19 



greatly surprises me is, that books like those of Mr. Spencer so utterly 

 contradictory to common sense, and to the very first intuitions of our 

 nature should have obtained the wide circulation which they have among a 

 large circle, including many of the most powerful minds of our age. I have 

 no hesitation in saying that the subject handled in this paper is the very 

 central one of the present system of practical atheism. The great and all- 

 important controversy at the present day centres around the efforts which 

 a number of powerful intellects are making to confound between the material 

 and the moral ; and, if it could possibly be established that this confusion 

 does exist, and that the material dominates, from one end of God's 

 universe to the other, then the paper abundantly shows that there is an 

 end of all morality ; for unless the innermost intuitions of the mind are 

 true when they tell us that if we are not free to do this or that, we can have 

 no possible responsibility for the acts we do. (Hear.) It comes, therefore, 

 to this, that the controversy lies very much within the limits of common 

 sense. To tell me that for the evil I do I am not responsible, is in reality 

 asking me not to see that gaslight now before me, when I am seeing it as 

 plainly as possible. What gives a degree of plausibility to these speculations 

 is the frequent use of a great number of hard words : the tendency 

 to do this runs throughout the works of the whole of this class of 

 writers. The number of these hard words is so great that I find my own 

 intellect somewhat confused when endeavouring to read them, and I think 

 that if the authors I refer to would only write in plainer English, their 

 systems would very soon be absolutely exploded. When we are asked to 

 believe that our personality is nothing but a mere succession of feelings, 

 what is it that we are asked to accept ? Why, something which entirely 

 contradicts the whole testimony of the human race from the moment man 

 appeared as man, to the present hour. Those who maintain this view cannot 

 express themselves in language without distinctly denying the theories they 

 expound. This shows that there is something singularly absurd in the 

 position they take. We have no certitude more certain than the perma- 

 nency of the ego. To suppose that the whole experience of man from the 

 commencement, both objectively and subjectively, is based on a simple 

 delusion, would denote an amount of credulity exceeding anything that I can 

 possibly conceive. But this is the result of the theories in question, not- 

 withstanding the great names attached to them, that if they are accepted 

 by the large body of mankind they will certainly end in subverting all sense 

 of human responsibility. Evil then becomes merely a man's misfortune, 

 not his sin ; and crime, insanity ; and the result will be that the sane portion 

 of mankind will have to build a large number of asylums in which to place 

 one half of their fellows, so as to save themselves from possible dangers. 

 There is only one other point upon which I would touch I am bound to say 

 that I cannot agree with the position which has been laid down to the effect 

 that we can be philosophically free and at the same time theologically bound 

 by necessity. I think that the position is hopelessly unmaintainable, that 

 c 3 



