word "nature," to which he adverts, without at the same time fairly recognizing that the word is used in two ways, each of which is equally common. In one sense, the word is used, as stated by him, to include man and his agency; and here "the natural" stands in opposition to "the divine," or supernatural." In another sense the word is used to

66

uses this knowledge to work what are called | observed the inconsistency in the use of the miracles, just as man uses his knowledge to produce results which are not miraculous. Now, if he goes on, there is nothing which can be called supernatural, or a violation of the laws of nature in the case of man, why should we suppose that there is in the case of God? A miracle is superhuman, but it is not supernatural or a violation of the laws of nature. This is, we believe, a fair sum-exclude man, and here "the natural" is used mary of the reviewer's case, and it is worth as opposed to "the artificial." So far from while to consider whether the sceptic's dif- there being anything strange in the use of ficulties are really smoothed, as the writer the word, it may safely be said that, in orimagines, by this way of putting the matter. dinary language, it is the more common of In the first place, we may observe that, in the two. Did the reviewer never hear a the position thus taken up, a verbal ques-person say that he preferred nature to art, tion and a real question are involved. If or that the poet leaves the city to commune we admit, as every one does admit, that a with nature? Here the agency of man is miracle means something effected by a spe- excluded from and put in opposition to the cial interposition of the divine will, which notion of nature, but there is nothing strange could not be effected by man, and which or inaccurate in this way of speaking. The would not have happened in the ordinary reviewer quotes rather contemptuously "a course of things, it is clear that, whether distinguished living lecturer upon physical we prefer to call it supernatural or super- science," who fell into this supposed error, human, is a merely verbal question. The when he remarked in a course of lectures importance which the reviewer attributes upon heat, that, "there is no spontaneousto the word "supernatural" is, in fact, a ness in Nature; " but, if instead of carping signal instance of a difficulty brought on by at this remark, the reviewer had set himself that confusion of language against which he fairly to consider it in all its bearings, it protests. He begins his article by a discus- would have led him to a solution of the difsion upon the meaning of the word, and, in ficulty. Coleridge has a similar observation order to get at this, he is obliged to analyze in the Aids to Reflection: "In Nature there the meaning of the word "nature." He is no origin." This notion, that in nature comes to this conclusion: "We must con- there is no spontaneousness or no origin, ceive it as including every agency which we lies at the bottom of all uses of the word see entering, or can conceive capable of en- "nature." We have given the two most tering, into the causation of the world. First common of these uses. In one of them, naand foremost among these is the agency of ture is opposed to those phenomena which are our own will and mind. Yet strange to say, accomplished by the originating will of man ; all reference to this agency is often tacitly in the other, it is opposed to those phenomena excluded when we speak of the laws of Na- which are accomplished by the originating ture." It may be remarked, in the first will of God. The opposite to the natural is, place, that if by nature or natural things is in the one case, the artificial, in the other, the meant every agency which we conceive casupernatural. This distinction the reviewer has failed to grasp, and he is constantly pable of entering into the causation of the brought into difficulty by his assumption world, then it is not true that first and fore- that the natural and supernatural are in every most among these is our own will and mind. case properly opposed to each other. When Obviously, to any one who believes in a God, the meanings of the word "nature" are once first and foremost would be the will of God. adequately seen, the futility of debating If, as we presume the writer meant to do about the use of the words "superhuman" and " (though quite inconsistently), we exclude the supernatural" is apparent. When God interferes to work a miracle, the agency notion of a God, then in one sense of the is supernatural as well as superhuman. It word "nature," it is true, that first and fore- is simply to avoid ambiguity that we do not most comes our own will. But the surpris- apply the word "supernatural" to the agency ing thing is, that the reviewer should have of man as standing in opposition to nature

