339 
to distinguish in science, it is between that which is theory and that which 
is fact. One who was present at Sion College went so far as to demand — 
and I say it with regret, because I have a respect for him — that we should 
regard a scientific dictum as an oracle — the word 11 oracle ” was used. I 
asked immediately, how were we to accept the oracle when it spoke in 
different senses? (Hear, hear.) We have had in our own lifetime a 
geological oracle giving us as absolute truth first a fiery theory, then a 
watery theory, and lastly, a very cloudy theory. (Laughter.) Which 
is the true one? (Hear, hear.) At present even Sir Charles Lyell 
himself is in doubt about it. What, then, are the unfortunate clergy 
to do under such circumstances ? We read the books of scientific men, 
although they do not read ours, and we know something of both sides 
of the question, while they are ignorant of theology. We cannot under- 
stand what it is in this matter of geology which they wish us now to 
believe. As I said just now, they did not seem to comprehend the dif- 
ference between hypothesis and fact. A hypothesis may be naturally 
and honestly held by any man. You have your opinion, I have mine, 
and another man has his, all of them different from each other. We all 
of us have a right to our own opinion ; but if we choose to hold an opinion 
contrary to the facts, we must take the consequences. No man can ulti- 
mately escape, if he really will not accept the facts of the world. It is 
ridiculous, then, for scientific men to come forward and tell the clergy to 
accept, as the facts of science, what are really only the theories and hypo- 
theses of scientific men. (Hear, hear.) They know very well that no man 
in his senses can deny a fact. The denial of a fact can be of but brief 
duration, but the denial of a mere hypothesis is the right of every intelligent 
being, if he chooses to exercise it. But not only do our geological friends 
hold certain hypotheses. Let us look at our chemical friends — another 
branch of scientific men. They told us, when we were boys, that the 
atomic theory — one very similar to that of old Epicurus — propounded with 
great authority by Mr. Dalton, a Quaker, was a chemical truth. The 
University of Oxford, that great obstacle of learning, as Mr. Huxley would 
conceive it to be, was so eager to meet even a Quaker with a scientific truth 
in his hand, that it summoned this Quaker, Mr. Dalton, to the University, 
and conferred on him — I was present at the time — the honorary degree of 
D.C.L. for his discovery. But at the last meeting of a great scientific 
society— the British Association — held in Dundee, in this very year, the 
president told us that the atomic theory is a mistake. Now, what are we 
to think of these scientific men ? I call upon them not to blow hot and cold 
— not to say that we are to believe one thing in 1865, and another thing in 
1867, on the same subject. When we protest that, after weighing their 
theories calmly, and giving them all our attention, we cannot accept them, 
they get very angry because we do not fall down and worship them as 
oracles ! I think it is quite time that this tone should be entirely scouted. 
(Hear, hear.) It is time for scientific men to understand this 19th century 
in which they live. We are thinkers as well as they, and I would say to 
