405 
referred to, that standard will give a wrong verdict. So, if conscience is 
not educated to discern right and wrong, and you have not considered the 
full estimate of the facts of the case, you are liable to make similar mis- 
takes in religion ; and therefore, just as you say to a man in regard to science, 
your individual reason is not sufficient ground for adopting a conclusion ; 
so also you may say to a man in regard to religion, your individual conscience 
is not a sufficient ground for adopting any conclusion. To take another parallel 
case, we hear it constantly said by persons who uphold conscience as opposed 
to authority : We are to search out everything for ourselves, and believe 
nothing on trust. Now, if we look at this matter on a priori principles, it 
is right that we should search out everything for ourselves, just as in matters 
of science, the scientific student is supposed a priori to search out everything 
for himself. But what is he obliged to do practically ? If he wants to learn 
astronomy, for instance, he does not immediately begin investigating the 
minutest principles of his science, and go through every step. No ; he takes 
a manual of astronomy and learns first of all the conclusions to which others 
have come in the science he proposes to learn. Then when he has mastered 
these conclusions, if he thinks a point defective, he tests it, and puts the whole 
into practical use ; and if it passes this greatest test of all, the test of practice, 
he does not quarrel with the conclusions of others, but accepts certain things, 
contrary to the theory of science, on trust. And so it is precisely in theology ; 
the student does not begin by questioning the fundamental positions of 
theology, but learns of his teacher or theological manuals ; then he puts their 
conclusions to the test of practice, or tries any particular point which seems 
defective, and decides whether it is true or not. It struck me that in this 
kind of way the false positions taken up by theological sceptics at the present 
day may be advantageously met, by showing that precisely the same thing is 
done in the matter of science ; especially as it is on the scientific method 
that our sceptics profess to deal with Scripture. W e should say to them, then, 
Deal with your conscience in religion in the same way as with reason in science. 
Deal with authority as to theological conclusions arrived at in days gone 
by, in the same way as you do as regards scientific conclusions come to by 
investigation in days gone by ; and you will find your objections touching 
conscience and authority fall to the ground. In this way, I say, science may 
very notably be the helper of theology. 
Rev. Dr. Irons.— What has fallen from the preceding speakers has failed, 
I confess, to reconcile me altogether to the thesis which Dr. Gladstone has 
attempted to demonstrate this evening. I am reluctant to admit the expression 
that science is helpful to Revelation, or Revelation helpful to science. I think 
that Revelation being most distinctly the impartation of truth from God to us, 
does not as such need help from science or man at all. Of course there is a 
sense in which every external instrumentality may be said to be helpful to it. 
Language may be said to be helpful to the promotion of the cause of religion, 
and so may all social institutions ; and in that sense I, of course, cannot deny 
that science may do a little in helping the education of the human mind. It 
certainly has done but little as yet, though it may do more in time to come. 
