6

SECTION XII.

CHARGES OF "PROFANITY," AND SO FORTH.

MR. NEWMAN says, "The sceptic whom he (the author of the Eclipse') sets at me is essentially a profane intellect, free to ridicule the most fundamental principles of the New Testament. He can, at pleasure, not only disown - God hath chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith,' — and not many wise are called: ' he also assumes that acuteness of understanding, without sanctity of heart, opens divine knowledge to us, and that a man who blunders in questions of history and of literature ought to be despised in religion. Such pleas are vehemently pressed against me by this Mr. Harrington, and (unless the author is most grossly iniquitous) are believed by the author."* Is it not strange to hear Mr. Newman, who has written the chapter on the "Moral Perfection of Christ," who rejects everything that is preternatural in Christianity, who would deal with the New Testament just as cavalierly as with Cicero nay, more, so one would think, for he affirms that "the Latin moralists effected what (strange to think!) the New Testament writers alone could not do; "t-who retains no one knows how small a modicum of what is found between the covers of that book, and interprets even that in an esoteric sense, is it not strange, I say, that he should feel himself in a condition to rebuke a "profane intellect as free to ridicule the most

*Phases, p. 187.

† Phases, p. 97.

fundamental principles of the New Testament?" Or does he expect a sceptic to be more ceremonious with modern spiritualism than Mr. Newman is with Christianity? or, lastly, does he think that even a sceptic cannot discern the difference between ridiculing modern spiritualism and ridiculing Christianity? However, he is quite mistaken in supposing that I think, or that Harrington thought, that "acuteness of understanding, without sanctity of heart, opens divine knowledge to us, and that a man who blunders in questions of history and of literature ought to be despised in religion.”

In the absence of citation and reference here, it is rather hard to know on what Mr. Newman founds his allegation; but if he means that Harrington may be suspected of "despising men in religion because they have blundered in questions of literature and history," on account of his stating that, on the spiritualist hypothesis, the Apostles must have been either the most "abominable impostors, or the most miserable fanatics,"* one cannot but admire the candour and discernment of Mr. Newman. Mere "blunders in literature and history!" No, I here "endorse" every word that Harrington says. If the Apostles "untruly affirmed that they saw and did the things they say they saw and did,” they must have been either the vilest impostors or the most visionary of fanatics. They may well be "despised in religion," for they were fit only for Newgate or Bedlam. The reader will not forget that it is on the spiritualist hypothesis that Harrington is, as usual, arguing.

Nor am I of opinion that "acuteness of intellect without sanctity of heart will" effectually "open divine knowledge to us." But, I think, But, I think, and I rather think I

* Eclipse, p. 43.

am still likely to think,- that if there be, as Mr. Newman contends and I concede, a religious element in Man,not in this man or that man, not in one here and there, but in Man, then that the evidence which substantiates any true theory of religion must be, at least, tolerably appreciable by every man who sincerely examines it. The theory of "The Soul," if true, surely must be addressed to all, not to a few happily constituted minds; or would Mr. Newman say that he wrote only for those who were already of his mind? If so, why did he write at all? If not, why does he wonder that men think themselves competent to criticise? What would be thought of Christianity, if, addressing all men, it should not only say (what it does say), that only those can fully comprehend it who embrace it, and so experience its power to make good its claims, but that its evidence could not be at all appreciated by any but such? that, if accepted, it had nothing, before its acceptance, to convince the intellect of those who as yet had not embraced it, and who, before embracing it, could not have that evidence which experience alone can give? nothing to rebuke those who would not examine it, or, examining it, rejected it? This is not the case with Christianity, I trow; nor can it be the case with any other system of religion which addresses Man as Man, and gives the true theory of our religious nature. Harrington himself has so truly stated the point, that I am surprised that Mr. Newman should thus have mistaken either the sceptic or myself.

"What title has Mr. Newman, when avowedly explaining the phenomena of the religious faculty, which he asserts to be inherent in humanity—though how they should need explaining, if his theory be true, I know not, what title has he, when men deny that they are conscious of the facts he describes, to take refuge in his own private revelations and that of the few whose pri

vilege it is to be born again' by a mysterious law which he says it is impossible for us to investigate ? This is not to delineate the religious

yes,

and to

nature of humanity, but to reveal reveal externally · -the religious nature of the elect few, and few they are indeed, who, by a mysterious infidel Calvinism, are permitted to attain, by direct intuition, and independent of all external revelation, the true sentiments and experiences of spiritual insight.

If the answer merely respected the practical value of a theory of spiritual sentiments, then Mr. Newman's answer might have some force; for, certainly, only he who reduced that theory to practice, or attempted to do so, would have a right to conclude against the experience of him who did. But it is obvious that the question respects the theory itself, and especially the consciousness of those terms of possible communion with God, those relations of the soul to him, on the reception of which all the said spiritual experience must depend."

My opinions are so far from being those attributed to me by Mr. Newman, that though I believe that the evidences of Christianity are appreciable by all who will honestly examine them, yet its plenary proofs are only for those who embrace it, live it, practise it; and, for that very reason, I believe it is indestructible on earth, for it is thus apprehended and cherished by millions who know but very little of its evidences, technically so called; who, surrendering themselves to that great Teacher and Example it sets forth, and realising the peace which the world cannot give nor take away, feel an invincible persuasion that the religion of Christ comes from God and leads to Him;- a species of evidence which no subtlety of reasoning will ever be able to subvert. He who knows by this experimental

knowledge, can say to the most learned advocates of Christianity, "Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we have seen Him ourselves."

In one of the voyages to discover a north-east passage a course often tried before the still more numerous attempts to find one by the north-west (that enterprise so long pursued, and now so happily accomplished, and signalising, like so many other wonderful things, this eventful age), Barentz, a Dutch mariner, wintered on the eastern coast of Nova Zembla. It was the first party of Europeans that had ever spent the long polar night on those desolate shores. One day some of his crew came joyfully to Barentz, and declared they had seen part of the sun's disk grazing the horizon. He declared, on scientific grounds, that it was impossible. He assured them it could not be: they told him it was. The next day, and the next, fogs obstinately filled the sky, and the argument went on. On the third day the atmosphere was clear, and going out they saw the whole of the glorious orb above the edge of the horizon, and "rejoiced in its beams." They say that Barentz still declared that it could not be, or ought not to be. But did they heed him? No; what he said could not be, they saw, was; that was sufficient. The Christian can, in like manner, say: "I have seen the sun of righteousness' rising on the deep polar night of guilt and sorrow, and there is not only radiance, but warmth and healing in his beams."" But, I suppose, even Barentz was competent to judge of the evidence, and might have preferred his eyes to his prepossessions. And even in like manner may the infidel be summoned and entitled to examine the evidences of Christianity. How much more may a sceptic freely canvass the doctrines of" The Soul!"