Scriptures to lead to that assumption. The Bible asserts that there were only 
two agencies used in the Flood : the fountains of the great deep were broken 
up, aud the rain descended from the heavens. Noah was directed to get 
provisions for the sustenance of those in the ark ; there was certainly no 
miraculous agency in that, and I do not think we have any right to assume 
miracles where the Bible is entirely silent upon the point. It is a very 
serious thing to attempt to assume miracles which the Scriptures do not 
assert. 
Rev. Dr. Rigg. — M r. Row has made some remarks which to some extent 
were anticipatory of what I wanted to say, especially in regard to the 
economy of miracles, which is one of the principles on which w r e are bound 
to interpret the Scripture. The more we study it the more we shall come to 
this conclusion, that the economy of miracles is a principle in all the pro- 
cedures of the Divine Hand. I confess that in the whole I agree with Mr. 
Davison’s paper, and I have held those opinions for many years. I feel that 
we owe very much to the men who, long ago, were bold enough to face a great 
deal of obloquy for the sake of looking fairly at science and at the language 
of Scripture, with a view to discern whether there were really any discre- 
pancies between the two. It appears to me that the whole aspect of the 
narrative of the Flood is that of something miraculously begun, and done with 
great rapidity, but yet carried on in a sense calmly and peacefully upon the 
earth. The more we study the whole expression of the narrative, the less we 
shall think it consistent with depressions and upheavals to be extended all 
over the world, and producing contortions of strata in all different, opposite, 
antipodal parts of the earth. Even the olive-leaf brought into the ark by 
the dove seems to me to tell its own tale. Whilst the fountains of the deep 
■were broken up, and whilst the rains descended to aid the growth and 
increase of the Flood itself, what followed must be described as having had a 
gradual character. Then, I never could understand, since I began to study 
the question at all, that it was in harmony with the principles of Providence 
that the Flood should have extended beyond the site at that time occupied by 
the family of man. Then, I think the difficulties in regard to genera and 
species have been very much increased, not as a matter of fact, but, in our 
view of them, by modern researches. I do not think that to say they were 
genera and not species would remove the difficulty, because true species are 
separate and independent ; and, in fact, genera are not found as genera any- 
where, but only as species. The genus is an idea embodied in the species 
which belong to it, and therefore I apprehend that there must have been as 
many pairs as there were species, provided they were true species. No doubt 
Mr. Darwin’s theory has received sufficient support from scientific men to 
show that there must be some truth in it. It would certainly diminish the 
number of species there may have been at the time of the Flood ; but, looking 
to the laws of habitat, and looking, above all, to the principles of which 
Mr. Row has spoken as to the economy of miracles in the Divine procedure, 
I think we are not compelled to believe in a universal, world-embracing flood. 
It is far better, more reasonable, and more religious that we should take the 
