104 
said. I have now only to thank you for your attention. The subject is one 
that requires a very great amount of thought, and I quite agree with Mr. 
Mitchell that the paper requires to be read more than once before it can be 
effectively understood. (Hear, hear . ) 
Mr. Reddie. — Let me endeavour to mollify somewhat the wrath with 
which Mr. Row has received my observations. (Laughter.) I qualified what 
I said very carefully, and quoted what I objected to ; and with regard to 
the contrast between Judaism and Christianity, I said nothing of the kind 
which Mr. Row attributed to me, as to any general parallel between them 
being drawn ; neither did I question anything in the abstract from the 
7th book of Aristotle’s Ethics ; and I also said distinctly that there seemed 
to me to be certain parts of the paper which were contradictory to others, 
and, of course, I agreed with the parts that contradict what I opposed. 
For instance, Mr. Row himself says (in § 29), “ Under the influence of 
habit alone, it was evident that mankind must go on in their old groove.” 
And yet, when I said just the same thing, Mr. Row exclaimed, “ Indeed ! ” 
and has since declared it incomprehensible ! But litera scrijpta manet. 
When this discussion is printed, it will be seen how far my observations 
are justifiable or not. However, Mr. Row has very much misunderstood 
me if he thinks there was any personal feeling in what I said. I spoke, And 
said that I spoke, with pain in criticising the paper as I felt bound to do ; 
and I think his personal attack about “ walking objections ” and “ accusa- 
tive cases ” scarcely exhibits the spirit in which we should approach the 
discussion of our papers here, and it will have no effect in preventing me 
as freely discussing any other paper in future. (Hear, hear.) 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
