144 
Mr. Browne. — It was b y no means with any feeling of opposition to the 
Scriptures that I ventured to make the remark I did, for I am a thorough 
believer in them, but it was on account of my jealousy for them. I think 
they are maintainable on independent grounds, but I thought it was quite 
right, when an observation was made that seemed to be somewhat dependent 
on Scripture, to say that the point was by no means dependent upon the 
Scriptures. 
Captain Fishbourne. — I hope you do not mean I fancied it was ; but I 
thought it was a fair answer to be urged, that Mr. Mill had given the warrant 
for the introduction of the Scriptures by himself borrowing from the Scriptures. 
The Chairman.— I feel that anything I can possibly say, after what 
Mr. Reddie has written upon this subject, and has been so ably followed by 
Dr. Thornton, would be only weakening the argument. I think this is one 
of those subjects which only require to be brought before men who know 
something of Christianity, in order to see how worthless that philosophy 
must be, and that it is essentially atheistical. It comes before us as atheism, 
inasmuch as it is an attempted foundation of a morality without a God, and 
without recognizing the existence of a moral principle, or the admission of 
anything like moral principle. Those who have advocated this system in 
ancient or modern times have always lapsed into atheism ; and therefore the 
Theist must see that the matter does not end in a controversy as to the 
principles of morals, but ends in a controversy as to whether there is, or is 
not, a God. For, if we admit there is a God, I think we must admit that 
man is a responsible being, as man’s responsibility is entirely derived from 
the existence of God. I think there is one thing that the whole of this 
system of Utilitarianism sets before us in a very full manner, and that is, 
the utter incapability of such a system as this, to account for the history of 
the world, or what we know to be in 'existence amongst men. It is a system 
which must essentially ignore moral evil and sin. I cannot conceive how 
moral evil and sin can have any existence under such a system as this. If, 
however, we were to use this vague term of Utilitarianism in another way, 
and ask ourselves what we know from the history of the human race to have 
been the most useful system of morals, I think that we might well test 
Utilitarianism, as contrasted, I won’t say with Christianity, but with 
Stoicism, or any of the Theistical principles of the heathen world. What 
has most conduced to human happiness in this world ? Has it not been a 
principle which has always been Theistic in its origin, a system of morals 
admitting the existence of evil in the world, and seeking the aid of the 
Creator to diminish the evil that exists in the world ? The “ greatest 
happiness principle,” no doubt, can only be found in Christianity. (Hear, 
hear.) W e may test and try all other systems by the experience of the 
human race. What is there in Christianity which causes those who are in 
the midst of bitter trial and suffering — who seek here for no happiness — who 
only know here pain and suffering — whose whole religion is consecrated to 
the following of One who was made perfect in suffering— I wish to ask, How 
is it that that principle conduces to the greatest amount of happiness even 
