DEFENCE
OF
"THE ECLIPSE OF FAITTHI"
BY ITS AUTHOR;
BEING A REJOINDER TO PROFESSOR
NEWMAN'S " REPLY."
ALSO,
THE "REPLY"' TO "THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH,"
By FRANCIS WILLIAM NEWMAN;
TOGETHER WITH
HIS CHAPTER ON " THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS,"
IREPRINTED FROM
THE THIRD EDITION OF "PI-IASES OF FAITH."
THIRD THOUSAND.
B OS TON:
CROSBY, NICHOLS, AND COMPANY,
111 WASHINGTON STREET.
1. 8 5 6.




CA BIBRID GE:
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY METCALF AND COMPANY.




INTRODUCTION
TO
THE AMERICAN EDITION.
SEVERAL, editions of the volume entitled "The
Eclipse of Faith' have been published and largely
circulated in this country. With but one or two exceptions, and those referable to quarters in which the
theories so ably assailed in it find more or less indulgence or favor, the criticisms that have been pronounced upon the work have been highly comlmendatory. Those who have perused it attentively have seen
occasion for carefully discriminating the limited design
of the writer, and for pronouncing upon his success in
accomplishing it with sole reference to the single aim
which he had in view, and not according to the pertinency or ability of the book as a complete defence
of Revealed Religion against all the assaults of Scepticism. The author assures us that he endeavored to
avoid personalities, that he was dealing with a school
or a clique, and not with individuals, and that, when
he quoted from the printed volumes of two or three
prominent writers of that school, it was merely for the




iv                INTRODUCTION.
sake of convenience, and not to fix a special odium
upon them.
Mr. Newman, for reasons which had weight with
his own mind, regarded " The Eclipse of Faith " as a
direct assault upon himself personally, and under that
opinion he has construed some of its arguments and
several of its sentences as conveying covert insinuations more goading and annoying than is anything
contained in the abstract or impersonal logic of the
work. With what justice he has so interpreted the
spirit and the contents of the volume, the readers of it
may have already decided for themselves; but the following pages will help them to a more full decision.
It certainly will be regretted by all those who wish to
weigh the force of honest and intelligent argumrents on
a subject of the most solemn and momentous interest,
that so much of the heat of wounded feeling should be
manifested by both the parties to the issue here presented. It is not our office, in these introductory remarks, to put ourselves between the two parties as
umpire or judge; if it were so, we should have a very
emphatic and well-assured opinion to pronounce in
the case. The judgment of a third party would here
be obtrusive, and is, of course, withheld.
ML'. Newman introduced his "l Reply to the Eclipse
of Faith" into a new edition of his " Phases of Faith."'
Besides the specific answers which he makes at length
to the arguments or objections advanced in the former
work, he has modified several expressions and sentences which he had written in his first edition of the




INTRODUCTION.                V
"Phases of Faith."  As these modifications are for
the most part without the range of the matters treated
in the following pages, the reader is referred to the volume itself, which has not been reprinted in this countiy, but may be easily obtained. But in the new
edition of that volume is found a chapter on "The
Moral Perfection of Jesus," which we feel bound to
pronounce upon as the most offensive, tortuous, and
unfair piece from the pen of a Christian scholar that
we have ever encountered. It is with extreme reluctance, and only with an overruling desire that the
strangest and most unworthy speculations on sacred
themes may not claim sympathy on the score of being
denied liberty of expression, that we have been instrumental in giving to that chapter the extended circulation of a reprint. The ingenuity and sophistry of
scepticism never ventured upon a more daring length
than in that chapter. The utter absurdity of the pleas
which the writer there advances will be so transparently obvious to most readers as to render them
nugatory of harm, while the Christian believer may be
led to realize all anew, and with intenser reverence,
trust, and love, the graces of that divine character, which
admits of being assailed indeed, but which turns aside
every weapon that every form of passion or prejudice
can direct against it. We have felt under an obligation to say this much, because we hold ourselves
bound to some sort of an apology or excuse before the
community for submitting to them such speculations as
they will find in a portion of these pages. The read



Vi                INTRODUCTION.
ers of " The Eclipse of Faith" have here offered to
them the "' Reply " to that work, and the " Defence"' of
it by its author, together with the chapter from  Mr.
Newman's new edition of his " Phases of Faith," on
"' The Moral Perfection of Jesus." The references made
in each of these separate contents of the following
pages to the other contents of them have been conformed in the foot-notes to the paging of the reprint.
The other references are to the new edition of the
"Phases of Faith."




A REPLY
TO
"THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH,"
BEING
CHAPTER IX. OF THE SECOND EDITION
OF THE
"'PHASES OF FAITH."
BY F. W. NEWMAN.








REPLY.
THIS small book has encountered, as was to be expected, many attacks. In so far as possible, I have
answered them in detail by modifying or expanding
the phrases or paragraphs which have been misunderstood or perverted. Of course we all have a difficulty
in entering into the minds of one another, and some
candid critics have greatly misconceived the scope of
many of my arguments. They allege that I have not
proved this or that, -which I was not at all trying to
prove; but which, nevertheless, they fancied I ought
to be proving, or must have meant to prove. I must
beg all critics who have candor, to observe what it is
that I have said; and not expect me at every sentence
to superadd denials of what it is that I do not say. I
cannot possibly foresee what I am in this way to deny
beforehand.
So also, when I make a statement of fact concerning my own mind, I mean it as a fact, and that is all.
Valeat quantum!  For instance: it is to me perfectly
clear, that the Apostles taught the end of all things to
be close at hand in their own day; and drew from it
the conclusion, that it signifies little whether we are
slaves or freemen, married or unmarried' and that Pa



4                   REPLY TO
triotism, Erudition, and love of Fine Art are highly
unseasonable for Christians. Now, I see no use in
saying more than the fact, that so I do understand
them; there are tens of thousands whom I might write
a hundred pages to convince of this, but it is too disagreeable for them to believe, and I know they will not
believe it. But there are others, who, like me, as soon
it is pointed out to them, find it to pervade the New
Testament. I always try to make it clear, when I am
enunciating my judgment, and when I am proving the
accuracy of that judgment. If critics would point out
where I have confounded these two things, I should
try to write more clearly. But when they require that
I shall prove everything to every reader's comprehension, they are practically demanding that every treatise
against their favorite notions shall be too cumbrous
and dull to be read. Moreover, if I am discerned by
any one to be upright, the fact of my holding a particular judgment which exposes me to theological condemnation is something to the argument; and it is not
uninteresting to some persons, however disgusting it
is, on the contrary, to my hostile critics. Nay, their
disgust is some measure of its importance.
But there is one very common kind of criticism, -
indeed, I might say, the staple article of my reviewers
and assailants, —which consists in demanding proof
exactly in the place where it is not to be found, and
ignoring it where it is. A critic of Euclid might thus
censure the 47th proposition, as most unwarrantably
assuming-without the shadow of proof, reason, or
plausibility — a most important element of the argument; while the critic quite overlooks that this was
demonstrated in the 41st. To the reader of their critique, their objection appears triumphant: they have
shown me to be superficial, and a very ridiculous logi



"6THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."M          5
cian. Well! they are safe, I suppose: their readers
are sufficiently taught to despise or dread my pages.
In the same spirit does a very supercilious writer in a
religious journal avow his inability to find in the whole
of the " Phases'" any description of the groaning and
travailing of the soul, or any mark of my acquaintance
with its deeper wants and distresses. He wilfully
comes to the "Phases" to find topics treated there,
concerning which many think there is too much in my
book on the Soul; and, not finding the object of his
search, magisterially reports that I have never known
anything of the inward life of Christianity.
But there is one book, which, both in reviews and
in private society, is confidently spoken of as a powerful refutation of my "Phases"; it is called the
" Eclipse of Faith."  For many good reasons, I should
now pass it by unnoticed, only that its popularity gives
it a weight which it has not in itself; I find also that
my friends expect me to answer it. Supposing it to
be directed against the " Phases," I delayed perusing
it until I should be preparing a new'edition; but I
now find its principal attack to be against my treatise
on the Soul. By far the larger part is unanswerable,
either because scoffs offer nothing to reply to, or because it has purposely omitted my arguments. On
certain points of detail, however, I have obviated its
misrepresentations above; see. pp. 14, 16, 101, and 106
above.
Of this author's tone the reader may in part judge
from the following examples: —
P. 82. "You shall be permitted to say (what I will
not contradict) that, though Mr. Newman may be inspired, for aught I know,.... inspired as much (say)
as the inventor of Lucifer matches, - yet that his book
is not divine, -that it is purely human."
1 *




6                   REPLY TO
P. 127. "Mr. Newman says, to those who say they
are unconscious of these facts of spiritual pathology
which he describes in his-work on the Soul, that the
consciousness of the spiritual man is not the less true,
that [though?] the unspiritual man is not privy to it;
and this most devout gentleman somewhere quotes with
much unction the words,' For the spiritual man judgeth
all things, but himself is judged of no man.'"
P. 419. " Mr. Newman has favored the world with
his views of religious truth, and the'spiritual' weapons by which its' champion' is to make it victorious
over mankind. He has also recorded his hatred of
slavery and despotism, where such magnanimity is perfectly safe and perfectly superfluous. Let me now suppose you, not only partly, but wholly of his mind; and
animated (if " spiritualism' will ever promzpt men to do
anything except.... to write books against book-revelations)," &c.
On the rest of this passage, which affects to argue
against me, I have commented in p. 106, above. My
heart does not'reprove me for having written a word to
undervalue the sincere religion of any man. It therefore
surprises me to find one, who desires to be thought a
gentleman and a Christian, yet knowing that I believe
in the doctrine of the Psalms and New Testament concerning the communication of God's Spirit, (which
may be my weakness, but still is sincere,) compares
my inspiration to that of the inventor of Lucifer
matches.
In every church through England, prayer is habitually offered to God " to cleanse our hearts by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit."  Now, what sort of howl
of horror and disgust would rise against me, if I told
those who were in sincere piety thus praying, that I
would freely concede to them, they might possibly get




" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."         7
as much inspiration as the inventor of Lucifer matches?
Say nothing of the indecency; but, would anybody
see wit in such a saying? The author clearly has a
profound unbelief in the Christian doctrine of Divine
Influence, or he could not thus grossly insult it. I am
sorry to add, that, in order to avert the indignation of
his readers, and pretend it is some conceit and vanity
of mine which he is ridiculing, he endeavors, in pp.
10-14, 46, and elsewhere, to instil into the reader, that
I make exclusive claims of inspiration for my single
self. I wish I could think that he has sincerely mistaken me. And what sort of reply am I to make to a
person who tells me that my book is not divine, but
human? This is what I call a scoff; and his pages
abound with such.
He moreover wishes his readers to think that I am
as flippant as he. Thus he says, p. 119: " Mr. Parker
and Mr. Newman make themselves very merry with a
book-revelation, as they call it." His credulous reader
(who probably has a conscience against opening my
book) will naturally think this to be true. What kind
of truth is in it, my reader shall presently see.
Again, p. 383: " Mr. Newman says, that Paul seems
to have rested on evidence, which he received.... in
a manner which would have moved the laughter of
Paley." I have no phrase of this color; and I think it
rather hard that he should put his own merriments
into my mouth.
The very plan on which this author has constructed
his book is self-condemning as a medium of controversy. For one man to write both sides of an argument, with the express and avowed intention of ridiculing the one side and extolling the other, is such an
intolerable absurdity, that I am amazed at any fairminded persons entertaining it for a moment. The




8                    REPLY TO
Socratic dialogue, when used in talk, may possibly
have a legitimate use to a teacher addressing uncultivated minds; though, even then, the moment it is used
for controversy, it is the mere screen of infinite sophistries. But in writing, where one person works both
the puppets, it is really too puerile.  Its diffuseness
also makes a full exposure of sophisms impossible
without writing a folio.
But if this be in itself unjust, it is made ten times
worse by this author's peculiar use of the enormous
license which he has assumed. The second title of
the book is " A Visit to a Religious Sceptic"; this is
a Mr. Harrington, who is his principal talker. Into
his mouth the author puts all the free and easy language which, for some reason or other, he is unwilling
to say in his own name. I think this exceedingly unjust to genuine and honest men. I am acquainted
with several decided sceptics, and two avowed atheists.
I know them to have read my book on the Soul, and they
do not agree with it; but they behave to me with modesty, respect, and kindness. The very opposite tone pervading this book, I feel to come, not from any actual
Mr. Harrington, but from the Christian (?) controversialist behind him. I am willing to meet a sincere
sceptic, and teach him or learn from him. All sincere
and conscientious men can teach us something: God
forbid that I should feel towards such either pride or
unkindness; indeed, I find that true sceptics do not
scoff at the sincere, but only at the hypocritical. And
as this dialogue is fundamentally fictitious, I do not
see what else but the author's own heart can have
suggested the profane insults which abound in it, and
against which I protest, as a slanderous representation of honest sceptics. After all, why must this
author step in to reinforce their argument? are they




"THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."           9
not generally acute enough to conduct it without a
Christian's aid? and why must I fight against a sham
adversary? It suffices for me to combat honest and
real hearts, from whom  I do not shrink: but I confess
I do shrink with a most painful repugnance from one,
who, by discarding his personality, thinks to get free
from moral responsibility.
But here is another marvel,   that in this Christian's
opinion the great test of spiritual truth lies in its
preacher being able to recommend it to the profane
intellect of a lively scoffer! According to him, the
state of the soul is nothing to the purpose. Unless I
can convince a hard reasoning and unspiritual man
that certain Scriptural doctrines (doctrines which he
elsewhere reproaches me with having "stolen" from
Christian Apostles) are true,  I am absurd, contemptible, and deserving of having my language on sacred
topics mutilated and mocked!  My language!  No!
but the language of those whom the author desires
me to revere. In the following, for instance, Mr. Fellowes is intended to personate me; and he says,
p. 41: -
"' I have rejected all creeds; and I have found what
the Scripture calls that peace which passeth all understanding.'
"' I am sure it passes mine,' says Harrington,'if
you have really found it; and I should be much obliged
to you if you would let me participate in the discovery.'
"'Yes,' said Fellowes;.... I have escaped from
the bondage of the letter, and have been introduced
into the liberty of the spirit..... We separate the
dross of Christianity from its fine gold. The letter
killeth, but the spirit giveth life.  The fruit of the
Spirit is joy, peace, not-'




10                  REPLY TO
"' Upon my word,' said Harrington, laughing,' 
shall presently begin to fancy that Douce Davie Deans
has turned infidel,' &e.
I request the reader to consider, whether, if we blot
out the names Fellowes and Christianity, and put instead Paul and Judaism, Mr. Harrington's scoffs would
not have equal weight.  For myself I feel simple
amazement, that a writer can think he is serving the
cause of Christianity by appealing to such weapons.
Observe also his gracious application to me of the
word "infidel," a contumely very common from Mr.
Harrington, but impossible from a genuine sceptic,a word which is the peculiar weapon of the proud and
self-sufficient dogmatizer, who holds all to be unfaithful
who do not adopt his opinions. I say, such a word is
unmeaning from one who is not sure even that there is
a good God; and this epithet itself proves, that under
the mask of the sceptic, the Christian (?) is venting his
own pride and bitterness, which he unjustly attributes
to another.
But as to this Mr. Fellowes: who is he? His character (p. 33) is apparently intended to be a portrait
of mine, as the author conceives of me. Thus he insinuates a mean, degrading, and laughable opinion of
me, if the reader will accept it; but if the reader cannot go quite so far, and says it is unfair, then the author can back out, and protest that Fellowes is not
myself, but only my admirer. The reader will see,
that, in the last passages quoted, Fellowes is represented
as blurting out all sorts of sacred truths in a heap, upon
a man who thinks he has a right to laugh at them.
This is an old trick for ridiculing all inward religion.
Write a farce in which a Dr. Cantwell shall profess
holy maxims in the most unsuitable moments, and
you get the laugh of the thoughtless on your side.




" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.I"        11
It is reserved for this author to imagine that by
such profanity he can succeed in frightening men
front what he calls "infidelity" into any holy or pure
religion.
In depicting Mr. Fellowes, the author is resolved to
outdo Plato in graphic pungency. He is most exact
in describing his sanctimonious solemnity, his silly
dogmatism, his eager confidence, his grave puzzleheadedness, his hesitation, his drawl, his long pauses, his
blank look, and his eminent candor in confessing my
follies. In far more than I can possibly quote, or allude to, the animus of the author is seen. In the last
quotation, it is visible at a glance that the author is
working the puppet Fellowes expressly to ridicule me
and my argument, and not as one who tries to say his
best for me, as he thinks I would have said it. Let
the reader mark the following, pp. 45, 46. Harrington
says: -
"' I cannot suspect you of hypocrisy, but I confess I
regard your language as cant. As I listen to you, I
seem to see a hybrid between Prynne and Voltaire.
So far from its being true that you have renounced the
letter of the Bible and retained its spirit, I think it
would be much more correct to say, comparing your
infidel hypothesis with your most spiritual dialect, that
you have renounced the spirit of the Bible and retained
its letter.'
"' But are you in a condition to give an opinion?'
said Fellowes, with a serious air.' Mr. Newman says
in a like case, " The natural man discerneth not the
things of the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness unto him": it is "the spiritual man only who
searches the deep things of God."  At the same tinme 1
freely acknowledgJe that I never could see my way
clear to employ an argument which looks so arrogant;




12                   REPLY TO
and the less, as I believe with Mr. Parker, that the only
true revelation is in all men alike.'"
I will not here farther insist on the monstrosity of
bringing forward St. Paul's words as mine, in order to
pour contempt upon them; a monstrosity which no
sophistry of Mr. Harrington can justify. But I now
point to the fact, that Mr. Fellowes is purposely employed to make damaging concessions; so that the
whole is a prevarication from beginning to end. Moreover, the author deliberately shows his belief, that the
profane scoffer is competent to judge of deep spiritual
questions.
But I come to a matter still graver; namely, that
not a word which Mr. Harrington says concerning
my opinions or arguments is trustworthy as to fact.
His misrepresentation of me is so systematic, continuous, and stealthy, that to convict him and prove my
points everywhere would need a volume. I can only
give leading matters, which indeed will suffice.
1. I have already noted how falsely he insinuates
that I claim  some exclusive inspiration; whereas I
only claim that which all pious Christians and Jews
since David have always claimed.  So resolute is he
here to ridicule me, that, in p. 87, he proposes to nickname me Professor of Spiritual Insight.
2. He often implies and inculcates that my religion,
according to me, has received nothing by Traditional
and Historical agencies; that it owes nothing to men
who went before me; that I believe I have a spiritual
faculty " so bright as to anticipate all essential spiritual verities," p. 130; that had it not been for Traditional religion, "we should everywhere have heard the
invariable utterance of spiritual religion in the one
dialect of the heart," p. 135; that "this divinely implanted faculty of spiritual discernment anticipates all




i" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."M             13
external' truth," p. 135; &c., &c.  Now all this is so
far from being my doctrine, that it is the direct and
most intense reverse of all that I have most elaborately
and carefully written.  I have in the "Soul" dwelt
largely on the Historical Progress of Religion, and have
shown how each age depends ordinarily on the preceding.  In p. 169 of this treatise, the same is distinctly
advanced. In p. 174 our mutual dependence is set
forth. What is more, in my treatise on the Soul I
have assimilated religious science to mathematical science, in respect to two cardinal facts: 1st, that each
man inherits immense advantage from the labors of
preceding minds; 2d, that each man has to appropriate these labors for himself, and learn to believe independently of the authority of his teachers. Until he has
attained this point, he has learned nothing as he ought.
Now I may be right, or wrong, in holding that religious science and all science have these points in comnmon; but, inasmuch as the case of mathematics is indisputably clear, no man ought to misunderstand me,
and no one has a right to pretend that I am self-contradictory, as a plea for his misrepresentations. This
author says of me: " EVERY ONE CAN SEE f that Mr.
Newman's system too has been derived from without;
that it is, in fact, nothing but a distorted Christianity."
p. 136. This is intended to make the reader suppose
that I deny it.  Deny: it?  Just as much as I deny
that my mathematics have come from Euler, and New" For external trutlh possibly he meant to write " external transmission
of truth."
t Similarly p. 146: "It is odd that ]J3r. Newman does NOT perceive that,
if it were not for the Bible, his religion would no more have assumed the
peculiar cast it has, than that of Aristotle and Cicero." Yet in p. 294 ho
quotes what proves that I do perceive it.
t Of course the invidious word distorted is not mine.
2




14                      REPLY TO
ton, and Descartes, and Archimedes, and Euclid.
Deny it?   Why, this writer perfectly knows the contrary.  In this very discussion he argues against my
doctrine of " progress " in religion, p. 141.  In p. 294,
he quotes my grateful recognition of the Bible, where
he thinks he can  use'  it against me.  And  yet he
pretends I am  not aware that I have learned from
Christian teachers!
For the sake of any one who is really and honestly
stupid as to my meaning, I will here reiterate, that when
I deny that History can be Religion, or a part of Religion, I mean it exactly in the same sense in which
we all say that History is not Mathematics.  " Newton wrote the Principia ": true; but to make that proposition a part of Mathematics would be an egregious
blunder as to the very nature of the science. A man
might be quite as good a mathematician, though he
had never heard of Newton's name. In the above,
change Newton and Principia into Moses and Pentateuch, or David and Psalms, or Paul and Epistles, and
change Mathematics into Religion, —and (I say) all
remains true. I may be right, or I may be wrong;
but I speak most distinctly.  Religion and Mathematics alike come to us by Historical Transmission; but
where the sciences flourish, we judge of them for ourselves, make them  our own, become independent of our
teachers, add to their wisdom, and bequeathe an improved store to our successors; but these sciences have
never flourished, and cannot flourish, where received
* Even there he proceeds to tell his reader that the Bible has had " more
to do than I think" with originating my present conceptions of truth.
Where have I claimed any personal originality? To prove one's originality in moral and spiritual thought, can scarcely ever be possible, since we
all are always imbibing from all sides; to assert it, therefore, is never advisable. The New Testament has very little or7-iginal truth.




"L THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."         15
on authority. They come to us by external transmission, but are not believed because of that transmission;
and no historical facts concerning that transmission
are any part of the science at all. Mathematics is
concerned with Relations of Quantities, Religion with
the normal Relations between Divine and Human Nature. That is all.
3. I must quote another very gross case of garbling
by this author. In p. 224 he writes:"Do you remember, that Mr. Newman says that,
when he was a boy, he read Benson's Life of Fletcher,
and thought Fletcher a more perfect man than Jesus
Christ 9.... As to Mr. Newman's impression, I do
not think it worth an answer. When a man so forgets
himself as to say what he can hardly help knowing will
be unspeakably painful to multitudes of his fellowcreatures on the strength of boyish impressions,.... I
think it scarcely worth while to reply.  Christianity is
willing to consider the arguments of men, but not the
impressions of boys."
No one can possibly read this, without understanding that I recommended my boyish impressions as
something trustworthy, something for which I claimed
respect from " Christianity." This is not said indeed,
but is distinctly implied, and, I am forced to think, is
undoubtedly the idea intended to be impressed on
readers. Yet it is simply and totally the very reverse
of the fact.
He says, that, when a boy, I thought Fletcher a
more perfect man than Jesus Christ. This is not true:
I made no comparison whatever. The idea did not
occur to me, and could not then occur. My statement
was, that Fletcher, as depicted by Benson, appeared to
me, when I was a boy, to be a perfect man (I did not
say more perfect than Jesus); and the inference which




16                   REPLY TO
I drew was, not that my boyish impression deserved
respect, but, that it may be a warning how untrustworthy is such criticism, proceeding from the uneducated,
who are no wiser in criticism than I was when a boy.
The author of the " Eclipse " has here again intruded into a controversy with which he has no concern.
As, elsewhere, he officiously fights the battle of sceptics
against me, so here he fights that of a remarkable and
able, but very new and very small school. Unitarians,
to whom  (I believe) he would ordinarily refuse the
Christian name, he is now pleased to identify with
Christianity. " CHRISTIANITY is not willing to consider the impressions of boys!"  Why?  Because I say
to my Unitarian friends, — Since you will yourselves
admit that I made a great blunder when a boy, in mistaking the overdrawn picture of Mr. Fletcher's excellence for a perfect realityv, - since this was an illusion
which manly criticism hardly sufficed to dispel, — it
appears to me that you cannot supersede miracles and
the miraculous conception of Jesus, by setting the uncritical to judge for themselves in favor of the Moral
Perfection of Jesus, and make that judgment the basis
of Christianity.
Now this author happens to agree with me so far.
He even intensely rejects the belief that our discernment of the moral and spiritual can be made the basis
of religion: it is his cardinal point of attack against
me. But when I oppose my friend Martineau, who
goes beyond me in this, - (for I only say that our discernment, defective as it is; is the best thing we have
got, and the only thing that can be made a basis at all;
while Martineau says that illiterate, uneducated people
ought to have, and have, so sound a moral discernment, as not only to judge that a character is above
them, but that it is infinitely Perfect and an Absolute




" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."         17
Model, and is a historical truth; and this I cannot admit,) - well, when I am engaged in contending against
a view, which neither this author nor Christendom
holds, in he steps, and announces that " Christianity is
not willing to listen to the impression of boys."
The paragraph on which he commented is superseded in this edition by a chapter concerning the Moral
Perfection of Jesus. I only fear that those who read
my new discussion may think that I have erred on the
opposite side of that imputed to me,- namely, think
that I was too tender to prevalent opinion. I think it
right here to reprint my old paragraph, lest it be fancied
that there is something which I desire to conceal. The
author of the "Eclipse" did not print it. As usual, he
withheld from his readers all power of judging for
themselves whether his representations of me were fact.
I wrote thus, p. 209:"6 I do not at all see how the uneducated can judge
on the literary question,' whether it is, or is not, possible for the portrait of Jesus to be imaginary and unreal.'  Heroes are described in superhuman dignity,
why not in superhuman goodness? Many biographies
overdraw the virtue of their subject. An experienced
critic can sometimes discern this; but certainly the uncritical cannot always. I remember, when a boy, to
have read the life of Fletcher of Madeley, written by
Benson; and he appeared to me an absolutely perfect
man; [and at this day, if I were to read the book
afresh, I suspect I should think his character a more
perfect one than that of Jesus.] Hence this view does
not get rid of the objection, that Religion must not
be made a problem of Literature."
The words here placed in brackets I now see would
have been better omitted; since they seem to have distracted the mind from my argument, which did not
2*




18                   REPLY TO
need them. But I cannot admit that they contain
anything to give just offence. I specially selected Mr.
Fletcher, as an eminently noble type of the qualities
for which Jesus is esteemed, and I proceeded to speak
of him as an " admirable person."  After all, my comparison was not between Fletcher and Jesus, but between the portraits drawn for the two by devoted admirers: and my inference was, not that Fletcher was
really the more perfect man, but that uncritical faculties are not competent duly to guard against the extravagant praise of a partial biographer.
4. This writer instils into his readers the belief that
I make a fanatical separation between the intellectual
and the spiritual (p. 106), - a "divorce" between
them (p. 108), - 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 (p. 113).  He never quotes
enough from me to let his reader understand what is
meant by the words which he does quote. In my book
on the Soul I wrote, - speaking of spiritual progress,
- p. 106, 3d edition: -
"' A comfortable mediocrity is all that will result, unless the mloral perceptions keep rising,-which is indeed
the only healthful state. To this, however, it is probable that increasing miental culture is in certain stages
essential..... In such case, the advance of that knowledge which is purely intellectual and negative (which
on that account religious men are apt to dread), is absolutely requisite for farther spiritual progress.  To
destroy superstition does not in itself impart religion;
yet the destruction is necessary, if religion is to
flourish."
The writer of the " Eclipse " has read this, and yet
he pretends that I "; divorce" the intellectual from the




" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."         19
spiritual, and ought to be indifferent to the purity of
religious truth! In the same chapter I have contended
against strictly Biblical Christians in favor of Science
and Art; and I say, p. 120: " The evolving of Truth
and culture of Imagination tend to elevate and perfect
man, side by side with the influences of direct Devotion. For nearly two centuries, men of Science have
been our only school of Prophets."
What can this writer have meant by his misrepresentations?  I cannot pretend that I do not understand; for I do. The sceptic whom he 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. Now in pp. 44, 46, 50, 69, 97, and elsewhere,
above, I have denoted how I was gradually forced to
modify the Biblical doctrine, which I now see to degrade pure intellect too much. But I still avow, with
Paul and John, that in the soul, and not in the dry
mind, are the eyes which discern spiritual things, and
that the affections must be spiritualized, if we are to
be right judges of such topics. Mr. Harrington treats
this as a rich absurdity, and the author makes Mr. Fellowes (p. 46) also  confess that it is a personal vain
assumption in me. It is then clear, that I agree too
Quoted above, p. 11.




20                  REPLY TO
nearly with the Christian Apostles for the author's
taste; his attack is really on them, when it seems to be
on me. But I may not dwell here longer on this, and
proceed to remark on two principal subjects, on which,
in fact, our whole controversy turns.
First, I shall notice his treatment of Authoritative
Imposition of Belief concerning Moral Truth, or the propriety of "Book-Revelation"; a word which he has
adopted from me, and uses it a hundred times because
I have used it twice. Secondly, I shall speak of what
he calls the weightiest topic, —viz. the inevitable certainty that my principle would make the lively Mr.
Harrington an atheist.
I. On Book-Revelation, he has a conversation reaching from p. 73 to p. 96, without one extract from me
by which the reader may learn for himself what it is
that I hold, and much less how I defend my views.
In p. 73, a preliminary summary of them is thus given
by him:'" A book-revelation of moral and spiritual
truth is impossible; and, God reveals himself to us
from within, and not from without." A second treatise of his owvn, on "Book-Revelation," reaches from
p. 283 to p. 304, and in this long discussion he does not
make room for any extract from me, except one in
grateful acknowledgment of the Bible. He still sedulously keeps his readers in ignorance of my arguments.
The fullest quotations that I can find are in p. 119,
where he is treating a different subject. I shall adduce them presently, because they are the fullest.
Hiis avowed argument against me is in the Socratic
dispute, pp. 73-96. As usual,- conscious, it seems,
that a spiritual subject, treated seriously by him, is
likely to be rather dull, —he thinks it more politic to
be witty; so he undertakes to make Mr. Fellowes admit that "' Mr. Newman has done for him what God




"~ THE ECLIPSE OF FAITHI.         21
cannot do "; or, in another form of ingenuity, "If Mr.
Newman can do so much by a book, what might not
God do!" (p. 83.) What then have I done? I have
achieved the divine task of becoming the author-of a
book-revelation to the empty-headed Mr. Fellowes;
which I professed that it was beyond the power of God
to do for me. Indeed! Let us then hear what (according to this author) I actually have said: In p. 119
(his fullest quotation) it stands thus: " What God reveals to us he reveals within, through the medium of
our moral and spiritual senses." -" Christianity itself
has practically confessed, what is theoretically clear, —
(you mu-st take IMr. Newman's word for both,) - that
an authoritative external revelation of moral and spiritual truth is essentially impossible to man." —" No
book-revelation can (without snapping its own pedestal) authoritatively dictate laws of human virtue, or
alter our a' priori view of the divine character."  The
reader will observe that this author inserts a clause of
his own: "' you must take Mr. Newman's word for
both "; i. e. both for the fact that Christianity has confessed it, and for the fact that theory makes it clear.
He thus informs his reader that I have dogmatized
without giving reasons. And to deceive the reader
into easy credence, he dislocates my sentences, alters
their order, omits an adverb of inference, and isolates
these three sentences out of a paragraph of forty-six
closely printed lines, which carefully reason out the
whole question. Not to be needlessly t6dious, I omit
the two first sentences of it. I had written: —
" No heaven-sent Bible can guarantee the veracity of
God to a man who doubts that veracity. Unless we
have independent means of knowing that God knows
the trutlh and is disposed to tell it to us, his word (if we,be ever so certain that it is really his word) might as well




22                   REPLY TO
not have been spoken. But if we know, independently
of the Bible, that God knows the truth, and is disposed
to tell it to us, obviously we know a great deal more
also; we know, not only the existence of God, but
much concerning his character. For only by discerning that he has virtues similar in kind to human virtues,
do we know of his truthfulness and goodness. Without this a priori belief, a book-revelation is a useless
impertinence; hence no book-revelation can, without
sapping its own pedestal, authoritatively dictate laws
of human virtue, or alter our a priori views of the divine character. The nature of the case implies, that
the human mind is competent to sit in moral and spiritual judgment on a professed revelation, and to decide (if the case seem to require it) in the following
tone: Thii doctrine attributes to God what we should
call harsh, cruel, or unjust in man; it is therefore intrinsically inadmissible: for if God may be (what we
should call) cruel, he may equally well be (what we
should call) a liar; and if so, of what use is his word
to us? - And in fact, all Christian apostles and missionaries, like the Hebrew prophets, have always refuted Paganism by direct attacks on its immoral and
unspiritual doctrines; and have appealed to the consciences of heathens, as competent to decide in the
controversy.  Christianity itself has THUS practically
confessed what is theoretically clear, that an authoritative external revelation of moral and spiritual truth is
essentially impossible to man. What God reveals to
us, he reveals within, through the medium of our moral
and spiritual senses. External teaching may be a
training of those senses, but affords no foundation for
certitude."
Of this passage, the first six sentences carefully prove
that a book guaranteed by God is worthless to a man




" THIE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.5        23
who has no convictions concerning the heart of God,
and in consequence, that it is necessarily incapable of
overturning and reversing moral judgments.  After
thus proving it to be " theoretically clear," I add, " And
in fact," &c., and go on to show how Christians have
actually proceeded. Then I sum up: " Christianity itself has THUS practically confessed what is theoretically
clear," &c. The omission of the word TItUS by this
author shows his deliberate intention to destroy the
reader's clew to the fact, that I had given proof where
he suppresses it, and says that I have given none.
The sentences quoted as 1, 2, 3 by him, with me have
the order 3, 2, 1. What he places first is with me an
immediate and necessary deduction from what has preceded. This will show my reader, first, that the author
feels the weight of my reasons so painfully, that he
does not dare to bring them forward; secondly, since
he has not impugned my arguments, but has suppressed them, and told his readers that I have given
none, a sufficient reply on my part is to reprint them,
and to warn people that merriment may be founded on
fiction; thirdly, it will be seen that I should need to
write folios to expose tricks of this kind; fourthly, I
beg the reader to observe that the long paragraph just
quoted is that in which, according to this discerning
author, I "' make myself merry " on this grave subject.
But we have still to see how by all this the author
proves what he pleasantly expresses by saying that
" God raised up his servant Newman to perform the
office" (p. 82) for Mr. Fellowes, which God himself
could not perform for Mr. Newman. It is thus:- The
Omnipotent is unable to achieve an authoritative external revelation for Mr. Newman, but Mr. Newman
has achieved it for Mr. Fellowes! - The latter is the
cardinal FACT adduced by the historical genius of our




2.4                 REPLY TO
author, who here, as elsewhere, desires to found the
Spiritual upon the Legendary, and abhors the basis of
Moral Truth. If Mr. Fellowes has made me authoritative, how can I be absurd enough to make difficulties
about adopting Paul or Mark or Jonah or Esther as
authoritative? -But no! Surely the author means
merely that Mr. Fellowes found my book instructive?
If so, with what sort of honesty can he pretend that I
do not admit the Bible to be instructive?  It is too
true, that in this long dialogue, from p. 73 to p. 96, he
never lets that out; though much later, at p.'294,
where he has a purpose to serve, he quotes from me to
this effect. It would have been injudicious for his argument to suggest this to the reader in the earlier discussion. But if I ever so much despised the Bible,
have I ever inculcated that all books, as such, are
worthless; so as to be confuted by the bare fact of
writing a book at all?  This certainly is implied by
the scoff, that I can "do nothing but write books
against book-revelations."  But listen to one passage
from me (" Soul," p. 133, 3d ed.). After highly extolling Hymns, I add: "Prose works have their own
place, as eminent spiritual aids. But it is needless to
say a word more on a subject which EVERYBODY 50
well appreciates." After this, it is pretended that I
cannot become myself a spiritual aid to Mr. Fellowes,
or (as the facetious author styles it) "an infinite benefactor to him," without overthrowing my own doctrine;
which is, that if an angel from heaven bade me to
lie, and to steal, and to commit adultery, and to murder, and to scoff at good men, and usurp dominion
over my equals, and do unto others everything that I
wish not to have done unto me, I ought to reply, BE
THOU ANATHEMA! This, I believe, was Paul's doctrine;
this is mine; for this I am garbled, misrepresented, and




" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.         25
jibed at by one who is greatly shocked that I do not
honor Paul and the Bible enough.
II. I proceed to the second topic, — viz. the danger,
or rather the certainty, that my principles will force the
sceptical Mr. Harrington to become an atheist. Now
this prospect does not terrify me: since I think it
might be an improvement to Mr. Harrington; a first
step towards truth. I hold Morality as my religious
basis; and on it I build that God is essentially moral.
A serious atheist, like Mr. G. J. Holyoake, holds Morality, as I do, to be a fixed certainty, but doubts whether there is any personal God. But Mr. Harrington is
unsettled on both points. With him Morality has no
fixedness, - indeed, he is insolent with me because I
treat it as an immovable foundation, which I will not
allow to be tampered with by any pretence of miracle;
and he is equally uncertain whether there is any good
God. Thus of my two principles the real atheist, Mr.
Holyoake, holds one, and the more fundamental; while
Mr. Harrington holds neither. Mr. Holyoake has lectured on and against my book on the Soul, and has behaved with fairness, courtesy, and generosity. He has
not garbled nor ridiculed me: he leaves it to one who
calls himself Christian to scoff at sentiments which I
have learned from Christianity.
But I must quote the author's own words, p. 148: —
"I now proceed to what I acknowledge is the most
weighty topic of my argument; which is, to prove that,
if I acquiesce, on Mr. Newman's grounds, in the rejection of the Bible as a special revelation of God, I am
compelled on the very sAME principles to go a few steps
further, and to express doubts of the absolutely divine
original of the WORLD and the administration thereof,
just as he does of the divine original of the Bible......
[On Mr. Newman's grounds] I cannot do otherwise
3




26                  REPLY TO
than reject much of the revelation of God in his presumed works as unworthy of him, just as.Mr. Newman
does in his supposed word as equally unworthy of
him."
P. 149. "' Mr. Newman ought, in consistency, to have
gone a little further...... If it be found impossible to
solve these dificulties [in the administration of the universe] let him acknowledge, either that our supposed
essential "intuitions " of moral rectitude are not to be
trusted as applicable to the Supreme Being,..... or
that no such Being exists;...... &c.
"Here Fellowes broke in: —'If indeed there be any
such instances; but Mr. Newman will reply, that they
will be sought for in vain in the world, however plentiful in the Bible.'
"  I know not whether he would deny them, or not;
but they are found in great abundance in the world
notwithstanding, and this is my dificulty.'"
What are found? I cannot quote such diffuse writing at full; but it is, " things which shock the moral
sense as flagrantly immoral, and which Mr. Newmap
must reject as not sanctioned by God." He presently
(p. 152) gives as examples the earthquake of Lisbon
and the plague of London, which are thus laid down
to be flagrant immoralities, which not only will make
Mr. Harrington an atheist or pagan, but (he adds)
ought to make me such, if I am consistent. Now who
is it that tells me that such natural events are flagrant
immoralities, which, if we dare to dwell on them, will
make us atheists or pagans? Is it only the sceptical
Mr. Harrington?  If so, what hinders me from simply
saying (what is the truth) that I know all these facts,
and I do not see that they prove Paganism? What
hinders me? is it only the intense dogmatism of a fictitious person, who blusteringly rules, that (whatever I




"; THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."        27
pretend to the contrary) the FACTS of the universe ARE
Pagan? No: not only. The bold dogmatism of the
sceptic is indorsed and confirmed by the author. Indeed, were it not so, the elaborate and vehement argument would be obviously ridiculous; but he means it
to be cogent, and avows that it is. In the close, winding up in his own name, he says, p. 452: —
"' If the discussions in the preceding pages shall in
any instance convince the youthful reader of the precarious nature of those modern book-revelations which
are somewhat inconsistently given us in books which
tell us that all book-revelations of religious truth are
superfluous or even impossible; if they shall convince him how easily an impartial [in italics] doubter
can retort with interest the deistical arguments against
Christianity, or how little merely insoluble objections
can avail against any thing;....  I shall be well content to bear the charge of having spoiled a Fiction, or
even of having mutilated a Biography."
Here then we have the author without a mask. Let
us consider what he avows:
1. That he is satisfied to have the Bible regarded as
a " book-revelation'2 in that sense, and in that only, in
which my writings are " book-revelations" to those
whom they happen to convince. - If he does not mean
this, the words are palpably and inexcusably dishonest.
2. That Mr. Harrington, in his assaults on the God
revealed in the universe, shows himself to be an impartial doubter.
3. That the objections which Mr. Harrington makes
to the morality of the God of Nature, -the God who
permits an earthquake of Lisbon, — are insoluble,
equally with those against the morality of the God of
the Bible.
It immediately occurs to ask, how he confutes Hin



28                  REPLY TO
dooism or Fetichism, or any of those Calmuck a" scoundrels" (p. 114, 132, &c.) towards whom he is so scornful that Theodore Parker has a brother's heart. If " insoluble objections" against the morality of a religion
are to go for nothing, - if we must throw away our
moral judgment before we can get any religion at all,
-no exclusive claims can be made out for his special
form of religion. But I leave others to dwell on this;
and I remark, that we have here a distinct avowal of
what indeed pervades the whole discussion; that, in the
author's deliberate judgment, the FACTS of the universe
are so horrible, that they must make every honest and
competent man an atheist, who does not throw away
his moral judgment. He treats me as ridiculous in believing that the phenomena are honestly reconcilable
with the common conscience and heart-morality of human nature; and is quite overbearing in the assumption that the sceptic has the upper hand of me. Mr.
Fellowes of course is overpowered.  The author,
speaking under a mask, uses a bold license of blasphemy against Nature and its God, which too clearly
comes from the heart. Hear a little more of his edifying professions, p. 155: —
" All these perplexities are increased, when I trace
them up to that profound mystery in which they all
originate, -- I mean the permission of physical and
moral evil. Either evil could have been prevented or
not. If it could, its immense and horrible prevalence is
at war with the intuition already referred to: if it could
not, who shall prove it? I am no more able to contradict the intuitions of my intellect, than those of my
conscience; and if anything can be called a contradiction of the former, it is to be told that a Being of infinite power, wisdom, and beneficence could not construct a world without an immensity of evil in it; no




6 THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.          29
reason being assignable, or even imaginable, for such a
proposition, except the fact, that such a world has not
been created. I am therefore compelled to doubt, whether this Universe be really the fabrication of such a BeThe sceptic's facts, and the validity of his argument,
are both enforced upon me by the author; and the
only mode admitted by him of escaping the conclusion
is by saying that we must resolve not to trust moral
criticism at all in religious arguments.
P. 159. " I was talking to a friend on these subjects
the other day: I Ah! but,' said he,'many of those difficulties you mention oppress every hypothesis, - Clhristianity as vmuch as the rest.'
" This (I replied) is no answer to me [the sceptic],
nor to you [the theist], if you have a particle of candor; still less is it one to the Christian, who consistently applies the same principle of ABSOLUTE faith to
things apparently a priori incredible, whether in the
Words, or in the Works, of God."
How anxiously the sceptic fights the Christian's battle! He is not satisfied with refuting the Theist, but
he must justify (what the author calls) the Christian
also. Manifestly we have here the author's own sentiment. And what does he say?  He admits that the
charges of immorality which he so vehemently urges
against the God of Nature press- with equal weight
against the God of Christianity; but he adds, this goes
for nothing with the Christian, who resolves to receive
"withl absolute faith things apparently a priori incredible," not only when he finds them a posteriori in the
mighty Universe of which man is a growth and small
member, but also when they are presented to him gratuitously in books written by men. When we are in
the act of discussing whether a book is or is not guar3 *




30                       REPLY TO
anteed to us by the God of the Universe, he demands
as a reasonable preliminary that we will approach the
Book with the very same reverence as we approach the
Universe, and will assume that the Book is the "Word"
of God as surely as the Universe is his " Work."' —
This, however, is not the point to which I at present
direct chief attention; but, that he thinks to aid his
Christian faith by darkening that God of Nature whom
he is putting forward as the author and sanctioner of
the Bible. He announces that Nature holds up to me
an immoral God, and he bids me therefore to be content with the same in Christianity.  He assures me
that the Christian, having swallowed all the immoralities of the Bible by absolute unreasoning faith, finds
no difficulty whatever in also swallowing the immoralities of the God of Nature; and so too, if I can swallow  those of Nature (which he enforces on me vehemently), I ought not to object to those of the Bible.
He not only makes no attempt to reconcile with the
common conscience any of the moral enormities in the
Bible, but admits that the objections are " insoluble."
If I tell him that the intended sacrifice of a first-born
son did not deserve eulogy, -  that the permission to
Israel of indiscriminate plunder, massacre, and concubinage against the whole human race (Deut. xx. 15) is
an atrocity,* — he has no reply whatever, except that
the God of Nature is equally atrocious.  In short, the
* I must remind the reader, that I never suggested nor endured the idea
of rejecting a religion (collectively) for the sake of errors which could be
separated from it. This author labors to convince his readers, that that is
my doctrine, and has been my history; but both are his own fiction.
Moreover, as a fact, - (though I now regard it as my weakness and not
my merit,) - moral criticism is precisely that which I was slowest to use
against authoritative claims. To me the system broke down first, precisely on that side which alone this author counts defensible, - viz. the
external evidences.




" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."         31
objections which moralists urge against various parts
and principles of current Christianity, he concedes to
be unanswerable on the hypothesis that God has moral
judgments comparable with our own; but he replies,
that the hypothesis itself is the error of sentimental Deists. A God endowed with pure morality he treats as
an arbitrary and wilful fiction of my own, and says
that it only remains for me to invent a universe for myself, as well as a God. It is impossible, therefore, to
doubt the intensity of this Christian advocate's conviction, that all nature testifies with overpowering force,
to every'6 impartial "' mind, that its Creator is reckless
of all moral considerations.
To soften the alarm which pious Christians may feel
at his playing so bold a game, the author in his own
name tells them (p. 164) not to be afraid that his argument will really make men atheists or sceptics; for, in
fact, by leaving no alternative between this and the
BIBLE, it secures that men will come back to the BIBLE. - He does not explain, why it should not be as
efficacious to drive them into Popery, or any authoritative system of iniquity whatsoever. His conduct indeed is precisely that of the Papist in theology and the
Austrian in politics, who try, by destroying every third
possibility, to force men to choose between anarchy
and their despotism. All alike defile the sanctity of
that for which they claim supremacy, - whether Bible,
Church, or Throne. "There is no other Right than
Might," sums up their common creed.
Such is the Christianity which this writer preaches
to me, - an utter disbelief that God has any morality
which my conscience, judging freely and impartially,
can approve. My first process (it seems) towards becoming a Christian must be to disown my conceptions
of right and wrong as applied to God, and consent (as




32                  REPLY TO
appropriate homage) to use epithets concerning him
(such as good, just, wise, holy) which have been carefully emptied of meaning. The author is unaware,
that an unmoral God is the very essence of Paganism,
and that this, and nothing else, is what he is urging on
us as Christianity. Oh! how clearly does he show,
that in him it is hypocrisy to cry Holy! Holy! Holy!
to the Lord of heaven, whose holiness he professes to
be totally unlike all that man calls either holy or kind
or just. Elsewhere this author has caustically reproved
my "' bastard tolerations and spurious charity " (p. 133)
towards honorable pagans and atheists (p. 165) who
fail of reaching my view of truth: but indeed I did not
quite contemplate such a case as that before me. I
must wait and learn what sort of charity, not bastard,
I may cherish towards one who wraps a Pagan heart
in a Christian veil; who scolds down and mocks at
other men's piety; who constructs sophistical arguments, to leave them no alternative between his
own Paganism, which is to them detestable, and an
Atheism, which they deprecate indeed, hut feel far
preferable to degrading, heart-hardening devil-worship.
I no longer wonder that to this gentleman the idea
of our being in danger of undervaluing this word is " so
exquisitely ludicrous, that he can hardly help bursting
into laughter." (p. 58.) But he there also mistook me.
There is a class of men, who have a spiritual impulse
and insight which he disowns. Where this inward action is powerful, all history shows the danger of its
wasting itself in convents or churches or private devotions or sacerdotal observances;- of unduly fixing the
imagination in Judmea, and the motives beyond the
grave.  Such religious persons as the vulgar call
4' saints " do indeed need, in my belief, to be urged to




" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."        33
love the things of the world more, and to spend themselves in infusing spiritual life into vulgar and political
and social and artistic circles, so that earth may be
made a heaven. But never, never did I address such
an exhortation to one, who confesses that he has no
discernment whether the Author of Nature be just or
unjust, kind or cruel; one, who is inwardly so dark,
that he cannot possibly have any religion but what he
receives blindly. Such a one naturally relishes a joke
better than a psalm, a sceptical dialogue of Plato or
Hume better than a treatise on Natural Theology; and
will scarcely be so absurd as to sacrifice what is substantial in this world for a religion which cannot penetrate into his affections. His very arguments which
pretend to be in favor of it are mere wranglings tending to fundamental unbelief, and far less religious than
those of serious atheists. Such a character of mind
may make a subtle lawyer, but exposes a man to no
danger of becoming a mystic or a Puritan.
Concerning me, this writer speaks as follows, p.
155: -
" I certainly know of no other man who has stood so
unabashed in the front of these awful forms " (viz. the
horrible phenomena of Nature which suggest the immorality of God!). " One almost envies him the truly
childlike faith with which he waves his hand to these
Alps, and says, Be ye removed, and cast into the
sea! But the feeling is exchanged for another when
he seems to rub his eyes and exclaim, Presto! they
are gone, sure enough! while You still feel that you
stand far within the circumference of their awful shadows."
On which then of us two has an eclipse of faith fallen? He proclaims his own' inability to see anything
but blackness of darkness in the real, known, undenia



34                    REPLY TO
ble * works of God, not knowing that this is to declare
his vacuity of Faith; and at my Faith he jeers as an
arbitrary oddity. But I must not accept his compliment, which is undeserved: I have no singular Faith;
I do but follow the Universal Church of the faithful,
and assent to the testimony which has satisfied strong
minds as well as weak ones. With Paul and Isaiah,
with 2E schylus and Cleanthes, with Socrates and Paley, with Philo and Swedenborg, I see that a good
God reigns over all. This author declares all the evidence of facts to convict my sentiment as a gratuitous
absurdity; yet he calls himself a Christian, and reviles
me as an infidel.. With the Hebrew Psalmist, my heart
avows, "All thy works praise thee, O God! and thy
saints give thanks unto thee."  My Christian monitor
puts a new song into my mouth, " All thy works convict
thee, O God! and none but fools can praise thee for
them." -" The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works," cries the same Psalmist:
"n The Lord, for aught you are able to know, is bad;
earthquakes and plagues confute his tender mercies," -
says my more intelligent teacher, the author of the
" Eclipse."  With energetic and dogmatic earnestness
he enforces upon me, that God, as revealed to him and
me in Nature, has no consistent or trustworthy moral
character.  Well: if so, how can any Bible have authority? Can anything be more imbecile, than to talk
of an authoritative Revelation from a God who may be
a devil?  If, for aught I know, God is a liar, why am
I to believe his word, if I be ever so sure that it is his
word?  This topic I had put at the very head -of my
discussion.  It has not been convenient to the author
* I say undeniable; for no atheist will object to use the word of God as
the unknown Power dwelling in and forming the universe, if it be kept in
mind that the qualities of this Power are the subject of investigation.




