production of which it describes. And, on the other hand, if
science--the study of the universe--is found to throw light upon
and to receive light from the Bible, this is a fresh proof that
the Bible and the universe are from the same source; the authority
of the Bible is more firmly established, and the conclusions
arrived at by men of science are confirmed.

But before this can be done to any good purpose, something is
required from both the contending parties. The theological party
must be prepared to sacrifice many an old opinion, many a
cherished belief. Great care must be taken to discriminate between
the genuine statements of the Mosaic Record, and the old
interpretations which have been incorporated into and identified
with those statements. Some, perhaps, may fear lest, in rejecting
those interpretations, they may be setting at nought an authority
to which they ought to submit, since these interpretations seem to
have the sanction of the Church. But it can hardly be maintained
that those promises of Divine guidance and protection from error
which were given to the Church extended to such matters as this.
No question of faith or duty is involved in the interpretation
which we may give to the details of Creation. If there are some
parts of the Bible in which the earliest interpretation is
unquestionably the true one, there are also other parts, such as
many of the prophecies, which became intelligible only when light
was thrown upon them by subsequent events. And so it seems to be
with the Record of Creation: it can only be rightly understood in
proportion as we become acquainted with the details of the matters
to which it refers. Any interpretation which was put upon it
before those details were brought to light must of necessity be
liable to error.