507 
that our conception that two and two make four has arisen from seeing 
four objects combined a great number of times. But suppose any mathe- 
matician should get it into his mind that two and two are equal to five, 
or equal to three and three-quarters ; that would quite annihilate Mr. Mill’s 
whole superstructure 
The Chairman. — But I believe Mr. Mill conceives the possibility of two 
and two making five in some other world. (Laughter.) 
Mr. Paterson. — Yes, I believe he does ; and I suppose that is his idea of 
perfection. (Laughter.) Now I will take an extreme case : suppose we 
cannot conceive the idea of perfection, why, the whole, not only of oi r 
theological science, and of our conception of perfection, but the whole 
foundation of our physical science falls over. As every mathematician 
knows, geometrical demonstration does not depend on any diagram or 
drawing of lines, but on certain conceptions of form which must be perfect. 
Mr. Mill’s great discovery that all our ideas are received from the external 
world, and that they must entirely fall short of perfection, is a thing 
that should be combated. Suppose the infinity of God is accepted as an 
infinity of perfection, we may believe that the human mind can grasp the 
idea of the infinity of that perfection, although we do not deny that it is one 
of the marks of the human mind that it takes an imperfect impression from 
the senses. But there is one thing in Mr. Row’s paper which I think is rather 
dangerous, and that is at the close. I do not think Mr. Row has sufficiently 
drawn the line between the literal and symbolical interpretation of Scripture. 
There should be some canon of criticism. If you say we are to use our 
common sense in these matters, and then say of any passage, “ This is the 
true reading, and you must reject every other as too literal,” you put it 
in this way, that every person is not possessed of common sense, or, if all 
persons are, that common sense is so liable to be distorted and led aside that 
they cannot thoroughly and clearly exercise it. If you do not have some 
canon of criticism, you cannot escape from the wild views of Swedenborg and 
others, whom I respect, but whose idea of interpretation — I cannot call it a 
principle — I cannot accept. Too much figurative explanatory comment 
about the sacred book would entirely destroy its truth and reality 
Mr. Row. — I am afraid you do not bear in mind what I have said on that 
point: — 
“ I advocate neither the literal nor the metaphorical, nor any one single 
mode of interpreting a book so various as the Bible ; but the application of 
sound sense, sound reason, accurate investigation, and enlightened criticism, 
with all the aids which can be supplied by collateral knowledge of the 
subject.” 
Mr. Paterson. — But the qualifications are general. If they could be 
embodied in a canon of criticism in a more definite form, they would be very 
valuable in the investigation of truth. Dr. Irons has told us that the letter 
of the Bible does not stand alone. Now it seems to me that if we take the 
Bible as a whole, and intend to accept it as a revelation, we cannot so accept 
it as a revelation, except so far as we understand it. To take it synthetically 
