409 
question, “ What is truth ? ” I have greater hopes of both than that ; and 
trust that science, as well as theology, is on a sounder basis, and that we are 
not destined to be ever learning, and yet " never able to come to a knowledge 
of truth.” Then he says, “ The book of nature appeals to the bodily senses, and 
the whole of its teaching relates to the physical universe, and to this life.” I 
must also demur to that. I do not know what Dr. Gladstone means to 
include in natural science ; but I consider that some of the heathen in their 
“ natural science ” taught more as regards another life than almost our own 
Christian theologians. For instance, the immortality of the soul has been 
almost demonstrated by Plato and the Greek philosophers, while it is a 
question scarcely argued in the Christian church. It has been assumed no 
doubt, and many other arguments have been added, in connection with the 
resurrection of the body ; but I fancy no Christian theologian would like to 
throw aside the teachings of pure natural science, or human philosophy, on 
that subject. Then I find St. Paul himself making use of natural science to 
aid theology (I say this in all deference to Dr. Irons’s opinion) ; and he does so, 
no doubt, because theology has for its basis, belief in God ; and St. Paul appeals 
to things visible as proving the existence of the invisible Deity ; thus also 
showing us that even natural science does properly deal with something 
besides this life and mere material things. — (Dr. Gladstone here made an 
observation to the Chairman.) 
The Chairman. — I think Mr. Eeddie means this, that he considers natural 
science in a wider sense than Dr. Gladstone has done, and would include 
in natural science, mental philosophy, and I suppose what the Scotch term 
“ the humanities.” 
Mr. Eeddie. — I include all human philosophy, and that is why I think 
this Society has such a wholesome range in its scope. We are not a mere 
“ scientific Society ” in the narrow modern sense, but truly a philosophical 
Society — 
The Chairman. — I think Dr. Gladstone’s paper was directed to the one 
branch of science, which I should term “ Natural Philosophy,” rather than 
as including the whole range of philosophy. 
Mr. Eeddie. — I would scarcely like thus to dissociate the various branches 
of human philosophy or natural science — for instance, natural philosophy 
from natural theology. But I shall endeavour to bring out my views, and 
also to show what is found in Scripture, in their justification. I would agree 
with Dr. Irons that “ science,” in our modern sense, is not made use of in 
Scripture ; but if by science you mean a true knowledge of certain things in 
nature, without any pretence of going into the depths of nature and beyond 
what we do know of the laws affecting these things, then I consider that 
Scripture makes very great use of science in this sense. It does not profess 
to propound the particular laws that regulate the movements of the heavenly 
bodies, but it recognizes most distinctly that they are regulated by law, as in 
the phrase, “ He hath given them a law which shall not be broken.” Again, 
we have the verse, u The Heavens declare the glory of God teaching us, 
therefore, that the contemplation of the material heavens ought to lead the 
2 H 
