62 
the strenuous opposition of the large party opposed to any correlation of 
natural and spiritual truth. -. * _, 0 _T r : T14 a 
Science may soon enable us to account for the divergence of mankind into 
permanent races in a way more satisfactory than heretofore. It ^as hereto- 
fore been a stumbling-block with many m the doctrine of the unity of man, 
that we find evidence of distinctness of race as great as at present in early 
Egyptian monuments. Modern ideas of derivation have swept away this as 
an infidel objection, but they have not faded to demand an enormous lapse 
of time for the early development of these races. A new law is, however, 
comma* into view, which may render this unnecessary. _ It is that species, 
when first introduced, have an innate power of expansion, which enables 
them rapidly to extend themselves to the limits of their geographical range, 
and also to reach the limits of their divergence into races. These limits once 
reached, the races run on in parallel lines untU they one by one run out and 
disappear. According to this law, the most aberrant races of men might he 
developed in a few centuries, after which divergence would cease, and the 
several lines of variation would remain permanent, at least so l°ng^ “e 
conditions under which they originated remamed This new law, which ^was 
hinted at long ago by Hall, the Paleontologist of New York, is coming more 
distinctly into view, and will probably altogether remove one of the manned 
necessities of a great antiquity of man. It may prove also to be applicable 
to language as well as to physical characters. 
I have given above only a few examples out of many which may be 
adduced that the results of natural science as applied to man, however they 
may at first seem to conflict with the truth of God, will ultimately come into 
harmony with ^ referring to t]iese subjects here has been to invite the 
attention of Christians to certain errors in the treatment of such subjects, 
which I observe to be prevalent, and which I think every Christian man of 
science must sincerely deprecate. 
The first is the hasty reception of broad popular statements of leading 
scientists as if they were received and proved conclusions. Nearly every 
new scientific fact and principle is at first only imperfectly understood and 
partially misapplied, and statements much too unguarded are often made by 
enthusiastic votaries of particular specialties. -d. m 
The second is the resting content with the shallow assertion that tne -Bible 
need not be in harmony with Nature. The Bible is not a text-book of 
Science, nor are spiritual truths always directly reconcdable at first with 
natural truths. But the Bible, as a Book of God, cannot outrage Nature, 
and there are necessary harmonies between the natural and the spiritual. 
Weak admissions that the Bible accommodates itself to errors as to Nature 
mav save the theologian the trouble of inquiry, and may be welcomed by 
men of science as setting them free from dogmatic trammels ; but the earnest 
votary of science who is not a Christian despises those who make them, and 
regards their doctrine as worthless. , . . . , . , 
A third is the connection of ancient superstitions or modern ecclesiastical 
expediencies with God’s Word. Science is in its nature hostile to superstition, 
and to hypocritical expediency * * " . . ., A 
I believe that much of the antagonism of men of science is really excited 
bv accessions which are not of God, but the growth of human device m 
darker ages of the world. I would not ask the Christian to accommodate 
his creed to any requirements of the science or literature of our day. that 
would be an equally fatal error. What I ask is that the scriptural truth may 
be presented unmixed with extraneous matters, not of the Bible, but of man. 
Lastly, the Christian must not despise as unworthy of attention the 
current scientific doctrines on such subjects If the missiona^ thmks rf 
necessary to study the beliefs of the rudest tribes, that he may better teach 