in its narrower sense. Custom has deter-" in one sense" consists in this, that when mined that when a thing is called " super-men like Hume talk about a violation of nanatural," i.e., above nature, we shall under-ture, they include under this term the very stand nature to be used in the wider sense notion which the reviewer fancies will recwhich includes man; but if custom had not oncile them to the miracles. Their way of so determined, there would be no impropri- speaking is very possibly an inaccurate way ety in speaking of the action of man as "su- of speaking, but this is a verbal question pernatural," inasmuch as it, too, is above which we will not discuss. It is, neverthenature, taking the word in its narrower sense. less, quite certain that the notion of God It is, therefore, a mistake to suppose that, coming in and applying natural laws to efin common language, it is implied that the fect a particular purpose, just as men apply modes of operation differ in the case of God them, would, in Hume's eyes, constitute a and of man. The fundamental notion of violation of nature. If this is admitted, it the word "nature" is a dead chain of cause must also be admitted that Mr. Mansel is and effect, and when man and his doings are right in thinking that the great question still included, it is only because the free will of remains. There is, however, as we have man is dropped out of sight while the atten- said, a real question involved. Mr. Mansel tion is fixed on the superior free will of God. says that we may take the phrase "a violaIn discussing the meaning of a word, we must, tion of natural law" to mean that a particuof course, waive all metaphysical theories. lar cause should be made to produce an abWe must not inquire whether there really is normal effect. We may add, that it would such a thing, on the one hand, as free will in be a violation of natural law if that which man, or, on the other, as natural law con- is usually a cause is made to produce no eftrasted with the free will of God. fect. Now, it is quite true that we can imWe said above that a real question was agine a miracle to be performed without any involved, as well as a verbal question. The such violation of nature as this. The rereal question is this. Does a miracle imply viewer's mistake is in supposing that it is a violation of natural laws? Now, before only a violation of nature in this strict sense entering upon this question, we cannot for- of the word to which sceptics object. When bear to express some surprise that the re- we are told that God bade the sun to stand viewer has not stated the obligations under still upon Gibeon, and the moon in the valwhich he lies to Mr. Mansel. Mr. Mansel's ley of Ajalon, we may picture to ourselves Essay on Miracles stands, indeed, among the this miraculous phenomenon in two ways. list of books at the head of the article and We may suppose either that the ordinary is quoted in the article; but the writer has laws of motion were suddenly suspended, or not informed his readers that almost every- that other laws of which we know nothing thing which he says on the subject of the vio- were brought into play to overrule the ordilation of nature is to be found in that essay.nary laws, which, but for such intervention, The reviewer has possibly not read Mr. Mansel's Bampton Lectures, but as the matter is put more concisely there, we will quote a passage from the Sixth Lecture instead of quoting from the essay :

"A miracle, in one sense, need not necessarily be a violation of the laws of nature. God may make use of natural instruments acting after their kind, as man himself does, within his own sphere, in the production of artificial combinations. The great question, however, still remains. Has God ever, for religious purposes, exhibited phenomena in

certain relations which the observed course of nature and the artistic skill of man are unable to bring about or account for ?"

Now, so far as the position taken up by the reviewer differs from what is here said, it differs for the worse. In the first place, he omits to qualify his statement with the words "in one sense;" and, in the second place, he thinks that the difficulties are smoothed so that, if the question remains, it is no longer formidable. The importance of the words

would have remained in operation. But it seems to us to be a pure delusion to suppose that, in the eyes of the followers of Hume, there would be an important difference in these two views. The reviewer, indeed, in some passages would almost seem to fancy of natural laws, he gets rid of the notion of that, by dwelling upon the instrumentality a special interposition of Providence. But, if so, this is a baseless fancy. If the notion of a special interposition is set aside, we cannot have a true miracle. The interposition may be as remote as we please; but nothing is gained by treating it as remote instead of immediate. As a matter of fact, the interposition is represented in some of the miracles as more or less remote, as, for instance, when "The Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all night;" but the character of the miracle is not essentially altered by being thus put back. We can conceive it put back many such steps, but we gain nothing by it. It is of no use to add links to the chain if the chain is not pulled somewhere.

SYMPATHY OF ENGLISHMEN WITH THE NORTH AND SOUTH. 133

WHICH SIDE SHOULD CLAIM THE SYM

PATHIES OF ENGLISHMEN?

