446 
matter upon which, to think. I referred to Dr. Tyndall’s words, and my 
little boys’ thirst for knowledge, simply to shew the absurdity of such bom- 
bastic phrases cropping up at every turn as “ the truly scientific intellect.” 
The falling of a stone upon a man’s body imparts the feeling of pain rather 
than any philosophic idea of force — Mr. Reddie confuses here effect with 
cause. I never tried to bring “ all things into the category of the same 
order.” Each system of law has necessarily an order of its own. I have 
not attempted any strict logical definition of the cardinal virtues — I have 
simply tried to illustrate them. I am sure better Scripture illustrations 
might be found. 
The Rev. Dr. Thornton. 
Dr. Thornton will find that I have tried to show that moral philosophy is 
“ universal ” in its “ interactions and relations,” and that every separate 
doctrine of Christianity, as regeneration, atonement, conversion, faith, &c., is 
made to work upon ethical principles. How could I point out fully in a few 
pages the “ relations ” to science and revelation ? I have simply suggested 
the train of thought that might be worked out. 
The Rev. Dr. Rigg. 
Dr. Rigg’s “ longing for principles and points bearing upon the great 
questions before us ” is exactly what I have longed for in vain. The speeches 
have all been confined to small chips from the block — not one speaker has 
taken the subject in his hand and criticised it. And I think Dr. Rigg 
himself will give me more credit for “careful sifting” after reading my 
reply than the speeches of “ Mr. Row, Dr. Irons, Mr. Reddie, &c.,” for the 
moment led him to do. There is nothing calling for any special remark in 
the remaining speeches, and as I am enjoined to be “ brief,” I will stop here 
by thanking the members of the Institute for the attention given to my paper, 
and hoping that the subject may receive further attention from other pens. 
I may add that I am happy to know that a favourable opinion of my 
paper has been expressed by the Press. A very extensively read weekly 
organ recommended it as an antidote “ against modern objections to Divine 
revelation,” and says that the arguments used to “ prove that the principles 
of the New Testament are in strict accordance with true philosophy ” are 
“ altogether unanswerable.” 
