302 
of the Scriptures, because they, aud they only, give a coherent 
account of God’s dealings with the world from its creation ; 
because they, and they only, contain authentic details of the 
life of Him Whom God sent to redeem it. We may be sure 
that “fluid, passing, and literary” remarks on the “igno- 
rance” and “ superstition” of the writers of the Scriptures; 
grotesque perversions of their beliefs, their narratives, and 
the grounds on which those narratives are received, will not 
avail to shake the completeness of the greatest conquest that 
has ever- been achieved over humanity. The belief in “ God 
manifest in the flesh”* is now, as evei’, the ground of the 
Christian religion. It is the rock upon which Christ has 
built His Church, and “ the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it.” 
The Chairman', having conveyed a vote of thanks to Professor Lias for 
his valuable paper, added, that it was now open to those present to offer any 
comments upon it. 
The Hon. Secretary then read the following communication from the 
Rev. J. M'Cann, D.D., of Glasgow: — 
K May I be allowed to express my thanks to Professor Lias for having so 
ably exposed many of the fallacies in the teaching of Mr. Arnold, — teaching 
which is rendered exceedingly dangerous by the very fluent style in which it 
is delivered, the wit by which it is embellished, and the extreme facility with 
which large and apparently solid structures are built on definitions which are 
altogether untenable. Here, I think, Professor Lias allows him sometimes 
to escape too easily, for, as accurate definition is the very basis of all sound 
reasoning, by examining and overturning his most strange definitions the 
fallacies of the superstructure would at once become apparent. He has also 
a misleading habit of coupling words as relatives which bear no relation to 
each other. We find an instance of this in the first paragraph of the paper, 
where ‘ unexplored and inexpressible ’ are substituted for * unknown and un- 
knowable.’ Now, the terms ‘ unknown ’ and ‘ unknowable ’ are perfectly clear 
and distinctly related to each other, but 1 unexplored ’ and ‘ inexpressible ’ refer 
to completely different thoughts. The former being nearly synonymous with 
‘ unknown,’ but the latter having no connection with ‘ unknowable,’ because 
that may be very well known which is yet inexpressible ; for example, the 
soul is accurately known in consciousness : few, however, will admit that the 
term ‘ soul ’ is an adequate expression for it. But once let such phrases as 
these pass, and countless mystic changes can be rung upon them till the 
reader becomes utterly bewildered, and fancies himself in a solid structure 
while he is only amid the clouds. Again, what can be said about his 
definitions of God 1 See note, para. 9. Is the stream objective or subjective l 
Hoes it bear us, or do we bear it ? Can we resist the tendency, or is the 
* It matters not whether we read <>c or 0f«c in the famous passage 1 have 
quoted. If oq be the true reading, it can hardly agree with anything but 
Gtov Zwvroc in the preceding verse. 
