But we may go further still with reference to science, and remark that there are many expressions in Scripture remarkably in harmony with it, and which almost appear to indicate a mind far in advance of the knowledge of the day. Take, _e.g._, the distinction drawn by Moses between rain and dew in Deut. xxxii. 2, ‘My doctrine shall drop as the rain, and my speech shall distil as the dew.’ Or the language of Job respecting the weight of the atmosphere, a scientific truth unknown till the days of Galileo: ‘To make the weight for the winds.’ (Job, xxviii. 25.) Many similar passages might be quoted, but these are sufficient to show that, although it was not the purpose of the book to teach science, there lay hidden within the book the germs of the truest science, waiting there unobserved till scientific men should discover the facts, and so by their science bring to light a fresh evidence of the divine inspiration of the book. 3. It is alleged that the sacred writers differed in some instances from secular historians. The favourite instances adduced are the date of the governments of Cyrenius in Syria, and that of Lysanius at Abylene. The one is placed by Josephus about eleven years after the birth of our Lord, and the other about the same distance of time before the commencement of John the Baptist’s ministry. It is a real pleasure to find men fixing on such minute points, and to see them obliged to leave unassailed the vast amount of accumulated evidence to the accurate fidelity of the sacred records. I confess that the simple fact of their fastening on such points proves very clearly to my own mind that they have nothing very substantial on which to fasten. Suggestions have been thrown out, which, if true, may meet the difficulty; but with our limited information, after an interval of one thousand eight hundred years, it is impossible to be sure that they are correct. But suppose there is a difference. Suppose the chronology of Josephus is at variance with that of St. Luke. Suppose that one or the other is in error. Is it impossible, I ask, that Josephus may be wrong? Is he infallible? Are his writings guaranteed from error? And why should the Christian tamely surrender the point, and quietly submit to the conclusion that St. Luke is wrong and Josephus right? I protest against such a surrender, and, till there is clearer evidence than we have obtained at present, I shall venture to believe that Josephus is mistaken if in anything he really differs from the inspired word. 4. But I have left to the last that which to many minds is the greatest difficulty. I mean the variations, or as some would call them, the apparent discrepancies, between the sacred writers themselves. Now I have no wish to deny the existence of such variations, though I dislike the term ‘discrepancies,’ for I do not believe there is discrepancy. And in dealing with this difficulty, there are, I conceive, three principles to be kept clearly in mind.