419 
understand than natural science. Upon asking Dr. Irons for the passage, he 
referred me to one in which I speak merely of the collection of facts, and I 
am prepared to stand by what I said in that paragraph. I think it is more 
easy to collect the mere texts of Scripture bearing upon a particular subject 
than to collect the facts in nature bearing upon any particular subject there. 
I speak, of course, in a general way. As to the interpretation of these facts 
of nature or texts of Scripture, that is another subject, and instead of believ- 
ing the Bible to be easier to understand than nature, I think the opposite ; 
indeed, one of my reasons for writing the paper was, that I consider nature 
is a matter which we can understand and comprehend more easily, and 
that the various methods of interpretation which we arrive at in reference 
to nature may well be transferred to interpreting the Bible. I am sure that 
in saying these things you will understand I do not suppose that Dr. Irons in 
any invidious way brought forward these objections ; but, in a brief paper like 
mine, it is not easy to find the meaning in all cases, and there are complicated 
lines of thought and argument, and sometimes one may get hold of a 
meaning which ought to be counterbalanced by what is said elsewhere. As 
to the second class of objections, Mr. Reddie made various remarks in 
reference to natural science which showed that he put a very different meaning 
on the words “ natural science ” to what I did ; but I must leave this as a mere 
matter of definition. In reference to the question of the introduction of 
natural science into colleges, I mean to advocate it, and to maintain all I said 
in my paper ; and I hope to express these opinions in other places : I have done 
so in one theological college, and hope to do so in others. The subject deserves 
the widest discussion. I am glad it has been brought forward, and that 
arguments have been used against the position I maintain ; and I hope these 
discussions will extend beyond the Victoria Institute, and that the truth will 
prevail. Perhaps I may add this,— I repudiate altogether the taking of Colenso 
as a scientific man, for his objections are non-scientific. Then comes one 
objection which I ought in justice to myself to deal with at some little 
length, and it is the objection of Captain Fishbourne, that I have not dwelt 
sufficiently clearly upon the difference between the natural mind and the 
spiritual mind. It is possible that the few words I have said on that subject 
might not convey the whole of my meaning, and you will permit me to 
explain further my view of the case. In my paper I spoke of there being 
a receptive faculty in both cases. I think that is what is alluded to in the 
writings of St. Paul. But there is a different receptive faculty for each : 
it is the power of appreciating spiritual truth in the one case, and the power 
of appreciating physical truth in the other. Then the question arises,— How are 
we to get this faculty ? Upon that subject there is not a word in my essay • 
but there is an important difference between the two. In respect to natural 
science, there are some men who have the ability born in them of lovino- 
science and of taking an interest in it and understanding it, and other 
men have not this faculty; but when we come to the spiritual mind 
we do not find there is by nature this faculty : it has to be imparted to man 
by the Holy Spirit of God. The origin of these two is therefore different. 
