101 
left on my mind from hearing the speeches is, that whilst many differ from 
Dr. Irons on one or two of the details, all, upon the whole, agree with him 
that the writers of the work are too materialistic, and ought to have brought 
in more of the spiritual. 
The meeting was then adjourned.. 
REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING PAPER. By H. Cadman 
Jones, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
At a time when objections brought in the name of science against the 
doctrines of revelation have obtained such currency, it might be expected 
that (to use the words of the authors of “ The Unseen Universe ”) “ those 
who have a profound belief that the true principles of science will be found 
in accordance with revelation,” would “ welcome any work whose object is to 
endeavour to reconcile the two fields of thought” occupied respectively by 
those who have faith in revelation, but not in the methods according to which 
men of science interpret the laws of nature, and by those who have faith in 
the latter but not in the former. 
The work examined in Dr. Irons’ paper was written with the above-men- 
tioned object. The Victoria Institute is a body whose bond of union is a 
belief that the true principles of science will be found in accordance with 
revelation ; but if that paper is to be taken as expressing the views of the 
Institute, their reception of the work is rather hostile than friendly. Does 
it deserve such a reception at their hands ? 
I venture to think that it does not, and without attempting a full discus- 
sion of the subject, I proceed to mention some material points in which the 
paper appears to me to do injustice to the work under review. 
In the first place, it seems to be assumed throughout the paper that the 
object of the authors of “ The Unseen Universe ” was to work out a system 
of theology quite independently of the evidences, whether external or internal, 
on which Christian faith has hitherto been rested. This assumption pervades 
the whole of Part II. of the paper, and appears distinctly in sec. 47, where it 
is said of the authors, “ The reasonable, the right, the absolute good, they 
have avoided as ‘ metaphysical,’ and yet religion is their object ”; by which 
the writer evidently means that their object is to establish the truth of 
religion. 
Now it certainly was not the object of the authors to work out a system 
of theology, or even in any way to prove affirmatively the truth of religion. 
In the preface to the second edition they say — “ Many of our critics seem to 
fancy that we presume to attempt such an absurdity as a demonstration of 
VOL. XI. M 
