160 
occurred to me in reading the paper was one of disappointment, when I 
considered that so much critical and literary ability should have been 
directed to what I think, in a meeting of this sort, is not particularly 
required, — I mean the establishment among ourselves, who are the members 
of an avowed Christian Association, of the objections to the doctrines of those 
who challenge or attack the Scriptures.* It seems to me that less than justice 
is often done to the interpretation of that with which the science of modern 
times has undertaken to deal. The learned author himself could scarcely 
have framed his criticism of Genesis i., if he had not had before him most of 
the results of advanced modern science. It is true we find that the account 
of creation given in Genesis is not necessarily inconsistent with the proved 
results of modern science ; but those who have been brought up in what 
I may call the old-fashioned method of Christian dogma, or those who are 
acquainted with the literature of the Church of a few years back, know that 
the conclusions which Mr. McCaul puts before us now, would, twenty 
or thirty years ago, have excited surprise, to say the least of it, in the minds 
of most of the professed Christian apologists. If it be true that science has 
done something to widen our own ideas — I mean the ideas of those whose faith 
is fixed in orthodox dogma, and who, therefore, can deal both with philosophy 
and with science, without fear of having their faith disturbed, or their belief 
in religion endangered, — should it not, 1 ask, be the object of those who 
now try to reconcile science with religion, not to content themselves with 
merely showing that they are not in antagonism, but that they should also 
show how they can be changed by the Gospel, and made themselves the 
greatest instruments and the best means of spreading religion to those 
who have no religion, and of making the doubts engendered by 
science the best conditions of proving the truth of the Gospel ? Take 
one example. Mr. McCaul has been very severe upon those who 
endeavoured, by what he calls high art, to set forth the nobility and 
grandeur of sacred themes. But is it not true that he has himself 
transgressed the bounds he imposes, and that he has been compelled to do 
so by the limitations of the language which he is forced to employ ? Take 
the first illustration we have, where he talks of God speaking the word. 
Surely this is true only as a metaphor, to give it form to the sense of man. 
It is not meant to say that we should venture to conceive to our own mind 
that the actual using of words by God was among the physical conditions 
necessary for the expression of His command before the heavens and the 
earth took form ? Is it not the necessary condition of all progress of human 
thought that we are required to grope to things unseen by things that are 
seen, and in the effort to approach a higher truth we have often to be con- 
tent with a narrower expression? Mr. McCaul speaks of light being 
* Mr. MacClymont appears to have momentarily forgotten that the 
Institute’s organization exists in a great measure for the purpose of restoring, 
and, perhaps, in some cases, even creating, a sound public opinion as to the 
true relations of religion and science. — Ed, 
