""Can you tell me, child, who made you?"
""I cannot, certainly, tell who made me; neither can my father; but from the continual misery, confusion, and doubt which I feel in myself and see around me"--here the little pupil is to be cautioned not to laugh; the mirth in the eye, perhaps, cannot be extinguished,--I am led to doubt whether I was made by one who cares for me or takes any interest in me."(Good child.)"
"As I looked up, after reading this first truth of sceptical theology, I observed in Harrington"s face something of the same look of sorrow which I had noted the day before. Suddenly be said, as if to prevent any chance recurrence to painful topics:--
"I very gradually became a doubter. I was perhaps becoming so when, two years ago, I became an idolater, and my idol crumbled to pieces at my feet. That transient vision of the beautiful half reclaimed me from my doubts; the darkness of the succeeding night taught me juster views of the miseries of man and the incomprehensible riddle of his existence; and I half blushed at my glimpse of selfish happiness."
So saying, he suddenly left the room. Some part of the mystery I felt was unravelled. Alas! the logic of the head,--how fatally fortified by the logic of the heart! And so, thought I to myself, even Harrington too is in part the dupe of that cunning spirit of delusion which in various forms is resolved to cast G.o.d and a Redeemer and Immortality out of the universe, in compliment to man"s wonderful elevation, purity, unselfishness, and philanthropy! One man tells me, with Shaftesbury, that he does not want any "immortal hopes," or any such "bribes" of "prudence" to make him virtuous or religious,--delicate, n.o.ble-minded creature!--that he can serve and love G.o.d equally well, though he were sure of being annihilated to-morrow morning! Another declares that he would not accept heaven itself if purchased by a single pang, voluntary or involuntary, endured by any other being in G.o.d"s universe? Another swears that such is his sympathetic benevolence, that he "would not accept that same heaven if he thought any other being was to be shut out of it"; I wonder whether he condescends to accept any blessing now, while a single fallow-creature remains dest.i.tute of it? A fourth (a lady too) declares "there is no theory G.o.d, of an author of nature, of an origin of the universe which is not utterly repugnant to her faculties, which is not (to her feelings) so irreverent as to make her blush, so misleading as to make her mourn"; and now Harrington, instead of being thankful for his glimpse of happiness, and yielding to the better instincts and convictions it partly awakened, and learning patience, submission, and faith under his shattered hopes, is taken captive on the same weak side; and (all unconscious that he shares in the prophet"s feeling, "I do well to be angry") fancies that his present gloom is more truly in unison with the condition of the universe, and that he is bound to be most philanthropically misanthropical. O, well does the Book say of this heart of ours, "DECEITFUL ABOVE ALL THINGS"! Such are our mingled follies and wickedness, so ludicrous, so sorrowful, are the features presented in this great tragi-comedy,--THE LIFE OF MAN, --that it is impossible to play consistently either Democritus or Herac.l.i.tus.
____
July 9. Mr. Fellowes returned this morning. We had a very pleasant day,--theology being excluded. In the evening my companions were again pleased to disturb my occupations; but it was only a short skirmish. Fellowes was endeavoring to enlighten his friend respecting the mysteries of "belief" and "faith," as expounded by some of his favorite writers: he contended, (making that sheer separation between "the intellectual" and "spiritual," which so many of the spiritual school affect.) not only that there may be correct belief without true faith, which, in an intelligible sense, few will deny; but that there may be a true faith with a false belief", or even with none, in the strict sense of the word. Referring to a recent acute writer in one of our religious periodicals, he argued that belief is properly an intellectual process, founded on a presumed preponderance of reasons or supposed reasons, for it; and that whether those reasons amount to demonstration, or whether the scale be turned by a grain, matters not; the product is purely logical, and has no more to do with "faith" than a "belief" in any proposition of Euclid.
"But, at all events," he proceeded, "whether you choose to call some of these acts of reason by the name of belief or not, faith is something quite independent of it. As Mr. Newman says, in his "Phases,"
"Belief is one thing and faith another": "belief is purely intellectual; faith is properly spiritual." "Nowhere from any body of priests, clergy, or ministers, as an order, is religious progress to be antic.i.p.ated till intellectual creeds are destroyed." See, too, how tenderly he speaks even of atheism. "I do not know," he says, "how to avoid calling this a moral error; but I must carefully guard against seeming to overlook that it may still be a merely speculative error, which ought not to separate our hearts from any man." Similarly he charitably restricts "idolatry" in any "bad sense" to a voluntary worshipping of what the worshipper feels not to deserve his adoration; and as I, for one, doubt whether this is ever the case, this delightful charity is comprehensive indeed. Mr. Parker"s discourse is full of the same beautiful and tolerant maxims. "Each religious doctrine," he says, "has some time stood for a truth ...... Each of these forms of religion (polytheism and fetichism, to wit) did the world service in its day." No one form of religion is absolutely true; faith may be compatible with them all."
