service to the world! Nor is it because Mr. Parker has "a brother's heart," that I smile at his easy charity; God forbid; but because the theories he patronises have never stretched out yet a "brother's hands." That charity is but a cheap sort of charity which consists in talking and doing nothing; which sits at home by the blazing hearth, and in the happy homes of civilisation, and will not even pay emissaries to do its work, if itself cannot; which calumniates the Christian, who is endeavouring to do for the world what the Deist never attempts to do, though he tells us he knows how it could be done much better than by preaching "an historical Christianity;"—who says to the perishing heathen, "Be ye warmed, and be ye filled," but neither warms nor fills them; or rather, perhaps gives them the cold comfort, "My good savage friends, you look very wretched; but you do not want warming, and you do not want filling; - have you not the absolute religion? Take it amongst you, and my blessing go with you." And, indeed, though infinitely different, why should any of these accommodating theories of Deism exact a more expensive charity? are they not all arguments for that same practical indolence which, account for it how we will, has ever characterised Deism, and characterises it still? What would a disciple of Mr. Parker, under the last Parkerian development, be prone to say, as he saw a band of idolaters at their dismal rites on some savage shore? I think he would be apt to say, "Well, these savages are in a miserable plight, to be sure, in spite of the absolute religion; but why should I trouble myself about the matter? it will all come right, some day or other, I have no doubt, in another planet, or in one of the fixed stars." On the other hand, the Deist who thinks, with Mr. Newman, that immortality is most probably a delusion, would be tempted perhaps to say, "Why yes; it will all come right some day, no doubt, but not for the reason Mr. Parker supposes: but because all these poor wretches will be knocked on the head together." Nevertheless, he might add perhaps, "I may as well give them a word of exhortation too, on Mr. Newman's theory as to what makes idolatry a crime. I hope," he might say, "my dear savage friends, that you take care not to worship idolatrously that curious monster -I don't know his name, but we should call him in England three Guys rolled into one, with the delightfully open mouth, and the great goggle eyes; I hope you take care that it does not fall below your ideal of Divinity; I beseech you not to worship it as perfect and infinite, if you do not feel it to be so. Always take care, my friends, that your worship does not fall below your ideal! Bearing that in mind, I will lay no further burden upon you; so fare you well." But this subject is worth pursuing a little further ; and if I live I will endeavour to show the Deist what are the conditions of his success, and what he must do, as well as say, before he can expect to make much impression on the world. As to the dreaded alternative of Atheism, I have no fear of it. If the history of the world and of man teaches any thing, it is that men will not be Atheists; and that, even if ATHEISM be the TRUTH, there is no chance of its being established. Nor, on its own principles, need it wonder at that; for if blind necessity or pure chance has framed the world, it has merely, as one would have expected, egregiously blundered; has so pleasantly constituted the universe and man, that man cannot but believe there is a God, even though there be none ! AND now for the paraded charges of " and "stealthy misrepresentation." gross garbling" There are two subjects on which Mr. Newman more particularly insists that I have done injustice to his sentiments. First, as respects his theory of the relations of Faith to Intellect-between which I have supposed him to wish to effect a "divorce;" and secondly, as respects the relation of the religious faculties in man to the transmission, or external presentation to the mind, of religious truth. On the latter subject he gives an éclaircissement, not before it was needed, and still, I venture to say, requiring a further éclaircissement, as we shall presently see. But before proceeding to that, I will consider the charges of "garbling" and "misrepresentation," and distinctly show that I have been guilty of nothing of the kind. If I have misunderstood him, it is only just as others- even many who are supposed more or less to sympathise with him -have done; if we have all misunderstood him, it may be modestly conjectured that it was only because our author never understood himself. First then, Mr. Newman says; "This writer instils into his readers the belief that I make a fanatical separation between the intellectual and the spiritual, a 'divorce' between them, and concludes that I hold that Faith need not rest upon Truth; and, I ought to be indifferent as to the worship of Jehovah or of the image which fell down from Jupiter. He never quotes enough from me to let his reader understand what is meant by the words which he does quote." 99* I say with an unfaltering conscience, that no controvertist ever more honestly and sincerely sought to give his opponent's views, than I did Mr. Newman's, after the most diligent study of his rather obscure books; and that whether I succeeded or not in giving what he thought, I have certainly given what he expressed. It is quite true that I supposed Mr. Newman intended to "divorce" Faith and Intellect; and what else on earth could I suppose, in common even with those who were most leniently disposed towards him, from such sentiments as these? "ALL THE GROUNDS OF BELIEF PROPOSED TO THE MERE UNDERSTANDING, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FAITH AT ALL."† "THE PROCESSES OF THOUGHT HAVE NOTHING TO QUICKEN THE CONSCIENCE OR AFFECT THE SOUL."‡ "How then can the state of the soul be tested by the conclusion to which the intellect is led ?"§ I was compelled, I say, to take these passages as every body else took them to mean what they obviously express. Again; was I not compelled to regard Mr. Newman's notions on the claims of Religious Truth— as opposed to what he calls Sentiment—very lax, when I find him saying that though "he knew not how to avoid calling Atheism a moral error,' yet we must not forget that it might be still a merely speculative error, which ought not to separate our hearts from any man." || Was I not driven to the same inferences from his definition of idolatry, which he frames in such a way that it may be doubted whether there are any idolators in the world? that is, that only those are + Soul, p. 223., 2d ed. § Soul, p. 30. * Phases, p. 186. 66 a chargeable with it, in any "bad" sense, who knowingly degrade their "ideal" of the Divinity by consciously worshipping as infinite and perfect what is known to be imperfect and finite. Once more; how else was I to interpret that communion of the Faithful for which he contends in the "Phases," in which "sentiment," not "opinion" (the utmost varieties of which, as his reasoning shows, are all to be worked up into this new amalgam), is to be the "bond of union?" Charity towards those who differ, every one can understand; but this new "family of love," which is to be maintained, maugre all sorts of opinions, in virtue of identical “ sentiment,”. sort of Noah's Ark, only with the proportions of clean and unclean beasts reversed, seven of the latter to two of the former-is an impossibility per se.-Once more, Mr. Newman approvingly says of what he conceives the spirit of the New Testament, (I have nothing to do with his criticism;) "By every writer of the New Testament it is manifestly presumed, that the historical and logical faculties have nothing to do with that faith which is distinctive of God's people. Everywhere it is either stated or implied, that the soul or spirit of man is alone concerned in receiving God's revelation. Unless we can recover this position, we have lost the essential spirit of apostolic doctrine; and then, by holding to the form, we do but tie ourselves to a dead carcase, which may poison us, and disgust mankind."† But Mr. Newman says there were passages (and he cites one or two) scattered up and down his writings which are, more or less, inconsistent with such an hypothesis. I answer that I have expressly admitted as much; for Mr. Newman is the last man in the world to whom I would deny the benefit of having contradicted himself. * Pages 72, 73., 2d ed. † Soul, p. 248. |