120 
two papers which I have already written must stand on their own footing, I 
assure you ; and I can do nothing but challenge those who may dispute the 
conclusions of my third paper to fall back on numbers one and two, and 
destroy them if they can ; but I do not believe they can be destroyed, 
without entirely denying human responsibility and everything we think 
respectable and decent and loveable in human nature. “ If there be any 
virtue, and if there be any praise,” says that profound thinker St. Paul (and 
I would say the same), these principles, and these alone, must be true. With 
regard to paper number three, it will contain a brief discussion of the funda- 
mental principles of Comte’s philosophy, with the manner in which that 
philosophy is repudiated by all the deepest thinkers in America, Germany, 
and France. It seems to have had its round, and now it is rejected, even by 
persons not so very profound as Professor Huxley. That philosophy is now 
entirely discarded by all ripe thinkers, and I shall deal with it in about four 
pages at the beginning of my next paper ; after which, I shall open the 
subject of our religion, by falling back on those principles which I shall 
shortly state, as I have already laid them down for my foundation. 
Now you are aware that a great deal of this paper, as Mr. Row has said, is 
directed, to speak plainly, against the semi-fatalism of the Anglo-Saxon mind. 
It has so deeply penetrated our nature that we might almost despair of root- 
ing it out, but for the certainty that truth must prevail. And we begin now 
to see that Calvinism is coming to its end. I should not have been wise if I 
had done on this occasion what some of our friends seemed to wish — mentioned 
the names of all those whose opinions I am endeavouring to destroy. I 
should have detained you a much longer time, and I should have wounded 
some of your hearts most deeply. (Laughter.) As it is, you are called on to 
see a particular error exposed ; but if I had said, “ Why, that is the very 
error of your dear friend so-and-so,” you would hardly have forgiven me, and 
I should have had no chance of taking you with me. (Laughter.) I did not 
mention the Dean of St. Paul’s nor his opponent : Mr. Row has done that. 
But I believe those two gentlemen, when they were writing so desperately 
about the philosophy of the absolute, really meant the same thing, and did 
not know it. (Laughter.) I have endeavoured to avoid the mention of all 
names even in the history of our own English ethics, because we saw here the 
other night a gentleman who felt a deep interest in one particular philosopher, 
and I should have had very little toleration from him if I had named that 
philosopher without doing full justice to him. Now I have not tried to do 
justice to any philosopher at all : I have only tried to do justice to my subject 
to the best of my power, and to keep clear of everything that could prejudice 
it. Considering the great difficulty of the subject, and the kind way in which 
you have come, notwithstanding the great inclemency of the weather, to hear 
my paper, I can only thank you very much for your attention. I hope to 
have my third and last paper on the subject ready for reading in June. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