IN the subjoined communication (written some months ago) Professor Newman produces the most prominent features in the struggle between the United States Government and the slaveholding rebels :—

To the Editor of the London American: Sir,-In regard to the American civil war, few writers of this country have done justice to the cause of the North. Because the North has not yet pronounced that slavery shall be exterminated, they overlook that the war is on the question whether slavery shall be crippled. Out of this fallacy, which pronounced the combatants to deserve equal sympathy from the bystanders, has mainly arisen all that injustice of English public men and public writers, which has naturally necessarily, and, I think, most reasonably exasperated the Northerners. I beg permission to call attention to the broad and notorious facts, which have been so sadly overlooked and so shamefully disguised.

Mr. Lincoln, as candidate for the Presidency, pledged himself not to permit extension of slavery; Mr. Breckinridge was pledged to extend it. When Mr. Lincoln was elected, South Carolina rebelled. The war was begun by the South because they would not have as President a man pledged to oppose the extension of slavery; clearly, then, the war is on this question primarily. None are so good judges of its tendency as the Abolitionists of the North, who, till now, have stood aloof from all Federal politics: who indeed treated the policy of Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward with disgust and contempt, until the North rose in majesty and might to take up war in real earnest against the attack of the South. Thereupon the Abolitionists heartily joined President Lincoln; and their most eloquent leader, Wendell Phillips, spoke with enthusiasm for the war. The vast exertions of Massachusetts, which is the soul and heart of liberty, speak to the same effect, and guarantee, if guarantee were needed, that the victory of the North will be the victory of freedom.

But the insurgents had moved a second vital question, whether the States shall establish a right to secede from the Union at their own will and pleasure, and, indeed by the perjury and treason of their Executive. This second ground drew the whole Democratic party of the North into the war, although it had previously been the ally and tool of the South. President Lincoln is President not solely of the Republican party which elected him, but also of the Democratic party which opposed him; and he has to carry on this most dangerous and dif

ficult war by their joint energies. It took forty years in England to convert us into willingness to emancipate our colonial slaves, when it did not need to cost us more than a moderate and a merely pecuniary effort; if the last twelve months have not yet converted the Democratic party, especially while Kentucky holds to the Union, what Englishman can wonder or gravely blame them?

The President finds an ample ground and necessity for the war in that grievance which the whole North feels, namely, they are contending for law against lawlessness and treason, and for national existence against a disintegrated principle which would reduce them to a rope of sand. It suffices to display this ground of war, and not to alienate a large part of the North by avowing prematurely the other ground, and the ulterior objects now legally possible, since rebels can no longer appeal to the Constitution. I trust we shall ere long, hear that the progress of opinion has justified President Lincoln in proclaiming that slavery not only must be stopped, not only driven back, but must be destroyed; but meanwhile, whatever profession of war the North makes, success in the war ensures the immediate crippling, and at least early extirpation of slavery. It is, therefore, to me an inexplicable wonder if any Englishman, not led astray by despotic fanaticism, can fail to give his warmest sympathies to the North.

But now for my practical point. Our statesmen and our press have greatly exasperated those who are naturally our best and most valuable friends—the New Englanders and the agriculturists of the great West. Earl Russell is said to have declared that the North was fighting for empire, the South for independence; when, in fact, the North fights for civilization against barbarism, for law against lawlessness, for the responsibility of public officers against the impunity of perjured treason, for humanity against cruelty, for coherent civilized institutions against interminable anarchy. After pretending to desire in 1856 to exterminate privateering on the grounds of humanity, our Government has gone out of its way tenderly to reserve for the rebels the right of having privateers! It has given to them, before they had proved their strength, the right of buying arms from us; which the same ministers (Lords Palmerston and Russell) refused to Hungary after she had beaten Austria in a good cause, and wanted nothing but arms to beat off Russia also.

It began to arm Canada last August; and the Times proclaimed that it was done against the Northerners. It has never uttered one distinct word to make the South hopeless of receiving active aid from us; and all through

