incomprehensible." I would not venture to impugn the meaning of that expression, but if an equivalent could be found for it in meaning I think it might be desirable, considering that in the Athanasian Creed "incomprehensible" is used as meaning illimitable," whom the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain," beyond all creation. If some equivalent could be found for that I think it might be as well, as it is used in theology in another sense.

Again he says, "As God is glorious," I note that Mr. Whidborne speaks of beauty existing for itself and not for its utility. I think that is amply borne out by Dr. Wallace in his "Tropical Forest," where no human being had been before to study science. He speaks of the floral world and birds of paradise generating, flourishing and disappearing as unseen objects by man for generations, with no one to enjoy their beauty: showing that these creatures exist for themselves and not for their utility. Some of the most glorious objects of creation have only been seen the last thirty years by man. Some of the most splendid birds of the most varied colours and most gorgeous plumage are amongst these.

Again he says, "As God is righteous." It struck me as I heard that read, that the sting in objects of creation is a very recent thing, and the bite on the contrary (dentition for mastication and offence -the organ of the teeth) is common to all objects, from man downwards. Of course we see adaptations suitable for all requirements in the creation around us in the present day; how moths of the same species are varied in colour according to the country they live in, and the colour and texture of the geological regions in which they are found. The same kinds are very varied in the west of Scotland and the middle of Iceland, because of the different-coloured rocks, and for self-protection their tints will harmonize with the colours of those stones.

WALTER A. KIDD, M.D.-There are many general points I should like to refer to in connection with the paper. It is a most valuable paper, and most courageously and properly maintains the right of religion to have its voice heard on the subject of the Genesis of Nature, which is not often maintained with sufficient courage in discussion. Mr. Whidborne, who is himself a geologist, has as much right to be considered an expert in this matter as other scientists have on their side, for these questions run on converging lines of evidence, and if Mr. Whidborne and his like are

experts on the side of religion and they know what the Bible, broadly interpreted, has to say, we should be ready to listen to that side of the subject, and I think this question of the converging lines of religion and science is a very important one.

Dr. SCHOFIELD.-I think the argument of this paper, in its general terms, as universally accepted, that " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," has long passed from a religious statement into a scientific fact, accepted, in various terms, one may say, by all thoughtful scientists, and therefore I think that the larger part of this paper, beautifully thought out as it is, contains matter generally accepted. Only Mr. Whidborne has shown us, in the way he puts it before us, the steps by which it can be argued

out.

There are only three possible propositions either the world must have created itself, or it must be eternal, or some one must have created it. The first two are generally discredited, and the third leads us to the First Cause, and is accepted by all Christians. When you read Mr. Whidborne's postulates as to what nature should be like in his twenty-two or twenty-three propositions, of course we are quite aware that nature is not like the picture, so the author gives his reasons for the discrepancy in his section headed "Modification of it required by the Bible conception of evil," but then you see scientists who do not accept the Bible do not accept that. Mr. Whidborne, myself, and I suppose all of us, believe that the First Cause was a God of love and light. The conception of evil is of course a mystery, and the account given of it in the Bible is not accepted by all scientists. They regard it as a real stumbling block to scientific theology, and I think it must continue to be so to those who do not accept the Bible. I do not think it is possible to reach God without the Bible-you cannot without it discover the first cause of life and the first cause of evil. Mr. Whidborne accounts for this according to us, who are Christians by the Biblical conception of evil.

Then I would just like to say that the paper is of particular value, I think, in presenting evolution definitely as a method and not as a force. Mr. Whidborne seems to find a great difficulty when he says, "It is not easy to imagine that in introducing new elements of creation into the world, in building up new stages of advance throughout the ages, He should have caused them all to come

by that single mundane way of evolution." To some of us it is quite easy to imagine that. We can imagine the Divine hand giving the ovum power to evolve to a greater extent its successive stages and to reproduce higher animate forms.

In his definition of inspiration I would ask Mr. Whidborne if he would not like to alter that slightly. I refer to the passage, "Whatever else inspiration means, it means this that the whole Bible, in so far as it came from God, is the word of God." But supposing it did not come from God. Well, that is the whole point. Inspiration means the whole Bible is the true word of God. What Mr. Whidborne meant to exclude is the human element in it, no doubt, but it rather spoils the weight of that beautiful phrase.

Then the point from which Mr. Whidborne regards creation is a beautifully poetic view; but I do not think it is necessary that everything I make should be like myself. It is wonderfully beautiful to say that the way in which nature may be described is as "the vesture of the living God" in the way it shows itself, but in many ways it does not. Some of the postulates therefore strike me as being a little forced, but on the whole I thank him for his most valuable paper.

