462 
I cannot go beyond the first word without differing from him. We are told 
that God has made of one blood all nations on the face of the earth ; but I 
fail to comprehend how that can be so, unless they have had one common 
ancestor. I only cite this as my reason for differing from the quasi-scientific 
doctrine set forth in this paper. It fails to present itself in the character 
here claimed for it, of being in perfect accordance with the great doctrine of 
the atonement. I know what is said as to the necessity for keeping clear of 
scientific topics when maintaining the authenticity of the Bible. We are told 
that the Bible is infallible, but yet it was not given to teach us science. I 
am always puzzled by that. How do we know that the Bible was not given 
to teach us science ? I maintain that whatever is given there is profitable for 
man ; and that the very men who say that are unable to draw the line 
between the scientific and the moral and spiritual statements in the Bible, 
when they attempted to do it, and even when in some event they succeeded 
to their own satisfaction, if not to mine, they always found that the most 
essential particulars to the maintenance, and growth, and perfection of the 
moral and spiritual life are wrapped up in the scientific truth of the Bible — 
that, in fact, the scientific truth is the outwork, and the spiritual truth is the 
citadel, and you can only surprise the citadel by forcing the outwork first. 
As in Adam all die, even so in Christ be sure all must live ; but if this 
theory of Dr. McCausland’s is true, all did not die in Adam ; and where is 
then your revelation as to regeneration ? As a matter of fact, Holy Scripture 
has declared that God has made all men of one blood ; and that as Adam 
died, so all men died. If you do not believe that, you have no authority 
whatever for believing in the universal resurrection of the human species. I 
find that Dr. McCausland supports his theory by questions. It is exceedingly 
easy to support a theory in that way. Every man can ask questions which 
it may not always be easy to answer, and no doubt there are many difficulties 
in this subject. But I differ from him in the inference that there are no 
answers which are so far satisfactory as to warrant us in holding the tenability 
of our faith in the Scriptures. Then I find it stated by Dr. McCausland that 
when the Essays and Reviews appeared, and Mr. Goodwin assailed the Mosaic 
Cosmogony — 
“ the equally mischievous article of Mr. Rorison was put forward by . the 
clergy of the Church of England as the best answer that could be given 
to it.” 
But I beg to recall to Dr. McCausland’s notice a book of much finish and 
ability, which contains the best answer to Mr. Goodwrn, and which denounces 
Mr. Rorison’s essay as mischievous ; I refer to Mr. Birks’s essay “ On the 
Bible and Modern Thought.” Dr. McCausland further says: — 
“ It follows that if the Scripture chronology is to be maintained, the 
doctrine of the unity of race must be given up. We prefer to retain the 
Scripture chronology, and adopt the alternative of the plurality of races.” 
But the Scripture shuts you out from the adoption of such an alternative. I 
think it is far more consistent to say, “ We will take the alternative if there 
