305 
the paper which had just been read gave a much clearer conception of what 
Mr. Matthew Arnold might be supposed to mean than could be obtained 
from reading his most fluid book. The scientific argument against Christianity 
was, that it was not sufficiently defined ; but what did the literary argument 
give them ? Could anything be more utterly unscientific and impossible 
to define than Mr. Matthew Arnold’s own definitions? What was the 
meaning of the “ not ourselves who make for righteousness ” ? He had often 
puzzled his mind to find out whether the verb was in the active, middle, or 
passive voice. Altogether, the controversy between the defenders of the 
Scriptures and those who belonged to Mr. Arnold’s school of argument was 
simply the old story of the trident and the net : the latter was the more 
awkward thing to fight because they never could hit it. 
Mr. L. T. Dibdin said that the paper which had been read found fault 
with Mr. Arnold’s definition of religion, namely, “ morality touched by 
emotion,” on account of its obscurity. Might not he have meant religion as 
applied to an individual ? Mr. Arnold probably would not say that morality 
itself was a shifting thing. Probably his opinion was that it had nothing 
to do with emotion, which was something in us which led us to take 
hold of righteousness, and which gave the latter an influence over us. 
As Professor Lias said, emotion was “ essentially fitful, irregular, transient, 
varying with our physical health and external circumstances,” and for that 
reason, in Mr. Arnold’s opinion, religion had a different hold upon different 
persons, and a different hold upon the same person at different times. 
Morality was fixed, but the power it had over us depended upon the emotion 
of each person. 
The Chairman was glad Professor Lias had called attention to the fact 
which was lost sight of by a great many people, that there was a negative 
dogmatism just as much as a positive dogmatism. It was as dogmatic to 
say “ There is no God,” as to say “ There is a God ” ; and it was as much 
so to say that God was “ the not-ourselves which makes for righteousness,” 
as to say that He is a Personal Being infinitely just and powerful. The 
fact was that where we had belief and science we must have dogma. The 
reason people were afraid of the word was that “ to dogmatize ” was used to 
signify “ forcing unproved opinions on others.” The Chairman, then referring 
to the difference between the mode in which Christianity was attacked 
in the present day, and that in which it used to be assailed during the 
last century, said : years ago the method was coarse — God was slandered — 
whilst in the present day the method was refined. He remembered a story 
told with reference to Voltaire. The Mayor of Brest was invited to meet 
M. de Voltaire, and the civic dignitary, when he heard to whom he was 
about to be introduced, expressed himself thus : “ He is the Voltaire who 
has permitted himself to employ disrespectful words about God ; well, I would 
recommend him not to use such expressions about the magistrates of Brest ! ” 
Professor Lias said that in writing his paper he]had found it necessary 
to steer between rocks and quicksands, — he had to avoid matters upon 
