Part 7 (1/2)

Newman can do so much, what might not G.o.d do by the very same method?' If he can thus break the spiritual yoke of his fellow-men by only teaching them negative truth, surely it may be possible for G.o.d to be as useful in teaching positive truth. I almost tremble, I a.s.sure you, lest, by his most conspicuous success in imparting to you such important truth, and reclaiming you from such a fundamental error, which lay at the very threshold of your 'spiritual' progress, he may, so far from convincing mankind of the truth of his principle, lead them rather to believe that a 'book-revelation' may have been very possible, and of singular advantage. But, to speak the truth, I am by no means sure that Mr. Newman has not done something more than what we have attributed to him, and whether his book-revelation be not a true divine revelation to you also.”

Fellowes looked rather curious, and I thought a little angry.

”My good friend,” said Harrington, ”I am sure you will not refuse me every satisfaction you can, in my present state of doubt and perplexity; that you will render me (as indeed you have promised) all the a.s.sistance in your power, by kindly telling me what you know of your own religious development and history. I cannot sufficiently admire your candor and frankness. .h.i.therto.”

”You may depend upon it,” said Fellowes, ”I will not hesitate to answer any questions you choose to put. I am not ashamed of the system I have adopted,--or rather selected, for I do not agree with any one writer--although I confess I wish I were a better advocate of it.”

”O, rest a.s.sured that 'spiritualism' can lose nothing by your advocacy. As to your independence of mind, you act, I am sure, upon the maxim in verba nullius jurare. Your system seems to me quite a spices of eclecticism. There is no fear of my confounding you with the good old lady who, after having heard the sermon of some favorite divine, was asked if she understood him. 'Understand him!'

said she; 'do you think I would presume?--blessed man! Nor with the Scotchwoman who required, as a condition of her admiration, that a sermon should contain some things at least which transcended her comprehension. 'Eh. it is a' vara weel,' said she, on hearing one which did not fulfil this reasonable condition; 'but do ye call that fine preaching?--there was na ae word that I could na explain mysel.'”

Fellowes smiled good-naturedly, and then said, ”I was going to observe, in relation to the present subject, that it is 'moral and spiritual' truth which Mr. Newman says it is impossible should be the subject of a book-revelation.”

Harrington, apparently without listening to him, suddenly said, ”By the by, you agree with Mr. Newman, I am sure, that G.o.d is to be approached by the individual soul without any of the nonsense of mediation, which has found so general--all but universal--sanction in the religious systems of the world?”

”Certainly,” said Fellowes, ”nor is there probably any 'spiritualist'

(in whatever we may be divided) who would deny that.”

”Supposing it true, does it not seem to you the must delightful and stupendous of all spiritual truths?”

”It does, indeed,” said Fellowes.

”Could you always realize it, my friend?” said Harrington.

”Nay, I was once a firm believer in the current orthodoxy, as you well know.”

”Now you see with very different eyes. You can say, with the man in the Gospel, 'This I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.”

”I can.”

”And you attribute this happy change of sentiment to the perusal of those writings of Mr. Newman from which you think that I also might derive similar benefits?”

”I do.”

”It appears, then, that to you, at least, my friend, it is possible that there may be a book-revelation of 'moral and spiritual truth'

of the highest possible significance and value, although you do not consider the book to be divine; now, if so, I fancy many will be again inclined to say, that what Mr. Newman has done in your case, G.o.d might easily do, if he pleased, for mankind in general; and with this advantage, that He would not include in the same book which revealed truth to the mind, and rectified its errors, an a.s.surance that any such book-revelation was impossible.”

”But, my ingenious friend.” cried Fellowes, with some warmth, ”you are inferring a little too fast for the premises. I do not admit that Mr. Newman or any other spiritualist has revealed to me any truth, but only that he has been the instrument of giving shape and distinct consciousness to what was, in fact, uttered in the secret oracles of my own bosom before; and, as I believe, is uttered also in the hearts of all other men.”

