103 
comprehensive manner ; and his classification of the objections raised against 
the truth of the Scriptures and the answers which they had received, was 
calculated to bring the whole matter clearly before the mind. But at the 
same time I think the discussion opened by Mr. Warington is not by any 
means satisfactory, unless it is further pursued. In the shape in which it 
comes before us on this occasion, it seems to be merely the beginning of a 
discussion upon the questions under consideration, and is a paper which 
ought not to appear in its. present shape in the publications of this Society 
and not until the arguments have been sufficiently pursued. I am sure we 
are all deeply indebted to Mr. Warington (hear, hear) ; but at the same time I 
think the value of the paper would be greatly enhanced if the author would 
pursue the subject further, so as to enable those who read it to know to what 
conclusions his inquiries tended. (Hear, hear.) I would respectfully suggest 
that the paper should for the present be withheld ; and would say in conclusion 
that it affords me very great pleasure to second the vote of thanks which 
has been proposed by the Chairman. (Hear, hear.) 
Mr. Reddie.— I agree in many respects with Mr. Baxter’s remarks ; but 
I must observe, that Mr. Warington could scarcely have argued out the 
numerous questions he had necessarily touched upon, .in giving a sketch of 
the various alleged contradictions between Scripture and Science. Thoroughly 
to discuss these questions would in fact be our work probably for years to 
come ; and it would require a whole series of papers, to enable us to settle 
even' a tithe of the points to which Mr. Warington had referred. In my 
opinion, however, it might be advantageous if he would add, by way of notes, 
some indication of who are the authors of the various opinions, whether 
scientific or theoretical, which he had quoted, that we might know more 
definitely what they had advanced, and the grounds upon which they held 
their views. It had been a matter of much anxiety to those who originated 
this Society, to have it clearly defined what we were going to do, and what we 
were not going to do ; and it may be considered as settled, that we ought not 
to enter upon what are strictly questions of scriptural exegesis. Such were 
rather matters for theologians, and not subjects for discussion at these 
meetings. There is one remark near the conclusion of Mr. Warington’s 
paper which I must notice. He observes that such a review as he had given 
us was calculated to produce a pleasing impression on the mind ! How I 
venture to think it must rather have an opposite effect. Mr. Warington had, 
no doubt, carved out our work for us, and had shown that the task we had 
undertaken was no light one. But it appears to me that it is very unsatis- 
factory, either that there should be so many contradictions in “ Science,” or 
so many contradictory « interpretations ” of Scripture. I would wish, however, 
to call the attention of the author of the paper to the fact, that differences iii 
the interpretation of Scripture existed long before any attacks were made upon 
it m the name of Science ; and I cannot agree with Mr. Warington in thinW 
either that the Bible is so very easy a book to understand, or that a different 
understanding of obscure passages is so very inexcusable or blameworthy. 
We must remember that, besides not having the origines of Scripture at all, 
H 
