514 
infinite. Now, how are we to get over that hopeless way of treating the 
infinite, Mr. Poyer spoke of, as the despair to which Dean Mansel’s view of 
the infinite would lead us? We must meet it by looking to the only begotten 
Son of God. He has declared God by becoming man ; in Him the infinite 
is made perceptible to the mind ; the glories of Omnipotence are brought out 
and displayed in His human actions. We have in Him, if I may so speak, 
the exhibition of God to man in so far as man can comprehend Him 
the Word of God on earth was the translation of the Divine Word into the 
language of man. I hope the canon for the interpretation of Scripture which 
Mr. Row has referred to, will be drawn up. No better model for it can be 
formed than one quoted by St. Augustine from Tichonius the Donatist. 
It is in the De Doctrina Christiana , and more fully in the Bibliotheca 
Patrum, where it is couched in quaint language, which, however, is 
highly philosophical when properly interpreted. One word more on the 
subject of reason and faith. As I said before, the opponents of revelation 
wish to show us that faith is superstition, and that reason is not faith. 
Mr. Row has entirely proved in their teeth that reason and faith are but 
different phases of the same intellect exerting itself to grasp what it can 
of the Creator. 
Dr. Irons. — Would you say that the Deity has no distinction whatever 
in His own nature between purity and justice, and so on with all His attri- 
butes ? If we are not to speak of the attributes of God, I must confess I 
am puzzled. It seems to me to destroy the whole character of the Divine 
Being, and to make Him a pure, simple abstraction without an idea of what 
purity and justice are. 
The Chairman. — This is rather a question of language than of anything 
else. When we speak of the Deity we speak of a Being whose essence 
those qualities are ; we may speak of Him in reference to this or that, as we 
please. 
Dr. Irons. — It strikes me this would lead straight to the pantheism of 
the Eliatics, and almost to the pantheism of the mediaeval schools. 
The Chairman. — That would be only if we conceived the attributes with- 
out conceiving the one Personal Deity Himself. In that case we should be 
erecting as many infinite beings as there are attributes. 
Mr. Row. — I have very little to say in reply to the discussion which has 
taken place, as the objections to my paper have been so small. My object in 
regard to the question of infinity was to prevent the application of a quanti- 
tative measure. As I stated in the end, my paper is not an elaborate treatise : 
if it had been, I should have kept you here all night with it : and I can 
hardly exaggerate the difficulty I found in getting such a mass of matter 
into the space I have occupied. I could have written it five or even twenty 
times the length with much greater ease. It is the necessary consequence of 
such a condensation of material, that some things must be left obscure. 
With regard to the objection of Dr. Irons, the point he has raised is so small 
that it is hardly worth commenting upon. Two minds never can think 
exactly alike, I am quite aware ; but Dr. Irons and myself really take an 
