144 
discussions will ever be allowed an opportunity of saying that they were 
not pervaded by the spirit of charity, and of true Christian gentlemen, which 
was the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. (Hear.) 
Mr. Reddie. — Had it not been now so late, I should have ventured to 
make a few remarks upon Dr. Burnett’s paper. But at this hour I feel I 
must confine my observations to answering some of the criticisms of former 
speakers. I must first notice the remarks of Dr. Gladstone, who has rather 
taken Captain Fishbourne to task, as if he had invented the cry that science 
is opposed to Scripture. I would beg Dr. Gladstone to recall to mind the 
very history and origin of this Society. It is surely notorious that an alleged 
contradiction between science and Scripture had been publicly put forward 
and thrown at Christians, which had made it necessary that they should 
defend themselves. This charge was certainly raised by our opponents, 
more especially of late in the Essays and Reviews ; and it had been publicly 
repeated since by Dr. Temple, Dr. Colenso, and others. It may be said that 
these writers are not men of science, which we may admit ; but the argu- 
ments which they have advanced second-hand are based upon the opinions 
of certain reputed men of science. I do not, however, for a moment mean 
to say either that science, or that all men of science, are opposed to Revela- 
tion. The very institution of this Society is in itself a protest against any 
such notion. And when my friend Captain Fishbourne or I have alluded to 
“ m en of science ” as opposed to the Scriptures, we do not of course mean 
all men of science. We do not, for instance, include Dr. Gladstone himself, 
any more than we would include our most worthy and thoroughly scientific 
Chairman. I think we ought all to feel much indebted to Dr. Burnett for 
his paper. I hope, with the Rev. Mr. Owen, that it will give rise to at least 
one paper from Dr. Gladstone himself, and to a great many others. (Hear.) 
With reference to Mr. Warington’s criticisms, I think he has made a mistake 
as regards Dr. Burnett’s arguments, which bear upon the difference in scope 
between Scripture and science. Dr. Gladstone has also fallen into the same 
mistake ; for in quoting, in order to criticise, the title of the paper, he over- 
looked the words “ in scope,” which form the real key-note to its meaning. 
Dr. Burnett argued, for instance, that Scripture professed to reveal the cause 
of death coming into the world, while science and observation could only 
possibly discover the fact of death, but could not ever get at its cause. That 
is certainly true, whether we regard it as of much consequence or not. But 
I am inclined to agree with our Chairman, that this argument is worthy of 
deep consideration, with all that flows from it. When Dr. Burnett, how- 
ever, comes to what we call scientific proofs, he does not object to them in 
principle, as appears to have been supposed by Mr. Warington. He admits 
the method, but he does not admit particular proofs in certain cases to be 
satisfactory. Take, for instance, Mr. Warington’s argument as regards the 
so-called rolled pebbles and their assumed great age — 
The Chairman. — I think there is some misapprehension with regard 
to Dr. Burnett’s allusion to flint pebbles. It is hardly fair, perhaps, to 
criticise very severely a mere illustration. A very faulty illustration may be 
