425 
for the Scripture record of outward facts and physical changes in nature 
to contain any infallible communication of moral and religious truth, when 
from a scientific point of view the language employed in such records may 
not always be infallibly exact. Canon Birks thinks that if any portion of 
Divine Be vela t ion be scientifically correct, all is of necessity bound to be so. 
But is not this an unwarranted assumption ? For how can any man tell, 
that, in matters upon which it was no part of Revelation to instruct us 
scientifically, God should not have been pleased to be more exact in one 
part of His Word than in another ? How can Canon Birks, or I, or any one 
else transfer our ideas to the mind of the Infinite, and say what God ought 
to have done, or ought not to have done ? The question is what He has 
done ? But, then, it is said that an admission of the least inaccuracy 
of expression, even as to a scientific fact, must necessarily deteriorate 
the moral and spiritual teaching of the Bible. But why ? For if 
it formed no part of the Divine purpose to teach science in 
Scripture, then the scientific accuracy of its language may well have 
been subordinated to its real purpose, viz., its moral and spiritual 
teaching. Why should this view weaken the authority of inspiration ? Is 
the authority of inspiration weakened because Old Testament Scripture 
represents God under the form of a Being who has human parts and passions 
when we know that He has not ? And when this is done, moreover, not 
only in poetic books, but even in the historical ? Is it not evident that God 
was pleased in the early education of His Church to deal with it as a teacher 
does with children, stating facts somewhat iinmaturely for the purpose of 
suiting its imperfect powers of comprehension ? If God did this, in a 
manner which cannot be gainsaid, with reference to His Person, why should 
it be thought incredible for Him to have done the same in relation to His 
Creative works ? How can this latter view weaken the authority of inspira- 
tion ? It may do so among those who have been nursed in the belief that any 
other view of inspiration is wrong. But among men of science who are 
drifting into a sea of doubt and uncertainty, and who are disposed to reject 
the Bible because they have been told that its inspiration must necessarily 
involve as much infallibility in scientific matters as in things relating to 
everlasting life — among such persons this view of the question is most 
helpful and reassuring ; and so far from weakening the authority of God’s 
Holy W ord, strengthens it. I am aware that such an appeal to consequences 
is no test of truth, neither do I use it as such. I only mean that it is as 
much to be considered on my side as on the side of my opponent ; and that 
if he is right in appealing to his views on the ground of their being neces- 
sary to sustain the faith of those who believe, as I think, too much, I am no 
less justified in appealing to my views on the ground of their being necessary 
to help forward the faith of those who believe too little. In reality, how- 
ever, the investigations of truth ought to be quite independent of auy con- 
sideration of results ; for whatever consequences may flow from its discovery, 
truth will always take care of itself : it can never perish. In the course of 
