252 
principles, and they seem to assume one particular mode of inspiration. The 
paper not being printed, and therefore not having read it beforehand, how- 
ever, the fault may be mine ; but as far as I have been able to follow it, I 
think its principles of interpretation are exceedingly dangerous. It mixes up 
one portion of the Scriptures with another, taking one passage from the 
Psalms, another from the Pentateuch, another from the New Testament, and 
so on. Mr. Reddie has referred to a passage in the New Testament which 
shows how difficult it is to attempt to analyze and make a careful exegesis. 
There are many eminent theologians who hold that the term “whole creation ” 
in that passage applies only to the human race. Then take St. Peter, and 
his reference to the “ whole world.” If we take the usus loquendi of the New 
Testament, there is no doubt that the term “ world ” very frequently is 
applied in a decidedly limited sense. Mr. Titcomb quoted one remarkable 
instance ; and St. Paul told the Romans that their faith was heard throughout 
the whole world. But does any one tell me that in the year 58 the faith of 
the Christian Church was heard throughout the whole world ? I think that 
to set up such an interpretation, so largely based upon theory, unless there 
is the strongest necessity on Scriptural grounds for it, is a very dangerous 
proceeding ; and, according to my view, it is far more likely to produce dis- 
belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures than anything else. I therefore 
decidedly object to such a course. Then another serious question for us to 
consider is, the great and serious multiplication of miracles which it involves. 
Any one who knows the difficulties of the subject will admit that we should 
be very careful in ascribing miracles where the Scriptures do not posi- 
tively say that they have been performed. There cannot be a doubt, as I 
said once before, that the New Testament does show a great economy of 
miracles ; and I cannot see what grounds I have, in order to support a theory 
of my own, for calling in an indefinite number of miracles, and palming 
them off on either the New or the Old Testament. I read a large number of 
rationalistic and infidel works, and there is nothing more dangerous, with 
regard to the spread of such literature and such opinions, than the needless 
calling in of miracles in places where the Scriptures do not expressly mention 
them. I would not even hint at miracles unless the Scriptures made it 
absolutely necessary ; and I would not assume them where the Scriptures 
say nothing whatever upon the subject. 
The Chairman. — In summing up this discussion, I can only say that I differ 
altogether from the first part of the paper, but I agree entirely with the uni- 
versality of the waters covering the earth. Every scientific fact points to 
that great truth : that which is described in Scripture is also marked 
on God’s works in the earth. I cannot see any foundation from what 
we read in the records furnished by our geological strata for those frequent 
deluges or creations which was the favourite theory of a few years back, 
but which the progress of science is now eliminating from science in the 
opinions of the men who themselves brought it forward as once the 
most probable theory of the earth’s history ; but, setting that aside, I cannot 
help feeling that I thoroughly sympathize with Mr. Moule in his assertion 
