305 
but there are certain others on which my opinion is worth nothing. In the 
same manner I apprehend that the power of the mind in judging of the 
evidence of facts, and in reasoning from those facts, form two distinctive 
branches of skill. This is rather obscure in Mr. Garbett’s paper, and I hope 
he will explain it more fully. He seems to me to have used the term theology 
in a very general sense, but I imderstand him to apply it to the evidence on 
which revelation rests. Is that your view or not ? 
Mr. Garbett. — I did not mean to limit the term to that application, but 
simply to show that that evidence is the first step. 
Mr. Row.— Of course there is no doubt that in theology as in nature there 
are facts on which alone theological science can be based, and if we do 
not base theological science upon them we are nowhere. I quite agree that 
the utmost which science can do, will be to explode a number of theological 
theories which are not really theological at all, and which do not belong to 
the Bible, and the sooner they are got rid of the better. But where I see a 
great difficulty is in this : theological science is so extensive, and it deals 
with so many phases of the human mind of a high character — metaphysical, 
for instance, — and many other things, that we have a greater difficulty 
in ascertaining the ultimate facts of the mind than in ascertaining the facts 
of nature. Take such facts of nature for instance as time and space. They 
are clearly determined as conceptions ; but in theology and morals we have 
to make a very careful analysis of the mental processes by which we arrive at 
them and at the general truths contained in them ; and it is that, I appre- 
hend, which makes theological science a matter of much greater difficulty 
than simple physical science. Theology consists of a number of sciences of 
a kindred character : it is of no use to speak of it as one science. It includes 
metaphysics, deductive logic, and the ascertaining of facts as conveyed to 
us by revelation, by instituting an exegesis suitable to find out the precise 
meaning of the Biblical language. This is one of the great defects of the 
paper, and I should be glad if Mr. Garbett, in his answer, would explain 
more fully the theory which he has in his mind. I do not know if I have 
clearly expressed what I meant, but I should be glad if in his written 
answer he would elaborate this point. I think the paper would then be 
much more clear 
Mr. Garbett. — I did not mean to put all men’s reasoning powers on the 
same level ; but I wished to separate them into two classes — the scientific 
observers, and the reasoners who were not scientific. 
Mr. Row. — There I certainly agree with you. I quite admit that reason- 
ing is entirely distinct from the observation of facts, and that a close attention 
to the observation of facts does not qualify the mind for reasoning ; but then 
at the same time there are diverse classes of reasoning. I do not think, that, 
on the whole, mathematical reasoning qualifies the mind for reasoning well 
on moral subjects ; and I do not think that men who confine themselves to 
pure mathematical subjects are found v as a rule, to be good or correct 
reasoners on moral subjects. Mathematics contain evidence of a highly 
demonstrative character, but they do not require us to enter into the minute 
