838 
Bev. Dr. Irons. — I rise, although the hour is somewhat late, because 
I was present at the meeting to which the paper refers, when Professor 
Huxley addressed the clergy at Sion College. I do not know whether that 
gentleman is here to-night : if he be, I should prefer at once to resume my 
seat, and to hear what he has to say in reply to what I believe to be the 
unanswerable paper of our Honorary Secretary. (Hear, hear.) If he be not 
here, however, I do hope that he will be duly informed by scientific and 
other friends who may be present, that we shall be happy to see him at our 
next meeting, that we will give him the most cordial reception, and that he 
shall here be allowed to state, as definitely as he can, what are those positions 
of a scientific kind which he imagines the clergy to repudiate, and which he 
asserts that we regard as entirely contrary to Holy Writ. I, for one, am not 
aware of any such fixed scientific truths which I and my clerical brethren, 
who have carefully considered these subjects, repudiate. (Hear, hear.) And 
I rise for another reason ; and that is, to protest against the kind of issue 
which has been raised by Professor Huxley, and admirably met, I think, by 
Mr. Reddie’s paper. It is an unfair thing for a man to stand up in the 
midst of his brethren and to say that he will not there declare his own 
opinions on a particular subject, but will only say to a certain extent that 
which he thinks he may venture upon, leaving his hearers to guess the rest. 
That was the position which Professor Huxley assumed at Sion College. 
With respect to the particular questions which he raised, there was no time 
then, any more than there is now, after an address which lasted about the 
same time as the paper which has just been read, to enter into a detailed 
discussion ; but the injustice which had been committed was so deeply felt by 
me at the time, that I was obliged to ask Professor Huxley whether he 
meant to say that the clergy were fools or knaves ? Whether we were so 
idiotic that we could not comprehend the arguments to be deduced from 
scientific facts, or so thoroughly dishonest that, comprehending them, we 
would not own the truth? He said he meant to make neither of those 
charges. I accepted his statement, and thanked him for the disclaimer, but 
I asked him further, what it was that he did mean ? (Hear, hear.) If he were 
here, he might tell us now what he did not tell us then. You will recollect, 
Sir, for you were there then, as well as on another occasion, when Mr. Huxley 
was with us, that an answer was given to him which I think he had not ex- 
pected. We showed him, I mean, pretty clearly that there is no truth which 
has been put before the mind of the thoughtful Christian philosopher in any 
age which he has ever been wont to shrink from. (Hear, hear.) But we 
are probably most of us acquainted with the statement of Sir W. Hamilton, 
that there is a certain class of scientific persons who, being engaged in a very 
limited circle of studies, hold exclusively to a few ideas, and almost lose their 
logical faculty. I could not help being reminded of that when I heard 
Professor Huxley’s address, because he entirely confounded two things 
which the logical mind would have distinguished from each other and kept 
entirely apart. He confounded hypotheses and facts. (Hear, hear.) If 
there be anything which a clear-headed scientific man ought to be qualified 
