supposed) was their proper function (and we cannot but suppose that
it was), they must have been invested (we must suppose) with all the
necessary qualities for this end, since I am supposing that even
miracles were thought worth working in order to confirm their doctrine."
"You use the word suppose rather frequently, my friend; however, I
will not quarrel with you for that; only you ought not to be
surprised if, adopting your last supposition,--that, when miracles
and inspiration have been supposed to be vouchsafed to authenticate
a particular revelation, all such endowments, at least, will be
granted as shall secure that object from defeat,--other Christians
further suppose that the documents in which the revelation was to be
consigned to all future ages would not be disfigured (and in many
respects obscured) by the liability of their authors to all sorts
of errors on an infinity of points, hopelessly entangled, as we shall
soon see, with this one! that when heaven was at the trouble to embark
its cargo of diamonds and pearls for this world, it would not send
them in a vessel with a great hole in the bottom! If the Apostles
were plenarily inspired with regard to this one subject, men will
think it strange, perhaps, that divine aid should not have gone a
little further, and since the destined revelation was to be recorded
or rather imbedded, in history, illustrated by imagination, enforced
by argument, and expressed in human language,--its authors should
have been left liable to destroy the substance by egregious and
perpetual blunders as to the form; to run the chance of knocking out
the brains of the unfortunate revelation by upsetting the vehicle
in which it was to be conveyed!"
"But, then, these supposed endowments are purely a supposition on
the part of Christians in general."
"Just as yours, we may say, of an indefectible wisdom on one point
is a supposition on your part. I think in that respect that you are
both well matched. But I freely confess that I think their
supposition more plausible than yours; and, if I were an advocate
for Christianity, I should certainly rather suppose with them than
suppose with you; that is, I should think it more credible, if God
interposed with such stupendous instruments as miracles, inspiration,
and prophecy at all, he would endow the men thus favored (not with
all knowledge, indeed, but) with whatever was necessary to prevent
their encountering a certainty of vitiating their testimony."
"But how would their testimony be liable to be vitiated? I am supposing
them to be absolutely free from error as regards the religious clement,
which they deliver pure."
'We shall see in a minute whether their testimony was liable to be
vitiated or not, and whether the separation for which you contend be
conceivable, or even possible. I fear that you have no winnowing-fan
which will separate the chaff from the wheat."
"To me, nothing seems more easy than the supposition I have made."
"Few things are more easy than to make suppositions; but let us see.
I am sure you will answer as fairly as I shall ask questions. To do
otherwise would be to separate the 'moral element' from the 'logical,'
whatever the New Testament writers may have done. You believe, you
say, in the resurrection of Christ?"
"I do."
"As a fact or doctrine?"
"Both as a fact and doctrine."
"For it is both, if true," said Harrington; "and so, I apprehend, it
will be found with the other doctrines of Christianity. Whether, in
your particular latitude of Rationalism, you believe many or few of
them, still, if true at all (which we at present take for granted),
they are both facts and doctrines, from the Incarnation to the
Resurrection. But to confine ourselves to one,--that of the
Resurrection,--for one will answer my purpose as well as a thousand;
--that, you say, is a fact,--a fact of history?"
"It is."
"It is, then, conveyed to us as such?"
"Certainly."
"Were the recorders of that fact liable to error in conveying it to
us? In other words, might they so blunder in conveying that fact (as
we know the unaided historian may, and often does) as to leave us
in doubt whether it ever took place or not?"
"Well," said the youth, "and you know they have exhibited it in such
a way as to suggest many apparent discrepancies, and those very
difficult to be reconciled."
"I am aware of it, and for that very reason selected this particular
fact. In my judgment, there are no passages which more exercise the
ingenuity of the harmonists than those which record the transactions
connected with the resurrection. But still, in spite of them all, I
presume that you do not think that those discrepancies really call
the fact in question, else you would not continue to believe it. I
should then suddenly find myself arguing with a very different person."
