asked of him is that he should give as thorough a considera- 
tion as his circumstances will allow to objections which are 
raised respecting them. It is perfectly easy, indeed, to 
imagine circumstances in which it is his clear duty to commit 
that “ sin against mankind/' as Professor Clifford designates 
it, of “keeping down and pushing away doubts which may 
arise in his mind." A naval officer who has once accepted 
a commission, and is in charge of a man-of-war, has no busi- 
ness to let himself be distracted in the enforcement of disci- 
pline by doubts respecting the justice of the Mutiny Act. 
When, moreover, a^nan has once fairly weighed the existing 
evidence for and against a certain truth, it is simply a mark 
of a weak and vacillating mind to be easily induced to re-open 
the inquiry. When, after full deliberation, we have taken one 
of two divei’gent roads, it is childish to be harking back at 
every difficulty and trying another track. Life was not made 
for men of science, but for men of action; and no man of 
action is good for anything if he cannot sometimes form a 
belief on insufficient evidence, and take a leap in the dark. 
11. Nothing, however, is more certain than that it is the 
indispensable condition of progress to regulate by reason the 
action of even the most healthy instincts. Let the presump- 
tion only be established in favour of faith, as against scepti- 
cism, and there is nothing which is more desirable in the 
interests of a true faith than that the conditions under which 
it i3 accepted should be rigidly scrutinized. We may hope in 
this way to attain to some scientific as well as moral test for 
distinguishing true from false religious beliefs. Moreover, 
to every man who is capable of reasoning, the moment may 
come when he is confronted with some objection which im- 
poses on him the duty of pausing in his course, and maturely 
judging of his position ; while in proportion as opportunities 
allow him, he will be thankful to investigate anew the grounds 
of his faith, and to qualify himself to explain its reasonable- 
ness to enquirers or objectors. Accordingly, we may proceed 
with pleasure to enquire, with Professor Clifford, into the 
criteria to be adopted. In this part of his article he restricts 
himself with more accuracy to the proper meaning of belief, 
and simply investigates the conditions under which it is 
lawful to believe on the testimony of others. There appears to 
me, as I said at the outset, no reason to take material exception 
to the principles he here lays down. They are substantially 
those of Bishop Pearson — namely, that the credibility of 
testimony depends upon two conditions — first, the integrity, 
and secondly the ability of the witness. It is not enough to 
