188 
being responsible to God and to liis fellow-men, and responsible from the 
rs j or righteousness ; and he cannot be that without faith. But it is the 
very reverse to tell a man, as Professor Clifford does, that he must ascer- 
tain everything for himself before he believes. That would be as good 
as separating him from all his fellow-men, and repudiating anything like 
human progress as well as Responsibility. Under such conditions we could 
not even avad ourselves of other men’s experience, nor of the knowledge 
o ages, until we ourselves had personally verified them. To put that 
strongly before such a logician as Professor Clifford might perhaps convince 
him of the absurdity of the position ; and I think that is in some measure 
done in this paper. I apprehend that Professor Wace has been endeavouring 
to keep himself within limits and omitted much : he wrote a short paper in 
order that we might have the benefit of discussing it at greater length. 
> ome o us lave fallen into a worse habit, by producing long papers 
and leaving very little room for the discussion- -a very bad plan, as I 
know from my own experience. But the universal inductive process, 
" UC 1 r ' h as now intimated, with some inconsistency, must be 
gone through by every one, almost amounts to Professor Clifford’s pro- 
prff l ° a > a? 1Ce ° r twi<5e Dr - Eigg seenied t0 1110 t0 endorse Professor 
1 or s ieorj, that we are all of us to examine every point, and not 
o believe it unless we could prove it by experience. Not only was it 
knowledge but personally-tested knowledge, which Dr. Rigg seemed to 
require. Two remarks in his speech seemed to me to be somewhat 
m conflict with each other; in the one place, he thoroughly rejected the 
notion of omitting the intuitive instinct, and in the other he declared 
tnat we must always have the inductive process. 
Dr. Rigg. — W hich rests upon an intuition. 
Dr. Irons.— T hen I do not see where your point of difference is. If 
^iere be an intuition, we are perfectly agreed that in process of time, as 
scieutifiT aCC P ° mtS 0Ut ’ thG kU ° WledgC 0f reli S ion may even become 
Dr. Rigg. — Hear, hear. 
Dr. Irons. Then gradually we go on to a science of theology, the 
queen of sciences, which is the very foundation of right knowledge, 
u i . is wrong to find fault with the inductive process in one place 
wrhwT? T n 11 man0ther - 1 d0 not bbune Professor Wace for not 
writing a treatise upon every subject he touched. I am not by any 
means holding a brief for Professor Wace, but I have read his paper 
r 0 tf he V FT*' agaiU8t kS bchlg 80 far misunderstood as to lead 
us the track of the argument. The point brought forward now is whether 
there is an a pnon condition of the mind which claims for itself some 
knowledge and capacity, and whether there is also an ethical tendency 
m the religious mind which teaches it to fall back on certain intuitive 
beginnings of truth, and love, and courage, and devotion, which God has 
implanted m man. If Professor Clifford be here, I fear he will make some 