"Certainly, you are quite right. I agree that the substantial facts
are as the writers have delivered them; although they may, from
their liability to error, have delivered some of the details
erroneously."
"But might this liability to error have led them a little further
in their discrepancies, so as to involve the fact itself in just doubt,
and so of other great facts which constitute the doctrines as well as
the facts of Scripture?"
"Of course, I think it might, since I suppose them unaided by any
supernatural wisdom in this respect."
"The answer is honest. I thought, perhaps, you would have answered
differently, in which case you would have given me the trouble of
pursuing the argument one step further. It appears, then, that,
though inspired to give mankind a true statement of doctrines, yet
that, when these doctrines assume the form of facts (which, unhappily,
they do perpetually), this hazardous liability to error as historians
may counteract their inspiration, and they may give them in such a form
as to throw upon them all manner of doubts and suspicions; possibly
they have done so, for aught you can tell.--But, again, you also affirm
that these so-called inspired men were liable to make all sorts of
logical blunders, just as the uninspired."
"Certainly; and I must confess I think the logic of the Apostle Paul,
in particular, often exceedingly absurd."
"Very fair and candid. For example, I dare say that you do not think
much of his arguments or inferences from certain doctrines; or his
proofs of those doctrines from the Old Testament or--"
"They are not, indeed, worth much in my estimation."
"Candid again; but then it is plain, first, that you will have to
distinguish between the pure doctrines which Paul derived from a
celestial source, and his erroneous proofs or inferences, which are
delivered in precisely the same manner and with the same assumption
of authority. And this, I think, would be an insuperable task; at
least, it seems so, for you Rationalists decide this matter very
differently. When any of you favor me with your sketches of the true
heaven-descended Pauline theology, I find them widely different
from each other. Your 'religious element' is of the most variable
volume. Some of you include nearly the whole creed of ordinary
orthodoxy; others, fifty or even eighty per cent. less, both in
bulk and weight."
"Perhaps so."
"Perhaps so! But then, what becomes of your principle, that you may
separate the pure 'religion element,' as conveyed to the minds of the
sacred writers by direct illumination, from the errors of vicious
logic which have been permitted to mingle with it? To me it appears
any thing but easy to separate the functions of a revealer of truly
inspired truth from the vitiating influences of a fallacious logic.
The 'heavenly vision,' however 'obedient' a Paul may be to it, will
be but obscurely represented, and suffer egregiously from that
distorted image which the ill-constructed mirror will convey to us.
--But once more, I think you do not hold Paul's rhetoric to be always
of the first excellence?"
"Certainly not; I think his representations are often as faulty as his
logic is vicious; especially when, under the influence of his Jewish
education, he throws old Gamaliel's mantle over his shoulders, and dotes
about 'allegories' founded on the Old Testament."
"Fair and candid once more; but then, I suppose you will admit that
the divine truths which he was, nevertheless, commissioned to teach
mankind, will, like any other truths, be much affected by the mode
in which they are represented to the imagination; will become brighter
or more obscure, more animated or more feeble, and even more just or
distorted, as this task is wisely and judiciously, or preposterously
performed?"
"No doubt."
"Then it appears, I think, that, if there were nothing to control the
Apostle Paul's manner of exhibiting divine verities, even in relation
only to the imagination, there might be all the difference between
sober truth and fanatical perversions of it. I might, in the same manner,
proceed to show that the feelings, uncontrolled by a superior influence,
would be also likely to give distortion or exaggeration to the doctrines.
But it is enough. It appears very plain, that, according to your
hypothesis, even though the Apostles were commissioned to teach by
supernatural illumination certain truths, yet that, being liable to be
infected with all the faults of false history, bad logic, vicious
rhetoric, fanatical feeling, these divine truths might, possibly, be
most falsely presented to us. We have, really, no guaranty but your
gratuitous 'supposition' that they have been taught at all. We have no
criterion for separating what is thus divine from what is merely human.
