in the strict sense of the word.  Referring to a recent acute writer in one of our religious periodicals, he argued that belief is properly an intellectual process, founded on a presumed preponderance of reasons or supposed reasons, for it; and that whether those reasons amount to demonstration, or whether the scale be turned by a grain, matters not; the product is purely logical, and has no more to do with “faith” than a “belief” in any proposition of Euclid.

“But, at all events,” he proceeded, “whether you choose to call some of these acts of reason by the name of belief or not, faith is something quite independent of it.  As Mr. Newman says, in his ‘Phases,’ ‘Belief is one thing and faith another’:  ’belief is purely intellectual; faith is properly spiritual.’  ’Nowhere from any body of priests, clergy, or ministers, as an order, is religious progress to be anticipated till intellectual creeds are destroyed.’  See, too, how tenderly he speaks even of atheism.  ‘I do not know,’ he says, ’how to avoid calling this a moral error; but I must carefully guard against seeming to overlook that it may still be a merely speculative error, which ought not to separate our hearts from any man.’  Similarly he charitably restricts ‘idolatry’ in any ‘bad sense’ to a voluntary worshipping of what the worshipper feels not to deserve his adoration; and as I, for one, doubt whether this is ever the case, this delightful charity is comprehensive indeed.  Mr. Parker’s discourse is full of the same beautiful and tolerant maxims.  ‘Each religious doctrine,’ he says, ’has some time stood for a truth ......  Each of these forms of religion (polytheism and fetichism, to wit) did the world service in its day.’  No one form of religion is absolutely true; faith may be compatible with them all.”

“Let me understand you, if possible,” said Harrington; “for at present I fear I do not.  That there may be belief without faith in a very Intelligible sense, I can understand.  You say there can be faith without belief, and a true faith that is connected with any belief, however erroneous, do you not?”

“Provided it contains the absolute religion.”

“Well, and even the lowest fetichism does that, according to Mr. Parker, whom you defend.  Now this Protean faith is what I do not understand.”

“That,” said Fellowes, “I can easily conceive; and, let me add, no sceptic can understand it.”  “I see no reason why he should not,” said Harrington, laughing, “if, as you and Mr. Newman suppose, the ‘spiritual’ can be so perfectly divorced from the ‘intellectual.’  According to your reasoning, the and the idolater cannot be incapable of exercising this mysterious ’faith,’—­when their errors are supposed purely speculative,—­since faith has nothing to do with the intellect; neither therefore ought the sceptic to be quite beyond the pale of your charity.  Nay, his intellect being a rasa tabula in these matters, I should think he is in more favorable