412 
It was certainly never “ announced ” as a treatise on Ethi- 
cal Philosophy, nor was it “ intended " to embody a complete 
system of rules. But it most certainly embodies the true 
principles of morality ; indeed, religion, pure and undefiled, 
could be taught upon no other basis. But Mr. Mill advances 
to a more direct charge 
“ I do not scruple to say (he adds) that the New Testament morality is in 
many important points incomplete and one-sided, and that unless ideas and 
feelings not sanctioned by it, had contributed to the formation of European 
life and character, human affairs would have been in a worse state than now 
they are.” * 
It is difficult to meet this charge, because it does not say in 
what sense New Testament morality is “ one-sided;” but if it 
is fundamentally right, while Plato and Epicurus are not, 
which I have maintained, then from a good foundation there 
cannot arise unsoundness. But Mr. Mill's meaning comes out 
perhaps in the following sentences : — 
“ Christian morality, so called, has all the character of a reaction ; it is, 
in great part, a protest against Paganism. Its ideal is negative rather than 
positive ; passive rather than active ; innocence rather than nobleness ; ab- 
stinence from evil, rather than energetic pursuit of good ; in its precepts (as 
has been well said) c thou shalt not ’ predominates over ‘ thou shalt.’ ” 
It is curious that another recent writer of sceptical views 
should have drawn a picture the very opposite of this from the 
pen of Mr. J. S. Mill. JEcce Homo, therefore, shall defend the 
New Testament here in my stead. Its author says : — 
“ Christ raised the feeling of humanity from being a feeble restraining 
power, to be an inspiring passion. The Christian moral reformation may be 
summed up in this — humanity changed from a restraint to a motive. We 
shall be prepared, therefore, to find that while earlier moralities had dealt 
chiefly in prohibitions , Christianity deals in positive commands. And pre- 
cisely this is the case, precisely this difference made the Old Testament seem 
antiquated to the first Christians. They had passed from a region of passice 
into a region of active morality. The old legal formula began ‘ thou shalt 
not ,’ the new begins ‘ thou shalt .’ ” 
And then he gives proofs in detail. (See pages 175, 176 of 
his book.) 
It is impossible for two authors to contradict each other in 
more express terms, and the only way I can account for Mr. 
Mill's statements, which every one acquainted with the New 
Testament must know to be untrue, is this, that he had not 
* On Liberty , p. 29. 