I fear, therefore, your distinction will not hold. The stream, whatever
the crystal purity of its fountain, could not fail to be horribly impure
by the time it had flowed through such foul conduits."
"In short," continued Harrington, with a bitter smile at the same time,
"there are but three consistent characters in the world; the Bible
Christian, and the genuine Atheist,--or the absolute Sceptic."
"No,--no,--no," exclaimed the whole trio at once; "and you yourself
must be true to your principles, and therefore sceptical as to this."
"It is" he replied, "one of the very few things which I am not sceptical
about. At all events, right or wrong, I am, as usual, willing to give
you my reasons for my belief."
"Rather say your doubts," said Fellowes.
"Well, for my doubts, then. You see, my friends, the matter is as
follows. The Christian speaks on this wise:--
"'I find, in reference to Christianity as in references 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
difficulties which I acknowledge to be insurmountable, and in many
mysteries which I cannot fathom. I believe the conclusions in spite
of them. As to the revelation, I see some of its discrepancies are the
effect of transcription and corruption; others are the result of
omissions of one or more of the writers, which, if supplied, would
show that they are apparent only; of others, I can suggest no
explanations at all; and, over and above these, I see difficulties of
doctrine which I can no more profess to solve than I can the parallel
perplexities in Nature and Providence, and especially those involved
in the permitted phenomenon of an infinity of physical and moral evil.
As to these difficulties, I simply submit to them, because I think the
rejection of the evidence for the truths which they embarrass would
involve me in a much greater difficulty. With regard to many of the
difficulties, in both cases, I set that the progress of knowledge and
science is continually tending to dissipate some, and to diminish, if
not remove, the weight of others: I see that a dawning light now
glimmers on many portions of the void where continuous darkness once
reigned; though that very light has also a tendency to disclose other
difficulties; for, as the sphere of knowledge increases, the outline
of darkness beyond also increases, and increases even in a greater
ratio. But I also find, I frankly admit, that on many of my difficulties,
and especially that connected with the origin of evil, and other
precisely analogous difficulties of Scripture, no light whatever is
cast: to the solution of them, man has not made the slightest
conceivable approximation. These things I submit to, as an exercise of
my faith and a test of my docility, and that is all I have to say about
them; you will not alter my views by dwelling on them, for your sense
of them cannot be stronger than mine.' Thus speaks the Christian; and
the Atheist and the Sceptic occupy ground as consistent. They say, 'We
agree with you Christians, that the Bible contains no greater
difficulties than those involved in the inscrutable "constitution and
course of nature"; but on the very principles on which the Rationalist,
or Spiritualist, or Deist, or whatever he pleases to call himself,
rejects the divine origin of the former, we are compelled to go a few
steps farther, and deny--or doubt the divine origin of the latter. It
is true that the Bible presents no greater difficulties than the
external universe and its administration; (it cannot involve greater;)
but if those difficulties are sufficient to justify the denial or doubt
of the divine authorship of the one, they are sufficient to justify
denial or doubt about the divine origin of the other.'--But as to you,
what consistent position can you take, so long as you affirm and deny
so capriciously? Who 'strain at the gnats' of the Bible, and 'swallow
the camels' of your Natural Religion? You ought, on the principle on
which you reject so much of the Bible,--namely, that it does not
harmonize with the deductions of your intellect, the instincts of
conscience, the intuitions of the 'spiritual faculty,' and Heaven knows
what,--to become Manichaeans at the least."
"But these very arguments," said one of the youths, "are just the
old-fashioned arguments of BUTLER, Which it is surely droll of all
things to find a sceptic making use of."
