170 
created the universe in a chaotic state ; on the contrary, like all His other 
works, it must have been perfect : doubtless, it afterwards became, through 
some catastrophe, without form and void ; in fact, the description is that of 
a superinduced state of ruin. And this view is strikingly confirmed by a 
remarkable passage in Isaiah xlv., where, in reference to the creation of the 
earth, it is expressly said, “ He created it not in vain,” words which, in the 
original, are the same as those in Genesis i . 2, rendered, “ without form and 
void.” Out of this state of ruin, then, I submit, the world was created as it 
is at present. Between the “ beginning,” and the period when the earth lay 
in this chaotic state, infinite ages, for anything I know, may have intervened, 
sufficient to account for all geological discoveries * I do very much complain 
of our scientific men jumping at conclusions, and putting aside the good old 
Bible, for theories which have to be given up almost as fast as they are 
formed. Speaking for myself, I would say that all the arguments in the 
world, philosophical or scientific, will not convince me that there can, by 
any possibility, be divergence between the revealed Word and works of 
God, coming, as they do, from the same hand. (Cheers.)t 
Mr. McCaul. — I beg to tender my best thanks to those gentlemen who 
have discussed my paper, and to assure them that my principal wish in 
* The fifth essay in “ Aids to Faith ” (Murray) deals very fully with this 
question. — Ed. 
+ The President of the British Association, at its Bristol meeting in 1869 
(Professor G. E. Stokes, Cambridge, secretary to the Royal Society), con- 
cluded his address upon that occasion with the following words : — 
“ Truth we know must be self-consistent, nor can one truth contradict 
another, even though the two may have been arrived at by totally different 
processes ; in the one case, suppose, obtained by sound scientific investigation, 
in the other case taken on trust from duly authenticated witnesses. Misin- 
terpretations of course there may be on the one side or on the other, causing 
apparent contradictions. Every mathematician knows that in his private 
work he will occasionally by two different trains of reasoning arrive at dis- 
cordant conclusions. He is at once aware that there must be a slip some- 
where, and sets himself to detect and correct it. When conclusions rest on 
probable evidence, the reconciling of apparent contradictions is not so simple 
and certain. It requires the exercise of a calm, unbiassed judgment, capable 
of looking at both sides of the question ; and oftentimes we have long to 
suspend our decision, and seek for further evidence. None need fear the 
effect of scientific inquiry carried on in an honest, truth-loving, humble 
spirit, which makes us no less ready frankly to avow our ignorance of what 
we cannot explain than to accept conclusions based on sound evidence. 
The slow but sure path of induction is open to us. Let us frame hypotheses 
if we will : most useful are they when kept in their proper place, as stimu- 
lating inquiry. Let us seek to confront them with observation and experi- 
ment, thereby confirming or upsetting them as the result may prove ; but 
let us beware of placing them prematurely in the rank of ascertained truths, 
and building further conclusions on them as if they were.” 
The importance of the foregoing remarks by one who is justly called “a 
true scientific man,” and, “ one of the intellectual parents of the present 
splendid School of Natural Philosophers” (see “Scientific Worthies in 
Nature,” 15th July, 1875), warrants their insertion here. — Ei>. 
