426 
this search after truth, however, I must beg to remark, as I did in my paper, 
that we ought never to attempt to force the doctrine of Bible inspiration 
“ along preconceived and self-determined lines of our own making , but to 
take it “just as it stands, interpreting it according to those necessary laws of 
sequence which accompany the discovery of actual facts. If we go beyon 
that I am convinced we shall “weaken the evidences of Divine Eevelation 
instead of strengthening them ; and in our vain attempt to uphold the 
Word of God by insecure props we shall bring it down with a crash. 
Feeling this most conscientiously, I will only end my reply by observing of 
Canon Birks’s paper, as he has done of mine, that I consider it to be ad- 
verse and not helpful to the cause of Christian truth .. 
Eev. A. I. MacCaul (Lecturer in Hebrew at King’s College).— I have 
listened with great regret to what has fallen from Canon Titcomb. My belief 
in regard to this matter is, that in the first chapter of Genesis we have neither 
visions nor pictures; but a narrative of the same kind as we have in any other 
portion of the Scripture. Where there are visions in other portions of Scripture 
we are always told that they are visions* Nor is there any trace of a poetical 
origin, although some urge that the description may be regarded as poetical. 
It contains no evidence of the rhythmical arrangement that is found in poetry; 
but is all prose— straightforward, natural prose, and before I give it up I 
shall require that some mistake or error is not only alleged, but proved 
against it. Many objections have been brought against the Scripture ; 
but let them be brought in detail, and we will consider them in detail. 
(Hear, hear.) We are told by some that those portions of the Scripture 
which are in apparent opposition to facts have been falsely translated ; but 
let those who make this assertion bring forward the instances, and we will 
consider them. I am not aware of such cases, and think that the paper read 
by Canon Birks is a gratifying and satisfactory one. (Hear, hear.) It is a 
gratifying explanation and justification of the language of Scripture. W hy , 
we have at the present moment even scientific men talking of the sun rising 
and setting, and crossing the line. Indeed, scientific men are in the habit of 
applying popular forms of speech and phraseology to scientific facts that can 
scarcely be realized, except by scientific men who have very closely studied 
the subjects to which this language is applied. It is, therefore, no argument 
at all against the credibility of the Scripture, that popular language is used 
upon scientific subjects. 
The Eev. Canon Titcomb.— No one has said anything against the credi- 
bility of Scripture. 
Mr. MacCaul.— I think it a sad thing to allege that there are inaccuracies 
in Scripture in a broad way ; indeed, I regard it as a very grave and serious 
offence. I do not hesitate to use the word “ offence ” (hear, hear), and I 
repeat that if there are any of these inaccuracies, let them be brought forward 
* If a vision is something presented to the sight, physical or mental, the 
account of Michaiah does not conflict with this statement.— [A. I. MacC.] 
