"You know," resumed Fellowes, "that in the draught of "natural religion"
given us by Lord Herbert, that writer particularly insists on this as one of the articles which nature itself teaches us, as amongst the "common notions," a sentiment innate to the human mind. Now if such masters as Mr. Newman may be in doubt about our innate sentiments, truly I scarcely know what to think."
"You can easily decide," said I, gravely, "and decide infallibly."
"How so?"
"Consult that spiritual faculty which Mr. Newman says you have as well as he or Lord Herbert. If your theory be true, how can there be any doubt as to your "innate" sentiments? If you say they are written in very small characters, and require to be magnified by somebody"s microscope, that, recollect, is tantamount to acknowledging the possible utility of an external revelation. But what next?"
"Well, then, if I must confess all the truth, I thought Mr. Newman hardly fair in his exhibition of Paul"s reasoning on this matter. He, if you recollect, says that Paul seems to have rested the belief of Christ"s resurrection very little upon evidence, which he received very credulously, upon very insufficient proof, and in a manner which would have moved the laughter of Paley; that, in short, he cared very little about the evidence, and arrived mainly at his convictions in virtue of his "spiritual aspirations"; that it was rather his strong aspirations after immortality which made Paul believe the supposed fact, than the supposed fact which gave strength to his aspirations after immortality. Now it is very clear (from texts which, for whatsoever reasons, are not quoted by Mr. Newman), that the Apostle Paul made his whole argument depend on the alleged fact of Christ"s resurrection, whether carelessly received or not: "If Christ be not risen, then is your faith vain, and our preaching is also vain ....
Then are we of all men most miserable.""
"But you recollect that Mr. Newman alleges that Paul deals very superficially with the evidence,--with that of the "five hundred," for example. He observes that Paley would have made a widely different matter of it."
"See how variously men may argue," replied Fellowes, candidly. "I was talking on that very point with one of the orthodox the other day, and he reasoned in some such way as this:--
"On the supposition, he said, that the possession of miraculous powers was notorious in the Church,--that many of those whom Paul addressed had actually witnessed them,--that the Gospel, when preached by him and by the other Apostles, was confirmed by "signs and wonders,"--nothing could be more natural than the very tone which the Apostles employed: that, so far from its being suspicious, it was one of the truest touches of nature and verisimilitude in their compositions; so much so, that, supposing there were no miracles, that very tone required itself to be accounted for as unnatural; he said that it is, in fact, just the way in which men talk and write of any other extraordinary events which notoriously happened in their time. They never think of posterity, and what it may think; of antic.i.p.ating either future doubts or charges of fraud. It is natural that men should speak in this, as we should call it, loose way, of what is transpiring under their very noses. If, on the other hand, there had been no miracles to appeal to, so as to render this style as natural as, on the contrary supposition, it was the reverse, he could not, he said, imagine, that, in that or any other age, any men, especially men opposed to such pretensions, would so easily have been satisfied, even had the Apostles confined themselves to rumors of alleged distant miracles; but much less where similar wonders were said to have been brought under the eyes of the very parties to whom the appeal was made! He said he would even go a step further, and affirm that, under the circ.u.mstances of the professed notoriety of the miraculous occurrences to which Paul and the other Apostles appealed, any declaration that they had inst.i.tuted that careful scrutiny of evidence, that minute circ.u.mstantial cross-examination of the witnesses,--which would be a course all very well in the days of Paley, eighteen hundred years after, but absolutely preposterous then,--would have appeared to our age a much more suspicious thing than the tone actually adopted; that the scrupulous deposition of technical proof would have been finessing too much, and would have been the strongest proof of collusion.
The very tone objected to, he said, supposing there were no miracles, is one of the most striking proofs of the astonishing sagacity of these men; for it is just the tone they would have used if there had been. So differently may men reason from the same data! Whether (he concluded) Mr. Newman"s view of the facts, or his, was founded on a deeper and more comprehensive knowledge of human nature, he must leave to my judgment."
"I protest," said I, "I think the orthodox had the best of it. But what struck you next as unaccountable in Mr. Newman"s view of this subject of a future life?"
"I confess, then, that the reasoning by which he endeavors to show that, even admitting the fact of Christ"s resurrection, there could be nothing in it to warrant the expectation of the resurrection of any other human beings, simply because he must have differed so stupendously from all the rest of mankind, appears to me very damaging to us. Of what use is it, to argue upon such an hypothesis?"
"Of none in the world, certainly," said I, laughing.
"Surely not," he replied; "for if Christ"s resurrection be admitted, we know very well it will carry with it, in the estimation of the bulk of mankind, all the other great facts implicated with the Christian system.
