103 
trast between faith and sight in reference to the resurrection of our Lord : 
it seemed to me to be non ad rem. What I say is that faith is a con- 
viction, and that a conviction is the result of all our reasoning processes ; 
and I guarded the paper by saying, “ those processes of the mind involved 
in the search for truth.” Mr. Reddie has spoken of ancient philosophy with 
regard to habit. Will it be believed that Aristotle’s definition of virtue is 
« 't%ig Trpoyperuo) sv [itcrorriTL ov<ru) irpog yicag u)pu Tfiev Xvyy, icai uq clv 
O (Ppoviyxog d(pL(Tfl(V.” 
Mr. Reddie. — I do not dispute that virtue is a habit. 
Mr. Row.— What I have distinctly laid down in the paper is this, that 
the only principle with which the ancient philosophers were acquainted 
which was capable of powerfully acting on the human mind was that of 
habit ; but Mr. Reddie says “ You can do nothing whatever new by habit.” 
Mr. Reddie has a great deal of new in him that has grown out of his 
habits since he was a boy, both mentally and morally ; and for any one to 
say, therefore, that nothing new can originate out of the power of habit, is 
to me incomprehensible. The power of habit is the only one I know of 
which the ancient philosophers recognized as having any real power for 
working upon society at large, or upon the individual, and it is the very 
essence of ancient ethics from one end to the other. Mr. Reddie has 
also criticised the passage in which I simply analyzed the 7th book of the 
Ethics, — where I spoke of knowledge, and said that it is not possible for 
a man to do wrong while knowledge is existing in his mind except it be in 
a latent state. I carefully analyzed that book, and it is evident that no 
man ever does fall into any kind of vice until he has made the knowledge 
become latent. That is all I meant 
Mr. Reddie. — To that extent I agreed with you. 
The Rev. 0. A. Row. — Then so far we are agreed, that against the exist- 
ence of positive knowledge contemplated by the mind it is impossible for 
a man to do wrong, and that the first thing he has to do is to suppress that 
knowledge and make it latent. I assert that the passage is a direct analysis 
of that in Aristotle. The whole passage is a very remarkable one, con- 
sidering that it was written by a heathen before Christ. It occurs in the 
7th book of Aristotle’s Ethics, and from the time I first read it at Oxford to 
this day I have looked at it w T ith wonder as the work of a heathen. I have 
only now to say that I cannot see one point of conclusiveness which Mr. 
Reddie has established against the reasonings I have adopted. He has taken 
a most limited view of my observations in some points, for no man can 
believe, for instance, that I was running a contrast between J udaism and 
Christianity. It is to me astonishing that any one could read my paper with 
any care and not see that what I discuss is revelation taken as a whole. The 
contrast I make is between the spirit of ancient philosophy and Christianity, 
and instead of having denied that man has intuitive moral perceptions, I 
have repeatedly reiterated that he has. There are passages over and over 
again in the paper to that effect, and I hold those views most strongly ; but 
any one would suppose I was almost a rationalist from what Mr. Reddie has 
