303 
tendency compulsion ? And, as regards the ‘ law of our being,’ whence is it ? 
Is it a mere bubble born of the stream, or is it a something apart from the 
stream, and independent of it ? And who can extract any meaning from 
‘ The not ourselves which makes for righteousness ’ ? What is that which is 
the not ourselves ? Is it a force, or person, or what ? Such definitions are 
valueless until these questions have been answered. His definition of Religion 
is equally faulty ; but as the paper treats of that more fully, it may be passed. 
I would, however, call attention to the proposition as stated in paragraph 10, 
that ‘ nothing is to be believed which is not directly verifiable.’ And here I 
would partly agree with Mr. Arnold, but do we mean the same thing by 
verifiable ? I hold that the only means, by which we can establish the truth 
of any proposition is consciousness and the laws of thought, and that what- 
ever is affirmed by these, is by that fact proved true. And surely if there 
be any one proposition more certainly affirmed by them than another, it is 
that the mind demands a ‘ Personal First Cause, the moral and intelligent 
governor of the world.’ The mind cannot rest till it finds an agent, him- 
self unchanged, who is capable of producing all changes, and who must 
necessarily be intelligent and moral. I perfectly agree with the Professor 
when he says that the most important feature of the volumes is the denial of 
the Personality of God, but I must be permitted to differ from him when he 
quotes Mansel as having at all assisted in the establishing of this Person- 
ality (par. 27). It seems to me that Dean Mansel has done more than 
almost any other English writer to render a belief in the Personality of God 
impossible. He has so manipulated the terms 1 unconditioned,’ ‘ absolute,’ 
and ‘ infinite,’ that he deprives us of all knowledge of God of every kind. 
He says, ‘ we must remain content with the belief that we have that know- 
ledge of God which is best adapted to our wants and training. IIow far that 
knowledge represents God as He is we know not, and we need not know.’ 
This, however, is not knowledge at all, but ignorance. And if we be wholly 
ignorant of God, we cannot predicate of Him self-determining intelligence 
or personality. I cannot help feeling that while we continue to use the terms 
unconditioned and its species in their literal meaning, we present to our- 
selves a form of personality so vague as to be incomprehensible and useless ; 
but that if we speak of God’s infinity and absoluteness, as simply His know- 
ledge of all that is to be known, His power of being able to do all that is not 
inherently impossible, and His freedom from all necessary relations, we ex- 
press all that can actually be meant by the words, and present an unassailable 
front to antagonistic metaphysics. But may I also be permitted to add that 
I believe the only practical view of God’s personality that can be presented 
as a sufficing thought to our intellects, as a power to influence the world and 
reform men’s lives, was given to humanity when Christ said, £ He that hath 
seen Me, hath seen the Father.’ ” 
Rev. J. Fisher, D.D., in congratulating Professor Lias, said that a paper 
containing an examination of so large a number of works must have been no 
small task. At its commencement the paper referred to a statement made 
by Mr. Arnold and his friends, that Christianity was “ doomed.” But this 
had been said by the enemies of Christianity 1800 years ago, and had 
been persistently declared ever since, yet Christianity has survived. It was 
“ doomed ” in its cradle by the J ewish High Priests : it was “ doomed ” 
by heathen philosophers and idolaters generally, so much so, that before the 
time that Constantine renounced heathenism, a medal was struck with the in- 
