359 
I said nothing of the kind.” I asked him, “ Was that your meaning ? ” and 
he replied, “Not in the least.” I said, ,c Thank you. Your whole speech 
means nothing, if it does not mean that : it had no other sense.” Now, I 
complain that there should be this imagined antagonism between men who 
are purely following science and men who are following religion. Why, I 
ask, should they imagine themselves to be antagonists when they are not ? 
We are both serving the same sacred cause of truth, and if I found a scientific 
man thinking entirely opposite thoughts to my own, but still thinking and 
expressing them honestly, I would grasp his hand as a fellow-worker in the 
mine of truth ; but if he were to turn round on me and say I was not hearty 
in the cause, that I did not pursue truth as he did, I should think he was 
a somewhat mistaken man in that particular, however honest he might be in 
his own pursuit. I think I have occupied quite enough of your time : what 
I have said has been in self-defence ; — I do not mean of myself personally, 
but of the clergy as a body. W e all of us read the scientific books as they 
come out. I have them on my own table, and I find them on the tables of 
my brethren ; but we do not find on the tables of purely scientific men the 
latest theological works. Let us, I say, endeavour to get rid of the petty 
spirit I have referred to, and work together as brethren in the great cause of 
advancing truth. 
Eev. S. Wainwright. — I take a position midway between that of Dr. 
Irons and that of Professor Morris, but one occupying ground common to 
both. I sympathize with the remark made by Professor Morris in repre- 
hending the observations made by one gentleman, who on a former occasion 
began by saying he knew nothing of geology, and then asserted that geology 
was no science ; but although I regard the statement as indefensible, I think 
it was not an unnatural remark on the part of a person having probably only 
a superficial knowledge ; and at the same time I hold that there is something 
to be said for what that gentleman meant. I understood him to say that 
geology differed essentially from the stricter sciences in the method by which 
geologists arrive at results, and I regard this as a proper distinction, and one 
that may be fairly maintained. With respect to Dr. Gladstone, though I 
think his main proposition utterly indefensible, I do not mean to say that I 
differ from him in toto ccelo. I understood Dr. Gladstone to say, on the last 
occasion, that there was nothing in the Bible approaching to a chronology, 
and on the present occasion that statement has been most emphatically re- 
peated by Mr. Row 
Rev. C. A. Row. — I doubt whether there are data in the Bible on which 
a positive chronology can be constructed. 
Rev. S. Wainwright.— M r. Row stated that we had nothing ap- 
proaching to a chronology in the Bible, and that proposition I deny as 
emphatically as it is affirmed by Mr. Row. I say deliberately, and after 
mature consideration, that the whole controversy as it exists to-day between 
true science and religion — and here I fear I am using a terminology requiring 
considerable forbearance, because you cannot separate the two things, inas- 
much as true science involves religion, and religion involves true science — the 
VOL. IT. 2 C 
