36 
fail if we admit that 10,000 years has been the duration of man’s exist- 
ence on this planet ? 
The Rev. Dr. Currey. — I do not pretend to any extensive knowledge of 
the subject of geology, but I can scarcely agree with Mr. Masterman in his 
views in reference to the antiquity of man. There are differences of opinion 
on the subject, and while he may entertain the view he has expressed, there 
are other people who have an equally strong belief in Revelation and all its 
truths, who take a different view in regard to the possibility of reconciling 
their ideas with the great antiquity of man. With reference to the text 
which Mr. Masterman has cpioted, all we need say is, that we do not abandon 
that text, but only his method of interpreting it. If it is said that we are to 
abandon Revelation when we discuss the antiquity of man, I think the 
Institute must give up discussing such subjects altogether. But, as I under- 
stand it, our object is to consider how far the results of modern science can 
be reconciled with religion, even if it leads to a different interpretation of the 
texts of Scripture from that to which we have been accustomed ; for it is pos- 
rible to hold firmly to the truths of Scripture, without refusing to admit new 
modes of interpretation, if they are consistent with reason and seem to be 
established by sound argument. Mr. Pattison lays great stress on the fact that 
geology affords no chronological data, and I observe that other persons who 
hold very different opinions with regard to the antiquity of man, make the 
same assertion. But the proposition that “ geology affords no chronological 
data ” may be understood in two different senses ; it may mean that geology 
gives no ground for supposing any such antiquity, or that it affords no data 
for framing a system of chronology, and determining how many thousands of 
years have passed since the creation of man. Now although there may be no 
sufficient data for forming a system of chronology (and I think Mr. Pattison ’s 
paper shows, at least, that we have not sufficient data for this purpose), 
geology may furnish us with evidence — I will not say conclusive, but forcible 
evidence — in favour of a very great antiquity. For my own part, I believe 
(for the investigations of science and of history seem to show) that the 
period has been very long, but I do not believe that we have sufficient data 
for determining how long. I do not think, however, that this, my belief, is 
contradictory to the scriptural records. The dates affixed to the margin of 
some of our Bibles are not part of the Bible itself : they are formed by 
calculations made at a time when geology was unknown, and although they 
seem to agree with the obvious meaning of the text, the arguments in 
favour of them are not conclusive. In records so brief, of times so remote, it 
may well be that gaps were left, which were not intended to be filled up : 
but this is not the time to discuss the modes in which difficulties of inter- 
preting the same may best be overcome. In such questions we must not 
be too positive ; when we have evidence before us acquired by true science, 
we may examine the records with new light, and find in them a meaning 
which, though not lying upon the surface, may yet be the true one. 
Dr. E. Haugiiton. — In reference to what has fallen from Mr. Masterman, 
