288 
will be mere bickering, not reasoning— a carping at details, 
but no apprehension of principles, no grasp of conclusions. 
There is a sort of wrangling which, being nearly aimle , 
tiring, and becomes between opponents a poor sort ol per- 
secution, rivalling that in the stock story of Ghflfeo ami the 
pope, in which-thongh the pope has been unjustly ^ated 
it is hard to say which side has been most unfair to ^ other, 
while the story is likely to remain for the use of speaker* and 
lecturers of narrow historical resources. 
Ill We must indeed state our principles, if it were only 
Principle, of to decline the statement or supposition of them 
the Christian -j. others For it is obvious that many a nounsiL 
mustbe^tated. a ' a j nst Christianity is occasioned by an entire mis- 
take of the ground we hold. Details, for instance, of some 
theological exposition are threatened at times, and then it is 
imagined that our religion is at stake. Let it he distinctly 
understood what it is we have to defend, and much trouble 
will be saved, as well as much irregular zeal. That which is 
distinctive of our position cannot, of course, be any subordi- 
nate doctrine or investigation; clearly it must be the P™“P 
which we hold as to the Origin of Being and Life. We can- 
not be too plain in asserting this, and marking openly the 
ground which we mean to defend as logically c^ertam ; and 
therefore, to use a phrase of our day, “ thinkable v. e by 
no means decline the defence of what seem to be iegitimate 
inferences from our principle, though wo cannot regard them 
as equally certain with the principle itself ; bu *> a “ *° a ; 
expositions (beyond those deductions which are necessary), we 
have a right to claim the largest individual liberty. ^ „ 
AM liberty And let no one suppose that we are driven 
vindicated. into this position by the encroachments o an ^ 
gonists. On the contrary, that which we are prepared to 
maintain on principle as the “ Christian Philosophy _ is all 
That we ought P on Lj account to desire, whatever mg^e 
the wishes of enthusiasts on either side. If first P™ cl g®® 
are few, their consequences are not tto 
do we, in marking these limits, vindicate foi further exegesis 
any other kind of liberty than is conceded w 
field of science. And before we advance a step Jag 
must make good this claim-we say not to P™ate ^ 
ment,” for that would be unsuitable in 
could long afford to stand alone-but to an intellectual and 
religious freedom, bound to no a pnon details. 
IV. That such freedom belongs to the very lffe, foi 
instance, of all science, cannot need a moment s p , . 
one or two illustrations may clear our meaning. 
