Once more. It is said that the object of the Bible is to teach religion and not science. Granted. And the object of an astronomer is to teach astronomy, of a geologist to teach geology. What then? Is the astronomer and geologist free to revel in all sorts of errors provided they do not affect his special science? No one would advance such a plea except for a sinister purpose. But admitting it for the sake of argument, what is gained by the admission? The express object of the first chapter of Genesis is to teach science. It professes to tell us how the world was made; and all its teaching is wrong. The object of Genesis vii. and viii. is to teach history. It professes to tell us how the world was destroyed by a flood; and the teaching is all wrong. The object of Genesis xi. is to teach ethnology. It professes to tell us how men became dispersed over the earth, and how it is that different nations speak different tongues; and the teaching is all wrong. It is no justification to plead that Moses was not skilled in geology, history, and ethnology. If he knew nothing about these matters, why did he profess to teach them, and why give it out that what he taught was told him by God? If God is the God of truth he can no more teach false science than false morals; it is equally untruthful to falsify a scientific or historical fact, as to falsify a moral precept or church doctrine. It is said that the writers of Scripture were inspired by divine wisdom to write nothing but truth. Now either the world was made in six days or it was not; either the flood covered the whole world or it did not; either the sun stood still at the bidding of Joshua or it did not; either Balaam’s ass spoke Hebrew and the serpent in the garden spoke the language of Adam, or they did not. If these things are not positive facts they are fictions, and could only deceive as they still do. It is inconceivable that Professor Airy or Huxley, knowing certain facts, should write a book and wholly ignore that knowledge. It would be puerile in the extreme if they were to plead in excuse for such folly that they were writing on another subject. The true question is this: were they knowingly stating fiction and falsehoods as veritable facts? If they knew that man was not made of dust, nor woman of a rib taken out of Adam while he was asleep; if they knew that the world was not made in six days, but affirmed that it was; if they knew that the serpent was not doomed to crawl on the ground and eat dust because the devil chose to assume its shape, but said that it did, then are they altogether to blame, and it is a matter wholly indifferent whether they were writing science or theology. So with the “inspired penmen.” They profess to write truth, to write facts, and if the words they utter are not truths, and the events they record are not facts, it is quite beside the question whether they pertain to the immediate object of their books or not.