404 
forget that all our knowledge rests on probability. That was the great thing 
Bishop Butler insisted on in his Analogy, that probability is a fair founda- 
tion for practical conclusions. I think, then, that in these matters of science, 
we are not to say, because a certain thing is not mathematically demonstrated, 
therefore we are not to take it as a basis of argument. If so, we should 
have no arguments at all. Our chairman has told us that in the purest of 
all sciences, mathematics, there are propositions taken as bases of argument 
which cannot be demonstrated in mathematical fashion— they are assumed ; 
so that even in that science we have to take probability into account. Hence 
I take it, that all we can fairly demand in taking any conclusion of science 
as a basis for argument, is that it should be a probable conclusion. To 
pass to the second paper ; it struck me that the objection which Captain Fish- 
bourne raised against it, arose from a misunderstanding of what the author 
of the paper intended to convey. As I heard it and read it, it did 
not seem to me that Dr. Gladstone meant that it was the same quality, 
the same faculty of mind, which rendered man able to interpret the facts 
of nature scientifically, that would enable him to interpret Scripture 
scientifically; but rather that there was in each a true and proper faculty, 
and that so far the two cases were analogous ; because just in the same way 
as the scientific faculty of the mind was required for the investigation of the 
facts of nature, so the spiritual faculty of the mind was required for the 
investigation of the facts of Scripture. It struck me that the position Dr. 
Gladstone took up was one of great importance with a view to tracing out the 
analogies which exist between nature and Scripture in this way. It gives a 
useful answer to objections which are raised at the present day, something 
in the same fashion as the great work of Bishop Butler on Analogy 
did, to objections in his day. For there are certain prominent fallacies 
put forward by some thinkers now, which can be met most effectively by 
this analogy between science and Scripture. I will take two,whic are 
hinted at, though not worked out, in Dr. Gladstones paper. In the firs 
place, we are constantly hearing men say that there is but one standard in 
theolooy, and that is conscience ; and of course if we reason on a priori 
principles, we must admit that the standard of ultimate appeal is mans 
conscience. There may be others, but we must come at last to the practical 
one, the ultimate one, and that is conscience. The conclusion drawn is, that, 
consequently, whatever a man’s conscience thinks right, is right. Now, 
turn to science ;-the ultimate standard of appeal, by which every scientific 
conclusion has to be judged, is reason And this not merely reason 
generally, but by each man’s faculty of reason. But would it there 
L be fair to jump to the conclusion that what every man’s reason 
decides is science? Certainly not. We see that although reason is the 
true faculty to which appeal must be made, yet that facult; y to to 
be educated, and must have before it a proper estimate of the facte 
of the case on which the conclusion is to be based; and unless these 
are kept steadily in mind, it is extremely probable that reason wd 
come to a wrong conclusion; and thus though the right standard may 
