185 
rests, then I hold that in all such cases unbelief is wrong, and implies 
a sinful condition. There are infidels and infidels. (Hear, hear.) There is a 
form of unbelief that is purely intellectual, and I venture to say that it is as 
nearly innocent as any disbelief that man shows in relation to any statement. 
But I believe, as human nature goes, that a large mass of unbelief in relation 
to spiritual truth— the unbelief which condemns and morally ruins men— is 
essentially immoral, because it means a state of heart unfit, through sin, for 
appreciating spiritual evidence, and so much in love with sin that the owner 
of that heart will not give sin up. It seems to me that the wise thing to say 
on this occasion is, that while in relation to many of the truths of the Gospel 
the evidence is purely intellectual or scientific, much of it is also moral : 
and if, through our sinful nature, we fail to believe in the great spiritual 
truths which underlie the Gospel, the reason of our unbelief is largely 
moral, and therefore wrong. I think our wiser course then is, instead of 
saying that the sin of unbelief consists in a denial of our natural tendency^ 
and in insulting our neighbours, to say that unbelief is practically of two 
kinds. There is one kind which springs from defective evidence, from 
defective faculties, or from defective examination, in which there may 
be no sin at all ; and there is another kind which springs from man’s 
sympathy with sin, and man’s dislike of a holy system that calls him to 
a self-denying and a holy life. All the unbelief that springs from this 
second source is of necessity “ethical” and morally wrong, because it springs 
from wrong motives, and because the blindness it implies is essentially a 
blindness of the heart. I hold that the belief which saves a man is partly 
intellectual but largely emotional, and it is only in proportion as men’s hearts 
are touched that they have wrought in them the faith that is to sanctify and 
save. I thank Professor Wace, for the many striking and true things which 
his paper contains ; but on the great thesis itself I think that there is 
a deeper and truer exposition than the one he has given. (Cheers.) 
Eev. Prebendary Irons. — I rise at this early time chiefly to re-call atten- 
tion to the paper itself, and with a hope that we may not stray from the 
subject which the lecturer has brought before us. Whether, for instance, it 
would conduce to Professor Clifford’s conversion to Christianity to tell him 
that his unbelief is immoral, and that a large number of those who think 
with him are bad men, I very much doubt. I do not think Professor 
Wace would have taken this course with unbelievers ; and moreover, the 
facts of the case are hardly so illustrative of the immorality of unbelief as 
Principal Angus seemed to suppose — at least the fact is, that a man like 
Niebuhr earnestly desired that his son should be a Christian, although he 
could not possibly convince himself of the truth of Christianity. It is 
surely a painful position to take up at the very outset, when dealing with 
infidels, that a great proportion of them are bad men. I would rather deal 
with them as those who wish on the whole to be right and true. For it is 
no man’s interest to believe in a lie, much less to go down to the grave 
believing in a lie ; and I hope and believe we might have more success 
