180 
thanks of the society to Professor Waco for the excellent paper with 
which he has favoured us ; I now invite discussion upon it.* 
The Eev. Principal Eigg.— I recognise, as we all must, the interest 
and importance of the subjects which have been raised. I confess, however, 
that I do not altogether go with the esteemed and able writer in the 
criticisms on the subject with which he has favoured us. For instance, 
it appears to me that the distinction between faith and science, which, as I 
apprehend, underlies the whole discussion, is much too absolute. As I 
understand, Professor TV ace, throughout, uses the term science simply 
in the sense of natural science, and I do not find that the word is ever 
used in a wider sense. 
Professor Wace— That was not my intention. 
Principal Eigg. — I think the word “ science ” is used throughout in the 
strict sense of that which can be absolutely demonstrated, which is just 
equivalent with natural science. But it appears to me that the word 
“ science ” should have a much wider meaning. We have been accustomed 
to lead, and think, and speak, about moral science for instance, and I 
believe there is a basis for moral science. I do not myself find that the 
intuitional basis upon which moral science must rest, as all science must 
icst upon an intuitional basis, has been recognized in this paper. There is a 
very sharp line of demarcation indeed between faith and science. Science is 
what rests on demonstration— I am speaking now of the paper— faith is 
that which is antecedent to all demonstration, and not only so, but ante- 
cedent to all reasonable ground of belief; that, as I apprehend, is the 
general purport ot the paper. A child is to believe in and to trust its 
parent antecedent to all ground whatever tor so doing ; a friend is to trust 
a triend antecedent to any ground for so doing. I confess that I cannot 
myself look upon the matter in this light. I do not think this would even 
furnish a basis for faith in the sense of that Church which professes to base 
all on authority. I think that if wo consulted Dr. Newman's “Grammar 
of Assent / ” we should find that even that authority of the Church, for 
which he pleads, is made to rest on certain grounds which are different 
from authority, and which have in them a moral element. As to 
the case of the child, I apprehend that the reason why a child believes 
its parent is not antecedent to all ground : the relations between a 
parent and child, from its birth, have been such as to impress upon the 
unconscious convictions of the child, the assurance that the parent knows 
a great deal more than it knows, and is on the whole a safe guide, and that 
the parent means to do it good and not harm. These are convictions, 
wholly unconscious it may be, so far as any analysis is concerned in the 
child’s own consciousness. Of course a child believes its father and its 
* jV U ( ° n " St sf^'yinvited for this evening were the Duke of Argyll 
and 1 lotessor Clifford ; the former wrote expressing his regret that he could 
not near the paper read, being at present unable to attend any meetings. 
