163 
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Now, it 
seems to me that the passage alluded to, and the context in which 
it stands, are directed to this : that the consequence of Adam’s fall 
was the death, in trespasses and sins, of himself and all his descendants, 
and not natural death. I may justifiably claim, in support of this interpre- 
tation, the words, “ in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” 
Adam did eat, and he is said to have died that very day. I ask Mr. 
McCaul, did Adam when he fell die naturally or spiritually ? I say 
spiritually. The words, “ Thou shalt surely die,” &c., thus understood are 
plain, and in my opinion will hardly admit of any other interpretation. In 
addition to this, will natural “ death pass on all men, for that (i.e. because) 
all have sinned ” ? It has not, for Enoch and Elijah did not die ; and 
it will not, for millions will be alive at our Lord’s second advent, who will 
not die, when the words of St. Paul will be fulfilled, “we shall not all 
sleep.” I would be glad if Mr. McCaul would enter somewhat more fully 
into this point in his reply. 
A Member of the Institute. — I sincerely thank Mr. McCaul for his 
paper ; but in taking the line of argument which he has adopted, he is 
endeavouring to establish the accounts of the Book of Genesis : and I think 
he must either take his stand firmly on that and abide by it, or else he must 
abandon it. He says in his sixteenth paragraph, in speaking of the various 
changes that came about with the creation : — 
“ The earth would appear covered, as in a moment, not only with grass, but 
with plants and trees, which by the sixth day would have attained a magni- 
tude giving promise, at least, of their ultimate proportions. We now come, 
again, to the special act of creation. And here again the consideration of 
time is immaterial.” 
I cannot understand, if the account is literally true, how it is that time is 
immaterial. Either time is time, or it is not time ; it appears to me that in 
endeavouring to fix an absolutely simple and literal interpretation of these 
matters, we are endeavouring to fix in the words a character which they will 
not bear. The Bible was not written as a scientific book, and the theologians 
who endeavour to prove that it was, in my opinion force an antagonism 
between science and religion. 
Bev. T. M. Gorman. — I have listened with interest to the observations 
of the first speaker. It is refreshing to hear so clear and bold a statement 
of old-fashioned doctrine, in combination with such breadth of view, in 
relation to science : but I am unable to agree entirely with the opinion 
that the school to which Mr. Darwin and his disciples belong has done 
good service to the cause of truth : such may be the case ; but if so, the 
service has been of a negative rather than of a positive character. Much of 
what passes in these days for science and philosophy is such as to warn us 
of dangers ahead, which it is our duty to employ every means in our power 
to avoid or avert. I wish to speak of principles, and not of persons. Take, 
for example, the verbose speculations of Mr. Herbert Spencer. To those 
who look upon the created universe as the work of an Infinite Being, who 
