244 
in mind that Aristotle was himself encumbered by the theories of his prede- 
cessors. He had not a clear field for his own philosophy, and from the very 
little he says in his Ethics — as to the ’Etcovaiov — as to the principle of will in 
man, we cannot suppose that he had a clear conception of the doctrine, which 
we as Christians hold, that man is a really responsible being, in any higher sense 
than that he is responsible to society. That he held that man was respon- 
sible to society, and had what we should call a political responsibility, may 
be gathered from the fact that he considered ethics as wholly subservient to 
politics. I throw this in by way of protest against making too much of the 
opinion of Aristotle in the matter. Mr. Row has spoken in very just terms 
of Buckle’s proposition that Christianity has added nothing to the moral 
progress of mankind, or even to the ethical ideas of the world. But I think 
he should in justice to Buckle bear in mind that that author was cut off 
before he arrived in his work at a fair consideration of the moral position of 
the world in the first century of the Christian era. A thoughtful and careful 
examination of that period, terminating about the time of Philo, must, I am 
sure, in a writer of his fairness, have led to a favourable conclusion in his 
mind as to the addition which Christianity has made in this matter. We 
should not speak in very strong terms, therefore, of Buckle’s views on that 
point, on which, by the way, our Positivist friends are not much agreed. No 
two of them have a consistent theory as to what Christianity is. They are 
bound to deal with it ; it is a fact which cannot be set aside ; and it has 
exerted a greater influence upon the whole progress of humanity de facto than 
any other set of opinions or principles with which the world is now ac- 
quainted. There must be some philosophy of Christianity propounded by 
these men sooner or later. I am most thankful that the Christian world is 
not shrinking from Comte and Buckle and their compeers, and I am glad 
that the council of this institution has thought fit to bring this subject before 
us in connection with this thoughtful essay of Mr. Row’s. And this is 
not the last time we shall have to deal with it, for, undoubtedly, the Chris- 
tian Church will have to grapple with the Positive philosophy. We must not 
suppose that this school of thought, which has been slowly growing for many 
years, will come to an end without a great struggle. But if all thoughtful 
Christians will approach it in a right spirit, and with sound reason, the result 
cannot be at all doubtful. 
Rev. J. Titcomb. — I think the philosophy of Buckle, as propounded in 
his History of Civilization, has hardly been dealt with as fully as it might 
be. Mr. Buckle contends that the actions of men are not dependent upon 
or the product of volition, but of antecedent circumstances, and he carries out 
that theory, in the most exaggerated way, to the extent of saying that all the 
suicides committed in the world are absolute cases of necessity. He says, 
“ Suicide is the effect of the general condition of society, and the individual 
felon only carries into effect what is the necessary consequence of the preceding 
circumstances.” Words can scarcely be stronger in endeavouring to show that 
what we consider voluntary acts are not the result of mere volition, but of 
antecedent circumstances ; and Buckle bases his conclusion upon metaphysics 
