There are few who will not acquiesce in this remark of Harrington’s, however they may lament the alternative he seemed disposed to take.  Assuredly, for the specific object in view, no book written by man was ever more conclusive than that of Butler.  For if you can show to an unbeliever in Christianity, who is yet (as most are) a Theists, that any objection derived from its apparent repugnance to wisdom or goodness applies equally to the “constitution and course of nature,” you do fairly compel him (as long as he remains a Theist) to admit that that objection ought not to have weight with him.  He has indeed an alternative; that of Atheism or Scepticism; but it is clear he must give up either his argument or his—­Theism.  It may be called, indeed, an argument ad hominem; but as almost every unbeliever in Christianity is a man of the above stamp, it is of wide application.  This is the fair issue to which Butler brings the argument; and the conclusiveness of his logic has been shown in this, that, however easily “analogies” may be “retorted,” the parties affected by it have never answered it.  I was amused with the criticism with which Harrington wound up.  “Butler,” said he, “wrote but little; but when reading him, I have often thought of Walter Scott’s wolf-dog Maida, who seldom was tempted to join in the bark of his lesser canine associates.  ‘He seldom opens his mouth,’ said his master; ’but when he does, he shakes the Eildon Hills.  Maida is like the great gun at Constantinople,—­it takes a long time to load it; but when it does go off, it goes off for something!’” ____

Aug. 1.  I this day put into Mr. Fellowes’s hands the brief notes on the three questions on which he had solicited my opinion.  They were as follows:—­

I. Mr. Newman says that it is an idle boast that the elevation of woman is in any high degree attributable to the Gospel.  “In point of fact,” says he, “Christian doctrine, as propounded by Paul, is not at all so honorable to woman as that which German soundness of heart has established.  With Paul the sole reason for marriage is that a man may without sin vent his sensual desires.”

If, indeed, there were no other passage in the New Testament than that to which Mr. Newman refers, there might be something to be said for him.  But it is only one of many, and the question really at issue is consequently blinked, namely, what is the aspect of the entire New Testament institute upon the relations of woman?  It is true, indeed, that the reason for marriage which Mr. Newman contends is the only thing Paul thought about, is very properly urged; for from the constitution of human nature, (as every comprehensive philosopher and legislator would admits) as well as from the horrible condition of things where marriage is neglected, prominence is very justly given to the preservation of chastity as one of the primary objects of the institution.  But the question as between Mr. Newman and Christianity is this:  Is this