431 
c escriptions must be made of phenomena according to the way in which 
they appear to the observers ; and if an infidel objects to the Scripture as 
erroneous and untrue because the scientific descriptions are according to the 
phenomena as popularly understood, I should reply by saying, not that the 
language used is the word of God, and must be true, but that the statements 
are made m the natural and the only way in which such revelations could 
be made. (Hear.) The statements of Scripture may not be in accordance 
with the definitions of abstract science, but may be simply agreeable to the 
appearance of things around us ; but this would not make them “erroneous ” 
or untrue. If any one calls them so, he uses improper and irreverent 
language, and renders himself justly liable to censure for such an improper 
way of speaking. But we must not imagine that we have disproved the 
theory, because we suppose that it involves the supposition that the state- 
ments of Scripture are “ erroneous or untrue.” This is, in fact, to beg the 
question. It is enough to answer that the epithets are improperly applied, 
whether by those who maintain, or by those who deny the theory ; and if’ 
by improper use of terms, the maintainers damage their cause, the opponents 
do not establish theirs by assuming that such terms are properly applied. 
I am sure Professor Birks will agree with me in saying that he does not 
wish to attribute to Canon Titcomb anything like disbelief in the authority 
of Holy Scripture ; and 1 may add that perhaps Canon Titcomb was a little 
warm in replying to the paper, and imagined a more serious kind of attack 
than that which was really made upon him. I think that this discussion 
has been a very interesting one, although at the same time it has evolved a 
little m 01 e of the antagonistic element than we generally experience. 
Captain F. Petrie. It has been stated by a leading member of one 
of our universities, who saw the proof of the paper just read, that the 
astronomy and geology of the Bible are not considered by some men of science 
to be those of fact. Now, although such an expression is variously understood, 
yet, accepting it in what I know to be its popularly received sense, I venture’ 
to make the following remarks. Some years ago, when the Essays and Re- 
views were published, a number of our most learned men were selected to 
give “ replies.” Amongst those selected to write were the Radcliffe Observer, 
and the late Mr. Phillips, Professor of Geology at Oxford. The former, in 
his reply, alluding to the Creation as given in Gen. i. 2, 3, said, 
... 1 ofhmg can exceed m truth and grandeur these words of the inspired 
historian. Like the bold touches of a great artist, they create a picture 
which no after-addition or refinement can improve. The only passage besides 
these which concerns me as an astronomer, is that which describes with equal 
majesty the works of the Creator beyond the earth” (Gen. i. 14— 18). 
The most keen-eyed hypercriticism should see nothing to object to, as 
unworthy of an inspired pen, in this grand assertion of God’s creation of the 
sun, and moon, and stars, and of the provision which He made by them for 
the necessities of His creatures.” 
