Punch: Punch (40.1861)

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

[March 2, 1861,

INSTEAD OE WHICH AND NOT ONLY.

Everybody, of course, knows the story of the old country Justice,
who addressed to a juvenile goose-stealer, in pronouncing sentence
I upon him, this remonstrance“ Here, Sir, Providence lias blessed
you with talents and opportunities, instead of which you go stealing
* geese off a common! ”

j

Was this celebrated magistrate a Villiers or a Montague ?

The reason for this question will be discerned in a certain letter on
the subject of Essays and Reviews, lately written by the Bishop of
Durham, in reply to an address concerning those writings from the
Archdeaconry of Lindisfarne. “ It will,” writes the Bishop, in that
pastoral epistle, “ be in great measure, by our Christian earnestness,
and by our Scriptural teaching, that we should guard the unwary from
being led into the paths of such dangerous speculations, and show our
| abhorrence of opinions which I from my heart consider not only to be
detrimental to the best interests of morality, and derogatory to,” here
ne Bishop uses words equivalent to scriptural revelation—‘‘but which
are so manifestly opposed to the truth as it is in”—here his Lordship
names the Author of Christianity.

The orthodoxy or heterodoxy of Essays and Reviews is not now in
question, and of course we are not going into theology, but may be
| permitted to express the supposition that the revelation which the
j Bishop of Durham mentions, and the truth which he names, are
generally regarded amongst us as one and the same thing. If so, then
j that, which is derogatory to the teaching must be opposed to the truth,

; and the Bishop’s “not only” has a strong family likeness to the
Justice’s “instead of which.” Save that “not only,” in the above
connection, beats ‘‘instead of which.” For “instead of which” is
merely a rather gaping ellipsis. “Instead of employing and exerting
which,” was what his Worship meant to say. But “not only” can

by no stretch of rhetorical licence be forced into harmony with the laws
of thought and language.

If, indeed, the Bishop of Durham intended to contradistinguish,
the truth from the revelation, then the “not only” by which he
indicated that intention was not only right but also requisite. But
if he did not intend that, then the Bishop is referred to Dr. Blair.
He probably has read Blair’s Sermons; but Blair not only wrote
sermons : he also wrote certain lectures on style. These the Bishop
of Durham should read, and not only read them, but endeavour to
comprehend them, and observe the instructions which they contain.
His “ not only,” as it stands above, unexplained, is a caution
to sinners, that is to say, a caution to writers who sin not only
against the precepts of Blair, but also against the truth as it is in
Lindley Murray. It is likewise a caution to saints—to those
saints who are accustomed to use evangelical phraseology not only
without understanding what it means, but without even considering j
what they themselves imagine it to mean. Such saints may be admo-
nished by the example of the Bishop of Durham to mind how they
employ serious forms of speech, lest they should unawares make a
serious mistake, and a mistake which is not only serious but also
ridiculous.

Prom a Correspondent.

Chichester Spire, Heading Abbey, Lambeth Church, and sundry
other ecclesiastical edifices have suffered by the extraordinary gale of
the 20th. A Correspondent writes to us to say, that he thinks the
ladies who assisted Macbeth info his difficulties have been at work, and
have obeyed the permission to—

“ Untie the winds, and let them fight
Against the Churches.”

Our private opinion is, that our Correspondent is a Pump.

AN AWKWARD EIX.

From the Springfield Journal, the President Elect’s
organ, we learn with a certain dismay that—

“ Ms. Lincoln stands immovably on the Chicago platform, and
he will neither acquiesce in, nor consult his friends to acquiesce
in, any compromise that surrenders one iota of it.”

This is an embarrassing attitude for any statesman
to take. If Mr. Lincoln will not remove from the
platform, we suppose the only way will be to carry him
and the platform into the Capitol together. It will
he rather awkward, though, if the floor of the House
is not laige enough to take in the platform ! We have
heard of members having such an attachment for their
seats (like Mr. Horsman, for instance,) that they can-
not be made, oi persuaded, to give them up ; but for
a senator openly to declare that his affection tor a cer-
tain platform is so strong that nothing shall induce him
to tear himself from it, is quite a new locus standi in
the political world. The only possible compromise we
see, when Mr. Lincoln and his platform are carried in
triumph to Washington, is, to get the latter incor-
porated instantly with the Board of Administration,
and then Abraham can “stump ” away as much as he
likes on both.

There can he but little difficulty in this operation in
a country where they move houses more easily than
spiritualists move chairs or tables, so that an invalid,
who is ordered a change of air, can be carried twenty
miles into the country simply by giving his orders
over-night, and without a single baby in the establish-
ment being in the least disturbed by the arrangement,
or as much as a creditor being cognisant of the move.
If it is so easy there to transport an entire house
without spilling even a drop of ink, it cannot surely
require the power of a second Aladdin to carry a
simple platform through the country, and to do it so
steadily and effectively that Mr. Lincoln, on his arrival
at the White House, shall be as immovable as ever,
having traversed the United States, without having
leant in the smallest way either to the north or the
south.

Why are the Game Laws the jolliest laws we
have? Because their express object is to “keep the
game alive.”_

A Chest Protector.—One of Chubb’s locks.

THE ITALIAN BOOT.