444 
Mr. Row doubts its accuracy, it is for him to give bis reasons. Thirdly, 
there appears to be some idea that in speaking of “ philosophers ” of the 
eclectic school, I must necessarily refer to men not Christians. I certainly 
protest against any divorce between faith and philosophy, and Dr. Adam 
Smith particularly refers to the “ Fathers ” as patrons of this philosophy, 
among whom was the illustrious Clement of Alexandria. I cannot answer 
Mr. Row’s remark about “ self love,” because the word has been differently 
defined by philosophers, and I have not the slightest idea which view of it 
Mr. Row himself takes. I should have been exceedingly obliged to Mr. 
Row if he had detected any material misrepresentation of Mr. Mill’s words, 
but with the exception of “ Christian morality,” which ought to be sub- 
stituted for “New Testament morality,” in one sentence, I fear there is no 
misrepresentation. Mr. Mill begins v/ith defining “ Christian morality,” and 
says if it means “ New Testament morality,” then he wonders that any one 
could think of it as a “ complete system of morals.” Then after saying 
“ to extract a body of ethical doctrine from the New Testament ” we must 
“ eke out of the old, &c.,” he adds the passage given by Mr. Row, not as 
distinguishing “Christian” from “New Testament” morality, but as that 
same morality, with the individual glosses or additions of theologians. He 
does not exculpate the “New Testament,” but charges it both before and 
after the passage referred to with defect. I fear, therefore, that my passage 
must remain as substantially just. 
The Rev. Dr. Irons. 
Dr. Irons complains of a “ great want of method and arrangement ” in my 
paper ; but I think that my paper is strictly logical throughout as to “ method 
and arrangement.” Preliminary general considerations are taken first, then de- 
finitions of moral philosophy proper, then analysis of moral action comprising 
springs, guides, and efficient causation ; and then I have added a section on 
virtue, the specific object to which moral action, as a subjective characteristic 
of man, is directed. I do not know what method Dr. Irons would have 
followed, but if he had departed from this arrangement, he would not have 
followed any logical order. He complains of my “ arbitrary definitions.” I 
reply that all the confusion in the world has arisen from neglect of this 
principle. Dr, Irons seems to fear my paper will not be “a credit to 
Christianity,” and doubts whether this society should have read it. He 
says : — “ The paper is not that which this Institute ought to throw down 
as a challenge to the scientific world ; ” I reply that it was written 
for a very different purpose, namely, to prove that the really scientific 
part of the world, and the New Testament, are agreed on the subject 
of ethics. He says a great ^eal about “ accountability ; ” I have written 
on the philosophy of moral action, on virtue, and the relations of what is 
ethical to science and revelation. I have not discussed “ accountability.” 
Dr. Irons speaks of “ where ethics end ” and “ where the revealed system 
ends,” and charges me with “confusion;” but it was a main point 
