On this page

• Text (2)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    1166 THE LEADE R. ^^ [Saturday ,

  • 

    CORRESPONDENCE ON BUTLER. "We have now t...

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Til 10 Oloistnit Ukic Oh(Miakliw V. The ...

    in token of his desire to yield his soul into the hands of his maker . High above , over the kneeling throng and the gorgeous vestments , the flowers , the curling incense , and the glittering altar , the same idea shone forth in that splendid canvas whereon Titian had pictured Charles kneeling on the threshold of the heavenly mansions prepared for the blessed . " Many years before self-interment had been practised by a bishop of Liegecardinal Erard de la Marck , Charles ' s ambassador to the diet during his election to the imperial throne ; an example which may perhaps have led to the ceremonies at Yuste . . For several years before his death , in 1528 , did this prelate annually rehearse his obsequies and follow his coffin to the stately tomb which he had reared in his cathedral at Liege .

    " The funeral-rites ended , the emperor dined in his western alcove . He ate little , but he remained for a great part of the afternoon sitting in the open air , and basking in the sun , which , as it descended to the horizon , beat strongly upon the white walls . Feeling a violent pain in his head , he returned to his chamber and lay down . Mathisio , whom he had sent in the morning to Xarandilla to attend the count of Oropesa in his illness , found him , when he returned , still suffering considerably , and attributed the pain to his having remained too long in the hot sunshine . Next morning he was somewhat better , and was able to get up and go to mass , but still felt oppressed , and complained much of thirst . He told his confessor , however , that the funeral service of the day before had done him good . The sunshine again tempted him into his open gallery . As he sat there , he sent for a portrait of the empress , and hung for some time , lost in thought , over the gentle face , which , with its blue eyes , auburn hair , and pensive beauty , somewhat resembled the noble countenance of that other Isabella , the great queen ofCastille .

    He next called for a picture of Our Lord praying in the garden , and then for a sketch of the Last Judgment , by Titian . Having looked his last upon the image of the wife of his youth , it seemed as if he were now bidding farewell , in the contemplation of these other favourite pictures , to the noble art which he had loved with a love which cares , and years , and sickness could not quench , and that will ever be remembered with his better fame . Thus occupied , he remained so long abstracted and motionless , that Mathisio , who was on the watch , thought it right to awake him from his reverie . On being spoken to , he turned round and complained that he was ill . The doctor felt his pulse , and pronounced him in a fever . Again the afternoon sun was shining over the great walnut-tree , full into the gallery . From this pleasant spot , filled with the fragrance of the garden and the murmur of the fountain , and bright with glimpses of the golden Vera , they carried him to the gloomy chamber of his sleepless nights , and laid him on the bed from which he was to rise no more . "

    1166 The Leade R. ^^ [Saturday ,

    1166 THE LEADE R . ^^ [ Saturday ,

    Correspondence On Butler. "We Have Now T...

    CORRESPONDENCE ON BUTLER . "We have now to lay before our readers the letters received from correspondents in answer to our remarks on Sutler s Analogy . Our own comments we shall make as brief as possible . Sir , —A notice of Bishop Butler ' s Works , which appeared in the Leader of the 30 th ult ., contains strictures as well on the general method of the Analogy , as on some of the special doctrines which it undertakes to defend . Into the latter questions it is not my purpose to enter ; but I cannot refrain frem offering some remarks on tho more general one , in the hope that your reviewer , who expresses strong confidence in the cause of truth , may be induced to read the work in a new light .

    1 . The reviewer complains at the outset that Butler undertakes to confirm , not to prove , the truth of Christianity . Surely there can be no good ground of complaint against a writer , who undertakes no more than he performs , and performs no more than he undertakes . Butler ' s tactics are , in the main , defensive . For direct positive arguments the inquirer must look elsewhere . 2 . The reviewer accuses Butler of assuming throughout the point at issue . As he has not cited instances of petitio principii from the body of the work , I presume that he refers to the following specified points , which , as they are fundamental , may be « aid to be assumed throughout . The reviewer cites from the Introduction to tho Analogy Butler ' s comment on , and deductions from the dictum of Origon— " He who believes the Scripture to have proceeded from Him who is the Author of Nature , may well expect to find the same sort of difficulties in it as

