vestigated, and we publish what is said on both sides. Now, though you have good scientific papers read in the Royal and other societies, you have also bad papers; but the objections taken to them are too often lost sight of, not being reported. But surely the only way in which science can be properly arrived at is when it is discussed as it is here, and as it was among the ancients in their academies ;-not taught dogmatically, in what Bacon calls "the professorial style." There is one remark as to this, which Mr. Warington's observations have suggested. I went with much that he said with reference to appeals to conscience and authority in religion, though even that might require a little qualification. But when he came to argue for such absolute authority in the teaching of science, it struck me that if his principles had been thoroughly at work among people who believed the earth to be a level plain, they would never have been allowed to think or prove the earth to be round; and if taught to submit in this abject way to authority in science when men believed the earth to be stationary, we should never have had the Copernican theory put forward, and not any modification of it allowed afterwards. We have surely had too much of this authority in the world already. We are just as prejudiced and positive about our current theories as ever the ancients were about theirs, and there is, in fact, a growing odium scientificum among us now, apparently intended to supersede the odium theologicum of former days, when science was not the fashion. Now, I think neither one theory nor another in science should be taught as absolute truth; but all regarded as matters of free inquiry ever open to investigation. We, however, boast of the great advancement we have made in science, and Dr. Gladstone would be the last man to say that we have not truly made great strides in science,—but, how have we done so? Not by teaching it as now proposed at the Universities ; but by science being comparatively free; and by means of the press, and societies like this, such as the Royal Society and the Royal Institution of Great Britain, of both which Dr. Gladstone is so distinguished a member.—I shall conclude by citing from the Transactions of the Royal Society a fact little known, relating to what has been certainly taught most authoritatively in our Universities, and is the greatest boast of modern science-"universal gravitation." In vol. ii. of the Philosophical Transactions from 1672 to 1683, (Lond. 1809, pp. 126, 127; vol. ix. of the original edition, anno 1674,) there is an account of a book, entitled An Attempt to prove the Motion of the Earth from observations made by Robert Hook, F.R.S., in 4to. 1674. Hook was the well-known Secretary of the Royal Society; and in this book we have the theory of universal gravitation (which is generally taught as having occurred to Sir Isaac Newton, by a kind of inspiration of genius, from observing the fall of an apple) actually published, and an account of it given in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London, twelve years before Newton produced his Principia. The Principia is said to have been some two years in MS.; but that still leaves ten years' priority to Hook. This is what appears in the Philosophical Transactions, and you will see it is precisely Newton's law which Hook then put forward

"He [Hook] affirms to have actually made four observations; by which, he says, it is manifest that there is a sensible parallax in the earth's orbit to the star in the dragon's head, and consequently a confirmation of the Copernican system against the Ptolemaic and Tychonic.

Lastly, he promises that he will explain to the curious a system of the world, differing in many particulars from any yet known, but answering in all things to the common rules of mechanical motions; which system he here declares to depend on three suppositions:-1. That all celestial bodies whatsoever have an attraction or gravitating power towards their own centres, whereby they attract, not only their own parts, and keep them from flying from them, as we may observe the earth to do; but also all other celestial bodies that are within the sphere of their activity. 2. That all bodies whatsoever, that are put into a direct and simple motion, will so continue to move forward in a straight line, till they are by some other more effectual power deflected and bent into a motion that describes some curve line. 3. That these attractive powers are so much the more powerful in operating, by how much the nearer the body acted on is to their own centres."

There was besides this another book, by Halley, published in 1676, still ten years before the Principia, which even gives the precise ratio of attractive force as "increasing inversely as the square of the distance."* Now the only book in which we have any approximation to a statement of the real facts as to this theory is in Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences. He laughs at the mythical story of the apple; but even he does not tell us the whole truth and although it is actually to be found in print in the Philosophical Transactions, it seems to have been lost sight of or intentionally put aside. I think, therefore, these interesting facts are well worth being put on record in our Journal of Transactions. We hear many now still talk of this theory as one not to be questioned, although Mr. Grove really gave it up in his address at Nottingham last year; and indeed every one who has learnt more than this child's story of the apple, or really understands anything about the matter, must know that whatever may be the amount of truth or error in the theory, it has the merit at least of being totally inconsistent with anything like "the law of continuity" applied to the heavenly bodies; for they, according to Newton, must have been hurled into space, or projected in the direction of tangents to their orbits, by a force once given ab extra.

