430 
can conceive divine revelation should be made. The discussion entered upon 
in this paper as to relative motion might seem to show that inasmuch » 
when we speak of the sun rising we are speaking on y in a ^ 
not ill an accurate way, so, upon close investigation, it “ mere i y 
is not accurate to speak of the sun as being s auouarj. 
amounts to saying that, so long as knowledge is imperfet aU language on 
such subjects is, in a certain sense, “ unscientific, and that fe ret ° r „ 
not really derogatory to Holy Scripture to call its language ' 
In the main part of his paper. Professor Birks departs from tom#* 
with which be started, namely, the revelation of the Mosaic cosm»gouy mafe na 
the first chapter of Genesis. Upon this question the Professor leaves ns whe 
we were. He assumes that there must be a cosmogony in that chapter, out 
throws little light upon its nature. It is easy to say ga nerally It nust 
be true, because God has spoken it.” Of course, it must j but in wha . se use 
is it true! If you say it must be true in its natural sense and n the 
sense in which I understand it, that settles the question. But wc do no 
know the way in which it is true. And if we strive to discover it, we 
must advance our theories with modesty, and accept those ° 0 “ ^ 
toleration, even if they should maintain, as some have maintained, thr 
chapter in question does not contain any system of cosmogony « 
ow? our thank, to Professor Birks for the great pains he has taken m com- 
rin" this paper. A great part of it is to me very interesting .especially 
that portion P which refers to the Pleiades, and the fishes and the birds, for it 
confinns Ui e view in which I ventured to differ from Canon Titcomb when 
his paper was read ; namely, that we should not attach much inrportance to 
the alWed discovery of recondite truths by accidental and casual remarks that 
are made in the Scriptures. (Hear, hear.) It impresses upon us the irnpor - 
mice of remembering that the endeavours which are sometimes made hx 
the discovery of some recondite truth by reference to some merely cam 
remark in the Scriptures are very dangerous. (Hear, hear.) I ave re h"en y 
heard it said that a remarkable proof of a recondite truth is to be 
such casual remark ; but when we come to examine the so-called recondite 
truth, we find that it is no truth at all. In that case those wkc 
weapon of this discovery have it turned against themselves After all be 
that Professor Birks and myself are not so much at issue, for m one part of his 
paper he speaks a good deal about the manner in which revelation is understood 
by man. You must speak of a thing as you see it. Although you may speak o 
absolute motion, you can only observe relative motion. That is all I contend. 
I say that the language of Scripture is according to the °**"^**£ 
who wrote it; and in saying this I in no way detract from th ^ Script • 
Professor Birks has, perhaps in the warmth of controversy, expressed himself 
rather hastily, and he has attributed to his adversaries statements which I 
■un sure he would not have imputed to them on further consideration : in fact, 
be-dng of the question. Professor Birks has shown that observations and 
