« ПредишнаНапред »
quoted with such a want of judgment. With respect to the Student's account of remorse, I had said, “We need not waste time in examining and refuting this frightful and demoralizing doctrine the very sweepings of the stye of Epicurus.” The Student replies, “ Unless I much err, in my apprehension of the general scope of Christianity, this vulgar slander points as distinctly at the sublime morality which distinguishes it, as the sentiments on the same subject uttered by me.” Then much do you err, Mr. Student, in your apprehension of the general scope of Christianity; for the passage to which you refer, bears legitimately op your doctrine, and has no bearing at all on the sublime morality of Chris: tianity. It does not bear on the morality of Christianity, beeause that morality does not say that the fear of punishment is the only thing in remorse, while Scripture denounces “indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, against every soul of man that doeth evil.” Is there no difference between saying that the fear of punishment is included in remorse, and saying that it is the only thing in remorse? This is another instance of that want of philosophical discrimination, of which I complain in the Student. He takes it for granted, that to deny that the fear of punishment is the only thing in remorse, is the same as to deny future punishment, or the legitimate influence of the fear of it. But I have another remark on this passage. The Student confounds the morality of Christianity with its threatenings. Even the man who denies future punishment may not quarrel with the morality of Christianity. There is an utter want of a discriminating mind in this writer.
There is still another error in this remark of the Student. It supposes that in the doctrine vindicated, there is a coincidence between the morality of Christianity and the doctrine of Epicurus. Now this is not the case, with respect to the doctrine of future punishment. How then could my censure of the Student's doctrine--as the sweepings of the stye of Epicurus-point at the morality of Christianity ? Among the sweepings of that stye there was no such doctrine.
The Student finds' fault with my figure. “If,” says he, “the figure, the very sweepings of the stye of Epicurus,' was thought by the writer to convey any definite meaning.” Is there any intellect so mean as not to see the definite meaning of this figure ? “ As,” continues he, “such violent figures are generally thought, by the partially instructed, to convey a great deal, it is all very well.” Such violent figures ! Does the writer know what a violent figure is : The figure is as natural and obvious as any that ever was used. Is there any one acquainted with the dogmas of Epicurus, who can be at a loss to see the resemblance between an Epi. curean and a hog? Does not the Student know that the figure is a classical
Who is it that has said, Epicuri de grege porcum. Who is it that has said, Epicure noster ex harâ producte, non e scholå ? How my soul despises this illiterate trifler!
The Student, however, thinks that I should have accompanied my figure with a comment. I never use a figure that needs an explanation. His own style, however, is as dark as an oracle. He is not only again and again obliged to explain, but he is obliged to give a commentary at variance with the text. His obscurity, I am convinced, arises partly from artifice, and partly from inability to express himself with perspicuity. Some things it does not suit him to express clearly, and others are darkly expressed, because they are not clearly apprehended. He does not think with precision and vigour, therefore he cannot express himself with perspicuity and
energy. But let us hear the comment which he has obligingly supplied for the understanding of my figure. “No one will think,” says he, “that I am so little read in the history of philosophy, as to suppose that I believe Epicurus kept swine, or wrote on the subject of philosophy in the habita* tion of that filthy beast ; and, far less, that the litter of a pig-house constituted any part of his philosophy." What trifling! Does the man think that the figure has any appearance of implying that Epicurus kept suine, wrote in a stye, or that the litter of a pig-house constituted any part of his philosophy? Let the Student apply the comment to the Latin phrases quoted above, if he know as much Latin as will enable him to make them out with the help of a dictionary... "The ex. pression,” continues he, “is merely designed to convey to the people of Ulster my opinion of the-the-the-vices of some disciples of Epicurus.”
The Student thinks he is here remarkably happy. But his remark shows him to be a mere blunderer. He has mistaken the very jet of my observation. The passage on which he comments does not refer to the vices of some disciples of Epicurus, nor to their vices at all, but to the demoralizing tendency of his leading doctrine, even as stated by his eulogists—the modern Utilitarians.
