systems, and the need for some higher teaching and further light to satisfy their longings after the true, the good, the holy. Those who believe in the Bible and Christianity believe they have that higher teaching and light which the heathen wanted. They ought not, therefore, to be satisfied with any theory of being or living, or any foundation of morality, which coolly ignores, and requires them to ignore and disregard, what Christianity teaches. In this point of view, and logically so, what is not founded on Christianity is against it; though at the same time we may be glad to find adduced, however faintly, among other arguments in favour of Utilitarianism, that it is not at issue with certain recognized Christian principles, and that it is, therefore, so far not against Christianity.

The real fact is, that Utilitarianism is an inadequate theory of morality, rather than a positively and altogether false one. As far as there is truth in it, it is perfectly in accordance with Christianity; and, indeed, most modern spurious systems make very free use of principles, of which but for Christianity they would have had no knowledge. But when Utilitarianism claims to be a satisfactory foundation for a moral system, and of itself capable of being a test of right and wrong, and the means of ascertaining what is right or wrong, it puts forth pretensions to which it has not the slightest right. We shall find, moreover, that the same confusion of ideas which, it seems is connected with its very name, runs through all the arguments on which it professes to be based, even when they are employed by such an able advocate as Mr. J. S. Mill; and, if so, it will be evident that it can but have slight pretensions to be dignified with the title of "a philosophical theory."

Mr. Mill gives the following tolerably full definition of his professed faith. He says: "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong, as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." But, notwithstanding these postulata, we find Mr. Mill thus expressing himself in another place: "The medical art is proved to be good by its conducing to health; but how is it possible to prove that health is good?" This will certainly puzzle ordinary readers, who would naturally reverse the proposition, and say they have no difficulty in proving health to be good, but it often appears to them more than questionable whether the medical art really does conduce to health. That it ought to do so, and aims at doing so, all may admit; but that is not Mr. Mill's proposition. A first diffi

culty, also, might well be raised as to which of the various medical arts is to be regarded as the "medical art" that Mr. Mill calls good as being conducive to health. And what are

we to think of a theory of morals which is founded upon our knowledge of what conduces to happiness, or what is, therefore, good, if at the outset we are in doubt whether we can prove that health is good? Surely, if by happiness and pleasure is meant the absence of pain, there can be no difficulty in proving health to be good, unless it be alleged that what conduces to happiness and pleasure is not good. And if, as Mr. Mill says, the absence of pain is one primary meaning of happiness, one would imagine that nothing could more logically follow than that health is good as conducive to the absence of pain, and therefore to pleasure or happiness, according to this definition or major proposition.

Side by side with this he places the following, which may be regarded as striking at the very root of the theory of utilitarianism itself: "The art of music is good, for the reason, among others, that it produces pleasure; but what proof is it possible to give that pleasure is good?" I venture to think that if a prior question, "What is good?" had been determined, these other inquiries would have been more logically and satisfactorily answered. It is not, however, my business to do this; and, indeed, most of the abstract questions of this kind, as raised by Mr. Mill, are much more fully and satisfactorily answered in the Dialogues of Plato than in his Essay. But, admitting that it is impossible to prove that pleasure is good, what then becomes of a theory which is professedly based upon pleasure as its grand criterion? I mean, if pleasure cannot be proved to be good, can a theory of moral action based upon the production of pleasure, as its test and foundation, be proved to be good? And if not proved, are we really expected to be satisfied with this theory of morals, which rejects the principles of Christianity, on a mere assertion that it is good, and to accept it in blind faith, without any proof whatever? We are. This is precisely what Mr. Mill demands of us in the very next sentence. "If, then," he says, "it is asserted that there is a comprehensive formula, including all things which are in themselves good, and that whatever else is good is not so as an end, but as a mean, the formula may be accepted or rejected, but is not a subject of what is commonly understood by proof." I have no wish to misrepresent the claims of Utilitarianism, and I therefore add, that the above extraordinary dictum is afterwards qualified thus: "The subject is within the cognizance of the rational faculty, and neither does that faculty deal with it solely in the way of

intuition."

By "rational faculty

the sense requires us here to understand reasoning faculty; and then the latter clause of the sentence becomes very strangely superfluous. The succeeding sentence completes the confusion and selfcontradictions which seem to be intimately associated with all that relates to the nature as well as the name of utilitarianism. It is not susceptible of proof, but yet it seems that it may, after a fashion, be proved; for he adds: "Considerations may be presented capable of determining the intellect either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine; and this is equivalent to proof." I quite agree with this last position; and it is solely because I consider that arguments, capable of determining the intellect, may be adduced for and against Utilitarianism as a moral theory, that I discuss the subject at all.

In order to make my argument as intelligible as possible, I will at once state the propositions I think may be established against the theory. First, that (as already said) it is an inadequate theory, and this in two senses-inadequate as not being practicable as a principle of action, and inadequate as not being a whole truth. Second, that whether utility (in the proper sense) or pleasure, or both, be regarded as the basis of the theory, then, in so far as either utility or pleasure, or both, can be regarded as good, so far are they recognized as good in the Christian system. Third, that therefore, so far as Utilitarianism is good or true, it belongs to Christianity. And lastly, that wherever utility or pleasure, or both, are made a motive of moral action beyond what Christianity sanctions, they will mislead, and are false principles.

