Part 22 (1/2)

”Not knowingly or willingly,” answered Charles; ”but understand what I mean. It's not a subject I can talk about; but it seems to me, without of course saying that married persons must sin (which would be Gnosticism), that there is a danger of sin. But don't let me say more on this point.”

”Well,” said Carlton, after thinking awhile, ”_I_ have been accustomed to consider Christianity as the perfection of man as a whole, body, soul, and spirit. Don't misunderstand me. Pantheists say body and intellect, leaving out the moral principle; but I say spirit as well as mind. Spirit, or the principle of religious faith and obedience, should be the master principle, the _hegemonicon_. To this both intellect and body are subservient; but as this supremacy does not imply the ill-usage, the bondage of the intellect, neither does it of the body; both should be well treated.”

”Well, I think, on the contrary, it does imply in one sense the bondage of intellect and body too. What is faith but the submission of the intellect? and as 'every high thought is brought into captivity,' so are we expressly told to bring the body into subjection too. They are both well treated, when they are treated so as to be made fit instruments of the sovereign principle.”

”That is what I call unnatural,” said Carlton.

”And it is what I mean by supernatural,” answered Reding, getting a little too earnest.

”How is it supernatural, or adding to nature, to destroy a part of it?”

asked Carlton.

Charles was puzzled. It was a way, he said, _towards_ perfection; but he thought that perfection came after death, not here. Our nature could not be perfect with a corruptible body; the body was treated now as a body of death.

”Well, Reding,” answered Carlton, ”you make Christianity a very different religion from what our Church considers it, I really think;”

and he paused awhile.

”Look here,” he proceeded, ”how can we rejoice in Christ, as having been redeemed by Him, if we are in this sort of gloomy penitential state? How much is said in St. Paul about peace, thanksgiving, a.s.surance, comfort, and the like! Old things are pa.s.sed away; the Jewish law is destroyed; pardon and peace are come; _that_ is the Gospel.”

”Don't you think, then,” said Charles, ”that we should grieve for the sins into which we are daily betrayed, and for the more serious offences which from time to time we may have committed?”

”Certainly; we do so in Morning and Evening Prayer, and in the Communion Service.”

”Well, but supposing a youth, as is so often the case, has neglected religion altogether, and has a whole load of sins, and very heinous ones, all upon him,--do you think that, when he turns over a new leaf, and comes to Communion, he is, on saying the Confession (saying it with that contrition with which such persons ought to say it), pardoned at once, and has nothing more to fear about his past sins?”

”I should say, 'Yes,'” answered Carlton.

”Really,” said Charles thoughtfully.

”Of course,” said Carlton, ”I suppose him truly sorry or penitent: whether he is so or not his future life will show.”

”Well, somehow, I cannot master this idea,” said Charles; ”I think most serious persons, even for a little sin, would go on fidgeting themselves, and would not suppose they gained pardon directly they asked for it.”

”Certainly,” answered Carlton; ”but G.o.d pardons those who do not pardon themselves.”

”That is,” said Charles, ”who _don't_ at once feel peace, a.s.surance, and comfort; who _don't_ feel the perfect joy of the Gospel.”

”Such persons grieve, but rejoice too,” said Carlton.

”But tell me, Carlton,” said Reding; ”is, or is not, their not forgiving themselves, their sorrow and trouble, pleasing to G.o.d?”

”Surely.”

”Thus a certain self-infliction for sin committed is pleasing to Him; and, if so, how does it matter whether it is inflicted on mind or body?”