433 
ment, and raised the whole tone of ethical philosophy by introducing that 
important doctrine of faith which Mr. Row on more than one occasion has 
spoken of. It is in this that I think Mr. English’s paper is weak, for he 
seems not to think that the heathen morals and Christian morals must to a 
great extent necessarily agree. There may be some excuse for Mr. John 
Stuart Mill holding the opinions he does, owing to the utter neglect on the 
part of Christian teachers to do justice to the most noble subject that could 
engage them. But even taking Mr. Mill’s language as quoted by Mr. English, 
I think Mr. English has rather strained the meaning. Mr. Mill says : — 
“ Orthodox Christians who are tempted to think that those who stoned to 
death the first martyrs must have been worse men than they themselves are, 
ought to remember that one of those persecutors was St. Paul.” “ No,” says 
Mr. English, “ it was not St. Paul the Christian, it was Saul, an unconverted 
Jew.” But it should be remembered that Mr. Mill is speaking merely of the 
identity of the man, and not of the name he went by ; and no doubt he was 
a good Pharisee before his conversion, and that is all Mr. Mill asserts. The 
censure which Mr. English here throws upon Mr. Mill is in my opinion quite 
undeserved. There is a great deal of truth in what Mr. Mill says, and we 
need not be offended with him for saying it. I do not agree with him in 
many of his principles at all ; but I do not see the use of forcing a man’s 
words rather against what he appears to argue. There is only one other point 
which I wish to refer to. At our last meeting Mr. Row made some remarks 
about self-love as a Christian principle ; but I do not think he made them 
strong enough, though one gentleman made a strong protestation against his 
views. Now we should be very cautious in dealing with this point ; self-love 
is one thing, but selfishness is quite another. Self-love is really a foundation 
principle of Christianity. The very message of the Gospel is, “ Save your- 
selves,” — admitting that that principle is of the first importance. Then we are 
told, “ Love your neighbour as yourself — showing that you are expected to 
love yourself first ; and I am very sure of this, that if we only love our neigh- 
bours as ourselves , we may then properly love ourselves as much as ever we 
please. (Hear, hear.) 
Rev. C. A. Row. — I should not have risen again this evening if it had not 
been that I wish to correct an inaccuracy into which Mr. English has fallen. 
He has inaccurately quoted Mr. John Stuart Mill, and it is a thoroughly 
inaccurate quotation. Mr. English says, “ But Mr. Mill advances to a more 
direct charge : — ‘ I do not scruple to say 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 Euro- 
pean life and character, human affairs would have been in a worse state now 
than they are.’ ” But Mr. Mill does not say that. What he says is : — “What 
is called Christian, but should rather be termed theological morality, was not 
the work of Christ or of the apostles, but is of much later origin, having been 
gradually built up by the Catholic Church of the first five centuries ; and 
though not implicitly adopted by moderns and Protestants, has been much 
less modified by them than might have been expected. For the most part, 
