314 
monstration must take with them whatever degree of doubt may exist in the 
original fundamentals of the science. This, I think, is a point which should 
be strongly insisted upon when what are called physical and mathematical 
sciences are brought into collision with the highest of all sciences — pure 
theological science. It is a generally received opinion — but I believe it is an 
opinion which is founded upon ignorance — that the mathematical and the 
physical sciences possess an amount of demonstration which is utterly un- 
attainable in such difficult subjects as those which occupy men’s thoughts 
when they enter upon the science of theology. I am sure of this, that the more 
the subject is investigated, and the more we analyze the principles on which 
those so-called scientific demonstrations in mathematical and physical science 
are founded, the more it will be found that we have as strong a proof and de- 
monstration of the higher science as any that can be produced in any of the 
other inferior sciences. If the same degree of scepticism which has been brought 
to bear upon theology as a science were to be applied to any of the other sciences 
with which we have to deal, or any of those sciences which are supposed to 
be demonstrative sciences, I feel convinced that there are far greater diffi- 
culties to meet with in those so-called demonstrative sciences than any which 
theology has to answer. Now this is a subject which should be thoroughly 
considered. With regard to the distinction between the observing faculties 
of those who are called upon, when facts are observed, to analyze them and 
to arrange them, and the reasoning faculties of those who are to determine 
what is to be derived from them, I conceive them to be two very different 
faculties of the mind. They are both capable of being cultivated to a very 
high extent, and no man can become a good observer who does not cultivate 
the faculty of observation ; and I agree with Mr. Keddie, that this also 
necessarily implies the co-existence of very considerable reasoning powers. 
But then I believe that it also requires a long education, and an education of 
a totally distinct character from that of the mere observer, for a man to 
attempt to deduce from the observed facts their general laws, or their 
bearing on the other facts of nature. I cannot help feeling, that while I 
agree in the main with the conclusions in this paper, I am very sorry that 
Mr. Garbett, as I conceive, has made use of illustrations which are rather 
faulty in themselves and which do not hold water. I think some of them 
came probably from an incorrect apprehension of some of the circumstances, 
as in the case of the reference to Adams and Watt. They were correct as 
illustrating Mr. Garbett’s paper, but incorrect as not bearing on the supposed 
facts to which Mr. Garbett wished to refer. But it should be borne in mind 
that it is very difficult to become true observers of facts, and I could give an 
illustration which would go farther than his. It is a matter of trained 
observation for a chemist to determine whether a fluid contains a supposed 
poison or not. Does this water contain arsenic, for instance ? In such a 
matter, no mere tyro in chemistry should be trusted where a man’s life is at 
stake, and men’s lives sometimes do depend on the chemist’s accuracy in 
such a thing. In one case a man was accused of committing murder, and 
among the bottles found in his possession was one containing a clear, trans- 
