187 
is because they have such a predominance of the Pneuma, that infidelity is 
so rife amongst them ! I will again refer you to a passage which I have 
already read, for I will not go into the other remarks on the subject of 
infidelity. There is the same assertion in this part of the paper, that the 
infidelity of modern writers arises from the distinct predominance of the 
pneumatical element. Mr. English says : — 
“ The man who puts ‘ reason ’ for the basis of religion, starts upon an 
incline whose bottom is infidelity.” 
The object of my paper “ On Dr. Newman’s Essay in Aid of a Grammar of 
Assent,” was to show that the very thing here spoken of was the means 
of getting out of it ; but I am afraid that Mr. English holds some portion 
of Dr. Newman’s philosophy. Mr. English goes on : — 
“ He cannot receive the doctrines of the Incarnation, the Resurrection, or 
the Ascension, with all that belongs to each, as any consequence following 
logically from his first principles ; those first principles, therefore, must be 
false if Christianity be true. I must here, I know, differ from some state- 
ments made by members of this Institute, particularly by Mr. Row, and I 
think Dr. Irons, on the subject of ‘ reason/ and I do so upon strictly philo- 
sophical grounds.” 
Now I freely admit that reason cannot discover everything under heaven, 
but when a thing is discovered, it may agree with my highest rational con- 
victions. Reason cannot discover creation ; there are ten thousand things 
which are not discovered by reason, but which are yet within its compass 
afterwards ; and that, I endeavoured to show in the last paper I read 
before this Institute. I do not hold that reason is competent to discover 
everything under heaven ; but when God Almighty has revealed a thing, 
whether by nature or by divine revelation, reason is the only thing that 
is capable of dealing with it. Mr. English continues : — 
“ Faith is not the product of reason, it has a closer affinity with what is 
psychological, than with what is pneumatological. In any case, it has not 
‘ reason ’ for its basis. Reason gives us knowledge, not faith.” 
Now I am somewhat astonished at these observations, for in the Epistles of St. 
J ohn, knowledge is placed as the fundamental, ethical, and spiritual principle 
twenty-seven times ; and faith only seven times. I think Mr. English has 
adopted a narrow view of reason ; I do not mean the logical faculty alone, but 
the whole of the rational faculties of man, which are vastly more extensive 
than the logical faculty. This attempt to separate faith from reason I consider 
is contrary to Scripture. The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that “ he that 
cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them 
that diligently seek Him.” How do I believe that God is, except by a rational 
act ? But that is described as an act of faith, because he says it is impossible 
without faith to believe in God. These two things are necessary and antece- 
dent to all revelation, for we cannot accept it without believing, first, that God 
