230 G. MACLOSKIE, D.SC, ETC., ON COMMON ERRORS 



was just leaving liome, and then 1 looked at it and was sti'uck with 

 it, and tliouglit I would manage to be here tliis afternoon. As ta 

 the general tone of it, I agree almost entirely with tlie statements 

 here, and I agree also with that book which is referred to on the 

 first page, viz., that of Ex-President A. D. White — his able sketches 

 of the conflict between religion and science. I think that is one 

 of the most valuable and important books that have come out 

 recently. 



The subject here is one that I have been thinking of, certainly, 

 for this last sixty years, for even as a child I used to think of these 

 things, and I have in my pocket a little paper. It is, 1 believe, 

 forty years old, and it is headed " The Development of the Divine 

 Revelation." It appeared to me, during the discussion about 

 Darwinism and development and evolution, the discussion seemed 

 to be too old. Theologians have been constantly believing in the 

 development of the Divine Revelation. Why .should not they 

 believe in various forms of beings upon the eai-th ? I welcomed 

 that book of Darwin's The Creation of Species, because it 

 explained a number of difficulties I felt then, and it seemed to me 

 to tell you so thoroughly the nature of God's way of dealing with 

 the universe ; but I must not speak of personal feeling in that 

 matter. 



There are many matters which are very well worth considering- 

 as bearing on the whole history of this cotitroversy. I am inclined 

 to think that a great argument might be advanced in iegard to it 

 which I have not yet met with, viz., that in very early pagan 

 times the old religions of the old world were, to a large extent, 

 natural religions. Natural forces were looked upon as deities, and 

 the prophets were the expounders of nature, and strange Avere the 

 explanations they gave. They were to a large extent hypothetical, 

 but I know the tendency is to give theni a literal meaning; but it 

 is curious, I think, why it should be considered necessary that the 

 Sacred Writings should give the true revelation as to Nature. 

 The writers of the Bible never professed to do that, that I can see. 

 They, of course, frequently refer to Nature, and with the exception, 

 perhaps, of that passage in Genesis i, which of course is matter of 

 an exceptional character, they do not lay tlowii anything except 

 just speaking of the objects round about them in such a way as 

 an intelligent person would employ. Look at the descriptions of 

 Nature in the Psalms! They are in poetic languagi', and very 