"Let me understand you, if possible," said Harrington; "for at present I fear I do not. That there may be belief without faith in a very Intelligible sense, I can understand. You say there can be faith without belief, and a true faith that is connected with any belief, however erroneous, do you not?"
"Provided it contains the absolute religion."
"Well, and even the lowest fetichism does that, according to Mr. Parker, whom you defend. Now this Protean faith is what I do not understand."
"That," said Fellowes, "I can easily conceive; and, let me add, no sceptic can understand it."
"I see no reason why he should not," said Harrington, laughing, "if, as you and Mr. Newman suppose, the "spiritual" can be so perfectly divorced from the "intellectual." According to your reasoning, the and the idolater cannot be incapable of exercising this mysterious "faith,"--when their errors are supposed purely speculative,--since faith has nothing to do with the intellect; neither therefore ought the sceptic to be quite beyond the pale of your charity. Nay, his intellect being a rasa tabula in these matters, I should think he is in more favorable circ.u.mstances than they can be. But, seriously, let me try, if possible, to fathom this curious dogma,--I beg your pardon,--sentiment, I mean. Belief without faith in an intelligible sense (if by this last we mean a condition of the emotions or affections), I can understand; though if the truth believed be of a nature to excite to emotion and to dictate action, and fail to do so, I doubt whether men in general would not call that belief spurious. For example, if a man, on being told that his house was on fire, sat still in his neighbor"s chimney-corner, and took no notice of the matter, most persons would say that his a.s.sent was no true belief; for it did not produce its effects, did not produce faith. But whether faith can ever exist independently of belief,--whether it is not always involved with it,--and whether there can be a faith worth a farthing that is not based on a true belief,--that is the point on which I want light.
If I understand you, an acceptable faith may or may not coexist with a true belief; and men who believe in Jupiter or Jehovah, in one G.o.d or a thousand, who worship the sun, or an idol, or a cat, or a monkey, all may have an equally acceptable faith."
"I affirm it."
"That as there may be belief in a truth without faith, so there may be faith, though the intellect believes in a falsehood;--that faith, in fact, is independent of knowledge, or of any particular condition of the intellect?"
"I do not like the terms in which you express the sentiment, but I, for one, believe it substantially correct."
"Never mind the form; I am quite willing to employ other terms, if you will supply them"
"Well, then," said Fellowes, "I should say, with Mr. Parker, that the principle of true faith may be found to coexist with the grossest and most hideous misconceptions of G.o.d, while the absence of it may coexist with the truest and most elevated belief."
"That, I think, comes to much the same as I said. Now about the latter we have no dispute. It is the former that I want light upon: the latter only shows that a belief, which ought to be practical, and if not practical is nothing, is but a species of hypocrisy; and, of course, I have nothing to say for it. My uncle here, who is still one of the orthodox, who believes that an "acceptable faith" and a belief in the divinity of a monkey or a cat are somehow quite incompatible, would be among the first to acknowledge the latter position. He would say, "No doubt there has often been such a thing as "dead orthodoxy,"--a creed of the "letter,"--a religion exclusively dependent on logic, and nothing to do with the feeling"s; --belief that is not sublimated into faith;--a system of arteries and veins infiltrated with some colored substance, like the specimens in an anatomical museum, but in which none of the lifeblood of religion circulates. But surely," he would say, "it does not follow, that, because there has been belief without faith, there is or can be any independent of some belief, or an acceptable faith without a true belief.""
"I affirm," said Fellowes, "that "faith" has nothing to do with the intellect, but is a state of the affections exclusively. I affirm, with a recent acute writer, that there is, properly speaking, no belief at all that is distinguishable from reason. For what is meant by belief of a proposition, but the receiving that proposition true upon evidence, from a supposed preponderance of reasons in its favor? Now, whether that preponderance be a ton weight or a single grain, down goes the balance, and reason as strictly decides that it is to be received as if it were a mathematical demonstration. If the arguments, whether abstract or otherwise, absolutely demonstrative or only probable, are supposed to be exactly balanced, there is no reason for deciding in favor of one side more than the other; and there is, therefore, no belief, for the very reason that reason cannot be exercised."
"Very well indeed," said Harrington, "so far as it goes; but I forthwith see, that, so far from deriving any benefit from this ingenious reasoning, there is no such thing as either faith or belief: belief and faith have both vanished at the same time; the first is resolved into reason, and the second becomes impossible."
