173 
REMARKS UPON THE PAPERS BY THE REV. J. H. TITCOMB 
AND THE REV. A. I. McCAUL. 
By J. W. Dawson, Esq., LL.D., F.R.S., Principal of McGill College, 
Montreal* 
I have received the proof copies of the papers recently read before the 
Institute by the Rev. J. H. Titcomb and Rev. A. I. McCaul ; and having 
been invited to do so, I shall frankly give my opinions upon the subjects 
discussed, limiting myself, however, to a few principal points. 
It would, I think, have been well had the writers more carefully considered 
two of the elements which enter into the discussion of the relations of the 
Bible to Science. I refer, first, to the essential distinction in character 
between the history of creation in Genesis, and other references to Nature 
in the Hebrew Scriptures ; and, secondly, to the internal evidence with 
reference to the length of the days of creation. 
First. The Bible abounds in illustrative references to natural objects and 
phenomena. I think it is the conclusion of all competent naturalists who 
have carefully studied these, that they are remarkable for their precise truth 
to Nature, and for the absence of all theoretical or hypothetical views. In 
these points of view, the Bible stands pre-eminent, even in its poetical 
books, over all other literature, ancient and modern. One can scarcely read 
a page of any modern poem, or literary work, without finding incorrect 
statements of natural facts and false hypothetical views. The Bible is 
wonderfully free from such blemishes. But we do not need to consider this 
as an evidence of inspiration. The accurate observation of men highly 
gifted in this respect, and living in the midst of natural objects, and the 
religious reverence for Nature as the work of God, sufficiently account for it, 
— at least, in most instances. 
But with reference to the work of creation, as detailed in Genesis i., the case 
is far different. Here we have an attempt to reveal facts and processes 
anterior to the advent of man upon the earth. In dealing with such a 
record, we have to consider that, like Prophecy, it is either a product of Inspi- 
ration or it is of no authority; and, on the other hand, that we can compare it 
not so much with facts open to our senses, as with the deductions of science 
from these facts, and which are to be received with due caution and dis- 
crimination. In making such a comparison, it will serve no useful purpose 
to take low views as to the value either of Scripture or Science ; nor will it 
serve any useful purpose to say that the Bible was not intended to teach 
science, because it need not in that case have committed itself to any state- 
* Honorary Foreign Correspondent of the Victoria Institute. 
VOL. IX, Q 
