436 
richness of English literature on the subject, that he felt himself bound to 
confine his criticisms and remarks to the writers of his own university, and 
I think most Cambridge men were astounded with the number of authors on 
ethical philosophy, and cases of conscience from the university library and 
other sources. He came into the room, lecture after lecture, with piles of 
books, and he gave us an admirable and valuable resume of the opinions of 
the authors of these books, so that I do not think the study of ethics was 
altogether neglected 
Mr. Reddie.— He did not tell you that all the books were wrong, did he ? 
(Laughter.) 
Rev. W. Mitchell. — No, not all. (Laughter.) I remember the sermons 
which he preached on the subject when it came to his turn as university 
preacher, when he expressed a wish, which I have heard echoed here, that, 
considering the extreme value of the fragment we have of Bishop Butler, 
some one should add to it that which would complete Bishop Butler’s 
labours as a system of Christian ethics. But looking at this matter from the 
light of common-sense men, I have to consider what would be the value of 
an ethical philosophy, supposing we were to have the desideratum of a com- 
plete course of Christian ethical philosophy. I presume the value sought for 
in such a complete course would be that it would make men moral. Now I 
may perhaps express extreme doubts, from what I know of moral philo- 
sophy, whether any such philosophical system would have the slightest 
effect on the masses at large. The ancients discovered that truths set forth 
under the form of strict logical sequence were too hard and difficult to be 
digested by the general mass. We -had it stated by Mr. Row, at our last 
meeting, that Aristotle never sought to influence the popular mind, and that 
he therefore sought only to influence the philosophers — the few thinking 
minds. And that was not only the case with Aristotle, but with all the 
older ethical philosophers ; and it was eminently the case with such men as 
Cicero and the Latin philosophers who wrote on the subject. Now what do 
you find is the great want of the present period when you strive to bring the 
principles of natural philosophy down to the masses ? It is said we require 
a new system of works to be written entirely on what is now called technical 
education — that the logic of Euclid, for instance, where we have so good an 
exposition of the logical method as applied to strict inductive reasoning on 
the subject of geometry, is found so difficult that it cannot influence the 
mass of men, who require to be made acquainted with and to use geometrical 
principles. I believe it would be the same with moral philosophy if we had 
a complete system, and were to attempt to influence the masses by means of 
it. But, on the other hand, I maintain that the Bible, as a whole — both the 
Old and the New Testament— does teach ethics, and I maintain that it has 
taught ethics, and that it is the only book which has ever influenced the 
masses and made men moral. I maintain that the Bible does influence 
mankind, and that it is the only system of ethics which has ever transmuted 
men from mere savages into Christian men. You can find hundreds of such 
men who could give you a far more exalted system of ethics, and who have far 
