which the discoveries of science have proved to be untrue, we
cannot account for them on any theory of limited inspiration. A
single proved error would be fatal to the authority of the whole
narrative. But, on the other hand, we are not justified in
expecting such an account of the Creation as would commend itself
to the scientific intellect of the present day. When we attempt to
form a judgment upon it. We must look not only to its alleged
author, but also to the purposes for which, the circumstances
under which, and the persons to whom it was given. In these we may
expect to meet with many limitations. It was not designed for the
communication of scientific knowledge, it was necessarily conveyed
in human language, and addressed to human intelligence, that
language and that intelligence being, not as they are now, but as
they were, taking the latest possible date that can be assigned to
it, considerably more than three thousand years ago.

This last consideration affects not only the record itself, but
also our facilities for understanding and forming a judgment upon
it. We have to contend with difficulties of interpretation arising
from our inability fully to realize the circumstances under which
it was given, and to place ourselves in the mental position of its
original recipients. Owing to our want of this power it may well
happen, that though we are in possession of vastly increased
knowledge, we may be far more liable to fall into error in some
directions, in the interpretation of it, than those to whom it was
originally addressed.

An additional difficulty arises from the circumstance that our
knowledge, wonderfully as it has been increased of late, is yet
very far from complete, and is probably in many cases still mixed