169 
substitutes. But what I chiefly rose to observe is, that we should lower 
the science of theology to a very questionable level by introducing an illustra- 
tion based upon methods of demonstration which belong only to the modern 
system of mathematics, the accuracy of which is in dispute, and which would 
not probably have been accepted by the ancient geometers at all, and which 
are not as precise as those which are found in Euclid. 
The Chairman. — I think Mr. Reddie is labouring under a misapprehension 
as to what Mr. Byrne is doing. Professor Byrne does not wish t6 do away 
with the algebraical symbols he has used in his parallel with the Athanasian 
Creed. All that that parallel is intended to show is, that the greatest 
calls of the Athanasian Creed on our faith are not greater than what is re- 
quired by what is supposed to be purely demonstrative science. 
Rev. A. De La Mare. — In answer to Mr. Reddie, I will only at present 
say that what he referred to as a definition of infinity, I only used to point 
out that infinity was admitted in science to have an existence, although it is 
beyond our comprehension, and is, therefore, to that extent not “ rational.” 
And if we admit infinity in exact science, although we cannot understand or 
explain it, why should there be any objection to admit it also in religious 
matters ? But you will observe that my voice has quite failed me, and 
therefore I must beg to be allowed to write my reply to the other criticism 
on my paper. (Hear, hear.) 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
REPLY BY MR. DE LA MARE. 
In reply to the full and free criticism made upon my paper, I beg to offer 
the following remarks : — First, I may observe, generally, that the design of 
my paper seems to have been somewhat misunderstood. I never intended it 
to be an essay on theological science at large, but, as its title imports, to be 
on theology as a science ; that is, to establish theology to be a science, a 
truth which current pretensions go far, not only to ignore, but to deny. Hence, 
when Mr. Row states his preference for a metaphysical system of investi- 
gation, and Dr. Irons for the labours of the schools, I am not necessarily in 
conflict with either the one or the other : — I have controverted neither. I 
have simply passed by both in silence. If, therefore, either gentleman feels 
disposed to undertake the task of establishing his own position, his doing so 
•would in no degree affect mine, unless it be held that there can be only one 
mode of demonstrating the same truth, which I am not prepared to admit. 
The track in either case has been pretty well beaten, and I may be allowed 
to doubt, especially after the not very remote controversy of Professor 
Mansel and the late Professor Goldwin Smith on “ the limits of religious 
thought,” whether the metaphysical treatment seems to be the best adapted 
to meet the requirements of our time ; and also whether the scholastic theo- 
