146 
may fairly say, Theistieal) and Christian principles are necessary. That being 
the case, I think there would be no departure from a truly philosophical mode 
of argument, even Were we to make direct use of passages of Scripture in 
discussing Utilitarianism. I myself in my paper have been obliged to make 
use of them, because I am forced to show that the principle enunciated by 
Mr. Mill, as a new discovery and as deduced from his theory of Utilitarianism, 
is positively a plagiarism from Christianity. The duty of men to be at unity 
with one another is a principle of Christianity. But it was not merely taught 
by Christ, but even in the Old Testament; for we, Christians, do not 
acknowledge there have been two true religious. The religion of the New 
Testament is merely the religion of the Old Testament more fully taught, and 
made plainer and patent to the whole world, instead of being confined to 
a chosen people. And when we find Mr. Mill telling us, without going to 
the origin of that doctrine, that if we would now teach the principle of unity, 
we should have something which would re-convert the world, we are surely 
entitled to point to the fact, that this teaching is not new, but that it is old ; 
and that, if it has failed, it is from no defect of the principle, but because 
people, knowing what is good, will yet do what is not good. This is an 
unfortunate truth, with which we know the heathen were acquainted, from 
the well-known poet’s reflection, “ Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor ; ” 
and the Apostle St. Paul also taught the same thing, with reference to his 
personal experience before he was converted to Christianity and became a 
consistent follower of Christ. 
The Meeting was then adjourned. 