6 THE ECLIPSE Or FAITH.'         85
to make Mr. Fellowes press it, since this alone suffices
to crush his whole treatise of 450 pages. Honesty, as
well as Spiritual Insight, seems to be lacking here.
It is possible that he may retort, by asking me why
I do not solve the arguments, by which he convicts the
Lord of heaven and earth of immorality. I have already enunciated my view (for which I claim no originality) as clearly as I am able; and he professes to despise it. I suppose his contempt to be genuine; yet I
cannot help observing, that he has never allowed his
readers distinctly to learn what my doctrine is. I will
briefly restate it. If we had no Intelligence, we should
have no idea of an intelligent God, any more than have
the beasts. But conscious of my own intelligence, I
cannot imagine that the great Unknown Power from
which it sprang is not far more intelligent. - So, too, if
we had no Moral Affections, it could never occur to us
to impute Moral Affections to God. But being conscious that I have personally a little Love, and a little
Goodness, I ask concerning it, as concerning Intelligence, " Where did I pick it up? " and I feel an invincible persuasion, that, if I have some moral goodness, the great Author of my being has infinitely more.
He did not merely make rocks and seas and stars and
brutes, but the human Soul also; and therefore I am
assured, he possesses all the powers and excellences of
that Soul in an infinitely higher degree. Hence it is
from within that we know the morality of God. - To
the author of the " Eclipse,'" this seems such a piece of
cant, that I deserve to be chained to a stake, and torn
to pieces by a profane dog. The very idea of my having Faith in the God who made me he treats as presumptuous arrogance, unless I will also believe that the
Spirit of God praised Jael for a perfidious murder.
Provided that I will let him degrade and defile my




36                  REPLY TO
God, he is willing that I should worship: not else. - I
do not see the sterner facts of the world and of human
nature with his gloomy eyes; but my faith in the moral qualities of the Infinite Deity does not rest on those
facts. Until this writer learns the Scriptural doctrine,
that "he who loveth, knoweth God," he must, I suppose, abide in his darkness. When the Bible has failed
to develop in him spiritual insight, why should my
words be more successful?  Yes! it is hard to enlighten one, who, after the outward washing of Christian baptism, has gone back into the mire of Pagan
demonry.
If, however, in the character which he bestows on
me, as " Professor of Spiritual Insight," I were called
on to advise for him, I should decidedly recommend
diet to the soul, not exercise to the intellect. Let him
cast away scorn and self-sufficiency; let him seek for a
little more of that charity which he calls " bastard";
let him not think that questions which pertain to God
are advanced by boisterous glee and facetious scoffs
and personal antagonisms; let him chatter less, and
watch over his own heart more; let him cherish more
truthfulness and directness, and much more tenderness
of conscience. If he opens his mind to truth and his
heart to love, I do not despair that he will at length
find it to be an axiom of his soul, that God also is
Love. But as long as he indulges contempt and levity and love of victory, and deals unscrupulously, no
acuteness of intellect will bring him out of those " awful shadows" which he avows to wrap us all around.
Not the least marvellous fact connected with the
"Eclipse of Faith," is the chorus of greeting which has




6 THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."         37
welcomed it from the religious reviews. From the
highest ecclesiastical to the lowest dissenting organ,
there has been cordial praise and exultation; and even
on the outmost heterodoxy there has been congratulation at the appearance of the work. Its rapid run into
a second edition has led to redoubled applause. - What
must be the destitution of the Christian cause, before
it could welcome such an ally?
I will finally remark, that when such Protestants as
Hugh MeNeile, Archbishop Whately, Dr. Professor
Fawcett, and Baden Powell attack the Church of
Rome on various pleas, — as falsehood, immorality,
cruelty, - we all understand that the attack is not the
less weighty, though the assailants have great diversity
in their positive creed: nor is it any sound and valid
defence on the part of a Papist, but a mere evasion, to
deride their variety of opinion, instead of answering
their objections. So also it is an impotent and dishonest defence of Christian authoritative pretensions, to
taunt the assailants with diversities in their positive
creed. Mr. Harrington freely couples my name with
that of Theodore Parker,- a noble writer who needs
not my defence, -and he tries to break our heads
against one another. He dreads lestwe establish some
positive and valuable truth without his machinery; and
ridicules us for those diversities which merely prove our
mutual independence. When we are wiser and better,
we shall, I trust, reach higher and reconciling points of
view; but meanwhile, we do what we are able: we
strive towards truth, each with his own limited faculties; and though I cannot always follow Theodore
Parker, I can always learn from him, and rejoice in his
aid.
4








ON THE
3CORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
BEING
CHAPTER VII. OF THE THIRD EDITION
OF THE
"IPHASES OF FAITH."
BY F. W. W. NEWMAN.








ON
THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
LET no reader peruse this chapter, who is not willing
to enter into a discussion as free and unshrinking, concerning the personal excellences and conduct of Jesus,
as that of Mr. Grote concerning Socrates. I have
hitherto met with most absurd rebuffs for my scrupulosity. One critic names me as a principal leader in a
school which extols and glorifies the character of Jesus;
after which he proceeds to reproach me with inconsistency, and to insinuate dishonesty. Another expresses
himself as deeply wounded, that, in renouncing the belief that Jesus is more than man, I suggest to compare
him to a clergyman whom I mentioned as eminently
holy and perfect in the picture of a partial biographer;
such a comparison is resented with vivid indignation,
as a blurting out of something " unspeakably painful."
Many have murmured that I do not come forward to
extol the excellences of Jesus, but appear to prefer
Paul. More than one taunt me with an inability to
justify my insinuations that Jesus, after all, was not
really perfect; one is " extremely disappointed" that I
have not attacked him; in short, it is manifest that
many would much rather have me say out my whole
heart, than withhold anything. I therefore give fair
4*




A.42X     THE DIORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
warning to all, not to read any further, or else to blame
themselves if I inflict on them "' unspeakable pain," by
differing from their judgment of a historical or unhistorical character. As for those who confound my tenderness with hypocrisy and conscious weakness, if they
trust'themselves to read to the end, I think they will
abandon that fancy.
But how am I brought into this topic?  It is because, after my mind had reached the stage narrated in
the last chapter, I fell in with a new doctrine among
the Unitarians, —that the evidence of Christianity is
essentially popular and spiritual, consisting in the Life
of Christ, who is a perfect man and the absolute moral
image of God, - therefore fitly called " God manifest
in the flesh," and, as such, Moral Head of the human
race. Since this view was held in conjunction with
those at which I had arrived myself concerning miracles, prophecy, the untrustworthiness of Scripture as to
details, and the essential unreasonableness of imposing
dogmatic propositions as a creed, I had to consider
why I could not adopt such a modification, or (as it
appeared to me) reconstruction, of Christianity; and I
gave reasons in the first edition of this book, which,
avoiding direct treatment of the character of Jesus,
seemed to me adequate on the opposite side.
My argument was reviewed by a friend, who pres.
ently published the review with his name, replying to
my remarks on this scheme. I thus find myself in
public and avowed controversy with one who is endowed with talents, accomplishments, and genius, to
which I have no pretensions. The challenge has certainly come from myself. Trusting to the goodness
of my cause, I have ventured it into an unequal combat; and from a consciousness of my admired friend's
high superiority, I do feel a little abashed at being




THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.       43
brought face to face against him. But possibly the
less said to the public on these personal matters, the
better.
I have to give reasons why I cannot adopt that modified scheme of Christianity which is defended and
adorned by James Martineau; according to which it is
maintained that, though the Gospel narratives are not
to be trusted in detail, there can yet be no reasonable
doubt what Jesus was; for this is elicited by a " higher
moral criticism," which (it is remarked) I neglect In
this theory, Jesus is avowed to be a man born like other
men; to be liable to error, and (at least in some important respects) mistaken. Perhaps no general proposition is to be accepted merely on the word of Jesus; in
particular, he misinterpreted the Hebrew prophecies.
" He was not less than the Hebrew Messiah, but moore."
No moral charge is established against him, until it is
shown, that, in applying the old prophecies to himself,
he was conscious that they did not fit. His error was
one of mere fallibility in matters of intellectual and literary estimate.  Oni the other hand, Jesus had an infallible moral perception, which reveals itself to the
true-hearted reader, and is testified by the common consciousness of Christendom. It has pleased the Creator
to give us one sun in the heavens, and one Divine soul
in history, in order to correct the aberrations of our individuality, and unite all mankind into one family of
God. Jesus is to be presumed to be perfect until he is
shown to be imperfect. Faith in Jesus is not reception
of propositions, but reverence for a person; yet this is
not the condition of salvation, or essential to the Divine
favor.
Such is the scheme, abridged from the ample discussion of my eloquent friend. In reasoning against it,
my arguments will, to a certain extent, be those of an




44          THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
orthodox Trinitarian;  since we might both maintain
that the belief in the absolute divine morality of Jesus
is not tenable, when the belief in every other divine and
superhuman quality is denied.  Should I have any
"orthodox" reader, my arguments may shock his feelings less, if he keeps this in view. In fact, the same
action or word in Jesus may be consistent or inconsistent with moral perfection, according to the previous
assumptions concerning his person.
I. My friend has attributed to me a "prosaic and
embittered view of human nature," apparently because
I have a very intense belief of Man's essential imperfection. To me, I confess, it is almost a first principle
of thought, that, as all sorts of perfection coexist in
God, so is no sort of perfection possible to man.  I do
not know how for a moment to imagine an Omniscient
Being who is not Almighty, or an Almighty who is
not All-Righteous.  So neither do I know how to conceive of Perfect Holiness anywhere but in the Blessed
and only Potentate.
Man is finite and crippled on all sides; and frailty
in one kind causes frailty in another. Deficient power
causes deficient knowledge, deficient knowledge betrays him into false opinion, and entangles him into
false positions.  It may be a defect of my imagination,
but I do not feel that it implies any bitterness, that,
even in the case of one who abides in primitive lowliness, to attain even negatively an absolutely pure goodness seems to me impossible; and much more, to exhaust all goodness, and become a single Model Man,
* I have by accident just taken up the " British Quarterly," and alighted
upon the following sentence concerning Madame Roland: " To say that
she was without fault, would be to say that she was not lhuman." This so entirely expresses and concludes all that I have to say, that I feel surprise at
my needing at all to write such a chapter as the present.




THE MIORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.     45
unparalleled, incomparable, a standard for all other
moral excellence. Especially I cannot conceive of any
human person rising out of obscurity, and influencing
the history of the world, unless there be in him forces
of great intensity, the harmonizing of which is a vast
and painful problem. Every man has to subdue himself first, before he preaches to his fellows; and he encounters many a fall and many a wound in winning
his own victory. And as talents are various, so do
moral natures vary, each having its own weak and
strong side; and that; one man should grasp into his
single self the highest perfection of every moral kind,
is to me at least as incredible, as that one should preoccupy and exhaust all intellectual greatness. I feel
the prodigy to be so peculiar, that I must necessarily
wait until it is overwhelmingly proved, before I admit
it. No one can without unreason urge me to believe,
on any but the most irrefutable arguments, that a man,
finite in every other respect, is infinite in moral perfection.
My friend is "at a loss to conceive in what way a
superhuman physical nature could tend in the least degree to render moral perfection more credible." But I
think he will see, that it would entirely obviate the argument just stated, which, from the known frailty of
human nature in general, deduced the indubitable imperfection of an individual. The reply is then obvious
and decisive: "This individual is not a mere man; his
origin is wholly exceptional; therefore his moral perfection may be exceptional; your experience of man's
weakness goes for nothing in his case."  If I were already convinced that this person was a great Unique,
separated from all other men by an impassable chasm
in regard to his physical origin, I (for one) should be
much readier to believe that he was Unique and Unap



46        THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
proachable in other respects: for all God's works have
an internal harmony. It could not be for nothing that
this exceptional personage was sent into the world.
That he was intended as head of the human race, in
one or more senses, would be a plausible opinion; nor
should I feel any incredulous repugnance against believing his morality to be, if not divinely perfect, yet
separated from that of common men so far, that he
might be a God to us, just as every parent is to a
young child.
This view seems to my friend a weakness; be it so.
I need not press it. What I do press is, —whatever
might or might not be conceded concerning one in human form, but of superhuman origin, - at any rate, one
who is conceded to be, out and out, of the same nature as ourselves, is to be judged of by our experience
of that nature, and is therefore to be assumed to be variously imperfect, however eminent and admirable in
some respects. And no one is to be called an imaginer of deformity, because he takes for granted that one
who is Man has imperfections which were not known
to those who compiled memorials of him. To impute
to a person, without specific evidence, some definite
frailty or fault, barely because he is human, would be
a want of good sense; but not so, to have a firm belief
that every human being is finite in moral as well as in
intellectual greatness.
We have a very imperfect history of the Apostle
James; and I do not know that I could adduce any
fact specifically recorded concerning him in disproof of
his absolute moral perfection, if any of his Jerusalem
disciples had chosen to set up this as a dogma of religion. Yet no one would blame me, as morose, or
indisposed to acknowledge genius and greatness, if I
insisted on believing James to be frail and imperfect,




THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.      47
while admitting that I knew almost nothing about him.
And why? - Singly and surely, because we know him
to be a ma.n: that suffices. To set up James or John
or Daniel as my Model and my Lord, to be swallowed
up in him and press him upon others for a Universal
Standard, would be despised as a self-degrading idolatry and resented as an obtrusive favoritism. Now
why does not the same equally apply, if the name Jesus is substituted for these?  Why, in defect of all
other knowledge than the bare fact of his manhood, are
we not unhesitatingly to take for granted that he does
not exhaust all perfection, and is at best only one
among many brethren and equals?
II. My friend, I gather, will reply, "' Because so many
thousands of minds in all Christendom attest the infinite and unapproachable goodness of Jesus." It therefore follows to consider, what is the weight of this attestation. Manifestly it depends, first of all, on the
independence of the witnesses: secondly, on the
grounds of their belief. If all those who confess the
moral perfection of Jesus confess it as the result of unbiased examination of his character; and if, of those
acquainted with the narrative, none espouse the opposite side; this would be a striking testimony, not to be
despised. But in fact, few indeed of the " witnesses"
add any weight at all to the argument. No Trinitarian can doubt that Jesus is morally perfect, without
doubting fundamentally every part of his religion. He
believes it, because the entire system demands it, and
because various texts of Scripture avow it: and this
very fact makes it morally impossible for him to enter
upon an unbiased inquiry, whether that character
which is drawn for Jesus in the four Gospels is, or is
not, one of absolute perfection, deserving to be made
an exclusive model for all times and countries. My




48        THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
friend never was a Trinitarian, and seems not to know
how this operates; but I can testify, that when I believed in the immaculateness of Christ's character, it
was not from an unbiased criticism, but from the pressure of authority, (the authority of texts,) and from the
necessity of the doctrine to the scheme of Redemption.
Not merely strict Trinitarians, but all who believe in
the Atonement, however modified, - all who believe
that Jesus will be the future Judge, - must believe in
his absolute perfection: hence the fact of their belief is
no indication whatever that they believe on the ground
which my friend assumes, -viz. an intelligent and unbiased study of the character itself, as exhibited in the
four narratives.
I think we may go farther. We have no reason for
thinking that this was the sort of evidence which convinced the apostles themselves, and first teachers of the
Gospel;- if indeed in the very first years the doctrine
was at all conceived of. It cannot be shown that any
one believed in the moral perfection of Jesus, who had
not already adopted the belief that he was Messiah,
and therefore Judge of the human race. My friend
makes the pure immaculateness of Jesus (discernible
by him in the Gospels) his foundation, and deduces
from this the quasi-Messiahship: but the opposite order
of deduction appears to have been the only one possible in the first age. Take Paul as a specimen. He
believed the doctrine in question; but not from reading
the four Gospels, - for they did not exist. Did he then
believe it by hearing Ananias (Acts ix. 17) enter into
details concerning the deeds and words of Jesus?  I
cannot imagine that any wise or thoughtful person
would so judge, which after all would be a gratuitous
invention. The Acts of the Apostles give us many
speeches which set forth the grounds of accepting Jesus




THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.      49
as Messiah; but they never press his absolute moral
perfection as a fact and a fundamental fact. "c He
went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil," is the utmost that is advanced on
this side: prophecy is urged, and his resurrection is asserted, and the inference is drawn that "Jesus is the
Christ." Out of this flowed the further inferences that
he was Supreme Judge, - and moreover, was Paschal
Lamb, and Sacrifice, and High-priest, and Mediator;
and since every one of these characters demanded a
belief in his moral perfections, that doctrine also necessarily followed, and was received before our present
Gospels existed. My friend therefore cannot abash me
by the argunmentunmi ad verecundiam; (which to me
seems highly out of place in this connection;) for the
opinion, which is, as to this single point, held by him in
common with the first Christians, was held by them on
transcendental reasons, which he totally discards; and
all after-generations have been confirmed in the doctrine by Authority, i. e. by the weight of texts or
church decisions: both of which he also discards. If I
could receive the doctrine, merely because I dared not
to differ from the whole Christian world, I might aid
to swell odium  against rejecters, but I should not
strengthen the cause at the bar of reason. I feel, therefore, that my friend must not claim Catholicity as on
his side. Trinitarians and Arians are alike useless to
his argument: nay, nor can he claim more than a
small fraction of Unitarians; for as many of them as
believe that Jesus is to be the Judge of living and dead
(as the late Dr. Lant Carpenter did) must as necessarily believe his immaculate perfection as if they were
Trinitarians.
The New Testament does not distinctly explain on
what grounds this doctrine was believed; but we may
5




50        THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
observe that in 1 Peter i. 19 and 2 Cor. v. 21 it is
coupled with the Atonement, and in 1 Peter ii. 21, Romans xv. 3, it seems to be inferred from prophecy.
But let us turn to the original Eleven, who were eye
and ear witnesses of Jesus, and consider on what
grounds they can have believed (if we assume that
they did all believe) the absolute moral perfection of
Jesus. It is too ridiculous to imagine them. studying
the writings of Matthew in order to obtain conviction,
-if any of that school, whom alone I now address,
could admit that written documents were thought of before the Church outstepped the limits of Judea. If the
Eleven believed the doctrine for some transcendental
reason, — as by a Supernatural Revelation, or on account of Prophecy, and to complete the Messiah's character, — then their attestation is useless to my friend's
argument: will it then gain anything, if we suppose
that they believed Jesus to be perfect, because they saw
him to be perfect? To me this would seem no attestation worth having, but rather a piece of impertinent
ignorance. If I attest that a person whom I have
known was an eminently good man, I command a certain amount of respect to my opinion, and I do him
honor. If I celebrate his good deeds and report his
wise words, I extend his honor still further. But if I
proceed to assure people, on the evidence of my personal
observation of him, that he was immaculate and absolutely perfect, was the pure Moral Image of God, -that
he deserves to be made the Exclusive Model of imitation,
and is the standard by which every other man's morality is to be corrected, — I make myself ridiculous; my
panegyrics lose all weight, and I produce far less conviction than when I praised within human limitations.
I do not know how my friend will look on this point,
(for his judgment on the whole question perplexes me,




THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.      51
and the views which I call sober he names prosaic,)
but I cannot resist the conviction, that universal common sense would have rejected the teaching of the
Eleven with contempt, if they had presented, as the
basis of the Gospel, their personal testimony to the godlike and unapproachable moral absolutism of Jesus.
But even if such a basis was possible to the Eleven, it
was impossible to Paul and Silvanus and Timothy and
Barnabas and Apollos, and the other successful preachers to the Gentiles. High moral goodness, within human limitations, was undoubtedly announced as a fact
of the life of Jesus; but upon this followed the supernatural claims, and the argument of prophecy; without
which my friend desires to build up his view.- I have
thus developed why I think he has no right to claim
Catholicity for his judgment. I have risked to be tedious, because I find that, when I speak concisely, I am
enormously misapprehended. I close this topic by observing, that the great animosity with which my very
mild intimations against the popular view have been
met from numerous quarters, shows me that Christians
do not allow this subject to be calmly debated, and
have not come to their own conclusion as the result of
a calm debate. And this is amply corroborated by my
own consciousness of the past.  I never dared, nor
could have dared, to criticize coolly and simply the pretensions of Jesus to be an absolute model of morality,
until I had been delivered from the weight of authority
and miracle, oppressing my critical powers.
III. I have been asserting, that he who believes Jesus to be a mere man ought at once to believe his
moral excellence finite, and comparable to that of other
men; and that our judgment to this effect cannot be
reasonably overborne by the "universal consent" of
Christendom. — Thus far we are dealing a priori,




52        THE MIORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
which here fully satisfies me: in such an argument I
need no a posteriori evidence to arrive at my own conclusion. Nevertheless, I am met by taunts and clamor, which are not meant to be indecent, but which to
my feeling are such. My critics point triumphantly to
the four Gospels, and demand that I will make a personal attack on a character which they revere, even.when they know that I cannot do so without giving
great offence.  Now if any one were to call my old
schoolmaster, or my old parish priest, a perfect and
universal Model, and were to claim that I would entitle
him Lord, and think of him as the only true revelation
of God, should I not be at liberty to say, without disrespect, that'" I most emphatically deprecate such extravagant claims for him"?  Would this justify an
outcry, that I will publicly avow what I judge to be his
defects of character, and will prove to all his admirers
that he was a sinner like other men? Such a demand
would be thought, I believe, highly unbecoming and
extremely unreasonable. May not my modesty, or my
regard for his memory, or my unwillingness to pain his
family, be accepted as sufficient reasons for silence? or
would any one scoffingly attribute my reluctance to attack him, to my conscious inability to make good my
case against his being " God manifest in the flesh"?
Now what if one of his admirers had written panegyrical memorials of him; and his character, therein described, was so faultless, that a stranger to him was
not able to descry any moral defect whatever in it? Is
such a stranger bound to believe him to be the Divine
Standard of morals, unless he can put his finger on
certain passages of the book which imply weaknesses
and faults? And is it insulting a man, to refuse to
worship him?  I utterly protest against every such
pretence. As I have an infinitely stronger conviction




THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.      53
that Shakespeare was not in intellect Divinely and
Unapproachably perfect, than that I can certainly point
out in him some definite intellectual defect; as, moreover, I am vastly more sure that Socrates was morally
imperfect, than that I am able to censure him rightly;
so also, a disputant who concedes to me that Jesus is
a mere man has no right to claim that I will point out
some moral flaw to him, or else acknowledge him to
be a Unique Unparalleled Divine Soul. It is true, I
do see defects, and very serious ones, in the character
of Jesus, as drawn by his disciples; but I cannot admit that my right to disown the pretensions made for
him turns on my ability to define his frailties. As long
as (in common with my friend) I regard Jesus as a
man, so long I hold with dogmatic and intense conviction the inference that he was morally imperfect, and
ought not to be held up as unapproachable in goodness; but I have, in comparison, only'a modest belief
that I am able to show his points of weakness.
While, therefore, in obedience to this call, which has
risen from many quarters, I think it right not to refuse
the odious task pressed upon me, - I yet protest that
my conclusion does not depend upon it. I might censure Socrates unjustly, or at least without convincing
my readers, if I attempted that task; but my failure
would not throw a feather's weight into the argument
that Socrates was a Divine Unique and Universal
Model. If I write now what is painful to readers, I
beg them to remember that I write with much reluctance, and that it is their own fault if they read.
In approaching this subject, the first difficulty is, to
know how much of the four Gospels to accept as fact.
If we could believe the whole, it would be easier to argue; but my friend Martineau (with me) rejects belief
of many parts: for instance, he has but a very feeble
5*




54        THE MIORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
conviction that Jesus ever spoke the discourses attributed to him in John's Gospel. If, therefore, I were to
found upon these some imputation of moral weakness,
he would reply, that we are agreed in setting these
aside, as untrustworthy. Yet he perseveres in asserting that it is beyond all reasonable question what Jesus
was; as though proven inaccuracies in all the narratives did not make the results uncertain. He says that
even the poor and uneducated are fully impressed with
"the majesty and sanctity" of Christ's mind; as if
this were what I am fundamentally denying; and not,
only so far as would transcend the known limits of human nature: surely "majesty and sanctity" are not
inconsistent with many weaknesses. But our judgment concerning a man's motives, his temper, and his
full conquest over self, vanity, and impulsive passion,
depends on the accurate knowledge of a vast variety
of minor points; even the curl of the lip, or the discord
of eye and mouth, may change our moral judgment of
a man; while alike to my friend and me it is certain
that much of what is stated is untrue. Much, moreover, of what he holds to be untrue does not seem so to
any but to the highly educated. In spite, therefore, of
his able reply, I abide in my opinion that he is unreasonably endeavoring to erect what is essentially a piece
of doubtful biography and difficult literary criticism
into first-rate religious importance.
I shall, however, try to pick up a few details which
seem, as much as any, to deserve credit, concerning the
pretensions, doctrine, and conduct of Jesus.
First, I believe that he habitually spoke of himself
by the title Son, of Man, —a fact which pervades all
the accounts, and was likely to rivet itself on his hearers. Nobody but he himself ever calls him Son of
Man.




THE MIORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.    55
Secondly, I believe that in assuming this title he tacitly alluded to the seventh chapter of Daniel, and claimed
for himself the throne of judgment over all mankind. —
I know no reason to doubt that he actually delivered
(in substance) the discourse in Matthew xxv.: " When
the Son of Man shall come in his glory,..... before
him shall be gathered all nations,.....and he shall
separate them.," &c., &e.; and I believe that by the
Son of Man and the King he meant himself. Compare
Luke xii. 40, ix. 56.
Thirdly, I believe that he habitually assumed the
authoritative dogmatic tone of one who was a universal Teacher in moral and spiritual matters, and enunciated as a primary duty of men to learn submissively
of his wisdom and acknowledge his supremacy. This
element in his character, the preaching of himself, is
enormously expanded in the fourth Gospel, but it distinctly exists in Matthew. Thus in Matthew xxiii. 8:
" Be not ye called Rabbi [teacher], for one is your
Teacher, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." —
Matthew x. 32:' "Whosoever shall confess ME, before
men, him will I confess before my Father which is in
heaven...... He that loveth father or mother more
than ME is not worthy of MEW," &c. - Matthew xi.
27: " All things are delivered unto ME of my Father;
and no man knoweth the Son, but the Eather; neither
knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto MiE,
all ye that labor,..   and I will give you rest. Take
MY yoke upon you," &c.
My friend, I find, rejects Jesus as an authoritative
teacher, distinctly denies that the acceptance of Jesus
in this character is any condition of salvation and of
the Divine favor, and treats of my " demand of an oracular Christ" as inconsistent with my own principles.




56        THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
But this is mere misconception of what I have said. I
find Jesus himself to set up oracular claims. I find an
assumption of preeminence and unapproachable moral
wisdom to pervade every discourse, from end to end of
the Gospels. If I may not believe that Jesus assumed
an oracular manner, I do not know what moral peculiarity in him I am permitted to believe. I do not demand (as my friend seems to think) that lie shall be
oracular, but, in common with all Christendom, I open
my eyes and see that he is; and until I had read my
friend's review of my book, I never understood (I suppose through my own prepossessions) that he holds Jesus not to have assumed the oracular style.
If I cut out from the four Gospels this peculiarity, I
must cut out, not only the claim of Messiahship, which
my friend admits to have been made, but nearly every
moral discourse and every controversy: and why? except in order to make good a predetermined belief that
Jesus was morally perfect. What reason can be given
me for not believing that Jesus declared, 1" If any one
deny ME before men, him will I deny before my Father
and his angels"? or any of the other texts which
couple the favor of God with a submission to such pretensions of Jesus? I can find no reason whatever for
doubting that he preached HIMSELF to his disciples,
though in the first three Gospels he is rather timid of doing this to the Pharisees and to the nation at large. I
find him uniformly to claim, sometimes in tone, sometimes in distinct words, that we will sit at his feet as
little children and learn of him. I find him ready to answer off-hand all difficult questions, critical and lawyerlike, as well as moral. True, it is no tenet of mine that
intellectual and literary attainment is essential in an individual person to high spiritual eminence. True, in
another book I have elaborately maintained the contra



TEE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.       57
ry. Yet in that book I have described men's spiritual
progress as often arrested at a certain stage by a want
of intellectual development; which surely would indicate that I believed even intellectual blunders and an infinitely perfect exhaustive morality to be incompatible.
But our question here (or at least mey question) is not
whether Jesus might misinterpret prophecy, and yet be
morally perfect; but whether, after assuming to be an
oracular teacher, he can teach some fanatical precepts,
and advance dogmatically weak and foolish arguments, without impairing our sense of his absolute
moral perfection.
I do not think it useless here to repeat (though not
for my friend) concise reasons which I gave in my first
edition against admitting dictatorial claims for Jesus.
First, it is an unplausible opinion that God would deviate from his ordinary course, in order to give us any
thing so undesirable as an authoritative Oracle would
be; — which would paralyze our moral powers, exactly
as an infallible church does, in the very proportion in
which we succeeded in eliciting responses from it. It
is not needful here to repeat what has been said to that
effect in p. 138. Secondly, there is no imaginable criterion, by which we can establish that the wisdom of a
teacher is absolute and illimitable.  All that we can
possibly discover is the relative fact, that another is
wiser thaln we; and even this is liable to be overturned
on special points, as soon as differences of judgment
arise.  Thirdly, while it is by no means clear what are
the new truths, for which we are to lean upon the decisions of Jesus, it is certain that we have no genuine
and trustworthy account of his teaching. If God had
intended us to receive the authoritative dicta of Jesus,
he would have furnished us with an unblemished record
of those dicta. To allow that we have not this, and




58         THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
that we must disentangle for ourselves (by a most difficult and uncertain process) the "true" sayings of
Jesus, is surely self-refuting. Fourthly, if I must sit in
judgment on the claims of Jesus to be the true Messiah
and Son of God, how can I concentrate all my free
thought into that one act, and thenceforth abandon free
thought?  This appears a moral suicide, whether Messiah or the Pope is the object whom we first criticize,
in order to install him over us, and then, for ever after,
refuse to criticize. In short, we cannot build up a system of Oracles on a basis of Free Criticism. If we are
to submit our judgment to the dictation of some other,
— whether a church or an individual,-we must be
first subjected to that other by some event from without, as by birth; and not by a process of that very
judgment which is henceforth to be sacrificed. But
from this I proceed to consider more in detail some
points in the teaching and conduct of Jesus, which do
not appear to me consistent with absolute perfection.
The argument of Jesus concerning the tribute to Caesar is so dramatic, as to strike the imagination and rest
on the memory; and I know no reason for doubting
that it has been correctly reported. The book of Deuteronomy (xvii. 15) distinctly forbids Israel to set over
himself as king any who is not a native Israelite;
which appeared to be a religious condemnation of submission to Cesar. Accordingly, since Jesus assumed
the tone of unlimited wisdom, some of Herod's party
asked him, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to CEesar. Jesus replied: " Why tempt ye me, hypocrites?
Show me the tribute-money."  When one of the coins
was handed to him, he asked, "4 Whose image and superscription is this? "  When they replied, "1 Coesar's,"
he gave his authoritative decision.: " Render therefore
to Cesar the things that are Gcsar's."




THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.     59
In this reply, not only the poor and uneducated, but
many likewise of the rich and educated, recognize
"majesty and sanctity": yet I find it hard to think
that my strong-minded friend will defend the justness,
wisdom, and honesty of it. To imagine that, because a
coin bears Caesar's head, therefore it is Cmesar's property, and that he may demand to have as many of such
coins as he chooses paid over to him, is puerile, and
notoriously false. The circulation of foreign coin of
every kind was as common in the Mediterranean then
as now; and everybody knew that the coin was the
property of the holder, not of him whose head it bore.
Thus the reply of Jesus, which pretended to be a moral
decision, was unsound and absurd: yet it is uttered in
a tone of dictatorial wisdom, and ushered in by a grave
rebuke, " Why tempt ye me, hypocrites?"  He is generally understood to mean, " Why do you try to implicate me in a political charge? " and it is supposed that
he prudently evaded the question. I have indeed heard
this interpretation from high Trinitarians; which indicates to me how dead is their moral sense in everything
which concerns the conduct of Jesus. No reason appears why he should not have replied, that Moses forbade Israel voluntarily to place himself under a foreign
king, but did not inculcate fanatical and useless rebellion against overwhelming power. But such a reply,
which would have satisfied a more commonplace mind,
has in it nothing brilliant and striking. I cannot but
think that Jesus shows a vain conceit in the cleverness
of his answer: I do not think it so likely to have been
a conscious evasion. But neither does his rebuke of
the questioners at all commend itself to me. How can
any man assume to be an authoritative teacher, and
then claim that men shall not put his wisdom to the
proof? Was it not their duty to do so? And when,




60         THE iIORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
in result, the trial has proved the defect of his wisdom,
did they not perform a useful public service? In truth,
I cannot see the Model Man in his rebuke. - Let not
my friend say that the error was merely intellectual:
blundering self-sufficiency is a moral weakness.
I might go into detail concerning other discourses,
where error and arrogance appear to me combined.
But not to be tedious, in general I must complain
that Jesus purposely adopted an enigmatical and pretentious style of teaching, unintelligible to his hearers,
and needing explanation in private. That this was his
systematic procedure, I believe, because, in spite of the
great contrast of the fourth Gospel to the others, it has
this peculiarity in common with them. Christian divines are used to tell us that this mode was peculiarly
instructive to the vulgar of Judea; and they insist on
the great wisdom displayed in his choice of the lucid
parabolical style. But in Matthew xiii. 10- 15, Jesus
is made confidentially to avow precisely the opposite
reason, viz. that he desires the vulgar not to understand
him, but only the select few to whom he gives private
explanations. I confess I believe the Evangelist rather
than the modern divine. I cannot conceive how so
strange a notion could ever have possessed the companions of Jesus, if it had not been true. If really this
parabolical method had been peculiarly intelligible,
what could make them imagine the contrary?  Unless
they found it very obscure themselves, whence came
the idea that it was obscure to the multitude? As a
fact, it is very obscure, to this day. There is much that
I most imperfectly understand, owing to unexplained
metaphor: as, 1" Agree with thine adversary quickly,"
&c., &c.  "WThoso calls his brother' a fool, is in danI am acquainted with the interpretation, that the word Mbre is not here




THE MIORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.       61
ger of hell-fire." " Every one must be salted with fire,
and every sacrifice salted with salt. Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."  Now every
man of original and singular genius has his own forms
of thought; in so far as they are natural, we must not
complain, if to us they are obscure. But the moment
affectation comes in, they no longer are reconcilable
with the perfect character: they indicate vanity, and
incipient sacerdotalism. The distinct notice that Jesus
avoided to expound his parables to the multitude, and
made this a boon to the privileged few; and that without a parable he spake not to the multitude; and the
pious explanation, that this was a fulfilment of Prophecy, "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter
dark sayings on the harp," -persuade me that the impression of the disciples was a deep reality. And it is
in entire keeping with the general narrative, which
shows in him so much of mystical assumption.  Strip
the parables of the imagery, and you find that sometimes one thought has been dished up four or five
times, and generally, that an idea is dressed into sacred
grandeur. This mystical method made a little wisdom
go a great way with the multitude; and to such a
mode of economizing resources the instinct of the uneducated man betakes itself, when he is claiming to act
a part for which he is imperfectly prepared.
It is common with orthodox Christians to take for
granted, that unbelief of Jesus was a sin, and belief a
merit, at a time when no rational grounds of belief
were as yet public. Certainly, whoever asks questions
with a view to prove Jesus, is spoken of vituperatingly
in the Gospels; and it does appear to me that the prevyGreek, i. e. fool, but is Hebrew, and means rebel, which is stronger than
Raca, silly fellow. This gives partial, but only partial relief.
6




62         THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
alent Christian belief is a true echo of Jesus's own
feeling. He disliked being put to the proof. Instead
of rejoicing in it, as a true and upright mall ought, -
instead of blaming those who accept his pretensions on
too slight grounds, -instead of encouraging full inquiry and giving frank explanations, he resents doubt,
shuns everything that will test him, is very obscure as
to his own pretensions, (so as to need probing and positive questions, whether he does or does not profess to
be Messiah,) and yet is delighted at all easy belief.
When asked for miracles, he sighs and groans at the
unreasonableness of it; yet does not honestly and
plainly renounce pretension to miracle, as Mr. Martineau.would, but leaves room for credit to himself for as
many miracles as the credulous are willing to impute
to him. It is possible that here the narrative is unjust
to his memory. So far firom being the picture of perfection, it sometimes seems to me the picture of a conscious and wilful impostor. His general character is
too high for this; and I therefore make deductions from
the account. Still, I do not see how the present narrative could have grown up, if he had been really simple
and straightforward, and not; perverted by his essentially false position. Enigma and mist seem to be his
element; and when I find his high satisfaction at all
personal recognition and bowing before his individuality, I almost doubt whether, if one wished to draw the
character of a vain and vacillating pretender, it would
be possible to draw anything more to the purpose than
this. His general rule (before a certain date) is to be
cautious in public, but bold in private to the favored
few. I cannot think that such a character, appearing
now, would seem to my friend a perfect model of a
man.
No precept bears on its face clearer marlrks of coming




THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.                  63
from  the genuine Jesus, than that of selling all and following him.  This was his original call to his disciples.
It was enunciated authoritatively on various occasions.
It is incorporated with precepts of perpetual obligation,
in such a way, that we cannot without the greatest
violence pretend that he did not intend it as a precept'
to all his disciples. In Luke xii. 22- 40, he addresses
the disciples collectively against Avarice; and a part
of the  discourse is: "Fear not, little flock; for it is
your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
Sell that ye have, and give alvms: provide yourselves
bags that wax not old; a treasure in the heavens that
faileth not, &c......  Let your loins be girded about,
and your lights burning," &c.  To say that he was not
intending to teach a universal morality,+  is to  admit
that his precepts are a trap; for they then mix up and
confound mere contingent duties with universal sacred
obligations, enunciating  all in  the same breath, and
with the same solemnity.  I cannot think that Jesus
intended any separation. In fact, when a rich young
man asked of him  what he should do, that he might
inherit eternal life, and pleaded that he had kept the
ten commandments, but'felt that to be insufficient, Je* Indeed, we have in Luke vi. 20-24 a version of the Beatitudes so.
much in harmony with this lower doctrine, as to make it an open question,
whether the version in Matthew v. is not an improvement upon Jesus, introduced by the purer sense of the collective Church. In Luke, he does
not bless the poor in spirit, and those who hunger after righteousness, but
absolutely the "poor" and the " hungry," and all who honor Him; and, in
contrast, curses the richI and those who are full.
t At the close is the parable about the absent master of a house; and
Peter asks, " Lord! (Sir!) speakest thou this parable unto us, or also unto
all??" Who would not have hoped an ingenuous reply, "To you only,"
or, " To everybody"? Instead of which, so inveterate is his tendency to
muffle up the simplest things in mystery, he replies,'" Who then is that
faithful and wise steward," &c., &c., and entirely evades reply to the very
natural question.




64         THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
sus said unto him: " If thou wilt be peifect, go and sell
that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt
have treasure in heaven! " so that the duty was not
contingent upon the peculiarity of a man possessing
apostolic gifts, but was with Jesus the normal path for
all who desired perfection.  When the young man
went away sorrowing, Jesus moralized on it, saying:
" How hardly shall a rich man enter into the kingdom
of heaven! " which again shows, that an abrupt renunciation of wealth was to be the general and ordinary
method of entering the kingdom. Hereupon, when the
disciples asked: " Lo! we Ahave forsaken all, and followed thee: what shall we have therefore?" Jesus,
instead of rebuking their self-righteousness, promised
them as a reward, that they should sit upon twelve 
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. A precept
thus systematically enforced is illustrated by the practice, not only of the Twelve, but apparently of the Seventy, and what is stronger still, by the practice of the
five thousand disciples after the celebrated days of the
first Pentecost. There was no longer a Jesus on earth
to itinerate with, yet the disciples in the fervor of first
love obeyed his precept: the rich sold their possessions,
and laid the price at the Apostles' feet.
The mischiefs inherent in such a precept rapidly
showed themselves, and good sense corrected the error.
But this very fact proves most emphatically that the
precept was pre-apostolic, and came from the genuine
Jesus; otherwise it could never have found its way into
the Gospels. It is undeniable, that the first disciples,
by whose tradition alone we have any record of what
Jesus taught, understood him to deliver this precept to
all who desired to enter into the kingdom of heaven, -
* This implied that Judas, as one of the twelve, had earned the heavenly
throne by the price of earthly goods.




THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.     65
all who desired to be perfect: why, then, are we to refuse belief, and remould the precepts of Jesus till they
please our own morality?  This is not the way to
learn historical fact.
That to inculcate religious beggary as the only form
and mode of spiritual perfection is fanatical and mischievous, even the Church of Rome will admit. Protestants universally reject it as a deplorable absurdity;
- not merely wealthy bishops, squires, and merchants,
but the poorest curate also. A man could not preach
such doctrine in a Protestant pulpit without incurring
deep reprobation and contempt; but when preached
by Jesus, it is extolled as divine wisdom, - and disobeyed.
Now I can look on this as a pure intellectual error,
consistent with moral perfection. A deep mistake as
to the nature of such perfection seems to me inherent
in the precept itself; a mistake which indicates a
moral unsoundness. The conduct of Jesus to the rich
young man appears to me a melancholy exhibition of
perverse doctrine, under an ostentation of superior wisdom. The young man asked for bread, and Jesus gave
him a stone. Justly he went away sorrowful, at receiving a reply which his conscience rejected as false
and foolish. But this is not all. Jesus was necessarily
on trial, when any one, however sincere, came to ask
questions so deeply probing the quality of his wisdom
as this: "How may I be perfect? " and to be on trial
was always disagreeable to him. He first gave the reply, " Keep the commandments"; and if the young
man had been satisfied, and had gone away, it appears
that Jesus would have been glad to be rid of him; for
his tone is magisterial, decisive, and final. This, I
confess, suggests to me, that the aim of Jesus was not
so much to enlighten the young man, as to stop his
6X




66        THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
mouth, and keep up his own ostentation of omniscience. Had he desired to enlighten him, surely no
mere dry dogmatic command was needed, but an intelligent guidance of a willing and trusting soul. I
do not pretend to certain knowledge in these matters.
Even when we hear the tones of voice and watch the
features, we often mistake. We have no such means
here of checking the narrative. But the best general
result which I can draw from the imperfect materials
is what I have said.
After the merit of "6 selling all and following Jesus,"
a second merit, not small, was to receive those whom
he sent. In Matthew x., we read that he sends out his
twelve disciples, (also seventy in Luke,) men at that
time in a very low state of religious development, —
men who did not themselves know what the Kingdom
of Heaven meant, —to deliver in every village and
town a mere formula of words: " Repent ye; for the
Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."  They were ordered
to go without money, scrip, or cloak, but to live on religious alms; and it is added, that if any house or
city does not receive them, it shall be more tolerable for
Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for
it. He adds, ver. 40: " He that receiveth you, receiveth
me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth HIM that sent
me." - I quite admit, that in all probability it was (on
the whole) the more pious part of Israel which was
likely to receive these ignorant missionaries; but inasmuch as they had no claims whatever, intrinsic or extrinsic, to reverence, it appears to me a very extravagant and fanatical sentiment thus emphatically to
couple the favor or wrath of God with their reception
or rejection.
A third, yet greater merit in the eyes of Jesus was,
to acknowledge him as the Messiah predicted by the




THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.      67
prophets, which he was not, according to my friend.
According to Matthew (xvi. 13), Jesus put leading
questions to the disciples in order to elicit a confession
of his Messiahship, and emphatically blessed Simon
for making the avowal which he desired; but instantly
forbade them to tell the great secret to any one. Unless this is to be discarded as fiction, Jesus, although to
his disciples in secret he confidently assumed Messianic
pretensions, had a just inward misgiving, which accounts both for his elation at Simon's avowal, and for
his prohibition to publish it.
In admitting that Jesus was not the Messiah of the
prophets, my friend says, that, if Jesus were less than
Messiah, we can reverence him no longer; but that he
was more than Messiah. This is to me unintelligible.
The Messiah whom he claimed to be was not only the
son of David, celebrated in the prophets, but emphatically the Son of Man of Daniel vii., who shall come in
the clouds of heaven, to take dominion, glory, and kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages shall serve
him, — an everlasting kingdom which shall not pass
away. How Jesus himself interprets his supremacy, as
Son of Man, in Matthew x., xi., xxiii., xxv., and elsewhere,
I have already observed.  To claim such a character
seems to me like plunging from a pinnacle of the temple. If miraculous power holds him up and makes
good his daring, he is more than man; but if otherwise, to have failed will break all his bones. I can no
longer give the same human reverence as before to one
who has been seduced into vanity so egregious; and I
feel assured a priori that such presumption must have
entangled him into evasions and insincerities, which
natuzrally end in crookedness of conseci:nee and real
imposture, however noble a man's commencement, and
however unshrinking his sacrifices of goods and ease
and life.




