363 
have written or spoken in so temperate a manner. But even had I written 
the paper, I should not have asserted that all scientific men were opposed to 
religion. My friend Dr. Gladstone is a scientific man, and so far from 
his being opposed to religion, I know that a great part of his life is given 
to the propagation of the truth ; therefore I think we must make a dis- 
tinction, and the distinction is an important one ; but there is a class of 
scientific men who make a boast that they have no religion, such as we 
understand it, and if these men give a character to their body, it is they 
only who should be found fault with by the religious portion of their 
profession, and not us. 
Rev. C. A. Row. I do still feel that somewhat strong language has 
been used, and I think that if Professor Huxley did revile, it is our duty 
not to revile again, and the less fuss the clergy make about this matter the 
better it will be, for people will otherwise say that the cap fits us. 
The Chairman. I will now say a few words by way of summing up, and 
they shall only be few— not because I have little to say upon this subject, 
but because it is so large and important that I could hardly do justice to it 
in the time which remains to me, and because, also, I hope to speak upon it 
in another place. I think that a great deal of misapprehension has arisen 
from the unfortunate nature of the discussion which has taken place upon 
this subject— unfortunate, not so much in the way in which it was taken up 
by Mr. Reddie, as in the manner in which Professor Huxley thought fit to 
instruct the clergy. And here I must say that I think there has always been 
great caution displayed by this Society in its method of procedure. I believe 
there is no real discrepancy at all between those who believe in revelation 
and those who make real science their chief study. I wish you to under- 
stand that by real science I mean that which is demonstrated to be true. I 
believe that where discrepancies do arise— and doubtless great discrepancies 
and discordances exist— they arise, not with regard to that science which can 
be demonstrated to be true, but from those floating hypotheses of science 
which are held to-day and contradicted to-morrow. (Hear, hear.) I think there 
has been a total misapprehension as to what was the nature of Professor Huxley’s 
discourse. He did not go to Sion College to read a paper on a particular and 
definite subject ; but he went there to open a discussion — a particular and 
definite discussion— and he was afraid, when he came before the clergy, to meet 
them upon fair grounds. He ought to have known, if he had known anything 
at all of the opinions of the clergy, what has been stated by clergymen 
here this evening, and what he was told by some who spoke upon that 
occasion, namely, that those who had not followed the progress of science 
would have allowed him pretty nearly everything he asked. But he did not 
enter into the real history of the alleged divergence between the clergy and 
men of science. I will here call attention to what is certainly one” great 
divergence ; and that is, when men deny the fact of creation -when they deny 
the unity of the human race. Make what you will of Christianity, you cannot 
get away from the fact that if you are to give any honest interpretation of what 
you believe to be a divine record, divinely inspired, — if you are to take the 
