ORDINARY MEETING, JANUARY 6TH, 1868. THE REV. WALTER MITCHELL, M.A., VICE-PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. It was announced that A. C. Brebner, Esq., Audit Office, Somerset House, had been elected as a 2nd class Associate of the Institute. The following books were announced as presented to the Institute : Shinar, the Scripture Record of The Confusion of Language, and a new edition of Adam and the Adamite. By D. McCausland, Esq., M.V.I. From the Author. Rule of Road at Sea (three copies), by Thos. Gray, Esq., H.M.C.S., Mem. The Discussion on Mr. REDDIE's paper "On Geological Chronology, and the Cogency of the Arguments by which some Scientific Doctrines are supported in reply to Professor Huxley's Discourse delivered at Sion College on Nov. 21st, 1867)," was then resumed as follows :— The CHAIRMAN.-I have to invite you to the adjourned discussion of the paper by Mr. Reddie; recently read and in doing so, I have to express the regret which I am sure is felt by all of us, that the great loss Mr. Reddie has sustained has prevented his being with us this evening, to hear and reply to the observations that may be made. (Hear, hear.) Of course we must reserve to him the privilege of replying on another occasion.* Mr. Reddie's paper, as you are aware, was brought before us under somewhat singular circumstances. Mr. Reddie had heard a lecture given by Professor Huxley at Sion College, upon the supposed discrepancies existing between the clergy and men * Vide Note B, p. 373. of science; and, feeling that there was not a full opportunity given for the discussion of this subject at Sion College, and regarding it as one that was in consonance with the subjects discussed by this Society, while believing it to be of the greatest importance that the matter should be fully and thoroughly ventilated, Mr. Reddie thought it right to bring the question before this Society, and wrote the paper which will form the subject of this evening's discussion. I have now to invite further discussion on this paper, and as Dr. Gladstone told me on the last occasion that he wished to make some further observations on this subject, I am sure we shall be delighted to hear anything he has to say. Dr. GLADSTONE.-I had no expectation of being called upon to open the discussion, and perhaps I am hardly prepared to do so. On the previous occasion, what I said bore upon this point, that in his lecture at Sion College, Professor Huxley enunciated certain views with regard to the antiquity of the earth and of man upon the earth; and he expected that he was introducing something that would meet with a good deal of opposition, but found a large portion of the audience prepared to admit his conclusions on these points, and to think that there was nothing in them opposed to revelation. I expressed my opinion that there was nothing in those conclusions that Christians might not freely accept. I do not care at the present moment to go more fully into that argument, and if I offer a few remarks, I would rather offer them upon a larger issue-an issue which bears upon our practice as well as upon our belief. As I understand-for I was not present when Professor Huxley introduced the subject-he went to Sion College in the belief that the clergy, or that religious people were, upon the whole, rather opposed to science. (Hear, hear.) I believe that there is also a conviction existing in the minds of some other parties that, upon the whole, scientific men are rather opposed to religion. These two opinions are the converse of each other-and in fact a kind of polar antagonism; and if I had an electric machine here, I could illustrate what I am saying by demonstrating how one body would become positively when the other is negatively electrified; while the more strongly the one became positive the more strongly would the other become negative. I think that in society there is a great tendency to become polarized, and that the more strongly one set of opinions is insisted upon, the more strongly is another set of opinions enforced. I am afraid that sometimes we are disposed to fall into Professor Huxley's error. He thought there was this sort of difference between the scientific mode of thought and the theological mode The CHAIRMAN.-That is hardly so. Professor Huxley announced that he intended in his lecture to "draw attention to the difference supposed to exist between scientific and clerical opinion, and to inquire into the cogency of the arguments by which some scientific doctrines are supported." The majority of his arguments he derived from geological evidence of the antiquity of the earth. He did not go into the question of the antiquity of man so much as the antiquity of the earth. He took the antiquity of man by the way, and then went into the general question of geological ages. Dr. GLADSTONE.-Well, Sir, I do not wish to enter into the geological question. I did not hear Professor Huxley, nor have I read his paper, and I believe there is a gentleman here who is better acquainted with the subject, and who will be able to show that Professor Huxley was, to a considerable extent, misunderstood; or, in other words, that Mr. Reddie mistook Professor Huxley and his argument. But with this I have nothing to do, and I would rather say a few words with reference to the great question as to whether there is the discrepancy spoken of between scientific and clerical opinion. For my part, I do not believe that religious people or the clergy are opposed to science; I think, on the contrary, we have abundant evidence that they are ready to open their minds to knowledge of every description, whether in connection with natural science or with any other subject. On the other hand, I do not believe that there is an opposition or antagonism on the part of the cultivators of natural science towards religion. I am frequently in the habit of meeting with scientific men, as well as with merchants, lawyers, and military and naval men; and it is my belief that among scientific men there are just about the same proportions of real Christianity and of unbelief as are to be found in any other profession, while I am also of opinion that there is a much larger proportion of believing Christians in the ranks of science than in the ranks of many of our artisan trades. But when I have stated this, I am generally reminded that there are certain scientific men who are notorious infidels. This I grant; but I say, if you will take any other profession, do you not also find many infidels in it? There is, however, this difference between the two-if a man be, let me say, a barrister, he cannot bring any arguments from his own profession against the truth of Christianity; nor if he be an artisan, a cobbler, or a tailor, can he bring arguments from his craft against the truth of the Bible; but, if he be a man of science, he can fall back on his profession, and can bring forward arguments opposed to some of the religious opinions of the day which he thinks are opposed to the statements of revelation itself. I think that this important difference ought always to be borne in mind. If you take the infidel barrister or cobbler, what does he do? He cannot from his own profession or trade bring forward arguments against Christianity, but he goes to natural science, where he