THE BELFAST ADDRESS. 169 



mingle anger and vituperation with such discussions. 

 There are, for example, writers of note and influence at 

 the present day, who are not ashamed publicly to assume 

 the " deep personal sin " of a great logician to be the 

 cause of his unbelief in a theologic dogma. 1 And 

 there are others who hold that we, who cherish our 

 noble Bible, wrought as it has been into the constitution 

 of our forefathers, and by inheritance into us, must 

 necessarily be hypocritical and insincere. Let us dis- 

 avow and discountenance such people, cherishing the 

 unswerving faith that what is good and true in both our 

 arguments will be preserved for the benefit of humanity, 

 while all that is bad or false will disappear.' 



I hold the Bishop's reasoning to be unanswerable, 

 and his liberality to be worthy of imitation 



It is worth remarking that in one respect the 

 Bishop was a product of his age. Long previous to his 

 day the nature of the soul had been so favourite and 

 general a topic of discussion, that, when the students of 

 the Italian Universities wished to know the leanings of 

 a new Professor, they at once requested him to lecture 

 upon the soul. About the time of Bishop Butler the 

 question was not only agitated but extended. It was 

 seen by the clear-witted men who entered this arena, 

 that many of their best arguments applied equally to 

 brutes and men. The Bishop's arguments were of this 

 character. He saw it, admitted it, took the consequen.ce, 

 and boldly embraced the whole animal world in his 

 scheme of immortality. 



1 This is the aspect under which the late Editor of the ' Dublin 

 Review ' presented to his readers the memory of John Stuart Mill. 

 I can only say, that I would as soon take my chance in the other 

 world, in the company of the 'unbeliever,' as in that of his Jesuit 

 detractor. In Dr. Ward we have an example of a wholesome and 

 vigorous nature, soured and perverted by a poisonous creed. 



