428 
has read, Professor Birks, although probably he did not see the full force of 
some of the expressions he has used, seems to have somewhat severely 
attacked Canon Titcomb, whose statements have certainly been misinter- 
preted. (Hear, hear.) And I must be allowed to say, without any wish to use 
the language of indiscriminate censure, that Professor Birks has, in my opinion, 
laid himself open to the charge of representing the statements of his opponents 
not as they themselves mean them to be understood, unintentionally, of course. 
I formed this opinion in reading the paper calmly at home, before hearing the 
rather warm discussion of this evening ; and I must plainly express my opinion 
that this fault runs throughout the paper, in which Professor Birks attacks 
opinions which are inferences from, not statements in, the books whi ch he 
takes in hand. There is an instance of this in his treatment of the Fifth 
Essayist. The Essayist says ( Essays and Reviews, p. 209), “It would 
have been well if theologians had made up their minds to accept frankly 
the principle that those things for the discovery of which man has faculties 
specially provided, are not fit objects of Divine Revelation. This is all he 
says. Now, I will ask you to look at the mode in which Professor Birks, 
in sec. 5 of his paper, represents or paraphrases this expression of the 
Essayist before he proceeds to refute it. Professor Birks says 
“ Thus the threatened conflict between Science and Revealed Religion is 
averted, both by the Essayist, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and Canon Titcomb, 
by a treaty of partition. But the line of demarcation has a very important 
difference. With the Essayist, all belongs to Science, which men have 
faculties given them to investigate and understand. If there are any subjects 
beyond the range of our faculties, on which they can teach us nothing, these 
are resigned to Supernatural Revelation.” 
Now, I ask Professor Birks to consider whether this is a fair paraphrase 
of the statement of the Essayist ? (Hear.) The Essayist merely says that 
he can receive frankly the principle that those subjects for which man 
has faculties specially provided, are not fit objects of Divine Revelation ; 
and then, when this has to be refuted, it is represented that the Essayist 
says, that all subjects of knowledge for the consideration of which man has 
faculties provided, are to be excluded from the domain of supernatural reve- 
lation. Is that the same thing as the statement of the Essayist ? Professor 
Birks has also made large use of the argumcntum ad invidiam. Is it possible, 
he asks, to believe that the all-wise God should make His revelation in lan- 
guage which is unscientific, erroneous, and untrue ? Now the word “ unscien- 
tific ” is ambiguous. It may mean that the scientific element is absent, or 
that the language is contradictory to Science. These two meanings differ 
from each other. The opponent uses it in one sense, and Professor Birks 
argues as if it had been used in the other. It may be allowed that some 
who have propounded novel theories have made use of startling expressions ; 
but if any Christian apologist ever applied the epithets “ erroneous and un- 
true ” to any words of Scripture, the exact words of the author should bo 
quoted, and the exact sense in which they are used should be clearly shown, 
