387 
opposed to Religion ; and tliat Religion, — revelation I mean, — • 
rightly interpreted, is not opposed to Science : that if the 
Bible seems to contradict true Science, it must be wrongly in- 
terpreted ; and that if Science appears contradictory to the 
true interpretation of the Bible, it is not realty scientific. 
That difficulties must be expected in the Scriptures is per- 
fectly clear to one who believes them to have proceeded from 
the Creator. The book of nature is hard to interpret; the 
book of grace maybe presumed, a 'priori , to be likely to prove 
equally hard. There are things in nature which, taken by 
themselves, would give us a false notion of the Author of all ; 
what wonder if there be such in Revelation ? Never was a 
wiser sentence penned than that of Origen, the text, as 
it were, of our own Bishop Butler’s “ Analogy” : Xpr) . . . 
tov ciTraZ, Tapade^apevov tov KTiaavTog tov k lovpov aval tcivtciq 
rag ypaipcig irtTrucOai, an o era irepl Trig urtaecog Inravra Toig 
Z,r)TO\)<n tov TTEpX avTijg Aoyov, ravra Kcii 7 rEpl riov ypa(j)iov : 
“ He who holds that the Scriptures proceeded from the Crea- 
tor of the world, must admit that as many difficulties will 
meet him in the Scriptures as in Creation.” In fact, we may 
go on farther to say that these very difficulties are themselves 
a proof that what they occur in, nature or revelation, proceeds 
from a Divine Being. If nature were not hard to interpret, if 
Scripture were not hard to comprehend, both might have 
been the work of human intellect; but as it is, both exhibit 
the evident tokens of a superior mind ; the All-powerful and 
the All-wise. 
But a more extended knowledge of nature and a more pro- 
found acquaintance with Scripture cause many a fancied dis- 
crepancy in each to disappear, and remove many a difficulty 
which at first sight was insurmountable, just as a mighty tele- 
scope resolves into separate stars many a cluster which weaker 
instruments only presented as a perplexing nebula. And, 
therefore, we may well imagine that a higher knowledge still, 
a knowledge which should rise above all that science and all 
that scriptural study have yet attained, and contemplate both 
from a superior stand-point, might perceive, and would per- 
ceive, that those seeming differences between the two books 
of God, which so perplex us now, are in reality but two poles 
of the same ray of truth, two beams which, to weaker vision 
separate, are yet phases of one and the same emanation from 
the Source of all Light. 
But have we approached this higher knowledge yet ? The 
Scriptures have been before us, and Nature has been about 
us, for many a century. But what have we yet attained ? 
Much, perhaps, yet only a fraction of what is needed, in the 
