164 
But Mr. De La Mare goes beyond that, and says that man is of threefold 
vital mechanism, having heart, lungs, and brain ; but why are the muscles and 
bones to be left out ? I suppose because they would destroy the trinity. He 
also tells us that the nervous system is threefold, and that the mind is tripar- 
tite ; but I confess that I utterly fail to see the trinity that has been laid 
down in these points. Mr. De Le Mare further says, that man’s expressions 
in relation to space are threefold, because a thing may be on one side or the 
other, or in the middle. But if we come to analyze that, we find that 
“ before ” is a reality, and “ behind ” is a reality, but that “ here ” is a line. 
Now, what is a line ? A thing which has no extension. “ Here,” however 
much we may practically feel it, simply consists of that which is not before 
nor behind ; it is an inferential nothing, not past, nor future, but present. 
But that sort of analogy may be carried out with other numbers than three. 
Take two, for instance. I have two arms, two eyes, two ears ; and so I find the 
number two running through every part of the animal creation, and even in the 
vegetable creation. By the way, the term “ animal and vegetable creation ” 
shows in itself a duality in regard to the forms of life. I find that every 
part of a plant can be traced to the modification of the stem or leaf. If I 
am asked what are the functions of a plant, I answer two, reproduction and 
growth. In chemistry I find that the whole tendency of the science is to 
make everything binary. Electricity consists of two forces, and so we might 
run on with science after science, and find abundance of examples of the pre- 
eminence of two. According to this, then, if we adopt Mr. De La Mare’s views, 
we have here a ground for believing that there are only two principles in 
Deity. But, I ask, would any one be prepared on such grounds to question 
the doctrines revealed in the Scriptures ? If not, how can such reasoning as 
this of Mr. De La Mare’s be advanced in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity 
when it is of precisely the same character, only weaker ? 
Rev. Dr. Irons. — I appreciate so many things that have been said by Mr. 
De La Mare, that I should be very sorry indeed to speak at all severely or 
unkindly of his paper, although I do not agree with the whole of its contents. 
The paper is written with a deep religious sentiment, especially that part 
concerning the life and religion of the Christian soul, which was full of 
fervent piety. Having said that much, I must pause, because in almost every 
other respect I must say that I disagree with the whole tone and bearing of the 
essay. Mr. De La Mare seems to start with the idea that there is no scientific 
theology already existing, but that we must get one for ourselves somehow or 
other out of the Bible. If there be no such thing as a scientific theology at 
this time, I should be disposed to despair of our ever obtaining one, supposing 
we had to begin de novo. If we go back to St. John of Damascus at the end 
of the seventh century, soon after the birth of Mahommedanism, and after 
the extinction of the great Donatist hereby, we find that the Church had begun 
to feel most forcibly that it would not do to go on with an outline of a religion 
mixed up with the credulous and faulty opinions of individuals, as the sub- 
stantial theology of the world. A great need was felt, and schools began 
to bo formed. St. John of Damascus made it his business to draw 
