168 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 7 
the merit of that virtue which is unconscious , 
nay, it is, to my understanding, extremely hard to. 
reconcile Mr. Mivart’s dictum with that noble sum- 
mary of the whole duty of man—* Thou shalt love 
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with « 
thy soul, and with all thy strength ; and thou shal 
love thy neighbour as thyself.” According to Mr, 
Mivart’s definition, the man who loves God and his 
neighbour, and, out of sheer love and affection fo1 
both, does all he can to please them, is, neverthe 
less, destitute of a particle of real goodness. 
And it further happens that Mr. Darwin, who is” 
charged by Mr. Mivart with being ignorant of the 
distinction between material and formal goodness, 
discusses the very question at issue in a passage 
which is well worth reading (vol. i. p. 87), and also 
comes to a conclusion opposed to Mr. Mivart’s” 
axiom. A proposition which has been so much 
disputed and repudiated, should, under no cireum=_ 
stances, have been thus confidently assumed to be 
true. For myself, I utterly reject it, inasmuch as 
the logical consequence of the adoption of any such 
principle is the. denial of all moral value to 
sympathy and affection. According to Mr. Mivart’s — 
axiom, the man who, seeing another struggling in — 
the water, leaps in at the risk of his own life to 
save him, does that which is “ destitute of the most P 
incipient degree of real goodness,” unless, as he _ 
strips off his coat, he says to himself, “ Now, mind, 
I am going to do this because it is my duty and 