thinks he can find those arguments. It is a great deal, therefore, if such a man can only say that those persons who cultivate natural science are drawn by their studies into infidelity; and thus we find that the orators who are to be met with on the platforms of the infidel halls of London are always ready enough and even rejoiced to maintain, true or false, that scientific men are, on the whole, rather inclined to infidelity. That in saying this they utter a calumny against the profession to which scientific men belong, I fully believe; but, supposing it were the truth, would it not be a matter that we should mourn over in secret rather than be constantly repeating from pulpit and platform? If this were the fact, it seems to me that it might be regarded as the strongest possible argument against the truth of Christianity. As I have said, I do not believe that the statement is true; indeed, I am rather disposed to think that the truth is on the other side; but nevertheless what is said and insisted on in the infidel halls is frequently published in our churches and public assemblies. How easy it is to get into this antagonism, and to think on the one side that scientific men are not disposed to be religious, and on the other side that religious men are not disposed to be scientific! I do not believe the statement either on the one side or the other; and I think that we should do dishonour to God and an injury to our fellow-man if we admitted either proposition. I assure you it has often pained me deeply when I have been seated in a pew, and have heard from the pulpit without being able to say a word in reply, or I should have been brawling in church, the statement that there was this opposition between scientific men and revelation, and various things brought forward in which the preacher has shown the most lamentable ignorance as to scientific facts. I have heard preachers asserting that such and such things must be because the Bible says they are, and I have seen men listening to these statements, knowing very well that what the preachers have been inveighing against was actually true, and, of course, drawing the conclusion that, if the Bible is opposed to what they knew to be true, the Bible must be false. I have often felt that in such cases the preacher was doing the work of the infidel more effectually than the infidel himself. I thank you for the way in which you have received my remarks. You understand what I am striving against; and, if I speak with warmth, it is because I feel what I say, knowing how apt Christian men are to fall into the error against which I would guard you. On the other hand, you ought to assert wherever you go that there is not the antagonism which has been supposed between scientific and clerical opinion, but that faith in the Bible and faith in natural science are perfectly compatible. Rev. C. A. Row.-I thought on the last occasion that there was danger of this discussion becoming a wholly personal one, and that we were too much engaged with Professor Huxley, and too little with the facts of science and of the Bible. I regret that Mr. Reddie is not present on this occasion, because I had intended to make some remarks on the spirit which pervades a portion of his paper, and with which I cannot say I feel perfectly satisfied. I am convinced that he has treated the matter in a manner unsuited to us as a philosophical society, and I am afraid that, if this is done, we shall not attain much credit outside of this room. I have marked some passages to which I must make some reference. In the fourth page, speaking of the persecution of Socrates, he says:-"And who were his persecutors? The professors of his day, who pretended to know everything, and went about giving lectures and teaching for profit their deleterious sophisms. I trust such a state of things is not in store for us!" Now, I have yet to learn that Socrates was put to death by the professors of his day. The persons who sought his death were the Sophists, and I am sorry that Mr. Reddie has sought to connect them with the modern professors. They were as much alike as chalk is to cheese. Those who have read Thirlwall's "History of Greece," and have studied Plato, will not draw the conclusion that the professors of his day were the persons who put Socrates to death. I am aware that Plato has made reference in strong terms to their teaching for money, but I should like to know how, if they taught the common subjects of the day, they could have existed unless they had taken money for their teaching. I will now draw attention to another fact which I wish Mr. Reddie were here to explain. He has said that it is of great importance to quote Professor Huxley very closely, but he certainly does not do that. We ought to have most accurately the words of Professor Huxley Captain FISHBOURNE.--Mr. Reddie explained that it was a great misfortune that there was no reporter present, and also that Professor Huxley's lecture was not in writing. Rev. C. A. Row.-At any rate, we are in danger of discussing what was not said. I will now draw attention to one paragraph of Mr. Reddie's paper as an instance of want of care and accuracy on his part. He says (speaking of Professor Huxley): " He afterwards quotes Herodotus as saying— 'that this Nile valley was once a great arm of the sea, filled up in process of time by mud brought down by the Nile-this great Nile valley, 1,200 miles long-filled up by mud forced down the Nile. And unless you are prepared to deny this condition of things, that in the time of Joseph, and long before, this Nile valley must have been essentially what it is now, ask yourselves what period of time this process of filling up this huge arm of the sea must have taken.'" Mr. Reddie quotes Professor Huxley as stating that Herodotus used these words, but I do not believe that Professor Huxley said anything of the kind. In fact, I would rather believe in the miracle of Januarius's blood than that Professor Huxley ever made such a statement. Can he believe for a moment that Joseph is mentioned in the second book of Herodotus? I have been for many years head master of a grammar-school; and, if any one of my boys had made such a statement in answer to a question, I should have made him write out the whole of the book until he met with the name of Joseph: and he certainly would have had to write the book to the end The CHAIRMAN.-What is quoted as having come from Professor Huxley is taken from the notes of a clergyman who was present, and I believe they were considered to be extremely accurate Rev. C. A. Row.--I cannot believe that Professor Huxley ever uttered such a piece of abominable nonsense―― The CHAIRMAN.-It is not said that he did mention the name of Joseph as occurring in Herodotus. Rev. C. A. Row.-That, at any rate, is the meaning of the sentence from its grammatical construction Dr. IRONS. Are we not quibbling about words? There is not any pretence for imagining that in that passage Joseph is mentioned as being alluded to by Herodotus. Captain FISHBOURNE.-I was present, and I know what is intended by that passage. Mr. Reddie means that Professor Huxley quoted Herodotus as saying that the valley was filled up by mud brought down by the Nile at the time in which Joseph lived, but without mentioning the name of Joseph. |