"I admit they are his, my friend; but not that there is any inconsistency
in my employing them. I affirm that Butler is quite right in his premises,
though I may reject the conclusion to which he would bring me. He leaves
two alternatives, and only two, in my judgment, open; leaves two parties
untouched; one is the Christian, and the other is the Atheist or the
Sceptic, which-ever you please; but I am profoundly convinced he does
not leave a consistent footing for any thing between. His fire does not
injure the Christian, for-comes out of his own camp; nor me, for it
falls short of my lines; but for you, who have pitched your tent
between, take heed to yourselves. He proves clearly enough, that the
very difficulties for which you reject Christianity exist equally,
sometimes to a still amount, in the domain of nature."
"Oh!" said the youngest, "we do not think that Butler's argument is
sound."
"Then," said Harrington, "the sooner you refute it the better. All you
have to do is, just to show that this world does not exhibit the
inequalities, the miseries,--the apparent caprice in its administration,
--the involuntary ignorance,--the enormous wrongs,--the wide-spread
sorrows and death,--it does. You will do greater service to the
Deist than the whole of the have ever done him yet. I am convinced
that Butler is not to be refuted."
"But do you not recollect what no less a man than Pitt said,--'Analogy
is an argument so easily retorted!'" replied the same youth.
"Then you will have the less difficulty in retorting it," said
Harrington, coolly. "Pitt's observation only shows that he had
forgotten the true object of the work, or never understood it. For the
purposes of refutation, it does not follow that an analogy may be easily
retorted; it may be, and often is, irresistible. It is when employed
to establish a truth, not to expose an error, that it is often feeble.
If Butler had attempted to prove that the inhabitants of Jupiter must
be miserable, nothing could have been more ridiculous than to adduce the
analogy of our planet. But if he merely wished to show that it did not
follow that that beautiful orb, being created by infinite power, wisdom,
and goodness, must be an abode of happiness, (just the Rationalist style
of reasoning,) it would be quite sufficient to introduce the speculator
to this ill-starred planet of ours."
There are few who will not acquiesce in this remark of Harrington's,
however they may lament the alternative he seemed disposed to take.
Assuredly, for the specific object in view, no book written by man
was ever more conclusive than that of Butler. For if you can show to
an unbeliever in Christianity, who is yet (as most are) a Theists, that
any objection derived from its apparent repugnance to wisdom or goodness
applies equally to the "constitution and course of nature," you do
fairly compel him (as long as he remains a Theist) to admit that that
objection ought not to have weight with him. He has indeed an alternative;
that of Atheism or Scepticism; but it is clear he must give up either his
argument or his--Theism. It may be called, indeed, an argument ad hominem;
but as almost every unbeliever in Christianity is a man of the above
stamp, it is of wide application. This is the fair issue to which
Butler brings the argument; and the conclusiveness of his logic has
been shown in this, that, however easily "analogies" may be "retorted,"
the parties affected by it have never answered it. I was amused with
the criticism with which Harrington wound up. "Butler," said he, "wrote
but little; but when reading him, I have often thought of Walter Scott's
wolf-dog Maida, who seldom was tempted to join in the bark of his lesser
canine associates. 'He seldom opens his mouth,' said his master; 'but when
he does, he shakes the Eildon Hills. Maida is like the great gun at
Constantinople,--it takes a long time to load it; but when it does go
off, it goes off for something!'"
____
Aug. 1. I this day put into Mr. Fellowes's hands the brief notes on
the three questions on which he had solicited my opinion. They were as
follows:--
I. Mr. Newman says that it is an idle boast that the elevation of woman
is in any high degree attributable to the Gospel. "In point of fact,"
says he, "Christian doctrine, as propounded by Paul, is not at all so
honorable to woman as that which German soundness of heart has
established. With Paul the sole reason for marriage is that a man may
without sin vent his sensual desires."
If, indeed, there were no other passage in the New Testament than that
to which Mr. Newman refers, there might be something to be said for him.
