256 
we could not do otherwise. We know nothing as it really is : 
we know it by its qualities and appearances ; but the true reality 
is beyond our reach. If we endeavour to declare what gold is 
and what is silver, we can only describe one quality after 
another. We state in what things they agree, and wherein 
they differ; but at the end we have only been describing quali- 
ties or phenomena, not realities. Colour, specific gravity, 
ductility, and so forth, only describe properties. The same 
principles apply with equal, if not greater force, to what we 
generally call natural phenomena. If some new appearance 
were now to be visible in the heavens, we should at once 
describe it by some distinctive phenomenon. Gradually 
scientific men would discover additional phenomena. The 
original name would imperfectly describe the new knowledge, 
but it would be found more convenient to retain it. Who 
would think of altering the terms comet, planet, fixed star ? 
Yet who believes that the comet is a hairy star, the planet a 
wanderer, or the fixed star immovable ? What confusion has 
been introduced into science by needless changes of terms. In 
consequence, older books become limited to the learned, 
through mere nominal change. This is especially the case 
in geology : Eoeene, Meiocene, Pleistocene will probably 
soon become obsolete terms, and granite give up its claim to 
be always a primary rock. To attempt to describe things in- 
stead of phenomena in natural science would introduce endless 
confusion. On the other hand, where the phenomenon con- 
tinues the same, the retention of the same term is of ready 
adaptation to general use. The thing becomes the subject of 
scientific study, the name is only intended to describe the 
phenomenon. Would it be possible to invent two terms equally 
convenient with sunrise and sunset ? Yet who believes that 
the sun really rises and sets? Let us then lay down the general 
principle that the language of science is that of phenomena, 
and apply the principle to the interpretation of Scripture. In 
doing so all confusion would vanish. The famous objection to 
the sun and moon standing still would become changed into 
admiration of the Divine wisdom and goodness. The objec- 
tor asks, with an air of triumph, are we really to believe that 
God stopped the course of the solar system for the convenience 
of the Israelites when fighting a battle ? How many minds 
have been disturbed by the apparent difficulty. But let us 
examine the language of the narrative : “ So the sun stood 
still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about 
a whole day.” (Josh. x. 13.) Let us ask the objector what does 
he mean in ordinary language by the sun going down ? Does 
he describe a phenomenon or a reality ? There can be but 
