ANALYSIS OF

BISHOP BUTLER'S SERMONS.

PREFACE.

As the religious system of Bishop Butler is to be gathered from his "Analogy of Natural and Revealed Religion," so his moral system is to be found in his "Fifteen Sermons upon Human Nature, or Man considered as a Moral Agent."

In order to appreciate the full meaning of these sermons, it is almost necessary to master the Preface, which stands prefixed to them. The following outline of it will be found useful.

Though all men judge to some extent, few care to judge whether the arguments set before them be really conclusive or not. For proof, as such, they do not care; and this tendency is increased by light and frivolous reading. Others, on the contrary, think no subject difficult, and so are not at the pains of weighing arguments. But all works require attention in proportion to the difficulty of their subject-matter. And moral treatises require special attention, because ideas fluctuate, and terms change their meaning. Light works may be accommodated to the reader, but the moral writer must state things as he finds them. And those only have a right to pronounce the following discourses difficult or obscure, who know whether such difficulty or obscurity could have been avoided or not. They should remember that, while perplexity may be laid tc the charge of the writer, obscurity lies in the subject-matter of a book.

There are two ways of treating the subject of morals. The one starts with an inquiry into the abstract relations of things; the other from a matter of fact, such as what is the particular nature of man, and what its several parts, &c., and then from these facts goes on to determine what course of life it is which corresponds to his whole nature. The former is the best formal proof; the latter is more readily understood by most men, and peculiarly suited to satisfy a fair mind.

Butler adopts, chiefly, this latter course. In the first three sermons, he proceeds upon it entirely. The intention of these sermons is to show what is the nature of man, and how the ancient moralists were right in asserting that virtue lay in following this nature, and vice in departing from it. In order to understand the truth of this position, we must state exactly what is meant by a "System." It is not merely a whole made up of several parts; but such a whole made up of parts which have a mutual relation to each other, and are conducive to some end. Thus man is made up of appotites, passions, affections, and a conscience; but this is not a

complete account of man's inward frame and nature, because we have not taken into account the relation of conscience to the rest, and the end to which his nature is adapted. If we view man in this light, it will be as clear that man is made for virtue as a watch for keeping time.

It follows on this, that if virtue be the end of man, vice is most opposed to his moral nature. And the heathen moralists meant this when they wrote: for even if they meant that vice was opposed to the higher part of his nature, the very idea of a higher and a lower part implies that they believed it to be a system, although possibly they may not have been able to explain themselves fully.

The Preface next gives a brief outline of the argument of some of the sermons in consecutive order. The first three sermons are to the following effect: Men and brutes both have certain appetites, but man has a ruling principle within him, called a conscience, which brutes have not. And therefore, although brutes, in pursuing their instincts, follow their entire nature, it does not follow that man is following nature when he pursues his appetites; for he is following only a part, and that too the lower part, of his nature, and he is neglecting to follow conscience, which he ought to obey as absolute and supreme in his moral system. Thus, in spite of the immoral tenets of certain philosophers, man is a law to himself; the very voice of conscience laying him under an obligation to act virtuously.

The eleventh and twelfth sermons are the only other two which need to be specially mentioned here. Their outline is as follows: Benevolence and self-love are not opposed, but compatible. Our actions have for their objects either ourselves or others; so far as they regard ourselves, they are the result of self-love; so far as they regard others, they spring from benevolence; and these two affections may coexist; nay, they are so often united in the same action, that it becomes absurd to assert, as some do, that men are wholly actuated by the one or the other affection. The facts of human nature go equally to show the existence within us of both principles. And self-love, rightly understood, and in its due degree, is as good an affection as benevolence. It is as much to be regretted that men do not show more self-love in the world, as it is that they have so little benevolence. For if they were to cultivate self-love-in other words, if they were uniformly to pursue their own true and highest good—much vice and misery would be avoided.

SERMON I-Upon Human Nature.

