163 
has not quoted authorities, I believe it will be found, upon examination, that 
his statements are quite consistent with the views of some of the highest 
authorities who have written on the subject. There is one point upon which 
I presume all are agreed, who hold the Scriptures to be the word of God ; 
and that is, that there can be no real contradiction between it and the facts 
of Nature : there can be no contradiction between the word and the works 
of God. In the pursuit of philological studies, there is one thing which often 
occurred to me the history which is given in Genesis of the origin of 
language, must either be a well-founded statement, or it must have been 
invented afterwards to account for the different tongues which are spoken. 
If it were the latter, I think it would have been far more precise ; if it had 
been invented in order to account for the different languages in the world, it 
would have been far more elaborate than the simple narrative which is given 
in the Bible. With regard to the general question relating to what is 
commonly called “ philology,” I should feel myself exceedingly incompetent 
to discuss it ; but I might remark that upon this question, as well as a great 
many others, I have observed that some persons have gone out of their way 
to raise difficulties against the Scriptures, where no difficulties really exist. 
(Hear, hear.) I have observed the manner in which Scripture has been ob- 
jected to, and have seen many persons straining at the merest trifles in order 
to raise difficulties, which in any other matter they would have felt to be no 
difficulty at all. And in consequence of the determination which has been shown 
to do this, the believers in Revelation have often been called upon to defend 
and explain things which, if it were not for the way in which their meaning 
has been distorted, would have required no explanation whatever. Now I 
think we have reason to complain of this. It is very unfair. Let the readers 
of Scripture, and men of science, and observers of facts, wait until facts are 
fully ascertained before they raise objections. It is quite possible that upon 
a closer examination they might find that many things turned out in a 
different manner from what they had at first supposed. We all find that, as 
children, we formed opinions upon those things that came under our notice, 
which we have since discovered to be altogether erroneous. It is thus with 
science. Men form their opinions with too much haste, and they subse- 
quently find that they were wrong. I say that science ought to be the 
observer of facts. Let men of science wait a sufficient time for facts, and let 
them thoroughly test every theory which is put before them, before they 
come forward and say, “ Here is something infallible, — here is something 
which cannot be disproved.” We often hear it said that “science teaches ” 
this or that. Something is wrapped up in this mysterious language, which 
we are supposed to be bound to accept as absolutely dogmatic. Now in 
such cases there is room for considerable doubt as to what science does - 
teach. It may be true that our present knowledge of science teaches us so 
and so ; but our present knowledge is quite imperfect. We are only just 
beginning to know what is the meaning of some things which are called 
science ; and therefore the phrase “ science teaches ” has no real meaning. 
It is an expression commonly used, not by those who are most competent to 
N 
