was a little unjust to men of science who objected to the Scriptures, when 
. he stated that they put their own interpretation upon them. To a certain 
extent that observation may be true ; but so far as I know of scientific 
objectors, they quoted the interpretations which had been received as orthodox, 
and then proceeded to show that, according to the teaching of science, these 
could not be true. They do not put an interpretation on the passage them- 
selves, but they take the commonly received interpretations, and endeavour 
to show that in that sense the Bible is inconsistent with the truths of 
science, and calculated to mislead. How far they had succeeded is a 
question into which I am not now prepared to enter ; but I think it rmht 
that their objections should be fairly stated, in order that they might°be 
fairly met. (Hear, hear.) 
Hr. Gladstone. — There are one or two things in the paper upon which 
I should like to make a few observations ; but I feel, like Mr. Warington, 
some delicacy in doing so in the absence of Dr. Burnett. My first objection is 
to the title of the paper. I cannot see why the subject treated by Dr. Burnett 
is called “A Comparison between Science and Revelation, as Standards of 
Truth.” I think those two terms are incompatible. The term science is 
very indefinite ; it might mean natural science, or theological science, or 
metaphysical science, or political science. But when we come to the essay 
itself, I find it commences very properly with the statement that God created 
the entire world, and that the evidence of His power and wisdom is to be 
found in all His works. It is further laid down, that having created the 
world, God had revealed himself to man, whom He had also created to 
inhabit that world. Now I can understand a comparison between these 
two things as standards of truth — a comparison between Nature and Reve- 
lation. Both manifest, though in different ways, that God who was their great 
Author. But I do not understand how science can be regarded as a standard 
of truth. Science is simply a knowledge acquired by man from what he observes 
in Nature or Revelation ; but the deductions of man, whether in natural 
or theological science, can in neither the one case nor the other be regarded 
as standards of truth. I think it should have been more clearly shown in 
the paper that the science spoken of meant natural science, and that natural 
science meant the deductions of man from the facts which he observed in Nature. 
But while the facts of Nature are perfectly true, and while Revelation, coming 
as it did from God, must also be true, the deductions of man from the facts 
oi Nature might be far indeed from the truth, just as his deductions from 
the words of Revelation might be very far from being true. (Hear, hear.) 
I was very much struck with the observations in the paper upon which Capt. 
Fishbourne had remarked. I do not think there can be any doubt as to the 
disorganization of man’s reason. He is constantly falling into all kinds 
of errors. It should be borne in mind, too, that this disorganization prevails 
to a far greater extent in things spiritual than in purely temporal matters, 
bar greater danger therefore exists of men being led away by false theories with 
respect to the w r ords of God in Revelation, than by false theories with respect to 
the facts of nature. I am not going to enter into the theological question ; but 
