was not absolutely true. This sounds very plausible. Yet may 
it not be one of those human preconceptions by which we may 
unnecessarily hamper our judgments ? For what if God was 
pleased, in the early education of His church, to deal with it 
as a teacher does with children ; stating facts immaturely and 
imperfectly, because the w-hole truth w r as at the time unsuited 
to its comprehension ? Would there be anything in this 
unsuited to the infallibility of the Divine Mind? Nay, is it not 
obviously the case in reference to some points which cannot be 
controverted ; such as the anthropomorphic representations of 
Deity ? Can it be said that the picture of a living personal 
God, having human members, is absolutely true? What we 
contend for, therefore, is that this case should not be predetei’- 
mined without investigation. Accepting, as we do, the inspira- 
tion of holy Scripture upon grounds which are totally distinct 
from any of those raised in this discussion, all w r e maintain is, 
that theologians should not come to it, having their minds 
occupied with self-willed preconceptions ; but be ready rather, 
with the humility of little children, to adapt their preconcep- 
tions, when necessary, to the inexorable logic of facts. We 
begin, therefore, by facing this bold assertion that the Word of 
God must be as necessarily exact in all its scientific as in all 
its moral and religious language. I ask is this an intuitive pre- 
conception based upon some self-evidential truth ; or is it a 
misconception founded upon the self-assumed authority of our 
own reason ? Surely it must be the latter. For what antecedent 
obligation exists, previously to our making any inquiry into the 
case, by which we are compelled to regard the language of 
Scripture upon questions wdiich have a scientific bearing as in- 
fallibly accurate ? Do you say, because it was inspired by the 
infallible Spirit? That fact I hold to as tenaciously as any 
others. But it by no means settles the point. For, as I have 
said before, it seems perfectly consistent to suppose that the 
Spirit of God should have inspired the sacred writers with the 
utterance of infallible teaching upon all those purposes for which 
Revelation was designed — viz., moral and religious purposes, — 
and yet have allowed their inspiration to use terms of speech 
on points which formed no part of the designs of Revelation, 
such as scientific questions, according to the manner in which 
those persons to whom the Revelation was delivered could at 
the time best understand them. The very fact that this distinc- 
tion presents itself to the minds of reverent believers in God’s 
word as something which is both possible and probable, proves 
that, at any rate, the opposite conception cannot be necessarily 
intuitive and obligatory. When that view is forced upon us, there- 
fore, previously to any examination of Scripture language, we 
