SECTION IX.

66

WHETHER THE CHRISTIAN THROWS AWAY HIS MORAL 99 JUDGMENT IN ACCEPTING THE NEW TESTAMENT.

AND now, I suppose Mr. Newman will reiterate his charge against the author of "The Eclipse of Faith," that I affirm that 66 we must throw away our moral judgment before we can get any religion at all;” and other trash like it. I answer, that the theory of the Christian does not at all require him to "throw away his moral judgments," only he must take care how he gets them, and what they are. His theory is perfectly consistent. He reasons thus: "I see that men have moral capacities, but I see also with my own eyes, and other men see it too, that those capacities, as they are variously developed, lead to the most various and erroneous "moral judgments," and consequently also to the most various and erroneous conceptions of the Deity. They are in every man, as is the instrument that has developed them, varying between the wide limits of a "Hottentot and a St. Paul." That which has developed mine has awakened within me an intense consciousness of its surpassing excellence and exquisite adaptation to humanity; it is in that mirror that my moral nature was first adequately revealed to myself; so that, comparing the New Testament with all other Ethical systems, I am satisfied (in addition to other sources of evidence) that it never came from unaided

man, and least of all from such unaided men as those to whom I must trace it. So far, therefore, from discarding my moral judgments, they are one of the very elements of evidence,-though far from the only element—that Christianity came from God."

Mr. Newman asks the author of "The Eclipse" to answer a question which he fancies invincible, but which is in fact quite easy. He asks, "How I could confute Hindooism," or "any authoritative system of iniquity whatsoever?" I answer, "Because it lacks both the elements of the evidence, to be sure, which the Bible possesses, the elevated morality and holy doctrine, and the historic credibility of having come from God." Give me a Hindooism, or any other ism which appeals in equal degree to the different sources of evidence which converge on Christianity,-an equally admirable morality and an equal historic credibility, and I will believe that too.

If our critic says, Nay, but he has proved even the New Testament morality defective, and he knows it; men smile and say he is mistaken, and they know that. If he says, that they are all wrong, and he alone is right; they reply, if so, so much the more does it prove the fallacy of his assertion that men possess the faculty of moral discernment, which enables them to pronounce on the claims of every presumed revelation from God; if he says that they are convinced that he is right after all, but only they are all "dishonest," I am afraid that would prove that they were still worse off than if they were destitute of the "free critical faculty" of moral judgment altogether.

As to his proving the New Testament " morality defective," they tell him they do not admit it; that where it would be so, if his criticism were true, they do not ad

mit his criticism; but, on the contrary, affirm that it is erroneous and prejudiced; -for example, when he tells us that the "moral teaching of the New Testament in relation to Patriotism, Marriage, Slavery, and so on, is essentially defective," and that Christ taught the " abrupt renunciation" of wealth to all his disciples. As to the Old Testament, they acknowledge, without admitting many of his equally hasty criticisms, that its morality was not perfect, the New Testament being avowedly an amendment upon it; though they maintain, and with justice, that it is unspeakably superior to the systems of heathen moralists. They admit that some things were permitted, not as the very best, but because men were imperfectly educated to moral light; and that though this may be of small account in the estimate of some speculators, who seem to doubt the very possibility of the morality of one age differing by a hair's breadth from that of another, it is unhappily a circumstance which must be taken into account, as our race happens to be subjected to the conditions of a historic development, where continuity of change is the law of "progress;" and it might surely be pardoned by one who finds even in the "old barbarism," and "the flexible Egyptian idolatry," the "law of progress in God's moral universe!" Lastly, as to the alleged immoralities which he says the Bible attributes to God Himself, the Christian replies, that though he believes quite as much as Mr. Newman, that the Infinite One has moral qualities analogous to our own, yet that it is precisely here that he doubts whether he can pronounce the acts ascribed to the Deity in Scripture immoral, inasmuch as he finds precisely analogous acts involved in His administration of the universe; - which, as far as this point goes, brings us back to the old dilemma, which my critic is once more invited to consider and solve.

MR. NEWMAN is pleased to say, in the conclusion of his Reply, that the attempt to meet the "objections against Christianity by retorting them, and showing that the "diversities" of the objectors lay them open to objections, is "dishonest." He forgets one element the magnitude and nature of the diversities. It is difficult to say anything in opposition to this reprover of "personal antagonisms" without being denounced as dishonest. However, as usual, let me look at his argument, and trouble not myself at all about his impu

tations.

He says, that it is "an impotent and dishonest defence of Christian authoritative pretensions to taunt the assailants with diversities in their positive creed;" and compares it to the attempt of the Romanist to deal similarly with Protestants. I answer, first, that I think it would be a very fair topic of argument with the Romanist, if he could prove not only "diversities" among Protestants, but, as in the present case, greater objections to their tenets than could be advanced against his own.

But, secondly; to come a little closer, I proceed to ask, with all submission, whether Mr. Newman really thinks the religion for which he pleads, as exhibiting the true theory of man's relations towards God, and God's aspect towards him-the claims on the one side, the duties on the other-is authoritative or not? If he

says "Yes," then I presume the argument from objections becomes, even on his own showing, as perfectly legitimate on the one side as the other; if he says “No” (as, perhaps, considering the apologetic tone in which he speaks of "serious Atheists," who, though they do not believe "in a personal God at all," yet believe the "more fundamental truth of a fixed moral basis;" and his equally apologetic tone in speaking of idolatry, a crime which his definition so nearly annihilates), if, I say, Mr. Newman says, that though he believes his system is the true one, it is not authoritative, — and that it really matters very little whether a man is a "serious Atheist," a sincere Buddhist, or a Fetichist,

then, undoubtedly, it is hardly worth while to consider whether the objections against Christianity can be retorted with interest against such a theory; and for this simple reason, that it cannot, on such a theory, matter one doit whether a man be a Christian or not. Certainly, take it at the worst, he may as well remain as he is, unless it be contended that though a man may be anything else, it is at his peril that he remains a Christian; or that though he may be a votary of any religion which does not claim to be authoritative, woe be to him if he professes one that does!

But I should be disposed to show the futility of this argument on yet another ground. I contend that the argument from objections may be, and often is, perfectly valid. I believe it is so in the controversy between Deism and Christianity. He who is persuaded of the truth of any system, even though he cannot answer all the objections against it, may most legitimately consider whether or not there are not equal or greater objections against the systems it is proposed he should adopt in its stead; and if he finds that there are greater, it may be quite sufficient to justify him in resolving