237 
see no possibility at present of getting any clear 'answer from geology as to 
the antiquity of man ; but that that antiquity was so great as we are asked 
by so many nowadays to concede as beyond question, may well be doubted, 
on grounds which I cannot now enter upon, and so far I agree with 
Mr. Callard. 
But there is no conflict between any clearly ascertained scientific fact and 
religion, the only conflict is between science and erroneous interpretation of 
Scripture, or between unstable scientific theories thrust into opposition to 
the Bible. We are far too apt to interpret the work of the Semitic writers 
as we should a modern book, and to apply to it the same canons of inter- 
pretation that we should to some work of English genius, even occasionally 
building arguments on the uncertainties of our own version of the Bible, and 
thus discrepancies are often made to appear where there are none, through 
over hasty and unsound interpretations. 
As earnest students let us accumulate facts, and be very slow to form 
theories ; let us wait and be patient, and in time, though it be beneath the 
crossed swords of the controversialists, as through a triumphal arch the divine 
form of truth will be, seen advancing ever nearer and nearer into the perfect 
light. 
Eev. W. B. Galloway.— I think we must all join in thanking Mr. 
Callard for his interesting and well-reasoned paper. (Hear, hear.) With 
regard to the contemporaneity of the mammoth and other extinct mammalia 
with any of the Roman remains, I must confess to feeling very doubtful on 
that point, and I think the objections made to such contemporaneity will 
probably be found valid ; but as my first acquaintance with geology was 
formed soon after Buckland published his “ Reliquife Diluvianap,” and during 
the time that Cuvier was hailed as a high authority on these subjects, I may 
be permitted to say that I think their theory has not been well superseded 
by the present glacial theory. It was made a subject of ridicule by un- 
believers in a former age, that men should be so credulous as to believe in a 
universal deluge,— a deluge in which the world was covered by water ; but 
we now find substituted for that a deluge of solid ice, in which Scotland is 
affirmed to have been buried under a depth of 3,000 feet of ice, and Switzer- 
land to have had its valley between the Jura and the Alps filled up by an 
entire glacier, so that rocks slid down from the Alps upon the Jura. We 
are further informed by these theorists, that America was covered by glaciers 
varying in depth from 7,000 to 8,000 feet, Scandinavia by glaciers varying in 
depth from 7,000 to upwards of 8,000 feet, and that all Europe bears evidence 
of this enormous depth of ice — solid ice — having covered the world. I 
think if Voltaire were again in life, and still disposed to ridicule the theory 
of a universal depth of water having covered the hills, surely he might find 
some ground for ridiculing the credulity of those who accept the latter 
hypothesis. (Hear, hear.) For my part, I feel that it is worthy the considera- 
tion of geologists whether Cuvier’s and Buckland’s theory was not the truer of 
the two. (Hear, hear.) I find in “ Lyell ” that he supposes the contents found 
in the caves that have been mentioned, ascribable to the caves having been 