"Belief may," said Fellowes, "but faith never. Its divine beauty is all the brighter, when happily divorced from logic and syllogisms, its misalliance with which can only be compared to that cruel punishment by which the living was chained to the dead. Say what you will, it still reigns and triumphs in the soul in spite of all."
"I am perfectly convinced," said Harrington, "that the modern spiritualist will not bring his "faith" into any ignominious slavery to intellect or syllogism. But clear up my doubts if you can. I know that the writers you are fond of quoting very generally give an ill.u.s.tration of the nature of faith by pointing to the ingenuous trust of a child in the wisdom and kindness of a parent."
"They do; and is it not a beautiful ill.u.s.tration? That is genuine faith indeed!"
"I am willing to take the ill.u.s.tration. The child has faith, we see, in his father"s superior wisdom and experienced kindness."
"Yes."
"He believes them, therefore."
"Certainly."
"But belief is reason."
"Certainly; but faith is more than that."
"No doubt; but he does believe these things."
"Yes, certainly."
"And if he did not believe them, he would cease to have faith. If, for instance, he be convinced that his father is mad, or cruel, or unjust, the state of affections which you call faith will diminish, and at last cease."
"Perhaps so," said Fellowes.
"Perhaps so, my friend! I really cannot receive your answer, because I am convinced that it does not express your sentiments."
"Well, I believe that the state of affection which call "faith" would be impossible under such circ.u.mstances."
"But belief is reason."
"Yes."
"Must we not say, then, that the child"s faith depends on the condition of his belief, that is, on his reason, so that the "faith" is possible when he believes and so long as he believes, that his father is wise and kind, but is impossible when he believes, and as soon as he believes, the contrary?"
"Yes, I admit that."
"It appears, then, that faith in this,--perhaps the best ill.u.s.tration that could be selected,--so far from being a state of the affections exclusive of the intellect, is not exclusive of it, but absolutely dependent on it, inasmuch as it is absolutely dependent on belief, and that is dependent on reason. It exists in connection with it, and is never independent of it. If the contrary be affirmed, I doubt whether there can be any such thing as "faith" in the world. Belief becomes reason, and faith, having nothing, you say, to do with the intellect, becomes impossible. But now let it be supposed (as, indeed, I cannot but suppose) that some belief, that is, reason, enlightened or not (generally the last), is involved in every act of faith; you yet affirm most distinctly that it is a state of the affections quite unconnected with the truth or falsehood of any intellectual propositions."
"I do."
"It ought to follow, then, that it matters not what is the object of belief, provided there is "faith"; and this, if you observe: is very much what the language of Mr. Newman would imply, while it is the very essence of Mr. Parker"s teaching."
"You mean Father Newman, perhaps?"
"Why no, I did not; but, to tell you the truth. I now mean either; there not appearing to me much difference between them in this respect.
Whether you worship an image of a "winking virgin," or, according to the other Dromio, the "ideal" of an idolater,--whether (provided always it be with sincerity and trust!) you adore the Jehovah of the Hebrews, or "the image which fell down from Jupiter," ought to make, upon this theory, no great difference."
"Well, in whatever difficulty the controversy may involve us, can we deny this conclusion?"
"Truly," replied Harrington, "I think it does not involve me in any difficulty; it shows me that, if this be the "faith" to which you attach so much importance, it really is not worth the powder and shot that must be expended in the controversy. For my own part, I do not hesitate to say that I would rather be absolutely dest.i.tute of "faith" altogether, than exercise the most absolute faith ever bestowed upon a tawdry image of the Virgin, or some misshapen beast of an idol of Hindoo or Hottentot workmanship."
"Ah! my friend," cried Fellowes, "do not thus blaspheme the most holy feelings of humanity, however misapplied!"
"I do not conceive that I do, in declaring abhorrence and contempt of such perversions of "sentiment," however "holy" you may call them.
Hideous as they are, however, they are less hideous than the half-length apologies for them on the part of cultivated and civilized human beings, like our "spiritual" infidels. Your tenderness is ludicrously misplaced. I wonder whether the same apology would extend to those exercises of simple-minded "faith" in which it is said that the Spanish and Portuguese pirates sometimes indulged, when they implored the benediction of their saints on their predatory expeditions! And yet I see not how it could be avoided; for the exorbitancies of these pirates were not more hateful to humanity than are the rites practices, and the duties enjoined, by many forms of religion. What delightful, ingenuous "faith" and genuine "simplicity"
of mind did these pirates manifest!"