Dr. IRONS.-I would mention, in addition to the story of Newton's apple, another old story which some men are never tired of quoting-that of Galileo and his recantation- which should be revised before it is again brought forward. The Pope has really never had justice done to him on that subject; and I think this stock story of sham scientifics ought to be entirely eliminated from scientific history.

The CHAIRMAN.-I think the late Professor Whewell has conclusively shown that the whole story of Galileo's persecution has been greatly exaggerated, and that he never was thrown into the dungeons of the Inquisition. With regard to the first paper read this evening, that of Mr. Brodie, no one

Philosophical Transactions, anno 1676, vol. ii. p. 326. (Lond., 1809.) The Principia itself was not published, or noticed in the Philosophical Transactions, till the year 1687. (lb., vol. iii. p. 358.)

who heard it could fail to mark the extremely reverential tone in which it is written. It may well be taken as an example of the manner in which such subjects ought to be treated by believers in revelation. Mr. Brodie's paper will be a valuable addition to our Transactions, as affording a fair sample of the manner in which geology was attempted to be reconciled with revelation ten or twelve years ago. Since then geology has so changed its theories that we see how needless such attempts were to reconcile an imperfect science with the Bible. Though Captain Fishbourne has been fairly answered by Mr. Warington, I believe his remarks were substantially true. I shall only quote one passage from Mr. Brodie's paper :—“ A larger proportion of the carboniferous element was diffused through the atmosphere, and there is reason to conclude that the average temperature of the globe was much higher than that which now prevails." In this one sentence are two hypotheses now abandoned by the majority of geological professors. They have shared the fate of so many others which, once almost universally received, are now as completely laid aside. Dr. Gladstone has also treated his subject in a very reverential manner. I think, perhaps, that he has not drawn all the lessons he might have done, or shown fully how helpful theology is to science. Perhaps, as Dr. Irons has stated, he has shown a stronger leaning to the scientific than to the spiritual element of his theme. But of this I feel assured, that no one can more highly estimate the spiritual element than Dr. Gladstone does. And in this respect, taking into consideration the difficulty of dealing with subjects so vast and so transcending the powers of the human mind, I feel that there is very little real divergence between Dr. Irons and Dr. Gladstone. We are much indebted to Mr. Warington for a useful line of argument analogous to that pursued by Dr. Gladstone. When, however, he tells us that all our knowledge of science is based on probability, though I agree with him in the main, I might be disposed to take some exception to his illustrations. He has brought forward many useful analogies between a right method of acquiring scientific knowledge, and that of theology. I am sorry that we have not time to extend Mr. Warington's analogies still further than he has done, as they would strengthen Dr. Gladstone's subject of the Mutual Helpfulness of Theology and Natural Science. I shall only endeavour to pursue the subject with respect to one science, that of astronomy. A real knowledge of that science can only be acquired by a long training and a mental discipline very analogous to that required for a reverential study of theology. Before our reason can master the proofs on which astronomy claims to be a natural science, we must cultivate, profound humility and great deference to the authority of those who have mastered the subject. Mr. Warington told us he would commence his study of astronomy by reading a manual of the science. But this, though it would give him a fair view of the theories and conclusions of astronomers, would utterly fail to enable him to follow intelligently any of the processes of reasoning by which those theories are proved or are accepted by scientific astronomers. The whole Cambridge course of mathematics in my day was subsidiary to acquiring those methods of reasoning by which Physical Astronomy was

