415 
who heard it could fail to mark the extremely reverential tone in which it is 
written. It may well be taken as an example of the manner in which such 
subjects ought to be treated by believers in revelation. Mr. Brodie’s paper 
will be a valuable addition to our Transactions , as affording a fair sample of 
the manner in which geology was attempted to be reconciled with revelation 
ten or twelve years ago. Since then geology has so changed its theories that 
we see how needless such attempts were to reconcile an imperfect science 
with the Bible. Though Captain Fishbourne has been fairly answered by 
Mr. Warington, I believe his remarks were substantially true. I shall only 
quote one passage from Mr. Brodie’s paper “ A larger proportion of the 
carboniferous element was diffused through the atmosphere, and there is 
reason to conclude that the average temperature of the globe was much 
higher than that which now prevails.” In this one sentence are two hypo- 
theses now abandoned by the majority of geological professors. They have 
shared the fate of so many others which, once almost universally received, 
are now as completely laid aside. Dr. Gladstone has also treated his subject 
m a very reverential manner. I think, perhaps, that he has not drawn all 
the lessons he might have done, or shown fully how helpful theology is 
to science. Perhaps, as Dr. Irons has stated, he has shown a stronger leaning 
to the scientific than to the spiritual element of his theme. But of this I 
feel assured, that no one can more highly estimate the spiritual element than 
Dr. Gladstone does. And in this respect, taking into consideration the diffi- 
culty of dealing with subjects so vast and so transcending the powers of the 
human mind, I feel that there is very little real divergence between Dr. 
Irons and Dr. Gladstone. We are much indebted to Mr. Warington for a 
useful line of argument analogous to that pursued by Dr. Gladstone. When, 
however, he tells us that all our knowledge of science is based on probability, ? 
though I agree with him in the main, I might be disposed to take some 
exception to his illustrations. He has brought forward many useful analogies 
between a right method of acquiring scientific knowledge, and that° of 
theology. I am sorry that we have not time to extend Mr. Warington’s 
analogies still further than he has done, as they would strengthen Dr. Glad- 
stone’s subject of the Mutual Helpfulness of Theology and Natural Science. 
I shall only endeavour to pursue the subject with respect to one science, that 
of astronomy. A real knowledge of that science can only be acquired by a 
long training and a mental discipline very analogous to that required for a 
reverential study of theology. Before our reason can master the proofs on 
which astronomy claims to be a natural science, we must cultivate profound 
humility and great deference to the authority of those who have mastered the 
subject.. Mr. W arington told us he would commence his study of astronomy 
by reading a manual of the science. But this, though it would give him a 
fair view of the theories and conclusions of astronomers, would utterly fail 
to enable him to follow intelligently any of the processes of reasoning by 
which those theories are proved or are accepted by scientific astronomers. 
The whole Cambridge course of mathematics in my day was subsidiary to 
acquiring those methods of reasoning by which Physical Astronomy was 
