Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

discussions will ever be allowed an opportunity of saying that they were not pervaded by the spirit of charity, and of true Christian gentlemen, which was the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. (Hear.)

Mr. REDDIE. Had it not been now so late, I should have ventured to make a few remarks upon Dr. Burnett's paper. But at this hour I feel I must confine my observations to answering some of the criticisms of former speakers. I must first notice the remarks of Dr. Gladstone, who has rather taken Captain Fishbourne to task, as if he had invented the cry that science is opposed to Scripture. I would beg Dr. Gladstone to recall to mind the very history and origin of this Society. It is surely notorious that an alleged contradiction between science and Scripture had been publicly put forward and thrown at Christians, which had made it necessary that they should defend themselves. This charge was certainly raised by our opponents, more especially of late in the Essays and Reviews; and it had been publicly repeated since by Dr. Temple, Dr. Colenso, and others. It may be said that these writers are not men of science, which we may admit; but the arguments which they have advanced second-hand are based upon the opinions of certain reputed men of science. I do not, however, for a moment mean to say either that science, or that all men of science, are opposed to Revelation. The very institution of this Society is in itself a protest against any such notion. And when my friend Captain Fishbourne or I have alluded to "men of science" as opposed to the Scriptures, we do not of course mean all men of science. We do not, for instance, include Dr. Gladstone himself, any more than we would include our most worthy and thoroughly scientific Chairman. I think we ought all to feel much indebted to Dr. Burnett for his paper. I hope, with the Rev. Mr. Owen, that it will give rise to at least one paper from Dr. Gladstone himself, and to a great many others. (Hear.) With reference to Mr. Warington's criticisms, I think he has made a mistake as regards Dr. Burnett's arguments, which bear upon the difference in scope between Scripture and science. Dr. Gladstone has also fallen into the same mistake; for in quoting, in order to criticise, the title of the paper, he overlooked the words "in scope," which form the real key-note to its meaning. Dr. Burnett argued, for instance, that Scripture professed to reveal the cause of death coming into the world, while science and observation could only possibly discover the fact of death, but could not ever get at its cause. That is certainly true, whether we regard it as of much consequence or not. But I am inclined to agree with our Chairman, that this argument is worthy of deep consideration, with all that flows from it. When Dr. Burnett, however, comes to what we call scientific proofs, he does not object to them in principle, as appears to have been supposed by Mr. Warington. He admits the method, but he does not admit particular proofs in certain cases to be satisfactory. Take, for instance, Mr. Warington's argument as regards the so-called rolled pebbles and their assumed great age

The CHAIRMAN.-I think there is some misapprehension with regard to Dr. Burnett's allusion to flint pebbles. It is hardly fair, perhaps, to criticise very severely a mere illustration. A very faulty illustration may be

taken without at all weakening the force of the argument it has been chosen to illustrate. Flint pebbles are very much softer when dug out of the chalk than they afterwards become when exposed to the sun and air. Even in their hardest condition, a few days' rolling by a stream, or by the action of waves in contact with each other, is all that is required to give them a rounded form and water-worn appearance.

Mr. REDDIE.-I had only a few observations to offer with regard to Mr. Warington's argument as to the pebbles, and they were rather in support of Dr. Burnett's conclusions. I venture to deny that there is proof that round pebbles are always "rolled," as has been too generally assumed. I find in gravel a vast number, perhaps a majority, of pebbles that have been originally formed in a round shape, with a centre or nucleus, and layers, as it were, all round, like miniature strata. Some pebbles, no doubt, have had their corners rubbed off by rolling; but others, and perhaps most of them, have as evidently been originally crystallized and formed in the round form in which they are found. Then it has been said by Mr. Warington that the presence of a bone, or other animal remains, found embedded in strata, proves that death must have existed for ages in the world

Mr. WARINGTON.-I wish to state that I have expressed no opinion as to whether the conclusions arrived at by geologists are just or unjust. I have simply referred to the kind of argument used by geological sceptics to support their conclusions.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as I understood Mr. Warington, he did not adopt the arguments which he used. He had simply stated that the sceptic, if he had been present, might have argued that way.

