161 
mixed up together uuder the one common term miracle. The word (nyxuov is a 
sign ; the word rspag merely denotes a prodigy. Until we have some better 
basis to proceed upon than we have at present, we cannot reach a scientific 
system of theology 
Mr. Reddie.— Will you allow me to ask, is it really your view that we 
cannot have a proper system of Christian theology unless we have a correct 
translation of the Greek Testament into English ? 
Mr. Row— I did not mean to say that. What I mean is that we cannot 
properly have such a system until the New Testament is made accurately in- 
telligible, not to those who read Greek, but to those who eannot read 
Greek. 
Mr. Reddie.— The object of my interrogation was to point out that sys- 
tematic Christian theology certainly did not wait until the English language 
had developed, or even till England became Christian, and so it cannot de- 
pend upon the translation of the Greek Testament into English. 
Mr. Row. — When I spoke of a system of scientific theology, I meant 
such a system as should be intelligible to the English public. The principle 
of induction ought to be applied to all the leading facts of the New Testa- 
ment to arrive at the deductive view of Christian theology 
Captain Fishbourne. — I rise to order. I submit that all this is hardly 
germane to the paper before us, although Mr. Row is no doubt suggesting 
what would make a very good separate paper for discussion on another 
occasion. 
The Chairman. — I think Mr. Row is not deviating from the subject before 
us. All that he has said fairly arises out of the paper, although I am sure 
we should also be glad to have from him a paper on the subject at another 
time. Such a paper, I am sure, would be very valuable. 
Mr. Row. — I have no objection to supply such a paper for one of our 
future meetings. (Hear, hear.) To return to Mr. De La Mare’s paper. I will 
suppose that we have made a second induction on the facts of the New 
Testament. What is the next thing in order to found a scientific theology ? 
It would be to construct a theory to cover those facts exactly. In that 
we must exercise no common care. Everybody thinks he may start some 
theory of his own, and endeavour to make the facts agree with it. I 
have already said that I think Mr. De La Mare’s views with regard to 
definition are not satisfactory. He gives us an example : — “ God is a 
spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit.” But 
you cannot say that that is an axiom. The latter part is certainly axiomatic, 
if you assume the first part ; but that first part, that “ God is a spirit,” is a 
simple proposition. He also gives us an example, “ God is but neither is 
that a definition. It merely asserts as a positive fact that the Deity does 
exist, and it is a simple categorical assertion, which is not axiomatic in any 
sense. There is also in the paper a certain unsatisfactoriness in the use of 
the word “ infinite.” In mathematics the expressions “ infinite ” and “ not 
finite ” may be taken as co-extensive ; but when we speak of the infinite 
perfections of the Deity we mean something very different. We are guilty of 