Let us now have as plainly before our minds the claims of Utilitarianism. "The theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded" is as follows, namely, "that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain." This theory being announced in these terms, it is then spoken of as if it were identical with the system of Epicurus; though afterwards Mr. Mill adds: "I do not, indeed, consider the Epicureans to have been by any means faultless in drawing out their scheme of consequences from the utilitarian principle. To do this in any sufficient manner, many Stoic as well as Christian elements require to be included." Here, again, we have an important concession that is fatal to Utilitarianism as a moral theory; or, at least, which requires certain important principles to be

previously accepted, if they cannot be shown to be false; and which, if true, really settle the main question, and leave no place for a theory of Utilitarianism. These principles are, That GoD is the moral governor of the world, and that reason and conscience are the voice of GOD in man's heart, and enable us to discover or to know intuitively what is right, or in accordance with God's will. Zeno taught this so far, according to the light of nature; Christ added the light of revelation of the Truth and will of God. God is the basis of the Stoical system, as it is of Christianity; but Utilitarianism is essentially atheistic. And yet it now confessedly requires to borrow" many Stoic as well as Christian elements," before it can claim to draw out its scheme of consequences "in any sufficient manner." In other words, modern Utilitarianism may now be defined as Epicureanism plus some of the elements of Theism, to be found in Stoicism and Christianity. But, then, I must point out that these incorporated elements are heterogeneous to the theory that adopts them. The moment the idea of God is entertained, as the author of created existence, His will must necessarily override and supersede all other considerations as the proper and only true basis of morality. This is so, whether that will is only known or sought after by the aid of natural reason and conscience, or whether a fuller knowledge of it is further revealed to man by the Scriptures. Moreover, professing Christians have a right to demand of any teacher of new moral theories-and especially of one who admits the necessity of certain Christian elements to complete the theory he propounds-that he will plainly tell them what other Christian elements the advocates of Utilitarianism are prepared to show should be set aside as false. Christians cannot be content to be merely told that "Utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other;" nor satisfied to learn that

the Utilitarian who believes in the perfect goodness and wisdom of God, necessarily believes that whatever God has thought fit to reveal on the subject of morals, must fulfil the requirements of utility in a supreme degree." All this the 'Christian himself believes, but also something more than this. Let us at least raise perfectly clear issues in all such discussions, and begin at the beginning logically. Christianity is a long-established system, which claims to be wholly true. Those who reject it, or set it aside, are bound to attack it seriously, if they have anything better to teach. They have no right to appropriate some of its "elements" to bolster up an adverse system, in order to make the latter palatable to those whose minds have been elevated, however unconsciously,

far beyond Epicureanism, or even Stoicism, solely by means of the teaching of Christianity.

We may well be surprised to find a writer, having the high reputation of Mr. J. S. Mill as a logician and reasoner, making use of an illustration by way of argument, which is no better than the vulgar tu quoque fallacy, which can only be answered by the common proverb that "two blacks cannot make a white." Ignoring Christianity as the lamp of moral truth, he admits. there are endless difficulties, confusion, and little progress yet made among mankind in the decision of the controversy respecting the criterion of right and wrong; in short, he acknowledges, among those who thus reject the Christian rule, a condition of " ever learning, but never being able to come to the knowledge of the truth." But he pleads that "similar confusion and uncertainty, and in some cases similar discordance, exist respecting the first principles of all sciences, not excepting that which is deemed the most certain of them, mathematics;" and he says that this is so "without much impairing, generally indeed without impairing at all, the trustworthiness of the conclusions of these sciences." "Were it not so," he goes on, "there would be no science more precarious, or whose conclusions were more insufficiently made out, than algebra, which derives none of its certainty from what are commonly taught to learners as its elements, since these, as laid down by some of its most eminent teachers, are as full of fictions as English law, and of mysteries as theology."

All this may be very true, and may afford a very good reason for being on our guard against the irrational mysteries of modern analytical mathematics; but it should be remembered that these corruptions and contradictions and mysteries in pure mathematics, have crept gradually into the science, and not without protest on the part of honest thinkers. But such a description of algebra would scarcely be given by any one who accepts its methods as trustworthy. And such a bad example of credulity in a science which is admitted to be full of contradictions and insufficiently proved conclusions, affords no reason why men should reject the plain teaching of Christianity, in order to adopt a system which its very author (as we may concede Mr. Mill to be) confesses to be thus full of difficulties and contradictions. But to do justice to the analogy before us; contradictory, confused and mysterious as Mr. Mill admits modern mathematics to be, what would he think of a philosopher who, in opposing their conclusions, wished all their teaching to be quietly ignored, instead of attacking their main principles by strictly mathematical reasoning, and