24 6 
all consciousness is infallibly true is to confound between our consciousness 
of a perception, or a subject of thought, and the truth or falsehood of the 
perception or the thought — i. e., between consciousness and the object of 
consciousness.” 
Now, this is what Buckle himself says upon the word infallibility : — “ This 
requires explanation. Consciousness is infallible as to the effect of its 
testimony, but it is fallible as to its truth.” I think Mr. Eow has not done 
complete justice to Mr. Buckle on these points, but in every other respect I 
highly approve of his paper. 
Rev. Mr. Greig. — I agree very much with most of Mr. Row’s statements. 
The whole question of Positivism turns upon the question of free will. Is 
there a will or . a personality in man ? If there is, Positivism is false ; if not, 
it is true. I should be rather inclined to oppose some of the views expressed 
by Mr. Warington. I think he was mistaken, for instance, as to the amount 
of free will for which its advocates contend. We do not contend for absolute 
free will, because, according to our ideas, only God can possess it. I have 
the will to think one thought rather than another, and to choose one course 
rather than another, but I have no power whatever to think or not. I must 
think : I have control over my thoughts, but I must think, and therefore in 
that respect I am not free. I am only free within certain limits ; absolute 
freedom is what we predicate only of Almighty God. Then Mr. Warington 
says there is no sueh thing as conscience sitting in judgment in the mind — 
that the mind could not be separated from its desires, and made to sit in 
judgment over them. Now, that is a most important point, for if Mr. 
Warington’s is the correct view, then of course Positivism is true. I was 
lately reading a most interesting book upon materialism, in which the author 
says that materialism altogether breaks down before that tremendous fact of 
self-consciousness or reduplication in man. We cannot account for that fact 
on any principle of materialism. I believe the one thing which distinguishes 
the mind of man from that of the inferior creation is found in that great prin- 
ciple of reduplication. If you grant that fact, you must instantly grant the 
freedom and personality of man, and if you deny it, you are brought into the 
Positive school of thought. Mr. Warington has given us some statements 
which it would be very difficult to answer. It is a curious fact that you 
cannot prove human freedom, because the position which you take up to 
prove it presupposes that you are not free. You are obliged to argue “ Why 
do I do such and such thing ? ” and the very question supposes a cause for 
your action, which goes against the principle of free will. But I think Mr. 
Warington would find a difficulty in carrying out the theory he has advanced, 
unless he adopts the principle of personality and freedom. We are merely 
slaves because of the Fall. We are merely in a state of bondage, and we 
can only be relieved from that bondage by the introduction of a higher 
principle. But the very consciousness that we need that higher principle 
presupposes, to my mind, that freedom which Mr. Warington denies. I may 
perhaps be doing Mr. Warington an injustice, as I confess I was not alto- 
gether able to follow him in all his observations. 
