Mr. Parker differs from me as to the use of the phrase "Spirit of G.o.d." I see practical reasons, which I have not here s.p.a.ce to insist on, for adhering to the _Christian_, as distinguished from the _Jewish_ use of this phrase. Theodore Parkes follows the phraseology of the Old Testament, according to which Bezaleel and others received the spirit of G.o.d to aid them in mere mechanical arts, building and tailoring. To ridicule Theodore Parker for this, would seem to me neither witty nor decent in an unbeliever; but when one does so, who professes to believe the whole Old Testament to be sacred, and stoops to lucifer matches and the Eureka shirt, as if this were a refutation, I need a far severer epithet. Mr. Rogers implies that the light of a lucifer match is comparable to the light of Theodore Parker; what will be the judgment of mankind a century hence, if the wide dissemination of the "Eclipse of Faith" lead to inscribing the name of Henry Rogers permanently in biographical dictionaries! Something of this sort may appear:--
"THEODORE PARKER, the most eminent moral theologian whom the first half of the nineteenth century produced in the United States. When the churches were so besotted, as to uphold the curse of slavery because they found it justified in the Bible; when the Statesmen, the Press, the Lawyers, and the Trading Community threw their weight to the same fatal side; Parker stood up to preach the higher law of G.o.d against false religion, false statesmanship, crooked law and cruel avarice.
He enforced three great fundamental truths, G.o.d, Holiness, and Immortality. He often risked life and fortune to rescue the fugitive slave. After a short and very active life full of good works, he died in blessed peace, prematurely worn out by his perpetual struggle for the true, the right, and the good. His preaching is the crisis which marked the turn of the tide in America from the material to the moral, which began to enforce the eternal laws of G.o.d on trade, on law, on administration, and on the professors of religion itself."
And what will be then said of him, who now despises the n.o.ble Parker? I hope something more than the following:--"HENRY ROGERS, an accomplished gentleman and scholar, author of many books, of which by far the most popular was a smart satirical dialogue, disfigured by unjustifiable garbling and profane language, the aim of which was to sneer down Theodore Parker and others who were trying to save spiritual doctrine out of the wreck of historical Christianity."
Jocose scoffing, and dialogue writing is the easiest of tasks; and if Mr. Rogers"s co-religionists do not take the alarm, and come in strength upon Messrs. Longman, imploring them to suppress these books of Mr. Rogers, persons who despise _all_ religion (with whom Mr.
Rogers pertinaciously confounds me under the term infidel), may one of these days imitate his sprightly example against his creed and church.
He himself seems to me at present incurable. I do not appeal to _him_, I appeal to his co-religionists, how they would like the publication of a dialogue, in which his free and easy sceptic "Mr. Harrington"
might reason on the _opposite_ side to that pliable and candid man of straw "Mr. Fellowes?" I here subjoin for their consideration, an imaginary extract of the sort which, by their eager patronage of the "Eclipse of Faith," they are inviting against themselves.
_Extract._
I say, Fellowes! (said Harrington), what was that, that Parker and Rogers said about the Spirit of G.o.d?
Excuse me (said Fellowes), Theodore Parker and Henry Rogers hold very different views, Mr. Rogers would be much hurt to bear you cla.s.s him with Parker.
I know (replied he), but they both hold that G.o.d inspires people; and that is a great point in common, as I view it. Does not Mr. Rogers believe the Old Testament inspired and all of it true?
Certainly (said Fellowes): at least he was much shocked with Mr.
Newman for trying to discriminate its chaff from its wheat.
Well then, he believes, does not he, that Jehovah filled men _with the spirit of wisdom_ to help them make a suit of clothes for Aaron!
Fellowes, after a pause, replied:--That is certainly written in the 28th chapter of Exodus.
Now, my fine fellow! (said Harrington), here is a question to _rile_ Mr. Rogers. If Aaron"s toggery needed one portion of the spirit of wisdom from Jehovah, how many portions does the Empress Eugenie"s best crinoline need?
Really (said Fellowes, somewhat offended), such ridicule seems to me profane.
Forgive me, dear friend (replied Harrington, with a sweet smile).
_Your_ views I never will ridicule; for I know you have imbibed somewhat of Francis Newman"s fancy, that one ought to feel tenderly towards other men"s piety. But Henry Rogers is made of stouter stuff; he manfully avows that a religion, if it is true, ought to stand the test of ridicule, and he deliberately approves this weapon of attack.
I cannot deny that (said Fellowes, lifting his eyebrows).
But I was going to ask (continued Harrington) whether Mr. Rogers does not believe that Jehovah filled Bezaleel with the Spirit of G.o.d, for the work of jeweller, coppersmith, and mason?
Of course he does (answered Fellowes), the text is perfectly clear, in the 31st of Exodus; Bezaleel and Aholiab were both inspired to become cunning workmen.
By the Goose (said Harrington)--forgive a Socratic oath--I really do not see that Mr. Rogers differs much from Theodore Parker. If a man cannot hack a bit of stone or timber without the Spirit of G.o.d, Mr.
Rogers will have hard work to convince me, that any one can make a rifled cannon without the Spirit of G.o.d.
There is something in that (said Fellowes). In fact, I have sometimes wondered how Mr. Rogers could say that which _looks_ so profane, as what he said about the Eureka shirt.
Pray what is that? (said Harrington;) and where?
