432 
philosophy,” referring them “ as branches to some more comprehensive and 
fundamental principles based upon faith in one Eternal God;” — and upon that 
subject we want a whole series of papers. There was a great deal said at our 
last meeting as to “ the habit of virtue,” quoted by Mr. English as from 
Aristotle’s Ethics. Mr. English says : — “ Ethical or moral philosophy is the 
science of right and duty — the 1 habit of virtue,’ according to Aristotle.” But 
Aristotle never called it the “habit of virtue,” and though Mr. English 
uses inverted commas, that phrase, I imagine, is not a quotation. He then 
proceeds to discuss the nature of virtue ; but “ the regulative principles of 
moral action ” treated of here are dealt with in a way which I agree with Dr. 
Irons leads to nothing as regards the subject before us. No doubt there is 
much of that part of the paper which is incontrovertible, and with which we 
should agree ; but his is a critical paper, and Mr. English is laying himself 
and us open to a great deal of counter-criticism, and I think that should be 
avoided as far as possible. At our last meeting I referred to Dr. Hutcheson’s 
Moral Philosophy. In that valuable epitome of lectures there is a definition 
of the cardinal virtues. Mr. English defines them also, but only one of 
them accurately, I think, and that is temperance. In prudence he rather 
describes wisdom. We lmow there is a connection between wisdom and 
prudence, but they are not the same thing. Nor do I think he quite gives 
the New Testament idea of prudence. The New Testament doctrine of 
prudence is rather found where Christ taught His disciples to be “ wise as 
serpents.” So with fortitude. Surely fortitude does not consist alone in “main- 
taining a spirit of honour and magnanimity ; ” or, in the act of Christ, in 
“going into Judaea again to the post of duty.” No doubt, in a certain sense, 
that must be admitted to be fortitude, but we have surely many other better 
illustrations ; for instance, St. Paul tells Timothy to “ endure hardness,” and 
that is fortitude. Then there is a certain looseness about Mr. English’s way 
of treating the subject of ethics, which is to be regretted. Professor Hutche- 
son, although he treats the subject very much in the way in which Dr. Irons 
says it should be treated, by taking ethics apart from revelation, always leads 
you up on questions of virtue to revelation, and in the preface to his lectures 
he directs attention to the Holy Scriptures as completing the ethical studies 
of his students. A very important statement was made by Mr. Row at our 
last meeting, and confirmed by Dr. Irons, and the subject is also glanced at 
in the paper before us, — namely, with reference to the utter want of attention 
given to Christian morals in our universities. Now that should be taken 
to some extent as an excuse for Mr. John Stuart Mill in coming to the 
conclusion that no one has been able to deduce a system of morals from 
the New Testament. Our Christian universities are certainly open to the 
charge that they have done very little in this direction. I recollect some 
years ago reading a then recent book — I will not name its author — with the 
title of Christian Morals , and I found it a very weak production indeed ; 
and, unquestionably, I don’t understand why Christian men in our univer- 
sities, when they have treated of ethics, have not risen beyond the traditions 
of Plato and Aristotle, and deduced a system of morals from the New Testa- 
