take a different line in this treatise. I begin at the other end; and my aim is not to establish the truth of this or that theory which may be advanced, but to show that wherever any theory comes in conflict with Scripture rightly interpreted, it is the theory which is at fault, and not Scripture; if the theory does not touch upon Scripture, whatever it may be, I have in this treatise nothing to do with it. In adopting this line I feel it right to take the highest ground, and to

* I allude to such works as the Duke of Argyll's Reign of Law Dr. George Moore's (M.D.) The First Man and his Place in Creation, Mr. Gilbert Sutton's Faith and Science.

maintain it, till dislodged from it by argument and real facts. The Sacred Volume comes to us encompassed with evidence, external and internal, that it is the Written Word of God. This being the case, the most reasonable conclusion is, that it is free from error of every kind; for even where expressions are used which touch upon merely ordinary and natural things, it would be as easy for the inspiring Spirit to suggest to the minds of the writers words, not scientific words, but ordinary words, which would never be found at variance with fact, as words which, though they might at the time accord with current conceptions, would afterwards be found to be incorrect. Here, then, I take my stand and I challenge Science-no, I will not so desecrate that honourable name by allowing even suspicion to attach to it, but I challenge Science falsely so called-to produce one instance in which the statements of Holy Scripture are proved to be wrong, except in as far as minor errors have crept in through the mistakes of the most careful copyists. I do not aim at reconciling Scripture and Science, though this is often the result of the investigation; but at demonstrating the fact which is involved in the title of my book, namely, that Scripture and Science are never at variance. This I do in the first part of my treatise, bringing together and examining all the examples I can think of, in which it has been alleged from time to time, that Scripture and Science are in irreconcilable conflict; and I show that further light or impartial examination has cleared up the difficulty. From this I argue, that it is in the highest degree unphilosophical, wherever new difficulties arise in these days of dis

covery, to doubt that these also will be cleared up as light and knowledge advance. The experience of the past should encourage us fearlessly to carry our investigations into the phenomena of nature, fully persuaded no real discrepancy can ever be in the end established. The above may be regarded as a negative argument.

In the Second Part I enter upon an examination of the character and contents of the earlier portion of the Book of Genesis; as it is in this portion of the Sacred Volume that the seeds of strife between Scripture and Science are supposed chiefly to lie. By what I cannot but regard as an unanswerable proof of the historical character and plenary inspiration of these Early Chapters, and by a reference to their important bearing in various eminent particulars, I establish a positive argument for their inspiration, and show that under these circumstances it is impossible that Scripture can, when rightly interpreted, be at variance with the Works of the Divine Hand; and that therefore, if difficulties remain at any time not cleared up, they must arise from our ignorance, or from hasty interpretation either of the phenomena before us or of the language of the Sacred Record.

The results of this investigation are then summed up, and the conclusion drawn,—that no new discoveries, however startling they may appear at first, need disturb our belief in the Plenary Inspiration of the Sacred Volume, or damp our ardour in the pursuit of Science.

It will be seen from the above sketch, that it is not necessary for the validity of my argument that