206 
kind. But the very fact that there was such a tradition, attributing the origin 
of fire to some one who brought it to them, rather proves Mr. Eeddie’s case, and 
shows that they attributed even their knowledge of fire to some being wiser 
than themselves. (Applause.) It was not a thing discovered by then- gene- 
ration ; it was in the dim religious past. And so we find that traditions in- 
variably take a religious turn. We all know that Prometheus suffered for 
stealing fire from heaven ; bub then Prometheus was considered to be a 
demigod. (Hear, hear.) 
Mr. Barrett— The impression left on my mind is similar to that which 
was left on the mind of Dr. Gladstone. As far as I can judge, Mr. Reddie 
appeared to think that Christianity must stand or fall by the objections to 
the Darwinian theory. (Cries of No, no.) Well I may be right, or I 
may be wrong, but that was the impression left on my mind. I think a 
greater disservice cannot be done to Christianity than dogmatically to assert 
that its claims depended upon refuting the truth of the Darwinian theory. 
Darwinism may be right or it may not ; but the Bible teaches us nothing 
at all about it. (Hear, hear.) The Bible teaches us nothing about science. 
It was not written to teach us science. It was sent to appeal to our affections, 
not to our intellectual nature. I do not think, therefore, it has any connection 
with the Darwinian theory 
Mr. Reddie.— I am sure I will be excused for the interruption, for I 
must say that this is really not the question here. I have not said 
that Christianity must stand or fall by Darwinism, or the objections to 
Darwinism. I stated what Darwinism was, and I tried to oppose it, not by 
any words of Scripture, but by our experience and the facts of nature. (Hear, 
hear.) 
Mr. Barrett. — I was simply stating the impression left on my mind 
from hearing the paper 
The Chairman.— As I understood the paper, the subject has not been dis- 
cussed from the Bible point of view simply, but from a consideration of the 
facts of nature, as opposed to the Darwinian theory. 
Mr. Barrett.— I was simply stating the impression left on my mind, 
which was, that it was argued that Christianity must stand or fall by the 
objections to the Darwinian theory ; and I thought I was justified in statmg 
that I did not adopt that opinion. 
The Chairman. — I must say I can see nothing of that kind in the paper. 1 
regret the tone which has been imported into this discussion by Dr. 
Gladstone, unintentionally no doubt ; as it has drawn us away from the 
subject of the paper. I think Mr. Reddie was extremely cautious in not 
attempting to call names. But in dealing with a subject of this kind, it is 
sometimes very hard not to call things by their right names. There is a 
certain theory which we believe to be the religious theory ; and by the reli- 
gious theory I mean that which a plain common-sense man will deduce from 
the word of God, reading it as a plain, common-sense man wifi read the 
Scriptures. I cannot conceive that a man is very much to be deprecated, it 
he calls that plain, common-sense view the religious view, as opposed to other 