They will concede, at once, the supernatural character, the divine origin, of the New Testament. I suppose them scarcely ever was a man who admitted these premises who would trouble himself to contest the conclusion."
"But seriously," continued this half-repentant admirer, almost frightened at the extent of his own freedom of thought, "though I cannot say I am satisfied with Mr. Newman"s notions on this subject, --and, in fact, cannot make up my mind upon it,--can there be any thing morally more sublime than the view, that the doctrine of immortality, which has been superficially supposed, if not necessary, yet so conducive to sincere and elevated piety, may be readily dispensed with, as no way necessary (as Mr. Newman feels) for the spiritual nourishment of the soul? "Confidence," he says, "there is none; and hopeful aspiration is the soul"s highest state. But, then, there is herein nothing what ever to distress her; no cloud of grief crosses the area of her vision, as she gazes upwards." He even intimates that, from the stress laid upon immortality by "modern divines," they might seem to be "incarnations of selfishness." He says it tends to "degrade religion into a prudential regard for our interests after death"; that "conscience, the love of virtue, for its own sake, and much more the love of G.o.d, are ignored." Many of the "spiritual"
school agree with him in this; and some even affirm that the hope of immortal felicity is but a bribe to selfishness. Can any thing be more elevated or original than this view?"
"As to the elevation," said I, "I confess I prefer the spectacle of Socrates, relying even on feeble arguments rather than sink to this tame acquiescence in a notion so degrading to the Deity, as that man was created for a dog"s life with the tormenting aspiration for something better. The spectacle of the heathen sage, who, amidst the thick gloom, the "palpable obscure," which involved this subject, gazed intently into the darkness, and "longed for the day,"--who strained every nerve of an insufficient logic, and was willing to take even the whispers of hope for the oracles of truth, rather than part with the prospect of immortality,--is, to my mind, much more attractive. As to the originality of the view you just expressed, why, it is merely a resurrection of one of the theories of some of our very "spiritual deists" a century ago. Collins and Shaftesbury were, in like manner, apprehensive lest an elevated "virtue" should suffer at all from this bribery of a hope of a "blessed immortality"; as you may see in the Characteristics. For my own part, I certainly have my doubts whether virtue will be the less virtuous, or spirituality the less spiritual, for such a doctrine; and I must believe it even on the hypothesis of you spiritual folks; for you generally affirm that the Belief of a Future Life does not really exercise any thing more than an insignificant influence on human nature; the hopes and the fears of that so distant a morrow are too vague to be operative. Now, if it be so, immortality can be no more a bribe than a menace."
"Yet," said Fellowes, "in justice to Mr. Newman, it must not be forgotten, that he thinks that "a firm belief of immortality must have very energetic force," provided it "rises out of insight"; it is as "an external dogma" that he thinks it of little efficacy. He says, you know, that, supposing Paul to have had this insight, "his light can do us no good, while it is a light outside of us. If he in any way confused the conclusions of his logic (which is often extremely inconsequent and mistaken) with the perceptions of his divinely illuminated soul, our belief might prove baseless."
(Soul, pp. 226. 227.) These are his very words."
"Very well, then; say that Mr. Newman thinks the notions of a future h.e.l.l of little efficacy; and of a future heaven of as little, except when it rises from "insight";--he confessing that he has not that "insight," and; from the necessity of the case, not knowing whether any body else has, it being a "light outside him." If so, I think he is much like the rest of you, and cannot in fact suppose the thought of a future life to operate strongly either as a bribe or a menace."
"But, surely, whatever his views, or those of any individual, you must admit that a piety which is sustained without any hopes of immortality is less selfish than that which is."
"Why," replied I, laughing; "I cannot conceive how the hope of a virtuous immortality can produce a vicious self-love. But if the hope and the consciousness of happiness now exercise any influence at all, your argument proves too much; and there is a simple impossibility of being unselfishly religious at all."
"How so?"
"Do you think that, admitting not only the uncertainty of any future life, but the certainty that there is none, and that nevertheless (as you affirm) man, under that conviction, is just as capable of manifesting a true devotion and piety towards G.o.d, any felicity flows from his so doing?"
"The highest, of course," said he.
"Do you think that the happiness so derived and expected from day to day has any sinister influence on the spiritual life of him who feels it?"
"Of course, none."
"The contrary, perhaps?"
"I think so."
