The Press. — London, England, 1856-10-18 00:00:00

OCTOBER 18, 1856. tions, if it produced an impression of truth on their minds, the end was sufficiently an swered, whether the fact itself ever took place or not. We refer to this particular passage as exactly illustrative of the whole tenor of Mr. Barry's book. He would, in his interpretation of Scripture, be at once literal and ;•ationalis tic, and hence an element of confusion is in troduced fir more puzzling in our opinion than the difficulty attempted to be removed. He tell us, in his preface, "that the great "trial of Scripture, in our own country at this "time, turns, not on metaphysical difficulties, " or questions of external evidence. but on the " proof of its harmony with what is called " Natural Religion,' that is, with the great " principles of righteousness and love, to " which the conscience bears witness." In reality, however, the book is chiefly occupied with attempts to remove the objections raised by natural science to the literal truth of the Scripture record, and so far from not being an apology, it is an apology throughout, and of a very unsatisfactory kind. In noticing the arguments derived from geology to prove that creation was progressive, he states—after partly reasoning, however, that the Mosaic account admits of a rationalistic interpretation— We cannot tell how it is that there are, at best, such uncertain traces of the comparatively sudden creation in six days. We should doubtless have expected to be able to trace a great break in the continuity of physical exis• tence. Then he falls back on the solid ground that every word of the Mosaic history implies that the creation was " miraculous ; that is, as " carried on by laws, distinct from the present " laws of nature, by which its works are sus " tained. If we believe miraculous action at " all, it cannot be strange to find it here, at "the first source of the present natural " system." Why then, it must be asked, the evident hankering to refer what the Scripture de clares was miraculous, to purely natural causes? He takes the same line with regard to the Deluge. The geological assumption is, that no traces of a universal deluge exist on the earth. Mr. Barry replies-Ist, by assum ing its miraculous character, which would leave no appearances conformable to the con clusions of natural science ; and, 2nd, by showing that appearances exist in connection with the Scripture record perfectly consistent with the conclusions of natural science. First Now it seems, in the first place, by no means absurd to conceive that, as the Deluge was miraculous, distinct— that is, from the ordinary growth of this earth under the Inas of nature—so it may have pleased God that it should pass away without leaving its footprints amidst the traces of natural formation. In our ignorance of the physical machinery by which the flood teas produced, we cannot say whether it was probable, even without any miraculous interference, that its subsidence should have removed all traces of its action. Secondly : The Scripture positively assures us of nothing more than that the Deluge swept off tie whole race of men, and overwhelmed that part of the natural world which had been assigned to them. This it would do, even if it did not extend over the whole earth. Thus, in the silence of God's word as to its literal universality, human science may he allowed to speak ; and, if it be true that while the general evidence is against the supposition of a universal deluge, there are probable indications of a local one near what has always been deemed the primeval seat of man, viz., in that part of Western Asia ( Mesopotamia, Bokhara, Eliorasaan, and parts of Affghanistan and Turkistan ) which is now depressed more than one hundred feetbelow the level of the sea, then we can give these geological facts and negations any weight they seem to deserve, while the truth of Holy Scripture remains unassailed. Which principle of interpretation, after all, are we to adopt—the miraculous or the rationalistic one ? Mr Barry gives us our choice. But he appears to forget that when two principles of explanation are furnished, each antavonistie to the other, they are so far from silencing objections that they merely negative each other. They do not reconcile antagonists ; they only give to each a sword. Elsewhere, Mr. Barry observes that to en deavour to account for the phenomena of the Deluge by the ordinary laws of nature, is little less preposterous than to inquire by what laws of 1)3E110:A5141i the waters of the Red Sea were pelted. and ity what known physiologi cal processes the life of Lazarus a - as restored. if it be once helieved that a miracle is here recorded, its extent and grandeur cannot surprise us when we remember the nature of the Divine Agent, in whose creation the whole earth is but as a grain of sand. Difficulties of this kind THE PRESS. are evidently most unphilosophical, and hardly deserve serious notice. Exactly: yet to this unphilosophical mode of treatment NJ r. Barry continually condescends. In dealing with the principle of " Inspira tion " Mr. Barry manifests the same want of directness. Arc we to suppose that the writers of the sacred record were directly in fluenced, directed, and controlled by the Iloly Spirit, or that they were merely subject to a kind of illumination varying with their indi vidual character? To this question Mr. Barry replies : Firstly : The theory of "dictation," which reduces the prophets or evangelists to mere instruments—" the pens and not the penmen of the Holy Spirit,"—is one, as has been said, not only utterly inconsistent with the whole analogy of God's dealings, lint also derogatory to the depth of Divine wisdom, which chose to communicate itself through a human spirit. Secondly : Yet some belief in a verbal inspiration is, as has been said, absolutely essential to the plenary authority of the Bible. Anil, thirdly, comes the conclusion, in which, as usual with the author, nothing is con cluded : Whether we are to call it one of " suggestion " or " direction," it may be time to settle, when we can estab lish a theory as to the source and process of origination in our own thoughts. In precisely this manner are we usually left to decide between the difficulties which the author has raised and combatted in turn. The fundamental idea with which he starts, noticed at the commencement of this article— that the trial of Scripture in our time turns on the proof of its harmony with the great prin ciples of righteousness and love, to which the conscience bears