There are other advantages. The attrition of discussion often reveals and beautifies truths which would otherwise have remained unrecognised. Apathy or silence may shelter error without preserving truth. Intellectual indolence, bad for the world, is still worse for the church. The highest life is demanded by the Bible, and, therefore, also the greatest activity. From intellectual warfare, the sciences and the Scriptures have nothing to lose, but everything to gain. On Christian or sceptic, on prophet true or false, the Bible never peremptorily enforces silence. It seals no thinker's lip. "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord."1

In the field of thought, nothing save the chaff perishes. Lost truths spring up again; and, beneath their spreading branches, vitiated reasoning, unsound criticism, and erroneous conclusions, ultimately decay.

There are those also who deplore this discussion only because it raises questions hostile to the Scriptures, and alarms the weak. This anxiety, though laudable, is fruitless. These questions are already discussed on all hands, and in every variety of aspect. There are disadvantages, but they are generally inseparable from the progress of truth. It will be admitted on both sides, that while the extension of exact knowledge contracts the sphere of superstition, it enlarges at the same time the sphere of scepticism. Superstition may be displaced without Christianity becoming its substitute; there may be a high and an attractive civilization, based on science and its applications, which, in acknowledging the intellectual and moral supremacy of the Bible, and nothing more, may for a season destroy credulity, only to

1 1 Jeremiah, xxxiii. 28.

give fuller scope to No-Belief, and to evoke ultimately an opposition to the Bible, hitherto repressed or unknown. For such results you must be prepared; they are collateral, not essential or direct. They are, in fact, the price which you pay for your intellectual freedom. You are not to falter or hesitate because the increasing light which is dissipating ignorance and extending the boundaries of truth, is at the same time indirectly opening to error a wider field for the distribution of her forces, revealing new weapons for her armoury, and enabling her to seize, and for a season to retain, positions hitherto unknown and unassailed. In the history of the physical sciences, and of archæological discovery, Error has often rushed to the battlements of truth, and, seizing some detached or imaginary facts, has wielded them against the Bible, until the sciences have themselves expelled her, and repudiated her reasoning. Such agitation is not to be deplored: it conduces to stability, it evokes more good than error: not unfrequently has it happened that the superstition which long benumbed the church, and the infidelity which aroused her, have yielded to the unexpected sway of some Bible truth, when a more definite meaning has been given to some natural law or providential dispensation.

Those misunderstand the character of the Bible who suppose its safety lies in keeping it as far as possible from the rigorous investigations and the exact conclusions of science or philosophy. Such a method is indefensible. To pursue truth in one department implies, or should imply, not only a love of truth in every department, but also a resolute purpose to discover and dislodge every error. Which of the sciences, as preserved from controversy, is entitled to cast the first stone at the others, or their students? Philosophy and literature," says Lord Kinloch, in an admirable work,

66

"while professing to pursue truth in the composure of unruffled seclusion, and to be desirous of having it elicited by the healthy excitement of friendly debate, will protest against the dishonour of soiling their hands, or disarranging their robes, in the turmoil of heated controversy; and least of all will they consent to be defiled with the mire or exposed to the perils of religious strife. This plea is false in fact, as it is futile in philosophy. It is in fact false, for literary and philosophical controversies have neither been few in number nor wanting in a keen and rancorous spirit. And, admitting that religious contentions have been still more rancorous and embittered, it is only what might reasonably be expected, on account of the higher interests at stake. The plea is, moreover, worthless on philosophical principles; for it eviscerates the distinction between truth and error of all meaning and value. Better not to admit the distinction at all, than, having admitted it in one instance, deny it in another; or, what is worse, depreciate its significance even to thought, and that too in the most important of its applications. All argument and all effort are for ever at an end unless truth,-yea, all truth,-be precious; so precious, that in the legitimate pursuit of it, we may and ought to put forth our utmost strength; and in defence of it, when found, incur the utmost hazard." 1

Do not be discouraged by apparently insurmountable obstacles. The boldest assertions and the most plausible reasonings need not disturb you. Difficulties seemingly insuperable have, in the past, suddenly evanished in the light of unexpected discoveries; and every science, you may rest assured, will hereafter show strength enough and light enough to purify its own temple and be its own interpreter.

1 "Christian Errors, Infidel Arguments,” p. 97.

The past may be held to be prophetic of future solutions; and the sciences will be found not only correcting the mistakes and the arrogance of many of their students, but rebuking the too hasty concessions of Christian apologists, and indirectly revealing, at the same time, the impressiveness and the majesty of Scripture truth.

CHAPTER II.

The First Chapter of Genesis—Its Distinguishing Characteristics as a History-Origination of Matter-Import of "In the Beginning."

The archetype of science is the universe, and it is in the disclosure of its successive parts that science advances from step to step; not properly by raising any new architecture of its own, but rather unveiling by degrees an architecture as old as creation. The labourers in philosophy create nothing, but only bring out into exhibition that which was before created.-Chalmers.

S a historical record, the first chapter of Genesis is without a compeer. It is unapproached. Its first announcements distinguish the Bible from all other books. Its simplicity, its directness of statement, its boldness of conception, its subdued grandeur, are throughout conspicuous. "The historical events described," says Delitzsch, "contain a rich treasury of speculative thoughts and poetical glory, but they themselves are free from the influence of human invention and human philosophising." The record begins where the investigations of natural science cease, and this very peculiarity has drawn upon the Bible the fiercest assaults. Every statement has been in turn sifted, rejected, and vindicated; and one of the fairest tests which at the very outset you can apply, is carefully to compare the Bible account of creation and of the preparation of the earth for man, with those parallel histories by which heathen nations have hitherto been guided.

Reserving for future consideration the mutual relations of its more definite statements, let us, therefore, at once place