amongst the picturesque hosts of Richmond

the absurd fury in which this nation put itself because Captain Wilkes did against us that motley multitude of retainers and the hundredth part of what we have done of slaves led on by their chieftains, and against America, the ministerial papers, viz., bound together by the indissoluble ties of the Times, the Morning Post, the Globe, the family affection? Mr. Gladstone is too sinObserver-have been foremost in bitter zeal, cere a believer in the blessings of Christianoften bloodthirsty. All our action, and all ity and civilization not to detest the shedthe writing of Whig and Tory newspapers, ding of blood. Nor is war merely in his has tended to make those who are fighting a eyes unchristian-the keeper of her majesnoble battle for law first, and for freedom ty's Exchequer and the author of the Comnext, to believe that we are seeking to pick mercial Treaty knows that it is also eminently a quarrel with them now that their hands are expensive. The North have no business to full. I ask, then, is it not high time for those oppress the South, nor have they any right to who desire the overthrow of slavery and the issue such quantities of paper money. All success of a righteous cause to express their this Mr. Gladstone sees, and carefully obsympathy with the North by a great national serves. Nor does it escapea classical and declaration, which shall not only be heard in artistic eye that the scene on the James Parliament and stop the shameful tendencies | River, by a skilful imagination, might alto interfere for the benefit of the South, but most have been made to do duty for the also be so heard in America as to discourage Scamander. the South and reconcile to us the hearts of the North? If we delay this until decisive victory crowns the Northern arms, the act will not be so acceptable, nor so easily be believed sincere.

Respectfully yours,

F. W. NEWMAN.

From The London Review, 13 Dec. MR. GLADSTONE AND PROF. NEWMAN.

Led away by this Homeric simplicity of mind, Mr. Gladstone gave vent at Newcastle, some short time ago, to some admiration for Mr. Jefferson Davis and the South, which smacked, half of the classical student and half of the sentimental cavalier. Where slavery is concerned, Mr. Francis Newman is a terrible and uncompromising Roundhead. Rushing upon Mr. Gladstone in the columns of the Star, he smote him hip and thigh, with the zeal and the enthusiasm of an Iconoclast. Loud rang Mr. Frances Newman's sword and tongue. Crash went Mr. Gladstone's THE Chancellor of the Exchequer has painted glass. The South are a nation of been engaged in a gentle Platonic flirtation slave-owners and slave-dealers, and a chosen with Mr. Francis Newman, in a newspaper people must have no dealings with the folcorespondence. The cause of the encounter lowers of sin. Let the fate of Agag be between two spirits so unworldly was a cen- reserved also for Jefferson Davis. Bind sure passed upon Mr. Gladstone by Mr. their nobles with chains and their princes Newman for his recent speech at Newcastle. with cords of iron. Such, or to some such, Mr. Newman is a terrible and uncompromis- purpose, ran doubtless the sentiments of ing Northerner; and he comes forth breath- that Abolitionist of Abolitionists, Mr. Franing fire and fury against the sugar-plantations cis Newman. Well might Mr. Gladstone of the South. On the other hand, the Chan- tremble, for the tornado was upon him. cellor of her majesty's Exchequer-looking On reading what Mr. Francis Newman on all war from the point of view of an eco-thought about the South, and his halfnomical archangel-has, nevertheless, some avowed sympathy for the South, he felt sympathy for the courage, the chivalry, the probably something of what the worthy military order of the Southern States. Dis- prelate Laud might have felt if he had intracted by counter impulses, Mr. Gladstone sighs, and at intervals contradicts himself. Yes; it is godlike to hate slavery, but these Southerners remind us in an affecting way of the Homeric and patriarchal ages. The battle that is waging on the plains of Rich-dom. mond is as picturesque as if it were a battle for a second Troy. All war is wrong and foolish, and President Lincoln is as imprudent in persisting in an ill-judged attempt to conquer back the loyalty of the South, as Menelaus was unwise in spending ten long years in the chase of a thankless Helen. But if there is to be a war, who would not be

cautiously said something foolish in the presence of some red-hot Oliver Cromwell. What Mr. Gladstone experienced at finding himself so treated was doubtless half a feeling of shame and half a feeling of martyr

Mr. Gladstone is one of the first men in England, and Mr. Newman is an humble professor in the University of London. Mr. Gladstone is, or is supposed to be, a High Churchman of credit and renown, who can ascend the highest theological eminences with all the energy of a pilgrim, yet with all the unruffled placidity of a saint. Mr.

