inspiration, ought consequently to be received as infallible, and no idea of subsequent alteration be admitted." I have no reason for supposing that R. S. is either a Roman Catholic priest or a member of the Church of Rome; but I may fairly say that his sentiments have a Popish touch of infallibility about them. It is very easy to make a statement about "immediate messengers ;" but I fancy that if R. S. had the task assigned to him of proving the infallibility he alludes to, he would not live long enough to complete his labour, the allotted age of man being insufficient for such a purpose.

"

R. S. says again (in the same page), "There are many, it is true, who tell us that the world has hitherto been in its dotage, and that the beliefs of past ages were nothing but superstitions.' I cannot go so far as to number myself amongst those who hold this view in its entirety; but to a very large extent I believe superstition has hitherto taken the place of common sense and of manly judgment. It is an undoubted fact that men have been accustomed to take for granted whatever the priest, parson, or minister has said, deeming it too much trouble, or perhaps even a sin, to think for themselves about "standards of faith," creeds, or beliefs. The time, however, happily has gone by when such a sleepy state of things can any longer be the "order of the day."

66

R. S. further says (in the same page), "The world, it may be, is growing wiser, so far as regards a knowledge of Nature and her laws, but that this cannot be the case with articles of religious belief, which are unchangeable." Does he mean that "Nature and her laws may be revised or changed, and that articles of religious belief" are things irrevisable or unchangeable? In other words, that the Divine Being, the author of such laws, is less important than articles of faith, which, to use the language of R. S., proceeded from "His immediate messengers,' or, as I would prefer, mere man only ? Surely this view of things is not logical; nor are the several quotations from the Bible given by R. S. (p. 36) applicable to the present question; they appear to me to be altogether irrelevant. Standards of religious faith were framed by men; consequently they are not to be found either in the Old or New Testament. The substance, so to speak, of religious faith is, of course, to be found in the Bible, and from that substance men have managed to compile standards. But then, inasmuch as men have always been, and still are, liable to err and make mistakes, it is impossible for them to build up perfect standards; consequently it is-I will say must-be right, and most desirable that the work, in this respect, of men of one generation should be revised by men of another generation.

R. S. further says (p. 38), "Again and again is Timothy urged to follow after and preserve the apostle's doctrine, and warned that a season would come when men would not bear with sound doctrine, but would choose teachers according to their own desires." Our friend appears to have mistaken altogether the real point in this

66

discussion. The writers on this question, whether negative or affirmative, according to my understanding of the matter, have nothing to do with what is or what is not "sound doctrine," nor have they even to discuss the merits of the present standards of faith-be they good, bad, or indifferent, strictly speaking. But as R. S. has thought it right to refer to the Bible, I would remind him that many persons-myself amongst the number-do not, in these days, consider that the latter part, especially of "the Creed of Saint Athanasius, or the confession of our Christian faith," in the Church of England Prayer Book, contains infallible truth,— And they that have done evil into everlasting fire,"―nor the end of such creed, which asserts that "this" (meaning the whole that precedes) "is THE Catholick faith, which except a man believe faithfully he CANNOT be saved." The creed referred to asserts that the Catholic faith is that which is contained therein, and yet that is only one standard of faith, other Christian sects having theirs also. All cannot be right, and inasmuch as there are intelligent men amongst every community who hold different views, which standards are to be selected as the right ones? or what sound argument can be found to support the assertion that standards of faith ought to be irrevisable?

Had the question been, "Ought THE standard of faith to be irrevisable ?" then it might have been properly assumed that the Bible was the book referred to, although the time may come when even that book will be subjected to revision. The present point, however, is, "Ought standards of faith to be irrevisable ?"—namely, man's work, and man's work only; in other words, certain portions of the Prayer Book system, the articles of religion, the creeds, and so on. R. S. should bear in mind that there is one little letter "s" in this discussion, which entirely alters his view of things.

66

Unless it can be proved that "standards "of faith were taken word for word from the Bible, nothing ought to exempt them from revision. R. S. observes (p. 38) that "bishops are required to hold the word of faith according to the doctrine already established;" that means—or rather, ought to mean-the doctrine or "word of faith" as contained in the Bible-not necessarily in any particular "standards of faith." R. S. is on the wrong side of the hedge, and exceedingly illogical. What bishops does he refer to? Those connected with the Established Church of England? Many or most of whom would not have been bishops at all had it not been for the State connection, which legally, if not scripturally, numbers of persons believe placed the patronage in Government hands; and even the clergy of the Church of England are consequently similarly circumstanced. Or does R. S. mean the bishops

of the Church of Rome?

Surely R. S. must be aware that men holding evangelical principles in the Established Church, as well as Nonconformists, “hold the word of faith according to the doctrine already established" in the Bible, and yet they would gladly see, and are longing for, a

revision of the present "standards of faith" compiled by men, and therefore not infallible.

66

R. S. asks (p. 39), "What good will be served by having the standards revisable ?" Again he says, Once begin, and where will you stop ?" And he then intimates that "the end would be utter confusion, with no real belief existing anywhere." No doubt there would be "utter confusion;" but R. S. has forgotten that this question is not one as to the propriety or otherwise of revising the present standards; it is rather one which refers to the general principle involved, whether or not standards of faith are of a fallible or an infallible nature.

I am of opinion that R. S., and those who think with him, may rest contented. There is no chance of a revision. As the minds of men differ so much in these days-and as time rolls on that difference will be even greater-it would be impossible to arrive at any decision satisfactory to all parties as to what parts of the standards should be altered and what parts not. I believe that the time will come-whether for the better or the worse is another question-when all standards compiled by men will be things of the past, and when there will be neither Acts of Uniformity nor established laws to bind or control; and therefore when the Bible, and the doctrines therein contained, will be the only "standard which intelligent and thoughtful men will submit to as worthy of their serious attention.