The first three sermons bear the above title. We learn from them, first, that man's nature is a Constitution or System, and that conscience is the leading principle in it; secondly, that con

e is

science is given to man as a guide, teaching him that intended to live for the good of others as well as for his own. The proper office of conscience is to tell us whether a particular action be right or wrong. In the first sermon, Butler draws out his theory of human nature, and in it he regards conscience as simply one principle. In the second and third sermons, he shows that it is intended to be not only a principle, but the governing one, a power which ought to command, and which cannot be dis obeyed.

The fact that we are God's creatures, and that virtue is the law under which we are born, is a prior obligation to a life of piety, than the consideration that God sent his Son to save the world, and the consequent duties of Christians to each other. And yet the early Christians may have felt the latter to be the more powerful motive in their own age.

St. Paul, in Rom. xii. 4, 5, comparing human society to a body, means to assert, that as men have faculties which lead them to pursue their own good, so they have also faculties which lead them to have regard to the good of others. The relation of the various parts of the body to each other and to the whole, is analogous to that relation which we bear to our fellow men and to the whole human race. Society, however, does not resemble a dead body, but one animated with a soul; in other words, it resembles the whole nature of man inclusive of its internal principles. The comparison, then, will lie between man's nature, as respecting self, and tending to his own private good, and man's nature as respecting society, and tending to the good of his fellow men. These ends are in fact coincident, but must be kept distinct.

Hence it will appear, that we are made not only for our own good, but for that of society; and to deny the one position is to deny the other. For, as a matter of fact, man has within him a principle of benevolence, or love of his fellow man; an affection which is in some degree to society what love is to the individual.

Again, the same will appear from the fact that our other passions and affections which are distinct from benevolence and selflove, lead us as much to public as to private good, though some lead more immediately than others; still, indirectly, the one set tend to private, the other to public good.

Thirdly, as a matter of fact, men have within them a principle of reflection, called Conscience, a feeling which approves or disapproves our actions. This principle does not confine itself to private good, but indirectly it regards the good of society; for it restrains men from acts of violence, and strengthens the dictates of natural affection. It is plainly impossible for us to do good and not approve what we do; and the existence of such & principle as that of conscience is proved by facts. For let a man perform, tirst, an act of charity, and then an act of base ingrati tude; his conscience will approve the former act as strongly as it

will reprobate the latter. And as this principle has regard to the good of society as well as of the individual, it is clear that man has been made for society.

This social tendency of our nature is confirmed by the fact that the most trivial circumstances furnish the basis of ties between man and man, and bind us together into one body; so far, indeed, that it becomes as great an absurdity for a man to attempt to regard himself as free from the ties of society, as for a part of his natural body to disavow all relation to the rest of it.

But it will be objected that we have within us a natural principle of Malevolence. We reply, that the fact that men will inflict misery on each other is no more a proof of the existence of such a principle, than the fact that men will do evil to themselves is a proof of the existence of a principle of self-hatred. The truth is, man has ungoverned passions, which, like everything besides, may be accidentally perverted to evil, though originally they aim at the good of our fellow man.

Again, it may be objected that some men are found void of natural affection towards others. We reply, that so also are persons to be found without natural affection towards themselves, and we must not judge mankind in general from exceptional

cases.

In fact, men as often err against self-love as against benevolence; in other words, as many persons contradict that part of their nature which leads them to regard their own good and happiness, as contradict that principle which teaches them to consult the good of their fellows. In fact, men err from setting too high a value on external goods and sensual pleasures; and this arises from the little esteem and regard which they have for their own selves, or from not acting according to the result of that consideration in other words, self-love is overcome by passion.

Hence we see that we are each constituted and adapted as individuals to attain the highest degree of happiness, and as members of society to attain the highest degree of virtue; but in spite of this, men will not follow their nature entirely, but, by pursuing some present and momentary gratification, work their own misery and ruin.

SERMON II.-Upon Human Nature.

The object of this discourse is to show that the alleged strength of man's passions is no real reason for yielding to them; for that there is within us a higher principle, that of conscience, whose authority and voice outweighs their strength.

We may fairly argue from the fitness of any creature to a peculiar end, that Nature intended it for that peculiar end; and especially if it be complex. However, in moral mattars we must