351 
criticism, I do not think it is true, as Mr. Titcomb says, that we are called 
on to use scholarship to assist facts ; but when once we have arrived at such 
a thing, Christianity claims for itself an authoritative and dogmatic statement, 
which refers after all to the testimony of a divine commission. There is one 
thing at the beginning of Mr. Howard’s paper which I heard with much 
satisfaction, which was his statement, that, after all, how very little had 
been proved. I think we shall find, as we go on in life, that those who have 
given most time, and thought, and study to these matters will confess that 
they have made greater proficiency in ascertaining the extent of their own 
ignorance than in anything else. When clever men bring certain facts before 
the world, I still have the greatest satisfaction in feeling that, after all, very 
little has been proved, and that it is a great blessgig that we have our 
primitive revelation, making known facts which are not known by reason, 
but which come direct from the Great First Cause. (Cheers.) 
Mr. A. V. Newton. — I do not know whether I misunderstood one part of 
the argument in the paper, but it seems to me that the writer has built 
upon the fact that we cannot prove the existence of the luminiferous ether, 
and notwithstanding that we cannot prove it absolutely, we know it to 
exist ; and upon that he raises the argument that we may believe there is a 
spiritual world, although we cannot prove it. I do not know whether my 
understanding of the argument is really a misunderstanding, but I should 
be glad to know whether it is or not. We know quite well of the existence 
of light, and it may possibly be that light could not exist without there being 
such a thing as luminiferous ether ; but it does not appear to me that we 
can get any safe deduction, such as the existence of the spiritual world, from 
a belief that something exists which is the cause of something else existing 
of which we have a proof. 
Mr. Row. — It is an answer to an objection, is it not ? We cannot prove 
the existence of the luminiferous ether, but yet we believe it does exist ; 
therefore something may exist which we cannot prove. Mr. Howard’s object 
is to show that we may believe a thing, although it is beyond the region of 
proof ; and that seems to me to be a very good illustration, as I understand it. 
Rev. J. W. Buckley. — My great difficulty in these discussions is, that we 
do not seem to have very good starting-points. In mathematics we have 
axioms and postulates, and we know what we are about. I confess that, 
whether it is from ignorance or credulity, I cannot help believing in the ex- 
istence both of a material and of a spiritual world. I do not know how to 
disbelieve it. We have certain intuitive powers given to us, almost like 
instinct. For instance, if anybody tells me this chair does not exist, but is 
merely an impression coming to the eye and mind, then there is no such 
thing as matter. I think we must start with the idea that there is a material 
world ; for unless you grant me that, I have nothing at all to base my logic 
upon ; and such a discussion as this, however interesting, becomes almost 
useless. The paper seems to me to say that we have not proved some material 
things at all, and yet that we must admit them ; that we must suppose there 
is an atmosphere and a luminiferous ether, though we have no proof of it 
