131 
systems, and tlie 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 ot 
ascertaining what is right or wrong, it puts forth pretensions 
to which it has not the slightest right. We shall find, more- 
over, that the same confusion of ideas which, it seems is con- 
nected 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 Prin- 
ciple, 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. Milks proposition. A first diffi- 