R. S. states (p. 39) that "we do not intend to affirm that rites and ceremonies should be irrevisable, though the less they are altered the better, believing that every particular or national church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, so that nothing be ordained contrary to God's written word." I do not hesitate to affirm my belief that "standards" of faith must of necessity be placed in the same position as 'rites and ceremonies," inasmuch as both were decreed by the "particular or national church to which they belong,― namely, the work of man.

66

66

On the whole, therefore, I am clearly of opinion that R. S. has wholly failed to make good his case. Still, I shall read with pleasure any further paper written by him, and inserted in the Controversialist, after he has had the opportunity thoughtfully and attentively of considering and digesting the various views expressed by his opponents. Bristol.

R. D. ROBJENT.

THOUGHT, ACTION, AND DESTINY.-Time has passed away, and spring is over the world; the seeds, buried in the earth, bnrst to flower; but man's breast knoweth not the sweet division of the seasons. In winter or summer, autumn or spring alike, his thoughts sow the germs of his actions, and day after day his destiny gathers in her harvests.-SIR E. B. LYTTON.

Philosophy.

DOES SCIENCE INDUCE SCEPTICISM?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-IV.

THAT science does induce scepticism is an assertion that we believe to be capable of proof. Had the question been, Does science induce atheism? we should have taken the negative side in the debate; but scepticism and atheism are not the same. Atheism is the disbelief of a God. Science reveals too many proofs of a self-existent, all-sufficient, and all-wise Being for it to induce atheism. Scepticism is doubt-questioning, and in our own time the appellation of sceptic belongs to many who are not atheists. Many question the truth of the whole, or of some portions of the Bible, who do not disbelieve the existence of a God.

us.

But let it not be thought that we are either opposed to science, or indifferent about its revelations. No. Its discoveries delight We take pleasure in what it makes known of the laws of matter, of chemical affinities and combinations, of vegetable and animal physiology, and of the laws and workings of the human mind. But while we are hearty admirers of science, we will not deny that some of its effects are evil, not from science itself being an evil, or in fault, but because it is fallen man that is influenced by it. Science would not have induced scepticism in pure, unfallen man; yet such is its effect in the depraved children of Adam, the first sin of whose common mother was unbelief.

Some articles of food are suitable and wholesome beyond all others. They may also be preferred by us before all others, yet we know them to have certain ill effects on our bodies. Even bread needs a counteracting influence. Let us not deny this fact because of the goodness of the food, neither because of our preference for it. The gospel of God is good-unspeakably good, -yet does it induce presumption and licentiousness in corrupt hearts, but not from any fault in the gospel. The sun which extracts fragrance from a flower draws a stench from a dunghill, yet is the sun the same. Let not, then, our admiration of science make us unwilling to admit that it is attended with evil as well as with good effects.

Of the correctness of our assertion that science does induce scepticism we offer the following proofs :

I. Who and what are the men that are sceptical? Are they the

illiterate? Are they not men of science? Are they not the educated? Are they not the Colensos, and men of like mental calibre? We hope our opponents will look these queries in the face without shirking. Some of the most eminent in physiology and anatomy have been materialists, and therefore sceptics, withholding assent from the doctrine of the immateriality of the human soul. Their scepticism has been fed by their scientific knowledge. Their acquaintance with the wonderful connection between body and mind, and with their influence upon each other, has led them to the belief that the mind is material as well as the body. Their knowledge of the wonderful phenomena of the brain and nerves has made them much stronger in materialism than they could have been without that knowledge. To believe the brain to

be the seat of an immaterial soul which is acted upon by matter, and which in its turn acts upon matter, which has knowledge conveyed to it by organs that are material, and which again expresses its emotions by those material organs, is to believe that which is so mysterious that the enigma amounts to a seeming impossibility, and is rejected. Scepticism is thus induced, and so in other sciences; for in others, as Hume and Berkeley, we see acquaintance with mental science leading to a doubting of well-nigh everything. Our valued friend Mr. Neil, in his article on Hegel, in the Controversialist for August, gives us the following extract from Stirling::-“The subtle suggestions of Hume seemed to have loosened every joint of the existent, and there seemed no conclusion but universal scepticism.' This was induced by science. Again, in the "Literary Notes" of the same magazine the writer says of the "Edipus Judicus" of Sir William Drummond, "It suggests and supports scientific scepticism." There is, then, a scientific scepticism,—that is, a scepticism which is induced by science.

Science gives us powerful impressions of the invariability of physical laws, and thus leads to a doubt of miracles. Miracles being viewed as involving a suspension of physical laws, those miracles are disbelieved, as physical laws are felt to be immutable; though this objection raised by scepticism is, like every other of its scruples, void of foundation; for we believe that miracles are not suspensions of physical laws, but the exercise of divine power in spite of them. When Peter walked on the water the law of gravity was not suspended, for as soon as Christ ceased to hold him up he began to sink, showing that gravity was all the time in force, and that a power had been exerted in spite of it.

The illiterate are necessarily saved from many sceptical thoughts and reasonings. Their very illiteracy saves them therefrom. Thousands of questions which stir and agitate the minds of wellinformed men have never entered their thoughts, as- -Whether God occupied more than seven days of twenty-four hours each in creating the world; how long the earth has been created; whether the deluge extended over all the earth or not. These, and many other questions, have never so much as come before them. They