68        THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
The time arrived at last, when Jesus felt that he
must publicly assert Messiahship; and this was certain
to bring things to an issue. I suppose him to have
hoped that he was Messiah, until hope and the encouragement given him by Peter and others grew into
a persuasion strong enough to act upon, but not always strong enough to still misgivings. I say, I suppose this; but I build nothing on my supposition. I
however see, that when he had resolved to claim
Messiahship publicly, one of two results was inevitable, if that claim was ill-founded;-viz. either he
must have become an impostor, in order to screen his
weakness; or he must have retracted his pretensions
amid much humiliation, and have retired into privacy
to learn sober wvisdom. From these alternatives there
was escape only by death, and upon death Jesus purposely rushed.
All Christendom has always believed that the death
of Jesus was voluntarily incurred; and unless no man
ever became a wilful martyr, I cannot conceive why we
are to doubt the fact concerning Jesus. When he resolved to go up to Jerusalem, he was warned by his
disciples of the danger; but so far was he from being
blind to it, that he distinctly announced to them that
he knew he should suffer in Jerusalem the shameful
death of a malefactor. On his arrival in the suburbs,
his first act was ostentatiously to ride into the city on
an ass's colt, in the midst of the acclamations of the
multitude, in order to exhibit himself as having a just
right to the throne of David. Thus he gave a handle
to imputations of intended treason.- lie next entered
the temple courts, where doves and lambs were sold for
sacrifice, and — (I must say it to my friend's amusement, and in defiance of his kind but keen ridicule) —
zommitted a breach of the peace by flogging with a




THE MIORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.     69
whip those who trafficked in the area. By such conduct he undoubtedly made himself liable to legal
punishment, and probably might have been publicly
scourged for it, had the rulers chosen to moderate their
vengeance. But he " meant to be prosecuted for treason, not for felony," to use the words of a modern
offender. He therefore commenced the most exasperating attacks on all the powerful, calling them hypocrites and whited sepulchres and vipers' brood; and
denouncing upon them the "condemnation of hell."
He was successful. He had both enraged the rulers
up to the point of thirsting for his life, and given color
to the charge of political rebellion. He resolved to
die; and he died. Had his enemies contemptuously
let him live, he would have been forced to act the part
of Jewish Messiah, or renounce Messiahship.
If any one holds Jesus to be not amenable to the
laws of human morality, I am not now reasoning with
such a one. But if any one claims for him a human
perfection, then I say that his conduct on this occasion
was neither laudable nor justifiable; far otherwise.
There are cases in which life may be thrown away for
a great cause; as when a leader in battle rushes upon
certain death, in order to animate his own men; but
the case before us has no similarity to that. If our
accounts are not wholly false, Jesus knowingly and
purposely exasperated the rulers into a great crime, -
the crime of taking his life from personal resentment.
His inflammatory addresses to the multitude have been
defended as follows:
" The prophetic Spirit is sometimes oblivious of the
rules of the draiwing-room; and inspired Conscience, like
the inspiring God, seeing a hypocrite, will take the liberty to say so, and act accordingly. Are the superficial
amenities, the soothing fictions, the smotherings of the




70        THIIE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
burning heart,..... really paramount in this world,
and never to give way? and when a soul of power,
unable to refrain, rubs off, though it be with rasping
words, all the varnish from rottenness and lies, is he to
be tried in our courts of compliment for a misdemeanor? Is there never a higher duty than that of
either pitying or converting guilty men, -the duty of
publicly exposing them? of awakening the popular
conscience, and sweeping away the conventional timidities, for a severe return to truth and reality? No rule
of morals can be recognized as just, which prohibits
conformity of human speech to fact, and insists on
terms of civility being kept with all manner of iniquity."'
I certainly have not appealed to any conventional
morality of drawing-room compliment, but to the highest and purest principles which I know; and I lament
to find my judgment so extremely in opposition. To
me it seems that inability to refrain shows weakness,
not power, of soul, and that nothing is easier than to
give vent to violent invective against bad rulers. The
last sentence quoted seems to say, that the speaking
of Truth is never to be condemned: but I cannot agree
to this. When Truth will only exasperate, and cannot do good, silence is imperative. A man who reproaches an armed tyrant in words too plain, does but
excite him to murder; and the shocking thing is, that
this seems to have been the express object of Jesus.
No good result could be reasonably expected. Publicly
to call men in authority by names of intense insult,
the writer of the above distinctly sees, will never convert them; but he thinks it was adapted to awaken
the popular conscience.  Alas! it needs no divine
prophet to inflame a multitude against the avarice,
hypocrisy, and oppression of rulers, nor any deep in



THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.     71
spiration of conscience in the multitude to be wide
awake on that point themselves. A Publius Clodius
or a Cleon will do that work as efficiently as a Jesus;
nor does it appear that the poor are made better by
hearing invectives against the rich and powerful. If
Jesus had been aiming, in a good cause, to excite rebellion, the mode of address which he assumed seems
highly appropriate; and in such a calamitous necessity,
to risk exciting murderous enmity would be the act of
a hero: but as the account stands, it seems to me the
deed of a fanatic. And it is to me manifest that he
overdid his attack, and failed to commend it to the
conscience of his hearers. For up to this point the
multitude was in his favor. He was notoriously so
acceptable to the many, as to alarm the rulers; indeed,
the belief of his popularity had shielded him from prosecution. But after this fierce address he has no more
popular support. At his public trial the vast majority
judge him to deserve punishment, and prefer to ask
free forgiveness for Barabbas, a bandit who was in
prison for murder. We moderns, nursed in an arbitrary
belief concerning these events, drink in with our first
milk the assumption that Jesus alone was guiltless, and
all the other actors in this sad affair inexcusably guilty.
Let no one imagine that I defend for a moment the
cruel punishment which raw resentment inflicted on
him. But though the rulers felt the rage of Vengeance,
the people, who had suffered no personal wrong, were
moved only by ill-measured Indignation. The multitude love to hear the powerful exposed and reproached,
up to a certain limit; but if reproach go clearly beyond
all that they feel to be deserved, a violent sentiment
reacts on the head of the reviler: and though popular
indignation (even when free from the element of selfishness) ill fixes the due neasure of Punishment, I have




72         THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
a strong belief that it is righteous, when it pronounces
the verdict Guilty.
Does my friend deny that the death of Jesus was
wilfully incurred? The " orthodox" not merely admit,
but maintain it. Their creed justifies it by the doctrine, that his death was a 1" sacrifice " so pleasing to
God as to expiate the sins of the world. This honestly
meets the objections to self-destruction; for how better
could life be used, than by laying it down for such a
prize? But besides all other difficulties in the very
idea of atonement, the orthodox creed startles us by
the incredible conception, that a voluntary sacrifice of
life should be unacceptable to God, unless offered by
ferocious and impious hands. If Jesus had " authority
from the Father to lay down his life," was he unable
to stab himself in the desert, or on the sacred altar of
the Temple, without involving guilt to any human
being? Did He, who is at once  High-priest" and
Victim, when "offering up himself" and "presenting
his own blood unto God," need any justification for
using the sacrificial knife? The orthodox view more
clearly and unshrinkingly avows, that Jesus deliberately
goaded the wicked rulers into the deeper wickedness
of murdering him; but on my friend's view, that Jesus
was no sacrifice, but only a Model Man, his death is an
unrelieved calamity. Nothing but a long and complete life could possibly test the fact of his perfection;
and the longer he lived, the better for the world.
In entire consistency with his previous determination to die, Jesus, when arraigned, refused to rebut accusation, and behaved as one pleading Guilty. He
was accused of saying that, if they destroyed the
temple, he would rebuild it in three days; but how this
was to the purpose, the Evangelists who name it do not
make clear. The fourth however (without intending so




THE MIORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.            73
to do) explains it; and I therefore am disposed to believe his statement, though I put no faith in his long
discourses.  It appears (John ii. 18-20) that Jesus,
after scourging the people out of the temple Court, was
asked for a sign to justify his assuming so very unusual authority: on which he replied, "Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Such a
reply was regarded as a manifest evasion; since he was
sure that they would not pull the temple down in order
to try whether he could raise it up miraculously. Now
if Jesus really meant what the fourth Gospel says he
meant, -  if he "spoke- of the temple of his body," -
how was any one to guess that? It cannot be denied,
that such a reply, prima facie, suggested that he was a
wilful impostor: was it not then his obvious duty,
when this accusation was brought against him, to explain that his words had been mystical and had been
misunderstood?  The form of the imputation in Mark
xiv. 58 would make it possible to imagine, -if the
three days were left out, and if his words were not said
in reply to the demand of a sign, —that Jesus had
merely avowed that, though the outward Jewish temple
were to be destroyed, he would erect a church of worshippers as a spiritual temple.  If so, " John " has
grossly misrepresented him, and then obtruded a very
far-fetched explanation. But whatever was the meaning of Jesus, if it was honest, I think he was bound to
explain it; and not leave a suspicion of imposture to
rankle in men's minds.' Finally, if the whole were fic* If the account in John is not wholly false, I think the reply in every
case discreditable. If literal, it all but indicates wilful imposture. If mystical, it is disingenuously evasive; and it tended, not to instruct, but to irritate, and to move suspicion and contempt. Is this the course for a religious teacher? - to speak darkly, so as to mislead and prejudice; and this,
when he represents it as a matter of spiritual life and death to accept his
teaching and his supremacy?
7




74        THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.
tion, and he never uttered such words, then it was his
duty to deny them, and not remain dumb, like a sheep
before its shearers.
After he had confirmed by his silence the belief that
he had used a dishonest evasion indicative of consciousness that he was no real Messiah, he suddenly burst
out with a full reply to the high-priest's question; and
avowed that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, and
that they should hereafter see him sitting on the right
hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, -
of course to enter into judgment on them all. I am
the less surprised that this precipitated his condemnation, since he himself seems to have designed precisely
that result. The exasperation which he had succeeded
in kindling led to his cruel death; and when men's
minds had cooled, natural horror possessed them for
such a retribution on such a man. His words had
been met with deeds; the provocation he had given
was unfelt to those beyond the limits of Jerusalem;
and to the Jews who assembled from distant parts at
the feast of Pentecost, he was nothing but the image of
a sainted martyr.
I have given more than enough indications of points
in which the conduct of Jesus does not seem to me to
have been that of a perfect man: how any one can
think him a Universal Model, is to me still less intelligible. I might say much more on this subject. But I
will merely add, that when my friend gives the weight
of his noble testimony to the Perfection of Jesus, I
think it is due to himself and to us that he should
make clear what he means by this word " Jesus."  He
ought to publish - (I say it in deep seriousness, not
sarcastically) - an expurgated Gospel; for in truth I
do not know how much of what I have now adduced
from the Gospel as fact, he will admit to be fact.. I




THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.       75
neglect, he tells me, "' a higher moral criticism," which,
if I rightly understand, would explode, as evidently unworthy of Jesus, many of the representations pervading
the Gospels: as, that Jesus claimed to be an oracular
teacher, and attached spiritual life or death to belief or
disbelief in this claim. My friend says, it is beyond all
serious question what Jesus was: but his disbelief of the
narrative seems to be so much wider than mine, as to
leave me more uncertain than ever about it. If he wvill
strike out of the Gospels all that he disbelieves, and so
enable me to understand what is the Jesus whom he
reveres, I have so deep a sense of his moral and critical
powers, that I am fully prepared to expect that he may
remove many of my prejudices and relieve my objections: but I cannot honestly say that I see the least
probability of his altering my conviction, that in consistency of goodness Jesus fell far below vast numbers
of his unhonored disciples.








A DEFENCE
OF
"'THE  ECLIPSE  OF FAITH,"
BY ITS AUTHOR;
BEING A REJOINDER TO PROFESSOR NEWMAN'S
" REPLY."
7*








CONTENTS.
SECTION                                                         PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION..                         1
H. How far I "indorse":Harrington D-'s Argument, and
whether I believe in an Unmoral Deity.         36
III. Whether Mr. Newman's Theory, though he means it not,
does not involve the Conception of an Immoral Deity.  55
IV. The Exigencies of Deism.                                  65
V. Charges of a "Misrepresentation " and "Garbling"..  75
VI. Whether Mr. Newman's Distinction of Morally and Spiritually "Authoritative" and Morally and Spiritually "In,
structive" will stand.                                 89
VII. Mr. Newman's Eclaircissement.                              95
VIII. Showing that Facts are as intractable to the a priori Spiritual
Philosopher as to every other a priori Philosopher.. 103
IX. Whether the Christian throws away his "Moral Judgment"
in accepting the New Testament.                      113
X. Whether it be fair in Christians to meet "Objections" by
"Objections".                                         116
XI. Mr. Newman's Chapter on " The Moral Perfection of Christ"  119
XII. Charges of "Profanity," and so forth..... 149
XIII. Mr. Newman's Reply to the Notes respecting "Slavery" and
the " Early Progress of Christianity".         159
XIV. Some Miscellaneous Topics.                                172
XV. A few Words to a Prospective Reviewer. 176
XV-I. Conclusion...                                            181
ArPPENDI.. e     207








A
DEFENCE
6 THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
SECTION I.
INTRODUCTION.
PROFESSOR NEWMIAN, in the recent edition of the'Phases," has published a brief "Reply" to "The
Eclipse of Faith." This book, he tells us, he should
have preferred "'to pass by unnoticed, only that its
popularity gives it a weight which it has not in itself."' He also says that his friends expected him to
answer it. " Save me from my friends" is an excellent
caution, which an author, above most men, will do
well to bear in mind. It is almost as wise in such a
case to listen to one's enemies.
My own reasons for noticing the " Reply " are widely
different; and one of them imperative. MLr. Newman
has charged me with "stealthy misrepresentation and
gross garbling."  No man should allow himself to be
so charged unjustly, (and I will venture to say that
no controvertist has a more sincere abhorrence of any
* Phases. Reply, p. 5.




2      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
such practices than myself,) without making the accusation recoil on his calumniator; and this I pledge
myself to do. Mr. Newman may rest assured that I
will reckon with him on all such points, to the uttermost syllable.
But this would occupy only a few of the following
pages; and I have gone a little further. I have answered every statement of the least moment which I
can find in Mr. Newman's strictures: nor have I contented myself even with that. I have felt tempted to
restate the argument of Harrington D ——, from which
Mr. Newman so preposterously infers that I believe in
an  unmoral Deity "; - to make a few remarks on the
inexplicable explanations and obscure eclaircissements
of his former statements, respecting the relation of
man's religious nature to the external organon which
develops it, - which last it still seems may, somehow,
come from man, but cannot come from God;- -to
offer some observations on his new chapter on the
4 "Moral Perfection of Christ," - strange mistitle, since
it is to prove his Moral Imperfection;-and to give
my young Christian countrymen a few words of counsel in reference to the Deism of the present day.
Meantime, in the present section, I will give them an
opportunity of judging how far they prefer the charity
of the new spiritualism to that of the New Testament,
and how far they can trust the " free criticism"  which
asserts the moral deficiencies of Christianity, and the
moral defects of its Founder.
Mr. Newman calls his little chapter a " Reply to' The
Eclipse of Faith."'  One would think the whole book
professed to be formally and exclusively directed against
him! The slightest inspection of its very various contents will show that a multitude of topics are taken up
in which he has no concern in the world; and that his




GENERAL RELATIONS WITH MY CRITIC.      3
opinions, like those of Parker, Strauss, and others, were
introduced, only so far as they affected the particular
topics under discussion. He is pleased even to say
that one magical "' sentence," which I have not allowed
"M'r. Fellowes to press," would have sufficed "to crush
the whole treatise of 450 pages"!@  This sentence, so
far from being neglected, Harrington makes (as I think)
pretty good use of, only, of course, in a very different
way. I mention it here merely to show the extravagance
of Mr. Newman's assertions; since half at least of the
volume is occupied with topics which have no reference
to his peculiar speculations. But it is Mr. Newman's
privilege to speak hastily, and to speak largely.
Again, Mr. Newman seems to suppose that there
was some special animosity towards him, in selecting
some of his opinions for comment in " The Eclipse";
if so, he is much mistaken. I felt none then: I may
add, I feel none now. I had nothing in the world but
his opinions in view; and I should not have commented
upon them at all, had he not been a perfect stranger to
me. Had he been either a friend or an enemy, nay,
had he been at all known to me, then, as in all cases
in which I have been impelled by conscience or induced
by importunity to enter into controversy (which, whatever Mr. Newman may think, I thoroughly hate), I
should have refrained from noticing his writings at all;
since I should have distrusted my own impartiality. It
was easy to find others. I selected his writings, because
I thought that, from their half views and quarter views,
and sometimes tenth of quarter views, they were likely
to do mischief among the young. The'"Phases," in
particular, appeared likely to have this effect, by that
volatile transition from subject to subject, and that
*Reply, p. 35.




4      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."?
summary and slashing treatment of all, which characterize that singular book. It seemed likely to leave as
confused an impression on the mind as those exhibitions of " dissolving views," where we see mountains
and lakes advancing upon us through receding cities;
rocks and grottos obtruding into the ruins of a cathedral; and a waterfall just tumbling out of a vanishing
turret-window.
Mr. Newman, having combined in his system the
strangest eccentricities of opinion, seems resolved to
try whether he cannot finish by one or two practical
paradoxes quite equal to any of his theoretical; and
certainly he promises to be perfectly consistent in inconsistency.
For example: he has said more in one chapter in this
new edition of the-" Phases "- to say nothing of his
" Soul," and nothing of his "Hebrew Monarchy" - to
wound and shock the religious feelings of his countrymen,-to jar their inmost sense of all that is most
sacred, — than any other writer of his day. Yet no
sooner does any one proceed to expose his own religious system, which seems so unreasonable to the world
that probably not twenty people in it would profess
adherence to it, than he looks grave, and protests
against levity in the treatment of sacred things! I
must answer, like Pascal when the Jesuits brought
against him a similar charge, that "I am far enough
from ridiculing sacred things, in ridiculing such notions." Mr. Newman warns me with much solemnity
against thinking that "questions pertaining to God
are advanced by boisterous glee."@    I do not think
" The Eclipse " is characterized by " boisterous glee ";
and certainly I was not at all aware that the things
* Reply, p. 36.




THEORY AND PRACTICE.           5
which alone I have ridiculed -some of them advanced
by him, and some by others - deserved to be treated
with solemnity. For example, that an authoritative
external revelation, which most people have thought
possible enough, is impossible, — that man is most
likely born for a dog's life, and " there an end," -that
there are great defects in the morality of the New
Testament, and much imperfection in the character of
its Founder, -that the miracles of Christ might be
real, because Christ was a clairvoyant and Mesmerist,
- that God was not a Person, but Personality;- I
say, I was not at all aware that these things, and such
as these, which alone I have ridiculed, were questions
"pertaining to God," in any other sense than the wildest hypotheses in some sense " pertain " to science, and
the grossest heresies to religion.
Again: in theory nothing can be more delightful
than Mr. Newman's charity; in practice nothing more
grotesque.  He is full of fierce anathemas against
bigotry, and declaims most passionately on behalf of
charity and loving-kindness. In "The Eclipse of
Faith" I, with my poor " Pagan" notions of morality,
- so he is pleased to consider them,- carefully abstained from questioning the sincerity of his motives;
for I had nothing to do with his motives, —I had
to do with his arguments.  These I exposed, and
sometimes ridiculed; I acknowledge it with becoming
impenitence; I shall repeat the offence, if offence it
be; and I am prepared presently to justify my conduct. What course does Mr. Newman take? While
enjoining 6harity, deprecating "personal antagonisms,"
and talking in a most edifying strain about " opening
the mind to truth, and the heart to love," he indulges
in the most acrimonious imputations of " blasphemy,"
"dishonesty," "stealthy misrepresentations," " gross




6         A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
garbling," " dealing unscrupulously," and I know not
what.
He tells me in one place, that unless I mean what he
says I must mean, -  and which I certainly do not mean,
if he means what he seems to mean, for it is arrant
nonsense, — that my words are " palpably and inexcusably dishonest"; that unless I believe another equal
piece of nonsense, I am  "grossly iniquitous"; that in
one place not only "' spiritual insight, but honesty, seems
lacking "; and so forth.
But all such things are a mere bagatelle compared
with  the invectives into which a threefold  error -  unparalleled, I believe, in the history of criticism-has betrayed  him.  Those errors are that Harrington D -
meant what he did not mean, -  that whatever Harrington D -    meant, I must mean; and, lastly, that Mr.
Fellowes was designed to be a fac-simile of Mr. Newman; all which  are  pure illusions of Mr. Newman's
" free criticism." This I proceed to show.*
* There is one inadvertence, indeed, in Harrington's discussion, which
I sincerely regret, and I will take care to erase it in the next edition; for,
however little designed to convey the meaning Mr. Newman attaches to
it, I see it is fairly susceptible of it. Harrington says, ironically,'; This
most devout gentleman somewhere quotes the words,' For the spiritual man
judgeth all things, but himself is judged of no man.'"  It is employed to
express (what appears to me, I confess) the preposterous incongruity of
using the words of Paul to sanction a system which Paul would utterly
have repudiated. I still adhere to that view, and will justify it in a future
section. But it was not my intention to give pain, and the words in italics
shall therefore willingly come out. And so shall the " Professor of Spiritual Insight."  Mr. Newman says, indeed, that lHarrington has so nicknamed him. Hardly; it may be taken so, but it was not intended; for
any other name, or none at all, would have done just as well. The question
(Shall we call, &c.?) in which the phrase occurs, was obviously put in reference rather to Mr. Fellowes's exigencies, than to BMr. Newman's qualifications. Fellowes, in a fix, hardly knows whether to say - denying, as he
does, the possibility of all external revelation - that he got his religious
notions from nature alone, or in any way from without; since he confesses




THREE PROLIFIC ERRORS.                       7
Hastily assuming that the latter part of Harrington
D l's argument is something more than a mere reductio ad absmurdum   from  Mr. Newman's own premises;
that it was designed to embody, not only the conclusions to which a sceptic might fairly drive any one
who  adopted  those  premises, not only  the  positive
opinions of the sceptic himself, but the real opinions
of the author of " The Eclipse of Faith," - acting, I
say, on  this  ludicrous  misconception, Mr. Newman
fires away with a vehemence which amazed me as I
read it.  What confidence, thought I, can be reposed
in those powers of "1free criticism," in virtue of which
our author decides on an argument of such immense
sweep and complexity as the " Truth  of Christianity,"
constructs the true " Hebrew  Monarchy"  out of the
old  Hebrew   myths, and  pronounces  on  the  moral
character of Jesus Christ?
In  truth, I WAS NOT SORRY that he had fallen into
his sentiments have been practically elicited by his spiritualist writers.
Harrington remarks, that it is of little use for "nature to teach him, if
somebody else is to teach nature "; and asks whether Mr. Newman shall
be called Professor of Spiritual Insight. Mr. Parker's name, or that of
any other writer to whom Fellowes professed obligations, would have done
just as well; or better still, no name at all; and no name there shall be.
As to the word infidel, I cannot humor Mr. Newman. It is a word, he
says, " which is the peculiar weapon of the proud and self-sufficient dogmatizer, who holds all to be unfaithful who do not adopt his opinions."
"This epithet itself proves that, under the mask of the sceptic, the Christian (?) is venting his own pride and bitterness, which he unjustly attributes to another." Answer. - The reader will get used to Mr. Newman's
style by and by. I content myself with remarking, that, if Mr. Newman
will interpret current words by their etymology, he may take offence
enough. I use the word as it is now and has been long currently used
among us, to indicate one who has utterly renounced all belief in the Divine authority of Christianity. Of course I think that a grievous error.
How can I think otherwise i But from what cause proceeding in any individual case I decline to speculate. I am no judge of the heart, and do
not wish to judge it.




-8      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.9
these misconceptions; for people will be apt to argue,
that, if he could thus err in his interpretation of so
humble a book as " The Eclipse,'" he was not likely to
be altogether infallible on the Word of God. A few
specimens of the vehemence with which he pursues
this phantom will illustrate at once the sagacity of his
criticism and the quality of his charity. It will be
observed that I cite his invectives (such is their extravagance) with precisely the same indifference as if I had
been charged with impaling somebody on the horns of
the moon.  I shall here and there, indeed, interlace
the citations with a few words of my own; but of
such a different temperature from  Mr. Newman's redhot diction, that I almost fear that the reader will
imagine himself plunged into a succession of hot and
cold baths; or the curious tessellation may remind him
of the lower regions of Hecla, where, through the fissures in the snow and ice, ever and anon creeps into
the cold, clear air the hot, sulphureous vapor from
below. However, I will take care he shall pass in
safety over these crevasses without being suffocated.
The ordinary reader of" The Eclipse " will no doubt
be surprised to find that its author, " speaking under a
mask, uses a bold license of blasphemy against Nature
and its God, which too clearly comes from the heart";"
that " it is impossible to doubt the intensity of mny conviction, that all nature testifies, with overpowering force,
to every impartial mind, that its Creat6r is reckless
of all moral considerations "! f that " The Eclipse of'Faith" "' abounds in profane insults, which Mr. Newman does not see that anything else than the author's
own heart can have suggested";:  "that the author is
unaware that an unmoral God is the very essence of
* Reply, p. 28.   f Ibid. p. 31.   t Ibid. p. 8.




SPECIMENS OF CRITICISM AND CHARITY.    9
Pa,anism"; and " that this and nothing else is what
he is urging on us as Christianity."  " 0, how clearly
does he show," continues this master of "free" (and
easy) "criticism," " that in him it is hypocrisy to cry,
Holy, holy, holy, to the Lord of heaven, whose holiness he professes to be totally unlike all that man calls
either holy, or kind, or just! "'
I say, the reader must be surprised at all this, even
prepared as he may be by acquaintance with Mr. Newman's writings for any feats of logical legerdemain.
I knew, indeed, that it was possible for a man hastily
to adopt and abandon any opinions, if he took but a
half of a seventh of a tenth of a thirteenth of a survey
of the evidence; but here I could not find that there
was any survey of evidence at all.
Mr. Newman had defined the only guilty idolatry to
be the worshipping, as "perfect and infinite," that
which we know to be finite and imperfect; by which
lax definition it may well be doubted whether there
are ten idolaters in the world. He had also said that
Atheism may be only a speculative error, which ought
not to divide our "4 hearts from any man." For my
smiling at all this singular liberality, he says, I have
" caustically reproved" his spurious charity " towards
honorable Pagans and Atheists, who fail of reaching
his view of truth"; but adds, "1 I did not quite contemplate such a case as that before me. I must wait
and learn what sort of charity-not bastard- I may
cherish towards one who wraps a Pagan heart in a
Christian veil; who scolds down and mocks at other
men's piety; who constructs sophistical arguments to
leave them no alternative between his own Paganism,
which is to them detestable, and an Atheism which
* Reply, p. 32.
8 *




10     A DEFENCE OF C" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
they deprecate indeed, but feel far preferable to de.
grading, heart-deadening devil-worship." 
Mrh. Newman mistakes vehemence of diction for
energy of style. If I have constructed sophistical arguments, I presume they may be shown to be so. I
did not know, and have yet to learn, that I have
scolded down and mocked at any man's piety, by exposing the errors of those new revelations which begin
by assuming that all external " revelations " are " impossible."  However, in one point Mr. Newman is
quite right; he must "wait and learn," probably,
many things; and certainly charity towards his critics.
But I hope he will not hurry himself on my account, —
I can wait too; or, if he likes, he may bestow it, when
it comes, - my share of it I mean, it does not seem to
be much, —on the aforesaid honorable Pagans and
Atheists, who have not yet reached our critic's views
of truth. If that be true, they must surely stand in
great need of it!
After speaking of the ridicule with which I have
treated the notion that men are in some danger of undervaluing this world, he says, " But never, never did I
address such an exhortation to one who confesses that
he has no discernment whether the Author of Nature
be just or unjust, kind or cruel; one who is inwardly
so dark that he cannot possibly have any religion but
what he receives blindly. Such a one naturally relishes a joke better than a psalm, a sceptical dialogue
of Plato or Hume better than a treatise on Natural
Theology, and will scarcely be so absurd as to sacrifice what is substantial in this world for a religion
which cannot penetrate into his affections." t As to
my uniform preference of a joke to a psalm, it is en* Reply, p. 32.            t Ibid. p. 33.




SPECIMENS OF CRITICISM AND CHARITY.  11
firely a mistake; it depends on what the "joke" is,
and whose the "psalm."  A psalm of David, I hope
I should prefer to the richest joke, - say one of Mr.
Newman's paradoxes. On the other hand, I should
probably prefer even a dull joke to a psalm, if the
" sacred ode " is to embody a theology which explodes
the characteristic doctrines of the Bible, and whether
expressed in "rhyme" or "unrhymed metre."  However, I shall have an opportunity of judging, if some
worthy Deist will be kind enough to give us a specimen or two of his devotional Muse. As to Hume and
poor Plato, who by some strange association of contrast
are here linked together, I suppose it is pretty clear
from "The Eclipse" that the former is no great favorite
with me, except for his genius; but I do frankly confess that I prefer the Phwdo of Plato, with its twilight
hopes of a Revelation, and its faint echoes of Immortality from the " everlasting hills," to a treatise on the
" Soul," which, denying the possibility of the one,
augments its "sorrows," and, casting doubts on the
other, quenches its "aspirations."  As to the rest of
this passage, I freely acknowledge to the world that I
have many, many faults, —as many as MA. Newman,
I have not the slightest doubt in the world; but those
who know me, I think, will allow that there are not
many persons who have less consulted what is " substantial in this world" in the maintenance or retention
of their religious opinions, be they right or wrong.
On the spirit of this passage I shall only add, that if I
had been betrayed into saying any such thing of an
utter stranger, merely because he had laughed at what
he deemed a paradoxical opinion of mine, I should
have thought it was rather too late in the day to lecture a controversial antagonist on the duty of "watching over his own heart, opening the mind to truth and




12     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
the heart to love, of casting away scorn and self-sufficiency," * &c., &c., &c., &c., and should have feared
lest the reader should ask, as he read,' "Of whom
speaks the prophet this? of himself or of some other
man?"
As one contrasts MrP. Newman's loving injunctions
with his invectives, one seems to be transported into a
world where the usual symbols of emotion are all inverted, where men frown in pure benevolence, and
gnash their teeth in loving-kindness and charity.
One more sample of his style I must not withhold
from the reader. "With Paul and Isaiah, with }Eschylus and Cleanthes, with Socrates and Paley, with
Philo and Swedenborg," — a curious collection, -"I
see that a good God reigns over all."  Did I ever deny
it? One would think so, for he goes Oil: " This author
declares (!) all the evidence of facts to convict my sentiments as a gratuitous absurdity, yet he calls himself a
Christian, and reviles me as an infidel." t It would be
difficult, I rather think, to point out where I have reviled him at all, much less for holding any such sentiment.  Whether Mr. Newman reviles me or not, I
leave the reader to judge from what follows. " With
the Hebrew Psalmist, my heart avows,'All thy works
praise thee, O God, and all thy saints give thanks unto
thee!'I My Christian monitor puts a new song into
my mouth,' All thy works convict thee, O God, and
none but fools can praise thee for them.'" j  These
last words are put in inverted commas; but of course
Mr. Newman does not intend them as a quotation; so
that I must beg to say that the " new song," which is
equally "without rhyme and without reason," is of his
own composing, and that, instead of my putting it
Reply, p. 36.     t Ibid. p. 34.      Ibid.




SPECIMENS OF CRITICISM AND CHARITY.   13
into his mouth, he has put-it into mine. The theology
I am quite willing to admit that Mr. Newman would
think as execrable as I do.
Finally, Mir. Newman observes, " When the Bible
has failed to develop in him spiritual insight, why
should my words be more successful? Yes, it is hard
to enlighten one who, after the outward washing of
Christian baptism, has gone back into the mire of
Pagan demonry."'  To the former part of the sentence
(one word altered) I subscribe; if the Bible has indeed
failed to develop spiritual insight, it is not likely that
books which entirely disown its authority, its history,
its miracles, its characteristic doctrines, will be more
effectual. As to my supposed relapse into a belief of
a" Pagan demonry," it would be just as much to the
purpose if I were to call Mr. Newman a transcendental curve, or the root of an impossible quantity.
I took up the new edition of "' The Phases," in which
a reply to "' The Eclipse" was promised, with some
curiosity. Where, thought I, has " Faith" got by this
time? What is its " phase" at present? Has it thinned
off to a yet finer crescent than it had at the end of the
" last period "? or has it returned to the first quarter?
And oh! how rejoiced many would have been to see
the faintest symptom that the cup of light was beginning to fill again, - as I trust we yet may. But when
I read the preceding remarks, I could hardly help exclaiming, in nearly the words of one of the characters
in Carleton's Tales, " Surely now there is nothing to
be seen at all, barring the dark side of the luminary,
which is at present invisible by reason of the' Eclipse."'
As Mr. Newman seems to suppose that I must be
of Harrington's opinions, and as he supposes that
* Reply, p. 36.




14      A DEFENCE OF "C THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.5)
Harrington is unsettled as to whether there be a
personal God,* - though the contrary, I suppose, is
manifest enough to every ordinary reader,t - it may
be doubted vwhether MrV. Newman thinks me an Athleist
in disgruise, or the undisoruised " Paoran," he generally
represents me. But, at all events, he doubts my being
a Christian; for when he speaks of his " Christian"
opponent he has, in two places, after the word " Christian " placed an eloquent note of interrogation; a device
by which thrifty wits, who feel they must economize
sarcasm, may cheaply express it at the printer's expense.
At other times Mr. Newman is apparently pleased to
think it possible I may be a Christian, and to speak on
that hypothesis. It is pretty clear that I cannot be
both.  As Sir Boyle Roche said, " No man can be in
two places at once, except he be a bird."  In like manner, I presume that either I am or am not a Christian.
Many men in the present day have instructed us, indeed, that the mutations of the human mind may be
very sudden, but still they require some interval; and
whatever the rapidity of the changes, a man would be
troubled, I imagine, to be absolutely two things at once.
So extraordinary is this misinterpretation of my sentiments, that some of my friends have said, "Is the
supposition that you are a believer in an'unmoral
deity' really a misconception?  Is it not rather an
evasion to avoid the necessity of encountering Harrington D's argument?  Is it not obvious to every
impartial reader that the argument of Harrington expressed nothing dogmatically, but was simply a deduction from  Mr. Newman's own premises?  He merely
affirmed that, if he adopted Mr. Newman's criterion
of what we are to believe of God, he must reject
* Reply, p. 27.   t See his express avowal, Eclipse, p. 164.




EXPOSURE OF FIRST ERROR.         15
many of the phenomena of the universe, - not all, nor
the greater part, —but many of the phenomena of the
universe, as God's work, just as Mr. Newman does
many of the statements of what God has done, as
given in his word, and thus become at last a Manicheist, or, if he could not become that, an atheist, or
else remain a sceptic?  And further, that, supposing'
Mr. Newman's theory of the origin and destination of
man true, it increased the difficulty a thousand fold,
and would really involve the conception of what Mr.
Newman calls an unmoral deity? Is not all this plain?
Can it be a misconception?"  For myself, I have taken
Mr. Newman's part. I have said, " Let us in charity
suppose it a misconception at all events; for if we suppose it a wilful perversion, will that make the case any
better?  It is not only the more charitable hypothesis,
but Mr. Newman's precipitancy of logic is such as to
render it as easy for him as for any man thus to turn
things topsy-turvy. I grant, indeed, that it is much
more easy for Mr. Newman, instead of dissolving the
connection between the premises and conclusion, and
clearly showing that his premises do not lead to that
conclusion, to represent Harrington as not reasoning
on Mr. Newman's premises at all, and then to turn
round and say,' Well, if you believe in a God reckless of all moral considerations, how can any Bible
have any authority?'  Yet (I argued with my friends),
the very extravagance of the supposition is sufficient
to allow us to suppose it a misconception, however
enormous.  "For tell me," said I to one, "did you
ever hear of anybody who thought that the author of' The Eclipse of Faith' proclaimed his own inability to
see anything but blackness of darkness in the real,
known, undeniable works of God? "m  6; Not a soul,"
* Reply, pp. 33, 34.




16       A DEFENCE OF "C THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
said he;'" I have indeed heard of one man in the
country, who, happening to plump down in the middle
of Harrington's disquisition, knew not what to make
of it."  " Well," said I, " that is not the case with Mr.
Newman, for he has not' plumped down' into the middle of Harrington's speech, but has evidently read the
book all through.  However, I will throw  him  in,
though I protest it is unfair, since he had only read a
portion.  This old gentleman, then, shall be one; and
Mr. Newman, that is two.  But, at all events, besides
these two, I never heard of any one who concluded
that I was a believer in an unmoral Deity."'
But though on the principle on which I have acted
in "' The Eclipse" and shall now, of not imputing ill
motives to Mr. Newman, -  into which I shall not be
seduced by the example which he has set me, -  I say,
though on that principle I shall call his gross misconception a misconception, I think it is not too much to
say that it was aided by the unconscious instinct of
self-preservation; — for " Instinct," as Falstaff says,
" is a great matter."
But the reader will perhaps say, " Well, but suppose
Harrington did believe in an unmoral deity, - which he
did not, — what, in the name of common sense, has
the Author of' The Eclipse of Faith' to do with it? "
It seems quite sufficient for Mr. Newman to reason
thus: " Harrington believed so and so, and therefore
the Author believes so and so." If you look, you will
see that he argues it must be so from the vehemence of
* Since these passages were written, I find that a writer in the Prospective Review also expresses doubts. This completes the critical triumvirate.
I shall have a few words to say to him by and by. The differences, however, are refined and exquisite. While Mr. Newman seems rather-inclined
to think me a Pagan on the whole, this writer seems rather to think me
possibly an atheist! " Risum teneatis, amici i"




EXPOSURE OF SECOND AND THIRD ERRORS.    17
the argument! "' The bold dogmatism of the sceptic
is endorsed and confirmed by the Author. Indeed, were
it not so, the elaborate and vehement argument would
be obviously ridiculous; but he means it to be cogent,
and avows that it is."' Of course Harrington avowed,
and I avow, it is cogent against Mr. Newman and on
Mr. Newman's principles. But did mortal man ever
hear of such criticism?  " It must be so from the vehemence of the argument!"  That is, if a character
is naturally and dramatically represented, (and Harrington is expressly said to be most impatient at the
shallow theories which are offered in lieu of his early
faith,) the biographer or the novelist must resemble the
subject of his memoir or the character he depicts.
Shakespeare himself, then, I suppose, must have been
of all men's characters and sentiments, for he could
represent them all; and poor fTalter Scott must have
been " half Dutchman and half devil," because he describes Dirk Hatteraick as being so! Mr. James Martineau doubts (as he well may) Mr. Newman's aptitudes for that " higher moral criticism" necessary to
judge rightly the character of Christ.  Such curious
preconceptions as those just mentioned, adopted without the slightest hesitation, and vehemently acted on
throughout his tirade, is enough to make one doubt
whether criticism be his vocation at all. But I will
say no more on Harrington's argument here; in the
next section I will distinctly show in what sense I
" indorse and confirm  it," with a challenge to any
worthy Deist to reply to it on Mr. Newman's behalf,
since it is plain that he himself declines it.
A similar singularity of misconception is seen in Mr.
Newman in another point. In the same style of rea* Reply, p. 27.
9




18     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."'
soning in which he argues that I must think just as
Harrington thinks, so he will have it that Mr. Fellowes
must be intended as a full-length portrait of himself;
and so determined is he that it shall be so, that he says
if I deny it, it shall be to no purpose. His language
is: " As to this Mr. Fellowes, who is he? his character is apparently intended to be a portrait of mine, as
the Author conceives of me. Thus he insinuates a
mean, degrading, and laughable opinion of me, if the
reader will accept it: but if the reader cannot go quite
so far, and says it is unfair, then the Author can back
out and protest that Fellowes is not myself, but only
my admirer." * That is, he challenges an explanation,
and then has the civility to say, it shall be unsatisfactory. "He will be drowned and nobody shall help
him." He may depend upon it, that, as I am very deliberate in putting any thoughts of mine on paper, I
am equally slow in " backing out," as he calls it, of
anything I have once written, except for the strongest
reasons; and shall leave him to appropriate to himself
any portrait he thinks proper, among those with which
the very large gallery of biography or of fiction may
supply him. Meantime I will say this: that I believe
there are two points, and only two, in which Mr. Fellowes bears any resemblance to Mr. Newman; and I
know, and the world knows, by experience, that Mr.
Newman is not unique in those points. I may add,
that as I have never expressed my belief of any resemblance even in those two points, it is curious that
Mr. Newman should thus appropriate the portrait,
while he, at the same time, declares it to be most repulsive and unlike himself. It is not usual for men to
affirm, without any warrant from the painter, that a
* Reply, p. 10.




INFERENCES.                19
picture is intended for them, which, at the same time,
they feel themselves to be no way in love with, and
which they also declare to be unlike them. Mr. Newman even seems to imagine that the personal peculiarities of Mr. Fellowes ~ were designed to caricature
him. I beg to say that I knew no characteristics of Mr.
Newman, except that he was a gentleman, a scholar,
and a very indifferent metaphysician; and if I had
known any personal traits, I should have been the last
to bring them into my book. Meantime, I will tell
IVMr. Newman how he may henceforth distinguish himself from  Mr. Fellowes, and no longer unwisely assume, and still more unwisely tell the world, that the
character of Vr. Fellowes is intended to caricature his
own. First, Mr. Fellowes is expressly said to be a
youth of about eight-and-twenty years of age (in whom,
therefore, some versatility of opinion and some rashness of judgment might be excusable); and I rather
think Mr. Newman, like myself, is a little beyond those
years. Secondly, Mr. Fellowes expressly abjures several of Mr. Newman's opinions, openly prefers those
of Mr'. Parker, and freely avows that he has eclecticized
from the many delightful varieties of opinion which
the distractions of our modern spiritualists so abundantly afforded him. This very circumstance, indeed,
Mr. Newman strangely adduces to establish his preconception; and says Mr. Fellowes is employed to
make " damaging concessions," when he dissents from
Mr. Newman and prefers Mri. Parker!  One would
surely more reasonably infer (what is the truth) that
he was not intended to be the counterpart of any author. I am astonished that those who choose to regard
"; The Eclipse" as "fundamentally fictitious," should
* Reply, p. 11.




20     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.?"
fail to conjecture that the author avails himself of this
character to bring the sentiments of different men under discussion; which is naturally done by citations
from their writings. Whether those citations are fair
or not is another thing: and the only real question between me and those authors is as to this point. I
assert they are; and, in 1Mr. Newman's case, I shall
by and by show that they are. Thirdly and lastly,
the readers of " The Eclipse" will allow that Mr. Fellowes is uniformly gentle, affable, and patient in argument (whatever his infirmities); and though for aught
I know (and I am sure I hope it) Mr. Newman is so
generally, it must be acknowledged that the present
tirade proves that he is not uniformly so.
I imagine, as people read the very acrimonious and
vehement charges against the Author of " The Eclipse,"
that they will say, " We had better have the old-fashioned Christian charity than this new-coined liberality
of the'spiritual Deism."' Or is it Mr. Newman's
pleasure to suppose that the principle of the " Division
of Labor" applies to moral science as well as to political economy, and that, while it is one man's province
to preach charity, it is another man's duty to practise
it?  I wonder whether that is true of the " Faith,
Hope, and Charity" of "Spiritualism," which is true
of the same graces in Christianity. "a And now abideth Faith, Hope, Charity, -but the greatest of these
is Charity." If so, surely the two former must be
vanishing quantities.
I would also beseech Mr. Newman to consider how
unbecoming in the estimation of his "very insolent
and dictatorial critics," as he terms them, is that intense positivity which characterizes both his assertion
of his own opinions and the imputation of evil motives
to his opponents. They will say that one who has




THESE ERRORS EXPLAIN GREATER.        21
experienced so many changes of opinion himself should
learn at least caution and forbearance. Dogmatism,
in conjunction with. perpetual vacillation, should be
left to him of whom  our great satirist said so bitterly,
" Stiff in opinions, - always in the wrong, -
And everything by fits, and nothing long."
I think, also, people will be apt to say, " Here is a
gentleman who sees the imperfections of New Testament morality; who is afraid lest the consciences of
men may be depressed to the'Biblical standard';
who points out the many and grievous imperfections
in the character of our Lord Jesus Christ; who has
himself lighted on' a fixed moral basis, which he will
not allow to be tampered with by authority of miracle'; who inculcates the duty of' opening the heart to
love and the mind to truth': having reached this vantage-ground, looking down with serene compassion on
us'puir blinded mortals,' we naturally expect from
him great compassion, and magnanimity, and selfcontrol, and must begin to doubt, from his acrimony
and impatience, whether his system can be the complement of a defective Christianity!"  They will think
they had better have the New Testament, with all its
claims to " authority," than a teacher who, professedly
renouncing authority, is more impatient at his opinions
being questioned than if he really had it. We are all
in great trepidation, we can assure him, for the honor
of the " fixed moral basis"; and, if he goes on so, predict that the obstinate world will resolutely shut its
eyes against the new light that has visited it!
I cannot affect to be surprised at the misconceptions
of 4" The Eclipse of Faith" into which Mr. Newman
has fallen, when I turn to his chapter on the " lMoral
Perfection of Christ."  If Mr. Newman can so con9 *




22     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
strue fact and narrative as to charge our Lord with a
" vain conceit of cleverness" and "blundering selfsufficiency" in his answer to the Pharisees concerning
the tribute-money; with "' arrogance and error combined" in other cases; with'vacillation and pretension"; with " egregious vanity " and " moral unsoundness"; with guiltily provoking the rulers, by virulent
invectives, to slay him, because he had resolved on
suicide in order to escape the alternative of becoming
an impostor or renouncing his Messiaship, - I need
not wonder at any vagaries into which such logic may
wander, or at any invectives which that erroneous
criticism may prompt. 6' The disciple is not above
his master; it is sufficient"   0, how much more than
sufficient!  " that he be as his master."
The reader will perhaps say, "Is it possible that
Mri. Newman can have said all this? Will the world
believe that you are not misrepresenting him, as he
says you and so many more of his critics have done,
by not quoting enough to indicate his meaning?"
This is Mr. Newman's continual complaint. On some
points it might be difficult to say how much was to be
quoted that would explain Mr. Newman's meaning; a
good deal more, I fancy, than Mr. Newman has ever
written or is ever likely to write. But, in the present
case, the reader may rest content: Mr. Newman has
expressed his meaning plainly enough; and in the section in which I shall briefly examine this matter, I will
make extracts ample enough to enable the world to
form a complete notion of the powers of " free criticism" which Mr. Newman brings to bear upon the
Gospel narrative and on the character of Christ! If I
could, I would publish every syllable of that chapter
in the present little volume. I am so far from being
afraid of its doing any injury to Christianity, that I




THESE ERRORS EXPLAIN GREATER.       23
am persuaded there are few of its advocates who
would do more for it by their defence than such an
assailant by his attacks; and that if infidelity could
be ruined, such imprudences would go far to ruin it.
Mr. Newman wonders at the popularity of " The
Eclipse," and asks, "What must be the destitution
of the Christian cause before it could welcome such
an ally?"   I acknowledge, with profound conviction
and undissembled sincerity, that the book is infinitely
unworthy of my theme. But I cannot retort this sarcasm; I acknowledge that Mr. Newman's book, with
its new chapter on the Perfection of Christ, is infinitely
worthy of Infidelity.
Still, I repeat, I am rejoiced to find 1%. Newman
falling into such flagrant errors respecting so simple a
book as " The Eclipse "; errors which resemble those
of certain disciples of Strauss, who, on the strength
of their infallible canons of criticism, pronounced the
"Amber Witch" no fiction, but veritable history. I
am rejoiced, both on general and on special grounds;
on general grounds, for it shows us that this confident
criticism, which is so sagacious in dealing with ancient documents, - which can tell us by internal evidence just where an interpolation begins and ends, -
how many chapters and verses of the Acts are genuine
and how many not, -that so much is written by the
true Isaiah and so much by the Pseudo-Isaiah, -is no
sooner compelled to deal with a practical test, than it
falls into the most enormous mistakes. And I am rejoiced on special grounds; because it shows me that,
even in the strange chapter on the "Personal Perfection" of Christ, it is not necessary to form so painful
an opinion of the critic as it would be otherwise difficult to avoid forming.
*Reply, p. 37.




24     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
It does astound me, I confess, beyond all measure,
that Mr. Newman can read the New Testament with
such eyes, and rest content with such criticism on that
" Bright Excellence," which has in general disarmed
hostility, even where the mind has been unfriendly to
Christianity itself; —on which so many millions of
minds have dwelt with unmingled love and veneration.
If only a picture, still it is a picture with which no history nor fiction besides furnishes us; in which Power
and Wisdom — usually the exclusive gods of man's
idolatry - are for once subordinated to perfect Love.
It is the picture of one gentle towards the infirmities
and follies of man, patient with his waywardness, lovingly forgetful of his wrongs; of one - and 0 how
beautiful, if only a fable! —who never broke " the
bruised reed," who came "to bind up the brokenhearted, to give deliverance to the captive," to welcome penitence to his feet, and to offer the "'weary
rest"; of one who sided unchangeably with weakness and suffering against strong-handed oppression,
whose patience was proof against every insult to himself, and whose indignation never gleamed forth but
twice, and was then only extorted by that comprehensive sympathy with humanity, which was the burden
and the passion of his existence; once when, mingled
with grief, it shot a momentary flash on the censorious
hypocrites who grudged and murmured at his mercy
to the wretched, and once when it gathered in thunderclouds, and launched its vivid bolts over the guilty
abodes of those who perverted every law, divine and
human, to the purpose of oppressing and grinding
their fellow-creatures, who " for a pretence made long
prayers," " devoured widows' houses," "took away
the key of knowledge," "sat in Moses's seat" and
made it the Devil's throne. In a word, it is a picture




AN ARGUMENT FOR CHARITY.         25
of one whose whole life was one long yearning agony
of sympathy with the guilt and sorrows of humanity,
and whose death -    Ah! how strange, how passing
strange it is, that any should have an ungentle word
to say of Him, even though only a picture! Is it not
a picture which, if the original never existed, we should
long to see realized? - one from which we should turn
away, after long and entranced contemplation, and
sighing say, -
"' O that those lips had language!"
And, in general, to do human nature justice, -yes,
even unbelieving human nature, — it has not been insensible to the claims which that portrait has on human veneration. The " grim feature " of Infidelity has
generally relaxed when it has looked at Hirnm. Those
whose foul breath has sullied every mirror which reflected any meaner excellence, have generally spared that.
Once or twice in a century, indeed, some one or two
have appeared, animated by such intense envy of greatness, or such pure hatred of goodness, that they have not
spared even the character of Christ. They have been
inspired by such a gratuitous malignity, that one almost feels that, if they had lived in the time of Judas,
they would have done the traitor's office at a cheaper
rate, and spared the too happy Pharisees their thirty
pieces of silver.
I rejoice - unfeignedly rejoice - that it is not necessary to class Mr. Newman in this small category. I
see in his " Hebrew Monarchy," in his chapter on the
"' Perfection of Christ," - I know by my own experience
in his outrageous mistakes in relation to " The Eclipse
of Faith,"'- that he can misread evidence which appears clear enough to the eyes of other men, and weigh
it in analytic balances which set their notions of probability utterly at defiance.




