aches and gallows withal-all of them very certain things. To call in question the intuitions by which we know their existence, is but to engage in a confusing and chaoscreating war against the obvious.

It should be observed

Illusionists akin to lunatics. that the great peculiarity, the distinguishing note in the conduct of lunatics is their strange inability to recognise and accept some common fact or facts, principle or principles, of everyday life. Now in this respect, all the Illusionists, in so far as they are Illusionists, are exactly like them. They pertinaciously and pervicaciously refuse to recognise and accept, quoad their systems, the clamant facts and principles of common sense as they are manifested in everyday life—a proceeding so ridiculous and preposterous as to be in itself sufficient to subvert their claim to the character of philosophers. For, just consider it,—what sillier thing can any lunatic do than refuse to accept the facts and principles revealed to him in common sense? When, to take a case, a lunatic persists in regard ing himself as a poached egg, is he any worse than an Illusionist who insists on regarding his boots, say, as nothing more than a modification of himself, or a tertian. quiddity or mere representation of some reality beyond them, or an illusion or hallucination of some kind or other? Certainly not. I submit, therefore, that the Illusionist -qua Illusionist, cannot reasonably disown mental kinship with the lunatic. Indeed it appears to be incontestible that the lunatic may even be entitled to a favourable comparison with the wilful Illusionist; for whereas the delusion of the former is presumably involuntary and proceeding from disease, there is too much reason to suspect that the delusion of the latter is assumed and dishonest. If not, it must necessarily be due to the very foggiest of thinking. Absolute honesty required in reading the Consciousness. Of course it should be continually borne in mind by all kinds of persons, and very especially by all professed

thinkers and speakers, that truth is required in the inward parts. The chief evils of the world arise (1) from men failing to think to the best of their ability, and (2) from not speaking and acting according to honest thought. If we would all consent to speak from heart-conviction alone, and firmly refuse to speak without heart-conviction, I don't think that there would be any great difference of opinion discovered amongst us regarding the primary intuitions of intelligence.

Consciousness is the common ground upon which all sects necessarily meet.-Without controversy, then, I think we may accept the deliverances of consciousness as genuinely scientific so far as they go, and as admitting of no authority higher than themselves. The Moral Law, for example, the Multiplication Table, the Extension of Space, the Existence of Bodies, they require and admit of no authority higher than the deliverances of Consciousness to establish their actuality. Our consciousness of such truths must be to us not only the criterion but the very ground of their truth; the ground upon which all persons must necessarily meet each other, even when they ignorantly and pervicaciously deny the validity of the proceeding. Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Fichte and Hegel meeting each other, would necessarily assume the veracity of the deliverances of Consciousness or Common Sense, exactly as five cheesemongers meeting to discuss cheese, would necessarily assume the veracity of such deliverances; and it is quite obvious that they could not rationally exchange thoughts with each other but upon the same presuppositions and assumptions. In the great name of God, how otherwise could they rationally meet but upon the basis of Common Sense! No other expedient is thinkable. In a word, all men are Realists at heart, whatever some of them may say to the contrary. All Illusionist theories may be regarded as mere exercises in blindness or perversity. Neither intellectual nor spiritual sustenance is to be found in the

Illusionist volumes in so far as they are Illusionist. They are as arid as the Sahara. The Illusionists themselves are as frogs croaking in Chaos.

(C) THE THEOLOGICAL CRITERION OF TRUTH IS ALSO FOUND IN CONSCIOUSNESS

With all reverence I apply the same doctrine to theology. The sanctions, the criteria, of a sound theology are only to be found in the human consciousness.

In

Petrus Smith contra Mundum.-The human consciousness is the chief witness for all highest as well as for all lowest things for Divinity as well as for Bricks. Honestly read, I take it to be the real Book of God. the human soul, if anywhere, is to be found the chief revelation of God to man. Indeed the written Bible says as much when it declares that the Law is written upon our hearts. I maintain, then, that our excellent friend Peter Smith must also be to himself, and insist on being to himself, the highest and ultimate authority on theology. On this score he is entitled to declare-Petrus Smith contra mundum.

