370 
further. Sceptics often admit that they are not exactly right, and want 
information ; even Mr. Holyoake says, “ I should like to know this, and he 
satisfied of that,” and so on. But whence springs this desire t-o know? 
"Why should there be a desire to seek after the truth ? The answer is, Man 
wishes to find God ; for God is truth ; the only One who can say, “ I am the 
truth.” Still, I would not beg the question. I would go into all that gentle- 
man’s difficulties, leaving revelation out for a time. I do not want him to 
assent to anything which he does not believe, but I want to get to the true 
and honest ground of his own heart ; to get into communion, as it were, with 
his own being ; and to ask the question with him, “ What is it all about ? 
Why was I created ? ” Answers to these questions would satisfy his mind, 
and lead him to an apprehension of truth, and clear away doubts and diffi- 
culties. There is one point in Dr. Irons’s paper near the close which I should 
like to notice. Dr. Irons quoted some lines from Young. But there is this 
element which we must take into account, that human nature is not now 
what it was originally, for there has been the declension, or the fall of man. 
There are numerous doubts and difficulties and perplexities strewn around 
us, and all the faculties of our being seem to require something to rebalance 
them, and put them in order and harmony. This is one of the things that 
require to be taken into account. Then there are many terms used by 
Dr. Irons which I would like to have properly defined. What does he 
mean, strictly, by “ the true-always,” “ accountability,” and so forth ? If we 
were to have these things properly defined, we should get at the truth 
without so many difficulties as we have now to contend with. 
Bev. Dr. Bigg. — I feel that we had better either adjourn this discus- 
sion or bring it to a very speedy conclusion. I hardly know which is the 
best course to adopt. At the same time I do not think that the remarks 
made by Mr. Holyoake should pass unnoticed. I do not think it would be 
respectful either to him or to us, to let them pass without remark. I may be 
allowed to say that I greatly admire Dr. Irons’s papers. He knows that I 
have not all through agreed with him ; but at the same time there Is a 
massive weight of thought and argument about his papers which I admire, 
though I do not quite think that his basis is so unexceptionally easy as he 
seems to suppose, and upon that point I will say a word or two. Dr. Irons 
thinks, for example, that his method of reasoning is simpler and easier than 
the a priori argument, based on the assumption of the idea of causation. I 
rather suspect that he assumes the self-same thing at bottom, which any one 
assumes who starts upon the basis of causation. I believe that those parties 
who would say that the assumption of causation is a petitio principii, would 
also say that the assumption of a sense of duty was equally improper and 
gratuitous. The moment you assume duty you assume a moral Governor and 
a God ; and though I think we are philosophically at liberty to assume the 
ground of duty first, as we are to assume the principle of causation, yet I appre- 
hend that those parties who deny the one will deny the other. In truth, what 
is it that lies equally at the basis of one and the other ? It is the power 
of self-determination that lies really at the bottom of the argument from 
