249 
The Chairman. — It strikes me that in this, as in other things, the prime 
factor of the problem is often forgotten, and that is, that there is a power which 
comes with Christianity which determines all these things. An eminent 
London clergyman had been for four years unsuccessfully arguing with a 
person who was doing much harm in his parish, and was said to be an 
honest infidel— (though I think we may use that phrase too widely, and call 
them “ honest,” when in truth there is something behind which prevents them 
from accepting the clearest demonstrations). At last, on bringing before his 
mind this prime and essential factor, a living and true faith in Jesus Christ, 
he accepted his views ; subsequently saying, “You may tell your friends 
that there is not now a happier man in all England than I am.” 
Dr. Thornton. — I thank my critics very much for their kind tone, and 
also for their criticism. I know my paper is not as complete as it should be, 
but I think its intention has not been quite understood. I would reply to 
Dr. Coleman : “ I quite agree with what you say, but I am not endeavour- 
ing, in a paper of eleven pages, to show why and how scepticism is opposed 
to Christian truth. I have already pointed out in previous papers the 
weakness of scepticism ; I have now taken up a single point, which is, 
that scepticism does not satisfy the human intellect in the case of those 
who profess it. I am not writing a complete treatise against scepticism ; 
still less do I write against sceptics. You will not find the word ‘sceptics’ 
above once or twice in my paper ; it is scepticism, not sceptics, that I write 
against.” I can endorse all that has been said about attacks on sceptics, and I 
believe that many have been lost to Christianity merely because they have not 
been properly approached. I have had some intercourse with persons 
troubled with doubts ; in every instance where I have endeavoured to 
make Christian views prevail, I have tried the effect of love, and the experi- 
ment has always been perfectly successful. I believe that is the way to deal 
with such persons ; but we must treat scepticism in the abstract in a totally 
different manner. The fact is that there is a great deal of dishonest scepti- 
cism about. I do not mean to say dishonest sceptics, for a man who yields to 
a scepticism which we must term dishonest is not necessarily a dishonest 
man. This distinction between scepticism and sceptics may answer a 
rrreat deal of the criticism of Mr. Eow and Mr. Oxenham, for which I thank 
them all the more because I cordially agree with it. I think it is right, 
while showing all charity to individuals, to point out the really insidious 
undermining character of the doctrines which sceptics unhappily profess. 
I do not base my arguments against unbelief on the fact that it produces 
or appears to produce sorrow ; it is part only of my argument that it does 
not seem to satisfy the aspirations of the intellect, and therefore there pro- 
bably is something completely wrong about it. I must disagree with one 
or two remarks which have been made. I did not say that nine-tenths of 
Christians look happy. I said that nine-tenths of sceptics look unhappy, and I 
adhere to that. However, there ^s this very great difference between the 
T 
VOL. X. 
