125 
back the real facts of science by a premeditated purpose, is 
purely imaginary and unwarrantable.” Such a rejoinder, I 
say, may reasonably be expected ; and in the absence of any 
evidence to the contrary, might be perfectly legitimate. 
29. We meet it, therefore, now by the second conclusion at 
which we have arrived in the preceding portion of this paper 
viz., That notwithstanding the unscientific language of some por- 
tions of Scripture, there are other parts so exactly scientific as to 
be consistent even with the latest discoveries of modern philosophy. 
We have adduced, you will remark, three evidences of this, and 
had there been time, we might have adduced more ; and we have 
proved that the Mind which inspired Scripture must have been 
cognisant of them. Hence we have perfectly logical and 
rational grounds for believing that the same source of inspiration 
might have expressed truth much more scientifically in other 
places if it had been pleased to do so. We see in this circum- 
stance a deliberate reservation of scientific knowledge, which, if 
it had been the will of God to disclose to us in His revelation, 
He might easily have done. And, therefore, we lawfully con- 
clude that He withheld it by some deliberate purpose. In other 
words, that Scripture consciously subordinated science to certain 
moral and religious purposes; which purposes it would have 
complicated and rendered less perspicuous, at the time when 
first delivered, if it had been propounded. 
30. 1 consequently sum up the whole argument in the 
words with which I commenced. I say, if Scripture be 
unscientific in any part of its language it does not result from 
its inability to speak otherwise, but simply from the circumstance 
that its primary and fundamental object was moral and religious 
teaching. Hence the believer in Divine revelation need not 
be in the least degree perplexed or confounded ; his position is 
impregnable and immovable. As he does not go to philosophy 
for his religion, so neither does he go to Scripture for his 
science. He does homage to both with true loyalty of feeling 
in their respective spheres, and uses each with thankfulness in 
the two great depai’tments of truth which they are intended to 
illustrate. He does not say to the scientific philosopher, “ You 
are an infidel because your views are not coincident with the 
Bible,” neither does he say to his Bible, “ Thou art false, O book, 
because thy voice is not always philosophical.” He sees a 
reason on both sides for the divergence which at once satisfies 
his conscience and gratifies his intellect, and he pursues his 
studies accordingly. 
31. This is, in my judgment, the true harmony between 
science and Scripture; and I am satisfied it is the only one 
which will stand the scrutiny of severe investigation. If 
L 
VOL. IX. 
