515 
exceedingly similar view. My idea of faith is that it belongs to almost every 
subject of human conviction : wherever there is conviction, there there is 
faith. It is not usual to say that axioms are the result of faith, but in one 
sense they are, and my only object on that point was to show that the 12th 
axiom of Euclid did require some trouble to comprehend it, and I do say it 
is not founded on distinct and intuitive truth. I have an old Euclid in which 
an attempt is made to demonstrate the axiom through several pages, and 
that only makes confusion worse confounded. (Laughter.) With regard to 
Mr. Reddie’s objections, I had an idea of what he would say, and I read the 
other evening, since writing my paper, the following passage, written by Dean 
Howson, the dean of Chester, who is a man of very considerable mental 
power. Now, when I wrote the passage in my paper I had Mr. Reddie in 
my mind, for I think he is really a descendant of Ishmael — at least, I know 
that his hand is against every man, and every man’s hand against him. 
(Laughter.) Dean Howson says : — 
“ A high estimate of Scripture being combined with a low estimate of 
Church authority, the two together lead to a technical view of inspiration, 
which, being asserted and not proved, is taken to be axiomatic. Through a 
certain impatience of thought, the proofs of the divine origin of Christianity 
are assumed to be ipso facto proofs of the verbal inspiration of the 
Bible In another direction also they have been much to blame, 
viz., in their treatment of the claims of science. Sometimes it seems to be 
assumed that scientific men are puffed up with pride, whereas scientific men 
are often very modest and humble. But it is the general mode in which 
science has been dealt with by the party, which must be especially pointed 
out as full of danger. Science is necessarily impatient of assumption. In- 
duction can never stand still. Thus, if a fixed barrier is presented to scientific 
inquiry by traditional interpretations of Scripture, an uneasy state of mind 
cannot fail to result, with a tendency on the part of scientific minds to reject 
revelation, and a tendency too on the part of Biblical students to reject the 
Bible. Who can say what harm has been done by denunciations against 
geology which were heard years ago from some of our pulpits — denunciations 
which would perhaps now be willingly retracted by those who made them ? 
This ought to be a warning against precipitate assertion in regard to those 
ethnological and anthropological questions which are now causing anxiety. 
The wisdom of the Christian student is to wait quietly for the solution of 
problems in which science is concerned.” 
Dr. Irons. — What does he allude to ? Did you ever hear any one 
preach against geology ? 
Rev. C. A. Row. — Yes, certainly. 
Mr. Reddie. — Did you ever hear me preach against geology ? (Laughter.) 
The Rev. C. A. Row. — Yes, I think I have. (Laughter.) I occasionally 
accompany a friend of mine, who is a very learned man, living by his literary 
labours, and who devotes a portion of every Sunday to going out and com- 
bating the infidelity of London— the Bradlaughs and the men of that type, 
— and from what I have seen, I am certain there is very great danger to that 
