On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
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.
-
-
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.
Untitled Article
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 Yusle . For several years before his death , in 1528 , did this prelate annually rehearse his obsequies and follow his coflin to the stately tomb which he had reared in his cathedral at Iiiege .
" 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 of Castille .
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 . "
Untitled Article
COKRESPONDENCE ON BUTLER . We have now to lay before our readers tlie letters received from correspondents in answer to our remarks on Sutler ' s Analogy . Our own comments we shall make as brief as possible . Sie , —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 the 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 positivo arguments the inquirer must look elsewhere . 2 . The reviewer accuses Butler of assuming throughout the point at issue . As ho has not cited instances of petitio pri ? ieipii from the body of the work , I presume that he refers to the following specified points , which , as they are fundamental , may bo said to be assumed throughout . The reviewer cites from the Introduction to the Analogy Butler ' s comment on , and deductions from the dictum ofOrigen— "lie who believes the Scripture to have proceeded from Him who is the Author of Nature , may well expect to find the name 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 he did . For the gist of the argument lies in the converse : "Ami in a like way of reflections it may be added , that he who denies the Scripture to be from God on account of these difficulties—may , for the very same reason , deny the world to have been formed by Him . " Let us put a parallel case . As " he who believes tins Chocpfior < i ; to have proceeded from him who is the author of the Agamemnon , may well expect to find the same Hort of difficulties in it as art ; found in the Agymnnnon " so , conversely , " he who denies the Choephorw . to have been from / Enchylus upon account of these difficulties may , Cor the very hiumc reason , deny the Agamemnon to have been written by him . " What unfair UHHinnption or petif . io j > rinvij > ii is there here ? Hut ,
Ji . It is objected , that the difiicultics of Nature and the Bible are not parallelan allegation which , if admissible , destroys the foree of my liist argument . " The difficulties we find in Nature , " says the reviewer , " arise from our not being able to tract ! the chain of causation throughout all its stages . " Such , I wupposc , are the unanswered questions of science . Hut it is not of these that Butler speaks . Jit ! is obviously , sjx ; aking , for the whole context shows it , of those fiiets in the ordinary ttour . se of Nature which appear irreconcilable with cither tho goodness , wisdom , or power of the creator . Surely there are " infernal" or " external" to Nature in exactly the same degree , in which the analogous ditticulties are " internal" or " external" to the Hible .
( . ' $ . ) Lastly , tilts reviewer places among the " details" of Hutler'n work u point which , in fact , allects the general argument / . " If there be an analogy between Natural and Revealed Itcligion , this is n presumption that they have both the name siuthor . " Hero it is complained that the terms " Revealed | { , <« ligion , " as before , involve a peljlio priiic / jr / . i . The words , bo it observed , are not Hutler ' s , but the reviewer's . However , by " KeveluUon , " the expression actually used , I presume that Butler means that which claims , anil is popularly believed to bo revealed . Substitute " the Hible , " and the argument suffers nothing . Indeed , the-reviewer admits its force , and adopts it . " If there is an analogy between Natural and | that which professes to be | Revealed Religion , this is a presumption that they have both tho mime author . " Now , " Natural . Religion is the interpretation of tho varioua phenomena of Nature which has grown up in tho mind
of men , " and is , therefore , of man ; therefore , Revealed Religion [ so calledl is probably so . . J I answer , first , that God , who has made all natural objects , and with them our 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 is 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 , Crouippus . We did not quarrel with Butler for performing no more than he intended ; we simply pointed out the fact 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 -ZEschylus wrot * the Choephorce , the " difficulties" are no proof . Because there are difficulties in the Koran and tlie Vedas , no less than in Nature , Cronippus
himself would repudiate any argument drawn from those difficulties to prove that God wrote the Koran or the Vedas . Did JEschylus write the Choephorce and Agamemnon , and did God write the Bible ? 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 Uevealed 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 JRevealed , 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 the same disbelief , and that , consequently , while he wonders at the incredulity which resists tho evidence for the Divine Being and operations , lie has good reason to doubt whether he himself does not labour under the same insensibility as to a communication of the Divine will . W ith him tho question , If God lives , why is the universe not convinced , would be a redtictio 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 th e Supreme Good , or call it what yoti 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 Gospel history , which for the present may bo assumed us hypothetically true . The works of the 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 tho retort , " Ho ca-stoth out tlevils by Beelzebub the Princo of the Devils ; " and how profound and touching the wisdom of His own saying on another occasion : "if they believe not Moses and the prophetsneither would they be persuaded , though one rose from the dead . "
, It would thus appear that no amount of evidence , of whatever kind , will produce conviction in tho mind which chooses to resist it , and that thus , afler all , tho question of Diderot is found to bo inadmissible . J remain , Sir , very respectfully , GliiHgow , 2 ^ nd November , 1 H 52 . DlSOll'tf M SThe argument is not , however , conclusive to our minds ; (" or ii il- had b
been God ' s express desire to save mankind from denial perdition y a certain process of conversion , Keason nays that he would have taken euro tht ! process Khould be effective . When men write books to convince mankind , they use their utmost endeavours l , o bo infcelli ^ ihjo and convincing . There iH no " coercion of a free and rational being" in Euclid , yet no ono disputes his theorems . If men , " fallen from their high estate , " had _»«• - tim ; n ho " depraved" that tho pure light / of truth could not bo recognised by them , God , who knew their depravity , knew also what tlu » y could recognise , what would convince them , and should have addressed them hh we address scientific truths l , o children , with a proper allowance for tliou
imperfect apprehension . Tht ! third letter is interesting , as an illustration of how men accommodate Scripture to their own views : — « , Si it ,, —There are many ( Jhristians in the old sense , and not . ' < Miristian TIicikJs , who believe as little as you do that ( Jod is a capricious tyrant , in good an well as in evil ; and who can 11 ml no nuch repreHontatioim of ( JUkI'h character in tho HiWti , though they do in tho commentators . If your object is moroly to attack certain
Untitled Article
1166 THE LEADER . [ Saturday ,
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Dec. 4, 1852, page 1166, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1963/page/18/
-