420 
Lord did contemplate that the action of man’s reason should be brought 
to bear upon his moral nature, and by introducing something good 
and holy and pure into that reason by means of faith, He revolutionized that 
moral nature. But here is a passage in the paper which I wish to have 
explained: — “Now of all the systems of virtue, the theories propounded 
respecting it, there is not one that can be said to rival the teaching of Christ. 
But there is one which comes very near to it, — I mean the eclectic system of 
Platonists, which, after the age of Augustus, made virtue consist in benevo- 
lence.” He then goes on to quote from Adam Smith, who in turn quotes 
from some disciple of Plato, but without naming him. I meant to have 
looked this up in the British Museum, but I have not been able to do so, 
and I want to ask Mr. English whether he has ascertained that the passage 
referred to is actually to be found in a Platonic writer. For my own part I 
do not believe it is to be so found, and if it is found, I wish to know what is 
the date of the writer in whose works it appears. It makes a considerable 
difference if it is found in a Platonist of the reign of Augustus, or after the 
time of Christ. You often find in Seneca and in Marcus Antoninus, and 
other writers of the Stoic school, the very highest principles ; and though I do 
not believe the story that Seneca had commnnication with St. Paul — still 
there is no doubt that within thirty years of the crucifixion there was a very 
considerable infusion of Christianity in the heathen world. It becomes, 
then, a matter of importance to ascertain the precise date of any particular 
writer, and I should like to know if Mr. English has endeavoured to 
verify the statement made by Adam Smith, and if so, whether the writer 
he refers to flourished before or after the birth of our Lord. I feel 
uncommonly sceptical as to whether Adam Smith had found the words 
he quotes in any Platonist ; but if they are found anywhere, it will be, 
I fancy, in some of the schools which existed in Alexandria. It is all 
nonsense to tell us that if any late school has elaborated some high form 
of thought, it therefore existed independent of Christianity. Further on 
Mr. English says : — “ I will not refer to the main principles or theories of 
virtue held by Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus. I choose rather to take 
up details, and show that what was good in the systems of Plato and Epi- 
curus, the most opposed of the ancients, is to be found in the New Testa- 
ment.” The author then goes on to discuss that point ; but I think he has 
hardly been sufficiently cautious in dealing with it. I quite agree with him 
that whatever is good in the heathen morality you may find in the New 
Testament ; but I maintain that it does not exist in the New Testament in 
the form in which it exists in heathen morality, but is based on essentially 
different principles. I am prepared to admit that the New Testament does 
appeal to several of what we call the lower principles of human nature — self- 
love, for instance ; but while I admit that, I wish to draw attention to this fact, 
that Christianity, as a system, does not rest on those lower principles, but on 
very much higher ones, and though self-love is a principle appealed to in the 
New Testament by our Lord himself, yet there is one thing which has struck 
me, on a careful study of the^ subject, and that is, that while the Evangelists 
