171 
reading it was to promote discussion and in no way to dogmatize. I wished 
to point out that the original seems to indicate certain conclusions, and where 
this is the case it is not the part of a Biblical interpreter to suppress or deny 
them out of compliment to science. There are one or two points which I 
should wish to notice very briefly ; and first as to the letter read from Dr. 
McCann, which seemed to say that the fault of the present state of things in 
reference to the increase of infidelity was to be attributed to the clergy. I 
am ready to admit, that there is probably in the present day, as there has been 
at all times, ignorance among the clergy, not merely of philosophy and of 
science generally, but of the meaning of the original records of Scripture. 
But I would remind you that the clergy are still the children of the laity, and 
I do not think it i% fair to say it .is the fault of the clergy. The course of 
a man’s reading and the bent of his mind will depend almost entirely on his 
early education. If a young man has a reverence for the Scriptures, if he 
has been taught to regard the Bible as a sacred volume, and to consider him- 
self bound to study it while young, he will be likely to carry on that study 
afterwards ; but if you bring up children with very little regard for the 
Scriptures, you have no right to be displeased at the result; and I maintain that 
that result is the fault not so much of the children as of the parents. If it is 
different now to what it has been in the past I am thankful for it, but I have 
my doubts as to whether there is much improvement in this respect. I 
should be sorry to be misunderstood as to the benefits of science ; I do not 
wish to disparage science at all, and I admit most cheerfully the enormous 
debt of gratitude which we owe to it. With respect to painting and poetry, 
I do not depreciate them, but I say it is a thousand pities if they venture to 
“ idealize ” on Scriptural subjects : this is Avhat I complain of. When 
subjects are treated of, that are taken from the Scriptures, great care I think 
ought to be taken to deal with them correctly. As to light existing before 
men, I thought I could not have heard correctly what Mr. McClymont said : 
I was greatly interested in his speech, but he said light could not exist 
without a seeing eye. But surely a seeing eye does not make light. Light 
existed before the speaker was born and will do so after he is dead. Light is 
a very material fact in reference to vegetation. If you put plants into a 
cellar they will force their way through the interstices in the flags in order 
to get to the light. With respect to prayer, I would advert for a moment to 
one instance which Mr. McClymont gave us : although I should be most 
ready, as we all were, heartily and earnestly to thank God for the recovery 
of the Prince of Wales, I should not consider that I had a right to say 
positively, that his recovery was ipso facto due to the prayers which were 
offered up in his behalf, for we have no absolute data to go upon. 
Mr. McClymont. — I rather tried to help out the theory of the paper that 
some prayers were unanswered. 
Mr. McCaul. — Yes, I know, but you put an 'opinion into our mouths 
which I for one did not at all relish. There are two other points to which 
I should like to draw special attention, and the first is in reference to 
spiritual death. I admit that there is spiritual death, and that the Scripture 