But it is only one of many, and the question really at issue is
consequently blinked, namely, what is the aspect of the entire New
Testament institute upon the relations of woman? It is true, indeed,
that the reason for marriage which Mr. Newman contends is the only
thing Paul thought about, is very properly urged; for from the
constitution of human nature, (as every comprehensive philosopher
and legislator would admits) as well as from the horrible condition of
things where marriage is neglected, prominence is very justly given
to the preservation of chastity as one of the primary objects of the
institution. But the question as between Mr. Newman and Christianity
is this: Is this the only aspect under which the relations of man and
woman are represented to us? That every thing is not said in one passage
is true enough. From the desultory manner in which the ethics as well
as doctrines of the New Testament are expounded to us, and especially
from the casual form which they assume in the Apostolic Epistles,
where the particular circumstances of the parties addressed naturally
suggested the degree of prominence given to each topic, we must fairly
examine the whole volume in order to comprehend the spirit of the whole,
and not take up a solitary passage as though it were the only one.
Now, if we examine other passages, we cannot fail to see that the New
Testament consecrates married life by enjoining the utmost purity,
devotion, and tenderness of affection. Look at only one or two of the
passages in which the New Testament enjoins the reciprocal duties of
husbands and wives; what sort of model it proposes for their love.
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church and
gave himself for it ..... Let every one in particular so love his
wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies, .... giving honor
unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together
of the grace of life."
Is this like condemning women to be "elegant toys and voluptuous
appendages"?
Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the whole of Christianity
is a delusion; that Christ never lived, and therefore never died; that
he is a more palpable myth than even Dr. Strauss contends for; still
it is impossible not to see that the writers of the New Testament
represent his love for man as the ideal of pure, disinterested,
self-sacrificing affection; this appears whether we listen to the
words which the Evangelists have put into his mouth, or those in
which they have spoken of him. "Greater love hath non man than this
that a man lay down his life for his friends." Now, let there be as
much or as little historic truth in such statements, in the doings
and sufferings of Christ on behalf of humanity, as you will, the
conclusion is irresistible that his conduct (real or imaginary) is
set forth as the exhibition of unequalled patience, gentleness,
meekness, and forbearance; of a love anxious to purchase, at the
dearest cost, the purest and highest happiness of its objects. Now
such is the pattern of affection which the Apostles commend to the
imitation of "husbands and wives" in their conduct towards one
another. Such is to be the lofty standard which their love is to
emulate. Is it possible to go further? Does not the fantastical
observance, or rather the absolute idolatry of women cherished
by chivalry,--itself, however, rooted in the influences of a corrupt
Christianity,--look like a caricature beside the picture? And who
are the "poets of Germanic culture" who have risen to an equal ideal
of the reciprocal duties and sentiments of wedded life? I must contend
that so beautiful a picture of a real equality between man and
woman,--founded on the love of the common Lord of both,--such a picture
of woman's true elevation, was never realized in the ancient world,
nor would have been to this day had not Christianity been
promulgated; nor is now, except where Christianity is known, though,
alas! not always where it is. But if you think otherwise, beg
Mr. Newman to give you a catena of passages from the "poets of Germanic
culture" (he has not adduced a syllable in proof); and recollect it
ought to be from Germanic poets who lived before the Germans were
Christians! Or perhaps you would wish to seek the Germanic "sentiment"
towards woman pure in its source, as given in the certainly not
unfavorable estimate of Tacitus. In their respect for woman and the
stress they laid on chastity, the ancient Germans transcended without
doubt many savages. Still, few readers will suppose there was much
reason to boast of the elevation of women, or the presence of much
refined "sentiment" between the sexes! As long as women do all the
drudgery of house and field work, while their lazy husbands drink and
gamble; as long as they are liable (and their children too) to be sold
or put on the hazard of a cast of the dice; as long as they are
themselves ferocious enough to go out to battle with their husbands;
I presume you will think the "Germanic culture" very far short of the
"culture" likely to be produced by the New Testament! Well says Gibbon,
"Heroines of such a cast may claim admiration; but they were most
assuredly neither lovely nor very susceptible of love."