163 
the surface. With that exception, I do not think scepticism has much to 
do with making men of science reason illogicallyy and I must say, when 
there are so many glass windows in the houses of those opposed to scientific 
scepticism, that it is not wise for them to throw too many stones. 
Rev. Charles Deane, D.C.L. — I do not rise to meet the observations of 
the last speaker, although I think they are subject to question ; and I should 
differ from him almost entirely as far as the writers of the present day are 
concerned. I think they are going away from authority as a rule, and seeking 
proofs from Scripture, rather than accepting the dicta of the divines preceding 
them. But I do not rise to combat that proposition of Mr. Warington, but 
to request you, Sir, to ask him to tell us if he can, what is the original of the 
remainder of that verse which he referred to, with regard to the sun standing 
still, or “ being silent.” Our version says, “And hastened not to go down 
during the day.” If Mr. Warington can remember the context, I think it 
would help us in considering the point, whether the sun was merely “silent,” 
or if we must believe that the sun really stood still. 
Mr. Warington. The only alteration that would have to be made, to 
make that verse correct, is to strike out the word “down.” The expression 
may be used either of the rising or the setting of the sun; it simply implies 
motion ;^and the . expression “The sun was silent and hasted not to move,” 
would plainly suit either interpretation which might be put upon the verse 
equally well. 
Eey. J. Manners.— I wish merely to refer to Mr. Warington’s interpre- 
tetaon of the original passage. I believe “ be silent » is a Uteral translation 
of the Hebrew. Now, you could have a darkness that might prevail for any 
length of time, whether the sun moved or not ; and there might be darkness 
in one place and light in another. 
The Chairman -Dr. Thornton mentioned this as showing an instance of 
want of logic on the part of some sceptics. “ The Scriptural language on the 
subject is, as we might expect, popular, and not scientific, and has moreover 
a poetical cast.” I think Mr. Manners will find he is at one with Dr 
Thornton, while he does not differ from Mr. Warington. He only mentioned 
an additional fallacy to the one mentioned by Dr. Thornton— a fallacy of some 
who support the miraculous view, without going themselves to the Scriptures 
to determine what the Scriptures really said on the subject. I am sure it 
would be great presumption on my part to discuss so learned a paper as 
Dr. Thornton s, without more time to prepare for it. I can only say, that I do 
think . and I differ from Mr. Warington in this,— that “ The Logic of Scepti- 
cism is a very proper title to the paper. But Dr. Thornton has by no means 
maintained the counter proposition, that there is nothing illogical on the 
part of the defenders of revelation ; and surely it is valuable for thinking 
men to have especially set before them, what is illogical in those objections 
which are urged by sceptics against the Scriptures. Dr. Thornton gave a 
very valuable classification of these fallacies ; and I think it is very important 
that our members, those who are not logicians themselves, should be aware 
of them. Many people of tender faith may find their faith confirmed, when 
M 2 
