158 
of the orthodox are prone to forget ; viz., that in discussing the Scriptures and 
comparing their statements with the conclusions of science, we must be 
extremely cautious lest we make the Scriptures say more than they were 
intended to say. The sceptical school sometimes try to saddle us with 
erroneous traditional interpretations of the Sacred Record. This is unfair 
enough, but it is trebly so when our own friends damage our cause by 
forcing upon the unwilling some exegesis which cannot be maintained. I 
believe that much harm has been done in this way. 
“ I think Mr. M'Caul has scarcely made the most of his materials. He has 
exemplified his principles by a reference to Genesis i. I wish he would go 
further, and give some more instances where a traditional exegesis (in some 
instances taken from Milton) has been substituted for the simple meaning of 
the original text. If he would also give the sceptics a few words on the 
practice I have already alluded to, of forcing on us some interpretation of 
Scripture, and rejecting the whole, because that one interpretation seems 
inconsistent with facts, he would improve the paper. Also, I should like 
him to wind up with a tirade against the expression, ‘ Opposition of 
Scripture and science/ The grand rational orthodox principle of the 
Institute is that there can be no possible opposition between Revelation, 
rightly understood, and scientific conclusions correctly drawn. If there is 
an opposition, it is between Scripture wrongly understood and science 
drawing wrong conclusions from misunderstood premises. Lastly, I think 
several of his allusions to our Lord unnecessary. Devout and admirable as 
they are in themselves, they seem to me a little out of keeping with the rest 
of the paper. We are, as Christians, defenders of revealed religion ; and if 
we begin to touch upon the special doctrines of Christianity, we shall get 
into the Creeds, and then to Theology, which is exactly what I (as a 
Theologian by profession) want to keep the Institute out of.” 
The other is from the Rev. J. McCann, D.D. : — 
“ Glasgow, April 10, 1874. 
“ By reason of the hasty glance I have been enabled to take at Mr. M‘Caul’s 
paper, I am not sure as to the chief point he wishes to establish, but hope he 
will forgive me if I make a remark or two in detail. 
“ He attributes the apparent increase in infidelity to a superficial knowledge 
of the Scriptures, caused by the increasing luxury, and consequent idleness 
and selfishness of the age. This is, doubtless, true ; but I cannot help 
thinking that he has not stated the most efficient cause of that superficiality. 
Are not those preachers most to blame whose teachings never compel 
research, or stimulate earnest examination of the whole Word of God, — 
who by continually supplying only milk, make their churches into 
nurseries, and keep their congregations as babes ? How can we expect dwarfs 
to grow into giants, on a diet that would starve giants into dwarfs l Let the 
clergy lead the way in going on unto perfection of doctrine, — other people 
will soon follow out of their present most deplorable superficiality. Mr. 
M'Caul deserves our thanks not only for calling attention to the evil, but 
also for doing so much to provide a remedy. 
“ But I would go further than he, and say that many of the teachers of 
theology are profoundly ignorant of philosophy. But as philosophy is the 
science of that human nature which the Bible was given to rectify and 
ennoble, how can the man treat the latter adequately, or even consistently, 
who does not know the former ? What is the result 1 That many teachings 
called Scriptural are in direct antagonism to the facts of consciousness, and 
so cannot be intelligently believed by thoughtful men. Formerly, when 
education was more generally elementary, and men did not read much science, 
