THE PHILOSOPHY OF BISHOP BUTLEK. 



57 



slightly different from its eighteenth-century type is not dead, 

 and never can die until either Christianity ceases to challenge 

 attention, or until all men embrace the claims of Christianity. 

 There will thus always be a place for Butler's great work on the 

 analogy of rehgion, because difficulties such as he there treats 

 will always recur. 



It is further alleged by these critics, that Butler's arguments 

 are of no force against atheism, or against agnosticism, and that 

 atheism and agnosticism are at present the forms of unbelief 

 that hold the field. But even here, something has to be said on 

 the other side. 



In the first place , I can well beheve that an open 

 unbeUever in all reUgion might be impressed in reading the 

 Analogy with the grave and sincere temper of mind which that 

 book breathes, and might feel compelled to acknowledge that 

 such quahties, combined with so much intellectual strength and 

 grasp, constitute a solid argument at least for caution in rejecting 

 the claims of Christianity so admirably defended. 



In the second place, to discredit Butler because he does not 

 confute the atheist or the agnostic, is just as fooHsh and in- 

 conclusive as it would be to complain that vaccination does not 

 cure the whooping cough ; or to refuse to take quinine for a 

 fever because it does not mend a dislocated limb. Every weapon 

 in the armoury of faith has its value, and none can say how 

 soon or how often each may be required, and the masters of the 

 armour-maker's art, whose gifts have enriched the offensive and 

 defensive resources of the Church, are to be had in everlasting 

 and grateful remembrance. 



Butler's doctrine of probability has not found favour with 

 devout and ardent Christians. It has had in their ears a sound 

 of coolness and calculation, which is chilling to the fervour of 

 their faith. I can appreciate the sentiment, but I am sure that 

 it is founded on a misapprehension. It is true that Butler, Hke 

 most people, even the best of his day, shrank from enthusiasm, 

 and that while he agreed fully with St. Paul in proving all things, 

 he did not quite so fully follow him in the injunction not to 

 quench the Spirit. 



Still the probabihty which Butler rehed on in rehgious argu- 

 ment was a sound element in Christian apologetics. By it he 

 meant that interior confidence which is created by the observation 

 of the steady recurrence of phenomena. This confidence may 

 not amount to that certainty which is produced by formal 