26        A DEFENCE OF THE " ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
And now  for a word or two of defence of my method
of controversy in " The Eclipse of Faith."   I have said
I have not imputed motives; I did not before, and shall
not do it now: nor will I enter into the question of
moral dispositions at all. Each man must be judged
in that matter by the only equitable Judge.'  But be* Mr. Newman, while so earnestly deprecating controversial indecorum
and inculcating "charity," seems to be unaware of the character of many
parts of his own publications. Does he think it can be pleasant to the
"Irish Clergyman" to be so characterized that few who know anything
of him can miss him, and yet be told that it was said he had been mistaken for a beggar in Dublin, and had been offered a half-penny under
that impression? Does he think it can be pleasant to Dr. Henderson
(Phases, p. 127, Sec. Ed. p. 78) - one of the most venerable and con.
scientious men of our time - to be told in print that Mr. Newman's friend,
John Stirling, had flippantly said, that "Mark was probably inspired, because he was an acquaintance of Peter, and because Dr. Henderson wcould be
reviled by other Dissenters if he doubted it? " Does he know what that insult, both to Dr. Henderson and to his religious contemporaries, means?
That it imputes to both the most unworthy motives and the vilest conduct?
Does Mr. Newman think that, in similar style, he is to be allowed to ride
over all his critics, as "very insolent and dictatorial "; imputing " dishonesty" to some, wilful " misrepresentation " to others, and " gross garbling "
to almost everybody that touches him? I tell him plainly, I know of no
writer who so largely exacts the tributes of charity; none who repays
them less.
He should remember, in charging his opponents with unworthy motives
in defending any opinions he once held, how easy it would be for them to
retort upon him. The opinions he now impugns he once held and defended; and the fragments of the theories he has rejected strew the whole
way through the " Phases," like the baggage of a flying army. Did he not
once believe Mark inspired? Did he not once hold the Bible all true,
which he says can only be defended by the " crooked" and immoral subterfuges which he charges on what he calls Bibliolatry? Did it never
occur to him that his opponents might ask him, on his so lightly charging
them with "dishonesty" for still holding what he once held, — "Pray,
Mr. Newman, will you answer us this plain question? Were you'honest'or'dishonest' when you held the views which you now reject  If
honest, is it impossible for you to imagine that those who still hold what
you once held, may be honest too? If dishonest, - which we are far from
believing, —are you precisely the person to impute to us'dishonesty'?
Or, lastly, are you alone honest, no matter what you accept or what you
reject  "




MY PRINCIPLES OF CONTROVERSY.       27
yond that I will not go, for Mr. Newman or any man.
Living in a free country, and with a free press, where
all opinions are daily sifted, and, if thought ridiculous,
ridiculed, I will never surrender an iota of the privilege
I freely concede to others. Least of all will I surrender it to one who treats unceremoniously what his
fellow-men hold most sacred, who, by denying the
very possibility of an external revelation, advertises
me that his religious opinions are of a private origination, who cannot get more than a very few to coincide
with them, and who has surely passed through changes
enough himself to make him indulgent towards others
for freely canvassing his own opinions. On those opinions, expressed in his books, I have commented without
hesitation. I freely confess it; and that I will ever
do so in reference to any opinions expressed by mortal
man, let his pretensions be what they may, let his resentment be what it will. Every one who publishes
his opinions to the world in a free country must lay his
account with that; and as it is a right which, as I have
said, I yield to others, so it is one I will never surrender
for myself. Further, if I believe those opinions, as I
do many of those of Mr. Newman, to be not only false,
but pernicious, I will spare neither argument nor ridicule to make them appear so to others. In a contest
for truth, - and I believe that this controversy has to
do with vital truth,- -truth in which the best interests
of our children, of our country, of our species, are involved, -it is unmanly to flinch. I will use every
weapon, whether of argument or ridicule, which God
has given me, and I will strike home wherever my adversary leaves a rivet open in his armor. It is a false
charity to act otherwise.  Charity to each other as
much as Mr. Newman will, and, indeed, rather more
than in his present mood he seems disposed to exercise;




28      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
but to opinions, if we deem them false, none. In argument, as Socrates says, it becomes neither party to
ask for or to receive quarter; and that quarter which
I disdain to ask, let my opponent be assured I will
never give.
But ridicule? it will be said. Yes; and ridicule too,
if motives be untouched.
It is a sword, I know, which cuts both ways; but it
is never so keen as when truth whets it. God is my
witness, that, so far from calling down fire from heaven
to injure an opponent, I would not scorch one hair of
his head; but as for his opinions, if I believe them pernicious to mankind, I should be, in my judgment, a
traitor and renegade to' truth and conscience, if I did
not tax every energy of my nature to make them appear so to others. This cannot be done, as Mr. Newman himself says in his preface to the new edition
of " The Hebrew Monarchy," without giving offence.
But, as he truly says, it must be done; and I accept
and concede the equal terms. No doubt it would be
pleasant, if, in performing this friendly office for each
other, men could find out some moral chloroform which
might steep in painless slumber a tob sensitive vanity,
while some huge fungous growth was being dissected
out. But this cannot be; and the scalpel must proceed.
As for mny opinions, if they be false, I yield them up
freely to whoever will show them to be so. Let him,
if he can, launch against them bolts compacted out of
all the subtlest elements of mind, and pour out upon
them  argument, fancy, wit, sarcasm, passion, in a
stream of living fire, " till they be consumed." Charity
to men, I again say, as much as any man will; but as
to that hateful indifferentism which is so rife in our
day, and which threatens to be our plague, it is equally
an insult to the claims of truth, and a mockery of the




CHRISTIANITY NEED NOT FEAR SATIRE.                   29
claims of charity. Charity is exercised in spite of differences, manfully stated and avowed.'
"But will not the employment of ridicule  ag'ainst
the opponents of Christianity lead them to use the
same weapon? " I imagine some good timid Christian to say. I answer, And have they ever spared it,
dear  simple  soul?    Will your not using  it prevent
their abusing it? Will your throwing away the arrow
prevent their transfixing you with theirs? Is not the
shield of Christianity stuck full of those shafts? From
Lucian to Voltaire, the whole literature of infidelity
shows what sort of " reciprocity " forbearance is likely
to  meet with.   Your enemies have tried the weapon,
and it has been in vain; you  may see that somehow  it
does not prevail.  Nay, take heart, man; one of the
most striking tests of the indomitable energy, the vital
* Here is worthy Mr. Parker, for example, telling us, in a recent publication, that " many a philosopher has seemed without religion, even to a
careful observer; sometimes has passed for an atheist. Some of them
have to themselves seemed without any religion, and have denied that
there was any God; but all the while their nature was truer than their
will..... They had the intellectual love of God, though they knew it
not; though they denied it...... These philosophers, with a real
love of truth, and yet a scorn of the name of God, understand many things,
perhaps, not known to common men; but this portion of their nature has
yet escaped their eye,- they have not made an exact and exhaustive inventory of the facts of their own nature. Such men have unconsciously
much of the intellectual part of piety." - Ten Sermons of Religion, p. 10.
No wonder that he finds all meaner differences swallowed up and absorbed in this "unconscious piety," and thinks that a Buddhist, or a Fetichist, or even a man whose " hands are smeared over with the blood of
human sacrifices," may be all in a fair way enough. And this insipid
broth, into which all conceivable opinions are shred, so as to become undistinguishable, is to be recommended as a concoction of true charity;
that is, charity is to be exercised when there is no longer room for any!
The worst of it is, that this latitudinarian charity is apt to degenerate
into a curious sort of bigotry. It is always vehement enough against
any opinions that imply that opinions are of any importance, or indeed
against any opinion except the opinion that no opinions are of any.
10




30      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.)
power of your religion, as striking as its resistance to
persecution itself, is its invulnerability to ridicule.
Though Shaftesbury was wrong in saying that ridicule
was the test of truth, it is usually impossible for error
long to stand against it; nor is there another historical
religion on earth that could endure the ridicule poured
upon Christianity, if poured upon it (as is the case
with the ridicule the Gospel has encountered) by men
growing up in the midst of it. If Christianity could
have been laughed out of existence, she would have
ceased to breathe long ago. We have but to look into
the writings of the ancient philosophers and satirists
to see how little the ancient mythologies would have
stood against such weapons. Jupiter, with all his
thunderbolts, could not have resisted the raillery of
Plato and Cicero; and all the shafts of Apollo would
be of no avail before those of Aristophanes and Lucian.
If you have, as you believe, Truth on your side, you
will do well and wisely not wholly to cast aside a
weapon, which has not been and will not be used the
less against you for your rejecting it, and which Truth
always, in the nature of things, can wield more powerfully than Error. As to the legitimacy of its occasional
use against solemn " follies " and would-be sacred " impieties," read Pascal's immortal Eleventh Letter; if
that does not convince you, I have nothing more to say.
But surely it is the drollest of all drolleries to hear
our modern infidelity affecting a Puritan prudery in
the treatment of religious subjects; to see its face glistening with spiritual onction; its mystic eloquence garnished with terms of Scripture, taken in an esoteric
sense, and poor Paul and Peter quoted to avouch what
they never dreamed of. Assuredly this solemnity of
visage and phraseology is both too recent and too inconsistent to render it particularly decorous to twit a




CHRISTIANITY NEED NOT FEAR SATIRE.  31
Christian advocate with levity in the treatment of
" sacred subjects." Has not the whole history of infidelity been marked by the freest employment of wit,
satire, and ridicule in every form? - 7ould to God it
had stopped with refined ridicule! Have not its writers been full of absolute mockery and scurrility against
all that Christians deem most sacred? Are the names
of Tindal, Bolingbroke, Voltaire, and Tom Paine, and
a thousand more, forgotten? Christianity may surely
be pardoned, if it has now and then laughed a little in
return at what are surely laughable enough, — the
theories, infinitely various and discordant, of those
who would crush her. But no; our opponents then
immediately become grave, put on a long face, and
begin to inculcate a seemly gravity in the treatment
of such sacred subjects! The enemies of Christianity
are still a little like its earliest opponents, whom our
Lord compares to " the children sitting'inthe marketplace."  Christianity expostulates with them  often
enough, and looks grave often enough, and they have
laughed at her; she ventures to laugh at their follies
in return, and they look suddenly grave; "' she mourns
to them, and they do not lament; she pipes unto
them, and they will not dance." But it is now as
of old, " Wisdom is justified of her children."
But perhaps it is thought that this solemn warning
against levity may induce the readers of " The Eclipse
of Faith " to disown their ally. It is of no consequence
to the author if they do, since his conscience justifies
him, whether they do or not; as his book was not
written to displease Mr. Newman, so neither was it
written to please them. But let not my opponents
think Christians such simpletons as not to know what
it is that the author of " The Eclipse" has laughed at;
they will answer as John Bunyan did, when in prison,




32     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
to the gentleman who sent him a Christmas pie, thinking to add a petty " affliction to his bonds " by tantalizing him with the sight of a dainty which his scruples would not let him touch. But John cried, Disting(uo. Few could do it better. He munched up the
pie with great satisfaction, and told the messenger to
say that John Bunyan could tell the difference between
Christmas and a Christmas pie. In like manner will
Christians answer my opponents, when they warn them
against an unseemly " levity" in treating " spiritual 
subjects.
It is obvious that the opponents of Christianity fear
lest reprisals should be made upon them by pointing
out the absurdities, incredibilities, and discordancies of
the systems they would substitute for it. I think Christians have let them have their way long enough, in
stating and deriding the difficulties of Christianity;
and I for one shall take the liberty of reminding them
that their own difficulties are greater still.
But if the creation of merriment on any subject in
any way connected with religion be the error and the
sin, I am by no means sure that many of our new
spiritualists have not quite as much to answer for as
myself. The great difference between us is, that I
have sometimes made my readers laugh at my illustrations, and they have as often made them laugh at
their arguments; I have attacked error with irony, and
they have assailed truth with paradox.
I confess, indeed, the sonorous solemnity with which
they enforce their " Procul! 0 procul! este profani";
but the words from such lips are not the less laughable
for all that; often more so. If " wisdom" sometimes
"; wears motley," it is quite as often the case that folly
puts on the garb of wisdom. The owl is the symbol
of wisdom; but the owl herself is not wise.




DEFENCE OF.MY METHOD.          33
But Mr. Newman complains also of the plan of " The
Eclipse." He says, " It is self-condemning as a medium
of controversy."  " The Socratic dialogue," it seems,
"when used in talk, may possibly have a legitimate use
to a teacher addressing uncultivated minds"; but he
objects to it in print. Very natural. "In writing,
where one person works both the puppets, it really is
too puerile."' But I divined Mr. Newman's answer,
and guarded against it. It was easy to see, in his
writings, on what mere splinters of evidence a logic so
buoyant as his could survive the wreck of an argument!; and therefore I resolved that the greater part
of the discussions in which his opinions were sifted
should be in the form of disquisition, and not dialogue.
I made Harrington give, in this form, the sceptical
results of accepting Mr. Newman's dogmas. In taking
the positive argument on the other side (" On a BookRevelation") I used the same form; as also in the notes
on the three questions of Marriage, Slavery, and the
Early Progress of Christianity, given to Mr. Fellowes;
and in the notes on a " Fundamental Fallacy." The
only dialogue in which Mr. Newman's views of an
external revelation are canvassed at any length, (though
I conceive abundantly sufficient as a reductio ad absurdurm,) concludes t with an express admission that
the principles of his main doctrine have not been entered into, and that they are reserved for the subsequent disquisition on a " Book-Revelation."  I may remark, in general, that at least half the entire volume is
free from this novel sin of- Dialogue!
Of course it would be pleasant to an adversary to
dictate the form in which he shall sift our opinions;
but he is not likely to grant it; nor shall I to mine.
* Reply, p. 8.            t Eclipse, p. 96.
10 *




34     A DEFENCE OF G" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."5
Nor do I allow that the Platonic dialogue need be the
" screen of infinite sophistries." All depends on the
fairness with which an adversary's opinions are cited;
whether I have here done Mr. Newman injustice or
not, will be seen in a future page: I contend that I
have not. As to "' working both the puppets," it is in
fact no more than is, to a great extent, necessarily done
in every wvork of controversy, whatever its form, and
rather more disguisedly in the ordinary form; in all
alike, an opponent's arguments are stated by him who
confutes them, and whether fairly stated and dealt
with, or not, depends on the clearness of head and integrity of heart of him who states them.
Mr. Newman complains of having to fight with a
4"sham  adversary" (the sceptic), and says, that he
"shrinks with a most painful repugnance from one
who, by discarding his personality, thinks to get free
from moral responsibility."' It is really hard to know
what to make of all this. Does he refer to my having
introduced Harrington - whether a real or imaginary
character, matters not — to use the argumentum ad
hominem, or does he refer to my having published
anonymously? I am quite in the dark. If the former, I presume Plato, Pascal, and Berkeley will be a
sufficient apology; if the latter, I presume I require
none. I published anonymously, -partly, and indeed
principally, that the book might sink or swim purely
by its own merits or demerits, without anything either
to conciliate or prejudice in a name. I used it as a
moral electrometer, to ascertain the intensity of the
" spiritual" currents in our day; or as a feather, to see
which way the wind blew, and whether my countrymen still took any considerable interest in that " his* Phases. Reply, p. 9.




DEFENCE OF MY METHOD.          36
torical Christianity," which so many of our modern
infidels have asserted is all but exploded amongst us.
I am rejoiced to find that they do; and that I may
apply, with a little alteration, to some of our vaunting
opponents, the passage in which Burke characterizes
the noisy revolutionists of his day: "Because half a
dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring
with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of
great cattle repose in the shade, and are silent, pray
do not suppose that those who make the noise are the
only inhabitants of the field; or that, after all, they are
other than the little, meagre, hopping, though loud and
troublesome, insects of the hour."
But as to my being a " sham antagonist," I should
have thought that the decision with which, when speaking in my own person, principles were laid down, and
the consequences of argument taken, might have left
no doubt that I was none. Though I rode into the
field with a plain shield and a barred visor, I should
have thought there could be as little doubt about my
being no " sham antagonist," as Brian de Bois-Guilbert
could have felt about Ivanhoe, when that knight touched
his shield with the sharp end of his lance.
In conclusion, the very worst thing I wish Mr. Newman - and I am sure it is the very kindest - is, that
he may retrace his way to the faith he has abandoned,
and advocate the truths he now seeks to subvert.
But if this is not to be, and he will continue to write
against Christianity, then I hope it may be with the
same force of logic, the same taste, discrimination, and
self-control, which he has manifested in the chapter'" On the Perfection of Christ," and his "Reply to'The
Eclipse of Faith.'"




36      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
SECTION  II.
HOW FAR I " INDORSE " HARRINGTON D —----- S ARGUMENT,
AND WHETHER I BELIEVE IN AN UNMORAL DEITY.
AND now  I propose to restate for Mr. Newman's
benefit, who seems inclined to evade it, - or for the
benefit of any other Deist who is disposed to take up
the gauntlet for him, —that argument of Harrington
D-, from which my critic so preposterously infers
such strange things as these: -" It is impossible to
doubt the intensity of this Christian advocate's conviction that all nature testifies, with overpowering force,
to every impartial mind, that its Creator is reckless of all moral considerations."' " With energetic
and dogmatic earnestness he enforces upon me, that
God, as revealed to him  and me in Nature, has no
consistent or trustworthy moral character." t  I answer (as I have already briefly done), that neither does
Harrington DD-   profess any such "conviction" nor
" enforce " any such doctrine, nor if he did, do I. He
argues, - and I so far quite;" indorse" the reasoning,that the rigid adoption of Mr. Newman's own criterion,
by which he rejects certain facts of Scripture as morally unworthy of God, will necessitate a similar conclusion in relation to some of the facts of the universe.
I do not, any more than Harrington, assert (he is a
sceptic simply, and asserts nothing, I am a Christian,
I humbly hope, and assert the contrary) that the facts
* Reply, j. 31.              t Ibid. p. 34.




HOW  FAR I " INDORSE."                   37
of the universe prove an " unmoral Deity," as Mr. Newman phrases it. I believe that those facts of the Divine
administration which are to us utterly unaccountable,
(as I am free to confess many of them are to me, and,
as I imagine, to everybody else,) are, like the analogous facts of the Bible, to which Mr. Newman objects,
to be humbly received by our faith as reconcilable,
we know not how, with perfect wisdom, justice, and
goodness; on the strength of that general evidence
which  establishes the truths of Theisms in spite of
these objections, just as the general evidence for the
Bible proves that to be divine in spite of similar objections.
I believe firmly that the prevailing characteristics of
the universe indicate unlimited power and wisdom, and,
in general, goodness; the last, however, so checkered
as to admit of being blessedly confirmed by an external
revelation, assuring the faltering reason of man, amidst
the conflicting phenomena around us, that the goodness
of the Deity is unlimited and perfect.
And, certainly, facts may sufficiently show that such
a revelation would be most useful, and should be most
welcome.  Who can deeply reflect on the endless theories which the unaided speculation of man has, in all
ages and countries, given birth to, —the varieties ot
* If I did not see that Mr. Newman was "reckless of all logical considerations," I should certainly think he must be " reckless of all moral considerations," in representing me as believing what he imputes to me, considering what is said of the Christian's point of view by Harrington himself,
to say nothing of the whole tenor of the book: -" The Christian speaks
on this wise:' I find, in reference to Christianity, as in reference to Theism, what appears to me an immense preponderance of evidence of various
kinds in favor of its truth; but both alike I find involved in many difficul
ties, which I acknowledge to be insurmountable, and in many mysteries
which I cannot fathom. I believe the conclusions in spite of them.' "p. 410.




38     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.'
Atheism, Manichemism, Polytheism, - and doubt it?
Rarely, indeed, have we anything approaching an elevated and pure Monotheism, as the simple and undoubting conviction of human reason, except among
that little knot of modern Deists, who, somehow, never
appear except where the Bible has gone before them!
And now, with such a belief, which I suppose is far
enough from enforcing the doctrine of a Deity " reckless
of all moral considerations," how stands the argument
in which Mr. Newman and I are at issue?
lHe believes that man's notion of God is the projected,
indefinitely enlarged image of man's own intellectual
and moral nature. In accordance with that, he declares
that he rejects whatever facts of Scripture apparently
attribute to God what we should call harsh, cruel, or
unjust in man. I ask him, then, how he disposes of
certain "facts " of the universe, which would be certainly called harsh, cruel, or unjust in man? Instead
of answering, and discriminating the facts, he forgets
that the argument is founded entirely on his own
premises, and represents me as believing in a God
"reckless of all moral considerations "!
Mr. Newman says that he does not look at the universe with " my gloomy eyes."  I reply that I do not,
as I have just shown, look at it with " gloomy eyes ";
and that the facts in question appear gloomy only as
seen through his spectacles; in other words, that the
argument is purely founded on his own premises. My
complaint is, that he will not look on certain facts of
the universe by the light of his own hypothesis at all.
His argument, again re-stated in this professed Reply,
requires that he should give no account of those facts,
and he accordingly gives none. As he says I have not
permitted the reader to know what his sentiments are,
I give them at length.




HOW FAR I " INDORSE."           39
His words are: "' If we had no intelligence, we should
have no idea of an Intelligent God any more than
have the beasts. But, conscious of my own intelligence, I cannot imagine that the great Unknown Power
from which it sprang is not far more intelligent. So,
too, if we had no Moral Affections, it could never occur to us to impute Moral Affections to God. But
being conscious that I have personally a little love, and
a little goodness, I ask concerning it, as concerning intelligence,'Where did I pick it up?' and I feel an invincible persuasion, that, if I have some moral goodness, the great Author of my being has infinitely more.
He did not merely make rocks, and seas, and stars, and
brutes, but the human soul also; and therefore I am
assured He possesses all the powers and excellences of
that soul in an infinitely higher degree. Hence it is from
witlhin that we know the morality of God. To the
Author of' The Eclipse' this seems such a piece of
cant, that I deserve to be chained to a stake, and torn
to pieces by a profane dog! " X On the latter part of
this passage I shall make no other remark than to express my hope and belief that Mr. Newman usually
finds in himself a little more " intelligence," " goodness,"
and " love " than appears there, or else I am afraid the
inference to the infinite perfection of the Deity would
be rather precarious; nor would it much matter where
Mr. Newman " picked them up."  Of the " stake," the
"4 chain," and the "profane dog," I know nothing; and
if Mr. Newman will suggest to his readers ideas as
little complimentary to himself as to me, it is his fault,
not mine.
But to look at his argument: Whether " God has all
the perfections of the human soul in an infinite degree,"
* Reply, p. 35.




40      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
I shall not dispute; though I suppose, if Mr. Newman
carefully reflects, he will see that there are several (and
those among the noblest), which, if God be perfect, he
cannot have at all; and among them gratitude, veneration, and all which constitutes adoration of Him. But
at all events, though man unquestionably has an intellectual and moral nature, yet, somehow or other, both
are very variously developed, - are susceptible, as
facts abundantly show, of all sorts of deflections from
the true and the rigpht, and lead to correspondent " projections" of the Deity. The representation is, in fact,
just one of the half views with which Mr. Newman's
books abound. It is one thing to say that man's nature truly developed by appropriate external training,
and especially by that which I believe is essential, but
which he declares impossible, an external revelation,
sees in the then polished mirror a faint image of some
of the Infinite Perfections of God; and quite another
to say, that each man, looking exclusively within, can
at once rise to the conception of those infinite perfections. The fallacy is at once seen when we appeal to
facts. Nulnberless questions may be asked, to which
the theory gives no answer. As, for example, whether
Mr. Newman alone, or a few like him, are in a condition thus to " project" the Deity, or whether all mankind have the same privilege? or if all mankind have
not, who has?  Whether all the different gods which,
acting on that very principle, they have projected, are
truly gods, and to be worshipped? Whether, in that
case, we shall not have " Gods many and Lords many,"
— most of them unmoral and even immoral enough?
Whether these variable deities, the product of the
variable condition of human nature in different ages
and nations, nay, even in the same individual at different periods, does not prove that man at least needs a




HOW FAR I " INDORSE.'           41
light more pure than that of nature, and a guide more
safe than reason, whether he can get them or not?
Whether, if the greater part of "these Gods many and
Lords many " are to be rejected, there is any criterion
whereby to judge whose projection is the true one?
Whether Mr. Newman has anything to show that his
"projection" of the Deity is, amidst so many differences, the only true projection?  But I stay to ask
none of these questions here, though only to ask them
is to show. the precariousness of his hypothesis. I am
willing, for the argument's sake, to take his hypothesis;
for whether God has all the perfections of the human
soul or not, I fully agree with Mr. Newman, that at
least His power, wisdom, and goodness are infinite;
but then it is precisely because I think so that I hesitate
to allow that the " little wisdom," and "little goodness,"
and " little love," which give us the inkling of such attributes, are competent to say in all cases what God
certainly will and can do with rectitude and goodness,
and what he will not and cannot. Now Mr. Newman
assumes the contrary; for he expressly tells us, that in
virtue of his "little wisdom' and " little goodness,"
man is " competent to sit in moral and spiritual judgment on a professed revelation, and to decide, if the
case seem to require it, in the following tone: —' This
doctrine attributes to God what we should call harsh,
cruel, or unjust in man; it is therefore intrinsically inadmissible; for if God may be (what we should call)
cruel, he may equally well be (what we should call) a
liar; and if so, of what use is his word to us?' 
Very well; then the Universe of God is a revelation
of him; that is the next step; and if this criterion
(purely internal be it remembered, and, what is still
* Reply, p. 22.
11




42     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
worse, necessarily varying with the moral condition of
him who applies it) be absolutely true, then I say, with
IHarrington (and so far I fully "indorse" his reasoning), that the "little wisdom" and "little goodness"
will justify man in saying the same of all such phenomena in the works and ways of God as are, to all
appearance, no less opposed to our moral intuitions,
-to our conceptions of equity and goodness, - than
the objected difficulties of Scripture. Mr. Newman,
for example, will have it that God could not have commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, as an exercise
of his obedience, even though He did not permit the
sacrifice, because it is inconsistent with man's "little
wisdom" and " little love of goodness " to suppose it.
I ask, then, how he makes it consistent with those
same infinitesimals, that God, every day and all day
long, and in all parts of the world, does things and
allows things to be done equally baffling to the conceptions of those same infinitesimals; involving innocence and guilt in indiscriminate suffering, and permitting the infliction of all-unutterable wrongs, without an attempt to prevent, or, in this world, to redress
them?
He sends his pestilence, and produces horrors on
which imagination dares not dwell; horrors not only
physical, but indirectly moral; often transforming man
into something like the fiend so many say he can never
become. He sends his famine, and thousands perish,
- men and women, and "the child that knows not
its right hand from its left," - in prolonged and frightful agonies. He opens the mouth of volcanoes, and
bakes, boils, and fries the population of a whole city
in torrents of burning lava. He opens the yawning
earth, and crushes and mangles men, women, and children, with as little ceremony as a lion would crunch a




HOW  FAR I " INDORSE."                        43
kid between his jaws. I am speaking of facts, very
dreadful, no doubt, but they cannot be denied, can
hardly be exaggerated, and are not likely to be diminished by our shutting our eyes to them. Diseases,
again, in infinite forms, in endless variety of anguish,
are racking and torturing, crushing and grinding, myriads of human beings in all ages and countries, and in
every moment of the world's history, apparently without any reference whatever to the moral worth or turpitude of those who  suffer.  " The  discipline,"  as Harrington  truly says, in  as far as our little wisdom   and
little love can see, is " often most agonizing in those
who  seem  least to  need it, or in  those  who are past
learning  from  it, or in  the innocents who cannot learn
from  it!" "
*. I knowv it may be said, in the presumptuous jargon of a certain school
in our day, that " famine and pestilence "' may be altogether prevented -
in time; in short, that it is through wise man's ignorance, and by his fault,
that they ever come at all! If it were so, the time for banishing them has
been long in coming, and I rather think is still remotely future; though I
thankfully acknowledge that it is in man's power, and becomes his most
solemn duty, to diminish the probability of their occurrence, and to mitigate them when they come. Still, as long as he does not know how to anticipate the next week's weather, and all the illum7inati of Europe are so
long puzzling their heads over cholera and the potato disease alone, with
so little power to solve their mystery, I am afraid we are still a considerable distance from the sanitary millenium. And when men have found
out (if they ever do find out) these riddles, it is to be feared from  the
analogies of the past that new " developments " of nature, which now present us with diseases our fathers never dreamt of, will furnish man with
new nuts to crack. The "subtlety of nature," as Bacon terms it, will be
found too hard for his little godship. However, as respects the present
argument, if it were ever so true that, towards the end of some millions of
years, man could prevent these evils, it would not remove one iota of the
difficulties which attach to a constitution of things by which millions of
millions of the race had suffered such an infinity of sorrows, because men
had lacked a little i' sanitary" science, or show why he was doomed to
such a long curriculum to attain it.
"Atheist " or:' Pagan" as Mr. Newman thinks me, I acknowledge I
am  often equally astonished and scandalized at the " vain boastings" of




44      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."5
The evils God permits are as incomprehensible as
those He inflicts.  He smites a man with madness,
and the maniac cuts the throats of his innocent wife
and children. He gives a man an idiot for his son,
and the idiot with a laugh burns down his father's
dwelling.  He assigns a poor innocent a vicious, intemperate father, and he bears about him for threescore
years the miserable heritage of his father's vices.  He
lets some savage tyrant — nay, a succession of them
— fill a whole country with groans, and tears, and
broken hearts, and curses.  He lets the infamous slavedealer buy his living cargoes, and consign them to all
the agonies of the Middle Passage; and His patient
Omnipotence stands silently by, while, in a living death
of weeks or months, they long for "'the death which
comes not," and would bless that tornado which should
send them  to the bottom, — a tornado which, perchance, falls on some slumbering city, or sinks the
avenging cruiser instead. Is not God good then, even
in these things?  Yes, I say; yes, with an unfalteing faith; but I believe it, and cannot see it; these
things are what we should call "harsh, cruel, and unjust in man," and are utterly incomprehensible to our
" little wisdom," and  "little goodness," and  " little
love "; just as His command to exterminate the Canaanites, though not so perplexing, nor a tenth part so
perplexing, is also incomprehensible. But I believe
that God is good in spite of these facts.  Mr. Newman, on the other hand, says in effect, "I believe the
last-mentioned fact incredible, because it contradicts
science; which, after all, with all its vaunted attainments, gives us but the
alphabet of the universe. I suppose, as "pestilence" and "famine "are
to vanish, some philosophic quacks will next promise us -like him of
whom Horace Walpole tells us - an excellent " pill" against earthquakes,
or a patent for an engine to " put out " volcanoes!




HOW FAR I " INDORSE."          45
my moral and spiritual convictions of what God would
do. It attributes to God what would'be harsh, cruel,
and unjust in man'; and therefore I must reject it; the
other facts I can see are quite consistent with all the
said convictions." Try your hand on them, then, I
say, and show it. Show that they would not be
"harsh, cruel, and unjust in man," equally at war with
man's "little wisdom,"  little goodness," and all the
other little things. What! God's command to Abraham more incomprehensible than many of the things
He does and permits? It can only be because the objector does not give himself time to dwell adequately
on the things that are done and suffered to be done by
the Universal Ruler in all parts of the earth in all ages.
I have heard one of the most benevolent physicians declare, as he has seen a patient wear out long years of
agony in cancer, — agony which it was agony only
to witness, - agony which was all remediless and all
fruitless (as far as man could conceive), - that he would
have accepted with rapture a permission to put an end
to the scene of sorrow; which it was infinitely more
mysterious to him that God should suffer, than that he
should have given the command to Abraham. But, at
any rate, NA. Newman must show the difference between the cases. If he says, It is true God may do
such things himself, but he could not command Abraham to do them, because Abraham had a moral nature,
so and so constituted, -let Mr. Newman take heed; this
would be a queer proof that God's moral nature was
like that of Abraham (from which resemblance alone
Abraham inferred what God was), that He could and
might do the things which for that reason He could
not command Abraham to do. —- The reasons, then,
which make certain facts of the universe conformable
to Mr. Newman's intuitions, and certain facts of Scrip11 *




46     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
ture not conformable, must be given. That is all I ask.
Instead of complying, IMr. Newman turns round and
says, "He perceives that I believe in an unmoral
Deity!" Let us see whether I do; but whether, at the
same time, I am not rather more consistent than he in
the uniform exercise of faith.
When the young bride walks to her home with sunshine in her heart and on her path, and all life is full of
promise and of hope before her, - what is God then?
Good, we say. And what is He when we see the
same bride smitten down, and carried to the sepulchre
almost before the bridal chaplet has withered in her
hair, and her widowed husband returns to his desolate
hearth with a broken heart?  What is God then?
Good, I say; 0, doubtless good! but in strong faith I
say it, not because I can comprehend it; for man's
"little wisdom" and "little goodness" would never
have thus clouded the young dawn of hope and love.
And when the young mother, in ecstasy of maternal joy,
clasps her blooming child to her bosom, and blesses
God for the life He has given, what is God then?
Good, I say. And what is He when the same mother
watches, in agony and tears, through weeks of wasting
sickness, the same young face from which the bloom
has all departed, and begs, but begs in vain, as she
gazes on sufferings which, after all, but faintly reflect
her own, that God would be pleased in mercy to resume the life He had given? What is God then?
Good, good, I say still; though thus to have searched
and wrung the fibres of a mother's heart would have
been harsh and cruel in man, with " his little wisdom"
and " his little love." "I find no difficulty," Mr. Newman must say, " in allowing that God can do all this
in harmony with my'intuitions' of equity, justice,
and goodness; but I cannot believe that, for any pur



HOW FAR I " INDORSE."          47
pose in the universe, even for the instruction of all
ages, he would half as much have tried the heart of the
faithful patriarch."  I say, why? I beseech you, why?
Instead of answering, MVLr. Newman says, " I perceive,
sir, you believe in an unmoral Deity."
And when the " gentle west wind ungirds the bosom
of the earth," and flowers and blossoms spring forth at
its bidding, and all nature laughs in the sun, and
in the prophecy of plenty, - what is God then? Good,
all nature says, rejoicingly. But when the "heavens
are brass," and the "earth iron"; or the "winds of
death " cover the ocean with wrecks, suffocate the caravan in.the desert, or fill the city with sickness and pestilence; or locusts strip in an hour the fruits of God's
bounty and man's industry, and leave his creatures to
die, -what is He then? Good, still I say; I doubt it
not, —good and just and holy still. But, " O God!
clouds and darkness are round about thee," and man's
"litt;le wisdom" and " little goodness " cannot penetrate Thee; I believe, but cannot see, that "justice and
judgment are the habitation of thy throne." Shrouded
in tempest, thy path tracked with earthquake, and
pestilence, and famine, " how unsearchable are thy
judgments, and thy ways past finding out!"  I do not
see, virtually replies Mr. Newman, -I do not see that
these "natural events," comprehensive, and as far as
we can see undiscriminating, as are the ruin and the
agony they bring, are anything but what may be quite
made to harmonize with man's notions of what is just,
and good, and kind; but I cannot believe that the God
who can blamelessly do all these things, irrespective of
degrees of guilt,-nay, to millions who could have
none, —would have ever enjoined the destruction of
the Canaanites, let "their iniquity have been ever so
full."  Why so? I ask; how do you discriminate the




48      A DEFENCE OF C" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
two classes of facts, so as to show that, though the one
would be harsh and cruel in the light of our moral and
spiritual judgments, the other would not be?  "I perceive," is still Mr. Newman's only answer, -" I perceive, sir, that you believe in an unmoral Diety."
Why, so laughable is the misrepresentation of the
argument, that, as I have said, it is not even true that
Harrington does so. He sees and admits that the only
solution may be true; but then he consistently applies
its possible relief to both classes of phenomena, or to
neither: he says, " If it be said that there may be reasons for such apparent violations of rectitude, which
we cannot fathom, I deny it not; but that is to acknowledge that the supposed maxims derived from the
analogies of our own being are most deceptive as applied to the Supreme. It is to remit us to an act of absolute faith, by which with no greater effort, nor so great,
we may be reconciled to similar mysteries of the Bible."'
Mr. Newman says that I " admit the difficulties of
the Scripture facts to be insoluble"; I answer, that I
admit that some of them are, except by that which
makes both them and the parallel difficulties of the
universe soluble; by a reference to a power, wisdom,
and goodness infinitely greater than our own, and
which requires that we can be allowed only partially
to judge of God's character, rights, and jurisdiction.
IIarrington admits them also to be insoluble, but only
for the sake of argument, as he expressly says:" Now, whether the Bible represents God, or not, in all
these cases, as sanctioningo the things in question, I shall
not be at the pains to inquire, because I am willing to
take it for granted that Mr. Newman's representation
is perfectly correct";  but he also expresses his con* Eclipse, p. 159.           t Ibid. p. 149.




HOW FAR I " INDORSE."           49
viction that the difficulties in question are neither sd
great nor so numerous as many of the parallel difficulties in nature; and here I fully  indorse and confirm" his argument. But I do not admit that either
the one class of difficulties or the other invalidates the
conclusion, from a vast preponderance of proof, external and internal, that God is holy, just, and good.
Such is my defence - I venture to say, a consistent
one -against Mr. Newman's representation, which I
do not wonder that many should think a ruse to escape
from an inconvenient dilemma. This passionate iteration of my belief in an unmoral Deity, is the only
answer that Harrington gets to his argument, and I
rather think the only answer Mr. Newman is likely to
give. If not, there it is; let him try his hand upon it.
If Mr. Newman attempt an answer to these stupendous difficulties by saying that God must act according
to " general laws," which necessarily involve an infinitude of misery in their application, he carries the argument only one step further back; for then, of course,
he is requested to tell us why God must act according
to such general laws; and whether he can demonstrate
that Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Love could not construct a world without an infinity of sorrow in it, or
even a world without ally sorrow at all?  He tells us
in " The Soul," " that, when the flesh of a martyr is agonized by the flames, God gives the fire power to burn
him, not because He wishes it on that particular occasion to burn, but because it is better to adhere to a fixed
system, so that the element which burns at one time
should burn also at another."   But can he demonstrate the necessity of a " fixed system," in which there
should be martyrs to burn, and cities to be swallowed
* Soul, p. 37.




50     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.?
up alive by earthquakes and baked in volcanic lava?
Let him not say again that I doubt any more than he
that " a good God reigns over all ": I doubt it as little
as he can do; and I am only anxious to show that the
difficulties against which we must all contend are of
the same nature and of equal insolubility —only a
thousand times more numerous - with the parallel difficulties of Scripture. If he attempt to remove them
by his theories respecting the origin of evil, I laugh
- just as Harrington does, and as everybody else must
do - at the complacent flourish of his little metaphysical conjuring-wand.  Mr. Newman's petty theories
throw no light on this great mystery; as little as if he
brought a farthing candle to illumine the dread abyss
out of whose yawning archway the icy waters of an
Alpine glacier sullenly rush into day.
He says, indeed, with the same instinct for keeping
at a safe distance from the argument, "What hinders
me from saying that I know all these facts, and I do
not see that they prove Pagoanism? What hinders me?
— is it only the intense dogmatism of a fictitious person, who blusteringly rules that (whatever I pretend to
the contrary) the FACTS of the universe ARE Pagan? " 
Who said that they prove Paganism? - who said they
proved an "immoral Deity"?  What Mr. Newman
has to show is, that these facts are, not merely believed
to be reconcilable with equity and goodness; (I believe
it as much as he can, though I see it not;) but to prove
that these facts are reconcilable with equity and goodness, and that the parallel difficulties of the Scripture
are not. When he has shown that, he will have said
something to the purpose.
Now if he ask what shall "hinder him" from simply
* Phases. Reply, p. 27.




HOW FAR I " INDORSE."            51
affirming, without proving, that, I reply, I know not
what will hinder him from so acting, because it is easy
to see that very few things can hinder so wayward a
logic as his from coming to any conclusion whatever;
but I know what ought to hinder him, and that is,
Reason and Modesty. But, at all events, till he can
show that the appalling facts which the history of
Providence presents are more reconcilable with man's
" little wisdom, goodness, and love " than the facts he
objects to in the Bible, it will be as well (as he does at
present) to keep silence on the matter; for if he says
he can resolve the problem, and does not, there is not
one out of a million that will not believe him egregiously mistaken. If he can solve the problem, the
sooner he sets about it the better. But it will not be
enough simply to call these " natural" events.'
To call the " events " in question " natural," (such as
the earthquake at Lisbon, the destruction of Catania,
and so on,) is to slur over the difficulty. They occur, —
we know that too well, if that is what is meant by
" natural." But the perplexity is to reconcile them with
our moral notions of the equitable and the kind. If it
be said the general tendency of such events may be
beneficial, thbugh attended with exquisite misery and
destruction to thousands, the question returns, how it
can be reconciled with our notions of equity, to make
thousands " exquisitely miserable" to secure a benefit
to some other thousands, or some multiple of them.
Lastly, if it be said, " It is doubtless very unfortunate,
but even Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Goodness could
not do any better," that is to beg the question, and to
remit us to a faith which will not be apt to stumble
at the few parallel difficulties of the Bible. The only
Reply, p. 26.




52      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."9
other escapes are by Atheism (or Pantheism) and
Manichaeism.  Of these I have said little in " The
Eclipse of Faith"; but not because I have nothing to
say, as I may perhaps show hereafter.  The " Chaos
of Faith" might furnish as ample and as instructive a
theme.
Mr. Newman tells us, that 1" his faith in the moral
qualities of the Infinite Deity does not rest" on the
" sterner facts " of the universe.' I should think not.
Did ever anybody's faith rest on the very difficulties
which oppose and try it? Once more; what he has
to show is, that those facts are consistent with that
faith, while those of Scripture are not.
Mr. Newman, indeed, hints at an answer which he
seems half afraid to resort to; and wisely; for doubtless he felt the frail ice cracking under him. He tells
me that " I demand, as a reasonable preliminary, that
we will approach the Book with the very same reverence
as we approach the Universe, and will assume that the
Book is the' Word' of God as surely as the Universe
is his' Work.' "    I do not want him to assume either;
but if he means that I think it reasonable to apply his
internal criterion of what is to be rejected as unworthy
of God (a test derived exclusively from our moral intuitions) equally to the alleged Works and alleged
Word of God, - I answer, to be sure I do, if I am to
apply his own criterion at all, and that criterion is
worth a button, - namely, that what we should feel
to be in man harsh, cruel, or unjust, we reject as at
once unworthy of God. If this be true, there is no
help for it. If this criterion is to be absolutely trusted,
then it will be equally applicable to the big " world "
and to the little " book," -- to the works and to the
* Reply, p. 36.            i Ibid. p. 30.




HOW FAR I "6 INDORSE. T                53
words of God. It is, in fact, striotly applicable to
neither, and  for these very sufficient reasons; first,
that men themselves are not agreed that any such criterion will apply (as these very controversies sufficiently
show) to all that God can rightfully do; and, secondly,
that men do not agree as to what are the " moral and
spiritual" intuitions by which they can measure God;
but all "nations, kindreds, and people," making gods
after their own "corrupt minds," have manufactured
for themselves a variety of deities, most of them  unmoral and immoral enough.
Mr. Newman has a curious comment on Harrington's bruzsque dismissal of his little theories for getting
rid of the difficulties connected with the permission of
such an infinitude of physical and moral evil; —" those
awful formss" as the sceptic calls them, which Mr. Newman, with his accustomed candor and felicity, translates
to mean "the horrible phenomena  of Nature which
suggest the immorality of God." * Harrington says:
" I certainly know of no other man who has stood so
unabashed in front of these awful forms.  One almost
envies him the truly childlike faith with which he
waves his hand to these Alps, and says,' Be ye removed and cast into the sea'; but the feeling is exchanged for another, when he seems to rub his eyes,
and exclaim,'Presto! they are gone sure enough!'
while you still feel that you stand far within the circumference of their awful shadows." ~
* Reply, p. 33.
t Mr. Newman says: " The author of' The Eclipse' admits that the
charges of immorality which he so vehemently urges against the God ot
Nature (!) press with equal weight against the God of Christianity." I
need not say that I urge no such charges (against either the God of Nature
or the God of Christianity. The reader, I dare say, understands by this
time, - though it is convenient for Mr. Newman to forget it, - that the
argument is purely hypothetical, and on the assumption of Mr. Newman's
12




54        A DEFENCE OF s" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
Mr. Newman, -for reasons best known  to  himself,
printed the last words in italics, and the personal pronoun  " YOU" 1 in  capitals; and then  asks," On which
then of us two has an Eclipse of Faith fallen? "   What
wonderful power of refutation is to consist in the capitals I know not, the meaning of the passage being
plain enough without any such emphasis, — that in
spite of Mr. Newman's curt formuloe of conjuration,
you, gentle reader! 1, and every one, are encompassed
in those shadows which the dread mystery of the "origin
of evil"  has cast on  every  spirit that has  ever profoundly  meditated  it, and  which  Faith, and  nothing
but Faith, relieves.
premises; that if, as he says, the God of the Bible is chargeable with immoralities, the charge must be extended to the God of Nature, for he does
the same things. " If I tell him," says my critic, 1" that the intended sacrifice of a first-born son did not deserve eulogy; he has no reply whatever,
except that the God of Nature is equally atrocious."  I need not say that
the word " atrocious " is Mr. Newman's, not mine. I may here take notice
of a convenient abridgment of Mr. Newman's. In lieu of quoting Harrington's illustration of the difficulties which are " found " in the administration of the universe, Mr. Newman says, " What are found? I cannot'
quote such diffuse writing at full; but it is,'things which shock the moral
sense as flagrantly immoral, and which Mr. Newman must reject as not
sanctioned by God.' He presently (p. 152) gives, as examples, the earthquake of Lisbon and the plague of London, which are thus laid down to
be flagrant immoralities, which not only will make Mr. Harrington an
atheist or pagan, but (he adds) ought to make me such, if I am consistent."
(Reply, p. 26.) Here Mr. Newman, who complains that people do not
quote enough of him, cannot quote such diffuse writing as " The Eclipse
of Faith."  However, short as is the passage in single inverted commas,
it is rather too much; and though given as Harrington's statement, it is
not his, nor do I accept it; as before and all along, Mr. Newman quite
forgets that the argument is founded on Mr. Newman's own principles;
that if the things he objects to in the Bible be "immoral," the things cited
by Harrington are so. One as hasty as himself might ask here, Who is
guilty of "stealthy misrepresentation," and "gross garbling" 2 But I
do not; the eccentricity of Mr. Newman's logic shall still entitle him to
charity.




TIHE THEORY OF i" PROGRESS.'"    5
SECTION   III.
WHETHER MR. NEWMIAN'S THEORY, THOUGH HE MEANS
IT NOT) DOES NOT INVOLVE THE CONCEPTION OF AN
IMMORAL DEITY.
HAvING defended myself from the grotesque charge
of having pleaded for an unmoral or immoral Deity, let
not Mr. Newman imagine that I am content to let it
end with defence. With more reason I make reprisals.
Though I will not imitate Mr. Newman's injustice, by
representing him as consciously pleading for an " immoral Deity," I do contend that it is his theory, not
mine (notwithstanding all his moral and spiritual intuitions), which directly involves the notion.
I believe in the God of the Bible; I believe in a
God who created man holy, innocent, and happy, reflecting his image, and participating in his felicity; and
that when God created him he said of him, as of all
else that came immediately from his hand, that his,
creature was " very good."  I believe in that God, if
that is to believe in an immoral Deity; but what sort
of God is it which Mr. Newman's theory requires?
Why, one who is supposed to have launched man into
the world, not only with a nature no better than he
possesses now, but in a condition worse than that of
the worst idolater, as the starting-point for that long
curriculum of " Progress," in which "the old barbarism" and " methodized Egyptian idolatry " are to be
supposed hopeful epochs and notable stages of improvement from his original condition! "The law of




56     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.))
God's moral universe," says Mr. Newman, "' as known
to us, is that of Progress. We trace it from old
barbarism to the methodized Egyptian idolatry, — to
the more flexible polytheism of Syria and Greece," -
(is the worship of Baal and Astarte, of Venus and
Bacchus, the most hateful and fearful exhibitions of
the corruptions of man, veiled under this polite periphrasis?) -"to the poetical pantheism of philosophers, and the moral monotheism of a few sages";'
- the last term not being of the nature of a return in
the right direction after deflection from it, but a gradual ascent from the depths of something worse than
Plato's Cave, - a gradual advance from the " old barbarism " and "Fetichism" to which the Theory of
Progress remits us. In such a condition is man supposed to have made his debut, on this most hopeful of
all theories of God and the universe! It is certainly
not my idea of a moral Deity, - for it is not, thanks be
to God! that of the Bible, —that the Deity chucked
his human offspring into the world, such in his original nature as he is now, with all its infirmities, and
such in his condition that an Egyptian idolater, adoring
his Apes, his Cats, and his Onions, might regard him
with compassion, as not having yet reached his own
happy religious improvements on the primeval "barbarism"! Deliberately doomed, ab initio, to grope his
way through unnumbered ages, from the starting-point
of Fetichism through all the horrors and cruelties of
the darkest superstition, each stage is an improvement,
it seems, on the original felicity in which a God of unlimited benevolence had fixed his lot! -the result being, that, after ten thousand years or so — it may be
much more (for aught Mr. Newman professes to be
* Phases, p. 169.