"Then neither need the expectation of an eternity of such blessedness be any impediment. Again; let us come to facts; are not the declarations of those whom Mr. Newman, however oddly, is willing to admit have been the best specimens yet afforded of his true "spiritual" man,--the Doddridges, the Fletchers, the Baxters, and Paul especially,--full of this sentiment? "I desire to depart," says Paul, "and to be with Christ, which is far better"; and similar selfish hopes inspired those excellent men whose names still rise spontaneously to Mr. Newman"s memory when he would remind us of examples of his "spiritual religion! Tell me, do you not think Paul a "spiritual" man?"
"Yes; with all his blunders," said Fellowes, "I do; and Mr. Newman"s writings are full of that admission."
"Very true. But then Paul is so selfish, you know, as to say, not merely that the immortality of man is true, and that the "light afflictions which are but for a moment" are to be despised, because unworthy "to be compared with the glory to be revealed"; but that, if immortality be not true, Christians, as deluded in such hopes, are of all men most miserable.
All this shows how powerfully the "spiritual" Paul thought that the doctrine of a future state operated and ought to operate on the mind of a Christian; he never supposed that it could possibly have a negative, still less a sinister influence."
"But then, surely, what Mr. Newman says is true, that many of the saints of the Old Testament exemplified all the heroism of a true faith, and kindled with the ardors of a true devotion, in an ignorance of any such state, and the absence of all such expectations."
"I answer, that Mr. Newman too often speaks as if his individual impressions were to be taken for demonstration. That the Old Testament is unpervaded by any distinct traces of expectations of a future life is, at all events, not the opinion of the majority of men, many of them at least as capable of judging as Mr. Newman. It is not the opinion of the writers of the New Testament, that the Old Testament worthies were in this deplorable darkness; nor of the majority of the Jewish interpreters of their ancestors" writings; nor is it the impression of the great majority of those who now read them. How it can be the opinion of any one who has not some hypothesis to serve, is to me a mystery.
Meanwhile Mr. Newman himself at least gives some notable pa.s.sages to the contrary, though he chooses to call them only personal aspirations.
Think of the absurdity, my good friend, of supposing that Job, David, Isaiah, failed to realize a doctrine (imperfectly it may be) which, as you truly affirm, has, in some shape or other, animated all forms of religion! that these brightest specimens of "spiritual religion" in the ancient world somehow missed what many of the lowest savages have managed to stumble upon!"
"Well," he replied, "but, after all, he who loves G.o.d without any thought of heaven must surely be more unselfish than he who hopes for it."
I laughed,--for I could not help it.
"Unhappy Paul!" interjected Harrington, who had again entered the library; "unhappy Paul! Burdened with the hopes of immortality; what an impediment he must have found it in his Christian course! I wonder he did not throw aside "this weight, which so easily beset him." Pity that when he became a Christian, and ceased to be a Pharisee, he did not, like so many "spiritual" Christians of our day, know that, when he became a Christian, he might still remain in one of the Jewish sects, and turn Sadducee."
"Be it so," said Fellowes, "a Christian Sadducee, caeteris partibus, might perhaps be a more virtuous man having no hopes of heaven by which he can possibly be bribed."
"Religious love and hope," said I, "will with difficulty exist in such an atmosphere as you create. It is a sublime alt.i.tude, doubtless, but no ordinary "spiritual" beings can breathe that rarefied air. It is for the honor of Shaftesbury and some few other Deists, that they aspired to this transcendental virtue! You are imitating them. I fear you will not be more successful. Once leave a man to conclude, or even to suspect, that he and his cat end together, and, if a bad man, he will gladly accept a release from every claim but that of his pa.s.sions and appet.i.tes (the effects being more or less philosophically calculated according to his intellectual power); while the best man would be liable to contemplate G.o.d and religion with a depressed and faltering heart. He would be apt to lose all energy; he would feel it impossible to repress doubts of the infinite wisdom and benignity of Him (whatever he might think of His power) who had given him the soul of a man and the life of a b.u.t.terfly; conceptions and aspirations so totally disproportioned to the evanescence of his being! If, however, you really think that the hopes of an immortality of virtuous happiness will stand in the way of a sublime disinterestedness of spirituality, you ought to recollect that any expectation of happiness, even for a day, will, in its measure, have the same effect. So that the only way in which you can accommodate so "spiritual a piety," and absolutely insure yourself against "spiritual bribery," is to deprive yourself of all possibility of being so misled. If your piety would be absolutely sure that it loves G.o.d on these sublime terms, it should take care to neutralize the happiness which that love brings with it; so that, if G.o.d has not made you miserable, you should never fail, like the ascetics, to make yourself so. I fear you never can be perfectly "spiritual" till you have made yourself supremely wretched. But to quit this point," I continued; "if immortality be a delusion, I fear we say that it covers the divine administration with an penetrable cloud,--one which we cannot hope will removed. The inequalities of that administration not be redressed."
