2 
before you a subject of very barren interest, it may appear ; yet surely it "will 
be found a most fruitful inquiry, though a very difficult one. I must ask 
you, therefore, to bear in mind that the present is only preliminary to that 
more historical examination to which I hope to bring you in a succeeding 
paper, leading subsequently to the adoption of the doctrines of Christianity, 
and all the truths of revelation. With these remarks, and asking for your 
forbearance on this occasion, I will proceed to read what I have written : — 
ANALYSIS OF HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. ( Part First.) 
By the Key. William J. Irons,, D.D., Prebendary of St. 
Paulas; Vicar of Bromjpton, Middlesex ; Mem. Viet. Inst. 
CONSPECTUS. 
I. Introduction (§ 1 - 7 ). 
II. What ought to be is based on what is — (in the widest sense). 
The idea of Ought recognizes a distinction of Persons and Things. 
“ Person ” involves Accountability, — as a fact. 
Difficulties of the fact of Accountability : 1 Its actual beginnings. 
2 Varieties ab initio. 3 More advanced stages. 4 Im- 
port of Habit. 5 Qualified accountability. 6 Eeligious 
influences. 7 Result. (§ 8-12). 
III. Accountability may always imply approbation or disapprobation ; and 
in approbation and disapprobation, right and wrong are implied. 
Eight is the relation of approbation to some Good ; 
both the “ good in itself ,” and “ good in the doer of it.” 
“Good in the doer,” or Agent, implies some freedom. 
Freedom cannot be unlimited, in agency. 
Limits may be exterior to the agent ; or interior. 
These limits differentiate the agency. 
An agent, limited by exterior compulsion, ) 
and one who is not so limited, J not allke “countable. 
(§ 13 - 19 ). 
IV. What further do we mean by a conscious agent, or Person ? 
Approbation, and praise, — and the opposite, — imply contingency. 
A conscious Agent exists at a point between the not being and the being 
of an act. 
The anterior possibility of an act’s not being, or being, is Contingency ; 
and this is assumed in agency which is held accountable. 
Denial of this anterior possibility changes the idea of accountability. 
