421 
do exhibit in our Lord’s teaching an appeal to self-love, yet they have never 
once depicted Him as animated by that principle. Now that is a remarkable 
fact, and I think Mr. English has not been sufficiently cautious in regard to 
it. Unless one was careful, this assertion might lead to some misappre- 
hension, and to the thought that the morality of the Gospel rests on the 
lower principles which Mr. English has enumerated. And I think he is not 
quite happy always in his application ; for instance, where he speaks of 
prudence and temperance. I do not think that he has exactly put the 
matter there as it should be put. But I will not take up any more of your 
time by any further criticism. 
Mr. Poyer. — My first word must be a word of protest against an opinion 
enunciated by Mr. Row, that Christianity is to be taken as recognizing the 
principle of self-love. I have always apprehended Christianity to be destruc- 
tive of self-love. The principle that involves universal love, the principle 
that involves self-sacrifice, is antagonistic to self-love. 
[Mr. Poyer then asked permission to read some written observations ; to 
which exception was taken ; and, as they related chiefly to Positivism, it 
was suggested that they might perhaps be fitly incorporated in a paper on 
that subject, which he proposed to read before the Institute. The discussion 
afterwards proceeded as follows] : — 
Rev. Dr. Irons. — The absence of Mr. English makes it extremely painful 
to discuss what he has said. It is not right that we should always, and as a 
matter of course, pay compliments to our essayists ; but, though I shall speak 
plainly, I am sure Mr. English will be able to bear it, and to treat what is 
said with philosophical equanimity. The whole subject dealt with by Mr. 
English is, I fully grant, of so much importance that we are obliged to him 
for having brought it forward, but for the method in which he has brought 
it forward I am not quite so grateful, as there is a great want of method and 
arrangement in the whole paper. I agree, however, with Mr. Row, that as 
to the main points put forward all sound-thinking Christians will agree with 
Mr. English ; and the criticism made by Mr. Row upon the paper I think, will 
prove one of the most important that has yet proceeded from this Society, 
and I say that without at all undervaluing some very valuable discussions 
which are recorded in our J ournal. I fully agree with what Mr. Row said 
concerning the ethics of Aristotle. No doubt Aristotle was unable to grasp 
the Christian idea of duty — of ultimate moral responsibility. It had never 
been suggested to him practically. He analyzed human action in a scientific 
way, and he really may be said to have had rather a science of ethics than a 
philosophy of ethics ; for philosophy and science are not the same thing. 
You will, I trust, perceive what I mean by this. If I were to say, “ There is 
a science of anatomy,” it would not be the same thing as if I were to say, 
“ There is a philosophy of anatomy.” A philosophy of anatomy would at 
once lead your thoughts to a comparative estimate of various anatomical 
systems, but a science of anatomy would be quite another thing. Philosophy 
deals with the mutual relation of one subject to another, but science deals 
with the exact knowledge of one particular subject ; and I am sorry to say 
