349 



to the question taken up by Mr. Titcomb, and after many years of thought 

 I have arrived at substantially the same conclusions on these metaphysical 

 points and difficulties as are contained in this paper. Take the existence 

 of the material world, it involves a very considerable degree of difficulty, if 

 people are to use the ordinary rational processes to prove its existence. I 

 think there is much greater proof, at any rate, of the spiritual world than 

 of the actual objective existence of a material world, so far as it is a matter 

 of logical proof ; but of late years having somewhat mistrusted the character 

 of that logic, I have not interested myself in it so much. It is true that I 

 do not see this table before me, but certain qualities which are traceable to 

 my eye and to my mind ; and if we follow out that course of reasoning, we 

 come to this conclusion, that there is no such thing as a material universe 

 existing at all. Whatever we may say of the logic of all this, it is un- 

 questionably very difficult to answer ; and with all our reasoning, we come 

 back to the full belief that there is a material world after all, and we must 

 fall back upon some objective principles of belief. There are many portions 

 of this paper which show the supreme greatness of the Creator in the crea- 

 tion of these infinitely minute points, and I am inclined to think that the 

 atomic theory here set forth is the correct theory of the universe ; but as to 

 whether it is true or not, it is impossible to give a positive and absolute 

 proof. With regard to the last part of the paper, I think Mr. Howard has 

 not gone into the point suflBciently as a matter of Christian evidence. I 

 will draw attention to one fact alone, namely, that there is such a thing 

 as moral evidence of the truth of revelation as distinct from the mere 

 evidence of testimony, and I hold that the Evangelist quoted distinctly 

 proves that there is such a thing. According to my own views, I do 

 think that the grand and glorious character of our Lord is the strongest 

 evidence of the truth of Christianity, and after that comes the evidence of 

 miracles or testimony. I do not wish to say one word against the high 

 importance of testimony, — my last paper read here was written to sift what 

 is valuable in testimony from what is not, and I do not yield to the author 

 of this paper in the great importance which I attach to testimony as a wit- 

 ness to Christianity, but I think Mr. Howard has gone beyond the mark, 

 and has excluded the whole range of legitimate criticism ; if the evidence of 

 revelation is simply an evidence of testimony, I cannot see how the moral 

 evidence of it is to hold its ground : if I simply believed in revelation by 

 the outward evidence of testimony, I should be more doubtful of its truth 

 than I am. I do not see the connection between the 58th and 59th para- 

 graphs of the paper, Mr. Howard says : — 



" We arrive, then, at this conclusion, that the message must be either 

 accepted or rejected as a concrete whole." 



Is it not open to me to doubt whether the Second Epistle of St. Peter was 

 written by him, where the testimony is very much below what it is with 

 regard to the two short Epistles of St. John ? I would even go a step further, 

 and assert the right of criticising the contents of revelation by my moral 

 YOL. VII. 2 B 