witness—is open to criticism. " The conscience r What conscience ? The conscience of man varies widely with times, with circumstances, and with creeds. The conscience to which Mr. Barry refers, as con nected with the great principles of righteous ness and love, does not subsist of itself at all. It has been formed by Christian teaching, and those who deny its Divine original are still susceptible of that Divine influence, from the moral and spiritual atmosphere in which they live. For those who have gained their ideas of " natural religion" from the revelations of Scripture to object that the Scripture does not come up to their ideas is absurd. What our sceptics term " natural religion " is a very un natural kind of religion—repugnant, that is, to the conceptions of the natural man. Else where Mr. Barry says, with that confusion of thought deplorably conspicuous in his volume : The first record of our race shows how great an error it is to assume the existence of a " natural religion," as in dependent of Revelation." But why then does Mr. Barry assume that the unregenerate and unenlightened conscience can bear witness to great principles of righ teousness and love ? Had such a power re sided in the conscience of itself there would have been less need of a Revelation than is practically experienced. It may be questioned whether the proof of the truth of Revelation does not consist more in its opposition to the natural state of man than in its accordance with it. The vulnerable point in Butler's great argument is, that in insisting on the analogy between Nature and Revelation, he is open to the reply that we should expect such analogy to exist on the assumption that the scheme of Revelation proceeded from men acted on by natural influences. The most acute and pleasing chapter in " Paley's Evi dences " is that in which he shows the origin ality of Christ's teaching, and its immea surable superiority to whatever the natural conscience had previously borne witness to. The parts of this " Introduction" which please us most are those occupied with histo• tical criticism, though it is rarely satisfactory in the sense of being conclusive. On all points Mr. Barry contrives to leave the mind of his readers in a state of doubt. The re mark, however, that allegory cannot be too sparingly admitted as a principle of scriptural interpretation, while symbolism cannot be too largely received, is undoubtedly just. We only wish that the author had adhered more to that literal truth of Scripture which he in- 1001 sists is tho only safe principle, though his method shakes tho foundations ou which it rests. Kate Coventry. An Autobiography. Edited by G. J. Whyte Melville. London: J. W. Parker and Son. Trtz writer of this agreeable fiction has already achieved so high a reputation by his two previous stories of " General Bounce " and " Digby Grand," originally published, like the present one, in Fraser's Magazine, that he needs no recommendation to our readers. " Kate Coventry " is a much shorter story than either of the other two, and has less preten sions to thought and sentiment. It is simply the chronicle of a fashionable young lady's life in town and country, who professes to be rather less insipid, constrained, and formal than the majority of the sisterhood. And doubtless no one who calls to mind the " Lady's Diary " in the Spectator can fail to congratulate himself on the change that has taken place in our habits between the days of George I. and Queen Victoria But, independently of the characters depicted, about whose merits there will probably he great diffe rences of opinion, the style and method of Major Melville are sure to please. There is an airy gaiety. an unceasing flow of high spirits, a fund of happy phraseology at his command, which will render " Kate Coventry " a prominent favo rite with all who read novels for amuse ment, and are perhaps rather wearied than improved by those volumes of high-art morality which are so much in vogue at pre sent. The great moralist of the last century thought that a comedy had answered its pur pose if it made the audience laugh. Is it not fair, on the same principle, to call that novel successful which affords us at once excitement and diversion, without seeking painfully for more recondite excellences, or probing into minute defects? The character of the heroine is in its general effect good. We are not blind to certain ex aggerations of detail by which it is disfigured, but they only render it a caricature—they do not make it an abortion. Kate's" fastness" some times goes too far, and her slang and sauciness are occasionally such as we cannot exactly call unfeminine, but which trespass on the limits of good breeding. An instance of the former is the scene on Sir Guy Scapegrace's drug; of the latter, her use of such expressions as "a dogcook," and her speech to her aunt Horsingham, in which, among other tolerably free and easy phrases, she observes, in vindi cation of her out-door exercise, " I've got " two legs, very good legs, Aunt Horsingham— " shall I show you them ?" and so forth. All this is pardonable enough, yet not perhaps in the best of taste. Kate indeed is a character that will not be very popular with lady readers, who, neither in real life nor in fiction, aro partial to what we have heard termed " men's women." But she is not, we repeat, unnatural. The best fictitious characters are a little embel lished, just as the prettiest women on tho stage require paint. Perhaps Major Melville uses it rather too freely ; but his heroine is a genuine and original character, and no mere walking lady. It is remarkable that very few male novelists have drawn good portraits of women, and very few female ones of men. What the one sex has to say of the other must necessarily be the fruit of observation, and not of intuition. Sometimes, indeed, the power of observation is so keen, and the aptitude for portraiture so great, that it produces almost as complete results as the superior faculty. But such qualities are exceedingly rare, and it is hardly any disparagement to a writer of fiction to say that he does not possess qualities vouchsafed to scarcely one in a thousand. The other characters in the story—with the exception, we should say, of Squire Haycock— are but so many foils to the centre figure. Frank Lovell and Cousin John, Mrs. Lumley and Lady Scapegrace, are cleverly-executed sketches, and nothing more. But in the Squire there is a distinct idiosyncracy. His absurdities are of course exaggerated ; but he is not near so unreal as Sam Weller or Mr.