341 
there are many of his way of thinking on the subject, and who regard us 
as either knaves or fools — some of the greatest astronomers and doctors in 
the highest branches of metaphysics at Cambridge have been clergymen. 
Take such instances as Challis and Earnshaw, who solved the difficult 
question of the differential calculus, and turned out some things that men of 
science have never been able to evolve from their manipulations. Take 
again such men as Whewell, Sedgwick, and Peacock, who were all clergy- 
men ; and a number of other men in orders, who never let a truth pass 
without giving it a most careful and searching examination. Take, again, 
our Chairman to-night — one of the highest authorities we have on the subject 
of crystallography. (Hear, hear.) I firmly and heartily believe that all the 
true principles of science are in accordance with the Bible, and are to be 
found to some extent there stated, though not in algebraic or analytical form, 
nor according to the forms of Euclid. And that has been necessarily so, 
because the scientific truths touched upon there, it was not necessary to state 
in detail. In the first chapter of Genesis there is the passage, “And darkness 
was upon the face of the deep.” I should just like to ask Professor Huxley 
what is darkness, and what is real, true light ; and if recent experiments with 
the spectroscope are reliable, it will be found that the Biblical account is in 
harmony with scientific investigation. I know that scarcely a scientific book 
of any character at all ever comes out without its falling under the close 
scrutiny and attention of the clergy, and I know they find that true science, 
and indeed everything else which tends to the healthy development of the 
mind, are all. in perfect harmony with the living truth. (Cheers.) 
Rev. David Greig. — I should like to make one observation which I think 
ought to be borne in mind as very important in discussing this so-called 
difference between science and religion. Geology is generally termed a 
science, but I would say that it is not, and never can be a science properly. 
(Hear.) It can never be more than the merest conjecture. It differs totally 
and essentially from mathematical science, from mechanical science, and from 
chemistry. It can never be more than conjectural, because you can only 
reason with certainty from cause to effect, and when you draw inferences 
from effect to cause, as in geology, you can only conjecture. (Hear, hear.) 
We only know the effect in geology — we have a succession of strata, and we 
can only conjecture as to the cause which gave them their peculiar formation 
and position. If you have historical testimony opposed to your conjecture, 
whatever be the value of that historical testimony, the conjecture must 
inevitably give way to it. I am not a geologist myself, and I have a very 
indistinct recollection of Sir Charles Lyell’s description of the various strata ; 
but I say that if you dig down three of those strata, said to have existed for 
countless ages, and find a trace of the old Greeks or Romans in the stratum 
below them, that historical fact would be sufficient of itself to throw over- 
board all the theories as to the immense ages during which the three upper 
strata were supposed to have existed. (Hear, hear.) 
The Chairman.— I may say that Herculaneum is a case exactly in point ; 
that was the result of some of the excavations at Herculaneum. 