    are found in the constitution of Nature . " On this it is observed : ( 1 . ) That " He who believes the Scripture , " & c , wants no confirmation of his belief . Nobody said ho did . For tho gist of the argument lies in tho convcr . se : " And in a like way of reflections it may he added , that he who denies the Scripture to be from God on account of these difficulties—may , for tho very same reason , deny tho world to have been formed by Him . " Let us put a parallel case . As " he who believes the Choephora : to have proceeded from him who is tho author of tho Agamemnon , may well expect to find tho same sort of difficulties in it , as are found in the Agamemnon ; " ho , conversely , " he who denies tho Choephorce to have been from vEsohylus upon account of these difliculties may , for the very same reason , deny the Agamemnon to have boon written by him . " What unfair assumption or petitio principii is tlioi'O hero ? But ,

    2 . It is objected , that the dinicultios of Nature and the Bible are not parallelan allegation which , if admissible , destroys tho force of my lsist argument . " The difficulties wo find in Nature , " says the reviewer , " arise from our not being ablo to trace tho chain of causation throughout all its stupes . " Such , I nuppoHc , nro the unanswered questions of science . Hut it is not of these that Butler speaks . He is obviously speaking , for the whole ; context shows it , of those facts in tho ordinary course of Nature which appear irreconcilable with either tho goodn . cHH , wisdom , or power of the creator . Surely there nro "internal" or " external" to Nature in exactly tho sumo degree in which tho analogous difficulties are "internal" or " external" to the Bible .

    ( . ' 5 . ) Lastly , tho reviewer places among the "details" of Ihitler ' s work a point which , in fact , a / loots tin ; general argument . " If . there bo un analogy between Natural and Revealed Kdigiou , this is n presumption that they lmve both tho name author . " Here it is complained that the terms " Kcvcnled Religion , " oh before , involvo a . petitio principii . Tho words , be it observed , mo not , Itutlcr'u , but tho reviewer ' s . However , by " I { . evolution , " tho expression actually used , I presume that Hutler lneiiiiH that which claims , and is popularly believed to bo revealed . Substitute " tho Bible , " and the argument millers nothing . Indeed , the reviewer admits its force , and adopts it . " If there is an analogy between Natural mid [ that which professes to bo ] Revealed Religion , this is u presumption that they have both tho same author . " Now , " Natural Religion is the interpretation of tho various phenomena of Nuturo which hart grown up in tho mind

    of men , " and is , therefore , of man ; therefore , Revealed Religion [ so called ! ' probably so . - * s I answer , first , that God , who has made all natural objects , and with them o faculties for observing and interpreting them , speaks to us through Nature and is so far the Author of Natural Religion . ' Secondly , that so far as Natural Religion is human—i . e ., an inference of human , reason from phenomena—there is no analogy between it and the Bible , which . " not proved to be such an inference . The analogy to which the reviewer appeals if it proves anything , proves , not the Bible to be human , but the Creed *

    Thirdly , that the reviewer s arguments are wholly wide of the mark , for the simple reason , that he has misquoted his author . Butler speaks , not of " an analogy between Natural and Revealed Religion , " but between " the known course of Nature—which all confess to be from God—and " that system of things and dispensation of Providence which Revelation [ i . e ., the Bible ] informs us of" and which Christians believe to be equally from God . I am , Sir , obediently yours , Ceonippits . We did not quarrel with Butler for performing no more than he intended ; we simply pointed out the faet that his argument was powerless against the New Theology , because it never once touched the vital point .

    The " parallel case" put by our correspondent does not strike us as conclusive . It is quite true that he who believes the Choephorce to have been written by the author of the Agamemnon may expect in both to find the same sort of difficulties ; but to him who does not believe iEschylus wrote the Choephorce , the " difficulties" are no proof . Because there are difficulties in the Koran and the Vedas , no less than in USTature , Cronippus himself would ^ repudiate any argument drawn from those difficulties to prove that God wrote the Koran or the Vedas . Did ^ Eschylus write the Choephorce and Agamemnon , and did God write the Bible P are the questions which require preliminary settlement ; and , as we have seen , Butler throughout assumes that God did write the Bible .