”I fear your distinction is practically without a difference. It will certainly not avail us. You say you were once in no distinct conscious possession of that system of spiritual truth which you now hold; on the contrary, that you believed a very different system; that the change by which you were brought into your present condition of mind --out of darkness into light--out of error into truth--has been produced chiefly by Mr. Newman's deeply instructive volumes. If so, one will be apt to argue that a book-revelation may be of the very utmost use and benefit to mankind in general,--if only by making that which would else be inarticulate mutter of the internal oracle distinct and clear; and that if G.o.d would but give such a book, the same value at least might attach to it as to a book of Mr. Newman's. It little matters to this argument, the question of the possibility, value, or utility of an external revelation,--whether the truths it is to communicate be absolutely unknown till it reveals them only not known, which you confess was your own case. If your natural taper of illumination is stuck into a dark lantern, and its light only can flash upon the soul when some Mr. Newman kindly lifts up the slide for you; or if your internal oracle, like a ghost, will not speak till it is spoken to; or, like a dumb demon, awaits to find a voice, and confess itself to be what it is at the summons of an exorcist;--the same argument precisely will apply for the possibility and utility of a revelation from G.o.d to men in general. What has been done for you by man, even though no more were done, might, one would imagine, be done for the rest of mankind, and in a much better manner, by G.o.d. If that internal and native revelation which both you and Mr. Newman say has its seat in the human soul, be clear without his aid, why did he write a syllable about it? If, as you say, its utterances were not recognized, and that his statements have first made them familiar to you, the same argument (the Christian will say) will do for the Bible.

It is of little use that nature teaches you, if Mr. Newman is to teach nature.”

Fellowes was silent; and, after a pause, Harrington resumed; he could not resist the temptation of saying, with playful malice,--

”Perhaps you are in doubt whether to say that the internal revelation which you possess does teach you dearly or darkly. It is a pity that nature so teaches as to leave you in doubt till some one else teaches you what she does teach you. She must be like some ladies, who keep school indeed, but have accomplished masters to teach every thing. Shall we call Mr. Newman the Professor of 'Spiritual Insight'? Would it not be advisable, if you are in any uncertainty, to write to him to ask whether the internal truths which no external revelation can impart be articulate or not; or whether, though a book from G.o.d could not make them plainer, you are at liberty to say that a book of Mr.

Newman's will? It is undoubtedly a subtile question for him to decide for you; namely, what is the condition of your own consciousness? But I really see no help for it, after what you have granted; nor, without his aid, do I see whether you can truly affirm that you have an internal revelation, independently of him or not.

And whichever way he decides, I am afraid lest he should prove both himself and you very much in the wrong. If he decides for you, that your internal revelation must and did antic.i.p.ate any thing he might write, and that it was perfectly articulate, as well as inarticulately present to your 'insight' before, it will be difficult to determine why he should have written at all; he would also prove, not only how superfluous is your grat.i.tude, but that he understands your own consciousness better than you do. If he decides it the other way, and says you had a 'revelation' before he revealed it, yet that he made it utter articulate language, and interpreted its hieroglyphics,-- then it more seems very strange that either you or he should contend that a 'book-revelation' is impossible, since Mr. Newman has produced it. If, however, he should in the first of these two ways, I fear, my good friend, that we shall fall into another paradox worse than all for it will prove that the 'internal revelation' which you possess is better known to Mr. Newman than to yourself, which will be a perfectly worthy conclusion of all this embarra.s.s. It would be surely droll for you to affirm that you possess an internal revelation which renders all 'external revelation' impossible, but yet that its distinctness is unperceived by yourself, and awaits the a.s.surance of an external authority, which at same time declares all 'external revelation' impossible!”

”There is still another word,” said Fellowes, ”which you forget that Mr. Newman employs; he says that an authoritative book-revelation of moral and spiritual truth is impossible.”