Sir James Mackintosh's account of this philosopher sustains my charge. To him (Epicurus) we owe the general concurrence of reflecting men in succeeding times in the important truth, that men cannot be happy without a virtuous frame of mind and course of life." The man who cultivates a virtuous frame of mind merely because he cannot be happy in this life without it, is deficient in morality. Is there nothing deficient in that man's morality, who would relieve want merely to remove a present unpleasant feeling in himself. Even the very best face that modern infide's can put on the philosophy of Epicurús, will not rescue it out of the stye. In this stye the Student has unfortunately taken up his residence, for in this he has fully identified bimself with Epicurus.
I had said, "If the Scriptures are a revelation from God, without doubt they tell us more of a future state than we know of the nature of the human mind, as it respects this doctrine,” (that of philosophical necessity.) This, without doubt, the Student classes with his own Pythagoric arrogance towards Erasmus, for which I rebuked him. Now this is another instance in which he manifests want of discrimination. When the Student takes on him to say to such a writer as Erasmus, “ I assure you that there are not two kinds of necessity," as the only ground of evidence is the authority of the author, every mind must feel the indelicacy and insolence of such phraseology. But when the expression, without doubt, is used, the appeal is to the evidence of the thing, as it is taken for granted, it will appear to every mind capable of understanding it. My "without doubt”* connects an argument with its conclusion.--His “ we assure bim' comes in place of an argument. Even when used where the thing has not proper evidence, my phrase is not in the Pythagoric style. What think you, Mr, Student, of this philosophy?
The Student thinks I have laid myself open to his attack in my expression, “a knowledge of the doctrine of necessity from our knowledge of the huntan mind.” This he thinks is similar to saying that a knowledge of Ireland is derived from a knowledge of Ireland. This enables me again to fix on him the charge of want
discrimination. The Student's criticism supposes that the phrase, doctrine of neces. sity, is in meaning identical with the phrase, human mind-even as truly identical as Ireland is Ireland. Will any man that knows the use of words, say that the abore phrases are perfectly equivalent ? Instead of this are they not of a completely different meaning ? To satisfy any rational being on this point, let the matter be brought to the test. If the phrases are identical in meaning, the one may, in all instances, be substituted for the other. We may speak of the faculties of the doctrine of philosophical necessity; and instead of saying that the doctrine of philosophical neeessity is true or false, we may say that the human mind is true or false. Your criticism, Mr. Student, betrays not only ignorance but stupidity.
But the Student tells me, You should have known that the doctrine of necessity is simply so many facts stated in reference to the human mind.” Had it not been for the lesson which I taught him about Pythagoras, be would very likely have assured me, as he had assured Erasmus. But this is an assertion that no man of ordinary powers of discrimination could ever make. A doctrine is not facts : facts are not a doctrine. A doctrine may be founded on facts, but the two things are entirely distinct. Nu man who knows the use of terms could speak thus. Jf the necessit of actions is a doctrine, it cannot be the human mind, nor its attributes, nor operations. You see, Mr. Editor, tbat notwithst.... ing all the trouble I have taken with the Student, I cannot'make him a metaphysician. I can give him argument, but it is God only soh. can give hing an understanding. *The Student says, “To tell us what it is about a future state at God could not communicate to us by revelation ?” It would be neces. sary to know that which the Student affirms we are absolutely and confessedly unacquainted with. Here again is a want of discrimi. nation. The writer confounds the knowledge of a thing as a question with the knowledge of its answer.
“Of a future state,” says the Student, “our ignorance is about as perfect as it is possible to be about any thing." I charge this as. sertion with infidelity. Our knowledge of a future state, if the Scriptures are a ground of evidence, extends to several points.
“A knowledge of the d,” says the Student, “is forced upon us wheth we will or not.” Some knowledge of the human mind is forced on us, but is the knowledge of every thing about the human mind forced upon us? Could not God tell us something about the human mind, that is not known from the mind itself? This is the question.
(To be concluded in our next.)