    " We deem it unnecessary to enter further into our correspondents ' letter . The reader has it before him , for consideration . One point , however , we must notice ; for ( by a slip of the pen , we would fain hope ) we are accused of having misquoted Butler , in using the terms " Natural and Revealed Religion . " The title-page of Butler is sufficient answer , had we not taken the sentence said to be misquoted from the very first page of the edition before us—viz ., the Analytic Introduction . What is Butler ' s book entitled ? " The Analogy of Religion , Natural and Hevealed , to the constitution and course of Nature . " Our second correspondent , Discipulus , argues an important point , and suggests a view both subtle and to us novel : —

    Sie , —Before observing the allusion to Diderot in a recent number of the Leader , and even being unaware of his having proposed the celebrated question , — " If the Almighty has spoken , why is the universe not convinced ? " I must confess that , in the course of my own cogitations , a similar idea has occurred to my mind , —namely , that any communication from the Divinity must be expected to be accompanied with evidence irresistible , and so as to compel the unanimous conviction of all beings to whom it is made . I cannot , however , think the question to be absolute and final , in the sense in which you seem to adopt it , because ,

    on the ground of Theism , it is simply inapplicable ; because , the questioner being supposed to acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being , he must know that many have denied such existence , and that very many more live and act as if they were under the influence of tho same disbelief , and that , consequently , while ho wonders at the incredulity which resists the evidence for the Divine Being and operations , he has good reason to doubt whether he himself does not labour under the same insensibility as to a communication of the Divine will . With him the question , If God lives , why is the universe not convinced , would be a reductio ad

    absurdum . Moreover , with believers in revealed religion , the question does not hold at all , inasmuch as they consider that the same depravity , alienation from the Supremo Good , or call it what you will , which necessitated a Divine revelation , is of itself sufficient to account for the withstanding of the evidence for it after it has been made . The mind of a free and rational being , such as man , is not to be coerced , even by Omnipotence . Abundant illustration of this truth may be gathered from the truelho

    Gospel history , which for tho present may bo assumed as hypothetic-ally , works of tho Founder of Christianity afforded evidence of a Divine commission , to the extent of demonstration , and yet how few the number of those who adhered to Him , compared with those who did quite otherwise ; how astonishing to us seems the malignant ingenuity which prompted the retort , " Ho custoth out devils by Beelzebub the Prince- of the Devils ;' " * n d how profound and touching tho wisdom of Ilia own saying on another occasion : " If they believe not Moses and tho prophetsneither would they bo persuadedthough one rose from Hie dead . "

    , , It would thus appear that no amount of evidence , of whatever kind , will produce conviction in the mind which chooses to resist it , and that thun , after all , tho question of Diderot , is found to be inadmissible . I remain , Sir , very respectfully , Glasgow , 22 iid November , 1 HB 2 . lhtiClVlTlAWThe argument in not , however , conehiRive to our minds ; for if it had to from l

    been Clod ^ express desire save mankind eternal perdition > y » certain process of convention , Reason says that ho would have taken euro the process should bo effheti-oe . When men write books to convince mankind , they uho their utmost endeavours to bo intelligible and eonvineintf . There in no " coercion of a free and rational being" in Kuchd , yet no one disputes bis theorems . If men , " fallen Iron , their high estate , hud nalureH no " -depraved" Mint the pure light of ( ruth could not he recognise u by thorn , ( Jod , who knew their depravity , knew also what they < " > ui < recognise , what would convince them , and should Lave addressed ther as we address scientific truths to children , with a , proper allowance lor i . noi

    imperfect apprehension . Tho third . ' lettor m interesting as an ilhiHtration of how men accommodate Scripture to their own views : — r . .. Snt , —There uro many ( M . ristiaiiN in tho old sense , and not ' Christian 1 w ^ who believe hh little as you do that Uod is a capricious tyrant , in good *» in evil ; and who ( ran find no mich representation * of ( Joel's character in 1 J ^ ' thouirli they do in tho commentator . If your object is merely to attacK c

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), Dec. 4, 1852, page 18, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_04121852/page/18/