THE THEORY OF   o PRiOGRESS."     57
able to tell us) - some score or two of philosophers - I
fear I am exaggerating the number, or, rather, I hope
it - may luxuriate in the delightful prospect thus unfolded of the beneficence and morality of the Deity!
It is true, indeed, that Mr. Newman does not, so far as
I can find, expressly sanction the old theory of man's
original savageismz; but, as Harrington says, it is the
necessary complement of the correspondent religious
theory. For would it not be an absurdity to imagine
a developed intellect and the lowest Fetichism, —a
mind in full possession of its powers and a soul brutish enough to flatter itself that it was making " progress " as it passed through the preliminary stages of
such Fetichism to the remote refinements of the Syrian
or Egyptian idolatry? We must, therefore, fancy man
feeling his way at once to the lowest elements of civilization and the most elementary conceptions of religion.
And as savages make no rapid progress (some philosophers say they cannot, and all history shows they do
not) without instruction from without, and as by the
supposition primeval man could not have any, it is
hard to say how  many ages he crawled before he
walked, lived on berries and acorns before his first incipient attempts at cookery, yelled his uncouth gibberish
before he made (if he could ever make) the refined discovery of an articulate language, and lighted on his first
deity in the shape of a bright pebble or an old fishbone, and was in raptures at the discovery! Or, rather,
it is hard to say how the poor wretch ever survived the
experiment of any such introduction to the world at all.
Some philosophers have defined man as a laughing
animal. I am afraid that on this theory it was some
ages before he found any thing to laugh at. It must
have been very long before his "differentia " appeared.
I have said that I do not know whether Mr. New12*




58     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.'
man would formally accept the hypothesis of the originally savage condition of man; but it is obviously the
only logical complement of the religious theory in
question, and the mention of the'"old barbarism"
would also imply it. I am sure it will be admitted by
any one admitting the religious theory, unless he is
prepared to rush into the most outrageous incongruities. But whether Mr. Newman accepts it or not, I
lay no stress upon it; that man began in the " old barbarismn,' and in the condition of the lowest Fetish
worshipper, is quite sufficient for me; the nature of the
progress of the unhappy creature, from such a hopeful
beginning, may be easily anticipated, and forms a rnelancholy comment on the moral character of the Deity who
is thus supposed to have sent man into the world, so
strangely equipped for his destinies. The advocates of
this " progress " often speak of it as if it were like the
"progress " of a happy child under the guidance of a
wise and beneficent father, or our " progress' in science, where each step is an advance, and unattended
with regrets; whereas this progress is tracked all the
way through with tears and slaughter, groans and
curses, ignorance and impurity, the most hateful cruelties, the most degrading superstition. If perfectly innocent man was ab initio doomed to such a curriculum as this, (and what its remaining term, if Christianity indeed be false, and not destined to abridge it, no
mortal can tell,) can any one say with a safe conscience that he thinks this theory relieves the difficulties of the Bible? On this hypothesis, the fearful condition of our world is not a calamity, not a thing to be
deplored, not the shadow of sin thrown across it, but
the natural evolution, the spontaneous product, of creative energy and unlimited love. I say, and say it fearlessly, that this Juggernaut which a fantastical Theory




THE THEORY OF " PROGRESS.'       59
of Progress presents us with, is what men will not believe in, and that they would sooner become Atheists
than do so.
No; if this be the idea of a moral Deity, —of infinite Power, Wisdom, and Goodness manifesting their
creative energies, - I thankfully acknowledge it receives no countenance from the Bible. It is not there
that I find that man entered the universe as a " barbarian" and Fetish-worshipper, who might envy the
beasts themselves.  Let but the imagination duly
dwell on the picture of innocent man making his appearance, under the benediction of an infinitely beneficent Creator, in the condition of one of the aborigines
of Australia,- with similar tatters of an understanding
and conscience, little better than Lord Monboddo's
first monkey-man, only without the tail; and I defy
any man to lay his hand on his heart and say that this
is an improvement on the Bible theory of the "1 Morality of God."
And as such notions of the origin of man certainly
give one a very queer idea of a moral Deity, not less
strange is that given by Mr. Newman's views of his
destiny; for, according to his theology, it is most probable that the successive generations of men, with perfect indifference to their relative moral conditions, their
crimes or wrongs, are all knocked on the head together,
and that future adjustment and retribution is a dream.
I believe, as the Bible tells me, that our God is a perfectly righteous Governor; that He will " awake to
judgment," though He be silent long; that He is an
exact observer of the moral character of men, and wTill
treat them accordingly; not willing to punish any, and
when He does finally punish, (that at least is the declaration of the Bible, however we may dispute about
some texts,) punishing only according to demerit in




60       A DEFENCE OF " THIE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
this life.  According to Mr. Newman's theory, a moral
Deity is formally and precisely what man, even with
his " little wisdom  and goodness," considers as the
very type and essence of an immoral Governor; — one
to whom the despot and his victim, — the oppressor
and the oppressed, - the Neros and the Howards, -
the Hayleys and the Uncle Toms, are alike indifferent;
or, rather, by whom the former are often better treated
than the latter, being allowed to flourish "like the
green bay-tree," and swept away at last, along with
their victims, by the "besom of destruction," into one
common  oblivion!  And  all for what, once more?
For little more, so far as can be discovered, than this,
— that a few philosophers may, after a million of years
or so, arise to establish this delightful idea of a moral
Deity; they, in like manner, after enjoying this satisfactory glimpse, being destined to pass away for ever! 
One thing I am perfectly certain of, that, this theory of
the future is so utterly untenable with the notions of a
moral Deity possessed of a moral nature at all like
our own, that any one who has got as far as Mr.
Newman's "fixed moral basis," and is capable of pursuing a principle to its consequences, will say, " Either
I must give up the idea of a moral Deity altogether,*
or I must reject Mr. Newman's views of man's immortality."
It is vain to say that the Bible also has its difficulties
on the subject of the permission of evil, and the destinies of man.  It is true.  What theory has not?  But 1
feel, as Harrington urges, that the theory we have just
* If Mr. Newman says, that he has left the question of immortality
doubtful, it does not affect this argument; for, as he admits the probability
of there being no Future Life, he must be prepared to vindicate the administration of his moral Deity on that supposition. The cord cannot be
monger than its weakest part.




THE THEORY OF " PROGRESS.?        61
considered indefinitely aggravates them all. The Bible
theory does, at all events, represent man as created innocent, and holy, and happy, and does not shut the door
against the possibility of God's proving himself a moral
Governor; —  on the contrary, assures us that He will
prove himself an exact one. Now, since the above
curious theory is devised to supplant the Biblical theory,
and for the benefit of those who are invited to abandon
the latter, it is of no use to plead the Biblical difficulties, while its own are greater.
Every syllable, therefore, of Harrington's argument
on the God of Mr. Newman's theory, (I believe Mr.
Newman's conception happily does not correspond to
his theory,) I do "indorse and confirm."  I say with
the sceptic, - "It is not even true that the difficulties
in question are left where they were by the adoption
of any such theory as that of either Mr. Parker or Mr.
Newman..... According to their theory, I must believe that God cast man forth, so constituted by the
unhappy mal-admixture of the elements of his nature,
- with such an inevitable subjection of the'idea' to
the' conception,' of the' spiritual faculty' to the'degraded types,' - that for unnumbered ages - for aught
we know, myriads of ages - man has been slowly
crawling up, a very sloth in'progress,' (poor beast!)
from the lowest Fetichism to Polytheism, - from Polytheism, in all its infinitude of degrading forms, to imperfect forms of Monotheism; and how small a portion
of the race- have even imperfectly reached this last
term, let the spectacle of the world's religions at the
present moment proclaim.....    For this gradual transformation from the veriest religious grub into the spiritual Psyche, man was expressly equipped by the
constitution of his nature, - he was created this
grub. For all this truly geological spiritualism, and




62      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
for all the infinitude of hideous superstitions and cruel
wrongs involved in the course of this precious development, Mr. Parker tells us there was a necessity,nothing less!"'  "For this, then, man was created;
such a thing he was, —through this' ordeal' he passes,
- by original destination. If this be the picture of
the Father of All, he is less kind to his offspring than
the most intimate'intuitions' teach them to be to
theirs.. If I am to abjure the Bible because it
gives me unworthy conceptions of the Deity, I must,
with more reason, abjure, on similar grounds, such a
detestable theory of man's creation, destination, and
history." -
When Mr. Newman, therefore, says I "' pollute and
defile his God," I deny it. I hope and believe that he
does not realize his own theory; but I say that, regarded as a moral Deity, the Deity of his theory —
the Moloch of Progress - cannot be defiled or polluted.
It is not the God of the Bible; it is not the God of
Nature, which is silent as to any such intimations
either of the origin of man or the administration of
the universe; and the general convictions of men in all
ages, when framed in obedience to those moral intuitions, to which Mr. Newman so confidently appeals,
prove that such a God is not the God of human consciousness!
Such, however, are the difficulties into which our
deistical philosophers are perforce led, and of which
they will never get rid. Discarding the revelations of
the Bible with contempt, they yet are compelled to
give us a book of " Genesis " of their own, and a book
of "Revelation"; and'in doing so present us with
theories of the origin, primeval condition, and destiny
* Eclipse, pp. 160 - 162.    t Page 163.




THE THEORY OF 1" PROGRESS."       63
of our race, not only purely conjectural and abundantly contradictory, but unspeakably more difficult to believe than that of the Bible itself; and such, let Mr.
Newman be assured, that men will sooner become
atheists than adopt.
It is in vain for Mr. Newman to say, that we Christians endeavor to destroy every " third "' possibility between the Bible and Atheism. This third possibility
- such a God as he describes - is felt by the best instincts of man to be none at all, but an absolute incredibility. They cannot worship the Deity which this
theory of Progress presents them with, and would
sooner become stark atheists at once. Mr. Newman
says that Mr. Holyoake has lectured on his book, and
"behaved with courtesy and generosity."  No doubt
Mr. Holyoake will regard his books with leniency.
He well knows whither Mr. Newman's theory will
lead, and what sort of converts it will ultimately make.
The sportsman does not shoot his own pointer.
Mr. Newman himself instructs us whither his " fixed
moral basis" is likely to carry him.  He says: "A
serious atheist like Mr. G. J. Holyoake holds morality
as I do, to be a fixed certainty, but doubts whether
there is any personal God. But Mr. Harrington is unsettled on both points." I should have thought, by the
wvay, that any reader of " The Eclipse" must have
been certain that he was not.' IM'r. Newman goes on:
" With him morality has no fixedness; indeed, he is
insolent with me because I treat it as an immovable
foundation which I will not allow to be tampered with
by any pretence of miracle; and he is equally uncertain whether there is any good God. Thus, of my two
principles, the real atheist, Mr. Holyoake, holds one, and
* See his express disavowal of Atheism, Eclipse, pp. 164, 165.




64      A DEFENCE OF G TLHE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.")
the more fundamental one; but Mr. Harrington holds
neither." ~  I shall be heartily glad' to hear that the
words in Italics are an inadvertence; for amidst the
variety of human judgments, a fixed basis of morality
may easily be shown to be a quicksand without any
personal God.
In fine, in reference to the whole subject of these
two sections, people will more and more say,- 4 If
the positive evidences for Theism, and the positive evidences for Christianity, be found of force, we cannot
allow the parallel moral difficulties still besetting both
to be treated on totally different principles. Reason
for both, if you will, or Faith for both, if you will;
but not Reason to object to the latter, and then Faith
to digest the former.  Wre will not be told that our
reason is to bow to the one, and then to rebel against
the other, because some man tells us that God cannot
do this or that, when not only do we see that He does
similar things (which you tell us are to be received by
faith alone), but the generality of men themselves tell
us that they can as soon apply faith to the one class of
difficulties as the other."  This is the cage which Butler provides for those who reject the Bible on account
of a certain class of difficulties; and a fair way of escape must be found.
* Reply, p. 25.




EXIGENCIES OF DEISM.           65
SECTION IV.
THE EXIGENCIES OF DEISM.
AND now, because I insist that there are facts in the
universe of God as difficult to be accounted for, and
as baffling to man's reason, as the facts for which the
infidel so often rejects the Scripture; and because I
insist that the image of the God they often " project"
— though they intend it not — aggravates all those
difficulties a thousand fold, — let Mr. Newman, if he
will, reiterate his charge, that I am uttering " profane
scoffs against the God of Nature, which too clearly
come from the heart ": -to that I condescend to make
no reply. My appeal is to Him who knows the heart,
who knows mine, with all its infirmities, faults, and
follies, and how much, how infinitely, it needs his
compassion and forgiveness; but He knows this also,
that it desires to harbor not one disloyal thought to
Him as " the King of kings, aiid the Lord of lords ";
as " the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the Blessed
and only Potentate "; not a thought that would impugn his infinite justice, wisdom, and goodness.
These I believe perfect and infinite, on preponderating
evidence, though I confess I cannot reconcile all the
acts of his infinite government with the little measure of man's infinitesimal wisdom  and goodness.
These are my sentiments, in harmony, as I believe,
with that Book which has reinforced what at best
would have been, but for that, the faltering conclusions
of my reason: as such conclusions have ever been but
13




66     A DEFENCE OF THE " ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
faltering among all the nations that have been without
it. I have said what I have said, only to prove the precarious grounds on which many infidels would chiefly
persuade us to reject that Book, without even considering the positive evidence for it; and to prevent some
of my young countrymen from indulging presumptuous hopes, under the notion that "1 God is altogether
such a one as " themselves, or rather the variable thing
several men would make him; sometimes with analogous moral qualities and sometimes not; sometimes
exercising a general providence only, sometimes a
special one; sometimes this and sometimes that. I
have spoken to prevent their resting in vain theories,
which tell us, though professedly without authority and
infinitely discordant,, that God cannot do this or that
which he is reported to have done in the Scriptures,
when we have but to open our eyes and see that he
can do, and does, like things equally strange; and to
prevent their rashly casting away that light which wise
heathen longed to see, and which would have been so
welcome; — light which we must have (as the shifting
course of human speculation shows), if we would confront the mysteries in which the Divine government
and our ignorance of the origin and destinies of man
involve us. The face of God to guilty man resembles
that of the sun, -that type and image of His glory;
— in himself too bright for the dazzled eye to bear, he
now bathes rejoicing nature in the glowing tints of
morning or the golden pomp of sunset, now piles the
thunder-clouds about him and casts a lurid light upon
the world from behind that stormy pavilion; - and
anon hides himself for days together within an impenetrable curtain of wintry cloud and tempest. -
Thrice welcome surely, under the changing aspects of
the Infinite One, should be the message of Him who




EXIGENCIES OF DEISM.           67
came to make known to us the Father in disclosures
equally " full of grace and truth "; and to assure us,
amidst the variable phenomena of the universe, that
"He is without variableness or the shadow of a turning."
That the Atheist should sullenly acquiesce in his
ignorance, I can understand. Not that he is not the
victim of an infinite fallacy, if he supposes (as he is so
apt to suppose) that Atheism gives him any hostages
against futurity; for if his stray consciousness has
somehow wandered into this world, - we cannot say
why, for none can know that on his hypothesis, —it
may find its way into another world, not quite so eligible as this. His next move, for aught he can tell, may
be for eight thousand years into Saturn, with a hump
on his back and a cancer in his stomach. But at all
events he cannot help himself; he must take the
4' goods " not "' which the gods provide " him, but the
goods, or perchance the evils, which necessity may supply. He can only say, as to the one, " I need exercise
no gratitude," -pleasant thought! - and as to the
other, " I must exercise my fortitude."
The acquiescence of the Deist, considering the hopeless discordance of his theories and his utter darkness
in relation to the origin and the destinies of man, I do
not so easily understand. But one thing is clear, clear
as the day, that human nature in general perfectly
understands his pretensions, and has plainly shown
throughout Europe for the last two hundred and fifty
years, (where the Deist has often spoken under every
advantage,) that it will have nothing to do with him;
that it will not accept his guidance. Man asks, as I
have before said, for a book of Genesis and a book of
Revelation, and these the Deist cannot give. Rejecting all authority, he can, by the very terms of his




68     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."i
theory, give only his own conjectures, and these are infinitely discordant; and to one and all of them man
asks, Who told you all this? It is in vain for him to
say that nothing better than conjecture can be offered,
because man feels this is the very thing he must escape.
Thus the Deist's inability to give any solution of questions to which all history shows that man intensely
craves, and will have, an answer, true or false, together
with the discordances and vacillations of the systems
of Deism in reference to the true theory of religion and
morals, even within the little sphere of its ordinary
speculations, prevents it from exercising any considerable influence. All facts show that, whomsoever man
takes as his religious guide, he will not take the iDeist.
Hence the slow progress, or rather the no progress,
which Deism has made since Lord Herbert's time to
this. Deism is always carting away what it calls rubbish, and always digging foundations; but the promised building never peeps above the surface of the
earth, or if it does rise a few inches above it, the thing
"of hay, wood, and stubble" is swept away again in
the next tempest of controversy. If;" Christ speaks
with authority and not as the Scribes," the Deists in this,
as in other respects, are diametrically opposed to him;
for they speak as Scribes, and not with authority. To
demonstrate simply the existence of a Being of infinite
attributes, man feels is not sufficient for him. He
wants to know his relations to that Being, and that
Being's aspects towards him; for a profound consciousness on his own part, the deepest philosophy, and
a million facts, assure him that there is something
wrong in the world, - something " out of course." He
turns to the Deist, who gives him  a variety of conjectures; and that is all.
Whether the Deist frames so peculiar a notion of a




EXIGENCIES OF DEISM.            69
"moral Deity," as to suppose that God created the
first man as a grotesque savage, doomed to ignorance,
misery, vice, and superstition by the original constitu.
tion of his nature, and that his almost equally luckless children, after their " few and evil days," are (oppressors and oppressed alike) consigned to indiscriminate annihilation; whether he pleads, as many have
done, that there is a future state, or, as many others
have done, that there is none; whether he says, as
some have said, that there is a happy immortality for
a few, and a convenient annihilation for the many, oi
that all are at last to be brought, somehow or other,
and some time or other, to a stable felicity; whether he
contends that God has moral qualities analogous to
ours, or, with Bolingbroke, that He has not; whether
he believes, with Bolingbroke, that there is no special
providence at all, but only a general one, or, with
others, that a general providence without a special one
is an absurdity and contradiction; —still, in these and
numberless other cases, the question is asked, " And
which of these men am I to believe? and why?"
Mr. Parker, for example, in the course of his "development," seems at length to be in a little dubiety
whether the phenomena of external nature will justify
us in referring the entire universe to one only absolutely beneficent Deity. But it little matters; for he
condescends to assure us, in a recent publication, that
it will all come right at last. The tremors which may
fill the heart when we commit the Atheist to the grave,
and the tranquil hope with which we lay the sincere
Christian there, are alike illusive; if the Atheist is not
converted in this world, he will be in Jupiter or Sirius,
or somewhere or other; and if not now, a thousand, or
ten thousand, or a million of years hence! Mr. Parker
is suclh a man!  He can tell us szch things!  Is this
13*




70     A DEFENCE oF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
UJniversalism now a real communication from 1" our
own correspondent" in the future world?  Is it some
deep echo from the eternal abyss that salutes our ears,
or is it the tinkle of the little bell which summons us
to consult Mr. Parker's private oracle?  Alas! he does
not tell us why an Atheist, who has been so for eighty
years amidst the proofs of a God here, may not be one
for a million of years, or for ever, supposing only proofs
of the same moral kind to be given; or why he, who
has persisted in spite of present laws to violate the
conditions of his existence, may not continue to do so
in perpetuity; or why, if he cannot be amended, he
should not, as some say, be annihilated at death; or
why, as others say, he should not be punished for a
time, and then annihilated, but not "restored"; or
why, as yet others say, both good and bad should not
be annihilated together at death; or why, --- in short,
there is no end to conjecture, and this is all, avowedly,
that Mr. Parker can give; for he rejects all external
revelation. Why, then, should men believe Mr. Parker
any more than anybody else? They may say, with
Socrates, "Hear a dream for a dream.'  If the Deist
replies, And why should the Christian expect his fellowmen to bow down to his dream? he answers, that he
is not fool enough to expect or wish anything of the
kind. He says, " It is not like your theory, one of
many guesses; it is nothing of mine. Christianity
professes to be founded on sufficient evidence, of various' kinds, addressed to men in general; examine that
evidence, and reject it, if you really find it insufficient;
but do not impute to the Christian the absurdity which
you Deists are all practising; that is, of giving us your
divers guesses as if they were anything more than
guesses, with as, much dogmatism and confidence as if
you could appeal to some external evidence; while, in




EXIGENCIES OF DEISM.                     71
the very midst of reciprocally discordant theories,
which, to us and to your fellow-deists who differ from
you, can only rest on external evidence, you exclaim,
that no such external evidence is accessible, or (as some
of you say) even possible!"
I faithfully promise to recant these taunts, when I
find the faintest symptoms of Deism being a thing of
influence, measured by any of the criteria by which we
judge a thing to be so; when I find any the slightest
appearance of internal cohesion  or outward  activity;
when I find as many of its votaries as make the smallest sect amongst Christians, professing approximate
agreement in their own religious theory, or so far in
love with  it, as to  make the  minutest sacrifices of
wealth or ease to render it triumphant;  when I find
them  taking  the  smallest islet of the  Pacific, or the
smallest tribe of barbarian idolaters, under their religious teaching, and endeavoring to establish at least
one little model farm of the true Deistico-spiritual culb
ture!  But no; it is easier to stay at home, and talk,
-- and talk, -  and  talk, and  say that " faith is departed," and " Christianity obsolete." I feel very much
at my ease when  Mr. Newman rebukes me for rebuking Mr. Parker for his excessive latitudinarianism; towards whom, Mr. Newman says, " I am  so scornful,"
* It is easy, of course, to conceive of a combination (I am told there is
one), not exactly " the propagation of" Deism " in foreign parts," nor, indeed, at home, but for the promotion of anything called " Free thought,"
between systems of Atheism and Pantheism, and that thrice-distilled
Spiritualism, which nothing but the language of the Scriptures can satisfy! Of course such combination would be simply destructive; it would
just set everything afloat, not fix anything. Many of our new theologians
seem to think it is of little consequence what is believed, provided historical Christianity is not. I almost fancy that, if some were asked, "What
is Truth? " they would reply, " Truth consists — in the falsehood of historical Christianity."




72     A DEFENCE OF "s TIE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
because Mr. Parker has a "brother's heart" towards
the pagans whose happy " absolute religion" he celebrates.
No; I shall not go to Mr. Parker to learn " charity,"
but to a very different class of men; men who do not
regard gross idolatry and superstition as very good
things in their way, and all in their turn of signal
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 patronizes
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 civilization, and will not even pay emissaries to do its
work, if itself cannot; which calumniates the Christian, who is endeavoring 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 characterized Deism, and characterizes 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




EXIGENCIES OF DEISMI.          73
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 havre 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 Mir. 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 endeavor 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 anything, it is that men will not be Atheists;
and that, even if ATHEISM be the TRUTH, there-is no




74     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.9
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!




CHARGES OF " MISREPRESENTATION."      75
SECTION V.
CHARGES OF A " MISREPRESENTATION " AND " GARBLING.S'
AND now for the paraded charges of "gross garbling " and " stealthy misrepresentation."
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 lattei subject
he gives an eclaircissenzent, not before it was needed,
and still, I venture to say, requiring a further'clair'cissement, 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 sympathize
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
6divorce' 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




t76     iA DEFENCE OF THE L" ECLIPSE OF FAITH.T"
image which fell down from Jupiter. He never quotes
enough fromn me to let his reader understand what is
meant by'the words which he does quote."   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."$ t  " THE PROCESSES OF
THOUGHT HAVE NOTHING TO QUICKEN THE CONSCIENCE
OR AFFECT THE SOUL."*1  " 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 everybody 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." It 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 idolaters in the world? that is,
* Reply, p. 18.           t Soul, p. 223, 2d ed.
$ Soul, p. 245, 2d ed.   ~ Soul, p. 30.
I Ibid.




CHARGES OF ", MISREPRESENTATION.T"   77
that only those are 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," -a sort of
Noah's ark, only with the proportions of clean and un —
clean 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
carcass, which may poison us, and disgust mankind." t
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
~ Pages 72, 73, 2d ed.     a Soul, p. 248.
14




78      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITIH."I
to whom I would deny the benefit of having contradicted himself I have said, speaking to M/fr. Fellowes,
G" The divorce between the   spiritual faculties' and
the intellect, which your favorite, Mir. Newman, has
attempted to effect, is impossible.  It is an attempt
to sever phenomena which coexist in the unity of our
own consciousness. I am bound in justice to admit
that there are others of our' modern spiritualists' who
condemn this preposterous attempt to separate what
God hath joined so inseparably. Even Mr. Newman
does practically contradict his owenu, assertions; and outraged reason and intellect have avenged his wrongs
upon them by deserting him when he has invoked
them, and left him to express his paradoxes in endless
perplexity and confusion.' ~ A similar assertion, that
it is impossible for even the most "' fanatical spiritualist" to avoid using expressions at variance with the
theory, may be seen at a subsequent page. t
But whatever inconsistencies any such passages
might present, is it any fault of mine that the abovecited clear, categorical assertions were taken to mean
what they seemed to mean? and that, however incapable of being harmonized with less absolute or obscure
assertions in other places, here, if anywhere, was to be
found Mr. Newman's true theory of the relations of Intellect and Faith?
Mr. Newman says, that I do not quote enough to let
the reader know his sentiments. I answer, that I know
nothing more precise than the statements I have quoted,
and I admitted that they were abundantly inconsistent
with other passages. I ask, as I have already done,
how much of so peculiar a writer must I quote before
the reader can be made acquainted with his sentiments?
* Eclipse, p. 306.          t Ibid. p. 309.




CHARGES OF 6" MISREPRESENTATION."      79
Similar observations apply to the related case of alleged " gross garbling," of which Mr. Newman accuses
the Author of 1" The Eclipse." It occurs in Harrington's disquisition, who ascribes to Mr. Newman (I
think naturally enough) a belief in a spiritual faculty
of internal illumination in man, which " supersedes,
by anticipating, all external revelation, and renders it
superfluous"; or, as he elsewhere expresses it, "anticipates all essential spiritual verities."  This Mr. Newman declares to be "the direct and most intense reverse of all that he has most carefully and elaborately
written!" ~
Let us see. Harrington took what seemed the most
precise statements imaginable. They are as follows: —
" What God reveals to us he reveals within, through the
medium of our moral and spiritual senses." t "; Christianity has practically, confessed what is theoretically
clear," (Harrington adds, "; you must take his word for
both,") "that an authoritative external revelatidn of
moral and spiritual truth is essentially impossible to
man."::  "No book revelation can (without sapping
its own pedestal) authoritatively dictate laws of human
virtue, or alter our a priori view of the Divine character." ~  These are the passages which involve the
imputed garbling. Of that anon.
Mr. Newman also says, in a passage Harrington did
not quote, (but which he might well have done, only
that his object evidently was to give the briefest expression of the dogma to be confuted,) what is yet
stronger. In speaking of the apologies for the destruction of the Canaanites as a judicial act, he observes:' But next, the analogy assumes most falsely, that God,
* Reply, p. 13.               t Soul, p. 59.
t Ibid. p. 59.                ~ Ibid. p. 58.




80        A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
like  man, speaks  from  without; that what we  call
Reason and Conscience is not his mode of commanding and revealing his will, but that words to strike the
ear, or symbols displayed before the senses, are emphatically and exclusively' Revelation.'  ON  THE  CONTRARY, OF OUR MORAL AND SPIRITUAL GOD WE KNOW
NOTHING  WITHOUT,' EVERYTHING   WITHIN.   IT  IS  IN
THE  SPIRIT  THAT  WE  MIEET  HIMI NOT IN  THE  COMMUNICATIONS OF SENSE.
AM. Newman complains bitterly of a most elaborate
contrivance to conceal his reasoning, of all which the
Author of " The Eclipse " had not the  slightest conception. He says that Harrington in the citations on
the preceding page omitted an adverb of inference, -
" Christianity has thus confessed," -  for the purpose of
concealing traces of the preceding arguments; -that
Harrington  has  said, " you  must take  his word  for
both " the facts asserted in the second sentence, when
ILr. Newman had "carefully proved thenm "; -  and that
he has dislocated the order for the same reasons as he
* Phases, p. 152. The two sentences in small capitals are not found
in the new edition of the "Phases."  They are struck out. It is no doubt
the right of an author to erase in a new edition any expressions he pleases;
but when he is about to charge another with having "grossly garbled," and
"stealthily misrepresented him," it is as well to let the world know what
he has erased, and whly. He says that my representation of his sentiments
" is the most direct and intense reverse of all that he has most elaborately
and carefully written." It certainly is not the "intense reverse of all that
he has most elaborately and carefully" scratched out. The above extract, I
find, now begins in the new edition thus: ", But next, the analogy assumes
(what none of my very dictatorial and insolent critics make even the faintest effort to prove to be a fact), that God, like man, speaks from without."pp. 92, 93.
I do not know what it was intended by his " very insolent and dictatorial critics!' (if he has any) to prove; but it was sufficient for me that
my object was to disprove the dogma that any such external revelation
was a priori impossible. Whether God has spoken in fact depends on the
appropriate evidence.




CHARGES OF " MISREPRESENTATION."       81
omitted the particle.  Let us hear Mi. Newman in
full.
" The reader will observe that the Author inserts
a clause of his own,'you must take Mr. Newman's
word for both'; i. e. both for the fact that Christianity
has confessed it, and for the fact that theory makes it
clear. He thus informs his reader that I have dogmatized without giving reasons. And to deceive the
reader into easy credence, he dislocates my sentences,
alters their order, omits an adverb of inference, and
isolates these three sentences out of a paragraph of
forty-six closely printed lines, which carefully reason
out the whole question."    -
I answer, and will distinctly prove, that, however
plausible this statement, not one of the facts is susceptible of the interpretation Mr. Newman has put
upon it. First, the omission of the adverb of inference
was not for the reason assigned by Mr. Newman; it
was simply because, as the whole context in Harrington's speech shows, he wished to give at the outset, in the briefest form, the conclusions against which
he was about to contend by a distinct class of arguments of his own; no matter whether it was " thus,"
or otherwise, or in no way at all (as I believe it was),
that Mr. Newman arrived at them.  That this was the
object is clear from the omission of the last, longest,
and strongest quotation now supplied. It was of no
more consequence, in the mere stating of the question
to be discussed, that Harrington should make reference
to the supposed arguments by which Mr. Newman came
to the contested conclusion, than that, in enunciating
any other proposition, which we are about to confute
by totally different arguments, we should encumber it
* Reply, p. 21.
14*




82      A DEFENCE OF;" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
with the reasons alleged for it. All that is necessary
at that stage is to give a precise statement of the disputed thesis in the words of the author; and this Harrington gave in three of the clearest and most explicit
statements that could be found.
But Mr. Newman further complains, that Harrington says the reader must take Mr. Newman's word for
both the alleged facts in the citation, — " whereas he
had carefully proved and reasoned out the whole question." I answer, that Harrington's statement expressed
his real conviction, —though another form of expression
might have been more precise, - that what Mr. Newman calls his " careful proofs " were in his estimate, and
are still in mine, words, words, and nothing, but words.
What he'dignifies by the name of arguments are assertions, and nothing more. I now say, "you must
take his word " for the above conclusions, and I proceed
immediately to prove it. I will engage to make good
every word I utter. In order to do so, it will be necessary to cite the professed reasonings. After saying,
what I will not dispute, that "no heaven-sent Bible
can guarantee the veracity of God to a man who doubts
that veracity," - and also, which, for argument's sake,
I as little dispute, that "unless we have independent
means of knowing that God knows the truth, and is
disposed to tell it to us, his Word (if we be ever so certain that it is really his Word) might as well not have
been spoken," - he proceeds, with prodigious strides,
thus: "But if we know, independently of the Bible,
that God knows the truth, and is disposed to tell it to
us, obviously we know a great deal more also: we
know, not only the existence of God, but much con.
cerning his character. For, only by discerning that he
has virtues similar in kind to human virtues, do we
know of his truthfulness and goodness. Without this




CHARGES OF'" MISREPRESENTATION."     83
a priori belief, a book-revelation is a useless impertinence; /hence no book-revelation can, without sapping
its own pedestal, authoritatively dictate laws of human
virtue, or- alter a priori views of the Divine character.
The nature of the case implies, that the human mind
is competent to sit in moral and spiritual judgment on
a professed revelation, and to decide (if the case seem
to require it) in the following tone: —This doctrine
attributes to God what we should call harsh, cruel, and
unjust in man; it is, therefore, intrinsically inadmissible; for if God may be (what we should call) cruel,
he may equally well be (what we should call) a liar;
and if so, of what use is his Word to us! And in fact,
all Christian apostles and missionaries, like the Hebrew
prophets, have always refuted Paganism by direct attacks on its immoral and unspiritual doctrines; and
have appealed to the consciences of heathens, as competent to decide in the controversy. Christianity itself
has thus practically confessed what is theoretically clear,
that ail authoritative external revelation of moral and
spiritual truth is essentially impossible to man. What
God reveals to us, he reveals within, through the medium of our moral and spiritual senses. External
teaching may be a training of those senses, but affords
no foundation for certitude."'
He then proceeds in the " Reply " thus: —
"6 Of this passage, the first six sentences carefully
prove that a book guaranteed by God is worthless -to a
man who has no convictions concerning the heart of
God, and in consequence, that it is necessarily incapable of overturning and reversing moral judgments.
After thus proving it to be'theoretically clear,' I add,'and in fact,' &c., and go on to show how Christians
* Soul, pp. 58, 59.




84     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
have actually proceeded. Then I sum up:'Christianity itself has THUS practically confessed what is theoretically clear,' &c. The omission of the word THUS
by this author shows his deliberate intention to destroy the reader's clew to the fact, that I had given
proof where he suppresses it, and says that I have given
none." *
Now, before saying a word further, may it not be
asked, in relation to the above assertions, What evidence would satisfy anybody in the world that the
Apostles confessed that an authoritative revelation of
moral and spiritual truth was impossible to man, when
they, at the very moment, professed to be giving it, —
claiming men's obedience to it and receiving their
homage,- -making known, as they said, "what eye
had not seen, nor ear heard, nor had entered into the
heart of man to conceive "?  But, not to content myself with such an appeal to the reader's common sense,
let us test it by experience. There is some savage cannibal, I suppose, who is ready to gobble up his fellowman; or a worthy creature who puts his children out
of the way with as little remorse as you would drown a
kitten; devoutly worshipping at the same time a wooden
thing, which certainly is not the " likeness of anything
in heaven above, nor the earth beneath," and so far does
not infringe upon the second commandment. Well,
you naturally think his " moral and spiritual" perceptions somewhat out of sorts. The missionaries, worthy
souls, succeed in convincing him of his abominable
errors and in amending his practice. " Ah!" then
cries the savage, " I see a thing or two. It is true that
you found me dining upon my neighbor, and quite
ready to dine upon you; murdering my children, and
* Reply, p. 23.




CHARGES OF C" [MISREPRESENTATION."  85
living in all sorts of licentiousness and beastliness
without compunction. Yet let me tell you, Mr. Missionary, you could not have given me a' revelation' of
all this error unless I had had faculties which could be
educated to the perception of it; and I therefore conclude that an authoritative revelation of moral and
spiritual truth is impossible!" What, think you, would
the missionary reply? I apprehend something like
this:-" My good Mr. Savage that was, I perceive
you have a little of the savage about you still; or at
least I should say so, only I perceive that it is possible
for highly civilized folks to be of the same way of
thinking. Just as it is because you are a reasonable
creature and not an idiot, that I can instruct you in
anything, so it is because you had a spiritual faculty,
-- though, as your sentiments and practices too plainly
showed, in a very dormant state, —that a revelation
was possible; not impossible, my good friend. It was
because your faculties were asleep, not dead, that I
could awaken them; had you not had those faculties
which, you so strangely say, render a revelation impossible, it would have been impossible: it was possible
only because you had them.' Thus, I imagine, the
missionary would answer; and thus Apostles would
have answered, instead of befooling themselves by saying, that that very authoritative revelation, which they
declared they came to make known, —to which they
claimed obedience, and to which men actually submitted, -was impossible! Thus, Mr. Newman's  careful proof " is a mere texture of cobweb, which cannot
be touched without falling to pieces.
If men had no eyes, the perception of light would
be impossible; but if they had eyes, it were equally
impossible to have that perception except the light
shone upon them. Hence the apparent paradox re



86     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITII." 
mains true, that man has capacities which enable him
to apprehend a revelation when propounded, and nevertheless that the capacities do not and cannot render the
revelation impossible. And hence, too, Harrington's
arguznentumn ad hominem remains:-" I do not see
how we can doubt, on the principles on which Mr.
Newman acts and yet denies, that a book-revelation of
moral and spiritual truth is very possible; and, if given,
would be signally useful to mankind in general. If
Mi. Newman, as you admit, has written a book which
has put you in possession of moral and spiritual truth,
surely it might be modestly contended that God might
dictate a better. Either you were in possession of the
truths in question, before he announced them, or you
were not; if not, Mr. Newman is your infinite benefactor, and God may be at least as great a one: if you
were, then Mr. Newman, like Job's comforters,'has
plentifully declared the thing as it is.' If you say,
that you were in possession of them, but only by implication; that you did not see them clearly or vividly
till they were propounded,-that is, that you saw
them, only practically you were blind, and knew them,
only you were virtually ignorant; still, whatever Mr.
Newman does, (and it amounts, in fact, to revelation,)
that may the Bible also do. If even that be not possible, - and man naturally possesses these truths explicitly as well as implicitly, - then, indeed, the Bible
is an impertinence, - and so is Mr. Newman." * Let
Mr. Newman fairly answer the dilemma.
But the strangest thing is to see the way in which,
after parading this supposed " artful dodge," - which
I assure you, gentle reader, was all a perfect novelty to
my consciousness,- Mr. Newman goes on to say, that
~ Eclipse, pp. 88, 89.




CHARGES OF i" MISREPRESENTATION."    87
the Author of " The Eclipse" has altered the order of
his sentences to suit a purpose. He says, " The sentences quoted as 1, 2, 3 by him, with me have the order
3, 2, 1." I answer, as before, that Harrington was simply anxious to set forth at the head of his argument, in
the clearest and briefest form, the conclusions he believed Mr. Newman to hold, and which he was going
to confute. He had no idea of any relation of subordination or dependence in the above sophisms, as 1
have just proved them to be, whether arranged as 3, 2,
1, or 1, 2, 3, or 2, 3, 1, or in any other order in which
the possible permutations of three things, taken three
and three together, can exhibit them; ex nihilo, niltil
fit: and three nonentities can yield just as little.
Jangle as many changes as you will on these three
cracked bells, no logical harmony can ever issue out
of them.  But they may do very well, perhaps, for
the tumble-down steeple and cracking walls of the
church in which one of our spiritual reformers may
dispense the new doctrine.
And now for Mr. Newman's four inferences from the
whole, which he introduces with so much solemnity.
1. "' That I feel so painfully the pressure of his reasoning, that I dare not bring it forward."
Answer. I was and am as unconscious of any pressure, as was the ox in the fable, of the fly who sat on
his horn, and who politely hoped that he gave him no
inconvenience. "I should not have known you were
there," said the ox, "' if you had not told me of your
presence."
2. Mr. Newman says, that "since I have not impugned his arguments, but have suppressed them, and
told my readers that he has given none, a sufficient reply on his part is to reprint them, and to warn people
that merriment may be founded on fiction."




88      A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
Answer.  That, since I have now certainly not suppressed his soi-disant "careful proof,?' but confuted
it, a sufficient reply on my part is to remind people
that there are other reasons for not noticing arguments
besides their being incontrovertible.
3. Mrh. Newman says,'it will be seen that he should
need to write folios to expose tricks of this kind."
Answer.  Very likely; if, as in the present case, he
is to imagoine the trickls before exposing them.
4. Mr. Newman says that it is in "'the long paragraph just quoted, that, according to the discerning Author of' The Eclipse of Faith,' he males himself merry
with the subject of a book-revelation."
Answer. The "discerning Author" of " The Phases"
is mistaken in supposing that he is represented as
making himself merry with a book-revelation in that
paragraph, nor does the Author of " The Eclipse" say
that it is there that Mr. Newman does so.  On the
other hand, it would be easy to cite many passages
in which Mr. Newman speaks most contemptuously of
what he calls " Bibliolatry," and this would be called,
in ordinary parlance, making merry with the subject.
Mr. Newman loudly denies, by.the way, the truth
of this charge brought against him in conjunction with
Mr. Parker, and says that  "I wish my readers to suppose him  as flippant as myself."   I really have no
wishes on the subject, and willingly leave the reader
to form  any opinion on the point he thinks proper.'
Perhaps, however, it would have been more accurate
to say, that Mr. Newman, instead of making himself
merry with the idea of a book-revelation, had made
other people very merry by his arguments against its
possibility.
* See "Soul," pp. 57, 240-248; Phases, pp. 117, 118, 132, 2d ed.; or
the chapters entitled "The Religion of the Letter renounced," and "Faith
at Second-hand found to be Vain," passim.




A DISTINCTION.                         89
SECTION  VI.
WHETHER MR. NEWMAN S DISTINCTION OF MORALLY
AND  SPIRITUALLY  "'AUTHORITATIVE " AND  MORALLY
AND SPIRITUALLY  "~INSTRUCTIVE " WILL STAND.
IT would appear, then, from  all this, that Mr. Newman still maintains that an authoritative book-revelation is impossible to man; and as for his complaint, that
I had omitted to notice the " arguments"  By which he
proved his assertion, I have now, I should hope, sufficiently shown their futility. But how, then, does he
attempt to obviate the reasoning by which Harrington
shows that, if it be impossible to God, it is at all events
possible to man, since Mr. Newman has furnished that
to Mar. Fellowes which it seems God himself could not
have given  to  Mr. Newman?    " Surely," says Mr.
Newnlan, "the  author means  merely  that Mr. Fellowes found my book instructive. If so, with what
sort of honesty can he pretend that I do not admit
the Bible to be instructive?"   Answer.  I do not deny
that he admits the Bible to be instructive, as he imme- " The latter," says Mr. Newman, "is the cardinal fact adduced by the
historical genius of our author, who here, as elsewhere, desires to found
the spiritual upon the legendary, and abhors the basis of moral truth."
(Reply, p. 23.)  I answer, that " here, as elsewhere," Mr. Newman
finds it necessary to misrepresent my sentiments. Read, instead of the
above clauses, that "I do not deem man competent, and Mr. Newman
singularly incompetent, to determine all necessary spiritual truth apart
fiorn the'historical,' nzot the legendary, revelation of God's Book, and that
I distrust the ever-variable theories of truth which unaided reason has so
plentifully supplied," and you will be near the mark.
15




90     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
diately proceeds to allow; but I admit that he is inconsistent in doing so, if his theory be true that "we know
nothing of God from without, everything from within."
" But," he goes on to say, " if I ever so much despised
the Bible, have I ever inculcated that all books, as
such, are worthless, so as to be confuted by the bare
fact of writing a book at all? "  Let us look at tne
principle involved.
It appears that there is a convenient distinction to
be made between what is morally and spiritually instructive, and what is morally and spiritually authoritative.  I answer, in sound only; not in meaning.
For to convince any one, who believes in a God and
moral and spiritual truth at all, of any moral and
spiritual truth, - no matter how the man who imparts
it came by it, -whether he got it direct from heaven,
or it has percolated through a hundred minds before it
reached his, - is ipso facto to make it authoritative in
the sense that it is felt it ought to have authority;
though whether it will have it, will depend marvellously upon whether it be believed to come certainly
and immediately from God or not. HIe who knows
what he means when he talks of God and his claims, —
man and his duty, -will smile at the paradox of any
moral or spiritual truth being proved to him, -no
matter how or by whom, - while yet it is considered
optional with him whether he shall regard it as merely
instructive and not authoritative! The experimenturn
crucis, therefore, which Harrington proposes to Mr.
Fellowes, remains just as it was. Fellowes acknowledges that he once thought, as did Mr. Newman, that
various current doctrines of Christianity were true;
but confesses, as does Mr. Newman, that he sees them
Reply, p. 24.




A DISTINCTION.              91
to be wholly false, and (like that of a Mediator) morally " mischievous.'  If so, the new light must be
authoritative with him. Well, then, if Mr. Newman
can thus communicate truth, which is not only instructive, but, being " spiritual and moral," must in the nature of things be felt to be authoritative (whether
obeyed or not), much more is it possible, one would
imagine, for God to do the like, — to do it infinitely
better, and to do it with infinitely greater probability
of its being, as well as being acknowledged to be, authoritative;- as Christians believe he has done. But
Mr. Newman says it is impossible that such a revelation can be given.  Therefore the reasoning remains,
that Mr. Newman has given that to Mr. Fellowes
which it seems God himself could not give to Mr.
Newman.
Take a simple example, and the whole fallacy appears in a moment. You find a Tahitian, or a NewZealander, quite as a matter of course, and thinking no
harm in the world, ready, the one to bury his new-born
child, or a dozen of them, and the other to bake and
eat his enemy taken in war, or perhaps a worthy gentleman just shipwrecked on his coast; both the one
and the other evincing, in all sorts of ways, that their
"moral basis" is a very queer one. And so it goes on
for ages: you convince them — no matter how you
got your truth, though I suspect that, if you got your
truth in two ways, you will not get the requisite zeal
to go and proclaim it but in one — that all this is
wrong; and you instruct them, but it is on subjects
which, being moral and spiritual, involves the " ought ";
and every truth they admit necessarily becomes authoritative in the sense that it is felt it ought to have
authority.  It may be error that is so taught, —as
when superstition teaches, and, as I believe, when Mr.




92     A DEFENCE OF' " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
Newman often teaches; but such is the nature of the
things taught, and their relation to the conscience, that
it is no longer simply information, in the sense in which
it is instructive, to tell them how to make shoes, or that
the earth goes round the sun, and not the sun round
the earth. If, therefore, man, by convincing his fellows even of error as truth on such subjects, not only
makes it, as his pupil supposes, instructive, but authoritative, - as we see, in fact, he too often does, - - fortiori, he can do it when he teaches his fellows truth, —
as we also see he can; much more, therefore, may one
humbly imagine that God can externally communicate
truths which will be both instructive and authoritative.
The argument, therefore, remains as Harrington puts
it.  " Why," said Harrington, -" while you were without the truth, as you say you were, it was not likely to
be authoritative: if, when you have it, it is recognized
as authoritative, -which you say is the case with the
truth you have got from AMr. Newman, —if you acknowledge that it ought to have authority as soon as
known, that is all (so far as I know) that is contended
for in the case of the Bible."
But Mr. Newman comments most oddly on the concluding paragraph of the work, in which I express a
hope that the discussions may convince the " youthful
reader of the precarious nature of those modern bookrevelations which are somewhat inconsistently given
us in books, which tell us that all book-revelations of
religious truth are superfluous, or even impossible.''
Here Mr. Newman pleasantly infers that I intend to set
the Bible as an authoritative revelation and such books
as his own on a level; and that I am "palpably and
inexcusably dishonest" if I do n.ot! "lHere, then,"
says he, 1" we have the author without a mask. Let us
consider what he avows: —1. That he is satisfied to




A DISTINCTION.              93
have the Bible regarded as a'book-revelation' in that
sense, and in that sense only, in which my writings are'book-revelations' to those whom they happen to
convince. If he does not mean this, the words are
palpably and inexcusably dishonest." " I cannot even
imagine how my thinking, as I well may, book-revelations " precarious " which declare all book-revelations
"' impossible," are yet book-revelations in that sense,
and in that only, in which I believe the Bible (which
talks no such nonsense) is one. On the contrary, instead of being palpably and inexcusably dishonest if I
did not mean what Mr. Newman says I must mean, I
should be so if I did. No: there is a sense, as I have
just now shown, in which Mr. Newman's writings,
being on " spiritual " and " moral" subjects, will be
authoritative with the persons - I rather think they
will be a small flock -whom they "may happen to
convince." If his proselytes know what they are talking-about, the " moral and spiritual" truths (or errors)
of which he convinces them will be recognized as what
ought to have authority; just as those who think the
Bible comes from God will acknowledge the same of
what they find in that; but as to the Bible being in
that sense, and in that only, a book-revelation in which
Mr. Newman's volumes are to those " whom he may
happen to convince," Mr. Newman must pardon me.
There is a vast interval between truth and error; what
only seems moral and spiritual truth (while it seems
so) is authoritative, though it may be most perniciously
misleading; it is authoritative on the well-known principle, that s" even an erroneous conscience obliges."
In admitting that books on spiritual and religious
subjects may be instructive, Mr. Newman admits all
* Reply, p. 27.
15*




94     A DEFENCE OF "C THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
that is essential to the argument. Instructive! Yes:
but if books be so instructive as to teach men who
have no scruple in banqueting on their fellow-creatures,
- in strangling their new-born infants, - in exposing
their parents, -that all these things are "abominations," -then in such instruction is shown plainly the
possibility of an external revelation; it is to teach
men to recognize doctrines which were before unrecognized,- to realize truth of which they were before unconscious, - and to practise duties they had never suspected to be duties before. If this be so, then the
argument returns, that what man call do, God can
surely do, and do much more effectually, both as regards the things taught, and the manner of teaching
them. Will it be any gain to Mr. Newman's arguinent to say, that a book of Divine "revelation" of
moral and spiritual truth is impossible to man, but that
he never meant to deny that a book of Divine "instruction " in moral and spiritual truth was possible?
The concession of the principle, that from without
there may come a light which may develop into act
the latent moral and spiritual capacities of our nature,
is sufficient for the overthrow of his dogma, " that an
authoritative revelation of moral and spiritual truth is
essentially impossible to man."




RELIGION AND MATHEiMATICS.         95
SECTION  VII.
MR. NEWMAN S ]CLAIRCISSEMENT.
ONE more remark, and I proceed to consider the
value of that eclaircissement which Mr. Newman gives
of his doctrine, and whether it really makes any difference to the argument.
The reader must remember, that in reality Mr. Newman adheres to the statement in the previous quotations from the " Soul." He still asserts, it seems, that
no external revelation can alter our a priori notions of
the Deity or dictate laws of virtue. If there be then
apriori nzotons, did I do his views injustice?  Must
not these ai priori notions already exist before the
revelation is given? and since they cannot be altered
by it, must they not " anticipate, and supersede by anticipating, that revelation"?  The fallacy consists in
confounding notions with capacities for arriving at
them, — in supposing, in contradiction to fact, (as I
have endeavored to show in the discussion on the possibility of an external revelation,') that the original
capacities of man, which may be dormant or active,
well or ill developed, according to the nature and the
efficacy of the external instrument of their extrication,
are not mere capacites, but definite a priori notions,
which everywhere enable man at once to pronounce on
the truth or falsehood of whatever professes to be an
external revelation. Any such notions do not in strict*Eclipse, " On a Book-Revelation," p. 283.




96     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
ness exist till an external influence elicits them, and
though the capacities be in the soul, yet, whether they
be normally developed or not depends, as we see in
fact, on the character of the educating instrument;
and all sorts and almost all degrees of abnormal development are too plainly very possible according to
the imperfection of that instrument. To say that the
external revelation does not modify the action of these
latent capacities, would of course be notoriously false;
and the substitution of capacities for notions at once
discloses the fallacy lurking under the imposing dogma
we have been considering.
With these remarks, let us consider Mr. Newman's
further explication of his theory. He affirms that my
representations of his views on this subject are " the
direct and most intense reverse of all that he has
most elaborately and carefully written"!  He still
says, "What God reveals, he reveals within and not
without"; and he did say, (though, it seems, he says
no longer,) that "of God we know everything from
within, nothing from without"; yet he says I have
grossly misrepresented him, for that in the "Soul"
he has "dwelt largely on the historical progress of
Religion, and has shown how each age depends ordinarily on the preceding,."'   Well, if Mr. Newman
will engage to prove contradictions, and that God
reveals himself exclusively from within, though each
age, notwithstanding, depends for its views of religion
on the preceding, I think it is no wonder that his
readers do not understand him. I took what seemed
the plainest of his declarations, and dealt with them.
I allowed, as I have said, that Mr. Newman's views
were inconsistently expressed. This, Mr. Newman
* Reply, p. 13.




