32 
raison cVctre. Then the tide turned. I believe I was the first person who 
put on the gloves. Lord O’Neill grapples fairly with the cpiestion. We are 
now told that the supernatural is incredible, and everything is natural. 
“Well,” Lord O’Neill says, “ what is the natural ? What do you mean by 
the natural?” And he clearly shows, I think, that beyond the region of 
sense there is something — a reason-sphere, or whatever you please to call it 
— into Avhich the intellect of man may penetrate. I am sure we must all 
be very glad indeed to find that he has had the courage to grapple with 
such a subject, and hope that this is not the last paper we shall have 
from him upon so interesting a matter. Therefore I may fairly ask you 
to accord your best thanks to Lord O’Neill for his very interesting, and 
well-reasoned paper. (Cheers.) But there are others to whom we 
have also to return thanks. His paper is one of many. “ Micat inter ignes 
lima minores”: if we can call them mhiores. If you look at the list of 
papers contributed, you will find that those papers have not only been 
diversified in character, but extremely valuable in point of matter. 
Some have been upon geological subjects, and I am very glad that we 
have had such papers, which have shown that the Mosaic cosmogony is 
not affected by mere scientific hypotheses. As Sir Joseph Fayrer 
has well and truly told us, science is one thing, and theology is another. 
They are twins, but still they must not be regarded as exactly one 
and the same. As long as we are content to let science take its right 
position, and theology and religion their right positions, there can be no 
antagonism. Whenever we introduce theology into science, and science 
into theology, we shall most assuredly get into terrible confusion. Let us 
remember, as we have been told to do, that scientific men are engaged in 
the pursuit of truth, and that we theologians — here I speak for myself 
as a professional theologian — are engaged in the pursuit of truth also. Do 
not let us say that we are antagonistic to one another. Let us still show 
that we are both engaged in the pursuit of truth, one in one direction and 
the other in another. Depend upon it the time will come when we “ shall 
know as we are known,” and when we shall see, although at the time we did 
not know it, that we were all tending towards the same point. (Hear, hear.) 
I have only to say that I second the resolution with great satisfaction. 
The motion, having been put, was carried by acclamation. 
Lord O’Neill. — I beg to express my sincere thanks for the kind 
reception my paper has met with — a reception going far beyond what 
I could possibly have expected. I may here say that a book has come 
to my knowledge within the last few* days which, had I seen it sooner, 
would have aided me very much in what I have done, and that is a w*ork 
written by Dr. Wainwright, entitled “Scientific Sophisms.” I have had 
time to look into it sufiiciently to enable me to say that I think it a most 
valuable contribution to the literature which it is the erdeavcur of this 
Institute to encoiu’age. (Hear, hear.) 
