to do so,—it is a truth to the sense, and therefore it may be called a sensual truth. The same principle holds good in all other like cases. We are not, therefore, to look into the Bible, expecting to find a scientifically exact record of physical facts; for to give such facts was not the object of the Sacred Volume. And it is plain to see that it could not have accomplished this object, without sacrificing its higher and proper one. Had the Bible declared in so many words,—what science declares,—that the sun does not really rise and set, would people in ignorant ages have believed for a moment a book which contradicted their very senses? They would have pronounced it unworthy of credit, and have cast it away altogether.
For want of taking this reasonable view of Scripture interpretation, the whole difficulty between Galileo and the Inquisition arose. Science told Galileo that the sun did not move: the Inquisition said, "you contradict the Holy Scripture, for it speaks of the sun's rising and setting, of its moving and standing still. Your assertion, therefore, is a blasphemy against God's Holy Word, and you must retract or suffer."
The same language, or similar, is too apt to be used in our own day,—the point in dispute, merely, is changed. It is now indeed admitted to be a scientific fact, that the sun does not actually rise or set; and so far, the Bible is acknowledged not to be, as it was not intended to be, the standard of scientific truth. But when other analogous statements in regard to physical matters are found, which are discovered or suspected to be irreconcileable with faets,—instead of at once admitting the same just principle of interpretation, it is too often found necessary to fight the old battle between science
