424 
have been the word which he saw. And how could he have seen it except 
by vision ? Still, I say, my friend Canon Birks may very fairly differ from 
me in that line of thought. But it is impossible for him to say that I have 
separated the facts and changes recorded in the first chapter of Genesis from 
the limits of Divine Revelation, when I have expressly declared them to 
have been supernaturally communicated. It may be, however, that my 
friend will fall back upon another meaning to his words. He may contend 
that while I place the whole of this chapter within the compass of a Divine 
Revelation, I nevertheless separate its “ outward facts and physical 
changes” from “ all moral and spiritual truth.” But, even were this his 
meaning, I no less repudiate the charge as unfounded. For those who 
take the trouble to read paragraph 27 of my paper, will distinctly see that 
I treat the very facts communicated to Moses as the basis of moral and 
spiritual teaching. For example, I describe the six epochal alternations of 
evening and morning in Genesis i., with all their successive changes, as having 
been revealed by God under the form of natural days, for the express purpose 
of introducing to man the institution of the Sabbath. How, then, can it be 
affirmed that I separate those “ outward facts ” from the teaching of moral 
truth ? On the contrary, I deal with them as having been an ordained 
vehicle for the communication of that truth. Thus, the charge of Canon 
Birks, in its second form, no less than in its first, bursts, under this analysis, 
like an empty bubble. Nor is there anything else in my paper which justi- 
fies the charge. There cannot be found a line in it which separates the 
teaching of spiritual truth from the record of physical facts. How could 
such an opinion be held, or such a statement be made by any sincere believer, 
when facts of that nature are inextricably inseparable from parts of Scripture, 
like the “History of the Deluge,” “The Birth and Resurrection of our 
Lord,” and, indeed, the whole series of “ Miracles,” from one end of the 
Bible to the other ? The truth is, that this partition between the “ outward 
facts and changes ” related in Scripture, and its “ moral and spiritual 
teaching ” is a wholly gratuitous assumption of Canon Birks, and one which 
I repel as demonstrably and utterly false. What I did say in my paper was 
(and here I nail my colours to the mast, and intend to hold them against all 
comers), that it formed no part of the purposes, either of inspiration or of 
Revelation, to express facts bearing upon questions of science with scientific 
accuracy ; the sacred writers being left to clothe them in the popular 
phraseology of the times in which they lived, on the ground that they were 
not intended to teach science, but solely to convey moral and spiritual 
instruction. The question, therefore, between myself and Canon Birks, is 
not one which affects the truth of any facts or physical changes recorded in 
Scripture ; nor is it one which affects those facts as having been made use of 
for the conveyance of moral and spiritual teaching. On those points, as I 
have now clearly shown him, we are agreed ; notwithstanding that by too 
superficial a study of my paper, Canon Birks has been pleased to think 
otherwise. The real point of difference between us, is whether it be possible 
