274 
into the period in which certain books were written. I have looked a little 
into that matter, and I confess it appears to me that Dr. Baylee’s view is not 
carried out. Take that text from the fortieth chapter of Isaiah — “ It is He 
that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” Now, in order to make that square 
with modern science, the modern idea has first of all to be put into the text, 
and then to be dragged out of it. Any one looking at the earth knows that 
it is a circle ; but that does not necessarily mean a sphere. There are many 
passages into which it is not at all difficult to put the ideas of modem 
science. Take that text which Dr. Baylee says states the process of evapo- 
ration — “ All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full ; unto the 
place from whence the rivers came, thither they return again .” But it is 
quite possible that at the time that was written there may have been some 
other theory as to the circulation of the waters between the sea, the rivers, 
and the air ; and possibly some of these ancient peoples knew more about 
these things than we give them credit for. But, then, we must look at the other 
side of the argument, and we find that expressions are used which, unless 
they are simply figurative, are altogether wrong. We must take all the 
evidence together, and we are led to the conclusion that the ordinary figura- 
tive language has been applied to the phenomena of nature, and in the few 
cases where the language will accord with the modern discoveries of science 
we must either conclude that the ancients knew a little more about these 
things than we had imagined, or else that the result arises from mere 
accident. I myself have come to the opposite conclusion to that towards 
which Dr. Baylee seems to tend in this paper. One thing it is very 
necessary to do in all these studies. It is very necessary to avoid all pre- 
conceived notions, and to take the meaning of the words as they are set down, 
drawing out of each passage nothing more than it actually contains. Take 
the text, “ Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, and 
let the dry land appear The gathering together of the waters called 
He seas.” Is that meant to teach us that all the various seas and oceans are 
in connection with one another ? I am sorry I have been so critical in my 
remarks ; but we have little to do with this paper except to criticise the 
various statements in detail, because the general principles laid down are 
those which most students of the Bible would thoroughly acquiesce in, and 
which have been frequently laid down before. 
Bev. C. A. Row. — In the earlier part of Dr. Baylee’s paper there is this 
passage : — (i We are conscious of being a unity. Yet how great a complexity ! 
Person, in Greek vKoaradg, expresses a mode of being, without defining the 
mode.” But it does not mean person or personality : there is a broad dis- 
tinction between the two. Close after that follows the curious statement, 
“ God and man are united in Christ in one consciousness.” Now, I look 
upon that statement with very considerable doubt, for it appears to me to 
approach the Monothelite heresy 
Mr. Reddie. — You would not confound consciousness and will ; you 
would steer clear of that, I suppose ? 
Rev. C. A. Row. — Certainly. But if God and man have one consciousness, 