It is in his celebrated "Defence," 2nd edition, p. 155. "_If_ Minos and Praxiteles are inspired in the same sense as Moses and Christ, then the inventor of lucifer matches, as well as the inventor of the Eureka shirts, must be also admitted"--to be inspired.
Do you mean that he is trying to save the credit of Moses, by maintaining that the Spirit of G.o.d which guides a sculptor is _not_ the same in kind as that which guides a saint?
No (replied Fellowes, with surprise), he is not defending Moses; he is attacking Parker.
Bless me (said Harrington, starting up), what is become of the man"s logic! Why, Parker and Moses are in the same boat. Mr. Rogers fires at it, in hope to sink Parker; and does not know that he is sending old Moses to Davy"s locker.
Now this is too bad (said Fellowes), I really cannot bear it.
Nah! Nah! good friend (said Harrington, imploringly), be calm; and remember, we have agreed that ridicule--against _Mr. Rogers_, not against _you_--is fair play.
That is true (replied Fellowes with more composure).
Now (said Harrington, with a confidential air), you are my friend, and I will tell you a secret--be sure you tell no one--I think that Henry Rogers, Theodore Parker, and Francis Newman are three ninnies; all wrong; for they all profess to believe in divine inspiration: yet they are not ninnies of the same cla.s.s. I _admit_ to Mr. Rogers that there is a real difference.
How do you mean (said Fellowes, with curiosity aroused)?
Why (said Harrington, pausing and becoming impressive), Newman is a flimsy mystic; he has no foundation, but he builds logically enough--at least as far as I see--on his fancies and other people"s fancies. This is to be a simple ninny. But Mr. Rogers fancies he believes a mystical religion, and doesn"t; and fancies he is very logical, and isn"t. This is to be a doubly distilled ninny.
Really I do not call this ridicule, Mr. Harrington (said Fellowes, rising), I must call it slander. What right have you to say that Mr.
Rogers does not believe in the holy truths of the New Testament?
Surely (replied Harrington) I have just _as_ much right as Mr. Rogers has to say that Mr. Newman does not believe the holy sentiments of St. Paul, when Mr. Newman says he does. Do you remember how Mr. Rogers told him it was absurd for an infidel like him to third: he was in a condition to rebuke any one for being profane, or fancy he had a right to say that he believed this and that mystical text of Paul, which, Mr. Rogers avows, Newman _totally_ mistakes and does _not_ believe as Paul meant it. Now I may be very wrong; but I augur that Newman _does_ understand Paul, and Rogers does _not_. For Rogers is of the Paley school, and a wit; and a brilliant chap he is, like Macaulay. Such men cannot be mystics nor Puritans in Pauline fashion; they cannot bear to hear of a religion _from within_; but, as I heard a fellow say the other day, Newman has never worked off the Puritan leaven.
Well (said Fellowes), but why do you call Mr. Rogers illogical?
I think you have seen one instance already, but that is a trifle compared to his fundamental blunder (said Harrington).
What can you mean? how fundamental (asked his friend)?
Why, he says, that _I_ (for instance) who have so faith whatever in what he calls revelation, cannot have any just belief or sure knowledge of the moral qualities of G.o.d; in fact, am logically bound (equally with Mr. Newman) to regard G.o.d as _im_moral, if I judge by my own faculties alone. Does he not say that?
Unquestionably; he has a whole chapter (ch. III.) of his "Defence" to enforce this on Mr. Newman (replied Fellowes).
Well, next, he tells me, that when the Christian message, as from G.o.d, is presented to me, I am to believe it on the word of a G.o.d whom I suppose to be, or _ought_ to suppose to be, immoral. If I suppose A B a rogue, shall I believe the message which the rogue sends me?
Surely, Harrington, you forget that you are speaking of G.o.d, not of man: you ought not to reason so (said Fellowes, somewhat agitated).
Surely, Fellowes, it is _you_ who forget (retorted Harrington) that syllogism depends on form, not on matter. Whether it be G.o.d or Man, makes no difference; the logic must be tried by turning the terms into X Y Z. But I have not said all Mr. Rogers says, I am bound to throw away the moral principles which I already have, at the bidding of a G.o.d whom I am bound to believe to be immoral.
No, you are unfair (said Fellowes), I know he says that revelation would confirm and _improve_ your moral principles.
But I am _not_ unfair. It is he who argues in a circle. What will be _improvement_, is the very question pending. He says, that if Jehovah called to me from heaven, "O Harrington! O Harrington! take thine innocent son, thine only son, lay him on the altar and kill him," I should be bound to regard obedience to the command an _improvement_ of my morality; and this, though, up to the moment when I heard the voice, I had been _bound logically_ to believe Jehovah to be an IMMORAL G.o.d. What think you of that for logic?
I confess (said Fellowes, with great candour) I must yield up my friend"s reputation as a _logician_; and I begin to think he was unwise in talking so contemptuously of Mr. Newman"s reasoning faculties. But in truth, I love my friend for the great _spiritual_ benefits I have derived from him and cannot admit to you that he is not a very sincere believer in mystical Christianity.
What benefits, may I ask? (said Harrington).
I have found by his aid the peace which pa.s.seth understanding (replied he).
It pa.s.ses my understanding, if you have (answered Harrington, laughing), and I shall be infinitely obliged by your allowing me to partic.i.p.ate in the discovery. In plain truth, I do not trust your mysticism.