Let us ask if morality can exist without faith or trust, whether we can get a demonstrative or scientific basis for morality itself? I ask this, because those who ask for the destruction of our religion talk of the gain to morality. They say, Sweep away the influences of religion and morality will be stronger. Let us see how morality will bear the assaults of scepticism. Morality is that code or rule of action which we follow in questions of right or wrong, or it is that code of right and wrong which every man adopts for himself. To take the first definition. Have we got the universal sense of humanity upon any moral question of right or wrong? If the majority of mankind agree with us, can we prove logically that they must always be right and the minority wrong? Again, which morality will we have—that of to-day or that of a past generation? If we cannot settle the question by majority or minority, how are we to settle it? By asking the opinion of the wise and good. Before we know the wise and good we must know what wisdom and goodness are; and if we know what they are, what need have we to look to the wise and good to tell us? Who are the wise and good? Those who gave good opinions. Is that logical? Will it stand sceptical inquiry? If it is not to be settled by the appeal to the universal voice of humanity—which is simply illogical and preposterous, for this reason, that we are part of universal humanity, and if we differ from that verdict it is not the verdict of universal humanity, and if we agree with it, we might as well have taken our own in the first instance—then man must decide for himself what is right and wrong. What is it decides in a man what is right or wrong? Conscience. Why must a man submit to the decision of his own conscience? We are told that it is part of our moral nature. What demonstration is there that one part of our nature is to yield to another? Have we any logical demonstration as to what we are? I have a scientific demonstration that I am made of carbon, lime, phosphate, and certain other chemicals, but no man of science has ever demonstrated spirit or conscience. Why is it that a man is to obey the bidding of one convolution of his brain more than another? It cannot be made as clear as that two and two make four, that a man is to do to another man as he would be done unto. Duty and right are words of the spirit, of the soul, but science and logic never yet revealed the soul.