43 
would exist in a normal condition. But when you go out among your fellow 
men, or look into your own moral nature, you find that you have to deal 
with a diseased moral state, which state of disease exists more or less in 
every individual. If a physiologist were engaged in constructing the physi- 
ology of a man, such as he would be in a state of nature, he would take only 
those organs which he found to be in a perfect state of health ; and from 
those organs which are in a perfect state of health he will tell us what is the 
normal condition of the various organizations of the human body, and inform 
us what is their normal use. But it is this knowledge of the normal condition 
of the human body which enables him to detect what is abnormal ; and so, 
the reasons and conclusions at which Dr. Irons has arrived here, having 
reference to the normal state of moral consciousness, the normal state of 
'man’s responsibility, and the feeling that he is under,— that knowledge of 
man’s normal consciousness and normal condition with respect to his moral 
responsibility, together with the knowledge of what he is, — leads him at once 
to discover the great prevalence of an abnormal condition of mankind ; 
showing that we are not in that moral condition of perfection now in which 
we were created, and therefore that man must be admitted to be a moral 
agent in a fallen state, and that it requires something to raise him up from 
it. (Applause.) 
Dr. Irons. — It is very gratifying to me to find so large an assembly 
gathered together to listen to anything so difficult, and perhaps so obscure, 
as the subject which I have submitted to you ; and therefore I will best 
show you my respect by not detaining you too long in my closing remarks, 
I am very much obliged to those gentlemen who have criticised my paper. I 
only wish that those who differ more widely from its conclusion, had also 
expressed their opinions. Great pains were taken to inform those who take 
a hostile view of our position, that they would be welcome to be present 
to-night, not only as listeners but speakers. But if they have presented 
themselves, at all events they have not enlightened us ! I must thank Dr. 
lligg for calling my attention to a passage which, perhaps, might be improved 
verbally, but which has been sufficiently vindicated by Mr. Greig. I do not 
think that Dr. Bigg could have weighed the previous passage ; if he had, he 
would have seen what I said with respect to the real nature of an agent, and 
would hardly have made the criticism which he did. I say that those who 
deny their moral agency take it for granted that the agent is nothing. To 
deny the position which I have laid down — whether something in human 
action is really determined upon by a man — they must say, “ I act on him,” — 
that is, on nothing, which, of course, is an absurdity. All that I assume 
here is, that this conscious being is a being, and is not merely beholden to 
the phenomena for his existence. The mistake Dr. Bigg fell into was 
corrected by Mr. Greig, who pointed out that although historically man may 
not be anterior to his own action, yet we must logically regard him as prior to 
phenomena. With reference to what Dr. Haughton has suggested, I would 
point out to him the utter impossibility, within the limits of such a discussion 
as this, to take anything like even a general view of the opinions of the 
