159 
these passed muster with only an occasional challenge ; but now a more 
thorough mental training is exposing the error, and students are consequently 
becoming more sceptical, as it is called, than they were before. But is it 
really scepticism ?— that is, is it really doubt about the truth of the Bible 
itself ? In many cases,— far too many,— no doubt it is ; but in the great 
majority, I have found it to be unbelief in the teachings of men, far more than 
in the Revelation from God. While, therefore, we meet infidelity by showing 
that the interpretation of the Bible and of physical science are in unison, we 
must go further, and show that the interpretation of the Bible and mental 
science are also in unison ; or that between a true theology and a true 
humanity there is no discord. Again, Mr. M'Caul says,— ‘ The duty of the 
Biblical student, as such, is to give the meaning of the original narrative in 
its plainest terms, quite irrespective of what scientific consequences may 
ensue.’ This is wise advice when possible to be followed. When the text 
of the original is determined, and the meaning is so clear that there can be 
no reasonable doubt on the subject, then assuredly it is the duty of the student 
to state the meaning, be the consequences what they may. But when 
there are possible two or more different interpretations, I think it is our 
duty to obtain assistance from every available source, scientific or other- 
wise ; so that, while at one time we might interpret the first verse of the 
Bible in one way, we might, if science showed us to be mistaken, inter- 
pret the same verse in another way, more in harmony with the dis- 
coveries of the period ; always distinguishing, however, between the truth 
of the text in itself, and the possible error of our ideas regarding it. I 
think Mr. McCaul will not deny that science has aided him greatly in his 
interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. The Word and the world 
being brethren, should, whenever possible, give each other a helping hand. 
“ The able writer of the paper has also done well in calling our attention to 
the abuse of ‘ Authority.’ Scientific men are continually speaking as though 
Christians rested altogether on the authority of churches, creeds, or dogmas, 
while they rejected authority of every kind, as such. Now what is the 
fact ? That the number of those who verify experiments in science for them- 
selves are very few comparatively, and consequently all the remainder rest 
solely on ‘ authority ’ for their scientific creed ; indeed, are often compelled 
to do so because they have not the opportunity of experimenting for them- 
selves. The overwhelming majority of scientific believers end in authority. 
But what of Christians ? They indeed begin with it in church and creed, but 
only as a means to an end. The end of Christianity is Christliness of character; 
this, however, is a matter of personal consciousness, called the knowledge of 
Christ. It is, in a word, the Christian theory experimentally confirmed. 
Consequently, every Christian must, to be such, verify for himself, and so 
leave behind the region of mere authority. 
“The case therefore stands thus, — the believer in science may rest in 
authority only, never passing beyond it ; but the believer in Christ, while 
starting in authority, must in every case pass beyond it, into the higher 
ground of personal verification.” 
Mr. C. R. MacClymont. — At the commencement of Mr. McCaul’s paper, 
reference is made to the case of young men affected by the current scepticism 
of the day. Perhaps I may be permitted to suggest some thoughts which 
a perusal of the paper have brought up in my mind. I trust the learned 
author will excuse me if I venture to say that the chief thought which 
N 2 
