166 
to the revival of the old scientific theology in the Roman Church; and 
if there were the same in our own Church, we should be better protected 
from much heresy which has risen in the present age. But it would not 
be fair to Mr. De La Mare if we were to leave his essay entirely without 
criticism. I will say how it struck me as I heard it read. It occurred 
to me that it was not so much an outline of scientific theology as an 
attempt to set up a basis on which the popular religion of England is 
supposed, by itself, to rest. Instead of being scientific, it is popular. It is 
an attempt to assimilate religion and modern science, to devise a new science 
of theology, by dealing with the Scriptures as you would deal with Newton’s 
Principia, or any other book of natural science. That is very natural and 
proper, and we cannot wonder that the popular Protestantism of the day 
should wish to have some such work done. But I am not disposed to allow 
that there is anything in the Bible which will supply us with definitions, 
axioms, and postulates. I am quite sure that they will not be found 
there, and it is a mistake to expect them ; but even the effort to find 
them may be productive of good. The Holy Scriptures are God’s gift to His 
people. They do not, however, give us a scientific theology ; and the 
intelligence of the natural man can never make a scientific system out of 
them. We should, I think, altogether go astray if we were to accept all 
the views of Mr. De La Mare ; but at the same time, if his paper only 
leads to a discussion of that large and important subject, some good may 
be done by it. 
The Chairman. — I think, to some extent, the speakers have misunder- 
stood the whole bearing and object of Mr. De La Mare’s paper, and that 
may be owing to the different mode in which they have been accustomed to 
regard science. Some gentlemen regard science entirely from a logical point 
of view, and some of the speakers seem to think that the point of view from 
which Mr. De La Mare has regarded science has been that position from 
which science would be regarded by the student of what is called pure de- 
monstrative science, that is to say, he has viewed it as an exact mathematical 
science. As far as I understood the paper, I must thoroughly agree, in spite of 
all the logical and scholastic objections, in its view that there is such a thing 
as theological science. I believe that it does exist, and that it is founded upon 
a firm basis — nay, a firmer basis than any of the so-called sciences, whether 
exact or inexact, of the present day. If we were to discuss the metaphysics 
of the question for a thousand years, we should never be likely to come to a 
cordial agreement and understanding. W e cannot agree, for we cannot decide 
as to what are to be considered definitions, postulates, and axioms. Mr. De La 
Mare has pointed out in his paper that theological science is supposed to rest, 
like mathematics themselves, on definitions, postulates, and axioms ; but 
sometimes it is difficult to say whether certain things are to be regarded as 
definitions, as axioms, or as postulates. I believe the distinction of defini- 
tions, axioms, and postulates in our modern Euclid does not exist in the 
original Greek. Now, Mr. Row has objected to certain things which Mr. 
De La Mare has called axioms, on the ground that they were not axioms 