RELIGION AND MATHEMATICS.                97
himself not only admits, but, it seems, complains of.*
However, he has endeavored to clear his paradox by restating his views, - with what success we shall now see.
Let us take Mr. Newman's explication of his doctrine, and see what it is worth. It will not make any
difference: the whole ground is bog, and it does not
matter in what particular spot he chooses that his
argument shall sink and be suffocated. His words
are: " For the sake of any one who is really and honestly s-tupid as to my meaning, I will here reiterate,
that, when I deny that history can be Religion or a
part of Religion, I mean it exactly in the same sense
in which we all say that history is not mathematics.' Newton wrote the Principia'; true: but to make that
proposition a part of mathematics would be an egregious blunder as to the very nature of the science. A
man might be quite as good a mathematician, though
he had never heard of Newton's name. In the above,change Newton and Principia into Moses and Pentateuch, or David and Psalms, or Paul and Epistles, and
change mathematics into religion, -  and (I say) all remains true. I may be right or I may be wrong; but I
speak most distinctly. Religion and mathematics alike
come to us by historical transmission; but where the
sciences flourish we judge of them for ourselves, make
them  our own, become independent of our teachers,
add to their wisdom, and bequeathe an improved store
Reply, p. 13. My assertions of his inconsistezcy are strangely enough
adduced by our author as a proof that I knew he did not mean what the
declaration that no external revelation can alter our a priori notions of
the Deity made me suppose he did mean. " Why, this writer," he says,
"perfectly knows the contrary. In this very discussion he argues against
my doctrine of' progress' in religion." Yes; but he should have said that
I admit he has a doctrine of " progress," only that it is incomprehensible
in conjunction with his notions of the impossibility of all external revelation, - as I still think it.




98 -   A DEFENCE OF C THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
to our successors; but these sciences have never flourished, and cannot flourish, where received on authority.
They come to us by external transmission, but are not
believed because of that transmission; and no historical
facts concerning that transmission are any part of the
science at all. Mathematics is concerned with Relations of Quantities, Religion with the normal Relations
between Divine and Human Nature. Tlhat is all"O'
Now, first, I remark that, even if we were to suppose,
for argument's sake, the case of religion and mathematics (!) to be exactly parallel, — and that the former,
like the latter, was purely dependent on demonstrative
evidence, - still what could be more misleading than
to say, in that case, what Mr. Newman did say of a revelation of God,- " We know everything from within,
nothing from without"; when, apart from the proposal
from without addressed to latent, but not active capacities, the man who.has mastered  "Newton and Euler
and Descartes' might have been without a knowledge
of a single mathematical theorem; as, in fact, there are
very few who do attain even the thousandth part of the
possibilities of knowledge which are latent within them.
But, in fact, few but Mr. Newman would have
chosen to forget, what most men will find it impossible not to remember, that the difference of the evidence
on which we receive mathematical and religious truth
respectively is vital.
Religious truth is received, not on demonstrative,
but on moral evidence, and therefore the notions of
religion vary, not only in degree, but in kind, in different ages and nations, and in the same individuals at
different times; and of that evidence -often of various
kinds - authority, as usual, is an element that cannot
be left out. Mr. Newman cannot find, I suppose, any
onie who knows at all that the three angles of a triangle




RELIGION AND MATHEMATICS.         99.
are equal to two right angles, who has ever believed
that they are not: nor any one who knows any halfdozen mathematical truths who differs about them.
But let him tell me whether he does not think there
have been men who believe there is no God at all?
who believe in an idol? who believe in fifty? who
think revenge a duty? who offer human sacrifices,
and think they honor their gods by it? who burn
widows on the funeral pile of their husbands, and
think it highly proper? who kill their children? who
expose their parents, and do with an unmurmuring
conscience a thousand other things at war with what
lie deems moral and spiritual truths?  Mathematics
merely differ by the more and the less. He who does
not get beyond the first book of Euclid believes nothing
contrary to or inconsistent with the knowledge of him
who has mastered Newton's " Principia."  Hence the
extreme, the fantastical absurdity of this false parallel.
If Mr. Newman says that the variety of judgment is
the result of external authority, that admits that his
criterion is false, since the external authority will not,
I presume, do the like in mathematics.
If he says it is because man mistakes historical for
moral truth (which again has no parallel in the mathematics), it does not matter; he does mistake them, and
on external authority.
Let us look at the matter in another light, and the
preposterous character of the analogy will appear still
more evident;. In the closing pages of a little mathematical book published by Mr. Newman some years
ago, there is a confession that he was mistaken in a
demonstration that he flattered himself he had once
given respecting the'Theory of Parallels. It is no disgrace to Mr. Newman to have failed in a matter which
has ever been the crux mathematicorum; but now 1-t,




100    A DEFENCE OF s" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.9
us suppose that he and others had disputed just as
much about a thousand other mathematical points; in
short, just as they do about those of religion; - that
some thought that two intersecting right lines would
meet again, and some the contrary; - that some thought
that the three angles of a triangle were equal to two
right angles, and some to four; —some, that similar
triangles were in the duplicate ratio of their honmologous sides, and some not;- -some, that the diameters
and circumferences of circles were commensurable,
while some doubted. What then? would not the
questions which now find place in religion immediately
intrude into mathematics? Would not the authority
of him who spoke enter as one of the elements of decision? Would not men then begin to ask, whether
Professor De Morgan or Professor Newman was the
most reliable source of mathematical truth? - a question, I apprehend, which they would not, even as it is,
be very long in deciding; for mathematics, too, have
their metaphysics.
Hobbes truly declared, that if mathematics had to
do with the will and passions of men, they would dispute about them just as much as about anything else;
and assuredly the obstinate old fellow proved it; for
he was engaged in a bitter contest, which lasted to his
death, with one of the first mathematicians of his day,
and died unconvinced of his own absurdities.
Now, if it were affirmed that an omniscient intellect
had decided questions that had been everlastingly debated, would it make no difference whether or not that
"historical" fact were true or otherwise?  Every one
can see, I suppose, that this at once.alters Mr. Newman's strange parallel about Newton and Paul. Let
us try his propositions, which he declares to be logical;ly equipollent, by just introducing a similar element
into each pair.




RELIGION AND MATHEMATICS.       101
"Newton wrote the Principia; — true: but to make
that proposition a part of mathematics would be an
egregious blunder as to the nature of the science "; nor
would it make any difference, even if God secretly inspired them; for we receive the theorems on their own
evidence.
"Paul wrote the Epistles; - true: but to make that
proposition a part of religion would be an egregious
blunder as to the nature of the science "t; nor would it
make any difference even if God inspired them, though
men have been everlastingly disputing on the matters
to which they relate!
Is there no difference in the last case, even though
God inspired Paul to write~ the Epistles? the conclusions being, not, like those of Newton, on matters
which are seen by their own light, but such as men
have perpetually differed about?
The close of the paragraph is exquisite: —" Mathematics is concerned with relations of quantities; religion with the normal relations between divine and
human nature. Thlat is all." All, indeed! and enough
too. This is just the way in which Mr. Newman slurs
over a difficulty with vague language. The moment
we ask " what are the relations of quantity," all mankind are agreed. No one supposes that two and two
make five. But when we ask what are "' the normal
relations of divine and human nature," I suppose the
hubbub that will arise, will distinctly show that the
case is very different. Or are we to take Mr. Newman's theory of the said normal relations as infallibly
true? Mr. Newman's demonstration in relation to the
Theory of Parallels was unfortunate, but not half so
unfortunate as his demonstration of the parallelism between mathemiatics and religion. And yet this is the
view which a man is very "stupid" if he does not
16




102     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.")
clearly comprehend! and which I am not stupid enough,
it appears, not to comprehend, but only " dishonestly"
affect to be "stupid"!'
The real parallels for Mr. Newman to select would
have been the practical sciences, — ethics, politics,
physical and historical science, —in a word, any that
depend, as religion does, on moral evidence, and vary
with it. But this would not have been convenient, because it would have been seen at once that the analogy
was false.
But the argument is palpably. refuted by appeal to
FACT. "Religion is historically transmitted to us,"
argues Mr. Newman, "but we do not receive it because
it is historically transmitted to us."  Mr. Newman
takes it for granted that the historical transmission of
religious truth, its external presentation to the mind,
merely presents it with the materials of forming a
judgment, and that the moral and spiritual faculties
will effectually make the separation. We see, in fact,
they do not; and Mr1. Newman's statement, - however
true it may be for aught I know with respect to him,
that he does not receive religious truth because historically transmitted,'yet is palpably false in relation
to the mass of mankind.  Men of all religions say, we
believe and practise this and that because it has been
historically transmitted to us. 3&'. Newman may say,
this is no part, and can be no part, of triue religion; but
that is the very question. If the facts, "1 though historical," are given by God, the belief of them may be
a part of religion; and that men think so in fact is
seen in their universal subjection to an historical religion. If Mr. Newman says that ": will not be where
the sciences flourish," then religious science in that
sense has never flourished, nor is very likely to flourish,
if we may judge by experience.




A PRIORI REASONING AND EXPERIMENTAL TESTS.  103
SECTION  VIII.
SHOWING THAT FACTS ARE AS INTRACTABLE TO THE A
PRIORI SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHER AS TO EVERY OTHER
A PRIORI PHILOSOPHER.
IN short, these favorite dicta of Mr. Newman's, - that
"' an authoritative moral and spiritual revelation is impossible; that it cannot alter our a' priori notions of the
Divine character; that man is capable of universally
criticizing the contents' of every presumed external
revelation; and that not even a miracle can authorize
any departure from some presumed'fixed moral basis''reconcilable with the heart-morality, and common
conscience of human nature," —these dicta, I say,
taken how you will, if supposed absolutely true, immediately involve us in manifold absurdities. Admit
that man has a moral nature and moral capacities (as
I for one fully admit), but capable of being warped in
all sorts of ways from the true and the right, and needing apt instruments of education and culture; still
more, admit that those capacities are originally corrupt; and then there is no difficulty about the matter;
the various facts are harmonized: but in that case any
one can see that there is ample scope for an external
authoritative revelation. Otherwise, there is immense
difficulty.
Let us assume, for example, the dogma about the
" a priori notions of the Deity, which no revelation, it
seems, can alter"; and I ask, "Are they the same in
all men, or only in some men?" In all men, I suppose




104    A DEFENCE OF "THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
it must be said, for we are inquiring about what is a
characteristic of Man, not the idiosyncratic felicity of
this or that man. "Well, then, I should say, are these
a priori notions,' which nothing can alter, the same
as their subsequent notions?" What a simpleton you
must be to ask the question, would be the reply. Do
you not see that men believe in gods of all sorts and
sizes?  In one,- in fifty, - in none?  Do they not
offer to them all sorts of sacrifices, -even including
human? "Of course," I should say; " something then
must have altered the invariable a priori into the variable a posteriori notions." To be sure, must be the
answer; historical religions, false miracles, pretended
revelations, - anything can do it, - a thousand things
have done it. " It appears then," I think I should say,
— "it appears then', my friend, that these a priori
notions, which nothing it seems can alter, anything
can, except an authoritative revelation from God: it
seems that though a true revelation is impotent, any
false one is omnipotent.! You are very complimentary
both to human nature and the Deity."
Take, again, the " principles of moral judgment " in
mzan (not in some Mr. Newman, but in man), which
are supposed to be such as to authorize and capacitate
him to pronounce on anything and everything in a presumed revelation. Is it meant that these principles
exist in all men, or only in some? In' all, it will be
said, of course; for we are talking still about what is
characteristic of humanity, not the peculiar privilege of
some critico-moral Pope; and indeed who would consent to abide by such a decision, which itself would
affirm the external authority, which the theory itself
denies? Do all exercise then these critical faculties?
and if those faculties do not "supersede," as Mr.
Newman admits, external instruction, do they eliminate




A PRIORI REASONING AND EXPERIMENTAL TESTS.  105
successfully the true only, and instinctively reject the
false? How can you ask the question? will be again
answered. All the facts in the world's history proclaim the contrary. Are not the vast majority of men
at this moment - have they not been in all ages — bowing down to stocks and stones; worshipping all sorts
of false deities, and honoring them  with rites well
worthy of them?  Has there not been among vast
communities, for unknown ages, the easiest reception
of the most hideous superstition, the most unshrinking,
unquestioning perpetration of the most horrible cruelties and pollutions, in obedience to even the falsest pretensions of priestcraft?  Is it not the rarest thing to
find men evincing any capacity for criticizing the religious and moral systems by which their faculties
have been swathed and bound from infancy? It is
plain they do not. - It must be admitted, the objector
will say. But then, is it because they would if they
could, but cannot; or could if they would, but will
not? If the former, or in the degree in which it may
be true, they are to be pitied and excused; and it was
in such pity that Christianity professed to come to
their rescue; indeed, the supposition affords ample
scope for the offices of that external revelation which is
so derided. If the latter, and men might universally
and promptly exercise these faculties, but will not, 0
what a blessed theory is this! " Truly," as Harrington
says, " I think it makes man the most detestable beast
that ever crawled under the cope of heaven." It is no
longer, I grant, of much consequence to discuss the
" moral and spiritual" prerogatives of such a creature.
In his regeneration he will want an authoritative revelation, and miracles too, with a witness.
If it be said, "Well, practically, all men have not
their powers of moral and spiritual criticism sufficiently
16 




106    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
active to eliminate what is false in the systems presented to them from their childhood, but (as the produce of the silkworm is dyed by the food it lives on)
their religious system will be morally and spiritually
what that of their immediate parents has been"; then
this is to admit that, practically, in the vast majority of
cases, their moral and spiritual faculties are put korss
de combat.
If it be further said: " Nay, but from time to time
individuals will arise in the course of  progress,' who
will indefinitely improve the moral and religious systems of man, and extricate the world from its errors, -
men like Mr. Newman, for example"; - then this is
to admit the incompetence of the spiritual and moral
faculties of man in general, and at the same time the
possibility and utility of what is so stoutly denied, —
an external divine revelation; unless it be pretended
that, though man can perform this task, God cannot,
which needs, I suppose, no refutation; or that though
God can, man can do it better, which, I think, requires
as little; or lastly, that man can, and God has not
performed it, and will not, - which requires proof.
Whether any such revelation has been given depends
of course on the appropriate evidence; but that it
could be given, and with singular advantage, the preceding reasoning shows clearly enough.
Take, again, "the fixed basis of morality," "the
common conscience and heart-morality"; is it, as before, an absolutely invariable standard, or a variable
one that is spoken of? or is it a measure of India-rubber that will hold three bushels or one? Whose "fixed
moral basis"?  That of the New-Zealander, or of a
Hottentot, or of an ancient Greek, a Roman, a Jew, or
of a Hindoo, or of a Chinese, or of an Englishman?
For all these have had very discordant notions on




A PRIORI REASONING AND EXPERIMENTAL TESTS.  107
many points of morals, and therefore (as well as for
other reasons) about God. Or is everybody in general
meant, and nobody in particular?  Will Mr. Newman
allow that the moral judgment of the generality of his
countrymen will determine what they ought or ought
not to believe, (say) respecting the moral character of
the Deity as determined by their " fixed moral basis":
and in spite of the depressing effects of the  "Bible
standard" on conscience, I do not think he will find,
on the whole, any community more enlightened. Well,
if so, the great bulk of them have had no difficulty in
believing that God's command to Abraham, to sacrifice his son as a test of faith, (which Mr. Newman
compares to a sacrifice to Moloch,) was not incompatible with what God might rightfully do. Will Mr.
Newman say these are to be set aside as incapable of
judging?  What sort of test is this which appeals to
the constitution of human nature, and first sets the
bulk aside, and then the most enlightened of them?
Will he say that he will take the spiritual elites of the
race, the most devout of them? Still the same thing
is evident; they do not see the incompatibility with the
Divine holiness which makes him so indignant. The
ancient Jews, and modern Christians, - those of them
whom our critic himself admits to have given the world
the best examples of spiritual religion, - men like Paul
and James, who, one would imagine, were not deficient
in moral sensibility, both praise, as the most heroic virtue,
that conduct of Abraham which Mr. Newman would
denounce as a crime worthy only of a worshipper of
Moloch to commit, in obedience to a command which
only a Deity like Moloch could give; a singular scrupulosity, I should say, in Mr. Newman, if we reflect
what strange things he does suppose his moral Deity
to be capable of performing, as seen in a previous sec



108    A DEFENCE OF 6" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
tion! However, I think it may be said, not only that
Paul and James could see no moral discrepancy in the
supposed command, but that multitudes of men now,
fully the equals of Mr. Newman in moral culture, in
spiritual worth, in mental power, have no difficulty in
the world in subscribing to the three following propositions: first, that they do not see and dare not say
that morally it was impossible that the Divine Being
could thus try the faith of his ancient servant; secondly, that if it were not incompatible with his attributes, it was very possible for him to convey his will
to Abraham in a way which could leave no doubt on
the patriarch's mind that the command was no illusion of the imagination; and thirdly, that in that case
it would be Abraham's duty implicitly to obey; —the
first principle of morals with such men being the implicit submission of a creature to the Creator, the absolute surrender of the finite to the Infinite, whose declared will is of itself all-sufficient authority. It is an
element which Mr. Newman continually leaves out of
the question, for he will not permit even God to conmmand him to do anything which does not square with
his previously "fixed moral basis"; while other men
would rather imagine in such a case that they had been
a little mistaken in their "fixed moral basis "; a supposition of no difficulty, considering how variable that
" fixed " basis has been. Though far from comparing
myself, either for power of mind or moral excellence,
with the ten thousand times ten thousand the excellent
of the earth who have held the truth of the above three
propositions, I acknowledge, without hesitation, that I
devoutly believe in the absolute truth of all of them.
Will Mr. Newman say, that all these " excellent of the
earth " were mistaken, and that the true moral test is
to be found elsewhere; and, in fact, is to be found




A PRIORI REASONING AND EXPERIMIENTAL TESTS.  109
with him alone, or the few who think with hiln? I
thought we must come to that at last; that is, in the
variety of moral judgments we find the insufficiency
of the criterion, unless we will all accept the criterion
of Mr. Newman and the few who think with him.
Well, it may be said, this does not prove that he may
not be right. I grant it; but it conclusively proves this,
which was what I brought it forward for, — that the
criterion in question, the moral test from the "' common
conscience and heart-morality of human nature" as to
what we shall deem fitting in the Deity, breaks down
with us, since the most cultivated and excellent of the
earth utterly dissent from Mr. Newman's own application of it.
And here I may, by the way, observe, that, all contravention of moral notion aside, Mr. Newman seems
to assume that God can never issue any such commands as rest simply on authority. He says, speaking of what he calls " blind external obedience," " God
cannot speak thus to man";' and blames Christ, as
well as "unscrupulous churches," for so doing. A
Christian, on the other hand, will feel no inconsistency
in believing that God might issue commands, for some
of which the reasons are well known, for others partially known, and, in some cases, not known at all;
and that in the last case his law is just as stringent,
if it be made known, as in the first; yes, if only given
as a test of obedience to the creature he has made.
Nor would Christians feel that they wanted abundant
analogy for the faith they exercised. If they can lay
commands on their children, and expect obedience
when the children cannot understand their reasons,
even if they were explained, and when the parents
x Phases, 2d ed., pp. 88, 89.




110    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
will not always explain the reasons, even where they
can be understood, is it impossible that the same may
occur between the "Father of our spirits," (in comparison with whom we shrink to nothing,) and his offspring?  We all know very well how it would fare
with any obstinate child of man if he were to refuse
obedience, except where he could, a priori, see the reasons of parental authority. He would soon be favored,
I suppose, with a demonstration, not a priori, of the
reasonableness of obedience, if not of authlority. Will
man claim an authority which he denies to God?
To resume.
Take, again, the dogma that no miracle could authorize any act which would without such authority
be deemed morally wrong. " I further inquired," says
Mr. Newman, " what sort of miracle I could conceive
that would alter my opinion on a moral question....
No outward impressions on the eye or ear can be so
valid an assurance to me of God's will as my inward
judgment."   I will not here repeat the question, Is
there the same " inward judgment" in all, and if not,
tvhose is the moral test? But, Is the above the feeling
of man in general? Is it true to the principles of our
nature?  Let us take again the practical test. Have
not men in all countries and races, and of almost all
religions, some of them practised, and nearly all of
them approved, (Jews and Christians amongst them,)
some acts because they believed them miraculously
authorized by God, though they would have disapproved them without such supposed authority? Yes,
it will be said; but they were reports of miracles
merely. Very good; if mere reports are sufficient to
do it, would not the miracles themselves be likely, a
* Phases, p. 91.




A PRIORI REASONING AND EXPERIMENTAL TESTS.  111
fortiori, to be still more efficacious?  And if false reports of false miracles can thus modify the moral conceptions of men, and shake the "fixed moral basis,"
would true reports of true miracles be likely to be less
efficacious?  Nay, let us hear Mr. Newman himself;
let us hear him confessing, that, after twenty years'
study, he has only just emancipated himself from the
errors and burdens which had oppressed his "critical
faculties."  HIe says, " As to moral criticism, my mind
was practically prostrate before the Bible.  By the
end of this period I had persuaded myself that morality
so changes with the commands of God, that we can
scarcely attach any idea of immutability to it......
As for miracles, scarcely anything staggered me."'
Ever in extremes, " in medio tutissimus " does not
seem a favorite maxim with M1r. Newman. But at all
events, this does not look as if it would be very easy
to establish the exact limits of the " fixed moral basis,"
that curious variable constant!
And again: "' Moral criticism is precisely that which
I was slowest to use against authoritative claims. To
me the system broke down first precisely on that side
which alone this author [of' The Eclipse'] counts defensible, - the external evidences.' t  He is quite mistaken, as I shall show in the next section, in attributing to me the above sentiment; but his confession
shows distinctly enough that mankind are not very
likely to see that no miracle can in any way modify
their convictions of the moral quality of actions, supposing them enjoined by Di-vine authority.
For many years it appears that he was all the while
looking (as Socrates would say) for that which, by the
hypothesis, he had in his hand.  If he was twenty
X Phases, pp. 40, 41.        f Reply, p. 30, note.




112     A DEFENCE OF "6 THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."?
vears, it is likely that the generality of men will be
forty; for no sooner does he declare that he has the
"fixed moral basis" in his hands, and assures them
that they have it also in theirs, than they exclaim that
they have it not, and distrust the criterion which he
says he bas in his! The world will make but slow
"' progress " at this rate. But, in point of fact, though
man unquestionably has a moral nature, and there are
actions which all mankind would call virtuous and
vicious, that nature is so far from being invariably
developed, that even a plausible pretence of divine
authority miraculously enforced is too often sufficient
to overbear it. Mr. Newman may, perhaps, say that
this is a thing he complains of; I reply, that I think it
is often a thing to be complained of; but nothing can
be more clear, than that this universal disregard of his
criterion makes that criterion no criterion at all, and
shows that, somehow or other, man cannot trust, and
will not acknowledge, any such " fixed moral basis " as
not even the voice of God himself can in any degree
alter. Take the most cultivated and enlightened consciences, you still cannot get one in a million to affirm
(as we have seen in the case of Abraham) that there
are.no actions ordinarily called unlawful that would
be made lawful by the command of God authentically
made known by miraculous intervention. They shudder at the thought of affirming the contrary; and that
for a reason which Mr. Newman entirely ignores, and
denies utterly the force of, - namely, that the authority of God is itself, even if no reasons were given, and
none were imaginable but his will, the sufficient and
all-sufficient authority.




NEW TESTAMENT MORALIrY.          113
SECTION IX.
WHETHER THE CHRISTIAN THROWS AWVAY HIS " MIORAL
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 we "6must throw away our oorcal
judgmennt 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 consciousn'ess 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 dis.
17




114    A DEFENCE OF i"THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."~
carding 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 "4 any authoritative system of
iniquity whatsoever?" t  I answer, 1" Because it lacks
bothl 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
admit his criticism; but, on the contrary, affirm that it
l Reply, p. 28.                t Ibid. p. 31.




NEW TESTAMENT MIORALITY.        115
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 an
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 canalogous acts
involved in H-is 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.




116     A DEFENCE OF THE "C ECLIPSE OF FAITH.")'
SECTION X.
WTIHETHER IT BE FAIR IN CHRISTIANS TO MEET "' OBJECTIONS " BY " OBJECTIONS.' 
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 d~enounced
as dishonest. However, as usual, let me look at his
argument, and trouble not myself at all about his imputations.
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 1
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




OBJECTIONS VERSUS OBJECTIONS.        117
side, the duties on the other, -is authoritative or not?
If he says, "1 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 "6 more fundamental truth of a fixed
moral basis 1"; 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
1 7 *




118    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.)
greater, it may be quite sufficient to justify him in resolving that at least he will have nothing to do with
them. A man may not see that his house is perfectly
convenient; he may fancy at times that certain modifications would improve it, and perhaps be mistaken in
that fancy; but as to changing it, —it is quite sufficient to decide him against that, if he be offered
nothing better than a dark cellar under ground or a
balloon in the air. The former is the choice residence,to which Atheism or Pantheism dooms him, and the
other the mansion provided by the tumid but unstable
systems of our modern spiritualists.
Mr. Newman says, that I have endeavored to " break
his and Mr. Parker's heads" against one another. I
should not presume; and it is quite unnecessary, for
they have "broken their own heads together" with
sufficient violence. In virtue of their spiritual apparatus, they have arrived, as usual, at very different conclusions on most momentous points; and though it is
not of the smallest consequence as long as they are
merely attempting to destroy historical Christianity,
yet the moment people ask, " And what are we to believe?" it becomes of vital importance.




CRITICISM ON " THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST."  119
SECTION XI.
MR. NEWMAN'S CHAPTER ON " THE MORAL PERFECTION
OF CHRIST.?9
MR. NEWMAN founds another charge of "' very gross
garbling" on my strictures upon his too celebrated
comparison of Fletcher of Madeley with Jesus Christ.
Fellowes represents Mr. Newman as having read the
" Life of Fletcher" when a boy, and as having thenf
thought him a more perfect man than Jesus Christ;
and as having said in the " Phases," that, if he were to
read the book again, he should most probably still be
of that opinion. Mr. Newman's exact words in the
"G Phases " are these: "Heroes are described in superhuman dignity, why not in superhuman goodness?
Many biographies overdraw the virtue of their subject.
An experienced critic can sometimes discern this; but
certainly the uncritical cannot always. I remember,
when a boy, to have read the'Life of Fletcher of
Madeley,' written by Benson; and he appeared to me
an absolutely perfect man; and, at this day, if I were
to read the book afresh, I suspect I should think his
character a more perfect one than that of Jesus." 
Now, M1r. Newman says, that when he read the
"Life of Fletcher," as a boy, he made no formal comparison with Jesus Christ. I thought, indeed, that the
three last lines of the extract implied the contrary; but
I see that that was an inadvertence of mine; he merely
Phases, p. 184.




120      A DEFENCE OF THE "ECLIPSE OF FAITH."5
thought at that time that Fletcher was an absolutely
perfect man.  Still, that my mistake was neither
"stealthy misrepresentation" nor " gross garbling"
appears plainly from this, that the proposed correction
makes nothing to the argument, but rather renders
the absurdity somewhat more flagrant. I charitably
supposed him, as a child, to have first made the comparison (which was certainly childish enough), and
then afterwards, without verifying his early impressions
by a reperusal of Fletcher's Life, to have proceeded to
presume its accuracy on the strength of his early impressions.  This would have been strange enough;
but it now appears that the comparison itself was not
the reflex of a childish fancy, hastily adopted, but
the mellow fruit of maturer years; that, as a boy, he
thought Fletcher an absolutely perfect man, and that
though at a later period he did not think so, yet that,
without staying to see, by a reperusal of the Life, how
far Fletcher fell short of that ideal, he presumes so far
to trust his impressions as to say that, if he did reperuse the book, he should give to Fletcher the palm over
Jesus Christ! If this will help Mr. Newman, he is very
welcome to it, and I accept his emendation with all
thanks. "When I was a child," says the Apostle, " I
spake as a child, I thought as a child, I understood as
a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things."  How far the readers of Mr. Newman will
think he did so, I leave them to judge.
I had said, " Christianity is willing to consider the
arguments of men, but not the impressions of boys."
On this Mr. Newman remarks, "No one can possibly
read this without understanding that I recommended
my boyish impressions as something trustworthy, something for which I claimed respect from Christianity." ". Reply, p. 15.




CRITICISM ON G" THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST."  121
I answer, that the words were intended to convey precisely what they do convey, — that the unverified impressions of boyhood had been made the basis of a
most offensive attack on the character of Christ, and
that to such impressions Christianity can hardly be
expected to pay much attention.
Mr. Newman, in reprinting the notable paragraph,
incloses the three last lines in brackets, and says that
he now sees that these would have been " better omitted," as they seem to have " distracted the mind from
his argument."   Perhaps now he does see; but they
were not omitted. They gave, and could not but give,
substantially; the impression of his sentiments which
not only I, but I believe every other reader of the book,
entertained; and that these impressions were essentially correct, his most offensive chapter on " The Moral
Perfection of Christ," whom " in consistency of goodness " he places "far below vast numbers of his unhonored disciples," proves ad nausearn.
As to the bracketed lines distracting my mind from
his " argument," as he calls it, and from the occasion
on which he gave expression to his sentiments in the
" Phases,' I answer, that I had nothing in the world to
do with either. It was with the fact merely that I
had then to do; —that a person had avowed the preposterous sentiments in question. The Author of" The
Eclipse " and Mr. Fellowes were discussing the" Evidences of Christianity," among which it is mentioned
that the entire character of Christ, but especially as the
Moral Ideal of Humanity, was not likely to have been
of human origination, least of all among those to whom
history restricts the problem.  Mr. Fellowes replies,
"that it is not so clear to everybody that Jesus Christ
i Reply, p. 17.




122    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."5
is a perfect ideal of humanity," and instances 1r.
Newman. This fact is sufficiently substantiated in
the above paragraph; and it was with that fact alone
I had to do'. That I was bound to follow Mr. Newman into all the circumstances under which he had
formed or might advance his singularities of opinion, I
deny: it is enough to have to do with the singularities
themselves. A man, I suppose, might refer to Baxter's
well-known belief in witches, or some modern's crotchet
about table-turning or spirit-rapping, without entering
into the question as to how he came by it, or the occasions on which he advanced it. Mr. Newman's notion
seems to have sprung from the fallacious idea, already
referred to in the Introduction, that " The Eclipse of
Faith," instead of being an examination of certain
prominent opinions of himself and others, was designed
to follow " The Soul," or the "' Phases," or both, step
by step. I hope I have some better employment than
to track all the tortuosities of his too eccentric logic.
Whether, in the present instance, he has made out
his case of "very gross garbling," I now leave to the
calm decision of the reader.
Mr. Newman is pleased to say, as if the occasion on
which he gave utterance. to the sentiment in question
must come into consideration, " that I have here intruded
into a controversy with which I have no concern." I
think it plain, by his own confession, that I have not intruded into it, as in truth I had no concern with it; I
was only concerned with the sentiment itself. His very
complaint is, that I have not referred to the controversy
in connection with which the offensive passage occurs.
As to the charge of " intruding," I beg to say, that,
when a man gives utterance to such sentiments respecting Christ, no matter in what connection, it is
quite sufficient warrant for the disciples of the Master




CRITICISM ON " THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST?.  123
they revere and love to " intrude 1 into the controversy;
and for myself, I beg to say very distinctly, I shall intrude into this or any other public controversy on
which I may humbly hope to say anything to the purpose, without asking Mr. Newman's leave, or anybody
else's, for so doing. For this reason, I shall now " Intrude " a little more into this controversy, by making
some remarks on Mr. Newman's new chapter on " The
Moral Perfection of Christ."
Mr. Newman seems to think his repulsive statements may be, in some respects, made less so, if it
be borne in mind that they are especially founded on
the views of the Rev. James Martineau. I am quite
willing to give him the benefit of any such fact. The
dubiety of that eloquent gentleman as to how much
historic worth there may be in the evangelical narratives, and the latitude of his canons of historical criticism, - which, if we mistake not, have fairly made his
co-religiornists stand aghast, -do no doubt render it
very precarious to defend Christ's moral perfection as
a fact, -whatever it may be as a myth,- or, in short,
to prove his very existence. His system may well be
called what Mr. Newman terms it,- " a reconstruction
of Christianity," of which Mr. Martineau supposes we
have the singular felicity of knowing more than the
Apostles themselves! Mr. Newman remarks:" I have to give reasons why I cannot adopt that
modified scheme of Christianity which is defended and
adorned by James Martineau; according to which it is
maintained, that, though the Gospel narratives are not
to be trusted in detail, there can be yet no reasonable
doubt what Jesus was; for this is elicited by a' higher
moral criticism,' which (it is remarked) I neglect. In
this theory, Jesus is avowed to be a man born like
other men; to be liable to error, and (at least in some




124    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."7
important respects) mistaken.  Perhaps no general
proposition is to be accepted merely on the word of
Jesus; in particular, he misinterpreted the Hebrew
prophecies.'He was not less than the Hebrew Messiah, but more.' No moral charge is established against
him, until it is shown that, in applying the old prophecies to himself, he was conscious that they did not fit.
His error was one of mere fallibility in matters of intellectual and literary estimate. On the other hand, Jesus
had an infallible moral perception, which reveals itself
to the true-hearted reader, and is testified by the common* consciousness of Christendom. It has pleased
the Creator to give us one sun in the heavens, and one
Divine soul in history, in order to correct the aberrations of our individuality, and unite all mankind into
one family of God. Jesus is presumed to be perfect
until he is shown to be imperfect. Faith in Jesus, is
not reception of propositions, but reverence for a person; yet this is not the condition of salvation or essential to the Divine favor. Such is the scheme, abridged
from the ample discussion of my eloquent friend." "
And now what answer does any Christian make to
this plea of Mr. Newman, that he is cpposing MRr.
Martineau?  Why, in the first place, just this: that
whatever Mr. Martineau's opinions may be, — that
supposing Jesus Christ to have been only a man, - not
even a great man, but only an ordinary man, who,
nevertheless, had enjoyed some little reputation of
being a good man, — Mr. Martineau, and the Unitarians, and the Trinitarians, and all the world, have just
reason to complain of Mr. Newman's contempt of all
the commonest maxims of historic criticism in judging
him. He does not treat Jesus Christ even with the
* Phases, pp. 140, 141.




CRITICISM ON "THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST."    125
justice and candor due to the most common historic
personage.  He puts impressions for facts, fancies for
arguments; speaks when  the  documents  are  silent,
silences them where they speak; imagines evidence
where he pleases, and ignores it where he pleases; —
and all for the delightful purpose of proving Christ
morally imperfect! And now for an example or two.
Take his account of Christ's answer to the Pharisees
who  came to entrap him by their question respecting
the tribute-money, and whose insidious villany he
baffles by saying, "Render unto Cesar the things that
are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
On this answer, (though not one syllable is added by
Christ himself, nor by the historians who record it, that
can for a moment countenance the fancy,) Mr. Newman ventures to say that he cannot but think our
Lord " shows a vain conceit in the cleverness of his
answers "; ~ and adds, that he cannot regard his " error "
as a  merely  intellectual "error,"  since  "blundering
self-sufficiency is a moral weakness."   What can for
a moment justify this most gratuitous imputation of
6 vain  conceit"  and  "blundering  self-sufficiency," t
where. there is not one syllable on the face of the history
not the faintest shade of expression -  to justify it?
Mr. Newman may perhaps say, as he elsewhere says in
reference to other points, j that he is only giving his
impressions, -"-   a statement of fact concerning his own
* Phases, p. 152. See the entire passages in the chapter on "The
Moral Perfection of Christ."
t Some of the words so liberally bestowed on our Lord in this chapter
will inevitably suggest to every reader an application of which the writer
was little conscious. A man may shoot his arrow with exact perpendicularity over his own head. It smites the invisible and impassive air, and
does no harm to that; but the missile descending, according to the law of
gravity, with the exact force with which it has been projected, may smite
full sore the unhappy archer himself.
I Reply, p. 1.
18.




126;A DEFENCE OF "' THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."1
mind, and that is all. Valeat quantum! "  Whereupon
the reader will say, of course, Who cares for a million
of his impressions, without evidence for them? and to
that question I, for one, should not know what answer
to give. This sort of criticism is not to do justice to
Christ, even if he were nothing but an ordinary character of history; for it is to fancy evidence, not to produce it or sift it.
Nothing, again, can exceed the eccentric criticism
with which Mr. Newman introduces these strictures.
He says, that to " imagine that because a coin bears
Cesar's head, therefore it is Coesar's property, and that
he may demand to have as many of such coins as he
chooses paid over to him, is puerile and notoriously
false. The circulation of foreign coin of every kind
was as common in the Mediterranean then as now,
and everybody knew that the coin was the property of
the holder, not of him whose head it bore.  Thus, the
reply of Jesus, which pretended to be a moral decision,
was unsound d and absurd; yet it is uttered in a tone of
dictatorial wisdom, and ushered in by a grave rebuke,'Why tempt ye me, hypocrites?'"'
The meaning here imputed to our Lord's words is
"puerile" enough, but the puerility is in Mr. Newman's criticism, not in Christ's answer. How  farfetched is this gloss, (yet needful to make Christ's decision "unsound,") compared with the obvious interpretation generally put on his words: " Since you thus
recognize, in fact, Casar's political authority by receiving the current coin which bears his image, render to
him the political allegiance which you thereby acknowledge; and' to God the things that are God's.'"
This Mr. Newman calls evading' the question; he has
heard " the interpretatiQn," he says, " from high Trini- Phases, p. 152.




CRITICISM ON "'THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST."  127
tarians, which indicates to him how dead is their moral
sense in everything which concerns the conduct of
Jesus."  Polite words! But Mar. Martineau tells him
that Unitarians are involved in the same condemnation! WNhat modest confidence there must be in a
criticism which will not only have Christ in the wrong,
but, to make it out, is ready to affirm that the moral
sense of almost all Christians must be half dead into
the bargain! This, surely, is not to weigh evidence,.
but to assume one's self infallible in the matter, though
to do so would imply that not only Christ, but nearly
everybody else, was not merely fallible, but grossly defective in moral sensibility! The whole passage (that
Mr. Newman may not accuse me of not quoting
enough) the reader will find in my Appendix,*
where he will see with what complacency our critic
proposes for Christ a better answer than Christ gave; as
well as with what humanity he apologizes for the innocent Pharisees, by asking, Was it not their " duty "
thus to prove, by their questions, the wisdom of one
who professed to be an "authoritative teacher "?
Here, again, we see fancy at work, and the history
ignored; if the history was to be supposed faithful at
all, why should it be assumed that the answer of
Christ is correctly given, - it assuredly is not correctly
interpreted, - while the account of the Pharisees is
quite a mistake? The only answer one can conceive
is, that if Christ must be proved in the wrong, then the
Pharisees must be presumed in the right. The critic
can imagine conceit in Christ when the history is
wholly silent; he silences the history when it speaks
against the Pharisees. He imagines they came, simple,
innocent souls, in pure good faith, to try the wisdom
of Christ as a teacher sent from God!
* See chapter on Moral Perfection, etc.




128     A DEFENCE OF "C THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
Take another example of the injustice done to Christ
by this style of criticism. After Christ on a certain
occasion had been inculcating the duty of " watchfulness" by a striking parable, Peter asks, " Lord, speakest thou this parable to us or also unto all?"  Mr.
Newman says, "Who would not have hoped an ingenuous reply, -' To you only,' or' To everybody'?
Instead- of which, so inveterate is his tendency to
mluffle uip the simplest things in mystery, he replies,'Who then is that faithful and wise steward, &c., &c.,
and entirely evades reply to the very natural question." 
The answer is, first, that the parable in which our
Lord 6" evades reply " is itself, to most understandings,
a sufficient indication of the way in which our Lord intended the question should be answered, namely, that he
did speak to all, and not to some only; but, secondly,
in the last verse of the thirteenth chapter of Mark, after
the same or a similar parable, he gives that very categorical decision demanded, " And what I say unto you
I say unto all, Watch."  This supplemental confirmation of one Gospel by words found in another is, as in
so many other cases, a strong indication of the reality of
the events and the fidelity of the narrative. The haste
with which Mr. Newman pronounces his judgment on
Christ's " tendency to muffle up the simplest things in
mystery," requires no comment. With6ut sufficiently
examining facts, or ignoring them when it meets with
them, "free criticism" has an easy task indeed.
Take another example of the precarious criticism by
which Mr. Newman does injustice to the character of
our Lord, - still viewed as a,mere man. He affirms
that Jesus Christ intended to proclaim absolutely and
indiscriminately the first principles of communism, —: Phases, p. 155.




CRITICISM ON " THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST."M  129
a total "and abrupt renunciation of wealth"; that
what other men regard as general principles, which,
like all other general principles, must be interpreted by
the spirit, not by the letter, are to be pressed to the
utmost rigor of literal interpretation,- which those of
no moralist will bear; —or even that what was Christ's
demand on his first personal emissaries, who were to
go forth in the strength of their miraculous mission,
" without scrip or purse," he designed should rule the
conduct of all his disciples then and through all time!
The answer to the " rich young man," whose selfrighteous conceit assured him that he had kept " all
the commandments from his youth up," and whose demand of a more rigid test was well met by a reply
which disclosed to him his weak point, and showed
that he was mistaken in supposing himself willing to
pursue "eternal life" at all hazards, Mr. Newman
thinks was the answer which Christ would have given
to every inquiring disciple; and that the maxim, " Sell
that ye have, and give alms," Christ designed absolutely for every Christian and for ever!* Mr. Newmran may say, perhaps, that he is right in his criticism,
and that the generality of the world are wrong; but
even then, what man but Mr. Newman would proceed
to assail the moral character, even of a mere man, on
a criticism so precarious that not one out of ten thousand can see its force? And that they with good reason demur to it is plain enough; for, if this astounding
principle were the corner-stone of Christ's teaching (as
it must have been, if a principle at all), how is it that
Jesus Christ does not uniformly mention it on thee
many occasions on which he receives his disciples?
how is it that, when Zaccheus declares he is going to
* See chapter on Moral Perfection, etc.
18*




130    A DEFENCE OF C" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.)
give "the half of his goods" in reparation of the wrongs
inflicted by his rapacity, Jesus Christ does not tell him
that that was not enough, and that he will not be
let off without giving the whole? how is it that when
"rulers " believed on him, how is it that in his interview with Nicodemus and others, he says nothing
about this grand prerequisite of discipleship? how is
it that the'" rich Joseph of Arimathea " was still rich
at Christ's death, and had not long before become a' Christian socialist"? how is it, when advising the
rich men rather to make choice as their guests of the
"poor" than the "rich," that he does not tell them
that they have no business to have any choice in the
matter? that all their money was to be thrown into a
common stock, and that "mno man was to call any,
thing his own"? how is it that he says,'6 The poor ye
have always with you," when he ought rather to have
said, " There is to be neither poor nor rich "? how is
it, when he reproved Martha " for being cumbered with
much serving," that he does not also reprove her for
wasting the " joint stock "?  Our critic may, perhaps,
say: " 0, all this is rubbish, - legend, -no part
of the true history." Then how does he know that
just the precept, " Sell that ye have, and give alms," is
the only part that is true history? *Why does he retain
just so much as he thinks will make for his unenviable
thesis, and ignore all that makes against it? Is this
historic criticism?
But Mr. Newman imagines, as some others have
done, that his theory derives support from the conduct
of the Apostles and the disciples at Jerusalem, at and
just after the day of Pentecost.  The generality of
commentators and critics (Neander among them) see
in this nothing but a temporary provision. It seems to
have been to meet the wants of the multitude of




CRITICISM ON C" THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST."  131
" strangers " (then brought from all parts to Jerusalem),
just converted to the faith; for whom the resident
Christians, in the ardor of their Christian love, dissolved for a time the connection of meum and tuum, and
"' had all things common."  That this is the commonsense view is seen by this,. that nothing of the kind appears in the "1 New Testament " itself when the emergency had passed away. It is also to most minds
conclusively proved to be the right view by Peter's
question to Ananias, - acknowledging his right to the
estate he had sold, though he was a professed Christian: " Was it not in thy own power?" which it
would not have been had the fundamental principle of
Christianity demanded its surrender.
But at all events, with such a mass of evidence
against him, with the all but unanimous assertion of
critics and commentators on the other side, who but
this critic would feel sufficiently secure of his judgmnent to found upon it a charge of' moral unsoundness" in the Founder of Christianity?
And lastly, looking still at Christ as a mere man,
who but our critic -even if Christ hlad proclaimed the
principle of the community of property -would have
founded upon it grave inferences of moral imperfection? I think the principle politically as pernicious
and mistaken as Mr. Newman can do, and that far, far
less than the human wisdom of Christ can see it to be
so. But does it necessarily follow that men who have
maintained any such mistaken principle are morally
unsound?  ~Would he deal out the same measure to
all the philosophers who have maintained this or similar false political notions?  Would he so deal with
Plato, who so zealously maintained this very dogma?
Again, still looking at Christ merely as a man, how
shall we characterize the charges, the odious charges,




132    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITHI."
connected with the circumstances of his death, where
not one syllable of the history justifies the interpretation which Mr. Newman puts upon Christ's character
and actions? In order to give color to them at all,
we must ignore all the history, and rewrite it; but
then, if we thus cast aside all the history we have,
what sort of historic criticism is it which decides against
the character of Christ?  If what is said for him be
assumed false, what right have we to assume that what
is not even said, but simply fancied, on behalf of his
persecutors, is true?  Not contented with his previous
charges of " vain conceit," " arrogance and error combined," " fanatical and mischievous precepts," and
" mistakes which indicate moral unsoundness," Mr.
Newman further represents our Saviour as denouncing
the atrocious wickedness of the rulers, not because the
charges were true and the condemnation just, but as
guiltily and of set purpose exasperating them to murder him in order that he might escape the difficulty of
maintaining his claims to be the Messiah, which, it
seems, he had long hoped he was (! ), but of which he
had recently had great misgivings, and now felt to be
untenable! I defy any one to produce from all the
literature of Europe a passage so luxuriant in extravagance as the following:- -" The time arrived at
last when Jesus felt that he must publicly assert Messiahship; and this was certain to bring things to an
issue. I suppose him to have hoped that he was Messiah, until hope and the encouragement given him by
Peter and others grew into a persuasion strong enough
to act upon, but not always strong enough to still misgivings. I say, I suppose this, but I build nothing
on my supposition. I however see, that when he had
resolved to claim Messiahship publicly, one of two
results was inevitable, if that claim was ill-founded;




CRITICISM ON "THE PERFECTION OF CHIIST."  133
namely, either he must have become an impostor in
order to screen his weakness, or he must have retracted
his pretensions amid much humiliation, and have retired into privacy to learn sober wisdom. From these
alternatives there was escape only by death, and upon
death Jesus purposely rushed."'
Here I do not stay to ask what are the grounds for
the pleasant " suppositions" above; for our critic says
he " builds nothing on them"; and it is well, for nothing can stand on such mere quicksand. To write thus
is to indulge fancies, not to criticize history: but I
ask, first, how does all this imputation of low and -gross
villany harmonize with the impressions drawn from the
whole of the only accounts we have? and, secondly, if
we reject those accounts, then, as before, what right
have we to form even a conjecture to the prejudice of
Christ?  But the crowning absurdity of the whole is,
the fine dilemma which Mr. Newman has constructed,
and which, like most of his dilemmas, are dilemmas
from which no one is in danger but himself. He says:
"One of two results was inevitable, if that claim was
ill-founded; namely, either Christ must have become
an impostor in order to screen his weakness, or he
must have retracted his pretensions amid much humiliation, and have retired into privacy to learn sober wisdom."
Mr. Newman, perhaps, does not like to say that
Christ was an impostor at the time he thus. planned
this curious suicide at the expense of other people's
guilt; and so he tells us, that, if he had lived, he must
have become an impostor, or retracted his claims to
Messiahship; therefore he resolved to die in order to
escape the alternative! Did ever any man but Mr.' Chapter on Moral Perfection, etc.




134    A DEFENCE OF "' THE ECLIPSE OF FAITHI."
Newman suppose that this was escaping the alternative? -WV~ould not the mere fact of his dying to escape
i-u alt;ernative of becoming an impostor (if any man
eC.e: did~, -would, or could die for any such purpose)
conictlC him of already being an impostor?  Is it not
very much as if we were told that a man committed
suicide in order to escape the alternative of becomning, a
thief, which he felt that he must be if he did not turn
an honest man?  Would not the very act prove, if it
proved anything but sheer idiocy, that the man was
already in heart such a thief that he would sooner die
than not be one?
However, such is the theory which Mr. Newman
thinks is fairly extractible by " free criticism " from the
history, which, however, must be all set aside, and a
pure romance substituted in its place, to give the faintest color to it. " Clearly," (to use a favorite formula
of Mr. Newman's, but I hope with more reason,) if
we thus throw aside the history, then we are simply
reduced to silence. As before, we cannot reject all that
makes for Christ, and substitute fancies that make
against him. I deliberately say, that if we look at
Christ as a mere man, —as one of whom we know
nothing but what the Evangelical narrative, restricted
to the purely human element, discloses to us, —there
is not a man who has any pretensions, I do not say
to Christianity, but to candor or common sagacity,
who will call this (I will not say probable, but even
the flimsiest plausible) historical criticism; and that
if there is one thing which, even rejecting all Christ's
supernatural claims, the narrative of his life rivets on
the soul, it is that Jesus Christ was utterly incapable
of the mingled atrocities and absurdities here attribruted to him.
Once more: let Jesus Christ only have been a great




CRITICISM ON "' THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST.)  135
sage, will any one say that the criticism oil the Parables - those wonderful compositions, which have fixed
the admiration of all ages, - which condense more
meaning into smaller compass than any of the apothegms of sages and philosophers, —wisdom clothed
at the same time in the selectest, yet the simplest imagery -is conceived in the spirit of common justice
and candor? " Strip the Parables," says Mr. Newman,
"of the imagery, and you find that sometimes one
thought has been dished up four or five times, and
generally, that an idea is dressed into sacred grandeur.
This mystical method made a little wisdom go a great
way with the multitude; and to such a mode of economizing resources the instinct of the uneducated man
betakes itself, when he is claiming to act a part for
which he is imperfectly prepared.'
Of Christ's parabolic style generally Mr. Newman
speaks thus:-" But not to be tedious, in general I
must complain that Jesus purposely adopted an enigmatical and pretentious style of teaching, unintelligible
to his hearers, and needing explanation in private.....
Christian divines are used to tell us that this mode was
peculiarly instructive to the vulgar of Judoea; and they
insist on the great wisdom displayed in his choice of
the lucid parabolical style. But in Matthew xiii. 10-15,
Jesus is made confidentially to avow precisely the opposite reason; namely, that he desires the vulgar not to
understand him, but only the select few to whom he
gives private explanations.  I confess I believe the
Evangelist rather than the modern divine." t
We here see Mr. Newman stumbling at the apparent
paradox that parables were used clearly to convey the
Phases, p. 154.
t Ibid. p. 153.




