418 
space by an imponderable, vibrating, jelly-like substance, capable of trans- 
mitting the vibrations of light, heat, electricity, and other forces, from the 
sun and stars, while forming a perfectly unresisting medium to the motions 
of material and ponderable bodies. And with regard to the analogy between 
the colours of the spectrum and the diatonic scale of music, I have always 
considered Newton’s treatment of that analogy as a prophetic anticipation of 
one of the most brilliant triumphs of modern analysis. There is one point 
which I could have wished to have seen introduced into Dr. Gladstone’s 
paper, and that is the powerful aid the belief in the wisdom of the Creator, 
as displayed in His works, has given to the advance of true science. Newton, 
Harvey, Cuvier, and Hunter, not to mention other great discoverers of scien- 
tific truth, were led to make their discoveries by a profound sense of this 
wisdom. An assurance of the perfection and wisdom of God’s works led 
them to a right interpretation of facts which to others seemed inexplicable 
or unmeaning. 
Dr. Gladstone. — In rising at this late hour of the evening, I must be very 
brief in what I say ; and first I have to thank all those gentlemen, who have 
spoken upon my paper, for the kind tone in reference to myself in which they 
have treated it ; and I have also to thank Mr. Warington, Mr. Reddie, and 
Mr. Mitchell, for the additions that they have made to my argument. I think 
each of these gentlemen said things that I might have put in my paper if 
thought of at the time ; though I do not of course endorse everything they 
may have said in reference to the matter. As to the objections that have 
been raised to my paper, they seem to class themselves under three heads 
1. Objections raised upon a mistaken idea of what the paper contains ; 
2. Objections which I must leave simply to a difference of opinion 
between myself and those gentlemen ; and 
3. Objections which I think it worth while to enter upon at length. 
First, as to objections which arose from a mistaken idea of what my paper 
contains, I am sorry to say, it so happens, that all the five objections (I 
have put down five) of Dr. Irons originate in mistakes — I am quite cure 
unintentionally, for he tells us he has not read the paper before, and merely 
received his first impressions of it this evening. He objected, first, to the 
statement that revelation was helpful to science or science to revelation. I 
never said either the one or the other. My thesis is, that theology is helpful 
to natural science and natural science to theology. Then, with reference to the 
patronage of theology, I am sure I did not mean to speak in a patronising 
way of theology any more than of natural science. In reference to the par- 
ticular passage where I spoke of theology being the queen of the sciences, and 
those of lower rank waiting upon her, — I meant simply what I said. In 
reference to Anselm, or Abelard, or Bernard of Clairvaux, I mentioned them 
as representing three extremely divergent doctrines of the atonement. 
Abelard, I believe, had a definite theory ; and not only that, but was one of 
the earliest promulgators of views relating to the atonement, which have been 
brought into prominence now ; and it is for this reason that I mentioned hie 
name. Then comes the objection that I stated that the Bible is easier to 
