1G7 
such, a spirit. It is more congenial to the purpose of a society 
like this to consider the arguments of such an article as matter 
for friendly debate, and we shall be only responding to the 
appeal of their author if we institute an impartial inquiry into 
their value. At the same time it must be explained at the 
outset that the chief purpose of these observations is to call 
attention to an essential difference in principle between the 
spirit of Christian thought and the disposition of mind which 
the article in question represents. The difference is frequently 
disguised, or reluctantly recognised, on both sides ; and it is 
the° more desirable it should be distinctly acknowledged, and 
that the practical issue it involves should be fairly faced. 
2. To state this difference concisely, it is whether in matters 
of religion and morals we are to build upon grounds of Faith 
or upon grounds of Science. In stating the issue in this form, 
it is not, of course, implied for a moment that there can be 
any conflict between the legitimate and ultimate results of the 
two principles. Their essential harmony is, and has always 
been, a primary axiom with the greatest Christian teachers, 
and to avow belief in it ought to be a superfluous precaution. 
The spirit of the following observations would again be wholly 
misunderstood if they were supposed to be prompted by any 
lack of sympathy with Science. But the best things, as a 
rule, have their special provinces and spheres of action, and 
it by no means follows, because the scientific spirit is admir- 
able in itself, that it ought to be allowed to determine our 
religious thought and our moral conduct. Such, however, 
is the tacit assumption, not merely of Professor Clifford’s 
article, but of a large proportion of modern argument on this 
subject, alike on the part of the advocates as on that of the 
impugners of the Christian Faith. Christianity seems too 
frequently regarded as a sort of scientific system, composed 
of a number of propositions on very mysterious subjects ; and 
the question assumed to be at issue is the possibility or im- 
possibility of verifying such propositions. Now, there may 
be some truth in this assumption with respect to the primary 
verities of religion, though the genei’al reception even of 
these is probably to a great extent dependent on the testimony 
borne to them by those who exert most authority over men’s 
consciences, rather than on the direct arguments in their fa- 
vour. It is obvious also that there can be no absolute division 
between the two spheres in question. The scientific man will, in 
practice, often act on Belief, while the religious man will check 
the dictates of his faith by the aid of Reason and Science. 
But, nevertheless, there is this broad distinction to be drawn 