136    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."7
meaning, and yet parables were used to veil the meaning. If both purposes had been affirmed of the very
scme parables, one could have understood the objection.
Who but our critic could have any difficulty in seeing
that a parable, like any other form of figurative language, may be aptly used for both purposes, and often
has been so in other compositions besides those of the
New Testament? It may be used either to illustrate a
truth, or to give it in outline; to make it clear, or to
veil it. But this, involving a twofold aspect of the
same thing, seems a troublesome perplexity to our critic's simplicity of understanding, and he must therefore
have the parable always clear or always obscure,always light or always darkness!
But enough of what Mr. Newman says of the Parables; the mere memory of some of them will at once
show the reader the vanity of his criticism.  The parable of the "Prodigal Son," or the " Good Samaritan,'9
shivers it all to atoms. Not all the petty carping in the
world can prevent or will prevent the effect they have
produced, and will ever produce, not only on the humblest, but the greatest minds; on philosophers and
peasants, on age and childhood, on all imagination
and all sensibility; —in a word, on the heart of humanity. Mr. Newman's criticism -may make men wonder at his taste, or the want of it, but it will not make
them despise the parables of Jesus Christ.
Again: take the alleged inconsistency of the statements respecting Christ's unwillingness to perform
miracles on some occasions when challenged to do so.
Surely no reader of the New Testament will deny that
miracles enough are recorded; and that therefore, if
really performed, and unbelief asked for smore, our Savyiour might well be offended at such obstinacy of unbelief. If Mr. Newman says, "Yes, but none of these




CRITICISM ON " THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST."   137
miracles were performed: they were all fables "; -
then, as before, if he rejects the mass of the records,
how is he so sure that the narrative respecting Christ's
being challenged to perform the miracles, and being
unwilling to do so, is certainly true?  Why will he
destroy everything that can explain his conduct, as
purely fabulous, and yet assume that the narrative of
the actions which it would explain is trustworthy?
How is it that he thus ignores everything that can
make for Christ as fabulous, but will not allow anything to be so, which, on the supposition that it alone
is retained, makes against him? As before, the duty
of a decorous silence would be the proper inference
-from such a style of historic criticism.
All this is said, and much more might have been
said, upon the supposition that Christ was a mere man,
a common historical personage, to meet 1ir. Newman
on his own -grounds. I now proceed one step further
in the argument; and remark that, to many other of
Mr. Newman's criticisms, it is possible, I should imagine, for even Mr. Martineau to reply. I know not what
Mr. Martineau's degree of historical scepticism in relation to the Gospels may be; how far he feels himself
at liberty to pare away the historical element; to question fact, as well as explode miracle; but if he admits
any special superhuman moral endowments in Christ
at all, — as his language would sometimes imply, —
he has, I suppose, a conclusive answer to Mr. Newman's great argument. If he does deny every superhuman endowment, as well as a divine nature, then
Mhr'. Newman's argument is of force; otherwise, hardly
so. Mr. Newman reasons, that, if any one contends
that Christ is a mere man, then he must hold that
Christ must be morally imperfect; in other. words, that
God either could not or would not endow any human
19




138    A DEFENCE OF:" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.?
creature with capacities for exhibiting a perfect human
virtue! Truly, it is a nice little metaphysical theorem;
but, like Mr. Newman's theories of the " origin of evil,"
will seem to the world but scant in proof.
Mr. Newman (as is too often the case) wraps up his
meaning in language quite as "enigmatical " as that
he attributes so freely to Christ. He expressly affirms
that Christ, if merely man, could not exhibit a " perfect
morality," because, being man, he would be essentially
imperfect, morally and in all respects. But he also
uses the expressions (as if they were equivalent), that,
being finite, he is to be assumed not to 1"exhaust all
perfection" (p. 143), - that, being "'finite" in every
other respect, he could not be " infinite in moral perfection" (p. 142). To most persons, the idea of a Being,
just what man ought to be,- a model of human virtue, —would be very distinct from that of one "' exhausting all perfection," and being " infinite in moral
perfection."  Mr. Newman always speaks just jas if
they were the same thing. Just add to this what he
calls " a first principle of thought with him," -that
"no sort of perfection is possible to man," -no matter, I suppose, how God may create or endow him,
and you have an easy demonstration that Jesus Christ
could not be "6morally perfect" as man.  Whether
God has ever created such a being of course depends
on proper historical evidence; Mr. Newman contents
himself with the " high a priori road." The species in
general are morally imperfect, as finite; therefore Christ
must have been so! There is a delightful and cheerful little corollary, which Mr. Newman ought to have
appended to his strange metaphysics of the finite and
the infinite; namely, that there neither is, can, nor will
be in this or any world a single created being who is,
even within the limits of such created nature, "per



CRITICISM ON " THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST."   139
feet," or free from sin and frailty. For being "finite,"
he could not exhibit "infinite moral perfection," or " exhaust all perfection." A pleasant look-out for the universe! With most men, the idea of a " Perfect Man,"
who is not.necessarily an Infinite God also, will be
tolerably distinct.
This argument, he says, is what a Trinitarian would
employ.e
The Trinitarian's argument is mainly founded, first,
on the whole evidence, internal and external, that Christianity is of Divine origin; and secondly, admitting
that, — that we cannot fairly account for the whole
strain of what its Founder says of himself, or what
others say of him, without coming to the conclusion
that he is neither like any other man, nor exclusively
man at all. Most Trinitarians, I fancy, would hesitate
to affirm that it is impossible for God to endow a
human being with capacities to exhibit a perfect human virtue.
On the most attenuated theory which admits any
special endowments in Christ, the illustration of Mr.
Newman appears absurd. He asks, whether, if any
one claimed " moral perfection for his old schoolmaster
or his parish priest," he would not have a right to resent his claims! He might have waited till some one
had claimed perfection for " his old schoolmaster or
parish priest." Meantime, it would be well for him to
consider that it is very curious, and deserves some solution, that so many millions of Trinitarians and Unitarians, amongst them so many men of the highest
order of intellect and the largest culture, should have
claimed moral perfection for Jesus Christ, while, it
seems, there is not the smallest danger of their ever
*Phases, p. 141.




140    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
claiming anything of the sort for as any old schoolmaster or parish priest"; no, nor even for a James, a Peter,
or a Paul, or any other of the sons of men! And this
consideration alone might have led him to suppress
any such comparisons; the question, to any one who
admits a special commission, is as regards a Being, at
all events, preternaturally endowed, even if not superhuman himself, "and not about some old schoolmaster
or parish priest!'
To the ordinary Unitarian, of course, - whatever
becomes of Mr. Martineau and his hypothesis, — and
still more to the Trinitarian, the argument between
these two gentlemen ceases to have any interest, except so far as it is manifestly unjust to Christ, even as
an ordinary historic personage, that any man should
assail him as Mr. Newman has done; and that it fills
them with disgust and horror to reflect that this gratuitous odium is cast on one whom they do not regard as
a common historic personage. The ordinary Unitarian
believes, at all events, that Christ was preternaturally
endowed as no man ever was before, or will be again,
- miraculously commissioned to make good his lofty
claims, - and invested with the character of the Judge
of all men. Any argument on the assumption that,
supposing Christ to have been man only, therefore,
however preternaturally endowed by the Father of
lights with knowledge, wisdom, and virtue, it was
impossible he should exhibit a perfect human excellence,
but must have been encompassed with imperfections
and foibles, because a man, would be to them simply
ridiculous. If Mr. Newman assert it, as, by consequence, he must with his theory of the Finite, the
Unitarians would do well to hold him to a full proof of
this pretty little metaphysical theorem, that God either
never would or never could enable a single individual




CRITICISM ON C" THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST.)  141
of our race to exhibit a perfect human wisdom or a
perfect human virtue! It will last his time.
To the Trinitarians, of course, such an argument
would be of no avail; and with them, therefore, Mr..Newman does not urge it. Yet he cannot avoid caricaturing their doctrine. Speaking of Christ's death,
and his relation to the instruments by whom He suffered, he says: "If any one holds Jesus to be not
amenable to the laws of human morality, I am not
now reasoning with such a one. But if any one
claims for him a human perfection, then I say that his
conduct on this occasion was neither laudable nor
justifiable: far otherwise." " They do not affirm that,
considered as man, he was not amenable to human
morality. How can they, when they believe that he
was the great ideal of human morality? But believing him not merely man, nor only man, they do not
think that all his acts are to be measured by what all
men may do; and in that they are no more inconsistent, than in affirming that fathers and their children,
kings and their subjects, are alike "amenable to the
laws of human morality," though the difference of
their relations will make that rightful authority in the
one which would be simply insolent contumacy and
lawless arrogance in the other. Carry this principle
fairly out to the modifications which not only a difference of relations, but a superiority of nature, would impose, -apply them to Him who is believed to be Son
of God as well as Son of Man, and the supposed anomalies disappear.
In relation to Christ's death, Mr. Newman's redoubtable dilemma is easily met by both Unitarian and
Trinitarian. If Mr. Newman affirm that nothing could
* Phases, p. 159.
19*




142    A DEFENCE OF s" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
justify Christ in assailing the rulers, supposing him
merely man, the answer is, that He denounced their
crimes, and righteously denounced them, — did the
truest and the justest thing, - regardless of the consequences. If it be said, that even though he were the
Son of God, foreknowing the results, it was a crime to
do this, the answer is the same: " Fiat justitia, ruat
ccelum."  If it be made a difficulty at all, it will carry
us one step further, and bring us to one of those metaphysical theorems, which Mr. Newman is too apt to
forget, but which will last our day, — namely, how it
is that God, foreseeing that the punishment which He
inflicts will exasperate men, and make them  worse,
nevertheless inflicts it, and equitably works out the results of His Providence, by means of the. crimes and
follies He infallibly foresees, and yet does not prevent.
If Christ was merely man, He was a martyr to " loving
righteousness and hating iniquity "; - if God as well,
He did no more than God does! When Mr. Newman
has reconciled the absolute prescience of God with the
free will and responsibility of his guilty creatures, it
will be time to consider the difficulties in this last
problem.
And -now, what, after all, does all the carping criticism of this chapter amount to? Little as it is in
itself, it absolutely vanishes, - it is felt that the Christ
here portrayed cannot be the right interpretation of the
history, - in the face of all those glorious scenes with
which the Evangelical narrative abounds, but of which
there is here an entire oblivion. But Humanity will
not forget them; men still wonder at the "gracious
words which proceeded out of Christ's mouth," and
persist in saying,  "Never man spake like this man."
The brightness of the brightest names pales and wanes
before the radiance which shines from the person of




CRITICISM ON " THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST."~  143
Christ. The scenes at the tomb of Lazarus, at the
gate of Nain, in the happy family at Bethany, in the
"' upper room," where He instituted the beautiful feast
which should for ever consecrate His memory, and bequeathed to His disciples the legacy of His love; the
scenes in the Garden of Gethsemane, on the summit
of Calvary, and at the Sepulchre; the sweet remembrance of the patience with which He bore wrong, the
gentleness with which He rebuked it, and the love
with which He forgave it; the thousand acts of benign condescension by which HIe well earned for Himself, from self-righteous pride and censorious hypocrisy,
the name of the " friend of publicans and sinners ";
these, and a hundred things more which crowd those
concise memorials of love and sorrow with such prodigality of beauty and of pathos, will still continue to
charm and attract the soul of humanity, and on these
the highest genius as well as the humblest mediocrity
will love to dwell. These things lisping infancy loves
to hear on its mother's knees, and over them age, with
its gray locks, bends in devoutest reverence. No; before the infidel can prevent the influence of these compositions, he must get rid of the Gospels themselves, or
he must supplant them by fictions yet more wonderful!
Ah! what bitter irony has involuntarily escaped me!
But if the last be impossible, at least the Gospels must
cease to exist before Infidelity can succeed. Yes, before infidels can prevent men from thinking as they
ever have done of Christ, they must blot out the gentle
words with which, in the presence of austere hypocrisy,
the Saviour welcomed that timid guilt that could only
express its silent love in an agony of tears; —they
must blot out the words addressed to the dying penitent, who, softened by the majestic patience of the
mighty Sufferer, detected at last the Monarch under the




144    A DEFENCE OF:" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
veil of sorrow, and cast an imploring glance to be " re
membered by Him when He came into His kingdom"; - they must blot out the scene in which the
demoniacs - or the maniacs, if the infidel will, for it
does not help him - sat listening at his feet, and " in
their right mind"; - they must blot out the remembrance of the tears which He shed at the grave of Lazarus, not surely for him whom He was about to raise,
but in pure sympathy with the sorrows of humanity,
for the myriad myriads of desolate mourners, who
could not, with Mary, fly to Him and say, " Lord, if
Thou hadst been here, my mother — brother - sister -
had not died! — they must blot out the record of
those miracles which charm us, not only as the proofs
of His mission and guaranties of the truth of His
doctrine, but as they illustrate the benevolence of His
character, and are types of the spiritual cures His Gospel can yet perform; — they must blot out the scenes of
the Sepulchre, where love and veneration lingered, and
saw what was never seen before, but shall henceforth
be seen to the end of time, — the Tomb itself irradiated with angelic forms, and bright with the presence
of Him "who brought life and immortality to light";
- they must blot out the scene where deep and grateful love wept so passionately, and found Him unbidden at her side, -type of ten thousand times ten thousand, who have " sought the grave to weep there," and
found joy and consolation in Him, " whom, though unseen, they loved "; - they must blot out the discourses
in which he took leave of His disciples, the majestic
accents of which have filled so many departing souls
with patience and with triumph; - they must blot out
the yet sublimer words in which He declares Himself
"the Resurrection and the Life," - words which have
led so many millions more to breathe out their spirits




CRITICISM ON " THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST."   145
with childlike trust, and to believe, as the gate of
death closed behind them, they would see Him who is
invested with the "' keys of the invisible world," "who
opens and no man shuts, and shuts and no man
opens," letting in through the portal which leads to
immortality the radiance of the skies; —they must
blot out, they must destroy, these and a thousand other
such things, before they can prevent Him from having
the Preeminence, who loved, because He loved us, to
call Himself the " Son of Man," though angels called
HIim the " Son of God."
it is in vain to tell men it is an illusion. If it be an
illusion, every variety of experiment proves it to be inveterate, and will not be dissipated by a million of
Strausses and Newmans!  Probatum est.  At His
feet guilty humanity of diverse races and nations for
eighteen hundred years has come to pour forth in faith
and love its sorrows, and finds there "' the peace which
the world can neither give nor take away."  Myriads
of aching heads and weary hearts have found and will
find repose there, and have invested Him with veneration, love, and gratitude, which will never, never be
paid to any other name than His.
Nor let it be said it is the moral necessities of manhis guilt.and sorrows —which thus attract him to the
Saviour. As a fact, it matters not; the. illusion, if
illusion it be, cannot be dispelled by that consideration;
for the moral necessities of the human heart- its guilt
and sorrows - are not likely to cease in a hurry, nor to
be met in any other or better way, than the comprehensive sympathy of Him who "was in all points
tempted like as we are," and can be " touched with
the feeling of our infirmities, though without sin." As
long as the memorials of His acts and words remain,
so long will Ile continue to exert His strange power




146    A DEFENCE OF C" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
over humanity, and until infidelity destroys them, there
is no hope of its success.
But, in fact, the plea is not true. Multitudes of the
loftiest minds have deeply investigated His claims, and
admitted them; genius of the highest order in science,
and poetry, and art, has brought its richest trophies,
and humbly laid them at His feet; the very chiefest of
the Western sages, like those of the East, have come to
offer Him'"frankincense, and gold, and myrrh," the
noblest offerings of intellect, the divinest performances
of art. Genius, true to its instincts after the beautiful
and the sublime, even when it has not been constrained
to pay a homage yet better than that of the intellect
and the imagination, has not been insensible to His
claims; it has poured forth a richer tribute to His
honor than all the mythologies of antiquity could
boast. He it is whose character and image have
chiefly weaned men from their base idolatry of mere
Power and Intellect, and made them see that in moral
greatness there is a radiance brighter still.  He it is
who has chiefly made them recognize the essential
identity of the "beautiful and the good."  No one of
the human race has exerted one thousandth part of the
power, directly or indirectly, in moulding the thought
and feeling, in developing the practical energies, of the
most various and cultured nations of the earth. And
if it be said, " And have not other religions, besides
that dedicated to Christ, called forth the homage of the
intellect and the tributes of genius?" I answer, Yes,
though not in so great a measure, nor anything like it,
nor from half the various races that have paid homage to
His name. But in relation to the present point, - the
probability of this illusion, if illusion, being dispelled,
-here is the difference. Those other and false religions have never stood the tests of Christianity, —




CRITICISM ON "C THE PERFECTION OF CHRIST.)"  147
nay, have never even waited to come fairly in contact
with them.  That is the great difference in calculating
whether the influence of Christ is likely now to be
destroyed.  They perish before the- influences which
Christianity resists and surmounts; cradled in barbarism, nurtured by local and national genius, they are
hybrids of the religious instinct and poetic fancy, and,
like other hybrids, they cannot propagate. Military
conquest, political revolution, shatter them to pieces;
they do not pass from race to race, nor emigrate from
clime to clime. What is still more fatal to them is
advancing science: these things of darkness are at
once transfixed by the shafts of light; the mythologies
of Greece and Rome were laughed at long before they
were finally extinguished; a score of mythologies
more have perished since that day; at this moment
Brahma and Vishnu are quaking on their precarious
thrones; and old Buddha lies sprawling on the rivers
of China. It is not so with the religion of Christ; in
the midst of the most literate and cultured ages which
the world has yet seen, and which Christianity itself
has tended to produce, (for they have sprung up contemporaneously with its influence, and its realms still
mark, with more distinctness than anything else, the
frontiers of intellectual day and night, being brightest
where it is brightest, and usually brighter than elsewhere even where it is comparatively dim,)- in these
ages, Christ still holds his own; and though in the
very midst of His Church arise from time to time an
endless succession of adversaries, they cannot prevail.
Its followers retain their faith; genius, large, cultured,
comprehensive, soberly declares its evidence impregnable. Pascal and Butler, and men like them, endowed with the most comprehensive minds, after
the profoundest study, have bowed at the Redeemer's




148     A DEFENCE OF " TIHE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
shrine; and the greatest master of Epic song, rich with
all the culture of all ages,  rich with the spoils of
time," -whose strains so emulate that still sublimer
poesy on which his lofty muse was modelled, believed
when he wrote his "' Paradise Lost,' not merely that
he was " adorning a poetic theme," but that he was
celebrating fact;; —the conflict of Immortal Hate and
Immortal Love. W7ho shall dissipate this deep illusion, thus inveterate, and solicited by every means of
cure, but in vain?
And is this Personage, who has so taken captive the
sons of men, and so inscribed His image on the soul
of humanity, likely to be injured by a little bit of carping and captious sophistry? The critic might as well
stretch out his hand to pluck Orion from his sphere.




CHARGES OF "PROFANITY,'X         149
SECTION XII.
CHARGES OF " PROFANITY,'f AND SO FORTH.
MR. NrEWwMAN 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"; i - 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 intelReply, p. 9. 19.           Phases, p. 97.
20




ago5B   A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."1
lect as free to ridicule the most 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 hiypothesis, the Apostles must have been either the most
" abominable impostors, or the most miserable fanatics,"* one cannot but admire the candor and discernment of Mr. Newman. Mere "blunders in literature
and history "!  No, I here " indorse" every word that
Harrington says.  If the Apostles "untr'uly 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 6despised 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
oEclipse, p. 43.




CHARGES OF " PROFANITY."       151
knowledge to us."  But, I think, -and I rather think
I 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 Ml. 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 criticize? 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




152     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
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 privilege 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
nature of humanity, but to reveal -yes, and to i'eveal 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 itsef, 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
realizing the peace which the world cannot give nor
take away, feel an invincible persuasion that the re



CHARGES OF "; PROFANITY."       153
iigion 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 Northeast Passage, - a course often tried before the still more numerous attempts to find one by the Northwest (that
enterprise so long pursued, and now so happily accomplished, and signalizing, 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 deilared they had seen part of the sun's disc grazing the
horizon. lie 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
20 *




154     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.:"
Christianity. How much more may a sceptic freely
canvass the doctrines of "The Soul!"
Mr. Newman quotes, with vivid indignation, the passage in which Hlarrington rebukes (as I conceive with
merited severity) the use, by such " spiritual infidels"
as Mr. Fellowes, of Scriptural language, in a sense
which the sacred writers would have utterly protested
against.
" I cannot suspect you of hypocrisy," says Harrington, "but I confess I regard your language as cant.
As I listen to you, I seem to see a hybrid between
Prynne and Voltaire.  So far from its being true that
you have renounced the letter of the Bible and retained its spirit, I think it would be much more correct
to say, comparing your infidel hypothesis with your
most spiritual dialect, that you have renounced the
spirit of the Bible and retained its letter." " But are
you in a condition to give an opinion? " said Fellowes, with a serious air. MIr. Newman says, in a like
case: "' The natural man discerneth not the things of
the spirit of God, because they are foolishness unto
him': it is'the spiritual man only who searches the
deep things of God.' At the same time, I freely acknowledge that I never could see my way clear to employ an argument which looks so arrogant; and the
less, as I believe, with  Mr. Parker, that the only
true revelation is in all men alike."  So far in the
" Eclipse."
" Now," says Mr. Newman, " I will not here farther
insist on the monstrosity of bringing forward St. Paul's
words as mine, in order to pour contempt upon them;
a monstrosity which no sophistry of Mr. Harrington
can justify." 
Reply, p. 12.




CHARGES OF " PROFANITY."       155
I think the real monstrosity is, that men should so
coolly employ St. Paul's words - for it is a quotation
from the treatise on "The Soul" -to mean something totally different from anything he intended to
convey by them, and employ the dialect of the Apostles
to contradict their doctrine;- that is the monstrosity;
and that is it which the citation from Paul is designed
to exemplify; it is not to pour contempt on his words,
but on a " monstrous " perversion of them. It is very
hard to conceive that Mr. Newman did not see this;
but rather than suspect him of the meanness of doing
what he so freely imputes to me, — of wilfully suppressing a passage which would at once have explained
the meaning, — I will suppose it. But had he gone on
only a few lines, the reader would have seen Harrington saying: " Those words you have just quoted
were well in Paul's mouth, and had a meaning. In
yours, I suspect, they would have none, or a very different one. He dreamt that he was giving to mankind
(vainly, as it seems) a system of doctrines and truths
which were, many of them, transcendental to the
human intellect and conscience, and which, when revealed, were very distasteful, and not least to you." 
Similar observations apply to another of Mr. Nevwman'A particularly solemn rebukes.
In " The Eclipse "  /Mr. Fellowes says: -"' We separate the dross of Christianity from its fine gold.' The
letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. The fruit of the
spirit is joy, peace, not -   "
" Upon my word," said Harrington, laughing, "I
shall presently begin to fancy that Douce Davie Deans
has turned infidel, and shall expect to hear of righthand fallings-off and left-hand defections."
E* clipse, p. 46.




156    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
"' I request," says Mr. Newman, " the reader to consider whether, if we blot out the names Fellowes and
Christianity, and put instead Paul and Judaism, Mr.
Harrington's scoffs would not have equal weight." I
answer, No; because the very gist of Harrington's ridicule is directed, not against Paul, but against Mr.
Fellowes, —against his abuse of Paul's. language to
express views from which Paul would have recoiled
with horror and indignation, - against the practical
absurdity (calling it by no harsher name) of using
apostolic language while utterly abjuring apostolic doctrine;- it is against that that IHarrington's sarcasm is
directed, — against a " gospel" which Paul would
utterly have disowned, - "another gospel" which is
truly "not another," but often a jumble (as I can bear
witness in many instances) of the most incongruous
dogmas of private fanaticism, stamped with the Christian mark, and so foisted into current circulation.
This old custom-house practice of " kissing the book"
for the purpose of passing a contraband theology, has
become too common among many who utterly deny
every distinctive feature of Christianity; and, if carried
out to its legitimate issue, would lead to a state of
mind just like that of Strauss, who, having translated
Christianity into a chaos of Hegelian Pantheism,
gravely discussed the question whether a man in such
a case might not still remain a clergyman, and preach
historical Christianity in the letter to please his hearers,
only taking due care not to let them understand that he
understood it to be a thing of myths! Mr. Newman
tells me that " I clearly have a profound unbelief in the
Christian doctrine of Divine influence, or I could not
thus grossly insult it." ~ I answer, God fbrbid that I
* Reply, p. 7.




CHARGES OF " PROFANITY."        157
should " insult " it, whether it be the more special influence - sometimes direct illumination, sometimes
mere superintendence - which, as I fully believe, presided over the composition of the sacred Scriptures,
or the ordinary, though mysterious action by which
God aids those who sincerely seek him, " in every good
word and work."  That which Harrington ridiculed —
as the context would have shown Mr. Newman if he
had had the patience to read on, and the calmness to
judge —is the chaotic view of inspiration formally
held by Mr. Parker (who is expressly referred to *), to
which MIr. Fellowes is represented as adhering; a
proof again, if any were wanting, that Mr. Fellowes
was not designed to be the counterpart of Mr. Newman. Mr. Fellowes, indeed, naturally enough, invests
Mr. Newman with such inspiration, as he must, on Mr.
Parker's theory, concede it to everybody else from
whom he professed to derive any " spiritual" benefit
at all. And surely, according to that theory, he is
quite right; for if Minos and Praxiteles, and Numa
and Titian, are inspired in the same sense as Moses
and Christ, -and Benjamin Franklin as truly as any
of them, - lawgivers, artists, poets, and painters, -
there are few  men that might not put in a claim;
nay, I think that the " Inventor of Lucifer Matches"
(at the introduction of whose name MVir. Newman is so
indignant), as well as the in-ventor of " Eureka Shirts,"
and a good many more, must also be admitted. As to
the inventor of lucifer matches in particular, I am
thoroughly convinced he has shed more light on the
world, and been abundantly more useful to it, than
many a cloudy expositor of modern " spiritualism."
Mr. Newman further says: " I am sorry to add, that in
* Eclipse, p. 81.




158     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
order to avert the indignation of his readers, and pretend it is some conceit and vanity of mine which he
is ridiculing, he endeavors, in pages 10, 14, 46, and
elsewhere, to instil into the reader that I make exclusive claims of inspiration for my single self. I wish I
could think that he has sincerely mistaken me."' He
has what is tantamount to his wish then. In the above
case I was speaking, as the context shows, of Mr.
Parker's theory of inspiration, and not his, which, in
truth, I do not comprehend. Assuredly in none of the
cited pages, nor " elsewhere," is he represented as doing
what he states. I never thought he made exclusive
claim to "' Inspiration 1"; rather I thought that, whatever he deemed it, he made it only too cheap. He
further says: " I have already noted how falsely he insinuates that I claim some exclusive inspiration, whereas I only claim that which all pious Christians and
Jews since David have always claimed." t  Does Mr.
Newman mean that he claims as much as the Apostles
claimed, whether they did so rightfully or not? If so,
he claims enough, and a good deal more than I should
be disposed to grant him. The last utterance of Mr.
Newman on this subject that I have read, occurs in his
preface to the second edition of his "Hebrew Monarchy," where he tells us that he believes it is an influence accessible to all men, in a certain stage of development! Surely it will be time to consider his theory of
Inspiration when he has told us a little more about it.
To my mind, if the very Genius of Mystery had
framed the definition, it could not have uttered anything more indefinite.
* Reply, p. 7.              t Ibid. p. 12.




NEW TESTAMENT AND SLAVERY.       159
SECTION XIII.
MIR. NEWMAN'S REPLY TO THE NOTES RESPECTING
C SLAVERY 2 AND THE "LEARLY PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY.~e
ANOTHER remarkable passage in the new edition of
" The Phases" deserves notice.  Mr. Newman had
asserted that the New Testament sanctioned slavery,
and was, in fact, the " argumentative stronghold of
the accursed system." I endeavored to show that it
does not sanction slavery; that it simply does not denounce it; — that this caution, in the then condition
of the world, was necessary, if the Apostles were to
gain a hearing at all; and wise, since they would do
more by quietly diffusing the principles which, if triumphant, must exterminate slavery, than by passionately denouncing it; —that experience has shown that
only amongst Christian nations is there any extensive
or combined movement against slavery; — that hatred
of it becomes more and more active in proportion as
people become more and more Christian. I remarked
that this was the only way, without perpetual miracle,
by which any religious reformer could propagate his
system; and that, if any one were sufficiently in love
with the new systems of spiritualism to go as missionary to the East to preach them, he would not, in
addition, publicly denounce "4 the social and political
evils under which the nations groaned; or that if he
did, his spiritual projects would soon be perfectly understood and cummarily dealt with."  I added, ad



160    A DEFENCE OF "; THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.T"
dressing Mr. Fellowes, " It is vain to say, that, if commissioned by Heaven, and endowed with power of
working miracles, you would do so; for you cannot
tell under what limitations your commission would be
given: it is pretty certain, that it would leave you to
work a moral and spiritual system by moral and spiritual means, and not allow you to turn the world upside
down, nor mendaciously tell it that you came only to'preach peace,' while every syllable you uttered would
be an incentive to sedition."' On this Mr. Newman
comments as follows: " This writer supposes he is attacking mne, when every line is an attack on Christ
and Christianity. Have Ipretended power of working
miracles?  Have I imagined or desired that miracle
should shield me from persecution?  Did Jesus not'publicly denounce the social and political evils' of
Judaea?  WVCas he not'summarily dealt with'?  Did
he not know that his doctrine would send on earth,,' not peace, but a sword'? and was he mendacious in
saying,'Peace I leave unto yoiu'? or were the angels
mendacious in proclaiming'Peace on earn, good-will
among men'?  Was not'every syllable that Jesus
uttered' in the discourse of Matt. xxiii.'an incentive
to sedition'? and does this writer judge it to be mendacity, that Jesus opened by advising to obey the very
men whom he proceeds to vilify at large as immoral,
oppressive, hypocritical, blind, and destined to the
damnation of hell? Or have I anywhere blamed the
Apostles because they did not exasperate wicked men
by direct attacks? It is impossible tb answer such a
writer as this; for he elaborately misses to touch what
I have said.. On the other hand, it is rather, too much
to require me to defend Jesus from his assault." r
* Eclipse, p. 422.   t' Phases, 2d ed., pp. 106,107.




NEW TESTAMENT AND SLAVERY.         161
My assault.! I trust that that Name is safe enough
from my assault. I must beg Mr. Newman to recollect that he wrote the preceding paragraph, not 1. I
admit, however, that " it is rather too much to require
/imd to defend Jesus " from any assault; since his chapter on " The Moral Perfection of Jesus " shows that he
is much better skilled in assailing him. No; I shall
not repair to my critic for any such purpose; if I
wanted to palliate the conduct of the Pharisees, indeed, that chapter instructs me where to go.
" It is impossible," he says, " to answer such a writer
as this."  I think it is impossible to answer any writer
by asking a number of irrelevant questions. But it is
very possible to answer him; and so now for the questions of his catechism, taken seriatim.
1. "Have I pretended power of working miracles? 
Answer. Not that I know of; did I ever say he had?
2. " 1Have I imagined or desired that miracle should
shield me from persecution? "
Answer. I cannot tell what he has "imagined or
desired "; but I am sure I hope there is no need of a
miracle to shield him from persecution.
3. " Did Jesus not publicly denounce the social and
political evils of Judea?"
Answver. He did not denounce the political evils, as
is plain from His conduct with regard to the tributemoney, in which this consistent censor blames His
"evasion"'; and from  His answer to the man who
wished Him to interfere about the " division of his
inheritance": nor did He denounce any othler social
evils than such as followed directly from the perversions of the Mosaic law by its professed administrators, - the Scribes and Pharisees. The corruptions of
that Theocracy which He came at once to vindicate
and to abolish, He did denounce, and, as a religious
21




162    A DEFENCE OF "THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."7
reformer, most consistently and justly.  All the evils
He denounced were directly involved in its maleadministration, - which had " destroyed the law of God
by man's traditions": and this may be seen by any
one who considers what those evils were, from the
"pretence of long prayers," and "making broad the
phylacteries," to the " devouring of widows' houses"
and the perversion of the fifth commandment. The
Pharisees wished him, indeed, to go further, but He
was too wise to be entrapped; a thing which it is
strange Mr. Newman should overlook, since he has
censured Him for His asserted evasion.
4. "Was He not summarily dealt with? "
Answer. He was; and would have been yet more
summarily dealt with, and with less trouble to the
Pharisees, if he had done that which Mr. Newman
insinuates that He did, but did not.
5. " Did He not know that His doctrine would send
on earth, not peace, but a sword?"
Answer. Yes; He knew that His religious doctrine
would, and He told the truth.
6. " And was He mendacious in saying,'Peace I
leave unto you'?'"
Answer. No; though Mr. Newman would insinuate that He was. He came to "bring peace," though
He also came to" bring a sword"; He came to bring
peace, and He did not come to bring peace; which,
though it be unintelligible to a man who is resolved
that the same words shall always have the same meaning, is very intelligible to millions of Christians, who
have perfectly well understood that Christianity may
involve'" the loss of all things," and yet fill the soul
with a peace which overpays them all; and it is the
less excusable in Mr. Newman not to see this, since
our Lord explained the paradox by telling the whole




NEW TESTAMENT AND SLAVERY.       163
truth, of which Mr. Newman here sophistically gives
half: "Peace I leave with you...... In the world ye
shall have tribulations; but be of' good cheer, I have
overcome the world."'
7. " Were the angels mendacious in proclaiming'Peace on earth, good-will among men'?"
Answer. No; for a similar reason.
8. "1 Was not every syllable that Jesus uttered in
His discourse of Matt. xxiii. an incentive to sedition? 
Answer. No; it was a just denunciation of the
most horrible moral and religious delinquencies on the
part of the most odious traitors to God and man, pronounced by One (as we believe) divinely authorized to
pronounce it, and which, though it might indirectly
lead to sedition, He was bound to pronounce.
9. " And does this writer judge it to be mendacity
that Jesus opened by advising to obey the very men
whom he proceeds to vilify at large as immoral, oppressive, and hypocritical?"
Answer. No; though again Mr. Newman takes care
to insinuate that Christ was mendacious; as if Christ
enjoined his disciples to obey these men in the very
points in which he told them not to obey them. He
tells them they are to " obey " their spiritual rulers in
the things they enjoin, "as sitting in Moses's seat,"
and proclaiming his precepts; but that they are not to
do after their works, "since they say, and do not."
Nor did He "'vilify " the Pharisees, whom  Mr. Newman seems disposed to pet, but justly characterized
them.
10. " Or have I anywhere blamed the Apostles because they did not exasperate wicked men by direct
attacks? "
Answer. What does he mean by "direct" attacks,
and what does he mean by " wicked " men?




164    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITHo"
I only know that he found fault with the " New
Testament;" for not denouncing slavery as an immorality; to denounce it, I suppose, would have been a
di)rect attack upon it. Mr. Newman certainly appeared
to infer that this silence implied a justification and
sanction of slavery; — which is denied. He now says:
"I merely pointed out what it was that they (the
Apostles) actually taught, and that, as a fact, they did
not declare slavery to be an immorality, and the basest
of thefts. If any one thinks their course was more
wise, he may be right or wrong, but his opinion is in
itself a concession of my fact."' Passing by the confusion of expression about " pointing out what the
Apostles actually taught," which, in point of fact,
turns out to be something they did not teach, few persons would have complained of the representation.
No doubt the Apostles did not denounce slavery as
the "basest of thefts," but the question is, whether
that non-denunciation sanctions it, or fairly makes the
New Testament the " argumentative stronghold of the
accursed system"; for this Mr. Newman asserted it
to be.
A religious reformer must, of course, by that very
fact that he is one, denounce the moral and spiritual
vices opposed to what he conscientiously believes to be
religious truth; and like the Apostles, or Luther in
later times, will brave (as these did) all the opposition
which may meet him on that score, and even all the
indirect possibilities of civil commotion which may
ensue from this necessary proclamation of the truth.
But it is absurd to suppose, that therefore he is bound
to denounce the social and political abuses of the community he addresses: this may not be possible, if he is
- Phases, p. 107.




NEW TESTAMIENT AND SLAVERY.       165
to gain a hearing for the principles he teaches, or even
if he wisely calculates for the extinction of those evils
themselves. For this reason, it does not follow that
he will even denounce all those evils which his followers may very properly denounce, and the condemnation of which may be involved in the very principles he
proclaims; as I firmly believe slavery is condemned by
the principles of the "'New Testament."  He will not
denounce these things, that his mouth may not be
shut at once; that his doctrine may not be justifiably
accused of seditious tendencies, and thus " summarily"
put down. As this is the course which common sense
points out for the religious reformer, so it has been
the course acted on, not by Apostles only, but by the
wisest of all time, and in proportion to their wisdom.
And as thus it must be, if success is to attend any
such enterprises at all, so I put it on a practical issue.
I ask, as I asked Mr. Fellowes, whether, if any one
should have the compassion to go and preach that
" spiritualism," which, if we may believe Mr. Newman,
might convert Hindoos and  Mahometans,' and, it
seems, does not very readily convert Englishmen, —
and really it seems hard not to enlighten mankind,
where they are willing to be enlightened, and to persist in enlightening them where they are not, — I ask,
I say, in that case, whether the said missionary would
denounce political and social evils, as well as all else
he denounced? If he says, Yes; I say, then, his system of religious reformation will be summarily dealt
with, and his hopes of any success brought to a sudden termination. If he says, No, then he need not
wonder that the " New Testament " is silent on these
topics too.
* Soul, pp. 244, 258.
21 "




166    A DEFENCE OF r" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH..
I had said that Mr. Newman proclaims " his hatred
of despotism  and slavery, where such magnanimity is
perfectly safe and perfectly superfluous."  Mr. Newman takes this as an affront. I did not mean to question his courage (about which I knew nothing); since
to act as he seems to think the Apostles ought to have
acted would not be courage in my estimation, but
mere foolhardiness. I simply meant to imply, by the
sarcasm, that not even he can carry out, or would
carry out, the theory which blames the Apostles for
not adding to the proclamation of what they believed
religious truth, a crusade against slavery, despotism,
and other political and social evils. Mr. Newman indignantly denounces the crimes of the house of Hapsburg,    long may he be able and willing to do so!but it would be no "magnanimity" in him to proclaim the. same sentiments in the " market-place " of
Vienna, or from the "' house-tops" of St. Petersburg,
but sheer idiocy. Now, when I find any religious reformer proclaiming the new spiritualism, or any other
modification of Deism, and neglecting the same practical regard to common sense as to what and where
they speak, then I shall be willing to allow that they
are at least consistent in the theory in virtue of which
they censure the Apostles; but I can hardly hope that
they will get any one to listen to them.
Mr. Newman, indeed, thinks it probable that the
Apostles might as harmlessly have denounced slavery
as the Quakers have done in America.' "It is matter
of conjecture, whether any greater convulsion would
have happened if the Apostles had done as the Quakers
in America. No Quaker holds slaves; why not? Because the Quakers teach their members that it is an
essential immorality."' Yes, it is matter of conjecture;
* Phases, p. 107.




NEW TESTAMENT AND SLAVERY.        167
and therefore the Apostles, I should imagine, living at
the time, and required to act in the case, were the only
proper judges.  In the mean time, we are tolerable
judges of Mr. Newman's parallel. Quakers teach their
-members.! Yes; but not to insist that they live under
a constitutional government (where the bulk of the
people are themselves Christians), if they were to take
a tour through the Southern States, to proselytize, and
proclaimed that slavery was immoral in everybody,
and ought to be abolished, I suppose no very remote
experience would sufficiently show the precariousness
of all " conjectures" as to the consequences.
Mr. Newman says: "' The Romans practised fornication at pleasure, and held it ridiculous to blame them.
If Paul had claimed authority to hinder them, they
might have been greatly exasperated; but they had not
the least objection to his denouncing fornication as
immoral to Christians. Why not slavery also?" 
There are no doubt false analogies and true analogies.
Whether this is one or the other, we shall soon see.
The question, I presume, is about denouncing slavery
as a thing criminal in itself; not as an immorality to
Christians only, but as wrong in anybody. Fornication they did so denounce; it was an immorality,
whether practised by Christians or any one else. Now
the fallacy of any such analogy, when thus fairly stated,
becomes clear from this argument, which is the counterpart of Mr. Newman's.
"' The Romans practised idolatry at pleasure, and
thought it ridiculous to blame it. If Paul had claimed
authority to hinder them, they might have been greatly'exasperated.' (I should think so.) But they had not
the least objection to his denouncing idolatry as im* Phases, p. 107.




168    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."I
moral to Christians, or to anybody; for thus he denounced fornication.'" - Does it follow now that they
would have no objection? Let his own history, let the
thousands of martyrs who, before long, died because
they would not burn incense on heathen altars, answer
the question!
As to whether Christianity is or is not unfavorable
to slavery, I am quite willing, as before, to remit the
decision to the practical test. I defy any man to discover, in any age, or in any nation, any considerable
body of men who breathed a word of disapprobation
of slavery as such, till Christianity came into the
world; nor then, except amongst those nations that
have been brought into contact with it. The apathy of
all the nations of antiquity, and all nations not Christian at the present day, -the utter unconsciousness of
the best moralists of antiquity of their being any
harm in slavery, — confirms the conclusion that the origination of right sentiments on this subject has been the
work of Christianity. Nothing really avails against
this gigantic evil, except the influences that have
abolished both the slave-trade and slavery amongst
ourselves; that is, a deep persuasion that slavery is
utterly opposed, if not to the letter, yet to the entire
spirit of Christianity, and that it and the Gospel cannot coexist in perpetuity. It may last long, for human
cupidity is not more easily subdued than slavery; but
where Christianity enters, the fray is sure to begin, and
will never terminate but with the extinction of slavery
itself. Since " The Eclipse of Faith" was first published, there has appeared among us a book which has
done more to awaken the hatred of the world against
slavery than perhaps anything that was ever written
before, or is likely to be soon written again. Now
what was it, after all, that gave to its exposure of the




EARLY PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY.     169
evils of slavery such intense interest, and so deeply
stirred the heart of America and of Europe as they
read? WVhat wvas it but the Christian sentiment which
inspired it?  What was it but the bond which was felt
to connect poor Uncle Tom and the little Eva with Him
whose love knows no distinction of color; who welcomes both alike to His feet, and in whom "all the
families of the earth are to be blessed "'; who came to
open "' the prison doors to them that are bound "7; and
even where He does not do that literally, yet can enfranchise degraded humanity with a freedom so much
more glorious, that it must make the cheek of every
conscientious Christian tingle to think that any inferior
freedom should be withheld?  Let our philanthropic
Deists write a book which, freely resorting to their
sources of interest, - to the abstract rights of man, -
shall produce half the same effect which this does by
combining with all such topics (which are equally
those of bothl parties) the nobler sentiments which
Christian philanthropy alone can inspire.
And now as to the " early progress of Christianity."'
Mr. Newman had represented the Christians, previous
to the age of Constantine, as a " small fraction "'; and
yet declared that it was the Christian soldiers of Constantine who conquered the empire for Christianity.
If all the Christians in the empire were but a small
fraction, those in the army- considering that it was
not a very likely place for the primitive Christians to
harbor in - must have been a very small fraction of
a ", small fraction)"; and the question returns, how it
came to pass that a small fraction of a "small fraction" managed to conquer the colossal strength of a
hostile or indifferent empire for Christianity.
Mr. Newman, omitting this part of the subject, -it




170    A DEFENCE OF C; THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
was as well omitted, —-affirms, as usual, that I have
misrepresented him, and thus he endeavors to show
it: 1" The Author of' The Eclipse of Faith' has derided me for despatching, in two paragraphs, what occupied Gibbon's whole fifteenth chapter; but this author, here as always, misrepresents me. Gibbon is exhibiting and developing the deep-seated causes of the
spread of Christianity before Constantine; and he by
no means exhausts the subject. I am comparing the
ostensible and notorious facts concerning the outward
conquest of Christianity with those of other religions."'
I consider that in this very paragraph Mr. Newman
distinctly shows that I have not misrepresented him;
nor is it true that I have overlooked his novel hypothesis. He says that " Gibbon is exhibiting and developing the deep-seated causes of the spread of Christianity before Constantine," — which Mr. Newman
says had not spread! On the contrary, he assumes
that the Christians were a "' small fraction," and thus
does dismiss in two sentences, I might have said three
words, what Gibbon had strained every nerve in his
celebrated chapter to account for. As to Gibbon's not
" exhausting " the subject, I have here the happiness of
entirely agreeing for once with Mrs. Newman; though,
if Mr. Newman's view of the early condition of Christianity be correct, I should have thought he would more
likely have said that Gibbon more than exhausts it.
In relation to Mr. Newman's hypothesis, the question still returns, - supposing the Christians in the
time of Constantine a small fraction, and the soldiers a
small fraction of that, -- how Constantine came to be
fool enough to endanger his cause by implicating it
with their own, and they heroes enough to conquer the
Phases, p. 101.




EARLY PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY,     171
empire for him and themselves; especially since Julian
would undoubtedly have liked to reverse the trick, and
very signally failed?
Mr. Newman has added a little and altered a little
in his statements on this subject in his present edition,
but, as in so many other cases, manages to assume
what ought to be proved. He says, after repeating that
the Christians were but a small fraction of the empire,
that " Christianity was adopted as a state religion because of the great political power accruing from the
organization of the churches, and the devotion of
Christians to their ecclesiastical citizenship." If they
had not been a small fraction, we should still, of course,
have demanded something more than this free and
easy way of disposing of this matter; for the bare assertion of such a critic as Mr. Newman will hardly
pass without proof; as also how it was that such organization as the primitive churches could be so obviously suited to political and military purposes. But
since they were a "small fraction " of the empire, it is
still less obvious how a great political power could
suddenly " accrue from their Church organization."
In the same passage, Mr. Newman says, " The bravery and faithful attachment of Christian regimemts "who would not have thought that it was one of Constantine's aides-de-camp that was speaking? - " was a
lesson not lost on Constantine"; but how there came
to be " Christian regiments," when all the Christians in
the empire were " a small fraction," and the camp about
the last place wherein to seek them, is, as before, the
main question.




172    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.2'
SECTIO  N  XIV.
SOME MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS.
NOT to omit anything, however incidental, which
Mr. Newman has said in reply to "The Eclipse,"
I will make a remark or two on a note  in which he
evidently refers' to the work, though he does not name
it. Mr. Newman had admitted in his'" Phases" the
"very complete establishment which Paley's I Horoe
Paulinae' gives to the narrative concerning Paul in the
latter half'" of the " Acts," and which appeared to him
"to reflect critical honor on the whole New Testament."  The Author of "' The Eclipse of Faith" says
(" Dilemmas of an Infidel Neophyte'"), that, on renouncing Christianity, Mr. Newman does not attempt
to account for this,'as he surely ought."  Mr. Newman cannot see that he has to account for anything!
He says, in his recent edition," A critic absurdly complains that I do not account for this."  I do not "' absurdly " complain that he does not account for it, because I am perfectly well aware that it is impossible
for him to do so. But I, not absurdly, complain that,
admitting the facts, he does not attevmpt to account for
them. He says, " Account for what?  I still hold the
authenticity of nearly all the Pauline Epistles, and that
the Pauline Acts " -we see how fine his criticism can
cut, but no reasons given - " are compiled from some
valuable source, - from chap. xii. onward; but it was
* Phases, p. 14.




SOME MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS.       173
gratuitous to infer that this could accredit the Four
Gospels."  Precipitate again. It is "gratuitous"' of
him to suppose that I was saying'" that the coincidences could accredit the Four Gospels," though I
think they will indirectly go a great way towards that;
but it does not follow that, if they do not accredit the
Four Gospels, there is not still something to be accounted for. Supposing, as this admission does, the
Pauline Epistles to have been written under the circumstances related in the "' Acts," it -is natural that he
who rejects Christianity should seek to give some
plausible account at least of the ready reception of
Paul's extraordinary pretensions in so many widely
different communities,-an explanation especially, not
simply of his preternatural claims, but of such a prompt
submission to them; — to let us know whether he was
a fanatic or an impostor; — how, if the latter, he
managed to hoodwink the people, and how, if the
former, they managed to hoodwink themselves; —how
it was that they contrived to surrender at so early a
period, and in so many distant places, their various
national and local prejudices in favor of these novel
and (if false) not very attractive extravagances.  I
rather think that most people will think there is something to be accounted for, if a man admits what Mr.
Newman admits, and yet rejects the miraculous origin
of the Gospel. In the mean time, and since Mr. Newman thinks any inference in favor of Christianity from
such a source so precarious, I recommend him to do
what Johnson said had never been done nor was likely
to be done, — refute Lord Lyttelton's argument for
Christianity from the life and labors of Paul, or the
inferences which Paley so forcibly draws, at the close
of the "4 Horae Pauline," from the historical facts there
established, to the preternatural origin of Christianity.
22




174     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."4
In general, it may be remarked of that singular book,
the "' Phases," that ordinarily such is the oblivion of all
that does not make for a present assertion, or of almost
all that makes against it, that an amusing book might
be written by reversing the whole process of the
" Phases," and supplying the evidence omitted from
point to point. For example: Mr. Newman proposes
to get rid of the testimony of Peter to the Resurrection. He has already successfully eliminated that of
Paul, John, and others, by processes equally summary.
Well, and how does he get rid of Peter?  Nothing
more easy: -" Peter does not attest the bodily, but
only the spiritual resurrection of Jesus, for he says that
Christ was'put to death in flesh, but made alive in
spirit.' (1 Peter iii. 18.) Yet if this verse had been
lost, his opening address (i. 3) would have seduced one
into the belief that Peter taught the bodily resurrection
of Jesus."'
Let us suppose — if we can suppose - some disciple of Mr. Newman acquiescing in this view, till he
came to look a little into the evidence here quietly ignored. I fancy he would say, "Manifestly, I had no
right to assume that I Peter i. 3, which asserts the fact
of Christ's resurrection with such literal plainness, was
not to be so interpreted, because'there was another
passage the meaning of which was disputed. Was
not this to interpret the plain by the obscure? And
then, again, it was clear that I had overlooked other
passages, which, like i. 3, spoke as plainly of the resurrection, -as, for example, iii. 21.  What right had I
to say that these plainer texts were to go for nothing,
and be interpreted by the more obscure?  And, after
all, even that obscure verse, - what could be made of' Phases, p. 123, 2d ed.




