142 
do not refer to Scripture as a proof of philosophy, I merely say (perhaps I 
failed to express myself clearly) that the philosophical principle is, that 
there is a moral taste or perception of the beauty of the goodness of virtue, 
distinct from its fitness ; and this, I said, I cannot express better than in the 
words of Scripture, — for I believe Scripture to be a book which contains 
true philosophy, as well as guidance on higher subjects ; and therefore I rather 
use the words of Scripture, as the best words to express my philosophical prin- 
ciple, than found my argument upon them. I may apologize for using words of 
Scripture, which occur naturally to a person of my profession ; but I wish it 
to be understood that I do not appeal to Scripture as a proof of science ; 
but I do think that the words of Scripture express the scientific truth so 
well, that I may be pardoned for employing them. (Hear, hear.) 
Rev. A. De la Mare. — I am unwilling to put myself before the meeting 
this evening, though I cannot refrain from making a few observations. As 
you are aware, I have not been able to attend the meetings for some time, 
and I may be a little behind the course of lectures which have been de- 
livered. I would first say, I thank Mr. Reddie most sincerely and heartily 
for myself, for the paper he has read to us. It has opened an important 
question, which I think might be very usefully discussed at some future 
time, and would likely bring forth a rejoinder or awaken a desire to 
pursue the subject further. The remark of the gentleman who just now 
demurred to Dr. Thornton’s quotation of Scripture suggested to my mind, 
that if philosophers would adhere as strictly to their own definitions of 
their own systems as they require theological students to do, we should 
have less trouble in understanding each other, and in keeping separate 
truths which they are prone to amalgamate. We have often high claims 
put forth for different branches of science and systems of philosophy, which 
men choose to introduce as “if they' were new things under the sun ; but 
if we look to it, I think we shall find, as Mr. Reddie says to-night, that 
all the real good in their systems, from beginning to end, is to be traced 
from that one source from which Dr. Thornton has quoted, and for doing 
which I thank him. With regard to the subject which has been brought 
before us to-night, it is one which has occupied perhaps some of the most 
acute intellects of the day, and one which requires a great deal of reflection 
before speaking upon it 'in public. I would not, therefore, attempt to dis- 
cuss the question, I only feel most distinctly and decidedly, that Utilitarian- 
ism involves a wrong principle, inasmuch as it does not go upon the system 
of right and wrong. Mr. Reddie has brought before us how its advocates 
are beginning to introduce the terms of virtue and vice ; but when that is 
the case, I do not see how they can stop short of introducing the principles 
of right and wrong ; and when that is done, and virtue and vice are treated 
in their real characters, they are reducing Utilitarianism to Christianity. I 
must excuse myself for intruding upon the meeting these few remarks ; but 
as this is the first time I have been able to be present in the Institute after 
a long absence, I felt desirous of stating my feelings with reference to the 
subject before us. (Hear, hear.) 
