225 
Mr. Row. — I only referred to it to show the confusion into which the 
author of the paper had fallen by mixing up different matters , 
Mr. Wainwright. — Then I understood Mr. Row to say that all that we 
know of this table is mental, and I could not but think of Adam Smith’s 
servant 
Mr. Row. — I made a qualification by saying that I believed the table did 
exist. 
Mr. Wainwright. — Well, I will not detain you with these matters, but I 
feel that admissions, damaging admissions, are often made by men whose 
whole hearts are in the truth, simply out of compliment and courtesy. That 
is giving up the outwork, aud if we do that the enemy will soon be thundering 
at the citadel. Now I know the citadel can never be taken — I am perfectly 
satisfied of that ; but at the same time I do not see why we should give 
our enemies even the choice of weapons by admitting too much. I will not 
give up at any one point except where I am compelled to do so, and I do not 
think that I need do so at any of the points now before us. I do not deny 
the dictum of the scientific men who tell us that we know nothing of this 
table, but that is not a denial of its existence as matter. I know what 
Berkeley said of matter, and what Johnson said of Berkeley ; and Samuel 
Taylor Coleridge, one of the greatest of English thinkers, notwithstanding 
his Confessions of an Enquiring Spirit, has said that the Berkeleian theory 
must be admitted if you grant the premises, for the chain of reasoning is a 
chain of adamant. No doubt that is so ; but you must first grant the premises, 
which I for one will not do. On the contrary, I agree with Lord Byron, who said, 
“If Berkeley says there is no such thing as matter, then it’s no matter what he 
says.” (Laughter.) Adam Smith’s servant complained of a pain in his back. 
The philosopher said, “Are you quite certain ? The pain is not in your back, 
it is in your mind whereupon the man replied, “ I shall be obliged to you if 
you will take it out of my back and put it into my mind.” (Laughter.) The 
gentleman, if I may use the term, who took a principal part in the dis- 
cussion which led to the writing of Mr. Reddie’s paper (Mr. Nicholls) asked for 
a proof of the existence of the Deity which should be a proof like the existence 
of the glass he held in his hand, which he could see and touch. But I say he 
only asked for an imaginary proof : he could not see it because he could not 
with material eyes see an immaterial idea. When you cut your finger you have 
material evidence of the consequence of pain, but can you see the pain itself ? 
The fact is that there are some men who never know when they are beaten, 
and they will not admit anything in relation to the truths of theology which 
militates against their dogmas, for they are only theories and not principles 
upon which they base their views. They do not rely upon principles, or you 
would have the same principles from age to age, and when they have pro- 
pounded a dogma they put it forward as a thing capable of mathematical 
proof. Here I hope Mr. Titcomb will allow me to differ from him without 
giving me occasion to repent my temerity. I understood him to say that 
apart from Revelation he thought we could have no proof of the existence of 
a God which would bring with it a certainty equivalent to mathematical 
