The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-03-23


the marked ability, the apparent SINGER
ity, and seemingly consecrated devotion,
of the Oxford scholars. Perhaps it may
be ascribed in great part also to the rhet
ORIG of Pussy, and especially of Newman
and Keble. Strauss Mythical View OF
the Gospel Narratives, and Morells Phil
osophy of Religion, owed everything to
the same powerful "sorcery. This
subtle influence is none the less impor-
tant because so commonly unsupported.
Farrar. can seduce readers Of certain
age and temperament who would be deaf
to the more staid and sober enchant-
ments of John Foster; yet as we have
seen, Farrar spreads his rhetorical net
too plainly in the sight of more discern
ing birds, to have a reasonable hope of
capturing them. To certain extent
this is true also of Dean Stanley. The
greatest danger is where the honeyed art
is of so high an order that such thing
as art is not for moment dreamed of by
the victim. Such danger is to be appre-
hended even from the writings of such
men of clear-cut outline as Frederick w.
Robertson, of Brighton, and more evil
IDENTIFY still from the writings of such men
as his more shadowy, or misty, precepton
Frederick Denison Maurice, chaplain of
Lincoln's Inn. There is an angelic beauty
of diction about some Of the very worst
passages of human literature: as for in
stance, much of Rousseau and Byron.
The foul fend, alas, too often arrays him
self and his kindred subjects in vesture
not unlike that of the seraphim:
Their visages and stature as of gods"
1t often looks as if there was an inspira-
ton of the Devil no less than an inspira-
ton of the Holy Ghost. There is an al
most satanic charm, as we'll as an almost
satanic energy, about some books that are
in the last degree pernicious in their ten
dency. Witness some of the writings of
Bolingbroke and Voltaire.
The already waning ascendency of the
contemporary school of English material
ism, and refined materialistic pantheism
or semi pantheism, is attributable as much
as to any other cause, to the superb rhet-
orical powers of such writer's as Mill,
Darwin, Lubbock, Huxley, and especially
John Tyndall. The glistening fabric OF
Iy ndall's far-famed Belfast address van
ished like sc ap-bubble as soon as it was
analysed. 1t was curious union of true
science, unwarranted othesis, bad
logic, and worse metaphysics and the
ology, conglobulated together and illum
mated as With prismatic colors by the
magic of fascinating diction 1t is de-
lightful, because of this popularity, to
read Tyndall when he is discussing the
revelations of the spectroscope or the pro-
duction OF glaciers. He is "a perilous
guide amongst the precipices of psychol
ogy ethics, and divinity. There is a
homelier but scarcely less alluring charm
about the bland and childlike specula-
tons, and cool breezy atmosphere, of the
great naturalist whose name is insepara-
bly, bound up with certain well-known
views regarding "heredity" and natural
selection" 1t is different as respects the
blunt, incisive vigor of Huxley: but
nothing could be more telling. Huxley
is always absolutely clear and always ex-
presses himself with the sharpest precis-
ion, and with admirable terseness. There
is now and then too rare felicity of il
lustration and expression; as, for in
stance, his choice of the sensation, and
word, "mauskjness" to set forth his doc
trine of the corporal nature Of our sense
perceptions. But manun1 de ta6asZo.
Enough has been said, if the point has
been sufficiently emphasized that if rhet-
oric is mighty power on the side of
truth, it is equally powerful adjuvant
of error.
This very term is applied to Morell's style
by DIR. Thornwell.