"But do you not recollect," replied Fellowes, reason Mr. Newman gives for despising any such mitigation? Does he not say, that it is a strange argument for a day of recompense, that man has unsatisfied claims upon G.o.d? He says, "Christians have added an argument of their own for a future state, but, unfortunately, one that cannot bring personal comfort or a.s.surance. A future state (it seems) is requisite to redress the inequalities of this life. And can I go to the Supreme Judge, and tell Him that I deserve more happiness than He has granted me in this life?" Do you not recollect this?--or has this sarcasm escaped you?"
"It has not escaped me,--I remember it well; but it seems to have escaped you, that it is a very transparent sophism. For what is it but a pretence that the Christian in general is confident enough of his virtue to think that he has not been sufficiently well treated, and that his Creator and Judge cannot do less than make amends for his injustice, by giving him compensation in another world?"
"And is not that the true statement of the case?"
"I imagine not; whether men be Christians or otherwise. The generality, when they reason upon this subject, (you and I, for example, at this very moment,) not at all considering the aspect of such a day upon themselves; how much they will lose if there be none; perhaps the bulk would wish that it could be proved that it would never come! It has been from a wish to escape great speculative perplexities, connected with the divine administration, and not in relation to man"s deserts, that the question has been argued. When dictated by other feelings, the conviction of a future state has been quite as generally the utterance of remorse and fear, the response of an accusing conscience, as of hope and aspiration; and derives, perhaps, a terrible significance from that circ.u.mstance. But it has certainly not been, in the Christian, the result of any absurd expectation of virtues to be rewarded, or rights to be redressed. As to the Christian, though he feels that he would not, and dare not, go to the divine tribunal with any such absurd plea as Mr. Newman is pleased to put into his mouth,--though he cannot impeach the divine goodness,--he none the less feels that that goodness, if this scene be all, is open to very grievous impeachment in relation to millions who have suffered much, and done no wrong, and to mult.i.tudes more who have inflicted infinite wrong, and suffered next to nothing; and they would fain, if they could, get over difficulties which Mr. Newman chooses, from the mere exigencies of his theology, to represent as no difficulties at all. To escape them or to solve them is the thing princ.i.p.ally in the minds of those who contend for a day of recompense; not the imaginary compensation of individual wrongs. I do contend that, if this world be all, the divine administration in many points is more hopelessly opposed to our moral instincts, and to all our notions of equity and benevolence, than any thing on which you spiritualists are accustomed to justify your censure of Scripture.
You ought, as Harrington says, to go further."
____
July 30. I was much interested yesterday morning by a conversation between Harrington and two pleasant youths, acquaintances of Mr.
Fellowes, both younger by three or four years than either he or Harrington. They are now at college, and have imbibed in different degrees that curious theory which, professedly recognizing Christianity (as consigned to the New Testament) as a truly divine revelation, yet a.s.serts that it is intermingled with a large amount of error and absurdity, and tells each man to eliminate the divine element for himself. According to this theory, the problem of eliciting revealed truth may be said to be indeterminate; of the unknown x varies through all degrees of magnitude; it is equal to any thing, equal to every thing, equal to nothing, equal to infinity.
The whole party thought, with the exception of Harrington, who knew not what to think, that the "religious faculty or faculties" (one or many,--no man seems to know exactly) are quite sufficient to decide all doubts and difficulties in religious matters.
Harrington knew not whether to say there was any truth in Christianity or not; Fellowes knew that there was none, except in that "religious element," Which is found alike essentially in all religions; that its miracles, its inspiration, its peculiar doctrines, are totally false.
The young gentlemen just referred to believed "that it might be admitted that an external revelation was possible," and "that the condition of man, considering the aspects of his history, has not been altogether felicitous as to show that he never needed, and might not be benefited, by such light." I could cordially agree with them so far; superabundance of religious illumination not being amongst the things of which humanity can legitimately complain.
But then, as they both believed that each man was to distil the "elixir Vitrae" for himself from the crude ma.s.s of truth and falsehood which the New Testament presents, Harrington, with his interrogations, soon compelled them to see how inconsistent they were both with themselves and with one another. One of them believed, he said, that the Apostles might have been favored by a true revelation; but not in such a sense "as to prevent their often falling into serious errors," whenever the distinctly "religious element" was not concerned; this was the only truly "divine" thing about it; but he saw no particular objection to receiving the miracles; at least some of them,--the best authenticated and most reasonable; perhaps they were of value as part of the complex evidence needful to establish doctrines which, if not absolutely transcendental to the human faculties,--as the doctrine of a future life, for example,--yet, apart from revelation, are but matter of conjecture.