87 
tions of Scriptural teaching. The point contested was the 
right or power of Science to say aught against them. This 
mode of answer may be regarded as now, however, in several 
of tbe instances named entirely obsolete, at least among those 
who know anything of Science. The advocates of Scripture 
have been obliged, m dealing with these, to take up other 
ground. 1 
In the second place, then, not a few of them have passed 
unhesitatingly to the opposite extreme. These doctrines and 
observations of Science are, no doubt, they say, most true; 
but. then they are not really inconsistent with Scripture : 
Scripture properly interpreted teaches precisely the same 
thing. Make due allowances for poetical and metaphorical 
expressions, and the employment of simple, every-day phrases 
descriptive of natural appearances, which are used unhesi- 
tatingly by the most scientific still, and the two are found to 
e, m truth, perfectly at one. Then, enamoured with the 
prospect thus opened, the upholders of this view have launched 
lorth boldly into general interpretation, and shown, or endea- 
voured to show, how every allusion to Nature in Scripture is 
not only harmonious with Science, but, in fact, anticipate of 
it ; how the profoundest truths, which Science has only mst 
revealed, lie there embedded in ail their purity and force 
needing nothing but impartial and keen-sighted exposition to 
bring them to light. According to this school, then. Scripture, 
thougn not, perhaps, intended primarily to teach Science, is 
yet scientifically accurate in essence everywhere ; the discord 
between them is only apparent, not real. 
But at this a third class gravely shake their heads in 
ominous doubt.. Granted, say they, that, when fairly viewed, 
ma fy o± objections of Science on this head are unfounded, 
and that Scripture is not really committed to some of these 
views which were formerly connected with it, and which 
Science has overthrown; yet surely there are other of the 
objections, and especially those referring to Natural History, 
which cannot be thus answered, at least without a strain upon 
the plain words of Scripture for which we have no sufficient 
warrant. Is it not safer, then, to concede that in these, at all 
events, the allegation is well, founded ; and rest on our defence 
rather on this : that such trivial errors have nothing whatever 
to do with the real worth of Scripture; that scientific accuracy 
bemg in no way necessary to the end designed to be attained 
by Scripture, so. on these matters its human writers were left 
to speak in their ordinary language, and in accordance with 
tfie prevalent ideas of their time ? 
Such are the three lines of reply adopted by advocates of 
G 
