Precisely what Bishop Colenso and his supporters are telling us 
— that Moses and science are irreconcilably opposed, and that 
there is no solution of the difficulty except the conclusion that 
the narrative of the Noachian Deluge in Genesis is untrue. 
This will never do. It is inexpressibly painful to see such 
able and excellent men as Dr. Alexander, acknowledging the 
impossibility of taking the language of Moses in his history of 
the Deluge literally, and yet declaring as emphatically, that it 
is impossible to make the language of Moses “square with 
the idea of a local deluge.” What is this but doing the work 
of infidelity, and shutting up the intelligent mind to scepti- 
cism ? It is the old story over again, that the Bible has 
suffered as much from the well-meant interpretations of 
friends, as from the most malignant attacks of foes. Thank 
God, that we can appeal from erroneous interpretations of 
Scripture to Scripture itself ; and that we can adopt a theory 
of the Deluge, which while perfectly harmonious with science, 
is in strict accordance with the nsus loquendi of the Bible. 
The Chairman. — Before calling for any observations on this very excellent 
paper, there is a duty in which I am sure you will all cordially join with me, 
and that is in passing a vote of thanks to Mr. Davison for the admirable 
paper he has given us. (Cheers.) I shall now be glad to hear any observa- 
tions which any one may have to make. 
Mr. Reddie. — I think it may be as well that I should rise thus early to 
notice some parts of the paper which has just been read, as to which, I think, 
what is already to be found in our printed proceedings, has been unwisely 
ignored by the author of the paper, and especially with reference to his 
supposed geological proofs. Mr. Davison relies somewhat confidently upon 
the extinct volcanoes of Auvergne, using, in that respect, Dr. Colenso’s argu- 
ment, which he considers correct. But in the sixth number of our Journal 
of Transactions there is a Note, quoting an article published in the Quarterly 
Review in 1844, in which it will be found that the argument against a uni- 
versal deluge, and in favour of the immense antiquity of the mountain-cones 
in Auvergne, because of their evidently never having been covered by water, 
is completely refuted. Those mountains, it appears, were actually erupted 
in the fifth century of the Christian era ; and we have, of course, had no 
universal deluge since then. It would occupy too much time now to make 
long quotations from that note, and as it is already upon record in our 
J ournal, I simply content myself by thus calling attention to it. Dr. Thornton 
alluded to the argument based upon the supposed antiquity of these extinct 
volcanoes in one of his papers,* and showed the illogical and fallacious nature 
of that argument ; but of this Mr. Davison takes no notice. Another of the 
supposed geological facts that Mr. Davison rests upon, is the slow and steady 
* Journal of Transactions, vol, ii, p. 155, and Note, p. 166, 