Newman's religious opinions are well known. is a slaveholding power, a monster which is At first sight, the two men have little in anxious to be allowed to rear its monstrous common. Yet a secret impulse led Mr. head among nations. It is an offence against Gladstone to listen to the voice of Professor public morality for a statesman of Mr. Francis Newman, when Mr. Disraeli him- Gladstone's position to speak at all of such self might have spent his taunts in vain a power" without declaring abhorrence of without eliciting a reply. It was one Deep it; or at least to speak in such a tone that calling to another. The critic of Homer he can for a moment be suspected of desirand the avenger of the wrongs of Helen ing its success." Mr. Gladstone and Mr. heard from afar, and recognized the cry of Newman represent respectively two large Homer's veteran translator. In the House parties, the opinions of which about the of Commons, the right honorable member present American struggle are somewhat for the University of Oxford is proud, and one-sided and unfair. The shield has two sometimes intolerable, to his equals and his sides, and each will only look at the side competitors. But now all pride was laid nearest to itself. The one maintains, with aside. It is with exquisite humility and the Mr. Gladstone, that the North has taken most unfeigned modesty that Mr. Gladstone upon it a hopeless and destructive enterrides, like Lady Godiva, through the regions prise; and that the South is a chivalrous, of literature. He is no more the mighty and worthy to be an independent nation. framer of the Budget; he is a neophyte, That is one side of the shield. The other proud of his powers, yet pretending that he side is the side to which those confine their is willing to be taught. Trippingly, deli-view who would encourage the North to cately, tremblingly the maiden Chancellor convert this fratricidal conflict into a wild of the Exchequer approaches the confes- and flaming propaganda of anti-slavery sional of this literary father. Tell me, my principles. In every sense slavery is a sad father, he seems to say, tell me, in the name and brutal thing. Since the days of Wilof Homer, have I sinned? It must be con-berforce every liberal-minded Englishman fessed that the picture is not without its looks forward to its abolition whenever the scenic effect. It was Henry IV. kneeling, day comes for abolishing it with safety. But with reverence on his lips but with defiance it is not without solicitude that many regard at heart, to kiss the Pope's toe, only that the possible perils of a military scheme of in Gladstone's case, if common report be emancipation. Mr. Newman and Mr. Gladtrue, it was the believer who was the suppli- stone are both inspired by ideas which are ant. And it must also be acknowledged, noble but eminently unpractical. The one that in both instances the suppliant party detests slavery as the other detests war. meets with the same kind of humiliating Slavery is a terrible evil, and one destined, rebuff. It is true that Mr. Gladstone takes perhaps, to vanish from the civilized face of advantage of his position, and in the very the earth. So, on the other hand, is war. middle of his homage, slily manages to ad- Yet Mr. Newman forgets that even the sudminister to the venerable literary pontiff a den extinction of slavery may be too dearly most provoking poke in the ribs. The pro- bought, and Mr. Gladstone forgets that fessor might, however, have been appeased there are some great questions which, when by the sight of so eminent a statesman on it comes to the last, can only be solved by his knees. Without appearing to be in the war. least edified or conciliated by the spectacle, One of the most serious features of the he at once proceeds to inflict condign pun- present struggle is, as is suggested by Proishment on the imposing sinner before him. fessor Newman, the universal antipathy to In the first place, he sent Mr. Gladstone's England expressed openly all over the Amerletter to the daily papers, a step which, how-ican continent. We certainly seem to run a ever gratifying to the readers of daily papers, risk of being la nation incomprise. Nothcan hardly have been calculated to delight ing we do suits anybody. As far as AmerMr. Gladstone himself. In the second place ica is concerned, we are not sure that we -after acknowledging the unexpected pleas- have not partially to blame ourselves, if, inure of hearing from the Chancellor of the deed, in the presence of the ruffianly exciteExchequer-he boldly rates him for what we ment that has lately prevailed against her suppose, in the language of the day, would be on the other side of the Atlantic, England termed his Southern proclivities. He threat- can be called upon to excuse or to reproach ens the Government with the imminent dan- herself. Possibly, whatever this country ger of the hatred of the whole American could have done would have been taken in race. More than this, he taunts them with evil part. Yet it should not be forgotten their selfishness in discouraging insurrec- that the universal feeling that pervades tion in the New, while they encourage it in England in favor of the dissolution of the the Old World. The Southern Confederacy Union is not unseen abroad. It is put down

1