124 
it was not necessary, however, to make the message of 
God to man strictly scientific, he was permitted to speak 
popularly rather than philosophically, for a grand moral pur- 
pose. In the same way, when scientific men object to the 
statement of God’s having rested from His work on the seventh 
day, because certain processes of creation are still going forward 
in the deposition of deep-sea chalk-beds, and in a variety of 
other methods (a fact, by the way, which is confirmed by our 
Blessed Lord in that remarkable passage, “ My Father worketh 
hitherto, and I work ”) ; it is enough for us to reply, that 
Moses made this statement only as a result of the vision 
which had been granted to him. Beholding a cessation of the 
various phenomenal changes which had been brought before his 
eye, he simply described what he had seen, and registered it 
accordingly; the strictly scientific truth of the case being thus 
subordinated to its merely phenomenal appearance for the sake 
of a moral and religious purpose. In like manner, when 
Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, whatever may have 
been the nature of the miracle, it was at any rate a mysterious 
prolongation of daylight; and therefore language was used to 
denote it which, though strictly speaking unscientific, was, 
nevertheless, best suited to serve the moral purpose which God 
had in view, viz., to impress upon the Hebrews His almighty 
power over nature, and its exercise in defence of His covenant 
people. In this way both the writing of Moses and the utter- 
ance of Joshua may justly be regarded as inspired; notwith- 
standing that the forms into which their language was thrown 
are now found to be at variance with scientific accuracy.* I 
venture to submit that there is neither irreverence nor unbelief 
of God’s word in this form of Biblical interpretation. More 
than that, 1 am persuaded it is the only ground upon which the 
Bible can continue to be received by men of science, or 
stand against the attacks of scientific infidelity. 
28. The man of pure science, however, upon hearing this 
view of Biblical interpretation, may very fairly turn round and 
ask us by what right we thus speak of the inspiration of the 
Bible as consciously subordinating science to higher moral 
purposes? He may say to us: “This is only your own 
invention, in order to get rid of a difficulty. The Bible is 
unscientific in its phraseology involuntarily. Any idea of yours 
that the Mind which inspired it knew better, and only held 
* Other illustrations might be given from the second chapter of Genesis 
which is still less scientific in its narration, under the same line of argument 
but, for the sake of simplicity, I forbear to enter upon them ; one sample 
being quite sufficient. 
