131 
see many great difficulties, of which this is only one specimen, and the way 
to benefit from these is, with a humble, reverential, and child-like mind, to 
study and prayerfully to seek for the explanation of these difficulties. With 
these observations, and hoping I have not detained you too long, I should 
like to conclude by urging upon you great caution in treating and handling 
the subject, because it is, as we all know, a favourite ground with sceptics. 
Looking at it in their own way — that is to say from the antagonistic point of 
view — the document is not to be lightly set aside. In whatever way they 
regard the record, if they suppose there is no revelation in it, still the diffi- 
culty arises that such extraordinary agreements do occur with the deepest 
researches of science. Mr. Titcomb has given us some intimation of them, 
but they might be very much extended. One remarkable work, which has 
appeared lately, referring to the creation of light, points out how wonderfully 
consistent it is with all we can know or imagine of the operations of the 
Divine Being and of the researches of science. Nothing can be more illustra- 
tive of what has been said than the work of M. Pouton on the “ Beginning.” 
Looking at it from another direction, a person who says the days must mean 
periods of twenty-four hours, has to explain how it is that any person 
capable of writing such a wonderful chapter should begin by describing days 
before the sun is created — days consisting of evening and morning and day- 
light, before the sun exists. What is meant by the evening-morning if we 
are compelled to take it as an ordinary day ? What is the commencement 
of the first day beginning in the evening or sunset ? And then, again, when 
does the seventh day terminate 1 All these are questions which, in whatever 
way this portion of Scripture is looked at, present difficulties, and we cannot 
approach them with too reverential a spirit, nor can we extend too much 
toleration to those whose views are different from our own. 
Rev. G. G'urrey, D.D. — Mr. Titcomb has evidently introduced the days 
of the creation by way of illustration, and I trust that we shall not lose sight 
of the main purpose of the paper, by entering into a discussion upon the 
creative days of Genesis, which would give us considerable trouble, and 
would scarcely help us to determine the question which Mr. Titcomb has 
raised. The nature of the days of creation, and the manner in which they 
have been regarded, give indeed an apt illustration of the first proposition 
which Mr. Titcomb lays down, namely, that a great part of Scripture 
contains descriptions of natural phenomena, which are not in accordance 
with modern scientific research. Professor Challis has said, in one of his 
works, that no language of Scripture is unscientific ; I suppose what he means 
is, that it is not contrary to science. But it is certainly unscientific in 
another sense ; that is to say, describes tilings as they appear to the 
outward senses, not as science shows them to be. When, therefore, we say 
that the language of Scripture is unscientific, we mean that it describes 
natural objects as they appear, and does not touch upon the reason of their 
appearances. Scripture does not, therefore, contradict Science, but simply 
describes that of which Science endeavours to give an account. The second 
point is the one which I should like to have discussed : whether we can dis- 