Mr. REDDIE. It appears to me that it is of no consequence whether the arguments advanced by Mr. Warington are adopted by him or not. Having been advanced by him in discussion, whether as his own or as those of an imaginary sceptic, I think they ought to be answered. When a theory is brought forward by geologists, from which certain deductions are drawn contrary to the teaching of Revelation, we are not only entitled, but bound to examine the evidence by which it is supported. Now what proof do geologists give of the antiquity of the sedimentary rocks? The arguments formerly used in support of the long periods which must have elapsed from the creation have recently been changed. Dr. Burnett has presented us with some new facts and arguments against the theory of distinct creations; but in Sir Charles Lyell's latest work on the Antiquity of Man, he had not attempted to maintain them, or rather he had plainly given them up. And now I have in my hand an extract from an able review of Sir William Logan's Geological Survey of Canada, which appeared in The Times of the 21st of October, 1864, in which the reviewer observes, with special reference to those assumed immense geological periods, as to which Mr. Warington-or his "sceptic"are so positive, that, " in order to expose the fallacy of such an argument, it would only be necessary to appeal to a few of those Canadian geological monuments, the true interpretation of which, we believe, will establish the fact

that the element of time has very little share in the alteration and crystallization of the sedimentary rocks." (Hear, hear.) I quote this to show that (as our Chairman has said) the tendency of the latest scientific conclusions is to reverse not only the theory of distinct creations, but also that of the long geological periods which Dr. Gladstone and Mr. Warington have both so confidently appealed to. But these are questions we shall have to investigate. We are yet but a young society, and perhaps we have all been too eager to dispose of such large questions off-hand, in the course of the two discussions which as yet are all we have had. I, for one, do not admit that these long periods and the great antiquity of the sedimentary rocks have been proved. Dr. Burnett has furnished us with some fresh matter for consideration ;* but his paper must not be considered as having even attempted to settle so large a question. It is to be hoped that it will lead to other papers, in which the various points raised by him will be more minutely discussed. It was, in fact, with that object that these introductory papers had been written and read as a commencement of our Transactions. The Rev. Dr. IRONS.-While there are some things in the paper to which we might demur, I feel that Dr. Burnett is not the less entitled to our most cordial thanks. I should like to know whether it is probable that the paper will come on for discussion at another meeting. I think it would be desirable that an opportunity should be given us to discuss it at some future time, after we have read and weighed its contents. And I think that nothing is more essential to the character of the Institute as a philosophical Society, than that we should eschew all unnecessary bickering between science and religion. We are here engaged in the pursuit of truth, and our duty is to examine the arguments of those who are opposed to us, and to eliminate as much as possible all merely controversial disputes. (Hear.)

Mr. BURNETT.-I should like to say a few words before the meeting closes, upon the observations which have been made. Of course the paper was intended to meet with criticism. My father would have been very much disappointed if it had not been criticised; and I am glad to find that it has given rise to as much discussion as if he had been present. With respect to the critical objections of Mr. Warington, I have only to say that my father is perfectly aware of the defects of his paper, but his illness had prevented him from producing a more complete essay at present. (Hear, hear.) I beg to thank the meeting for the kind manner in which it has listened to me, and for the cordial vote of thanks which has been passed for my father's paper. (Hear.)

The CHAIRMAN then adjourned the meeting.

*Some of his arguments are similar in character to those so ably put forward in Omphalos by our Vice-President, Mr. Gosse. For instance, if we admit creation at all, say of a tree or an animal, it is evident that such tree or animal would appear as if it had slowly grown in time to be what it is, which appearance would, in the case supposed, be deceptive. This is a difficulty which inductive science must face. Whereas, if men deny creation, they are then involved in greater difficulties of another kind.

ORDINARY MEETING, JULY 2, 1866.

THE REV. WALTER MITCHELL, VICE-PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR.

The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed.

