193 
The Chairman. — I am sure the meeting will desire that the discussion 
should now be brought to a close, and therefore I will not intrude any 
remarks of my own, but will simply call on Professor Wace for his reply. 
Professor Wace. — It would be very unreasonable if I took up much of your 
time by a reply, as I have already occupied three-quarters of an hour in read- 
ing my paper. On several points, moreover, in respect to which the paper 
was misapprehended it has been sufficiently vindicated by other speakers ; 
and it will therefore only be necessary to notice the main objections which 
have been raised against the position I endeavoured to maintain. If I 
should seem to neglect some of the observations which have been made, I 
hope it will be attributed, not to want of attention to them, but to the 
necessity of being as brief as possible. I think it may be safely concluded 
that the substance of the objections to the paper were stated at the outset 
by Dr. Rigg. Those objections have been more or less renewed by 
various speakers ; but I think Dr. Rigg touched the main question, 
and it is satisfactory he should have done so, because it showed that, 
although there are points in the paper which might have been put forward 
more clearly, still it did raise a definite issue, namely, whether there is 
a specifically d stinct basis for the acceptance of the main truths of the 
Christian faith, and for the acceptance of the truths of science. One of 
the objects of the paper was to enforce the existence of such a distinction ; 
and, notwithstanding what has been said, I am disposed fully to maintain it. 
Take Dr. Rigg’s statement. He argued that the truths of science were sub- 
stantially similar in their evidence to the truths of religion ; and he went so 
far as to say that the truths of science, like the truths of religion, depend 
upon testimony. He mentioned the fact of certain truths of science being 
extremely incredible at first sight ; but, he says, we believe them on the 
testimony of those who observe them. Now this appears to me very far 
from being the fact. There is this essential difference between the two 
cases, that whatever incredible statement is made by a man of science, it 
can be verified within twenty-four hours, or at all events within a given 
time, and nothing would be accepted as a truth of science, whether in- 
credible or not, which would not admit of that verification. Nothing can 
be more incredible at first sight than the statements of every-day occur- 
rence with regard to the truths of astronomy ; but they are verified by the 
use of the Nautical Almanack, which makes calculations for years in ad- 
vance, and verifies such statements every hour of every day. The last 
speaker indeed put the case much too strongly when he said we can suppose 
the contrary of our religion, because that is denying the analogy between 
natural and revealed religion. It is, however, somewhat surprising there 
should have been so much said which seemed to take for granted that the 
essential truths of Christianity could be matters of intuition or intuitive 
belief. Take the belief in our Saviour’s coming to judge the world. The 
point is, not that e exercises a judgment, but that He is personally to 
return to judge the world ; and by what possible process that can be placed 
VOL. XI. O 
