Now it would doubtless be easy to find elsewhere than in Cambridge mathematicians of the first order who in our own generation are, or have been, professedly anti-Christian in their beliefs,—­although certainly not so great an array of such extraordinary powers.  But, be this as it may, the case of Cambridge in my own time seems to me of itself enough to prove that Christian belief is neither made nor marred by the highest powers of reasoning, apart from other and still more potent factors.

Faith and Superstition.

Whether or not Christianity is true, there is a great distinction between these two things.  For while the main ingredient of Christian faith is the moral element, this has no part in superstition.  In point of fact, the only point of resemblance is that both present the mental state called belief.  It is on this account they are so often confounded by anti-Christians, and even by non-Christians; the much more important point of difference is not noted, viz. that belief in the one case is purely intellectual, while in the other it is chiefly moral. Qua purely intellectual, belief may indicate nothing but sheer credulity in absence of evidence; but where a moral basis is added, the case is clearly different; for even if it appears to be sheer credulity to an outsider, that may be because he does not take into account the additional evidence supplied by the moral facts.

Faith and superstition are often confounded, or even identified.  And, unquestionably, they are identical up to a certain point—­viz. they both present the mental state of belief.  All people can see this; but not all people can see further, or define the differentiae.  These are as follows:  First, supposing Christianity true, there is the spiritual verification.  Second, supposing Christianity false, there is still the moral ingredient, which ex hypothesi is absent in superstition.  In other words, both faith and superstition rest on an intellectual basis (which may be pure credulity); but faith rests also on a moral, even if not likewise on a spiritual.  Even in human relations there is a wide difference between ‘belief’ in a scientific theory and ‘faith’ in a personal character.  And the difference is in the latter comprising a moral element.

‘Faith-healing,’ therefore, has no real point of resemblance with ’thy faith hath saved thee’ of the New Testament, unless we sink the personal differences between a modern faith-healer and Jesus Christ as objects of faith.

Belief is not exclusively founded on objective evidence appealing to reason (opinion), but mainly on subjective evidence appealing to some altogether different faculty (faith).  Now, whether Christians are right or wrong in what they believe, I hold it as certain as anything can be that the distinction which I have just drawn, and which they all implicitly draw for themselves, is logically valid.  For no one is