proved to be a true science. I found it a very hard and thorny path to acquire this knowledge. Without this discipline I consider it impossible to judge the pretensions of any theory of astronomy to be a demonstrable science. If you have not gone through such a training as this, and you would ask me what you must do before you can understand the reasonings on which Physical Astronomy is based, I tell you you must acquire knowledge of the whole science of pure mathematics. But this will require an exercise of a vast amount of patience, perseverance, and docility. As Sir John Herschel once so pertinently remarked, you must enter upon this subject through the portal of humility. And in a science of pure reasoning, founded professedly on pure reasoning, you must first defer to your teachers. You must admit the humiliating confession that you cannot at first appreciate the reasoning processes of your teachers. But taking on trust their superior power of reasoning to your own, you cannot test their accuracy till familiarity with their processes has strengthened your own powers. To take Geometry alone, as an instance, what does the study of Euclid require ? The admission, at its very commencement, of the most difficult metaphysical problems and paradoxes on which metaphysicians might dispute for ever. That this is no exaggeration on my part, I may mention that only a few days since I was conversing with a most distinguished mathematical professor, and he told me he was engaged in preparing a geometry which should be sound in its logic. He said that it was not till called upon to teach Euclid to others as it had been taught to himself, that he learned how very faulty and illogical that method had been. But the metaphysical difficulties of plane geometry sink into utter insignificance when compared with those of the higher algebra and mathematical analysis. (Hear, hear.) Here long familiarity with new processes and new methods of thought-continued drudgery in the mechanical combinations of symbols, by rules and methods—taken at first as true on the authority of your teachers, or that of men famous in the mathematical world all this must be gone through before you are capable of comprehending the reasonings, or mathematical logic, by which the problems of physical astronomy are proved. There may be mathematical geniuses who may perceive almost by intuition what costs so much toil and mental labour to others. But men of the average endowment of intellect must pass through this course of mental drudgery with profound docility and humility, before they can feel competent to reason for themselves as to the truth or error of the demonstrations of physical astronomy. The task does not end here. Before his mathematical analysis can be applied to solve the motions of the heavenly bodies, "Laws of motion" must be accepted, which have been inferred, but not proved, from thousands of experiments, which can never be repeated by one man, and must be taken for granted on the faith of others. And after all, the grand problem of celestial mechanism must be solved by methods admitted by no incompetent mathematical authority (M. Comte), to be quite illogical, because of the insuperable difficulty of applying those that are considered strictly logical. Then, when you have interpreted the equation of the moon's place, or that of a perturbed planet, you depend upon the

observations of others to interpret the constants of your equations. And, finally, the real place of the moon or planet occupying the place predicted by your mathematical analysis is your only ultimate proof that you have not been misled by the subtile methods of thought, experiment, and observation, of which you have made use. In such a course as this I think we may see a useful analogy as to the humility, long training, and serious study required by a sound pursuit of theology. I feel assured that men who will apply to theology the same training imperatively required for a sound knowledge of natural science will never be found among the impugners of revelation. Here I am reminded by an observation of Mr. Reddie how much more important is a sound philosophical education to the mere cramming and accumulation of scientific facts-and oftentimes of those doubtful hypotheses so frequently dignified by the name of science. I regret the formation of a natural science tripos at Cambridge. I think the old training was much better, which taught men rather how to pursue science than to acquire after all what must be little more than a mere smattering of science, or of scientific theory. Dr. Gladstone has told us that such terms as Catalysis or Epipolism seem only to have been woven as a cover for our ignorance. It may be a humiliating confession after all our boast of the advance of natural science-of our science of physical astronomy, which we have supposed advanced to the rank of an exact science, perhaps the only one fairly dignified by that epithet,-it may be a humiliating confession, but I believe the term gravitation to be as much a cover to cloak our ignorance as Catalysis or Epipolism. Gravitation is a name for certain phenomena observed among material bodies. Catalysis is a name for certain phenomena when one kind of matter is in contact with another whose ultimate cause is unknown. Epipolism is a term for certain phenomena of light manifested in its passage through certain fluids. But what do we know about the ultimate cause of the phenomena classed under the term gravitation? Is gravitation a property inherent in matter, or is it the result of certain forces independent of and external to matter? We can give no answer to such queries; even Newton was too modest to hazard any more than a guess inclining to the latter. When I consider how little we really do know of natural science, with all our boasted progress, I feel how little we should boast of our reasoning powers, and I cannot but thank God, who, by the influence of His Holy Spirit on the human heart, affords even the peasant a stronger ground for his faith in the truths of Divine revelation than any the philosopher can adduce for the most advanced of all natural sciences. Dr. Gladstone said, "We see a piece of rubbed amber giving rise to certain phenomena of attraction and repulsion, and we spring to the supposition of an 'electric fluid'; we count seven colours in the solar spectrum, and we at once associate it with the gamut of music." Dr. Gladstone, in this passage, as well as in what he said about heat, seems to follow Mr. Grove in the idea that imponderable fluids have been banished from nature. I shall not repeat what I have so recently said to you on this subject, further than to remark that some of the most eminent of modern philosophers have recently started a hypothesis which replaces the imponderable fluids or æthers of