FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   >>  
you have seen one instance already, but that is a trifle compared to his fundamental blunder (said Harrington). What can you mean? how fundamental (asked his friend)? Why, he says, that _I_ (for instance) who have so faith whatever in what he calls revelation, cannot have any just belief or sure knowledge of the moral qualities of God; in fact, am logically bound (equally with Mr. Newman) to regard God as _im_moral, if I judge by my own faculties alone. Does he not say that? Unquestionably; he has a whole chapter (ch. III.) of his "Defence" to enforce this on Mr. Newman (replied Fellowes). Well, next, he tells me, that when the Christian message, as from God, is presented to me, I am to believe it on the word of a God whom I suppose to be, or _ought_ to suppose to be, immoral. If I suppose A B a rogue, shall I believe the message which the rogue sends me? Surely, Harrington, you forget that you are speaking of God, not of man: you ought not to reason so (said Fellowes, somewhat agitated). Surely, Fellowes, it is _you_ who forget (retorted Harrington) that syllogism depends on form, not on matter. Whether it be God or Man, makes no difference; the logic must be tried by turning the terms into X Y Z. But I have not said all Mr. Rogers says, I am bound to throw away the moral principles which I already have, at the bidding of a God whom I am bound to believe to be immoral. No, you are unfair (said Fellowes), I know he says that revelation would confirm and _improve_ your moral principles. But I am _not_ unfair. It is he who argues in a circle. What will be _improvement_, is the very question pending. He says, that if Jehovah called to me from heaven, "O Harrington! O Harrington! take thine innocent son, thine only son, lay him on the altar and kill him," I should be bound to regard obedience to the command an _improvement_ of my morality; and this, though, up to the moment when I heard the voice, I had been _bound logically_ to believe Jehovah to be an IMMORAL God. What think you of that for logic? I confess (said Fellowes, with great candour) I must yield up my friend's reputation as a _logician_; and I begin to think he was unwise in talking so contemptuously of Mr. Newman's reasoning faculties. But in truth, I love my friend for the great _spiritual_ benefits I have derived from him and cannot admit to you that he is not a very sincere believer in mystical Christianity. What benefits, may I ask? (s
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   >>  



Top keywords:

Harrington

 

Fellowes

 

suppose

 

Newman

 
friend
 

faculties

 

message

 

unfair

 
fundamental
 

Surely


Jehovah
 
forget
 

benefits

 

principles

 

revelation

 

immoral

 

improvement

 

regard

 

instance

 

logically


innocent
 

bidding

 

pending

 

confirm

 

circle

 

argues

 
called
 
heaven
 

question

 
improve

IMMORAL

 

reasoning

 
contemptuously
 

talking

 

unwise

 
spiritual
 
derived
 

Christianity

 

mystical

 

believer


sincere

 

logician

 

reputation

 
command
 

morality

 
obedience
 

moment

 

confess

 

candour

 
equally