502 
and qualified them by the insertion of other truths, which have 
been now necessarily omitted. If in the course of the ensuing 
discussion additional light can be thrown on this subject, 
which is certainly one of the profoundest interest, none will 
rejoice more than myself. 
The Chairman. — I am quite sure we shall agree in at once returning our 
best thanks to Mr. Row for the thoughtful and interesting paper with which 
he has favoured us this evening. 
Mr. P oyer. — It will not, I think, be doubted that Mr. Row has presented 
for our consideration a most interesting and momentous subject ; and it is 
with considerable diffidence that I, as a layman, venture in any way to 
differ from any of the positions laid down in the paper. Mr. Row, with 
regard to the present aspect of intellectual society, refers us to the active 
antagonism which he truly says is now going forward. He says society 
presents itself in the array of two hostile camps, one of which he designates 
as theological and the other as rationalistic. He deprecates that antagonism, 
and seems to think it should be obviated, and that it would be well if a 
truce could be proclaimed. He says, by way of illustration, that geogra- 
phical contiguity affords no reason for natural warfare ; and in that I quite 
agree with him. But we find as a matter of fact that when the passions of 
men are excited, our own antagonistic principles are aroused, and geo- 
graphical boundaries are put quite out of the question, whether they be near 
or far. Antagonistic principles will and must assert themselves, and they 
must come under discussion in order that their true nature may be appre- 
hended and known. I cannot for my own part understand that a true 
Biblical theology can be at all considered as having any relation to rational- 
ism. As I understand rationalism, it is a defect of reason — reason divorced 
from faith, and coming under the power of sensuous direction, and . under 
the limits of sensuous interpretation. I think we have a signal illustration 
of this in a work somewhat famous — I refer to the Essays of Dr. Colenso, 
Bishop of Natal. How does he arrive at his conclusions ? By this very 
rationalism — by the elimination of the supernatural element in Divine 
revelation. It is true that he tells us in parts of his essays that he does 
not object to miracles, and to the supernatural element ; but practically we 
find that he does undoubtedly dispense with the Godhead very largely. He 
does not see God in history where we find abundant evidence in revelation 
that He was. Mr. Row at the close of his paper has introduced the names 
of Renan and Strauss ; and their rationalism is referable to the same cause 
— reason is divorced from failh. Now it appears to me that if reason is to 
have play, or to come into action at all in respect of Divine revelation, it is 
necessary that it should be preceded by faith. He that cometh to God must 
believe first that He is ; and that is the attitude, the necessary attitude, in 
which we should stand to the Divine revelation. We should first synthe- 
tically take it by faith, and then we may analytically examine its relations, 
