157 
approved and practised by themselves. The reviewer says — 
“ It is a curious return to the argument of authority after a 
long denunciation of that old and venerable mode of conducting 
controversy. We do not reason with you, say the new schools 
of disputants; we dislike interminable arguments. We only 
direct your attention to what is the actual case, that a large 
intellectual class has made up its mind on the question. The 
master has spoken ; the intellectual class has judged ; it is now 
decided that Christianity must be given up.” At the same 
time, between Scripture rightly understood and Science accu- 
rately interpreted, there is, and there can be, no real opposition, 
because they are the gifts of one and the same Creator. By a 
false, or erroneous, interpretation, the Old Testament may be 
misrepresented, and both poetry and painting have, unfortu- 
nately, done much to foster and increase this misapprehension. 
By the poetical license, which they claim for their respective 
votaries, they have done much to obscure the scriptural subjects 
of which they have volunteered to treat.* But it is sad to think 
that science should offend in the same way. It is, to say the 
least, unfair to adopt an erroneous interpretation of certain 
passages, and then, because those erroneous interpretations are 
inconsistent with facts, to infer or to assert the falsity and the 
worthlessness of the whole record. But it is not only unfair, 
it is conduct utterly unworthy of professed lovers of truth. It 
must, in time, recoil upon the heads of those who so offend. 
The credit which has attached to their exposition of other sub- 
jects will be undermined. They will be looked upon, generally, 
as men whom party spirit has blinded, whose word is no longer 
reliable, whose judgment is affected by prejudice, whose real 
object is victory instead of truth. 
The Chairman.— -I am sure we shall all join in a vote of thanks to 
Mr. McCaul for his interesting paper. 
The Honorary Secretary. — I have received the following letters in 
regard to the paper just read. 
The first is from one of our Vice-Presidents, the Rev. Robinson 
Thornton, D.D. : — 
“Epsom, April 21, 1874. 
“ I have read Mr. M'Caul’s paper with interest. It brings before the 
Institute a point which must carefully be maintained, and which too many 
* Cf. Eruvin ; or, Miscellaneous Essays, p. 60. Nisbet, 1831. Cf. also 
Cic. de Leg. i. 1 (5). 
VOL. TX. 
N 