Professor ORCHARD.-I wish to express my obligation to the author for this valuable paper, marked, as it is, not only by logical acumen, but by philosophical insight.

I may have misunderstood the meaning of the author, but in one paragraph there appears an assertion that "the immaterial part of nature itself is dependent on the material part, and has, as far as we can see, no power or vitality, which is not founded on the material part." If we look at the top of the preceding page we see, "certainly the matter of the brain did not come into existence by thinking; as certainly thought cannot owe its origin to the mere mechanical structure of the brain." It appears to me there is a little inconsistency in those two statements, and that possibly the author might slightly modify the expression.

I think we shall all agree with the author in his main thesis, which I understand to be that nature illustrates the Bible conception of God. Surely it is fair to say that a workman is known by his work. Anyone making an elaborate piece of machinery will probably show whether he is wise or unwise-whether he is skilled or the reverse-and so undoubtedly a complicated and elaborate

piece of work does bear witness to the attributes and qualities of the worker, and doubtless that is so in nature. "The invisible things of God are clearly seen by the things which are made." That His eternal power-His Godhead, His goodness and providence are all revealed by nature, we must certainly agree. I must concur with the author that anyone unacquainted with nature might have anticipated from the Bible that nature would have the main features it presents to us. It seems to me that is a powerful argument which might be added to the list here for the inspiration of the Bible as being the Word of God. You cannot explain the facts of nature except from the Bible. That, surely, is an argument for the inspiration of the Bible.

I most thoroughly endorse the author's protest against those scientists who endeavour to make out that the Bible and science are opposed to one another. The scientist who really studies the Bible and then says so, is guilty of casting a slur and a slight on science. True science is ever in agreement with the word of God, as the author pointed out. Science investigates facts, but if you want the meaning of the facts, the origin of the facts, the testimony of the facts, you find in the Bible only the explanation.

DAVID HOWARD, D.L., F.C.S.-I think nothing shows the admirable nature of the paper better than the way in which it has borne cutting down in reading without losing the thread of the argument. At the same time I hope that those who heard it somewhat curtailed will not fail to read it at length, for although the fortress was so well defended some of the earthworks were left out to save time, which are most worthy of careful attention.

In regard to the author's remarks on the misuse of words and consequent confusion of thought, I believe it is one of the most difficult things in thought to escape from one's own words. One uses a word and gets used to it, and then it appears to get sacred not only in theology but in science, and argument is carried on about a word, and the meaning is entirely obscured by the fact that the word is used in an entirely different sense. To take evolution, for instance, it is at once a demi-god and a bogey. Some people use it as an expression for what the words cannot possibly include -the prime cause of all things-and others, in their dread of such misapplication, shut their eyes to the evident truths to which the word can be properly applied. I venture to think that this applies

strongly to the word "Darwinism," which is often made to include a great deal that Darwin never said or believed. He was far too cautious for that.

At the end of the paper I thank the author most heartily for his mode of putting the right way of reading the 1st chapter of Genesis. You may use the most accurate and scientific language of 100 years ago, and when you read it in the light of present thought it is inconceivably less accurate than the language of the Bible. At best you cannot escape from the finality of human thought and human words, and if we read not the thoughts, but the interpretations we are pleased to put upon the words, we must remember they are translated from the Hebrew, and we are not using the language from which they are translated.

The CHAIRMAN then called on the Dean of Peterborough.

The Very Rev. the DEAN OF PETERBOROUGH.-The one point that interested me-shall I say most of all?—and which I want to pursue first, as far as possible, is the possibility of there having been a marring of God's creation before the fall. I do not know where my friend first got that idea. Was it originally your own, or is it anything you have derived from another work?

Rev. G. F. WHIDBORNE.-I got it from our Lord's words, devil was a murderer from the beginning."

"The

The DEAN OF PETERBOROUGH.—It is your own thought then? Rev. G. F. WHIDBORNE.-Yes..

The DEAN OF PETERBOROUGH.-If that can be proved and brought home to us all, it will be to me a very great relief, and I hope with your help to pursue it.

I should not venture to speak further in this audience, coming as I have done, unprepared to make observations on the paper; but I rejoice to think that one whom I have known now for thirty years is so competent to write as he has on this matter.

Rev. G. F. WHIDBORNE.-Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I must thank you most heartily for the very kind way in which you have received my paper.

I have to thank Dr. Walker for his criticism.

I think the only point I need refer to at this late hour is what the Dean of Peterborough said with regard to the existence of evil before the fall. I wrote that paragraph at first without, I may say, referring to any particular opinion. It seemed to come out in