102 
less ; and you know I have used morals in a very large sense, as 
including the motive as well as the mere moral rule. That is a very im- 
portant point, because that assertion forms the foundation of the 5th chapter 
of my work, The Jesus of the Evangelists ; and that is a work which has 
been referred to by Dr. Payne Smith at page 18 of his “ Bampton 
Lectures,’’ and I think his remarks contain much more weight than 
Mr. Eeddie’s, and my views have never yet been found fault with at all 
except by Mr. Reddie himself. I must therefore beg Mr. Reddie to re- 
consider such an assertion as the one he has made respecting my observa- 
tion that if Christianity does not contain anything new in morals it is 
worthless. I am sure that every one will agree with me that if it does not 
contain any new discovery in morals, it might as well have been spared, if 
it was intended to make us wiser and better. Then Mr. Reddie says there 
are various portions of heathen philosophy which assert Christian truth. 
But that is the very thing I have said over and over again. He seems to 
mply that 1 thought there was a radical opposition between the morals of 
reason and of revelation, but it is the very foundation of the paper that no 
such thing exists, and I am quite astonished to find any man making such 
an observation. Then I join issue with him again when he criticises my 
assertion that ancient philosophy had destroyed all sense of religion. 
Philosophy thoroughly upset the whole of the ancient religions, and Juvenal 
says : “ No person believes in a God nowadays except a child in swaddling- 
clothes.” Does Mr. Reddie say that that is not so ? If so, he must be 
most ignorant of the history of the time, for it is so patent and so 
well known that I heard him make his assertion with astonishment. Let 
any one read Gibbon: he says the very same thing. Every one else admits 
that the effect of the investigations of philosophy was to destroy utterly all 
belief in the current religions of the day. Let any one read the dialogues of 
Plato, and say whether the argumentative dialogues do not go to the up- 
setting of all then-existing beliefs. I was surprised to hear Mr. Reddie, 
with regard to new discoveries and beliefs, refer to spirit-rapping. I certainly 
thought that that was nothing new. I do not deny that in form it is new ; 
but it has an old body ; indeed it is not 200 years ago since we burnt witches 
in this country 
Mr. Reddie. — You have misunderstood me. It might be as old as time 
itself, and yet what I said was correct, that it came as a new thing to those 
who now believe it. They did not inherit their faith in it. 
Mr. Row.— But the same identical spirit was involved in the belief in 
witchcraft in the middle ages- 
Mr. Reddie.— That does not subvert what I advanced. 
Mr. Row.— Yes it does 
Mr. Reddie. — Oh ! not at all. 
Mr. Row. — We may vary in our outward dress, but we are the same 
persons notwithstanding. It is not a variation in the coat which makes a 
variation in us, and so with respect to many mere objections which Mr. 
Reddie has raised. I was astonished to hear Mr. Reddie speak of the con- 
