273 
contact with science at all. The idea which Isaiah had was to give the people 
some notion of the immensity of God. The waters of the earth were no more 
to Him than a few drops were to a man, which he could take up in the hollow 
of his hand, and the earth itself no more than a span. We are told that 
“ He comprehended the dust of the earth in a tierce,” because that means 
a third part, and because the land was divided into three parts, of which the 
arable land was one. I suppose, if the ^prophet had written in English, 
and had used the word “ quart,” instead of tierce, Dr. Baylee would 
have discovered that the earth was divided not into three, but into four 
parts. It is so easy to adjust things, so as to meet your preconceived theo- 
ries ! I must confess that I do not see what is the aim or object of Dr. 
Baylee’s paper, and, not seeing it, I shall not venture to offer any remarks on 
that head. But whatever it is that he proposes to prove, it seems to me that 
we shall require fuller and sounder evidence before we can receive it as 
truth. 
Dr. Gladstone. — I did hope, from the reputation of the author of this 
paper, that we should have heard something of great interest to-night. I 
have often paid attention to this subject, and ever since I was a little boy I 
have had a great fondness for philological research. I cannot discuss the 
paper before us at all minutely because of my small acquaintance with the 
Semitic languages ; but wherever I could form an opinion upon it I have 
found it wrong. When, for instance, we hear it said that Hebrew, or some- 
thing like the Hebrew of the Bible, was the language of Adam and Eve, it 
is utterly impossible for me to conceive that any language with grammatical 
inflections was spoken at that time. I will not go into the various points 
which have already been dealt with ; but my notions as to the philology of 
Dr. Baylee were at once set at rest when I came to the passage which ex- 
plains that the Noachic flood has compelled philologers to divide mankind 
into three great divisions. I suppose the three great divisions into which 
philologers would divide mankind would be that in which monosyllabic 
languages are spoken, that in which languages having the syllables agglome- 
rated together are spoken, and that in which languages having gramma- 
tical inflexions are spoken. But what all this can have to do with Shem, Ham, 
and Japhet I cannot possibly conceive. Dr. Baylee ’sremark can only arise 
from some idea that has passed out of existence a long while ago. I will not 
detain you with many remarks upon a matter into which Mr. Warington has 
already gone so fully ; but I should like to say a word upon the suggestion 
that if we closely examine the words of the Scriptures, we shall be able to 
arrive at the conclusion that the sacred writers had some knowledge of 
natural phenomena, and that that knowledge is in some way embraced in the 
very words they have used. If that were so, it would be a very interesting 
fact, and we should have scientific prophecies somewhat analogous to his- 
torical prophecies. But if that were not the case, and the sacred writers had 
only used the ordinary language of their own day, then we have not an 
evidence of the Divine authorship of the book, but we may have a proof of the 
antiquity of the book, and a means for looking into the way, and examining 
