134 
second proposition seems to me to require more proof before it can be con- 
sidered to have been established. 
Rev. S. Wainwright, D.D. — I quite agree with Dr. Currey’s opening 
observation in reference to avoiding mere side issues, and concentrating our 
remarks upon the obvious drift of the paper. With respect to the point, 
one of great importance raised by him, Mr. Titcomb, in his paper, shows us 
what his mind is in regard to it, and he makes quite as much of the 
second point as of the other ; his second point is, “ we have to show 
that, notwithstanding this, some of the statements of Scripture are so 
exactly scientific, as to be perfectly consistent even with the latest 
modem discoveries.” Mr. Howard said with perfect justice that this 
second head should have been very largely elaborated. No person, 
I take it, is more conscious of that than Mr. Titcomb himself, but he 
could not elaborate every point, and give the necessary measure 
to each. With respect to this particular subject Dr. Currey says he 
should like to see more, but he added, and rightly, that it was impossible 
for Mr. Titcomb to say everything within the compass of a single paper. 
Perhaps Dr. Currey will allow me to say in reference to that remark of 
his, that the difficulty I am painfully labouring under in making these 
remarks is, that I cannot compress all I wish to say in the compass of a 
five or ten minutes’ address. Dr. Currey says he is of opinion that rather 
too much has been made of some matters, and he went on to notice, 
justly enough, that the Bible is treated as one book, although it is written 
by different men. Unless I am much in error, Mr. Titcomb himself, in 
a work he has recently written, draws attention to this very head. Now 
the point I wish to arrive at through these preliminary remarks is this. 
There is a more or less real or seeming correspondence between Scripture and 
science, and this Dr. Currey suggests, whatever its measure or extent, may 
be the result of the reasoner or the student placing a meaning upon words 
which was not in the mind of the writer when they were written. Dr. Currey 
does not charge anybody with malice prepense, nor does he say what amount 
of inspiring spirit would be necessary to enable a student or reasoner to find 
out this correspondence. Now I think it is demonstrable, by evidence of the 
most satisfactory kind, that, on the contrary, the inspiring spirit did intend 
that the student of the Bible, ready to look at these matters from a scientific 
point of view, and taking the character and construction of the book as one 
of the facts that have to be accounted for, should find that there is a science 
in the Bible, which is not to be got rid of except by a determination to 
ignore it. Is it simply that there are such hints as Dr. Currey spoke of ? 
Is it not true that, in addition to such hints, you have express assertions 
upon scientific topics, uttered and actually recorded in an age when it would 
have been as great a miracle as any the biblical writers now claim credit 
for, if man, in the age in which these statements were recorded, had of 
himself suggested that there were such things. I do not propose now to 
give instances, but reference has been made so expressly to the first of 
Genesis, that perhaps I may be allowed to turn to that. How can you 