Let it be observed that I do not assert that Peter must be a profound theologian to get to Heaven! To do so were absurd. In order to arrive in that fairest country, Peter, I apprehend, must simply be an honest, God-fearing man to the very best of his ability. Oliver Cromwell was of opinion that "No one rose so high as he who knew not whither he was going." 1 That may be true; but I think there can be no doubt at all, that nothing in this world gives promise of soaring so high as determined honesty. We may depend upon it that Peter Smith will receive a great reception from Simon Peter, if he soars up to him on the shining wings of honesty.

My object in the world as a rational soul.-What must be my object in this world as a rational soul? Surely to

1 S. R. Gardiner: Oliver Cromwell, p. 71.

build up a noble personality, and to help others to do the same. Upon what foundation are you and I going to build this edifice of our lives? Surely upon the grounds that we do actually know-not upon those about which we are either ignorant or uncertain. For the life of me I cannot see how we are to combat the Devil effectively but upon the broad basis, the firm footing, of the Understanding.

Cardinal Newman's theory that theology cannot be taught. -But in respect of this question, how does the world. stand? There are thousands of theologians who implicitly tell us that theology cannot be taught. There are many who say it explicitly. The late Cardinal Newman, for example, declared and that in his University Sermons,1 that "there is a divinity in the theology of the Church which those who feel cannot communicate"; and I presume that all our Romanist friends would agree with him in that disastrous contention. Consider it. Aristotle rightly says, I think, that a "proof of a person's knowledge is his ability to teach." 2 More one, says he, "who is more accurate and more competent to give instruction in the causes of things, we regard more wise about every science." "3 Herein I think he speaks truly, and expresses upon the subject the common sense of mankind. Yet our theologising cardinal tells us in the very teeth of Common Sense, that theology is a thing to be felt, not communicated! Worse this very same cardinal having distinctly informed us that theology is not communicable, perpetrates the exquisite absurdity of writing a great many volumes about it-a great many volumes more or less concerned about that which he declares to be incommunicable. I think we are entitled to protest against such proceedings. Whenever a priest or any other person pretends to possess an unteachable knowledge of any subject and, at the same time, makes assertions concerning it which our intellect repels, I think we are entitled to 2 Metaphysics, Bk. i. c. i. (Bohn tr.).

1 P. 346.

3 Ib. c. ii.

take it as an infallible proof that such person is, so far, ignorant, presumptuous or hallucinated.

Intelligent ignorance and stupid ignorance.—You cannot be said to know a thing,-at all events, you have no effective knowledge of it, unless you can give some intelligent account of it. Cardinal Newman fully admitted this also, when off his guard. For instance, in criticising and approving a religious passage which he cites from Coleridge's Aids to Reflection, he properly says-" It is plain that if the passage is worth anything, we must secure that worth for our own use by the personal action of our own minds, or else we shall be only professing and asserting its doctrine without having any ground or right to assert it." The same doctrine applies to ignorance. If we are to speak of it at all, we ought to speak of it intelligently. There is intelligent ignorance and there is stupid ignorance. It is intelligent ignorance to say-" God is too high for me; I cannot understand Him." It looks like presumptuous ignorance for a priest to say-"There is a divinity in the theology of the Church which those who feel cannot communicate." To urge such a claim in connection with any secular science would immediately be regarded by all intelligent persons as sheer folly. A mere feeling, indeed, may well be incommunicable; but theology is theology only in so far as it is made up of doctrine; and doctrines are doctrines only in so far as they are communicable: therefore theologians should be able to communicate their doctrines to persons of ordinary intelligence without much trouble.

Fatuity of all occultism and obscurantism.-None, not even a cardinal or a pope, has any right to address us upon a subject which he does not understand, or upon a supposed incommunicable knowledge of any kind, unless it

1 Grammar of Assent, p. 298. This is indubitable; but why didn't he stick to it? A circus-man may get prosperously round a ring on two horses going in the same direction, but it surpasses the power of man, even though he be a cardinal, to sit on two horses trotting in opposite directions.