877 
there was, at the time the inscription was written, a universal tradition 
that a deluge had taken place ; but when you come to read the inscription 
carefully, you will find that the story of the deluge is placed among the 
category of myths. The point therefore is, that the whole account, so 
far as its historical value is concerned, is based upon the testimony afforded 
by a number of myths. All that the inscription shows is, that there was a 
story prevalent at the time it was recorded, which bears a certain analogy to the 
narrative in the Scripture. This is the only portion of the paper to which 
I take exception. I should however say, that if there be any other failing 
in the paper it is its excessive brevity. I am afraid the author must have 
been induced to make the paper so short, by the strong clamour which usually 
prevails against long sermons and lengthy papers. One point that has pro- 
duced a feeling of regret in my mind is, that the author did not carry out, at 
greater length, the analogies which exist between the gradual development 
of creation and revelation. I think that if this were done, carefully and well, 
by some man of enlarged mind, it might be made a point of Christian evi- 
dence, as important as any that can be obtained. The principle is here 
affirmed clearly enough, and it is a matter of regret to me, that the author has 
not enlarged his paper to double its present length, and pointed out the 
various analogies which exist in the Bible, and which, to my mind, contain 
the fullest proof that the Author of the one order of things, is the Author of 
the other. (Hear.) I shall not attempt to repair this omission, because I am 
well assured that no one could do this properly in an extemporaneous address. 
It could only be done pen in hand, for on such a subject it is important that 
nothing should be said that has not been fully considered. I will, however, 
draw attention to a few points, without endeavouring to treat them definitely, 
or distinctly. The paper draws attention to the fact that there is an enor- 
mous variety in creation — that creation is, to use a very expressive phrase, 
“ many-sided” ; and in the same manner the Bible is many-sided, and I 
should have been very glad to have seen this many-sidedness of the one, 
paralleled directly by the many-sidedness of the other, in which case the 
paper would have possessed the highest value. Let us take an example or 
two of this many-sidedness. I will refer to § 18 of the paper, where 
the writer treats of the fourfold reign of fishes, reptiles, mammals, 
and man. This is the order of creation. Let us see whether there is any 
similar order in the Bible. I assert that there is. In the Bible you 
have various forms of revelation, passing through a succession of phases 
beginning with the Patriarchal dispensation, going on to the Mosaic and 
Prophetic dispensations, and finally culminating in the Gospels. Here, at 
any rate, you have an analogy between the mode of working of God in 
creation, and of God in revelation. Let us take, again, another remarkable 
circumstance alluded to in the paper — viz., the great variety of view which 
the human mind takes of various subjects. We see precisely the same fact 
in nature and revelation, from one end to the other. Take what must strike 
every reader of the New Testament. Fully admitting that there is a oneness 