Mr. REDDIE, Hon. Sec., then announced that the following Foundation Members and Associates had been elected since the 4th of June:

MEMBERS.-Rev. Edward Auriol, M.A., Prebendary of St. Paul's, Rector of St. Dunstan's in the West, 35, Mecklenburg Square; Rev. J. Stevenson Blackwood, D.D., LL.D., Middleton Tyas, Yorkshire; Rev. W. Weldon Champneys, M.A. (late Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford), Canon of St. Paul's, 31, Gordon Square; Robert Hardwicke, Esq., F.L.S., Publisher, 192, Piccadily; John Napier, Esq., Shipbuilder, Saughfield House, Glasgow; Robert Napier, Esq., Shipbuilder, Glasgow, West Shandon, Dumbartonshire; Rev. William Pennefather, B.A., 2, Mildmay Road; John Shields, Esq., Church Street, Durham; William Cave Thomas, Esq., Historical Painter, 49, Torrington Square; Rev. B. W. S. Vallack, B.A. Oxon, St. Budeaux's Vicarage, near Plymouth; C. W. H. Wyman, Esq., 53, St. John's Park, Upper Holloway.

ASSOCIATES, 2ND CLASS :--Rev. S. Skrine, M.A., Southborough, Tunbridge Wells; Rev. W. Webster, M.A. (late Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge), 3, Park Villas West, Richmond, Surrey.

The HONORARY SECRETARY also announced that Mr. Edward J. Morshead had been elected a member of the Council, and had accepted the Office of Honorary Foreign Secretary; and that the Council had appointed Mr. Charles H. Hilton Stewart as Clerk to the Society, the temporary engagement made with Dr. Evans having ended.

It was also announced that the following books and pamphlets had been presented to the Society :

Modern Scepticism and Modern Science. By J. R. Young, Esq., M.V.I.,
formerly Professor of Mathematics, Belfast College. From the Author.
The Inspiration of Moses proved, &c. By the Rev. James Ivory Holmes, M.A.,
Associate V.I.
From the Author.

A Plain old Indian's Solution of some of Bishop Colenso's Difficulties. By
John Stalkartt, Esq., M.V.I.

M

From the Author.

Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. By Philip Henry

From the Author.

French of De Saint

Gosse, Esq., F.R.S., Vice-President V.I.
Man: His true Nature and Ministry. From the
Martin. Translated by E. B. Penney, Esq., M.V.I.
Theosophic Correspondence of St. Martin and the Baron de Liebestorf.

From the Translator.

From the same.

The Conformation of the Material by the Spiritual, and Holiness of Beauty.
By W. Cave Thomas, Esq., M.V.I.
From the Author.
The Biblical Antiquity of Man; or, Man not older than the Adamic Creation.
By the Rev. S. Lucas, F.G.S. From Alexander McArthur, Esq., M.V.I.

The Rev. Dr. THORNTON then read the following Paper :

ON COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY, WITH REFERENCE TO THE THEORIES OF MAN'S ORIGIN. By the REV. ROBINSON THORNTON, D.D., Head Master of Epsom College.

IT may seem presumptuous to commence my task with a criticism of a term which is universally employed by scholars; but I cannot help expressing some regret at the title I am compelled to use. The word philology is, to my mind, inexpressive, and therefore unfortunate. According to analogy, it must signify "the science of friends," not the science of human speech." Nor, if we look to the ordinary classical meaning of the Greek, shall we find it more appropriate. The word pilóλoyos is used by Plato to signify "fond of learned discussion;" Isocrates employs plodoyía in the abstract sense of fondness for such discussion; while in Plutarch and Athenæus the word sometimes means "talkative," sometimes "fond of historical and scholastic pursuits -in short, what we should express by "a literary man." ancient Greeks, with whom it was not common to know any language but their own-who seem to have been, in fact, slaves to their own rich and varied tongue-had no idea of a science of speech. Cratylus is by no means an anticipator of Rask and Bopp, of Grimm and Müller. The science is one of modern days: it is not a century old. Linguists there may have been, like Charles V., or Mithridates, who could converse with most of their subjects in their own tongue; linguists like Hickes, who drew up regular grammars, in

[ocr errors]

The

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »