165 
with all my admiration of Professor Tait and Balfour Stewart, only repeat, 
with earnestness and sincerity, to Mr. Cadman Jones, or to any one else, 
“ read all I have said — read it again — and you will agree with me.” The 
rational faculty is not, after all, so very divergent in those who have it at all, 
but that I confidently cast myself on it. 
As to the theological part of the subject, let me frankly say that I value 
truth above all things ; but would not defend even truth with asperity. Yet 
I would not in theology, any more than in science, accept a false principle, 
on the chance of its doing good. The doctrine plainly avowed, of the 
‘‘Eternal Father being wholly unknown and unloved,” is to me utterly 
unchristian, and was formally repudiated, among other delusions of the 
Gnostics, in the Primitive Church, with a strength of language which I 
have abstained from using. Every word, every hint of a religious kind 
in my paper I submit to the catholic reason of the Christian Church. And 
as to Mr. Jones’s defence of these able writers, it seems to me an appeal ad 
misericord ianit 
I think I differ from my respected opponent Mr. Cadman Jones, also in 
the view he seems to entertain of the position and functions of our Institute. 
I do not think we are established to coax men into any kind of Christianity 
(such, e. g., as may just arise from the doctrine of “ Physical Continuity ”). 
I must be logical. It is a necessity of my being ; and I am sure that a 
species of religion which will not bear to be carried out logically (and I 
attempt nothing more in my paper) must relapse into scepticism. Not 
less than science, religion refuses to be illogical. I can no more flatter men 
on attaining half-truths in theology, than I could in astronomy or chemistry. 
I wish distinctly to recognize Mr. Cadman Jones’s view as a very natural 
one, and in my first sections I partly recognize it. But I think my way 
of treating such a work as that which is before us is more respectful by far 
than his, though he has so justly distinguished an authority as the Church 
Quarterly Revieiv on his side ; and I regret it. Scientific men, as a rule, 
like thoroughness. I am “ thorough ” ; I cannot help it. I treat these 
men as great men — (which they are). Mr. Cadman Jones’s method (and the 
strikingly able Review referred to also) would say, practically, — “ What a 
fine thing it is for us followers of the Gospel of Christ to have such men 
even partly on our side ! Don’t scrutinize them too closely then ; they 
mean well ; as far as they go with us, let us accept them, and let them oft’ 
easy, for the sake of the ‘cause,’ which they are looking hopefully to 
support ! ” — Now I think these eminent Professors would prefer my treat- 
ment to Mr. Cadman Jones’s, and to the Church Quarterly's — much as I 
respect that able journal. 
W. J. I. 