Ordination - The Presbytery of the North-west of England, in communion with the Established Church of Scotland, met at Brampton, upon Tuesday, the 15th Nov. last ; and having been highly satisfied, upon examinatiou of Mr. Hiddleston's li. terary and theological acquirements, proceeded to ordain him by prayer and the im. position of hands. The Rev. R Court, of Maryport, preached from the words of Solomon He that winneth souls is wise,” on which the preacher showed very im. pressively the value of the soul, and the wisdom requisite in Ministers, under the blessing of heaven, for directing their hearers to the truth and the practice of holi. ness. . T'he Rev. Walter Fairlie, of Whitehaven, put the questions prescribed by the General Assembly of the Church, offered up the ordination prayer, and gave an ad. dress to the newly-ordained minister. The Rev. C. Turner, of Workington, delivered a most suitable charge to the congregation, and the Rev. James Roddick, of Gretna concluded the solemn services by a discourse in the evening.
NATIONAL EDUCATION, VIZ.:Resolutions and Petition of the General Synod of Ulster
Parliamentary Debates--Petition from the Congregation of Broughshane—Protest of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Established Church.
The great question of education remains still undetermined, and we make no pretensions to foretelling the result. We are, however, by constitution, more given to hope than to fear; yet we do confess that, on three accounts, our fears are rather predominant. First, because there is in Parliament such a united phalanx of Popery and Infidelity to attack the character of every individual, and of every public body that dares to petition ; second, because of the tact, zeal, and violence with which Popery and Infidelity continue to wield the public press; and thirdly, from the apathy or timidity of many Protestants, who either care not, or dare not, to express their opinions. Of these three causes of fear, the second seems to us the most formidable. The press is a mighty engine of good or evil. One time it appears in all the splendour of a rising sun beaming forth its light upon the dark chaos of ignorance; at another time it seems as the awaking arm of the Almighty smiling down with irresistible force every enemy of God and man; but again it becomes dark as the thunder cloud, and mortal as the sirocco of the desert; it flashes or it breathes upon life and loveliness, and ghastliness and death are left the monuments of its power. Again it becomes “Satan's seat,” the place “where Satan dwelleth,” where he raises himself up in proud defiance against God, and battles with his Son for the dominion of the universe.
This satanic power of the press is most dexterously and powerfully wielded by the advocates of Popery and In. fidelity; and in no case have they exhibited more zeal
than in their opposition to scriptural education. Their tactics appear reducible to one practical plan-so to abuse every friend of Bible education, that no one may dare to be its advocate. They hope to put down scriptural edu. cation by affrighting Protestants into silence or desertion. Thus Dr. Crolly, the Roman Catholic Bishop, flings aside that usual reserve by which he has so long and so effectually cajoled the Protestants of Belfast, and assails from one common battery of misstatement and calumny, the good name of the living and the ashes of the dead. The wily Jesuit thinks he would gain his point, could he affright Lord Donegall from giving countenance to the friends of scriptural education-a plan not unlikely to succeed, in future, when we consider the modest and retiring character of that amiable nobleman.“ Next we have had the rude, un. mannered, assault of Mr. Sharman Crawford and his vociferous associates, against Lord Dufferin, when presiding at a meeting to petition Parliament in favour of scriptural education ; on which occasion bis lordship, with upwards of four hundred of the moral and personal respectability of the parish of Bangor, retired, for peace's sake, before the clamour and violence of little more than one hundred, chiefly the riff raff of the neighbourhood. Here we have just another example of that violence by which Popery and Infidelity hope, in future, to deter an. other nobleman from any public patronage of scriptural education. His lordship's sentiments and habits have ever been to court the shade, to promise less and perform more than other men; and, we doubt not, he must feel dissatisfied at the unkindness of Mr. Crawford and the violence of his partizans. But we trust, that in both these, and in other similar cases, the tactics of the enemies of scrip. taral education will. fail of their object; and that these distinguished noblemen will continue their countenance and support to the cause of the truth, unmoved by the violence or cunning of its enemies.
Next we have the editorial labours of the Radical and Popish press, both in Dublin and the North, in which they so abundantly bespatter every one who has dared to urite or to speak in favour of scriptural education; and then we have the polished argumentations of George Armstrong, Clerk, (we believe formerly a Curate in the Established Church, now said to be a Unitarian; and if so, at his patronage of the Government plan we are not surprized ;)