155 
sure that all of us here welcome the investigations of science, and any 
help that science has certainly to give in rectifying mistaken religious 
notions ; but I do think we ought to be very careful indeed when we move, 
or help others to move, off the old ground of a belief in God’s Revelation, 
in order to show that there is other ground on which a belief in immor- 
tality may rest, — viz. the laws of material science taken to support those 
hopes for the future, which, in reality, must rest, if they rest at all 
firmly, on totally different grounds. Let me say that I have the greatest 
possible sympathy with any effort to increase the grounds of our hope 
of a world beyond the grave, but I do think we are doing those, to whom 
we address ourselves, the greatest injury and unkindness in coming to 
them with arguments in which we invite them to rest their hopes of a future 
on grounds, which must be found perfectly worthless when the testing 
time comes. Therefore I, for one, am most heartily thankful to Dr. Irons 
for having pointed out to this Institute, as I hope he has done to a much 
wider circle of thoughtful people, that these authors have, with the very 
best intentions, gone the wrong way to prove their conclusions ; and that in 
the end they only land us in conclusions in which we do not wish to be 
landed. They offer us a hope of “ immortality,” such as we do not want to 
have ; they offer us a proof of the existence of such a “ God ” as we would 
rather not believe in. (Hear, hear.) 
Rev. Malcolm MacColl. — I have read Dr. Irons’ essay — I cannot say 
with very great care, because I only got it very recently ; but the book it 
deals with I have read in all its editions, and I think I know the general 
drift of the argument pretty well. I am bound to say I think that Dr. 
Irons, as far as he has analyzed the book, has done the authors the fullest 
justice. Where I disagree with him is, not in his representations of the 
arguments of the book, but in much of his criticism upon it. I do not wish 
to weary you, but as I take the opposite side, I should like to meet some of 
the objections raised by Dr. Irons. Some remarks have been made as to 
the use of the phrase “ unconditioned,” which is used throughout the book. 
The same phrase is used by Dr. Mansel in the Bampton Lectures, and what is 
his object there 1 Why, to show that the revelation God has made to us of 
Himself is not absolute knowledge but relative knowledge. It is quite true 
that our notion of a God who is eternal and absolute, is technically inconsist- 
ent with our conception of God the Creator ; but it is equally inconsistent 
with our notion of God the Eternal and Absolute, to call Him the Father. 
The condition of sonship you can reduce to absurdity also. There is hardly a 
phrase taken by itself, apart from history and technical use, that is not open 
to criticism ; and the way to regard this book is from the point of view taken 
by the authors, first, as to the purpose they had in their mind in writing it, 
and, secondly, as to the sense in which they use the language employed. 
Take what they say in the preface to the second edition 
“ Many of our critics seem to fancy that we presume to attempt such an 
absurdity as a demonstration of Christian truth from a mere physical basis ! 
