[Footnote 2: My "Eclectic" reviewer (who is among the least orthodox and the least uncandid) hence deduces, that I have confounded the two questions, "Does the Bible contain errors in human science?" and, "Is its purely spiritual teaching true?" It is quite wonderful to me, how educated men can so totally overlook what I have so plainly and so often written. This very passage might show the contrary, if he had but quoted the whole paragraph, instead of the middle sentence only. See also pp. 67, 74, 75, 86, 87, 125.] [Footnote 3: Any orthodox periodical which dares to write charitably, is at once subjected to fierce attack us _un_orthodox.] [Footnote 4: _Explicit_ Faith in a doctrine, means, that we understand what the propositions are, and accept them. But if through blunder we accept a wrong set of propositions, so as to believe a false doctrine, we nevertheless have _Implicit_ (or Virtual) Faith in the true one, if only we say from the heart: "Whatever the Church believes, I believe." Thus a person, who, through blundering, believes in Sabellianism or Arianism, which the Church has condemned, is regarded to have _virtual faith_ in Trinitarianism, and all the "merit" of that faith, because of his good will to submit to the Church; which is the really saving virtue.] [Footnote 5: [Greek: Dikaiosune] (righteousness), [Greek: Diatheke] (covenant, testament), [Greek: Charis] (grace), are all terms pregnant with fallacy.] [Footnote 6: Horace and Cicero speak the mind of their educated contemporaries in saying that "we ought to pray to God _only_ for external blessings, but trust to our own efforts for a pure and tranquil soul,"--a singular reversing of spiritual religion] CHAPTER IX. REPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF THE "ECLIPSE OF FAITH." This small treatise was reviewed, unfavourably of course, in most of the religious periodicals, and among them in the "Prospective Review," by my friend James Martineau. I had been about the same time attacked in a book called the "Eclipse of Faith," written (chiefly against my treatise on the Soul) in the form of a Platonic Dialogue; in which a sceptic, a certain Harrington, is made to indulge in a great deal of loose and bantering argumentation, with the view of ridiculing my religion, and doing so by ways of which some specimen will be given. I made an indignant protest in a new edition of this book, and added also various matter in reply to Mr. Martineau, which will still be found here. He in consequence in a second article[1] of the "Prospective" reviewed me afresh; but, in the opening, he first pronounced his sentence in words of deep disapproval against the "Eclipse of Faith."