138 
Dr. Irons. — Mr. Titcomb has given two chief illustrations of anticipations 
of the concurrence of Science with Scripture. Now I think we should be 
careful before we assume this, because however interesting the speculation 
may appear, I think the two points are hardly clear enough for us to rely 
upon. 
The Chairman. — I do not wish to impugn the other point, for which there 
appears to be much more reason — that is, the intimate relation that exists 
between the tribe of birds and that of fishes, and their simultaneous creation 
as mentioned in Holy Scripture. Some time ago Professor Huxley at the 
Royal Institution, gave a lecture in which he descanted with much unction 
on the assumed palieontological fact of a feathered reptile : he brought 
forward these fossil remains as the “ missing link ” between the tribes of aves 
and pisces — birds and fishes, — and some weight appeared to be attached to it 
in reference to the Darwinian theory of development. 
Rev. J. H. Titcomb. — In reference to what has fallen from the last 
two speakers, I gather that out of the three illustrations which I brought 
forward in confirmation of my second point, it is only the last which 
is disputed. I was prepared for this. Dr. Currey, to whom I am in- 
debted for the manner in which he brought the discussion into its proper 
bearings, remarked that he would have liked to have had the second division 
in my paper greatly strengthened ; and Dr. Wainwright and Mr. Howard 
said that it might be : I am fully conscious that this is the case ; and that 
the absence of other illustrations seems to give a weakness to the argument 
which it does not properly possess. Indeed, I had jotted down some points 
originally for that purpose ; but, as they did not seem to me to bear espe- 
cially upon the Magnitudes of Creation, I forbore to introduce them. As to 
many of the observations of those who have taken this paper to pieces, I can 
only say that they justify rather than confute me ; and satisfy me more than 
ever of the extreme unwisdom of forming any kind of preconceived opinions 
as to what Scripture ought to say upon scientific questions. I believe this 
unphilosophical method of treating the words of Inspiration is at the root 
any conflict between Religion and Science. I can never yield to any 
man in my love and veneration for God’s Holy Word ; but that is a 
totally different question as to whether, in that blessed book, we are bound 
to expect invariable scientific accuracy in all its revelations to man. I will 
only reiterate my conviction that, if this Society is to be of any real service 
in defending Divine Revelation, and if it is to have any influence upon those 
men of science who are now disposed to criticise and laugh at Scripture, we 
must be prepared to stand upon the ground which I have here ventured to lay 
down — viz., that Science and Revelation occupy two distinct and separate 
spheres ; that each may be regarded as different departments of one great 
empire of Truth ; and that any attempt to make one interfere with the other 
will only bring them into open and ruinous conflict. The purposes of God 
in Revelation, being moral and spiritual, and not scientific, I read them in 
the former light, and not the latter. They teach me that I am saved by the 
Redemption of Christ, and that Heaven at last shall bo my home ; this is 
