60 



EEV. G. i\ WHIDBORNE, M.A., F.G.S., ON 



piece of work does bear witness to the attributes and qualities of 

 the worker, and doubtless that is so in nature. "The invisible 

 things of God are clearly seen b}^ the things which are made." That 

 His eternal power — His Godhead, His goodness and providence are 

 all revealed by nature, we must certainly agree. I must concur 

 with the author that anyone unacquainted with nature might have 

 anticipated from the Bible that nature would have the main features 

 it presents to us. It seems to me that is a powerful argument 

 which might be added to the list here for the inspiration of the 

 Bible as being the Word of God. You cannot explain the facts of 

 nature except from the Bible. That, surely, is an argument for the 

 inspiration of the Bible. 



I most thoroughly endorse the author's protest against those 

 scientists who endeavour to make out that the Bible and science 

 are opposed to one another. The scientist who really studies the 

 Bible and then says so, is guilty of casting a slur and a slight on 

 science. True science is ever in agreement with the word of God, 

 as the author pointed out. Science investigates facts, but if you 

 want the meaning of the facts, the origin of the facts, the testimony 

 of the facts, you find in the Bible only the explanation. 



David Howard, D.L., F.C.S, — I think nothing shows the 

 admirable nature of the paper better than the way in which it has 

 borne cutting down in reading without losing the thread of the 

 argument. At the same time I hope that those who heard it some- 

 what curtailed will not fail to read it at length, for although the 

 fortress was so well defended some of the earthworks were left out 

 to save time, which are most worthy of careful attention. 

 . In regard to the author's remarks on the misuse of words and 

 consequent confusion of thought, I believe it is one of the most 

 difficult things in thought to escape from one's own words. One 

 uses a word and gets used to it, and then it appears to get sacred 

 not only in theology but in science, and argument is carried on 

 about a word, and the meaning is entirely obscured by the fact that 

 the word is used in an entirely different sense. To take evolution, 

 for instance, it is at once a clemi-god and a bogey. Some people 

 use it as an expression for what the words cannot possibly include 

 —the prime cause of all things — and others, in their dread of such 

 misapplication, shut their eyes to the evident truths to which the 

 word can be properly applied. I venture to think that this applies 



