513 
factory, because we have no time to discuss them, and when such remarks 
slip in they may remain uncontradicted, on record in our Journal. I ought 
to say, before sitting down, as we are very much criticised out of doors, that 
Mr. John Stuart Mill is not the only person who has stated that two and 
two might make five. The Saturday Review , which is our great critic, once 
alleged the same thing. I am glad to find, however, that in a subsequent 
article it goes back to the fact that two and two are simply four, and cannot 
be anything else than merely four units ! (Hear, hear.) 
The Chairman. — I t seems to be considered right that the chairman should 
inflict himself on the meeting for a short time, and I therefore crave your 
indulgence while I execute the duty allotted to me. I can join most decidedly 
in the universal commendation given to the paper before us. I am rejoiced 
to find that my observations were not premature when I spoke of it at an 
earlier period as a thoughtful and interesting paper, for the discussion which 
has taken place has shown incontestably that it is both thoughtful and inter- 
esting. The two principal points which have been commented on by the various 
speakers have been faith and the Divine attributes. With regard to faith, 
I think Dr. Rigg was right when he said we use the word in too many 
different senses. We should have a definition of what we mean by faith. 
It seems to me that those who impugn revelation wish to distort “ faith ” 
into meaning something akin to superstition. Hume, in his essay on 
miracles, first argues on the impossibility of accepting a miracle on any 
evidence whatever, and then goes on to say scornfully that if we cannot 
accept it on evidence or on any rational premisses, we must accept it by 
faith. He thus endeavours unfairly to degrade faith into superstition. We 
may divide faith into faith moral and faith intellectual. Faith moral is 
concerned with action ; it is the faith of the infant, whereby it rushes into 
an apparent danger because its parent has told it that such apparent danger 
is no real one. In faith intellectual we accept the truth on less than puro 
demonstrative evidence. Where our love or affection is concerned, we 
acquiesce in something less than pure cnrodetZig, something less than pure 
demonstration, and that is intellectual faith. As to the next point, namely, 
the attributes of God, — I would suggest to Mr. Row that there may be a 
certain amount of inaccuracy in our general language when we speak of the 
“ attributes ” of God. I do not read that God is a loving being : I read that 
God is love. The attributes of God — I speak reverently — are the Deity 
Himself. We do not attribute a quality to Him, but we know that He is 
that quality Himself. God is not merely just ; He is infinite justice. He 
is not merely pure, but perfect purity 
Mr. Row. — We read that He is holy. 
The Chairman. — That is an instance of Scripture suiting itself to our 
popular way of speaking. What we call attributes are really the Deity, 
existing as the Deity Himself exists. It is not so with man, because his 
attributes are separable from him ; the virtuous man may cease to be 
virtuous, and the vicious man may become virtuous. The attributes of man 
are in a continual state of flux, but in the Deity all is immutable and 
