135 
put aside the divine inspiration which intends to tell you something which, 
I venture to say, on the face of it, obviously does not convey a moral or 
religious truth, when you are told that there was light before the sun? 
How could you prepare yourself to expect of a writer who knew nothing 
more than appeared on the surface, that he would have told you that 
he was putting into his narrative something that would discredit it in the 
estimation of the persons for whom he wrote it? I do not know whether they 
understood the full significance of it, but if I am to accept the facts of inspi- 
ration, I answer that these holy men spoke not of their oun will, but as 
impelled by a divine afHatus. Then I think that covers the whole ground. 
I should like to state in a few words what was written by Dr. Candlish ten 
years ago, in the preface to a new edition of his “ Reason and Revelation ” ; 
he says, “ The truth I take to be this — the inspiring mind had to convey 
to man a revelation of moral and religious truth ; He had in this connection 
to give a certain amount of scientific knowledge. The problem to be solved 
was, how the language in which the revelation to be conveyed should be 
so constructed and so adjusted, as to convey to the men of each successive 
age no higher scientific knowledge than they were in possession of, and yet 
should be found, in the long run, to be abreast of the highest scientific results.” 
Dr. Candlish goes on to say that in his belief and judgment that problem 
had been solved. After a close and minute study of this subject, I believe 
this is substantially a true statement of what has been done. If a man 
says, it would have been more satisfactory had the scientific knowledge of the 
Bible been more evidently in advance of the age ; I ask, in advance of 
what age ? If in advance of every age but the coming and final age, it would 
have been hopelessly unintelligible to all that preceded that age. If in advance 
of any particular age, it would have been similarly a hopeless enigma to all 
who lived before it, and would have been discarded as contemptible by all who 
came after it, The problem was simply this, — as Professor Challis and 
Dr. Candlish have stated it, — to convey the truth in language which, while 
popular in its mode of expression, should not utter any one statement, as a 
matter of fact, that was not strictly true. Some persons say the Bible was 
not given us to teach science, but they are hardly warranted in saying what 
the Bible was intended to teach, unless they are in possession of the views of 
the inspiring spirit. We, on the other hand, are warranted in saying that 
the Bible was intended to teach moral and religious truths, even when em- 
bodied in statements affecting scientific knowledge. “ As in Adam all die ; 
even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Again, “ God hath made of one 
blood all nations.” In these as in many other instances the moral and 
spiritual truth is absolutely dependent on the scientific truth : showing that 
what God has joined together, you will have great difficulty in putting 
asunder. With respect to the language of the Scriptures and its popular 
character, if it is asked of us, why it is that the Bible is not strictly 
accurate in scientific terms ? w T e have a right to answer, that the first scientific 
men of our age, before they cast a stone at Biblical language, should see that 
that which they themselves use is correct. In such a book as the Bible, it 
