365 
false views in ethics, and contradictions of Religious truths, 
may be harmful for a time ; but the facts will remain ; and 
the Theologian and Philosopher will be content with them, 
whatever they be. 
“ ’Tis Reason our Great Master holds so dear ; 
’Tis Reason’s injured rights, His wrath resents ; 
’Tis Reason’s voice obeyed, His Glory crowns.” 
XXIII. 
POSTSCRIPT. 
[Ad Fideles.) 
168. It is not competent to any one to avail himself of the 
argument which has been pursued, without being prepared to 
follow out its principles when he comes to consider his own inter- 
pretation of alleged Revelation — his special Religious doctrines 
and practices. Unreasonable forms of nominal Christianity 
have quite as much to fear, as the philosophies of avowed 
unbelief, from the frank acceptance of those Deontological 
foundations to which we have alone appealed. 
This is plainly not the place, as we have already said, 
to present a formal vindication of any system of Religious 
faith, or “ its evidences.” We have so carefully avoided 
the distinctive dogmas of theology, that we have, in every 
particular involving our argument, abstained from abstract 
definition, and regarded even the most primary truths from 
the Deontological point of view only. But it is required of us, 
in honesty and consistency, to say what is henceforth demanded 
by our argument, in the case of religious persons who would 
accept it at all. 
1 69. First, they must acknowledge that the method which we 
have pursued shuts out the possibility of all collision between 
Religion and Ethics. We have no option, then, but to reject 
anything, however strongly attested ab extra , which places 
these in real antagonism. Our Deontology can be but one, 
throughout. 
Secondly ; that though our method began by assuming no 
more than that “ We are,” — and that “ the facts of our nature 
may be taken as the basis of its science,” we have not 