SOME MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS.        175
it but the bodily resurrection?  And though I once
believed Mr. Newman, that the  received version' was' barely possible,' yet I now see, in fact, that there is a
respectable weight of evidence in favor of it.  And
whether there be or not, what can be meant by Peter's
testifying to Christ's' spiritual resurrection'?  Clearly,
it was the greatest extravagance to suppose that Peter
believed the soul of Christ had died, and yet how else
could it have been' raised'? Again: I saw that the
whole language of the New Testament so plainly implies that the bodily resurrection of Christ was really
believed in and affirmed, - whether truly or falsely, -
that it was mere interpreting for the nonce to suppose
Peter an exception, and to mean something totally different. And then, how was it possible to dispose of
those passages in Peter's address on the day of Pentecost, in which he affirms so expressly Christ's bodily
resurrection? and again, at the choice of the new
Apostle, when Peter expressly says that the choice
must be from among those who' had companied with
Jesus,' and could'bear witness to his resurrection'?
Yet Mr. Newman does not even mention these facts;
and if he says the first part of the Acts is spurious,
still he should have shown it. Manifestly, to write in
this way is not to' investigate evidence.'"




176    A DEFENCE OF "; THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.'
SECTION XV.
A FEW WORDS TO A PROSPECTIVE REVIEWER.
I MUST make a little pause here, just to bestow a
brief notice on a critic in the last number of the " Prospective Review," the organ, I believe, of what may be
called the extreme Unitarian school; I suppose there
can be little doubt about the authorship. The style
would betray it, even if the article were not a professed defence of 4"The Moral Perfection of Christ"
against the special criticisms of Mr. Newman. But
as the critic has not revealed his name, it shall be unmentioned here.  In the prelude to that article, the
writer is pleased to express himself  greatly delighted"
at the "' Reply'" to " The Eclipse of Faith"; though
one would have thought that his reason and his taste
would have been a little startled by those curious displays of logic and rhetoric which adorn that singular
performance. But I do not complain of this; every
man to his taste: De gustibus, and so forth. But what
I think I may complain of is, that this critic, though
stultifying a previous decision of the journal in which
he wlites, declares that the Author of " The Eclipse "
"'has thrown his whole force of thought, s-all the
power of exposition, argument, and sarcasm," (for
which the critic is pleased to give him credit,) - " in
spite of himself, into the irreligious scale"r! In the
next sentence he forgets even that qualification, and
professes to be in doubt whether " The Eclipse" might
not have come from the "officina of Atheism,"' whther




A PROSPECTIVE REVIEWER.              177
6it was written in good faith," or whether it 1" be not
rather a covert attack on all religion "! Is it possible,
I am ready to ask, that the critic can have read one
tenth of the book, to have really any doubts about the
intentions of the author, whatever he may have about
his ability to second those intentions?  Did not the
very journal in which the critic writes declare, only a
year or so ago, that the work had its value, specially
as a protest against some of Mr. Newman's one-sided
views; that it was calculated to give  "pause and
check to many a flashy young man," and this was
probably the  "worthy  and pious"  purpose of the
author?  Were not special commendations bestowed
on the protest against Mr. Newman's views of Christ,
which it is the very object of this critic to explode? "
The suspicions of the critic offer a tempting theme
for the exercise of those same powers of sarcasm  for
which he gives me credit, if I were disposed to use
them; — which I will use, however, but sparingly, for
the reasons I shall presently assign. It seems almost
incredible that he can really mean what he says, and
unsay all that his own journal has said. I can make
allowance for a little sensitiveness at the dilemmas in
Harrington's sceptical discussion, demanding, as they
do, an answer from one who, on such questions, practically espouses the Deist's cause; I can sympathize
with the natural wish to pay a little compliment to his
friend Mr. Newman, whom  he is just under the cruel
necessity of opposing; I can indulge even the little
flourish of "self-deceiving partiality," which permits
* The obverse and reverse of this critical medal would furnish curious
contrasts; but itis hardly worth while to cite passages. The articles will
be found in the numbers for August, 1852, and November, 1853. The
motto of the Review is, " Respice, Aspice, Prospice.". The editor seems
for a moment to have forgotten the first word of the three.
22 *




178    A DEFENCE OF "THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.T"
him to say, in one and the same breath, " How is it
that these same powerful instruments " (which have so
demolished " The Eclipse of Faith" ), " when wielded
in a different cause, and directed against ourselves,
appear to us to beat the air, we really cannot tell." I
can less understand how it is that, just as he is about
to show, on one of the most testing questions which
can exercise the intellect and the heart of man,. that
either himself or Mr. Newman must be a very baby in
critical discernment, - one believing in the absolute
moral perfection of Christ, and the other, that he was
not only " encompassed with our infirmities," but "' far
below vast numbers of his unhonored disciples," -he
should select just that moment to profess " a profound
deference for Mr. Newman's moral and historical judgments "   Pity his friend, love him, wonder at him, expostulate with him, all that is intelligible; but only
think, gentle reader, in such a case, of a "' profound
deference for historical and moral judgments"! Who
would not think now that it was Socrates, rather than
Protagoras, that was speaking here, and that the critic
was ironical in spite of himself?  It is as if two men
were looking at the sun: "Glorious orb!" says one,
"how every meaner light fades away before thy effulgence! Who can confound thee with any other of the
lamps of'light? "  " Do you call that the sun? " cries
the other; it is but a star of the tenth or twelfth magnitude. I see far brighter orbs than that."  "L My dear
friend," exclaims the first, " I have the profoundest
deference for your powers of vision, but really  - "
But I will not go on. I suppress the sarcasms which
the suspicions of my "Atheism " and the compliments to Mr. Newman's "'historical and moral judgments" would justify, for the sake of that effort which
the critic has made, (though, as I think, on most pre



A PROSPECTIVE REVIEWER.          179
carious grounds, and from a most imperfect point of
view,) to defend the moral excellence and perfection of
Him who is worthy of all love and veneration. The
critic's conclusion, indeed, may surprise us, but still he
arrives at it. He abandons seemingly all that is preternatural in Christianity, - he reduces most of its history, all its miraculous history, to a caput mortuumz of
myth and fable, -he leaves us in utter doubt how
many or how few of its facts we are to credit or reject,
he believes that the "Messiah" himself was mistaken in his own Messiahship, — he fancies that he
knows more of Christianity, while he denies the integrity of the only records' which inform us about it, than
the Apostles themselves; - in all this he fights his battle
under grave disadvantages, and, in fact, reposes his belief in the "1 moral perfection of Christ' solely on an irresistible feeling. Apart from that feeling (for which I
yet cannot but honor him), he seems to vault upon air,
or upon a rope so thin, that he seems to a spectator to
do so; and as he trips about in the spangled dress of his
somewhat too glittering rhetoric, it is impossible to restrain the fear lest he and his thesis should together tumble to the ground. Still he has defended the thesis; he
avows that he sees, as he looks on the face of Christ,
the moral glory and grandeur which beam from thence,
and has endeavored to shelter Him from the rude attack which the author of the "' Phases " has ventured
to make upon Him. For that I will so far honor him,
as to give him free leave to vent what suspicions he
will of " my possible Atheism," or my " equivocal
good faith." If He, whom he strives on this occasion
to defend, said that He would remember the most
trivial act of kindness to the "least of those "' whom
He deigns to call " His brethren," surely His disciples
may well forgive even a greater wrong to one who is




180    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.)
endeavoring, though I sincerely believe most inadequately, to defend His cause. I trust that this may
convince the author of the critique, that "' The Eclipse
of Faith" does not come from the "b Atheist's workshop," or from one who writes with " bad faith." Or,
if he still doubts it, and will attempt to justify his suspicion, I pledge myself to examine whether his view or
mine most naturally leads to religious scepticism; also,
whether it may not be possible to give his logic a little
more exercise in showing how, with his premises, he
knows anything certain about Christ at all, or why His
perfection as well as His miracles may not be a mere
myth, than Mr. Newman has done by so feebly assailing the moral delineation of Him. I promise, however, that I will not charge my critic, as he charges me,
with " hastening with utmost glee to poison the fountains of natural piety, and r'elishinrg the sorrows of
the believers whose dreams he strives to dissipate"!
Such imputations should be left to those who have
reached a downright, coarse, unmitigated Deism, and
have snapped the last link which binds them in reverence to the moral loveliness he celebrates. Nay, I may
even say they should be left to those who wield a less
graceful pen than his; for good taste condemns them
not less than good feeling.




CONCLUSION.               181
SECTION XVI.
CONCLUSION.
AT length, I have done with Mr. Newman; but I
cannot resist the present opportunity of saying a few
words to my young Christian contemporaries on what
I deem the true position of the chief arguments on
which they are generally invited to surrender their
faith, as compared with those which support it; and
on what, before surrendering it, they have a right to
demand from those who seek to snatch that faith from
them.
At last, after much discussion in this and preceding
ages, the world, I think and hope, is beginning to comprehend that it is not sufficient to discredit Christianity, or indeed any other system, to propound plausible
or even insoluble objections; since it is a sort of weapon by which Atheism, Pantheism, and the half-score
systems of Deisin may be alike easily foiled. And if
there is any theory of religion, which is not in the
same predicament as Christianity, - nay, which is not
exposed to yet greater objections, - I shall be glad to be
informed of it. I can only say, it is a perfect novelty
to me. Certainly it is not any of the theories of Deism,
the pleasant varieties of which have sprung out of the
very eagerness with which the advocates of each have
sought to evade the difficulties which press the abettors
of every other.
Encompassed on all sides by impassable barriers, in
whatever direction we speculate, —and in none by




182    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITHo)
loftier or more solid wall of rock than in metaphysical or
moral philosophy, -we are not called upon to answer
every objection which may be made to our tenets,
for that is impossible, whatever the hypothesis that
may be adopted: the only real question is, on which
side the greatest weight of positive evidence is found,
and the least weight of opposing objections.@
Christians believe that precisely one and the same
principle applies both to the works and to the word of
God. In the former, every phenomenon proves His
power, - most of them His wisdom; and the more, the
more they are examined. The vast preponderance of
them also, both in the world of outward nature and in
the internal world of consciousness, proclaims His goodness. The Christian believes, therefore, that He has
all these attributes; — the last happily confirmed to
him by what he deems an express and authoritative
revelation, which perhaps could alone, amidst the conflicting facts of God's present administration, prove to
man's tottering reason and feeble faith, that the Divine
Goodness is Perfect and Infinite. But while on the
above preponderance of evidence the Christian receives
these cardinal truths, he also sees in the present condition and the entire administration of this lower world
much that is utterly incomprehensible; many things
that God does, still more that He permits to be done,
which he cannot. harmonize with man's "little wisdom" and "little love"; though he believes they can
be harmonized. He dares not make his judgment the
measure of all that God can do in the rightful exercise
of those infinite attributes of rectitude, wisdom, and
benevolence, which on independent, and, as he be* See a striking admission of Hume (an unexceptionable witness here),
and some admirable cautions of the sagacious Locke, in the Appendix.




CONCLUSION.               183
lieves, irrefragable grounds, he ascribes to Him. The
only answer that can in our present state - nay, perhaps in any state - be given to some questions which
the finite may ask of the Infinite, is that with which
God himself, when He " spake out of the whirlwind"
to the patriarch, rebuked and silenced at once every
mutter of discontent with which human pride and folly
ventured to arraign Divine Wisdom and Beneficence.
It was an appeal, not to a demonstration of Infinite
Goodness, but to a Power and Wisdom  which were
visibly unlimited and incomprehensible: " Where wast
thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? "
The conditions of argument are similar in relation
to Christianity. The Christian believes, from an immense variety, complexity, and convergence of proof,
that the Book which contains it, and the system it reveals, never came from man. Particular objections to
portions of it, nevertheless, — both as respects doctrine
and history, — may, like the correspondent difficulties
in the outward universe, be attended with unanswerable perplexities; but the Christian listens to them
just as he would to a judge, who, in his summing up,
tells the jury that there can be no doubt that the evidence - nine parts out of ten - will justify them in
bringing in one, and only one verdict; though he says
there may be one, two, or three points on which the
evidence is conflicting, and on which neither himself
nor mortal man can give, or even suggest, any plausible
solution.
To any such objections - the substantial points of the
evidence remaining - the Christian feels himself entitled to say, 1" Stand by; I cannot stop for you." In
relation to many of them, he may boldly say, when
called to solve them,'"I cannot; Time may solve
them, as I see it ha5, solved many; and these, like




184    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.)}
those, may then be transferred to the other side of the
account; but even now they cannot materially affect
the columns which give the total." And, in my judgment, it is in many cases not only wise to say this, but
the only honest course. -Much mischief has often been
done by pretending to give a solution, which neither
he who gives nor he who demands it feels to be sufficient. There is another thing, however, that can be
done by the Christian; and that is to say, not only
"' the mass of the evidence justifies my belief in spite of
these objections, but see how easily I can transfer the
war. Come, answer a few of mty objections"'; and if
the opponent says, " No, that is 6 dishonest,'" he can
reply, " It is perfectly honest, and absolutely necessary too; for you do not wish me to believe nothing, I
presume; you wish me to believe you! Do for me
what you say I must do for you. Answer satisfactorily all the objections I put to you.'"
If that course be taken, I fearlessly say that the
argument of " objections," which has always been the
great weapon against Christianity, can be consistently
employed only by him who would drive you to absolute scepticism: certainly not, as we have seen, by any
form of modern Deism. For how stands the argument
on that side?
Not only has Deism its insoluble objections, - and
plenty of them too, —but, in all its forms, the main
objections must remain the same in every age; they
are, in truth, insusceptible, in the nature of things, of
any alleviation. In rejecting all authoritative external
revelation, Deism ipso facto proclaims itself incapable
of giving any explanation of man's chief perplexities,
- perplexities which an external revelation alone can
solve; —those connected with the original condition of
man, his present position relatively to the Deity, and




CONCLUSION.                 185
his future destinies.  On these Deism has a score of
discordant theories; and not a few in relation to the
character of the Deity himself, and even as to the
grounds and limits of human duty!
It is in vain to say that the bulk of mankind are incapable of judging between the claims of Christianity
and opposing systems; because, if it be meant that
only a segment of its evidences can be made clear to
the common people, it is equally true of other subjects
in which man is imper'atively required to take a part;
as is distinctly shown in " The Eclipse of Faith.'" 
The lawyer, the statesman, the physician, the political
economist, much more the common people, are compelled, in a thousand cases, to act on an imperfect
knowledge, and in a great number of cases on very
much less evidence than that which even the mass of
the people may comprehend in relation to the claims
of Christianity. So far as it is an objection, therefore,
it does not apply to Christianity merely, but to the
entire constitution of the world and of human nature;
and applies, moreover, in full force, to the theories
which it is proposed to substitute in its place. Do
men dispute less about them?  Let the history of the
ever-varying theories of Deism, and those of Pantheism, Atheism, and Secularism  answer. And even if
men be resolved, because there are these difficulties
everywhere, to have no religion at all, they do not escape similar dilemmas, or rather, they double them:
not to mention, that it will not avail one in a million;
for if the facts of all history prove any one thing, it is
that man is so constituted that he wvill have some reS
ligion, and the only question is what.
The helpless condition of Deism, in its many forms,'P Eclipse of Faith, pp. 325 - 329.
23




186    A DEFENCE OF G THE ECLIPSE OF FAIT-H."v
we have already seen in the fourth section; its incoherent gabble or its dread silence on those problems in
which man feels he must have something other than
ever-varying guesses or mysterious shakes of the head;
and its endless discords, even in the little sphere in
which it professedly dogmatizes. It is simply destructive; it constructs nothing; its promises, indeed, are
large, but it never fulfils them. It is always just going
to prove; always in the paulo-post future tense. Meantime, it contents itself with the more easy task of
laughing at and deriding the attempts of Christianity
to do what it leaves undone. It has only two faults,
as some one said to the man who wished to borrow
his donkey, -" He is very hard to be caught, and
when you have caught him, why -he is good for
nothing."
Before the young Christian yields to those who summon him to surrender his faith, I think he is justified
in asking a proof (the more rigid that they renounce
all authority) of some one of those many theories of
God, man, and the universe, which they propose for
his acceptance. In default of that, - and I think it
will be long before he will get it, -the Christian, previous to being reduced even to a preliminary scepticism, may fairly demand a demonstration of those principles by which so many modern Deists attempt summarily to set aside the claims of Christianity.
For example: it is confidently proclaimed by many
of them that a miracle is impossible; this is proved, in
the progress of modern science, so they say. Strauss
avowedly, and very many modern opponents of Christianity tacitly, assume this principle; that is, they reduce everything to the uniformities of present experience, and then decide, of course easily enough, that
what ex professo presents phenomena at variance with




CONCLUSION.                187
that experience is to be rejected. Having laid it down
as an axiom, that a miracle is impossible, Christianity,
of course, must be false; and the only wonder is, that
anybody who believes this should enter into criticism
at all to refute its historic claims, or to prove that what
was impossible per se was not very probable in any
other way.
It is in vain to reason in this way until the impossibility of miracles, which is so often assumed, has been
distinctly proved; and then, no doubt, Strauss and his
followers may dispense with every other argument altogether. But then it is well to remind the Deist that
when it is proved that we must take the uniformities
of present experience as an invariable standard;- that
wve must assume that nature never varies, never has
varied, never will vary beyond the limits of present
experience;-,that the antecedents and consequents
we see now have always followed, and will always
follow, one another; — I say it is well to remind him
then that the inferences Harrington points out in the
discussion on " Miracles "' fairly open on us; that the
origination of the present system, or, in fact, any condition of things at variance with our present experience,
becomes an absurdity. Every immediately preceding
generation — the men of yesterday, the day before
that, and so on, ad infinitum - have as much reason
to argue in the same- manner as we do; and there is
left nothing for us but a blank Atheism or an equally
blank Pantheism, " with an eternal recurrence of similar phenomena or an eternal succession of finite cycles
of similar phenomena."  If these, and such like consequences, follow not, I invite the Deist to a refutation
of Harrington's conclusions on the supposition of, the
impossibility of miracles.
a Eclipse, lMiracles, pp. 246- 283.




188    A DEFENCE OF 6 THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."9
But the whole reasoning of those who thus appeal
to present uniform experience is really one of those
fallacies against which Bacon cautioned the world so
many years ago; and the philosophers who urge it
belong to that class who, as Socrates says, "will not
believe anything but what they can see with their own
eyes or press between their fingers."  A severe examination of whatever is at variance with the inductions
of a wide present experience, a rigid sifting of the
evidence, is no doubt necessary; but to decide, absolutely and a' priori, that that cannot be true which is
not conformable to it, so far from being worthy of the
Baconian philosophy, is worthy only of those New
Zealand philosophers who, when their countryman,
Duaterra, having visited England, told them that the
Europeans had quadrupeds so large that they could
carry a man enormous distances in a day, and with
incredible swiftness, unanimously voted him a liar.
They had never seen an animal larger than a pig, —
that was the " uniformity " of their experience, - and
hence their hasty inference; some " put their fingers in
their ears and begged he would let them hear no more
of his lies"; others - experimental philosophers, no
doubt - gave a very satisfactory proof that the informant lied, by attempting to ride the said pigs, and, as
they rolled off upon the sand, asked " how it was possible to believe what was so plainly contrary to all experience."  There, reader, in the New Zealand savage,
rolling off his pig, you have a lively image of him who
argues that a miracle is impossible, because he avows,
that, in the whole circle of his very wide experience,
and in the whole course of his butterfly existence, he
really never saw one! Of course the answer is, "; My
friend, I really never said you had."'   All ages and the
wide universe become to these philosophers just what




CONCLUSION.                189
his little island and his pigs were to the ignorant savage.
Again, some folks tell us that an external authoritative revelation of moral and spiritual truth from God is
impossible to man. I do not scruple to call it, after the
reasonings both in " The Eclipse of Faith" and the
present volume, one of the shallowest theories which a
shallow metaphysics ever attempted to impose on mankind. But, at all events, the Christian, before he renounces his faith on any such a priori theory is at
least justified in demanding a rigid demonstration of it.
Similarly, he is often told that prophecy is incredible; and that if a prophecy seem to be minutely accordant with the facts it predicts, that is itself proof
that it was composed after the event, and is history
and not prophecy! Strauss applies this canon without
a thought of proving it: and Mr. Newman often follows him.: Of course it is easy to prove anything at
this rate, for the critic cannot miss his conclusion; if
God has given a prophecy, it will be of course fulfilled;- and then if it has been fulfilled, it is ipso facto
proof that it could not have been prophecy! so that
God will have confuted the prophecy by literally fulfilling it!
Now I say that the Christian is warranted in demanding, not a free and easy assumption of these
"high a priori" methods of confuting the claims of
Christianity, but a rigid proof of them. Let them be
proved, and it will be unnecessary to say another word
on the subject; and the only wonder is, that authors
like Strauss should have thought it worth while to
write a syllable, with such postulata, except to prove
them. Instead of that, they assume them, and then,
* Phases, pp. 130, 131, 2d ed.
23 "




190    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.'
of course, easily prove that miracles and prophecy are
incredible, - for they are incredible; — God, it appears,
having established Perso-Median laws of the universe,
the first of which is, that it is illegal for Him ever after
to have anything to do with them! The Christian is
justified in demanding, for any such assumptions, not
conjectures nor dogmatism, but the most severe proof.
There is a third thing which the Christian is justified
in demanding of those who summon him to surrender
his faith; but a word or two first. He will often be
told in these days of the " unmanageable and intractable " character of the Christian evidences. Now he
must not forget the still more "' unmanageable and intractable character" of the hopelessly discordant theories which he is so pleasantly invited to choose
amongst instead of Christianity; nor that man, on a
thousand subjects, may have sufficient evidence to determine him, though it will vary much in different individuals, and be comparatively superficial even in the
most profound. It is just so with the Christian evidences; they are varied and complicated, and deep
enough to engage and reward the efforts of the most
comprehensive and the subtlest mind; and they often
have done so. They are also simple enough, as regards their great outlines, to satisfy every man that
investigates them with sincerity. The little tract of
Whately, on the Christian Evidences, contains enough
within its paper covers to baffle the efforts of Infidelity;
for it states the great facts on which Christianity has
been, and is, received in the world. But the point to
which I wish to call attention is this, -that, at all
events, the Christian is justified in asking a sufficient
- at least a plausible - account of the origin and success of Christianity from those who impugn it. How
little they are likely to give thlat, considering the ludi



CONCLUSION.                191
crous contradictions and the self-refutative character of
the hypotheses which have been hitherto invented, may
be seen by any one who will read:" The Dilemmas of
an Infidel Neophyte "' in " The Eclipse of Faith."
The position of Christianity, in relation to the objections that may be urged against it, is very different
from that of all the forms of Deism. Not only has it
always its mass of positive evidence to appeal to, but
that evidence is ever accumulating.
Nor will the young Christian hesitate, if wise, to
draw from the past a happy augury for the fature, and
sustain his faith by the omens derived from the failure
of so many predictions of Infidelity. Whether the
Scripture prophecies be true or not, certainly the predictions of our opponents have been false. We hear no
more of many of the objections which towards the
middle and close of the last century were so prematurely urged against the truth of the Bible. We hear
little now of the inferences from the prodigious astronomical cycles of India or China, the immense antiquity of Egyptian dynasties, the clear confutations of
the Bible which lurked in yet undeciphered hieroglyphics! Enough has been disproved to show the precarious nature of such hasty theories, while many of the
assumed facts, being found to be utterly false, are
already transferred to the other side of the leger. Similarly the history of the New Testament —the Acts
especially — has been found to be more accurate in
proportion as the records of classic antiquity-have been
more diligently studied, or new fragments of them recovered. God seems to be even now enabling us to
throw fresh lights on the history of the Old Testament,
by unlocking the archives of Time, and revealing docurnents on stone and marble, deposited, more securely
than those in any museums, in the mounds of ancient




192     A DEFENCE OF ~" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
Nineveh, Nor need we doubt that many of the lost
fragments of more perishable human records may yet
be dragged from secure lurking-places where God has
hidden them, to silence for ever many controversies,
which have filled volumes with conjecture and fable.
The facts  hich appear to have been destroyed by
Time, Time may effectually restore. The convulsions
which covered Herculaneum and Pompeii, and seemed
to entomb so many glories of ancient art, and destroy
so many records of ancient history, did, in fact, but
embalm them. They were buried only to be restored
by a glorious resurrection.
It is most instructive to consider how many predictions of the enemies of Christianity, between Julian
and Strauss, have ignominiously failed. Take, for example, the boasted historic discrepancies and asserted
"immoralities" to be found in the Bible. Many of
them  have been reiterated by all infidel writers fiom
the earliest times till now. Many of them are just the
same in the "' Phases" of Mr. Newman, in the " Age
of Reason" of Thomas Paine, in Bolingbroke, in Celsus. As a fact, the objections do not prevail against
the persuasion which the New Testament somehow inspires, that it is history, and true history, not fiction
nor a lie.- " If the Bible," says Paine, " perish, from
an exposure of the absurdities and errors which fill it,
mind, it is not my fault."  Poor soul! — "'T is sixty
years since "; and in that time the Bible has found its
way into scores of new languages' and dialects of man,
Christianity has dotted over the earth with its missionary stations, schools, and churches, and presents a pieture of unwonted activity of propagcandism in nearly
every community that professes it!
Since that time, the machinery of modern Missions
and Bible Societies has been set in motion; since that




CONCLUSION.                        193
time, the family of nations professing Christianity have
attained an enormous expansion of power and population, and are plainly destined to exercise a preponderant dominion  in the earth; while even  among  these,
those are far, far foremost in the race of science, wealth,
commercial activity, which most reverence the statutebook of Christianity, and  are most eager to  promote
her triumph; almost these alone now  colonize,    their
hives alone swarm.'   Since that time the teeming millions of India have been subjected to British sway and
to British influence; and now the yet more populous
X No doubt there are a multitude of causes which tend to produce differences among nations; but it is hardly possible for an inzductive philosopher
to ponder the facts above mentioned without suspecting that Christianity
has some vital connection with them. Either she tends, by her direct and
indirect influence, to create and evolve the elements of national activity
and greatness, or receives them by donation from Heaven for some purposes subsidiary to her designs. The Christian will have little difficulty in
believing both; that, if loved and cherished, she will create power and is
dowered with it; nor, if her claims be well founded, is it wonderful that
those nations which, in any tolerable measure, use their energies and devote their hearts to her enterprise, should be permitted to
"' Share the triumph and partake the gale."
But it is the easiest thing in the world (though the experiment may be
a costly one) for Englishmen to bring the matter to a tolerable test. All
they have to do is to be persuaded by our modern infidels to abandon
Christianity, and suffer its institutions to go to decay; to shut up churches,
chapels, and Sunday schools; demolish Bible societies and missionary
societies; substitute for the Bible one or other or a dozen of the panaceas
which philosophic quackery is ever providing for the regeneration of the
world, and especially that ludicrous thing called " Secularism," - which
promises us the annihilation of the Deity, and the apotheosis of man; or
rather, the extinction of one infinite God, and the creation of eight hundred
millions of petty impotent " divinities " instead! England, at least, may
then soon learn whether or not there be any vital connection between
Christianity and national prosperity; and whether, in abjuring the Bible,
her best bower anchor has not parted. Lamentable as the result of such
an experiment might be, it might possibly be as instructive to the world as
her past history. But Heaven grant that she may never be fool enough to
try it!




19L4      A DEFENCE OF L" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.S
China' is opening its jealous gates to the incursions
of advancing Christendom.  Never did Infidelity choose
a more luckless moment for uttering its prediction,
that poor Christianity is about to die; never Twas there
a moment when its disciples could more confidently
repeat the invocation of the sublimest genius that ever
consecrated itself to sacred song, when, celebrating the
events of his time, he "snatched  up  an  ungarnished
present of thank  offering" before  he took his "harp,
and sang his elaborate song to generations ":-" Come
forth from  thy royal chambers, O  prince of all the kings
of the earth! put on the visible robes of thy imperial
majesty;  take  up  that unlimited  sceptre  which  thy
Almighty Father hath bequeathed thee; for now the
voice of thy bride calls thee, and all creatures sigh to
be renewed!"
Sixty years before Tom  Paine, Bolingbroke and so
many more had reiterated the very same historic and
"moral" objections, and  predicted  that belief in  the
Old and New  Testament could not resist the effects of
x It is too early for a sober man to speculate about the stupendous revolution in China, its character, or its results. I am stating facts, and wish
to keep them. But at all events we see thus much, - that ahnost without
human effort, in comparison with the effects, this mysterious Book -
coming into most partial contact with the venerable and seemingly impregnable superstitions of China, and subjected, as might be expected, to
all sorts of corruptions by the contact -has had no inconsiderable share
in producing the most wonderful revolution the world has yet seen, - in
shaking and rocking that empire which was apparently " barred and
bolted" for ever against all external influence; to whose apparently invincible and immutable prejudices, enshrined in the mysterious hieroglyphics of an almost inaccessible language, Infidelity had so often pointed as
laughing to scorn the efforts of Christianity! Mingled with much folly,
wickedness, and superstition the emancipation of three hundred and forty
millions from the deepest idolatry and debasement must needs be; but
the fact remains, that this ancient empire is shaken, and that the Bible
(however imperfectly known) has been a most efficient instrument in the
change.




CONCLUSION.               195
the revival of literature and the progress of science.
How readily such ratiocinations may be set aside, even
by a sceptic, may be easily shown in the following little dialogue, where the reader may perhaps recognize
the traces of an old acquaintance.
" May I ask to look into your book?" said a young
man of about thirty years of age to a fellow-traveller
who had just laid one down.
" Certainly," said the other with a smile, handing to
him an abridged edition of Strauss, which I understand
has been rather widely circulated among the class of
intelligent artisans.  " It is a little book which will
soon demolish Christianity. It shows, clear as the day,
that the Gospels, instead of being fact, are full of contradictions; and no more worthy of being regarded as
history than Mother Hubbard's tale."
The young man looked indifferent, - perhaps felt
so. The other went on.
" It is a cheap edition of that immortal writer Strauss,
who, at the early age of twenty-eight, exploded for ever
the historical character of Christianity, which had so
long imposed on the world."
The young man continued silent, but seemed a little
amused.
" What do you say to that? " said the other.
". Why, I was only thinking," replied the young man,
with an air of great simplicity, "if the Gospels are so
full of contradictions as you say, that it is strange
these should not have been pointed out long ago; and
that it was left for the promising young gentleman of
twenty-eight to discover them to the world, eighteen
hundred years after they were written!  What fools
mankind must have been! "
4 "You are mistaken, my friend," said the admirer of
Strauss, who found the temptation to display a little




196    A DEFENCE OF'" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITHI.
of his learning irresistible.  "In the earliest ages,
Celsus, Porphyry, and others" -the young man looked
very ignorant of these learned names - "pointed out
many of these contradictions and discrepancies; many
more were pointed out and insisted upon by the great
deistical writers of England, —by Bolingbroke and
Tindal, and Toland and Collins, and many more; and
again in France and Germany, by Voltaire, and Wieland and Lessing.  No, no: the contradictions were
too palpable to be eighteen hundred years in being
found out.  It would be more correct to say, that
many of them have been discovered and exposed for
near eighteen hundred years."
The young man seemed overwhelmed with such a
catalogue of great names.
s "Why," continued the other, - flattering himself, I
think, that he had made an impression by all this
learning on his ignorant hearer, -" so little truth, sir,
is there in your observation, that a celebrated French
author, Quinet, has said that there is perhaps hardly
a single objection in Strauss but what had been repeatedly urged before; and if that is not literally true,
it is certainly not far from the truth."
I was wondering whether the young man would see
that our infidel friend was fast demolishing, in his
eagerness to show his own erudition, the reputation of
the "wonderful young man of eight-and-twenty," and
reducing him to a retailer of other men's criticisms.'But he took another and a more effectual way of
retort. He said, with great simplicity, " I do not doubt
in the least, sir, that it is all just as you say; and
therefore I conclude, from the argument with which
you began, —namely, that, as the Gospels must be
given up on the discovery of such notorious contradictions, and as you now say that they have been dis



CONCLUSION.              197
covered for many hundreds of years, — I say, I conclude that the Gospels were given up long ago, and
have not been believed for many hundred years. I am
sorry, however, upon my word, for the promising young
man you mention. H-le had not, it seems, a fair chance
of doing much; he has been saying, it appears, things
which other people have said before him, and what you
say he will do mucst have been already done!"
Our acquaintance looked a little perplexed, but he
evidently began to think the chances of conversion diminished, and that the young man was not such a
simpleton as he had at first taken him for.
"Why," said he, L"the exposures of the contradictions in the Gospels oughlit to have led mankind to reject them long ago, - no doubt of that; it is certain,
however, that they have not rejected them."
" Ah!M" then said the young man, " I am afraid, if
men have been such blockheads as to be imposed upon
in spite of such clear proofs as you mentioned a little
while ago, they will very likely be still imposed upon.
I am afraid the world is too great a fool to be mended
by the promising' young man of eight-and-twenty.':
"And I tell you," said the other, with some vehemence, "that Christianity, since Strauss's work, is not
worth a hundred years' purchase."
" Pray how long is it since this wonderful work was
first published?99
"' Only five-and-twenty years ago," said the other.
"About a quarter of the century is gone,"9 said the
young man very quietly. "It is high time that Christianity should look about it. But I do not see that the
book has made much impression at present. I am
afraid people will still be as stupid as they were in the
days of those other gentlemen you mentioned, - Bolingbroke and the rest. I am almost afraid that you
24




198    A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."
must say, like the prophet, G Who hath believed our
report?'"I
" Nevertheless, you will see it is as I say."
"Well,' seeing is believing,' no doubt of that; and
we shall see what we shall see: but it is clear you cannot trust to anything else than seeing; for, as gentlemen of your opinion have been disappointed so often
in past ages, and so many promises have come to
nothing, owing to the wonderful stupidity of mankind,
who will believe these Gospels in spite of  the contradictions they contain,'- why, the same thing may occur again for aught I can see."
" I only know," said the other, " that the faith which
Christians tell us they are to exercise in the ultimate
triumphs of Christianity will be very necessary."
" Both parties will require it," said the young man
with a half laugh. " If I may judge by the rate of
your past success in disabusing mankind of their
strange delusion, against which persecution and argument, criticism  and wit, have been so often used in
vain, I think you will require at least as much'faith
and patience' as the Christian talks about. But you
seem to have got the first, if the last will but hold out.
I almost think," he continued, "you will need an exhortation similar to that to the Christians to be addressed to you,-'  Therefore, beloved brethren, be ye
steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work
of  - Celsus, Bolingbroke, and Strauss; — only I fear
it will end differently, —' forasmuch as your labor will
always be in vain in the name of Celsus, Bolingbroke,
and Strauss! 9"
I found it difficult to keep my countenance at this
solemn counsel.
"4 Never mind," rejoined the other, "we shall have a
good ally in the inconsistencies, and follies, and wick



CONCLUSION.                199
edness of Christians themselves.  They are always
preaching the excellence of their ethical code, but they
do not practise'it overmuch."
" There is something in that," said his opponent.
"For my part, I have always considered the inconsistencies of Christians themselves enough to ruin them."
The other seemed pleased with this admission, and
went on in a hearty tirade against the inconsistencies
of Christians.
" I agree with you, - I quite agree with you,"' said
the young man, with a smile.' You can hardly say
anything too strong of them in that respect."
The other, thup encouraged, proceeded to declare
that the monstrous doctrines and abuses of the corrupt
forms of Christianity were enough to ruin any cause.
The other still assented.  6"But,9 said he, "'they
have not dissipated this illusion."
a" No," said the other; "but they ought to have
done it."
"' Ah!: then replied his opponent,'"I fear that, instead of giving legitimate hopes, the argument ought
to have rather the contrary effect. You see how stupid
mnankind are!  Not even. what you so curiously call
your best ally - that is, the vices and corruptions of
distorted Christianity -can cure them. There is more
work, my good sir, for faith and patience.  You ought
to pray Heaven that they may not exemplify the virtues they profess to love; or else, having been, in fact,
invincible even with their follies and vices, your cause
will be absolutely hopeless!"
" Joke on," said the other, who did not much relish
this turn; " but it will all come in time, you will see."
" I doubt whether I shall live long enough," interjected the sceptic.
"o Why now,9' resumed his antagonist, "they talk of




200     A DEFENCE OF 6 THE ECLIPSE OF FAITHI.9
the Evidences, and such stuff. How can the commorl
people judge of the Evidences? - how can they enter
into the question of various readings, and Alexandrian
and Vatican manuscripts, and Syrian, and Hebrew,
and Greek criticism, and all that farrago of learned
nonsense, which they are told establishes the truth of
Christianity? 7
G I dare say not," said the other carelessly; " I suppose they receive the results of the'learned' investigations when they cannot follow them; but it is clear
they do believe in spite of not being able to follow
them."
" Ay," replied the other, " but when they come to
understand that manuscripts are not to be trusted, or
that the Greek vwon't bear this, and the Hebrew won't
bear that; that there is one critic for this various reading, and another for that; that " —
"How! " returned the sceptic, laughing; 1" you do not
surely think they will be better able to understand
learned refutations of nonsense than learned demonstrations of nonsense! Or does it seem to you that, if I cannot read Syriac or Greek when I am told that it means
so and so, I can read it and understand it when I am told
that it does Lnot mean so and so?  No, no; the question of the destr'tction of Christianity will not be decided by this' clishmaclaver' of what, if unintelligible
on the one side, must be to the mass equally unintelligible on the other. As far as these learned matters
go, the bulk of the common people will be led by other
considerations; by arguments they can appreciate; and
as regards what they do not understand, they will be
decided just as they now  are and must be, —-by the
weight of authority derived from the presumed learn-.
ing, known zeal, and chlaracter' of those who tell them
that things are so and so. Besides, if this sort of argu



CONCLUSION.               201
ment were sufficient, it ought to have exploded Christianity centuries agoo; for, by your own confession,
there has been no lack of such topics. There has been
enough of citation and counter-citation, manuscript
against manuscript, and learned nonsense against yet
more learned nonsense; but you see it does not answer
the purpose either with thousands of the learned or millions of the ignorant. No, no; but I could tell you
how," half sinking his voice to a whisper, "you may
explode Christianity."
The other became all attention.
" Try the positive side," said he.'"Construct some
system  better than the New  Testament, and agree
about it. Exemplify it far more perfectly than the inconsistent Christians have done. Let it be expressed,
too, and illustrated in such forms, -so resplendent with
genius, and so attractive with the graces of imagina*tion and sensibility, —that it shall throw into the shade
those Gospels which, upon my word, are the things
which principally do the mischief. Only be cautious,"
continued he, with a slight smile; 6" if you appeal, as
perhaps you must, to the creations of imagination,
don't do the thing so perfectly as to deceive the people
ifito the belief that the embodiments of fiction are true
history, as you believe to have been the case with the
Evangelical narrations, - or the last error will be worse
than the first!"
It is surprising how little of the sceptic's arguments
Christian could, in such a case, object to; but, to be
sure, it all depends on infidel premises, — the prophecies of the speedy destruction of Christianity! But I
must not give any more of any such dialogues, or else,
having been suspected of "Paganism"  by one, and
half suspected of "1 Atheism " by a second, I shall perhaps be mistaken for a 6" sceptic" by a third.
24*




202    A DEFENCE OF L" THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."9
This inveteracy of belief in what, if false, imust be
the most prodigious of all ftbles orfaclsehloods, does not
cling to any other myth or lie. Niebuhr has not to do
his work twice, —if indeed he ever had to do it once,
as regards the pure fiction of the history he exploded.
WThether any one really believed, for centuries before
he wrote, that Romulus wvas suckled by a wolf, and
Numa met his divine Egeria in the sacred groves, may
be questioned; but assuredly no one believes it now.
Osiris and Isis, Jupiter and Juno, Venus and Bacchus,
Thor and Odin, are killed but once; man looks contemptuously on, and no man tries to save them.
Myths innumerable have been scattered by advancing
knowledge and civilization; they often yield even to
external influences, never resist internal light.  Yet
these myths of the New Testament - it is strangely
provoking! - are always being killed and always living again.! Age after age, in the very bosom of Christianity, adversaries appear who again and again repeat
the same story of the same "historic incredibilities," and
make no progress. They are confronted by men fully
their equals in all respects, who tell them that they are
egregiously mistaken.  Generation after generation of
the opponents of Christianity, with their books, go to
the bottom and are forgotten, and men still obstinately
believe the New  Testament true, its miracles facts,
and its doctrines divine! You will say, 6" And have not
their adversaries gone too?"' Very likely; but that
which the one attacked and the other defended remains; it still goes forth with its many voices in all
languages of the earth, "conquering and to conquer."
Nor can I forget that such is the interest attached to
the Bible, that its defenders are often still read when
its assailants are utterly forgotten. Butler and Paley,
Watson and Chalmers still live, though Tindall and




CONCLUSION.                203
Chubb and Thomas Paine rest undisturbed in their
dust.  " And will'The Eclipse' not be forgotten
too? " I fancy I hear the reader archly ask. To be sure,
I answer, and welcome; but if it last as long as the
5" Phases" - and it cannot well be more ephemeral
I shall be content.
I almost wish that the Deistical literature was not so
hopelessly covered with oblivion as it is; it would show
how long, how often, and how passionately have been
urged the greater part of those "4 historic and moral
difficulties" which are so often paraded in our day, as
if they were absolute novelties.
Again: if the Christian is told, as he is very fiequently told now-a-days (and especially by Mr. Newman); that our G" logic " is inconsistent with the'" logic 9'
of Apostles; and that unless we could renounce our
";logic," it is in vain to: attempt to resuscitate their
" faith," - he will do well to smile at such assumptions,
and say that our "logic"' is that. of Butler, Newton,
Bacon, Clarke, Robert Hall, Paley, Chalmers, and a
host more, who have not deemed the 1" logic " of " Apostolic times" incompatible with any "logic" of our
own.  As to this amusing presumption, he will be
content to confront it with the immense homage which
minds of the first order have, not in barbarism, but
amidst the highest culture, and in spite of the most
strenuous opposition, deliberately paid, after the profoundest study, to the truth of Christianity. Again:
should he - though I think he will hardly be troubled
there —be challenged to surrender his faith on the
ground of the superior practical results of some other
system, he need not be afraid to appeal to that test.
Grievous as are the inconsistencies of Christians, I
may leave it to his own conscience to determine that
question. In the tendency to produce individual hap



204     A. DEFENCE OF "1THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH."~
piness, social well-being, philanthropic activity, — in
efforts to ameliorate the condition of man, to succor
the distressed, to'" visit the fatherless and the widow,"
to be "6 eyes to the blind and feet to the lame," to "6 take
the wings of the morning and fly to the uttermost parts
of the earth," in eager sympathy with the wretched
outcasts of superstition whom no man but the Christian cares for, —that faith is yet to be found which
will at all sustain comparison with Christianity.
Of all religions Christianity is that, and that alone,
~which never xwill let the world slumber.  No form of it
is so corrupt as not to have internal energy enough to
send forth its emissaries to the ends of the earth; men
who will endure all privations and bear all perils to persuade the nations to embrace it. This, among many
peculiarities which discriminate Christianity from other
religions, is one of the most striking, and ought to excite deep reflection.  No other religious system  manifests, or ever has manifested, this remarkable, this uniform tendency.  How would all Europe be astonished
at the appearance of Mahometan Mollahs, or Hindoo
Brahmins in London and Paris, sent to persuade us to
embrace their religions.  Not only have heathen religions never done this; but the religion which cradled
Christianity itself rather restrained than extended its
benefits. Judaism received, but hardly welcomed, proselytes. Christianity, on the other hand, addresses all
44 kindreds, people, nations, and tongues "; and has, in
these our days especially, lifted up its voice in every
clime, and is speaking the dialect of nearly every tribe
of man. Nothing is more certain than that man will
have some religion, and if none other makes conquests,
and, as is too plain, Deism neither will nor can, it is
tolerably certain that Christianity, whether true or false,
-is likely to reign.




CONCLUSION.                205
And let us not forget what Christianity is now doing,;
it has (as just said) the power to do what no other religion does, and what no formin of Deism ever attempts
to do;-it has the power to render those who believe
in it intensely anxious to make it triumphant; it sends
its agents to the uttermost parts of the earth, and supports them there.  And, by doing so, it has reclaimed
barbarous tribes to civilization, — abolished their idolatry, -fixed their language, and given them the elements of all art, literature, and civilization, in giving
themn the BIBLE; for ill the very process of giving that,
it gives them all these also. Only the other day, many
of us saw, from the remotest isles of Polynesia, a Samoan newspaper, printed entirely by a race who, only
a few years ago, were a set of naked savages, addicted
to cannibalism and infanticide, and without the elements of a written language. The paper was printed
in a style which (as an English printer truly said)
would do no discredit to an English printing-office.
Not only so; but the same Christianity has the power
of immediately inspiring those who receive it again
to aid in its further diffusion, and to hand on the bright
torch which has kindled the hallowed fire on their own
hearths and altars. Only last year, I observed that
nearly a tenth of the large revenues of one of our missionary societies was derived friom the converts it had
made, — iom New-Zealanders, and Tahitians, and Hlottentots, and Bechuanas; and other societies were aided
from similar sources in a similar proportion!  These
simple facts are worth a thousand platform speeches.
Let our Deistical " magicians" do the like by their enchantments. No, they can- talk, and write (as Harrington says) " book-revelations against book-revelation,"
and dream their many-colored, ever-impracticable dreams
of human regeneration, and that is all. Till Deism does




206     A DEFENCE OF " THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH.:"
something more, Christianity has not much to fear
from it.
And now, reader, a hearty farewell. May it be long
before we meet again; never, I trust, in connection
with any personal controversy.  May we meet at last,
and Mr. Newman with us, on those peaceful shores on
which these storms never beat; where the "tented
field " as,vell of hostile polemics as of hostile armies is
unknown; where the weapons of' spiritual" as well
as physical " warfare " shall be beaten into implements
of peace, - to gather in the eternal harvest of wisdom
and joy and love.
And now let me make one little request. I have
been, as I think, rather injuriously assailed; and what
is more, that which millions as well as myself deem
most sacred has also been most injuriously assailed.
If, in the heat of a necessarily hasty composition, I
have written anything which seems unworthy of the
cause of Him whose claims I seek, however feebly, to
advocate, then all I ask of you is, -BE JUST; lay the
blame on mne, and blame me as much as you will; but
be just to Hint who cann'ot be answerable for the offences of his disciples, since, if they obeyed his precepts
and imitated his example, they never could thus offend.
And, at all events, believe this, - for it is the sinmple
truth, - that if the thought of Him has not done all it
ought, it has done something; I have suppressed many,
as I think, most deserved sarcasms, which sprang into
my mind in the ardor of composition, and have struck
out many more which had flowed from my pen; and I
have done both mainly from the recollection of HIM.
- The second edition of the " Phases " appeared in August last.




APP E NDIX.
(Referred to at Note, p. 182.)
IT is well said by Hume, that " no priestly dogmas
ever shocked common sense so much as the infinite divisibility of matter, with its consequences."  He gives
other examples of the similar insurmountable difficulties which beset us in. every path of speculation.
The true mode of dealing with objections, merely, to
any conclusion, is well expressed by the sagacious
Locke, the careful study of whose great work would
guard many a young intellect from the chief dangers
of the present day. "The way to find truth, as far as
we are able to reach it in this our dark and short-sighted state, is to pursue the hypothesis that seems to us to
carry with it the most light and consistency, as far as
we can, without raising objections, or striking at those
that come in our way, till we have carried our present
principle as far as it will go, and given what light and
strength we can to. all the parts of it. And when that
is done, then to take into our consideration any objections that lie against it...... Such is the weakness of
our understandings, that, unless where we have clear
demonstration, we can scarce make out to ourselves
any truth which will not be liable to some exception
beyond our power wholly to clear it from; and therefore, if upon that ground we are presently bound to




0208                 APPENDIX.
give up our former opinion, we shall be in perpetual
fluctuation, every day changing our minds, and passing
from one side to another; we shall lose all stability of
thought, and at last give up all probable truths as if
there were no such thing, or, which is not much better,
think it indifferent which side we tale...... The comparison of the evidence on both sides is the fairest way
to' search after truth, and the surest not to mistake on
which side she is. There is scarce any controversy
which is not a full instance of this, and if a man will
embrace no opinion but what he can clear from all difficulties, and remove all objections, I fear he will have
but very narrow thoughts, and find very little that he
shall assent to. What, then, will you say, shall he embrace that for truth which has imlprobabilities in it that
he cannot master?  This has a clear answer. In contradicting opinions, one must be true, that he cannot
doubt: which, then, shall he take?  That which is accompanied with the greatest light and evidence, that
which is freest from the grosser absurdities, though our
narrow capacities cannot penetrate it on every side." -
Lord King's Life of Locke, 4to, p. 315.
On several of the important subjects touched in the
present little volume, the reader will find much valuable
matter in the Course of " Bampton Lectures "' for the
year 1852, by J. E. Riddle, M. A.
TIlE END.